Development Commission · Wednesday, October 19, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 17, 2022

packet pp.3–10

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, August 17, 2022

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18 Update

Information · 20 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.11–25

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 58:24 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this topic on the October 19th meeting agenda is to update the Development Commission on Issaquah’s Land Use Code update.

Recommendation on Title 18 Thresholds Determination, (A)

20 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.27–47

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 1:00:43 Open packet at p.27 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the October 19 Development Commission (DC) meeting is to discuss and gain direction regarding the draft code for the Process and Procedures topic surrounding the level of review as part of the Title 18 Update.

Adopt Rules & Regulations

Action · 20 min · Tisha Geiser, City Clerk Christian Geitz, Planning Manager · packet pp.49–63

▶ Watch from 1:03:01 Open packet at p.49 ↗

Staff report:

City Clerk's Office 130 E. Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3000 issaquahwa.gov

5. REPORTS

City Council Update

Christian Geitz, Planning Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.65

▶ Watch from 1:32:26 Open packet at p.65 ↗

Staff report:

2022 Development Commission Schedule (updated 10/11/2022)

2272 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ foreign

0:08 ↗ good evening and welcome I'd like to

0:10 ↗ call the October 19th meeting of the

0:12 ↗ city of issaquah's development

0:14 ↗ commission to order at 7 pm as a

0:17 ↗ reminder we do still have a remote

0:19 ↗ aspect to our meetings this means both

0:21 ↗ staff and members of the public may be

0:23 ↗ participating in the meeting remotely

0:25 ↗ via WebEx

0:27 ↗ tonight we have two Commissioners with

0:29 ↗ excused absences commissioner Shore and

0:32 ↗ commissioner cata and our alternate

0:34 ↗ commissioner commissioner Morgan will be

0:36 ↗ serving as a regular member tonight

0:39 ↗ at tonight's meeting we have one

0:41 ↗ discussion item and two action items

0:43 ↗ we'll be receiving an update on the

0:45 ↗ title 18 amendment project discussing

0:48 ↗ the title 18 review level thresholds

0:50 ↗ draft code and considering changes to

0:53 ↗ our development commission rules and

0:54 ↗ regulations

0:56 ↗ our first item is to take action on

0:58 ↗ meeting minutes for the August 17th

1:01 ↗ meeting provided in the agenda packet I

1:04 ↗ hope everybody's had a chance to look

1:05 ↗ them over

1:06 ↗ are there any corrections to the August

1:08 ↗ 17th minutes in the packet

1:12 ↗ hearing none the minutes are approved

1:16 ↗ next I'd like to open the floor for any

1:18 ↗ members of the public in person or

1:20 ↗ virtually who'd like to make General

1:22 ↗ comments there is no public hearing this

1:25 ↗ evening so this is the opportunity to

1:27 ↗ provide comment on any item whether

1:29 ↗ general or associated with our regular

1:32 ↗ business items on the agenda tonight

1:35 ↗ those who are in person to make comments

1:37 ↗ will be called on First and I will ask

1:39 ↗ for other speakers before closing this

1:41 ↗ portion of the meeting if you're joining

1:44 ↗ us by computer or smartphone via WebEx

1:46 ↗ and would like to make a comment please

1:49 ↗ raise your virtual hand this varies by

1:52 ↗ device one option may be to go to the

1:55 ↗ participant panel and choose the raise

1:57 ↗ hand icon in the lower right corner it

2:00 ↗ may also be located under the reactions

2:02 ↗ menu or the more menu if you're on the

2:05 ↗ phone and not a computer press star 3 on

2:08 ↗ your phone for those making comments

2:10 ↗ please direct your comments to the

2:12 ↗ development commission and not to

2:14 ↗ individuals for in-person attendees

2:16 ↗ please step up to the lectern for

2:19 ↗ meeting attendees participating

2:21 ↗ virtually when you're recognized please

2:23 ↗ unmute your microphone when it's your

2:25 ↗ turn to speak state your name speak

2:27 ↗ clearly and especially if you're

2:29 ↗ attending virtually pause frequently and

2:31 ↗ limit your comments to five minutes if

2:34 ↗ you're attending virtually and don't

2:36 ↗ respond after your name or phone number

2:38 ↗ is called or if your connection is lost

2:40 ↗ the meeting will need to proceed you're

2:43 ↗ encouraged to rejoin the meeting if

2:44 ↗ you're able to do so

2:47 ↗ so Mr Aldrich has anyone signed up to

2:50 ↗ make General comments this evening

2:52 ↗ one person has signed up to make

2:54 ↗ comments is the person in the room yes

2:57 ↗ okay please approach the lectern and

3:00 ↗ make your comments

3:06 ↗ I learned to turn it on

3:08 ↗ then I forget to turn it off and I have

3:10 ↗ to run up and turn it off again every

3:12 ↗ time my name is Connie Marsh I live on

3:14 ↗ squawk and I want to talk about the

3:17 ↗ thresholds

3:19 ↗ so I agree with the city that the number

3:22 ↗ four threshold is

3:24 ↗ the best but I do have some questions

3:27 ↗ I don't know what with comment means

3:31 ↗ exactly

3:33 ↗ just like I didn't understand what

3:34 ↗ without comment meant is that that even

3:38 ↗ if even if you have a 12 foot something

3:41 ↗ you have to send out a notice I'm not

3:44 ↗ I'm not clear so I think you

3:47 ↗ that it it can be 10 000 but I don't

3:51 ↗ know if it needs to go all the way down

3:52 ↗ to zero because I don't understand what

3:55 ↗ it entails now

3:57 ↗ the development commission is the set of

4:00 ↗ educated eyes that the city needs as we

4:04 ↗ redevelop and so my concerns with

4:09 ↗ what I think you should be able to look

4:12 ↗ at are getting to be a little bit

4:14 ↗ different with this draft code what I

4:17 ↗ think we need to start doing is have you

4:20 ↗ review more about how the construction

4:23 ↗ in Tighter and Tighter areas is going to

4:27 ↗ interface with the community so we have

4:30 ↗ had some very severe impact examples

4:34 ↗ Veil Atlas nearly put the community out

4:39 ↗ of business in those areas because they

4:42 ↗ were just barricaded for years at a time

4:45 ↗ and we have other things like road

4:47 ↗ closures for years at a time in this

4:50 ↗ city and I think that you should be able

4:53 ↗ to because of construction sorry that

4:56 ↗ was and I'm going to name it Costco

4:57 ↗ right we have not been able to use

5:00 ↗ daytime streets for years because of a

5:04 ↗ construction project and I think that

5:07 ↗ you should be the eyes on the the

5:09 ↗ Community Values for us being able to

5:11 ↗ use our own City I don't think that that

5:16 ↗ is on your current plate for what

5:19 ↗ they're providing and so I would ask for

5:21 ↗ you to to ask about those two things

5:23 ↗ what is comments and

5:26 ↗ can we more closely review the impacts

5:30 ↗ of construction and maybe put conditions

5:33 ↗ on those

5:34 ↗ right thank you very much

5:41 ↗ thank you Mr eldrich is there anyone

5:43 ↗ else who signed up online to speak there

5:46 ↗ is no one else in room or online that

5:48 ↗ has indicated that they would like to

5:50 ↗ speak

5:50 ↗ okay thank you so we're going to close

5:53 ↗ the public comment portion of the

5:56 ↗ meeting now and move on to our first

5:58 ↗ regular agenda item

6:00 ↗ which is Title 18 General provisions and

6:03 ↗ procedures

6:04 ↗ the purpose of this first agenda item is

6:07 ↗ to provide the development commission

6:08 ↗ and informational update on the title 18

6:11 ↗ code amendment project

6:13 ↗ the order of operation for the item will

6:16 ↗ be staff presentation and then questions

6:18 ↗ by the development Commission so we will

6:21 ↗ move on to staff presentation director

6:23 ↗ Dolly wall please go ahead when you're

6:25 ↗ ready good evening Commissioners it's

6:28 ↗ great to meet in person and even though

6:31 ↗ it's not a very pleasant environment

6:33 ↗ outside with the air quality

6:35 ↗ significantly taking a turn so

6:36 ↗ appreciate everyone taking the time to

6:38 ↗ come down here

6:39 ↗ and more importantly the title 18 the

6:42 ↗ amount of time you all have spent

6:44 ↗ reading through the code participating

6:46 ↗ with the planning and policy commission

6:48 ↗ and I know planning policy commission

6:50 ↗ and multiple meetings has been really

6:52 ↗ thankful for all your time and input and

6:55 ↗ they really value your input

6:57 ↗ since your participation in a few uh

7:00 ↗ projects I think you know we divided

7:03 ↗ this whole Title 18 into six different

7:05 ↗ topic areas you all participated in a

7:09 ↗ few but there was natural environment

7:11 ↗ that we had joined meetings with

7:13 ↗ environmental board and PPC and

7:16 ↗ Landscape in open space with the Parks

7:18 ↗ Board participating with PPC and then

7:21 ↗ you all did the zoning and uses the

7:23 ↗ building and design and development

7:24 ↗ standards piece and then bpc looked at

7:28 ↗ all the miscellaneous there were a bunch

7:30 ↗ of other miscellaneous topics and

7:32 ↗ process and procedures so we've finished

7:34 ↗ all six public hearings and all six of

7:38 ↗ those subtopics with the joint boards

7:40 ↗ and PPC

7:42 ↗ and taken public feedback and input on

7:45 ↗ those

7:45 ↗ and then we've gone to the council

7:49 ↗ committee so this year Council started a

7:51 ↗ committee structure where it's they've

7:53 ↗ divided different topics and so there's

7:55 ↗ a committee formed Planning Development

7:57 ↗ and environment committee so it's made

7:59 ↗ up of three council members and and

8:01 ↗ we've gone to them with the with after

8:04 ↗ each of these six topic areas so uh you

8:07 ↗ know informing them of the summary of

8:09 ↗ discussion taking some additional policy

8:11 ↗ guidance from them on some of the topics

8:13 ↗ that you all said here we need more

8:16 ↗ information and so we've circled through

8:19 ↗ the first round

8:21 ↗ um and we're working on

8:24 ↗ um releasing a Consolidated draft so

8:27 ↗ we're tentatively targeting that uh soon

8:31 ↗ uh in the interim we're working on a CPA

8:34 ↗ determination for the code updates and

8:37 ↗ as well as uh testing of the the draft

8:40 ↗ code so the way the testing is

8:43 ↗ structured at the at the moment we had a

8:46 ↗ call for testers and I think you all

8:47 ↗ received the email we got a good

8:50 ↗ response to that

8:51 ↗ we ended up having six sub-topic areas

8:57 ↗ that we thought would be good to test

8:58 ↗ and those were a single home family home

9:01 ↗ renovation that has a wetland nearby a

9:05 ↗ business remodel an Old Town a

9:08 ↗ multi-family mixed use development in

9:10 ↗ central Issaquah commercial development

9:12 ↗ outside of Central issqua

9:14 ↗ and then something near the shoreline so

9:17 ↗ you know to test the shoreline master

9:19 ↗ program and then development on a

9:22 ↗ forested hillside so those were the main

9:25 ↗ topics that we had kind of touched in

9:27 ↗ this code update so we're working with

9:30 ↗ the seven officially you know folks that

9:33 ↗ have um that submitted there that they

9:35 ↗ were interested in these uh seven topics

9:39 ↗ um and working with them and selecting a

9:41 ↗ site getting owner authorization and

9:43 ↗ then having a conceptual layout and

9:45 ↗ staff's going to meet with them a few

9:47 ↗ times

9:48 ↗ um to to develop and and help them

9:51 ↗ navigate the code and then Lessons

9:53 ↗ Learned From that exercise will then get

9:55 ↗ folded into uh the final Consolidated

9:58 ↗ draft that we will hold public hearings

10:00 ↗ on

10:02 ↗ um so we're still hoping that we would

10:04 ↗ have all of this kind of um touch points

10:07 ↗ with planning and policy commission by

10:09 ↗ the end of this year and put the

