← Back to City Council Digest

Planning Policy Commission - 22 Jul 2021 Auto captions

Thursday, July 22, 2021

3h 56m
Topics tracked across meetings:
Amending Community Planning and Development Fees AB 9169 3/6
Recommendation on Proposed Updates of the Issaquah Municipal Code, Title 18, (A) ID 1225 2/10
Title 18: Setting the Stage 3/4
Title 18 Land Use Code: Consolidated Draft [2 hrs.] ID 1273 4/7
Title 18 Land Use Code: Follow Up Items: section) sections) ID 1157 4/7
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.3
Staff report:
PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION Staff Liaison Christen Leeson, Senior About Planner Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Email policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah's future Regular Members growth through continued review and 2022 – Joy Lewis improvement to the City's Comprehensive Land 2022 – Matt Monahan Use Plan and related land use documents. 2022 – Jason Voiss 2022 – Vacant Membership 2023 – Nina Milligan The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2024 – Ron Faul seven regular members, with four-year terms; 2024 – Sara Bader and several alternates, with two-year terms. All members are appointed by the Mayor and Alternate Members subject to confirmation by the City Council. 2022 - Richard Zaragoza Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2023 - Vacant more information, see IMC 18.03 and Rules & Regulations. Meetings Unless…
2. REGULAR BUSINESS
2a
Title 18 Land Use Code Updates: Environmental Policies, (D) Sustainability
Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.5–75
Topics: Land UseClimate
Staff report:
Get policy direction on changes to land use code related to: Critical Areas (Wetlands, Streams, Critical Area Aquifer Recharge Areas, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas); Shoreline setbacks, Sustainability, and Lighting Standards.
3. REPORTS
3a
Council Updates
Christen Leeson, Senior Planner
4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
4a
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.77–79
Staff report:
OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2021 / 2022 PPC Schedule (tentative) (updated 3/11/21)
0:03 all right and
0:04 good evening i'd like to call the
0:07 meeting to order
0:08 at 6 30 p.m uh welcome due to the
0:11 virtual format of today's meeting i'd
0:13 like to start by providing some
0:14 guidelines we have participants
0:16 attending by computer and others who may
0:18 be attending by phone
0:20 for all meeting attendees please speak
0:22 clearly and pause frequently
0:24 state your name each time before
0:26 speaking mute your microphone when not
0:28 speaking
0:30 if you have technical difficulties try
0:32 to join the meeting using a different
0:34 device such as a smartphone or tablet
0:36 use a call-in information in the meeting
0:39 invite to call into the meeting
0:42 an overview for tonight this is a joint
0:45 meeting
0:45 with planning and policy commission in
0:47 the environmental board to gain a deeper
0:49 understanding of the environmental
0:50 policies
0:51 and gaps that exist and to provide the
0:55 policy direction for title 18 code
0:57 updates
0:59 and attendance so kristin uh go ahead
1:01 and
1:02 call uh attendance for policy planning
1:05 commission
1:06 followed by megan or the
1:09 environmental board commissioner vader
1:12 here
1:13 commissioner lewis here
1:16 mr milligan
1:22 commissioner fall
1:26 here mr monaghan
1:29 here commissioner zaragoza
1:33 here and commissioner voice has
1:38 um an excused absence tonight
1:46 or maybe i apologize some environmental
1:49 board members who are who have joined us
1:51 as attendees um
1:56 megan if you'll call roll then i can and
1:58 then let me know who's missing i can let
2:00 you know
2:00 if you can't see the attendee list sure
2:04 um yep tom anderson
2:07 here saria bola pragata
2:11 here nancy davidson
2:15 here jamie finch
2:20 cameron fisher
2:25 okay uh rishi hazara
2:29 dan hintz laura labiko
2:38 danny madden here
2:42 don mcwilliams yeah
2:45 and newcomb has an excused absence this
2:47 season
2:48 this evening and janet wall
2:53 so i believe she is janet is i'm making
2:56 her a panelist right now
2:59 great so we are missing cameron
3:02 and laura
3:10 no okay
3:13 and so that concludes the role
3:16 okay so there's a little bit of a
3:18 preface for tonight's meeting
3:20 we will not be approving meeting minutes
3:22 tonight um
3:24 so we can get on with the environmental
3:25 education and discussion
3:27 um tonight the city is attempting to
3:30 cover 86 slides broken into multiple
3:33 chapters
3:34 with a targeted completion time of 9 pm
3:38 in consideration of everyone's time
3:40 please withhold your questions until the
3:42 topic has been fully presented
3:45 at the end of each topic we will first
3:47 open the floor to commissioner questions
3:50 secondly we will open we will allow the
3:53 public
3:53 comments related to each topic
3:57 please note the public comments tonight
3:58 will be limited to three minutes
4:00 each and thirdly we will close public
4:04 comments and allow commissioners to
4:06 collaborate discuss
4:07 and debate the topic before moving on to
4:10 the next topic
4:12 please do not repeat a question or
4:14 comments another commissioner has voiced
4:16 but you may
4:17 say that you agree or disagree with a
4:19 commissioner
4:20 however please share a suggested
4:22 modification
4:23 to an already spoken comment or question
4:26 if the message is uniquely different
4:28 all questions and comments are important
4:31 if you have a question or comment please
4:33 indicate so in the chat window
4:35 by writing that you have a question or
4:37 comment and i will call upon you
4:39 when it's your turn to speak please do
4:41 not write out
4:43 your question or comment in the chat
4:44 window
4:46 note that in order for me to see your
4:48 message in chat
4:49 you have to post it to everyone for
4:52 everyone to see
4:53 otherwise if it only goes to the host
4:56 only they will be able to see it and
4:58 your question may get missed
5:01 it is okay to voice a concern if you
5:03 feel like you've reached information
5:05 overload
5:06 and i will ask the joint commission for
5:09 their feedback
5:10 or joint commissioners for their
5:12 feedback uh before we move forward
5:14 there is no point going forward if
5:16 people feel lost please remember that
5:18 this meeting is about
5:19 is being recorded so you can watch the
5:21 presentation again on youtube
5:24 as we approach 9pm i will ask the city
5:27 if we need more time to present
5:29 pending their feedback i will ask the
5:31 commissioners if they want to continue
5:33 based on the city's response
5:35 or schedule a follow-up joint commission
5:37 meeting
5:39 and with that uh i'm going to conclude
5:42 to prep the preface
5:44 and we're going to move into a regular
5:46 business title 18 code updates for the
5:48 environmental
5:49 policies specifically targeting aquatic
5:53 critical areas geohazard critical areas
5:56 outdoor lighting climate change and
5:58 sustainability
6:00 and tonight we'll be having our
6:02 presentations given by
6:04 mini daliwa the community planning and
6:06 development director
6:08 uh katie coat of vhc consultants and
6:11 doug
6:12 yormick assistant planner so go ahead
6:15 minnie the floor is yours
6:26 thank you cheerful um good evening
6:28 commissioners thank you for your time
6:29 tonight
6:31 to look at this code update a very
6:34 important code update
6:36 and i'm going to share my screen now so
6:39 we can
6:41 actually have it open can everyone see
6:44 my screen
6:48 yes thank you so
6:52 um a little bit of background i know
6:54 planning and policy commission
6:56 uh we have prepared you a little bit uh
6:59 for the last two meetings
7:00 in terms of what land use code means but
7:02 i'll take like just two minutes
7:05 for the benefit of the new members from
7:07 environmental board
7:09 so it is our development regulations uh
7:12 that were
7:12 originally adopted in 1996 and over the
7:16 years
7:16 it's become a patchwork of ordinances
7:20 so city council adopted a work plan
7:24 to update the title 18 and we have
7:27 embarked on this journey
7:29 to update this huge title
7:33 it is formed of many chapters but
7:36 tonight
7:37 we're going to be focusing on one topic
7:39 which is natural environments
7:41 and it has multiple topics underneath it
7:46 but let's see if i can
7:52 so uh so tonight we're covering
7:56 wetlands streams critical aquifer
7:59 recharge areas
8:00 fish and wildlife habitat conservation
8:03 areas so these first four topics are
8:05 aquatic critical areas
8:07 um and then after a staff presentation
8:10 on these four topics we'll pause
8:12 for your discussion uh taking public
8:14 testimony on these four
8:16 uh before moving on to the other ones uh
8:19 as as this graphic shows you the
8:22 geological hazardous areas shoreline
8:24 setback
8:26 climate change and sustainability and
8:28 outdoor lighting standards
8:30 we have our consultant team here today
8:32 if there are technical questions we may
8:35 defer to some of those as we get into
8:39 more of the discussion on these topics
8:43 so first off it's wetlands so the city's
8:45 vision is to preserve and protect and
8:48 enhance
8:49 we are going to share with you some of
8:51 the gaps we've identified in title 18
8:53 which is our land use code and what we
8:56 can are thinking of
8:57 uh will be our update approach then
9:00 we've
9:00 we've identified some policy questions
9:03 for direction before we actually write
9:06 the
9:07 the actual code language for a formal
9:10 public hearing
9:11 please note as we've discussed before
9:14 there's a significant amount of topics
9:15 we're covering today
9:16 but this is just your first time hearing
9:18 this
9:20 we are available by email feel free to
9:23 reach out to staff
9:25 if you need additional information or
9:27 just to have a conversation with us
9:31 so wetlands like i said the
9:34 vision is to enhance protect and
9:36 preserve
9:38 and the regulations have to be based on
9:40 what is defined under the state law as
9:42 best available
9:43 science so department of ecology which
9:46 is a state agency has come up with best
9:48 available signs for
9:50 uh wetlands and we've looked at that
9:53 for most of you probably know this but
9:56 i'll cover it real quickly
9:58 so the wetlands provide a very important
10:02 benefit to the environment from a water
10:04 quality perspective from storm water
10:06 flood water
10:07 habitat recreation education aesthetic
10:10 value and you name it
10:12 so the buffers are important for the
10:14 wetland because they
10:16 protect some of those toxic substances
10:18 from getting into
10:20 the wetland they moderate the
10:21 microclimate
10:23 and protect the plants and animals
10:26 if you hear the word mitigation what it
10:29 really means
10:29 is if any impact is made to the wetland
10:33 or its buffer
10:34 it has to be mitigated by either
10:38 enhancing or
10:42 paying into a mitigation fund
10:45 so the state law growth management act
10:49 we covered this a little bit with the
10:50 planning and policy commission but for
10:52 the benefit of uh
10:53 environmental board uh establishes some
10:56 of this framework
10:57 for how these rules and regulations have
11:00 to be
11:00 aligned with the state law
11:04 and our analysis of our wetland buffers
11:07 um and and other regulations related to
11:10 wetlands is that our code
11:12 has some gaps uh it's not based on best
11:15 available science
11:16 um so we've also looked at what this
11:19 the comprehensive plan and the long
11:21 range which is the 20-year plan for the
11:24 city
11:24 required by state law and the strategic
11:27 plan have identified as goals for this
11:30 community
11:32 and this is a a chart where we um
11:35 don't need to get into the nitty-gritty
11:37 at this stage but it establishes
11:39 four different types of categories of
11:41 wetlands
11:42 under the state law we've listed the
11:45 existing wetland buffer widths
11:47 here that our existing code has and this
11:51 option
11:51 is we'll talk about it in a policy
11:54 options
11:55 a piece here here are some ways to
11:58 protect the wetlands that some cities
12:00 have established in their
12:02 uh in their codes things like you can't
12:05 have toxic runoff getting into your
12:07 wetlands you can't have storm water
12:09 getting into it
12:10 how what kind of uses the lights and the
12:12 disturbance needs to be minimized
12:16 so our approach for the wetland update
12:18 is we need to update it to reflect
12:20 ecology's 2018 best available science
12:24 we need to update buffer mitigation
12:26 standards currently the code includes if
12:28 you
12:28 fill a wetland it has a minimum ratio
12:31 but
12:32 it needs to be clarified that if there
12:33 is a buffer impact
12:35 there are also one-to-one ratio for the
12:37 buffer impacts
12:39 ecology also has a rating system
12:42 we need to be consistent with that and
12:44 the current code is not
12:45 consistent the buffers for category 4
12:49 wetland which
12:50 is the lowest category
12:54 less than 2500 square feet has very
12:56 minimal buffers
12:58 so we need to look at you know what what
13:00 the right buffers for that category need
13:02 to be
13:03 how we measure these buffers there's a
13:05 little bit of a debate and the language
13:07 needs to be clarified
13:08 if you have a steep slope are you
13:10 measuring the buffer along the slope or
13:13 a perpendicular
13:14 from where the buffer is so there is
13:17 clarity needed for that we currently
13:20 don't have good vegetation performance
13:22 standards
13:24 we also don't you know if someone wants
13:27 to survey your site
13:29 how do they restore it back is missing
13:32 and also for some projects that require
13:35 state and federal permits
13:36 the mitigation guidance from our code to
13:40 what the state and federal regulations
13:42 say
13:43 doesn't match up so what we want
13:46 discussion to focus on tonight is really
13:50 uh buffer widths um
13:53 what what should we do about the buffer
13:54 widths uh so we've laid out three
13:56 options
13:57 uh for from department of ecology one is
14:00 a standard you have four different
14:02 categories of wetlands
14:03 and here's your standard width that's
14:06 option one
14:07 uh option two is the four categories
14:11 here's the buffer width but it's then
14:14 granulated in terms of
14:16 if it is low impact say it's a park or a
14:20 trail it has a different buffer than if
14:22 it's high intensity
14:24 like a larger commercial building or or
14:26 a larger apartment building
14:29 um because the potentially the impacts
14:30 for those that are different
14:32 um for the case of issaquah option one
14:35 and two
14:36 most of the development is going to fall
14:37 under the high intensity
14:39 so there's not going to be much of a
14:41 difference but it does provide
14:42 additional um really you know smaller
14:45 buffers
14:45 for more open space type of uses
14:49 option three which is also a guidance
14:52 from department of ecology is more fine
14:54 grained
14:54 it takes into consideration the type of
14:57 a wetland
14:58 in addition to the land use intensity
15:00 how does the wetland function
15:03 um what's the habitat score and so on
15:06 and so forth
15:07 um so that's think about that as as uh
15:10 we need to know what your thoughts are
15:13 should it be more clear-cut should it be
15:15 more nuanced
15:16 um so the second topic we want some
15:19 guidance on
15:20 is buffer reduction um
15:24 right now the the best available science
15:27 says we shouldn't be
15:28 offering buffer reductions unless we
15:30 increase our buffer widths
15:32 this is somewhat tied to the third
15:34 question
15:35 which is should uh the buffer reduction
15:38 be replaced by
15:40 buffer averaging what that means is
15:43 if you have uh with a buffer reduction
15:46 you can
15:46 you can make it smaller but with buffer
15:50 averaging if you reduce it in one area
15:52 you have to increase it in the other
15:53 area in both scenarios
15:55 the best available sign says you cannot
15:57 reduce it more than
15:59 25 so that so that limit still stays
16:02 but with the buffer averaging the
16:05 overall
16:06 area stays the same it doesn't get
16:08 reduced
16:09 um and then the fourth one that we talk
16:12 we need
16:13 um you know this really is an
16:15 inconsistency between the city code and
16:17 the state and federal
16:19 code it becomes challenging when
16:22 some certain projects need federal and
16:24 state permits
16:25 uh the current city code says if you
16:28 make an impact here you need to mitigate
16:30 it here on the site
16:32 um and then if you can't mitigate it on
16:34 the site
16:35 then you can go off-site before you can
16:39 do any
16:40 other alternative methods the state and
16:42 federal agencies prefer
16:44 medication with the fee luav or
16:48 mitigation banking so sometimes uh you
16:51 know project proponents get caught up
16:52 between
16:53 city regulations and state and federal
16:55 regulations so some clarity there would
16:57 be helpful
16:58 um so that pretty much covers the the
17:01 wetlands
17:03 so moving on to the second topic which
17:06 is the streams
17:07 kind of the same sort of analysis here
17:10 again same
17:10 sort of benefits it also helps with
17:13 water quality flood control protection
17:16 you know flood waters recharge of
17:18 groundwater is another benefit of the
17:20 streams
17:21 um we have six different streams uh two
17:24 of them
17:25 are designated uh state shoreline in and
17:28 the lakes
17:29 um some amish um here's the network of
17:33 all the streams as you can see the whole
17:34 city
17:35 you know everything flows to the lake
17:37 but it comes from all different areas
17:39 and so it's not only one portion of the
17:42 city or another it pretty much
17:44 is is the network that
17:47 is is very important
17:50 for issaqua
17:53 moving on we kind of covered these so we
17:55 right now have four different classes
17:58 um washington water typing
18:02 also has those same types but they're
18:04 slightly different
18:05 in terms of terminology in terms of
18:07 buffers
18:09 so our comprehensive plan strategic plan
18:14 the regulations don't match up in the
18:18 sense
18:18 the way these long-range plans desire
18:22 some of the protections for instance the
18:24 current regulations don't describe
18:26 riparian corridors
18:28 or habitat connectivity to fish and
18:31 wildlife
18:31 conservation areas um
18:35 and so we've looked at best practices of
18:38 our peer cities
18:39 and we are not in sync with what what's
18:42 pretty standard in some of our
18:43 neighboring cities like redmond
18:45 um so our update approach
18:49 is to incorporate streams as fish and
18:51 wildlife habitat conservation areas
18:54 make stream classification consistent
18:56 with washington state
18:59 update the class 2 streams define the
19:02 criteria based on fish presence
19:04 based on habitat criteria that's
19:06 described in the state law
19:08 update class three streams um
19:12 and and again the definition of a stream
19:15 is a point of contention
19:17 uh address the use of uh you know
19:20 whether it's excavated entirely
19:22 artificial course
19:25 how are the ditches treated we have some
19:27 outdated
19:28 references to 1996 action plan
19:32 so that's sort of our update approach
19:35 and then the policy questions we're
19:37 seeking guidance on
19:39 are should the buffers for streams be
19:41 increased
19:42 so in here we've shown you where what
19:45 the current
19:46 watercourse buffers are uh here are some
19:48 sample ranges so we're not that far off
19:51 from the sample
19:52 ranges um except for the class 4
19:55 we have a 25-foot buffer
19:58 if the city's vision emphasizes
20:00 protecting significant habitats
20:03 and the state law requires us to use
20:05 best available science
20:07 then we've you know this is a gap that
20:09 needs to be addressed
20:11 the second thing item similar to
20:14 wetlands
20:15 is the buffer reduction provisions
20:18 should the buffer reduction be
20:20 eliminated and only buffer averaging be
20:23 allowed
20:24 so option one is to keep as is 25
20:27 reduction allowed
20:28 option two is to allow 25 reduction
20:31 in certain areas as long as the total
20:34 area of the buffer
20:35 overall remains the same so it provides
20:38 some flexibility
20:40 but it doesn't decrease the buffers
20:42 overall
20:44 the third again as i discussed before
20:47 the definition
20:48 of the stream we need to consider uh
20:51 free and open connection to waters of
20:53 the state any ditches that were created
20:55 in wetlands or waters of the state or
20:57 created from upland
20:59 but contain fish those need to be
21:03 added to the definition of the stream or
21:05 not
21:06 should the city exempt certain ditches
21:09 like irrigation ditches that are
21:11 operated just for irrigation purposes or
21:13 roadside ditches
21:14 that are less than 10 feet wide those
21:16 are things we've identified but we'd
21:18 like to get some policy direction from
21:20 you all
21:21 um buffer interruption if there is a
21:24 stream and there's a road in between the
21:26 stream
21:27 um you know there is a provisions in the
21:30 wetland uh section that talks about how
21:32 it's interrupted but the stream section
21:35 uh it needs some clarity um
21:38 what's considered so policy question one
21:40 is what should be considered
21:42 interrupting of a buffer
21:43 is it just a road a building a parking
21:46 lot
21:47 and then the second question is if we
21:50 give them the buffer
21:51 interruption should it be tied to
21:54 requiring some water quality or other
21:56 improvements
21:57 to get that waiver
22:01 the last the next piece we've covered
22:03 the wetlands we've covered the streams
22:06 the third topic is critical aquifer
22:08 recharge areas
22:10 so what the what these are are um
22:14 um the city of issaquah provides 50
22:19 of the drinking water from uh wells
22:22 so this water that percolates and
22:24 recharges the aquifers is it's important
22:26 that
22:27 it's protected from pollutants and that
22:30 we maintain the drinking water supply
22:33 so we need to clear regulations to
22:34 protect the quality of groundwater in
22:36 the aquifer
22:37 recharge areas and this is a map that we
22:42 currently have of class one two and
22:43 three this is going to be updated
22:46 the city has done some work on the
22:48 technical side of gathering some
22:50 information
22:51 and updated a report
22:55 related to this there really isn't
22:58 much of a tech policy guidance we're
23:01 looking for this is more for information
23:03 sharing of what we've identified as gaps
23:06 we need to clarify in the code uh how
23:10 these
23:11 classes are regulated what is prohibited
23:14 what type of uses that have more
23:16 potential for pollution
23:19 to get into the water supply where there
23:22 are these critical areas
23:25 and so basically our approach
23:28 is we're going to follow the best
23:30 available science we're going to
23:32 maintain
23:32 consistency with other city pollution
23:35 prevention
23:35 programs we're going to revise the
23:38 classification system
23:40 we're going to provide details of what's
23:42 prohibited from a land use perspective
23:44 and business types which have an
23:46 additional
23:47 contamination risk what performance
23:51 standards
23:52 outside of the wellhead protection areas
23:55 are needed and
23:59 some report requirements are going to be
24:01 clarified what are the implications of
24:04 different
24:04 um we're going to review the pollution
24:07 prevention requirements
24:08 and see what improvements are needed so
24:11 at this point it's pretty technical and
24:13 i think we've
24:15 sort of have an understanding of where
24:17 these are going to go
24:18 um we've tried to identify some things
24:21 that maybe
24:22 you all can have and some feedback for
24:25 staff on
24:26 is whether we should take a more
24:28 aggressive approach to regulating
24:29 potential sources of groundwater
24:31 contamination
24:32 outside of the zones
24:35 or or a more conservative approach
24:39 we haven't identified which those uses
24:41 are but we'll be working on those as we
24:43 develop this code further so
24:47 last topic under the aquatic
24:50 buffers and critical areas
24:53 is fish and wildlife habitat
24:55 conservation areas
24:58 here again you know the
25:01 long-range plans and uh strategic plan
25:05 have a clear guidance on preserving and
25:07 protecting
25:09 and these are where
25:13 habitat areas of local importance
25:15 haven't been identified
25:18 that we need to look at some of these
25:20 corridors i'm going to skip through some
25:21 of this stuff
25:22 and get to the update approach so
25:26 we're going to update the code to
25:27 include all fish and wildlife habitat
25:30 conservation areas
25:31 including wildlife corridors that
25:33 currently aren't mapped or
25:35 identified in our code and
25:38 species of local importance have not
25:40 been identified in the code so those
25:42 need to be identified
25:45 and designated uh lakes and ponds that
25:48 are less than 20 acres that don't meet
25:50 the wetland criteria fall under this
25:52 category so those will be added
25:54 um and then we will extend the buffer
25:56 protections
25:57 to include all fish and wildlife
25:59 conservation areas
26:01 um so the policy questions here
26:04 are um should the city designate
26:07 riparian corridors along streams as
26:09 protected wildlife corridor
26:12 streams themselves are critical areas
26:13 but adjacent riparian zones are
26:15 currently not classified as critical
26:18 areas
26:19 buffers for strains cover some of these
26:22 but additional protection is likely
26:25 needed
26:27 so that concludes the first uh grouping
26:30 of topics so for wetlands and streams
26:34 buffer widths buffer reduction
26:35 provisions
26:37 wetland mitigation mitigate we are aware
26:40 it should be located
26:41 stream definitions and categorizations
26:44 how to address buffer interruption for
26:47 streams
26:48 how aggressive should the critical area
26:50 aquifer recharge areas should be
26:53 and for fish and wildlife should we
26:55 designate the wildlife corridors
26:57 as critical areas so those are some kind
27:00 of summary
27:02 topics on that with that i will turn it
27:04 over to your chair
27:06 to facilitate the discussion on these
27:07 four topics
27:10 excellent thank you minnie uh okay so
27:12 we're gonna go ahead and open up to
27:14 questions from the commissioners
27:27 and looks like nina milligan has a
27:29 question go ahead
27:31 hello commissioner milligan here i
27:34 waited
27:34 i didn't want to be the first so if this
27:37 is just questions and not discussion
27:39 my question uh for director dollywall is
27:42 you talked about the preference for
27:46 types of mitigation at the state level
27:49 is there any requirement to allow
27:53 off-site mitigation at the state level
27:59 um so my understanding we we probably
28:02 have our technical folks here who could
28:03 answer that better but my understanding
28:05 of this
28:06 is uh that the you know when
28:09 federal and state permits are required
28:11 from um hp
28:12 you know from um the army corps of
28:15 engineers prefers these to be
28:17 a mitigation banking or fee in lieu of
28:21 is preferred by them
28:22 uh and then of course off-site
28:25 mitigation comes after that
28:26 they would they prefer fee of and
28:29 mitigation
28:30 banking our code requires on-site
28:33 off-site mitigation within the watershed
28:36 and then
28:37 if those don't options don't work and
28:39 then they can
28:41 go and do fee in lieu of uh or
28:43 mitigation banking
