← Back to City Council Digest

Meeting concluded — minutes pending. The agenda below is what the City posted; minutes haven't been published yet. Issaquah approves Council minutes at the next meeting and ships them embedded in that next meeting's packet, so they typically land here 1–3 weeks after the meeting. Transcript and recording will appear once the City posts the YouTube video and our pipeline catches it.
Planning Policy Commission Auto captions

Thursday, September 24, 2020

6:30 PM · 2h 33m
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 Christen Leeson, Senior Planner 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 – Vacant 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 – Robin Beukers see IMC 18.03.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2a
Minutes of September 10, 2020
packet pp.5–9
Staff report:
on the Mobility Master Plan (MMP); PPC’s and other boards’/commissions’ review of the MMP to date; and goal areas for
2a
Recommend to Council the Proposed Amendments to Dissolve the River & Streams Board and Create an Environmental Board, (A)
Megan Curtis-Murphy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.11–63
Staff report:
The City Administration is proposing amendments to repeal code provisions that created the River and Streams Board and provide for the River and Streams Board to be dissolved. The proposed amendments also create an Environmental Board to protect, preserve and enhance the natural environment and take action on climate change to reduce its impacts by advising the Mayor, City Council and City departments on the City’s plans, policies, regulations and programs related to environmental stewardship.
2b
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Redesignations and Rezones of Parcels 2224069054
Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.65–102
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
Every year property owners may request rezones. If the requested rezone will also require a change in land use designation so it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, then it becomes part of the Comprehensive Plan amendments. This year three property owners requested rezones that also require land use designation amendments.
4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
4a
2019 Housing Report Card
packet pp.103–122
Topics: Housing
Staff report:
“It is hard to argue that housing is not a fundamental human need. Decent, affordable housing should be a basic right for everybody in this country. The reason is simple: without stable shelter, everything else falls apart.” Matthew Desmond, Evicted
4b
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.123
Staff report:
• Schedule
0:18 line it will be some of the things that
0:22 after we
0:23 we normally go over before the meeting
0:25 starts
0:29 commissioners know that any question or
0:31 comment is in the
0:32 chat box and please remember
0:35 this time to introduce yourself each
0:37 time you talk
0:39 um some reason that's a as a requirement
0:43 if you're signed up to speak or
0:46 if you've called in please wait until
0:51 doug calls your name so that you can get
0:53 in if there's anybody else out there
0:55 that would like to make a comment
0:58 this evening the information to
1:02 sign in is on the website
1:05 the first order of business is the
1:08 taking of the
1:09 role kristin do you want to take it
1:12 i will this is kristin leeson so ron
1:15 fall
1:18 present oh joy lewis
1:22 here bill reinhardt
1:26 sure janice carl
1:29 here jason voice
1:33 thank you robin buchers
1:38 and joan propola here
1:41 so i know there's a lot of staff uh here
1:45 so i will call the ones that i can see
1:48 and if there's anybody else
1:49 kristin maybe you can uh fill in the
1:52 blanks so
1:53 kristen leeson is the senior planner
1:56 doug yormick is the
1:58 deputy planner assistant
2:02 assistant did i give you a promotion
2:07 deputy city minister andrea snyder
2:10 gabe shelton jenk is a member of the
2:14 staff
2:15 keith nelson the planning director
2:18 megan curtis murphy is part of
2:22 staff did i get everybody
2:25 you got everyone okay so
2:28 this evening we're gonna have two public
2:31 i think that's the next thing
2:32 oh minutes there are the minutes of
2:36 september
2:37 10 a 10th have are in your packet has
2:40 everybody read them
2:41 does anybody have a question or comment
2:43 on them
2:47 so a hearing no question or comment
2:51 the minutes are approved
2:55 so we're going to go right into some
2:57 information
2:58 to have a public hearing this evening
3:01 actually two of them
3:02 the first one will be to recommend the
3:06 proposed amendments
3:07 to dissolve the river and stream board
3:09 and to create an
3:10 environmental board the second public
3:13 hearing will be on the proposed
3:15 comprehensive plan amendments so i'm
3:18 assuming that kristen no
3:21 megan curtis murphy is going from
3:23 sustainability is going to give us a
3:26 little program presentation
3:29 on the amendments to change the river
3:32 and stream board
3:35 megan are you there yes thank you i will
3:38 just pull up my screen here
3:51 all right good evening i'm megan curtis
3:53 murphy with the office of sustainability
3:56 i'm glad to be back this evening to
3:57 discuss some updates we've made to the
3:59 environmental board since the last
4:01 meeting in august
4:02 i'd like to thank both the commissioners
4:04 and the public for providing their input
4:06 at the last meeting
4:07 and for the extra time to ensure the
4:08 feedback was incorporated into the
4:12 proposal
4:14 dancing my slides
4:19 here we go i will start this evening by
4:22 reviewing the various touch points the
4:24 creation of the board has had in the
4:25 timeline
4:26 we'll then talk about the feedback we've
4:28 received and the changes to the
4:29 ordinance as a result of that
4:31 and we'll end with some flowcharts
4:33 showing how the board's work will be
4:35 incorporated in the decision-making
4:36 processes
4:37 and the next steps in the process for
4:39 establishing the environmental board
4:41 and sunsetting the river and streams
4:43 board
4:45 as discussed at previous meetings the
4:47 river and streams board was formed in
4:49 1983
4:50 and the city has grown and changed since
4:51 the creation of it and is now proposing
4:53 an environmental board
4:55 this new board will address a wider
4:57 range of environmental and
4:58 sustainability topics including climate
5:00 change
5:01 in june we had two community meetings to
5:04 brainstorm the creation of the board
5:06 and get input on the board's proposal we
5:08 also sent out a survey to the public to
5:10 get additional feedback and ideas
5:13 in july we brought the proposal to the
5:15 city council for a study session
5:17 and an update in august with changes
5:19 based on the feedback we received
5:21 we held a public hearing on the board at
5:23 ppc in august
5:25 and got a lot of feedback from both
5:26 commissioners and the public at that
5:28 meeting
5:29 since that meeting we've met with
5:30 residents and worked with our community
5:32 planning and development department
5:34 to make changes to the ordinance we're
5:36 now here for a new public hearing so we
5:38 get feedback on the additional changes
5:40 that we have made
5:43 the table summarizes the areas where we
5:45 heard input and any changes to the
5:47 ordinance as a result of that
5:49 a more detailed table was included in
5:51 the memo for your reference
5:53 we will get into greater detail in each
5:55 of these in the coming slides but this
5:56 provides an initial overview of the
5:58 changes
5:59 the first is around the objective of the
6:01 board we heard a preference for the
6:03 objective to be around protecting the
6:05 environment
6:06 and taking action on climate rather than
6:08 to be advising the mayor and council
6:10 this change has been made the next
6:12 reflects a few comments we heard at the
6:14 last ppc meeting
6:15 the first was a preference for members
6:17 with technical expertise
6:19 and another was about the number of
6:20 youth on the board
6:22 we'll be recruiting for several members
6:24 with professional
6:25 expertise including environmental
6:27 scientists climate change professionals
6:29 engineers natural resource managers and
6:31 more as detailed in the ordinance
6:34 however we also heard at the community
6:36 meetings and from council
6:37 we want space preserved for community
6:39 members with a demonstrated interest in
6:41 the environment
6:42 but who may not have the technical or
6:44 professional background
6:47 we have not changed the number of youth
6:49 representatives and we had originally
6:50 proposed one in an earlier proposal
6:52 but heard from the community and council
6:54 a preference for two given their in
6:56 given their invested interest in several
6:58 of the topics especially around climate
7:00 change the next was a request for more
7:03 details on a few of the duties and
7:05 responsibilities which i'll get into
7:06 shortly
7:08 with the sun setting of river and
7:10 streams and addition of the
7:11 environmental board
7:12 there are questions about how that would
7:15 change the development review process
7:17 which is detailed in a flow chart that i
7:18 will walk through
7:20 as you heard the last meeting there are
7:22 requests for a process for community
7:24 review of projects to take the place of
7:26 what river and streams used to do
7:28 we worked with community planning and
7:30 development on a new neighborhood
7:31 meeting process
7:32 which will be established in code
7:34 through the adoption of the ordinance
7:36 this is also detailed in the development
7:38 review flow chart that i'll walk through
7:41 at the last ppc meeting there was a
7:43 discussion about how future changes can
7:45 be made to the ordinance if needed
7:47 in response we've included an annual
7:49 evaluation process for the board to
7:51 report back to council
7:53 another comment that we have heard
7:55 several times was around the concern for
7:57 the interim period
7:58 between the sun setting of the river and
7:59 streams board and the formation of the
8:01 board and time it would take to update
8:03 the code
8:04 rather than waiting for the code updates
8:06 we're proposing a new neighborhood
8:07 meeting process
8:09 along with the use of a natural
8:10 environment checklist
8:12 lastly we have a few flow charts to show
8:14 how the board's recommendations
8:16 will be incorporated into
8:17 decision-making processes
8:21 as described on the previous slide here
8:24 is the new proposed objective for the
8:25 board
8:26 the new wording is in red and aligns
8:28 with the comments we heard to make it
8:30 about protecting the environment
8:31 and taking action on climate change it
8:34 also reads more closely to how the river
8:36 and streams
8:37 objective was originally worded
8:40 just as a reminder on the membership of
8:42 the board we will have nine members and
8:44 three alternates
8:45 with two positions reserved for youth as
8:47 requested by the community
8:50 and council youth is defined as at least
8:52 15 years of age with one being under 18
8:55 and the other under 25
8:57 the other pieces also have not changed
8:59 and that we're looking for a majority of
9:00 residents and we're seeking diversity on
9:02 the board
9:03 we're also looking for individuals with
9:05 both professional or technical
9:07 experience as well as community members
9:09 interested in the environment
9:11 and as the board will be covering a
9:12 range of topics we want to see a balance
9:14 of these topics represented through the
9:16 backgrounds and interests of individuals
9:18 on the board
9:21 these next few slides will go into
9:23 detail about the duties and
9:24 responsibilities of the board with major
9:26 updates in red
9:28 for the first item the city added
9:30 additional items that the board will
9:32 review in code
9:33 there are many other things that will
9:35 come up like recommendations on new
9:36 programs or practices
9:38 but the items listed in red here are the
9:40 ongoing items that will come before the
9:42 board when they are updated
9:44 both the shoreline management program
9:47 and storm and surface water master plan
9:49 are items that rivers and streams would
9:51 have reviewed and are included here
9:53 we add in more sections of the code that
9:55 the board will review
9:56 with input with input that we heard
9:59 including
10:00 title 13 on public services which covers
10:02 stormwater and groundwater protection
10:04 title 16 is buildings and construction
10:07 and title 18 is land use as previously
10:09 included in the ordinance as well
10:12 the board will also have a chance to
10:13 review the list of city projects through
10:15 the capital
10:16 improvement plan and the transportation
10:18 and improvement program
10:20 to provide input on environmental impact
10:23 or other environmental or sustainability
10:25 concerns
10:26 or considerations we added the
10:28 transportation improvement program after
10:30 hearing feedback that there was a
10:32 desire for further review of
10:34 transportation projects
10:36 the next two have not changed this board
10:38 will issue board statements to track
10:40 their recommendation throughout the
10:41 approval processes
10:43 these recommendations will be noted to
10:45 have substantial wait for the decision
10:47 maker
10:49 next is to review research and best
10:51 practices to advise on environmental
10:53 policies
10:53 and ordinances for the city the last one
10:57 on this page has changed substantially
10:59 in response to community and commission
11:00 feedback
11:02 previously we proposed that the board
11:03 would develop and maintain an
11:05 environmental and sustainability
11:06 checklist to be used on projects
11:09 given the time it would take for the
11:10 board to get up and running we've worked
11:12 with community planning and development
11:14 to draft a checklist that was included
11:16 in the packet
11:17 the proposed natural environment
11:19 checklist would be used on projects with
11:21 critical areas
11:22 that are classified as level two and up
11:24 in the permitting process
11:26 overall there are seven levels of permit
11:28 review and this regulation would be
11:30 capturing everything that goes to the
11:32 development commission and above
11:34 which is level three but also the items
11:36 right below that level
11:37 in classification level two this
11:40 includes several types of programs
11:43 are several types of projects including
11:45 administrative
11:46 development permits home occupations
11:49 short flats or subdivisions shoreline
11:52 substantial development permits
11:54 variances
11:55 and conditional use permits and the link
11:58 to the levels of permit review and what
12:00 types of projects are included in that
12:02 was included in the memo for reference
12:05 in addition to the natural environment
12:07 checklist these same projects will all
12:09 receive a neighborhood meeting
12:11 as a form of community review to replace
12:13 the review that was previously done by
12:15 the river and streams board
12:18 i'm going to spend a few minutes talking
12:20 about how the neighborhood meeting and
12:22 checklist will work as a form of project
12:24 review
12:24 as this is one of the concerns we've
12:26 heard about the sun setting of the river
12:28 and streams board
12:29 although the environmental board will
12:31 not be doing project reveal
12:33 we've built in this neighborhood meeting
12:35 to serve the desire for a community
12:37 review of projects
12:39 the information we get from the natural
12:41 environment checklist along with the
12:42 neighborhood meeting handout both which
12:44 are included in the board packet
12:46 will help identify and inform policy
12:49 issues in the issaquah municipal code
12:51 that the board will want to weigh in on
12:53 during the title 18 updates
12:56 looking at the flowchart here on the
12:58 left hand side you'll see the split for
12:59 projects with critical areas and those
13:01 without critical areas
13:03 critical areas is defined in code
13:05 include wetlands streams
13:07 shorelines flood hazard zones and sites
13:10 with geotechnical elements like steep
13:12 slopes
13:14 in order to balance staff time and
13:15 capacity as well as the cost of the
13:17 neighborhood meeting for the applicant
13:19 we're recommending it for all projects
13:21 with critical areas that are level 2 and
13:23 above
13:24 as you can see in blue projects that are
13:26 level 0 and 1 will still have a city
13:29 consultant do a peer review of the
13:30 critical areas study
13:32 to make sure it details any impacts to
13:34 the critical areas
13:35 and mitigation plans and compliance with
13:37 code
13:39 there would be no community review for
13:40 these levels of projects
13:42 but city city staff would use the
13:43 information from the peer review to help
13:45 inform their decision making
13:48 this changes for projects are level two
13:50 and up as you will see in the middle of
13:52 the chart
13:53 these projects will still have a city
13:54 consultant do the peer review of the
13:56 critical area study
13:58 city staff will then fill out the
14:00 neighborhood meeting handout
14:01 which includes details on the critical
14:03 areas shorelines and tree retention
14:06 requirements
14:07 the handout will be sent to all
14:09 neighborhood meeting invitees which
14:10 include
14:11 identified parties of record and
14:13 property owners within 300 feet
14:16 city staff will provide information on
14:18 the project and will include any
14:20 technical area experts in the meeting
14:23 the purpose of the meeting is to provide
14:24 the community an opportunity to
14:26 understand the proposal
14:28 and to provide the city with thoughts
14:29 and concerns before
14:31 a decision is rendered following the
14:34 neighborhood meeting
14:35 city staff will fill out the natural
14:37 environment checklist which includes
14:39 environmental information about the
14:41 project beyond code and the critical
14:42 areas piece
14:44 the neighborhood meeting information
14:46 including public comments received at
14:47 the meeting
14:48 will be attached to the check to the
14:50 checklist and travel with the project to
14:52 help inform decision maker
14:55 on the right hand side in green you can
14:57 see the decision-making authority
14:59 depending on each level of review
15:01 the purpose of the natural environment
15:03 checklist along with the neighborhood
15:04 meeting information
15:05 is meant to document environmental
15:07 impacts of the projects and
15:09 form the board i'm going to go back to
15:12 one
15:12 slide to look at how this new process
15:15 relates to the environmental board
15:17 in number four there the role of the
15:20 environmental board will be to advise on
