Development Commission · Wednesday, August 21, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Development Commission · May 1, 2019

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Lucy Sloman, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Land Development Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board Email to the City Council on land use actions requiring council approval (Level 5 review). Regular Members 2020 – Melvin Morgan The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2020 – Kevin Price Development Commission members and City 2022 – Michael Brennan Council members from discussing the merit of 2022 – Richard Sowa specific land use development applications outside 2022 – Richard Sanford of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2023 – Brooke Shore however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2023 – Ben Rush Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2020 – Mark Rigos Membership 2020 – Nischitha Venkatesh The…

Site Development Permit for Evergreen Ford Lincoln Dealership - Quasi-judicial [2 hr.] SDP19-00001; AAS19-00005; LLA19-00003 1, 2019)

Katie Cote, Planning Consultant · packet pp.5–122

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Development Commission · May 1, 2019

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Development Services 1775 – 12th Ave. NW | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3100

3014 segments .txt ↗

0:27 ↗ good evening ladies and gentlemen I'd

0:29 ↗ like to welcome you all to the public

0:31 ↗ hearing for the site development permit

0:33 ↗ for Evergreen Ford Lincoln dealership

0:35 ↗ we'll have a staff presentation an

0:38 ↗ applicant presentation we'll have a

0:41 ↗ comment and then we'll have Commission

0:43 ↗ deliberation and so this I have to do an

0:48 ↗ administrative thing of identify the

0:50 ↗ commissioners that are present and that

0:52 ↗ would be Michael Brennan Richard Sanford

0:55 ↗ no Morgan Richard so of Kevin price at

0:58 ↗ Brooke she'll work Shore I'm sorry

1:01 ↗ and our Schulte one Commissioner is

1:06 ↗ excused because of illness Ben Rusch and

1:08 ↗ then we have two commissioners that are

1:10 ↗ not approved for being not here mark

1:13 ↗ redose and Nishida Venkatesh so with

1:19 ↗ that I'll turn the time over to the

1:21 ↗ staff

1:29 ↗ good evening my name is Lucy slum and

1:32 ↗ I'm land development manager and I'm

1:34 ↗ just going to take you through the

1:35 ↗ quasi-judicial process at the beginning

1:38 ↗ of this continuation of the public

1:41 ↗ hearing because this is a quasi-judicial

1:46 ↗ permit it means that our proceedings

1:48 ↗ need to be both be fair and appear fair

1:51 ↗ and that requires us to meet both

1:54 ↗ procedural due process as well as

1:57 ↗ substantive due process procedural due

2:00 ↗ process has to do with the steps and

2:02 ↗ process that we take the permit through

2:05 ↗ such as notifying people and doing

2:09 ↗ everything on the record substantive due

2:12 ↗ process has to do with making decisions

2:15 ↗ based on adopted regulations so first I

2:20 ↗ would like for you to read through this

2:21 ↗ series of questions and then I will ask

2:24 ↗ you to let us know if your answers are

2:26 ↗ yes or no

2:42 ↗ how many commissioners answer no to all

2:45 ↗ the questions thank you

2:49 ↗ the other portion as I mentioned is that

2:53 ↗ our proceedings need to take place on

2:56 ↗ the record and that as the

2:58 ↗ decision-makers you make your decision

3:00 ↗ based on the record that is formed in

3:04 ↗ the public hearings and so at this time

3:07 ↗ I ask if any commissioners have had any

3:09 ↗ ex parte communication I'd like to

3:14 ↗ disclose the conversation just for

3:17 ↗ context I'm a civil engineer and I work

3:19 ↗ for a large general contractor and just

3:23 ↗ today I was working with some designers

3:25 ↗ and we are relocating a stream and it

3:27 ↗ just kind of popped in my head and I

3:29 ↗ said however have you guys ever worked

3:31 ↗ on a job where the stream was

3:33 ↗ reclassified they said yes depending on

3:39 ↗ the environmental consultant and some

3:42 ↗ other things I was about a two-minute

3:44 ↗ conversation anyway I just wanted to put

3:48 ↗ that out there and I don't think that

3:50 ↗ conversation will affect my opinion and

3:52 ↗ I don't think I need to recuse myself

3:53 ↗ but I'll leave that to you guys

3:57 ↗ I would like to offer if anyone in the

4:00 ↗ audience in particular the applicant

4:02 ↗ choose wants to challenge any of the

4:05 ↗ commissioners participation okay seeing

4:10 ↗ none thank you

4:18 ↗ okay my name is Katie Cody I'm a

4:21 ↗ planning consultant with development

4:23 ↗ services department and I'm I've been

4:25 ↗ working on this project with the

4:26 ↗ applicant I'm going to take you through

4:30 ↗ presentation of slides and information

4:32 ↗ that both staff and the applicant worked

4:34 ↗ on together as part of putting together

4:36 ↗ the briefing response memo and these are

4:41 ↗ follow-up information answers to

4:44 ↗ questions and clarifications that were

4:46 ↗ left after the first portion of our

4:48 ↗ public hearing which took place on May

4:51 ↗ 1st so just to give a little bit of

4:54 ↗ context about the project this is a

4:57 ↗ proposed Ford and Lincoln dealership in

5:01 ↗ the in the East Lake neighborhood of

5:05 ↗ it's aquatic correct is it you sleek

5:07 ↗ yeah thank you

5:09 ↗ it's located north of i90 on a site that

5:14 ↗ is zoned intensive commercial it's

5:19 ↗ located near the lakeside industries

5:21 ↗ property which is mouse there it is down

5:24 ↗ here and as commissioner shore

5:30 ↗ mentioned there are some streams on this

5:33 ↗ site one of which was recently relocated

5:36 ↗ the North Fork of the Creek used

5:39 ↗ to run through the site approximately

5:41 ↗ like so and it was rerouted to the

5:45 ↗ northern portion of the site as part of

5:48 ↗ the wash dot culvert relocation project

5:51 ↗ and during that same project a culvert

5:53 ↗ at the end of a ditch here in the

5:56 ↗ southern portion of the site was also

5:57 ↗ rebuilt this is the site plan for the

6:02 ↗ building the proposal is to house a

6:04 ↗ Lincoln dealership a Ford dealership and

6:06 ↗ a shared service and parking facility

6:09 ↗ right now the proposal is up to four

6:12 ↗ stories including one level of service

6:14 ↗ and three levels of parking and vehicle

6:17 ↗ storage the applicant intends to build

6:20 ↗ only the first three stories now in the

6:23 ↗ fourth story later and also on this side

6:27 ↗ the site plan you can see the stream

6:29 ↗ here

6:30 ↗ sites so now we're north has been

6:32 ↗ oriented to the left the buffer they're

6:36 ↗ requesting a reduction from the 100-foot

6:39 ↗ buffer 275 feet which is this darker

6:43 ↗ blue area this patterned area on the

6:46 ↗ other side of the creek is also part of

6:48 ↗ the buffer and then the red indicates

6:55 ↗ stalls that are slated for vehicle

6:59 ↗ display and merchandise storage as

7:03 ↗ opposed to customer or employee parking

7:06 ↗ and the reason those are shown

7:09 ↗ differently is that the city treats

7:11 ↗ different natures of parking stalls

7:14 ↗ differently for calculating required

7:17 ↗ parking and because the vehicle display

7:20 ↗ and storage doesn't function as a

7:22 ↗ regular customer or employee parking but

7:25 ↗ rather more about merchandising use it

7:28 ↗ doesn't count toward their parking

7:30 ↗ neither their minimum nor their maximum

7:32 ↗ another thing I want to point out which

7:35 ↗ is a change from the May first site plan

7:37 ↗ is they previously had two driveways on

7:40 ↗ two 230th here they've consolidated that

7:44 ↗ into one driveway and the consolidation

7:47 ↗ of the driveways into one resolved one

7:50 ↗ of the proposed conditions that we had

7:51 ↗ in the last staff report they've also

7:54 ↗ resolved some sight distance issues here

7:57 ↗ in the corner by putting a stop sign

8:00 ↗ there and other changes include the

8:05 ↗ building is slightly smaller it's

8:08 ↗ slightly shorter on this edge and then

8:10 ↗ there's several other architectural

8:12 ↗ changes that I'll get into shortly so

8:14 ↗ this is the perspective of the

8:17 ↗ development what's not shown here which

8:21 ↗ I haven't mentioned yet part of the

8:23 ↗ project is also a detached display

8:25 ↗ pavilion building which would be located

8:29 ↗ at the go back here it's this right here

8:33 ↗ the purpose of this building is

8:35 ↗ partially to meet a code requirement

8:37 ↗ that they have building along the

8:39 ↗ frontage of East Lake Sammamish Parkway

8:41 ↗ they intend to use this for displaying

8:44 ↗ classic cars and special vehicles and a

8:49 ↗ blushing a presence on East Lake

8:50 ↗ Sammamish Parkway and then also I wanted

8:54 ↗ to point out this is the the off-site

8:56 ↗ ditch tributary that does flow into the

9:00 ↗ North Fork further off site so this is

9:06 ↗ showing the current proposal of three

9:09 ↗ stories this shows four stories so we're

9:14 ↗ adding a level of parking here this also

9:16 ↗ shows the pavilion although I believe

9:19 ↗ the pavilion is also part of the

9:21 ↗ three-story scheme yes they're nodding

9:23 ↗ just was not shown on this image and

9:29 ↗ then this is just a different view this

9:31 ↗ would be what the development would look

9:35 ↗ like as you enter the site off of 66

9:39 ↗ [Applause]

9:41 ↗ okay this is the site as as it would

9:44 ↗ look entering off of to 30th thank you

9:46 ↗ David and so we we discussed a lot in

9:51 ↗ the last meeting that this development

9:54 ↗ is located in the traditional Issaquah

9:56 ↗ architectural district it's part it's in

9:59 ↗ the central is across sub area and is

10:02 ↗ subject to the newly adopted design

10:04 ↗ manual as part of the central is quad

10:06 ↗ development at design standards because

10:08 ↗ it's in the traditional Issaquah

10:10 ↗ architectural district it needed to

10:12 ↗ choose a style that was appropriate to

10:15 ↗ the traditional Issaquah theme and

10:17 ↗ they've chosen the Northwest Revival

10:19 ↗ style so the Northwest Revival style is

10:22 ↗ suitable for larger commercial buildings

10:24 ↗ the features include a strong vertical

10:28 ↗ emphasis emphasis masonry materials

10:31 ↗ depth and shadow on windows

10:34 ↗ and the the site is also part of the

10:38 ↗ natural context zone because it's

10:40 ↗ adjacent to the stream buffer and the

10:43 ↗ natural context area has additional

10:46 ↗ standards that it's required to meet so

10:50 ↗ I wanted David Estes that the applicants

10:53 ↗ architect to come up and walk through

10:55 ↗ some of the changes to the architecture

10:57 ↗ of the building that they've made since

10:58 ↗ the last meeting my name is David Estes

11:03 ↗ the project architect was from camp

11:06 ↗ architects what we I'm left-handed at

11:19 ↗ our first meeting in May one of the

11:22 ↗ commissioners comments and some of the

11:25 ↗ general comments that came out is they

11:28 ↗ didn't feel that there was a strong

11:29 ↗ enough vertical emphasis in the building

11:31 ↗ what we've done is increased the number

11:34 ↗ of columns and made a very strong

11:39 ↗ vertical emphasis and scale and

11:41 ↗ repetition in context with the Northwest

11:45 ↗ Revival style we've also changed the

11:49 ↗ building materials the one of the other

12:00 ↗ contexts we had was the horizontal bands

12:03 ↗ of the window in the fort element didn't

12:07 ↗ meet style we've changed that with

12:09 ↗ adding the vertical element to the

12:12 ↗ window to break up the scale of those

12:13 ↗ we've also changed the inter no I think

12:20 ↗ you're good just introduce this section

12:25 ↗ real quick another element that's

12:26 ↗ required in north northwest Revival

12:28 ↗ style is tripartite construction which

12:31 ↗ means that the building has a defined

12:33 ↗ base middle and top and because this

12:37 ↗ building has different pieces that

12:39 ↗ function very differently from one

12:41 ↗ another we've required each of the

12:43 ↗ buildings pieces to meet

12:45 ↗ the standards individually and back in

12:49 ↗ the May first meeting we already

12:50 ↗ established that the parking garage

12:52 ↗ structure did meet that tripartite

12:53 ↗ structure and and this slide is showing

12:57 ↗ the Ford base middle on top of the Ford

13:00 ↗ dealership and also the base middle and

13:02 ↗ top at the Lincoln storefront okay

13:09 ↗ there's some materials okay do you want

13:12 ↗ to talk about the materials for a second

13:13 ↗ sure another comment

13:17 ↗ from the first meeting was that the the

13:20 ↗ chosen material for the parking garage

13:21 ↗ which was concrete was not an approved

13:25 ↗ primary material in the Northwest

13:27 ↗ Revival style that pertained to the

13:30 ↗ parking garage and service facility the

13:34 ↗ Ford entry also had a metallic entry

13:38 ↗ element and metal was also not and

13:43 ↗ allowed material and so both and the

13:47 ↗ pavilion had the same materials as the

13:49 ↗ parking garage the pavilion and the

13:51 ↗ garage now are going to be clad in a

13:54 ↗ glaze masonry material and the Ford

13:59 ↗ entry element has been changed to a

14:01 ↗ stone panel and Lucy is passing that

14:04 ↗ along and if I understand it correctly

14:10 ↗ the glazed masonry block will be in

14:13 ↗ three different colors one color will

14:16 ↗ emphasize the vertical columns and the

14:20 ↗ and another color will emphasize the

14:23 ↗ base and the third will be the middle is

14:26 ↗ that correct that's correct

14:29 ↗ mm-hmm and in addition to that material

14:33 ↗ there's also a cornice that will be the

14:35 ↗ same color as the columns

14:41 ↗ we worked with the applicant on adding

14:45 ↗ additional depth and shadow and vertical

14:48 ↗ orientation to their windows we

14:51 ↗ mentioned the changes to the Ford when

14:53 ↗ the Ford windows with adding the

14:55 ↗ vertical brakes the Lincoln storm

15:00 ↗ storefront windows also will have

15:02 ↗ vertical brakes and a a bezel framing

15:06 ↗ the top and bottom will create a depth a

15:09 ↗ sense of depth and shadow anything else

15:12 ↗ when I say there and then this one this

15:17 ↗ slide has to do with the natural context

15:19 ↗ requirements one requirement was that

15:21 ↗ all entries are at ground level are at

15:25 ↗ street level actually from the grade and

15:28 ↗ the original proposal had the Lincoln

15:31 ↗ storefront a couple steps from the

15:33 ↗ sidewalk and now they've revised the

15:35 ↗ site to include a mounting of the

15:38 ↗ sidewalk so that entry can come directly

15:40 ↗ from the grade and then and as an

15:44 ↗ additional protection for the buffer

15:47 ↗ area because it's recognizing the

15:49 ↗ natural context zone we've proposed a

15:53 ↗ condition this was in response to a

15:55 ↗ comment made by one of the commissioners

15:57 ↗ at the last meeting that wheel stop

15:59 ↗ should be required along the buffer edge

16:01 ↗ to prevent parked vehicles from entering

16:05 ↗ the buffer area so the language of that

16:08 ↗ is here it's also in your packets

16:14 ↗ [Music]