28:45 in the end because they need the permit
28:47 from these federal agencies
28:49 that's what ends up happening but
28:51 because of our code requirement
28:53 we go back and forth with them before we
28:55 we can
28:56 allow them to do that so that's sort of
28:59 a dilemma
29:01 that project proponents get caught up in
29:03 between the inconsistency between state
29:05 federal and local regulations
29:13 and uh nina uh commissioner milligan are
29:16 you
29:16 satisfied with that excellent
29:19 okay and next question online is from
29:22 commissioner
29:23 jamie finch at the floor
29:27 thank you careful um jimmy finch
29:30 speaking
29:31 um in the shoreline portion and
29:35 there was a mention of how many kind of
29:37 sites this
29:38 impacted do we have anything that would
29:40 help us understand
29:41 cutting across these other topics that
29:44 we're trying to address in this section
29:46 the relative number of potential
29:47 development sites or existing sites that
29:50 that these decisions would impact
29:54 sure um you know everyone loves the fact
29:57 that we
29:58 are in this uh wonderful nature where
30:01 the boundary of
30:02 all of these um um you know
30:05 alps and critical areas and
30:08 nature um so if i was
30:11 and i think our geotechnical uh experts
30:14 that we've hired um to do to help us
30:17 with
30:18 um they did some analysis in terms of
30:20 percentage
30:21 and and without taking the steep slopes
30:23 out it's it's a lot
30:24 i mean it's it's majority of the
30:26 properties either have a steep slope a
30:29 a stream a wetland or um
30:33 one of those other critical areas in
30:34 their vicinity maybe not on their
30:36 property but in their vicinity
30:40 but in terms of impact um
30:45 for our buffer increases in and such we
30:47 could
30:48 you know we know we know for sure where
30:50 the streams are but we don't know for
30:52 sure where all the wetlands are
30:54 uh we probably don't know where all the
30:56 streams are so it's our best guess for
30:58 some of those other
30:59 places but as development occurs we do a
31:01 side-by-side assessment
31:03 we require them to take a look at what
31:05 what's their
31:06 what's protected what's regulated what's
31:08 not
31:10 thank you
31:21 thank you commissioner finch i'm on mute
31:24 going to commissioner lewis
31:29 thank you chairfall commissioner joy
31:31 lewis here i have some questions about
31:33 buffers i had sent staff um
31:35 some questions and i don't know if you
31:36 want to answer those now or if you want
31:38 me just to
31:39 try to do more of a summary on the
31:40 questions
31:42 uh sure this is minnie dallywell um
31:45 thank you commissioner
31:47 lewis uh very good questions and as a
31:50 result we did
31:51 um provide an updated memo
31:55 so what um some of the questions
32:00 uh you know um so the the questions
32:04 um were we have a 2014
32:08 guidance or a rating system that
32:10 department of ecology has
32:11 uh come up with that that rates these
32:14 wetlands
32:15 um then in 2018 there was additional
32:18 guidance provided from department of
32:20 ecology
32:21 that that really got into the nuances of
32:24 the habitat scores
32:26 uh the water quality scores for uh
32:29 wetlands that have even a lower
32:31 um habitat score so that
32:34 chart the graph that we've shown you in
32:36 terms of the buffer widths
32:38 uh under this 2018 guidelines we have
32:42 three options one is to just adopt those
32:44 larger buffers
32:45 the second is to adopt the buffers with
32:49 intensity different buffers for land use
32:51 intensity high
32:52 medium and um and low
32:56 and then the third one is have this uh
32:59 triage of
33:00 of scores habitat scores drive what
33:03 those buffers are
33:04 and within each category then you still
33:07 have this
33:08 layer of low medium and high intensity
33:11 um so those are three three things
33:14 three different policy options that
33:16 we've laid out for you i don't know if
33:18 that
33:18 helped answer some of your questions uh
33:20 commissioner lewis
33:22 so i'm curious i remember i don't
33:24 remember where in the packet it was but
33:25 there was a specific reference
33:27 um katie can probably speak to where she
33:29 put it where it said that um
33:31 the best available signs that at some
33:33 point i don't remember it was 32 feet or
33:35 feet that without it with a smaller
33:37 buffer than that you were negating the
33:39 point of the buffer
33:40 um and when we start to have these um
33:43 tit for tap in reductions right if you
33:46 give us if you give us a little bit of
33:47 mitigation on site you do some
33:48 replanting then we'll be able to
33:50 you know reduce that buffer by 25
33:52 percent right we've had this policy
33:54 going on at issaquah for a while
33:56 and um i think it's fair to say
33:59 that in readdressing this specific issue
34:01 is we're looking to have something
34:03 that's more aggressive and gives us more
34:05 protections than we currently have so
34:07 i'm a little surprised
34:09 to not see education for us right now
34:12 that says
34:13 best available sciences tells us this is
34:16 why we need this amount of buffer for a
34:18 wetland
34:18 versus a stream versus a shoreline right
34:21 i don't have the knowledge to be able to
34:22 say right now
34:24 why we would have this particular number
34:26 for a different thing or
34:28 are we going to say that basically all
34:31 riparian areas and corridors
34:33 have the same amount of buffer needed so
34:35 that's one question that i have
34:37 specifically that i think we need to
34:38 have a better understanding
34:40 of why we have these specific numbers
34:42 then we're able to actually have a
34:44 discussion as to saying where on that
34:45 scale do we want to go
34:47 i've heard a lot in the presentation you
34:49 guys asking how conservative or how more
34:52 on what side we want to be i would love
34:54 to see from staff
34:55 some more options that say here's the
34:57 really go-get and
34:59 crazy version right and to give us an
35:01 example to say this is what this buffer
35:03 would look like right
35:04 um versus as well do you want us to go
35:06 more conservative on this
35:07 i have yet to ever be in a meeting where
35:09 i had um
35:10 people coming to me on a topic we were
35:13 given
35:13 saying i really wish you guys would just
35:15 let developers build closer to our
35:18 aquarium areas right so i'm a little
35:19 surprised
35:20 that there's this question of well what
35:22 do you want to do i think you know what
35:24 the community wants to do based on our
35:25 goals that we're trying to align with so
35:27 what i need right now is to kind of have
35:29 a better idea of saying
35:31 is the city suggesting that we continue
35:33 with this rebuffer reduction plan
35:36 because uh right now i think it could
35:39 well be up for discussion to say
35:41 no we discontinue this incentive
35:44 outright
35:44 right and we actually say no this is a
35:46 hard and fast line
35:48 um so i'm i would like to have more
35:51 answered about buffers just in general
35:53 um and is loss of buffer incentives a
35:56 possibility i think that was like for
35:58 question c that was in our packet
36:00 um and i'd love to also know more
36:03 um and specifically regard to buffers um
36:05 to really to say about restoration and
36:07 replanting right what resources are we
36:09 giving
36:10 um landowners to be able to do that um
36:13 and how are we
36:14 um how are we actually kind of like
36:16 handling non-compliance right i think
36:18 that there's a lot of issues that start
36:19 to come up when we talk about
36:21 buffers that wasn't really discussed so
36:23 it's hard for us to give
36:25 um necessarily a hard and fast um
36:28 answer right now without more
36:30 information um so i
36:32 if anybody fighting with us tonight has
36:34 more information on buffers i would love
36:36 to hear it i would love more education
36:38 on buffers
36:39 i would love to know more about the best
36:40 available science that right now the
36:42 city is facing
36:43 a lot of the numbers that we're seeing
36:44 when trying to give you a guidance on
36:46 that one two and three
36:48 so um if you don't mind i'm gonna jump
36:50 in here and see if christina merton from
36:52 herrera might be willing to answer
36:54 and address some of that hi this is
36:57 christina merton with
36:58 herrera and yes i'd be happy to maybe
37:02 start with some of that
37:03 um there's i'll start with two
37:06 two things first we have wetland buffers
37:10 that are related to wetland areas and we
37:13 have buffers that are related to
37:15 streams or riparian corridor areas
37:19 so two different buffer areas
37:22 that we're talking about the best
37:24 available science for those are
37:26 completely different
37:27 um so because they completely you know
37:29 they function
37:30 completely differently washington state
37:34 has a very thorough wetland buffer
37:38 best available science we have
37:40 references for those
37:41 in the memos i believe that were
37:44 provided as part of the packet
37:47 that go into the details of especially
37:50 with
37:51 their recent 2018 update
37:54 as to why habitat buffers that are
37:57 providing habitat functions are much
38:00 larger
38:01 because those buffers need that range to
38:04 provide that habitat versus if it's a
38:06 water quality performing
38:09 buffer that's a very much more narrow
38:12 focused area because water quality can
38:14 be achieved in a much narrower
38:17 run of that surface water through the
38:18 buffer
38:20 so there's if you want to get into the
38:22 nitty-gritty of all those details of why
38:24 when where how
38:25 um i definitely recommend seeing those
38:28 references
38:28 that we have listed as
38:32 additional information for our memos
38:35 in riparian corridors there's not as
38:38 much
38:40 best available science available readily
38:43 within washington state that says
38:46 here's you know we've reviewed
38:48 everything here's the x y and z
38:50 of buffer riparian corridors so
38:54 that is a little bit more of an update
38:56 that can be pulled from different
38:58 um documents and doing a best available
39:02 science update within the city
39:05 which is above and beyond the scope of
39:08 what our
39:09 particular code update was getting at
39:11 was collecting all of that best
39:13 available
39:14 science currently so there are examples
39:17 that are the ranges that we've provided
39:21 in i believe that many provided in the
39:23 memos that were
39:24 supplied for the riparian or stream
39:28 buffers and that is based on the
39:31 different
39:32 best available sciences i believe
39:35 that were available for various
39:38 reference cities throughout
39:40 washington i believe that's where you
39:42 might have pulled that many
39:45 yeah i know um i think um to answer
39:48 commissioner lewis's
39:49 um you know what might help you
39:51 visualize what these buffers mean on the
39:54 ground
39:54 so maybe we can take some sample uh
39:57 you know stream locations within
40:00 issaquah
40:01 and show you what a hundred foot buffer
40:04 looks like on a map
40:05 and and and what what the different
40:07 options are maybe
40:08 maybe visually if that might be
40:10 something that that could give you more
40:12 information you're looking for a
40:14 commissioner louis some sample examples
40:16 of what the
40:18 different what wetland types are uh here
40:21 what the standard what our current
40:23 buffers are what the
40:25 the proposed buffers would mean under
40:27 alternative
40:28 a b and c under ecology's guidance for
40:31 wetlands
40:33 is that something that might help
40:36 yes thank you christina and minnie
40:37 commissioner joy lewis again
40:39 um i think that one of the things so
40:41 well um i'll admit i wasn't able to
40:43 click on
40:43 every single link that was in our packet
40:45 i did make it through quite a few
40:46 and um what my opinion is right now is
40:50 that
40:50 um one thing that's very important with
40:53 not only our meetings but also with our
40:55 packets is that we're presenting
40:56 education and information
40:57 to the public and people who are
40:59 interested and so it would be great to
41:01 see an updated education
41:03 section um the next time that we address
41:05 this that actually does
41:06 talk about this is why we have this is
41:08 the best available science
41:10 for our streams versus our shorelines
41:14 versus our wetlands to be able to
41:16 clarify
41:17 why why are we making these
41:19 recommendations i think would be really
41:20 helpful
41:21 um but i did appreciate the links that
41:23 we had to be able to do that deeper dive
41:25 when we're looking for it
41:26 um so that was to that first point that
41:28 second point is what i think would be
41:30 really interesting is to also have an
41:31 analysis of saying
41:32 um this is what the end result will be
41:35 right are we
41:36 how are we going to actually impact what
41:40 what our buildable land is right so
41:41 that's one of the things that we talk
41:42 about when
41:43 we connect all these pieces to the
41:45 missing middle when we connect all these
41:46 pieces to
41:47 where are we trying to put our growth in
41:48 our density to be able to say
41:51 when you choose to be able to do this
41:53 setback versus another
41:54 what does that then give you right to be
41:56 able to see that kind of ripple effect
41:59 um because i think it's very easy to sit
42:02 where we are right now and to say
42:03 bigger buffers we've had a problem we've
42:06 seen that we have an issue how do we try
42:08 to solve that
42:09 so i would love to see the consequences
42:11 of why we wouldn't do
42:13 larger um and do a more um
42:16 i suppose liberal view going into this
42:20 so yes i agree that having maps and
42:22 examples would be fantastic many but i
42:24 also want to see not just
42:25 here but i want to see also what those
42:27 reverberations are if that makes sense
42:29 thank you boy would you still like to
42:32 hear more on enforcement and performance
42:33 standards because doug gjormick said
42:35 that he could address that for you
42:36 that would be great because i would love
42:38 to understand more too about um i think
42:40 it's a very interesting topic to start
42:41 to say
42:42 well if we take away these incentives
42:44 obviously we still need to be able to
42:46 mitigate
42:47 um to mitigate these repairing areas so
42:49 what resources are we giving
42:51 um landowners and developers to be able
42:53 to say um
42:54 if if for instance um i think one
42:56 suggestion that we can
42:58 easily talk for a while about is
43:00 actually require it outright and so if
43:02 we did what does that look like what
43:03 kind of
43:04 resources and availability is there for
43:06 being able to restore
43:07 our current habitat um
43:11 so i i will try and address those those
43:14 two questions of yours um
43:17 as a city we don't provide a whole lot
43:20 of assistance to
43:21 landowners they'll typically have a
43:23 consultant on staff
43:25 and they will do the mitigation plan
43:28 which will then get peer reviewed
43:30 by an outside environmental firm we do
43:34 provide some information to applicants
43:38 if somebody wants to do their
43:41 maintenance monitoring reports we will
43:43 send them um an old monitoring report to
43:46 kind of
43:47 see what the how it's organized so then
43:50 they can submit it to us
43:54 conservation district we we often send
43:57 at least provide information to talk to
43:59 somebody there
44:01 that's another option to provide
44:04 assistance
44:05 as for enforcement and compliance of
44:08 mitigation sites
44:09 if a site has um say wetland buffer
44:13 mitigation
44:14 that'll go through a five-year
44:15 maintenance monitoring period it's
44:17 bonded for
44:18 they they have to pay a city fifty
44:20 percent of the cost
44:23 that's monitored for five years we do
44:25 have a person on staff who monitors that
44:28 and i often work closely with him on
44:31 on these maintenance monitoring sites
44:34 and
44:34 that area has to be placed in a native
44:36 growth protection easement so
44:38 it has to remain in a natural state in
44:40 perpetuity
44:41 um if it is not we have code enforcement
44:44 that can come in if there's illegal
44:47 clearing or something that's happening
44:49 inside of that critical area buffer that
44:52 shouldn't be occurring
44:56 thank you doug
45:01 and commissioner lewis are you releasing
45:03 the floor
45:05 yes thank you cheerful excellent thank
45:08 you
45:08 um by the way i second everything that
45:11 joey lewis just said that's really
45:13 that's awesome great question sir okay
45:17 next question we have is from
45:19 commissioner nancy davidson
45:25 good evening i have two questions for
45:27 you tonight the first one is
45:29 are there any agencies that do not allow
45:32 reductions
45:32 in buffer widths basically a buffer
45:36 width is to be
45:37 held and kept
45:41 have you found that anywhere
45:44 um i'll i'll defer to christina in terms
45:48 um other jurisdictions my um
45:51 um you know experience with other
45:54 jurisdictions
45:55 is um the folks that have not updated
45:57 the critical areas will
45:58 generally have buffer reductions but a
46:01 lot of other cities that have updated
46:02 the critical areas have leaned more
46:04 towards the buffer averaging
46:06 because that's the best available
46:09 science guidance from ecology
46:11 for wetlands for the streams it's not as
46:14 clear
46:15 i think in terms of whether buffer
46:17 reduction is completely
46:19 ruled out um but again i think the
46:22 there also the buffer averaging is as
46:24 preferred
46:25 uh than buffer reduction um but there
46:28 are limits to buffer reduction you know
46:30 no more than 25 percent can be reduced
46:32 as pretty standard
46:34 uh christina i'll turn that over to you
46:36 if you if i
46:37 misspoke or you want to add sure um
46:40 i can add to that i guess generally if
46:43 you find
46:45 a code that is not
46:49 lenient towards buffers that is usually
46:51 for their higher
46:53 category of either wetlands a category 1
46:56 or a shoreline of the state
47:01 if there are you know no exceptions
47:04 to buffers that's generally where you're
47:07 going to find it
47:08 once you move into those lower
47:10 categories
47:11 of protected areas then there's usually
47:14 some ability to work
47:17 on whether it's a reduction whether it's
47:20 averaging
47:23 that sort of thing is usually then
47:25 allowed somewhere
47:27 in the um i guess i'll say the
47:31 the revision timeline that is codes of
47:34 what was before 2014 updates then before
47:38 2018
47:39 updates and everything else that's
47:40 catching up
47:46 and i do believe you might be on mute
47:48 i'm sorry
47:50 all right so is there any opportunity to
47:53 um look at the rest of the city to say
47:56 there will be no buffer averaging
47:57 or buffer reduction so basically the
47:59 buffers that we have today
48:01 are the buffers and that are whatever we
48:03 adopt in title 18 when it goes forward
48:06 what is the risk to the city if we say
48:09 the buffers that we have set in the code
48:10 are the buffers that
48:12 the public and the private entities in
48:16 this community have to adhere to
48:18 i mean i think that um we have allowed a
48:20 lot of averaging and a lot of movement
48:22 around
48:23 and a lot of reductions and it really
48:25 hasn't brought us any wins in terms of
48:27 our critical
48:29 aquifer recharge areas in terms of our
48:31 groundwater recharge in terms of our
48:33 streams and
48:34 and rivers in terms of our water quality
48:36 and our streams and i guess i'm very
48:38 concerned that we continue to talk about
48:41 um reductions for developers
48:44 without saying no sometimes and i think
48:47 we even have to say no
48:49 to public agencies as well
48:52 we all have to be treated the same
48:54 that's just my take on it
48:56 and um on on that note i know there
48:59 are some um jurisdictions where
49:02 they look at essentially where the
49:05 wetland was
49:07 or would be if um no
49:10 infrastructure was put in or was
49:12 existing
49:13 and then if you say okay there's a road
49:15 that has now taken up
49:17 25 of the recommended buffer
49:20 you can't go any further it's not 25
49:23 of the existing buffer with all those
49:26 gaps and everything else applied as
49:28 current infrastructure goes that um city
49:31 tacoma comes to mind um i'm
49:33 working on some stuff in there right now
49:36 where
49:36 they you know take current
49:39 infrastructure at the time of
49:40 application
49:42 into account in that no more than 25
49:45 percent
49:46 reduction is allowed um so i don't know
49:48 if that
49:49 is something that could get at what
49:50 you're
49:52 getting at there um the implication
49:55 um to not allowing any movement of
49:59 or any averaging or
50:03 um reduction measures
50:07 is whether properties would become
50:12 unusable essentially
50:15 i guess and my second question is are
50:18 the codes applied to
50:20 all types of entities
50:23 equally such as you know the school
50:25 district the city
50:26 and private businesses are they
50:28 currently going to be
50:29 currently handled that way in title 18
50:31 when you come in for a permit for a road
50:34 or a utility or a building
50:37 or are they or even a park and is that
50:40 something we're looking to consider as
50:42 we talk about buffers
50:43 that this would apply to all people
50:45 seeking permits within
50:47 including on public agencies within the
50:49 city
50:52 yeah this is mini again um i think i
50:55 believe our code
50:56 has some exemptions for public
50:58 facilities um
51:00 and um and public infrastructure like um
51:03 you know roads and things of that nature
51:06 um so we can certainly um
51:08 you know bring that to the forefront in
51:10 terms of how
51:11 what changes are needed to that um if
51:14 that's the consensus that there should
51:16 not be
51:16 special exemptions for public facilities
51:18 or utilities
51:21 thank you i'd appreciate that those are
51:24 my two questions thank you
51:26 thank you very much uh commissioner
51:28 davidson
51:29 and i missed uh commissioner sarah bader
51:32 sorry about that
51:34 no problem um sarah vader here i have a
51:36 question about the
51:38 fee in lieu of and the mitigation
51:40 banking and
51:42 it sounds like that is kind of a state
51:44 preference and so i'm not sure how much
51:46 we need to
51:48 align with that or if that's something
51:49 that's kind of on the table i'm not sure
51:51 if that's kind of in
51:52 um contrast to these discussions around
51:55 do we want to have any sort of reduction
51:57 in buffers and that sort of thing but um
51:59 if that is something we need to pursue i
52:01 guess i have a question about
52:03 um how that is
52:06 um one does that mean that everything
52:09 just kind of goes into one big bucket
52:11 um and then how is that investment how
52:13 are decisions on kind of where that
52:15 investment goes
52:16 made and is there an ability to kind of
52:18 provide for
52:20 equitable distribution of those
52:21 investments um
52:23 across the community across different
52:26 you know
52:26 areas within that same watershed for
52:29 those funds or do they just
52:31 go sit there and then kind of nobody
52:33 knows um
52:34 whatever happens to them
52:38 christina do you want to take that one
52:41 sure
52:42 so with the federal and state
52:46 agencies they have a preference for
52:50 the mitigation banking in luffy
52:53 that are approved through the state and
52:56 federal
52:56 system so if it hasn't been approved by
52:59 them
53:00 that isn't a recognized option
53:03 then they do allow for on-site
53:07 mitigation then off-site
53:10 and there's some different layers within
53:12 all of that
53:14 so when a state or federally reviewed
53:18 inlu fee program or mitigation bank
53:21 is proposed it's required that they have
53:26 engage the local agencies that would
53:29 be have jurisdiction of where the bank
53:33 is cited
53:34 as well as where the bank or in luffy
53:36 program
53:37 can sell the credits for the mitigation
53:40 and so those jurisdictions are brought
53:43 to the table
53:44 for the review and the approval of those
53:48 entities um so city of issaquah
53:51 if there was a mitigation bank
53:54 proposed either in your jurisdiction
53:58 or if a bank was proposing to sell
54:01 credits within the service area that
54:04 would include the city of israel you
54:05 would be invited to the table you would
54:07 have say
54:08 in how that bank was approved and
54:11 reviewed
54:12 and monitored throughout the life of its
54:15 project
54:16 as well as an in-lu fee program
54:20 so that does take into account those
54:24 local watersheds where that would be
54:28 allowed and
54:32 then i think one of your other questions
54:34 was regarding how the money is
54:36 distributed
54:38 so it's a little bit different for
54:40 mitigation banks than it is for in-law
54:42 fees
54:42 mitigation banks it's an upfront assess
54:46 investment by the banker
54:49 to get the project approved build it
54:53 maintain it operate it and they sell
54:55 credits along the way
54:56 they get credits released piecemeal
54:59 through the
55:00 process as they prove that they've
55:02 achieved certain performance standards
55:05 for in-law fee programs this can only be
55:07 done
55:08 by government agencies or non-profits
55:11 so those are meant to be more of
55:14 a systematic way that jurisdictions
55:17 can handle some of the ongoing
55:20 mitigation needs that they might need
55:22 and money goes into an inle fee program
55:26 must be spent on a site to be mitigated
55:29 constructed within three years
55:32 and that money is tracked so um
55:36 that money doesn't just sit there and
55:38 disappear um
55:40 part of the federal rule that was passed
55:43 in 2008 um required that those financial
55:48 plans and practices be put in place
55:51 because
55:52 there was a history of money going into
55:55 a pot and people
55:57 going bankrupt or leaving and that money
56:00 never going into mitigation so
56:03 if it is a federally approved inlu fee
56:06 or mitigation bank there
56:07 are requirements for that money to be
56:10 spent within a certain amount of time
56:11 on mitigation does that answer all
56:16 yeah yeah that's helpful thank you um
56:18 and so just to confirm then this is not
56:20 something that we're proposing like
56:21 specific
56:22 for the city um it really just applies
56:25 to these state
56:27 um approved projects it it would allow
56:30 if there was a bank or any luffy um
56:33 available within city of visqual limits
56:36 it would allow you to say yes to a
56:39 project that would be
56:41 proposing to have mitigation go to those
56:43 without this
56:45 for those options for example there's
56:47 the king
56:48 county in the fee program um if a
56:51 project were to come forward and say we
56:53 want to buy
56:54 credits from that in-law fee program you
56:57 and they're doing impacts within the
56:59 city of issaquah
57:00 right now there'd be a disconnect where
57:03 federal and state agencies say yes you
57:04 can go to the king county
57:06 in lieu fee program city of issaquah
57:08 would say no you have to mitigate onsite
57:10 or within the sub-watershed and then
57:13 there's a disconnect
57:14 between what the federal and state
57:16 agencies are requiring and what the city
57:18 might be requiring okay thank you
57:24 and thank you commissioner vader okay
57:28 so we are going to move on to
57:31 a question from commissioner lewis again
57:38 i think you met me i'm laura um i'm
57:41 assuming so
57:44 i got joy uh yeah correction uh laura is
57:48 before me thank you chairman
