Development Commission · Wednesday, March 16, 2022 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Staff Liaison Lucy Sloman, Land About Development Manager Created in 1983, this commission reviews all Email Lucy Sloman land use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Commission further serves as an advisory Regular Members board to the City Council on land use actions 2022 – Michael Brennan requiring council approval (Level 5 review). 2022 – Richard Sanford 2022 – Richard Sowa The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2023 – Patty Dillon Development Commission members and City 2023 – Brooke Shore Council members from discussing the merit of 2024 – Kevin Price specific land use development applications 2024 – Vacant outside of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, however, may discuss any issue with Alternate Members the City's Development Services

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of November 17, 2021

packet pp.7–14

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 11-17-21 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission SPECIAL MEETING

Minutes of February 2, 2022

packet pp.15–22

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 2, 2022

Minutes of February 10, 2022

packet pp.23–31

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 20, 2022 Planning Policy Commission · Jan 27, 2022

Open packet at p.23 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES Special Joint Meeting PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. -Thursday, February 10, 2022

Minutes of March 2, 2022

packet pp.33–40

Open packet at p.33 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 7:00 p.m. Thursday, March 2, 2022

Minutes of March 3, 2022

packet pp.41–58

Open packet at p.41 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 7:00 p.m. Thursday, March 3, 2022

4. PUBLIC HEARING

Recommendation on Site Development Permit, Master Site Plan, Five Administrative Adjustments of Standards, (A) Application Nos.: PRJ19-00008, SDP20- AAS21-00001, AAS21-00002, AAS21-00005, AAS21-00006 Parcel Nos.: 1624069031, 1624069001, Recommendation

Cristina Haworth, Planning Consultant Todd Sawin, AHBL · packet pp.2022

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.2022 ↗

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Lucy Sloman, Planning Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.59

▶ Watch from 0:45 Open packet at p.59 ↗

Staff report:

2022 Development Commission Schedule (tentative) (updated 2/17/2022)

4740 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ good evening i'd like to call the march

0:05 ↗ 16th uh meeting of the issaquah

0:07 ↗ development commission to order it's

0:08 ↗ right now 702.

