Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 13, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

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 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

Minutes of May 23, 2019

packet pp.5–8

▶ Watch from 0:42 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-23-19 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Planning Policy Commission 6:30 PM Council Chambers May 23, 2019 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

Minutes of May 29, 2019 11 - 19 Amendments to IMC 18.10.940 a) Shoreline Master Plan Program, (R)

Doug Yormick, Assistant Planner · packet pp.9

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 5:42 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 05-29-19 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Planning Policy Commission 6:30 PM Pickering Room, City Hall NW May 29, 2019 MINUTES 1775 12th Ave NW

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.21

Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2019 PPC Schedule (tentative) (updated 6/06/19) All meetings located in Council Chambers unless noted January 2019 September 2019 1/10/19 Cancelled 9/5/19 Public Hearing: Olde Town Code Amendments 1/24/19 Public Hearings: a) Comp Plan 2019 Docket 9/12/19 Open House: Olde Town Architectural Standards/Design b) Code amendment: Wireless Communication Facilities Guidelines Also: Comments from the Mayor Introduction: Sign Code Update 9/26/19 • Comp Plan Amendments: Transportation Element February 2019 • Comp Plan Amendments: Land Use Element including Mts to Sound policy & 2/14/19 population & Shoreline Master Program Continued Public Hearing: Code amendment: Wireless Facilities • Comp Plan Amendments: Capital Facilities Element Introduction: Comp Plan Amendments: Treasures • Public meeting (not a hearing): Comp Plan Amendments: Community Facilities rezones…

