Environmental Board - Special Joint Meeting - 2 · Thursday, July 22, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Board Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Staff Liaison Megan Curtis-Murphy, Senior About Sustainability Coordinator Created in 2020, the objective of the Email Environmental Board is to protect, preserve and enhance the natural environment and take Regular Members action on climate change to reduce its impacts 2022 - Dani Madan* by advising the Mayor, City Council and City 2022 - Don McQuilliams departments on the City’s plans, policies, 2023 - Rishi Hazra* regulations and programs related to 2023 - Cameron Fisher environmental stewardship. 2023 - Lara Lebeiko 2024 - Nancy Davidson 2024 - Dan Hintz Membership 2024 - Anne Newcomb The Environmental Board is comprised of nine 2025 - Jamie Finch regular members, and up to three alternates. All members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Alternate Members Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2022 - Tom Anderson…

2. AGENDA ITEMS

Title 18 Land Use Code Updates: Environmental Policies, (D) Sustainability

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.5–75

Topics: Land UseClimate

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Get policy direction on changes to land use code related to: Critical Areas (Wetlands, Streams, Critical Area Aquifer Recharge Areas, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas); Shoreline setbacks, Sustainability, and Lighting Standards.

3. REPORTS

Council Updates

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

5993 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ all right and

0:04 ↗ good evening i'd like to call the

0:07 ↗ meeting to order

0:08 ↗ at 6 30 p.m uh welcome due to the

0:11 ↗ virtual format of today's meeting i'd

0:13 ↗ like to start by providing some

0:14 ↗ guidelines we have participants

0:16 ↗ attending by computer and others who may

0:18 ↗ be attending by phone

0:20 ↗ for all meeting attendees please speak

0:22 ↗ clearly and pause frequently

0:24 ↗ state your name each time before

0:26 ↗ speaking mute your microphone when not

0:28 ↗ speaking

0:30 ↗ if you have technical difficulties try

0:32 ↗ to join the meeting using a different

0:34 ↗ device such as a smartphone or tablet

0:36 ↗ use a call-in information in the meeting

0:39 ↗ invite to call into the meeting

0:42 ↗ an overview for tonight this is a joint

0:45 ↗ meeting

0:45 ↗ with planning and policy commission in

0:47 ↗ the environmental board to gain a deeper

0:49 ↗ understanding of the environmental

0:50 ↗ policies

0:51 ↗ and gaps that exist and to provide the

0:55 ↗ policy direction for title 18 code

0:57 ↗ updates

0:59 ↗ and attendance so kristin uh go ahead

1:01 ↗ and

1:02 ↗ call uh attendance for policy planning

1:05 ↗ commission

1:06 ↗ followed by megan or the

1:09 ↗ environmental board commissioner vader

1:12 ↗ here

1:13 ↗ commissioner lewis here

1:16 ↗ mr milligan

1:22 ↗ commissioner fall

1:26 ↗ here mr monaghan

1:29 ↗ here commissioner zaragoza

1:33 ↗ here and commissioner voice has

1:38 ↗ um an excused absence tonight

1:46 ↗ or maybe i apologize some environmental

1:48 ↗ um

1:49 ↗ board members who are who have joined us

1:51 ↗ as attendees um

1:56 ↗ megan if you'll call roll then i can and

1:58 ↗ then let me know who's missing i can let

2:00 ↗ you know

2:00 ↗ if you can't see the attendee list sure

2:04 ↗ um yep tom anderson

2:07 ↗ here saria bola pragata

2:11 ↗ here nancy davidson

2:15 ↗ here jamie finch

2:20 ↗ cameron fisher

2:25 ↗ okay uh rishi hazara

2:29 ↗ dan hintz laura labiko

2:38 ↗ danny madden here

2:42 ↗ don mcwilliams yeah

2:45 ↗ and newcomb has an excused absence this

2:47 ↗ season

2:48 ↗ this evening and janet wall

2:53 ↗ so i believe she is janet is i'm making

2:56 ↗ her a panelist right now

2:59 ↗ great so we are missing cameron

3:02 ↗ and laura

3:10 ↗ no okay

3:13 ↗ and so that concludes the role

3:16 ↗ okay so there's a little bit of a

3:18 ↗ preface for tonight's meeting

3:20 ↗ we will not be approving meeting minutes

3:22 ↗ tonight um

3:24 ↗ so we can get on with the environmental

3:25 ↗ education and discussion

3:27 ↗ um tonight the city is attempting to

3:30 ↗ cover 86 slides broken into multiple

3:33 ↗ chapters

3:34 ↗ with a targeted completion time of 9 pm

3:38 ↗ in consideration of everyone's time

3:40 ↗ please withhold your questions until the

3:42 ↗ topic has been fully presented

3:45 ↗ at the end of each topic we will first

3:47 ↗ open the floor to commissioner questions

3:50 ↗ secondly we will open we will allow the

3:53 ↗ public

3:53 ↗ comments related to each topic

3:57 ↗ please note the public comments tonight

3:58 ↗ will be limited to three minutes

4:00 ↗ each and thirdly we will close public

4:04 ↗ comments and allow commissioners to

4:06 ↗ collaborate discuss

4:07 ↗ and debate the topic before moving on to

4:10 ↗ the next topic

4:12 ↗ please do not repeat a question or

4:14 ↗ comments another commissioner has voiced

4:16 ↗ but you may

4:17 ↗ say that you agree or disagree with a

4:19 ↗ commissioner

4:20 ↗ however please share a suggested

4:22 ↗ modification

4:23 ↗ to an already spoken comment or question

4:26 ↗ if the message is uniquely different

4:28 ↗ all questions and comments are important

4:31 ↗ if you have a question or comment please

4:33 ↗ indicate so in the chat window

4:35 ↗ by writing that you have a question or

4:37 ↗ comment and i will call upon you

4:39 ↗ when it's your turn to speak please do

4:41 ↗ not write out

4:43 ↗ your question or comment in the chat

4:44 ↗ window

4:46 ↗ note that in order for me to see your

4:48 ↗ message in chat

4:49 ↗ you have to post it to everyone for

4:52 ↗ everyone to see

4:53 ↗ otherwise if it only goes to the host

4:56 ↗ only they will be able to see it and

4:58 ↗ your question may get missed

5:01 ↗ it is okay to voice a concern if you

5:03 ↗ feel like you've reached information

5:05 ↗ overload

5:06 ↗ and i will ask the joint commission for

5:09 ↗ their feedback

5:10 ↗ or joint commissioners for their

5:12 ↗ feedback uh before we move forward

5:14 ↗ there is no point going forward if

5:16 ↗ people feel lost please remember that

5:18 ↗ this meeting is about

5:19 ↗ is being recorded so you can watch the

5:21 ↗ presentation again on youtube

5:24 ↗ as we approach 9pm i will ask the city

5:27 ↗ if we need more time to present

5:29 ↗ pending their feedback i will ask the

5:31 ↗ commissioners if they want to continue

5:33 ↗ based on the city's response

5:35 ↗ or schedule a follow-up joint commission

5:37 ↗ meeting

5:39 ↗ and with that uh i'm going to conclude

5:42 ↗ to prep the preface

5:44 ↗ and we're going to move into a regular

5:46 ↗ business title 18 code updates for the

5:48 ↗ environmental

5:49 ↗ policies specifically targeting aquatic

5:53 ↗ critical areas geohazard critical areas

5:56 ↗ outdoor lighting climate change and

5:58 ↗ sustainability

6:00 ↗ and tonight we'll be having our

6:02 ↗ presentations given by

6:04 ↗ mini daliwa the community planning and

6:06 ↗ development director

6:08 ↗ uh katie coat of vhc consultants and

6:11 ↗ doug

6:12 ↗ yormick assistant planner so go ahead

6:15 ↗ minnie the floor is yours

6:26 ↗ thank you cheerful um good evening

6:28 ↗ commissioners thank you for your time

6:29 ↗ tonight

6:31 ↗ to look at this code update a very

6:34 ↗ important code update

6:36 ↗ and i'm going to share my screen now so

6:39 ↗ we can

6:41 ↗ actually have it open can everyone see

6:44 ↗ my screen

6:48 ↗ yes thank you so

6:52 ↗ um a little bit of background i know

6:54 ↗ planning and policy commission

6:56 ↗ uh we have prepared you a little bit uh

6:59 ↗ for the last two meetings

7:00 ↗ in terms of what land use code means but

7:02 ↗ i'll take like just two minutes

7:05 ↗ for the benefit of the new members from

7:07 ↗ environmental board

7:09 ↗ so it is our development regulations uh

7:12 ↗ that were

7:12 ↗ originally adopted in 1996 and over the

7:16 ↗ years

7:16 ↗ it's become a patchwork of ordinances

7:20 ↗ so city council adopted a work plan

7:24 ↗ to update the title 18 and we have

7:27 ↗ embarked on this journey

7:29 ↗ to update this huge title

7:33 ↗ it is formed of many chapters but

7:36 ↗ tonight

7:37 ↗ we're going to be focusing on one topic

7:39 ↗ which is natural environments

7:41 ↗ and it has multiple topics underneath it

7:46 ↗ but let's see if i can

7:52 ↗ so uh so tonight we're covering

7:56 ↗ wetlands streams critical aquifer

7:59 ↗ recharge areas

8:00 ↗ fish and wildlife habitat conservation

8:03 ↗ areas so these first four topics are

8:05 ↗ aquatic critical areas

8:07 ↗ um and then after a staff presentation

8:10 ↗ on these four topics we'll pause

8:12 ↗ for your discussion uh taking public

8:14 ↗ testimony on these four

8:16 ↗ uh before moving on to the other ones uh

8:19 ↗ so

8:19 ↗ as as this graphic shows you the

8:22 ↗ geological hazardous areas shoreline

8:24 ↗ setback

8:26 ↗ climate change and sustainability and

8:28 ↗ outdoor lighting standards

8:30 ↗ we have our consultant team here today

8:32 ↗ if there are technical questions we may

8:35 ↗ defer to some of those as we get into

8:39 ↗ more of the discussion on these topics

8:43 ↗ so first off it's wetlands so the city's

8:45 ↗ vision is to preserve and protect and

8:48 ↗ enhance

8:49 ↗ we are going to share with you some of

8:51 ↗ the gaps we've identified in title 18

8:53 ↗ which is our land use code and what we

8:56 ↗ can are thinking of

8:57 ↗ uh will be our update approach then

9:00 ↗ we've

9:00 ↗ we've identified some policy questions

9:03 ↗ uh

9:03 ↗ for direction before we actually write

9:06 ↗ the

9:07 ↗ the actual code language for a formal

9:10 ↗ public hearing

9:11 ↗ please note as we've discussed before

9:14 ↗ there's a significant amount of topics

9:15 ↗ we're covering today

9:16 ↗ but this is just your first time hearing

9:18 ↗ this

9:20 ↗ we are available by email feel free to

9:23 ↗ reach out to staff

9:25 ↗ if you need additional information or

9:27 ↗ just to have a conversation with us

9:31 ↗ so wetlands like i said the

9:34 ↗ vision is to enhance protect and

9:36 ↗ preserve

9:38 ↗ and the regulations have to be based on

9:40 ↗ what is defined under the state law as

9:42 ↗ best available

9:43 ↗ science so department of ecology which

9:46 ↗ is a state agency has come up with best

9:48 ↗ available signs for

9:50 ↗ uh wetlands and we've looked at that

9:53 ↗ for most of you probably know this but

9:56 ↗ i'll cover it real quickly

9:58 ↗ so the wetlands provide a very important

10:02 ↗ benefit to the environment from a water

10:04 ↗ quality perspective from storm water

10:06 ↗ flood water

10:07 ↗ habitat recreation education aesthetic

10:10 ↗ value and you name it

10:12 ↗ so the buffers are important for the

10:14 ↗ wetland because they

10:16 ↗ protect some of those toxic substances

10:18 ↗ from getting into

10:20 ↗ the wetland they moderate the

10:21 ↗ microclimate

10:23 ↗ and protect the plants and animals

10:26 ↗ if you hear the word mitigation what it

10:29 ↗ really means

10:29 ↗ is if any impact is made to the wetland

10:33 ↗ or its buffer

10:34 ↗ it has to be mitigated by either

10:38 ↗ enhancing or

10:42 ↗ paying into a mitigation fund

10:45 ↗ so the state law growth management act

10:49 ↗ we covered this a little bit with the

10:50 ↗ planning and policy commission but for

10:52 ↗ the benefit of uh

10:53 ↗ environmental board uh establishes some

10:56 ↗ of this framework

10:57 ↗ for how these rules and regulations have

11:00 ↗ to be

11:00 ↗ aligned with the state law

11:04 ↗ and our analysis of our wetland buffers

11:07 ↗ um and and other regulations related to

11:10 ↗ wetlands is that our code

11:12 ↗ has some gaps uh it's not based on best

11:15 ↗ available science

11:16 ↗ um so we've also looked at what this

11:19 ↗ the comprehensive plan and the long

11:21 ↗ range which is the 20-year plan for the

11:24 ↗ city

11:24 ↗ required by state law and the strategic

11:27 ↗ plan have identified as goals for this

11:30 ↗ community

11:32 ↗ and this is a a chart where we um

11:35 ↗ don't need to get into the nitty-gritty

11:37 ↗ at this stage but it establishes

11:39 ↗ four different types of categories of

11:41 ↗ wetlands

11:42 ↗ under the state law we've listed the

11:45 ↗ existing wetland buffer widths

11:47 ↗ here that our existing code has and this

11:51 ↗ option

11:51 ↗ is we'll talk about it in a policy

11:54 ↗ options

11:55 ↗ a piece here here are some ways to

11:58 ↗ protect the wetlands that some cities

12:00 ↗ have established in their

12:02 ↗ uh in their codes things like you can't

12:05 ↗ have toxic runoff getting into your

12:07 ↗ wetlands you can't have storm water

12:09 ↗ getting into it

12:10 ↗ how what kind of uses the lights and the

12:12 ↗ disturbance needs to be minimized

12:16 ↗ so our approach for the wetland update

12:18 ↗ is we need to update it to reflect

12:20 ↗ ecology's 2018 best available science

12:24 ↗ we need to update buffer mitigation

12:26 ↗ standards currently the code includes if

12:28 ↗ you

12:28 ↗ fill a wetland it has a minimum ratio

12:31 ↗ but

12:32 ↗ it needs to be clarified that if there

12:33 ↗ is a buffer impact

12:35 ↗ there are also one-to-one ratio for the

12:37 ↗ buffer impacts

12:39 ↗ ecology also has a rating system

12:42 ↗ we need to be consistent with that and

12:44 ↗ the current code is not

12:45 ↗ consistent the buffers for category 4

12:49 ↗ wetland which

12:50 ↗ is the lowest category

12:54 ↗ less than 2500 square feet has very

12:56 ↗ minimal buffers

12:58 ↗ so we need to look at you know what what

13:00 ↗ the right buffers for that category need

13:02 ↗ to be

13:03 ↗ how we measure these buffers there's a

13:05 ↗ little bit of a debate and the language

13:07 ↗ needs to be clarified

13:08 ↗ if you have a steep slope are you

13:10 ↗ measuring the buffer along the slope or

13:13 ↗ a perpendicular

13:14 ↗ from where the buffer is so there is

13:17 ↗ clarity needed for that we currently

13:20 ↗ don't have good vegetation performance

13:22 ↗ standards

13:24 ↗ we also don't you know if someone wants

13:27 ↗ to survey your site

13:29 ↗ how do they restore it back is missing

13:32 ↗ and also for some projects that require

13:35 ↗ state and federal permits

13:36 ↗ the mitigation guidance from our code to

13:40 ↗ what the state and federal regulations

13:42 ↗ say

13:43 ↗ doesn't match up so what we want

13:46 ↗ discussion to focus on tonight is really

13:50 ↗ uh buffer widths um

13:53 ↗ what what should we do about the buffer

13:54 ↗ widths uh so we've laid out three

13:56 ↗ options

13:57 ↗ uh for from department of ecology one is

14:00 ↗ a standard you have four different

14:02 ↗ categories of wetlands

14:03 ↗ and here's your standard width that's

14:06 ↗ option one

14:07 ↗ uh option two is the four categories

14:11 ↗ here's the buffer width but it's then

14:14 ↗ granulated in terms of

14:16 ↗ if it is low impact say it's a park or a

14:20 ↗ trail it has a different buffer than if

14:22 ↗ it's high intensity

14:24 ↗ like a larger commercial building or or

14:26 ↗ a larger apartment building

14:29 ↗ um because the potentially the impacts

14:30 ↗ for those that are different

14:32 ↗ um for the case of issaquah option one

14:35 ↗ and two

14:36 ↗ most of the development is going to fall

14:37 ↗ under the high intensity

14:39 ↗ so there's not going to be much of a

14:41 ↗ difference but it does provide

14:42 ↗ additional um really you know smaller

14:45 ↗ buffers

14:45 ↗ for more open space type of uses

14:49 ↗ option three which is also a guidance

14:52 ↗ from department of ecology is more fine

14:54 ↗ grained

14:54 ↗ it takes into consideration the type of

14:57 ↗ a wetland

14:58 ↗ in addition to the land use intensity

15:00 ↗ how does the wetland function

15:03 ↗ um what's the habitat score and so on

15:06 ↗ and so forth

15:07 ↗ um so that's think about that as as uh

15:10 ↗ we need to know what your thoughts are

15:13 ↗ should it be more clear-cut should it be

15:15 ↗ more nuanced

15:16 ↗ um so the second topic we want some

15:19 ↗ guidance on

15:20 ↗ is buffer reduction um

15:24 ↗ right now the the best available science

15:27 ↗ says we shouldn't be

15:28 ↗ offering buffer reductions unless we

15:30 ↗ increase our buffer widths

15:32 ↗ this is somewhat tied to the third

15:34 ↗ question

15:35 ↗ which is should uh the buffer reduction

15:38 ↗ be replaced by

15:40 ↗ buffer averaging what that means is

15:43 ↗ if you have uh with a buffer reduction

15:46 ↗ you can

15:46 ↗ you can make it smaller but with buffer

15:50 ↗ averaging if you reduce it in one area

15:52 ↗ you have to increase it in the other

15:53 ↗ area in both scenarios

15:55 ↗ the best available sign says you cannot

15:57 ↗ reduce it more than

15:59 ↗ 25 so that so that limit still stays

16:02 ↗ but with the buffer averaging the

16:05 ↗ overall

16:06 ↗ area stays the same it doesn't get

16:08 ↗ reduced

16:09 ↗ um and then the fourth one that we talk

16:12 ↗ we need

16:13 ↗ um you know this really is an

16:15 ↗ inconsistency between the city code and

16:17 ↗ the state and federal

16:19 ↗ code it becomes challenging when

16:22 ↗ some certain projects need federal and

16:24 ↗ state permits

16:25 ↗ uh the current city code says if you

16:28 ↗ make an impact here you need to mitigate

16:30 ↗ it here on the site

16:32 ↗ um and then if you can't mitigate it on

16:34 ↗ the site

16:35 ↗ then you can go off-site before you can

16:39 ↗ do any

16:40 ↗ other alternative methods the state and

16:42 ↗ federal agencies prefer

16:44 ↗ medication with the fee luav or

16:48 ↗ mitigation banking so sometimes uh you

16:51 ↗ know project proponents get caught up

16:52 ↗ between

16:53 ↗ city regulations and state and federal

16:55 ↗ regulations so some clarity there would

16:57 ↗ be helpful

16:58 ↗ um so that pretty much covers the the

17:01 ↗ wetlands

17:03 ↗ so moving on to the second topic which

17:06 ↗ is the streams

17:07 ↗ kind of the same sort of analysis here

17:10 ↗ again same

17:10 ↗ sort of benefits it also helps with

17:13 ↗ water quality flood control protection

17:16 ↗ you know flood waters recharge of

17:18 ↗ groundwater is another benefit of the

17:20 ↗ streams

17:21 ↗ um we have six different streams uh two

17:24 ↗ of them

17:25 ↗ are designated uh state shoreline in and

17:28 ↗ the lakes

17:29 ↗ um some amish um here's the network of

17:33 ↗ all the streams as you can see the whole

17:34 ↗ city

17:35 ↗ you know everything flows to the lake

17:37 ↗ but it comes from all different areas

17:39 ↗ and so it's not only one portion of the

17:42 ↗ city or another it pretty much

17:44 ↗ is is the network that

17:47 ↗ is is very important

17:50 ↗ for issaqua

17:53 ↗ moving on we kind of covered these so we

17:55 ↗ right now have four different classes

17:58 ↗ um washington water typing

18:02 ↗ also has those same types but they're

18:04 ↗ slightly different

18:05 ↗ in terms of terminology in terms of

18:07 ↗ buffers

18:09 ↗ so our comprehensive plan strategic plan

18:14 ↗ the regulations don't match up in the

18:18 ↗ sense

18:18 ↗ the way these long-range plans desire

18:22 ↗ some of the protections for instance the

18:24 ↗ current regulations don't describe

18:26 ↗ riparian corridors

18:28 ↗ or habitat connectivity to fish and

18:31 ↗ wildlife

18:31 ↗ conservation areas um

18:35 ↗ and so we've looked at best practices of

18:38 ↗ our peer cities

18:39 ↗ and we are not in sync with what what's

18:42 ↗ pretty standard in some of our

18:43 ↗ neighboring cities like redmond

18:45 ↗ um so our update approach

18:49 ↗ is to incorporate streams as fish and

18:51 ↗ wildlife habitat conservation areas

18:54 ↗ make stream classification consistent

18:56 ↗ with washington state

18:59 ↗ update the class 2 streams define the

19:02 ↗ criteria based on fish presence

19:04 ↗ based on habitat criteria that's

19:06 ↗ described in the state law

19:08 ↗ update class three streams um

19:12 ↗ and and again the definition of a stream

19:15 ↗ is a point of contention

19:17 ↗ uh address the use of uh you know

19:20 ↗ whether it's excavated entirely

19:22 ↗ artificial course

19:25 ↗ how are the ditches treated we have some

19:27 ↗ outdated

19:28 ↗ references to 1996 action plan

19:32 ↗ so that's sort of our update approach

19:35 ↗ and then the policy questions we're

19:37 ↗ seeking guidance on

19:39 ↗ are should the buffers for streams be

19:41 ↗ increased

19:42 ↗ so in here we've shown you where what

19:45 ↗ the current

19:46 ↗ watercourse buffers are uh here are some

19:48 ↗ sample ranges so we're not that far off

19:51 ↗ from the sample

19:52 ↗ ranges um except for the class 4

19:55 ↗ we have a 25-foot buffer

19:58 ↗ if the city's vision emphasizes

20:00 ↗ protecting significant habitats

20:03 ↗ and the state law requires us to use

20:05 ↗ best available science

20:07 ↗ then we've you know this is a gap that

20:09 ↗ needs to be addressed

20:11 ↗ the second thing item similar to

20:14 ↗ wetlands

20:15 ↗ is the buffer reduction provisions

20:18 ↗ should the buffer reduction be

20:20 ↗ eliminated and only buffer averaging be

20:23 ↗ allowed

20:24 ↗ so option one is to keep as is 25

20:27 ↗ reduction allowed

20:28 ↗ option two is to allow 25 reduction

20:31 ↗ in certain areas as long as the total

20:34 ↗ area of the buffer

20:35 ↗ overall remains the same so it provides

20:38 ↗ some flexibility

20:40 ↗ but it doesn't decrease the buffers

20:42 ↗ overall

20:44 ↗ the third again as i discussed before

20:47 ↗ the definition

20:48 ↗ of the stream we need to consider uh

20:51 ↗ free and open connection to waters of

20:53 ↗ the state any ditches that were created

20:55 ↗ in wetlands or waters of the state or

20:57 ↗ created from upland

20:59 ↗ but contain fish those need to be

21:03 ↗ added to the definition of the stream or

21:05 ↗ not

21:06 ↗ should the city exempt certain ditches

21:09 ↗ like irrigation ditches that are

21:11 ↗ operated just for irrigation purposes or

21:13 ↗ roadside ditches

21:14 ↗ that are less than 10 feet wide those

21:16 ↗ are things we've identified but we'd

21:18 ↗ like to get some policy direction from

21:20 ↗ you all

21:21 ↗ um buffer interruption if there is a

21:24 ↗ stream and there's a road in between the

21:26 ↗ stream

21:27 ↗ um you know there is a provisions in the

21:30 ↗ wetland uh section that talks about how

21:32 ↗ it's interrupted but the stream section

21:35 ↗ uh it needs some clarity um

21:38 ↗ what's considered so policy question one

21:40 ↗ is what should be considered

21:42 ↗ interrupting of a buffer

21:43 ↗ is it just a road a building a parking

21:46 ↗ lot

21:47 ↗ and then the second question is if we

21:50 ↗ give them the buffer

21:51 ↗ interruption should it be tied to

21:54 ↗ requiring some water quality or other

21:56 ↗ improvements

21:57 ↗ to get that waiver

22:01 ↗ the last the next piece we've covered

22:03 ↗ the wetlands we've covered the streams

22:06 ↗ the third topic is critical aquifer

22:08 ↗ recharge areas

22:10 ↗ so what the what these are are um

22:14 ↗ um the city of issaquah provides 50

22:19 ↗ of the drinking water from uh wells

22:22 ↗ so this water that percolates and

22:24 ↗ recharges the aquifers is it's important

22:26 ↗ that

22:27 ↗ it's protected from pollutants and that

22:30 ↗ we maintain the drinking water supply

22:33 ↗ so we need to clear regulations to

22:34 ↗ protect the quality of groundwater in

22:36 ↗ the aquifer

22:37 ↗ recharge areas and this is a map that we

22:42 ↗ currently have of class one two and

22:43 ↗ three this is going to be updated

22:46 ↗ the city has done some work on the

22:48 ↗ technical side of gathering some

22:50 ↗ information

22:51 ↗ and updated a report

22:55 ↗ related to this there really isn't

22:58 ↗ much of a tech policy guidance we're

23:01 ↗ looking for this is more for information

23:03 ↗ sharing of what we've identified as gaps

23:06 ↗ we need to clarify in the code uh how

23:10 ↗ these

23:11 ↗ classes are regulated what is prohibited

23:14 ↗ what type of uses that have more

23:16 ↗ potential for pollution

23:19 ↗ to get into the water supply where there

23:22 ↗ are these critical areas

23:25 ↗ and so basically our approach

23:28 ↗ is we're going to follow the best

23:30 ↗ available science we're going to

23:32 ↗ maintain

23:32 ↗ consistency with other city pollution

23:35 ↗ prevention

23:35 ↗ programs we're going to revise the

23:38 ↗ classification system

23:40 ↗ we're going to provide details of what's

23:42 ↗ prohibited from a land use perspective

23:44 ↗ and business types which have an

23:46 ↗ additional

23:47 ↗ contamination risk what performance

23:51 ↗ standards

23:52 ↗ outside of the wellhead protection areas

23:55 ↗ are needed and

23:59 ↗ some report requirements are going to be

24:01 ↗ clarified what are the implications of

24:04 ↗ different

24:04 ↗ um we're going to review the pollution

24:07 ↗ prevention requirements

24:08 ↗ and see what improvements are needed so

24:11 ↗ at this point it's pretty technical and

24:13 ↗ i think we've

24:15 ↗ sort of have an understanding of where

24:17 ↗ these are going to go

24:18 ↗ um we've tried to identify some things

24:21 ↗ that maybe

24:22 ↗ you all can have and some feedback for

24:25 ↗ staff on

24:26 ↗ is whether we should take a more

24:28 ↗ aggressive approach to regulating

24:29 ↗ potential sources of groundwater

24:31 ↗ contamination

24:32 ↗ outside of the zones

24:35 ↗ or or a more conservative approach

24:39 ↗ we haven't identified which those uses

24:41 ↗ are but we'll be working on those as we

24:43 ↗ develop this code further so

24:47 ↗ last topic under the aquatic

24:50 ↗ buffers and critical areas

24:53 ↗ is fish and wildlife habitat

24:55 ↗ conservation areas

24:58 ↗ here again you know the

25:01 ↗ long-range plans and uh strategic plan

25:05 ↗ have a clear guidance on preserving and

25:07 ↗ protecting

25:09 ↗ and these are where

25:13 ↗ habitat areas of local importance

25:15 ↗ haven't been identified

25:18 ↗ that we need to look at some of these

25:20 ↗ corridors i'm going to skip through some

25:21 ↗ of this stuff

25:22 ↗ and get to the update approach so

25:26 ↗ we're going to update the code to

25:27 ↗ include all fish and wildlife habitat

25:30 ↗ conservation areas

25:31 ↗ including wildlife corridors that

25:33 ↗ currently aren't mapped or

25:35 ↗ identified in our code and

25:38 ↗ species of local importance have not

25:40 ↗ been identified in the code so those

25:42 ↗ need to be identified

25:45 ↗ and designated uh lakes and ponds that

25:48 ↗ are less than 20 acres that don't meet

25:50 ↗ the wetland criteria fall under this

25:52 ↗ category so those will be added

25:54 ↗ um and then we will extend the buffer

25:56 ↗ protections

25:57 ↗ to include all fish and wildlife

25:59 ↗ conservation areas

26:01 ↗ um so the policy questions here

26:04 ↗ are um should the city designate

26:07 ↗ riparian corridors along streams as

26:09 ↗ protected wildlife corridor

26:12 ↗ streams themselves are critical areas

26:13 ↗ but adjacent riparian zones are

26:15 ↗ currently not classified as critical

26:18 ↗ areas

26:19 ↗ buffers for strains cover some of these

26:22 ↗ but additional protection is likely

26:25 ↗ needed

26:27 ↗ so that concludes the first uh grouping

26:30 ↗ of topics so for wetlands and streams

26:34 ↗ buffer widths buffer reduction

26:35 ↗ provisions

26:37 ↗ wetland mitigation mitigate we are aware

26:40 ↗ it should be located

26:41 ↗ stream definitions and categorizations

26:44 ↗ um

26:44 ↗ how to address buffer interruption for

26:47 ↗ streams

26:48 ↗ how aggressive should the critical area

26:50 ↗ aquifer recharge areas should be

26:53 ↗ and for fish and wildlife should we

26:55 ↗ designate the wildlife corridors

26:57 ↗ as critical areas so those are some kind

27:00 ↗ of summary

27:02 ↗ topics on that with that i will turn it

27:04 ↗ over to your chair

27:06 ↗ to facilitate the discussion on these

27:07 ↗ four topics

27:10 ↗ excellent thank you minnie uh okay so

27:12 ↗ we're gonna go ahead and open up to

27:14 ↗ questions from the commissioners

27:27 ↗ and looks like nina milligan has a

27:29 ↗ question go ahead

27:31 ↗ hello commissioner milligan here i

27:34 ↗ waited

27:34 ↗ i didn't want to be the first so if this