15:21 the implementation of the checklist and
15:23 that process
15:25 as detailed in the ordinance the board
15:27 will have a chance to review the
15:28 checklist after five uses
15:30 and then annually thereafter to provide
15:32 feedback to community planning and
15:34 development on its use
15:36 the environmental board can also use the
15:38 information obtained in these documents
15:40 to help inform environmental related
15:42 policy issues to the code
15:44 through the title 18 update process
15:49 i'm continuing on with the rest of the
15:51 duties and responsibilities
15:53 the board will also advise on planning
15:55 and prioritization of actions related to
15:57 climate change and resiliency
15:59 the city is playing to a climate action
16:01 plan next year so the board will be key
16:03 in helping advise on these planning
16:04 efforts
16:06 next is develop recommendations on
16:08 programs services
16:09 practices and priorities relating to
16:11 environmental sustainability and
16:13 protection
16:14 this includes a large bucket of items
16:17 from getting feedback on programs the
16:19 city is already implementing like
16:21 pollution prevention
16:22 visits to businesses to advising on new
16:24 types of programs like sustainability
16:26 outreach programs
16:28 and next we have the annual report which
16:31 is also changed due to community
16:32 feedback
16:34 the board will provide an annual report
16:36 to the mayor and city council
16:37 on work plan activities and show
16:40 measurable achievement to our
16:41 environmental goals and objectives
16:44 in addition since this is a new board
16:46 the report will include a self-analysis
16:48 of their work and effectiveness to be
16:50 presented to city council
16:51 this will provide an opportunity for
16:53 discussion if there are any parts of the
16:55 ordinance
16:55 that need to be modified or updated and
16:58 finally the mayor can direct the board
17:00 to perform other duties as may be
17:02 prescribed in the ordinance
17:06 put together a three flow charts showing
17:09 the flow of work for the board
17:11 and how their recommendations are
17:12 factored in in the decision making
17:14 process
17:15 the first shows items that require
17:17 review by counsel
17:19 the second is for items that require
17:20 review by the planning policy commission
17:22 and the third is for items that do not
17:24 have any required review
17:26 the first is for items requiring the
17:28 council reviews such as city plans
17:30 policies and regulations
17:32 first the city administration prepares
17:34 the items and then presents it to the
17:35 environmental board
17:37 the board provides input and
17:38 recommendations which are relayed
17:40 through the meeting minutes
17:41 and city staff incorporate it into the
17:43 work product
17:44 and then presents it for council review
17:47 council is instructed to give
17:48 substantial
17:49 weight to the recommendations of the
17:51 environmental board and its
17:52 consideration
17:53 as discussed at the last ppc meeting the
17:56 city attorney had recommended the
17:57 language of substantial weight
17:59 in response to the community desire for
18:01 the board to have teeth in the
18:02 decision-making process
18:06 for items that require review by ppc
18:08 including land use
18:09 and comprehensive plan amendments the
18:11 process would be similar for the first
18:13 two steps
18:14 next ppc would review the items and give
18:16 substantial weight to the board's
18:18 recommendations
18:19 the city would incorporate any feedback
18:21 and then present to city council
18:23 council would also be instructed to give
18:25 substantial weight to the
18:26 recommendations of the environmental
18:27 board
18:28 in their decision making lastly the
18:31 board will be asked to provide their
18:32 input on various program developments
18:34 and environmental practices for example
18:37 if the board would if the city were
18:39 developing a recycling outreach program
18:41 the board could have an opportunity to
18:42 weigh in these are not items that
18:44 require review
18:45 but the recommendations of the board be
18:47 considered incorporated into the city's
18:49 work
18:52 the next step is to go city council
18:54 meeting on october
18:56 5th to adopt the ordinance to create the
18:58 board
18:59 we'll then begin recruitment for the
19:01 board following the city council meeting
19:03 and bring the mayor's appointments to
19:05 city council for confirmation in
19:06 november
19:08 then we'll have the board's first
19:09 meeting before the end of the year
19:12 that concludes my presentation for this
19:14 evening and i'm happy to take
19:15 questions i don't see
19:19 any questions in the chat does anybody
19:24 have any questions
19:33 so what i'm going to do is open the
19:36 public hearing
19:38 so that we can get uh we have a question
19:41 from robin
19:47 [Music]
19:53 the only thing i see from robin is the
19:55 question on
19:56 uh the chat itself does robin have
19:59 another
20:00 question sorry i didn't understand um i
20:03 thought we were it was ques i was
20:05 intending to ask a question about what
20:06 had just been said but
20:07 not about the chat itself okay
20:11 so do you have a question yeah there
20:14 were various
20:15 and perhaps this is premature yes now
20:17 but i'll ask anyway there were various
20:18 comments made
20:20 at the previous meeting by the public
20:23 a letter sent in i asked for those to be
20:27 addressed
20:27 in some fashion by city administration
20:31 and i'm wondering when we might hear
20:33 back official or
20:36 specifically on the comments made which
20:39 i thought were insightful
20:41 and well thought out and some of them um
20:43 by the staff when are we going to
20:45 discuss those
20:46 tonight or is there some other meeting
20:48 at which those will be discussed
20:51 this is megan curtis murphy ah thank you
20:54 yes so
20:55 um the memo itself and the presentation
20:58 we detailed the the different comments
21:00 that we received and the responses to
21:02 that that were
21:03 incorporated into the proposal and we
21:06 also had a couple meetings with
21:08 residents to further discuss some of the
21:10 comments
21:14 okay i've read the what i thought was
21:16 the entire agenda for tonight
21:18 and i didn't see the specific responses
21:20 so you're saying there
21:22 somehow i just read right over them is
21:24 that right
21:25 that which is fine quite possible
21:29 on page two of the memo there was a
21:32 a chart that listed the comments that we
21:35 received
21:35 um who those comments were from whether
21:38 it was the
21:39 public ppc or city council uh and then
21:42 the response to that
21:43 we'll be talking through this evening
21:45 more
21:47 okay i'm still not seeing it but my
21:49 apologies i'll find thank you very much
22:07 we have a question from commissioner
22:10 fowle
22:12 is on mute hi this is ron paul thanks
22:16 this uh question is to uh megan curtis
22:19 murphy
22:20 uh in some of the comments i think
22:24 you may have just addressed it to robin
22:26 but i didn't see the
22:27 comments that you were referring to
22:29 either one of the things that connie had
22:32 suggested
22:32 in her comments was that the
22:35 environmental review board
22:38 includes transportation in their
22:41 um purview and now i see
22:45 and provide feedback uh title
22:48 five it says transportation or the tip
22:51 the transportation improvement program
22:53 is now
22:54 included so does that actually
23:00 answer connie's question or does it
23:02 include connie's comment
23:04 or am i missing something
23:10 this is megan curtis murphy um so we
23:13 received
23:14 i think some new comments uh in the last
23:16 day or two from
23:17 members of the public who i believe are
23:19 also on the call this evening
23:21 so i imagine some of those comments will
23:23 come up originally we had
23:26 decided to include we had not had the
23:28 transportation improvement program
23:31 listed as items that this board would
23:33 review but in response to hearing
23:35 interests more interest in
23:36 transportation projects specifically
23:39 um that was added to the ordinance
23:45 okay thank you and then i did have
23:47 another question
23:48 should i continue sure
23:51 uh so a my question is about
23:54 the membership review or the membership
23:59 um members of the
24:02 board and about the youth
24:06 uh do we want to state that we want
24:10 youth to be to have a educational
24:12 background
24:13 in either natural environmental sciences
24:17 either environmental sciences or natural
24:20 sciences
24:22 or do we not want to do we not care
24:28 this is megan chris murphy i believe for
24:32 all of the membership requirements um in
24:35 part a
24:36 there it lists several of the different
24:37 um expertise that we're looking for
24:40 so i think that could be part of the the
24:42 expertise that we're looking for
24:44 across the youth as well but we don't
24:46 have it listed as a requirement at this
24:48 time
24:49 i would expect that we would receive
24:51 applications from youth
24:52 that have some sort of demonstrated
24:54 interest in the environment
24:56 whether they have it that as their major
24:58 their volunteer activities
25:00 i see that as being included in that
25:04 members of the community who may not
25:05 have the professional background but
25:07 have that demonstrated interest so that
25:09 could be shown in several different ways
25:12 okay and for the youth is that also
25:15 going to be
25:15 a four-year term or are they going to
25:18 have
25:19 are they will be will they be considered
25:21 alternates
25:23 uh thank you for that question the the
25:25 youth terms are actually two-year terms
25:27 so the rest of the terms are four years
25:29 but the youth are two
25:30 thank you for that clarification yeah i
25:33 didn't see that
25:34 in the document or did i just not read
25:37 i believe it is in there but i will
25:39 double check okay
25:41 it's right here thank you so um
25:45 i want a opinion from you guys if you
25:48 want to
25:49 continue with the questions now or if
25:51 you want to go into the public hearing
25:53 and see what the public says before you
25:55 make any final questions i see one
25:58 question
25:59 from jason from commissioner voice
26:04 and then i want to know if you want to
26:05 go into the
26:07 public hearing uh thank you commissioner
26:10 probably
26:11 chair probably this is commissioner
26:13 voice and i just got a quick
26:15 point of clarification as far as the
26:16 youth this is just uh for me
26:18 my understanding is as far as the city
26:22 attorney
26:23 is someone who's 15 to 17
26:26 is their vote legally binding as a minor
26:31 how's that work in terms of voting
26:34 on policy or not policy but
26:37 recommendations
26:39 uh as a minor uh this is megan chris
26:43 murphy
26:44 um youth have been involved in several
26:47 of the boards
26:48 um whether that's the park board in the
26:50 past the transportation advisory board
26:52 um so it's something that has been
26:54 established in the city with previous
26:56 board so we wanted to continue for that
26:58 this that for this board um as far as i
27:01 know that is
27:02 um is legal in terms of that and is
27:05 something that the the city has done in
27:07 the past and will
27:08 is planning to continue to do they are
27:10 considered full active members
27:13 great thank you
27:16 okay i don't see any questions or
27:18 comments
27:19 in the chat room so
27:22 um what i'd like to do is open the
27:24 public hearing
27:26 but before that there were three um
27:30 audience letters that we received i'm
27:32 sure you all read them
27:33 and i would go over them individually
27:36 but
27:37 i think all of them are here to make
27:39 comments so i'm just going to go
27:42 into the public hearing
27:45 and open the public hearing at 6 59
27:49 and ask anybody who is signed up to
27:53 speak
27:54 or that has phoned in to make sure that
27:57 you limit your comments to five minutes
27:59 so i'm going to ask doug who is on the
28:02 list to speak
28:06 this is donkey army planner with the
28:08 city of i have a list here
28:11 i don't have it broken down by topic so
28:12 i'm just going to go down this list
28:14 and if they don't want to speak on this
28:17 and they're here for something else then
28:18 we can just
28:19 move to the next person in line so the
28:21 first person on my list is
28:23 david christ
28:32 no um and then
28:36 we have geraldine
28:44 continue
28:48 i'm just going to make sure that um when
28:51 i on
28:51 i just want to make sure that she's
28:53 unmuted before i move on
28:55 this is geraldine kerry
28:58 did you want to speak on the
29:01 environmental board
29:04 this is geraldine can you hear me
29:10 yes no i'm i'm
29:13 i'm to speak on the next okay
29:20 ann fletcher
29:25 can you hear me yes okay
29:28 thank you this is ann fletcher
29:32 i'm a resident of issaquah and a
29:34 facilitator for people
29:36 for climate action i want to thank you
29:38 for your service and
29:40 for providing this opportunity to
29:42 comment on the environmental board
29:44 revised proposal again i wanted to send
29:48 my comments in earlier however i was
29:50 waiting for city clarification
29:52 on the packet and the final three flow
29:55 charts that were added last night
29:56 so um would like to have gotten my
29:59 comments to you a little earlier but i'm
30:00 going to
30:01 start by saying that i truly appreciate
30:04 the improvements that were made in the
30:05 proposal
30:06 as requested by the council and the
30:08 public and the and the
30:10 planning policy commission specifically
30:12 the objective that relates directly to
30:15 environmental protection
30:17 the addition of specific plans policies
30:19 and regulations that the board will
30:21 review
30:22 measurable evaluation of the objective
30:25 in the annual report
30:27 addition of neighborhood meetings for
30:29 community review
30:30 of development projects and flow charts
30:34 for revised development process
30:37 and for the environmental board reviews
30:42 now i'd like to summarize three
30:44 important issues
30:45 with code implications that still remain
30:49 to be resolved before i think this
30:51 proposal
30:52 should be approved by ppc and the
30:54 council
30:56 the modifications i have recommended
30:58 have more detail in my written comment
31:02 so the first issue is the environmental
31:05 board
31:06 ordinance duty number four the checklist
31:11 needs to be done not only for the
31:13 critical area development projects
31:15 defined by the new code but also for any
31:20 other projects that require critical
31:22 area studies
31:23 such as transportation projects and
31:26 any substantive non-critical
31:30 area tree projects
31:33 there are many reasons for this all a
31:35 lot of which i'm sure you already know
31:38 however i will briefly state that
31:40 transportation projects can greatly
31:42 impact critical areas
31:44 and natural environment they used to be
31:47 reviewed by the rivers and streams board
31:49 and so there is
31:50 now a gap in community review and
31:52 transportation is the second highest
31:54 cause of our carbon emissions after
31:56 building
31:58 trees uh that are not in critical areas
32:01 also need to be protected and preserved
32:04 this supports issaquah's strategic plan
32:07 goal for environmental stewardship
32:10 as well as sequestering carbon to
32:12 mitigate climate change
32:15 so the environmental board needs to
32:16 review information about all relevant
32:18 projects
32:19 to achieve the purpose that's stated in
32:22 the ordinance
32:24 to inform policy issues in the issaquah
32:27 municipal code
32:29 that may adversely impact the
32:30 environment
32:32 and since the checklist is a new tool
32:35 the board should have
32:36 input to ensure its usefulness
32:40 to to resolve these this issue
32:43 i um suggest that some
32:46 wording be added to duty number four
32:50 uh in that the environmental checklist
32:52 be completed by staff
32:54 for all public and private projects that
32:56 require
32:57 a critical area study and
33:00 any other projects that impact a
33:04 significant number of trees
33:06 the environmental board will have input
33:09 into the final checklist
33:12 that takes care of issue number one
33:14 issue number two is that the checklist
33:16 example provided is not
33:17 adequate to the board's task to
33:20 accomplish its
33:21 task the board needs an efficient and
33:23 effective checklist
33:25 more specific thorough and rigorous with
33:27 data that can easily be reported to the
33:30 board on a regular basis
33:32 after the final decision is made
33:35 in the review process final decision
33:38 mitigations
33:39 exceptions and deviations are needed for
33:42 the environmental board to inform
33:45 issues in the municipal code the
33:47 resolution of this would be
33:49 to in the developmental review flow
33:52 chart
33:53 move the natural environment checklist
33:56 from community review
33:58 to a new section after the final
34:01 decision maker
34:02 section to read department sends
34:05 completed
34:06 natural environment checklist to a
34:08 database
34:09 which is reported regularly to the
34:12 environmental board
34:15 and instead of linking the neighborhood
34:17 meeting form with the checklist
34:19 inform the board immediately of major
34:22 issues raised at neighborhood meetings
34:24 to keep them current so in the
34:27 development review chart
34:30 add into the neighborhood meeting
34:32 section send
34:34 hot topic summary of neighborhood
34:37 meeting comments to the environmental
34:39 board
34:40 the third issue is the three flowcharts
34:44 for the environmental board and how it
34:47 would do its work
34:49 that megan shared with you
34:52 these flowcharts have new information
34:55 that should be inserted
34:57 in to the municipal code and code
35:00 flowcharts
35:01 these codes should be referenced in the
35:04 environmental board ordinance
35:07 the resolution of this would be to add
35:09 into duty number two of the ordinance
35:12 where the environmental board provides
35:16 feedback on city plans regulations and
35:19 codes
35:19 that impact the natural environment and
35:22 add the words
35:22 as outlined in changes to be made to
35:25 current municipal code and flow chart
35:30 flow charts also need to be consistent
35:33 with the environmental board objective
35:35 duty number two
35:36 which states that the board written
35:39 statements
35:40 or reports to document the
35:42 recommendations
35:44 on items they review will accompany
35:48 these items throughout various approval
35:50 processes
35:51 and the purpose is accuracy of
35:54 information
35:55 to resolve this change board flow
35:59 charts from board recommendations