955 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ you

0:16 ↗ and welcome to the June 13th meeting of

0:21 ↗ planning policy commission I think we're

0:24 ↗ all ready tonight we're going to reopen

0:29 ↗ the public hearing on the shoreline

0:31 ↗ master plan see if you guys have any

0:34 ↗ more questions or updates for the city

0:36 ↗ but first of all we have two minutes

0:38 ↗ that need approval do I have a motion to

0:42 ↗ approve the minutes for May the 23rd I'd

0:45 ↗ like to make a motion to approve the

0:46 ↗ minutes of May 23rd 2019 I have a second

0:51 ↗ are there any discussion changes

0:54 ↗ Corrections hearing none all those in

0:57 ↗ favor say aye

0:58 ↗ aye opposed hearing none the motion

1:02 ↗ passes so the minutes of the May 29th

1:06 ↗ meeting do I have a motion to approve I

1:10 ↗ make a motion to approve this meetings

1:13 ↗ from the May 29th do I have a second I

1:17 ↗ second all those in favor say aye aye

1:20 ↗ opposed hearing none the motion carries

1:24 ↗ so with that we're going to before we

1:28 ↗ reopen the public hearing we're going to

1:30 ↗ have a presentation by Doug gormak on

1:36 ↗ any updates that he wants to give us on

1:38 ↗ the master program so this presentation

1:43 ↗ is a little bit different than the last

1:45 ↗ one so in in some of the slides I

1:48 ↗ actually have some talking points

1:51 ↗ discussion points for the specific

1:54 ↗ regulations that we'll be doing so I

1:56 ↗ encourage that during those slides if

1:59 ↗ you have any questions regarding those

2:01 ↗ particular regulation changes to just

2:03 ↗ chime in interrupts ins and just let me

2:08 ↗ know your comments so with that I guess

2:12 ↗ I'll start

2:13 ↗ so don't gormak I've met most of you

2:17 ↗ last time on the 23rd those of you who

2:20 ↗ weren't here

2:21 ↗ I'm an assistant planner with

2:23 ↗ development services and with me is Alex

2:26 ↗ capron from environmental planner from

2:29 ↗ the watershed company and Maria sander

2:31 ↗ Cole

2:33 ↗ Department of Ecology so thank you for

2:39 ↗ the discussion on the goals and policy

2:41 ↗ last time and during that discussion you

2:45 ↗ gave me some homework to do just two

2:48 ↗ minor changes to one policy in one goal

2:52 ↗ and I just let you know that I've made

2:56 ↗ those changes and they'll be reflected

2:59 ↗ in the SMP and then I also said that I

3:05 ↗ would update our changes to our wetland

3:09 ↗ standards based on the 2018 ecology

3:12 ↗ guidance and we have discussed this as a

3:15 ↗ department and we are not going to be

3:17 ↗ using the updated ecology guidance we're

3:22 ↗ going to adopt our current critical

3:25 ↗ areas ordinance with its wetland

3:27 ↗ regulations and then we're going to

3:29 ↗ revisit that at another time as we're

3:32 ↗ updating our land use code currently so

3:34 ↗ so before you leave that slide I know

3:37 ↗ that you guys talked about getting

3:41 ↗ together a commission or something to

3:43 ↗ decide on the wayfinding sign policy I I

3:47 ↗ was I didn't hear the inclusion of the

3:50 ↗ Arts Commission on that so I'd like to

3:52 ↗ make sure that you include them in that

3:55 ↗ okay

4:05 ↗ I'm just there the group that's working

4:09 ↗ on wayfinding and branding is already

4:12 ↗ assembled and was it's being led by the

4:16 ↗ parks department I'm not sure exactly

4:19 ↗ which groups are reflected in that and

4:22 ↗ I'm not sure that we get to influence

4:25 ↗ who they have put into that group

4:28 ↗ I'd be surprised if they're not included

4:31 ↗ right now I'm I'm happy for us to

4:37 ↗ encourage their inclusion I'm just not

4:39 ↗ sure that since DST is not leading that

4:44 ↗ process that's fine okay that's fine I'm

4:48 ↗ not demanding you do it I just know I

4:50 ↗ think it's a great thing

4:51 ↗ absolutely okay absolutely because I

4:54 ↗ know that we've talked about wayfinding

4:56 ↗ signs extensively while I was on the

5:01 ↗ arts community as a reminder that

5:06 ↗ today's meeting is going to focus on

5:10 ↗ specific regulations that are changing

5:12 ↗ and not focus on any minor grammatical

5:15 ↗ errors but if you did find any minor

5:17 ↗ correct Romanichal errors please let me

5:20 ↗ know whether it's just an email and I'll

5:22 ↗ get those incorporated and then yes I

5:26 ↗ have a question on the update I'm gonna

5:29 ↗ wear my new badge as long as I can as I

5:35 ↗ recall the what you just said was your

5:39 ↗ that you're not going to adapt this the

5:42 ↗ state standards we're gonna you're going

5:45 ↗ to recommend upgrade our guard

5:46 ↗ continuing with the city standards that

5:49 ↗ define wetlands yes well well I guess my

5:55 ↗ question is what is can you tell me and

5:59 ↗ the Commission again what the most

6:01 ↗ significant differences are between the

6:03 ↗ two so they've changed how certain

6:07 ↗ wetlands are scored so it's based on

6:11 ↗ habitat score and what they've done is

6:13 ↗ they've played around with some of those

6:15 ↗ numbers where they've now taken

6:17 ↗ [Music]