16:16 ↗ you can probably sit down unless unless

16:18 ↗ your color that guy I'd much prefer to

16:27 ↗ in the last meeting the Commission asked

16:30 ↗ about some more information about how

16:32 ↗ the cars would be screened in the

16:34 ↗ parking garage this this scheme is

16:37 ↗ showing the three story version and most

16:41 ↗ of the parking will be screened by low

16:43 ↗ walls that'll cover up three or four

16:46 ↗ feet of the base of the car however

16:49 ↗ there are some areas where it's

16:51 ↗ intentionally left unscreened in order

16:53 ↗ to provide a display for the cars that

16:56 ↗ are for sale at this at this facility

16:59 ↗ these are highlighted in yellow and the

17:03 ↗ the little arrows here are trying to

17:06 ↗ indicate it's difficult to see I

17:07 ↗ apologize trying to indicate where

17:10 ↗ someone would be able to see these

17:12 ↗ on-screen display areas and essentially

17:15 ↗ it's able to be visible from East Lake

17:18 ↗ Sammamish Parkway and a little bit for

17:21 ↗ my ninety although an idea is a bit set

17:23 ↗ off I'll show you a picture of that

17:24 ↗ later on in the presentation

17:26 ↗ and they've also provided screening in

17:31 ↗ the rooftop area consistent with code

17:34 ↗ with vegetation and perimeter treatments

17:37 ↗ and trellises the Commission also asked

17:43 ↗ for some additional details on the

17:45 ↗ pavilion this is showing the new

17:49 ↗ materials at the pavilion the applicant

17:52 ↗ was also required to add some additional

17:55 ↗ alternative frontage because it's

17:58 ↗ required that frontage that the that

18:01 ↗ that French edge along East Lake

18:02 ↗ Sammamish Parkway is filled with

18:03 ↗ building or an alternative frontage so

18:06 ↗ they proposed this trellis as as an

18:10 ↗ alternative print frontage in order to

18:12 ↗ comply with code

18:16 ↗ and this slide shows a little bit more

18:20 ↗ about the view so here's the project

18:23 ↗ location I would note this is an old

18:26 ↗ photo it looks like that's before this

18:29 ↗ dream was relocated I 90s down here this

18:35 ↗ blue arrow shows the approximate

18:36 ↗ direction of this shot here so you can

18:39 ↗ see that the site is visible beyond some

18:43 ↗ trees this the trees on the site are

18:47 ↗ proposed to be taken out at this time

18:50 ↗ they're not proposing to remove trees

18:51 ↗ from the wash buffer or sorry the wash

18:55 ↗ dot right-of-way area and there was also

19:00 ↗ a question about lighting and the the

19:03 ↗ project will not be allowed to project

19:05 ↗ lighting toward i-90 there's also going

19:08 ↗ to be requirements to prevent light

19:10 ↗ spillover especially into the critical

19:12 ↗ areas we worked with the applicant to

19:19 ↗ try to understand the tree density

19:23 ↗ requirements and the requirements for a

19:25 ↗ tree replacement on this site and I

19:28 ↗ wanted to point out that we've revised

19:30 ↗ the condition that we originally

19:31 ↗ included in the briefing response memo

19:34 ↗ because as staff dug into the code a

19:36 ↗ little bit more we realized that the way

19:38 ↗ that we had been calculating the

19:40 ↗ replacement requirement was incorrect

19:43 ↗ so this equation here shows the correct

19:48 ↗ calculation and this is based on the

19:50 ↗ overall site area and the minimum tree

19:52 ↗ density of four trees per 5,000 square

19:55 ↗ feet the current set of landscape plans

20:00 ↗ proposes 59 trees on-site which leaves

20:05 ↗ 51 additional replacement trees that

20:08 ↗ would be required either on an approved

20:12 ↗ off-site location or paid paid into the

20:16 ↗ tree fund and I just wanted to point out

20:19 ↗ that the number of significant trees

20:21 ↗ that is based on the project site and so

20:23 ↗ that's not likely to change but

20:26 ↗ the landscape plan is still in the

20:28 ↗ conceptual form and will likely change

20:30 ↗ they may add some trees or they could up

20:32 ↗ size trees on site which would change

20:34 ↗ the number that they're required to

20:36 ↗ replace off site or pay into the tree

20:39 ↗ fund so this is the revised condition

20:44 ↗ showing the 110 trees that would be

20:47 ↗ required and next I want to talk about

20:52 ↗ the water feature running along the

20:54 ↗ southern portion of the site this this

21:00 ↗ is shown here as a ditch on the site

21:03 ↗ plan and the city currently has this

21:06 ↗ water feature classified as a drainage

21:09 ↗ ditch

21:10 ↗ it doesn't meet the city stream

21:12 ↗ classification requirements others have

21:15 ↗ pointed out that it does have habitat

21:20 ↗ features that can be hospitable to

21:22 ↗ salmon and salmon juvenile some onit's

21:25 ↗ have been seen there as I mentioned

21:28 ↗ earlier this culvert at the end of the

21:30 ↗ ditch was recently rebuilt by wash dot

21:34 ↗ and as part of the culvert replacement

21:37 ↗ some plantings were put in alongside the

21:40 ↗ ditch I think I have a photo this is

21:44 ↗ showing a photo from I think last week

21:49 ↗ or this week so there is there have been

21:51 ↗ some plantings along side this is

21:54 ↗ showing a different time of the year

21:55 ↗ before the culvert replacement took

21:58 ↗ place so clearly there are times when

22:00 ↗ there's no water in tents where there's

22:01 ↗ a lot of water so that the city doesn't

22:06 ↗ recognize it as a stream although we

22:09 ↗ recognize that salmon can access many

22:11 ↗ different water features including

22:13 ↗ ditches and streams and creeks and so

22:16 ↗ because of that we wanted to make sure

22:19 ↗ that we protected the salmon habitat

22:21 ↗ there so it's through sefa we've

22:25 ↗ required that the applicant plant the

22:30 ↗ entire portion of on either side of that

22:33 ↗ ditch to meet the king county guidelines

22:35 ↗ four critical areas plan

22:37 ↗ ting and this would apply I'm gonna go

22:41 ↗ back not only on their side but of the

22:46 ↗ of the ditch but also on the far side

22:49 ↗ along the entire set southwestern

22:52 ↗ property lane the North Fork of is car

22:59 ↗ Creek has a 75 foot reduced buffer and

23:03 ↗ within that 75 foot buffer they're

23:06 ↗ portions that are off-site where

23:08 ↗ required frontage improvements will be

23:10 ↗ constructed those are highlighted here

23:13 ↗ in yellow and through sefa the city is

23:17 ↗ asking for additional mitigation to

23:21 ↗ mitigate the impacts caused by the

23:22 ↗ frontage improvements we're asking that

23:25 ↗ the applicant do enhanced enhancements

23:29 ↗ along the entire buffer area even the

23:32 ↗ off-site areas here also the areas on

23:35 ↗ the far side of the stream they've

23:37 ↗ already been required through code to

23:39 ↗ have wetland plant or mitigation

23:42 ↗ plantings and enhancements in this near

23:45 ↗ side of the stream the stream buffer

23:48 ↗ this is language of stupid condition

23:51 ↗ number five that they that the entire

23:54 ↗ area on the off site in what the offsite

23:58 ↗ buffer area has to be planted consistent

24:01 ↗ with king county critical areas

24:02 ↗ mitigation guidelines and also mitigated

24:06 ↗ with enhancements such as large adding

24:08 ↗ large woody debris trees shrubs and

24:10 ↗ ground cover spawning gravel up sized

24:12 ↗ trees etc another item that the

24:18 ↗ Commission asked for additional

24:19 ↗ information on was the status of the

24:22 ↗ floodplain

24:22 ↗ on the site the floodplain currently

24:27 ↗ mapped on this site was associated with

24:29 ↗ the original location of the North Fork

24:31 ↗ here the North Fork used to be a lot

24:33 ↗ higher up on this site in regards to

24:37 ↗ depth and surface of the ground in the

24:40 ↗ relocated alignment here it's it's much

24:44 ↗ lower and therefore the floodplain has

24:47 ↗ changed quite a bit so that

24:49 ↗ applicant is currently in the process of

24:52 ↗ submitting a conditional letter of map

24:54 ↗ revision to FEMA to officially change

24:57 ↗ the floodplain to reflect the new

25:00 ↗ location of the stream and staff is

25:03 ↗ continuing to work with the application

25:04 ↗ or with the applicant to review this

25:08 ↗ clover application and until the the

25:13 ↗ city approves the conditional letter of

25:16 ↗ map revision the all of the flood hazard

25:19 ↗ conditions that were proposed in the

25:21 ↗ briefing response memo will remain on

25:23 ↗ the project site in order to reflect the

25:26 ↗ current flood mapping and and those can

25:29 ↗ be revised after the comer is approved

25:32 ↗ I also wanted to note that the

25:34 ↗ conditional letter of map revision will

25:37 ↗ will have to be its conditional and

25:39 ↗ after the project has been completed and

25:42 ↗ surveys can be done of the actual

25:44 ↗ topography a actual letter of map

25:47 ↗ revision will be required after

25:49 ↗ construction completion these are some

25:54 ↗ conditions that staff have worked on

25:56 ↗ with the applicant to cover the clover

26:01 ↗ process we can talk more about these if

26:04 ↗ conditioners have commissioners have

26:06 ↗ specific questions a final area that we

26:11 ↗ were asked to dig into a little bit more

26:13 ↗ is how the project was meeting the

26:16 ↗ city's sustainability goals staff worked

26:19 ↗ with the office of sustainability and

26:21 ↗ the applicant to understand first of all

26:23 ↗ what the city's goals were and what

26:26 ↗ would be required of this project and

26:28 ↗ based on the sustainable building action

26:32 ↗ strategy the office of sustainability

26:34 ↗ asked to this project meet a LEED Gold

26:37 ↗ equivalency

26:39 ↗ they didn't ask that the project

26:41 ↗ actually is certified LEED Gold but they

26:44 ↗ have a green building consultant that

26:47 ↗ they work with who has filled out this

26:50 ↗ scorecard with the applicant to try to

26:52 ↗ actually quantify the points that they

26:55 ↗ would earn if they were to seek the LEED

26:58 ↗ Gold

27:01 ↗ certification and we recognize that this

27:05 ↗ is a difficult project to meet this high

27:08 ↗ of a lead standard just based on the

27:11 ↗ project requirements and the site and

27:14 ↗ its location so we're still working with

27:17 ↗ the applicant to refine the design in

27:20 ↗ order to meet the 60 points required to

27:23 ↗ achieve that LEED Gold equivalency as of

27:27 ↗ this week we were we're at 59 points

27:30 ↗ which is pretty good and I think that's

27:32 ↗ to be expected at this level of the

27:36 ↗ development and the design refinement

27:38 ↗ process that not everything has been

27:40 ↗ figured out they haven't fully designed

27:42 ↗ their mechanical systems or a lot of

27:43 ↗ their other building systems so we'll

27:46 ↗ continue to work with the applicant with

27:49 ↗ the goal of reaching that LEED Gold

27:52 ↗ equivalency of 60 points and here is a

27:56 ↗ condition discussing that in detail so

28:01 ↗ that's the end of my presentation and

28:04 ↗ I'm gonna turn it back over to the chair

28:07 ↗ so the applicant is did you also include

28:11 ↗ the applicant or does the applicant have

28:13 ↗ a presentation they would like to make

28:19 ↗ we worked with the city on this

28:23 ↗ presentation and it's covered all the

28:25 ↗ points that we thought were important to

28:27 ↗ address from the May first meeting I

28:31 ↗ think the staff has put together a very

28:33 ↗ good presentation covering those points

28:36 ↗ so we really don't have an additional

28:38 ↗ presentation on the building excellent

28:41 ↗ so now I will reopen the hearing

28:44 ↗ continued from May 1st 2019 at 7:30 729

28:51 ↗ and would ask if there's anyone signed

28:56 ↗ up to speak and we would encourage you

28:57 ↗ to sign up so that we can make sure that

28:59 ↗ we get name spelled correctly and you

29:01 ↗ are people of record and you do not have

29:05 ↗ to sign up but if you choose to with

29:07 ↗ that we'd appreciate that

29:09 ↗ if you don't would like you to step to

29:11 ↗ the lectern state your name address or

29:12 ↗ relationship to the city and limit your

29:15 ↗ comments are there a number of people so

29:17 ↗ let's try to limit comments to about

29:19 ↗ five minutes anybody wish to make

29:26 ↗ comments with whatever you choose

29:44 ↗ good evening my name is Johanna Bueller

29:47 ↗ I live at four one two nine a hundred

29:49 ↗ and eighty fifth place southeast

29:51 ↗ Issaquah nine eight zero two seven and

29:54 ↗ I'm representing save Lake Sammamish I'm

29:57 ↗ on the board of directors and I was the

29:59 ↗ founder of that organization in 1989

30:03 ↗ we're a nonprofit that has long

30:05 ↗ struggled to protect Lake Sammamish and

30:08 ↗ we've been very concerned about this in

30:11 ↗ particular in protecting both the water

30:15 ↗ quality in the lake and in protecting

30:17 ↗ the kokanee the wild native Issaquah

30:20 ↗ Lake Sammamish kokanee much money has

30:24 ↗ been spent by the community in

30:25 ↗ protecting both the salmaah nodes that

30:28 ↗ are I use Issaquah Creek in its

30:30 ↗ tributaries and the lake and public

30:34 ↗ monies go back through metros putting in

30:36 ↗ sewers from its acquired to Renton and

30:40 ↗ it's continued since then right up to

30:42 ↗ the wash dot refer reconstruction of and

30:48 ↗ enhancement of the North Fork Creek we

30:53 ↗ are very concerned that by the city

30:57 ↗ taking the designation of the tributary

31:02 ↗ the unnamed tribute II along between

31:05 ↗ East Lake is Lake Sammamish Parkway and

31:09 ↗ the subject property that they're

31:13 ↗ calling it a ditch

31:15 ↗ that's a designation that the city has

31:18 ↗ chosen to take however it does not

31:21 ↗ reflect the actual fact that now that

31:25 ↗ the culvert is in juvenile Salman it's

31:27 ↗ are using it and what W Washington Fish

31:31 ↗ and Wildlife have designated it as a

31:34 ↗ class F fish bearing stream and

31:37 ↗ therefore it is entitled to the hundred

31:41 ↗ foot buffer that any other class F

31:44 ↗ stream is entitled to we're also

31:47 ↗ concerned about the number of mature

31:49 ↗ trees that are coming out even though

31:51 ↗ they're going to be replaced by new

31:53 ↗ trees or money's put in the tree

31:55 ↗ mitigation bank this does not replace

31:59 ↗ the function of a mature tree

32:01 ↗ particularly a conifer and with so many

32:04 ↗ of our trees in this area dying from the

32:07 ↗ change in climate I don't think we can

32:10 ↗ afford to lose all of the ones that are

32:12 ↗ proposed to be cut down so I would hope

32:15 ↗ that we could revisit that I have

32:19 ↗ written some comments which cite various

32:23 ↗ regulations and so on and so forth and

32:26 ↗ I'd be happy to give you those but I

32:28 ↗ would urge that the Commission return

32:31 ↗ this open keep this hearing open until

32:36 ↗ we can have a critical areas review and

32:39 ↗ have that completed covering the this

32:45 ↗ unnamed tributary which is a fish

32:47 ↗ bearing stream because it's not being it

32:50 ↗ is not being looked after in accordance

32:53 ↗ with our own code so thank you very much

32:56 ↗ for listening to my comments thank you

33:01 ↗ yes I've got I've got ten copies here so

33:04 ↗ I hope that'll be sufficient there we go

33:10 ↗ thank you

33:19 ↗ are there others who would wish to make

33:21 ↗ comment

33:33 ↗ hi my name is Connie Marsh and I'm

33:37 ↗ speaking as myself this evening I sent a

33:44 ↗ comment letter this afternoon I was only

33:46 ↗ able to work on this yesterday and today

33:50 ↗ got the information on basically Friday

33:54 ↗ that made it clear that the city was

33:57 ↗ going to continue to say that they're

34:01 ↗ the some honored bearing stream that is

34:05 ↗ the tributary to the North Fork is still

34:07 ↗ a ditch and they are considering that it

34:11 ↗ is sufficient to have 20 feet of 25 feet

34:16 ↗ on either side vegetated more though

34:20 ↗ washed out has already vegetated it and

34:24 ↗ they were going to consider that

34:25 ↗ sufficient for a sum on at bearing

34:26 ↗ stream and best available science

34:29 ↗ clearly and emphatically states that

34:31 ↗ that is not enough

34:32 ↗ so within the CEPA you are leaving

34:41 ↗ impacts to a critical area which then

34:45 ↗ would require an EIS because the reason

34:50 ↗ for SEPA is to ensure that you don't

34:53 ↗ have any unmitigated impacts so I guess

35:01 ↗ when wash dot says it's a cell mounted

35:05 ↗ bearing stream and Fish and Wildlife say

35:07 ↗ it's a Salman it bearing stream state

35:10 ↗ agencies it seems bizarre I guess the

35:14 ↗ word is bizarre that the city continues

35:17 ↗ to call it a ditch and I don't know if

35:20 ↗ all of you got to read the varying

35:21 ↗ comments that I was getting because it

35:23 ↗ was it was a lot right people are

35:25 ↗ concerned and you can see that it is a

35:27 ↗ community value to protect our

35:30 ↗ environment and we feel that that value

35:33 ↗ is not being upheld in this project we

35:35 ↗ don't know why we frankly are confused

35:38 ↗ by our towns saying that that a project

35:42 ↗ is more important so as you will see I

35:45 ↗ disagree with several of

35:47 ↗ their code interpretations and the way

35:51 ↗ they read them

35:52 ↗ and I don't think that you all will have

35:54 ↗ had time to understand and make a

35:57 ↗ decision so I also ask that this be

36:00 ↗ continued until you can read all of the

36:02 ↗ public comment and that you can get

36:05 ↗ appropriate critical error review

36:07 ↗ through rivers and streams and your peer

36:09 ↗ review which is also seemingly not seen

36:12 ↗ any of the new and updated information

36:14 ↗ and done there Swami in my 50,000th code

36:19 ↗ read I finally read that stream buffers

36:24 ↗ are not constrained by a road at their

36:27 ↗ edge and so you will notice in this that

36:31 ↗ the road edge shortens the stream buffer

36:36 ↗ already and so when you look at the 25

36:40 ↗ percent of the buffer area that is being

36:44 ↗ reduced which is only allowed to be 25

36:47 ↗ percent the city is not considering that

36:50 ↗ that buffer is required to be a hundred

36:52 ↗ feet on its own and is being reduced

36:56 ↗ already so I realized the city is not

37:01 ↗ stating appropriately the amount of

37:04 ↗ buffer reduction this project is

37:08 ↗ requesting and in order to have that

37:11 ↗ much buffer reduction they need a

37:13 ↗ variance the city itself cannot just say

37:16 ↗ it's okay we'll mitigate it through SEPA

37:19 ↗ it'll be fine our code says you must

37:22 ↗ have a variance and then it goes through

37:25 ↗ SEPA Laurie it goes through seep and

37:28 ↗ then you bet anyway you have to have a

37:30 ↗ variance so send it back make them do it

37:33 ↗ according to code if you don't

