Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, March 24, 2022 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION Staff Liaison Christen Leeson, Senior About Planner Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Email policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah's future Regular Members growth through continued review and 2022 – Joy Lewis improvement to the City's Comprehensive Land 2022 – Matt Monahan Use Plan and related land use documents. 2022 – Jason Voiss 2022 – Vacant Membership 2023 – Nina Milligan The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2024 – Ron Faul seven regular members, with four-year terms; 2024 – Sara Bader and several alternates, with two-year terms. All members are appointed by the Mayor and Alternate Members subject to confirmation by the City Council. 2022 - Richard Zaragoza Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2023 - Vacant more information, see IMC 18.03 and Rules & Regulations. Meetings Unless…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 9, 2022

packet pp.7–18

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES Special Joint Meeting ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD & PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. -Wednesday, March 9, 2022

Minutes of March 10, 2022

packet pp.19–31

Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES Special Joint Meeting PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION & ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, March 10, 2022

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.65–67

Open packet at p.65 ↗

Staff report:

2022 1/20/22 1/27/22 Joint Meeting with Development Commission  Public Hearing: Proposed 2022 Docket of Education: Title 18 - Building and Design Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map  Neighborhood Overlay Standards Amendments January o Olde Town, Central Issaquah, Issaquah Joint Meeting with Development Commission Highlands, Talus Title 18: Education - Building and Design  Neighborhood Overlay Standards o Olde Town, Central Issaquah, Issaquah Highlands, Talus 2/10/22 2/24/22 Joint Meeting with Development Commission Joint Meeting with Environmental Board

3872 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ all right good evening i'd like to call

0:01 ↗ to

0:02 ↗ order the march 10th policy and planning

0:05 ↗ commission

0:06 ↗ meeting at 6 30 pm

0:09 ↗ due to the virtual format of today's

0:10 ↗ meeting i'd like to start by providing

0:12 ↗ some guidelines

0:13 ↗ we have participants attending by

0:15 ↗ computer and others who may be attending

0:16 ↗ by phone for all meeting attendees who

0:19 ↗ wish to speak please speak clearly and

0:21 ↗ pause frequently

0:23 ↗ state your name each time and before

0:25 ↗ speaking

0:26 ↗ mutual microphone when not speaking and

0:28 ↗ if you have technical issues try joining

0:30 ↗ the meeting using a different device

0:32 ↗ such as a smartphone or tablet or use

0:34 ↗ the call-in information in the meeting

0:35 ↗ invite to call into the phone

0:38 ↗ uh for attendance lucy will you go ahead

0:41 ↗ and please call roll

0:42 ↗ yes uh commissioner milligan

0:46 ↗ here

0:48 ↗ commissioner lewis

0:51 ↗ here

0:53 ↗ commissioner monahan

0:57 ↗ i do not see commissioner monahan i'll

0:59 ↗ keep my eye out

1:01 ↗ uh commissioner voice

1:05 ↗ here

1:07 ↗ chair fall

1:08 ↗ here

1:10 ↗ i know that commissioner bader will be

1:12 ↗ joining late um and if you see her

1:14 ↗ please let me know so that we can note

1:16 ↗ it in the in the minutes

1:19 ↗ uh commissioner zaragoza

1:22 ↗ here

1:26 ↗ okay thank you lucy

1:28 ↗ and now we'll move on to approval of the

1:30 ↗ meeting minutes the first set of meeting

1:32 ↗ minutes is the march 9th 2022 uh minutes

1:35 ↗ are there any corrections or

1:38 ↗ questions about the meeting minutes

1:41 ↗ okay hearing none uh the meeting minutes

1:43 ↗ for march 9th are approved

1:45 ↗ and the second meeting minutes for march

1:47 ↗ 10th

1:48 ↗ are there any corrections or changes or

1:50 ↗ questions that people would like to ask

1:53 ↗ okay and hearing none the march 10th

1:55 ↗ meeting minutes are approved

1:57 ↗ uh lucy let's go ahead and open up for a

1:59 ↗ public comment is there any general

2:01 ↗ public comments that

2:03 ↗ are is there any general comments today

2:06 ↗ that the public would like to speak at

2:11 ↗ let's uh anyone anyone in the um

2:15 ↗ any attendee who would like to speak if

2:17 ↗ you would raise your hand please

2:19 ↗ either by pushing star 3 on your phone

2:23 ↗ or

2:23 ↗ raising your virtual hand

2:30 ↗ i do not see any thank you

2:32 ↗ okay thank you very much lucy and we'll

2:35 ↗ go ahead and close that out

2:37 ↗ at 6 36

2:39 ↗ and so

2:42 ↗ next thing here is

2:45 ↗ lucy

2:47 ↗ [Music]

2:48 ↗ we're up for the agenda so go ahead and

2:50 ↗ take it away for uh

2:53 ↗ title 18 updates

3:00 ↗ um so tonight we're on the presentation

3:04 ↗ is going to be broken into several parts

3:07 ↗ after each presentation

3:09 ↗ we will deliberate

3:11 ↗ um the questions that are posed in the

3:13 ↗ memo and discuss any issues that have

3:15 ↗ arisen

3:17 ↗ staff have asked are asking that we come

3:19 ↗ to a consensus regarding each of the

3:22 ↗ questions and issues

3:24 ↗ we will not be taking public comment on

3:26 ↗ the specific topics tonight

3:29 ↗ staff have focused their presentations

3:31 ↗ on examples

3:33 ↗ as to how the new code would be applied

3:35 ↗ or

3:36 ↗ in response to public comments

3:39 ↗ the first presentation

3:42 ↗ will be

3:43 ↗ on geologic hazard areas

3:46 ↗ and it will be

3:48 ↗ made by jim johnson who is our

3:50 ↗ consultant from golder

3:52 ↗ i'm going to share my screen

3:55 ↗ while he presents

4:03 ↗ can you see my screen

4:06 ↗ yes

4:07 ↗ thank you lucy

4:09 ↗ committee members

4:12 ↗ glad to be speaking with you again on

4:14 ↗ this topic

4:15 ↗ uh

4:16 ↗ since our last meeting uh we have

4:19 ↗ clarified some of the

4:21 ↗ changes

4:22 ↗ uh to the

4:23 ↗ uh to the code

4:25 ↗ what's listed here are some of the

4:30 ↗ significant changes

4:32 ↗ that were made to the code

4:34 ↗ the ones i kind of wanted to highlight

4:36 ↗ highlight to you in this slide

4:39 ↗ are

4:40 ↗ the

4:41 ↗ defining the roles of licensed

4:43 ↗ professionals in the code

4:45 ↗ so that we have qualified individuals

4:48 ↗ writing the critical areas reports for

4:51 ↗ the various hazard areas listed above

4:54 ↗ the coal mine erosion landslide seismic

4:56 ↗ and steep slope

4:58 ↗ and then another point is the general

5:01 ↗ guidance

5:02 ↗ and peer review requirements

5:04 ↗ which we think are very important

5:07 ↗ for

5:08 ↗ creating uh well-written and

5:11 ↗ well-reviewed critical areas

5:14 ↗ reports

5:16 ↗ which may or may not be addressing

5:18 ↗ uh buffers or

5:21 ↗ or other critical uh parts of the code

5:26 ↗ and go to the next slide

5:33 ↗ i wanted to take a moment to illustrate

5:35 ↗ one of the points about steep slope

5:39 ↗ hazards

5:41 ↗ and this applies as well to landslide

5:43 ↗ hazard zones

5:45 ↗ so

5:47 ↗ the buffers are

5:49 ↗ applied to the top and the toe

5:53 ↗ of the hazard and also to the sides so

5:56 ↗ in this cross section imagine the the

5:58 ↗ steep line in the middle is a 40 percent

6:01 ↗ uh slope

6:03 ↗ so the minimum buffer of 50 feet would

6:05 ↗ be applied to the top and the toe and

6:07 ↗ that would be the green lines in this

6:09 ↗ figure

6:11 ↗ and in addition to the buffers there is

6:13 ↗ a building setback line which is a

6:16 ↗ minimum 15 feet which is a the red line

6:21 ↗ building setback line stays the same no

6:23 ↗ matter how big the buffer is

6:26 ↗ in the current code and in the prior

6:29 ↗ code

6:30 ↗ there are allowances for reducing the

6:32 ↗ buffer

6:33 ↗ from 50 feet to as small as 10 feet

6:39 ↗ there there are some reasons uh in

6:42 ↗ situations where you may want to allow

6:44 ↗ the buffer to be reduced and typically

6:47 ↗ that has to do with how high the slope

6:50 ↗ is

6:50 ↗ but not always

6:52 ↗ but if you could imagine if this 40

6:55 ↗ slope is only

6:56 ↗ say 23 feet high

6:59 ↗ um you really wouldn't necessarily need

7:01 ↗ a 50-foot buffer from a geologic safety

7:05 ↗ standpoint that buffer would be twice

7:07 ↗ the height of the slope

7:10 ↗ uh however if the slope height here from

7:13 ↗ the bottom of the slope to the top of

7:15 ↗ the slope is over 100 feet

7:18 ↗ then the buffer of 50 feet may not be

7:20 ↗ adequate you might actually want a

7:22 ↗ little bit larger buffer

7:24 ↗ because it it would encompass all the

7:27 ↗ future or potential failure surfaces

7:29 ↗ that might occur on that slope

7:32 ↗ so having flexibility

7:34 ↗ in the width of the buffer

7:37 ↗ is important

7:41 ↗ next slide

7:45 ↗ the coal mine hazards

7:48 ↗ have been updated to

7:51 ↗ provide classification of the mine

7:53 ↗ hazards from declassified moderate and

7:56 ↗ severe

7:58 ↗ and then buffers have been put on the

8:01 ↗ severe hazard areas so areas where you

8:03 ↗ might in the future develop a sinkhole

8:06 ↗ like shown here

8:08 ↗ on this figure

8:10 ↗ you would want to have buffers around

8:12 ↗ that area

8:14 ↗ the reason for that is you want to make

8:16 ↗ sure that

8:18 ↗ you have access to that area potentially

8:20 ↗ in the future if subsidence does occur

8:23 ↗ to mitigate it

8:25 ↗ and because you want a bit of a buffer

8:29 ↗ for

8:31 ↗ to account for maybe a bit of inaccuracy

8:33 ↗ in the science of determining where that

8:35 ↗ actual hazard is

8:38 ↗ so those are in the code now

8:40 ↗ next slide

8:46 ↗ um

8:48 ↗ some of you asked about specific

8:50 ↗ examples

8:51 ↗ to show

8:52 ↗ how the code has been applied and where

8:54 ↗ it might be applied

8:57 ↗ the bergsma property was brought up as a

9:00 ↗ as a past example this is located

9:03 ↗ uh right off newport way near the

9:05 ↗ intersection of sr 900 just north of

9:08 ↗ talus

9:10 ↗ the berksma property uh was in for a

9:14 ↗ review in around 2016.