27:37 ↗ is just questions and not discussion

27:39 ↗ my question uh for director dollywall is

27:42 ↗ you talked about the preference for

27:46 ↗ types of mitigation at the state level

27:49 ↗ is there any requirement to allow

27:53 ↗ off-site mitigation at the state level

27:59 ↗ um so my understanding we we probably

28:02 ↗ have our technical folks here who could

28:03 ↗ answer that better but my understanding

28:05 ↗ of this

28:06 ↗ is uh that the you know when

28:09 ↗ federal and state permits are required

28:11 ↗ from um hp

28:12 ↗ you know from um the army corps of

28:15 ↗ engineers prefers these to be

28:17 ↗ a mitigation banking or fee in lieu of

28:21 ↗ is preferred by them

28:22 ↗ uh and then of course off-site

28:25 ↗ mitigation comes after that

28:26 ↗ they would they prefer fee of and

28:29 ↗ mitigation

28:30 ↗ banking our code requires on-site

28:33 ↗ off-site mitigation within the watershed

28:36 ↗ and then

28:37 ↗ if those don't options don't work and

28:39 ↗ then they can

28:41 ↗ go and do fee in lieu of uh or

28:43 ↗ mitigation banking

28:45 ↗ in the end because they need the permit

28:47 ↗ from these federal agencies

28:49 ↗ that's what ends up happening but

28:51 ↗ because of our code requirement

28:53 ↗ we go back and forth with them before we

28:55 ↗ we can

28:56 ↗ allow them to do that so that's sort of

28:59 ↗ a dilemma

29:01 ↗ that project proponents get caught up in

29:03 ↗ between the inconsistency between state

29:05 ↗ federal and local regulations

29:13 ↗ and uh nina uh commissioner milligan are

29:16 ↗ you

29:16 ↗ satisfied with that excellent

29:19 ↗ okay and next question online is from

29:22 ↗ commissioner

29:23 ↗ jamie finch at the floor

29:27 ↗ thank you careful um jimmy finch

29:30 ↗ speaking

29:31 ↗ um in the shoreline portion and

29:35 ↗ there was a mention of how many kind of

29:37 ↗ sites this

29:38 ↗ impacted do we have anything that would

29:40 ↗ help us understand

29:41 ↗ cutting across these other topics that

29:44 ↗ we're trying to address in this section

29:46 ↗ the relative number of potential

29:47 ↗ development sites or existing sites that

29:50 ↗ that these decisions would impact

29:54 ↗ sure um you know everyone loves the fact

29:57 ↗ that we

29:58 ↗ are in this uh wonderful nature where

30:01 ↗ the boundary of

30:02 ↗ all of these um um you know

30:05 ↗ alps and critical areas and

30:08 ↗ nature um so if i was

30:11 ↗ and i think our geotechnical uh experts

30:14 ↗ that we've hired um to do to help us

30:17 ↗ with

30:18 ↗ um they did some analysis in terms of

30:20 ↗ percentage

30:21 ↗ and and without taking the steep slopes

30:23 ↗ out it's it's a lot

30:24 ↗ i mean it's it's majority of the

30:26 ↗ properties either have a steep slope a

30:29 ↗ a stream a wetland or um

30:33 ↗ one of those other critical areas in

30:34 ↗ their vicinity maybe not on their

30:36 ↗ property but in their vicinity

30:40 ↗ but in terms of impact um

30:45 ↗ for our buffer increases in and such we

30:47 ↗ could

30:48 ↗ you know we know we know for sure where

30:50 ↗ the streams are but we don't know for

30:52 ↗ sure where all the wetlands are

30:54 ↗ uh we probably don't know where all the

30:56 ↗ streams are so it's our best guess for

30:58 ↗ some of those other

30:59 ↗ places but as development occurs we do a

31:01 ↗ side-by-side assessment

31:03 ↗ we require them to take a look at what

31:05 ↗ what's their

31:06 ↗ what's protected what's regulated what's

31:08 ↗ not

31:10 ↗ thank you

31:21 ↗ thank you commissioner finch i'm on mute

31:24 ↗ uh

31:24 ↗ going to commissioner lewis

31:29 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

31:31 ↗ lewis here i have some questions about

31:33 ↗ buffers i had sent staff um

31:35 ↗ some questions and i don't know if you

31:36 ↗ want to answer those now or if you want

31:38 ↗ me just to

31:39 ↗ try to do more of a summary on the

31:40 ↗ questions

31:42 ↗ uh sure this is minnie dallywell um

31:45 ↗ thank you commissioner

31:47 ↗ lewis uh very good questions and as a

31:50 ↗ result we did

31:51 ↗ um provide an updated memo

31:55 ↗ so what um some of the questions

32:00 ↗ uh you know um so the the questions

32:04 ↗ um were we have a 2014

32:08 ↗ guidance or a rating system that

32:10 ↗ department of ecology has

32:11 ↗ uh come up with that that rates these

32:14 ↗ wetlands

32:15 ↗ um then in 2018 there was additional

32:18 ↗ guidance provided from department of

32:20 ↗ ecology

32:21 ↗ that that really got into the nuances of

32:24 ↗ the habitat scores

32:26 ↗ uh the water quality scores for uh

32:29 ↗ wetlands that have even a lower

32:31 ↗ um habitat score so that

32:34 ↗ chart the graph that we've shown you in

32:36 ↗ terms of the buffer widths

32:38 ↗ uh under this 2018 guidelines we have

32:42 ↗ three options one is to just adopt those

32:44 ↗ larger buffers

32:45 ↗ the second is to adopt the buffers with

32:48 ↗ uh

32:49 ↗ intensity different buffers for land use

32:51 ↗ intensity high

32:52 ↗ medium and um and low

32:56 ↗ and then the third one is have this uh

32:59 ↗ triage of

33:00 ↗ of scores habitat scores drive what

33:03 ↗ those buffers are

33:04 ↗ and within each category then you still

33:07 ↗ have this

33:08 ↗ layer of low medium and high intensity

33:11 ↗ um so those are three three things

33:14 ↗ three different policy options that

33:16 ↗ we've laid out for you i don't know if

33:18 ↗ that

33:18 ↗ helped answer some of your questions uh

33:20 ↗ commissioner lewis

33:22 ↗ so i'm curious i remember i don't

33:24 ↗ remember where in the packet it was but

33:25 ↗ there was a specific reference

33:27 ↗ um katie can probably speak to where she

33:29 ↗ put it where it said that um

33:31 ↗ the best available signs that at some

33:33 ↗ point i don't remember it was 32 feet or

33:35 ↗ 33

33:35 ↗ feet that without it with a smaller

33:37 ↗ buffer than that you were negating the

33:39 ↗ point of the buffer

33:40 ↗ um and when we start to have these um

33:43 ↗ tit for tap in reductions right if you

33:46 ↗ give us if you give us a little bit of

33:47 ↗ mitigation on site you do some

33:48 ↗ replanting then we'll be able to

33:50 ↗ you know reduce that buffer by 25

33:52 ↗ percent right we've had this policy

33:54 ↗ going on at issaquah for a while

33:56 ↗ and um i think it's fair to say

33:59 ↗ that in readdressing this specific issue

34:01 ↗ is we're looking to have something

34:03 ↗ that's more aggressive and gives us more

34:05 ↗ protections than we currently have so

34:07 ↗ i'm a little surprised

34:09 ↗ to not see education for us right now

34:12 ↗ that says

34:13 ↗ best available sciences tells us this is

34:16 ↗ why we need this amount of buffer for a

34:18 ↗ wetland

34:18 ↗ versus a stream versus a shoreline right

34:21 ↗ i don't have the knowledge to be able to

34:22 ↗ say right now

34:24 ↗ why we would have this particular number

34:26 ↗ for a different thing or

34:28 ↗ are we going to say that basically all

34:31 ↗ riparian areas and corridors

34:33 ↗ have the same amount of buffer needed so

34:35 ↗ that's one question that i have

34:37 ↗ specifically that i think we need to

34:38 ↗ have a better understanding

34:40 ↗ of why we have these specific numbers

34:42 ↗ then we're able to actually have a

34:44 ↗ discussion as to saying where on that

34:45 ↗ scale do we want to go

34:47 ↗ i've heard a lot in the presentation you

34:49 ↗ guys asking how conservative or how more

34:52 ↗ on what side we want to be i would love

34:54 ↗ to see from staff

34:55 ↗ some more options that say here's the

34:57 ↗ really go-get and

34:59 ↗ crazy version right and to give us an

35:01 ↗ example to say this is what this buffer

35:03 ↗ would look like right

35:04 ↗ um versus as well do you want us to go

35:06 ↗ more conservative on this

35:07 ↗ i have yet to ever be in a meeting where

35:09 ↗ i had um

35:10 ↗ people coming to me on a topic we were

35:13 ↗ given

35:13 ↗ saying i really wish you guys would just

35:15 ↗ let developers build closer to our

35:18 ↗ aquarium areas right so i'm a little

35:19 ↗ surprised

35:20 ↗ that there's this question of well what

35:22 ↗ do you want to do i think you know what

35:24 ↗ the community wants to do based on our

35:25 ↗ goals that we're trying to align with so

35:27 ↗ what i need right now is to kind of have

35:29 ↗ a better idea of saying

35:31 ↗ is the city suggesting that we continue

35:33 ↗ with this rebuffer reduction plan

35:36 ↗ because uh right now i think it could

35:39 ↗ well be up for discussion to say

35:41 ↗ no we discontinue this incentive

35:44 ↗ outright

35:44 ↗ right and we actually say no this is a

35:46 ↗ hard and fast line

35:48 ↗ um so i'm i would like to have more

35:51 ↗ answered about buffers just in general

35:53 ↗ um and is loss of buffer incentives a

35:56 ↗ possibility i think that was like for

35:58 ↗ question c that was in our packet

36:00 ↗ um and i'd love to also know more

36:03 ↗ um and specifically regard to buffers um

36:05 ↗ to really to say about restoration and

36:07 ↗ replanting right what resources are we

36:09 ↗ giving

36:10 ↗ um landowners to be able to do that um

36:13 ↗ and how are we

36:14 ↗ um how are we actually kind of like

36:16 ↗ handling non-compliance right i think

36:18 ↗ that there's a lot of issues that start

36:19 ↗ to come up when we talk about

36:21 ↗ buffers that wasn't really discussed so

36:23 ↗ it's hard for us to give

36:25 ↗ um necessarily a hard and fast um

36:28 ↗ answer right now without more

36:30 ↗ information um so i

36:32 ↗ if anybody fighting with us tonight has

36:34 ↗ more information on buffers i would love

36:36 ↗ to hear it i would love more education

36:38 ↗ on buffers

36:39 ↗ i would love to know more about the best

36:40 ↗ available science that right now the

36:42 ↗ city is facing

36:43 ↗ a lot of the numbers that we're seeing

36:44 ↗ when trying to give you a guidance on

36:46 ↗ that one two and three

36:48 ↗ so um if you don't mind i'm gonna jump

36:50 ↗ in here and see if christina merton from

36:52 ↗ herrera might be willing to answer

36:54 ↗ and address some of that hi this is

36:57 ↗ christina merton with

36:58 ↗ herrera and yes i'd be happy to maybe

37:02 ↗ start with some of that

37:03 ↗ um there's i'll start with two

37:06 ↗ two things first we have wetland buffers

37:10 ↗ that are related to wetland areas and we

37:13 ↗ have buffers that are related to

37:15 ↗ streams or riparian corridor areas

37:19 ↗ so two different buffer areas

37:22 ↗ that we're talking about the best

37:24 ↗ available science for those are

37:26 ↗ completely different

37:27 ↗ um so because they completely you know

37:29 ↗ they function

37:30 ↗ completely differently washington state

37:34 ↗ has a very thorough wetland buffer

37:38 ↗ best available science we have

37:40 ↗ references for those

37:41 ↗ in the memos i believe that were

37:44 ↗ provided as part of the packet

37:47 ↗ that go into the details of especially

37:50 ↗ with

37:51 ↗ their recent 2018 update

37:54 ↗ as to why habitat buffers that are

37:57 ↗ providing habitat functions are much

38:00 ↗ larger

38:01 ↗ because those buffers need that range to

38:04 ↗ provide that habitat versus if it's a

38:06 ↗ water quality performing

38:09 ↗ buffer that's a very much more narrow

38:12 ↗ focused area because water quality can

38:14 ↗ be achieved in a much narrower

38:17 ↗ run of that surface water through the

38:18 ↗ buffer

38:20 ↗ so there's if you want to get into the

38:22 ↗ nitty-gritty of all those details of why

38:24 ↗ when where how

38:25 ↗ um i definitely recommend seeing those

38:28 ↗ references

38:28 ↗ that we have listed as

38:32 ↗ additional information for our memos

38:35 ↗ in riparian corridors there's not as

38:38 ↗ much

38:40 ↗ best available science available readily

38:43 ↗ within washington state that says

38:46 ↗ here's you know we've reviewed

38:48 ↗ everything here's the x y and z

38:50 ↗ of buffer riparian corridors so

38:54 ↗ that is a little bit more of an update

38:56 ↗ that can be pulled from different

38:58 ↗ um documents and doing a best available

39:02 ↗ science update within the city

39:05 ↗ which is above and beyond the scope of

39:08 ↗ what our

39:09 ↗ particular code update was getting at

39:11 ↗ was collecting all of that best

39:13 ↗ available

39:14 ↗ science currently so there are examples

39:17 ↗ that are the ranges that we've provided

39:21 ↗ in i believe that many provided in the

39:23 ↗ memos that were

39:24 ↗ supplied for the riparian or stream

39:28 ↗ buffers and that is based on the

39:31 ↗ different

39:32 ↗ best available sciences i believe

39:35 ↗ that were available for various

39:38 ↗ reference cities throughout

39:40 ↗ washington i believe that's where you

39:42 ↗ might have pulled that many

39:45 ↗ yeah i know um i think um to answer

39:48 ↗ commissioner lewis's

39:49 ↗ um you know what might help you

39:51 ↗ visualize what these buffers mean on the

39:54 ↗ ground

39:54 ↗ so maybe we can take some sample uh

39:57 ↗ you know stream locations within

40:00 ↗ issaquah

40:01 ↗ and show you what a hundred foot buffer

40:04 ↗ looks like on a map

40:05 ↗ and and and what what the different

40:07 ↗ options are maybe

40:08 ↗ maybe visually if that might be

40:10 ↗ something that that could give you more

40:12 ↗ information you're looking for a

40:14 ↗ commissioner louis some sample examples

40:16 ↗ of what the

40:18 ↗ different what wetland types are uh here

40:21 ↗ what the standard what our current

40:23 ↗ buffers are what the

40:25 ↗ the proposed buffers would mean under

40:27 ↗ alternative

40:28 ↗ a b and c under ecology's guidance for

40:31 ↗ wetlands

40:33 ↗ is that something that might help

40:36 ↗ yes thank you christina and minnie

40:37 ↗ commissioner joy lewis again

40:39 ↗ um i think that one of the things so

40:41 ↗ well um i'll admit i wasn't able to

40:43 ↗ click on

40:43 ↗ every single link that was in our packet

40:45 ↗ i did make it through quite a few

40:46 ↗ and um what my opinion is right now is

40:50 ↗ that

40:50 ↗ um one thing that's very important with

40:53 ↗ not only our meetings but also with our

40:55 ↗ packets is that we're presenting

40:56 ↗ education and information

40:57 ↗ to the public and people who are

40:59 ↗ interested and so it would be great to

41:01 ↗ see an updated education

41:03 ↗ section um the next time that we address

41:05 ↗ this that actually does

41:06 ↗ talk about this is why we have this is

41:08 ↗ the best available science

41:10 ↗ for our streams versus our shorelines

41:14 ↗ versus our wetlands to be able to

41:16 ↗ clarify

41:17 ↗ why why are we making these

41:19 ↗ recommendations i think would be really

41:20 ↗ helpful

41:21 ↗ um but i did appreciate the links that

41:23 ↗ we had to be able to do that deeper dive

41:25 ↗ when we're looking for it

41:26 ↗ um so that was to that first point that

41:28 ↗ second point is what i think would be

41:30 ↗ really interesting is to also have an

41:31 ↗ analysis of saying

41:32 ↗ um this is what the end result will be

41:35 ↗ right are we

41:36 ↗ how are we going to actually impact what

41:39 ↗ um

41:40 ↗ what our buildable land is right so

41:41 ↗ that's one of the things that we talk

41:42 ↗ about when

41:43 ↗ we connect all these pieces to the

41:45 ↗ missing middle when we connect all these

41:46 ↗ pieces to

41:47 ↗ where are we trying to put our growth in

41:48 ↗ our density to be able to say

41:51 ↗ when you choose to be able to do this

41:53 ↗ setback versus another

41:54 ↗ what does that then give you right to be

41:56 ↗ able to see that kind of ripple effect

41:59 ↗ um because i think it's very easy to sit

42:02 ↗ where we are right now and to say

42:03 ↗ bigger buffers we've had a problem we've

42:06 ↗ seen that we have an issue how do we try

42:08 ↗ to solve that

42:09 ↗ so i would love to see the consequences

42:11 ↗ of why we wouldn't do

42:13 ↗ larger um and do a more um

42:16 ↗ i suppose liberal view going into this

42:20 ↗ so yes i agree that having maps and

42:22 ↗ examples would be fantastic many but i

42:24 ↗ also want to see not just

42:25 ↗ here but i want to see also what those

42:27 ↗ reverberations are if that makes sense

42:29 ↗ thank you boy would you still like to

42:32 ↗ hear more on enforcement and performance

42:33 ↗ standards because doug gjormick said

42:35 ↗ that he could address that for you

42:36 ↗ that would be great because i would love

42:38 ↗ to understand more too about um i think

42:40 ↗ it's a very interesting topic to start

42:41 ↗ to say

42:42 ↗ well if we take away these incentives

42:44 ↗ obviously we still need to be able to

42:46 ↗ mitigate

42:47 ↗ um to mitigate these repairing areas so

42:49 ↗ what resources are we giving

42:51 ↗ um landowners and developers to be able

42:53 ↗ to say um

42:54 ↗ if if for instance um i think one

42:56 ↗ suggestion that we can

42:58 ↗ easily talk for a while about is

43:00 ↗ actually require it outright and so if

43:02 ↗ we did what does that look like what

43:03 ↗ kind of

43:04 ↗ resources and availability is there for

43:06 ↗ being able to restore

43:07 ↗ our current habitat um

43:11 ↗ so i i will try and address those those

43:14 ↗ two questions of yours um

43:17 ↗ as a city we don't provide a whole lot

43:20 ↗ of assistance to

43:21 ↗ landowners they'll typically have a

43:23 ↗ consultant on staff

43:25 ↗ and they will do the mitigation plan

43:28 ↗ which will then get peer reviewed

43:30 ↗ by an outside environmental firm we do

43:34 ↗ provide some information to applicants

43:38 ↗ if somebody wants to do their

43:41 ↗ maintenance monitoring reports we will

43:43 ↗ send them um an old monitoring report to

43:46 ↗ kind of

43:47 ↗ see what the how it's organized so then

43:50 ↗ they can submit it to us

43:54 ↗ conservation district we we often send

43:56 ↗ um

43:57 ↗ at least provide information to talk to

43:59 ↗ somebody there

44:01 ↗ that's another option to provide

44:04 ↗ assistance

44:05 ↗ as for enforcement and compliance of

44:08 ↗ mitigation sites

44:09 ↗ if a site has um say wetland buffer

44:13 ↗ mitigation

44:14 ↗ that'll go through a five-year

44:15 ↗ maintenance monitoring period it's

44:17 ↗ bonded for

44:18 ↗ they they have to pay a city fifty

44:20 ↗ percent of the cost

44:23 ↗ that's monitored for five years we do

44:25 ↗ have a person on staff who monitors that

44:28 ↗ and i often work closely with him on

44:31 ↗ on these maintenance monitoring sites

44:34 ↗ and

44:34 ↗ that area has to be placed in a native

44:36 ↗ growth protection easement so

44:38 ↗ it has to remain in a natural state in

44:40 ↗ perpetuity

44:41 ↗ um if it is not we have code enforcement

44:44 ↗ that can come in if there's illegal

44:47 ↗ clearing or something that's happening

44:49 ↗ inside of that critical area buffer that

44:52 ↗ shouldn't be occurring

44:56 ↗ thank you doug

45:01 ↗ and commissioner lewis are you releasing

45:03 ↗ the floor

45:05 ↗ yes thank you cheerful excellent thank

45:08 ↗ you

45:08 ↗ um by the way i second everything that

45:11 ↗ joey lewis just said that's really

45:13 ↗ that's awesome great question sir okay

45:17 ↗ so

45:17 ↗ next question we have is from

45:19 ↗ commissioner nancy davidson

45:25 ↗ good evening i have two questions for

45:27 ↗ you tonight the first one is

45:29 ↗ are there any agencies that do not allow

45:32 ↗ reductions

45:32 ↗ in buffer widths basically a buffer

45:36 ↗ width is to be

45:37 ↗ held and kept

45:41 ↗ have you found that anywhere

45:44 ↗ um i'll i'll defer to christina in terms

45:48 ↗ of

45:48 ↗ um other jurisdictions my um

45:51 ↗ um you know experience with other

45:54 ↗ jurisdictions

45:55 ↗ is um the folks that have not updated

45:57 ↗ the critical areas will

45:58 ↗ generally have buffer reductions but a

46:01 ↗ lot of other cities that have updated

46:02 ↗ the critical areas have leaned more

46:04 ↗ towards the buffer averaging

46:06 ↗ because that's the best available

46:09 ↗ science guidance from ecology

46:11 ↗ for wetlands for the streams it's not as

46:14 ↗ clear

46:15 ↗ i think in terms of whether buffer

46:17 ↗ reduction is completely

46:19 ↗ ruled out um but again i think the

46:22 ↗ there also the buffer averaging is as

46:24 ↗ preferred

46:25 ↗ uh than buffer reduction um but there

46:28 ↗ are limits to buffer reduction you know

46:30 ↗ no more than 25 percent can be reduced

46:32 ↗ as pretty standard

46:34 ↗ uh christina i'll turn that over to you

46:36 ↗ if you if i

46:37 ↗ misspoke or you want to add sure um

46:40 ↗ i can add to that i guess generally if

46:43 ↗ you find

46:45 ↗ a code that is not

46:49 ↗ lenient towards buffers that is usually

46:51 ↗ for their higher

46:53 ↗ category of either wetlands a category 1

46:56 ↗ or a shoreline of the state

47:01 ↗ if there are you know no exceptions

47:04 ↗ to buffers that's generally where you're

47:07 ↗ going to find it

47:08 ↗ once you move into those lower

47:10 ↗ categories

47:11 ↗ of protected areas then there's usually

47:14 ↗ some ability to work

47:17 ↗ on whether it's a reduction whether it's

47:20 ↗ averaging

47:23 ↗ that sort of thing is usually then

47:25 ↗ allowed somewhere

47:27 ↗ in the um i guess i'll say the

47:31 ↗ the revision timeline that is codes of

47:34 ↗ what was before 2014 updates then before

47:38 ↗ 2018

47:39 ↗ updates and everything else that's

47:40 ↗ catching up

47:42 ↗ so

47:46 ↗ and i do believe you might be on mute

47:48 ↗ i'm sorry

47:50 ↗ all right so is there any opportunity to

47:53 ↗ um look at the rest of the city to say

47:56 ↗ there will be no buffer averaging

47:57 ↗ or buffer reduction so basically the

47:59 ↗ buffers that we have today

48:01 ↗ are the buffers and that are whatever we

48:03 ↗ adopt in title 18 when it goes forward

48:06 ↗ what is the risk to the city if we say

48:09 ↗ the buffers that we have set in the code

48:10 ↗ are the buffers that

48:12 ↗ the public and the private entities in

48:16 ↗ this community have to adhere to

48:18 ↗ i mean i think that um we have allowed a

48:20 ↗ lot of averaging and a lot of movement

48:22 ↗ around

48:23 ↗ and a lot of reductions and it really

48:25 ↗ hasn't brought us any wins in terms of

48:27 ↗ our critical

48:29 ↗ aquifer recharge areas in terms of our

48:31 ↗ groundwater recharge in terms of our

48:33 ↗ streams and

48:34 ↗ and rivers in terms of our water quality

48:36 ↗ and our streams and i guess i'm very

48:38 ↗ concerned that we continue to talk about

48:41 ↗ um reductions for developers

48:44 ↗ without saying no sometimes and i think

48:47 ↗ we even have to say no

48:49 ↗ to public agencies as well

48:52 ↗ we all have to be treated the same

48:54 ↗ that's just my take on it

48:56 ↗ and um on on that note i know there

48:59 ↗ are some um jurisdictions where

49:02 ↗ they look at essentially where the

49:05 ↗ wetland was

49:07 ↗ or would be if um no

49:10 ↗ infrastructure was put in or was

49:12 ↗ existing

49:13 ↗ and then if you say okay there's a road

49:15 ↗ that has now taken up

49:17 ↗ 25 of the recommended buffer

49:20 ↗ you can't go any further it's not 25

49:23 ↗ of the existing buffer with all those

49:26 ↗ gaps and everything else applied as

49:28 ↗ current infrastructure goes that um city

49:31 ↗ tacoma comes to mind um i'm

49:33 ↗ working on some stuff in there right now

49:36 ↗ where

49:36 ↗ they you know take current

49:39 ↗ infrastructure at the time of

49:40 ↗ application

49:42 ↗ into account in that no more than 25

49:45 ↗ percent

49:46 ↗ reduction is allowed um so i don't know

49:48 ↗ if that

49:49 ↗ is something that could get at what

49:50 ↗ you're

49:52 ↗ getting at there um the implication

49:55 ↗ um to not allowing any movement of

49:59 ↗ or any averaging or

50:03 ↗ um reduction measures

50:07 ↗ is whether properties would become

50:12 ↗ unusable essentially

50:15 ↗ i guess and my second question is are

50:18 ↗ the codes applied to

50:20 ↗ all types of entities

50:23 ↗ equally such as you know the school

50:25 ↗ district the city

50:26 ↗ and private businesses are they

50:28 ↗ currently going to be

50:29 ↗ currently handled that way in title 18

50:31 ↗ when you come in for a permit for a road

50:34 ↗ or a utility or a building

50:37 ↗ or are they or even a park and is that

50:40 ↗ something we're looking to consider as

50:42 ↗ we talk about buffers

50:43 ↗ that this would apply to all people

50:45 ↗ seeking permits within

50:47 ↗ including on public agencies within the

50:49 ↗ city

50:52 ↗ yeah this is mini again um i think i

50:55 ↗ believe our code

50:56 ↗ has some exemptions for public

50:58 ↗ facilities um

51:00 ↗ and um and public infrastructure like um

51:03 ↗ you know roads and things of that nature

51:06 ↗ um so we can certainly um

51:08 ↗ you know bring that to the forefront in

51:10 ↗ terms of how

51:11 ↗ what changes are needed to that um if

51:14 ↗ that's the consensus that there should

51:16 ↗ not be

51:16 ↗ special exemptions for public facilities

51:18 ↗ or utilities

51:21 ↗ thank you i'd appreciate that those are

51:24 ↗ my two questions thank you

51:26 ↗ thank you very much uh commissioner

51:28 ↗ davidson

51:29 ↗ and i missed uh commissioner sarah bader

51:32 ↗ sorry about that

51:34 ↗ no problem um sarah vader here i have a

51:36 ↗ question about the

51:38 ↗ fee in lieu of and the mitigation

51:40 ↗ banking and

51:42 ↗ it sounds like that is kind of a state

51:44 ↗ preference and so i'm not sure how much

51:46 ↗ we need to

51:48 ↗ align with that or if that's something

51:49 ↗ that's kind of on the table i'm not sure

51:51 ↗ if that's kind of in

51:52 ↗ um contrast to these discussions around

51:55 ↗ do we want to have any sort of reduction

51:57 ↗ in buffers and that sort of thing but um

51:59 ↗ if that is something we need to pursue i

52:01 ↗ guess i have a question about

52:03 ↗ um how that is

52:06 ↗ um one does that mean that everything

52:09 ↗ just kind of goes into one big bucket

52:11 ↗ um and then how is that investment how

52:13 ↗ are decisions on kind of where that

52:15 ↗ investment goes

52:16 ↗ made and is there an ability to kind of

52:18 ↗ provide for

52:20 ↗ equitable distribution of those

52:21 ↗ investments um

52:23 ↗ across the community across different

52:26 ↗ you know

52:26 ↗ areas within that same watershed for

52:29 ↗ those funds or do they just

52:31 ↗ go sit there and then kind of nobody

52:33 ↗ knows um

52:34 ↗ whatever happens to them

52:38 ↗ christina do you want to take that one

52:41 ↗ sure

52:42 ↗ so with the federal and state

52:46 ↗ agencies they have a preference for

52:50 ↗ the mitigation banking in luffy

52:53 ↗ that are approved through the state and

52:56 ↗ federal

52:56 ↗ system so if it hasn't been approved by

52:59 ↗ them

53:00 ↗ that isn't a recognized option

53:03 ↗ then they do allow for on-site

53:07 ↗ mitigation then off-site

53:10 ↗ and there's some different layers within

53:12 ↗ all of that

53:14 ↗ so when a state or federally reviewed

53:18 ↗ inlu fee program or mitigation bank

53:21 ↗ is proposed it's required that they have

53:24 ↗ to

53:26 ↗ engage the local agencies that would

53:29 ↗ be have jurisdiction of where the bank

53:33 ↗ is cited

53:34 ↗ as well as where the bank or in luffy

53:36 ↗ program

53:37 ↗ can sell the credits for the mitigation

53:40 ↗ and so those jurisdictions are brought

53:43 ↗ to the table

53:44 ↗ for the review and the approval of those

53:48 ↗ entities um so city of issaquah

53:51 ↗ if there was a mitigation bank

53:54 ↗ proposed either in your jurisdiction

53:58 ↗ or if a bank was proposing to sell

54:01 ↗ credits within the service area that

54:04 ↗ would include the city of israel you

54:05 ↗ would be invited to the table you would

54:07 ↗ have say

54:08 ↗ in how that bank was approved and

54:11 ↗ reviewed

54:12 ↗ and monitored throughout the life of its

54:15 ↗ project

54:16 ↗ as well as an in-lu fee program

54:20 ↗ so that does take into account those

54:24 ↗ local watersheds where that would be

54:28 ↗ allowed and

54:32 ↗ then i think one of your other questions

54:34 ↗ was regarding how the money is

54:36 ↗ distributed

54:38 ↗ so it's a little bit different for

54:40 ↗ mitigation banks than it is for in-law

54:42 ↗ fees

54:42 ↗ mitigation banks it's an upfront assess

54:46 ↗ investment by the banker