37:35 ↗ understand the code because they are not

37:37 ↗ giving it to you correctly we need to

37:39 ↗ figure out somebody who is going to be

37:41 ↗ an authority on the code because

37:44 ↗ unfortunately I'm finding you cannot

37:47 ↗ trust staffs presentation in their read

37:50 ↗ of the code and I don't even know to do

37:53 ↗ about that right I just I'm totally in

37:57 ↗ absolutely flummoxed because it's such a

37:59 ↗ brief

37:59 ↗ of trust of the community but it's your

38:03 ↗ job to weed through it and I have done

38:05 ↗ all I can to try to our make our

38:07 ↗ critical areas awesome thank you

38:17 ↗ other other members the public wishing

38:20 ↗ to make comment

38:35 ↗ I came into this very late I'm Susan

38:38 ↗ deville 23 year resident Issaquah I have

38:42 ↗ a little bit of background on what's

38:44 ↗ going on here but not very much but when

38:47 ↗ I see a mitigation that is saying that

38:50 ↗ they're gonna plant extra plantings at

38:51 ↗ 25 feet and reduce that buffer zone I

38:55 ↗ don't quite see the mitigation there and

38:58 ↗ it seems like there's so many things

39:00 ↗ that are still very unclear especially

39:03 ↗ to the residents that to push it back

39:06 ↗ and just spend a little more time I want

39:08 ↗ to make sure you all are really really

39:11 ↗ satisfied with everything in front of

39:14 ↗ you and I understand the importance of

39:16 ↗ partnering with our business people but

39:21 ↗ I think both sides have a really large

39:25 ↗ agenda to look at and just a little bit

39:28 ↗ more time to look at it I don't think

39:30 ↗ that's asking too much thank you

39:42 ↗ my name is Mary Lynch and I recited 2 6

39:44 ↗ 9 o North West Oak Crest Drive first I'd

39:48 ↗ like to say a couple of points if what

39:50 ↗ Connie and some of the others have said

39:51 ↗ is I really think this needs to go back

39:53 ↗ to rivers and streams with all the new

39:55 ↗ information I don't think they've had a

39:57 ↗ chance to see it they are maybe more

39:59 ↗ aware of some of the codes and the

40:02 ↗ definitions than you are and I really

40:04 ↗ think it needs to go back to rivers and

40:05 ↗ streams with a full review and with the

40:08 ↗ information that's come forward in the

40:09 ↗ last couple of days on the

40:10 ↗ reclassification of this ditch versus a

40:14 ↗ stream one of the things having spent

40:17 ↗ time on the central area Task Force

40:20 ↗ environmental and say the salmon and all

40:23 ↗ was very important I don't see anything

40:25 ↗ in this project where it really talks

40:26 ↗ about this or its putting that forward

40:28 ↗ and some of the things we went back and

40:30 ↗ redid is to make sure that we value our

40:33 ↗ environment and I don't think this

40:34 ↗ project as it stands does that we're

40:37 ↗ trying to squeeze something on a piece

40:38 ↗ of property that is maybe not right for

40:40 ↗ this type of facility maybe go up to

40:44 ↗ seven storeys and have a tall building

40:46 ↗ and show rooms inside that being said

40:50 ↗ also knowing lead LEED standards just

40:52 ↗ just not apply for the building it's

40:53 ↗ supposed to apply to the whole site and

40:56 ↗ so to totally neglect the site in your

40:59 ↗ LEED standards which I see a lot of

41:01 ↗ what's being considered here and reposed

41:02 ↗ here is ignoring LEED standards when

41:05 ↗ considered a site selection and what

41:07 ↗ you're doing the site that also needs to

41:09 ↗ be looked at as far as getting the

41:10 ↗ classification of LEED standards the

41:13 ↗ other thing I don't say anything called

41:14 ↗ out in the CEPA is the impact the 6,000

41:16 ↗ more cubic yards of fill that will be

41:19 ↗ removed and that will be added back in

41:21 ↗ and that is a lot of impact to the area

41:24 ↗ to the traffic and that needs to be

41:26 ↗ resolved as you know it wasn't

41:28 ↗ considered on Newports way and it was

41:31 ↗ totally underestimated the impact that

41:33 ↗ was going to have the Newport way with

41:34 ↗ those projects and we going forward need

41:36 ↗ to do a better job of considering what's

41:38 ↗ happening that being said this is a

41:41 ↗ floodplain

41:41 ↗ what also is the impact of if you're

41:43 ↗ going up with a building to in a

41:45 ↗ floodplain area you're going to have to

41:47 ↗ have pile-driving

41:48 ↗ what is that going to do to the impact

41:49 ↗ of the surrounding streams the constant

41:52 ↗ piling and the compression of the

41:55 ↗ in that area to the surrounding areas so

41:57 ↗ when you're looking at the floodplains

41:59 ↗ how can you really consider what's going

42:01 ↗ to how the floodplain is going to change

42:02 ↗ if we've recently relocated streams in

42:05 ↗ that area we're not even classifying the

42:07 ↗ the ditches of stream and then we're

42:09 ↗ going to compress the soils down and

42:10 ↗ versus have it be an area where you can

42:14 ↗ absorb the water it's going to be

42:15 ↗ compacted and you're going to create

42:17 ↗ more runoff from the area than you've

42:20 ↗ ever seen the next I'd like to also

42:23 ↗ commented about the trees also part of

42:25 ↗ the central area plan we talked about

42:26 ↗ trees of being a significant impact if

42:29 ↗ we're removing that many significant

42:31 ↗ trees from the area what's that going to

42:33 ↗ do to the stormwater and the other

42:34 ↗ runoff in the areas how are you going to

42:36 ↗ really protect the streams if you're

42:38 ↗ cutting down the mature trees part of a

42:40 ↗ salmon habitat it has to have the shade

42:42 ↗ for that to really be a success and the

42:45 ↗ trees you're talking about are not going

42:47 ↗ to give at that shade it's going to need

42:49 ↗ to have those streams to be successful

42:51 ↗ and wash that they spent a lot of money

42:54 ↗ when they redid this several years ago

42:55 ↗ we also were impacted for a week where

42:58 ↗ we couldn't even use that when they put

42:59 ↗ those new culverts on and if we are

43:01 ↗ totally a lot of annihilating some of

43:04 ↗ the work that they did those are tax

43:05 ↗ dollars that we're going to lose and

43:07 ↗ it's going to go down the drain and I

43:09 ↗ have yet to see the city when it says

43:12 ↗ they're going to relocate the trees to

43:13 ↗ some other place clearly say where those

43:15 ↗ trees are going if they go into the fund

43:17 ↗ I've yet to see that the city really say

43:20 ↗ where that fund is being spent so

43:22 ↗ there's really any accountability and as

43:25 ↗ of yet I have failed to see the the city

43:28 ↗ do attract canopy so they really know

43:30 ↗ what the impact of removing these large

43:32 ↗ trees is going to have overall on the

43:34 ↗ canopy of the city and we should be

43:37 ↗ seeing this every time we cut down a

43:38 ↗ tree we need to know what is going to

43:40 ↗ impact the overall tree canopy and we

43:43 ↗ can't do that because we don't have a

43:44 ↗ tree canopy study yet which I know it's

43:46 ↗ not part of your job but you need to

43:48 ↗ stand up and start supporting that so

43:51 ↗ that we can have a city that we are

43:53 ↗ proud of thank you

44:00 ↗ thank you

44:03 ↗ there are other people that wish to

44:05 ↗ speak hi I'm John gardener I live at 53

44:13 ↗ 49 228th Avenue in Northeast I've

44:17 ↗ been a resident of this COIs for many

44:19 ↗ years we have a Ford at our house among

44:21 ↗ herd cars and I've also been an

44:23 ↗ executive of multiple companies that

44:25 ↗ have been hundreds of millions to

44:26 ↗ billions of dollars and I know how to

44:28 ↗ create jobs I know the importance of

44:30 ↗ taxes I know the importance of creating

44:32 ↗ jobs I know what it means to be able to

44:35 ↗ partner between the business and the

44:36 ↗ city what I also know is we're at a

44:39 ↗ critical time in the world in our entire

44:43 ↗ history of the planet right now July was

44:46 ↗ the hottest month on record and we

44:48 ↗ continue to see an increase in carbon I

44:50 ↗ completely agree with those that have

44:51 ↗ come before this committee to say that

44:54 ↗ replacing a mature tree with a new

44:56 ↗ planting is not the same it is not equal

44:58 ↗ it is time for us to take action and

45:01 ↗ take this responsibility seriously at

45:04 ↗ the same time we've heard people say

45:05 ↗ that we're concerned about water quality

45:08 ↗ and what happens on Lake Sammamish

45:10 ↗ clearly we can see the residents of

45:12 ↗ Issaquah are impacted by the water

45:14 ↗ quality of Lake Sammamish in our

45:16 ↗ enjoyment of that water and also what

45:18 ↗ happens obviously downstream - like

45:20 ↗ Washington and going out to Puget Sound

45:22 ↗ it is our responsibility because the

45:24 ↗ watershed starts here that we take care

45:27 ↗ of that water quality part of also that

45:30 ↗ comes with that is taking care of the

45:33 ↗ salmon

45:33 ↗ we know that the salmon with the

45:36 ↗ increase in water temperature and the

45:38 ↗ destruction of habitat have been

45:40 ↗ decreasing the Chinook an alarming rate

45:43 ↗ we watched with horror last summer when

45:47 ↗ the j-pod of the southern resident orcas

45:50 ↗ Tahlequah lost her baby and carried it

45:54 ↗ for 17 days in what has to be a

45:56 ↗ gut-wrenching display of grief from a

46:00 ↗ mother she carried her child for over a

46:02 ↗ thousand miles in which she carried her

46:05 ↗ baby she had to carry on top of her

46:08 ↗ blowhole in every time she decided to

46:11 ↗ take a breath she had to drop her

46:13 ↗ baby to take a breath to keep her own

46:16 ↗ life and then go back and get her baby

46:18 ↗ again to carry it with her that's

46:20 ↗ because the southern residents don't

46:22 ↗ have enough salmon to eat and we need to

46:24 ↗ protect the watershed that creates that

46:27 ↗ salmon that helps our entire environment

46:29 ↗ and economy and on that note the city of

46:33 ↗ this COIs is known for one event more

46:37 ↗ than all others combined throughout the

46:39 ↗ year and that our salmon days that's

46:42 ↗ what attracts people to this community

46:43 ↗ and it brings people out and we need to

46:47 ↗ do our part to make sure we're keeping

46:49 ↗ true to that in protecting the salmon

46:51 ↗ that we call home here that attract

46:54 ↗ people to salmon days each year the

46:57 ↗ building is beautiful and they've done a

46:58 ↗ nice job on some of the revisions and

47:00 ↗ some of the materials that they're using

47:02 ↗ and I like that

47:03 ↗ and I can understand wanting to have

47:04 ↗ signage and everything else but I also

47:07 ↗ say they do have alternatives they can

47:09 ↗ go higher if they want they need to be

47:11 ↗ able to reduce the footprint they need

47:12 ↗ to keep more as mature trees they need

47:14 ↗ to have more water to be able to run

47:16 ↗ have runoff get naturally absorbed

47:19 ↗ rather than pouring pollution into the

47:21 ↗ ponds into the streams into eventually

47:23 ↗ the North Fork and into Lake Sammamish

47:25 ↗ we need to do what's not easy or what we

47:29 ↗ may be able to fit in our code or in

47:31 ↗ requirements we need to do what's right

47:34 ↗ we don't have time anymore to be able to

47:37 ↗ punt decisions that come with

47:40 ↗ destruction of habitat for our

47:42 ↗ environment thank you other comments

47:57 ↗ I'm John Macduff I'm live 620 southeast

48:01 ↗ Bush Street here downtown I'm here this

48:04 ↗ evening as the the president of the in

48:08 ↗ Issaquah Environmental Council I

48:11 ↗ submitted a letter to mrs. Lowman for

48:16 ↗ distribution to you earlier this morning

48:20 ↗ hopefully I'm not sure that you've had a

48:22 ↗ chance to look at it it had contains a

48:24 ↗ lot of detailed information that I think

48:27 ↗ you need to refer to and be sure that

48:30 ↗ you're taking into consideration my

48:34 ↗ concern biggest concern I have really is

48:37 ↗ with with that designation of that

48:39 ↗ tributary that comes in along the along

48:43 ↗ the would be the side

48:47 ↗ if you've it's just unbelievable that

48:51 ↗ you could call that a ditch I mean it it

48:53 ↗ has and there's a there's a video that's

48:55 ↗ attached to the to the letter that I

48:59 ↗ submitted that shows shows that and

49:02 ↗ shows the amount of water that is

49:04 ↗ flowing in it right through what was

49:06 ↗ employed in the yesterday or the day

49:07 ↗ before it it actually contains seems to

49:11 ↗ getting more water than the main the

49:14 ↗ main North Fork itself so to consider

49:18 ↗ that it's not that as a real tributary

49:21 ↗ as a real stream is just just

49:24 ↗ unbelievable okay thank you

49:45 ↗ hello my name is Amanda gardener I live

49:48 ↗ at five-thirty for nine 228,000 new

49:50 ↗ south east in Issaquah i've been a

49:52 ↗ resident here for approximately six

49:53 ↗ years and i will be the first to admit I

49:56 ↗ am NOT an expert on this subject I only

49:58 ↗ found out about this project about an

50:00 ↗ hour before this meeting started tonight

50:02 ↗ but as a third-year student at the

50:05 ↗ University of Washington studying

50:06 ↗ oceanography and marine biology I felt

50:08 ↗ it was important to come down and learn

50:10 ↗ about how we're affecting our

50:11 ↗ environment and the water quality here

50:13 ↗ from what I have seen it seems that the

50:16 ↗ applicant is making great effort to try

50:18 ↗ and comply with the codes that the city

50:21 ↗ has put but I still feel there needs to

50:24 ↗ be more whether or not we qualify this

50:26 ↗ tributary or so-called ditch as I feel

50:29 ↗ as an improper term since we do know

50:30 ↗ that juvenile salmon oit's live there

50:32 ↗ whether an all we caught the call that a

50:34 ↗ watershed it is part of the Salish Sea

50:36 ↗ and all the water that flows through the

50:39 ↗ tributaries in the Issaquah River will

50:41 ↗ eventually make their way out to the

50:42 ↗ Puget Sound

50:43 ↗ while the Puget Sound might not be a

50:45 ↗ part of Issaquah if we care about our

50:47 ↗ environment we know that we are the

50:49 ↗ first people that can help save our

50:52 ↗ salmon and save our killer whales saving

50:54 ↗ the killer whales does not start by

50:56 ↗ having great grand efforts of saving

50:59 ↗ them or huge coming together it starts

51:01 ↗ here where we can help create better

51:03 ↗ environments for the salmon to create

51:05 ↗ more fish so that they have more to eat

51:07 ↗ and we can stop the contaminants and

51:09 ↗ pollution here one of the greatest

51:11 ↗ problems for the southern resident

51:12 ↗ killer whales as I would know I've

51:14 ↗ studied under dr. Deborah Giles one of

51:16 ↗ the lead researchers on the southern

51:17 ↗ residents the problem with them is

51:20 ↗ bioaccumulation toxins enter their food

51:23 ↗ they eat their food and the toxins from

51:26 ↗ their food get transferred to them the

51:28 ↗ reason for their miscarriages and their

51:30 ↗ problems with being able to reproduce

51:31 ↗ start because of the toxins and

51:34 ↗ pollutants and that we have in our

51:35 ↗ environment that get transferred to

51:37 ↗ their food that then gets transferred to

51:39 ↗ them they're at the top of the food web

51:41 ↗ which means that everything we put into

51:42 ↗ our water ends up in the southern

51:44 ↗ resident killer whales and as this

51:46 ↗ resident in the Salish Sea I feel it is

51:48 ↗ important that we make sure we are the

51:51 ↗ first and foremost warriors that are

51:53 ↗ standing against those pollutants ever

51:55 ↗ entering the environment

51:57 ↗ the first place we cannot get the

51:59 ↗ pollutants out of the whales once

52:01 ↗ they're there so we need to be

52:03 ↗ responsible because we are the people

52:04 ↗ that can stop them and from what it

52:06 ↗ seems here we need a greater buffer zone

52:09 ↗ to stop pollutants from entering the

52:11 ↗ rivers by having it was so close to the

52:14 ↗ river and not having the proper barrier

52:15 ↗ between where the development will be

52:17 ↗ and the river we will have a greater

52:19 ↗ level of runoff that will be going

52:20 ↗ through this development and into the

52:22 ↗ river

52:22 ↗ which means more contaminants will be

52:24 ↗ entering the environment than there is

52:26 ↗ before and personally I think that is

52:28 ↗ unacceptable as I think if Issaquah

52:30 ↗ really wants to make itself known we

52:32 ↗ need to show ourselves as stewards of

52:35 ↗ the environment and that we are doing

52:36 ↗ everything we can to take care of the

52:38 ↗ Salish Sea and to take care of our home

52:40 ↗ thank you

52:51 ↗ other comments appreciate them encourage

52:55 ↗ them

53:30 ↗ but if you feel like making a comment I

53:32 ↗ would encourage you this is your chance

53:50 ↗ sorry I don't know if I should have been

53:52 ↗ during the project presentation I'm the

53:54 ↗ project civil engineering Tyrell Bradley

53:55 ↗ I just want to clarify one thing that

53:58 ↗ the word tributary actually came from on

54:02 ↗ the stream relocation project was done

54:03 ↗ so when do T did the stream relocation

54:07 ↗ they had to get a nationwide permit and

54:09 ↗ a hydraulic project approval with fish

54:11 ↗ and wildlife and the Department of or

54:13 ↗ the Corps of Engineers as well as

54:15 ↗ multiple other agencies had to review it

54:17 ↗ and in all of the documents in the

54:19 ↗ environmental classification of the the

54:22 ↗ streams that called tributaries so I

54:24 ↗ just want to clarify that that it's it's

54:26 ↗ not something that was just made up for

54:28 ↗ this project it's actually been

54:29 ↗ established in 2016 as one when d-o-t

54:32 ↗ did this project is one that word was

54:35 ↗ given so and if anybody wants those

54:36 ↗ documents we can we can get them to you

54:39 ↗ just I just wanted to clarify that

54:59 ↗ good evening my name is William Elliott

55:03 ↗ I live at four three five one hundred

55:06 ↗ and eighty sixth place

55:08 ↗ live at East its Accra much of what I

55:12 ↗ would have said has already been said

55:15 ↗ but I would just like to urge you as

55:19 ↗ others have already urged you to

55:22 ↗ continue this hearing so that the

55:26 ↗ concerns that have been raised this

55:29 ↗ evening and be answered thank you

55:49 ↗ other comments final call

55:59 ↗ so are we ready to close the hearing I

56:08 ↗ like it so the public hearing is closed

56:12 ↗ at 7:56 now opportunity for the

56:23 ↗ commissioners to weigh and then identify

56:26 ↗ their comments make their comments not

56:35 ↗ all at once but this is suggestion on

56:38 ↗ maybe how we proceed so there's kind of

56:41 ↗ segments of information that were in the

56:43 ↗ response memo and maybe we can tick off

56:47 ↗ some of the things that might be a