6:19 ↗ what ones that score five and they've

6:21 ↗ put it down jus like this three to four

6:25 ↗ habitat score range so those that would

6:28 ↗ have had a slightly larger buffer

6:31 ↗ because of that will now fall into a a

6:33 ↗ slightly smaller buffer is what that is

6:37 ↗ so it's it's just playing around with

6:38 ↗ how we score and categorize the wetlands

6:42 ↗ but it doesn't really change much we're

6:46 ↗ not there are some requirements with

6:47 ↗ that that we're not sure how that will

6:51 ↗ will affect the residents of Issaquah so

6:54 ↗ we're trying to find out more

6:56 ↗ information before we okay thank you

6:59 ↗ with that and the one other point I

7:01 ↗ would make is they're both state sets of

7:04 ↗ regulations the one that we adopted in

7:07 ↗ 2014 was put out by the state the one

7:12 ↗ for 2018 as guidance at this point and

7:15 ↗ so because we're still trying to

7:18 ↗ understand the implications as indicated

7:21 ↗ we are we are being cautious I wasn't

7:28 ↗ here last time when you guys started

7:31 ↗ this I'm assuming that 99% of the form

7:39 ↗ with what was already in the city's

7:43 ↗ plans and all we're doing is is doing a

7:46 ↗ little bit of correcting correcting

7:49 ↗ clean okay so the main body has already

7:52 ↗ been there okay just just to be clear

7:55 ↗ there's some mandatory changes from

7:59 ↗ ecology that's reflected in the gap

8:01 ↗ analysis that we include but the body of

8:04 ↗ it and the regulations are all pretty

8:06 ↗ much the same okay

8:14 ↗ so our changes were based on the gap

8:18 ↗ analysis and that was provided by

8:21 ↗ Department of Ecology which was

8:22 ↗ essentially a checklist of legislative

8:26 ↗ in rural changes from the last time that

8:28 ↗ we had done our shoreline master program

8:30 ↗ update there are three types of actions

8:34 ↗ mandatory that that we've identified

8:36 ↗ were mandatory we have to do recommended

8:39 ↗ and then no change needed needed because

8:42 ↗ it either didn't apply to us or we

8:44 ↗ already had that incorporated into our

8:46 ↗ SMP and we looked at for consistency

8:50 ↗ with city adopted plans and regulations

8:52 ↗ and that's where we're gonna integrate

8:55 ↗ our current critical areas regulations

8:57 ↗ because right now our critical areas

9:00 ↗ regulations for the for the show.i

9:02 ↗ master program are the older the older

9:06 ↗ regulations from 3 2014 so we're going

9:09 ↗ to update that to reflect our current

9:11 ↗ critical area standards and then

9:14 ↗ consistency with the comp plan and with

9:18 ↗ our development regulations as well so

9:24 ↗ here are some of the gap analysis top

9:26 ↗ changes that I've identified and this

9:28 ↗ isn't an exhaustive list the the rest of

9:31 ↗ it is in the packet so I'm gonna touch

9:34 ↗ on these four and if you have any

9:36 ↗ questions regarding these just let me

9:40 ↗ know and then we can have that

9:42 ↗ discussion now so we are non-conforming

9:49 ↗ uses in develop in development

9:51 ↗ consistency with some recent legislation

9:54 ↗ so we've changed our definition of

9:57 ↗ non-conforming use to reflect that and

9:59 ↗ that can be found on the draft shoreline

10:02 ↗ master program on page 21 and then we've

10:05 ↗ also added definitions for

10:07 ↗ non-conforming developments and

10:09 ↗ non-conforming Lots and again that's

10:12 ↗ found on page 21

10:16 ↗ that was and then update our critical

10:22 ↗ areas regulations this is to reflect the

10:25 ↗ 2014 wetland rating system so then we

10:28 ↗ can not use the 2004 anymore and we will

10:33 ↗ do this by adopting our current critical

10:35 ↗ areas regulations with our SMP in

10:37 ↗ September when we go to council another

10:42 ↗ recommended change that we're doing that

10:44 ↗ we are going to do is the 90-day local

10:46 ↗ review for washed out projects we've

10:49 ↗ added the language to the SMP and you

10:53 ↗ can find that added language on page 72

10:56 ↗ and then we will also redefine our

11:01 ↗ floodway definition in chapter IMC

11:05 ↗ chapter 1636 to reflect what Ecology's

11:10 ↗ definition is and so that it will be the

11:12 ↗ same between ecology our shoreline

11:14 ↗ master program and our special flood

11:16 ↗ hazard code section in the IMC I've got

11:23 ↗ a question here please

11:24 ↗ the floodway plan that you're talking

11:26 ↗ about can you explain what that is

11:31 ↗ the flood standards for the city so

11:37 ↗ we've adopted or we have regulations in

11:42 ↗ place for development activities that

11:44 ↗ happen within the 100-year floodplain

11:45 ↗ and this is just too rough for the

11:50 ↗ definitions to all be consistent with

11:52 ↗ state our SMP and our land use code is

11:57 ↗ our current land use code more stringent

12:01 ↗ or is the state new codes the proposed

12:05 ↗ changes more stringent I don't think

12:09 ↗ it's really about being stringent it's

12:11 ↗ just the definition our Schroyer master

12:15 ↗ program just it's the the special flood

12:19 ↗ zone code is just adopted as an appendix

12:22 ↗ currently so all we're going to do is

12:25 ↗ just change the definition I don't think

12:26 ↗ it has anything to do with it being one

12:29 ↗ being more restrictive than the other I

12:31 ↗ think it's just for consistency okay so

12:35 ↗ I have another consequential question

12:37 ↗ and that is however would that affect

12:40 ↗ people residents who want to purchase

12:42 ↗ flood insurance it should it's not going

12:46 ↗ to affect them at all okay this is gonna

12:49 ↗ make us more can I mean if you look at

12:51 ↗ if you look in last times packet on page

12:54 ↗ 48

12:55 ↗ I assume that's the definition that they

13:00 ↗ were then putting in all the documents

13:03 ↗ but it's related to the Federal

13:05 ↗ Emergency Management Agency and flood

13:10 ↗ insurance so it's it's to make us

13:12 ↗ consistent and it does tie into the

13:16 ↗ insurance program okay so is that going

13:19 ↗ to make it more difficult for people to

13:21 ↗ get flood insurance or no the maps are

13:24 ↗ the basis for the flood insurance and so

13:27 ↗ we just want to make sure we're using

13:29 ↗ consistent terminology that will tied to

13:32 ↗ the way those maps are used okay I say

13:36 ↗ it's an optimization of language thing

13:39 ↗ yes okay all right thank you and then

13:47 ↗ the next section deals with consistency

13:52 ↗ with adopted plans and regulations so

