City Council Special Meeting · Tuesday, March 29, 2022 · City Council Digest

3. ACTION ITEM - OPEN SESSION

Motion Postponed from March 21, 2022 Regular Council Meeting: Approve settlement agreement related to ORA Talus litigation as discussed in Executive Session

Carried 7-0

Topics: Land Use

Roll call:

Moved by WALSH · seconded by HALL

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

5485 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ okay

0:04 ↗ excellent welcome everyone i counsel

0:07 ↗ president walsh call the march 29

0:09 ↗ special counsel session a study session

0:12 ↗ to order

0:13 ↗ uh this meeting will be conducted in

0:15 ↗ person and virtually in compliance with

0:17 ↗ the governor's proclamation related to

0:19 ↗ the covet 19 emergency and open public

0:21 ↗ meetings

0:22 ↗ there are multiple comment

0:24 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting

0:27 ↗ there's a general public comment

0:28 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

0:30 ↗ meeting or you can make comments after

0:32 ↗ the presentation and counsel question

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

0:37 ↗ items also share a summary of any

0:39 ↗ comments that have been emailed

0:40 ↗ regarding tonight's agenda items

0:44 ↗ so um

0:45 ↗ and i guess i'm also going to mention

0:47 ↗ that council member d michelle is

0:50 ↗ attending virtually with us and so we

0:53 ↗ will be checking chat and making sure

0:55 ↗ that she has an opportunity to comment

0:59 ↗ so the

1:00 ↗ first item on our agenda tonight is

1:03 ↗ public comment

1:05 ↗ members of the public may address

1:06 ↗ counsel at this time in person or

1:08 ↗ virtually those who signed up in advance

1:11 ↗ to make comments will be called on first

1:13 ↗ if you're joining us virtually and would

1:14 ↗ like to make comments please raise your

1:16 ↗ virtual hand if you're on the phone

1:19 ↗ press star three

1:21 ↗ if you if you've joined by computer or

1:23 ↗ smartphone look for the hand icon where

1:26 ↗ that is varies by device one option

1:29 ↗ might be to go to the participant panel

1:31 ↗ and choose the raise hand icon in the

1:33 ↗ lower right hand corner

1:36 ↗ if you're in the room and did not sign

1:38 ↗ up i'll ask for other speakers before

1:40 ↗ closing this portion of the meeting

1:42 ↗ so i'm gonna wait a moment and see if

1:44 ↗ anyone wishes to raise their hand

1:52 ↗ so clerk has anyone signed up to speak

1:54 ↗ or indicated a desire to speak this

1:55 ↗ evening

1:58 ↗ yes council president we have three

2:00 ↗ people signed up uh to speak uh

2:03 ↗ beforehand and i see many virtual hands

2:06 ↗ raised great so i'm just going to read

2:09 ↗ our guidelines and then we'll get to

2:10 ↗ citizen comments so citizen comments are

2:13 ↗ an important part of the public process

2:15 ↗ we take them seriously and factor them

2:16 ↗ into the decisions we make please direct

2:19 ↗ comments to the whole council and not to

2:21 ↗ individuals and while this is not a

2:24 ↗ question and answer session we will

2:26 ↗ contact you to follow up if needed

2:28 ↗ when recognized you'll unmute your micro

2:31 ↗ phone for virtual attendees or step up

2:33 ↗ to the lectern for in-person attendees

2:36 ↗ please state your name address and

2:38 ↗ relationship to city

2:40 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently limit

2:43 ↗ your comments to five minutes

2:45 ↗ if you're attending virtually and do not

2:47 ↗ respond after your name or phone number

2:48 ↗ is called or if your connection is lost

2:51 ↗ unexpectedly the meeting will need to

2:53 ↗ proceed you are encouraged to rejoin the

2:55 ↗ meeting if able

2:57 ↗ personal attacks obscene language

2:59 ↗ derogatory

3:00 ↗ remarks and disruptive behavior will not

3:02 ↗ be permitted so clerk can you identify

3:05 ↗ the first person who has signed up to

3:07 ↗ speak

3:07 ↗ yes council president the first person

3:09 ↗ is john hempelman

3:11 ↗ mr hempelman i am now making you a

3:14 ↗ panelist you should be able to see the

3:16 ↗ option to unmute and you may also turn

3:19 ↗ on your video

3:26 ↗ mr hempelman

3:28 ↗ thank you and good evening

3:30 ↗ mayor paulie and members of the council

3:33 ↗ i am john hempelman and my address is

3:35 ↗ 524 second avenue

3:38 ↗ in seattle

3:39 ↗ i'm land use counsel for lakeside

3:42 ↗ industries

3:43 ↗ as the mayor knows from her prior

3:45 ↗ service on the development commission

3:47 ↗ and as council member marx knows as well

3:51 ↗ i worked for more than a year in 2012

3:54 ↗ and 2013 with city staff

3:57 ↗ the commissions the council and the

3:59 ↗ mayor to help create the lakeside city

4:02 ↗ of issaquah development agreement

4:06 ↗ that's a 30-year contract between the

4:09 ↗ city and lakeside industries

4:12 ↗ to plan the uses and development of the

4:14 ↗ lakeside sand and gravel

4:16 ↗ mine and processing facilities in the

4:18 ↗ city

4:21 ↗ thus we were very surprised when we saw

4:23 ↗ just a couple weeks ago

4:25 ↗ that there was a proposal to adopt an

4:27 ↗ amendment to the city code

4:30 ↗ specifically to the

4:33 ↗ code provisions relating to critical

4:35 ↗ aquifer recharge areas

4:38 ↗ in our business we call them caras

4:41 ↗ and we were surprised to see that that

4:43 ↗ would

4:45 ↗ prohibit the same uses

4:47 ↗ that were approved and

4:49 ↗ guaranteed by the development agreement

4:52 ↗ it was a very concerning development

4:55 ↗ development agreement also committed the

4:57 ↗ city and lakeside to seek new

5:00 ↗ intense commercial zoning for a portion

5:03 ↗ of the lakeside

5:04 ↗ properties

5:06 ↗ to further assure

5:08 ↗ that their uses there would be continued

5:11 ↗ for the

5:12 ↗ period

5:14 ↗ or an indefinite period of time

5:17 ↗ um

5:20 ↗ i also want

5:21 ↗ want you to know that as a land use

5:23 ↗ lawyer i have worked on best available

5:26 ↗ science issues

5:27 ↗ since that term was first included in

5:30 ↗ washington law

5:33 ↗ the proposed

5:34 ↗ change to the cairo regulations is

5:37 ↗ apparently based on best available

5:40 ↗ science

5:42 ↗ but that science has not been available

5:44 ↗ to us

5:46 ↗ or to the

5:47 ↗ ppc

5:49 ↗ or to this council or to the public

5:54 ↗ so

5:55 ↗ i will tell you it's the first time in

5:57 ↗ my career

5:59 ↗ that i've been dealing with an issue

6:01 ↗ based on best available science that is

6:04 ↗ not

6:04 ↗ available to the decision makers

6:08 ↗ or to the property owners that are

6:10 ↗ affected

6:12 ↗ now i think we can solve these problems

6:15 ↗ i've had a long and successful history

6:17 ↗ of collaboration with the staff in

6:20 ↗ issaquah

6:21 ↗ and with your city commissions and with

6:23 ↗ this council

6:25 ↗ i'm already discussing potential

6:27 ↗ solutions with staff

6:30 ↗ but to be candid with you we do not want

6:33 ↗ the city council to move forward on any

6:36 ↗ proposed

6:38 ↗ critical aquifer recharge

6:40 ↗ area amendments

6:43 ↗ until we've had a chance to find a

6:45 ↗ solution

6:47 ↗ thus we're asking this council to

6:49 ↗ suspend consideration

6:51 ↗ of the proposed amendments to the care

6:53 ↗ regulations

6:55 ↗ until we have time

6:57 ↗ to meet and work with staff

7:00 ↗ and present a resolution of the issue to

7:02 ↗ the ppc and to this council

7:05 ↗ thank you very much

7:11 ↗ thank you and clerk who is our next

7:14 ↗ speaker

7:17 ↗ council president our next speaker is

7:19 ↗ karen diehl

7:22 ↗ ms deal i am making you a panelist you

7:24 ↗ should now see the option to unmute and

7:26 ↗ you may also turn on your video

7:33 ↗ can you hear me i was having yes we can

7:36 ↗ technical difficulties

7:39 ↗ okay good evening my name is karen diehl

7:41 ↗ i'm at 42929

7:43 ↗ southeast 176th street in north bend

7:46 ↗ i am the environmental and land use

7:48 ↗ director for lakeside industries

7:50 ↗ first i want to thank the honorable

7:52 ↗ council members and city staff for the

7:54 ↗ opportunity to address the council this

7:56 ↗ evening

7:57 ↗ as you know

7:58 ↗ you may know

7:59 ↗ lakeside operates an asphalt plant and a

8:02 ↗ gravel mine in north issaquah and has

8:05 ↗ been operating in this area since the

8:06 ↗ 1950s

8:08 ↗ as a local family-owned company lakeside

8:11 ↗ is committed to preserving the

8:13 ↗ environment and we take great pride in

8:16 ↗ our community-centric focus on

8:18 ↗ environmental sustainability

8:21 ↗ we are proud community partner and are

8:24 ↗ truly grateful for our collaborative

8:26 ↗ relationship with the city a city that

8:28 ↗ we have built together for many years

8:32 ↗ during the study study session this

8:33 ↗ evening you will be reviewing the

8:34 ↗ natural environment portion of the

8:37 ↗ city's title 18 code update and as you

8:40 ↗ heard from john hempelman

8:43 ↗ lakeside would like to bring to your

8:44 ↗ attention a comment letter we submitted

8:47 ↗ to the council earlier today regarding

8:49 ↗ the cara issue

8:51 ↗ the letter outlined several concerns

8:53 ↗ with the proposed changes to the

8:54 ↗ critical aquifer recharge area cara

8:57 ↗ section of the code

8:59 ↗ most notably

9:00 ↗ we want to ensure that the city's

9:02 ↗ amendments are based on best available

9:05 ↗ science

9:06 ↗ the city has not been able to share the

9:07 ↗ scientific report that it relied on to

9:09 ↗ develop the car amendments however we do

9:12 ↗ understand that this is forthcoming

9:14 ↗ therefore to date it is not possible to

9:17 ↗ assess compliance with state law

9:20 ↗ regarding best available science

9:22 ↗ in addition the proposed cara amendments

9:25 ↗ appear to conflict

9:27 ↗ with allowed uses

9:29 ↗ and creates inconsistencies with city

9:32 ↗ ordinance and the zoning code

9:35 ↗ for these reasons and others outlined in

9:38 ↗ our letter to the council

9:40 ↗ we respectfully request the council

9:42 ↗ suspend consideration

9:44 ↗ of the car amendments as drafted

9:47 ↗ city staff and lakeside have agreed to

9:49 ↗ work together to address the concerns

9:51 ↗ raised and we are looking forward to a

9:54 ↗ collaborative resolution to these issues

9:56 ↗ we are very confident that this effort

9:59 ↗ will result in code consistency

10:01 ↗ protection of the environment

10:03 ↗ and water quality preservations for

10:05 ↗ years to come thank you very much for

10:07 ↗ your time

10:10 ↗ thank you karen uh clerk who do we have

10:13 ↗ uh signed up speak next

10:17 ↗ mr president next we have kathy mccrory

10:20 ↗ ms mccrory i am now making you a

10:22 ↗ panelist you should see the option to

10:24 ↗ unmute and you may also turn on your

10:26 ↗ video

10:35 ↗ we cannot hear you ms mccrory are you on

10:38 ↗ mute

10:45 ↗ and still cannot hear you

10:57 ↗ try one more time ms mccrory we still

10:59 ↗ can't hear you

11:02 ↗ nope unfortunately

11:05 ↗ it appears to be something on your end

11:07 ↗ and we're not sure what

11:09 ↗ what the problem is

11:11 ↗ if you'd like we can come back to you in

11:13 ↗ just a minute

11:15 ↗ all right yeah sounds good kathy um see

11:18 ↗ if you can troubleshoot and we'll come

11:20 ↗ back to you at the end of the public

11:22 ↗ comment period

11:23 ↗ clerk who's up next

11:25 ↗ next is susan neville

11:28 ↗ ms neville i am making you a panelist

11:30 ↗ now you should see the option to unmute

11:32 ↗ and you may also turn on your video

11:35 ↗ hello

11:36 ↗ derby yes

11:39 ↗ good evening council members

11:40 ↗ administration and other important

11:42 ↗ people

11:43 ↗ um thank you for the opportunity to be

11:46 ↗ heard

11:47 ↗ i live at 2825 northwest pinecone drive

11:50 ↗ issaquah

11:51 ↗ for about 26 years

11:54 ↗ and um i just like to briefly speak

11:56 ↗ about the code

11:58 ↗ discussions this evening

12:00 ↗ um

12:02 ↗ we all know the current code favors

12:04 ↗ development at the expense of our

12:05 ↗ environment especially critical areas

12:08 ↗ my hope is that our new code changes are

12:10 ↗ meant to form a partnership

12:12 ↗ between development in our environment

12:15 ↗ rather than a conflicting

12:17 ↗ us or them relationship

12:19 ↗ as we have seen in the past

12:21 ↗ and especially even in my own crusades i

12:24 ↗ have even fallen victim to this type of

12:26 ↗ thinking

12:28 ↗ i believe the common goal of the new

12:30 ↗ title 18 code is to attract developers

12:33 ↗ who want to invest in our community and

12:35 ↗ not squeeze out the most profit and then

12:38 ↗ move on

12:40 ↗ today's

12:42 ↗ agenda staff report

12:44 ↗ uh states the objective very clearly of

12:47 ↗ our goal

12:49 ↗ it is to allow

12:50 ↗ developable site area

12:53 ↗ to determine the density

12:55 ↗ which will reduce negative impacts to

12:57 ↗ our critical areas

13:00 ↗ so i think how do we attract developers

13:03 ↗ who have the same standards as issaquah

13:07 ↗ beginning with clear consistent language

13:10 ↗ and organized logical format very

13:13 ↗ crucial and i think connie marsh

13:17 ↗ described that clearly in her email

13:20 ↗ two days ago

13:23 ↗ clear language creates upfront savings

13:25 ↗ for developers

13:27 ↗ ease of applications and permits will

13:29 ↗ allow cost savings that outweigh

13:31 ↗ less dense footprints

13:34 ↗ planning and staff can do their job more

13:36 ↗ easily and in less time

13:39 ↗ results in less turnover and burnout

13:42 ↗ and i've just been working with

13:43 ↗ different planners over the last six

13:45 ↗ months and

13:46 ↗ i have i we have excellent staff um

13:50 ↗ so appreciative of what we have in the

13:52 ↗ city to

13:53 ↗ the people that care and and work so

13:55 ↗ hard

13:56 ↗ and lastly i just want to say it would

13:59 ↗ create less legal conflicts for all

14:00 ↗ parties

14:02 ↗ i believe property owners businesses and

14:04 ↗ healthy

14:06 ↗ natural environment can coexist side by

14:08 ↗ side

14:09 ↗ and i think just finding the right

14:11 ↗ balance may require a little work and

14:13 ↗ even courage

14:14 ↗ but we've shown that we can do that in

14:16 ↗ the past and i know we can do it thank

14:18 ↗ you so much for your time

14:21 ↗ thank you susan

14:23 ↗ and clerk did we have anybody else who

14:25 ↗ had indicated a desire to speak

14:27 ↗ yes council president connie marsh would

14:29 ↗ like to speak

14:30 ↗ ms marsh i'm now making you a panelist

14:32 ↗ you should see the option to unmute and

14:34 ↗ you may also turn on your video

14:40 ↗ ah here we go

14:42 ↗ uh hello everyone

14:44 ↗ it didn't rain again today wasn't that

14:46 ↗ fun

14:47 ↗ um

14:48 ↗ so title 18 oh i'm connie marsh i live

14:51 ↗ up on squawk

14:52 ↗ um

14:53 ↗ title 18 is sort of in front of you for

14:56 ↗ the first time in all of its

14:58 ↗ extraordinarily

14:59 ↗ excruciating detail

15:02 ↗ so it's a huge amount of information

15:05 ↗ this information has gone

15:08 ↗ through

15:09 ↗ in large

15:10 ↗ blobs a variety of citizen

15:14 ↗ commissions

15:15 ↗ it's it's

15:17 ↗ too much too fast to do thoroughly

15:21 ↗ so

15:23 ↗ well you may look at it as if someone

15:25 ↗ has groomed this information ahead of

15:28 ↗ you

15:29 ↗ there has not been

15:31 ↗ that opportunity in these commissions

15:33 ↗ because it's just too much information

15:36 ↗ so

15:37 ↗ um

15:38 ↗ i think it is

15:40 ↗ probably

15:43 ↗ your job tonight to look at it in an

15:46 ↗ overarching way

15:48 ↗ is does this seem to be going in the

15:51 ↗ direction that we want does this meet

15:54 ↗ the goals that we have stated are we

15:57 ↗ actually making things better will

16:00 ↗ things mesh will we be able to build

16:04 ↗ and protect our environment and reduce

16:07 ↗ our impacts on climate all at the same

16:10 ↗ time

16:10 ↗ given the information that you are being

16:13 ↗ provided with tonight

16:16 ↗ if you feel like it is not clear that

16:19 ↗ these things are going to mesh and that

16:22 ↗ we are going to be using best available

16:25 ↗ science because frankly the kara is not

16:28 ↗ the only place where we are not showing

16:29 ↗ best available science

16:31 ↗ um then how are we going to get that so

16:35 ↗ that is clearly expressed to everyone so

16:37 ↗ that those can people can understand why

16:40 ↗ we are doing this so that it's not just

16:43 ↗ arbitrary rules but the rules are

16:46 ↗ are saying we are doing this because we

16:48 ↗ are issaquah and issaquah

16:51 ↗ needs to have this future and it is a

16:54 ↗ future where our our fish our people our

16:57 ↗ wildlife and our water can all thrive

17:01 ↗ meshed together super complicated right

17:04 ↗ because we're trying to do it with words

17:07 ↗ so

17:08 ↗ think of that

17:09 ↗ concept sort of a systems concept as

17:12 ↗ almost an overarching thesis statement

17:14 ↗ for what we're trying to do

17:17 ↗ and maybe they're

17:18 ↗ giving you

17:20 ↗ a table of contents for that

17:22 ↗ but um

17:24 ↗ i'm going to talk about the individual

17:27 ↗ topics so i just wanted to try to raise

17:30 ↗ your level to more of a 60 000 foot

17:32 ↗ level

17:33 ↗ if you can make your brain go high while

17:36 ↗ they're presenting

17:38 ↗ sort of uh

17:39 ↗ in the in the gears information thank

17:42 ↗ you

17:46 ↗ thank you connie and uh clerk who do we

17:49 ↗ have signed up next

17:53 ↗ uh council president walsh that is

17:55 ↗ everybody on the sign up list and

17:58 ↗ everyone that has a virtual hand raised

18:01 ↗ okay can we see if kathy mccrory is

18:04 ↗ available again ms mccrory has logged

18:07 ↗ off and has not logged back on

18:09 ↗ okay

18:10 ↗ um well kathy if you are watching we

18:13 ↗ will have another comment period after

18:15 ↗ each of the agenda items so please feel

18:18 ↗ free to speak at that time

18:21 ↗ so i also want to remind everyone that

18:24 ↗ the city council you can always email

18:26 ↗ city council at

18:27 ↗ issaquah.gov and we appreciate receiving

18:30 ↗ emails

18:31 ↗ we did receive emails three

18:34 ↗ emailed comments related to id 1042

18:38 ↗ title 18 natural environment review but

18:41 ↗ all three of those commenters who

18:43 ↗ emailed have also spoken tonight so i'm

18:46 ↗ not going to further summarize those uh

18:49 ↗ comments that we received

18:52 ↗ so we'll move on to the first agenda

18:54 ↗ item which is id 1042 title 18 national

18:58 ↗ natural environment review presented by

19:01 ↗ mini dalawal director of community

19:03 ↗ planning and development

19:05 ↗ many

19:07 ↗ good evening council and members of the

19:10 ↗ community that are watching um it's

19:12 ↗ surreal to be here in person on my first

19:15 ↗ council meeting

19:16 ↗ so so glad to be able to present

19:20 ↗ the first topic of title 18

19:23 ↗ and i'm gonna try and share my screen so

19:25 ↗ bear with me for just a second

19:31 ↗ yes

19:32 ↗ and while you're working on sharing your

19:34 ↗ screen i just

19:35 ↗ barber anybody

19:37 ↗ online if you're having trouble hearing

19:39 ↗ just please make a comment and chat

19:41 ↗ we'll make sure

19:45 ↗ so um

19:47 ↗ this is a land use code update

19:50 ↗ as we've briefed you in the past we've

19:52 ↗ divided it up into six groups so tonight

19:55 ↗ we're seeking your input on

19:57 ↗ the title 18 natural environment

19:59 ↗ regulations

20:01 ↗ and specifically we're asking you if

20:03 ↗ there's any other considerations that

20:05 ↗ you don't see in your packets that you

20:08 ↗ would like planning and policy

20:10 ↗ commission to study before they can

20:12 ↗ finalize their recommendations and then

20:14 ↗ we will come back to you with the final

20:17 ↗ recommended draft towards the last

20:20 ↗ quarter of this year

20:23 ↗ so

20:24 ↗ you know do the proposed changes meet

20:26 ↗ the goals and outcomes that you had

20:27 ↗ intended for this

20:29 ↗ update

20:30 ↗ for this particular topic

20:32 ↗ are there any additional topics you'd

20:34 ↗ like staff to consider when making the

20:37 ↗ final edits to the draft code

20:41 ↗ there are multiple topics in this first

20:44 ↗ sub topics in this bigger topic so

20:47 ↗ geohazard areas

20:49 ↗ wetlands

20:50 ↗ fish and wildlife conservation areas

20:53 ↗ cara you've heard about some comments so

20:55 ↗ critical area

20:57 ↗ recharge areas

20:59 ↗ shoreline master program and outdoor

21:01 ↗ lighting

21:03 ↗ and just to kind of

21:05 ↗ you know go back to the initial goals

21:08 ↗ that the council had worked on in um

21:11 ↗ you know that have helped guide this

21:13 ↗ update

21:14 ↗ protect forested hillside

21:17 ↗ conserve

21:18 ↗ and protect the environment critical

21:20 ↗ areas enhance wetland and riparian

21:23 ↗ corridors to improve fish and wildlife

21:25 ↗ habitat

21:26 ↗ retain neighborhood charm

21:28 ↗ ensure we are taking into consideration

21:31 ↗ the sustainable goals and climate change

21:34 ↗ goal you know um goals modernize the

21:37 ↗ goad and code and incorporate the best

21:39 ↗ practices so

21:41 ↗ these have been our guiding principles

21:43 ↗ throughout this process um

21:45 ↗ and what we've done

21:47 ↗ when we first started this director

21:49 ↗ jolly well if i'll just excuse me uh

21:51 ↗ councilmember martz do you have a

21:53 ↗ question

21:54 ↗ yeah i had a high level question about

21:56 ↗ title 18 in general

21:59 ↗ we have a number of uh

22:02 ↗ development agreements in the valley

22:03 ↗ floor we

22:04 ↗ we heard lakeside mentioned we have

22:06 ↗ rowley properties we have

22:11 ↗ costco

22:12 ↗ we have the villages

22:14 ↗ and um

22:15 ↗ correct me if i'm wrong but uh

22:18 ↗ those development agreements have locked

22:21 ↗ their

22:22 ↗ uh development environment in place

22:25 ↗ right

22:26 ↗ so

22:27 ↗ my understanding is

22:29 ↗ this is not really uh

22:32 ↗ an issue for them is it because i

22:34 ↗ thought the whole point of a development

22:36 ↗ agreement is you basically cr

22:39 ↗ you you sort of set in stone the the

22:42 ↗ development environment that those

22:43 ↗ organizations will be able to have for a

22:45 ↗ certain amount of time do am i

22:46 ↗ understanding that right um yes um i

22:50 ↗ think the development regulations are

22:51 ↗ for we shared with you a map of the main

22:54 ↗ ones that that we that the city's

22:56 ↗ entered into and the expiration and the

22:58 ↗ term limits for those are you know

23:00 ↗ decades long

23:02 ↗ uh the the details of the what they are

23:05 ↗ really subject to what the the contract

23:08 ↗ really applies in certain cases could

23:10 ↗ vary between the four so it's it's not

23:13 ↗ um it will depend on the terms of the

23:15 ↗ agreement or the contract between the

23:17 ↗ different things so i think what you

23:18 ↗ heard tonight from lakeside um is more

23:23 ↗ in terms of not necessarily how the

23:25 ↗ development agreement uh really

23:27 ↗ supersedes this or not but whether they

23:29 ↗ become non-conforming after the

23:31 ↗ development agreement sunset

23:33 ↗ ah

23:34 ↗ okay so it's an issue

23:37 ↗ and i'm trying to make it not about

23:39 ↗ lakeside but just to understand broadly

23:40 ↗ what we're doing and how it relates to

23:42 ↗ the various areas that we have

23:43 ↗ development agreements with so the

23:45 ↗ concern of anybody might be

23:48 ↗ when their development agreement expires

23:50 ↗ and what their what their environment

23:52 ↗ will look like when it expires correct

23:54 ↗ but also the the terms of the agreement

23:57 ↗ for all of these four ones that we have

24:00 ↗ whether they you know what those

24:02 ↗ agreements were in terms of natural

24:04 ↗ environment topics um we'll have to take

24:06 ↗ a deeper dive into all four of them to

24:08 ↗ really understand which ones they apply

24:11 ↗ but we you know those are contractual

24:12 ↗ obligations that the city is entered

24:14 ↗ into with those four property owners so

24:16 ↗ um and and in cases where it does spell

24:19 ↗ it out it's it will supersede our

24:21 ↗ changes

24:22 ↗ correct okay thank you

24:24 ↗ um yeah

24:26 ↗ i do want to weigh in just really

24:28 ↗ briefly i'm anne marie soto deputy city

24:29 ↗ attorney i haven't met any of you in

24:31 ↗ person yet so one thing to keep in mind

24:33 ↗ is that development agreements will have

24:36 ↗ a provision that provides that in the

24:39 ↗ event that there is a life safety

24:41 ↗ regulation that needs to be

24:43 ↗ adopted that would supersede the

24:45 ↗ language in a development agreement i'm

24:47 ↗ not saying that that necessarily applies

24:48 ↗ to things we're talking about tonight

24:50 ↗ but that's something else to consider

24:54 ↗ thank you

24:58 ↗ great um so in terms of the process um

25:02 ↗ so when we first started in in july

25:04 ↗ august we um called it a gaps analysis

25:07 ↗ but it was really our way of figuring

25:09 ↗ out and getting some policy um guidance

25:12 ↗ uh before we created the first draft so

25:14 ↗ based on that public outreach and

25:16 ↗ engagement and conversations with

25:19 ↗ planning and policy commission

25:20 ↗ environmental board

25:22 ↗ we

25:22 ↗ that factored into creating the draft

25:24 ↗ code so we released the draft code about

25:27 ↗ a month ago

25:29 ↗ prior to the public hearings we had an

25:30 ↗ open house we notified all the property

25:32 ↗ owners and residents 20 000

25:35 ↗ postcards were mailed

25:37 ↗ we got some good turnout at the open

25:39 ↗ house

25:41 ↗ and then the planning and policy

25:43 ↗ commission deliberated um on march 24th

25:46 ↗ last week

25:47 ↗ and that we've brought that forward to

25:49 ↗ you so you have your discussion draft

25:52 ↗ and you have the

25:53 ↗ summary of the planning and policy

25:55 ↗ commission and environmental board of

25:57 ↗ their

25:58 ↗ recommendation to you obviously we're

26:00 ↗ not done with this this is a one step in

26:02 ↗ the middle of the bigger process so

26:04 ↗ based on the fee input that we're going

26:06 ↗ to get from council tonight we do plan

26:09 ↗ to go back to a planning and policy

26:11 ↗ commission

26:12 ↗ uh we're thinking we'll probably need

26:13 ↗ one more meeting before this combined

26:15 ↗ draft at the time we wrote this uh

26:18 ↗ information we were thinking we would

26:19 ↗ wrap up our conversation with planning

26:21 ↗ and policy commission on march 24th

26:23 ↗ at the last meeting last thursday uh

26:26 ↗ planning and policy commission would

26:27 ↗ like one more meeting with them uh to to

26:30 ↗ close the loop on some of the the topics

26:32 ↗ that uh we ran out of time um at that

26:35 ↗ meeting

26:36 ↗ so um we will take your information and

26:39 ↗ close the loop with ppc um

26:42 ↗ uh before this public hearing on the

26:44 ↗ combined draft in august in september

26:46 ↗ and then at the end uh in september we

26:49 ↗ will plan we plan to bring the entire

26:51 ↗ consolidated draft back to you

26:55 ↗ so what's included in your packets and

26:57 ↗ information today is really at a high

27:00 ↗ level some summary of the proposed

27:02 ↗ changes

27:03 ↗ and how they meet the intended goals

27:06 ↗ what we expect the outcome from those

27:09 ↗ proposed changes is going to be you also

27:11 ↗ have a summary from environmental board

27:13 ↗ and planning policy commission's

27:14 ↗ feedback

27:16 ↗ we also gave you a chart that includes

27:18 ↗ the public feedback loop matrix i think

27:21 ↗ we heard a desire to know how the public

27:23 ↗ feed input has factored into

27:26 ↗ uh the code update um so in that chart

27:30 ↗ you see

27:30 ↗ your golden outcomes that were

27:32 ↗ established at the beginning what

27:34 ↗ initial high level feedback we got from

27:36 ↗ the public and the planning and policy

27:38 ↗ commission

27:40 ↗ some highlights in the dra in the draft

27:43 ↗ code and then what some high level

27:44 ↗ feedback we receive from the community

27:47 ↗ and so it's it's going through um all of

27:50 ↗ those

27:51 ↗ and of course the draft code

27:55 ↗ so rest of the slides we have are on

27:58 ↗ each topic we wanted to just provide

28:00 ↗ some high level summary for you

28:02 ↗ one question i have for you all is

28:04 ↗ should i just go through all the topics

28:07 ↗ or should i pause after each topic for a

28:09 ↗ discussion on that topic

28:12 ↗ so i was thinking that this is pretty

28:14 ↗ big and meaty and that it might be good

28:16 ↗ to pause at the end okay fantastic we'll

28:19 ↗ pause in each section for questions

28:21 ↗ great

28:23 ↗ so the first one is the geologic hazard

28:26 ↗ areas so there are five of them coal

28:29 ↗ mines erosion

28:31 ↗ landslide seismic hazards and steep

28:34 ↗ slopes

28:35 ↗ give me one moment we've got a question

28:37 ↗ from councilmember d michelle on process

28:42 ↗ i thank you and um it takes a little

28:45 ↗ time to uh get your

28:47 ↗ comment into the chat so on my apologies

28:50 ↗ uh director dollywall uh you use the

28:53 ↗ word recommendation and and as i'm

28:56 ↗ reading the letter from the

28:57 ↗ environmental board

29:00 ↗ they

29:01 ↗ the the document we received was

29:03 ↗ comments a summary of the comments but

29:06 ↗ it's my understanding that

29:08 ↗ neither ppc or the environmental board

29:10 ↗ have yet reached the place where they

29:12 ↗ are

29:13 ↗ sending us the recommendation is that

29:15 ↗ correct am i reading that correctly

29:17 ↗ um you you're right council member

29:19 ↗ michelle the environmental board is not

29:22 ↗ going to make a formal recommendation

29:23 ↗ that recommendation will come from

29:25 ↗ planning and policy commission but the

29:27 ↗ way we've structured this whole thing is

29:29 ↗ we're getting their input

29:30 ↗ to ppc

29:32 ↗ so you know we've had these joint

29:34 ↗ meetings but

29:36 ↗ under the code under the state law the

29:37 ↗ formal recommendation will come from

29:39 ↗ planning and policy commission so i

29:41 ↗ think they've weighed in on a lot of

29:43 ↗ things uh planning and policy commission

29:45 ↗ but they're just a few things where in

29:47 ↗ your attachment um

29:49 ↗ when we captured their summary we they

29:51 ↗ wanted a few more um you know additional

29:54 ↗ um discussion

29:56 ↗ so that's correct they haven't formally

29:58 ↗ given you a recommendation but for the

30:00 ↗ most topics they have i mean they ran

30:02 ↗ out of time to talk about outdoor

30:04 ↗ lighting for instance so that's not

30:07 ↗ formally you know their recommendation

30:08 ↗ they may ask for a few more changes in

30:10 ↗ the in the lighting section

30:13 ↗ okay um thank you for the clarification

30:18 ↗ thanks

30:19 ↗ um

30:20 ↗ so the geologic hazard areas uh what

30:23 ↗ we've done with this code is um

30:26 ↗ going to really help us as we look at

30:28 ↗ these applications because a lot of

30:30 ↗ discussion and debate happens on uh

30:33 ↗ who's actually prepared these reports

30:35 ↗ are they of good caliber reports because

30:37 ↗ these are very technical things so we've