36:02 are compiled into meeting minutes two
36:05 board authorized recommendation
36:07 documents move to the next level as part
36:09 of the item
36:10 and that's my three points and they are
36:13 crucial
36:14 to strengthening this proposal and to
36:16 issaquah having a streamlined
36:18 and responsive government structure to
36:21 protect the environment
36:23 and address climate change thank you for
36:25 your consideration
36:26 thank you who's next on the list
36:33 connie marsh is next
36:47 connie are you there
36:50 here we go i'm here can you hear me now
36:53 yes
36:54 yes i can okay my my mute on muted again
36:58 so um i'm connie marsh i live up on
37:00 squawk mountain
37:02 and i echo and
37:05 uh small changes but i am here to speak
37:09 more broadly on how i
37:12 envision all of these uh
37:16 threads weaving together to create
37:19 something that is not super onerous
37:23 to the people who are trying to do
37:25 projects
37:26 yet gathers enough information so that
37:28 the city
37:30 can be sure that it is protecting the
37:33 environment and even improving the
37:36 environment
37:37 and um because i don't want to be
37:41 totally
37:41 bogged down in review of individual
37:45 projects
37:46 because i agree that what we need is a
37:50 universal look at how we are impacting
37:53 the environment
37:54 so the checklist that anne was talking
37:58 about
37:59 does need to be de-linked from the
38:02 community meetings because it's really
38:05 not about the community meetings what it
38:08 it's a holistic gathering
38:12 of data for all of the projects and all
38:15 of their
38:15 impacts and benefits that they do to the
38:19 environment
38:20 as these projects are finalized
38:24 and so then when it comes back to the
38:27 environmental board say every month
38:29 you would get a report from the data
38:33 saying for example
38:36 um 1500 square feet
38:40 of wetland buffer has been
38:44 removed and money has been
38:48 put into the county wetland
38:51 mitigation fund so
38:55 we have lost 1500 square feet of wetland
39:00 buffer which is actually happening right
39:02 happening
39:03 over at the holiday inn right now so
39:06 then
39:07 in a month the environmental board would
39:09 be able to say whoa
39:10 we're actually losing we're losing
39:13 buffer we are supposed to be losing
39:15 buffer
39:15 what do we need to do to make changes
39:19 and make this better and that needs to
39:22 happen with
39:23 roads projects which are not included
39:27 within our title 18 because
39:30 roads projects are not zoned
39:34 and so you don't get those included that
39:37 that is hugely important we need to be
39:39 able to review the rhodes project in the
39:42 check
39:42 list so the overarching
39:46 analysis is all of the impacts and
39:49 improvements
39:50 that happen within this city and then
39:53 this board can advise
39:55 on how to make it better now the
39:58 neighborhood
39:59 meetings are are
40:02 interesting but again the neighborhood
40:04 meetings
40:05 do not look at the roads projects and
40:08 that needs to be included
40:10 and they also don't currently look at
40:13 large expanses of trees which
40:17 needs to be included because that's a
40:19 big environmental concern
40:21 their feedback loop which would be more
40:24 in real time
40:26 would be a super short report at the
40:29 board meeting saying hey these are the
40:31 hot topics this is what the people are
40:33 thinking
40:34 because this board needs to stay in
40:36 touch with the community to see
40:39 how it's going i mean are the developers
40:41 having to spend like ridiculous amounts
40:43 of time to get something done
40:45 or is it okay by them and and
40:49 it's working are the neighbors happy
40:52 so uh one this is a nitpick
40:55 it is a transportation improvement plan
40:58 it's not a transportation improvement
41:00 program so that needs to be changed
41:02 before it goes to council because they
41:04 do understand the difference
41:08 there so
41:11 if i had a dream this checklist that we
41:15 are creating that is holistic
41:17 would then feed a gis mapping system
41:21 so you or i or the city could look on
41:24 our maps and we could understand
41:26 where all of the environmental impacts
41:29 and improvements are being made
41:31 parcel by parcel and we would
41:34 be much it would be much easier to
41:37 understand what is going
41:38 on in our town so
41:42 i think the checklist can wait until the
41:44 environmental board
41:46 is in place but i totally applaud
41:49 the community meetings for level two
41:52 and up review plus uh transportation
41:56 projects and trees thank you very much
42:04 dog who's next
42:08 um mike ibrahim
42:14 i think you're not for this one but
42:17 i just wanted to give you an opportunity
42:19 did you want to speak on the
42:20 environmental board
42:22 sure i mean i'd like to i wasn't
42:24 planning to but i'd like to say
42:26 uh yeah trees um can also pose
42:30 um you know certain hazardous condition
42:32 during
42:33 wind storms can um you know
42:36 if you know the wind is pretty strong
42:39 can fall and destroy a house
42:40 maybe cause you know
42:44 uh casualties and that sort so something
42:47 put into consideration when uh um
42:51 you know these things uh go into place
42:54 so i'm all for the environment and
42:57 protection and
42:58 i know the carbon footprint
43:01 [Music]
43:03 is controlled by the trees but the trees
43:06 sometimes can pull
43:07 a hazardous condition either by fire or
43:11 falling so if somebody's taking trees
43:13 down
43:14 plant three more or something like that
43:16 might be a
43:18 reasonable thing that's all i have to
43:20 say
43:21 thank you doug who's next
43:27 i don't have a name for for this person
43:29 but with
43:30 um person with the area code
43:34 206 and the last two digits of one
43:37 floor would you like to speak on the
43:39 environmental board
43:50 and the next person
43:53 um then area code 206
43:56 and the last two digits of five five
43:59 would you like to speak on the
44:00 environmental board
44:04 no on uh upcoming one
44:08 okay thank you
44:14 doug is there anybody else
44:18 no there's not
44:23 uh with that
44:26 i'm going to close the public hearing at
44:28 7 16
44:31 and open up for discussion within the
44:34 commissioners i know that there have
44:36 been a lot of comments
44:38 and a lot of things to think about so
44:41 do you have any uh
44:45 questions i have a comment from
44:49 commissioner lewis
44:54 hey everybody uh commissioner joy lewis
44:56 here um
44:57 i have a couple comments couple
44:59 questions um i'm gonna start
45:02 um with probably the thing that i think
45:05 super lacking that hasn't been brought
45:07 up i've been in dialogue
45:09 with you megan about this it's language
45:11 around environmental security
45:14 when we talk about the board having
45:16 teeth
45:17 it means that what we put into the
45:19 duties
45:20 um matters right so they come back and
45:23 say we want to look at this and
45:24 maybe staff says i'm not sure that you
45:26 really need to cover that and they say
45:28 no no no look at our duties this is what
45:29 we have
45:30 and so our language matters and you like
45:33 to refer me back to the word protection
45:35 for protection isn't the same thing so i
45:38 spent some time looking at your response
45:40 to my response and we've been going back
45:41 and forth on it
45:42 and my next proposal to you is to use
45:45 the language of climate security
45:47 rather than environmental security um i
45:49 think it's important you know when
45:50 discussing climate security
45:52 um we have to talk about these risks
45:54 that are induced by climate change
45:56 both directly and indirectly which is
45:58 what the field of study does
46:00 uh you know it evaluates the extent to
46:02 which choices will relate to security
46:04 through
46:05 an environmental lens and it really
46:07 looks at the impact you know the choices
46:09 that our community and other communities
46:12 make um
46:13 and so to me it fits in perfectly i
46:15 think it's language that works well
46:17 with duty number six i think it could
46:19 work in five as well
46:20 so um you know i went back to
46:24 um to some of my preferred um
46:28 documents and research and things from
46:30 the national security council and things
46:32 like that trying to
46:33 see because i was surprised to get such
46:35 a backstop from you guys when i was like
46:37 hey
46:37 this is something that's missing and to
46:39 get that pushback i was surprised so i
46:41 went back and i kind of thought well
46:43 there's a smaller subset of saying
46:45 climate security and again i would
46:47 recommend having that language in there
46:49 um and would like to get your response
46:51 to that for the public
46:55 sure this is megan curtis murphy um so
46:58 yes and duty number five i believe is
47:00 the one that we
47:01 talk about um uh addressing uh
47:06 giving um information about climate
47:08 actions and priorities as well as
47:10 climate resiliency
47:12 um so i'm hearing you say that you would
47:14 prefer that say climate security
47:16 um overall we've been as a city we've
47:19 mostly been using that term climate
47:21 security or sorry climate resiliency to
47:23 talk
47:24 about things related to some of the
47:26 impacts of climate change that we're
47:27 seeing here in the pacific northwest
47:29 so that includes increased flooding
47:32 wanting to plan for that
47:34 something that we're working on now with
47:36 our storm and surface water master plan
47:38 is looking at policies about
47:40 right-sizing stormwater infrastructure
47:43 due to increased flooding due to climate
47:46 so that's
47:46 a conversation that we expect to have
47:48 with the environmental board once it's
47:50 up and running
47:51 so that's one aspect where we consider
47:53 climate resiliency in that sense
47:55 also with increase in climate change
47:59 we're experiencing hotter drier summers
48:01 so that results in some droughts on
48:04 lower and warmer temperatures in our
48:06 streams which affect our
48:07 our beloved salmon here in issaquah so
48:10 that's definitely something we want to
48:12 be looking as we develop the
48:13 climate action plan to be looking at
48:15 resiliency
48:17 measures to to reduce those impacts
48:19 overall
48:21 also something that's been in the news
48:23 frequently recently
48:24 is the increased risk to wildfires so
48:27 that's another
48:28 aspect that we in the city um kind of
48:30 include under that climate resiliency
48:32 umbrella um we had it right i'm not
48:35 suggesting that we take out resiliency
48:37 what i'm suggesting
48:38 is that the terminology that's been
48:40 developed since the 1970s further
48:42 refined
48:43 further revised and expanded on in the
48:46 80s and then continued on through
48:48 of um that is a specific field of study
48:51 that is applicable to this board
48:53 is uh environmental security and further
48:56 climate security
48:57 so what i'm not suggesting is that we
48:58 take out language i'm suggesting that
49:00 it's added because the language
49:02 specifically of climate security or of
49:05 environmental security
49:06 has defined definitions that you can
49:09 look up
49:10 they have a defined scope and it's a
49:12 different way of looking at this very
49:14 same issue
49:15 that is able to both broaden and
49:17 encompass what may be in front of the
49:18 board so i'm not suggesting that we take
49:20 out resiliency
49:21 um i appreciate that you have told me
49:24 that
49:24 there are discussions that you guys are
49:26 having behind closed doors that city
49:28 staff is aware of and that you think
49:30 that falls into an umbrella
49:32 resiliency but what i'm worried about is
49:34 the board
49:35 being able to address the topics that
49:37 they find are important and i think that
49:39 adding additional language is important
49:41 so i don't think you need to take out
49:43 resiliency we talked about back and
49:44 forth and emails to both
49:46 either duty 5 or duty 6 where it talks
49:48 about environmental sustainability and
49:49 protection can be another place to put
49:51 that language if you prefer it there
49:52 but i think that it's missing um and i
49:54 think that anybody who's done
49:56 any work in this field knows that it's
49:58 something that um
50:00 works really well within this document
50:02 so um i
50:03 again asked to ask the administration to
50:05 reconsider language about that and again
50:07 if you don't like environmental security
50:09 then
50:09 i think climate security also works for
50:11 that um
50:13 that point aside there was another point
50:15 we had talked about because we talked
50:16 about quite a few
50:18 uh and one of them was about the
50:20 accountability of the director
50:21 and you um when my questions about it
50:24 you said why don't you bring that up in
50:25 the meeting so i want to give you
50:27 the opportunity to say because now we're
50:30 in the meeting
50:33 yes can you address that in a a question
50:36 um about the that topic
50:40 uh i mean i can bring out my email but
50:41 basically there's a whole chunk in here
50:43 that um i don't have a page in front of
50:44 me that talks about
50:46 the fact that um the director is going
50:47 to deem whether or not it is a critical
50:49 area the director is going to decide if
50:51 there is any importance and if not he's
50:53 going to basically give a waiver and
50:54 move forward
50:55 um previously we had so the thing about
50:58 right now what we're looking at is that
51:00 we're
51:00 tying up a lot of different things right
51:02 the creation of one board and the sun
51:04 setting of another
51:05 give us a host of different things and
51:07 as we further dive into this and there's
51:09 a lot of little splinters that come off
51:11 of it
51:11 and so rolling it up into one big
51:13 package and bow means that we're having
51:14 to go through all this with the
51:15 fine-tooth comb
51:17 rather than addressing them in the
51:19 segments that they would have been done
51:20 if they would have been done according
51:22 like for instance when rivers and
51:23 streams apparently needed to be
51:24 sunsetted a while ago
51:25 separate from the creation of a
51:28 completely different board that's
51:29 addressing climate change which looks at
51:30 let's see a host of things in our city
51:32 right so we're tying them all up in one
51:33 big thing
51:34 and you have in here that the director
51:36 is going to decide so
51:37 rivers and streams was doing a lot of
51:39 technical work originally
51:41 now that they stopped doing and the
51:42 staff was now either doing or
51:44 farming out um and there's a section in
51:47 this that says that the director is
51:48 going to have this ability to have
51:50 to wave off and um to have any of the
51:53 review that we're trying to put into
51:54 place any visibility on the board
51:56 anything within the community meetings
51:58 so i'm suggesting that there needs to be
52:00 language that shows that accountability
52:02 for the choices the director's making
52:05 not to review what he's doing but to
52:06 tell people
52:07 this project came up the director says
52:09 it's of no consequence
52:11 and it's literally like like a footnote
52:13 it's something that the board has
52:15 visibility onto it's something that it's
52:16 a checkbox that the
52:18 community has um visibility into so that
52:20 when someone's walking past and says
52:22 wait a minute this does have importance
52:24 why is this not being reviewed the
52:25 community knows
52:26 what's happening right so there needs to
52:28 be a little bit more
52:30 transparency going on to just let people
52:32 know
52:33 what has been shown to say this has
52:36 absolutely
52:37 no visibility on it right what projects
52:40 are
52:40 claiming that there is no critical area
52:42 study going on um
52:44 something we're going to talk about
52:45 later tonight is the word significant um
52:47 it has a lot of meanings and so if you
52:50 talk about significant you kind of have
52:51 to refer back to
52:53 what is statistically significant right
52:55 um that's the best way that i know how
52:57 to do it is to go back to
52:58 my data of how i know to collect polling
53:00 data and things like that so you go back
53:01 to what is statistically significant the
53:03 word significant is used right
53:05 so does that how does how is that being
53:07 worked out and how is it being
53:09 related to the community what that's
53:11 what my point was to you how
53:12 can we put in language that says that
53:14 the community is going to be told
53:16 the city has looked at this and it says
53:19 it's not needed
53:20 right that's all that i want i want the
53:22 city to be able to tell people
53:24 this was looked at and this does not
53:26 need to have a review so that if
53:28 somebody disagrees that they have that
53:29 option rather than it moving forward
53:31 and we're having to be 10 steps backward
53:34 all the time
53:36 is that helpful making if you want me to
53:38 jump in on that one
53:40 so commissioner lewis uh keith niven
53:43 director of
53:44 community planning and development so by
53:47 default
53:48 every application that comes in there's
53:50 a there's a discretionary decision by
53:52 staff on whether a critical area of
53:54 study would be needed based on
53:56 the property and the location of the
53:58 application so everything that
54:00 doesn't have a critical area study by
54:03 default
54:04 was determined by staff not to need one
54:11 so when projects are being so there's
54:13 language right now that we're looking at
54:15 in this document that again i don't have
54:16 in front of me that's talking about the
54:18 director is going to deem
54:19 when there is or isn't and i think that
54:22 there needs to be more transparency
54:23 about
54:24 when projects are coming forward have
54:27 they have they been reviewed and is
54:28 there
54:28 and you know why is there not for
54:30 instance you know the same way that
54:31 we're notifying people
54:32 you know a project is being done 300
54:34 feet from your home we have
54:36 boards up saying hey this is where
54:37 everything is in the process you can
54:39 look things up on the city website there
54:41 needs to be something that's
54:42 communicating
54:43 to to the public at large saying this
54:45 project has
54:46 no environmental impact you know what i
54:48 mean like rather than the opposite
54:50 assumption of saying
54:51 that unless you've heard of that it
54:53 doesn't
54:55 okay so just just to be clear with words
54:57 because words as you mentioned
54:58 are important you know just because
55:01 there's not a critical area of study
55:03 doesn't mean there might not be an
55:04 environmental impact still