57:50 oh oh you're right sorry thank you sorry
57:54 um hi i am laura i had a couple of
57:58 questions um trying to simplify um first
58:01 of all
58:02 it's exciting to see all the um the
58:05 science
58:06 focus you have so it's really
58:07 encouraging to see that you're working
58:08 really diligently and i appreciate that
58:10 you're making our lives easier so we
58:11 don't have to
58:12 um keep all of the details in our mind
58:16 larger picture i was asking about the
58:18 goals of this
58:19 document and this all the specifics
58:23 overall and one thing um
58:25 that i would like to hear and i don't
58:27 expect you to be able to rattle it off
58:29 today but is how will we know what
58:31 success
58:31 looks like and how we know that we are
58:34 or are not successful
58:35 so we have these goals of being more in
58:37 general sustainable or environmentally
58:39 friendly but it's a there's sort of a
58:41 gap
58:41 between the beginning of
58:44 sort of a situational analysis and then
58:46 this goal of like their the goals are a
58:48 little bit vague i'm sure there are
58:49 details in there but
58:51 i would like to have a little more
58:52 comfort in what those goals are
58:55 um so that we can follow the story and
58:58 also support the story
58:59 um secondly i'm concerned about the
59:01 amount of um
59:04 issues related to sustainability that
59:06 won't necessarily be flagged in code
59:09 um so if i am just keeping on keeping on
59:11 how is
59:13 as you're doing all this detailed
59:15 analysis it would be great if you could
59:17 sort of feed back to us
59:18 um especially from the environmental
59:20 board but also to city council i'm sure
59:22 the different areas that are not being
59:23 addressed and just for transparency say
59:26 these are issues that will continue to
59:28 exist until we do something besides the
59:30 status quo so could we have advocacy
59:32 groups go and target those projects or
59:34 whatever
59:35 um to help us because i know you're
59:36 doing all this analysis so i hate to
59:38 lose all of those insights without
59:39 tracking them
59:40 um and then also
59:44 as part of that just the different areas
59:45 that are segregated so
59:47 habitat corridors and wild and water
59:50 management for example they don't live
59:53 separately an animal and a butterfly
59:55 like they don't know the difference
59:56 between
59:57 where code starts and stops they just
59:59 live where they live
1:00:00 so some of those nuances um it feels a
1:00:02 bit segregated and again that would be
1:00:04 helpful to see how those
1:00:06 the fluidity of like nature and the
1:00:08 dynamics of the world could
1:00:10 are gonna be um incorporated in
1:00:12 something is i know that's just not how
1:00:14 policy and code works but
1:00:15 to understand that context would be
1:00:17 helpful um and then the last
1:00:20 point um unrelated to that is just
1:00:24 um i would like to see for like the
1:00:26 aquifers and the discussion about water
1:00:28 some discussion about fire and drought i
1:00:30 think um
1:00:32 it's inevitable that within the next
1:00:34 five or ten years we're going to have
1:00:36 serious
1:00:37 problems to account for and the world is
1:00:39 on fire and i think we need to be ready
1:00:40 now so i would love to see more
1:00:42 aggressive discussion about conservation
1:00:44 and preparation
1:00:46 at a local very hyper local context so
1:00:49 that we can be prepared for resiliency
1:00:50 down the line
1:00:51 um so it seems like the code is based a
1:00:54 little bit for developers but you know
1:00:55 we are the residents and we need to make
1:00:57 sure we're protecting ourselves
1:00:59 not just for development but also for
1:01:01 resiliency and continuity
1:01:03 um but in general the thing i'd love to
1:01:06 see the most of would be some
1:01:07 feedback on what success looks like
1:01:09 that's it thank you
1:01:14 and thank you very much uh commissioner
1:01:16 levico
1:01:18 sorry about that i got a little confused
1:01:21 here i got a bunch of uh
1:01:22 chats that came to me and directed at me
1:01:26 uh let's see so we're going to move on
1:01:30 a and commissioner zargoza looks like
1:01:34 you're
1:01:35 satisfied with an answer already okay
1:01:37 excellent so we'll skip you
1:01:39 and we have a another question here from
1:01:42 commission
1:01:43 commissioner diana milligan
1:01:47 hi i don't want to take commissioner
1:01:48 lewis's place i'm looking at you joy do
1:01:51 you want to turn
1:01:53 i do but i can go after i'm not in a
1:01:55 rush no you go ahead and then it'll be
1:01:57 me then he can follow the list better
1:01:59 oh i'm sorry i thought joey sent me
1:02:01 never mind
1:02:03 thank you chairfall thank you
1:02:05 commissioner uh nina milligan
1:02:07 i have two questions i think the first
1:02:09 is going to be for katie and the second
1:02:10 is for doug
1:02:11 just to give everybody a heads up but i
1:02:13 do want to make a quick comment
1:02:15 um to nancy's point about exemptions for
1:02:19 buffers
1:02:20 i think she makes a fantastic point um
1:02:22 our partner in the community the school
1:02:24 district
1:02:24 regularly requires us to be giving
1:02:28 exemptions to them
1:02:29 and we know that when they build they
1:02:31 love to build with a lot of asphalt so
1:02:33 i think it's really important to nancy's
1:02:36 point that when we look at these codes
1:02:37 that we look at saying we want everybody
1:02:39 in the community to be playing by the
1:02:41 same rules
1:02:42 especially it's really easy to look at
1:02:44 specific examples right now
1:02:46 at the providence point site with two
1:02:48 schools going up that have
1:02:50 critical saminoid bearing strings
1:02:52 running through them um
1:02:54 that we really need to make a point of
1:02:56 having this title 18
1:02:58 update really apply to all members and
1:03:00 actors in our community and i want to
1:03:02 thank nancy for her comments
1:03:04 um my first question i think is going to
1:03:06 be for katie and that's that on page 13
1:03:08 of our document it starts out by telling
1:03:11 us a little bit about what we can't do
1:03:12 right it says we want you to look at
1:03:14 these things but actually as far as
1:03:16 sustainability goes
1:03:18 we don't want you to be looking at for
1:03:20 instance
1:03:21 um building standards and green codes
1:03:24 and things like that but then on page 68
1:03:26 you give us a pure city of best
1:03:28 practices and you give redmond as an
1:03:29 example of
1:03:30 all this great green building that
1:03:32 they're doing right so it was hard for
1:03:34 me to separate out
1:03:35 a little bit in this packet to have you
1:03:37 tell me don't look at any of this this
1:03:39 isn't what we're doing
1:03:40 but then to give me a hard and concrete
1:03:42 example of a pure city
1:03:44 practice that is all about green
1:03:46 building so
1:03:47 while i can discern that you're asking
1:03:50 me to discuss more like the ecological
1:03:52 choices that they put in
1:03:54 with like landscaping rain water
1:03:56 collection
1:03:57 those kinds of things um i was hoping
1:03:59 that maybe um
1:04:00 this is a little bit too um to lara's
1:04:02 point too if you can kind of talk about
1:04:04 we don't want to talk about this
1:04:06 component yet we know it's important so
1:04:09 when is it going to come up and how does
1:04:10 it come up um
1:04:12 i think would be super helpful
1:04:16 sure thank you for your comment
1:04:18 commissioner lewis and i think we will
1:04:19 get into this a little bit more
1:04:21 when we take up the sustainability topic
1:04:23 which i realize is at the end of the
1:04:25 agenda so
1:04:27 um so you don't have to wait for the
1:04:28 whole night to progress
1:04:30 i can address your question now um the
1:04:33 purpose
1:04:34 so we're we're kind of at the beginning
1:04:37 of figuring
1:04:38 out how to incorporate sustainability
1:04:40 and climate planning into the land use
1:04:42 code update
1:04:43 um the climate action plan is under
1:04:45 development and hasn't
1:04:47 been finished yet and will lean heavily
1:04:49 on the recommendations from that plan to
1:04:51 guide our work
1:04:53 but the purpose of the memo was to
1:04:56 both introduce the menu of options that
1:05:00 cities can choose from when they're
1:05:01 trying to address climate planning and
1:05:03 sustainability
1:05:05 while also um
1:05:08 while also trying to focus on what we
1:05:10 can achieve through the land use code
1:05:12 update
1:05:13 i think that there are ways that we can
1:05:16 develop programs that would bring in
1:05:18 um you know if the developers coming in
1:05:20 for a land use permit
1:05:22 the land use permit is a land use action
1:05:26 it can have requirements that live in
1:05:28 other codes
1:05:29 so we could say you know in order to get
1:05:31 this land use approval
1:05:33 we want you to meet these building code
1:05:35 objectives or these stormwater
1:05:37 objectives
1:05:38 so we wouldn't be working on those
1:05:41 building code and stormwater objectives
1:05:43 through this process i think that the
1:05:46 stormwater update is maybe next on the
1:05:48 list and i'm not sure about the building
1:05:50 code the green building part but
1:05:52 um we could think through the framework
1:05:54 through the code update
1:05:55 and then um have that be part of
1:06:00 what is approved through this body even
1:06:02 if the other strategies aren't quite
1:06:04 there yet but
1:06:05 i i agree that all of these pieces need
1:06:08 to be tracked
1:06:09 um and part of the way we're doing that
1:06:12 is through our
1:06:13 public comment tracking table that we
1:06:15 brought to the ppc
1:06:16 a couple meetings or one meeting ago um
1:06:19 when we get comments that aren't
1:06:21 directly related to title 18 issues
1:06:24 we're still including them in in this
1:06:27 tracking matrix um and we'll make sure
1:06:30 that those get fed to the right
1:06:32 groups that are working on these other
1:06:34 projects outside of the title 18 fd
1:06:39 thank you katie i don't know mindy maybe
1:06:41 if you want to piggyback onto that
1:06:42 and specifically talk about our
1:06:44 stormwater management plan
1:06:46 is being worked on as well as the
1:06:47 climate action plan i know that we're
1:06:49 planning on having another
1:06:51 look at all this in december for another
1:06:52 joint commission
1:06:54 if maybe you want to speak to kind of
1:06:56 availability and data because it's
1:06:57 difficult for us to be able to sit where
1:07:00 we are and likewise with staff right
1:07:01 when we still have these pretty big
1:07:03 pending
1:07:04 um things to be worked out i don't know
1:07:05 if you want to speak to that many
1:07:09 yeah um you know the the stormwater plan
1:07:13 we are coordinating with them uh at the
1:07:15 staff level
1:07:16 um and you know the climate action plan
1:07:19 where we're gonna continually
1:07:21 uh engage with the sustainability staff
1:07:25 at the staff level we are coordinating
1:07:28 our effort so that they title 18 is the
1:07:31 implementation
1:07:32 tool right so every all long-range plans
1:07:36 all of those things then feed into uh
1:07:40 what we how we can implement it so
1:07:43 that that coordinated effort is going to
1:07:45 be there but it's it's continuous
1:07:46 improvement i mean
1:07:48 there's always going to be planning
1:07:50 efforts going on in the city at some
1:07:52 point
1:07:53 um and title 18 isn't going to be set in
1:07:56 stone i mean
1:07:56 as new plans come up we we
1:07:59 this is the reason why it's happening
1:08:02 now in a more comprehensive way is
1:08:03 because it's become a patchwork of
1:08:05 ordinances you know
1:08:07 um all the development agreements then
1:08:08 became replacement regulations and then
1:08:10 we have five different documents
1:08:12 so part of this effort is to kind of
1:08:14 create that framework
1:08:16 that then is aligned with the long-range
1:08:18 plans but it's not
1:08:20 uh it's not going to be that's the way
1:08:23 it is for the next 20 years so there'll
1:08:25 always be that continuous improvement as
1:08:27 new plans and are developed climate
1:08:29 action plan or
1:08:30 storm water plan those will inform some
1:08:32 of the future updates
1:08:36 thank you minnie uh my second question
1:08:39 which i think
1:08:39 maybe is for doug um but on page 28 you
1:08:43 guys are specifically asking us to
1:08:45 comment on the dnr stream
1:08:47 classifications
1:08:48 but earlier in the document you
1:08:50 referenced that there's also the
1:08:51 national hydro um
1:08:53 what might look certainly my my chicken
1:08:54 scratch um the natural um
1:08:58 hydra phytography data set um and i was
1:09:01 hoping i sent an email asking to clarify
1:09:03 the difference between the two
1:09:05 um and trying to understand that stream
1:09:07 classification better to be able to
1:09:08 answer the question
1:09:15 yeah i don't know are you going to speak
1:09:16 to that or do you want me to take
1:09:18 i was going to actually pass it off to
1:09:19 somebody else uh
1:09:21 sure um so you know yes they
1:09:24 um it is herrera could christina could
1:09:27 answer that as well but they're both
1:09:29 similar those two methodologies that the
1:09:31 state uses
1:09:32 are very similar is my understanding
1:09:38 uh yes they're generally similar it's
1:09:41 a bit of terminology and um
1:09:45 our recommendation is the
1:09:49 state water
1:09:53 type and
1:09:56 that is more cohesively used across the
1:10:00 state
1:10:01 most jurisdictions are adopting that and
1:10:04 leaving the
1:10:05 classification system that the that
1:10:07 israel currently has
1:10:08 and moving towards that cohesive
1:10:12 state water type classification
1:10:18 so like i said on page 28 question
1:10:20 number two should the city use the dnr
1:10:22 water type classifications and revise
1:10:24 stream rating systems
1:10:25 so our gas analysis tells us that yes
1:10:28 we have overlooked this yes it needs
1:10:30 correction but it's hard for me to
1:10:32 actually give you an
1:10:33 answer when i don't know what my options
1:10:34 are right so what is the difference
1:10:37 um between you know the nhd versus the
1:10:40 right so you're saying they're pretty
1:10:41 similar but how are you know
1:10:44 if we're choosing one versus another
1:10:47 does one give us different
1:10:48 slightly different coverage maybe that's
1:10:49 slightly different matters
1:10:52 so one of um the ways that they're
1:10:55 different
1:10:55 is in the classification
1:10:59 or definition of streams that have
1:11:04 fish in them one separates salmonids
1:11:07 other fish recognizes that versus
1:11:11 the state water type
1:11:14 classifies all fish bearing streams into
1:11:17 a single
1:11:18 f classification and then you go into
1:11:21 those streams which are not fish bearing
1:11:24 and whether those are perennial
1:11:26 run all year round or whether they're
1:11:29 seasonal
1:11:30 come and go depending on dry
1:11:33 season so it's a little bit of a
1:11:39 more condensed classification okay
1:11:42 so right now we um we know uh from our
1:11:45 packet that all six of our streams
1:11:47 are stamina bearing so therefore it
1:11:50 means that it really wouldn't matter
1:11:52 what the designation is between
1:11:54 um whether it be like trout right and
1:11:56 non-salmon
1:11:57 like a non-salmon fish right fish
1:11:59 bearing or not we know all of ours are
1:12:01 so is that why it's kind of moon
1:12:02 um no the streams that many
1:12:06 identified in the beginning are your
1:12:09 significant streams
1:12:11 there are those streams are the ones
1:12:14 that are
1:12:14 would be perennial running year-round
1:12:18 the map that was shown does not quantify
1:12:22 all of those uh seasonal streams
1:12:26 that feed into those larger stream
1:12:29 systems so
1:12:31 those named streams are your significant
1:12:34 named streams in your jurisdiction there
1:12:37 are several
1:12:38 tributaries to those that
1:12:42 um would be your class three class four
1:12:45 which would be all sort of rolled into a
1:12:48 non-fish bearing
1:12:49 stream okay so help me sorry again
1:12:52 this is uh just me trying to get an
1:12:54 educational background
1:12:56 on how to be able to distinguish of
1:12:58 whether to adopt the dnr
1:13:00 right we know that we have this gap
1:13:02 we're wanting to meet the need
1:13:04 but knowing which tool to use is where
1:13:07 i'm a little bit confused right rather
1:13:08 than just saying yes to dnr
1:13:10 if there's another one that works better
1:13:12 for us based on the particularities of
1:13:14 our community is what i'm kind of
1:13:16 trying to get especially because when we
1:13:17 start talking about these tributaries
1:13:19 right that are seasonal
1:13:20 um they may look more like a wetland but
1:13:23 they are
1:13:24 a seasonal creek right and so how they
1:13:26 function
1:13:27 is different than how maybe the public
1:13:29 may perceive them as we have creek beds
1:13:31 that are going to
1:13:32 change ebb and flow as far as how
1:13:34 they're running so
1:13:35 i'm curious how we um from where we're
1:13:38 sitting in our commissions and boards be
1:13:40 able to evaluate what is the best
1:13:42 measure for this classification
1:13:48 so what i'm hearing is that there
1:13:52 maybe is the whether something is
1:13:55 classified as a stream
1:13:57 defined as a stream versus how it is
1:14:03 rated compared to other streams
1:14:08 so once something has bed and bank
1:14:12 and has flow in it then you've got a
1:14:14 stream
1:14:15 then you figure out okay which
1:14:17 classification do
1:14:18 we want to use um versus if there is no
1:14:22 bed and bank
1:14:23 there is no flow that's under wetlands
1:14:27 if it meets the other wetland conditions
1:14:30 um is that
1:14:33 am i here well i mean like if you have a
1:14:35 couple places in the city where
1:14:37 you can follow the flow of a tributary
1:14:40 and you can
1:14:40 go you know to you know 200 yards and
1:14:43 see that's where it's flowing and then
1:14:45 back up and be able to say oh here's
1:14:46 where it's collected and looks like a
1:14:48 wetland
1:14:48 it's still the same stream but how it's
1:14:50 navigating this and the seasonality that
1:14:52 how it's being impacted on it
1:14:54 looks different in the community right
1:14:56 and so being able to say there is no bed
1:14:58 and bag here
1:14:59 but there is here but it's the same
1:15:01 stream how do we have
1:15:02 how do we differentiate in that
1:15:04 classification to be able to put into
1:15:06 our code so that when you have
1:15:08 one slice of land and you look at you
1:15:10 say there's no bed and bank so it's a
1:15:12 wetland i have a different buffer
1:15:13 but you say no it's part of the same
1:15:15 tributary you need to look elsewhere
1:15:16 this is where your standards are right
1:15:18 so how we classify
1:15:19 our you know our non-fish bearing
1:15:21 streams is what i'm curious about
1:15:23 how to get up because you specifically
1:15:25 asked us should we use the dnr
1:15:26 and i'm sitting here going i don't know
1:15:28 what's my other option what is the
1:15:30 difference between one versus another
1:15:33 um so maybe christine i can so your
1:15:36 options are you can leave the
1:15:37 classification that are currently
1:15:39 in in in the code or you make it
1:15:42 consistent with how
1:15:44 it's done at the state level but
1:15:46 whatever we call it
1:15:47 whether it's the dnr or the other one
1:15:49 there's not much of a
1:15:51 difference but there's slight difference
1:15:53 but there's not much of a difference the
1:15:55 question really is do we want to be
1:15:58 consistent with the way it's done at the
1:16:00 state level because when you're doing
1:16:02 impacting actual work in the stream
1:16:04 sometimes you have to get state permits
1:16:05 and hpas and things like that from the
1:16:07 state
1:16:08 so some consistency is desired between
1:16:11 local and state regulations
1:16:14 but we don't have to we can you know we
1:16:17 don't have to gen
1:16:18 call it the same way it's an option for
1:16:20 city of issaquah so
1:16:21 those are the options i think we've laid
1:16:22 out uh we can discuss this topic
1:16:25 further if you know i mean in terms of
1:16:27 the comparisons and stuff if that's
1:16:29 desired for the future between different
1:16:30 typologies and what they mean
1:16:32 but at the end of the day it's really
1:16:34 the buffers and what's allowed
1:16:36 um that's going to make a difference
1:16:38 what we call it um
1:16:39 what classification helps being
1:16:42 consistent with state
1:16:44 typologies and ratings but but it's not
1:16:47 that critical in terms of
1:16:48 whether it's a question do it or not
1:16:51 thank you minnie and christina
1:16:56 thank you commissioner lewis are you
1:16:59 satisfied with the answers you received
1:17:02 excellent those are great questions by
1:17:04 the way and we have heard some great
1:17:05 answers
1:17:07 okay we are moving on to uh
1:17:11 commissioner danny maiden i think we
1:17:16 need to go back to commissioner milligan
1:17:19 oh i'm sorry
1:17:22 this isn't working out so well i need a
1:17:24 new system here
1:17:26 okay go ahead and commissioner mill
1:17:28 again thank you chair fall
1:17:30 commissioner nina milligan here uh i
1:17:32 have three
1:17:34 questions um the first one is procedural
1:17:37 and i think goes to planner leasing
1:17:39 and that is i i might not be the only
1:17:42 commissioner
1:17:43 board member here who has a lot to say
1:17:46 tonight and is gathering their thoughts
1:17:48 we're having questions now and then
1:17:50 we're going to hear from the public
1:17:52 tell us the best way for us to provide
1:17:56 our feedback
1:17:57 after this meeting do we direct it
1:18:00 straight to you do we direct it to the
1:18:01 entire commission so other commissioners
1:18:03 hear us
1:18:04 that sort of thing that's question
1:18:06 number one question number two
1:18:10 i want to follow up on board member
1:18:12 davidson's question
1:18:14 especially because of part of the answer
1:18:17 this kind of um just a
1:18:21 tweak on the question if we were
1:18:24 to remove off-site mitigation of any
1:18:29 be in lieu mitigation and buffer
1:18:32 reductions
1:18:33 if we just had reductions i mean had
1:18:36 buffers
1:18:36 and there are no exceptions is there any
1:18:40 to the city and leverage that part of
1:18:43 the answer that said that this might
1:18:45 make a property
1:18:46 unusable are there property rights
1:18:49 things that could come back to bite us
1:18:51 that's the kind of way that i'm asking
1:18:52 that question if we wanted to go that
1:18:56 what are our risks that's number two and
1:18:59 my third question
1:19:00 has to do with
1:19:05 implementing requirements for the
1:19:07 quality
1:19:08 of buffers
1:19:12 we have in our code or options to
1:19:15 increase the quality and functionality
1:19:18 of a buffer
1:19:20 in lieu of the size of the buffer
1:19:23 but could we have both could you have
1:19:25 increased functionality and
1:19:27 state the line with the size of the
1:19:30 buffer
1:19:32 that's my three questions thank you
1:19:37 so this is kristin leeson senior planner
1:19:39 and i can actually answer your first two
1:19:41 questions so
1:19:42 i think for the first one about all of
1:19:44 your thoughts and collecting your
1:19:45 thoughts after this meeting
1:19:47 um i don't i would prefer that you all
1:19:50 send them to
1:19:51 minnie and to me and what we will do
1:19:54 instead of just
1:19:55 everybody getting all these random
1:19:56 things we can collect them and maybe
1:19:59 um group them by category or something
1:20:01 like that and then distribute them
1:20:03 before our next meeting which is on
1:20:04 august 12th minnie are you okay with
1:20:06 yeah and we can include it in the
1:20:08 package so the members of the
1:20:09 community also have answers to you yeah
1:20:12 we'll send it to the environmental board
1:20:13 as well since you all are here too and
1:20:14 environmental board uh feel free to send
1:20:16 your comments to us as well that doesn't
1:20:18 that wasn't just for ppc that's for you
1:20:20 as well
1:20:21 um and then for the second one you have
1:20:24 to allow a property reasonable use
1:20:26 you can't just say
1:20:29 you're and somebody else can address
1:20:30 this better than me but you have to
1:20:32 have to allow for reasonable use on a
1:20:34 property so you can't just say nope
1:20:36 you're completely covered with
1:20:37 environmental critical areas you can't
1:20:39 do anything sorry
1:20:41 there have to be exceptions so those are
1:20:44 my answers to the first two
1:20:49 i'll answer the third one um this is
1:20:53 so your question was implementing the
1:20:55 quality and the functionality of the
1:20:57 buffers
1:20:57 so you can require if you have
1:21:01 a a stream or a wetland or on your
1:21:04 property
1:21:05 and you're developing it regardless of
1:21:07 whether you are
1:21:10 you know right now the code says if you
1:21:12 do if you're asking for a buffer
1:21:13 reduction
1:21:15 uh you have to improve the the buffer
1:21:18 um the city could choose to say if there
1:21:20 is a critical area on your property you
1:21:22 need to replant
1:21:23 you know if it's if it's full of
1:21:25 invasives and and
1:21:27 and such that you need to upgrade it and
1:21:29 plant it and monitor it
1:21:30 regardless of the wetland buffer uh
1:21:33 request um so i think that
1:21:37 that's basically what your question was
1:21:41 i do have one thing to add about sending
1:21:43 in comments if you could send those in
1:21:45 by say august 3rd then we'd be able to
1:21:48 get them in the packet next time
1:21:51 august 3rd is your deadline thank you
1:21:54 kristen
1:21:56 and thank you very much uh commissioner
1:21:57 milligan were those answers to your
1:21:59 satisfaction
1:22:02 you know the other thing i would add to
1:22:03 sending your questions if you
1:22:05 just want to get hold of us and you
1:22:07 didn't get a chance to ask you a
1:22:09 question today
1:22:10 and and you need some more educational
1:22:14 piece or just have some questions were
1:22:17 there
1:22:18 feel free to email you know we'll
1:22:20 include it in the packet if you don't
1:22:21 want it included and just want to have a
1:22:22 conversation we're happy to talk to you
1:22:25 uh outside of the meeting as well
1:22:29 excellent thank you uh uh planner
1:22:32 donnelly well
1:22:32 uh okay commissioner danny maiden
1:22:36 now we're coming back to you um
1:22:39 hi this is danny thank you so much for
1:22:41 all of your hard work um i just have a
1:22:43 quick one
1:22:44 um you touched on this a little bit in
1:22:46 the presentation um but i am curious
1:22:48 about
1:22:48 um like the difference in land intensity
1:22:51 and isoqual like is
1:22:52 it um a substantial level and
1:22:55 i also wonder if there is like any way
1:22:59 you can quantify the efficacy of like
1:23:02 the different
1:23:03 um options uh this is specifically
1:23:05 concerning like the wetland
1:23:07 um your first policy uh question
1:23:10 and i i'm just curious about like
1:23:12 generally is there more evidence that
1:23:14 a more nuanced approach would be more
1:23:16 effective in this
1:23:18 um uh for like wetland buffers um
1:23:22 and yeah that's
1:23:26 i'll start and then christina feel free
1:23:28 to pitch in um
1:23:29 the more nuanced approach obviously
1:23:31 gives more options
1:23:33 and and it it gives you a chance to look
1:23:35 at what's really on the ground
1:23:37 uh the the problem with it is it is a
1:23:40 little bit more complicated and it's
1:23:42 um you know there's more um back and
1:23:45 forth in terms of what the
1:23:46 what the different options are but but
1:23:48 it does give you more
1:23:49 more options the other part of your