9:17 ↗ i was part of the peer review team

9:19 ↗ looking at the critical areas they

9:22 ↗ proposed to develop this light gray area

9:25 ↗ at the top of the slope

9:29 ↗ and the red areas were steep slopes that

9:32 ↗ were surrounding that gray area

9:35 ↗ thank you for highlighting that lucy

9:38 ↗ the white circle was the west side

9:40 ↗ reservoir

9:41 ↗ and the yellow are some historic

9:44 ↗ landslides that were next to this

9:46 ↗ property

9:48 ↗ the peer review process had been ongoing

9:50 ↗ for almost three years

9:52 ↗ uh the developer

9:54 ↗ uh what we were encouraging the

9:56 ↗ developer to do was do more exploration

9:58 ↗ as it turns out the area around and

10:01 ↗ below the west side reservoir was a uh

10:04 ↗ either prehistoric or historic landslide

10:08 ↗ so there were challenges with with

10:10 ↗ putting any development within that area

10:14 ↗ it wasn't it was not on any landslide

10:16 ↗ maps but the geology indicated that it

10:19 ↗ was landslide terrain

10:21 ↗ the other challenge they faced was

10:23 ↗ getting an access road up the hill

10:26 ↗ if you could advance to the next slide

10:33 ↗ in this slide you can see the access

10:34 ↗ road coming off of newport way and going

10:37 ↗ up through these dark shaded areas

10:40 ↗ all of those areas are steep slopes

10:42 ↗ greater than 40 percent

10:46 ↗ i believe the applicant was looking for

10:49 ↗ a variance from the steep slope critical

10:52 ↗ areas ordinance in order to

10:55 ↗ to put this road in place

10:59 ↗ i don't know how far along that process

11:02 ↗ was um until uh before the property was

11:05 ↗ uh was purchased by the city but what i

11:08 ↗ wanted to point out was the the critical

11:11 ↗ areas review process was ongoing there

11:14 ↗ were no guarantees that the applicant

11:16 ↗ would be able to get above or through

11:18 ↗ these hurdles

11:20 ↗ particularly the

11:22 ↗ steep slopes around the access road and

11:25 ↗ then a good portion of the development

11:27 ↗ area may not have been developable

11:29 ↗ because of the landslide hazard the area

11:32 ↗ or just the downslope of that tank

11:38 ↗ next slide

11:41 ↗ this is a

11:43 ↗ recent um example of a

11:46 ↗ application for a steep slope buffer

11:49 ↗ reduction

11:51 ↗ this is along

11:53 ↗ it's right near the intersection of

11:55 ↗ black nugget road it's a sunset

11:58 ↗ or sunrise assisted living

12:00 ↗ and this is adjacent to

12:02 ↗ west fork of issaquah creek

12:05 ↗ so the red area is the steep slope

12:07 ↗ critical area

12:09 ↗ and the applicant asked for a buffer

12:12 ↗ reduction from the top of the slope here

12:16 ↗ so they could build this building

12:21 ↗ we work with the applicant on looking

12:24 ↗ more carefully at the slope stability

12:26 ↗ and they had to demonstrate that they

12:28 ↗ could

12:29 ↗ have adequate slope stability to justify

12:32 ↗ this buffer reduction

12:35 ↗ they did a few things they uh they

12:37 ↗ actually deepened the foundation of the

12:40 ↗ building

12:42 ↗ and they were able to safely demonstrate

12:45 ↗ that they had adequate factors of safety

12:48 ↗ 1.5 for static and 1.1 for seismic

12:52 ↗ and the buffer reduction

12:54 ↗ was granted

12:57 ↗ as i explained before having some

12:59 ↗ flexibility

13:01 ↗ well let me go on to the next slide

13:02 ↗ because i'll cover it there

13:08 ↗ this slide shows the geologic sections

13:10 ↗ that they they drew through the uh

13:12 ↗ development

13:13 ↗ uh and those were the sections that were

13:15 ↗ analyzed for the uh the stability uh or

13:18 ↗ for the buffer reduction

13:21 ↗ next slide

13:28 ↗ so

13:28 ↗ a couple of questions to address

13:31 ↗ from the memo

13:32 ↗ should steep slope buffer reductions be

13:34 ↗ further tightened

13:37 ↗ one thing that could be done is a

13:40 ↗ mathematical calculation could be

13:42 ↗ included in the code

13:44 ↗ that would adjust the buffer based on

13:46 ↗ the height of the slope

13:49 ↗ so

13:50 ↗ the lower the slope the smaller the

13:52 ↗ buffer the higher the slope the bigger

13:54 ↗ the buffer

13:56 ↗ what i was mentioning earlier in the

13:59 ↗ sunrise assisted living in that case the

14:02 ↗ buffer

14:04 ↗ would have likely have been pretty large

14:06 ↗ and it probably would not have allowed

14:07 ↗ that building to be built

14:09 ↗ if there was a

14:12 ↗ uh a mathematical criteria because the

14:15 ↗ buffers typically are larger for larger

14:18 ↗ slopes

14:19 ↗ and i want to point out that if a

14:21 ↗ mathematical criteria were implemented

14:24 ↗ it would naturally be a bit con on the

14:27 ↗ conservative side therefore leading to

14:29 ↗ larger buffers for bigger slopes

14:33 ↗ and it would be less flexible

14:38 ↗ there was a question about peat deposits

14:41 ↗ raised in our last meeting

14:43 ↗ and

14:44 ↗ we've looked into that and

14:47 ↗ most of the peat deposits uh

14:49 ↗ are typically protected uh because

14:52 ↗ they're in wetland areas in wetland

14:54 ↗ buffers

14:56 ↗ but

14:57 ↗ some additional work would probably have

14:59 ↗ to be done to answer questions about um

15:02 ↗ what types and quantity of peat deposits

15:04 ↗ there are not all peat is the same

15:07 ↗ uh it varies significantly based on

15:09 ↗ organic content and moisture content

15:13 ↗ and then what types of geotechnical

15:15 ↗ standards could be used to minimize the

15:18 ↗ removal

15:20 ↗ developers don't like to dig it out if

15:22 ↗ they don't have to but sometimes it's

15:24 ↗ more cost effective to remove it

15:27 ↗ and then is are there mitigations for

15:30 ↗ removal such that you could uh

15:34 ↗ re-bury it potentially and and mitigate

15:36 ↗ the release of co2 which seems to be the

15:39 ↗ uh the most important um

15:44 ↗ issue with removing it although there

15:46 ↗ are others

15:50 ↗ and then the third bullet you can read

15:57 ↗ lucy i think that concludes my

15:59 ↗ presentation

16:00 ↗ would you advance one more slide to be

16:02 ↗ sure

16:03 ↗ i think so

16:07 ↗ yes the next slide is is the um

16:10 ↗ questions and deliberations questions i

16:13 ↗ thought so thank you and and i um

16:15 ↗ commissioners i'm happy to put the

16:17 ↗ slideshow back up if you need it um

16:19 ↗ during your discussion of the questions

16:33 ↗ chair fall how would you like to

16:36 ↗ organize the

16:38 ↗ questions and deliberations this evening

16:42 ↗ okay

16:43 ↗ um

16:44 ↗ well let's see the first question

16:47 ↗ should steep slope buffer reductions be

16:49 ↗ further tightened if so

16:51 ↗ one option is to state if the vertical

16:54 ↗ height of the slope is more than x feet

16:56 ↗ based on the science then it is

16:58 ↗ ineligible for a buffer reduction

17:00 ↗ so

17:01 ↗ let's address

17:03 ↗ question one first and we'll just go

17:04 ↗ down

17:06 ↗ one two and three

17:07 ↗ and that way

17:10 ↗ jim

17:11 ↗ gets the information that he needs out

17:14 ↗ of this and we can come to a consensus

17:16 ↗ on the questions so let's go ahead and

17:19 ↗ ask questions based on the questions

17:21 ↗ that are here and the content we just

17:22 ↗ heard and then we'll deliberate on

17:26 ↗ answering the questions themselves

17:29 ↗ so let's go ahead and open this up to

17:32 ↗ commissioner questions

17:35 ↗ and

17:40 ↗ okay i can't see the chat window why

17:42 ↗ can't i see the chat window

17:44 ↗ um commissioner lewis has the first uh

17:47 ↗ question

17:48 ↗ okay commissioner lewis uh the floor is

17:51 ↗ yours

17:52 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

17:54 ↗ lewis i have a question about the first

17:57 ↗ question

17:58 ↗ which is specifically about geological

18:01 ↗ flexibility of buffers right so

18:04 ↗ i have mentioned to staff and i don't

18:06 ↗ mind saying i feel very um

18:09 ↗ in the dark about this section of our

18:11 ↗ code i don't have the technical

18:13 ↗ expertise to be able to speak on this

18:15 ↗ and so really you're going to hear a lot

18:17 ↗ more questions than comments from me on

18:19 ↗ it

18:20 ↗ and i certainly think that going with a

18:22 ↗ mathematical equation is a very

18:24 ↗ interesting solution to the question i

18:27 ↗ have which is how can we ensure an

18:29 ↗ appropriate and consistent variances of

18:32 ↗ buffer size

18:34 ↗ as we are talking about having a

18:36 ↗ relinquished footage um i think one

18:39 ↗ thing that we when we look at this of

18:41 ↗ obviously not wanting to go too

18:43 ↗ conservative in one direction

18:46 ↗ but also being pretty worried about

18:48 ↗ being too liberal and so how would we be

18:51 ↗ able to have a consistency over time

18:54 ↗ when we're able to say this one needs

18:56 ↗ less i think the maximum well i i jump

18:57 ↗ but the gun by saying i think the

18:58 ↗ mathematical equation is a good way to

19:00 ↗ be able to say that if we didn't have

19:02 ↗ that solution and we wanted to be able

19:05 ↗ to have some type of variance in these

19:07 ↗ buffers

19:09 ↗ how would we do that in a consistent way

19:11 ↗ how would we be able to have from

19:12 ↗ property property having the same types

19:14 ↗ of criteria applied

19:20 ↗ that's a challenging question uh i think

19:23 ↗ having consistency is good

19:26 ↗ uh i think the way the code is written

19:29 ↗ or had been written

19:30 ↗ there was a natural tendency for

19:32 ↗ applicants to think all they had to do

19:34 ↗ is write a report and they would get a

19:36 ↗ reduction to the minimum buffer

19:38 ↗ and i think that was the the opinion of

19:41 ↗ of a lot of residents too

19:43 ↗ and their and their uh their concern

19:46 ↗ um

19:50 ↗ it's it's tough to address that other

19:52 ↗ than to tighten up on the granting of

19:55 ↗ the minimum buffers now

19:58 ↗ it may be possible to have something in

20:00 ↗ a mathematical code that would restrict

20:03 ↗ the minimum side of that buffer

20:05 ↗ reduction based on the the slope height

20:09 ↗ so you know you could have a min and a

20:11 ↗ max but it would the min would be based

20:13 ↗ on the slope height the max would not

20:16 ↗ necessarily be constricted because you

20:18 ↗ could have situations where you want to

20:20 ↗ have

20:21 ↗ uh maximum uh buffer

20:24 ↗ because again not all slopes are equal

20:27 ↗ but you you don't like you say probably

20:29 ↗ want to error on the small side you know

20:31 ↗ a smaller buffer

20:33 ↗ and i don't have a good answer for how

20:35 ↗ you would try to make that equal across

20:38 ↗ the board uh because not all slopes

20:41 ↗ are the same so one project might get a

20:44 ↗ buffer reduction the other one thinks

20:45 ↗ that they might be

20:48 ↗ entitled to but they might have

20:49 ↗ different slopes

20:53 ↗ what would be the harm of of playing it

20:56 ↗ more conservative you you mentioned that

20:58 ↗ using you know the first question of

21:00 ↗ using a mathematical equation and let's

21:02 ↗ say that we decide that we don't want to

21:04 ↗ have very much flexibility um obviously

21:07 ↗ wanting to think about the the safety of

21:09 ↗ our slopes

21:10 ↗ can you give me an argument for why

21:12 ↗ um having less of a of a variance there

21:17 ↗ would be harmful

21:19 ↗ uh it could be obviously less less land

21:22 ↗ is used obviously you're putting out a

21:23 ↗ smaller building a smaller footprint um

21:28 ↗ yeah exactly i mean the the sunrise

21:30 ↗ assisted living like i mentioned earlier

21:32 ↗ uh that building would not fit on that

21:34 ↗ property

21:35 ↗ uh with the without the buffer reduction

21:39 ↗ uh

21:40 ↗ could they redesign the building

21:41 ↗ differently possibly so it would it

21:44 ↗ would require it would it would mean

21:46 ↗ further property is encumbered by the uh

21:48 ↗ steep slopes but it doesn't necessarily

21:50 ↗ mean you couldn't build things

21:52 ↗ do you recall um off the top of your

21:54 ↗ head what the variance was how many feet

21:56 ↗ they ended up getting for instance

21:59 ↗ yes they went to 10 feet in one location

22:03 ↗ or one area and then they went to 20

22:05 ↗ feet in another so they didn't go to the

22:08 ↗ maximum or to the minimum everywhere

22:10 ↗ okay thank you very much jim

22:12 ↗ you're welcome

22:15 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis uh

22:18 ↗ commissioner voice you have the floor

22:22 ↗ thank you chair

22:23 ↗ uh

22:24 ↗ i appreciate commissioner lewis's

22:26 ↗ comments on consistency i think that's

22:27 ↗ what part of the goal is is to provide

22:30 ↗ that for applicants

22:31 ↗ one reason that i do like flexibility is

22:33 ↗ because as you stated

22:35 ↗ um all slopes are different

22:37 ↗ now my understanding jim is that

22:40 ↗ all of these because they're critical

22:41 ↗ areas are going to go through a peer

22:43 ↗ review regardless correct

22:45 ↗ that's correct

22:46 ↗ so we're already having the experts look

22:49 ↗ at each of these sites

22:52 ↗ independently anytime there's an

22:54 ↗ application

22:56 ↗ correct

22:57 ↗ that's correct

22:58 ↗ okay so it seems to me like we should be

23:01 ↗ able to get some flexibility because

23:03 ↗ again all of these are peer-reviewed

23:04 ↗ they're all in critical areas um

23:08 ↗ yeah i guess like i said we're asking

23:10 ↗ questions right now

23:11 ↗ but um okay so each site's independently

23:14 ↗ looked at

23:15 ↗ by experts

23:17 ↗ as you stated earlier that all slopes

23:19 ↗ are unique

23:22 ↗ yes

23:24 ↗ great thank you

23:26 ↗ all right thank you commissioner voice

23:28 ↗ commissioner zargoza you have the floor

23:30 ↗ thank you chair hi richard sarakos so my

23:33 ↗ question i i like the idea of the

23:35 ↗ formula

23:36 ↗ it makes sense that that

23:39 ↗ you know each slope

23:41 ↗ has

23:43 ↗ a buffer according to its size

23:45 ↗ so you know larger slopes would have uh

23:50 ↗ larger buffers smaller slopes have

23:51 ↗ smaller buffers

23:53 ↗ since we're going through the peer

23:54 ↗ reviews

23:56 ↗ oh i guess my

23:57 ↗ question is

23:59 ↗ does that does the formula

24:01 ↗ make it less flexible if it's

24:02 ↗ peer-reviewed and the particulars of a

24:05 ↗ of a specific slope

24:07 ↗ make it

24:08 ↗ much safer to build on even if the

24:11 ↗ buffer requirements

24:13 ↗ um

24:14 ↗ are asking for a larger buffer

24:16 ↗ and the peer review shows that it's

24:18 ↗ safe to build

24:20 ↗ regardless do you still have that

24:22 ↗ flexibility

24:24 ↗ based on the peer review

24:26 ↗ or vice versa

24:28 ↗ the the buffer says says the buffer

24:30 ↗ formula tells you have this much but you

24:32 ↗ know after peer review safety

24:34 ↗ requirements extend that is do we have

24:37 ↗ that flexibility from the peer review

24:40 ↗ so the

24:42 ↗ uh we don't have a formula formulaic uh

24:45 ↗ methodology right now if we incorporated

24:49 ↗ that

24:49 ↗ you could constrain

24:52 ↗ the reduction side of it so you couldn't

24:54 ↗ go below a certain number for a certain

24:56 ↗ size slope and then you could leave the

24:58 ↗ uh

24:59 ↗ more flexibility on increasing the

25:01 ↗ buffer size

25:04 ↗ you know the current code

25:08 ↗ allows

25:09 ↗ flexibility in the

25:11 ↗ application of buffer reduction so you

25:14 ↗ don't necessarily have to grant a buffer

25:16 ↗ reduction for all slopes to the same

25:19 ↗ buffer on a site

25:21 ↗ and that is

25:22 ↗ something i think the peer review

25:24 ↗ process uh

25:25 ↗ will will look at very carefully not

25:28 ↗ granting uniform buffer reductions for

25:31 ↗ all slopes on a site but be very

25:33 ↗ specific to the slope itself

25:38 ↗ uh

25:39 ↗ another part of this question

25:40 ↗ the with the formula

25:42 ↗ you'd have a better

25:44 ↗ you'd have a better understanding as a

25:46 ↗ property owner of

25:48 ↗ you know

25:49 ↗ my slope is much larger so i have you

25:51 ↗ know i can calculate a larger buffer

25:53 ↗ that gives me some sense of

25:55 ↗ the sensitivity of the situation

25:58 ↗ where a 50

25:59 ↗ you know

26:01 ↗ the

26:03 ↗ consistent buffer

26:05 ↗ is just kind of a number that everyone

26:07 ↗ gets

26:08 ↗ will

26:09 ↗ property owners have a better

26:12 ↗ maybe you don't have to answer this but

26:14 ↗ would property owners have a better be

26:16 ↗ able to estimate the sensitivity of

26:18 ↗ their property area with a formula that

26:21 ↗ was more

26:23 ↗ size to their actual slope rather than a

26:26 ↗ a consistent number

26:29 ↗ uh well the benefit of a consistent

26:32 ↗ number is it's one number for every

26:34 ↗ slope uh if you if you apply the formula

26:38 ↗ i'm sure they could if they have a

26:39 ↗ survey of their property they can

26:41 ↗ calculate what that formula

26:44 ↗ would apply how that formula would be

26:46 ↗ applied to their property

26:48 ↗ as the slope elevation or the height of

26:51 ↗ the slope changes

26:53 ↗ the buffer is going to change so it's

26:54 ↗ going to be kind of a wavy line along

26:56 ↗ the top and toes of slopes so it's going

26:58 ↗ to be a little bit more complex to

27:01 ↗ uh to implement you know to draw on a

27:04 ↗ page

27:05 ↗ but it can still be done

27:08 ↗ okay thank you

27:14 ↗ and thank you commissioner zargozo and

27:17 ↗ it's

27:18 ↗ i'm up but because i'm chair i'm going

27:20 ↗ to let

27:21 ↗ commissioner milligan go ahead of me and

27:23 ↗ then i'll just follow up

27:26 ↗ thank you chair fall uh commissioner

27:28 ↗ nina belligen here

27:30 ↗ thanks for the presentation jim and i

27:32 ↗ might be asking some silly questions

27:33 ↗ here so just bear with me it's um it's

27:36 ↗ challenging for me to follow

27:39 ↗ are we

27:41 ↗ only talking about reducing

27:44 ↗ from a 50-foot buffer

27:47 ↗ if the height of the steep slope which

27:49 ↗ is classified at 40

27:52 ↗ is shorter

27:55 ↗ that's the first question

27:56 ↗ shorter than what um

28:00 ↗ yeah i'm sorry

28:02 ↗ just simply for me thank you yeah the if

28:05 ↗ you're talking about the way the

28:07 ↗ code is is

28:08 ↗ being proposed right now

28:10 ↗ uh the 50-foot buffer is applied to any

28:13 ↗ slope

28:14 ↗ that is

28:15 ↗ over 20 feet in height

28:18 ↗ to whatever the maximum might be it

28:20 ↗ could be 100 feet or more

28:22 ↗ the 50 foot buffer applies

28:25 ↗ regardless of the height of the slope

28:29 ↗ and the reduction to 10 feet

28:33 ↗ or something in between

28:35 ↗ has to be granted based on an

28:36 ↗ application and the critical areas code

28:41 ↗ this also applies to landslide hazard

28:43 ↗ areas which might be less than a 40

28:45 ↗ slope also

28:48 ↗ and so in order to

28:50 ↗ be considered

28:52 ↗ the the buffer is

28:55 ↗ a slope a steep slope that is 20 feet or

28:59 ↗ higher

29:00 ↗ and if it's less than 20 feet it does

29:03 ↗ not have this buffer

29:05 ↗ it correct for for a 40 slope it is

29:08 ↗ except

29:09 ↗ and then when you have a and i don't

29:11 ↗ know if we have any of these and it's a

29:13 ↗ quad but if you had a extremely tall

29:16 ↗ i don't know if the camera if the um

29:19 ↗ packet said something like say it's 100

29:20 ↗ feet or 200 feet tall

29:22 ↗ um is it still

29:23 ↗ 50 feet so between a 20 foot high steep

29:27 ↗ slope and a 200 foot high steep slope

29:30 ↗ it's 50.

29:33 ↗ that's correct

29:34 ↗ okay

29:36 ↗ and then

29:40 ↗ i'm trying to understand something that

29:42 ↗ was uh

29:43 ↗ discussed weeks or months ago about uh

29:47 ↗ all steep slopes not being the same and

29:49 ↗ we brought it up again tonight but the

29:51 ↗ only criteria i hear as measuring is the

29:56 ↗ height

29:57 ↗ of the

29:58 ↗ 40

30:00 ↗ so if it's not 40 it's not a steep slope

30:03 ↗ okay here's my last question

30:04 ↗ are there steep slopes that are more

30:06 ↗ than 40 percent

30:09 ↗ yes it's forty percent and greater for a

30:11 ↗ steep slope and a steep slope can be

30:14 ↗ more than forty percent

30:16 ↗ but they're all treated the same

30:21 ↗ yeah okay

30:24 ↗ i don't know if i'm any better off

30:28 ↗ thank you

30:30 ↗ you're welcome thank you commissioner

30:32 ↗ milligan

30:33 ↗ okay so i have a kind of an interesting

30:36 ↗ question um

30:38 ↗ this brings into question the talus

30:40 ↗ property

30:42 ↗ but more

30:46 ↗ directly is the property of

30:49 ↗ newport

30:50 ↗ in

30:51 ↗ northwest juniper which i think is about

30:53 ↗ the 800 block of

30:56 ↗ newport way

30:58 ↗ there was a

30:59 ↗ old white house that was ripped out and

31:01 ↗ they were going to put in a

31:04 ↗ multi-story three or four story um

31:07 ↗ apartment condominium unit there

31:09 ↗ i think it had like a hundred units or

31:11 ↗ something like that

31:13 ↗ uh

31:14 ↗ that is on a steep slope and the

31:16 ↗ property

31:18 ↗ the flat portion of the property is

31:21 ↗ probably not more than 50 feet before it

31:24 ↗ hits the road so technically there would

31:25 ↗ be a steep slope and then

31:28 ↗ the buffer that you were talking about

31:31 ↗ would take up all the flatness of the

31:33 ↗ property so there really wouldn't be

31:35 ↗ any place to build but this

31:37 ↗ particular development was actually

31:39 ↗ going to dig into the mountain to build

31:41 ↗ the unit

31:43 ↗ and

31:45 ↗ i remember talking to um our mayor about

31:49 ↗ building on street on steep slopes and

31:52 ↗ how we can move away from that so that

31:54 ↗ we're not building on steep slopes

31:58 ↗ how would this particular property be

32:01 ↗ affected

32:02 ↗ under this new

32:04 ↗ supposed

32:06 ↗ title 18

32:08 ↗ change

32:11 ↗ so i don't think it would be affected

32:14 ↗ much differently

32:16 ↗ if indeed there was a steep slope

32:19 ↗ on the back side of the property

32:21 ↗ there would be a 50-foot buffer at the

32:24 ↗ toe of that from the toe of that steep

32:26 ↗ slope extending out and if it went all

32:28 ↗ the way to the road

32:31 ↗ then that would be

32:33 ↗ a steep slope buffer they could apply

32:36 ↗ to reduce that buffer

32:38 ↗ and would have to

32:41 ↗ perform a critical area study and

32:43 ↗ demonstrate that the reduction

32:46 ↗ would provide the same level of

32:47 ↗ protection as the 50-foot buffer did

32:53 ↗ okay

32:54 ↗ so technically based on what we're

32:57 ↗ talking about tonight

32:59 ↗ they wouldn't be able to build

33:01 ↗ a

33:02 ↗ unit

33:04 ↗ on this particular property

33:08 ↗ because it's more than 20 feet tall

33:11 ↗ or the steep slope is more than 20 feet

33:13 ↗ tall and has more than 40 percent

33:21 ↗ unless they could

33:22 ↗ get a buffer reduction and then build

33:25 ↗ within the uh the area that is reduced

33:28 ↗ and then i think minnie's gonna possibly

33:30 ↗ talk about um

33:32 ↗ some other legal ramifications of of

33:34 ↗ taking

33:36 ↗ sure before before i'm going to let you

33:38 ↗ go mini here

33:39 ↗ the other question i have regarding this

33:41 ↗ and i think many can probably jump in

33:43 ↗ with us as well

33:45 ↗ is

33:46 ↗ if the city

33:49 ↗ did some sort of peer review variants if

33:51 ↗ we had a mathematical computation to

33:54 ↗ what you know

33:55 ↗ commissioner lewis was discussing as

33:57 ↗ well as one of the questions that you

33:59 ↗ had posed is if we had a science-based

34:03 ↗ [Music]

34:05 ↗ checklist

34:07 ↗ that we would make decisions based on

34:09 ↗ you know what the buffers would be

34:12 ↗ um

34:12 ↗ [Music]