13:54 ↗ I've identified three of the top one is

13:58 ↗ we don't have trails as a public use in

14:01 ↗ our shoreline master program and

14:03 ↗ recently arks has adopted the park

14:06 ↗ strategic plan and in that have

14:07 ↗ identified the green necklace and they

14:09 ↗ have ideas for a trail network

14:11 ↗ throughout the city of Issaquah so

14:13 ↗ without these standards at least within

14:16 ↗ shoreline jurisdiction would have made

14:18 ↗ developing their plan more difficult so

14:24 ↗ we've added trails as a permitted use in

14:26 ↗ all shoreline environmental designations

14:28 ↗ and then we provided dimensional

14:31 ↗ standard language for public trails

14:33 ↗ right now private it's four feet wide

14:36 ↗ and what we've done is the minimum

14:40 ↗ necessary based upon safety and

14:42 ↗ anticipated volumes so there isn't a set

14:45 ↗ size limit but what would limit it is

14:49 ↗ projected volume of use and a DA

14:54 ↗ compliance it's like that do you also

14:58 ↗ define trail use whether it be mountain

15:01 ↗ bike horse

15:03 ↗ ETV just how's that under definition all

15:07 ↗ or is it just I don't I don't believe it

15:09 ↗ is we are looking at it specifically as

15:13 ↗ non-motorized but that could be

15:16 ↗ something we add I do have a question

15:20 ↗ also concerning the the trail use in

15:23 ↗ wetlands area does that jurisdiction go

15:25 ↗ into Lake Sammamish State Park because

15:28 ↗ of our partnership the reason I bring

15:33 ↗ that up is because Friends of Lake

15:35 ↗ Sammamish State Park and cascade bicycle

15:37 ↗ Alliance and some other organization or

15:40 ↗ thinking about

15:43 ↗ adding new trails within East Lake

15:46 ↗ Sammamish State Park okay it connect

15:51 ↗ South Cove to trail East Lake Sammamish

15:55 ↗ Parkway true otherwise nobody can hear

16:03 ↗ you yeah and so they'll actually be an

16:11 ↗ open house on the Lake Sammamish State

16:12 ↗ Park master plan I believe next week

16:16 ↗ where there will be some presentation

16:18 ↗ materials and any trail trail

16:22 ↗ development it would be on the outer

16:25 ↗ edge of the buffer wherever possible and

16:27 ↗ it'd have to go through minimization

16:29 ↗ criteria which is it's a set of criteria

16:34 ↗ don't know them all off the top of my

16:36 ↗ head but basically you have to yeah

16:39 ↗ avoid minimize avoid minimize mitigate

16:45 ↗ and and compensate for impact and

16:49 ↗ rectify so an applicant if if it happens

16:54 ↗ to be the State Park they would have to

16:55 ↗ walk through those steps in an

16:58 ↗ application yeah with the city so that

17:02 ↗ that would be they would have to go

17:04 ↗ through a stringent set of requirements

17:06 ↗ even with a trail development project if

17:09 ↗ it were in the wetland buffer and yeah

17:11 ↗ so this open house will actually talk a

17:14 ↗ little bit about that so will our

17:17 ↗ actions here on this commission affect

17:21 ↗ that potentially at all in a way yes

17:27 ↗ because now it is it's going to be we're

17:32 ↗ going to have it identified as a use and

17:34 ↗ there we handle shoreline permitting

17:38 ↗ within Lake Sammamish State Park so that

17:42 ↗ they would have to comply with our trail

17:44 ↗ standards which we didn't have any

17:46 ↗ before so now we're setting it as that

17:49 ↗ it's it's an allowed use in all

17:51 ↗ shoreline environmental designations

17:53 ↗ okay so if we do do that then shouldn't

17:57 ↗ we possibly shouldn't we include the

18:02 ↗ State Park in our discussion of these

18:07 ↗ trails and our and our proposed

18:12 ↗ amendment here to change language in our

18:15 ↗ wetlands package names specifically I'm

18:24 ↗ trying to remember the name here I think

18:31 ↗ the language covers all trails that are

18:35 ↗ in the city of Issaquah so I don't think

18:39 ↗ that we need to specifically pull out

18:47 ↗ the State Park because you have that if

18:50 ↗ the city is responsible for making the

18:52 ↗ final decisions and these are the codes

18:54 ↗ and that the city is using to overcome

18:59 ↗ or use throughout the city then it

19:01 ↗ should be obvious that they have to go

19:03 ↗ through the same kind of mitigated

19:05 ↗ circumstances and this would also just

19:08 ↗ be for shoreline jurisdiction within

19:11 ↗ examine state park if it were just if it

19:15 ↗ was in a wetland buffer that would

19:18 ↗ probably it could be out of shoreline

19:20 ↗ jurisdiction and then just with our

19:22 ↗ critical areas ordinance where they

19:24 ↗ would be restricted largely to the outer

19:26 ↗ 25% of the buffer okay so let me have

19:31 ↗ any question my question is about the

19:37 ↗ dimensions of the potential public

19:39 ↗ trails that says there's the minimum

19:41 ↗ sighted but there's no maximum is that

19:44 ↗ implicit in other provisions or does

19:46 ↗ that even considered no what we are

19:51 ↗ trying to do is just minimize it so

19:54 ↗ whatever whatever we come up with based

19:57 ↗ on volumes and type of use a minimum

20:01 ↗ that would accommodate our expected

20:04 ↗ volumes that's what we're trying to do

20:06 ↗ and that would be in the judgment of the

20:08 ↗ city okay so just circling back to this

20:14 ↗ one question here I just want to make it

20:16 ↗ very quick the amendments that we're

20:18 ↗ gonna be making is the shoreline master

20:19 ↗ plan will impact the similar State Park

20:25 ↗ if we are going to do now then shouldn't

20:28 ↗ we run this by the parks department and

20:32 ↗ the Friends of the East Lakes the

20:34 ↗ Friends of Lake Sammamish to ensure

20:36 ↗ because they're already on this

20:38 ↗ bandwagon moving forward and if we're

20:41 ↗ going to put a roadblock in front of

20:42 ↗ them from doing something that's a great

20:45 ↗ benefit to the community and a potential

20:49 ↗ cost hurdle then we're kind of shooting

20:52 ↗ ourselves in the foot wouldn't we

20:53 ↗ I wouldn't necessarily characterize what

20:56 ↗ we're doing as preventing Lake Sammamish

21:00 ↗ State Park from doing any of the trails

21:03 ↗ well we are what we are providing with

21:05 ↗ this is actually having some sort of

21:07 ↗ standards in shoreline jurisdiction that

21:10 ↗ allows this use prior to this we had no

21:14 ↗ standards so is kind of a gray area

21:17 ↗ could you actually do it and I think the

21:22 ↗ other thing that I would add is first of

21:24 ↗ all parks reviewed this draft we've been