0:11 ↗ um welcome and due to the virtual nature

0:13 ↗ of tonight's meeting i'd like to start

0:15 ↗ by just providing a few

0:17 ↗ guidelines that should help with the

0:18 ↗ meeting we have participants that may be

0:20 ↗ attending by computer and others by

0:22 ↗ phone

0:23 ↗ for all the meeting attendees just

0:25 ↗ please speak clearly

0:28 ↗ and pause frequently state your name

0:30 ↗ each time before you speak mute your

0:32 ↗ microphone when you're not speaking and

0:34 ↗ if you're having technical issues

0:36 ↗ there's always the option to join by

0:38 ↗ another device like a smartphone or a

0:40 ↗ tablet and or the fallback call-in phone

0:43 ↗ number that you can find on the meeting

0:45 ↗ announcement

0:47 ↗ tonight we have

0:48 ↗ one item on the agenda the continuation

0:51 ↗ of the public hearing for the providence

0:53 ↗ heights school project this is a

0:55 ↗ quasi-judicial matter that is in front

0:57 ↗ of the in front of the commission

1:00 ↗ uh so let's get started by calling roll

1:02 ↗ so lucy if you'd call roll and

1:04 ↗ commissioners if you would unmute your

1:06 ↗ microphone and say here when your name's

1:07 ↗ called

1:09 ↗ chair brennan

1:10 ↗ here commissioner sanford here

1:15 ↗ commissioner sowa here

1:17 ↗ commissioner dylan

1:20 ↗ here

1:22 ↗ commissioner shaw and price have excused

1:25 ↗ absences

1:27 ↗ commissioner ikeda

1:29 ↗ here

1:30 ↗ commissioner morgan

1:32 ↗ here

1:35 ↗ thank you lucy so i want to just note uh

1:37 ↗ quickly that the alternates

1:38 ↗ commissioners morgan and al-qaeda are

1:41 ↗ serving as regular commission members

1:42 ↗ this evening due to the resignation of

1:45 ↗ one of the regular commission members

1:46 ↗ and recusal by one of our other

1:48 ↗ commission members

1:50 ↗ so um we do have a backlog of meeting

1:52 ↗ mets that we need to get through for our

1:54 ↗ first kind of housekeeping

1:56 ↗ business here

1:58 ↗ so i want to start with each one of

2:00 ↗ these meeting minutes hopefully

2:01 ↗ everybody's had an opportunity to read

2:03 ↗ through those

2:05 ↗ and

2:06 ↗ so starting with the november 17th

2:08 ↗ meeting minutes

2:10 ↗ um does anybody have

2:12 ↗ any corrections um for the meeting

2:15 ↗ minutes from november 17 2021

2:22 ↗ hearing none the minutes for november

2:24 ↗ 17th 2021 are approved

2:27 ↗ meeting minutes for february 2nd 2022

2:31 ↗ are there any corrections to the meeting

2:33 ↗ myths from february 2nd

2:37 ↗ hearing none meeting minutes for

2:39 ↗ february 2nd 2022 are approved february

2:42 ↗ 10 2022

2:46 ↗ we've been busy any corrections to

2:48 ↗ measure into the minutes for february

2:51 ↗ 10th

2:53 ↗ hearing none

2:54 ↗ the minutes for february 10 2022 are

2:57 ↗ approved

2:58 ↗ uh march 2nd 2022 any corrections to the

3:02 ↗ march 2nd meeting minutes

3:07 ↗ seeing none the march 2nd 2022 meetings

3:10 ↗ are approved

3:12 ↗ and finally the march 3rd 2022

3:15 ↗ meeting minutes any corrections from the

3:18 ↗ commission

3:20 ↗ seeing none

3:22 ↗ the meetings for march 3rd 2022

3:24 ↗ are hereby approved

3:26 ↗ um says a lot about our minutes taker

3:29 ↗ doing a great job for us appreciate that

3:32 ↗ i do want to provide an opportunity to

3:35 ↗ open the floor for any member of the

3:36 ↗ public that would like to comment on

3:38 ↗ topics that are not before the

3:39 ↗ commission

3:40 ↗ at tonight's public hearing so if you

3:43 ↗ are on the phone and not on a computer

3:45 ↗ please press star 3 on your phone or if

3:48 ↗ you're on a computer use the virtual

3:50 ↗ raise hand

3:52 ↗ to be recognized

3:54 ↗ lucy do we have anyone who would like to

3:55 ↗ speak on a topic that is not before the

3:57 ↗ commission this evening

3:59 ↗ i'm just reviewing

4:01 ↗ the people in the audience

4:07 ↗ i do not see anyone who has raised their

4:09 ↗ hand

4:10 ↗ great thank you

4:12 ↗ so moving on to the continuation of the

4:15 ↗ public hearing for the providence height

4:17 ↗ project

4:18 ↗ so tonight is a continuation of the

4:21 ↗ public hearing that commenced on march

4:23 ↗ 2nd on the master site plan and i get to

4:26 ↗ read the numbers again so be patient

4:28 ↗ with me here

4:29 ↗ master site plan msp20001

4:35 ↗ the site development permit

4:37 ↗ sdp

4:39 ↗ 20-0001 and five administrative

4:42 ↗ adjustments of standards aas20-0012

4:49 ↗ aas21-001

4:54 ↗ aas21

4:58 ↗ aas21-0005

5:03 ↗ aas 21-006

5:08 ↗ uh and these are all for the providence

5:10 ↗ hype project

5:11 ↗ so oral comment um was completed at our

5:14 ↗ march 3rd portion of this public hearing

5:18 ↗ uh so i just want to remind folks that

5:20 ↗ we won't be taking any additional

5:23 ↗ oral testimony this evening

5:25 ↗ tonight's public hearing will be

5:27 ↗ the following steps

5:29 ↗ first of all we'll do the appearance of

5:31 ↗ fairness disclosures standard procedure

5:34 ↗ for our hearings

5:36 ↗ applicant rebuttal if there is one um

5:38 ↗ then followed by a staff rebuttal if

5:41 ↗ there is one um opportunity for the

5:44 ↗ after the rebuttals of commissioners to

5:47 ↗ ask questions uh we moved then into

5:50 ↗ commission

5:51 ↗ deliberation we have an opportunity to

5:54 ↗ discuss the proposal

5:57 ↗ and then if the commission is

5:59 ↗ comfortable this evening we can move to

6:01 ↗ an action

6:02 ↗ on the item before the commission

6:05 ↗ so i want to remind remind the

6:07 ↗ commission that following the rebuttal

6:08 ↗ the public hearing will be closed

6:11 ↗ um and when we close the public hearing

6:13 ↗ additional questions

6:15 ↗ cannot be directed at the applicant so i

6:17 ↗ want to make sure we get through all of

6:18 ↗ our questions

6:20 ↗ before we close the public hearing and

6:22 ↗ begin our final deliberation on the

6:25 ↗ project

6:26 ↗ so lucy let's move forward with the uh

6:28 ↗ the appearance of fairness disclosures

6:32 ↗ with questionings about the commission

6:34 ↗ uh and uh those particular disclosures

6:36 ↗ so i'll hand it to you lucy

6:40 ↗ thank you chairperson uh

6:42 ↗ so

6:43 ↗ um

6:45 ↗ as we've discussed

6:47 ↗ a quasi-judicial proceeding require is

6:50 ↗ required to be both fair in fact and

6:52 ↗ appearance similar to a courtroom

6:54 ↗ setting

6:55 ↗ ex-partake contacts are prohibited these

6:58 ↗ are communications outside of the

7:00 ↗ hearing between a decision maker and an

7:02 ↗ opponent or proponent of the matter at

7:04 ↗ hand if such communications have

7:07 ↗ occurred record of the substance of the

7:09 ↗ communication must be placed on the

7:11 ↗ record to allow other interested parties

7:14 ↗ the right to rebut the substance of the

7:16 ↗ communication

7:17 ↗ the test would be would a disinterested

7:19 ↗ person having been apprised the totality

7:22 ↗ of the decision maker's personal

7:24 ↗ interest in a matter being acted upon be

7:27 ↗ reasonably justified in thinking that

7:29 ↗ partiality may exist

7:31 ↗ decision makers who have personal

7:34 ↗ interest pre-judgment of issues or

7:36 ↗ partiality are disqualified from the

7:38 ↗ proceedings

7:40 ↗ so as you may remember we have a

7:43 ↗ slide

7:44 ↗ with a series of questions please read

7:47 ↗ through these and raise your actual hand

7:51 ↗ when you have finished reading so i can

7:54 ↗ call roll

8:11 ↗ okay

8:14 ↗ chair brennan how do you answer

8:16 ↗ i answered no to all the questions

8:18 ↗ commissioner sanford

8:20 ↗ no to all

8:22 ↗ commissioner soha

8:24 ↗ no to all

8:25 ↗ commissioner dylan

8:28 ↗ yes to question three uh my company has

8:32 ↗ a business relationship with the

8:34 ↗ applicants

8:35 ↗ um engineer

8:37 ↗ we have had no discussions or

8:39 ↗ involvement on this project however i

8:42 ↗ think you don't see that there is any of

8:44 ↗ any

8:46 ↗ impingement on my ability to

8:48 ↗ judge this on the merits of the

8:50 ↗ information provided

8:52 ↗ and no to the rest of the questions

8:54 ↗ thank you commissioner

8:57 ↗ no to all

8:59 ↗ commissioner morgan

9:01 ↗ and no to all except for number three my

9:04 ↗ in-laws live within the providence point

9:06 ↗ community but not i've not discussed the

9:09 ↗ project with him and i don't believe it

9:10 ↗ would impact my judgment

9:13 ↗ and then for the overall question please

9:16 ↗ read it raise your hand when you're

9:17 ↗ ready to answer and i will call roll

9:19 ↗ again

9:23 ↗ chair brennan how do you answer

9:25 ↗ yes

9:26 ↗ commissioner sanford yes

9:29 ↗ commissioner soa yes

9:32 ↗ commissioner dylan

9:33 ↗ yes

9:34 ↗ commissioner ikeda

9:36 ↗ yes

9:37 ↗ commissioner morgan

9:39 ↗ yes

9:41 ↗ i'm going to read through this and then

9:43 ↗ i'll stop sharing my screen

9:45 ↗ in case there is an objection

9:47 ↗ um

9:48 ↗ does anyone in attendance wish to

9:50 ↗ challenge the participant

9:52 ↗ participation of any commissioner based

9:54 ↗ on appearance of fairness doctrine if

9:57 ↗ you have an objection raise your virtual

9:59 ↗ hand or type objection into the chat

10:02 ↗ window

10:02 ↗ when called upon please state the name

10:05 ↗ of the member and the reasons why you

10:07 ↗ believe they should be disqualified

10:12 ↗ uh from this matter

10:18 ↗ i am checking to see if anyone has

10:22 ↗ provided an objection

10:29 ↗ i have not received a chat

10:32 ↗ and i see no hands raised

10:35 ↗ thank you lucy

10:37 ↗ so we'll move on to the next step which

10:39 ↗ is the rebuttal from the applicant so

10:41 ↗ it's an opportunity for the applicant

10:43 ↗ consultant team to

10:45 ↗ address the commission

10:47 ↗ um commissioners if you would please

10:48 ↗ hold your questions until they finish

10:50 ↗ their presentation and if you do have

10:52 ↗ questions type question in the chat

10:55 ↗ and make sure you've got it listed for

10:57 ↗ everyone

10:59 ↗ in the chat feature so

11:01 ↗ i will hand it to the applicant team

11:04 ↗ an opportunity to provide rebuttal

11:07 ↗ todd will you be uh the presenter

11:10 ↗ yes ma'am

11:17 ↗ i have made you the presenter so you

11:19 ↗ should be able to share

11:21 ↗ thank you

11:25 ↗ good evening kara brennan and members of

11:27 ↗ the commission my name is denise stifarm

11:29 ↗ with pacifica law group and i am the

11:31 ↗ outside legal counsel for the issaquah

11:34 ↗ school district

11:36 ↗ as you know the district submitted

11:38 ↗ written rebuttal briefing to the

11:40 ↗ commission

11:41 ↗ and tonight instead of repeating all of

11:44 ↗ that information we plan to highlight

11:46 ↗ some of the key points relevant to the

11:48 ↗ scope of your determination

11:50 ↗ we have also read the city's rebuttal

11:52 ↗ materials and adopt those points by

11:54 ↗ reference

11:56 ↗ we acknowledge that our rebuttal

11:58 ↗ submittal likely over responds but is

12:01 ↗ important to us that accurate facts and

12:03 ↗ information are presented to the

12:05 ↗ commission and included within the

12:07 ↗ record

12:08 ↗ that said our rebuttal focuses on issues

12:12 ↗ outside of the scope are not fully

12:14 ↗ addressed by the record and is not

12:16 ↗ duplicative of the evidence or analysis

12:18 ↗ already before the commission

12:20 ↗ in a few minutes i am going to turn the

12:22 ↗ district's rebuttal presentation over to

12:25 ↗ the design team who will introduce

12:27 ↗ themselves

12:28 ↗ but first i want to touch on a few

12:30 ↗ issues that were raised in public

12:32 ↗ comment

12:34 ↗ first as you know the scope of the

12:36 ↗ development commission's review

12:38 ↗ is limited to whether the project meets

12:41 ↗ the applicable criteria in the city code

12:44 ↗ for approval of the land use application

12:47 ↗ and here specifically that is the master

12:49 ↗ site plan the site development permit

12:52 ↗ and the five administrative adjustments

12:55 ↗ of standards

12:57 ↗ what is not before you despite public

13:00 ↗ comments suggesting otherwise

13:02 ↗ is a relitigation of the basis for the

13:05 ↗ comprehensive plan map amendment and

13:07 ↗ rezone including its its accompanying

13:10 ↗ environmental review

13:12 ↗ what is not before you is an appeal of

13:14 ↗ the district's project level zipa

13:16 ↗ determination

13:18 ↗ nor is a determination of how the

13:20 ↗ district programs

13:21 ↗ its capacity and educational needs or

13:24 ↗ how it funds its schools

13:26 ↗ and also what is not before you is a

13:28 ↗ review of the construction permits

13:30 ↗ related to the project

13:32 ↗ on the latter point

13:34 ↗ nothing in the land use criteria

13:36 ↗ requires

13:38 ↗ and no party has presented authority to

13:40 ↗ support a requirement

13:42 ↗ that fully developed construction

13:44 ↗ permits be submitted with the land use

13:47 ↗ application

13:48 ↗ and that makes sense because the landis

13:51 ↗ approval need the land use approval

13:54 ↗ precedes and informs

13:56 ↗ those construction permits and the land

13:59 ↗ use approval does not on its own

14:02 ↗ authorize any construction or land

14:04 ↗ disturbance

14:05 ↗ construction permits even those in

14:08 ↗ review now will be informed by the

14:10 ↗ landis approval and its conditions

14:14 ↗ i'd next like to address some claims

14:17 ↗ that the staff report inaccurately

14:19 ↗ describes the proposal because the

14:21 ↗ district plans to phase construction

14:23 ↗ with the elementary school in a

14:25 ↗ subsequent phase

14:27 ↗ the reality is that the code requires

14:30 ↗ that a master plan master site

14:32 ↗ application

14:34 ↗ include any proposed project phasing and

14:37 ↗ it delineates approval criteria for each

14:40 ↗ proposed phase

14:42 ↗ simply put the code expects phasing

14:46 ↗ and the staff report and the record

14:47 ↗ appropriately identified that phasing

14:50 ↗ plan

14:51 ↗ the district superintendent in his

14:53 ↗ presentation to you confirmed the

14:56 ↗ district's need and continued planning

14:58 ↗ for that elementary school

15:00 ↗ and mr solwan explained previously and

15:03 ↗ will price provide some additional

15:05 ↗ detail this evening as to that phasing

15:08 ↗ plan

15:09 ↗ the proposed conditions in the city

15:12 ↗ staff report require within a time

15:14 ↗ certain certain restoration

15:17 ↗ should phase to not commence

15:20 ↗ prior to the expiration of the land use

15:22 ↗ permit

15:24 ↗ the project is accurately described and

15:26 ↗ the phasing plan as required by the city

15:29 ↗ code is detailed in the record

15:34 ↗ next turning to comments regarding

15:36 ↗ compatibility

15:38 ↗ case law in our state tells us

15:40 ↗ that courts look to zoning

15:42 ↗ determinations and designations

15:45 ↗ adopted code requirements

15:47 ↗ project conditions

15:49 ↗ and project modifications that exceed

15:52 ↗ code requirements as all supporting

15:54 ↗ compatibility

15:56 ↗ the facts and the evidence here more

15:58 ↗ than support that compatibility

16:00 ↗ determination

16:02 ↗ as a starting point the 2020 rezone

16:06 ↗ decision for this property

16:09 ↗ included a thorough compatibility review

16:12 ↗ of the uses permitted in the cff zone

16:16 ↗ including the various components of this

16:18 ↗ project

16:19 ↗ in relation to the adjacent zoning

16:21 ↗ districts

16:23 ↗ that decision which was upheld on appeal

16:27 ↗ is evidence in itself of compatibility

16:29 ↗ of a project like this which is designed

16:33 ↗ to meet the cff zoning regulations

16:37 ↗ in addition

16:38 ↗ imc 18.06.090

16:43 ↗ with regard to the cff zone

16:46 ↗ identifies the primary purpose of the

16:49 ↗ zone to provide for public uses on

16:52 ↗ publicly owned properties

16:54 ↗ and it encourages multiple public uses

16:58 ↗ on cff zoned property

17:01 ↗ that provision of the code goes further

17:04 ↗ to state that the cff zone

17:06 ↗ and its applicable regulations are

17:09 ↗ designed to quote ensure compatibility

17:14 ↗ as shown in the record this project not

17:17 ↗ only complies with the applicable zoning

17:19 ↗ regulations but with the project

17:22 ↗ conditions and the project design itself

17:25 ↗ it goes significantly further to ensure

17:28 ↗ compatibility

17:30 ↗ the record is replete with evidence and

17:32 ↗ detail of how this project is designed

17:35 ↗ to both functionally and operationally

17:38 ↗ exceed code requirements

17:40 ↗ i won't list all of those measures um

17:43 ↗ they are all in the record but they

17:45 ↗ generally include among others

17:48 ↗ deliberate building orientation

17:50 ↗ extraordinary buffers and added to

17:52 ↗ vegetation

17:53 ↗ scaled back programming and facilities

17:56 ↗ from those same things that are found at

17:58 ↗ other district schools

18:00 ↗ and a design that uses only 51 percent

18:04 ↗ of the permitted 90

18:06 ↗ impervious service permitted in this

18:08 ↗ zone by the code

18:11 ↗ the district voluntarily and in response

18:14 ↗ to numerous public comments heard in

18:16 ↗ various forums throughout this very

18:18 ↗ lengthy planning process

18:21 ↗ has given up substantial development

18:23 ↗ rights and educational programming in

18:25 ↗ order to assure compatibility

18:29 ↗ the final piece that i will touch on

18:31 ↗ tonight and

18:32 ↗ responds to a letter that you recently

18:35 ↗ received from the attorney from the

18:36 ↗ providence point umbrella association

18:39 ↗ and

18:40 ↗ bear with me just a bit because we're

18:41 ↗ going to dive a little bit into case law

18:43 ↗ but i'll try to to break it down in a

18:45 ↗ way that doesn't go um too dense um but

18:49 ↗ in that letter

18:51 ↗ the ppua attorney

18:53 ↗ asserted that the district is increasing

18:56 ↗ or altering drainage flow onto ppua's

19:00 ↗ property and that the city will be

19:02 ↗ liable as a result

19:04 ↗ that submittal is both legally and

19:06 ↗ factually incorrect

19:09 ↗ the case cited in the letter phillips v

19:12 ↗ king county

19:13 ↗ stands for the proposition that water

19:15 ↗ cannot be collected and deposited onto

19:19 ↗ adjacent land in a manner different than

19:22 ↗ before development if it is the adjacent

19:25 ↗ property owner may be entitled to

19:27 ↗ damages

19:29 ↗ importantly the focus is on whether

19:32 ↗ circumstances change and harm is caused

19:35 ↗ on the adjacent property it is not

19:38 ↗ focused on changes made to how

19:40 ↗ stormwater is collected and concentrated

19:43 ↗ on the property under development

19:46 ↗ the letter from ppua misses that very

19:48 ↗ important distinction

19:50 ↗ as mr solomon will address the

19:52 ↗ stormwater design for this project

19:55 ↗ will maintain the same drainage paths

19:58 ↗ and will not increase existing

20:00 ↗ dispersion rates

20:02 ↗ although the district is appropriately

20:04 ↗ updating stormwater collection on the

20:06 ↗ project site

20:08 ↗ no changes will be made to how water is

20:10 ↗ collected and deposited on ppua's

20:13 ↗ property

20:14 ↗ in fact conditions are expected to

20:16 ↗ improve

20:18 ↗ mr sotlin will also explain how and why

20:20 ↗ the letter's description of the

20:22 ↗ stormwater design is inaccurate

20:25 ↗ because the drainage pattern will remain

20:27 ↗ the same and there is no harm phillips

20:29 ↗ is inapplicable

20:32 ↗ the assertion in the letter that the

20:33 ↗ city will somehow be liable is also not

20:36 ↗ supported by the phillips decision

20:39 ↗ in phillips the court confirmed that in

20:42 ↗ a municipality's approval of a private

20:44 ↗ development

20:45 ↗ or its acceptance of ownership of a

20:48 ↗ drainage system does not in itself give

20:50 ↗ rise to liability

20:52 ↗ instead for liability to arise

20:55 ↗ some conduct of the municipality must be

20:58 ↗ the direct and proximate cause of any

21:01 ↗ harm caused to adjacent land

21:04 ↗ phillips and the related cases focus on

21:07 ↗ whether the municipality owns the land

21:10 ↗ on which the drainage system is being

21:12 ↗ improved

21:14 ↗ not the property property that is

21:16 ↗ allegedly being harmed

21:19 ↗ even if ppua were able to somehow

21:22 ↗ demonstrate damages here which mr

21:24 ↗ solomon will explain is not possible

21:27 ↗ there is no basis on which the city

21:30 ↗ could be liable because its only

21:32 ↗ involvement is to approve the district's

21:34 ↗ drainage system on the district's

21:36 ↗ property through the permitting process

21:39 ↗ and the city does not own the project

21:41 ↗ site

21:42 ↗ nor is it offering its own property for

21:44 ↗ construction of the new facilities

21:48 ↗ at this point i'm going to turn the

21:50 ↗ presentation over to the district's

21:52 ↗ architect jordan kiel

21:56 ↗ thank you denise um good evening

21:57 ↗ everyone

21:58 ↗ um i believe you uh you heard from my

22:01 ↗ business partner michael davis on the

22:03 ↗ march 2nd meeting um he's the design

22:06 ↗ principal on this project

22:08 ↗ and i'm the managing principal for

22:09 ↗ bassetti architects

22:11 ↗ so at the last meeting on

22:14 ↗ the third

22:15 ↗ we

22:16 ↗ saw a series of renderings that were

22:18 ↗ presented which did not accurately

22:20 ↗ reflect all of the efforts the design

22:21 ↗ team and the school district have put

22:23 ↗ into being a good neighbor to providence

22:24 ↗ point through buffering views and

22:27 ↗ creating a compatible design the design

22:29 ↗ team has a similar set of renderings

22:31 ↗ we'd like to share with you here today

22:33 ↗ in order to clarify the anticipated

22:35 ↗ views from providence point

22:41 ↗ so starting here

22:43 ↗ this is the um a snippet from the

22:46 ↗ presentation we saw in the third

22:48 ↗ by joshua cohen of fat pencil studios

22:52 ↗ i believe that was the name um and this

22:54 ↗ is a aerial view showing the site prior

22:57 ↗ to the demolition of the church building

23:00 ↗ go the next slide please

23:03 ↗ and this was the next slide that he

23:05 ↗ showed

23:07 ↗ showing an aerial rendering which

23:10 ↗ fails to show any of the new trees we're

23:12 ↗ proposing on the project

23:14 ↗ and it's worth noting that because

23:16 ↗ there's over 900 new trees being

23:18 ↗ proposed on this project

23:20 ↗ i'd like to draw a special attention to

23:22 ↗ the area and todd i'm going to ask you

23:24 ↗ to try to wave your mouse around if you

23:26 ↗ can

23:27 ↗ along the south there right there

23:29 ↗ along that edge there's a whole bunch of

23:31 ↗ trees being proposed

23:33 ↗ um the south or no sorry the western

23:36 ↗ corner of the site

23:38 ↗ the most western

23:40 ↗ there's a pocket of trees there that's

23:42 ↗ um missing from this rendering um the

23:45 ↗ entire interior of the site every tree

23:47 ↗ and down the interior of the site that

23:48 ↗ we're proposing is missing

23:50 ↗ as well as i mean it's really all the

23:51 ↗ new trees but this is where the bulk of

23:54 ↗ them are and then um

23:56 ↗ in the outfield of the softball field

24:00 ↗ let's go to the next rendering

24:03 ↗ so this rendering really focuses on just

24:05 ↗ the south end of the site the next one

24:06 ↗ will show you the north end um but here

24:08 ↗ you can see

24:10 ↗ the um the trees there that show up

24:13 ↗ that we're proposing along the

24:15 ↗ southern

24:16 ↗ edge

24:18 ↗ as well as

24:20 ↗ many trees on the interior

24:24 ↗ and then

24:25 ↗ this rendering sort of fades because

24:27 ↗ it's such a large site and it's sort of

24:29 ↗ the field of

24:31 ↗ depth of view is faded out so let's go

24:33 ↗ to the next slide to see the other end

24:35 ↗ of the site

24:37 ↗ and so

24:38 ↗ this is looking from the

24:41 ↗ northeast corner of the site and it

24:43 ↗ shows new trees along the road

24:44 ↗ throughout the interior of the site as

24:46 ↗ well as the cluster of new trees at the

24:48 ↗ outfield of the softball field

24:51 ↗ it's an area the site where there's

24:52 ↗ currently no buffer between providence

24:53 ↗ point and the existing access road

24:56 ↗ these trees will add a significant

24:57 ↗ visual buffer to the north edge of the

24:58 ↗ site

25:00 ↗ let's go to the next slide please

25:03 ↗ and then over time these trees will grow

25:05 ↗ and create an even more significant tree

25:07 ↗ canopy across the site this will be a

25:09 ↗ really lush and beautiful site

25:12 ↗ for the next slide

25:15 ↗ so this was a

25:17 ↗ view

25:18 ↗ um provided by fat pencil that is

25:20 ↗ located

25:21 ↗ in a spot by the softball field outfield

25:24 ↗ so this is a view on the north edge of

25:25 ↗ the site looking south

25:27 ↗ and it almost appears as if the camera

25:29 ↗ position is within the property

25:30 ↗ boundaries

25:32 ↗ let's go to the next slide

25:36 ↗ and here's the same view

25:38 ↗ as accurately depicted with the

25:40 ↗ improvements and

25:42 ↗ the initial site vegetation but pulled

25:44 ↗ back a bit so that the observer is on

25:45 ↗ the providence point property and

25:48 ↗ the new trees are shown

25:50 ↗ for the next one

25:53 ↗ and then

25:54 ↗ down the road and maybe 10 15 years the

25:57 ↗ trees will grow up and be even more of a

25:59 ↗ more significant barrier as you see here

26:03 ↗ let's go to the next slide please

26:07 ↗ there appears to be a five-story

26:09 ↗ building in this location

26:11 ↗ and so

26:12 ↗ for this particular view we took the

26:14 ↗ opportunity to pull the camera up

26:16 ↗ approximately 50 feet

26:18 ↗ and look in that same direction and

26:20 ↗ in this view i'd like to point out the

26:22 ↗ roof of the grandstands and this is one

26:25 ↗ you'll really need to point to there

26:26 ↗ todd

26:28 ↗ um the trees obscuring are actually a

26:30 ↗ stand of existing trees

26:32 ↗ um just has to do with the angle you're

26:34 ↗ looking at

26:36 ↗ as you can see it does not have a large

26:38 ↗ individual impact the grandstands are a

26:41 ↗ good deal shorter than typical grand

26:42 ↗ stands at other high schools

26:44 ↗ both skyline and liberty have grandstand

26:46 ↗ structures that are around 55 feet tall

26:49 ↗ these grandstands are longer as they

26:50 ↗ extend along the side of the track and

26:52 ↗ field

26:53 ↗ which allows them to be shorter

26:55 ↗ and they're only about 34 feet tall

26:58 ↗ even though the code will allow us to go

26:59 ↗ up to 65 feet tall

27:02 ↗ we've also added walls to the back and

27:03 ↗ sides of the grandstands in order to

27:05 ↗ redirect unregulated noise of fans away

27:07 ↗ from providence point

27:09 ↗ uh last i would like to point out that

27:11 ↗ the scoreboard which sits at the north

27:13 ↗ end of the football field is not visible

27:15 ↗ and that scoreboard is also at a height

27:17 ↗ of just under 28 feet much lower than

27:19 ↗ the

27:20 ↗ codes permitted 65 feet

27:24 ↗ so the next slide

27:28 ↗ moving further west this is another view

27:30 ↗ provided by fat pencil the view angle

27:32 ↗ appears to be from a drone

27:35 ↗ definitely not a ground level view and

27:37 ↗ to my knowledge there's not

27:39 ↗ a five-story building in this location

27:42 ↗ the next slide

27:46 ↗ down on the ground um the view is mostly

27:48 ↗ of providence point garages which

27:50 ↗ lines portions of the northern property

27:52 ↗ line and nearly all of the western

27:54 ↗ property line

27:57 ↗ go to the next slide

28:01 ↗ another view by fat pencil showing

28:03 ↗ shown from a drone and without any of

28:05 ↗ the new trees we're looking east from

28:07 ↗ the western property line

28:11 ↗ and notice that building kind of right

28:13 ↗ in the center

28:15 ↗ so the next slide

28:19 ↗ so i've actually omitted the building in

28:21 ↗ this view um because it would obscure so

28:24 ↗ much of the view of what you're trying

28:25 ↗ to see here so what you can you can see

28:29 ↗ is the footprint of the building

28:31 ↗ that i pointed out in the last slide

28:33 ↗ um so from this vantage point you would

28:35 ↗ really pretty much just be seeing the

28:37 ↗ providence points own buildings

28:39 ↗ um but if that were not there you're

28:42 ↗ seeing all of the new trees that we're

28:44 ↗ proposing along that edge

28:50 ↗ let's go to the next slide

28:54 ↗ and as the new trees grow

28:56 ↗ the view of the school is nearly

28:58 ↗ completely obscured

29:02 ↗ for the next one

29:05 ↗ and a view by fat pencil again from a

29:08 ↗ drone and without any of the new trees

29:10 ↗ shown

29:11 ↗ we're looking north from the

29:13 ↗ southwestern corner of the property

29:17 ↗ for the next one

29:20 ↗ here's that same view from the ground

29:23 ↗ and including the new trees that we're

29:24 ↗ proposing to plant

29:26 ↗ the glimpse of the school that you're

29:27 ↗ getting here is actually looking down a

29:29 ↗ small access road that's on the site

29:32 ↗ but to get this view requires the near

29:34 ↗ perfect alignment with that access road

29:36 ↗ that we have in this view if you were to

29:38 ↗ step

29:39 ↗ any

29:40 ↗ too much to the right or left here you

29:42 ↗ wouldn't get this head on view and you

29:44 ↗ would see even less of the building

29:48 ↗ the next slide

29:50 ↗ shows that the as the trees grow larger

29:53 ↗ and become more mature

29:54 ↗ along that southwestern edge the buffer

29:57 ↗ becomes even more opaque

30:00 ↗ so that's those are the views we wanted

30:02 ↗ to share with you today um now i'd like

30:05 ↗ to switch a little to speaking a little

30:06 ↗ bit about site security

30:09 ↗ and todd i wonder if you could bring up

30:11 ↗ the

30:12 ↗ fencing diagram

30:14 ↗ the report provided by providence point

30:17 ↗ uh refers to septed multiple times

30:19 ↗ and i designed schools for a living and

30:21 ↗ septic principles are used to guide the

30:22 ↗ design of every single site we work on

30:26 ↗ usually we're focused on applying those

30:27 ↗ principles to keeping students safe

30:30 ↗ but there's no conflict in looking

30:32 ↗ through the lens of keeping neighbors

30:33 ↗ safe as well

30:35 ↗ septet is not about isolating individual

30:37 ↗ sites with walls it's about creating

30:39 ↗ safe communities

30:41 ↗ the suggestion that we create an

30:43 ↗ eight-foot opaque wall as noted in the

30:45 ↗ security report is a direct

30:47 ↗ contradiction to september principles

30:48 ↗ and contrary to all the efforts we've

30:50 ↗ put into creating a visually pleasing

30:52 ↗ vegetated buffer

30:53 ↗ this is the site plan with the new and

30:55 ↗ existing fences highlighted

30:59 ↗ oh this is not the site plan with the

31:02 ↗ do you have the one that has the

31:04 ↗ the red and the green

31:06 ↗ fence lines highlighted

31:09 ↗ i don't

31:11 ↗ oh find it

31:12 ↗ okay

31:28 ↗ two

31:35 ↗ essentially what you'll see when this

31:36 ↗ comes up is that the um the existing

31:39 ↗ fence along the property line is being

31:42 ↗ retained

31:43 ↗ um and then we have these ex expansive

31:47 ↗ vegetative buffers

31:49 ↗ and then um additional oh here we go

31:53 ↗ so the green line

31:54 ↗ around the

31:56 ↗ the perimeter here is the existing fence

31:58 ↗ which will remain

32:00 ↗ and then we have an

32:01 ↗ additional fence that is uh 12 foot tall

32:05 ↗ on the school side of that buffer that's

32:07 ↗ as shown in red

32:09 ↗ intimidating all along

32:11 ↗ so we're confident that this fencing

32:12 ↗ will create a clear it will create clear

32:14 ↗ sight lines for students safety

32:18 ↗ and act in concert with the site design

32:20 ↗ to create a logical internal boundaries

32:23 ↗ as you can see all foot and vehicle

32:26 ↗ traffic is clearly directed to 228th

32:28 ↗ versus a suggestion by the ppua

32:30 ↗ consultant of students filtering through

32:32 ↗ providence point and on their way home

32:34 ↗ from school and getting into trouble or

32:37 ↗ doing untoward things in the

32:38 ↗ neighborhood

32:39 ↗ that's simply just not the condition

32:41 ↗ that we're creating on this site

32:44 ↗ so in summary we've gone to great

32:46 ↗ lengths here to be responsive to the

32:47 ↗ concerns of the neighbors um and to come

32:49 ↗ up with a compatible design solution and

32:51 ↗ um we're really proud of this design and

32:54 ↗ and feel that it's um

32:56 ↗ it's meeting all of the needs and

32:59 ↗ concerns that we've heard so far so

33:01 ↗ thank you i'll hand it off to

33:03 ↗ adam jenkins now to speak a little bit

33:05 ↗ about sound

33:14 ↗ thank you jordan uh so nice to see you

33:17 ↗ all again my name is adam jenkins we

33:20 ↗ spoke uh last time about about noise and

33:23 ↗ i work at the green bush group and we

33:24 ↗ conducted a noise study for the subject

33:27 ↗ project and i'm here to follow up on

33:28 ↗ some of the comments that were brought

33:30 ↗ up at the at the hearing

33:33 ↗ last time and also address some other

33:35 ↗ some other items

33:36 ↗ i understand that our written comment

33:39 ↗ responses were provided to the

33:40 ↗ commission prior to this meeting so

33:44 ↗ as

33:45 ↗ applicants council mentioned before i'm

33:46 ↗ not going to read them to you but i will

33:49 ↗ attempt to

33:50 ↗ summarize what i believe are the are the

33:52 ↗ most uh important points of those of

33:55 ↗ those written responses

33:57 ↗ uh regarding commissioner sanford's

33:59 ↗ questions

34:00 ↗ uh there are some additional details

34:02 ↗ that i believe are worth pointing out

34:04 ↗ um asked specifically about the maximum

34:07 ↗ loudspeaker output power which we

34:09 ↗ addressed and also provide additional

34:10 ↗ details in their responses

34:13 ↗ but i also did want to add reference to

34:15 ↗ the city staff condition number 39 that

34:18 ↗ requires the district to conduct noise

34:20 ↗ monitoring to ensure that the pa system

34:23 ↗ does not exceed the noise level limits

34:25 ↗ at adjacent property boundaries and then

34:28 ↗ also cpa mdns condition number 38 that

34:32 ↗ requires the sound system to be turned

34:33 ↗ off by 10 pm when the noise limits are

34:36 ↗ reduced by 10 decibels to account for

34:38 ↗ increased

34:39 ↗ sensitivity in the community from

34:42 ↗ noise generated during nighttime hours

34:46 ↗ a member of the community uh timothy

34:47 ↗ brown also raised concerns about noise

34:51 ↗ that are addressed in our written

34:52 ↗ responses but there are uh four points

34:55 ↗ that i would like to

34:56 ↗ specifically mention with you this

34:58 ↗ evening

35:00 ↗ mr brown expressed concerns that

35:02 ↗ existing noise levels in

35:04 ↗ near the site at this time

35:06 ↗ exceed thresholds identified in

35:10 ↗ wac 173-60

35:13 ↗ however it's it's important to remember

35:17 ↗ and

35:18 ↗ to keep in mind that the traffic on

35:20 ↗ public roadways

35:22 ↗ such as 228

35:23 ↗ is is not regulated by that by that

35:26 ↗ chapter

35:27 ↗ only noise uh generated by activities on

35:30 ↗ the project site are subject to act

35:32 ↗ 173.60 therefore a comparison of

35:36 ↗ public traffic on public roadways to

35:37 ↗ these

35:38 ↗ environmental noise limits in wac 170

35:41 ↗ 360 is it's just not appropriate it can

35:44 ↗ uh confuse

35:46 ↗ an appropriate assessment of of

35:48 ↗ potential noise effects from a project

35:50 ↗ such as this

35:52 ↗ mr brown also expressed concern about a

35:55 ↗ lack of assessment of an increase to

35:58 ↗ existing conditions

36:00 ↗ based on the baseline sound levels we

36:02 ↗ measured at the site and our predicted

36:04 ↗ noise emissions from site activities i

36:07 ↗ appreciated this comment and in response

36:08 ↗ to that comment we've provided the

36:10 ↗ commission with that information that

36:12 ↗ information shows

36:14 ↗ not more than a six decibel increase

36:16 ↗ worst case

36:18 ↗ uh at during daytime hours

36:20 ↗ and

36:22 ↗ more than two decibel increase worst

36:24 ↗ case during time hours and these are

36:26 ↗ well below the typical threshold of 10

36:29 ↗ decibels which would be considered a

36:31 ↗ threshold for substantial increase in

36:33 ↗ terms of noise effects

36:35 ↗ so that information was was quantified

36:37 ↗ in the table and i appreciate mr brown

36:40 ↗ asking that question

36:43 ↗ mr brown also expressed concern about

36:45 ↗ there not being any analysis done for

36:48 ↗ traffic on public roadways

36:50 ↗ and

36:52 ↗ aside from the exemption that that we've

36:55 ↗ been talking about as far as traffic on

36:57 ↗ public roadways i did want to

36:59 ↗ respond to this that question was

37:02 ↗ specifically with some math with some

37:04 ↗ technical answers

37:06 ↗ uh

37:07 ↗ simply

37:09 ↗ noise emissions from vehicles on roads

37:12 ↗ are much more sensitive to changes in

37:14 ↗ speed than they are

37:17 ↗ flow

37:18 ↗ so a doubling of flow or traffic or

37:21 ↗ vehicles per hour on a roadway

37:23 ↗ would typically increase emissions by

37:25 ↗ six decibels

37:26 ↗ doubling the travel speed on a public

37:29 ↗ roadway would increase by six decibels

37:32 ↗ for the same flow

37:34 ↗ so when we're looking at increasing flow

37:36 ↗ during peak hour

37:38 ↗ uh conditions in the morning when this

37:40 ↗ project is expected to generate its most

37:42 ↗ trips in addition to the existing

37:44 ↗ traffic

37:46 ↗ the the fact that there will be a school

37:48 ↗ zone in place with a 20 mile an hour

37:49 ↗ speed limit which is half of what

37:51 ↗ current posted speed is on the site

37:53 ↗ uh is expected to result in a net

37:55 ↗ decrease of traffic traffic noise

37:57 ↗ received at providence point ignoring

38:00 ↗ the addition of on-site structures and

38:02 ↗ additional screening that will be

38:03 ↗ afforded by the project

38:06 ↗ and the removal of of trees or shrubbery

38:08 ↗ or foliage is is inconsequential

38:11 ↗ compared to this type of effect that

38:13 ↗ we're looking at based on just the

38:15 ↗ reduction of travel speed alone

38:21 ↗ mr brown also expressed concern about

38:25 ↗ us the noise study not quantifying

38:27 ↗ off-site noise emissions from on-site

38:29 ↗ traffic during sporting events

38:32 ↗ and in response to that we did provide

38:34 ↗ some numbers in our written comments

38:37 ↗ it's important to note though that the

38:39 ↗ expected trip generation during a

38:42 ↗ sporting event is about half of what it

38:44 ↗ would expect to be what it is expected

38:47 ↗ to be during peak morning trip

38:49 ↗ generation from from the schools uh

38:51 ↗ therefore it's

38:53 ↗ it's possible to predict those sound

38:54 ↗ levels uh but there be less than what

38:56 ↗ we've already presented in the noise

38:58 ↗ analysis which really represents a worst

39:00 ↗ case situation for

39:03 ↗ or noise emissions from from on-site

39:05 ↗ traffic activities

39:07 ↗ so i hope that the the responses are

39:10 ↗ helpful to the commission in considering

39:13 ↗ these these elements of the project and

39:15 ↗ i will be happy to answer any questions

39:17 ↗ that

39:18 ↗ the commission may have related to noise

39:25 ↗ thank you adam oh

39:27 ↗ so this is todd solomon with hbo i spoke

39:31 ↗ last time i'm a civil engineer um

39:34 ↗ so i have a number of pieces we're going

39:35 ↗ to talk through so we talked last time

39:37 ↗ i'm going to put up a few slides you've

39:39 ↗ seen before

39:40 ↗ a few new information most of this was

39:42 ↗ provided um in writing

39:45 ↗ as part of our written responses denise

39:47 ↗ mentioned um

39:49 ↗ so i'm going to start with site access

39:51 ↗ the um

39:53 ↗ and the where i'm going to talk about

39:55 ↗ the easement on the south portion of the

39:57 ↗ site

39:58 ↗ so

39:59 ↗ um today we've been talking about a

40:01 ↗ reciprocal

40:03 ↗ easement that provides access along that

40:06 ↗ south property line

40:07 ↗ based on some comments from the

40:08 ↗ neighbors we dug into this

40:11 ↗ um

40:12 ↗ significantly we actually found that

40:15 ↗ an old deed from 1979 turns out old

40:19 ↗ information from the 70s wasn't really

40:21 ↗ really well scanned so we haven't been

40:23 ↗ able to find every piece of it as easy

40:25 ↗ as would have been desired

40:27 ↗ um

40:28 ↗ this document was before any of the

40:30 ↗ providence point

40:31 ↗ um development happened and before

40:35 ↗ any of the property was sold to the

40:37 ↗ underlying developer

40:39 ↗ so they created the reciprocal easement

40:41 ↗ we've been mentioning to date in

40:45 ↗ january of 1979.

