Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, December 9, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.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…

3. REGULAR BUSINESS

Education: Title 18 Procedures and Administration, (D)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.5–15

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the December 9th Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is for staff to provide background on and receive feedback pertaining to Procedures and Administration, specifically, Terrain Management and Wireless Facilities.

4. REPORTS

Council Update

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.17–20

▶ Watch from 1:58:05 Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2021-2022 Schedule (subject to change) 2021 12/2/2021 (Special Meeting) 12/9/21 12/25/21  Storm/Surface Water Master Plan and Education: Title 18 - Procedures and Cancelled (holiday) Wastewater Master Plan: Proposed goals, policies Administration

3308 segments .txt ↗

0:29 ↗ all right good evening i'd like to call

0:30 ↗ the december 9th planning and commit

0:33 ↗ planning and policy commission meeting

0:35 ↗ to order at 6 30.

0:38 ↗ uh due to the virtual format of today's

0:39 ↗ meeting i'd like to start by providing

0:41 ↗ some basic guidelines

0:43 ↗ we have participants that's heading by

0:45 ↗ computer and others who may be attending

0:46 ↗ by phone

0:48 ↗ for all meeting attendees who wish to

0:50 ↗ speak please speak clearly and pause

0:52 ↗ frequently

0:53 ↗ state your name each time

0:55 ↗ before speaking

0:57 ↗ future microphone when not speaking if

0:59 ↗ having technical issues try joining the

1:02 ↗ meeting using a different device such as

1:04 ↗ a smartphone or tablet

1:06 ↗ or use the call-in information in the

1:08 ↗ meeting invite to call into the meeting

1:11 ↗ and lucy will you please call attendance

1:15 ↗ yes

1:16 ↗ um

1:16 ↗ commissioner bader

1:20 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:24 ↗ here

1:25 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:28 ↗ here

1:29 ↗ commissioner monahan

1:31 ↗ here

1:33 ↗ commissioner voice

1:36 ↗ here

1:37 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

1:41 ↗ chairperson fault

1:43 ↗ here

1:47 ↗ and thank you very much lucy

1:50 ↗ we're going to open up tonight's meeting

1:51 ↗ with a public comment so lucy do we have

1:54 ↗ any members from the public that would

1:55 ↗ like to speak tonight

1:58 ↗ um at this point i don't see any um

2:01 ↗ public in attendance let me just double

2:03 ↗ check my email

2:05 ↗ make sure no one is

2:10 ↗ i do not see anyone having any trouble

2:12 ↗ getting in so

2:14 ↗ at this point we have no public

2:16 ↗ attending

2:17 ↗ okay excellent so we'll go ahead and

2:19 ↗ move into our presentation uh lucy the

2:22 ↗ floor is yours

2:24 ↗ um actually i'm going to turn it over to

2:28 ↗ minnie who uh is going to

2:31 ↗ start our presentation

2:37 ↗ good evening everyone um so tonight we

2:40 ↗ have two topics over which we're going

2:42 ↗ to be asking

2:43 ↗ first and policy guidance before we

2:45 ↗ write down our code and then we've

2:47 ↗ shared with you a couple of other

2:49 ↗ miscellaneous

2:51 ↗ smaller topics that um we'll also be

2:54 ↗ looking at but but if you have any

2:55 ↗ feedback on those we're happy to take

2:57 ↗ them but there isn't really any policy

2:59 ↗ guidance questions that we've identified

3:01 ↗ there

3:02 ↗ um

3:03 ↗ so i'm just going to quickly share my

3:04 ↗ screen here um

3:07 ↗ to open up

3:09 ↗ the presentation

3:17 ↗ can everyone see my screen

3:19 ↗ okay

3:20 ↗ yeah right

3:22 ↗ uh so um lecture fall said we have two

3:25 ↗ topics uh for which we're seeking policy

3:28 ↗ guidance hillside and terrain management

3:30 ↗ and wireless communication facilities

3:33 ↗ as you may recall at the beginning when

3:36 ↗ we started this journey and on getting

3:38 ↗ some guidance on topics for title 18 we

3:41 ↗ started off with critical areas and in

3:44 ↗ that was the steep slopes regulations

3:46 ↗ from a critical areas perspective uh so

3:49 ↗ from safety considerations and public

3:51 ↗ safe you know

3:53 ↗ for steep slopes

3:55 ↗ the buffers

3:56 ↗ 40 slopes are greater

3:59 ↗ landslide liquefaction all of those

4:01 ↗ things that we discussed with you prior

4:03 ↗ to that

4:04 ↗ so now we're into above and beyond those

4:07 ↗ safety considerations what are some

4:09 ↗ hillside and terrain management

4:13 ↗ ideas that we should incorporate into

4:14 ↗ the code or and right so that they can

4:17 ↗ be regulated to protect forested

4:19 ↗ hillsides which is one of the identified

4:21 ↗ goals

4:22 ↗ um

4:24 ↗ and

4:25 ↗ so like i said the council goal of

4:27 ↗ protecting forested hillsides um steep

4:30 ↗ slopes over 40 percent uh under our

4:33 ↗ current code are

4:34 ↗ considered protected as critical areas

4:37 ↗ um then in 2018 central isoqua and urban

4:40 ↗ village replacement regulations adopted

4:43 ↗ some standards that we included with

4:45 ↗ your packet um are some design

4:47 ↗ guidelines and things of that nature

4:50 ↗ for sites over 15 percent on grading

4:53 ↗ walls and buildings um

4:56 ↗ at the time you know i think the staff

4:59 ↗ looked at different comparable codes and

5:01 ↗ um didn't find any cities that were

5:03 ↗ regulating um you know these kind of

5:06 ↗ standards

5:08 ↗ robustly so since then

5:11 ↗ we have some some examples not not a

5:13 ↗ whole lot for uh to look at how some of

5:16 ↗ the cities have successfully regulated

5:18 ↗ them

5:19 ↗ um so here we included you know what

5:21 ↗ does a steep slope look like

5:24 ↗ so in practice when you're driving

5:27 ↗ around a 12 percent slow you know

5:29 ↗ normal i can't really tell the

5:31 ↗ difference between 12 15 or 20 so we've

5:35 ↗ drawn a little bit of a graph here

5:37 ↗ that shows you what steepness looks like

5:40 ↗ in terms of calculating it from a

5:42 ↗ regulation standpoint

5:45 ↗ point to note i think is that currently

5:48 ↗ our

5:49 ↗ street standards say that you can't

5:52 ↗ build a new street that's deeper than 12

5:54 ↗ percent

5:54 ↗ fire department also has a maximum

5:57 ↗ threshold of 15 percent

5:59 ↗ and the reason there is safety

6:01 ↗ considerations

6:02 ↗ for fire trucks to come in and out and

6:04 ↗ maneuver and be able to provide

6:07 ↗ services if someone calls 9-1-1

6:10 ↗ um

6:11 ↗ so some of our challenges are

6:15 ↗ how do we define you know if we are

6:16 ↗ going to regulate forested hillsides we

6:20 ↗ need to come up with a definition for

6:22 ↗ forested hillside

6:24 ↗ and so what we're seeking input from all

6:27 ↗ of you is should

6:29 ↗ we get fine grain to say what percentage

6:32 ↗ of the site must be covered by trees to

6:34 ↗ be considered forested

6:36 ↗ um

6:37 ↗ or should we you know give more

6:39 ↗ credibility to certain types of trees

6:42 ↗ evergreens of certain size

6:44 ↗ versus

6:45 ↗ lower caliper trees

6:48 ↗ um and what about sites that were

6:50 ↗ previously cleared should we consider

6:53 ↗ them as forested hillsides and the

6:54 ↗ challenge there is how far back do we go

6:56 ↗ in time

6:58 ↗ um

7:00 ↗ and

7:00 ↗ the the percentage difference um you

7:03 ↗ know we've kind of shared with you that

7:06 ↗ current city standards have a 12 maximum

7:08 ↗ slope on the streets 15 is a fire

7:11 ↗ department standard

7:13 ↗ um and then any grades over 15 percent

7:16 ↗ in central isco and urban village

7:18 ↗ replacement regulations are regulated uh

7:20 ↗ with those design standards that we've

7:22 ↗ included in your packet

7:24 ↗ uh looking at some of the other cities

7:25 ↗ that have some kind of an overlay for

7:27 ↗ design standards for

7:29 ↗ slopes

7:31 ↗ you know it varies really

7:33 ↗ anywhere from

7:34 ↗ glendale which only at five percent to

7:37 ↗ uh 15 to 20 percent so

7:40 ↗ looking at what makes sense to have an

7:44 ↗ overlay with specific design standards

7:46 ↗ for isoqua is sort of uh the question uh

7:49 ↗ should we keep it at 15 similar to what

7:52 ↗ we've had in central isoqua and urban

7:54 ↗ village or

7:55 ↗ perhaps go to 20 percent um because as

7:58 ↗ we shared with you some of the photos

8:00 ↗ fifteen percent is pretty gentle slope

8:02 ↗ uh in in certain circumstances

8:05 ↗ um

8:07 ↗ so that's our recommendation to um any

8:10 ↗ slopes over 20 percent would have

8:13 ↗ these design standards would apply

8:17 ↗ and then i think in your packet as you

8:19 ↗ remember we identified one table that

8:22 ↗ showed what existing tools the code

8:23 ↗ currently has and some ways to enhance

8:27 ↗ those um

8:28 ↗ those tools uh so the first one being

8:32 ↗ density

8:33 ↗ so most of the

8:34 ↗ sites that are within this 20 or more

8:38 ↗ are zoned low density residential uh in

8:41 ↗ isoqua so

8:43 ↗ uh

8:44 ↗ should the density be re reduced um when

8:47 ↗ they're planning so for instance if the

8:49 ↗ slope is 15 to 20 so this example

8:53 ↗ that we looked at city of pasadena has

8:55 ↗ if you have a you know if your site is 0

8:57 ↗ to 15 you get whatever the the the

9:01 ↗ density standard is

9:03 ↗ no reduction is required but as your

9:06 ↗ slope starts going up your density also

9:09 ↗ starts going down

9:11 ↗ um

9:12 ↗ so uh like i said the 40 slope currently

9:15 ↗ um does not allow any development um

9:18 ↗ there is a provision in the code for a

9:20 ↗ 50 foot buffer from the top and the

9:23 ↗ bottom of the 40 slope uh which uh in

9:26 ↗ the past we have reduced it of course

9:29 ↗ you know if it can be documented

9:31 ↗ that

9:32 ↗ it is stable and it is not from a safety

9:34 ↗ perspective so that provision we will

9:36 ↗ discuss under the critical area code

9:39 ↗ um

9:40 ↗ and then uh the second

9:43 ↗ topic is um the tree

9:46 ↗ tree density so as we look at the tree

9:49 ↗ code update which we discussed with all

9:52 ↗ of you and parks board

9:54 ↗ you know and and going towards a tree

9:56 ↗ canopy

9:58 ↗ methodology for replacement regulations

10:01 ↗ and things of that nature

10:03 ↗ here we're looking at perhaps if you

10:06 ↗ have a steeper soap slope then your tree

10:10 ↗ density retention and replacement

10:11 ↗ regulations are more stringent as

10:13 ↗ opposed to a flatter

10:17 ↗ site

10:19 ↗ um

10:20 ↗ the next one is lot coverage and site

10:23 ↗ disturbance

10:25 ↗ so right now

10:27 ↗ we have

10:29 ↗ whether you have a flat site or a or a

10:32 ↗ sloped site you have one set of

10:34 ↗ standards so do we want to distinguish

10:36 ↗ again based on how much lot can have

10:40 ↗ impervious surface and how much sight

10:42 ↗ you can disturb based on

10:44 ↗ if you have a flat slope site or

10:47 ↗ anything above um 15 or 20 percent

10:51 ↗ um

10:52 ↗ up to 40

10:54 ↗ um

10:56 ↗ cut and fill um so currently some areas

10:59 ↗ of the city basically too uh the central

11:01 ↗ isoqua and urban village

11:03 ↗ limit changes to natural grade with a

11:05 ↗ maximum of 15 percent

11:09 ↗ so do we want to you know look at this

11:13 ↗ and enhance them

11:15 ↗ so it's not just 15 but add some

11:19 ↗ additional information about protecting

11:21 ↗ natural features

11:23 ↗ street and lot design to work with the

11:25 ↗ grades

11:26 ↗ the timing of the grading you know when

11:28 ↗ someone's doing planning can they do

11:30 ↗ mass grading or

11:32 ↗ um

11:33 ↗ or you know do the minimum grading and

11:35 ↗ then as the home designs come in you you

11:37 ↗ look at the grade at that time

11:40 ↗ um and and so those are some some

11:42 ↗ options to consider

11:44 ↗ uh we looked at some other cities um

11:46 ↗ that are listed here on this slide

11:49 ↗ um

11:50 ↗ which included prohibiting mass grading

11:52 ↗ um or limiting grading to fit the

11:54 ↗ building on the site

11:56 ↗ a lot placement to reduce the need for

12:00 ↗ grading

12:02 ↗ and cluster developments into a portion

12:04 ↗ of the site

12:06 ↗ balancing it out

12:08 ↗ and and with the idea being to reduce

12:10 ↗ the cut and fill

12:11 ↗ um

12:14 ↗ the next um

12:15 ↗ tool that we currently have is the site

12:17 ↗ and building design like i said we

12:19 ↗ included a two two or three page handout

12:22 ↗ uh that gives you some more details

12:24 ↗ about it um you know it regulates the

12:26 ↗ colors the materials the articulation uh

12:29 ↗ how the site design is respecting

12:31 ↗ um the

12:33 ↗ the topography

12:36 ↗ and some ways i think we could uh

12:39 ↗ potentially add to the code that may

12:41 ↗ enhance um our roof lines are related to

12:45 ↗ the slope uh you preserve the ridge

12:47 ↗ lines with no building interruptions um

12:51 ↗ this one the third one is a little bit

12:52 ↗ tricky but building into a hillside

12:54 ↗ which will involve some sort of a

12:56 ↗ retaining wall uh allowance which makes

12:59 ↗ need to exceed

13:00 ↗ 10 feet

13:02 ↗ for that provision to work we currently

13:04 ↗ limit the height of the

13:05 ↗ the retaining wall to 10 feet but

13:08 ↗ that's one option

13:10 ↗ um but and then massing height colors

13:14 ↗ uh how do we treat um the downhill wall

13:17 ↗ treatment

13:18 ↗ um and basically encouraging buildings

13:21 ↗ to respect the the terrain and the slope

13:24 ↗ um so

13:25 ↗ that's the sight and building design

13:29 ↗ like i mentioned the retaining wall our

13:31 ↗ current codes uh limit the the height to

13:33 ↗ 10 feet if you are

13:35 ↗ um and again these don't apply anywhere

13:38 ↗ in the city but in some areas of the

13:39 ↗ city um you can terrace

13:42 ↗ you know you're required to terrace the

13:44 ↗ walls if you're actually going to have

13:45 ↗ anything taller than 10 feet if it's a

13:49 ↗ longer than 35 feet there's also some

13:52 ↗ articulation modulation required to

13:55 ↗ for aesthetic re you know to improve the

13:57 ↗ aesthetics

13:59 ↗ so again looking at how can we enhance

14:02 ↗ some of these

14:03 ↗ regulations

14:04 ↗ perhaps different height limits

14:06 ↗ depending on the location if it's uphill

14:09 ↗ downhill or adjacent to roads

14:12 ↗ requiring walls to be integrated into

14:15 ↗ the building

14:17 ↗ and

14:18 ↗ again visibility off-site

14:20 ↗ create creates more

14:22 ↗ additional regulations some examples we

14:25 ↗ looked

14:26 ↗ at for chelan and glendale again no

14:28 ↗ local

14:30 ↗ pacific northwest examples right um

14:33 ↗ at the time

14:35 ↗ but

14:36 ↗ somewhat similar methodology that we

14:38 ↗ currently have um nothing

14:41 ↗ uh particularly different there

14:44 ↗ um

14:44 ↗ [Music]

14:46 ↗ then i think we shared with you the

14:48 ↗ transfer development tdrs uh previously

14:52 ↗ uh we could add forested hillsides as

14:54 ↗ potential sending sites uh to the map

14:57 ↗ that's currently in the code

15:01 ↗ and

15:02 ↗ then in terms of what are some tools

15:04 ↗ that

15:05 ↗ um you know not already are in the code

15:07 ↗ or can be enhanced but what's what

15:09 ↗ what's out there that we may have missed

15:11 ↗ so we're seeking feedback on

15:14 ↗ yes your thoughts your ideas of what we

15:17 ↗ should be researching further further

15:19 ↗ looking at but our attempt at

15:22 ↗ identifying some of the new tools or

15:24 ↗ perhaps

15:25 ↗ expanding you know are some of our rules

15:28 ↗ that currently only apply to central

15:29 ↗ isoqua and urban villages to throughout

15:31 ↗ the city

15:34 ↗ and then

15:34 ↗ [Music]

