Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, July 9, 2015 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Jun 24, 2015

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Contacts Created in 1983, this commission serves as a policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah’s Staff Liaison future growth through continued review and improvement to the Trish Heinonen, Planning City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related land use Manager documents. Email

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Meeting Minutes from April 23, 2015 have been deferred to the next meeting

3. AGENDA ITEMS

PUBLIC HEARING: Lakeside Industries Rezone and Code Amendment

Dave Favour, Deputy Director, Development Services Department · packet pp.5–20

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Jun 24, 2015

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

1. There are two pieces to this proposal to be reviewed by Planning Policy Commission. They are:

681 segments .txt ↗

0:17 ↗ what the issue is tonight that we're approving. Good evening. And welcome

0:23 ↗ to the July 9th meeting of the Planning Policy Commission. Tonight we are going to

0:29 ↗ have a public meeting, yeah, public hearing on the request from Lakeside

0:35 ↗ Industries for rezone and code amendment changes. Before we have

0:41 ↗ the open, the public hearing, I don't know why I can't do this, public hearing,

0:47 ↗ Dave Favre is going to explain what is being requested. So Dave, please take it

0:52 ↗ away. Thank you. Thank you. I'll do some explaining and then

0:58 ↗ if the applicant would like to explain as well. But I'll get started. Ready? Here

1:04 ↗ we go. So this is a request by Lakeside Industries for a rezone and a

1:09 ↗ code amendment. And I've got ten or so slides to describe the project for you.

1:13 ↗ So... Here we go. So here's the site.

1:19 ↗ Lakeside, you all know where the gravel pit is. I call it the gravel pit

1:22 ↗ at the base of the Issaquah Highlands area. The portion we're looking at is kind

1:28 ↗ of the lower portion of that lakeside industry. So this mouse will work here. The

1:34 ↗ upper portion is covered under a previous development agreement that was approved by

1:40 ↗ council a couple years ago. Here's the site.

1:45 ↗ Louder. Louder? Okay, Louder, thank you. That's in your packet. The

1:51 ↗ background, as I already said, is Lakeside's been operating for several decades, the mining

1:57 ↗ and asphalt concrete processing on this property. A development agreement was adopted by Council

2:03 ↗ January of 2013 to envision the redevelopment of the upper portion of

2:09 ↗ this Lakeside property. to urban uses, and we can talk

2:15 ↗ about that more if there are questions on that. In that development agreement on

2:21 ↗ page five with the text up on the screen, the council and Lakeside agreed that

2:26 ↗ a second step, which is what we're going through today, is to work on a

2:32 ↗ rezone of the lower portion of the location to

2:38 ↗ rezone and do a code amendment to envision that change to IC,

2:45 ↗ intensive commercial zoning, and to continue the processing uses and the mining uses that

2:52 ↗ are already occurring there. So that was in 2013, and then the last

2:57 ↗ bullet there says that June 24th, two weeks ago, the Development Commission heard this

3:03 ↗ proposal as is required by our land use code, and held a community

3:09 ↗ conference, which is kind of similar to our conference tonight.

3:15 ↗ There are two parts of this request. One is to rezone it from mineral resources,

3:21 ↗ or M, to IC, and the second is a code amendment in the IC zone

3:25 ↗ to allow two uses that are in the table today. It's mineral extraction and processing

3:31 ↗ of asphalt and concrete. So I'll start with the rezone request.

3:37 ↗ The purpose of these zones out of our code gives us some direction. The M

3:43 ↗ Zone is clearly, I'd say, for extraction, for mining. It's kind of a pretty narrow

3:48 ↗ focus. The IC Zone allows greater uses of office, retail, and intensive

3:54 ↗ commercial, which you can make an argument, the mining operation falls in that subset of

3:59 ↗ intensive commercial uses. So it kind of makes sense to go to that zone.

4:07 ↗ Here is the zoning map that, thank you very much, Lakeside provided Kind of showing

4:12 ↗ how it all works out here. So I'll just run the mouse around.

4:18 ↗ Most of this here is the lakeside properties. The urban village

4:24 ↗ envisions the redevelopment over many decades going up the hills, so that's the development agreement.

4:30 ↗ And then over many decades down in the valley floor, lakeside envisions it

4:36 ↗ going more to the intensive commercial uses. And that is the IC zone that's in

4:41 ↗ this crosshatch pattern that surrounds the south and the west side

4:48 ↗ of the properties. So take the IC and kind of

4:54 ↗ spread it out towards those three properties here, those three parts of lakeside.

5:01 ↗ So that's the zoning request. The code amendment proposal I've mentioned is to allow

5:08 ↗ the mining property operations to continue in this zone and also the processing of asphalt

5:13 ↗ concrete to continue. And in case people are concerned, oh, we're gonna allow mining and

5:19 ↗ these uses to go through all the IC zone properties, the answer would be no.

5:24 ↗ This is a footnote in the table to say it's only to continue the uses

5:28 ↗ that have existed prior to August 2 of 1999, which is Lakeside. So that

5:34 ↗ kind of narrows that scope. Here is what the actual

5:40 ↗ amendment looks like on the table of permitted uses. Isn't that lovely?

5:46 ↗ The red right here, and down in the footnote here

5:52 ↗ are the two text changes. And I've got two items to highlight for you. This

5:57 ↗ is a little different than what's in your packet. So it's a correction and a

6:03 ↗ clarification. The correction is that in your packet, The number two was

6:09 ↗ placed in, I think, this box over here by mistake, a big mistake by me.

6:15 ↗ So we don't want that in the open space zone. It should appropriately

6:21 ↗ be in the IC zone. So it would say mineral extracting and asphalt concrete mixing

6:26 ↗ are both permitted uses in the IC zone, you know, IC up here.

6:33 ↗ And then this footnote is the actual text to say Yes, these two uses

6:39 ↗ may continue as outright uses in the IC zone only for

6:45 ↗ those uses that existed prior to August 2 of 1999 and subject to the

6:52 ↗ mining regulations that are on our codebook already. There's a long list

6:59 ↗ of development standards that these operations need to adhere to, and so those

7:05 ↗ would continue in place. So that's the intent of this table here.

7:12 ↗ There are criteria for rezones in the code, and I'll just say we, for the

7:17 ↗ Development Commission meeting, we wrote a staff report that's in your packet and spells out

7:23 ↗ those specific criteria with the discussion at the end of how we feel it meets

7:27 ↗ those criteria. I picked out some highlights of those criteria here. We feel it meets

7:33 ↗ that there are changed circumstances as Lakeside envisions redevelopment over many decades.