40:47 ↗ in december of 1979 they sold the

40:50 ↗ property and as a condition of the sale

40:52 ↗ of the property made the

40:54 ↗ underlying easement go away

40:56 ↗ so based on the information we have

40:58 ↗ today we don't believe there's an

41:00 ↗ underlying easement for

41:04 ↗ reason we've been pointing to is not

41:06 ↗ valid

41:08 ↗ so

41:09 ↗ here's our survey of the site which does

41:12 ↗ show

41:13 ↗ the easement which we now believe does

41:15 ↗ not exist

41:17 ↗ the

41:18 ↗ underlying property owner so they owned

41:21 ↗ all of this property at the time when

41:22 ↗ they made this go away they moved

41:25 ↗ portions of the road so i'm going to

41:27 ↗ zoom in a little bit on this slide so

41:28 ↗ you can see what i'm talking about so

41:30 ↗ i'm going to try to

41:35 ↗ so they adjusted the road around the

41:38 ↗ north end

41:39 ↗ of the property around the north end of

41:41 ↗ the road to make sure the road was

41:43 ↗ completely within the church property

41:45 ↗ along this side on the south side they

41:47 ↗ didn't do that they left the road in

41:49 ↗ place leaving the property line to go

41:52 ↗ down the center of the road

41:55 ↗ we believe there was an easement put in

41:58 ↗ at the time of that sale to so this

42:01 ↗ property was was sold to

42:03 ↗ hilltop

42:06 ↗ and during that sale we believe there

42:08 ↗ was an easement created we have not been

42:09 ↗ able to come up with a copy of said

42:12 ↗ easement and tracing down the deed has

42:14 ↗ been challenging

42:18 ↗ this is a copy of the hilltop village

42:21 ↗ condo map you can see they have the

42:23 ↗ access road in question shown and

42:27 ↗ show access to it

42:29 ↗ which is why we believe that there is an

42:31 ↗ underlying easement

42:33 ↗ that we just haven't been able to find

42:35 ↗ yet

42:37 ↗ this map is from

42:41 ↗ it's a historical map

42:43 ↗ that that shows the access road and the

42:45 ↗ college in place you can see this is the

42:47 ↗ area that was

42:49 ↗ sold to that hilltop village

42:51 ↗ the road is already in place so we

42:54 ↗ believe there's access rights to that um

42:58 ↗ the the timing of this we understand is

43:01 ↗ completely unfortunate of us not being

43:02 ↗ able to find the stuff find this

43:04 ↗ information out until recently

43:06 ↗ um so we'd like to propose a condition

43:10 ↗ on ourselves as part of the project that

43:12 ↗ would

43:14 ↗ either we come up with the

43:16 ↗ agreement

43:17 ↗ the underlying

43:18 ↗ deed for that easement

43:20 ↗ as option one option two would be we

43:23 ↗ provide a new easement with the

43:25 ↗ neighbors to work that out if we can't

43:27 ↗ come to

43:28 ↗ agreement on those two options the third

43:31 ↗ would be to move the access road for the

43:34 ↗ school construct for the school portion

43:37 ↗ of the access so just this southern

43:40 ↗ piece here

43:41 ↗ move that entirely onto the school

43:43 ↗ district property so we do not impact

43:45 ↗ the providence plant property

43:50 ↗ the next thing i wanted to talk about

43:51 ↗ was the elementary school phasing the

43:53 ↗ last time i talked a little bit about

43:56 ↗ the idea that we needed to fill this

43:58 ↗ site in order to

44:00 ↗ help with

44:01 ↗ earthwork and

44:03 ↗ the economics of the

44:06 ↗ construction definitely missed a lot of

44:09 ↗ other reasons why we need to fill the

44:10 ↗ elementary sky site so i want to talk

44:12 ↗ through some of those pieces

44:14 ↗ i know the text i'm about to put up on

44:16 ↗ the next few slides is not something

44:17 ↗ you're going to be able to read but

44:19 ↗ um

44:20 ↗ so this dotted line is where we propose

44:23 ↗ to build the high school improvements to

44:26 ↗ so as part of the elementary school site

44:28 ↗ we need to build the sewer and water

44:30 ↗ loops out to

44:33 ↗ the providence point system as required

44:35 ↗ to serve our site so we have a sewer

44:37 ↗ that's currently stubbed in a water

44:39 ↗ system that we need to run through our

44:41 ↗ site to meet the high school site and

44:42 ↗ ultimately make the whole community have

44:44 ↗ a little bit better system

44:47 ↗ the yellow area is where we believe we

44:49 ↗ will need to fill

44:51 ↗ clear fill

44:53 ↗ and grade in order to make this

44:56 ↗ these improvements work

44:58 ↗ the new road is also elevated above the

45:00 ↗ existing conditions so it needs to be a

45:02 ↗ fill slope behind that road to meet

45:04 ↗ existing grades so the yellow along the

45:06 ↗ back here you would also see we would

45:08 ↗ need to

45:09 ↗ um

45:10 ↗ to clear and grade as part of this

45:12 ↗ project finally the storm system

45:15 ↗ in

45:16 ↗ within the elementary school area serves

45:19 ↗ area outside the elementary school so we

45:21 ↗ still need a storm system for the

45:23 ↗ remainder of this upstream drainage and

45:25 ↗ as we'll talk about in a few minutes on

45:27 ↗ the stormwater system but you might

45:28 ↗ remember from last time that we're

45:30 ↗ taking a significant amount of our water

45:32 ↗ out to 228 trying to take water around

45:35 ↗ the providence point system um

45:38 ↗ this pond is needed to do that this pond

45:40 ↗ needs to be elevated to allow that to

45:42 ↗ happen so building the retaining walls

45:45 ↗ for this portion to allow that

45:47 ↗ that new

45:49 ↗ pawn to be constructed in elevation to

45:51 ↗ allow it to gravity discharge out to 228

45:54 ↗ is necessary so as you can see a

45:57 ↗ significant amount of the trees within

45:58 ↗ the elementary school area would need to

46:00 ↗ be cut down as part of the project

46:03 ↗ without the elementary school included

46:05 ↗ and obviously as being good students of

46:06 ↗ the land we want to make sure that

46:08 ↗ we're in a position we can build this

46:10 ↗ elementary school and as we talked about

46:11 ↗ last time the master plan

46:14 ↗ approval process allows that phasing to

46:16 ↗ happen

46:17 ↗ as outlined by the staff

46:21 ↗ the next thing i want to talk about was

46:23 ↗ the downstream analysis and storm water

46:25 ↗ so we've heard a lot about discharging

46:27 ↗ to the neighbors and changing those

46:29 ↗ discharge points um and it's something

46:32 ↗ that we've you know worked with the city

46:33 ↗ for

46:35 ↗ coming up on three years now of trying

46:37 ↗ to make sure that we had a really

46:39 ↗ good storm system that met all the

46:41 ↗ requirements so meeting the city's

46:43 ↗ municipal code making sure we're being

46:45 ↗ good neighbors we're not going to cause

46:46 ↗ adverse impacts you heard denise talk

46:49 ↗ about the the case law pieces of making

46:51 ↗ sure that um

46:54 ↗ that we're not causing you know in

46:56 ↗ downstream impacts to those neighbors um

46:58 ↗ something i'm personally very invested

47:00 ↗ in for a number of reasons one i'm a

47:03 ↗ professional engineer licensed in the

47:04 ↗ state of washington as well as a whole

47:06 ↗ bunch of other places um but also i own

47:08 ↗ a firm that's doing the design of this

47:10 ↗ and from a legal standpoint the

47:13 ↗ liability that the city doesn't have i

47:15 ↗ do hold so uh really invested in making

47:18 ↗ sure that this is the right property and

47:20 ↗ we have the right system

47:22 ↗ in place to make that work

47:25 ↗ the next thing i'm going to show this is

47:26 ↗ a historic basin map from providence

47:28 ↗ points

47:29 ↗ um

47:32 ↗ as built drawings and so from this

47:34 ↗ you'll see this dotted line here is

47:36 ↗ the district boundary of our site

47:40 ↗ and there's approximately 23 acres in

47:42 ↗ this there's a little

47:44 ↗ exhibit off to the side there's 23 acres

47:46 ↗ that they accounted for

47:48 ↗ as upstream drainage in the providence

47:50 ↗ point design and construction

47:53 ↗ so

47:54 ↗ they assumed that there was portions of

47:56 ↗ the existing access road

47:58 ↗ that drained to providence point there's

48:00 ↗ a significant amount of forest that

48:02 ↗ drained to providence point all of those

48:04 ↗ areas were included in the original

48:06 ↗ analysis for the development of their

48:08 ↗ stormwater system

48:16 ↗ this is a map i brought up last time and

48:18 ↗ it's the historical basin map for where

48:20 ↗ water drains from our site this is a

48:22 ↗ complicated

48:23 ↗ site from a drainage perspective it

48:25 ↗ drains lots of to lots of different

48:27 ↗ areas um you'll see we've broken this

48:29 ↗ down the darker blue is impervious

48:32 ↗ surface the lighter is either forested

48:35 ↗ or landscaped conditions

48:37 ↗ so

48:38 ↗ large area drains out to there's an

48:40 ↗ existing catch basin on the property

48:42 ↗ line here that this drains out to

48:44 ↗ there's some smaller basins that she

48:46 ↗ flow directly to the neighbors

48:49 ↗ there's a

48:50 ↗ there's a larger area here that makes

48:52 ↗ its way out to

48:54 ↗ um

48:55 ↗ a culvert on the property line that

48:56 ↗ we'll talk about in a minute and then

48:58 ↗ the majority of the college site the

49:00 ↗ drains in this basin didn't drain

49:03 ↗ directly up to 228th or to the north

49:06 ↗ was actually through a system

49:09 ↗ down right here and there's a piped

49:11 ↗ outfall directly to that

49:18 ↗ as part of our proposed system we have

49:21 ↗ attempted to match that to the maximum

49:24 ↗ extent feasible

49:25 ↗ and what i mean by that is so all of the

49:27 ↗ buffer area that we're not grading

49:29 ↗ obviously really easy not to change

49:31 ↗ drainage paths from that

49:33 ↗ we have some area above so this area

49:36 ↗ lower area the elementary school and the

49:38 ↗ parking lot for the elementary school

49:40 ↗ that getting

49:41 ↗ around the providence point system is

49:43 ↗ not practical

49:44 ↗ it naturally drains that way and based

49:46 ↗ on the elevations there's not another

49:48 ↗ place to take the downstream

49:50 ↗ so we reviewed

49:51 ↗ our options and there are

49:54 ↗ there's a catch basin i mentioned on the

49:56 ↗ property line that we're proposing to

49:58 ↗ connect to and that is where the natural

50:00 ↗ drainage went based on the basin maps

50:02 ↗ that i provided a moment ago

50:04 ↗ and then the lower portion of the

50:06 ↗ elementary school is going to discharge

50:07 ↗ to a culvert which was also built as

50:09 ↗ part of the providence point system and

50:10 ↗ stubbed onto our property

50:16 ↗ there's as jordan mentioned there's

50:17 ↗ buildings that line the majority of our

50:20 ↗ property line in this downstream path

50:22 ↗ and you can see from this photo that

50:25 ↗ well i believe there's positive drainage

50:28 ↗ around this building discharging water

50:30 ↗ at this location

50:32 ↗ and allowing it to sheet flow across the

50:33 ↗ property line is not going to ensure

50:36 ↗ that there will not be any downstream

50:38 ↗ impacts

50:39 ↗ and this from this photo in this site is

50:41 ↗ when we decided we needed to find a way

50:43 ↗ to directly connect to the stormwater

50:46 ↗ system

50:46 ↗ it should also be noted that if you did

50:49 ↗ discharge water at this property land

50:50 ↗ and it ran across the parking and over

50:53 ↗ the curb out to this system it would

50:55 ↗ ultimately make it to the same

50:56 ↗ conveyance system that we're proposing

50:58 ↗ to connect to

50:59 ↗ approximately 200 feet upstream

51:04 ↗ so from last time we have a number of

51:06 ↗ systems on our site

51:08 ↗ we have a lower

51:09 ↗ detention system from the elementary

51:11 ↗ school that we're connecting directly to

51:13 ↗ a piped connection

51:14 ↗ we have the elementary school discharge

51:16 ↗ to that catchphrase that i've mentioned

51:18 ↗ and then the red areas we're taking out

51:19 ↗ to 228 trying to get them around the

51:22 ↗ providence point system because we're

51:24 ↗ able to do that well

51:26 ↗ in the existing condition it drains

51:27 ↗ through provenance points

51:29 ↗ system and ultimates to the same

51:31 ↗ discharge location

51:32 ↗ the green

51:34 ↗ makes it to the north and out to

51:37 ↗ the sammamish downstream we discussed

51:39 ↗ last time

51:41 ↗ i wanted to talk about the downstream

51:44 ↗ and potential erosion a little bit this

51:46 ↗ is the slide from last time so

51:48 ↗ in the historical condition and just by

51:50 ↗ historically i mean when the college was

51:53 ↗ constructed prior to

51:55 ↗ providence points construction we had an

51:57 ↗ existing outfall and this outfall

52:00 ↗ is provided in this column it's also

52:02 ↗ this blue line here and this is just

52:04 ↗ going to be peak volumes from from

52:06 ↗ specific runoff events so the the next

52:08 ↗ piece going back to forested condition

52:10 ↗ which is what we're required to do by

52:12 ↗ code

52:13 ↗ you'll see this

52:14 ↗ is what we'd be allowed to discharge at

52:16 ↗ and then in the developed condition

52:18 ↗ we actually reduce that farther by

52:21 ↗ creating detention systems so if you

52:23 ↗ imagine having a fire hose

52:26 ↗ and running the fire hose down a gravel

52:27 ↗ driveway you're going to push

52:30 ↗ rocks and sediment out of the way and

52:32 ↗ then if you imagine having a giant tank

52:34 ↗ to hold that volume of water in the tank

52:37 ↗ and having a garden hose release

52:39 ↗ it would have no problem from a

52:43 ↗ pushing rocks out of the way in those

52:44 ↗ pieces which would be the erosion side

52:46 ↗ of it but it would run for a long time

52:48 ↗ and that's really the idea behind

52:51 ↗ detention design and what we're trying

52:53 ↗ to do with our site so as a result of

52:55 ↗ this the peak discharges from the

52:57 ↗ historical site are going to see

52:59 ↗ approximately 75

53:01 ↗ reduction

53:02 ↗ in those peak flows

53:04 ↗ and they're going to have a reduction in

53:06 ↗ what's allowable

53:07 ↗ of

53:08 ↗ between 14 and 40

53:10 ↗ depending on which individual um event

53:14 ↗ we look at and so this graph we have the

53:16 ↗ the blue is

53:18 ↗ the historical the orange is what's

53:20 ↗ allowed by code and this gray is what

53:22 ↗ we're actually proposing to do as part

53:24 ↗ of our site

53:28 ↗ so that that was a very simplified

53:30 ↗ version of the way the stormwater works

53:32 ↗ i think we had some questions last time

53:34 ↗ that we didn't quite

53:35 ↗ answer about um the duration modeling

53:38 ↗ and what that really looks like so this

53:40 ↗ is a um

53:41 ↗ image out of the stormwater western

53:43 ↗ washington hydraulic

53:45 ↗ model that we actually use to

53:47 ↗ uh design stormwater systems for

53:50 ↗ detention

53:51 ↗ in western washington so the blue line

53:54 ↗ is the pre-developed

53:56 ↗ discharge from the site and the red is

53:58 ↗ what we're proposing to discharge and

54:00 ↗ this is based on

54:02 ↗ a series so it literally takes 50 years

54:05 ↗ of storm motor event in 15 minute time

54:07 ↗ steps runs it and then you you compare

54:11 ↗ your pre-developed

54:13 ↗ amount of times you pass this specific

54:15 ↗ flow to the developed condition and as

54:18 ↗ you can see we have a net reduction in

54:20 ↗ our

54:22 ↗ system the next thing i wanted to talk

54:25 ↗ about was the

54:26 ↗ well and b hydrology a little bit so

54:28 ↗ we've heard that we're going to dry up

54:30 ↗ what would be as a part of this project

54:32 ↗ so in the existing condition this is an

54:34 ↗ image from this survey

54:36 ↗ there's a

54:37 ↗ the existing loop road comes up around

54:39 ↗ our site that road is crowned so

54:42 ↗ i think every everyone's probably seen a

54:44 ↗ crown road water drains to each side of

54:46 ↗ the road um and there's a roadside ditch

54:49 ↗ on

54:50 ↗ the upstream side of it that ditch flows

54:52 ↗ down to a culvert to another ditch and

54:56 ↗ down to

54:57 ↗ a storm facility that discharges from

55:00 ↗ from the site the wetland is

55:02 ↗ approximately right here

55:03 ↗ um so the only area that's actually

55:05 ↗ tributary to the wetland that

55:09 ↗ is not forested conditions is

55:12 ↗ approximately 10 feet of asphalt

55:14 ↗ the length of this portion so there's

55:16 ↗ not a whole bunch of upstream drains

55:18 ↗ that makes it to wetland b

55:22 ↗ and as a result we're not changing the

55:23 ↗ hydrology of that level

55:28 ↗ another thing we heard is about water

55:29 ↗ getting to the trees we're going to dry

55:31 ↗ up the buffer

55:33 ↗ again our site has a significant

55:36 ↗ loop road that goes around it other than

55:40 ↗ this portion along the providence point

55:43 ↗ area the majority of its crown which is

55:45 ↗ going to limit the water that makes it

55:47 ↗ out of that area

55:51 ↗ there's ditches along the edge to

55:53 ↗ capture

55:54 ↗ runoff in the existing condition and

55:56 ↗ make its way out to 228

55:58 ↗ the yellow in this exhibit is what

56:01 ↗ actually makes it discharges to the

56:03 ↗ trees you can see it's a relatively

56:04 ↗ small area that was actually dispersed

56:06 ↗ to those trees

56:07 ↗ um i think we're

56:10 ↗ discharging our

56:12 ↗ wall drains and some other small

56:13 ↗ features to the buffer we're really

56:15 ↗ trying to capture that water and

56:17 ↗ maintain it on site

56:19 ↗ and discharge it as discussed a couple

56:21 ↗ of slides ago so the trees are not going

56:24 ↗ to see a reduction in the amount of

56:25 ↗ water they get because really what they

56:27 ↗ get right now is what falls on them and

56:29 ↗ that will not change as part of this

56:30 ↗ puff

56:31 ↗ at this plant

56:35 ↗ the next thing we've heard

56:36 ↗ a lot about is

56:38 ↗ landslide hazards and not doing enough

56:40 ↗ study of the area um

56:42 ↗ the landslide information is is provided

56:45 ↗ in the record um we talked about it a

56:47 ↗ little bit last time but i i thought

56:49 ↗ this map does a really good job of

56:50 ↗ showing how much study is actually being

56:52 ↗ done on this site every one of these

56:54 ↗ dots is either

56:56 ↗ an exploration pit or boring that was

56:59 ↗ done as part of this project so you can

57:01 ↗ see

57:02 ↗ this site has had significantly more

57:05 ↗ um

57:06 ↗ analysis done from a geotechnical

57:08 ↗ perspective

57:09 ↗ and from an environmental perspective

57:11 ↗ than most developments would have i mean

57:13 ↗ normally we would get

57:15 ↗ 15

57:16 ↗ on a 40 acre site maybe and this has had

57:18 ↗ significantly north of that

57:22 ↗ the next piece i want to talk about the

57:24 ↗ the lead study under the water tower so

57:27 ↗ this is a map that is out of the lead

57:30 ↗ information that was provided it's where

57:32 ↗ the 12 inches of strippings came from

57:35 ↗ the

57:36 ↗ you can see for such a small area every

57:38 ↗ one of those red dots is some is testing

57:41 ↗ that was done

57:44 ↗ the black dots are testing the red is

57:47 ↗ additional scanning that was done on top

57:49 ↗ of it for such a small area it's quite a

57:51 ↗ bit of information

57:53 ↗ you can see from the actual data that

57:55 ↗ there's

57:57 ↗ no point where we had

57:59 ↗ lead below the 12 inch mark so i think

58:01 ↗ last time i mentioned that you know we

58:03 ↗ we're going to strip 12 inches we're

58:04 ↗ going to go test and that is something

58:06 ↗ we're going to do the reason we're going

58:08 ↗ to do that is because there's no amount

58:10 ↗ of testing we can do to be 100 certain

58:12 ↗ that there's not one spot where

58:15 ↗ it will be beyond the 12 inch mark

58:17 ↗ that being said we do believe that 12

58:20 ↗ inches will collect 100

58:22 ↗ of

58:23 ↗ the

58:24 ↗ um

58:25 ↗ lead contamination

58:27 ↗ under the water tank and we do believe

58:29 ↗ that is

58:31 ↗ sufficient to meet those requirements

58:35 ↗ so i'm going to turn it over to marnie

58:39 ↗ efron to talk about the traffic

58:43 ↗ hello everyone i i think i'm last up

58:46 ↗ tonight and i'm going to be pretty short

58:48 ↗ and sweet

58:51 ↗ i also have a set of rebuttal

58:53 ↗ comments that have come back as exhibit

58:56 ↗ c

58:58 ↗ we've also attached two pieces of

59:01 ↗ supplemental information that were part

59:03 ↗ of the cipa record and have been

59:06 ↗ performed in coordination and for the

59:09 ↗ city of sammamish related to traffic and

59:11 ↗ transportation those have been attached

59:14 ↗ to my memoranda as exhibit c1 and c2

59:18 ↗ and i'll talk briefly about those

59:21 ↗ in my comments here

59:23 ↗ one of the main issues raised by the

59:25 ↗ ppua is that there has not been a

59:29 ↗ full construction plan

59:32 ↗ submitted for the improvements along

59:34 ↗ 228th

59:36 ↗ that is not true

59:38 ↗ there was a set of plans for 228

59:41 ↗ submitted to the city of sammamish in

59:43 ↗ november of last year and

59:47 ↗ as ms stifarm said at the opening of

59:49 ↗ that it's very rare that that

59:53 ↗ level of detail

59:55 ↗ gets actually submitted or even prepared

59:58 ↗ at this stage of an entitlement process

1:00:01 ↗ and so um

1:00:03 ↗ but this is such a big feature and it's

1:00:05 ↗ a pretty big cost feature

1:00:08 ↗ that we have been working on it for some

1:00:10 ↗ time

1:00:11 ↗ i want to go to the level of detail that

1:00:13 ↗ we have been

1:00:15 ↗ working on these plans

1:00:17 ↗ uh the concept for what

1:00:20 ↗ we will be building along 228 has been

1:00:23 ↗ known

1:00:24 ↗ for more than a year it was in our

1:00:28 ↗ original traffic study and then updated

1:00:30 ↗ as part of our traffic study in february

1:00:32 ↗ of 2021

1:00:34 ↗ there were two pieces of supplemental

1:00:36 ↗ information that was prepared for the

1:00:38 ↗ city of sammamish

1:00:40 ↗ to really refine

1:00:42 ↗ our concept plans to the level of

1:00:45 ↗ understanding the length of turn pockets

1:00:48 ↗ that we need and

1:00:50 ↗ how that improvement could tie north and

1:00:53 ↗ south

1:00:54 ↗ in terms of getting down to 43rd and the

1:00:57 ↗ new improvements that the city

1:00:58 ↗ physicalize just made near providence

1:01:01 ↗ point and then how it would transit

1:01:03 ↗ transition back to 40th so we have had

1:01:06 ↗ many meetings with city of samamish

1:01:08 ↗ staff and its consultants to discuss

1:01:10 ↗ those details they are all reflected in

1:01:13 ↗ that new set of plans

1:01:19 ↗ i want to respond directly to a couple

1:01:22 ↗ of

1:01:22 ↗ comments that have been raised by ross

1:01:24 ↗ tillman

1:01:25 ↗ of the ppua

1:01:27 ↗ um who is representing the ppua one is

1:01:31 ↗ related to the site location itself and

1:01:34 ↗ its remote location and his contention

1:01:38 ↗ and i quote that these schools will

1:01:40 ↗ depend entirely on auto access

1:01:43 ↗ and that they won't reduce the vehicle

1:01:45 ↗ miles of travel

1:01:47 ↗ both of those contentions are false

1:01:50 ↗ these sites both the high school site

1:01:53 ↗ and the elementary school students will

1:01:56 ↗ have a very high percentage

1:01:58 ↗ people who take yellow school bus

1:02:00 ↗ transportation

1:02:01 ↗ so yes they're located far away from

1:02:04 ↗ metro transit but that's not how

1:02:06 ↗ students get to school it's with the

1:02:07 ↗ yellow school bus

1:02:09 ↗ and working with the district we expect

1:02:12 ↗ that about 50 percent of all the

1:02:13 ↗ elementary school students and 40

1:02:15 ↗ percent of the high school students

1:02:17 ↗ could commute to these sites by yellow

1:02:19 ↗ school bus

1:02:21 ↗ in addition we anticipate that there

1:02:23 ↗ will be some walking uh particularly

1:02:25 ↗ from the sammamish highlands and from

1:02:27 ↗ areas north of the site

1:02:29 ↗ the plans that have been put forth go

1:02:32 ↗ well above and beyond what would be

1:02:34 ↗ typical of a frontage improvement the

1:02:37 ↗ school district will be building

1:02:39 ↗ sidewalks on both sides of the street

1:02:42 ↗ so

1:02:42 ↗ there's an entire sidewalk along the

1:02:45 ↗ western side of 228th and then from the

1:02:48 ↗ driveway north

1:02:50 ↗ it will also be constructing the

1:02:51 ↗ sidewalk between the site driveway on

1:02:54 ↗ 40th and that's specific to

1:02:56 ↗ providing for

1:02:58 ↗ pedestrian access to the school

1:03:01 ↗ this segment of road ray will also have

1:03:04 ↗ bicycle lanes on both sides in both

1:03:07 ↗ directions on 228 and there will be

1:03:10 ↗ bicycle crossings as well as a bike

1:03:12 ↗ a walkway that extends onto the site for

1:03:16 ↗ students and staff to use

1:03:19 ↗ once i also want to talk about the

1:03:20 ↗ vehicle miles traveled