1:23:53 question was
1:23:54 uh the efficacy of one uh versus the
1:23:57 other
1:23:58 so the the ecology's high medium and low
1:24:02 intensity
1:24:03 uh when you look at that list the high
1:24:05 intensities all your commercial
1:24:06 development all your residential
1:24:08 development and medium is if you have
1:24:10 one house per one acre which
1:24:12 you know maybe there's some properties
1:24:13 that that could probably come into play
1:24:16 and then the low impact is really open
1:24:18 space and parks and trails
1:24:20 um so any kind of major development
1:24:23 would still have those
1:24:24 uh the the topper um top category for
1:24:27 the wetlands
1:24:28 for the buffers in most in 99
1:24:31 of the cases the the high intensity is
1:24:33 where most of the development would fall
1:24:35 under
1:24:35 for escort
1:24:44 that concludes my answer did that does
1:24:47 it help did i answer your question
1:24:49 yep thank you so much excellent
1:24:52 and thank you so that is it for the
1:24:54 questions on this topic
1:24:56 uh are there any more questions before
1:24:58 we move on to the next topic
1:25:01 okay so the time is 7 55 just letting
1:25:04 everyone know
1:25:05 um minnie go ahead and
1:25:10 proceed to the next topic
1:25:15 thank you cheerful are we uh are you
1:25:17 gonna
1:25:18 have public comments on this topic i
1:25:20 think
1:25:21 yes let's go sorry
1:25:25 um i've got a lot of things going on
1:25:27 here i'm getting distracted uh let's go
1:25:29 ahead and open it up to
1:25:30 public comment uh regarding this topic
1:25:34 and kristin do we have any members of
1:25:36 the public that would like to speak
1:25:38 today
1:25:43 i was having trouble unmeeting um let me
1:25:46 we have one if you would like to speak
1:25:48 if you could please raise your virtual
1:25:51 and if you it's hard to find if you
1:25:53 can't find it if you could just send a
1:25:55 message to me the host
1:25:57 and say comment then i will let you
1:26:00 speak but first up we have
1:26:02 connie marsh bonnie i am
1:26:05 making you a panelist
1:26:08 and i can find you i will unmute you
1:26:14 there you are
1:26:20 wait a minute so i'm going to shot on
1:26:25 one a white buffer is a con so
1:26:29 i disagree with the slides indentation
1:26:32 and sort of the position that you took
1:26:36 uh slide presentation the buffer
1:26:39 reduction in the city has
1:26:41 is not 25 percent it is 25
1:26:46 of only 25 of the buffer and so so
1:26:50 actually a small
1:26:51 region that is currently allowed so
1:26:55 by saying 25 that is incorrect
1:26:58 so you can't sit over and over and over
1:27:01 again
1:27:03 um the washington
1:27:07 state uh fisheries department
1:27:11 actually is probably the clearest
1:27:15 concept of how to protect our fisheries
1:27:18 in this distance yet i don't see
1:27:21 the dress very much so
1:27:25 here we go uh we need to have a standard
1:27:29 wider buffer now kristen said
1:27:33 you can't do that without the ability
1:27:36 to reduce we have a variance process in
1:27:39 the various process
1:27:40 this is the lead process that allows
1:27:42 people to have
1:27:43 people accessing their land if they have
1:27:46 one percent
1:27:48 uh 100 critical area trained
1:27:51 property that does not mean you have to
1:27:53 allow them to reduce their
1:27:55 buffers via your code as long as you
1:27:58 allow them
1:28:00 would be currently the variant process
1:28:04 um we
1:28:08 are a rarity and that our entire valley
1:28:12 floor is connected to the shipping of
1:28:15 population and are some monitoring
1:28:18 streams
1:28:19 uh much of it and anytime you get a
1:28:21 flood connection and we stream or a
1:28:24 wetland you have
1:28:25 sounded connections and the ability
1:28:29 to be sim bearing so all of these these
1:28:32 things you call
1:28:33 uh if they are connected to a
1:28:38 string
1:28:39 via a hundred year flood that that means
1:28:42 they are
1:28:43 selling varying and should considered
1:28:46 as such and so when you knew
1:28:49 about the uh feds
1:28:52 or the state government needing to have
1:28:56 a mitigation bank
1:28:58 our floor is basically one big
1:29:01 huge grand habitat area with the state
1:29:05 park tibbetts valley etiquette creek
1:29:08 um the main stem of this aquaponic creek
1:29:11 the earth
1:29:12 and our remaining e4 natural
1:29:15 wild salmon scene are our
1:29:19 massive habitat there is absolutely no
1:29:22 reason that we would be
1:29:24 taking our tap tap improve groups and
1:29:27 putting their
1:29:28 them anywhere else if we could create a
1:29:31 mitigation
1:29:33 order to do that but it is better to get
1:29:36 them to connect to the exact places
1:29:38 where they
1:29:39 could possibly be being impacted
1:29:42 so i resist uh a change in any of that
1:29:48 um oh look i'm nipping through my pages
1:29:51 when we just we look at this and look at
1:29:54 ditches that we in issaquah fish
1:29:57 wildlife consider that
1:29:59 really all of our leaf floored
1:30:02 this with a very very tiny subset
1:30:07 ours are some on airing so when you talk
1:30:11 fish and wildlife they're saying i don't
1:30:13 even know
1:30:14 talking about when you knew that these
1:30:16 are not bearing
1:30:18 uh habitat areas we are better off
1:30:21 looking at
1:30:22 our and saying how do we miss so
1:30:25 that that can actually accommodate
1:30:27 our fish more elegantly and the more
1:30:31 healthy things he can continue to have a
1:30:33 salmon populate in the future
1:30:35 than to say wow we just should we just
1:30:38 ignore the fish
1:30:39 even there um i'm adamantly opposed to
1:30:44 um and when you look at the
1:30:59 so we need to raise our uh
1:31:03 category four streams up to something
1:31:06 that is protected and has a buffalo
1:31:09 because right now it doesn't
1:31:11 that would be um honey
1:31:15 going to interrupt you for one second um
1:31:17 and ask the commissioners and board
1:31:18 members connie's voice is a little
1:31:20 kind of bubbly i want to make sure that
1:31:21 you all understand what she's saying is
1:31:23 coming through
1:31:25 no okay um that
1:31:32 uh okay yeah i can try calling back
1:31:36 that was my suggestion was going to be
1:31:38 to try and call back and you could
1:31:40 finish up your comments
1:31:41 um after the next section they do the
1:31:44 first part
1:31:45 part that's the point right so
1:31:48 okay okay thank you connie
1:32:01 and now no one else has their hand
1:32:02 raised to speak and i can let connie
1:32:04 finish
1:32:05 after our next section when she calls
1:32:06 back in
1:32:08 um i'm going to ask one more time is
1:32:11 there anyone else who would like to
1:32:11 speak
1:32:18 okay i'm not seeing anyone okay
1:32:22 excellent now in the beginning of this
1:32:24 commission i
1:32:25 did lay out that we would have
1:32:29 commissioner questions then we have
1:32:32 public comment
1:32:32 and then we would have discussion
1:32:36 so do any of the commissioners have any
1:32:39 discussions they would like to make
1:32:41 before we move on to the next topic we
1:32:44 are at eight o'clock
1:32:53 hearing none uh we will go ahead and
1:32:56 give the floor back to
1:32:57 uh planner uh mini dollywood
1:33:00 so she can go ahead and present on the
1:33:03 next topic
1:33:04 commissioner lewis does have one comment
1:33:08 excellent and go ahead and commissioner
1:33:10 lewis thank you commissioner joy lewis
1:33:12 you know to nina's point about how to
1:33:14 submit um
1:33:16 the feedback right i think that
1:33:17 something that's very important in the
1:33:18 role that we do is that when staff asks
1:33:20 us for an opinion that we give it
1:33:22 um and there's you know easily three to
1:33:25 five questions per
1:33:26 section right tonight and so i was
1:33:28 actually going to suggest that maybe if
1:33:30 kristen and minnie can put together a
1:33:31 brief
1:33:32 questionnaire that obviously we would
1:33:34 need to reference our packet and be able
1:33:35 to speak confidently
1:33:36 separately but being able to say here
1:33:38 are the questions that we're looking for
1:33:40 feedback from and kind of be able to
1:33:41 distill it down
1:33:42 so that we can easily say here's where
1:33:45 we're at right so that when we email and
1:33:46 contact you we're able to address
1:33:48 everything that you're asking for rather
1:33:50 than maybe just the particular passions
1:33:52 that we have when going through the
1:33:53 packet
1:33:54 i think might be helpful in trying to
1:33:56 get a complete um
1:33:58 vision of what these two um boards what
1:34:01 our board and commissions are kind of
1:34:02 looking at at this very dense packet i
1:34:04 think may be helpful
1:34:09 sure i think we can put put those in a
1:34:13 packet or
1:34:14 a survey format uh
1:34:17 christian heavy um
1:34:20 we'll get we'll get that uh simulated
1:34:23 and distributed and then you can give us
1:34:25 the feedback that way
1:34:26 i think that's a good suggestion thank
1:34:28 you i'm seeing a lot of heads nod to
1:34:30 that one
1:34:31 so i think to nina i see there
1:34:35 and and sarah and myself so
1:34:38 i think that would be great feedback uh
1:34:41 okay so we
1:34:42 right after just when i said that there
1:34:44 wasn't going to be any more comments
1:34:46 we have a bunch of comments uh so we
1:34:47 have looks like a comment from
1:34:50 um commissioner nancy davidson all right
1:34:56 my question has been answered with uh
1:34:58 the survey that's going to go out i was
1:35:00 just trying to figure out how to get
1:35:01 comments in an
1:35:02 efficient way and consistent so thank
1:35:04 you excellent
1:35:05 thank you uh commissioner davidson uh in
1:35:08 another comment or
1:35:09 just comment here from commissioner
1:35:11 jamie fitch
1:35:14 thank you chair paul um jamie finch
1:35:16 speaking
1:35:17 i do think and this goes back to one of
1:35:19 my my earlier questions
1:35:22 i do think for us to be able to make
1:35:23 comment and really ultimately make
1:35:25 decisions on any of these topics
1:35:27 a more holistic inventory of the
1:35:30 existing
1:35:30 land uh the different critical areas
1:35:34 and how these different decisions would
1:35:36 impact those critical areas are critical
1:35:38 to us being able to
1:35:40 really have an educated uh approach to
1:35:43 answering these questions so that would
1:35:45 be one of my
1:35:46 my biggest points of feedback is is that
1:35:49 i really think that
1:35:50 without that we are doing this in a in a
1:35:53 vacuum making decisions in a vacuum and
1:35:56 i i think that's a
1:35:57 piece that we should look into
1:35:59 addressing
1:36:00 thank you sure um thank you uh
1:36:03 commissioner
1:36:04 um i think we can um take that feedback
1:36:07 and see what's uh possible um
1:36:11 and then see if we can put in a link to
1:36:13 a gis system where some of that anal you
1:36:15 know you could look up a property and
1:36:17 put the layers on you know that's one
1:36:19 opportunity we could look at
1:36:21 creating static maps for different
1:36:23 options one two and three
1:36:25 once we get to the point where we know
1:36:27 what the buffers and things like that
1:36:29 we're looking for
1:36:30 the inventory of streams is good i think
1:36:33 the the wetland inventory we don't know
1:36:36 all of them
1:36:36 but at least some sample prop uh you
1:36:40 city owned properties and things like
1:36:41 that that we can take and do some
1:36:43 analysis that might help
1:36:50 thank you
1:37:00 all right thank you very much
1:37:01 commissioner finch uh so i
1:37:03 do have a question here what i'm looking
1:37:07 page 23 number one stream buffers
1:37:11 and here we are looking at class 2
1:37:14 fish bearing city visiqual watercourse
1:37:17 buffer is 100 feet
1:37:20 uh sample buffer ranges is between 100
1:37:22 and 165.
1:37:24 uh when i go down to the issaquah creek
1:37:28 i notice there are quite a few
1:37:29 properties that are actually
1:37:32 well within the sample buffer
1:37:35 in fact i know of a couple buildings are
1:37:38 actually
1:37:38 on the creek one has a deck that hangs
1:37:41 over the creek so
1:37:42 if these properties
1:37:47 which are very small are
1:37:50 more than 50 impacted by this
1:37:54 how are we going to address those
1:37:55 properties if they decide they want to
1:37:58 remodel or even just moving forward we
1:38:01 deem that the properties themselves
1:38:03 are actually um
1:38:06 dangerous to the buffers
1:38:10 yeah policy guidance and how we should
1:38:12 address those if we should be buying
1:38:14 those properties back
1:38:16 eminent domain but i know
1:38:19 one property that recently went up for
1:38:21 sale and the city was not interested in
1:38:22 purchasing it
1:38:23 and it is actually literally on the
1:38:25 creek
1:38:27 yeah so for existing non-conforming
1:38:30 situations if someone has a home that's
1:38:32 in the buffer
1:38:33 um the the non-conforming chapter has a
1:38:35 critical areas section so we will
1:38:37 include that in the first draft and it
1:38:40 covers
1:38:40 a lot of you know you're allowed to
1:38:43 maintain you're
1:38:44 allowed to upgrade uh you you're not
1:38:46 allowed you may be allowed to expand on
1:38:49 the other side of the house
1:38:51 uh not towards the creek in a very
1:38:53 limited kind of fashion so if you wanted
1:38:55 to you know
1:38:56 those are policy choices that can come
1:38:58 into play
1:39:01 if you have an impervious surface if you
1:39:02 have a patio and you want to
1:39:04 cover that patio those kind of
1:39:06 improvements generally for single-family
1:39:08 homes
1:39:08 are permitted under the non-conforming
1:39:11 provisions because
1:39:12 it is in a pre-existing situation you
1:39:14 can tie
1:39:15 in improving your buffer existing buffer
1:39:18 in order to do that so there may be some
1:39:21 policies choices related to that that we
1:39:23 can look into
1:39:26 okay all right i just think i haven't
1:39:28 seen anything or
1:39:29 any discussion about how to deal with
1:39:31 that so thank you for that feedback
1:39:33 okay with that um i'm gonna go ahead and
1:39:36 let's move on to the next topic
1:39:41 so the next topic i'm going to share my
1:39:43 screen again here
1:39:45 is geologically
1:39:49 hazardous areas so we've covered
1:39:53 the four critical areas
1:39:57 and now these are different in the sense
1:40:01 they impact public life and safety
1:40:06 and in here see if i can expand
1:40:10 so uh areas that can lead to erosion
1:40:13 steep slopes landslides liquefaction
1:40:17 um coal mine and in case of earthquake
1:40:20 you know those kind of hazardous areas
1:40:23 um that are also regulated and here the
1:40:27 bar is a little bit
1:40:29 higher in terms of uh you know what
1:40:31 happens from a
1:40:32 safety perspective it's not just a
1:40:35 standard buffer
1:40:36 for habitat protection and other things
1:40:39 for the critical area but
1:40:40 also for for these other factors
1:40:46 and there is guidance best available
1:40:49 science and we've included some of those
1:40:50 links uh we have uh jim johnson here in
1:40:53 attendance he's with golder associates
1:40:56 and they have done a lot of work in uh
1:40:58 essaquah doing peer review of
1:41:00 development projects over the years and
1:41:02 are well versed with
1:41:04 what some of those challenges are
1:41:08 and and you know the packet uh
1:41:11 included some of their history of some
1:41:13 of the
1:41:14 the landslides and other things that
1:41:16 they have included in their packet
1:41:19 so the city's vision for is to conserve
1:41:21 and protect environmental critical areas
1:41:24 and the goals and outcomes chart from
1:41:26 the council specifically let's protect
1:41:28 forested hillsides
1:41:31 you know protect these areas from loss
1:41:33 modernize the code
1:41:34 and such the state law
1:41:39 addresses geologists and the specialty
1:41:42 and one of the thing one of the gaps
1:41:44 that has been identified
1:41:46 is because of the unique challenges in
1:41:48 isoqua of these
1:41:50 these areas just having a geotechnical
1:41:53 engineer
1:41:54 sometimes is is not all adequate
1:41:58 that we need to have some additional
1:42:00 guidance or require
1:42:02 you know uh ability in the code to
1:42:04 require hydrogeologists and
1:42:06 and such that can that have a focus on
1:42:09 seepage through hillsides and things of
1:42:11 that nature
1:42:12 um and you know i'm not going to read
1:42:15 through all of these
1:42:16 um but these are all in your packet um
1:42:18 the erosion
1:42:19 and um you know what how do we define
1:42:22 the the role of the technical reviewers
1:42:26 um what are some slope stability
1:42:28 measures that can be included
1:42:32 and such um i'm going to move on to
1:42:36 um sorry about that
1:42:40 our update approach uh so um cauldron
1:42:43 associates has
1:42:44 identified these eight topics the first
1:42:47 one is
1:42:48 should the role of a professional
1:42:50 geologist engineering geologist and
1:42:52 hydro
1:42:52 geologist be recognized in the code like
1:42:55 i mentioned
1:42:56 we have some really challenging slopes
1:42:59 and we need some uh ability in the code
1:43:02 to require some of these specialists
1:43:05 for looking at some of the technical
1:43:07 details
1:43:09 and then there's the question about uh
1:43:11 currently we have a
1:43:13 50-foot buffer um from a steep slope 40
1:43:17 or more should this be mandated
1:43:21 a lot of times the the code allows um
1:43:24 you know on a side by side cases for
1:43:26 this buffer to be reduced
1:43:29 should it be you know should reductions
1:43:31 not be allowed at all
1:43:33 um should these buffers be higher for
1:43:35 certain
1:43:36 uh areas that demand a little bit larger
1:43:39 buffer because of those underlying
1:43:41 hazards i think there's a focus in in
1:43:44 the golden outcomes chart
1:43:47 for this title 18 update about retaining
1:43:50 alternatives obviously these would live
1:43:54 in the development standards section not
1:43:56 in the critical area code
1:43:57 but what are some alternatives that
1:43:59 should be discussed
1:44:00 um you know slopes uh terraces
1:44:04 aesthetically treating the walls
1:44:07 those kind of alternatives from
1:44:10 a steep a one tall retaining wall
1:44:14 we also are going to address the the
1:44:17 buffers
1:44:18 for engineered slopes so right now
1:44:21 there's some confusion in the code
1:44:23 if it was an engineered slope not a
1:44:25 naturally occurring slope does it also
1:44:27 need to meet 50-foot buffer
1:44:29 a lot of times we have them go through a
1:44:31 peer-review and then it's determined
1:44:33 that the 50-foot buffer is not needed
1:44:36 um it may be more streamlined to look at
1:44:38 some of these engineering
1:44:40 um the slopes that were previously
1:44:42 engineered
1:44:44 whether it makes sense to have the
1:44:45 50-foot buffer on those to begin with um
1:44:49 low impact development you know is as
1:44:52 and desired outcome how do we minimize
1:44:54 the cuts and higher retaining walls
1:44:57 um one of the community feedback i've
1:45:00 received so far is that a lot of
1:45:02 times uh these cuts and retaining walls
1:45:04 are related to the access roads
1:45:07 so we need to look at con you know
1:45:10 take take a look at what are some of the
1:45:12 requirements for these access roads
1:45:14 particularly from let's say a fire
1:45:16 department requirement no more than 15
1:45:18 percent slope
1:45:19 and what does that do to the cut and
1:45:21 fill and how how do those two interplay
1:45:25 we need to address the regrading
1:45:27 [Music]
1:45:29 of the steep slopes should those be
1:45:30 allowed or not uh
1:45:32 consider standardized peer review um
1:45:36 right now we sometimes uh require a
1:45:39 double peer review
1:45:40 and sometimes i think the policy was
1:45:42 changed to require
1:45:43 two uh specialists look at everything
1:45:46 uh does it you know is that does that
1:45:48 really give us what we're looking for or
1:45:50 is it just an additional process that
1:45:52 was added
1:45:53 uh maybe some for some of you know a
1:45:55 criteria could be established when a
1:45:57 double peer review makes sense but not
1:45:59 for all
1:46:00 um and then of course the mapping
1:46:03 exercise
1:46:04 you know there's a lot of information
1:46:05 that jim has included in his memo
1:46:08 that discusses um coal mine hazards and
1:46:11 and you know it's obviously a big effort
1:46:13 but how do we maintain some of those
1:46:19 you know areas that we already know of
1:46:21 we have some gis
1:46:22 layers that are based on lidar data and
1:46:25 such from
1:46:26 the state but what additional effort is
1:46:29 needed
1:46:30 um so with that i think i'm going to
1:46:32 conclude i think this
1:46:34 slide shows you um you know
1:46:37 a lot of area in the city this little
1:46:40 pie chart here
1:46:41 you know thirteen percent of land area
1:46:43 and is coal mine hazards
1:46:45 twenty eight percent is liquefaction uh
1:46:47 ten percent
1:46:48 are mapped landslides um
1:46:51 and then forty nine percent is the
1:46:53 non-geological
1:46:54 critical areas but it doesn't include
1:46:56 the steep slope so if you add the steep
1:46:58 slopes it's pretty much
1:47:00 a lot of area the entire city
1:47:04 so that i think concludes um this
1:47:08 presentation
1:47:09 and so the the questions we had outlined
1:47:12 were these eight questions for
1:47:14 discussion but we're happy to take quest
1:47:16 and take
1:47:16 questions uh jim's also here to
1:47:20 provide some answers
1:47:23 if you have any any further questions
1:47:31 okay and we'll go ahead and open it up
1:47:33 to commissioner questions
1:47:43 first question here from commissioner
1:47:46 richard zargoza
1:47:49 [Music]
1:48:03 oh and this is better no
1:48:07 no no can you maybe turn off your camera
1:48:15 are you better no
1:48:18 you're a slow motion robot um
1:48:23 ron i'm muting you again
1:48:30 can you hear me now no tell you what in
1:48:32 this case
1:48:33 if you will um type your question in
1:48:36 then we can repeat it out loud
1:48:38 for people to hear but in the meantime
1:48:40 yeah if you want to do that i think that
1:48:42 will work then we can read it out loud
1:48:58 ron you're on mute
1:49:01 sorry thanks uh so while we're waiting
1:49:05 um commissioner zargozo uh let's go
1:49:07 ahead and move on to commissioner nina
1:49:09 milligan and we'll come back to uh
1:49:11 richard here in a few minutes
1:49:15 thanks chair fall this is commissioner
1:49:17 milligan
1:49:18 uh thank you for the presentation and a
1:49:21 smaller
1:49:22 bite to work on this this time
1:49:25 i have a question
1:49:29 about the peer review
1:49:32 versus having more specialists when
1:49:35 would those come in
1:49:36 and and this i'm very interested in
1:49:38 learning more about this
1:49:40 because as a commissioner who was
1:49:42 approving land use
1:49:44 applications in the past i felt that the
1:49:46 information being provided to me in the
1:49:48 past was inadequate it's all that we
1:49:49 required and
1:49:50 and so it limited the ability of the
1:49:54 commissioners to
1:49:55 really feel confident about the
1:49:56 information and then i also know that
1:49:59 when we look around town we say
1:50:02 why did that go in and i know why
1:50:06 because i was a commissioner and i
1:50:07 didn't have enough information to make
1:50:08 the decision
1:50:09 my second question has to do with um is
1:50:12 a steep slope always 40 percent
1:50:15 um seemed like it was less earlier
1:50:19 and then i want to ask about
1:50:23 why do we allow walls and
1:50:26 can we
1:50:29 allow retaining walls or any kind of
1:50:32 walls
1:50:33 only for safety reasons and not for
1:50:36 designer aesthetic reasons
1:50:38 is there some way that that can be
1:50:41 pieced out
1:50:42 those are my questions for now
1:50:46 jim do you want to take those
1:50:51 sure i'm happy to give it a try uh thank
1:50:53 you for the questions commissioner
1:50:55 uh regarding peer reviews um
1:50:59 i share your uh
1:51:02 your feelings about not having adequate
1:51:05 information
1:51:06 and i think that is a really good role
1:51:09 for peer review peer reviewers within
1:51:12 the city
1:51:13 because the role of a peer reviewer is
1:51:15 to see whether or not
1:51:17 the applicant has met the code
1:51:19 requirements
1:51:20 but also the requirements of
1:51:24 maybe best available science or the
1:51:27 local engineering practice
1:51:29 and the peer reviewers are probably much
1:51:31 better at understanding
1:51:33 the local engineering practice
1:51:36 as opposed to just the code requirements
1:51:39 so i think peer reviews have a vital
1:51:43 in if i could say elevating
1:51:48 the requirements and expectations
1:51:51 for applicants to provide sound
1:51:54 information
1:51:55 to justify their uh their development
1:51:57 applications
1:52:00 regarding steep slopes uh you're right
1:52:03 steep slopes are classified uh and there
1:52:06 are gradations so something might be
1:52:08 15 to 30 percent something might be 30
1:52:11 to 40 percent
1:52:13 um i believe that the land the code as
1:52:16 is written says that anything over 40
1:52:19 is considered a landslide hazard
1:52:22 um there is some issue with this
1:52:25 in that many of the landslides mapped or
1:52:28 existing in the city
1:52:30 are on slopes that are less than 40
1:52:32 percent
1:52:33 if you think about it when the land
1:52:35 slides it comes to a lower
1:52:37 slope uh due to its instability so you
1:52:40 may have landslides out there that have
1:52:42 moved that are on slopes a lot less than
1:52:44 40 percent
1:52:47 so when the code only regulates over 40
1:52:50 percent slopes as landslide hazard areas
1:52:53 that's a bit of an oversight
1:52:56 a retaining walls um
1:52:59 retaining walls are built because you
1:53:02 have a lot of hillside in the city of
1:53:03 vista claw
1:53:04 and for anybody to build on a hillside
1:53:07 you have to even the ground out
1:53:09 in order to make a level pad so you have
1:53:12 to cut on one side
1:53:13 and fill on the other side
1:53:19 i don't know if that is a critical areas
1:53:23 issue or more of a land planning issue
1:53:27 there definitely are ways to mitigate
1:53:30 how walls look
1:53:31 in the environment if you look at sr 900
1:53:35 for example
1:53:37 south of uh as you head out of town you
1:53:40 see the new retaining walls there that
1:53:41 look like sculpted rock
1:53:43 and they have vines growing on them you
1:53:46 can make walls look very
1:53:47 visually aesthetic uh but then there are
1:53:50 other walls like the black nugget road
1:53:52 retaining wall that
1:53:54 don't look as visually aesthetic so
1:53:58 in my view i wouldn't look at all
1:54:00 retaining walls as bad
1:54:02 but maybe they could certainly be made
1:54:04 more visually ascetic
1:54:05 and that may be something that could be
1:54:07 put in the code
1:54:10 did i answer your question
1:54:16 thank you
1:54:21 chair falls it seems that so
1:54:23 commissioner zaragoza
1:54:26 um submitted his questions he seems to
1:54:28 have perhaps fixed the problem so we'll
1:54:30 i'll give you a chance to read it
1:54:32 let's see what happens thanks can you
1:54:34 hear me oh all good better
1:54:37 thank you um richard sergosa so my
1:54:40 question is around engineered slopes
1:54:43 what's the difference uh as far as like
1:54:46 protections requirements policy around
1:54:48 engineered slopes and natural slopes
1:54:50 and do engineered slopes eventually
1:54:52 become natural slopes can you
1:54:55 kind of give me a little more
1:54:56 information about that
1:54:59 sure by engineered slopes i think we
1:55:02 would
1:55:03 describe something that is constructed
1:55:07 and designed and when it's finished it
1:55:10 might actually meet the criteria for a
