← Back to City Council Digest

Planning Policy Commission Auto captions

Thursday, May 23, 2019

6:30 PM · 1h 26m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.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 2020 – Ron Faul land use documents. 2020 – Joan Probala 2022 – Joy Lewis Membership 2022 – Janice Carle The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 – Bill Rinehart seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2022 – Jason Voiss several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2023 – Randy Harrison 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, 2020 – Tom Haskins see IMC 18.03. 2020 – Robin Beukers 2020 – Vacant 2020 – Vacant
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2a
Minutes of May 9, 2019
packet pp.5–9
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-09-19 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000]
2a
Amendments to IMC 18.10.940 Shoreline Master Program, (R)
Doug Yormick, Assistant Planner · packet pp.11–147
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires that the City of Issaquah’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP), be reviewed and revised, if needed, on an eight-year schedule established by the Legislature, also known as “Periodic Review”. The review ensures that Issaquah’s SMP remains current with changes in the following areas: SMA, City plans and regulations, changed circumstances in the environment and, new information and improved data. The Department of Ecology (DOE), provides a periodic review checklist which is used to guide jurisdictions through the periodic review update. Included in this agenda packet are: a) the Periodic Review Checklist (the Gap Analysis Report, conducted by the Watershed Company) which summarizes amendments to State laws adopted between 2007 and 2017, and b) the draft amendments to the SMP.
4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
4a
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.149
Staff report:
OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2019 PFC Schedule (tentative) {upd-.m.-u5..-'15.v'193 All meerins located in Council Clmlnbers unless noted "
0:02 you
0:09 flashing that means you're not close
0:12 enough to the mic if it's steady red
0:15 you're good and it used to be that you
0:17 could turn the mics off but I don't
0:19 think you can do that anymore so these
0:23 alright good evening and welcome to the
0:26 policy and planning commission meeting
0:27 tonight
0:28 may 23 29 this evening we will be
0:33 discussing amendments to the shoreline
0:37 master program imc 18 10940 and then
0:42 we'll be opening up to public comment
0:46 content and we will not be closing the
0:51 hearing tonight or the public comments
0:55 will be continuing them on to June 13th
0:59 and we have our guest speakers this
1:02 evening we have Maria senator look I get
1:08 that right it's Marin Center cook she's
1:10 with the Department of Ecology and she's
1:11 gonna help us answer some questions and
1:14 then our guest speaker tonight is also
1:17 Doug you're m'q and he's one of our
1:18 assistant planners and he works with
1:21 Lucy right and so let's start with the
1:28 minutes from May 9 2019 and do I have a
1:32 motion to approve the minutes of May 9th
1:36 I'd like to make a motion to approve the
1:38 minutes for May 9th Paul's planning
1:40 policy Commission meeting all right
1:42 thanks Bill and do we have a second
1:44 second all right Thank You Robin so we
1:47 got a second from Robin and all in favor
1:49 aye those opposed staying a motion
1:54 carries minutes are approved and now
1:57 we'll go ahead and open the floor up to
2:02 thank you Doug
2:07 good evening though I'm Doug your m'q I
2:12 am not really new with the city but I
2:15 have never really done this at least
2:18 with PBC and yeah and I thought council
2:22 chambers was Eagle Room
2:24 so this shows you how much I actually
2:25 come to this part of town
2:27 I'm usually over in the City Hall
2:29 Northwest so anyways I'm Doug you're my
2:31 assistant planner with development
2:32 services and I'm here to present you the
2:36 2019 shoreline Master program update so
2:41 were any of you on the board in 2013
2:46 during the last update no no no one okay
2:49 I'm gonna give you a quick crash course
2:50 in what the shoreline master program is
2:53 so the shore master program are the
2:57 development regulations for the
2:59 shoreline jurisdiction of the city and
3:01 the shoreline jurisdiction is defined as
3:03 200 feet upland of shorelines of the
3:06 state draw lines of the state are
3:10 defined as streams with mean annual flow
3:12 of 20 cubic feet per second or greater
3:15 Lakes greater than 20 acres all marine
3:18 waters which we don't have to worry
3:20 about and then associated wetlands which
3:22 are wetlands that have some sort of
3:25 hydraulic continuity with the shoreline
3:27 of the state and then for the city of
3:30 Issaquah that just means it Creek
3:32 East Fork of Issaquah Creek and Lake
3:35 Sammamish here's a general idea of where
3:40 our shoreline jurisdiction lies so kind
3:43 of bisecting the the city into two and
3:49 the different colors our shoreline
3:52 environmental designations which is
3:53 think of it kind of like zoning they
3:56 have their own uses that are allowed and
3:58 their whole separate permitting for that
4:01 as well so since 2013 the city has been
4:07 pretty busy and here's just a general
4:09 timeline of some major events that have
4:12 happened since that we need to
4:14 incorporate into our shoreline master
4:16 program so shortly after her
4:18 almost immediately after we adopted our
4:21 shoreline math program central Issaquah
4:23 sub area plan was adopted that's
4:26 important because in the shoreline
4:29 master program it still references the
4:31 old zoning for the shoreline
4:34 designations that go through central
4:36 Issaquah in 2015 the city annex Lake
4:39 Sammamish State Park so that kind of
4:43 needs to be incorporated into that as
4:44 well and then in 2017 Washington
4:48 legislature adopted a rule for periodic
4:51 review that now puts every municipality
4:54 on an eight-year schedule and ours
4:56 happens to be up in 2019 so the purpose
5:03 of the periodic update just like we've
5:06 been busy updating codes annexing areas
5:10 the state and ecology have also been
5:13 busy and they've had numerous rule
5:14 changes since 2013 so they have prepared
5:20 a checklist based on that and we have
5:22 performed a gap analysis to see which
5:25 rules we need to incorporate into our
5:27 shoreline master program we also wanted
5:30 to take this time to make it easier to
5:32 navigate for city staff and for the
5:35 residents of Issaquah we need to update
5:37 code references we'd also like to add
5:40 hyperlinks of the code rep that we are
5:42 referencing has a direct link so you can
5:45 easily just click and vice versa
5:48 and then we've also need consistency
5:51 with adopted plans the comprehensive
5:54 plan has been amended in 2018 2018 also
5:58 the parks had their strategic plan and
6:01 we've as I've discussed before the 2013
6:05 Central Issaquah plan that has been
6:08 recently amended in 2019 periodic update
6:15 will not reevaluate the equal equal
6:18 optical baselines so back at the
6:21 comprehensive update in 2013 there was
6:24 an ecological baseline that was
6:27 established we are not going to reassess
6:30 that reevaluate that
6:32 and outside of our proposed amendments
6:34 we are not going to assess the no net
6:37 loss of those baseline conditions and
6:40 then we're not going to change shoreline
6:43 jurisdiction or any of the shoreline
6:45 environmental designations docking is a
6:49 good time to interrupt you for just
6:50 sector can you back up for this moment
6:52 and note the slight ahead of that one on
6:58 there so when you say reevaluate the
7:00 ecological baseline and assess can you
7:03 dig into what those might mean more
7:08 detail right the reason why I'm asking
7:12 is so we don't ask questions that might
7:14 be directed towards those what does it
7:23 mean to the reader when we say we're not
7:26 going to re-evaluate the ecological
7:27 baseline what is that what is the
7:29 baseline so in 2013 the conditions of
7:34 all of the shorelines in Issaquah were
7:36 evaluated and in that evaluation
7:38 established this is this is the current
7:41 condition of the shoreline and we can't
7:43 degrade that any further that's that's
7:45 what like the no net loss okay so we can
7:49 only improve upon that so in in that
7:52 time whether it's individual residents
7:55 or parks they've gone about doing some
7:59 shoreline restoration work so making
8:01 that better but what we aren't going to
8:03 do is to look at any of that where we're
8:07 keeping with the original baseline in
8:09 our original plans the only thing that
8:12 we'll be looking at is if we have like
8:14 our proposed amendments we will look at
8:16 to see if there would be any degradation
8:17 to the shoreline okay that's very
8:19 helpful thank you
8:23 this is or tonight I'm sorry about
8:27 having it split up into two like we are
8:31 today we're gonna be focusing on