54:49 ↗ to get the project approved build it

54:53 ↗ maintain it operate it and they sell

54:55 ↗ credits along the way

54:56 ↗ they get credits released piecemeal

54:59 ↗ through the

55:00 ↗ process as they prove that they've

55:02 ↗ achieved certain performance standards

55:05 ↗ for in-law fee programs this can only be

55:07 ↗ done

55:08 ↗ by government agencies or non-profits

55:11 ↗ so those are meant to be more of

55:14 ↗ a systematic way that jurisdictions

55:17 ↗ can handle some of the ongoing

55:20 ↗ mitigation needs that they might need

55:22 ↗ and money goes into an inle fee program

55:26 ↗ must be spent on a site to be mitigated

55:29 ↗ constructed within three years

55:32 ↗ and that money is tracked so um

55:36 ↗ that money doesn't just sit there and

55:38 ↗ disappear um

55:40 ↗ part of the federal rule that was passed

55:43 ↗ in 2008 um required that those financial

55:48 ↗ plans and practices be put in place

55:51 ↗ because

55:52 ↗ there was a history of money going into

55:55 ↗ a pot and people

55:57 ↗ going bankrupt or leaving and that money

56:00 ↗ never going into mitigation so

56:03 ↗ if it is a federally approved inlu fee

56:06 ↗ or mitigation bank there

56:07 ↗ are requirements for that money to be

56:10 ↗ spent within a certain amount of time

56:11 ↗ on mitigation does that answer all

56:16 ↗ yeah yeah that's helpful thank you um

56:18 ↗ and so just to confirm then this is not

56:20 ↗ something that we're proposing like

56:21 ↗ specific

56:22 ↗ for the city um it really just applies

56:25 ↗ to these state

56:27 ↗ um approved projects it it would allow

56:30 ↗ if there was a bank or any luffy um

56:33 ↗ available within city of visqual limits

56:36 ↗ um

56:36 ↗ it would allow you to say yes to a

56:39 ↗ project that would be

56:41 ↗ proposing to have mitigation go to those

56:43 ↗ without this

56:45 ↗ for those options for example there's

56:47 ↗ the king

56:48 ↗ county in the fee program um if a

56:51 ↗ project were to come forward and say we

56:53 ↗ want to buy

56:54 ↗ credits from that in-law fee program you

56:57 ↗ and they're doing impacts within the

56:59 ↗ city of issaquah

57:00 ↗ right now there'd be a disconnect where

57:03 ↗ federal and state agencies say yes you

57:04 ↗ can go to the king county

57:06 ↗ in lieu fee program city of issaquah

57:08 ↗ would say no you have to mitigate onsite

57:10 ↗ or within the sub-watershed and then

57:13 ↗ there's a disconnect

57:14 ↗ between what the federal and state

57:16 ↗ agencies are requiring and what the city

57:18 ↗ might be requiring okay thank you

57:24 ↗ and thank you commissioner vader okay

57:28 ↗ so we are going to move on to

57:31 ↗ a question from commissioner lewis again

57:38 ↗ i think you met me i'm laura um i'm

57:41 ↗ assuming so

57:44 ↗ i got joy uh yeah correction uh laura is

57:48 ↗ before me thank you chairman

57:50 ↗ oh oh you're right sorry thank you sorry

57:54 ↗ um hi i am laura i had a couple of

57:58 ↗ questions um trying to simplify um first

58:01 ↗ of all

58:02 ↗ it's exciting to see all the um the

58:05 ↗ science

58:06 ↗ focus you have so it's really

58:07 ↗ encouraging to see that you're working

58:08 ↗ really diligently and i appreciate that

58:10 ↗ you're making our lives easier so we

58:11 ↗ don't have to

58:12 ↗ um keep all of the details in our mind

58:14 ↗ um

58:16 ↗ larger picture i was asking about the

58:18 ↗ goals of this

58:19 ↗ document and this all the specifics

58:23 ↗ overall and one thing um

58:25 ↗ that i would like to hear and i don't

58:27 ↗ expect you to be able to rattle it off

58:29 ↗ today but is how will we know what

58:31 ↗ success

58:31 ↗ looks like and how we know that we are

58:34 ↗ or are not successful

58:35 ↗ so we have these goals of being more in

58:37 ↗ general sustainable or environmentally

58:39 ↗ friendly but it's a there's sort of a

58:41 ↗ gap

58:41 ↗ between the beginning of

58:44 ↗ sort of a situational analysis and then

58:46 ↗ this goal of like their the goals are a

58:48 ↗ little bit vague i'm sure there are

58:49 ↗ details in there but

58:51 ↗ i would like to have a little more

58:52 ↗ comfort in what those goals are

58:55 ↗ um so that we can follow the story and

58:58 ↗ also support the story

58:59 ↗ um secondly i'm concerned about the

59:01 ↗ amount of um

59:04 ↗ issues related to sustainability that

59:06 ↗ won't necessarily be flagged in code

59:09 ↗ um so if i am just keeping on keeping on

59:11 ↗ how is

59:13 ↗ as you're doing all this detailed

59:15 ↗ analysis it would be great if you could

59:17 ↗ sort of feed back to us

59:18 ↗ um especially from the environmental

59:20 ↗ board but also to city council i'm sure

59:22 ↗ the different areas that are not being

59:23 ↗ addressed and just for transparency say

59:26 ↗ these are issues that will continue to

59:28 ↗ exist until we do something besides the

59:30 ↗ status quo so could we have advocacy

59:32 ↗ groups go and target those projects or

59:34 ↗ whatever

59:35 ↗ um to help us because i know you're

59:36 ↗ doing all this analysis so i hate to

59:38 ↗ lose all of those insights without

59:39 ↗ tracking them

59:40 ↗ um and then also

59:44 ↗ as part of that just the different areas

59:45 ↗ that are segregated so

59:47 ↗ habitat corridors and wild and water

59:50 ↗ management for example they don't live

59:53 ↗ separately an animal and a butterfly

59:55 ↗ like they don't know the difference

59:56 ↗ between

59:57 ↗ where code starts and stops they just

59:59 ↗ live where they live

1:00:00 ↗ so some of those nuances um it feels a

1:00:02 ↗ bit segregated and again that would be

1:00:04 ↗ helpful to see how those

1:00:06 ↗ the fluidity of like nature and the

1:00:08 ↗ dynamics of the world could

1:00:10 ↗ are gonna be um incorporated in

1:00:12 ↗ something is i know that's just not how

1:00:14 ↗ policy and code works but

1:00:15 ↗ to understand that context would be

1:00:17 ↗ helpful um and then the last

1:00:20 ↗ point um unrelated to that is just

1:00:24 ↗ um i would like to see for like the

1:00:26 ↗ aquifers and the discussion about water

1:00:28 ↗ some discussion about fire and drought i

1:00:30 ↗ think um

1:00:32 ↗ it's inevitable that within the next

1:00:34 ↗ five or ten years we're going to have

1:00:36 ↗ serious

1:00:37 ↗ problems to account for and the world is

1:00:39 ↗ on fire and i think we need to be ready

1:00:40 ↗ now so i would love to see more

1:00:42 ↗ aggressive discussion about conservation

1:00:44 ↗ and preparation

1:00:46 ↗ at a local very hyper local context so

1:00:49 ↗ that we can be prepared for resiliency

1:00:50 ↗ down the line

1:00:51 ↗ um so it seems like the code is based a

1:00:54 ↗ little bit for developers but you know

1:00:55 ↗ we are the residents and we need to make

1:00:57 ↗ sure we're protecting ourselves

1:00:59 ↗ not just for development but also for

1:01:01 ↗ resiliency and continuity

1:01:03 ↗ um but in general the thing i'd love to

1:01:06 ↗ see the most of would be some

1:01:07 ↗ feedback on what success looks like

1:01:09 ↗ that's it thank you

1:01:14 ↗ and thank you very much uh commissioner

1:01:16 ↗ levico

1:01:18 ↗ sorry about that i got a little confused

1:01:21 ↗ here i got a bunch of uh

1:01:22 ↗ chats that came to me and directed at me

1:01:26 ↗ uh let's see so we're going to move on

1:01:28 ↗ to

1:01:30 ↗ a and commissioner zargoza looks like

1:01:34 ↗ you're

1:01:35 ↗ satisfied with an answer already okay

1:01:37 ↗ excellent so we'll skip you

1:01:39 ↗ and we have a another question here from

1:01:42 ↗ commission

1:01:43 ↗ commissioner diana milligan

1:01:47 ↗ hi i don't want to take commissioner

1:01:48 ↗ lewis's place i'm looking at you joy do

1:01:51 ↗ you want to turn

1:01:53 ↗ i do but i can go after i'm not in a

1:01:55 ↗ rush no you go ahead and then it'll be

1:01:57 ↗ me then he can follow the list better

1:01:59 ↗ oh i'm sorry i thought joey sent me

1:02:01 ↗ never mind

1:02:03 ↗ thank you chairfall thank you

1:02:05 ↗ commissioner uh nina milligan

1:02:07 ↗ i have two questions i think the first

1:02:09 ↗ is going to be for katie and the second

1:02:10 ↗ is for doug

1:02:11 ↗ just to give everybody a heads up but i

1:02:13 ↗ do want to make a quick comment

1:02:15 ↗ um to nancy's point about exemptions for

1:02:19 ↗ buffers

1:02:20 ↗ i think she makes a fantastic point um

1:02:22 ↗ our partner in the community the school

1:02:24 ↗ district

1:02:24 ↗ regularly requires us to be giving

1:02:28 ↗ exemptions to them

1:02:29 ↗ and we know that when they build they

1:02:31 ↗ love to build with a lot of asphalt so

1:02:33 ↗ i think it's really important to nancy's

1:02:36 ↗ point that when we look at these codes

1:02:37 ↗ that we look at saying we want everybody

1:02:39 ↗ in the community to be playing by the

1:02:41 ↗ same rules

1:02:42 ↗ especially it's really easy to look at

1:02:44 ↗ specific examples right now

1:02:46 ↗ at the providence point site with two

1:02:48 ↗ schools going up that have

1:02:50 ↗ critical saminoid bearing strings

1:02:52 ↗ running through them um

1:02:54 ↗ that we really need to make a point of

1:02:56 ↗ having this title 18

1:02:58 ↗ update really apply to all members and

1:03:00 ↗ actors in our community and i want to

1:03:02 ↗ thank nancy for her comments

1:03:04 ↗ um my first question i think is going to

1:03:06 ↗ be for katie and that's that on page 13

1:03:08 ↗ of our document it starts out by telling

1:03:11 ↗ us a little bit about what we can't do

1:03:12 ↗ right it says we want you to look at

1:03:14 ↗ these things but actually as far as

1:03:16 ↗ sustainability goes

1:03:18 ↗ we don't want you to be looking at for

1:03:20 ↗ instance

1:03:21 ↗ um building standards and green codes

1:03:24 ↗ and things like that but then on page 68

1:03:26 ↗ you give us a pure city of best

1:03:28 ↗ practices and you give redmond as an

1:03:29 ↗ example of

1:03:30 ↗ all this great green building that

1:03:32 ↗ they're doing right so it was hard for

1:03:34 ↗ me to separate out

1:03:35 ↗ a little bit in this packet to have you

1:03:37 ↗ tell me don't look at any of this this

1:03:39 ↗ isn't what we're doing

1:03:40 ↗ but then to give me a hard and concrete

1:03:42 ↗ example of a pure city

1:03:44 ↗ practice that is all about green

1:03:46 ↗ building so

1:03:47 ↗ while i can discern that you're asking

1:03:50 ↗ me to discuss more like the ecological

1:03:52 ↗ choices that they put in

1:03:54 ↗ with like landscaping rain water

1:03:56 ↗ collection

1:03:57 ↗ those kinds of things um i was hoping

1:03:59 ↗ that maybe um

1:04:00 ↗ this is a little bit too um to lara's

1:04:02 ↗ point too if you can kind of talk about

1:04:04 ↗ hey

1:04:04 ↗ we don't want to talk about this

1:04:06 ↗ component yet we know it's important so

1:04:09 ↗ when is it going to come up and how does

1:04:10 ↗ it come up um

1:04:12 ↗ i think would be super helpful

1:04:16 ↗ sure thank you for your comment

1:04:18 ↗ commissioner lewis and i think we will

1:04:19 ↗ get into this a little bit more

1:04:21 ↗ when we take up the sustainability topic

1:04:23 ↗ which i realize is at the end of the

1:04:25 ↗ agenda so

1:04:27 ↗ um so you don't have to wait for the

1:04:28 ↗ whole night to progress

1:04:30 ↗ i can address your question now um the

1:04:33 ↗ purpose

1:04:34 ↗ so we're we're kind of at the beginning

1:04:37 ↗ of figuring

1:04:38 ↗ out how to incorporate sustainability

1:04:40 ↗ and climate planning into the land use

1:04:42 ↗ code update

1:04:43 ↗ um the climate action plan is under

1:04:45 ↗ development and hasn't

1:04:47 ↗ been finished yet and will lean heavily

1:04:49 ↗ on the recommendations from that plan to

1:04:51 ↗ guide our work

1:04:53 ↗ but the purpose of the memo was to

1:04:56 ↗ both introduce the menu of options that

1:05:00 ↗ cities can choose from when they're

1:05:01 ↗ trying to address climate planning and

1:05:03 ↗ sustainability

1:05:05 ↗ while also um

1:05:08 ↗ while also trying to focus on what we

1:05:10 ↗ can achieve through the land use code

1:05:12 ↗ update

1:05:13 ↗ i think that there are ways that we can

1:05:16 ↗ develop programs that would bring in

1:05:18 ↗ um you know if the developers coming in

1:05:20 ↗ for a land use permit

1:05:22 ↗ the land use permit is a land use action

1:05:25 ↗ but

1:05:26 ↗ it can have requirements that live in

1:05:28 ↗ other codes

1:05:29 ↗ so we could say you know in order to get

1:05:31 ↗ this land use approval

1:05:33 ↗ we want you to meet these building code

1:05:35 ↗ objectives or these stormwater

1:05:37 ↗ objectives

1:05:38 ↗ so we wouldn't be working on those

1:05:41 ↗ building code and stormwater objectives

1:05:43 ↗ through this process i think that the

1:05:46 ↗ stormwater update is maybe next on the

1:05:48 ↗ list and i'm not sure about the building

1:05:50 ↗ code the green building part but

1:05:52 ↗ um we could think through the framework

1:05:54 ↗ through the code update

1:05:55 ↗ and then um have that be part of

1:06:00 ↗ what is approved through this body even

1:06:02 ↗ if the other strategies aren't quite

1:06:04 ↗ there yet but

1:06:05 ↗ i i agree that all of these pieces need

1:06:08 ↗ to be tracked

1:06:09 ↗ um and part of the way we're doing that

1:06:12 ↗ is through our

1:06:13 ↗ public comment tracking table that we

1:06:15 ↗ brought to the ppc

1:06:16 ↗ a couple meetings or one meeting ago um

1:06:19 ↗ when we get comments that aren't

1:06:21 ↗ directly related to title 18 issues

1:06:24 ↗ we're still including them in in this

1:06:27 ↗ tracking matrix um and we'll make sure

1:06:30 ↗ that those get fed to the right

1:06:32 ↗ groups that are working on these other

1:06:34 ↗ projects outside of the title 18 fd

1:06:39 ↗ thank you katie i don't know mindy maybe

1:06:41 ↗ if you want to piggyback onto that

1:06:42 ↗ and specifically talk about our

1:06:44 ↗ stormwater management plan

1:06:46 ↗ is being worked on as well as the

1:06:47 ↗ climate action plan i know that we're

1:06:49 ↗ planning on having another

1:06:51 ↗ look at all this in december for another

1:06:52 ↗ joint commission

1:06:54 ↗ if maybe you want to speak to kind of

1:06:56 ↗ availability and data because it's

1:06:57 ↗ difficult for us to be able to sit where

1:07:00 ↗ we are and likewise with staff right

1:07:01 ↗ when we still have these pretty big

1:07:03 ↗ pending

1:07:04 ↗ um things to be worked out i don't know

1:07:05 ↗ if you want to speak to that many

1:07:09 ↗ yeah um you know the the stormwater plan

1:07:13 ↗ we are coordinating with them uh at the

1:07:15 ↗ staff level

1:07:16 ↗ um and you know the climate action plan

1:07:19 ↗ where we're gonna continually

1:07:21 ↗ uh engage with the sustainability staff

1:07:24 ↗ so

1:07:25 ↗ at the staff level we are coordinating

1:07:27 ↗ and

1:07:28 ↗ our effort so that they title 18 is the

1:07:31 ↗ implementation

1:07:32 ↗ tool right so every all long-range plans

1:07:36 ↗ all of those things then feed into uh

1:07:40 ↗ what we how we can implement it so

1:07:43 ↗ that that coordinated effort is going to

1:07:45 ↗ be there but it's it's continuous

1:07:46 ↗ improvement i mean

1:07:48 ↗ there's always going to be planning

1:07:50 ↗ efforts going on in the city at some

1:07:52 ↗ point

1:07:53 ↗ um and title 18 isn't going to be set in

1:07:56 ↗ stone i mean

1:07:56 ↗ as new plans come up we we

1:07:59 ↗ this is the reason why it's happening

1:08:02 ↗ now in a more comprehensive way is

1:08:03 ↗ because it's become a patchwork of

1:08:05 ↗ ordinances you know

1:08:07 ↗ um all the development agreements then

1:08:08 ↗ became replacement regulations and then

1:08:10 ↗ we have five different documents

1:08:12 ↗ so part of this effort is to kind of

1:08:14 ↗ create that framework

1:08:16 ↗ that then is aligned with the long-range

1:08:18 ↗ plans but it's not

1:08:20 ↗ uh it's not going to be that's the way

1:08:23 ↗ it is for the next 20 years so there'll

1:08:25 ↗ always be that continuous improvement as

1:08:27 ↗ new plans and are developed climate

1:08:29 ↗ action plan or

1:08:30 ↗ storm water plan those will inform some

1:08:32 ↗ of the future updates

1:08:36 ↗ thank you minnie uh my second question

1:08:39 ↗ which i think

1:08:39 ↗ maybe is for doug um but on page 28 you

1:08:43 ↗ guys are specifically asking us to

1:08:45 ↗ comment on the dnr stream

1:08:47 ↗ classifications

1:08:48 ↗ but earlier in the document you

1:08:50 ↗ referenced that there's also the

1:08:51 ↗ national hydro um

1:08:53 ↗ what might look certainly my my chicken

1:08:54 ↗ scratch um the natural um

1:08:58 ↗ hydra phytography data set um and i was

1:09:01 ↗ hoping i sent an email asking to clarify

1:09:03 ↗ the difference between the two

1:09:05 ↗ um and trying to understand that stream

1:09:07 ↗ classification better to be able to

1:09:08 ↗ answer the question

1:09:15 ↗ yeah i don't know are you going to speak

1:09:16 ↗ to that or do you want me to take

1:09:18 ↗ i was going to actually pass it off to

1:09:19 ↗ somebody else uh

1:09:21 ↗ sure um so you know yes they

1:09:24 ↗ um it is herrera could christina could

1:09:27 ↗ answer that as well but they're both

1:09:29 ↗ similar those two methodologies that the

1:09:31 ↗ state uses

1:09:32 ↗ are very similar is my understanding

1:09:38 ↗ uh yes they're generally similar it's

1:09:41 ↗ a bit of terminology and um

1:09:45 ↗ our recommendation is the

1:09:49 ↗ state water

1:09:53 ↗ type and

1:09:56 ↗ that is more cohesively used across the

1:10:00 ↗ state

1:10:01 ↗ most jurisdictions are adopting that and

1:10:04 ↗ leaving the

1:10:05 ↗ classification system that the that

1:10:07 ↗ israel currently has

1:10:08 ↗ and moving towards that cohesive

1:10:12 ↗ state water type classification

1:10:18 ↗ so like i said on page 28 question

1:10:20 ↗ number two should the city use the dnr

1:10:22 ↗ water type classifications and revise

1:10:24 ↗ stream rating systems

1:10:25 ↗ so our gas analysis tells us that yes

1:10:28 ↗ we have overlooked this yes it needs

1:10:30 ↗ correction but it's hard for me to

1:10:32 ↗ actually give you an

1:10:33 ↗ answer when i don't know what my options

1:10:34 ↗ are right so what is the difference

1:10:37 ↗ um between you know the nhd versus the

1:10:39 ↗ dnr

1:10:40 ↗ right so you're saying they're pretty

1:10:41 ↗ similar but how are you know

1:10:44 ↗ if we're choosing one versus another

1:10:47 ↗ does one give us different

1:10:48 ↗ slightly different coverage maybe that's

1:10:49 ↗ slightly different matters

1:10:52 ↗ so one of um the ways that they're

1:10:55 ↗ different

1:10:55 ↗ is in the classification

1:10:59 ↗ or definition of streams that have

1:11:04 ↗ fish in them one separates salmonids

1:11:07 ↗ other fish recognizes that versus

1:11:11 ↗ the state water type

1:11:14 ↗ classifies all fish bearing streams into

1:11:17 ↗ a single

1:11:18 ↗ f classification and then you go into

1:11:21 ↗ those streams which are not fish bearing

1:11:24 ↗ and whether those are perennial

1:11:26 ↗ run all year round or whether they're

1:11:29 ↗ seasonal

1:11:30 ↗ come and go depending on dry

1:11:33 ↗ season so it's a little bit of a

1:11:39 ↗ more condensed classification okay

1:11:42 ↗ so right now we um we know uh from our

1:11:45 ↗ packet that all six of our streams

1:11:47 ↗ are stamina bearing so therefore it

1:11:50 ↗ means that it really wouldn't matter

1:11:52 ↗ what the designation is between

1:11:54 ↗ um whether it be like trout right and

1:11:56 ↗ non-salmon

1:11:57 ↗ like a non-salmon fish right fish

1:11:59 ↗ bearing or not we know all of ours are

1:12:01 ↗ so is that why it's kind of moon

1:12:02 ↗ um no the streams that many

1:12:06 ↗ identified in the beginning are your

1:12:09 ↗ significant streams

1:12:11 ↗ there are those streams are the ones

1:12:14 ↗ that are

1:12:14 ↗ would be perennial running year-round

1:12:18 ↗ the map that was shown does not quantify

1:12:22 ↗ all of those uh seasonal streams

1:12:26 ↗ that feed into those larger stream

1:12:29 ↗ systems so

1:12:31 ↗ those named streams are your significant

1:12:34 ↗ named streams in your jurisdiction there

1:12:37 ↗ are several

1:12:38 ↗ tributaries to those that

1:12:42 ↗ um would be your class three class four

1:12:45 ↗ which would be all sort of rolled into a

1:12:48 ↗ non-fish bearing

1:12:49 ↗ stream okay so help me sorry again

1:12:52 ↗ this is uh just me trying to get an

1:12:54 ↗ educational background

1:12:56 ↗ on how to be able to distinguish of

1:12:58 ↗ whether to adopt the dnr

1:13:00 ↗ right we know that we have this gap

1:13:02 ↗ we're wanting to meet the need

1:13:04 ↗ but knowing which tool to use is where

1:13:07 ↗ i'm a little bit confused right rather

1:13:08 ↗ than just saying yes to dnr

1:13:10 ↗ if there's another one that works better

1:13:12 ↗ for us based on the particularities of

1:13:14 ↗ our community is what i'm kind of

1:13:16 ↗ trying to get especially because when we

1:13:17 ↗ start talking about these tributaries

1:13:19 ↗ right that are seasonal

1:13:20 ↗ um they may look more like a wetland but

1:13:23 ↗ they are

1:13:24 ↗ a seasonal creek right and so how they

1:13:26 ↗ function

1:13:27 ↗ is different than how maybe the public

1:13:29 ↗ may perceive them as we have creek beds

1:13:31 ↗ that are going to

1:13:32 ↗ change ebb and flow as far as how

1:13:34 ↗ they're running so

1:13:35 ↗ i'm curious how we um from where we're

1:13:38 ↗ sitting in our commissions and boards be

1:13:40 ↗ able to evaluate what is the best

1:13:42 ↗ measure for this classification

1:13:48 ↗ so what i'm hearing is that there

1:13:52 ↗ maybe is the whether something is

1:13:55 ↗ classified as a stream

1:13:57 ↗ defined as a stream versus how it is

1:14:03 ↗ rated compared to other streams

1:14:08 ↗ so once something has bed and bank

1:14:12 ↗ and has flow in it then you've got a

1:14:14 ↗ stream

1:14:15 ↗ then you figure out okay which

1:14:17 ↗ classification do

1:14:18 ↗ we want to use um versus if there is no

1:14:22 ↗ bed and bank

1:14:23 ↗ there is no flow that's under wetlands

1:14:27 ↗ if it meets the other wetland conditions

1:14:30 ↗ um is that

1:14:33 ↗ am i here well i mean like if you have a

1:14:35 ↗ couple places in the city where

1:14:37 ↗ you can follow the flow of a tributary

1:14:40 ↗ and you can

1:14:40 ↗ go you know to you know 200 yards and

1:14:43 ↗ see that's where it's flowing and then

1:14:45 ↗ back up and be able to say oh here's

1:14:46 ↗ where it's collected and looks like a

1:14:48 ↗ wetland

1:14:48 ↗ it's still the same stream but how it's

1:14:50 ↗ navigating this and the seasonality that

1:14:52 ↗ how it's being impacted on it

1:14:54 ↗ looks different in the community right

1:14:56 ↗ and so being able to say there is no bed

1:14:58 ↗ and bag here

1:14:59 ↗ but there is here but it's the same

1:15:01 ↗ stream how do we have

1:15:02 ↗ how do we differentiate in that

1:15:04 ↗ classification to be able to put into

1:15:06 ↗ our code so that when you have

1:15:08 ↗ one slice of land and you look at you

1:15:10 ↗ say there's no bed and bank so it's a

1:15:12 ↗ wetland i have a different buffer

1:15:13 ↗ but you say no it's part of the same

1:15:15 ↗ tributary you need to look elsewhere

1:15:16 ↗ this is where your standards are right

1:15:18 ↗ so how we classify

1:15:19 ↗ our you know our non-fish bearing

1:15:21 ↗ streams is what i'm curious about

1:15:23 ↗ how to get up because you specifically

1:15:25 ↗ asked us should we use the dnr

1:15:26 ↗ and i'm sitting here going i don't know

1:15:28 ↗ what's my other option what is the

1:15:30 ↗ difference between one versus another

1:15:33 ↗ um so maybe christine i can so your

1:15:36 ↗ options are you can leave the

1:15:37 ↗ classification that are currently

1:15:39 ↗ in in in the code or you make it

1:15:42 ↗ consistent with how

1:15:44 ↗ it's done at the state level but

1:15:46 ↗ whatever we call it

1:15:47 ↗ whether it's the dnr or the other one

1:15:49 ↗ there's not much of a

1:15:51 ↗ difference but there's slight difference

1:15:53 ↗ but there's not much of a difference the

1:15:55 ↗ question really is do we want to be

1:15:58 ↗ consistent with the way it's done at the

1:16:00 ↗ state level because when you're doing

1:16:02 ↗ impacting actual work in the stream

1:16:04 ↗ sometimes you have to get state permits

1:16:05 ↗ and hpas and things like that from the

1:16:07 ↗ state

1:16:08 ↗ so some consistency is desired between

1:16:11 ↗ local and state regulations

1:16:14 ↗ but we don't have to we can you know we

1:16:17 ↗ don't have to gen

1:16:18 ↗ call it the same way it's an option for

1:16:20 ↗ city of issaquah so

1:16:21 ↗ those are the options i think we've laid

1:16:22 ↗ out uh we can discuss this topic

1:16:25 ↗ further if you know i mean in terms of

1:16:27 ↗ the comparisons and stuff if that's

1:16:29 ↗ desired for the future between different

1:16:30 ↗ typologies and what they mean

1:16:32 ↗ but at the end of the day it's really

1:16:34 ↗ the buffers and what's allowed

1:16:36 ↗ um that's going to make a difference

1:16:38 ↗ what we call it um

1:16:39 ↗ what classification helps being

1:16:42 ↗ consistent with state

1:16:44 ↗ typologies and ratings but but it's not

1:16:47 ↗ that critical in terms of

1:16:48 ↗ whether it's a question do it or not

1:16:51 ↗ thank you minnie and christina

1:16:56 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis are you

1:16:59 ↗ satisfied with the answers you received

1:17:02 ↗ excellent those are great questions by

1:17:04 ↗ the way and we have heard some great

1:17:05 ↗ answers

1:17:07 ↗ okay we are moving on to uh

1:17:11 ↗ commissioner danny maiden i think we

1:17:16 ↗ need to go back to commissioner milligan

1:17:19 ↗ oh i'm sorry

1:17:22 ↗ this isn't working out so well i need a

1:17:24 ↗ new system here

1:17:26 ↗ okay go ahead and commissioner mill

1:17:28 ↗ again thank you chair fall

1:17:30 ↗ commissioner nina milligan here uh i

1:17:32 ↗ have three

1:17:34 ↗ questions um the first one is procedural

1:17:37 ↗ and i think goes to planner leasing

1:17:39 ↗ and that is i i might not be the only

1:17:42 ↗ commissioner

1:17:43 ↗ board member here who has a lot to say

1:17:46 ↗ tonight and is gathering their thoughts

1:17:48 ↗ we're having questions now and then

1:17:50 ↗ we're going to hear from the public

1:17:52 ↗ tell us the best way for us to provide

1:17:56 ↗ our feedback

1:17:57 ↗ after this meeting do we direct it

1:18:00 ↗ straight to you do we direct it to the

1:18:01 ↗ entire commission so other commissioners

1:18:03 ↗ hear us

1:18:04 ↗ that sort of thing that's question

1:18:06 ↗ number one question number two

1:18:10 ↗ i want to follow up on board member

1:18:12 ↗ davidson's question

1:18:14 ↗ especially because of part of the answer

1:18:16 ↗ as

1:18:17 ↗ this kind of um just a

1:18:21 ↗ tweak on the question if we were

1:18:24 ↗ to remove off-site mitigation of any

1:18:28 ↗ kind

1:18:29 ↗ be in lieu mitigation and buffer

1:18:32 ↗ reductions

1:18:33 ↗ if we just had reductions i mean had

1:18:36 ↗ buffers

1:18:36 ↗ and there are no exceptions is there any

1:18:39 ↗ risk

1:18:40 ↗ to the city and leverage that part of

1:18:43 ↗ the answer that said that this might

1:18:45 ↗ make a property

1:18:46 ↗ unusable are there property rights

1:18:49 ↗ things that could come back to bite us

1:18:51 ↗ that's the kind of way that i'm asking

1:18:52 ↗ that question if we wanted to go that

1:18:54 ↗ way

1:18:56 ↗ what are our risks that's number two and

1:18:59 ↗ my third question

1:19:00 ↗ has to do with

1:19:05 ↗ implementing requirements for the

1:19:07 ↗ quality

1:19:08 ↗ of buffers

1:19:12 ↗ we have in our code or options to

1:19:15 ↗ increase the quality and functionality

1:19:18 ↗ of a buffer

1:19:20 ↗ in lieu of the size of the buffer

1:19:23 ↗ but could we have both could you have

1:19:25 ↗ increased functionality and

1:19:27 ↗ state the line with the size of the

1:19:30 ↗ buffer

1:19:32 ↗ that's my three questions thank you

1:19:37 ↗ so this is kristin leeson senior planner

1:19:39 ↗ and i can actually answer your first two

1:19:41 ↗ questions so

1:19:42 ↗ i think for the first one about all of

1:19:44 ↗ your thoughts and collecting your

1:19:45 ↗ thoughts after this meeting

1:19:47 ↗ um i don't i would prefer that you all

1:19:50 ↗ send them to

1:19:51 ↗ minnie and to me and what we will do

1:19:54 ↗ instead of just

