Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, August 11, 2016 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · May 12, 2016

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2018 - Joy Lewis land use documents. 2018 - Jon Stob 2018 - Carl Swedberg Membership 2018 - Justin Walsh The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2019 - Joan Probala seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2020 - Ron Faul several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2020 - Troy Rahmig members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire Alternate Members April 30 of the year listed. For more information, 2018 - Salim Juma see IMC 18.03. 2018 - Larisa Kolcz 2018 - Vacant 2018 - Vacant

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 30, 2016

packet pp.5–9

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · May 12, 2016

▶ Watch from 0:39 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Proposed 2016 Land Use Code Amendments (R)

Dana Zlateff, Environmental Science Associate, Public Works Engineering Department Dave Favour, Counter Service Manager, Development Services Department · packet pp.11–22

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

BACKGROUND

782 segments .txt ↗

0:27 ↗ On the air, good evening. The Planning Policy Commission meeting for Thursday, October,

0:33 ↗ or October, not quite October, August 11th, 2016 will come to order. First item of

0:39 ↗ business is approval of the minutes from June 30th. Are there any

0:46 ↗ additions or corrections? I do have two corrections. The first one at page

0:51 ↗ three of five of the minutes under bullet point one, part 2B1. We

0:57 ↗ have a double S on setback, just a correction to that. And then on

1:04 ↗ bullet two, item 3B, we also have a double R in required

1:10 ↗ towards the end of that line.

1:27 ↗ Any other additions or corrections? If not, a motion to accept the minutes

1:33 ↗ with the noted corrections. I'll make such a motion. Second. Second.

1:40 ↗ Moved and seconded. All in favor of approving the minutes? Aye. Aye. Opposed?

1:46 ↗ None. Minutes are approved. The item of the discussion tonight is

1:55 ↗ land use coast amendments.

2:02 ↗ So thank you. Trish is not here, but Dave Faber will. Trish is not here.

2:06 ↗ Dave Faber is here with the Development Services Department. I'm here along with Dana Zlatoff

2:12 ↗ of the Public Works Engineering Department. So I'm just going to introduce, well, we're here

2:17 ↗ both to present the topic tonight. Dana's here to give an overview, and then I'll

2:22 ↗ step in and talk about each land use code amendment. So

2:28 ↗ first, I guess, and thanks for coming out on a summer night. that's that's great

2:31 ↗ to see you here so go ahead thank you thank you

2:40 ↗ so this presentation is actually brief and then like Dave said we'll go into

2:46 ↗ detail on each microphone oh yeah on each of the five

2:52 ↗ land used amendments but We're gonna do a quick introduction and then I'm gonna spend

2:58 ↗ a couple minutes just recapping what requirements for stormwater the

3:04 ↗ city is implementing and give some background on that and the

3:11 ↗ city stormwater municipal permit. And then Dave will go into the land use code amendments

3:16 ↗ and then public comment. So of course today is,

3:23 ↗ and why we're here is to get some public input and discussion on the land

3:27 ↗ use amendments to support the implementation of the stormwater low impact development or LID

3:33 ↗ requirements. I was actually here back in March

3:40 ↗ and kind of gave more of a brief general discussion on stormwater,

3:46 ↗ what the city was doing as part of those requirements and what we were tasked

3:50 ↗ to do. And this is more of the outcome of that and really ready to

3:55 ↗ dive in and to look at the changes that we're proposing. We've also met with

4:01 ↗ the Rivers and Streams Board both in March and just a few weeks ago in

4:06 ↗ the middle of July to really dive into more of the stormwater

4:12 ↗ and the IMCs that deal with clearing and grading and stormwater management.

4:20 ↗ So just this is the recap part, the phase two stormwater municipal

4:26 ↗ permits issued by the Department of Ecology. And it regulates aspects of development

4:32 ↗ permitting for both private and public projects to mitigate the impacts to

4:38 ↗ stormwater runoff. There's two significant pieces that are part of that municipal permit.

4:45 ↗ in what the city is accomplishing right now is one, we're required to adopt a

4:50 ↗ new stormwater design manual that's equivalent to Ecology's manual.

4:57 ↗ So a majority of the changes that we've made in the stormwater code as well

5:02 ↗ as our IMC and design manual is reflecting those required by Ecology. The

5:08 ↗ second part and why we're here today is the city also reviewed

5:14 ↗ our development related codes, so of course that includes the IMC 18,

5:20 ↗ the land use code, to really look at are there barriers in

5:26 ↗ our land use code that limits our stormwater code from being implemented.

5:33 ↗ So we did a screening of our IMC 18. And that

5:39 ↗ is with the goal of making stormwater LID the most preferred and most commonly used

5:43 ↗ approach. So as I said, many codes throughout the IMC

5:49 ↗ affect how LID is incorporated into the site design as well as in construction. So

5:56 ↗ city staff went and reviewed, as I said before, if there's

6:01 ↗ barriers to implementing that as well as if there were to remove that. As you

6:06 ↗ see, we're only here with eight today in our land use code, which means that

6:11 ↗ when we did the review, there were no barriers, we allowed LID, And

6:17 ↗ so the items that you see today is to either make it more feasible or

6:23 ↗ to make it clearer in implementing the design and construction. So Dave will go

6:29 ↗ through the land use items that are in your packet. And we just have

6:35 ↗ the same wording here as you'll see in your packet.

6:47 ↗ Thanks. All right, so there are, I think you said eight, but they're kind of

6:52 ↗ bundled into groups of five. So there's exhibits B1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. And

6:58 ↗ I'll run through each one and we can talk after each one, perhaps, or see

7:04 ↗ if you have questions at the end, see what you think. So the first one,

7:09 ↗ exhibit B1, has to do with what is impervious and what is pervious. So

7:15 ↗ we get this question all the time. And so when we're evaluating

7:21 ↗ what elements do we determine can allow infiltration of the water into the ground and

7:27 ↗ what don't, the one topic that keeps coming up is this pervious pavers and pervious

7:32 ↗ pavement. And it's kind of nice to finally clarify this. So this definition

7:39 ↗ proposes that even though it says pervious, it has such a hard surface and and

7:45 ↗ stops the water from draining through just as if it was soil and doesn't allow

7:48 ↗ green plants to grow, that we would, we propose to define this as impervious surface.

7:55 ↗ So that's the proposal and the definition here. We get the calls all the time.

8:01 ↗ Hey, I'm right at the impervious limit of development. Can I just do some pervious

8:07 ↗ pavers or pavement like Rainier Boulevard has that pervious pavement.