1:55:12 steep slope in other words it might be
1:55:14 over 40 percent
1:55:16 there are there are types of engineered
1:55:18 slopes called
1:55:19 uh geo slopes
1:55:23 they have a reinforcing grid within them
1:55:26 so they have a design factor of safety
1:55:30 they are designed for seismic stability
1:55:32 and static stability
1:55:34 so in that case the need for a buffer
1:55:38 for that slope is not the same as a
1:55:41 natural slope where we do not
1:55:43 know uh as well what the factors of
1:55:46 safety on that slope are
1:55:48 so i think the what is uh what is of
1:55:52 concern
1:55:52 is if we start having the buffer slopes
1:55:55 that have a design for them
1:55:57 and they are designed to resist movement
1:56:00 even in an earthquake it may be ultra
1:56:04 conservative
1:56:04 to have buffers for those things
1:56:08 i see thank you oh and the end of your
1:56:12 question could they become natural
1:56:13 slopes at some time
1:56:15 no they will always be engineered slopes
1:56:19 thank you
1:56:23 and thank you very much commissioner
1:56:24 zargoza so
1:56:26 questions were answered to your
1:56:28 satisfaction
1:56:29 excellent yeah uh looks like we are
1:56:32 going to move on to
1:56:34 uh commissioner nina milligan
1:56:37 oh sorry we already covered nina
1:56:41 backwards uh commissioner joy lewis has
1:56:43 a question
1:56:46 thank you chairfall commissioner joy
1:56:48 lewis i think i've got
1:56:49 four questions but i'm gonna reorder how
1:56:52 i was doing it before because i think
1:56:53 that the slope discussion is super
1:56:55 interesting
1:56:56 i was a little confused about the 40
1:56:59 so when i brought it up i was glad
1:57:01 because i was kind of confused too
1:57:03 about um just to say well
1:57:06 i mean over 40 is an outright ban so
1:57:09 then how are we regulating
1:57:10 those varying degrees down and does that
1:57:14 do we need to necessitate it in the code
1:57:16 or is that overthinking it
1:57:17 and just saying that when going under
1:57:20 peer review
1:57:21 that it will be addressed kind of thing
1:57:22 or is that kind of a nitty-gritty that
1:57:24 we need to be understanding
1:57:27 i think i think being a starting point
1:57:31 within the code
1:57:33 so that potentially unstable slopes get
1:57:36 flagged so i think the code is written
1:57:39 in a way
1:57:40 that identifies slopes of a certain
1:57:42 percentage as potentially unstable
1:57:44 they're called steep slopes doesn't mean
1:57:46 they're going to fail it means they have
1:57:48 a potential too
1:57:49 so if a development application is going
1:57:52 to be around
1:57:53 one of those slopes they need to be
1:57:54 looked at to see whether or not
1:57:56 the applicant is going to affect those
1:57:58 slopes negatively and
1:58:00 where they might become less stable
1:58:05 or they could affect it in a way that
1:58:07 might affect an off-site property
1:58:10 and you're correct in that it doesn't
1:58:13 necessarily have to be a greater than 40
1:58:16 slope it depends on the geology and the
1:58:19 also recognizes slopes that
1:58:22 have geologic instability that are not
1:58:26 so those who could be land potentially
1:58:28 landslide hazard slopes they have a
1:58:30 geology or groundwater condition
1:58:33 that makes them potentially unstable and
1:58:36 they could be less than 40
1:58:39 and when workout when that percentage is
1:58:41 calculated is that
1:58:43 is that somehow measuring what the what
1:58:46 the natural occurring slope is or
1:58:48 as there is degradation over time then
1:58:50 it's really from the slope that's
1:58:52 created kind of by that
1:58:53 entropy of sediment coming down you know
1:58:55 i'm saying like is there
1:58:57 is there a difference between what i can
1:58:58 visualize as being
1:59:00 the slope versus what is more of a loose
1:59:03 soil that has settled because over time
1:59:05 the slope has changed
1:59:08 the the or the definition of the
1:59:11 measurement of a steep slope is in the
1:59:14 and it has to do with the rise over run
1:59:17 over a certain
1:59:18 uh vertical distance and that is uh
1:59:22 you take the topography map and uh
1:59:25 you figure out the rise over the run and
1:59:28 uh i believe it's any
1:59:29 slope over 20 feet in height if it has
1:59:33 40 percent
1:59:34 then it would be called a steep slope
1:59:38 so that wouldn't account for if for
1:59:40 instance the slide had occurred 100
1:59:41 years ago
1:59:43 and we have vegetation that's grown over
1:59:45 and things like that we're just again
1:59:47 that that measurement
1:59:48 what you're what i what i'm wondering is
1:59:50 if right now how we're calculating that
1:59:52 is the best available science right
1:59:56 yeah and again i think you're what
1:59:59 you're getting at
2:00:00 is how do we tell whether a slope is a
2:00:02 landslide or just a steep slope
2:00:05 um and the code
2:00:09 doesn't do in my view a great job of
2:00:13 it it allows for uh
2:00:18 it allows for definition of those two
2:00:21 as separate entities and then there are
2:00:24 code requirements for how you mitigate
2:00:26 depending on the two
2:00:29 it's really left up to the scientists
2:00:32 investigating them to figure out whether
2:00:34 that slope
2:00:34 has slid in the past so the definition
2:00:38 of a landslide is anything that has
2:00:40 moved
2:00:40 in the last 10 000 years in the holocene
2:00:45 so everything well when it says moved it
2:00:48 doesn't
2:00:49 say that it's just colluvium so there
2:00:53 it's actually slippage along a failure
2:00:55 surface
2:00:56 okay thank you that's a good
2:00:58 clarification i appreciate that
2:01:00 um i'm curious if you can remind me um
2:01:02 kristin and i should
2:01:04 know this because i worked so hard on it
2:01:06 it's right now does our design
2:01:08 standards talk about retaining walls in
2:01:09 a way that can help guide this
2:01:11 discussion
2:01:14 let me talk about the aesthetics of a
2:01:16 large retaining wall
2:01:18 no not in not in chapter six no
2:01:21 okay or chapter seven i mean we don't
2:01:23 talk about it so that's effectively a
2:01:25 gap right now that we're
2:01:26 identifying yes okay okay um
2:01:30 and then um i'm curious um
2:01:34 i really appreciated the work that katie
2:01:36 did on this section in particular
2:01:37 because um
2:01:38 the way that she gave this really
2:01:39 concise summary
2:01:41 of the history i really appreciate it
2:01:43 it's something that we've talked about
2:01:44 with feedback of like hey we really need
2:01:46 um when we get we're getting our
2:01:48 education right we need to be having
2:01:50 background and i was curious if when the
2:01:52 next time we look at it i would love to
2:01:53 have some feedback about talking about
2:01:55 how our previous code
2:01:56 has either helped or hurt our historical
2:01:58 landslides like right like for instance
2:02:00 being able to say
2:02:01 um these measures that we've instigated
2:02:04 have helped
2:02:05 these ones obviously did not right
2:02:06 because some of our things are naturally
2:02:08 occurring some are not
2:02:09 and um i would love to see an analysis
2:02:11 of saying um
2:02:12 what what's worked and what hasn't if
2:02:14 that makes sense when trying to kind of
2:02:16 move forward
2:02:17 i think would be helpful in that section
2:02:20 my last question is about um
2:02:23 for again for these historical
2:02:25 landslides that um that are discussed in
2:02:27 our packet
2:02:28 are we monitoring the sediment that has
2:02:29 been smoothing off of them
2:02:32 and kind of noting their impact on
2:02:34 repairing
2:02:36 areas
2:02:39 i'm aware of those landslides one of
2:02:43 is adjacent to issaquah creek
2:02:46 but there is a road and housing
2:02:48 development between the landslide and
2:02:50 the creek
2:02:52 i think the short answer to your
2:02:54 question is no
2:02:55 as far as i know they're not being
2:02:56 monitored for that specifically
2:02:59 but i'm also not aware that there's
2:03:01 actually any erosion or problems with
2:03:04 i know that most of them are not
2:03:07 currently
2:03:07 active in other words they occurred in
2:03:10 the past
2:03:12 and they're not currently moving at the
2:03:14 moment
2:03:16 thank you very much i appreciate that
2:03:18 welcome
2:03:21 thank you commissioner lewis
2:03:24 and so we're moving on to
2:03:28 commissioner matt monahan
2:03:32 thank you matt monahan here i have a
2:03:34 question about
2:03:35 um question number eight which is can
2:03:39 describe for me the public benefit that
2:03:42 a detailed mapping of geological hazards
2:03:45 would give us if we were to undertake
2:03:47 that type of detailed review
2:03:50 that's a great question
2:03:54 and and i'll point out that some
2:03:56 municipalities have gone to
2:03:58 the lengths of providing very detailed
2:04:01 mapping
2:04:02 of their all of their geologic critical
2:04:04 areas i think kirkland is
2:04:06 an example and then some
2:04:09 have mapped certain parts of their
2:04:13 critical areas such as their coal mine
2:04:15 hazards for example bellevue
2:04:19 i think that the benefit of mapping
2:04:22 these critical areas is the ease
2:04:26 of the public in terms of trying to
2:04:28 figure out
2:04:30 what what critical area they have on
2:04:32 their property as many
2:04:33 showed early on in that slide not even
2:04:37 counting steep slopes
2:04:38 over 50 percent of the city has geologic
2:04:42 critical areas on it
2:04:44 most of that is uh seismic liquefaction
2:04:48 susceptible areas
2:04:50 but i think one of the challenges people
2:04:52 have is just knowing
2:04:54 where the critical areas lie within
2:04:55 their property
2:04:57 you know one alternative is maybe
2:04:59 providing detailed maps
2:05:01 another alternative might be to have a
2:05:07 maybe for a small fee do a um
2:05:10 a pre-application meeting with
2:05:13 applicants to actually just go over what
2:05:16 critical areas they may have on their
2:05:18 properties
2:05:20 but also just public awareness
2:05:23 awareness that in general of the
2:05:25 sensitivity
2:05:26 of the city to geologic hazards
2:05:30 i doubt that many people in the city are
2:05:32 as aware
2:05:34 as they probably should be of all the uh
2:05:37 the potential hazards within the city
2:05:39 and uh
2:05:40 and that development is very sensitive
2:05:44 development that is going on in the city
2:05:46 if it pushes out from the core
2:05:49 is going to be encountering geologic
2:05:51 hazards it's pretty
2:05:52 unavoidable so knowledge of
2:05:56 of those issues is probably be valuable
2:05:59 to the public
2:06:01 i'll also mention one other thing it's
2:06:03 written in the code right now that the
2:06:04 city will maintain these maps
2:06:07 and provide them for public review uh
2:06:10 however if you go on the city website
2:06:12 you cannot find them
2:06:13 uh so that was another reason for for
2:06:16 asking for some clarification
2:06:18 uh it may have been in the past that
2:06:20 some of these maps were paper maps and
2:06:22 people could come and look at them
2:06:24 these days everything is on gis so if
2:06:26 you're going to embark on this you would
2:06:28 be creating
2:06:29 gis maps
2:06:32 thank you
2:06:37 thank you very much commissioner monahan
2:06:41 okay we're going to have a question here
2:06:43 from commissioner uh
2:06:46 tom don mcquillums
2:06:50 mcwilliams here um so he answered my
2:06:52 first question i was going to ask if the
2:06:54 city's been collecting information
2:06:56 over time as the developments come in
2:06:58 and been trying to use that to put
2:06:59 together a compressed
2:07:01 comprehensive map excuse me don yeah
2:07:04 it's very hard to hear you can you
2:07:05 either get closer or
2:07:07 speak louder how's that
2:07:11 beautiful thank you okay sorry about
2:07:12 that so you answered my first question i
2:07:14 was asking about
2:07:15 does the city collect development data
2:07:18 over time
2:07:19 to make comprehensive maps to be updated
2:07:22 in the gis system
2:07:23 my second question to you is in your
2:07:26 code when somebody comes in for a new
2:07:27 application
2:07:28 are they required to do a
2:07:30 pre-development geotechnical
2:07:32 analysis of that property
2:07:38 it's my experience that geotechnical
2:07:41 reports
2:07:42 are required and if they have critical
2:07:45 areas on their site they are also
2:07:47 required to do a critical area study
2:07:50 uh when i and i should preface up saying
2:07:53 critical areas
2:07:57 thank you yes i might also add that
2:08:01 a lot of the there are quite detailed
2:08:04 geologic and critical areas maps
2:08:06 available on the department
2:08:08 of natural resources website uh
2:08:11 i would think before the city decides to
2:08:13 embark on any mapping
2:08:14 of any kind you know i would look at
2:08:17 this at what is already available on
2:08:19 department of natural resources is
2:08:20 actually quite good
2:08:22 um just an aside
2:08:31 okay and so we're gonna go and move on
2:08:34 commissioner nancy davidson
2:08:40 i have just a general question in terms
2:08:43 when uh communities allow retaining
2:08:46 walls such as the one behind
2:08:48 fred meyer and home depot
2:08:51 is there ever many set aside to replace
2:08:54 those in the future when they fail or
2:08:56 when they need to be maintained
2:08:57 since that's a pretty significant
2:09:00 undertaking for the residents of the
2:09:02 city to have to take on in the future
2:09:04 so do they ever ask can they set aside a
2:09:06 bank of money to grow
2:09:08 to maintain those in the future as a
2:09:09 developer brings it in
2:09:14 i've never seen that in my experience
2:09:16 i've been practicing
2:09:18 in this area for about 35 years i'm not
2:09:21 aware of it
2:09:23 is there any opportunity that you think
2:09:26 something like that could be considered
2:09:28 so that you know
2:09:30 it's great that we allow people to
2:09:31 develop on those very steep slopes and
2:09:34 flatten out the land a little bit for
2:09:36 but ultimately the long-term
2:09:38 maintenances that will rely
2:09:40 will be a responsibility of the
2:09:42 residents of the community
2:09:46 yeah that's a it's an interesting um
2:09:49 observation
2:09:50 and it's it's not just for
2:09:54 the city but a lot of infrastructure
2:09:57 is developed on properties and then
2:10:00 turned over to homeowners associations
2:10:02 to maintain
2:10:04 and uh i think that's really maybe even
2:10:08 a more important consideration the
2:10:09 cities have
2:10:10 probably generally pretty good resources
2:10:13 for maintaining infrastructure
2:10:17 uh homeowners associations don't have
2:10:19 hardly any
2:10:22 and i i think as we see more development
2:10:25 going on
2:10:28 think that to me that may be a bigger
2:10:30 issue
2:10:31 than what uh like the black nugget road
2:10:35 wall and i understand that wall was
2:10:36 inherited by the city it wasn't
2:10:38 constructed uh
2:10:39 for the or in the city oh
2:10:42 okay thank you
2:10:57 ron you're muted oh
2:11:01 i'm talking to myself sorry all right so
2:11:04 uh commissioner uh nancy davidson thank
2:11:06 you very much and those questions were
2:11:08 answered to your satisfaction
2:11:11 excellent okay uh that is
2:11:14 all the questions that i have for right
2:11:16 now let's go and open up to public
2:11:18 comment on this particular
2:11:19 particular topic kristin do we have
2:11:21 anybody from the public who would like
2:11:23 to make a comment
2:11:24 yes ken esselman would like to
2:11:27 make a comment so i am going to
2:11:31 make you a panelist and
2:11:36 i find you on here i will
2:11:42 moment please
2:11:55 let me try this again one second
2:12:11 there we go all right ken you are
2:12:14 unmuted and
2:12:15 you can turn on your camera if you would
2:12:18 okay uh uh can you hear me yes
2:12:22 super so building on steep slopes is a
2:12:25 concern of mine
2:12:26 uh we in talus had a catastrophic
2:12:29 incident in 2015
2:12:31 on parcel nine and it's yet to be fully
2:12:34 remediated
2:12:36 and issaquah has a track history of over
2:12:39 a dozen hillslide movements in the last
2:12:41 30 years
2:12:43 and i did that research in the old
2:12:44 issaquah press
2:12:46 you know while i agree with the eight
2:12:48 areas that many is described and i think
2:12:50 some of them are really
2:12:51 uh worth exploring i didn't see anything
2:12:54 about bonding
2:12:56 and landslide insurance and the reason
2:12:58 that i think that's so
2:12:59 important is that the city
2:13:03 and the taxpayers dodged a bullet with
2:13:05 parcel mine
2:13:07 when i inquired about how much bonding
2:13:10 [Music]
2:13:11 the city required of parcel nine i was
2:13:13 told it was 250
2:13:15 000 and i was also told that the parcel
2:13:19 9 developer
2:13:20 to date has spent over 30 million
2:13:23 dollars to remediate that problem
2:13:25 and they're still not done and the only
2:13:28 reason they actually have any money and
2:13:30 they didn't walk away from it was they
2:13:32 actually had landslide insurance is what
2:13:34 i've been told
2:13:36 and that's not typical
2:13:39 of developers so imagine
2:13:42 if the developer had walked away and
2:13:44 dumped that problem on the city
2:13:46 i mean do we have 30 plus million
2:13:49 dollars sitting around
2:13:51 to solve a problem on nine acres in
2:13:53 dallas
2:13:55 so my ask is when you rewrite title 18
2:13:59 that you require bonding that's
2:14:01 commensurate with the risk
2:14:03 that the developer causes when they
2:14:06 disturb the land and i also
2:14:10 ask that you consider landslide
2:14:12 insurance for steep slopes
2:14:15 the city and the taxpayers shouldn't be
2:14:17 on the hook for these
2:14:18 situations and i guess i would be
2:14:21 interested
2:14:22 if jim knows
2:14:26 or has an idea about what the steepness
2:14:28 of parcel
2:14:29 9 is i suspect it's not near 40
2:14:34 thanks yeah you know if i may
2:14:38 interject uh ken i think the specifics
2:14:40 of parcel nine
2:14:42 are probably a separate from this public
2:14:44 discussion here
2:14:45 we could probably answer that question
2:14:47 in a more general term
2:14:50 um so that's what i would
2:14:53 so yeah i i think that there's a lot of
2:14:55 specifics to
2:14:56 that property that i think probably
2:14:58 should are outside of the scope of code
2:15:00 you know it's a very one one specific
2:15:03 property question
2:15:08 we can get you that information um
2:15:10 outside of this meeting
2:15:12 ken it doesn't mean obviously the 40
2:15:16 slope is i think what jim had said
2:15:17 before and none of the landslides
2:15:20 in the city were on 40 sloped areas is
2:15:24 that correct jim
2:15:26 no i didn't say that none sorry most
2:15:29 times maybe
2:15:30 yeah many of them are not unfortunate
2:15:38 okay thank you ken uh kristin do we have
2:15:41 any additional
2:15:42 comments from the public or mute
2:15:48 sorry uh yes next we have connie marsh
2:15:51 connie you're unmuted
2:15:54 okay and so
2:15:57 i have a little bit left over from my
2:16:00 last one and now i'm gonna ask can you
2:16:02 hear me i'm on my phone this time
2:16:05 yes okay so
2:16:08 um going back to the previous topic
2:16:14 so yes we need to increase the critical
2:16:17 oxford recharge
2:16:18 area uh however
2:16:23 that is just about contamination and we
2:16:26 actually have an
2:16:27 aquifer that is is important to keep
2:16:31 recharged with water and we don't really
2:16:36 have a discussion about how we are
2:16:39 protecting the water
2:16:40 quantity of our aquifer
2:16:44 which is basically beneath the valley
2:16:46 floor which
2:16:47 uh i don't know half of the city drinks
2:16:49 the water out of
2:16:50 our current aquifer and so we only
2:16:53 discuss
2:16:54 contamination we don't discuss
2:16:57 continued appropriate quantities
2:17:01 and year-round levels of
2:17:04 our aquifer and that needs to be
2:17:07 considered
2:17:08 we also don't talk about bogs we have
2:17:11 nothing in our critical area code about
2:17:15 so when the developer decided it wanted
2:17:19 excavate 30 000
2:17:23 cubic yards of peat from
2:17:27 our valley floor we had no way to
2:17:30 control that
2:17:31 excavation and so we actually need to
2:17:35 peat and bogs to our critical area code
2:17:39 because
2:17:39 um you know it takes a thousand years
2:17:42 for one inch of
2:17:43 peat to actually develop and it is a
2:17:46 carbon sink
2:17:47 anyway i won't go it won't go too far
2:17:51 into that
2:17:53 and of course yes riparian areas need to
2:17:56 be critical areas that
2:17:58 that really goes without saying now slot
2:18:01 are fascinating um we have a bunch of
2:18:04 slopes that the city is long considered
2:18:06 to be man-made slopes but they are from
2:18:08 the 1970s
2:18:10 and even earlier so when the gentleman
2:18:13 discusses
2:18:14 the particular criteria for
2:18:18 stabilization of slopes in order to be
2:18:21 able to
2:18:22 call them man made
2:18:25 i have never seen that used in our
2:18:27 current
2:18:28 code they just say oh yeah when we did
2:18:31 railroad grade in 1930 that was a
2:18:34 man-made thing
2:18:36 and so that's a man-made slope and so we
2:18:38 don't have to
2:18:40 uh consider that a steep slope
2:18:43 and so i would like to see a code
2:18:46 that has the criteria for what a
2:18:49 man-made slope is
2:18:51 rather than just hey it's a man-made
2:18:54 book because some dude did that back in
2:18:58 right and that's how we have been using
2:19:01 it to this point in time
2:19:03 it doesn't work very well the um
2:19:06 more interesting thing about slopes is
2:19:08 it's not sloped
2:19:10 it's slopes plus water
2:19:13 and that is where we have gotten into
2:19:15 trouble because we have
2:19:16 lots of water and we have lots of slopes
2:19:19 don't seem to be able to combine
2:19:22 this till
2:19:26 layer mixed with water hazard
2:19:30 and i don't know how to do that
2:19:32 appropriately but that is
2:19:34 when our land slides is when we get
2:19:37 excess water onto a slope
2:19:41 along with till camp creek blowout is an
2:19:44 example
2:19:45 so i would like to see our code be
2:19:49 more specific because of our crazy
2:19:52 geotech around here which brings me
2:19:55 again to our valley floor
2:19:59 and we basically as developers like to
2:20:02 have crap for soils on our valley floor
2:20:06 and this means we end up with a
2:20:08 liquefaction situation
2:20:10 on our valley floor and people have to
2:20:12 decide whether to float their buildings
2:20:14 or put them
2:20:15 on piers and i would like to see
2:20:18 this be addressed in our code so that it
2:20:21 isn't just a developer choice
2:20:24 that it is a city standard for what type
2:20:28 of stability we are going to
2:20:30 require on our very wet
2:20:33 you know basically remember our aquifer
2:20:35 is down there valley floor where we are
2:20:37 trying to keep
2:20:38 buildings from shaking and falling in
2:20:41 an earthquake hazard which of course we
2:20:44 all know the fault is almost
2:20:46 directly beneath i-90 or very close to
2:20:49 and this has never been appropriately
2:20:53 addressed as as far as i have
2:20:56 ever seen as we have written the code
2:20:58 though i have listened to developers
2:21:00 whine
2:21:00 like crazy about our crappy soil so
2:21:03 let's address it this time
2:21:05 okay hopefully you all heard that thank
2:21:07 you very much
2:21:14 is there anyone else who would like to
2:21:16 speak i don't see any other hands raised
2:21:20 i'll give you just a minute
2:21:30 now there's no one else who would like
2:21:31 to speak
2:21:34 okay thank you kristen i'm gonna go
2:21:36 ahead and close uh public comment
2:21:38 and we are gonna go ahead and open it up
2:21:41 um comments from the commissioners
2:21:46 and i have a com i have a comment here
2:21:50 for myself
2:21:51 um so i would like to reiterate um
2:21:57 and put emphasis on connie's comment
2:22:00 concerning boggs and pete i think it's
2:22:02 absolutely very wise that we
2:22:06 create a policy that includes bogs and p
2:22:10 and also to ken's comment concerning
2:22:12 landslide insurance
2:22:13 bonding for reasonable financial
2:22:16 liabilities
2:22:19 as we wind down developable properties
2:22:24 i worry that we're going to start
2:22:26 cutting into
2:22:27 hillsides more and
2:22:32 we could be creating issues or financial
2:22:35 liabilities
2:22:36 for the taxpayer if a
2:22:39 developer is not able to afford
2:22:43 mitigation of a landslide so i think
2:22:46 creating policy
2:22:47 that includes those
2:22:50 would be very wise uh
2:22:53 okay let's go ahead and see if there are
2:22:55 additional comments from
2:23:02 commissioners
2:23:04 and i have a comment from commissioner
2:23:07 jamie fetch
2:23:11 thank you chair paul jamie finch
2:23:12 speaking um i won't
2:23:14 address the specific questions here i
2:23:17 think
2:23:18 pulling it up a little from the more
2:23:21 specific questions
2:23:22 i do feel like based on our central
2:23:24 isoqua plan
2:23:26 and as well as what we're going to be
2:23:28 looking at in the climate action plan
2:23:30 and trying to basically make our
2:23:33 community more sustainable
2:23:35 in general it seems like this high slope
2:23:38 areas
2:23:39 that are going to require a lot of
2:23:40 grading don't fit in with any of those
2:23:43 things and i think that's that's what i
2:23:45 would my overall feedback would be
2:23:48 this seems like an area that we need to
2:23:50 be looking at solutions that
2:23:52 don't require us going up into these
2:23:54 unstable slopes that have a lot of
2:23:56 other uh implications um for a lot of
2:24:00 other reasons as well that
2:24:02 i think there's just a lot of reasons
2:24:04 that we
2:24:05 as as part of this whole title 18
2:24:07 process need to find ways that
2:24:09 that's not our only option for
2:24:11 development and that there's
2:24:13 uh there's other ways that we continue
2:24:16 find opportunities for people to find
2:24:19 residences in our city
2:24:21 that don't require uh going to those
2:24:23 lanes
2:24:24 thank you
2:24:28 thank you uh commissioner finch
2:24:31 and i am not seeing any additional
2:24:33 comments uh
2:24:34 time is 8 55 and so i have a question
2:24:38 any and for kristin um how much more
2:24:42 time do we need
2:24:43 to address the rest of the presentation
2:24:50 so looks like we have three topic areas
2:24:54 um so that could be
2:24:57 you know 10 minutes per topic area for
2:25:00 presentation and then
2:25:02 is my guess katie do you have any
2:25:05 feedback on that
2:25:08 i think the lighting topic could be a
2:25:10 really quick one
2:25:11 um we're not seeking a lot of feedback
2:25:14 on that one
2:25:15 there may be a longer discussion i'm
2:25:17 thinking that the sustainability topic
2:25:19 just because it's such a high interest
2:25:21 topic but i think maybe shorelines could
2:25:24 also be shorter
2:25:25 maybe 10 minutes but it i guess it
2:25:27 depends on public interest and comment
2:25:32 okay so i would like to look to the
2:25:34 commissioners
2:25:35 kind of a non-formal votes
2:25:39 do you want to look at do you want us to
2:25:41 consider all three tonight do you want
2:25:43 us to consider
2:25:44 one or two
2:25:47 so feel free to speak up
2:25:50 i'm seeing joy lewis wants three
2:25:54 tommy anderson with one
2:25:59 hey we're seeing one one three
2:26:04 this is a tie
2:26:07 okay so i'm seeing everybody here with
2:26:11 um i think one's gonna roll out so
2:26:14 uh let's go with lighting for one
2:26:18 everybody in agreement okay wait a
2:26:20 minute
2:26:21 okay i'm sorry i'd like to comment
2:26:24 can i commissioner fall yes um
2:26:28 you know if we have a really um
2:26:32 full calendar and if we push things off
2:26:35 the calendar this meeting was scheduled
2:26:37 to go to 9 30 as far as i understood
2:26:39 from our agenda
2:26:40 didn't it didn't it say 9 30.