1:19:55 ↗ everybody getting all these random

1:19:56 ↗ things we can collect them and maybe

1:19:59 ↗ um group them by category or something

1:20:01 ↗ like that and then distribute them

1:20:03 ↗ before our next meeting which is on

1:20:04 ↗ august 12th minnie are you okay with

1:20:06 ↗ that

1:20:06 ↗ yeah and we can include it in the

1:20:08 ↗ package so the members of the

1:20:09 ↗ community also have answers to you yeah

1:20:12 ↗ we'll send it to the environmental board

1:20:13 ↗ as well since you all are here too and

1:20:14 ↗ environmental board uh feel free to send

1:20:16 ↗ your comments to us as well that doesn't

1:20:18 ↗ that wasn't just for ppc that's for you

1:20:20 ↗ as well

1:20:21 ↗ um and then for the second one you have

1:20:24 ↗ to allow a property reasonable use

1:20:26 ↗ you can't just say

1:20:29 ↗ you're and somebody else can address

1:20:30 ↗ this better than me but you have to

1:20:32 ↗ have to allow for reasonable use on a

1:20:34 ↗ property so you can't just say nope

1:20:36 ↗ you're completely covered with

1:20:37 ↗ environmental critical areas you can't

1:20:39 ↗ do anything sorry

1:20:41 ↗ there have to be exceptions so those are

1:20:44 ↗ my answers to the first two

1:20:49 ↗ i'll answer the third one um this is

1:20:51 ↗ mini

1:20:53 ↗ so your question was implementing the

1:20:55 ↗ quality and the functionality of the

1:20:57 ↗ buffers

1:20:57 ↗ so you can require if you have

1:21:01 ↗ a a stream or a wetland or on your

1:21:04 ↗ property

1:21:05 ↗ and you're developing it regardless of

1:21:07 ↗ whether you are

1:21:10 ↗ you know right now the code says if you

1:21:12 ↗ do if you're asking for a buffer

1:21:13 ↗ reduction

1:21:15 ↗ uh you have to improve the the buffer

1:21:18 ↗ um the city could choose to say if there

1:21:20 ↗ is a critical area on your property you

1:21:22 ↗ need to replant

1:21:23 ↗ you know if it's if it's full of

1:21:25 ↗ invasives and and

1:21:27 ↗ and such that you need to upgrade it and

1:21:29 ↗ plant it and monitor it

1:21:30 ↗ regardless of the wetland buffer uh

1:21:33 ↗ request um so i think that

1:21:37 ↗ that's basically what your question was

1:21:39 ↗ okay

1:21:41 ↗ i do have one thing to add about sending

1:21:43 ↗ in comments if you could send those in

1:21:45 ↗ by say august 3rd then we'd be able to

1:21:48 ↗ get them in the packet next time

1:21:51 ↗ august 3rd is your deadline thank you

1:21:54 ↗ kristen

1:21:56 ↗ and thank you very much uh commissioner

1:21:57 ↗ milligan were those answers to your

1:21:59 ↗ satisfaction

1:22:02 ↗ you know the other thing i would add to

1:22:03 ↗ sending your questions if you

1:22:05 ↗ just want to get hold of us and you

1:22:07 ↗ didn't get a chance to ask you a

1:22:09 ↗ question today

1:22:10 ↗ and and you need some more educational

1:22:14 ↗ piece or just have some questions were

1:22:17 ↗ there

1:22:18 ↗ feel free to email you know we'll

1:22:20 ↗ include it in the packet if you don't

1:22:21 ↗ want it included and just want to have a

1:22:22 ↗ conversation we're happy to talk to you

1:22:25 ↗ uh outside of the meeting as well

1:22:29 ↗ excellent thank you uh uh planner

1:22:32 ↗ donnelly well

1:22:32 ↗ uh okay commissioner danny maiden

1:22:36 ↗ now we're coming back to you um

1:22:39 ↗ hi this is danny thank you so much for

1:22:41 ↗ all of your hard work um i just have a

1:22:43 ↗ quick one

1:22:44 ↗ um you touched on this a little bit in

1:22:46 ↗ the presentation um but i am curious

1:22:48 ↗ about

1:22:48 ↗ um like the difference in land intensity

1:22:51 ↗ and isoqual like is

1:22:52 ↗ it um a substantial level and

1:22:55 ↗ i also wonder if there is like any way

1:22:59 ↗ that

1:22:59 ↗ you can quantify the efficacy of like

1:23:02 ↗ the different

1:23:03 ↗ um options uh this is specifically

1:23:05 ↗ concerning like the wetland

1:23:07 ↗ um your first policy uh question

1:23:10 ↗ and i i'm just curious about like

1:23:12 ↗ generally is there more evidence that

1:23:14 ↗ like

1:23:14 ↗ a more nuanced approach would be more

1:23:16 ↗ effective in this

1:23:18 ↗ um uh for like wetland buffers um

1:23:22 ↗ and yeah that's

1:23:26 ↗ i'll start and then christina feel free

1:23:28 ↗ to pitch in um

1:23:29 ↗ the more nuanced approach obviously

1:23:31 ↗ gives more options

1:23:33 ↗ and and it it gives you a chance to look

1:23:35 ↗ at what's really on the ground

1:23:37 ↗ uh the the problem with it is it is a

1:23:40 ↗ little bit more complicated and it's

1:23:42 ↗ more

1:23:42 ↗ um you know there's more um back and

1:23:45 ↗ forth in terms of what the

1:23:46 ↗ what the different options are but but

1:23:48 ↗ it does give you more

1:23:49 ↗ more options the other part of your

1:23:53 ↗ question was

1:23:54 ↗ uh the efficacy of one uh versus the

1:23:57 ↗ other

1:23:58 ↗ so the the ecology's high medium and low

1:24:02 ↗ intensity

1:24:03 ↗ uh when you look at that list the high

1:24:05 ↗ intensities all your commercial

1:24:06 ↗ development all your residential

1:24:08 ↗ development and medium is if you have

1:24:10 ↗ one house per one acre which

1:24:12 ↗ you know maybe there's some properties

1:24:13 ↗ that that could probably come into play

1:24:16 ↗ and then the low impact is really open

1:24:18 ↗ space and parks and trails

1:24:20 ↗ um so any kind of major development

1:24:23 ↗ would still have those

1:24:24 ↗ uh the the topper um top category for

1:24:27 ↗ the wetlands

1:24:28 ↗ for the buffers in most in 99

1:24:31 ↗ of the cases the the high intensity is

1:24:33 ↗ where most of the development would fall

1:24:35 ↗ under

1:24:35 ↗ for escort

1:24:44 ↗ that concludes my answer did that does

1:24:47 ↗ it help did i answer your question

1:24:49 ↗ yep thank you so much excellent

1:24:52 ↗ and thank you so that is it for the

1:24:54 ↗ questions on this topic

1:24:56 ↗ uh are there any more questions before

1:24:58 ↗ we move on to the next topic

1:25:01 ↗ okay so the time is 7 55 just letting

1:25:04 ↗ everyone know

1:25:05 ↗ um minnie go ahead and

1:25:10 ↗ proceed to the next topic

1:25:15 ↗ thank you cheerful are we uh are you

1:25:17 ↗ gonna

1:25:18 ↗ have public comments on this topic i

1:25:20 ↗ think

1:25:21 ↗ yes let's go sorry

1:25:25 ↗ um i've got a lot of things going on

1:25:27 ↗ here i'm getting distracted uh let's go

1:25:29 ↗ ahead and open it up to

1:25:30 ↗ public comment uh regarding this topic

1:25:34 ↗ and kristin do we have any members of

1:25:36 ↗ the public that would like to speak

1:25:38 ↗ today

1:25:43 ↗ i was having trouble unmeeting um let me

1:25:45 ↗ ask

1:25:46 ↗ we have one if you would like to speak

1:25:48 ↗ if you could please raise your virtual

1:25:50 ↗ hand

1:25:51 ↗ and if you it's hard to find if you

1:25:53 ↗ can't find it if you could just send a

1:25:55 ↗ message to me the host

1:25:57 ↗ and say comment then i will let you

1:26:00 ↗ speak but first up we have

1:26:02 ↗ connie marsh bonnie i am

1:26:05 ↗ making you a panelist

1:26:08 ↗ and i can find you i will unmute you

1:26:14 ↗ there you are

1:26:20 ↗ wait a minute so i'm going to shot on

1:26:22 ↗ you

1:26:25 ↗ one a white buffer is a con so

1:26:29 ↗ i disagree with the slides indentation

1:26:32 ↗ and sort of the position that you took

1:26:35 ↗ that

1:26:36 ↗ uh slide presentation the buffer

1:26:39 ↗ reduction in the city has

1:26:41 ↗ is not 25 percent it is 25

1:26:46 ↗ of only 25 of the buffer and so so

1:26:50 ↗ actually a small

1:26:51 ↗ region that is currently allowed so

1:26:55 ↗ by saying 25 that is incorrect

1:26:58 ↗ so you can't sit over and over and over

1:27:01 ↗ again

1:27:03 ↗ um the washington

1:27:07 ↗ state uh fisheries department

1:27:11 ↗ actually is probably the clearest

1:27:15 ↗ concept of how to protect our fisheries

1:27:18 ↗ in this distance yet i don't see

1:27:21 ↗ the dress very much so

1:27:25 ↗ here we go uh we need to have a standard

1:27:29 ↗ wider buffer now kristen said

1:27:33 ↗ you can't do that without the ability

1:27:36 ↗ to reduce we have a variance process in

1:27:39 ↗ the various process

1:27:40 ↗ this is the lead process that allows

1:27:42 ↗ people to have

1:27:43 ↗ people accessing their land if they have

1:27:46 ↗ one percent

1:27:48 ↗ uh 100 critical area trained

1:27:51 ↗ property that does not mean you have to

1:27:53 ↗ allow them to reduce their

1:27:55 ↗ buffers via your code as long as you

1:27:58 ↗ allow them

1:28:00 ↗ would be currently the variant process

1:28:04 ↗ um we

1:28:08 ↗ are a rarity and that our entire valley

1:28:12 ↗ floor is connected to the shipping of

1:28:15 ↗ population and are some monitoring

1:28:18 ↗ streams

1:28:19 ↗ uh much of it and anytime you get a

1:28:21 ↗ flood connection and we stream or a

1:28:24 ↗ wetland you have

1:28:25 ↗ sounded connections and the ability

1:28:29 ↗ to be sim bearing so all of these these

1:28:32 ↗ things you call

1:28:33 ↗ uh if they are connected to a

1:28:38 ↗ string

1:28:39 ↗ via a hundred year flood that that means

1:28:42 ↗ they are

1:28:43 ↗ selling varying and should considered

1:28:46 ↗ as such and so when you knew

1:28:49 ↗ about the uh feds

1:28:52 ↗ or the state government needing to have

1:28:56 ↗ a mitigation bank

1:28:58 ↗ our floor is basically one big

1:29:01 ↗ huge grand habitat area with the state

1:29:05 ↗ park tibbetts valley etiquette creek

1:29:08 ↗ um the main stem of this aquaponic creek

1:29:11 ↗ the earth

1:29:12 ↗ and our remaining e4 natural

1:29:15 ↗ wild salmon scene are our

1:29:19 ↗ massive habitat there is absolutely no

1:29:22 ↗ reason that we would be

1:29:24 ↗ taking our tap tap improve groups and

1:29:27 ↗ putting their

1:29:28 ↗ them anywhere else if we could create a

1:29:31 ↗ mitigation

1:29:33 ↗ order to do that but it is better to get

1:29:36 ↗ them to connect to the exact places

1:29:38 ↗ where they

1:29:39 ↗ could possibly be being impacted

1:29:42 ↗ so i resist uh a change in any of that

1:29:48 ↗ um oh look i'm nipping through my pages

1:29:50 ↗ so

1:29:51 ↗ when we just we look at this and look at

1:29:54 ↗ the

1:29:54 ↗ ditches that we in issaquah fish

1:29:57 ↗ wildlife consider that

1:29:59 ↗ really all of our leaf floored

1:30:02 ↗ this with a very very tiny subset

1:30:07 ↗ ours are some on airing so when you talk

1:30:10 ↗ to

1:30:11 ↗ fish and wildlife they're saying i don't

1:30:13 ↗ even know

1:30:14 ↗ talking about when you knew that these

1:30:16 ↗ are not bearing

1:30:18 ↗ uh habitat areas we are better off

1:30:21 ↗ looking at

1:30:22 ↗ our and saying how do we miss so

1:30:25 ↗ that that can actually accommodate

1:30:27 ↗ our fish more elegantly and the more

1:30:31 ↗ healthy things he can continue to have a

1:30:33 ↗ salmon populate in the future

1:30:35 ↗ than to say wow we just should we just

1:30:38 ↗ ignore the fish

1:30:39 ↗ even there um i'm adamantly opposed to

1:30:43 ↗ that

1:30:44 ↗ um and when you look at the

1:30:59 ↗ so we need to raise our uh

1:31:03 ↗ category four streams up to something

1:31:06 ↗ that is protected and has a buffalo

1:31:09 ↗ because right now it doesn't

1:31:11 ↗ that would be um honey

1:31:15 ↗ going to interrupt you for one second um

1:31:17 ↗ and ask the commissioners and board

1:31:18 ↗ members connie's voice is a little

1:31:20 ↗ kind of bubbly i want to make sure that

1:31:21 ↗ you all understand what she's saying is

1:31:23 ↗ coming through

1:31:25 ↗ no okay um that

1:31:32 ↗ uh okay yeah i can try calling back

1:31:36 ↗ that was my suggestion was going to be

1:31:38 ↗ to try and call back and you could

1:31:40 ↗ finish up your comments

1:31:41 ↗ um after the next section they do the

1:31:44 ↗ first part

1:31:45 ↗ part that's the point right so

1:31:48 ↗ okay okay thank you connie

1:32:01 ↗ and now no one else has their hand

1:32:02 ↗ raised to speak and i can let connie

1:32:04 ↗ finish

1:32:05 ↗ after our next section when she calls

1:32:06 ↗ back in

1:32:08 ↗ um i'm going to ask one more time is

1:32:11 ↗ there anyone else who would like to

1:32:11 ↗ speak

1:32:18 ↗ okay i'm not seeing anyone okay

1:32:22 ↗ excellent now in the beginning of this

1:32:24 ↗ commission i

1:32:25 ↗ did lay out that we would have

1:32:29 ↗ commissioner questions then we have

1:32:32 ↗ public comment

1:32:32 ↗ and then we would have discussion

1:32:36 ↗ so do any of the commissioners have any

1:32:39 ↗ discussions they would like to make

1:32:41 ↗ before we move on to the next topic we

1:32:44 ↗ are at eight o'clock

1:32:53 ↗ hearing none uh we will go ahead and

1:32:56 ↗ give the floor back to

1:32:57 ↗ uh planner uh mini dollywood

1:33:00 ↗ so she can go ahead and present on the

1:33:03 ↗ next topic

1:33:04 ↗ commissioner lewis does have one comment

1:33:08 ↗ excellent and go ahead and commissioner

1:33:10 ↗ lewis thank you commissioner joy lewis

1:33:12 ↗ you know to nina's point about how to

1:33:14 ↗ submit um

1:33:16 ↗ the feedback right i think that

1:33:17 ↗ something that's very important in the

1:33:18 ↗ role that we do is that when staff asks

1:33:20 ↗ us for an opinion that we give it

1:33:22 ↗ um and there's you know easily three to

1:33:25 ↗ five questions per

1:33:26 ↗ section right tonight and so i was

1:33:28 ↗ actually going to suggest that maybe if

1:33:30 ↗ kristen and minnie can put together a

1:33:31 ↗ brief

1:33:32 ↗ questionnaire that obviously we would

1:33:34 ↗ need to reference our packet and be able

1:33:35 ↗ to speak confidently

1:33:36 ↗ separately but being able to say here

1:33:38 ↗ are the questions that we're looking for

1:33:40 ↗ feedback from and kind of be able to

1:33:41 ↗ distill it down

1:33:42 ↗ so that we can easily say here's where

1:33:45 ↗ we're at right so that when we email and

1:33:46 ↗ contact you we're able to address

1:33:48 ↗ everything that you're asking for rather

1:33:50 ↗ than maybe just the particular passions

1:33:52 ↗ that we have when going through the

1:33:53 ↗ packet

1:33:54 ↗ i think might be helpful in trying to

1:33:56 ↗ get a complete um

1:33:58 ↗ vision of what these two um boards what

1:34:01 ↗ our board and commissions are kind of

1:34:02 ↗ looking at at this very dense packet i

1:34:04 ↗ think may be helpful

1:34:09 ↗ sure i think we can put put those in a

1:34:13 ↗ packet or

1:34:14 ↗ a survey format uh

1:34:17 ↗ christian heavy um

1:34:20 ↗ we'll get we'll get that uh simulated

1:34:23 ↗ and distributed and then you can give us

1:34:25 ↗ the feedback that way

1:34:26 ↗ i think that's a good suggestion thank

1:34:28 ↗ you i'm seeing a lot of heads nod to

1:34:30 ↗ that one

1:34:31 ↗ so i think to nina i see there

1:34:35 ↗ and and sarah and myself so

1:34:38 ↗ i think that would be great feedback uh

1:34:41 ↗ okay so we

1:34:42 ↗ right after just when i said that there

1:34:44 ↗ wasn't going to be any more comments

1:34:46 ↗ we have a bunch of comments uh so we

1:34:47 ↗ have looks like a comment from

1:34:50 ↗ um commissioner nancy davidson all right

1:34:56 ↗ my question has been answered with uh

1:34:58 ↗ the survey that's going to go out i was

1:35:00 ↗ just trying to figure out how to get

1:35:01 ↗ comments in an

1:35:02 ↗ efficient way and consistent so thank

1:35:04 ↗ you excellent

1:35:05 ↗ thank you uh commissioner davidson uh in

1:35:08 ↗ another comment or

1:35:09 ↗ just comment here from commissioner

1:35:11 ↗ jamie fitch

1:35:14 ↗ thank you chair paul um jamie finch

1:35:16 ↗ speaking

1:35:17 ↗ i do think and this goes back to one of

1:35:19 ↗ my my earlier questions

1:35:22 ↗ i do think for us to be able to make

1:35:23 ↗ comment and really ultimately make

1:35:25 ↗ decisions on any of these topics

1:35:27 ↗ a more holistic inventory of the

1:35:30 ↗ existing

1:35:30 ↗ land uh the different critical areas

1:35:34 ↗ and how these different decisions would

1:35:36 ↗ impact those critical areas are critical

1:35:38 ↗ to us being able to

1:35:40 ↗ really have an educated uh approach to

1:35:42 ↗ to

1:35:43 ↗ answering these questions so that would

1:35:45 ↗ be one of my

1:35:46 ↗ my biggest points of feedback is is that

1:35:49 ↗ i really think that

1:35:50 ↗ without that we are doing this in a in a

1:35:53 ↗ vacuum making decisions in a vacuum and

1:35:56 ↗ i i think that's a

1:35:57 ↗ piece that we should look into

1:35:59 ↗ addressing

1:36:00 ↗ thank you sure um thank you uh

1:36:03 ↗ commissioner

1:36:04 ↗ um i think we can um take that feedback

1:36:07 ↗ and see what's uh possible um

1:36:11 ↗ and then see if we can put in a link to

1:36:13 ↗ a gis system where some of that anal you

1:36:15 ↗ know you could look up a property and

1:36:17 ↗ put the layers on you know that's one

1:36:19 ↗ opportunity we could look at

1:36:21 ↗ creating static maps for different

1:36:23 ↗ options one two and three

1:36:25 ↗ once we get to the point where we know

1:36:27 ↗ what the buffers and things like that

1:36:29 ↗ we're looking for

1:36:30 ↗ the inventory of streams is good i think

1:36:33 ↗ the the wetland inventory we don't know

1:36:36 ↗ all of them

1:36:36 ↗ but at least some sample prop uh you

1:36:39 ↗ know

1:36:40 ↗ city owned properties and things like

1:36:41 ↗ that that we can take and do some

1:36:43 ↗ analysis that might help

1:36:50 ↗ thank you

1:37:00 ↗ all right thank you very much

1:37:01 ↗ commissioner finch uh so i

1:37:03 ↗ do have a question here what i'm looking

1:37:06 ↗ at

1:37:07 ↗ page 23 number one stream buffers

1:37:11 ↗ and here we are looking at class 2

1:37:14 ↗ fish bearing city visiqual watercourse

1:37:17 ↗ buffer is 100 feet

1:37:20 ↗ uh sample buffer ranges is between 100

1:37:22 ↗ and 165.

1:37:24 ↗ uh when i go down to the issaquah creek

1:37:28 ↗ i notice there are quite a few

1:37:29 ↗ properties that are actually

1:37:32 ↗ well within the sample buffer

1:37:35 ↗ in fact i know of a couple buildings are

1:37:38 ↗ actually

1:37:38 ↗ on the creek one has a deck that hangs

1:37:41 ↗ over the creek so

1:37:42 ↗ if these properties

1:37:47 ↗ which are very small are

1:37:50 ↗ more than 50 impacted by this

1:37:54 ↗ how are we going to address those

1:37:55 ↗ properties if they decide they want to

1:37:58 ↗ remodel or even just moving forward we

1:38:01 ↗ deem that the properties themselves

1:38:03 ↗ are actually um

1:38:06 ↗ dangerous to the buffers

1:38:10 ↗ yeah policy guidance and how we should

1:38:12 ↗ address those if we should be buying

1:38:14 ↗ those properties back

1:38:16 ↗ eminent domain but i know

1:38:19 ↗ one property that recently went up for

1:38:21 ↗ sale and the city was not interested in

1:38:22 ↗ purchasing it

1:38:23 ↗ and it is actually literally on the

1:38:25 ↗ creek

1:38:27 ↗ yeah so for existing non-conforming

1:38:30 ↗ situations if someone has a home that's

1:38:32 ↗ in the buffer

1:38:33 ↗ um the the non-conforming chapter has a

1:38:35 ↗ critical areas section so we will

1:38:37 ↗ include that in the first draft and it

1:38:40 ↗ covers

1:38:40 ↗ a lot of you know you're allowed to

1:38:43 ↗ maintain you're

1:38:44 ↗ allowed to upgrade uh you you're not

1:38:46 ↗ allowed you may be allowed to expand on

1:38:49 ↗ the other side of the house

1:38:51 ↗ uh not towards the creek in a very

1:38:53 ↗ limited kind of fashion so if you wanted

1:38:55 ↗ to you know

1:38:56 ↗ those are policy choices that can come

1:38:58 ↗ into play

1:39:01 ↗ if you have an impervious surface if you

1:39:02 ↗ have a patio and you want to

1:39:04 ↗ cover that patio those kind of

1:39:06 ↗ improvements generally for single-family

1:39:08 ↗ homes

1:39:08 ↗ are permitted under the non-conforming

1:39:11 ↗ provisions because

1:39:12 ↗ it is in a pre-existing situation you

1:39:14 ↗ can tie

1:39:15 ↗ in improving your buffer existing buffer

1:39:18 ↗ too

1:39:18 ↗ in order to do that so there may be some

1:39:21 ↗ policies choices related to that that we

1:39:23 ↗ can look into

1:39:26 ↗ okay all right i just think i haven't

1:39:28 ↗ seen anything or

1:39:29 ↗ any discussion about how to deal with

1:39:31 ↗ that so thank you for that feedback

1:39:33 ↗ okay with that um i'm gonna go ahead and

1:39:36 ↗ let's move on to the next topic

1:39:41 ↗ so the next topic i'm going to share my

1:39:43 ↗ screen again here

1:39:45 ↗ is geologically

1:39:49 ↗ hazardous areas so we've covered

1:39:53 ↗ the four critical areas

1:39:57 ↗ and now these are different in the sense

1:40:00 ↗ that

1:40:01 ↗ they impact public life and safety

1:40:06 ↗ and in here see if i can expand

1:40:10 ↗ so uh areas that can lead to erosion

1:40:13 ↗ steep slopes landslides liquefaction

1:40:17 ↗ um coal mine and in case of earthquake

1:40:20 ↗ you know those kind of hazardous areas

1:40:23 ↗ that

1:40:23 ↗ um that are also regulated and here the

1:40:27 ↗ bar is a little bit

1:40:29 ↗ higher in terms of uh you know what

1:40:31 ↗ happens from a

1:40:32 ↗ safety perspective it's not just a

1:40:35 ↗ standard buffer

1:40:36 ↗ for habitat protection and other things

1:40:39 ↗ for the critical area but

1:40:40 ↗ also for for these other factors

1:40:46 ↗ and there is guidance best available

1:40:49 ↗ science and we've included some of those

1:40:50 ↗ links uh we have uh jim johnson here in

1:40:53 ↗ attendance he's with golder associates

1:40:56 ↗ and they have done a lot of work in uh

1:40:58 ↗ essaquah doing peer review of

1:41:00 ↗ development projects over the years and

1:41:02 ↗ are well versed with

1:41:04 ↗ what some of those challenges are

1:41:08 ↗ and and you know the packet uh

1:41:11 ↗ included some of their history of some

1:41:13 ↗ of the

1:41:14 ↗ the landslides and other things that

1:41:16 ↗ they have included in their packet

1:41:19 ↗ so the city's vision for is to conserve

1:41:21 ↗ and protect environmental critical areas

1:41:24 ↗ and the goals and outcomes chart from

1:41:26 ↗ the council specifically let's protect

1:41:28 ↗ forested hillsides

1:41:31 ↗ you know protect these areas from loss

1:41:33 ↗ modernize the code

1:41:34 ↗ and such the state law

1:41:39 ↗ addresses geologists and the specialty

1:41:42 ↗ and one of the thing one of the gaps

1:41:44 ↗ that has been identified

1:41:46 ↗ is because of the unique challenges in

1:41:48 ↗ isoqua of these

1:41:50 ↗ these areas just having a geotechnical

1:41:53 ↗ engineer

1:41:54 ↗ sometimes is is not all adequate

1:41:58 ↗ that we need to have some additional

1:42:00 ↗ guidance or require

1:42:02 ↗ you know uh ability in the code to

1:42:04 ↗ require hydrogeologists and

1:42:06 ↗ and such that can that have a focus on

1:42:09 ↗ seepage through hillsides and things of

1:42:11 ↗ that nature

1:42:12 ↗ um and you know i'm not going to read

1:42:15 ↗ through all of these

1:42:16 ↗ um but these are all in your packet um

1:42:18 ↗ the erosion

1:42:19 ↗ and um you know what how do we define

1:42:22 ↗ the

1:42:22 ↗ the the role of the technical reviewers

1:42:26 ↗ um what are some slope stability

1:42:28 ↗ measures that can be included

1:42:32 ↗ and such um i'm going to move on to

1:42:36 ↗ um sorry about that

1:42:40 ↗ our update approach uh so um cauldron

1:42:43 ↗ associates has

1:42:44 ↗ identified these eight topics the first

1:42:47 ↗ one is

1:42:48 ↗ should the role of a professional

1:42:50 ↗ geologist engineering geologist and

1:42:52 ↗ hydro

1:42:52 ↗ geologist be recognized in the code like

1:42:55 ↗ i mentioned

1:42:56 ↗ we have some really challenging slopes

1:42:59 ↗ and we need some uh ability in the code

1:43:02 ↗ to require some of these specialists

1:43:05 ↗ for looking at some of the technical

1:43:07 ↗ details

1:43:09 ↗ and then there's the question about uh

1:43:11 ↗ currently we have a

1:43:13 ↗ 50-foot buffer um from a steep slope 40

1:43:17 ↗ or more should this be mandated

1:43:21 ↗ a lot of times the the code allows um

1:43:24 ↗ you know on a side by side cases for

1:43:26 ↗ this buffer to be reduced

1:43:29 ↗ should it be you know should reductions

1:43:31 ↗ not be allowed at all

1:43:33 ↗ um should these buffers be higher for

1:43:35 ↗ certain

1:43:36 ↗ uh areas that demand a little bit larger

1:43:39 ↗ buffer because of those underlying

1:43:41 ↗ hazards i think there's a focus in in

1:43:44 ↗ the golden outcomes chart

1:43:47 ↗ for this title 18 update about retaining

1:43:50 ↗ wall

1:43:50 ↗ alternatives obviously these would live

1:43:54 ↗ in

1:43:54 ↗ in the development standards section not

1:43:56 ↗ in the critical area code

1:43:57 ↗ but what are some alternatives that

1:43:59 ↗ should be discussed

1:44:00 ↗ um you know slopes uh terraces

1:44:04 ↗ aesthetically treating the walls

1:44:07 ↗ those kind of alternatives from

1:44:10 ↗ a steep a one tall retaining wall

1:44:14 ↗ we also are going to address the the

1:44:17 ↗ buffers

1:44:18 ↗ for engineered slopes so right now

1:44:21 ↗ there's some confusion in the code

1:44:23 ↗ if it was an engineered slope not a

1:44:25 ↗ naturally occurring slope does it also

1:44:27 ↗ need to meet 50-foot buffer

1:44:29 ↗ a lot of times we have them go through a

1:44:31 ↗ peer-review and then it's determined

1:44:33 ↗ that the 50-foot buffer is not needed

1:44:36 ↗ um it may be more streamlined to look at

1:44:38 ↗ some of these engineering

1:44:40 ↗ um the slopes that were previously

1:44:42 ↗ engineered

1:44:44 ↗ whether it makes sense to have the

1:44:45 ↗ 50-foot buffer on those to begin with um

1:44:49 ↗ low impact development you know is as

1:44:52 ↗ and desired outcome how do we minimize

1:44:54 ↗ the cuts and higher retaining walls

1:44:57 ↗ um one of the community feedback i've

1:45:00 ↗ received so far is that a lot of

1:45:02 ↗ times uh these cuts and retaining walls

1:45:04 ↗ are related to the access roads

1:45:07 ↗ so we need to look at con you know

1:45:10 ↗ take take a look at what are some of the

1:45:12 ↗ requirements for these access roads

1:45:14 ↗ particularly from let's say a fire

1:45:16 ↗ department requirement no more than 15

1:45:18 ↗ percent slope

1:45:19 ↗ and what does that do to the cut and

1:45:21 ↗ fill and how how do those two interplay

1:45:25 ↗ we need to address the regrading

1:45:27 ↗ [Music]

1:45:29 ↗ of the steep slopes should those be

1:45:30 ↗ allowed or not uh

1:45:32 ↗ consider standardized peer review um

1:45:36 ↗ right now we sometimes uh require a

1:45:39 ↗ double peer review

1:45:40 ↗ and sometimes i think the policy was

1:45:42 ↗ changed to require

1:45:43 ↗ two uh specialists look at everything

1:45:46 ↗ uh does it you know is that does that

1:45:48 ↗ really give us what we're looking for or

1:45:50 ↗ is it just an additional process that

1:45:52 ↗ was added

1:45:53 ↗ uh maybe some for some of you know a

1:45:55 ↗ criteria could be established when a

1:45:57 ↗ double peer review makes sense but not

1:45:59 ↗ for all

1:46:00 ↗ um and then of course the mapping

1:46:03 ↗ exercise

1:46:04 ↗ you know there's a lot of information

1:46:05 ↗ that jim has included in his memo

1:46:08 ↗ that discusses um coal mine hazards and

1:46:10 ↗ such

1:46:11 ↗ and you know it's obviously a big effort

1:46:13 ↗ but how do we maintain some of those

1:46:16 ↗ um

1:46:19 ↗ you know areas that we already know of

1:46:21 ↗ we have some gis

1:46:22 ↗ layers that are based on lidar data and

1:46:25 ↗ such from

1:46:26 ↗ the state but what additional effort is

1:46:29 ↗ needed

1:46:30 ↗ um so with that i think i'm going to

1:46:32 ↗ conclude i think this

1:46:34 ↗ slide shows you um you know

1:46:37 ↗ a lot of area in the city this little

1:46:40 ↗ pie chart here

1:46:41 ↗ you know thirteen percent of land area

1:46:43 ↗ and is coal mine hazards

1:46:45 ↗ twenty eight percent is liquefaction uh

1:46:47 ↗ ten percent

1:46:48 ↗ are mapped landslides um

1:46:51 ↗ and then forty nine percent is the

1:46:53 ↗ non-geological

1:46:54 ↗ critical areas but it doesn't include

1:46:56 ↗ the steep slope so if you add the steep

1:46:58 ↗ slopes it's pretty much

1:47:00 ↗ a lot of area the entire city

1:47:04 ↗ so that i think concludes um this

1:47:08 ↗ presentation

1:47:09 ↗ and so the the questions we had outlined

1:47:12 ↗ were these eight questions for

1:47:14 ↗ discussion but we're happy to take quest

1:47:16 ↗ and take

1:47:16 ↗ questions uh jim's also here to

1:47:20 ↗ provide some answers

1:47:23 ↗ if you have any any further questions

1:47:31 ↗ okay and we'll go ahead and open it up

1:47:33 ↗ to commissioner questions

1:47:43 ↗ first question here from commissioner

1:47:46 ↗ richard zargoza

1:47:48 ↗ big

1:47:49 ↗ [Music]