34:14 ↗ and if we it went through peer review as

34:17 ↗ jason was potentially implying

34:20 ↗ and we there was slippage

34:23 ↗ then

34:25 ↗ who would be liable would the city be

34:27 ↗ liable would the developer be liable

34:31 ↗ so that's those are the two questions so

34:34 ↗ mini i'll go ahead and

34:36 ↗ sure um so i'll answer the first one

34:39 ↗ which was if someone's entire property

34:41 ↗ is 40 slope or more

34:44 ↗ and there's no way

34:46 ↗ there's any other area that they can get

34:49 ↗ some reasonable use of their property

34:51 ↗ then the city regulations cannot prevent

34:54 ↗ that their economic value of the

34:56 ↗ property becomes zero

34:58 ↗ so the the that's just um a taking and a

35:03 ↗ and a legal concern

35:05 ↗ um i sent you all um a write-up on a

35:07 ↗ reasonable use exception so cities are

35:09 ↗ required to have that as a due process

35:12 ↗ for every property owner

35:14 ↗ if our regulations completely reduce

35:16 ↗ their property to zero because they

35:18 ↗ can't do anything with it

35:20 ↗ um and what that reasonable use is is

35:23 ↗ determined really on a case-by-case

35:26 ↗ basis and it has to be the minimum

35:28 ↗ um you know development potential to get

35:31 ↗ some economic use out of it not

35:33 ↗ clear-cutting the whole site or anything

35:36 ↗ like that

35:36 ↗ um so

35:38 ↗ so that would be an option that the

35:40 ↗ cities are required to have that as a

35:42 ↗ legal out or a due process for every

35:44 ↗ property

35:46 ↗ obviously we would look at what's the

35:48 ↗ minimum impact and how to minimize all

35:50 ↗ that and that'll be factored in it's a

35:52 ↗ public hearing process under the code

35:54 ↗ right now

35:55 ↗ the property owners next to the property

35:57 ↗ are notified

35:59 ↗ and it it's a specific criteria that

36:01 ↗ they have to meet and and show that

36:04 ↗ there's no other way they can do any

36:06 ↗ development of the property

36:08 ↗ and their economic value is zero

36:10 ↗ um

36:11 ↗ to answer your second question which was

36:14 ↗ uh who is liable or any kind of uh

36:18 ↗ development

36:19 ↗ that if the city approves a buffer

36:21 ↗ reduction and then

36:23 ↗ the slope um

36:24 ↗ fails uh obviously we are not going to

36:26 ↗ approve anything that has a safety

36:28 ↗ consideration or an impact that's the

36:30 ↗ whole point of these rules and

36:32 ↗ regulations is public safety and

36:34 ↗ protection of public you know um

36:37 ↗ safety welfare you know all of those

36:39 ↗ things are the reason why these rules

36:41 ↗ are and that's why they have to be based

36:43 ↗ in science and that's why the technical

36:46 ↗ experts look at all of these and verify

36:48 ↗ that that doesn't happen

36:50 ↗ if it is an accident or an act of

36:53 ↗ mother nature then

36:55 ↗ you know it can depend on the specifics

36:57 ↗ of what caused the landslide um as part

37:00 ↗ of any development on a critical area as

37:03 ↗ getting their permits there is an

37:04 ↗ indemnification form that we make we

37:07 ↗ have uh property owners sign um where

37:10 ↗ the city is not liable for that so

37:12 ↗ that's currently in our process

37:14 ↗ um

37:15 ↗ and and

37:16 ↗ that that is not proposed to change with

37:19 ↗ this

37:20 ↗ which is hold harmless or

37:21 ↗ indemnification whatever you want to

37:22 ↗ call it

37:24 ↗ so

37:25 ↗ okay

37:26 ↗ and to that point uh bringing into the

37:28 ↗ talus

37:29 ↗ situation parcel nine that had the slide

37:32 ↗ the city would have been on the hook for

37:34 ↗ it if the developer had filed bankruptcy

37:37 ↗ so in terms of liability

37:40 ↗ yeah i mean we're not going to discuss

37:41 ↗ litigation right i mean the the who's

37:44 ↗ liable or or not that's

37:46 ↗ not part of your discussion you're

37:48 ↗ looking at the code here

37:50 ↗ and and really looking at whether uh

37:53 ↗ it's protecting

37:55 ↗ um

37:56 ↗ and meeting the this

37:57 ↗ the regulation standpoint so

37:59 ↗ unfortunately you know we can't get into

38:02 ↗ legal

38:03 ↗ concerns or issues of a particular site

38:05 ↗ or a property

38:07 ↗ understood but again i'm getting back to

38:10 ↗ we're talking about peer review and the

38:12 ↗ ability to

38:14 ↗ um

38:16 ↗ make changes

38:17 ↗ based on judgment of because not all

38:20 ↗ slopes are treated the same because

38:21 ↗ they're not the construction may not

38:23 ↗ appear all the same but if we're going

38:25 ↗ to allow developers to possibly build on

38:28 ↗ a steep slope or convert it to a less

38:30 ↗ steep slope

38:31 ↗ or build within the buffer zone and

38:34 ↗ there's slide

38:37 ↗ as a result of that development

38:40 ↗ then

38:42 ↗ this

38:43 ↗ basically is

38:46 ↗ an adjustment to a property to make it

38:50 ↗ allowable to be built

38:53 ↗ when it may not be prudent to build

38:57 ↗ you're absolutely correct that's why we

38:59 ↗ have these regulations to prevent those

39:01 ↗ kind of

39:03 ↗ incidences we don't want landslides and

39:05 ↗ we don't want um

39:07 ↗ people to be hurt or you know

39:10 ↗ public safety is paramount in the

39:12 ↗ geologically hazard

39:14 ↗ areas regulations now when we when we

39:16 ↗ discuss wetlands and streams there is

39:18 ↗ the protection of the habitat but this

39:21 ↗ particular

39:22 ↗ topic the focus is really public safety

39:25 ↗ and and and making sure that

39:28 ↗ development doesn't occur that creates

39:30 ↗ those kind of problems that's the whole

39:32 ↗ premise of having these regulations

39:34 ↗ okay all right thank you minnie

39:39 ↗ another question from commissioner voice

39:41 ↗ do you have the floor

39:43 ↗ thank you a quick question anyone from

39:45 ↗ the city can answer it

39:47 ↗ wondering how many

39:49 ↗ different

39:50 ↗ different

39:51 ↗ situations we've had to date

39:54 ↗ of landslides caused by these steep

39:57 ↗ slopes have occurred in the city within

39:59 ↗ last 20 years

40:01 ↗ just a round number

40:03 ↗ zero

40:04 ↗ i actually have that number i think

40:10 ↗ so i want to make a distinction here

40:13 ↗ that um

40:15 ↗ most of the landslides that have

40:17 ↗ occurred since uh the 1990s

40:20 ↗ have not been on steep slopes

40:23 ↗ they've been on slopes that are less

40:25 ↗ than 40 percent

40:27 ↗ examples of those are

40:29 ↗ talus parcel 9

40:31 ↗ the foothills landslide

40:35 ↗ goody place

40:37 ↗ and the west side reservoir

40:39 ↗ those were on not on steep slopes

40:44 ↗ so in your professional opinion mr

40:46 ↗ johnson

40:47 ↗ what do you think of the current

40:48 ↗ regulations

40:53 ↗ i think the current regulations you talk

40:55 ↗ about the ones that we are proposing or

40:57 ↗ the ones that are in existence now the

40:59 ↗ ones that are in existence now

41:02 ↗ um

41:03 ↗ in my professional opinion they needed

41:06 ↗ to i thought the the codes as oppo

41:10 ↗ where it came to buffers

41:12 ↗ was pretty adequate i thought they

41:15 ↗ needed some help in

41:18 ↗ defining the roles of the

41:21 ↗ uh professionals involved in the

41:23 ↗ analysis

41:25 ↗ of the critical areas

41:27 ↗ and some rigor in uh

41:30 ↗ the critical areas reports themselves

41:33 ↗ uh and and in the peer review process

41:37 ↗ because i think

41:38 ↗ everybody really wants to do the right

41:40 ↗ thing when it comes to to critical area

41:43 ↗ slopes

41:45 ↗ and also other critical areas but

41:48 ↗ sometimes they lack the guidance

41:50 ↗ so i thought getting better guidance in

41:52 ↗ their in the uh code about what is uh

41:55 ↗ needed and what is uh expected of the

41:58 ↗ applicants and their professionals to to

42:00 ↗ look at uh in preparing these reports

42:04 ↗ i didn't think that you know except in

42:07 ↗ the occasional sections that we really

42:09 ↗ needed more

42:10 ↗ uh regulation like buffers and things

42:12 ↗ like that there were a couple

42:14 ↗ situations like that

42:16 ↗ great thank you

42:21 ↗ okay thank you commissioner voice i'm

42:23 ↗ not sending any uh additional questions

42:26 ↗ so let's go ahead and go into uh the

42:28 ↗ deliberations of the questions

42:31 ↗ um so question one should steep slope

42:34 ↗ buffer reductions be further tightened

42:36 ↗ if so one option is stated and if the

42:39 ↗ vertical height of the slope is more

42:40 ↗ than x feet

42:42 ↗ based on science then it is ineligible

42:44 ↗ for buffer reduction

42:47 ↗ so if we can go ahead and answer that

42:50 ↗ question or come up with a consensus on

42:52 ↗ it uh i think that would help jim a lot

42:54 ↗ and then we'll get question two in

42:56 ↗ question number three

43:04 ↗ and commissioner milligan comment

43:07 ↗ i'll go ahead and break the ice because

43:09 ↗ i i'm uh commissioner milligan here 90

43:11 ↗ milligan

43:15 ↗ i think what i want to say is that

43:19 ↗ as far as buffer reduction is concerned

43:21 ↗ we already have a floor

43:23 ↗ that a steep slope is not

43:26 ↗ a hazard unless it's over 20 feet

43:29 ↗ so we've already taken into

43:31 ↗ consideration the assumption that was

43:33 ↗ made in the beginning of the slideshow

43:35 ↗ and was somewhere in our packet that if

43:37 ↗ it's you know a couple feet high but

43:38 ↗ it's steep it's not going to be a hazard

43:40 ↗ because there's not

43:42 ↗ a lot of um there's nowhere to go

43:45 ↗ so we've got a 20 foot

43:47 ↗ base already however i am following the

43:51 ↗ the logic here and

43:53 ↗ and tend to agree with the idea that

43:57 ↗ uh there should be

43:58 ↗ a more um a variable approach based on

44:02 ↗ the circumstances indeed but i think

44:05 ↗ that it's oversimplifying just to say

44:07 ↗ that

44:09 ↗ um 40 or more whatever it is

44:13 ↗ based on its height should have a buffer

44:16 ↗ reduction i think there might and i

44:18 ↗ don't know how you would do this but i'm

44:19 ↗ hoping that there's something that's a

44:21 ↗ little more sophisticated

44:23 ↗ that a steeper slope with a shorter

44:27 ↗ run

44:28 ↗ would have less of a buffer reduction

44:31 ↗ than a 40 percent slope with a shorter

44:34 ↗ run if you if i'm saying that correctly

44:36 ↗ i think there's there's one more

44:38 ↗ calculation that comes into this math

44:40 ↗ uh i'll leave it to you to think about

44:42 ↗ that um but i do appreciate the

44:44 ↗ variation but i also want to

44:47 ↗ recognize that between

44:49 ↗ 40 slope and some of these really steep

44:52 ↗ ones like chair fall was bringing up

44:54 ↗ there's a lot to work with there

44:56 ↗ and then uh in closing though i want to

44:58 ↗ um

44:59 ↗ really amplify

45:02 ↗ the um comments about the peer review mr

45:05 ↗ johnson made a really great point that

45:07 ↗ um harken me back to previous um

45:10 ↗ applications that came through me as a

45:11 ↗ land use commissioner approving things

45:14 ↗ that uh i sometimes felt that the rigor

45:17 ↗ of the review and the information that

45:19 ↗ was brought to me and it said hey it's

45:21 ↗ okay to build here

45:22 ↗ um was not convincing

45:25 ↗ and i think that we're not being asked

45:27 ↗ that question but i am so glad you

45:28 ↗ brought that up that uh wherever you can

45:32 ↗ increase

45:33 ↗ the

45:35 ↗ veracity and of the

45:38 ↗ study itself that is being brought to

45:40 ↗ the staff

45:42 ↗ i think that is one place where we have

45:44 ↗ more need for improvement

45:46 ↗ thank you

45:50 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan and

45:51 ↗ commissioner voice you have the floor

45:54 ↗ great thank you chairfell

45:55 ↗ um

45:57 ↗ so i'm ultimately someone who likes to

45:59 ↗ give you guys a lot more flexibility

46:00 ↗ than maybe some other people

46:02 ↗ i don't see why we pick out arbitrary

46:05 ↗ numbers i know again trying to harken

46:07 ↗ back to a couple meetings ago someone

46:09 ↗ just well let's just do either do half

46:11 ↗ or 50. and again we're not technical

46:12 ↗ experts so when i hear some people just

46:15 ↗ throw out these numbers

46:16 ↗ um sometimes it just seems arbitrary to

46:18 ↗ me i like what nina had just mentioned

46:20 ↗ commissioner milligan

46:22 ↗ and uh as well as you mr johnson about

46:25 ↗ tightening up some of these peer reviews

46:27 ↗ getting a better definition of who

46:29 ↗ qualifies as an expert

46:31 ↗ but ultimately each of these situations

46:33 ↗ are different and unique you're already

46:35 ↗ going through the process of looking at

46:37 ↗ the site independently

46:39 ↗ so again i'm going to favor more

46:41 ↗ flexibility

46:42 ↗ towards

46:44 ↗ the scientists i mean right that's the

46:45 ↗ whole point we're supposed to be

46:46 ↗ listening and following the science so

46:48 ↗ my understanding would be why don't we

46:50 ↗ let the people who are the experts the

46:53 ↗ engineers to come in

46:55 ↗ because i don't know what the number is

46:57 ↗ and i'd i'd be lying to say that's 10 or

46:59 ↗ 20 feet i don't know

47:01 ↗ i do know we have a dwindling land

47:03 ↗ supply

47:04 ↗ so it would have been a shame if the

47:06 ↗ sunrise apartments weren't able to be

47:08 ↗ built

47:08 ↗ there because in the big picture um the

47:12 ↗ lead the less amount of building we're

47:14 ↗ able to do especially as we start

47:17 ↗ becoming more compact

47:19 ↗ the more the less affordable is the quad

47:21 ↗ is going to be so i think we have to

47:23 ↗ look for some unique ways and some

47:25 ↗ flexibility and i think this is one area

47:27 ↗ where again we're already talking about

47:29 ↗ a very small amount of critical areas

47:31 ↗ that have to trigger this review but

47:34 ↗ once the reviews in there and again i

47:35 ↗ agree we should have people that are

47:37 ↗ better defined at what they're doing

47:39 ↗ again not not a staff report

47:41 ↗ but if they're already going through

47:42 ↗ this critical review process bringing in

47:44 ↗ experts from the state um to me that

47:47 ↗ should suffice

47:48 ↗ so

47:50 ↗ that's my two cents

48:27 ↗ chair fall you're muted

48:31 ↗ thank you sorry uh are there any

48:33 ↗ additional uh oh here's an additional

48:36 ↗ comment right here uh commissioner lewis

48:41 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

48:42 ↗ lewis uh to put it quickly i'm gonna say

48:45 ↗ yes um that we definitely need to be um

48:47 ↗ tightening up the restrictions but i am

48:50 ↗ not at this point um a proponent of

48:53 ↗ making anything ineligible again i want

48:56 ↗ to rely on our team of experts i know

48:59 ↗ that our staff does right this isn't a

49:01 ↗ number that even our staff is able to

49:03 ↗ pull out and say this is the right place

49:05 ↗ to fit because again slopes and

49:07 ↗ properties are different and so i don't

49:08 ↗ want to have an absolute value that

49:10 ↗ we're giving of saying that this is what

49:12 ↗ it is

49:13 ↗ the same way that we would maybe in

49:15 ↗ other areas of our code

49:17 ↗ so i certainly want to allow for that

49:19 ↗ and i want to also

49:21 ↗ echo the comments of nyneb commissioner

49:23 ↗ milligan to be able to say that

49:26 ↗ i have also seen

49:28 ↗ reports come to me where they haven't

49:30 ↗ necessarily proven the point but they

49:32 ↗ check the box and what we want to do is

49:34 ↗ make sure that we are acting on

49:36 ↗ information that we believe is in the

49:38 ↗ best interest of the individual property

49:40 ↗ and of the community rather than

49:42 ↗ necessarily the applicant who's looking

49:44 ↗ at it from more of an economic

49:46 ↗ standpoint than a safety standpoint so i

49:49 ↗ i want us to be able to strike that

49:50 ↗ balance if that that's helpful thank you

49:58 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

49:59 ↗ commissioner zargoza

50:01 ↗ thank you chair richard zaragoza i

50:04 ↗ i'm in uh

50:08 ↗ commissioner voices camp i think if

50:10 ↗ we're increasing

50:13 ↗ the quality of those reviews

50:15 ↗ then that gives us the flexibility to

50:17 ↗ make the right choices based on science

50:19 ↗ for that particular slope

50:21 ↗ um

50:22 ↗ if that's the case

50:25 ↗ then

50:26 ↗ i mean i'm i feel like i'm fine with not

50:29 ↗ with

50:31 ↗ with not tightening or not uh

50:34 ↗ you know making anything ineligible

50:37 ↗ um automatically

50:38 ↗ if there's a peer review

50:40 ↗ if there's quality science that says you

50:43 ↗ know

50:44 ↗ we can have flexibility here we can

50:45 ↗ reduce that if if if safe then i think

50:49 ↗ that's enough

50:52 ↗ that's it thanks okay thank you

50:54 ↗ commissioner zargozo okay so to address

50:57 ↗ question one

50:59 ↗ if i'm

51:00 ↗ understanding this correct

51:03 ↗ there is a general consensus to say that

51:09 ↗ we want

51:10 ↗ more educated

51:14 ↗ reports and analysis done on steep

51:17 ↗ slopes

51:18 ↗ and more emphasis on

51:20 ↗ qualified peer review

51:23 ↗ to allow

51:24 ↗ development

51:26 ↗ in the buffer zones

51:28 ↗ of steep slopes

51:31 ↗ commissioners nods yes is that kind of

51:33 ↗ where we're going with this

51:36 ↗ i'm just going to unmute myself

51:38 ↗ commissioner voice i think what we all

51:40 ↗ agreed upon even if um

51:42 ↗ we might have gone a little bit like

51:43 ↗ this is again a better definition of who

51:46 ↗ qualifies as an expert

51:49 ↗ to the commissioner lewis and

51:51 ↗ commissioner milligan's point is again

51:53 ↗ that you know the reports

51:55 ↗ should be heavily weighted because of

51:57 ↗ the time the process it takes but yeah

51:59 ↗ we don't want to see reports that check

52:01 ↗ boxes but if we can get that tightened

52:03 ↗ up i think we can all agree at the very

52:05 ↗ least we can rely on these reports a lot

52:08 ↗ more than just having arbitrary

52:09 ↗ standards i don't know if that anyone

52:11 ↗ would agree with that

52:12 ↗ um it doesn't necessarily mean there

52:14 ↗ can't be

52:15 ↗ like you know and this is one thing i'll

52:17 ↗ just say for me i i appreciate

52:18 ↗ commissioner lewis saying we want some

52:20 ↗ consistency so people know i think my

52:23 ↗ point is if we're going to go through

52:24 ↗ this we're going to tighten up what

52:26 ↗ qualifies as a peer review we're going

52:28 ↗ to qualify who can actually conduct

52:30 ↗ these um then we should allow it to have

52:33 ↗ the weight

52:34 ↗ that you would think it would have but i

52:36 ↗ think at least we all agree that yes

52:38 ↗ stronger peer reviews better definitions

52:41 ↗ of who qualifies as an expert

52:44 ↗ and uh

52:46 ↗ planar johnson do you have any

52:48 ↗ questions

52:49 ↗ regarding our

52:54 ↗ discussion around question one

52:57 ↗ or did we were we able to answer your

52:59 ↗ question

53:00 ↗ sure if i may chair fall um i think what

53:04 ↗ we asked was should we leave the 50-foot

53:07 ↗ buffer and and allow reductions based on

53:11 ↗ science and specific

53:13 ↗ requirements the way the code is written

53:15 ↗ right now we have tightened the

53:16 ↗ requirements for

53:18 ↗ experts we've defined geologists hydro

53:21 ↗ geologists and who needs what if there's

53:24 ↗ water then you also need you know this

53:26 ↗ expert to weigh in all those things are

53:28 ↗ already in you in the draft so those

53:30 ↗ have been tightened

53:32 ↗ we also have titan what this critical

53:35 ↗ area study should include so that's a

53:37 ↗ pretty robust um rewrite of the

53:41 ↗ requirements in the report

53:43 ↗ um the setback was left at 50 feet but

53:46 ↗ there was additional criteria added for

53:48 ↗ when we would grant it it won't be

53:51 ↗ so arbitrary of you know this someone

53:54 ↗ made a case and we would grant them but

53:55 ↗ there was there's a specific criteria in

53:57 ↗ the code

53:58 ↗ now which didn't exist before so it's

54:01 ↗ more robust criteria for approval the

54:03 ↗ question we asked was is that enough or

54:06 ↗ should we change that number 50 feet to

54:10 ↗ be a sliding scale you know we don't

54:13 ↗ need to figure out what that math

54:14 ↗ formula is today that would be something

54:16 ↗ we'll rely on jim to come up with

54:18 ↗ options and analysis for a future time

54:21 ↗ but is 50

54:23 ↗ okay or do we need to kind of go back

54:25 ↗ and look at that formula on a sliding

54:27 ↗ scale based on some characteristics of

54:29 ↗ the slope

54:32 ↗ so i heard three of you say yes two of

54:35 ↗ you are satisfied with 50 feet

54:38 ↗ uh commissioner milligan has a question

54:42 ↗ i have a comment

54:44 ↗ thank you paul

54:46 ↗ commissioner milligan

54:48 ↗ uh thank you for

54:50 ↗ trying to

54:51 ↗ help the staff listen to us

54:53 ↗ but i want to say here that you know we

54:56 ↗ are a voice about this but they're

54:58 ↗ talking to the public they're talking to

55:00 ↗ other boards and commissions

55:01 ↗ and

55:02 ↗ and i don't

55:04 ↗ know that we have to agree

55:07 ↗ this group

55:08 ↗ to provide valuable information to our

55:11 ↗ to the staff because the staff is going

55:13 ↗ to be weighing not just what we say but

55:16 ↗ the other things that they learn as they

55:19 ↗ take these things around so i appreciate

55:21 ↗ the

55:22 ↗ a variety of voices that we've had

55:24 ↗ tonight and we've listened to each other

55:26 ↗ and i think that we've

55:28 ↗ provided some rich feedback i don't

55:30 ↗ think that we all agree and i don't

55:31 ↗ think we have to

55:33 ↗ that's fine we can just capture that but

55:35 ↗ you will be making a recommendation to

55:37 ↗ council

55:38 ↗ um so um that's where we'll capture this

55:41 ↗ is it wasn't you know three to two

55:46 ↗ in support of yeah great

55:49 ↗ oh oh there's uh commissioner bader

55:53 ↗ you want to weigh in

55:56 ↗ i don't even know what you're talking

55:58 ↗ about

56:02 ↗ good answer

56:04 ↗ well welcome uh commissioner bader uh

56:07 ↗ okay commissioner zaragoza you have a

56:09 ↗ comment

56:10 ↗ thank you chair uh richard siricos i

56:12 ↗ just wanted to clarify that um

56:15 ↗ yes what what uh

56:18 ↗ what what you what minnie just said

56:20 ↗ um i think the 50 feet

56:22 ↗ as it is now is adequate with the

56:24 ↗ increase in the quality of the reports

56:28 ↗ that's it okay thank you commissioner

56:30 ↗ zargozo

56:32 ↗ okay uh so i'm actually going to be in

56:35 ↗ uh nina's camp commissioner milligan's

56:37 ↗ camp uh i think she's right i don't know

56:40 ↗ that we're all going to exactly agree

56:42 ↗ with this but by the time you get done

56:44 ↗ floating this around to different