56:48 ↗ little simpler to process to get started

56:50 ↗ where there were some design elements

56:51 ↗ that we heard about from the architect

56:53 ↗ and from staff maybe we could kind of

56:55 ↗ any questions about those that may

56:58 ↗ remain we could maybe get through those

57:00 ↗ obviously sounds like a lot of the

57:03 ↗ deliberation and questions maybe around

57:05 ↗ the environmental issues religious when

57:10 ↗ you lead the way that's a good

57:11 ↗ suggestion we'll look at that we'll

57:13 ↗ focus on the design elements first and

57:16 ↗ postpone and discover serious discussion

57:19 ↗ of the environmental issues as soon as

57:21 ↗ we get done that okay then mr. chairman

57:26 ↗ I have just a couple of quick points

57:28 ↗ regarding the design thought that was

57:31 ↗ much closer than before to the Revival

57:36 ↗ style really appreciated some of the

57:39 ↗ redesign elements the additional

57:41 ↗ verticality the change from concrete to

57:44 ↗ steel building with masonry skin was

57:46 ↗ great and overall I think it has just a

57:49 ↗ more consistent rhythm having all the

57:52 ↗ display cars on the second level on the

57:54 ↗ third level rather instead of on two

57:56 ↗ different levels really appreciate that

57:59 ↗ one question regarding the two phases

58:03 ↗ with

58:05 ↗ when there's only phase one does that

58:08 ↗ mean we would not be seeing the top

58:10 ↗ level cornice and some of the

58:13 ↗ architectural elements that are on the

58:15 ↗ top the cornice is pretty critical

58:17 ↗ element of the northwest style and if

58:20 ↗ that's true do you have any idea of the

58:24 ↗ amount of time there would be between

58:26 ↗ phase one and phase two implementation

58:29 ↗ let me answer those questions one the

58:32 ↗ cornice exists and it is relocatable

58:35 ↗ when we had the extra tier the extra

58:39 ↗ tier the phase two is a market condition

58:41 ↗ market driven decision it could it could

58:46 ↗ occur when we build the initial building

58:48 ↗ or it could be years down the road

58:52 ↗ market driven condition requirement for

58:56 ↗ four spaces the cornice exists on the

59:01 ↗ two-story or three level scheme and then

59:06 ↗ is relocatable to the uppers level we

59:09 ↗ edit okay I think there were some did

59:11 ↗ you have some additional architectural

59:13 ↗ elements up there on the top as well

59:14 ↗ would we see those in phase one or those

59:17 ↗ just phase two again the this element

59:21 ↗ here and again the same thing

59:24 ↗ relocatable move up one one tier

59:26 ↗ everything moves up one tier when we

59:30 ↗ build the the next tier and again

59:35 ↗ comment I would add is the maximum

59:39 ↗ height allowable in this zone is 48 feet

59:42 ↗ and we're going to 44 feet adding

59:45 ↗ additional tiers above that requires a

59:48 ↗ major variance process and change in the

59:52 ↗ CIP

59:56 ↗ you

1:00:03 ↗ commissioners more design related issues

1:00:07 ↗ I've got one question for her staff I

1:00:11 ↗ think and this is page 17 to 1:22 and it

1:00:16 ↗ has to do with the small Lincoln jewel

1:00:19 ↗ box building minimum ground floor height

1:00:24 ↗ is 20 feet

1:00:28 ↗ it says the building will only be 18

1:00:31 ↗ feet and I guess I'm wondering the

1:00:38 ↗ conclusion is although the jewel box

1:00:40 ↗ portion is slightly lower than the

1:00:42 ↗ required 20 feet staff is interpreted as

1:00:44 ↗ the scale of the Lincoln dealership to

1:00:46 ↗ be substantially compliant with the

1:00:48 ↗ scale standards of Northwest Revival

1:00:51 ↗ I guess just trying to understand we

1:00:56 ↗ have a minimum of 20 feet we're saying

1:00:57 ↗ it's not 20 feet it's 18 but we still

1:01:00 ↗ think it meets the requirement so the

1:01:06 ↗ portion of the building that you're

1:01:08 ↗ talking about is is here and I'm trying

1:01:12 ↗ to find the other half of it basically

1:01:17 ↗ you're right we we decided that this

1:01:20 ↗ smaller portion that stands out as an

1:01:23 ↗ architectural feature of the of the

1:01:26 ↗ Lincoln franchise design as a jewel box

1:01:31 ↗ was 18 or it may have even been was it

1:01:35 ↗ higher than it was it 20 or so it was it

1:01:39 ↗ was a little shy of 20 but the rest of

1:01:42 ↗ the building met that 20 foot ground

1:01:46 ↗ floor height and that feature kind of

1:01:49 ↗ extended out as its standalone feature

1:01:51 ↗ and we felt that it was minimal enough

1:01:55 ↗ in the in the context of the larger

1:01:59 ↗ building to be substantially compliant

1:02:04 ↗ do that just to get maybe an example is

1:02:09 ↗ a building that had projecting bay

1:02:11 ↗ windows that were the first floor it was

1:02:14 ↗ 20 feet but the bay windows were

1:02:16 ↗ somewhat less to emphasize them

1:02:19 ↗ architectural II so I think that that's

1:02:22 ↗ why having a small portion of it that

1:02:26 ↗ was less did not we feel being

1:02:30 ↗ inconsistent with the intent of the

1:02:32 ↗ first floor being 20 feet I guess yes I

1:02:39 ↗ still have a problem though because

1:02:40 ↗ we're saying we're in essence I think

1:02:42 ↗ saying the code would say most of the

1:02:45 ↗ first floor it has to be a minimum of 20

1:02:48 ↗ feet that it seems like it reads that

1:02:52 ↗ the first floor has to be a minimum

1:02:55 ↗ ground the minimum ground floor height

1:02:57 ↗ is 20 feet and the only question I would

1:03:00 ↗ have is that perhaps well this would

1:03:03 ↗ just be an interpretation in the code

1:03:05 ↗ but it says floor to floor height is

1:03:07 ↗ there's no Florida above it maybe it

1:03:09 ↗ doesn't apply to a single storey

1:03:10 ↗ building but it just I'm I don't know I

1:03:14 ↗ guess it's I have a hard time wrapping

1:03:16 ↗ my head around we say if we're gonna say

1:03:18 ↗ here's a minimum but it doesn't actually

1:03:20 ↗ need it but we're gonna say it's close

1:03:22 ↗ enough because we think most of the

1:03:25 ↗ building does I just don't know that

1:03:27 ↗ we've had that kind of variation before

1:03:30 ↗ especially given to me it doesn't seem

1:03:32 ↗ like to add to more feed is a huge deal

1:03:37 ↗ otherwise if there's some reason for

1:03:39 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

1:03:41 ↗ that would be done rather than just

1:03:43 ↗ saying it's close enough well the first

1:03:48 ↗ thing I would say is that's why we're

1:03:49 ↗ having this conversation second there is

1:03:52 ↗ no adjustment of standards with the

1:03:54 ↗ design manual so we're having to

1:03:59 ↗ and as we all know we're learning how to

1:04:02 ↗ apply the designer and I think we tried

1:04:09 ↗ to think about traditional architecture

1:04:11 ↗ that's why I mentioned the bay window

1:04:13 ↗ example but of course that's why we're

1:04:16 ↗ having a conversation with the

1:04:18 ↗ Commission to understand if you concur

1:04:22 ↗ or not with the way we are looking at

1:04:28 ↗ the application of various rules when we

1:04:31 ↗ have a more complex structure that has

1:04:35 ↗ these other components and I just follow

1:04:39 ↗ up on that question so what's the design

1:04:43 ↗ challenge in meeting the 20-foot minimum

1:04:46 ↗ I mean is there a hardship for some

1:04:48 ↗ reason that that can be accomplished as

1:04:53 ↗ we worked with with this project and

1:04:56 ↗ with the city on their requirements Ford

1:05:00 ↗ and Lincoln have requirements in this

1:05:02 ↗ jewel box is one that they will not move

1:05:06 ↗ on this height and the condition of that

1:05:10 ↗ jewel box is something that Lincoln has

1:05:13 ↗ said that they will not very on and we

1:05:16 ↗ have changed vast majority this building

1:05:19 ↗ to comply with the city standards and

1:05:22 ↗ called it and Ford has moved with them

1:05:25 ↗ but this is one they said this is part

1:05:29 ↗ of the the key of the design and they

1:05:32 ↗ have indicated they will not move on

1:05:34 ↗ this and that's that's the reason we

1:05:37 ↗ haven't raised the admit is is katie's

1:05:40 ↗ brought the elevation up you can see

1:05:42 ↗ it's about 10% of the facade long maybe

1:05:47 ↗ a little bit more than 10% along 230th

1:05:51 ↗ that is the lower elevation that is the

1:05:57 ↗ Lincoln Street elevation you're seeing

1:05:58 ↗ there in the top and it's only

1:06:05 ↗ yeah I think that picks it up that

1:06:09 ↗ partial elevation this is the only piece

1:06:14 ↗ about 18 feet that is under 20 foot out

1:06:18 ↗ of a hundred and some feet I guess it to

1:06:28 ↗ just be a disco question period or

1:06:30 ↗ discussion any of the commissioners

1:06:33 ↗ thoughts about this yes my question

1:06:42 ↗ would be in other jurisdictions or other

1:06:45 ↗ areas I mean have they always complied

1:06:49 ↗ with that height requirement as has

1:06:51 ↗ there been pushed back to a point where

1:06:53 ↗ they said okay we'll we'll make an

1:06:56 ↗ exception at this location I'm not

1:07:01 ↗ totally sure I understand your question

1:07:03 ↗ so I'll try to answer the best I can

1:07:06 ↗ the Lincoln requirements so far there

1:07:13 ↗ are four that have been complete all

1:07:16 ↗ four have met this requirement

1:07:18 ↗ there's been no condition like this

1:07:21 ↗ shown in any other jurisdiction so I

1:07:24 ↗ don't know if that answers the question

1:07:27 ↗ but so the answer is no there's been no

1:07:29 ↗ pushback as a rare occurrence yes it

1:07:31 ↗ rarely or any sons of men at the

1:07:34 ↗ previous meeting there were some

1:07:36 ↗ comments by the city that this was on

1:07:40 ↗ the boundary of the area and it had been

1:07:42 ↗ included just to kind of get a look at

1:07:45 ↗ things case

1:07:49 ↗ yes pavilion I think that was the whole

1:07:53 ↗ site I'm talking about it's on the edge

1:07:54 ↗ of the central Issaquah plan area yeah

1:07:57 ↗ and the majority of the intensive

1:08:01 ↗ commercial properties were removed from

1:08:05 ↗ central at however this property

1:08:07 ↗ was intentionally retained as one of the

1:08:12 ↗ gateways mhm and at that time to pick up

1:08:18 ↗ on that comment I think we were

1:08:20 ↗ discussing the possibility for some

1:08:22 ↗ design exceptions based on that marginal

1:08:24 ↗ location in central Issaquah well so

1:08:33 ↗ obviously that Cody is the requirement

1:08:36 ↗ it's Commissioner Morgan just mentioning

1:08:40 ↗ there's we also need to think about

1:08:45 ↗ varying factors and implications of any

1:08:48 ↗ variation or minor modification that

1:08:50 ↗ might become in front of us and in this

1:08:53 ↗ particular instance from a design

1:08:55 ↗ standpoint I don't know whether to feet

1:08:57 ↗ one way or the other makes a significant

1:08:59 ↗ architectural difference in what the

1:09:02 ↗ image of the project would be and as far

1:09:04 ↗ as the 20 feet is concerned I think

1:09:06 ↗ that's primarily around retail uses and

1:09:10 ↗ having more significant Lourdes floor in

1:09:16 ↗ commercial and pedestrian oriented areas

1:09:19 ↗ so I you know in the small amount that

1:09:22 ↗ is at the 18 or 18 for whatever the

1:09:26 ↗ dimension is I don't know that it's it

1:09:28 ↗ makes a significant architectural

1:09:30 ↗ deviation and the overall image of the

1:09:33 ↗ building and what we're trying to

1:09:33 ↗ accomplish

1:09:44 ↗ mr. Morgan you can't satisfy you I well

1:09:49 ↗ I guess this is a I think it's a really

1:09:51 ↗ good test of the first time we're going

1:09:53 ↗ through these guidelines and I

1:09:55 ↗ appreciate the the applicant being a one

1:09:58 ↗ of the first people to actually have to

1:10:00 ↗ go through these new guidelines that

1:10:03 ↗ we're working on and I guess it's sort

1:10:05 ↗ of a I guess like some of the other

1:10:08 ↗ things in the architectural guidelines

1:10:09 ↗ where they're appropriate not

1:10:12 ↗ appropriate and some of these things

1:10:13 ↗ we're saying we think it fits in there

1:10:16 ↗ become because some are kind of squishy

1:10:20 ↗ judgment this one seems more like it's a

1:10:23 ↗ stated minimum 20 feet and I don't know

1:10:29 ↗ I kind of understand the comment about

1:10:35 ↗ the idea that well it seems like it

1:10:38 ↗ generally fits and I guess do we this in

1:10:41 ↗ my mind would open up to any other

1:10:43 ↗ portion in here that we would we be

1:10:47 ↗ reviewing these but the idea that it

1:10:49 ↗ generally fits what's appropriate and

1:10:52 ↗ maybe that maybe that worms like with

1:10:55 ↗ fer it can be a minimum that's a stated

1:10:57 ↗ number those kind of things but if it's

1:11:00 ↗ design guidelines as a 20 foot minimum

1:11:03 ↗ more of a suggested appropriate as

1:11:06 ↗ opposed to it has to be very curious

1:11:09 ↗ here would anywhere commissioners would

1:11:11 ↗ think about that so I think the choice

1:11:14 ↗ of the use of the word appropriate for

1:11:16 ↗ that section heading throughout that

1:11:17 ↗ guide may get to what you're talking

1:11:20 ↗ about to some degree we're not saying

1:11:22 ↗ requirement shall be we're indicating

1:11:25 ↗ those examples that are appropriate and

1:11:28 ↗ there are other places in this design

1:11:29 ↗ that aren't necessarily to the letter as

1:11:32 ↗ you say one is quantitative and the

1:11:35 ↗ others are a bit more subjective but

1:11:39 ↗ my overall sense is that simply because

1:11:44 ↗ some of the specifications in that

1:11:46 ↗ guideline are our quantitative they're

1:11:49 ↗ still within the realm of appropriate or

1:11:53 ↗ highly recommended or guidelines that we

1:11:57 ↗ should adopt and evaluating the overall

1:11:59 ↗ design but not specifically absolutely

1:12:03 ↗ prescriptive in every case that's just

1:12:05 ↗ my sense I would add just one small

1:12:08 ↗ thing for your consideration that even

1:12:14 ↗ when we give a very specific number

1:12:17 ↗ there is rounding that is allowed to

1:12:19 ↗ determine whether that has complied or

1:12:23 ↗ not only you can decide whether that is

1:12:26 ↗ appropriate rounding you know when

1:12:29 ↗ something has a limit of two if it's 2.2

1:12:34 ↗ or 1.75 it rounds to two I don't know if

1:12:39 ↗ that's a useful piece of information but

1:12:41 ↗ it means that that's why we have you to

1:12:45 ↗ help guide us through this I've been

1:12:46 ↗ rounding up to 6 feet for all my and I

1:12:52 ↗ guess the other question raised I I i

1:12:54 ↗ totally understand i think i tend to

1:12:56 ↗ lean that way i guess whether question

1:12:58 ↗ being wanted lean what way well towards

1:13:01 ↗ what Richard was saying about the idea

1:13:03 ↗ that it could be just it fits as

1:13:06 ↗ appropriate it's not a hard number I do

1:13:09 ↗ wonder like buildings up to seven

1:13:12 ↗ storeys in height or maximum loud so a

1:13:15 ↗ way this is written if there was a

1:13:17 ↗ higher height that was loud and somebody

1:13:20 ↗ said we'll know you can only build seven

1:13:22 ↗ theoretically it means you could build

1:13:24 ↗ aid if seven is appropriate but I just

1:13:31 ↗ want to make sure I think I would agree

1:13:34 ↗ with that that it's appropriate but it I

1:13:37 ↗ think it opens the door to a lot of

1:13:39 ↗ other interpretations like this

1:13:40 ↗ I would lean towards mr. Brennan as well

1:13:44 ↗ saying that foot foot and six inches or

1:13:49 ↗ foot and eight inches is not going to

1:13:50 ↗ change the world and if we were talking

1:13:53 ↗ about it's always going to boil down to

1:13:56 ↗ when we have an objective number that we

1:13:59 ↗ get to apply some subjectivity to it and

1:14:02 ↗ realize that in this context it may not

1:14:04 ↗ be the end of the world to accept that

1:14:08 ↗ that it's close enough I echo my fellow

1:14:12 ↗ commissioners comments as well I mean I

1:14:13 ↗ see this as again being a very minimal

1:14:15 ↗ difference to me it's not a dominant

1:14:18 ↗ facade I mean there are higher facades

1:14:20 ↗ behind it obviously and I also

1:14:23 ↗ appreciate the fact that it sounds like

1:14:25 ↗ the applicants been very proactive about

1:14:27 ↗ getting forward to comply with some of

1:14:29 ↗ these other requirements we're looking

1:14:31 ↗ for so there's obviously some trade-offs

1:14:33 ↗ that have to happen there I I think I

1:14:38 ↗ would just ask what the guideline is

1:14:39 ↗ intended to do I think what it's trying

1:14:42 ↗ to do it's trying to create a certain

1:14:45 ↗ performance in the building and what I

1:14:47 ↗ think it's trying to achieve is

1:14:49 ↗ establishing a consistent strong podium

1:14:51 ↗ level or that first level to the

1:14:54 ↗ building so imagine if this was a

1:14:56 ↗ four-story building that 20 feet is

1:14:58 ↗ designed to create that really

1:15:00 ↗ consistent strong height and so given

1:15:06 ↗ that this is a one-story building well I

1:15:08 ↗ guess I would say also that in creating

1:15:11 ↗ that strong consistent height it's

1:15:12 ↗ creating a storefront quality and and so

1:15:15 ↗ does this achieve the spirit of that

1:15:18 ↗ guideline I feel like it does primarily

1:15:20 ↗ because it is a shorter single story

1:15:23 ↗ building and it is it is in the

1:15:26 ↗ foreground it very much has a storefront

1:15:28 ↗ pedestrian oriented quality to it so I

1:15:32 ↗ feel like it does meet the spirit of the

1:15:35 ↗ guideline and and especially considering

1:15:38 ↗ that you know it's it's supported by the

1:15:42 ↗ taller structure in the back so I think

1:15:43 ↗ that perceived height won't necessarily

1:15:45 ↗ be 18 feet I think you could argue that

1:15:49 ↗ it generally complies if you look at it

1:15:51 ↗ as a whole and you just have sort of

1:15:53 ↗ this store prime storefront awning

1:15:57 ↗ projecting from the primary mass which

1:16:00 ↗ does meet the guidelines so I feel like

1:16:03 ↗ it meets the guideline I would like to

1:16:05 ↗ echo some what some of my commissioners

1:16:07 ↗ have said as well as I really really

1:16:09 ↗ appreciate how much work you've done on

1:16:11 ↗ this building it's um it's come a long

1:16:13 ↗ ways towards meeting the criteria of the

1:16:16 ↗ guidelines uh I know staff was probably

1:16:19 ↗ instrumental in that as well so thank

1:16:21 ↗ you everyone for for pushing and making

1:16:23 ↗ this a better building for Issaquah a

1:16:28 ↗ better comments on the design I do echo

1:16:34 ↗ that comment as well I mean you guys

1:16:36 ↗ have addressed the materiality the

1:16:39 ↗ verticality of the facades I've I had a

1:16:42 ↗ chance to review the previous meeting

1:16:43 ↗ minutes and watch the previous

1:16:44 ↗ presentation and seeing the before and

1:16:46 ↗ after I can clearly see the difference

1:16:49 ↗ there was a comment made at the previous

1:16:52 ↗ meeting regarding the experience around

1:16:55 ↗ the pavilion

1:16:57 ↗ [Music]