1:48:03 ↗ oh and this is better no

1:48:07 ↗ no no can you maybe turn off your camera

1:48:15 ↗ are you better no

1:48:18 ↗ you're a slow motion robot um

1:48:23 ↗ ron i'm muting you again

1:48:30 ↗ can you hear me now no tell you what in

1:48:32 ↗ this case

1:48:33 ↗ if you will um type your question in

1:48:36 ↗ then we can repeat it out loud

1:48:38 ↗ for people to hear but in the meantime

1:48:40 ↗ yeah if you want to do that i think that

1:48:42 ↗ will work then we can read it out loud

1:48:58 ↗ ron you're on mute

1:49:01 ↗ sorry thanks uh so while we're waiting

1:49:04 ↗ for

1:49:05 ↗ um commissioner zargozo uh let's go

1:49:07 ↗ ahead and move on to commissioner nina

1:49:09 ↗ milligan and we'll come back to uh

1:49:11 ↗ richard here in a few minutes

1:49:15 ↗ thanks chair fall this is commissioner

1:49:17 ↗ milligan

1:49:18 ↗ uh thank you for the presentation and a

1:49:21 ↗ smaller

1:49:22 ↗ bite to work on this this time

1:49:25 ↗ i have a question

1:49:29 ↗ about the peer review

1:49:32 ↗ versus having more specialists when

1:49:35 ↗ would those come in

1:49:36 ↗ and and this i'm very interested in

1:49:38 ↗ learning more about this

1:49:40 ↗ because as a commissioner who was

1:49:42 ↗ approving land use

1:49:44 ↗ applications in the past i felt that the

1:49:46 ↗ information being provided to me in the

1:49:48 ↗ past was inadequate it's all that we

1:49:49 ↗ required and

1:49:50 ↗ and so it limited the ability of the

1:49:54 ↗ commissioners to

1:49:55 ↗ really feel confident about the

1:49:56 ↗ information and then i also know that

1:49:59 ↗ when we look around town we say

1:50:02 ↗ why did that go in and i know why

1:50:06 ↗ because i was a commissioner and i

1:50:07 ↗ didn't have enough information to make

1:50:08 ↗ the decision

1:50:09 ↗ my second question has to do with um is

1:50:12 ↗ a steep slope always 40 percent

1:50:15 ↗ um seemed like it was less earlier

1:50:19 ↗ and then i want to ask about

1:50:23 ↗ why do we allow walls and

1:50:26 ↗ can we

1:50:29 ↗ allow retaining walls or any kind of

1:50:32 ↗ walls

1:50:33 ↗ only for safety reasons and not for

1:50:36 ↗ designer aesthetic reasons

1:50:38 ↗ is there some way that that can be

1:50:41 ↗ pieced out

1:50:42 ↗ those are my questions for now

1:50:46 ↗ jim do you want to take those

1:50:51 ↗ sure i'm happy to give it a try uh thank

1:50:53 ↗ you for the questions commissioner

1:50:55 ↗ uh regarding peer reviews um

1:50:59 ↗ i share your uh

1:51:02 ↗ your feelings about not having adequate

1:51:05 ↗ information

1:51:06 ↗ and i think that is a really good role

1:51:09 ↗ for peer review peer reviewers within

1:51:12 ↗ the city

1:51:13 ↗ because the role of a peer reviewer is

1:51:15 ↗ to see whether or not

1:51:17 ↗ the applicant has met the code

1:51:19 ↗ requirements

1:51:20 ↗ but also the requirements of

1:51:24 ↗ maybe best available science or the

1:51:27 ↗ local engineering practice

1:51:29 ↗ and the peer reviewers are probably much

1:51:31 ↗ better at understanding

1:51:33 ↗ the local engineering practice

1:51:36 ↗ as opposed to just the code requirements

1:51:39 ↗ so i think peer reviews have a vital

1:51:42 ↗ role

1:51:43 ↗ in if i could say elevating

1:51:48 ↗ the requirements and expectations

1:51:51 ↗ for applicants to provide sound

1:51:54 ↗ information

1:51:55 ↗ to justify their uh their development

1:51:57 ↗ applications

1:52:00 ↗ regarding steep slopes uh you're right

1:52:03 ↗ steep slopes are classified uh and there

1:52:06 ↗ are gradations so something might be

1:52:08 ↗ 15 to 30 percent something might be 30

1:52:11 ↗ to 40 percent

1:52:13 ↗ um i believe that the land the code as

1:52:16 ↗ is written says that anything over 40

1:52:19 ↗ is considered a landslide hazard

1:52:22 ↗ um there is some issue with this

1:52:25 ↗ in that many of the landslides mapped or

1:52:28 ↗ existing in the city

1:52:30 ↗ are on slopes that are less than 40

1:52:32 ↗ percent

1:52:33 ↗ if you think about it when the land

1:52:35 ↗ slides it comes to a lower

1:52:37 ↗ slope uh due to its instability so you

1:52:40 ↗ may have landslides out there that have

1:52:42 ↗ moved that are on slopes a lot less than

1:52:44 ↗ 40 percent

1:52:47 ↗ so when the code only regulates over 40

1:52:50 ↗ percent slopes as landslide hazard areas

1:52:53 ↗ that's a bit of an oversight

1:52:56 ↗ a retaining walls um

1:52:59 ↗ retaining walls are built because you

1:53:02 ↗ have a lot of hillside in the city of

1:53:03 ↗ vista claw

1:53:04 ↗ and for anybody to build on a hillside

1:53:07 ↗ you have to even the ground out

1:53:09 ↗ in order to make a level pad so you have

1:53:12 ↗ to cut on one side

1:53:13 ↗ and fill on the other side

1:53:19 ↗ i don't know if that is a critical areas

1:53:21 ↗ code

1:53:23 ↗ issue or more of a land planning issue

1:53:27 ↗ there definitely are ways to mitigate

1:53:30 ↗ how walls look

1:53:31 ↗ in the environment if you look at sr 900

1:53:35 ↗ for example

1:53:37 ↗ south of uh as you head out of town you

1:53:40 ↗ see the new retaining walls there that

1:53:41 ↗ look like sculpted rock

1:53:43 ↗ and they have vines growing on them you

1:53:46 ↗ can make walls look very

1:53:47 ↗ visually aesthetic uh but then there are

1:53:50 ↗ other walls like the black nugget road

1:53:52 ↗ retaining wall that

1:53:54 ↗ don't look as visually aesthetic so

1:53:58 ↗ in my view i wouldn't look at all

1:54:00 ↗ retaining walls as bad

1:54:02 ↗ but maybe they could certainly be made

1:54:04 ↗ more visually ascetic

1:54:05 ↗ and that may be something that could be

1:54:07 ↗ put in the code

1:54:10 ↗ did i answer your question

1:54:16 ↗ thank you

1:54:21 ↗ chair falls it seems that so

1:54:23 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

1:54:26 ↗ um submitted his questions he seems to

1:54:28 ↗ have perhaps fixed the problem so we'll

1:54:30 ↗ i'll give you a chance to read it

1:54:32 ↗ let's see what happens thanks can you

1:54:34 ↗ hear me oh all good better

1:54:37 ↗ thank you um richard sergosa so my

1:54:40 ↗ question is around engineered slopes

1:54:43 ↗ what's the difference uh as far as like

1:54:46 ↗ protections requirements policy around

1:54:48 ↗ engineered slopes and natural slopes

1:54:50 ↗ and do engineered slopes eventually

1:54:52 ↗ become natural slopes can you

1:54:55 ↗ kind of give me a little more

1:54:56 ↗ information about that

1:54:59 ↗ sure by engineered slopes i think we

1:55:02 ↗ would

1:55:03 ↗ describe something that is constructed

1:55:07 ↗ and designed and when it's finished it

1:55:10 ↗ might actually meet the criteria for a

1:55:12 ↗ steep slope in other words it might be

1:55:14 ↗ over 40 percent

1:55:16 ↗ there are there are types of engineered

1:55:18 ↗ slopes called

1:55:19 ↗ uh geo slopes

1:55:23 ↗ they have a reinforcing grid within them

1:55:26 ↗ so they have a design factor of safety

1:55:30 ↗ they are designed for seismic stability

1:55:32 ↗ and static stability

1:55:34 ↗ so in that case the need for a buffer

1:55:38 ↗ for that slope is not the same as a

1:55:41 ↗ natural slope where we do not

1:55:43 ↗ know uh as well what the factors of

1:55:46 ↗ safety on that slope are

1:55:48 ↗ so i think the what is uh what is of

1:55:52 ↗ concern

1:55:52 ↗ is if we start having the buffer slopes

1:55:55 ↗ that have a design for them

1:55:57 ↗ and they are designed to resist movement

1:56:00 ↗ uh

1:56:00 ↗ even in an earthquake it may be ultra

1:56:04 ↗ conservative

1:56:04 ↗ to have buffers for those things

1:56:08 ↗ i see thank you oh and the end of your

1:56:12 ↗ question could they become natural

1:56:13 ↗ slopes at some time

1:56:15 ↗ no they will always be engineered slopes

1:56:19 ↗ thank you

1:56:23 ↗ and thank you very much commissioner

1:56:24 ↗ zargoza so

1:56:26 ↗ questions were answered to your

1:56:28 ↗ satisfaction

1:56:29 ↗ excellent yeah uh looks like we are

1:56:32 ↗ going to move on to

1:56:34 ↗ uh commissioner nina milligan

1:56:37 ↗ oh sorry we already covered nina

1:56:41 ↗ backwards uh commissioner joy lewis has

1:56:43 ↗ a question

1:56:46 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

1:56:48 ↗ lewis i think i've got

1:56:49 ↗ four questions but i'm gonna reorder how

1:56:52 ↗ i was doing it before because i think

1:56:53 ↗ that the slope discussion is super

1:56:55 ↗ interesting

1:56:56 ↗ i was a little confused about the 40

1:56:59 ↗ so when i brought it up i was glad

1:57:01 ↗ because i was kind of confused too

1:57:03 ↗ about um just to say well

1:57:06 ↗ i mean over 40 is an outright ban so

1:57:09 ↗ then how are we regulating

1:57:10 ↗ those varying degrees down and does that

1:57:13 ↗ then

1:57:14 ↗ do we need to necessitate it in the code

1:57:16 ↗ or is that overthinking it

1:57:17 ↗ and just saying that when going under

1:57:20 ↗ peer review

1:57:21 ↗ that it will be addressed kind of thing

1:57:22 ↗ or is that kind of a nitty-gritty that

1:57:24 ↗ we need to be understanding

1:57:27 ↗ i think i think being a starting point

1:57:31 ↗ within the code

1:57:33 ↗ so that potentially unstable slopes get

1:57:36 ↗ flagged so i think the code is written

1:57:39 ↗ in a way

1:57:40 ↗ that identifies slopes of a certain

1:57:42 ↗ percentage as potentially unstable

1:57:44 ↗ they're called steep slopes doesn't mean

1:57:46 ↗ they're going to fail it means they have

1:57:48 ↗ a potential too

1:57:49 ↗ so if a development application is going

1:57:52 ↗ to be around

1:57:53 ↗ one of those slopes they need to be

1:57:54 ↗ looked at to see whether or not

1:57:56 ↗ the applicant is going to affect those

1:57:58 ↗ slopes negatively and

1:58:00 ↗ where they might become less stable

1:58:05 ↗ or they could affect it in a way that

1:58:07 ↗ might affect an off-site property

1:58:10 ↗ and you're correct in that it doesn't

1:58:13 ↗ necessarily have to be a greater than 40

1:58:16 ↗ slope it depends on the geology and the

1:58:19 ↗ code

1:58:19 ↗ also recognizes slopes that

1:58:22 ↗ have geologic instability that are not

1:58:25 ↗ 40

1:58:26 ↗ so those who could be land potentially

1:58:28 ↗ landslide hazard slopes they have a

1:58:30 ↗ geology or groundwater condition

1:58:33 ↗ that makes them potentially unstable and

1:58:36 ↗ they could be less than 40

1:58:39 ↗ and when workout when that percentage is

1:58:41 ↗ calculated is that

1:58:43 ↗ is that somehow measuring what the what

1:58:46 ↗ the natural occurring slope is or

1:58:48 ↗ as there is degradation over time then

1:58:50 ↗ it's really from the slope that's

1:58:52 ↗ created kind of by that

1:58:53 ↗ entropy of sediment coming down you know

1:58:55 ↗ i'm saying like is there

1:58:57 ↗ is there a difference between what i can

1:58:58 ↗ visualize as being

1:59:00 ↗ the slope versus what is more of a loose

1:59:03 ↗ soil that has settled because over time

1:59:05 ↗ the slope has changed

1:59:08 ↗ the the or the definition of the

1:59:11 ↗ measurement of a steep slope is in the

1:59:13 ↗ code

1:59:14 ↗ and it has to do with the rise over run

1:59:17 ↗ over a certain

1:59:18 ↗ uh vertical distance and that is uh

1:59:22 ↗ you take the topography map and uh

1:59:25 ↗ you figure out the rise over the run and

1:59:28 ↗ uh i believe it's any

1:59:29 ↗ slope over 20 feet in height if it has

1:59:33 ↗ 40 percent

1:59:34 ↗ then it would be called a steep slope

1:59:37 ↗ and

1:59:38 ↗ so that wouldn't account for if for

1:59:40 ↗ instance the slide had occurred 100

1:59:41 ↗ years ago

1:59:43 ↗ and we have vegetation that's grown over

1:59:45 ↗ and things like that we're just again

1:59:47 ↗ that that measurement

1:59:48 ↗ what you're what i what i'm wondering is

1:59:50 ↗ if right now how we're calculating that

1:59:52 ↗ is the best available science right

1:59:56 ↗ yeah and again i think you're what

1:59:59 ↗ you're getting at

2:00:00 ↗ is how do we tell whether a slope is a

2:00:02 ↗ landslide or just a steep slope

2:00:05 ↗ um and the code

2:00:09 ↗ doesn't do in my view a great job of

2:00:12 ↗ that

2:00:13 ↗ it it allows for uh

2:00:18 ↗ it allows for definition of those two

2:00:21 ↗ as separate entities and then there are

2:00:24 ↗ code requirements for how you mitigate

2:00:26 ↗ depending on the two

2:00:29 ↗ it's really left up to the scientists

2:00:32 ↗ investigating them to figure out whether

2:00:34 ↗ that slope

2:00:34 ↗ has slid in the past so the definition

2:00:38 ↗ of a landslide is anything that has

2:00:40 ↗ moved

2:00:40 ↗ in the last 10 000 years in the holocene

2:00:45 ↗ so everything well when it says moved it

2:00:48 ↗ doesn't

2:00:49 ↗ say that it's just colluvium so there

2:00:53 ↗ it's actually slippage along a failure

2:00:55 ↗ surface

2:00:56 ↗ okay thank you that's a good

2:00:58 ↗ clarification i appreciate that

2:01:00 ↗ um i'm curious if you can remind me um

2:01:02 ↗ kristin and i should

2:01:04 ↗ know this because i worked so hard on it

2:01:06 ↗ it's right now does our design

2:01:08 ↗ standards talk about retaining walls in

2:01:09 ↗ a way that can help guide this

2:01:11 ↗ discussion

2:01:14 ↗ let me talk about the aesthetics of a

2:01:16 ↗ large retaining wall

2:01:18 ↗ no not in not in chapter six no

2:01:21 ↗ okay or chapter seven i mean we don't

2:01:23 ↗ talk about it so that's effectively a

2:01:25 ↗ gap right now that we're

2:01:26 ↗ identifying yes okay okay um

2:01:30 ↗ and then um i'm curious um

2:01:34 ↗ i really appreciated the work that katie

2:01:36 ↗ did on this section in particular

2:01:37 ↗ because um

2:01:38 ↗ the way that she gave this really

2:01:39 ↗ concise summary

2:01:41 ↗ of the history i really appreciate it

2:01:43 ↗ it's something that we've talked about

2:01:44 ↗ with feedback of like hey we really need

2:01:46 ↗ um when we get we're getting our

2:01:48 ↗ education right we need to be having

2:01:49 ↗ this

2:01:50 ↗ background and i was curious if when the

2:01:52 ↗ next time we look at it i would love to

2:01:53 ↗ have some feedback about talking about

2:01:55 ↗ how our previous code

2:01:56 ↗ has either helped or hurt our historical

2:01:58 ↗ landslides like right like for instance

2:02:00 ↗ being able to say

2:02:01 ↗ um these measures that we've instigated

2:02:04 ↗ have helped

2:02:05 ↗ these ones obviously did not right

2:02:06 ↗ because some of our things are naturally

2:02:08 ↗ occurring some are not

2:02:09 ↗ and um i would love to see an analysis

2:02:11 ↗ of saying um

2:02:12 ↗ what what's worked and what hasn't if

2:02:14 ↗ that makes sense when trying to kind of

2:02:16 ↗ move forward

2:02:17 ↗ i think would be helpful in that section

2:02:19 ↗ um

2:02:20 ↗ my last question is about um

2:02:23 ↗ for again for these historical

2:02:25 ↗ landslides that um that are discussed in

2:02:27 ↗ our packet

2:02:28 ↗ are we monitoring the sediment that has

2:02:29 ↗ been smoothing off of them

2:02:32 ↗ and kind of noting their impact on

2:02:34 ↗ repairing

2:02:36 ↗ areas

2:02:39 ↗ i'm aware of those landslides one of

2:02:42 ↗ them

2:02:43 ↗ is adjacent to issaquah creek

2:02:46 ↗ but there is a road and housing

2:02:48 ↗ development between the landslide and

2:02:50 ↗ the creek

2:02:52 ↗ i think the short answer to your

2:02:54 ↗ question is no

2:02:55 ↗ as far as i know they're not being

2:02:56 ↗ monitored for that specifically

2:02:59 ↗ but i'm also not aware that there's

2:03:01 ↗ actually any erosion or problems with

2:03:03 ↗ them

2:03:04 ↗ i know that most of them are not

2:03:07 ↗ currently

2:03:07 ↗ active in other words they occurred in

2:03:10 ↗ the past

2:03:12 ↗ and they're not currently moving at the

2:03:14 ↗ moment

2:03:16 ↗ thank you very much i appreciate that

2:03:18 ↗ welcome

2:03:21 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

2:03:24 ↗ and so we're moving on to

2:03:28 ↗ commissioner matt monahan

2:03:32 ↗ thank you matt monahan here i have a

2:03:34 ↗ question about

2:03:35 ↗ um question number eight which is can

2:03:38 ↗ you

2:03:39 ↗ describe for me the public benefit that

2:03:42 ↗ a detailed mapping of geological hazards

2:03:45 ↗ would give us if we were to undertake

2:03:47 ↗ that type of detailed review

2:03:50 ↗ that's a great question

2:03:54 ↗ and and i'll point out that some

2:03:56 ↗ municipalities have gone to

2:03:58 ↗ the lengths of providing very detailed

2:04:01 ↗ mapping

2:04:02 ↗ of their all of their geologic critical

2:04:04 ↗ areas i think kirkland is

2:04:06 ↗ an example and then some

2:04:09 ↗ have mapped certain parts of their

2:04:13 ↗ critical areas such as their coal mine

2:04:15 ↗ hazards for example bellevue

2:04:19 ↗ i think that the benefit of mapping

2:04:22 ↗ these critical areas is the ease

2:04:26 ↗ of the public in terms of trying to

2:04:28 ↗ figure out

2:04:30 ↗ what what critical area they have on

2:04:32 ↗ their property as many

2:04:33 ↗ showed early on in that slide not even

2:04:37 ↗ counting steep slopes

2:04:38 ↗ over 50 percent of the city has geologic

2:04:42 ↗ critical areas on it

2:04:44 ↗ most of that is uh seismic liquefaction

2:04:48 ↗ susceptible areas

2:04:50 ↗ but i think one of the challenges people

2:04:52 ↗ have is just knowing

2:04:54 ↗ where the critical areas lie within

2:04:55 ↗ their property

2:04:57 ↗ you know one alternative is maybe

2:04:59 ↗ providing detailed maps

2:05:01 ↗ another alternative might be to have a

2:05:04 ↗ um

2:05:07 ↗ maybe for a small fee do a um

2:05:10 ↗ a pre-application meeting with

2:05:13 ↗ applicants to actually just go over what

2:05:16 ↗ critical areas they may have on their

2:05:18 ↗ properties

2:05:20 ↗ but also just public awareness

2:05:23 ↗ awareness that in general of the

2:05:25 ↗ sensitivity

2:05:26 ↗ of the city to geologic hazards

2:05:30 ↗ i doubt that many people in the city are

2:05:32 ↗ as aware

2:05:34 ↗ as they probably should be of all the uh

2:05:37 ↗ the potential hazards within the city

2:05:39 ↗ and uh

2:05:40 ↗ and that development is very sensitive

2:05:43 ↗ the

2:05:44 ↗ development that is going on in the city

2:05:46 ↗ if it pushes out from the core

2:05:49 ↗ is going to be encountering geologic

2:05:51 ↗ hazards it's pretty

2:05:52 ↗ unavoidable so knowledge of

2:05:56 ↗ of those issues is probably be valuable

2:05:59 ↗ to the public

2:06:01 ↗ i'll also mention one other thing it's

2:06:03 ↗ written in the code right now that the

2:06:04 ↗ city will maintain these maps

2:06:07 ↗ and provide them for public review uh

2:06:10 ↗ however if you go on the city website

2:06:12 ↗ you cannot find them

2:06:13 ↗ uh so that was another reason for for

2:06:16 ↗ asking for some clarification

2:06:18 ↗ uh it may have been in the past that

2:06:20 ↗ some of these maps were paper maps and

2:06:22 ↗ people could come and look at them

2:06:24 ↗ these days everything is on gis so if

2:06:26 ↗ you're going to embark on this you would

2:06:28 ↗ be creating

2:06:29 ↗ gis maps

2:06:32 ↗ thank you

2:06:37 ↗ thank you very much commissioner monahan

2:06:41 ↗ okay we're going to have a question here

2:06:43 ↗ from commissioner uh

2:06:46 ↗ tom don mcquillums

2:06:50 ↗ mcwilliams here um so he answered my

2:06:52 ↗ first question i was going to ask if the

2:06:54 ↗ city's been collecting information

2:06:56 ↗ over time as the developments come in

2:06:58 ↗ and been trying to use that to put

2:06:59 ↗ together a compressed

2:07:01 ↗ comprehensive map excuse me don yeah

2:07:04 ↗ it's very hard to hear you can you

2:07:05 ↗ either get closer or

2:07:07 ↗ speak louder how's that

2:07:11 ↗ beautiful thank you okay sorry about

2:07:12 ↗ that so you answered my first question i

2:07:14 ↗ was asking about

2:07:15 ↗ does the city collect development data

2:07:18 ↗ over time

2:07:19 ↗ to make comprehensive maps to be updated

2:07:22 ↗ in the gis system

2:07:23 ↗ my second question to you is in your

2:07:26 ↗ code when somebody comes in for a new

2:07:27 ↗ application

2:07:28 ↗ are they required to do a

2:07:30 ↗ pre-development geotechnical

2:07:32 ↗ analysis of that property

2:07:38 ↗ it's my experience that geotechnical

2:07:41 ↗ reports

2:07:42 ↗ are required and if they have critical

2:07:45 ↗ areas on their site they are also

2:07:47 ↗ required to do a critical area study

2:07:50 ↗ uh when i and i should preface up saying

2:07:53 ↗ critical areas

2:07:57 ↗ thank you yes i might also add that

2:08:01 ↗ a lot of the there are quite detailed

2:08:04 ↗ geologic and critical areas maps

2:08:06 ↗ available on the department

2:08:08 ↗ of natural resources website uh

2:08:11 ↗ i would think before the city decides to

2:08:13 ↗ embark on any mapping

2:08:14 ↗ of any kind you know i would look at

2:08:17 ↗ this at what is already available on

2:08:19 ↗ department of natural resources is

2:08:20 ↗ actually quite good

2:08:22 ↗ um just an aside

2:08:31 ↗ okay and so we're gonna go and move on

2:08:34 ↗ to

2:08:34 ↗ commissioner nancy davidson

2:08:40 ↗ i have just a general question in terms

2:08:43 ↗ of

2:08:43 ↗ when uh communities allow retaining

2:08:46 ↗ walls such as the one behind

2:08:48 ↗ fred meyer and home depot

2:08:51 ↗ is there ever many set aside to replace

2:08:54 ↗ those in the future when they fail or

2:08:56 ↗ when they need to be maintained

2:08:57 ↗ since that's a pretty significant

2:09:00 ↗ undertaking for the residents of the

2:09:02 ↗ city to have to take on in the future

2:09:04 ↗ so do they ever ask can they set aside a

2:09:06 ↗ bank of money to grow

2:09:08 ↗ to maintain those in the future as a

2:09:09 ↗ developer brings it in

2:09:14 ↗ i've never seen that in my experience

2:09:16 ↗ i've been practicing

2:09:18 ↗ in this area for about 35 years i'm not

2:09:21 ↗ aware of it

2:09:23 ↗ is there any opportunity that you think

2:09:26 ↗ something like that could be considered

2:09:28 ↗ so that you know

2:09:30 ↗ it's great that we allow people to

2:09:31 ↗ develop on those very steep slopes and

2:09:34 ↗ flatten out the land a little bit for

2:09:35 ↗ them

2:09:36 ↗ but ultimately the long-term

2:09:38 ↗ maintenances that will rely

2:09:40 ↗ will be a responsibility of the

2:09:42 ↗ residents of the community

2:09:46 ↗ yeah that's a it's an interesting um

2:09:49 ↗ observation

2:09:50 ↗ and it's it's not just for

2:09:54 ↗ the city but a lot of infrastructure

2:09:57 ↗ is developed on properties and then

2:10:00 ↗ turned over to homeowners associations

2:10:02 ↗ to maintain

2:10:04 ↗ and uh i think that's really maybe even

2:10:08 ↗ a more important consideration the

2:10:09 ↗ cities have

2:10:10 ↗ probably generally pretty good resources

2:10:13 ↗ for maintaining infrastructure

2:10:17 ↗ uh homeowners associations don't have

2:10:19 ↗ hardly any

2:10:22 ↗ and i i think as we see more development

2:10:25 ↗ going on

2:10:28 ↗ think that to me that may be a bigger

2:10:30 ↗ issue

2:10:31 ↗ than what uh like the black nugget road

2:10:35 ↗ wall and i understand that wall was

2:10:36 ↗ inherited by the city it wasn't

2:10:38 ↗ constructed uh

2:10:39 ↗ for the or in the city oh

2:10:42 ↗ okay thank you

2:10:57 ↗ ron you're muted oh

2:11:01 ↗ i'm talking to myself sorry all right so

2:11:04 ↗ uh commissioner uh nancy davidson thank

2:11:06 ↗ you very much and those questions were

2:11:08 ↗ answered to your satisfaction

2:11:11 ↗ excellent okay uh that is

2:11:14 ↗ all the questions that i have for right

2:11:16 ↗ now let's go and open up to public

2:11:18 ↗ comment on this particular

2:11:19 ↗ particular topic kristin do we have

2:11:21 ↗ anybody from the public who would like

2:11:23 ↗ to make a comment

2:11:24 ↗ yes ken esselman would like to

2:11:27 ↗ make a comment so i am going to

2:11:31 ↗ make you a panelist and

2:11:36 ↗ i find you on here i will

2:11:42 ↗ moment please

2:11:55 ↗ let me try this again one second

2:12:11 ↗ there we go all right ken you are

2:12:14 ↗ unmuted and

2:12:15 ↗ you can turn on your camera if you would

2:12:16 ↗ like

2:12:18 ↗ okay uh uh can you hear me yes

2:12:22 ↗ super so building on steep slopes is a

2:12:25 ↗ concern of mine

2:12:26 ↗ uh we in talus had a catastrophic

2:12:29 ↗ incident in 2015

2:12:31 ↗ on parcel nine and it's yet to be fully

2:12:34 ↗ remediated

2:12:36 ↗ and issaquah has a track history of over

2:12:39 ↗ a dozen hillslide movements in the last

2:12:41 ↗ 30 years

2:12:43 ↗ and i did that research in the old

2:12:44 ↗ issaquah press

2:12:46 ↗ you know while i agree with the eight

2:12:48 ↗ areas that many is described and i think

2:12:50 ↗ some of them are really

2:12:51 ↗ uh worth exploring i didn't see anything

2:12:54 ↗ about bonding

2:12:56 ↗ and landslide insurance and the reason

2:12:58 ↗ that i think that's so

2:12:59 ↗ important is that the city

2:13:03 ↗ and the taxpayers dodged a bullet with

2:13:05 ↗ parcel mine

2:13:07 ↗ when i inquired about how much bonding

2:13:10 ↗ [Music]

2:13:11 ↗ the city required of parcel nine i was

2:13:13 ↗ told it was 250

2:13:15 ↗ 000 and i was also told that the parcel

2:13:19 ↗ 9 developer

2:13:20 ↗ to date has spent over 30 million

2:13:23 ↗ dollars to remediate that problem

2:13:25 ↗ and they're still not done and the only

2:13:28 ↗ reason they actually have any money and

2:13:30 ↗ they didn't walk away from it was they

2:13:32 ↗ actually had landslide insurance is what

2:13:34 ↗ i've been told

2:13:36 ↗ and that's not typical

2:13:39 ↗ of developers so imagine

2:13:42 ↗ if the developer had walked away and

2:13:44 ↗ dumped that problem on the city

2:13:46 ↗ i mean do we have 30 plus million

2:13:49 ↗ dollars sitting around

2:13:51 ↗ to solve a problem on nine acres in

2:13:53 ↗ dallas

2:13:55 ↗ so my ask is when you rewrite title 18

2:13:59 ↗ that you require bonding that's

2:14:01 ↗ commensurate with the risk

2:14:03 ↗ that the developer causes when they

2:14:06 ↗ disturb the land and i also

2:14:10 ↗ ask that you consider landslide

2:14:12 ↗ insurance for steep slopes

2:14:15 ↗ the city and the taxpayers shouldn't be

2:14:17 ↗ on the hook for these

2:14:18 ↗ situations and i guess i would be

2:14:21 ↗ interested

2:14:22 ↗ if jim knows

2:14:26 ↗ or has an idea about what the steepness

2:14:28 ↗ of parcel

2:14:29 ↗ 9 is i suspect it's not near 40

2:14:34 ↗ thanks yeah you know if i may

2:14:38 ↗ interject uh ken i think the specifics

2:14:40 ↗ of parcel nine

2:14:42 ↗ are probably a separate from this public

2:14:44 ↗ discussion here

2:14:45 ↗ we could probably answer that question

2:14:47 ↗ in a more general term

2:14:50 ↗ um so that's what i would

2:14:53 ↗ so yeah i i think that there's a lot of

2:14:55 ↗ specifics to

2:14:56 ↗ that property that i think probably

2:14:58 ↗ should are outside of the scope of code

2:15:00 ↗ you know it's a very one one specific

2:15:03 ↗ property question

2:15:08 ↗ we can get you that information um

2:15:10 ↗ outside of this meeting

2:15:12 ↗ ken it doesn't mean obviously the 40

2:15:16 ↗ slope is i think what jim had said

2:15:17 ↗ before and none of the landslides

2:15:20 ↗ in the city were on 40 sloped areas is

2:15:24 ↗ that correct jim

2:15:26 ↗ no i didn't say that none sorry most

2:15:29 ↗ times maybe

2:15:30 ↗ yeah many of them are not unfortunate

2:15:38 ↗ okay thank you ken uh kristin do we have

2:15:41 ↗ any additional

2:15:42 ↗ comments from the public or mute

2:15:48 ↗ sorry uh yes next we have connie marsh

2:15:51 ↗ connie you're unmuted

2:15:54 ↗ okay and so

2:15:57 ↗ i have a little bit left over from my

2:16:00 ↗ last one and now i'm gonna ask can you

2:16:02 ↗ hear me i'm on my phone this time

2:16:05 ↗ yes okay so

2:16:08 ↗ um going back to the previous topic

2:16:14 ↗ so yes we need to increase the critical

2:16:17 ↗ oxford recharge

2:16:18 ↗ area uh however

2:16:23 ↗ that is just about contamination and we

2:16:26 ↗ actually have an

2:16:27 ↗ aquifer that is is important to keep

2:16:31 ↗ recharged with water and we don't really

2:16:36 ↗ have a discussion about how we are

2:16:39 ↗ protecting the water

2:16:40 ↗ quantity of our aquifer

2:16:44 ↗ which is basically beneath the valley

2:16:46 ↗ floor which

2:16:47 ↗ uh i don't know half of the city drinks

2:16:49 ↗ the water out of

2:16:50 ↗ our current aquifer and so we only

2:16:53 ↗ discuss

2:16:54 ↗ contamination we don't discuss

2:16:57 ↗ continued appropriate quantities

2:17:01 ↗ and year-round levels of

2:17:04 ↗ our aquifer and that needs to be

2:17:07 ↗ considered

2:17:08 ↗ we also don't talk about bogs we have

2:17:11 ↗ nothing in our critical area code about

2:17:14 ↗ bogs

2:17:15 ↗ so when the developer decided it wanted

2:17:18 ↗ to

2:17:19 ↗ excavate 30 000

2:17:23 ↗ cubic yards of peat from

2:17:27 ↗ our valley floor we had no way to

2:17:30 ↗ control that

2:17:31 ↗ excavation and so we actually need to

2:17:34 ↗ add

2:17:35 ↗ peat and bogs to our critical area code

2:17:39 ↗ because

2:17:39 ↗ um you know it takes a thousand years

2:17:42 ↗ for one inch of

2:17:43 ↗ peat to actually develop and it is a

2:17:46 ↗ carbon sink

2:17:47 ↗ anyway i won't go it won't go too far

2:17:51 ↗ into that

2:17:53 ↗ and of course yes riparian areas need to

2:17:56 ↗ be critical areas that

2:17:58 ↗ that really goes without saying now slot

2:18:01 ↗ are fascinating um we have a bunch of

2:18:04 ↗ slopes that the city is long considered

2:18:06 ↗ to be man-made slopes but they are from

2:18:08 ↗ the 1970s

2:18:10 ↗ and even earlier so when the gentleman

2:18:13 ↗ discusses

2:18:14 ↗ the particular criteria for

2:18:18 ↗ stabilization of slopes in order to be

2:18:21 ↗ able to

2:18:22 ↗ call them man made

2:18:25 ↗ i have never seen that used in our

2:18:27 ↗ current

2:18:28 ↗ code they just say oh yeah when we did

2:18:31 ↗ the

2:18:31 ↗ railroad grade in 1930 that was a

2:18:34 ↗ man-made thing

2:18:36 ↗ and so that's a man-made slope and so we

2:18:38 ↗ don't have to

2:18:40 ↗ uh consider that a steep slope

2:18:43 ↗ and so i would like to see a code

2:18:46 ↗ that has the criteria for what a

2:18:49 ↗ man-made slope is

2:18:51 ↗ rather than just hey it's a man-made

2:18:54 ↗ book because some dude did that back in

2:18:56 ↗ 1922

2:18:58 ↗ right and that's how we have been using

2:19:01 ↗ it to this point in time

2:19:03 ↗ it doesn't work very well the um

2:19:06 ↗ more interesting thing about slopes is

2:19:08 ↗ it's not sloped

2:19:10 ↗ it's slopes plus water

2:19:13 ↗ and that is where we have gotten into

2:19:15 ↗ trouble because we have

2:19:16 ↗ lots of water and we have lots of slopes

2:19:19 ↗ we

2:19:19 ↗ don't seem to be able to combine

2:19:22 ↗ this till

2:19:26 ↗ layer mixed with water hazard

2:19:30 ↗ and i don't know how to do that

2:19:32 ↗ appropriately but that is

2:19:34 ↗ when our land slides is when we get

2:19:37 ↗ excess water onto a slope

2:19:41 ↗ along with till camp creek blowout is an

2:19:44 ↗ example

2:19:45 ↗ so i would like to see our code be

2:19:49 ↗ more specific because of our crazy

2:19:52 ↗ geotech around here which brings me

2:19:55 ↗ again to our valley floor

2:19:59 ↗ and we basically as developers like to

2:20:02 ↗ say

2:20:02 ↗ have crap for soils on our valley floor

2:20:06 ↗ and this means we end up with a

2:20:08 ↗ liquefaction situation

2:20:10 ↗ on our valley floor and people have to

2:20:12 ↗ decide whether to float their buildings

2:20:14 ↗ or put them

2:20:15 ↗ on piers and i would like to see

2:20:18 ↗ this be addressed in our code so that it

2:20:21 ↗ isn't just a developer choice

2:20:24 ↗ that it is a city standard for what type

2:20:28 ↗ of stability we are going to

2:20:30 ↗ require on our very wet

2:20:33 ↗ you know basically remember our aquifer

2:20:35 ↗ is down there valley floor where we are

2:20:37 ↗ trying to keep

2:20:38 ↗ buildings from shaking and falling in

2:20:41 ↗ an earthquake hazard which of course we

2:20:44 ↗ all know the fault is almost

2:20:46 ↗ directly beneath i-90 or very close to

2:20:48 ↗ i-90

2:20:49 ↗ and this has never been appropriately

2:20:53 ↗ addressed as as far as i have

2:20:56 ↗ ever seen as we have written the code

2:20:58 ↗ though i have listened to developers

2:21:00 ↗ whine

2:21:00 ↗ like crazy about our crappy soil so

2:21:03 ↗ let's address it this time

2:21:05 ↗ okay hopefully you all heard that thank

2:21:07 ↗ you very much

2:21:14 ↗ is there anyone else who would like to

2:21:16 ↗ speak i don't see any other hands raised

2:21:20 ↗ i'll give you just a minute

2:21:30 ↗ now there's no one else who would like

2:21:31 ↗ to speak

2:21:34 ↗ okay thank you kristen i'm gonna go

2:21:36 ↗ ahead and close uh public comment

2:21:38 ↗ and we are gonna go ahead and open it up

2:21:40 ↗ to

2:21:41 ↗ um comments from the commissioners

2:21:46 ↗ and i have a com i have a comment here

2:21:50 ↗ for myself

2:21:51 ↗ um so i would like to reiterate um

2:21:57 ↗ and put emphasis on connie's comment

2:22:00 ↗ concerning boggs and pete i think it's

2:22:02 ↗ absolutely very wise that we

2:22:06 ↗ create a policy that includes bogs and p

2:22:10 ↗ and also to ken's comment concerning

2:22:12 ↗ landslide insurance

2:22:13 ↗ bonding for reasonable financial

2:22:16 ↗ liabilities

2:22:19 ↗ as we wind down developable properties

2:22:24 ↗ i worry that we're going to start

2:22:26 ↗ cutting into

2:22:27 ↗ hillsides more and

2:22:32 ↗ we could be creating issues or financial

2:22:35 ↗ liabilities

2:22:36 ↗ for the taxpayer if a

2:22:39 ↗ developer is not able to afford

2:22:43 ↗ mitigation of a landslide so i think

2:22:46 ↗ creating policy

2:22:47 ↗ that includes those

2:22:50 ↗ would be very wise uh

2:22:53 ↗ okay let's go ahead and see if there are

2:22:55 ↗ additional comments from

2:23:02 ↗ commissioners

2:23:04 ↗ and i have a comment from commissioner

2:23:07 ↗ jamie fetch

2:23:11 ↗ thank you chair paul jamie finch

2:23:12 ↗ speaking um i won't

2:23:14 ↗ address the specific questions here i

2:23:17 ↗ think

2:23:18 ↗ pulling it up a little from the more

2:23:21 ↗ specific questions

2:23:22 ↗ i do feel like based on our central

2:23:24 ↗ isoqua plan

2:23:26 ↗ and as well as what we're going to be

2:23:28 ↗ looking at in the climate action plan

2:23:30 ↗ and trying to basically make our

2:23:33 ↗ community more sustainable

2:23:35 ↗ in general it seems like this high slope

2:23:38 ↗ areas

2:23:39 ↗ that are going to require a lot of

2:23:40 ↗ grading don't fit in with any of those

2:23:43 ↗ things and i think that's that's what i

2:23:45 ↗ would my overall feedback would be

2:23:48 ↗ this seems like an area that we need to

2:23:50 ↗ be looking at solutions that

2:23:52 ↗ don't require us going up into these

2:23:54 ↗ unstable slopes that have a lot of

2:23:56 ↗ other uh implications um for a lot of

2:24:00 ↗ other reasons as well that

2:24:02 ↗ i think there's just a lot of reasons

2:24:04 ↗ that we

2:24:05 ↗ as as part of this whole title 18

2:24:07 ↗ process need to find ways that

2:24:09 ↗ that's not our only option for

2:24:11 ↗ development and that there's

2:24:13 ↗ uh there's other ways that we continue

2:24:15 ↗ to

2:24:16 ↗ find opportunities for people to find

2:24:19 ↗ residences in our city

2:24:21 ↗ that don't require uh going to those

2:24:23 ↗ lanes

2:24:24 ↗ thank you

2:24:28 ↗ thank you uh commissioner finch

2:24:31 ↗ and i am not seeing any additional

2:24:33 ↗ comments uh

2:24:34 ↗ time is 8 55 and so i have a question

2:24:37 ↗ for

2:24:38 ↗ any and for kristin um how much more

2:24:42 ↗ time do we need

2:24:43 ↗ to address the rest of the presentation

2:24:50 ↗ so looks like we have three topic areas

2:24:53 ↗ left

2:24:54 ↗ um so that could be

2:24:57 ↗ you know 10 minutes per topic area for

2:25:00 ↗ presentation and then

2:25:02 ↗ is my guess katie do you have any

2:25:05 ↗ feedback on that

2:25:08 ↗ i think the lighting topic could be a

2:25:10 ↗ really quick one

2:25:11 ↗ um we're not seeking a lot of feedback

2:25:14 ↗ on that one

2:25:15 ↗ there may be a longer discussion i'm

2:25:17 ↗ thinking that the sustainability topic

2:25:19 ↗ just because it's such a high interest

2:25:21 ↗ topic but i think maybe shorelines could

2:25:24 ↗ also be shorter

2:25:25 ↗ maybe 10 minutes but it i guess it

2:25:27 ↗ depends on public interest and comment

2:25:32 ↗ okay so i would like to look to the

2:25:34 ↗ commissioners

2:25:35 ↗ kind of a non-formal votes

2:25:39 ↗ do you want to look at do you want us to

2:25:41 ↗ consider all three tonight do you want

2:25:43 ↗ us to consider

2:25:44 ↗ one or two

2:25:47 ↗ so feel free to speak up

2:25:50 ↗ i'm seeing joy lewis wants three

2:25:54 ↗ tommy anderson with one

2:25:59 ↗ hey we're seeing one one three

2:26:04 ↗ this is a tie

2:26:07 ↗ okay so i'm seeing everybody here with

2:26:10 ↗ one

2:26:11 ↗ um i think one's gonna roll out so

2:26:14 ↗ uh let's go with lighting for one

2:26:18 ↗ everybody in agreement okay wait a

2:26:20 ↗ minute

2:26:21 ↗ okay i'm sorry i'd like to comment

2:26:24 ↗ can i commissioner fall yes um

2:26:28 ↗ you know if we have a really um

2:26:32 ↗ full calendar and if we push things off

2:26:35 ↗ the calendar this meeting was scheduled

2:26:37 ↗ to go to 9 30 as far as i understood

2:26:39 ↗ from our agenda

2:26:40 ↗ didn't it didn't it say 9 30.