30:40 ↗ defined the roles of these different

30:42 ↗ professionals

30:43 ↗ we've identified how some of these

30:45 ↗ things can be mitigated

30:48 ↗ general guidance for peer review

30:50 ↗ requirements

30:51 ↗ we have a nice chart that was included

30:53 ↗ in the summary documents about the

30:55 ↗ buffers so coal mine hazard for instance

30:58 ↗ did not have buffers so we've added

31:00 ↗ those

31:02 ↗ we've really put a focus on creating

31:04 ↗ really clear criteria when you were

31:06 ↗ asking for reductions from steep slopes

31:09 ↗ um

31:10 ↗ and then also added some language where

31:12 ↗ we can ask for additional buffers when

31:15 ↗ when we have concerns with landslides or

31:17 ↗ seat slopes that require a larger buffer

31:20 ↗ um

31:21 ↗ i think there were some public comments

31:22 ↗ so we have a little graphic to kind of

31:24 ↗ go over what is um the you know what's

31:28 ↗ in the code so 40 slope this middle

31:31 ↗ section

31:32 ↗ you cannot do any development on it so

31:35 ↗ you have that protection already in the

31:37 ↗ code and that's

31:38 ↗ proposed to remain

31:40 ↗ the buffers along the top of the slope

31:43 ↗ and the bottom of the slope are 50 feet

31:46 ↗ and in addition to the buffer you have a

31:48 ↗ building setback of 15 feet

31:52 ↗ again like i said this 50 foot buffer

31:56 ↗ can be reduced if it can be determined

31:59 ↗ that it's safe to have a reduction

32:02 ↗ so that was point of discussion and

32:03 ↗ debate with based on public comments at

32:06 ↗ the planning and policy commission and

32:08 ↗ so we posed a question with

32:11 ↗ ppc whether they wanted to further

32:13 ↗ tighten this requirement and i think the

32:16 ↗ majority said yes they and one of the

32:19 ↗ options we presented to them was

32:21 ↗ if the vertical height of this

32:24 ↗ is you know only a 20 foot height versus

32:26 ↗ a 200 that perhaps uh that can be a

32:29 ↗ sliding scale

32:31 ↗ so we'll come back with some

32:33 ↗ options for planning and policy

32:34 ↗ commission to weigh in on um further

32:37 ↗ tightening of course we you know we

32:40 ↗ already don't allow development and 40

32:42 ↗ slope we already have a 50-foot buffer

32:45 ↗ if we can't justify

32:47 ↗ a larger buffer for certain uh

32:50 ↗ circumstances we will give it some more

32:52 ↗ consideration but it'll have to be based

32:54 ↗ on technical reasons um not just

32:56 ↗ protection of the slope because it's

32:57 ↗ already protected

32:59 ↗ um so that that's one topic in this area

33:02 ↗ i think that's the main one that

33:04 ↗ everyone had a concern about

33:07 ↗ the other topics were really technical

33:09 ↗ like i said you know

33:11 ↗ you know we've captured all the things

33:13 ↗ that will help us get really good

33:15 ↗ reports um have some consideration on

33:18 ↗ that so that sort of is highlights of

33:21 ↗ the first topic

33:25 ↗ okay

33:26 ↗ do we have questions councilmember martz

33:30 ↗ and followed by council member hun

33:33 ↗ so we have

33:35 ↗ a kara map

33:37 ↗ do we have city maps for the other

33:40 ↗ geological hazards

33:42 ↗ uh we do um but you know the the

33:45 ↗ assessment still has to be done on site

33:48 ↗ so we have coal mine hazard maps that we

33:50 ↗ know of some of them but when we get a

33:52 ↗ development application on a project we

33:55 ↗ ask them to do a topographical survey

33:57 ↗ you know make sure the geotechnical you

33:59 ↗ know

34:00 ↗ soil data is correct and all that so

34:03 ↗ we do have some maps but they are not

34:05 ↗ fully accurate

34:07 ↗ and complete

34:11 ↗ they are based on like department of

34:12 ↗ natural resources that shows landslide

34:15 ↗ potential you know liquefaction maps and

34:17 ↗ things so they're done at the state

34:19 ↗ level that take into consideration some

34:21 ↗ of those things but it's not a

34:23 ↗ complete and absolutely you know that if

34:26 ↗ it doesn't show on the map doesn't mean

34:28 ↗ that there's not protected you still

34:29 ↗ need an on-site assessment

34:32 ↗ all right so

34:34 ↗ uh i asked um not um not unrelated i

34:38 ↗ have both steep slope and scarp on my

34:41 ↗ property um so um

34:44 ↗ i'm curious just how

34:47 ↗ i guess as a policy maker i'm just sort

34:49 ↗ of trying to understand how that

34:51 ↗ particular example uh works going

34:53 ↗ forward with with coder vision but it i

34:55 ↗ mean it does seem like it would be

34:59 ↗ probably as policymakers separate from

35:00 ↗ where we each happen to live um it would

35:02 ↗ be worth understanding how

35:05 ↗ extensive these hazard zones are

35:07 ↗ generally speaking right how how broad

35:10 ↗ is the 40 slope generally speaking in

35:12 ↗ the city

35:13 ↗ and so on so forth yeah we did create a

35:16 ↗ map that showed the 40 slope and then

35:19 ↗ anywhere from 50 to 40 uh percent i can

35:22 ↗ try and find it i mean during our gaps

35:23 ↗ analysis when we were talking to

35:25 ↗ planning and policy commission we had

35:27 ↗ you know and you can see a lot of the

35:28 ↗ city is steep slope i mean there there

35:31 ↗ are i mean there are very few

35:33 ↗ areas that don't have some critical area

35:36 ↗ on on their site

35:39 ↗ if it's useful i can pull it up

35:42 ↗ not this very second but if you could

35:43 ↗ send it to the council

35:46 ↗ afterwards that would be helpful thank

35:47 ↗ you

35:49 ↗ councilmember hunt

35:51 ↗ thank you um at our previous meeting

35:53 ↗ which was in september of 2021 i believe

35:56 ↗ we had a conversation about how

35:59 ↗ there were some exceptions or there were

36:01 ↗ some

36:02 ↗ times where you could develop on in

36:05 ↗ critical areas and

36:06 ↗ we as a council were talking about how

36:09 ↗ we could best minimize that or wanting

36:10 ↗ to best minimize that and so i wondered

36:13 ↗ if you could uh review under what

36:16 ↗ circumstances you would be able to build

36:18 ↗ on a critical

36:20 ↗ slope in this new with the revisions

36:23 ↗ that are proposed yeah no great question

36:25 ↗ i think um i remember the conversation

36:27 ↗ in september where we said if your

36:30 ↗ property was completely covered with 40

36:33 ↗ slopes and you know government

36:35 ↗ regulations cannot prevent the economic

36:37 ↗ value of your property to zero

36:39 ↗ so in those cases we would have to have

36:41 ↗ some reasonable use of their property

36:44 ↗ which could mean

36:46 ↗ um taking a look at how big the property

36:48 ↗ is and it could just mean one house and

36:50 ↗ a property of its own single family you

36:52 ↗ know user or it could mean that um an

36:56 ↗ access road um is needed to get access

36:59 ↗ to the property and that's the only way

37:01 ↗ they can

37:02 ↗ get the access but in order to pass the

37:05 ↗ the requirement for reasonable use you

37:08 ↗ know that we would first see if a

37:09 ↗ variance is needed

37:11 ↗ which is a public hearing process

37:13 ↗ and and the test there is it's a

37:15 ↗ hardship it's um you know for a variance

37:18 ↗ it's slightly different than a

37:19 ↗ reasonable use exception so reasonable

37:21 ↗ use exception is no other use of your

37:23 ↗ property can occur and therefore the

37:25 ↗ city has to allow some use

37:27 ↗ um

37:28 ↗ and and we've beefed up the criteria for

37:31 ↗ that and and have in our code tried to

37:33 ↗ separate those two those were the two

37:35 ↗ examples i think

37:38 ↗ between the old code and this code i

37:40 ↗ think the process is improved the

37:42 ↗ criteria for the code is improved but

37:44 ↗ it's just a legal requirement that we

37:46 ↗ have to give people due process

37:48 ↗ um to to be able to do something with

37:51 ↗ the property if that the entire property

37:54 ↗ is 40

37:55 ↗ but they would still go through can you

37:57 ↗ avoid the impact can you minimize the

37:59 ↗ impact and if not then

38:01 ↗ what is the the least amount of design

38:04 ↗ separate from this you know we're also

38:05 ↗ talking about a terrain management

38:07 ↗ chapter which is not in your draft code

38:10 ↗ but that will look at

38:11 ↗ minimizing cut and fill but you know on

38:14 ↗ slopes that are less than 40

38:17 ↗ so right now we don't have any sort of

38:19 ↗ design considerations um

38:22 ↗ for

38:24 ↗ slopes that are smaller than 40 so

38:26 ↗ that's under development

38:30 ↗ okay thank you i think um an ask then

38:33 ↗ would be in addition to the maps that

38:35 ↗ council member marks asked for if if we

38:37 ↗ could get a sense of how many parcels

38:40 ↗ and the area of parcels that are

38:42 ↗ completely encumbered with the 40 or

38:45 ↗ critical area that would also be helpful

38:47 ↗ because that remains

38:48 ↗ a concern to me

38:50 ↗ and then my next question which you

38:52 ↗ mentioned the reasonable use there's

38:55 ↗ throughout the code there's reasonable

38:56 ↗ use and there's also

38:58 ↗ in the critical areas it also introduces

39:00 ↗ um reasonable economic use under the

39:03 ↗ guidelines and says uh that

39:06 ↗ this chapter is not um

39:08 ↗ it is not the intent of this chapter to

39:10 ↗ make a parcel of property unusable but

39:13 ↗ by denying its owner reasonable economic

39:15 ↗ use and so i wondered if there's a

39:16 ↗ difference in those definitions and if

39:18 ↗ the reasonable economic use

39:21 ↗ has is defined somewhere in the code

39:25 ↗ um no good question i think we used to

39:27 ↗ have a definition for reasonable use

39:29 ↗ exceptions so that came in as public

39:31 ↗ comments and we do intend to add a

39:33 ↗ definition for reasonable use and you

39:35 ↗ know once this whole thing is if there's

39:36 ↗ inconsistency between some other

39:39 ↗ um

39:40 ↗ definition we will we will take a look

39:42 ↗ at that

39:44 ↗ okay so reasonable economic uses

39:45 ↗ reasonable use they would be that is how

39:48 ↗ the reasonable use works uh i think

39:50 ↗ there was some confusion in the code

39:52 ↗ language before because it was

39:53 ↗ conflating the variance with a

39:55 ↗ reasonable use and so

39:57 ↗ so we've separated that out to a

39:59 ↗ variance is just from a standard what

40:02 ↗ what you need it's a hardship standard

40:04 ↗ but it's a much higher bar to to apply

40:07 ↗ for a reasonable use exception

40:10 ↗ okay thank you

40:14 ↗ any other questions

40:17 ↗ okay i had questions on the terrain

40:19 ↗ management chapter that you said is

40:21 ↗ under development

40:23 ↗ can you

40:25 ↗ excuse me

40:27 ↗ i swallowed water wrong

40:29 ↗ can you give a sense of when that is

40:32 ↗ going to happen when we'll get a chance

40:34 ↗ to review it when ppc will have a chance

40:36 ↗ to review and whether we're going to

40:38 ↗ then

40:39 ↗ receive the feedback from ppc about that

40:42 ↗ chapter yeah so that's um i believe the

40:45 ↗ the last uh number six um

40:48 ↗ topic um so that's a new brand new

40:50 ↗ chapter so we've had discussions with

40:53 ↗ planning and policy commission at the

40:55 ↗ policy guidance gaps analysis phase but

40:58 ↗ we haven't

40:59 ↗ drafted the language for the code or

41:02 ↗ graphics and things like that

41:04 ↗ but it will come back to to council in

41:06 ↗ summer

41:08 ↗ so should we consider

41:09 ↗ you know obviously the community has a

41:12 ↗ lot of concerns about development on

41:14 ↗ steep slopes so

41:16 ↗ would

41:16 ↗ concerns about that be addressed in the

41:20 ↗ terrain management area or is that

41:21 ↗ better addressed in the natural

41:24 ↗ environment area yes so the focus of the

41:26 ↗ geologically hazardous areas is really

41:29 ↗ public safety can you build on these

41:32 ↗ things and in what you need to protect a

41:34 ↗ landslide seismic hazard the terrain

41:36 ↗ management is more about design if you

41:38 ↗ have a you know and and that will be on

41:40 ↗ slopes that are less than 40 because we

41:42 ↗ don't allow development of 40 or more so

41:45 ↗ it'll be this the smaller slopes but

41:48 ↗ what does that design look like how do

41:50 ↗ you incorporate that into so it's not

41:53 ↗ you know it

41:55 ↗ it it builds with the hillside so so to

41:57 ↗ speak so as opposed to

41:59 ↗ um so it's more aesthetics and cut and

42:02 ↗ fill reduction and those kind of things

42:04 ↗ not so much as public safety aspects

42:06 ↗ that that's the focus with this section

42:09 ↗ here

42:10 ↗ okay so um

42:12 ↗ in your memo it talked about

42:15 ↗ or in the summary of ppc's feedback it

42:18 ↗ talked about the steep slope buffer and

42:20 ↗ how there was a disagreement

42:23 ↗ between

42:24 ↗ different

42:26 ↗ ppc members so i'm wondering if you can

42:28 ↗ talk through

42:29 ↗ what that disagreement was what the two

42:32 ↗ perspectives were and how staff's

42:35 ↗ proposal

42:36 ↗ responds to that sure

42:39 ↗ um so it came as part of the public

42:42 ↗ comments whether that we you know have

42:44 ↗ not eliminated the buffer reduction

42:47 ↗ um and that came in through the initial

42:50 ↗ public comments at the gaps analysis

42:52 ↗ that uh the city grants these buffer

42:54 ↗ reductions from steep slopes all the

42:56 ↗ time

42:57 ↗ that there there should be some bookends

43:00 ↗ on when these are granted or not granted

43:02 ↗ so our attempt based on science was to

43:05 ↗ say

43:06 ↗ this is the criteria for when you can

43:09 ↗ get a buffer reduction so we beefed up

43:11 ↗ the criteria in the code

43:13 ↗ but i think we still got some comments

43:15 ↗ related to um

43:17 ↗ you know you can reduce it to 10 feet

43:19 ↗ under the current code or and the

43:21 ↗ existing and the proposed code that that

43:23 ↗ was too little

43:25 ↗ um and so um the discussion was what are

43:28 ↗ the options

43:30 ↗ and based on our consultant uh jim

43:32 ↗ johnson

43:33 ↗ and my discussion about how you know are

43:36 ↗ there other options than just a 50 feet

43:39 ↗ and a buffer reduction if it meets this

43:41 ↗ criteria

43:42 ↗ um you know we we

43:44 ↗ his suggestion was perhaps we can look

43:46 ↗ at a sliding scale uh but we'll have to

43:48 ↗ have more conservative approach for the

43:51 ↗ larger

43:52 ↗ steep slopes you know if you if it's

43:54 ↗ really like a cliff then then it's going

43:55 ↗ to be we'll have to put in a larger

43:57 ↗ buffer uh for that um

44:01 ↗ so he's going to think more about what

44:03 ↗ that option looks like we don't have

44:05 ↗ that to share with ppc or with council

44:08 ↗ at this point

44:10 ↗ but really the the the feedback we were

44:12 ↗ looking for from ppc was you know with

44:15 ↗ this additional

44:16 ↗ beefing of the criteria for approval

44:20 ↗ and um adding some language that we can

44:22 ↗ increase the buffer

44:24 ↗ um

44:24 ↗ is have we met your um

44:27 ↗ you know desired outcomes

44:29 ↗ or do we need to go back and re-look at

44:32 ↗ it and so that's where the split was

44:34 ↗ some felt that you know two members felt

44:36 ↗ that we have done it

44:38 ↗ the other three said they would prefer

44:40 ↗ to tighten it further so we'll go back

44:43 ↗ and take a look at you know whether that

44:45 ↗ 10 feet could be maybe 25 feet you know

44:47 ↗ instead of picking just a number

44:49 ↗ we want it to be based on some sort of

44:52 ↗ criteria and

44:53 ↗ the the height the vertical height of

44:55 ↗ the slope seems to be what we would look

44:57 ↗ at

45:00 ↗ okay so

45:03 ↗ i'm running into this issue where

45:05 ↗ several times now i've heard

45:08 ↗ yes we heard

45:09 ↗ that maybe this was an issue and we're

45:11 ↗ going to go back to experts or we're

45:13 ↗ going to review this

45:16 ↗ i'm having a hard time understanding

45:17 ↗ then when

45:18 ↗ we're going to get a touch on it that's

45:21 ↗ not the end point

45:25 ↗ on these topics um that we

45:29 ↗ that we asked planning and policy

45:30 ↗ commission so anything that's going to

45:32 ↗ change in the draft will be folded into

45:35 ↗ the consolidated draft if council wants

45:38 ↗ to get

45:40 ↗ briefed prior to that of the changes

45:42 ↗ that occur to the the draft we can

45:45 ↗ certainly

45:46 ↗ you know look at coming back to you

45:49 ↗ all with with that if that's what

45:52 ↗ you're asking

45:54 ↗ okay

45:55 ↗ city administrator rob quits

45:58 ↗ thank you

45:59 ↗ president members of the council you

46:00 ↗ know one of the challenges we have with

46:02 ↗ title 18 is of the role of planning

46:05 ↗ policy committee and the role of the

46:06 ↗ city council

46:08 ↗ i think as we have walked through this

46:09 ↗ process with the council

46:12 ↗ i think staff's understanding is is that

46:14 ↗ planning policy will

46:16 ↗ we'll make these larger reviews uh with

46:19 ↗ this next piece and then we'll bring

46:21 ↗ back the entire package to the council

46:22 ↗ if that's a

46:23 ↗ if you would like to do something

46:24 ↗ different than that i think will affect

46:26 ↗ our schedule

46:27 ↗ and how we approach this is again one

46:29 ↗ for the first of six

46:31 ↗ of these so if we're going to come back

46:32 ↗ then six additional times

46:34 ↗ which we hadn't planned

46:36 ↗ we would need to know that i think

46:37 ↗ sooner than later but i think our

46:39 ↗ understanding was we would get the

46:40 ↗ council's feedback at this juncture we

46:43 ↗ would take that feedback along with the

46:44 ↗ community feedback along with ppc

46:46 ↗ feedback come with another round of this

46:49 ↗ take it to ppc and then once it leaves

46:51 ↗ ppc it would have their recommendations

46:54 ↗ and i think the recommendations may be

46:56 ↗ we agree we disagree but then it would

46:59 ↗ come back to the council so if you'd

47:00 ↗ like to insert

47:02 ↗ another piece to this that's not what we

47:04 ↗ had previously planned on doing

47:07 ↗ so i guess i will say that if

47:11 ↗ if everything from the natural

47:13 ↗ environment area was being given to us

47:17 ↗ then i would think that that one

47:20 ↗ standpoint makes sense and maybe i'll

47:22 ↗ save my stuff for comments later but it

47:26 ↗ sounds like this is

47:28 ↗ not that this is

47:30 ↗ saying

47:31 ↗ we almost got there

47:33 ↗ but we have these five areas where we

47:36 ↗ either need to go back to ppc

47:38 ↗ or

47:39 ↗ get other information so

47:42 ↗ well and we would go back to ppc with

47:44 ↗ all of that

47:45 ↗ and so again what we're going to bring

47:47 ↗ back to ppc

47:49 ↗ perhaps in pieces but ultimately ppc

47:51 ↗ will receive all of this and then they

47:53 ↗ would package this up and make the final

47:55 ↗ recommendations to the council

47:57 ↗ i think the the hope through this

47:59 ↗ process was to let planning policy um

48:02 ↗ you know be at that 5000 foot and below

48:05 ↗ level

48:06 ↗ and then let the council continue to

48:08 ↗ stay at the higher level

48:10 ↗ if the council wishes to get further

48:12 ↗ into this

48:14 ↗ in addition to what ppc is doing then

48:16 ↗ that i think is a different approach

48:18 ↗ than we were planning on

48:20 ↗ okay i will there was never one last

48:22 ↗ comment was never meant to be this is

48:24 ↗ we're done tonight

48:26 ↗ and you know let's just deal with some

48:28 ↗ things around the edges we always knew

48:30 ↗ that these six check-ins with the

48:32 ↗ council would be still at a work in

48:33 ↗ progress stage it was never meant to be

48:36 ↗ we're nearly done

48:38 ↗ everything's okay

48:42 ↗ okay i will

48:43 ↗ save comments and response on that since

48:46 ↗ this is question period

48:48 ↗ um any other

48:49 ↗ questions on geologic hazards

48:55 ↗ now and checking in on council member d

48:58 ↗ michelle we're good there so we can move

49:00 ↗ on to the next section thank you great

49:02 ↗ um

49:03 ↗ so the next topic is this uh critical

49:06 ↗ area

49:07 ↗ recharge

49:08 ↗ area

49:10 ↗ actually it's critical aqua for a

49:12 ↗ recharge area i think there's a typo on

49:14 ↗ this one um so the aqua for of all of

49:18 ↗ your um

49:20 ↗ you know drinking water supply 40 of the

49:22 ↗ drinking water comes from

49:24 ↗ um

49:25 ↗ from these wells um so it's important

49:27 ↗ for the city to protect the drinking

49:29 ↗ water supply

49:30 ↗ and the city commissioned this report in

49:33 ↗ 2019 where they

49:35 ↗ modeled how the contaminants are getting

49:38 ↗ can get into the drinking water supply

49:40 ↗ and

49:41 ↗ based on that study

49:43 ↗ which um you know i think you heard uh

49:45 ↗ where is that study so we have a study i

49:48 ↗ think it's just not signed or something

49:50 ↗ we're just kind of making sure

49:51 ↗ geosyntek who is the consultant who did

49:54 ↗ this uh signs it and then we're gonna

49:56 ↗ put it on the website so everyone has it

49:58 ↗ and share it with the

50:00 ↗ applicants who have uh requested it

50:03 ↗ but basically you've got the wellhead

50:05 ↗ protection areas which julie's on the

50:08 ↗ call here and gary speck have been the

50:10 ↗ lead on this topic um so i will defer to

50:14 ↗ them if you have more detailed questions

50:15 ↗ on them but julie has a great analogy

50:17 ↗ where she talks about the aquifer as a

50:20 ↗ bathtub

50:21 ↗ and the well-head protection areas as a

50:24 ↗ straw

50:26 ↗ drinking straw so so that's how the

50:28 ↗ whole area is your drinking water supply

50:31 ↗ and then your well heads are the areas

50:33 ↗ around the wells um so both of those

50:35 ↗ factor in in into and how the

50:37 ↗ contaminants can get to and from and how

50:40 ↗ long it takes them and based on that

50:43 ↗ there are four

50:44 ↗ aquifer recharge area um that have been

50:48 ↗ mapped so as you can see the map on the

50:50 ↗ left and the right the maps map has

50:52 ↗ gotten larger but since 2004 and 2019

50:56 ↗ science has improved the way the

50:58 ↗ modeling is done has improved

51:01 ↗ so

51:02 ↗ there are a lot of

51:04 ↗ things that have changed

51:06 ↗ but the main restrictions are for class

51:10 ↗ one and two

51:11 ↗ because they are more closer to the

51:13 ↗ wells and three and four are really

51:16 ↗ protecting the quantity of the water

51:18 ↗ over the long haul

51:19 ↗ um

51:21 ↗ and let's see if i can

51:23 ↗ move to the next slide

51:25 ↗ um so like i said the significant

51:27 ↗ changes are you know recognizing the

51:29 ↗ study that the city did incorporating

51:31 ↗ this map into the code

51:33 ↗ and then we looked at the prohibited and

51:35 ↗ restricted uses over the long haul what

51:38 ↗ are some of the the potential uses that

51:40 ↗ can contaminate the drinking water

51:42 ↗ supply you know no new gas stations in

51:45 ↗ this area the existing ones stay no new

51:48 ↗ mining

51:50 ↗ the existing ones stay

51:52 ↗ and and the whole list so the code has a

51:55 ↗ bunch of these things that are

51:57 ↗ prohibited and restricted

52:00 ↗ we also have a separate chapter or in

52:03 ↗ the code which is title 13

52:05 ↗ which really has a focus on pollution

52:07 ↗ prevention aspects of groundwater

52:09 ↗ quality so we do reference that we add

52:12 ↗ some

52:13 ↗ best management practices there the city

52:15 ↗ runs a great program where we work with

52:17 ↗ the businesses you know public works uh

52:19 ↗ department runs that

52:20 ↗ and um

52:22 ↗ and really it's an outreach education

52:23 ↗ and all that so we have kind of

52:25 ↗ referenced that

52:26 ↗ some of the things that we um learned

52:29 ↗ through this process was um you know the

52:31 ↗ quantity of the water

52:34 ↗ redman for instance um did a whole study

52:37 ↗ where they figured the de-watering that

52:38 ↗ happens from

52:40 ↗ uh construction has a major impact on

52:42 ↗ the quantity of the water that gets

52:44 ↗ recharged

52:45 ↗ so we're looking at if there are any

52:47 ↗ best management practices then you know

52:49 ↗ they don't necessarily need to be in the

52:51 ↗ code hardwired in the code but but we

52:53 ↗ probably want to have some discussion

52:56 ↗ about what those might be and if we can

52:58 ↗ require them any sort of underground

53:00 ↗ construction sheet piling what is the

53:02 ↗ impact of that to the aquifer so

53:05 ↗ those are topics that are very complex

53:08 ↗ and there is no one way to do things you

53:10 ↗ know that we can put in the code but we

53:13 ↗ continue to study those things um

53:16 ↗ storm water management um there's

53:18 ↗ discussion with the stormwater code

53:20 ↗ update as far as infiltration and

53:22 ↗ recharging of the aquifer goes so

53:24 ↗ separate from title 18 we just kind of

53:26 ↗ wanted to highlight some of those things

53:28 ↗ that um are still at play

53:30 ↗ um that concludes uh cora

53:34 ↗ you know highlights of what the changes

53:36 ↗ are

53:37 ↗ and looking around seeing if we have any

53:39 ↗ questions on the critical aquifer

53:42 ↗ recharge area

53:44 ↗ okay council member hunt

53:48 ↗ there was a

53:50 ↗ question raised during public comment

53:51 ↗ about the study that this was based on

53:54 ↗ and i wondered if

53:55 ↗ if you could provide more information

53:56 ↗ about that study

53:58 ↗ um sure i am going to defer to julie

54:02 ↗ are you still on here

54:05 ↗ i am so

54:07 ↗ julie ortiz uh city that's a class stock

54:10 ↗ resource here on this topic so

54:12 ↗ um really it was

54:14 ↗ an updated modeling effort that was done

54:16 ↗ via a consultant and it looked at a lot

54:18 ↗ of different things like updated usgs

54:21 ↗ maps

54:22 ↗ lithology uh incorporated more data into

54:26 ↗ that process and then mapped it in a 3d

54:29 ↗ world so it looked at particle transport

54:31 ↗ so if you imagine like a drop of rain

54:33 ↗ water kind of dropping on one part of

54:35 ↗ the city it mapped

54:38 ↗ how that drop may

54:40 ↗ travel through time and how long it may

54:42 ↗ take to get to a particular drinking

54:44 ↗ water well and then they reverse mapped

54:46 ↗ that as well and so we incorporated some

54:48 ↗ data that we know from some of our

54:49 ↗ pumping rates from existing drinking

54:51 ↗ water wells as well

54:58 ↗ and would the findings from that be

55:00 ↗ made

55:01 ↗ public or shared

55:03 ↗ absolutely yeah

55:05 ↗ go ahead minnie no go ahead

55:07 ↗ oh yeah absolutely we're just waiting on

55:08 ↗ a signature from

55:10 ↗ uh

55:11 ↗ the author of the report we wanted to

55:12 ↗ make sure that we had a final version

55:14 ↗ out to the public

55:15 ↗ great thank you

55:19 ↗ okay and i'm not seeing any other

55:21 ↗ questions on this area so i think we can

55:23 ↗ move on to the next section

55:25 ↗ great um so the next one you know we can

55:28 ↗ pause after each one of these if you

55:30 ↗ want or we can go through all of them

55:32 ↗ together um

55:34 ↗ any preference

55:37 ↗ i think it's fine to do them together

55:39 ↗ okay great

55:40 ↗ um so these are um you know protections

55:44 ↗ for these uh come the wetlands streams

55:46 ↗ and fish and wildlife habitat

55:47 ↗ conservation area really is the more

55:49 ↗ protection and conserve as opposed to

55:51 ↗ the geological hazards where the the

55:53 ↗ focus was public safety this is more

55:55 ↗ protection of the habitat

55:58 ↗ so for the wetlands we've

56:00 ↗ taken the buffers from the newest

56:03 ↗ guidance from ecology and ecology has

56:05 ↗ done a great job of standardizing how

56:07 ↗ the wetlands are regulated how they're

56:10 ↗ rated and what their buffers are

56:13 ↗ so there's very explicit clear guidance

56:15 ↗ that we've incorporated so the buffers

56:17 ↗ have gone up as a result of that but

56:19 ↗ that's the latest best available science

56:21 ↗ uh that's out there

56:23 ↗ um

56:24 ↗ we have eliminated the buffer reductions

56:26 ↗ because that is what uh ecology

56:28 ↗ recommends um and the reason is that

56:32 ↗ those don't do well in the long run

56:34 ↗ um people don't maintain them monitor

56:37 ↗ them so they look at it throughout the

56:39 ↗ region and their recommendation is the

56:41 ↗ buffer reductions really don't work so

56:43 ↗ we've eliminated that

56:45 ↗ some other highlights of the changes we

56:47 ↗ used to have a density credit

56:49 ↗ calculation only for residential not for

56:51 ↗ commercial that you could get additional

56:54 ↗ credit if you had critical areas we

56:57 ↗ really didn't understand how that was

56:58 ↗ based in science so we've

57:00 ↗ eliminated that

57:01 ↗ um there used to be a lot of confusion

57:03 ↗ between can you have an underground

57:05 ↗ vault in a buffer uh we've made that

57:07 ↗ very clear that you can't have some of

57:09 ↗ those you know the full buffer

57:10 ↗ protection um is required um we've

57:14 ↗ really um

57:15 ↗ stretched the enhancement criteria to

57:18 ↗ the extent we could under the legal

57:20 ↗ framework of um

57:22 ↗ obviously if someone owns a 10 acre site

57:25 ↗ you know we can't ask them to enhance

57:26 ↗ the entire thing when they're not

57:28 ↗ impacting so it has to be tied to the

57:30 ↗ impact but we've taken it to a point

57:32 ↗ where if it is 50

57:34 ↗ uh you know vegetation is really not

57:38 ↗ doing well then we have some provisions

57:40 ↗ where we can ask for enhancement there

57:44 ↗ this was in your packet it really shows

57:46 ↗ your current buffer widths and your

57:48 ↗ proposed buffer widths as you can see

57:51 ↗ the new guidance is based on

57:53 ↗ the land use intensity so low moderate

57:55 ↗ and high which was not the case before

57:58 ↗ so if you have a trail you are a low

58:01 ↗ intensity if you have a commercial

58:03 ↗ building or an apartment building or a

58:05 ↗ home you're in the high intensity so

58:07 ↗ most of the development in essequa will

58:09 ↗ fall under the high intensity

58:11 ↗ so the last column here

58:13 ↗ those are the buffers that would apply

58:16 ↗ and we have an example here we've taken

58:19 ↗ planning and policy commission on a tour

58:21 ↗ but this is the riva town homes on

58:23 ↗ newport way just um

58:26 ↗ um

58:27 ↗ um yeah just west of sr 900

58:32 ↗ and in in this graphic you'll see

58:34 ↗ the dotted line is what the existing

58:37 ↗ code buffers are and because it allowed

58:39 ↗ a buffer reduction so a 75-foot buffer

58:42 ↗ was reduced to 56-foot buffer with

58:45 ↗ enhancements of the buffer under the new

58:48 ↗ proposed code it would be the darker

58:50 ↗ brown line on the outside so that's the

58:52 ↗ 100 foot buffer but you would need to

58:54 ↗ preserve the entire 100 feet

58:57 ↗ and you can see there's some impact but

58:59 ↗ it doesn't fully prevent development of

59:01 ↗ that property but it would need to be

59:03 ↗ done thoughtfully they they do have the

59:06 ↗ flexibility to ask for buffer averaging

59:08 ↗ which would uh couple it with

59:10 ↗ enhancement if they wanted to um you

59:13 ↗ know do it in a small little area where

59:14 ↗ they wanted to reduce the buffer but

59:16 ↗ they would have to increase the buffer

59:18 ↗ in the other area so the net

59:20 ↗ area remains the same so

59:22 ↗ [Music]