8:13 ↗ But again, there's no green plants growing through it, so that's the proposal here is

8:18 ↗ to define that as shown here. Just one quick question there. I know that there's

8:24 ↗ varying degrees of pervious pavers. I see them all the time in driveways where they

8:29 ↗ do have space for greenery to come up through and that's actually integrated into the

8:34 ↗ design of the pavers. Is there any accounting for that in terms of development as

8:38 ↗ a possible pervious surface? I think that'd be more case by case through an

8:43 ↗ interpretation process in our development code versus

8:49 ↗ coming, we didn't go to the detail of saying this type is pervious and this

8:53 ↗ is not. There are some where I've seen, I'll just stop,

8:59 ↗ we can go into more detail but I. Yeah and that's my concern is that

9:03 ↗ if we put pervious pavers outright without maybe expanding on that definition,

9:09 ↗ creating a pervious paper's definition that says things like don't allow

9:15 ↗ for greenery or natural drainage, that you may be over capturing what kind of papers

9:21 ↗ may be used, and thus not allow that flexibility. Do you mind if I

9:27 ↗ jump in right now? Sure. This is something I had an issue with when I

9:30 ↗ was reading it. So I tend to look at it less of what greenery is

9:35 ↗ able to grow up, grow from the material, rather than how the water is able

9:39 ↗ to pass through. and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that

9:43 ↗ pervious pavers are generally made of a natural stone material that actually filters water

9:49 ↗ and actually takes out pollutants before it actually is going into the ground. The way

9:54 ↗ it's written right now to me is actually for a permeable paver which is something

9:58 ↗ that needs storm water to pass through. So you actually build it in a way

10:01 ↗ that you often have dirt, sand, grass growing in between. And so that actually runoff

10:06 ↗ goes in between. So that's not able to pass through. So porous pavers and pervious

10:11 ↗ pavers actually allow storm water to go through. But it's written more like a permeable

10:16 ↗ paver. So I actually was hoping we could change that because I think a pervious

10:21 ↗ paver does appropriately adhere to the guidelines that we want for stormwater

10:27 ↗ infiltration, but I would love for you to correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah, I

10:33 ↗ just wanted to clarify one thing, and this is where it gets into that

10:38 ↗ stormwater and development. So in the stormwater code, we require pervious

10:44 ↗ pavement, and it does exactly what you said. It treats the water quality,

10:50 ↗ it detains it, it'll treat it if there's certain soil underneath the pervious pavement,

10:57 ↗ and that's exactly what we want and what we're promoting. And then the pervious pavement

11:03 ↗ in the design and the flow control modeling is actually modeled

11:09 ↗ not like an impervious surface but as a middle ground like a lawn or

11:14 ↗ landscape or lawn with till so it's modeled and given credit for that but in

11:20 ↗ the development code when they're looking at development regulations in the area of a

11:26 ↗ site it's considered impervious just like if we had Other

11:31 ↗ drainage facilities on site, like a wet pond even, I believe that it's considered, really

11:37 ↗ it's an impervious surface even though we kind of know it's not. So I hope

11:43 ↗ that makes a little bit more sense. But the stormwater part of it and the

11:46 ↗ treatment and the infiltration that all occurs, it's just in the definition, it's in the

11:52 ↗ development. regulations of how you see it. Can I have one more point? So that

11:57 ↗ addresses the stormwater infiltration element. But the second element of this pervious, the reason we

12:02 ↗ have pervious is to have a certain amount of green vegetated area on a

12:08 ↗ site. And so when we start having whether it's permeable or pervious pavers, you know,

12:14 ↗ it's still a hard paved manmade surface. And there's not the plants growing

12:19 ↗ through it. So that's the reason for this. I guess my issue is less about

12:24 ↗ the pavement part and more about the paver since they are laid down in

12:30 ↗ a different way. And so I was curious why we don't have like the permeable

12:33 ↗ pavers, which though they allow for greenery in between, that

12:39 ↗ stormwater is diverted in between where that greenery is able to grow. And so to

12:44 ↗ me, I was curious why city staff decided to not write, for instance, that permeable

12:49 ↗ pavers are now considered an impervious service that was left out.

12:55 ↗ Why do we, that we have a specific language to kind of target the pervious

13:00 ↗ pavers, and to me I was surprised about that because it doesn't,

13:06 ↗ Do you see the dichotomy of if we use pervious pavers, that's a substance that

13:11 ↗ is able to have stormwater filtration through with this natural stone, whereas if we're using

13:17 ↗ permeable pavers, that stormwater has to be diverted in between how the paver is laid.

13:22 ↗ So to me it was like we're saying, okay, we want these materials that we

13:26 ↗ need to be able to have greenery grow up in between, but yet, so you

13:30 ↗ can do that with a permeable paver, but yet you can't, stormwater can't pass through

13:34 ↗ it. So I was confused as to why we were targeting, I mean at this

13:37 ↗ point why wouldn't we also then throw in the permeable pavers or permeable pavement? We

13:41 ↗ could I guess. Because to me that seemed more to the intent of what you

13:45 ↗ guys were getting at and then again my larger point of I was surprised at

13:49 ↗ the inclusion of pervious pavers and the language specifically targeting it when I felt that

13:53 ↗ it was less of what you guys were actually going for. But again, I'm not

13:59 ↗ sure what you were going for. I think the term pervious pavers was intended to

14:04 ↗ be more all encompassing of whether it's permeable, pervious, whether it's a hard surface

14:10 ↗ and the sands over here and the water goes around the edges down. Right. Or

14:15 ↗ right through the actual surface. It was kind of all that. And it's my understanding

14:19 ↗ that there's basically three categorizations when you're talking about about

14:25 ↗ non asphalt hard impervious surfaces. One of them we've looked at is

14:30 ↗ porous, so I was, you know, a porous surface which is one that's more like

14:34 ↗ a grid system that's laid down which does allow for sand filtration as well as

14:38 ↗ for plants to grow up through. I guess, again, I'm curious why we don't have

14:43 ↗ something mentioning either the inclusion of a permeable paver and permeable

14:49 ↗ pavement to this definition of an impervious surface. And I would. That's why we're talking.

14:55 ↗ Right, and I would also be curious if we were able to have some type

14:59 ↗ of amendment to the impervious paver, because I think that that gets to the intent

15:02 ↗ of what we want. So following up on that discussion, given that the purpose of

15:07 ↗ the land use code is the availability of green spaces and this doesn't necessarily deal

15:13 ↗ with the stormwater runoff functions as you just mentioned. I would like to see

15:19 ↗ something done with the permeable papers as she has defined them.

15:25 ↗ Because I do think that's an important design element when you're trying to bring functional

15:29 ↗ green spaces. Meaning that it's kind of a mix of both worlds and maybe a

15:35 ↗ definition in there that would allow for a conditional use or some variation on

15:40 ↗ that, including maybe in the definition of pervious pavers, all the various

15:47 ↗ permeable, semi-permeable, porous, permeable pavers, but that would

15:52 ↗ allow for some process for if it does fit those design standards that would allow

15:58 ↗ for greenery to allow that flexibility. So can I address about the flexibility? I would

16:03 ↗ say we have that flexibility built into the code today. so that where there's a

16:08 ↗ gray area, the staff or the administration is given the flexibility to make interpretations of

16:13 ↗ the code. Then there's the more formal administrative adjustment of standards. So if there's

16:19 ↗ a change wish, we have that flexibility. I'm all about if we can

16:25 ↗ clarify and add some words to this. But there's so many different, I think,

16:31 ↗ types of materials, it'd be hard to list all of them. Yeah, yeah, and that's

16:35 ↗ where it may come down to, so drafting a little bit of an explanation and

16:40 ↗ then comma and other similar types. Is there a way to

16:45 ↗ qualify or further clarify with some kind of a percentage rating of that system being

16:51 ↗ saying, for example, pervious pavement systems allowing

16:57 ↗ greater than 50% free draining or something like that? where I'm thinking of like a

17:03 ↗ grass crete type of system where you have. I was gonna mention that. You have

17:08 ↗ a grid of very thin pavement that stabilizes the surface but

17:13 ↗ primarily it's grass allowing 60 to 80%

17:19 ↗ free drainage. We've hesitated to go to that place because it

17:25 ↗ becomes quite as we're discussing now there's so many combinations and options and

17:31 ↗ permutations that we're trying to just identify quick fairly easy

17:37 ↗ gaps and plug holes for this purpose here and then for years we've said someday

17:43 ↗ we want to get into this what's pervious and permeable and green and not and

17:48 ↗ what percent and we've we've avoided going to that because it i think it's a

17:53 ↗ fairly involved kind of work effort sure does

18:00 ↗ Is this a state definition or is it just something that we're making up? Does

18:05 ↗ the state define it? To me it runs

18:10 ↗ counterintuitive because you're talking impervious surface and then you're talking pervious pavers

18:16 ↗ as impervious. Right in the definition, huh? Yeah, I understand. Okay. So does

18:22 ↗ the state have any definition for what an impervious surface is?