8:33 policies and I also have a slide for the
8:36 amendments to give you kind of a heads
8:37 up of what we're looking at but so even
8:42 though the shoreline master program and
8:44 the
8:44 comprehensive plan or separate documents
8:46 the goals and policies that are in the
8:48 shoreline master program are actually
8:50 part of the comprehensive plan and in
8:54 our update there's going to be some
8:56 changes to those goals goals and
8:58 policies so three point three point one
9:01 the recreational elements were reworking
9:06 that so it's more in line with the
9:08 city's vision for recreational use of
9:10 the shoreline in by 5 point ten point
9:16 one point nine we're removing that
9:20 because it it has to be done anyways so
9:23 we're kind of eliminating the the need
9:25 for a policy when something actually has
9:28 to happen and the same thing for five
9:33 eleven one four we it says for
9:37 encouraging low-impact development a lot
9:41 of that is required with a stormwater
9:43 code so and then again consistency with
9:47 adopted plans so there are some policies
9:50 in there that we need to update to
9:53 reference like Park strategic plan for
9:55 instance the green necklace plan which
9:58 is also part of parks and then Lake
10:00 Sammamish State Park and again and
10:03 you'll probably see this a few more
10:05 times consistency with our zoning code
10:08 replacing obsolete zoning code language
10:10 creating hyperlinks just trying to make
10:14 navigating this document a lot easier
10:18 and then here's a slide on SP amendments
10:24 and next time we will be discussing this
10:26 much further some of the amendments are
10:30 state mandated so the cost threshold for
10:34 certain permanent activities has has
10:36 gone up and that's that's based on a
10:37 schedule the office of financial
10:39 management state has also allowed for
10:44 some certain exemptions for eighty eight
10:46 retrofit of existing shoreline
10:48 facilities we're taking this time to
10:52 update definitions to be consistent with
10:54 state and city regulations and also
10:57 we've
10:58 and some acronyms kind of thrown about
11:02 the document that that needs some
11:04 definition to them because they're just
11:05 kind of sitting there frost referencing
11:10 with state and local regulations again
11:12 creating those hyperlinks utilizing them
11:15 to make this process a lot easier and
11:18 then updating the obsolete and incorrect
11:21 code citations so here is our timeline
11:27 we are looking to submit to ecology in
11:32 September the bulk of our work is being
11:35 done now and should be done by the end
11:37 of June after that it's just going to be
11:40 going through the adoption process on
11:44 March 26th we had a public meeting at
11:48 the river and streams board where we
11:51 kind of did a kickoff with that and then
11:57 right now we are holding our public
12:00 hearing which will then be carried over
12:03 until June 13th and that students you
12:13 know I have various questions there have
12:15 a rather detailed nature and I'm not
12:16 sure given what you did a high level
12:18 presentation just gave how to ask you
12:21 these questions so are you going to now
12:23 go through or are one of you going to go
12:26 through the the document and the pages
12:29 so that I'll just ask when you get to a
12:31 page or how how's this gonna work if you
12:35 have any specific questions on one of
12:38 the goals or policies that we've
12:40 highlighted to change feel free to just
12:44 ask so Ron do you have a particular way
12:49 that you would like the meeting to run
12:51 tonight well thought is that when we get
12:55 to the various topics that would be a
12:57 good time to bring some of these
13:00 questions up and if we miss or if we
13:03 skip one of the topics we
13:06 skip the question sorry if we skip over
13:10 an area that you have a question on it
13:13 might be a good idea to bring the
13:16 question forward and find out from the
13:19 speakers we need to take for another
13:23 period that work right because I think
13:26 we were intending tonight that the seven
13:28 goals and policies that we listed in
13:31 your memo that that would be the focus
13:33 of the discussion and then next time
13:35 would be any of the code changes that
13:38 would be the focus of that meeting so do
13:40 they fall into those categories or I
13:43 think more code change as opposed to
13:46 high level policy so I guess it would be
13:49 more next session okay because we'll
13:53 also have the consultant will have
13:54 watershed with us next time that would
13:57 be able to answer you know if there any
13:59 you know super technical questions on
14:01 why this or why that that's the June
14:03 13th meeting or correct
14:04 which you're not going to be if you can
14:06 send your questions though we could we
14:09 could try to address them so at least
14:11 you'd have them with you for your
14:13 knowledge if does that work we can talk
14:15 about them tonight if everyone's ready
14:17 to okay and then we can just follow up
14:19 to Martin the next meeting if that's
14:21 okay okay that works for me I just
14:23 didn't know what that watershed yes we
14:26 have a lot of new people here whenever
14:27 you have a lot of questions it's always
14:29 best to send them in advance have a
14:33 chance to answer that right Lucy had a
14:39 good idea to that since you won't be
14:40 here next time you can ask and we'll see
14:43 how we do without watershed to see how
14:45 far we can get in answering and then
14:47 following up the things that we can't
14:50 okay so let's just yes absolutely so I'm
14:54 just going to clarify because we so
14:59 technically we're focusing on the
15:01 policies tonight but if the
15:03 commissioners are ready we are happy to
15:06 hear your questions or comments
15:08 without our resource watershed company
15:13 who's our technical experts we may not
15:15 be able to answer all the questions but
15:17 very helpful for us to go ahead and ask
15:19 them tonight and then we'll just note
15:22 where they are if we're not able to
15:24 respond to them and have them prepared
15:26 to respond to it next time okay does
15:29 that does that make sense yeah I just so
15:31 we have a covered an understanding a
15:33 collaborative decision here between the
15:35 speaker and the staff and and us we're
15:38 gonna focus on the policies first and if
15:40 we can hold off on the code questions
15:43 and we're saying we can continue with
15:45 the code questions tonight if that's all
15:47 right with you and at the same time
15:49 we're going through policy or after
15:51 we're done with policy I would say after
15:53 we're done with policy I think that was
15:54 a good idea yeah so we'll stick with the
15:57 seven policies first and then after that
15:59 we'll see what we have as far as time
16:01 wise and then we can ask some code
16:04 questions that we have and then keeping
16:08 in mind the subject matter expert will
16:10 not be until next session so we may not
16:13 get as many answers as we'd like you
16:15 dive too deep right but it is always
16:19 helpful I mean these Randi will tell you
16:22 that often that's what we do at the
16:24 Development Commission so that it lets
16:26 us be more prepared to really focus in
16:29 on the things that you're concerned
16:30 about because we know what they are
16:31 ahead of time yeah thank you so much
16:34 excellent all right all right so in the
16:41 in your packet the memorandum we have
16:43 identified one goal in six policies that
16:48 we are changing altering or updating and
16:52 in some way and that starts at page 28
17:01 of the
17:05 Troi Master program which is page weight
17:18 our page numbers match what you have on
17:20 the screen but may not be the same as
17:22 what you're referring to
17:25 we got 301 am I correct what so just so
17:31 you understand Doug was referring to
17:34 this page number that's in the middle
17:36 but for the total packet it's in the
17:39 lower right hand corner okay okay and
17:41 that's always confusing which set of
17:43 page numbers were with you what's that
17:45 page 58 is that right the packet page 28
17:50 of the document document
18:05 so the original language was Foster and
18:09 support the stewardship of historical
18:11 cultural natural resources throughout
18:13 the community in the form of parks open
18:15 space and recreational system that
18:18 serves the needs of the residents of the
18:20 city of its quad and surrounding areas
18:21 and we've revised that and you can see
18:26 the underlined portion is what we intend
18:29 on putting into the document and was
18:37 this sort of generated by the parks
18:40 department for instance was that the
18:42 genesis or was this a do we do you have
18:47 our I do remember that at that level I
18:50 believe this was City that initiated
18:54 this
19:00 one of my questions then is to follow on
19:03 that
19:03 why did you insert the words parks and
19:06 recreation vision I I realize that
19:08 sounds picky but why focus on parks why
19:11 why focus on parks and recreation that's
19:14 taken their is their ownership then
19:16 their vision may or may not in the