2:26:43 so i'm concerned about pushing things
2:26:45 off to a later date
2:26:46 i also have found that the staff is
2:26:50 going to be very helpful in soliciting
2:26:52 comments uh through email
2:26:55 following this meeting facilitated by a
2:26:57 survey of
2:26:58 questions and focus so we might be
2:27:02 able to get through these topics
2:27:05 because i for one am reserving my
2:27:09 review comments my wish list
2:27:12 my feedback for that email
2:27:15 and using the time i have with this
2:27:17 group simply for questions
2:27:19 so that helps okay there you go
2:27:26 additional comments
2:27:31 chair fall uh this is commissioner lewis
2:27:34 um if the boards and commissions would
2:27:36 like to move forward with an abbreviated
2:27:37 agenda
2:27:38 i would ask that we consider actually
2:27:40 addressing the largest
2:27:41 grouping that we have which is
2:27:42 sustainability i think this is our joint
2:27:45 commission is such a unique opportunity
2:27:46 to be able to hear
2:27:48 um from our from our fellow members of
2:27:50 the community
2:27:51 that um i know from when i sit and i
2:27:54 look at this
2:27:54 and we're obviously going to be looking
2:27:56 at all of title 18 right so
2:27:58 being able to get your guys's unique
2:28:01 perspective
2:28:02 really helps me do my job better so
2:28:05 while i also want to really encourage
2:28:06 you to follow the movements of title 18
2:28:09 even things that are not related
2:28:10 to um to waters geology um to wildlife
2:28:14 and to um and to sustainability we want
2:28:17 to hear your comments right
2:28:18 i really love the idea of being able to
2:28:20 look at all of title 18
2:28:22 through many lenses right and being able
2:28:24 to look at the entire thing through a
2:28:26 climate change and sustainability lens
2:28:28 rather than necessarily just these one
2:28:30 components
2:28:30 so having your feedback on a variety of
2:28:33 things is hugely important to us as we
2:28:35 go through this process
2:28:36 but being able to have your comments
2:28:38 tonight would be very valuable to me so
2:28:40 if we are going to try to
2:28:42 shorten um what we're reviewing tonight
2:28:44 for some reason i would love us to
2:28:45 actually get to the meat
2:28:46 of kind of that commonality we have
2:28:51 you know the one thing i would add to
2:28:53 that is we have consultants
2:28:55 watershed who's helping with the
2:28:57 shoreline in attendance today
2:28:59 and we also have consultant who helped
2:29:02 with the lighting
2:29:03 denise fong stantec in attendance today
2:29:07 just if you have any technical questions
2:29:09 for them
2:29:10 um they're here tonight
2:29:14 okay so maybe
2:29:17 we move forward with all three topics
2:29:19 tonight and
2:29:20 stick with questions that are necessary
2:29:23 and if we have detailed comments
2:29:25 or technical questions we can put them
2:29:28 in email
2:29:29 and send them to the city staff
2:29:34 agreement
2:29:36 sounds good okay so with that said
2:29:39 uh we're gonna go ahead and go forward
2:29:40 with all three topics
2:29:42 um mini the floor is yours
2:29:45 okay i am going to pull up the
2:29:48 powerpoint
2:29:49 but the presentation on the shoreline is
2:29:52 going to be
2:29:53 by doug yermick so let me know when you
2:29:57 want the slides
2:29:59 to find me i will minnie thank you
2:30:09 i will i will try and breeze through
2:30:12 um and provide as much information as i
2:30:16 can in
2:30:16 the shortest amount of time
2:30:19 there are some new faces here but there
2:30:22 are quite a few familiar faces so back
2:30:24 2012 the city undertook a periodic
2:30:26 review of our shoreline master program
2:30:29 this update was to align our shoreline
2:30:31 master program with recent updates to
2:30:32 legislation
2:30:33 and ecology guidance in 20 in august of
2:30:37 2020 council approved the periodic
2:30:39 update
2:30:40 with the condition that we'd explore our
2:30:42 lake sammamish shoreline buffers
2:30:44 specifically the shoreline buffer
2:30:46 exemption provisions that allow a
2:30:47 structure to be located closer to the
2:30:49 lake than our standard buffer
2:30:51 next slide
2:30:57 our goal is to analyze our current
2:30:59 standards and seek ways to improve our
2:31:01 baseline condition
2:31:03 this will be conducted by using best
2:31:05 available science
2:31:07 exploring techniques employed by our
2:31:09 neighboring communities as well as input
2:31:11 received from this body and the
2:31:12 community
2:31:14 and our hope is that this will align
2:31:18 um our analysis will and conclusion of
2:31:21 that will align with
2:31:22 our city vision for shoreline buffer
2:31:26 next slide
2:31:31 um the no net loss standard is designed
2:31:34 to halt the introduction of new impacts
2:31:36 into the shoreline ecological function
2:31:40 resulting from new development this
2:31:42 standard is enshrined in both
2:31:44 the wac and rsmp best available science
2:31:47 describes
2:31:48 most if not all shoreline development
2:31:50 produces some impact to each
2:31:52 ecological function with that
2:31:56 said how do we know we're achieving no
2:31:57 net loss
2:31:59 the answer comes from implementing the
2:32:01 policies of our smp
2:32:03 during our 2013 comprehensive update
2:32:07 my predecessor peter rosen with the help
2:32:09 of consultants
2:32:10 undertook several tasks to develop a
2:32:12 baseline conditions report
2:32:14 they inventoried and characterized the
2:32:16 shoreline environment
2:32:17 analyzed every use in shoreline
2:32:19 jurisdiction and provided a cumulative
2:32:21 impacts analysis
2:32:22 all of this information was translated
2:32:24 into our smp's pop
2:32:33 we lost you
2:32:38 can you hear me now yes okay sorry
2:32:42 um these standards in our smp were
2:32:44 approved by ecology
2:32:45 to achieve no net loss however the
2:32:48 question from council was
2:32:49 should we be doing the bare minimum
2:32:51 especially since the city takes a strong
2:32:53 position
2:32:53 on environmental restoration and salmon
2:32:55 recovery
2:32:59 next slide
2:33:02 the image that you see on this slide is
2:33:05 a perfect illustration of our lakes of
2:33:07 mamish existing shoreline condition
2:33:10 most are armored with little native
2:33:11 vegetation of the total parcels along
2:33:14 lake samamish about half do not meet
2:33:16 current buffer or setback requirements
2:33:18 with our analysis staff and our
2:33:20 consultant team
2:33:21 with the input from the community will
2:33:23 explore ways to enhance degraded
2:33:25 baseline conditions of our highly
2:33:27 modified shoreline
2:33:29 next slide
2:33:34 council wanted staff to explore two
2:33:36 common buffer exceptions allowed in our
2:33:39 this slide represents um the first
2:33:43 exception
2:33:43 it's called common line setback under
2:33:46 this exception a proposed residence can
2:33:48 use the adjacent non-conforming
2:33:50 development
2:33:51 to determine a shoreline buffer this is
2:33:53 done by drawing an imaginary line from
2:33:55 near corners
2:33:56 of the buildings or in the instance of
2:33:58 only one developed lot the near corner
2:34:00 of the adjacent building and the
2:34:02 standard buffer
2:34:03 this imaginary line becomes the reduced
2:34:05 buffer determining where new development
2:34:07 can occur
2:34:09 this method will result in new
2:34:11 residences to develop closer to the lake
2:34:13 than the standard buffer would allow
2:34:16 but per rsmp in exchange for this
2:34:18 reduction
2:34:19 all new development must enhance the
2:34:21 shoreline buffer area
2:34:23 next slide
2:34:27 another opportunity to reduce the
2:34:29 standard shoreline buffer is through
2:34:31 bulkhead removal
2:34:32 with shoreline restoration this method
2:34:35 replaces heart armoring with soft short
2:34:36 or bioengineered stabilization which is
2:34:38 less destructive to the shoreline
2:34:40 ecology
2:34:42 under this scenario the buffer is
2:34:44 reduced to 10 feet with a 15 foot
2:34:46 setback
2:34:47 new or expanded structures must be 25
2:34:49 feet from the lakeshore
2:34:52 next slide
2:34:56 we have begun researching our
2:34:58 neighboring jurisdictions and how they
2:35:00 handled standard buffer
2:35:01 exceptions as you can see each
2:35:04 jurisdiction has different techniques
2:35:06 only kirkland allows common line but
2:35:09 it's only allowed in one shoreline
2:35:10 environmental designation
2:35:13 both sammamish and kirkland have other
2:35:14 setback reductions if you employ
2:35:17 low impact development techniques meet
2:35:18 certain design standards
2:35:20 as well as enhancements of the near
2:35:22 shore environments
2:35:24 so far in this analysis issaquah stands
2:35:27 alone in requiring full buffer
2:35:28 restoration of any new development for
2:35:30 shoreline properties
2:35:31 that's both with a reduced buffer or if
2:35:34 you're
2:35:35 building a new home the full buffer
2:35:38 has to be restored
2:35:42 in the next slide
2:35:47 so the city
2:35:50 staff and our consultant team are
2:35:53 embarking
2:35:54 on researching the near shore
2:35:57 environment
2:35:58 of of lakes and amish and how it's how
2:36:01 it's developed
2:36:02 we're also still analyzing the best
2:36:04 practices from pure cities
2:36:06 to show options for regulated shoreline
2:36:08 setbacks
2:36:09 um and of our our question to
2:36:13 um both you and the public is do we want
2:36:16 to take a more aggressive repo
2:36:18 approach that's most restrictive of
2:36:20 development maintain a less restrictive
2:36:22 approach
2:36:23 allowing some flexibility or moderate
2:36:26 our approach
2:36:27 somewhere in between and
2:36:30 the next slide
2:36:34 and now open for discussions
2:36:44 all right thank you very much mr yarmick
2:36:46 uh let's go ahead and open up to
2:36:48 commissioner questions
2:36:53 we have a
2:37:00 oh see commissioner lewis you already uh
2:37:03 answered your question right
2:37:05 posted 857 so that's not relative now
2:37:08 right
2:37:14 and we have a question from commissioner
2:37:16 jamie finch
2:37:19 thank you chairfall um jamie finch
2:37:21 speaking
2:37:22 quick question for you can you just
2:37:25 summarize the rationale for the common
2:37:27 setback that one is hard for me to
2:37:30 understand so it would be helpful to
2:37:31 understand like what what is the
2:37:33 rationale for
2:37:34 for having something like that um
2:37:38 i think it's for
2:37:42 maintaining similar views to adjacent
2:37:45 properties
2:37:46 um allow for for more flexibility on
2:37:50 building design
2:37:51 and maybe even partially for continuity
2:37:55 along those
2:37:56 along the shoreline
2:38:05 it does talk about having a common view
2:38:11 thank you
2:38:14 thank you very much commissioner finch
2:38:16 and commissioner tom
2:38:18 anderson oh yes thank you tommy anderson
2:38:22 speaking
2:38:23 i'm wondering about ongoing monitoring
2:38:25 of any changes that are done there like
2:38:27 removal of ball kit
2:38:29 and and uh let's plant some softer
2:38:31 things there
2:38:33 but then the house is sold and somebody
2:38:35 else comes in and doesn't know about any
2:38:37 agreement or whatever they put the
2:38:39 bulkhead back in
2:38:40 what are other jurisdictions who have
2:38:42 tried this sort of approach
2:38:45 i mean do we have any data about how
2:38:47 successful they have been on an
2:38:49 ongoing basis um
2:38:52 we don't have a whole lot of data on
2:38:56 outside of just i guess my knowledge
2:38:58 i've been with the city for four and a
2:39:00 half years
2:39:01 um i have known of one bulkhead removal
2:39:05 and it has remained in place it's
2:39:09 performing wonderfully the the
2:39:11 vegetation that it was planted
2:39:13 with it had to go through the same
2:39:15 five-year maintenance monitoring period
2:39:17 that a wetland buffer mitigation or
2:39:20 stream buffer mitigation would have to
2:39:22 go through
2:39:23 um we have there is discussions
2:39:26 of another bulkhead removal and that if
2:39:30 does come in that permit will probably
2:39:31 be soon um
2:39:34 but in terms of like those those are the
2:39:36 only two examples that i know
2:39:38 in in the four and a half years that
2:39:40 i've been here
2:39:41 um we do have records um
2:39:44 through our permit tracking and and
2:39:47 parcel data
2:39:48 on what has occurred on that property if
2:39:51 you dig a little bit
2:39:54 so if there was a bulkhead removed owner
2:39:56 sold it and
2:39:57 it went to a new owner and they tried
2:40:01 that's something that we would see also
2:40:03 with a new bulkhead if you wanted to put
2:40:05 in a brand new bulkhead where one
2:40:07 isn't in before there is um a much more
2:40:10 rigorous permit process with the city
2:40:13 the demonstration of need that you would
2:40:15 have to provide to us and ultimately the
2:40:17 peer reviewers who would be looking at
2:40:19 it as well and if it doesn't meet that
2:40:20 threshold it's
2:40:22 there isn't going to be that option for
2:40:26 okay thank you
2:40:45 on your oh thank you
2:40:51 and thank you very much uh commissioner
2:40:52 anderson uh
2:40:54 let's go ahead and open this up to
2:40:56 public comment i'm not seeing any
2:40:57 additional
2:40:58 questions at this time uh kristen do we
2:41:01 have any
2:41:01 members of the public that would like to
2:41:02 speak to this topic
2:41:12 connie marsh your hand is still up if
2:41:14 you would like
2:41:15 to speak would you actually take your
2:41:18 hand down
2:41:19 please
2:41:22 okay connie marsh would like to speak
2:41:25 bonnie
2:41:26 you are unmuted
2:41:29 hey i had actually lowered my hand and
2:41:32 then raised it so
2:41:33 up and down uh all right
2:41:36 so i went through the long ago
2:41:40 shoreline master plan
2:41:43 update not the skimpy little thing that
2:41:46 they did just a little while ago that
2:41:47 was barely
2:41:48 an improvement at all and that was
2:41:51 heavily based on best available science
2:41:53 so what was missing in that presentation
2:41:56 for me
2:41:57 is the best available science for
2:42:00 shorelines as it has changed in the last
2:42:04 ten years at uh that
2:42:07 point in time the thing that
2:42:10 people thought would help the fish
2:42:13 and the habitat the most was the removal
2:42:17 bulkheads i don't know if that is still
2:42:21 uh the other things that were of great
2:42:24 importance was
2:42:26 shading of the shorelines with native
2:42:29 vegetation
2:42:31 and that requirement
2:42:35 so if people are going to be able to put
2:42:38 themselves
2:42:40 in a snap line for their views
2:42:45 they should have to for that
2:42:48 benefit they should be having to
2:42:52 improve their shorelines for
2:42:55 the habitat of the good
2:42:58 of the people and the fish and the
2:43:01 critters
2:43:02 so when you talk about the buffers for
2:43:05 streams and the buffers for wetland and
2:43:08 you talk about the
2:43:09 habitat and wildlife corridors
2:43:13 i would like to see how that same
2:43:16 conversation
2:43:18 translates over with the shorelines
2:43:20 because
2:43:21 you do have the same critters trying to
2:43:24 live their lives amongst the humans
2:43:27 so and and and that felt entirely
2:43:29 missing for the decision making
2:43:32 on what the code changes should be for
2:43:34 the shoreline master
2:43:36 program and so i can't give an opinion
2:43:39 because i don't have
2:43:41 i don't have the necessary information
2:43:45 thank you
2:43:53 if there is if there's anyone else who
2:43:55 would like to speak please
2:43:57 raise your hand or let me know
2:44:00 in the chat
2:44:12 i am not seeing anyone else who would
2:44:13 like to speak
2:44:16 okay thank you very much planner
2:44:18 christian
2:44:19 i'm gonna go ahead and open this floor
2:44:22 commissioner uh comments
2:44:30 here all those comments until uh post
2:44:33 meeting
2:44:34 and send them out to through email
2:44:36 appreciate that
2:44:37 okay put the give the floor back to
2:44:41 uh mini dollywall right where's yours
2:44:45 thank you
2:44:46 mr fall um so we're going to go to the
2:44:50 next topic
2:44:53 can you all see my screen so this is
2:44:56 outdoor lighting katie here
2:45:00 let me know when you're on the screen
2:45:02 okay we'll do
2:45:04 um thank you minnie and uh thank you all
2:45:07 for your patience tonight we've had a
2:45:09 lot to cover and i really appreciated
2:45:11 all of the
2:45:11 fruitful discussion um i'm going to
2:45:14 cover the topic of
2:45:15 outdoor lighting standards next um i'll
2:45:18 be presenting an analysis
2:45:20 done by our lighting consultant who is
2:45:23 tonight um to answer any questions you
2:45:25 may have on technical issues
2:45:28 uh we regulate outdoor lighting to make
2:45:30 sure that there's
2:45:32 um both for safety and security
2:45:36 um for um the functions that it provides
2:45:39 but also because of the way it can
2:45:41 enliven a space or a building and
2:45:42 contribute to the enjoyment of a place
2:45:45 after dark
2:45:46 we regulate the lighting to make sure
2:45:48 there's not too much illumination that
2:45:50 could interfere with animal habitats or
2:45:52 dark skies
2:45:53 or that lighting isn't causing glare or
2:45:56 disturbance as well as
2:45:58 to achieve greater energy efficiency
2:46:00 next slide please
2:46:04 so the city's vision for outdoor
2:46:05 lighting
2:46:07 is to provide adequate lighting for
2:46:10 safety and illumination
2:46:12 um prioritize energy conservation and to
2:46:15 protect people in nature from
2:46:17 spillover from light and glare next
2:46:22 so i wanted to just cover a couple key
2:46:24 concepts that are pretty technical have
2:46:25 to do with lighting
2:46:26 uh one concept is lighting zones and
2:46:29 this is something that we are
2:46:30 considering for this update
2:46:32 similar to a land use zone a lighting
2:46:34 zone is
2:46:36 overlay map or other tool
2:46:39 to show how different areas of the city
2:46:43 should be lit or illuminated it ranges
2:46:46 from a lighting zone of zero which would
2:46:48 be very little light
2:46:50 for places like open spaces forest
2:46:52 wildlands
2:46:54 up to the most intensive
2:46:57 industrial scale um lighting scenarios
2:47:00 which is an lz4
2:47:01 most of issaquah falls probably into a
2:47:04 lighting zone one or two that's kind of
2:47:06 a typical residential neighborhood or a
2:47:08 small
2:47:09 commercial downtown there may be some
2:47:11 areas in central issaquad that could
2:47:13 approach a lighting level three
2:47:15 um but essentially a light the lighting
2:47:18 level is just a tool that the community
2:47:20 can use to then differently regulate
2:47:24 lighting standards in different parts of
2:47:25 the community
2:47:28 next slide
2:47:31 another another key term is color
2:47:33 temperature
2:47:35 um the color temperature is measured in
2:47:38 degrees kelvin which is a very
2:47:40 scientific measurement
2:47:42 of temperature but for our purposes
2:47:46 it's broken down into a range of around
2:47:48 two thousand
2:47:49 up to six thousand um
2:47:52 it describes how warm the light is
2:47:56 um the lighting temperature can come
2:47:58 from both the sun
2:47:59 or from artificial lights so for the
2:48:01 lighting code
2:48:03 a lot of times there are maximum
2:48:06 lighting
2:48:07 temperature numbers or at least a range
2:48:10 that the city might require artificial
2:48:13 lighting to achieve
2:48:16 lighting temperature can impact the um
2:48:19 the mood the ambience the feeling
2:48:21 um as well as the clarity at which
2:48:23 things can be seen
2:48:25 and just to give you some context
2:48:29 currently the standard for street lights
2:48:31 in issaquah is
2:48:32 4000k um and your typical
2:48:36 indoor light for your living room would
2:48:38 be around
2:48:39 2000 or so next slide
2:48:44 so just real quickly i'll go through
2:48:45 these pretty quick uh the state law
2:48:47 the the state of washington has a
2:48:49 non-residential energy code that has
2:48:51 some standards
2:48:52 for lighting um it it focuses both
2:48:56 on um energy efficiency
2:48:59 and also some lighting controls um
2:49:02 the current lighting standards in isquad
2:49:04 doesn't reference the
2:49:06 um the state energy non-residential
2:49:09 energy code so we'd like to include
2:49:12 reference references to that
2:49:14 as well as update the standards to be
2:49:16 consistent with those best practices
2:49:18 next slide um
2:49:23 so the the city's goals and policies
2:49:26 um the city council's goals and policies
2:49:28 document had a few goals that touched on
2:49:31 the importance of lighting um one
2:49:34 has to do with simply modernizing the
2:49:38 and making sure that it expresses
2:49:40 industry best standards and right now
2:49:42 our lighting code does not there's a lot
2:49:44 um obsolete technology that's mentioned
2:49:47 and we'd like to move toward led
2:49:49 lighting and
2:49:50 away from incandescent and neon lighting
2:49:53 for example
2:49:55 also similar to the shoreline setback
2:49:58 issue that doug just covered
2:49:59 um with the snp update council
2:50:02 specifically requested that we look at
2:50:04 some some standards for dock lighting
2:50:08 lighting at the shoreline can interfere
2:50:11 habitat especially when there's light
2:50:13 during you know the darkest times of the
2:50:15 night
2:50:16 um so that's something that we're still
2:50:18 developing
2:50:19 and um and we'll be trying to
2:50:23 there aren't a lot of great examples out
2:50:25 there right now so we'll be developing
2:50:26 some ideas for that
2:50:28 um next slide
2:50:31 thank you uh so essentially
2:50:34 um the goal of the outdoor lighting
2:50:37 update
2:50:38 is to create a new outdoor lighting
2:50:40 chapter that brings
2:50:42 um lighting standards from various parts
2:50:44 of the city from
2:50:46 old town and central isfan some other
2:50:48 places into one place um so that there's
2:50:50 a single place
2:50:51 where people can go and access their
2:50:54 lighting requirements
2:50:56 and we'll be updating the standards to
2:50:58 meet the industry
2:50:59 best practices to acknowledge the energy
2:51:04 and make sure that that the technologies
2:51:07 are correct and we're taking out
2:51:08 obsolete technologies we will be
2:51:12 developing
2:51:13 dock lighting provisions and
2:51:17 and then we we have a conversation the
2:51:20 conversation we'd like to have with the
2:51:21 board is about
2:51:23 whether we want to use the lighting
2:51:25 chapter to go beyond the minimum
2:51:27 lighting standards that um the energy
2:51:30 uh provides to achieve
2:51:33 greater levels of energy efficiency and
2:51:37 urban design benefits which i'll talk
2:51:38 about in just a minute
2:51:40 and then finally we would like to create
2:51:42 a lighting zone overlay map
2:51:45 so we can focus on
2:51:48 the more sensitive areas of town having
2:51:51 less lighting
2:51:52 and the um the more
2:51:55 active use areas having additional
2:51:59 lighting or at least the appropriate
2:52:00 amount of lighting
2:52:01 next slide
2:52:04 so um for doc lighting we are looking
2:52:08 feedback on how to
2:52:12 to whom the new requirements will apply
2:52:15 so usually when a new code is um or a
2:52:18 new restriction is passed
2:52:20 uh it applies to new applications new
2:52:23 applicants
2:52:24 um a more aggressive or
2:52:27 more protective approach for um in terms
2:52:30 of habitat
2:52:31 would be to require all existing dock
2:52:34 lighting
2:52:35 to come into compliance with these new
2:52:36 dock lighting regulations
2:52:38 that would have greater benefits to
2:52:41 habitats in the water but it would have
2:52:45 it could potentially be a lot more
2:52:47 research resource demanding
2:52:50 to track down and negotiate getting
2:52:54 existing lighting to come under
2:52:56 compliance
2:52:58 next slide please and then
2:53:01 we're also looking for feedback on um
2:53:05 whether the city wants to take a more
2:53:07 progressive approach
2:53:08 on using lighting standards for place
2:53:11 making and also for
2:53:13 additional energy efficiency so lighting
2:53:16 the technologies on lighting controls
2:53:18 have advanced
2:53:19 to the to the place where
2:53:22 you can program the amount of
2:53:24 illumination that a certain location
2:53:26 throughout the night so that it's lit
2:53:28 pretty brightly during the early evening
2:53:30 but then that light can go down
2:53:32 significantly when no one is expected to
2:53:34 be using um
2:53:35 this the place and then come gradually
2:53:38 higher
2:53:39 uh when the daytime years for example so
2:53:41 that has energy
2:53:43 savings um they
2:53:46 you can also uh require
2:53:49 higher um or more decorative or
2:53:53 higher quality fixtures that can be used
2:53:56 to create
2:53:57 outdoor rooms like the picture that
2:53:59 you're seeing here
2:54:01 um which has urban design benefits um
2:54:04 but also with with some of these
2:54:08 different fixtures they have different
2:54:09 maintenance requirements
2:54:11 um and to require developers
2:54:14 to do this elevated level of lighting
2:54:16 would also be an additional cost on the
2:54:18 developer
2:54:20 and that's all i have for lighting
2:54:24 and i have denise fong here
2:54:27 to answer technical questions on
2:54:29 lighting or any other questions that you
2:54:31 might have on this topic
2:54:34 thank you
2:54:42 all right and thank you very much coat
2:54:44 so let's go ahead and open this up to
2:54:46 commissioner
2:54:47 questions and i have a my first question
2:54:50 is from commissioner tom anderson
2:54:54 oh yes thank you i'm wondering
2:54:57 on motion detection switches
2:55:01 are any jurisdictions moving towards
2:55:04 requiring that in commercial spaces
2:55:06 and or residential spaces is that
2:55:09 something that's uh being done at all
2:55:11 or is that something we would be
2:55:12 considering
2:55:14 uh this is denise fong i can answer that
2:55:18 there are some code requirements
2:55:20 currently in the washington state energy
2:55:21 code for
2:55:22 those um almost all interior commercial
2:55:25 spaces require them
2:55:27 um for new construction at least they're
2:55:30 not required residentially
2:55:32 except in places like hotel rooms
2:55:35 um but not in single family residences
2:55:39 for exterior lighting there are some
2:55:41 minimal requirements for it but the
2:55:43 technology is still a little bit
2:55:47 new for that so it's not as reliable so
2:55:50 there is some reluctance to
2:55:52 require broadly for exterior lighting
2:55:54 but it is coming
2:55:56 because it is getting better
2:56:00 right so it's there's no part of that
2:56:02 that is part of the issaquah proposal
2:56:04 here though right you're just
2:56:08 except whatever whatever those kind of
2:56:10 common practices
2:56:11 are in that regard
2:56:15 there's nothing specific at this time
2:56:17 however one of the things
2:56:19 we're sort of asking for guidance from
2:56:21 the commission on
2:56:22 is do we want to go beyond what the
2:56:25 current energy
2:56:26 code state energy code requires and that
2:56:28 would be one place where you could go