1:03:22 ↗ we heard from

1:03:24 ↗ others at the last hearing about

1:03:27 ↗ school trips are not discretionary we

1:03:30 ↗ the school district attracts the

1:03:31 ↗ students they have to provide a place

1:03:33 ↗ for these students

1:03:34 ↗ if this school is not

1:03:36 ↗ developed with a new elementary and a

1:03:38 ↗ new high school those students will be

1:03:41 ↗ assigned to other schools in the

1:03:42 ↗ district and they'll drive further

1:03:45 ↗ or be

1:03:46 ↗ be

1:03:47 ↗ transported further

1:03:49 ↗ away from their homes than they would be

1:03:51 ↗ if these new schools are built it will

1:03:53 ↗ actually reduce the miles traveled in

1:03:56 ↗ the district and reduce congestion

1:03:58 ↗ around your other schools

1:04:01 ↗ finally i want to talk about the

1:04:03 ↗ transportation management plan

1:04:05 ↗ and the contention that it needs to be

1:04:08 ↗ completed now

1:04:10 ↗ we have prepared many transportation

1:04:13 ↗ management plans for not only a lot of

1:04:16 ↗ different schools that have been

1:04:18 ↗ developed but also for some of the

1:04:20 ↗ biggest

1:04:21 ↗ businesses in the in the pacific

1:04:23 ↗ northwest everything from amazon to

1:04:25 ↗ google expedia

1:04:27 ↗ those transportation management plans

1:04:30 ↗ are always prepared

1:04:32 ↗ later in the process

1:04:34 ↗ as more refinements are made in terms of

1:04:38 ↗ the behaviors of different students for

1:04:41 ↗ schools in particular those tmps require

1:04:43 ↗ some input from the school principal who

1:04:46 ↗ hasn't yet been um

1:04:48 ↗ determined

1:04:49 ↗ what we do know and what the city of

1:04:51 ↗ issaquah's um condition set forth

1:04:56 ↗ is the framework around what we will be

1:05:00 ↗ measuring for as we set forth those tmps

1:05:04 ↗ those are really contained in

1:05:06 ↗ condition one which is the monitoring

1:05:09 ↗ plans

1:05:10 ↗ and for a for the transportation related

1:05:13 ↗ elements

1:05:15 ↗ we anticipate that we will be monitoring

1:05:18 ↗ the number of trips that are entering

1:05:20 ↗ and exiting this school and comparing

1:05:22 ↗ those to what we've evaluated as part of

1:05:25 ↗ all of our analyses

1:05:27 ↗ we'll be looking at the operations of

1:05:29 ↗ the site driveway and making sure that

1:05:31 ↗ it continues to meet

1:05:33 ↗ the city of sammamish standards for

1:05:36 ↗ operations we would be reviewing the q

1:05:38 ↗ lengths making sure that they don't

1:05:40 ↗ extend beyond

1:05:42 ↗ the lane capacity

1:05:43 ↗ and then in the load and unload areas

1:05:46 ↗ that those cues don't extend back and

1:05:48 ↗ start blocking other operations

1:05:51 ↗ we're also looking at making sure that

1:05:54 ↗ all of the parking is contained on these

1:05:56 ↗ sites and that during events we don't

1:05:59 ↗ have over spill parking to any of the

1:06:01 ↗ neighborhood streets so that gives a

1:06:03 ↗ framework and it's already set forth

1:06:06 ↗ of what that

1:06:08 ↗ the measures that we will be

1:06:11 ↗ targeting as part of our that

1:06:13 ↗ transportation management plan and that

1:06:15 ↗ then there will be post opening monitor

1:06:17 ↗ monitoring to make sure that we meet

1:06:19 ↗ those thresholds

1:06:22 ↗ back to

1:06:24 ↗ todd

1:06:26 ↗ thank you barney um

1:06:29 ↗ i just i i want to thank the um

1:06:33 ↗ development commission for listening to

1:06:34 ↗ our presentation and working with us

1:06:36 ↗ through this process um yeah i want to

1:06:39 ↗ point back to the

1:06:40 ↗ written materials we provided there's a

1:06:42 ↗ lot in this record um

1:06:44 ↗ you know we're happy to answer any

1:06:46 ↗ questions you have but really appreciate

1:06:48 ↗ your time and um look forward to a

1:06:50 ↗ really successful project

1:06:54 ↗ thank you mr shawwan and the entire

1:06:57 ↗ school district applicant team

1:06:59 ↗ um so this opportunity for the

1:07:01 ↗ commission to ask questions of the

1:07:03 ↗ applicant so uh if you have a question

1:07:06 ↗ use the chat feature and just type

1:07:09 ↗ question in there or

1:07:11 ↗ put a cue in there and i'll know that

1:07:13 ↗ you have a question

1:07:16 ↗ um

1:07:17 ↗ commissioner dillon

1:07:21 ↗ thank you um patty dillon and i have a

1:07:24 ↗ question from mr cywin about the

1:07:26 ↗ elementary school phasing and i'm

1:07:29 ↗ looking at the figure that you had up

1:07:31 ↗ showing the areas that

1:07:33 ↗ uh would need to be modified associated

1:07:35 ↗ with the high school construction

1:07:37 ↗ and just wanting to clarify

1:07:40 ↗ um whether the the clearing and grading

1:07:42 ↗ that would occur as part of phase one

1:07:45 ↗ would be

1:07:46 ↗ limited essentially to

1:07:49 ↗ to those shaded areas or whether it

1:07:52 ↗ would be the entire elementary school

1:07:55 ↗ site

1:07:56 ↗ so our our proposal is the entire

1:07:59 ↗ elementary school site out to including

1:08:02 ↗ the retaining walls and then doing the

1:08:03 ↗ buffer improvements

1:08:05 ↗ um we really feel like the buffer

1:08:07 ↗ improvements are going to help

1:08:09 ↗ visually

1:08:12 ↗ from the neighbors point of view when

1:08:13 ↗ that elementary school gets built

1:08:14 ↗ getting those constructed now will help

1:08:16 ↗ them grow

1:08:18 ↗ prior to the future if the elementary

1:08:20 ↗ school was not built and we didn't clear

1:08:22 ↗ the area now and we hauled that 20 000

1:08:24 ↗ yards of dirt off site that's the area

1:08:27 ↗ we would need to clear

1:08:28 ↗ to build construction so if somehow that

1:08:30 ↗ got removed from the project was what i

1:08:32 ↗ was trying to show with that exhibit

1:08:36 ↗ thank you

1:08:40 ↗ uh commissioner morgan

1:08:42 ↗ uh thank you chairman a question for

1:08:45 ↗ miss heffron you might have mentioned

1:08:47 ↗ this and i missed it and i can't tell

1:08:50 ↗ from the maps

1:08:51 ↗ will the sidewalk the new sidewalk on

1:08:53 ↗ 228th

1:08:55 ↗ connect to the new sidewalk that has

1:08:58 ↗ been installed as part of the southeast

1:09:00 ↗ 43rd

1:09:01 ↗ interchange

1:09:03 ↗ yes

1:09:04 ↗ okay that'll all be continuous then yes

1:09:07 ↗ great thank you um and then i had

1:09:09 ↗ another question for um mr keel i think

1:09:13 ↗ um if it's possible to pull up um the

1:09:16 ↗ map with the um

1:09:18 ↗ fencing on it again

1:09:27 ↗ and my question was it sounded like mr

1:09:30 ↗ keel that you said

1:09:32 ↗ the fencing that was all shown in red

1:09:35 ↗ would all be 12 foot high fencing

1:09:40 ↗ and is that so is that a change from the

1:09:42 ↗ project plan that we've seen then

1:09:48 ↗ todd am i

1:09:49 ↗ incorrect in that that's 12 feet i was

1:09:51 ↗ pretty sure it was when we talked yeah

1:09:54 ↗ it's a problem of me taking up a

1:09:56 ↗ different exhibit and highlighting over

1:09:58 ↗ the top of it so um the outfield fences

1:10:01 ↗ for

1:10:02 ↗ the baseball are 12 feet so this portion

1:10:04 ↗ would be 12 feet

1:10:06 ↗ the portion along the elementary school

1:10:08 ↗ wall is six feet

1:10:10 ↗ i thought that was i thought that might

1:10:12 ↗ be four feet along there was the

1:10:15 ↗ is it the the um

1:10:19 ↗ i believe yeah so it's that this so this

1:10:22 ↗ so we're six foot here we're four foot

1:10:25 ↗ along this walking path

1:10:27 ↗ where that really dark black line is

1:10:30 ↗ okay then we're

1:10:32 ↗ and then we're

1:10:33 ↗ we look and make sure

1:10:39 ↗ thanks for asking this question it's

1:10:41 ↗ good to get this clear yeah and then

1:10:43 ↗ we're eight feet along the elementary

1:10:45 ↗ school

1:10:47 ↗ playground area

1:10:49 ↗ and then

1:10:50 ↗ we're four feet

1:10:52 ↗ to keep people from falling off our

1:10:55 ↗ into the wetland

1:10:57 ↗ there so

1:11:01 ↗ excuse me but i thought

1:11:03 ↗ you know you can you can move that red

1:11:05 ↗ line off and and when i looked at the

1:11:07 ↗ plans

1:11:08 ↗ uh up at the north end of the football

1:11:11 ↗ field

1:11:13 ↗ it looks to me like that yeah the sort

1:11:15 ↗ of that golden between the green dash

1:11:18 ↗ line and softball field right there

1:11:22 ↗ i thought that color

1:11:24 ↗ lined up with a four foot high black

1:11:26 ↗ vinyl

1:11:28 ↗ chain link fence not a six foot

1:11:30 ↗ you're correct

1:11:32 ↗ is it is it possible to make that a

1:11:35 ↗ a taller fence than just four feet

1:11:41 ↗ yeah our intent was you know you're

1:11:43 ↗ gonna be

1:11:44 ↗ on like walking on a sidewalk next to

1:11:46 ↗ this fence and so trying to keep the

1:11:49 ↗ scale of it down was kind of the intent

1:11:51 ↗ a little bit but i mean if you guys

1:11:53 ↗ wanted that to be a six foot fence i

1:11:54 ↗ don't think that's a problem from a

1:11:55 ↗ district standpoint

1:12:03 ↗ okay and then one other fence question

1:12:05 ↗ down at the very south end

1:12:08 ↗ uh where the fence

1:12:10 ↗ ends sort of in the middle of the yeah

1:12:13 ↗ right there i was curious why it ended

1:12:16 ↗ there and did not extend down to the to

1:12:18 ↗ the new access road

1:12:22 ↗ so there's there's a a pretty good

1:12:24 ↗ cluster of trees here and so tying that

1:12:27 ↗ fence into those trees was kind of the

1:12:29 ↗ thought there's not intended to be a lot

1:12:30 ↗ of students they're going to get off the

1:12:32 ↗ bus and come into the school

1:12:34 ↗ and so from a security standpoint it

1:12:36 ↗ didn't feel like there was a need for

1:12:37 ↗ fencing there obviously this is

1:12:40 ↗ a fairly preliminary

1:12:42 ↗ fencing diagram so we're you know we

1:12:44 ↗ will be refining that as part of

1:12:46 ↗ construction

1:12:47 ↗ okay it just seemed to me there's that

1:12:49 ↗ there's an outside plaza there

1:12:51 ↗ on the back side of the school and

1:12:54 ↗ and wondering if if that fence can be

1:12:56 ↗ extended to the access road it might

1:12:58 ↗ just sort of not through the trees but

1:13:00 ↗ along the along the edge of there the

1:13:02 ↗ parking is just a sort of a way to

1:13:05 ↗ something like that a visual barrier

1:13:08 ↗ yeah exactly

1:13:10 ↗ we could definitely do that

1:13:11 ↗ yeah thank you

1:13:20 ↗ are there other questions from the

1:13:21 ↗ commission

1:13:22 ↗ or the applicant

1:13:29 ↗ i want to go back to y'all i'll ask one

1:13:32 ↗ uh real quick then the

1:13:35 ↗ uh the access road

1:13:37 ↗ and the easement um obviously i got a

1:13:40 ↗ little confused in there about uh and

1:13:42 ↗ then you were suggesting an additional

1:13:44 ↗ condition so can you pull that back up

1:13:47 ↗ and

1:13:49 ↗ maybe walk us through it again

1:13:51 ↗ and the the elements that you talked

1:13:53 ↗ about within

1:13:55 ↗ the options i guess that you talked

1:13:56 ↗ about

1:13:58 ↗ were

1:13:59 ↗ you know coming coming up with the

1:14:00 ↗ original easement documentation to show

1:14:04 ↗ what you assumed was

1:14:07 ↗ the appropriate alignment of that

1:14:09 ↗ roadway which was historically shown on

1:14:11 ↗ some of these documents that you

1:14:12 ↗ provided and photographs the other

1:14:14 ↗ option was to come to an agreement with

1:14:17 ↗ the neighboring property owners at

1:14:19 ↗ providence point

1:14:20 ↗ and the third option was to move the

1:14:22 ↗ road onto the high school site

1:14:25 ↗ so

1:14:26 ↗ i'm guessing you've already done fairly

1:14:28 ↗ exhaustive research so you may not be

1:14:30 ↗ able to accomplish number one providence

1:14:32 ↗ point um obviously um

1:14:35 ↗ could be an attractive negotiation uh i

1:14:38 ↗ don't know for sure but so then you're

1:14:40 ↗ the last option would be realigning the

1:14:42 ↗ road my concern is can you accomplish

1:14:45 ↗ that on the property

1:14:47 ↗ and still meet

1:14:49 ↗ the conditions the

1:14:52 ↗ does it have an effect the negative

1:14:54 ↗ impact effect on the ability to comply

1:14:56 ↗ with the city code standards and the

1:14:58 ↗ buffers that we're trying to accomplish

1:14:59 ↗ here so if you could maybe spend a few

1:15:02 ↗ minutes walking us through and

1:15:04 ↗ specifically on that last option if

1:15:06 ↗ that's where you need to go since it

1:15:08 ↗ hasn't been fully explored here how

1:15:10 ↗ would you accomplish that

1:15:12 ↗ yeah so um

1:15:15 ↗ maybe just back up just a tiny bit from

1:15:18 ↗ from the last option first so um we did

1:15:21 ↗ the the news of

1:15:23 ↗ so this deed that showed that this has

1:15:25 ↗ been removed is something we got um this

1:15:28 ↗ afternoon honestly so we've been doing

1:15:31 ↗ some pretty exhaustive research with um

1:15:34 ↗ chicago title but it's something that

1:15:36 ↗ they did not have in their original

1:15:37 ↗ title report um

1:15:39 ↗ and so

1:15:40 ↗ i i do believe we're gonna find the

1:15:43 ↗ underlying easement i have a hard time

1:15:44 ↗ believing that

1:15:46 ↗ the underlying

1:15:48 ↗ church or the college sold that property

1:15:51 ↗ without

1:15:52 ↗ uh

1:15:54 ↗ the existing road you know being allowed

1:15:56 ↗ to be there so i think there's a pretty

1:15:58 ↗ good likelihood we're going to find that

1:16:00 ↗ um

1:16:01 ↗ in the next few days if we don't so and

1:16:04 ↗ we do have to go down the path of

1:16:06 ↗ rebuilding that my thought is

1:16:08 ↗ and if we go from this site survey

1:16:11 ↗ see if i can zoom

1:16:20 ↗ sorry this wonderful presentation mode

1:16:22 ↗ makes it relatively difficult to

1:16:23 ↗ actually

1:16:29 ↗ see if this works

1:16:32 ↗ okay

1:16:34 ↗ here we go

1:16:35 ↗ the uh so the access road is not

1:16:40 ↗ exactly on the property line so my

1:16:42 ↗ thought is we would leave the portion of

1:16:44 ↗ the access road on the neighbor's

1:16:46 ↗ property obviously if we don't have

1:16:48 ↗ rights to it we're not going to touch it

1:16:50 ↗ we would add

1:16:51 ↗ asphalt on our portion of the road in

1:16:53 ↗ order to get a 20 foot wide access to

1:16:56 ↗ our site

1:16:57 ↗ so that would so right here there's only

1:16:59 ↗ about six feet of the existing axis it's

1:17:02 ↗ on the providence point side of the

1:17:03 ↗ property line so we would add a little

1:17:05 ↗ bit here would definitely take some

1:17:06 ↗ retaining wall um but that area was

1:17:09 ↗ previously cleared there's actually a

1:17:11 ↗ sign and some things that sit kind of on

1:17:13 ↗ this hillside and a light

1:17:15 ↗ so there's no trees so i think we could

1:17:17 ↗ pretty easily do that add

1:17:20 ↗ to get away from 228th and then

1:17:23 ↗ same same idea add it's somewhere

1:17:25 ↗ between 8 and 12 feet

1:17:27 ↗ of

1:17:28 ↗ um new impervious asphalt to to create

1:17:32 ↗ that that road that would go up and it's

1:17:35 ↗ something i think we completely do

1:17:36 ↗ without impacting trees and buffers and

1:17:40 ↗ all the things we've talked about as

1:17:41 ↗ part of this project i don't think it

1:17:43 ↗ adversely changes our

1:17:45 ↗ proposed development

1:17:47 ↗ that we've submitted for or causes any

1:17:49 ↗ other issues specifically because that

1:17:51 ↗ road is going to be used for emergency

1:17:53 ↗ vehicle access only the district isn't

1:17:56 ↗ proposing to have vehicles on it as part

1:17:59 ↗ of their project

1:18:02 ↗ okay

1:18:04 ↗ um so you're you're what you're saying

1:18:06 ↗ is you're confident you can accomplish

1:18:08 ↗ the widening without

1:18:10 ↗ impacting

1:18:12 ↗ uh materially impacting the project

1:18:14 ↗ and or meeting the standards that we're

1:18:17 ↗ trying to achieve here

1:18:18 ↗ yes i 100 believe that is true okay

1:18:21 ↗ thank you

1:18:27 ↗ um

1:18:29 ↗ commissioner arcada

1:18:31 ↗ thank you chair brennan this is johnny i

1:18:33 ↗ have a question that may be premature

1:18:35 ↗ but um there's been a lot of discussion

1:18:37 ↗ about

1:18:39 ↗ trees and buffer zones

1:18:42 ↗ uh has there been any consideration for

1:18:44 ↗ a an establishment period for

1:18:47 ↗ construction in other words um

1:18:49 ↗ the plants trees and then if there's any

1:18:51 ↗ failing trees after a certain period of

1:18:53 ↗ time they're replaced

1:18:55 ↗ um

1:18:55 ↗ that may help with some some of the

1:18:57 ↗ considerations for trees

1:19:00 ↗ yeah there there has been um

1:19:02 ↗ we've we've got a condition that's part

1:19:05 ↗ of the israelite municipal code that

1:19:07 ↗ we're going to plant trees and we're

1:19:08 ↗ going to monitor them for three years

1:19:09 ↗ the other thing i miss pointing out is

1:19:11 ↗ we're going to provide irrigation on

1:19:12 ↗ those trees so we need temporary

1:19:14 ↗ irrigation of those trees including what

1:19:16 ↗ we pre what we're providing in the

1:19:17 ↗ buffer to make sure that they get

1:19:19 ↗ established and we end up with the

1:19:21 ↗ beautiful graphics that jordan provided

1:19:23 ↗ of

1:19:24 ↗ making sure this looks the way we

1:19:25 ↗ intended to i think we all want um we

1:19:28 ↗ want that buffer to to grow as quickly

1:19:30 ↗ as possible and create

1:19:32 ↗ um this forest-like atmosphere for the

1:19:35 ↗ students and for the neighbors

1:19:38 ↗ uh a different question uh

1:19:41 ↗ talking this is during again during

1:19:43 ↗ construction you're gonna have a lot

1:19:44 ↗ large excavation for your stormwater

1:19:46 ↗ retention

1:19:47 ↗ at the the ball field

1:19:49 ↗ i i assume that there'll be multiple

1:19:51 ↗ stages of

1:19:53 ↗ construction storm water control that'll

1:19:54 ↗ occur that they'll mitigate

1:19:57 ↗ you know turbidity uh silt um any

1:20:00 ↗ contaminations

1:20:02 ↗ yeah we will definitely have so we'll

1:20:05 ↗ have an npds permit so an erosion permit

1:20:08 ↗ with the state of washington

1:20:10 ↗ that we'll monitor discharge and all

1:20:12 ↗ those pieces and make sure we're not

1:20:13 ↗ causing you know allowing

1:20:15 ↗ tribute water to leave our site uh

1:20:18 ↗ that's part of the construction process

1:20:20 ↗ and a permit will we will be obtaining

1:20:23 ↗ um as part of

1:20:24 ↗ construction the

1:20:26 ↗ the facility you mentioned specifically

1:20:28 ↗ under the baseball field is actually a

1:20:30 ↗ fill so we fill in the baseball field

1:20:32 ↗ and we we build that system as part of

1:20:34 ↗ that we're still going to have big

1:20:35 ↗ excavators and other things on the site

1:20:37 ↗ just that specific one is in a field

1:20:40 ↗ condition it actually works out pretty

1:20:41 ↗ well because we can build kind of a dam

1:20:43 ↗ in the outfield and use some areas of

1:20:46 ↗ that to be able to capture storm water

1:20:49 ↗ um and ensure that we're you know

1:20:51 ↗ meeting all the requirements of the city

1:20:54 ↗ and the state

1:20:56 ↗ and the good part about this project it

1:20:57 ↗ is design build we've got a contractor

1:20:59 ↗ already on site um there they've been

1:21:02 ↗ you know in

1:21:04 ↗ significant conversations of how what's

1:21:06 ↗ the right way to deal with storm water

1:21:08 ↗ are we going to pump from this portion

1:21:10 ↗ are we doing it all with gravity are we

1:21:12 ↗ doing baker tanks um and it like i

1:21:15 ↗ mentioned it's a big site part of that

1:21:17 ↗ is not clearing it all day one so going

1:21:19 ↗ in there and saying hey in the next

1:21:22 ↗ three months while it's dry i'm going to

1:21:24 ↗ be able to work this amount of area

1:21:26 ↗ we're going to cut the trees down from

1:21:27 ↗ that area and remove the vegetation from

1:21:29 ↗ that area and not go outside of that

1:21:31 ↗ what we wouldn't want to do is get a

1:21:33 ↗ permit

1:21:34 ↗ later this summer going clear the entire

1:21:37 ↗ area that we're going to build in

1:21:39 ↗ and and create a giant muddy mess that's

1:21:42 ↗ not going to be good for the neighbors

1:21:43 ↗ that's not going to be good for us

1:21:44 ↗ that's really not going to be good for

1:21:45 ↗ the contractor when ecology shows up to

1:21:47 ↗ try to

1:21:48 ↗ convince them to fix it so being forth

1:21:52 ↗ really thoughtful and what we want that

1:21:53 ↗ to look like ahead of the time

1:21:55 ↗ and having them on board has really made

1:21:56 ↗ that a lot

1:21:59 ↗ thank you

1:22:06 ↗ are there any other questions from the

1:22:08 ↗ commission

1:22:09 ↗ for the applicant team

1:22:12 ↗ at this point

1:22:18 ↗ yeah i'm seeing no additional questions

1:22:22 ↗ um when i

1:22:23 ↗ that that we've been uh we've been at

1:22:25 ↗ this for almost an hour and a half that

1:22:27 ↗ we take uh uh about a ten minute break

1:22:30 ↗ um

1:22:31 ↗ and then come back and we can hear the

1:22:32 ↗ rebuttal from

1:22:34 ↗ the staff and then the opportunity to

1:22:36 ↗ ask either the staff or the applicant

1:22:38 ↗ any additional questions before we begin

1:22:40 ↗ our deliberation so what we

1:22:42 ↗ uh go into recess for 10 minutes until

1:22:46 ↗ uh

1:22:47 ↗ 11 minutes until 8 35 and we'll

1:22:49 ↗ reconvene that thank you

1:34:23 ↗ i'll call the march 16th meeting back to

1:34:25 ↗ order

1:34:26 ↗ uh it's the opportunity now to proceed

1:34:29 ↗ with the staff

1:34:30 ↗ rebuttal

1:34:32 ↗ and

1:34:33 ↗ consultant planner christina hayworth is

1:34:36 ↗ going to provide the staff report so the

1:34:39 ↗ staff rebuttal so christina

1:34:45 ↗ all right just a moment while i get the

1:34:48 ↗ um

1:34:49 ↗ screen shared

1:35:05 ↗ that

1:35:07 ↗ knee

1:35:09 ↗ open

1:35:10 ↗ sorry one second

1:35:23 ↗ there we go

1:35:24 ↗ okay are you seeing it as a full screen

1:35:28 ↗ no it's not in presentation mode yet

1:35:30 ↗ okay you can click here in presentation

1:35:32 ↗ mode now yes we are okay perfect thank

1:35:35 ↗ you for your patience all right here we

1:35:37 ↗ are

1:35:38 ↗ a

1:35:40 ↗ continuation from march 3rd and this is

1:35:43 ↗ the staff rebuttal

1:35:46 ↗ for the school district project

1:35:49 ↗ at providence heights

1:35:52 ↗ uh

1:35:54 ↗ already heard from the applicant

1:35:57 ↗ so

1:35:58 ↗ here we go for staff

1:36:01 ↗ um

1:36:02 ↗ so i i am going to start sorry before i

1:36:04 ↗ get into it i'm going to start with uh

1:36:07 ↗ just a quick overview of some

1:36:09 ↗ corrections that we've noted from the

1:36:11 ↗ staff report

1:36:12 ↗ we also have some new

1:36:14 ↗ attachments to add into the record and

1:36:17 ↗ then i'll be giving kind of a high level

1:36:19 ↗ overview of some of the material that

1:36:21 ↗ staff presented in the briefing response

1:36:23 ↗ memo

1:36:24 ↗ i'm going to be wrapping up with some

1:36:28 ↗ uh

1:36:29 ↗ some discussion on conditions of

1:36:30 ↗ approval and then because the criteria

1:36:35 ↗ are the basis for any recommendation

1:36:37 ↗ that you make i will be going over in a

1:36:39 ↗ little more detail the criteria for all

1:36:42 ↗ of the different permits that we're

1:36:43 ↗ looking at today

1:36:44 ↗ all right

1:36:46 ↗ so some corrections to the staff report

1:36:47 ↗ these are in the errata sheet on page 16

1:36:51 ↗ of the briefing response memo which is a

1:36:53 ↗ new attachment 107.

1:36:56 ↗ uh on page one we actually noticed an

1:36:59 ↗ error in the very last permit number

1:37:02 ↗ it was listed as aas 20-0

1:37:07 ↗ that should be aas 21-006

1:37:12 ↗ the correction on page 74 that was noted

1:37:16 ↗ in my previous presentation given on the

1:37:18 ↗ second

1:37:19 ↗ but just for the purpose of presenting a

1:37:22 ↗ complete list of corrections i wanted to

1:37:25 ↗ include it again here

1:37:28 ↗ and then we have two additional

1:37:30 ↗ corrections on page 153 in the body text

1:37:33 ↗ isd has since submitted application for

1:37:36 ↗ right-of-way permits with the city of

1:37:37 ↗ sammamish

1:37:39 ↗ they provided this file number and

1:37:41 ↗ they've also actually received their

1:37:43 ↗ initial review comments on that

1:37:44 ↗ application so that review is in fact

1:37:46 ↗ underway um and then we also heard from

1:37:49 ↗ ms heffron last time that an updated

1:37:52 ↗ transportation technical report was

1:37:55 ↗ prepared on february

1:37:57 ↗ i think it was 16

1:37:58 ↗ 2021

1:38:01 ↗ the attachment included as attachment 60

1:38:03 ↗ the version included as attachment 60 uh

1:38:06 ↗ was the version that was peer reviewed

1:38:09 ↗ an earlier version that was peer

1:38:10 ↗ reviewed and so

1:38:11 ↗ just to make sure that we have a full

1:38:14 ↗ and complete record we have the

1:38:15 ↗ peer-reviewed version will remain as

1:38:17 ↗ attachment 60 and this

1:38:19 ↗ slightly updated transportation

1:38:22 ↗ technical report from february 2021 is

1:38:24 ↗ now included in the record as attachment

1:38:26 ↗ number 109.