2:26:43 ↗ so i'm concerned about pushing things

2:26:45 ↗ off to a later date

2:26:46 ↗ i also have found that the staff is

2:26:50 ↗ going to be very helpful in soliciting

2:26:52 ↗ comments uh through email

2:26:55 ↗ following this meeting facilitated by a

2:26:57 ↗ survey of

2:26:58 ↗ questions and focus so we might be

2:27:02 ↗ able to get through these topics

2:27:05 ↗ because i for one am reserving my

2:27:09 ↗ review comments my wish list

2:27:12 ↗ my feedback for that email

2:27:15 ↗ and using the time i have with this

2:27:17 ↗ group simply for questions

2:27:19 ↗ so that helps okay there you go

2:27:26 ↗ additional comments

2:27:31 ↗ chair fall uh this is commissioner lewis

2:27:34 ↗ um if the boards and commissions would

2:27:36 ↗ like to move forward with an abbreviated

2:27:37 ↗ agenda

2:27:38 ↗ i would ask that we consider actually

2:27:40 ↗ addressing the largest

2:27:41 ↗ grouping that we have which is

2:27:42 ↗ sustainability i think this is our joint

2:27:45 ↗ commission is such a unique opportunity

2:27:46 ↗ to be able to hear

2:27:48 ↗ um from our from our fellow members of

2:27:50 ↗ the community

2:27:51 ↗ that um i know from when i sit and i

2:27:54 ↗ look at this

2:27:54 ↗ and we're obviously going to be looking

2:27:56 ↗ at all of title 18 right so

2:27:58 ↗ being able to get your guys's unique

2:28:01 ↗ perspective

2:28:02 ↗ really helps me do my job better so

2:28:05 ↗ while i also want to really encourage

2:28:06 ↗ you to follow the movements of title 18

2:28:09 ↗ even things that are not related

2:28:10 ↗ to um to waters geology um to wildlife

2:28:14 ↗ and to um and to sustainability we want

2:28:17 ↗ to hear your comments right

2:28:18 ↗ i really love the idea of being able to

2:28:20 ↗ look at all of title 18

2:28:22 ↗ through many lenses right and being able

2:28:24 ↗ to look at the entire thing through a

2:28:26 ↗ climate change and sustainability lens

2:28:28 ↗ rather than necessarily just these one

2:28:30 ↗ components

2:28:30 ↗ so having your feedback on a variety of

2:28:33 ↗ things is hugely important to us as we

2:28:35 ↗ go through this process

2:28:36 ↗ but being able to have your comments

2:28:38 ↗ tonight would be very valuable to me so

2:28:40 ↗ if we are going to try to

2:28:42 ↗ shorten um what we're reviewing tonight

2:28:44 ↗ for some reason i would love us to

2:28:45 ↗ actually get to the meat

2:28:46 ↗ of kind of that commonality we have

2:28:51 ↗ you know the one thing i would add to

2:28:53 ↗ that is we have consultants

2:28:55 ↗ watershed who's helping with the

2:28:57 ↗ shoreline in attendance today

2:28:59 ↗ and we also have consultant who helped

2:29:02 ↗ with the lighting

2:29:03 ↗ denise fong stantec in attendance today

2:29:06 ↗ so

2:29:07 ↗ just if you have any technical questions

2:29:09 ↗ for them

2:29:10 ↗ um they're here tonight

2:29:14 ↗ okay so maybe

2:29:17 ↗ we move forward with all three topics

2:29:19 ↗ tonight and

2:29:20 ↗ stick with questions that are necessary

2:29:23 ↗ and if we have detailed comments

2:29:25 ↗ or technical questions we can put them

2:29:28 ↗ in email

2:29:29 ↗ and send them to the city staff

2:29:34 ↗ agreement

2:29:36 ↗ sounds good okay so with that said

2:29:39 ↗ uh we're gonna go ahead and go forward

2:29:40 ↗ with all three topics

2:29:42 ↗ um mini the floor is yours

2:29:45 ↗ okay i am going to pull up the

2:29:48 ↗ powerpoint

2:29:49 ↗ but the presentation on the shoreline is

2:29:52 ↗ going to be

2:29:53 ↗ by doug yermick so let me know when you

2:29:57 ↗ want the slides

2:29:59 ↗ to find me i will minnie thank you

2:30:09 ↗ i will i will try and breeze through

2:30:11 ↗ this

2:30:12 ↗ um and provide as much information as i

2:30:16 ↗ can in

2:30:16 ↗ the shortest amount of time

2:30:19 ↗ there are some new faces here but there

2:30:22 ↗ are quite a few familiar faces so back

2:30:24 ↗ in

2:30:24 ↗ 2012 the city undertook a periodic

2:30:26 ↗ review of our shoreline master program

2:30:29 ↗ this update was to align our shoreline

2:30:31 ↗ master program with recent updates to

2:30:32 ↗ legislation

2:30:33 ↗ and ecology guidance in 20 in august of

2:30:37 ↗ 2020 council approved the periodic

2:30:39 ↗ update

2:30:40 ↗ with the condition that we'd explore our

2:30:42 ↗ lake sammamish shoreline buffers

2:30:44 ↗ specifically the shoreline buffer

2:30:46 ↗ exemption provisions that allow a

2:30:47 ↗ structure to be located closer to the

2:30:49 ↗ lake than our standard buffer

2:30:51 ↗ next slide

2:30:57 ↗ our goal is to analyze our current

2:30:59 ↗ standards and seek ways to improve our

2:31:01 ↗ baseline condition

2:31:03 ↗ this will be conducted by using best

2:31:05 ↗ available science

2:31:07 ↗ exploring techniques employed by our

2:31:09 ↗ neighboring communities as well as input

2:31:11 ↗ received from this body and the

2:31:12 ↗ community

2:31:14 ↗ and our hope is that this will align

2:31:18 ↗ um our analysis will and conclusion of

2:31:21 ↗ that will align with

2:31:22 ↗ our city vision for shoreline buffer

2:31:26 ↗ next slide

2:31:31 ↗ um the no net loss standard is designed

2:31:34 ↗ to halt the introduction of new impacts

2:31:36 ↗ into the shoreline ecological function

2:31:40 ↗ resulting from new development this

2:31:42 ↗ standard is enshrined in both

2:31:44 ↗ the wac and rsmp best available science

2:31:47 ↗ describes

2:31:48 ↗ most if not all shoreline development

2:31:50 ↗ produces some impact to each

2:31:52 ↗ ecological function with that

2:31:56 ↗ said how do we know we're achieving no

2:31:57 ↗ net loss

2:31:59 ↗ the answer comes from implementing the

2:32:01 ↗ policies of our smp

2:32:03 ↗ during our 2013 comprehensive update

2:32:07 ↗ my predecessor peter rosen with the help

2:32:09 ↗ of consultants

2:32:10 ↗ undertook several tasks to develop a

2:32:12 ↗ baseline conditions report

2:32:14 ↗ they inventoried and characterized the

2:32:16 ↗ shoreline environment

2:32:17 ↗ analyzed every use in shoreline

2:32:19 ↗ jurisdiction and provided a cumulative

2:32:21 ↗ impacts analysis

2:32:22 ↗ all of this information was translated

2:32:24 ↗ into our smp's pop

2:32:33 ↗ we lost you

2:32:38 ↗ can you hear me now yes okay sorry

2:32:42 ↗ um these standards in our smp were

2:32:44 ↗ approved by ecology

2:32:45 ↗ to achieve no net loss however the

2:32:48 ↗ question from council was

2:32:49 ↗ should we be doing the bare minimum

2:32:51 ↗ especially since the city takes a strong

2:32:53 ↗ position

2:32:53 ↗ on environmental restoration and salmon

2:32:55 ↗ recovery

2:32:59 ↗ next slide

2:33:02 ↗ the image that you see on this slide is

2:33:05 ↗ a perfect illustration of our lakes of

2:33:07 ↗ mamish existing shoreline condition

2:33:10 ↗ most are armored with little native

2:33:11 ↗ vegetation of the total parcels along

2:33:14 ↗ lake samamish about half do not meet

2:33:16 ↗ current buffer or setback requirements

2:33:18 ↗ with our analysis staff and our

2:33:20 ↗ consultant team

2:33:21 ↗ with the input from the community will

2:33:23 ↗ explore ways to enhance degraded

2:33:25 ↗ baseline conditions of our highly

2:33:27 ↗ modified shoreline

2:33:29 ↗ next slide

2:33:34 ↗ council wanted staff to explore two

2:33:36 ↗ common buffer exceptions allowed in our

2:33:38 ↗ smp

2:33:39 ↗ this slide represents um the first

2:33:43 ↗ exception

2:33:43 ↗ it's called common line setback under

2:33:46 ↗ this exception a proposed residence can

2:33:48 ↗ use the adjacent non-conforming

2:33:50 ↗ development

2:33:51 ↗ to determine a shoreline buffer this is

2:33:53 ↗ done by drawing an imaginary line from

2:33:55 ↗ near corners

2:33:56 ↗ of the buildings or in the instance of

2:33:58 ↗ only one developed lot the near corner

2:34:00 ↗ of the adjacent building and the

2:34:02 ↗ standard buffer

2:34:03 ↗ this imaginary line becomes the reduced

2:34:05 ↗ buffer determining where new development

2:34:07 ↗ can occur

2:34:09 ↗ this method will result in new

2:34:11 ↗ residences to develop closer to the lake

2:34:13 ↗ than the standard buffer would allow

2:34:16 ↗ but per rsmp in exchange for this

2:34:18 ↗ reduction

2:34:19 ↗ all new development must enhance the

2:34:21 ↗ shoreline buffer area

2:34:23 ↗ next slide

2:34:27 ↗ another opportunity to reduce the

2:34:29 ↗ standard shoreline buffer is through

2:34:31 ↗ bulkhead removal

2:34:32 ↗ with shoreline restoration this method

2:34:35 ↗ replaces heart armoring with soft short

2:34:36 ↗ or bioengineered stabilization which is

2:34:38 ↗ less destructive to the shoreline

2:34:40 ↗ ecology

2:34:42 ↗ under this scenario the buffer is

2:34:44 ↗ reduced to 10 feet with a 15 foot

2:34:46 ↗ setback

2:34:47 ↗ new or expanded structures must be 25

2:34:49 ↗ feet from the lakeshore

2:34:52 ↗ next slide

2:34:56 ↗ we have begun researching our

2:34:58 ↗ neighboring jurisdictions and how they

2:35:00 ↗ handled standard buffer

2:35:01 ↗ exceptions as you can see each

2:35:04 ↗ jurisdiction has different techniques

2:35:06 ↗ only kirkland allows common line but

2:35:09 ↗ it's only allowed in one shoreline

2:35:10 ↗ environmental designation

2:35:13 ↗ both sammamish and kirkland have other

2:35:14 ↗ setback reductions if you employ

2:35:17 ↗ low impact development techniques meet

2:35:18 ↗ certain design standards

2:35:20 ↗ as well as enhancements of the near

2:35:22 ↗ shore environments

2:35:24 ↗ so far in this analysis issaquah stands

2:35:27 ↗ alone in requiring full buffer

2:35:28 ↗ restoration of any new development for

2:35:30 ↗ shoreline properties

2:35:31 ↗ that's both with a reduced buffer or if

2:35:34 ↗ you're

2:35:35 ↗ building a new home the full buffer

2:35:38 ↗ has to be restored

2:35:42 ↗ in the next slide

2:35:47 ↗ so the city

2:35:50 ↗ staff and our consultant team are

2:35:53 ↗ embarking

2:35:54 ↗ on researching the near shore

2:35:57 ↗ environment

2:35:58 ↗ of of lakes and amish and how it's how

2:36:01 ↗ it's developed

2:36:02 ↗ we're also still analyzing the best

2:36:04 ↗ practices from pure cities

2:36:06 ↗ to show options for regulated shoreline

2:36:08 ↗ setbacks

2:36:09 ↗ um and of our our question to

2:36:13 ↗ um both you and the public is do we want

2:36:16 ↗ to take a more aggressive repo

2:36:18 ↗ approach that's most restrictive of

2:36:20 ↗ development maintain a less restrictive

2:36:22 ↗ approach

2:36:23 ↗ allowing some flexibility or moderate

2:36:26 ↗ our approach

2:36:27 ↗ somewhere in between and

2:36:30 ↗ the next slide

2:36:34 ↗ and now open for discussions

2:36:44 ↗ all right thank you very much mr yarmick

2:36:46 ↗ uh let's go ahead and open up to

2:36:48 ↗ commissioner questions

2:36:53 ↗ we have a

2:37:00 ↗ oh see commissioner lewis you already uh

2:37:03 ↗ answered your question right

2:37:05 ↗ posted 857 so that's not relative now

2:37:08 ↗ right

2:37:14 ↗ and we have a question from commissioner

2:37:16 ↗ jamie finch

2:37:19 ↗ thank you chairfall um jamie finch

2:37:21 ↗ speaking

2:37:22 ↗ quick question for you can you just

2:37:25 ↗ summarize the rationale for the common

2:37:27 ↗ line

2:37:27 ↗ setback that one is hard for me to

2:37:30 ↗ understand so it would be helpful to

2:37:31 ↗ understand like what what is the

2:37:33 ↗ rationale for

2:37:34 ↗ for having something like that um

2:37:38 ↗ i think it's for

2:37:42 ↗ maintaining similar views to adjacent

2:37:45 ↗ properties

2:37:46 ↗ um allow for for more flexibility on

2:37:50 ↗ building design

2:37:51 ↗ and maybe even partially for continuity

2:37:55 ↗ along those

2:37:56 ↗ along the shoreline

2:38:05 ↗ it does talk about having a common view

2:38:11 ↗ thank you

2:38:14 ↗ thank you very much commissioner finch

2:38:16 ↗ and commissioner tom

2:38:18 ↗ anderson oh yes thank you tommy anderson

2:38:22 ↗ speaking

2:38:23 ↗ i'm wondering about ongoing monitoring

2:38:25 ↗ of any changes that are done there like

2:38:27 ↗ removal of ball kit

2:38:29 ↗ and and uh let's plant some softer

2:38:31 ↗ things there

2:38:33 ↗ but then the house is sold and somebody

2:38:35 ↗ else comes in and doesn't know about any

2:38:36 ↗ such

2:38:37 ↗ agreement or whatever they put the

2:38:39 ↗ bulkhead back in

2:38:40 ↗ what are other jurisdictions who have

2:38:42 ↗ tried this sort of approach

2:38:45 ↗ i mean do we have any data about how

2:38:47 ↗ successful they have been on an

2:38:49 ↗ ongoing basis um

2:38:52 ↗ we don't have a whole lot of data on

2:38:56 ↗ outside of just i guess my knowledge

2:38:58 ↗ i've been with the city for four and a

2:39:00 ↗ half years

2:39:01 ↗ um i have known of one bulkhead removal

2:39:05 ↗ and it has remained in place it's

2:39:09 ↗ performing wonderfully the the

2:39:11 ↗ vegetation that it was planted

2:39:13 ↗ with it had to go through the same

2:39:15 ↗ five-year maintenance monitoring period

2:39:17 ↗ that a wetland buffer mitigation or

2:39:20 ↗ stream buffer mitigation would have to

2:39:22 ↗ go through

2:39:23 ↗ um we have there is discussions

2:39:26 ↗ of another bulkhead removal and that if

2:39:29 ↗ that

2:39:30 ↗ does come in that permit will probably

2:39:31 ↗ be soon um

2:39:34 ↗ but in terms of like those those are the

2:39:36 ↗ only two examples that i know

2:39:38 ↗ in in the four and a half years that

2:39:40 ↗ i've been here

2:39:41 ↗ um we do have records um

2:39:44 ↗ through our permit tracking and and

2:39:47 ↗ parcel data

2:39:48 ↗ on what has occurred on that property if

2:39:51 ↗ you dig a little bit

2:39:54 ↗ so if there was a bulkhead removed owner

2:39:56 ↗ sold it and

2:39:57 ↗ it went to a new owner and they tried

2:40:01 ↗ that's something that we would see also

2:40:03 ↗ with a new bulkhead if you wanted to put

2:40:05 ↗ in a brand new bulkhead where one

2:40:07 ↗ isn't in before there is um a much more

2:40:10 ↗ rigorous permit process with the city

2:40:13 ↗ and

2:40:13 ↗ the demonstration of need that you would

2:40:15 ↗ have to provide to us and ultimately the

2:40:17 ↗ peer reviewers who would be looking at

2:40:19 ↗ it as well and if it doesn't meet that

2:40:20 ↗ threshold it's

2:40:22 ↗ there isn't going to be that option for

2:40:23 ↗ you

2:40:26 ↗ okay thank you

2:40:45 ↗ on your oh thank you

2:40:51 ↗ and thank you very much uh commissioner

2:40:52 ↗ anderson uh

2:40:54 ↗ let's go ahead and open this up to

2:40:56 ↗ public comment i'm not seeing any

2:40:57 ↗ additional

2:40:58 ↗ questions at this time uh kristen do we

2:41:01 ↗ have any

2:41:01 ↗ members of the public that would like to

2:41:02 ↗ speak to this topic

2:41:06 ↗ uh

2:41:12 ↗ connie marsh your hand is still up if

2:41:14 ↗ you would like

2:41:15 ↗ to speak would you actually take your

2:41:18 ↗ hand down

2:41:19 ↗ please

2:41:22 ↗ okay connie marsh would like to speak

2:41:25 ↗ bonnie

2:41:26 ↗ you are unmuted

2:41:29 ↗ hey i had actually lowered my hand and

2:41:32 ↗ then raised it so

2:41:33 ↗ up and down uh all right

2:41:36 ↗ so i went through the long ago

2:41:40 ↗ shoreline master plan

2:41:43 ↗ update not the skimpy little thing that

2:41:46 ↗ they did just a little while ago that

2:41:47 ↗ was barely

2:41:48 ↗ an improvement at all and that was

2:41:51 ↗ heavily based on best available science

2:41:53 ↗ so what was missing in that presentation

2:41:56 ↗ for me

2:41:57 ↗ is the best available science for

2:42:00 ↗ shorelines as it has changed in the last

2:42:03 ↗ what

2:42:04 ↗ ten years at uh that

2:42:07 ↗ point in time the thing that

2:42:10 ↗ people thought would help the fish

2:42:13 ↗ and the habitat the most was the removal

2:42:17 ↗ of

2:42:17 ↗ bulkheads i don't know if that is still

2:42:20 ↗ true

2:42:21 ↗ uh the other things that were of great

2:42:24 ↗ importance was

2:42:26 ↗ shading of the shorelines with native

2:42:29 ↗ vegetation

2:42:31 ↗ and that requirement

2:42:35 ↗ so if people are going to be able to put

2:42:38 ↗ themselves

2:42:40 ↗ in a snap line for their views

2:42:45 ↗ they should have to for that

2:42:48 ↗ benefit they should be having to

2:42:52 ↗ improve their shorelines for

2:42:55 ↗ the habitat of the good

2:42:58 ↗ of the people and the fish and the

2:43:01 ↗ critters

2:43:02 ↗ so when you talk about the buffers for

2:43:05 ↗ streams and the buffers for wetland and

2:43:08 ↗ you talk about the

2:43:09 ↗ habitat and wildlife corridors

2:43:13 ↗ i would like to see how that same

2:43:16 ↗ conversation

2:43:18 ↗ translates over with the shorelines

2:43:20 ↗ because

2:43:21 ↗ you do have the same critters trying to

2:43:24 ↗ live their lives amongst the humans

2:43:27 ↗ so and and and that felt entirely

2:43:29 ↗ missing for the decision making

2:43:32 ↗ on what the code changes should be for

2:43:34 ↗ the shoreline master

2:43:36 ↗ program and so i can't give an opinion

2:43:39 ↗ because i don't have

2:43:41 ↗ i don't have the necessary information

2:43:45 ↗ thank you

2:43:53 ↗ if there is if there's anyone else who

2:43:55 ↗ would like to speak please

2:43:57 ↗ raise your hand or let me know

2:44:00 ↗ in the chat

2:44:12 ↗ i am not seeing anyone else who would

2:44:13 ↗ like to speak

2:44:16 ↗ okay thank you very much planner

2:44:18 ↗ christian

2:44:19 ↗ i'm gonna go ahead and open this floor

2:44:21 ↗ to

2:44:22 ↗ commissioner uh comments

2:44:30 ↗ here all those comments until uh post

2:44:33 ↗ meeting

2:44:34 ↗ and send them out to through email

2:44:36 ↗ appreciate that

2:44:37 ↗ okay put the give the floor back to

2:44:41 ↗ uh mini dollywall right where's yours

2:44:45 ↗ thank you

2:44:46 ↗ mr fall um so we're going to go to the

2:44:50 ↗ next topic

2:44:53 ↗ can you all see my screen so this is

2:44:56 ↗ outdoor lighting katie here

2:45:00 ↗ let me know when you're on the screen

2:45:02 ↗ okay we'll do

2:45:04 ↗ um thank you minnie and uh thank you all

2:45:07 ↗ for your patience tonight we've had a

2:45:09 ↗ lot to cover and i really appreciated

2:45:11 ↗ all of the

2:45:11 ↗ fruitful discussion um i'm going to

2:45:14 ↗ cover the topic of

2:45:15 ↗ outdoor lighting standards next um i'll

2:45:18 ↗ be presenting an analysis

2:45:20 ↗ done by our lighting consultant who is

2:45:23 ↗ here

2:45:23 ↗ tonight um to answer any questions you

2:45:25 ↗ may have on technical issues

2:45:28 ↗ uh we regulate outdoor lighting to make

2:45:30 ↗ sure that there's

2:45:32 ↗ um both for safety and security

2:45:36 ↗ um for um the functions that it provides

2:45:39 ↗ but also because of the way it can

2:45:41 ↗ enliven a space or a building and

2:45:42 ↗ contribute to the enjoyment of a place

2:45:45 ↗ after dark

2:45:46 ↗ we regulate the lighting to make sure

2:45:48 ↗ there's not too much illumination that

2:45:50 ↗ could interfere with animal habitats or

2:45:52 ↗ dark skies

2:45:53 ↗ or that lighting isn't causing glare or

2:45:56 ↗ disturbance as well as

2:45:58 ↗ to achieve greater energy efficiency

2:46:00 ↗ next slide please

2:46:04 ↗ so the city's vision for outdoor

2:46:05 ↗ lighting

2:46:07 ↗ is to provide adequate lighting for

2:46:10 ↗ safety and illumination

2:46:12 ↗ um prioritize energy conservation and to

2:46:15 ↗ protect people in nature from

2:46:17 ↗ spillover from light and glare next

2:46:22 ↗ so i wanted to just cover a couple key

2:46:24 ↗ concepts that are pretty technical have

2:46:25 ↗ to do with lighting

2:46:26 ↗ uh one concept is lighting zones and

2:46:29 ↗ this is something that we are

2:46:30 ↗ considering for this update

2:46:32 ↗ similar to a land use zone a lighting

2:46:34 ↗ zone is

2:46:36 ↗ overlay map or other tool

2:46:39 ↗ to show how different areas of the city

2:46:43 ↗ should be lit or illuminated it ranges

2:46:46 ↗ from a lighting zone of zero which would

2:46:48 ↗ be very little light

2:46:50 ↗ for places like open spaces forest

2:46:52 ↗ wildlands

2:46:54 ↗ up to the most intensive

2:46:57 ↗ industrial scale um lighting scenarios

2:47:00 ↗ which is an lz4

2:47:01 ↗ most of issaquah falls probably into a

2:47:04 ↗ lighting zone one or two that's kind of

2:47:06 ↗ a typical residential neighborhood or a

2:47:08 ↗ small

2:47:09 ↗ commercial downtown there may be some

2:47:11 ↗ areas in central issaquad that could

2:47:13 ↗ approach a lighting level three

2:47:15 ↗ um but essentially a light the lighting

2:47:18 ↗ level is just a tool that the community

2:47:20 ↗ can use to then differently regulate

2:47:24 ↗ lighting standards in different parts of

2:47:25 ↗ the community

2:47:28 ↗ next slide

2:47:31 ↗ another another key term is color

2:47:33 ↗ temperature

2:47:35 ↗ um the color temperature is measured in

2:47:38 ↗ degrees kelvin which is a very

2:47:40 ↗ scientific measurement

2:47:42 ↗ of temperature but for our purposes

2:47:46 ↗ it's broken down into a range of around

2:47:48 ↗ two thousand

2:47:49 ↗ up to six thousand um

2:47:52 ↗ it describes how warm the light is

2:47:56 ↗ um the lighting temperature can come

2:47:58 ↗ from both the sun

2:47:59 ↗ or from artificial lights so for the

2:48:01 ↗ lighting code

2:48:03 ↗ a lot of times there are maximum

2:48:06 ↗ lighting

2:48:07 ↗ temperature numbers or at least a range

2:48:10 ↗ that the city might require artificial

2:48:13 ↗ lighting to achieve

2:48:16 ↗ lighting temperature can impact the um

2:48:19 ↗ the mood the ambience the feeling

2:48:21 ↗ um as well as the clarity at which

2:48:23 ↗ things can be seen

2:48:25 ↗ and just to give you some context

2:48:29 ↗ currently the standard for street lights

2:48:31 ↗ in issaquah is

2:48:32 ↗ 4000k um and your typical

2:48:36 ↗ indoor light for your living room would

2:48:38 ↗ be around

2:48:39 ↗ 2000 or so next slide

2:48:44 ↗ so just real quickly i'll go through

2:48:45 ↗ these pretty quick uh the state law

2:48:47 ↗ the the state of washington has a

2:48:49 ↗ non-residential energy code that has

2:48:51 ↗ some standards

2:48:52 ↗ for lighting um it it focuses both

2:48:56 ↗ on um energy efficiency

2:48:59 ↗ and also some lighting controls um

2:49:02 ↗ the current lighting standards in isquad

2:49:04 ↗ doesn't reference the

2:49:06 ↗ um the state energy non-residential

2:49:09 ↗ energy code so we'd like to include

2:49:12 ↗ reference references to that

2:49:14 ↗ as well as update the standards to be

2:49:16 ↗ consistent with those best practices

2:49:18 ↗ next slide um

2:49:23 ↗ so the the city's goals and policies

2:49:26 ↗ um the city council's goals and policies

2:49:28 ↗ document had a few goals that touched on

2:49:31 ↗ the importance of lighting um one

2:49:34 ↗ has to do with simply modernizing the

2:49:37 ↗ code

2:49:38 ↗ and making sure that it expresses

2:49:40 ↗ industry best standards and right now

2:49:42 ↗ our lighting code does not there's a lot

2:49:43 ↗ of

2:49:44 ↗ um obsolete technology that's mentioned

2:49:47 ↗ and we'd like to move toward led

2:49:49 ↗ lighting and

2:49:50 ↗ away from incandescent and neon lighting

2:49:53 ↗ for example

2:49:55 ↗ also similar to the shoreline setback

2:49:58 ↗ issue that doug just covered

2:49:59 ↗ um with the snp update council

2:50:02 ↗ specifically requested that we look at

2:50:04 ↗ some some standards for dock lighting

2:50:08 ↗ lighting at the shoreline can interfere

2:50:11 ↗ with

2:50:11 ↗ habitat especially when there's light

2:50:13 ↗ during you know the darkest times of the

2:50:15 ↗ night

2:50:16 ↗ um so that's something that we're still

2:50:18 ↗ developing

2:50:19 ↗ and um and we'll be trying to

2:50:23 ↗ there aren't a lot of great examples out

2:50:25 ↗ there right now so we'll be developing

2:50:26 ↗ some ideas for that

2:50:28 ↗ um next slide

2:50:31 ↗ thank you uh so essentially

2:50:34 ↗ um the goal of the outdoor lighting

2:50:37 ↗ update

2:50:38 ↗ is to create a new outdoor lighting

2:50:40 ↗ chapter that brings

2:50:42 ↗ um lighting standards from various parts

2:50:44 ↗ of the city from

2:50:46 ↗ old town and central isfan some other

2:50:48 ↗ places into one place um so that there's

2:50:50 ↗ a single place

2:50:51 ↗ where people can go and access their

2:50:54 ↗ lighting requirements

2:50:56 ↗ and we'll be updating the standards to

2:50:58 ↗ meet the industry

2:50:59 ↗ best practices to acknowledge the energy

2:51:02 ↗ code

2:51:04 ↗ and make sure that that the technologies

2:51:07 ↗ are correct and we're taking out

2:51:08 ↗ obsolete technologies we will be

2:51:12 ↗ developing

2:51:13 ↗ dock lighting provisions and

2:51:17 ↗ and then we we have a conversation the

2:51:20 ↗ conversation we'd like to have with the

2:51:21 ↗ board is about

2:51:23 ↗ whether we want to use the lighting

2:51:25 ↗ chapter to go beyond the minimum

2:51:27 ↗ lighting standards that um the energy

2:51:29 ↗ code

2:51:30 ↗ uh provides to achieve

2:51:33 ↗ greater levels of energy efficiency and

2:51:37 ↗ urban design benefits which i'll talk

2:51:38 ↗ about in just a minute

2:51:40 ↗ and then finally we would like to create

2:51:42 ↗ a lighting zone overlay map

2:51:45 ↗ so we can focus on

2:51:48 ↗ the more sensitive areas of town having

2:51:51 ↗ less lighting

2:51:52 ↗ and the um the more

2:51:55 ↗ active use areas having additional

2:51:59 ↗ lighting or at least the appropriate

2:52:00 ↗ amount of lighting

2:52:01 ↗ next slide

2:52:04 ↗ so um for doc lighting we are looking

2:52:07 ↗ for

2:52:08 ↗ feedback on how to

2:52:12 ↗ to whom the new requirements will apply

2:52:15 ↗ so usually when a new code is um or a

2:52:18 ↗ new restriction is passed

2:52:20 ↗ uh it applies to new applications new

2:52:23 ↗ applicants

2:52:24 ↗ um a more aggressive or

2:52:27 ↗ more protective approach for um in terms

2:52:30 ↗ of habitat

2:52:31 ↗ would be to require all existing dock

2:52:34 ↗ lighting

2:52:35 ↗ to come into compliance with these new

2:52:36 ↗ dock lighting regulations

2:52:38 ↗ that would have greater benefits to

2:52:41 ↗ habitats in the water but it would have

2:52:45 ↗ it could potentially be a lot more

2:52:47 ↗ research resource demanding

2:52:50 ↗ to track down and negotiate getting

2:52:54 ↗ existing lighting to come under

2:52:56 ↗ compliance

2:52:58 ↗ next slide please and then

2:53:01 ↗ we're also looking for feedback on um

2:53:05 ↗ whether the city wants to take a more

2:53:07 ↗ progressive approach

2:53:08 ↗ on using lighting standards for place

2:53:11 ↗ making and also for

2:53:13 ↗ additional energy efficiency so lighting

2:53:16 ↗ the technologies on lighting controls

2:53:18 ↗ have advanced

2:53:19 ↗ to the to the place where

2:53:22 ↗ you can program the amount of

2:53:24 ↗ illumination that a certain location

2:53:26 ↗ gets

2:53:26 ↗ throughout the night so that it's lit

2:53:28 ↗ pretty brightly during the early evening

2:53:30 ↗ but then that light can go down

2:53:32 ↗ significantly when no one is expected to

2:53:34 ↗ be using um

2:53:35 ↗ this the place and then come gradually

2:53:38 ↗ higher

2:53:39 ↗ uh when the daytime years for example so

2:53:41 ↗ that has energy

2:53:43 ↗ savings um they

2:53:46 ↗ you can also uh require

2:53:49 ↗ higher um or more decorative or

2:53:53 ↗ higher quality fixtures that can be used

2:53:56 ↗ to create

2:53:57 ↗ outdoor rooms like the picture that

2:53:59 ↗ you're seeing here

2:54:01 ↗ um which has urban design benefits um

2:54:04 ↗ but also with with some of these

2:54:08 ↗ different fixtures they have different

2:54:09 ↗ maintenance requirements

2:54:11 ↗ um and to require developers

2:54:14 ↗ to do this elevated level of lighting

2:54:16 ↗ would also be an additional cost on the

2:54:18 ↗ developer

2:54:20 ↗ and that's all i have for lighting

2:54:24 ↗ and i have denise fong here

2:54:27 ↗ to answer technical questions on

2:54:29 ↗ lighting or any other questions that you

2:54:31 ↗ might have on this topic

2:54:34 ↗ thank you

2:54:42 ↗ all right and thank you very much coat

2:54:44 ↗ so let's go ahead and open this up to

2:54:46 ↗ commissioner

2:54:47 ↗ questions and i have a my first question

2:54:50 ↗ is from commissioner tom anderson

2:54:54 ↗ oh yes thank you i'm wondering

2:54:57 ↗ on motion detection switches

2:55:01 ↗ are any jurisdictions moving towards

2:55:04 ↗ requiring that in commercial spaces

2:55:06 ↗ and or residential spaces is that

2:55:09 ↗ something that's uh being done at all

2:55:11 ↗ or is that something we would be

2:55:12 ↗ considering

2:55:14 ↗ uh this is denise fong i can answer that

2:55:17 ↗ um

2:55:18 ↗ there are some code requirements

2:55:20 ↗ currently in the washington state energy

2:55:21 ↗ code for

2:55:22 ↗ those um almost all interior commercial

2:55:25 ↗ spaces require them

2:55:27 ↗ um for new construction at least they're

2:55:30 ↗ not required residentially

2:55:32 ↗ except in places like hotel rooms

2:55:35 ↗ um but not in single family residences

2:55:39 ↗ for exterior lighting there are some

2:55:41 ↗ minimal requirements for it but the

2:55:43 ↗ technology is still a little bit

2:55:47 ↗ new for that so it's not as reliable so

2:55:50 ↗ there is some reluctance to

2:55:52 ↗ require broadly for exterior lighting

2:55:54 ↗ but it is coming

2:55:56 ↗ because it is getting better

2:56:00 ↗ right so it's there's no part of that

2:56:02 ↗ that is part of the issaquah proposal

2:56:04 ↗ here though right you're just

2:56:08 ↗ except whatever whatever those kind of

2:56:10 ↗ common practices

2:56:11 ↗ are in that regard

2:56:15 ↗ there's nothing specific at this time

2:56:17 ↗ however one of the things

2:56:19 ↗ we're sort of asking for guidance from

2:56:21 ↗ the commission on

2:56:22 ↗ is do we want to go beyond what the

2:56:25 ↗ current energy

2:56:26 ↗ code state energy code requires and that