56:47 ↗ boards and different in city council

56:49 ↗ you're probably going to come up with a

56:51 ↗ slightly different answer

56:54 ↗ okay so question number two

56:56 ↗ uh

56:58 ↗ oh let's see we have a commissioner

57:00 ↗ voice has one more comment here

57:05 ↗ you caught me as i was typing in

57:07 ↗ nevermind

57:10 ↗ oh okay uh okay going moving on to

57:13 ↗ question number two should additional

57:15 ↗ research be undertaken for additional

57:16 ↗ protections for peak that is not

57:18 ↗ regulated as a wetland if additional

57:20 ↗ protections for pete are desired by ppc

57:22 ↗ then additional researchers need to

57:24 ↗ answer the following questions

57:29 ↗ so what types of quantity of p

57:31 ↗ deposits are environmentally significant

57:33 ↗ and worth protecting

57:35 ↗ what types of geotechnical design

57:37 ↗ standards can be used to minimize peat

57:39 ↗ removal in development areas

57:41 ↗ and can the decay and release of co2

57:43 ↗ from be prevented from excavation by

57:46 ↗ re-burial in another location

57:49 ↗ uh comments on

57:52 ↗ question number two

58:01 ↗ and commissioner lewis do you have the

58:02 ↗ floor

58:04 ↗ thank you chair follow commissioner joy

58:06 ↗ lewis jim i really appreciate you what

58:08 ↗ you said something earlier about pete's

58:09 ↗ because it was my big point um when i

58:12 ↗ that i was coming to prepare it is that

58:13 ↗ there are different types of pete

58:16 ↗ and without a code that addresses that

58:18 ↗ it feels completely inadequate so i have

58:21 ↗ a resounding yes i would love for staff

58:24 ↗ to be able to tell me more about this is

58:27 ↗ what we need to do to be able to answer

58:29 ↗ these questions i need to hire an expert

58:32 ↗ i'm going to go to council and say this

58:33 ↗ is how much it's going to cost i would

58:35 ↗ love to be able to say have staff be

58:37 ↗ actually presenting to me saying if you

58:39 ↗ want to go this route this is what it is

58:41 ↗ because from this standpoint from where

58:43 ↗ i've been reading we are wholly

58:45 ↗ inadequate in our code of addressing

58:47 ↗ pete

58:48 ↗ i can tell you from just a water

58:50 ↗ standpoint when we want to talk about

58:52 ↗ how we're recharging our critical

58:54 ↗ aquifers

58:55 ↗ how we're directing groundwater pete is

58:57 ↗ very important and the idea that we

58:59 ↗ would say

59:00 ↗ uh i think it's sort of covered in most

59:04 ↗ critical areas but i am not being

59:06 ↗ provided a map of what is and isn't i'm

59:09 ↗ not being told what areas are not

59:11 ↗ covered right the language we had in our

59:13 ↗ document showed we overwhelmingly need

59:16 ↗ to have more research done on this to be

59:18 ↗ able to properly address it and we need

59:20 ↗ to be also informing our code of saying

59:22 ↗ what types of peat we want to cover

59:24 ↗ because there is a variety of things

59:27 ↗ uh that are not being looked at right

59:29 ↗ now so i hope that helps thanks

59:34 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis and are

59:35 ↗ there any additional comments

59:40 ↗ and commissioner zorgozzo you have the

59:42 ↗ floor

59:43 ↗ thank you richard sergosa i'll just back

59:46 ↗ joy i think knowledge is power so the

59:48 ↗ more we know about the pete and issaquah

59:49 ↗ uh that's always a good thing

59:53 ↗ thank you commissioner zargoza

59:55 ↗ commissioner voice you have the floor

59:58 ↗ i say also i want to say something about

1:00:00 ↗ pete

1:00:02 ↗ now it's just it fits so well but

1:00:04 ↗ we want to keep this serious so

1:00:06 ↗ everything that commissioner uh seracosa

1:00:09 ↗ and commissioner lewis mentioned but i'd

1:00:11 ↗ also like to see a little bit of

1:00:12 ↗ analysis if we're going to do a deep

1:00:14 ↗ dive in a deep study i'd like to know

1:00:16 ↗ what it kind of costs the site

1:00:17 ↗ developers and the builders and all the

1:00:19 ↗ people that make our wonderful city a

1:00:20 ↗ city um what is also if we're going to

1:00:23 ↗ do an analysis let's do it

1:00:25 ↗ so let's also try and include that so

1:00:28 ↗ again some analysis about

1:00:30 ↗ what it costs to remove

1:00:32 ↗ dispose of

1:00:34 ↗ all of it so that would be my two cents

1:00:36 ↗ for that

1:00:38 ↗ and thank you commissioner voice

1:00:40 ↗ um so i'm actually going to be in i

1:00:43 ↗ think my back what commissioner lewis

1:00:45 ↗ said one of the questions that i really

1:00:47 ↗ have is what's the environmental impact

1:00:49 ↗ of removing it

1:00:52 ↗ are we better off leaving the peat there

1:00:54 ↗ what does it do to the land

1:00:56 ↗ things like that so going back to

1:00:58 ↗ analysis i think we need more analysis i

1:01:00 ↗ don't have i i can't answer question

1:01:03 ↗ number two because i just don't have the

1:01:04 ↗ expertise to do that but i think we

1:01:06 ↗ definitely need more research

1:01:08 ↗ and more

1:01:09 ↗ information to be able to make decisions

1:01:15 ↗ and so uh planner johnson does that

1:01:18 ↗ answer or address your question number

1:01:20 ↗ two

1:01:27 ↗ yes i think that gives a pretty clear

1:01:28 ↗ direction thank you

1:01:31 ↗ okay excellent and so moving on to

1:01:33 ↗ question number three

1:01:34 ↗ the proposed changes meet the goals and

1:01:36 ↗ outcomes for this update or are they

1:01:38 ↗ additional changes desired

1:01:40 ↗ comments

1:01:46 ↗ and commissioner lewis you have the

1:01:48 ↗ floor

1:01:49 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

1:01:51 ↗ lewis on question three i want to give a

1:01:52 ↗ resounding yes i think that goal number

1:01:55 ↗ one of protecting our force at hillsides

1:01:57 ↗ uh on this topic has been addressed and

1:01:59 ↗ i really appreciate the work from staff

1:02:01 ↗ thank you

1:02:05 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis and

1:02:06 ↗ commissioner milligan the other floor

1:02:10 ↗ thank you nina milligan here uh i want

1:02:12 ↗ to say uh yes and thank you too to the

1:02:15 ↗ staff uh for the work one thing that i

1:02:18 ↗ have been sharing with the public is

1:02:20 ↗ that gosh you know if if you don't get

1:02:22 ↗ everything you wish for this christmas

1:02:24 ↗ uh this is such an improvement

1:02:27 ↗ and that i'm so glad we're heading this

1:02:29 ↗ direction and i want to point out one of

1:02:30 ↗ my favorite things

1:02:32 ↗ that was in our packet but not in the

1:02:34 ↗ discussion and that is under the

1:02:35 ↗ significant changes list

1:02:38 ↗ under general

1:02:39 ↗ uh where it says the residential density

1:02:41 ↗ with sites containing critical areas can

1:02:43 ↗ only use the developer book area when

1:02:45 ↗ determining the allowed

1:02:47 ↗ residential units and i just want to

1:02:50 ↗ thank you for that

1:02:52 ↗ that's it

1:02:55 ↗ and thank you commissioner milligan

1:02:57 ↗ and i am not seeing additional comments

1:02:59 ↗ based on question number three so again

1:03:02 ↗ thank you very much for organizing that

1:03:05 ↗ uh and i think we're moving on to

1:03:07 ↗ wetlands

1:03:13 ↗ actually our

1:03:14 ↗ second topic will be uh cara

1:03:17 ↗ the critical aquifer recharge um

1:03:22 ↗ uh if that's all right with the

1:03:23 ↗ commission we want to let some of the

1:03:25 ↗ staff go who are here uh just for that

1:03:29 ↗ special topic

1:03:31 ↗ i'm seeing head nods so i'm going to go

1:03:33 ↗ ahead and share the screen that's fine

1:03:41 ↗ all right thank you i am as you may

1:03:43 ↗ remember i'm gary simmik i'm your

1:03:47 ↗ utilities engineering and environmental

1:03:49 ↗ program division uh manager

1:03:52 ↗ uh we also have with us our cara

1:03:56 ↗ subject matter expert julie wartes who

1:03:58 ↗ will answer any uh

1:04:00 ↗ detailed questions you might have

1:04:02 ↗ so cara let me just start out with two

1:04:05 ↗ two context pieces uh one i think we're

1:04:08 ↗ really lucky to be having this

1:04:10 ↗ discussion uh because a lot of our

1:04:12 ↗ neighbors don't have a recharge area

1:04:15 ↗ reminder that about 40 percent of our

1:04:17 ↗ water comes from our aquifer redmond

1:04:19 ↗ where i where i used to work also have

1:04:21 ↗ that and a few other locations

1:04:24 ↗ so this helps us reduce our rates but

1:04:27 ↗ it's also an amazing resiliency for us

1:04:30 ↗ in the case of an emergency to have

1:04:32 ↗ water from our aquifer so i just

1:04:34 ↗ uh just want to heighten the importance

1:04:37 ↗ of this this is

1:04:39 ↗ because of that

1:04:40 ↗ uh the second piece just of context i

1:04:42 ↗ did mention i used to work for for

1:04:44 ↗ redmond and right before i left we

1:04:46 ↗ finished this exact work which i had

1:04:49 ↗ worked on for two years so some of the

1:04:51 ↗ changes your proposals you're going to

1:04:53 ↗ see are from the work that i i

1:04:55 ↗ incorporated that i conducted at redmond

1:04:57 ↗ and brought here

1:04:59 ↗ uh that again was a was done on as

1:05:01 ↗ you'll see here on the basis of sound

1:05:04 ↗ science

1:05:05 ↗ so again the car um this is for our

1:05:09 ↗ aquifer that provides us potable water

1:05:11 ↗ um it also feeds of course our receiving

1:05:14 ↗ water bodies and lake samanage so it's

1:05:16 ↗ really not not just about our water

1:05:18 ↗ supply which is of course hugely

1:05:20 ↗ important but also for the environment

1:05:22 ↗ and our major changes

1:05:24 ↗ again as you've noticed through the the

1:05:26 ↗ staff report our increased car

1:05:28 ↗ classifications our revised map

1:05:31 ↗ developed triggers for studies and then

1:05:33 ↗ prohibited and restricted uses we could

1:05:36 ↗ go on to the next slide please lucy

1:05:39 ↗ so this could be a shopping shocking map

1:05:42 ↗ but i i just want to tell you that what

1:05:44 ↗ you're going to see here from the new to

1:05:46 ↗ the old is based on the best science

1:05:49 ↗ and i also really want to emphasize that

1:05:51 ↗ this uh quite dramatic change in the

1:05:54 ↗ mapping we also experienced at redmond

1:05:57 ↗ and that is because the the science has

1:06:00 ↗ changed

1:06:01 ↗ uh since this has last been done 2004 we

1:06:03 ↗ did the last update in 2001 at redmond

1:06:06 ↗ and we saw a much larger area

1:06:08 ↗ that's because of the tools that we use

1:06:11 ↗ the the software but also because of the

1:06:13 ↗ data that's available thanks to the uw

1:06:15 ↗ and other places that have a lot of

1:06:17 ↗ geological records

1:06:19 ↗ so um

1:06:20 ↗ that's why this quite drastic change uh

1:06:24 ↗ is occurring so on the left we see the

1:06:26 ↗ existing map

1:06:27 ↗ uh which have three classifications and

1:06:30 ↗ we're proposing to go to four

1:06:32 ↗ and what i just wanna to share with you

1:06:34 ↗ here the the

1:06:36 ↗ big change here is

1:06:38 ↗ uh

1:06:39 ↗ globally the the ten year uh travel time

1:06:43 ↗ so again that's

1:06:44 ↗ the time that it takes a drop of water

1:06:47 ↗ hits the ground percolate and get to one

1:06:49 ↗ of our wells

1:06:50 ↗ so that's the blue light blue in on the

1:06:53 ↗ right side

1:06:54 ↗ uh as compared to

1:06:56 ↗ um the green

1:06:58 ↗ on the left side so a larger area again

1:07:03 ↗ based on best science but that's that's

1:07:05 ↗ kind of the really big development here

1:07:07 ↗ and again based on geology and

1:07:11 ↗ particle transport

1:07:12 ↗ uh so the four areas that we have uh uh

1:07:17 ↗ on the car a class one

1:07:19 ↗ is a high or uh medium uh recharge

1:07:23 ↗ potential

1:07:24 ↗ and then five years

1:07:26 ↗ to reach our well cara 2 is again that

1:07:29 ↗ one or five-year boundary to reach our

1:07:32 ↗ well

1:07:33 ↗ but a lower recharge potential so soils

1:07:36 ↗ that don't allow as much infiltration

1:07:39 ↗ class 3 then goes to a 10-year travel

1:07:42 ↗ time to get to our wells with a higher

1:07:45 ↗ medium infiltration and then

1:07:48 ↗ again the last classification which is

1:07:50 ↗ the beige

1:07:52 ↗ class 4 is that 10-year time to get to

1:07:55 ↗ our wells but a very low infiltration

1:07:57 ↗ rate

1:07:59 ↗ so let's see if you could go to the next

1:08:01 ↗ slide please

1:08:04 ↗ so um we're gonna you know get to your

1:08:06 ↗ question but let me just kind of

1:08:07 ↗ summarize at a high level these changes

1:08:10 ↗ and if you have any questions

1:08:12 ↗ julie or myself could answer them but

1:08:14 ↗ again the specific changes we're talking

1:08:15 ↗ about are going to that forward

1:08:17 ↗ designation based on the hydrologic

1:08:19 ↗ study

1:08:20 ↗ and incorporate

1:08:22 ↗ that map into our code

1:08:25 ↗ uh

1:08:26 ↗ you also noticed as part of the uh

1:08:28 ↗ package uh

1:08:30 ↗ prohibited and restricted uh use types

1:08:32 ↗ that we will be incorporating and again

1:08:35 ↗ uh and then also um requirements for

1:08:37 ↗ best management practices

1:08:40 ↗ i want to say a couple things about

1:08:41 ↗ those a lot of those came from my work

1:08:43 ↗ at redmond that we brought here just

1:08:45 ↗ talked about them in detail with many

1:08:48 ↗ and other scientists across the city and

1:08:49 ↗ thought they would be a good fit here

1:08:52 ↗ but i also want to just emphasize

1:08:55 ↗ they're a balanced approach we believe

1:08:57 ↗ they're a balanced approach they're

1:08:58 ↗ based on science

1:09:00 ↗ we're trying to protect our aquifer

1:09:02 ↗ protect our environment with this but

1:09:04 ↗ we're also trying to

1:09:06 ↗ um

1:09:07 ↗ as i think one of the commissioners

1:09:09 ↗ mentioned uh not completely restrict

1:09:11 ↗ business practices right we want to

1:09:13 ↗ encourage businesses

1:09:15 ↗ um so we're not trying to eliminate

1:09:17 ↗ everything from the area but we're just

1:09:19 ↗ we're trying to eliminate um

1:09:22 ↗ actions

1:09:23 ↗ of businesses that practices practices

1:09:26 ↗ that could cause harm so i'm hoping we

1:09:29 ↗ are striking that balance with the code

1:09:31 ↗ that you

1:09:32 ↗ see and then finally there yes there is

1:09:35 ↗ more research to do just like uh in the

1:09:37 ↗ last presentation with steep slopes

1:09:39 ↗ there's much more work we can do with

1:09:40 ↗ the science

1:09:42 ↗ as it's always evolving and i just want

1:09:44 ↗ to highlight a few things we're going to

1:09:45 ↗ continue to working on

1:09:47 ↗ that that probably won't make it into

1:09:48 ↗ this code but the next time around

1:09:50 ↗ you'll probably see some changes we want

1:09:52 ↗ to evaluate the practices

1:09:54 ↗ that could inhibit redirect or reduce of

1:09:57 ↗ the volume of groundwater flow reaching

1:09:59 ↗ our wells

1:10:01 ↗ we also want to look at uh in

1:10:03 ↗ combination with that what dewatering

1:10:04 ↗ temporary construction watering might

1:10:06 ↗ have

1:10:07 ↗ to do with how the groundwater is moving

1:10:10 ↗ around and reaching our wells

1:10:13 ↗ and that other underground construction

1:10:15 ↗ activities such as sheep pile driving

1:10:18 ↗ what does that do from a water quality

1:10:20 ↗ perspective so we're going to be looking

1:10:21 ↗ into that more

1:10:23 ↗ and then also infiltration guidelines is

1:10:26 ↗ something we need to look

1:10:28 ↗ we are looking into that as you've uh

1:10:30 ↗ seen with our stormwater code but that

1:10:32 ↗ is a as again a topic that continues to

1:10:35 ↗ be emerging and involving so we need to

1:10:37 ↗ follow that

1:10:39 ↗ so um that's what we have here today

1:10:42 ↗ again those are the significant changes

1:10:44 ↗ the regulated activities and then the

1:10:46 ↗ continuing research we're going to do

1:10:48 ↗ so that just will pose uh this question

1:10:50 ↗ to you uh but if you need to ask us any

1:10:53 ↗ questions before you

1:10:56 ↗ get to that question just feel free to

1:10:58 ↗ ask us thank you very much for your

1:11:00 ↗ attention

1:11:05 ↗ and thank you uh planner schmidt uh okay

1:11:08 ↗ let's go ahead and open up two questions

1:11:10 ↗ the

1:11:11 ↗ question or

1:11:12 ↗ they like us to address is

1:11:14 ↗ do the proposed changes meet the goals

1:11:16 ↗ and outcomes of this update or are there

1:11:18 ↗ additional changes desired

1:11:21 ↗ comments

1:11:24 ↗ questions okay and the first

1:11:27 ↗ comment is from commissioner voice you

1:11:29 ↗ have the floor

1:11:31 ↗ thank you chair uh yes i do believe they

1:11:34 ↗ do meet the goals

1:11:36 ↗ and outcomes i'm looking forward to

1:11:37 ↗ hearing a lot more uh coming up

1:11:41 ↗ and again

1:11:42 ↗ because this is what i do i'd like to

1:11:44 ↗ hear a lot more about some of the

1:11:46 ↗ negative impacts that might come from

1:11:48 ↗ classifying these entire regions

1:11:51 ↗ as you kind of alluded to mr schimek

1:11:53 ↗ but no i definitely believe it's it's

1:11:55 ↗ what the city wants i believe it's

1:11:57 ↗ it's definitely the right direction that

1:11:59 ↗ people are calling for but again

1:12:01 ↗ definitely interested also to see some

1:12:03 ↗ of those negative offsets along with the

1:12:04 ↗ positive ones definitely want to hear

1:12:06 ↗ about the positive ones but i know i'm

1:12:08 ↗ sure i'm going to hear about the

1:12:09 ↗ positive ones so

1:12:10 ↗ definitely want to hear about some of

1:12:11 ↗ those things about building and

1:12:12 ↗ development um but yes i do believe it

1:12:16 ↗ fulfills the goals and outcomes so thank

1:12:18 ↗ you thank you

1:12:20 ↗ thank you uh commissioner voice

1:12:22 ↗ commissioner lewis you have the floor

1:12:25 ↗ thank you cheerful commissioner joy

1:12:27 ↗ lewis

1:12:28 ↗ thank you for being with us gary i have

1:12:29 ↗ a question about infiltration um and

1:12:32 ↗ it's

1:12:33 ↗ it's gonna be a little bit of a giving

1:12:35 ↗ question um

1:12:36 ↗ we decide to asphalt the entire uh

1:12:40 ↗ area and we have limit our reductions in

1:12:42 ↗ our buffers how's that going to be for

1:12:44 ↗ our aquifers not so good right

1:12:47 ↗ oh you know

1:12:48 ↗ it's a great point and um

1:12:51 ↗ what if you know if you pave over

1:12:53 ↗ everything you got you got you know

1:12:54 ↗ there's a benefit of that right in some

1:12:56 ↗ sense of nothing can infiltrate right uh

1:12:59 ↗ but then the negative is that we're

1:13:01 ↗ losing all that capacity now remember we

1:13:04 ↗ we do we do have a fairly large we you

1:13:07 ↗ know uh recharge area outside of the

1:13:10 ↗ city right so that's that's absolutely

1:13:12 ↗ something we have to take into account

1:13:14 ↗ but uh not having that localized right

1:13:18 ↗ infiltration uh would hurt us in a

1:13:20 ↗ couple ways just volume of course

1:13:23 ↗ but then flooding right

1:13:26 ↗ we we are counting on a good portion of

1:13:29 ↗ that water infiltrating uh feeding

1:13:31 ↗ aquaphor without you know without um

1:13:35 ↗ without the contaminants right that's

1:13:36 ↗ how we have the code so we want that to

1:13:39 ↗ seep in

1:13:40 ↗ so we can reap the benefits of it by

1:13:42 ↗ converting that to our water supply but

1:13:45 ↗ also then reducing the the flooding so i

1:13:47 ↗ think that it's a it's a twofer there in

1:13:49 ↗ in cases that if that makes sense

1:13:52 ↗ it is it does uh when we when we talk

1:13:54 ↗ about infiltration

1:13:56 ↗ uh for our groundwater

1:13:58 ↗ i

1:13:59 ↗ would love for us to really be talking a

1:14:02 ↗ little bit more about how those changes

1:14:03 ↗ have been happening i appreciate the

1:14:05 ↗ updated map it's been needed for a long

1:14:07 ↗ time uh and i think it's very

1:14:09 ↗ interesting to start looking at the

1:14:10 ↗ changes that we've had to our aquifer

1:14:12 ↗ and how infiltration has changed we see

1:14:15 ↗ around the west a growing need to be

1:14:18 ↗ looking at how this is changing and

1:14:20 ↗ actively changing

1:14:22 ↗ and i'd like to

1:14:24 ↗ encourage the city to be looking at how

1:14:26 ↗ we better protect our aquifer

1:14:29 ↗ and i think that a big part of that is

1:14:31 ↗ changes to infiltration that we've seen

1:14:33 ↗ over the last 30 years

1:14:35 ↗ and being able to have that science to

1:14:37 ↗ bring to our boards and commissions at

1:14:39 ↗ the council to be able to say this is

1:14:40 ↗ why we need greater protections

1:14:43 ↗ i really appreciate the the comments

1:14:45 ↗ you've made about

1:14:46 ↗ about best practice management i do

1:14:48 ↗ think it needs further investigation uh

1:14:51 ↗ and i i get i really appreciate the work

1:14:53 ↗ that's been done on this and i i hope

1:14:54 ↗ that it continues so thank you thank you

1:14:57 ↗ commissioner listen i just want to add i

1:14:58 ↗ know your comment about the asphalting

1:15:00 ↗ is somewhat tongue-in-cheek but um i

1:15:03 ↗ will remind you one one of the items

1:15:05 ↗ that i mentioned in a previous

1:15:06 ↗ presentation that we're going to look

1:15:08 ↗ for one-time funding is is a climate

1:15:11 ↗ climate change analysis on water supply

1:15:13 ↗ and our water supply and one of the runs

1:15:15 ↗ no joke uh will be to cover up the city

1:15:18 ↗ limits with with basically that'll be

1:15:21 ↗ impermeable and see what would happen so

1:15:23 ↗ we actually are going to propose to run

1:15:25 ↗ something like that so we can actually

1:15:27 ↗ really get to the heart of your your

1:15:29 ↗ question

1:15:30 ↗ i love it thank you very much you're

1:15:32 ↗ welcome thank you

1:15:34 ↗ and thank you uh commercials and uh

1:15:36 ↗ planner schmidt i have a question here

1:15:38 ↗ so

1:15:39 ↗ i don't see any questions after me

1:15:42 ↗ uh going back to the map can you show

1:15:44 ↗ the map that you had up there about the

1:15:46 ↗ uh

1:15:48 ↗ the 2004 comparison lucy can you help me

1:15:51 ↗ out there

1:15:57 ↗ yeah there you go okay so i'm looking at

1:15:59 ↗ the map here created in 2019

1:16:02 ↗ how much of this area is peaked and my

1:16:05 ↗ next question is

1:16:06 ↗ does peat absorb more water than

1:16:10 ↗ the ground so if we

1:16:13 ↗ and if that's true

1:16:15 ↗ then would getting rid of the peat then

1:16:17 ↗ impact our aquifer

1:16:20 ↗ great question i i do not i will i will

1:16:22 ↗ be happy to work with mr johnson on that

1:16:25 ↗ i don't have uh unless julie i'm not

1:16:26 ↗ sure if you know our pete layers

1:16:28 ↗ uh as well that i i know i've done a lot

1:16:30 ↗ of work on pete area in seattle in the

1:16:33 ↗ in the greenwood area where there were

1:16:35 ↗ significant peat issues as if any of you

1:16:37 ↗ have been there uh there's a lot of