59:23 ↗ no buffer reductions larger buffer

59:25 ↗ widths they still have the opportunity

59:27 ↗ to ask for buffer

59:29 ↗ averaging

59:31 ↗ i think that

59:32 ↗ covers the wetland part

59:35 ↗ um

59:36 ↗ for the streams uh kind of similar we

59:39 ↗ don't allow buffer reductions

59:42 ↗ excuse me um

59:44 ↗ we've got two questions uh councilmember

59:46 ↗ martz and then councilmember hunt

59:49 ↗ with averaging is there an absolute

59:51 ↗ minimum

59:52 ↗ uh

59:53 ↗ and what would that number be yeah so

59:56 ↗ you you still are limited to you can't

59:57 ↗ reduce it more than 25 percent so 100

1:00:00 ↗ cannot go be reduced more than 75

1:00:03 ↗ but if you reduce it in 10 feet in some

1:00:06 ↗ other 10 foot area you would increase it

1:00:09 ↗ wait you can go down to 75 feet from the

1:00:12 ↗ from the stream is the absolute smallest

1:00:15 ↗ distance you can get from the stream

1:00:18 ↗ for we were talking wetlands but yes oh

1:00:20 ↗ sorry from the yeah and depending on

1:00:21 ↗ whichever type of wetland it is whatever

1:00:23 ↗ the mac the buffer is you can reduce 25

1:00:26 ↗ you can take 25 off of it if you

1:00:28 ↗ increase elsewhere but that the minimum

1:00:31 ↗ absolutes are 75 percent of nominal okay

1:00:34 ↗ thank you

1:00:39 ↗ good

1:00:39 ↗ i thought that i read in here that ppc

1:00:43 ↗ had recommended not do not continuing

1:00:46 ↗ the buffer averaging and so that would

1:00:49 ↗ be changed in the upcoming draft for the

1:00:51 ↗ streams only

1:00:54 ↗ yeah for not for the wetlands but for

1:00:56 ↗ the streams it was a little bit

1:00:58 ↗ difficult you know

1:01:00 ↗ the the idea was uh based on public

1:01:02 ↗ comments that the best available science

1:01:04 ↗ and so

1:01:06 ↗ um

1:01:06 ↗ is gearing towards what less you know

1:01:10 ↗ and the streams are difficult for buffer

1:01:12 ↗ averaging because they meander through

1:01:13 ↗ and so

1:01:15 ↗ and we really don't get that many

1:01:16 ↗ requests for buffer averaging for

1:01:18 ↗ streams um but they're also difficult to

1:01:21 ↗ implement

1:01:22 ↗ um because of the meandering nature of

1:01:24 ↗ the streams and the flowing water

1:01:27 ↗ okay can you

1:01:29 ↗ summarize then what the rationale would

1:01:31 ↗ be

1:01:32 ↗ for

1:01:34 ↗ not doing buffer averaging on streams

1:01:36 ↗ but continuing that practice for

1:01:38 ↗ the sure wetlands sure

1:01:41 ↗ so um you know in the stream section i

1:01:42 ↗ was going to talk about um

1:01:45 ↗ you still know buffer reduction so we've

1:01:47 ↗ incorporated the fish and wildlife

1:01:49 ↗ stream classification so there are four

1:01:51 ↗ classifications we currently have five

1:01:52 ↗ we have a fifth one that has a 25 foot

1:01:55 ↗ buffer um so we're eliminating the 25

1:01:58 ↗ foot so that's going up to 50 feet

1:02:01 ↗ and we fix the definition for ditch

1:02:05 ↗ and stream that perpetually we get

1:02:07 ↗ debates about those

1:02:09 ↗ but the public comments related to

1:02:11 ↗ streams were that

1:02:13 ↗ perhaps were not using the best

1:02:14 ↗ available signs for

1:02:16 ↗ changing the buffers

1:02:19 ↗ and the reference was to the latest uh

1:02:22 ↗ 2020 study from fish and wildlife uh

1:02:25 ↗ that bases the buffers based on dominant

1:02:28 ↗ tree species and um

1:02:31 ↗ and uh so our analysis of that has has

1:02:35 ↗ had mixed uh results i mean there are a

1:02:37 ↗ lot of um people that feel that it

1:02:40 ↗ doesn't really in an urban environment

1:02:42 ↗ there are some unintended implications

1:02:44 ↗ from that um people will not redevelop

1:02:47 ↗ and therefore the water quality

1:02:50 ↗ that can improve whether redevelopment

1:02:52 ↗ potentially could not um

1:02:55 ↗ the buffer widths um it's not the same

1:02:58 ↗ level of guidance that we're getting

1:03:00 ↗ from department of ecology for the

1:03:02 ↗ wetlands so there's a little bit of a

1:03:04 ↗ distinction between

1:03:06 ↗ best available signs for streams which

1:03:08 ↗ comes from fish and wildlife versus the

1:03:10 ↗ wetlands which comes from department of

1:03:12 ↗ ecology the other complicating factor

1:03:15 ↗ for us is we have two streams which are

1:03:18 ↗ designated shoreline

1:03:21 ↗ so

1:03:22 ↗ those

1:03:22 ↗ [Music]