1:16:58 ↗ my understanding is looking at the plans

1:17:01 ↗ there is no path that gums adjacent to

1:17:03 ↗ that pavilion correct so if you're

1:17:05 ↗ riding on that Preston Trail do you have

1:17:08 ↗ the ability to look into that pavilion

1:17:10 ↗ and see what's on display yes you do

1:17:12 ↗ okay - to answer the question is the

1:17:20 ↗ pavilion is about 80% class speak up

1:17:29 ↗ things they can't hear you sorry

1:17:30 ↗ thank you yes the pavilion is about 80

1:17:33 ↗ percent glass mm-hmm honest beside its a

1:17:36 ↗ semi heated space for energy code

1:17:39 ↗ purposes but as a result when you're

1:17:42 ↗ riding on the trail about 80% of that

1:17:45 ↗ facade you see is open through those

1:17:49 ↗ glass garage doors overhead doors and

1:17:51 ↗ just to clarify see that the glazing you

1:17:55 ↗ know facing Sammamish Parkway is off has

1:17:58 ↗ a base offset the

1:18:00 ↗ are there vehicles on an elevated

1:18:02 ↗ platform like a hydraulic lift up in

1:18:03 ↗ there that gets them in there is a lift

1:18:05 ↗ that takes them to that but they are at

1:18:08 ↗ six foot and parking there's two reasons

1:18:10 ↗ for that one is it's in a hole that's in

1:18:14 ↗ one six foot deep hole if it was down

1:18:17 ↗ low if the vehicles are down low you'd

1:18:19 ↗ never see them and it never experienced

1:18:23 ↗ they'd be lost especially with the

1:18:26 ↗ planning's over time so it's brought

1:18:29 ↗ that up and it's also part of the height

1:18:31 ↗ criteria of 20 feet elevates and create

1:18:33 ↗ that it's crates that experience and

1:18:34 ↗ make sense of it just a quick comment

1:18:41 ↗ about our question is about the rooftop

1:18:44 ↗ screening and I know that a lot of the

1:18:47 ↗ detail in that it's designed with

1:18:50 ↗ construction drawings but can you

1:18:51 ↗ describe what the visual will look like

1:18:55 ↗ from say street level or grade little

1:18:58 ↗ vegetation be visible and in what nature

1:19:01 ↗ versus trellises except for that you

1:19:03 ↗ described on the rooftop the the

1:19:07 ↗ plantings are all interior they're low

1:19:09 ↗ you can't plant trees on a roof very

1:19:13 ↗ easy so the the plantings at that level

1:19:16 ↗ are fairly low the screening is a four

1:19:19 ↗ foot high screen with the cornice in

1:19:22 ↗ front of it so you from the street level

1:19:26 ↗ you probably won't see anything except

1:19:28 ↗ an elevated pickup truck if it's

1:19:30 ↗ planning if it's parked along the first

1:19:32 ↗ tier how the the actual screening on the

1:19:41 ↗ rooftop element we haven't totally

1:19:43 ↗ worked out if that's going to be

1:19:45 ↗ vegetated or not we have problems with

1:19:50 ↗ vegetation on roofs with cars underneath

1:19:52 ↗ them and keeping them clean

1:19:58 ↗ so we have lower level planets that are

1:20:01 ↗ more experienced Oh for somebody on the

1:20:03 ↗ roof as opposed to the street okay thank

1:20:09 ↗ you

1:20:16 ↗ um can we talk a little bit about the

1:20:18 ↗ lighting too especially on the on the

1:20:20 ↗ rooftop itself I know I think it's

1:20:22 ↗ mentioned that lighting is ill in the

1:20:24 ↗ design stage perhaps it would be covered

1:20:26 ↗ later during building permit but I'm

1:20:29 ↗ really sensitive to what that rooftop

1:20:31 ↗ lighting will be because that will be

1:20:33 ↗ visible from lots of different places

1:20:36 ↗ the rooftop lighting and and actually

1:20:39 ↗ have a meeting on it next Tuesday we're

1:20:44 ↗ looking very much at keeping that

1:20:45 ↗ lighting low we're limited in height to

1:20:48 ↗ the poles being 12 foot tall on the roof

1:20:51 ↗ it's all down light we aren't going to

1:20:54 ↗ let any bleed off that's our intent is

1:20:58 ↗ to use bug three standard for lighting

1:21:01 ↗ to hold that light just onto the roof

1:21:04 ↗ that's primarily employee parking with

1:21:09 ↗ limited public access there should

1:21:15 ↗ probably be no public access to that

1:21:17 ↗ level either when it's the third tier

1:21:19 ↗ the fourth tier as such the lighting

1:21:22 ↗ levels aren't going to be very high

1:21:25 ↗ thank you and that be something you'll

1:21:27 ↗ staff would be reviewing as part of them

1:21:29 ↗ right there are lighting levels shown

1:21:36 ↗ David is correct that they're limited to

1:21:38 ↗ 12-foot fixtures on the roof full cutoff

1:21:40 ↗ no light spill those are all standards

1:21:43 ↗ and are in our lighting code so we would

1:21:46 ↗ we have we work with a lighting

1:21:49 ↗ consultant to review both either the

1:21:54 ↗ photometric plan or the and then even

1:21:59 ↗ may have used a term that you aren't

1:22:01 ↗ familiar with which is bug which is the

1:22:04 ↗ way lights are evaluated now it's not

1:22:07 ↗ simply just the level of lighting but

1:22:12 ↗ the bug stands for back up and glare so

1:22:18 ↗ that's right anyway there are three

1:22:21 ↗ different characteristics of lighting

1:22:23 ↗ and lighting in different situations

1:22:26 ↗ each of those factors is each

1:22:29 ↗ those factors is evaluated for that

1:22:32 ↗ fixture in that location and so it's a

1:22:37 ↗ fairly detailed review and that's why we

1:22:39 ↗ tend to do it as a construction level

1:22:41 ↗ review because those criteria are

1:22:45 ↗ established the one other thing I'd add

1:22:50 ↗ and I think Katie touched on this is

1:22:52 ↗ that with critical areas the light spill

1:22:55 ↗ is limited to point I would like to ask

1:23:05 ↗ in addition to that Lucy in part of that

1:23:07 ↗ review does that require their

1:23:09 ↗ production of a like a night nighttime

1:23:11 ↗ render of the project in terms of what

1:23:15 ↗ that lighting looks like and as it as it

1:23:17 ↗ works together opposed to just a kind of

1:23:20 ↗ a daylight like a nighttime render

1:23:24 ↗ there's a part of your review so if you

1:23:28 ↗ mean like a perspective perspective

1:23:30 ↗ right yeah I would say no because that

1:23:33 ↗ would be a more subjective evaluation it

1:23:37 ↗ is a very sort of specific engineering

1:23:41 ↗ evaluation based on he kind of the

1:23:46 ↗ pattern level and throw of the light

1:23:49 ↗ from specific fixtures okay

1:23:57 ↗ other comments on designed to additional

1:24:02 ↗ questions the first one is can you

1:24:05 ↗ clarify where the pervious surfaces are

1:24:10 ↗ located I saw that there's about 18,000

1:24:13 ↗ square feet of pervious surface area

1:24:21 ↗ both the display in the parking areas in

1:24:26 ↗ circulation are all impervious surfaces

1:24:30 ↗ impervious okay going back to earlier

1:24:34 ↗ and and came out of the the first

1:24:37 ↗ meeting or it was just undergoing the

1:24:38 ↗ first meeting is this site is Karawang a

1:24:43 ↗ critical area Aquifer recharge area

1:24:46 ↗ level one we are not able to infiltrate

1:24:52 ↗ because the water table level and the

1:24:54 ↗ plateau water district did not want

1:24:56 ↗ infiltration on the site so we have

1:25:00 ↗ advanced treatment of that water before

1:25:03 ↗ it's discharged at a Tyrell I think you

1:25:07 ↗ needed to talk I'm going to talk fast -

1:25:11 ↗ at a pre developed rate so the answer to

1:25:18 ↗ the question is that the discharge from

1:25:21 ↗ detention required we're not allowed to

1:25:24 ↗ have pervious pavement into the site I

1:25:28 ↗ hope that answered the crest well it

1:25:30 ↗ does I was just curious whether there

1:25:31 ↗ was any heavy vehicular traffic on any

1:25:34 ↗ of that pervious surface because I've

1:25:36 ↗ I've seen issues where that gets torn up

1:25:38 ↗ over time and I just curious on that

1:25:41 ↗ while we're on the water topic is there

1:25:46 ↗ is this all internal downspout drainage

1:25:49 ↗ are there any exterior downspouts I see

1:25:52 ↗ a stormwater connection facing 229th and

1:25:59 ↗ I see a kind of a downspout I guess

1:26:01 ↗ right near that entrance is that

1:26:03 ↗ internal looking at I roll for a minute

1:26:07 ↗ for interesting reason for

1:26:09 ↗ civil engineer because it leads into

1:26:12 ↗ something else I'll drain each both

1:26:15 ↗ since we have parking on the roof that

1:26:18 ↗ is a parking area so the rooftop level

1:26:23 ↗ ties to this same detention system as

1:26:26 ↗ the on-site does the only portion of the

1:26:31 ↗ front of Ford and then the Lincoln are

1:26:34 ↗ the only areas they're all internal

1:26:35 ↗ drains okay but they bet to go to grade

1:26:39 ↗ and they all go to a treatment system as

1:26:44 ↗ part of the detention and that's why I

1:26:45 ↗ was looking at my civil engineer to

1:26:48 ↗ explain that a little bit more okay I

1:26:51 ↗ nailed it no I understood I was

1:26:53 ↗ wondering if there was anything exterior

1:26:55 ↗ visible because I didn't see anything on

1:26:56 ↗ the elevation regarding scuppers or

1:26:57 ↗ downspouts so it sounds like all of its

1:27:00 ↗ internals all immigrants tied in okay

1:27:10 ↗ enough enough on the design we go to the

1:27:14 ↗ heavy duty the environmental issues I've

1:27:19 ↗ got one

1:27:20 ↗ I guess mitigation planting question

1:27:23 ↗ there might be a minor one it was in the

1:27:27 ↗ in the plans and this is actually the

1:27:30 ↗ tree preservation plan so maybe it's not

1:27:32 ↗ applicable or correct but in the tree

1:27:35 ↗ preservation plan that was sheet 2 of 13

1:27:38 ↗ it shows the central area of the buffer

1:27:42 ↗ along North a squawk Creek being all

1:27:46 ↗ evergreen trees and then the Northeast

1:27:50 ↗ and the southwestern portion being all

1:27:55 ↗ deciduous trees and I was curious why it

1:27:58 ↗ was shown that way and maybe that's not

1:27:59 ↗ the way it's currently planned yeah I

1:28:02 ↗ guess I didn't understand that

1:28:15 ↗ I'm just gonna my name is Mark Karr from

1:28:18 ↗ a landscape architect on the design team

1:28:39 ↗ if I recall correctly I believe we did

1:28:41 ↗ that as a concession so that the

1:28:47 ↗ dealership could have a little bit more

1:28:49 ↗ light into their into their building as

1:28:54 ↗ you know that our native conifers can

1:28:55 ↗ get you know 150 feet in height over

1:28:58 ↗ time and so by planting the lower

1:29:01 ↗ deciduous trees we felt it had the same

1:29:06 ↗ the same habitat value because of the

1:29:08 ↗ density the the planting and they and

1:29:12 ↗ the diversity of the species but just

1:29:15 ↗ less overall evergreen tree height over

1:29:18 ↗ time so I believe that's that's why we

1:29:21 ↗ did that it was six months ago so thank

1:29:29 ↗ you all right I have a general question

1:29:33 ↗ so after after the Commission all these

1:29:37 ↗ plans go to City design staff for review

1:29:40 ↗ and approval is that correct or how does

1:29:42 ↗ that work

1:29:43 ↗ so the land use permit which you're

1:29:49 ↗ reviewing now that's the framework for

1:29:52 ↗ the construction permit review which

1:29:57 ↗ staff would do however just like the

1:30:00 ↗ lighting we would continue to work with

1:30:02 ↗ our stream consultant for instance or if

1:30:07 ↗ there was you know technical reviews you

1:30:11 ↗ use a consultant so areas in which staff

1:30:16 ↗ have sufficient knowledge to do the

1:30:20 ↗ review we do them there are even times

1:30:24 ↗ when for instance we need outside

1:30:26 ↗ building plans of towners it's the type

1:30:29 ↗ of construction we just don't have the

1:30:32 ↗ right level of expertise so it would be

1:30:35 ↗ it could be that joint review will be

1:30:38 ↗ that joint review I just can't say on it

1:30:40 ↗ on every topic which ones would be staff

1:30:42 ↗ in which one

1:30:43 ↗ would be Arkansas so I have a question

1:30:48 ↗ about the the watercourse in question is

1:30:53 ↗ it fully contained in the wash taught

1:30:55 ↗ right-of-way is that so it doesn't

1:30:58 ↗ broach the property at all that's right

1:31:00 ↗ the property line is is here and and so

1:31:06 ↗ there the nature of it I've heard it

1:31:09 ↗ described a couple different ways

1:31:11 ↗ what is its source how was it made and

1:31:13 ↗ is it indeed a tributary to Creek or

1:31:19 ↗ yeah it was unclear on what's feeding

1:31:23 ↗ what and where it came from

1:31:24 ↗ not sure if I'm the right person to talk

1:31:26 ↗ about how it was made or what goes into

1:31:29 ↗ it but I can't tell you that further so

1:31:33 ↗ this is coming from this direction the

1:31:35 ↗ north works coming in from this

1:31:36 ↗ direction and just off site on the other

1:31:39 ↗ side of East Lake Sammamish Parkway they

1:31:41 ↗ join and eventually enter into a wetland

1:31:45 ↗ complex okay but we're not clear on the

1:31:47 ↗ source other than runoff well there is

1:31:51 ↗ no that's okay I don't have a complete

1:31:54 ↗ answer either

1:31:56 ↗ it's Akua Highlands up on top of the

1:31:59 ↗ hill their water comes down in and at

1:32:03 ↗ least a portion of their water is

1:32:05 ↗ feeding this there may very well be

1:32:10 ↗ other sources I will just add that both

1:32:14 ↗ the applicant stream consultant and the

1:32:17 ↗ city's stream consultants are here this

1:32:20 ↗ evening I don't know if they would have

1:32:22 ↗ more information but they are available

1:32:24 ↗ to help answer your questions as Katie

1:32:28 ↗ and I are not stream expert sure if

1:32:31 ↗ anyone wants to comment on those

1:32:32 ↗ questions please do

1:32:41 ↗ hi my name is Mike foster I'm the

1:32:44 ↗ applicants biologist so I just have to

1:32:46 ↗ start off by saying that this water

1:32:49 ↗ course wasn't a part of our study that

1:32:51 ↗ was included in the critical areas study

1:32:53 ↗ that was submitted as part of the design

1:32:55 ↗ package so I may have partial

1:32:57 ↗ information as well but I feel I just

1:33:00 ↗ add add add something to discussion so I

1:33:04 ↗ think there are a couple of stormwater

1:33:06 ↗ ponds on the Cadman property or on that

1:33:09 ↗ side of is that 266 and in sync 1st

1:33:18 ↗ Avenue north on my my is sure that'd be

1:33:24 ↗ fine

1:33:24 ↗ so I believe the stormwater ponds

1:33:26 ↗ discharged to a portion of this water

1:33:32 ↗ course receives water from the storm

1:33:33 ↗ water ponds so there's my incomplete

1:33:36 ↗ answer but that's what I have and I

1:33:39 ↗ would also when I'm doing this in my

1:33:42 ↗ head so I apologize I'm kind of it's

1:33:44 ↗ coming up slowly there's also a wash dot

1:33:47 ↗ stormwater pond that is located just you

1:33:53 ↗ do you know where that is Katie see

1:33:56 ↗ where it says don't zoom out zoom back

1:33:58 ↗ in Ruby's towing and rad custom rides

1:34:02 ↗ between those buildings and the off-ramp

1:34:07 ↗ and trail that element is a wash dot

1:34:09 ↗ stormwater ponds mm-hmm

1:34:11 ↗ several stormwater facilities and there

1:34:15 ↗ may be other sources of water I'm those

1:34:17 ↗ are just the two that I'm aware and this

1:34:19 ↗ is showing before the stream relocation

1:34:22 ↗ this can you zoom in more down lower

1:34:29 ↗ it's the portion and down lower again

1:34:32 ↗ I'm sorry that's further south south

1:34:36 ↗ sorry thank you there's somewhere along

1:34:39 ↗ there and if you can go over by the row

1:34:41 ↗ closer to the road not I'm sorry for the

1:34:44 ↗ right yeah and then north of there

1:34:47 ↗ because there's the little further north

1:34:51 ↗ mr. right yeah

1:34:54 ↗ the locust Northeast Locust Street and

1:34:57 ↗ that is not a Street off-ramp that is

1:35:02 ↗ where the s Kwajalein stormwater there's

1:35:04 ↗ a birdcage what they call third game so

1:35:07 ↗ can you zoom in on that to answer here

1:35:10 ↗ I'm gonna invite Doug schlep who is

1:35:14 ↗ development up he's worked on more

1:35:23 ↗ knowledge about this

1:35:29 ↗ as Lucy said my name is Doug schlep and

1:35:31 ↗ with the city of Issaquah and I've

1:35:34 ↗ worked in this area for a number of

1:35:37 ↗ years and I guess I can look here so as

1:35:44 ↗ it was stated there are stormwater

1:35:47 ↗ facilities in the lakeside property and

1:35:50 ↗ there's a stormwater crossing in this

1:35:53 ↗ area there is a stormwater facility that

1:35:59 ↗ comes down juniper from Issaquah

1:36:04 ↗ Highlands and then down first Avenue to

1:36:08 ↗ the birdcage here it's a bubble up

1:36:10 ↗ structure and additionally lucy

1:36:14 ↗ mentioned there's a washed-out

1:36:16 ↗ stormwater facility here there is an

1:36:19 ↗ open ditch along the roadway here that

1:36:24 ↗ picks up stormwater from the street and

1:36:26 ↗ additionally there is a stormwater

1:36:28 ↗ facility that it's great for me but not

1:36:37 ↗ for for everybody else so there's a

1:36:40 ↗ stormwater pond here that was

1:36:42 ↗ constructed as part of the trail

1:36:45 ↗ improvements when Issaquah Highlands is

1:36:47 ↗ built and so that goes down 1st Avenue

1:36:51 ↗ there's a ditch along 1st Avenue that

1:36:54 ↗ picks up stormwater and then as I said

1:36:57 ↗ there are stormwater facilities that

1:37:00 ↗ come off of mystical Highlands to the

1:37:04 ↗ bird cage in addition to storm water

1:37:07 ↗ that comes off of Cadman and those are

1:37:10 ↗ the facilities that I'm aware of that

1:37:12 ↗ are tributary to this water body and at

1:37:17 ↗ the it seemed like from a study that was

1:37:21 ↗ done

1:37:22 ↗ the letter that we got an email from

1:37:25 ↗ Connie marce it had a link to a study

1:37:28 ↗ that was done for the state and they

1:37:30 ↗ were doing the changes to the culverts

1:37:32 ↗ and that study showed the ditch along

1:37:35 ↗ the frontage road as a ditch but it

1:37:38 ↗ looked like from that bubbler over to it

1:37:41 ↗ they showed as a tributary and then they

1:37:44 ↗ showed a picture of water flowing from

1:37:46 ↗ there to the west and eventually

1:37:49 ↗ connecting and that seems to be is at

1:37:51 ↗ the main body of water that flows

1:38:01 ↗ so we're talking about this area here

1:38:04 ↗ from there really from the I guess the

1:38:07 ↗ we call it the bubbler the bubble up

1:38:10 ↗ structure bubble up structure further

1:38:13 ↗ north okay so that's that's right here

1:38:16 ↗ North East locust yeah and is that the

1:38:19 ↗ one that has the major flow in it that

1:38:21 ↗ goes yeah well that's a significant

1:38:23 ↗ amount of flow that comes off the

1:38:25 ↗ Highlands to that area yeah it's a five

1:38:30 ↗ foot diameter pipe that then bubble

1:38:35 ↗ bubbles up through that manhole in the

1:38:37 ↗ structure there at Locust and is that

1:38:41 ↗ the maximum reached then that that omen

1:38:44 ↗ is would be able to move up presume I'm

1:38:47 ↗ not I'm not qualified dancer I think the

1:38:51 ↗ only thing I would add to that I'm not

1:38:53 ↗ qualified to talk about some money

1:38:57 ↗ activities the only thing I would say is

1:38:59 ↗ the city recognizes that someone it's

1:39:02 ↗ can get into many things whether they

1:39:05 ↗ are man-made infrastructure or natural

1:39:08 ↗ creeks that they go where they can get

1:39:12 ↗ into and they don't make that

1:39:15 ↗ distinction between a man-made feature

1:39:17 ↗ and

1:39:23 ↗ the previous plants that called it a

1:39:26 ↗ level four stream and this one says

1:39:28 ↗ ditch what caused that change I would

1:39:32 ↗ have to defer to and so I think one of

1:39:37 ↗ the challenges is there's a number of

1:39:39 ↗ different documents and criteria and

1:39:45 ↗ evaluations that are present the reason

1:39:50 ↗ the city has called it as a ditch is the

1:39:53 ↗ adopted document and our critical area

1:39:56 ↗ code calls it a ditch

1:39:58 ↗ you recognize that with the culvert

1:40:05 ↗ construction as well as the nature of

1:40:08 ↗ fish to go where fish want to go that

1:40:13 ↗ they may very well be in that area I'm

1:40:20 ↗ [Music]