55:06 sipa cipa has to be done for everything
55:09 that's not cepa exempt
55:11 and that's a very specific list that the
55:13 city has adopted
55:15 by statute of what is fifa exempt
55:18 so what i'm saying is is
55:22 it has there is a complete application
55:26 that's
55:27 a process that's outlined in title 18
55:31 where city staff have to determine
55:33 whether everything that's necessary has
55:35 been submitted by the applicant
55:37 that would include a critical area study
55:39 if staff
55:40 determined that one was necessary
55:42 obviously
55:43 if the property had critical areas on it
55:47 there would be a critical area study
55:49 because that is a default
55:51 but where we're into a discretionary
55:54 call by staff
55:55 is if the critical areas study if the
55:58 critical area might
55:59 be say 300 feet away or across
56:02 a major street or something along those
56:05 lines
56:06 then staff make that discretionary
56:08 judgment
56:09 that's the way it worked for river and
56:12 streams board and that's the way it's
56:14 being proposed for the environmental
56:15 board
56:16 keith you're having trouble with your uh
56:21 voice connection
56:25 minecraft yes sorry
56:28 internet comcast is not doing well
56:30 tonight
56:31 okay joy does that
56:35 somehow answer your questions i mean
56:38 it it it assumes to say
56:41 right now that um its status quo
56:44 can't be improved and i guess that
56:46 that's what i was trying to email megan
56:48 about earlier in the week is to say hey
56:50 is there a way
56:51 to improve this language that it gives
56:53 away for there to be more transparency
56:55 with the public rather than
56:56 saying if something's worked then let's
56:59 just keep it which
57:00 actually brings me to another one so i
57:03 had emailed megan about
57:05 the final duty which uh is about
57:07 carrying out um duties that may be
57:09 prescribed by the city ordinance is
57:10 directed by the mayor right number
57:12 eight and i was i had asked for this
57:14 before
57:15 in our last meeting i didn't see any
57:17 update so when i emailed about it this
57:18 week i said hey i think there needs to
57:20 be language added to this
57:21 that specifically addresses and mentions
57:23 the scope of the board and
57:25 megan replied back to me that this was
57:27 language that was pulled from other
57:28 boards and is not atypical
57:30 and um was uninterested um and
57:33 what my comment was because she was
57:35 saying that everybody kind of does this
57:36 but i don't understand why that that's
57:38 the
57:39 status quo to say that while other
57:41 boards have the same language
57:43 why does that mean that that can't be
57:45 improved upon you know like right now
57:47 we're worried um about who seeds control
57:51 of the board effectively we want there
57:52 to be technical expertise that's
57:54 represented we want there to be
57:55 scientific knowledge that guides the
57:57 decisions that are being made
57:58 because it can be politically motivated
58:01 right now
58:02 and while it may not always stay that
58:04 way right now
58:05 there's a conservative bent towards
58:07 saying that uh
58:09 truth is subjective that data is
58:12 subjective
58:12 and we have concerns about that right
58:14 now so right now we have a mayor
58:16 who is fantastic and i have no concerns
58:19 right now
58:20 but there could be a let's say a
58:22 hypothetical conservative mayor who
58:23 comes in and decides that he's going to
58:25 give the board busy work
58:26 to have them not be doing something
58:28 right so i want there to be language
58:30 that says
58:31 that the board's going to be doing
58:32 projects that says
58:34 that there are projects that are
58:35 applicable to what they're supposed to
58:37 be doing
58:38 so the answer then to tell me that well
58:40 status quo is this this is the language
58:42 that other boards have to me doesn't
58:44 mean
58:44 why wouldn't we be able to improve that
58:46 why would that language not be able to
58:47 change
58:49 right that's something that i had
58:50 emailed you about megan and you were
58:52 voicing to me that that's that's the
58:54 same
58:55 i'm happy to respond would you like me
58:57 to respond
58:58 yes this is megan curtis murphy um so
59:01 yeah so this is in
59:02 uh reference to the last duty carry out
59:05 other duties as may be prescribed by
59:06 city ordinance or as directed by the
59:09 mayor
59:10 so my take on this is that this is meant
59:13 to be
59:13 if there's other things that come up um
59:16 that
59:17 this board should be addressing for
59:18 example will be um
59:20 implementing the will be uh developing
59:23 the climate action plan next year so
59:25 maybe the mayor would
59:26 um advise that this board be responsible
59:29 for
59:30 aspects of that um so i see that this
59:33 is the mayor being able to direct other
59:36 duties um it says as prescribed by city
59:38 ordinance so with that i think that it
59:40 would be listed
59:41 it would be items that relate to the
59:42 objective of the board which refer to
59:44 environmental protection
59:46 and addressing climate change
59:52 okay so right now we're going to
59:56 go to a question from commissioner foul
1:00:03 thanks madam chair this is commissioner
1:00:04 fall uh
1:00:06 so actually i had the similar question
1:00:09 to joyce
1:00:10 about the transparency so i'm glad she
1:00:12 addressed it and i think she
1:00:14 said it better than i could so but i
1:00:16 just want to second
1:00:17 uh my concerns about the
1:00:21 transparency to the board so that they
1:00:23 have visibility as to what is going on
1:00:25 within the city
1:00:26 and then they can make assessments as to
1:00:29 may or may not need to be improved but i
1:00:33 additional questions and i don't this is
1:00:35 a question
1:00:36 probably for megan curtis murphy
1:00:40 i didn't see anything in there that
1:00:43 would address
1:00:44 projects related to utilities um
1:00:47 or water and i wanted to uh ask you for
1:00:51 comments on that if that if this board
1:00:53 would be looking at things
1:00:54 like communication utilities
1:00:58 and our clean water
1:01:02 issues right now the other question i
1:01:05 was addressing anne's concerns and i
1:01:08 think
1:01:10 my question is what non-development
1:01:14 areas would affect tree canopy or mass
1:01:19 tree clearing i don't know
1:01:24 if we i really don't know how to address
1:01:26 her concerns
1:01:28 they sound really uh valid but i don't
1:01:30 know where that would fit in this
1:01:33 on this board thank you
1:01:38 this is megan curtis murphy um so the
1:01:41 first question about
1:01:42 um projects that are utilities or water
1:01:45 related
1:01:46 um is my understand that there are minor
1:01:49 utility projects that fall under
1:01:52 a level two review so ones that are
1:01:56 level two and above would be included in
1:01:59 um in that development review process
1:02:02 that would include the community review
1:02:04 of projects
1:02:06 as far as water though any projects that
1:02:09 have water on site would be classified
1:02:11 as critical areas
1:02:13 as my understanding so those would also
1:02:15 if they are level two and above
1:02:17 receive that community review with the
1:02:19 neighborhood meeting and the checklist
1:02:23 as far as this my question was more
1:02:25 related towards like
1:02:27 the pfos like our wells
1:02:30 and then communication utilities such as
1:02:33 like uh
1:02:34 small cells
1:02:37 um i would defer i believe to director
1:02:39 niven if he knows about
1:02:41 either of those specific processes going
1:02:43 through development review
1:02:51 um keith niven director of community
1:02:53 planning and development so
1:02:55 your first question commissioner fall
1:02:58 about
1:02:58 um and i don't want to read too much
1:03:02 it so let me let me say what i thought i
1:03:03 heard and you can let me know if i if
1:03:05 on track um i think what i heard you say
1:03:08 you had concern or a desire that the
1:03:12 environmental board
1:03:13 would be addressing um maybe water
1:03:16 quality associated with the aquifer and
1:03:19 wells and and potentially a related
1:03:22 piece of that is
1:03:24 how the city is planning to move forward
1:03:27 the pfas contamination
1:03:31 if that is indeed kind of what your
1:03:33 first part of your question was
1:03:34 um what i would say is that's
1:03:37 technically not a project review
1:03:40 um so i would defer back to megan in
1:03:42 terms of i don't have mountain rights
1:03:45 all the other things that the board
1:03:46 would look at so
1:03:47 it's not technically a project it would
1:03:49 be more there would definitely be some
1:03:51 policy
1:03:52 associated with um kind of how the city
1:03:55 moves forward
1:03:56 with uh with actions related to
1:04:00 that issue uh but it would be um
1:04:04 you know it would not be a project level
1:04:06 review most likely
1:04:08 unless we built like say a water
1:04:10 treatment plant
1:04:11 now if we decided we were building a
1:04:13 water treatment plant most likely that
1:04:15 would be a level two
1:04:16 or above review but that would be kind
1:04:19 after i think a substantive conversation
1:04:23 would have occurred
1:04:24 in terms of you know is the water
1:04:26 treatment plant the right way to move
1:04:27 forward
1:04:28 or should there be other considerations
1:04:30 on the table
1:04:33 almost so yes questions about your
1:04:36 phosphorus
1:04:37 you write in you read correctly into
1:04:39 that the other question i had relating
1:04:42 water quality drinking water quality and
1:04:45 or stream quality
1:04:47 would be development of businesses that
1:04:50 would use chemicals such as
1:04:54 grease vats would be one or a
1:04:58 gas station if someone wanted to come in
1:05:00 with a gas station
1:05:01 how would that what would that look like
1:05:05 and how would this board have an
1:05:06 influence in those kinds of projects
1:05:12 this is megan chris murphy i think i can
1:05:14 take part of that
1:05:15 um for the first one for businesses that
1:05:19 already established that had that may
1:05:21 have hazards on site
1:05:23 we have a program through our public
1:05:25 works engineering department where they
1:05:28 site visits of all businesses in the
1:05:30 city visiting
1:05:32 many each year and all businesses on
1:05:34 about a three-year cycle so for
1:05:36 established businesses
1:05:38 we do have that process in place
1:05:41 and that is something that i see being
1:05:43 presented to the board
1:05:45 um so have that information about the
1:05:47 overall protection of the
1:05:48 of the natural environment is fully
1:05:51 understood by the board so that could be
1:05:52 a presentation by the public works
1:05:54 engineering department
1:05:55 on the types of visits that they're
1:05:57 doing and
1:05:58 and to get some um some feedback from
1:06:01 the board about that
1:06:02 program for new businesses coming
1:06:05 in such as a gas station that would be
1:06:07 going through that development review
1:06:09 process
1:06:10 um and and would receive the the
1:06:12 neighborhood meetings if it was the
1:06:14 level two or above
1:06:17 okay so let me let me add some to that
1:06:20 uh commissioner
1:06:20 because i think um you know so megan
1:06:24 put up earlier uh the different titles
1:06:27 that would be
1:06:28 under the potential of these of the
1:06:30 board it wasn't just title 18 our land
1:06:32 use code it was also titled 16 and 13.
1:06:36 so the city has requirements in
1:06:39 right now for how to deal with
1:06:42 fats and oils and greens
1:06:47 and let's assume that um after a year or
1:06:51 uh the board gets a report from public
1:06:53 works
1:06:54 that most of those interceptors are
1:06:56 either not working adequately or they're
1:06:58 achieving the outcome they were hoping
1:07:01 you know what what i would see as a
1:07:03 logical next step for the board would be
1:07:05 to discuss
1:07:06 whether or not the city should increase
1:07:08 its requirements
1:07:10 uh through the code um related to that
1:07:14 particular item
1:07:15 and that would then potentially work its
1:07:17 way through
1:07:18 um uh ppc um as a recommendation from
1:07:22 the board ultimately to counsel to
1:07:24 change code
1:07:26 okay thank you
1:07:30 are there any other questions or
1:07:31 comments
1:07:33 i don't see anything any in the chat box
1:07:36 um i do
1:07:37 want joy has one
1:07:40 i have i've got a question thanks for
1:07:42 watching
1:07:43 commissioner joy lewis uh speaking i uh
1:07:46 coming off of that question
1:07:48 that ron was asking so the language
1:07:51 specifically
1:07:51 says relevant portions of title 13 16
1:07:55 and 18.
1:07:56 and in some of my dialogues with megan
1:07:57 this week she referred me back to that
1:07:59 saying like for instance
1:08:00 i'm not a fan of the fact that our um
1:08:03 other neighbors in the community our
1:08:05 furry forest with friends and our salmon
1:08:07 friends
1:08:08 are not mentioned right now in the scope
1:08:10 of what is to be reviewed and she
1:08:12 referred me back to saying well it's
1:08:13 you know it's part of the scope right so
1:08:16 we don't need to refer to them because
1:08:17 that's already part of like title 18
1:08:19 and okay um but right now the language
1:08:22 relevant portions right so that means
1:08:24 who's saying what's relevant
1:08:26 right so right now um well if we make a
1:08:29 broad statement that we say
1:08:31 climate change can impact any area of
1:08:34 the city right
1:08:34 economic i mean i mean there's every
1:08:37 little every area
1:08:38 right in theory any work that a board or
1:08:40 commission is doing
1:08:42 should be looked at right because there
1:08:44 could be aspects of that that are being
1:08:46 touched on
1:08:46 but by using this language that says
1:08:50 to cover the salmon you need to go back
1:08:53 to the language of saying relevant
1:08:55 to this part of title 18 right we're
1:08:57 missing language that
1:08:58 gives that kind of authority for the
1:09:00 board to be able to look at
1:09:02 these bigger broader pictures and scopes
1:09:05 so you could say you know ron gave an
1:09:07 example and you're saying well
1:09:08 yeah it's covered it's covered in title
1:09:10 13 but
1:09:11 someone has to you know tell them
1:09:14 whether or not they think it's okay
1:09:15 right we have this kind of doubling back
1:09:17 of saying well it's covered one place
1:09:19 but the language doesn't actually
1:09:21 support it
1:09:22 so um i'd love for you to comment on
1:09:26 because of right now how it's written
1:09:27 we're leaving we're
1:09:29 we're using this language of relevant
1:09:31 portions of title 13 16 and 18
1:09:33 to cover these these bigger baskets
1:09:35 right
1:09:37 this is megan curtis murphy um i think
1:09:40 that when we're referring to the
1:09:41 relevant portions i go back
1:09:43 to the the ordinance language itself
1:09:46 around
1:09:47 the protection of the natural
1:09:48 environment and addressing climate
1:09:50 change
1:09:51 and i think that there will be some
1:09:52 discretion
1:09:54 about the pieces that are relevant to
1:09:56 the environment i know that
1:09:58 with title 18 there's a whole chapter
1:10:00 environmental
1:10:01 protection that addresses a lot of the
1:10:04 pieces with
1:10:05 vegetation and critical areas and that
1:10:09 is definitely
1:10:10 relevant to the environment would be
1:10:12 included in review
1:10:13 i think that there's other pieces in the
1:10:15 other sections and
1:10:16 as a staff is working on them there's
1:10:20 various internal meetings where we can
1:10:22 kind of figure out
1:10:23 the pieces that would be best to bring
1:10:26 forth to the
1:10:27 board for their comment
1:10:30 but ron's bringing up a good point about
1:10:32 um about
1:10:33 you know groundwater um right now we
1:10:36 have storm and surface water
1:10:37 master plan right that's being
1:10:39 referenced but we're
1:10:41 right now and actually looking at the
1:10:43 duties we're not talking about things
1:10:46 um like the quality of our aquifers like
1:10:49 like you know our salmon runs and things
1:10:51 like that are not actually detailed here
1:10:53 they go back to this thing of saying
1:10:55 it's referenced somewhere else so
1:10:58 therefore
1:10:59 you know but the language we have is
1:11:01 relevant
1:11:02 portion you know so then you start going
1:11:04 back into this thing where
1:11:05 i'm not sure why we're not able to add
1:11:07 more language that talks about things
1:11:08 like our tree canopy is another great
1:11:10 example of something that was brought up
1:11:12 to say we find the community finds us to
1:11:14 be important and we're not finding this
1:11:15 to be
1:11:17 adequately brought into this document um
1:11:20 but well while you rest on that i'm
1:11:23 going to go on to my other question
1:11:24 which is about the
1:11:26 appointments being chosen and that
1:11:27 specifically is typically um
1:11:29 when people are applying for boards and
1:11:32 commissions um
1:11:33 they're being chosen by a board by
1:11:35 people who are both their peers and from
1:11:37 city staff
1:11:38 as obviously this is a new commission my
1:11:40 question is if it will be solely chosen
1:11:42 by staff or if you'll be bringing on
1:11:44 members of uh relevant boards to be
1:11:47 helping to
1:11:48 choose who's going to be sitting on the
1:11:49 new board
1:11:52 this is megan curtis murphy um at this
1:11:55 time we do have
1:11:56 that it would be staff um as well as the
1:11:58 mayor um
1:11:59 would like to also sit on on the um
1:12:03 interviews and appointments for that
1:12:07 i think we could talk about if um
1:12:09 community members want to be involved as
1:12:11 well and not familiar with other
1:12:13 boards and how they have done their
1:12:15 recruitments in the past if there
1:12:16 are community members on that or not um
1:12:19 so i can explore that a little bit
1:12:20 farther
1:12:21 it's not that it's community members it
1:12:23 would be their fellow their fellow board
1:12:25 members for instance so that wouldn't be
1:12:26 applicable here
1:12:27 since there's no current board member
1:12:30 since it's a newly recruited board
1:12:32 so my question was if you were going to
1:12:33 be bringing on relevant
1:12:35 um commissioners um you know dc economic
1:12:38 vitality i mean you could
1:12:39 literally pick all kinds of people that
1:12:40 would be relevant to being able to help
1:12:42 pick who was going to be
1:12:43 seated into this board is what's my
1:12:45 question
1:12:47 yeah i haven't heard about that in the
1:12:48 past but that's very possible i see
1:12:50 um deputy city administrator andrea
1:12:53 snyder chiming in here
1:12:59 sure thank you this is deputy city
1:13:01 administrator
1:13:02 andrea snyder i the selection process