1:03:24 ↗ are approved by department of ecology in

1:03:26 ↗ 2019 update that we did ecology approved

1:03:30 ↗ it

1:03:30 ↗ the shoreline designation from shoreline

1:03:33 ↗ management act has a really different

1:03:36 ↗ slightly different focus so the

1:03:39 ↗ water dependent uses are important under

1:03:41 ↗ the sma

1:03:43 ↗ the public access is important under the

1:03:45 ↗ sma gma which has more focus of

1:03:48 ↗ protection

1:03:50 ↗ is um

1:03:52 ↗ is it is you know so we have that

1:03:54 ↗ interplay between our streams because we

1:03:55 ↗ have two streams that are waters of the

1:03:57 ↗ state designated shoreline

1:03:59 ↗ um so given

1:04:01 ↗ all you know this is one item that we

1:04:03 ↗ wanted to put on the whiteboard

1:04:06 ↗ of all the things that we fixed in the

1:04:07 ↗ code because it's so new guidance

1:04:10 ↗ none of our neighboring cities have

1:04:12 ↗ done these new buffers under the new

1:04:14 ↗ methodology based on our discussions

1:04:16 ↗ with ecology it seemed

1:04:19 ↗ a little premature to go down that path

1:04:21 ↗ at this point we felt that we have taken

1:04:24 ↗ this code to the point where we could by

1:04:28 ↗ putting it in four classifications by

1:04:30 ↗ increasing some of the buffers so

1:04:32 ↗ the you know the 25 feet goes to uh 50

1:04:35 ↗ feet the 75 feet buffer goes to 100 foot

1:04:38 ↗ buffer and fix this definition of dutch

1:04:41 ↗ versus stream

1:04:42 ↗ what we really would like to do in the

1:04:44 ↗ future if you go if you agree to put it

1:04:47 ↗ on the whiteboard would be to do an

1:04:48 ↗ on-the-site assessment perhaps with

1:04:50 ↗ public works

1:04:51 ↗ um you know looking at water and and

1:04:54 ↗ doing more of an inventory of what's on

1:04:55 ↗ the ground how does it impact the flood

1:04:58 ↗ plain how does the storm water impact

1:05:00 ↗ and what are these buffers that from

1:05:02 ↗ this new study mean in issaquah's

1:05:05 ↗ context

1:05:06 ↗ um so given that we got the public

1:05:10 ↗ comment on that we figured at a minimum

1:05:13 ↗ to address that public comment we could

1:05:15 ↗ say no more buffer

1:05:18 ↗ averaging so at least it'll meet those

1:05:20 ↗ minimum buffers which was different than

1:05:22 ↗ the wetlands

1:05:23 ↗ so that was the distinction between

1:05:25 ↗ those two

1:05:27 ↗ thank you

1:05:29 ↗ the other things for the streams we did

1:05:31 ↗ similar density credit uh was in the

1:05:33 ↗ code we've taken you know we've

1:05:35 ↗ eliminated that storm water facilities

1:05:37 ↗ we've made that clear one other thing

1:05:39 ↗ that we've added is uh if you're

1:05:41 ↗ impacting a culvert it needs to be fish

1:05:43 ↗ friendly um so we've added reference to

1:05:48 ↗ the guidelines that require for um

1:05:52 ↗ for that uh

1:05:54 ↗ so let's see

1:05:57 ↗ um so this is just

1:06:00 ↗ a graph that shows what the existing

1:06:02 ↗ buffers are and

1:06:04 ↗ what

1:06:05 ↗ the

1:06:06 ↗ proposed buffers would be as you can see

1:06:10 ↗ this 25 foot is going up to

1:06:12 ↗ 100 feet some of our class 2

1:06:15 ↗ that non-salmon

1:06:17 ↗ containing uh would be classified as the

1:06:20 ↗ other one so some of these 75-foot

1:06:22 ↗ streams would actually become a hundred

1:06:24 ↗ foot buffer so there are some increase

1:06:26 ↗ in buffers and elimination of the last

1:06:28 ↗ uh type of the stream that is not

1:06:31 ↗ matched up with fish and wildlife

1:06:33 ↗ classification

1:06:34 ↗ um

1:06:36 ↗ let's see

1:06:38 ↗ this is a brand new section that did not

1:06:41 ↗ exist in our code um

1:06:43 ↗ and this is the fish and wildlife

1:06:45 ↗ habitat conservation area so gma

1:06:47 ↗ gives us this authority to have this

1:06:50 ↗ section

1:06:51 ↗ and it goes above and beyond the

1:06:53 ↗ wetlands and the streams to incorporate

1:06:55 ↗ natural areas and habitats for plant and

1:06:57 ↗ animal species

1:07:00 ↗ so anything um you know federal estate

1:07:02 ↗ listed endangered threatened or

1:07:04 ↗ sensitive all waters of the state

1:07:06 ↗ habitat corridors

1:07:08 ↗ natural areas such as lakes of mammoth

1:07:10 ↗ state park squawk and tiger mountain all

1:07:13 ↗ will have some additional protections

1:07:15 ↗ um this is just an example of the

1:07:18 ↗ priority habitat species map that um

1:07:21 ↗ is a state map and you can click on your

1:07:23 ↗ parcel and see what the priority you

1:07:26 ↗ know what important species there are

1:07:28 ↗ so

1:07:29 ↗ with this code backing us up we could

1:07:32 ↗ get a biologist to go out to the site

1:07:35 ↗ determine what those protections need to

1:07:37 ↗ be if there are those

1:07:38 ↗ wildlife habitat corridors or

1:07:42 ↗ any protections then we we would have

1:07:46 ↗ you know

1:07:46 ↗ an opportunity to ask for additional

1:07:50 ↗ protections

1:07:51 ↗ the last topic here is the shoreline

1:07:53 ↗ master program and this is something

1:07:56 ↗ that i think came to council in 2019

1:07:59 ↗ and you all wanted some additional work

1:08:02 ↗ done on this uh one of it was you know

1:08:05 ↗ look at common line setback and we did a

1:08:08 ↗ study of this with the gis and the

1:08:11 ↗ consultant and we determined that we

1:08:13 ↗ could eliminate the common line setback

1:08:15 ↗ so it is not a huge impact to the

1:08:17 ↗ property owners um everyone would have

1:08:19 ↗ to meet the minimum setback of you know

1:08:21 ↗ whatever 50 feet that we've adopted we

1:08:24 ↗ have in the existing code

1:08:26 ↗ an incentive that you would get a

1:08:28 ↗ smaller buffer if and these are things

1:08:30 ↗ that only apply to lake sammamish

1:08:33 ↗ and that you could get a smaller buffer

1:08:35 ↗ if you reduce the bulkhead

1:08:37 ↗ we've

1:08:38 ↗ looked at that and that's now eliminated

1:08:41 ↗ in this code and just our requirement

1:08:43 ↗ that if you build a new home or you're

1:08:45 ↗ redeveloping more than 50 of the value

1:08:47 ↗ you have to remove your bulkhead and do

1:08:49 ↗ a more ecologically friendly shoreline

1:08:53 ↗ we've added dock lighting standards

1:08:56 ↗ again

1:08:57 ↗ reduction in lighting levels

1:09:00 ↗ to protect

1:09:01 ↗ wildlife and habitat so that's the

1:09:04 ↗ extent of changes for the s p

1:09:07 ↗ and obviously as we work through the

1:09:09 ↗ critical areas code i think that came

1:09:11 ↗ into them public comments

1:09:13 ↗ because the smp has to be adopted by

1:09:15 ↗ department of ecology there are

1:09:17 ↗ references to critical areas code and we

1:09:19 ↗ would update those references we would

1:09:21 ↗ work with ecology on that so um that

1:09:24 ↗ that's the other part that will get

1:09:26 ↗ fixed here

1:09:30 ↗ i think that takes us to

1:09:32 ↗ this topic

1:09:35 ↗ okay so before we move on to outdoor

1:09:37 ↗ lighting just checking if we have any

1:09:39 ↗ questions

1:09:40 ↗ regarding the past few topics

1:09:43 ↗ checking in with councilmember d

1:09:45 ↗ michelle nothing there

1:09:49 ↗ um

1:09:50 ↗ going over my notes seeing if i have

1:09:52 ↗ anything

1:09:53 ↗ okay i think we are good to go on to

1:09:56 ↗ outdoor lighting great

1:09:58 ↗ so this one um

1:10:00 ↗ you know the changes here are really um

1:10:03 ↗ we have three different codes one in the

1:10:05 ↗ central issaquah the old town and the

1:10:07 ↗ cbd

1:10:08 ↗ uh so we're consolidating all of those

1:10:11 ↗ um we're basing it on the dark skies

1:10:13 ↗ associations model lighting ordinance

1:10:17 ↗ we have some residential

1:10:19 ↗ you know current code doesn't really

1:10:20 ↗ apply to residential we're going to

1:10:22 ↗ regulate it but we're not going to make

1:10:24 ↗ it so onerous and require permits for

1:10:26 ↗ that so the lighting levels will apply

1:10:28 ↗ we'll have a public outreach and an

1:10:30 ↗ educational component to to get the word

1:10:33 ↗ out on that

1:10:34 ↗ um

1:10:35 ↗ there are some small and simple

1:10:36 ↗ non-residential and multi-family you

1:10:38 ↗ know up to seven units they don't need a

1:10:40 ↗ lighting designer to come come up with a

1:10:43 ↗ plan we have some more prescriptive

1:10:45 ↗ uh kind of standards that they can use

1:10:47 ↗ um

1:10:49 ↗ and um you know here are three samples

1:10:52 ↗ the first one i think is an example

1:10:53 ↗ where

1:10:56 ↗ it's no common open space i think the

1:10:58 ↗ code says seven units this one has eight

1:11:00 ↗ units but we wouldn't really require

1:11:02 ↗ them uh for a permit um for lighting

1:11:04 ↗ levels but they we would share what the

1:11:07 ↗ code you know what the lighting level

1:11:08 ↗ should be

1:11:09 ↗ uh the middle is more of a

1:11:12 ↗ building that's slightly less than 4 000

1:11:14 ↗ square feet and a side acre of half acre

1:11:18 ↗ in these cases we would have a more

1:11:19 ↗ prescriptive approach so they don't have

1:11:21 ↗ to hire a lighting designer but they can

1:11:24 ↗ meet the lumens of the fixtures that

1:11:26 ↗ they

1:11:27 ↗ choose

1:11:28 ↗ the larger projects obviously would have

1:11:30 ↗ to hire a lighting designer give us a

1:11:32 ↗ lighting plan and we would review it and

1:11:34 ↗ get it peer-reviewed

1:11:37 ↗ some more details

1:11:39 ↗ about the applicability within the three

1:11:42 ↗ different

1:11:43 ↗ locations that we shared in the the

1:11:45 ↗ previous slide

1:11:48 ↗ same threshold discussion some of the

1:11:51 ↗ comments we heard from the public during

1:11:53 ↗ this was

1:11:55 ↗ you know not so much about the dark sky

1:11:57 ↗ ordinance but how do how do we deal with

1:12:00 ↗ accent lighting and is that going to be

1:12:02 ↗ more um restrictive than our current

1:12:05 ↗ code

1:12:06 ↗ and so the existing code allows

1:12:10 ↗ some of these um accent lights uh the

1:12:13 ↗ language isn't that clear

1:12:15 ↗ um under the proposed uh

1:12:18 ↗ you know code it does get more

1:12:20 ↗ prescriptive

1:12:22 ↗ you're limited to 15 feet above grade so

1:12:24 ↗ you can't have the top of the building

1:12:27 ↗ lit up

1:12:28 ↗ but

1:12:29 ↗ if there is an accent lighting and you

1:12:31 ↗ have an eve that doesn't let the light

1:12:34 ↗ shoot up into the sky we have some other

1:12:36 ↗ provisions like that

1:12:38 ↗ but this is one area where we did get

1:12:40 ↗ some comments about um

1:12:42 ↗ perhaps

1:12:43 ↗ we need to loosen it a little bit more

1:12:46 ↗ again we haven't had full discussion

1:12:48 ↗ with ppc on the lighting topic so um we

1:12:51 ↗ don't know exactly you know they um are

1:12:54 ↗ going to ask us to go back and look at

1:12:56 ↗ the accent lighting a little bit more um

1:12:59 ↗ the previous discussions with planning

1:13:00 ↗ and policy commission were really pro a

1:13:04 ↗ lot of people felt the dark skies was

1:13:06 ↗ the direction we needed to go

1:13:09 ↗ so that's

1:13:10 ↗ lighting

1:13:11 ↗ okay let me see if there are any

1:13:13 ↗ questions on outdoor lighting

1:13:18 ↗ not seeing any so i'll just go ahead and

1:13:20 ↗ ask mine

1:13:22 ↗ after i read this code i couldn't help

1:13:23 ↗ but look around at buildings and trying

1:13:27 ↗ to understand

1:13:28 ↗ what accent lighting

1:13:30 ↗ and building lighting would be allowed

1:13:33 ↗ and so i'm wondering

1:13:35 ↗ you know

1:13:36 ↗ what types of buildings do we have

1:13:39 ↗ currently

1:13:40 ↗ obviously anybody's existing lighting is

1:13:43 ↗ not going to be impacted or have a

1:13:45 ↗ requirement but it

1:13:47 ↗ are there examples of situations where

1:13:52 ↗ this could potentially come in conflict

1:13:54 ↗ that would be good example projects that

1:13:57 ↗ maybe ppc could review

1:14:00 ↗ i'm just trying to trying to understand

1:14:02 ↗ the nuances of

1:14:04 ↗ how that how that code

1:14:07 ↗ comes into play in real life

1:14:10 ↗ yeah um lucy are you on the call uh

1:14:14 ↗ that you could take that

1:14:16 ↗ question

1:14:23 ↗ i am not immediately thinking of

1:14:26 ↗ projects in issaquah would that be

1:14:29 ↗ interplay

1:14:30 ↗ uh because that hasn't been

1:14:37 ↗ the kind of very strong accent lighting

1:14:40 ↗ for instance that you see um

1:14:43 ↗ the t-mobile buildings that that kind of

1:14:46 ↗ thing's not really been a

1:14:49 ↗ popular factor for us

1:14:51 ↗ um but friends i will i will point out

1:14:55 ↗ that the uh example on the slide that

1:14:58 ↗ you currently see the top one

1:15:01 ↗ the

1:15:02 ↗ lights up towards the top that sort of

1:15:04 ↗ appear right below the cornice

1:15:07 ↗ um those would be allowed because they

1:15:10 ↗ are captured by what appears to be

1:15:14 ↗ so um

1:15:17 ↗ not trying to

1:15:20 ↗ we're just simply trying to balance

1:15:23 ↗ between highlighting the architecture

1:15:26 ↗ and ensuring that

1:15:33 ↗ okay and

1:15:35 ↗ lucy just as a note

1:15:37 ↗ it sounds like your

1:15:39 ↗ mic might be having some issues we're

1:15:41 ↗ getting a little bit of a garbled

1:15:43 ↗ sound so just so you check it out before

1:15:45 ↗ any next steps um and it looks like we

1:15:48 ↗ have a question from councilmember d

1:15:50 ↗ michelle

1:15:54 ↗ thank you council president walsh um

1:15:57 ↗ this may be a totally uh off the grid

1:16:01 ↗ question but i'll ask it anyway you know

1:16:03 ↗ i noticed over the holidays that the uh

1:16:06 ↗ that front street we had a huge amount

1:16:09 ↗ of lighting go in and what i've noticed

1:16:11 ↗ is that uh some of that lighting is

1:16:14 ↗ sort of stained permanently on the

1:16:16 ↗ buildings there

1:16:17 ↗ are these

1:16:19 ↗ would these um

1:16:22 ↗ proposed differences uh eliminate that

1:16:25 ↗ kind of um

1:16:27 ↗ lighting that i guess i would classify

1:16:30 ↗ as holiday lighting or

1:16:32 ↗ it looked like it was temporary but i'm

1:16:34 ↗ seeing that some of it's becoming

1:16:35 ↗ permanent do you have any comment about

1:16:38 ↗ how that kind of

1:16:41 ↗ lighting might be affected by these

1:16:43 ↗ regulations

1:16:44 ↗ sure

1:16:45 ↗ so under our code

1:16:48 ↗ you're allowed to have temporary

1:16:51 ↗ seasonal lighting for 78 days

1:16:55 ↗ um

1:16:56 ↗ and what

1:16:57 ↗ we are proposing and that that's really

1:17:00 ↗ focused at the end of the year

1:17:03 ↗ what we

1:17:05 ↗ proposed is

1:17:06 ↗ temporary seasonal or festival lighting

1:17:09 ↗ limited to 60 days

1:17:12 ↗ because we recognize that it does happen

1:17:14 ↗ on various times of the year

1:17:17 ↗ um

1:17:18 ↗ and that kind of lighting is exempt from

1:17:21 ↗ regulation

1:17:22 ↗ and that's because the bulbs are

1:17:25 ↗ pretty

1:17:27 ↗ minor it's uh equivalent to 70 watts

1:17:31 ↗ we did get questions from the public and

1:17:34 ↗ it's a really great question

1:17:36 ↗ um

1:17:37 ↗ that

1:17:38 ↗ we had carried in to the code

1:17:42 ↗ coalition

1:17:47 ↗ and there was the point that that is

1:17:49 ↗ often a um

1:17:51 ↗ kind of delightful seasonal addition

1:17:54 ↗ and so

1:17:56 ↗ that was one of the things that we want

1:17:58 ↗ to talk to

1:17:59 ↗ see about to try and strike the right

1:18:02 ↗ balance between making something exempt

1:18:05 ↗ and uh having it around all of the time

1:18:08 ↗ so that's one of our policy questions

1:18:10 ↗ for them

1:18:14 ↗ thank you lucy

1:18:15 ↗ okay and lucy we're still getting quite

1:18:17 ↗ a garbled check so just uh

1:18:20 ↗ may want to reconnect or something like

1:18:22 ↗ that yep thanks

1:18:25 ↗ um so do you have a

1:18:27 ↗ little bit more summary before we go to

1:18:30 ↗ general

1:18:31 ↗ um questions and public comment no i

1:18:33 ↗ yeah i think we just wanted to say what

1:18:35 ↗ the next steps would be um

1:18:37 ↗ like i said before we would need to go

1:18:39 ↗ back and circle back with planning and

1:18:41 ↗ policy commission after this meeting

1:18:43 ↗ before we do a public hearing with ppc

1:18:46 ↗ on a consolidated draft and then your

1:18:48 ↗ formal review and decision will occur in

1:18:51 ↗ september to december but we're hoping

1:18:53 ↗ that today you can uh at least give us

1:18:56 ↗ some high level

1:18:58 ↗ um

1:18:58 ↗ you know guidance on do you think

1:19:01 ↗ that we're headed in the right direction

1:19:04 ↗ the proposed changes meet the golden

1:19:06 ↗ outcomes or are there any additional

1:19:08 ↗ topics that you'd like to see in the

1:19:10 ↗ final

1:19:11 ↗ draft

1:19:12 ↗ that's it

1:19:14 ↗ okay

1:19:15 ↗ go ahead and council president just the

1:19:17 ↗ the note on the last slide regarding the

1:19:19 ↗ next meeting date

1:19:21 ↗ we actually are thinking that we would

1:19:23 ↗ take the next title 18 topic and send it

1:19:25 ↗ to the appropriate committee um that's

1:19:28 ↗ being looked at for the following week i

1:19:30 ↗ think may 3rd

1:19:32 ↗ so that's i think probably what we'll

1:19:33 ↗ end up doing unless the council we got a

1:19:36 ↗ lot of stuff for that last study session

1:19:38 ↗ so we would we would prefer just to move

1:19:40 ↗ it a week that's right yeah yeah i did

1:19:43 ↗ talk to tisha so yeah that that is

1:19:45 ↗ incorrect on the slide on

1:19:47 ↗ april 26

1:19:49 ↗ instead of that it would go to the

1:19:50 ↗ committee's uh structure that they came

1:19:52 ↗ in may okay yeah okay

1:19:55 ↗ um so i'm going to see if we can ask

1:19:57 ↗ some general questions to make sure that

1:20:00 ↗ you know anything that didn't fit into

1:20:02 ↗ any of those individual buckets and then

1:20:05 ↗ after we finish with questions we'll go

1:20:07 ↗ to public comments

1:20:09 ↗ so um deputy council president hall uh

1:20:13 ↗ thank you just real quick then on the

1:20:14 ↗ timeline since that was just up uh so

1:20:18 ↗ between september and december coming

1:20:20 ↗ back for final city council review and

1:20:21 ↗ adoption is that

1:20:23 ↗ um at a regular city council meeting

1:20:26 ↗ meaning we get kind of one touch when

1:20:27 ↗ it's all put together for adoption or

1:20:29 ↗ are we imagining that coming to a

1:20:32 ↗ council the whole meeting

1:20:33 ↗ first as it's

1:20:36 ↗ we're seeing it as one package for the

1:20:38 ↗ first time and then a regular meeting

1:20:40 ↗ have we thought that through yeah you

1:20:41 ↗ know i anticipate it'll be a few

1:20:42 ↗ meetings with the council at that point

1:20:45 ↗ um and

1:20:46 ↗ committee of the whole before you're

1:20:48 ↗ taking action you know you might want to

1:20:51 ↗ make some changes at that point or

1:20:53 ↗ whatever so i i'm expecting that we will

1:20:55 ↗ come to committee as a whole

1:20:57 ↗ get feedback come back again to the

1:20:59 ↗ committee of the whole and then bring

1:21:01 ↗ that as an ordinance or a series of

1:21:03 ↗ ordinances for adoption

1:21:05 ↗ okay well and it might not be that we

1:21:07 ↗ have any you know suggested changes at

1:21:09 ↗ that point but to have several weeks to

1:21:11 ↗ read it is also helpful yes so yeah

1:21:14 ↗ absolutely thanks

1:21:18 ↗ councilmember joe

1:21:20 ↗ thank you i'm not sure several weeks

1:21:21 ↗ will be enough time but we'll see

1:21:24 ↗ um

1:21:25 ↗ thank you for the hard work on on this

1:21:27 ↗ title 18

1:21:29 ↗ project i wanted to comment that

1:21:31 ↗ i really appreciated

1:21:33 ↗ eliminating the 25 buffer reductions for

1:21:35 ↗ wetlands um

1:21:37 ↗ oftentimes there would be a development

1:21:39 ↗ that would come in it would get the

1:21:40 ↗ special treatment so to speak and have a

1:21:43 ↗ reduction in its buffer

1:21:44 ↗ but then

1:21:45 ↗ as time went on as you pointed out the

1:21:47 ↗ buffer would be reduced by people

1:21:49 ↗ putting a shed there or perhaps a

1:21:52 ↗ parking space migrating a little bit

1:21:54 ↗ into the buffer zone or what have you

1:21:55 ↗ and i really appreciated the fact that

1:21:57 ↗ you took a look at it and tried to find

1:21:59 ↗ ways that would reduce

1:22:01 ↗ the burden on the code enforcement

1:22:03 ↗ person or the planner having to come out

1:22:06 ↗ to that location when they get a phone

1:22:08 ↗ call from a neighbor or a phone call

1:22:10 ↗ from a concerned citizen

1:22:12 ↗ and then having the code enforcement

1:22:13 ↗ person or the planner having to

1:22:15 ↗ interpret the code or measure out the

1:22:17 ↗ distance and then

1:22:19 ↗ you know try to find some mitigation or

1:22:21 ↗ some solution there

1:22:23 ↗ i was wondering if there are other

1:22:24 ↗ opportunities as you've looked at title

1:22:26 ↗ 18 where we can reduce

1:22:28 ↗ the

1:22:29 ↗ burden on

1:22:30 ↗ interpretation for either planning or

1:22:32 ↗ for the code enforcement officers

1:22:35 ↗ so that we are more certain in our code

1:22:37 ↗ in terms of what we expect so that the

1:22:40 ↗ developer or the person that occupies

1:22:41 ↗ that facility later will know that the

1:22:45 ↗ wetland buffers are there for a reason

1:22:47 ↗ they should be maintained or are there

1:22:49 ↗ other areas in the code

1:22:51 ↗ title 18 excuse me that you're looking

1:22:52 ↗ at where we can reduce the burden on our

1:22:54 ↗ staff and our code enforcement to um

1:22:57 ↗ have to go out and do that kind of

1:22:59 ↗ meticulous

1:23:00 ↗ enforcement and i don't necessarily need

1:23:03 ↗ an answer today but if there are i'd

1:23:05 ↗ certainly like

1:23:06 ↗ planning and code enforcement perhaps to

1:23:08 ↗ get together and see if there are other

1:23:10 ↗ opportunities where we can take

1:23:11 ↗ advantage of that in title 18

1:23:13 ↗ as we go forward

1:23:15 ↗ no absolutely good question i mean i

1:23:17 ↗ think through the code update we we have

1:23:19 ↗ that filter on because we our current

1:23:21 ↗ code has a lot of these things called

1:23:23 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

1:23:26 ↗ without really a good criteria and it's

1:23:28 ↗ very arbitrary sometimes in our opinion

1:23:31 ↗ so that doesn't work for staff that

1:23:33 ↗ doesn't work for the applicants because

1:23:35 ↗ we can't give them a yes or no answer

1:23:36 ↗ it's a maybe and then it'll get folded

1:23:39 ↗ in at the tail end of the project so we

1:23:42 ↗ obviously want to clean up uh those

1:23:44 ↗ pieces uh that are those gray areas um

1:23:47 ↗ and and be more predictable in our code

1:23:50 ↗ for sure

1:23:51 ↗ great thank you very much

1:23:55 ↗ okay trying to see if we have any other

1:23:58 ↗ general questions okay let me look over

1:24:03 ↗ my

1:24:05 ↗ notes

1:24:09 ↗ okay so similar toward that idea

1:24:13 ↗ one of the

1:24:14 ↗ comments that we received was about

1:24:17 ↗ tightening up

1:24:18 ↗ language so that the code language is

1:24:21 ↗ more enforceable

1:24:22 ↗ and so i wonder

1:24:24 ↗ how

1:24:25 ↗ we plan to approach that do we have a

1:24:28 ↗ general approach do we have a at what

1:24:31 ↗ point are we looking and doing a review

1:24:33 ↗ toward the

1:24:35 ↗ shell rather than may um in any of that

1:24:38 ↗ type of language yeah you know um our

1:24:41 ↗ intent was to have the style guide where

1:24:43 ↗ we were really clear about when to use

1:24:45 ↗ the certain terminology so it's

1:24:47 ↗ consistent so so when we started

1:24:50 ↗ embarked on this journey we have that

1:24:51 ↗ style guide we kind of follow the rules

1:24:54 ↗ for when this term is applied and when

1:24:56 ↗ it means obviously when we are writing

1:24:59 ↗ and you know and it evolves through the

1:25:01 ↗ public process and the comments are

1:25:02 ↗ added

1:25:03 ↗ we will do a

1:25:04 ↗ absolutely we're committed to doing and

1:25:06 ↗ editing and cleanup of the language and

1:25:08 ↗ making sure where we have a word may

1:25:10 ↗ it it's really clear that it's not just

1:25:13 ↗ discretion that that someone could use

1:25:15 ↗ it to to argue their way out of the the

1:25:18 ↗ discussion so um and then in addition

1:25:20 ↗ the reference checks and all that so

1:25:22 ↗ that will you know once we get the

1:25:23 ↗ policy and the the big issues taken care

1:25:26 ↗ of

1:25:26 ↗ we are trying to be upfront and and be

1:25:29 ↗ clear with the language but it will need

1:25:31 ↗ the scrub uh once all the different

1:25:33 ↗ buckets are done and consistent so we'll

1:25:36 ↗ continue to revise and revisit those

1:25:38 ↗ issues

1:25:40 ↗ okay so i'm hearing when the policy is

1:25:44 ↗ kind of

1:25:44 ↗ decided or when you've gotten

1:25:46 ↗ uh that point and we've finished the

1:25:48 ↗ buckets

1:25:49 ↗ then you plan to do a full review so

1:25:53 ↗ that will happen before it comes back to

1:25:56 ↗ council for

1:25:57 ↗ that longer set of review okay

1:26:01 ↗ okay

1:26:02 ↗ and uh deputy council president hall

1:26:05 ↗ uh thank you very much

1:26:06 ↗ dr dollywall um i was wondering if you

1:26:09 ↗ could speak a little bit more to the

1:26:11 ↗ feedback that we've gotten from lakeside

1:26:13 ↗ industries and how we're

1:26:16 ↗ working with them they referenced in

1:26:18 ↗ their letter and

1:26:19 ↗ tonight during public comment that they

1:26:21 ↗ were working with staff and i noticed in

1:26:23 ↗ the

1:26:26 ↗ spreadsheet that we have too

1:26:27 ↗ that we were

1:26:29 ↗ working or meeting with lakeside

1:26:30 ↗ representatives is scheduled to discuss

1:26:32 ↗ proposed regulations so i was wondering

1:26:34 ↗ if you could speak to this a little bit

1:26:36 ↗ more and if the administration has any

1:26:38 ↗ updated recommendations on how to move

1:26:40 ↗ forward based on there sure um you know

1:26:42 ↗ um we we're absolutely committed to

1:26:44 ↗ working with them

1:26:46 ↗ understanding their concerns and

1:26:47 ↗ explaining what the the regulations are

1:26:50 ↗ really intending to do which is to

1:26:51 ↗ protect the drinking water supply not

1:26:53 ↗ necessarily to to have a negative impact

1:26:56 ↗ on any business but just watching out

1:26:58 ↗ for the long term of drinking water

1:27:00 ↗ supply so so i think i've talked to um

1:27:04 ↗ you know john who spoke tonight we've

1:27:07 ↗ had good

1:27:09 ↗ communication and and i think we we are

1:27:11 ↗ understanding their concerns at this

1:27:13 ↗ point we want to share the report with

1:27:15 ↗ them we want to have further sit down

1:27:17 ↗ with them to to see i mean the the code

1:27:20 ↗ itself right now the existing code and

1:27:23 ↗ the new code has exemptions for mining

1:27:26 ↗ that was put in place since 1999.