1:16:39 ↗ lopsided roads uh because of the peat

1:16:42 ↗ issues there but that's something that

1:16:44 ↗ i'd be happy to look at and see what

1:16:46 ↗ percentages

1:16:47 ↗ and and how it would uh you know relates

1:16:50 ↗ to to this infiltration uh kyra issue

1:16:54 ↗ julie anything on your end that you uh

1:16:56 ↗ would want to add on the pete issue

1:16:59 ↗ no julie where he's staff resource for

1:17:01 ↗ public works here no i think you nailed

1:17:02 ↗ it gary that's certainly an area that we

1:17:04 ↗ could look into and better understand

1:17:07 ↗ great question though thank you

1:17:09 ↗ okay uh and i don't see any additional

1:17:12 ↗ questions so let's go ahead and

1:17:15 ↗ can we come up with a consensus to

1:17:16 ↗ answer question number one for

1:17:19 ↗ uh planar schmick

1:17:23 ↗ do we feel that

1:17:24 ↗ the proposed changes meet the goals and

1:17:26 ↗ outcomes for this update

1:17:30 ↗ i'm seeing everyone's giving heads so uh

1:17:34 ↗ answer is yes uh

1:17:36 ↗ plainer schmick do you have any

1:17:37 ↗ additional questions for the

1:17:39 ↗ commissioners before we let you go thank

1:17:41 ↗ you very much for the feedback

1:17:42 ↗ especially on the peak question we

1:17:44 ↗ really like said there's always more uh

1:17:47 ↗ an evolving science so we're gonna julie

1:17:49 ↗ and i will be always keeping our eye on

1:17:50 ↗ that emerging science so thank you for

1:17:52 ↗ that your comments and your continued

1:17:54 ↗ support

1:17:56 ↗ excellent well thank you very much for

1:17:57 ↗ coming tonight and lucy uh it's back to

1:18:00 ↗ you

1:18:06 ↗ thank you uh we're now going to get a um

1:18:09 ↗ three or four header with doug yormick

1:18:13 ↗ handling aquatic

1:18:14 ↗ critical areas

1:18:18 ↗ um i and i need to make him uh sorry i

1:18:22 ↗ need to make him a presenter

1:18:31 ↗ lucy before we dive in there i just want

1:18:33 ↗ to make an update here it time is 7 50

1:18:36 ↗ so

1:18:40 ↗ this looks like a quite a big topic here

1:18:45 ↗ well we'll see where we get to

1:18:50 ↗ hey lucy commissioner joy lewis uh we're

1:18:52 ↗ jumping around the packet a little bit

1:18:54 ↗ do you mind us starting us off with what

1:18:56 ↗ page we're doing right now

1:18:58 ↗ i will figure that out we are um

1:19:02 ↗ we're going to do uh doug can you get to

1:19:04 ↗ the first page of yours

1:19:07 ↗ i believe it is going to be wetlands

1:19:10 ↗ streams

1:19:12 ↗ uh the corridors and then shoreline

1:19:15 ↗ master program

1:19:16 ↗ uh in the order you see on your screen i

1:19:19 ↗ apologize that was a great um point

1:19:27 ↗ do you need me to provide

1:19:29 ↗ it's page 36 right

1:19:52 ↗ okay good evening

1:19:55 ↗ um i'm associate planner doug yormick

1:19:57 ↗ and

1:19:59 ↗ i have a few topics to discuss with you

1:20:01 ↗ and i will try to make this as brief as

1:20:02 ↗ possible so you can get into your

1:20:04 ↗ deliberations since we're pretty

1:20:05 ↗ crunched on time

1:20:07 ↗ um

1:20:08 ↗ first topic is that we'll be talking

1:20:11 ↗ about is wetlands

1:20:12 ↗ um

1:20:13 ↗ major changes that we've we've done with

1:20:15 ↗ wetlands was eliminate the 25 buffer

1:20:18 ↗ reduction for wetlands

1:20:20 ↗ and to incorporate the latest ecology

1:20:22 ↗ guidance

1:20:24 ↗ um other changes were eliminating the

1:20:26 ↗ density credit calculations for critical

1:20:29 ↗ areas this allowed for development to

1:20:32 ↗ transfer some

1:20:33 ↗ some developable area into from the

1:20:36 ↗ critical areas to the developable site

1:20:38 ↗ area we've eliminated most of the

1:20:40 ↗ stormwater facilities from wetlands so

1:20:44 ↗ level spreaders bubble up structures

1:20:46 ↗ vaults those won't be allowed in wetland

1:20:49 ↗ buffers

1:20:50 ↗ and then

1:20:51 ↗ um

1:20:52 ↗ if a wetland buffer meets certain

1:20:53 ↗ criteria

1:20:55 ↗ we will require vegetative enhancements

1:21:04 ↗ um here is a slide of

1:21:07 ↗ our current wetland buffer widths and

1:21:09 ↗ our proposed buffer widths under

1:21:11 ↗ ecology's guidance we now go to

1:21:14 ↗ a land use intensity so low moderate and

1:21:17 ↗ high depending on what the adjacent land

1:21:19 ↗ use is or what the proposed land use

1:21:21 ↗ says currently we don't implement

1:21:23 ↗ anything like that so we just have

1:21:25 ↗ straight buffer sizes based on habitat

1:21:27 ↗ score so now it will be slightly

1:21:29 ↗ variable but i'd like to just mention

1:21:31 ↗ that most of the development that we

1:21:33 ↗ would see in and around wetlands and

1:21:35 ↗ issaquah will more than likely be high

1:21:37 ↗ any sort of urban development commercial

1:21:40 ↗ residential that's greater than one unit

1:21:42 ↗ per acre so

1:21:43 ↗ we're we're large we're mostly going to

1:21:45 ↗ see the larger buffers throughout

1:21:46 ↗ issaquah

1:21:52 ↗ and then um

1:21:54 ↗ besides the rest of the wetland update

1:21:57 ↗ based on the comments from from the

1:21:58 ↗ public staff seeks additional input on

1:22:02 ↗ the normal maintenance and repair for

1:22:03 ↗ private roads to be included in the

1:22:05 ↗ exemptions from the critical area

1:22:07 ↗ regulations um we would match private

1:22:10 ↗ roads similar to the exemption that we

1:22:12 ↗ already provide for public roads

1:22:48 ↗ chair fall i believe you're muted

1:22:50 ↗ oh yeah i am muted sorry about that

1:22:53 ↗ okay so moving on to the question here

1:22:57 ↗ and

1:22:58 ↗ shoot

1:23:00 ↗ to go

1:23:09 ↗ okay

1:23:11 ↗ so

1:23:12 ↗ do the proposed changes meet the goals

1:23:13 ↗ and outcomes of this update let's go

1:23:15 ↗ ahead and open up for comments

1:23:18 ↗ i'm sorry comments let's open up for

1:23:20 ↗ questions are there any questions

1:23:24 ↗ and the first question is

1:23:26 ↗ from

1:23:27 ↗ commissioner voice you have the floor

1:23:32 ↗ not so much a question i was just going

1:23:33 ↗ to answer uh the road question real

1:23:36 ↗ quickly

1:23:37 ↗ um yes exemptions should be made we

1:23:39 ↗ don't want people ignoring

1:23:41 ↗ their roads and letting them fall into

1:23:43 ↗ disrepair because they're afraid they're

1:23:45 ↗ going to trigger something or have a

1:23:47 ↗ heavy burden placed on them so yes i

1:23:49 ↗ would think that we should have an

1:23:50 ↗ exemption for private roads

1:23:52 ↗ i'll come back to you with more

1:23:53 ↗ questions

1:23:56 ↗ and thank you commissioner voice

1:23:58 ↗ commissioner lewis you have a question

1:24:01 ↗ yes thank you commissioner joy lewis

1:24:04 ↗ doug i'm curious if we can have a bit of

1:24:06 ↗ a hypothetical of a real world situation

1:24:08 ↗ with this in regards to the question

1:24:10 ↗ page 35 number two on on private roads

1:24:13 ↗ uh

1:24:14 ↗ being given a pass i i'm curious

1:24:17 ↗ basically

1:24:19 ↗ what would a proposed mitigation look

1:24:20 ↗ like if we decided to go that route

1:24:26 ↗ you it would have to mitigate for

1:24:29 ↗ just the square footage of the impacts

1:24:31 ↗ so if it's

1:24:32 ↗ if it's in a buffer it would be a

1:24:34 ↗ minimum of one to one uh ratio

1:24:37 ↗ um

1:24:39 ↗ i'd like to add like this

1:24:41 ↗ it gets out this would get you out of

1:24:43 ↗ the

1:24:45 ↗ the critical areas regulations there

1:24:46 ↗ would still be a permit review and

1:24:48 ↗ it would likely trigger in in most

1:24:51 ↗ instances if it if it met the size

1:24:53 ↗ threshold stormwater standards as well

1:24:55 ↗ would have to be upgraded

1:24:57 ↗ it's just that they wouldn't have to do

1:25:00 ↗ you know the buffer impacts that would

1:25:03 ↗ be associated with doing normal

1:25:05 ↗ maintenance and repair and this wouldn't

1:25:07 ↗ allow for any sort of expansion this

1:25:08 ↗ would just be repair so resurfacing

1:25:12 ↗ things like that

1:25:14 ↗ so but in by by allowing this for normal

1:25:17 ↗ maintenance

1:25:19 ↗ that means that we would have less

1:25:21 ↗ oversight correct we wouldn't be knowing

1:25:23 ↗ if it was being widened it's a private

1:25:26 ↗ road

1:25:26 ↗ and it doesn't need a review

1:25:29 ↗ no it would still get reviewed there

1:25:31 ↗ would still be permits required it would

1:25:33 ↗ just be it would be exempt from this

1:25:35 ↗ particular chapter but we would still

1:25:37 ↗ review it as a permit and would have to

1:25:40 ↗ meet the require that the development

1:25:42 ↗ standards in from other chapters

1:25:47 ↗ okay so right now uh all that would be

1:25:51 ↗ is that

1:25:52 ↗ your your question is about uh

1:25:55 ↗ those impacts needed to be mitigated

1:25:57 ↗ it's the city's position that they

1:25:58 ↗ shouldn't is that is is that how i'm

1:26:00 ↗ understanding it yeah it would be it

1:26:02 ↗ would be to align private roads similar

1:26:05 ↗ to the the exemption that we have for

1:26:07 ↗ public roads

1:26:10 ↗ thank you

1:26:14 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner lewis

1:26:16 ↗ commissioner milligan you have the floor

1:26:19 ↗ thank you chair fall 90 milligan here my

1:26:22 ↗ question has to do with wetland

1:26:23 ↗ mitigation uh and

1:26:25 ↗ through the review process of this part

1:26:28 ↗ of the title 18

1:26:30 ↗ i've heard from others and i've had the

1:26:32 ↗ same concerns myself about off-site

1:26:35 ↗ mitigation and pay in lieu

1:26:37 ↗ and i i wonder how the um draft code has

1:26:40 ↗ evolved

1:26:41 ↗ in response to those comments

1:26:45 ↗ yeah so we're we're in

1:26:48 ↗ a little bit of a

1:26:49 ↗ like a situation with when it comes to

1:26:52 ↗ other permits that are required for

1:26:55 ↗ direct wetland impacts

1:26:57 ↗ so if you directly impact a wetland it

1:27:00 ↗ gets filled

1:27:02 ↗ construct something on top of it there

1:27:04 ↗ are other permits with the state state

1:27:06 ↗ and federal agencies that you'll also

1:27:07 ↗ have to receive

1:27:09 ↗ one of those are our permits from the us

1:27:12 ↗ army corps of engineers and they will

1:27:14 ↗ have to approve any mitigation measures

1:27:17 ↗ as well

1:27:18 ↗ right now their policy is

1:27:21 ↗ um since we have a wetland mitigation

1:27:24 ↗ bank within our watershed that that's

1:27:26 ↗ the first priority

1:27:28 ↗ they they want to get away from

1:27:30 ↗ permanently responsible wetland

1:27:31 ↗ mitigation because it often fails

1:27:34 ↗ um so now this is an assurance that

1:27:36 ↗ there is no loss of of wetlands within

1:27:39 ↗ the watershed and this is their way to

1:27:42 ↗ ensure it um

1:27:45 ↗ we would like to see

1:27:47 ↗ wetland mitigation closer

1:27:49 ↗ but right now

1:27:51 ↗ in a lot of instances our hands are tied

1:27:53 ↗ with

1:27:54 ↗ receiving other federal permits and

1:27:56 ↗ state permits

1:27:57 ↗ we're

1:27:59 ↗ trying to create incentives for

1:28:02 ↗ um

1:28:03 ↗ having some sort of on-site mitigation

1:28:05 ↗ as well but this would be voluntary

1:28:08 ↗ on on their part and not necessarily

1:28:10 ↗ required since they're already

1:28:12 ↗ the impacts that they're already

1:28:14 ↗ creating are being offset

1:28:17 ↗ so

1:28:18 ↗ um

1:28:19 ↗ it would be going above and beyond and

1:28:22 ↗ and legally

1:28:23 ↗ kind of in a sticky situation there

1:28:26 ↗ okay so then if i can rephrase just to

1:28:29 ↗ refine the question

1:28:31 ↗ in our new draft code have we done all

1:28:34 ↗ we can

1:28:35 ↗ to

1:28:40 ↗ to limit the distance of the mitigation

1:28:44 ↗ of a wetland whether it's with money or

1:28:47 ↗ off-site have we done all we can knowing

1:28:50 ↗ the complicated landscape or could we do

1:28:53 ↗ more

1:28:56 ↗ i

1:28:58 ↗ based on

1:29:00 ↗ the circumstances right now

1:29:02 ↗ i we are doing what we can um

1:29:06 ↗ short of a wetland mitigation bank or

1:29:10 ↗ having some sort of in-move fee program

1:29:12 ↗ within the municipal boundaries but that

1:29:14 ↗ would be a multi-year process and to get

1:29:18 ↗ it off the ground and

1:29:20 ↗ cost a significant amount of money so

1:29:22 ↗ that would that would have to be a

1:29:23 ↗ further discussion

1:29:25 ↗ um

1:29:26 ↗ with others in the city administration

1:29:28 ↗ and city council

1:29:33 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner milligan

1:29:36 ↗ okay uh so with that said

1:29:41 ↗ are there any comments to the question

1:29:43 ↗ so

1:29:46 ↗ i think we are in somewhat of a

1:29:48 ↗ consensus are we not

1:30:02 ↗ sure i'll join in uh commissioner joy

1:30:04 ↗ lewis here

1:30:05 ↗ i have serious concerns about how goal

1:30:07 ↗ three and four are being met right now

1:30:09 ↗ in the current proposed draft um

1:30:12 ↗ you know right now we're talking about

1:30:14 ↗ wetlands uh it's so that's a broader

1:30:16 ↗ comment for

1:30:17 ↗ for a couple of topics we have coming up

1:30:19 ↗ right now we do have increases in some

1:30:21 ↗ of the buffers of wetlands we also have

1:30:23 ↗ decreases uh and we have some that kind

1:30:26 ↗ of stay the same

1:30:27 ↗ so

1:30:28 ↗ when we talk about the goals of trying

1:30:29 ↗ to uh achieve goals three and four i

1:30:32 ↗ don't know that we have great

1:30:34 ↗ protections right now for wetlands um

1:30:36 ↗ and i certainly think that these need to

1:30:38 ↗ be readdressed uh

1:30:40 ↗ but uh

1:30:42 ↗ i

1:30:43 ↗ i uh

1:30:45 ↗ i i would like to see something

1:30:48 ↗ different and i'd certainly like to see

1:30:50 ↗ something that i think has more science

1:30:52 ↗ base to it rather than we've updated to

1:30:54 ↗ the current state ecology guidelines i

1:30:57 ↗ think that that is part of our goals i

1:31:00 ↗ think part of it too is to reflect the

1:31:02 ↗ community's desire for protection i

1:31:04 ↗ don't know that we've necessarily

1:31:05 ↗ achieved that

1:31:07 ↗ um

1:31:08 ↗ so the the ecology guidance is based on

1:31:11 ↗ best available science

1:31:14 ↗ and then they provide the information to

1:31:16 ↗ the city and and you're right in there

1:31:19 ↗ are some instances where buffers have

1:31:20 ↗ gone down

1:31:21 ↗ when this document was created in 2014

1:31:25 ↗ they've updated it recently to 2018 and

1:31:28 ↗ there were some wetland categories of a

1:31:30 ↗ certain habitat score where the buffers

1:31:32 ↗ were reduced

1:31:33 ↗ um and our numbers are reflecting the

1:31:37 ↗ the latest numbers from ecology on that

1:31:39 ↗ but they are based on on best available

1:31:42 ↗ science

1:31:44 ↗ i appreciate that i certainly find that

1:31:48 ↗ when we've been asking for an overhaul

1:31:51 ↗ specifically of this bucket that we're

1:31:53 ↗ looking at we haven't just wanted to

1:31:56 ↗ streamline right we haven't wanted to

1:31:59 ↗ only make our code up to date we also

1:32:02 ↗ want to provide greater protections i

1:32:04 ↗ don't know that we're achieving that so

1:32:07 ↗ uh i will i'll be the stick in the mud

1:32:09 ↗ on that thank you

1:32:14 ↗ and thank you commercial uh commissioner

1:32:15 ↗ milligan you have the floor

1:32:17 ↗ thank you nina milligan here

1:32:19 ↗ uh

1:32:20 ↗ thank you for that chair uh commissioner

1:32:23 ↗ lewis but i'm gonna um

1:32:26 ↗ depart from your comment a little bit

1:32:28 ↗ based on my earlier comment that i think

1:32:30 ↗ this is so much better than what we had

1:32:32 ↗ now certainly it's not as good as we

1:32:35 ↗ want it to be and the answer to my

1:32:38 ↗ question about off-site mitigation and

1:32:39 ↗ painlu

1:32:41 ↗ you know maybe we can't do that with

1:32:42 ↗ this update of of title 18 but i

1:32:45 ↗ certainly don't want to wait any longer

1:32:47 ↗ to get the improvement that this draft

1:32:51 ↗ code brings us let's get there but i'd

1:32:54 ↗ like assurances or something maybe um we

1:32:57 ↗ already have this but how are how is

1:32:59 ↗ the improvements that we make a title 18

1:33:02 ↗ today not going to be static for going

1:33:06 ↗ forward because we know we can't get it

1:33:07 ↗ all done today for cost reasons time

1:33:10 ↗ reasons whatever it is i want to say

1:33:12 ↗ that the chart that shows um

1:33:15 ↗ the one current and proposed wetland

1:33:17 ↗ buffers from the department of ecology

1:33:21 ↗ the

1:33:22 ↗ providing those variable considerations

1:33:25 ↗ and not just one flat a two-dimensional

1:33:29 ↗ way of looking at things i think is

1:33:30 ↗ going to get us better compliance

1:33:32 ↗ so although it might not be

1:33:35 ↗ tighter as tight as we perhaps would

1:33:37 ↗ like it to be

1:33:39 ↗ if we get better compliance

1:33:41 ↗ it'll be an improvement

1:33:43 ↗ so

1:33:44 ↗ i support the

1:33:46 ↗ draft

1:33:49 ↗ code and then income into the

1:33:51 ↗ road regulations uh to have private

1:33:54 ↗ roads the same as public roads seems

1:33:57 ↗ only fair and that is my basis for

1:33:59 ↗ agreeing with that

1:34:03 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan and

1:34:04 ↗ commissioner bader you have the floor

1:34:06 ↗ yeah hi this is sarah bader and um again

1:34:08 ↗ apologies for joining late this evening

1:34:11 ↗ but

1:34:12 ↗ um

1:34:13 ↗ i guess it's a comment slash a question

1:34:15 ↗ um the comment piece of it is that i

1:34:18 ↗ remember over the summer or whatever it

1:34:20 ↗ was um that we were talking about this

1:34:21 ↗ the first time that

1:34:23 ↗ many i think it was you who said that if

1:34:25 ↗ we go above and beyond like best

1:34:27 ↗ available science we have to really

1:34:29 ↗ justify like why

1:34:31 ↗ is the quas wetlands are so much more

1:34:33 ↗ special than like all of the other

1:34:34 ↗ wetlands in the state and so

1:34:36 ↗ i think that if this matches best

1:34:38 ↗ available science and like that's to

1:34:40 ↗ nina's point kind of good enough um

1:34:43 ↗ and that as science evolves and this is

1:34:46 ↗ my question is kind of what is the

1:34:47 ↗ process for

1:34:49 ↗ then updating this right if that i think

1:34:51 ↗ the guidance is from 2014 if new

1:34:53 ↗ guidance is released in 2024 you know is

1:34:55 ↗ there an easy process to then update

1:34:57 ↗ this to now the new best available signs

1:35:01 ↗ yeah it would it would go through the

1:35:03 ↗ code update process

1:35:05 ↗ similar to anything else that would you

1:35:06 ↗ know be brought to you we brought the

1:35:08 ↗ council um

1:35:09 ↗ if ecology does provide that information

1:35:12 ↗ they typically provide a draft code for

1:35:15 ↗ you to also use to update

1:35:18 ↗ but that would it would just follow this

1:35:20 ↗ the same process that we would follow

1:35:22 ↗ for any other code update

1:35:27 ↗ all right thank you commissioner bader

1:35:28 ↗ uh so with that i guess we're concluding

1:35:31 ↗ uh

1:35:34 ↗ so uh commissioner yorwick did or sorry

1:35:37 ↗ planner york did you have any additional

1:35:39 ↗ questions and were we able to answer

1:35:41 ↗ your question

1:35:43 ↗ um yes i believe i have i have

1:35:46 ↗ sufficient information on that question

1:35:48 ↗ that's fun okay

1:35:50 ↗ so with that said uh

1:35:52 ↗ lucy we're gonna

1:35:54 ↗ bring it back to you for the next site

1:35:56 ↗ of presentation

1:35:58 ↗ this will continue with doug

1:36:31 ↗ all right so

1:36:32 ↗ the next topic is streams um

1:36:36 ↗ similar to wetlands we've eliminated the

1:36:39 ↗ 25 buffer reductions and are only going

1:36:42 ↗ to allow uh stream buffer averaging

1:36:46 ↗ um we've

1:36:47 ↗ updated our stream classification to

1:36:50 ↗ match uh fish and wildlife stream

1:36:52 ↗ classification system

1:36:53 ↗ and

1:36:55 ↗ we further defined fish use or potential

1:36:57 ↗ fish use um so

1:36:59 ↗ and and that also leads into the ditch

1:37:01 ↗ versus stream clarification

1:37:04 ↗ so now if a a uh

1:37:08 ↗ a ditch has uh fish use it will now be

1:37:12 ↗ offered the same protections as a stream

1:37:15 ↗ um similar to wetlands we've eliminated

1:37:17 ↗ the density credit calculations and

1:37:20 ↗ eliminated most storm water facilities

1:37:22 ↗ for wetland buffers those those are the

1:37:24 ↗ same stormwater facilities as

1:37:27 ↗ as we discussed in in the wetlands

1:37:29 ↗ section and then another at addition is

1:37:33 ↗ uh culvert replacement so if there is a

1:37:35 ↗ stream that has fish habitat upstream

1:37:38 ↗ from a fish culvert and that culvert is

1:37:40 ↗ blocking

1:37:41 ↗ if development is

1:37:44 ↗ touching that

1:37:46 ↗ road section where the culvert is

1:37:48 ↗ located then culvert replacement

1:37:51 ↗ may be required

1:37:54 ↗ um here is our current stream

1:37:56 ↗ classification and our proposed uh

1:37:59 ↗ classification system so

1:38:01 ↗ currently we have five different um

1:38:03 ↗ classes uh there's two class two which

1:38:06 ↗ why there's five one has salmon one does

1:38:08 ↗ not um we are now going to

1:38:12 ↗ uh stream type so type s our shorelines

1:38:15 ↗ of the state type f is a stream that has

1:38:18 ↗ any fish presence

1:38:20 ↗ mp is a

1:38:22 ↗ um

1:38:23 ↗ it's a stream that has no fish but it is

1:38:26 ↗ uh it's mostly a year-round stream and

1:38:28 ↗ then type ns are seasonal streams and no

1:38:30 ↗ fish are present

1:38:36 ↗ and then with that um

1:38:40 ↗ three questions um that we're seeking

1:38:42 ↗ clarification on

1:38:44 ↗ one of the public comments addressed

1:38:47 ↗ standards for stream bank stabilization

1:38:51 ↗ currently we have stream bank

1:38:52 ↗ stabilization requirements in in the

1:38:54 ↗ shoreline master program so it would

1:38:57 ↗ bring this alignment to what we already

1:38:58 ↗ have for esqua creek and east fork um

1:39:02 ↗ and

1:39:03 ↗ what we would do is is follow generally

1:39:05 ↗ the the same criteria for that so we

1:39:08 ↗ would be looking for

1:39:10 ↗ more of a bioengineered or soft shore

1:39:12 ↗ approach versus a hard armoring or

1:39:14 ↗ riprap

1:39:15 ↗ um

1:39:17 ↗ we also received another public comment

1:39:19 ↗ regarding stream buffer averaging and um

1:39:22 ↗ should we consider eliminating averaging

1:39:24 ↗ altogether and just have the straight uh

1:39:26 ↗ stream buffer sizes

1:39:28 ↗ and then uh same as the wetlands it's

1:39:31 ↗ the question on um private roads on

1:39:34 ↗ whether normal maintenance and repair

1:39:35 ↗ should be accepted from the

1:39:37 ↗ requirements of this chapter

1:39:44 ↗ okay and thank you planner yormic so it

1:39:46 ↗ sounds like there's actually

1:39:49 ↗ your questions are different than what

1:39:50 ↗ is in our

1:39:53 ↗ i'm looking on page 39

1:39:56 ↗ of 67.