1:13:06 the appointment process
1:13:07 is a one for the mayor to decide so the
1:13:10 mayor
1:13:11 um we can pass on that idea for her i
1:13:14 think she
1:13:16 is looking forward to forming the board
1:13:19 and selecting and appointing
1:13:21 folks to the board and so we can pass on
1:13:23 that idea thank you
1:13:24 commissioner lewis
1:13:29 are there any other questions
1:13:34 i keep coming up after i ask that and i
1:13:36 don't see it so
1:13:37 there are no other comments or questions
1:13:40 but um
1:13:41 i have one
1:13:45 okay all right commissioner
1:13:49 madam chair this is commissioner fall uh
1:13:52 should we enable this board
1:13:56 to have the ability to recommend topics
1:13:58 to explore
1:14:00 such as if there was a topic that was of
1:14:03 concern
1:14:04 to them but the city hasn't brought it
1:14:06 to their attention
1:14:07 that the board could make the
1:14:08 recommendation to discuss it
1:14:11 as a topic
1:14:14 this is megan curtis murphy um thank you
1:14:17 for that i had actually thought of that
1:14:18 a minute ago when commissioner lewis was
1:14:20 speaking and forgot to talk about that
1:14:22 i think because this is a new board
1:14:24 coming
1:14:25 uh getting started i think we will want
1:14:28 feedback from the board about what they
1:14:29 want to be hearing about so we have
1:14:31 a lot of things listed here in the
1:14:33 duties and responsibilities but
1:14:35 some of them are general enough um you
1:14:37 know commenting on
1:14:38 environmental and sustainability
1:14:40 programs we wanted to keep that general
1:14:42 in a sense so that
1:14:44 we can hear from the board about the
1:14:45 types of things they want to be
1:14:47 reviewing and talking about i think
1:14:49 there's also going to be a lot of
1:14:51 opportunity especially
1:14:52 early on to get updates on areas that
1:14:55 the city is doing some of this work
1:14:57 i heard mention of the tree canopy i
1:14:59 think that would be something that the
1:15:00 board would probably be interested in we
1:15:02 did a recent tree canopy study
1:15:04 in 2019 so i think we'd want to have our
1:15:07 parks department come in
1:15:08 and provide a presentation on that to
1:15:11 help inform kind of the status of
1:15:14 the tree canopy as is and i think
1:15:17 getting ideas from board members about
1:15:20 other aspects of the city is working on
1:15:22 that they want to hear about um and
1:15:23 provide input on is a great idea
1:15:26 okay thank you and we're going to put
1:15:28 that in uh writing
1:15:29 into this next into this policy
1:15:34 proposal i can um try to figure out the
1:15:38 best way to accommodate
1:15:39 that um i know city administrator deputy
1:15:42 city advisory snyder had a thought on
1:15:45 i i do thank you this is andrea snyder
1:15:48 again
1:15:49 um so you know at this time i think
1:15:51 we're asking
1:15:52 the planning policy commission to um
1:15:55 to provide their recommendations to city
1:15:57 council so we have
1:15:59 this draft that megan has presented and
1:16:01 the ordinances in your packet
1:16:03 so as a commission if the commission
1:16:05 would like to recommend
1:16:06 changes to the ordinance um then uh this
1:16:10 is your time to do it so if they're um
1:16:13 you know i think we've heard
1:16:15 individually some questions from some of
1:16:17 um now i think we're interested uh to
1:16:20 hear from the commission as a body what
1:16:22 amendments that you would recommend as a
1:16:24 body to be making to this
1:16:26 ordinance that's where i was going
1:16:30 thank you we've heard a lot of had a lot
1:16:34 of input from the commissioners
1:16:36 and from the uh general public and
1:16:39 um especially anne's comments there were
1:16:42 so many of them
1:16:43 i'm not sure if we could capture all of
1:16:47 and i'm not sure um
1:16:51 where exactly this where you
1:16:53 commissioners feel
1:16:55 as to just what's in the
1:16:59 plan right now or what specific
1:17:04 additions not questions what specific
1:17:07 amendments do you want to make i know
1:17:10 that ron
1:17:11 just uh added a requirement
1:17:15 um do any of you have specifics after
1:17:19 listening to all the other conversations
1:17:21 is there anything specific jason you
1:17:24 keep commissioner
1:17:25 voice you keep shaking your head is
1:17:27 there any anything that you would like
1:17:29 to add
1:17:35 plenty but let me flesh it out real
1:17:36 quickly so i believe you have a comment
1:17:39 commissioner lewis correct one second
1:17:43 no please go ahead
1:17:47 um commissioner lewis has had several
1:17:50 chances
1:17:50 um are you willing to
1:17:53 contribute at this time commissioner
1:17:57 voice
1:18:02 commissioner voice here so
1:18:05 i agree full-heartedly with all of my
1:18:08 fellow commissioners that
1:18:11 this plan lacks some specificity
1:18:15 however i also want to say thank you
1:18:18 to staff because it is a market
1:18:20 improvement from what we saw in august
1:18:24 i guess the concern i have right now is
1:18:27 again we're building a board
1:18:29 between two meetings
1:18:32 and we're not getting i don't think
1:18:35 we're getting the proper time
1:18:37 in order to build it completely properly
1:18:39 having said that
1:18:41 the city council is going to be taking
1:18:43 action regardless of what we do
1:18:46 on october 5th i believe so we are not
1:18:48 going to present
1:18:49 a perfect plan tonight so my thinking is
1:18:52 again
1:18:53 let's add some amendments i'm trying to
1:18:55 think of one i was just nodding my head
1:18:57 and then i got called on
1:18:58 i feel like i'm feeling like i'm in high
1:19:00 school again so
1:19:01 again that's kind of where i'm thinking
1:19:03 right now
1:19:05 i do appreciate joy's comment
1:19:07 commissioner lewis's comment
1:19:09 that there should be more specific
1:19:11 specificity
1:19:12 as far as not so much as well
1:19:15 there's a lot of discretion towards the
1:19:17 end of who can appoint or ordinances and
1:19:19 then we also have an issue where
1:19:22 this board again still has a very broad
1:19:24 range
1:19:26 and i think we're not i don't think
1:19:28 we're doing them a service by giving
1:19:30 them such a
1:19:32 large amount of latitude for such a new
1:19:35 board
1:19:36 so again let me come back to you in a
1:19:39 few minutes but that's my thinking as of
1:19:41 is it's this is a work in progress
1:19:45 it's continually becoming a better pit
1:19:47 piece of cheese but it's still got a lot
1:19:49 of holes in it
1:19:51 that's my thinking as of now
1:19:54 commissioner lewis do you have another
1:19:55 comment yes
1:19:57 uh commissioner joy lewis speaking um i
1:20:01 i completely agree with that assessment
1:20:04 right now i think that there has been
1:20:05 big improvements and what i would be
1:20:07 encouraged to say
1:20:08 is that we got fantastic comments this
1:20:10 week um from members of the public
1:20:12 um that i think need to be built on and
1:20:14 imagine if
1:20:15 uh like one metaphor of baking was used
1:20:18 if we uh if we
1:20:19 gave this another shot if the same edits
1:20:22 that were done
1:20:23 um continued for another round right now
1:20:25 this feels
1:20:26 like a really much more improved plan
1:20:30 uh it doesn't feel finished to me um and
1:20:32 it feels too like we need to be
1:20:34 integrating um
1:20:35 more of the comments that have been made
1:20:37 tonight and that have words submitted to
1:20:40 the same way that they were back in
1:20:41 august um right now there's big
1:20:43 improvements you know specifically on
1:20:44 what the board is reviewing
1:20:46 and specifically um for these commit um
1:20:50 these community meeting reviews i think
1:20:52 are fantastic
1:20:53 it's been brought up also that you know
1:20:54 the checklist needs to be refined
1:20:57 um and so right now my
1:21:00 i have trouble passing this on right now
1:21:03 so if anything i would my recommendation
1:21:05 to counsel would be to say
1:21:06 this needs a little bit more time and to
1:21:08 say a little bit means to say that your
1:21:10 review process right now is going
1:21:12 through the holidays you're expecting to
1:21:14 turn around these members in the course
1:21:17 well you know councils will go around
1:21:19 the fifth right now you have an october
1:21:21 early november time frame which we then
1:21:23 head into a holiday season
1:21:24 doing all this virtually i don't know
1:21:27 that taking an extra
1:21:28 month or two to refine how this board is
1:21:30 going to be created in their scope
1:21:33 and allowing it to go for more community
1:21:34 review like let's hold a mock
1:21:36 um community meeting about this document
1:21:39 you know what i mean let's invite
1:21:40 members of the community to say
1:21:42 what is more input that we can give on
1:21:45 this like let's run a trial run and see
1:21:47 so um as far as an actual amendment
1:21:51 if my fellow commissioners don't agree
1:21:52 on that assessment right now
1:21:54 of continuing it then i would say one of
1:21:56 the things that popped up to me
1:21:58 is um when the board is able um
1:22:01 to change the checklist i thought was
1:22:03 concerning to say that they need to be
1:22:05 using it five times and then are able to
1:22:08 review it once a year i found concerning
1:22:11 when we talk about the scale and impact
1:22:15 of climate change in our community
1:22:17 having that review process i think is
1:22:18 really antiquated so
1:22:20 i would add that the board can review if
1:22:22 voted on and passed by its members
1:22:24 um whenever they want at any meeting so
1:22:27 if they
1:22:28 decide that they want to bring it up
1:22:30 among them and say we want to act
1:22:31 make amendments this checklist then they
1:22:33 should be able to i don't like this
1:22:35 more rigid framework of saying when they
1:22:37 would be able to address it so that's a
1:22:39 very specific thing when you're asking
1:22:40 for us to give
1:22:41 comments um i've obviously given
1:22:43 comments on language about climate
1:22:45 security i mean um
1:22:47 there's a host of things ron brought up
1:22:49 about you know
1:22:50 giving um examples of groundwater
1:22:54 um that needs to be addressed
1:22:55 specifically in their scope
1:22:57 so we've given quite a bit of details um
1:23:01 that can be passed on in our notes right
1:23:03 now um
1:23:04 of things can be added so there's
1:23:05 there's a specific concrete one for you
1:23:07 but again my feeling right now is that
1:23:09 this document needs to have
1:23:11 a little bit more work done there's a
1:23:14 comment from
1:23:14 commissioner carl
1:23:20 thank you this is janice carl um
1:23:24 so in in recognition of the fact that
1:23:27 we're in extraordinary times
1:23:29 and we're dealing with an extraordinary
1:23:30 resource limitation
1:23:32 uh in our city um i do truly appreciate
1:23:36 the amount of effort that went back to
1:23:37 making these revisions in particular
1:23:40 the draft checklist i think while not
1:23:42 perfect by any stretch of the
1:23:43 imagination is a fine start toward
1:23:45 making that vision
1:23:46 more concrete i also really appreciated
1:23:50 flowchart not the ones the three that
1:23:52 you've referred to specifically but the
1:23:54 one that actually highlighted the
1:23:56 neighborhood meeting functionality
1:23:58 and how that flowchart would work i
1:24:00 thought was really helpful
1:24:01 in understanding how this new board
1:24:03 would fit into the flow of project
1:24:05 reviews
1:24:08 in the context of where we are dealing
1:24:11 limited resources i think it's important
1:24:15 to go ahead
1:24:16 and consider whether we have a
1:24:18 reasonable start at a commission at this
1:24:20 board
1:24:20 my understanding is the rivers and
1:24:22 stream board is not in existence right
1:24:25 therefore no one's doing this review is
1:24:27 that correct
1:24:28 and if so shouldn't we get something
1:24:31 started
1:24:33 if we don't want to say that the
1:24:35 checklist needs to be used five times
1:24:37 before it can be revised
1:24:39 take that phrase out and say that it
1:24:41 needs to be
1:24:42 revised at least annually
1:24:45 i think it's really important to not let
1:24:48 the perfect
1:24:49 as they say be the enemy of the good
1:24:51 enough
1:24:52 to try and safe enough to try that's all
1:24:55 i have to share
1:24:56 thank you any other comments
1:25:08 um i when reading the plan i
1:25:12 i think that it's a
1:25:16 where it is is the is a start it's the
1:25:18 beginning
1:25:19 and i don't feel that we should wait any
1:25:22 longer to
1:25:25 start interviewing and getting the board
1:25:28 put together
1:25:29 during the time that this is happening
1:25:32 we can still come back to the
1:25:35 planning policy at some point in time
1:25:40 once megan
1:25:44 reviews what's been said and what can
1:25:46 and cannot be
1:25:47 incorporated into the plan we can again
1:25:51 look at it but i i
1:25:54 have this uh you know fear
1:25:57 that this um is not
1:26:01 this concern for climate change and
1:26:04 the review process is not going to
1:26:06 happen if we just say we're going to
1:26:08 drop this off for two months and then
1:26:10 keep on looking and making sure that the
1:26:12 plan is perfect
1:26:14 that's two months of no recommendations
1:26:18 and no
1:26:19 nobody looking and planning on this and
1:26:23 i think that what is there is
1:26:26 basic there's a lot of improvements but
1:26:28 no plan is perfect
1:26:31 and my my opinion
1:26:34 which is only one member of this
1:26:36 commission is to
1:26:40 forward it on with a recommendation that
1:26:44 all of the options that were discussed
1:26:47 tonight would be considered
1:26:49 and it would come back to the planning
1:26:52 policy commission to review those once
1:26:55 they are in
1:26:57 printed form so we can actually
1:26:59 understand what they are
1:27:01 in the meantime i think the uh council
1:27:05 should
1:27:06 uh and the and the mayor should continue
1:27:10 on with the basic plan that we have to
1:27:13 at least
1:27:14 get the um board in place so that they
1:27:18 can start their work as soon as possible
1:27:22 okay i have a comment from
1:27:28 commissioner fall do you have another
1:27:30 comment i do
1:27:32 um and to this addresses what uh both
1:27:35 jason and joy had mentioned so to
1:27:37 jason's point
1:27:38 i agree that we don't want to create too
1:27:40 broad of a scope for this new board
1:27:43 um because then there's too much
1:27:45 ambiguity for them to get started
1:27:47 i also agree with joyce concerns that i
1:27:50 believe that this document is not ready
1:27:52 to be approved
1:27:53 although it has been greatly improved
1:27:55 and i think the staff has done
1:27:57 a great job on this my question to
1:28:01 um megan curtis murphy would be when
1:28:04 would be
1:28:06 or kristen when would we be able to look
1:28:09 at this document again
1:28:13 if we were not approving the document
1:28:15 today
1:28:23 uh all right chair chair probably if i
1:28:26 may this is andrea snyder can i
1:28:29 answer that question yes you may thank
1:28:34 um so as um as was noted earlier
1:28:38 uh by commissioner voice this this
1:28:42 is something that's going before city
1:28:43 council on october 5th
1:28:45 uh city council and the mayor are very
1:28:48 excited for this
1:28:49 board to begin their work and to form
1:28:52 this board
1:28:53 and so um i think what we're really
1:28:56 looking for
1:28:57 this commission to do tonight is to
1:28:59 provide uh
1:29:01 the comments and recommendations that
1:29:02 you have for city council's
1:29:04 consideration on october 5th
1:29:06 and um from there then
1:29:10 the commission also would be able to
1:29:13 uh to provide its own
1:29:16 insights on how it wants to operate too
1:29:19 so once the commission is formed they're
1:29:21 still
1:29:22 the the ability for the for the new
1:29:26 environmental board to evolve and
1:29:29 for us to perfect it just like the
1:29:30 checklist as well
1:29:32 um i think what you're hearing from us
1:29:34 is an eagerness to really get started
1:29:35 with this work
1:29:36 because we do not have uh rivers and
1:29:39 streams for it in operation right now
1:29:41 and so
1:29:42 um our hope is that um we
1:29:46 know that we're likely not going to be
1:29:47 able to make it perfect from the start
1:29:49 but that if we can get started
1:29:51 that we can get some good guidance from
1:29:53 you tonight and be able to move that
1:29:55 forward the city council on october 5th
1:29:57 and from there that
1:30:00 if the environmental board
1:30:03 would like to see changes in how they
1:30:05 operate in their
1:30:07 governing rules if there's other
1:30:10 policies that are of the purview of this
1:30:12 commission that will have the ability to
1:30:13 affect those changes later on as they
1:30:15 come up
1:30:16 and as need arises okay so deputy city
1:30:20 administrator um
1:30:23 one of the the things i i also see a
1:30:25 concern is that
1:30:27 with the checklist for instance maybe
1:30:30 janice's point she suggested that we
1:30:32 look at it maybe
1:30:33 annually because this is a new board
1:30:36 some of the policies that we're creating
1:30:38 for this and i realized that
1:30:40 we're not going to get it perfect right
1:30:42 out the door in fact
1:30:43 as we start to form we're forming
1:30:46 storming and then we're going to realize
1:30:47 that we made mistakes along the way
1:30:50 the policies were suggesting to city
1:30:53 council
1:30:54 should be somewhat fluid and dynamic
1:30:56 because this is almost going to be
1:30:57 like a living policy moving with his
1:31:00 board as his board develops it's going
1:31:03 have growing pains and so i'm thinking
1:31:05 maybe the policy we
1:31:07 if we do approve something tonight we
1:31:09 approve a policy that is going to be
1:31:11 able to be
1:31:13 changed by the board um
1:31:16 when they make recommendations and say
1:31:17 you know what this isn't working for us
1:31:19 we need to make this policy change
1:31:24 is that something that can be done yes
1:31:26 um this is megan curtis murphy um i
1:31:28 think that's something that we heard
1:31:30 a little bit last time in the
1:31:32 conversation as well
1:31:34 i'm just shuffling through my papers
1:31:35 here but we did try to take that into
1:31:37 consort
1:31:38 into consideration um with the ordinance
1:31:40 that we included here
1:31:42 in that um in duty number seven we do
1:31:45 want the board to provide
1:31:46 a self analysis of their work and
1:31:48 effectiveness um
1:31:49 annually and then report that back to
1:31:51 the council so again
1:31:53 recognizing that as you're saying we may
1:31:55 not get everything right right away we
1:31:57 might
1:31:58 have to do some trial and error as we
1:31:59 get the board up and running