18:33 ↗ Ecology, the Department of Ecology does, and it's in our stormwater design manual and in

18:39 ↗ our IMC, and it's impervious surface. And we have hard surface and permeable

18:45 ↗ pavement and all of those in our stormwater design manual.

18:49 ↗ Yeah. And it may come down to, I mean,

18:55 ↗ maybe the way to do this is just change the definition or change the term

19:01 ↗ that we're using. from impervious surface to, I mean, that would be a bigger

19:07 ↗ change, I think. I would maybe instead, if I understand, if pervious pavers is just

19:13 ↗ an awkward thing to have in impervious, if we want to change it to permeable.

19:18 ↗ So permeable paver, as I understand it, though it allows greenery to grow up in

19:24 ↗ between, There's so our very first line which says which either prevents or retards the

19:29 ↗ entry of water. So a permeable paver would retard the entry of water into the

19:34 ↗ soil that it sits on top of it would need to be diverted in between.

19:38 ↗ But a pervious paver as I understand it actually allows water it does not retard

19:43 ↗ it. It allows it to soak in through. It's made of a natural stone. So

19:46 ↗ the inclusion of the language of the city to add pervious pavers conflicts with the

19:51 ↗ very first line of what we're doing. Again, that's what I was hoping was to

19:55 ↗ come up and have you guys be like this is incorrect. But

20:02 ↗ from how I understand it, there's a disconnect between. So either we would

20:07 ↗ need to switch what we're saying. Right now we're starting out talking about how water

20:12 ↗ soaks in through this. I'm focusing on pavers because it's my understanding the pervious pavement

20:18 ↗ I don't have an issue with. It's specifically the paver. So the pervious pavement I

20:24 ↗ would keep because the pervious paver from what I understand is not natural stone and

20:28 ↗ has a mix of elements like a permeable paver would have and then links to

20:34 ↗ a permeable pavement. So at least I would want the inclusion of that

20:39 ↗ permeable paver or permeable pavement included because I feel like that's what the city's trying

20:44 ↗ to get at is again that very first line where water is not able to

20:48 ↗ soak in through that surface to the layers of soil underneath. And correct me for

20:52 ↗ my own, but you said both pervious pavers, as your own inclusive definition, and pervious

20:57 ↗ pavement both do not drain at natural soil? That's the assumption that we're making or

21:02 ↗ I'm making. So to address that, I remember reading that first sentence. It kind of

21:07 ↗ sets us up. But the assumption is that these paver, pervious pavement material,

21:16 ↗ It's somewhat retarded. It still slows down a little bit more than if it was

21:20 ↗ just natural vegetated area. So it's a matter of degree. I don't know what percent.

21:27 ↗ But for the reason it slows the water down than if it wasn't paved.

21:33 ↗ And secondly, we're losing the plant material. It was those two reasons why this make

21:39 ↗ this all encompassing to say no for that now. And maybe to clarify then as

21:43 ↗ well, under the beginning definition where we're talking about what it retards, we could also

21:49 ↗ add entry of water into the soil as well as growth of vegetation. Then it's

21:55 ↗ a little bit more inclusive of the permeables and things of that nature. I'm going

21:59 ↗ to try to give an example and correct me because I've had some time to

22:02 ↗ think a little bit. Pervious pavement, permeable pavement, they're all

22:08 ↗ hard surfaces. Even Ecology's manual defines a vegetative roof as a hard surface

22:15 ↗ because it's not a typical, like you said, a natural forest. When a developer comes

22:21 ↗ in and they're going to look at the size of hard surface that they have

22:27 ↗ on their site and they're going to put a roadway in and it's permeable or

22:31 ↗ it's pavers or what have you, it's a pollution generating surface. It's a

22:37 ↗ hard surface that does have a runoff ability. It

22:43 ↗ does have a pollution generation potentially ability. It's using that hard

22:49 ↗ surface calculation to develop the flow control and the treatment on it, as well as

22:54 ↗ the landscape standards and the ratios on site for development.

23:01 ↗ So it's categorized as a hard surface, and as Dave was saying, it needed to

23:05 ↗ be put in a definition because it is considered a hard surface for all the

23:09 ↗ calculations that we have to do when a development comes in. A permeable pavement is

23:14 ↗ much different than another landscape area on the site

23:20 ↗ and it's runoff, it's gonna be different and the use is gonna be different. So

23:25 ↗ I hope that kind of gives an idea of where this definition was trying to

23:29 ↗ clarify that a permeable pavement, it's in part of that calculation. It's a hard

23:35 ↗ surface. So are you suggesting that we add permeable? Because permeable pavement is not on

23:39 ↗ there right now. If that helps clarify things. Yeah, it's like all these various products

23:46 ↗ that have some amount of water going through or around the corners and down, all

23:50 ↗ those various hard surfaces we want to include as impervious. So if that's the intent

23:56 ↗ of the city, then I would request that we add permeable pavers, and I would

24:00 ↗ assume permeable pavement as well in addition to, if we're trying to have all these

24:04 ↗ classifications for that percentage of what they're allowed to put onto the land when developing,

24:09 ↗ then I would say that we're actually leaving out something. Sir? Actually, go ahead.

24:16 ↗ I have a question. Travel roadways, I know it's not, we're not here to discuss

24:22 ↗ travel roadways because it's not a term to be changed, but travel

24:28 ↗ roadways would be more permeable than permeable

24:34 ↗ pavers, right? So if travel roadways are more

24:39 ↗ permeable, then why are we discussing permeable pavers? Because it's one step higher.

24:46 ↗ on gravel road. Would that be correct assessment? So this definition

24:52 ↗ includes gravel roads, as you see, as impervious. And the assumption is that gravel is

24:58 ↗ compacted over time so much so that the water hits it and does run off.

25:03 ↗ So that's why we've historically for years said gravel acts like a

25:09 ↗ hard surface where it runs off. And pavers would be even harder than a gravel

25:13 ↗ road. I don't know which is more or less. We're saying all of them

25:19 ↗ stop the water from going down more than if it was natural planted area.

25:25 ↗ Just for context purposes, can you give us where this definition might

25:31 ↗ be used in some kind of calculation versus the definition of hard surface?

25:37 ↗ Because I feel like those are different things but hard surfaces are being

25:43 ↗ encapsulated within impervious. So impervious and pervious are one of the key

25:49 ↗ development standards or parameters that tell a person how

25:55 ↗ much you can cover the property and it's a real big development standard. So there's

26:01 ↗ building height, there's the amount of impervious that can be covered and there's setbacks. You

26:07 ↗ know that kind of defines how much a person can build on it. So this

26:11 ↗ is a very important. And so when this neighborhood over here has a 50%

26:16 ↗ impervious limit, the duplexes around here, and people are maxing those out

26:22 ↗ right to the very last percentage. And then the call always is, well, I'm maxed

26:27 ↗ out. Can I just put some pervious pavers here? And you count that as that.

26:31 ↗ And we've consistently said no, no, no, no. But it hasn't been written in here.