19:18 future comport with this so why are you
19:25 saying Robin that instead of the city's
19:27 vision or lights wine label its vision
19:30 it's the D I'm dancing okay I just
19:32 wanted to be sure I understood the
19:33 question my experience just when you
19:35 start labeling visions with some owner
19:39 and that owner changes then at least
19:42 unnecessary confusion potentially going
19:44 forward so it's just a question okay a
19:49 suggestion I guess to eliminate parks
19:52 the parks and recreation but nonetheless
19:54 right and just make it vision yes okay
19:58 that's my question suggestion okay
20:06 actually so question with that we want
20:10 to know do we want to what we want
20:14 someone have you driving this because if
20:15 it's if we remove parts and recreation
20:20 because it's the city's shoreline master
20:22 program yeah this is also in the the
20:26 recreational element of the shoreline
20:28 master program so probably the reason
20:32 why that was kept in there but I see
20:35 your your point it's not only just arcs
20:38 that is driving recreation in the city
20:40 be the residents and you know yeah
20:44 included in that as well well into
20:48 Robins point I mean once we have adopted
20:52 the park strategic plan even if the
20:56 Parks Department was the leaders of that
21:00 effort
21:00 it becomes the city's parks plan and the
21:05 same thing when Trish leads us through
21:08 the Comprehensive Plan Update
21:11 it's not long range planning comp plan
21:13 it is the city's comprehensive plan so I
21:15 take the point I have a question for
21:23 staff in the definition it says a
21:26 vibrant parks trail system as far as
21:29 trail system are these to be
21:31 interconnected what's the vision that
21:32 the city has I mean are these to be
21:34 interconnected or these trail systems
21:36 that are alone in or are these like
21:40 completely connected throughout the city
21:42 is that the goal is that the movie it
21:44 would be part of the parks strategic
21:45 plan that we looked at last year
21:47 remember and that with that you worked
21:49 with the parks department and the park
21:51 board on the green necklace part of it
21:53 that has all the the new proposed ones
21:56 that we would build in the future and
21:58 the ones that are existing today so I
22:00 think this is taken from that so that
22:02 it's consistent with shoreline master
22:05 program that that we say it in both
22:07 places so that anything that happens
22:09 happens the same way okay well and I
22:13 think I might add that remember that
22:19 this is a vision so we aren't there
22:21 today so I think your point about is it
22:26 interconnected or is it individual parks
22:31 it may be both right now I think that
22:35 the parks strategic plan lays out sort
22:38 of the the thing that we're moving
22:40 towards which we aren't yet we had
22:44 achieved yeah yeah
22:59 do I have any more questions for
23:24 so the next policy in the memo is on
23:29 page page 55 and 56 of the plan which is
23:37 pages in this these have to deal with
23:46 water quality in the you see we're in
23:55 the first policy we're just updating for
23:58 the the correct zoning code yeah the
24:03 correct code in the IMC and then or to
24:08 removing and incentives provided every
24:12 development within the city has to look
24:14 at low-impact development techniques
24:18 it's what has to be done so we can
24:23 increase on-site infiltration clean
24:27 stormwater prior to it being going into
24:31 our waterways
24:32 so because it's already part of a
24:35 regulation there's no need to have
24:37 incentive yeah you don't we don't have
24:39 that incentive so that's why I was
24:40 struck down as far as erosion control
24:48 that looks like we struck out two of
24:50 those one on four and getting a one and
24:53 two what was the reasoning for remote
24:56 removing those protections we're not
24:59 removing the protections there they're
25:01 required for all development that they
25:03 need to have temporary erosion and
25:06 sediment control plan with with with the
25:09 development so instead of it being
25:11 should be required it is required based
25:14 on on the clearing and grading code in
25:17 section 16 okay and the in the second
25:21 section then it's already included in so
25:26 things that are crossed out are being
25:29 removed things that are okay underlined
25:31 are being added and so instead of saying
25:35 should be required the specific
25:38 provision requiring that is now there
25:40 right it's like a redundancy
25:42 there's just no reason for it so we're
25:45 considering clearing grading and
25:46 stormwater management synonymous with
25:49 the erosion and sediment control yeah
25:53 got it actually I'd like to bring some
25:56 context to our some of our you know
25:58 Commission's here in the central
26:02 Issaquah plan we used to promote
26:05 language like should be required and
26:07 what happened was developers did
26:09 everything up asset so I'm glad to see
26:13 is required and said it should be
26:15 required so but in case you have a
26:19 question
26:19 noise want to make sure it's strong
26:21 enough to be able to hold up and on song
26:23 because if we say it recommended it will
26:26 never get done and just for my own
26:33 edification so erosion and sediment
26:36 control is that can that also be managed
26:38 by planting vegetation or projects is it
26:43 or is it literally just clearing and
26:45 grading are there other ways to post
26:49 development yes that's that is a
26:51 technique that you can use this is more
26:53 dealing with the direct effects of
26:56 development as it's occurring as the
26:59 construction is happening I see okay all
27:01 right thank you
27:13 so can I continue that question about
27:16 should be then and perhaps you already
27:18 going back to page 85 stormwater should
27:23 be managed low-impact development should
27:25 be implemented along with to Tehran's
27:29 point and to I think yours why are we
27:32 leaving the words or why are you leaving
27:34 the words should be in there have you
27:36 already have we already asked that
27:38 question I wasn't sure yeah and that's a
27:41 that's a good point we are removing it
27:46 in four and not in keeping it in two so
28:03 that very open area of seeming to make
28:10 it an option to it and so anything that
28:16 we can do to give the applicant and the
28:19 city and the public a clearer
28:21 understanding of what is required I
28:25 think better the process so I would add
28:29 I'm not saying it should never say
28:31 should but but I think that we should I
28:34 personally believe that it should be
28:36 should be is infrequent as possible
28:38 entirely there is a definition of should
28:41 in the SMP that's a little bit more
28:44 robust than what would be typically
28:47 found in in say like the central planner
28:49 or in any plan so should is almost a
28:55 shalt unless you can demonstrate that
28:59 you can't meet it for some particular
29:03 reason and I can pull that definition up
29:06 so you can you can see what it looks
29:07 like so if you look on page 54 of your
29:11 packet I actually like this so much I
29:14 want to start pulling it into other
29:16 documents that we use because I think
29:18 this is a nice definition of should
29:21 which is different than a definition
29:24 and definition where are you seeing on
29:34 page 54 of your packet page 24 of the
29:40 program definition number 99 is is the
29:48 definition of should that Doug was
29:50 referencing as it relates to the SMT yes
29:59 I was gonna make a suggestion that maybe
30:04 we look at the document itself and have
30:07 the city come up with appropriate
30:09 language to replace should but that kind
30:12 of does it like I said I really like it
30:15 and I I'm thinking about using it
30:16 elsewhere the other thing I would add
30:19 about the one that you were discussing
30:21 on page 55 of the program 85 of the
30:25 packet with about low-impact development
30:27 I think that should is actually the
30:30 correct word and this is the reason why
30:33 is that for instance on the valley floor
30:38 there's such a high water table that we
30:41 are not actually able to infiltrate in
30:44 many places where it where as up on the
30:48 hillsides where there's much more soil
30:50 and the water table is much lower
30:53 that's where infiltration is appropriate
30:56 since our shoreline zones often have
31:01 high water tables and we have this
31:03 aquifer protection and if you have
31:06 anything that's pollution generating you
31:09 may not actually want to infiltrate so
31:12 it is something that we think should be
31:16 considered but it is not always
31:18 appropriate to require it so I think
31:22 that definition of should actually
31:24 allows us that kind of opportunity to
31:28 reflect and to make that evaluation to
31:31 determine if this is a good location or
31:33 not okay so
31:37 recap here are you referring to 551
31:41 number two number three I was referring
31:44 to number two where I understood there
31:49 to be some discussion of the word should
31:51 relative to low-impact development okay