1:40:22 ↗ AB you DFW Washington Department of Fish

1:40:26 ↗ and Wildlife of their own

1:40:28 ↗ classifications wash dot uses their

1:40:33 ↗ classifications I'm not even sure

1:40:35 ↗ whether wash dots work for the culvert

1:40:40 ↗ rebuild would use the same criteria as

1:40:43 ↗ wash dot for transportation purpose

1:40:48 ↗ whose criteria was the level four before

1:40:51 ↗ I'm not sure which level four you're

1:40:53 ↗ referring to it's a level four stream on

1:40:58 ↗ the first set of plans oh okay the that

1:41:02 ↗ was from the fish and wildlife

1:41:05 ↗ classification which document we can no

1:41:08 ↗ longer find it seems to disappeared but

1:41:11 ↗ they classified which Lucie corrected me

1:41:15 ↗ that that time saying what fishing game

1:41:18 ↗ said in what city of Issaquah says

1:41:21 ↗ there's a class four or two different

1:41:22 ↗ things and that's why it was removed but

1:41:25 ↗ they classified the tributary ditch as a

1:41:28 ↗ level four and I mistakenly said well

1:41:33 ↗ that's class four stream in the city of

1:41:35 ↗ Issaquah then

1:41:36 ↗ and that's why it was removed said

1:41:38 ↗ answering the question yeah now did you

1:41:43 ↗ have something so this is now under the

1:41:46 ↗ city's stream consultant yeah I'm a

1:41:50 ↗ ecologist at the watershed company who

1:41:52 ↗ did has been doing peer review and I

1:41:56 ↗ think part of what's being referred to

1:41:58 ↗ is some old documentation that Lucy

1:42:01 ↗ shared with me from Peter Rosen's time

1:42:03 ↗ at the city when I think there was

1:42:06 ↗ discussion between the city and wash dot

1:42:08 ↗ and the property owner preceding a

1:42:10 ↗ stream relocation I might be I might be

1:42:12 ↗ putting that in the wrong context but I

1:42:14 ↗ think well I think that's your your

1:42:18 ↗ right the city's environmental planner

1:42:22 ↗ who is no longer with the city made

1:42:25 ↗ certain evaluations prior to the culvert

1:42:28 ↗ being moved the as I said the the use of

1:42:35 ↗ the term ditch comes from a basin plan

1:42:38 ↗ from 1996 which is still adopted in code

1:42:42 ↗ that a challenge is that things have

1:42:47 ↗ continued to move so from a city

1:42:50 ↗ regulatory critical area perspective

1:42:53 ↗ it's a ditch

1:42:54 ↗ it doesn't mean through that we aren't

1:42:58 ↗ recognizing that with the presence of

1:43:02 ↗ fish a certain level of protection is

1:43:05 ↗ necessary which is why the planting of

1:43:08 ↗ the property on either side of it was

1:43:14 ↗ required as part of the CEPA conditions

1:43:19 ↗ yeah and I would just add for clarity so

1:43:23 ↗ as I was reviewing this and looking at

1:43:27 ↗ the code it was clear that the city's

1:43:29 ↗ definition does not base their stream

1:43:34 ↗ definition on fish use some some

1:43:37 ↗ jurisdictions do certainly WDFW does

1:43:39 ↗ which is why they would call this

1:43:42 ↗ tributary a stream as opposed to the

1:43:44 ↗ city's classification of a ditch it's

1:43:46 ↗ just a difference in that regulatory

1:43:48 ↗ language

1:43:49 ↗ but the city is well aware and we've

1:43:51 ↗ certainly talked about and many people

1:43:53 ↗ have pointed out that it is a salmon

1:43:55 ↗ bearing stream regardless of that

1:43:58 ↗ regulatory position under city code can

1:44:02 ↗ you possibly share description of the

1:44:07 ↗ difference between the previous

1:44:09 ↗ condition of this particular niche prior

1:44:15 ↗ to the wash dye improvement and now is

1:44:18 ↗ there been a material enhancement and

1:44:19 ↗ its function as a result of that work I

1:44:22 ↗ I did not visit the site before and

1:44:26 ↗ after I have seen some before pictures

1:44:29 ↗ it looked like there were some man-made

1:44:32 ↗ barriers potentially between the North

1:44:36 ↗ Fork and the ditch but I'm not 100% sure

1:44:39 ↗ on that I didn't study in detail but I

1:44:41 ↗ recall seeing a photo with the trash

1:44:42 ↗ rack which may have been a barrier but

1:44:45 ↗ in its current state there there's no

1:44:46 ↗ barrier yeah

1:44:48 ↗ does that answer the question I can

1:44:56 ↗ expand on that just a little bit so and

1:45:00 ↗ when do t did the replace did you

1:45:02 ↗ introduce yourself yeah sorry Tyrell

1:45:04 ↗ Bradley project civil engineering when

1:45:07 ↗ do t did the replacement on that they

1:45:09 ↗ did ask our analysis and brought in

1:45:11 ↗ larger rock to make sure that the bottom

1:45:14 ↗ of the tributary had was not gonna be

1:45:18 ↗ have sediment moved downstream and they

1:45:19 ↗ also placed large woody debris to create

1:45:22 ↗ a habitat for the potential salmonids

1:45:26 ↗ that could end up being in that spot so

1:45:28 ↗ there was enhancements done to the the

1:45:31 ↗ tributary itself if that answers your

1:45:34 ↗ question and to hop on my counterpart

1:45:38 ↗ here Dave on one more thing as the the

1:45:42 ↗ class for that you're referring to was

1:45:45 ↗ was part of an older document that we

1:45:48 ↗ had and we did a public records request

1:45:50 ↗ to the Department of Transportation to

1:45:52 ↗ get all their documents that they did as

1:45:53 ↗ part of the stream relocation project

1:45:55 ↗ and it wasn't until after the first

1:45:58 ↗ divided

1:45:59 ↗ development commission meeting that we

1:46:01 ↗ got those documents when we got those

1:46:03 ↗ documents WDFW the Corps of Engineers

1:46:07 ↗ the the job of the nation might permit

1:46:10 ↗ the habitat protection all of them

1:46:12 ↗ classified it as a tributary so that's

1:46:14 ↗ one it backed up the actual you know

1:46:18 ↗ ditch tributary classification so if

1:46:22 ↗ that's when we went back and actually

1:46:24 ↗ updated that hopefully that answers why

1:46:28 ↗ the that went away

1:46:37 ↗ question for the applicant page 36 of

1:46:41 ↗ 122 in on the scj Alliance drawing sheet

1:46:45 ↗ six of aid in the drainage plan

1:46:48 ↗ wondering what's the reason that the

1:46:50 ↗ detention flow spreader is discharging

1:46:54 ↗ 25 feet from the ditch or tributary

1:46:57 ↗ could it discharge elsewhere is there a

1:47:00 ↗ reason that it must be located where

1:47:03 ↗ it's currently located so could you say

1:47:15 ↗ the page numbers again you said them

1:47:17 ↗ very fast yeah page 36 of 122 in the

1:47:21 ↗ report and also scj Alliance drawing

1:47:25 ↗ sheet 6 of 8 it's the drainage plan she

1:47:40 ↗ I believe your no sorry I mean to kick

1:47:44 ↗ your foot there and I are you referring

1:47:47 ↗ to the flow spreader right here correct

1:47:49 ↗ yeah so the flow spreader is is placed

1:47:52 ↗ as far back off the property lines we

1:47:54 ↗ can get it but still be in a vegetated

1:47:57 ↗ area so that when we discharge the

1:47:59 ↗ stormwater it can flow across as much

1:48:01 ↗ vegetation before entering the tributary

1:48:03 ↗ the reason that we put it here is

1:48:08 ↗ because you can't obviously its treated

1:48:10 ↗ water so by the time that it actually

1:48:12 ↗ enters the detention system and gets

1:48:14 ↗ pumped up to the flow spreader it has

1:48:16 ↗ now enhanced treated water and so we

1:48:20 ↗ want to release it to vegetation as

1:48:21 ↗ opposed to flowing it back across

1:48:22 ↗ pavement again and you so obviously

1:48:27 ↗ that's the optimum location for that

1:48:29 ↗ flow spreader in the entire design yeah

1:48:36 ↗ sorry something very for the flow path

1:48:40 ↗ are their length and slope guideline to

1:48:43 ↗ requirements for the flow spreader yeah

1:48:46 ↗ no so because we're releasing at the pre

1:48:48 ↗ developed rate it's actually like you

1:48:51 ↗ know 10 gallons per minute or something

1:48:53 ↗ like that

1:48:54 ↗ and technically dirt by ecologies

1:48:56 ↗ guidelines you can release it just

1:48:58 ↗ straight out of a pipe but instead of

1:49:00 ↗ that we wanted to flow it so we decided

1:49:02 ↗ to construct I believe that's a 100 foot

1:49:05 ↗ long flow spreader to take that 10

1:49:08 ↗ gallons and you know make it about a

1:49:10 ↗ sixteenth of an inch deep of water over

1:49:12 ↗ as long as the surfaces as we could make

1:49:14 ↗ so we we tried our best that not just

1:49:17 ↗ you know poke a pipe out let it just

1:49:20 ↗ flow at the end we wanted to create more

1:49:22 ↗ of a natural cascading effect Stacy did

1:49:27 ↗ you have something you wanted to add so

1:49:31 ↗ this is Stacy rush she is our senior

1:49:34 ↗ stormwater engineer for the city well I

1:49:38 ↗ wanted I wanted to add first that our

1:49:39 ↗ code requires the discharge into a

1:49:43 ↗ buffer into a curricular it has to be

1:49:44 ↗ located the structure so the level

1:49:46 ↗ spreader has to be located in the outer

1:49:48 ↗ portion of the buffer so that's why it's

1:49:50 ↗ as far back if it had a different

1:49:52 ↗ it would need to be back at the farthest

1:49:54 ↗ point of the buffer and for the district

1:49:58 ↗ there is no buffer here correct no there

1:50:00 ↗ is a 25-foot so there's an area that

1:50:04 ↗ we're planting her okay but it's not a

1:50:06 ↗ buffer it was but it's not anymore I

1:50:12 ↗ don't think it's as bright a line as

1:50:15 ↗ okay and then talking about the

1:50:20 ↗ discharge as a stormwater reviewer I

1:50:23 ↗ wouldn't we wouldn't allow a point

1:50:25 ↗ discharge of the pipe it needs to be the

1:50:28 ↗ level spreader so that it can disperse

1:50:30 ↗ over otherwise it could create a big

1:50:31 ↗ erosion problem right at that one point

1:50:33 ↗ so that's in the adopted ecology

1:50:36 ↗ stormwater manual is to put it through

1:50:37 ↗ do dispersion through a level spreader

1:50:39 ↗ first is there a reason that level

1:50:44 ↗ spreader is not extending further

1:50:46 ↗ Northwest I mean I see that looks like

1:50:49 ↗ there's some plants there is that the

1:50:50 ↗ reason I mean you can't have a row of

1:50:52 ↗ plants and the level spreader in the

1:50:55 ↗ same speaker we don't necessarily limit

1:50:57 ↗ that a level spreader be only a certain

1:50:59 ↗ length I mean there's design guidelines

1:51:01 ↗ like that's like the minimum length is a

1:51:03 ↗ late benefit at all in terms of the

1:51:05 ↗ amount of water it would disperse the

1:51:06 ↗ water over the over a larger area okay

1:51:09 ↗ it's still all going to end up in the

1:51:10 ↗ same place but it could disperse it but

1:51:13 ↗ like like Tyrell said the amount coming

1:51:14 ↗ out of the detention system it SAS much

1:51:16 ↗ smaller amount it's not just a free flow

1:51:18 ↗ of water there it detains it and

1:51:20 ↗ releases it at a small amount yeah and

1:51:22 ↗ the longer they are the more difficult

1:51:23 ↗ it is to keep level and then true you

1:51:26 ↗ don't get even flow anyway okay yeah

1:51:28 ↗ just there's the kind of put in

1:51:32 ↗ perspective it's somewhere around ten

1:51:35 ↗ gallons per minute that's like two

1:51:37 ↗ faucets in a house being turned on

1:51:38 ↗ full-blast so we spread that out over a

1:51:41 ↗ hundred feet we're we're talking about a

1:51:45 ↗ very small amount of water at the hunt

1:51:47 ↗ even at the worst event our detention

1:51:50 ↗ system will hold it on-site and slowly

1:51:51 ↗ release it out at that rate so the

1:51:56 ↗ intention is for that soil to absorb it

1:51:58 ↗ this soil right adjacent to that

1:52:01 ↗ to that Creek or the the water waterway

1:52:04 ↗ there right as a discharges yeah in a

1:52:07 ↗ frozen climate does that still absorb it

1:52:10 ↗ at the same rate or the rate there's

1:52:12 ↗ that soil really freeze up there as a

1:52:14 ↗ result water just runs off I guess water

1:52:17 ↗ would be freezing anyway right yeah yeah

1:52:20 ↗ yeah I guess in a frozen environment we

1:52:23 ↗ don't have water getting entered into

1:52:25 ↗ the detention system

1:52:33 ↗ is there any special treatment or

1:52:36 ↗ capability for oil control in this

1:52:38 ↗ detention process yeah so the site is

1:52:43 ↗ meaning the enhanced treatment

1:52:45 ↗ requirements and Department of Ecology

1:52:47 ↗ is stormwater current storm water manual

1:52:50 ↗ we are also additionally treating for

1:52:52 ↗ phosphorus as well as an extra level of

1:52:55 ↗ safety on this project page 61 of 122

1:53:01 ↗ there's a regular maintenance as

1:53:03 ↗ identified as a potential issue for this

1:53:06 ↗ system I don't think we have any wording

1:53:10 ↗ currently in any condition about

1:53:12 ↗ maintenance of that system I'm wondering

1:53:15 ↗ if that warrants wording in a condition

1:53:18 ↗ maybe SEPA condition for so I believe

1:53:24 ↗ maintenance is is a part of our

1:53:26 ↗ standards already it may be that the

1:53:29 ↗ maintenance plan has not been designed

1:53:31 ↗ at this time are you agreeing with me

1:53:36 ↗ you can't you can't speak from there I'm

1:53:42 ↗ not used to I'm not used to speaking at

1:53:43 ↗ these things yeah every drainage report

1:53:46 ↗ for a development project has to have a

1:53:48 ↗ maintenance and operation section and it

1:53:50 ↗ usually is developed during the

1:53:51 ↗ construction permits not during the land

1:53:54 ↗ use okay thank you does the city do any

1:53:56 ↗ inspection or anything after

1:53:58 ↗ construction yes

1:53:59 ↗ yeah after it's constructed it depends

1:54:03 ↗ on how long if there's a bond for it or

1:54:04 ↗ something but yeah the city Public Works

1:54:06 ↗ engineering goes out and they have an

1:54:08 ↗ inspection list I'm not sure if this one

1:54:10 ↗ would be checked annually or every other

1:54:12 ↗ year they would know that but yeah it's

1:54:15 ↗ they're inspected and 2-seed make sure

1:54:17 ↗ that it's working correctly and and it's

1:54:20 ↗ not causing problems and then if they do

1:54:21 ↗ see a problem they require the property

1:54:23 ↗ owner to repair it and I think yes we

1:54:25 ↗ repaired in like six months 12 months I

1:54:27 ↗ mean there's some time limits they all

1:54:28 ↗ come in our n PDS stormwater permit a

1:54:33 ↗ question for Tyrell if this were a

1:54:36 ↗ stream would your discharge or treatment

1:54:40 ↗ methods need to be any different no

1:54:43 ↗ we can actually take this and take it to

1:54:46 ↗ the other stream the the actual stream

1:54:49 ↗ if we if we needed to we could rotate it

1:54:52 ↗ around and discharge it across that one

1:54:59 ↗ a question for staff the the condition

1:55:03 ↗ that gets SEPA condition one requires

1:55:05 ↗ planting along the tributary width in

1:55:10 ↗ the wash dot right-of-way as a condition

1:55:12 ↗ of approval so it has that approving

1:55:16 ↗ obtained yet and if not what happens if

1:55:20 ↗ that doesn't work out with wash dot

1:55:22 ↗ that's a great question and and I want

1:55:24 ↗ to I'm going to say one thing that I'm

1:55:26 ↗ gonna let the applicant speak you were

1:55:29 ↗ right we do not normally condition

1:55:31 ↗ bright conditions on other people's

1:55:33 ↗ property our understanding when we wrote

1:55:35 ↗ that condition is that there was a and

1:55:41 ↗ an agreement between the two parties

1:55:43 ↗ that was part of the culvert project in

1:55:47 ↗ the planting mitigation planting that

1:55:52 ↗ had been put in that allowed them to

1:55:54 ↗ both maintain and enhance that area yes

1:55:59 ↗ and I was just going to expand on what

1:56:01 ↗ Lucy just said the owner has a

1:56:04 ↗ maintenance land right away landscape

1:56:07 ↗ maintenance agreement in place that

1:56:10 ↗ covers that area specifically covers the

1:56:13 ↗ hole right away along the off-ramp that

1:56:18 ↗ is in place now it may have to be

1:56:21 ↗ modified slightly but it is in place so

1:56:25 ↗ it would allow enhancement and