1:39:59 ↗ minnie can you confirm that his

1:40:01 ↗ questions are in fact different or looks

1:40:03 ↗ like one question is the same but

1:40:21 ↗ or uh lucy

1:40:24 ↗ oops sorry uh i was talking while my

1:40:27 ↗ thing was unmute

1:40:28 ↗ um so i just posted in the chat um

1:40:31 ↗ the questions that are in your packet so

1:40:33 ↗ the first one is the same

1:40:35 ↗ the second one's the same and then the

1:40:37 ↗ third one is golden outcomes

1:40:41 ↗ um or any additional uh

1:40:45 ↗ question you know changes as desired so

1:40:48 ↗ i'd

1:40:57 ↗ so just if it helps in in your

1:40:58 ↗ discussion the first one is talking

1:41:00 ↗ about not hard armoring uh the banks and

1:41:04 ↗ our recommendation on that is sure we

1:41:06 ↗ can make that consistent with the rest

1:41:08 ↗ of the stream so that's a good common

1:41:10 ↗ public comment that we've received

1:41:12 ↗ um and the second one

1:41:14 ↗ i think we also uh could agree with that

1:41:17 ↗ uh because our buffers are

1:41:20 ↗ um where are and averaging for streams

1:41:22 ↗ is always tricky so i think that would

1:41:24 ↗ probably be a good thing that we could

1:41:27 ↗ incorporate we would keep the averaging

1:41:29 ↗ for

1:41:30 ↗ um the wetlands but eliminated for the

1:41:33 ↗ stream buffers if you all uh think that

1:41:36 ↗ that's the way to go

1:41:38 ↗ and then we're really looking for any

1:41:40 ↗ feedback if you have any other

1:41:42 ↗ changes you'd like to see

1:41:44 ↗ okay

1:41:45 ↗ because the question number one is not

1:41:46 ↗ the same what he just posed is not the

1:41:48 ↗ same as what's in our packet yeah maybe

1:41:51 ↗ it's just wording is slightly different

1:41:53 ↗ but it's it's getting at the same thing

1:41:55 ↗ okay stream bank stabilization so no

1:41:58 ↗ hard armoring just bioengineered

1:42:00 ↗ shorelines

1:42:02 ↗ similar to what we have in the shoreline

1:42:04 ↗ master program

1:42:06 ↗ okay

1:42:07 ↗ so let's go ahead and open it up for

1:42:08 ↗ questions from the commissioners

1:42:13 ↗ and commissioner

1:42:17 ↗ milligan you have the floor

1:42:20 ↗ thank you surefall i wanted to ask about

1:42:21 ↗ class three streams uh

1:42:24 ↗ which are the

1:42:27 ↗ seasonal ditches that are ephemeral and

1:42:31 ↗ the 50-foot buffer

1:42:33 ↗ suggested for that

1:42:35 ↗ how is that different from what we had

1:42:37 ↗ before

1:42:38 ↗ and tell me a little bit more about how

1:42:40 ↗ that relates to the um elimination of

1:42:43 ↗ the class four

1:42:45 ↗ so i can understand that better

1:42:46 ↗ so

1:42:47 ↗ class four streams are

1:42:50 ↗ um

1:42:52 ↗ they are

1:42:53 ↗ historic streams that have been

1:42:56 ↗ altered in some way usually straightened

1:42:58 ↗ to be more ditch-like

1:43:00 ↗ um

1:43:02 ↗ and

1:43:03 ↗ so we've eliminated that classification

1:43:06 ↗ and just folded that into

1:43:09 ↗ the seasonal stream um

1:43:12 ↗ and then with the class three

1:43:15 ↗ we're at this time we're not proposing

1:43:18 ↗ any buffer changes beyond the the class

1:43:20 ↗ four

1:43:22 ↗ or what what is now well

1:43:25 ↗ is currently class four to now

1:43:27 ↗ uh type ns and that increases from 25 to

1:43:31 ↗ 50 feet

1:43:37 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner milligan

1:43:39 ↗ commissioner lewis you have the floor

1:43:43 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

1:43:45 ↗ lewis doug i'm hoping you can make some

1:43:46 ↗ comments about uh the proposed stream

1:43:49 ↗ buffers you do know that type ns

1:43:52 ↗ is the only one that's increasing and

1:43:54 ↗ i'm hoping that

1:43:56 ↗ staff can help tell us about that

1:44:02 ↗ um

1:44:03 ↗ yes so

1:44:04 ↗ we wanted to bring the code up to

1:44:06 ↗ alignment with wdfw stream type

1:44:09 ↗ just to eliminate any of the confusion

1:44:11 ↗ that we have

1:44:13 ↗ um

1:44:14 ↗ we've done an analysis on neighboring

1:44:17 ↗ jurisdictions and we still fall in line

1:44:19 ↗ with with our neighboring jurisdictions

1:44:22 ↗ um we've reviewed some of the most

1:44:24 ↗ recent uh

1:44:26 ↗ fish and wildlife guidance when it comes

1:44:29 ↗ to stream buffers

1:44:31 ↗ and we've we've looked into that a

1:44:32 ↗ little bit further but

1:44:34 ↗ we haven't had enough time to really

1:44:36 ↗ dive into what what that would mean for

1:44:38 ↗ the streams of issaquah the

1:44:41 ↗ the limited amount of information that

1:44:43 ↗ we could gather from it

1:44:44 ↗ would

1:44:46 ↗ substantially increase most of the

1:44:48 ↗ streams in the city

1:44:50 ↗ and

1:44:51 ↗ without being able to do that type of

1:44:53 ↗ research to know exactly what they were

1:44:56 ↗ there there would essentially be no

1:44:57 ↗ stream buffers and it would be on a

1:44:59 ↗ site-by-site basis

1:45:02 ↗ based on soil type and the vegetative

1:45:04 ↗ community that could potentially grow

1:45:06 ↗ there

1:45:07 ↗ so we would we would be looking at

1:45:09 ↗ substantial increases because it would

1:45:11 ↗ be based on the tree height

1:45:14 ↗ surrounding the stream and what can be

1:45:15 ↗ supported in that that area so with doug

1:45:18 ↗ first we're looking at about 250 feet

1:45:23 ↗ so wouldn't it be fair would it be fair

1:45:25 ↗ to say that um

1:45:28 ↗ staff has decided to punt this a little

1:45:30 ↗ bit needing more time and resources to

1:45:32 ↗ be able to further

1:45:34 ↗ investigate this

1:45:35 ↗ yes that's correct

1:45:37 ↗ okay um

1:45:39 ↗ i

1:45:40 ↗ i'll save my comment thank you for that

1:45:42 ↗ response

1:45:46 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis and

1:45:47 ↗ commissioner milligan you have a

1:45:48 ↗ question

1:45:51 ↗ thank you sir fall nina milligan

1:45:53 ↗ uh

1:45:55 ↗ i forgot to ask this

1:45:57 ↗ the definitions of intermittent and

1:46:00 ↗ ephemeral

1:46:01 ↗ are not in our documents but where would

1:46:03 ↗ those be derived

1:46:06 ↗ it should be

1:46:08 ↗ defined in

1:46:10 ↗ the the code so um intermittent is

1:46:14 ↗ seasonal and it's gonna it

1:46:16 ↗ short streams um

1:46:19 ↗ during during the rainy season and

1:46:21 ↗ ephemeral is

1:46:22 ↗ lasting

1:46:23 ↗ you know under normal conditions

1:46:25 ↗ throughout the year

1:46:31 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner milligan

1:46:34 ↗ and that is all the questions that i am

1:46:36 ↗ seeing right now uh commissioner voice

1:46:38 ↗ commissioner zargoza commissioner bader

1:46:40 ↗ do you have any additional questions

1:46:42 ↗ you'd like to ask

1:46:44 ↗ i see none uh let's move into the

1:46:46 ↗ comments

1:46:48 ↗ all right so let's start answering some

1:46:49 ↗ of these questions and

1:46:51 ↗ are there any comments

1:46:59 ↗ okay should we develop a definition of

1:47:01 ↗ standards for steam

1:47:02 ↗ stream bank stabilization for streams

1:47:04 ↗ not regulated by the s p

1:47:07 ↗ standards would be comparable to stream

1:47:09 ↗ bank stabilization standards found in s

1:47:12 ↗ s p 7.13

1:47:14 ↗ shortly modification regulations

1:47:18 ↗ i guess you're looking for a yes or no

1:47:21 ↗ answer is that correct miss uh plenary

1:47:24 ↗ yormic

1:47:25 ↗ yes that's correct it looks like we have

1:47:27 ↗ some uh comments and questions that have

1:47:29 ↗ come in

1:47:30 ↗ okay and commissioner lewis you have a

1:47:32 ↗ comment

1:47:34 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis my

1:47:35 ↗ answer to this is yes i would like to

1:47:37 ↗ get rid of rip rap and encourage a soft

1:47:39 ↗ bank and i'd like that to be consistent

1:47:41 ↗ throughout our waterways and not just

1:47:43 ↗ initial line master plan uh so my

1:47:46 ↗ question uh my comment is resoundingly a

1:47:49 ↗ yes to that okay

1:47:52 ↗ and commissioner voice you have the

1:47:53 ↗ floor

1:47:55 ↗ yeah mine's just a quick question um off

1:47:57 ↗ the top of your head

1:47:58 ↗ doug

1:47:59 ↗ it's probably cheaper to put in a soft

1:48:01 ↗ bank right

1:48:03 ↗ i don't know what the cost differences

1:48:05 ↗ are um

1:48:06 ↗ both require some sort of engineering um

1:48:10 ↗ you know but you're talking about

1:48:12 ↗ anchoring logs versus you know

1:48:15 ↗ uh

1:48:15 ↗ building some sort of or constructing

1:48:17 ↗ some sort of wall rip rap might be cheap

1:48:20 ↗ um

1:48:21 ↗ but

1:48:22 ↗ i i don't have those cloths off the top

1:48:24 ↗ of my head

1:48:28 ↗ and thank you commercial voice and

1:48:29 ↗ commitment

1:48:34 ↗ thank you

1:48:36 ↗ i agree with all the

1:48:37 ↗ direction that the staff is taking in

1:48:39 ↗ this except i i still have some

1:48:41 ↗ reservations about

1:48:44 ↗ the

1:48:45 ↗ about ditches

1:48:46 ↗ yeah of course uh definitely concerned

1:48:49 ↗ about streams but the um variability in

1:48:52 ↗ defining

1:48:53 ↗ um

1:48:56 ↗ uh what's a ditch and as our

1:48:58 ↗ stormwater

1:49:00 ↗ just thinking about um

1:49:03 ↗ volume all the other things that impact

1:49:07 ↗ um the

1:49:08 ↗ value

1:49:09 ↗ and the purpose

1:49:11 ↗ of a ditch

1:49:12 ↗ and the restrict

1:49:17 ↗ and commissioner milligan we lost you

1:49:21 ↗ more protection but i i also think that

1:49:23 ↗ there may be

1:49:25 ↗ not a threshold

1:49:27 ↗ established that's um

1:49:30 ↗ reliable enough

1:49:32 ↗ to call it

1:49:34 ↗ a stream

1:49:36 ↗ so that that's my only uh concern

1:49:38 ↗ otherwise i think that everything's

1:49:39 ↗ heading in the right direction thank you

1:49:44 ↗ and uh commissioner planner did you get

1:49:45 ↗ our commissioner i'm sorry planner york

1:49:48 ↗ did you get all that because uh

1:49:50 ↗ um commissioner milligan cut out there

1:49:52 ↗ for a little bit i i think i got i think

1:49:55 ↗ i've got what i needed from that i think

1:49:57 ↗ there was just some reservations about

1:49:59 ↗ the thresholds on um

1:50:03 ↗ what would be classified as a stream if

1:50:05 ↗ it were a ditch and i think that's

1:50:09 ↗ as it as it stands right now it's just

1:50:11 ↗ the documented presence of fish and that

1:50:13 ↗ that would have to be determined and

1:50:15 ↗ would also be looked at um with our

1:50:17 ↗ through our peer review

1:50:20 ↗ yeah it's three things so if you've got

1:50:22 ↗ fish it's got a connection to the waters

1:50:24 ↗ of the state or it was a um

1:50:29 ↗ you know a

1:50:30 ↗ fish a water feature before

1:50:33 ↗ the times or something like that i

1:50:35 ↗ forget the exact language but but it

1:50:38 ↗ it's kind of aligned with the the state

1:50:40 ↗ definition so any regulate you know fish

1:50:43 ↗ and wildlife that's going to regulate it

1:50:45 ↗ it's actually going to be

1:50:47 ↗ so we we've

1:50:48 ↗ it it won't be like any ditch that just

1:50:51 ↗ doesn't have a connection to the water

1:50:53 ↗ or

1:50:54 ↗ um or fish won't be you know you would

1:50:57 ↗ still have ditches but if that's your

1:50:59 ↗ concern

1:51:01 ↗ um

1:51:02 ↗ yeah thank you for clarifying i think

1:51:04 ↗ you're both getting closer and my

1:51:05 ↗ concern is to

1:51:10 ↗ is to

1:51:11 ↗ not

1:51:12 ↗ regulate over regulate a very small

1:51:16 ↗ ephemeral

1:51:19 ↗ water

1:51:20 ↗ existence of water that doesn't have

1:51:22 ↗ other purpose and because this doesn't

1:51:24 ↗ have salmon in it

1:51:26 ↗ that it has some um

1:51:29 ↗ some

1:51:30 ↗ value before it

1:51:32 ↗ requires a 50-foot buffer

1:51:35 ↗ and and you're relying on some of the

1:51:36 ↗ things that are more complicated or

1:51:38 ↗ somewhere else and if that is the case i

1:51:40 ↗ just didn't want to burden uh property

1:51:42 ↗ owners with a 50-foot butter buffer

1:51:45 ↗ when um if the water that exists on

1:51:49 ↗ their property

1:51:50 ↗ is

1:51:51 ↗ less than a

1:51:53 ↗ stream

1:51:57 ↗ i think doug's getting it

1:52:00 ↗ okay thank you commercial milligan

1:52:03 ↗ okay and um so planner yarmick are you

1:52:06 ↗ okay with uh so far feedback on

1:52:09 ↗ concerning question number one

1:52:13 ↗ uh

1:52:14 ↗ i've got what i've needed what i needed

1:52:16 ↗ for question one

1:52:17 ↗ and should we consider eliminating

1:52:19 ↗ stream buffer averaging as an option

1:52:22 ↗ commissioners comments on that

1:52:31 ↗ and

1:52:32 ↗ commissioner voice you have a question

1:52:36 ↗ i'm intending to lean to eliminating it

1:52:38 ↗ i just want to know why was it

1:52:39 ↗ originally there and how often is it

1:52:41 ↗ used

1:52:44 ↗ i would say stream buffer averaging

1:52:46 ↗ wasn't used very much um i've seen it

1:52:48 ↗ used for for wetlands a few times uh i

1:52:51 ↗ think it's difficult with streams just

1:52:52 ↗ because of the meandering nature of them

1:52:54 ↗ they also change so it would be it would

1:52:57 ↗ be difficult to maintain

1:53:00 ↗ a buffer area mostly what we would see

1:53:02 ↗ is is buffer reductions the the 25

1:53:05 ↗ reductions and that's we've eliminated

1:53:07 ↗ that so

1:53:08 ↗ um

1:53:09 ↗ you know

1:53:10 ↗ it would allow for some sort of

1:53:13 ↗ flexibility in in certain cases but

1:53:16 ↗ again it's it's a little bit more

1:53:18 ↗ difficult since they are meandering to

1:53:21 ↗ have a

1:53:22 ↗ you know

1:53:23 ↗ a net benefit

1:53:26 ↗ okay thank you

1:53:28 ↗ thank you commissioner weiss and

1:53:30 ↗ commissioner lewis you have the floor

1:53:33 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis i think

1:53:35 ↗ at this point i'm in favor of

1:53:37 ↗ eliminating the averaging

1:53:39 ↗ but i feel that it's a band-aid i feel

1:53:42 ↗ that it's a stop gap right now i don't

1:53:44 ↗ think that we're adequately addressing

1:53:46 ↗ the current needs to be able to have

1:53:49 ↗ healthy streams in our community in this

1:53:51 ↗ current first draft

1:53:53 ↗ and so what i would like is for staff to

1:53:55 ↗ be able to present

1:53:57 ↗ to boards and commissions into council

1:53:59 ↗ to be able to say to be able to address

1:54:00 ↗ this with a

1:54:02 ↗ appropriate update this is what we need

1:54:04 ↗ right and if that's not going to happen

1:54:05 ↗ in this update then there needs to be a

1:54:07 ↗ specific call out of these are the

1:54:09 ↗ resources we need to be able to then

1:54:10 ↗ address this at this amount of time

1:54:13 ↗ right because we're going to say this is

1:54:15 ↗ what we're doing right now that's okay

1:54:17 ↗ but it needs to have a plan and i feel

1:54:18 ↗ like we're falling short on that so i'm

1:54:20 ↗ again going to say that i really

1:54:22 ↗ question that we're achieving the goals

1:54:23 ↗ of three and four and i think streams is

1:54:25 ↗ a good example of that if right now

1:54:27 ↗ staff wants to say we're going we're

1:54:29 ↗ proposing eliminating the averaging

1:54:31 ↗ we're going to keep this and we're going

1:54:32 ↗ to have further research we're going to

1:54:34 ↗ work for this update this is what we're

1:54:36 ↗ doing i think that's a different

1:54:38 ↗ question that's being asked of us so

1:54:40 ↗ that's why i'm gonna take a hard line on

1:54:42 ↗ it uh and i'm gonna say that i think

1:54:44 ↗ that uh averaging could be appropriate

1:54:47 ↗ if we had a more accurate view of what

1:54:49 ↗ we need to be able to have healthy

1:54:51 ↗ streams and again not just to maintain

1:54:53 ↗ but to really be able to protect the

1:54:55 ↗ environment we know there's degradation

1:54:57 ↗ and we know that we can do better and i

1:54:59 ↗ don't see that in this current code

1:55:00 ↗ update again if staff wants to approach

1:55:03 ↗ this a little bit differently than i'm

1:55:04 ↗ all for eliminating the averaging

1:55:06 ↗ because it's again a stop gap to be able

1:55:08 ↗ to get where we need to go on streams

1:55:10 ↗ thanks

1:55:12 ↗ and thank you commissioner lewis and

1:55:14 ↗ commissioner bader do you have a

1:55:15 ↗ question

1:55:17 ↗ yeah i have a question it's kind of

1:55:18 ↗ random um but does the buffer like allow

1:55:23 ↗ for

1:55:24 ↗ like trails or access to the stream and

1:55:28 ↗ like if not is averaging a way to like

1:55:30 ↗ allow

1:55:31 ↗ access to the stream from one point

1:55:33 ↗ and then like mitigate for that

1:55:35 ↗ somewhere else

1:55:37 ↗ yeah so trail trails are allowed in

1:55:39 ↗ stream buffers um and then

1:55:42 ↗ though not

1:55:43 ↗ technically in this section but is it in

1:55:44 ↗ the shoreline master program

1:55:46 ↗ um they're also called out as as a

1:55:49 ↗ feature that's allowed within stream

1:55:51 ↗ buffers um you have to you have to

1:55:54 ↗ mitigate for any of the impacts so you

1:55:56 ↗ know a four foot wide trail going

1:55:58 ↗ through the buffer it's going there's

1:56:00 ↗ going to be additional buffer elsewhere

1:56:03 ↗ on site that's going to be required

1:56:05 ↗ just to offset for that impact but they

1:56:07 ↗ are allowed

1:56:09 ↗ as long as as long as there's no

1:56:11 ↗ degradation to the you know the function

1:56:13 ↗ of the buffer you know and that's

1:56:15 ↗ something that would be looked at

1:56:19 ↗ okay thank you commissioner bader

1:56:26 ↗ okay uh so with that said i i think

1:56:29 ↗ commissioner lewis had a pretty good

1:56:31 ↗ point there for

1:56:32 ↗ number two um planner york did you have

1:56:35 ↗ any additional questions

1:56:37 ↗ i don't want to be able to answer that

1:56:39 ↗ for you yeah no i think i've got what

1:56:41 ↗ i've needed for that

1:56:43 ↗ and so question number three should the

1:56:44 ↗ normal maintenance and repair or private

1:56:46 ↗ roads also be exempt from critical area

1:56:48 ↗ regulations like exemptions for public

1:56:50 ↗ road

1:56:53 ↗ so i think there's an overall consensus

1:56:55 ↗ on that thumbs up i don't know that we

1:56:57 ↗ really need to spend much time on that

1:56:58 ↗ agreed

1:57:00 ↗ yeah all right

1:57:01 ↗ uh so

1:57:03 ↗ bringing this presentation back to

1:57:06 ↗ um

1:57:07 ↗ lucy but point of order is how many more

1:57:10 ↗ of these topics do we have the time is 8

1:57:12 ↗ 30.