1:32:01 so we've built that into the process
1:32:03 itself so the board can reflect on the
1:32:05 items that's
1:32:06 reviewed the impact that it's had and
1:32:09 have that conversation with council and
1:32:10 then there'd be an opportunity
1:32:12 to change the ordinance so i think it
1:32:14 could be kind of that living
1:32:15 um document that we would um want their
1:32:18 input on to see how it's working and
1:32:20 there would also of course be an
1:32:21 opportunity for
1:32:22 for public comment on that as well um so
1:32:25 i think that this will be
1:32:26 revisited um in that sense are you very
1:32:29 rigid about the one year
1:32:31 because i'm thinking quarterly to start
1:32:34 because it's such a new board and i
1:32:35 realize the first few meetings they
1:32:36 gathered they're going to be
1:32:38 learning all this but uh
1:32:42 i think it should be maybe reviewed
1:32:43 quarterly
1:32:45 until they're off the ground
1:32:48 yeah i don't think that we are um firm
1:32:50 on the one year i think
1:32:52 overall we'd want some time as you're
1:32:53 saying for the board to get up and
1:32:55 running with kind of those
1:32:56 initial kind of orientations and
1:32:59 starting to learn about what some of the
1:33:00 work is that the city is doing
1:33:02 as well as providing feedback on items
1:33:06 right away
1:33:07 um so again maybe that's something the
1:33:09 commission can consider if that's one of
1:33:11 the recommendations you want to make
1:33:12 whether it's quarterly or after six
1:33:14 months or whatever the commissioners
1:33:16 want to recommend for that okay
1:33:19 thank you very much i have a comment
1:33:23 commissioner bukers
1:33:32 mr bukers like to endorse two comments
1:33:35 i'd like to endorse
1:33:36 chair provola comment and mr carl's
1:33:40 comment
1:33:40 that we not make the perfect enemy
1:33:44 they're good
1:33:44 um two weeks ago i asked what the
1:33:48 process for us on the assumption that
1:33:51 nothing we do today is going to be
1:33:53 perfect and will be the subjective
1:33:55 division
1:33:55 how do we obtain how do we review this
1:34:00 environment this whole the setting up of
1:34:02 this uh
1:34:03 this uh environmental council uh
1:34:06 what's the process going forward and
1:34:08 there was some fairly clear so i think
1:34:09 from my perspective
1:34:11 um i've had nothing enforcement here
1:34:14 from city
1:34:14 that there are avenues to review
1:34:17 whatever we
1:34:18 send forward in due course um
1:34:22 so i have having said so i would like to
1:34:24 recommend strongly that we
1:34:27 do not stop this process now but
1:34:30 enable it to continue with it with a
1:34:32 couple of providers that my primary
1:34:34 concerns are one
1:34:35 transparency um i do very much like the
1:34:39 suggestion
1:34:39 from one of the public uh contributors
1:34:43 that um the
1:34:46 wording is department stands hot topic
1:34:48 summary of neighborhood leading comments
1:34:50 to the environmental board
1:34:51 i want to ensure that we have a feedback
1:34:53 loop so the environmental board
1:34:56 is aware of what the city is doing and
1:34:58 can act accordingly
1:35:00 um so i think the wording there might be
1:35:02 appropriate with something
1:35:03 something better uh then then that
1:35:06 that's fine
1:35:08 um so so that's my that's my primary
1:35:11 concern the other thing is i endorse uh
1:35:14 mr falls comment
1:35:16 that i think uh
1:35:19 five uh once every year and a rigid
1:35:22 um timeline for the committee or the the
1:35:28 ability to review the checklist is
1:35:30 overly ambitious now and i think it
1:35:32 should be either up to the
1:35:33 the uh the discretion of the members of
1:35:37 of the environmental uh committee or
1:35:40 um as commissioner falls recommended not
1:35:43 sure the timeline like a quarter
1:35:45 so those two are my primary concerns
1:35:47 above all is to move this forward
1:35:50 and keep the process going we'll have
1:35:51 ample time to review
1:35:53 as time goes on so that's my comment
1:35:55 thank you
1:35:57 so i i i do have a question um
1:36:01 about the are we is it the
1:36:05 plans of the city to bring this back to
1:36:10 or is all the updates going to be taken
1:36:12 care of by the environmental board once
1:36:15 it's established
1:36:20 this is megan curtis murphy i believe
1:36:23 we would be looking for your
1:36:25 recommendations this evening
1:36:26 um on the recommendations for council to
1:36:29 consider
1:36:30 um on october 5th and then
1:36:33 this board would get up and running and
1:36:35 would um
1:36:36 have that opportunity for the board
1:36:38 members to provide comment i think that
1:36:39 there'd probably also be
1:36:41 opportunities for members of the public
1:36:43 to provide
1:36:44 their thoughts as well and that's
1:36:45 perhaps where commissioners could also
1:36:47 provide further thoughts on
1:36:48 on the overall development of it okay so
1:36:51 it would not be coming back to
1:36:53 ppc correct
1:36:56 is my understanding it's very difficult
1:37:00 for me to hear
1:37:01 all the different uh uh ideas
1:37:05 and not be able to see them in writing
1:37:08 i think if we could see them in writing
1:37:10 we would have a better handle on
1:37:12 what it looks like and how it is all put
1:37:15 together so
1:37:17 i'm disappointed that that we wouldn't
1:37:19 have at least
1:37:21 a short time to at least
1:37:24 go over that especially since the board
1:37:27 environmental board is going to take a
1:37:29 while to get up and running and they're
1:37:30 not going to know
1:37:32 what is basically right and how to
1:37:34 handle things
1:37:36 not that we're experts on it but we do
1:37:38 have some comments
1:37:39 and i would really like them to be
1:37:42 considered
1:37:43 and um not stop the process but have
1:37:46 those
1:37:47 um uh ideas taken
1:37:50 at least to the council to have them
1:37:53 look at
1:37:54 if we are if we're not doing it as a as
1:37:57 a board
1:37:58 as a commission then i think that all of
1:38:00 those things should be listed
1:38:02 and they should be able to review them
1:38:07 this is megan curtis murphy if it would
1:38:09 be helpful
1:38:10 i could try to go through a list of the
1:38:12 comments that i've
1:38:13 heard this evening try to summarize
1:38:16 those and then if there's
1:38:18 uh specific recommendations that you
1:38:19 want the the council to include
1:38:21 um you could make those following that
1:38:24 and let me know if there's anything i'm
1:38:26 missing here as well
1:38:28 would that be helpful um it's the
1:38:31 yes i get a thumbs up from commissioner
1:38:36 um i just have a hard time if i can't
1:38:38 see them
1:38:39 in front of me to really say yeah or no
1:38:42 yes that was that's good we don't even
1:38:44 have to consider that because it's
1:38:45 already
1:38:46 included so yes if you want to take the
1:38:49 time and go over that
1:38:51 i think would appreciate it i don't know
1:38:54 how um the commissioners will want to
1:38:56 handle that after you give us an update
1:39:00 okay so can i get in for a second
1:39:02 because um
1:39:04 i think i'm a little lost so so i think
1:39:07 where we are
1:39:08 in the in the meeting commission chair
1:39:12 i think i think where staff is waiting
1:39:15 for the commission to make a
1:39:16 recommendation
1:39:18 and i think individual commissioners
1:39:19 have shared their opinions
1:39:22 and i want to make sure i understood
1:39:24 what you just said
1:39:26 were you hoping for a summary of the
1:39:30 comments so that that would facilitate
1:39:33 a commissioner making a recommendation
1:39:35 that then the board could deliberate on
1:39:38 i think that's what uh megan
1:39:41 actually suggested
1:39:49 okay i didn't write down
1:39:53 every single suggestion and so i'm
1:39:55 having a hard time
1:39:57 which ones are good which one should we
1:39:59 continue on
1:40:00 we don't have the opportunity to vote on
1:40:02 each one of the suggestions
1:40:04 so i would like to be able to say these
1:40:07 are what
1:40:08 these are the suggestions that came out
1:40:11 uh we think they all should be
1:40:14 considered
1:40:16 by staff by the council
1:40:19 meanwhile we will recommend that
1:40:23 the this goes forward but we would like
1:40:27 these things to be considered whether
1:40:29 now or once the
1:40:32 board actually is formed
1:40:36 and they sit down and look at their
1:40:38 directions
1:40:40 at least at that time all of these
1:40:42 comments should be considered
1:40:46 i don't know if that makes sense or not
1:40:49 i just you know we have these public
1:40:51 hearings and we have people come
1:40:53 in to make comments and we want to make
1:40:55 sure that we address those comments
1:40:57 i i don't like it if they just come in
1:40:59 make the comments and then we just
1:41:01 forget about them and and go on and you
1:41:04 discuss other things so i'd like somehow
1:41:07 to capture
1:41:09 the things that have been said um
1:41:12 by not just the um the public tonight
1:41:16 but some of the comments from the
1:41:18 commissioners which i think are all
1:41:19 valid
1:41:20 um and can be explained one way or the
1:41:23 other basically yes
1:41:25 they are accepted in in this in this
1:41:29 item and it assumes that and so we're
1:41:32 covered there
1:41:33 but maybe not so transparency is the one
1:41:37 thing that i see
1:41:38 and uh the timeline of
1:41:42 uh once a year is
1:41:45 should be shortened is there anything
1:41:47 else that
1:41:49 um specifically that any one of your
1:41:52 the commissioners want to add to those
1:41:54 two things specifically
1:41:57 that pops out and you think that it is
1:42:00 really important to
1:42:01 uh forward on to the council that these
1:42:03 are things that
1:42:04 you feel are really important
1:42:09 uh madam chair if i can i see that
1:42:13 uh commissioner reinhardt has a comment
1:42:16 yeah i was getting to that so there's
1:42:18 one after that too
1:42:19 so um i was hoping to get you people
1:42:23 the commissioners thinking about any
1:42:26 specific
1:42:28 uh additions besides just grouping all
1:42:31 comments together which are the ones
1:42:33 that stand out so while you're thinking
1:42:35 about that
1:42:36 commissioner reinhardt has a comment
1:42:40 yeah so along those lines this is
1:42:42 commissioner
1:42:43 bill reinhardt along those lines my
1:42:45 recommendation would be similar to
1:42:47 commissioner falls um i think i'd like
1:42:49 to definitely see
1:42:51 the uh the annual report
1:42:54 and and update be moved to probably six
1:42:57 months would be my recommendation
1:43:00 i think quarterly might be a little bit
1:43:01 too aggressive especially since they're
1:43:02 just going to be forming
1:43:04 but i think every six months i think
1:43:05 would be a good milestone i think a
1:43:07 little
1:43:07 a year is a little bit further a little
1:43:09 too far
1:43:12 but my overall comments i just want to
1:43:13 commend megan in the city on the amount
1:43:15 of effort
1:43:16 put into this board plan it's never
1:43:18 going to be perfect
1:43:21 but it needs to get started we can
1:43:23 continue to i think as a commission
1:43:26 um continue to meet and meet and meet
1:43:29 and fine-tune it
1:43:31 and we'll find ourselves in the same
1:43:32 spot we are now six months from now
1:43:35 i think it requires us
1:43:38 i think as as commissioners to
1:43:42 do what we can to move um it's the
1:43:45 documents built in a way that does allow
1:43:48 changes and modifications as well as
1:43:51 reviews
1:43:52 um and for from my standpoint i think
1:43:55 that's more than enough to move forward
1:43:57 um that's all
1:44:00 um i'm going to uh
1:44:04 there's a comment from uh
1:44:07 commissioner
1:44:11 i think uh thanks man i'm sure this is
1:44:13 commissioner fall so my question to you
1:44:15 are you asking us to make motions
1:44:19 um the city is uh expecting us to
1:44:23 move forward on this one way or the
1:44:25 other yeah
1:44:26 may i make a suggestion this is kristin
1:44:28 leeson senior planner
1:44:31 yes so what we have done in the past
1:44:34 and one of one option is that the
1:44:36 commission
1:44:37 it uh megan could
1:44:40 identify the topics that have been
1:44:42 discussed tonight
1:44:44 and we make sure that we all agree on
1:44:46 those topics and ppc
1:44:48 can write a letter then to the city
1:44:49 council as we have done with the
1:44:51 transportation
1:44:52 improvement program several times
1:44:54 written a letter
1:44:55 another thing that i am aware of is that
1:44:57 we are trying
1:44:58 even harder to put all of the
1:45:01 commission's comments into our agenda
1:45:03 bills so they should appear that way but
1:45:05 if you all wanted to do
1:45:06 it a little bit more formally and have
1:45:08 some a signature attached to it you
1:45:10 could also attach
1:45:11 a letter with your concerns and attach
1:45:13 that to the agenda bill if megan would
1:45:15 be willing to do that
1:45:21 any comments on that
1:45:25 i have a comment from commissioner voice
1:45:31 see that time i was afraid you weren't
1:45:32 going to call on me
1:45:37 what's so great about tonight is the
1:45:39 fantastic ideas that have been batted
1:45:41 around
1:45:42 to use commissioner lewis's language it
1:45:44 would have been nice if this cake could
1:45:46 have baked
1:45:47 a little longer and i think if
1:45:51 to chair pro bowler's point it's
1:45:52 disappointing not being able to see this
1:45:54 final product before it goes out the
1:45:57 really only would have needed perhaps
1:45:59 one more meeting
1:46:00 having said that i do know that the
1:46:02 council is going to be moving
1:46:04 on october 5th so i guess my re my
1:46:06 suggestions
1:46:08 is i think all of us can agree to look
1:46:10 at the language of being a little bit
1:46:11 more transparent however that looks that
1:46:13 would be something i'd
1:46:14 asked miss murphy to look at also
1:46:17 i think everyone i've heard this comment
1:46:19 now three times tonight
1:46:21 uh the rigidity of those that meeting
1:46:24 annual one year look back again i think
1:46:27 one year is too long
1:46:29 six months to commissioner reinhardt's
1:46:31 point is about perfect
1:46:33 quarterly little too much a little too
1:46:35 quick
1:46:36 not enough time for reflection six
1:46:39 months is perfect
1:46:40 one year is almost too long because at
1:46:42 one year then they end up having a
1:46:44 three-hour meeting
1:46:44 and it's hard to remember what they did
1:46:47 nine ten months ago
1:46:48 so i think six months is is about right
1:46:51 so i guess those would be my
1:46:52 recommendations as
1:46:54 to senior lisa's point about
1:46:58 senior planner leases point as far as
1:47:00 writing a letter
1:47:02 letting them know city council or
1:47:04 concerns i think that might help
1:47:08 digest this cake a little bit easier so
1:47:11 i'm okay with the letter as well okay
1:47:14 i'm going to follow up with a comment
1:47:16 a senior planner mason
1:47:22 that was from earlier i've already
1:47:24 addressed it
1:47:25 okay you just got in there so um
1:47:29 is it uh the consensus of the board to
1:47:31 be able to
1:47:32 uh put our thoughts into a letter and
1:47:35 and put it into
1:47:36 to the hands of city council can i show
1:47:42 a hand and up
1:47:45 okay so i think that's uh one two three
1:47:49 i don't think we have to vote on that
1:47:51 specific thing but
1:47:53 we will put a letter together to try to
1:47:56 incorporate some of the ideas that we
1:47:59 um with that
1:48:06 all i have is two things to suggest the
1:48:09 transparency and the timeline
1:48:11 as additions that we are all in
1:48:13 agreement for
1:48:14 is there any other specific things i
1:48:17 know there's a lot of other
1:48:20 creativity that we could put into this
1:48:22 but is there any other
1:48:24 specific things that you can think of
1:48:28 if not
1:48:32 um i have another comment from
1:48:35 commissioner
1:48:40 thanks madam chairs commissioner fall so
1:48:43 the other suggestion i had was that
1:48:47 to create a recommendation that would
1:48:49 allow the ev the ev board
1:48:51 to propose topics of discussion and set
1:48:53 the urgency
1:48:57 whereas ppc were locked into basically
1:48:59 what the city
1:49:00 asks us or what the city gives us and i
1:49:03 think with this board i'd like to give
1:49:04 them a little bit more flexibility if
1:49:06 they see a point of concern that they
1:49:08 recommend a discussion topic
1:49:11 on their own
1:49:14 that's all thanks okay anything else
1:49:21 um i have a another okay yes yes
1:49:26 um so we're gonna so the the
1:49:29 bottom thing is that we are going to
1:49:31 produce a letter
1:49:32 to send to city council to state some of
1:49:36 our reasons for and objections and
1:49:38 interests
1:49:39 uh the three things that are on that
1:49:42 will be specific
1:49:43 are transparency the timeline and the
1:49:46 ability
1:49:46 for the um new board to
1:49:49 make recommendations on what they think
1:49:53 is important based on the fact that the
1:49:55 people who are on this board should have
1:49:58 knowledge of the environment and
1:50:01 uh and how to
1:50:05 take care of it so
1:50:08 with that um i need a motion
1:50:12 to recommend that we
1:50:16 send the city council with the three
1:50:20 editions specific editions
1:50:24 and with the assumption as christian
1:50:26 said that any other of the comments will
1:50:28 be included to
1:50:30 be forwarded to city council in the
1:50:32 agenda bill
1:50:36 i need emotion
1:50:44 if i don't have emotion then it's dead
1:50:46 and we do not
1:50:47 send it forward
1:50:50 hi madam chair uh commissioner fall i'll
1:50:53 go ahead and make a motion to
1:50:55 uh send this wreck our recommendation
1:50:58 on the formation of the environment
1:51:01 board to
1:51:02 city council for review with our
1:51:04 suggested comments and
1:51:06 recommendations do i have a second
1:51:09 i'll second that it's commissioner
1:51:13 uh any other comments
1:51:18 discussions
1:51:20 may i clarify let me ask a question is
1:51:24 recommendation to approve the
1:51:26 environmental board
1:51:27 and also attach a letter of your
1:51:30 concerns
1:51:31 yeah to the agenda bill yes okay the
1:51:34 recommendation goes with the
1:51:36 the approval goes with the three
1:51:38 recommendations
1:51:40 okay thank you um
1:51:43 all those in favor say aye oh can't do
1:51:46 kristen can you take the role
1:51:51 yes commissioner fall yes
1:51:56 commissioner lewis yes
1:51:59 commissioner reinhardt yes commissioner
1:52:03 yes commissioner voice yes
1:52:07 commissioner buchers yes commissioner
1:52:09 probably
1:52:10 yes seven in favor
1:52:14 none against okay
1:52:18 so with that we will move on to our next
1:52:22 uh discussion for this evening and