2:56:29 beyond what the state code requires
2:56:32 okay yes thank you yeah and i'll add to
2:56:36 you know sometimes the police department
2:56:37 from a crime prevention
2:56:39 purposes i've heard them say um it's
2:56:42 it's the best crime prevention
2:56:44 mechanism because if you um are you know
2:56:46 if they're trying to find someone who's
2:56:48 uh on the run then the motion lights can
2:56:51 really lead them to that so there are
2:56:53 other benefits if the city chooses to
2:56:55 to require some but again i think the
2:56:57 thought process is going to be
2:56:59 where how much um and so on so forth but
2:57:02 that's a good point
2:57:07 all right and thank you very much
2:57:09 commissioner anderson uh was that
2:57:10 question
2:57:11 or were your questions answered to your
2:57:13 satisfaction
2:57:14 yes excellent uh okay
2:57:17 uh commissioner richard zargoza next
2:57:22 you chair uh richard ceragosa um my
2:57:25 question's around
2:57:26 um replacing existing
2:57:31 dock lighting um if we were to do that
2:57:34 uh is it a situation where we would go
2:57:37 through and negotiate the replacement of
2:57:38 each one
2:57:40 as as a requirement happens or could it
2:57:43 be something that
2:57:44 the requirement would be that as as old
2:57:47 technology fails
2:57:49 the new better technology is what needs
2:57:52 to be replaced i mean can we do it in
2:57:54 phased-in is it
2:57:55 is there other options as far as
2:57:59 regulating existing lighting
2:58:03 it could be phased in um it would be
2:58:07 it could be difficult to require people
2:58:10 to replace
2:58:11 with better technologies as they failed
2:58:13 because there wouldn't be any way of
2:58:14 this for the city to know when
2:58:16 um their current lighting failed but the
2:58:19 first step would probably
2:58:20 be to create an inventory of all of the
2:58:23 lighting that didn't meet the new
2:58:25 standard
2:58:26 and then the city could decide on
2:58:30 a sunset period where you could tell
2:58:33 folks that they had you know
2:58:34 two years or a year or whatever to to
2:58:37 bring their lighting into compliance
2:58:39 and after that time there could be
2:58:41 enforcement action for example
2:58:43 um to force compliance but again that
2:58:47 that would require knowing where the
2:58:49 lighting is
2:58:50 and then monitoring the lighting to make
2:58:53 sure it comes into compliance
2:58:56 thank you
2:59:06 thank you commissioner zargoza uh
2:59:09 commissioner joy lewis is next
2:59:13 thank you commissioner joy lewis here we
2:59:15 have two questions
2:59:17 one um when our um when the ppc was
2:59:20 reviewing sign code
2:59:21 we had some questions um for our
2:59:24 compliance officer officer gabrowski
2:59:26 who's always extremely helpful to us
2:59:28 about uh lumens and being able to
2:59:30 regulate
2:59:30 how bright a sign could be
2:59:34 and we're informed that there's really
2:59:36 no way for him to be able to enforce
2:59:38 and i was curious of in these
2:59:40 discussions with staff if you guys have
2:59:41 been talking about creating
2:59:43 basically a scale of lumens um with
2:59:46 lighting to be able to
2:59:48 i know we talked about color and things
2:59:49 like that but basically of how we create
2:59:51 a compliance
2:59:52 um element that doesn't currently exist
3:00:01 um i could take a stab at that one um
3:00:04 lumens are a tricky thing because
3:00:07 brightness is relative at night
3:00:09 and so if you have a bright sign
3:00:12 in a really dark environment and then
3:00:14 you have that same bright sign in an
3:00:16 environment that's got a lot of ambient
3:00:18 light in it
3:00:19 it won't seem so bright and so it's very
3:00:23 difficult to say
3:00:24 something at a certain number of lumens
3:00:27 is too bright or not bright enough
3:00:29 because it depends on what's happening
3:00:31 all around it
3:00:33 so when katie was explaining about the
3:00:36 lighting zones
3:00:37 zero through four um a sign in a
3:00:40 zero um environment
3:00:44 with even a tiny bit of light could seem
3:00:46 like it's
3:00:47 the brightest thing in the world and
3:00:49 that same sign
3:00:50 in a zone 4 would be hardly even look
3:00:53 like it was lit
3:00:55 so so that's why it's it's difficult to
3:00:58 lumens as a measurement of
3:01:02 comparison in an exterior nighttime
3:01:05 environment
3:01:08 um so how do we basically create a way
3:01:12 um for developers to need to adhere
3:01:15 to what the community's desires are
3:01:19 so yeah it's it's
3:01:22 it's tough but one of the ways that that
3:01:26 you know that seems to me to be more
3:01:27 effective would be to describe the kinds
3:01:30 of signage elements that are either
3:01:32 acceptable or not acceptable so you
3:01:35 might
3:01:35 you know there are signs types of signs
3:01:38 that are like halo lit signs where the
3:01:39 letters are
3:01:41 um the letters are opaque but light
3:01:43 leaks out from behind them
3:01:45 um that's that's what we call a halo lit
3:01:48 and then there are other signs that are
3:01:50 internally illuminated
3:01:52 and have it translucent plastic for both
3:01:55 the letter and the background
3:01:57 and those can those are generally
3:01:59 considered to be quite bright
3:02:01 and then there are signs where the
3:02:03 letters are translucent but the
3:02:04 background is opaque
3:02:06 and and that's kind of a medium
3:02:07 condition and so what
3:02:10 what could happen instead is
3:02:13 the sign standards could say certain
3:02:16 kinds of signage are acceptable
3:02:18 and certain kinds of signage are not
3:02:20 acceptable and that can include
3:02:22 colors and it can include
3:02:25 the relative size of the sign as well so
3:02:27 those things can be
3:02:29 there can be sort of formulas or ratios
3:02:32 developed that can
3:02:36 regulate those sorts of things it's not
3:02:38 as straightforward
3:02:40 but it's probably more effective in
3:02:43 terms of controlling
3:02:44 overall brightness within an area
3:02:47 okay thank you i'm curious um something
3:02:50 that i've been talking with staff about
3:02:52 for years
3:02:53 has been the fact that isaqua is an
3:02:55 extreme
3:02:56 light polluter compared to its
3:02:58 surrounding communities
3:03:00 we score very badly in this area and one
3:03:02 of the reasons is that we don't have a
3:03:04 consistent lighting standard so i'm
3:03:05 really excited that we're addressing
3:03:08 and i'm curious i didn't see any
3:03:10 reference right now
3:03:12 to specifically to like a um a dark
3:03:14 skies friendly
3:03:15 lighting because there there is an
3:03:18 aggressive regulation that can happen
3:03:20 where things can be
3:03:21 fully lit but lit in a way that can
3:03:24 fully complies with safety standards we
3:03:26 need for our community but also adheres
3:03:28 to what is needed for
3:03:29 wildlife to be able to thrive in our
3:03:31 area but i didn't see us actually
3:03:32 mentioning
3:03:33 we mentioned that that's a benefit but i
3:03:35 didn't actually see us putting it
3:03:37 in as being a requirement that we're
3:03:38 going to have all lighting be dark skies
3:03:42 compliant and i'm curious what kind of
3:03:43 discussions were happening about that
3:03:45 well um actually a lot of the city of
3:03:49 issaquah is dark sky compliant
3:03:52 most of the roadway lighting is not but
3:03:55 most of the lighting on private
3:03:56 developed
3:03:57 property actually is um and it's
3:04:00 actually
3:04:01 believe it or not much better than many
3:04:03 of the cities surrounding it
3:04:04 um issaquah has been paying attention to
3:04:06 it for a lot of years and
3:04:09 that's part of the review process as
3:04:12 as properties are getting permitted
3:04:15 it doesn't mean it can't be improved but
3:04:18 but it's definitely been
3:04:19 part of the review process for quite a
3:04:22 while
3:04:24 so are we looking at actually putting
3:04:26 into the code the exact
3:04:28 dark skies um i think it i think there's
3:04:31 an actual i guess
3:04:32 the dark skies initiative or a line yeah
3:04:40 there's something that's called the
3:04:40 model lighting ordinance that's um
3:04:42 co-sponsored by the dark skies
3:04:44 association in the illuminating
3:04:46 engineering society
3:04:47 and that's one of the reference
3:04:48 documents that was included in your
3:04:49 packet
3:04:50 um i'm curious if we're actually looking
3:04:53 at putting that language
3:04:55 right now i didn't see that as putting
3:04:57 as in it wasn't in our gaps analysis and
3:04:59 it wasn't
3:05:00 um but it was referenced so that's why i
3:05:01 was trying to understand where the
3:05:02 conversation was right now
3:05:08 i think that that we used that um
3:05:11 reference document
3:05:12 as as one of the best practice documents
3:05:15 that we would be incorporating into the
3:05:16 update so yes we will be looking at that
3:05:20 and incorporating those regulations into
3:05:23 the update
3:05:24 fantastic thank you denise and katie
3:05:32 okay thank you very much uh commissioner
3:05:34 lewis and commissioner
3:05:36 nina milligan where's yours
3:05:39 thank you chair fall this is nina
3:05:41 milligan again
3:05:42 i have four questions uh
3:05:46 thank you commissioner lewis for driving
3:05:48 the point home about the dark sky
3:05:51 standards because i um my questions have
3:05:55 to do with supporting
3:05:56 that objective one of them was
3:06:00 do we have directional standards
3:06:03 throughout the city like we do
3:06:05 in issaquah highlands for um lighting
3:06:09 that's one question the other is
3:06:14 i'm just going to rattle them off and
3:06:15 then you guys can because these are
3:06:16 simple you'll remember them you can go
3:06:17 through
3:06:18 do we have directional standards already
3:06:20 are we looking at um
3:06:21 broadening them number two how do we
3:06:24 handle enforcement on private property
3:06:26 you know a lot of things we're talking
3:06:27 about has to do with street lighting or
3:06:29 park lighting or something like that
3:06:31 but if a resident or um commercial
3:06:34 property
3:06:35 seems to violate our standard
3:06:39 is this where enforcement would go
3:06:43 number three is are we looking
3:06:46 at adding standards such as
3:06:50 using solar power for
3:06:53 the energy source for some of our
3:06:56 outdoor lighting i know there
3:06:57 are some really great uh technology
3:07:00 available today that we could
3:07:02 add and the last one is the most
3:07:05 difficult one that has to do with our
3:07:06 vision talks about what we want our
3:07:08 outdoor lighting for
3:07:09 and none of it is sports fields yet
3:07:13 sports fields are the ones that seem to
3:07:16 piercing the night sky more than
3:07:18 anything else and i live in issaquah
3:07:20 island so i can tell you they are
3:07:22 also adjacent to open spaces and
3:07:25 critical areas
3:07:26 and i just don't know how this happens
3:07:29 i don't know how to stop happening in
3:07:31 the future can you speak to
3:07:34 what we can do in regards to this
3:07:37 community demand for lighting sports
3:07:39 fields
3:07:40 thank you
3:07:46 so denise maybe you can handle the
3:07:48 directional
3:07:49 standards um and then
3:07:54 the sports fields or maybe just take a
3:07:56 shot at any of them that you want to
3:07:58 handle and i'll
3:07:59 handle the ones you don't want to sure
3:08:02 commissioner million can i just ask you
3:08:04 for a clarification on the directional
3:08:05 standards i'm not quite sure i followed
3:08:07 what you're
3:08:08 getting at there uh yeah i think it's in
3:08:12 the development agreements in the
3:08:15 especially in the urban villages that
3:08:17 are on the hillside such as talis and
3:08:18 isoqua highlands that um
3:08:20 up lighting is not allowed in any way
3:08:22 and so there are um
3:08:25 diagrams and other things that uh
3:08:27 illustrate this sort of lighting that
3:08:29 is capped on the top for directional
3:08:30 lighting down
3:08:32 does that good of a um but there's an
3:08:35 effort to do that
3:08:36 okay i know i understand what you're
3:08:37 saying um yes um that's one of the
3:08:39 things we want to do is unify
3:08:41 the standards so across the entire city
3:08:45 every it's basically the same
3:08:46 requirement so no up lights
3:08:49 anywhere and and make that so that it's
3:08:52 um by neighborhood um
3:08:55 so yes and then on the sports field one
3:09:00 um i've only been involved in um
3:09:03 i actually do the reviews for the city
3:09:05 um when when people have
3:09:06 uh put projects in and i've only been
3:09:09 involved in one
3:09:10 um sports field and um
3:09:13 it was for one of the schools uh
3:09:17 and and and this is a real um sort of
3:09:20 um it's a it's a tough one because
3:09:23 people really want their sports fields
3:09:25 to be able to be used beyond
3:09:27 daylight hours um because there's such
3:09:30 pressure from the community to have
3:09:33 sports fields available
3:09:35 but at the same time they can be very
3:09:38 big problems in terms of light pollution
3:09:40 the good news is that the the new led
3:09:44 technology
3:09:45 is really excellent at um
3:09:48 keeping the light on the sports field
3:09:51 and not allowing it to spill beyond
3:09:53 the older technologies that we had
3:09:56 available really couldn't be controlled
3:09:57 in the same way
3:10:00 and so and the other thing that's really
3:10:02 nice about leds is that
3:10:04 they're instant on and instant off they
3:10:06 don't have any warm-up time like the
3:10:08 older technologies did
3:10:10 so they can be um very
3:10:13 carefully shielded um that doesn't mean
3:10:16 that you're not gonna get
3:10:17 bounce light off the surface sorry about
3:10:20 someone just arrived at my house and my
3:10:22 dog's excited um
3:10:24 it doesn't mean that there won't be some
3:10:28 some bounce light from it um but the
3:10:30 best i think the best way of addressing
3:10:32 that is through
3:10:33 timing so when people want to build a
3:10:35 sports field and they want to light it
3:10:36 at night
3:10:37 have restrictions on when those lights
3:10:39 can be turned on
3:10:41 um you know this the fields themselves
3:10:43 have to be turned off maybe within 15
3:10:45 minutes of when the event ends
3:10:47 and the light that allows people to get
3:10:49 out of the park which is a different set
3:10:50 of lights
3:10:51 can be on for maybe half an hour after
3:10:53 the event ends and then
3:10:55 everyone knows that's what the deal is
3:10:57 and so that minimizes
3:11:00 the the time when the pollution occurs
3:11:04 and and so things like that can be put
3:11:06 into place and built into the
3:11:08 regulations and i know for the school
3:11:09 that we worked on
3:11:11 that was actually part of the agreement
3:11:13 in order to get those lights in was that
3:11:14 they had to have a certain
3:11:16 there was a timing issue related to it
3:11:22 so um kitty i'll let you answer the
3:11:24 solar power question and the enforcement
3:11:26 question
3:11:27 okay um i think for enforcement
3:11:30 um i think this is just a general
3:11:32 enforcement answer not
3:11:33 not necessarily specific to lighting um
3:11:36 usually enforcement is is complaint
3:11:39 based
3:11:40 so someone would need to either a member
3:11:42 of the community or even a
3:11:44 member of the city staff who may be out
3:11:47 on an inspection or whatever wouldn't
3:11:49 would notify the enforcement officer
3:11:51 that a light
3:11:52 is not complying with the lighting
3:11:55 standards and at that point the
3:11:56 enforcement officer would
3:11:58 would engage with the property owner and
3:12:01 ask them to come into compliance and
3:12:04 then there's
3:12:04 a series of elevations if they don't
3:12:07 comply
3:12:08 um but i don't want to quote those
3:12:10 because i don't think that i'll be
3:12:11 correct
3:12:12 coding off the top of my head um and
3:12:14 then in terms of
3:12:16 solar powered lighting that would be a
3:12:19 specific lighting
3:12:20 solution we haven't talked about that as
3:12:23 something that we would require but it's
3:12:26 definitely an
3:12:26 option that we could consider um
3:12:29 learning more about
3:12:30 um to see whether or not it would be a
3:12:33 good solution for
3:12:35 uh for a light to make
3:12:38 we would want to make sure that
3:12:42 there would be a backup because a light
3:12:44 would also need to we would need to make
3:12:46 sure it performed its function
3:12:47 for safety so we we may need to
3:12:50 know more about the technology to make
3:12:52 sure that there was a backup in the case
3:12:54 the solar um cells were not charged
3:12:57 enough to
3:12:58 illuminate the space
3:13:21 ron you're muted
3:13:25 never good talking to myself um
3:13:29 thank you very much uh consultant coats
3:13:31 and commissioner milligan
3:13:33 uh i do have a question and that is from
3:13:35 a solar standpoint can't we source
3:13:38 um alternative energy from
3:13:41 psc presently make that part of our
3:13:44 policy so we can
3:13:45 implement some environmental
3:13:52 benefit
3:13:55 to our current lighting strategy
3:14:01 i don't know the answer to that question
3:14:03 whether the city can source
3:14:05 clean energy from psc directly someone
3:14:07 else from the city know the answer uh
3:14:10 you know i don't
3:14:11 um but in terms of these are you know
3:14:13 these are standards uh well megan
3:14:15 turner uh megan do you know do you want
3:14:17 to take that one
3:14:19 sure this is megan curtis murphy um
3:14:23 so the city does source um renewable
3:14:26 energy
3:14:26 for 95 of our operations through puget
3:14:30 sound energy
3:14:31 through a program called green direct um
3:14:33 so that's for our operations
3:14:35 and then um residents are able to buy
3:14:39 a program called green power through
3:14:41 puget sound energy
3:14:43 that helps support that as well that's
3:14:45 an optional program for residents
3:14:47 or businesses
3:14:52 excellent thank you very much uh making
3:14:53 curtis murphy hey
3:14:55 um with that said we are
3:14:59 gonna close out the commissioner
3:15:01 questions or comments
3:15:03 uh and then we'll go ahead and open up
3:15:08 public comments based on this topic and
3:15:10 kristin do we have any
3:15:11 members from the top from the public who
3:15:14 would like to make a comment
3:15:16 yes connie marsh would like to speak
3:15:19 funny you are unmuted
3:15:22 okay so it's connie marsh again so first
3:15:25 thing if we're going to do light we need
3:15:27 to do noise because our noise
3:15:30 our noise code is impossible to enforce
3:15:34 and ridiculously poor so
3:15:38 um thanks for the dark skies thing
3:15:41 from other people some of the other
3:15:44 issues that we have had with
3:15:46 light is actually interior light
3:15:49 that seeps out of buildings especially
3:15:53 parking garages
3:15:55 and create
3:15:59 lighting issues even though it's not
3:16:02 exterior
3:16:03 lighting and so that needs to have some
3:16:05 controls put on it
3:16:07 actually it was not clear that this was
3:16:10 also public lighting so i would like to
3:16:13 have some clarification
3:16:15 as to what part of this lighting is all
3:16:18 about public lighting as compared to
3:16:21 private lighting because we have many
3:16:24 places in our town
3:16:25 where it is dark as dark can be
3:16:29 no lights not safe and somehow
3:16:32 we have never decided that we should fix
3:16:36 that as a public policy
3:16:40 so what are our standards for exterior
3:16:43 lighting in
3:16:44 public areas in this town
3:16:47 for safety and have we ever had that
3:16:50 conversation
3:16:51 and we also have a freeway that goes
3:16:53 through the center of our town and
3:16:55 everybody wants to be seen from the
3:16:58 freeway
3:16:59 so we need to address this lighting as
3:17:02 it pertains to the freeway
3:17:05 as a topic of conversation
3:17:08 and um you know docklighting
3:17:11 i i don't know do we actually have a
3:17:13 problem with dock lighting has anybody
3:17:15 gone out to see how many people have
3:17:17 lights on their docks and whether they
3:17:19 are on timers that automatically
3:17:22 cut off at a certain time or i because
3:17:26 i'm not i don't know if there's a
3:17:27 problem or not i don't know if anybody
3:17:29 knows there's a problem
3:17:31 or not and i also don't know how
3:17:34 or who is going to enforce that i
3:17:36 suppose you could just go visit
3:17:38 doc parties that would be pretty fun
3:17:41 part of that i think needs to be
3:17:43 education for everybody who lives around
3:17:45 a critical area
3:17:46 they need to understand what lighting
3:17:51 for the animals uh
3:17:54 and and our natural environment
3:17:58 and i think we're absolutely breast
3:18:01 of education on lighting as it impacts
3:18:04 natural areas in this town
3:18:06 i so uh is this a code
3:18:10 is this a code issue i don't know if we
3:18:13 are trying to solve a problem
3:18:15 i think it is part of the solution
3:18:18 whether it can be codified or not
3:18:22 and of course light impacts
3:18:26 everyone so when you say you're going to
3:18:28 put light in
3:18:29 zones i don't
3:18:32 i don't really see how putting lights
3:18:35 in zones doesn't impact people
3:18:38 outside of those zones so i'm gonna have
3:18:42 to understand
3:18:44 what that means because i i i guess that
3:18:47 was gibberish to me
3:18:50 and that could just be my brain so then
3:18:52 the last thing
3:18:54 is public lighting like school feels and
3:18:58 that brings me
3:18:59 to the concept of elevation because just
3:19:02 like with noise
3:19:03 light is an elevation issue so while you
3:19:06 think it's a cut off
3:19:08 the person who is down slope from you
3:19:10 because we're filled with terrain
3:19:12 doesn't feel like that's a cut off they
3:19:14 feel like it's glaring into their living
3:19:15 room windows
3:19:17 and so when you make these standards
3:19:21 they have to be in context with the ele
3:19:25 surrounding elevations and that is huge
3:19:28 so when you get to let's do an example
3:19:31 the uh school parking lot that had the
3:19:34 surprise
3:19:35 lights on 2nd avenue with people
3:19:39 downslope from them when the school
3:19:41 district said they weren't going to have
3:19:42 any lights and then they put them up
3:19:45 like how the heck did that happen
3:19:48 how do we ever keep that do we keep that
3:19:50 from ever happening again
3:19:52 and how do we create a consistent
3:19:55 community process for when you are
3:19:57 putting in public lighting that is going
3:20:00 impact people so that they have their
3:20:04 in an elegant and streamlined way where
3:20:07 their lives
3:20:08 are are not harmed and i haven't heard
3:20:10 much about
3:20:12 processes in all of this code
3:20:16 and keeping the community intertwined
3:20:20 in what is happening so that they can
3:20:22 speak
3:20:23 and make it so that it doesn't impact
3:20:25 their own lives
3:20:27 is a tremendous thing especially when
3:20:29 you're talking about
3:20:30 playing fields um and so i would add
3:20:34 as a as a a topic for
3:20:38 all of the points that you have
3:20:40 discussed is what is the process
3:20:42 and has it how does it interface with
3:20:46 the community thank you
3:20:55 is there anyone else from the public who
3:20:56 would like to speak at this time if so
3:20:58 please raise your hand
3:21:00 or let me know in the chat
3:21:07 there is no one else who would like to
3:21:08 speak okay excellent
3:21:11 and we're going to hold off our comments
3:21:13 until uh
3:21:14 or write them in we're going to go and
3:21:17 move on to the next topic
3:21:19 and minnie the floor is yours again
3:21:42 i can just jump in this one's me um
3:21:45 if that's okay with you minnie
3:21:48 uh so here we are we've made it to the
3:21:51 last section
3:21:52 um congratulations to all of you i hope
3:21:54 everyone's still awake
3:21:55 i'm gonna do an abbreviated version
3:21:57 because i think most folks have had a
3:21:59 chance to review
3:22:00 um the memo and the slideshow at this
3:22:02 point but
3:22:03 in general i just want to introduce this
3:22:06 topic as
3:22:07 um as the beginning of a conversation
3:22:10 that we're hoping
3:22:11 will be um very interactive and
3:22:15 and ultimately really successful in
3:22:17 incorporating the goals
3:22:19 that is on of sustainability and climate
3:22:22 resiliency into the land use code
3:22:24 um as i mentioned the climate action
3:22:26 plan is currently being developed
3:22:28 um we're working really closely with
3:22:31 megan
3:22:31 and her folks to understand what those
3:22:34 goals are
3:22:35 um and how they are specifically
3:22:39 applicable to the land use code and
3:22:43 my goal with this presentation is to
3:22:45 begin to discuss
3:22:46 how some options for integrating
3:22:49 sustainable planning into the land use
3:22:52 um and sharing some examples of how
3:22:55 other
3:22:55 cities have done that so next slide
3:23:00 so there are many vision there are many
3:23:02 um long-range
3:23:03 plans goals strategic plan policies
3:23:06 a lot in issaquah that talks about
3:23:09 wanting to be a leader in sustainability
3:23:11 um so we've taken all of those into
3:23:13 account there's very little
3:23:15 on specifically how to integrate
3:23:18 sustainability into land use code though
3:23:21 next slide
3:23:23 um so i think our understanding of
3:23:26 sustainability is that we are
3:23:29 prioritizing conservation of resources
3:23:32 so that resources will be available for
3:23:35 future generations
3:23:36 next slide a couple climate words
3:23:40 when we talk about climate mitigation
3:23:42 we're talking about reducing greenhouse
3:23:44 gases
3:23:44 and trying to mitigate the cause of
3:23:48 climate change which has
3:23:49 been found to be greenhouse gas
3:23:51 emissions climate adaptation
3:23:53 means strategies that
3:23:57 help us to live in a in a changing world
3:24:01 helping us to be more resilient to
3:24:06 extreme weather events to natural
3:24:08 hazards and then climate resilience
3:24:10 is the ability to thrive
3:24:14 in this changing climate world next
3:24:17 slide
3:24:18 so just wanted to quickly put this up
3:24:20 here to show
3:24:21 some of the different sources of
3:24:23 emissions from washington state
3:24:25 we didn't have this information for
3:24:27 issaquah unfortunately but this was
3:24:29 helpful just to see that the largest
3:24:31 share comes from transportation sources
3:24:33 followed by
3:24:34 from building sources and then that
3:24:36 third green
3:24:37 pie piece is a combination of many
3:24:40 different sources of
3:24:41 greenhouse gas emissions
3:24:44 and the bulleted items are strategies
3:24:48 one could use to reduce greenhouse gas
3:24:51 emissions
3:24:51 some of those have to do with landy's
3:24:53 planning
3:24:54 like where we build houses in
3:24:57 relationship to transportation
3:24:59 modes of transportation and jobs and
3:25:01 services
3:25:02 um some have to do with building codes
3:25:06 and others have to do with
3:25:09 transportation networks
3:25:11 and and others next slide