7:39 ↗ I think you'll hear that they're not planning to stop anytime soon, but over time.

7:44 ↗ We have done public notice and we have not received any comments about

7:50 ↗ detrimental effects to adjacent properties. We've done our evaluation and

7:56 ↗ agree with that. We feel it's consistent with the state GMA, Growth Management Act, County-wide

8:01 ↗ policies all the way down to the zoning standards. There are public facilities

8:07 ↗ and services to serve the development adequately and environmental review is occurring

8:13 ↗ on this and we feel that they're adequately mitigated. So we feel it meets the

8:19 ↗ criteria for the proposal. And then finally, what are the next steps?

8:25 ↗ So the administration recommends approval and tonight we're having a hearing PPC then would have

8:31 ↗ discussion. We hope that you have a recommendation tonight. You don't

8:37 ↗ have to. And then council review is anticipated likely in September, October.

8:44 ↗ And that is the description of the project at this time. Any

8:49 ↗ questions? What's the

8:55 ↗ long range if we change it to IC, So it's gonna be MNIC and then

9:00 ↗ 20 years from now with the stipulation of only activities prior to 99.

9:07 ↗ So at some point if it stops mineral extraction,

9:13 ↗ can it just go right into any other type of intensive commercial use? Because it

9:17 ↗ has that. And then it's kinda got a date on there of activities that were

9:20 ↗ prior to 99, which wouldn't be development and it's another type of intensive commercial. I

9:25 ↗ would say so, say it stops or they want to add another use, you know,

9:29 ↗ a retail, an office, some other intensive, that would be subject to the normal permit

9:34 ↗ process of whatever development is proposed, like any development on

9:40 ↗ any property in the city. So you couldn't just go over and say we're going

9:45 ↗ to go do this use tomorrow. Because it's been classified as intensive commercial, but it's

9:48 ↗ limited to the operations as they are now. or in 99. So the mining

9:54 ↗ operations are occurring now, can continue as they always have, but if another use, if

10:00 ↗ you want to desire another use to come and add on, then they would have

10:05 ↗ to submit for permits and go through and show how compliance with our codes,

10:11 ↗ like... That's what I'm saying, intensive commercial includes a lot of different other uses. So

10:16 ↗ that's the question, is what they'd still have to... It's limited to the type of

10:21 ↗ intensive commercial use it has as of 99. No, it's limited to the intensive

10:27 ↗ commercial uses that are in the zoning permitted land use table today. There's a whole

10:32 ↗ host of uses. It feels like there's a conflict with me with that 99 date

10:38 ↗ because it says only those activities that were there. But the code allows a whole

10:42 ↗ lot of other activities. See what I'm saying? If you want to explain, maybe I'm

10:47 ↗ not. Maybe I can explain. Maybe I can explain. Identify

10:52 ↗ yourself. Okay. My name is Timothy Lee, and I'm the CEO at Lakeside. And I'm

10:57 ↗ a member of the family that bought this gravel pit in the early 50s.

11:04 ↗ And we operated under King County's mining zone until 1999,

11:11 ↗ when Issaquah annexed us as a part of the Grand Ridge annexation.

11:18 ↗ At that time, Issaquah did not have a mining zone. And so Issaquah had to

11:24 ↗ create a mining zone in order to accommodate our use. In that

11:30 ↗ Issaquah mining zone, they only allow mining in the city of Issaquah

11:36 ↗ in those places where there was mining before 1999. That's how the 1999 date

11:43 ↗ got into the mix. So I think the 1999 date only only

11:50 ↗ refers to those uses that are allowed under the mining zone. Not the intensive commercial.

11:55 ↗ Correct. Thank you. And so the intensive commercial part is open to

12:01 ↗ other intensive commercial development at a later time when you know, and out the.

12:08 ↗ That's correct. Yes. The mine. Yes. I guess to say it another way is if

12:13 ↗ some other property and intensive commercial wanted to start mining. They couldn't start

12:19 ↗ mining because they hadn't been mining as of August of 1999. Yeah, I'm not worried

12:24 ↗ about new mining coming in. I'm trying to figure out what's going to happen when,

12:27 ↗ you know, if 20 years from now you mined out, then what intensive commercial

12:33 ↗ allows you to go into other development. Right. I think we've got that straightened out.

12:37 ↗ Hello, I'm John Hempelman. I'm the counsel for Lakeside Industries, and great

12:43 ↗ to be here. We were here in front of you two years ago when we

12:45 ↗ spent... almost a year and a half with the city doing the development agreement for

12:50 ↗ the hillside, the Lakeside Urban Village. We were mostly in front of the Development Commission,

12:55 ↗ but we came in front of this body as well. So it's good to be

12:59 ↗ back. And we're doing what the City Council and Lakeside agreed to do. And

13:05 ↗ why are we doing this? It's a little bit technical, but it's not that difficult

13:10 ↗ to explain. Everything that you could see that's Lakeside ownership, the entire gravel

13:16 ↗ mine from up at Highland Drive, 9th Avenue, all the way down to the floor

13:21 ↗ of the valley, was in the mineral zone. So as Tim said, the city

13:26 ↗ created a mineral zone, and there was only one place for the mineral zone, which

13:31 ↗ was Lakeside. And the mineral zone only allowed mining that had been in effect prior

13:36 ↗ to 1999. They didn't want another gravel pit in the city, but they also wanted

13:41 ↗ Lakeside to stay. We heard that even two weeks ago from the members of the

13:47 ↗ Development Commission. They were delighted that we're doing this because they want those jobs to

13:52 ↗ stay there and to provide the product, the concrete and the asphalt that's used to

13:57 ↗ build our region and trucked from a very near area as opposed to way far

14:01 ↗ away. So when we, under the development agreement, the hillside where

14:07 ↗ the mine is was changed from the M Zone to urban

14:13 ↗ village. It permitted continued mining, but it was no longer the M Zone.

14:20 ↗ The processing down at the floor of the valley where the concrete and asphalt is

14:26 ↗ and the crushers and the mixers and the other things that Tim will

14:32 ↗ explain, that was an accessory use. And as you know, in the land use scheme,

14:39 ↗ Accessory uses have to be accessory to a primary zone. So when we

14:44 ↗ eliminate the mineral zone, which will, that's what will happen when the Lakeside Village occurs,

14:50 ↗ there will no longer be a permitted accessory use. And so the city and the

14:54 ↗ city council said, well then let's go ahead now and go ahead and change the

14:59 ↗ use under the zoning code for the processing area. but allow the

15:05 ↗ processing to continue, because we want you to continue, and that could go on for

15:08 ↗ 10, 20, or more years. So we looked around, and the immediate

15:15 ↗ adjacent zone was the intensive commercial. So everything to the south of Lakeside, all the

15:21 ↗ way to I-90, is that IC zone. And some of the property up

15:27 ↗ adjacent is also IC. It was obvious that's what we should use. Some of the

15:32 ↗ existing lakeside property is already zoned IC. But

15:38 ↗ IC did not have a mining use in it because there was a mineral zone.