31:55 commissioners feedback will you think
31:57 about leaving the hearing Lucy's
32:00 argument leaving the word should be
32:02 implemented now that we understand the
32:04 definition as it is defined on page the
32:11 first number one it seems to me should
32:14 there should be no there should be no
32:17 looseness in that I mean stormwater is
32:19 should be is consistent with the
32:21 stormwater management policy is it not I
32:23 mean there's no question about should
32:25 there is it not that must be the case
32:29 question as opposed to should be the
32:32 case it's a definition being on page 54
32:35 yes yeah
32:41 number one I would suggest that we stick
32:44 to our question or a mic about shouldn't
32:46 it should appropriate there in the
32:48 context of the definition just in the
32:50 package and perhaps number two and three
32:52 given what was just said we discretion
32:56 we need some discretion but I don't
32:57 stand number one well you're suggesting
32:59 for number one is stormwater will be
33:02 managed
33:02 consistent with the city's stormwater
33:04 management policy I would assume that
33:07 would be the case and then number two
33:10 and number three we will leave should be
33:12 implemented and should be required
33:14 that's my suggestion okay
33:17 any questions
33:38 and on the following page five point six
33:43 critical areas Environmental Protection
33:45 and shoreline buffers
33:57 this was removed just because it has to
34:01 it has to comply with the shoreline
34:02 master program it has to comply with our
34:05 critical areas regulations just it
34:11 seemed redundant to have this that it
34:13 has to provide a a level of protection
34:16 equal to or greater when that is that's
34:19 the the purpose and of all of these
34:22 environmental regulations
35:02 then on page 95 of your packet 65 of the
35:07 SNP it's 5.11 for parking the city
35:21 should encourage number 4 has been drug
35:26 out and lucy alluded to this not too
35:32 long ago but this is kind of a little
35:34 bit more specifics with it is that
35:37 pollution generating sources because of
35:39 the high water table pollution
35:41 generating sources aren't able to use
35:46 techniques such as permeable pavements
35:48 and in this this came from our
35:50 stormwater engineer's review of the
35:53 suction oh and she was describing that's
35:59 since their pollution generating sources
36:01 the ability to infiltrate using these
36:03 techniques with a high water table isn't
36:07 it isn't a good practice but this change
36:13 will affect it'll be policy for all of
36:16 the squat even areas not impacted by a
36:18 high water Tim all right so if we remove
36:20 this do we run the risk of not having
36:23 those policies in place before we
36:25 actually need them no because this is
36:27 just within the shoreline this document
36:30 is just for within the shoreline
36:31 jurisdiction so you're outside and it's
36:36 different standards that would be
36:37 applying that you wouldn't you wouldn't
36:39 be i'm regulated under this document so
36:43 to Trish's point while there is overlap
36:44 between the SMP and the comp plan this
36:47 particular phrase just because it's
36:49 struck down doesn't necessarily mean
36:52 that you're striking it down in a
36:53 complan okay or another or even
36:56 regulations in other parts of the city
36:59 not just a comp plan but also the
37:01 specific standards that followed yeah
37:04 okay
37:15 [Applause]
37:20 believe the next one's page 122 of the
37:24 packet page 92 of the program in this
37:31 policy this is the six point to public
37:33 recreational use and development and
37:36 with this policy change this is just
37:40 incorporating recently adopted plans
37:42 since the comprehensive update in 2013
37:45 so just including this park strategic
37:48 plan the corridor in green necklace plan
37:52 streams and riparian restoration plan
37:54 and Lake Sammamish State Park wetland
37:56 stream and lakeshore restoration plan so
37:58 this is just getting the the correct
38:01 documents into the policies to be
38:03 implemented okay great cataloging and
38:08 then we're on page 133 of the packet
38:11 look there's slowly blue and page 103 of
38:17 the program
38:29 Oh quick question they see it throughout
38:35 the this half 6.22 where we scratched
38:41 out launches and put in ramps there
38:45 anymore
38:45 what's the reason behind that their
38:49 definition difference between yeah weird
38:52 we had done something with definition
38:55 with that kind of combining them into
38:58 one
38:59 I'm starting to recall this from months
39:04 ago when we discussed this was this the
39:06 launches and rails vs. rails and I'll
39:13 have to go back and look at that but
39:14 there was there was a reason why we did
39:16 that and it was complete we had all of
39:19 these different phrases for essentially
39:22 saying the same thing without really any
39:27 contacts to it so but it doesn't change
39:29 the person's ability to launch we're not
39:33 talking about launching a one type of
39:35 boat versus another type of boat this is
39:37 just policy language okay ramps actually
39:42 seems like a better definition seems
39:44 broader I agree why would we change that
39:52 word no I think that effort to do
39:55 something so this is 7.3 and again this
40:01 policy change for number two it's just
40:04 changing it to exactly like the previous
40:08 one you looked at so and then underneath
40:12 that for number seven we've added
40:15 wayfinding signage as well into the
40:18 public recreation use and as far as the
40:23 wayfinding signage is there a
40:26 stipulation that it would I mean I would
40:29 imagine it would but that it would be
40:30 similar or identical to trail heads that
40:33 already exist I'm not exactly sure what
40:38 the wayfinding signage would look like
40:40 and with this
40:42 a lot of this would be driven by parks
40:45 incorporation of their plans so okay I
40:49 could add something to that
40:52 actually I believe this year the city is
40:55 launching with parks as one of the lead
40:58 departments a wayfinding and branding
41:02 program to try and rethink how we do all
41:05 the signs but do it comprehensively so
41:08 it's not just for parks not just for
41:10 trails not just for businesses but to
41:12 try and think about how we do all of
41:16 that to make it easier for people to
41:18 recognize it know what they're looking
41:20 for understand how to get around so it
41:24 just began I think we just hired the
41:27 consultant so we have no idea as Doug
41:29 said what it's going to look like but
41:31 that is an effort that's underway so the
41:34 goal is uniformity and obviously
41:35 aesthetically pleasing but the idea is
41:37 you know physical Highlands wouldn't
41:39 look different their trails wouldn't
41:40 look different than the urban area
41:42 because like you said then people could
41:44 point out they recognize it very clearly
41:46 ah this is it so I'm gonna just be cover
41:51 myself a little bit they may not it may
41:53 not be uniformity they may decide that
41:55 they want business ones to be different
41:58 than trail ones just to be recognizable
42:00 and even once that program is adopted it
42:05 you know it will take time to be
42:06 implemented they probably won't go take
42:08 out all the signs at once but at some
42:10 point as is qua Highlands for instance
42:12 because they have a lot you're right a
42:14 lot that's already signed that we will
42:17 incorporate that as things get replaced
42:19 and and work with the homeowners
42:23 association to to integrate that in as
42:26 they're replacing things along the way
42:28 can I ask what the word encourage means
42:31 nice I hear words like that I this is a
42:35 document it's supposed to drive action I
42:37 don't know what the word encouraged me
42:40 and this is it the intent here to
42:42 increase trail usability or to increase
42:45 people's use of the trails two different
42:48 things going on usability is are they
42:50 developed and use the trails is do I go
42:53 and walk on so
42:54 I'm confused by what encourages and I'm
42:58 not sure what usability means here I
43:01 would say it's starting with usability
43:03 it would be kind of all of the above I
43:09 mean have these trails clearly
43:12 identified to be able to get from A to B
43:15 but also encourage its ease of use so
43:21 you know where you're going as far
43:24 encouraged I agree with you like that
43:30 seems kind of I want to say wishy-washy
43:35 but it's it's not as firm as it could be
43:38 and this is a policy document then I'm
43:41 just making a suggestion that we want
43:43 words that drive a policy action and
43:46 encourage to me I don't know what it
43:48 means so I'll just put it out as a
43:50 suggestion that that would be reviewed
43:53 if you're looking to drive action then
43:55 encourage doesn't tell me what to do
43:59 point five words nothing an idea or
44:03 passing by you all wayfinding signage
44:06 will be
44:09 implemented where possible to improve
44:14 navigation BOTS
44:19 it was a discussion point that's say hey
44:22 but what are your ideas and then