21:28 ↗ coordinating with them okay and like

21:34 ↗ Sammamish State Park is a state agency

21:37 ↗ do is a state agency they're both

21:40 ↗ intended to be balancing a number of

21:44 ↗ goals I mean Parks is one protection of

21:49 ↗ shorelines is another and as I

21:53 ↗ understand it correct me if I'm wrong

21:55 ↗ trails I mean part of the reason that

21:57 ↗ we've put that in there is that there is

22:00 ↗ this value of giving people access to

22:03 ↗ these areas while trying to do it in a

22:05 ↗ way that does not harm them and that

22:08 ↗ that I think we felt that that was a gap

22:10 ↗ because it was not clear in what ways

22:14 ↗ trails weather trails could be there and

22:16 ↗ if they could in what ways they should

22:18 ↗ be there okay I did wanted to make sure

22:20 ↗ that's all the right stakeholders are

22:22 ↗ knowledgeable and moving forward kind of

22:24 ↗ together maybe not always in agreement

22:26 ↗ but at least they know know okay

22:28 ↗ I'm satisfied with that Thanks okay our

22:39 ↗ second top change is development

22:44 ↗ standards conflict between shoreline

22:46 ↗ environment and zoning so in 2013 our

22:51 ↗ own master program was adopted in

22:54 ↗ February of 2013 in April believe is

22:57 ↗ April of 2013 our central Issaquah plan

23:01 ↗ was adopted which changed zoning

23:03 ↗ designation throughout central a/c Gua

23:06 ↗ we've been operating our shoreline

23:08 ↗ master program now with the old zoning

23:11 ↗ or that section of the city so what we

23:15 ↗ are doing is just updating that with the

23:19 ↗ standards in place for the correct

23:21 ↗ zoning and that you can see is reflected

23:26 ↗ on page 40 through 44 of the draft SMP

23:30 ↗ not the actual packet so I'm sorry I

23:33 ↗ didn't a page that would be and then

23:39 ↗ earlier today I've also identified a

23:42 ↗ couple of mistakes with that that I will

23:44 ↗ be correcting just some some zoning that

23:48 ↗ was labeled incorrectly on there so

23:51 ↗ we'll be fixing that as well in the

23:52 ↗ coming days to reflect correct zoning

24:03 ↗ then our last identified top change is

24:07 ↗ actually quite a few in number but

24:10 ↗ they're mostly there they're there just

24:14 ↗ updating zoning codes that are in our

24:20 ↗ SNP to reflect the correct zoning code

24:22 ↗ that we have in our land use code and

24:24 ↗ it's just so sprinkled throughout this

24:26 ↗ you're going to see IMC references

24:30 ↗ changing to just the correct standards

24:34 ↗ and that discussion did any of you find

24:43 ↗ any other questions on what's going on

24:49 ↗ or why I think the plan the program that

24:59 ↗ presented here is very detailed and I

25:04 ↗ know that I was I'm the only one that

25:07 ↗ was on the committee when it originally

25:10 ↗ came to any policy 2013 and we went back

25:17 ↗ and forth of setbacks and you know

25:20 ↗ there's a map and there a picture of

25:23 ↗ where the setbacks are and that was

25:26 ↗ decided well we didn't decide we

25:28 ↗ recommend and how we wanted to put it

25:30 ↗ together so I know that that's still in

25:32 ↗ there and the reason reasons for all of

25:37 ↗ those comes out in the explanation here

25:40 ↗ so I was pleased with it basically goes

25:43 ↗ one to one on what we had decided back

25:47 ↗ then and that's why I asked is that

25:50 ↗ anything else changed or is this the

25:52 ↗ original one so you guys took what we

25:55 ↗ talked about and created this master

25:58 ↗ plan at that

25:59 ↗ time and then it never came back to us

26:01 ↗ so we never saw so yeah you know Joe and

26:04 ↗ I think you're making a great point and

26:07 ↗ I think it probably came to you in 2012

26:09 ↗ if it was adopted in 2013 but February

26:12 ↗ 2013 but that was a massive overhaul of

26:17 ↗ the shoreline master program with a very

26:20 ↗ different approach and really a very

26:26 ↗ thorough examination of sort of best

26:31 ↗ available science and we have a plan

26:34 ↗ before that yes but it just needed kind

26:39 ↗ of a major overhaul and so that's why

26:42 ↗ this time it's a much lighter touch

26:43 ↗ because a lot of the techniques are

26:47 ↗ still solid and sound and we're really

26:50 ↗ updating in the kind of categories that

26:54 ↗ Doug so things change you're always

26:57 ↗ going to get updates and it's nice to

27:00 ↗ see that they're just small ones

27:01 ↗ actually any discussion

27:06 ↗ yeah after reviewing it that's kind of

27:08 ↗ what it seemed like to me is a lot of

27:10 ↗ this is just playing catch-up with what

27:11 ↗ the state is doing you guys cleaning up

27:13 ↗ certain language definitions and then as

27:16 ↗ far as the trail earlier it looks like

27:17 ↗ you guys are just trying to establish a

27:19 ↗ baseline so it seems pretty clear I mean

27:22 ↗ I read it earlier and you know again

27:24 ↗ some of the stuff we did last last

27:27 ↗ meeting was kind of trying to get a

27:28 ↗ little bit more answers about some of

27:30 ↗ those definitions and things so again it

27:32 ↗ looks looks pretty thorough Andy do you

27:37 ↗ have any thoughts I not that haven't

27:40 ↗ been voiced by fellow commissioners in

27:42 ↗ terms of the quality of the work and the

27:45 ↗ longevity and the fact that it's a

27:47 ↗ living document it's going to be

27:48 ↗ reviewed on a regular basis and I

27:51 ↗ leave as I think I said in the first

27:53 ↗ meeting that I attended that because of

27:57 ↗ the salmon and Orca situation which is

27:59 ↗ an international issue and because of

28:02 ↗ our unique position in the topography

28:05 ↗ and the ecology of those two

28:07 ↗ increasingly controversial icons of the

28:14 ↗ Pacific Northwest we're going to see a

28:15 ↗ lot more effort on the part of all the

28:19 ↗ government entities from the national

28:20 ↗ government down to Issaquah to improve

28:24 ↗ the habitat and this is you know this is

28:28 ↗ a big part of it and I think it's what

28:31 ↗ I've been able to absorb and read so far

28:33 ↗ it's tough work but it's a work in

28:38 ↗ progress and it's gonna be until

28:40 ↗ something starts turning around out in

28:41 ↗ the saltwater know what's interesting is

28:44 ↗ I don't know if anyone saw that report

28:45 ↗ about all the plastics yet they've been

28:47 ↗ measuring and how that affects the

28:49 ↗ streams and obviously these Salmons run

28:51 ↗ through there so obviously that just

28:53 ↗ came out of leap this week when I'd