10:11 ↗ Consolidated draft in front of a council

10:14 ↗ committee soon thereafter so that's what

10:17 ↗ we've been working on but appreciate all

10:20 ↗ the input and if you want to have a

10:23 ↗ meeting on you know you had a particular

10:25 ↗ topic that you were interested in we're

10:28 ↗ happy to kind of meet with you

10:29 ↗ one-on-one or you know talk you through

10:32 ↗ some of those nuances in the code but

10:35 ↗ that's all I have in terms of our update

10:38 ↗ thank you director

10:40 ↗ so Commissioners do you have any

10:41 ↗ questions or comments on the general

10:43 ↗ code update process

10:49 ↗ okay thank you moving on

10:52 ↗ to our second agenda item tonight review

10:54 ↗ level threshold

10:56 ↗ the purpose of the second agenda item

10:58 ↗ this evening is to discuss and provide

11:00 ↗ some staff Direction regarding the draft

11:02 ↗ code for the process and procedures

11:04 ↗ topic related to the level of review as

11:07 ↗ part of the title 18 update the order of

11:10 ↗ the operation for this item will be

11:12 ↗ staff presentation then development

11:15 ↗ commission questions and finally

11:17 ↗ commission input

11:19 ↗ so we'll start off with the staff's

11:21 ↗ presentation Mr geitz please go ahead

11:23 ↗ with your presentation when you're ready

11:27 ↗ thank you Mr chair Commissioners it's

11:28 ↗ great to be here in person meeting you

11:30 ↗ all for the first time tonight

11:32 ↗ uh I've got four quick slides to run

11:35 ↗ through this evening touching on one

11:37 ↗ aspect that we preview you previously

11:39 ↗ previously discussed before the

11:42 ↗ commission earlier in the update process

11:43 ↗ which was part of bucket number six the

11:46 ↗ policies and procedures

11:48 ↗ provisions and I'll run through the

11:52 ↗ purpose some background and then open up

11:54 ↗ for questions and discussion at at the

11:56 ↗ end

11:57 ↗ so tonight we're seeking additional

11:59 ↗ input for uh on or comments from the

12:02 ↗ commission based on the direction of the

12:04 ↗ Planning Development economic committee

12:06 ↗ the council committee that director

12:08 ↗ Dolly wall mentioned at their October

12:11 ↗ 6th meeting the council committee was

12:12 ↗ interested in gaining a little further

12:14 ↗ context from the development commission

12:16 ↗ as it relates to the level of review

12:18 ↗ thresholds and the proposed changes

12:21 ↗ prior to the council committee making a

12:23 ↗ final final recommendation to city

12:25 ↗ council they wanted to have a little

12:27 ↗ more input from from you all to make

12:29 ↗ sure that they're on the right the right

12:31 ↗ track

12:32 ↗ so as it stands under the current code

12:35 ↗ there are varying thresholds depending

12:37 ↗ on use location and underlying zoning

12:39 ↗ it's a little bit all over the board

12:41 ↗ depending on site location and those

12:43 ↗ standards the proposed draft is

12:45 ↗ intending to consolidate that the

12:48 ↗ different code documents and incorporate

12:50 ↗ best practices ensuring greater Clarity

12:52 ↗ for for all for Developers for staff and

12:56 ↗ for the community so what we're seeking

12:58 ↗ tonight is for any guidance or input

13:00 ↗ that can be carried forward to the

13:02 ↗ council committee related to these two

13:04 ↗ questions before you what size of

13:06 ↗ building should be reviewed

13:07 ↗ administratively versus before this

13:09 ↗ commission and the kind of follow-up

13:12 ↗ which is is connected there is should we

13:15 ↗ continue to use or omit the high

13:18 ↗ visibility Street threshold in that

13:21 ↗ determination process

13:23 ↗ so for just a little bit of context

13:25 ↗ you'll find in the packet material some

13:27 ↗ background information related to

13:29 ↗ surrounding jurisdictions some recent

13:32 ↗ projects and uh the other options that

13:34 ↗ were up for consideration

13:36 ↗ starting with peer jurisdictions we

13:39 ↗ found that there's a various levels of

13:42 ↗ threshold that initiate a development

13:44 ↗ commission type of review whether it's a

13:46 ↗ development commission design review

13:48 ↗ board with some having all of you occur

13:51 ↗ administratively that could be based on

13:54 ↗ square footage or it could be based on

13:55 ↗ location within a city

13:59 ↗ um

14:00 ↗ and then the the most recent projects

14:01 ↗ that have come before the commission all

14:03 ↗ but the Brown Bear Car Wash which was on

14:04 ↗ a high visibility Street were well above

14:07 ↗ uh the threshold for the development

14:10 ↗ commission I'm sorry let me go back real

14:12 ↗ quick so the current option being

14:14 ↗ recommended to the by the council

14:17 ↗ committee or to the council committee is

14:19 ↗ option four in the packet this drops

14:22 ↗ throughout the threshold down to 10 000

14:25 ↗ square feet from forty five thousand

14:26 ↗ aligning with the proposed zebra

14:29 ↗ threshold Amendment that's that's

14:31 ↗ currently in play

14:33 ↗ and this was the latest recommendation

14:35 ↗ based on PPC feedback and

14:39 ↗ we are just looking for any additional

14:41 ↗ guide guidance that you could provide

14:44 ↗ finally for reference this is the high

14:46 ↗ visibility street map that we currently

14:48 ↗ have in place both PPC and Council

14:51 ↗ committee have recommended moving away

14:53 ↗ from this map and treating all streets

14:56 ↗ the same for this with due to this lower

14:58 ↗ threshold that's that's being proposed

15:03 ↗ and that's what I've got for you any

15:05 ↗ questions okay I can open the Floyd on

15:08 ↗ questions from Commissioners anyone have

15:11 ↗ questions for staff

15:13 ↗ I had a question Mr Price

15:15 ↗ um with respect to the technical

15:17 ↗ documents now being

15:20 ↗ administratively approved and reviewed

15:22 ↗ is do I have that correct so like

15:24 ↗ stormwater reports geotechnical reports

15:26 ↗ all traffic reports all of that stuff is

15:29 ↗ now entirely administrative under option

15:32 ↗ four or all options

15:35 ↗ I believe those are under option two is

15:37 ↗ that the under all options so I think

15:39 ↗ what we heard from you all during our

15:42 ↗ initial public policy guidance was

15:45 ↗ where you bring value to to the process

15:48 ↗ was site design and building design and

15:51 ↗ then having geotechnical reports and

15:53 ↗ storm water reports and those kind of

15:55 ↗ things

15:57 ↗ from a developer's perspective we

15:59 ↗ couldn't give them an answer until the

16:00 ↗ very end if the project came in front of

16:03 ↗ the development commission so if someone

16:04 ↗ had a wetland on their property and we

16:07 ↗ you know they said it was a type three

16:09 ↗ we would have it peer reviewed but it

16:11 ↗ won't get approved so they could they

16:13 ↗ never had The Surety from the city as to

16:16 ↗ what to to design for so it IT addresses

16:19 ↗ that concern of getting some of these uh

16:22 ↗ pieces

16:23 ↗ um that are that really are reviewed

16:26 ↗ under the technical earlier so they'll

16:28 ↗ all be reviewed administratively

16:31 ↗ um okay that answers my question thank

16:33 ↗ you I just really want to understand

16:34 ↗ that all options uh

16:38 ↗ suggested they were administratively

16:39 ↗ reviewed will we then still see those

16:42 ↗ documents uh

16:47 ↗ or give you

16:49 ↗ you know object as it complies with the

16:50 ↗ stormwater manual and it complies so

16:52 ↗ we're looking for feedback how how you'd

16:55 ↗ like

16:56 ↗ those kind of documents in your packet I

16:59 ↗ mean giving you a 6 000 page uh you know

17:02 ↗ agenda packet is also expecting a lot of

17:05 ↗ reading from you so where where you

17:08 ↗ think you want to see and where you

17:10 ↗ don't where you feel you're not gonna

17:12 ↗ you know you're not interested that

17:13 ↗ would be good feedback for us too

17:15 ↗ exactly okay well thank you that answers

17:17 ↗ my question other questions

17:20 ↗ commissioner Brennan thank you Mr chair

17:22 ↗ on a related question on how that

17:25 ↗ process works so we'll have for the site

17:29 ↗ design Building architecture Etc that

17:31 ↗ would come in front of the commission

17:33 ↗ and the technical review Transportation

17:36 ↗ which we get a lot of public comments on

17:38 ↗ or have in the past on the larger

17:40 ↗ projects

17:41 ↗ so the the public worry about the public

17:44 ↗ getting confused about where they can be

17:46 ↗ heard or not when it comes now to the

17:48 ↗ way this bifurcated process is going to

17:50 ↗ work so it's going to be important to

17:52 ↗ make sure there's Clarity for the public

17:54 ↗ engagement and how that happens or not

17:57 ↗ depending upon whether it's

17:58 ↗ administratively reviewed or in front of

18:00 ↗ the commission otherwise we'll have

18:02 ↗ people lined up in front of the

18:04 ↗ commission asking us to impose

18:06 ↗ conditions or restrictions on a project

18:08 ↗ and and it will be outside of our our

18:12 ↗ authority to do that and so they'll get

18:14 ↗ they'll get frustrated by that so I

18:16 ↗ think it's going to be an important part

18:18 ↗ of how this gets laid out particularly

18:21 ↗ for the public and when we separate

18:23 ↗ these processes yeah good good feedback

18:26 ↗ um the the other thing I think uh was

18:30 ↗ Community was getting confused between

18:32 ↗ and and it was becoming challenging for

18:34 ↗ us when different types of community

18:36 ↗ early Community engagement meetings

18:38 ↗ Community collaboration you know

18:41 ↗ pre-application

18:42 ↗ environmental neighborhood meeting

18:44 ↗ sometimes we had you attend and

18:46 ↗ sometimes you didn't have so all of that

18:48 ↗ is now called a community meeting I

18:51 ↗ think we we can rename it to whatever I

18:53 ↗ think it's called pre-application

18:54 ↗ community meeting

18:56 ↗ for now

18:58 ↗ um but you all won't be participating in

19:00 ↗ that you know it'll be more free-flowing

19:02 ↗ conversation between the community

19:04 ↗ members and staff to answer questions

19:05 ↗ and the applicant to have that kind of

19:07 ↗ feedback from them so that'll be step

19:10 ↗ one so we'll we'll have a public

19:12 ↗ notification when we deem it complete

19:14 ↗ for the projects that trigger the

19:16 ↗ community meeting early community

19:17 ↗ meeting will have that

19:20 ↗ and then and this interim step of giving

19:22 ↗ them the the applicant some clear you

19:25 ↗ know yes this looks good for storm water

19:28 ↗ because it meets up our adopted manual

19:30 ↗ or not that decision making we have to

19:33 ↗ figure out how that we will kind of

19:34 ↗ capture that in writing that can be

19:37 ↗ appealed if someone disagrees from the

19:39 ↗ community

19:40 ↗ um so all those administrative decisions

19:42 ↗ or one administrative decision will

19:45 ↗ occur

19:46 ↗ then it'll be a public hearing and then

19:48 ↗ what will be in front of you is the

19:50 ↗ approval criteria so I don't know if we

19:52 ↗ can pull up the criteria on your screen

19:55 ↗ we did include the draft code in your

19:58 ↗ packet I don't know if anyone had a

19:59 ↗ chance to look at that but we can pull

20:01 ↗ that up so having that Clarity on from

20:05 ↗ the community standpoint you know this

20:07 ↗ is what you'll be basing your your

20:09 ↗ decision on if you have feedback on that

20:11 ↗ criteria you can provide tonight or

20:13 ↗ later you know you can email that to us

20:15 ↗ as well

20:17 ↗ foreign

20:18 ↗ just one more follow-up and and so

20:22 ↗ um just for clarity so the final

20:24 ↗ decision

20:26 ↗ um so you'll have essentially final

20:28 ↗ decision on the technical review done by

20:31 ↗ staff

20:32 ↗ and that doesn't follow a separate

20:34 ↗ appeal process we would have to get

20:35 ↗ through the final decision on the on the

20:38 ↗ application by the development