1:27:29 ↗ so erosion hazards steep slopes those

1:27:32 ↗ things because mining is a unique thing

1:27:35 ↗ they were exempted from that under the

1:27:37 ↗ current language in the code so we

1:27:39 ↗ haven't proposed any changes to that

1:27:41 ↗ the critical area for recharge i think

1:27:44 ↗ some of their concerns are

1:27:46 ↗ getting a copy of the report and why

1:27:49 ↗ does the boundaries snap to the

1:27:51 ↗ parcel boundary and not uh have a you

1:27:54 ↗ know a more natural environment so we're

1:27:56 ↗ we're gonna

1:27:57 ↗ get to the bottom of those

1:27:59 ↗ give them the information see how we can

1:28:01 ↗ address their concerns

1:28:03 ↗ my understanding is that they're most

1:28:04 ↗ concerned about becoming non-conforming

1:28:06 ↗ and what that means and so uh to the

1:28:09 ↗ extent we can work with them within what

1:28:11 ↗ we are trying to achieve and protect the

1:28:13 ↗ drinking water supply for cara

1:28:15 ↗ we'll continue those discussions with

1:28:16 ↗ them

1:28:21 ↗ okay so i'm not seeing any other council

1:28:24 ↗ member questions so i think at this time

1:28:28 ↗ we will open up to public comment

1:28:32 ↗ and so clerk um do we have anybody

1:28:36 ↗ signed up well i guess not signed up

1:28:39 ↗ indicating a desire to speak

1:28:46 ↗ council president

1:28:48 ↗ i see

1:28:49 ↗ one person well

1:28:52 ↗ i see one person with their virtual hand

1:28:55 ↗ raised

1:28:57 ↗ connie marsh

1:28:59 ↗ ms marsh i'm making you a panelist

1:29:02 ↗ now you should now see the option to

1:29:03 ↗ unmute and turn on your video

1:29:06 ↗ i didn't mean to confuse you i was just

1:29:08 ↗ trying to get your attention by raising

1:29:10 ↗ and lowering my hand

1:29:12 ↗ okay so

1:29:14 ↗ um i was expecting actually a little

1:29:16 ↗ stop after each topic so you guys are

1:29:18 ↗ gonna

1:29:20 ↗ you're gonna get shotgunned sorry about

1:29:22 ↗ that it's sort of the format that i'm

1:29:24 ↗ stuck with

1:29:25 ↗ um

1:29:27 ↗ so

1:29:27 ↗ steep slopes remember it has to have a

1:29:29 ↗ 20 foot rise

1:29:31 ↗ at 40 percent grade before it's

1:29:33 ↗ considered a steep slope so if you get

1:29:36 ↗ the map that was provided before

1:29:39 ↗ it does not give you that fine grain of

1:29:42 ↗ detail it just gives you basically an

1:29:44 ↗ overlay of the topography not how tall

1:29:47 ↗ the rise is so if you want something

1:29:51 ↗ more realistic i think they are going to

1:29:53 ↗ have to do a little bit of work so

1:29:56 ↗ in watching our steep slope regulations

1:29:59 ↗ for the past 20 years

1:30:02 ↗ my perspective on what they're doing for

1:30:04 ↗ this changing code is incorporating what

1:30:07 ↗ we had finally gotten to as best

1:30:09 ↗ management practices

1:30:11 ↗ that we have done for i don't know

1:30:13 ↗ probably

1:30:14 ↗ eight years and they're incorporating it

1:30:18 ↗ into code

1:30:19 ↗ and so well i think it's good to put it

1:30:21 ↗ into code

1:30:22 ↗ i don't think it's tighter i don't think

1:30:25 ↗ it's necessarily an improvement it's

1:30:27 ↗ basically the same numbers the same

1:30:29 ↗ safety factors and the same criteria

1:30:32 ↗ that we had always used in the past it's

1:30:35 ↗ just now it's codified and um

1:30:39 ↗ so i don't think we're changing anything

1:30:42 ↗ or very little very little so the

1:30:45 ↗ the um

1:30:47 ↗ using the

1:30:50 ↗ sliding scale for buffers at least would

1:30:54 ↗ be

1:30:55 ↗ something

1:30:56 ↗ um

1:30:57 ↗ and so i vote for sliding scales for

1:31:00 ↗ buffers

1:31:01 ↗ now let's go to

1:31:03 ↗ variances in the past i've gone through

1:31:06 ↗ the variance process

1:31:08 ↗ a lot and you would start out can you

1:31:11 ↗ fit everything in your place do you need

1:31:13 ↗ a variance uh yes we need a variance

1:31:16 ↗ and you aim for the variance and they

1:31:18 ↗ look at the property and they say wow we

1:31:20 ↗ can do nothing because we are entirely

1:31:23 ↗ critical area constrained so a single

1:31:26 ↗ variance won't work it won't get us what

1:31:28 ↗ we need we can't develop which led you

1:31:30 ↗ straight into what we call the

1:31:32 ↗ reasonable use variance in the very same

1:31:34 ↗ chapter in a linear method almost in a

1:31:37 ↗ question and answer okay can you do what

1:31:40 ↗ you need to do with just a variance yes

1:31:42 ↗ no you're still constrained we'll we

1:31:44 ↗ have to then look at a reasonable use

1:31:47 ↗ variance and to me that makes more sense

1:31:50 ↗ than

1:31:51 ↗ the format where your reasonable use

1:31:54 ↗ exemption

1:31:55 ↗ is in an entirely different chapter and

1:31:57 ↗ it doesn't seem to give you a flow of

1:32:00 ↗ where you are going to need to go if

1:32:02 ↗ you're 100 critical area constrained

1:32:06 ↗ they have not changed the language in

1:32:08 ↗ the economic use

1:32:11 ↗ and so it's hard to understand

1:32:14 ↗ what language will change

1:32:17 ↗ um and i i keep smacking up against that

1:32:20 ↗ one thing

1:32:21 ↗ that they did not talk about is uh

1:32:24 ↗ they're adding pete as a topic of

1:32:27 ↗ conversation for protection and pete's

1:32:29 ↗ been in the news lately we excavated an

1:32:32 ↗ enormous amount of peat for the gateway

1:32:34 ↗ project and it was a terrible thing

1:32:36 ↗ there were no rules and regulations for

1:32:39 ↗ it i could not stop it nobody could stop

1:32:41 ↗ it and so we did a terribly harmful

1:32:43 ↗ thing on our valley floor by excavating

1:32:46 ↗ all of that peat and so now it looks

1:32:49 ↗ like they're going to be including some

1:32:51 ↗ rules and regulations or at least

1:32:52 ↗ looking into it for uh peat excavation

1:32:56 ↗ uh which i think is a great thing

1:32:59 ↗ now uh wetlands

1:33:01 ↗ so again and this was a flaw in our

1:33:03 ↗ former code the wetlands themselves have

1:33:06 ↗ not been addressed for um

1:33:08 ↗ improvement it's only the wetland buffer

1:33:11 ↗ so you could have a fairly poor wetland

1:33:13 ↗ and then you'd have to enhance the

1:33:14 ↗ buffer around it but you'd still have a

1:33:16 ↗ poor wetland which we found made very

1:33:19 ↗ little sense over time

1:33:21 ↗ and um when they were still river and

1:33:23 ↗ streams there were a lot of

1:33:24 ↗ conversations about well we're improving

1:33:26 ↗ the buffer but our wetland is filled

1:33:28 ↗ with weeds but we have to leave them

1:33:30 ↗ because we aren't supposed to do

1:33:31 ↗ anything to the wetland and

1:33:33 ↗ this code is promulgating that flaw

1:33:37 ↗ in addition to that they are saying that

1:33:38 ↗ they only have to improve those buffers

1:33:42 ↗ if it goes uh below 50 percent i'm just

1:33:46 ↗ going to

1:33:47 ↗ call them invasives in that buffer

1:33:50 ↗ but what this will do is this will just

1:33:52 ↗ make everybody not really want to

1:33:54 ↗ maintain their buffers except to that

1:33:56 ↗ you know right above that 50 standard so

1:33:59 ↗ then they don't have to do anything but

1:34:01 ↗ they actually don't ever have to have a

1:34:02 ↗ really good buffer even if they had to

1:34:05 ↗ enhance the buffer then they have to

1:34:07 ↗ maintain it in perpetuity to

1:34:11 ↗ only 10 invasive standard so to me

1:34:14 ↗ that's a conflict that needs to be

1:34:16 ↗ resolved we need good buffers we need

1:34:18 ↗ great wetlands we do not need people to

1:34:21 ↗ erode their critical areas because then

1:34:23 ↗ it's going to be better for their

1:34:25 ↗ developability

1:34:26 ↗ of their parcels

1:34:29 ↗ also

1:34:30 ↗ um well well it was presented that we

1:34:34 ↗ were taking the storm water facilities

1:34:36 ↗ out of wetland buffers in the public

1:34:38 ↗ utility exemption

1:34:40 ↗ exceptions

1:34:42 ↗ exemptions actually um

1:34:45 ↗ we are allowing all of those storm water

1:34:49 ↗ uh utilities that are public to be in

1:34:53 ↗ our critical area buffers even in our

1:34:55 ↗ best top quality critical areas in areas

1:35:01 ↗ by use of

1:35:03 ↗ well they can't do it anywhere else and

1:35:05 ↗ it's for the health and safety well

1:35:08 ↗ storm water of course you're going to

1:35:10 ↗ get that really easily so

1:35:13 ↗ you can't say you're protecting if then

1:35:17 ↗ you allow it as an exemption

1:35:20 ↗ with

1:35:22 ↗ in the same sense so at least be honest

1:35:24 ↗ and say but public utilities they're

1:35:26 ↗ going to be able to put all this stuff

1:35:28 ↗ in the critical area buffers

1:35:30 ↗ anyway um

1:35:31 ↗ streams basically it's not based in any

1:35:34 ↗ of best available science in the past

1:35:36 ↗ when we did streams we had a report we

1:35:39 ↗ grew through what best available science

1:35:42 ↗ was and who supported it and and how and

1:35:45 ↗ why and now

1:35:47 ↗ department of fish and wildlife has come

1:35:49 ↗ out with that guidance which they state

1:35:52 ↗ can be used for best available science

1:35:54 ↗ this code indicates that they are using

1:35:57 ↗ the fish and wildlife

1:35:58 ↗ guidance yet they are not using that

1:36:02 ↗ manual as support it sounds like people

1:36:05 ↗ don't like the buffers that might

1:36:08 ↗ be required or uh expected and so

1:36:13 ↗ i'm not sure it's that that's a

1:36:15 ↗ political debate it's best available

1:36:17 ↗ science it's not who wants the buffers

1:36:20 ↗ to be

1:36:21 ↗ how big

1:36:23 ↗ right and so

1:36:24 ↗ i guess i insist

1:36:26 ↗ that when we have a

1:36:29 ↗ a

1:36:29 ↗ title 18 update that is largely about

1:36:33 ↗ our streams and our chinook salmon that

1:36:36 ↗ are endangered that we actually insist

1:36:39 ↗ that we get our best available science

1:36:41 ↗ put into place during that code update

1:36:44 ↗ not on a white board in the future now

1:36:47 ↗ i'm almost done you guys really i am

1:36:49 ↗ i've gone through each draft chapter for

1:36:53 ↗ title 18 line by line

1:36:56 ↗ and edited out what i thought were

1:36:58 ↗ issues it's very hard to understand

1:37:01 ↗ because of the loose language

1:37:03 ↗ um i can't even quite fathom

1:37:06 ↗ that they are getting toward the goals

1:37:08 ↗ that they talk about at this meeting

1:37:10 ↗ and so i'm not sure

1:37:13 ↗ i i the details

1:37:16 ↗ the conflicts the mushy language the

1:37:18 ↗ allowed deviations that's one huge thing

1:37:21 ↗ and i i suspect it's going to require

1:37:24 ↗ um a consultant to do that language to

1:37:27 ↗ get it all in the same

1:37:29 ↗ voice and so last one is lighting

1:37:32 ↗ the question is what problem are we

1:37:34 ↗ really trying to solve with lighting the

1:37:36 ↗ problems that i have are safety we don't

1:37:38 ↗ have enough lighting too much light like

1:37:40 ↗ costco in under development across the

1:37:43 ↗ valley floor it just glows issaqua

1:37:46 ↗ highlands it glows

1:37:48 ↗ so

1:37:49 ↗ uh when i heard this last they were

1:37:51 ↗ going looking at single-family housing

1:37:54 ↗ and trying to regulate lighting for

1:37:55 ↗ single-family housing and i don't know

1:37:58 ↗ that that's the problem that we're

1:38:00 ↗ trying to solve i think we're trying to

1:38:01 ↗ solve the larger

1:38:03 ↗ situations where you have visible light

1:38:06 ↗ pollution

1:38:08 ↗ and that is where this code

1:38:11 ↗ should be focused and indeed that was

1:38:13 ↗ fast but that was the end one last thing

1:38:17 ↗ if you all want my detailed edits just

1:38:19 ↗ let me know it's great reading bye

1:38:23 ↗ we appreciate you connie

1:38:25 ↗ um

1:38:26 ↗ and

1:38:28 ↗ clerk i know you're working on the idle

1:38:30 ↗ tv standby but can you see if we have

1:38:33 ↗ anybody else signed up to

1:38:35 ↗ uh speak

1:38:38 ↗ no one else uh has their virtual hand

1:38:41 ↗ raised at the moment council president

1:38:43 ↗ okay

1:38:44 ↗ it looks like we've got

1:38:46 ↗ city administrator bob quits looking for

1:38:48 ↗ a remote so that we can get the

1:38:50 ↗ piece off of our little tv screen here

1:38:54 ↗ um

1:38:55 ↗ so

1:38:56 ↗ uh given that we are through public

1:38:59 ↗ comment for this agenda item it is now

1:39:03 ↗ to council member feedback

1:39:06 ↗ and so we've done questions in order but

1:39:10 ↗ i'm not sure we necessarily need to do

1:39:12 ↗ feedback in that

1:39:14 ↗ same breakdown of order so we're looking

1:39:17 ↗ for

1:39:18 ↗ general feedback there was also two sets

1:39:22 ↗ of

1:39:23 ↗ questions from the administration which

1:39:26 ↗ was do the proposed changes fully meet

1:39:28 ↗ the goals and outcomes intended for this

1:39:30 ↗ topic update and are there any

1:39:33 ↗ additional topics for staff to consider

1:39:35 ↗ when making final edits to the draft

1:39:37 ↗ code

1:39:38 ↗ so do we have anyone who would like to

1:39:41 ↗ take a stab at

1:39:43 ↗ first topic of title 18

1:39:45 ↗ first tonight

1:39:48 ↗ oh

1:39:49 ↗ that's council member ray

1:39:54 ↗ thank you council president um

1:39:56 ↗ uh first

1:39:57 ↗ i think it's great that you're working

1:39:59 ↗ with the lakeside

1:40:01 ↗ folks and that we will be able to

1:40:03 ↗ incorporate their proposed changes into

1:40:06 ↗ title 18 if possible moving forward so

1:40:09 ↗ um thank you for for taking that on um

1:40:12 ↗ i'm going to be kind of general in my

1:40:14 ↗ comments um i think um overall i

1:40:16 ↗ appreciate that we're getting very

1:40:18 ↗ specific about the language and we're

1:40:20 ↗ driving the vagueness and ambiguity

1:40:22 ↗ that's been kind of our um

1:40:24 ↗ problems with our current code and

1:40:26 ↗ eliminating administrative adjustments

1:40:29 ↗ of standards is i think a win-win both

1:40:31 ↗ for the

1:40:32 ↗ the people who um

1:40:34 ↗ need to permit and also for our staff

1:40:37 ↗ and i also think it just provides for a

1:40:39 ↗ more transparent and more consistent

1:40:40 ↗ government

1:40:42 ↗ and

1:40:44 ↗ i think that we are doing um the right

1:40:47 ↗ thing here

1:40:48 ↗ and i'm excited about it but i have two

1:40:50 ↗ hesitations that i for you to ponder

1:40:53 ↗ that are very global one is what's the

1:40:55 ↗ process as we go through this so in 10

1:40:57 ↗ years from now we're not back here

1:40:59 ↗ having the same conversation about the

1:41:02 ↗ code has gotten out of uh out of

1:41:04 ↗ alignment so how do we make sure going

1:41:05 ↗ forward that we are um

1:41:08 ↗ maintaining that internal consistency

1:41:11 ↗ and that that's something that we do

1:41:13 ↗ intentionally and not kind of uh ad hoc

1:41:15 ↗ at hockey in an ad hoc manner

1:41:19 ↗ and then also

1:41:21 ↗ that we take a step back and we we

1:41:23 ↗ elevate ourselves and we say

1:41:25 ↗ in total if all of these compieces are

1:41:28 ↗ done and they're right does it get us

1:41:30 ↗ what we want so you know sometimes you

1:41:32 ↗ break down your your comp your problem

1:41:34 ↗ and you address each component and you

1:41:36 ↗ nail each one and you

1:41:38 ↗ sub optimize the whole so at some point

1:41:40 ↗ we need to make sure that we are looking

1:41:41 ↗ at this systematically and looking at

1:41:43 ↗ the hole and making sure that what that

1:41:45 ↗ this code comes together that not only

1:41:47 ↗ is each are each of the components

1:41:48 ↗ optimized but that we've optimized for

1:41:50 ↗ the whole

1:41:56 ↗ um councilmember hunt

1:41:59 ↗ thank you um councilmember ray i just

1:42:01 ↗ wondered if that was a question for

1:42:03 ↗ if there was an approach on if you

1:42:05 ↗ wanted to have an answer to your

1:42:06 ↗ question on the approach or if that's

1:42:07 ↗ something for us to ponder i think it's

1:42:09 ↗ something for um us to ponder but i also

1:42:12 ↗ think it's something that i would love

1:42:13 ↗ to see staff come back with and i don't

1:42:15 ↗ need it today so that's why it was more

1:42:17 ↗ of a comment than a question thank you

1:42:18 ↗ though

1:42:22 ↗ okay

1:42:24 ↗ so i

1:42:25 ↗ first wanted to say that i appreciated

1:42:28 ↗ the

1:42:29 ↗ chart that explains how different

1:42:31 ↗ changes may were made to address the

1:42:33 ↗ different goals and how the feedback

1:42:35 ↗ from ppc used or was going to be used

1:42:38 ↗ that's something that

1:42:40 ↗ i thought would be a helpful way to

1:42:42 ↗ organize it and it in fact i think

1:42:44 ↗ really helps structure the conversation

1:42:46 ↗ and helps me understand the materials

1:42:48 ↗ really much more clearly so wanted to

1:42:50 ↗ start with that and the appreciation on

1:42:52 ↗ that

1:42:53 ↗ also appreciated the thoughtful comments

1:42:55 ↗ that came to us from the environmental

1:42:57 ↗ board and planning policy commission

1:42:59 ↗ which are both included in our materials

1:43:02 ↗ this evening

1:43:03 ↗ of those i i think it would be helpful

1:43:06 ↗ for future

1:43:09 ↗ to have

1:43:10 ↗ more of uh

1:43:12 ↗ um

1:43:14 ↗ more editing of those in terms of there

1:43:15 ↗ were some comments for example from the

1:43:17 ↗ environmental board that i think were

1:43:20 ↗ probably addre could have been addressed

1:43:22 ↗ to the environmental board and then

1:43:23 ↗ wouldn't need to be comments up to

1:43:25 ↗ council

1:43:26 ↗ so then we could really you know have

1:43:27 ↗ those feedback that are specific to

1:43:29 ↗ things that council can follow up on um

1:43:31 ↗ as policy items so just to give an

1:43:33 ↗ example of what i'm talking about there

1:43:35 ↗ was a comment in there about um that

1:43:37 ↗ that staff should consider

1:43:39 ↗ not

1:43:40 ↗ allowing the comment or not allowing the

1:43:43 ↗ common line set back in the bulkhead

1:43:45 ↗ for the other bodies of water that are

1:43:47 ↗ in the shoreline master program but it

1:43:48 ↗ actually always was only specific to

1:43:50 ↗ those so um just to

1:43:53 ↗ help with our process i think that would

1:43:54 ↗ be helpful in the future and then the

1:43:56 ↗ second process thing that i would

1:43:57 ↗ recommend is giving some time for those

1:44:01 ↗ those changes that um

1:44:03 ↗ you know

1:44:05 ↗ that you that staff agrees with the

1:44:07 ↗ recommendation on that section from

1:44:09 ↗ planning policy commission to give some

1:44:11 ↗ time between that meeting and our

1:44:13 ↗ meeting so that you could flag them in

1:44:16 ↗ the

1:44:17 ↗ code because i read the code i read our

1:44:20 ↗ packet

1:44:22 ↗ sequentially in alphabetical order with

1:44:24 ↗ the items and so i was reading you know

1:44:27 ↗ for example that changes will be made

1:44:29 ↗ per march 24th ppc discussion additional

1:44:32 ↗ options will be made and then the thing

1:44:34 ↗ about the buffer averaging will be

1:44:36 ↗ changed and then i was reading the code

1:44:37 ↗ and it wasn't there and i think because

1:44:40 ↗ and then for example i had this question

1:44:42 ↗ about whether it was streams or wetland

1:44:44 ↗ buffer averaging so um and that was i

1:44:46 ↗ think partly because it wasn't flagged

1:44:48 ↗ like where it was in the code but there

1:44:49 ↗ would be a change to that so i think

1:44:51 ↗ that would be helpful if you gave more

1:44:53 ↗ time and then even if those changes

1:44:55 ↗ couldn't be made they could also be

1:44:56 ↗ flagged in the code so we could have

1:44:58 ↗ that consistency and so when we're

1:44:59 ↗ reading it we can better use our

1:45:02 ↗ imagination rather than trying to sort

1:45:04 ↗ of

1:45:06 ↗ trace back and forth between the

1:45:07 ↗ documents

1:45:09 ↗ but again really appreciate the feedback

1:45:10 ↗ from the commissions so these are just

1:45:13 ↗ minor

1:45:14 ↗ requests that i think will help our

1:45:16 ↗ process going forward if they could be

1:45:18 ↗ integrated into the process for the next

1:45:20 ↗ steps and i also

1:45:22 ↗ felt that it hopefully will be helpful

1:45:24 ↗ because we have five more or you know a

1:45:26 ↗ bunch more chapters so we're going to do

1:45:27 ↗ this a bunch more times so hopefully

1:45:28 ↗ that's that's useful for our process

1:45:32 ↗ um

1:45:32 ↗ so i reviewed the

1:45:35 ↗ meeting we had on september 14th of 2021

1:45:38 ↗ to kind of jog my memory and think about

1:45:40 ↗ what comments council had made

1:45:42 ↗ previously and i wanted to

1:45:44 ↗ bring forward some of those comments for

1:45:46 ↗ our consideration again because i think

1:45:48 ↗ um

1:45:49 ↗ there were a number of really good

1:45:50 ↗ comments made and while many of them

1:45:52 ↗ were addressed some of them could

1:45:54 ↗ potentially be addressed when this comes

1:45:55 ↗ back

1:45:56 ↗ one of them is um there was a discussion

1:45:59 ↗ about how

1:46:00 ↗ using the lens of how we honor

1:46:03 ↗ our

1:46:04 ↗ partnership with

1:46:05 ↗ uh

1:46:06 ↗ with the tribes i know there was a

1:46:08 ↗ partnership with the snoqualmie tribe to

1:46:10 ↗ review this but

1:46:12 ↗ if we could specifically provide more

1:46:14 ↗ information about how

1:46:15 ↗ we are working with um

1:46:18 ↗ with the tribes that i think would be

1:46:20 ↗ helpful and i didn't see that

1:46:22 ↗ specifically in this document and that

1:46:24 ↗ is a very important partnership to the

1:46:26 ↗ city and very important to this

1:46:28 ↗ environmental chapter and its review i

1:46:30 ↗ think and that was raised by

1:46:31 ↗ councilmember martz at that meeting

1:46:34 ↗ another thing that we discussed and

1:46:37 ↗ that i wanted to

1:46:39 ↗ request

1:46:40 ↗ more emphasis on is there seems to be a

1:46:42 ↗ change between that meeting and this

1:46:45 ↗ meeting both in the materials and then

1:46:47 ↗ also in the discussion this evening

1:46:50 ↗ from

1:46:51 ↗ trying to go for ecological gain to

1:46:54 ↗ no net loss

1:46:56 ↗ so in the

1:46:57 ↗ september 21st meeting there's

1:46:59 ↗ specifically

1:47:01 ↗ a discussion about how

1:47:03 ↗ the proposed approach will align

1:47:05 ↗ isoqua's regulations with best available

1:47:07 ↗ science to achieve ecological gain

1:47:09 ↗ and the words ecological gain

1:47:11 ↗ actually don't appear anywhere in our

1:47:13 ↗ packet this evening so i do think that

1:47:15 ↗ that is still

1:47:16 ↗ a good you know very high level 60 000

1:47:19 ↗ foot or however we're

1:47:21 ↗ phrasing it now um

1:47:23 ↗ a goal you know i think that that should

1:47:25 ↗ still be our north star and should still

1:47:27 ↗ be a goal um if we're always doing no

1:47:30 ↗ net loss the the issue from an

1:47:32 ↗ ecological standpoint with that as a

1:47:34 ↗ sort of philosophy is that our habitat

1:47:37 ↗ and our wetlands will degrade over time

1:47:39 ↗ there is climate change there's a number

1:47:41 ↗ of the other factors so if you're always

1:47:43 ↗ just saying well we can't make it worse

1:47:45 ↗ than where it is that natural

1:47:46 ↗ degradation over time will just keep

1:47:48 ↗ happening and

1:47:51 ↗ that's i think not what the community

1:47:53 ↗ expects from

1:47:54 ↗ our code so

1:47:56 ↗ uh i would

1:47:58 ↗ i would

1:48:00 ↗ like to see that ecological gain lens

1:48:03 ↗ applied

1:48:05 ↗ again and where we can see restoration

1:48:07 ↗ instead of the no net loss i think that

1:48:09 ↗ would be

1:48:10 ↗ that would be

1:48:11 ↗ a good

1:48:13 ↗ pass to take over this and see if we can

1:48:16 ↗ strengthen

1:48:17 ↗ um strengthen things strengthen

1:48:19 ↗ restoration make sure we're

1:48:21 ↗ stressing enhancement not just

1:48:24 ↗ no not just

1:48:26 ↗ not making it worse um so where possible

1:48:28 ↗ i would like to see that strengthened i

1:48:30 ↗ did find also

1:48:32 ↗ a definition for ecological gain um if

1:48:35 ↗ that's helpful

1:48:36 ↗ since it's a little bit jargony and so

1:48:38 ↗ it says um this is from

1:48:41 ↗ uh this is from a house bill where they

1:48:44 ↗ were

1:48:45 ↗ advocating for ecological gain instead

1:48:47 ↗ of known at loss from i think a couple

1:48:49 ↗ years ago it says under net ecological

1:48:51 ↗ gain proponents must first avoid and

1:48:53 ↗ minimize impacts before moving to

1:48:55 ↗ additional steps in mitigation

1:48:56 ↗ sequencing i think that would be that

1:48:58 ↗ would be a good standard for us and also

1:49:01 ↗ that the concept of net ecological gain

1:49:03 ↗ is defined as a standard for development

1:49:05 ↗ policy

1:49:07 ↗ project policy plan development

1:49:08 ↗ regulation or activity in which the

1:49:10 ↗ environmental impacts caused by

1:49:11 ↗ developments are outweighed by measures

1:49:13 ↗ to mitigate the impacts so i think again

1:49:16 ↗ if we could look at it through that lens

1:49:17 ↗ and see how we can strengthen our

1:49:19 ↗ protections and see if we could achieve

1:49:21 ↗ ecological gains

1:49:22 ↗ that would be

1:49:23 ↗ i think aligned with

1:49:25 ↗ where the community wants us to go with

1:49:27 ↗ this code update for

1:49:29 ↗ for our natural environment

1:49:32 ↗ and

1:49:33 ↗ let's see

1:49:35 ↗ um

1:49:37 ↗ one other

1:49:39 ↗ one other

1:49:41 ↗ thing on the best available science is

1:49:43 ↗ mentioned there is a new best available

1:49:45 ↗ science for the stream buffers i do

1:49:48 ↗ think this is our opportunity to use

1:49:49 ↗ that even if we're on the front end of

1:49:52 ↗ of users of that amongst the cities so i

1:49:55 ↗ think uh that would be something i would

1:49:57 ↗ like for planning policy to consider as

1:50:00 ↗ well when you return to them the other

1:50:02 ↗ thing for planning policy is um the

1:50:05 ↗ wetland buffer averaging

1:50:08 ↗ i personally think that

1:50:10 ↗ the reasons you have a wetland buffer

1:50:13 ↗ um like the wetland doesn't care where

1:50:16 ↗ you are along the buffer so

1:50:18 ↗ uh it's it's all important to the

1:50:20 ↗ ecological integrity of the wetlands so

1:50:22 ↗ i would like to have planning policy

1:50:25 ↗ consider

1:50:26 ↗ the wetland buffer averaging for the

1:50:28 ↗ same sort of ecological integrity

1:50:30 ↗ reasons that the stream buffer averaging

1:50:32 ↗ is not

1:50:33 ↗ being allowed um i think potentially we

1:50:36 ↗ shouldn't allow that averaging

1:50:40 ↗ and then

1:50:44 ↗ my last comment is one thing

1:50:47 ↗ that

1:50:49 ↗ so in addition to this chart where we

1:50:51 ↗ have the goals and how they're met by

1:50:53 ↗ the code which i think is

1:50:56 ↗ is helpful

1:50:58 ↗ if there are changes that are being made

1:51:00 ↗ that don't address goals but are made

1:51:02 ↗ because of other

1:51:03 ↗ reasons like there's a requirement in

1:51:05 ↗ law for example this reasonable use

1:51:08 ↗ section on the hazard areas that's

1:51:10 ↗ actually new

1:51:12 ↗ um

1:51:12 ↗ [Music]

1:51:13 ↗ if there's a reason for those changes i

1:51:16 ↗ think that should also just be added and

1:51:18 ↗ and why because otherwise we'll have the

1:51:20 ↗ question of why and so i think that will

1:51:22 ↗ help us better understand why those

1:51:24 ↗ changes are made

1:51:30 ↗ okay do we have other

1:51:32 ↗ comments

1:51:36 ↗ no

1:51:37 ↗ and checking with

1:51:39 ↗ councilmember d michelle

1:51:43 ↗ seeing if we've got any

1:51:47 ↗ oh you physically raised your hand

1:51:49 ↗ rather than comment go right ahead

1:51:52 ↗ go for it

1:51:54 ↗ uh we'll get the system down

1:51:58 ↗ i'll i'll be brief

1:52:00 ↗ first of all i really appreciate the

1:52:01 ↗ conversation that my fellow council

1:52:03 ↗ members have had tonight uh learned a

1:52:06 ↗ lot just from listening so thank you to

1:52:08 ↗ everybody

1:52:10 ↗ i i also wanted to say that i

1:52:14 ↗ did appreciate the layout of the

1:52:16 ↗ information that was described earlier

1:52:19 ↗ um

1:52:20 ↗ uh responses to the comments from ppc

1:52:24 ↗ and i thought that was very helpful and

1:52:26 ↗ i you know again i think we've said many

1:52:28 ↗ times that we find those charts very

1:52:31 ↗ helpful for understanding the

1:52:33 ↗ the uh public input

1:52:36 ↗ that we we receive um

1:52:39 ↗ i think overall

1:52:41 ↗ um

1:52:43 ↗ i'm just a little uh feeling a little

1:52:45 ↗ bit that uh

1:52:48 ↗ that uh we're not we're just not quite

1:52:50 ↗ there yet and i know that we're in the

1:52:53 ↗ middle of the process

1:52:55 ↗ uh

1:52:56 ↗ so but there were there were things that

1:52:58 ↗ i wondered about for example

1:53:00 ↗ um

1:53:01 ↗ there were many references to putting

1:53:03 ↗ things on on the whiteboard

1:53:05 ↗ and uh i guess i would like to learn

1:53:08 ↗ more um as we go forward

1:53:10 ↗ about uh how those decisions are made

1:53:13 ↗ and why things are put on the white

1:53:15 ↗ board and not

1:53:16 ↗ carried forward so

1:53:18 ↗ um just something going forward again if

1:53:21 ↗ we could get explanations for why things

1:53:23 ↗ are

1:53:24 ↗ not

1:53:25 ↗ no longer being considered that would be

1:53:27 ↗ very helpful to me

1:53:29 ↗ um

1:53:30 ↗ and then

1:53:32 ↗ i have

1:53:34 ↗ i discussed with deputy council

1:53:36 ↗ president hall earlier

1:53:38 ↗ it would be helpful for those of us who

1:53:40 ↗ don't have that land use background and

1:53:42 ↗ don't have uh

1:53:43 ↗ a lot of the references

1:53:46 ↗ if we could uh perhaps

1:53:49 ↗ have smaller group discussions or as was

1:53:52 ↗ said earlier maybe these will get

1:53:54 ↗ referred to our committee so we'll be

1:53:56 ↗ able to go into more depth but for those

1:53:59 ↗ of us that don't have that land to use

1:54:01 ↗ background um

1:54:02 ↗ uh it would have been helpful to have

1:54:04 ↗ had more reading time and it would have

1:54:06 ↗ been helpful to uh perhaps have

1:54:10 ↗ conversations to help

1:54:12 ↗ just help work our way through the

1:54:14 ↗ information because

1:54:16 ↗ as councilmember joe said it is a lot of

1:54:18 ↗ information to absorb in just a few days

1:54:20 ↗ so

1:54:22 ↗ um anyway but i do appreciate goodness

1:54:25 ↗ what a huge body of work has already

1:54:27 ↗ been produced and i know there's going

1:54:29 ↗ to be a lot more so thank you to the

1:54:31 ↗ staff for the work that's been done

1:54:33 ↗ thank you

1:54:37 ↗ okay checking again with my fellow

1:54:39 ↗ council members yup uh deputy council

1:54:42 ↗ president hall

1:54:43 ↗ uh thank you very much just super

1:54:44 ↗ briefly then so um some of the

1:54:46 ↗ directions on the record i just wanted

1:54:48 ↗ to

1:54:49 ↗ briefly uh plus one to a lot of the

1:54:51 ↗ things that councilmember hunt

1:54:53 ↗ shared regarding ecological gain the

1:54:56 ↗ wetland and streams buffer

1:54:58 ↗ considerations i think are very

1:54:59 ↗ interesting

1:55:00 ↗ to hear more from

1:55:02 ↗ planning policy commission on that um

1:55:05 ↗ and then also the tribal partnerships i

1:55:06 ↗ thought that was a really good point um

1:55:09 ↗ a couple of

1:55:11 ↗ quick things that i wanted to say in

1:55:12 ↗ addition mostly director dolly wall the

1:55:14 ↗ rest of the staff i'm a wonderful job i

1:55:17 ↗ think you guys are doing a fantastic job

1:55:19 ↗ with the ppc and with the environmental

1:55:21 ↗ board i'm largely very happy with the

1:55:23 ↗ direction of where we're headed on

1:55:24 ↗ everything i think there are some things

1:55:26 ↗ where we can consider

1:55:29 ↗ should we be bold here um you know

1:55:32 ↗ ecological gain is certainly one of

1:55:33 ↗ those things that we can get into and

1:55:35 ↗ consider as at a high level 100 000 foot

1:55:38 ↗ or whatever we're calling it

1:55:40 ↗ um policy question for council to

1:55:42 ↗ consider so but anyways um largely very

1:55:44 ↗ well done and thank you

1:55:48 ↗ i noticed that our feet level has gone

1:55:50 ↗ up from 10 000 to 50 to 60 to 100 i mean

1:55:56 ↗ steep slope

1:55:58 ↗ there we go way to keep it on topic

1:56:01 ↗ there council member ray

1:56:03 ↗ um okay any other comments otherwise

1:56:07 ↗ that councilmember hunt

1:56:10 ↗ i had i had one other um comment that i

1:56:12 ↗ forgot to say earlier

1:56:14 ↗ which is i i appreciate the direction

1:56:17 ↗ that ppc is going with the um additional

1:56:21 ↗ options for further tightening steep

1:56:23 ↗ slope buffers and then i think there's

1:56:24 ↗ another one

1:56:25 ↗ um where it's sort of similar where it

1:56:28 ↗ says um

1:56:30 ↗ you know considering options for for

1:56:32 ↗ reducing variances and for tightening

1:56:34 ↗ the language there's a bunch of things

1:56:36 ↗ where it sounds like planning policy

1:56:37 ↗ commission

1:56:38 ↗ made those recommendations and those

1:56:40 ↗ will be changed in the next draft so i

1:56:42 ↗ wanted to

1:56:44 ↗ say i'm on board with those changes it's

1:56:45 ↗ a little hard to know

1:56:48 ↗ because the options aren't presented to

1:56:50 ↗ us this evening which

1:56:51 ↗ option would be best for that but

1:56:54 ↗ generally speaking as strong as possible

1:56:56 ↗ i think the

1:56:57 ↗ protections on these steep slopes should

1:57:00 ↗ they should be as strong as possible

1:57:01 ↗ because we want to

1:57:03 ↗ have safe developments for the public

1:57:05 ↗ safety this is a really important issue

1:57:07 ↗ for for isco where we have so many steep

1:57:09 ↗ slopes the other thing from our

1:57:11 ↗ september 14th meeting which backs that

1:57:13 ↗ up is we have this discussion about

1:57:15 ↗ critical areas are critical for a reason

1:57:17 ↗ shoreline buffers are shoreline for

1:57:18 ↗ shoreline buffers for a reason um

1:57:21 ↗ so i think

1:57:23 ↗ that still stands and

1:57:24 ↗ everything we can do to protect

1:57:27 ↗ those areas um we should continue to

1:57:30 ↗ move that direction and

1:57:32 ↗ appreciate the planning policy

1:57:34 ↗ commission also seemingly moving that

1:57:36 ↗ direction

1:57:40 ↗ okay so i think i'm gonna take my time

1:57:42 ↗ to give some comments so as a first to

1:57:46 ↗ staff i know i have asked a lot for a

1:57:48 ↗ lot of different ways of

1:57:52 ↗ feedback here so that we can really

1:57:54 ↗ understand and get into this and i think

1:57:56 ↗ you hit that you did a great job

1:57:59 ↗ providing the summaries of ppc's

1:58:04 ↗ feedback

1:58:05 ↗ so that it was understandable and

1:58:08 ↗ had a sense of

1:58:10 ↗ um

1:58:11 ↗ you know where the disagreements were i

1:58:13 ↗ think i personally preferred the

1:58:16 ↗ environmental boards um kind of the way

1:58:20 ↗ that was kind of summarized into topics

1:58:22 ↗ rather than necessarily the back and

1:58:24 ↗ forth but i it really was important to

1:58:27 ↗ me to see where there were areas of

1:58:29 ↗ disagreement so that i could use that as

1:58:32 ↗ a framework for interpreting the code

1:58:34 ↗ and reading over the draft code so i

1:58:36 ↗ really appreciate that

1:58:38 ↗ the goals and outcomes chart in being

1:58:40 ↗ able to show that full flow

1:58:43 ↗ from

1:58:44 ↗ here's our goal here's the outcome we

1:58:46 ↗ want to see here's the proposed change

1:58:48 ↗ that we're going to make and

1:58:51 ↗ doing all of that

1:58:53 ↗ and showing it on these kind of high

1:58:56 ↗ level goals of hey we want to protect

1:58:58 ↗ our forested hillsides

1:59:00 ↗ that is also really important as a way

1:59:02 ↗ to

1:59:04 ↗ review

1:59:05 ↗ our intent

1:59:07 ↗ and

1:59:08 ↗ what we

1:59:09 ↗ have received as a proposal here so

1:59:12 ↗ i really like

1:59:13 ↗ all of that um i also want to see us

1:59:17 ↗ take another look at the steep slope

1:59:19 ↗ buffers

1:59:20 ↗ look at the vertical

1:59:22 ↗ heights and not just grade

1:59:24 ↗ give an opportunity to really do that

1:59:27 ↗ protection that the community is looking

1:59:29 ↗ for

1:59:30 ↗ in lots of different ways so that we

1:59:33 ↗ understand that the difference between a

1:59:35 ↗ 20-foot and a 200-foot

1:59:39 ↗ hillside as you said is is very much a

1:59:41 ↗ different experience

1:59:44 ↗ i'd like to see us

1:59:47 ↗ taking a look at

1:59:49 ↗ wetlands and streams even though the

1:59:53 ↗ information is coming from two different

1:59:56 ↗ state

1:59:56 ↗ departments um

1:59:58 ↗ just really understanding what what is

2:00:00 ↗ the most that we can do from the

2:00:02 ↗ protection especially in regards to the

2:00:05 ↗ buffer averaging um i think we can

2:00:08 ↗ really find the the science that helps

2:00:11 ↗ us protect this the best and do it in a

2:00:15 ↗ way that is even inappropriate across

2:00:18 ↗ both

2:00:18 ↗ of those important areas

2:00:21 ↗ and

2:00:23 ↗ then generally as i was trying to

2:00:25 ↗ really

2:00:26 ↗ interpret some of these things the

2:00:29 ↗ showing the riva project and how that

2:00:34 ↗ review is done on the map and what the

2:00:37 ↗ impacts of the code were was really

2:00:39 ↗ eye-opening for me and so i would really

2:00:43 ↗ encourage for

2:00:45 ↗ not just each of these big bucket areas

2:00:48 ↗ but for the smaller bucket areas

2:00:52 ↗ sub buckets if we should say

2:00:55 ↗ doing something like that you know i

2:00:57 ↗ think as a council previously

2:01:00 ↗ when we have looked at code language

2:01:02 ↗ we've really liked asking for a sample

2:01:05 ↗ project

2:01:06 ↗ and so i think

2:01:08 ↗ that really helps us better understand

2:01:10 ↗ the implications of the changes and what

2:01:15 ↗ the outcomes are

2:01:17 ↗ not just

2:01:18 ↗ what the change is and what we think

2:01:20 ↗ it's going to do i think it also

2:01:23 ↗ powerfully demonstrates staff

2:01:25 ↗ you know maybe here's some of the issues

2:01:28 ↗ we have in trying to interpret the code

2:01:32 ↗ and so as i practice i think as we get

2:01:34 ↗ into this next section i would like to

2:01:37 ↗ see that

2:01:38 ↗ whether it's something that comes to

2:01:40 ↗ counsel or something that comes to ppc

2:01:42 ↗ or both

2:01:44 ↗ i think that just as a tool is really

2:01:46 ↗ important

2:01:47 ↗ and then

2:01:48 ↗ on the timeline i generally absolutely

2:01:53 ↗ agree with the concept of the schedule

2:01:56 ↗ that we proposed which was

2:01:59 ↗ go to ppc

2:02:01 ↗ finish up that

2:02:03 ↗ review

2:02:04 ↗ come to counsel with ppc's

2:02:07 ↗ recommendation on a topic

2:02:09 ↗ if we have questions and feedback it

2:02:11 ↗ goes

2:02:12 ↗ back to ppc but we don't it doesn't then

2:02:15 ↗ come back to us

2:02:17 ↗ in this case

2:02:18 ↗ i feel like there were a few areas that

2:02:20 ↗ just didn't get to that final point

2:02:23 ↗ with ppc whether it was the

2:02:26 ↗ outdoor lighting

2:02:27 ↗ or

2:02:28 ↗ [Music]