15:43 ↗ They didn't have to have mineral use in the IC zone. So if we're going

15:48 ↗ to change the zoning from M to IC, we need to amend the

15:53 ↗ code, that chart that Dave showed you, that says that

15:59 ↗ in the IC zone you can have this processing of mineral and

16:05 ↗ asphalt and concrete production and recycling. But we also didn't want, the city didn't want

16:11 ↗ the rest of the IC zone to be open for new mineral processing.

16:17 ↗ And so the way it works and what got your attention was mineral processing would

16:23 ↗ be allowed in the IC zone but only as a continuation. of

16:29 ↗ processing that had been in effect prior to 1999. And so that

16:35 ↗ means you won't have any other concrete asphalt or mining in the IC zone. So

16:41 ↗ this was the perfect solution. We

16:47 ↗ also have to have the development standards that apply to mining

16:53 ↗ to apply to the continuation of the processing that Lakeside is doing.

16:59 ↗ And so, for example, that site today is almost 100% impervious

17:04 ↗ surface. If you're in the IC zone, the maximum you can have is 65%

17:10 ↗ impervious surface. We didn't want to make the existing operation a non-conforming

17:16 ↗ use. So the way this is written, the development standards of the

17:22 ↗ mineral zone will apply to the processing area that is a continuation. of

17:28 ↗ what was there since 1999. As Tim said, it's not several decades, it's back in

17:33 ↗ the 50s when it started. So, Bill, to answer your

17:39 ↗ question, yes, in the future, when the mine is played out and when

17:45 ↗ it's no longer, for whatever reason, effective to process minerals there, and they do today

17:51 ↗ bring in minerals from other parts of the region they bring stuff down from north

17:56 ↗ band and they ship stuff up to north band there will be other uses and

18:00 ↗ just like the other i see that is north and south of the lakeside property

18:06 ↗ it'll be all those intensive commercial uses that would be available for this site uh...

18:13 ↗ and so that's really the the part of the city where you can have this

18:16 ↗ in intensive commercial use and you know our children or grandchildren may see

18:22 ↗ different uses there sometime this century or certainly next century. So

18:27 ↗ that's what we're doing. It turned out to work pretty easily

18:35 ↗ to do what the council on Lakeside agreed in the development agreement that they would

18:39 ↗ do, which is why we're back here. I thought it'd be useful to have Tim.

18:43 ↗ Tim is third generation of the Lee family, his son. fourth generation is working in

18:48 ↗ the company. I mean, it's really kind of that dream scenario of a family company

18:53 ↗ that is, you know, one of the institutions here in Issaquah. Tim is, can tell

18:59 ↗ you what's actually going on there. I don't know if any of you have been

19:01 ↗ out there. It's kind of behind the trees, you know. It's kind of, it's cool.

19:05 ↗ So Tim, you want to just explain what's going on and what your thoughts are

19:09 ↗ on the future? Tim Lee So again, my name is Tim Lee and

19:18 ↗ Maybe it would be helpful to go back a little while. Five years ago,

19:24 ↗ the city came to us and said, what are you guys going to do with

19:28 ↗ that gravel pit when you're done mining? And we said, well, we're not done mining.

19:33 ↗ We're still mining. Well, how long do you think you're going to mine? I said,

19:37 ↗ I don't know. I think maybe there's 20 or 30 more years of gravel there.

19:42 ↗ they said well would you enter into discussions with the city about what you think

19:46 ↗ the future uses might look like you know we talked about as a

19:52 ↗ board and and we thought that collaborating with the city was probably pretty good idea

19:57 ↗ and uh... maybe there were some benefits for the city to understand

20:03 ↗ the future that large piece of property might look like and there were probably might

20:07 ↗ be some advantages for us to have some certainty into what the future might look

20:13 ↗ like. So as we progressed down that road,

20:19 ↗ we ended up with our development agreement on

20:26 ↗ kind of the area that is left to mine. And John explained to you

20:32 ↗ how that's working, but we ended up with our processing area where we,

20:40 ↗ take the gravel that out of the mine, we then screen it,

20:46 ↗ the larger rocks go to what's called a crusher to make smaller rocks, and those

20:51 ↗ rocks are typically used in asphalt mixture. The smaller rocks and sand

20:57 ↗ go to a wash plant where we wash the fine grains of

21:03 ↗ sand out of them and then are segregated into stockpiles so that they can make

21:09 ↗ concrete out of those. And we have also at that site, we have a

21:15 ↗ shop that we share with Cadman Gravel. We have an agreement with them to share

21:19 ↗ our shop services. We have some truck storage.

21:27 ↗ And then when you think about 20 or 30 years down the road, what are

21:32 ↗ we going to do there? Well, we certainly won't be mining when the hillside is

21:37 ↗ done mining. So maybe the processing of the gravel, the crushing and the washing and

21:42 ↗ all those kinds of uses will go away.

21:49 ↗ And so then what are we gonna do with the property? What do we do

21:52 ↗ with it? What kind of uses are appropriate? And in discussions with the city,

21:59 ↗ the solution was to come up with intensive commercial because number one, all our property

22:04 ↗ is surrounded by intensive commercial and then it is the zone most

22:10 ↗ likely to take in the uses that we're

22:18 ↗ that we're doing today with a with some slight modifications I

22:24 ↗ know it's difficult to believe that an asphalt plant and a concrete plant

22:30 ↗ can live in downtown Issaquah next to intensive commercial uses. It may be hard for

22:35 ↗ you to imagine that. However, in some jurisdictions that we operate in, we

22:41 ↗ have an asphalt plant that's the same size as this one that my son

22:47 ↗ runs in Monroe, he runs our Monroe operation, and that asphalt plant

22:54 ↗ is immediately adjacent to Seven Plex Theater and Fred Meyers

23:00 ↗ across the street. And we can live,

23:05 ↗ right, we can be a great neighbor to lots of different uses is my point.