20:40 ↗ commission before it would be ripe for

20:42 ↗ appeal then as a as a complete so if

20:44 ↗ somebody wanted to appeal it based on a

20:46 ↗ transportation impact for example that

20:49 ↗ that appeal process would not begin

20:51 ↗ until after the decision from the we'll

20:54 ↗ work it out with the attorneys I think

20:55 ↗ that that's then the

20:57 ↗ needle that we need to thread

21:00 ↗ the the requirement to have only one

21:03 ↗ open public meeting hearing you know

21:06 ↗ that that's that's our bound so

21:09 ↗ um again I think the protections are so

21:11 ↗ that people can drag a project out and

21:13 ↗ every time they get a chance to appeal

21:15 ↗ so there's that aspect of it so yeah

21:18 ↗ good point

21:20 ↗ um of how that appeal process will and

21:23 ↗ one open record public hearing

21:25 ↗ requirement will be met

21:28 ↗ others

21:30 ↗ commissioner Dillon

21:33 ↗ um I guess just following up on

21:35 ↗ commissioner Brennan's comment and the

21:39 ↗ the question of whether those approved

21:41 ↗ materials would be included in our

21:43 ↗ packet it would be nice to have those I

21:45 ↗ feel like those provide context for us

21:47 ↗ in terms of how the development is going

21:49 ↗ to fit in with different aspects of the

21:52 ↗ surrounding area

21:53 ↗ but if those have already been

21:56 ↗ administratively approved perhaps

21:57 ↗ they're in an appendix section or

21:59 ↗ something that we can refer to if if

22:02 ↗ we're interested in do you need a

22:04 ↗ summary or a conclusion of what the you

22:07 ↗ know it was designed based in this so

22:08 ↗ maybe if that's not something that

22:10 ↗ creates a lot of extra staff work having

22:13 ↗ something like that in the the portion

22:17 ↗ of the packet that we're reviewing would

22:18 ↗ be helpful and then the full document

22:20 ↗ available whether it's through a link or

22:23 ↗ as an appendix or or whatever would be

22:26 ↗ would be nice

22:27 ↗ uh moving back to the question of the

22:30 ↗ the size threshold that you were looking

22:33 ↗ for us to address

22:35 ↗ um and

22:36 ↗ um referring to miss Marsha's comments

22:38 ↗ earlier it seems like there previously

22:42 ↗ or in the current code is a threshold at

22:45 ↗ below 4 000 square feet which would be a

22:48 ↗ lot of single-family home renovations

22:50 ↗ and things like that that had the

22:51 ↗ administrative review without comment

22:54 ↗ and then the next level was

22:56 ↗ administrative review with comment and

23:00 ↗ so is that lower level proposed to just

23:02 ↗ disappear if the threshold moves to ten

23:05 ↗ thousand for development commission

23:07 ↗ review you know at this point PPC just

23:09 ↗ wanted us to come

23:11 ↗ back with more options they didn't

23:13 ↗ really make a decision on this uh form

23:16 ↗ you know like strongly a recommendation

23:19 ↗ they expressed some concerns with option

23:21 ↗ this A and B so we only shared the first

23:24 ↗ two options we developed option three

23:26 ↗ and four after their feedback so you

23:30 ↗ know there isn't a strong one way or the

23:33 ↗ other I think they were just trying to

23:34 ↗ figure out uh what's the right you know

23:37 ↗ by eliminating the high visibility

23:39 ↗ streets which were bumping up anything

23:41 ↗ of over 4 000 to a development

23:44 ↗ commission review but anything outside

23:47 ↗ of those areas the threshold was really

23:49 ↗ high 45 000 so there was you know if

23:52 ↗ you're one parcel away from a Main

23:54 ↗ Street you get a completely different

23:56 ↗ threshold as opposed to when you're on

23:59 ↗ the street so there was some issues with

24:02 ↗ related to that and and the difference

24:04 ↗ was pretty high four thousand versus

24:06 ↗ forty five thousand but that's on our

24:08 ↗ existing code

24:10 ↗ so when we had the conversation with

24:12 ↗ them we just presented the first two

24:13 ↗ options which were carrying forward the

24:16 ↗ existing code you know in the spirit so

24:19 ↗ four thousand and forty five thousand

24:21 ↗ were what we were playing around with

24:22 ↗ but

24:24 ↗ um

24:24 ↗ so

24:26 ↗ and then the other conversations like

24:28 ↗ Christian said we've had with them is

24:30 ↗ you know do we do you want to raise the

24:32 ↗ sipa thresholds because right now

24:34 ↗ anything over four thousand square feet

24:37 ↗ goes to a super review a lot of our

24:39 ↗ neighboring jurisdictions don't have

24:40 ↗ that the state law was changed over time

24:44 ↗ um so

24:45 ↗ I think on that one most mostly what we

24:48 ↗ heard from PPC and the council committee

24:51 ↗ was 10 000 square feet you know you

24:54 ↗ could go up to 30 000 but they felt like

24:56 ↗ an entrance step for Issaquah would be a

24:58 ↗ 10 000 square foot

25:00 ↗ um and and then

25:02 ↗ um getting buildings to meet lead

25:04 ↗ certification

25:06 ↗ um there was a lot of discussion at the

25:08 ↗ PPC level to tie it as an incentive you

25:11 ↗ don't have to go through cipa if you do

25:14 ↗ a lead Platinum certified for instance

25:16 ↗ the council committee's Direction was it

25:18 ↗ it adds a layer of complexity if we're

25:20 ↗ going to require lead certification just

25:22 ↗ require it for a certain size and then

25:25 ↗ have your CPA threshold as a separate

25:27 ↗ but ten thousand for both of those was

25:30 ↗ where they were headed and so that led

25:34 ↗ to our development of option four just

25:36 ↗ to be consistent of what what those you

25:40 ↗ know what mean some of the things that

25:42 ↗ the committee was concerned about is are

25:44 ↗ the developers going to use use this

25:46 ↗ threshold to either stay under under

25:48 ↗ this threshold you know so we'll get

25:50 ↗ more of nine thousand square foot

25:51 ↗ buildings than ten thousand because they

25:53 ↗ don't want to do go through a higher

25:56 ↗ process

25:58 ↗ um

25:59 ↗ and and also so I think that can be

26:03 ↗ handled to the regulatory language and I

26:05 ↗ think one of you commented and at one

26:07 ↗ stage it's the cumulative uh square

26:10 ↗ footage so someone couldn't come in and

26:12 ↗ say you know four thousand here four

26:15 ↗ thousand here and four thousand here and

26:16 ↗ we're going to do it in three years and

26:18 ↗ not go through a development commission

26:19 ↗ review that that will capture it in a

26:22 ↗ three-year time period it's accumulative

26:24 ↗ so we can address those kind of concerns

26:27 ↗ in the actual regulatory language

26:29 ↗ that we can put in the code

26:32 ↗ quick follow-up to Mr chair

26:34 ↗ um so I guess I would be curious to know

26:37 ↗ maybe what the Distribution on these

26:42 ↗ development permits that the city is

26:44 ↗ receiving 10

26:46 ↗ 000 square feet sounds fairly like a

26:49 ↗ fairly good threshold but if there are

26:52 ↗ you know 30 projects compared to 10 that

26:55 ↗ are coming in over a given period of

26:57 ↗ time is having development commission

26:59 ↗ review going to be a bottleneck we have

27:02 ↗ you know two meetings up to two medians

27:04 ↗ a month and if we're seeing

27:07 ↗ two or three times as many projects that

27:09 ↗ are going to commission review is that

27:11 ↗ that doesn't seem to be a desirable

27:13 ↗ outcome in terms of of moving those

27:16 ↗ projects along

27:18 ↗ yeah so if I understand your question

27:20 ↗ correctly are there 10 000 square foot

27:23 ↗ buildings that are currently not coming

27:25 ↗ to development commission you know from

27:27 ↗ ten thousand to forty five thousand that

27:29 ↗ will bring in more

27:31 ↗ um you know a lot of areas are currently

27:35 ↗ developed so things that you see that

27:39 ↗ have come to development commission are

27:41 ↗ pretty high threshold anyways and then

27:44 ↗ like the the car wash which was only

27:47 ↗ 2500 came to you so I think

27:51 ↗ um you know we can look at the numbers

27:52 ↗ but anecdotally I can tell you that it's

27:55 ↗ it's not going to tip the needle where

27:56 ↗ we will ask you to meet every you know

28:00 ↗ every week or anything like that I think

28:02 ↗ the workload would probably remain the

28:04 ↗ same for development commission out of

28:06 ↗ the ten thousand I don't know if

28:07 ↗ Christian has any more a quick a quick

28:09 ↗ look through permits back to 2018 there

28:12 ↗ were about five total that were above

28:14 ↗ that threshold many of them were you

28:16 ↗ know series of multi-family buildings so

28:18 ↗ they're cumulatively much larger and so

28:20 ↗ you'd be looking at those one time

28:21 ↗ instead of each you know 12 000 square

28:25 ↗ foot

28:26 ↗ multi-family building within a large

28:27 ↗ complex and that includes the Middle

28:31 ↗ School number six it includes Costco

28:33 ↗ within that group so large projects are

28:36 ↗ typically what what we'd be seeing and

28:39 ↗ then then it drops off

28:41 ↗ from there so

28:45 ↗ other questions

28:48 ↗ commissioner Morgan thank you chair

28:50 ↗ um is there a consideration of a

28:54 ↗ um

28:55 ↗ minimum lot area to consider to think of

28:58 ↗ like a car wash you might have a small

29:01 ↗ structure on a large lot perhaps for

29:03 ↗ other kinds of uses like that unlikely

29:06 ↗ in the central area I think

29:08 ↗ but possible so would it be possible to

29:11 ↗ include something like that so if he

29:13 ↗ said well if it's either over 10 000

29:15 ↗ square feet or over a forty thousand

29:17 ↗ square foot parcel

29:19 ↗ that would then if it is a large parcel

29:21 ↗ that would have an impact that that

29:24 ↗ would come into play as well uh sure you

29:28 ↗ know the existing code had a three acre

29:30 ↗ threshold and we felt that was way too

29:33 ↗ big I mean you don't have that many

29:35 ↗ three acre sides so it seemed redundant

29:38 ↗ but we can put a combination of you know

29:43 ↗ four thousand and or just or either

29:47 ↗ either or would trigger it but what's

29:50 ↗ the right size of the lot uh you know

29:53 ↗ three acres seemed

29:55 ↗ I I it wasn't clear where that came from

29:57 ↗ in our code and seemed that would never

30:00 ↗ get triggered because I would think it

30:02 ↗ if it's a if if it's ten thousand as a

30:05 ↗ minimum a 40 000 square foot lot gets

30:07 ↗ you to 25 coverage which is like a car

30:11 ↗ wash or something like that so it seems

30:14 ↗ like

30:14 ↗ uh I can't imagine going about an acre

30:16 ↗ about an acre yeah or an acre yeah 43

30:21 ↗ 000 years yeah so

30:24 ↗ yeah other questions

30:28 ↗ I had another question give us your

30:30 ↗ price thank you chair uh

30:33 ↗ are there other uh thresholds associated

30:35 ↗ with the the the sipa that we should be

30:38 ↗ aware of is it literally just building

30:39 ↗ square footage is environmentally

30:42 ↗ sensitive areas short plats

30:45 ↗ unit count anything else

30:47 ↗ that is associated with that that would

30:50 ↗ also trigger our

30:52 ↗ our review yeah so

30:55 ↗ um cipa thresholds are you know how many

30:57 ↗ residential units You're Building So

31:00 ↗ currently our standards are four units

31:03 ↗ or more

31:04 ↗ trigger a super review under the state

31:08 ↗ law you can go up to you know 30 or

31:11 ↗ something and 60 for multi-family

31:14 ↗ um where when we presented those options

31:17 ↗ um to PPC and then the cancel committee

31:20 ↗ we had a medal option which was

31:24 ↗ um I forget now I think it was Landing

31:27 ↗ more like uh 10 000 square feet for

31:29 ↗ commercial which equates to about 10

31:31 ↗ residential units so increasing it from

31:34 ↗ four to ten

31:36 ↗ um you know we presented the options of

31:38 ↗ going all the way up to 30 10 or 4 or

31:40 ↗ keeping four and I think that's that's

31:42 ↗ what the proposed draft will include the

31:45 ↗ Consolidated draft would be the

31:48 ↗ um the middle range so 10 residential

31:50 ↗ units or ten thousand square foot would