2:56:28 ↗ would be one place where you could go

2:56:29 ↗ beyond what the state code requires

2:56:32 ↗ okay yes thank you yeah and i'll add to

2:56:35 ↗ that

2:56:36 ↗ you know sometimes the police department

2:56:37 ↗ from a crime prevention

2:56:39 ↗ purposes i've heard them say um it's

2:56:42 ↗ it's the best crime prevention

2:56:44 ↗ mechanism because if you um are you know

2:56:46 ↗ if they're trying to find someone who's

2:56:48 ↗ uh on the run then the motion lights can

2:56:51 ↗ really lead them to that so there are

2:56:53 ↗ other benefits if the city chooses to

2:56:55 ↗ to require some but again i think the

2:56:57 ↗ thought process is going to be

2:56:59 ↗ where how much um and so on so forth but

2:57:02 ↗ that's a good point

2:57:07 ↗ all right and thank you very much

2:57:09 ↗ commissioner anderson uh was that

2:57:10 ↗ question

2:57:11 ↗ or were your questions answered to your

2:57:13 ↗ satisfaction

2:57:14 ↗ yes excellent uh okay

2:57:17 ↗ uh commissioner richard zargoza next

2:57:22 ↗ you chair uh richard ceragosa um my

2:57:25 ↗ question's around

2:57:26 ↗ um replacing existing

2:57:31 ↗ dock lighting um if we were to do that

2:57:34 ↗ uh is it a situation where we would go

2:57:37 ↗ through and negotiate the replacement of

2:57:38 ↗ each one

2:57:40 ↗ as as a requirement happens or could it

2:57:43 ↗ be something that

2:57:44 ↗ the requirement would be that as as old

2:57:47 ↗ technology fails

2:57:49 ↗ the new better technology is what needs

2:57:52 ↗ to be replaced i mean can we do it in

2:57:54 ↗ phased-in is it

2:57:55 ↗ is there other options as far as

2:57:59 ↗ regulating existing lighting

2:58:03 ↗ it could be phased in um it would be

2:58:07 ↗ it could be difficult to require people

2:58:10 ↗ to replace

2:58:11 ↗ with better technologies as they failed

2:58:13 ↗ because there wouldn't be any way of

2:58:14 ↗ this for the city to know when

2:58:16 ↗ um their current lighting failed but the

2:58:19 ↗ first step would probably

2:58:20 ↗ be to create an inventory of all of the

2:58:23 ↗ lighting that didn't meet the new

2:58:25 ↗ standard

2:58:26 ↗ and then the city could decide on

2:58:30 ↗ a sunset period where you could tell

2:58:33 ↗ folks that they had you know

2:58:34 ↗ two years or a year or whatever to to

2:58:37 ↗ bring their lighting into compliance

2:58:39 ↗ and after that time there could be

2:58:41 ↗ enforcement action for example

2:58:43 ↗ um to force compliance but again that

2:58:47 ↗ that would require knowing where the

2:58:49 ↗ lighting is

2:58:50 ↗ and then monitoring the lighting to make

2:58:53 ↗ sure it comes into compliance

2:58:56 ↗ thank you

2:59:06 ↗ thank you commissioner zargoza uh

2:59:09 ↗ commissioner joy lewis is next

2:59:13 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis here we

2:59:15 ↗ have two questions

2:59:17 ↗ one um when our um when the ppc was

2:59:20 ↗ reviewing sign code

2:59:21 ↗ we had some questions um for our

2:59:24 ↗ compliance officer officer gabrowski

2:59:26 ↗ who's always extremely helpful to us

2:59:28 ↗ about uh lumens and being able to

2:59:30 ↗ regulate

2:59:30 ↗ how bright a sign could be

2:59:34 ↗ and we're informed that there's really

2:59:36 ↗ no way for him to be able to enforce

2:59:38 ↗ that

2:59:38 ↗ and i was curious of in these

2:59:40 ↗ discussions with staff if you guys have

2:59:41 ↗ been talking about creating

2:59:43 ↗ basically a scale of lumens um with

2:59:46 ↗ lighting to be able to

2:59:48 ↗ i know we talked about color and things

2:59:49 ↗ like that but basically of how we create

2:59:51 ↗ a compliance

2:59:52 ↗ um element that doesn't currently exist

3:00:01 ↗ um i could take a stab at that one um

3:00:04 ↗ lumens are a tricky thing because

3:00:07 ↗ brightness is relative at night

3:00:09 ↗ and so if you have a bright sign

3:00:12 ↗ in a really dark environment and then

3:00:14 ↗ you have that same bright sign in an

3:00:16 ↗ environment that's got a lot of ambient

3:00:18 ↗ light in it

3:00:19 ↗ it won't seem so bright and so it's very

3:00:23 ↗ difficult to say

3:00:24 ↗ something at a certain number of lumens

3:00:27 ↗ is too bright or not bright enough

3:00:29 ↗ because it depends on what's happening

3:00:31 ↗ all around it

3:00:33 ↗ so when katie was explaining about the

3:00:36 ↗ lighting zones

3:00:37 ↗ zero through four um a sign in a

3:00:40 ↗ zero um environment

3:00:44 ↗ with even a tiny bit of light could seem

3:00:46 ↗ like it's

3:00:47 ↗ the brightest thing in the world and

3:00:49 ↗ that same sign

3:00:50 ↗ in a zone 4 would be hardly even look

3:00:53 ↗ like it was lit

3:00:55 ↗ so so that's why it's it's difficult to

3:00:58 ↗ use

3:00:58 ↗ lumens as a measurement of

3:01:02 ↗ comparison in an exterior nighttime

3:01:05 ↗ environment

3:01:08 ↗ um so how do we basically create a way

3:01:11 ↗ for

3:01:12 ↗ um for developers to need to adhere

3:01:15 ↗ to what the community's desires are

3:01:19 ↗ so yeah it's it's

3:01:22 ↗ it's tough but one of the ways that that

3:01:26 ↗ you know that seems to me to be more

3:01:27 ↗ effective would be to describe the kinds

3:01:30 ↗ of signage elements that are either

3:01:32 ↗ acceptable or not acceptable so you

3:01:35 ↗ might

3:01:35 ↗ you know there are signs types of signs

3:01:38 ↗ that are like halo lit signs where the

3:01:39 ↗ letters are

3:01:41 ↗ um the letters are opaque but light

3:01:43 ↗ leaks out from behind them

3:01:45 ↗ um that's that's what we call a halo lit

3:01:48 ↗ sign

3:01:48 ↗ and then there are other signs that are

3:01:50 ↗ internally illuminated

3:01:52 ↗ and have it translucent plastic for both

3:01:55 ↗ the letter and the background

3:01:57 ↗ and those can those are generally

3:01:59 ↗ considered to be quite bright

3:02:01 ↗ and then there are signs where the

3:02:03 ↗ letters are translucent but the

3:02:04 ↗ background is opaque

3:02:06 ↗ and and that's kind of a medium

3:02:07 ↗ condition and so what

3:02:10 ↗ what could happen instead is

3:02:13 ↗ the sign standards could say certain

3:02:16 ↗ kinds of signage are acceptable

3:02:18 ↗ and certain kinds of signage are not

3:02:20 ↗ acceptable and that can include

3:02:22 ↗ colors and it can include

3:02:25 ↗ the relative size of the sign as well so

3:02:27 ↗ those things can be

3:02:29 ↗ there can be sort of formulas or ratios

3:02:32 ↗ developed that can

3:02:36 ↗ regulate those sorts of things it's not

3:02:38 ↗ as straightforward

3:02:40 ↗ but it's probably more effective in

3:02:43 ↗ terms of controlling

3:02:44 ↗ overall brightness within an area

3:02:47 ↗ okay thank you i'm curious um something

3:02:50 ↗ that i've been talking with staff about

3:02:52 ↗ for years

3:02:53 ↗ has been the fact that isaqua is an

3:02:55 ↗ extreme

3:02:56 ↗ light polluter compared to its

3:02:58 ↗ surrounding communities

3:03:00 ↗ we score very badly in this area and one

3:03:02 ↗ of the reasons is that we don't have a

3:03:04 ↗ consistent lighting standard so i'm

3:03:05 ↗ really excited that we're addressing

3:03:07 ↗ this

3:03:08 ↗ and i'm curious i didn't see any

3:03:10 ↗ reference right now

3:03:12 ↗ to specifically to like a um a dark

3:03:14 ↗ skies friendly

3:03:15 ↗ lighting because there there is an

3:03:18 ↗ aggressive regulation that can happen

3:03:20 ↗ where things can be

3:03:21 ↗ fully lit but lit in a way that can

3:03:24 ↗ fully complies with safety standards we

3:03:26 ↗ need for our community but also adheres

3:03:28 ↗ to what is needed for

3:03:29 ↗ wildlife to be able to thrive in our

3:03:31 ↗ area but i didn't see us actually

3:03:32 ↗ mentioning

3:03:33 ↗ we mentioned that that's a benefit but i

3:03:35 ↗ didn't actually see us putting it

3:03:37 ↗ in as being a requirement that we're

3:03:38 ↗ going to have all lighting be dark skies

3:03:42 ↗ compliant and i'm curious what kind of

3:03:43 ↗ discussions were happening about that

3:03:45 ↗ well um actually a lot of the city of

3:03:49 ↗ issaquah is dark sky compliant

3:03:52 ↗ most of the roadway lighting is not but

3:03:55 ↗ most of the lighting on private

3:03:56 ↗ developed

3:03:57 ↗ property actually is um and it's

3:04:00 ↗ actually

3:04:01 ↗ believe it or not much better than many

3:04:03 ↗ of the cities surrounding it

3:04:04 ↗ um issaquah has been paying attention to

3:04:06 ↗ it for a lot of years and

3:04:09 ↗ that's part of the review process as

3:04:12 ↗ as properties are getting permitted

3:04:15 ↗ it doesn't mean it can't be improved but

3:04:18 ↗ but it's definitely been

3:04:19 ↗ part of the review process for quite a

3:04:22 ↗ while

3:04:24 ↗ so are we looking at actually putting

3:04:26 ↗ into the code the exact

3:04:28 ↗ dark skies um i think it i think there's

3:04:31 ↗ an actual i guess

3:04:32 ↗ the dark skies initiative or a line yeah

3:04:40 ↗ there's something that's called the

3:04:40 ↗ model lighting ordinance that's um

3:04:42 ↗ co-sponsored by the dark skies

3:04:44 ↗ association in the illuminating

3:04:46 ↗ engineering society

3:04:47 ↗ and that's one of the reference

3:04:48 ↗ documents that was included in your

3:04:49 ↗ packet

3:04:50 ↗ um i'm curious if we're actually looking

3:04:53 ↗ at putting that language

3:04:55 ↗ right now i didn't see that as putting

3:04:57 ↗ as in it wasn't in our gaps analysis and

3:04:59 ↗ it wasn't

3:05:00 ↗ um but it was referenced so that's why i

3:05:01 ↗ was trying to understand where the

3:05:02 ↗ conversation was right now

3:05:08 ↗ i think that that we used that um

3:05:11 ↗ reference document

3:05:12 ↗ as as one of the best practice documents

3:05:15 ↗ that we would be incorporating into the

3:05:16 ↗ update so yes we will be looking at that

3:05:20 ↗ and incorporating those regulations into

3:05:23 ↗ the update

3:05:24 ↗ fantastic thank you denise and katie

3:05:32 ↗ okay thank you very much uh commissioner

3:05:34 ↗ lewis and commissioner

3:05:36 ↗ nina milligan where's yours

3:05:39 ↗ thank you chair fall this is nina

3:05:41 ↗ milligan again

3:05:42 ↗ i have four questions uh

3:05:46 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis for driving

3:05:48 ↗ the point home about the dark sky

3:05:51 ↗ standards because i um my questions have

3:05:55 ↗ to do with supporting

3:05:56 ↗ that objective one of them was

3:06:00 ↗ do we have directional standards

3:06:03 ↗ throughout the city like we do

3:06:05 ↗ in issaquah highlands for um lighting

3:06:09 ↗ that's one question the other is

3:06:14 ↗ i'm just going to rattle them off and

3:06:15 ↗ then you guys can because these are

3:06:16 ↗ simple you'll remember them you can go

3:06:17 ↗ through

3:06:18 ↗ do we have directional standards already

3:06:20 ↗ are we looking at um

3:06:21 ↗ broadening them number two how do we

3:06:24 ↗ handle enforcement on private property

3:06:26 ↗ you know a lot of things we're talking

3:06:27 ↗ about has to do with street lighting or

3:06:29 ↗ park lighting or something like that

3:06:31 ↗ but if a resident or um commercial

3:06:34 ↗ property

3:06:35 ↗ seems to violate our standard

3:06:39 ↗ is this where enforcement would go

3:06:43 ↗ number three is are we looking

3:06:46 ↗ at adding standards such as

3:06:50 ↗ using solar power for

3:06:53 ↗ the energy source for some of our

3:06:56 ↗ outdoor lighting i know there

3:06:57 ↗ are some really great uh technology

3:07:00 ↗ available today that we could

3:07:02 ↗ add and the last one is the most

3:07:05 ↗ difficult one that has to do with our

3:07:06 ↗ vision talks about what we want our

3:07:08 ↗ outdoor lighting for

3:07:09 ↗ and none of it is sports fields yet

3:07:13 ↗ sports fields are the ones that seem to

3:07:15 ↗ be

3:07:16 ↗ piercing the night sky more than

3:07:18 ↗ anything else and i live in issaquah

3:07:20 ↗ island so i can tell you they are

3:07:22 ↗ also adjacent to open spaces and

3:07:25 ↗ critical areas

3:07:26 ↗ and i just don't know how this happens

3:07:29 ↗ i don't know how to stop happening in

3:07:31 ↗ the future can you speak to

3:07:34 ↗ what we can do in regards to this

3:07:37 ↗ community demand for lighting sports

3:07:39 ↗ fields

3:07:40 ↗ thank you

3:07:46 ↗ so denise maybe you can handle the

3:07:48 ↗ directional

3:07:49 ↗ standards um and then

3:07:54 ↗ the sports fields or maybe just take a

3:07:56 ↗ shot at any of them that you want to

3:07:58 ↗ handle and i'll

3:07:59 ↗ handle the ones you don't want to sure

3:08:01 ↗ um

3:08:02 ↗ commissioner million can i just ask you

3:08:04 ↗ for a clarification on the directional

3:08:05 ↗ standards i'm not quite sure i followed

3:08:07 ↗ what you're

3:08:08 ↗ getting at there uh yeah i think it's in

3:08:12 ↗ the development agreements in the

3:08:15 ↗ especially in the urban villages that

3:08:17 ↗ are on the hillside such as talis and

3:08:18 ↗ isoqua highlands that um

3:08:20 ↗ up lighting is not allowed in any way

3:08:22 ↗ and so there are um

3:08:25 ↗ diagrams and other things that uh

3:08:27 ↗ illustrate this sort of lighting that

3:08:29 ↗ is capped on the top for directional

3:08:30 ↗ lighting down

3:08:32 ↗ does that good of a um but there's an

3:08:35 ↗ effort to do that

3:08:36 ↗ okay i know i understand what you're

3:08:37 ↗ saying um yes um that's one of the

3:08:39 ↗ things we want to do is unify

3:08:41 ↗ the standards so across the entire city

3:08:45 ↗ every it's basically the same

3:08:46 ↗ requirement so no up lights

3:08:49 ↗ anywhere and and make that so that it's

3:08:52 ↗ not

3:08:52 ↗ um by neighborhood um

3:08:55 ↗ so yes and then on the sports field one

3:09:00 ↗ um i've only been involved in um

3:09:03 ↗ i actually do the reviews for the city

3:09:05 ↗ um when when people have

3:09:06 ↗ uh put projects in and i've only been

3:09:09 ↗ involved in one

3:09:10 ↗ um sports field and um

3:09:13 ↗ it was for one of the schools uh

3:09:17 ↗ and and and this is a real um sort of

3:09:20 ↗ um it's a it's a tough one because

3:09:23 ↗ people really want their sports fields

3:09:25 ↗ to be able to be used beyond

3:09:27 ↗ daylight hours um because there's such

3:09:30 ↗ pressure from the community to have

3:09:33 ↗ sports fields available

3:09:35 ↗ but at the same time they can be very

3:09:38 ↗ big problems in terms of light pollution

3:09:40 ↗ the good news is that the the new led

3:09:44 ↗ technology

3:09:45 ↗ is really excellent at um

3:09:48 ↗ keeping the light on the sports field

3:09:51 ↗ and not allowing it to spill beyond

3:09:53 ↗ the older technologies that we had

3:09:56 ↗ available really couldn't be controlled

3:09:57 ↗ in the same way

3:10:00 ↗ and so and the other thing that's really

3:10:02 ↗ nice about leds is that

3:10:04 ↗ they're instant on and instant off they

3:10:06 ↗ don't have any warm-up time like the

3:10:08 ↗ older technologies did

3:10:10 ↗ so they can be um very

3:10:13 ↗ carefully shielded um that doesn't mean

3:10:16 ↗ that you're not gonna get

3:10:17 ↗ bounce light off the surface sorry about

3:10:19 ↗ that

3:10:20 ↗ someone just arrived at my house and my

3:10:22 ↗ dog's excited um

3:10:24 ↗ it doesn't mean that there won't be some

3:10:26 ↗ um

3:10:28 ↗ some bounce light from it um but the

3:10:30 ↗ best i think the best way of addressing

3:10:32 ↗ that is through

3:10:33 ↗ timing so when people want to build a

3:10:35 ↗ sports field and they want to light it

3:10:36 ↗ at night

3:10:37 ↗ have restrictions on when those lights

3:10:39 ↗ can be turned on

3:10:41 ↗ um you know this the fields themselves

3:10:43 ↗ have to be turned off maybe within 15

3:10:45 ↗ minutes of when the event ends

3:10:47 ↗ and the light that allows people to get

3:10:49 ↗ out of the park which is a different set

3:10:50 ↗ of lights

3:10:51 ↗ can be on for maybe half an hour after

3:10:53 ↗ the event ends and then

3:10:55 ↗ everyone knows that's what the deal is

3:10:57 ↗ and so that minimizes

3:11:00 ↗ the the time when the pollution occurs

3:11:04 ↗ and and so things like that can be put

3:11:06 ↗ into place and built into the

3:11:08 ↗ regulations and i know for the school

3:11:09 ↗ that we worked on

3:11:11 ↗ that was actually part of the agreement

3:11:13 ↗ in order to get those lights in was that

3:11:14 ↗ they had to have a certain

3:11:16 ↗ there was a timing issue related to it

3:11:22 ↗ so um kitty i'll let you answer the

3:11:24 ↗ solar power question and the enforcement

3:11:26 ↗ question

3:11:27 ↗ okay um i think for enforcement

3:11:30 ↗ um i think this is just a general

3:11:32 ↗ enforcement answer not

3:11:33 ↗ not necessarily specific to lighting um

3:11:36 ↗ but

3:11:36 ↗ usually enforcement is is complaint

3:11:39 ↗ based

3:11:40 ↗ so someone would need to either a member

3:11:42 ↗ of the community or even a

3:11:44 ↗ member of the city staff who may be out

3:11:47 ↗ in

3:11:47 ↗ on an inspection or whatever wouldn't

3:11:49 ↗ would notify the enforcement officer

3:11:51 ↗ that a light

3:11:52 ↗ is not complying with the lighting

3:11:55 ↗ standards and at that point the

3:11:56 ↗ enforcement officer would

3:11:58 ↗ would engage with the property owner and

3:12:01 ↗ ask them to come into compliance and

3:12:04 ↗ then there's

3:12:04 ↗ a series of elevations if they don't

3:12:07 ↗ comply

3:12:08 ↗ um but i don't want to quote those

3:12:10 ↗ because i don't think that i'll be

3:12:11 ↗ correct

3:12:12 ↗ coding off the top of my head um and

3:12:14 ↗ then in terms of

3:12:16 ↗ solar powered lighting that would be a

3:12:19 ↗ specific lighting

3:12:20 ↗ solution we haven't talked about that as

3:12:23 ↗ something that we would require but it's

3:12:26 ↗ definitely an

3:12:26 ↗ option that we could consider um

3:12:29 ↗ learning more about

3:12:30 ↗ um to see whether or not it would be a

3:12:33 ↗ good solution for

3:12:35 ↗ uh for a light to make

3:12:38 ↗ we would want to make sure that

3:12:42 ↗ there would be a backup because a light

3:12:44 ↗ would also need to we would need to make

3:12:46 ↗ sure it performed its function

3:12:47 ↗ for safety so we we may need to

3:12:50 ↗ know more about the technology to make

3:12:52 ↗ sure that there was a backup in the case

3:12:54 ↗ of

3:12:54 ↗ the solar um cells were not charged

3:12:57 ↗ enough to

3:12:58 ↗ illuminate the space

3:13:21 ↗ ron you're muted

3:13:25 ↗ never good talking to myself um

3:13:29 ↗ thank you very much uh consultant coats

3:13:31 ↗ and commissioner milligan

3:13:33 ↗ uh i do have a question and that is from

3:13:35 ↗ a solar standpoint can't we source

3:13:38 ↗ um alternative energy from

3:13:41 ↗ psc presently make that part of our

3:13:44 ↗ policy so we can

3:13:45 ↗ implement some environmental

3:13:52 ↗ benefit

3:13:55 ↗ to our current lighting strategy

3:14:01 ↗ i don't know the answer to that question

3:14:03 ↗ whether the city can source

3:14:05 ↗ clean energy from psc directly someone

3:14:07 ↗ else from the city know the answer uh

3:14:10 ↗ you know i don't

3:14:11 ↗ um but in terms of these are you know

3:14:13 ↗ these are standards uh well megan

3:14:15 ↗ turner uh megan do you know do you want

3:14:17 ↗ to take that one

3:14:19 ↗ sure this is megan curtis murphy um

3:14:23 ↗ so the city does source um renewable

3:14:26 ↗ energy

3:14:26 ↗ for 95 of our operations through puget

3:14:30 ↗ sound energy

3:14:31 ↗ through a program called green direct um

3:14:33 ↗ so that's for our operations

3:14:35 ↗ and then um residents are able to buy

3:14:38 ↗ into

3:14:39 ↗ a program called green power through

3:14:41 ↗ puget sound energy

3:14:43 ↗ that helps support that as well that's

3:14:45 ↗ an optional program for residents

3:14:47 ↗ or businesses

3:14:52 ↗ excellent thank you very much uh making

3:14:53 ↗ curtis murphy hey

3:14:55 ↗ um with that said we are

3:14:59 ↗ gonna close out the commissioner

3:15:01 ↗ questions or comments

3:15:03 ↗ uh and then we'll go ahead and open up

3:15:05 ↗ to

3:15:08 ↗ public comments based on this topic and

3:15:10 ↗ kristin do we have any

3:15:11 ↗ members from the top from the public who

3:15:14 ↗ would like to make a comment

3:15:16 ↗ yes connie marsh would like to speak

3:15:19 ↗ funny you are unmuted

3:15:22 ↗ okay so it's connie marsh again so first

3:15:25 ↗ thing if we're going to do light we need

3:15:27 ↗ to do noise because our noise

3:15:30 ↗ our noise code is impossible to enforce

3:15:34 ↗ and ridiculously poor so

3:15:38 ↗ um thanks for the dark skies thing

3:15:41 ↗ from other people some of the other

3:15:44 ↗ issues that we have had with

3:15:46 ↗ light is actually interior light

3:15:49 ↗ that seeps out of buildings especially

3:15:53 ↗ parking garages

3:15:55 ↗ and create

3:15:59 ↗ lighting issues even though it's not

3:16:02 ↗ exterior

3:16:03 ↗ lighting and so that needs to have some

3:16:05 ↗ controls put on it

3:16:07 ↗ actually it was not clear that this was

3:16:10 ↗ also public lighting so i would like to

3:16:13 ↗ have some clarification

3:16:15 ↗ as to what part of this lighting is all

3:16:18 ↗ about public lighting as compared to

3:16:21 ↗ private lighting because we have many

3:16:24 ↗ places in our town

3:16:25 ↗ where it is dark as dark can be

3:16:29 ↗ no lights not safe and somehow

3:16:32 ↗ we have never decided that we should fix

3:16:36 ↗ that as a public policy

3:16:40 ↗ so what are our standards for exterior

3:16:43 ↗ lighting in

3:16:44 ↗ public areas in this town

3:16:47 ↗ for safety and have we ever had that

3:16:50 ↗ conversation

3:16:51 ↗ and we also have a freeway that goes

3:16:53 ↗ through the center of our town and

3:16:55 ↗ everybody wants to be seen from the

3:16:58 ↗ freeway

3:16:59 ↗ so we need to address this lighting as

3:17:02 ↗ it pertains to the freeway

3:17:05 ↗ as a topic of conversation

3:17:08 ↗ and um you know docklighting

3:17:11 ↗ i i don't know do we actually have a

3:17:13 ↗ problem with dock lighting has anybody

3:17:15 ↗ gone out to see how many people have

3:17:17 ↗ lights on their docks and whether they

3:17:19 ↗ are on timers that automatically

3:17:22 ↗ cut off at a certain time or i because

3:17:26 ↗ i'm not i don't know if there's a

3:17:27 ↗ problem or not i don't know if anybody

3:17:29 ↗ knows there's a problem

3:17:31 ↗ or not and i also don't know how

3:17:34 ↗ or who is going to enforce that i

3:17:36 ↗ suppose you could just go visit

3:17:38 ↗ doc parties that would be pretty fun

3:17:41 ↗ part of that i think needs to be

3:17:43 ↗ education for everybody who lives around

3:17:45 ↗ a critical area

3:17:46 ↗ they need to understand what lighting

3:17:50 ↗ does

3:17:51 ↗ for the animals uh

3:17:54 ↗ and and our natural environment

3:17:58 ↗ and i think we're absolutely breast

3:18:01 ↗ of education on lighting as it impacts

3:18:04 ↗ natural areas in this town

3:18:06 ↗ i so uh is this a code

3:18:10 ↗ is this a code issue i don't know if we

3:18:13 ↗ are trying to solve a problem

3:18:15 ↗ i think it is part of the solution

3:18:18 ↗ whether it can be codified or not

3:18:22 ↗ and of course light impacts

3:18:26 ↗ everyone so when you say you're going to

3:18:28 ↗ put light in

3:18:29 ↗ zones i don't

3:18:32 ↗ i don't really see how putting lights

3:18:35 ↗ in zones doesn't impact people

3:18:38 ↗ outside of those zones so i'm gonna have

3:18:42 ↗ to understand

3:18:44 ↗ what that means because i i i guess that

3:18:47 ↗ was gibberish to me

3:18:50 ↗ and that could just be my brain so then

3:18:52 ↗ the last thing

3:18:54 ↗ is public lighting like school feels and

3:18:58 ↗ that brings me

3:18:59 ↗ to the concept of elevation because just

3:19:02 ↗ like with noise

3:19:03 ↗ light is an elevation issue so while you

3:19:06 ↗ think it's a cut off

3:19:08 ↗ the person who is down slope from you

3:19:10 ↗ because we're filled with terrain

3:19:12 ↗ doesn't feel like that's a cut off they

3:19:14 ↗ feel like it's glaring into their living

3:19:15 ↗ room windows

3:19:17 ↗ and so when you make these standards

3:19:21 ↗ they have to be in context with the ele

3:19:25 ↗ surrounding elevations and that is huge

3:19:28 ↗ so when you get to let's do an example

3:19:31 ↗ the uh school parking lot that had the

3:19:34 ↗ surprise

3:19:35 ↗ lights on 2nd avenue with people

3:19:39 ↗ downslope from them when the school

3:19:41 ↗ district said they weren't going to have

3:19:42 ↗ any lights and then they put them up

3:19:45 ↗ like how the heck did that happen

3:19:48 ↗ how do we ever keep that do we keep that

3:19:50 ↗ from ever happening again

3:19:52 ↗ and how do we create a consistent

3:19:55 ↗ community process for when you are

3:19:57 ↗ putting in public lighting that is going

3:20:00 ↗ to

3:20:00 ↗ impact people so that they have their

3:20:03 ↗ say

3:20:04 ↗ in an elegant and streamlined way where

3:20:07 ↗ their lives

3:20:08 ↗ are are not harmed and i haven't heard

3:20:10 ↗ much about

3:20:12 ↗ processes in all of this code

3:20:16 ↗ and keeping the community intertwined

3:20:20 ↗ in what is happening so that they can

3:20:22 ↗ speak

3:20:23 ↗ and make it so that it doesn't impact

3:20:25 ↗ their own lives

3:20:27 ↗ is a tremendous thing especially when

3:20:29 ↗ you're talking about

3:20:30 ↗ playing fields um and so i would add

3:20:33 ↗ that

3:20:34 ↗ as a as a a topic for

3:20:38 ↗ all of the points that you have

3:20:40 ↗ discussed is what is the process

3:20:42 ↗ and has it how does it interface with

3:20:46 ↗ the community thank you

3:20:55 ↗ is there anyone else from the public who

3:20:56 ↗ would like to speak at this time if so

3:20:58 ↗ please raise your hand

3:21:00 ↗ or let me know in the chat

3:21:07 ↗ there is no one else who would like to

3:21:08 ↗ speak okay excellent

3:21:11 ↗ and we're going to hold off our comments

3:21:13 ↗ until uh

3:21:14 ↗ or write them in we're going to go and

3:21:17 ↗ move on to the next topic

3:21:19 ↗ and minnie the floor is yours again

3:21:42 ↗ i can just jump in this one's me um

3:21:45 ↗ if that's okay with you minnie

3:21:48 ↗ uh so here we are we've made it to the

3:21:51 ↗ last section

3:21:52 ↗ um congratulations to all of you i hope

3:21:54 ↗ everyone's still awake

3:21:55 ↗ i'm gonna do an abbreviated version

3:21:57 ↗ because i think most folks have had a

3:21:59 ↗ chance to review

3:22:00 ↗ um the memo and the slideshow at this

3:22:02 ↗ point but

3:22:03 ↗ in general i just want to introduce this

3:22:06 ↗ topic as

3:22:07 ↗ um as the beginning of a conversation

3:22:10 ↗ that we're hoping

3:22:11 ↗ will be um very interactive and

3:22:15 ↗ and ultimately really successful in

3:22:17 ↗ incorporating the goals

3:22:19 ↗ that is on of sustainability and climate

3:22:22 ↗ resiliency into the land use code

3:22:24 ↗ um as i mentioned the climate action

3:22:26 ↗ plan is currently being developed

3:22:28 ↗ um we're working really closely with

3:22:31 ↗ megan

3:22:31 ↗ and her folks to understand what those

3:22:34 ↗ goals are

3:22:35 ↗ um and how they are specifically

3:22:39 ↗ applicable to the land use code and

3:22:43 ↗ my goal with this presentation is to

3:22:45 ↗ begin to discuss

3:22:46 ↗ how some options for integrating

3:22:49 ↗ sustainable planning into the land use

3:22:51 ↗ code

3:22:52 ↗ um and sharing some examples of how

3:22:55 ↗ other

3:22:55 ↗ cities have done that so next slide

3:23:00 ↗ so there are many vision there are many

3:23:02 ↗ um long-range

3:23:03 ↗ plans goals strategic plan policies

3:23:06 ↗ a lot in issaquah that talks about

3:23:09 ↗ wanting to be a leader in sustainability

3:23:11 ↗ um so we've taken all of those into

3:23:13 ↗ account there's very little

3:23:15 ↗ on specifically how to integrate

3:23:18 ↗ sustainability into land use code though

3:23:21 ↗ next slide

3:23:23 ↗ um so i think our understanding of

3:23:26 ↗ sustainability is that we are

3:23:29 ↗ prioritizing conservation of resources

3:23:32 ↗ so that resources will be available for

3:23:35 ↗ future generations

3:23:36 ↗ next slide a couple climate words

3:23:40 ↗ when we talk about climate mitigation

3:23:42 ↗ we're talking about reducing greenhouse

3:23:44 ↗ gases

3:23:44 ↗ and trying to mitigate the cause of

3:23:48 ↗ climate change which has

3:23:49 ↗ been found to be greenhouse gas

3:23:51 ↗ emissions climate adaptation

3:23:53 ↗ means strategies that

3:23:57 ↗ help us to live in a in a changing world

3:24:01 ↗ helping us to be more resilient to

3:24:06 ↗ extreme weather events to natural

3:24:08 ↗ hazards and then climate resilience

3:24:10 ↗ is the ability to thrive

3:24:14 ↗ in this changing climate world next

3:24:17 ↗ slide

3:24:18 ↗ so just wanted to quickly put this up

3:24:20 ↗ here to show

3:24:21 ↗ some of the different sources of

3:24:23 ↗ emissions from washington state

3:24:25 ↗ we didn't have this information for

3:24:27 ↗ issaquah unfortunately but this was

3:24:29 ↗ helpful just to see that the largest

3:24:31 ↗ share comes from transportation sources

3:24:33 ↗ followed by

3:24:34 ↗ from building sources and then that

3:24:36 ↗ third green

3:24:37 ↗ pie piece is a combination of many

3:24:40 ↗ different sources of

3:24:41 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions

3:24:44 ↗ and the bulleted items are strategies

3:24:47 ↗ that

3:24:48 ↗ one could use to reduce greenhouse gas

3:24:51 ↗ emissions

3:24:51 ↗ some of those have to do with landy's

3:24:53 ↗ planning

3:24:54 ↗ like where we build houses in

3:24:57 ↗ relationship to transportation

3:24:59 ↗ modes of transportation and jobs and

3:25:01 ↗ services

3:25:02 ↗ um some have to do with building codes

3:25:06 ↗ and others have to do with

3:25:09 ↗ transportation networks