28:55 ↗ first read it about how they were taking

28:57 ↗ samples from California and other places

29:00 ↗ so the grandi said a living document I

29:05 ↗ think the states are doing a fairly good

29:09 ↗ job of keeping waterways clear of the

29:15 ↗ plastic and other stuff I know having

29:17 ↗ coming from another country and seeing

29:20 ↗ all the stuff that they allow all around

29:23 ↗ their shoreline it was really

29:24 ↗ disappointing to me but that on the same

29:28 ↗ thing that we aren't doing that we're

29:32 ↗ doing a better job of it

29:36 ↗ so what would you like to go with this

29:39 ↗ do you want to open the public hearing

29:41 ↗ yes I know but where are we done with

29:44 ↗ okay but you have those the corrected

29:49 ↗ language that you wanted to show I mean

29:51 ↗ I know we have a vast audience to hear

29:54 ↗ from tonight but it might be good to

29:58 ↗ look at those two pieces just in case

30:03 ↗ anyone wanted to comment on them well I

30:05 ↗ have access to I was thinking of the

30:13 ↗ there was some revised language that you

30:16 ↗ were proposing that's in the draft SMP

30:21 ↗ okay I know if I can access it oh okay

30:24 ↗ I'm sorry I thought that was gonna be a

30:26 ↗ part of tonight I'm misunderstood is

30:28 ↗ there any input from the Department of

30:32 ↗ Ecology in the way of the direction that

30:40 ↗ we're going and and how we you know mix

30:44 ↗ things together hi this is maria san

30:50 ↗ rico with the Department of Ecology one

30:52 ↗ of the next steps after the close of the

30:54 ↗ public hearing comment period the city

30:57 ↗ is actually gonna submit the proposed

30:58 ↗ amendments for calling in an initial

31:01 ↗ submit all to ecology where we're going

31:02 ↗ to provide an initial review or an

31:04 ↗ initial determination that the proposed

31:07 ↗ amendments are consistent with the

31:09 ↗ shoreline management acts and the SNP

31:10 ↗ guidelines and then share that back with

31:13 ↗ the city before the city adopts it so

31:15 ↗ you kind of have that preliminary

31:16 ↗ information from us that transparency

31:18 ↗ and then after the city does adopt these

31:21 ↗ amendments then then they'll submit it

31:23 ↗ to us for a final determination and

31:25 ↗ final approval so so I'm sure that you

31:28 ↗ have gone over some of this stuff yes

31:31 ↗ and I have I think I have provided some

31:33 ↗ preliminary comments on the on the

31:35 ↗ document to city staff I don't know if

31:38 ↗ it's been incorporated yet or not but

31:40 ↗ yeah

31:45 ↗ just wondered if there was any big

31:47 ↗ hiccups or anything that dude was

31:49 ↗ glaring no one is nothing that I needed

31:53 ↗ to you know throw a wrench and

31:54 ↗ everything and you know well I'd like to

31:56 ↗ do that upfront before it gets right and

31:59 ↗ that's a it's a big purpose of this

32:01 ↗ initial determination which is a new

32:03 ↗ process for us is that cities will kind

32:06 ↗ of wanted that upfront feedback from

32:08 ↗ ecology is that are we on the right

32:09 ↗ track or not so that's what we're trying

32:10 ↗ to do with this initial determination so

32:13 ↗ it'll be the next step that we go

32:14 ↗ through thank you so with that I'm going

32:22 ↗ to reopen the public hearing and ask if

32:25 ↗ anybody would like to speak at the

32:28 ↗ public hearing and I'll open it at 7:04

32:32 ↗ would anybody like to speak at the

32:35 ↗ public hearing I think you have to do is

32:38 ↗ three times so would anybody like to

32:40 ↗ speak at the public hearing seeing none

32:44 ↗ hearing no nobody that would like to

32:47 ↗ speak I'm going to close the public

32:49 ↗ hearing at 7:05 with that I think do we

32:58 ↗ have to vote on this in the back of your

33:04 ↗ packet there is a finding of that it

33:08 ↗ basically it's a shortened version of

33:12 ↗ what's going on and what what the

33:16 ↗ amendments are and the rationale for

33:18 ↗ approving it and so so it will go on to

33:22 ↗ whatever Department of the City Council

33:25 ↗ is going to look at it next I need a

33:27 ↗ motion to approve the finding of facts

33:32 ↗ as are written in the three-page

33:36 ↗ document that you received from the city

33:38 ↗ to pay yeah a three page document I

33:41 ↗ would like to make a motion to approve

33:43 ↗ the findings of fact proposed in the

33:46 ↗ documents and recommendations of the

33:50 ↗ Beuerlein master plan without any

33:54 ↗ without without any additional

33:57 ↗ modifications or Corrections right a

34:00 ↗ second second again I'm gonna ask is

34:05 ↗ there any other comments or changes

34:08 ↗ hearing none I'll come for the question

34:10 ↗ all those in favor of sending the

34:14 ↗ finding of the fact on to the City

34:17 ↗ Council

34:17 ↗ they say aye aye opposed hearing none

34:22 ↗ the motion passes so the only thing

34:28 ↗ that's on our agenda is the upcoming

34:35 ↗ schedule but I'd like to all of you have

34:41 ↗ before we do that all of you who have

34:43 ↗ gone through the training and there were

34:46 ↗ some changes that were spelled out in a

34:50 ↗ way that meetings are run and I would

34:54 ↗ like to get your opinion when I started

34:56 ↗ on the on the Planning Policy Commission

34:59 ↗ it was run basically exactly the way

35:00 ↗ it's run now but if you go to the City

35:03 ↗ Council

35:04 ↗ it's very more much more formal and you

35:07 ↗ know you have to be recognized before

35:09 ↗ you speak do you want to go that into

35:14 ↗ that I think it's going to be up to you

35:16 ↗ whether you how you want this meeting

35:18 ↗ run do you feel comfortable the way it

35:20 ↗ is

35:21 ↗ Andy well I madam chair the the only

35:25 ↗ it's not even a concern but I we my

35:32 ↗ words here as litigious as our society

35:35 ↗ has become in in all areas I don't think

35:39 ↗ we can err in being to when when things

35:45 ↗ are pulled out and reviewed four years

35:48 ↗ later in a courtroom

35:50 ↗ I believe there's less potential for

35:54 ↗ error or miss speaking or miss direction

35:59 ↗ if it's if it's closer to Robert's Rules

36:03 ↗ and conduct of the of the meeting and I

36:07 ↗ haven't really had that much experience

36:09 ↗ here so I'm just saying it's a general

36:11 ↗ rule with our responsibilities now I

36:15 ↗ don't think you can be too careful these

36:17 ↗ days any other comment I think from my

36:21 ↗ experience of the past year I think I