44:26 navigation sees a little narrow I mean I
44:29 consider usability to be you know am I
44:30 going the right direction how far do I
44:32 have until the point where I want to
44:34 stop and turn around or you know not
44:37 necessarily am I lost or not I like the
44:40 word navigation I think it's a little
44:41 narrow I'd I like usability again a
44:44 combination of both kind of like both of
44:47 both bill and run suggestions so like
44:49 the first part wayfinding signage will
44:51 be and then where possible to increase
44:53 trail usability what if we just
44:55 simplified the language and said provide
44:59 wayfinding signage where possible to
45:03 increase trail whichever word you all
45:08 think is a better usability and
45:11 navigation usability I believe that up
45:14 to your discretion obligation and
45:16 usability I have just a general question
45:21 it's the only person probably in the
45:24 city of Issaquah who doesn't have a
45:25 smartphone my understanding is that
45:33 everybody can look at their phone and
45:34 tell where they are so I I absolutely
45:38 support wayfinding signs I'm wondering
45:43 about how many people are I see walking
45:47 everywhere doing this are are going to
45:50 actually be influenced by physical sign
45:55 I could tell you from my experience and
45:58 so I understand where you're coming from
46:00 what I go out for trail runs I never
46:02 take my phone with me it's heavy it
46:04 pumps around sometimes I may not even
46:07 have a cell signal so there's many times
46:09 where you know I go up you know up
46:11 around squawk or up around Cougar where
46:15 that trail system literally almost our
46:18 5800 feet sometimes it'll change from
46:20 one trail to another and so I could
46:22 travel
46:23 a matter of two miles and beyond up to
46:25 like ten trails along that two-mile
46:28 route and so for me the signs are really
46:31 useful I I love my smartphone but I
46:34 rarely take it when I'm out for me it's
46:36 about getting back to nature and getting
46:38 away from the phone I think to another
46:40 point I grew up near Stossel Creek so
46:43 there's not always signals out there in
46:46 certain trail heads and it's almost kind
46:48 of like a lot of people use email but
46:50 when it comes to law you still have to
46:53 provide certain documents by USPS snail
46:57 mail so like I kind of agree with Bill
47:00 you can't assume that everyone's gonna
47:02 use a smart phone you can't assume that
47:03 there's going to be signals so and again
47:07 some people for other reasons wouldn't
47:09 have one anyway I still think the
47:12 signage is important not just for
47:17 wayfinding but for sustainability of the
47:20 trails to keeping people from cutting
47:23 switchbacks helping off the boardwalk it
47:26 Lake Sammamish State Park it's comparing
47:30 are these is there any consideration the
47:32 the comprehensive plan a strategic plan
47:35 has multiple references to the diverse
47:41 of the increasing diversity of the
47:43 city's population are any of these signs
47:45 going to be in more than English okay I
47:50 wouldn't be able to answer that that's
47:52 it that's a great question Randy and I
47:54 see people all the time on my trail
47:57 system on that first place they're
48:01 doing this and I don't know what you
48:03 know if they're trying to find out where
48:04 they are but many of them that I've
48:06 encountered don't speak English all that
48:08 well so I will pass that question along
48:11 to the group that's working on the
48:13 wayfinding signs I think that's very
48:15 interesting point very appropriate
48:18 because we're seeing a big bump in the
48:20 census of people who we also have the
48:26 county or the city
48:27 it's bussing people out here now from
48:32 it's a right to high
48:34 Buster trails or whatever it's called
48:36 and that's my understanding it's an
48:38 extremely successful program that you're
48:41 amping up the number and frequency and
48:44 those are you know people who probably
48:47 would benefit from having some language
48:51 other than English on the sides if we're
48:53 going to go into that it's a pretty
48:55 comprehensive effort if you're gonna put
48:58 signs everywhere there's a divergence of
49:01 a trail that's that's that's a big deal
49:04 but and I know this is a work in
49:08 progress and always will always will be
49:10 but you know if we already have a
49:14 significant immigrant population people
49:21 that are moving here for whatever
49:22 purpose and don't speak English that
49:24 well and one to avail themselves of the
49:26 system and we want to do that I think
49:30 there's another element visit as a quad
49:33 DMLs also bring in tourism so we have
49:37 people staying in the hotels and they
49:39 don't always speak English oh yeah we
49:43 may want to incorporate well I know
49:45 Jennifer Fink is on the board and she's
49:48 working with that but that's a good idea
49:49 that we may not have thought of before
49:52 yeah so just a suggestion for you Lucy
49:54 um if you look Israel has signs
49:58 everywhere that are in Hebrew Arabic and
50:00 English and they do a pretty nice job
50:01 and that's all over the country so if
50:03 you were looking for signs that have
50:06 multiple languages you can look there
50:08 that's a great idea thank you
50:12 the other one I would just add is that
50:14 this not necessarily shoreline related
50:17 but the other thing is not all trail
50:21 users are walking if you're bicycling
50:24 you don't necessarily want to try and be
50:26 jug I'm sure there's some kind of device
50:29 where you can load your phone onto it
50:31 but I would say that you don't
50:34 necessarily want bicyclists and be
50:38 having to pull out their phone and
50:39 trying to navigate at the same time so
50:42 there are obviously many many reasons
50:46 that we want multiple techniques for
50:50 helping people navigate so great
50:53 I think the summary on this is number
50:54 seven was added as maybe not an
50:57 afterthought but it was not included
50:59 before it's a very important that's the
51:01 time we've talked about this important
51:03 discussion so I hope I don't know what
51:06 happens from here but I've made a note
51:09 for myself to talk with Jenna Fink's
51:12 from parks regarding that and see and at
51:19 least just let her know that this was
51:20 something that was being thought about
51:22 and then this can be brought up with
51:24 their consultant team and everyone else
51:27 who's working on their assigned plan
51:30 yeah this is a great endeavor it's much
51:33 needed mm-hmm
51:38 I think that's it for the goals and
51:42 policies so if any other questions with
51:47 development regulations I will try to
51:51 answer them or if anybody else has I
51:54 don't know when so that is a question
51:56 would you want to take public comment
51:59 before we switch from policies to
52:01 standards or yes yeah let's go ahead and
52:05 take public comment so I'm gonna go
52:07 ahead and open up the floor for public
52:09 comment we have two people from the
52:12 public I don't know if you were here to
52:13 speak or not but if you would like to
52:16 the mic is yours you just have to tell
52:19 us your name and where you live or not
52:22 I'm not calling you out see very good I
52:27 can see they're starting to sweat all
52:30 right so we'll go ahead and no public
52:33 comment so we'll go ahead and not close
52:37 the public comment we'll keep it open
52:39 until June 13th to come back to my
52:44 commissioners before we move topics I
52:46 just want to recap make sure we have
52:48 everything vetted out policy 5.1 we
52:52 talked about the word should be and Lucy
52:56 gave us the definition in the packet and
52:58 so the idea was to say hang on
53:04 fifty-five let's go back we are going to
53:13 over asking the city where stormwater
53:17 will be managed consistent with city
53:21 stormwater management policy and bullet
53:24 number two and number three we're okay
53:26 with leaving it as should be implemented
53:28 but okay no questions or anything like
53:31 that all right
53:32 good and then
53:34 number 7.31 we just talked about that
53:38 and Lucy and the team will come back and
53:43 we'll come back with some suggested
53:46 wording for next our next meeting okay
53:59 since I don't know how we're any of you
54:03 are and in reading the whole document if
54:05 anybody has anything specific I would
54:08 just say just tell me the the page
54:13 number of the packet and then I can I
54:16 can get to that so I can see so I can
54:18 answer the specific question if I can it
54:20 may it may have to defer the answering
54:23 until we have water shut here so just
54:25 make a note of that question and then
54:28 come back to us
54:29 on the 13th a quick question is with it
54:31 would it be good Doug to send it to you
54:33 or to Lucy if we have questions after we
54:36 continue to go through them you can send
54:37 them you can send them to me and I have
54:38 my my business cards up here I can hand
54:42 them out to you great it'll be great the
54:44 other thing is if you look on the first
54:46 page of the packet where you see