23:11 ↗ So I don't know what we'll do, what my kids might want to

23:17 ↗ do. I'm certainly not going to be here when they decide that. But I think

23:22 ↗ it's good policy for the city to plan for the future. policy for

23:28 ↗ Lakeside to plan for the future and to get some certainty on what they can

23:32 ↗ expect from us and what we can expect from them. So I think that's how

23:36 ↗ this all came about. So I like the idea of planning.

23:42 ↗ It makes it a reasonable option for the city. And I know it

23:48 ↗ could be anything in the future. But right now, your operation right now,

23:54 ↗ is that going to expand at any rate? No. Our operation will stay the same

24:00 ↗ for my tenure. Okay. Okay, so is my tenure 10 years?

24:06 ↗ Is my tenure 20 years? My younger brother now runs the company. He's 10 years

24:10 ↗ younger than I am. I could say for his tenure. So we don't have any

24:14 ↗ plans to do anything different in the lower processing area now.

24:22 ↗ But as John explained, in order to get a new zone on it,

24:28 ↗ in order for us not to be a non-conforming use, and in order to

24:34 ↗ satisfy all those kind of land use challenges,

24:42 ↗ this is the solution that we all came up with. I've always wondered. Well, would

24:48 ↗ you like a tour? I would. Well, I'd love to give you one. We'll take

24:53 ↗ you all out there. It's really pretty interesting. I live right above you. OK. And

24:58 ↗ so when you talk about the hillside and taking it out, I'm thinking, oh. It's

25:03 ↗ pretty steep. So explain to me exactly what it is you're

25:09 ↗ doing, how it backs into the hillside. OK. So first, what I'd tell you

25:15 ↗ is, do we have a pointer? We do. You do? The mouse.

25:22 ↗ Oh, okay. So up here... Do you want an aerial? No, this is fine. So

25:28 ↗ up here, we envision, and this all has

25:34 ↗ not been mined yet, we envision this to be the most

25:39 ↗ intense or maybe the most dense development of our

25:45 ↗ urban village. The mine right now... goes up

25:51 ↗ to about here, like this.

25:58 ↗ And we envision a little more mining up here, and then we'll start

26:05 ↗ filling back in the hillside. And we envision building on that hillside.

26:11 ↗ And we'll engineer the fill as it's done all over the world, and we'll have

26:14 ↗ it done correctly. But we have I think we're permitted for 1,200

26:23 ↗ residential units of which so much has to be commercial and there's a conversion rate

26:28 ↗ for all that kind of stuff that I don't really understand. But anyway, and

26:34 ↗ we have lots of land. The 1,200 units over that much land

26:40 ↗ is not very dense at all. So we're permitted just a small amount of development

26:46 ↗ for a lot of land. If push came to shove and we only wanted to

26:51 ↗ develop up against Ninth Avenue, we could do that too and put all 1,200

26:57 ↗ units right up above. And so I think there's some opportunities.

27:03 ↗ Really what this is about is the city getting an

27:08 ↗ answer of what's it going to look like. What do you guys, we don't want

27:14 ↗ it to look like what it looked like when Reed left, which is a slope.

27:19 ↗ with sprayed on hydro seeding and then it's done. That's

27:25 ↗ not what the city wanted. So we collaborated and tried to figure out what an

27:29 ↗ appropriate solution would be. So did that

27:35 ↗ answer your question? Yeah. Okay. I'm smelling concrete right now. I can't.

27:41 ↗ Well, I'd rather smell asphalt myself. Because that's the business we're in. So technically

27:47 ↗ the mountain is not going to fall down in that fall. No, the mountain is

27:50 ↗ not going to fall down. We live underneath it. The mountain is not going to

27:54 ↗ fall down. I've gotten that question a lot. I'm sure you have. Well, especially

27:59 ↗ after Oso. And I think another point I'll make is that most

28:06 ↗ mines, when they're reclaimed under the state regulations, end up as a two to one

28:11 ↗ slope. So two to one is 45 degrees. This is going to be at the

28:17 ↗ top up by... Could you move over to the microphone? Yeah. They're going to fill

28:23 ↗ this. As Tim said, they're going to engineer and fill it. So at the top,

28:28 ↗ it's a five degree slope. And then it's going to go into a ten degree

28:32 ↗ slope almost all the way down to where the heavy black line is. They're going

28:38 ↗ to backfill that hillside so it's going to be much, much more developable.

28:44 ↗ And you know, you can see various roads coming down. They call it, we call

28:49 ↗ it the Italian Hillside Village. So if you see an Italian village, all of the

28:54 ↗ stuff usually is up at the top, the city is up at the top, and

28:58 ↗ then the residential units float down the hillside. That's what is actually

29:04 ↗ envisioned for the hillside. And it is to be

29:09 ↗ integrated in with what's in the Highlands now. So as Tim said, the

29:15 ↗ commercial right at the top would be adjacent to the Regency, all that commercial

29:21 ↗ Regency has recently developed. And then the residential will go down the hillside.

29:28 ↗ It's a bit off topic for tonight because we spent, as I said, a year

29:32 ↗ and a half doing that, and that's all been approved and signed and sealed and

29:38 ↗ literally ready to be delivered. But that led us to where we had to address

29:43 ↗ this. This was an orphan parcel. When that becomes something other than mining,

29:50 ↗ this had to be something other than mining at the bottom of the hill.

29:57 ↗ I didn't want to pay John to write a new land

30:03 ↗ use code. Anybody else have any questions? I do. I'm going to jump in and

30:06 ↗ I'm going to thank the applicant and his counsel for humoring me with a few

30:08 ↗ of my questions. On page 12, part C, it says that we need a SEPA

30:14 ↗ review, but I don't see anything mentioning that in this review. And while the previous

30:18 ↗ SEPA review that was done for the development agreement is able to be used as

30:21 ↗ a reference, I'm not seeing any new study and I'm not seeing any kind of

30:25 ↗ supplement to the original. Was there any analysis done that hasn't been addressed at all

30:30 ↗ so far? Yes, we have filed an environmental checklist and also

30:36 ↗ have incorporated the environmental review that was done for the earlier development agreement,

30:42 ↗ which is the appropriate way under the city and state SEPA regulations to proceed. So

30:48 ↗ the city has not yet made a threshold determination as to whether or not

30:54 ↗ any further environmental review is necessary. I will tell you that I expect the city

31:00 ↗ to issue a determination of non-significance because while the zoning is

31:06 ↗ changing, the operation will not change at all. There is no change.