3:25:14 and then we also recognize that nature
3:25:16 plays a huge role in
3:25:18 being climate resilient nature
3:25:21 plays has the ecosystem functions of
3:25:24 nature have
3:25:25 um climate benefits from providing shade
3:25:28 from extreme heating events to carbon
3:25:30 sequestration of trees
3:25:32 to helping with storm water um
3:25:36 helping with pollution and flood
3:25:38 management through smart storm water
3:25:40 practices and preserving habitats
3:25:44 that also serve ecosystem functions next
3:25:47 slide
3:25:49 um so state law currently doesn't have
3:25:52 clear rules for land use planning and
3:25:55 climate
3:25:56 um there may be some coming down the
3:25:59 um with gma updates that might that are
3:26:01 kind of in the works right now the state
3:26:04 does have some guidance
3:26:06 for increasing housing diversity
3:26:09 especially close to transit stops which
3:26:12 we're looking at
3:26:13 next slide i'm not going to go through
3:26:17 basically this is just reiterating that
3:26:19 a lot of
3:26:20 issaquah's um long-range policies
3:26:24 and city council priorities um
3:26:27 intersect with ways that we can be more
3:26:29 sustainable and climate resilient
3:26:31 next um this
3:26:35 lists some of the draft climate action
3:26:37 plan strategies that the environment
3:26:39 board is familiar with these just came
3:26:41 out in the last
3:26:42 few weeks none of them specifically
3:26:45 addressed land use policies so that
3:26:47 could be an area where we could discuss
3:26:49 more but
3:26:50 um at this point we're talking about
3:26:52 energy efficiency
3:26:54 um land use of transportation um
3:26:58 co-locating transit and near um
3:27:02 services and
3:27:05 being water
3:27:09 conserving resources in general uh next
3:27:12 slide
3:27:14 so i just wanted to point out a couple
3:27:16 cities that we looked into
3:27:18 um and how they uh addressed
3:27:20 sustainability in their
3:27:21 codes uh olympia's main focus was on
3:27:24 integrating um missing middle housing
3:27:27 and and
3:27:28 placing lots of housing close to transit
3:27:30 stops
3:27:31 um kirkland has um has really focused on
3:27:35 building out their
3:27:36 active transportation network and um
3:27:40 and prioritizing um
3:27:44 transit and green building and low
3:27:45 impact development um
3:27:48 and then redmond is also
3:27:52 done maybe is maybe the strongest on
3:27:54 green building in infrastructure and it
3:27:56 has provided a lot of incentives
3:27:58 for additional landscaping and green
3:28:01 roofs
3:28:01 um and uh rainwater collection
3:28:05 and that type of thing next slide
3:28:09 um so a lot of the the
3:28:12 action items on this slide are actually
3:28:15 parts of
3:28:15 other topics of the code update tree
3:28:18 density
3:28:18 and retention we'll talk about the next
3:28:21 education
3:28:22 session we've talked a lot about
3:28:24 critical areas today
3:28:26 parking um we will address it at a
3:28:28 future session as well so
3:28:30 we are doing some of these some of this
3:28:32 planning
3:28:33 through different topics um but it's all
3:28:36 part of a
3:28:37 strategy for the land use code as a
3:28:40 whole
3:28:41 so part of what we're trying to figure
3:28:42 out right now is
3:28:44 how is the what framework to use in the
3:28:47 land use code
3:28:48 to reflect that we're trying to be
3:28:51 leaders in sustainability
3:28:53 and to make sure that the public and and
3:28:55 those using the code
3:28:56 understand that um there will be lots of
3:28:59 different strategies that contribute to
3:29:01 sustainability
3:29:02 and the question we're coming to you
3:29:05 with is
3:29:06 um should we take
3:29:09 one approach where we just integrate
3:29:11 these strategies that we're developing
3:29:14 that are more climate resilient and
3:29:15 climate friendly into the land use code
3:29:17 in general
3:29:18 and then our code as a whole is um
3:29:22 more sustainable or or and or perhaps
3:29:26 do we create a system whereby developers
3:29:29 have to
3:29:31 meet a certain level of performance
3:29:35 of these climate strategies and maybe
3:29:38 it's both
3:29:38 that's something that we're considering
3:29:40 right now next slide
3:29:44 um so again one option would be
3:29:47 comprehensive revisions
3:29:49 this is um similar to the approach that
3:29:52 um olympian kirkland took they just
3:29:55 decided that they were going to be
3:29:56 leaders in certain areas and they made
3:29:58 their code very robust in those areas
3:30:00 or i think it was redmond i may be
3:30:02 getting it mixed up it's ten o'clock
3:30:04 um or do we do an approach where um
3:30:07 there's a menu of options and developers
3:30:10 can choose which ones they want to
3:30:12 perform
3:30:13 higher in um in order to
3:30:16 achieve the rating that the city
3:30:18 requires for their project
3:30:21 and that's the end of my uh presentation
3:30:29 and thank you very much
3:30:31 consultant coach let's go ahead and open
3:30:33 it up to commissioner
3:30:42 questions
3:30:48 and we have a question from commissioner
3:30:50 milligan
3:30:53 i'm awake now this is commissioner
3:30:55 milligan
3:30:56 thank you for staying up with me and
3:30:58 this is such an important topic and i do
3:31:00 hope that our
3:31:01 um fellow commissioners from
3:31:03 environmental board will chime in
3:31:05 with um their questions or comments
3:31:07 because we do as commissioner lewis said
3:31:09 earlier would love to hear from you
3:31:11 that's why you're in the room with us
3:31:12 right now um i have a couple questions
3:31:17 one has to do with a conflict in my mind
3:31:20 that commissioner lewis brought up
3:31:22 earlier on page 13 of our packet it says
3:31:26 this title 18 is not going to deal with
3:31:28 energy efficiency
3:31:30 or other things in building standards
3:31:31 and yet in the powerpoint slide
3:31:34 we sounds like we might have the
3:31:36 opportunity to
3:31:37 regulate based on requiring
3:31:39 certifications for leed certified or
3:31:41 built green
3:31:42 and that other cities have done that so
3:31:45 i'd like to hear that clarified
3:31:48 i also want to ask about increasing
3:31:49 residential density
3:31:51 i don't understand why that's mentioned
3:31:53 here number one i think it's targeting
3:31:55 single family neighborhoods and singer
3:31:57 family neighborhoods
3:31:59 are one of our greatest contributors to
3:32:02 tree canopy and increasing density in
3:32:05 single family neighborhoods would erode
3:32:06 our tree canopy
3:32:07 the other thing is is that increasing
3:32:09 density in our single family
3:32:11 neighborhoods doesn't solve the problem
3:32:13 of why they're car dependent they're car
3:32:14 dependent because they don't have any
3:32:15 other uses in them
3:32:17 so i'm just wondering why we're even
3:32:19 talking oh and one other reason i wonder
3:32:21 why we're talking about
3:32:22 um increased residential density we
3:32:25 already have
3:32:26 more way more residential capacity
3:32:30 already in our building capacity in
3:32:32 central issaquad than our growth targets
3:32:35 um so i i'm wondering why that's uh
3:32:37 being mentioned those are my two
3:32:40 things that i thought you guys might
3:32:41 help me with tonight thank you
3:32:44 sure um so um
3:32:47 the reason that we mentioned the green
3:32:50 building
3:32:52 in in the examples
3:32:55 is because it is a way of encouraging
3:32:59 sustainability and climate resilience
3:33:02 and it's adjacent to the land use code
3:33:05 because the land use code is you know
3:33:07 the rules the
3:33:09 land rules that underlie development but
3:33:11 eventually a building will be built
3:33:13 and that will need to meet the building
3:33:15 code and
3:33:16 and the zoning code and all of the
3:33:19 setbacks and all the development
3:33:20 standards
3:33:21 they're all related to the building code
3:33:26 we can't change we're not going to be
3:33:28 changing the building codes through this
3:33:29 title 18 process
3:33:31 but we can still create a framework
3:33:34 um so that when someone comes in for
3:33:37 development
3:33:38 and they need a land use permit the land
3:33:41 use code
3:33:42 will have different standards that they
3:33:44 need to meet and it's not unlike
3:33:46 um you know if if if
3:33:49 a resident or a commercial development
3:33:52 came in
3:33:53 we would tell them you need to meet the
3:33:55 storm water code
3:33:57 that you know that could be in the land
3:33:58 use code and then they would need to go
3:34:00 to that different place to do it
3:34:02 so i think what we would be encouraging
3:34:05 um is a framework that envisioned
3:34:08 eventually
3:34:08 um you know if the city does update
3:34:11 their building codes or there's some
3:34:14 outside certification
3:34:17 as a land use requirement we could have
3:34:19 as a standard that they meet this higher
3:34:21 green building standard um we wouldn't
3:34:24 be creating that standard as a part of
3:34:28 update it would be created by others but
3:34:30 we could reference it
3:34:31 and require it um
3:34:35 as a strategy i guess
3:34:38 but at this point that that doesn't
3:34:41 exist
3:34:42 yet i don't know if megan wants to chime
3:34:44 in with more details
3:34:46 on green building in particular
3:34:51 maybe maybe not while she's thinking
3:34:54 maybe i can
3:34:54 um well go ahead and yeah i can step in
3:34:58 took me a minute with the camera
3:35:00 uh this is megan um yes i think you know
3:35:03 green building standards is something
3:35:05 we've we've thought about in the city in
3:35:07 the past um looking at the sustainable
3:35:09 building action strategy
3:35:11 um the the highlands i think as as you
3:35:14 has had some green building standards up
3:35:16 there
3:35:17 we've done incentives in the past for
3:35:21 trying to encourage green building and
3:35:22 we've gotten some out of there but we
3:35:24 haven't gone to
3:35:25 to require it at this time um so that is
3:35:29 something
3:35:30 that could be discussed more if that was
3:35:32 something people are interested in
3:35:34 um but as uh katie was saying the
3:35:38 um the code updates would need to be
3:35:41 um it could be something that was
3:35:44 required in the land used overall but if
3:35:46 we were just looking at energy code or
3:35:47 something like that that would be
3:35:49 something that was more in the building
3:35:51 and wouldn't be able to be required in
3:35:52 the land use code
3:35:57 and then to address your question about
3:35:59 changes to residential density
3:36:02 i think it's it's not it's not so much
3:36:05 the density that's important but it's
3:36:07 the location of the density in relation
3:36:10 other services the goal is to reduce
3:36:13 vehicle miles travel
3:36:14 that's that's the the goal of increasing
3:36:16 density but you don't
3:36:17 want to increase density way out you
3:36:22 10 miles away from any services or
3:36:24 transit you would want to focus density
3:36:27 to places where more density could be
3:36:29 added near services or transit lines or
3:36:32 places of employment um
3:36:34 so people could drive less basically
3:36:38 and i think that there could still be
3:36:40 ways to
3:36:42 integrate density into a single family
3:36:44 neighborhood without
3:36:45 eroding the tree canopy through design
3:36:48 standards
3:36:49 um and perhaps if
3:36:53 if the city's finding that that there
3:36:55 are places that
3:36:57 are separate from services and
3:37:00 non-residential uses that could be
3:37:02 another conversation to have is
3:37:05 is it appropriate to add different uses
3:37:07 in areas that right now are only
3:37:14 residential
3:37:21 okay and thank you very much uh
3:37:24 commissioner milligan
3:37:25 and commissioner joy lewis has a
3:37:28 question
3:37:30 thank you commissioner joy lewis and
3:37:32 thank you to nina for those awesome
3:37:33 questions
3:37:34 um and for katie for those responses
3:37:36 that was really helpful
3:37:37 um when i was looking at this at these
3:37:40 options of one and two
3:37:41 i couldn't help but think about um some
3:37:43 of the history we have for how we have
3:37:45 previously
3:37:46 um in our country tried to address this
3:37:49 right and i couldn't help but think
3:37:50 about things like a carbon tax where
3:37:52 that money that polluters pay in rarely
3:37:54 go to the communities that are being
3:37:56 polluted
3:37:57 and i have concerns right now about this
3:37:59 point system
3:38:00 is incredibly vague to me right i think
3:38:03 it's incredibly intriguing
3:38:04 i think that it could have a lot of
3:38:06 fantastic benefits
3:38:07 and ways that we're not constraining
3:38:10 growth in our community and that we're
3:38:12 encouraging right because that's what we
3:38:13 really want is to be able to get
3:38:15 somewhere
3:38:15 fast right now on this topic right
3:38:18 rather than having
3:38:19 onerous things that really slow down the
3:38:21 process we want to figure out how do we
3:38:22 really
3:38:23 start making huge strides and quickly so
3:38:26 i love the idea of the point system but
3:38:28 right now i felt like in my packet i
3:38:30 wasn't presented
3:38:31 with enough to be able to say yeah this
3:38:33 is really encouraging i like this
3:38:35 what i saw instead was a lot of pitfalls
3:38:37 where developers were able to kind of
3:38:38 pick and choose and kind of hit a little
3:38:40 a little bit and have us not really be
3:38:43 reaching the aggressive goals that we
3:38:44 need to be
3:38:45 so the next time that we see this i'd
3:38:47 really like more information
3:38:49 about the structure of what this looks
3:38:51 like and to really
3:38:53 um also have kind of a commitment from
3:38:55 the city one way or the other
3:38:57 of maybe even you're asking like how how
3:38:59 um stringent should this be
3:39:01 um in a point system but i'd really like
3:39:04 deep dive more into this it's hard for
3:39:06 me to say option one or two
3:39:09 because um i think it could be very easy
3:39:12 for developers to kind of go well
3:39:14 give you a little bit and let's go okay
3:39:15 that's great i want us to see how do we
3:39:19 this kind of menu of options while also
3:39:22 pairing um
3:39:23 the needs of the community and so i'd
3:39:25 love to get more on it
3:39:27 thank you
3:39:30 thank you commissioner
3:39:34 we have a question from commissioner
3:39:36 fetch
3:39:38 thank you chair paul finch speaking um
3:39:42 so the first question should the city
3:39:45 pursue a city-wide strategy by
3:39:47 integrating sustainability into multiple
3:39:49 code chapters i'm curious like
3:39:51 it is what's the alternative is that
3:39:54 not doing anything like i'm trying to
3:39:56 figure out what's the b
3:39:58 to that a or like what are the what's
3:40:00 the option there
3:40:01 is it really that it would just be only
3:40:03 a performance-based standard for
3:40:05 title 18 or building or what what sort
3:40:08 of the alternative that we should be
3:40:09 considering there
3:40:14 i think one way or the other as a result
3:40:17 of the climate action plan
3:40:18 the city will be um integrating
3:40:22 well just by modernizing the code and
3:40:25 and incorporating best practices we'll
3:40:27 be elevating
3:40:28 the level of the code somewhat i think
3:40:31 the question
3:40:32 maybe could have been turned around
3:40:34 should there be a point system or not
3:40:37 um because i think we probably
3:40:40 we are not going to do nothing so the
3:40:44 question is
3:40:44 do how do we want to
3:40:48 present the solution to the community so
3:40:51 that people understand how
3:40:53 issaquah is leading in sustainability is
3:40:55 it we
3:40:56 have these hallmark sections of the code
3:41:00 that we can point to and say we've
3:41:01 developed this really great
3:41:03 parking section or this really great
3:41:05 tree section
3:41:06 or do we say we've developed this
3:41:10 issaquah sustainability score and that's
3:41:13 how we're
3:41:14 going to be showing
3:41:17 the performance for sustainability
3:41:23 thank you thank you commissioner finch i
3:41:28 don't see any additional questions here
3:41:31 oh we do
3:41:32 one question came in from commissioner
3:41:34 nancy davidson
3:41:37 thank you very much this is nancy
3:41:39 davidson um i guess the question i have
3:41:41 about
3:41:42 um the point system that you're talking
3:41:44 about which is kind of intriguing
3:41:47 but um it seems to me that it would tie
3:41:50 into if you're talking sustainability
3:41:52 pretty much most of the subjects we've
3:41:54 covered tonight
3:41:56 you know water soils buffers
3:41:59 all of that which makes it even more
3:42:02 intriguing
3:42:02 if you can tie it into more subjects
3:42:05 than building efficiency
3:42:09 vehicle efficiency that you know light
3:42:13 that type of thing so i guess if that's
3:42:15 the approach
3:42:16 that maybe the ppc thinks they might
3:42:19 want to go or however the council
3:42:21 decides to go
3:42:22 i hope that it's considered in a broader
3:42:24 context to bring
3:42:25 in you know water and other pieces into
3:42:28 it because
3:42:29 kind of an intriguing idea and it gives
3:42:31 an opportunity
3:42:32 for property owners or business
3:42:35 developers to be more creative in how
3:42:37 they do
3:42:38 this thing in terms of i can save a lot
3:42:40 more trees
3:42:41 or do a lot more recycling or whatever
3:42:44 the case may be
3:42:45 and maybe i hate to say this
3:42:49 impact buffers more i know i didn't
3:42:51 really mean that but
3:42:53 anyway but there are some trade-offs
3:42:54 that they can make along the way
3:42:56 that if we're creative with this thing
3:42:58 could end up with a win for the city
3:43:01 just a comment sorry and a question
3:43:08 okay and thank you very much
3:43:09 commissioner davidson i
3:43:11 do not see any additional questions here
3:43:14 so that wraps it um
3:43:17 going once twice
3:43:21 okay so it looks like we are going to
3:43:24 move on to the next topic here which on
3:43:27 the agenda
3:43:28 is going to be
3:43:31 excuse me ron did you want to do any
3:43:33 public comment after this topic
3:43:35 um sure we can go ahead and open up the
3:43:37 public comment
3:43:38 this would be general public comment so
3:43:41 it does not have to be related to the
3:43:43 topics we discussed
3:43:45 uh christian are there any members of
3:43:47 the public that would like to
3:43:50 speak tonight um honey
3:43:53 if you
3:43:56 okay you know i'm confused connie if you
3:43:59 would like
3:44:00 thank you honey has a comment just a
3:44:02 moment please
3:44:04 honey you're unmuted
3:44:07 okay so am i am i hearable now
3:44:13 yes you are okay so uh
3:44:16 checklist right remember leads checklist
3:44:20 and pretty soon your checklist turned
3:44:24 code and so people could be
3:44:27 leads gold by following
3:44:31 minimal code and you got to me
3:44:35 leads platinum and i for those that i'm
3:44:38 sorry for those of you who don't know
3:44:40 leads it's a checklist where you get to
3:44:44 do more in
3:44:47 environmentally friendly things with
3:44:50 development and qualify for
3:44:54 a a a social
3:44:57 bonus because you've achieved this level
3:45:00 of goodness
3:45:01 um by doing more things on the checklist
3:45:05 and those things are like recycled
3:45:07 materials
3:45:08 their their efficiencies they're all the
3:45:11 stuff so
3:45:12 we had a fire station that was lead
3:45:15 platinum
3:45:17 leed platinum used recycled materials
3:45:22 like 99 impervious surface
3:45:26 and three trees and said to themselves
3:45:30 well we are hot fit and i said
3:45:33 what are you talking about you did three
3:45:36 freaking
3:45:37 trees and you were telling me that you
3:45:40 are an
3:45:40 environmentally friendly development and
3:45:43 now the city has
3:45:44 touted you as platinum for the last
3:45:48 10 years like woo hoo the city is hot
3:45:51 fit because we have a platinum building
3:45:54 and so i am particularly jaundiced with
3:45:58 the idea
3:45:59 of checklists because they age
3:46:02 you can't keep up and people get to pick
3:46:06 choose and people tend to pick and
3:46:08 choose things
3:46:09 that allow them for more development
3:46:12 or more area and that leaves the
3:46:16 natural environment behind
3:46:19 and so for me i'm a hard no
3:46:23 on a checklist um
3:46:26 they and i would be more interested in
3:46:29 something more prescriptive because uh
3:46:33 if you talk to the master builders
3:46:37 they love a checklist because they can
3:46:41 get away with
3:46:41 murder um and i'm too tired to go back
3:46:45 to the other things i talked about
3:46:47 i i this is way too many topics for one
3:46:50 night to have any cogent comments
3:46:52 and i'm a little disappointed that i
3:46:54 didn't get to hear
3:46:56 you all comments i only got to heard
3:46:58 your questions
3:46:59 so as a member of the public i have no
3:47:01 idea what you're thinking and
3:47:04 um and and i thought through this whole
3:47:09 meeting in hopes that i would hear what
3:47:11 you all
3:47:11 are thinking so next time i would say
3:47:14 three topics
3:47:16 at the max because this is just this was
3:47:19 overwhelming and you notice i'm the only
3:47:22 person from the public talking
3:47:24 and that is a failure of public
3:47:26 engagement
3:47:27 to my mind so
3:47:30 i would say
3:47:33 do don't do it this way ever again for
3:47:37 the rest of the time of the city history
3:47:40 thank you
3:47:46 there's anyone else from the public that
3:47:48 would like to speak please raise your
3:47:49 hands
3:47:58 there's no one else who would like to
3:47:59 speak
3:48:03 all right and thank you very much
3:48:04 kristen so i'm going to go ahead and
3:48:05 close out public comment
3:48:06 at 10 18 and we are going to move into
3:48:10 reports so kristin what are some of the
3:48:14 reports today
3:48:16 i think the only report that i have many
3:48:18 may have more i noted it in your
3:48:21 packets and the environment
3:48:23 environmental board may be interested as
3:48:25 that the sign code the latest version of
3:48:28 the sign code is going to the
3:48:30 tuesday september 20th council study
3:48:32 session at seven o'clock so you
3:48:34 all may want to tune in um they did ask
3:48:37 if you all wanted it to come back here
3:48:39 to ppc for another review and you all
3:48:41 said nope that's okay
3:48:42 um so you may still then be interested
3:48:44 in tune in on tuesday night
3:48:47 minnie do you have anything else nope
3:48:49 nothing to add
3:48:51 excellent okay uh next topic is other
3:48:54 business and announcements kristin
3:48:57 um yeah i'll try and go through this
3:48:59 quickly and we need to do this before
3:49:00 the next meeting now
3:49:02 there has been a request by the public
3:49:03 who has apparently talked to other
3:49:05 people
3:49:06 they have requested that public comment
3:49:09 come first
3:49:10 and it's then up to you if you want to
3:49:13 have public comment
3:49:15 during or after the topics like we did
3:49:17 tonight
3:49:18 so you know i suppose if some people
3:49:21 just want to comment and then not have
3:49:23 to listen to the whole meeting that
3:49:24 would be one reason
3:49:25 or they just want to get it off their
3:49:27 chest so but i talked to the clerk's
3:49:29 office and in order to change the agenda
3:49:31 that way this is something that you all
3:49:32 need to
3:49:33 discuss and vote on
3:49:36 so if you all wouldn't mind doing that
3:49:40 we can get this settled before our next
3:49:41 meeting i know it's late shouldn't take
3:49:44 now would this also uh
3:49:47 would this motion affect the
3:49:51 environmental board as well no it would
3:49:54 so the environmental board would not
3:49:55 vote okay it would be
3:49:57 our six members yeah our six members who
3:50:00 are here and richard zaragoza would vote
3:50:02 as an alternate
3:50:04 and so the the motion here is to
3:50:08 or basically the topic is do we want to
3:50:11 change the agenda so that the public has
3:50:14 public comments
3:50:15 at the beginning of uh
3:50:19 ppc before we talk about the topics
3:50:23 correct that's the way council and most
3:50:25 other boards and commissions do that
3:50:26 because they held public comment at the
3:50:28 beginning of the meeting
3:50:30 okay uh i'm gonna ask the commissioners
3:50:33 of ppc if they
3:50:34 would like to make a motion for that
3:50:43 i have not seen anyone who wants to make
3:50:45 a motion for that
3:50:48 we do have a comment from commissioner
3:50:50 milligan
3:50:52 good i may have missed commissioner
3:50:54 lewis there too
3:50:55 thank you lewis first
3:50:58 thank you commissioner joy lewis i
3:51:00 really should have gone after nina she
3:51:02 always makes my job so much easier
3:51:04 um i will i would be a proponent if
3:51:07 others are
3:51:08 um a fan of making a motion to add an
3:51:10 additional public comment
3:51:12 um to our agenda if um members feel that
3:51:15 they're
3:51:16 better able to interact with us by
3:51:18 having a preemptive public session
3:51:20 but i am against changing the format
3:51:22 right now as it exists
3:51:24 um right now on council for instance and
3:51:26 taking it away i think there's a
3:51:28 fantastic
3:51:28 opportunity for people to be able to get
3:51:31 a response from what staff
3:51:32 is presenting the questions that are
3:51:34 being asked in the dialogue
3:51:36 and and being able to have people keep
3:51:38 pace with
3:51:39 you know often we have multiple things
3:51:40 on our agenda
3:51:42 and so rather than um changing the
3:51:44 format the only thing that i would
3:51:46 consider
3:51:46 um would be to add an additional space
3:51:49 um right now
3:51:50 for public comment but otherwise i'm
3:51:52 against it
3:51:54 mr milligan before you speak i've had a
3:51:56 request to allow the environmental board
3:51:58 to please be dismissed if they would
3:52:02 thank you all very very much for
3:52:04 participating thank you for your
3:52:06 participation it was great
3:52:07 uh comments by august 3rd yeah thank you
3:52:12 thank you all so much appreciate
3:52:14 everyone's time
3:52:21 all right hey commissioner
3:55:32 everyone thank you

Attendance

Council / Members (1)
Administration/
Staff (1)
Ron Faul, Chair Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Sara Bader Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Joy Lewis Megan Curtis-Murphy, Sr. Sust. Coord. Nina Milligan Christina Merten, Herrera & Associates Matt Monahan Katie Cote, BHC Consultants Richard Zaragoza, Alternate (voting as Alex Capron, The Watershed Company regular member) Doug Yormick, Assistant Planner PPC Commissioners Not Present: Denise Fong, Stantec Jason Voiss, Vice Chair (Excused) Jim Johnson, Golder Associates Environmental Board Members Present: Nancy Davidson, Chair Env. Board Members Not Present: Jamie Finch, Vice Chair Cameron Fisher Dani Madan (youth/young adult member) Anne Newcomb (excused) Don McQuilliams Rishi Hazra (youth/young adult member) Dan Hintz Lara Lebeiko Janet Wall, Alternate Tom Anderson, Alternate Surya Bollapragada, Alternate (youth/young adult member)