54:47 enquiries and it has Trish H you can
54:51 also just do need to bat or you can do
54:54 Doug why at the exactly the same address
54:57 oh and because we haven't actually
55:00 complete our training if you we can't
55:03 have a discussion through email so you
55:06 can only feel questions to the staff and
55:09 the staff can respond back but we can't
55:11 engage each other through email
55:14 discussion training
55:21 I think it was Robin who had a question
55:29 on regulations to start with yeah I
55:33 guess they're various questions but let
55:35 me just if you go to page age 17 of 149
55:43 it's also called page 4 I know how you
55:45 wanted so yeah so my question to you is
55:54 there are modifications these tables but
55:57 the buffers are ma there are some
56:00 modifications if you look at the various
56:01 classifications there are actually
56:02 changes to the buffers grace so what
56:05 happens it's a land over mm-hmm that
56:09 owns a piece of property thinks they
56:11 know what they can do with it
56:12 and now there's a change to a buffers I
56:14 know first experience what that can mean
56:16 to a development okay so it's so there's
56:20 there's some very clear language later
56:22 on that says that
56:24 it's cold and the actions that are
56:27 taking cannot paraphrasing not
56:31 negatively affect you know it's the
56:33 taking okay so what happens with these
56:36 where there are buffer changes and you
56:38 got a piece of property and diminishes
56:40 the value of that property for some
56:42 reason have you is that all clear and I
56:46 mean it concerns you throughout this
56:49 there are changes that I'd say wow that
56:51 could really violent a piece of property
56:53 affected by this and I that could be a
56:55 negative impact and I might be I might
56:59 be hurt by this what happens there there
57:02 are permit mechanisms to allow that when
57:06 something like that changes if buffers
57:08 increase and now you don't have an
57:14 ability to develop that property that
57:16 there are variants processes you can go
57:18 through in shoreline jurisdiction that
57:19 would be a shoreline variance with this
57:22 we aren't proposing changing any of the
57:25 buffers so the buffers from Issaquah
57:28 Creek will still be 100 feet the buffers
57:30 from Lake Sammamish are 35 feet now
57:35 where there are there may be some
57:37 changes with wetlands and then this is
57:41 something that we are discussing
57:43 internally it actually is decreasing
57:46 some of them not increasing and that
57:50 that is just on certain wetlands certain
57:54 wetlands with a certain habitat score
57:56 but we we aren't necessarily looking
58:00 where I guess I should say we're
58:03 internally we're looking at whether or
58:05 not we're going to adopt those standards
58:06 or keep with our current standards
58:08 because it was down in fact that I was
58:10 referring to and I thought they
58:11 increased the buffers ash ever look at
58:12 those two tables then there's actually
58:15 and I don't get in the details I just
58:17 want to know that you're right now and I
58:19 read that I think there's a there's a
58:21 question leads to a question I read the
58:24 buffer increase I see potential damage
58:26 to a
58:27 a land owner or property owners
58:29 well-being what happens you're saying
58:31 that you're discussing that now there's
58:34 internal to just guess whether we're
58:36 going to include the the new wetland
58:41 standards the buffer standards that
58:44 that's being discussed in terms of if
58:48 you increase anything that like I said
58:49 in there are mechanisms in place that
58:52 would allow you through like a variance
58:57 process to develop the land now that you
59:00 may not be able to get fully what you
59:03 have envisioned for your property would
59:06 be essentially reasonable use and that
59:09 would be determined yes brookey question
59:14 here on this issue what what does the
59:20 state and the county jurisdiction come
59:25 into one of regard to buffers so I would
59:30 assume that the city of Mystic law and
59:33 not allow anything in terms of buffer
59:37 definition changes that conflict with
59:40 the king county definitions and or the
59:43 state definitions is that correct the
59:50 county not so much the state and maybe
59:53 you could speak to this a little bit
59:56 with at least that what I don't know I'm
59:58 familiar with the wetland guys yeah the
1:00:06 Department of Ecology reviews the best
1:00:08 available science and we publish
1:00:09 guidance documents and what we do that
1:00:12 review of the best available science
1:00:14 what we believe will be buffers that
1:00:16 would protect the values and functions
1:00:18 of wetlands and then cities and so we
1:00:20 published that for cities to look to for
1:00:23 when they're developing their buffers
1:00:25 for shoreline buffers that there's not
1:00:28 specific numbers that we published as
1:00:31 guidance that's more specific to the
1:00:33 jurors from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
1:00:35 in terms of permitting
1:00:37 state has a permitting role for Doug was
1:00:40 just talking about shoreline variances
1:00:41 so if someone is needing to reduce the
1:00:43 buffer to get reasonable use of their
1:00:45 property that permit would also come to
1:00:47 the state for our review and approval in
1:00:49 addition to city approval and as you
1:00:52 said that king county would be separate
1:00:53 jurisdiction so that wouldn't really be
1:00:55 involved
1:00:56 does that answer your question yeah I
1:00:57 think you need to identify yourself I'm
1:01:00 Maria sander co the Department of
1:01:01 Ecology yes thank you this was another
1:01:11 question in that area
1:01:13 bring to page 24 149 it's also called
1:01:17 page 11 the statement says in order to
1:01:21 utilize these updated wetland buffers
1:01:23 the ones we're just talking about
1:01:24 applicants are required to implement
1:01:26 wetland minimum minimization measures
1:01:29 see table three four so I looked at
1:01:31 table three four and I can well imagine
1:01:33 certain situations where the property
1:01:35 owner cannot met you follow the
1:01:38 prescribed mitigations what happens then
1:01:43 that's that's what we're trying to find
1:01:46 out exactly if you couldn't do if you
1:01:52 couldn't do it then what does that mean
1:01:54 and that's why we're having the internal
1:01:56 discussion we've been speaking with
1:01:58 someone from department of ecology as
1:02:00 well to try to get guidance on what this
1:02:03 means for residents of the city if we
1:02:07 were to implement this what you're
1:02:14 saying is this isn't fake yet we're City
1:02:21 let go between we have two choices and
1:02:25 we're still weighing the which said
1:02:28 which choice is most appropriate for the
1:02:31 city which then means theoretically we
1:02:34 would be back to reevaluate this
1:02:38 document again before the eight years
1:02:41 because this language may change so the
1:02:48 critical area so I'm looking at Doug
1:02:51 because I want to make sure I don't get
1:02:52 out over my skis the wetland buffers
1:02:57 there's obviously an integral
1:02:59 relationship between the shoreline
1:03:01 regulations and the wetland rig
1:03:04 regulations but they're in two separate
1:03:07 set of two separate documents and they
1:03:12 rely on each other so we are in the
1:03:15 process of updating Title 18 which is
1:03:18 the land use section of the Municipal
1:03:21 Code and that's where the critical area
1:03:23 regulations are so this the shoreline
1:03:27 master program will reference the
1:03:29 municipal code so we could change the
1:03:32 pick a different set of buffers that are
1:03:35 there now consistent with state guidance
1:03:38 and not have to come back and change the
1:03:41 shoreline master program because this is
1:03:44 about the shorelines the critical area
1:03:46 regulations are about the wetlands and
1:03:48 they're they're ref they're
1:03:51 cross-referencing to each other
1:03:54 okay so if this is referencing say
1:03:58 policy a in the in the critical wetlands
1:04:06 policy and we could change that policy
1:04:09 and would not impact this document yes
1:04:13 although we we really only have two
1:04:17 choices because the state establishes
1:04:21 our choices for wetland buffers so there
1:04:27 was one set of wetland buffers those are
1:04:28 the ones we have now there's another set
1:04:31 of guidance as
1:04:33 mariya described it there we're just
1:04:37 trying to understand the implications of
1:04:39 the those changes to make sure that they
1:04:42 are a good choice for the city or we
1:04:44 could stay where we are okay so we're
1:04:49 not once we approve this this is a it
1:04:51 almost seems like we should be looking
1:04:52 at both at the same time we in the best
1:04:57 world I'm I'm not sure because the
1:05:01 wetland buffers don't just apply in
1:05:03 shoreline circumstances they apply
1:05:05 throughout it's the same buffers for any
1:05:07 wetland in the city right and so we are
1:05:10 we wouldn't have one for the wetlands
1:05:14 associated with shorelines and a