31:13 ↗ In the future, 20 or 30 years from now, when we get to the point

31:18 ↗ where Bill was talking about, If a different use was proposed, that

31:24 ↗ would then be subject to the permit process and the SEPA at the time in

31:29 ↗ the future. Is there anything that's going to be happening on site without this new

31:33 ↗ mineral designation or with the rezone, are you completely covered for all the activity that

31:38 ↗ you're doing now? Yeah, so right now we're looking at this duality of both

31:44 ↗ the zone change as well as changing the municipality code. So is there anything right

31:48 ↗ now that's currently being done in business that would not be covered? Right now under

31:51 ↗ the M designation? No, there's nothing new that we're adding. And what are the environmental

31:57 ↗ consequences of proposing this? You don't foresee there being any change in the way that

32:02 ↗ your business interacts in the environment? Absolutely no change. So with this new increase

32:09 ↗ in availability to you from changing the designation from the mineral zone, You

32:14 ↗ don't foresee their ramping up any kind of change in your business. You don't see

32:19 ↗ any increased production in any way. You don't plan on taking advantage of this

32:25 ↗ IC within this next several decades that we're talking about? The IC would give us

32:31 ↗ different uses. Those uses, most of them would interfere

32:37 ↗ with the existing operation. As Tim said, there is 20, maybe 30 years of mining

32:43 ↗ and filling that's still appropriate there. They are in the business of asphalt

32:49 ↗ production, and then they sell this other material to Cadman that does the concrete production.

32:55 ↗ They're both in recycling. They recycle asphalt, and they recycle concrete. So no, there aren't

33:01 ↗ going to be any other uses. As Tim will tell you, it depends on the

33:06 ↗ cycle of construction in the region. but the amount of production they do there

33:12 ↗ fluctuates with the demand and in the case of asphalt with the weather. Since most

33:17 ↗ of a lot of their asphalt is for paving roads, which is hard to do

33:20 ↗ in cold weather. But to answer your question, no change probably

33:26 ↗ in our lifetimes. So is the city currently the nominal lead agency for the

33:32 ↗ SEPA review? Yes. Yes. They're not nominal. They are actually the lead agency. And they

33:38 ↗ don't have a response at this time regarding this matter, since the city is still

33:41 ↗ waiting? I'm not sure why this is before us when we don't know when the

33:45 ↗ city hasn't actually given an official response to the SEPA review. Well, we have received

33:50 ↗ the SEPA checklist. We've received the environmental documents from the previous DA.

33:56 ↗ Our staff are evaluating it. We've done 95% of the evaluation. In fact,

34:02 ↗ I'd say about all of it, and we are basically prepared to issue a DNS,

34:06 ↗ the determination of non-significance. Good, that was my next question, was about the threshold determination.

34:10 ↗ We haven't quite got to that yet. We would prefer to have it done tonight,

34:13 ↗ but due to workloads and other things, it hasn't happened. Sure, but you are planning

34:18 ↗ to have it be a DNS. Absolutely, yes. Okay. So...

34:26 ↗ I guess my next question goes into, is this a phased review of the development

34:31 ↗ agreement? No, the development agreement is finished,

34:38 ↗ and the environmental review for that is done, and the environmental review for the

34:43 ↗ change to the IC zone and the code amendment will be done now, so there

34:48 ↗ is no phasing. When looking at the development agreement, it specifically mentions you guys as

34:54 ↗ being designated zone M for 30 years. It actually specifically says 30, not 20 years.

35:00 ↗ So I'm not sure where that number keeps getting thrown out. But for that 30

35:03 ↗ years, still being classified as an M, so there won't be any amendment to the

35:08 ↗ development agreement with this new rezone? No, because this area is not

35:13 ↗ inside the boundary of the development agreement. This doesn't have any effect on the development

35:18 ↗ agreement except to follow through on the provisions in

35:24 ↗ the development agreement that said the lakeside and the city would change the zoning of

35:29 ↗ this lower processing area. Okay, with the changing of this rezoning, is there anything that's

35:34 ↗ going to be done to monitor any possible increased development within the area since you

35:38 ↗ now have the availability to do that? Are there any ways that the city is

35:43 ↗ checking to see of you guys being able to use this new zoning

35:49 ↗ for your business? none of the uses can change even though the zoning has changed

35:56 ↗ if you approve this recommended to the council and the council change it you can't

36:00 ↗ change any of the uses there without applying for a permit for the new use

36:06 ↗ and have that subject to the code the isquah municipal code for a

36:12 ↗ review of whether or not that use is appropriate whether it's allowed under the zone

36:17 ↗ and what the environmental consequences of that use are The short answer is that's the

36:23 ↗ technical answer. The real answer is the same uses that are there today are what

36:28 ↗ are going to be there tomorrow, next year, and five and ten years from now.

36:34 ↗ So who monitors to see that basically, in theory, if you were

36:39 ↗ able to, and hypothetically, if you were able to increase production, you would be needing

36:44 ↗ to bring in more machinery, you would be needing to then also have a different

36:49 ↗ amount of runoff that you're using. Again, I'm speaking in terms of an environmental impact.

36:53 ↗ So who monitors that within this change of rezoning that the business is actually still

36:58 ↗ adhering to those same? So all, you want to go back? I'll answer it, and

37:03 ↗ Dave, and you can answer it as well. Let's not confuse changing uses with

37:09 ↗ intensifying uses. So we have a permitted use there, which is asphalt and

37:15 ↗ concrete production, mineral processing, asphalt and concrete recycling. That's the

37:21 ↗ use. It does change from time to time, as I mentioned earlier, depending on

37:27 ↗ the demand and on the weather. Well, I think what my question is, is that

37:31 ↗ right now you guys are zoned for it in a much smaller space. By having

37:35 ↗ a larger piece of land that is now, instead of being as an M, is

37:40 ↗ now an IC, you're operating currently under an IC in the areas where you're

37:46 ↗ currently doing work. all of your business operations. So wouldn't it stand for reason that

37:50 ↗ you're able to then ramp up your business in this larger, in your larger, you

37:55 ↗ have a larger space to operate now. Tim, as a practical matter, I don't think

37:59 ↗ it's, you wouldn't add any equipment. You could produce more with what you've got.

38:07 ↗ So I think maybe there's a little bit of confusion. At least maybe I'm confused,

38:12 ↗ but In that area that's outlined that says Lakeside Processing Rezone Area,

38:19 ↗ that's where we crush and wash, make asphalt and make concrete.

38:26 ↗ And we have a repair facility there for trucks and heavy equipment.