31:53 ↗ be and then then people also has other

31:55 ↗ thresholds you know cubic yards of grade

31:58 ↗ and fill

31:59 ↗ or 40 parking stalls so right now our

32:02 ↗ threshold is I think 100 cubic yards

32:05 ↗ um I think we're recommending at least

32:06 ↗ 500 cubic yards because CPA adds a

32:09 ↗ process but it the outcome is still the

32:11 ↗ same I mean it's the same codes that

32:13 ↗ they have to comply with and so trying

32:15 ↗ to find that uh balance where cpug is a

32:19 ↗ tool to address cumulative impacts and

32:21 ↗ maybe that makes sense

32:22 ↗ at a certain level but that's why I

32:24 ↗ think the state law was changed over a

32:26 ↗ period of time and those thresholds have

32:29 ↗ gone up

32:30 ↗ um but we haven't updated our code in

32:32 ↗ some time so there was there was good uh

32:35 ↗ public comments on keeping the existing

32:38 ↗ thresholds and or or not and so that

32:41 ↗ that that's where that debate was but I

32:44 ↗ don't know if if I answered your

32:45 ↗ question in terms of well you did and um

32:49 ↗ but also

32:51 ↗ is our purview strictly limited to 10

32:54 ↗ 000 square feet and above that's what

32:55 ↗ triggers our review no other criteria

32:58 ↗ say you have a combination of

33:00 ↗ creating Phil it's on a creek it's on a

33:03 ↗ steep slope

33:05 ↗ um yeah you know it's 20 units but you

33:08 ↗ know it's not 10 000 square feet but

33:10 ↗ it's has all the other triggers

33:12 ↗ um ours is strictly square footage based

33:15 ↗ is that yeah if you're adding square

33:16 ↗ footage or building new yeah that's what

33:19 ↗ I think we're proposing and what we're

33:21 ↗ hearing is if you're not adding a

33:23 ↗ building you know your your example of

33:25 ↗ uh maybe if there's a size of a parcel

33:28 ↗ but it's uh non-building an outdoor

33:31 ↗ something

33:33 ↗ um that doesn't involve a structure with

33:35 ↗ the square footage then perhaps that one

33:37 ↗ acre site may be inappropriate yeah but

33:40 ↗ there's not any other threshold I think

33:42 ↗ we've the current code has a three acre

33:45 ↗ you know four thousand to forty five

33:47 ↗ thousand on on a high visibility Street

33:49 ↗ those are the options that currently

33:51 ↗ exist in the code

33:53 ↗ um and then there are other stipa has

33:56 ↗ its own threshold Shoreline has its own

33:59 ↗ thresholds it can be you know is it

34:02 ↗ normal maintenance or not so state law

34:03 ↗ is very clear about some of the other

34:05 ↗ land use decisions for you it's you're

34:07 ↗ the decision maker in a site development

34:09 ↗ permit right and so for site development

34:12 ↗ permit what are the projects that need

34:15 ↗ to go through a site development permit

34:17 ↗ okay and I think I'm realizing as I

34:19 ↗ asked this question I'm asking a

34:21 ↗ question that doesn't pertain

34:23 ↗ um so uh you know the seep is

34:26 ↗ independent of that but we're

34:27 ↗ establishing thresholds which are

34:29 ↗ consistent with uh the CPA review right

34:34 ↗ so okay so if a project is over say 12

34:37 ↗ 000 square feet it will require cipa it

34:40 ↗ will require air site development permit

34:42 ↗ approved by a Development Corporation

34:44 ↗ okay I had to say that out loud to

34:46 ↗ realize what I was saying all right

34:48 ↗ thank you

34:50 ↗ any other questions

34:53 ↗ Morgan

34:55 ↗ I just keep following commissioner price

34:57 ↗ because he makes comments that make me

34:59 ↗ think about things so

35:01 ↗ the other the difference between the

35:04 ↗ current regulation and what's in front

35:05 ↗ of the commission versus what's proposed

35:07 ↗ in the option that we're considering

35:09 ↗ here the 10 000 threshold for example

35:11 ↗ and uh

35:13 ↗ question that commissioner Morgan asked

35:16 ↗ about the square footage of the property

35:18 ↗ or the three acre thresholds that that

35:20 ↗ you mentioned so um in this particular

35:23 ↗ instance we added a property limit our

35:26 ↗ threshold would it trip plats and short

35:29 ↗ plats Etc because we've seen plats in

35:32 ↗ front of the commission before because

35:33 ↗ they were large

35:35 ↗ um

35:36 ↗ Redevelopment or developing of

35:39 ↗ undeveloped properties so does this

35:42 ↗ shift that's going on here really move

35:45 ↗ us just into building an architectural

35:47 ↗ review or site development and away from

35:50 ↗ any potential for planning short plat

35:54 ↗ puds Etc yeah so the preliminary plaid

35:57 ↗ application by itself

35:59 ↗ will as a hearing examiner process

36:03 ↗ currently in the code and will stay that

36:06 ↗ way maybe I don't know about the

36:08 ↗ existing code but the the final plan

36:10 ↗ goes to the hearing examiner now

36:12 ↗ so under the proposed draft the hearing

36:17 ↗ examiner will decide the preliminary

36:18 ↗ plant after a public hearing the final

36:21 ↗ plat the state law was changed because

36:24 ↗ what happens at the final plan is just

36:26 ↗ did you build the road based on what you

36:28 ↗ submitted as a preliminary plant and all

36:30 ↗ that it's a very technical review that

36:31 ↗ those can be handled administratively so

36:35 ↗ that's what's in the proposed draft as

36:37 ↗ the preliminary plant as a hearing to

36:39 ↗ the hearing examiner and final plaid now

36:41 ↗ I think you bring up a good point is so

36:44 ↗ that's plant is just laying out the

36:46 ↗ property lines when they come in to

36:49 ↗ build an attached townhome building

36:51 ↗ which is you know more than ten thousand

36:54 ↗ square feet will that trigger a site

36:56 ↗ development permit and will come in

36:58 ↗ front of the development commission

37:01 ↗ um

37:02 ↗ we'll need to think about that of how

37:04 ↗ how things with the plat interplay with

37:08 ↗ the development commission site

37:09 ↗ development permit

37:15 ↗ other questions

37:20 ↗ I have a few

37:21 ↗ um

37:22 ↗ you've already answered one I'm sure

37:24 ↗ about the three acre size in the context

37:27 ↗ of an administrative process and

37:29 ↗ decision I'm going to pick up on the

37:30 ↗ comment by member of the public tonight

37:32 ↗ what are comments how are they submitted

37:35 ↗ is there any kind of hearing associated

37:38 ↗ with that before you or those comments

37:40 ↗ by email or mail or how are they handled

37:44 ↗ uh you're talking about public comments

37:46 ↗ at what stage administrative process

37:49 ↗ only okay so

37:51 ↗ um

37:52 ↗ you know when we first get the

37:54 ↗ application we'll determine if it's

37:56 ↗ complete if it's complete we'll send out

37:58 ↗ a notification to the procedure section

38:01 ↗ change the notification requirement so

38:03 ↗ it's going to go to 500 feet property

38:04 ↗ owners and tenants

38:07 ↗ um and it increased from 300 to 500

38:10 ↗ there will be a notice board posted on

38:12 ↗ the site it'll be published on City's

38:14 ↗ website and other things that are in the

38:16 ↗ procedure so that that's when we'll

38:19 ↗ notify early during the process saying

38:21 ↗ here's a project and and if there's a

38:24 ↗ community meeting schedule we'll

38:26 ↗ probably include that in that community

38:28 ↗ meeting you know timeline and hold it

38:31 ↗ within that time period and still have

38:34 ↗ some time for folks to submit comments

38:36 ↗ after that so once we take all those

38:39 ↗ public comments

38:40 ↗ um will that will become part of the

38:42 ↗ record so we will work and address them

38:45 ↗ through our review process when things

38:48 ↗ come to you all for the formal hearing

38:51 ↗ we we can include all those public

38:52 ↗ comments and potentially a response to

38:55 ↗ what what we you know did with those

38:59 ↗ public comments

39:00 ↗ okay so the community meeting then is

39:02 ↗ part of the administrative process

39:04 ↗ correct great okay thanks

39:07 ↗ um is it desirable I imagine it would be

39:10 ↗ for the square footage threshold to

39:12 ↗ apply to both residential and Commercial

39:14 ↗ uses

39:15 ↗ that we had something in the code didn't

39:17 ↗ we about 30 000 for commercial versus

39:21 ↗ forty five thousand otherwise at some

39:23 ↗ point we made a that split did you want

39:26 ↗ them to be consistent for both

39:28 ↗ commercial and residential uh that's a

39:31 ↗ good question so our existing code

39:33 ↗ actually has a lot of variation so

39:36 ↗ um in the centralistic why it's the four

39:39 ↗ thousand forty five thousand the rest of

39:41 ↗ the you know replacement regulations

39:43 ↗ refer to the central

39:45 ↗ regulations but the rest of the city

39:49 ↗ has a permitted uses table

39:51 ↗ and each use had a different threshold

39:54 ↗ so a grocery store had a 30 000 square

39:57 ↗ foot

39:58 ↗ a lot of uses had no threshold so a

40:02 ↗ daycare that's you know four thousand

40:04 ↗ versus ten thousand same process so it

40:08 ↗ was based on each use and what level of

40:11 ↗ review so instead of the permitted use

40:13 ↗ table saying it's permitted or not

40:15 ↗ permitted it said what level of review

40:17 ↗ was required so it was based on use

40:20 ↗ rather than what the building of the

40:22 ↗ square footage was so it was very

40:25 ↗ complicated so we in the proposed draft

40:28 ↗ we've taken that out and we've just had

40:31 ↗ permitted or not permitted table and

40:33 ↗ then the thresholds of what triggers

40:35 ↗ what is a separate piece okay good yeah

40:38 ↗ uh and then just finally is the option

40:40 ↗ two that's provided here that's the

40:43 ↗ current central Issaquah threshold First

40:46 ↗ Rate but minus the three acre provision

40:48 ↗ correct okay thank you those are the

40:50 ↗ only questions I had any more questions

40:52 ↗ commissioner Morgan um one follow-up

40:54 ↗ with regard to the with comment I was

40:56 ↗ wondering if Miss Marsh was referring to

40:59 ↗ uh table

41:02 ↗ 18.20403 that's on page 31

41:05 ↗ that shows level one is Administrative

41:07 ↗ without comment level two is

41:10 ↗ Administrative with comment

41:13 ↗ and I wondered if she wondered what the

41:15 ↗ difference was between without common

41:17 ↗ and with comment yeah so

41:20 ↗ um I you're right I think that's the

41:23 ↗ table that we have in the in the top

41:26 ↗ would come and without coming and it was

41:28 ↗ whether we will circulate it for public

41:31 ↗ notice

41:33 ↗ um to the 500 folk property owners and

41:36 ↗ tenants around it okay so that does

41:38 ↗ refer to public office staff okay thank

41:41 ↗ you

41:43 ↗ any other questions

41:46 ↗ Mr Dillon

41:48 ↗ so I guess then if the

41:52 ↗ if it were changed to option four which

41:54 ↗ was less than ten thousand feet would

41:57 ↗ all be with comment so does that mean

41:59 ↗ that if somebody's adding an accessory

42:01 ↗ dwelling unit in their backyard that it

42:05 ↗ would be circulated out for public

42:07 ↗ comment it seems like there needs to be

42:09 ↗ some some low level threshold that is

42:12 ↗ still still with the without comment

42:15 ↗ um administrative review yeah so it's a

42:18 ↗ site development permit isn't triggered

42:20 ↗ by someone building a house got it yeah

42:26 ↗ any other questions

42:28 ↗ I have a quick question commissioner

42:30 ↗ Gilbert

42:31 ↗ um so how would a for example a cottage

42:34 ↗ development

42:36 ↗ um be treated with this with Echo did

42:38 ↗ design review at all

42:40 ↗ uh our code currently doesn't have an

42:43 ↗ option for cottage housing and so that's

42:45 ↗ a discussion we're having uh you know

42:47 ↗ the city we we got a grant from

42:50 ↗ Department of Commerce to study a

42:51 ↗ housing action implementation so one of

42:55 ↗ the strategies is uh there to look at

42:58 ↗ improving you know or increasing housing

43:00 ↗ diversity choices so we have a

43:02 ↗ consultant on board that's really

43:04 ↗ looking at that piece and and

43:07 ↗ um so there'll be separate code