15:35 ↗ currently there are no subdivision

15:37 ↗ design standards

15:39 ↗ so definitely i think with there could

15:41 ↗ be potential to add those

15:43 ↗ um to address the design grading changes

15:46 ↗ to development standards like we talked

15:48 ↗ about before

15:49 ↗ um so these will kick in if someone was

15:52 ↗ trying to do a planning um

15:54 ↗ project and you know and creating

15:56 ↗ additional residential lots

15:58 ↗ uh landscaping we currently have

16:01 ↗ uh only trees and lot coverage are

16:04 ↗ regulated um

16:06 ↗ not there not very many larger lots are

16:09 ↗ going to get created but if there was a

16:12 ↗ an opportunity for a large lot to

16:15 ↗ preserve some native vegetation which

16:17 ↗ would go above and beyond

16:19 ↗ uh the trees um

16:21 ↗ that we should probably

16:24 ↗ try and attempt to preserve that

16:28 ↗ and i think that pretty much covers

16:31 ↗ those

16:32 ↗ uh the the topic of

16:36 ↗ hillside terrain management um so

16:39 ↗ do you want us to keep going with

16:41 ↗ wireless or take a pause and have a

16:43 ↗ discussion on this topic

16:45 ↗ yeah let's uh take a pause and we'll go

16:47 ↗ ahead and open up for questions and

16:48 ↗ we'll we'll

16:50 ↗ treat each subject individually tonight

16:55 ↗ okay let's go ahead and open up for

16:57 ↗ questions uh are there any questions

16:59 ↗ from the commissioners

17:06 ↗ and the first one is from nina milligan

17:09 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan here

17:11 ↗ thank you many for summarizing that so

17:14 ↗ efficiently

17:15 ↗ i have lots of questions but i think

17:17 ↗ just to help in the conversation

17:21 ↗ i um

17:22 ↗ didn't have the time to do the kind of

17:24 ↗ robust comparisons that i was looking

17:26 ↗ for i really liked that you brought

17:27 ↗ other cities and examples of things that

17:29 ↗ we could do and some of those examples

17:32 ↗ were more aggressive than what we're

17:33 ↗ already doing loved that so thank you

17:36 ↗ uh leaning that way myself but one thing

17:38 ↗ that an example of something that i i

17:40 ↗ wish i understood better was

17:42 ↗ um what's the delta between our current

17:46 ↗ uh tree retention

17:48 ↗ policy what's missing between our tree

17:51 ↗ retention policy and forested hillsides

17:54 ↗ you know that and then that comes up

17:56 ↗ with the conversation about do you need

17:58 ↗ to reforest a place like issaquah

18:01 ↗ highlands

18:02 ↗ do we just have a policy that says keep

18:05 ↗ the trees we have how does it

18:07 ↗ interact with the

18:09 ↗ canopy

18:11 ↗ you know this was just something i

18:12 ↗ couldn't quite

18:13 ↗ get my head around

18:14 ↗ on what do we already have

18:16 ↗ that's my question

18:19 ↗ yeah let me make sure i understand your

18:21 ↗ question so um

18:23 ↗ so the tree canopy at the city-wide you

18:26 ↗ know the tree canopy study that was done

18:28 ↗ that sort of informed the climate action

18:30 ↗ plan about what the canopy goal

18:33 ↗ should be which now lives in

18:34 ↗ comprehensive plan that the council

18:36 ↗ adopted it on december 6. so the tree

18:39 ↗ canopy

18:40 ↗ goal of 51

18:43 ↗ that

18:44 ↗ the city currently has met so our you

18:47 ↗ know based on that study that was done

18:49 ↗ it shows that we currently have 51

18:51 ↗ canopy coverage throughout the city not

18:53 ↗ pockets and and things but cumulatively

18:56 ↗ averaged out

18:57 ↗ um

18:58 ↗ and that that uh aspirational goal is

19:01 ↗ now 55

19:03 ↗ based on the new adopted uh policy

19:06 ↗ and how that translates to title 18 and

19:10 ↗ parcel by parcel basis

19:13 ↗ is um you know we'll be looking at the

19:16 ↗ tree code update in which we're going to

19:19 ↗ current code says you preserve say 25

19:22 ↗ of your uh canopy coverage but it

19:26 ↗ doesn't take into considerat or

19:28 ↗ density it's based on density and we're

19:31 ↗ wearing towards canopy coverage so

19:33 ↗ there's a methodology change that's

19:35 ↗ going to occur with the tree code update

19:38 ↗ that is we're not

19:39 ↗ the current code treats an eight inch

19:41 ↗ caliper the same as a 30 inch caliper in

19:43 ↗ terms of how much replacement uh trees

19:46 ↗ need to occur so we're going to go with

19:49 ↗ a more canopy based approach which will

19:52 ↗ give more credit to larger trees and you

19:55 ↗ have to preserve that one

19:56 ↗ we haven't quite figured out and we'll

19:58 ↗ be sharing that with you in terms of how

20:02 ↗ what those numbers will look like in

20:05 ↗ terms of percentage

20:07 ↗ the the

20:08 ↗ approach we had shared with you had

20:10 ↗ shown

20:11 ↗ highlands has 20

20:13 ↗ canopy currently

20:15 ↗ so should

20:16 ↗ the replacement regulations

20:20 ↗ also be based off of how much you

20:22 ↗ currently have or not have

20:25 ↗ but i think the conversation today is

20:29 ↗ if you get a development on a site that

20:31 ↗ is steep slope

20:33 ↗ if you've established a canopy coverage

20:36 ↗ uh threshold for or a regulation that

20:40 ↗ says if you have a lot you have to

20:42 ↗ preserve at least 30 percent of the

20:43 ↗ canopy just for hypothetically

20:46 ↗ but it but it's not based on location or

20:49 ↗ is it based on um

20:52 ↗ additional

20:53 ↗ the 30 becomes 50 if you have a steeper

20:56 ↗ slope

20:57 ↗ so those are things i think those

20:59 ↗ nuances we haven't quite landed on

21:01 ↗ anywhere

21:02 ↗ and we're researching to so that we can

21:04 ↗ base it off of

21:06 ↗ some

21:07 ↗ some logical reasons of why

21:10 ↗ this makes sense in this area and this

21:11 ↗ doesn't make sense in this area

21:15 ↗ so but we're seeking feedback on

21:19 ↗ if for tonight's purpose if there is a

21:21 ↗ if assuming there is some threshold we

21:25 ↗ established through the tree code update

21:27 ↗ should that threshold be higher if you

21:30 ↗ have a steeper slope

21:33 ↗ and and i guess the other thing i would

21:35 ↗ add because uh many really highlighted

21:38 ↗ this

21:39 ↗ so many of these chapters are

21:40 ↗ interrelated to one another um so uh

21:44 ↗ it um

21:48 ↗ as many well said you know we we haven't

21:50 ↗ figured some of these

21:52 ↗ the tree canopy goals out

21:55 ↗ um yet so it uh

21:58 ↗ that's why we didn't necessarily propose

22:00 ↗ anything and we were trying to just

22:03 ↗ hear the commission's thoughts to help

22:05 ↗ us

22:06 ↗ um sort of figure out how some of these

22:08 ↗ pieces are going to fit together

22:16 ↗ okay excellent that was a

22:18 ↗ long answer

22:23 ↗ any other questions and looks like we

22:25 ↗ have a question from commissioner lewis

22:27 ↗ you have the floor

22:29 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis here um

22:32 ↗ thank you for clarifying um that

22:36 ↗ knight's question was super helpful to

22:37 ↗ me because i certainly i almost when we

22:40 ↗ looked at this packet was wishing we had

22:42 ↗ a questionnaire similar to what we did

22:44 ↗ when we had the previous meeting with

22:46 ↗ the uh

22:47 ↗ regarding our joint commission with our

22:49 ↗ board kind of asking us where we fell on

22:51 ↗ certain things and we kind of had this

22:52 ↗ question here because there were so many

22:54 ↗ little mini parts and they all kind of

22:55 ↗ broke together and interconnected and it

22:57 ↗ was hard to kind of figure out um even

23:00 ↗ how to approach this so i appreciate you

23:02 ↗ guys recognizing it i think one of my

23:03 ↗ big questions was that the city was

23:06 ↗ recommending this is regarding the

23:07 ↗ threshold for the overlays to be applied

23:09 ↗ for design standards the city was

23:11 ↗ recommended 20

23:13 ↗ but a lot of the information you guys

23:14 ↗ gave us was really based on 15 right you

23:16 ↗ guys are telling me that you know uh

23:19 ↗ fire department likes 15 for their grade

23:22 ↗ um the map you gave us the pink right

23:24 ↗ was at 15 to 39 so i felt like a lot of

23:26 ↗ what i saw was all based on this 15 so

23:29 ↗ when you guys came in at 20

23:31 ↗ and i didn't really

23:33 ↗ get a lot of information about why you

23:34 ↗ guys came to that i know many you

23:36 ↗ mentioned well

23:38 ↗ you know it's a little bit negligible to

23:40 ↗ the eye but to me i was a little

23:42 ↗ surprised since all the information was

23:44 ↗ kind of based on 15 so i'd love to hear

23:46 ↗ more about that

23:47 ↗ about 5

23:49 ↗ sure um

23:50 ↗ yeah that was lucy do you want to speak

23:52 ↗ to that

23:53 ↗ oh sure

23:55 ↗ your thoughts on that yeah

23:56 ↗ you know

23:57 ↗ it's a great question and and to some

24:00 ↗ extent

24:01 ↗ um

24:04 ↗ uh

24:06 ↗ so so one thing i'll say is many of

24:09 ↗ those different communities

24:11 ↗ have um

24:14 ↗ there's the the things that we the the

24:16 ↗ proposals and the ideas that we

24:19 ↗ collected from those different

24:20 ↗ communities many of them

24:22 ↗ are more like guidelines or performance

24:25 ↗ standards as opposed to prescriptive

24:27 ↗ standards

24:28 ↗ um i think the reason that we have used

24:31 ↗ 15

24:33 ↗ is

24:34 ↗ that we started with the urban villages

24:36 ↗ where their hillside guidelines kicked

24:40 ↗ in at 15

24:42 ↗ and so a lot of what we have needed

24:44 ↗ historically is related to 15

24:48 ↗ um i think that our concern

24:51 ↗ there was you know we have not tested

24:53 ↗ these things but i think where some of

24:55 ↗ the concern comes from

24:57 ↗ is

24:58 ↗ if we put

24:59 ↗ all the all the um

25:02 ↗ standards in place in a prescriptive way

25:05 ↗ at 15

25:06 ↗ and

25:07 ↗ that um

25:10 ↗ buyer allows the fire code allows it to

25:13 ↗ go up to 15

25:18 ↗ we may have trouble

25:20 ↗ trying to

25:23 ↗ meet the road standards

25:25 ↗ and then

25:26 ↗ do all of the other standards that are

25:28 ↗ in place

25:29 ↗ and so

25:31 ↗ the one idea we had was um

25:35 ↗ potentially

25:36 ↗ doing

25:37 ↗ some bundle of standards that kick in at

25:40 ↗ 15 percent slopes and another one that

25:43 ↗ maybe kicks in at 20.

25:45 ↗ so that we could

25:48 ↗ have

25:50 ↗ certain key ones

25:52 ↗ that are maybe more

25:54 ↗ performance at 15 and more prescriptive

25:58 ↗ ones the steeper you get

26:00 ↗ but this is this is part of what we're

26:03 ↗ looking at because we have

26:05 ↗ had a couple of different tools

26:08 ↗ that were in place at 15

26:10 ↗ but we've seen some struggles um trying

26:13 ↗ to achieve you know those and so adding

26:16 ↗ more

26:17 ↗ may be hard

26:19 ↗ uh at 15.