1:52:25 that's the proposed comprehension plan
1:52:27 amendments
1:52:28 the readers redesi redesignations and
1:52:30 rezones
1:52:31 of parcels of four parcels
1:52:34 and i'm not going to read the number so
1:52:36 i'm going to open it up to kristen to
1:52:38 give us here a report
1:53:09 i apologize i forgot to mute my unmute
1:53:11 myself are you able to see my screen
1:53:13 yes okay so yes tonight we are going to
1:53:17 begin our public hearing on the 2020
1:53:20 comprehensive plan amendments
1:53:23 that's not working so tonight's meeting
1:53:25 there will be a presentation
1:53:27 followed by a public hearing the public
1:53:30 hearing will not be closed
1:53:31 it will be continued to september 25
1:53:36 it will be continued to october 8th and
1:53:38 you will not be making a recommendation
1:53:40 tonight
1:53:43 so as you know we have five different
1:53:45 land use codement or comprehensive plan
1:53:47 amendments that we're doing they involve
1:53:49 the land use element
1:53:51 redesignations and rezones the old town
1:53:52 sub-area plan capital facilities element
1:53:54 and the transportation element
1:53:56 but tonight we are only going to discuss
1:53:58 the redesignations and reasons
1:54:03 so the first one that we will talk about
1:54:05 is legacy landscaping
1:54:07 it's just under an acre it is located
1:54:10 at the southwest corner of sr 900 in
1:54:13 newport way
1:54:14 to the north is urban core zoning
1:54:18 [Music]
1:54:19 to the south and west our open space and
1:54:22 single family to the east or
1:54:24 southeast is tibbetts valley creek i
1:54:26 mean tibbetts valley park excuse me
1:54:28 and to sort of the east northeast is the
1:54:32 transit center and additional urban core
1:54:35 zoning
1:54:36 so the existing zoning on this property
1:54:39 is loaded
1:54:40 the existing land use is load in city
1:54:41 residential the proposed land use
1:54:44 designation is mixed use
1:54:45 the existing zoning is single-family
1:54:48 suburban and the proposed
1:54:50 is zoning is mixed use so
1:54:53 in single family we went over this a
1:54:54 little bit last time i think
1:54:56 the key points here are currently the
1:54:58 impervious surface is 40
1:55:01 and the pervious is 60 and the base
1:55:03 building height is 30 feet and that's as
1:55:04 high as they can go
1:55:06 in mixed use the impervious surface
1:55:10 is allowed to go up to 90 percent with
1:55:13 herbies being 10
1:55:14 and base building height 48 max 65
1:55:17 however we also discussed at our last
1:55:19 meeting that because of the creek on the
1:55:21 property and the buffers associated with
1:55:23 and the steep slopes on the property and
1:55:25 the buffers associated with that
1:55:27 that this property will not will not be
1:55:29 able to develop to
1:55:31 its max to its full potential allowed by
1:55:33 mixed use
1:55:35 so the city's recommendation oops let me
1:55:38 the pros with this are if we rezone the
1:55:41 property
1:55:42 it brings the existing use into
1:55:44 conformance with the zoning
1:55:46 it allows expansion of the existing use
1:55:49 and a larger variety of uses on that
1:55:51 and the property would be easier to sell
1:55:54 the cons
1:55:55 are just converse it remains legally
1:55:57 non-conforming the property
1:55:58 the use cannot expand and it's more
1:56:00 difficult for the property owner to sell
1:56:02 but being that we prefer to have
1:56:04 properties that are in conformance with
1:56:06 their zoning
1:56:07 the city's recommendation is to rezone
1:56:09 legacy landscaping to mixed use
1:56:12 and make the lance laney's designation
1:56:14 mixed use as well
1:56:18 the next property we're going to talk
1:56:19 about is centurylink so
1:56:21 century link is located
1:56:24 sort of on the east side of i-90 just
1:56:27 south
1:56:28 of the east lake sammamish or southeast
1:56:30 of the east lake smamish exit
1:56:33 there are two parcels involved in this
1:56:35 one is about an acre and the other one
1:56:36 is just over six acres
1:56:38 the six acre parcel only about three
1:56:40 acres of this would be rezoned
1:56:42 and the rest of it would remain
1:56:44 community facilities
1:56:46 the current use is an rv park and some
1:56:48 of the
1:56:49 rv park would be displaced but we are
1:56:52 looking at
1:56:54 putting some of the rp rv park on
1:56:57 adjacent property which is owned by the
1:57:00 the surrounding zones here are intensive
1:57:02 commercial
1:57:03 and community facilities and facility
1:57:06 communities facilities facilities and
1:57:07 community open space
1:57:09 the existing zoning on here the existing
1:57:11 language designation here is community
1:57:13 facilities
1:57:14 and the proposed land use designation is
1:57:17 commercial
1:57:18 the existing zoning is community
1:57:20 facilities facilities
1:57:21 and the proposed zoning is intensive
1:57:24 commercial
1:57:28 because it is a currently a community
1:57:30 facility zone
1:57:31 community facilities the development
1:57:33 regulations are
1:57:35 whatever the most restrictive adjacent
1:57:37 zoning is so in this case
1:57:39 it is intensive commercial so the
1:57:41 development
1:57:43 what is allowed here as far as
1:57:44 impervious surface and height would not
1:57:46 change
1:57:49 so if this property is rezoned the pros
1:57:52 are that it allows
1:57:54 relocation of the centurylink garage
1:57:56 existing synchro
1:57:57 centurylink garage m which creates a
1:58:01 site um i'm sorry opens up a site for
1:58:04 affordable housing
1:58:06 and community serving commercial space
1:58:09 and the proposed site is more
1:58:11 appropriate for
1:58:12 the centurylink garage than is an
1:58:14 existing site which is urban core
1:58:18 the cons are the as i mentioned before a
1:58:20 portion of the issaquah rv park would be
1:58:22 displaced
1:58:23 and we are looking at finding a way to
1:58:26 relocate some of that the city's
1:58:29 recommendation
1:58:30 is to rezone the proposed centurylink
1:58:32 site property to intensive commercial
1:58:41 so the last property that has been
1:58:44 requested
1:58:45 is we're calling it the vanama property
1:58:47 it is located at the southwest
1:58:49 corner of highlands drive and southeast
1:58:52 black nugget road
1:58:54 it's just under half an acre it
1:58:56 currently has a single family house
1:58:58 located on it
1:58:59 it is currently zoned loden city
1:59:01 residential
1:59:02 i'm sorry i keep doing that it is the
1:59:05 current land use designation is low
1:59:07 density residential
1:59:08 the request is for retail or mixed use
1:59:10 land use designation
1:59:12 the existing zoning is single family
1:59:14 estates and the
1:59:16 requested zoning is either professional
1:59:19 office or mixed use
1:59:21 so to the north west
1:59:24 and south of this property our single
1:59:26 family houses
1:59:27 directly to the north though are
1:59:29 detention ponds
1:59:30 that are owned by the city and to the
1:59:33 east is also single family and
1:59:35 open space
1:59:38 the single currently single family you
1:59:41 are allowed 30
1:59:42 impervious surface which means 70
1:59:43 percent pervious surface
1:59:45 and again a 30 foot building height and
1:59:47 that's as high as they can go
1:59:49 to do either professional office or
1:59:50 mixed use the impervious surface would
1:59:52 increase by
1:59:53 up to 90 percent 65 to 90
1:59:57 and the pervious surface uh 35 to 10
1:59:59 percent
2:00:00 the maximum height on both of these
2:00:02 could be 65 feet
2:00:05 the pros of doing this is clearly the
2:00:08 the area around here has developed and
2:00:10 so allowing a neighborhood commercial
2:00:13 neighborhood serving commercial may
2:00:15 benefit this property it may benefit the
2:00:17 surrounding
2:00:18 areas the cons however is that the site
2:00:21 is surrounded on all sides
2:00:23 by community facilities or single-family
2:00:25 estates and single-family houses
2:00:27 and most of the permitted uses within
2:00:30 professional office and mixed use would
2:00:31 not be committed
2:00:32 compatible with the surrounding uses
2:00:34 which makes this
2:00:35 a what's called a spot zone
2:00:39 and is not legal so our recommendation
2:00:42 right now is to not
2:00:43 change the designation or zoning of this
2:00:45 property
2:00:50 um just a reminder tonight we won't be
2:00:53 closing the public hearing on october
2:00:54 8th we'll open it
2:00:55 we will continue it we'll talk about
2:00:57 land use capital facilities
2:00:58 transportation and
2:00:59 old old town proposed amendments and
2:01:01 then this will go to the city council
2:01:03 study session on november 10th
2:01:05 and back to city council on december 7th
2:01:08 for action so all we're looking for you
2:01:12 tonight i believe you may ask questions
2:01:15 you may not discuss and we'll hear
2:01:17 public hearing
2:01:18 um but you know also ask us ask me and
2:01:21 that staff or anything that you may need
2:01:23 which will help you form a
2:01:24 recommendation at our next meeting
2:01:25 that is all i have thank you
2:01:29 um so with that i would like to
2:01:32 open the public hearing before we
2:01:37 open up the comments for the from the
2:01:39 commissioners
2:01:40 so with that i will open the public
2:01:43 hearing
2:01:44 at 8 33 and ask doug if there's anybody
2:01:48 signed up to speak
2:01:54 thank you yes we have a bunch of people
2:01:57 signed up to speak the first person up
2:01:59 is david christ
2:02:12 is he one of the phone numbers he's
2:02:16 he might be i'm going to do some
2:02:18 unmuting
2:02:22 david are you are you with us
2:02:30 i don't believe he is so i'm going to
2:02:33 move on to uh geraldine carey
2:02:43 yes can you hear me yes we can
2:02:46 okay um my concern is not with a rezone
2:02:51 requested by chris holick
2:02:54 but it's making the official city
2:02:56 officials
2:02:57 and the advisory boards aware that there
2:03:00 already exists
2:03:01 conditions connected to the
2:03:04 use of the secondary access off the
2:03:07 property
2:03:08 the restrictions were placed to address
2:03:10 reduction
2:03:12 of congestion onto and off of newport
2:03:16 as access is close to sr 900 and newport
2:03:20 way intersection
2:03:22 also i'd like to clarify
2:03:25 i'm not sure if it was a mistake but the
2:03:28 property that is being
2:03:30 requested to be rezoned does not include
2:03:33 tibbetts creek
2:03:34 that property is part of my property i
2:03:37 own a small
2:03:38 triangular piece just to the
2:03:42 east of um the legacy landscape
2:03:45 business but i also have a residence
2:03:48 south of their property and south of the
2:03:52 little triangle
2:03:54 that is served by the access
2:03:57 road off their property
2:04:02 i want to know if the
2:04:06 planning policy commission has
2:04:09 a copy of the easements that were
2:04:12 recorded with king county back in 2005
2:04:16 and a settlement agreement
2:04:19 that is dated 2003. do you have those
2:04:23 uh i would like to know if you have them
2:04:25 they were supposed to be included
2:04:28 in your paperwork that i requested
2:04:31 oh maybe two or three months ago
2:04:34 so i that's um an important part of
2:04:38 how that property is used
2:04:42 also the three properties that are
2:04:45 connected and adjacent to the roadway
2:04:49 are residential and privately owned
2:04:53 but they share the proper the roadway
2:04:56 exits out of the property being asked to
2:05:00 be rezoned
2:05:02 the property um is also within 15 feet
2:05:05 of tibbetts creek
2:05:06 and within the 100 foot setback
2:05:10 so i think that's an important
2:05:14 consideration of how the property
2:05:18 is used and my
2:05:21 last comment that has to do with the
2:05:23 result of the property
2:05:24 is if they use the south
2:05:28 exit as part of the the new rezone
2:05:31 does the old cement bridge that
2:05:36 was built in the early 1900s
2:05:40 have to be meet new codes for the public
2:05:43 to use
2:05:43 i don't know the residents the two homes
2:05:47 are on this roadway
2:05:50 don't have an issue with the condition
2:05:52 of the bridge
2:05:54 but we um you know we understand it's an
2:05:57 old bridge and we're willing to take the
2:05:59 risk of that
2:06:00 any day it could fall down but i just
2:06:02 wonder if it's used
2:06:04 in a more intensive way if the city is
2:06:07 going to require
2:06:08 the development to
2:06:13 take into consideration the old bridge
2:06:16 and um this is completely different
2:06:20 and it goes back to your environmental
2:06:23 board
2:06:24 i didn't think about it but i want to
2:06:27 in this day and age with the drier
2:06:30 climates
2:06:30 that we have i back up against
2:06:35 cougar mountain i'm at the base of
2:06:36 cougar mountain and we have
2:06:38 and when i moved here 42 years ago
2:06:42 there was not a large canopy on the
2:06:44 hillside above me in the 42 years
2:06:47 that i have been here there has been a
2:06:50 growth
2:06:50 of evergreen trees and maple trees
2:06:53 that pretty much makes my property
2:06:56 a fire hazard i have cleared as much of
2:07:00 the property over the 42 years
2:07:02 to make sure it's not next to my house
2:07:06 how do how do you protect the tree
2:07:09 canopy and protect
2:07:11 allow the people who live in issaquah to
2:07:14 protect their
2:07:15 their homes um from
2:07:18 a fire hazard i think that's an
2:07:20 important
2:07:21 um issue that needs to be addressed
2:07:23 because as you build into the tree
2:07:26 canopy
2:07:28 you present homeowners with the
2:07:32 threat of fire potential so
2:07:35 i think the tree canopy is a serious i
2:07:38 think
2:07:38 we need a tree canopy but i would like
2:07:42 to cut some trees
2:07:43 that are between myself and my residents
2:07:46 but they're not on my property
2:07:47 but they are a huge threat to my house
2:07:50 as if they fall
2:07:52 i you know they will hit my house excuse
2:07:56 so um i would appreciate you this the
2:07:59 environmental
2:08:00 board um thinking about that
2:08:03 you know how do you protect the people
2:08:05 who have homes
2:08:07 in the treed areas and still protect the
2:08:09 tree canopy
2:08:10 maybe restrict development in tree
2:08:12 canopies
2:08:14 i appreciate your listening and taking
2:08:16 time to hear
2:08:17 my concerns and i forgot to say i live
2:08:22 just south and of
2:08:25 the legacy landscape property my dress
2:08:27 is 955
2:08:28 17th avenue northwest issaquah
2:08:32 thank you doug who's up next
2:08:41 connie marsh you're up next if you want
2:08:45 to speak
2:08:45 on the comp plan amendments
2:08:52 so you can hear me yes
2:08:55 yes uh
2:08:58 i want to speak on the
2:09:01 re-zone of the
2:09:04 property for the centurylink
2:09:08 swap what was interesting
2:09:12 is that they as a as a
2:09:15 con they had the city addressed
2:09:19 the trailer park being reduced in size
2:09:23 which is indeed fascinating but because
2:09:25 that is low income housing that is
2:09:27 existing
2:09:28 but they want to reduce that so that
2:09:31 they can
2:09:32 potentially build and the city would
2:09:34 spend what
2:09:35 over five million dollars to build
2:09:38 low-income housing
2:09:40 across the valley that would use transit
2:09:43 and then this day and age i
2:09:47 just don't think we want to do a 5
2:09:49 million dollar
2:09:50 investment in case people don't want to
2:09:54 use transit for the next
2:09:56 long period of time but more importantly
2:10:00 is that property was purchased with
2:10:03 roads utility dollars
2:10:07 and if you put the century
2:10:10 link property on that parcel
2:10:14 that means that you will not be able to
2:10:17 use that property for the planned future
2:10:20 expansion of our city
2:10:23 shop and our parks
2:10:26 shop and this has been a plan
2:10:29 for i don't know 15 years
2:10:32 um with that specific property
2:10:37 aimed for that expansion because the
2:10:40 parks
2:10:40 shop is within maybe
2:10:44 i don't know in some places 12 feet
2:10:47 of the main stem of issaquah creek
2:10:50 and the the east fork of this o'clock
2:10:53 creek on the valley floor
2:10:55 so the intent has always been to expand
2:10:59 the park
2:11:03 down there to where the city shop is
2:11:06 and do the next phase of that park
2:11:09 and move the park shop over into
2:11:12 this parcel so what this does is this is
2:11:16 using
2:11:16 our tax dollars that we have spent
2:11:21 to create this expansion and removing
2:11:24 that opportunity
2:11:25 we no longer have a place for the park
2:11:28 to go and we have no place for a future
2:11:31 expansion
2:11:33 of our city shop so
2:11:36 that is a huge negative
2:11:40 that should have been outlined and
2:11:42 underlined and
2:11:43 highlighted in red for this parcel
2:11:47 thank you very much
2:11:53 doug do we have anybody else yes
2:11:56 the next two i don't have names for they
2:11:58 are just
2:11:59 phone numbers um so i'm going to call
2:12:01 out the phone number
2:12:03 um area code 206. in the last two digits
2:12:07 five five do you like to speak on the
2:12:10 comp plan amendments
2:12:16 yeah thank you um my name is chris
2:12:18 hallick i'm the owner of the legacy
2:12:20 landscaping property
2:12:22 and i would just like to further share
2:12:25 that uh
2:12:25 the intentions we are familiar with the
2:12:28 easements of the property
2:12:30 we are familiar with the um
2:12:33 consideration of the neighbors we've
2:12:35 been very respectful of neighbors we've
2:12:37 grown to have great relationships with
2:12:39 them and we continue to have that
2:12:40 through the development of the property
2:12:43 so we don't have any intentions of
2:12:45 disturbing that
2:12:46 and are well aware of the um usability
2:12:50 of that
2:12:50 and the bridge we get uh every two years
2:12:53 we get engineering stamps
2:12:54 on the condition of it and i
2:12:58 don't feel that that bridge would be
2:12:59 open to any public
2:13:01 usage if the property was to change
2:13:04 usage we would again
2:13:05 continue being respectful towards
2:13:07 neighbors and using
2:13:08 our our main entryway which we are
2:13:11 respectful
2:13:12 to the neighbors currently because we
2:13:14 close our gates every afternoon
2:13:16 and provide not a lot of usage of that
2:13:20 area thank you
2:13:30 the next person is area code 206
2:13:34 in the last two digits of four five
2:13:37 would you like to speak on the comp plan
2:13:39 amendment
2:13:41 uh yes sir um calling uh regarding the
2:13:45 vanima rezone which is uh
2:13:48 off of southeast black nugget road
2:13:52 um i think that area it's a pocket
2:13:55 between black nugget and highlands um
2:13:59 it's quite noisy sirens
2:14:02 dump truck it's no longer
2:14:05 suitable for residential urban village
2:14:09 which is
2:14:10 lakeside sfs to the east
2:14:14 and so that pocket is
2:14:18 i just don't think it's a place you want
2:14:21 raise a family with kids so