43:08 ↗ amendments kind of talking about what a

43:10 ↗ cottage housing you know whether it's a

43:13 ↗ condominium style of ownership or it's

43:15 ↗ planning and things like that so

43:18 ↗ um

43:19 ↗ that's to come it's not in this draft

43:22 ↗ yet

43:31 ↗ okay

43:33 ↗ um so staff is asking for input

43:36 ↗ from us tonight on the two big questions

43:38 ↗ Mr geitz could you put up once again do

43:41 ↗ you have them available there

43:43 ↗ I can read them if they're not handy

43:58 ↗ I think I'd like to take these together

44:00 ↗ if there's no objection to that instead

44:03 ↗ of separately because I think there's

44:05 ↗ somewhat interdependent or could be

44:13 ↗ okay so here are two questions

44:17 ↗ and uh do you do we have any comments or

44:20 ↗ discussion then

44:22 ↗ on what input we want our staff

44:25 ↗ commissioner Morgan

44:27 ↗ sure thank you

44:28 ↗ um

44:30 ↗ the

44:33 ↗ I would agree with the I like the idea

44:35 ↗ of the 10 000 square foot matching the

44:38 ↗ seatbelt because I think that makes it

44:40 ↗ easier for developers people with

44:42 ↗ property to understand

44:44 ↗ I have to do a sepa I have to get a

44:45 ↗ development commission review or I don't

44:47 ↗ for either of those I like that idea of

44:50 ↗ simplifying that

44:52 ↗ I would like to see have a a lot square

44:55 ↗ footage like an acre at most that we

44:59 ↗ would get involved in and I don't think

45:01 ↗ that would be very many Parcels that

45:03 ↗ would come up

45:05 ↗ um

45:06 ↗ the As for the visibility

45:09 ↗ um

45:10 ↗ since we're down to 10 000 square feet

45:13 ↗ in general I would agree with that

45:16 ↗ um but goal eight uh this is on I think

45:19 ↗ page 17 of of the package goal late was

45:23 ↗ neighborhoods retain their charm and

45:25 ↗ distinctive character pattern and

45:27 ↗ setting that includes both built in

45:28 ↗ natural environments I think one of the

45:30 ↗ differences for me with the square

45:32 ↗ footage is the neighborhoods tend to

45:34 ↗ have a different feel size wise

45:36 ↗ and for a lot of downtown issaquah's

45:39 ↗ central area where a lot of this would

45:41 ↗ happen

45:42 ↗ um 10 000 I think works just fine if

45:45 ↗ we're out in the if we're going East

45:47 ↗ Lake Sammamish Parkway by Fred Meyer I

45:49 ↗ think 10 000 works fine but I don't know

45:52 ↗ that it works well in Old Town and and

45:54 ↗ really downtown Israel I'd called it

45:56 ↗ because I think a lot of the Charming

45:58 ↗ character visaquah is encapsulated in

46:00 ↗ Old Town Issaquah I would suggest just

46:03 ↗ having a couple streets that we would

46:06 ↗ include which would be Front Street from

46:09 ↗ perhaps Gilman down to Newport and

46:13 ↗ sunset from I-90 to Newport

46:16 ↗ as those two streets most of that is a

46:19 ↗ much smaller character where a ten

46:22 ↗ thousand square foot building can appear

46:24 ↗ to be a large building in those

46:26 ↗ neighborhoods so I would suggest that

46:29 ↗ in those neighborhoods that we would

46:31 ↗ drop down to perhaps the four thousand

46:33 ↗ square foot mark on those streets where

46:36 ↗ the visibility of a four thousand square

46:38 ↗ foot building is much more important

46:40 ↗ than a ten thousand square foot building

46:42 ↗ cyan Gilman or East Lake Sammamish

46:44 ↗ Parkway

46:46 ↗ why not come down the line for comments

46:48 ↗ commissioner Dillon

46:59 ↗ commissioner Brenna thank you Mr chair

47:02 ↗ um I agree with the 10 000 square foot

47:04 ↗ threshold I think that that does make

47:06 ↗ sense the alignment with cepa I also

47:08 ↗ like the simplification that it creates

47:10 ↗ by applying a consistent standard across

47:13 ↗ the city

47:14 ↗ um just from an applicant's standpoint

47:16 ↗ you know part of the struggle is trying

47:18 ↗ to figure out what's the right level of

47:20 ↗ review that's appropriate for

47:23 ↗ um development that's happening in the

47:25 ↗ city I'm not concerned about you know a

47:28 ↗ developer saying well I'm going to build

47:29 ↗ 9 900 square feet to avoid coming to

47:33 ↗ visit with the development commission

47:34 ↗ which would hurt our feelings to start

47:36 ↗ with but

47:37 ↗ because that that's just as a as a

47:39 ↗ decision on how they're going to develop

47:41 ↗ a piece of property I don't think that's

47:43 ↗ a trigger a big trigger I mean if it's

47:45 ↗ right at the edge maybe but unlikely

47:47 ↗ that that would be a barrier

47:49 ↗ the idea of looking at Old Town maybe a

47:54 ↗ little differently I I'd like that idea

47:56 ↗ too as a concept I didn't think about it

47:58 ↗ I think that's a good idea just because

47:59 ↗ it is a it is an important part of the

48:03 ↗ city that really warrants maybe a higher

48:06 ↗ level of public engagement and

48:08 ↗ participation that could happen here

48:10 ↗ when changes do happen and because I'm

48:12 ↗ just thinking about some of the projects

48:14 ↗ that have come through the development

48:16 ↗ Commission in Old Town

48:18 ↗ specifically along Front Street and

48:20 ↗ along Sunset and there is a high level

48:23 ↗ of interest and there's a high level of

48:24 ↗ detail that's involved in compatibility

48:27 ↗ Etc and meeting a very specific standard

48:30 ↗ for that part of the city so I I think

48:32 ↗ that's a I think that's a something that

48:34 ↗ the staff and the council and the PPC

48:37 ↗ should consider

48:38 ↗ um the the piece about the separation

48:41 ↗ between the technical reviews and the

48:44 ↗ the site development and the

48:45 ↗ architectural

48:47 ↗ um I I think that makes sense there's a

48:49 ↗ lot of technical work that goes on with

48:50 ↗ with development and you need to have

48:52 ↗ your engineers Etc that have that

48:53 ↗ expertise in education really looking at

48:56 ↗ that and making those decisions my

48:58 ↗ concern there as I expressed was

49:00 ↗ confusion for the public and I like the

49:02 ↗ uh the way director Dolly wall laid out

49:05 ↗ the process and how that would engage

49:08 ↗ what would happen but we do need to make

49:09 ↗ sure that people do know where to engage

49:12 ↗ on different parts of the project so

49:15 ↗ that when they do come in front of the

49:16 ↗ commission they're really focused on the

49:18 ↗ piece that's in front of the commission

49:19 ↗ so that we can help take in that

49:23 ↗ feedback and provide any additional

49:25 ↗ direction to the applicant and the staff

49:28 ↗ and or out of condition if we deal uh

49:31 ↗ so but otherwise I like the direction

49:33 ↗ this is going as far as you know

49:35 ↗ standardizing the approach

49:36 ↗ simplification uh and then some clarity

49:39 ↗ about how the different review processes

49:41 ↗ will work so

49:44 ↗ commissioner Gilbert

49:47 ↗ um well I concur with the previous

49:49 ↗ Commissioners and I like commissioner

49:51 ↗ Morgan's comment um regarding old town

49:53 ↗ and having some a lower the threshold

49:56 ↗ where design review would kick in I

49:59 ↗ think that makes a lot of sense for Old

50:00 ↗ Town and

50:02 ↗ um I also agree with lowering

50:06 ↗ um from 45

50:07 ↗ 000 lowering the limit to ten thousand

50:11 ↗ just to catch a few more projects that

50:13 ↗ would be really significant for Issaquah

50:17 ↗ thank you

50:18 ↗ Richmond price

50:20 ↗ thank you I agree with the 10 000 square

50:24 ↗ foot threshold I think that makes a lot

50:26 ↗ of sense for a lot of reasons that we've

50:28 ↗ talked about already

50:30 ↗ I I do feel like our volume is going to

50:33 ↗ go up even though I don't know you have

50:35 ↗ evidence to the contrary my first

50:37 ↗ reaction was our volume is going to go

50:39 ↗ way up I also think if we're not wading

50:41 ↗ through hundreds and hundreds of pages

50:44 ↗ of reports potentially we could handle

50:46 ↗ that increased volume so I think our

50:50 ↗ preparation would probably be reduced

50:52 ↗ although I would still like some

50:54 ↗ visibility into uh those those approvals

50:58 ↗ and reports just to understand the

51:00 ↗ project in its entirety I think that's

51:02 ↗ helpful

51:04 ↗ um and then yeah commissioner Morgan's

51:06 ↗ idea of reducing the threshold in

51:08 ↗ special circumstances makes a lot of

51:11 ↗ sense that that that review now is

51:14 ↗ subject to a community-based review

51:17 ↗ process

51:19 ↗ and so I I would agree with that idea so

51:24 ↗ that's all I have

51:26 ↗ thanks and I agree with the 10 000 foot

51:28 ↗ threshold for all the reasons stated

51:30 ↗ however I am strongly for including the

51:35 ↗ high Vis Street option I'm not sure if

51:38 ↗ it's all the streets that we currently

51:40 ↗ have but I think when this was added to

51:42 ↗ the code I certainly don't have any

51:44 ↗ memory of when it was maybe some of you

51:45 ↗ do I think it showed a lot of foresight

51:48 ↗ which is really true and clear today

51:50 ↗ because we have Newport we have front

51:53 ↗ Maple Gilman are all streets in or

51:57 ↗ bordering Central Issaquah and that's

51:59 ↗ where we expect and encourage much of

52:02 ↗ our future development to go I think

52:04 ↗ it's especially important that we have

52:06 ↗ full public participation in the process

52:09 ↗ on these streets because projects

52:12 ↗ already that don't result in a change of

52:16 ↗ land use I believe are already exempt

52:19 ↗ correct me if I'm wrong on that

52:21 ↗ but I think if the use Remains the Same

52:23 ↗ in there I don't think we see them

52:24 ↗ anyway and I was saying for example

52:27 ↗ without the high visibility Street

52:30 ↗ provision wouldn't that allow a building

52:32 ↗ of 200 by 49 feet on Gilman without any

52:36 ↗ development commission or public hearing

52:39 ↗ so that's a lot of Frontage on which the

52:41 ↗ public would not be able to air their

52:44 ↗ opinions in front of us so I would be

52:46 ↗ for the ten thousand foot threshold but

52:50 ↗ also the high visibility streets and I'm

52:54 ↗ also for the the one acre threshold as

52:57 ↗ well

52:59 ↗ so do you have enough consensus or do we

53:03 ↗ need to vote or

53:05 ↗ I think that's helpful thank you

53:07 ↗ yeah so just to make sure on the high

53:10 ↗ visibility streets for you commissioner

53:13 ↗ Sanford are you suggesting what

53:15 ↗ threshold for those streets I think what

53:18 ↗ we have now four thousand okay

53:20 ↗ okay is there consensus on that or are

53:23 ↗ we just want to capture

53:25 ↗ does everyone feel strongly about the

53:28 ↗ high visibility Street and and or

53:31 ↗ lowering further ten thousand square

53:33 ↗ foot threshold to 4 000 on those streets

53:38 ↗ Mr Dillon

53:40 ↗ um I think commissioner chair Sanford

53:42 ↗ mentioned

53:43 ↗ um

53:44 ↗ possibly re-looking at those high

53:47 ↗ visibility streets and and maybe

53:48 ↗ narrowing that list down but retaining

53:51 ↗ it for

53:52 ↗ those streets that are really the the

53:55 ↗ key thoroughfares where we see the

53:58 ↗ character of Issaquah I mean I see the

54:01 ↗ extension of of sunset up onto squawk

54:03 ↗ that doesn't seem like somewhere that we

54:05 ↗ need to have a different threshold but

54:08 ↗ possibly looking at portions of of

54:11 ↗ Gilman Boulevard and and some of those

54:13 ↗ areas I

54:17 ↗ don't feel strongly either way but I I

54:20 ↗ would say that if we were to keep it

54:22 ↗ that maybe reviewing those streets and

54:24 ↗ possibly shortening that list

54:26 ↗ possibly those areas in the central sub

54:29 ↗ area the maybe limiting the boundaries

54:32 ↗ of where those streets are defined and

54:36 ↗ and part of the threshold

54:41 ↗ Mr Morgan

54:43 ↗ um yeah I I very much appreciate the

54:46 ↗ comments from uh chair Sanford but I

54:49 ↗ would I guess I would still feel like

54:51 ↗ the the most of the streets outside of

54:53 ↗ Old Town I think I'd feel comfortable

54:55 ↗ with

54:56 ↗ uh 10 000 feet or over and partly