26:37 ↗ So it's always this pressure to go larger and this is an opportunity to clarify

26:41 ↗ that. Speaking of clarifying, I think I may have stumbled upon in just looking at

26:47 ↗ this, a simple solution. Changing concrete, asphalt or other paving,

26:53 ↗ which would include pervious or impervious paving of any type, and then taking out the

26:58 ↗ word pervious from pavers, because it really doesn't matter what form the paver is taking

27:04 ↗ Pervious or not, it's still going to be some impediment to water flow. I actually

27:09 ↗ like that. Can I

27:11 ↗ type on this? I was going to see if I could type on this, but

27:17 ↗ apparently not. So where?

27:23 ↗ I'm not finding where that is. So the line's starting concrete or asphalt paving. Right

27:29 ↗ here. You changed to concrete, asphalt, or other paving. or other paving

27:35 ↗ which would encapsulate pervious, impervious or anything and then just removing the word pervious from

27:41 ↗ pavers and that way we don't run afoul of appearing like we're

27:48 ↗ calling pervious things impervious and vice versa. I like that and also

27:54 ↗ could we get a P word in there of how about permeable? just so that

27:59 ↗ when the developers call and say, hey, can I do pervious pavers? So maybe.

28:06 ↗ So you've got the word. Pavers. Pervious in front of pavers. Or

28:12 ↗ adding towards the end of the definition, permeable materials.

28:17 ↗ Because permeable materials also would encompass any sort of permeable paver, asphalt.

28:25 ↗ I agree. I think we need to use that language of the permeable to include

28:29 ↗ just to really fully get that intent. I don't think just by sticking in the

28:33 ↗ pervious, I think we need to have that mention of the permeable as well. Okay.

28:41 ↗ Okay. Almost like you're better off using permeable in lieu of pervious in the definition

28:46 ↗ for impervious. I like that a lot. I agree. Thank you. Thank you. So,

28:56 ↗ I guess we heard your Dana was writing, so do you have it?

29:03 ↗ Okay, great. You ready to move on? Yep. Okay, B2.

29:11 ↗ So there are two different places where this debt, three places, and there they are.

29:14 ↗ We'll put them all three places. They're three places in the code. B2 is,

29:20 ↗ they're today in the, this is in the critical areas code, three different definitions that

29:24 ↗ talk about different elements of stormwater facilities. And there they are.

29:31 ↗ The DOE manual has its own state definition on the next slide of

29:37 ↗ stormwater facility. So to be consistent with the state, we're proposing to adopt their

29:42 ↗ definition, shown here, in

29:48 ↗ place of those three that are in the code today.

29:57 ↗ I think we skipped a section here. 18.0705. I can go back and show

30:03 ↗ that's. At the bottom.

30:09 ↗ Last sentence.

30:14 ↗ Looking here, B1-B. 18.07.050.

30:23 ↗ The very last one is the development measures as preferred and commonly used approach if

30:28 ↗ feasible. Let me go there. So there again,

30:34 ↗ there are in the B1, there are three sections in B1 to amend with the

30:40 ↗ text we just talked about. And you're right in the second one of that,

30:48 ↗ which is this slide up here. So 050. Yes.

30:54 ↗ So we'll make this change here that we just talked

31:00 ↗ about. I did notice that we added this section in this part of this

31:06 ↗ impervious code to reflect the DOE manual's direction

31:13 ↗ to use LID as the preferred and commonly used approach. So this is not a

31:19 ↗ definition section, it's like the administration section of the impervious code. My

31:25 ↗ question was the use of the word feasible, if feasible, that seemed like it was

31:29 ↗ a little weak and subjective. You wanna help out with that? So this hops to

31:34 ↗ the stormwater design manual and for each stormwater

31:40 ↗ onsite BMP or LID, there is a whole list of feasible

31:46 ↗ and infeasibility criteria associated with each facility

31:54 ↗ So for example, for permeable pavement in the manual for water quality treatment,

32:00 ↗ there's two and a half pages of infeasibility criteria. It has to deal with

32:06 ↗ soils, depth to groundwater, slope, high use roads.

32:12 ↗ So there's a lot of specifications in there that say when

32:18 ↗ and when not to use it. So there's already predefined criteria behind the word, if

32:23 ↗ feasible. You are correct. That's kind of summing everything up that we are not seeing

32:28 ↗ right now. Yes. Okay. Yeah. You just want to avoid language like we have in

32:32 ↗ the Central Issaquah Plan where it says recommended and no one pays attention to it.

32:38 ↗ Appreciate that. Thank you. So on to Amendment 2,

32:44 ↗ it's the definition section of stormwater facility. Any questions on that?

32:52 ↗ Just to clarify, the changes to B1A would also be made to B1C as well?

32:56 ↗ Yes. Yes. And yes. Thank you. Okay.

33:04 ↗ So hearing no comments, we'll go with B2. We'll move to the stormwater facility new

33:09 ↗ definition. And then going to B3 and B4. Before

33:16 ↗ what? No, B3 and B4. It has to do with wetland buffers and stream

33:22 ↗ buffers. So B3 talks about, this is talking about what

33:28 ↗ stormwater LID facilities can happen in wetland buffers. And then the next

33:34 ↗ amendment is the very same facilities, can they also happen in

33:40 ↗ stream buffers? So they're kind of the very same amendment for both. So today's, this

33:45 ↗ comes from the critical areas code that regulates wetland buffers and it says that in

33:50 ↗ the outer 20, so you have a buffer of say 100 feet from a wetland

33:54 ↗ or a stream, incursions or reductions of that buffer can be up to 25%

34:00 ↗ for various different reasons. So one is like removing invasive plants, a person can

34:07 ↗ plant that up and then reduce the buffer. And this one is modifying to say

34:15 ↗ two scenarios of stormwater facilities can go in the outer 25% of the buffer. And

34:20 ↗ you're breaking into two categories. One is if there are stormwater vaults halfway down in

34:26 ↗ the text, those are like, oops, manmade

34:32 ↗ concrete boxes. So you dig a hole in the outer part of the buffer. We're

34:37 ↗ saying that those stormwater vaults can go in the outer 25% of the buffer if

34:40 ↗ then, native soil is put on top and native plants are planted.

34:46 ↗ So the buffer goes back and acts like a native planted buffer.

34:53 ↗ So, but. Sorry, on that note, when those are being installed, is there something that

34:58 ↗ regulates how far the slope can be cut back for that hole? Because usually those

35:04 ↗ things are eight to 10 feet deep and sloping it back at a one-to-one your

35:09 ↗ way into the buffer. other language somewhere else that limits that or is that

35:15 ↗ considered temporary and undisrupted or is that clarified somehow? That would be,

35:22 ↗ I don't want to say it's exactly in the code. I've seen a couple times

35:26 ↗ where perhaps temporary impacts could happen along with a restoration plan with the

35:32 ↗ construction project. I haven't seen many of those. I think it'd be rare. Or

35:38 ↗ does this cut back Is that included in that intrusion?

35:44 ↗ This would be looking at the permanent when everything's done. Okay. Yeah. I think that

35:49 ↗ temporary impact would be a whole other discussion to have. I think we'd be pushing

35:54 ↗ back saying, don't be doing that. I work for a contractor and it's pretty hard

35:59 ↗ to dig a hole without sloping it back. Good point.

36:05 ↗ Back to scenario one. If this man-made structure is going in this buffer area, Yes,

36:10 ↗ it has to be replanted with native plants, and though the buffer has to be

36:15 ↗ averaged, so an increase in that buffer has to happen somewhere else to compensate for

36:20 ↗ the reduction of the 25% buffer over here. And then second scenario, which is towards

36:25 ↗ the bottom of this text, says for those stormwater facilities, such as

36:31 ↗ bioretention, rain gardens, or constructed wetlands, those can also go in the outer 25%,

36:39 ↗ but they're so native and natural when they're done that you do not have to

36:42 ↗ compensate with a larger buffer somewhere else. So that's my

36:49 ↗ summary of what all those words mean. And this applies, so that's the wetland,

36:55 ↗ and then here on the next slide, exhibit B4, it's very similar wording

37:02 ↗ to fit into that stream buffer text. So that's

37:08 ↗ the proposal for those two elements.