1:38:30 ↗ okay

1:38:31 ↗ new attachments for the record this list

1:38:33 ↗ was included in the revised agenda dated

1:38:36 ↗ march 14th

1:38:38 ↗ everything except attachment 110 was

1:38:40 ↗ actually also in the agenda that was

1:38:42 ↗ distributed last friday so this includes

1:38:45 ↗ public comments received during

1:38:48 ↗ the the initial couple of days of this

1:38:50 ↗ hearing

1:38:52 ↗ the city's briefing response memo

1:38:54 ↗ some additional public comments received

1:38:56 ↗ that were forwarded to you that revised

1:38:58 ↗ transportation technical report that i

1:39:00 ↗ already mentioned

1:39:02 ↗ um and then uh oops this um oh yes uh

1:39:07 ↗ the issaquah school district's rebuttal

1:39:08 ↗ response uh received on

1:39:10 ↗ monday added tonight are these items

1:39:14 ↗ attachment number 111

1:39:17 ↗ is the reciprocal road easement document

1:39:19 ↗ so this was um one of the documents

1:39:21 ↗ actually that

1:39:22 ↗ mr salon spoke to

1:39:24 ↗ and you received it

1:39:26 ↗ um i believe earlier today

1:39:29 ↗ um he's since also provided some

1:39:32 ↗ additional information that was part of

1:39:34 ↗ his presentation

1:39:36 ↗ uh we have some more public comments

1:39:38 ↗ that were received

1:39:39 ↗ between

1:39:40 ↗ the 11th and whenever the record closes

1:39:44 ↗ on this project

1:39:45 ↗ then

1:39:47 ↗ the applicant's rebuttal presentation

1:39:49 ↗ and staff's rebuttal presentation which

1:39:50 ↗ are the slides that you're viewing now

1:39:54 ↗ so those should all be entered

1:39:55 ↗ officially into the record as of this

1:39:57 ↗ point

1:39:59 ↗ all right to go over staff's briefing

1:40:02 ↗ response memorandum which is again

1:40:05 ↗ attachment number 107

1:40:08 ↗ so we've structured it to address kind

1:40:11 ↗ of some some big categories of

1:40:13 ↗ information so some general

1:40:14 ↗ clarifications

1:40:16 ↗ responses to development commissioner

1:40:19 ↗ questions from

1:40:20 ↗ march 2nd then clarification on topics

1:40:24 ↗ raised during public testimony

1:40:27 ↗ then a summary of clarifications and

1:40:29 ↗ corrections to the staff report and the

1:40:31 ↗ land use conditions

1:40:33 ↗ and then attached to the briefing

1:40:34 ↗ response memorandum

1:40:36 ↗ are three items so first

1:40:39 ↗ some revised recommended land use

1:40:41 ↗ conditions those begin on page seven of

1:40:43 ↗ the briefing response memo document

1:40:46 ↗ a reference sheet to compare the public

1:40:49 ↗ comments form letter that was the basis

1:40:51 ↗ of many public comments we received to

1:40:54 ↗ where those topics were addressed within

1:40:56 ↗ the staff report so that's just supposed

1:40:58 ↗ to be a quick and easy reference

1:41:00 ↗ and then the staff report a rather sheet

1:41:02 ↗ that summarizes those corrections

1:41:04 ↗ that i've already gone over

1:41:08 ↗ the general clarifications that we

1:41:10 ↗ provided relate to

1:41:12 ↗ permit process enforcement of conditions

1:41:14 ↗ and standards for review so these were

1:41:16 ↗ some of the big topics that multiple

1:41:18 ↗ commissioners had some questions or

1:41:20 ↗ feedback about

1:41:22 ↗ and so just to to kind of summarize for

1:41:25 ↗ everyone who is tuning in tonight

1:41:28 ↗ the

1:41:29 ↗ permit

1:41:30 ↗ process typically starts with the land

1:41:33 ↗ use entitlement

1:41:35 ↗ and is followed by construction permits

1:41:37 ↗ so land use

1:41:39 ↗ permits would use documents that are

1:41:42 ↗ well developed but still not quite final

1:41:46 ↗ so that there's a little bit of

1:41:47 ↗ flexibility to respond to conditions of

1:41:50 ↗ approval

1:41:52 ↗ material availability that kind of thing

1:41:54 ↗ and then compliance with those

1:41:57 ↗ conditions of approval and with all of

1:41:58 ↗ the different applicable development

1:42:00 ↗ standards is confirmed again during

1:42:02 ↗ construction permit review so land use

1:42:05 ↗ is a higher level

1:42:07 ↗ general conformance or ability to

1:42:09 ↗ conform with conditions

1:42:11 ↗ to standards and then construction

1:42:13 ↗ permits are the very specific

1:42:15 ↗ construction detailed construction

1:42:17 ↗ documents that are used in the field to

1:42:18 ↗ build the project

1:42:20 ↗ so it's kind of this two-phase approach

1:42:22 ↗ just to to clarify for everyone

1:42:25 ↗ how

1:42:26 ↗ how permitting typically works and how

1:42:28 ↗ construction permits respond to the land

1:42:30 ↗ use entitlement process

1:42:33 ↗ um the other thing that uh

1:42:36 ↗ that i wanted to touch on specifically

1:42:39 ↗ are enforcement so we've listed

1:42:42 ↗ four of the city's most typical

1:42:45 ↗ enforcement mechanisms that includes

1:42:49 ↗ not issuing a construction permit until

1:42:51 ↗ compliance is determined so this is

1:42:53 ↗ related a little bit to the permit

1:42:54 ↗ process

1:42:55 ↗ we have some conditions that are

1:42:57 ↗ specifically tied to one or more

1:42:59 ↗ construction permits

1:43:01 ↗ and that construction permit would not

1:43:03 ↗ be issued until

1:43:05 ↗ until compliance with the conditions and

1:43:07 ↗ applicable development standards is

1:43:09 ↗ demonstrated in that construction permit

1:43:12 ↗ document set

1:43:13 ↗ or withholding a certificate of

1:43:15 ↗ occupancy if something happens

1:43:17 ↗ in the field or if one of for example

1:43:20 ↗ our conditions that's tied to

1:43:21 ↗ certificate of occupancy or temporary

1:43:23 ↗ certificate of occupancy

1:43:25 ↗ um

1:43:26 ↗ we can withhold that certificate until

1:43:29 ↗ conformance or compliance is is

1:43:32 ↗ demonstrated

1:43:33 ↗ the city also has the ability to issue

1:43:35 ↗ fines and stop work orders

1:43:37 ↗ and also to revoke the land use permits

1:43:41 ↗ forcing the applicant to go through this

1:43:43 ↗ process again if they wanted to restart

1:43:46 ↗ their project

1:43:49 ↗ and then as far as standards for review

1:43:52 ↗ mitigation and enforcement these are

1:43:54 ↗ typically already

1:43:56 ↗ codified somewhere in the issaquah

1:43:58 ↗ municipal code

1:44:00 ↗ or perhaps adopted by reference for

1:44:02 ↗ example in the case of the noise

1:44:03 ↗ standards that we heard about earlier

1:44:06 ↗ and so that's uh just to

1:44:08 ↗ to make it very clear what

1:44:10 ↗ metric city staff is using to determine

1:44:13 ↗ performance

1:44:15 ↗ this it's it's this the standards that

1:44:17 ↗ are in place in the code or as specified

1:44:21 ↗ in different conditions of approval

1:44:26 ↗ we provided some information on

1:44:28 ↗ project lighting requirements

1:44:30 ↗ specifically

1:44:31 ↗ on the 228th avenue southeast roadway

1:44:34 ↗ improvements uh tree removal on vacant

1:44:37 ↗ lots

1:44:38 ↗ validity of permits and how that ties

1:44:41 ↗ into the phase two construction timeline

1:44:44 ↗ and some project noise requirements

1:44:46 ↗ these are things that we addressed

1:44:48 ↗ at the march 2nd

1:44:50 ↗ meeting and so i'm going to skip going

1:44:52 ↗ into detail for them now but if you do

1:44:54 ↗ have any questions on them please ask

1:44:56 ↗ after my presentation

1:45:00 ↗ we also heard uh a lot of public

1:45:04 ↗ testimony and these are all of the the

1:45:07 ↗ different topics that we heard about

1:45:08 ↗ we've provided a little bit of

1:45:10 ↗ information about all of them

1:45:12 ↗ um including some additional contextual

1:45:15 ↗ information about ccnrs and how those

1:45:17 ↗ are used

1:45:19 ↗ about

1:45:20 ↗ whether or not certain

1:45:22 ↗ certain

1:45:23 ↗ topics were still

1:45:25 ↗ kind of

1:45:27 ↗ up for decision making so for example

1:45:29 ↗ cpa is

1:45:30 ↗ not within dc's purview project funding

1:45:33 ↗ is not within dc's purview for decision

1:45:35 ↗ making

1:45:37 ↗ we provided a little bit more

1:45:38 ↗ information about how public comment was

1:45:40 ↗ treated both

1:45:42 ↗ the responsibility for this city to to

1:45:44 ↗ address public comment and

1:45:45 ↗ responsibility for isd to address public

1:45:47 ↗ comment during their sepa process

1:45:50 ↗ um so all of this information again is

1:45:52 ↗ in the briefing response memo if you

1:45:54 ↗ have questions on anything that we

1:45:56 ↗ presented please

1:45:57 ↗ do ask after after my presentation

1:46:03 ↗ i did want to provide specifically some

1:46:05 ↗ additional information about stormwater

1:46:07 ↗ just to clarify a couple of points there

1:46:10 ↗ so um just to kind of add on to some of

1:46:14 ↗ what you've already heard from the

1:46:15 ↗ applicant and just make it very clear

1:46:17 ↗ the project doesn't include the

1:46:19 ↗ construction of any new stormwater

1:46:21 ↗ facilities on city-owned property all of

1:46:23 ↗ the new stormwater facilities are on

1:46:25 ↗ school district property

1:46:27 ↗ and the project will discharge like

1:46:30 ↗ other development projects happening in

1:46:32 ↗ the city

1:46:33 ↗ into the city's existing stormwater

1:46:34 ↗ system so just wanted to be very very

1:46:36 ↗ clear about

1:46:38 ↗ those two pieces

1:46:41 ↗ of the project design

1:46:47 ↗ we also have recommended some changes to

1:46:50 ↗ conditions of approval largely in

1:46:52 ↗ response to feedback from developer

1:46:55 ↗ development commissioners

1:46:57 ↗ so a lot of the changes that we're

1:46:59 ↗ suggesting clarify review and

1:47:01 ↗ enforcement authority or reference a

1:47:03 ↗ specific code standard

1:47:05 ↗ this was

1:47:07 ↗ related to some

1:47:09 ↗ some

1:47:10 ↗ questions that we had about

1:47:11 ↗ how is how is compliance determined what

1:47:14 ↗ is the what is the metric that we're

1:47:17 ↗ using so i

1:47:18 ↗ i hope that that those changes are are

1:47:21 ↗ clear and helpful

1:47:23 ↗ we've also recommended some new

1:47:26 ↗ conditions in

1:47:28 ↗ this list of of uh conditions that

1:47:31 ↗ are part of the briefing response memo

1:47:32 ↗ so new condition number 54

1:47:35 ↗ is

1:47:36 ↗ it's a condition that describes the

1:47:38 ↗ revocation of the landis permit so this

1:47:40 ↗ is already an option within the code but

1:47:42 ↗ this helps clarify review and

1:47:44 ↗ enforcement authority again

1:47:47 ↗ just very very clearly and explicitly as

1:47:50 ↗ it applies to this project we also have

1:47:52 ↗ a new condition number 55 in this list

1:47:56 ↗ which memorializes the verbal commitment

1:47:59 ↗ that the applicant made for different

1:48:02 ↗ vegetation types in the south buffer

1:48:05 ↗ area so when he committed to a

1:48:07 ↗ 40 split between evergreen

1:48:10 ↗ and deciduous vegetation to ensure

1:48:12 ↗ year-round screening

1:48:15 ↗ we memorialize that as condition number

1:48:17 ↗ 55.

1:48:21 ↗ okay

1:48:23 ↗ since the criteria of approval are the

1:48:25 ↗ basis for decision making

1:48:27 ↗ on your recommendation here tonight

1:48:30 ↗ i just wanted to spend a little bit of

1:48:32 ↗ time talking about staff's process in

1:48:35 ↗ evaluating the criteria of approval

1:48:37 ↗ so there are a lot of different permits

1:48:39 ↗ happening here all of them have

1:48:41 ↗ different approval criteria

1:48:44 ↗ staff in our role as reviewers evaluated

1:48:47 ↗ compliance of the project with each

1:48:49 ↗ criterion of approval so for the site

1:48:51 ↗ development permit there are three

1:48:52 ↗ criteria for the master site plan there

1:48:55 ↗ are 13 criteria

1:48:57 ↗ and for the different administrative

1:48:58 ↗ adjustments of standards

1:49:00 ↗ it varies but we'll go we'll go through

1:49:02 ↗ all of them uh right now

1:49:05 ↗ so

1:49:06 ↗ uh the i'll start with the master site

1:49:09 ↗ plan you can refer to the staff report

1:49:11 ↗ on page 154 or if you're looking at the

1:49:14 ↗ packet from the 2nd of march that's bait

1:49:18 ↗ stamp page number 168.

1:49:21 ↗ so

1:49:24 ↗ these one these are all of the different

1:49:26 ↗ criteria topics these are the titles of

1:49:28 ↗ the criteria i didn't quite have enough

1:49:29 ↗ space to include all of all of the the

1:49:32 ↗ language from each of the criteria

1:49:34 ↗ um but there are 13 different criteria

1:49:37 ↗ for approval that cover

1:49:41 ↗ pretty much everything from high level

1:49:43 ↗ planning policy

1:49:44 ↗ uh to very specific code compliance

1:49:48 ↗ issues here

1:49:49 ↗ this is also where we start to talk

1:49:51 ↗ about phasing so this is the msp

1:49:54 ↗ contemplates phasing of a project

1:49:57 ↗ and this is

1:49:59 ↗ where those requirements are explicitly

1:50:01 ↗ spelled out

1:50:03 ↗ it also talks about permitted use

1:50:05 ↗ compatibility

1:50:06 ↗ design continuity within and outside the

1:50:09 ↗ site

1:50:10 ↗ and all of the different information

1:50:12 ↗ that needs to appear in the plan sets to

1:50:14 ↗ be able to properly evaluate and make a

1:50:16 ↗ recommendation on the application

1:50:19 ↗ so we reviewed

1:50:21 ↗ all 13 of these criteria and concluded

1:50:24 ↗ that as conditioned the proposal

1:50:25 ↗ complies with with them

1:50:31 ↗ we did the same for the sdp these begin

1:50:34 ↗ on page 161 or if you're looking at the

1:50:37 ↗ bait stamped packet it's pdf page 175

1:50:42 ↗ there are three criteria for the sdp

1:50:45 ↗ that talk about compliance with the

1:50:46 ↗ comprehensive plan compliance with other

1:50:49 ↗ applicable code provisions and then

1:50:52 ↗ compliance with the design criteria

1:50:53 ↗ checklist which is also called the green

1:50:55 ↗ sheet

1:50:57 ↗ we went through all of these criteria as

1:50:59 ↗ well determine the proposal complies

1:51:01 ↗ with all of them as conditioned

1:51:08 ↗ and then the aas is so here's where we

1:51:10 ↗ see a lot of variation in the different

1:51:12 ↗ criteria uh the the far has some very

1:51:15 ↗ specific criteria

1:51:17 ↗ um that appear in

1:51:19 ↗ imc 18.07.480

1:51:23 ↗ e

1:51:24 ↗ so that's those are the criteria

1:51:26 ↗ specifically to reduce the far for

1:51:29 ↗ community facilities public school

1:51:31 ↗ community facilities projects

1:51:34 ↗ this

1:51:36 ↗ allows reduction only the amount

1:51:38 ↗ necessary to

1:51:40 ↗ incorporate operational functions their

1:51:42 ↗ academic curriculum

1:51:44 ↗ presents a floor for how far that far

1:51:47 ↗ could be reduced

1:51:48 ↗ and

1:51:49 ↗ requires that any reduction fulfills the

1:51:51 ↗ intent and purpose of the imc

1:51:54 ↗ and then as

1:51:55 ↗ staff evaluated the proposal against

1:51:57 ↗ these criteria found that it does comply

1:51:59 ↗ as conditioned

1:52:04 ↗ aas 21-001

1:52:08 ↗ is related to tree retention

1:52:11 ↗ uh this one as we discussed on the

1:52:15 ↗ second is a a little bit unusual the

1:52:18 ↗ applicant is

1:52:19 ↗ compliant currently as proposed

1:52:23 ↗ with tree retention requirements without

1:52:25 ↗ an aas

1:52:26 ↗ but if um

1:52:29 ↗ if the development commission or city

1:52:30 ↗ council determines that in fact an aas

1:52:32 ↗ or modification is required

1:52:34 ↗ we

1:52:35 ↗ did evaluate the tree retention

1:52:39 ↗ modification criteria and found that the

1:52:41 ↗ application uh does in fact also comply

1:52:44 ↗ with those criteria for approval as well

1:52:50 ↗ the parking request parking shared

1:52:52 ↗ parking request is aas 21-002

1:52:58 ↗ and it's subject to two sets of criteria

1:53:00 ↗ so there's kind of a generic set

1:53:03 ↗ and then for different like all

1:53:06 ↗ potential parking modifications and then

1:53:08 ↗ a different shorter subset for

1:53:11 ↗ shared parking specifically

1:53:13 ↗ and staff evaluated all of these

1:53:16 ↗ criteria as well

1:53:17 ↗ uh determined that we have adequate

1:53:19 ↗ documentation

1:53:21 ↗ um

1:53:22 ↗ that we've we've got enough information

1:53:25 ↗ about

1:53:26 ↗ the function and use of the site

1:53:29 ↗ compliance with the intent of the code

1:53:32 ↗ and the ability to

1:53:33 ↗ retain trees all of this good stuff we

1:53:36 ↗ have

1:53:37 ↗ determined that the proposal complies as

1:53:40 ↗ conditioned with with these criteria of

1:53:42 ↗ approval

1:53:44 ↗ uh for

1:53:47 ↗ aas21-005 and six so these use the same

1:53:52 ↗ um generic condition conditions of

1:53:55 ↗ approval

1:53:56 ↗ related to consistency

1:53:58 ↗ um

1:53:59 ↗ impacts on adjacent uses

1:54:03 ↗ and compliance with intent of the code

1:54:07 ↗ section related to non-motorized

1:54:08 ↗ transportation facilities

1:54:11 ↗ they also have this optional

1:54:14 ↗ requirement for additional approval

1:54:16 ↗ criteria no additional approval criteria

1:54:18 ↗ were specified by the director during

1:54:20 ↗ the review process and i just want to be

1:54:22 ↗ very clear about that that

1:54:24 ↗ these were reviewed just for the first

1:54:26 ↗ three because that fourth one is

1:54:28 ↗ optional and was not used

1:54:31 ↗ as conditioned the proposal complies

1:54:34 ↗ with the applicable criteria

1:54:36 ↗ for both of these requests

1:54:39 ↗ this this is related to continuous

1:54:41 ↗ walkways modification on certain

1:54:43 ↗ portions of their internal access

1:54:45 ↗ roadways and then the the public street

1:54:47 ↗ frontage connections along 228th

1:54:54 ↗ we also based on the new information

1:54:58 ↗ related to the reciprocal road easement

1:55:00 ↗ provided

1:55:01 ↗ just late this afternoon by the

1:55:03 ↗ applicant have an additional

1:55:06 ↗ landy's condition to recommend landi's

1:55:08 ↗ condition number 56

1:55:10 ↗ the language is here

1:55:12 ↗ if the issaquah school district cannot

1:55:14 ↗ use the easement area for emergency

1:55:16 ↗ access as proposed in attachment 97

1:55:18 ↗ which is the civil plan set

1:55:21 ↗ then the district must go through the

1:55:23 ↗ msp and sdp amendment processes in imc

1:55:26 ↗ 1804.530

1:55:28 ↗ and imc

1:55:29 ↗ 1804.450 for either a major or minor

1:55:32 ↗ amendment as determined by the criteria

1:55:34 ↗ they're in

1:55:35 ↗ so

1:55:36 ↗ this would give them the opportunity to

1:55:38 ↗ complete any necessary research to

1:55:41 ↗ determine what their use rights are

1:55:43 ↗ along the reciprocal road easement and

1:55:46 ↗ the flexibility to

1:55:48 ↗ relocate that road onto their property

1:55:51 ↗ if if needed and then

1:55:53 ↗ whichever

1:55:55 ↗ amendment type they fall into if they do

1:55:58 ↗ need to relocate the road we can review

1:56:01 ↗ once once that information is available

1:56:04 ↗ to get a very clear understanding of

1:56:06 ↗ potential impacts

1:56:08 ↗ and make a determination about which

1:56:10 ↗ process is appropriate whether that's

1:56:12 ↗ major or minor for that amendment

1:56:17 ↗ so as a reminder based on all of the

1:56:20 ↗ information provided by the applicant

1:56:22 ↗ submitted into the record all of the

1:56:24 ↗ analysis presented in the staff report

1:56:26 ↗ the briefing response memo etc

1:56:28 ↗ the administration does recommend that

1:56:31 ↗ the development commission recommend

1:56:32 ↗ approval subject to the revised land use

1:56:35 ↗ conditions in the briefing response memo

1:56:37 ↗ and the new land use condition number 56

1:56:39 ↗ that i just went over

1:56:44 ↗ and then just to summarize our next

1:56:47 ↗ steps as

1:56:49 ↗ kind of a reminder for where we're at so

1:56:52 ↗ right now we're in the midst of the

1:56:53 ↗ public hearing after the public hearing

1:56:56 ↗ development

1:56:57 ↗ commission will close the public record

1:56:59 ↗ conduct their deliberations make a

1:57:02 ↗ recommendation to city council

1:57:04 ↗ city council will deliberate on the

1:57:07 ↗ project based on the record created at

1:57:09 ↗ development commission using

1:57:11 ↗ using the hearing record using staff's

1:57:13 ↗ recommendation and analysis in the stack

1:57:15 ↗ report and using development

1:57:16 ↗ commission's recommendation on the

1:57:18 ↗ project

1:57:19 ↗ in all of the recommended conditions of

1:57:21 ↗ approval

1:57:22 ↗ and then they will make a decision and

1:57:24 ↗ issue their notice of action

1:57:26 ↗ once made the city council's decision is

1:57:29 ↗ appealable to king county superior court

1:57:33 ↗ with that i will open it up for q a let

1:57:37 ↗ me stop sharing my screen we can talk

1:57:41 ↗ face to face

1:57:43 ↗ great thank you mr hayward um so

1:57:46 ↗ commissioners if you have a question

1:57:48 ↗ uh just type a question in the chat and

1:57:52 ↗ um i will call out

1:57:56 ↗ i'll call you got an order

1:58:00 ↗ uh commissioner sanford

1:58:03 ↗ thank you mr chairman this is richard

1:58:04 ↗ sanford i have three questions of the

1:58:07 ↗ city and um i think i'm going to take

1:58:10 ↗ them in order of what i think is the

1:58:11 ↗ simplest to

1:58:12 ↗ maybe less simple but i don't know maybe

1:58:14 ↗ they're all simple i hope so

1:58:16 ↗ uh the scoreboard on the football

1:58:18 ↗ stadium

1:58:20 ↗ it's 44.2 feet wide the display area

1:58:24 ↗ is also 12.7 feet high so the display

1:58:28 ↗ area there which is electronic is going

1:58:30 ↗ to be

1:58:32 ↗ 561.3 square feet

1:58:35 ↗ my question is is that a scoreboard

1:58:37 ↗ considered a sign

1:58:39 ↗ per imc or is it exempt from the sign

1:58:43 ↗ code

1:58:45 ↗ um

1:58:47 ↗ it is an accessory structure not a sign

1:58:51 ↗ okay

1:58:53 ↗ okay

1:58:54 ↗ thank you

1:58:57 ↗ because i know we had a comment from

1:59:00 ↗ the public that it was outside sign code

1:59:03 ↗ so

1:59:04 ↗ wanted to make sure we were clear on

1:59:05 ↗ that

1:59:06 ↗ uh second question regarding sound and

1:59:11 ↗ noise and uh conditions 38 and 39

1:59:15 ↗ so

1:59:17 ↗ condition 38

1:59:20 ↗ specifies

1:59:22 ↗ monitoring twice per academic quarter

1:59:25 ↗ and has four locations specified there

1:59:27 ↗ around the property line and it also

1:59:30 ↗ requires mitigation

1:59:32 ↗ measures be submitted to cpd for

1:59:34 ↗ approval

1:59:36 ↗ if the noise if the sound detected is in

1:59:39 ↗ the noise category

1:59:41 ↗ condition 39 though specifies once per

1:59:43 ↗ academic quarter in three locations and

1:59:46 ↗ it requires reporting only upon request

1:59:50 ↗ and there are no mitigation measures

1:59:52 ↗ there

1:59:52 ↗ and i was wondering why those aren't

1:59:56 ↗ consistent in terms of mitigation

1:59:59 ↗ measures and

2:00:01 ↗ locations on the property where the

2:00:04 ↗ sound is monitored

2:00:08 ↗ so

2:00:09 ↗ i just lost my vpn connection uh

2:00:12 ↗ to the staff report um perfect timing i

2:00:16 ↗ know i think i must have lost it while

2:00:18 ↗ we were on break uh

2:00:20 ↗ would you like me to pull it up

2:00:22 ↗ yes because i think that the

2:00:24 ↗ um the staff report body gives a little

2:00:27 ↗ bit more information about why these

2:00:30 ↗ conditions are

2:00:32 ↗ written the way that they are

2:00:35 ↗ well let me um while i'm doing that

2:00:46 ↗ yeah i think we all lost it

2:00:49 ↗ oh okay i'm glad it's

2:00:51 ↗ glad it's not just me

2:00:53 ↗ um let me

2:00:54 ↗ i can

2:00:56 ↗ copy

2:00:57 ↗ i could read them out loud or uh

2:00:59 ↗ put the text in in chat if you like

2:01:02 ↗ uh it's

2:01:04 ↗ it's the the body of the staff report

2:01:07 ↗ i'm i'm pulling up a version from the

2:01:11 ↗ uh from the packet the agenda packet so

2:01:15 ↗ um

2:01:16 ↗ bear with me just a moment while i get

2:01:18 ↗ myself to the right place

2:01:35 ↗ okay so condition

2:01:37 ↗ 38

2:01:39 ↗ um

2:01:41 ↗ let's see i'm 37.

2:01:50 ↗ this is

2:01:52 ↗ no sorry 38 and 39. so the

2:01:56 ↗ condition 39 was originally written when

2:02:00 ↗ the

2:02:01 ↗ when it was less clear that the baseball

2:02:03 ↗ and softball field

2:02:06 ↗ would not have public address systems

2:02:10 ↗ so that's why there's a little bit of

2:02:11 ↗ discrepancy was to make sure that we had

2:02:13 ↗ added quick coverage when we thought

2:02:15 ↗ that there would be a pa system at both

2:02:17 ↗ the stadium and at the ball field

2:02:19 ↗ complex

2:02:21 ↗ so

2:02:22 ↗ that's um

2:02:24 ↗ that is the source of the discrepancy

2:02:25 ↗ there is no longer a pa system at the

2:02:28 ↗ ballfield complex

2:02:29 ↗ so this may just be slightly outdated as

2:02:33 ↗ far as

2:02:35 ↗ monitoring locations are

2:02:37 ↗ concerned and we could have that revised

2:02:41 ↗ just to use the

2:02:44 ↗ locations in 38

2:02:48 ↗ yeah well i think the locations in 38

2:02:50 ↗ may actually be redundant

2:02:53 ↗ um

2:02:54 ↗ it specifies the northwestern property

2:02:57 ↗ line around the softball field but also

2:03:00 ↗ the northern property line around the

2:03:02 ↗ baseball field

2:03:03 ↗ the western line in the vicinity of the

2:03:05 ↗ elementary school

2:03:07 ↗ and the southern property line south of

2:03:09 ↗ the stadium

2:03:11 ↗ 39 it seems is basically saying the same

2:03:15 ↗ thing with fewer words in other words

2:03:18 ↗ noise shall be monitored the

2:03:20 ↗ northwestern property line around the

2:03:21 ↗ softball field

2:03:23 ↗ uh northern property line the vicinity

2:03:25 ↗ of the baseball and southern southeast

2:03:27 ↗ stadium now 39 however does not include

2:03:30 ↗ the western property line

2:03:33 ↗ so i was wondering if there's

2:03:36 ↗ a reason for that

2:03:40 ↗ i think basically what i would like to

2:03:43 ↗ see would be consistency in both of

2:03:45 ↗ those regarding

2:03:47 ↗ the locations of monitoring

2:03:50 ↗ and then secondly in

2:03:52 ↗ condition 39

2:03:54 ↗ i was wondering why that

2:03:56 ↗ occurs only once

2:03:58 ↗ per academic quarter

2:04:02 ↗ it seems that that could be

2:04:06 ↗ monitored only in november during a

2:04:09 ↗ junior varsity football game

2:04:13 ↗ so

2:04:15 ↗ i would like to see

2:04:17 ↗ not only the same

2:04:19 ↗ locations for monitoring

2:04:22 ↗ but

2:04:23 ↗ the same requirement to report

2:04:26 ↗ to the city mitigations

2:04:32 ↗ okay uh so consistency

2:04:35 ↗ in locations

2:04:38 ↗ yeah and reporting

2:04:41 ↗ and if you understand what i mean i do

2:04:43 ↗ have some candidate wording to propose

2:04:45 ↗ on amendments these conditions at the

2:04:48 ↗ appropriate time i'm trying to determine

2:04:50 ↗ basically

2:04:51 ↗ you know if there was a reason

2:04:54 ↗ that

2:04:56 ↗ or in 39 monitoring occurred once not

2:04:59 ↗ twice per quarter

2:05:02 ↗ and why in 39 the applicant was not

2:05:06 ↗ required to submit those monitoring

2:05:08 ↗ results to the city

2:05:15 ↗ the the intention of 39 is that the

2:05:19 ↗ monitoring report would be

2:05:22 ↗ submitted to the city uh on request so

2:05:25 ↗ that's the last

2:05:26 ↗ last sentence right i see that on

2:05:29 ↗ request but in the previous one it says

2:05:32 ↗ that it will be submitted to the city it

2:05:34 ↗ shall be submitted to the city for the

2:05:36 ↗ duration the period

2:05:38 ↗ and

2:05:38 ↗ the

2:05:39 ↗ school district shall provide mitigation

2:05:41 ↗ for review and approval by cpd if levels

2:05:44 ↗ are exceeded in other words that's the

2:05:46 ↗ kind of language that is a reason not to

2:05:48 ↗ have that kind of language clearly

2:05:50 ↗ specified in 39

2:05:54 ↗ but there's

2:05:59 ↗ i i don't see a reason why we couldn't

2:06:03 ↗ have

2:06:04 ↗ have those same

2:06:06 ↗ requirements

2:06:08 ↗ okay great

2:06:09 ↗ thank you and i'll have some candidate

2:06:11 ↗ language to approve

2:06:12 ↗ uh to to submit when when uh the time is

2:06:15 ↗ appropriate okay so i think that's

2:06:17 ↗ covered two of my questions now

2:06:19 ↗ um

2:06:21 ↗ for the third one

2:06:24 ↗ um

2:06:26 ↗ it has to do with

2:06:28 ↗ master site plan requirements for

2:06:31 ↗ approval

2:06:33 ↗ and so we're really talking about imc

2:06:36 ↗ 18.07 here and you just referred to i

2:06:38 ↗ think 660

2:06:41 ↗ a moment ago

2:06:43 ↗ so i was hoping that we would be able to

2:06:45 ↗ pull that up for one moment and look at

2:06:48 ↗ it

2:06:49 ↗ uh it would be

2:06:51 ↗ 18.07.650

2:06:54 ↗ master site plan contents

2:06:58 ↗ in

2:06:59 ↗ section d

2:07:00 ↗ would you like me to share my screen

2:07:02 ↗ christina yes please

2:07:18 ↗ are you able to share your screen

2:07:21 ↗ yes 650 mr sanford commissioner sanford

2:07:24 ↗ i write 1807 650.