1:56:27 ↗ maintenance or just maintenance well

1:56:30 ↗ once the plantings are in place and

1:56:33 ↗ established other than possible removal

1:56:36 ↗ of invasive species there shouldn't be

1:56:38 ↗ much maintenance right I guess my point

1:56:41 ↗ was just maintenance is one type of an

1:56:45 ↗ agreement to maintain visual has etc but

1:56:49 ↗ but enhancement means I'm going to go on

1:56:52 ↗ the property I'm going to do work I'm

1:56:54 ↗ going to plant things I'm gonna build a

1:56:57 ↗ soil etc I don't know the details of

1:57:01 ↗ that I've read it briefly the the key

1:57:05 ↗ that we're trying to address is there is

1:57:06 ↗ an agreement and if it has to be

1:57:09 ↗ modified Dan I guess we'll have to work

1:57:12 ↗ with Dan shakiness said yes we'll have

1:57:15 ↗ to go back to wash done and say the

1:57:17 ↗ cities put these conditions on us we may

1:57:19 ↗ have to modify this right away

1:57:21 ↗ maintenance agreement so I guess in

1:57:24 ↗ summary there's high confidence in the

1:57:25 ↗ ability to actually comply with the

1:57:28 ↗ condition yes very much

1:57:38 ↗ with their comments questions for the

1:57:41 ↗ applicant on the North Fork Creek on

1:57:48 ↗ that Northside if Katie are you able to

1:57:52 ↗ bring up that google map again please

1:57:54 ↗ that'd be great

1:57:55 ↗ I thought I saw it tree there that

1:57:58 ↗ wasn't shown in the survey or the tree

1:58:02 ↗ tree preservation plan if you scroll up

1:58:05 ↗ a little bit yeah if you zoom in towards

1:58:09 ↗ a 229th

1:58:10 ↗ where you turn from front strain onto to

1:58:12 ↗ 29th right below your mouse that that

1:58:17 ↗ guy right there the antenna I assume is

1:58:21 ↗ sorted keep that right this is showing

1:58:23 ↗ the pre stream relocation condition so

1:58:26 ↗ it might be quite different now okay

1:58:28 ↗ okay all right

1:58:30 ↗ Google hasn't updated question for

1:58:33 ↗ Google I guess on the mobile just behind

1:58:38 ↗ the dog kennel is the only trees that

1:58:40 ↗ are still there got it okay how do you

1:58:45 ↗ curiosity what is that what is that

1:58:49 ↗ wheel stop detail will that still allow

1:58:53 ↗ the rear you know of a car or exhaust

1:58:56 ↗ over hand any pavement you know if we're

1:58:59 ↗ talking about long bed trucks or is that

1:59:03 ↗ detail for city of Issaquah incident

1:59:05 ↗ detail hasn't been worked out yet we've

1:59:07 ↗ just we've written the condition to

1:59:10 ↗ require it so the intent would be to

1:59:13 ↗ prevent any part of the vehicle from

1:59:15 ↗ being inside the buffer and did I read

1:59:18 ↗ that there was a split rail fence it

1:59:20 ↗ would be placed along there that's also

1:59:22 ↗ part of the conditions well the

1:59:24 ↗ condition states that they have to meet

1:59:25 ↗ the performance standards which require

1:59:29 ↗ you to put fencing or other barriers to

1:59:31 ↗ keep people and pets out of such as a

1:59:33 ↗ split rail fence to keep people out of

1:59:35 ↗ the ignition of the wheel stop yeah

1:59:52 ↗ further comments and turns one more

1:59:56 ↗ follow-up on the oil treatment so the

2:00:00 ↗ modular wetland system that that treats

2:00:05 ↗ oil

2:00:12 ↗ yes I will I will expand to say the

2:00:20 ↗ company that manufactures that to go

2:00:22 ↗ through Department of Ecology is

2:00:24 ↗ generally use lawful designation to get

2:00:26 ↗ enhanced treatment so it went through

2:00:29 ↗ like I think it's five years of studies

2:00:32 ↗ I'm not exactly sure on the number of

2:00:34 ↗ years but it's pretty exhaustive and one

2:00:38 ↗ more on that I'm related for you the

2:00:41 ↗ buccal shoot tribe commented that with

2:00:46 ↗ the discharge to that water they would

2:00:53 ↗ want our marine and trees or something

2:00:57 ↗ else to slow the flows down I we we can

2:01:02 ↗ arm heard if we need to I mean we're

2:01:04 ↗ talking about a kitchen faucet so I I we

2:01:08 ↗ can actually looked at the velocities

2:01:11 ↗ because originally I was slightly

2:01:13 ↗ concerned about how much water we were

2:01:14 ↗ talking about but then when you look at

2:01:16 ↗ the pre developed amounts it was you

2:01:19 ↗ know I sort of laughed at myself and was

2:01:21 ↗ like oh we're spreading it over a

2:01:22 ↗ hundred feet it's gonna be you know a

2:01:24 ↗ negligible amount of water and and I

2:01:29 ↗ guess to expand on that comment just a

2:01:30 ↗ little bit is just so everyone you know

2:01:33 ↗ that isn't into storm water a lot the

2:01:36 ↗ pre developed condition is is if the

2:01:39 ↗ entire site was forest that today and it

2:01:42 ↗ rained how much water would come off

2:01:43 ↗ that site in natural in its natural

2:01:45 ↗ state that's what we're held to so our

2:01:48 ↗ site can only discharge as if that's

2:01:50 ↗ forested so the amount of water that

2:01:53 ↗ would enter that system is the same as

2:01:55 ↗ if the site was never built

2:01:56 ↗ so that's the level that were held to

2:01:59 ↗ you

2:02:05 ↗ question for the applicant has has there

2:02:08 ↗ been preliminary engineering done on the

2:02:11 ↗ foundation pylons and do we have an idea

2:02:15 ↗ of the depth of that and as a kind of a

2:02:18 ↗ domino of another question off of that

2:02:20 ↗ is would that be for the entirety of

2:02:22 ↗ both the building footprints including

2:02:25 ↗ the Lincoln Center or or is there

2:02:28 ↗ possibility that that pylons could be

2:02:30 ↗ eliminated from Lincoln Center due to

2:02:32 ↗ the just the size of the structure yeah

2:02:34 ↗ heard this the selected foundation

2:02:37 ↗ method is geo piers it's not piles okay

2:02:41 ↗ the spacing of the geo piers varies

2:02:44 ↗ based on a single-story multi-story

2:02:46 ↗ building the GOP er is put in at the

2:02:49 ↗ start of construction will be for the

2:02:51 ↗ fourth tier because we can't go back and

2:02:53 ↗ add that in the future the Geo pears

2:02:56 ↗ extend four to six feet outside the

2:03:00 ↗ perimeter of the building depending on

2:03:02 ↗ where the foundations are and the Geo

2:03:04 ↗ piers for the most part are set at a 30

2:03:07 ↗ foot depth and they're vibrated pounded

2:03:11 ↗ into the ground over a period of time

2:03:14 ↗ much much quieter than driving pile

2:03:18 ↗ which we can hear right now is drive

2:03:21 ↗ down the freeway mm-hmm okay that answer

2:03:25 ↗ the question it does thank you

2:03:36 ↗ um Lucy I guess one question on this

2:03:39 ↗ back to the question about the deciduous

2:03:42 ↗ versus the evergreen trees that are in

2:03:45 ↗ there being placed the note that we got

2:03:49 ↗ from Karen Walter from the michael chute

2:03:51 ↗ tribe the recommendation of the

2:03:54 ↗ mitigation should be modified by

2:03:57 ↗ proposing a more diverse mix of native

2:03:58 ↗ trees planted evenly along to produce

2:04:01 ↗ buffer area and a question about the

2:04:03 ↗ Western redcedar I sort of don't feel

2:04:06 ↗ like that we're necessarily qualified to

2:04:09 ↗ make decisions on what tree should be

2:04:10 ↗ planted where it is that something would

2:04:13 ↗ it be is there some condition the fact

2:04:16 ↗ that the city staff has ever would be in

2:04:21 ↗ charge of deciding what's an appropriate

2:04:23 ↗ landscaping plan would be looking at

2:04:25 ↗ that and make decisions the Western

2:04:29 ↗ redcedar received a lot of discussion at

2:04:31 ↗ rivers and streams I think my memory is

2:04:37 ↗ and and I don't know if any of you have

2:04:39 ↗ read the minutes more recently than my

2:04:43 ↗ memory was they were comfortable with

2:04:45 ↗ that however when the construction

2:04:51 ↗ mitigation plan is submitted

2:04:54 ↗ now lund and watershed would be asked to

2:04:58 ↗ perform that technical review and review

2:05:01 ↗ it against King County's mitigation

2:05:04 ↗ guidelines for plants eyes spacing and

2:05:08 ↗ type okay

2:05:13 ↗ I guess an answer to your question I

2:05:16 ↗ when I was looking at the plans I

2:05:18 ↗ thought it looks like like a View

2:05:21 ↗ corridor kind of intent which is not

2:05:24 ↗ uncommon to be incorporated into

2:05:27 ↗ mitigation plans that are in public

2:05:30 ↗ spaces or you know have that sort of

2:05:35 ↗ element to them like like a business

2:05:38 ↗ like this would so I didn't I didn't

2:05:41 ↗ question it because there is a diversity

2:05:43 ↗ of species proposed and additionally

2:05:46 ↗ it's not we do tend to have mixed

2:05:48 ↗ forests around here but it's not

2:05:49 ↗ uncommon to have sort of blocks within

2:05:52 ↗ those forests that are more densely

2:05:54 ↗ connect or deciduous so it didn't pose a

2:05:59 ↗ great concern from an ecological

2:06:00 ↗ function standpoint thank you

2:06:09 ↗ so they're back to the the tributary to

2:06:13 ↗ the North Fork so there was no plan for

2:06:20 ↗ enhancements that would be included

2:06:22 ↗ within that corridor I don't know who

2:06:24 ↗ can best provide a description of what

2:06:27 ↗ that would be in a little bit more

2:06:29 ↗ detail not only for us but for the

2:06:32 ↗ public to understand what the mitigation

2:06:35 ↗ will actually accomplish within that

2:06:38 ↗ corridor are you asking for more

2:06:42 ↗ information about what the CP condition

2:06:44 ↗ would require for mitigation plan that

2:06:46 ↗ would be a good place to start now could

2:06:48 ↗ you talk to talk to the King County

2:06:51 ↗ mitigation guidelines for planting and

2:06:54 ↗ if they were required to plant along the

2:06:57 ↗ ditch to the King County planting for

2:06:59 ↗ size and selection with that might look

2:07:01 ↗ like okay sure so when the city asked me

2:07:07 ↗ to do peer review one of the things that

2:07:10 ↗ they asked me to look at was the wash

2:07:12 ↗ dot planting to see if it met city

2:07:14 ↗ standards like pretty much all

2:07:17 ↗ jurisdictions that's not expressly

2:07:19 ↗ written in the code what those

2:07:22 ↗ requirements are for plant spacing and

2:07:25 ↗ density and diversity so I in my peer

2:07:30 ↗ review capacity rely on the mitigation

2:07:33 ↗ guidelines from King County pretty

2:07:36 ↗ routinely and so I sent that resource to

2:07:39 ↗ City Planning and I and I made the

2:07:42 ↗ recommendation that that be followed in

2:07:45 ↗ this mitigation plan now the washed up

2:07:48 ↗ planning that was installed pretty much

2:07:50 ↗ matched with respect to trees and shrubs

2:07:53 ↗ it's usually nine feet on Center for

2:07:56 ↗ trees six feet on center for shrubs and

2:07:58 ↗ they recommend four feet on center for

2:08:00 ↗ ground cover and I did the ground cover

2:08:04 ↗ component was generally lacking so I

2:08:06 ↗ recommended that that be added to what

2:08:09 ↗ was in the wash dot areas as well as

2:08:12 ↗ reflective in the plan as a whole though

2:08:15 ↗ is that are those plantings within the

2:08:20 ↗ the buffer area of the North Fork or do

2:08:22 ↗ they extend then all the way up the

2:08:25 ↗ tributary to the they let's see I can't

2:08:33 ↗ read the hatches so in the yellow area

2:08:35 ↗ yeah what are you going on there in the

2:08:37 ↗ yellow wash that has planted as well as

2:08:41 ↗ the blue and okay so to summarize the

2:08:48 ↗ yellow the blue and the green were all

2:08:51 ↗ planted to some extent by wash dot but

2:08:55 ↗ without the adequate amount of ground

2:08:58 ↗ cover

2:09:00 ↗ I believe this purple area was not

2:09:02 ↗ planted by washed out but what we would

2:09:05 ↗ be requiring that whole area to meet the

2:09:08 ↗ tree shrub and ground cover requirements

2:09:10 ↗ that the other areas would be and if

2:09:14 ↗ there are other areas here that do not

2:09:16 ↗ meet the tree shrub and ground cover

2:09:18 ↗ requirements they would need to be

2:09:19 ↗ brought up to that standard and

2:09:22 ↗ additionally along the North Fork

2:09:24 ↗ enhancement is required as its described

2:09:28 ↗ in in Issaquah critical areas code the

2:09:32 ↗ one clarification I would make because

2:09:34 ↗ it's a little confusing is that the

2:09:37 ↗ yellow is includes you know area along

2:09:41 ↗ the tributary it includes area along the

2:09:45 ↗ creek and then it also includes area

2:09:47 ↗ between those two that is neither you

2:09:51 ↗ point to where that is

2:09:52 ↗ yeah so is we aren't asking them to

2:09:55 ↗ plant that to buffer standards okay so

2:09:59 ↗ it would be this area here that's not in

2:10:02 ↗ the yellow dashed area and it's not in

2:10:04 ↗ the buffer this would not be included in

2:10:08 ↗ the either seat book condition

2:10:15 ↗ related question about those King County

2:10:17 ↗ critical areas mitigation guidelines are

2:10:20 ↗ concerning how they'd be applied beyond

2:10:22 ↗ just the planning's

2:10:23 ↗ that documented sections on maintenance

2:10:26 ↗ and monitoring and removal of invasive

2:10:29 ↗ species and so on so do we have that as

2:10:32 ↗ part of our implementation plan in this

2:10:34 ↗ case so there's a five-year maintenance

2:10:40 ↗ period they're required to provide

2:10:42 ↗ annual monitoring reports things are

2:10:47 ↗ deficient they may have to go out and

2:10:49 ↗ take action during that monitoring time

2:10:53 ↗ there's bonds that are required so okay

2:10:59 ↗ so all of that process would apply to

2:11:01 ↗ this buffer I don't know that document

2:11:04 ↗ at the same you're speaking to code

2:11:06 ↗ Issaquah code requiring that mitigation

2:11:09 ↗ the intent of the CEPA conditions was to

2:11:13 ↗ capture the planting type and density

2:11:16 ↗ requirements in King County

2:11:17 ↗ not necessarily the entire document if

2:11:21 ↗ that answers your question we would rely

2:11:22 ↗ on the city of is akua's maintenance

2:11:24 ↗ rules and apply those to this one make

2:11:28 ↗ sure it is maintained and if there's a

2:11:30 ↗ die-off that it's replaced if it's a

2:11:32 ↗ litter and so on if you have invasive

2:11:34 ↗ species that is accounted for that that

2:11:38 ↗ is although the city code has more

2:11:40 ↗ guidance on those topics the plan is

2:11:43 ↗ generally reflective of those parts of

2:11:45 ↗ King County guidance as well so I I

2:11:51 ↗ guess I have to confess some real

2:11:53 ↗ confusion still on that my sense was

2:11:57 ↗ that the majority of the comments that

2:11:59 ↗ we received from the public were

2:12:01 ↗ concerned about the classification of

2:12:03 ↗ the ditch or the tributary and what was

2:12:05 ↗ the right classification and what the

2:12:07 ↗ right mitigation or what the right

2:12:09 ↗ buffering for that ought to be I haven't

2:12:12 ↗ heard any real discussion about that and

2:12:14 ↗ how we might reconcile

2:12:16 ↗ that I think the concern was serious

2:12:21 ↗ about about that that and if there is a

2:12:25 ↗ need to unify that unify that and at

2:12:29 ↗ least clarify from a and make a

2:12:31 ↗ definitive statement on what the

2:12:33 ↗ classification is and how we ought to

2:12:34 ↗ proceed from here if that's an adequate

2:12:37 ↗ adequate concern or adequate taking care

2:12:41 ↗ of that that tributary or ditch whatever

2:12:44 ↗ we're going to call it I am her I

2:12:48 ↗ haven't heard how we've reconciled that

2:12:49 ↗ I think we're waiting to hear which are

2:12:54 ↗ what you would ask of us I know what I'd

2:12:59 ↗ ask I would ask that it get reconciled I

2:13:03 ↗ think it it's a in a major you know I

2:13:07 ↗ don't know that I've ever in my short

2:13:09 ↗ tenure on the Commission that I've had

2:13:12 ↗ this kind of response from people

2:13:13 ↗ expressing a concern that still seems to

2:13:17 ↗ be really up in the air to me mr.