1:57:14 ↗ i have two more topics

1:57:16 ↗ i have uh the fish and wildlife habitat

1:57:18 ↗ conservation area and this uh the

1:57:20 ↗ shoreline master program changes that

1:57:22 ↗ we've made and i believe lucy has

1:57:24 ↗ outdoor lighting and that's it

1:57:27 ↗ so just those three topics

1:57:30 ↗ you know

1:57:31 ↗ we can skip the presentation i mean you

1:57:34 ↗ guys have all the packet information if

1:57:36 ↗ it's useful to just get to the questions

1:57:40 ↗ um i'm just throwing that out as an

1:57:42 ↗ option

1:57:43 ↗ well that's probably about an hour and a

1:57:46 ↗ half worth of

1:57:48 ↗ presentation and comments and

1:57:49 ↗ discussions so

1:57:51 ↗ that in itself is almost another ppc

1:57:53 ↗ meeting

1:57:55 ↗ if we continued on tonight i think we

1:57:57 ↗ might be sitting at

1:57:59 ↗ 9 30 to 10 o'clock

1:58:04 ↗ order cheerful there's one section two

1:58:06 ↗ on variances that we did not discuss

1:58:08 ↗ from our last meeting and has not been

1:58:10 ↗ brought up it was in our packet this

1:58:12 ↗ week that this commission has yet to

1:58:13 ↗ address in any meeting yet because we go

1:58:16 ↗ over time and variances are always at

1:58:18 ↗ the end so i just want to add that on

1:58:20 ↗ yeah so

1:58:24 ↗ minnie can we maybe wrap this up into

1:58:26 ↗ another

1:58:28 ↗ push this off into a different meeting

1:58:32 ↗ we can if that's what the the commission

1:58:35 ↗ wants to do um

1:58:37 ↗ so your next meeting is april 7th which

1:58:41 ↗ is

1:58:43 ↗ the the time when uh you're going to be

1:58:45 ↗ talking about trees and you have parks

1:58:47 ↗ board and environmental board so it's

1:58:49 ↗ the landscaping part so it would have to

1:58:51 ↗ be

1:58:53 ↗ you know an additional meeting in

1:58:54 ↗ between now and april 7th we are going

1:58:57 ↗ to take uh this topic to city council on

1:59:02 ↗ on this coming tuesday

1:59:04 ↗ um so we're taking what we've discussed

1:59:07 ↗ today um to them on the on tuesday so

1:59:12 ↗ but the other three topics um you know

1:59:14 ↗ the shoreline i think we um did a

1:59:17 ↗ presentation at the public hearing there

1:59:19 ↗ are three things we we've kind of uh

1:59:21 ↗ changed uh there uh

1:59:24 ↗ and then

1:59:25 ↗ the lighting i think you've had a lot of

1:59:28 ↗ presentations on that previously

1:59:31 ↗ at the public hearing and then the third

1:59:33 ↗ topic is the fish and wildlife habitat

1:59:35 ↗ corridor area so those are the three

1:59:37 ↗ that are

1:59:40 ↗ left at this point

1:59:42 ↗ yeah um i think it's too much to go over

1:59:45 ↗ tonight

1:59:46 ↗ uh

1:59:47 ↗ comments from the commissioners

1:59:53 ↗ uh commissioner voice

1:59:55 ↗ thank you chair it'd be interesting to

1:59:57 ↗ take these three topics and along with

1:59:59 ↗ commissioner lewis's concern about the

2:00:00 ↗ variances and combine that in to another

2:00:03 ↗ meeting our meetings are usually

2:00:04 ↗ generally two

2:00:06 ↗ to two and a half hours and i think just

2:00:07 ↗ looking at the lighting section that i

2:00:09 ↗ went over

2:00:10 ↗ that's gonna get a lot of discussion i

2:00:13 ↗ mean it all gets a lot of discussion but

2:00:14 ↗ i'm pretty sure we can fill up probably

2:00:16 ↗ another two hours at least with those

2:00:18 ↗ three topics plus

2:00:20 ↗ um the variance discussion

2:00:22 ↗ i think trying to cram it in in the next

2:00:24 ↗ hour and a half it's not going to do

2:00:26 ↗ anybody any justice yes yeah after two

2:00:28 ↗ hours it's a long meeting so

2:00:30 ↗ um in terms of the date then we'll just

2:00:33 ↗ get back to

2:00:35 ↗ you or unless you have a preference to

2:00:37 ↗ tell us what when you'd like to meet we

2:00:39 ↗ can talk about it now

2:00:44 ↗ okay uh let's see before

2:00:46 ↗ we answer that uh commissioner lewis you

2:00:49 ↗ have a

2:00:50 ↗ comment

2:00:51 ↗ thank you chairfall i have a concern

2:00:53 ↗ about not continuing right now because

2:00:56 ↗ we really do need to get a report to

2:00:58 ↗ council about this first draft to be

2:01:00 ↗ able to keep the gears moving

2:01:02 ↗ effectively it would be nice to finish

2:01:04 ↗ this bucket before we move on to the

2:01:06 ↗ next bucket which is what we need to

2:01:08 ↗ start doing

2:01:09 ↗ so

2:01:10 ↗ uh i obviously don't want to eliminate

2:01:13 ↗ robust discussion i think that that's

2:01:14 ↗ very important for what we have going so

2:01:16 ↗ if commissioners have consensus that

2:01:18 ↗ they're that they're done for the

2:01:19 ↗ evening

2:01:20 ↗ then i understand that but if that's not

2:01:22 ↗ the consensus i do think that there's

2:01:24 ↗ more that we can tackle so that we can

2:01:25 ↗ get a more in-depth report to council to

2:01:28 ↗ be able to keep this going

2:01:31 ↗ and commissioner milligan you know the

2:01:34 ↗ floor

2:01:35 ↗ thank you nina milligan here thank you

2:01:36 ↗ commissioner lewis i agree with you i'd

2:01:38 ↗ like to at least try to hit

2:01:40 ↗ uh something here

2:01:42 ↗ i i know that um

2:01:44 ↗ uh

2:01:45 ↗ commissioner voice said that the outdoor

2:01:47 ↗ lighting could be a robust conversation

2:01:49 ↗ but sometimes

2:01:50 ↗ we get into these and we say hey yeah

2:01:52 ↗ done

2:01:53 ↗ and a couple of these we could say hey

2:01:56 ↗ yeah

2:01:58 ↗ done so i think we should try

2:02:00 ↗ to do as much tonight

2:02:03 ↗ as we can and maybe just extend the time

2:02:06 ↗ and say what time it is that we're going

2:02:08 ↗ to extend to

2:02:09 ↗ and

2:02:10 ↗ see what else we can get done i'd like

2:02:12 ↗ to get done as much as i can i have a

2:02:14 ↗ feeling that the fish and wildlife one

2:02:17 ↗ is

2:02:17 ↗ more academic than the others and might

2:02:20 ↗ get

2:02:20 ↗ taken care of very quickly

2:02:24 ↗ okay so

2:02:25 ↗ um

2:02:26 ↗ [Music]

2:02:29 ↗ for selfish reasons i get up i have to

2:02:32 ↗ get up tomorrow morning at four o'clock

2:02:33 ↗ in the morning

2:02:34 ↗ so

2:02:36 ↗ um

2:02:37 ↗ and when meetings i take back everything

2:02:39 ↗ i said

2:02:40 ↗ meetings go over it really kicks my butt

2:02:43 ↗ um

2:02:44 ↗ but with that said i think maybe

2:02:48 ↗ uh planner yormic

2:02:50 ↗ what is the next section that you have

2:02:53 ↗ that's the shortest

2:02:55 ↗ that you think would be

2:02:57 ↗ that we could wrap up maybe within a

2:02:59 ↗ half an hour

2:03:03 ↗ i can go ahead and kind of

2:03:05 ↗ see how quick you know move the move the

2:03:08 ↗ conversation get to the point on some of

2:03:10 ↗ these things

2:03:11 ↗ i think for the fish and wildlife

2:03:12 ↗ habitat corridors we we did give you a

2:03:14 ↗ presentation it's a new section in the

2:03:16 ↗ code it doesn't uh it didn't exist

2:03:19 ↗ before so species um habitat uh is you

2:03:24 ↗ know provided protection now so if there

2:03:26 ↗ is an eagle nest then it will get some

2:03:28 ↗ protection some analysis a biologist

2:03:30 ↗ would have to go on the site give us a

2:03:32 ↗ study and we would kind of look at that

2:03:34 ↗ there are going to be uh maps that are

2:03:36 ↗ produced by fish and wildlife that give

2:03:38 ↗ up give us the basis of these are the

2:03:41 ↗ species um

2:03:43 ↗ and and so on and so forth so really the

2:03:45 ↗ question at this point was the streams

2:03:47 ↗ are embedded in the fish and wildlife

2:03:49 ↗ corridor uh

2:03:51 ↗ section

2:03:52 ↗ so there were some comments about the

2:03:55 ↗ fish and wildlife corridor is separate

2:03:58 ↗ then the streams perhaps and the

2:03:59 ↗ wetlands are already on a separate um

2:04:02 ↗ section in the code so we can it's just

2:04:04 ↗ as the organization that we would have

2:04:07 ↗ wetlands we would have streams and then

2:04:08 ↗ we would have fish and wildlife corridor

2:04:10 ↗ areas we're fine with doing it that way

2:04:13 ↗ and then making the language clear about

2:04:15 ↗ how it's applied when there's an overlap

2:04:18 ↗ between those two so it's really more of

2:04:20 ↗ a mechanical technical thing of

2:04:22 ↗ splitting the section and that's one of

2:04:24 ↗ the the public comments and and

2:04:27 ↗ we agree we can separate the streams

2:04:29 ↗ into a section so if everyone agrees to

2:04:31 ↗ that or has an opinion on it

2:04:34 ↗ we can take that

2:04:36 ↗ okay i don't want to blow through

2:04:37 ↗ everything really super fast but that

2:04:39 ↗ sounds like it was

2:04:42 ↗ pretty easy are we missing anything

2:04:47 ↗ is it really that simple mini

2:04:49 ↗ it it is yeah

2:04:53 ↗ okay uh see commissioner lewis has a

2:04:55 ↗ comment

2:04:58 ↗ i'm going to take a stab at this chair

2:04:59 ↗ paul uh on in regards to the fish and

2:05:02 ↗ wildlife corridor section and the

2:05:03 ↗ questions you're asking i think

2:05:04 ↗ separating out streams makes a lot of

2:05:06 ↗ sense i have no problem with that

2:05:08 ↗ reorganization if staff agrees that

2:05:10 ↗ they're able to do it and keep it

2:05:11 ↗ without having too much repetitive

2:05:13 ↗ language i will say that in offline

2:05:16 ↗ discussions doug pointed me towards

2:05:19 ↗ the resource of what was being included

2:05:21 ↗ and i found it hugely helpful right it

2:05:23 ↗ cleared up a lot of questions when i was

2:05:25 ↗ able to see what exactly we were talking

2:05:27 ↗ about because right now as the code is

2:05:28 ↗ written it doesn't give that adequate um

2:05:31 ↗ information and so i still think that

2:05:34 ↗ what staff needs to do is to be able to

2:05:36 ↗ address how we put that in our code

2:05:38 ↗ we're not able to do a giant information

2:05:40 ↗ dump right into the code but we're also

2:05:43 ↗ uh right now not able to do links in the

2:05:45 ↗ same way because that ends up changing

2:05:46 ↗ right the status of changing links and

2:05:48 ↗ things like that so i'd still like to

2:05:49 ↗ see a stop gap of how we end up marrying

2:05:52 ↗ these two issues um because the

2:05:54 ↗ information that i have moving forward

2:05:56 ↗ is not what's in the code so we do need

2:05:58 ↗ to have a little bit of reworking in

2:05:59 ↗ this section uh for this first draft so

2:06:02 ↗ those are my only comments thank you so

2:06:04 ↗ language and and context more more than

2:06:07 ↗ substance is concerned

2:06:09 ↗ okay yes thank you

2:06:12 ↗ okay and uh planner yormic did you have

2:06:14 ↗ any questions

2:06:17 ↗ nope

2:06:18 ↗ okay i've got what i needed for this

2:06:19 ↗ section

2:06:21 ↗ okay

2:06:22 ↗ moving on so the next

2:06:24 ↗ section was shoreline master program

2:06:28 ↗ and there were three things that were

2:06:30 ↗ changing in that one was the common line

2:06:32 ↗ setback was getting eliminated that was

2:06:35 ↗ if two homes are close by and then the

2:06:38 ↗ third person could say my neighbors have

2:06:40 ↗ the setback i should get the same one so

2:06:42 ↗ that's going away everyone has to meet

2:06:44 ↗ the minimum 50 foot setback

2:06:46 ↗ um the second was

2:06:48 ↗ that

2:06:50 ↗ you

2:06:51 ↗ there was an incentive in the code that

2:06:53 ↗ if you

2:06:55 ↗ had a

2:06:57 ↗ if you remove the your bulkhead you

2:06:59 ↗ could be closer to uh you you've got a

2:07:02 ↗ smaller buffer so that's no longer uh an

2:07:06 ↗ option now in this draft uh you

2:07:09 ↗ have to meet your minimum setback and if

2:07:12 ↗ you were building a new home or you were

2:07:14 ↗ doing substantial redevelopment you

2:07:16 ↗ would also need to remove the bulkhead

2:07:17 ↗ and and put a more

2:07:20 ↗ softer shoreline um better for the

2:07:22 ↗ environment and then the third one was

2:07:24 ↗ regulations on the dock lighting

2:07:27 ↗ so i think the questions we're asking

2:07:29 ↗ you on this is

2:07:31 ↗ [Music]

2:07:35 ↗ what should be the threshold for

2:07:37 ↗ requiring the property to remove a

2:07:38 ↗ bulkhead i mean we've

2:07:41 ↗ actually asked you those questions last

2:07:42 ↗ time

2:07:44 ↗ and the dock lighting so what should

2:07:46 ↗ trigger it at this point it's not

2:07:50 ↗ a program where there's an amortization

2:07:52 ↗ that everyone in 10 years is going to

2:07:53 ↗ change it it's more of as you do

2:07:55 ↗ redevelopment that's when you have to

2:07:57 ↗ bring it into compliance

2:08:00 ↗ okay so yeah i remember we've had these

2:08:03 ↗ presentations already to your point

2:08:06 ↗ so i think we can go ahead and answer

2:08:08 ↗ question one and two so let's tackle

2:08:11 ↗ question one

2:08:13 ↗ um

2:08:15 ↗ i guess base my first question before i

2:08:17 ↗ ask the questions to the commissioners

2:08:19 ↗ here is

2:08:21 ↗ do we have enough information to decide

2:08:24 ↗ what the threshold for requiring

2:08:26 ↗ property

2:08:27 ↗ property to remove the bulkhead

2:08:40 ↗ oh i

2:08:42 ↗ i was just going to ask in in i was

2:08:45 ↗ going to ask a question of a question in

2:08:47 ↗ what way um

2:08:49 ↗ are you talking about are you talking

2:08:51 ↗ about when

2:08:52 ↗ we are requiring a bulkhead to be

2:08:54 ↗ removed for um

2:08:56 ↗ new development

2:08:58 ↗ or when we would

2:09:00 ↗ yeah

2:09:02 ↗ well yeah so your question one is

2:09:05 ↗ what should the threshold be for

2:09:06 ↗ requiring a property to remove bulkhead

2:09:09 ↗ as proposed in the s p will require the

2:09:11 ↗ bulkhead removed at any new

2:09:13 ↗ redevelopment homes along lake samamish

2:09:15 ↗ unless it is demonstrated through

2:09:17 ↗ environmental reports

2:09:18 ↗ because bioengineering is not feasible

2:09:21 ↗ so

2:09:23 ↗ the the threshold is already defined

2:09:27 ↗ our draft has those thresholds which is

2:09:29 ↗ new home

2:09:30 ↗ or redevelopment so we're just asking

2:09:33 ↗ are you guys

2:09:34 ↗ good with that or do you want us to

2:09:36 ↗ relook at some of the thresholds

2:09:39 ↗ okay and

2:09:41 ↗ i guess my question is the redevelopment

2:09:43 ↗ the news obvious but the redevelopment

2:09:46 ↗ is

2:09:47 ↗ how much of a redevelopment is it 50 of

2:09:50 ↗ the value of the home i think that's in

2:09:52 ↗ one of the codes okay

2:09:54 ↗ we did talk about that i just didn't

2:09:55 ↗ remember the percentage of that okay

2:09:57 ↗ uh so the first question here is uh

2:10:00 ↗ commissioner milligan you have the floor

2:10:04 ↗ uh yeah i think you answered my question

2:10:06 ↗ but um you didn't is the same threshold

2:10:10 ↗ what's proposed for the doc

2:10:13 ↗ as for the bulkhead and and may i say

2:10:16 ↗ that um you know it is difficult enough

2:10:19 ↗ to get through all this material um if

2:10:21 ↗ you ask a question like what threshold

2:10:24 ↗ would you like um if you ask the

2:10:26 ↗ question do you agree with our 50

2:10:29 ↗ percent dream

2:10:31 ↗ build

2:10:32 ↗ threshold that would be very helpful

2:10:35 ↗ yeah i'm sorry about that that was poor

2:10:37 ↗ wording on my part

2:10:41 ↗ so the dock threshold what is that uh

2:10:44 ↗ the dock threshold is is um

2:10:47 ↗ for major repairs of docks and that's

2:10:50 ↗ defined in the smp and that's if you're

2:10:52 ↗ replacing more than 50 of the

2:10:55 ↗ peer support structures um

2:10:58 ↗ in the

2:10:59 ↗ you know any of the structure of the

2:11:01 ↗ deck not necessarily the decking itself

2:11:03 ↗ but all of the the stuff that make the

2:11:05 ↗ dock

2:11:06 ↗ um if 50 of that is removed then we're

2:11:09 ↗ going to look at

2:11:11 ↗ the light compliance because most of the

2:11:13 ↗ minor repairs

2:11:14 ↗ are they're just tweaking the the

2:11:17 ↗ decking material and just

2:11:20 ↗ having that come into compliance with

2:11:22 ↗ with our smp

2:11:24 ↗ so the graded decking to allow light to

2:11:26 ↗ transmit through

2:11:28 ↗ um so we we felt that it was when the

2:11:30 ↗ major repairs came in which which

2:11:32 ↗ require much more rigorous review

2:11:35 ↗ is when we would start looking at the

2:11:37 ↗ dock lighting

2:11:41 ↗ okay and i have a question and a comment

2:11:45 ↗ when it comes to dock

2:11:47 ↗ docking

2:11:48 ↗ the average life expectancy of a dock

2:11:51 ↗ based on what you're just telling me

2:11:52 ↗ about the structural part the peers

2:11:55 ↗ is probably

2:11:57 ↗ 30 years

2:11:58 ↗ and you're going to be replacing maybe a

2:12:00 ↗ pylon one or two pylons so

2:12:03 ↗ replacing 50 the doc is probably going

2:12:06 ↗ to be

2:12:07 ↗ 40 years 50 years out

2:12:10 ↗ and we're talking about lighting

2:12:12 ↗ replacement maybe we should

2:12:14 ↗ scale that back and say maybe

2:12:17 ↗ if 10 or 20 of a dock

2:12:20 ↗ so that

2:12:22 ↗ they have to bring their lighting up to

2:12:24 ↗ standard and that's the whole reason why

2:12:26 ↗ i have this conversation is because the

2:12:27 ↗ lighting is impacting the fish it's good

2:12:30 ↗ for them so

2:12:34 ↗ i it doesn't make sense to me because if

2:12:36 ↗ a doc is going to last 30 or 40 years

2:12:39 ↗ and

2:12:40 ↗ we

2:12:41 ↗ feel it it's important enough for us to

2:12:44 ↗ address today in our code about doc

2:12:47 ↗ lighting and we know what the

2:12:48 ↗ environmental impacts are of

2:12:50 ↗ bad lighting on the

2:12:53 ↗ fish and the wildlife

2:12:55 ↗ it seems like that's a really not a

2:12:57 ↗ great way to implement a lighting code

2:13:00 ↗ okay

2:13:02 ↗ um i i think you're correct and it we we

2:13:05 ↗ can um

2:13:07 ↗ make we can lower that threshold and

2:13:09 ↗ make it

2:13:11 ↗ um

2:13:12 ↗ reviewed when it's when it's a minor at

2:13:13 ↗ least have a have a look at it then at

2:13:16 ↗ that point

2:13:17 ↗ um just i don't know what the threshold

2:13:19 ↗ is or how we should be able to do that

2:13:21 ↗ it just seems like it makes sense to me

2:13:23 ↗ that if we want and people to change the

2:13:27 ↗ doc lighting so that it's more

2:13:28 ↗ environmentally friendly

2:13:30 ↗ maybe an incentive program or

2:13:33 ↗ something else rather than saying hey

2:13:36 ↗ we're going to wait till 50 because that

2:13:37 ↗ may not happen

2:13:42 ↗ okay uh and looks like there is another

2:13:45 ↗ comment uh commissioner lewis

2:13:48 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

2:13:49 ↗ lewis i think to ron's point

2:13:52 ↗ right now we're being asked to look at a

2:13:54 ↗ very specific part of the shoreline

2:13:56 ↗ master program council asked for you

2:13:58 ↗ guys to look at you know the three

2:14:00 ↗ things so that's what we're being asked

2:14:02 ↗ to look at

2:14:03 ↗ i think that a larger conversation about

2:14:06 ↗ the shoreline master program needs to

2:14:07 ↗ take place but today isn't the time

2:14:09 ↗ right so i think it would be valid to go

2:14:12 ↗ back to council and say i think that the

2:14:14 ↗ community has voiced that they would

2:14:16 ↗ like to be have staff put more energy

2:14:18 ↗ into refining the shoreline master

2:14:20 ↗ program to make sure that it aligns to

2:14:22 ↗ all of our various policies at a future

2:14:25 ↗ date right now i think staff has done a

2:14:27 ↗ great job of achieving what council has

2:14:29 ↗ asked it to do

2:14:30 ↗ but i would like to see there be a

2:14:33 ↗ greater uh path for incentivization for

2:14:36 ↗ getting rid of the bulkheads we know are

2:14:39 ↗ damaging and for being able to get our

2:14:41 ↗ lighting code into compliance i

2:14:43 ↗ completely agree that we should have our

2:14:45 ↗ dock lighting comply with the new

2:14:47 ↗ lighting ordinance so i'll just answer

2:14:50 ↗ that question right there for you and i

2:14:51 ↗ think to ron's point we need to find a

2:14:53 ↗ way to encourage that to happen quickly

2:14:56 ↗ right so what i would like to encourage

2:14:59 ↗ council to do is to be able to provide

2:15:01 ↗ resources for us to be able to move in a

2:15:04 ↗ much quicker manner so thank you very

2:15:06 ↗ much okay

2:15:08 ↗ thank you commercial saying commissioner

2:15:10 ↗ voice you have the floor

2:15:12 ↗ uh thank you chairfell so this is i

2:15:14 ↗ again to chair fal's point um i don't

2:15:17 ↗ know what the at what level mitigation

2:15:20 ↗ needs to start so whether it's 50 i

2:15:22 ↗ think 10 or 20 is a little low

2:15:24 ↗ um you know because again that's

2:15:26 ↗ assuming that every single doc you're

2:15:28 ↗ going to be looking at was built in the

2:15:29 ↗ year 2020.