37:14 ↗ I have a question here for part that is being eliminated. Category two, three, and

37:20 ↗ four wetlands. Does this verbiage offer more protection

37:26 ↗ or less protection to the environment in storm runoff? Or is it the same?

37:32 ↗ I would think it's the same. I

37:38 ↗ think we're not proposing less protection of those buffers. And the key is that if

37:44 ↗ it's planted up with soil and native plants afterwards, then it's going to function

37:50 ↗ similar to what's currently allowed in the code. Okay, thank

37:56 ↗ you. Any other questions on that one?

38:03 ↗ Okay. And the final one, has to do with these

38:08 ↗ competing needs. So if needed, we can get into what are the various

38:14 ↗ elements of the competing need or the stormwater code. But

38:20 ↗ there's a section in the stormwater code that says, do you wanna help me with

38:25 ↗ this? Okay, come on up and then I'll talk about the text here.

38:31 ↗ We had it written so nice in here. So I'm gonna pull this out.

38:42 ↗ So in the stormwater code, overall,

38:48 ↗ always the goal is stormwater treatment. The new manual

38:54 ↗ is saying our preferred option is to see on-site stormwater

39:00 ↗ management or LID as our first choice and as feasible.

39:06 ↗ And then to go and look at the conventional ways that we see stormwater treatment

39:10 ↗ today. or a combination thereof.

39:17 ↗ For each, and I'm going to break this down in the stormwater stuff, for each

39:23 ↗ surface, and there's three for stormwater, in evaluating

39:29 ↗ whether you can do LID. The first one is lawn and landscape areas, which

39:35 ↗ means basically there's a requirement to do, like it's a compost amended type soil.

39:42 ↗ The second piece is for roof runoff. There's a variety of options as feasible

39:48 ↗ that are from anything from dispersion to perforated stub out pipes to a rain

39:54 ↗ garden. And then the third

40:00 ↗ is your hard surfaces and it breaks it down to permeable pavement, bioretention, and

40:06 ↗ if you can do the first one in that list, that's what you do on

40:10 ↗ your site to your feasible extent. And that might be a lot of your site

40:15 ↗ or it might be a small amount of your site, but you're gonna do as

40:19 ↗ feasible what you can do. With all of these, we mentioned with your question

40:25 ↗ before, there's a whole feasibility assessment that goes into each of these

40:31 ↗ stormwater evaluation on whether it can work on site. That's mostly engineering.

40:38 ↗ And so if you can do it, that's great. There's a second thing that ecology

40:42 ↗ says to assess, and it's a competing needs. And it says, okay, your engineering is

40:47 ↗ all fine and good, and you're good to go on this site, but are there

40:51 ↗ other issues? And it's got about five or six bullets, and it could be like,

40:55 ↗ it affects public health and safety, or there's a toxic or Superfund site located

41:02 ↗ nearby, you can't do a certain item there. It has some ADA and utility interferences

41:07 ↗ there. But the item that this one is discussing

41:15 ↗ is, I've got to go back to what I was saying, but it's defining a

41:20 ↗ special zoning district. And it says basically,

41:27 ↗ do you want to step in? Sure. I lost, I was getting so detailed in

41:30 ↗ my engineering that. And then one of the criteria says where, doing

41:36 ↗ LID, which has been shown to engineer physically work, but if it competes with a

41:41 ↗ special zoning district with the goals, vision, policy of that special zoning district, then

41:48 ↗ the special zoning district can prevail and LID would not happen.

41:56 ↗ What the state didn't do is define what's a special zoning district. So that's our

42:01 ↗ reason for this text amendment here, because we're sure that Each developer is gonna walk

42:08 ↗ in the door and say, well, I think you're in this, I just found some,

42:12 ↗ everyone's defining it different. And I don't have to do LID. So this is to

42:17 ↗ give all of us, the public, the developers, the city certainty, when we're working on

42:21 ↗ projects in town, what are the rules? So that's what this text is saying. And

42:27 ↗ that was brought up to the administration and council. in a work session to go

42:33 ↗ over and clarify for the city what a special zoning district was. And they

42:40 ↗ informed us that the Central Issaquah area plan was considered a special

42:45 ↗ zoning district. So basically, if a development came

42:52 ↗ in, you would implement stormwater LID within the Central Issaquah plan as feasible, but

42:57 ↗ if it interfered with the development or zoning, of a site that

43:03 ↗ conventional stormwater treatment would be used. Why was that? Why was Central

43:09 ↗ Issaquah deemed to be one of those special areas? In the work

43:14 ↗ session? I'd say it's the most comprehensive. We don't have that many

43:21 ↗ special or sub area. We kind of interpret it as a sub area plan of

43:25 ↗ the city. And you can say We have the central Issaquah plan

43:31 ↗ is the most recent, most comprehensive detailed clear vision of what that sub area

43:37 ↗ is. We have an old town sub area plan. And those are really the two

43:44 ↗ subsets or special, that's what we thought were special zoning districts.

43:50 ↗ And then the central Issaquah plan has said, as we think all know, that's where

43:55 ↗ the city's targeting and focusing and taking the growth that's coming here. We wanna

44:01 ↗ focus it in that area and we've committed citywide to a certain vision. And so

44:07 ↗ to support achieving that vision, that's why I think we headed towards the central Issaquah

44:13 ↗ plan area. And then said what it says here is that we still are going

44:18 ↗ to push to consider the maximum extent practical and feasible to do LID in the

44:24 ↗ central Issaquah area But if it does compete with the goals of

44:30 ↗ the vision of development there, then that vision would win out over LID.

44:36 ↗ One of the things that I would personally like to see is something that would

44:40 ↗ push the requirements a little stronger. So not just

44:45 ↗ allow compete, which I think is kind of a broad, generalized term. You can say

44:49 ↗ that eminent domain, anything competes with growth of business, right?

44:55 ↗ That was one of those Supreme Court decisions that came out that broadened what business

44:59 ↗ uses were. I would say conflict might be a better term. So you actually have

45:05 ↗ to find something with the central plan that conflicts with the LID requirements in a

45:10 ↗ particular instance. And that way it would push the developers to include that in their

45:14 ↗ plan a little bit more, I think. I would be a proponent of that. I

45:18 ↗ actually found I was excited about these changes to the design manual and

45:24 ↗ are proposing would be the primary source for our stormwater runoff. And I found that

45:29 ↗ the wording was actually, I didn't feel like it achieved that standard. I thought it

45:33 ↗ kind of actually gave a loophole. So I'm excited that the staff was saying, no,

45:37 ↗ our intent is to strengthen it and really have this be our plan A when

45:41 ↗ possible. So I would be a fan of changing that language to try to strengthen

45:47 ↗ the requirement of LID being the primary available source when possible.