2:07:32 ↗ okay

2:07:34 ↗ are you seeing this all right yes

2:07:36 ↗ great

2:07:41 ↗ okay and i was referring to d

2:07:45 ↗ it might be a bit tiny for some people

2:07:47 ↗ uh

2:07:48 ↗ such as me

2:07:52 ↗ it'll be helpful if you read it out loud

2:07:54 ↗ because you're right i think it might be

2:07:55 ↗ small for people who are listening to

2:07:57 ↗ see that right you are not seeing the

2:08:00 ↗ screen sure i have

2:08:02 ↗ i have zoomed in i need to re-locate

2:08:05 ↗ back to the

2:08:07 ↗ section that we're looking at

2:08:09 ↗ trying not to go too quickly to give

2:08:11 ↗ people motivation yeah it's 6.50

2:08:15 ↗ all right here we go 650 the master site

2:08:17 ↗ plan content right

2:08:18 ↗ in section d thank you that's great

2:08:21 ↗ okay and this states

2:08:23 ↗ d property improvements plan a plan

2:08:26 ↗ providing for all improvements including

2:08:28 ↗ streets utilities and public facilities

2:08:30 ↗ to be dedicated or otherwise given to

2:08:32 ↗ the city which shall include

2:08:34 ↗ one assignment of responsibility for the

2:08:36 ↗ cost and construction of those

2:08:38 ↗ improvements and

2:08:39 ↗ two

2:08:40 ↗ a schedule to indicate at what point in

2:08:42 ↗ the proposed development process those

2:08:44 ↗ improvements are to be completed and

2:08:46 ↗ dedicated to the city in order to ensure

2:08:48 ↗ that those necessary services are

2:08:50 ↗ provided with each appropriate phase of

2:08:53 ↗ the development

2:08:55 ↗ thank you and if you could read the

2:08:57 ↗ introductory sentence to this entire

2:09:00 ↗ 1807 650 a project development

2:09:04 ↗ a project development site plan and

2:09:06 ↗ supporting data of the master site plan

2:09:09 ↗ shall include at a minimum all of the

2:09:11 ↗ following

2:09:13 ↗ right so

2:09:14 ↗ in d

2:09:16 ↗ um

2:09:19 ↗ having 228th avenue southeast in mind

2:09:24 ↗ where in our application documents

2:09:28 ↗ do we have

2:09:34 ↗ a plan for all improvements including

2:09:36 ↗ streets which shall include assignment

2:09:38 ↗ of responsibility for the cost and

2:09:40 ↗ construction

2:09:42 ↗ and number two a schedule to indicate at

2:09:44 ↗ what point in the proposed development

2:09:46 ↗ those

2:09:47 ↗ improvements are to be completed

2:09:49 ↗ i know that we have plans for 228th i

2:09:52 ↗ understand we now have a permit

2:09:53 ↗ submitted with city of samamish for 228

2:09:56 ↗ improvements

2:09:58 ↗ but i don't see clear assignment of

2:10:01 ↗ responsibility for costs and

2:10:03 ↗ construction

2:10:04 ↗ i'm asking this because

2:10:06 ↗ this is

2:10:08 ↗ a potentially

2:10:10 ↗ uh fraught shared responsibility it

2:10:13 ↗ seems to me between

2:10:14 ↗ several relevant parties here

2:10:16 ↗ and also a schedule to indicate at what

2:10:19 ↗ point

2:10:20 ↗ in the process those improvements are to

2:10:22 ↗ be completed and dedicated to the city

2:10:26 ↗ so um 228th avenue southeast is uh is

2:10:31 ↗ owned by the city of sammamish not the

2:10:34 ↗ city of issaquah so our our city will

2:10:36 ↗ not be receiving

2:10:38 ↗ those

2:10:39 ↗ we

2:10:40 ↗ do also understand that this is going to

2:10:43 ↗ be a

2:10:44 ↗ larger

2:10:45 ↗ partnership effort in managing

2:10:47 ↗ especially the intersection

2:10:49 ↗ to the school and so we do have some

2:10:52 ↗ requirements in our recommended

2:10:53 ↗ conditions to facilitate an interlocal

2:10:56 ↗ agreement

2:10:58 ↗ but we we won't be receiving to 28th

2:11:00 ↗ avenue

2:11:01 ↗ southeast improvements

2:11:04 ↗ as part of this project

2:11:08 ↗ will we be receiving a schedule to

2:11:10 ↗ indicate at what point

2:11:12 ↗ those improvements are to be completed

2:11:17 ↗ so we we have a conceptual construction

2:11:20 ↗ schedule

2:11:22 ↗ uh that's included i think the most

2:11:24 ↗ recent version is in the phasing

2:11:27 ↗ attachment um the number i'm not

2:11:31 ↗ familiar with off the top of my head um

2:11:33 ↗ i think it's in the technical

2:11:35 ↗ reports and studies section so we do

2:11:37 ↗ have a conceptual schedule that

2:11:40 ↗ talks about when those improvements will

2:11:42 ↗ be completed yes

2:11:44 ↗ is that from

2:11:46 ↗ is that from the city of samamish

2:11:48 ↗ it is from the applicant

2:11:51 ↗ and we have an assignment of

2:11:52 ↗ responsibility for cost

2:11:56 ↗ we have

2:11:58 ↗ trying to

2:12:00 ↗ remember which attachment this is in

2:12:06 ↗ we do have information from the

2:12:08 ↗ applicant acknowledging that they are

2:12:10 ↗ responsible for construction and that

2:12:12 ↗ they will

2:12:13 ↗ be dedicating the improvements to the

2:12:16 ↗ city of sammamish

2:12:18 ↗ um

2:12:22 ↗ if there is somebody from the applicant

2:12:25 ↗ team that can assist with this question

2:12:27 ↗ provide more detail that would also be

2:12:29 ↗ fine at this point since um we're still

2:12:31 ↗ in the question and answer point so

2:12:33 ↗ commissioner sanford if you want

2:12:35 ↗ to direct your question to the applicant

2:12:36 ↗ um to get additional information that

2:12:38 ↗ would be fine or if you're satisfied

2:12:40 ↗ with the response from staff

2:12:43 ↗ yeah i i would appreciate that i i would

2:12:46 ↗ because this is a clear requirement for

2:12:48 ↗ approval of a master site plan which

2:12:50 ↗ sits above all the permits that we're

2:12:52 ↗ considering here

2:12:53 ↗ um i think it is important to have a

2:12:55 ↗ clear

2:12:56 ↗ assignment of responsibility for cost to

2:12:58 ↗ this

2:12:59 ↗ transportation

2:13:01 ↗ yes

2:13:03 ↗ um yeah thank you for the opportunity to

2:13:06 ↗ clarify so

2:13:08 ↗ 100

2:13:09 ↗ of

2:13:10 ↗ the improvements shown within 228 will

2:13:12 ↗ be funded by the applicant the school

2:13:15 ↗ district um that it's there's some

2:13:17 ↗ information about it in our original

2:13:19 ↗ cover letter um that's part of the

2:13:22 ↗ record but um

2:13:24 ↗ that up all of those improvements are

2:13:26 ↗ being paid for by the school district um

2:13:29 ↗ there was discussions about a sharing

2:13:32 ↗ outside of this project for additional

2:13:33 ↗ improvements we don't have any

2:13:35 ↗ agreements that uh at this time so

2:13:38 ↗ um there's a there's a chance that

2:13:41 ↗ some amish may extend the improvements

2:13:43 ↗ beyond what's shown on our plans um that

2:13:46 ↗ would not be something the school

2:13:47 ↗ district would be a part of

2:13:49 ↗ um the second part of your question

2:13:50 ↗ about the schedule so we do have um

2:13:53 ↗ construction schedules we've submitted

2:13:55 ↗ to the city showing

2:13:57 ↗ you know starting construction and doing

2:13:59 ↗ those improvements i think the bigger

2:14:01 ↗ piece of this um is when those get

2:14:03 ↗ completed and turned over to the city

2:14:05 ↗ and based on the way the conditions are

2:14:07 ↗ set up

2:14:08 ↗ it's prior to

2:14:09 ↗ temporary occupancy of the building so

2:14:12 ↗ before we get to that point we have to

2:14:14 ↗ work through that process get a permit

2:14:15 ↗ with some amish construct the

2:14:17 ↗ improvements to sammamish's

2:14:20 ↗ satisfaction and and turn over the right

2:14:22 ↗ way to them which

2:14:24 ↗ is is a process in itself it's

2:14:26 ↗ definitely going to take a significant

2:14:28 ↗ amount of time to work through that

2:14:29 ↗ while we're building the building and

2:14:30 ↗ doing all the site improvements which is

2:14:32 ↗ why we submitted those permits early in

2:14:34 ↗ the process

2:14:35 ↗ thank you

2:14:37 ↗ those are all my questions

2:14:40 ↗ dylan you have a question

2:14:44 ↗ yes a couple actually and one

2:14:47 ↗ clarification

2:14:48 ↗ first so ms hayworth i i want to verify

2:14:51 ↗ that

2:14:53 ↗ the

2:14:55 ↗ the msp and the sdp um

2:14:58 ↗ approvals those

2:15:01 ↗ um

2:15:02 ↗ those come before any kind of

2:15:03 ↗ construction permit so no construction

2:15:05 ↗ permit can be granted until until these

2:15:08 ↗ fees are approved

2:15:10 ↗ that is correct yes

2:15:12 ↗ okay um

2:15:14 ↗ so a couple questions that are um

2:15:17 ↗ somewhat related to phasing

2:15:20 ↗ um i thought i had seen in here

2:15:22 ↗ somewhere and i in the conditions and

2:15:24 ↗ i'm not seeing it now so it may be there

2:15:26 ↗ and i'm just missing it

2:15:28 ↗ um

2:15:29 ↗ so obviously

2:15:31 ↗ the

2:15:32 ↗ improvements on on 228th is the only

2:15:34 ↗ access to the school are really critical

2:15:36 ↗ to to this project happening

2:15:39 ↗ um is it

2:15:40 ↗ can we put a condition on

2:15:43 ↗ the construction permit that they're a

2:15:45 ↗ connect construction permit cannot be

2:15:47 ↗ approved until

2:15:49 ↗ the

2:15:50 ↗ city of sammamish has has granted a

2:15:52 ↗ permit for the 228th improvements

2:15:57 ↗ uh for

2:15:59 ↗ for that question i think i

2:16:03 ↗ would like to defer

2:16:05 ↗ to

2:16:07 ↗ lucy

2:16:09 ↗ if you're

2:16:10 ↗ if you're available to speak to that

2:16:13 ↗ so just to confirm uh the link that

2:16:17 ↗ commissioner dillon was it the issuance

2:16:21 ↗ of the sammamish permit prior to the

2:16:25 ↗ issuance of a permit

2:16:29 ↗ by the city of issaquah

2:16:32 ↗ yes um

2:16:34 ↗ what

2:16:35 ↗ because

2:16:37 ↗ it as soon as a construction permit my

2:16:39 ↗ understanding is if the city of

2:16:41 ↗ issues a construction permit then work

2:16:43 ↗ on the site can begin and though the

2:16:47 ↗ impacts of clearing and grading regard

2:16:49 ↗ if if something happens and some

2:16:50 ↗ mammoths does not improve the 228

2:16:54 ↗ improvements

2:16:55 ↗ then those impacts have already happened

2:17:00 ↗ correct

2:17:01 ↗ uh i am not aware of a of uh

2:17:07 ↗ we could

2:17:08 ↗ link the

2:17:10 ↗ uh

2:17:11 ↗ occupancy of the building to

2:17:15 ↗ the

2:17:18 ↗ completion of the access improvements

2:17:21 ↗ i'm not sure that we would have a basis

2:17:23 ↗ in code for

2:17:26 ↗ not issuing building permits

2:17:29 ↗ construction permits prior to the

2:17:31 ↗ issuance of that

2:17:33 ↗ we often

2:17:35 ↗ get permits

2:17:37 ↗ in a different order

2:17:39 ↗ and it's about completing all the

2:17:41 ↗ improvements

2:17:44 ↗ prior to occupancy but not

2:17:47 ↗ requiring

2:17:49 ↗ the permits to be issued in a certain

2:17:51 ↗ order

2:17:54 ↗ okay um

2:17:56 ↗ and then my other question um

2:18:00 ↗ related related to phasing and and the

2:18:02 ↗ phase two um i think the

2:18:06 ↗ the language that was added to um

2:18:10 ↗ to

2:18:11 ↗ condition 12

2:18:14 ↗ gets at a little bit at the uncertainty

2:18:16 ↗ of whether phase 2 would occur and

2:18:22 ↗ again of one of my concerns with with

2:18:25 ↗ the phasing and i understand that it's

2:18:27 ↗ not the development conditions

2:18:29 ↗ uh

2:18:30 ↗ or development commissions per view to

2:18:32 ↗ um

2:18:35 ↗ to decide whether that construction is

2:18:37 ↗ needed or part of the project

2:18:39 ↗ but again the those impacts the clearing

2:18:42 ↗ um the clearing and grading which which

2:18:45 ↗ really are the most

2:18:47 ↗ significant

2:18:48 ↗ environmental impacts

2:18:50 ↗ they can be mitigated but

2:18:52 ↗ not not fully in all areas can happen as

2:18:56 ↗ as soon as we have a construction permit

2:18:58 ↗ um

2:19:00 ↗ and

2:19:02 ↗ i guess i'm looking for

2:19:04 ↗ um

2:19:06 ↗ some kind of some level of

2:19:09 ↗ an option to provide some additional

2:19:10 ↗ level of protection for the areas that

2:19:12 ↗ are not immediately needed for phase one

2:19:15 ↗ um

2:19:18 ↗ in terms of of

2:19:20 ↗ um

2:19:21 ↗ preventing

2:19:23 ↗ unnecessary clearing of areas that that

2:19:26 ↗ may not be part of the project at some

2:19:28 ↗ point

2:19:30 ↗ and i admittedly i i'm new to this

2:19:32 ↗ process so i'm not completely sure where

2:19:35 ↗ our boundaries are um so other

2:19:37 ↗ commission members um if you have

2:19:40 ↗ have thoughts or can kind of guide me on

2:19:42 ↗ this that would be helpful too

2:19:45 ↗ so one one thing that i would like to

2:19:47 ↗ point out is that um

2:19:49 ↗ the the applicant

2:19:51 ↗ the proposal complies currently with all

2:19:54 ↗ tree removal requirements

2:19:57 ↗ um

2:19:58 ↗ even if they

2:20:00 ↗ they clear the phase two area but

2:20:02 ↗ don't ever build the elementary school

2:20:05 ↗ they're still in compliance with tree

2:20:07 ↗ removal requirements

2:20:09 ↗ so there wouldn't be a basis for

2:20:12 ↗ preventing them from doing that as part

2:20:14 ↗ of their phase one work

2:20:16 ↗ okay

2:20:22 ↗ are those your questions commissioner

2:20:23 ↗ dylan

2:20:24 ↗ yes thank you commissioner morgan

2:20:28 ↗ uh this is um maybe it's too much detail

2:20:31 ↗ but i'm just curious about the question

2:20:33 ↗ about item d and the

2:20:35 ↗ um property improvements plan

2:20:39 ↗ so that's

2:20:40 ↗ i

2:20:41 ↗ think i was pointing out so these are

2:20:43 ↗ plans for improvements for streets and

2:20:45 ↗ public facilities to be dedicated to the

2:20:48 ↗ city

2:20:49 ↗ with a capital c meaning the city of

2:20:51 ↗ issaquah

2:20:52 ↗ so as you mentioned since the street

2:20:54 ↗ improvements

2:20:56 ↗ would not be dedicated or otherwise

2:20:58 ↗ given to the city of issaquah

2:21:00 ↗ technically they wouldn't fall under

2:21:03 ↗ this category it would seem

2:21:07 ↗ but it still seems important and i

2:21:08 ↗ wonder

2:21:09 ↗ as a side note if it might be a reason

2:21:13 ↗ as part of the title 18 land use code of

2:21:16 ↗ revisions

2:21:17 ↗ to change this to say given to the city

2:21:20 ↗ or

2:21:21 ↗ any other city

2:21:24 ↗ as part of this project

2:21:27 ↗ i think the way it's written it's only

2:21:28 ↗ for items

2:21:30 ↗ that are given to issaquah not other

2:21:32 ↗ cities

2:21:37 ↗ that that would be another question that

2:21:39 ↗ i would kick over to lucy

2:21:42 ↗ i yeah

2:21:44 ↗ noted

2:21:48 ↗ um

2:21:50 ↗ i think

2:21:52 ↗ i think we're reviewing all of the

2:21:53 ↗ processes as part of title 18

2:21:56 ↗ and uh it is a good point that we share

2:21:59 ↗ boundaries with some other cities and

2:22:01 ↗ that if these criteria are being

2:22:04 ↗ retained through the title 18 process

2:22:07 ↗ that

2:22:08 ↗ we should take that into consideration i

2:22:11 ↗ i think as we have discussed with the

2:22:14 ↗ planning policy commission

2:22:16 ↗ um this master psych plan process may

2:22:18 ↗ not continue forward

2:22:21 ↗ so

2:22:23 ↗ okay

2:22:24 ↗ and and in this case we would treat this

2:22:27 ↗ we would in this case would we view this

2:22:29 ↗ as when we say given to the city we

2:22:31 ↗ would include what's being given to the

2:22:33 ↗ city of samamish

2:22:35 ↗ i believe city is defined in our code as

2:22:37 ↗ the city of visqua

2:22:39 ↗ okay

2:22:42 ↗ thank you

2:22:43 ↗ yes

2:22:44 ↗ are there other questions for

2:22:47 ↗ staff or the applicant from the

2:22:49 ↗ commission

2:22:54 ↗ i want to follow up on the street and

2:22:56 ↗ frontage improvements

2:22:58 ↗ this is a unusual one for us we're on

2:23:00 ↗ the city boundary here and that the

2:23:02 ↗ project relies on

2:23:04 ↗ modifications to

2:23:06 ↗ facilities that are under the direct

2:23:08 ↗ control of the city so there are smanish

2:23:10 ↗ so can you

2:23:12 ↗ talk a little bit more about

2:23:14 ↗ the agreement or approval process for

2:23:18 ↗ those frontage improvements between

2:23:20 ↗ sammamish and the city of issaquah

2:23:23 ↗ and

2:23:24 ↗ and the reason i'm asking the question

2:23:25 ↗ is is that at what point is the

2:23:28 ↗ confidence

2:23:29 ↗ you know 100 that there's a agreement on

2:23:32 ↗ those

2:23:34 ↗ improvements the configuration maybe not

2:23:36 ↗ all the engineering details but the

2:23:38 ↗ configuration

2:23:39 ↗ of those improvements um along the

2:23:42 ↗ process

2:23:44 ↗ in the development of this project so

2:23:46 ↗ either the the applicant or staff

2:23:48 ↗ whoever feels

2:23:50 ↗ most um informed on that question could

2:23:53 ↗ so again i'm asking what what is the

2:23:56 ↗ nature of the agreement the documented

2:23:58 ↗ agreement

2:23:59 ↗ when we get to that level of

2:24:02 ↗ understanding of the improvements

2:24:05 ↗ for the project

2:24:08 ↗ so i'll talk just briefly about the what

2:24:11 ↗ we've recommended in the conditions and

2:24:14 ↗ then for any additional details i'll go

2:24:16 ↗ ahead and turn it over to the applicant

2:24:19 ↗ so what we have required is that the

2:24:22 ↗ applicant provide materials for

2:24:25 ↗ an interlocal agreement or a similar

2:24:27 ↗ instrument

2:24:29 ↗ that would be

2:24:30 ↗ worked out between the city of samamish

2:24:33 ↗ and the city of issaquah

2:24:35 ↗ knowing that the city of sammamish will

2:24:38 ↗ own operate and maintain

2:24:40 ↗ those improvements the roadway

2:24:42 ↗ improvements but that they will be

2:24:44 ↗ providing uh access to some property

2:24:47 ↗ that remains within the city of issaquah

2:24:50 ↗ we're not at a at a point where we can

2:24:52 ↗ require

2:24:54 ↗ or you know make make this project

2:24:56 ↗ behold into an agreement that still

2:24:58 ↗ needs to be negotiated between two other

2:25:02 ↗ parties that aren't you know

2:25:04 ↗ specifically proponents of this project

2:25:06 ↗ right

2:25:07 ↗ so

2:25:08 ↗ uh so we have just required that the

2:25:10 ↗ apple can facilitate that process

2:25:13 ↗ and it would be through an ila that that

2:25:16 ↗ at this point um is

2:25:18 ↗ very

2:25:19 ↗ fledgling to my understanding

2:25:21 ↗ so with with that i'll turn it over to

2:25:24 ↗ todd

2:25:26 ↗ or marnie

2:25:28 ↗ i can maybe take the lead and i'll pile

2:25:30 ↗ on that would be good um so i

2:25:34 ↗ if i'm about to say might make this more

2:25:36 ↗ confusing for a second but so we have

2:25:38 ↗ multiple right-of-way permits so we're

2:25:40 ↗ doing improvements in the city of

2:25:41 ↗ samamish

2:25:43 ↗ along 228th we're also doing

2:25:44 ↗ improvements to 43rd so if you notice

2:25:46 ↗ when you come up the hill

2:25:48 ↗ towards our project so you're coming

2:25:50 ↗ northbound up that hill on 228th it

2:25:52 ↗ narrows right before you get to the city

2:25:54 ↗ of sammamish where it loses lanes and

2:25:56 ↗ goes down to a two-lane road we're

2:25:58 ↗ improving that to get to the sidewalk

2:26:01 ↗ that was connected um to a four-lane

2:26:04 ↗ section up to the city limit line so

2:26:05 ↗ there's a little portion of it which we

2:26:07 ↗ are submitting what we have submitted

2:26:08 ↗ for

2:26:09 ↗ um

2:26:10 ↗ right away permits in the city of

2:26:11 ↗ issaquah for that portion and then the

2:26:14 ↗ portion in some amish you've heard we've

2:26:16 ↗ we've submitted we've been through a

2:26:17 ↗ round of comments i think we're really

2:26:19 ↗ close to having that

2:26:21 ↗ the details figured out if the curbs are

2:26:23 ↗ in the right spot

2:26:24 ↗ the lights are where the city is going

2:26:26 ↗ to want them um the storm water

2:26:29 ↗ functions the way it's supposed to

2:26:31 ↗ you know we're going to get down to the

2:26:33 ↗ level of detail this paint stripe needs

2:26:35 ↗ to be moved a little bit the tapers um

2:26:37 ↗ slightly different those types of things

2:26:39 ↗ um which are going to take a little bit

2:26:41 ↗ of

2:26:42 ↗ um

2:26:43 ↗ design to get through and work through

2:26:45 ↗ to make sure everyone's happy i mean

2:26:47 ↗ you're gonna it's a big improvement

2:26:48 ↗ project that you know we want to make

2:26:50 ↗ sure is right for everyone involved

2:26:52 ↗ making sure you get all the conduits

2:26:54 ↗ connecting

2:26:55 ↗ um things and um the way they want we

2:26:57 ↗ also need to relocate the power there's

2:26:59 ↗ existing overhead power

2:27:01 ↗ along the frontage that needs to be

2:27:03 ↗ relocated so that we have space to

2:27:05 ↗ actually build those road improvements

2:27:06 ↗ so that involves

2:27:08 ↗ um

2:27:10 ↗ pse and actually moving those lines um

2:27:13 ↗ they do the design of it and which is

2:27:15 ↗ why being conditioned before we can

2:27:17 ↗ start to get a permit is a little bit

2:27:20 ↗ troubling from the applicant side um i

2:27:23 ↗ don't i can't control pse and how

2:27:25 ↗ quickly they're going to do that design

2:27:27 ↗ um and samantha won't give us a permit

2:27:29 ↗ until we get through that process so um

2:27:32 ↗ it's it's something we're you know

2:27:34 ↗ 100 working on we know that that's a key

2:27:38 ↗ to getting this done the road

2:27:40 ↗ improvements if we started on them and

2:27:42 ↗ worked

2:27:43 ↗ continuously we think we could finish

2:27:45 ↗ them in about nine months um the high

2:27:47 ↗ school takes significantly longer than

2:27:49 ↗ that's built somewhere in the 16 to 20

2:27:52 ↗ month range