55:00 ↗ because I know that the staff is still

55:01 ↗ going to be reviewing a project under 10

55:03 ↗ 000 square feet and so they're still

55:04 ↗ going to be

55:06 ↗ somebody looking at it and they won't

55:07 ↗ just be able to build anything and I

55:09 ↗ think partly is just the economics of

55:11 ↗ building something under 10 000 square

55:13 ↗ feet

55:15 ↗ the development review process fitting

55:18 ↗ into those economics I think can be very

55:20 ↗ difficult

55:21 ↗ um to make something work

55:24 ↗ and so I I'm still I'm comfortable with

55:28 ↗ limiting it to more of the Old Town

55:29 ↗ streets that I talked about as opposed

55:31 ↗ to high visibility

55:35 ↗ commissioner

55:38 ↗ yeah I I

55:40 ↗ was just looking at the map uh more

55:43 ↗ closely as the high visibility streets

55:45 ↗ and I think a number of the areas

55:47 ↗ really don't warrant that level of

55:49 ↗ oversight because I think

55:51 ↗ for one like for instance instance

55:53 ↗ Gilman Boulevard in the central Issaquah

55:56 ↗ area that that's slated for a

55:59 ↗ significant density in Redevelopment

56:02 ↗ we'll see large projects come through

56:03 ↗ there so most of what's going to happen

56:05 ↗ along along Gilman Boulevard will

56:08 ↗ probably land in front of the commission

56:09 ↗ anyway just because of the economics of

56:12 ↗ of

56:14 ↗ property costs and and the density

56:16 ↗ that's allowed there they're going to go

56:18 ↗ big in and more significant than there

56:21 ↗ are now some of the other streets that

56:23 ↗ are on here they're really perimeter

56:26 ↗ streets and or their

56:28 ↗ um

56:30 ↗ um they've been redeveloped already I do

56:33 ↗ think though that the character of Old

56:35 ↗ Town is unique to the city and and

56:37 ↗ protecting that personality of the city

56:39 ↗ I think

56:40 ↗ um

56:41 ↗ in that history of the city I think is

56:43 ↗ important and I think that that would

56:45 ↗ warrant this higher level of oversight

56:47 ↗ or engagement with the commission but

56:50 ↗ the economics commissioner Morgan talked

56:55 ↗ about the economics the economics of of

56:57 ↗ development and and coming through a

56:59 ↗ process that adds time and uncertainty

57:01 ↗ to your to your project is a significant

57:04 ↗ deterrent from developers actually

57:07 ↗ coming and investing in the city so it's

57:09 ↗ always that the policy choices the

57:11 ↗ balance and what's the appropriate level

57:13 ↗ of oversight and what are we trying to

57:15 ↗ what's the value that's added to that

57:16 ↗ versus the risk that we're

57:19 ↗ placing on the developers that are that

57:22 ↗ are trying to to develop in this city

57:24 ↗ and I think that kind of where we're

57:25 ↗ Landing now is uncomfortable with that

57:27 ↗ with this kind of focused in the old

57:29 ↗ town area and and let staff deal with

57:32 ↗ the

57:33 ↗ properties outside that are uh under

57:36 ↗ that 10 000 threshold

57:44 ↗ so to summarize in my hearing we like

57:47 ↗ the 10 000 foot threshold

57:49 ↗ we're talking about some high visibility

57:52 ↗ streets but more constrained to Old Town

57:54 ↗ perhaps so we're looking at refining the

57:58 ↗ list of high visibility streets really

58:00 ↗ from what we have now

58:02 ↗ any other

58:03 ↗ aspects that I'm overlooking here

58:07 ↗ so is that enough detailing

58:09 ↗ okay great

58:12 ↗ so I think we can close that question of

58:16 ↗ the meeting

58:17 ↗ and move on to our next regular item

58:20 ↗ tonight and that's about adopting rules

58:23 ↗ and regulations

58:24 ↗ final item on our regular business

58:26 ↗ agenda this evening involves

58:27 ↗ consideration of two potential changes

58:30 ↗ to the development commission rules and

58:32 ↗ regs and these are a change to our start

58:35 ↗ time to 6 30 and Adoption of new virtual

58:37 ↗ attendance policy the order for this

58:40 ↗ item will be staff presentation then

58:42 ↗ development commission questions for

58:45 ↗ staff and finally commission motion any

58:48 ↗ amendments and votes so just to be clear

58:50 ↗ that to separate points two and three

58:54 ↗ our second point will really be

58:56 ↗ questions only for staff and then our

58:58 ↗ last one will be

59:00 ↗ a commissioned motion to initiate the

59:02 ↗ discussion about the item among

59:04 ↗ ourselves

59:05 ↗ so for staff presentation can you please

59:07 ↗ proceed uh tonight we have city clerk

59:10 ↗ Tisha Geiser

59:12 ↗ hi commission it's nice to be here

59:14 ↗ tonight as the chair said I'm Tisha

59:16 ↗ Geezer I'm the city clerk and I want to

59:18 ↗ take a minute to thank you for your

59:20 ↗ service I'm currently working on a

59:22 ↗ project helping to Archive our old

59:24 ↗ development commission records so I'm

59:26 ↗ looking at commission records back into

59:28 ↗ the 70s from a board of adjustment we

59:30 ↗ used to have and just through through

59:32 ↗ time in Issaquah and it's really been

59:34 ↗ powerful thinking about all of those

59:36 ↗ volunteer hours that were spent in so

59:40 ↗ many night meetings to make our

59:42 ↗ community what it is today so thank you

59:44 ↗ for being a part of that it was a

59:47 ↗ pleasure to listen to your discussion

59:48 ↗ tonight I'm here to talk to you about

59:51 ↗ some proposed amendments to your rules

59:53 ↗ and regulations

59:54 ↗ as you're very aware

59:57 ↗ um in July of this year the development

59:59 ↗ commission was one of uh about half of

1:00:02 ↗ our 13 advisory boards that resumed

1:00:05 ↗ in-person meetings and as of last week

1:00:07 ↗ all of our advisory boards have had

1:00:09 ↗ their first in-person meeting

1:00:12 ↗ however most of our boards are committed

1:00:14 ↗ to continuing to have a virtual element

1:00:16 ↗ so for the development commission you

1:00:19 ↗ are one of the boards where the city

1:00:21 ↗ would like to continue providing that

1:00:23 ↗ virtual option for the public to

1:00:26 ↗ participate make comments or observe as

1:00:29 ↗ well as staff or Consultants developers

1:00:32 ↗ who might be presenting to you but

1:00:35 ↗ initially the emphasis was really on you

1:00:38 ↗ coming and sitting here in these chairs

1:00:41 ↗ but over the past few months we've heard

1:00:44 ↗ feedback from board members in many of

1:00:47 ↗ the boards and commissions that would

1:00:49 ↗ like to retain an option to attend

1:00:51 ↗ virtually and so in response to that the

1:00:54 ↗ mayor directed the clerk's office to

1:00:56 ↗ propose sort of a draft policy to offer

1:01:00 ↗ the commissions it's it's very optional

1:01:03 ↗ um and so we'll go over just the basics

1:01:06 ↗ of that tonight it's it's fairly brief

1:01:08 ↗ it was in your packets additionally

1:01:10 ↗ there was recent certainly some interest

1:01:14 ↗ expressed by a commissioner about

1:01:15 ↗ revisiting the start time the

1:01:18 ↗ development commission I believe you're

1:01:20 ↗ the only commission currently who meets

1:01:22 ↗ at seven o'clock most of our boards and

1:01:24 ↗ commissions do begin a little earlier

1:01:25 ↗ ranging from 5 to 6 30 and because we

1:01:29 ↗ were bringing forward these amendments

1:01:30 ↗ we thought we would just pose that

1:01:32 ↗ question to you so I um let's start with

1:01:37 ↗ the meeting start time so this room that

1:01:40 ↗ we're in is used as a virtual and

1:01:43 ↗ in-person Municipal Court during the day

1:01:46 ↗ and so there is a fair amount of

1:01:50 ↗ setup that occurs prior to your meetings

1:01:52 ↗ so we would request that as you're

1:01:54 ↗ considering an earlier start time that 6

1:01:57 ↗ 30 would work very well six o'clock or

1:02:00 ↗ prior could be a little challenging

1:02:03 ↗ depending on when the court calendar

1:02:04 ↗ ends

1:02:06 ↗ and then let's take a minute to talk

1:02:08 ↗ about the virtual attendance policy

1:02:11 ↗ so the proposed policy would require

1:02:15 ↗ in-person attendance of a quorum of the

1:02:17 ↗ commission and this is for two reasons

1:02:20 ↗ one it's uh the administration would

1:02:24 ↗ like to continue to encourage in-person

1:02:26 ↗ attendance and we feel that this does

1:02:29 ↗ that the other reason is if there are

1:02:31 ↗ issues with the Virtual Technology

1:02:33 ↗ either by individual members or the city

1:02:36 ↗ system we would need to end the meeting

1:02:39 ↗ if there was not a quorum in person

1:02:40 ↗ which really for anyone who's shown up

1:02:43 ↗ at the meeting including the

1:02:44 ↗ Commissioners

1:02:46 ↗ could feel less than ideal

1:02:49 ↗ uh so the proposed policy would request

1:02:53 ↗ that or require that you provide advance

1:02:56 ↗ notice to your staff liaison uh

1:02:58 ↗ Christian here of your intention to

1:03:01 ↗ participate virtually preferably five

1:03:03 ↗ days in advance but certainly things

1:03:05 ↗ could come up

1:03:06 ↗ um closer to the meeting

1:03:09 ↗ and then assuming that it was confirmed

1:03:11 ↗ that a quorum would be in person you'd

1:03:13 ↗ have the ability to participate

1:03:15 ↗ virtually you would be able to fully

1:03:17 ↗ participate there wouldn't be any

1:03:18 ↗ restrictions on your ability to vote or

1:03:21 ↗ anything like that you would be noted in

1:03:23 ↗ the minutes is present with just a

1:03:25 ↗ distinction that you attended virtually

1:03:27 ↗ but we are hoping that Commissioners

1:03:31 ↗ don't use this option potential option

1:03:34 ↗ um to just sort of keep an ear on the

1:03:36 ↗ meeting the idea would be that if you

1:03:38 ↗ were participating virtually your camera

1:03:39 ↗ we'd like you to join by computer if

1:03:42 ↗ possible we'd like your camera to be

1:03:44 ↗ honest that you can be fully engaged if

1:03:46 ↗ you are traveling with your family on

1:03:48 ↗ vacation if you are not feeling well we

1:03:50 ↗ would like you to request an excused

1:03:52 ↗ absence but this could be useful if you

1:03:55 ↗ had a transportation or Child Care issue

1:03:57 ↗ or you know we're recovering from a

1:03:59 ↗ medical procedure needing to quarantine

1:04:01 ↗ a minor cold you know something

1:04:03 ↗ something of that nature

1:04:05 ↗ and then one limitation would be that if

1:04:08 ↗ the chair was attending virtually we

1:04:09 ↗ would be looking to the vice chair or

1:04:11 ↗ another commissioner to chair who was in

1:04:14 ↗ person to chair the meeting

1:04:18 ↗ so there are some other just really

1:04:19 ↗ minor tweaks and of course you are very

1:04:21 ↗ welcome to offer um suggested wording

1:04:24 ↗ edits or substantive edits to the

1:04:26 ↗ proposed rules but we have acknowledged

1:04:30 ↗ in this draft policy that members of the

1:04:32 ↗ public can participate virtually and

1:04:34 ↗ made a few minor adjustments to identify

1:04:36 ↗ that as well as

1:04:39 ↗ staff and then the proposal change does

1:04:42 ↗ just also acknowledge that your regular

1:04:43 ↗ meetings will have that virtual

1:04:45 ↗ component and I expect that most of your

1:04:48 ↗ special meetings would too but if you

1:04:50 ↗ choose to do something like a tour or

1:04:52 ↗ have a sort of a semblance of a social

1:04:55 ↗ Gathering we would probably refrain from

1:04:57 ↗ a virtual element for those meetings as

1:04:59 ↗ it is no longer required

1:05:01 ↗ in state law lastly

1:05:04 ↗ the legislature did amend the open

1:05:07 ↗ public meetings act during covid and did

1:05:10 ↗ allow for fully virtual meetings while

1:05:12 ↗ there's a declared emergency so that

1:05:14 ↗ remains an option as you have probably

1:05:18 ↗ heard the governors planning to lift the

1:05:20 ↗ emergency Proclamation at the end of

1:05:22 ↗ this month but the city's emergency

1:05:24 ↗ Proclamation is still in place

1:05:27 ↗ and so here is a proposed motion again

1:05:30 ↗ you're very welcome to ask questions or

1:05:32 ↗ offer changes and uh and or and you know

1:05:35 ↗ not adopt this policy if you would like