2:02:30 ↗ some of these steep slope

2:02:32 ↗ conversations um and then in general

2:02:35 ↗ some of the

2:02:37 ↗ recommendations from ppc on hey does

2:02:40 ↗ this achieve the goals and outcomes

2:02:43 ↗ um for each of the topic areas so that's

2:02:46 ↗ the only

2:02:48 ↗ if we had gotten through all of that

2:02:50 ↗ with ppc and we were seeing

2:02:52 ↗ more of a fully formed set of review and

2:02:55 ↗ feedback

2:02:56 ↗ i'd be fine with the process that we

2:02:59 ↗ have

2:03:00 ↗ at this point though i feel like there's

2:03:02 ↗ a lot of those question marks where i

2:03:04 ↗ just don't have

2:03:06 ↗ ppc's review in order to say yes okay

2:03:09 ↗ we're moving along in the right

2:03:11 ↗ direction

2:03:13 ↗ so looking at those questions from the

2:03:15 ↗ administration

2:03:17 ↗ do the proposed changes fully meet the

2:03:19 ↗ goals and outcomes intended for this

2:03:20 ↗ topic update

2:03:22 ↗ i think i can mostly say that but i

2:03:25 ↗ still have questions because ppc wasn't

2:03:27 ↗ able to get through some of those larger

2:03:31 ↗ things so that's where i would leave it

2:03:33 ↗ i guess i would ask the other council

2:03:36 ↗ members as we go back through those

2:03:38 ↗ administration questions you know where

2:03:40 ↗ do you feel like we are

2:03:42 ↗ what

2:03:43 ↗ are there any additional topics for

2:03:44 ↗ staff to consider and how do we feel

2:03:47 ↗ about that timeline so that's my

2:03:50 ↗ feedback and it looks like councilmember

2:03:52 ↗ martz

2:03:54 ↗ thank you council president yeah your

2:03:56 ↗ comments um

2:03:58 ↗ made me think of a couple things to

2:03:59 ↗ bring up um i want a plus one on the

2:04:01 ↗ example side i i flashed back to uh

2:04:05 ↗ my first three months on council we

2:04:09 ↗ dug into the shoreline master plan in

2:04:11 ↗ 2010 and having examples we had you know

2:04:14 ↗ plastic overlays where he said okay

2:04:16 ↗ here's a here's the situation on the

2:04:18 ↗ ground here's the current code here's

2:04:21 ↗ what it would look like

2:04:22 ↗ really helped us understand the

2:04:24 ↗ ramifications the public policy

2:04:26 ↗ ramifications of what we were doing uh

2:04:28 ↗ the second thing is i i appreciated very

2:04:30 ↗ much

2:04:31 ↗ uh

2:04:32 ↗ council member hall mentioning uh the

2:04:34 ↗ concern i had earlier about our

2:04:36 ↗ engagement with uh the coast salish

2:04:38 ↗ tribes and um i i i would like at

2:04:43 ↗ um you know

2:04:45 ↗ you know

2:04:46 ↗ the engagement is what it is on title 18

2:04:48 ↗ but i'm hoping that maybe this year we

2:04:50 ↗ can

2:04:52 ↗ have a more structured way

2:04:55 ↗ to describe how we want to engage the

2:04:57 ↗ tribes because i think that their input

2:05:00 ↗ is uh not only

2:05:02 ↗ uh

2:05:03 ↗ ethically important i think we have a

2:05:06 ↗ legal uh historical responsibility to

2:05:09 ↗ make them sort of

2:05:11 ↗ first among the stakeholders uh that we

2:05:14 ↗ have when on dealing with land issues

2:05:17 ↗ due to the treaties from the

2:05:19 ↗ mid-1800s thank you

2:05:25 ↗ okay

2:05:26 ↗ so i'm looking around the room

2:05:28 ↗ looking on comments with councilmember d

2:05:31 ↗ michelle seeing

2:05:33 ↗ where

2:05:34 ↗ i don't know if we've gotten to the

2:05:37 ↗ administration's question do the

2:05:38 ↗ proposed changes fully meet the goals

2:05:40 ↗ and outcomes intended for this topic

2:05:42 ↗ can we get a sense of

2:05:45 ↗ we've received feedback in various areas

2:05:49 ↗ how are we feeling

2:05:51 ↗ moving forward do we feel like we're

2:05:54 ↗ on target with the timeline

2:05:57 ↗ i want to give a

2:05:59 ↗ give a sense to the administration how

2:06:01 ↗ we feel

2:06:04 ↗ it's okay it's just our first touch on

2:06:06 ↗ title 18 it's no big deal

2:06:09 ↗ councilmember joe and then council

2:06:10 ↗ member mars thank you council president

2:06:13 ↗ walsh

2:06:14 ↗ i do think we're on schedule both in

2:06:16 ↗ terms of

2:06:18 ↗ the topics that we're focusing on and

2:06:19 ↗ the timeline i would encourage

2:06:22 ↗ the administration and the staff to

2:06:24 ↗ fully take the opportunity to

2:06:28 ↗ really explore the topics with ppc and

2:06:30 ↗ the other boards and commissions

2:06:34 ↗ from my point of view it's more

2:06:36 ↗ important that they have a full

2:06:38 ↗ and wholesome conversation about those

2:06:40 ↗ topics and give their full impact their

2:06:42 ↗ full comments back to us rather than

2:06:45 ↗ trying to hurry a report to us

2:06:48 ↗ that is incomplete and i'm not saying

2:06:50 ↗ that what you gave us tonight was

2:06:52 ↗ incomplete don't don't get me wrong but

2:06:54 ↗ i'm saying that

2:06:56 ↗ even if it seems that it might put our

2:06:58 ↗ schedule behind by a week or 10 days or

2:07:00 ↗ whatever it might be please take all the

2:07:02 ↗ opportunity to get those comments from

2:07:05 ↗ the volunteers that we really rely on in

2:07:07 ↗ our cities and our boards and

2:07:08 ↗ commissions to get information um and so

2:07:12 ↗ on question number one i think we're on

2:07:13 ↗ top i think we're on time i would

2:07:16 ↗ encourage

2:07:16 ↗ um

2:07:19 ↗ taking the the

2:07:21 ↗ all the time you need for the boards and

2:07:22 ↗ commissions along the way

2:07:24 ↗ and um i just as a personal request i

2:07:27 ↗ would love to see

2:07:29 ↗ the

2:07:30 ↗ water modeling that talked about the

2:07:32 ↗ raindrop and where it goes and i'll make

2:07:33 ↗ an appointment with with the

2:07:35 ↗ administration to try to try to see that

2:07:37 ↗ model thank you

2:07:41 ↗ okay councilmember martz

2:07:43 ↗ yeah um the the cake isn't baked yet

2:07:46 ↗ right i mean we have all the all the

2:07:48 ↗ ingredients are there you know we know

2:07:50 ↗ there's flour involved we know there's

2:07:53 ↗ baking soda involved we know there's

2:07:55 ↗ sugar and

2:07:56 ↗ what what not chocolate and but um it's

2:08:00 ↗ the cake isn't done we've heard from the

2:08:02 ↗ public we've heard from the

2:08:03 ↗ administration i like the general

2:08:05 ↗ direction that it's going but i wouldn't

2:08:08 ↗ want to misconstrue saying

2:08:10 ↗ uh sure it's going in the right general

2:08:12 ↗ direction you know we're still gonna in

2:08:14 ↗ the end we're gonna get something that's

2:08:16 ↗ got a bunch more work in it and if we

2:08:19 ↗ want to dig our heels in on an issue

2:08:21 ↗ based on

2:08:22 ↗ how we read it and how the public

2:08:24 ↗ responds to it then that may happen so

2:08:26 ↗ yeah sure i like it so far but it's uh

2:08:28 ↗ you know it's still aways from being

2:08:29 ↗ done thanks

2:08:32 ↗ i could take that cake analogy and just

2:08:34 ↗ go really far with it i appreciate it i

2:08:37 ↗ am now going to think of code as cake or

2:08:40 ↗ rather the code process

2:08:42 ↗ writing process

2:08:44 ↗ um okay so i've heard two standpoints of

2:08:49 ↗ we're moving forward

2:08:50 ↗ still work in progress appreciate the

2:08:52 ↗ feedback that we've received and we'll

2:08:56 ↗ continue to receive from

2:08:58 ↗ the

2:08:59 ↗ boards and commissions

2:09:01 ↗ anything else councilmember hunt

2:09:06 ↗ there are a couple areas where planning

2:09:08 ↗ policy commission i think didn't um due

2:09:11 ↗ to time have the ability to to get into

2:09:14 ↗ those topics

2:09:16 ↗ there's a couple places in our memo

2:09:18 ↗ where it says we'll continue discussion

2:09:19 ↗ with ppc but it really doesn't have a

2:09:22 ↗ recommendation on those areas um so i

2:09:24 ↗ think for those areas because we didn't

2:09:27 ↗ have the sort of full recommendation

2:09:30 ↗ to consider i think it would be helpful

2:09:32 ↗ to have those specific areas brought

2:09:35 ↗ back to council but not in the full

2:09:38 ↗ package because once we have the full

2:09:40 ↗ package we're going to have a lot

2:09:43 ↗ a lot on our plate so to to give those

2:09:45 ↗ sections their their due diligence and

2:09:49 ↗ have them

2:09:50 ↗ follow the same process as

2:09:52 ↗ everything else that we're considering

2:09:53 ↗ um that would be my suggestion or

2:09:56 ↗ request that we um

2:09:58 ↗ that we bring those back to council

2:10:04 ↗ city administrator bob quint

2:10:06 ↗ uh yes uh council president members of

2:10:09 ↗ the council

2:10:10 ↗ we're certainly prepared to do that for

2:10:12 ↗ those items that were not done again

2:10:14 ↗ you will not all see it because it's

2:10:16 ↗ going to now go to committee uh you'll

2:10:17 ↗ have a committee meeting once a month

2:10:19 ↗ and if

2:10:20 ↗ for some reason something misses that

2:10:22 ↗ one meeting then it's going to miss that

2:10:24 ↗ one meeting and it's going to have to

2:10:25 ↗ wait for another month so yeah we're

2:10:27 ↗ it's going to be a very difficult next

2:10:29 ↗ six nine months

2:10:31 ↗ very very difficult your boards and

2:10:32 ↗ commissions are exhausted already

2:10:35 ↗ i mean i think we're we're working to

2:10:37 ↗ keep them interested and connected um

2:10:40 ↗ you know some of them are very excited

2:10:42 ↗ about being part of this others of them

2:10:44 ↗ come after working a full day and have

2:10:46 ↗ families to take care of and then they

2:10:48 ↗ are not land use planners they're not

2:10:50 ↗ land use attorneys um and so it's going

2:10:52 ↗ to be really really hard

2:10:54 ↗ the next six nine months are going to be

2:10:56 ↗ really hard so we'll do our best to

2:10:58 ↗ continue to keep the council posted in a

2:11:00 ↗ prize we'll continue to do our best to

2:11:02 ↗ keep our boards and commissions cared

2:11:04 ↗ for um because this is not what they

2:11:06 ↗ signed up for

2:11:08 ↗ and we're hearing that already and it's

2:11:09 ↗ only march

2:11:10 ↗ and so what happens when we get to

2:11:12 ↗ november

2:11:13 ↗ um so again we'll be happy to come back

2:11:16 ↗ with those updates

2:11:18 ↗ i suggest chocolate lots and lots of

2:11:20 ↗ chocolate at every meeting it just it

2:11:23 ↗ really helps the code go down but

2:11:29 ↗ um do we cake maybe cake no

2:11:33 ↗ do we have

2:11:34 ↗ any other

2:11:36 ↗ commentary on this otherwise i guess i'd

2:11:38 ↗ like to give director dollywall a chance

2:11:40 ↗ to

2:11:41 ↗ summarize the feedback you've heard

2:11:43 ↗ ask any other questions and give us a

2:11:45 ↗ set of next steps

2:11:47 ↗ sure is casper

2:11:51 ↗ council member ray um um thanks and just

2:11:53 ↗ to come in late um i i would really like

2:11:56 ↗ um i guess based on what this city

2:11:58 ↗ administrator just said if we're going

2:12:00 ↗ too fast and if we're pushing people too

2:12:02 ↗ hard and we're burning through people

2:12:04 ↗ and we're not making the best decisions

2:12:07 ↗ um come back and tell us to slow our

2:12:08 ↗ roll because

2:12:11 ↗ we you know we this is one that we know

2:12:13 ↗ is super important and one we know we

2:12:15 ↗ have to get right so if we're we're

2:12:17 ↗ pushing because we put a date on the

2:12:19 ↗ table

2:12:20 ↗ um i think that's um that may not be

2:12:23 ↗ this simply the best reason to push so

2:12:26 ↗ come back and tell us you know if we're

2:12:27 ↗ if we're

2:12:28 ↗ if we if more time is needed because i

2:12:30 ↗ think we'd rather do it right than fast

2:12:35 ↗ council member marks

2:12:37 ↗ uh

2:12:38 ↗ plus 100 on that just to just to go back

2:12:41 ↗ to my 2010 analogy

2:12:44 ↗ the update of the shoreline master plan

2:12:46 ↗ itself was a multi-month project

2:12:50 ↗ that involved lots of collaterals and

2:12:52 ↗ that's like the tiniest piece of one

2:12:54 ↗ part of this effort right so it's a it's

2:12:57 ↗ a big heavy lift

2:12:59 ↗ i i think i happen to believe that

2:13:02 ↗ having committees will allow us to be

2:13:06 ↗ provide more thoughtful timely feedback

2:13:09 ↗ back into the process but whatever it

2:13:11 ↗ takes to get the

2:13:14 ↗ commissions and boards um

2:13:18 ↗ you know uh to be able to review things

2:13:20 ↗ in a fashion where they feel

2:13:22 ↗ that they've had a proper vetting um

2:13:25 ↗ time-wise i'm very supportive of this is

2:13:28 ↗ this is a immense amount of work

2:13:30 ↗ compared to you know

2:13:32 ↗ the last time we were doing parts drips

2:13:34 ↗ and grabs of this over the last decade

2:13:36 ↗ thanks

2:13:39 ↗ okay and i see a comment from

2:13:41 ↗ councilmember d michelle that you agree

2:13:43 ↗ do you want to state that uh verbally so

2:13:46 ↗ that everybody

2:13:49 ↗ uh thank you yeah no i appreciate the

2:13:51 ↗ remarks about

2:13:52 ↗ we want to get this right

2:13:54 ↗ and

2:13:56 ↗ rather than doing it fast and

2:13:58 ↗ uh

2:13:59 ↗ we sure do not want to lose our uh

2:14:02 ↗ volunteers that put in already

2:14:05 ↗ an immense amount of effort and we want

2:14:08 ↗ this to be thoughtful and sometimes

2:14:10 ↗ being thoughtful takes time

2:14:13 ↗ so i just agree with the remarks that

2:14:16 ↗ have already been made thank you

2:14:19 ↗ and if i could just clarify because the

2:14:20 ↗ last time i characterized the planning

2:14:22 ↗ policy commission i

2:14:24 ↗ spent months re-characterizing it so

2:14:26 ↗ again

2:14:28 ↗ you know these are dedicated thoughtful

2:14:31 ↗ people communities don't have people

2:14:33 ↗ like this we need them desperately all

2:14:35 ↗ of us every community uh it is a lot

2:14:38 ↗ and the people who come and serve on

2:14:40 ↗ especially the environment board for

2:14:42 ↗ example were not environmental planners

2:14:45 ↗ environmental lawyers they care about a

2:14:47 ↗ broad breadth of environmental issues

2:14:49 ↗ facing this community and so we have

2:14:51 ↗ asked them to become junior land use

2:14:53 ↗ planners and junior uh

2:14:55 ↗ land use attorneys um and that's and

2:14:58 ↗ they're they're stepping up to the

2:14:59 ↗ challenge and they're embracing it uh as

2:15:02 ↗ of course is planning policy which

2:15:03 ↗ always does that but again these are

2:15:05 ↗ volunteers there's only so many hours

2:15:08 ↗ for this and they all have other other

2:15:11 ↗ assignments they all each of these

2:15:12 ↗ boards and commissions have other

2:15:13 ↗ business before them plus this so i want

2:15:16 ↗ to make sure the characterization is

2:15:18 ↗ correct we're trying to be as sensitive

2:15:19 ↗ as we can

2:15:21 ↗ certainly every one of these volunteers

2:15:23 ↗ want to do good they want to

2:15:25 ↗ represent the community they want to

2:15:27 ↗ make sure the comments are made but we

2:15:29 ↗ are asking them probably unfairly

2:15:32 ↗ to take on roles that they are not all

2:15:34 ↗ equipped for certainly some of them come

2:15:36 ↗ with those skills and abilities from

2:15:38 ↗ their day jobs but not all of them

2:15:43 ↗ okay

2:15:44 ↗ back to director dollywood thank you um

2:15:47 ↗ you know this has been great i think

2:15:49 ↗ i've heard a lot of good good

2:15:50 ↗ suggestions here um i'll go through them

2:15:54 ↗ real quickly just so

2:15:55 ↗ i'm clear um on on where we are i also

2:15:59 ↗ want to recognize our staff that has

2:16:01 ↗ worked really hard our consultant team

2:16:03 ↗ that has worked really hard you know i

2:16:05 ↗ see doug urmake and emily appleton our

2:16:08 ↗ engineering manager they've been

2:16:10 ↗ watching this they've been part of this

2:16:12 ↗ uh situation you know

2:16:14 ↗ through rewrites rewrites talking

2:16:16 ↗ through them and all that um i know you

2:16:19 ↗ you saw lucy and um

2:16:21 ↗ and also um julie who's hopped off the

2:16:24 ↗ call but um in addition to that jim

2:16:27 ↗ johnson who was who's been a great

2:16:29 ↗ resource for all the cr the steep slopes

2:16:32 ↗ and the landslide because he's been on

2:16:33 ↗ the peer review side he really knows

2:16:35 ↗ what this landslide over here meant and

2:16:38 ↗ what the debates were about the topic

2:16:40 ↗ and we want to have the the backing in

2:16:42 ↗ the code so um

2:16:44 ↗ so it's been a team effort and thank you

2:16:46 ↗ to administration to city um the city

2:16:49 ↗ attorney's office for reviewing the

2:16:50 ↗ drafts making sure all of those and all

2:16:53 ↗ of your input and boards and commissions

2:16:55 ↗ so it's it's the whole team

2:16:57 ↗ together getting us to this point we

2:16:59 ↗ have long ways to go um some of the

2:17:01 ↗ things i want to make sure we capture as

2:17:03 ↗ we move forward

2:17:04 ↗ um

2:17:05 ↗ is um you know how do we make sure that

2:17:08 ↗ we don't get into the same situation

2:17:09 ↗ again absolutely we will come up with a

2:17:11 ↗ game plan if we

2:17:13 ↗ have these periodic check-ins a month

2:17:16 ↗ you know a yearly home housekeeping code

2:17:19 ↗ changes that we keep up because we'll

2:17:20 ↗ learn as we apply the code um and then

2:17:23 ↗ of course the state requires us to

2:17:25 ↗ update these every eight years is at

2:17:27 ↗ least the natural environment topic so

2:17:30 ↗ we want to stay ahead of that

2:17:32 ↗ one thing i think um

2:17:34 ↗ just so that i'm clear about

2:17:36 ↗ obviously the partnership with the

2:17:38 ↗ tribes we've invited them to our

2:17:39 ↗ affinity focus group meetings we've had

2:17:41 ↗ conversations they've submitted comments

2:17:43 ↗ on one of our our topics uh the

2:17:46 ↗ ecological gain um aspects um you know

2:17:50 ↗ it's going to take more than the code to

2:17:52 ↗ get the community what they want as far

2:17:54 ↗ as the ecological game goes it's the

2:17:56 ↗ three-legged stool you've got your

2:17:58 ↗ regulations you've got your capital

2:18:00 ↗ funds that you're going to do and the

2:18:02 ↗ programs i mean you have green issaquah

2:18:04 ↗ great program that the parks department

2:18:05 ↗ runs it's going to take all those three

2:18:07 ↗ things to get us to that ecological gain

2:18:10 ↗ the regulations we are limited

2:18:12 ↗ because of some of these things that we

2:18:14 ↗ can only ask for no net loss um and and

2:18:18 ↗ that's where the legal boundaries kind

2:18:20 ↗ of come in we'll definitely go back and

2:18:23 ↗ look at the code to look for

2:18:25 ↗ opportunities

2:18:26 ↗ for those gains

2:18:29 ↗ but

2:18:30 ↗ it's going to take more than the code

2:18:31 ↗ for the community

2:18:33 ↗ desires to be fulfilled on that

2:18:36 ↗ the main thing the stream buffers um

2:18:39 ↗ we want to make sure we have our

2:18:41 ↗ marching orders from you all um if we

2:18:43 ↗ are going to incorporate this new

2:18:45 ↗ best available sign from fish and

2:18:47 ↗ wildlife with this update or

2:18:50 ↗ can we put it on the whiteboard i heard

2:18:53 ↗ both sides so i think i want to get some

2:18:55 ↗ sort of a consensus of

2:18:57 ↗ if we want to do incorporate at this

2:18:58 ↗ time which will mean we'll have to hire

2:19:00 ↗ a new consultant

2:19:02 ↗ really do some on the ground field work

2:19:04 ↗ and assessment of what the state of the

2:19:06 ↗ affair of our streams is what this new

2:19:09 ↗ best available science is telling us so

2:19:11 ↗ that will be a project in itself

2:19:13 ↗ um so we want to get some clear

2:19:15 ↗ direction on on is are we tackling that

2:19:18 ↗ with this update

2:19:21 ↗ i think um some of the other things in

2:19:24 ↗ terms of smaller group discussions we're

2:19:26 ↗ absolutely committed to providing the

2:19:28 ↗ resources for the policy for all of you

2:19:31 ↗ for the boards and commission we've

2:19:32 ↗ offered to burden commissions you know

2:19:34 ↗ one-off question and answer uh sessions

2:19:37 ↗ so that they can hop on the call not

2:19:39 ↗ open not violating the open meeting act

2:19:42 ↗ but but giving them that opportunity to

2:19:44 ↗ ask questions and get into the the

2:19:46 ↗ deeper discussions

2:19:48 ↗ um

2:19:50 ↗ steep slope buffers obviously we're

2:19:51 ↗ going to have that conversation with bpc

2:19:54 ↗ um examples uh we are definitely going

2:19:57 ↗ to try that and i think that's

2:19:59 ↗ a really helpful useful tool for the ppc

2:20:02 ↗ we're also talking about scheduling a

2:20:04 ↗ saturday workshop after we get through

2:20:06 ↗ the six topic areas you know test the

2:20:09 ↗ code workshop where we can run through

2:20:12 ↗ some scenarios anyone can drop in and

2:20:14 ↗ bring in their proposals and and let's

2:20:16 ↗ see what this means um so we're you know

2:20:19 ↗ that's in the works uh as well so with

2:20:22 ↗ that i think uh if we can get some

2:20:24 ↗ direction on the stream issue that would

2:20:26 ↗ be awesome

2:20:27 ↗ um and i think the administration's

2:20:29 ↗ gonna have to come back okay with that

2:20:33 ↗ great

2:20:34 ↗ yeah so uh deputy council president hall

2:20:37 ↗ thank you very much director volleyball

2:20:39 ↗ just a quick follow-up question so you

2:20:41 ↗ said there

2:20:42 ↗ are some areas with regard to ecological

2:20:45 ↗ gain there are some areas where we can

2:20:47 ↗ really only go to no net loss you said

2:20:49 ↗ state law is that right

2:20:52 ↗ you know that's where some of the the

2:20:54 ↗ premise of the some of these regulations

2:20:55 ↗ come in is overall for the nation they

2:20:58 ↗ there was the

2:20:59 ↗ the you know

2:21:00 ↗ i don't know if anne marie wants to

2:21:02 ↗ weigh in but um there are rules that we

2:21:05 ↗ can't

2:21:06 ↗ tag one property owner one development

2:21:08 ↗ for something that they're not impacting

2:21:10 ↗ and ask them to enhance the entire

2:21:12 ↗ property if they happen to have a stream

2:21:14 ↗ in their you know they're staying

2:21:15 ↗ outside the buffer there really isn't

2:21:17 ↗ that nexus for us to ask for some of

2:21:20 ↗ those

2:21:20 ↗ and and the basic uh test is that there

2:21:23 ↗ is no net loss

2:21:26 ↗ there is you know we can obviously go

2:21:28 ↗ down the incentives approach if we

2:21:30 ↗ really want enhancement then we give

2:21:32 ↗ them something in return taller

2:21:35 ↗ buildings larger this and in the past

2:21:38 ↗ the incentives approach was not where we

2:21:40 ↗ wanted to go uh because people didn't

2:21:43 ↗ take that incentive i mean we've tried

2:21:44 ↗ that with affordable housing you know

2:21:46 ↗ you can build taller buildings if you

2:21:47 ↗ put it for but it doesn't pencil out for

2:21:50 ↗ folks and so if we go the incentives

2:21:52 ↗ approach it really has to make sense

2:21:54 ↗ from an economic standpoint for someone

2:21:56 ↗ to to buy into that incentive it'll feel

2:21:58 ↗ good that we have that on the books but

2:22:01 ↗ the chances of someone using it will be

2:22:03 ↗ we really have to give the firm away to

2:22:05 ↗ get that incentive

2:22:07 ↗ so that's our initial assessment of that

2:22:10 ↗ issue but we can go back and take a look

2:22:12 ↗ uh where there may be some opportunities

2:22:17 ↗ okay i guess i'm just curious i asked

2:22:19 ↗ the question because i'm curious if um

2:22:21 ↗ if we're finding that we're running up

2:22:23 ↗ against um

2:22:25 ↗ challenges

2:22:26 ↗ with state law that limited our ability

2:22:29 ↗ um to

2:22:31 ↗ for lack of a better phrase be bold if

2:22:32 ↗ we're interested from a policy

2:22:34 ↗ perspective

2:22:36 ↗ it would be interesting to develop a

2:22:37 ↗ list of those things and

2:22:40 ↗ then consider whether or not these are

2:22:42 ↗ things that we might want to include in

2:22:43 ↗ our legislative agenda moving forward

2:22:46 ↗ if that's too exhaustive

2:22:48 ↗ or long of a list i don't mean to add an

2:22:51 ↗ unnecessary burden on staff but perhaps

2:22:53 ↗ if it's not that long it could be

2:22:54 ↗ interesting for council to review no

2:22:56 ↗ great idea absolutely

2:23:02 ↗ city administrator bob cutz

2:23:04 ↗ uh just a further clarification on on

2:23:06 ↗ some of these things that we refer to

2:23:09 ↗ the white board that's a mayor paulie

2:23:11 ↗ term that she has i think all of you

2:23:13 ↗ know adopted through this process really

2:23:15 ↗ to allow us to continue to focus on

2:23:18 ↗ really the tasks that are in front of us

2:23:20 ↗ that there are so many other things just

2:23:22 ↗ the this whole conversation the council

2:23:24 ↗ member deputy president hall raising is

2:23:27 ↗ a whole other topic which is really

2:23:29 ↗ important and so the idea is

2:23:31 ↗ you know let's capture these additional

2:23:33 ↗ ideas let's not lose them but recognize

2:23:36 ↗ that perhaps they're not incorporated

2:23:38 ↗ right now in the work before us with

2:23:40 ↗ title 18. i think the three-legged stool

2:23:42 ↗ analogy that director dollywealth use is

2:23:45 ↗ important too so there may not be

2:23:47 ↗ sections of land use law in the state of

2:23:49 ↗ washington that further what we want to

2:23:51 ↗ do but there may be other approaches

2:23:53 ↗ either through other initiatives through

2:23:54 ↗ financing of other projects will allow

2:23:56 ↗ us to do that so i think the mayor feels

2:23:59 ↗ really strongly uh that we have to

2:24:01 ↗ continue to look at this very

2:24:02 ↗ holistically and by looking at it

2:24:04 ↗ holistically part of it is saying

2:24:06 ↗ there's going to be additional work to

2:24:07 ↗ be done when we're done with title 18

2:24:09 ↗ we're not done with title 18. we're you

2:24:11 ↗ know we're done with one piece and

2:24:13 ↗ there'll be additional work that we'll

2:24:15 ↗ we'll program and start working and

2:24:16 ↗ thinking about

2:24:18 ↗ immediately

2:24:23 ↗ uh councilmember hunt

2:24:25 ↗ um yeah i appreciate i appreciated the

2:24:27 ↗ three-legged stool analogy as well and i

2:24:30 ↗ i think that is definitely an approach

2:24:32 ↗ we will need to do and a lot of the

2:24:33 ↗ comments also from both the

2:24:35 ↗ environmental board and the planning

2:24:36 ↗ policy there were some comments that

2:24:38 ↗ weren't really probably addressable in

2:24:40 ↗ code but go to that three-legged

2:24:42 ↗ approach to address um

2:24:44 ↗ you know things like

2:24:46 ↗ education or the green issaquah things

2:24:48 ↗ that i think go towards some of these

2:24:50 ↗ comments but wouldn't probably be

2:24:52 ↗ addressed in title 18.