2:27:54 ↗ so there's a little bit of buffer where

2:27:56 ↗ we can be doing work on site working on

2:27:58 ↗ the high school and then starting on

2:28:01 ↗ those improvements but

2:28:03 ↗ obviously we can't open the school

2:28:05 ↗ without a functioning traffic system to

2:28:08 ↗ meet our sifa conditions

2:28:10 ↗ and as a result we we will have those

2:28:12 ↗ improvements done and dedicated to the

2:28:14 ↗ city prior to opening the school

2:28:16 ↗ and and todd i'm going to add on about

2:28:18 ↗ the the benefit of what the school

2:28:20 ↗ district is doing to the city for the

2:28:22 ↗ city of samamish um the code that we

2:28:25 ↗ were reviewing talks about building

2:28:27 ↗ improvements and then dedicating them to

2:28:29 ↗ this to a city whether it's city of

2:28:31 ↗ savannah or issaquah these are different

2:28:34 ↗ these are actually being built within

2:28:36 ↗ city right-of-way already so the city

2:28:39 ↗ already owns them so they have to

2:28:40 ↗ approve

2:28:42 ↗ what it is that we're doing

2:28:44 ↗ the improvement that has been proposed

2:28:46 ↗ is within what the long range goals are

2:28:50 ↗ for the city of samanage to widen all of

2:28:54 ↗ 228 and the rem the one remaining

2:28:57 ↗ section that has not yet been improved

2:29:00 ↗ out to at least five lanes

2:29:02 ↗ normally when a development would come

2:29:04 ↗ in it would build a half street

2:29:05 ↗ improvement so only half of the road and

2:29:07 ↗ then some other future development would

2:29:09 ↗ build the rest of what's in the long

2:29:11 ↗ range vision

2:29:13 ↗ the school district is building the full

2:29:15 ↗ width of this roadway for over 1700 feet

2:29:18 ↗ it's a huge chunk of then taking that

2:29:22 ↗ responsibility off of the city of

2:29:24 ↗ samamish so there's there's a big

2:29:27 ↗ benefit to the city of having this

2:29:29 ↗ project and constructing such a big

2:29:31 ↗ improvement

2:29:32 ↗ the inner local agreement that we're

2:29:34 ↗ talking about is that there will still

2:29:36 ↗ be a section

2:29:37 ↗ between

2:29:39 ↗ just north of 40th street and pine lake

2:29:41 ↗ road that is still the city of

2:29:42 ↗ sammamish's long range plan to widen

2:29:44 ↗ that out to meet the full width of that

2:29:48 ↗ of that road

2:29:49 ↗ um what they would like to they are

2:29:51 ↗ looking at their next funding round and

2:29:54 ↗ wondering whether or not if they were to

2:29:55 ↗ get some funding to widen that final

2:29:58 ↗ piece how that would be coordinated with

2:30:00 ↗ the city's with the school district

2:30:02 ↗ project so those are the types of things

2:30:04 ↗ that we're talking about um as as uh

2:30:07 ↗ todd said we are very close to having

2:30:10 ↗ them approve all of the details of

2:30:12 ↗ what's

2:30:13 ↗ in the school district element of it and

2:30:16 ↗ then they're still working on um whether

2:30:18 ↗ or not they can extend that and really

2:30:20 ↗ really leverage this project to finally

2:30:23 ↗ complete 228th up on the plateau

2:30:26 ↗ um and i would just um to circle back

2:30:29 ↗ slightly to commissioner dillon's as

2:30:32 ↗ well as chair brennan's questions

2:30:34 ↗ um

2:30:35 ↗ proposed

2:30:36 ↗ approval condition number 50 is the one

2:30:40 ↗ that requires

2:30:42 ↗ the roadways the pathways the utilities

2:30:45 ↗ and related improvements to be completed

2:30:47 ↗ for each phase

2:30:49 ↗ prior to certificate of occupancy and so

2:30:52 ↗ it's when the impact is generated

2:30:55 ↗ that the

2:30:57 ↗ improvements have to be completed and um

2:31:00 ↗ so i just direct you to condition 50

2:31:02 ↗ relative to that

2:31:05 ↗ great thanks for the additional

2:31:07 ↗ background and information and

2:31:10 ↗ pointing back to the condition

2:31:12 ↗ the reality is that the school

2:31:14 ↗ district's not going to proceed until

2:31:16 ↗ they've got a high level of assurance if

2:31:17 ↗ they've got what they need on the road

2:31:19 ↗ improvement because

2:31:20 ↗ sitting on a partially completed

2:31:22 ↗ building is

2:31:24 ↗ is too much too much risk so

2:31:27 ↗ i'm i'm

2:31:28 ↗ i'm satisfied with the answer thanks

2:31:31 ↗ are there other questions um

2:31:34 ↗ from the commission

2:31:42 ↗ i'm i'm seeing no additional questions

2:31:45 ↗ so um

2:31:47 ↗ just to be clear so once the public

2:31:50 ↗ hearing is closed on a cause of judicial

2:31:52 ↗ matter

2:31:53 ↗ no additional testimony can be taken so

2:31:56 ↗ the commission will be limited to

2:31:58 ↗ questions to staff only and then our

2:32:01 ↗ deliberations and finally voting when

2:32:03 ↗ we're ready uh to

2:32:05 ↗ move to that place so i want to make

2:32:07 ↗ sure before we close the public hearing

2:32:10 ↗ everybody feels that they

2:32:12 ↗ adequately

2:32:13 ↗ had their opportunity to ask questions

2:32:15 ↗ and get responses

2:32:17 ↗ if not we can continue to

2:32:20 ↗ share questions and concerns

2:32:22 ↗ amongst either commissioners um or with

2:32:24 ↗ the applicant with additional questions

2:32:26 ↗ so

2:32:27 ↗ um again wanna make sure we've exhausted

2:32:30 ↗ our opportunity for any questions that

2:32:32 ↗ anybody might have so there's anything

2:32:34 ↗ lingering because once we close the

2:32:35 ↗ hearing we've gotta move forward with

2:32:37 ↗ deliberation

2:32:39 ↗ we can ask staff for additional

2:32:42 ↗ information that's been presented

2:32:43 ↗ already if we want to look at something

2:32:46 ↗ but we won't be able to go back to the

2:32:47 ↗ applicant and ask for additional

2:32:48 ↗ information at that point

2:32:51 ↗ so um

2:32:54 ↗ last kind of a last call if there are

2:32:56 ↗ additional questions at this point

2:32:57 ↗ before we i

2:33:00 ↗ recommend we close the public hearing

2:33:07 ↗ okay i am

2:33:08 ↗ i am hearing none

2:33:11 ↗ um so you've asked your questions any

2:33:13 ↗ commissioner object to closing the

2:33:14 ↗ public hearing

2:33:19 ↗ i am seeing no objections

2:33:22 ↗ um

2:33:24 ↗ uh the the

2:33:25 ↗ hearing is now the public hearing is now

2:33:28 ↗ closed

2:33:29 ↗ so it is um now the record in front of

2:33:32 ↗ us that we begin our deliberation

2:33:36 ↗ any comments that commissioners have and

2:33:39 ↗ now is an opportunity to make comments

2:33:41 ↗ about the project

2:33:43 ↗ and then at some point we can move if

2:33:44 ↗ we're ready

2:33:46 ↗ to um any motion

2:33:50 ↗ to approve or

2:33:52 ↗ recommend approval or denial of the

2:33:53 ↗ project

2:33:55 ↗ so commissioners um any comments or

2:33:59 ↗ suggestions on how you want to organize

2:34:01 ↗ comments on the project

2:34:06 ↗ if you have a comment just type comment

2:34:07 ↗ in the

2:34:09 ↗ chat box

2:34:21 ↗ commissioner stanford

2:34:24 ↗ thank you mr chairman richard sanford uh

2:34:26 ↗ question uh regarding order i i have a

2:34:30 ↗ couple of amendments to the conditions

2:34:34 ↗ i'd like to propose is this the

2:34:35 ↗ appropriate time or

2:34:37 ↗ uh do they need to come after

2:34:40 ↗ a motion regarding approving or denying

2:34:42 ↗ the permits before us yeah i think the

2:34:45 ↗ the appropriate time to

2:34:47 ↗ submit modifications to the conditions

2:34:50 ↗ would be after we have a motion

2:34:52 ↗ um

2:34:53 ↗ we can begin with a motion if that's

2:34:55 ↗ where you would like to start you can

2:34:57 ↗ continue deliberations when there's a

2:34:58 ↗ motion and make amendments

2:35:00 ↗ to conditions or add conditions to the

2:35:02 ↗ motion

2:35:05 ↗ either way is fine

2:35:12 ↗ anybody have a preference on how to

2:35:14 ↗ proceed we can we can

2:35:16 ↗ make comments um

2:35:17 ↗ if you have

2:35:19 ↗ um

2:35:21 ↗ commissioner sanford i'm thinking that

2:35:22 ↗ commit conditions that you're talking

2:35:23 ↗ about with the

2:35:25 ↗ conditions that you were speaking about

2:35:27 ↗ earlier that's correct 38 and 39

2:35:30 ↗ okay

2:35:34 ↗ maybe to start with

2:35:36 ↗ general

2:35:37 ↗ comments

2:35:38 ↗ i would suggest maybe some general

2:35:40 ↗ comments

2:35:41 ↗ uh on your

2:35:43 ↗ um assessment

2:35:45 ↗ of the proposal

2:35:47 ↗ before we move to

2:35:48 ↗ emotion does anybody want to provide

2:35:51 ↗ kind of their general assessment of the

2:35:53 ↗ proposal

2:35:59 ↗ commissioner morgan

2:36:01 ↗ um yeah thank you sure brandon i

2:36:04 ↗ um

2:36:05 ↗ it's a first of all it's an amazing

2:36:08 ↗ amount of public input that we've had on

2:36:10 ↗ this project i don't think i can

2:36:12 ↗ remember

2:36:14 ↗ um in any project that we've worked on

2:36:16 ↗ that we've had this many public comments

2:36:19 ↗ come in and testimony to the um

2:36:23 ↗ the interest people have in their

2:36:24 ↗ community

2:36:25 ↗ and and people from both sides of the

2:36:27 ↗ approved don't approve kind of question

2:36:29 ↗ but

2:36:30 ↗ uh in general it seems to me that the

2:36:33 ↗ um

2:36:35 ↗ that

2:36:36 ↗ the staff has added enough

2:36:39 ↗ conditions and requirements to the

2:36:41 ↗ project to get it to meet

2:36:43 ↗ the requirements of both the sdp and the

2:36:48 ↗ and the msp

2:36:50 ↗ um process in terms of what we can

2:36:52 ↗ control and that there are things that

2:36:55 ↗ are definitely out of our control in

2:36:57 ↗ terms of saying whether it's

2:36:59 ↗ you know

2:37:00 ↗ zoning's appropriate or

2:37:03 ↗ some off side effects things like that

2:37:05 ↗ that that aren't within our purview but

2:37:08 ↗ in general in terms of what is within

2:37:10 ↗ our purview

2:37:11 ↗ it seems like it's been covered

2:37:20 ↗ are there other commissioners who would

2:37:22 ↗ like to

2:37:24 ↗ share their comments about the

2:37:26 ↗ generally about the proposal

2:37:34 ↗ commissioner sanford

2:37:37 ↗ i'd like to say that

2:37:40 ↗ unfortunately i am

2:37:42 ↗ still not completely comfortable with

2:37:44 ↗ the agreements regarding 228 28th avenue

2:37:49 ↗ southeast

2:37:50 ↗ being as it is a high level

2:37:53 ↗ requirement of the master site plan

2:37:55 ↗ contents

2:37:56 ↗ however

2:37:58 ↗ i am persuaded that there is enough

2:38:03 ↗ information

2:38:04 ↗ that may not be readily accessible but

2:38:07 ↗ that does exist

2:38:09 ↗ within

2:38:10 ↗ the applicant's

2:38:12 ↗ submittal

2:38:13 ↗ and within the arguments that we've

2:38:15 ↗ heard tonight that

2:38:17 ↗ that i can go with it and

2:38:20 ↗ i think that again uh

2:38:22 ↗ to agree with commissioner morgan very

2:38:25 ↗ impressive the engagement of the

2:38:26 ↗ community very rewarding very fulfilling

2:38:29 ↗ to see that

2:38:30 ↗ um

2:38:32 ↗ and i guess lastly uh

2:38:34 ↗ it's not 100

2:38:37 ↗ in my opinion but the perfect can't be

2:38:39 ↗ the enemy of the good and

2:38:41 ↗ in this case i think it's the common

2:38:42 ↗ good

2:38:45 ↗ thank you commissioner sanford are there

2:38:47 ↗ other commissioners that

2:38:50 ↗ like uh to offer comment at this point

2:39:03 ↗ thank you johnny this has been an

2:39:07 ↗ amazing

2:39:08 ↗ amount of public input i've been on

2:39:10 ↗ multiple projects i've never seen this

2:39:12 ↗ before

2:39:13 ↗ um

2:39:14 ↗ the staff work has been impressive it's

2:39:18 ↗ most of my questions have been um

2:39:20 ↗ answered just through through the

2:39:22 ↗ commentary from from lucy and and from

2:39:25 ↗ the applicants

2:39:26 ↗ i appreciate this this is a difficult

2:39:28 ↗ decision because there's so many wild

2:39:30 ↗ cards in this but i

2:39:32 ↗ i do think that

2:39:33 ↗ there's been enough staff work that

2:39:35 ↗ addresses my concerns

2:39:38 ↗ thank you

2:39:39 ↗ thank you commissioner

2:39:46 ↗ i'll um

2:39:48 ↗ commissioner

2:39:49 ↗ oh i'm sorry

2:39:51 ↗ go ahead uh can you see yourself

2:39:53 ↗ right this is richard so i've had a

2:39:55 ↗ uh

2:39:57 ↗ i it always to me is is frustrating to

2:40:00 ↗ uh

2:40:01 ↗ work with the public and try to separate

2:40:03 ↗ out the things that the development

2:40:05 ↗ commission has responsibility to an

2:40:07 ↗ opportunity to deal with and what they

2:40:10 ↗ can't and i think that

2:40:12 ↗ it was real interesting in listening to

2:40:13 ↗ the comments from the public as to

2:40:16 ↗ some of the things that they

2:40:18 ↗ they just didn't like but they weren't

2:40:20 ↗ in the purview of the of the commission

2:40:22 ↗ so

2:40:23 ↗ uh i do as well respect the fire out of

2:40:26 ↗ the the quantity of confidence from the

2:40:29 ↗ from the public uh i think that the

2:40:32 ↗ the the the discussion earlier today

2:40:35 ↗ when when we first started that talked

2:40:37 ↗ about uh really separating out those

2:40:40 ↗ those things that we could control and

2:40:42 ↗ things that we couldn't if that's the

2:40:43 ↗ way to say it was really valuable and i

2:40:46 ↗ hope that the members of the public

2:40:48 ↗ could

2:40:48 ↗ were able to listen and hear hear that

2:40:50 ↗ because it was really vital i think the

2:40:52 ↗ staff did a great job i think the

2:40:54 ↗ applicant did a really great job and

2:40:56 ↗ it's always a little difficult when you

2:40:58 ↗ get experts from both sides

2:41:01 ↗ questioning the validity or the

2:41:03 ↗ capability of the others but

2:41:04 ↗ in in all it was a good job so i

2:41:06 ↗ appreciate it thank you

2:41:10 ↗ thank your commissioner so uh

2:41:12 ↗ commissioner dillon

2:41:15 ↗ thank you

2:41:16 ↗ chair brennan

2:41:17 ↗ patty dillon um

2:41:19 ↗ i i

2:41:20 ↗ i agree i think with with the other

2:41:23 ↗ members of the commission that um there

2:41:26 ↗ there are parts of of this project that

2:41:28 ↗ that i am a little bit nervous about i

2:41:30 ↗ think

2:41:31 ↗ um

2:41:32 ↗ most of of those elements though are are

2:41:35 ↗ out of our control and thank you to

2:41:37 ↗ staff for

2:41:38 ↗ um for the focused report and

2:41:41 ↗ and pointing us forward toward

2:41:44 ↗ what we are

2:41:46 ↗ charged with looking at here

2:41:48 ↗ and

2:41:49 ↗ also

2:41:50 ↗ i

2:41:51 ↗ i'm hearing from the applicant a

2:41:54 ↗ commitment to

2:41:55 ↗ um

2:41:56 ↗ to hearing the public comment and and

2:41:59 ↗ addressing addressing those things that

2:42:01 ↗ that they can within the scope of of

2:42:04 ↗ their own project so

2:42:06 ↗ um with that i think i'm i'm comfortable

2:42:08 ↗ moving forward as well

2:42:11 ↗ thank you commissioner dylan i'll i'll

2:42:13 ↗ just offer a few comments um

2:42:16 ↗ aligned with what i'm hearing from the

2:42:17 ↗ other commissioners but first just to

2:42:20 ↗ thank everybody i think that's been

2:42:22 ↗ involved with this for the significant

2:42:23 ↗ time uh

2:42:25 ↗ financial investment uh and

2:42:28 ↗ emotion i think uh that's been invested

2:42:30 ↗ in advancing this project

2:42:33 ↗ these are important community

2:42:35 ↗ facilities and they're always difficult

2:42:38 ↗ to cite i'm thinking back at

2:42:42 ↗ the issaquah high school expansion

2:42:44 ↗ project

2:42:45 ↗ and middle school and the

2:42:48 ↗ challenges that those presented these

2:42:50 ↗ are even more significant

2:42:52 ↗ um uh there

2:42:54 ↗ are limits as

2:42:56 ↗ others have said to what the commission

2:42:58 ↗ has the authority to to

2:43:00 ↗ respond to

2:43:02 ↗ um i think what has occurred though as i

2:43:05 ↗ think back at the community conference

2:43:07 ↗ that this project has changed since the

2:43:09 ↗ community conference

2:43:11 ↗ the buffers have been expanded there's

2:43:13 ↗ some additional adjustments to the site

2:43:16 ↗ layout

2:43:17 ↗ some architectural changes to the

2:43:19 ↗ buildings

2:43:20 ↗ so there has been influence

2:43:22 ↗ on this property is though however zoned

2:43:25 ↗ for a school facility and that's

2:43:28 ↗ um again outside the purview of the

2:43:30 ↗ commission to make a determination as to

2:43:32 ↗ whether or not this is an appropriate

2:43:33 ↗ use that decision has already been made

2:43:36 ↗ um so we're just working to try to

2:43:38 ↗ ensure that we can make it fit as as

2:43:41 ↗ well as possible as we can

2:43:45 ↗ in this particular

2:43:47 ↗ location

2:43:49 ↗ and minimize the impacts there's there's

2:43:51 ↗ no way to eliminate impacts when you're

2:43:53 ↗ talking about the development but

2:43:56 ↗ minimize them i think some

2:43:57 ↗ significant progress to do that has been

2:43:59 ↗ made and i appreciate the work of the

2:44:02 ↗ design team and and the staff and the

2:44:04 ↗ community in making those changes happen

2:44:07 ↗ um

2:44:08 ↗ but i am um

2:44:11 ↗ satisfied that we have aligned with the

2:44:15 ↗ parts of the city code that we're

2:44:17 ↗ obligated to ensure

2:44:19 ↗ that there's compliance with and i think

2:44:20 ↗ it's been an exhaustive amount of

2:44:22 ↗ information provided so

2:44:24 ↗ i am also ready to

2:44:26 ↗ proceed forward

2:44:28 ↗ so we will need a motion um to take the

2:44:31 ↗ next step here if we are uh prepared

2:44:33 ↗ commissioner soha or commissioner silva

2:44:36 ↗ chairman brennan i i wanted to make one

2:44:38 ↗ more comment that i forgot uh

2:44:40 ↗ i've been a member of the of the

2:44:42 ↗ commission a couple on a couple of

2:44:44 ↗ different school expansions and

2:44:46 ↗ different things and

2:44:47 ↗ i think that the issaquah school

2:44:49 ↗ district staff deserves

2:44:51 ↗ a certain

2:44:54 ↗ note of appreciation because while some

2:44:56 ↗ of the public didn't feel like their

2:44:58 ↗ comments or concerns were being

2:45:00 ↗ addressed i thought they they really

2:45:02 ↗ exercised a pretty good amount of

2:45:04 ↗ flexibility in trying to accommodate

2:45:06 ↗ those just those uh that input and so

2:45:10 ↗ i just wanted to say that i thought they

2:45:11 ↗ did a good job

2:45:13 ↗ right

2:45:14 ↗ thank you

2:45:15 ↗ commissioner morgan

2:45:18 ↗ mr chair i move that the development

2:45:19 ↗ commission recommend approval to the

2:45:21 ↗ city council

2:45:22 ↗ for the master site plan site

2:45:24 ↗ development permit and administrative

2:45:26 ↗ adjustment of standards for for

2:45:28 ↗ providence heights high school and

2:45:30 ↗ elementary school permits number

2:45:32 ↗ sdp 20-001

2:45:36 ↗ ssp msp 20-0001

2:45:42 ↗ aas twenty dash zero zero zero one two

2:45:46 ↗ aas twenty one dash zero zero zero zero

2:45:49 ↗ one

2:45:50 ↗ aas

2:45:51 ↗ 21-002

2:45:54 ↗ aas

2:45:57 ↗ 21-005 and aas 21-006

2:46:03 ↗ as described in the value between the

2:46:05 ↗ evaluated in the staff report

2:46:08 ↗ dated february 16 2022 with attachments

2:46:11 ↗ one through

2:46:12 ↗ 110

2:46:14 ↗ which includes the briefing response

2:46:15 ↗ memo attachment 107.

2:46:17 ↗ dated march 11 2022

2:46:20 ↗ new attachments 111-114

2:46:24 ↗ added this evening march 16 2022

2:46:27 ↗ and project drawings and reports

2:46:29 ↗ received september 25th

2:46:31 ↗ 2020 and all subsequent submittals up to

2:46:35 ↗ march 16

2:46:37 ↗ and subject to the conditions therein

2:46:41 ↗ is there a second

2:46:46 ↗ second

2:46:47 ↗ seconded by commissioner soha

2:46:50 ↗ a discussion

2:46:53 ↗ um on the motion

2:46:56 ↗ mr chair i would like to

2:46:59 ↗ propose a condition 57 if i could

2:47:03 ↗ um

2:47:04 ↗ a real quick check i

2:47:06 ↗ don't know that we've officially added

2:47:08 ↗ condition 56 i think that was a

2:47:10 ↗ recommended condition from staff so

2:47:13 ↗ we may want to

2:47:15 ↗ add that

2:47:16 ↗ condition

2:47:19 ↗ as well so yours you can either be 56 or

2:47:22 ↗ 57

2:47:23 ↗ we have to renumber

2:47:25 ↗ so um

2:47:28 ↗ make your motion

2:47:30 ↗ uh i don't have the 56 up to it's up on

2:47:33 ↗ the screen oh they're sorry

2:47:37 ↗ thank you uh mr chair move we add

2:47:41 ↗ uh condition 56. if fiscal school

2:47:43 ↗ district cannot use the eastman area for

2:47:45 ↗ emergency access as proposed in

2:47:46 ↗ attachment 97

2:47:48 ↗ then the district must go through the

2:47:50 ↗ msp and sdp amendment processes

2:47:53 ↗ in imc 18

2:47:55 ↗ 18.04 0.530

2:47:58 ↗ and imc 18.04.450

2:48:01 ↗ for either a major or minor amendment as

2:48:03 ↗ determined by the criteria they're in

2:48:06 ↗ is there a second

2:48:09 ↗ seconded by commissioner dillon

2:48:13 ↗ discussion on the proposed amendment to

2:48:16 ↗ the main motion

2:48:21 ↗ hearing a good idea

2:48:25 ↗ maker of the motion says it's a good

2:48:26 ↗ idea i would agree that i think that was

2:48:29 ↗ an area that i had some concern with as

2:48:31 ↗ well so

2:48:32 ↗ um

2:48:34 ↗ uh call for a vote and and we can just

2:48:36 ↗ um i think i can see everybody so we can

2:48:39 ↗ do this by a raise of hands

2:48:41 ↗ um so all those in favor of the of the

2:48:44 ↗ motion please raise your hand

2:48:47 ↗ and i've got a unanimous vote on that

2:48:50 ↗ motion

2:48:52 ↗ so the main motion has been amended with

2:48:54 ↗ the addition of of condition number 56.