26:21 ↗ another long long answer ron

26:25 ↗ is it would it be extremely onerous to

26:27 ↗ like be able to identify kind of in a

26:29 ↗ similar map that we've gotten that the

26:31 ↗ difference between the 15 to 20 like how

26:33 ↗ much we're actually talking i think it

26:35 ↗ would be applicable to know like how

26:37 ↗ many homeowners are we are we affecting

26:40 ↗ right how many um how many platts is

26:42 ↗ this going to really boil down to would

26:43 ↗ be an interesting question um something

26:46 ↗ i certainly um started to deep dive into

26:48 ↗ was one of the links that you guys had

26:49 ↗ given us for additional information was

26:51 ↗ the seattle permits and they started

26:53 ↗ having like tips for building and things

26:55 ↗ like that which i found really

26:57 ↗ interesting and applicable to what we

26:58 ↗ were doing i'm not sure if we would be

27:00 ↗ able to lay out some of the design

27:02 ↗ standards in a similar way i found it

27:04 ↗ pretty easy to move through um but i

27:06 ↗ thought it was an interesting comparison

27:07 ↗ some of the stuff we were talking about

27:09 ↗ um i know that's not really a question

27:11 ↗ but it was it was interesting the way of

27:14 ↗ kind of trying to bridge because i mean

27:15 ↗ i think ultimately the questions that

27:17 ↗ we're asking are really to say like how

27:18 ↗ are we going to uh minimize the risk of

27:21 ↗ like landsat landslides and stormwater

27:23 ↗ erosion damage right i mean that's what

27:25 ↗ i see when i look at i shouldn't speak

27:27 ↗ for everybody else right so um

27:29 ↗ being able to

27:31 ↗ to really say

27:33 ↗ this is why we want to support this

27:35 ↗ number this is why we want to have this

27:37 ↗ percent of the law be forested because

27:40 ↗ this is a greater chance for soil

27:42 ↗ retention

27:43 ↗ um

27:44 ↗ i think is it is would be nice for the

27:46 ↗ conversation right and maybe it's a

27:48 ↗ similar thing to other things we've seen

27:49 ↗ where the staff says here's the moderate

27:51 ↗ example here's the extreme and this is

27:54 ↗ why we want to get this result would be

27:56 ↗ would be more helpful to be able to kind

27:57 ↗ of boil that down rather than just kind

27:59 ↗ of a personal gut feeling if that makes

28:02 ↗ sense so thank you sure and and you know

28:05 ↗ some of it is also i think part of the

28:07 ↗ reason that we were asking questions

28:09 ↗ about um slope and trying to illustrate

28:12 ↗ it it is a really difficult thing to

28:14 ↗ illustrate in two dimensions

28:16 ↗ and uh also talking about um forested

28:21 ↗ is just trying you know the value of

28:23 ↗ having these conversations with the

28:25 ↗ commission is really hearing where your

28:27 ↗ sensitivities and priorities are and um

28:31 ↗ so i think when you identify you know

28:34 ↗ for instance soil retention or how many

28:36 ↗ lots is this going to uh impact that

28:38 ↗ helps us sort of um begin to pull a

28:41 ↗ thread

28:43 ↗ i i certainly will say that i liked the

28:45 ↗ idea of the um density bonus transfer

28:48 ↗ because i think in this particular

28:51 ↗ conversation the to you know to have my

28:54 ↗ cake and eat it too would mean that we

28:56 ↗ keep all the trees right um but we also

28:59 ↗ were able to satisfy um the needs of

29:02 ↗ a private um owners right so to be able

29:05 ↗ to say how do we really stay true to our

29:07 ↗ tree city usa vibe

29:09 ↗ and also be able to honor uh

29:12 ↗ property rights right so

29:14 ↗ i certainly am for trying to figure out

29:16 ↗ how we um so i like seeing that as an

29:18 ↗ example as a building tool so while

29:20 ↗ you're

29:21 ↗ while we're on it so thanks

29:23 ↗ yeah so real quick in terms of the

29:25 ↗ difference between 15 and 20 and on a

29:28 ↗ map

29:29 ↗ uh you know these are really satellite

29:32 ↗ imagery lidar data that's translating

29:34 ↗ into so you have to take it with a grain

29:36 ↗ of salt i mean it's not going to give

29:38 ↗ you that granular

29:41 ↗ information as to how many more lots

29:43 ↗ it's going to impact because it's just a

29:45 ↗ general

29:47 ↗ uh idea without actually having surveys

29:49 ↗ and and and you know more

29:51 ↗ uh detailed information like that so uh

29:54 ↗ but we can

29:56 ↗ produce a map that shows 15 to 20 versus

29:58 ↗ 22

30:00 ↗ um you know

30:01 ↗ greater than that but it's not going to

30:03 ↗ be

30:04 ↗ it's not going to reveal you much more

30:06 ↗ than this map currently does which is a

30:08 ↗ lot of area is as with as

30:11 ↗ has the has those slopes

30:13 ↗ just

30:14 ↗ yeah yeah i think that makes a lot of

30:16 ↗ sense i also i'm wondering it goes back

30:18 ↗ to that kind of conversation we were

30:19 ↗ having our last meeting about director

30:21 ↗ level

30:22 ↗ um

30:23 ↗ decision making right so

30:25 ↗ like you said it being without having to

30:27 ↗ survey um every property it's hard to be

30:30 ↗ able to have that evaluation of saying

30:32 ↗ uh well how much is forested you know

30:35 ↗ retaining native vegetation i mean it

30:36 ↗ really is applicable to each individual

30:39 ↗ situation right and being able to say

30:41 ↗ this is the amount of land that we're

30:43 ↗ willing to have you be able to build on

30:45 ↗ and then your

30:46 ↗ your design needs to be based on that

30:48 ↗ but

30:49 ↗ from us just looking at a whole citywide

30:51 ↗ map it's hard for us to come back and

30:52 ↗ say to you guys well this is the broad

30:54 ↗ standard that everybody needs to apply

30:56 ↗ to

30:57 ↗ it's uh it's a granular level that's

30:59 ↗ needed so i think what's necessary is

31:02 ↗ for us to see how staff wants to

31:04 ↗ approach this right what's the metrics

31:05 ↗ what's the equation that we're going to

31:07 ↗ be able to use rather than us imposing

31:09 ↗ uh this percentage and this percentage

31:11 ↗ and everything falls under that if that

31:13 ↗ makes sense

31:20 ↗ thank you very much commissioner lewis

31:21 ↗ and uh to lucy's point i actually

31:25 ↗ thought your two explanations were

31:27 ↗ wonderful so there were lots of

31:30 ↗ information they weren't too long they

31:31 ↗ were right on target i thought they were

31:33 ↗ awesome uh okay and we have another

31:36 ↗ question from commissioner milligan

31:39 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan here uh

31:42 ↗ before my question i will point out that

31:44 ↗ on page 10 of 20 in our packet it says

31:48 ↗ that

31:49 ↗ over 5 000 parcels in the city of

31:52 ↗ issaquah have a slope of over 15 percent

31:54 ↗ it doesn't tell us the delta but at

31:56 ↗ least it does answer half of

31:58 ↗ commissioner lewis's question there

32:00 ↗ and then my question relates to probably

32:02 ↗ something that's somewhere else in the

32:04 ↗ packet that i missed and i can't

32:06 ↗ remember so pardon me if it's in there

32:08 ↗ but

32:09 ↗ how is the slope of a site determined

32:13 ↗ if it's a mixed slope site how much of

32:16 ↗ the site has to be 15 to

32:19 ↗ kick in the um

32:21 ↗ increased regulations if there are then

32:24 ↗ no excellent question

32:27 ↗ well what i'll tell you is having read

32:29 ↗ about eight codes over and over and over

32:32 ↗ again to do those little summaries on

32:34 ↗ there i would say there's several

32:36 ↗ different methodologies you know some

32:38 ↗ are looking

32:40 ↗ at an average over the site um some are

32:44 ↗ looking at um

32:46 ↗ uh

32:47 ↗ you know

32:49 ↗ uh if it hits a certain mark then you

32:51 ↗ treat the site that way

32:53 ↗ i think that that you know that i didn't

32:56 ↗ dig into like

32:57 ↗ that level i just saw that there were

33:00 ↗ different methodologies for classifying

33:02 ↗ when you've triggered

33:04 ↗ um

33:05 ↗ this particular set of criteria and

33:08 ↗ that's absolutely going to be one of the

33:09 ↗ things that we're going to spend some

33:11 ↗ time studying how other codes have done

33:13 ↗ it and also you know frankly i think

33:16 ↗ we're going to be calling these some of

33:17 ↗ these communities

33:19 ↗ um to

33:21 ↗ have that discussion about how well

33:23 ↗ these are working

33:24 ↗ what i noticed is a lot of these came in

33:27 ↗ you know were adopted in the 2016-2018

33:30 ↗ um period when you know that's part of

33:33 ↗ why i think we were struggling it's also

33:35 ↗ a lot easier to do some of the internet

33:37 ↗ searches these days and more codes

33:39 ↗ online

33:40 ↗ and so um great question

33:43 ↗ i don't have an answer maybe many i do

33:46 ↗ do you have experience that you're going

33:48 ↗ to recommend

33:49 ↗ no i think we don't we don't have a

33:51 ↗ preferred methodology right now but i

33:53 ↗ think at your level if you have uh

33:56 ↗ broader you know uh guidance on

33:59 ↗ um

34:01 ↗ is it the majority of the site if it's

34:03 ↗ in a corner of the site that they're not

34:05 ↗ really doing anything then perhaps you

34:07 ↗ know that it doesn't make a whole lot of

34:09 ↗ sense because the majority of the site

34:11 ↗ where the development is going to occur

34:13 ↗ is flat

34:14 ↗ that that we have some kind of

34:15 ↗ discretion to say it doesn't apply

34:17 ↗ because you're leaving that portion of

34:19 ↗ the site you know

34:20 ↗ not part of your development so it

34:22 ↗ doesn't so we'll work through some of

34:24 ↗ those nuances in the code

34:26 ↗ but in terms of um

34:29 ↗ 40

34:30 ↗ slope or more i think our code currently

34:32 ↗ has some criteria that has to be a

34:35 ↗ certain amount of um

34:38 ↗ and i can't remember on the top of my

34:39 ↗ head lucy do you know what that is

34:41 ↗ unfortunately my brain is full of these

34:43 ↗ yeah

34:44 ↗ but that's more for safety reasons so we

34:47 ↗ do

34:48 ↗ have just because you have a small

34:50 ↗ little 40 slope uh doesn't necessarily

34:54 ↗ you know

34:55 ↗ what those 50-foot buffers apply to

34:57 ↗ those or or not i can look up while

34:59 ↗ you're oh no i remember i remember it's

35:02 ↗ if you have less than a 20-foot rise

35:05 ↗ um then your ex and if your 40 slope is

35:09 ↗ less than 20 vertical feet in in game

35:13 ↗ um the other is if it's man-made um

35:16 ↗ that and that's kind of a shorthand

35:18 ↗ meaning you know if a road was put in

35:21 ↗ and there's a slope that has resulted

35:24 ↗ from that road um

35:26 ↗ that

35:27 ↗ you know is not regulated as a steep

35:29 ↗ slope assuming that the geotechnical

35:32 ↗ engineers both theirs and ours agree

35:34 ↗ that it's stable um

35:36 ↗ polly is nodding vigorously because

35:38 ↗ she's been discussing this a lot with an

35:40 ↗ applicant

35:42 ↗ so and and those were pretty consistent

35:44 ↗ with some of the other communities i was

35:46 ↗ looking at

35:53 ↗ thank you and then i also have a

35:55 ↗ question here

35:56 ↗ um one why would we consider tdrs on

36:01 ↗ steep forested slopes if they're not

36:03 ↗ developable to begin with

36:05 ↗ we're kind of giving up something for

36:08 ↗ nothing

36:09 ↗ if

36:10 ↗ so my question is why would we

36:13 ↗ and then two

36:14 ↗ when we're talking about

36:16 ↗ grading

36:18 ↗ for streets egress

36:21 ↗ the

36:24 ↗ i'm worried about the traction and

36:26 ↗ safety limitations of vehicles because

36:28 ↗ we deal with snow

36:30 ↗ and half the vehicles can't get up

36:32 ↗ mountain park boulevard

36:34 ↗ presently when it snows so they everyone

36:36 ↗ parks down at the bottom at the fish

36:38 ↗ hatchery and then two i also live on

36:41 ↗ another street called

36:43 ↗ mount fury circle and it gets very mossy

36:46 ↗ and i can't even drive my truck up it

36:48 ↗ when it rains so

36:50 ↗ i think that's probably in the 20

36:53 ↗ degree range

36:55 ↗ so what

36:58 ↗ can you expand more on how we might be

37:00 ↗ able to deal with that and

37:02 ↗ um

37:03 ↗ i i'm not asking that you pull out of

37:05 ↗ your hat you know that mountain park

37:08 ↗ boulevard these sections are 15 versus

37:10 ↗ 20 but i don't really have a comparison

37:13 ↗ to use other than the fact that

37:14 ↗ sometimes i have to park my car at the

37:16 ↗ bottom of the hill

37:18 ↗ well i mean talus drive i believe is 12

37:21 ↗ percent and

37:22 ↗ you certainly see some challenges there

37:26 ↗ um so i i know that

37:28 ↗ when esco highlands was initially being

37:31 ↗ built um the maximum was 15

37:34 ↗ and so that is where the 15

37:36 ↗ example

37:38 ↗ um was in your packet

37:40 ↗ um but that has been reduced uh i think

37:44 ↗ in the

37:44 ↗ within the last 10 years to 12 percent

37:48 ↗ and um both of those are i think trying

37:51 ↗ to balance those kinds of safety and

37:54 ↗ access

37:55 ↗ that you're identifying

37:57 ↗ uh with

37:58 ↗ the need to get into people's properties

38:00 ↗ um and uh because uh we have to

38:05 ↗ allow access to legal lots

38:08 ↗ and so you know it's a it's a struggle

38:10 ↗ between the two

38:12 ↗ minnie did you want to add anything but

38:14 ↗ to that before switching to tdrs no i

38:17 ↗ think 15 is sort of the standard uh fire

38:20 ↗ department um

38:22 ↗ regulation comes from the fire code um

38:25 ↗ and it's based off of the need for the

38:27 ↗ fire trucks and

38:28 ↗ and and not necessarily an average

38:31 ↗ vehicle that you know so that's where

38:33 ↗ some of the some of those standards come

38:35 ↗ from

38:36 ↗ but but it's all it's not just the road

38:38 ↗ for itself grade it's also how do you

38:41 ↗ get to your property you know if your

38:43 ↗ property sits below then your driveway

38:45 ↗ is going down below and you're backing

38:47 ↗ out of your driveway and coming into so

38:50 ↗ then that's when some of those grading

38:52 ↗ on private driveways comes into play as

38:55 ↗ well

38:55 ↗ um

38:57 ↗ about safety considerations of

39:00 ↗ if you're going up from the road versus

39:02 ↗ going down from the road to access your

39:04 ↗ property um

39:06 ↗ so it you know so those designs features

39:09 ↗ we can look at what

39:10 ↗ we need to kind of address through

39:13 ↗ subdivision if i could currently doesn't

39:14 ↗ have those

39:16 ↗ okay i'm more interested in the street

39:19 ↗ egress because if people

39:21 ↗ their driveway's very steep then they

39:23 ↗ can just park at the top of their house

39:24 ↗ but

39:25 ↗ um

39:26 ↗ i'm more concerned about street egress

39:29 ↗ and so if if there's a difference

39:31 ↗ between 15 and 20 and people can't drive

39:33 ↗ up the street

39:35 ↗ that's a pretty significant problem

39:36 ↗ because then they have to park down at

39:38 ↗ the bottom and

39:40 ↗ that's not necessarily a good thing

39:42 ↗ either because then people also slide

39:44 ↗ down the hill

39:45 ↗ when it gets icy so

39:47 ↗ that's what i'm

39:48 ↗ most concerned about is

39:50 ↗ the difference between 15 and 20 on a

39:52 ↗ street level yeah i don't think we're

39:54 ↗ we're going to change the the standard

39:56 ↗ for the street to 20 it's more about if

39:59 ↗ your property is 20

40:01 ↗ do these additional design standards

40:04 ↗ kick in

40:06 ↗ which is the you know design with the

40:08 ↗ ridgeline and grade according to this

40:10 ↗ and all those additional things that you

40:12 ↗ you need to address in the code but the

40:15 ↗ road standards i don't think we're

40:16 ↗ changing from 12

40:18 ↗ and just in case it was confusing uh

40:21 ↗ chair fall

40:23 ↗ the reason that i

40:24 ↗ selected streets to show the grades is

40:27 ↗ you can kind of see some of the elements

40:29 ↗ along the way that give us sort of

40:32 ↗ depth perception and a sense of the the

40:35 ↗ change

40:37 ↗ it's really hard to show grade when

40:40 ↗ you're looking at a you know

40:42 ↗ a slope site with um just landscape so

40:45 ↗ that that would those were the examples

40:47 ↗ but it wasn't really because we were

40:49 ↗ proposing to change the uh increase the

40:52 ↗ allowable grade

40:54 ↗ okay that that helps answer so we're not

40:56 ↗ talking about streets we're talking

40:57 ↗ about

40:58 ↗ property

40:59 ↗ yes

41:00 ↗ and then in terms of um

41:03 ↗ the transfer of development rights you

41:05 ↗ bring up an important clarification

41:07 ↗ which is

41:09 ↗ that we are not proposing uh

41:11 ↗ transferring development rights off of

41:14 ↗ um

41:15 ↗ off of steep slopes

41:17 ↗ this was properties that are between

41:21 ↗ whatever base we set 15 or 20 percent

41:25 ↗ up to 40 percent that could be developed

41:27 ↗ right now

41:29 ↗ are we going to

41:32 ↗ allow some of their development rights

41:34 ↗ to be removed

41:36 ↗ as a way of encouraging them to build

41:38 ↗ less on their property

41:41 ↗ okay understood

41:45 ↗ all right uh looks like we thank you for

41:47 ↗ that we have one more question from

41:49 ↗ commissioner voice

41:53 ↗ thank you chair so just to dovetail with

41:55 ↗ your last comment

41:57 ↗ um

41:58 ↗ lucy

41:59 ↗ uh so as far as those though okay so

42:04 ↗ two things real quick

42:06 ↗ there's two developments i'm thinking of

42:08 ↗ you have talus and then there's another

42:09 ↗ development off 202

42:11 ↗ um what is that that goes straight up

42:13 ↗ those are roughly 12 to fifteen percent

42:15 ↗ grades

42:19 ↗ i can't think of them i want to

42:21 ↗ do i'm not sure where that one is in

42:23 ↗ terms of talus

42:25 ↗ the main drive in

42:27 ↗ just from some old studies i had

42:30 ↗ showed that the main road was 12

42:33 ↗ um

42:34 ↗ all the way at the very top of

42:36 ↗ shangri-la or the bottom of shangri-la

42:38 ↗ way

42:39 ↗ towards the north end

42:41 ↗ it does go to 14

42:44 ↗ um because that was built during the era

42:46 ↗ when it was possible to go up to 15

42:50 ↗ roads but we aren't doing that anymore

42:53 ↗ um now

42:54 ↗ you know

42:55 ↗ james bush road which was my 20 plus

42:59 ↗ percent example

43:00 ↗ um you know there are a couple of

43:03 ↗ sections in some of the very old roads

43:05 ↗ before we had those kinds of

43:08 ↗ restrictions

43:10 ↗ and

43:11 ↗ attention to development standards there

43:14 ↗ are definitely roads that are steeper

43:16 ↗ than 15

43:18 ↗ in the city

43:20 ↗ and then as far as those 5 000 parcels

43:23 ↗ that are above 15

43:26 ↗ are those built out

43:28 ↗ or no those are currently

43:30 ↗ usable lots

43:34 ↗ so i don't know how many do you know the

43:36 ↗ answer i don't know how many are built

43:38 ↗ on

43:39 ↗ i think it's just a total

43:41 ↗ the number of lots that the pink or the

43:44 ↗ red show up on

43:46 ↗ that they touch

43:48 ↗ was 5000 horses

43:50 ↗ okay i'm just trying to determine how

43:51 ↗ cumbersome we're gonna make it for a

43:54 ↗ sizable portion of housing in the city

43:56 ↗ um so it'd be interesting to see how

43:57 ↗ much of that lighter pink shade is

43:59 ↗ already built out

44:01 ↗ and then finally just to the last

44:03 ↗ comment that you guys made yeah it seems

44:04 ↗ like 20 to 40 percent being able to have

44:06 ↗ tdrs is probably a good idea

44:14 ↗ all right thank you and

44:16 ↗ uh we have another question from

44:18 ↗ commissioner bader

44:20 ↗ yeah hi hey

44:21 ↗ sarah vader i had actually a very

44:23 ↗ similar question because i'm just trying

44:24 ↗ to visualize like what a steep slope is

44:27 ↗ and i live in dallas and so

44:30 ↗ um the like parcel nine that's there

44:33 ↗ that to me is like a good example of

44:35 ↗ like not like not successful hillside

44:38 ↗ kind of clearing um what's the slope on

44:41 ↗ that

44:41 ↗ parcel do you know

44:43 ↗ i don't but

44:45 ↗ so this is

44:46 ↗ memory okay this is about a ten-year-old

44:48 ↗ memory at some point

44:51 ↗ they were looking at that as a

44:52 ↗ multi-family parcel and someone you know

44:55 ↗ it had like a hundred feet of gain or

44:57 ↗ something across the parcel it was

45:00 ↗ really a tremendous

45:03 ↗ difference and you kind of get a sense

45:04 ↗ from the road that's um going in there

45:07 ↗ uh that there is that um

45:11 ↗ significant topographic change from one

45:13 ↗ side to another

45:15 ↗ um you know intellis and issaquah

45:17 ↗ highlands are kind of interesting

45:19 ↗ examples of clustering

45:21 ↗ you know talus has

45:23 ↗ more than 75 of the total original

45:26 ↗ property was

45:28 ↗ set aside either

45:30 ↗ in the large parcel to the south that

45:33 ↗ was

45:34 ↗ held out from development or the

45:36 ↗ critical areas that are kind of woven in

45:39 ↗ between

45:40 ↗ the development parcels

45:42 ↗ issaquah highlands i think was 1200

45:45 ↗ acres it was a four to one

45:47 ↗ for everything except for the

45:50 ↗ area that was being quarried it was four

45:52 ↗ to one

45:53 ↗ four acres preserved for every one acre

45:56 ↗ that was developed and so

45:58 ↗ as a result they were allowed to

46:02 ↗ 100

46:03 ↗ clear

46:04 ↗ the um properties that um

46:08 ↗ they were allowed to build on

46:10 ↗ and and so you know how that fits into

46:13 ↗ the overall tree canopy

46:16 ↗ is an interesting question and

46:19 ↗ how do we

46:21 ↗ make it consistent with the character of

46:23 ↗ the city which is tree city usa

46:33 ↗ okay excellent thank you

46:35 ↗ so there are no more questions

46:43 ↗ go ahead and speak

46:46 ↗ i think sarah bader's on the list did

46:48 ↗ you already do yours sarah

46:50 ↗ you did okay sorry i missed

46:52 ↗ thanks

46:57 ↗ okay so we'll go ahead and open it up to

46:58 ↗ comments in the discussion

47:04 ↗ any additional comments

47:09 ↗ are we going to hear from the public

47:10 ↗ before we have our discussion

47:12 ↗ [Music]