3:25:11 ↗ and and others next slide

3:25:14 ↗ and then we also recognize that nature

3:25:16 ↗ plays a huge role in

3:25:18 ↗ being climate resilient nature

3:25:21 ↗ plays has the ecosystem functions of

3:25:24 ↗ nature have

3:25:25 ↗ um climate benefits from providing shade

3:25:28 ↗ from extreme heating events to carbon

3:25:30 ↗ sequestration of trees

3:25:32 ↗ to helping with storm water um

3:25:36 ↗ helping with pollution and flood

3:25:38 ↗ management through smart storm water

3:25:40 ↗ practices and preserving habitats

3:25:44 ↗ that also serve ecosystem functions next

3:25:47 ↗ slide

3:25:49 ↗ um so state law currently doesn't have

3:25:51 ↗ any

3:25:52 ↗ clear rules for land use planning and

3:25:55 ↗ climate

3:25:56 ↗ um there may be some coming down the

3:25:58 ↗ line

3:25:59 ↗ um with gma updates that might that are

3:26:01 ↗ kind of in the works right now the state

3:26:04 ↗ does have some guidance

3:26:06 ↗ for increasing housing diversity

3:26:09 ↗ especially close to transit stops which

3:26:12 ↗ we're looking at

3:26:13 ↗ next slide i'm not going to go through

3:26:17 ↗ this

3:26:17 ↗ basically this is just reiterating that

3:26:19 ↗ a lot of

3:26:20 ↗ issaquah's um long-range policies

3:26:24 ↗ and city council priorities um

3:26:27 ↗ intersect with ways that we can be more

3:26:29 ↗ sustainable and climate resilient

3:26:31 ↗ next um this

3:26:35 ↗ lists some of the draft climate action

3:26:37 ↗ plan strategies that the environment

3:26:39 ↗ board is familiar with these just came

3:26:41 ↗ out in the last

3:26:42 ↗ few weeks none of them specifically

3:26:45 ↗ addressed land use policies so that

3:26:47 ↗ could be an area where we could discuss

3:26:49 ↗ more but

3:26:50 ↗ um at this point we're talking about

3:26:52 ↗ energy efficiency

3:26:54 ↗ um land use of transportation um

3:26:58 ↗ co-locating transit and near um

3:27:02 ↗ services and

3:27:05 ↗ being water

3:27:09 ↗ conserving resources in general uh next

3:27:12 ↗ slide

3:27:14 ↗ so i just wanted to point out a couple

3:27:16 ↗ cities that we looked into

3:27:18 ↗ um and how they uh addressed

3:27:20 ↗ sustainability in their

3:27:21 ↗ codes uh olympia's main focus was on

3:27:24 ↗ integrating um missing middle housing

3:27:27 ↗ and and

3:27:28 ↗ placing lots of housing close to transit

3:27:30 ↗ stops

3:27:31 ↗ um kirkland has um has really focused on

3:27:35 ↗ building out their

3:27:36 ↗ active transportation network and um

3:27:40 ↗ and prioritizing um

3:27:44 ↗ transit and green building and low

3:27:45 ↗ impact development um

3:27:48 ↗ and then redmond is also

3:27:52 ↗ done maybe is maybe the strongest on

3:27:54 ↗ green building in infrastructure and it

3:27:56 ↗ has provided a lot of incentives

3:27:58 ↗ for additional landscaping and green

3:28:01 ↗ roofs

3:28:01 ↗ um and uh rainwater collection

3:28:05 ↗ and that type of thing next slide

3:28:09 ↗ um so a lot of the the

3:28:12 ↗ action items on this slide are actually

3:28:15 ↗ parts of

3:28:15 ↗ other topics of the code update tree

3:28:18 ↗ density

3:28:18 ↗ and retention we'll talk about the next

3:28:21 ↗ education

3:28:22 ↗ session we've talked a lot about

3:28:24 ↗ critical areas today

3:28:26 ↗ parking um we will address it at a

3:28:28 ↗ future session as well so

3:28:30 ↗ we are doing some of these some of this

3:28:32 ↗ planning

3:28:33 ↗ through different topics um but it's all

3:28:36 ↗ part of a

3:28:37 ↗ strategy for the land use code as a

3:28:40 ↗ whole

3:28:41 ↗ so part of what we're trying to figure

3:28:42 ↗ out right now is

3:28:44 ↗ how is the what framework to use in the

3:28:47 ↗ land use code

3:28:48 ↗ to reflect that we're trying to be

3:28:51 ↗ leaders in sustainability

3:28:53 ↗ and to make sure that the public and and

3:28:55 ↗ those using the code

3:28:56 ↗ understand that um there will be lots of

3:28:59 ↗ different strategies that contribute to

3:29:01 ↗ sustainability

3:29:02 ↗ and the question we're coming to you

3:29:05 ↗ with is

3:29:06 ↗ um should we take

3:29:09 ↗ one approach where we just integrate

3:29:11 ↗ these strategies that we're developing

3:29:14 ↗ that are more climate resilient and

3:29:15 ↗ climate friendly into the land use code

3:29:17 ↗ in general

3:29:18 ↗ and then our code as a whole is um

3:29:22 ↗ more sustainable or or and or perhaps

3:29:26 ↗ do we create a system whereby developers

3:29:29 ↗ have to

3:29:31 ↗ meet a certain level of performance

3:29:35 ↗ of these climate strategies and maybe

3:29:38 ↗ it's both

3:29:38 ↗ that's something that we're considering

3:29:40 ↗ right now next slide

3:29:44 ↗ um so again one option would be

3:29:47 ↗ comprehensive revisions

3:29:49 ↗ this is um similar to the approach that

3:29:52 ↗ um olympian kirkland took they just

3:29:55 ↗ decided that they were going to be

3:29:56 ↗ leaders in certain areas and they made

3:29:58 ↗ their code very robust in those areas

3:30:00 ↗ or i think it was redmond i may be

3:30:02 ↗ getting it mixed up it's ten o'clock

3:30:04 ↗ um or do we do an approach where um

3:30:07 ↗ there's a menu of options and developers

3:30:10 ↗ can choose which ones they want to

3:30:12 ↗ perform

3:30:13 ↗ higher in um in order to

3:30:16 ↗ achieve the rating that the city

3:30:18 ↗ requires for their project

3:30:21 ↗ and that's the end of my uh presentation

3:30:29 ↗ and thank you very much

3:30:31 ↗ consultant coach let's go ahead and open

3:30:33 ↗ it up to commissioner

3:30:42 ↗ questions

3:30:48 ↗ and we have a question from commissioner

3:30:50 ↗ milligan

3:30:53 ↗ i'm awake now this is commissioner

3:30:55 ↗ milligan

3:30:56 ↗ thank you for staying up with me and

3:30:58 ↗ this is such an important topic and i do

3:31:00 ↗ hope that our

3:31:01 ↗ um fellow commissioners from

3:31:03 ↗ environmental board will chime in

3:31:05 ↗ with um their questions or comments

3:31:07 ↗ because we do as commissioner lewis said

3:31:09 ↗ earlier would love to hear from you

3:31:11 ↗ that's why you're in the room with us

3:31:12 ↗ right now um i have a couple questions

3:31:17 ↗ one has to do with a conflict in my mind

3:31:20 ↗ that commissioner lewis brought up

3:31:22 ↗ earlier on page 13 of our packet it says

3:31:24 ↗ that

3:31:26 ↗ this title 18 is not going to deal with

3:31:28 ↗ energy efficiency

3:31:30 ↗ or other things in building standards

3:31:31 ↗ and yet in the powerpoint slide

3:31:34 ↗ we sounds like we might have the

3:31:36 ↗ opportunity to

3:31:37 ↗ regulate based on requiring

3:31:39 ↗ certifications for leed certified or

3:31:41 ↗ built green

3:31:42 ↗ and that other cities have done that so

3:31:45 ↗ i'd like to hear that clarified

3:31:48 ↗ i also want to ask about increasing

3:31:49 ↗ residential density

3:31:51 ↗ i don't understand why that's mentioned

3:31:53 ↗ here number one i think it's targeting

3:31:55 ↗ single family neighborhoods and singer

3:31:57 ↗ family neighborhoods

3:31:59 ↗ are one of our greatest contributors to

3:32:02 ↗ tree canopy and increasing density in

3:32:05 ↗ single family neighborhoods would erode

3:32:06 ↗ our tree canopy

3:32:07 ↗ the other thing is is that increasing

3:32:09 ↗ density in our single family

3:32:11 ↗ neighborhoods doesn't solve the problem

3:32:13 ↗ of why they're car dependent they're car

3:32:14 ↗ dependent because they don't have any

3:32:15 ↗ other uses in them

3:32:17 ↗ so i'm just wondering why we're even

3:32:19 ↗ talking oh and one other reason i wonder

3:32:21 ↗ why we're talking about

3:32:22 ↗ um increased residential density we

3:32:25 ↗ already have

3:32:26 ↗ more way more residential capacity

3:32:30 ↗ already in our building capacity in

3:32:32 ↗ central issaquad than our growth targets

3:32:35 ↗ um so i i'm wondering why that's uh

3:32:37 ↗ being mentioned those are my two

3:32:40 ↗ things that i thought you guys might

3:32:41 ↗ help me with tonight thank you

3:32:44 ↗ sure um so um

3:32:47 ↗ the reason that we mentioned the green

3:32:50 ↗ building

3:32:52 ↗ in in the examples

3:32:55 ↗ is because it is a way of encouraging

3:32:59 ↗ sustainability and climate resilience

3:33:02 ↗ and it's adjacent to the land use code

3:33:05 ↗ because the land use code is you know

3:33:07 ↗ the rules the

3:33:09 ↗ land rules that underlie development but

3:33:11 ↗ eventually a building will be built

3:33:13 ↗ and that will need to meet the building

3:33:15 ↗ code and

3:33:16 ↗ and the zoning code and all of the

3:33:19 ↗ setbacks and all the development

3:33:20 ↗ standards

3:33:21 ↗ they're all related to the building code

3:33:24 ↗ um

3:33:26 ↗ we can't change we're not going to be

3:33:28 ↗ changing the building codes through this

3:33:29 ↗ title 18 process

3:33:31 ↗ but we can still create a framework

3:33:34 ↗ um so that when someone comes in for

3:33:37 ↗ development

3:33:38 ↗ and they need a land use permit the land

3:33:41 ↗ use code

3:33:42 ↗ will have different standards that they

3:33:44 ↗ need to meet and it's not unlike

3:33:46 ↗ um you know if if if

3:33:49 ↗ a resident or a commercial development

3:33:52 ↗ came in

3:33:53 ↗ we would tell them you need to meet the

3:33:55 ↗ storm water code

3:33:57 ↗ that you know that could be in the land

3:33:58 ↗ use code and then they would need to go

3:34:00 ↗ to that different place to do it

3:34:02 ↗ so i think what we would be encouraging

3:34:05 ↗ um is a framework that envisioned

3:34:08 ↗ eventually

3:34:08 ↗ um you know if the city does update

3:34:11 ↗ their building codes or there's some

3:34:14 ↗ outside certification

3:34:17 ↗ as a land use requirement we could have

3:34:19 ↗ as a standard that they meet this higher

3:34:21 ↗ green building standard um we wouldn't

3:34:24 ↗ be creating that standard as a part of

3:34:26 ↗ this

3:34:28 ↗ update it would be created by others but

3:34:30 ↗ we could reference it

3:34:31 ↗ and require it um

3:34:35 ↗ as a strategy i guess

3:34:38 ↗ but at this point that that doesn't

3:34:41 ↗ exist

3:34:42 ↗ yet i don't know if megan wants to chime

3:34:44 ↗ in with more details

3:34:46 ↗ on green building in particular

3:34:51 ↗ maybe maybe not while she's thinking

3:34:54 ↗ maybe i can

3:34:54 ↗ um well go ahead and yeah i can step in

3:34:58 ↗ took me a minute with the camera

3:35:00 ↗ uh this is megan um yes i think you know

3:35:03 ↗ green building standards is something

3:35:05 ↗ we've we've thought about in the city in

3:35:07 ↗ the past um looking at the sustainable

3:35:09 ↗ building action strategy

3:35:11 ↗ um the the highlands i think as as you

3:35:14 ↗ know

3:35:14 ↗ has had some green building standards up

3:35:16 ↗ there

3:35:17 ↗ we've done incentives in the past for

3:35:21 ↗ trying to encourage green building and

3:35:22 ↗ we've gotten some out of there but we

3:35:24 ↗ haven't gone to

3:35:25 ↗ to require it at this time um so that is

3:35:29 ↗ something

3:35:30 ↗ that could be discussed more if that was

3:35:32 ↗ something people are interested in

3:35:34 ↗ um but as uh katie was saying the

3:35:38 ↗ um the code updates would need to be

3:35:41 ↗ um it could be something that was

3:35:44 ↗ required in the land used overall but if

3:35:46 ↗ we were just looking at energy code or

3:35:47 ↗ something like that that would be

3:35:49 ↗ something that was more in the building

3:35:50 ↗ code

3:35:51 ↗ and wouldn't be able to be required in

3:35:52 ↗ the land use code

3:35:57 ↗ and then to address your question about

3:35:59 ↗ changes to residential density

3:36:02 ↗ i think it's it's not it's not so much

3:36:05 ↗ the density that's important but it's

3:36:07 ↗ the location of the density in relation

3:36:09 ↗ to

3:36:10 ↗ other services the goal is to reduce

3:36:13 ↗ vehicle miles travel

3:36:14 ↗ that's that's the the goal of increasing

3:36:16 ↗ density but you don't

3:36:17 ↗ want to increase density way out you

3:36:20 ↗ know

3:36:22 ↗ 10 miles away from any services or

3:36:24 ↗ transit you would want to focus density

3:36:27 ↗ to places where more density could be

3:36:29 ↗ added near services or transit lines or

3:36:32 ↗ places of employment um

3:36:34 ↗ so people could drive less basically

3:36:38 ↗ and i think that there could still be

3:36:40 ↗ ways to

3:36:42 ↗ integrate density into a single family

3:36:44 ↗ neighborhood without

3:36:45 ↗ eroding the tree canopy through design

3:36:48 ↗ standards

3:36:49 ↗ um and perhaps if

3:36:53 ↗ if the city's finding that that there

3:36:55 ↗ are places that

3:36:57 ↗ are separate from services and

3:37:00 ↗ non-residential uses that could be

3:37:02 ↗ another conversation to have is

3:37:05 ↗ is it appropriate to add different uses

3:37:07 ↗ in areas that right now are only

3:37:14 ↗ residential

3:37:21 ↗ okay and thank you very much uh

3:37:24 ↗ commissioner milligan

3:37:25 ↗ and commissioner joy lewis has a

3:37:28 ↗ question

3:37:30 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis and

3:37:32 ↗ thank you to nina for those awesome

3:37:33 ↗ questions

3:37:34 ↗ um and for katie for those responses

3:37:36 ↗ that was really helpful

3:37:37 ↗ um when i was looking at this at these

3:37:40 ↗ options of one and two

3:37:41 ↗ i couldn't help but think about um some

3:37:43 ↗ of the history we have for how we have

3:37:45 ↗ previously

3:37:46 ↗ um in our country tried to address this

3:37:49 ↗ right and i couldn't help but think

3:37:50 ↗ about things like a carbon tax where

3:37:52 ↗ that money that polluters pay in rarely

3:37:54 ↗ go to the communities that are being

3:37:56 ↗ polluted

3:37:57 ↗ and i have concerns right now about this

3:37:59 ↗ point system

3:38:00 ↗ is incredibly vague to me right i think

3:38:03 ↗ it's incredibly intriguing

3:38:04 ↗ i think that it could have a lot of

3:38:06 ↗ fantastic benefits

3:38:07 ↗ and ways that we're not constraining

3:38:10 ↗ growth in our community and that we're

3:38:12 ↗ encouraging right because that's what we

3:38:13 ↗ really want is to be able to get

3:38:15 ↗ somewhere

3:38:15 ↗ fast right now on this topic right

3:38:18 ↗ rather than having

3:38:19 ↗ onerous things that really slow down the

3:38:21 ↗ process we want to figure out how do we

3:38:22 ↗ really

3:38:23 ↗ start making huge strides and quickly so

3:38:26 ↗ i love the idea of the point system but

3:38:28 ↗ right now i felt like in my packet i

3:38:30 ↗ wasn't presented

3:38:31 ↗ with enough to be able to say yeah this

3:38:33 ↗ is really encouraging i like this

3:38:35 ↗ what i saw instead was a lot of pitfalls

3:38:37 ↗ where developers were able to kind of

3:38:38 ↗ pick and choose and kind of hit a little

3:38:40 ↗ a little bit and have us not really be

3:38:43 ↗ reaching the aggressive goals that we

3:38:44 ↗ need to be

3:38:45 ↗ so the next time that we see this i'd

3:38:47 ↗ really like more information

3:38:49 ↗ about the structure of what this looks

3:38:51 ↗ like and to really

3:38:53 ↗ um also have kind of a commitment from

3:38:55 ↗ the city one way or the other

3:38:57 ↗ of maybe even you're asking like how how

3:38:59 ↗ um stringent should this be

3:39:01 ↗ um in a point system but i'd really like

3:39:04 ↗ to

3:39:04 ↗ deep dive more into this it's hard for

3:39:06 ↗ me to say option one or two

3:39:09 ↗ because um i think it could be very easy

3:39:12 ↗ for developers to kind of go well

3:39:14 ↗ give you a little bit and let's go okay

3:39:15 ↗ that's great i want us to see how do we

3:39:18 ↗ pair

3:39:19 ↗ this kind of menu of options while also

3:39:22 ↗ pairing um

3:39:23 ↗ the needs of the community and so i'd

3:39:25 ↗ love to get more on it

3:39:27 ↗ thank you

3:39:30 ↗ thank you commissioner

3:39:34 ↗ we have a question from commissioner

3:39:36 ↗ fetch

3:39:38 ↗ thank you chair paul finch speaking um

3:39:42 ↗ so the first question should the city

3:39:45 ↗ pursue a city-wide strategy by

3:39:47 ↗ integrating sustainability into multiple

3:39:49 ↗ code chapters i'm curious like

3:39:51 ↗ it is what's the alternative is that

3:39:54 ↗ like

3:39:54 ↗ not doing anything like i'm trying to

3:39:56 ↗ figure out what's the b

3:39:58 ↗ to that a or like what are the what's

3:40:00 ↗ the option there

3:40:01 ↗ is it really that it would just be only

3:40:03 ↗ a performance-based standard for

3:40:05 ↗ title 18 or building or what what sort

3:40:08 ↗ of the alternative that we should be

3:40:09 ↗ considering there

3:40:14 ↗ i think one way or the other as a result

3:40:17 ↗ of the climate action plan

3:40:18 ↗ the city will be um integrating

3:40:22 ↗ well just by modernizing the code and

3:40:25 ↗ and incorporating best practices we'll

3:40:27 ↗ be elevating

3:40:28 ↗ the level of the code somewhat i think

3:40:31 ↗ the question

3:40:32 ↗ maybe could have been turned around

3:40:34 ↗ should there be a point system or not

3:40:37 ↗ um because i think we probably

3:40:40 ↗ we are not going to do nothing so the

3:40:44 ↗ question is

3:40:44 ↗ do how do we want to

3:40:48 ↗ present the solution to the community so

3:40:51 ↗ that people understand how

3:40:53 ↗ issaquah is leading in sustainability is

3:40:55 ↗ it we

3:40:56 ↗ have these hallmark sections of the code

3:41:00 ↗ that we can point to and say we've

3:41:01 ↗ developed this really great

3:41:03 ↗ parking section or this really great

3:41:05 ↗ tree section

3:41:06 ↗ or do we say we've developed this

3:41:10 ↗ issaquah sustainability score and that's

3:41:13 ↗ how we're

3:41:14 ↗ going to be showing

3:41:17 ↗ the performance for sustainability

3:41:23 ↗ thank you thank you commissioner finch i

3:41:28 ↗ don't see any additional questions here

3:41:31 ↗ oh we do

3:41:32 ↗ one question came in from commissioner

3:41:34 ↗ nancy davidson

3:41:37 ↗ thank you very much this is nancy

3:41:39 ↗ davidson um i guess the question i have

3:41:41 ↗ about

3:41:42 ↗ um the point system that you're talking

3:41:44 ↗ about which is kind of intriguing

3:41:47 ↗ but um it seems to me that it would tie

3:41:50 ↗ into if you're talking sustainability

3:41:52 ↗ into

3:41:52 ↗ pretty much most of the subjects we've

3:41:54 ↗ covered tonight

3:41:56 ↗ you know water soils buffers

3:41:59 ↗ all of that which makes it even more

3:42:02 ↗ intriguing

3:42:02 ↗ if you can tie it into more subjects

3:42:05 ↗ than building efficiency

3:42:09 ↗ vehicle efficiency that you know light

3:42:13 ↗ that type of thing so i guess if that's

3:42:15 ↗ the approach

3:42:16 ↗ that maybe the ppc thinks they might

3:42:19 ↗ want to go or however the council

3:42:21 ↗ decides to go

3:42:22 ↗ i hope that it's considered in a broader

3:42:24 ↗ context to bring

3:42:25 ↗ in you know water and other pieces into

3:42:28 ↗ it because

3:42:29 ↗ kind of an intriguing idea and it gives

3:42:31 ↗ an opportunity

3:42:32 ↗ for property owners or business

3:42:35 ↗ developers to be more creative in how

3:42:37 ↗ they do

3:42:38 ↗ this thing in terms of i can save a lot

3:42:40 ↗ more trees

3:42:41 ↗ or do a lot more recycling or whatever

3:42:44 ↗ the case may be

3:42:45 ↗ and maybe i hate to say this

3:42:49 ↗ impact buffers more i know i didn't

3:42:51 ↗ really mean that but

3:42:53 ↗ anyway but there are some trade-offs

3:42:54 ↗ that they can make along the way

3:42:56 ↗ that if we're creative with this thing

3:42:58 ↗ could end up with a win for the city

3:43:01 ↗ just a comment sorry and a question

3:43:08 ↗ okay and thank you very much

3:43:09 ↗ commissioner davidson i

3:43:11 ↗ do not see any additional questions here

3:43:14 ↗ so that wraps it um

3:43:17 ↗ going once twice

3:43:21 ↗ okay so it looks like we are going to

3:43:24 ↗ move on to the next topic here which on

3:43:27 ↗ the agenda

3:43:28 ↗ is going to be

3:43:31 ↗ excuse me ron did you want to do any

3:43:33 ↗ public comment after this topic

3:43:35 ↗ um sure we can go ahead and open up the

3:43:37 ↗ public comment

3:43:38 ↗ this would be general public comment so

3:43:41 ↗ it does not have to be related to the

3:43:43 ↗ topics we discussed

3:43:45 ↗ uh christian are there any members of

3:43:47 ↗ the public that would like to

3:43:50 ↗ speak tonight um honey

3:43:53 ↗ if you

3:43:56 ↗ okay you know i'm confused connie if you

3:43:59 ↗ would like

3:44:00 ↗ thank you honey has a comment just a

3:44:02 ↗ moment please

3:44:04 ↗ honey you're unmuted

3:44:07 ↗ okay so am i am i hearable now

3:44:13 ↗ yes you are okay so uh

3:44:16 ↗ checklist right remember leads checklist

3:44:20 ↗ and pretty soon your checklist turned

3:44:23 ↗ into

3:44:24 ↗ code and so people could be

3:44:27 ↗ leads gold by following

3:44:31 ↗ minimal code and you got to me

3:44:35 ↗ leads platinum and i for those that i'm

3:44:38 ↗ sorry for those of you who don't know

3:44:40 ↗ leads it's a checklist where you get to

3:44:44 ↗ do more in

3:44:47 ↗ environmentally friendly things with

3:44:50 ↗ your

3:44:50 ↗ development and qualify for

3:44:54 ↗ a a a social

3:44:57 ↗ bonus because you've achieved this level

3:45:00 ↗ of goodness

3:45:01 ↗ um by doing more things on the checklist

3:45:05 ↗ and those things are like recycled

3:45:07 ↗ materials

3:45:08 ↗ their their efficiencies they're all the

3:45:11 ↗ stuff so

3:45:12 ↗ we had a fire station that was lead

3:45:15 ↗ platinum

3:45:17 ↗ leed platinum used recycled materials

3:45:22 ↗ like 99 impervious surface

3:45:26 ↗ and three trees and said to themselves

3:45:30 ↗ well we are hot fit and i said

3:45:33 ↗ what are you talking about you did three

3:45:36 ↗ freaking

3:45:37 ↗ trees and you were telling me that you

3:45:40 ↗ are an

3:45:40 ↗ environmentally friendly development and

3:45:43 ↗ now the city has

3:45:44 ↗ touted you as platinum for the last

3:45:48 ↗ 10 years like woo hoo the city is hot

3:45:51 ↗ fit because we have a platinum building

3:45:54 ↗ and so i am particularly jaundiced with

3:45:58 ↗ the idea

3:45:59 ↗ of checklists because they age

3:46:02 ↗ you can't keep up and people get to pick

3:46:05 ↗ and

3:46:06 ↗ choose and people tend to pick and

3:46:08 ↗ choose things

3:46:09 ↗ that allow them for more development

3:46:12 ↗ or more area and that leaves the

3:46:16 ↗ natural environment behind

3:46:19 ↗ and so for me i'm a hard no

3:46:23 ↗ on a checklist um

3:46:26 ↗ they and i would be more interested in

3:46:29 ↗ something more prescriptive because uh

3:46:33 ↗ if you talk to the master builders

3:46:37 ↗ they love a checklist because they can

3:46:41 ↗ get away with

3:46:41 ↗ murder um and i'm too tired to go back

3:46:45 ↗ to the other things i talked about

3:46:47 ↗ i i this is way too many topics for one

3:46:50 ↗ night to have any cogent comments

3:46:52 ↗ and i'm a little disappointed that i

3:46:54 ↗ didn't get to hear

3:46:56 ↗ you all comments i only got to heard

3:46:58 ↗ your questions

3:46:59 ↗ so as a member of the public i have no

3:47:01 ↗ idea what you're thinking and

3:47:04 ↗ um and and i thought through this whole

3:47:09 ↗ meeting in hopes that i would hear what

3:47:11 ↗ you all

3:47:11 ↗ are thinking so next time i would say

3:47:14 ↗ three topics

3:47:16 ↗ at the max because this is just this was

3:47:19 ↗ overwhelming and you notice i'm the only

3:47:22 ↗ person from the public talking

3:47:24 ↗ and that is a failure of public

3:47:26 ↗ engagement

3:47:27 ↗ to my mind so

3:47:30 ↗ i would say

3:47:33 ↗ do don't do it this way ever again for

3:47:37 ↗ the rest of the time of the city history

3:47:40 ↗ thank you

3:47:46 ↗ there's anyone else from the public that

3:47:48 ↗ would like to speak please raise your

3:47:49 ↗ hands

3:47:58 ↗ there's no one else who would like to

3:47:59 ↗ speak

3:48:03 ↗ all right and thank you very much

3:48:04 ↗ kristen so i'm going to go ahead and

3:48:05 ↗ close out public comment

3:48:06 ↗ at 10 18 and we are going to move into

3:48:10 ↗ reports so kristin what are some of the

3:48:14 ↗ reports today

3:48:16 ↗ i think the only report that i have many

3:48:18 ↗ may have more i noted it in your

3:48:21 ↗ packets and the environment

3:48:23 ↗ environmental board may be interested as

3:48:24 ↗ well

3:48:25 ↗ that the sign code the latest version of

3:48:28 ↗ the sign code is going to the

3:48:30 ↗ tuesday september 20th council study

3:48:32 ↗ session at seven o'clock so you

3:48:34 ↗ all may want to tune in um they did ask

3:48:37 ↗ if you all wanted it to come back here

3:48:39 ↗ to ppc for another review and you all

3:48:41 ↗ said nope that's okay

3:48:42 ↗ um so you may still then be interested

3:48:44 ↗ in tune in on tuesday night

3:48:47 ↗ minnie do you have anything else nope

3:48:49 ↗ nothing to add

3:48:51 ↗ excellent okay uh next topic is other

3:48:54 ↗ business and announcements kristin

3:48:57 ↗ um yeah i'll try and go through this

3:48:59 ↗ quickly and we need to do this before

3:49:00 ↗ the next meeting now

3:49:02 ↗ there has been a request by the public

3:49:03 ↗ who has apparently talked to other

3:49:05 ↗ people

3:49:06 ↗ they have requested that public comment

3:49:09 ↗ come first

3:49:10 ↗ and it's then up to you if you want to

3:49:13 ↗ have public comment

3:49:15 ↗ during or after the topics like we did

3:49:17 ↗ tonight

3:49:18 ↗ so you know i suppose if some people

3:49:21 ↗ just want to comment and then not have

3:49:23 ↗ to listen to the whole meeting that

3:49:24 ↗ would be one reason

3:49:25 ↗ or they just want to get it off their

3:49:27 ↗ chest so but i talked to the clerk's

3:49:29 ↗ office and in order to change the agenda

3:49:31 ↗ that way this is something that you all

3:49:32 ↗ need to

3:49:33 ↗ discuss and vote on

3:49:36 ↗ so if you all wouldn't mind doing that

3:49:40 ↗ we can get this settled before our next

3:49:41 ↗ meeting i know it's late shouldn't take

3:49:43 ↗ long

3:49:44 ↗ now would this also uh

3:49:47 ↗ would this motion affect the

3:49:51 ↗ environmental board as well no it would

3:49:54 ↗ not

3:49:54 ↗ so the environmental board would not

3:49:55 ↗ vote okay it would be

3:49:57 ↗ our six members yeah our six members who

3:50:00 ↗ are here and richard zaragoza would vote

3:50:02 ↗ as an alternate

3:50:04 ↗ and so the the motion here is to

3:50:08 ↗ or basically the topic is do we want to

3:50:11 ↗ um

3:50:11 ↗ change the agenda so that the public has

3:50:14 ↗ public comments

3:50:15 ↗ at the beginning of uh

3:50:19 ↗ ppc before we talk about the topics

3:50:23 ↗ correct that's the way council and most

3:50:25 ↗ other boards and commissions do that

3:50:26 ↗ because they held public comment at the

3:50:28 ↗ beginning of the meeting

3:50:30 ↗ okay uh i'm gonna ask the commissioners

3:50:33 ↗ of ppc if they

3:50:34 ↗ would like to make a motion for that

3:50:43 ↗ i have not seen anyone who wants to make

3:50:45 ↗ a motion for that

3:50:48 ↗ we do have a comment from commissioner

3:50:50 ↗ milligan

3:50:52 ↗ good i may have missed commissioner

3:50:54 ↗ lewis there too

3:50:55 ↗ thank you lewis first

3:50:58 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis i

3:51:00 ↗ really should have gone after nina she

3:51:02 ↗ always makes my job so much easier

3:51:04 ↗ um i will i would be a proponent if

3:51:07 ↗ others are

3:51:08 ↗ um a fan of making a motion to add an

3:51:10 ↗ additional public comment

3:51:12 ↗ um to our agenda if um members feel that

3:51:15 ↗ they're

3:51:16 ↗ better able to interact with us by

3:51:18 ↗ having a preemptive public session

3:51:20 ↗ but i am against changing the format

3:51:22 ↗ right now as it exists

3:51:24 ↗ um right now on council for instance and

3:51:26 ↗ taking it away i think there's a

3:51:28 ↗ fantastic

3:51:28 ↗ opportunity for people to be able to get

3:51:31 ↗ a response from what staff

3:51:32 ↗ is presenting the questions that are

3:51:34 ↗ being asked in the dialogue

3:51:36 ↗ and and being able to have people keep

3:51:38 ↗ pace with

3:51:39 ↗ you know often we have multiple things

3:51:40 ↗ on our agenda

3:51:42 ↗ and so rather than um changing the

3:51:44 ↗ format the only thing that i would

3:51:46 ↗ consider

3:51:46 ↗ um would be to add an additional space

3:51:49 ↗ um right now

3:51:50 ↗ for public comment but otherwise i'm

3:51:52 ↗ against it

3:51:54 ↗ mr milligan before you speak i've had a

3:51:56 ↗ request to allow the environmental board

3:51:58 ↗ to please be dismissed if they would

3:51:59 ↗ like

3:52:02 ↗ thank you all very very much for

3:52:04 ↗ participating thank you for your

3:52:06 ↗ participation it was great

3:52:07 ↗ uh comments by august 3rd yeah thank you

3:52:12 ↗ thank you all so much appreciate

3:52:14 ↗ everyone's time

3:52:21 ↗ all right hey commissioner

3:55:32 ↗ everyone thank you

3:56:23 ↗ 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 (1)

Administration/

Staff (1)

Ron Faul, Chair Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Sara Bader Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Joy Lewis Megan Curtis-Murphy, Sr. Sust. Coord. Nina Milligan Christina Merten, Herrera & Associates Matt Monahan Katie Cote, BHC Consultants Richard Zaragoza, Alternate (voting as Alex Capron, The Watershed Company regular member) Doug Yormick, Assistant Planner PPC Commissioners Not Present: Denise Fong, Stantec Jason Voiss, Vice Chair (Excused) Jim Johnson, Golder Associates Environmental Board Members Present: Nancy Davidson, Chair Env. Board Members Not Present: Jamie Finch, Vice Chair Cameron Fisher Dani Madan (youth/young adult member) Anne Newcomb (excused) Don McQuilliams Rishi Hazra (youth/young adult member) Dan Hintz Lara Lebeiko Janet Wall, Alternate Tom Anderson, Alternate Surya Bollapragada, Alternate (youth/young adult member)