2:13:21 ↗ chairman have certainly the same concern

2:13:23 ↗ I think we probably all share that and

2:13:25 ↗ especially given the age of the source

2:13:27 ↗ document apparently that was used in the

2:13:29 ↗ city's designation of this as a ditch

2:13:31 ↗ versus a tributary I think we've heard

2:13:34 ↗ some suggestion regarding re review of

2:13:37 ↗ that designation by rivers and streams

2:13:39 ↗ board and that might be a possible route

2:13:42 ↗ that we could pursue if we're at that

2:13:45 ↗ stage I was gonna suggest that as well

2:13:49 ↗ you know according to the meeting

2:13:52 ↗ minutes from the June 4th meeting of the

2:13:58 ↗ river has pre border of the rivers and

2:14:00 ↗ stream board page 61 of 122 that the

2:14:04 ↗ board did not make a final determination

2:14:06 ↗ on whether or not the buffer reduction

2:14:09 ↗ should be approved so is that not their

2:14:13 ↗ function and and I don't know you know

2:14:16 ↗ it's a question it's an I don't mean

2:14:18 ↗ that viciously there's more than ours

2:14:20 ↗ and and if so should we ask that they

2:14:25 ↗ make a determination and there's also

2:14:27 ↗ some concern from one of them

2:14:29 ↗ is that the buffer wasn't great enough

2:14:31 ↗ so I feel like there's not enough

2:14:34 ↗ clarity for us I make it's kind of like

2:14:38 ↗ we might want to remand it back to the

2:14:41 ↗ staff and ask them to seek clarification

2:14:43 ↗ on that yes because it could have

2:14:47 ↗ potential impacts on everything we're

2:14:50 ↗ considering here regarding the buffer

2:14:51 ↗ size and so on and other implications

2:14:54 ↗ that I'm not aware of at this point

2:14:56 ↗ it seems to me they're sort of there's

2:14:58 ↗ two different aspects of this the buffer

2:15:01 ↗ reduction and buffer required by the

2:15:05 ↗ digit area we'll call it the digit Airy

2:15:11 ↗ and I guess the question on the buffer

2:15:15 ↗ reduction do it would we have any

2:15:16 ↗ feeling there about our feelings on for

2:15:21 ↗ reduction if that's appropriate or not

2:15:23 ↗ and they it seems a little more

2:15:25 ↗ straightforward with buffer reduction

2:15:27 ↗ because there's there's something in the

2:15:30 ↗ code that says here's what you can do

2:15:32 ↗ for buffer reduction you meet that

2:15:34 ↗ requirement no question it requires a

2:15:37 ↗ hundred foot buffer to start with

2:15:39 ↗ they've met the requirements for it what

2:15:43 ↗ would be the buffer on a level four

2:15:45 ↗ stream is there criteria for that in the

2:15:49 ↗ city of his squad it's a 25-foot buffer

2:15:52 ↗ okay Jerry

2:15:53 ↗ what is the difference between what

2:15:55 ↗ they're proposing and an official buffer

2:15:58 ↗ I I need you to explain the plantings be

2:16:05 ↗ any different would there be any

2:16:06 ↗ different easements or like what I'm

2:16:08 ↗ talking about the creek or the ditch I

2:16:11 ↗ guess I want to focus if we could just

2:16:14 ↗ on the creeks part in that buffer

2:16:16 ↗ reduction okay 100 275 okay and is there

2:16:20 ↗ could we reach agreement on that or not

2:16:23 ↗ yes I we discussed that last time and

2:16:28 ↗ the criteria was

2:16:33 ↗ what was if you were enhancing then you

2:16:36 ↗ could propose a reduction and we asked

2:16:38 ↗ does everybody qualify for a reduction

2:16:40 ↗ and the answer is no if it's a pristine

2:16:43 ↗ offer then you can't enhance it that

2:16:48 ↗ right that so I that's similar

2:16:51 ↗ recollection so as far as the buffer is

2:16:53 ↗ concerned on the on the North Fork there

2:16:58 ↗ isn't all there is an allowance to code

2:17:00 ↗ for consideration of that and there are

2:17:01 ↗ many variables that are considered

2:17:03 ↗ through that process in in this

2:17:05 ↗ particular instance there is added

2:17:08 ↗ mitigation that is provided and it will

2:17:11 ↗ provide an enhanced condition that we

2:17:14 ↗ might not otherwise get at least not for

2:17:16 ↗ a long period of time for it to occur

2:17:19 ↗ naturally so I think from the

2:17:21 ↗ application a technical application um

2:17:24 ↗ you know relying obviously on the staff

2:17:28 ↗ expertise of staff to and the mitigation

2:17:29 ↗ measures being applied but I'm

2:17:31 ↗ relatively comfortable with the

2:17:33 ↗ mitigation and what's being provided in

2:17:36 ↗ that reduction I'm still puzzling over

2:17:39 ↗ what to do with the other piece there

2:17:43 ↗ was just a bit of discussion on pages 29

2:17:46 ↗ 30 about whether the Creek activity in

2:17:50 ↗ this is referring to the Issaquah Creek

2:17:52 ↗ part was an alteration or an enhancement

2:17:57 ↗ and the city's position is that it was

2:18:00 ↗ an enhancement we agree on that and it's

2:18:04 ↗ not specific it's not an alteration of

2:18:06 ↗ that Creek it was really an enhancement

2:18:09 ↗ made sense the main would agree yeah

2:18:12 ↗ okay so the real issue seems to be the

2:18:15 ↗ digit area I guess other commissioners

2:18:18 ↗ would you agree that the 25% reduction

2:18:21 ↗ of the Creek I believe the applicant has

2:18:24 ↗ made a convincing case that they are

2:18:26 ↗ able to enhance that area such that it

2:18:29 ↗ meets the code qualification for a

2:18:32 ↗ reduction there's one other question

2:18:34 ↗ than miss Marsh brought up about if

2:18:36 ↗ you've already have an existing

2:18:38 ↗ reduction on one side of a creek

2:18:40 ↗ there's a limit the

2:18:41 ↗ the other side of the creek and I don't

2:18:44 ↗ guess in my mind I didn't think that

2:18:46 ↗ would be the appropriate application of

2:18:49 ↗ for reduction requirements that make

2:18:53 ↗ sense yeah I think there's two sides to

2:18:55 ↗ every stream every digit area yeah okay

2:19:05 ↗ does anyone have a professional opinion

2:19:08 ↗ on that with vast experience or criteria

2:19:13 ↗ on what specific about the road impacts

2:19:17 ↗ to the buffer how that applies to this

2:19:20 ↗ application

2:19:27 ↗ is it I guess it's more of a code

2:19:29 ↗ question in a way because it's if if you

2:19:32 ↗ have an existing reduction of a buffer

2:19:34 ↗ that's already there on one side of a

2:19:37 ↗ creek is that limit what you can do for

2:19:40 ↗ a reduction on the other side I think

2:19:43 ↗ that's what is it a one-time reduction

2:19:45 ↗ yeah yeah so that was a perspective that

2:19:54 ↗ I had not heard before till we began

2:19:58 ↗ having discussions about this Creek I

2:20:04 ↗ know thought back to when we were

2:20:07 ↗ reviewing gateway for instance and we

2:20:11 ↗ allowed the 25% reduction on each side

2:20:15 ↗ of the creek so I I I don't think we've

2:20:26 ↗ ever applied the code that way so I

2:20:29 ↗ think that's the most I can say at this

2:20:31 ↗ point

2:20:37 ↗ back to the ditch so what do you want to

2:20:42 ↗ do so--here so I guess what I'm puzzling

2:20:47 ↗ over is that there have been

2:20:48 ↗ enhancements and done to the tributary

2:20:51 ↗ to the North Creek and classification

2:20:55 ↗ that was being that is being relied on I

2:20:58 ↗ think it's already been mentioned was

2:21:01 ↗ done the critical berry study your

2:21:03 ↗ classifications were done in 1996 so

2:21:07 ↗ things change over time things change

2:21:10 ↗ naturally over time in this case there

2:21:11 ↗ was a substantial human substantial

2:21:14 ↗ human adjustment down to that particular

2:21:16 ↗ area so when do you trigger you know a

2:21:20 ↗ relook at what the impact of that

2:21:24 ↗ investment in this case would have on

2:21:27 ↗ the natural environment and how how

2:21:29 ↗ that's classified so I'm struggling a

2:21:34 ↗ little bit with relying on the 1996

2:21:36 ↗ document for a condition that is very

2:21:38 ↗ different than it was back then when it

2:21:39 ↗ was classified

2:21:40 ↗ so having another look at that

2:21:43 ↗ particular tributary makes sense where

2:21:48 ↗ that goes I don't know if that's a

2:21:50 ↗ rivers and stream consideration they're

2:21:53 ↗ not the decision-makers we are for the

2:21:56 ↗ permit and the role that they play I'm

2:21:59 ↗ not sure or is there a more specific

2:22:02 ↗ study that we want to have done for that

2:22:04 ↗ particular area and bring that as

2:22:06 ↗ enhanced information to a record us I

2:22:11 ↗ agree I think it's worth getting

2:22:12 ↗ everything in the record as we also

2:22:15 ↗ looked at the maps and how many

2:22:17 ↗ potential other sources were

2:22:20 ↗ contributing to this it was eye-opening

2:22:22 ↗ to me at least that this isn't an

2:22:25 ↗ isolated Creek that's just taking runoff

2:22:27 ↗ from the accident it's there's multiple

2:22:30 ↗ sources feeding this in a variety of

2:22:32 ↗ ways so I think it does warrant

2:22:34 ↗ additional study also considering how

2:22:38 ↗ much development has occurred since that

2:22:40 ↗ time

2:22:40 ↗ as well though so would it be fair to

2:22:45 ↗ request the staff to promote that study

2:22:49 ↗ and and come back to the Commission and

2:22:56 ↗ they have the resources to be able to

2:22:57 ↗ decide who ought to be doing it so she's

2:23:00 ↗ loving this so I guess the question

2:23:02 ↗ really is when you're thinking about the

2:23:05 ↗ options to provide additional assessment

2:23:09 ↗ information about that condition and

2:23:11 ↗ classification of that you carry what is

2:23:16 ↗ this whole rivers and stream thing isn't

2:23:19 ↗ is it as a new an idea that we would

2:23:23 ↗ kick something back to another board I

2:23:25 ↗ don't know if that's appropriate or not

2:23:27 ↗ to balance based on the scope of their

2:23:29 ↗ responsibility but at least a more

2:23:32 ↗ specific study biology study right I

2:23:39 ↗ think I think rivers and streams has a

2:23:43 ↗ certain level of technical expertise

2:23:46 ↗ that they are asked to apply to

2:23:48 ↗ materials that we provide to them I

2:23:52 ↗ don't think they could for instance

2:23:54 ↗ reclassify the stream or the tributary

2:23:57 ↗ or the whatever but I think that - I

2:24:04 ↗ know you know we don't have you sitting

2:24:08 ↗ here because you are stream experts and

2:24:10 ↗ so I know that you're looking for

2:24:13 ↗ information to provide you with guidance

2:24:17 ↗ and so I think that adding materials to

2:24:23 ↗ them with then they're effective on that

2:24:28 ↗ to you I think is what that's that's in

2:24:33 ↗ their purview

2:24:35 ↗ so I think that could be a helpful

2:24:37 ↗ recommendation Lucy did you say that

2:24:39 ↗ that Issaquah Creek final basin action

2:24:42 ↗ plan was referred to specifically and as

2:24:44 ↗ I've called code yes so if we get a

2:24:48 ↗ recommendation from rivers and streams

2:24:50 ↗ that and Stroeve override that in this

2:24:53 ↗ case where are we are we looking at a

2:24:56 ↗ code change so you can't change code in

2:24:59 ↗ the middle of a permit however I think

2:25:02 ↗ what you're asking is for us to go back

2:25:05 ↗ and determine what kind of information

2:25:11 ↗ the applicant and with our peer review

2:25:14 ↗ be provided to clarify this issue two

2:25:19 ↗ rivers and streams I don't think we have

2:25:21 ↗ to say exactly what that would be at

2:25:24 ↗ this time I think what you're trying to

2:25:26 ↗ what we're asking is for you to be tell

2:25:30 ↗ us to the best of your abilities what it

2:25:32 ↗ is you would like to know and then we

2:25:35 ↗ need to go and figure out how we put

2:25:37 ↗ that information together

2:25:46 ↗ yeah I you know I yeah I have a tough

2:25:50 ↗ time with this because on one hand I

2:25:52 ↗ think if it's in the code and it says

2:25:54 ↗ here's what the basis of a definition is

2:25:56 ↗ and here's what a setback or a buffer

2:25:59 ↗ should be based on that we have to abide

2:26:02 ↗ by the code and the same time I think

2:26:04 ↗ conditions have changed there's a

2:26:06 ↗ waterway that's had baby salmon and it

2:26:08 ↗ that's feeding into the Issaquah Creek

2:26:10 ↗ that's a hard thing to go back and fix

2:26:15 ↗ on the road and I think they have a

2:26:19 ↗ comment are we allowed to let them

2:26:21 ↗ contribute oh go ahead I have one other

2:26:25 ↗ question - I I just don't want to sound

2:26:28 ↗ like a broken record but this was really

2:26:30 ↗ a 'td in 2016 by Fish and Wildlife and

2:26:35 ↗ the Corps of Engineers and there was an

2:26:38 ↗ HPA done that all documents in an

2:26:40 ↗ environmental classification named it an

2:26:43 ↗ unnamed tributary and deity in their

2:26:45 ↗ report recognized the salmonids and made

2:26:48 ↗ it up into there with the previous

2:26:50 ↗ culver state and were actually trapped

2:26:52 ↗ in there and so this opened it up and

2:26:54 ↗ allowed them if they do go up in there

2:26:56 ↗ for them to freely come and go so it has

2:26:59 ↗ been classified by the authorities

2:27:01 ↗ having jurisdiction at the state level

2:27:03 ↗ and at the nationwide permit level as an

2:27:06 ↗ unnamed tributary has named in their

2:27:08 ↗ environmental classification so not I

2:27:12 ↗ guess I'm not sure what jurisdiction

2:27:15 ↗ would actually supersede Fish and

2:27:17 ↗ Wildlife's environmental classification

2:27:19 ↗ but we can provide all the documentation

2:27:21 ↗ from the 2016 project to the staff here

2:27:25 ↗ but you know so I just want to add that

2:27:27 ↗ back in what does that information

2:27:29 ↗ provided to rivers and stream the

2:27:31 ↗ information was not available at the

2:27:34 ↗ time we went to rivers in the stream

2:27:35 ↗ well it sounds like potentially the

2:27:36 ↗ information exists so the other the

2:27:39 ↗ piece that the chair mentioned the

2:27:41 ↗ beginning is reconciling this because

2:27:42 ↗ there's a city classification and how

2:27:45 ↗ does that match up against what you just

2:27:46 ↗ described happened at the state level

2:27:49 ↗ and

2:27:49 ↗ how does that affect this particular

2:27:50 ↗ well in the other thing I would add is I

2:27:56 ↗ think this is the challenge that we've

2:27:59 ↗ faced which is that WDFW made one

2:28:05 ↗ evaluation wash dots hydrologists for

2:28:08 ↗ the culvert project made an evaluation

2:28:11 ↗ wash dot transportation is sort of the

2:28:15 ↗ owner of this land and they generally do

2:28:19 ↗ not accept that classification of their

2:28:23 ↗ land so I think there's made it

2:28:29 ↗ difficult to know exactly how to look at

2:28:33 ↗ this and I think what you're asking is

2:28:35 ↗ that we go back and get this and

2:28:39 ↗ reconcile it and and you can absolutely

2:28:44 ↗ I don't know what will come up with but

2:28:46 ↗ we will absolutely there's the word

2:28:47 ↗ tributary mean anything and I was using

2:28:52 ↗ my little phone it is not a defined term

2:28:55 ↗ in the critical areas regulations so our

2:29:01 ↗ defined term for a hundred foot setback

2:29:03 ↗ would be a I'm a street and I did go and

2:29:08 ↗ look at Nels point that our stream

2:29:11 ↗ definition is not based on having fish

2:29:16 ↗ but I don't want to keep saying these

2:29:19 ↗ things because I think we need to

2:29:21 ↗ comprehensively look at these pieces

2:29:24 ↗ with our our experts and bring something

2:29:30 ↗ back to you that is responding to what

2:29:34 ↗ you're asking

2:29:35 ↗ do we need to make an official

2:29:37 ↗ recommendation or can we say we'd really

2:29:40 ↗ like you to go do that do you want a

2:29:43 ↗ motion do we need to move

2:29:45 ↗ and to continue to write I did write

2:29:48 ↗ something that was a remand went to

2:29:51 ↗ remand it to staff and so you could

2:29:56 ↗ consider that motion if if useful would

2:30:03 ↗ be for me yeah oh my goodness why don't

2:30:16 ↗ you do that man what gives the

2:30:18 ↗ commissioners a chance to listen

2:30:24 ↗ carefully gentlemen and ladies I move

2:30:27 ↗ that the Development Commission remand

2:30:29 ↗ sdp 1901 to city staff for further study

2:30:35 ↗ regarding the following specific topics

2:30:37 ↗ fill in the blank because my

2:30:40 ↗ understanding is you aren't remanding

2:30:42 ↗ the entire permit it's some specific

2:30:44 ↗ component and returned to the

2:30:46 ↗ Development Commission upon completion

2:30:48 ↗ of this additional work and a review by

2:30:50 ↗ the rivers and streams board could we

2:30:53 ↗ also include that they supply the

2:30:55 ↗ additional studies by Fish and Wildlife

2:30:57 ↗ and the other studies cited by the

2:30:59 ↗ applicants consultant are you asking for

2:31:02 ↗ all of that material to come to you are

2:31:04 ↗ you asking to whoever's it's being

2:31:08 ↗ remanded to us that they have all the

2:31:10 ↗ information available did you say it's

2:31:12 ↗ such remanded back to the staff to do

2:31:15 ↗ that okay well then and consider and you

2:31:17 ↗ can say and consider the information

2:31:18 ↗ provided by as I feel like the

2:31:22 ↗ information potentially exists that we

2:31:24 ↗ want and it just hasn't been reviewed I

2:31:26 ↗ don't know how do you guys feel about

2:31:28 ↗ that and for me the specific request

2:31:31 ↗ would be the real question for me is are

2:31:34 ↗ we providing adequate protection of the

2:31:37 ↗ stream covered ditch whatever we want to

2:31:40 ↗ call it is it at is the buffering

2:31:42 ↗ adequate

2:31:48 ↗ so do you like to be the one that

2:31:51 ↗ actually proposed that motion with your

2:31:54 ↗ addition to it now it's essentially yeah

2:31:59 ↗ yeah okay with you don't need to read

2:32:02 ↗ that in addition okay and then would it

2:32:07 ↗ only be the the only item be the ditch

2:32:10 ↗ that we would in tributary yes so I'm

2:32:17 ↗ gonna work my way through this mr. chair

2:32:19 ↗ I move that we the Development

2:32:22 ↗ Commission remand sdp won 9-0 zero zero

2:32:25 ↗ one two city staff for further study

2:32:29 ↗ regarding what shall we call this

2:32:33 ↗ officially the unnamed water of course

2:32:37 ↗ the subject water course and also

2:32:41 ↗ consider including in your review

2:32:43 ↗ additional information provided by the

2:32:45 ↗ applicants consultant studies prepared

2:32:49 ↗ by Fish and Wildlife and other studies

2:32:53 ↗ and and use that in your consideration

2:32:56 ↗ of review and return that to the

2:32:58 ↗ Development Commission the Development

2:33:00 ↗ Commission on completion of this

2:33:04 ↗ additional work and review by the river

2:33:07 ↗ and streams board second did that make

2:33:10 ↗ sense

2:33:11 ↗ excellent so there's been a motion made

2:33:14 ↗ and seconded additional discussion all

2:33:20 ↗ those in favor say aye opposed motion

2:33:24 ↗ carries

2:33:25 ↗ is there further further discussion for

2:33:28 ↗ tonight oh I think we need to state that

2:33:32 ↗ the that marketeer I'm sorry still open

2:33:35 ↗ for Erie scheduled for

2:33:38 ↗ right no we will continue the public

2:33:40 ↗ hearing at a further date to be

2:33:43 ↗ determined once the evaluation is

2:33:45 ↗ completed so with that being said I do

2:33:51 ↗ want to express my appreciation for the

2:33:55 ↗ serious support that the public provided

2:33:58 ↗ and the input it was invalid to us and

2:34:01 ↗ it's once more a demonstration of the

2:34:03 ↗ value of a public process that allows us

2:34:05 ↗ to get make better decisions and we

2:34:08 ↗ appreciate it we really appreciate it so

2:34:10 ↗ I think with that we'll adjourn I would

2:34:15 ↗ likewise add thank you to the Commission

2:34:17 ↗ for slogging through all of this so and

2:34:21 ↗ we will provide with I think with the

2:34:24 ↗ materials we'll provide you a complete

2:34:27 ↗ set of letters we we've been getting

2:34:30 ↗ them right until the so I'm not even

2:34:33 ↗ sure if we had them all to provide to

2:34:36 ↗ you so we will provide upcountry

2:34:39 ↗ don't tempt fate

2:34:43 ↗ [Applause]

2:34:49 ↗ you

2:34:52 ↗ you

2:34:59 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (15)

Administration/Staff: Richard Sowa

Lucy Sloman

Land Development Mgr. Mel Morgan

Katie Cote

Planning Consultant Michael Brennan Doug Schlepp

Engineering Consultant Kevin Price Stacey Rush

DSD Engineer Richard Sanford Brooke Shore Others Present: Arthur Schulte

Alternate David Estes

Strotkamp Architects Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Mark Graff

SCJ Alliance Ben Rush Tyrell Bradley

SCJ Alliance Commissioners Not Present (Unexcused): Nell Lund

The Watershed Company Mark Rigos

Alternate Mike Foster

O’Neill Service Group Nischitha Venkatesh

Alternate