1:05:37 ↗ to compel in-person attendance of the

1:05:40 ↗ commission

1:05:41 ↗ um you know you certainly do not need to

1:05:43 ↗ to make this change uh but we are

1:05:45 ↗ offering it as one option

1:05:47 ↗ thank you

1:05:50 ↗ thank you so Commissioners do we have

1:05:52 ↗ any questions on

1:05:54 ↗ either the the time change or the

1:05:57 ↗ virtual attendance policy

1:06:00 ↗ commissioner Morgan

1:06:02 ↗ um thank you I've a question on this is

1:06:05 ↗ page 62 of the package it's Item B under

1:06:09 ↗ number six

1:06:10 ↗ it says

1:06:12 ↗ um

1:06:13 ↗ members attending virtually be

1:06:15 ↗ considered president the meeting you may

1:06:17 ↗ participate however however if an

1:06:19 ↗ alternate member needs to serve in place

1:06:21 ↗ of a regular member the alternate

1:06:23 ↗ members attending in person will be

1:06:26 ↗ given preference to serve in the place

1:06:28 ↗ of regular members

1:06:30 ↗ didn't fully understand the

1:06:33 ↗ the English of that in terms of the does

1:06:36 ↗ it mean I guess my thought would be what

1:06:38 ↗ we'd want is if there's an alternate

1:06:40 ↗ member that's here at the meeting

1:06:43 ↗ that they would be if we're counting

1:06:45 ↗ seven voting members it would be the

1:06:47 ↗ voting members including alternates as

1:06:49 ↗ opposed to uh

1:06:50 ↗ a regular commission member that's

1:06:52 ↗ virtual

1:06:54 ↗ or in lieu of another alternate member

1:06:57 ↗ that's virtual

1:07:00 ↗ so if there were two alternate members

1:07:03 ↗ to alternate members a 10 in person will

1:07:06 ↗ be given preference to serve in the

1:07:07 ↗ place of regular members

1:07:09 ↗ and I see the the way that's worded that

1:07:12 ↗ is not very clear

1:07:13 ↗ but it the intention however I'm also

1:07:16 ↗ I'm gonna pull up your rules because you

1:07:18 ↗ are one of our the only boards that

1:07:20 ↗ specify or commissions that specify

1:07:22 ↗ which alternate votes and I believe it's

1:07:26 ↗ based on seniority and then rotated so I

1:07:30 ↗ actually think that we might want to

1:07:32 ↗ remove this provision to uh which I I

1:07:36 ↗ had thought I had removed from uh I had

1:07:39 ↗ put together a policy to share with all

1:07:41 ↗ the boards very aware that your

1:07:43 ↗ commission was unique in specifying how

1:07:46 ↗ an alternate is chosen so it might be uh

1:07:49 ↗ so at a minimum the wording should be

1:07:52 ↗ changed I think to clarify that the

1:07:55 ↗ expectation is if if you're a regular

1:07:57 ↗ member you'll be allowed to vote whether

1:07:58 ↗ you're virtual or in person but if there

1:08:00 ↗ are two alternates and one is virtual

1:08:02 ↗ and one is in person preference would be

1:08:04 ↗ given to the in-person alternate however

1:08:06 ↗ your commission rules specify I believe

1:08:09 ↗ it's the alternate with the seniority is

1:08:13 ↗ the the first alternate to serve and

1:08:15 ↗ then it rotates throughout the year so I

1:08:17 ↗ would propose that we keep that in place

1:08:19 ↗ I did not intend to override that so if

1:08:23 ↗ there were if there were

1:08:25 ↗ um

1:08:25 ↗ if we had because I think we have seven

1:08:27 ↗ voting people at a time so if we had

1:08:31 ↗ I guess if you had a commissioner a

1:08:34 ↗ regular commissioner that was virtual

1:08:36 ↗ and you had six regular members in

1:08:38 ↗ person you wouldn't even call in an

1:08:40 ↗ alternate

1:08:41 ↗ to sit in it because you would just say

1:08:43 ↗ we were we have enough that's correct

1:08:45 ↗ okay and I guess the question would be

1:08:48 ↗ would we prefer to have an alternate

1:08:50 ↗ member who would attend the meeting to

1:08:53 ↗ sit in

1:08:54 ↗ over

1:08:55 ↗ a regular member who would be serving

1:08:57 ↗ virtually

1:08:59 ↗ and that's I guess a question of

1:09:01 ↗ Commissioners how we would feel about

1:09:03 ↗ that would we give in essence preference

1:09:05 ↗ to somebody that comes to the meeting I

1:09:07 ↗ suppose to Virtual

1:09:10 ↗ and who decides them

1:09:12 ↗ would we well that's what I think we

1:09:14 ↗ would have it probably in here if that

1:09:15 ↗ was stated that if if in reg if an

1:09:19 ↗ alternate member can fill the seat of a

1:09:22 ↗ regular member to get to seven

1:09:25 ↗ would you then not offer that virtual

1:09:28 ↗ option to the regular member

1:09:32 ↗ Mr Morgan that was something we

1:09:34 ↗ considered uh building into this draft

1:09:36 ↗ policy but as I visited commissions I

1:09:39 ↗ realized that um logistic the logistics

1:09:43 ↗ behind that can be challenging

1:09:44 ↗ particularly for some of our larger

1:09:46 ↗ boards we have some we have a board that

1:09:48 ↗ has four alternate members and um you

1:09:51 ↗ know had a situation with that board

1:09:53 ↗ where there were three regular members

1:09:55 ↗ that attended virtually and there was

1:09:57 ↗ one in-person alternate so how do you

1:10:00 ↗ navigate that so it's certainly

1:10:03 ↗ something the commission could consider

1:10:05 ↗ if you wanted to further compel or

1:10:07 ↗ reward that in-person attendance but I

1:10:10 ↗ do foresee some challenges with

1:10:12 ↗ implementing

1:10:14 ↗ implementing it yeah

1:10:17 ↗ and I'm not sure if I'm necessarily for

1:10:19 ↗ it but I thought it was an interesting

1:10:20 ↗ question to ask of like you say do you

1:10:23 ↗ want to

1:10:24 ↗ incentivize people to show up

1:10:28 ↗ commissioner Brennan thank you

1:10:30 ↗ interesting question I had to read that

1:10:31 ↗ a few times myself and I Thanks for the

1:10:34 ↗ explanation so I think he had a little

1:10:35 ↗ rewarding might be good on that just to

1:10:37 ↗ make sure it's clear

1:10:39 ↗ um the intense clear the

1:10:42 ↗ I think when it comes to what your

1:10:45 ↗ concern is and then the issues with

1:10:47 ↗ regard to Logistics that I could see

1:10:48 ↗ that and even choosing one I've got

1:10:50 ↗ multiple alternates and somebody has to

1:10:52 ↗ sit out we got into that a few times and

1:10:54 ↗ said oh it's uncomfortable and that's

1:10:56 ↗ why we put it in the rules so let's set

1:10:57 ↗ it up as a rule and here's how it works

1:10:59 ↗ but the way this is set up it's a fairly

1:11:01 ↗ narrow allowance for people to be

1:11:04 ↗ virtual

1:11:06 ↗ um it's not just I I don't feel like

1:11:07 ↗ driving in because it's raining and I

1:11:09 ↗ want to stay home where it's warm

1:11:11 ↗ um

1:11:12 ↗ is not a it's not a legitimate reason to

1:11:15 ↗ go virtual it needs to be you're ill or

1:11:18 ↗ um you've got a work-related issue

1:11:20 ↗ that's keeping you away from town but

1:11:22 ↗ you're available that sort of thing so

1:11:25 ↗ um I I think I think

1:11:27 ↗ um I'm comfortable with the way the

1:11:29 ↗ intent that you described

1:11:32 ↗ um in in this particular instance and

1:11:34 ↗ you know the other thing going for us is

1:11:35 ↗ well we have one alternate so it makes

1:11:37 ↗ it really easy because we know it's

1:11:39 ↗ going to be but anyway uh for now anyway

1:11:41 ↗ but

1:11:42 ↗ he's he's awesome so I mean

1:11:47 ↗ uh I had a question please thank you

1:11:49 ↗ um one question real quick though

1:11:52 ↗ um uh commissioner Morgan weren't you on

1:11:54 ↗ the Commission in the 70s did you go

1:11:56 ↗ back

1:12:04 ↗ um so I had one clarification even

1:12:06 ↗ though it was clearly a clarification

1:12:08 ↗ Point here

1:12:09 ↗ um

1:12:10 ↗ the public going forward no matter what

1:12:13 ↗ can attend virtually

1:12:15 ↗ as well as staff good I think that's

1:12:18 ↗ that's key I think and I've witnessed

1:12:20 ↗ and I've heard that really promotes

1:12:23 ↗ particip participation which I think is

1:12:25 ↗ what this is really all about if we peel

1:12:28 ↗ away all the layers hopefully we can get

1:12:30 ↗ more public participation awareness or

1:12:32 ↗ even attendance on some level I think it

1:12:35 ↗ can be intimidating I think it can be

1:12:37 ↗ inconvenient I think we can all make

1:12:39 ↗ excuses but if it's easy I think it's

1:12:42 ↗ great so

1:12:44 ↗ um

1:12:45 ↗ beyond that

1:12:47 ↗ um

1:12:47 ↗ that that was really it that was my only

1:12:49 ↗ question thank you

1:12:52 ↗ other questions

1:12:56 ↗ just one more for clarification I think

1:12:59 ↗ I know the answer to this one but when

1:13:01 ↗ it talks about staff participation

1:13:04 ↗ that staff may participate in the

1:13:06 ↗ meeting in person or virtually it's

1:13:09 ↗ under the staff participation it's

1:13:11 ↗ dealing with expert testimony so My

1:13:15 ↗ worry is that if all staff decide to

1:13:17 ↗ participate virtually and leave us in

1:13:18 ↗ here all by ourselves we'll get into

1:13:20 ↗ mischief and so we need we need help but

1:13:23 ↗ I'm the that is if we're bringing in uh

1:13:28 ↗ one of the city Engineers or

1:13:31 ↗ environmentalists or um

1:13:33 ↗ environmental planners Etc that would be

1:13:36 ↗ for that purpose but the staff liaison

1:13:40 ↗ others would be here as a regular

1:13:42 ↗ attendee because

1:13:45 ↗ that's exactly right so your staff lies

1:13:47 ↗ are liaison or their designate there

1:13:49 ↗ will always be someone here to sort of

1:13:52 ↗ assist you in person but as you

1:13:54 ↗ mentioned there might be multiple staff

1:13:56 ↗ presentations and and those individuals

1:13:58 ↗ may choose to participate virtually we

1:14:01 ↗ also as part of this commitment to

1:14:02 ↗ maintaining this virtual element to your

1:14:04 ↗ meetings there is a meeting assistant uh

1:14:07 ↗ Mr Aldrich there who will be at your

1:14:09 ↗ meetings to facilitate the virtual

1:14:12 ↗ experience for the public and any

1:14:14 ↗ Commissioners who might choose to

1:14:15 ↗ participate virtually so we will not

1:14:17 ↗ leave you alone okay now I can I can

1:14:20 ↗ sleep tonight thank you

1:14:23 ↗ others

1:14:26 ↗ had a couple uh let's see uh four one I

1:14:30 ↗ think it's four one C uh conduct each

1:14:33 ↗ meeting as efficiently as possible to

1:14:35 ↗ adjourn the meeting no later than 10 pm

1:14:37 ↗ do the other uh groups that have an

1:14:40 ↗ earlier start time have an earlier cut

1:14:42 ↗ off or is this 10 always the cutoff time

1:14:49 ↗ there's a real range

1:14:53 ↗ um I believe we have some boards that

1:14:55 ↗ might have a nine o'clock but I've also

1:14:57 ↗ seen an 11 o'clock so

1:15:00 ↗ um and so I don't ha I don't know what

1:15:03 ↗ the typical end time is I would say

1:15:05 ↗ three hours after your start time three

1:15:07 ↗ hours after starting yeah so that could

1:15:09 ↗ be something you revisit and that's a

1:15:11 ↗ very good maybe we would amend that yeah

1:15:12 ↗ okay so let's see what else

1:15:16 ↗ I guess it's in

1:15:20 ↗ this would be section seven

1:15:24 ↗ see down where there are several

1:15:27 ↗ enumerated points so the following

1:15:30 ↗ guidelines are established for public

1:15:32 ↗ comments and the first one was when

1:15:34 ↗ recognized commenters are encouraged to

1:15:36 ↗ use the podium and that was stripping

1:15:38 ↗ and I was wondering why that was

1:15:40 ↗ stricken

1:15:42 ↗ and I

1:15:43 ↗ probably could have

1:15:46 ↗ to recognize

1:15:48 ↗ averaging 50 percent of the public

1:15:50 ↗ comments are being made virtually and so

1:15:52 ↗ I think we could certainly it could

1:15:54 ↗ still be left in and just clarified that

1:15:56 ↗ that applied to in-person comments

1:15:58 ↗ anyone in the room needs to be miked and

1:16:02 ↗ so it is important that they they are

1:16:05 ↗ somewhere where they can have a

1:16:06 ↗ microphone in front of them preferably

1:16:08 ↗ at the podium and we could certainly

1:16:10 ↗ leave that in and just clarify yeah

1:16:13 ↗ you'd like yeah okay I think those are

1:16:17 ↗ all the questions that I had

1:16:19 ↗ so I think we need a motion to get going

1:16:24 ↗ discussion and any amendments on this

1:16:27 ↗ [Music]