36:24 ↗ think the rules that were covered in

36:26 ↗ training were very helpful I think

36:28 ↗ they're mainly there to aid that we have

36:30 ↗ good discussion everyone on the

36:33 ↗ Commission is free to speak and we don't

36:35 ↗ talk over each other and argue with each

36:38 ↗ other I haven't really witnessed that on

36:40 ↗ this commission last year we have gotten

36:43 ↗ off-topic maybe on a couple occasions

36:45 ↗ and when that's occurred Joan you've

36:47 ↗ kind of jumped in and kind of structured

36:49 ↗ that at the time when it's needed so I'm

36:52 ↗ fine with the current style mission I

36:54 ↗ was listening to them and tried to get

36:59 ↗ that's why I called on all of you to

37:01 ↗ make sure that you all had your your say

37:03 ↗ in whatever you had the opportunity to

37:06 ↗ speak so if if it's okay we'll continue

37:11 ↗ the way it is but I will try to add some

37:15 ↗ more formal

37:18 ↗ I don't know how exactly to do that I

37:20 ↗ don't want you to raise your hand you

37:22 ↗ know and you guys get so excited about

37:25 ↗ the questions that you want to ask it's

37:27 ↗ kind of hard to say well wait you had

37:29 ↗ had your turn your kick you could only

37:30 ↗ talk once oh well we'll see what we can

37:34 ↗ do and how we can put it together just

37:35 ↗ add a little bit more formality but I've

37:38 ↗ been in those situations where it's it's

37:40 ↗ definitely more formal and it's it's all

37:42 ↗ those closer to Robert's Rules and I

37:45 ↗ understand Randy's point but I think

37:48 ↗ like you said it can sometimes stifle a

37:50 ↗ discussion and to Bill's point you know

37:53 ↗ occasionally you get to off-topic but it

37:56 ↗ is I mean I think everyone here is

37:57 ↗ respectful of one another

37:58 ↗ everyone's here has been probably most

38:01 ↗ likely in a situation like this where

38:02 ↗ everyone knows where to yield properly

38:05 ↗ you know as far as actually litigation

38:07 ↗ and I don't know this is my first

38:10 ↗ Commission I've been in a different set

38:13 ↗ of circumstances where Robert's rule was

38:14 ↗ applied and minutes were taken but you

38:24 ↗ know we know that we've already been to

38:25 ↗ this unit misuk wah has already been to

38:27 ↗ the US Supreme Court and lost over

38:30 ↗ procedure was there any other thing that

38:42 ↗ you heard that you might want more

38:46 ↗ information or question about or as far

38:49 ↗ as the training yeah I thought the staff

38:53 ↗ and and James I believe his name is Jim

38:55 ↗ the City Attorney did a fantastic job

39:00 ↗ yeah I'd like to come and I like that

39:02 ↗ yet the the attorney being present it

39:04 ↗ was very very helpful yeah it seemed to

39:08 ↗ work better than the video because you

39:09 ↗ could actually ask questions

39:11 ↗ he was very who's the right person for

39:13 ↗ the job yeah I thought it was a good

39:16 ↗ overall

39:17 ↗ you of what you need really to

39:21 ↗ understand on this Commission so good

39:25 ↗ I'm glad

39:26 ↗ so do you want to go over the schedule

39:29 ↗ or do you want to end the meeting madam

39:33 ↗ chair I do have two things I'd like to

39:36 ↗ mention okay the first this was

39:38 ↗ mentioned earlier but this came out

39:41 ↗ Commissioner on a fall refer to this

39:43 ↗ this is the meeting that's coming up

39:44 ↗ with the state parks Commission just on

39:47 ↗ the 26th and it will be held in our 25th

39:51 ↗ I'm sorry it's forwarded it to you yeah

39:53 ↗ it'll be held in Pickering barn and I

39:56 ↗ agree with Commissioner fall it's it's a

39:59 ↗ we interested folks need I think attend

40:03 ↗ there because this has really big

40:05 ↗ ramifications for where part goes I'm

40:08 ↗ glad it came up in the final discussion

40:10 ↗ and the second thing is I was browsing

40:13 ↗ around in the insolent library as I

40:14 ↗ normally do and I came across this book

40:17 ↗ which is asked at present in this across

40:21 ↗ Washington it was published in 1967 and

40:25 ↗ I would recommend this to everybody that

40:27 ↗ has anything to do with Issaquah whether

40:30 ↗ it's residential governmental or

40:31 ↗ occupational because there are it's it's

40:33 ↗ fascinating the first place I've learned

40:35 ↗ about the first settler here being

40:37 ↗ settlers family being killed by Native

40:40 ↗ Americans no dispute but the other thing

40:43 ↗ is if you look through this it was done

40:45 ↗ by husband-and-wife team there is

40:48 ↗ significant lamenting as early as the

40:52 ↗ 1960s about loss of the character of

40:56 ↗ this aquatic and growth and it I it's

41:01 ↗ just a great it's not vicious or

41:03 ↗ anything it's just kind of lamenting

41:05 ↗ like Oh our little town is becoming

41:07 ↗ a little there town this is it talk

41:09 ↗ about transportation matter of fact it

41:12 ↗ does in a way but anyways it's just it's

41:15 ↗ just a really cool little hometown

41:17 ↗ product that the reason I mention it is

41:21 ↗ because discussions of growth and the

41:23 ↗ impact and the nature of the community

41:25 ↗ are are not decade old and who is it by

41:30 ↗ Randy that's why the art is done well

41:34 ↗ here's an example this is a map of Missa

41:36 ↗ quad that's hand-drawn by the author's

41:38 ↗ wife the author is Edward's are fish

41:41 ↗ with original sketches by Harriet fish

41:44 ↗ yeah Harriet was she's super famous here

41:47 ↗ so I was what I didn't realize she and

41:49 ↗ her husband wrote it together I always

41:50 ↗ just thought it was Harriet and there's

41:52 ↗ some really interesting new stuff I

41:54 ↗ learned in there about we had a pretty

41:57 ↗ rough we did thank you madam chair

42:00 ↗ that's it no going back to the state

42:02 ↗ park ten years ago I think there was

42:09 ↗ this fear that the state was going to

42:11 ↗ come in and build office buildings on

42:13 ↗ lakes in Lake Sammamish in the park and

42:16 ↗ so we had a a committee that was formed

42:20 ↗ and we met for three years who planned

42:23 ↗ the perfect park and what was going to

42:25 ↗ go into it and whatever and the plan

42:28 ↗ came out it was great I hope that some

42:30 ↗ of those same ideas are incorporated

42:33 ↗ into you know what's coming up now right

42:38 ↗ I hope they I mean we spent three years

42:41 ↗ discussing every possible facet of the

42:45 ↗ park so though I'm looking forward to

42:47 ↗ having you know they got to a point

42:50 ↗ where oh it's great it's great but we