38:34 ↗ We don't have room to do anything else. And so we're talking about rezoning that

38:39 ↗ area. We're not going to gain any land. I'm not sure I

38:45 ↗ understand the question of how we could intensify the use or make it different than

38:49 ↗ what it is today. And if we were going to modify the

38:55 ↗ asphalt plant, for example, to make it be able to double its production, we'd have

39:00 ↗ to get a building permit for that. And we'd have to go through a SEPA

39:04 ↗ review, isn't that correct? And we'd have to do all the things that if Mr.

39:09 ↗ Rowley wants to build another building, in his area, he'd have to go through the

39:15 ↗ permitting process and go through all the vetting that is associated with that permitting process

39:20 ↗ before he was able to build another building, even though he has the zoning to

39:25 ↗ build the building today. Can I add to this? I think you're also getting at

39:30 ↗ how do you monitor the activities of the existing operation, and there are state agencies

39:36 ↗ that look at your sand and gravel permit? We have federal agencies, we have state

39:41 ↗ agencies, we have the EPA, we have SWIM, we have probably a list of 25

39:46 ↗ different agencies that monitor what we do. And you have the local government agency that

39:50 ↗ does. And then we have the city of Issaquah that does. A periodic review requirement

39:54 ↗ that we periodically review the operation and look at, have the uses intensified and

40:00 ↗ that's when CEPA review, if needed, you know looks at new impacts that's totally

40:06 ↗ separate from this. So that actually leads me to my next question which is about

40:11 ↗ what your council had mentioned in the development commission meeting and it was specifically your

40:15 ↗ staff had commented out the permit that is still waiting to be issued you get

40:19 ↗ up every five years you have a permit issued. That's the periodic review and I'm

40:24 ↗ curious why we're not waiting for that review that periodic review. We just finished it

40:28 ↗ yeah we just finished that. So just finished it less than a year ago or

40:33 ↗ maybe it was six months ago. So your staff mentioned that you guys are actually

40:37 ↗ pending for that. In the Development Commission meeting, staff mentioned your staff that was on

40:42 ↗ site. I don't remember. There was two individuals that were representing you and mentioned that

40:47 ↗ that is still. I'm sorry. I wasn't at that meeting, so I don't know what

40:50 ↗ they said. Well, it could be state or federal. There's other permits that govern. Well,

40:56 ↗ I know. It was Karen. What was Karen talking about? Karen was talking about the

40:59 ↗ Department of Ecology. The reclam. The permit, which is currently up for renew. There's no

41:03 ↗ debate that you'll probably be getting it, but I'm curious why the Department of Ecology

41:07 ↗ isn't a part of this discussion for, or at least waiting until they've made their

41:11 ↗ most recent determination of issuing your permit. I think what Karen was talking about was

41:16 ↗ the updating the reclamation plan that goes through the Department of

41:21 ↗ Natural Resources, not Department of Ecology. Okay. But as Tim said, all of the

41:27 ↗ agencies, all the state agencies have a role. So Ecology is

41:33 ↗ looking at issues within its jurisdiction, but there's nothing pending that I know of with

41:37 ↗ Ecology. No, I don't think we're waiting for anything from Ecology. And we

41:43 ↗ routinely have to update the Reclamation Plan, and as part of the

41:49 ↗ agreement with the city on the periodic review, we were updating the reclamation

41:55 ↗ plan consistent with the decisions made in the development agreement and the five-year periodic

42:01 ↗ review. So, you know, tying it all back together with the other agency.

42:09 ↗ I did have one more question for Dave, actually, and this is specifically regarding the

42:13 ↗ things about public comment. It was said that notice was given on June 29th.

42:19 ↗ Was any consideration given to the fact that most people are often on vacation here

42:24 ↗ in this area around that time? Which my follow-up to that before you answer that

42:29 ↗ is that to me it seems that the majority of people who would be contacted

42:32 ↗ are residents who don't yet exist. In 30 years or so once the urban village

42:37 ↗ is built would actually be the people who would be would be contacted I was

42:41 ↗ curious who was actually given notice since this is a pretty wide open area as

42:45 ↗ who was act so notice is required to and was provided to property owners within

42:51 ↗ 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the lake of the lakeside properties you see

42:56 ↗ up there and it was published in the squat press those are the two notice

43:01 ↗ requirements and on the city website And is that a pretty general? That's a requirement.

43:07 ↗ No, but of that time period, it's been about a week and a half, is

43:10 ↗ that a pretty general thing for the city of that time period that it's been

43:15 ↗ about a week and a half, is that a pretty normal time period for the

43:17 ↗ city to give notice? Yes.

43:21 ↗ Any other questions? Just out of curiosity,

43:27 ↗ those notices of properties within 300 feet. I mean, you know, not many.

43:36 ↗ There aren't many but there are there are single-family homes to the well you see

43:40 ↗ the plat to the south yeah right there. It's a little feet disappears really quick

43:46 ↗ that's not very far. Yeah, well that's why we publish in the paper and in

43:50 ↗ the press and website and people can talk to their neighbors and so forth

43:55 ↗ yeah. When we were doing this there was some

44:01 ↗ interest from the people up here. There was here up

44:07 ↗ up up up the apartments. Yeah, there were there were a couple folks up here.

44:13 ↗ And then there were folks up here up in the Highlands because you see the

44:19 ↗ urban village goes across the couplet there. It on

44:25 ↗ Lakeside has been a very good neighbor. It really is extraordinary that all the years

44:30 ↗ that they've been operating that they haven't had much haven't been

44:36 ↗ complaints and they haven't had much comment. We had again a year and a half

44:39 ↗ of process and probably five or six sessions with the Development Commission

44:46 ↗ and six or seven or eight with the City Council and they're never there really

44:51 ↗ isn't much there hasn't been much public concern about this. There's been a lot of

44:56 ↗ compliments about this that that is going to be so much better than what most

45:01 ↗ minds look like when when it's over and done with. I was curious why this

45:06 ↗ is being addressed right now rather than in 2012 when the development agreement was made

45:10 ↗ you had mentioned Council in the development Commission meeting that it had been discussed and

45:16 ↗ everyone was on board with it But it had been delayed whether it be for

45:19 ↗ city resources and then again was not addressed in January of 2013 when in the

45:23 ↗ development agreement was finished and yet this looks like this build-out is a good 30

45:27 ↗ years and I'm curious why the city now would like to address this.