1:05:16 different one for other areas if we
1:05:21 decide we want to change the language
1:05:23 and that packet and that policy and it's
1:05:27 in conflict with the policy we're just
1:05:29 approving now it won't be in conflict
1:05:32 we'd be in conflict okay and if I'm
1:05:36 reading this right the SMP from 2013
1:05:40 there's no strike throughs there's no
1:05:42 additions so there's no proposed changes
1:05:45 given to the wetland section of the
1:05:47 buffer zone right there was a discussion
1:05:50 I think you mentioned that there was a
1:05:52 possibility of maybe shrinking those but
1:05:55 in this document there's no edits they
1:05:57 were proposing any changes
1:05:58 yeah we're not we're we're not proposing
1:06:01 anything at this time and that's
1:06:03 something like I said that's something
1:06:04 that we're discussing and this has to be
1:06:08 finalized before is this the state
1:06:11 reviews mm-hmm and that's by the end of
1:06:14 this year
1:06:21 so do you want to keep going through
1:06:24 standards I mean do you want to start
1:06:26 with I think the document starts on you
1:06:34 know page 36 of the packet and we can
1:06:40 just move through and answer any
1:06:42 questions that come up
1:06:54 all right so I guess let me ask the
1:06:56 commissioners do we
1:06:57 does anybody have I know Robin you've
1:07:01 got some questions here I don't know if
1:07:02 we've already adjustable we have
1:07:04 questions already identified in the
1:07:07 packet that we want to draw attention to
1:07:09 and then we can maybe figure out use
1:07:14 some sort of order I have a couple of
1:07:17 questions but they are to do with the
1:07:18 pages starting the food okay anybody
1:07:22 else have any questions about the the
1:07:24 codes that are in here now or not at the
1:07:27 moment not the moment I'll probably use
1:07:29 next meeting for team seven or okay all
1:07:31 right so why don't we go ahead and do we
1:07:34 want to just get right to Robins
1:07:36 questions just a couple here and then
1:07:38 short so page 39 of 149 also called on
1:07:46 page number nine thousand number four
1:07:50 can you listen to requests for
1:07:52 explanation says the regulatory
1:07:53 provisions of this program are limited
1:07:55 to shore lines of the state and I
1:07:59 whereas the planning functions of this
1:08:02 program may extend beyond the designated
1:08:05 shoreline boundaries could you explain
1:08:07 that second part of that whereas the
1:08:09 planning functions of this program may
1:08:11 extend beyond what our planning
1:08:13 functions that weathers extend beyond me
1:08:16 so in an instance where the 200-foot
1:08:19 shoreline jurisdiction from say it's a
1:08:22 quat Creek doesn't it extends on to a
1:08:25 particular piece of property but not the
1:08:30 whole thing so the whole parcel or part
1:08:35 of the parcels within shoreline
1:08:36 jurisdiction part of the parcels not the
1:08:38 planning functions extend beyond that so
1:08:40 if your development activities outside
1:08:41 of that 200 feet then you're not subject
1:08:45 to this and it would just be planning
1:08:46 functions we're just planning functions
1:08:49 being then part of the land just regular
1:08:53 land use land use planning yes okay
1:08:58 but it says is where's the planning
1:09:00 functions that may extend beyond I read
1:09:02 that to say just exactly the reverse of
1:09:04 what you said that in fact you've a
1:09:06 piece of property is partially within
1:09:07 the 200 but boundary then then he
1:09:14 controls the regs room that pertained to
1:09:17 the 200 feet the shoreline master plan
1:09:19 would extend to the whole property
1:09:21 that's why I asked this question you're
1:09:23 saying no it's exactly the reverse of
1:09:24 that really if your if your development
1:09:28 activity doesn't touch the shoreline
1:09:30 jurisdiction you're not subject to the
1:09:33 shoreline regulations all right am I the
1:09:38 only one that reads that to be exactly
1:09:40 the reverse of what you just said but I
1:09:42 guess I am
1:09:44 next one page 41 also number 11
1:09:47 it's again a question for clarification
1:09:49 this clause number four its
1:09:52 classification of the user development
1:09:55 what was scratched out was as permitted
1:09:57 does not necessarily mean that the
1:09:59 development is allowed and then wording
1:10:02 is introduced is subject to review and
1:10:04 approval by the city and all the
1:10:06 Department of Ecology does I read that
1:10:09 and I'm still unclear if there is you're
1:10:13 planning a single-family residence
1:10:15 within it it's it's a it's a permitted
1:10:17 use as I read it but it may be that it's
1:10:21 not or yes it is a permitted use but we
1:10:23 may attach conditions I'm still not
1:10:26 clear who to two very different things
1:10:28 here and you've changed the wording from
1:10:30 significantly to I can't think of a
1:10:35 specific example off the top of my head
1:10:37 but there there would be scenarios where
1:10:40 something may be allowed in the
1:10:43 underlying zoning zoning of of that
1:10:46 particular piece of property but that
1:10:48 use is not allowed within shoreline
1:10:50 jurisdiction drycleaner
1:10:53 something like that it could be
1:10:55 something like that I had something
1:10:58 specific that I brought up with you and
1:10:59 a meeting once and well this was partly
1:11:01 my edit because to me having something
1:11:04 permitted and being allowed or allowed
1:11:08 and not
1:11:09 minute I found that language very
1:11:10 confusing
1:11:11 [Music]
1:11:12 for for you know because kind of to
1:11:18 Robin's point a lot of these are
1:11:22 single-family homes you know along the
1:11:24 shoreline and so if you're a
1:11:26 single-family home owner and you're
1:11:28 trying to figure out what you can and
1:11:30 can't do it'd be nice to be able to look
1:11:32 at a document and have some sense of
1:11:34 what you can do and so I think that's
1:11:37 the things that are struck in number
1:11:40 four was just that that I found I
1:11:44 personally found that not very clear
1:11:48 although once Doug dug into it for me I
1:11:52 understood it I didn't think you should
1:11:54 have to have a dug by your side to be
1:11:56 able to understand the language and so I
1:12:00 think they just tried to edit it down to
1:12:02 its essentials which is that a user
1:12:08 development is subject to review by
1:12:11 either both ain't or and city and
1:12:16 ecology and that there may be conditions
1:12:21 applied so the permitted and a loud
1:12:24 language was taken out just because I
1:12:27 thought it was confusing to the average
1:12:29 reader let me ask a question regarding
1:12:36 this 900 there was a development for
1:12:42 clustered housing and it's very close to
1:12:44 a wet and protected wetland space right
1:12:49 so it was permitted but I don't think
1:12:53 the city was
1:12:56 wanted it so this language would then
1:12:59 allow the city to say
1:13:02 we understand it is allowed by the code
1:13:06 but it's not something that we want to
1:13:08 see move forward because it's going to
1:13:11 have an impact to the wetlands so this
1:13:16 is only applicable to the shorelines
1:13:18 so unless a wetland is in the shoreline
1:13:22 area it wouldn't apply and the same
1:13:31 principle well I I want to be clear that
1:13:37 just and I'm not sure you're saying this
1:13:39 but just because we don't like something
1:13:42 once it comes up if it's not been
1:13:45 adopted to reflect that we can't change
1:13:48 the rules so we have to be thoughtful
1:13:51 ahead of time about the implications of
1:13:57 having certain uses in certain locations
1:14:01 I believe that the uses are relying on
1:14:09 the underlying zoning unless there's a
1:14:12 specific conflict with a provision here
1:14:14 and I'm gonna hand it over to you
1:14:16 because I don't want to get myself in
1:14:18 trouble I would say that's that's
1:14:21 largely the case in that this was a lot
1:14:25 of this work went in the 2013
1:14:29 comprehensive update and analyzing what
1:14:32 is what are some of the use or what are
1:14:34 the uses that are in the shoreline
1:14:35 what's compatible there you still end up
1:14:42 having some of these situations where a
1:14:44 use may be incompatible be compatible
1:14:48 yes thank you
1:14:49 that's kind of where I was going was we
1:14:51 have is permitted but it's not really
1:14:53 compatible with vision okay
1:15:01 well I'm any other questions Robin way
1:15:07 exhausting
1:15:08 hey she used other word the other one
1:15:11 but thank you for the answers all right
1:15:16 so we're running down towards the end
1:15:19 here are there any last questions that
1:15:23 you have for I just goes through ecology
1:15:31 for their review what's the next step of
1:15:34 events it goes through council at that
1:15:36 point yeah I'll pull that up on here so
1:15:39 we are currently working together this
1:15:43 is our we have a joint comment period
1:15:47 hey dad would you go ahead and go into
1:15:49 the mode just so the words are larger
1:15:54 I've got to go back and do actually if