2:48:58 ↗ mr chair

2:48:59 ↗ i recommend um i move that we add

2:49:02 ↗ condition 57

2:49:04 ↗ that would state the 4 foot tall

2:49:06 ↗ chain-link fence extending west from the

2:49:09 ↗ softball field fence

2:49:11 ↗ changed to a six foot tall chain-link

2:49:13 ↗ fence

2:49:15 ↗ and the chain-link fence on the south

2:49:16 ↗ side of the school bus driveway

2:49:19 ↗ shall be extended to the access road

2:49:23 ↗ is there a second

2:49:26 ↗ second

2:49:28 ↗ segmented by commissioner soha

2:49:31 ↗ discussion

2:49:36 ↗ and

2:49:37 ↗ if people remember i i think the

2:49:38 ↗ applicant had

2:49:40 ↗ suggested they first thought it was a

2:49:42 ↗ six-foot fence but suggested they were

2:49:44 ↗ amenable to both of those changes and my

2:49:46 ↗ thought in this is just to provide

2:49:49 ↗ not to provide i guess to prevent sort

2:49:51 ↗ of an easy

2:49:53 ↗ if you're at a football game hop over

2:49:54 ↗ that four foot fence to head into the

2:49:56 ↗ woods and

2:49:59 ↗ and maybe over towards uh somewhere

2:50:00 ↗ where you shouldn't be going

2:50:04 ↗ okay

2:50:05 ↗ um any other discussion um lucia can you

2:50:08 ↗ is it possible for you to

2:50:11 ↗ add that condition

2:50:14 ↗ uh i don't know

2:50:15 ↗ commissioner morgan read that pretty

2:50:17 ↗ quickly i don't know if you captured

2:50:18 ↗ that i didn't and i was sometimes uh he

2:50:22 ↗ has already typed it and i was hoping he

2:50:24 ↗ might be able to drop it in the chat if

2:50:26 ↗ that was the case

2:50:27 ↗ yeah i'll type it up in the chat right

2:50:29 ↗ now

2:50:30 ↗ okay thank you

2:50:35 ↗ my apologies you you usually are ahead

2:50:38 ↗ of me

2:50:40 ↗ it's fine we'll get a rhythm going here

2:50:50 ↗ we may need to bring up the while

2:50:52 ↗ commissioner morgan is typing we may

2:50:54 ↗ need to go bring up the original

2:50:56 ↗ conditions

2:50:58 ↗ for potential edits as well

2:51:00 ↗ i have them available all right

2:51:36 ↗ just want to make sure we give him

2:51:37 ↗ enough time here to type the condition

2:51:39 ↗ we don't want to have him mistake it and

2:51:40 ↗ have a fence running down the 50-yard

2:51:42 ↗ line

2:51:59 ↗ any typos you can play my high school

2:52:01 ↗ typing teacher so

2:52:04 ↗ great

2:52:06 ↗ so you can drop those into the chat and

2:52:09 ↗ then lucy can cut and paste and that boy

2:52:11 ↗ very efficient well done

2:52:18 ↗ so any additional so everybody have a

2:52:20 ↗ chance to take a look

2:52:32 ↗ uh was there the potential there were if

2:52:34 ↗ i remember just a quick discussion on

2:52:36 ↗ the um on the motion

2:52:38 ↗ on the act to the access road where

2:52:40 ↗ there was comments from the

2:52:43 ↗ applicant team about significant trees

2:52:46 ↗ that were there

2:52:47 ↗ is that

2:52:49 ↗ we don't want to want to accomplish that

2:52:51 ↗ condition we don't want to force them to

2:52:52 ↗ remove any additional vegetation at

2:52:54 ↗ least significant vegetation

2:52:57 ↗ correct and and i was hoping this could

2:52:59 ↗ just it could even just run along the

2:53:01 ↗ the parking stalls

2:53:04 ↗ okay that are on that bus site

2:53:06 ↗ um

2:53:09 ↗ okay

2:53:10 ↗ yeah

2:53:11 ↗ does that agree would not want to lose

2:53:13 ↗ trees

2:53:14 ↗ no

2:53:15 ↗ any any other comments

2:53:18 ↗ or discussion on the

2:53:20 ↗ motion

2:53:21 ↗ to add condition 57. can we assure you

2:53:25 ↗ i guess uh

2:53:27 ↗ is

2:53:28 ↗ is this something that

2:53:31 ↗ needs to be stipulated as a condition of

2:53:33 ↗ the permit at this point or is this

2:53:35 ↗ something that

2:53:36 ↗ is also part of

2:53:39 ↗ more detailed plan review later i'm just

2:53:41 ↗ wondering without complete information

2:53:43 ↗ um about

2:53:45 ↗ why they put the four foot fence there

2:53:48 ↗ um i the

2:53:49 ↗ the extending the one to the access road

2:53:51 ↗ uh makes makes a lot of sense to me it's

2:53:54 ↗ it's

2:53:55 ↗ it's the other one um

2:53:57 ↗ and

2:53:58 ↗ you know we

2:53:59 ↗ briefly briefly discussed that um this

2:54:02 ↗ evening

2:54:03 ↗ and

2:54:04 ↗ just wondering if we are

2:54:07 ↗ this has to be

2:54:08 ↗ established at this point as part of

2:54:10 ↗ this process or if there's another

2:54:14 ↗ point in the review that may be more

2:54:16 ↗ appropriate

2:54:21 ↗ i guess my thought was was part of this

2:54:23 ↗ that that one fence uh that's at the

2:54:26 ↗ north end of the football field by the

2:54:28 ↗ softball field

2:54:30 ↗ that's one area where

2:54:32 ↗ it's there's not too much distance

2:54:34 ↗ between that and the

2:54:36 ↗ the providence point

2:54:37 ↗ residences

2:54:39 ↗ and that it would be and just a four

2:54:41 ↗ foot fence there creates

2:54:44 ↗ um

2:54:45 ↗ it's not much for somebody to just hop

2:54:47 ↗ over and and uh head through the woods

2:54:50 ↗ to

2:54:51 ↗ or those new plantings because a lot of

2:54:53 ↗ those will be the new plantings that go

2:54:55 ↗ in there

2:54:56 ↗ uh and right over the other friends but

2:54:59 ↗ so it's i guess my in my mind it's it's

2:55:02 ↗ one way to help try to ensure

2:55:05 ↗ a little more

2:55:07 ↗ safety for the residents nearby

2:55:10 ↗ and and i don't think it it causes any

2:55:13 ↗ harm because nobody's supposed to be in

2:55:15 ↗ those

2:55:16 ↗ that area anyway

2:55:21 ↗ just as a point point of order to

2:55:24 ↗ commissioner uh dylan's question

2:55:26 ↗ as there was a specific fence

2:55:29 ↗ exhibit that showed heights and

2:55:31 ↗ locations while it was called

2:55:34 ↗ preliminary i think if the commission's

2:55:37 ↗ intent

2:55:38 ↗ is

2:55:39 ↗ for safety reasons for instance

2:55:43 ↗ to uh

2:55:45 ↗ make this change that it then clear

2:55:49 ↗ then corrects

2:55:50 ↗ an exhibit that is part of the record

2:55:53 ↗ and that would be the reason to proceed

2:55:58 ↗ with the condition

2:56:00 ↗ okay thanks lucy

2:56:03 ↗ any other discussion on the motion

2:56:08 ↗ hearing none all those in favor

2:56:10 ↗ raise your hand

2:56:14 ↗ and that's a unanimous so we don't need

2:56:17 ↗ to say who's opposed so we have

2:56:18 ↗ unanimous uh approval of the motion

2:56:21 ↗ so we're back to the main motion as

2:56:23 ↗ amended

2:56:24 ↗ are there any other amendments to the

2:56:27 ↗ motion

2:56:43 ↗ commissioner sanford i'm not sure if you

2:56:45 ↗ wanted to offer any additional

2:56:47 ↗ adjustments based on your previous

2:56:48 ↗ comments are you satisfied with the

2:56:50 ↗ responses that you receive

2:56:52 ↗ no uh thanks mr chairman uh i i would

2:56:56 ↗ like to propose amendments to two

2:56:57 ↗ conditions uh 37 and are they i think

2:57:01 ↗ they're 38 and 39 i guess

2:57:04 ↗ yeah and uh lucy i do have uh the text

2:57:07 ↗ to put into

2:57:09 ↗ the chat box and i could talk through

2:57:12 ↗ the changes that i've made if that would

2:57:14 ↗ work

2:57:15 ↗ if you wouldn't mind dropping them in

2:57:17 ↗ and i'll go ahead and put them on the

2:57:18 ↗ screen to make them visible to both the

2:57:20 ↗ commissioners and the

2:57:22 ↗ public

2:57:25 ↗ and i would uh suggest that you make a

2:57:29 ↗ motion for the amendments and do one of

2:57:31 ↗ the do do each condition as a separate

2:57:33 ↗ motion i think or

2:57:35 ↗ uh simplicity for us

2:57:37 ↗ okay uh so i would like to move to amend

2:57:41 ↗ uh condition

2:57:44 ↗ 38

2:57:46 ↗ as proposed and i will

2:57:48 ↗ enter the text for that into the chat

2:57:51 ↗ box

2:57:53 ↗ okay

2:58:01 ↗ we're just starting to touch on

2:58:02 ↗ just starting to catch on to how to do

2:58:04 ↗ this virtual

2:58:06 ↗ efficiently and then we're going to be

2:58:08 ↗ back in person i can remember how we

2:58:10 ↗ operate in a face-to-face environment

2:58:12 ↗ yeah and and then there's the problem of

2:58:14 ↗ identifying the changes that i made

2:58:16 ↗ because i can't put change marking in

2:58:17 ↗ there so i i think i'll just talk that

2:58:20 ↗ um

2:58:22 ↗ end of first sentence

2:58:24 ↗ uh it says in addition to any monitoring

2:58:26 ↗ required by

2:58:28 ↗ condition 40 i think that has been

2:58:30 ↗ rightly changed to 39

2:58:33 ↗ but i'm going to begin

2:58:35 ↗ 39 with that so so i struck that here

2:58:40 ↗ and i also struck

2:58:42 ↗ at the property line south of the bus

2:58:44 ↗ loop because it seemed to be redundant

2:58:48 ↗ to me

2:58:49 ↗ with the

2:58:50 ↗ location

2:58:52 ↗ southern property line south of the

2:58:53 ↗ stadium

2:58:54 ↗ and those are the only two changes i

2:58:56 ↗ mean there

2:58:59 ↗ and this is condition 38.

2:59:01 ↗ 38 correct

2:59:08 ↗ is there any discussion or

2:59:11 ↗ commission second that i'll second that

2:59:13 ↗ emotion that motion

2:59:17 ↗ oops

2:59:18 ↗ in there thank you for correcting my

2:59:20 ↗ misstep there commissioner morgan okay

2:59:22 ↗ uh so we have a second uh commissioner

2:59:24 ↗ morgan so is there a discussion

2:59:32 ↗ we'll give everybody just a minute here

2:59:34 ↗ to

2:59:35 ↗ compare the language if you've got

2:59:37 ↗ that's what i was working on get the

2:59:38 ↗ language up to compare

2:59:40 ↗ yeah i'm i'm attempting to do it and

2:59:43 ↗ track changes but i'm having difficulty

2:59:46 ↗ identifying where the changes

3:00:09 ↗ that's right yeah those are the changes

3:00:14 ↗ is that the totality of the change

3:00:18 ↗ noise shall be monitored and then i

3:00:20 ↗ struck at the property line south of the

3:00:23 ↗ bus loop

3:00:32 ↗ because i think that was redundant with

3:00:34 ↗ the southern property line south of the

3:00:36 ↗ stadium the last location there

3:00:52 ↗ does that look correct in terms that's

3:00:54 ↗ correct yes

3:01:00 ↗ um

3:01:01 ↗ if

3:01:02 ↗ if you remind me asking in in looking at

3:01:04 ↗ the at the site plan the south line

3:01:06 ↗ south of the stadium would be about

3:01:08 ↗ midpoint of the south property line

3:01:11 ↗ [Music]

3:01:12 ↗ where south of the bus loop would be

3:01:15 ↗ closer to 228th

3:01:19 ↗ um so is just one point do we think just

3:01:22 ↗ one point on the south line is

3:01:23 ↗ sufficient

3:01:31 ↗ yeah it was hard for me to tell whether

3:01:33 ↗ that was intentional or an oversight

3:01:36 ↗ we're going to be doing it south of the

3:01:37 ↗ stadium and then south of the campus

3:01:40 ↗ south end of the campus

3:01:44 ↗ lucy do you have any thoughts on that

3:01:46 ↗ the way it was originally written

3:01:49 ↗ or christina

3:01:53 ↗ so

3:01:54 ↗ originally we had intended for two

3:01:57 ↗ separate monitoring locations along that

3:02:00 ↗ south property line

3:02:02 ↗ this is i think particularly important

3:02:05 ↗ because of where some of the providence

3:02:09 ↗ point residences are located

3:02:12 ↗ and so that was why we had

3:02:14 ↗ the two separate monitoring locations

3:02:16 ↗ there

3:02:20 ↗ so to clarify

3:02:22 ↗ do we wanna instead of having the

3:02:24 ↗ the line or lines um

3:02:27 ↗ and

3:02:28 ↗ say something like along the southern

3:02:30 ↗ property line south of the stadium and

3:02:33 ↗ along the bus loop

3:02:41 ↗ or we could certainly just uh reverse

3:02:43 ↗ that the change right there it was hard

3:02:45 ↗ for me to tell if that was redundant or

3:02:47 ↗ intended

3:02:51 ↗ well well or or just um

3:02:54 ↗ yeah i think as as

3:02:56 ↗ commercial dylan said suggested south of

3:02:59 ↗ the stadium

3:03:00 ↗ and

3:03:02 ↗ south of the bus loop

3:03:05 ↗ fine

3:03:06 ↗ [Music]

3:03:07 ↗ so i would take that as a friendly

3:03:10 ↗ amendment then are you accepting that as

3:03:12 ↗ a

3:03:13 ↗ friendly amendment to the motion to add

3:03:15 ↗ the and south of the bus loop uh

3:03:17 ↗ commissioner sanford correct

3:03:21 ↗ okay for clarification okay

3:03:26 ↗ any other discussion on the motion

3:03:32 ↗ okay we will vote on the motion all

3:03:34 ↗ those in favor please raise your hand

3:03:38 ↗ in any opposed i cannot attract

3:03:40 ↗ everybody anybody opposed

3:03:43 ↗ i'm hearing hearing that

3:03:46 ↗ okay so the motion passes unanimously

3:03:50 ↗ are there additional amendments to the

3:03:53 ↗ main motion

3:03:57 ↗ commissioner sanford yes i do have one

3:03:59 ↗ more and that would be an amendment to

3:04:02 ↗ condition 39

3:04:04 ↗ and again lucy i can put the text in the

3:04:07 ↗ chat

3:04:19 ↗ i think will be helpful if we do the

3:04:21 ↗ strike draft on this one that was once

3:04:23 ↗ we got it up that was helpful to do that

3:04:26 ↗ so we can just take a minute to

3:04:28 ↗ allow lucy to put the strike draft in

3:04:36 ↗ i'm not sure that it's taking all this

3:04:38 ↗ one unfortunately we'll see

3:04:46 ↗ try this one more time maybe it's going

3:04:48 ↗ to be two copy pastes

3:04:51 ↗ um if necessary i could also paste in

3:04:54 ↗ the original condition and you could

3:04:56 ↗ talk me through the edits

3:04:58 ↗ yeah i i think

3:05:01 ↗ i think it may have maxed

3:05:07 ↗ okay let's um

3:05:10 ↗ yeah it didn't accept all my characters

3:05:12 ↗ and so i will

3:05:14 ↗ add

3:05:16 ↗ the characters beyond that

3:05:19 ↗ um it may be easier at this point to if

3:05:22 ↗ you don't mind telling me what the uh

3:05:24 ↗ your proposed edits are to the condition

3:05:27 ↗ and and allow me to do the track changes

3:05:30 ↗ or we can do that sure

3:05:35 ↗ can you drop a space in there at the 39

3:05:38 ↗ at the bullet there so they give us a

3:05:40 ↗ little separation and text

3:05:42 ↗ between them between

3:05:44 ↗ 38

3:05:46 ↗ make a space there

3:05:48 ↗ you just hit return

3:05:53 ↗ yeah hey thank you that's

3:05:55 ↗ my eyes are starting to go funny it's

3:05:57 ↗ getting late

3:06:01 ↗ okay i can walk through the changes

3:06:04 ↗ there if you like

3:06:05 ↗ i'm ready when you are

3:06:07 ↗ okay so

3:06:08 ↗ uh an insert it was actually moved from

3:06:12 ↗ condition 38 it begins in addition to

3:06:14 ↗ the monitoring required by condition 38.

3:06:17 ↗ i sent i yeah

3:06:27 ↗ all right

3:06:31 ↗ put an underline

3:06:32 ↗ i am i i am trying my i have too many

3:06:36 ↗ screens is what the problem is

3:06:38 ↗ there you go sorry

3:06:40 ↗ no that's all right i'm just you can't

3:06:42 ↗ tell what i'm trying to do

3:06:45 ↗ and then all the rest of that sentence

3:06:46 ↗ left the same through whack 173 60 0 40

3:06:50 ↗ period

3:06:51 ↗ then i changed the word verification to

3:06:54 ↗ monitoring because that's what was used

3:06:56 ↗ in the other

3:06:57 ↗ condition

3:07:02 ↗ and now for consistency and this may be

3:07:05 ↗ a point of discussion

3:07:06 ↗ monitoring shall occur at least twice

3:07:09 ↗ instead of once per academic quarter

3:07:23 ↗ and then the rest of that sentence is

3:07:25 ↗ left the same through amplified noise

3:07:27 ↗ sources

3:07:29 ↗ and then i added a sentence that may be

3:07:31 ↗ a point of discussion

3:07:32 ↗ monitoring during fall academic order

3:07:39 ↗ shall occur during varsity football

3:07:40 ↗ games period

3:07:47 ↗ and then

3:07:49 ↗ the next sentence left the same all the

3:07:51 ↗ way through baseball outfield comma

3:07:57 ↗ okay

3:07:58 ↗ and now i was trying to approximate the

3:08:00 ↗ same

3:08:01 ↗ locations we had

3:08:04 ↗ in the previous conditions so

3:08:07 ↗ if we could just copy in what we had

3:08:09 ↗ said in the previous condition

3:08:12 ↗ that's what i was trying to match there

3:08:19 ↗ making sure that we included the western

3:08:21 ↗ property line in the vicinity elementary

3:08:23 ↗ school building in portables

3:08:42 ↗ and then finally

3:08:44 ↗ after south of the stadium

3:08:48 ↗ replace the final sentence noise

3:08:50 ↗ monitoring report shall be furnished to

3:08:53 ↗ the city of issaquah upon request

3:08:56 ↗ with a sentence with two sentences which

3:08:59 ↗ i could put into the chat if you prefer

3:09:01 ↗ maybe a little quicker okay i wouldn't

3:09:04 ↗ mind that

3:09:09 ↗ and lucy one note where it says uh noise

3:09:12 ↗ shall be monitored

3:09:13 ↗ at the

3:09:14 ↗ [Music]

3:09:15 ↗ i think the athlete can come out as well

3:09:20 ↗ um

3:09:21 ↗ in this sentence right right below there

3:09:24 ↗ where it says at monitor

3:09:27 ↗ yeah

3:09:28 ↗ thank you welcome and then in the first

3:09:31 ↗ sentence you've spelled monitoring

3:09:33 ↗ incorrectly

3:09:36 ↗ i love typing with an audience

3:09:41 ↗ that would be a scribner's air we could

3:09:43 ↗ fix later too

3:09:46 ↗ you're better than the computer is yeah

3:09:49 ↗ actually then

3:09:53 ↗ okay and those are all the changes yes

3:09:55 ↗ period

3:10:01 ↗ so the substantive changes i guess are

3:10:03 ↗ twice per quarter instead of once

3:10:05 ↗ uh we have to do it during fall at the

3:10:08 ↗ during varsity football games

3:10:16 ↗ i'll second this motion

3:10:22 ↗ so motion seconded by commissioner

3:10:24 ↗ morgan

3:10:25 ↗ discussion

3:10:27 ↗ on the

3:10:28 ↗ on the motion which are edits to

3:10:31 ↗ condition number 39.

3:10:36 ↗ i think richard's done a great job

3:10:42 ↗ hearing no additional discussion

3:10:45 ↗ i have something

3:10:46 ↗ oh sorry

3:10:48 ↗ do do we know for sure that the new high

3:10:51 ↗ school will have a football team i mean

3:10:53 ↗ the other is high schools do

3:10:55 ↗ but here we're stipulating that it would

3:10:57 ↗ have to be during varsity football games

3:11:00 ↗ do we need a

3:11:03 ↗ some kind of condition on that

3:11:11 ↗ comma if applicable

3:11:12 ↗ in fact yeah i think that would work

3:11:15 ↗ if applicable or are you

3:11:18 ↗ wanting to propose an alternate an

3:11:20 ↗ equivalent alternative

3:11:25 ↗ i i mean i think the the idea would be

3:11:28 ↗ that we do still want the monitoring to

3:11:30 ↗ occur even if there

3:11:33 ↗ are not

3:11:34 ↗ two varsity football games um to to do

3:11:37 ↗ it at

3:11:38 ↗ um

3:11:44 ↗ and of course the idea here is to try to

3:11:46 ↗ get at what we might assume would be the

3:11:49 ↗ loudest event

3:11:56 ↗ so you could um if that's the

3:11:59 ↗ um

3:12:00 ↗ outcome which

3:12:01 ↗ i understand it could be monitoring

3:12:05 ↗ you could say during

3:12:10 ↗ during

3:12:12 ↗ events or events or events

3:12:15 ↗ generating

3:12:16 ↗ anticipated to generate the highest

3:12:18 ↗ level of

3:12:20 ↗ noise

3:12:22 ↗ so what they're doing is it's a it's a

3:12:24 ↗ qualifier to says instead of a football

3:12:27 ↗ game it's during an event anticipated to

3:12:30 ↗ generate the highest level of noise

3:12:34 ↗ maybe and that could apply

3:12:36 ↗ that could apply for all year round too

3:12:40 ↗ and i don't know if that accomplishes um

3:12:42 ↗ since this is commissioner sanford's

3:12:46 ↗ motion

3:12:48 ↗ what we're doing here needs to be

3:12:50 ↗ acceptable to issue stanford right right

3:12:54 ↗ now

3:12:54 ↗ sure i think that's good because we're

3:12:56 ↗ making a subjective judgment anyway

3:12:58 ↗ regarding varsity football games so this

3:13:00 ↗ is really getting at the same

3:13:03 ↗ at the same requirement or the same

3:13:06 ↗ goal

3:13:08 ↗ so i think we can take a fall academic

3:13:11 ↗ quarter shall occur as well with the

3:13:13 ↗ newborn

3:13:20 ↗ so we would we would end with at after

3:13:23 ↗ highest noise

3:13:24 ↗ level of noise

3:13:26 ↗ i guess we need we would need monitoring

3:13:28 ↗ shall occur occur during events

3:13:30 ↗ anticipated to generate the highest

3:13:31 ↗ level of noise

3:13:32 ↗ sure

3:13:56 ↗ good

3:13:58 ↗ so

3:14:00 ↗ commissioner sanford is satisfied with

3:14:03 ↗ that as a

3:14:05 ↗ clarification of his motion

3:14:07 ↗ any other discussion on the motion

3:14:14 ↗ hearing none

3:14:16 ↗ all those in favor um

3:14:18 ↗ please say i i can't see everybody say

3:14:20 ↗ hi

3:14:24 ↗ anybody opposed

3:14:27 ↗ motion passes unanimously

3:14:30 ↗ thank you commissioner sanford are there

3:14:32 ↗ any

3:14:33 ↗ other amendments to the motion the main

3:14:36 ↗ motion um since i can't see everybody

3:14:39 ↗ again i you'll need to just speak up if

3:14:41 ↗ there are additional amendments or

3:14:44 ↗ questions

3:14:50 ↗ okay and i think we're ready to

3:14:52 ↗ take a vote on the main motion as

3:14:54 ↗ amended so all those in favor of the

3:14:57 ↗ main motion as amended

3:14:59 ↗ say i

3:15:01 ↗ i i

3:15:03 ↗ anyone

3:15:05 ↗ anyone opposed

3:15:07 ↗ could i do a roll call uh since this is

3:15:10 ↗ the main motion absolutely

3:15:14 ↗ chair brennan

3:15:15 ↗ aye

3:15:18 ↗ commissioner sanford

3:15:19 ↗ aye

3:15:20 ↗ commissioner

3:15:22 ↗ aye

3:15:23 ↗ commissioner dylan

3:15:25 ↗ aye

3:15:26 ↗ commissioner ikeda hi

3:15:28 ↗ commissioner morgan

3:15:30 ↗ hi

3:15:37 ↗ okay we will need another motion to

3:15:39 ↗ advance to um

3:15:42 ↗ create the findings of fact and

3:15:45 ↗ submit this to the council is there

3:15:47 ↗ somebody prepared to make a motion

3:15:57 ↗ i can do it

3:16:00 ↗ okay commissioner dillon

3:16:02 ↗ i move that the development commission

3:16:04 ↗ direct the community planning and

3:16:06 ↗ development department to prepare

3:16:07 ↗ findings of fact and conclusions for

3:16:10 ↗ review and approval by the development

3:16:11 ↗ commission chairperson affirming the

3:16:13 ↗ development commission's recommendation

3:16:15 ↗ to approve the providence heights high

3:16:17 ↗ school and elementary school project

3:16:19 ↗ permit numbers spd20001

3:16:25 ↗ msp 20-0001

3:16:28 ↗ aas 20-00012

3:16:32 ↗ aas21-0001

3:16:36 ↗ aas 21-002

3:16:40 ↗ aas 21-005

3:16:44 ↗ and aas 21-0006

3:16:48 ↗ subject to the conditions listed in the

3:16:50 ↗ staff report dated february 16 2022 with

3:16:54 ↗ attachments 1-110

3:16:57 ↗ new attachments 111 through 114

3:17:01 ↗ added this evening march 20 march 16

3:17:04 ↗ 2022

3:17:06 ↗ and project drawings and reports

3:17:08 ↗ received september 25th 2020 and all

3:17:11 ↗ subsequent submittals up to march 16

3:17:14 ↗ 2022

3:17:15 ↗ and subject subject to conditions

3:17:18 ↗ therein and as amended tonight

3:17:21 ↗ is there a second

3:17:24 ↗ second

3:17:26 ↗ seconded by commissioner so uh

3:17:29 ↗ um is there any discussion on the motion

3:17:36 ↗ hearing none lucy do you want to do a

3:17:38 ↗ role call on this one

3:17:39 ↗ yes please

3:17:41 ↗ chair brennan

3:17:42 ↗ aye

3:17:44 ↗ commissioner sanford

3:17:45 ↗ aye

3:17:46 ↗ commissioner

3:17:48 ↗ aye

3:17:49 ↗ commissioner dylan

3:17:50 ↗ aye

3:17:51 ↗ commissioner ikeda

3:17:54 ↗ commissioner morgan

3:17:56 ↗ aye

3:17:58 ↗ thank you

3:17:59 ↗ so that completes um

3:18:03 ↗ that completes our action on

3:18:06 ↗ this proposed

3:18:08 ↗ project for

3:18:10 ↗ the high school at

3:18:12 ↗ um

3:18:14 ↗ at providence point

3:18:16 ↗ um i just a couple of just closing

3:18:18 ↗ comments so this as already mentioned on

3:18:21 ↗ this this was probably this is the

3:18:23 ↗ largest record that i think the

3:18:25 ↗ commission has dealt with

3:18:28 ↗ uh even for those of us who have been on

3:18:30 ↗ the commission for a while and

3:18:32 ↗ um that's a significant investment of a

3:18:34 ↗ lot of people's time energy money

3:18:37 ↗ not only from the applicant in the city

3:18:39 ↗ but from the public and

3:18:41 ↗ the community engagement on this one has

3:18:43 ↗ been

3:18:44 ↗ um

3:18:46 ↗ just exceptional and

3:18:48 ↗ i want to thank the public for

3:18:51 ↗ the

3:18:52 ↗ um

3:18:53 ↗ the input um the quality of the input

3:18:57 ↗ the compassion

3:18:58 ↗ and i think passion behind the input

3:19:01 ↗ it really does make a difference that's

3:19:03 ↗ how the public process

3:19:05 ↗ works um

3:19:07 ↗ not always happy with the end up but

3:19:09 ↗ with the final conclusion but hopefully

3:19:11 ↗ you feel like you've made a difference

3:19:14 ↗ this project does now move to the city

3:19:16 ↗ council as the final decision maker

3:19:20 ↗ for the city

3:19:21 ↗ um i also just want to thank the

3:19:23 ↗ commission this one was like a second

3:19:25 ↗ job for a while as we were dealing with

3:19:28 ↗ uh getting familiar with the record

3:19:31 ↗ and dealing with uh reading an inbox

3:19:34 ↗ full of comments just about every night

3:19:36 ↗ so

3:19:37 ↗ for the last few weeks so um thank you

3:19:39 ↗ all of you for your participation and um

3:19:43 ↗ diligence and kind of keeping pace with

3:19:46 ↗ all of this information so

3:19:48 ↗ um well done everybody so thanks um so

3:19:51 ↗ lucy do we have any other business uh or

3:19:54 ↗ reports from the council

3:19:57 ↗ let's give you the rest of the night off

3:20:00 ↗ okay

3:20:02 ↗ okay that sounds good any final or

3:20:04 ↗ closing comments from any of the

3:20:06 ↗ commissioners before we adjourn

3:20:08 ↗ i think everybody's ready to go to bed

3:20:10 ↗ okay then with that i will adjourn the

3:20:12 ↗ meeting at 10 22.

3:20:14 ↗ goodnight everyone

3:20:16 ↗ thank 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 (7)

Brennan

Commissioners Dillon

Ikeda (Alternate)

Morgan (Alternate)

Sanford

Sowa Absence: Vice Chair Price (Excused)

Commissioner Shore (Excused)

Staff (3)

Cristina Haworth, Planning Consultant Lucy Sloman, Current Planning Manager Chair Brennan stated that Commissioners Ikeda

Morgan would serve as regular Commission members at the meeting due to the resignation of one Commissioner

the recusal of another. 2. Approval of Minutes