45:53 ↗ So, okay. I was gonna say maybe just a general question. With your lead

45:59 ↗ in, you were talking about the kind of the background with this idea of defining

46:04 ↗ special districts and then that was clarified by council and everything. So is it, are

46:08 ↗ we required to make that concession when there's a special district or do we sort

46:14 ↗ of have a choice as to whether or not to do that. In other words,

46:19 ↗ do we have to, even though we have the central Issaquah plan as a special

46:23 ↗ district, do we have to write it in so that if there's a conflict

46:30 ↗ that the tenants of the plan went out, or is that just a choice we're

46:33 ↗ making? I'm just... And follow-up question, which may help steer the conversation before you start

46:37 ↗ answering. Was this specific request from the work session that those, that LID requirements be

46:43 ↗ modified for the special zoning district? We asked to provide clarity so that when we

46:49 ↗ could review projects that came in the door,

46:56 ↗ that we had some context, one, to be able to decipher this

47:02 ↗ competing needs. You know, you can look at all the engineering, but with this competing

47:06 ↗ needs, we really needed some understanding in the city, is

47:11 ↗ everything a competing need? Were there certain areas in the city that were a competing

47:17 ↗ need? And so then that's where the focus came in on the Central Issaquah Plan.

47:24 ↗ And a lot of it came from where you looked at all the stormwater verbiage

47:28 ↗ in the Central Issaquah Plan and the land use verbiage in the Central Issaquah Plan.

47:34 ↗ And there was both very well spoken, but it was very

47:39 ↗ clear what the vision of the Central Issaquah Plan was. And that's where

47:45 ↗ the workshop kind of focused in on the Central Issaquah Plan as defining

47:51 ↗ that as a special zoning district. So is that, is the Central

47:57 ↗ Issaquah Plan, is that in, does that exceed the LID standards?

48:03 ↗ Or is that an area where seeing LID, we can let the Central Issaquah area

48:09 ↗ off the hook a little bit on the LID stuff? Which side of the line

48:15 ↗ is it on? It depends on the site. It really does. It depends on the

48:20 ↗ size of the site, it depends on the suitability of the soils on the site.

48:26 ↗ The project. And the project. The design. The design, really on a lot of those.

48:33 ↗ And I was trying to focus in on there's a lot of elements of LID

48:36 ↗ you can use. So you might not have a project that comes in and can

48:39 ↗ utilize maybe bioretention or pervious pavement to treat the

48:46 ↗ hard surface, but they sure can implement LID if they've got a landscape area with

48:52 ↗ the compost that's required and some roof dispersion. So they might not be able to

48:56 ↗ do it all, but they're gonna do the most that they can as feasible within

48:59 ↗ the site while still meeting the intent of the density and the vision in that

49:04 ↗ area. All right, excuse me, I have a couple questions here

49:10 ↗ and I'm a little confused. When I read this as a

49:16 ↗ business person, and if I was a developer, an investor in a property,

49:23 ↗ to me this would say that the central Issaquah plan,

49:30 ↗ I would be able to do away with LID entirely and

49:36 ↗ focus on building the most profitable development. Because

49:42 ↗ it's basically a loophole.

49:49 ↗ Almost it takes LID completely out of it. So

49:55 ↗ why would I as a developer want to embrace LID when it's gonna cost me

50:00 ↗ additional money? And the central Issaquah plan based on this verbiage is licensed to do,

50:07 ↗ not embrace the LID period. So I can try to clarify that.

50:13 ↗ As a developer, you're still going to have to come in and do the stormwater

50:19 ↗ and meet all of the minimum requirements in the stormwater design manual in your drainage

50:23 ↗ review. As part of that, you're going to have to provide all your engineering feasibility.

50:29 ↗ You're going to have to show the soils on the site and present your stormwater

50:32 ↗ treatment options. If you as a developer didn't come in and say, I assessed

50:39 ↗ this LID, we'd require you to assess the LID and show us why you can't

50:44 ↗ do it. And that might be because of engineering feasibility, because the soils on the

50:50 ↗ site are lousy and your report's gonna say that. The competing needs was put in

50:56 ↗ Ecologies, this is Ecologies permit condition, and in their manual,

51:02 ↗ because there's Growth Management Act and You have to still allow this urban growth in

51:08 ↗ certain areas and not inhibit the whole area by requiring LID.

51:14 ↗ Although I would love LID in my whole project to have stormwater treatment, the feasibility

51:20 ↗ of treating all your water on these urban sites with just LID is not going

51:26 ↗ to happen. It's a tool in the toolbox to get a lot of your onsite

51:29 ↗ infiltration in a small amount or half the site, but

51:35 ↗ you're still going to have to do some conventional treatment. And you'll still have to

51:39 ↗ do some item of that LID. Like I said, it could just be lawn and

51:44 ↗ landscape. You'd have to show why you can't do your roofs. And you'd have to

51:49 ↗ show why you can't do your hardscape. Follow up to that.

51:56 ↗ You'd mentioned the word compete came from ecology. Is that correct? That's why that was

52:01 ↗ included in this language. Is there a reason that practical was included in addition to

52:06 ↗ feasible? And if so, are there standards for practical as there are for feasible?

52:14 ↗ We use the term practical and feasible in other parts of the land use code.

52:18 ↗ I think that's where I brought it from. The DOE manual doesn't have the word

52:23 ↗ practical in there. Just feasible? Yeah, because then we have

52:29 ↗ standards, I think practical would leave that whole wide open, whereas feasible we already have

52:34 ↗ standards for determined feasibility. So if you'd like to go with replace compete with conflict,

52:40 ↗ I heard that, and then think about that. Given that it's in the ecology standards

52:45 ↗ that they use compete, that may roll back that for me in terms of the

52:51 ↗ compete versus conflict, but I think removing practical would be a. To the maximum extent

52:56 ↗ feasible. leave it at that. That goes straight to the DOE

53:02 ↗ text, sure. Okay.

53:13 ↗ How are we doing here? Good. I see. Anybody else have

53:18 ↗ anything on this one? Ron, I can see Ron. Yeah, I don't know that I

53:22 ↗ really like that. I like to be disruptive

53:28 ↗ because I think disruptive reduces progress. And in industry,

53:34 ↗ disruptive creates competition. If we created a

53:39 ↗ stronger policy than what maybe the Board of Ecology is,

53:46 ↗ developers would still be enticed to develop here, but they may find new ways to

53:51 ↗ be able to adapt and implement a new policy

53:58 ↗ stronger L.A.D. than if we just give them heart blanche and say you don't have

54:03 ↗ to worry about that so much. So my point is if we add stronger language,

54:09 ↗ I don't know that, I don't think it would stop developers from moving forward with

54:14 ↗ development, but it may make them think more strategically and come up with better ways.

54:20 ↗ Otherwise that storm water goes into the system and then goes right out to the

54:23 ↗ lake. Would that be correct? Or does that stormwater actually get filtered? It's still required

54:28 ↗ to have treatment. So as I kind of mentioned before, no matter what your development

54:32 ↗ is coming in, your stormwater is still required to be treated. It's just ecology saying

54:38 ↗ their preferred method to be assessed is LID. It's your first

54:44 ↗ item in your toolbox. If you can't do LID or you can't do it all

54:49 ↗ on your site, then you're still going to do your conventional treatment. And so you're

54:55 ↗ still, you might have two treatment systems. So at the end of the day, the

55:00 ↗ regulations to protect water quality, I mean, they're the same. It's just ecology

55:06 ↗ had added LID, green infrastructure, because they wanted people to

55:13 ↗ evaluate it now. And they're now required to evaluate it when they do their drainage

55:19 ↗ reports. But if they can't do it on their site, because of the

55:24 ↗ feasibility or the urban density in certain cities, they

55:30 ↗ still have to do conventional treatment, yes. So from an environmental standpoint, which is

55:36 ↗ better? Ecology will say that putting the water into the

55:42 ↗ ground at the site of impact is best. Thank you.