1:16:29 ↗ commissioner Gilbert I moved to amend

1:16:32 ↗ the development commission rules and

1:16:33 ↗ regulations by adopting amendments to

1:16:36 ↗ section one regular meetings section 7

1:16:39 ↗ participation and a new section 6

1:16:41 ↗ virtual attendance as proposed

1:16:44 ↗ October 2nd

1:16:46 ↗ second

1:16:48 ↗ okay so it's been made the motion has

1:16:52 ↗ been made and seconded that we adopt uh

1:16:55 ↗ as proposed

1:16:58 ↗ um

1:16:59 ↗ now we can open the floor of discussion

1:17:01 ↗ and any possible amendments

1:17:04 ↗ so do we have any comments discussions

1:17:06 ↗ debate on this item commissioner Dillon

1:17:11 ↗ I would prefer that we keep our start

1:17:14 ↗ time at seven o'clock

1:17:16 ↗ um

1:17:17 ↗ I I can work with a 6 30 start time but

1:17:20 ↗ seven o'clock gives me time to get home

1:17:23 ↗ from work to have dinner with my family

1:17:25 ↗ 6 30 especially on a rough traffic day

1:17:28 ↗ which we now are starting to have again

1:17:31 ↗ gets gets really tight and I appreciate

1:17:34 ↗ having that little bit of a buffer the

1:17:36 ↗ difference between a 9 30 and 10 o'clock

1:17:38 ↗ end time to me is not that important

1:17:42 ↗ okay and maybe we could stick with the

1:17:45 ↗ time issue right now any other comments

1:17:47 ↗ on the time issue

1:17:51 ↗ I could go either way

1:17:54 ↗ yeah me too I can go I'm not I don't

1:17:57 ↗ have a strong preference

1:18:02 ↗ I say that we accommodate

1:18:07 ↗ um but the staff or the memo mentioned

1:18:09 ↗ that a commissioner had requested that

1:18:11 ↗ we try to start it a little bit earlier

1:18:13 ↗ so

1:18:13 ↗ um

1:18:15 ↗ I'm not sure where that came from but if

1:18:17 ↗ they're on the commission maybe advocate

1:18:19 ↗ for that and tell us a little bit about

1:18:21 ↗ the the need gonna make me put up my

1:18:25 ↗ hand actually yeah

1:18:27 ↗ the thinking was that uh when we were

1:18:29 ↗ meeting with PPC and we were starting at

1:18:32 ↗ 6 30 and started a little earlier wound

1:18:35 ↗ up a little earlier just seemed

1:18:36 ↗ comfortable to me and we seemed kind of

1:18:38 ↗ like the outlier commission to me so

1:18:41 ↗ especially with uh the shortening days

1:18:43 ↗ and the winter coming up I thought it

1:18:46 ↗ might be advantageous to end a little

1:18:48 ↗ early especially for people who work you

1:18:50 ↗ know earlier the next day so that was

1:18:52 ↗ the thinking behind that

1:18:55 ↗ personal experience so I I think that's

1:18:58 ↗ part of my other job I attend a lot of

1:19:01 ↗ night meetings and they usually they

1:19:03 ↗ typically start at six or six thirty um

1:19:07 ↗ that seems to be from a public

1:19:09 ↗ standpoint I haven't heard anybody

1:19:10 ↗ complain about that understand we all

1:19:13 ↗ have personal lives too we're trying to

1:19:15 ↗ balance our commitments on the to our

1:19:17 ↗ families as well so I certainly

1:19:19 ↗ recognize that

1:19:20 ↗ but I like again I don't have a strong

1:19:23 ↗ preference either way getting home and

1:19:25 ↗ having food is something I try to do too

1:19:27 ↗ but sometimes it's right from work to

1:19:28 ↗ here so it really depends

1:19:33 ↗ any other comments I did in this

1:19:34 ↗ question

1:19:36 ↗ boy want to have a vote on this one

1:19:40 ↗ well I will chime in like I can do

1:19:42 ↗ either

1:19:43 ↗ but I I get up pretty early for work so

1:19:45 ↗ I'm one of the people that would if it

1:19:47 ↗ started earlier I'd probably be a little

1:19:48 ↗ happier if it started early and maybe

1:19:50 ↗ ended earlier that that depends on

1:19:52 ↗ workload too I know but

1:19:55 ↗ okay any other discussion on this before

1:19:56 ↗ I call for a vote

1:19:59 ↗ okay vote on the time uh yes Mr chair

1:20:03 ↗ just a point of order we have a motion

1:20:05 ↗ for all of the Amendments that are in

1:20:07 ↗ front of us and so you're this would be

1:20:09 ↗ someone you have to to

1:20:12 ↗ um

1:20:12 ↗ make a motion to amend the motion if

1:20:16 ↗ we're going to change this to seven

1:20:19 ↗ o'clock so the motion on this on the on

1:20:21 ↗ the table is at 6 30. okay yeah good

1:20:25 ↗ point Thank you so do I hear a motion to

1:20:28 ↗ amend the 6 30. Amendment

1:20:32 ↗ to something else

1:20:38 ↗ I guess I don't have a motion I will

1:20:39 ↗ I'll it sounds like the consensus is

1:20:42 ↗ more towards 6 30 so I'm I'm willing to

1:20:45 ↗ to step down and and rescind that that

1:20:48 ↗ request

1:20:50 ↗ thank you so I I guess we will vote on

1:20:53 ↗ the change as the motion when we get

1:20:56 ↗ there when we're done with discussing

1:20:58 ↗ the main motion

1:21:00 ↗ do we have any other discussion or

1:21:02 ↗ amendments to either parts of this

1:21:05 ↗ update so we did thank you um we did

1:21:09 ↗ have a discussion about the language

1:21:12 ↗ regarding uh participation of alternates

1:21:15 ↗ um

1:21:16 ↗ virtually or in person and so we're

1:21:18 ↗ going to need to figure out

1:21:20 ↗ how and I don't know if we're going to

1:21:21 ↗ be able to do this on the fly or not um

1:21:23 ↗ how are we going to amend that language

1:21:25 ↗ so that it's a little bit more

1:21:26 ↗ understandable right right can can I ask

1:21:30 ↗ a question about that then maybe please

1:21:31 ↗ Pastor would it be on that verbiage on

1:21:35 ↗ that that says if an alternate member

1:21:37 ↗ needs to serve in place of regular

1:21:38 ↗ member

1:21:39 ↗ the alternate member is attending in

1:21:40 ↗ person will be given preference to serve

1:21:42 ↗ in the place of regular members

1:21:45 ↗ if we just add we'll be given preference

1:21:50 ↗ um

1:21:51 ↗ will we give we'll be given preference

1:21:54 ↗ to alternate members not attending in

1:21:57 ↗ perfect in person

1:22:01 ↗ I I honestly think because of your

1:22:04 ↗ um competing or conflicting provision in

1:22:07 ↗ your existing rules I I honestly would

1:22:09 ↗ suggest that Beast struck just just take

1:22:13 ↗ out that second paragraph Yes completely

1:22:15 ↗ okay that's what I would suggest yeah

1:22:18 ↗ because I am hearing a conflict with I

1:22:21 ↗ did see that earlier that

1:22:23 ↗ um it's uh the alternate who has served

1:22:26 ↗ longest on the commission it will begin

1:22:29 ↗ with that alternate selection without

1:22:31 ↗ alternate so whatever we say about

1:22:33 ↗ alternate being in person or

1:22:36 ↗ virtually we would still have a conflict

1:22:38 ↗ with that overall requirement so yeah I

1:22:42 ↗ understand the the reason behind

1:22:44 ↗ striking it okay

1:22:46 ↗ well Mr chair I would move that we

1:22:48 ↗ strike paragraph two of item 6B

1:22:54 ↗ rear second

1:22:56 ↗ second

1:22:57 ↗ any discussion

1:23:03 ↗ well it's been moved and seconded then

1:23:05 ↗ we strike the section just referred to

1:23:08 ↗ by commissioner Morgan all in favor say

1:23:10 ↗ aye

1:23:11 ↗ aye opposed say no

1:23:16 ↗ that amendment is adopted then

1:23:22 ↗ any other discussion amendments and so

1:23:25 ↗ on

1:23:30 ↗ I have one for articles I would like to

1:23:33 ↗ move that article 4 section 1C

1:23:37 ↗ be changed to

1:23:40 ↗ every effort will be made to conduct

1:23:41 ↗ each meeting as efficiently as possible

1:23:43 ↗ in order to adjourn the meeting no

1:23:44 ↗ longer than 9 30 pm

1:23:49 ↗ discussion

1:23:52 ↗ all in favor say

1:23:55 ↗ aye aye all opposed no

1:23:58 ↗ amendment is adopted

1:24:02 ↗ let's see

1:24:04 ↗ any other discussion or amendments

1:24:12 ↗ I'd like to propose one

1:24:14 ↗ I moved to a men's section seven

1:24:17 ↗ participation

1:24:20 ↗ C

1:24:23 ↗ add the first item as

1:24:26 ↗ the following guidelines are established

1:24:28 ↗ for public comments made under general

1:24:30 ↗ public comments or public hearings colon

1:24:32 ↗ commenters attending in person must use

1:24:35 ↗ the lectern

1:24:45 ↗ second

1:24:48 ↗ it's been moved and seconded that we add

1:24:49 ↗ the statement commenters attending in

1:24:51 ↗ person must use the lectern any

1:24:53 ↗ discussion

1:24:55 ↗ people with must we could have people

1:24:58 ↗ with disabilities that that may

1:25:00 ↗ um be be a challenge and so maybe amend

1:25:04 ↗ or I guess I don't know if I can propose

1:25:06 ↗ alternate language to the amendment uh

1:25:08 ↗ but that attendees in person must

1:25:10 ↗ provide their comments via microphone

1:25:20 ↗ other discussion on that

1:25:23 ↗ commissioner Brennan thank you Mr chair

1:25:25 ↗ I

1:25:27 ↗ um

1:25:28 ↗ I actually like the idea of striking

1:25:30 ↗ this language

1:25:32 ↗ um

1:25:33 ↗ because I don't think it's necessary

1:25:35 ↗ because just thinking about the way the

1:25:38 ↗ room works and the way that the public

1:25:39 ↗ engages here

1:25:41 ↗ um they need to be because we are

1:25:44 ↗ televised they need to be in front of a

1:25:46 ↗ microphone and so they're they're asked

1:25:48 ↗ by staff to either if they're a

1:25:50 ↗ presenter to go to the table where

1:25:52 ↗ they're doing presentations in front of

1:25:54 ↗ a microphone to the podium and if you

1:25:56 ↗ have somebody who's uh in a wheelchair

1:25:59 ↗ or unable to you know move around in the

1:26:02 ↗ space we can take a portable microphone

1:26:04 ↗ to them so that they could speak so I I

1:26:06 ↗ think

1:26:08 ↗ um we don't have to be that specific in

1:26:10 ↗ the rules I think the way we would

1:26:12 ↗ operate in the room would would

1:26:14 ↗ effectively allow for participation by

1:26:17 ↗ any member of the public that's in the

1:26:19 ↗ room that would like to be heard do we

1:26:21 ↗ have consensus on that do people feel

1:26:23 ↗ that that's generally the way it works

1:26:25 ↗ so we don't need the language

1:26:28 ↗ I think we have consensus on that okay

1:26:30 ↗ yeah I withdraw that Amendment

1:26:33 ↗ okay

1:26:35 ↗ I do have one more if anyone else has

1:26:37 ↗ any other amendments or comments

1:26:40 ↗ okay uh the other one I would have is

1:26:45 ↗ I guess it's in the same section section

1:26:48 ↗ seven participation

1:26:51 ↗ and it's really the last

1:26:54 ↗ sentence that's been provided to us

1:26:56 ↗ tonight

1:26:57 ↗ it's under personal attacks obscene

1:26:59 ↗ language and so on that that paragraph

1:27:01 ↗ the last sentence reads all those who

1:27:03 ↗ would like to indicate support of a

1:27:05 ↗ stated position May raise their hand or

1:27:07 ↗ use another method identified by the

1:27:08 ↗ chair

1:27:10 ↗ and that's placed at the end of this

1:27:12 ↗ discussion I think it's more appropriate

1:27:14 ↗ earlier

1:27:15 ↗ after 7 c 3 above

1:27:21 ↗ so that

1:27:24 ↗ 7c3 would read comments shall be limited

1:27:27 ↗ to five minutes or less

1:27:31 ↗ all those who would like to indicate

1:27:33 ↗ support of a stated position May raise

1:27:35 ↗ their hand or use another method

1:27:36 ↗ identified by the chair

1:27:38 ↗ and commenters are encouraged to avoid

1:27:40 ↗ repetition by referencing previous

1:27:42 ↗ commenters with whom they agree

1:27:45 ↗ second then emotion that's commotion

1:27:48 ↗ thank you smokey

1:27:50 ↗ any other discussion or comments on

1:27:54 ↗ okay all in favor of that Amendment say

1:27:57 ↗ aye aye aye all opposed that amendment

1:28:00 ↗ is adopted

1:28:04 ↗ do we have any other amendments or

1:28:06 ↗ discussion on our rules and regs update

1:28:12 ↗ okay and finally move moving on then

1:28:15 ↗ yes Mr chair

1:28:17 ↗ um we still have the main motion I'm

1:28:19 ↗ sorry yes yes so before us the motion

1:28:24 ↗ then would become

1:28:26 ↗ to development commission rules and

1:28:28 ↗ regulations by adopting amendments to

1:28:30 ↗ section one regular meetings section 7

1:28:33 ↗ participation and a news section 6

1:28:36 ↗ virtual attendance as amended

1:28:43 ↗ all in favor

1:28:45 ↗ signify by saying aye aye

1:28:47 ↗ aye all opposed

1:28:51 ↗ the motion is adopted unanimously

1:28:58 ↗ thanks okay moving on then to report

1:29:01 ↗ city council updates I'd like to staff

1:29:03 ↗ to provide any updates on City Council

1:29:05 ↗ meetings or activities

1:29:07 ↗ so good evening Commissioners

1:29:10 ↗ I think we provided the update on Title

1:29:13 ↗ 18 for you other items council is busy

1:29:16 ↗ with the budget discussions now so a lot

1:29:20 ↗ of excitement there

1:29:22 ↗ um uh in their you know parks department

1:29:25 ↗ has a plan for this area and using some

1:29:28 ↗ of the funds that Council considered

1:29:32 ↗ um you know connecting the Veterans Park

1:29:33 ↗ to the French street so some really

1:29:35 ↗ exciting projects happening there that

1:29:38 ↗ some of you may care about more to learn

1:29:41 ↗ about

1:29:42 ↗ um

1:29:42 ↗ the other thing that you probably also

1:29:46 ↗ care about is you know as we were going

1:29:48 ↗ through the title 18 project we called

1:29:50 ↗ it a whiteboard list items that were

1:29:53 ↗ outside the scope but were needing some

1:29:57 ↗ attention at some point so we've had

1:29:59 ↗ those discussions with the council

1:30:01 ↗ committee and through the budget process

1:30:03 ↗ items that were prioritized were

1:30:06 ↗ included in the funding for the next two

1:30:08 ↗ years and some of them include

1:30:11 ↗ parking analysis more you know we we did

1:30:15 ↗ what we did with this Title 18 update

1:30:17 ↗ but a more really looking at the data on

1:30:20 ↗ the ground to make some of those

1:30:22 ↗ recommendations so that's one item the

1:30:25 ↗ other one is housing diversity you know

1:30:29 ↗ including more diverse housing is one of

1:30:32 ↗ our adopted strategies but what does

1:30:33 ↗ that mean and what can we do so that

1:30:36 ↗ item and then stream buffers doing a

1:30:39 ↗ more in-depth analysis on the grounds of

1:30:41 ↗ what's the state of affairs for the

1:30:43 ↗ streams so those were the three items

1:30:45 ↗ that the council prioritized from the

1:30:47 ↗ white board for the next two years in

1:30:49 ↗ addition to the comp plan and the

1:30:51 ↗ transit study that we're undertaking so

1:30:54 ↗ um other than that uh we had a good

1:30:59 ↗ discussion with the council committee

1:31:00 ↗ and it's been on the city's work program

1:31:02 ↗ for a contractor code of conduct so you

1:31:05 ↗ might hear about that I think you heard

1:31:07 ↗ from the public commenter today about

1:31:11 ↗ the role of development commission for

1:31:13 ↗ some of those construction impacts and

1:31:16 ↗ things like that but that has been on

1:31:19 ↗ the city's work program for a few years

1:31:22 ↗ we had a good discussion with the

1:31:24 ↗ council Committee of coming up with you

1:31:27 ↗ know four broad theme areas noise

1:31:30 ↗ impacts and you know outwardly facing

1:31:32 ↗ towards the community

1:31:35 ↗ um so above and beyond the noise impacts

1:31:37 ↗ what are some of the things that can be

1:31:38 ↗ done uh keeping your site nice and clean

1:31:41 ↗ where you put your portable bodies to

1:31:43 ↗ where you have your workers Park and the

1:31:46 ↗ impact on the streets and things of that

1:31:48 ↗ nature uh and really notification to the

1:31:51 ↗ community members when the projects are

1:31:52 ↗ under construction

1:31:54 ↗ and Public Safety so those are the four

1:31:57 ↗ broad themes that we're working on the

1:32:00 ↗ committee asked us to have a community

1:32:02 ↗ meeting so we're trying to schedule that

1:32:04 ↗ sometime next month and then committee

1:32:08 ↗ will take over that topic again and at

1:32:11 ↗ the beginning of the next year so that's

1:32:13 ↗ all I have in terms of reports it sounds

1:32:16 ↗ great IT addresses some of the concerns

1:32:19 ↗ and issues that we've heard about

1:32:20 ↗ contractors here in our meetings Sam

1:32:22 ↗ sounds good

1:32:23 ↗ uh okay are there any other items of

1:32:26 ↗ business or announcements from staff

1:32:28 ↗ tonight

1:32:30 ↗ there being no further business before

1:32:32 ↗ the commission this meeting is adjourned

1:32:34 ↗ at 8 33 pm 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 (6)

Sanford

Commissioners Brennan

Dillon

Gilbert

Morgan

Price

Staff (2)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Tisha Geiser, City Clerk Christian Geitz, Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a) CHAIR SANFORD asked for corrections or comments regarding the August 17, 2022 Minutes. There were none

the Minutes were approved. 3