45:33 ↗ The development agreement was signed in January of 2013. And we

45:40 ↗ met with city staff and proposed in 2013, early 2014, again, to

45:46 ↗ proceed with this. And the city was overwhelmed with other matters. And

45:52 ↗ the city said, we're willing to do this. Could you wait a year so we

45:56 ↗ can... get through some of these other critical matters that we are dealing with and

46:01 ↗ we said yes we can wait and so that's why it was like we're we

46:06 ↗ were ready to go but we were being sensitive to the city staff pressure

46:13 ↗ on on other matters and we appreciate that and they've been very patient and they've

46:16 ↗ been waiting more than a year approaching two years now so

46:23 ↗ even though the hillside what the company is capable of doing within

46:29 ↗ this rezone isn't known right now to the company or to the city. Why is

46:34 ↗ it not being waiting for this designation? Why is there an urgency to address it?

46:39 ↗ I understand that the applicant wanted to have this done with the development

46:45 ↗ of the January 2013 development agreement. I'm curious though if there's a move

46:51 ↗ for the city to have, why it's happening right now as far as the city

46:55 ↗ is concerned. Why isn't it not continuing to be pushed out until, let's say, 30

47:01 ↗ years from now when we have a better idea of how that land's actually going

47:04 ↗ to be used? We'd like to accommodate requests from the

47:10 ↗ public. Many of these rezones, many are processed by staff without,

47:16 ↗ just by us. Lakeside has said they're providing staff,

47:22 ↗ well, they've made an application paid their money and said, we'd like to process this

47:27 ↗ now. We said, if you're going to wait for us to get to it, it's

47:30 ↗ going to take a while, and it's taken a while. It's taken two years already.

47:35 ↗ But anyone has a right to say, we'd like to help you prioritize this, and

47:40 ↗ we'll help you by being an applicant like anyone else and pay a fee to

47:44 ↗ apply and move it up in the priority list. Isn't there also a time limit

47:48 ↗ when somebody presents a... request for permitting or change that you

47:55 ↗ have so many days so many months to act on it development permits once an

48:00 ↗ application is made yes yes we have 120 days to move through the process and

48:06 ↗ get to the applicant is happy with waiting but normally the time

48:12 ↗ frame is termed in basically in the city's rules

48:17 ↗ regulations whatever you want to call it so that's why And you know, to be

48:22 ↗ totally candid with you, the reason we're proceeding now is the development agreement is a

48:26 ↗ contract between the property owner and the city. City Council and Lakeside said,

48:32 ↗ do this. A lot of the same city council members that are going to look

48:37 ↗ at this rezone were the same city council members. I mean, Fred Butler was a

48:43 ↗ council member, now he's the mayor. They did all this development agreement. They wanted to

48:49 ↗ see this. This is kind of tying up one of the loose ends. And they

48:53 ↗ said, do it, we know what's going on, bring it back to us. And so

48:58 ↗ we were ready to go a year ago, and the staff was overwhelmed, and we

49:02 ↗ said, well, we could probably wait a year. But the City Council is looking for

49:06 ↗ this, so that's why we're doing it now.

49:12 ↗ Okay, so it sounds like staff is ready to say that, though we don't have

49:16 ↗ any kind of, any kind of secret review in front of us, required for this

49:22 ↗ the city is ready to say that that the first point for us to be

49:26 ↗ able to vote on it is that there's that there's no impact and right now

49:30 ↗ we don't have that information yes we're prepared to say that and it will be

49:34 ↗ completed before it gets to the City Council for their action

49:40 ↗ I wanted to be clear I want to make sure I understand what it is

49:43 ↗ we're voting on what the amendments would would change you from what I've

49:50 ↗ heard, and I haven't heard all of it because I do have trouble hearing, but

49:55 ↗ my understanding is you're not intending to make any changes in the way you operate

50:00 ↗ and what you're going to be doing probably for the next 30 years, but what

50:03 ↗ this amendment would do would be to permit you to do so if opportunities

50:09 ↗ were to arrive or arise or if changes were to occur.

50:16 ↗ It would permit you, for instance, to seek, and I'm emphasizing that term seek to

50:21 ↗ development residential commercial if you choose to do so. Is that correct? Residential

50:27 ↗ is not a permitted use in the IC zone. So it would be we could

50:32 ↗ seek permits to do other kinds of commercial uses in this

50:38 ↗ zone. Yes, we could do that. But we have no intent to change this because,

50:43 ↗ as I said, this is asphalt and concrete production. And then the question does arise,

50:49 ↗ as was raised earlier, why now? Why not 20, 30 years from now,

50:55 ↗ when you run out the mines and you might make a determination at that point

51:00 ↗ that it would be more advantageous to develop a property in

51:06 ↗ another way? We're doing it now because that was what we agreed with the City

51:11 ↗ Council to do, which was to come back right away with this The city council

51:16 ↗ then is the instigator of the, is proposing, is the instigator of the proposal to,

51:23 ↗ for the amendment. Is that what you're telling me? Put it this way, the city

51:26 ↗ council understood when they approved the development agreement that this was necessary and they

51:32 ↗ said, they wrote it into the development agreement, bring it forward. I'm a little slow,

51:37 ↗ I don't understand why. It's because. Why it has to be done. It's because.

51:45 ↗ as the hillside is changed in the future

51:51 ↗ to a residential use it's no longer being mined then the processing area

51:57 ↗ which is an accessory use to a mine will no longer be a permitted use

52:04 ↗ and the city council could see that and they said so fix it now rather

52:09 ↗ than leave it to our successors to deal with them again as Tim said

52:15 ↗ This whole process started with the city coming to Lakeside and saying,

52:21 ↗ we would like some certainty about everything that's going to happen here in the future.

52:27 ↗ And I think part of that was they were unhappy with some of the other

52:33 ↗ former mining properties in the city. They didn't like the way it ended up.

52:39 ↗ And so they came to Lakeside and Lakeside said, it's good for us to have

52:42 ↗ the same certainty. So that's where we are. We're trying to have a certainty

52:48 ↗ as to what is going to happen here in the future and to guarantee Lakeside

52:55 ↗ that they can continue for the foreseeable future with that asphalt and concrete production

53:01 ↗ down in the processing area. How does that dovetail with the, maybe they're totally unrelated,

53:06 ↗ I'm not clear, how does that dovetail with the urban

53:14 ↗ urban village agreement that occurred earlier?

53:24 ↗ I think on page five of the urban village agreement, it says

53:29 ↗ Lakeside will continue processing down in the lower part of the property, and that's going

53:35 ↗ to require a zone change, and the city and Lakeside agree that it should be

53:40 ↗ processed for a change in the zone. We are literally,

53:46 ↗ we are following through on a requirement in the development agreement. We're honoring the contract

53:52 ↗ requirement. Thank you very much. I'll begin to understand why we're here.