55:50 ↗ Just as a quick clarification, it's also my understanding that another exemption to this is

55:55 ↗ our urban villages, that when we put together development,

56:02 ↗ our development agreements, that they specify that and that they supersede that, the development agreements.

56:08 ↗ And you can... That they specified what? Within the development agreement, that they're able to

56:14 ↗ work those details out so they would also supersede this code. Development agreement will specify

56:20 ↗ and would then be able to basically be its own classification, like a special designation

56:25 ↗ the way that, is that correct? Are you saying

56:31 ↗ that the existing development agreements? Development agreements are made that they specifically

56:37 ↗ talk about these LID requirements in respect that they're able to

56:43 ↗ not have them be their primary, that they're able to treat stormwater in more traditional

56:47 ↗ ways rather than through LID requirements. And I only can speak right now to like

56:53 ↗ other, the pre-existing development agreements that have already been vested.

56:59 ↗ They're even under a manual that's been vested. So if, and they had an original

57:05 ↗ master plan for stormwater that's permitted and approved, any project that's permitted and

57:10 ↗ approved through the end of the year is not vested to this new,

57:16 ↗ information so you're correct i mean if there's development agreements now that have had their

57:22 ↗ storm water assessments done um have already been done in future but

57:28 ↗ future ones let's say 2017 future development agreements are are able to be exempt from

57:33 ↗ this as well that's part of the negotiation with the city or this would apply

57:36 ↗ to them the future that's what i'm asking that would be a starting point but

57:41 ↗ a development agreement is its own special agreement with the city council and developers so

57:47 ↗ You know, we can't guarantee. Right. Yeah. So my reading of this would be that

57:51 ↗ that's only central Issaquah plan would be a special zoning district and that otherwise the

57:55 ↗ requirements would apply. Yes.

58:04 ↗ Yeah, I, I like my colleague here and have similar concerns about the forcefulness of

58:09 ↗ the requirements in terms of central Issaquah. Realizing.

58:17 ↗ the pragmatic application that this came from a council work group.

58:23 ↗ As far as I'm concerned, I'd be okay with approving

58:29 ↗ as amended today, as we've talked about, but with a note to council upon transmittal

58:35 ↗ that while we realize the lid exemptions or modifications to central

58:41 ↗ Issaquah plan came out of a work session, that we would rather the council consider

58:47 ↗ some stronger application of lid to the central Lysaqua plan. Would that be something that

58:52 ↗ everyone would be comfortable with? I would agree with that, yeah. That'd be great. And

58:57 ↗ the next steps, we'll go to council and refer to a land and shore committee,

59:01 ↗ so a group of three to really have the same discussion all over again. And

59:06 ↗ we could take that note to them for sure. Yeah, exactly. I would like them

59:10 ↗ CC'd on that as well. Okay. Does that bring us? Is there any more discussion

59:14 ↗ on this? I guess just a quick question and it's a little bit

59:21 ↗ on the side, but you know, thinking about competition and so forth across the city,

59:25 ↗ during the work session, I mean, did it come up, if I'm outside of the

59:31 ↗ central ISAQA plan and now going forward, you know, LID is gonna be the standard

59:37 ↗ and then someone, you know, across the line in central ISAQA plan is gonna have

59:40 ↗ a little bit more wiggle room, Is that of concern or did that come up

59:44 ↗ at all? That actually did not come up at all. I'm just curious about homogeny

59:50 ↗ across the city. That's all. Okay. I

59:55 ↗ do have one question here. This was City Council's idea to change this

1:00:01 ↗ verbiage. Was that ours? You were saying that this came from the Department

1:00:07 ↗ of Ecology. The Department of Ecology has verbiage.

1:00:14 ↗ both in our permit and in the stormwater design manual that

1:00:20 ↗ specifically targets LID. And it says, one, you shall do

1:00:26 ↗ based on engineering feasibility. And if you can't, that's okay because it's got all the

1:00:31 ↗ feasibility. And number two, you will assess competing needs. C,

1:00:37 ↗ appendix, dah, dah, dah, dah. Within that appendix, there's like five or six bullets and

1:00:42 ↗ the special zoning district language on LID is one of those bullets.

1:00:48 ↗ And that's where we as staff really needed a clarification on the policy

1:00:54 ↗ around what is a special zoning district in which we could deal with our review

1:01:01 ↗ for on-site stormwater. So it wasn't until just now

1:01:07 ↗ or very recently here that the Central Issaquah Plan was

1:01:13 ↗ being considered as a special needs area, special zoning area.

1:01:20 ↗ If we didn't have this conversation, then all development would still have to meet LID,

1:01:27 ↗ which is telling me that the capability is there. MS. Or every

1:01:33 ↗ place wouldn't have to meet LID. zoning district could be anything in the

1:01:38 ↗ comprehensive plan just like whatever you define it to be and we needed some

1:01:44 ↗ clarification if that meant some place on the outskirts of Issaquah could say

1:01:50 ↗ they couldn't implement or even try to implement their stormwater LID and they had the

1:01:55 ↗ space to do it versus where we had this concrete, you know, the central

1:02:01 ↗ Issaquah plan that really laid out the stormwater and land use elements

1:02:07 ↗ and even showed the priorities among them that it felt strongly enough that at least

1:02:13 ↗ we could provide this direction that the central Issaquah plan, central Issaquah area

1:02:22 ↗ would be in this competing needs slot.

1:02:28 ↗ If this is assumed, City Council doesn't approve it, then developers who would come into

1:02:34 ↗ the central Izaquois area would have to conform to some of the LID

1:02:40 ↗ in order to go. It would

1:02:45 ↗ be the way that we're envisioning it, if we don't have some sort of criteria

1:02:51 ↗ to assess it, we're going to be evaluating competing needs on every project that comes

1:02:56 ↗ in the door. throughout the whole city. So you're actually saying if

1:03:02 ↗ competing needs is only for the central Issaquah area. So if a developer is outside

1:03:07 ↗ of the central Issaquah plan, then they must embrace LAD.

1:03:13 ↗ Yes. Or feasible, right? And if you are in the central Issaquah

1:03:19 ↗ plan, then you don't have to meet that necessarily because you could trade off by

1:03:25 ↗ filtering your stormwater. you have to still meet it where feasible on your site.

1:03:31 ↗ That last sentence has a little grab to say, even in the central risk law

1:03:36 ↗ plan, you still have to look at the extent feasible. It's not just a complete

1:03:40 ↗ get out of jail card. So for example, they may have, I think about these

1:03:46 ↗ scenarios all the time. I saw something the other day. They have an, you're turning

1:03:52 ↗ your roadway and you have five parking stalls there. likely going

1:03:58 ↗ to be putting pervious pavement on those five parking stalls there as part of your

1:04:02 ↗ LID because it's not necessarily interfering with your zoning of your site, for

1:04:07 ↗ example, is where you might see it. You might see a small

1:04:13 ↗ bioretention facility, but you're not going to take up so much room

1:04:19 ↗ on your site in the central Issaquah area that you're inhibiting the density that's

1:04:25 ↗ already been planned for that parcel. So you're gonna implement it where feasible. It

1:04:31 ↗ might not be large scale, but it's still gonna be on the site.

1:04:40 ↗ As well as conventional treatment. You're still gonna have stormwater treatment at the end of

1:04:45 ↗ the day on any site that you have. So from a development standpoint, I'm gonna

1:04:51 ↗ ask your opinion for this. Would it be too expensive and reasonably

1:04:57 ↗ high cost to develop a underground LED system

1:05:03 ↗ so that developers can compensate and be able to have their impermeable

1:05:09 ↗ surfaces on top and utilize the ground underneath? That's very

1:05:15 ↗ creative, but it's not in our manual of which we can choose from by ecology

1:05:20 ↗ at this point in time. we're only allowed really to use certain LID

1:05:26 ↗ elements that are specified by ecology as well as certain conventional water quality treatment systems.