42:52 ↗ have no money to do any of this so you

42:54 ↗ know kind of die

42:55 ↗ the link that I sent has your work on

42:58 ↗ there the previous plan and talks about

43:02 ↗ options and pieces it's a nice website

43:04 ↗ post so you all can be totally educated

43:07 ↗ when you go to the open house but I just

43:10 ↗ forwarded it to you it just came to us

43:12 ↗ tonight so it's just just now it's just

43:15 ↗ yeah I just so I forward it because I

43:16 ↗ remembered I got it right when I was

43:18 ↗ closing down my machine and I went oh

43:20 ↗ the state park this is awesome so I was

43:22 ↗ glad they mentioned it to one of the

43:24 ↗ buildings that was designed to go in

43:26 ↗ there before it was it must hasn't been

43:29 ↗ built it got a national award for it for

43:33 ↗ the environmental issues that they took

43:37 ↗ care of in that building so but it was

43:39 ↗ never built because they ran out of

43:40 ↗ money so with that if you want to

43:46 ↗ discuss the schedule I would just say

43:48 ↗ the schedule is changing as we speak

43:51 ↗ so I'm not completely sure what will

43:55 ↗ happen on the 27th but we will let you

43:59 ↗ know as soon as we know but things are

44:02 ↗ things are fluid in the office it's the

44:06 ↗ next meeting of 27 I thought was at 28

44:09 ↗ my eyes say the 27th did we get the date

44:12 ↗ wrong

44:13 ↗ it says the 27th of them docked right

44:15 ↗ that's what I'm looking at but I don't

44:16 ↗ know I often I've been noticed to do

44:19 ↗ typos before in that really in the

44:22 ↗ calendar yes it's frightening to even

44:24 ↗ think that but yes we give an example

44:28 ↗ just today it doesn't make any

44:31 ↗ difference if it's 27th or 28th I will

44:33 ↗ not be here so okay so no Joan good to

44:36 ↗ know I did have a question about

44:38 ↗ something in the training I don't know

44:39 ↗ if it's shorter that I maybe asked after

44:41 ↗ the session unless you think anyone

44:45 ↗ would benefit yeah well basically it was

44:48 ↗ James in the city attorney mm-hmm

44:51 ↗ that well basically was discussing the

44:55 ↗ open records act and I guess what I was

44:58 ↗ noticing exact yes well also the records

45:02 ↗ because if there is a current records if

45:04 ↗ there's a situation they could possibly

45:07 ↗ someone could ask and start asking for

45:10 ↗ records right so I notice a lot of

45:12 ↗ obviously city staff other people have

45:15 ↗ emails or that purpose I'm sure most of

45:19 ↗ us probably use personal emails because

45:20 ↗ we don't have one issued by the city is

45:23 ↗ there I mean I know there's no problem

45:25 ↗ with creating your own account is there

45:27 ↗ a problem by saying something you don't

45:28 ↗ using like commish or with the city say

45:31 ↗ no don't use anything that would show

45:34 ↗ city of is a quality thing I think

45:38 ↗ because you're an advisory board it's

45:41 ↗ not as critical to someone doing an open

45:45 ↗ Records Act to to pull email records

45:49 ↗ from you all it what they would be

45:50 ↗ pulling is if I'm sending you

45:53 ↗ information like a packet or an update

45:55 ↗ or something and that's why you're never

45:58 ↗ to discuss things in email because

46:00 ↗ that's like a meeting a computer meeting

46:02 ↗ and so we can't do that either just for

46:04 ↗ those sorts of reasons as for the open

46:06 ↗ the public meetings the open meetings

46:09 ↗ act now you got me mixing them up but I

46:12 ↗ don't think I know council members have

46:14 ↗ two different emails that work you know

46:16 ↗ their home one and then the City one

46:18 ↗ because they do make decisions they can

46:21 ↗ have their emails pulled when there's a

46:23 ↗ public request but I think for you all I

46:28 ↗ think they can have their emails

46:31 ↗ requested that was the legislative

46:33 ↗ action I know it's less likely right

46:37 ↗ thinking they would never be discussing

46:39 ↗ anything that well you just don't know

46:41 ↗ so I I think the most prudent is to set

46:44 ↗ up a gmail or you know account that you

46:48 ↗ just use for this business I will tell

46:51 ↗ you that in the last say five to ten

46:55 ↗ years where I've heard that recommended

46:58 ↗ only maybe one or two commissioners on

47:00 ↗ each Commission

47:02 ↗ has done that but that I'm not trying to

47:06 ↗ dissuade anyone I'm just saying it's not

47:08 ↗ that common a choice by most

47:11 ↗ commissioners you know I wouldn't think

47:12 ↗ it's very common but my understanding

47:14 ↗ from the attorney is again it they don't

47:17 ↗ need necessarily a reason to ask for

47:20 ↗ your records

47:21 ↗ so again if somebody did want to go

47:23 ↗ fishing which is fine nothing really to

47:25 ↗ hide but I guess my point would being

47:27 ↗ because I've already decided to do it to

47:29 ↗ quit having my personal stuff

47:31 ↗ intermingled with the Commission with

47:33 ↗ the city of Issaquah find it problematic

47:35 ↗ if you know that said Jay our voice

47:39 ↗ commish what would that be problematic

47:42 ↗ with the cities they know you can't use

47:44 ↗ language like that I don't think we

47:47 ↗ evaluate your as long as it's not

47:50 ↗ obscene I don't think we would evaluate

47:53 ↗ it I think we just would ask for you to

47:56 ↗ let us know and then we update our

47:58 ↗ contacts with whatever email you choose

48:01 ↗ to have whether it's commingled or even

48:04 ↗ if I put like Jason at is a quad

48:07 ↗ obviously not is aquatic go

48:09 ↗ but Issaquah public planning policy

48:13 ↗ problem jason PPC is Squa at at

48:17 ↗ gmail.com I mean I understand why you

48:20 ↗ might choose to do that I you know I

48:23 ↗ think we have the records to show if you

48:27 ↗ when you're on the Commission and what

48:30 ↗ period of time that might apply right

48:33 ↗ all right I'm not worried about it but I

48:36 ↗ figured it would be nice to separate

48:37 ↗ that from other emails so just now when

48:40 ↗ you do so we can make sure you're all

48:42 ↗ your stuff goes there so I don't know

48:46 ↗ any other questions and I'm going to

48:51 ↗ close the meeting itself

48:53 ↗ twenty-one all done almost the fascist

48:59 ↗ mean we've had

49:03 ↗ you

49:05 ↗ you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (5)

Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Maria Sandercock

Ecology Joy Lewis Alex Capron

The Watershed Company Robin Beukers

Alt. Thomas Haskins

Alt