53:59 ↗ Any other questions? So thank you very much. And since tonight

54:05 ↗ is a public hearing, I will now open the public

54:11 ↗ hearing for comments. and I'll open it at 735. So if there's

54:16 ↗ anybody who would like to make public comment, please come up.

54:22 ↗ Seeing none, I will close the public hearing at 736.

54:33 ↗ Anything else for the good of the order? Are you ready to vote on? I

54:38 ↗ have one more thing. this kind of to the city and it gets back to

54:43 ↗ a little bit with joy saying and I understand in this situation it's probably not

54:48 ↗ as critical but usually in my mind you you don't do these things till you

54:54 ↗ have the seat but decision and and that would not be a normal process and

54:59 ↗ so it feels a little odd to me that you know it says know to

55:03 ↗ learn some without us without a decision being there and I know you say it's

55:07 ↗ almost there but me almost means it's not there and so it's a it's a

55:11 ↗ procedural thing for me between the city I mean how often do you say let's

55:15 ↗ make a decision without having the information completed before you make that decision and that

55:20 ↗ and and I kind of know where we are but I mean if you brought

55:24 ↗ many things to me they're very more complicated I'd go what would like to read

55:28 ↗ it before yeah I would I would like that yeah is the city having made

55:32 ↗ that decision before this comes to this step it's just isn't that the normal

55:38 ↗ step it's the normal process we had discussion and staff should can we go forward

55:42 ↗ or not and the discussion was this we feel we have enough information to move

55:48 ↗ forward and it does have to be absolutely done before City Council takes action and

55:57 ↗ but it does not officially have to be done before PPC makes a recommendation. You're

56:01 ↗ not making a decision, you're making a recommendation to the council. So if you feel

56:07 ↗ you have sufficient information here to make your recommendation, you can do that.

56:14 ↗ Yes, normally a SEPA determination would be issued, but. I haven't seen something come before

56:19 ↗ us before without that. know but we feel comfortable I'm saying we we feel very

56:24 ↗ very comfortable that sufficient environmental reviews been done it's been done like a lot for

56:29 ↗ the DA for the development agreement prior and again knowing that the rezone is happening

56:35 ↗ not really changing and I guess it's just integrity it's an awkward step procedure later

56:40 ↗ from the state and I want to just I understand that all that out and

56:43 ↗ and I guess I wouldn't expect a lot of those things coming normally that way

56:48 ↗ because then it's going to be no we can't make a decision because the recommendation

56:52 ↗ because we don't have all the information right I don't think there's any issue whatsoever

56:56 ↗ and as a member of the community were big proponents of the work that you

57:00 ↗ guys are doing in the community I think that with intensive commercial designation there's a

57:04 ↗ greater leeway for the possibility of what can be done in this space with their

57:09 ↗ free zoning and I I just without having any kind of information of what that

57:15 ↗ cumulative impact would be it's hard to say for sure that there isn't

57:21 ↗ going to be an impact on the community. So right now we're kind of taking

57:23 ↗ it on the word of saying well it sounds like everything is going to stay

57:27 ↗ the same so no problem. I think the issue is in the designation

57:33 ↗ of adding that change that municipality code change to allow the continued

57:39 ↗ asphalt and concrete production. It's the possibilities of what changing this mineral designation to an

57:44 ↗ IC could possibly do in the future and right now. We're a good 30 years

57:48 ↗ away from being able to see how that lands even going to take shape and

57:52 ↗ how that's going to then possibly be used and without having any kind of SEPA

57:57 ↗ in front of us. It's hard to know if there was any kind of look

58:01 ↗ at those cumulative impacts of changing this designation. Well, to respond, I'd say

58:07 ↗ we have looked at cumulative impacts have been reviewed previously. just

58:12 ↗ haven't got to the point of writing it in paper saying yes and we conclude

58:17 ↗ so we've looked at it we feel confident that that there should be a

58:22 ↗ determination of non-significance through the super review process and it will be issued in the

58:28 ↗ next several weeks and like we said earlier if if and when

58:34 ↗ Lakeside chooses to do another development or new development that goes through its own separate

58:39 ↗ process on separate see per review impacts are evaluated. So the action that you

58:45 ↗ take tonight does not have does not less than any of the review that would

58:48 ↗ happen on that later. That's our that's our feeling.

58:55 ↗ I like the idea that this is being done now. It allows Lakeside to plan.

59:02 ↗ the future but it also like it enables the city to plan for what they

59:08 ↗ have to do in order for both of them to work together it would be

59:14 ↗ awful to wait 30 years and not have some kind of control and

59:21 ↗ under people looking at it and reviewing processes and then find in 30 years that

59:28 ↗ like some of the other mining in a sequa that it wasn't done right that

59:32 ↗ There's problems and you can't do houses and

59:38 ↗ development in it. So I like the idea that we are at this point in

59:42 ↗ time making some plans for the future. It's just like we did with a central

59:47 ↗ area plan. That's 40 years in the future. But we still, we don't have every

59:55 ↗ CEPA review, Base done based on what we thought it would be in the future

1:00:00 ↗ But when we make the changes we will have those people reviews, so I'm comfortable

1:00:05 ↗ with What the gentlemen have from Lakeside have? explained to us today

1:00:11 ↗ and that there isn't going to be any real difference in in What's going on

1:00:17 ↗ right now, and I honestly I don't I don't live right there, but I don't

1:00:22 ↗ see a major impact on the traffic or even that we know that it's back

1:00:27 ↗ there. So, are you

1:00:33 ↗ ready to vote on the proposal that this is just a

1:00:39 ↗ recommendation to the city that if there are problems that are encountered in the future,

1:00:44 ↗ the city council will have the opportunity to review them and before they actually make

1:00:49 ↗ a decision, they could change something and have it come back to us for review.

1:00:54 ↗ So do I have a motion to approve or disapprove the recommendation to

1:01:00 ↗ forward this to the city council? Motion to approve the recommendation to city council.

1:01:06 ↗ Seconded. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye.

1:01:13 ↗ Approved. So with that, I want to thank you. I'd like to be recorded as

1:01:18 ↗ abstained. You want to be abstained?

1:01:24 ↗ that pass okay okay so with that I would like to

1:01:30 ↗ thank the Lakeside gentlemen again for their input tonight and I wish them well

1:01:37 ↗ and with that I'm going to close the meeting unless we have something else to

1:01:41 ↗ do at 7 42 thank you

1:01:47 ↗ thank you for your input thanks everyone

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.