1:05:33 ↗ Okay. Yep. I'm vetting all possibilities. That's great. But that did raise a

1:05:39 ↗ question in my mind. So if we transmit a letter saying that we recommend that

1:05:45 ↗ the exemptions to central Issaquah plan not be in there, then your understanding is that

1:05:50 ↗ would potentially open up the entire city as being each its own special zoning

1:05:56 ↗ district. And so it would require also a redefinition of special zoning district within the

1:06:01 ↗ code to say that there are no special zoning districts within NISQA in order to

1:06:06 ↗ prevent that if we recommend not placing the CIP as a

1:06:12 ↗ special zoning district. I suppose if you wanna say LID shall apply and be override

1:06:17 ↗ all throughout the whole city, that would be a way to do that. Okay. Does

1:06:23 ↗ that open us up since at a state level they've already specified that we're able

1:06:29 ↗ to have it? I'm curious because you guys had this work session, was the, So

1:06:35 ↗ when I initially read this, I saw this as being like, oh, maybe this is

1:06:38 ↗ a little bit weaker. And after our discussion, I'm seeing that the city is wanting

1:06:41 ↗ to strengthen this, which is more how I'm inclined to feel. But I'm curious, since

1:06:46 ↗ at a state level, they're saying, ecology is saying, hey, except for in these special

1:06:50 ↗ zones, that if we say there are no special zones, then does that open us

1:06:53 ↗ up to action from development of saying, The last part

1:06:59 ↗ from action. If we say that there is no such thing as a special zone

1:07:02 ↗ in Issaquah and everybody is, then does that open us up to action for legal

1:07:08 ↗ action from developers who are saying, hey, state has said that there is such a

1:07:12 ↗ classification as special zoning. I don't know about that. I guess, how does this sound?

1:07:17 ↗ I was thinking, so the central Issaquah plan says in the core, I'm looking at

1:07:21 ↗ the zoning map in the red box up there, the urban core, we've said there

1:07:26 ↗ shall be a minimum density there. So we were kind of setting ourselves up to

1:07:31 ↗ say, you get this built in conflict now. And one code says you have to

1:07:36 ↗ meet this minimum density. And this other code says, no, you can't. You have to

1:07:41 ↗ have smaller density. So in that respect, a developer could say, yeah, I

1:07:46 ↗ don't know if they want to sue us, but there's some liability. There's some issue.

1:07:51 ↗ There's definitely conflict. We know there's conflict, uncertainty, and it's just a mess. So that's

1:07:57 ↗ kind of where we're coming from here.

1:08:04 ↗ So you're saying that the language we have here is actually stronger language? It's good

1:08:09 ↗ clarifying. Stronger than, I guess it's just clarifying language. It's stronger than

1:08:15 ↗ just saying the word special zoning district. And each development comes in the door. We

1:08:20 ↗ have a argument with every developer and it just all bogs down.

1:08:26 ↗ Yeah, I like the fact that it specifies central Issaquah area and doesn't just say

1:08:32 ↗ I'm sort of back 180

1:08:38 ↗ degrees from where I started, which is good.

1:08:45 ↗ I guess now I like the idea of designating it in here, it being the

1:08:49 ↗ only special district. The rest of the city is LID first. But I still

1:08:54 ↗ would like to see a little bit stronger language that even inside of the central

1:09:00 ↗ district, even though it's a special district and there are competing interests there.

1:09:06 ↗ If there's any way that we could still sort of push people in the direction

1:09:09 ↗ of LID, I think that would be favorable. I'm not sure what the right language

1:09:12 ↗ is, unfortunately, but that would be my sort of recommendation to council. So if you

1:09:18 ↗ all want to, most of you I hear want to draft some of that response,

1:09:23 ↗ we can draft something for you to look at or we've heard you tonight. And

1:09:28 ↗ I agree, I can't think of the right words to strengthen it right here tonight.

1:09:32 ↗ So we'll see if council wants to go there. And if so, we can be

1:09:36 ↗ working on stronger language. Well, and even, we talked earlier about

1:09:42 ↗ removing the word practical and just sticking with feasible, which is defined. I think that

1:09:46 ↗ helps. Because then you have to provide some rationale feasibility. Is that consensus you'd like

1:09:52 ↗ to propose at least that, right? I heard that. Yeah. Yes. I think

1:09:58 ↗ moving practical and just

1:10:03 ↗ leaving feasible answers the question. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, at this point, I'd like

1:10:07 ↗ to make a proposed amendment to our

1:10:13 ↗ findings of fact, proposed amendments, review rationale and recommendations as outlined.

1:10:20 ↗ to changes to 1802.110 and to Central Issaquah Development Design

1:10:25 ↗ Standards as previously outlined. I think we have those notes taken down. And

1:10:31 ↗ then to,

1:10:34 ↗ let's see, the

1:10:42 ↗ Central Issaquah Design Standards Chapter 11C3 and 1807.035,

1:10:50 ↗ to remove the words practical and from the last line of each

1:10:56 ↗ of those. Yeah. So it would be maximum extent feasible. Correct.

1:11:03 ↗ Got it. And then finally,

1:11:09 ↗ as part of this, that the vice chair or the chair be allowed to draft

1:11:14 ↗ a transmittal letter stating that we would like to somehow see these made a little

1:11:20 ↗ stronger to apply even within the central Issaquah plan.

1:11:27 ↗ That works. Second. Second.

1:11:33 ↗ Do we need to open up to public discussion? No, not a public hearing. Yes,

1:11:37 ↗ it is a public hearing. It is a public hearing, yes. Before we vote,

1:11:44 ↗ we'll open it up to anybody that wants to speak. There's still time to come

1:11:48 ↗ in from home.

1:11:53 ↗ Hearing no public speakers, we will close the public hearing. That was good.

1:12:01 ↗ Now we can vote on the proposed

1:12:07 ↗ land use amendments as modified tonight and amended. There's been a motion and a second.

1:12:16 ↗ And David will work on language with the letter that you'll

1:12:21 ↗ transmit to me to send to the city council. Correct.

1:12:30 ↗ All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none. So moved. Thank you.

1:12:40 ↗ We didn't even get to the last slide which says next steps, but we've already

1:12:43 ↗ talked about that. So there's the next steps. Goes off to Council with your

1:12:49 ↗ recommendation. And this does go into effect at the end of the year. So

1:12:56 ↗ Dana is working very hard. This is one part of

1:13:02 ↗ this much work. So it's staff training, it's all the processes,

1:13:09 ↗ SOPs and BMPs and QRZs and all that. So thank you, Dana. Thank you.

1:13:14 ↗ Thank you for your input tonight. It was very helpful. Thank you for answering your

1:13:19 ↗ questions. And thank you for allowing us to grill you. It's worked out. All right.

1:13:24 ↗ Any other business? That's it. Hearing none, then we will adjourn at 745.

1:13:31 ↗ Thank you. Thank you.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Recommendations & actions (3)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

MOVED BY WALSH, SECONDED BY FAUL that minutes of the PPC meeting on June 30, 2016 be approved as presented with the corrections offered by WALSH.
Following a recent City Council Committee Work Session, staff was directed to study whether the Central Issaquah Area should be designated a SZD.
Favour replied the Central Issaquah Area is one of two subareas in the City that has an adopted subarea plan; the other is Olde Town.