2:24:54 ↗ that said i wanted to i went uh down a

2:24:57 ↗ research rabbit hole on ecological gain

2:24:59 ↗ earlier today so i will just add to

2:25:02 ↗ councilmember hall's question that um

2:25:04 ↗ there was a bill in the state house

2:25:07 ↗ hb2550 which is the one that i quoted

2:25:10 ↗ the ecological gain from so and that

2:25:11 ↗ didn't pass but that was to um basically

2:25:15 ↗ do this review of changing the standard

2:25:17 ↗ from no net loss to ecological gain and

2:25:20 ↗ so if you look that up it it um you know

2:25:22 ↗ i was reading the house the review of

2:25:25 ↗ that um and so it goes into what it

2:25:27 ↗ would be and and how you could use it um

2:25:29 ↗ so i i do think though there are still

2:25:32 ↗ opportunities

2:25:33 ↗ to go above what we have right now and

2:25:36 ↗ so that's what i'm asking is if we can

2:25:38 ↗ review the code with that lens and look

2:25:40 ↗ for those opportunities also within

2:25:43 ↗ no net loss there are sometimes

2:25:45 ↗ things where you can degrade a certain

2:25:48 ↗ property and defer that damage to a

2:25:50 ↗ different part of the property for

2:25:52 ↗ example and

2:25:53 ↗ from an ecological standpoint best to

2:25:55 ↗ minimize your

2:25:57 ↗ degradation of that original property

2:25:59 ↗ and so just looking at it through that

2:26:00 ↗ lens and thinking how can we

2:26:02 ↗ how can we enhance and and really not

2:26:04 ↗ damage the environment is

2:26:06 ↗ um what i was what i was trying to get

2:26:08 ↗ to

2:26:12 ↗ okay so i heard a request from the

2:26:14 ↗ administration from director dollywell

2:26:16 ↗ to get some better feedback about um

2:26:20 ↗ stream buffers and the averaging was it

2:26:24 ↗ or just i think the averaging we can

2:26:26 ↗ have the discussion with ppc okay

2:26:29 ↗ and and i think the stream buffer

2:26:31 ↗ averaging you know well

2:26:34 ↗ we can think more about it but it is

2:26:36 ↗ going to

2:26:37 ↗ be

2:26:38 ↗ if you want to go and hash it out then

2:26:41 ↗ it's a it's a separate body of work that

2:26:44 ↗ will need to occur

2:26:46 ↗ with the resources with additional time

2:26:48 ↗ and and all those so so what we were

2:26:50 ↗ thinking was is it go on the whiteboard

2:26:52 ↗ or do we tackle it with this update and

2:26:55 ↗ and i think what on behalf of the

2:26:57 ↗ administration what i would propose is

2:27:00 ↗ that you know let us do a little bit

2:27:02 ↗ more due diligence we believe that it's

2:27:04 ↗ something we need to put on a whiteboard

2:27:06 ↗ at this point if the council feels

2:27:07 ↗ strongly otherwise

2:27:10 ↗ i think we'll just need to

2:27:11 ↗ either you need to be a motion to

2:27:14 ↗ request the administration to do that

2:27:16 ↗ but again we're trying to

2:27:18 ↗ we're trying to keep this process moving

2:27:20 ↗ in a thoughtful way you know and putting

2:27:22 ↗ some larger projects um

2:27:25 ↗ you know on the side so that once we're

2:27:27 ↗ finished with this we can take that up

2:27:29 ↗ so in this instance i would say that's

2:27:31 ↗ one of those projects that we would want

2:27:33 ↗ to put on the whiteboard

2:27:39 ↗ councilmember hunt

2:27:41 ↗ i just want to make sure i understand

2:27:43 ↗ because my understanding from the

2:27:44 ↗ earlier comment was that you would

2:27:46 ↗ return to council with more information

2:27:48 ↗ about what that would look like but

2:27:51 ↗ you're that but then my understanding of

2:27:53 ↗ the last comment was that that would not

2:27:55 ↗ be the

2:27:56 ↗ proposal that you would need direction

2:27:58 ↗ from council to go down that path to get

2:28:00 ↗ us more information about what it would

2:28:01 ↗ look like for example

2:28:03 ↗ and i don't think we have the

2:28:05 ↗ information

2:28:06 ↗ this evening to provide more than what

2:28:08 ↗ we've said i i think what you're hearing

2:28:10 ↗ from director dollywall is that it's a

2:28:11 ↗ large body of work

2:28:13 ↗ my reaction to a large body of work is

2:28:15 ↗ that perhaps that's something best for

2:28:17 ↗ the

2:28:18 ↗ for the white board if the council

2:28:20 ↗ disagrees

2:28:21 ↗ then i guess that's a separate

2:28:22 ↗ discussion that we could have on a

2:28:25 ↗ future meeting um

2:28:28 ↗ yeah and and the whiteboard doesn't mean

2:28:30 ↗ we'll never get to it and it just goes

2:28:32 ↗ on there you know we could come up with

2:28:33 ↗ like we can do this by this year i think

2:28:35 ↗ people planning and policy commission

2:28:37 ↗ some members said okay if you put it on

2:28:39 ↗ the whiteboard just commit to a time

2:28:41 ↗ frame that isn't too far out so

2:28:44 ↗ um that that's basically what we're you

2:28:47 ↗ know we want to get the rest of the

2:28:49 ↗ stuff done too i mean this if we do this

2:28:51 ↗ and we determine this is what it takes

2:28:53 ↗ so we will you know our our

2:28:55 ↗ recommendation was to to not put it off

2:28:58 ↗ forever but

2:28:59 ↗ with this update we move forward with

2:29:02 ↗ all these other changes and then we will

2:29:04 ↗ address uh

2:29:06 ↗ the newest um because we will learn more

2:29:09 ↗ i mean other cities are going to have a

2:29:11 ↗ have have dig into it the department of

2:29:14 ↗ ecology will will get into it and so

2:29:16 ↗ time with time it'll be more fleshed out

2:29:19 ↗ and what it means for issaquah and in

2:29:21 ↗ our context

2:29:22 ↗ you know and council president members

2:29:24 ↗ of the council i have to think that when

2:29:25 ↗ we come to the end of this process

2:29:28 ↗ you know the council has a budget letter

2:29:31 ↗ they have the cip letter i bet you

2:29:33 ↗ there's going to be a title 18 letter

2:29:35 ↗ and i think that will say what because

2:29:37 ↗ this is just the first night i mean so

2:29:39 ↗ there's five more nights like this plus

2:29:42 ↗ another

2:29:43 ↗ six or eight nights once we're getting

2:29:45 ↗ toward the end i have to think that the

2:29:47 ↗ council's going to say here a collection

2:29:49 ↗ of six or eight things that are really

2:29:50 ↗ important to us that didn't make this

2:29:53 ↗ final code and it's our expectation as a

2:29:55 ↗ city council that here are the top three

2:29:58 ↗ and for the 23 budget we're going to

2:30:00 ↗ want to make sure there's money put in

2:30:02 ↗ there so if you need additional

2:30:03 ↗ consultants or additional staff time um

2:30:06 ↗ my guess is that's how we

2:30:08 ↗ will likely come down that's really all

2:30:09 ↗ up to you

2:30:10 ↗ in the end but again we're only this is

2:30:12 ↗ night one of six

2:30:14 ↗ of these particular conversations

2:30:17 ↗ i think you've certainly made it a

2:30:20 ↗ possibility that that's going to happen

2:30:23 ↗ um well because there's there's great

2:30:24 ↗ past practice by this council to say and

2:30:27 ↗ again the operating budget i mean there

2:30:29 ↗ are some similarities you try to

2:30:30 ↗ accomplish a lot an operating budget you

2:30:32 ↗ know sometimes you can't but you say

2:30:35 ↗ here are things that are important i

2:30:36 ↗ have to think this process lends itself

2:30:38 ↗ to something like that as well so

2:30:39 ↗ there's a commitment to the community uh

2:30:42 ↗ to the board the pbc environment board

2:30:44 ↗ other boards and commissions that

2:30:46 ↗ everybody's on the same page and that's

2:30:48 ↗ being transparent as we move forward yep

2:30:51 ↗ making things that are on the whiteboard

2:30:53 ↗ official and right providing timelines

2:30:56 ↗ toward them

2:30:57 ↗ okay so

2:30:58 ↗ um director jolly wall any other

2:31:01 ↗ feedback that you need on this are you

2:31:04 ↗ feeling

2:31:05 ↗ good going forward great great thank you

2:31:08 ↗ so much for your

2:31:10 ↗ you know insights and and direction um

2:31:13 ↗ so appreciate everyone's time

2:31:16 ↗ okay

2:31:17 ↗ so i think we're going to put a check

2:31:21 ↗ no okay

2:31:23 ↗ check mark on this one we've been

2:31:25 ↗ sitting here for two and a half hours

2:31:27 ↗ how does everybody feel about a five

2:31:29 ↗ minute ten minute

2:31:31 ↗ in person five

2:31:34 ↗ five okay i think we're gonna go for a

2:31:36 ↗ five minute break before we

2:31:39 ↗ bring on to the next topic

2:31:42 ↗ thank you

2:38:25 ↗ all right hi thank you council president

2:38:28 ↗ walsh this is tisha i'm not able to hear

2:38:30 ↗ you

2:38:31 ↗ well

2:38:33 ↗ okay here we go

2:38:35 ↗ we can hear you now

2:38:37 ↗ okay did you hear the intro or do i need

2:38:39 ↗ to start that over

2:38:42 ↗ um we missed the intro i'm sorry no i

2:38:45 ↗ appreciate it perfect so i was just

2:38:48 ↗ saying we are back from our five minute

2:38:49 ↗ break

2:38:50 ↗ and so the next item

2:38:52 ↗ of business is id 1050 amending imc 5.02

2:38:57 ↗ business licenses and this is presented

2:39:00 ↗ by rachel bender turpin our city

2:39:03 ↗ attorney so it's over to you rachel

2:39:05 ↗ thank you good evening council mayor

2:39:09 ↗ staff it's nice to be here

2:39:11 ↗ this uh the last time we discussed this

2:39:14 ↗ topic was back in january and as you may

2:39:17 ↗ recall the council

2:39:19 ↗ uh passed an ordinance

2:39:22 ↗ amending the business license revocation

2:39:25 ↗ criteria but with the sunset provision

2:39:27 ↗ with the expectation that staff will

2:39:29 ↗ come back with a newly revised ordinance

2:39:33 ↗ cleaning up all of chapter 5.02 so this

2:39:37 ↗ is what that is this evening for you

2:39:44 ↗ uh i drafted this

2:39:46 ↗ with feedback from the economic vitality

2:39:50 ↗ commission the chamber of commerce

2:39:53 ↗ the equity board so i thank them all for

2:39:56 ↗ providing their comments and feedback it

2:39:58 ↗ was very very useful as i went through

2:40:00 ↗ and uh made these changes

2:40:03 ↗ a lot of the changes in fact the vast

2:40:06 ↗ majority it is a complete overhaul

2:40:09 ↗ but they're mostly administrative in

2:40:11 ↗ nature

2:40:12 ↗ back in 2017 the state passed a

2:40:17 ↗ new laws uh including a requirement that

2:40:20 ↗ cities adopt portions of a model

2:40:22 ↗ ordinance and so the city did do that in

2:40:25 ↗ 2019 i believe

2:40:28 ↗ it did include the two portions that

2:40:31 ↗ were required however a lot of other

2:40:34 ↗ changes were not made that

2:40:37 ↗ really reflect the new

2:40:40 ↗ licensing procedures that the city uses

2:40:43 ↗ now that we use the

2:40:45 ↗ state's business licensing service

2:40:48 ↗ so for instance there was a lot of

2:40:50 ↗ references to old forms and things which

2:40:52 ↗ people don't fill out anymore it's all

2:40:54 ↗ done online

2:40:55 ↗ and so staff were also incredibly

2:40:58 ↗ instrumental in walking me through

2:40:59 ↗ actually

2:41:00 ↗ how this gets done

2:41:02 ↗ so then i could draft a code that

2:41:04 ↗ reflects what really happens rather than

2:41:07 ↗ you know what used to happen 10 years

2:41:09 ↗ ago

2:41:10 ↗ so this entire chapter has been

2:41:12 ↗ completely rewritten i won't go through

2:41:15 ↗ all of it with you in boring detail this

2:41:18 ↗ evening so instead i'll focus this

2:41:19 ↗ presentation on kind of the more

2:41:21 ↗ substantive policy issues that are

2:41:24 ↗ involved in this chapter

2:41:29 ↗ so i'm sorry i'm just i'm talking so

2:41:31 ↗ much i'm not paying attention to my

2:41:33 ↗ slides i think we i already kind of went

2:41:35 ↗ over this but with start the process

2:41:36 ↗ started with my first evc meeting that i

2:41:39 ↗ got to attend in february

2:41:41 ↗ we got to uh reconvene a couple of weeks

2:41:45 ↗ ago we had a special meeting in fact

2:41:47 ↗ just for the purpose of going over

2:41:50 ↗ uh this the code draft that i had come

2:41:53 ↗ up with after meeting with them

2:41:54 ↗ initially

2:41:56 ↗ and like i mentioned before the equity

2:41:58 ↗ board has also reviewed

2:42:01 ↗ as has a

2:42:02 ↗ number of members of the chamber

2:42:05 ↗ the first point that i wanted to address

2:42:08 ↗ here are exemptions so cities can exempt

2:42:11 ↗ certain activities from the requirement

2:42:13 ↗ to get business licenses

2:42:15 ↗ i did not make any material changes to

2:42:18 ↗ those exemptions i was really focused on

2:42:21 ↗ cleaning this up and addressing

2:42:24 ↗ the revocation criteria

2:42:26 ↗ um that had been

2:42:28 ↗ uh

2:42:29 ↗ concerns had been voiced but from the

2:42:30 ↗ business community back in january

2:42:32 ↗ so i'm i'm just kind of noting this for

2:42:35 ↗ you um

2:42:36 ↗ obviously it's up to the the council

2:42:38 ↗ said if you want to make any other

2:42:40 ↗ other decisions however i would note

2:42:42 ↗ that

2:42:44 ↗ it might not be the ideal time to change

2:42:47 ↗ up a lot of these things because it will

2:42:49 ↗ require a lot of outreach to folks that

2:42:51 ↗ have been operating under a certain way

2:42:53 ↗ for many years

2:42:55 ↗ but the the exemptions they were

2:42:58 ↗ actually kind of

2:42:59 ↗ they were scattered kind of in a strange

2:43:02 ↗ locations throughout the code so i took

2:43:04 ↗ them and i put them in one section

2:43:06 ↗ called exemptions so that people could

2:43:08 ↗ easily find them but

2:43:10 ↗ one most of the ones that you have here

2:43:11 ↗ pretty typical

2:43:13 ↗ businesses with only a post office box

2:43:15 ↗ and no actual business location in the

2:43:18 ↗ city

2:43:19 ↗ farmers uh that's a really common one in

2:43:22 ↗ many many city codes

2:43:24 ↗ we issaquah is unique in having this

2:43:27 ↗ special exception for firewood but

2:43:30 ↗ i think it's very

2:43:32 ↗ very cute and

2:43:35 ↗ reflects the unique

2:43:37 ↗ nature of this particular

2:43:39 ↗ very uh environmental community

2:43:41 ↗ the

2:43:42 ↗ and then there's also an exemption for

2:43:44 ↗ residential rental activity involving

2:43:47 ↗ ten or few fewer units that was a

2:43:50 ↗ that was one that was actually it was in

2:43:52 ↗ a strange location it was in the

2:43:53 ↗ definition of business and i that just

2:43:56 ↗ had made no sense to me so i said well

2:43:58 ↗ if we're going to have it in there we

2:43:59 ↗ should probably put it actually where it

2:44:01 ↗ belongs in the exemptions

2:44:02 ↗ and then i'm also i am um

2:44:06 ↗ on behalf of staff requesting one

2:44:08 ↗ additional exemption be added and that

2:44:10 ↗ is for vendors

2:44:11 ↗ of software that are contracting with

2:44:13 ↗ the city for the sale of like

2:44:16 ↗ off-the-shelf software products

2:44:18 ↗ and that's quite frankly because they

2:44:19 ↗ refuse to get business licenses you know

2:44:22 ↗ we go and we try to buy these products

2:44:26 ↗ um you know we

2:44:28 ↗ we as a city we have a little bit more

2:44:30 ↗ stringent contracting requirements then

2:44:32 ↗ well then i do personally when i just

2:44:34 ↗ click through and say accept the terms

2:44:36 ↗ and don't even read the agreements even

2:44:37 ↗ though i'm an attorney because i know

2:44:39 ↗ that you know as a single person rachel

2:44:41 ↗ i don't have a whole lot of

2:44:44 ↗ a lot of leverage with these companies

2:44:46 ↗ city has more leverage but you know

2:44:48 ↗ certain companies

2:44:50 ↗ uh they you know for instance recently

2:44:53 ↗ these came up with a you know canadian

2:44:55 ↗ company that sold software and you know

2:44:57 ↗ they're they were a large company and

2:45:00 ↗ they

2:45:01 ↗ really don't care if they get the city

2:45:02 ↗ of issaquah's business in this regard

2:45:04 ↗ but it was a product that the that the

2:45:06 ↗ uh it department really needed

2:45:09 ↗ and so this has become an issue they

2:45:11 ↗ just they won't get it so the city

2:45:13 ↗ either

2:45:14 ↗ has to

2:45:16 ↗ add an exemption for those vendors

2:45:20 ↗ realize that not not contract with them

2:45:23 ↗ at all or

2:45:24 ↗ know that

2:45:25 ↗ you're possibly violating the code when

2:45:28 ↗ they don't get

2:45:29 ↗ a business license

2:45:33 ↗ i also

2:45:35 ↗ created previously

2:45:36 ↗ the

2:45:37 ↗ all all business licensing

2:45:40 ↗ ordinances generally have requirements

2:45:42 ↗ or certain qualifications you have to

2:45:44 ↗ meet to get a license

2:45:46 ↗ issaquaz previously just had one single

2:45:49 ↗ qualification which was that the

2:45:50 ↗ proposed business be

2:45:53 ↗ permitted in the location that

2:45:56 ↗ you were proposing for the business

2:45:58 ↗ that is obviously a very important

2:46:01 ↗ criteria to have but there are a lot of

2:46:04 ↗ other

2:46:06 ↗ qualifications that other

2:46:08 ↗ neighboring jurisdictions used that

2:46:11 ↗ i thought were

2:46:12 ↗ very useful they also matched a lot of

2:46:15 ↗ the language from

2:46:17 ↗ the disqual or from the revocation

2:46:20 ↗ language that we had with with tweaks

2:46:22 ↗ obviously because i did rewrite those to

2:46:24 ↗ make them much clearer and cleaner but

2:46:26 ↗ it makes sense to me that you would

2:46:28 ↗ actually look at if there's conduct that

2:46:30 ↗ you think that you would revoke

2:46:31 ↗ someone's business license for

2:46:33 ↗ it probably makes sense that they

2:46:36 ↗ not have engaged in that conduct before

2:46:38 ↗ you give them a business license so i

2:46:40 ↗ tried to kind of make those mirror each

2:46:42 ↗ other in a lot of ways

2:46:44 ↗ so they're they're pretty they're pretty

2:46:45 ↗ standard ones that i included

2:46:48 ↗ um you know violating

2:46:50 ↗ state or local laws federal laws but

2:46:53 ↗ specifically with regard to the proposed

2:46:55 ↗ business so it's not

2:46:56 ↗ it's not um

2:46:59 ↗ you're not looking at people's you know

2:47:00 ↗ entire criminal records and whether or

2:47:02 ↗ not they you know had a

2:47:05 ↗ dui or driving a license suspended or

2:47:07 ↗ something i mean you're talking about

2:47:09 ↗ did you did you commit money like did

2:47:11 ↗ you get a convict of money laundering

2:47:13 ↗ you know that that's the kind of thing

2:47:14 ↗ that i think you'd want to know and then

2:47:16 ↗ you got shut down somewhere else and now

2:47:17 ↗ you want to come open your business in

2:47:18 ↗ israel you know that's a

2:47:20 ↗ that's a red flag which is why i also

2:47:22 ↗ added one which is prior business

2:47:24 ↗ license revocation or suspension in

2:47:26 ↗ another jurisdiction there is a caveat

2:47:29 ↗ that i wrote into the ordinance though

2:47:31 ↗ that says that if you

2:47:33 ↗ had it reinstated on appeal or after

2:47:36 ↗ engaging in whatever corrective action

2:47:38 ↗ you needed to do that that doesn't

2:47:40 ↗ constitute you know suspension or

2:47:42 ↗ revocation

2:47:44 ↗ excuse me we've got a question from

2:47:46 ↗ councilmember martz

2:47:49 ↗ thank you council president uh what do

2:47:51 ↗ you do about

2:47:53 ↗ recreational marijuana which violates

2:47:55 ↗ federal law all the time

2:47:58 ↗ well that is a good question actually

2:48:01 ↗ now that you say that i have seen

2:48:03 ↗ several in my my

2:48:06 ↗ my

2:48:07 ↗ lots of business license researching

2:48:08 ↗ there are a couple jurisdictions that

2:48:10 ↗ specifically carve out

2:48:12 ↗ this does not apply to

2:48:15 ↗ um marijuana

2:48:17 ↗ retailers that are licensed by the state

2:48:20 ↗ so

2:48:21 ↗ that's something that we could add i

2:48:23 ↗ could add language i think we would

2:48:25 ↗ probably need to yeah

2:48:28 ↗ thank you

2:48:36 ↗ and then obviously that the first one

2:48:38 ↗ there is they they lied or

2:48:40 ↗ misrepresented or concealed something

2:48:42 ↗ which is usually probably not a very

2:48:43 ↗ good

2:48:44 ↗ it's not a good initial start to a

2:48:46 ↗ business i suppose

2:48:48 ↗ uh or made a

2:48:49 ↗ false representation

2:48:51 ↗ in your renewal as well

2:48:53 ↗ and whether or not they were indebted or

2:48:55 ↗ obligated to the city for past taxes or

2:48:58 ↗ fees also related to the business so

2:49:00 ↗ it's not you know your your storm water

2:49:02 ↗ fees on your house or anything like that

2:49:05 ↗ we added a

2:49:06 ↗ time period at the request of the

2:49:09 ↗ economic vitality commission so

2:49:11 ↗ it only applies to fees um

2:49:14 ↗ and taxes exceeding four months chose

2:49:17 ↗ four months because that matches what

2:49:20 ↗ the bls limit is which they'll cancel

2:49:22 ↗ cancel your license after four months so

2:49:24 ↗ it seemed to make the most sense to make

2:49:26 ↗ those be the same

2:49:28 ↗ and then of course the

2:49:29 ↗ important one that was our previously

2:49:32 ↗ pretty much our only criteria which is

2:49:34 ↗ in violation of any building zoning

2:49:36 ↗ safety or health regulations i added

2:49:38 ↗ health and safety regulations because

2:49:40 ↗ there are times where something might be

2:49:41 ↗ permitted zoning wise but you know if

2:49:44 ↗ it's

2:49:45 ↗ you know a huge fire hazard and out of

2:49:48 ↗ compliance with your fire code you

2:49:50 ↗ probably don't want a business like a

2:49:51 ↗ business operating in it either

2:49:54 ↗ applicants do have the opportunity to

2:49:57 ↗ explain extenuating circumstances we

2:49:59 ↗ didn't want to have anyone just be

2:50:01 ↗ completely

2:50:03 ↗ disqualified from getting a business

2:50:04 ↗ license based on any of these because we

2:50:06 ↗ do realize that there can be a lot of

2:50:10 ↗ um you know that life happens and there

2:50:12 ↗ can be extenuating circumstances so in

2:50:15 ↗ the event that someone who's applying

2:50:17 ↗ says oh you know

2:50:19 ↗ i did have this old conviction or

2:50:22 ↗ you know

2:50:23 ↗ you know i am i'm

2:50:25 ↗ i'm am obligated on past due taxes but

2:50:27 ↗ i'm working with the city on paying it

2:50:30 ↗ then they can just

2:50:32 ↗ give some written information to the

2:50:33 ↗ city to consider the city can then meet

2:50:35 ↗ with them if they want get more

2:50:36 ↗ information but there will be more of an

2:50:38 ↗ interactive process there to determine

2:50:41 ↗ whether or not they sort of meet kind of

2:50:43 ↗ the intent of the regulations which is

2:50:44 ↗ to make sure that you just have

2:50:46 ↗ um businesses operating safely and

2:50:49 ↗ appropriately in the city

2:50:53 ↗ and then we move on to the revocation

2:50:55 ↗ suspension criteria when those

2:50:57 ↗ businesses that do get licensed uh

2:51:00 ↗ don't

2:51:01 ↗ continue to operate in the manner that

2:51:04 ↗ the city expects um what you do about

2:51:07 ↗ that and and what that kind of conduct

2:51:09 ↗ conduct is

2:51:11 ↗ i ch i just i really just revised all

2:51:14 ↗ the language in its entirety it was just

2:51:16 ↗ very

2:51:18 ↗ it was a little bit wordy which is

2:51:20 ↗ saying something coming for me because i

2:51:21 ↗ know that some of the stuff that i write

2:51:23 ↗ is also wordy but it was

2:51:25 ↗ when when i can't read it i think that

2:51:27 ↗ that's a problem so i tried to re

2:51:30 ↗ rewrite it so it would be a little bit

2:51:31 ↗ easier for

2:51:32 ↗ people to understand

2:51:34 ↗ so

2:51:35 ↗ these are just examples of a couple of

2:51:37 ↗ the criteria and how we changed them but

2:51:40 ↗ just made it clear that we're talking

2:51:42 ↗ about not being in compliance with the

2:51:45 ↗ municipal code

2:51:46 ↗ that you're

2:51:48 ↗ convicted of

2:51:50 ↗ or plead guilty or a bond forfeiture

2:51:53 ↗ which those are pretty

2:51:54 ↗ pretty infrequent but to any uh

2:51:57 ↗ any offense that's related to the

2:51:59 ↗ business once again

2:52:02 ↗ and then

2:52:03 ↗ after much back and forth with the uh

2:52:06 ↗ economic vitality commission in the

2:52:08 ↗ chamber

2:52:09 ↗ we i

2:52:11 ↗ changed the language in what was

2:52:13 ↗ previously

2:52:14 ↗ subsection c there was a lot of

2:52:16 ↗ consternation with the terms peace

2:52:19 ↗ morals

2:52:20 ↗ and welfare

2:52:21 ↗ those terms i used them originally

2:52:23 ↗ because they're

2:52:25 ↗ they're actually from the state

2:52:26 ↗ constitution and they

2:52:28 ↗ are kind of synonymous with those with

2:52:30 ↗ this city's police powers

2:52:33 ↗ but that's you know

2:52:34 ↗ that's that's confusing stuff and then

2:52:36 ↗ you get into

2:52:37 ↗ they they're not like

2:52:39 ↗ really simply defined in a statute you

2:52:41 ↗ just have to read a bunch of cases about

2:52:43 ↗ police powers and welfare and health and

2:52:47 ↗ health and

2:52:48 ↗ safety but well sorry but in peace and

2:52:50 ↗ morals but health and safety those are

2:52:52 ↗ pretty those are pretty standard so we

2:52:56 ↗ left in public health and safety

2:53:00 ↗ so that

2:53:02 ↗ and this

2:53:04 ↗ i don't i think there's an error in this

2:53:06 ↗ in this uh

2:53:08 ↗ this slideshow because i changed it

2:53:10 ↗ actually the ordinance after we went to

2:53:12 ↗ the economic vitality commission so it

2:53:15 ↗ really just says results in a danger to

2:53:17 ↗ the public health and safety now peace

2:53:19 ↗ and welfare are no longer in the

2:53:22 ↗ in the ordinance

2:53:23 ↗ and then

2:53:25 ↗ there was a concern about whether or not

2:53:26 ↗ the definition

2:53:28 ↗ folks would know what the definition of

2:53:29 ↗ nuisance was or if we could provide

2:53:32 ↗ point to a specific definition of

2:53:34 ↗ nuisance well unfortunately public

2:53:36 ↗ nuisance doesn't have one definition it

2:53:38 ↗ actually has like 10 in the rcw

2:53:42 ↗ which is very you know very easy to

2:53:44 ↗ track down and then um

2:53:47 ↗ several within the city because

2:53:49 ↗ because the city council or any you know

2:53:51 ↗ governing body you can actually just

2:53:53 ↗ designate what conduct you decide to be

2:53:56 ↗ a public nuisance but the way the

2:53:59 ↗ language is written now

2:54:00 ↗ it has to have specifically been

2:54:03 ↗ designated as a public nuisance so the

2:54:05 ↗ city can't just decide that someone's

2:54:07 ↗ barking dog is a public nuisance it

2:54:09 ↗ actually has to meet one of those public

2:54:11 ↗ nuisance laws in either the state or the

2:54:13 ↗ city's code

2:54:16 ↗ and if i can just add council president

2:54:19 ↗ of the i don't know two three four hours

2:54:22 ↗ of community meetings we've had

2:54:25 ↗ this has been the major topic yes

2:54:35 ↗ and this one is just similar to the

2:54:38 ↗ the uh

2:54:41 ↗ disqualification or the qualification

2:54:43 ↗ for license and obviously we don't

2:54:46 ↗ the problem with people are purposefully

2:54:48 ↗ lying to the city when they submit their

2:54:51 ↗ applications

2:54:55 ↗ these were

2:54:56 ↗ also a source of contention and i

2:55:00 ↗ thought that probably they were a little

2:55:02 ↗ bit redundant you know back in january

2:55:04 ↗ we were trying to address kind of an

2:55:05 ↗ emergency situation but now

2:55:07 ↗ i could sit and really

2:55:09 ↗ stare at this stuff for hours i

2:55:12 ↗ kind of boiled those down in into one so

2:55:16 ↗ another thing that we addressed at the

2:55:18 ↗ at the request of the community was

2:55:22 ↗ owners of businesses not being

2:55:27 ↗ uh forced to have to

2:55:29 ↗ try to physically apprehend people or

2:55:32 ↗ stop crimes in progress the city's

2:55:34 ↗ intent was never to have people do that

2:55:38 ↗ but the business community felt much

2:55:40 ↗ more comfortable if we put something in

2:55:42 ↗ so we just added language saying that

2:55:45 ↗ if a

2:55:46 ↗ that a business wouldn't be considered

2:55:48 ↗ as

2:55:48 ↗ having allowed

2:55:50 ↗ or failed to prevent back when

2:55:52 ↗ i actually took out failed to prevent

2:55:54 ↗ out of the ordinance but having been

2:55:55 ↗ allowed to

2:55:58 ↗ allowing crime just because you know

2:55:59 ↗ their employees didn't chase after

2:56:01 ↗ someone who was you know stealing

2:56:03 ↗ something or

2:56:04 ↗ you know fight back if someone was you

2:56:06 ↗ know trying to rob them so

2:56:09 ↗ that seems like more than fair and

2:56:11 ↗ that's what we want anyway so we cleaned

2:56:13 ↗ that up and made it clear

2:56:17 ↗ and then

2:56:18 ↗ once again

2:56:19 ↗ i added the language regarding past due

2:56:23 ↗ debts and obligations

2:56:25 ↗ this actually kind of needs to be here

2:56:26 ↗ anyway because well the state's going to

2:56:29 ↗ just cancel your license anyway so

2:56:31 ↗ um

2:56:32 ↗ probably good to have those

2:56:34 ↗ our own code match that as well

2:56:39 ↗ uh the violations i'm proposing that

2:56:41 ↗ these be civil violations i

2:56:44 ↗ say that as a former prosecutor

2:56:47 ↗ they are not

2:56:48 ↗ they're not very easy to

2:56:50 ↗ they're not going to be easy to prove in

2:56:52 ↗ criminal court and i don't think any

2:56:53 ↗ prosecutor is going to file charges on

2:56:54 ↗ these because you're not necessarily

2:56:56 ↗ going to have the mental um men's rea

2:56:59 ↗ element

2:57:00 ↗ with uh you know businesses that the

2:57:03 ↗ executive of business probably doesn't

2:57:04 ↗ even know what's going on on the floor

2:57:06 ↗ of of the business current code allows

2:57:09 ↗ for penalties of up to 250 per day

2:57:13 ↗ uh

2:57:14 ↗ staff just as a heads up will be coming

2:57:16 ↗ forward in the next few months with

2:57:17 ↗ amendments to the code enforcement code

2:57:19 ↗ and then we'll have to come back

2:57:21 ↗ and clean up the references in here to

2:57:24 ↗ match that but this will at least give

2:57:25 ↗ us some enforcement mechanism in the in

2:57:28 ↗ the meantime

2:57:31 ↗ i have made written it so that it's

2:57:33 ↗ administered by the city administrator

2:57:36 ↗ it was previously the building official

2:57:38 ↗ which i have to say that's the first

2:57:39 ↗ i've seen

2:57:40 ↗ for business licensing often it's the

2:57:42 ↗ finance director but building official

2:57:44 ↗ is

2:57:45 ↗ is a new one for me

2:57:47 ↗ rachel i have a question from

2:57:49 ↗ councilmember joe yes councilmember joe

2:57:52 ↗ thank you council president walsh

2:57:54 ↗ good evening um i was looking at the

2:57:56 ↗ penalties section

2:57:57 ↗ and you had referenced that we probably

2:58:00 ↗ want to make this a civil violation

2:58:02 ↗ um the language in there refers to um to

2:58:05 ↗ either

2:58:06 ↗ that

2:58:07 ↗ yeah or it says it shall be guilty of a

2:58:09 ↗ violation of this chapter

2:58:11 ↗ um and guilty carries a connotation of

2:58:14 ↗ beyond reasonable doubt and criminal

2:58:15 ↗ procedures so is it your intent to kind

2:58:19 ↗ of clean that up so it's just a civil

2:58:20 ↗ violation and a person that violates a

2:58:22 ↗ sexual view subject to a fine exactly

2:58:24 ↗ okay we'll just that

2:58:26 ↗ that entire section that you're looking

2:58:28 ↗ at that's gonna that's being completely

2:58:30 ↗ rewritten so without that

2:58:33 ↗ that guilty language in it

2:58:35 ↗ so then we'll just refer it to

2:58:38 ↗ the new chapter

2:58:41 ↗ okay thank you appreciate that

2:58:46 ↗ and appeals currently appeals go to the

2:58:50 ↗ city administrator which is nice for

2:58:52 ↗ efficiency purposes but

2:58:55 ↗ i think it makes sense to have appeals

2:58:56 ↗ heard by the hearing examiner who hears

2:58:58 ↗ most of the city's other appeals

2:59:04 ↗ so we're here tonight at the study

2:59:06 ↗ session

2:59:07 ↗ we this will this is on the council's

2:59:09 ↗ agenda for the regular meeting on april

2:59:11 ↗ 4th

2:59:12 ↗ we have to adopt some regulations by the

2:59:16 ↗ 18th i believe or the the prior code

2:59:19 ↗ ordinance will sunset and the code will

2:59:21 ↗ revert to what it was in place prior to

2:59:23 ↗ january 18th

2:59:26 ↗ does anyone have any questions

2:59:30 ↗ okay council member ray

2:59:32 ↗ um

2:59:33 ↗ thanks rachel this was great

2:59:35 ↗ and i know that you mentioned a couple

2:59:37 ↗ times that you engaged with the chamber

2:59:39 ↗ and other business

2:59:42 ↗ i guess you said you engaged with the

2:59:45 ↗ chamber

2:59:46 ↗ were there any other business entities

2:59:48 ↗ that were also involved in this

2:59:49 ↗ discussion or was it really the chamber

2:59:50 ↗ that was kind of leading the charge from

2:59:52 ↗ the business perspective

2:59:54 ↗ if they were they were filtering it

2:59:55 ↗ through the chamber okay i do believe

2:59:57 ↗ that there were

2:59:58 ↗ folks speaking with them about it but it

3:00:01 ↗ was all all of the comments that i

3:00:03 ↗ received were from members

3:00:06 ↗ of the chamber or the evc okay sending

3:00:09 ↗ emails to staff

3:00:11 ↗ handcuffs president uh councilman ray uh

3:00:14 ↗ jen davis hayes our economic development

3:00:15 ↗ manager

3:00:16 ↗ is on the line i think she might be able

3:00:18 ↗ to add i know there were some additional

3:00:20 ↗ discussions oh good i'd love to direct

3:00:22 ↗ it

3:00:25 ↗ hi thank you yes hi so jen davis and so

3:00:28 ↗ i actually wanted to mention that we

3:00:29 ↗ have have a member of the economic

3:00:31 ↗ vitality commission here to provide a

3:00:33 ↗ little bit of feedback about that

3:00:35 ↗ process and input so i don't know now

3:00:38 ↗ the best time for that or you want to

3:00:39 ↗ wait to hear that um later but they the

3:00:42 ↗ um evc did have two open meetings about

3:00:45 ↗ this where there were no

3:00:48 ↗ extra businesses that actually were

3:00:50 ↗ there to comment but of course there are

3:00:51 ↗ business representatives on the evc

3:00:54 ↗ so chris richly who is a member of the

3:00:57 ↗ evc is available to speak if that's

3:00:59 ↗ appropriate time now

3:01:02 ↗ jen that would be great and thank you

3:01:04 ↗ for coming on and thanks chris for uh

3:01:08 ↗ showing up

3:01:10 ↗ yes thank you good good evening um

3:01:12 ↗ council members and mayor paulie and

3:01:15 ↗ staff and

3:01:16 ↗ everybody else in attendance my name is

3:01:18 ↗ chris richly

3:01:20 ↗ active commissioner with the economic

3:01:22 ↗ vitality committee um

3:01:25 ↗ just wanted to kind of give you a

3:01:26 ↗ background like jen said on the feedback

3:01:28 ↗ that we were providing to

3:01:30 ↗ uh

3:01:31 ↗ to attorney turpin

3:01:33 ↗ regarding the changes so the

3:01:34 ↗ commissioners were in agreement with the

3:01:36 ↗ suggested languages in the updated

3:01:38 ↗ revocation and suspension license

3:01:41 ↗ particularly in sections 5.02

3:01:44 ↗ 0.130 a

3:01:46 ↗ 1 through three and sections 5.02

3:01:50 ↗ and 0.13085

3:01:53 ↗ um we did have some you know discussion

3:01:55 ↗ around the the the language and the

3:01:58 ↗ ambiguity of the words you know peace

3:02:00 ↗ and welfare like it was brought up and

3:02:02 ↗ basically we appreciate that it's to

3:02:04 ↗ just

3:02:05 ↗ basically say maintain health and safety

3:02:08 ↗ it was a lot you know right there you

3:02:10 ↗ know to cover but just maintain health

3:02:13 ↗ and safety

3:02:14 ↗ after discussion the enforcement of

3:02:15 ↗ public nuisance makes sense to follow

3:02:17 ↗ the definition as outlined by the state

3:02:20 ↗ law

3:02:21 ↗ uh commissioners recommended we did

3:02:23 ↗ recommend striking the phrase failed to

3:02:26 ↗ prevent and section 5.02.130

3:02:30 ↗ a 5.