47:13 ↗ uh public was going to be at the end of

47:15 ↗ our

47:16 ↗ conversation uh both of them but if you

47:19 ↗ if the commissioners feel like they

47:21 ↗ would like to hear the public i'll go

47:23 ↗ we'll go ahead and open up to the public

47:25 ↗ first

47:26 ↗ person

47:26 ↗ follow the standard what what

47:29 ↗ what's the standard

47:30 ↗ that's how we've done it in the past

47:32 ↗ it's not necessarily a standard but

47:34 ↗ we'll go ahead and open up for public

47:35 ↗ comments so lucy

47:38 ↗ let's go ahead and open up for a public

47:39 ↗ comment based on

47:41 ↗ hillsides and terrain

47:46 ↗ um if anyone from the public would like

47:49 ↗ to make a comment

47:52 ↗ please raise your hand i

47:54 ↗ see that we have one person

47:56 ↗ who

47:58 ↗ has raised her hand

48:04 ↗ connie marsh you are a panelist

48:08 ↗ and unmuted

48:12 ↗ okay

48:13 ↗ hi

48:14 ↗ connie marsh live on squawk

48:17 ↗ and uh

48:19 ↗ we do have all kinds of slope here but

48:23 ↗ how contiguous is the slope so when you

48:25 ↗ look at the map of all that pink

48:29 ↗ it's not necessarily that that is just

48:32 ↗ one continuous rise

48:34 ↗ and so if you take the example of the 40

48:37 ↗ percent grade having to

48:39 ↗ uh

48:40 ↗ rise for a 20 foot length before it is

48:43 ↗ considered a critical area slope

48:46 ↗ that actually is a lot 20 feet is a lot

48:49 ↗ for a normal parcel and so um you can't

48:53 ↗ just say

48:54 ↗ how much of the area is in pink it's how

48:57 ↗ much of it actually covers that rise and

49:00 ↗ i don't believe your map is that concise

49:03 ↗ because i i guess you have to go parcel

49:06 ↗ by parcel so um

49:09 ↗ i i think it looks like a huge quantity

49:13 ↗ but in reality not so much now let's go

49:16 ↗ to my favorite thing of

49:18 ↗ uh being able to reduce the buffer for

49:21 ↗ your slopes as

49:23 ↗ so that you can develop we do this all

49:26 ↗ over town we do it easily and then we

49:28 ↗ get into trouble and hillsides slide

49:31 ↗ so some of the reasons or ways that you

49:35 ↗ might be able to reduce

49:37 ↗ slopes is by addressing the water coming

49:40 ↗ off of the hills because it's the slope

49:43 ↗ and the water and you disturb it

49:45 ↗ water goes underneath we have glacial

49:47 ↗ till all over the place because the

49:49 ↗ glacier is going through

49:50 ↗ and it gives us this

49:52 ↗ slippery underpinning on almost all of

49:55 ↗ our hills

49:56 ↗ and so the rationale for keeping

50:00 ↗ forested hillsides

50:02 ↗ is

50:02 ↗ habitat

50:04 ↗ climate

50:05 ↗ uh soils and turbidity going into our

50:09 ↗ streams it retains the trees retain

50:13 ↗ the water and then they let it out in

50:14 ↗ the summer so all of the rest of the

50:16 ↗ vegetation can survive in a hot summer

50:20 ↗ and it keeps your hillsides stable more

50:23 ↗ stable than almost anything that you can

50:25 ↗ do if you live in iskwa highlands and

50:28 ↗ talis you see jute matting all over

50:30 ↗ these man-made slopes and that's because

50:32 ↗ if they didn't cover them up with juke

50:34 ↗ manning they would just slide away so

50:38 ↗ i think the conversation is not really

50:42 ↗ about well who can build where

50:44 ↗ it's about why is it that we want to

50:47 ↗ retain our slopes and use those criteria

50:51 ↗ and then people's ability to build

50:54 ↗ safely without causing harm to our town

50:57 ↗ our environment and um our aesthetics

51:00 ↗ then would come in to

51:03 ↗ place because issaquah needs to maintain

51:06 ↗ this particular forested quality that we

51:08 ↗ have now we've also had some issues with

51:12 ↗ the city itself using the forest

51:14 ↗ practices permit to avoid actually

51:16 ↗ having to go through a process so we

51:18 ↗ have had uh acreage

51:21 ↗ of trees felled

51:23 ↗ uh by the city itself without going

51:26 ↗ through any public process by calling

51:28 ↗ out the forest practices permit so i

51:30 ↗ would like to understand how the forest

51:32 ↗ practices permit is going to interface

51:35 ↗ with our our code because the that that

51:39 ↗ permit is

51:40 ↗ super thin

51:41 ↗ um

51:43 ↗ then we have the question of man-made

51:45 ↗ slopes well we have slopes in this town

51:47 ↗ from 1910 and those are man-made slopes

51:50 ↗ and they're from the coal mining and the

51:52 ↗ railroads

51:53 ↗ and yet our city continues to say that

51:56 ↗ those are man-made slopes even though a

51:58 ↗ hundred years later really are they

52:00 ↗ man-made really are they stable really

52:03 ↗ should they not be going through every

52:06 ↗ other

52:07 ↗ um

52:08 ↗ study just like any of the other slopes

52:10 ↗ that have been around for a long time

52:12 ↗ and then that brings me to the

52:14 ↗ comprehensive plan this did not talk

52:16 ↗ about our existing comprehensive plan

52:19 ↗ policies where we have a gap and that

52:22 ↗ gap says we will reforest talus

52:25 ↗ and issaquah islands

52:28 ↗ given any opportunity to do so

52:31 ↗ and so you already have your policy

52:34 ↗ direction on that question so i'm sort

52:37 ↗ of curious here as to why we're bringing

52:39 ↗ up

52:40 ↗ that question as if we're going to be

52:42 ↗ changing policies

52:44 ↗ in the comprehensive plan because we

52:46 ↗ already have that policy and if anything

52:48 ↗ we just have a gap in the code so i

52:50 ↗ don't want to go through this are we

52:52 ↗ changing the policies conversation again

52:54 ↗ we did that two meetings ago and it was

52:56 ↗ ugly don't we don't want to do it again

52:59 ↗ and then we have some interesting

53:01 ↗ language

53:03 ↗ um

53:04 ↗ and we have the constant conversation

53:07 ↗ about retaining walls running up a hill

53:10 ↗ so do we want to have a series of

53:12 ↗ retaining walls or do we want to have a

53:14 ↗ taller retaining wall and protect the

53:16 ↗ forest behind it and this seems to be a

53:18 ↗ consistent conversation

53:20 ↗ and i didn't actually hear this this

53:23 ↗ problem because to me this is one of the

53:25 ↗ major problems of this conversation in

53:28 ↗ our earth moving in tree protection

53:30 ↗ um is

53:32 ↗ is when do you do which of those things

53:35 ↗ and that has to be

53:36 ↗ clear

53:37 ↗ now you also didn't bring up the

53:39 ↗ clearing and grading code is in a

53:42 ↗ different chapter and title 18

53:45 ↗ is only one part of it and so

53:48 ↗ what are you going to do about was it

53:51 ↗ is it 13 is it 16 i can't remember which

53:53 ↗ one it is but but that's where the

53:55 ↗ clearing and grading code is and that's

53:57 ↗ where this

53:59 ↗ where so you're going to have to

54:01 ↗ bring

54:02 ↗ out both language for both otherwise

54:05 ↗ you're just going to have uh

54:07 ↗ k chaos

54:09 ↗ so um

54:10 ↗ me

54:12 ↗ i would stick with 15

54:14 ↗ i think it's that important

54:16 ↗ um and and i think there's a lot more

54:20 ↗ work to do in this situation but i'm

54:23 ↗ glad you're at least having the

54:25 ↗ conversation so thank you

54:48 ↗ um is there are there any other

54:51 ↗ [Music]