2:15:31 ↗ most of these docs have been there for

2:15:32 ↗ years so they're probably going for

2:15:34 ↗ upgrades

2:15:35 ↗ and the other thing i would say

2:15:37 ↗ is it goes back to the

2:15:39 ↗ maintenance of the private road if

2:15:40 ↗ people are so scared and concerned

2:15:42 ↗ they're going to get hit with so many

2:15:43 ↗ things they're going to let these things

2:15:44 ↗ fall and disrepute

2:15:46 ↗ i know because i have family members who

2:15:48 ↗ lives on lakes there's some of the

2:15:49 ↗ toughest places to build in the last 30

2:15:52 ↗ years you pretty much have to be

2:15:54 ↗ grandfathered to get anything into a

2:15:56 ↗ lake and i think you guys all know that

2:15:58 ↗ so again

2:15:59 ↗ people are already hesitant to even

2:16:02 ↗ bring the city into some of these things

2:16:04 ↗ you want to talk about an area of

2:16:05 ↗ non-compliance or not even involving the

2:16:07 ↗ city this is one of them so i think you

2:16:09 ↗ get more compliance by being a little

2:16:11 ↗ bit more lenient with people so again

2:16:13 ↗ i'm not saying i don't know what the

2:16:14 ↗ number is but yeah if you drop it to

2:16:16 ↗ something like 10 percent uh no one's

2:16:18 ↗ going to call you guys

2:16:19 ↗ and then the second part is i'm a little

2:16:21 ↗ bit concerned about the common line

2:16:23 ↗ setbacks

2:16:25 ↗ not so much for the bill this is one of

2:16:26 ↗ the few times that i'm not as worried

2:16:28 ↗ about the developer people that live on

2:16:29 ↗ like some amish probably have the money

2:16:31 ↗ i'm also kind of looking at more through

2:16:33 ↗ aesthetics

2:16:35 ↗ and then also buildable lots we all know

2:16:37 ↗ that lakes and amish especially east

2:16:39 ↗ lake sammamish

2:16:40 ↗ um some of those lots are very tricky to

2:16:42 ↗ build on if anyone's taking a drive down

2:16:44 ↗ there

2:16:45 ↗ we do a lot of work down there i mean

2:16:46 ↗ those

2:16:48 ↗ those are not your typical

2:16:49 ↗ structures so it's all ready to tricky

2:16:52 ↗ to build down there so i'm just a little

2:16:53 ↗ concerned again

2:16:56 ↗ uh not saying i have an answer just

2:16:58 ↗ hoping that staff is taking that into

2:16:59 ↗ consideration when we're making rules

2:17:02 ↗ because again not only aesthetically

2:17:04 ↗ uh might it kind of

2:17:06 ↗ deviate from the lines

2:17:08 ↗ but you also can start asking for

2:17:10 ↗ triangle-shaped houses and things that

2:17:12 ↗ will not look appealing on a lake

2:17:15 ↗ we did we did analyze um the lots along

2:17:18 ↗ lake sammamish and

2:17:20 ↗ with with the 50-foot setback that we

2:17:23 ↗ that we are proposing

2:17:25 ↗ um

2:17:26 ↗ there on

2:17:28 ↗ the majority the vast majority of the

2:17:30 ↗ lots it's not really going to impact but

2:17:33 ↗ you're right along the lakeshore part

2:17:35 ↗ you you might start to see some some

2:17:36 ↗ variation as as new homes come in and

2:17:39 ↗ it's not going to be as uniform um but

2:17:42 ↗ in terms of the lot depth most of the

2:17:44 ↗ lots along the link have sufficient

2:17:46 ↗ depth to where there aren't any issues

2:17:48 ↗ if they have to comply with the 50 foot

2:17:50 ↗ setback versus the the what that

2:17:52 ↗ whatever the common line would be which

2:17:54 ↗ would allow you to get closer than that

2:17:56 ↗ okay no i'm good i'm happy to hear it

2:17:58 ↗ i'm happy to hear somebody you know

2:18:00 ↗ thought about this because again there's

2:18:02 ↗ certain parts there's certain stretches

2:18:04 ↗ of the shoulders that are tougher to

2:18:06 ↗ build on there's definitely a few

2:18:08 ↗ um closer to

2:18:10 ↗ you know the city proper and then

2:18:12 ↗ there's a few down by redmond but again

2:18:14 ↗ you start getting into some of these

2:18:15 ↗ lots and it's

2:18:16 ↗ you know some of the buildings and the

2:18:18 ↗ actual structures that are going in

2:18:19 ↗ there are pretty ugly

2:18:21 ↗ how much money they're worth they're

2:18:22 ↗ ugly um so again it's something to take

2:18:25 ↗ into consideration but it sounds like

2:18:26 ↗ you guys are so thank you

2:18:30 ↗ thank you commissioner voice and

2:18:32 ↗ commissioner milligan you have the floor

2:18:35 ↗ uh thank you chair of all night and

2:18:37 ↗ milligan

2:18:38 ↗ i want to um

2:18:40 ↗ support what has been said before about

2:18:45 ↗ taking this a step further and perhaps a

2:18:47 ↗ step further on excuse me on

2:18:51 ↗ rig on maintenance triggering the

2:18:53 ↗ bulkhead or docklighting uh improvements

2:18:56 ↗ to our new expectations and you know i

2:18:59 ↗ think it was said that we would

2:19:00 ↗ eliminate the incentive program

2:19:02 ↗ and have just the when there's a major

2:19:05 ↗ change you have to replace the bulkhead

2:19:07 ↗ is there somewhere in between there

2:19:08 ↗ where we could

2:19:12 ↗ continue to

2:19:13 ↗ run an incentive program and have a

2:19:16 ↗ threshold for required replacement

2:19:19 ↗ because of the concern that commissioner

2:19:21 ↗ lewis brought up

2:19:23 ↗ if this is just going to delay and uh

2:19:26 ↗ chair fall also if this is going to

2:19:27 ↗ delay the improvement that we're really

2:19:28 ↗ looking for why don't we keep the

2:19:30 ↗ incentive program i know it hasn't maybe

2:19:32 ↗ it needs to be a better incentive

2:19:33 ↗ program because we haven't found much

2:19:35 ↗ improvement from it but an incentive

2:19:37 ↗ program that fills in the gap between

2:19:40 ↗ regular maintenance that's not quite

2:19:42 ↗ major

2:19:43 ↗ and getting the results that we want um

2:19:46 ↗ to

2:19:47 ↗ commissioner voices point i certainly do

2:19:50 ↗ not want to disincentivize regular

2:19:52 ↗ maintenance because it would be

2:19:53 ↗ burdensome because of the upgrades

2:19:55 ↗ required uh we want people to keep their

2:19:58 ↗ properties well maintained whether it's

2:20:00 ↗ a bulkhead or shoreline or a dock

2:20:03 ↗ but i agree with the um significant

2:20:06 ↗ thresholds for coming into compliance

2:20:09 ↗ i'm just

2:20:09 ↗ asking if maybe we could look back at

2:20:11 ↗ those incentive programs and have

2:20:13 ↗ incentive

2:20:14 ↗ to thank you

2:20:18 ↗ and thank you commissioner milligan uh

2:20:20 ↗ and i'd like to add to commissioner

2:20:21 ↗ mulligan's comments there i think also

2:20:24 ↗ flooded with education so if we educate

2:20:27 ↗ those people who would be

2:20:30 ↗ whose properties would impact with the

2:20:32 ↗ bulkheads and or the docs

2:20:35 ↗ they may themselves decide they want to

2:20:37 ↗ do what's in the best interest of the

2:20:40 ↗ environment and proactively make the

2:20:41 ↗ changes

2:20:44 ↗ and maybe incentives would be a further

2:20:47 ↗ benefit to them but i think

2:20:49 ↗ at least putting together an education

2:20:50 ↗ thing and educating those people up

2:20:53 ↗ front may actually encourage them to

2:20:56 ↗ make the change without

2:20:58 ↗ much process from the study

2:21:02 ↗ okay with that said um i think we

2:21:05 ↗ pretty well drilled down on question one

2:21:07 ↗ and two um are there any additional

2:21:09 ↗ comments in

2:21:11 ↗ planar yarmouth were we

2:21:12 ↗ did we satisfy

2:21:14 ↗ did we answer your question

2:21:16 ↗ satisfactorily yes

2:21:19 ↗ okay

2:21:20 ↗ all right uh with that i want to say

2:21:22 ↗ that what's left is

2:21:24 ↗ we should probably move over into a

2:21:26 ↗ different meeting

2:21:28 ↗ and um

2:21:32 ↗ go into public comment uh

2:21:35 ↗ lucy

2:21:38 ↗ i don't believe that we're doing public

2:21:40 ↗ comment tonight you had the general

2:21:42 ↗ comment at the beginning of the meeting

2:21:45 ↗ and that there were not

2:21:47 ↗ because of the uh

2:21:49 ↗ discussion draft public hearing

2:21:52 ↗ that was already held i believe tonight

2:21:55 ↗ is uh just for deliberation by the

2:21:58 ↗ commission

2:22:00 ↗ okay

2:22:01 ↗ um

2:22:03 ↗ we normally have at least put the public

2:22:05 ↗ comment on some of this so

2:22:08 ↗ even based on what you just said i think

2:22:09 ↗ would still be do we have anybody who's

2:22:12 ↗ waiting to make public comment because i

2:22:14 ↗ don't if they're sitting here waiting

2:22:16 ↗ they just went through this whole

2:22:17 ↗ meeting i want them to be able to make a

2:22:18 ↗ comment instead of sitting there going

2:22:20 ↗ oh sorry we're not going to hear

2:22:21 ↗ comments tonight

2:22:23 ↗ so

2:22:23 ↗ i think we need to open it up for public

2:22:25 ↗ comment

2:22:26 ↗ if anyone's waiting to make a comment

2:22:29 ↗ there has been a hand raised

2:22:43 ↗ connie marsh you have been made a

2:22:45 ↗ panelist and

2:22:48 ↗ i tried on muting you

2:22:51 ↗ try it again

2:22:54 ↗ okay so now i think you've unmuted me

2:22:57 ↗ um

2:22:58 ↗ thank you uh chair of the commission

2:23:02 ↗ i

2:23:03 ↗ don't think it's appropriate to have a

2:23:07 ↗ hearing like this

2:23:08 ↗ or a meeting like this

2:23:10 ↗ where people might be watching where you

2:23:12 ↗ don't tell them in advance that the only

2:23:15 ↗ comment is going to be at the beginning

2:23:18 ↗ and yes we are sitting here watching so

2:23:20 ↗ i do appreciate that this is far too

2:23:22 ↗ much information to all go through in

2:23:25 ↗ one meeting and get effective comment

2:23:28 ↗ and

2:23:30 ↗ um

2:23:32 ↗ i

2:23:33 ↗ agree with most of what you say my

2:23:37 ↗ largest heartburn is around the streams

2:23:41 ↗ uh and the

2:23:43 ↗ unchanged buffers that have been

2:23:47 ↗ allocated to the streams i don't think

2:23:49 ↗ we have time to waste

2:23:52 ↗ waiting for them to create appropriate

2:23:54 ↗ buffers for the streams this the buffers

2:23:56 ↗ that we have been using have been

2:23:59 ↗ eroding substantially and we've been

2:24:01 ↗ reducing our fish returns rather than

2:24:05 ↗ creating larger fish returns which

2:24:08 ↗ basically means that we are not being

2:24:11 ↗ successful in creating appropriate

2:24:14 ↗ habitat for our endangered species so it

2:24:18 ↗ is not working so i would rather have

2:24:21 ↗ that

2:24:23 ↗ solved

2:24:25 ↗ now

2:24:26 ↗ because the whole basis of this update

2:24:28 ↗ has been to do that work now best

2:24:31 ↗ available science

2:24:33 ↗ was supposed to be put into it

2:24:35 ↗ now that's part of state law so

2:24:38 ↗ in addition to the peat i would ask for

2:24:41 ↗ them to do that work and i i much

2:24:44 ↗ appreciate your peat

2:24:46 ↗ conversations

2:24:47 ↗ thank you very much

2:25:02 ↗ is there anyone else who would like to

2:25:04 ↗ speak please raise your hand your

2:25:06 ↗ virtual hand

2:25:08 ↗ if you are interested in speaking this

2:25:11 ↗ evening

2:25:29 ↗ susan neville you have been made a

2:25:32 ↗ presenter and unmuted

2:25:34 ↗ if you uh choose turn your camera on

2:25:38 ↗ um

2:25:39 ↗ good evening no i think i'll scroll

2:25:41 ↗ without the camera it's kind of late

2:25:43 ↗ yeah

2:25:44 ↗ thank you for the opportunity to talk

2:25:47 ↗ and um

2:25:48 ↗ you know as we started this meeting i'm

2:25:50 ↗ still unclear on processes

2:25:52 ↗ and

2:25:53 ↗ i wasn't sure when we were going to talk

2:25:55 ↗ if if we were

2:25:56 ↗ so

2:25:57 ↗ maybe a little more clarity prior to the

2:26:00 ↗ meeting is a good idea as i think connie

2:26:02 ↗ mentioned

2:26:04 ↗ thank you all for taking the time and

2:26:08 ↗ really

2:26:09 ↗ the commitment to to do the best we can

2:26:13 ↗ i know there's so many uh things we're

2:26:15 ↗ being pulled for

2:26:17 ↗ time and cost and is is a huge job and i

2:26:20 ↗ wanted to say that tonight we started

2:26:23 ↗ this in may and we've got to the first

2:26:25 ↗ draft i think this is a pretty darn big

2:26:27 ↗ thing

2:26:28 ↗ we need to congratulate ourselves

2:26:30 ↗ and the staff is just really

2:26:33 ↗ really are trying to keep the public in

2:26:36 ↗ the loop i think the best of their

2:26:37 ↗ ability and i do appreciate that even

2:26:39 ↗ though sometimes i go after you

2:26:42 ↗ so i wanted you to know that too

2:26:44 ↗ um

2:26:46 ↗ i do agree with a lot that connie said

2:26:48 ↗ that uh

2:26:50 ↗ um

2:26:50 ↗ [Music]

2:26:52 ↗ there is still some stuff to talk about

2:26:54 ↗ with streams and and i did put that in

2:26:56 ↗ my

2:26:57 ↗ letter i sent earlier to give it ample

2:26:59 ↗ time but we do we do need to strengthen

2:27:03 ↗ it a little bit

2:27:04 ↗ um i think we might have to go a little

2:27:06 ↗ above standards but

2:27:08 ↗ not to

2:27:09 ↗ just for responsible development um

2:27:13 ↗ everybody can get a chance to to do what

2:27:17 ↗ they want but we're just asking for a

2:27:19 ↗ little bit of a upper bar to it

2:27:22 ↗ and i don't really think that's too much

2:27:24 ↗ and there are builders out there that

2:27:26 ↗ understand that so with that it's late

2:27:29 ↗ and i just wanted to thank everybody

2:27:31 ↗ for being here and putting the time into

2:27:34 ↗ what we've done so far good night

2:27:46 ↗ um is there any other members of the

2:27:49 ↗ public that would like to comment this

2:27:51 ↗ evening

2:28:02 ↗ at this time i don't see any other hands

2:28:04 ↗ that are raised

2:28:06 ↗ okay and thank you

2:28:08 ↗ lucy

2:28:09 ↗ uh

2:28:11 ↗ i guess uh a comment out to um

2:28:14 ↗ planner yormic uh i would you like i

2:28:17 ↗ would like you to consider some of the

2:28:19 ↗ comments that um

2:28:22 ↗ connie and susan both had just mentioned

2:28:24 ↗ i think they brought up some very valid

2:28:27 ↗ points so please consider those when

2:28:31 ↗ putting this

2:28:32 ↗ project together

2:28:34 ↗ and with that

2:28:37 ↗ the next topic here is reports so lucy

2:28:41 ↗ do we have any reports from the city

2:28:46 ↗ i believe um if if there are any many

2:28:48 ↗ would be the one to get no reports

2:28:52 ↗ okay

2:28:54 ↗ so no reports and so with that um

2:28:58 ↗ are there any last comments from the

2:29:00 ↗ city

2:29:01 ↗ before we conclude tonight

2:29:03 ↗ yeah i just want to thank all of you i

2:29:05 ↗ know this has been a difficult topic

2:29:07 ↗ it's been a technical topic and it's a

2:29:09 ↗ lot we've given you to read digest and

2:29:12 ↗ understand and have a thoughtful

2:29:14 ↗ conversation and you all have done so

2:29:16 ↗ well

2:29:17 ↗ and asked such good questions so

2:29:18 ↗ appreciate all your work

2:29:20 ↗ um if we need to meet on this topic

2:29:23 ↗ again we'll put that on your you know

2:29:25 ↗ we'll we'll discuss uh when kristin's

2:29:27 ↗ back and and we can uh come up with a an

2:29:30 ↗ additional meeting to continue the

2:29:32 ↗ conversation on this topic so don't want

2:29:34 ↗ you to feel that this was shortened uh

2:29:37 ↗ we are going to go to council on tuesday

2:29:40 ↗ with this information

2:29:42 ↗ and then probably after the council

2:29:44 ↗ discussion we can come back to you all

2:29:47 ↗ okay

2:29:48 ↗ i would like to bring up a point of

2:29:49 ↗ orders some of these packets and the

2:29:51 ↗ information that we're going through

2:29:53 ↗ they're really there's a lot of

2:29:55 ↗ information and i think it's almost

2:29:57 ↗ overload because

2:29:58 ↗ ppcs

2:30:00 ↗ not all the time sometimes we get out

2:30:02 ↗ early but i think

2:30:05 ↗ we need to maybe rebalance some of the

2:30:07 ↗ information that's in the package so

2:30:08 ↗ that we can get out by

2:30:12 ↗ 8 30 and for those nights that are

2:30:14 ↗ really short maybe we could add

2:30:16 ↗ something in so that we can

2:30:19 ↗ you know we're not leaving early so to

2:30:21 ↗ speak right so

2:30:22 ↗ um

2:30:23 ↗ because i think tonight was just a

2:30:25 ↗ little bit of an overload but it's

2:30:26 ↗ happened a couple times so i just want

2:30:28 ↗ to make sure that we no absolutely you

2:30:30 ↗ know we hear you and if there's better

2:30:32 ↗ ways to

2:30:33 ↗ handle the meeting how do we kind of

2:30:35 ↗ take the vote on these i mean this is

2:30:36 ↗ the first one that you've deliberated on

2:30:38 ↗ right so uh there are going to be some

2:30:40 ↗ lessons learned from the first time i

2:30:42 ↗ think it'll get better with the next

2:30:43 ↗ topic but if there's ways we we can kind

2:30:46 ↗ of

2:30:47 ↗ um figure out a strategy for

2:30:50 ↗ deliberations that works better for you

2:30:52 ↗ all as more time efficient than others

2:30:54 ↗ we were certainly can talk to you all

2:30:56 ↗ and get your feedback on that

2:30:58 ↗ excellent okay um

2:31:01 ↗ that said um

2:31:02 ↗ [Music]

2:31:04 ↗ i'm gonna go to adjournment

2:31:05 ↗ i'm going to adjourn it 904.

2:31:10 ↗ all right good night everybody

2:31:12 ↗ thank you ron thanks for staying up with

2:31:15 ↗ us

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (6)

Faul

Voiss

Commissioners Bader (excused late)

Lewis

Milligan

Zaragoza Absence: Commissioner Monahan (Unexcused)

Staff (1)

Millie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner, CP&D Stephen Padua