2:14:24 high traffic high speed a lot of noise
2:14:28 so that's that's my take on that area
2:14:34 so that's all
2:14:40 is there anybody else that wanted to
2:14:43 speak
2:14:46 there is
2:14:49 nobody else on the participants list
2:14:54 okay since we're going to continue the
2:14:57 public hearing we're not going to close
2:15:00 it this time
2:15:01 and i will open up questions from the
2:15:05 commissioners i do see a question from
2:15:08 commissioner bukers
2:15:14 yes commissioner i was not in attendance
2:15:17 in the
2:15:17 previous meeting where he initiated
2:15:19 discussions of
2:15:21 regarding these two properties so if
2:15:23 these questions are being addressed
2:15:24 then just tell me um regarding the
2:15:27 landscaping property
2:15:28 can you uh there are easements there
2:15:31 there are buffers there are various
2:15:32 impediments to
2:15:33 development here as noted has noted can
2:15:36 you give me an idea
2:15:38 of what that would mean in terms of
2:15:41 if the property was sold and resolved
2:15:43 sold to a developer
2:15:44 for another use what part of the land
2:15:49 would be used or could be used for
2:15:51 development
2:15:52 and how would that parcel or the remain
2:15:55 that the
2:15:58 property that could be developed um
2:16:00 access
2:16:01 the roads on either side i hear loud and
2:16:05 clear the comments from the
2:16:06 uh the public uh about that the the lady
2:16:10 adjacent has to access to and from that
2:16:13 property so
2:16:14 that was number one i i'd like to know
2:16:16 just a little more specificity
2:16:18 about what the uh the buffers etc mean
2:16:20 to the redevelopment of that property
2:16:22 number two when you regarding the
2:16:25 century link
2:16:26 when you say there is consideration of
2:16:28 moving uh
2:16:30 some of the part of the rv doing rv park
2:16:33 um we're dealing with human beings here
2:16:34 and i i wasn't i'm not sure what
2:16:37 what it means when you're you're working
2:16:39 on how many people
2:16:40 are being affected by this uh this
2:16:43 potential rezoning
2:16:44 um and what how well developed are your
2:16:47 plans for
2:16:48 or finding them somewhere else to live
2:16:50 and number three just to
2:16:51 reiterate my concern about spotty
2:16:53 zonings um i look at that site and drive
2:16:56 by it and i'm
2:16:57 i'm concerned about ingress and egress
2:16:59 if it was a commercial development
2:17:01 um so certainly um
2:17:04 support a uh i'm not a
2:17:07 move not to rezone that that site uh um
2:17:11 for the request so those are my comments
2:17:13 and my questions thank you
2:17:16 okay so starting with the legacy
2:17:19 landscaping site and the buffers in the
2:17:21 easement so
2:17:23 any development that occurred on that
2:17:25 property subsequent to the existing
2:17:27 there's a landscaping contractor there
2:17:29 right now
2:17:30 anything that were to develop there
2:17:31 later would have to go through project
2:17:33 review and so anything i say is pretty
2:17:35 general
2:17:35 um but they do have steep slopes and
2:17:38 there are buffers associated with
2:17:40 steep slopes and the creek runs through
2:17:43 the bridge which is still in part of the
2:17:44 park but it's close as
2:17:45 uh miss carrie said it is within 15 feet
2:17:48 of his property so they do still fall
2:17:50 within 100 feet
2:17:51 crook creek buffer there it was
2:17:55 estimated that
2:17:56 and again an estimate you know maybe a
2:17:58 third or a little more of this property
2:18:00 could develop it is already um
2:18:05 pretty much it's almost impervious there
2:18:07 it's built out now about as far as it
2:18:08 can go
2:18:09 um you know if you want to go you you
2:18:12 have to consider if you're going to go
2:18:13 to 65 feet you have to allow for con
2:18:16 you know for parking and those two just
2:18:18 don't work together
2:18:19 so the chances that this property is
2:18:21 going to become
2:18:22 a large development um is small and
2:18:25 i you know keith niven is here and can
2:18:28 jump in if i'm
2:18:29 off base but that's that's the way that
2:18:32 we have
2:18:32 looked at it and the easement the
2:18:34 driveway would be
2:18:35 considered it's it's a driveway uh it
2:18:38 was property that was dedicated to the
2:18:40 city back in 2001 and then easement
2:18:43 is there now and we have we are aware of
2:18:45 those documents we have those
2:18:47 um i can attach those next time if you
2:18:49 all would like to see them
2:18:51 but anything having to do with that
2:18:53 easement would again be considered
2:18:55 during project development where this
2:18:58 property
2:18:58 going to redevelop and i see that
2:19:02 director niven is on board
2:19:06 good evening keith nevin director of
2:19:07 community i mean
2:19:09 so just to kind of expand what kristen
2:19:11 said i can answer your question
2:19:14 commissioner bukers what's there now
2:19:17 doesn't meet current standards in terms
2:19:20 of critical
2:19:21 various setbacks in terms of
2:19:24 many other development standards one of
2:19:26 the things that is gained
2:19:28 by rezoning it and making it a
2:19:31 conforming use is any redevelopment of
2:19:34 the site would need to meet
2:19:36 um our current standards so so
2:19:40 it could stay the way it is forever or
2:19:42 if somebody wanted to redevelop
2:19:44 um it would have to be current standards
2:19:46 so that's the game
2:19:47 i think
2:19:56 i appreciate your answer on that i was
2:19:59 yeah i do appreciate your answer on that
2:20:00 and it sounds like if there was a
2:20:02 redevelopment
2:20:04 then the impact on adjacent properties
2:20:08 such as the lady who took the time to
2:20:10 comment tonight
2:20:12 would be minimal i guess is that what
2:20:14 you're saying
2:20:16 and that's my concern
2:20:20 um so obviously um
2:20:23 you know that would be a separate whole
2:20:26 process
2:20:27 i think that you know the issues that
2:20:30 this character brought up about
2:20:31 the stability 1900s
2:20:35 concrete bridge you know if anybody
2:20:39 wants to rebuild the property and
2:20:40 potentially use that for commercial
2:20:43 traffic
2:20:44 um it can meet current standards which
2:20:47 it does not
2:20:48 so it would require a complete bridge
2:20:50 replacement
2:20:51 and whether or not there's enough room
2:20:53 even to do that there
2:20:54 it's it's questionable so all of those
2:20:56 details
2:20:58 would have to be evaluated if somebody
2:21:01 came in with a redevelopment plan
2:21:03 um i think because of the way the hill
2:21:06 bends around i mean
2:21:07 legacy and some kind of
2:21:12 to the south are really kind of in
2:21:14 geographic different places
2:21:16 um but those kind of impacts will be
2:21:18 considered
2:21:19 i think with any plans that were to come
2:21:23 that's as concrete as i can get i
2:21:25 apologize
2:21:27 understood thanks so exactly
2:21:31 why besides the fact that it's
2:21:34 non-conforming
2:21:39 does this have to be rezoned
2:21:42 well we're we're this is kristin leeson
2:21:44 senior planner we're recommending it
2:21:46 it right now it's a commercial use and
2:21:50 it has been a commercial use for a
2:21:51 very long time and at one point it was
2:21:54 actually allowed by wright in the
2:21:55 existing zoning to be a commercial use
2:21:58 and then in 2000 and
2:22:01 i don't remember when uh it's in the
2:22:02 staff report but the zoning changed and
2:22:04 all of a sudden it was no longer allowed
2:22:06 it also is adjacent to
2:22:12 the urban core and to the transit center
2:22:16 and again it would be good to have this
2:22:19 to be a conforming use i don't think
2:22:20 that the commercial use is going
2:22:22 anywhere
2:22:22 that's just you know thought um and it
2:22:26 doesn't have to be rezoned but someone
2:22:27 requested it
2:22:28 and based on what we have seen and what
2:22:30 we've analyzed
2:22:32 uh there is no um
2:22:35 predominant reason not to rezone this
2:22:38 property
2:22:45 are there any other questions uh mr b
2:22:48 commissioner bucher still had two other
2:22:49 questions
2:22:50 regarding the rv park and the
2:22:53 well he had a comment regarding the
2:22:54 phenomenal property um
2:22:56 the rv park i
2:23:00 it had to do with how much will be
2:23:02 replaced how much will be displaced
2:23:04 and what is the status of replacing
2:23:07 finding a new location for those
2:23:09 properties and i'm going to let
2:23:11 um those i just want to i'm going to let
2:23:14 deputy city administrator snyder address
2:23:17 some of this but i do want to note too
2:23:19 rvs well yes they do provide affordable
2:23:21 housing for people but it is not
2:23:22 considered
2:23:23 by the city to be or the county to be
2:23:25 affordable housing because it is
2:23:27 temporary
2:23:28 most of those units or most of those rvs
2:23:31 stay there for
2:23:32 a week or two maybe a month and then
2:23:34 they move on so it is not permanent
2:23:36 affordable housing
2:23:38 that is recognized by the city but uh
2:23:41 there is
2:23:42 andrea i'll let you i don't know where
2:23:45 it stands i was going to let her address
2:23:48 thank you kristen this is uh deputy city
2:23:51 administrator andrea snyder
2:23:53 um so i think it is a good distinction
2:23:56 that you make kristin between
2:23:58 a mobile home park and an rv park they
2:24:01 are different things
2:24:03 they are different things by state law
2:24:05 as well
2:24:06 so the rv park is intended for
2:24:08 recreational
2:24:09 use and that said we do have some people
2:24:13 who have been
2:24:14 uh using it for longer than
2:24:17 a month or a week we have folks who have
2:24:21 used it for
2:24:22 for over a year in in some cases
2:24:25 and so what we are doing right now is
2:24:28 we're working with
2:24:29 centurylink um who would
2:24:33 perhaps take ownership of of part of
2:24:36 that site
2:24:37 um on what their site plan is so that we
2:24:42 understand how much property we have
2:24:44 left over
2:24:45 for the rv park to retain the rv park
2:24:49 and we have an approximation now but
2:24:52 that's still really
2:24:53 in negotiation best
2:24:56 information that we have right now is
2:25:00 there we think that there will be enough
2:25:03 room for at least
2:25:05 20 spots perhaps more than 20 spots
2:25:08 and that is about the number of
2:25:12 long-term users that we have at the park
2:25:15 so what we need to do is really
2:25:18 understand
2:25:19 what the boundaries of the site would be
2:25:22 should the site be rezoned should the
2:25:24 sale go through
2:25:25 and and then be able to configure
2:25:29 the remaining parcel for the rv park to
2:25:33 make it the most
2:25:34 efficient and accommodating as possible
2:25:35 efficient use of space
2:25:38 and accommodating as possible for
2:25:41 the remaining rv park users so that's
2:25:43 something that we're
2:25:44 continuing to work on right now with
2:25:48 the rv park management company
2:25:51 the residents in the rv park as well as
2:25:53 of course centurylink to really
2:25:54 understand what their space needs are
2:25:57 make sure that that their
2:26:00 site is only suited to
2:26:04 the sizes is suited to centurylink's
2:26:07 needs and not
2:26:08 any bigger that would um
2:26:11 that would make the site too big for
2:26:12 them and not enough space for the rv
2:26:14 park so that's
2:26:15 it's all still in flux right now did i
2:26:18 answer the question completely
2:26:21 you did i understand or do i understand
2:26:23 correctly that
2:26:24 we're not being asked to make a
2:26:26 recommendation
2:26:27 tonight we're simply asking questions is
2:26:30 that correct
2:26:31 that is correct is in flux is is fine
2:26:34 because
2:26:35 i'm in flux about this
2:26:39 this particular parcel and want to hear
2:26:42 more so
2:26:43 that's all part and parcel of further
2:26:45 discussions is that correct
2:26:47 and you've answered thank you very much
2:26:50 thank you
2:26:51 would you have any updates at our next
2:26:54 meeting
2:26:58 um i i would love to say that i will
2:27:01 knowing that your next meeting
2:27:03 is um october
2:27:06 8th is it october 8th
2:27:10 i am not sure that i will it is it's
2:27:13 like i said these ongoing discussions
2:27:15 with centurylink that
2:27:17 really we've been having since council
2:27:19 authorized us to proceed
2:27:22 negotiate with negotiations about the rv
2:27:24 park site with them
2:27:26 and those conversations have been
2:27:27 happening since february
2:27:29 so um so i don't know that i will have
2:27:33 any more information for you at that
2:27:36 i am hopeful that i will but i am not
2:27:39 sure that
2:27:39 our conversations and negotiations will
2:27:42 have advanced and progressed enough to
2:27:45 give you any more information
2:27:47 that's what i thought your answer was
2:27:49 going to be and i'm hoping that
2:27:52 commissioner buchers would understand
2:27:54 that even we come back on the 8th
2:27:55 to discuss this further we might not
2:27:59 the answer to that so i have a
2:28:03 question from commissioner lewis
2:28:07 thank you commissioner joy lewis
2:28:10 speaking
2:28:11 what i wanted to i think was a comment
2:28:14 that i had previously um mentioned um
2:28:19 that my concerns was losing um a
2:28:21 significant portion of the
2:28:23 rv park and while i recognize it doesn't
2:28:26 necessarily
2:28:27 serve towards our our no our numbers and
2:28:30 our goals for affordable housing
2:28:31 it does serve um an underserved
2:28:33 population in our community and it's
2:28:35 something that is unique in our
2:28:36 community so
2:28:38 um i understand that we might not be
2:28:40 getting
2:28:41 the information that we want in time
2:28:42 that we need to make a decision about
2:28:45 what i would suggest though the more i
2:28:47 thought about it is that i would love a
2:28:48 commitment from the city to say that
2:28:51 whatever amount we are losing that
2:28:52 they're committing to reallocating
2:28:54 possibly to another space so maybe our
2:28:57 rv park now is 20 percent here and 60
2:29:00 here and you know finding a different um
2:29:03 a new way to approach it rather than to
2:29:05 that we're um unsure and we need you
2:29:08 guys to pass this along
2:29:10 so um i do like the idea of saying that
2:29:12 the city is going to commit to
2:29:14 keeping the the amount of it
2:29:17 whole even if it's in a different
2:29:19 location or serving in a different
2:29:21 capacity
2:29:22 um without you needing to come back to
2:29:23 us and say by the time we're
2:29:25 um forced to pass this on that we still
2:29:27 aren't sure
2:29:28 but i do really appreciate the updated
2:29:30 numbers um
2:29:32 talking to kristen this week you know
2:29:33 before the last time you guys brought
2:29:35 this to us it was
2:29:36 um saying um we weren't sure how much
2:29:38 was partial we were going to need but
2:29:40 having that commitment from you guys of
2:29:41 saying we're trying too small
2:29:42 at scale is really great and i really
2:29:44 appreciate that
2:29:46 my other comment that i had sent to you
2:29:48 andrea is to say
2:29:50 that i really wish that there was more
2:29:51 transparency being given to the public
2:29:53 on this
2:29:54 um i think that it's important to give
2:29:56 those numbers when you're talking about
2:29:59 what is effectively taxpayer-owned
2:30:01 property um to a private developer and
2:30:04 um i would like to see there be more
2:30:06 units in the building than there is
2:30:08 right now i understand that it's a win
2:30:10 um but i think that um giving those
2:30:12 numbers out
2:30:14 to people of saying what is the
2:30:15 projected income that the per
2:30:17 that the developer will be making versus
2:30:19 the trade-off of what we think land
2:30:20 values are
2:30:22 um is important for everybody going in
2:30:24 so that the public is able to make
2:30:25 accurate comments to say
2:30:27 what is the city you know really giving
2:30:29 and getting
2:30:30 in hard numbers right now i'd love to
2:30:32 see that landing page
2:30:34 um be updated with more and i know your
2:30:35 comment to me was specifically that um
2:30:38 once the developer team has land control
2:30:42 but i think that it's important before
2:30:43 that decision is made
2:30:45 this that the city discloses more of
2:30:48 that to the public as much as possible
2:30:55 i don't see any more comments or
2:30:58 questions
2:31:04 so not hearing any
2:31:08 we're going to con to
2:31:12 go off to the next thing on our agenda
2:31:17 and that's a housing report card
2:31:23 i did actually i didn't want to
2:31:26 i am willing i am was providing that as
2:31:29 information for you okay
2:31:31 um if you all have any questions or
2:31:32 thoughts on that uh please share
2:31:37 but i was gonna bring it up in the next
2:31:40 topic but i'll bring it up now
2:31:42 under reports that one of the reasons
2:31:45 that we gave that to you now
2:31:47 is because on october 5th keith and i
2:31:50 will be
2:31:50 at city council meeting talking about
2:31:52 all things affordable housing
2:31:54 and so if you all are interested and
2:31:56 want to watch that
2:31:58 uh please tune in it should be
2:32:01 interesting
2:32:05 so i i do want to remind everybody about
2:32:08 the calendar so if you want to
2:32:10 mention the upcoming meetings that would
2:32:12 be great
2:32:13 um so we do we have the one on the fifth
2:32:16 if you're interested
2:32:17 we have one on october 7th which is a
2:32:19 joint dc ppc meeting to discuss the
2:32:22 architectural standards for single
2:32:24 family
2:32:25 duplex zone in old town i will let you
2:32:28 know that right now
2:32:29 the community i'm sorry the uh cultural
2:32:33 and business district
2:32:34 and multi-family standards were supposed
2:32:36 to go along with that but they've been
2:32:37 put on hold we've decided they need a
2:32:39 little more work
2:32:40 and a little more public input than we
2:32:42 initially thought
2:32:43 um but we will be talking about the
2:32:45 single family standards
2:32:47 then on the 8th we will continue our
2:32:49 public hearing here and on the 22nd
2:32:51 we have another public hearing regarding
2:32:54 construction
2:32:55 times and it's a chapter 16 issue but
2:32:57 because it develops it
2:32:58 affects development it is coming to you
2:33:02 again very busy
2:33:06 you all are very busy people uh
2:33:11 yes and so it's a city city staff
2:33:14 um so uh there's nothing else on the
2:33:17 agenda is there any
2:33:18 any thoughts or comments for the good of
2:33:20 the order
2:33:24 hearing them i'm going to close the
2:33:28 meeting
2:33:29 at 905
2:33:33 and wish you all a safe uh
2:33:36 existence for the next couple weeks
2:33:39 before we meet again
2:33:40 so with that um we
2:33:43 are adjourned so thank you for your
Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.