54:52 ↗ attendees that would like to speak

55:01 ↗ i don't see

55:02 ↗ any other hands at this time

55:07 ↗ okay thank you very much lucy

55:09 ↗ and let's go ahead and open up to uh

55:11 ↗ commissioner comments

55:13 ↗ and

55:14 ↗ commissioner lewis has the first comment

55:16 ↗ for the floor

55:19 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

55:20 ↗ lewis here uh i my comment uh was is

55:23 ↗ actually now going to be an echo of what

55:25 ↗ connie marsh said and i wrote a minor uh

55:28 ↗ reforest it's a quantum exclamation mark

55:30 ↗ and as i did that i thought it would be

55:32 ↗ a really great t-shirt idea so that's my

55:34 ↗ maybe my side project is to get us all

55:36 ↗ buttons and and stickers because i did

55:39 ↗ feel like i've had this conversation

55:41 ↗ before i kind of had a groundhog day

55:42 ↗ moment where i said wait i'm really sure

55:45 ↗ i've had this conversation a couple

55:48 ↗ times in different years where we've

55:50 ↗ already said yes this is what we want so

55:52 ↗ if there's if you're looking for an

55:54 ↗ unequivocal comment yes we need to

55:57 ↗ reforest

55:58 ↗ issaquah there's many places that we

56:00 ↗ know that we need to do this and i

56:01 ↗ thought as a policy director we decided

56:03 ↗ this so i'm excited to see where we go

56:05 ↗ with it in the code so

56:07 ↗ good luck

56:14 ↗ thank you and i don't see any other

56:16 ↗ additional comments would commissioners

56:18 ↗ like to make any additional comments uh

56:20 ↗ next one actually is from commissioner

56:22 ↗ milligan

56:25 ↗ thank you chairfall and uh thank you

56:28 ↗ everybody for the good questions and i

56:30 ↗ have a few comments because if this

56:33 ↗ would be the time where you want to hear

56:34 ↗ some direction from us to help you go

56:36 ↗ forward okay

56:38 ↗ uh the

56:40 ↗ i want to chime in with some of the

56:42 ↗ other commissioners who have

56:44 ↗ leaned towards the 15 percent moving up

56:47 ↗ to 20 seems arbitrary and not purposeful

56:50 ↗ to the greater

56:53 ↗ caution that we are trying to

56:55 ↗ go forward with for stability

56:59 ↗ of our slopes

57:01 ↗ for managing runoff

57:03 ↗ or

57:05 ↗ all the other things besides just what

57:07 ↗ it looks like from afar

57:09 ↗ there's more than just the protection

57:12 ↗ that's in our um for

57:13 ↗ aesthetics that aren't in the policy

57:16 ↗ and then as far as reforesting our urban

57:18 ↗ villages like izapa highlands where i

57:20 ↗ live or talis

57:22 ↗ i think there has long been an

57:24 ↗ expectation even before they were built

57:26 ↗ that they would be re-vegetated

57:29 ↗ uh and even that gosh you know look when

57:32 ↗ squawk mountain was built it looked like

57:34 ↗ a bunch of houses and look at it now it

57:35 ↗ looks like a forest you know and but

57:38 ↗ while i say that and i know there's an

57:40 ↗ expectation to reforest these

57:42 ↗ developments

57:44 ↗ uh the density in isoqua highlands and

57:47 ↗ in talus is quite a bit different than

57:49 ↗ it is on squawk and i don't have the

57:51 ↗ answer on how to do that but i think

57:52 ↗ there is an expectation and through our

57:54 ↗ policy that those would be reforested um

57:57 ↗ goes back to you know what is a forest

58:00 ↗ we have we're not answering that i'm not

58:02 ↗ going to try to answer that question you

58:03 ↗ asked that question

58:06 ↗ and then um i want to

58:09 ↗ uh support at this time based on just

58:12 ↗ kind of a really quick uh study on the

58:14 ↗ tdr from the 15 to 40. um sounds like a

58:18 ↗ pretty good idea

58:20 ↗ on it's on the surface here as much as i

58:22 ↗ understand today

58:25 ↗ and then i want to talk about um walls

58:28 ↗ and grading

58:29 ↗ and i have

58:31 ↗ long thought that the

58:33 ↗ um

58:34 ↗ 10 foot high 35 foot long wall was

58:40 ↗ always way too big i mean not just too

58:43 ↗ big just way too big and and that the

58:46 ↗ policies that you have shown that

58:48 ↗ encourage working with the hillside with

58:52 ↗ this development

58:53 ↗ is a better

58:55 ↗ way to go from

58:57 ↗ from my perspective if we can reduce

59:01 ↗ the

59:02 ↗ the use of walls to change our

59:04 ↗ topography and i remember that policy

59:07 ↗ language and working with lucy she can

59:09 ↗ help me with that that we wanted to

59:11 ↗ reduce the impact on the topology or the

59:14 ↗ whatever the word is that she used

59:17 ↗ and having big walls like that don't

59:19 ↗ don't help and i don't know if the

59:20 ↗ distance between the terraced walls is

59:22 ↗ adequate

59:24 ↗ if you wanted to increase the distance

59:25 ↗ between terraced walls therefore

59:28 ↗ seeing the impact on the topography

59:32 ↗ be

59:33 ↗ happy to see that

59:39 ↗ oh the pink and red map

59:41 ↗ can we have colors that are sort of

59:43 ↗ different

59:44 ↗ rather than colors that are sort of the

59:46 ↗ same

59:48 ↗ uh

59:49 ↗ and then i'm looking forward to talking

59:51 ↗ circling back after this discussion to

59:53 ↗ the critical areas of 40

59:55 ↗ and you know the run and the rise and

59:57 ↗ all that kind of stuff this isn't for

59:58 ↗ tonight but i i would say that um the

1:00:01 ↗ more we learn the more when we come back

1:00:02 ↗ to the critical areas discussion and

1:00:04 ↗ buffers and all that kind of thing we'll

1:00:05 ↗ be better prepared for that looking

1:00:07 ↗ forward to that

1:00:09 ↗ so that's

1:00:10 ↗ my comments on this part thank you

1:00:13 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan

1:00:16 ↗ not seen any additional comments i'm

1:00:18 ↗ going to go ahead and throw in a comment

1:00:20 ↗ here

1:00:21 ↗ for the question define

1:00:24 ↗ forested hillsides

1:00:27 ↗ section a

1:00:28 ↗ there are also sites that have formerly

1:00:30 ↗ had

1:00:31 ↗ forests

1:00:32 ↗ that had forests but have already been

1:00:34 ↗ cleared

1:00:36 ↗ should these sites be considered

1:00:38 ↗ forested hill sites and be required to

1:00:39 ↗ replay at the canopy and to an elevated

1:00:42 ↗ forest level and the answer is in my

1:00:44 ↗ opinion is absolutely because the soils

1:00:46 ↗ haven't changed

1:00:48 ↗ um and we definitely need the trees

1:00:52 ↗ and two uh nina's points the differences

1:00:55 ↗ between

1:00:57 ↗ talus and squawk is that squawk is a is

1:01:01 ↗ a housing development but you can hardly

1:01:04 ↗ see that because of all the trees so

1:01:07 ↗ i think replanting the trees is good for

1:01:09 ↗ the soils and holding it together for

1:01:11 ↗ steep slope for runoff

1:01:14 ↗ for turbidity

1:01:15 ↗ and for reducing our carbon footprint so

1:01:18 ↗ absolutely now to what level

1:01:22 ↗ at least 55 percent because that's what

1:01:24 ↗ we're aiming for

1:01:26 ↗ hypothetical i don't know how you answer

1:01:29 ↗ that when you have development on there

1:01:32 ↗ but as many trees as possible would be

1:01:34 ↗ my opinion

1:01:35 ↗ uh

1:01:37 ↗ i am not seeing additional comments that

1:01:39 ↗ come in from the commissioner so

1:01:41 ↗ we are ready to move on to the next

1:01:44 ↗ topic which is wireless

1:01:47 ↗ sure before we go on to that i just want

1:01:49 ↗ to make sure um in terms of the broad

1:01:52 ↗ agreement

1:01:53 ↗ is that we

1:01:54 ↗ keep the um overlay will apply these

1:01:58 ↗ standards will apply to slopes that are

1:02:00 ↗ 15

1:02:02 ↗ or

1:02:03 ↗ up to 40 percent of course no

1:02:05 ↗ development can occur so is there broad

1:02:07 ↗ agreement to keep that at 15 to 15

1:02:10 ↗ percent

1:02:11 ↗ just a nod of heads or razor hands okay

1:02:14 ↗ so generally

1:02:16 ↗ and then yes the other parts it's much

1:02:18 ↗ more nuanced some good feedback for us

1:02:20 ↗ so we'll take that into consideration as

1:02:22 ↗ we prepare the rest of the code

1:02:25 ↗ does anyone oppose

1:02:28 ↗ no okay

1:02:31 ↗ so with that holly the floor is yours

1:02:36 ↗ good evening commissioners i'm holly

1:02:37 ↗ keaton senior planner with the city it's

1:02:40 ↗ nice to meet you and see you all tonight

1:02:44 ↗ and so i'm going to give you a little

1:02:47 ↗ bit of background to

1:02:49 ↗ wireless and why we're talking about it

1:02:52 ↗ and also i just want to reiterate

1:02:54 ↗ um

1:02:56 ↗ if you still have the powerpoint up

1:02:58 ↗ could you share your screen for holly

1:03:00 ↗ yeah do you want me to bring it up no

1:03:03 ↗ holly

1:03:04 ↗ sure that's fine

1:03:05 ↗ okay

1:03:06 ↗ so you'll see the first slide in just a

1:03:08 ↗ moment but i'm going to provide some

1:03:10 ↗ background before i start that

1:03:13 ↗ part of the discussion

1:03:14 ↗ so the reason we're having the

1:03:16 ↗ discussion tonight is um a couple of

1:03:19 ↗ things have come up since the drafting

1:03:21 ↗ of the wireless code which i believe you

1:03:23 ↗ all know was a 2017-18

1:03:27 ↗ time frame so it's not really that old

1:03:31 ↗ in terms of regulations but

1:03:34 ↗ there have been some things that have

1:03:36 ↗ come to light in the last few years

1:03:38 ↗ since we've been implementing the code

1:03:40 ↗ and there was a recent study done at the

1:03:43 ↗ beginning beginning of the year the

1:03:44 ↗ results came out in may

1:03:47 ↗ that

1:03:49 ↗ that identified that the community

1:03:51 ↗ views

1:03:53 ↗ improved wireless and broadband services

1:03:56 ↗ in the community as a top three goal for

1:04:01 ↗ changes that they would like to see so

1:04:03 ↗ that kind of triggered

1:04:05 ↗ administration to ask staff to dig into

1:04:08 ↗ this a little bit more

1:04:09 ↗ so

1:04:10 ↗ early on in my time with the city i got

1:04:13 ↗ to start doing that and i organized with

1:04:16 ↗ john trager meeting with the key

1:04:19 ↗ wireless providers

1:04:21 ↗ to find out

1:04:23 ↗ from their

1:04:24 ↗ you know from them

1:04:25 ↗ what the problems they saw with the code

1:04:28 ↗ were so that we could work

1:04:31 ↗ or so that we could collaborate to try

1:04:33 ↗ to find a way to bring better services

1:04:34 ↗ to the community

1:04:36 ↗ three key points came to light during

1:04:39 ↗ that meeting

1:04:40 ↗ the providers found that the noticing

1:04:43 ↗ requirement that isn't

1:04:45 ↗ required in most cities was

1:04:47 ↗ very time consuming for them and

1:04:49 ↗ cumbersome

1:04:51 ↗ and they also had

1:04:54 ↗ struggles with the fact that city polls

1:04:56 ↗ are not allowed to be used for wireless

1:04:59 ↗ facilities

1:05:00 ↗ and the third issue was that

1:05:02 ↗ construction of new polls is very

1:05:04 ↗ limited

1:05:06 ↗ and what is needed to be approved for a

1:05:08 ↗ new poll is not clear to the applicant

1:05:12 ↗ so

1:05:13 ↗ that should give you just kind of a

1:05:14 ↗ little bit of a summary as to why we're

1:05:17 ↗ talking about it i know that i have

1:05:19 ↗ heard comments about the wireless

1:05:21 ↗ regulations um you know being fairly

1:05:23 ↗ recent and so some people have

1:05:26 ↗ communicated some confusion as to why

1:05:28 ↗ we're talking about potential amendments

1:05:31 ↗ i do want to reiterate what lucy and

1:05:34 ↗ minnie both said this evening we're

1:05:36 ↗ really looking for on this topic as well

1:05:38 ↗ consensus so there's no decision to be

1:05:41 ↗ made tonight we just kind of want to get

1:05:42 ↗ a feel for

1:05:44 ↗ you know what you think about

1:05:46 ↗ the policies that exist and

1:05:48 ↗ potential changes to those policies so

1:05:51 ↗ that we can gauge how much

1:05:53 ↗ you know staff time and human human

1:05:55 ↗ capital needs to be invested into

1:05:57 ↗ changing these regulations

1:06:00 ↗ so on this first slide here

1:06:04 ↗ you see some

1:06:06 ↗ you see the policy question one which

1:06:08 ↗ says current code does not allow city

1:06:10 ↗ polls to be used for any wireless

1:06:12 ↗ facilities including small cell

1:06:15 ↗ should the city consider allowing these

1:06:17 ↗ facilities on city-owned polls with

1:06:19 ↗ strict size and design guidelines

1:06:22 ↗ which align with the regional regulatory

1:06:25 ↗ approach

1:06:27 ↗ and so some options that i have provided

1:06:29 ↗ here for you to think about would be

1:06:31 ↗ allow city polls to be utilized for the

1:06:34 ↗ placement with design standards of any

1:06:37 ↗ wireless facility or only small cell

1:06:39 ↗ wireless or make no changes to the

1:06:42 ↗ current regulations

1:06:48 ↗ okay next slide mini so on this slide

1:06:52 ↗ the thick kind of dark red maroon

1:06:55 ↗ outline is to identify residential

1:06:58 ↗ neighborhoods

1:06:59 ↗ new polls are not allowed in residential

1:07:01 ↗ neighborhoods and as you can see

1:07:03 ↗ the majority of the city of issaquah is

1:07:05 ↗ residential so this is really hindrance

1:07:08 ↗ and improving service

1:07:10 ↗ because new polls are not allowed in

1:07:12 ↗ these areas at all

1:07:15 ↗ so some considerations while you look at

1:07:17 ↗ this the city is largely residential new

1:07:20 ↗ polls are not allowed in residential

1:07:21 ↗ neighborhoods so something to think

1:07:23 ↗ about

1:07:24 ↗ other areas where new polls are allowed

1:07:26 ↗ are very limited and citizens have

1:07:29 ↗ expressed significant frustration with

1:07:31 ↗ the current service level

1:07:33 ↗ in the past year and a half

1:07:35 ↗ strict design standards can be

1:07:37 ↗ implemented to minimize

1:07:39 ↗ visibility on polls and structures

1:07:44 ↗ next slide mini

1:07:46 ↗ second policy question

1:07:48 ↗ is

1:07:49 ↗ current code does not allow new polls

1:07:51 ↗ on front street right-of-way or in

1:07:53 ↗ single-family zones which i've already

1:07:56 ↗ noticed

1:07:57 ↗ and it discourages new polls and

1:07:59 ↗ residential uses in non-residential

1:08:01 ↗ zoning districts on multi-family uses

1:08:03 ↗ and in areas that would block natural

1:08:05 ↗ vistas should staff consider expanding

1:08:08 ↗ the areas in which new polls may be

1:08:10 ↗ located

1:08:11 ↗ some of the options i've outlined below

1:08:14 ↗ are

1:08:14 ↗ allow new polls in all zones allow or

1:08:17 ↗ encourage new polls in some

1:08:19 ↗ areas such as single family zones or or

1:08:21 ↗ within the front street right away or

1:08:23 ↗ both

1:08:24 ↗ and the third option is make no change i

1:08:27 ↗ do also want to mention here you know

1:08:29 ↗ this is just kind of a high level

1:08:31 ↗ discussion at this point there are

1:08:34 ↗ obviously other options

1:08:36 ↗ one such option would be allowing it

1:08:39 ↗ allowing new poles in residential zones

1:08:42 ↗ within a certain radius so say a new

1:08:45 ↗ pole can be constructed so long as it is

1:08:48 ↗ not closer than

1:08:50 ↗ you know um

1:08:53 ↗ so many feet or a mile from another pole

1:08:55 ↗ or two miles from another pole

1:09:00 ↗ next slide mini

1:09:04 ↗ i think that's the end

1:09:07 ↗ okay

1:09:10 ↗ so again the goal tonight is just to

1:09:12 ↗ kind of at this early stage get a

1:09:14 ↗ feeling for the consensus among the

1:09:17 ↗ commissioners on the outline topics so

1:09:20 ↗ um if we could just discuss and kind of

1:09:24 ↗ give staff an idea of what your feelings

1:09:26 ↗ about the current regulations are and

1:09:28 ↗ what changes you may think need to be

1:09:31 ↗ made or not made i i would really

1:09:33 ↗ appreciate that

1:09:38 ↗ thank you very much senior planner holly

1:09:41 ↗ let's go ahead and open up two comments

1:09:43 ↗ or questions from the commissioners

1:09:51 ↗ and our first question is coming from

1:09:53 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:09:56 ↗ thanks chair fall commissioner milligan

1:09:58 ↗ here it's the high-speed hfn in issaquah

1:10:01 ↗ highlands that has me getting my

1:10:03 ↗ question in there faster right

1:10:05 ↗ speaking of things like that uh

1:10:07 ↗ questions are

1:10:09 ↗ thank you paulie wonderful presentation

1:10:11 ↗ really good information

1:10:12 ↗ trying to wrap my head around all the

1:10:15 ↗ other things that you know this is

1:10:16 ↗ something we can grab but there's i know

1:10:18 ↗ a whole bunch of other stuff outside

1:10:20 ↗ this like federal regulations and

1:10:22 ↗ minimum requirements and all this kind

1:10:24 ↗ of weird stuff i can't remember all of

1:10:25 ↗ it but a couple things that would help

1:10:27 ↗ me is that what is a city pole what

1:10:30 ↗ qualifies as a city pole you know is it

1:10:33 ↗ a light pole and a telephone pole you

1:10:35 ↗ know what it all qualifies as a city

1:10:37 ↗ pole and if we

1:10:39 ↗ allow on city poles it wasn't clear to

1:10:41 ↗ me whether if you do that then you say

1:10:45 ↗ okay then it's on all city tolls and

1:10:47 ↗ then you would have to have some other

1:10:48 ↗ governance like distance between

1:10:50 ↗ or something like that

1:10:54 ↗ the other question is how would you base

1:10:57 ↗ the distance between would that have to

1:10:59 ↗ do with the performance of the cellular

1:11:01 ↗ service that's going on the pole or just

1:11:03 ↗ because you don't feel like having

1:11:04 ↗ another cell

1:11:06 ↗ service between here and you know a mile

1:11:09 ↗ and a half

1:11:10 ↗ the last question is

1:11:13 ↗ um if the

1:11:14 ↗ city is able to progress in

1:11:16 ↗ undergrounding utilities

1:11:18 ↗ then what does that happen to what we

1:11:20 ↗ thought polls do

1:11:22 ↗ and i know that's something else we're

1:11:24 ↗ kind of working on

1:11:26 ↗ um that's those are all my questions

1:11:28 ↗ thanks

1:11:30 ↗ okay so i got four questions there let

1:11:32 ↗ me make sure i can remember all of them

1:11:34 ↗ and if i missed something please remind

1:11:36 ↗ me so first of all um city owned polls

1:11:39 ↗ typically for wireless facilities are

1:11:42 ↗ light poles

1:11:43 ↗ they

1:11:44 ↗ other types of poles could be considered

1:11:46 ↗ but

1:11:47 ↗ so far i've only seen them be used on

1:11:51 ↗ light poles

1:11:52 ↗ and

1:11:53 ↗ as you may have seen in the past there

1:11:55 ↗ are

1:11:56 ↗ design standards that can integrate

1:11:58 ↗ those small cell facilities on a light

1:12:00 ↗ pole to make them look more like part of

1:12:03 ↗ the design of of the actual light pole

1:12:06 ↗ so those are the kinds of things we talk

1:12:08 ↗ about when we say strict design

1:12:09 ↗ guidelines

1:12:10 ↗ um in distancing it's it's based off of

1:12:13 ↗ the cell service so how how close could

1:12:17 ↗ two towers be to provide a better

1:12:20 ↗ level of service typically within a city

1:12:23 ↗ with trees and infrastructure you need

1:12:25 ↗ to have holes for high level of service

1:12:28 ↗ be at about two miles from each other so

1:12:31 ↗ you could

1:12:32 ↗ we could you know pull in some more

1:12:34 ↗ research on that and and integrate

1:12:37 ↗ something on that we would definitely

1:12:38 ↗ need to do an inventory of the polls in

1:12:40 ↗ the city to have a better understanding

1:12:42 ↗ of where

1:12:44 ↗ you know significant gaps may be

1:12:46 ↗ happening but based on

1:12:49 ↗ the feedback from the community we do

1:12:50 ↗ know that

1:12:52 ↗ many residential neighborhoods have

1:12:54 ↗ struggled in this past year and a half

1:12:55 ↗ which is the whole impetus for

1:12:57 ↗ looking into this

1:12:59 ↗ i know that i missed one of them can you

1:13:02 ↗ remind me what it was that i missed

1:13:03 ↗ there underground

1:13:06 ↗ yeah they became maybe obsolete because

1:13:09 ↗ those utility poles are not the

1:13:11 ↗ city-owned poles

1:13:13 ↗ so they wouldn't be placed there in this

1:13:15 ↗ policy anyway right

1:13:18 ↗ so on the undergrounding aspect of it

1:13:21 ↗ i'm definitely not the technical expert

1:13:23 ↗ there but my understanding is that the

1:13:25 ↗ fiber

1:13:26 ↗ that you're referring to

1:13:28 ↗ works in coordination with the actual

1:13:31 ↗ facilities so

1:13:33 ↗ often you're needing you're needing both

1:13:35 ↗ pieces

1:13:40 ↗ um

1:13:42 ↗ let me add one piece and then i i want

1:13:44 ↗ to make sure i understand

1:13:46 ↗ um

1:13:47 ↗ the question

1:13:48 ↗ um

1:13:50 ↗ we in the city

1:13:52 ↗ all those street lights you see are not

1:13:54 ↗ owned by the city necessarily there's a

1:13:57 ↗ combination

1:13:59 ↗ of city-owned polls

1:14:01 ↗ and pse owned polls

1:14:06 ↗ i can't say that i entirely understand

1:14:08 ↗ that sometimes it's based on the polls

1:14:11 ↗ you want to

1:14:12 ↗ install and

1:14:16 ↗ who you want to maintain and

1:14:19 ↗ sometimes

1:14:21 ↗ psc doesn't want to do that so

1:14:25 ↗ i say that because pse isn't quite as

1:14:28 ↗ rigorous about this i think they're

1:14:30 ↗ happy to have

1:14:32 ↗ sell service on polls for the income

1:14:38 ↗ is that all

1:14:39 ↗ match what you know holly

1:14:44 ↗ that is consistent with what i've

1:14:47 ↗ heard so yeah pse they they do allow uh

1:14:50 ↗ providers to locate on their polls and

1:14:53 ↗ they don't have a problem with that

1:14:54 ↗ that's true

1:14:56 ↗ and in terms of undergrounding

1:15:01 ↗ right we require that everything except

1:15:03 ↗ for the high

1:15:05 ↗ tension

1:15:06 ↗ power lines be undergrounded

1:15:10 ↗ my understanding and holly's more up to

1:15:13 ↗ speed so i'm going to make a statement

1:15:15 ↗ and then she's going to fix it for me

1:15:17 ↗ um

1:15:18 ↗ which is

1:15:20 ↗ i think with small cell

1:15:22 ↗ it does not it rely lies on a radio

1:15:25 ↗ signal between poles it is not

1:15:27 ↗ necessarily

1:15:29 ↗ um requiring the

1:15:32 ↗ wiring or cable or other media

1:15:36 ↗ from pole to pole

1:15:39 ↗ so that undergrounding is not as much an

1:15:42 ↗ issue for 5g

1:15:44 ↗ do you know that

1:15:48 ↗ you know lucy i don't have all of the

1:15:50 ↗ technical details that's fine facilities

1:15:52 ↗ themselves for tonight

1:15:54 ↗ i really wanted to keep this at a high

1:15:55 ↗ level and just get

1:15:57 ↗ consensus from the commissioners on how

1:16:00 ↗ much interest they have on

1:16:02 ↗ adjusting

1:16:04 ↗ having staff look into adjusting these

1:16:07 ↗ regulations and bringing it back as

1:16:08 ↗ policy amendments

1:16:10 ↗ and i think you've answered my questions

1:16:12 ↗ you guys don't need to go any further i

1:16:13 ↗ think what you brought up was that i

1:16:15 ↗ didn't know what i was asking and so

1:16:17 ↗ since we're talking about regulating on

1:16:20 ↗ city-owned polls that's just such a

1:16:22 ↗ portion of polls

1:16:25 ↗ that do have cell service on them owned

1:16:29 ↗ by other people

1:16:30 ↗ and we're not talking about that right

1:16:32 ↗ now

1:16:33 ↗ we're only talking about city on polls

1:16:36 ↗ so you've you've answered it you've

1:16:37 ↗ clarified them that way let's just go on

1:16:39 ↗ from there

1:16:40 ↗ sounds good

1:16:44 ↗ did you have something you wanted to add

1:16:46 ↗ oh no i was just going to say i think

1:16:47 ↗ the the question about will

1:16:49 ↗ undergrounding

1:16:51 ↗ um

1:16:52 ↗ make this these this provisions

1:16:53 ↗ redundant i think what you were asking

1:16:55 ↗ but the light poles will probably stay

1:16:58 ↗ the undergrounding of the electric power

1:17:00 ↗ would probably yeah yeah

1:17:06 ↗ thank you very much manny and thank you

1:17:08 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:17:10 ↗ i have a question uh that is

1:17:13 ↗ can you provide an example of the use of

1:17:17 ↗ city poles with cell

1:17:20 ↗ what the cells

1:17:22 ↗ tower or cell sites would look like on a

1:17:24 ↗ city pole

1:17:27 ↗ and then

1:17:29 ↗ this question was brought up also was if

1:17:33 ↗ we put them on city polls we can control

1:17:37 ↗ what can we control

1:17:39 ↗ versus having them put on pse polls

1:17:42 ↗ which would be out of our control

1:17:45 ↗ so

1:17:46 ↗ would we be

1:17:48 ↗ at an advantage of bringing them onto

1:17:50 ↗ city poles and re

1:17:52 ↗ building new city poles to not only have

1:17:55 ↗ the ornamental

1:17:56 ↗ architecture but to

1:18:01 ↗ allow the installation of a 5g

1:18:05 ↗ cell tower

1:18:06 ↗ allow us to capture the revenue and

1:18:08 ↗ control what it may look

1:18:10 ↗ like and so that's my question

1:18:15 ↗ so we haven't really

1:18:17 ↗ taken a deep dive into

1:18:19 ↗ if the city is interested in capturing

1:18:22 ↗ some of that revenue there are

1:18:25 ↗ there are ways that the city can do that

1:18:27 ↗ and

1:18:28 ↗ john trigger may have mentioned those

1:18:32 ↗ to the commission in the past or to the

1:18:33 ↗ council

1:18:35 ↗ right now the benefit for

1:18:38 ↗ allowing use of city polls or some city

1:18:41 ↗ polls would be

1:18:42 ↗ the the key here would be to improving

1:18:45 ↗ the service for the community so this is

1:18:47 ↗ the slide that many just brought up that

1:18:49 ↗ i didn't

1:18:51 ↗ speak on in my presentation

1:18:57 ↗ there are pictures here of some

1:19:00 ↗ city-owned

1:19:01 ↗ types of light poles so you can see um

1:19:04 ↗ is everybody able to see that

1:19:07 ↗ okay

1:19:08 ↗ so here you have a cylinder design

1:19:11 ↗ so it basically just looks like one

1:19:14 ↗ uniform pole however a portion of it is

1:19:17 ↗ wider than

1:19:18 ↗ you know the rest of the pole to to hide

1:19:21 ↗ and conceal the the facility the small

1:19:23 ↗ cell facility inside

1:19:26 ↗ and then you have the second design

1:19:28 ↗ there where it you have a small cell

1:19:30 ↗ attached to the top of the pole

1:19:33 ↗ the third picture you have a small

1:19:36 ↗ box

1:19:37 ↗ where the small cell is located

1:19:39 ↗ on the side

1:19:40 ↗ and then

1:19:42 ↗ you may have seen

1:19:43 ↗ this type of design in other parts of

1:19:46 ↗ washington i've seen them around

1:19:48 ↗ where it looks kind of like a tree and

1:19:50 ↗ so if you're not really looking closely

1:19:52 ↗ you can't necessarily tell but once you

1:19:54 ↗ actually focus in you can see that there

1:19:56 ↗ is a wireless facility there but they

1:19:59 ↗ are camouflaged

1:20:01 ↗ in the

1:20:02 ↗ appearance of a tree

1:20:06 ↗ and i i think that we

1:20:08 ↗ my understanding

1:20:09 ↗ is that

1:20:10 ↗ one thing though is a lot of the poles

1:20:13 ↗ would have to be taller than our light

1:20:15 ↗ poles

1:20:16 ↗ currently are some of our decorative

1:20:18 ↗ poles like old town

1:20:21 ↗ because a

1:20:22 ↗ 15 or 20 foot tall

1:20:24 ↗ pole may not be tall enough to

1:20:27 ↗ effectively

1:20:28 ↗ support cell service

1:20:31 ↗ okay and holly you mentioned that a cell

1:20:33 ↗ tower needs to be within two miles of

1:20:35 ↗ another cell tower

1:20:37 ↗ so if we did not allow them on city

1:20:40 ↗ poles and we

1:20:43 ↗ insisted that they put them on their own

1:20:45 ↗ poles whether they are decorative tree

1:20:47 ↗ looking poles or camouflage or not

1:20:50 ↗ wouldn't that actually be maybe to an

1:20:52 ↗ advantage to our area because we could

1:20:54 ↗ put them on hilly areas

1:20:58 ↗ so we would actually have broad

1:21:01 ↗ coverage of the

1:21:03 ↗ of downtown and our residential

1:21:05 ↗ neighborhoods because these would be

1:21:07 ↗ strategically placed throughout the area

1:21:11 ↗ but they also would be more invisible

1:21:15 ↗ because they would be

1:21:16 ↗ in amongst our trees

1:21:19 ↗ that is

1:21:21 ↗ i apologize for interrupting that is an

1:21:23 ↗ option that you have so the policy

1:21:26 ↗ questions brought before you tonight

1:21:27 ↗ it's not you know we need to do both or

1:21:29 ↗ we we need

1:21:30 ↗ to do one over the other it's basically

1:21:33 ↗ what your

1:21:34 ↗ what you're interested in seeing in the

1:21:36 ↗ city and if you're interested in seeing

1:21:38 ↗ that

1:21:39 ↗ and you know you make a good point that

1:21:41 ↗ would

1:21:42 ↗ camouflage them and and integrate them

1:21:45 ↗ better into

1:21:46 ↗ hilly sites and things like that and

1:21:49 ↗ then you're also getting the

1:21:51 ↗ height from

1:21:52 ↗ the hill to potentially provide better

1:21:54 ↗ service

1:21:57 ↗ okay thank you i'm going to go on to

1:22:00 ↗ another question from

1:22:02 ↗ commissioner zorgoza

1:22:05 ↗ thank you chair

1:22:06 ↗ i guess i i have more comments now

1:22:08 ↗ rather than questions but

1:22:10 ↗ i think it's

1:22:12 ↗ very important that we have good cell

1:22:14 ↗ coverage that our wireless is robust in

1:22:16 ↗ the city and it's actually really

1:22:18 ↗ terrible right now

1:22:19 ↗ um i i struggle to get a good signal in

1:22:24 ↗ the downtown area

1:22:26 ↗ um

1:22:28 ↗ so i i think all of these these

1:22:31 ↗ considerations i think we should

1:22:33 ↗ consider and they're important we should

1:22:34 ↗ probably give access but i also think we

1:22:36 ↗ should have you know some strict

1:22:38 ↗ controls over it i i think would be

1:22:41 ↗ great if there was some

1:22:43 ↗ if the city could be involved with the

1:22:44 ↗ planning on where these towers will go

1:22:47 ↗ i know

1:22:48 ↗ you know

1:22:49 ↗ these companies will just put them once

1:22:50 ↗ you allow them to put them out there

1:22:52 ↗ they'll put them wherever is best for

1:22:53 ↗ them but being more strategic

1:22:56 ↗ you know on the hillsides maybe on

1:22:59 ↗ taller buildings

1:23:00 ↗ you know at the top of the buildings

1:23:02 ↗ police places where it can be hidden or

1:23:04 ↗ on on our

1:23:05 ↗ our light posts with the small

1:23:08 ↗ uh

1:23:09 ↗ those small cells makes a lot of sense

1:23:11 ↗ but i think we should be strategic about

1:23:13 ↗ it and it should be you know a fairly

1:23:14 ↗ complex plan and not just kind of

1:23:16 ↗ blanket you know

1:23:17 ↗ access to polls or new polls wherever

1:23:20 ↗ they want to put them i think if we

1:23:22 ↗ allow so many polls per per mile then we

1:23:25 ↗ strategically as a city pick where those

1:23:27 ↗ polls should go

1:23:28 ↗ to cut back on their impact i think that

1:23:31 ↗ would be that would be great if we can

1:23:33 ↗ get that type of control

1:23:37 ↗ thank you for that comment there are

1:23:38 ↗ actually codes

1:23:40 ↗ codes in the region

1:23:43 ↗ that apply some types of those standards

1:23:47 ↗ and renton is a good example of that so

1:23:49 ↗ they

1:23:50 ↗ actually have set designs for their

1:23:52 ↗ polls and so the it makes it easier for

1:23:55 ↗ the provider as well because they know

1:23:57 ↗ what they can do from the get-go they

1:23:59 ↗ know what design they need to follow and

1:24:03 ↗ and

1:24:04 ↗ they have very clear guidelines for the

1:24:07 ↗ wireless parameters

1:24:09 ↗ that's great to hear

1:24:12 ↗ thank you commissioner zargoza and

1:24:14 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:24:18 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis here

1:24:21 ↗ i think there might be a little bit of

1:24:22 ↗ confusion in how we're talking about

1:24:25 ↗ this right now and so i guess i want to

1:24:26 ↗ start with a clarification

1:24:28 ↗ when you talk about coverage for a

1:24:30 ↗ couple of miles what you're talking

1:24:32 ↗ about is a macro cell tower

1:24:34 ↗ which is very different from us uh from

1:24:37 ↗ a small cell tower um a macro cell tower

1:24:40 ↗ is very similar to what we see when

1:24:41 ↗ we're driving on the 90 on the side of

1:24:43 ↗ the lake right i don't know if anyone's

1:24:45 ↗ noticed there's been quite a bit of

1:24:46 ↗ activity on the pole recently they've

1:24:47 ↗ been adding a lot of things to it those

1:24:49 ↗ poles are very large they're nothing

1:24:52 ↗ like a street lamp pole that we have

1:24:54 ↗ here in this in the city so if you're

1:24:56 ↗ talking about small cell

1:24:58 ↗ that actually extends a couple of

1:25:00 ↗ hundred feet

1:25:01 ↗ so you would need to be allowing poles

1:25:04 ↗ throughout nate residential

1:25:06 ↗ neighborhoods because you'd be lucky to

1:25:08 ↗ hit maybe two houses with one pole

1:25:11 ↗ so when we talk about coverage of a

1:25:13 ↗ couple of miles we are not talking about

1:25:16 ↗ putting

1:25:17 ↗ i mean a small cell as you're putting

1:25:18 ↗ effectively a pizza box on a pole and

1:25:21 ↗ then it usually is accompanied by an

1:25:22 ↗ equipment cabinet about the size of a

1:25:24 ↗ refrigerator that's your small cell okay

1:25:28 ↗ when you're talking about a macro you're

1:25:29 ↗ talking about a much larger structure so

1:25:33 ↗ when we talk about having a much

1:25:35 ↗ thorough coverage this isn't something

1:25:37 ↗ that we can just put on a light pole and

1:25:40 ↗ so i think it's a little bit deceptive

1:25:41 ↗ to start kind of saying

1:25:43 ↗ a couple of miles of coverage and light

1:25:45 ↗ pole when i read this

1:25:47 ↗ packet i was a little confused why they

1:25:49 ↗ were packaged together when you keep

1:25:51 ↗ talking about light poles i think what

1:25:53 ↗ you're talking about really is small

1:25:54 ↗ cells so i think it's important to talk

1:25:56 ↗ about it because if what's driving this

1:25:58 ↗ conversation

1:25:59 ↗ is

1:26:00 ↗ the need for greater broadband uh is

1:26:04 ↗ really then we need to talk about

1:26:06 ↗ burying fiber in the community that's

1:26:07 ↗ going to be your best chance of having

1:26:09 ↗ the type of terrain and the type of

1:26:11 ↗ residential neighborhoods that we have

1:26:13 ↗ having better access

1:26:15 ↗ so

1:26:16 ↗ i think that this is a different

1:26:18 ↗ conversation than what's been presented

1:26:20 ↗ to us what we're talking about now is

1:26:21 ↗ actually how we need to better partner

1:26:23 ↗ in the community with our broadband

1:26:25 ↗ providers um as so many more people are

1:26:28 ↗ working from home and there's been such

1:26:29 ↗ so much increased traffic we've seen

1:26:32 ↗ that there's been a huge need for how we

1:26:34 ↗ work with providers in our community

1:26:36 ↗ um

1:26:37 ↗ i think that it's a little scary to see

1:26:40 ↗ this i'm going to put on my granny

1:26:42 ↗ glasses and get my cane and my walker

1:26:44 ↗ and tell you that i'm one of the lucky

1:26:46 ↗ people who has had this conversation

1:26:47 ↗ before

1:26:48 ↗ we talked about design standards we

1:26:50 ↗ talked about small cell um i don't know

1:26:52 ↗ it was actually really good timing i

1:26:54 ↗ don't know if anyone else saw in the

1:26:54 ↗ news that the faa is limiting the use of

1:26:58 ↗ auto landing equipment uh because in

1:27:00 ↗ areas of airports that are applicable

1:27:03 ↗ and vulnerable

1:27:04 ↗ because of 5g so

1:27:06 ↗ the idea that 5g is going to save us is

1:27:09 ↗ a really big misnomer and it's something

1:27:11 ↗ that's important as community that we

1:27:12 ↗ talk about the effects of radiation on

1:27:16 ↗ insects um on the existing

1:27:18 ↗ infrastructure and that we really have a

1:27:20 ↗ need for a thorough engineering review

1:27:22 ↗ of safety concerns for the community if

1:27:24 ↗ we want to go down this path i don't

1:27:25 ↗ think it's as simple as

1:27:28 ↗ as

1:27:28 ↗ the survey was presented and was given

1:27:32 ↗ and when we got really high remarks it

1:27:34 ↗ was saying how is your service would you

1:27:36 ↗ like to have better service it didn't

1:27:38 ↗ ask would you like to have a poll

1:27:40 ↗ that is larger than your home in your

1:27:42 ↗ front yard right and then we need to

1:27:44 ↗ start talking about a fee rate structure

1:27:47 ↗ right we need to start talking about

1:27:48 ↗ what it would be are we going to start

1:27:50 ↗ making sure the taxpayer isn't paying

1:27:52 ↗ for the application fees the permit fees

1:27:55 ↗ um the cost of removal for abandoned

1:27:57 ↗ equipment which is a really big problem

1:27:58 ↗ in a lot of communities so i think this

1:28:01 ↗ conversation is something that needs to

1:28:02 ↗ be

1:28:04 ↗ much more finer tuned than what was

1:28:05 ↗ presented to us and i think that we need

1:28:07 ↗ to actually start looking at the

1:28:08 ↗ nitty-gritty because from how it's been

1:28:10 ↗ presented to me i will recommend having

1:28:12 ↗ no change whatsoever on how we allow

1:28:15 ↗ equipment to be brought into our

1:28:16 ↗ community

1:28:17 ↗ by for-profit

1:28:20 ↗ providers right now i haven't seen any

1:28:22 ↗ kind of proposal of how we're going to

1:28:24 ↗ be maybe subsidizing the costs to our

1:28:26 ↗ libraries our school systems for

1:28:28 ↗ broadband i haven't seen any kind of

1:28:30 ↗ suggestion of how this partnership is

1:28:31 ↗ going to change from when we last looked

1:28:33 ↗ at this in 2018. so

1:28:35 ↗ thank you

1:28:39 ↗ thank you very much

1:28:43 ↗ all right uh i didn't hear any questions

1:28:46 ↗ in there did you want uh

1:28:48 ↗ any of those questions for um planner

1:28:51 ↗ holly

1:28:52 ↗ i mean when you say coverage for a

1:28:54 ↗ couple of miles i'm assuming you're

1:28:55 ↗ talking about macro

1:28:57 ↗ and not small cell

1:28:59 ↗ so the policy questions outlined are for

1:29:02 ↗ the construction of new poles as well as

1:29:04 ↗ using city poles so when we're talking

1:29:06 ↗ about city poles yes you're correct

1:29:07 ↗ we're talking about small cells and

1:29:09 ↗ we're talking about construction of new

1:29:10 ↗ poles we're talking about micro and

1:29:12 ↗ macro facilities

1:29:15 ↗ and macro cell towers are not the same

1:29:17 ↗ size as light city poles

1:29:21 ↗ that's correct yeah thank you

1:29:25 ↗ all right thank you commercial lewis uh

1:29:28 ↗ so let's go ahead and open up to public

1:29:30 ↗ comment i'm not seeing any additional

1:29:33 ↗ questions here so we'll open up for a

1:29:35 ↗ public comment

1:29:36 ↗ on this particular topic um did

1:29:39 ↗ commissioner zaragoza have another

1:29:41 ↗ comment following um

1:29:44 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:29:46 ↗ oh cancel i'm sorry slow slowly

1:29:49 ↗ but surely working my way down the list

1:29:52 ↗ all right yes we have a request

1:30:03 ↗ connie marsh you have been made a

1:30:04 ↗ panelist and unneeded

1:30:07 ↗ uh hi connie marchigan

1:30:09 ↗ and uh

1:30:11 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis because i

1:30:13 ↗ sat through those meetings for three

1:30:16 ↗ years the last time we went through this

1:30:18 ↗ uh conversation

1:30:20 ↗ and um it took a year to wind down to

1:30:24 ↗ the fact that 5g basically you have to

1:30:26 ↗ stand under the pole and then you're

1:30:29 ↗ going to be using 5g

1:30:31 ↗ so when the cell companies say we want

1:30:34 ↗ 5g

1:30:36 ↗ each company

1:30:38 ↗ wants to put their own particular sell

1:30:41 ↗ thing on each of those polls so if

1:30:45 ↗ you're going uh verizon t-mobile and

1:30:48 ↗ which at t that means that you want to

1:30:50 ↗ have three companies all wanting to put

1:30:53 ↗ their

1:30:54 ↗ their own

1:30:55 ↗ boxes on these polls all through town

1:30:59 ↗ and

1:31:00 ↗ and through the residential neighborhood

1:31:03 ↗ so for me

1:31:04 ↗ no

1:31:05 ↗ there was a conversation about how tall

1:31:08 ↗ do the polls have to be the pools have

1:31:10 ↗ to be tall especially in these

1:31:13 ↗ residential neighborhoods and so the

1:31:15 ↗ city council said no

1:31:17 ↗ because basically a lot of people have

1:31:20 ↗ views and you'd have this whole line of

1:31:22 ↗ polls going up the hills that now we we

1:31:25 ↗ we already have we already have power

1:31:27 ↗ lines we don't need more polls so i um

1:31:32 ↗ at the end of this

1:31:34 ↗ this this whole conversation

1:31:37 ↗ um a lot of people do

1:31:39 ↗ have dropped service

1:31:42 ↗ from the big cell towers

1:31:44 ↗ but i think that the process

1:31:47 ↗ that the companies have to go through is

1:31:50 ↗ appropriate

1:31:51 ↗ um the polls and the towers

1:31:54 ↗ do need public conversation it shouldn't

1:31:57 ↗ be foreshortened and i don't care if

1:31:59 ↗ it's onerous

1:32:00 ↗ uh

1:32:02 ↗ because every time a cell company has to

1:32:04 ↗ reach out to its public it has an

1:32:06 ↗ opportunity to get customers and if it

1:32:09 ↗ sees it as a big barrier

1:32:11 ↗ then you know what

1:32:13 ↗ they need to change their model because

1:32:15 ↗ they're thinking about it the wrong way

1:32:18 ↗ um

1:32:19 ↗ so

1:32:20 ↗ to be

1:32:22 ↗ judgmental after sitting through the

1:32:24 ↗ cell tower conversation for the last

1:32:27 ↗ three years

1:32:28 ↗ the cell companies are a bunch of

1:32:31 ↗ whining huge companies who want to take

1:32:34 ↗ advantage wherever they possibly can

1:32:37 ↗ with every city facility in every area

1:32:40 ↗ so that they can

1:32:42 ↗ gain

1:32:43 ↗ more coverage and make more money it is

1:32:46 ↗ not about us it is more small sales or

1:32:49 ↗ about the cars that are driving through

1:32:51 ↗ more than it is about anybody who is

1:32:53 ↗ living in this

1:32:54 ↗ in this town now if you're driving

1:32:56 ↗ through your town it might not drop off

1:32:59 ↗ drops off on squawk i don't know the

1:33:01 ↗ areas of town where it drops off so if

1:33:03 ↗ you had a survey saying where does your

1:33:06 ↗ cell

1:33:07 ↗ drop off when you are driving

1:33:09 ↗ and people could say in these 12 spots

1:33:13 ↗ then we might want to put something in

1:33:15 ↗ those 12 spots right but not all over

1:33:18 ↗ town so uh yeah and i don't want to sit

1:33:22 ↗ through three more years of the same

1:33:23 ↗ conversation with the same cell tower

1:33:26 ↗ people that took forever and i think the

1:33:29 ↗ conclusion was fine

1:33:34 ↗ thank you ms marsh

1:33:44 ↗ um any uh

1:33:46 ↗ i have one other person who would like

1:33:48 ↗ to speak

1:33:58 ↗ yes lynch

1:34:00 ↗ you are

1:34:02 ↗ made a presenter or a a panelist and a

1:34:06 ↗ muted

1:34:07 ↗ yes i just wanted to to second what

1:34:10 ↗ connie said and also um

1:34:12 ↗ thank joy lewis because i also sat

1:34:15 ↗ through a lot of those meetings and a

1:34:16 ↗ lot of stuff was not told

1:34:18 ↗ you know was kept from the public until

1:34:20 ↗ we asked questions

1:34:22 ↗ and

1:34:23 ↗ um one of the things that was discussed

1:34:25 ↗ by the commissioners was maybe you can

1:34:27 ↗ hide it in trees well that doesn't work

1:34:30 ↗ you have to have clear sight distance

1:34:32 ↗ for that you know a lot of this

1:34:34 ↗ technology to work

1:34:36 ↗ so even in a neighborhood

1:34:39 ↗ uh it's going to be up high enough um

1:34:42 ↗ and you know skyline views for it for

1:34:46 ↗ these things to work

1:34:47 ↗ and i really think this is a way out

1:34:50 ↗ that our current providers have opted

1:34:53 ↗ not to update their lines being century

1:34:56 ↗ tell

1:34:57 ↗ or um

1:34:58 ↗ comcast because they think they're going

1:35:00 ↗ to get this other and i think we need to

1:35:02 ↗ hold their feet to the fire

1:35:05 ↗ um because there are going to be places

1:35:07 ↗ in town where cell is probably never

1:35:09 ↗ going to really work well and you know

1:35:12 ↗ the fiber optic

1:35:14 ↗ we have that ability and they need to

1:35:16 ↗ you know step up to the plate update

1:35:18 ↗ their infrastructure

1:35:20 ↗ for the older parts of town um

1:35:23 ↗ and that should be our policies though

1:35:26 ↗ but just

1:35:27 ↗ support what connie and

1:35:29 ↗ the questions that

1:35:30 ↗ commissioner lewis said thank you

1:35:34 ↗ thank you ms lynch

1:35:44 ↗ i i just want to add one piece that um

1:35:46 ↗ because i i i knew there would be a lot

1:35:49 ↗ of passion i think we all knew there was

1:35:51 ↗ going to be a lot of passion given all

1:35:53 ↗ the work that went into the original

1:35:55 ↗ ones

1:35:56 ↗ and i think the reason that this

1:35:58 ↗ we're having this conversation was not

1:36:01 ↗ because the companies came to us and

1:36:03 ↗ were complaining but because

1:36:05 ↗ of um

1:36:10 ↗ not just the concerns but the downright

1:36:12 ↗ fear that we heard from some community

1:36:14 ↗ members during remote work times of

1:36:18 ↗ inability to get the service that was

1:36:20 ↗ necessary

1:36:21 ↗ um i i appreciate the questioning of

1:36:25 ↗ what service is actually needed to

1:36:28 ↗ support

1:36:29 ↗ people who are working from home

1:36:32 ↗ and i had

1:36:36 ↗ as i understood it it was partly the

1:36:38 ↗ reason that um

1:36:40 ↗ it wasn't all about broadband was

1:36:42 ↗ because of hot spots um which do give

1:36:45 ↗ people some level of control

1:36:48 ↗ i have now just exceeded my knowledge on

1:36:51 ↗ on this

1:36:52 ↗ topic

1:36:54 ↗ but i i just want to emphasize that it

1:36:56 ↗ is not the company saying that they are

1:36:58 ↗ unhappy that

1:36:59 ↗ we started this conversation

1:37:06 ↗ all right thank you very much planet

1:37:08 ↗ lucy

1:37:09 ↗ so let's go ahead and open up for uh

1:37:12 ↗ comments from the commissioners

1:37:15 ↗ i have a comment also

1:37:18 ↗ and that is i remember the three years

1:37:20 ↗ of the discussions and

1:37:22 ↗ in the packet it mentioned

1:37:25 ↗ um

1:37:26 ↗ polls and and to uh

1:37:29 ↗ planner's holly's point it was two miles

1:37:31 ↗ so i knew that to sell small cells would

1:37:34 ↗ be on polls

1:37:36 ↗ the questions that i have is that

1:37:40 ↗ i don't think it's something that the

1:37:42 ↗ commissioners are really in a position

1:37:44 ↗ to be able to make a judgment call for

1:37:47 ↗ it really needs to go goes out to the

1:37:49 ↗ community when the survey was brought to

1:37:52 ↗ um to us or to the public i remember

1:37:57 ↗ filling out that that survey

1:38:00 ↗ and my situation was i had really poor

1:38:04 ↗ comcast service

1:38:06 ↗ and every time my neighbor calls comcast

1:38:08 ↗ they come back and they switch their

1:38:10 ↗ lines and so then i had to call comcast

1:38:12 ↗ because comcast

1:38:15 ↗ just had an inferior product they were

1:38:16 ↗ having inferior service delivery and i

1:38:19 ↗ work from home they work from home

1:38:21 ↗ so it comes down to broadband not

1:38:23 ↗ cellular service

1:38:25 ↗ and so we're talking about a completely

1:38:26 ↗ different beast when we're talking about

1:38:28 ↗ 5g so i think having the conversation

1:38:32 ↗ about people not being able to work from

1:38:34 ↗ home because they had inferior

1:38:37 ↗ network service really comes down to the

1:38:39 ↗ providers and our

1:38:41 ↗ in our in-street broadband capabilities

1:38:44 ↗ whether that be centurylink or comcast

1:38:50 ↗ i'm not in favor of having small cells

1:38:53 ↗ in the residential neighborhoods i'm

1:38:55 ↗ happy using the broadband

1:38:57 ↗ that i have now and

1:39:00 ↗ i don't think that i'm ready to swallow

1:39:03 ↗ the pill for 5g in our residential

1:39:06 ↗ community yet

1:39:07 ↗ i suspect that a significant majority of

1:39:11 ↗ issacral residents are probably going to

1:39:13 ↗ be in that same boat we have a lot of

1:39:15 ↗ apprehensions about 5g

1:39:18 ↗ we're not sold that it is a safe

1:39:20 ↗ technology yet

1:39:21 ↗ about the insects the birds

1:39:24 ↗ the radiation even to um

1:39:27 ↗ people

1:39:28 ↗ so

1:39:30 ↗ i'm in that camp i'm

1:39:32 ↗ not ready to see 5g on poles in

1:39:34 ↗ residential neighborhoods

1:39:40 ↗ and let's go ahead and open up for

1:39:41 ↗ additional comments here from sarah

1:39:44 ↗ bader

1:39:45 ↗ yeah hey sarah bader here and i'll

1:39:47 ↗ preface this by saying i'm like totally

1:39:48 ↗ out of my depth on the like technical

1:39:51 ↗ side of all of this but

1:39:53 ↗ um i'm a little like confused i think of

1:39:56 ↗ are we talking about cell

1:39:59 ↗ service like with my phone or are we

1:40:01 ↗ talking about broadband with my internet

1:40:03 ↗ you know that my computer is connected

1:40:05 ↗ to

1:40:06 ↗ and in both cases i think it's important

1:40:08 ↗ that we have good coverage across the

1:40:11 ↗ city um

1:40:12 ↗ i guess this is more of like a question

1:40:14 ↗ than that comment but like

1:40:16 ↗ what's the gap like what's needed to

1:40:18 ↗ kind of bring you know areas that the

1:40:20 ↗ coverage is not as good up to scale and

1:40:22 ↗ is it is it that much you know is it

1:40:24 ↗ like one pole somewhere else or is it

1:40:26 ↗ you know polls you know every

1:40:28 ↗ mile that are going to impede the view

1:40:30 ↗ that i have um you know so i think some

1:40:32 ↗ of those things are just not clear to me

1:40:36 ↗ based on the conversation that we're

1:40:38 ↗ having right now

1:40:42 ↗ so the conversation tonight was meant to

1:40:45 ↗ establish whether or not there was an

1:40:47 ↗ interest in pursuing amendments to the

1:40:50 ↗ regulations that were done in 2018

1:40:53 ↗ and so

1:40:55 ↗ we were looking to just get a general

1:40:57 ↗ feel for

1:40:59 ↗ how the commissioners

1:41:00 ↗ view the current regulations versus

1:41:04 ↗ taking a deeper look at it

1:41:05 ↗ taking a deeper look at

1:41:07 ↗ regional codes

1:41:09 ↗ and making some comparisons and bringing

1:41:11 ↗ back a draft

1:41:15 ↗ yeah so i think then just in my like own

1:41:17 ↗ personal opinion i think it's worth

1:41:18 ↗ taking a deeper look um again my

1:41:22 ↗ internet has been spotty i've worked

1:41:24 ↗ from home kind of pre-pandemic and

1:41:26 ↗ you know i need it to function and it's

1:41:28 ↗ not great anymore as well as my cell

1:41:30 ↗ service i live on one of those very

1:41:32 ↗ steep hillsides that we've been talking

1:41:34 ↗ about at the front of my house my cell

1:41:35 ↗ service is not good at the back of my

1:41:37 ↗ house where it's open it is much better

1:41:39 ↗ and i don't know if a tower would fix

1:41:41 ↗ that but that's just kind of my

1:41:43 ↗ reality that if i have to do a phone

1:41:45 ↗ call that's not in the internet i have

1:41:46 ↗ to go into my my family room i can't sit

1:41:48 ↗ in this office and have reliable service

1:41:50 ↗ in my

1:41:51 ↗ at the front of my house which kind of

1:41:52 ↗ backs into the hillside so

1:41:55 ↗ i think it's worth further exploration

1:41:57 ↗ but again i don't know um i don't know

1:42:00 ↗ what the gaps are um

1:42:05 ↗ so based on what i'm hearing it sounds

1:42:07 ↗ like the commissioners are

1:42:10 ↗ kind of split on whether or not changes

1:42:14 ↗ should be brought forward or not is that

1:42:17 ↗ an accurate assessment

1:42:21 ↗ i think we actually have two additional

1:42:23 ↗ comments before we probably should

1:42:25 ↗ address that i'd like to hear from

1:42:28 ↗ the other two

1:42:30 ↗ uh if that's okay with

1:42:33 ↗ of course i apologize oh no no no

1:42:35 ↗ worries no worries uh commissioner

1:42:37 ↗ milligan uh go ahead and you have a

1:42:38 ↗ comment

1:42:40 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan here and

1:42:42 ↗ i'll uh echo that i join all of you and

1:42:44 ↗ being out of my depth about the

1:42:46 ↗ technology

1:42:48 ↗ issues and how does that impact though

1:42:49 ↗ we do need to understand that a little

1:42:51 ↗ bit when we make a regulation because

1:42:52 ↗ we're trying to

1:42:54 ↗ serve the needs of our community

1:42:56 ↗ and i really do want to serve the needs

1:42:58 ↗ of our community and make issaquah a

1:43:01 ↗ great place to live and work um serve

1:43:04 ↗ people not only for their life and work

1:43:06 ↗ but for emergencies so many of us depend

1:43:08 ↗ on cell phones

1:43:10 ↗ for emergency services there's also

1:43:13 ↗ okay so then

1:43:15 ↗ that said

1:43:16 ↗ uh

1:43:18 ↗ i hesitate to

1:43:21 ↗ support the changes that are proposed to

1:43:24 ↗ us tonight

1:43:25 ↗ because i feel that the

1:43:28 ↗ perspective isn't too narrow

1:43:31 ↗ we have so many other things to if we

1:43:33 ↗ could look at this in the context of

1:43:36 ↗ what are the regulations around the

1:43:37 ↗ other poles what is the

1:43:39 ↗ um what is you know with we have um

1:43:42 ↗ uh pse polls and our polls and

1:43:44 ↗ and all the other other things that

1:43:46 ↗ happen around it i don't want to look at

1:43:48 ↗ it in isolation of just our city polls

1:43:52 ↗ also um but i'm losing my train of

1:43:54 ↗ thought because this is um

1:43:57 ↗ but anyway it was commissioner lewis who

1:43:59 ↗ brought that up and i wanted to thank

1:44:00 ↗ her for saying that this is in a bigger

1:44:03 ↗ context

1:44:04 ↗ oh the other is that the other part of

1:44:07 ↗ the bigger context has to do with issues

1:44:08 ↗ that uh commissioners have brought up

1:44:10 ↗ about health but also about technology

1:44:13 ↗ and interference

1:44:14 ↗ um

1:44:16 ↗ it's a it's a it's a complicated system

1:44:19 ↗ that's trying to deliver the services

1:44:20 ↗ that we need and for us to pull out a

1:44:22 ↗ little jenga thing out of the tower and

1:44:24 ↗ say hey i want to talk about this and

1:44:26 ↗ say this is fix it doesn't feel

1:44:28 ↗ satisfying to me in order to reach the

1:44:30 ↗ goal that we're trying to have and that

1:44:31 ↗ is to improve services to the people the

1:44:33 ↗ members the businesses of our community

1:44:36 ↗ so i do want to improve service

1:44:38 ↗ i do um

1:44:39 ↗ i believe that people do not have

1:44:42 ↗ adequate service at least in places

1:44:45 ↗ and and i want to make those

1:44:47 ↗ improvements but i i just don't feel

1:44:48 ↗ that this

1:44:50 ↗ conversation tonight is allowing me to

1:44:53 ↗ participate in a very meaningful fashion

1:44:55 ↗ last thing i will say though is that

1:44:59 ↗ i think i'd be safe to say that large

1:45:02 ↗ scale cell towers are the bane of our

1:45:06 ↗ existence god we sure want cell service

1:45:09 ↗ but we hate these big ugly view blocking

1:45:15 ↗ towers and the camouflage tree is cute

1:45:18 ↗ but it doesn't quite do it for me so

1:45:21 ↗ that said

1:45:22 ↗ maybe that's something we can't solve

1:45:23 ↗ for but i might as well state the

1:45:25 ↗ obvious people hate those

1:45:28 ↗ and that's it for me thank you very much

1:45:30 ↗ for your time

1:45:31 ↗ thank you

1:45:32 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan and

1:45:34 ↗ commissioner zaragoza you have the floor

1:45:37 ↗ thank you uh richard saragosa i

1:45:41 ↗ i have so much to say but

1:45:44 ↗ one thing hfn is

1:45:48 ↗ underground

1:45:49 ↗ fiber that comes to your home and

1:45:50 ↗ provides home access to internet and

1:45:53 ↗ we're talking about wireless which is to

1:45:54 ↗ your phone

1:45:56 ↗ and a lot of people

1:45:59 ↗ um

1:46:00 ↗ i think lucy mentioned this will use

1:46:02 ↗ their phone hotspot in order to connect

1:46:03 ↗ their laptop when they're working at

1:46:05 ↗ starbucks

1:46:06 ↗ you know in the city

1:46:07 ↗ and that's you know when you're working

1:46:09 ↗ at home eight hours a day going down to

1:46:11 ↗ starbucks is is really a really nice

1:46:13 ↗ thing and be able to work and do that is

1:46:15 ↗ is important

1:46:16 ↗ um

1:46:17 ↗ also i had an office

1:46:20 ↗ downtown esqua and and having

1:46:23 ↗ a

1:46:25 ↗ wired internet to that office is

1:46:26 ↗ extremely expensive and if i had better

1:46:29 ↗ access i would have just hot spotted to

1:46:31 ↗ my phone but i had terrible access and

1:46:33 ↗ so it wasn't possibility for me so it

1:46:34 ↗ was very expensive

1:46:36 ↗ um

1:46:38 ↗ so that said there are two different

1:46:40 ↗ things

1:46:41 ↗ but that said it is important that we

1:46:42 ↗ have access

1:46:44 ↗ and it

1:46:45 ↗ and and it doesn't require sacrifice and

1:46:49 ↗ nobody likes big ugly towers

1:46:51 ↗ and maybe we don't need

1:46:53 ↗ a big ugly tower every two miles like

1:46:56 ↗ some massive grid across the city

1:46:58 ↗ but

1:46:59 ↗ maybe there's some middle ground maybe

1:47:01 ↗ we have a couple ugly towers and a whole

1:47:03 ↗ bunch of little

1:47:04 ↗ you know cells on the light on the the

1:47:06 ↗ light posts um either way we don't know

1:47:09 ↗ what the solution is there's a lot of

1:47:11 ↗ different mix of different solutions

1:47:13 ↗ that maybe we can have access to if we

1:47:15 ↗ do this work

1:47:17 ↗ you know if we look into it and figure

1:47:18 ↗ out what we can and should and shouldn't

1:47:21 ↗ do you know we take it as you know a

1:47:24 ↗ strategy and not as this blanket thing

1:47:26 ↗ where hey let's all radiate in 5g that's

1:47:28 ↗ not necessarily it's not one or the

1:47:30 ↗ other there is a middle ground that we

1:47:32 ↗ could

1:47:33 ↗ that we can look into so i do i do think

1:47:35 ↗ it's important that we

1:47:36 ↗ look into it

1:47:38 ↗ um we don't have to come up with some

1:47:40 ↗ blanket answer tonight so

1:47:42 ↗ thanks

1:47:44 ↗ thank you

1:47:47 ↗ thank you commissioner zargoza

1:47:49 ↗ i am not seeing any additional

1:47:51 ↗ comments

1:47:53 ↗ on this monahan

1:47:57 ↗ yeah real quick just a plus one on

1:47:58 ↗ everything richard said i'm on i'm in

1:48:01 ↗ that camp

1:48:04 ↗ any additional comments you want to make

1:48:11 ↗ commissioner monahan did you want to go

1:48:12 ↗ ahead and make any additional comments

1:48:15 ↗ okay

1:48:17 ↗ all right so sorry i didn't mean to pass

1:48:19 ↗ you over uh

1:48:21 ↗ i had to scroll

1:48:23 ↗ unless it's getting long uh okay so i'm

1:48:26 ↗ not seeing any additional comments last

1:48:30 ↗ last call

1:48:36 ↗ all right so the floor is back to uh

1:48:38 ↗ back to you um

1:48:40 ↗ lucy

1:48:43 ↗ i think that um

1:48:45 ↗ what holly asked a moment ago

1:48:48 ↗ we want to try and make sure that we

1:48:51 ↗ walk away with the correct understanding

1:48:54 ↗ and i think that

1:48:57 ↗ what we've heard so far is

1:49:02 ↗ maybe a mixed message

1:49:06 ↗ that

1:49:09 ↗ and the comment is up

1:49:12 ↗ um should we take uh commissioner

1:49:16 ↗ lewis's comment as a uh

1:49:18 ↗ i i don't know if this is towards uh

1:49:21 ↗ having a summary or

1:49:27 ↗ yes i'll jump in commissioner joy lewis

1:49:28 ↗ i want to see if i can help a little bit

1:49:30 ↗ so it sounds like um

1:49:32 ↗ myself and the public and a couple other

1:49:35 ↗ commissioners have uh will call it for

1:49:38 ↗ humor's sake opposing viewpoints on this

1:49:40 ↗ topic so it sounds like there is an idea

1:49:42 ↗ of staff moving forward to explore this

1:49:45 ↗ when you explore this i strongly

1:49:47 ↗ recommend the next time you bring this

1:49:48 ↗ to us that you differentiate

1:49:51 ↗ what we'll be getting for what your what

1:49:54 ↗ you're proposing so for instance being

1:49:56 ↗ able to spell out on a light pole

1:49:59 ↗ this is what you would get small cell

1:50:02 ↗ gives you

1:50:03 ↗ access for your cell phone wireless

1:50:05 ↗ capabilities within a 200 feet radius

1:50:08 ↗ whereas if you want to have broadband

1:50:10 ↗ and connectivity you're going to need to

1:50:12 ↗ have a poll of this size

1:50:14 ↗ two miles apart and in our hilly terrain

1:50:16 ↗ right so we've been through all of this

1:50:18 ↗ details before but since it's going to

1:50:20 ↗ be new for some commissioners they're

1:50:21 ↗ going to want to see what are we looking

1:50:24 ↗ at so we're going to need to see a

1:50:25 ↗ proposal that's going to

1:50:27 ↗ really drill down and say this is the

1:50:28 ↗ service that we would be allowing in the

1:50:31 ↗ code this is the size of the equipment

1:50:33 ↗ these are the options for design

1:50:36 ↗ things like keeping noticing right or

1:50:38 ↗ allowing them to put whatever they want

1:50:40 ↗ on the polls whenever they want right

1:50:42 ↗ there's a lot of things that are in this

1:50:44 ↗ proposal that we're going to want to see

1:50:45 ↗ the nitty gritty on um fee structures uh

1:50:48 ↗ if you're going to start putting in

1:50:50 ↗ residential areas you're going to

1:50:51 ↗ propose putting polls for broadband

1:50:53 ↗ you're going to need to start detailing

1:50:54 ↗ different free structures so the

1:50:56 ↗ taxpayer isn't taking this on

1:50:59 ↗ uh and you're really going to want to

1:51:01 ↗ start to actually give us a map that

1:51:02 ↗ actually proposes where do we have

1:51:05 ↗ issues with coverage so that we are able

1:51:07 ↗ to directly identify and service those

1:51:09 ↗ areas so there's a lot of information

1:51:12 ↗ that we're going to need when you come

1:51:13 ↗ back to us with but it sounds like

1:51:14 ↗ there's a consensus

1:51:16 ↗ between the commissioners that they

1:51:17 ↗ would like staff to devote resources to

1:51:20 ↗ explore this

1:51:21 ↗ i hope that helps

1:51:22 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

1:51:25 ↗ but it that was what i was understanding

1:51:27 ↗ as well but thank you for clarifying

1:51:29 ↗ lucy

1:51:32 ↗ and i appreciate the

1:51:33 ↗ fine tune points that you just outlined

1:51:36 ↗ as well

1:51:41 ↗ all right and thank you commercial lewis

1:51:43 ↗ thank you

1:51:44 ↗ planner holly uh so

1:51:46 ↗ back to you lucy

1:51:50 ↗ uh i think that unless the commission

1:51:53 ↗ cares to update uh comment on any of the

1:51:55 ↗ updates that were in the memo

1:51:58 ↗ that concludes the uh title 18 portion

1:52:03 ↗ unless mini has anything else that she

1:52:05 ↗ wanted to

1:52:07 ↗ add

1:52:08 ↗ now i think good conversation on the

1:52:10 ↗ wireless topic it is a difficult one and

1:52:12 ↗ that's why we wanted to have this

1:52:14 ↗ initial conversation before we went down

1:52:16 ↗ and researched uh you know all the

1:52:18 ↗ details

1:52:19 ↗ um i think we we heard

1:52:21 ↗ some

1:52:22 ↗ uh

1:52:23 ↗ concerns about opening up the floodgates

1:52:26 ↗ to

1:52:27 ↗ let people do whatever they want to do

1:52:29 ↗ before we go down that path we want to

1:52:31 ↗ understand where the gaps are so we'll

1:52:34 ↗ go back to this conversation but i do

1:52:36 ↗ want to say

1:52:37 ↗ the distinction between broadband and

1:52:41 ↗ and the cell coverage you know

1:52:43 ↗ technology is changing in the blink of

1:52:45 ↗ an eye

1:52:46 ↗ throughout the nation there's a big

1:52:48 ↗ demand for coverage i mean these

1:52:50 ↗ companies are probably looking at the

1:52:52 ↗ next

1:52:53 ↗ next thing which doesn't look or feel

1:52:55 ↗ like what it looks today so

1:52:58 ↗ you know we can't really fully say uh

1:53:01 ↗ from a code perspective that's what

1:53:02 ↗ we're talking about today is

1:53:05 ↗ are there barriers in our code that

1:53:06 ↗ would prevent some of these things uh

1:53:09 ↗ for for the service to be improved so i

1:53:11 ↗ think our filter

1:53:13 ↗ is going to be more code-based as

1:53:15 ↗ opposed to what these facilities can

1:53:17 ↗ produce at this point in time because it

1:53:20 ↗ will change

1:53:22 ↗ within the next year or within the next

1:53:24 ↗ two years in code is going to be in

1:53:26 ↗ place for that that much time so i just

1:53:28 ↗ wanted to clarify that that it's not

1:53:30 ↗ what what kind of coverage you can get

1:53:32 ↗ for what kind of facility today

1:53:34 ↗ but more so

1:53:36 ↗ um

1:53:37 ↗ putting some bookends on what our

1:53:39 ↗ concerns are for the community for

1:53:41 ↗ aesthetics for you know not having over

1:53:44 ↗ abundance of these littered throughout

1:53:46 ↗ the community for aesthetic reasons

1:53:48 ↗ while balancing that need for

1:53:51 ↗ being able to connect the residents that

1:53:52 ↗ are trying to work from home

1:53:54 ↗ and have apache service so it that's

1:53:57 ↗ that's the tricky line we're trying to

1:53:59 ↗ walk through here but we'll we'll try

1:54:01 ↗ and collect more information so that we

1:54:03 ↗ can have a more meaningful conversation

1:54:05 ↗ on it um you know and addressing the

1:54:08 ↗ aesthetic concerns the proliferation

1:54:10 ↗ concerns um

1:54:13 ↗ to that does that make sense and then on

1:54:16 ↗ top of that you have to layer up with

1:54:18 ↗ fcc comes up with these guidelines and

1:54:21 ↗ regulations because they don't want they

1:54:23 ↗ want to take away some of the local

1:54:24 ↗ control

1:54:26 ↗ and so those are mandates at the federal

1:54:27 ↗ level that the cities have to comply

1:54:29 ↗ with and i think the last update in 2018

1:54:33 ↗ incorporated some of those mandates but

1:54:35 ↗ but there are big stipulations of how

1:54:37 ↗ much the cities can charge for for uh

1:54:40 ↗ putting these up because that's seen as

1:54:42 ↗ a roadblock for at a local level to get

1:54:45 ↗ some of the coverages so obviously with

1:54:47 ↗ this update we'll put that filter on as

1:54:49 ↗ two is to if there is any new guidance

1:54:51 ↗ from fcc that needs to be incorporated

1:54:54 ↗ um

1:54:56 ↗ and and that's all the cities is not

1:54:58 ↗ unique to us

1:54:59 ↗ um so those mandates from the at the

1:55:01 ↗ federal level

1:55:03 ↗ but i think we we sort of uh got an idea

1:55:07 ↗ of it's not one size fits all we isoqua

1:55:10 ↗ is unique in certain ways and and we

1:55:12 ↗ want to in you know preserve some of

1:55:14 ↗ those aesthetic concerns yet try and see

1:55:17 ↗ where

1:55:18 ↗ some of the gaps are so

1:55:21 ↗ thank you for the conversation uh it's

1:55:23 ↗ not a clear-cut answer but we'll we'll

1:55:25 ↗ take it

1:55:26 ↗ and and

1:55:27 ↗ put that filter on as we move forward

1:55:30 ↗ the other topics i really don't have

1:55:32 ↗ anything more to add i think those are

1:55:33 ↗ minor things that we're going to fix

1:55:35 ↗ with this update but if you have if you

1:55:37 ↗ feel strongly about anyone feel free to

1:55:39 ↗ reach out to us now or

1:55:41 ↗ or later

1:55:44 ↗ okay thank you very much uh minnie uh

1:55:46 ↗ one last 30-second question is does the

1:55:49 ↗ city have any

1:55:51 ↗ um

1:55:52 ↗ permit requests from any of the

1:55:53 ↗ providers to put up any

1:55:55 ↗ small cell

1:55:58 ↗ towers we have uh permit requests on a

1:56:02 ↗ regular basis for improving or replacing

1:56:06 ↗ antennas and um

1:56:09 ↗ and co-location on the existing poles so

1:56:12 ↗ there is there are wireless um

1:56:15 ↗ applications that come in for

1:56:17 ↗ improvements to what is currently

1:56:19 ↗ existing i'd say about once

1:56:23 ↗ every month or two

1:56:25 ↗ okay but no new 5g stuff just basic old

1:56:28 ↗ stuff okay

1:56:30 ↗ excellent

1:56:31 ↗ yeah i will add you know 5g when they

1:56:34 ↗ rolled out these carriers it was meant

1:56:36 ↗ for more urban places a stadium

1:56:39 ↗ you know a downtown because it's a

1:56:41 ↗ return on their investment i mean they

1:56:43 ↗ coming in into a neighborhood to serve

1:56:45 ↗ two homes it's not going to pencil out

1:56:47 ↗ for

1:56:48 ↗ for these carriers so we would have to

1:56:50 ↗ plead to them to come and serve this

1:56:52 ↗ neighborhood because it will you know

1:56:54 ↗ provide service to 10

1:56:56 ↗ 10 additional

1:56:57 ↗ residents so from just from a market

1:57:00 ↗ standpoint they're going in into places

1:57:02 ↗ where they're reaping the reward for

1:57:05 ↗ um serving more people the malls the

1:57:07 ↗ stadiums and those kind of places are

1:57:09 ↗ the first ones to get

1:57:11 ↗ fg

1:57:12 ↗ 5g sorry

1:57:15 ↗ so

1:57:15 ↗ yeah we're not seeing

1:57:17 ↗ a huge demand for we want to go in on

1:57:20 ↗ the street and put up

1:57:22 ↗ i think that's not my understanding that

1:57:24 ↗ we have that sort of a demand here

1:57:28 ↗ okay excellent all right so moving on to

1:57:31 ↗ reports uh do we have any city council

1:57:34 ↗ reports or title 18 additional public

1:57:37 ↗ comments um

1:57:38 ↗ kristen did not give me any uh

1:57:41 ↗ information on council reports mini do

1:57:43 ↗ you have anything

1:57:45 ↗ no other than uh council adopted the

1:57:47 ↗ climate action plan so thank you to this

1:57:49 ↗ commission that participated in that

1:57:51 ↗ effort on this and the comprehensive

1:57:53 ↗ plan amendments those got adopted on

1:57:55 ↗ december 6 so good work for everyone

1:57:58 ↗ that was involved with

1:58:00 ↗ big big projects like that so that's all

1:58:03 ↗ excellent that's good to hear

1:58:05 ↗ all right uh and other business

1:58:08 ↗ announcements

1:58:10 ↗ uh again i uh

1:58:12 ↗ didn't um

1:58:14 ↗ oh

1:58:18 ↗ i'm i'm getting uh a mention that we

1:58:20 ↗ didn't do an addition the general public

1:58:23 ↗ comment at the end was that replaced by

1:58:26 ↗ the individual public comments

1:58:29 ↗ it was uh but if we have members of the

1:58:32 ↗ public that would like to

1:58:35 ↗ make a comment i think we we've got a

1:58:37 ↗ few minutes here we can go ahead and

1:58:39 ↗ allow that

1:58:41 ↗ okay

1:58:49 ↗ connie marsh you have uh

1:58:52 ↗ been made a um

1:58:54 ↗ panelist

1:58:58 ↗ oh you're not unmuted yet sorry i

1:59:00 ↗ thought i'd done it

1:59:03 ↗ there you go

1:59:04 ↗ the mouse uh

1:59:06 ↗ the climate action plan was passed

1:59:09 ↗ but the council

1:59:12 ↗ added sort of a

1:59:13 ↗ substantial change

1:59:16 ↗ and council member goodman disagreed and

1:59:19 ↗ thought it should uh get more public

1:59:22 ↗ review because they added the

1:59:24 ↗ uh extra

1:59:26 ↗ goals for

1:59:28 ↗ existing

1:59:30 ↗ houses

1:59:31 ↗ uh

1:59:33 ↗ reduction

1:59:34 ↗ of fossil fuel uses this is my memory so

1:59:37 ↗ i think that was a huge

1:59:39 ↗ change and i didn't think it was

1:59:42 ↗ significantly and overtly discussed by

1:59:46 ↗ ppc or any of the commissions

1:59:48 ↗ and that's disappointing to me because i

1:59:51 ↗ think if you walk down the street uh

1:59:53 ↗ people who

1:59:54 ↗ who

1:59:55 ↗ are not as into it as everybody who's

1:59:58 ↗ talking to themselves are going to be

2:00:00 ↗ really surprised if if we all start

2:00:03 ↗ creating code to make this

2:00:06 ↗ happen

2:00:07 ↗ so

2:00:08 ↗ um

2:00:10 ↗ i i think that ppc needs to have the

2:00:13 ↗ written change presented to them

2:00:16 ↗ so they can see whether they think that

2:00:19 ↗ they review that sufficiently

2:00:23 ↗ thanks

2:00:29 ↗ um

2:00:30 ↗ i was just looking and i will drop the

2:00:34 ↗ amendment

2:00:39 ↗ i will drop the amendment into the chat

2:00:42 ↗ um

2:00:44 ↗ yeah i mean um we're happy to share more

2:00:46 ↗ details or answer any questions on on

2:00:49 ↗ the change that council

2:00:51 ↗ adopted it was requested by a community

2:00:54 ↗ uh and i think uh the way it was

2:00:56 ↗ explained um by megan curtis

2:00:59 ↗ was

2:01:00 ↗ the city is already signed into an

2:01:02 ↗ agreement with k4c for

2:01:05 ↗ reduction of uh 20

2:01:08 ↗ in

2:01:08 ↗ in natural gas for existing uh

2:01:12 ↗ properties i could be wrong but that's

2:01:13 ↗ that was my understanding from that

2:01:15 ↗ conversation

2:01:16 ↗ and um so since we've already agreed

2:01:18 ↗ with k4c

2:01:20 ↗ the request was to add another metric to

2:01:23 ↗ measure

2:01:24 ↗ um

2:01:25 ↗ uh how

2:01:26 ↗ how this

2:01:27 ↗ how we're meeting that

2:01:29 ↗ um but we can certainly uh provide you

2:01:31 ↗ in you know additional information about

2:01:33 ↗ the change um and send it by email

2:01:38 ↗ chat is not allowing me to paste so i'll

2:01:41 ↗ just read from the

2:01:43 ↗ summary from that night which was reduce

2:01:45 ↗ natural gas

2:01:47 ↗ and other fossil fuel in existing

2:01:49 ↗ buildings by at least 20 percent by 2030

2:01:54 ↗ and 80 percent by 2050

2:01:57 ↗ compared to a 2017 baseline

2:02:08 ↗ thank you uh planner lucy uh so question

2:02:12 ↗ was

2:02:13 ↗ is this the what the city proposed to

2:02:15 ↗ city council or is this what city

2:02:17 ↗ council came up with

2:02:20 ↗ i think it was in response to public

2:02:22 ↗ comments

2:02:25 ↗ but it was an amendment that got passed

2:02:27 ↗ at the council meeting yes

2:02:30 ↗ okay

2:02:32 ↗ and i think i'd like to

2:02:34 ↗ open this up to a

2:02:36 ↗ comment here and i got a

2:02:39 ↗ comment from commissioner milligan

2:02:42 ↗ oh i i just have a question about uh

2:02:44 ↗ procedure in that amendment to the

2:02:48 ↗ climate action i was just looking at the

2:02:50 ↗ agenda and i don't see that the adoption

2:02:53 ↗ at the council level this week was

2:02:56 ↗ alongside

2:02:58 ↗ public hearing so

2:03:00 ↗ uh in

2:03:02 ↗ regards to

2:03:03 ↗ our role

2:03:05 ↗ or wherever when we're adopting plans

2:03:07 ↗ who's having the public hearing can you

2:03:09 ↗ make that kind of amendment

2:03:11 ↗ um

2:03:12 ↗ outside you know in this um sequence of

2:03:15 ↗ the process

2:03:17 ↗ or does the community have a repeal or

2:03:20 ↗ appeal or something

2:03:21 ↗ that's a question

2:03:24 ↗ yeah i mean

2:03:26 ↗ i don't know the answer to in terms of

2:03:28 ↗ the procedural aspects of it but but the

2:03:30 ↗ way i think our process is right now the

2:03:33 ↗ the boards and commissions hold the

2:03:34 ↗ public hearing in the council

2:03:36 ↗ um

2:03:38 ↗ doesn't um hold a formal public hearing

2:03:41 ↗ but public still submits comments during

2:03:43 ↗ you know during the council review

2:03:46 ↗ so is the question to us did we hold

2:03:50 ↗ a public hearing on that aspect of the

2:03:52 ↗ climate action plan or did we have to

2:03:55 ↗ you know what was our responsibility

2:03:56 ↗ yeah so you guys did hold the public

2:03:59 ↗ hearing and the golden policies that are

2:04:01 ↗ in the comprehensive plan

2:04:03 ↗ the the entire

2:04:04 ↗ uh climate action plan went through a

2:04:06 ↗ robust public participation and i think

2:04:09 ↗ megan shared all the different boards

2:04:11 ↗ and commissions i think she did a lot of

2:04:13 ↗ work with the environmental board um

2:04:15 ↗ throughout that process so

2:04:18 ↗ um i'm assuming

2:04:21 ↗ that all that process met what whatever

2:04:24 ↗ the city's adopted in terms of the

2:04:25 ↗ procedural aspects of it

2:04:30 ↗ and and maybe the distinction is that

2:04:34 ↗ although this plan is adopted by

2:04:36 ↗ resolution it isn't going

2:04:39 ↗ it's not going into the isquad municipal

2:04:41 ↗ code

2:04:42 ↗ and

2:04:43 ↗ it isn't for you know you held the

2:04:46 ↗ hearing on the goals and policies but

2:04:48 ↗ that isn't um

2:04:51 ↗ further

2:04:52 ↗ this isn't for the thing that they

2:04:54 ↗ adopted is uh and mended is not further

2:04:57 ↗ amending the comp plan the next step

2:05:00 ↗ will then be to consider what code

2:05:02 ↗ changes are necessary

2:05:04 ↗ and those would come back through the

2:05:07 ↗ planning policy commission as part of

2:05:09 ↗ the work being done primarily on title

2:05:12 ↗ 18. there may be other codes that are

2:05:14 ↗ impacted as well

2:05:17 ↗ okay thank you uh we have also a

2:05:19 ↗ question from commissioner lewis

2:05:23 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis minnie

2:05:25 ↗ i'm hoping that you can basically do my

2:05:28 ↗ dirty work for me and do my homework and

2:05:30 ↗ if you could send us uh the language

2:05:32 ↗ that you talked about and just a link to

2:05:34 ↗ council's discussion um it's so helpful

2:05:37 ↗ i noticed that youtube now um often is

2:05:39 ↗ saying at this point they're talking

2:05:40 ↗ about this at this point they're talking

2:05:41 ↗ about this which is like a nice little

2:05:43 ↗ crib notes and letting us review that

2:05:45 ↗ conversation uh because it is going to

2:05:47 ↗ be applicable a little bit to what they

2:05:48 ↗ say when we kind of talk about you know

2:05:50 ↗ we have the opportunity to kind of dive

2:05:52 ↗ down and say well how is it that we want

2:05:53 ↗ to get to this when we're creating those

2:05:55 ↗ policies and being able to kind of see

2:05:57 ↗ um what they were talking about as terms

2:05:59 ↗ of being able to address the existing

2:06:01 ↗ infrastructure i know i think we all saw

2:06:04 ↗ um ann fletcher's email prior to their

2:06:06 ↗ meeting um asking for that change so it

2:06:08 ↗ would be great to dive into the

2:06:09 ↗ conversation that they have would be

2:06:11 ↗ nice to have some background so

2:06:12 ↗ sure happy to send happy to send the the

2:06:15 ↗ link to the

2:06:17 ↗ to the meeting and and what was adopted

2:06:19 ↗ absolutely

2:06:20 ↗ thank you

2:06:23 ↗ thank you minnie i think it would be a

2:06:24 ↗ great thanks for doing that uh okay so

2:06:26 ↗ uh we're gonna go ahead and join the

2:06:28 ↗ meeting at 8 36

2:06:30 ↗ and i'll just say your next meeting is

2:06:33 ↗ uh not until january uh 13th i believe

2:06:37 ↗ so

2:06:38 ↗ you get a month off for good behavior

2:06:42 ↗ calling your

2:06:55 ↗ bye everybody

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (1)

Minnie Dahliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development Holly Keaton, Senior Planner Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager 2

Recommendations & actions (7)

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

The aspirational goal is now 55% based on the new adopted policy.
COMMISSIONER LEWIS stated that the city recommended a 20% threshold for the overlays for design standards, but information in the presentation was based on 15% and asked for clarification regarding the 5% difference.
Sloman stated that one person requested to speak. ➢ Connie Marsh stated that there are a lot of slopes in Issaquah but how contiguous they are is the question.
Based on what has been presented, no change whatsoever would be recommended.
a) Council Update (01:57) Presented by Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager, for Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Dahliwal stated that Council had adopted the Climate Action Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The King County Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) has already been agreed to, but another metric for measuring progress had been added.
COMMISSIONER MILLIGAN stated that although the Plan is adopted by resolution, the Plan will not be municipal code.