1:15:57 you just clear just yeah all right so
1:16:01 next steps after this we will hold our
1:16:07 next meeting towards the end of June you
1:16:11 will kind of be submitting everything
1:16:14 for review to get your get ecologies
1:16:17 initial determination and then we should
1:16:19 receive that by the end of July and
1:16:23 we're going to start going through the
1:16:24 council process and I have right now
1:16:27 listed on here that we would be going to
1:16:29 Council and then Landon Shore and back
1:16:31 to Council for adoption this may change
1:16:33 and we may do the study session with
1:16:38 Council but that that part's to be
1:16:41 determined and that will happen towards
1:16:42 the end of the summer assuming any edits
1:16:44 you know by ecology then it would we'd
1:16:48 want it to go back through PPC again in
1:16:51 addition to that a short rain or no not
1:16:56 necessarily I think what we're we're
1:17:02 trying to get your guidance if it went
1:17:05 completely sideways if there was a
1:17:07 massive change then I think we would be
1:17:10 back with you
1:17:12 but if there is fine-tuning consistent
1:17:16 with the document that you've seen we
1:17:18 would not bring it back to you so the
1:17:20 idea being today and the follow-up
1:17:24 meeting on June 13th that's the
1:17:26 opportunity for PPC to put in their
1:17:28 input and again as long as we're not
1:17:31 changing the intent of the document just
1:17:34 fine-tuning there would be no reason for
1:17:36 it to come back and I can continue its
1:17:38 journey into a ecology and what Wales
1:17:39 and and so you know a lot of times
1:17:43 [Music]
1:17:44 that's part of the reason that Ron's
1:17:46 recapping sometimes you will give us
1:17:50 guidance you know this isn't clear we
1:17:53 want this idea incorporated and we're
1:17:55 not necessarily getting every single
1:17:58 word set before it leaves here we're
1:18:02 being given staff is being given
1:18:04 guidance of the kinds of changes that
1:18:06 are necessary to then send it on to the
1:18:09 next stage the the other thing I would
1:18:14 add for next meeting is because we're
1:18:22 going to be we have a lot more pages
1:18:23 we're going to be talking about next
1:18:25 time if you if you see typos punctuation
1:18:34 grammatical awkward phrases let's not
1:18:37 talk about those next time just make a
1:18:40 list or mark it up and scan it and send
1:18:44 it to us or drop your copy off or hand
1:18:46 it to us after the meeting but let's not
1:18:49 plan to do that but where you have a
1:18:51 technical question where there's a
1:18:54 bigger sort of policy question those I
1:18:57 think are super helpful to hear from you
1:18:59 but where it's just the fine tune
1:19:02 punctuation grammar kinds of things feel
1:19:06 free to just hand those to us and we'll
1:19:07 take care of those does that make sense
1:19:14 okay so the last questions for Maria or
1:19:19 for Doug one that's question just a
1:19:22 process when there was some question
1:19:26 answers you've given where you're you've
1:19:28 indicate you're still deliberating on
1:19:30 certain issues which could be
1:19:33 substantive given do you may take an
1:19:35 inventory of properties where decisions
1:19:38 one way or the other will impact those
1:19:40 properties and does that get
1:19:43 incorporated into your decision-making
1:19:44 or is that you know bad whatever it is
1:19:48 is that's kind of what I'm trying to do
1:19:52 now when with the new wetlands is try
1:19:55 part of it is connecting certain
1:20:00 corridors and getting a list of what
1:20:03 those corridors are where they are
1:20:04 located in the city and which properties
1:20:06 they affect and that's that's a lot of
1:20:08 the work that I'm doing behind for that
1:20:11 portion yeah and I can tell you that the
1:20:13 last time I think maybe four meetings
1:20:15 ago we had an open hearing on the
1:20:18 changes to single-family lot use and for
1:20:24 that to happen if there was any impact
1:20:26 at all to to property owners they had to
1:20:30 mail out notices of the change in
1:20:32 advance that led to a very full house
1:20:35 for for public comments so my
1:20:39 notifications do go out yes and thank
1:20:42 you that's a great point and the other
1:20:44 one I would add is that when we adopted
1:20:47 the current wetland regulations which
1:20:50 was we were required to adopt by the
1:20:52 state but we were kind of slow to adopt
1:20:55 them because it was because it's based
1:20:59 on a habitat score it's hard to predict
1:21:02 it wasn't the way we used to do it is
1:21:04 once a wetland was identified as a
1:21:08 certain classification boom the buffer
1:21:11 was X and now it's a habitat score and
1:21:15 so that created not only more
1:21:16 uncertainty for property owners but more
1:21:18 uncertainty for the city we didn't we
1:21:21 didn't know exactly what that was going
1:21:22 to mean so we actually waited a couple
1:21:24 of years and
1:21:26 asked property owners as they were
1:21:28 coming in under the old system if they
1:21:30 would also do the habitat score since
1:21:33 they were hiring a consultant just to
1:21:36 see what the impacts would be because we
1:21:38 we are not qualified to do habitat
1:21:41 scoring so we were trying to get a sense
1:21:43 I think that is the challenge Robin is
1:21:47 that it if we go to another system again
1:21:50 it's still reliant on a habitat score so
1:21:52 we don't necessarily know I will add
1:21:56 though that the range that triggers a
1:21:58 certain buffer is shifting so that
1:22:01 there's they're smaller which is what
1:22:04 Doug was saying but we're that's why
1:22:06 we're we're just taking it a little
1:22:08 slowly we want to think about what the
1:22:11 implications of the change would be so
1:22:14 that to the best of our abilities we are
1:22:18 describing this well to the council in
1:22:20 public in the process so that they have
1:22:24 some sense of what we think will happen
1:22:29 I also I think it's probable and I would
1:22:35 turn over to this to you but it seems to
1:22:39 me that with things like that massive
1:22:42 study on the effect of runoff on
1:22:45 municipal runoff on us co-host smelt
1:22:50 there coho young fish fry fry smell
1:22:57 whatever but there that was so dramatic
1:23:00 I believe that the state is continuing
1:23:04 at the state level to look at changes in
1:23:07 regulations that will be effective for
1:23:10 both shoreline and wetland areas one
1:23:14 forward so I I think this is going to be
1:23:18 something that is going to change every
1:23:20 year it's based on the discussion that's
1:23:24 going on in the limpia and elsewhere I
1:23:25 would defer it
1:23:32 Maria Sansone with the Department of
1:23:34 Ecology yeah I think it's particularly
1:23:37 relevant to our stormwater regulations
1:23:39 and our stormwater manual that we
1:23:40 publish which is a separate part of
1:23:43 ecology from the shoreline Division that
1:23:45 I'm in but it is all related to
1:23:47 protecting the ecological function of
1:23:48 our waterways so and I do the cities and
1:23:52 our manual updates every few years and
1:23:54 cities will update regarding you know to
1:23:57 be consistent with that and and to build
1:24:00 on what Maria is saying the program
1:24:08 called NPDES really lyric is changing
1:24:14 every few years we are required to
1:24:16 update and we are in the process of
1:24:18 preparing for another update and each of
1:24:20 those as I mean we're heading and I
1:24:23 think to our third round is a more
1:24:27 rigorous set of requirements which is
1:24:33 both wonderful and difficult because
1:24:36 we're having to add staff to you know
1:24:39 the reporting requirements are becoming
1:24:41 more and more specific more and more
1:24:43 properties fall underneath those
1:24:45 reporting regulations and we have staff
1:24:50 that go out and check you know waist
1:24:53 enclosures and oil grease separators and
1:24:57 are doing a lot more inspections now and
1:25:00 working with property owners and
1:25:02 businesses to ensure that that they're
1:25:07 compliant and if they're having
1:25:08 challenges to try and help provide them
1:25:10 with the resources so it is growing each
1:25:21 all right so any questions from the
1:25:24 staff to the commissioners or Doug or
1:25:27 Maria do you have any questions because
1:25:29 all right so a quick recap I think the
1:25:33 only action items we're asking of the
1:25:35 staff is to provide suggested wording
1:25:38 for and our policy 7 3.1 number 7
1:25:44 referring to the wayfinding signage and
1:25:47 then again we were talking about policy
1:25:52 5.1.1 number question number one is will
1:25:56 be will be and where we where we are
1:25:59 leaving bullets two and three as should
1:26:02 be as the document illustrates and any
1:26:06 other questions that you want to add to
1:26:08 that or instructions no in that case I'm
1:26:13 ready to adjourn meeting okay so we will
1:26:16 go ahead and turn the meeting at 757
1:26:21 thanks Britta thanks thank you

Attendance

Council / Members (3)
Joan Probala
Maria Sandercock
State Department of Ecology Janice Carle Joy Lewis