3:02:32 ↗ and then just basically add clarity as

3:02:35 ↗ um

3:02:36 ↗ you know attorney turpin did and

3:02:38 ↗ particularly to the business owners you

3:02:39 ↗ know we as business owners they can't

3:02:43 ↗ technically prevent it's not like no no

3:02:45 ↗ businesses want to prevent of a crime

3:02:48 ↗ from happening but you know they can

3:02:50 ↗ implement a system

3:02:51 ↗ that may not be enough to prevent the

3:02:53 ↗ theft right but you know i work at a

3:02:56 ↗ credit union i managed to the harvard

3:02:58 ↗ credit union up in the highlands i can't

3:03:00 ↗ prevent a robbery from happening so

3:03:01 ↗ that's where we're kind of going with

3:03:03 ↗ that different businesses so

3:03:05 ↗ that's why that's why we're looking at

3:03:07 ↗ that

3:03:08 ↗ uh commissioners also suggest adding

3:03:10 ↗ clarity on section 5.02.1

3:03:13 ↗ or 0.130 a 7 related to whether

3:03:16 ↗ businesses who are past due

3:03:19 ↗ were in fact working you know with the

3:03:21 ↗ city we needed to have the verbiage in

3:03:23 ↗ that they were working together with the

3:03:24 ↗ city to get it resolved and then suggest

3:03:26 ↗ it added to working in good faith having

3:03:28 ↗ that that time frame also implemented to

3:03:31 ↗ hold them accountable to making sure

3:03:33 ↗ their their fees are paid and taxes and

3:03:35 ↗ whatnot so we're continuing to you know

3:03:37 ↗ help them move along business but then

3:03:39 ↗ also we're not enabling them to continue

3:03:42 ↗ not to take care of something that's

3:03:43 ↗ outstanding

3:03:45 ↗ uh the commissioners expressed their

3:03:46 ↗ gratitude to the staff for their hard

3:03:48 ↗ and thoughtful work in updating the

3:03:49 ↗ section of the code and where support of

3:03:51 ↗ all is where change is being presented

3:03:53 ↗ so um i appreciate the time just to talk

3:03:56 ↗ tonight in front of you all and turn it

3:03:58 ↗ back over to you jen

3:04:01 ↗ well before we turn it back over to jen

3:04:03 ↗ i just want to say chris thank you very

3:04:06 ↗ much for staying here late as we

3:04:09 ↗ are getting through this as a second

3:04:11 ↗ item and your service on the commission

3:04:14 ↗ it's really really important for us to

3:04:17 ↗ hear directly from the commissioners so

3:04:19 ↗ jen thanks for um orienting that and

3:04:22 ↗ making sure that that happened so thank

3:04:24 ↗ you

3:04:26 ↗ okay and so i guess we're going back to

3:04:30 ↗ rachel at this point i think

3:04:32 ↗ um

3:04:33 ↗ so

3:04:34 ↗ actually you've finished up your

3:04:35 ↗ presentation so we're ready for

3:04:38 ↗ um questions seeing if there are any

3:04:41 ↗ other questions before we go to public

3:04:44 ↗ comments

3:04:46 ↗ anybody questions and i'm checking chat

3:04:49 ↗ to see anything from councilmember d

3:04:52 ↗ michelle

3:04:54 ↗ not seeing any so i'll just ask

3:04:57 ↗ council member

3:04:59 ↗ sorry for the late uh hand raise there

3:05:02 ↗ i'd like to um

3:05:04 ↗ just do a couple of comments as the

3:05:06 ↗ liaison for the chamber i've had a

3:05:08 ↗ couple of opportunities to talk to the

3:05:10 ↗ board about uh this issue and certainly

3:05:13 ↗ appreciate city administrator bopkowitz

3:05:15 ↗ uh accompany me on on those meetings and

3:05:18 ↗ one of the things that i think was

3:05:20 ↗ important in our outreach to the chamber

3:05:22 ↗ was discussing the the fact that

3:05:25 ↗ the code is not just

3:05:27 ↗ enforced by its by its cold hard letters

3:05:30 ↗ necessarily that if there is a violation

3:05:32 ↗ that is seen or a violation that is

3:05:35 ↗ potentially coming forward

3:05:37 ↗ the code enforcement officer the police

3:05:39 ↗ department other city officials as well

3:05:41 ↗ as the city administrator work with that

3:05:43 ↗ business to try to mitigate or rectify

3:05:46 ↗ the situation before we get to the point

3:05:48 ↗ where a revocation is necessary and um

3:05:51 ↗ you know so while the code is there

3:05:53 ↗ there's discretion with the the officers

3:05:55 ↗ and the and the officials in the city as

3:05:58 ↗ they go forward and then the city

3:06:00 ↗ administrator of course uh has some

3:06:02 ↗ leeway as he exercised his discretion as

3:06:04 ↗ well uh to try to make sure that the

3:06:06 ↗ businesses are adhering to the law but

3:06:08 ↗ are also uh understand that it's a it's

3:06:10 ↗ a work in progress it's a relationship

3:06:12 ↗ of give and take between the

3:06:14 ↗ administration the city and the business

3:06:15 ↗ itself and i think that helped uh

3:06:18 ↗ convey to the chamber and the other

3:06:20 ↗ institute parties that that uh

3:06:23 ↗ you know the

3:06:24 ↗ the codes the code but it's not followed

3:06:26 ↗ by the strict letter of the law there's

3:06:27 ↗ a lot of discretion involved and i don't

3:06:28 ↗ know if city administrator bob would

3:06:30 ↗ like to comment or add additional color

3:06:32 ↗ to that uh

3:06:35 ↗ no i i again the council member joe is

3:06:38 ↗ absolutely correct we had a long

3:06:39 ↗ discussion at the chamber board meeting

3:06:42 ↗ last week two weeks ago

3:06:44 ↗ about this whole issue of discretion and

3:06:46 ↗ again the compliments to the chamber

3:06:48 ↗ board for taking the time to be as

3:06:50 ↗ thoughtful uh with the subject as

3:06:52 ↗ possible i i think

3:06:54 ↗ councilmember ray's question about other

3:06:56 ↗ businesses um i know jen regularly meets

3:06:59 ↗ with the

3:07:00 ↗ downtown squad association

3:07:02 ↗ the the highlands business group gilman

3:07:05 ↗ village so they were all made aware of

3:07:06 ↗ that but i think we're encouraged to go

3:07:08 ↗ to the economic vitality commission with

3:07:10 ↗ those comments so i think we did we did

3:07:13 ↗ cover

3:07:14 ↗ all those bases and thank councilmember

3:07:15 ↗ joe for

3:07:17 ↗ all the work he did with the chamber

3:07:19 ↗ board over i guess it was two meetings

3:07:21 ↗ two three meetings

3:07:24 ↗ okay so um i'll just enter in my

3:07:27 ↗ question um

3:07:29 ↗ so i notice in the

3:07:32 ↗ code around who would be exempt from

3:07:34 ↗ having to get a business license

3:07:36 ↗ there was something relating to

3:07:39 ↗ rental units and landlords with

3:07:43 ↗ nine or fewer rental units at a single

3:07:45 ↗ location

3:07:47 ↗ so i'm wondering if you can talk through

3:07:49 ↗ that exemption because i think we had an

3:07:51 ↗ email exchange thing that's kind of

3:07:53 ↗ unusual and so give us a sense of

3:07:57 ↗ what other cities around the area do

3:08:01 ↗ and i think you said previously you know

3:08:04 ↗ maybe

3:08:05 ↗ if we want to address that maybe not

3:08:07 ↗ doing it within

3:08:08 ↗ this scope but having an understanding

3:08:11 ↗ of going back and um getting some more

3:08:13 ↗ feedback so if you could talk to that as

3:08:15 ↗ well

3:08:18 ↗ yes so most cities don't

3:08:22 ↗ don't exempt

3:08:24 ↗ the uh

3:08:25 ↗ landlords from these business license

3:08:28 ↗ requirements most of the time

3:08:31 ↗ most cities i've worked in you've had to

3:08:32 ↗ get a business license for any

3:08:35 ↗ rental that you have even people that

3:08:37 ↗ just rent a a single house

3:08:40 ↗ some cities do

3:08:41 ↗ have thresholds so if you

3:08:45 ↗ rent you know

3:08:46 ↗ four or more units or three or more

3:08:49 ↗ units somewhere

3:08:50 ↗ uh

3:08:52 ↗ especially if they're you know located

3:08:54 ↗ in a similar place you know you you rent

3:08:57 ↗ a duplex somewhere um that maybe those

3:09:00 ↗ two then are are exempt

3:09:02 ↗ issaquaz is a little unique and i feel

3:09:05 ↗ like there must be a a story here that

3:09:07 ↗ none of us were

3:09:09 ↗ were around for

3:09:11 ↗ um because

3:09:13 ↗ ten or you know more is what what it was

3:09:16 ↗ so nine or fewer is a it's a pretty

3:09:19 ↗ large number and it's kind of just a

3:09:20 ↗ random number so i

3:09:22 ↗ i that's almost why i it while yes it is

3:09:25 ↗ unusual

3:09:27 ↗ i would be hesitant to change it at this

3:09:29 ↗ point without

3:09:31 ↗ looking into this more and doing some

3:09:33 ↗ further

3:09:34 ↗ analysis because first of all i don't

3:09:36 ↗ know why it was set like that and

3:09:39 ↗ second it would require

3:09:41 ↗ a lot of outreach to

3:09:43 ↗ those i guess

3:09:45 ↗ uh landlords or those you know various

3:09:47 ↗ apartment buildings that have

3:09:50 ↗ uh

3:09:51 ↗ fewer than 10 units and i'm not really

3:09:53 ↗ even sure that the city has you know

3:09:55 ↗ has any really built any ability to

3:09:57 ↗ track that so it sounds like a kind of a

3:10:00 ↗ large undertaking but yes it is unusual

3:10:04 ↗ the high number

3:10:07 ↗ okay

3:10:08 ↗ um that answers my questions i'm not

3:10:12 ↗ seeing any other questions and nothing

3:10:14 ↗ from council member d michelle so i

3:10:17 ↗ think at this point we'll move to

3:10:19 ↗ public comments um and then to counsel

3:10:24 ↗ or

3:10:24 ↗ feedback so um

3:10:27 ↗ clerk do we

3:10:30 ↗ have anybody who's indicated a desire to

3:10:32 ↗ speak

3:10:34 ↗ yes we do council president i also

3:10:37 ↗ wanted to indicate to the attendees that

3:10:38 ↗ if you're joining virtually and would

3:10:40 ↗ like to make comments

3:10:41 ↗ you can raise your virtual hand if

3:10:43 ↗ you're on the phone by pressing star 3

3:10:46 ↗ and if you're on a computer or

3:10:48 ↗ smartphone look for that hand icon

3:10:51 ↗ i do see one hand raised

3:10:54 ↗ kathy mccrory would

3:10:56 ↗ like to speak so hopefully

3:10:58 ↗ we can avoid the problems we had prior

3:11:02 ↗ perfect ms mccrory you should be

3:11:06 ↗ should see the option to unmute and you

3:11:09 ↗ can also join us by video

3:11:11 ↗ fingers crossed you can hear me this

3:11:13 ↗ time yes we can

3:11:15 ↗ yes three computers later

3:11:19 ↗ thank you everyone um i just want to

3:11:22 ↗ first off start by acknowledging um city

3:11:25 ↗ attorney turpin and jen davis hayes and

3:11:29 ↗ other staff members um

3:11:31 ↗ for all the time that they took

3:11:34 ↗ to make sure that we were able to reach

3:11:37 ↗ out to the business community gather

3:11:39 ↗ input and ideas resources etc um we did

3:11:43 ↗ an exhaustive search as well as just so

3:11:46 ↗ you know i also sit on ebc so i was part

3:11:48 ↗ of all of those meetings bringing

3:11:51 ↗ information back and forth from our

3:11:53 ↗ chamber board to ebc

3:11:56 ↗ and vice versa but we reached out to

3:11:59 ↗ not just the retailers we had a retail

3:12:01 ↗ roundtable we reached out to a

3:12:04 ↗ cross-section of small and large

3:12:07 ↗ businesses

3:12:08 ↗ we invited and had meetings with

3:12:11 ↗ shopping

3:12:12 ↗ center owners as well as following up

3:12:15 ↗ with target and a few other of our

3:12:18 ↗ larger retailers

3:12:20 ↗ we reached out to awb

3:12:22 ↗ and

3:12:23 ↗ the wcce and the retail association to

3:12:27 ↗ actually

3:12:28 ↗ guide us through this process as well

3:12:31 ↗ just to make sure that we had a thorough

3:12:33 ↗ understanding of um

3:12:35 ↗ what this code means and the importance

3:12:38 ↗ to the community because as everyone

3:12:40 ↗ else we want our communities safe we

3:12:43 ↗ want to feel good when we go out and go

3:12:45 ↗ shopping and we want our businesses to

3:12:48 ↗ succeed so the health and safety of

3:12:50 ↗ course is key i feel that this was a

3:12:53 ↗ great effort on everybody's part to get

3:12:56 ↗ us there

3:12:57 ↗ to provide an ordinance that offers

3:13:00 ↗ health and safety not just for the

3:13:02 ↗ businesses but for their employees

3:13:05 ↗ and their customers so i do think that

3:13:07 ↗ that was accomplished in this

3:13:10 ↗ um

3:13:11 ↗ i do want to say that

3:13:13 ↗ in

3:13:15 ↗ in our process just so you're aware all

3:13:17 ↗ of this went back to our government

3:13:19 ↗ affairs committee so it was seen by a

3:13:21 ↗ cross-section of businesses there as

3:13:22 ↗ well before it moved forward to the

3:13:24 ↗ board and then of course to city

3:13:27 ↗ administrator and our representative

3:13:29 ↗ russell joe

3:13:30 ↗ so um a great process would like to be

3:13:34 ↗ able to say set that a as a great

3:13:36 ↗ example moving forward when there are

3:13:39 ↗ issues that concern our businesses

3:13:42 ↗ so basically all in all

3:13:44 ↗ our our position is that

3:13:47 ↗ we don't see

3:13:48 ↗ any issues with this ordinance there was

3:13:51 ↗ a question we had

3:13:54 ↗ and it might have been asked and

3:13:55 ↗ answered by now and that was actually

3:13:58 ↗ something that didn't come up in ebc and

3:14:00 ↗ wasn't really on our radar from our

3:14:03 ↗ meeting with city council back in

3:14:05 ↗ january but about um

3:14:09 ↗ one business in multiple locations um i

3:14:12 ↗ did go online and i saw that there are

3:14:14 ↗ many um

3:14:16 ↗ uh businesses that have multiple

3:14:18 ↗ licenses in the city already with the

3:14:21 ↗ state and our own comment was if that's

3:14:23 ↗ something that you do when you apply

3:14:25 ↗ through the state business licensing we

3:14:27 ↗ were fine with it if it was something

3:14:28 ↗ new we'd like a little bit more

3:14:30 ↗ information about that but that was

3:14:32 ↗ really our only concern thank you so

3:14:34 ↗ much for your time

3:14:38 ↗ thank you kathy and thank you for

3:14:39 ↗ staying late and being able to provide

3:14:41 ↗ comments um

3:14:43 ↗ clerk do we have anybody else who has

3:14:45 ↗ indicated a desire to speak

3:14:51 ↗ council president i do not see any other

3:14:54 ↗ attendees uh with their virtual hands

3:14:56 ↗ raised

3:14:57 ↗ okay

3:14:58 ↗ sounds good and so

3:15:01 ↗ at this point i think we're looking for

3:15:03 ↗ feedback from

3:15:05 ↗ council

3:15:08 ↗ deputy council president hall

3:15:11 ↗ uh thank you very much i just wanted to

3:15:13 ↗ share some additional um takeaways from

3:15:15 ↗ conversations that i had with um

3:15:18 ↗ the chamber um with rally properties and

3:15:21 ↗ with the downtown a squad association uh

3:15:24 ↗ as well and that's largely support uh

3:15:26 ↗ for the actions that we took to address

3:15:28 ↗ abandoned shopping carts and unchecked

3:15:30 ↗ retail theft um

3:15:31 ↗ i think in particular i heard most often

3:15:33 ↗ that it was unfortunate we had to

3:15:35 ↗ force a behavior change in this way but

3:15:38 ↗ there was also a recognition and an

3:15:39 ↗ observation that there's definitely

3:15:41 ↗ improvement in the community um and then

3:15:44 ↗ and finally in considering uh this

3:15:46 ↗ update that we see today um that were

3:15:48 ↗ measured in nuance that we get uh that

3:15:50 ↗ we work to get the outcome that we want

3:15:52 ↗ which is to say physical but also

3:15:53 ↗ prevent

3:15:54 ↗ unintended consequences uh down the road

3:15:57 ↗ so with that there are one

3:15:59 ↗ two three four five um sections i wanted

3:16:03 ↗ to provide comments on

3:16:05 ↗ uh the first is um was just mentioned by

3:16:08 ↗ the executive director of the chamber

3:16:10 ↗ cathy mccrory 5.02.050b

3:16:14 ↗ i'm just not going to list off the

3:16:17 ↗ titles from now on but this is the

3:16:19 ↗ section that describes how businesses

3:16:21 ↗ operating in multiple locations need

3:16:23 ↗ multiple registrations and licenses

3:16:27 ↗ based on the feedback that i got in my

3:16:29 ↗ own research into it if it's not a state

3:16:31 ↗ requirement um

3:16:33 ↗ i don't think it's necessary i think i

3:16:35 ↗ think we can remove this um

3:16:37 ↗ i think that this code update is an

3:16:39 ↗ opportunity both to address public

3:16:41 ↗ safety but also to consider how we

3:16:43 ↗ support business growth in town and this

3:16:45 ↗ is small but it could be meaningful to

3:16:47 ↗ small businesses growing so it seems

3:16:49 ↗ like a little bit of a no-brainer to me

3:16:50 ↗ assuming there's no state requirement or

3:16:52 ↗ new administrative burden on staff that

3:16:55 ↗ would

3:16:57 ↗ present a problem

3:16:58 ↗ um so that's feedback on that

3:17:01 ↗ um we heard a little bit already that

3:17:03 ↗ there's still some concern from the

3:17:04 ↗ business community about using the

3:17:05 ↗ phrase public nuisance and rachel got to

3:17:08 ↗ this already so i will

3:17:09 ↗ limit

3:17:10 ↗ some of my comments here but just to say

3:17:12 ↗ to and to acknowledge what i've heard

3:17:14 ↗ from the business community and that is

3:17:17 ↗ there's a wide range of public nuisances

3:17:19 ↗ that can be

3:17:21 ↗ in different jurisdictions and be really

3:17:23 ↗ difficult to narrowly define that and

3:17:25 ↗ even if even in the event a business is

3:17:27 ↗ creating a public nuisance our first

3:17:29 ↗ action wouldn't be to suspend or revoke

3:17:31 ↗ a business license anyways

3:17:33 ↗ there's a pretty well established

3:17:34 ↗ process for notifying

3:17:36 ↗ a business owner and asking them to stop

3:17:38 ↗ before we even begin to think about due

3:17:40 ↗ process anyway so no change here just

3:17:42 ↗ acknowledging what i've heard

3:17:43 ↗ um

3:17:44 ↗ and then

3:17:48 ↗ 5.02.1306 is definitely the real meat

3:17:50 ↗ and potatoes of the public safety

3:17:52 ↗ discussion that we're having i'm happy

3:17:53 ↗ to see failed to prevent was removed

3:17:56 ↗ um i think we've i think we did find the

3:17:58 ↗ sweet spot with how it's written written

3:18:00 ↗ right now because

3:18:02 ↗ no one's interpreting it to mean that

3:18:04 ↗ owners or employees need to intervene

3:18:07 ↗ obviously what we mean is calling 911

3:18:09 ↗ reporting the activity and allowing law

3:18:11 ↗ enforcement to do their thing

3:18:13 ↗ um

3:18:14 ↗ oh okay so chapter five um point zero

3:18:17 ↗ two point one four zero is a section

3:18:20 ↗ that says a business has 13 days to file

3:18:22 ↗ an appeal after the city mails a notice

3:18:25 ↗ either denying suspending or revoking a

3:18:27 ↗ business license

3:18:28 ↗ um

3:18:29 ↗ i had some conversations with the

3:18:31 ↗ chamber board leadership on this i agree

3:18:34 ↗ i think that this time frame might be on

3:18:35 ↗ the low end and i'd like to see it

3:18:37 ↗ change to somewhere between 20 to 30

3:18:39 ↗ days instead

3:18:41 ↗ this is just another opportunity to

3:18:42 ↗ consider how we can support growth and

3:18:45 ↗ recovery

3:18:46 ↗ for businesses in town give them a

3:18:48 ↗ little bit more time they've got a lot

3:18:49 ↗ on their plates

3:18:51 ↗ um and then the last one for the appeals

3:18:53 ↗ process in general

3:18:55 ↗ um

3:18:59 ↗ see i don't want to repeat everything

3:19:01 ↗ that's rachel's already said

3:19:04 ↗ um

3:19:04 ↗ i agree that transitioning from a

3:19:06 ↗ hearing examiner or to the hearing

3:19:08 ↗ examiner would ensure objectivity and it

3:19:10 ↗ would definitely um

3:19:12 ↗ help with the equitable

3:19:14 ↗ application of discretion which was one

3:19:16 ↗ of my major concerns when we first

3:19:17 ↗ passed this ordinance a few months ago

3:19:20 ↗ but another concern is timeliness and

3:19:23 ↗ predictability and i had asked the city

3:19:25 ↗ attorney whether or not we could add a

3:19:26 ↗ timeline to the hearing examiner

3:19:28 ↗ decision and what we heard back was yes

3:19:31 ↗ and that we should but that we should

3:19:33 ↗ wait to include that in the new code

3:19:35 ↗ enforcement ranks which you already

3:19:36 ↗ mentioned tonight so thank you

3:19:38 ↗ and in the meantime there's already this

3:19:39 ↗ hearing examiner rules that require a

3:19:41 ↗ decision within 10 working days so i'm

3:19:43 ↗ i'm feeling pretty good about waiting

3:19:45 ↗ and tackling the code enforcement regs

3:19:46 ↗ later so once again no change just

3:19:48 ↗ acknowledging to the business community

3:19:51 ↗ listening um

3:19:53 ↗ that we heard that

3:19:55 ↗ uh and then yeah at the exemption for

3:19:57 ↗ marijuana retailers as councilman

3:19:59 ↗ remarks mentioned good point and then

3:20:01 ↗ the civil violation section needs

3:20:03 ↗ updating as um council member joe

3:20:06 ↗ mentioned so those are my comments

3:20:07 ↗ thanks

3:20:10 ↗ okay and we've got a comment from

3:20:11 ↗ councilmember d michelle

3:20:14 ↗ um thank you i have a comment but first

3:20:17 ↗ uh is it all right if i ask

3:20:19 ↗ councilmember hall a question

3:20:22 ↗ certainly

3:20:24 ↗ uh councilmember hall at the beginning

3:20:26 ↗ of your remarks you said you wanted us

3:20:28 ↗ to drop

3:20:30 ↗ a item uh could you re just read the

3:20:33 ↗ item because i'm like

3:20:35 ↗ rushing through and looking at it i

3:20:37 ↗ couldn't find what it was that you were

3:20:38 ↗ talking about and i don't know what

3:20:40 ↗ you're proposing to have dropped was

3:20:42 ↗ this actually councilmember viewing show

3:20:44 ↗ was this in reference to um

3:20:47 ↗ this section describing how businesses

3:20:49 ↗ operate in multiple locations that one

3:20:52 ↗ it was the very first thing it was the

3:20:54 ↗ very first item that you brought up and

3:20:56 ↗ you said you thought we should just

3:20:58 ↗ simply remove it yeah so that's toward

3:21:00 ↗ the beginning it's uh chapter 5.02.050

3:21:07 ↗ b

3:21:08 ↗ yes what's the wording there so

3:21:13 ↗ uh if a business is conducted from more

3:21:16 ↗ than one premises in the city that is

3:21:18 ↗ rented lease sub-leased or owned by such

3:21:20 ↗ business a separate registration and

3:21:22 ↗ license shall be required for each

3:21:25 ↗ premises within the city so quite

3:21:26 ↗ literally just if you have if you're

3:21:28 ↗ operating

3:21:30 ↗ out of multiple locations each of those

3:21:31 ↗ locations need its own business license

3:21:34 ↗ is that correct city attorney turpin

3:21:35 ↗ that is correct

3:21:39 ↗ and you're asking

3:21:40 ↗ and you think that should be dropped

3:21:42 ↗ because

3:21:43 ↗ i i think that this is an opportunity um

3:21:46 ↗ i guess i'm just not seeing it as a

3:21:48 ↗ necessary action for the city to

3:21:49 ↗ document all the different uh or to

3:21:52 ↗ require a business license for each

3:21:55 ↗ premises that a business is operating

3:21:56 ↗ out of if we already have an overarching

3:22:00 ↗ business license this is also what i

3:22:01 ↗ heard from a couple members of the

3:22:03 ↗ business community

3:22:04 ↗ in connecting with them and i think

3:22:07 ↗ unless there's some

3:22:08 ↗ new administrative burden that would um

3:22:11 ↗ that we would bear on city staff or if

3:22:13 ↗ there's some state requirement that i'm

3:22:14 ↗ missing i just am not seeing a reason

3:22:16 ↗ why

3:22:17 ↗ to do that

3:22:19 ↗ all right thank you thank you for the

3:22:20 ↗ explanation i guess my feeling would be

3:22:23 ↗ um before we do that i mean that's just

3:22:26 ↗ you know just bringing it up here

3:22:28 ↗ tonight i need to know the

3:22:31 ↗ implications of that if we could get

3:22:33 ↗ that before

3:22:34 ↗ it's brought back to us at the next

3:22:36 ↗ meeting i would appreciate that or

3:22:38 ↗ if we could just get you know just a

3:22:43 ↗ commentary from our uh attorney that

3:22:45 ↗ would be really great so i'd just like

3:22:47 ↗ to know what the implications of taking

3:22:49 ↗ that out would be

3:22:51 ↗ so my own comments on this uh first of

3:22:54 ↗ all

3:22:55 ↗ i really

3:22:56 ↗ like the public outreach that was done

3:22:58 ↗ on this

3:22:59 ↗ and

3:23:01 ↗ the economic vitality commission and the

3:23:03 ↗ chamber but i also want to recognize

3:23:05 ↗ that it was brought before members of

3:23:07 ↗ the equity board and

3:23:10 ↗ this is exactly i think how we

3:23:12 ↗ envisioned that the equity board would

3:23:14 ↗ be used to look at everything that we're

3:23:17 ↗ doing and particularly this is one that

3:23:20 ↗ involves penalties

3:23:22 ↗ it could involve small businesses

3:23:25 ↗ that are are owned by minority owners

3:23:29 ↗ it could involve businesses owned by

3:23:31 ↗ women so forth and

3:23:33 ↗ i really

3:23:34 ↗ applaud the fact that the equity

3:23:36 ↗ commission or equity board excuse me was

3:23:39 ↗ able to weigh in on this and take a look

3:23:41 ↗ at it through an equity land so many

3:23:44 ↗ thanks uh to rachel turpin for for being

3:23:47 ↗ sure that they were included

3:23:49 ↗ um i think this kind of process is how

3:23:52 ↗ we get really good legislation

3:23:54 ↗ uh reading through it i think we are

3:23:58 ↗ accomplishing everything we wanted to do

3:24:01 ↗ with the original piece of

3:24:03 ↗ legislation

3:24:05 ↗ but we have

3:24:07 ↗ listened to the community

3:24:09 ↗ and the community

3:24:11 ↗ was able to help us

3:24:13 ↗ put the wording in such a way that it

3:24:15 ↗ also works for the community and to me

3:24:18 ↗ that is a really good piece of

3:24:19 ↗ legislation so

3:24:21 ↗ um i really commend the process for this

3:24:24 ↗ and uh

3:24:26 ↗ rachel and i went back and forth on the

3:24:28 ↗ wording on one of the sections and i

3:24:29 ↗ think she updated it for the

3:24:31 ↗ presentation tonight so i don't have any

3:24:33 ↗ comment on that part uh overall i am

3:24:36 ↗ very supportive of the um of the

3:24:40 ↗ ordinance and i

3:24:42 ↗ i i don't find anything that i would

3:24:45 ↗ change at this point so

3:24:47 ↗ again thanks for the process and thanks

3:24:48 ↗ for the hard work on this

3:24:52 ↗ thank you councilmember d michelle

3:24:54 ↗ looking at the other

3:24:56 ↗ no

3:24:57 ↗ uh council member hunt

3:25:00 ↗ i have a question about the multiple

3:25:02 ↗ licenses do you know what other cities

3:25:04 ↗ neighboring jurisdictions do on the

3:25:06 ↗ multiple licenses most of them include

3:25:08 ↗ that requirement and the reason is is

3:25:11 ↗ that the bls system doesn't and i

3:25:13 ↗ actually just went in and made a pretend

3:25:15 ↗ business and to fill out the

3:25:17 ↗ the form

3:25:18 ↗ it only lets you put in one address and

3:25:21 ↗ one of the purposes of the application

3:25:25 ↗ is to see if you meet the zoning and the

3:25:28 ↗ the requirements at the proposed address

3:25:31 ↗ so i think that's the primary reason why

3:25:34 ↗ it white books included

3:25:36 ↗ the state actually it's not a state

3:25:38 ↗ requirement that cities do it but the

3:25:41 ↗ state actually requires it for their own

3:25:43 ↗ business licenses for the state business

3:25:45 ↗ license you have to get a separate one

3:25:47 ↗ for each location

3:25:52 ↗ it just has that downside

3:25:54 ↗ i was hoping that there would be a way

3:25:55 ↗ that you could add multiple locations

3:25:58 ↗ but it doesn't seem to have that

3:26:00 ↗ capability in the bls system

3:26:03 ↗ um well my comments i agree with what

3:26:05 ↗ councilmember d michelle said i think

3:26:07 ↗ that this has gone through

3:26:09 ↗ a process with a lot of feedback which i

3:26:11 ↗ appreciate um

3:26:13 ↗ i on the on the multiple licenses which

3:26:15 ↗ has come up a few times

3:26:17 ↗ i was wondering also if you have a

3:26:19 ↗ business then you add a location that

3:26:21 ↗ new location has new management and you

3:26:22 ↗ know something specific about it and you

3:26:24 ↗ didn't have to get a new license then

3:26:26 ↗ the city has no knowledge of that

3:26:28 ↗ additional location and if there's a

3:26:30 ↗ problem there etc so i was just thinking

3:26:33 ↗ you know un

3:26:35 ↗ unintended consequences seem like they

3:26:37 ↗ could be along those lines so i wouldn't

3:26:39 ↗ support it at this time but i'm open to

3:26:42 ↗ hearing more information about the pros

3:26:43 ↗ and cons of it because i hadn't really

3:26:46 ↗ received much information about it

3:26:47 ↗ before tonight

3:26:51 ↗ councilmember joe

3:26:53 ↗ thank you

3:26:54 ↗ i appreciate the

3:26:56 ↗ process that we

3:26:57 ↗ went through as a city to reach out to

3:27:00 ↗ businesses large and small

3:27:02 ↗ i appreciate the input from the chamber

3:27:04 ↗ as well

3:27:05 ↗ as we as a council and and the

3:27:07 ↗ administration

3:27:08 ↗ try to wrestle with with this

3:27:11 ↗ you know

3:27:12 ↗ this section we do need to keep in mind

3:27:14 ↗ that the the actual fee

3:27:16 ↗ is uh sixty dollars initially and fifty

3:27:19 ↗ dollars every year after and that it

3:27:22 ↗ exempts businesses that earn less than

3:27:24 ↗ three thousand dollars

3:27:25 ↗ in a year so

3:27:27 ↗ we have to kind of measure how much time

3:27:29 ↗ do you want to spend making changes to

3:27:30 ↗ this

3:27:31 ↗ versus how much income actually comes in

3:27:34 ↗ and then also we also want to think

3:27:37 ↗ about you know we want to make it so

3:27:38 ↗ that people want to register rather than

3:27:41 ↗ have to register it and an onus pro

3:27:44 ↗ a very

3:27:45 ↗ hard process for them to to make that

3:27:47 ↗ happen as well so we want to encourage

3:27:49 ↗ compliance we want to make sure that

3:27:51 ↗ it's a it's a low barrier to

3:27:54 ↗ filling it out and then we as a city

3:27:56 ↗ need to make sure that we're putting the

3:27:58 ↗ appropriate amount of time for the

3:27:59 ↗ amendments in there given the amount of

3:28:00 ↗ income that that might be coming from uh

3:28:03 ↗ this this section of the code so

3:28:06 ↗ i think we have great ideas that have

3:28:07 ↗ been tossed around

3:28:10 ↗ through this process and tonight

3:28:12 ↗ but we just need to kind of keep in mind

3:28:15 ↗ the ultimate goals for this section

3:28:18 ↗ thank you

3:28:21 ↗ okay i'm not seeing any other comments

3:28:24 ↗ so i will make my own um

3:28:28 ↗ i'll plus one to the previous comments

3:28:30 ↗ of great process really good engagement

3:28:34 ↗ lovely to see the

3:28:37 ↗ feedback received and the iterations

3:28:39 ↗ that went on it and

3:28:42 ↗ not just that but

3:28:44 ↗ then

3:28:45 ↗ going back to the stakeholders and

3:28:47 ↗ saying okay we made these changes see

3:28:50 ↗ how your comments impacted

3:28:53 ↗ the results so really liked that

3:28:58 ↗ city attorney turpin appreciated

3:29:01 ↗ that it wasn't just a

3:29:04 ↗ an effort to

3:29:05 ↗ let's just rewrite and change that one

3:29:08 ↗ area where there was the most concern it

3:29:11 ↗ was also a review

3:29:13 ↗ that gave us the opportunity to change

3:29:16 ↗ this so that it's administrated by the

3:29:18 ↗ city administrator and the appeals are

3:29:19 ↗ heard by the hearing examiner

3:29:22 ↗ and we review the qualifications for a

3:29:24 ↗ business license as well as this

3:29:27 ↗ kind of intention point of the criteria

3:29:30 ↗ for suspension revocation so

3:29:33 ↗ i think this

3:29:34 ↗ was well done

3:29:36 ↗ all around

3:29:38 ↗ i read through it as someone with a city

3:29:41 ↗ business license trying to make sure

3:29:43 ↗ that i would fit each of the criteria

3:29:47 ↗ and you know what this meant for me and

3:29:49 ↗ i came away

3:29:51 ↗ i love it when i can read code and

3:29:53 ↗ understand what it means for me and

3:29:56 ↗ um so

3:29:58 ↗ i i think for me this checks all of the

3:30:00 ↗ boxes and i feel very comfortable with

3:30:03 ↗ all of this moving forward so

3:30:05 ↗ thank you

3:30:07 ↗ um

3:30:08 ↗ seeing no other comments i just want to

3:30:11 ↗ make sure

3:30:12 ↗ the attorney that you have everything

3:30:15 ↗ you need feedback wise and it looks like

3:30:18 ↗ we're on schedule then to

3:30:20 ↗ have this come back for a vote at our

3:30:24 ↗ next regular meeting

3:30:27 ↗ okay i do yeah i did make and i did make

3:30:30 ↗ the revisions to uh section

3:30:33 ↗ uh 0.130

3:30:37 ↗ uh

3:30:38 ↗ a

3:30:39 ↗ six that

3:30:40 ↗ count uh councilmember day michelle

3:30:42 ↗ referenced i just cleaned up the

3:30:44 ↗ language regarding the the

3:30:47 ↗ no duty to intervene so you'll see that

3:30:49 ↗ come back in the room and the packet

3:30:51 ↗ that or the version that goes to the

3:30:52 ↗ packet

3:30:53 ↗ monday

3:30:54 ↗ and i've already made the change to the

3:30:56 ↗ guilty language and added the marijuana

3:30:59 ↗ exclusion as well so that was what i was

3:31:01 ↗ just gonna ask for

3:31:04 ↗ efficiency i love it i love it

3:31:07 ↗ okay so i think that is the last item of

3:31:11 ↗ business

3:31:12 ↗ so at this point we can adjourn

3:31:17 ↗ at 10 02 pm

3:31:20 ↗ thank you everybody

3:31:25 ↗ and council member dean michelle i

3:31:27 ↗ assume you will stay on be

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 (7)

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Victoria Hunt

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Motions and votes (1)

Approve settlement agreement related to ORA Talus litigation as discussed in Executive Session. .

Moved by WALSH · seconded by HALL

Carried 7-0

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh