Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, August 11, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 23, 2022

packet pp.5–9

▶ Watch from 1:38 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

language has arrived here needs clarification. In 18.606.080, Ground Level Transparency, window tinting for energy efficiency could be added until the Energy Code is revisited. Recessed stories may be a clearer term than stepbacks, and in addressing building massing and articulation in 18.606.050, a Policy debate may be needed regarding where the recess can begin as the information provided has only been that the situation would be onerous to the Developer but there has been no mention of the community or design standards. Terracing and green space possibilities need to be discussed.

Minutes of July 20, 2022

packet pp.11–20

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jul 28, 2022

▶ Watch from 2:49 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES Special Joint Meeting PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, July 20, 2022

Minutes of July 28, 2022

packet pp.21–27

▶ Watch from 4:01 Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

internally with staff could occur, particularly regarding what maintenance costs will take away from the TDR fund. Dhaliwal replied that the proposal is a carry-over, a placeholder for now. The city can set up the programs with costs to manage and monitor if needed. There is a more complete response to comments submitted to staff on the topic in the Commissioner packet. There will be a correction to the map and language in the next round. COMMISSIONER LEWIS stated that language should support open space throughout park zoning. Staff will need to watch where costs come from and how the fund is impacted. COMMISSIONER LEWIS stated that there should be a balance of density between, in example, creek side properties versus other areas.

4. PUBLIC HEARING

Proposed Amendments to Title 18 Procedures and Administration, (D) Facilities Public Hearing Order Commission

Valerie Porter, Associate Planner Holly Keeton, Senior Planner Katie Cote, BHC Consultants Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.29–130

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.29 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the August 11, 2022, Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to hold a public hearing to receive public comments regarding the draft code for the Procedures & Administration topics. Please know General Provisions, Procedures, and Permits was mentioned in the public notice, but will not be discussed at the meeting on August 11.

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Election of Vice Chair

Action · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.131–132

Topics: Elections

▶ Watch from 2:34:02 Open packet at p.131 ↗

Staff report:

The Chair, or Acting Chair, can use the following script to facilitate nominations and elections of officers.

6. REPORTS

Council Update

Valerie Porter, Associate Planner

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.133–135

▶ Watch from 2:38:33 Open packet at p.133 ↗

Staff report:

Page 134 of 135 Staff Support: Christen Leeson Staff Support: Stephen Padua

4226 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ good evening evening everybody

0:08 ↗ i want to begin by just quickly asking

0:11 ↗ how everyone is staff

0:14 ↗ got a thumbs up

0:15 ↗ public

0:17 ↗ a okay and how about the commission

0:21 ↗ bathroom calls i was telling joy that i

0:23 ↗ saw the at the mariners game you know

0:25 ↗ where they have the sections cheer

0:28 ↗ maybe that's something we do here we see

0:30 ↗ which section cheers the loudest

0:33 ↗ i'm going to hope i'm going to hope

0:34 ↗ commissioners are the loudest

0:38 ↗ right so i'd like to bring this meeting

0:40 ↗ to order it currently is

0:43 ↗ 6 38 p.m

0:45 ↗ tonight's meeting is a hybrid meeting

0:47 ↗ the planning policy is in person but

0:50 ↗ staff or members of the public may be

0:52 ↗ attending virtually or in person

0:54 ↗ comments at tonight's meeting may be

0:56 ↗ made in person or virtually

0:58 ↗ for all who would like to speak during

1:00 ↗ public comments speak clearly and pause

1:02 ↗ frequently

1:03 ↗ state your name each time before

1:05 ↗ speaking

1:06 ↗ and if you are attending virtually by

1:08 ↗ computer or by phone and would like to

1:10 ↗ speak during public comments in addition

1:12 ↗ to the above please mute your microphone

1:14 ↗ when you're not speaking

1:16 ↗ and if you're having any technical

1:17 ↗ issues try joining the meeting using a

1:20 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

1:22 ↗ tablet

1:23 ↗ you can use the call and information in

1:24 ↗ the meeting invite to call into the

1:26 ↗ meeting

1:28 ↗ valerie

1:29 ↗ it appears we have a quorum but i'll

1:31 ↗ officially ask

1:34 ↗ yes you have a quorum chair

1:36 ↗ thank you

1:38 ↗ and our first approval of minutes is

1:40 ↗ because uh we forgot last time we have a

1:42 ↗ few different sets of uh minutes to

1:44 ↗ approve

1:45 ↗ um one thing i forgot to ask you stephen

1:47 ↗ is we could still do this by unanimous

1:49 ↗ consent i forgot to send you this email

1:52 ↗ earlier today that's correct okay

1:55 ↗ so we're going to begin with the june

1:57 ↗ 23rd meeting minutes that were all

1:59 ↗ provided in our packet does anyone have

2:01 ↗ any changes or concerns with the june

2:03 ↗ 23rd

2:04 ↗ meeting

2:07 ↗ all right hearing none

2:08 ↗ the meeting minutes are approved

2:10 ↗ uh july 20th same question any concerns

2:13 ↗ any changes

2:15 ↗ the july 20th meeting minutes are

2:17 ↗ approved

2:18 ↗ and finally the july 28th meeting

2:20 ↗ minutes again any changes or concerns

2:25 ↗ all right

2:26 ↗ all the minutes are approved we've taken

2:28 ↗ care of all of our house cleaning

2:33 ↗ we are now going to move on to public

2:35 ↗ comment and this comment period is for

2:37 ↗ the general public comments and items

2:39 ↗ pertaining to the commission

2:41 ↗ these are not comments for the public

2:44 ↗ hearing tonight so please refrain from

2:46 ↗ speaking about anything that has to do

2:48 ↗ with the five different topics

2:50 ↗ until later this evening otherwise it

2:52 ↗ will not be recorded in the record

2:54 ↗ valerie has anyone signed up to make

2:56 ↗ general public comments

3:01 ↗ yes the first speaker is hussein karam

3:11 ↗ there we go my name is hussein karam mr

3:14 ↗ mature voice

3:16 ↗ commissioners lovely staff

3:19 ↗ thanks for having me giving me the

3:20 ↗ opportunity to talk

3:22 ↗ i'm a local developer and the general

3:25 ↗ conversation that i want to have is is

3:27 ↗ about that the general title 18 i think

3:30 ↗ we've been in a state of an emergency

3:33 ↗ for over

3:34 ↗ two years or going through three years

3:36 ↗ as a lot is happening things are slow i

3:39 ↗ urge you to although i know planning

3:42 ↗ policy commission is not the authority

3:44 ↗ who does this but just for the record

3:46 ↗ that i feel that given the circumstances

3:50 ↗ what has happened to our economy what's

3:52 ↗ happened to state and emergency i

3:54 ↗ request the council to consider

3:58 ↗ delaying for the existing projects the

4:00 ↗ tele team for six months

4:02 ↗ i

4:04 ↗ today i made sure none of my friends

4:06 ↗ find out about this that's why we don't

4:08 ↗ have anybody here which is good

4:10 ↗ uh and i just met this gentleman here

4:13 ↗ he's uh he's he's just want to learn so

4:16 ↗ this is the general thing here i i'm

4:18 ↗ very honored to be part of this process

4:21 ↗ and i know this this the planning policy

4:24 ↗ commission does not make such

4:25 ↗ recommendations but i just want to be on

4:28 ↗ a record and that's all a little more

4:30 ↗ about the title 18. thank you for having

4:33 ↗ me

4:38 ↗ next we have brandon sorry i'm i cannot

4:41 ↗ read your lesson

4:42 ↗ it's fine

4:43 ↗ uh i don't even know if this pertains to

4:46 ↗ why i'm here but i received an email i

4:49 ↗ own a bunch of food trucks in town

4:51 ↗ and uh the email was basically saying

4:54 ↗ this would be a meeting regarding

4:57 ↗ food truck rules and

4:59 ↗ rags

5:03 ↗ sorry sorry to interrupt you brandon so

5:05 ↗ that does actually have to do with the

5:07 ↗ the hearing tonight so hopefully you'll

5:08 ↗ want to stick around but you can get

5:10 ↗ your voice put on the record yeah so if

5:12 ↗ you have any other general public

5:13 ↗ comments for the good of the order for

5:14 ↗ the commission itself um that's what

5:16 ↗ we're doing right now yeah again until

5:18 ↗ that comes up i really have nothing else

5:20 ↗ to say

5:21 ↗ so if you want to uh call on me when

5:23 ↗ that that portion of this discussion is

5:26 ↗ in play i will be ready perfect thank

5:28 ↗ you

5:33 ↗ is there anyone else who would like to

5:34 ↗ speak virtually

5:42 ↗ so for for brandon and all all of you

5:45 ↗ who are listening the next item on the

5:46 ↗ agenda is the public hearing uh for

5:49 ↗ title 18 bucket six code updates so

5:52 ↗ what's going to happen tonight

5:53 ↗ is staff is going to present all five

5:55 ↗ topics and after each topic

5:58 ↗ the commission will have an opportunity

6:00 ↗ to ask clarifying questions and then

6:02 ↗ we'll move on to another another

6:04 ↗ presentation after the presentations

6:07 ↗ after the clarifying questions then we

6:09 ↗ will open it up for the public hearing

6:12 ↗ listen to what the public has to say

6:14 ↗ about said presentations we will close

6:16 ↗ the public hearing and then move on for

6:18 ↗ the commission deliberation

6:23 ↗ so i believe staff

6:24 ↗ you are up

6:32 ↗ evening just want to make sure everybody

6:34 ↗ can hear me i've had some audio issues

6:38 ↗ if someone can just verify that you can

6:40 ↗ hear me

6:41 ↗ yes holly we can hear you

6:43 ↗ great thank you so much

6:45 ↗ thank you for everyone who is taking

6:47 ↗ time out of their evening to be here to

6:49 ↗ listen to these important topics and

6:51 ↗ thank you to the commissioners as well

6:53 ↗ my name is holly keaton i will be

6:55 ↗ presenting a

6:56 ↗ brief explanation of the changes to

6:59 ↗ wireless communication facilities

7:04 ↗ and go to the next slide please thank

7:06 ↗ you okay so what are wireless

7:08 ↗ communication facilities

7:11 ↗ wireless communication facilities are

7:13 ↗ any unstaffed facility that transmits or

7:16 ↗ receives radio frequency signals through

7:19 ↗ electromagnetic energy usually via some

7:21 ↗ sort of cabinet

7:23 ↗ power or other structure

7:25 ↗ that will help it achieve the height

7:27 ↗ needed to receive and transmit radio

7:31 ↗ waves

7:33 ↗ so some examples of wireless

7:35 ↗ communication facilities

7:37 ↗ include macro cell towers small cell

7:40 ↗ facilities

7:42 ↗ and we have some other devices that fall

7:44 ↗ under this category as well we can get

7:46 ↗ to the next slide

7:51 ↗ so i usually find that visual examples

7:53 ↗ are helpful so here we have a macro cell

7:55 ↗ tower over to the left-hand side

7:59 ↗ small cell facility

8:01 ↗ in the center top and then

8:04 ↗ i'm not sure if everybody is aware but

8:06 ↗ satellite dishes and amateur radio

8:08 ↗ towers are also considered small cell or

8:10 ↗ wireless communication facilities

8:17 ↗ okay

8:18 ↗ so now to talk about the changes that

8:20 ↗ have been made to the wireless code

8:23 ↗ we didn't make any real substantial

8:24 ↗ changes this go around as more

8:26 ↗ discussion is needed on some of the

8:28 ↗ topics

8:29 ↗ that we are considering for policy

8:31 ↗ changes however we did make some general

8:34 ↗ formatting changes and language changes

8:36 ↗ for clarity of use and transparency

8:40 ↗ so the first item is the purpose section

8:43 ↗ has been lengthened

8:45 ↗ so previously we only had a few items in

8:48 ↗ the purpose section it now also includes

8:51 ↗ that assures all providers are in

8:53 ↗ compliance with city rules and standards

8:55 ↗ minimize visual safety aesthetic and

8:58 ↗ environmental impacts

9:00 ↗ encourage location and co-location on

9:02 ↗ non-municipal structures

9:04 ↗ and ensure barrier-free equipment is

9:07 ↗ used

9:08 ↗ provide a comment period

9:11 ↗ and ensure fair regulatory process

9:16 ↗ we also made amendments to align with

9:18 ↗ procedural changes specifically to types

9:20 ↗ of permits and timelines for review

9:23 ↗ how fees are assessed

9:25 ↗ and noticing requirements

9:29 ↗ additional guidance has been added to

9:30 ↗ the code for

9:32 ↗ clear

9:34 ↗ making clearer language so that the user

9:36 ↗ the code both on the applicant side and

9:39 ↗ the city side

9:40 ↗ is able to use the code more easily and

9:43 ↗ regulations

9:45 ↗ are more transparent

9:48 ↗ code references to fcc timelines have

9:50 ↗ been taken

9:51 ↗ uh have been included however the table

9:54 ↗ from the fcc has been taken out

9:56 ↗ so we are just doing the common

9:58 ↗ practices we would do with any other

10:00 ↗ type of governmental agency like we

10:02 ↗ refer to the rcw rather than having the

10:04 ↗ actual table in the code we're just

10:06 ↗ referring back to the regulation

10:10 ↗ and then there's just general verbiage

10:12 ↗ changes for example

10:15 ↗ regulations has been replaced with

10:16 ↗ standards and shell has been replaced

10:19 ↗ with must and those are consistent

10:21 ↗ throughout all of the amendments that

10:23 ↗ you probably already have been hearing

10:25 ↗ about

10:27 ↗ again no substantial changes have been

10:29 ↗ made mostly language changes some

10:32 ↗ additional items where more clarity is

10:34 ↗ needed and

10:37 ↗ simplifying process and making more

10:39 ↗ transparent language

10:43 ↗ and

10:44 ↗ next

10:47 ↗ all right thank you for the questions

10:50 ↗ thank you for the presentation

10:52 ↗ opening up to the commissioners with

10:53 ↗ their questions

10:57 ↗ looking at you nina yeah thank you chair

10:59 ↗ voice

11:00 ↗ i i have a question about changes

11:04 ↗ and it just pertains to remembering the

11:07 ↗ conversation that we had about locating

11:09 ↗ small wireless facilities on existing

11:11 ↗ polls and there may not have been a

11:13 ↗ change but isn't that the conversation

11:14 ↗ we had that was fairly robust about what

11:16 ↗ would be allowed and what wouldn't be

11:18 ↗ allowed and i'm sorry that i'm just not

11:20 ↗ quite clear on

11:22 ↗ how that was all resolved

11:24 ↗ yes so

11:25 ↗ in part due to that conversation we have

11:28 ↗ left the regulations or standards as

11:31 ↗ they were in the previous code and we

11:33 ↗ have added

11:34 ↗ more discussion to the whiteboard for

11:38 ↗ addressing how we're going to move

11:40 ↗ forward with additional

11:43 ↗ regulations within this code

11:49 ↗ hi commissioner joy lewis i'm a little

11:52 ↗ curious about what

11:53 ↗ how we can help you this evening i think

11:55 ↗ my biggest question starts out with the

11:58 ↗ background we got that says that these

12:00 ↗ actions don't warrant discussion with

12:02 ↗ the commission uh but they're in an

12:04 ↗ analysis to help us discuss the policy

12:06 ↗ questions but there were no policy

12:08 ↗ questions framed to us

12:10 ↗ so

12:11 ↗ i'm curious if maybe you could help

12:13 ↗ guide us a little bit as to what you're

12:15 ↗ looking for because you kind of plainly

12:17 ↗ say

12:17 ↗ ah we don't we're not really looking for

12:20 ↗ a discussion from the commission

12:22 ↗ so i'm a little confused as to how we

12:25 ↗ can help tonight i think it's my opening

12:27 ↗ question

12:29 ↗ correct i think that the the goal for

12:31 ↗ having me present this evening was just

12:33 ↗ to clarify that some of those items that

12:35 ↗ have been discussed in the past

12:39 ↗ have not moved forward with these code

12:42 ↗ amendments as they currently are

12:45 ↗ and the purpose is

12:47 ↗ to

12:47 ↗ ensure that

12:49 ↗ the code aligns with the goals

12:52 ↗ and outcomes chart

12:54 ↗ okay thank you i'm curious on page 9 of

12:58 ↗ 20 of my packet

12:59 ↗ i'm looking at section

13:01 ↗ .080 applicant notice requirements it

13:04 ↗ lists 300 feet is there a reason why

13:07 ↗ that would be any deviation from the 500

13:09 ↗ feet that we've been doing elsewhere in

13:11 ↗ title 18

13:13 ↗ so as i mentioned we didn't change the

13:16 ↗ standards in this code we just changed

13:18 ↗ some of the language so that is

13:20 ↗ something that i think would be

13:22 ↗ an item that should be considered

13:25 ↗ okay

13:26 ↗ great if you could make a note of that

13:28 ↗ i'm curious

13:29 ↗ specifically my questions are really

13:31 ↗ about co-location

13:33 ↗ that we do talk about last time as nina

13:36 ↗ had mentioned we had talked about

13:38 ↗ how previously

13:40 ↗ when carriers came before this very

13:41 ↗ commission had said that they were not

13:43 ↗ willing to share a poll for co-location

13:46 ↗ and i'm curious now there's no language

13:48 ↗ in here that requires them to share the

13:50 ↗ poll and

13:51 ↗ um

13:53 ↗ as previously that was something that we

13:55 ↗ had required and had put through and so

13:57 ↗ i'm curious that does seem like a change

13:58 ↗ to me on the co-location

14:00 ↗ do we have any

14:02 ↗ um the language for co-location has

14:04 ↗ remained the same it's the languages

14:06 ↗ that it's highly encouraged and

14:08 ↗ preferred

14:10 ↗ so that has

14:12 ↗ that hasn't changed encouraged and

14:13 ↗ preferred so when we're wanting to

14:15 ↗ change our shoulds and our shells to

14:16 ↗ musts we decided that preferred was an

14:19 ↗ okay situation

14:21 ↗ for co-location or

14:24 ↗ where are we at on why we made these

14:26 ↗ choices for

14:28 ↗ co-location language

14:31 ↗ you know i have to pull up the code to

14:33 ↗ look at how how it is currently

14:36 ↗ converted versus how it's worded in the

14:39 ↗ amended code yeah i think that was also

14:41 ↗ kind of some of my questions for like

14:43 ↗ small satellite dish antennas is that

14:45 ↗ new language

14:48 ↗ it is not it is not new language thank

14:51 ↗ you that is very helpful um

14:54 ↗ i think my last question about

14:56 ↗ this it's on the same section when we

14:59 ↗ talk about um the language talks about

15:02 ↗ equipment used and not a subjective

15:04 ↗ review of the site which was selected by

15:07 ↗ a provider and i'm curious um so when is

15:11 ↗ it i'm curious about this review process

15:13 ↗ again this is page nine right now i'm

15:14 ↗ looking at third party review it's point

15:16 ↗ zero nine zero section b

15:19 ↗ um

15:20 ↗ and it says it talks about how um it's

15:22 ↗ the equipment used is not going to be

15:24 ↗ subjective to review of the site which

15:26 ↗ was selected by the provider i'm curious

15:28 ↗ when it will be

15:30 ↗ when do we expect to be able to in this

15:32 ↗ process have review

15:35 ↗ does it go before it directly said page

15:38 ↗ page

15:41 ↗ which is specifically for the small cell

15:43 ↗ and it's

15:45 ↗ 18.512090 third party review

15:48 ↗ um it says also it has a note for us

15:50 ↗ this section is new material to require

15:52 ↗ third party review but then it talks

15:54 ↗ about um and it for me it's a page flip

15:57 ↗ but obviously if you're looking

15:57 ↗ digitally it's not um

16:00 ↗ so i'm curious how

16:02 ↗ maybe we could explain a little bit more

16:04 ↗ i'm a little confused about the third

16:05 ↗ party review part of this

16:07 ↗ sure so the third party review was

16:10 ↗ something that was added so that the

16:12 ↗ city has the ability to hire a

16:14 ↗ professional in the field

16:16 ↗ of

16:17 ↗ wireless technology

16:20 ↗ to assist us with large uh towers that

16:23 ↗ may be

16:24 ↗ applied for within the city

16:28 ↗ and this is new language that's being

16:29 ↗ added

16:30 ↗ that is new language and at what point

16:33 ↗ does it

16:34 ↗ when is that happen

16:37 ↗ that is the director's discretion based

16:39 ↗ on the project okay thank you that is

16:42 ↗ exactly the answer that i was looking

16:43 ↗ for

16:44 ↗ um

16:46 ↗ i think that's um

16:49 ↗ i think that's it right now um i can

16:52 ↗ tell you that my vague question really

16:54 ↗ has to do a little bit about um the feet

16:56 ↗ that we use when we start talking about

16:58 ↗ towers at 85 feet new poles at 30 feet

17:01 ↗ we start talking about replacement holes

17:03 ↗ or then allowed to be 15 feet in

17:05 ↗ addition to the existing pole

17:08 ↗ it would be nice to have a little bit of

17:09 ↗ background

17:11 ↗ when we are reviewing this for draft

17:13 ↗ round two of talking about really diving

17:15 ↗ into it i appreciate that in the

17:17 ↗ beginning of the presentation you said

17:18 ↗ it was kind of an overview the next time

17:19 ↗ we see this i'd like to have a little

17:20 ↗ bit deeper dive into why

17:22 ↗ we as a community are settling on these

17:24 ↗ particular numbers and

17:27 ↗ how they align to whether it's

17:29 ↗ requirements set

17:31 ↗ on a federal level or whether it's a

17:33 ↗ requirement from our the providers in

17:35 ↗ the community or things like that it

17:36 ↗ would be nice to go through a little bit

17:37 ↗ deeper review on that so

17:39 ↗ that's all my questions

17:41 ↗ thank you so those items also have not

17:44 ↗ changed so

17:45 ↗ what i'm understanding is you want to

17:47 ↗ know why we initially chose those

17:49 ↗ heights when we first

17:51 ↗ put this code together or why we're

17:52 ↗ keeping them right so specifically the

17:54 ↗ idea that they would be able to gain an

17:56 ↗ additional 15 foot

17:59 ↗ to that pole

18:00 ↗ um

18:01 ↗ i think

18:02 ↗ why are we landing on why this is

18:04 ↗ appropriate for us now based on going

18:06 ↗ through it again

18:08 ↗ okay thank you holly thank you sir

18:11 ↗ thank you

18:13 ↗ commissioner bader

18:16 ↗ all right well

18:17 ↗ some of this is a technical language

18:19 ↗ that again i'm

18:20 ↗ going to defer to some of our experts

18:22 ↗ but a couple of things that did catch my

18:24 ↗ eye was on page 7 of 20

18:30 ↗ under e

18:31 ↗ 0.2

18:33 ↗ it says the network provider

18:34 ↗ acknowledges the building permit

18:36 ↗ submittal is an at-risk permit and is

18:38 ↗ dependent upon receiving the land use

18:40 ↗ permit

18:41 ↗ i'm interested to know is this practice

18:44 ↗ also used in peer cities

18:46 ↗ it seems like an

18:48 ↗ enormously expensive way to go

18:51 ↗ legal language

18:53 ↗ to

18:55 ↗ aid the applicant and understanding that

18:57 ↗ they're not necessarily guaranteed

18:59 ↗ a permit just because they go through

19:01 ↗ the permit review process

19:03 ↗ okay

19:05 ↗ and then i just had one other question i

19:07 ↗ believe it's a page 11 of 20. it's

19:09 ↗ actually in the table

19:10 ↗ table a

19:12 ↗ it shows a different column for allowed

19:14 ↗ allowed with conditions one of them is

19:16 ↗ blocking natural vistas and that seems

19:18 ↗ kind of extraordinary to me who's the

19:20 ↗ arbiter of that

19:21 ↗ is that the

19:23 ↗ who allows the yeah

19:26 ↗ so again it would be a director decision

19:28 ↗ based on the specific application which

19:31 ↗ could have uh resulting problems for

19:34 ↗ people's property value and and

19:35 ↗ depending on the tower and the type and

19:38 ↗ that would be with a notice of

19:40 ↗ application as well so there would be

19:42 ↗ public comment on that

19:44 ↗ okay great thank you

19:46 ↗ thank you

19:48 ↗ i believe that's the question so we are

19:50 ↗ ready for the next presentation

20:04 ↗ good evening uh

20:06 ↗ commissioners i think the next uh up is

20:09 ↗ sipa

20:11 ↗ can you all hear me okay

20:15 ↗ yes minnie we can

20:16 ↗ great um

20:19 ↗ so uh one more

20:21 ↗ a slide up uh

20:25 ↗ valerie are you controlling

20:27 ↗ are we at the first slide

20:29 ↗ yes this is the first line okay

20:31 ↗ great

20:32 ↗ so um

20:34 ↗ i think i cannot um

20:39 ↗ so uh what have we changed in cipa from

20:42 ↗ the first time uh we talked we all

20:44 ↗ talked to you so in the draft that you

20:46 ↗ have in your packets there were a lot of

20:49 ↗ sections

20:50 ↗ that were

20:51 ↗ [Music]

20:52 ↗ updated to reduce redundancies or where

20:55 ↗ there was a conflict between state or

20:56 ↗ federal law so

20:58 ↗ really very legal kind of clarity and

21:01 ↗ improvement type of uh type of changes

21:04 ↗ then um

21:06 ↗ the biggest change that we want to kind

21:07 ↗ of talk to you about and get your

21:09 ↗ opinion on that we've discussed with you

21:11 ↗ all before is

21:13 ↗ what's exempt from cpa so when we first

21:15 ↗ started the conversation with you all

21:17 ↗ you know we went over what is cpa what

21:19 ↗ is the purpose of cpa it's a state law

21:22 ↗ required

21:23 ↗ um review and primarily meant to capture

21:27 ↗ things that aren't addressed by code and

21:29 ↗ if there's mitigation needed for any of

21:31 ↗ the impacts this is a tool that the

21:33 ↗ cities can use

21:35 ↗ um

21:36 ↗ and but it's not really uh the purpose

21:38 ↗ isn't to use cpa to require conditions

21:42 ↗ that are already in our code um

21:44 ↗ and so this is one area for what's

21:48 ↗ exempt from going through cpa and based

21:50 ↗ on conversations we had with you all you

21:52 ↗ suggested what's in it for the city

21:54 ↗ um you know perhaps uh

21:57 ↗ requiring um sustainable building is an

22:00 ↗ incentive that we would

22:03 ↗ raise our cipa threshold levels to

22:05 ↗ require something in return which was

22:08 ↗ sustainable buildings

22:10 ↗ so number three uh was um

22:15 ↗ timelines and estimates uh had to be

22:18 ↗ updated uh to be consistent with the

22:20 ↗ state law

22:21 ↗ uh public notice requirements were a

22:24 ↗ little bit not that clear we've added a

22:27 ↗ section in here that says any project

22:29 ↗ that goes to cipa requires a public

22:31 ↗ notice early in the process

22:34 ↗ the state law requires us to give a

22:36 ↗ notice at the time the determination is

22:38 ↗ made but we have put in language that

22:40 ↗ requires public notice when we deem an

22:43 ↗ application complete

22:45 ↗ in addition to when an actual

22:47 ↗ determination is made next slide please

22:52 ↗ um and uh so we talked about the public

22:56 ↗ notice uh so we used to be 300 feet uh

22:59 ↗ and based on our conversation with you

23:00 ↗ all in the past we've increased it to

23:02 ↗ 500 feet and residents and property

23:05 ↗ owners there is a little typo in the

23:07 ↗ draft which only references uh property

23:10 ↗ owners but our intent is that we will

23:12 ↗ clean that up um

23:13 ↗ and reference all our notice procedures

23:16 ↗ in a different chapter where that will

23:17 ↗ be all consistent and it'll be 500 feet

23:20 ↗ property owners and tenants and and

23:23 ↗ publication on the website and other

23:25 ↗ things other postings and things like

23:27 ↗ that

23:29 ↗ the next big change uh really is um

23:33 ↗ we had a lot of reference to planning

23:35 ↗ documents over the years those have

23:37 ↗ changed some new

23:39 ↗ documents have been adopted so we've

23:42 ↗ cleaned up that list to reference most

23:44 ↗ recent iteration of the documents

23:48 ↗ the appeal section was a little um not

23:51 ↗ very clear uh when we make a

23:53 ↗ determination and who who does do the

23:56 ↗ appeals go to and and who hears them and

23:58 ↗ within what time and all that so we've

24:00 ↗ clarified the appeal section

24:03 ↗ and the fees are consistent with our

24:05 ↗ fees chapter so that's the the extent of

24:07 ↗ the changes so we'll get a little bit

24:09 ↗ deeper into the thresholds

24:11 ↗ uh in the next slide so a little bit of

24:14 ↗ going down the memory lane of how we

24:16 ↗ landed where we are

24:17 ↗ next slide please

24:20 ↗ um so when we had the initial

24:22 ↗ conversation with you we shared with you

24:24 ↗ the peer city research

24:26 ↗ what the state law has as a maximum

24:28 ↗ threshold so a little refresher on this

24:31 ↗ our current thresholds if someone wants

24:33 ↗ to build more than four units as to go

24:36 ↗ through cpa process

24:38 ↗ and anyone that wants to build more than

24:40 ↗ four thousand square feet has to go

24:42 ↗ through a cpap process

24:44 ↗ the state law over the years has made

24:46 ↗ has increased these thresholds multiple

24:49 ↗ times

24:50 ↗ but where they've landed on this is

24:53 ↗ up to maximum up to 30 units uh

24:56 ↗ single-family 60 units multi-family and

24:59 ↗ 40

25:00 ↗ 30

25:01 ↗ 30 000 square feet of commercial

25:03 ↗ buildings

25:04 ↗ can be exempt from cpa thresholds it's

25:07 ↗ not that they have to be but the state

25:09 ↗ law requires up to that level

25:12 ↗ the cities cannot choose oh uh you know

25:14 ↗ buildings over 60 000 don't have to go

25:16 ↗ through cpa that's uh not allowed under

25:18 ↗ the state law

25:20 ↗ um so uh we had proposed some options

25:23 ↗ back then you know perhaps uh you know

25:26 ↗ not going all the way up to the maximum

25:27 ↗ but somewhere in the range of 10 units

25:30 ↗ and 10 000 square feet

25:32 ↗ next slide please

25:35 ↗ and at the time we asked these questions

25:37 ↗ for to get your policy guidance you know

25:39 ↗ no increase moderate increase maximum

25:42 ↗ increase

25:43 ↗ and you all asked us to say uh to figure

25:46 ↗ out if there's any incentive that we

25:48 ↗ could get in return

25:50 ↗ so then we had the discussion next slide

25:52 ↗ please

25:55 ↗ related to the climate action plan and

25:59 ↗ uh building sustainable buildings uh

26:02 ↗ conversation and and laid out some

26:04 ↗ policy options for you all

26:07 ↗ um one was anything larger than 10 000

26:10 ↗ square feet which roughly equates to 10

26:13 ↗ to 15 residential units

26:16 ↗ if someone were to build that size

26:19 ↗ building or that many units and they

26:21 ↗ were built with a certification

26:24 ↗ from a third party lead gold or built

26:26 ↗ green

26:28 ↗ that they would not have to go through

26:29 ↗ sepa

26:30 ↗ so option two was twenty thousand square

26:33 ↗ feet of commercial building which

26:35 ↗ roughly equates to twenty to thirty

26:37 ↗ residential units

26:40 ↗ if they were

26:41 ↗ certified some of the advantages of this

26:43 ↗ number two were

26:45 ↗ that smaller scale projects nine to ten

26:48 ↗ units uh would be

26:50 ↗ you know the missing middle uh uh

26:53 ↗ type of projects uh would not have to go

26:56 ↗ through cpa

26:57 ↗ um

26:58 ↗ and then the third option was 30 000

27:00 ↗ square feet which roughly equates to 30

27:02 ↗ to 45 residential units i mean again

27:04 ↗ these are rough equations

27:07 ↗ um but but if you go by 800 square feet

27:09 ↗ per unit or

27:10 ↗ in that range that's what you get in

27:13 ↗ terms of square footage versus the units

27:16 ↗ next slide please

27:19 ↗ and so uh during that conversation with

27:22 ↗ you all um

27:24 ↗ our recommendation at that point was

27:26 ↗ that middle twenty thousand square feet

27:29 ↗ next slide please

27:34 ↗ here's the discussion we we said you

27:36 ↗ know 20 000 square feet lead lead gold

27:39 ↗ or equivalent salmon safe if applicable

27:43 ↗ have some requirement for eco-friendly

27:44 ↗ building materials

27:47 ↗ and so we could exempt buildings up to

27:50 ↗ 20 000 square feet from cpa as long as

27:53 ↗ they

27:54 ↗ uh had some sort of

27:56 ↗ certification for being a sustainable

27:58 ↗ building

28:00 ↗ and

28:01 ↗ uh then we also wanted to kind of throw

28:04 ↗ in a a closer look at

28:07 ↗ affordable housing

28:09 ↗ if there were some other cost saving

28:11 ↗ measures we we needed to look at so that

28:13 ↗ was our conversation with you all on

28:15 ↗ climate action plan

28:17 ↗ trading cpa for

28:19 ↗ um

28:20 ↗ getting something in return or raising

28:22 ↗ the cpa threshold for some buildings but

28:24 ↗ getting

28:25 ↗ some or providing some incentive for

28:28 ↗ folks to get to build sustainable

28:29 ↗ buildings

28:31 ↗ next slide please

28:34 ↗ so this is what's in your draft uh in

28:36 ↗ your draft you know it shows the

28:39 ↗ the largest possible

28:41 ↗ um

28:43 ↗ threshold allowed under the state law so

28:46 ↗ 30 single family units 60 multi-family

28:50 ↗ and 30 000 square feet for commercial

28:52 ↗ buildings so what we really need your

28:54 ↗ feedback on where where do we want to

28:57 ↗ land on this

28:59 ↗ incentive for lead buildings

29:02 ↗ 4 is our current

29:04 ↗ 20 is our recommended

29:06 ↗ 30 is the maximum the state law allows

29:09 ↗ so our recommendation is 20 000 square

29:11 ↗ feet for commercial buildings and 20

29:13 ↗ units for a single family or

29:15 ↗ multi-family

29:16 ↗ uh would be the minimum threshold above

29:19 ↗ that would need to go through cpa review

29:22 ↗ um

29:23 ↗ and and we would waive the cpa

29:24 ↗ requirements provided the buildings were

29:26 ↗ leed certified and built green certified

29:30 ↗ so that's

29:31 ↗ i think the last slide

29:34 ↗ that concludes my presentation

29:38 ↗ great thank you minnie any questions

29:40 ↗ from

29:41 ↗ the commission

29:44 ↗ let's have a quick clarifying

29:47 ↗ question

29:48 ↗ um so that's only those higher

29:51 ↗ thresholds are only if the building has

29:53 ↗ some sustainable

29:55 ↗ factor otherwise they would still fall

29:57 ↗ under like the four

29:59 ↗ units or is that applied to everything

30:02 ↗ we can we can do that we can

30:05 ↗ have our minimum thresholds to not

30:07 ↗ change we could leave them at four

30:09 ↗ anything four is totally exempt

30:12 ↗ anything from four

30:14 ↗ to twenty is exempt only if it is uh

30:18 ↗ leed certified

30:24 ↗ [Music]

30:26 ↗ that how you read the draft code you

30:28 ↗ mean

30:36 ↗ so the draft code says for single family

30:38 ↗ projects up to 30 units that's designed

30:41 ↗ and permitted to fully comply with build

30:44 ↗ queen elite gold so

30:46 ↗ there isn't an automatic four units

30:49 ↗ even four units would have to be lead

30:51 ↗ certified correct the way the language

30:53 ↗ is currently in the code okay thanks

30:56 ↗ good point

30:58 ↗ hey minnie joy uh commissioner joy lewis

31:00 ↗ here so i think what i took a piggy back

31:02 ↗ off of sarah's question the draft we

31:04 ↗ have in front of us has the maximum

31:07 ↗ allowable effectively option three in

31:10 ↗ front of us is written to the code but

31:12 ↗ you're looking for a discussion between

31:14 ↗ kind of option one two three

31:16 ↗ um our current plus these amendments of

31:19 ↗ increasing this evening

31:21 ↗ correct awesome thank you and um this

31:23 ↗ was my big question so really thank you

31:26 ↗ for the presentation really helpful

31:30 ↗ commissioner milligan

31:34 ↗ there it is

31:36 ↗ thank you nana milligan here didn't know

31:38 ↗ i had to introduce myself again when i'm

31:40 ↗ in person

31:43 ↗ yeah we did okay

31:44 ↗ uh my question pertains to the uh

31:47 ↗ exemption through green certification

31:49 ↗ and did i read correctly that it's green

31:51 ↗ certification plus salmon safe

31:54 ↗ is that an and and then does salmon safe

31:57 ↗ satisfy the concerns that one of the

32:00 ↗ members of the public wrote to us in

32:01 ↗ email

32:02 ↗ environmental review

32:04 ↗ you know um i think the

32:07 ↗ it's it's up to the planning and policy

32:08 ↗ commission yes we could do it either way

32:11 ↗ um

32:14 ↗ the way i think that when we discussed

32:16 ↗ this with you and this was from a

32:19 ↗ feedback from our sustainability manager

32:21 ↗ uh stacy and and us talking about

32:25 ↗ talking through uh you know we we were

32:27 ↗ thinking salmon safe if applicable so

32:30 ↗ it's my understanding that that may not

32:31 ↗ be applicable in all situations

32:34 ↗ um

32:42 ↗ thank you for one more question uh this

32:44 ↗ pertains to uh

32:47 ↗ 18.8.145 about the optional dns process

32:50 ↗ and uh and i think i read here that this

32:53 ↗ is based this is just origin this is

32:57 ↗ a continuation of what we had before and

32:59 ↗ i just i wanted to

33:01 ↗ hear

33:02 ↗ other words that help explain

33:05 ↗ that

33:06 ↗ what i'm reading is the responsible

33:08 ↗ official has a reasonable basis for

33:09 ↗ determining that significant adverse

33:12 ↗ environmental impacts are unlikely and

33:14 ↗ that they can render a dns on a project

33:17 ↗ does that mean that that project does

33:19 ↗ not have to go through review

33:21 ↗ or

33:22 ↗ be certified or anything they have the

33:24 ↗ authority and did they used to have it

33:27 ↗ and we're just keeping it that way

33:30 ↗ yeah it's not an exemption from cpa so

33:32 ↗ optional dns is really

33:35 ↗ uh from an applicant's standpoint what

33:36 ↗ that saves them is there isn't

33:40 ↗ a common period at the end when a

33:42 ↗ determination is made you only have an

33:44 ↗ appeal period if you if you if the city

33:47 ↗ makes a determination of

33:48 ↗ non-significance

33:49 ↗ then there's a 14-day comment period and

33:51 ↗ then a 14 to 21 day appeal period so

33:54 ↗ that just saves them the time at the end

33:58 ↗ and it's really meant for projects that

34:00 ↗ you know it's going to be for sure dns

34:03 ↗ and you just tell

34:04 ↗ in your notice of application early

34:06 ↗ there's some notice requirements earlier

34:08 ↗ required for optional dns but we're uh

34:11 ↗ proposing that we notify

34:14 ↗ all cpa applications early

34:17 ↗ and get the feedback early in the in the

34:19 ↗ process

34:24 ↗ hey minnie i'm curious about kind of

34:26 ↗ piggybacking on on that if it's still

34:28 ↗ applicable for a preparation section i'm

34:31 ↗ on page 13 of 20 section a the

34:33 ↗ preparation of the draft

34:35 ↗ and final eis and s-e-i-s she'll be

34:38 ↗ under the discretion of the responsible

34:39 ↗ official is that always done are there

34:41 ↗ any situations where that wouldn't be

34:43 ↗ done

34:45 ↗ uh which

34:46 ↗ section are you reading sorry so it's

34:48 ↗ going to be 0.170 the eis preparation

34:51 ↗ section a i'm on page 13 of 20. i'm

34:54 ↗ curious if there's ever a time where um

34:57 ↗ a preparation of draft and the final eis

35:00 ↗ wouldn't be done right now saying it's a

35:02 ↗ discretion of the responsible official

35:05 ↗ the official needs to be satisfied that

35:06 ↗ it complies with this chapter

35:08 ↗ so i'm curious when is that done is

35:10 ↗ there ever a time where where the seis

35:12 ↗ isn't done

35:15 ↗ um

35:18 ↗ preparation of a draft and final eis and

35:21 ↗ seis so supplemental environmental

35:23 ↗ impact statement implies that there is

35:25 ↗ already in an eis done and you're

35:28 ↗ you're you're doing a supplement to that

35:30 ↗ and i think the uh the way the this

35:33 ↗ number a is written is preparation of a

35:36 ↗ draft and final either of those two

35:38 ↗ things eis or seis

35:41 ↗ shall be under the direction so whenever

35:43 ↗ there's an eis involved there's going to

35:45 ↗ be a draft and a final

35:48 ↗ done there's never a time where there's

35:50 ↗ not because right now it's saying it's

35:51 ↗ at the discretion of the official so i

35:52 ↗ guess my question is when would we not

35:54 ↗ have that

35:56 ↗ will be under the direction of the

35:58 ↗ responsible official

36:01 ↗ before the city issues an eis the

36:04 ↗ responsible official shall be satisfied

36:06 ↗ that it complies with the chapter

36:10 ↗ shall be prepared at the cities option

36:12 ↗ but so are you talking a yeah yeah yeah

36:15 ↗ yeah yeah it's not saying that the

36:18 ↗ discretion it's saying at the direction

36:20 ↗ yes so yeah so there's no time where it

36:23 ↗ wouldn't be prepared it has to be done

36:25 ↗ if there's an eis you have to prepare a

36:28 ↗ draft in the final

36:30 ↗ so you get the comments on the draft and

36:32 ↗ then you

36:33 ↗ issue a final feis thank you

36:39 ↗ thank you commissioners and then i have

36:41 ↗ two questions one's a little

36:42 ↗ lighthearted i'm going to piggyback on

36:44 ↗ nina commissioner milligan uh no we

36:46 ↗ don't have to

36:48 ↗ say our name at the beginning

36:50 ↗ so yeah just thought i'd help everyone

36:53 ↗ out that now that we're back in chambers

36:54 ↗ uh to the public we're kind of getting

36:57 ↗ used to uh being back in here so

37:00 ↗ um

37:01 ↗ it'll get better as we go along and then

37:03 ↗ number two my question

37:05 ↗ for minnie was i believe on page 19 and

37:09 ↗ 20.

37:12 ↗ both under 18 800 310

37:16 ↗ under b1

37:19 ↗ as well as under c

37:21 ↗ the city may collect a reasonable fee

37:24 ↗ can you help me understand what

37:25 ↗ reasonable is i guess my

37:28 ↗ hang up is if the idea is to provide

37:30 ↗ clarity

37:31 ↗ a reasonable fee kind of comes across as

37:33 ↗ vague in other areas we were able to use

37:35 ↗ a percentage

37:37 ↗ so people would understand the cost of

37:39 ↗ the project here it just says reasonable

37:41 ↗ fee

37:42 ↗ is that a placeholder

37:44 ↗ you will look at it i i think generally

37:47 ↗ when an eis is done

37:49 ↗ a lot of times there's a selection of

37:51 ↗ the consultant who's going to do this

37:53 ↗ and there's usually an rfp that goes out

37:56 ↗ and

37:57 ↗ and a cost that comes out out of it and

37:59 ↗ if it's an applicant driven project then

38:02 ↗ you know the entire cost is passed on to

38:04 ↗ the applicant because it's a development

38:06 ↗ project

38:07 ↗ other times eises are done for

38:10 ↗ you know larger things like

38:12 ↗ whole comprehensive plan updates and

38:14 ↗ things of that nature

38:16 ↗ so we'll take a look at it i think we

38:19 ↗ can we can

38:20 ↗ tighten the language from reasonable to

38:23 ↗ something more specific right i think

38:25 ↗ somewhere

38:26 ↗ previously in the packet it actually

38:28 ↗ mentions uh trying to use percentages so

38:31 ↗ reasonable i guess what's reasonable to

38:33 ↗ one person is unreasonable to another

38:36 ↗ good point yeah thank you uh any more

38:39 ↗ clarifying questions as far as the cepa

38:41 ↗ packet

38:44 ↗ all right moving along next presentation

38:52 ↗ i believe that's me

39:00 ↗ so i am thank you valerie i am here to

39:02 ↗ talk about um forested hillside

39:04 ↗ preservation i think i've met most of

39:06 ↗ you before i'm katie cody and with bhc

39:08 ↗ consultants

39:10 ↗ um

39:11 ↗ this is a new chapter that is has been

39:14 ↗ written in response to the

39:16 ↗ goal number one of the goals and

39:18 ↗ outcomes

39:19 ↗ table to protect forested hillsides

39:23 ↗ it

39:24 ↗ has also incorporated some existing code

39:26 ↗ there's some hillside development

39:28 ↗ regulations

39:30 ↗ in

39:31 ↗ the central issaquah urban design manual

39:33 ↗ and also in the talus design guidelines

39:37 ↗ and

39:39 ↗ and we're also

39:41 ↗ this is meant to be

39:42 ↗ um

39:43 ↗ taken together with the tree

39:45 ↗ preservation ordinance so together with

39:47 ↗ the tree preservation and these new

39:50 ↗ design standards this chapter aims to

39:52 ↗ protect both visual and ecological

39:55 ↗ characteristics of horses hillsides and

39:57 ↗ also non-forested hillsides

40:00 ↗ especially relating to trees and wall

40:02 ↗ heights

40:05 ↗ as i mentioned it

40:06 ↗ adapts an existing design language

40:09 ↗ rather than just being limited to

40:11 ↗ central and talus this would apply

40:14 ↗ city-wide to any

40:16 ↗ any lots that had a slope above 15

40:20 ↗ percent for a sustained

40:22 ↗ vertical rise of 10 feet

40:24 ↗ so

40:25 ↗ we've chosen we've chosen the threshold

40:27 ↗ of 15 after discussion with the ppc and

40:30 ↗ we had

40:31 ↗ given some options earlier 15 or 20

40:34 ↗ um 15

40:36 ↗ is

40:37 ↗ the maximum

40:38 ↗ slope that a

40:40 ↗ road grade can be built at um so we took

40:43 ↗ that as a

40:44 ↗ as a

40:45 ↗ good

40:46 ↗ measuring

40:48 ↗ as a good threshold for

40:50 ↗ for deciding when a slope was was

40:52 ↗ considered steep

40:54 ↗ um and then

40:57 ↗ also

40:58 ↗ it goes from 15

40:59 ↗ up to

41:00 ↗ uh 40 and then above 40 percent the

41:03 ↗ critical areas regulations apply so

41:06 ↗ there are some circumstances where a

41:08 ↗ slope could exist

41:10 ↗ that's above 40 percent and not covered

41:12 ↗ by the critical

41:14 ↗ areas regulations that would be if it

41:16 ↗ was a an engineered slope that's exempt

41:18 ↗ from the steep slope regulations

41:21 ↗ and in that case

41:22 ↗ this code would apply to that slope as

41:24 ↗ well

41:26 ↗ um so next slide please

41:31 ↗ um so

41:33 ↗ a few of the changes um as i mentioned

41:35 ↗ it's

41:36 ↗ applicable to

41:38 ↗ all the city lots above 15

41:40 ↗ um we did some mapping as we were

41:42 ↗ preparing this chapter to see where

41:45 ↗ where the

41:46 ↗ um undeveloped lots were that had slopes

41:49 ↗ of above 15

41:51 ↗ um

41:52 ↗ a lot of the city has some slope but

41:55 ↗ most of the most of the

41:58 ↗ undeveloped slopes that also had forests

42:01 ↗ on them were located in the outer parts

42:04 ↗ of the city um

42:06 ↗ very few were located in old town and

42:08 ↗ central

42:09 ↗ unsurprisingly

42:10 ↗ um

42:12 ↗ but there were some significant you know

42:14 ↗ larger parcels and some of the outer

42:16 ↗ lying neighborhoods

42:18 ↗ um

42:19 ↗ we've added a section that

42:22 ↗ uh

42:23 ↗ is called an alternative compliance

42:24 ↗ option this acknowledges that

42:27 ↗ the goals

42:29 ↗ that were

42:30 ↗ expressed through the goals and outcomes

42:32 ↗ of protecting forza hillsides also

42:34 ↗ mentioned

42:35 ↗ limiting retaining walls and rectangle

42:38 ↗ heights

42:40 ↗ it's hard to achieve both of those goals

42:42 ↗ simultaneously sometimes because

42:45 ↗ as you

42:48 ↗ as you create shorter walls many shorter

42:51 ↗ walls to tears up a hillside that

42:53 ↗ requires more removal of trees

42:56 ↗ you can preserve more trees by making a

42:59 ↗ taller wall and and cutting

43:02 ↗ less deep into the hillside so we wanted

43:04 ↗ to acknowledge that some of these goals

43:06 ↗ that we're expressing through this

43:07 ↗ forested hillsides chapter

43:09 ↗ can be conflicting

43:12 ↗ and to provide a flexible option for

43:14 ↗ developments that

43:16 ↗ are seeking for example to preserve an

43:19 ↗ intact forest

43:21 ↗ perhaps that would be a circumstance

43:23 ↗ where a slightly taller wall or a deeper

43:26 ↗ cut

43:27 ↗ would be acceptable

43:30 ↗ and then other than that in general this

43:32 ↗ chapter includes development standards

43:35 ↗ for

43:36 ↗ building

43:38 ↗ buildings themselves and how they can

43:39 ↗ blend into the surrounding hillsides um

43:43 ↗ for roads how to how to create roads

43:46 ↗ that mimic the hillside topography

43:49 ↗ also for subdivisions um

43:52 ↗ looking into ways that we can site uh

43:55 ↗ site lots to also curve around the

43:59 ↗ hillside rather than cutting into them

44:01 ↗ to try to minimize

44:03 ↗ the grading required and to preserve as

44:05 ↗ many trees as possible

44:08 ↗ next slide please

44:11 ↗ so these are kind of small but we wanted

44:13 ↗ to show

44:15 ↗ some of the graphics that we created for

44:17 ↗ this chapter

44:19 ↗ the top graphic shows this idea of this

44:22 ↗ alternative compliance option

44:25 ↗ where you have an existing slope with

44:26 ↗ trees you can disturb a small area and

44:30 ↗ preserve the uphill trees as the top two

44:32 ↗ and then the bottom

44:34 ↗ as an alternative if you wanted to

44:36 ↗ to prioritize having shorter terraced

44:39 ↗ walls

44:40 ↗ you would end up you would achieve that

44:42 ↗ but you would end up removing more trees

44:45 ↗ um

44:46 ↗ and then the that bottom

44:48 ↗ right hand option is showing

44:50 ↗ a deeper cut

44:51 ↗ along the street um

44:54 ↗ to again preserve uphill trees and then

44:56 ↗ some of these other graphics are showing

44:58 ↗ different ways

45:00 ↗ to um develop along streets that can

45:03 ↗ that are that mimic natural natural

45:05 ↗ topographies more

45:07 ↗ and

45:08 ↗ minimize

45:09 ↗ uh tall walls along the street as much

45:11 ↗ as possible

45:13 ↗ um so

45:15 ↗ that's all i have for

45:17 ↗ my presentation

45:19 ↗ but we don't have any policy discussion

45:21 ↗ questions but

45:22 ↗ i am here to answer your general

45:24 ↗ questions

45:29 ↗ any questions

45:33 ↗ i have a question about the allowed

45:36 ↗ exceptions for this chapter and i'm

45:37 ↗ curious if you can tell us more about

45:39 ↗ the what is going to be the allowed

45:40 ↗ criteria for the variance there's not a

45:42 ↗ lot of language in here that talks about

45:44 ↗ it um how you know requesting a variance

45:47 ↗ from the natural contouring and cuts

45:49 ↗ again this is page 16 of 18 if you're

45:51 ↗ following

45:52 ↗ um

45:53 ↗ section

45:55 ↗ 0.110 for loud exceptions to this

45:57 ↗ chapter um b1 where it starts to talk

46:00 ↗ about the fill and cut limits how i'm

46:02 ↗ there's not a lot of language that talks

46:03 ↗ about what the allowed criteria are that

46:06 ↗ makes it pretty plain is this something

46:08 ↗ we're expecting to see in the next draft

46:11 ↗ or is this one of our favorite director

46:14 ↗ discretion

46:16 ↗ um this actually is not director

46:18 ↗ discretion the alternative compliance um

46:22 ↗ has criteria but that that would be more

46:25 ↗ of a director discretion what this is

46:27 ↗ saying is

46:28 ↗ if you can't meet your cut and fill

46:31 ↗ limits

46:32 ↗ um

46:33 ↗ you have to get a variance and a

46:35 ↗ variance is not a director discretion

46:37 ↗ it's a

46:38 ↗ a discretionary approval from the

46:41 ↗ development commission i believe or

46:43 ↗ hearing examiner but that these are

46:46 ↗ some specific um

46:49 ↗ situations where

46:52 ↗ you may have you may have some

46:54 ↗ additional um support

46:56 ↗ in certain circumstances for that

46:58 ↗ variance

47:04 ↗ so this wouldn't be a just so this is a

47:06 ↗ site per site and it's going to go to dc

47:08 ↗ is that is that how i'm supposed to be

47:10 ↗ understanding this

47:12 ↗ i'm not 100 sure what the variance who

47:14 ↗ the variance decision maker is i think

47:16 ↗ that it's a hearing examiner but maybe

47:18 ↗ minnie knows off the top of her head

47:21 ↗ um

47:22 ↗ but this is not intended to be a

47:24 ↗ director decision

47:26 ↗ yeah the the general variance decision

47:28 ↗ is a level three under the proposed

47:30 ↗ draft which you all will see in the next

47:33 ↗ uh meeting and that is a hearing

47:35 ↗ examiner decision with the public caring

47:37 ↗ and notice

47:39 ↗ thank you minnie

47:48 ↗ thank you for this presentation katie

47:51 ↗ the question i have

47:53 ↗ has to do with

47:56 ↗ examples of residential building on

47:58 ↗ hillsides that are not demonstrated in

48:00 ↗ these

48:01 ↗ models

48:02 ↗ and

48:03 ↗ i don't know if i'll be able to describe

48:05 ↗ these very well but i'll try

48:06 ↗ these are with a cut into the hillside

48:10 ↗ and then there are others that

48:13 ↗ just barely anchor to the hillside and

48:16 ↗ then go out from the hillside with um

48:20 ↗ supports and pillars and and things that

48:22 ↗ kind of cantilever a home over the over

48:25 ↗ a hillside

48:28 ↗ i don't know

48:30 ↗ how that

48:31 ↗ is managed here does maximum height

48:35 ↗ on that average grading

48:38 ↗ help

48:39 ↗ manage those sort of building

48:41 ↗ circumstances

48:45 ↗ so

48:46 ↗ we're not allowing average

48:49 ↗ height averaging of height um they would

48:52 ↗ be

48:54 ↗ um

48:55 ↗ so i i think that the first the first

48:57 ↗ way i'd answer this is most of those

48:59 ↗ conditions where a house is perched on

49:02 ↗ the edge of a hillside those are usually

49:04 ↗ slopes that are above 40

49:08 ↗ and so

49:09 ↗ i think that there may be very few

49:12 ↗ circumstances where

49:13 ↗ you would find you know maybe a slope

49:16 ↗ with 39

49:17 ↗ um and then

49:19 ↗ that could come into play here

49:21 ↗ um but where you have that condition of

49:23 ↗ even um

49:25 ↗ building a house into a hillside in

49:28 ↗ order to get a true you know daylit

49:31 ↗ basement and upper floor that kind of

49:33 ↗ stepped down

49:34 ↗ that

49:35 ↗ that needs an angle of 40 or so um just

49:39 ↗ the way that the heights work out

49:41 ↗ i'm not an architect but we did talk

49:43 ↗ with an architect when we were putting

49:44 ↗ this together so we've sort of been

49:46 ↗ thinking through these things

49:47 ↗ um

49:49 ↗ i think if us if how if a home wanted to

49:52 ↗ build without digging into the site on

49:55 ↗ pillars unless on this slope that was

49:57 ↗ not 40

49:59 ↗ um

50:01 ↗ this wouldn't necessarily

50:03 ↗ prevent that

50:04 ↗ but they would have to

50:06 ↗ meet you know the height limits um

50:10 ↗ and

50:11 ↗ again i just don't know if if the slope

50:14 ↗ would

50:15 ↗ if that would make sense architecturally

50:17 ↗ um but again

50:19 ↗ i'm not making any promises so to answer

50:22 ↗ your question about the average slope um

50:24 ↗ we're not allowing slopes to be average

50:27 ↗ so their height would be i'm sorry

50:29 ↗ average height their height would be

50:31 ↗ measured i'm just scrolling down to try

50:32 ↗ to get to that picture

50:34 ↗ um

50:38 ↗ here so

50:40 ↗ it would be a parallel line from the

50:43 ↗ slope upward so that their their tallest

50:46 ↗ part of the building

50:48 ↗ would be um at or they tell us a loud

50:51 ↗ area would be at the bottom of the slope

50:53 ↗ and so it wouldn't really benefit them

50:55 ↗ to

50:56 ↗ stick it out from the hillside because

50:58 ↗ you're right they would run up against

51:00 ↗ that okay good and i have just one more

51:02 ↗ little question i can't remember where

51:03 ↗ it is but there was a thing about um

51:06 ↗ dex must be terraced

51:09 ↗ and it was just a little um

51:11 ↗ okay

51:13 ↗ it didn't seem to have enough um

51:16 ↗ guidance uh in that you know the why or

51:19 ↗ or what would you what would you achieve

51:21 ↗ if you terrorist the

51:23 ↗ and so what kind of terracing and how

51:25 ↗ much

51:26 ↗ is there any other guys

51:29 ↗ i think that that's envisioning um

51:32 ↗ rather than having

51:34 ↗ a

51:35 ↗ deck that's on that's maybe at the top

51:37 ↗ of the house and has long

51:39 ↗ support poles that it would be

51:42 ↗ it would be located closer to the ground

51:44 ↗ and then another portion that was

51:47 ↗ disconnected would be located

51:49 ↗ at a lower level rather than having one

51:51 ↗ that stretched the whole width of the

51:54 ↗ house

51:55 ↗ so that's what that was trying to

51:57 ↗ achieve okay

51:59 ↗ thank you

52:04 ↗ any further questions

52:07 ↗ not so many questions i have some

52:08 ↗ comments

52:10 ↗ but

52:10 ↗ yeah i guess i'll have to wait

52:13 ↗ so we are moving on to our next

52:16 ↗ presentation i believe this is

52:17 ↗ presentation 4.

52:35 ↗ all right hello my name is valerie

52:37 ↗ porter i'm going to be talking about the

52:38 ↗ last two sections

52:40 ↗ so first we're going to talk about

52:42 ↗ accessory and temporary uses so what are

52:44 ↗ they this chapter talks about three

52:47 ↗ different topics first one is accessory

52:49 ↗ structures

52:51 ↗ this section regulates subordinate

52:53 ↗ uses that are structured subordinate to

52:55 ↗ the principle structures some examples

52:57 ↗ of this are like decks patio sheds

53:00 ↗ teleports

53:01 ↗ the next topic is temporary structures

53:04 ↗ or uses and this section regulates uses

53:07 ↗ or structures

53:08 ↗ that are on a temporary basis so that

53:10 ↗ could occur one day or 180 days some

53:13 ↗ examples of this is food trucks pop-up

53:16 ↗ stands and construction trailers and the

53:20 ↗ last topic that's addressed in this

53:21 ↗ section is sustainable micro

53:23 ↗ infrastructure and this regulates

53:25 ↗ alternative energy and rain water

53:27 ↗ catchment systems and examples of this

53:30 ↗ is wind turbines geothermal heat pumps

53:33 ↗ and rain water harvesting tanks

53:37 ↗ so some of the main major changes that

53:39 ↗ occurred in this section is we removed

53:41 ↗ the heliport standards

53:43 ↗ basically because this is heavily

53:45 ↗ regulated by the faa and we felt that it

53:47 ↗ wasn't necessary to duplicate it in the

53:49 ↗ code

53:50 ↗ another change was to modify the

53:52 ↗ temporary retail sales standards we did

53:54 ↗ this because we tried to provide some

53:56 ↗ kind of clarity and

53:58 ↗ for the applicant so that they

53:59 ↗ understood where these uses could occur

54:01 ↗ and when they are allowed

54:03 ↗ we also modified the sustainable micro

54:06 ↗ infrastructure techs basically we just

54:08 ↗ did a lot of consolidating tried to

54:10 ↗ remove any duplicates

54:12 ↗ and in some cases we tried to integrate

54:14 ↗ should and consider in other cases we

54:16 ↗ replaced shao with musk

54:18 ↗ we tried to do this to provide clarity

54:21 ↗ as to guidance versus enforcement

54:32 ↗ so we've actually changed a couple of

54:34 ↗ the policy questions that are in your

54:36 ↗ packet but before i get into the

54:38 ↗ questions i just kind of want to give a

54:39 ↗ brief discussion on food trucks because

54:41 ↗ that's what the policy question is on

54:43 ↗ so

54:44 ↗ today

54:45 ↗ if someone wanted to

54:47 ↗ apply for a food truck to operate in the

54:49 ↗ city of issaquah they would be required

54:51 ↗ to obtain a business license and they

54:53 ↗ submit their application through the

54:54 ↗ state's website and then the state

54:56 ↗ routes it to the city which we then

54:58 ↗ review for

54:59 ↗ compliance and then we would approve it

55:01 ↗ these business licenses are good for

55:03 ↗ about one year and the applicant has the

55:05 ↗ ability to renew it after that year

55:09 ↗ there also the food truck is also

55:11 ↗ required to get any additional permits

55:13 ↗ like king county health permits and they

55:15 ↗ would also be required to have an

55:17 ↗ agreement with the property owner that

55:19 ↗ they wish to reside on

55:21 ↗ so in this whole process the only permit

55:24 ↗ that the city looks at would be the

55:26 ↗ business license

55:28 ↗ so also in the new code we've updated

55:31 ↗ the permit use table so now that it's

55:33 ↗ clear we have food trucks listed and

55:35 ↗ they're only allowed in commercial zones

55:38 ↗ not residential

55:40 ↗ so the first question that we're going

55:41 ↗ to pose is should food trucks operating

55:44 ↗ on private property be term limited if

55:47 ↗ so how long right now in the draft code

55:50 ↗ we have 60 days

55:52 ↗ and the second question is in addition

55:54 ↗ to a business license should a separate

55:56 ↗ permit be required for food trucks

55:58 ↗ operating on private property and the

56:01 ↗ second permit would allow staff to kind

56:03 ↗ of track

56:04 ↗ how many food trucks that we have in the

56:06 ↗ city and then also allow us to confirm

56:08 ↗ if there's any on-site issues

56:11 ↗ with the principal business so that

56:13 ↗ concludes my first presentation

56:16 ↗ great thank you valerie

56:18 ↗ and she was clever there because she

56:20 ↗ tried to sneak in policy questions

56:22 ↗ that's really for our deliberations

56:24 ↗ because we still need to hear from

56:25 ↗ brandon and other people from the public

56:27 ↗ so

56:28 ↗ very clever

56:30 ↗ first we'd like to do some clarifying

56:31 ↗ questions does anyone have any questions

56:33 ↗ as far as the packet is concerned or

56:35 ↗ valerie's presentation

56:42 ↗ almost

56:56 ↗ so just to kick it off since my

56:57 ↗ microphone's on

56:59 ↗ on page 2 of 12 valerie uh this is under

57:02 ↗ 18

57:03 ↗ 508.30 accessory structure

57:06 ↗ accessory structures uh c point uh c3

57:12 ↗ point a

57:13 ↗ it says must be located a minimum of six

57:16 ↗ feet from the principal structure

57:18 ↗ six feet seems pretty prescriptive

57:24 ↗ i mean that's like somebody's wingspan

57:26 ↗ that's that's pretty close so

57:28 ↗ where do we get that number and why do

57:29 ↗ we have that number

57:32 ↗ oh

57:33 ↗ um

57:34 ↗ i'm not sure where that number comes

57:36 ↗ from um

57:38 ↗ i would have to look into that um but i

57:40 ↗ do know that this is currently in the

57:42 ↗ existing code so this would just this is

57:44 ↗ a carryover

57:45 ↗ okay

57:47 ↗ yeah if i may um

57:49 ↗ very add to to that a lot of times five

57:52 ↗ or six feet is a minimum fire code

57:54 ↗ requirement as well for

57:56 ↗ you know it's regardless of the the food

57:58 ↗ truck but it's um any structure without

58:02 ↗ having a firewall and a different type

58:04 ↗ of a construction

58:06 ↗ that that's usually the minimum distance

58:08 ↗ for

58:09 ↗ fire code related issues

58:13 ↗ it's possible that we got we put it in

58:15 ↗ code related to

58:18 ↗ that

58:20 ↗ issue gonna jump in because i had the

58:23 ↗ same question

58:24 ↗ and my ques when i wrote my note i was

58:26 ↗ saying is this an issue that code is

58:28 ↗ trying to fix and if so often like

58:31 ↗ things like propane i think the fire

58:32 ↗ department actually has like 10 feet

58:34 ↗ it's most like the propane tanks are

58:36 ↗ supposed to be 10 feet from a structure

58:37 ↗ so then i was like where did the six

58:39 ↗ come from so i might just make that as a

58:41 ↗ since we both had questions about it

58:43 ↗ might be worth going back and just uh

58:45 ↗ clarifying this is our number and this

58:47 ↗ is why it would be helpful to say

58:48 ↗ because i'm positive it's it's for a

58:50 ↗ reason right so i just wanted to know

58:52 ↗ where that reason fell yeah definitely

58:54 ↗ we'll take a look at it and confirm what

58:58 ↗ fire building try not to duplicate right

59:01 ↗ six feet seems pretty narrow do you have

59:04 ↗ another question

59:05 ↗ i'm going to go ahead um valerie with

59:07 ↗ another question on d the dex porch's

59:09 ↗ patios on 2a

59:12 ↗ is this addressing an overhang but not a

59:14 ↗ porch is that what i'm supposed to be

59:16 ↗ understanding an overhang like an awning

59:18 ↗ or some sort of

59:20 ↗ um but it's

59:22 ↗ do you mind sorry page 3 of 12 i'm

59:25 ↗ looking at so this is

59:27 ↗ .030 section d decks porches patios

59:30 ↗ walkways and other minor accessories

59:32 ↗ structures to a a structure with a

59:34 ↗ height of 30 inches or more above finish

59:36 ↗ grade may extend into a side or rear

59:38 ↗ setback up to 20 percent of the required

59:40 ↗ linear distance but no closer than 5

59:43 ↗ feet from any property line as shown

59:45 ↗ right so are we talking about overhangs

59:47 ↗ but not porches or is that supposed to

59:49 ↗ be a porch because it would be a pretty

59:51 ↗ small little porch if we're talking

59:53 ↗ about 20 so yes that would be like decks

59:56 ↗ or um

59:58 ↗ awnings like is that is that what it's

1:00:00 ↗ supposed to be more correct okay so we

1:00:02 ↗ don't have something separate for

1:00:04 ↗ a decking structure

1:00:06 ↗ no this would this would cover it all

1:00:07 ↗ for the same right

1:00:09 ↗ okay um so is there any need so for

1:00:12 ↗ we're talking about the sprawl that may

1:00:14 ↗ happen as far as we have later places in

1:00:16 ↗ the code where we talk about um

1:00:19 ↗ requires of vendors for refuse

1:00:20 ↗ containers and things like that you know

1:00:22 ↗ we have that sprawl that will end up

1:00:24 ↗ happening outside of the individual unit

1:00:26 ↗ let's say tables chairs things that come

1:00:28 ↗ along with it is there any requirements

1:00:30 ↗ right now of where those are supposed to

1:00:32 ↗ be located or any language about not for

1:00:34 ↗ chairs it just has to be attached to the

1:00:36 ↗ structure to have to be aligning to

1:00:38 ↗ these measurements correct okay

1:00:42 ↗ thank you

1:00:46 ↗ thank you uh thanks

1:00:49 ↗ a joy for the leverage my question

1:00:52 ↗ regards why uh is

1:00:54 ↗ this may be a carryover from previous uh

1:00:57 ↗ and and it just seemed odd that anything

1:00:59 ↗ was allowed within three feet of the

1:01:01 ↗ property line but

1:01:02 ↗ so uh i can see that this has to do with

1:01:06 ↗ the perception from the property

1:01:08 ↗ adjacent property but i wonder

1:01:11 ↗ was this reviewed

1:01:13 ↗ to make a more consistent

1:01:16 ↗ uh standard that all decks need to be

1:01:19 ↗ five feet away from my adjacent property

1:01:23 ↗ just kind of wondered how the process

1:01:25 ↗ was when looking at this this is another

1:01:27 ↗ carryover standard from the existing

1:01:29 ↗ code so we can look at why the five feet

1:01:32 ↗ um the five feet requirement um maybe

1:01:35 ↗ many knows but i would guess it maybe

1:01:37 ↗ has to do with building

1:01:41 ↗ yeah i'm i'm not exactly sure i think

1:01:44 ↗ the another approach is to just defer to

1:01:47 ↗ the setbacks of the underlying zone

1:01:49 ↗ rather than try and have these

1:01:51 ↗ you know hardwired

1:01:53 ↗ numbers that we don't know where they

1:01:54 ↗ came from so one option may be to just

1:01:57 ↗ defer to the underlying zoning and form

1:01:59 ↗ and intensity setbacks that we have

1:02:10 ↗ i had actually you'll have to apologize

1:02:12 ↗ i meant to email staff about this um on

1:02:14 ↗ section 8 page 8 of 12 i did not by the

1:02:17 ↗ way so this is um but we when we're

1:02:19 ↗ talking about

1:02:20 ↗ uh d3 insurance the following amounts of

1:02:23 ↗ coverage are required but there's no

1:02:25 ↗ amounts is that because it just wasn't a

1:02:28 ↗ copy and paste or are we planning on

1:02:29 ↗ still refining

1:02:31 ↗ the talking about the co-insurance you

1:02:32 ↗ have to put the city on your

1:02:33 ↗ co-insurance yeah um i believe there is

1:02:36 ↗ an amount i just don't think we have it

1:02:38 ↗ listed do you know the title

1:02:40 ↗ yeah i would have to get back to you on

1:02:41 ↗ the amounts but there's a specific limit

1:02:44 ↗ um and uh when we do talk about

1:02:47 ↗ section four for refuse including

1:02:50 ↗ compost and um encouraged to provide

1:02:52 ↗ recycling you know i was that was a new

1:02:55 ↗ thing for me we don't require recycling

1:02:58 ↗ right now

1:02:59 ↗ there is an ordinance where you're

1:03:01 ↗ supposed to provide all three streams um

1:03:04 ↗ but i don't think it's codified so okay

1:03:07 ↗ this would be something new

1:03:10 ↗ um

1:03:10 ↗ [Music]

1:03:11 ↗ and i do have since i have my microphone

1:03:14 ↗ on i'll keep going with my next one

1:03:15 ↗ which is uh section same page 9 of 12

1:03:18 ↗ section f

1:03:19 ↗ 2 where we start talking about

1:03:22 ↗ outdoor retail display except for

1:03:24 ↗ seasonal vendings which are limited to

1:03:25 ↗ christmas tree stands and produce stands

1:03:28 ↗ i had a big red flag that popped up for

1:03:31 ↗ me and i was curious why we had that

1:03:32 ↗ language

1:03:33 ↗ it's not terribly inclusive

1:03:36 ↗ and i think we all know that holidays

1:03:38 ↗ are a lot more extensive than the need

1:03:40 ↗ for a christmas tree stand or a produce

1:03:43 ↗ stand there's a lot of different variety

1:03:44 ↗ of things

1:03:45 ↗ and so that language i'm curious why is

1:03:48 ↗ that a port over

1:03:49 ↗ why maybe you could

1:03:51 ↗ see discussion about why we settled on

1:03:53 ↗ those pretty limited

1:03:55 ↗ uses um i believe this is another

1:03:57 ↗ carryover from the previous code um

1:04:00 ↗ it looks like it's just not allowed in

1:04:02 ↗ the cbd zone yeah so anywhere else it

1:04:05 ↗ would be um allowed um

1:04:09 ↗ yeah i'm not quite sure we would have to

1:04:11 ↗ look into that okay thank you valerie

1:04:18 ↗ any further questions on this topic

1:04:22 ↗ yeah i have a question apologies i'm

1:04:23 ↗ like fighting with the scrolling on here

1:04:25 ↗ so i can't find like the numbers all

1:04:27 ↗ together but it's about

1:04:30 ↗ the kind of non-accessory temporary

1:04:32 ↗ retail um i think it's in that

1:04:35 ↗ section it was a little confusing to me

1:04:38 ↗ i think this applies to the food trucks

1:04:40 ↗ but it's saying that

1:04:41 ↗ i think there's two different sections

1:04:43 ↗ one where um

1:04:45 ↗ if it's located in a parking lot where

1:04:47 ↗ there's not like a permanent commercial

1:04:50 ↗ structure or something like that then

1:04:51 ↗ they require a circulation plan that

1:04:54 ↗ requires approval um there's also

1:04:56 ↗ language in there that says like if it

1:04:58 ↗ applies if it's there for more than one

1:04:59 ↗ hour or from one day to 60 days

1:05:02 ↗ and so just reading through it it really

1:05:04 ↗ wasn't clear to me

1:05:06 ↗ because when i think of like a lot of

1:05:08 ↗ these uses right they're usually there

1:05:09 ↗ for more than an hour but not more than

1:05:11 ↗ a day and so i just wasn't sure what the

1:05:14 ↗ actual like threshold was for requiring

1:05:16 ↗ that

1:05:17 ↗ well that's kind of part of the

1:05:19 ↗ discussion tonight is that we kind of

1:05:20 ↗ want to get your guys's feedback

1:05:23 ↗ and get some direction um we put some

1:05:26 ↗ stuff in place just to kind of generate

1:05:28 ↗ discussion but

1:05:29 ↗ it could always be changed

1:05:32 ↗ i think those are called easter eggs

1:05:33 ↗ right

1:05:35 ↗ all right

1:05:37 ↗ any further questions

1:05:40 ↗ all right valerie

1:05:41 ↗ take us home number five

1:05:56 ↗ all right the last topic is throughout

1:05:58 ↗ passages so this topic actually is going

1:06:00 ↗ to be relocated to the street standards

1:06:02 ↗ but before we do that we wanted to get

1:06:04 ↗ your

1:06:05 ↗ feedback on some of this

1:06:07 ↗ so what is uh what are three rock

1:06:09 ↗ passages they are privately owned

1:06:11 ↗ walkways that are accessible to the

1:06:13 ↗ general public

1:06:14 ↗ they are intended to provide access to

1:06:16 ↗ open spaces and buildings

1:06:18 ↗ also try to reduce block sizes by

1:06:21 ↗ providing street connections and also

1:06:23 ↗ act as gathering spaces

1:06:26 ↗ so some of the changes that occurred

1:06:28 ↗ in the draft code is that we tried to

1:06:30 ↗ consolidate some of the regulations

1:06:32 ↗ right now there's through block passage

1:06:34 ↗ sections in the central issaquad

1:06:36 ↗ development design standards and there's

1:06:38 ↗ also some in the design manual

1:06:40 ↗ so

1:06:41 ↗ just to try to ensure that there's no

1:06:43 ↗ conflicts and so people know where to

1:06:45 ↗ look

1:06:46 ↗ we consolidated those in one location we

1:06:48 ↗ also created a map to help

1:06:51 ↗ applicants understand exactly where the

1:06:52 ↗ desired location for these through block

1:06:54 ↗ passages are

1:06:56 ↗ we also try to add language

1:06:58 ↗ requiring the throughback passage have

1:07:01 ↗ public access easement this ensures that

1:07:03 ↗ the pathways can be used by the general

1:07:05 ↗ public 24 7.

1:07:09 ↗ and we try to add specific design

1:07:11 ↗ requirements for residential and

1:07:12 ↗ commercial uses so right now we just say

1:07:16 ↗ that there are through block passages in

1:07:18 ↗ in some instances you should apply them

1:07:20 ↗ so we really try to

1:07:22 ↗ be very specific about when they're

1:07:24 ↗ required in what circumstances and then

1:07:27 ↗ we also tried to really

1:07:29 ↗ redesign the layout so that they were

1:07:31 ↗ more

1:07:32 ↗ feasible so for instance like we

1:07:34 ↗ increased the bed with so to ensure that

1:07:37 ↗ trees can properly grow

1:07:39 ↗ and then for some of the

1:07:41 ↗ through rock passages that are required

1:07:42 ↗ in the design manual we disallowed

1:07:44 ↗ vehicles to try to increase the

1:07:46 ↗ pedestrian safety and then we also

1:07:48 ↗ reduced some of the paths to try to

1:07:50 ↗ increase the likelihood of construction

1:07:53 ↗ and the last change is that we've tried

1:07:55 ↗ to establish some expectations of when a

1:07:57 ↗ through black passage um

1:08:00 ↗ can deviate from code right now you know

1:08:03 ↗ again we say that a through block

1:08:04 ↗ passage is required but we don't say you

1:08:07 ↗ know in what instances does it not make

1:08:09 ↗ sense these are the things that you must

1:08:10 ↗ do or we don't have any design criteria

1:08:13 ↗ so we try to limit the deviation request

1:08:16 ↗ and then also provide some clear

1:08:17 ↗ expectations when you can request a

1:08:19 ↗ deviation

1:08:22 ↗ so i have a policy question

1:08:26 ↗ so the city anticipates creating

1:08:28 ↗ individual neighborhood plans for the

1:08:29 ↗ future um for these areas outside of

1:08:32 ↗ central issaquah because we've already

1:08:34 ↗ identified where we would like the

1:08:35 ↗ thruwak passages in central issaquah

1:08:38 ↗ should the code require thru bach

1:08:39 ↗ passages to be constructed with the

1:08:41 ↗ development of subdivisions only and or

1:08:44 ↗ identify specific dubai passage

1:08:46 ↗ locations through the neighborhood

1:08:47 ↗ planning process which would be

1:08:49 ↗ implemented during the redevelopment

1:08:51 ↗ stage

1:08:52 ↗ so this is the only question

1:08:54 ↗ and now i'll take questions

1:09:00 ↗ any clarifying questions for through

1:09:02 ↗ block passages

1:09:06 ↗ well that's a good question

1:09:08 ↗ um

1:09:09 ↗ the

1:09:10 ↗ question pertains to the

1:09:12 ↗ likelihood of something getting built

1:09:14 ↗ and

1:09:15 ↗ the so reducing the requirement so it

1:09:18 ↗ could be likely to be built and then

1:09:20 ↗ adding

1:09:21 ↗ the opportunity to apply for deviation

1:09:24 ↗ seems like there's a lot of balancing

1:09:26 ↗ there that isn't strengthening the

1:09:29 ↗ high value that we place on the

1:09:32 ↗ through black passages um

1:09:34 ↗ how do you how did you feel about the

1:09:36 ↗ the balance between requiring and and

1:09:38 ↗ the deviations when you were working on

1:09:40 ↗ this

1:09:41 ↗ um i thought about

1:09:42 ↗ a couple of projects so um

1:09:46 ↗ so right now how we have it is that if

1:09:49 ↗ you have like say a residential project

1:09:51 ↗ and you want to um

1:09:53 ↗ do like town homes and not all the town

1:09:55 ↗ homes are able to front the main street

1:09:57 ↗ you would be required to do it through

1:09:59 ↗ rock passage um we understand that you

1:10:01 ↗ know some of the lots especially in

1:10:03 ↗ central issac are very narrow so

1:10:06 ↗ to you know

1:10:07 ↗ get a you know town homes your driveway

1:10:11 ↗ through black passage it really you're

1:10:13 ↗ packing a lot into a small space and so

1:10:16 ↗ when thinking about those type scenarios

1:10:17 ↗ that's how we try to determine um the

1:10:20 ↗ the expectations and then also trying to

1:10:23 ↗ work through some of the problems that

1:10:25 ↗ we've had in the past so

1:10:27 ↗ um

1:10:28 ↗ we do think that with these new

1:10:30 ↗ standards this will um kind of ensure

1:10:33 ↗ that you know a throughout passage gets

1:10:35 ↗ constructed and then it's in a standard

1:10:38 ↗ that is you know um

1:10:40 ↗ that works for the city and the

1:10:42 ↗ developer because there's a lot of times

1:10:44 ↗ where folks come in to develop and then

1:10:46 ↗ they know that they learn that they have

1:10:47 ↗ to do these through block passages and

1:10:49 ↗ they the project doesn't go forward

1:10:51 ↗ because the throughput pastors is so

1:10:53 ↗ large

1:10:57 ↗ uh and then one more question was i yeah

1:10:59 ↗ i went really quickly through this

1:11:00 ↗ packet so pardon me if it's right in

1:11:02 ↗ front of my face

1:11:03 ↗ uh

1:11:04 ↗ where is the standard by which

1:11:06 ↗ a block is long enough to require

1:11:10 ↗ a through block passage um it's i

1:11:13 ↗ believe in a couple locations so we have

1:11:15 ↗ the map um i will say that the map is

1:11:18 ↗ more of a visual aid it doesn't show the

1:11:20 ↗ entire central estop area um so we plan

1:11:23 ↗ on updating that for the next draft

1:11:27 ↗ let me quickly

1:11:35 ↗ i

1:11:37 ↗ can't find it very quickly

1:11:42 ↗ but i know it's here

1:11:44 ↗ but if

1:11:45 ↗ but again we would be relying on the map

1:11:47 ↗ as well

1:11:50 ↗ so but the map is only of central

1:11:51 ↗ issaquah yes so there isn't a map

1:11:54 ↗ defining where through block passages

1:11:56 ↗ are for the rest of the city correct

1:11:57 ↗ which is part of the policy question

1:11:59 ↗ yeah right thank you

1:12:04 ↗ valerie i'm curious um so when

1:12:07 ↗ when the development is being planned

1:12:09 ↗ the through box passages are supposed to

1:12:12 ↗ be separate from fire access correct

1:12:13 ↗ there would already be a street with

1:12:15 ↗ fire access correct so through block

1:12:17 ↗ passages would then be able to

1:12:19 ↗ effectively be

1:12:20 ↗ completely inappropriate for a vehicle

1:12:22 ↗ the way they were designed correct they

1:12:23 ↗ have to be separate from vehicles and so

1:12:26 ↗ oh they have to be about there isn't

1:12:28 ↗ there isn't an availability of a

1:12:29 ↗ developer to be able to use them for

1:12:31 ↗ emergency vehicles or things like that

1:12:34 ↗ in the current code we do have some

1:12:36 ↗ paths that

1:12:37 ↗ allow for emergency vehicles or

1:12:39 ↗ utilities um

1:12:41 ↗ but how this um what we're proposing no

1:12:43 ↗ they could not have vehicles they have

1:12:46 ↗ to be separate thank you

1:12:54 ↗ all right i think i have a couple

1:12:56 ↗ questions for you valerie

1:12:58 ↗ um on page one of six

1:13:00 ↗ 18.702.20

1:13:03 ↗ applicability

1:13:04 ↗ a and b

1:13:05 ↗ if it is required everywhere throughout

1:13:07 ↗ the city for redevelopment and new

1:13:09 ↗ development why is there a distinction

1:13:11 ↗ in part b and central issaquah

1:13:14 ↗ is that because the policy question you

1:13:16 ↗ guys are asking what we're doing outside

1:13:18 ↗ of central okay correct

1:13:20 ↗ so

1:13:20 ↗ that was one thank you

1:13:27 ↗ page five of six

1:13:28 ↗ um

1:13:29 ↗ 18.70 the only one there point 50

1:13:32 ↗ through block passage design standards

1:13:35 ↗ a1 residential land uses

1:13:38 ↗ the through block passage is required

1:13:39 ↗ when providing access to seven or more

1:13:41 ↗ entry ways that do not directly gain

1:13:43 ↗ access from a transportation facility

1:13:46 ↗ i think i asked this last time what is

1:13:48 ↗ the definition

1:13:50 ↗ of a transportation facility we know

1:13:53 ↗ you've been asking for the definitions

1:13:55 ↗ and you have to wait one or two more

1:13:56 ↗ weeks

1:13:57 ↗ but

1:13:58 ↗ the basically the

1:14:00 ↗ transportation facility is the main

1:14:02 ↗ street

1:14:03 ↗ okay

1:14:05 ↗ and i think that is it for me

1:14:09 ↗ any final questions for valerie uh as

1:14:11 ↗ far as clarifying questions

1:14:14 ↗ all right well thank you valerie great

1:14:17 ↗ job

1:14:19 ↗ and

1:14:20 ↗ i believe that's it

1:14:22 ↗ so here we are at the public hearing

1:14:24 ↗ which i know our

1:14:25 ↗ our wonderful public has been waiting

1:14:28 ↗ for the opportunity to have their

1:14:30 ↗ voices heard

1:14:34 ↗ so we're going to open up tonight's

1:14:36 ↗ public comment portion of the public

1:14:38 ↗ hearing at

1:14:39 ↗ 7 52 p.m

1:14:42 ↗ and what i'm going to ask staff now has

1:14:44 ↗ anyone present present signed up to

1:14:46 ↗ speak

1:14:48 ↗ and if so please come to the podium and

1:14:49 ↗ state your name before making your

1:14:51 ↗ comments

1:14:53 ↗ yes chair we have one presenter brandon

1:14:55 ↗ salmery

1:15:06 ↗ oh i got it

1:15:08 ↗ yeah this is my first

1:15:10 ↗ time being part of the council so thanks

1:15:12 ↗ for hearing me out

1:15:13 ↗ uh my questions are all directed towards

1:15:16 ↗ valerie

1:15:17 ↗ over here and

1:15:18 ↗ your questions about the code or the new

1:15:21 ↗ code for food trucks

1:15:23 ↗ one of my key questions

1:15:25 ↗ when you're referring to food trucks

1:15:27 ↗ being on private property is that when

1:15:29 ↗ they're doing retail service or is that

1:15:31 ↗ when they're just parked for storage

1:15:37 ↗ i never got a pamphlet i mean i saw you

1:15:39 ↗ guys all flipping through title 18 but

1:15:42 ↗ i i just was emailed this about two two

1:15:45 ↗ days ago and decided to you know take

1:15:47 ↗ some time out of my day to come down and

1:15:49 ↗ go over this and we do appreciate it so

1:15:51 ↗ i'm sure someone you would like to

1:15:53 ↗ probably hear this sooner brandon but uh

1:15:55 ↗ this is not a q a so staff can actually

1:15:57 ↗ not respond to your questions right now

1:15:59 ↗ nor us this is for you basically imagine

1:16:01 ↗ a courtroom right so you're providing

1:16:03 ↗ evidence for us to hear and take into

1:16:05 ↗ account

1:16:06 ↗ perfect all right well then let's take a

1:16:08 ↗ few things into account when the

1:16:10 ↗ pandemic first came out

1:16:12 ↗ uh food trucks

1:16:14 ↗ really lost all their places to go

1:16:15 ↗ because every business every corporation

1:16:17 ↗ shut down in our normal you know places

1:16:19 ↗ we would serve were no longer available

1:16:21 ↗ for us to go so we had to scramble and

1:16:23 ↗ find places to go i sat down with me and

1:16:25 ↗ my team i have a couple food trucks in

1:16:27 ↗ town and we thought where are the people

1:16:29 ↗ and we decided that they're all in their

1:16:31 ↗ neighborhoods so we without any

1:16:34 ↗ knowledge of what the laws were the rcw

1:16:36 ↗ codes were what your municipal codes are

1:16:38 ↗ decided to start going into these

1:16:39 ↗ neighborhoods i took it upon myself to

1:16:41 ↗ reach out to the city of issaquah and

1:16:43 ↗ find out what the policies were on food

1:16:45 ↗ trucks parking in right-of-ways i know

1:16:47 ↗ that the rcw codes and that the codes of

1:16:51 ↗ the washington health department allow

1:16:53 ↗ for food trucks to park in most

1:16:54 ↗ right-of-ways for up to four hours

1:16:56 ↗ without a bathroom agreement now that is

1:16:58 ↗ just health department so we decided to

1:17:00 ↗ start going into neighborhoods where i

1:17:02 ↗ had friends and family one of them was

1:17:04 ↗ over here in mirwood park which is south

1:17:06 ↗ cove area another one was up in the

1:17:07 ↗ highlands by the central park area

1:17:10 ↗ there was another one in miramont and a

1:17:11 ↗ handful of other ones i actually

1:17:14 ↗ talked to a few people on the phone but

1:17:15 ↗ it seemed like everything was in

1:17:17 ↗ disarray i would talk to one person i

1:17:18 ↗ talked to another person and i talked to

1:17:20 ↗ another person after that nobody was

1:17:21 ↗ communicating with one another so we

1:17:23 ↗ just decided to start going and

1:17:25 ↗ created a website that was helpful for

1:17:27 ↗ other food trucks basically telling you

1:17:29 ↗ hey here's where we're going whether

1:17:30 ↗ we're breaking law or not we just did

1:17:32 ↗ not care

1:17:33 ↗ most people followed suit and they wound

1:17:36 ↗ up emailing me hey hoosier contact well

1:17:38 ↗ what happened was

1:17:40 ↗ community leaders in these neighborhoods

1:17:42 ↗ decided to start getting together and

1:17:44 ↗ reaching out to me to contact these food

1:17:46 ↗ trucks and they were the ones reaching

1:17:47 ↗ out to

1:17:48 ↗ the people in that community and it was

1:17:50 ↗ a hit everybody loved it we all followed

1:17:52 ↗ the rules and regulations of the covid

1:17:54 ↗ protocol you know six feet away

1:17:57 ↗ wear your mask wash your hands all the

1:17:59 ↗ stuff

1:18:00 ↗ we were the smallest of businesses

1:18:03 ↗ compared to most retail businesses and

1:18:05 ↗ most of the businesses right here on

1:18:07 ↗ front street that our restaurant

1:18:09 ↗ and we tried to survive our best a lot

1:18:10 ↗ of my friends actually lost their

1:18:12 ↗ business and a lot of them actually

1:18:13 ↗ gained more business due to what we were

1:18:16 ↗ doing so when i'm hearing new codes

1:18:19 ↗ coming about about right-of-ways and

1:18:20 ↗ seven days you know

1:18:23 ↗ being allowed to park in a right-of-way

1:18:24 ↗ that kind of strikes me as

1:18:27 ↗ more of just people parking their food

1:18:29 ↗ truck and right away which you know i

1:18:31 ↗ get that nobody wants to see a food

1:18:32 ↗ truck parked in right away just being

1:18:34 ↗ stored there but when it comes to

1:18:37 ↗ private parking just storage i mean i

1:18:39 ↗ park them at my house and i don't want

1:18:41 ↗ the city coming up to me telling me hey

1:18:44 ↗ you can't have these cars parked here

1:18:46 ↗ we're not doing retail out of there not

1:18:48 ↗ selling out of there so when i hear the

1:18:50 ↗ presentation that valerie just gave

1:18:52 ↗ which is why i asked my question that

1:18:53 ↗ cannot be answered

1:18:56 ↗ very strange but i get it decorum

1:18:59 ↗ that's my concern i don't want to have

1:19:02 ↗ anyone tell me i can't do what i want to

1:19:04 ↗ do with my private property now going

1:19:06 ↗ back to

1:19:08 ↗ my idea about having food trucks being

1:19:11 ↗ parked in right of ways serving at parks

1:19:14 ↗ in certain communities i think the city

1:19:16 ↗ could benefit greatly if they did paint

1:19:19 ↗ off an area that said food truck only

1:19:22 ↗ anybody who wanted to go and serve in

1:19:23 ↗ that area could reach out to the city

1:19:25 ↗ you know this is just off the top of my

1:19:26 ↗ head reach out the city and say hey let

1:19:28 ↗ me give you guys 35 bucks for the day

1:19:31 ↗ i'll park my truck there

1:19:33 ↗ and we'll serve for that day and we now

1:19:35 ↗ have that spot the food the the city

1:19:37 ↗ could benefit greatly from that because

1:19:39 ↗ they can get an income the reason i say

1:19:40 ↗ 35 is because every other website that i

1:19:43 ↗ work with and i've been working with

1:19:44 ↗ them for 12 years if you go to a

1:19:46 ↗ business park it's 35 bucks

1:19:49 ↗ sometimes 70 sometimes 100 sometimes

1:19:50 ↗ it's 10 percent you know just what it is

1:19:53 ↗ but a city doing it would be unique not

1:19:55 ↗ a lot of cities do it and if the city

1:19:57 ↗ wants to bring in us an income on what

1:19:59 ↗ food trucks are already doing

1:20:01 ↗ most of the food trucks would hail that

1:20:03 ↗ they would love it they would think that

1:20:04 ↗ 35

1:20:06 ↗ you know city granted spot that you can

1:20:08 ↗ reserve with the city would be excellent

1:20:10 ↗ and like i've listed there are five

1:20:12 ↗ spots that we were going to that were

1:20:14 ↗ all

1:20:15 ↗ really good spots

1:20:16 ↗ um

1:20:17 ↗ so i guess that's my my input on the

1:20:19 ↗ right-of-way and my input on the private

1:20:21 ↗ property

1:20:22 ↗ should just kind of let us do what we

1:20:24 ↗ want to do the guy over here on the uh

1:20:26 ↗ on the end of the lot that owns the gas

1:20:28 ↗ station there's a food truck park right

1:20:30 ↗ there he's been there i think for two

1:20:33 ↗ years now

1:20:34 ↗ four years was that you no okay well

1:20:37 ↗ he's been there four years must be a

1:20:38 ↗ friend

1:20:40 ↗ no well okay so

1:20:41 ↗ he's been there four years

1:20:43 ↗ if you guys

1:20:44 ↗ excuse me if you implement a 60-day

1:20:47 ↗ food truck at this private location that

1:20:50 ↗ can cause a lot of problems is that

1:20:51 ↗ going to be 60 days for that particular

1:20:53 ↗ food truck and then you can move another

1:20:55 ↗ one in there for 60 days

1:20:57 ↗ why is the city going to get involved in

1:20:59 ↗ what happens on public property i

1:21:00 ↗ already know the man pays four thousand

1:21:02 ↗ dollars a month to stay on that private

1:21:05 ↗ property and he serves to the public

1:21:07 ↗ and it and there's no problems

1:21:09 ↗ another

1:21:10 ↗ problem with putting a 60-day period on

1:21:13 ↗ parking at this

1:21:15 ↗ spot is that 60 days for the year or is

1:21:18 ↗ that 60 days for 10 years what happens

1:21:20 ↗ if he moves for one day and then he goes

1:21:22 ↗ back into that spot now you got to

1:21:24 ↗ restart the 60 days correct so there's a

1:21:26 ↗ lot of so five minutes is up could you

1:21:28 ↗ wrap up it publicly oh yeah

1:21:30 ↗ i'm done okay thank you you guys heard

1:21:33 ↗ me i made sense very good have a good

1:21:35 ↗ day

1:21:45 ↗ all right is there anyone else who'd

1:21:47 ↗ like to speak uh virtually

1:21:50 ↗ chair voice we have one person signed up

1:21:52 ↗ uh virtually to speak public comment

1:21:55 ↗ okay

1:22:01 ↗ mr ramsey i'm going to make you a

1:22:02 ↗ panelist now and i'll meet you

1:22:09 ↗ great thank you uh

1:22:11 ↗ i'm hoping everybody can hear me is that

1:22:13 ↗ correct yes we can

1:22:15 ↗ uh my name's tom ramsey i own uh tuscan

1:22:18 ↗ stone pizza

1:22:21 ↗ we're located

1:22:22 ↗ on east lake sammamish boulevard

1:22:25 ↗ um in front of the valley village

1:22:28 ↗ we've been there for over five years

1:22:31 ↗ um

1:22:32 ↗ have a great customer base and there's a

1:22:34 ↗ choir over a thousand

1:22:36 ↗ customers

1:22:38 ↗ really want to stay in issaquah we enjoy

1:22:41 ↗ being there and being part of the

1:22:43 ↗ community

1:22:46 ↗ we comply with all the

1:22:49 ↗ business regulations a business license

1:22:52 ↗ uh pay taxes

1:22:54 ↗ um

1:22:55 ↗ comply with health requirements

1:22:59 ↗ um

1:23:00 ↗ so we're

1:23:01 ↗ very interested in

1:23:03 ↗ what um the city is

1:23:06 ↗ going to do we hope that there's a way

1:23:08 ↗ that our business which has been

1:23:10 ↗ existing we're not mobile although we

1:23:13 ↗ are a food trailer but we don't move

1:23:15 ↗ around we're permanently located

1:23:18 ↗ and that's our business model we have

1:23:20 ↗ four locations across the east side

1:23:23 ↗ and we

1:23:24 ↗ would uh hope that we can stay in

1:23:26 ↗ issaquah and that

1:23:29 ↗ the planning

1:23:30 ↗ commission and the city council

1:23:33 ↗ consider us and

1:23:35 ↗ we try to

1:23:37 ↗ participate and be a good citizen so we

1:23:40 ↗ we hope that um

1:23:43 ↗ that'll be taken into account as you

1:23:45 ↗ move ahead

1:23:47 ↗ thank you

1:23:52 ↗ thank you

1:23:54 ↗ uh valerie i believe we had one more

1:23:55 ↗ in-person speech

1:23:57 ↗ that came in late

1:24:04 ↗ thank you you guys can hear me well over

1:24:06 ↗ here thank you so much my name is

1:24:09 ↗ and i'm here on behalf of my food truck

1:24:12 ↗ as well who i just recently started

1:24:14 ↗ about two weeks ago in the city of

1:24:16 ↗ isoqua

1:24:17 ↗ uh thank you for hearing me out

1:24:18 ↗ commissioners share

1:24:20 ↗ valerie i'm speaking to you right now

1:24:24 ↗ uh

1:24:25 ↗ you know it was very sad for me to get

1:24:27 ↗ that email with that code where it says

1:24:28 ↗ i'm going to be limited to be here for

1:24:30 ↗ 60 days

1:24:31 ↗ when i was planning to be here for a

1:24:34 ↗ long run you know years to come

1:24:37 ↗ there's

1:24:38 ↗ four food trucks that i'm aware

1:24:40 ↗ plus a trailer that sir just mentioned

1:24:43 ↗ they are fully

1:24:44 ↗ fully permanent here in the city of

1:24:46 ↗ izakua

1:24:49 ↗ and um

1:24:51 ↗ it will be a huge impact

1:24:53 ↗ like for me especially right now because

1:24:55 ↗ i'm starting before for all of them as

1:24:57 ↗ well because i guess

1:24:59 ↗ everybody food every food truck's dream

1:25:01 ↗ is to start

1:25:03 ↗ a restaurant in a location where

1:25:06 ↗ we were hoping to have a small place at

1:25:08 ↗ least here in front street right but we

1:25:11 ↗ can't afford it it's

1:25:12 ↗ you know starting a food truck is about

1:25:15 ↗ you know you name it a hundred thousand

1:25:16 ↗ dollars

1:25:18 ↗ uh

1:25:18 ↗ inversion um

1:25:21 ↗ but you can go higher or you can go

1:25:23 ↗ lower a restaurant it's

1:25:25 ↗ i just can't afford to just go on the

1:25:27 ↗ lease you know

1:25:28 ↗ and uh

1:25:30 ↗ you mentioned the city only requests the

1:25:34 ↗ license

1:25:35 ↗ but for us to operate

1:25:38 ↗ we definitely provide more than that

1:25:40 ↗ you know

1:25:42 ↗ we have to go to illinois

1:25:44 ↗ certifications

1:25:46 ↗ definitely a fire department

1:25:49 ↗ health department

1:25:51 ↗ state secretary

1:25:53 ↗ the state of

1:25:54 ↗ washington

1:25:56 ↗ the city of issaquah the irs

1:26:01 ↗ many other things to be able to

1:26:03 ↗ operate 100

1:26:05 ↗ and

1:26:07 ↗ i don't know how is it going to be uh in

1:26:09 ↗ the future for this code but this this

1:26:12 ↗ past if this is as as is right now

1:26:16 ↗ you know i don't see another reason why

1:26:18 ↗ somebody else on private property just

1:26:21 ↗ won't get shut down on everything else

1:26:23 ↗ you know what about you know any other

1:26:25 ↗ people who sells other type of food like

1:26:27 ↗ animals food their storage their food in

1:26:31 ↗ you know in their private properties

1:26:33 ↗ what about that is the city gonna come

1:26:35 ↗ in and shut that down to you for 60 days

1:26:38 ↗ you know

1:26:39 ↗ the other person who was here just

1:26:41 ↗ mentioned

1:26:43 ↗ the other part of you know being just

1:26:45 ↗ part private property and all this he

1:26:47 ↗ mentioned a lot of the stuff i wanted to

1:26:49 ↗ mention i think you guys can uh kind of

1:26:51 ↗ have an idea of what it is moving around

1:26:54 ↗ you know requesting locations

1:26:57 ↗ i wanted to be here permanently and i

1:26:58 ↗ wanted to grow in this year of isoqua

1:27:00 ↗ but right now i'm here you know really

1:27:02 ↗ sad

1:27:03 ↗ because it's not

1:27:05 ↗ easy

1:27:06 ↗ to be

1:27:08 ↗ where i am right now

1:27:09 ↗ two weeks started and now

1:27:12 ↗ i'm just like oh so i'm not so am i

1:27:14 ↗ supposed to get ready to go because i'm

1:27:17 ↗ not going to stay here for 60 days

1:27:20 ↗ i wanted to be here for years to come

1:27:22 ↗ and

1:27:24 ↗ i'm sure we can work it out i'm sure

1:27:27 ↗ there's many other ways the city can

1:27:30 ↗ you know complement a way we can work it

1:27:32 ↗ out uh there's

1:27:35 ↗ many other cities

1:27:37 ↗ that uh allow food trucks to open many

1:27:40 ↗ other ways you know wish we can have a

1:27:43 ↗ land where we can all park together you

1:27:46 ↗ know and just have a community with

1:27:48 ↗ so many different uh type of foods

1:27:51 ↗ you know i'm proud to be here because

1:27:54 ↗ uh

1:27:54 ↗ out of those

1:27:56 ↗ one or

1:27:57 ↗ five food trucks over here in the city

1:27:59 ↗ of issaquah that i'm aware of

1:28:01 ↗ four of them are mexican food trucks

1:28:05 ↗ but they're all very different

1:28:07 ↗ you know

1:28:09 ↗ sochi which is i love it it's a place

1:28:12 ↗ that i've been there for a long time

1:28:14 ↗ she's from mexico city hope she

1:28:15 ↗ hopefully she's hearing me out

1:28:18 ↗ they have

1:28:19 ↗ great food

1:28:21 ↗ you know and they've been there for

1:28:22 ↗ years so now they have to go they don't

1:28:24 ↗ even have a motor engine to move they

1:28:27 ↗ have a trailer

1:28:29 ↗ it's a tough thing to for them to move

1:28:31 ↗ so i don't know what's going to happen

1:28:33 ↗ to them they are inside a private

1:28:34 ↗ property

1:28:36 ↗ you know last is

1:28:37 ↗ different type of food

1:28:39 ↗ a little more a little bit here and

1:28:41 ↗ there but really good food armor like uh

1:28:45 ↗ north side of mexico type of food and we

1:28:48 ↗ can continue going on and on and on

1:28:50 ↗ because mexico has

1:28:52 ↗ way varieties of type of foods depends

1:28:54 ↗ where it states you are and we're here

1:28:57 ↗ proud

1:28:59 ↗ and

1:29:01 ↗ you know

1:29:03 ↗ trying to see if the city will take it

1:29:05 ↗ in a good way

1:29:06 ↗ because i'm i'm i might not be listening

1:29:08 ↗ to myself really nice right now

1:29:11 ↗ but it's this is just comes for me

1:29:13 ↗ because i'm really sad it just you know

1:29:16 ↗ it really got me this time really bad

1:29:19 ↗ but uh i'm not excuse me sir

1:29:21 ↗ so the five minutes have come up can you

1:29:23 ↗ absolutely just uh appreciate it for you

1:29:26 ↗ guys to let me be here and the

1:29:28 ↗ invitation and uh

1:29:31 ↗ nice to meet you guys i'm hugo from noor

1:29:33 ↗ baja and i'm located at the grange

1:29:36 ↗ private property thank you

1:29:39 ↗ thank you hugo and i will take

1:29:41 ↗ responsibility for not uh properly

1:29:44 ↗ letting everybody know there is a five

1:29:45 ↗ minute um

1:29:47 ↗ time limit on public comments so again i

1:29:49 ↗ apologize to the last few speakers that

1:29:51 ↗ uh it was my fault so that was not clear

1:29:53 ↗ um but just in time for the last speaker

1:29:56 ↗ [Laughter]

1:29:58 ↗ so mr karam please

1:30:00 ↗ thank you sir

1:30:01 ↗ you know i really start to like it here

1:30:04 ↗ you know i can't just get away from this

1:30:06 ↗ podium but anyhow my name is jose koram

1:30:09 ↗ i'm a local developer and i learned a

1:30:12 ↗ lot today it was just kind of

1:30:14 ↗ interesting before i got to the

1:30:16 ↗ development i i work for the boeing

1:30:18 ↗ company a mechanical engineer

1:30:21 ↗ you know we did work on

1:30:23 ↗ far left and safety issues and one of

1:30:25 ↗ the things that uh kind of struck me was

1:30:28 ↗ this uh

1:30:30 ↗ through block

1:30:31 ↗ access

1:30:32 ↗ now

1:30:34 ↗ my site has some other things in it but

1:30:36 ↗ we're kind of lucky we're not the length

1:30:39 ↗ works out but fire department has a rule

1:30:42 ↗ called 150 foot rule which there are

1:30:44 ↗ hoses 150 feet so

1:30:47 ↗ any portion of the building should be

1:30:49 ↗ within reach of that 150 feet for fire

1:30:51 ↗ life and safety

1:30:53 ↗ in the case of fire now the the through

1:30:56 ↗ block that i have is pretty good size is

1:30:58 ↗ 10 feet another five feet next to it 15

1:31:00 ↗ feet god forbid if it's a fire i know

1:31:04 ↗ what the fire truck is going to do it's

1:31:05 ↗ going to pull right in and just go right

1:31:07 ↗ right there to save lives

1:31:09 ↗ if you are going to make an error or

1:31:11 ↗ close it off to

1:31:13 ↗ far

1:31:13 ↗ life and emergency even on emergency

1:31:16 ↗ basis you could be danger in

1:31:19 ↗ people's lives so

1:31:21 ↗ i don't haven't read the the draft

1:31:24 ↗ agreement i i just want to make sure

1:31:26 ↗ that

1:31:27 ↗ you always get a thing

1:31:29 ↗ we want to save lives in the case of an

1:31:31 ↗ emergency and when you have a narrow lot

1:31:34 ↗ narrow along you're going to have access

1:31:37 ↗ maybe on one side in the building and if

1:31:39 ↗ you're putting if you have to put

1:31:40 ↗ another through block

1:31:42 ↗ that is narrow and is closed off to

1:31:45 ↗ even emergency traffic

1:31:47 ↗ uh

1:31:48 ↗ if something goes sideways

1:31:50 ↗ you know it could you know it could

1:31:52 ↗ cause death and life

1:31:55 ↗ loss of life so just just want to bring

1:31:57 ↗ it up i'm here i thought

1:31:59 ↗ i could do a little bit help why not

1:32:01 ↗ thanks for having me

1:32:09 ↗ all right um valerie stephen do we have

1:32:12 ↗ any other people that would like to

1:32:13 ↗ speak

1:32:14 ↗ chair voice i don't see any other hands

1:32:16 ↗ virtually

1:32:17 ↗ all right

1:32:19 ↗ we will close the public hearing for

1:32:20 ↗ this evening at 8 10 p.m

1:32:27 ↗ usually i'd say something like it's

1:32:28 ↗ fight night but we're all friends so

1:32:30 ↗ it's deliberation time

1:32:33 ↗ so definitely not fight night

1:32:35 ↗ um

1:32:37 ↗ we are going to take this apart one by

1:32:39 ↗ one

1:32:40 ↗ and i believe we probably just want to

1:32:41 ↗ go on the order that it was presented

1:32:45 ↗ yes and we are going to take a two

1:32:47 ↗ minute

1:32:48 ↗ five minute rest bit so we will be back

1:32:51 ↗ in five

1:36:07 ↗ so

1:36:15 ↗ all right well thank you very much we

1:36:16 ↗ are now going to begin the deliberation

1:36:19 ↗ portion

1:36:20 ↗ for the planning policy where we're

1:36:22 ↗ going to

1:36:23 ↗ basically go through this and we're

1:36:25 ↗ going to take it from the top just the

1:36:26 ↗ way that it was presented to us by staff

1:36:29 ↗ and we'll begin with the wireless

1:36:31 ↗ communication facilities

1:36:33 ↗ uh commissioners any comments about the

1:36:35 ↗ wireless communication facilities

1:36:42 ↗ i'll break the ice here

1:36:45 ↗ thank you

1:36:46 ↗ i don't know if she's there anymore for

1:36:47 ↗ the presentation

1:36:49 ↗ and i appreciate the whiteboard and look

1:36:52 ↗ forward to those discussions because

1:36:53 ↗ that was

1:36:54 ↗ quite a complicated

1:36:56 ↗ discussion about poll

1:36:58 ↗ location

1:36:59 ↗ my only comment

1:37:01 ↗ for

1:37:03 ↗ going forward was to just make an

1:37:06 ↗ edit to how this was presented in that

1:37:09 ↗ nothing changed

1:37:11 ↗ okay that's fine but as i read this it

1:37:13 ↗ said that there were three sections that

1:37:15 ↗ were new and added which i consider a

1:37:18 ↗ change

1:37:19 ↗ so if as we go forward in presenting it

1:37:22 ↗ to be a little more clear i would say

1:37:25 ↗ that although we didn't change

1:37:26 ↗ regulation we added three sections and

1:37:28 ↗ they are

1:37:29 ↗ 0.9080 and 140.

1:37:32 ↗ that's all i have

1:37:35 ↗ thank you commissioner

1:37:39 ↗ mr lewis

1:37:41 ↗ i uh when going through this i had i had

1:37:43 ↗ a tougher time with this section

1:37:45 ↗ of bucket six uh i

1:37:48 ↗ i have the benefit of having had this

1:37:50 ↗ discussion several times before

1:37:52 ↗ and um i

1:37:54 ↗ what i will say about this is that i

1:37:56 ↗ don't think that it serves us very well

1:37:58 ↗ i think we poured it over some language

1:38:00 ↗ and i think what this ends up doing is

1:38:02 ↗ leaving us highly unregulated

1:38:05 ↗ and somewhat vulnerable and i think that

1:38:06 ↗ what we could use is

1:38:08 ↗ some um without with while still being

1:38:11 ↗ able to say here policy discussions we

1:38:13 ↗ want to have for the future being able

1:38:14 ↗ to tighten some of this up you know um

1:38:18 ↗ we talked about before about view

1:38:19 ↗ corridor you know we specifically say

1:38:21 ↗ about the intent and i would like to

1:38:23 ↗ have language it says we have on point

1:38:25 ↗ eight we want to ensure that equipment

1:38:27 ↗ does not become a barrier impediment to

1:38:28 ↗ pedestrians and bicyclists but also view

1:38:31 ↗ corridors and wildlife i think that

1:38:32 ↗ there are other key things that are

1:38:34 ↗ missing language right now

1:38:36 ↗ i think also

1:38:37 ↗ when we talk about small cell that we

1:38:39 ↗ need to actually have in our language

1:38:41 ↗ that a carrier needs to show a net

1:38:43 ↗ effect and benefit

1:38:45 ↗ rather than necessarily what is the

1:38:47 ↗ community getting from this

1:38:49 ↗ i think also when we talk about

1:38:51 ↗ some of the images that we have here

1:38:53 ↗ would be nice to have some scale right

1:38:54 ↗ we have like a picture of a tower

1:38:56 ↗ with kind of like some wispy bushes

1:38:59 ↗ right but

1:39:00 ↗ it's hard for i think a community to

1:39:01 ↗ really recognize how big some of this

1:39:03 ↗ equipment is and so it might be nice to

1:39:05 ↗ update that with a little bit of a scale

1:39:06 ↗ of our little a little you know person

1:39:08 ↗ for instance might be a good idea um

1:39:11 ↗ so i uh

1:39:14 ↗ i would like to us to be able to look at

1:39:16 ↗ this section for draft number two uh

1:39:19 ↗ with a little bit of more critical eye

1:39:21 ↗ by being able to parse out these are the

1:39:23 ↗ things we'd like to put on the

1:39:24 ↗ whiteboard these are the things that we

1:39:25 ↗ want to address because we're trying to

1:39:26 ↗ tighten up consolidate um our code we

1:39:29 ↗ want to be streamlining it but we also

1:39:31 ↗ want to be not be making um

1:39:33 ↗ effectively big holes right that we need

1:39:36 ↗ to then plug later on down the line and

1:39:37 ↗ that's what i see in this section in a

1:39:39 ↗ way so

1:39:40 ↗ i would look forward to having

1:39:42 ↗ some language added maybe rather than

1:39:45 ↗ necessarily ported over that gets us to

1:39:47 ↗ where we want to go next with the code

1:39:50 ↗ thank you

1:39:53 ↗ thank you and then a couple comments

1:39:54 ↗ from me i'm going to go back to that

1:39:56 ↗ chart first on page 11 of 20

1:39:59 ↗ allowed with conditions blocking natural

1:40:01 ↗ vistas

1:40:02 ↗ this is obviously concerning because

1:40:04 ↗ this would affect people's property

1:40:05 ↗ values

1:40:06 ↗ i understand the imminent domain i

1:40:08 ↗ understand that there's particular areas

1:40:10 ↗ that the providers want to place their

1:40:12 ↗ towers for different reasons

1:40:15 ↗ i'd like to look at that if there's a

1:40:17 ↗ remedy for

1:40:18 ↗ blocking natural vistas because again

1:40:20 ↗ you're talking about somebody's property

1:40:21 ↗ value i'm thinking of that large tower

1:40:24 ↗ uh north of i-90 as you're coming from

1:40:26 ↗ basically past the samamesh exit to the

1:40:29 ↗ 900 exit

1:40:31 ↗ right it was 900 yeah

1:40:34 ↗ anyway so yeah like a tower like that um

1:40:36 ↗ you know if that was to be placed in

1:40:38 ↗ front of particular houses um that could

1:40:41 ↗ diminish the property value

1:40:43 ↗ and then also on page 19 of 20

1:40:46 ↗ 18 512 150 interference i thought point

1:40:49 ↗ c was good in the event of the

1:40:51 ↗ interference with city facilities cannot

1:40:53 ↗ be eliminated or remediated to the

1:40:55 ↗ satisfaction

1:40:56 ↗ of the designated official there he is

1:40:58 ↗ again

1:40:59 ↗ the network provider must shut down and

1:41:01 ↗ remove all facilities determined to

1:41:02 ↗ cause interference at network providers

1:41:05 ↗ sole expense i thought that's great so

1:41:07 ↗ that's good

1:41:08 ↗ and then down below

1:41:10 ↗ um

1:41:14 ↗ 18 512 140 part d

1:41:17 ↗ this one's hard because i

1:41:19 ↗ you know it has to deal with graffiti uh

1:41:22 ↗ it says within 14 days you know i i

1:41:24 ↗ don't really understand how graffiti is

1:41:26 ↗ clean from the city but 14 days then

1:41:30 ↗ spray painted again i don't know 14 days

1:41:32 ↗ i'm not sure if that's taken from a

1:41:33 ↗ different part of code if that's

1:41:35 ↗ taken from what other cities have

1:41:37 ↗ i'm a little concerned about 14 days

1:41:41 ↗ well i think to your point there was

1:41:42 ↗ also mentioned about

1:41:44 ↗ non-graffiti paint that was supposed to

1:41:46 ↗ be put up is that also in this section

1:41:48 ↗ or was that i feel like this was here

1:41:49 ↗ where it was like supposed to be um but

1:41:52 ↗ we as a community have really enjoyed

1:41:53 ↗ having any kind of equipment actually

1:41:56 ↗ being painted by artists where they

1:41:57 ↗ blend into the environment and things

1:41:59 ↗ like that so there's no language right

1:42:00 ↗ now here that talks about involving the

1:42:02 ↗ arts commission for

1:42:04 ↗ um particular um

1:42:06 ↗ you know eyesores within the community

1:42:08 ↗ um

1:42:10 ↗ i think there's a lot that could be

1:42:11 ↗ whiteboarded about this we've had other

1:42:13 ↗ discussions too but how other

1:42:14 ↗ communities have a fee structure that

1:42:16 ↗ allow for when things are on private

1:42:18 ↗ property where um citizens are able to

1:42:20 ↗ collect a fee and then these companies

1:42:22 ↗ carriers are required to pay to be able

1:42:24 ↗ to use rather than saying we have

1:42:25 ↗ eminent domain because we're providing a

1:42:27 ↗ service we've talked to about

1:42:29 ↗ wi-fi for public areas and things like

1:42:32 ↗ that to be able to give a trade-off and

1:42:33 ↗ a benefit to the community

1:42:35 ↗ so there's i think there's a lot of

1:42:36 ↗ things that need to be whiteboarded to

1:42:38 ↗ your point about graffiti is a good

1:42:40 ↗ point about how we interact in our space

1:42:42 ↗ the famous white board so joy i mean i

1:42:44 ↗ just when you said

1:42:46 ↗ uh non-graffiti paint i mean i thought

1:42:48 ↗ that was like a million dollar idea and

1:42:49 ↗ then i realized what you're saying

1:42:50 ↗ there's no such thing as not graffiti

1:42:52 ↗ paint

1:42:52 ↗ but to your point i did read something

1:42:54 ↗ about kind of like vinyl wrapping

1:42:55 ↗ certain facility boxes i don't know if

1:42:58 ↗ there's a particular you do that maybe

1:43:00 ↗ 10 foot up a pole to the point where

1:43:01 ↗ people would need a ladder

1:43:03 ↗ i just like i said that was something

1:43:04 ↗ that caught my eye

1:43:07 ↗ is the graffiti problem unfortunately we

1:43:09 ↗ don't have one but

1:43:10 ↗ neither did seattle about 10 years ago

1:43:12 ↗ so concerning

1:43:14 ↗ all right anyone else have anything

1:43:16 ↗ they'd like to add as far as the

1:43:17 ↗ wireless communicate

1:43:19 ↗ please

1:43:21 ↗ uh thank you just one two plus one to

1:43:23 ↗ both of you in that deliberative spirit

1:43:26 ↗ uh thank you for the comments that you

1:43:28 ↗ make and for the way that commissioner

1:43:31 ↗ lewis

1:43:32 ↗ took my comment about i'm so glad about

1:43:34 ↗ the white board when really that was a

1:43:36 ↗ pretty softball pitch from me and then

1:43:39 ↗ joy made it come home in that yeah there

1:43:41 ↗ are things in the whiteboard that if we

1:43:42 ↗ do not address those sooner rather than

1:43:44 ↗ later

1:43:45 ↗ they will

1:43:47 ↗ create a gaping hole in what was really

1:43:49 ↗ important to us and so i would i would

1:43:51 ↗ rather than just say oh thank goodness

1:43:53 ↗ it's on the whiteboard which is what the

1:43:55 ↗ way i was feeling i was glad to hear um

1:43:57 ↗ commissioner lewis really um

1:44:00 ↗ express uh deeply what what we're trying

1:44:03 ↗ to do and that there may be some things

1:44:05 ↗ on the whiteboard

1:44:07 ↗ about

1:44:08 ↗ a poll location all those kinds of

1:44:10 ↗ things that need uh

1:44:12 ↗ stricter standards sooner because it's

1:44:14 ↗ going to take us a while to get to that

1:44:15 ↗ whiteboard it's pretty full

1:44:17 ↗ so i don't know how we're going to

1:44:18 ↗ prioritize the whiteboard

1:44:20 ↗ in time for any things that must get in

1:44:23 ↗ this year

1:44:25 ↗ maybe you all could comment on the

1:44:27 ↗ process for that

1:44:33 ↗ for those of us not in the room that was

1:44:34 ↗ an excellent look for valerie

1:44:36 ↗ just to note um and i think the small

1:44:38 ↗ cell needs to urgently be addressed in a

1:44:40 ↗ way that is not being addressed right

1:44:41 ↗ now in this packet it's here it's coming

1:44:43 ↗ um and it can be a solution when done

1:44:46 ↗ correctly but because of our terrain and

1:44:49 ↗ forested hillsides um as we all know you

1:44:52 ↗ go through a tree canopy and your call

1:44:54 ↗ is dropped and so how um you know does

1:44:56 ↗ small cell actually service the

1:44:58 ↗ community in these situations or are we

1:45:00 ↗ just adding more and more

1:45:02 ↗ frequency

1:45:04 ↗ to our community without actually having

1:45:05 ↗ it gained so there are things that need

1:45:07 ↗ to be need to be fine-tuned where the

1:45:09 ↗ administration comes to us and said this

1:45:11 ↗ is our stance this is what we want to

1:45:13 ↗ see is that we have a direction that we

1:45:14 ↗ can actually debate a little bit for

1:45:16 ↗ this

1:45:24 ↗ all right well thank you

1:45:27 ↗ we're going to move along to

1:45:29 ↗ sipa the environmental policy

1:45:36 ↗ so

1:45:37 ↗ because i'm the outlier i will go first

1:45:42 ↗ you know what's interesting is we had

1:45:43 ↗ two public comments come in i believe

1:45:45 ↗ either today or yesterday one who

1:45:47 ↗ thought the rules should be

1:45:49 ↗ uh weakened

1:45:50 ↗ one who thought the rules should be

1:45:52 ↗ strengthened

1:45:53 ↗ um you know

1:45:56 ↗ i'm kind of a

1:45:58 ↗ i would like to see us raise it to the

1:46:00 ↗ maximum threshold um i don't even i mean

1:46:02 ↗ again i i know i'm the outlier i'm

1:46:04 ↗ really not even interested in the

1:46:06 ↗ trade-off with the lead what i'd like to

1:46:07 ↗ see i think the trade-off is more

1:46:08 ↗ development it's more of that missing

1:46:11 ↗ middle so

1:46:13 ↗ i know this is a horrible analogy but

1:46:15 ↗ i'm going to make it because i made a

1:46:16 ↗ point to write it but i kind of think of

1:46:18 ↗ seatbelt right it's a it's a blunt tool

1:46:20 ↗ it's a good tool

1:46:22 ↗ but it's also kind of an outdated tool

1:46:24 ↗ so it's kind of like we're here in in

1:46:26 ↗ this

1:46:27 ↗ chamber

1:46:28 ↗ and we keep the rotary phone

1:46:30 ↗ even though we all have cell phones and

1:46:32 ↗ tablets and all of these things to make

1:46:33 ↗ sure we have something to fall back on

1:46:35 ↗ uh again i'm not saying i know it's kind

1:46:38 ↗ of a blunt analogy but that's kind of

1:46:39 ↗ the idea we have so many different

1:46:41 ↗ critical overlays to protect the

1:46:44 ↗ environment in issaquah we now have an

1:46:45 ↗ environmental board we are now coming

1:46:47 ↗ out with the

1:46:48 ↗ icap

1:46:50 ↗ the issaquah climate action plan there

1:46:53 ↗ are a lot of opportunities but there are

1:46:55 ↗ not a lot of areas where we can provide

1:46:57 ↗ incentives to developers this is one of

1:46:59 ↗ the few areas which again washington

1:47:01 ↗ state happens to be

1:47:04 ↗ very environmentally aware

1:47:06 ↗ the state regulations are giving us an

1:47:08 ↗ opportunity to raise those thresholds

1:47:10 ↗ and again we're not talking about

1:47:12 ↗ different areas around the country

1:47:14 ↗ washington has some very strong

1:47:15 ↗ standards governor inslee spreading some

1:47:18 ↗ very strong standards so i feel

1:47:20 ↗ comfortable here this is one area where

1:47:22 ↗ we can give back to the developers

1:47:24 ↗ encourage them and entice them to come

1:47:26 ↗ into the city and develop some of that

1:47:28 ↗ the housing that we need here

1:47:31 ↗ so again i

1:47:32 ↗ may be an outlier but that's my position

1:47:35 ↗ when it comes to cpa i think we can go

1:47:37 ↗ for the maximum the state has to offer

1:47:39 ↗ and not really i'm not even looking for

1:47:40 ↗ the trade-off i think the trade-off is

1:47:42 ↗ the additional housing

1:47:45 ↗ are you advocating for an option of one

1:47:47 ↗ two or three

1:47:48 ↗ i i don't even think my options on there

1:47:50 ↗ i gave my option the best thing i have

1:47:52 ↗ closest to my option was column number

1:47:54 ↗ three

1:47:55 ↗ which was uh raising to the maximums but

1:47:57 ↗ it's still i think lead kicks in again i

1:48:00 ↗ can't quote it off the top of my head

1:48:03 ↗ but again if i i had my way be this is a

1:48:06 ↗ democracy but uh yeah i would actually

1:48:09 ↗ not even provide lead because again i

1:48:10 ↗ think what we get in turn is the

1:48:12 ↗ development now again like i said

1:48:13 ↗ there's a lot of overlays that protect

1:48:16 ↗ um

1:48:17 ↗ so yeah i'm gonna quit repeating myself

1:48:24 ↗ i uh would have liked this um bucket six

1:48:28 ↗ to be able to have a joint session with

1:48:31 ↗ the environmental board on this and i

1:48:33 ↗ would love for the administration to

1:48:34 ↗ consider that as we move forward and we

1:48:37 ↗ come back again with this at the second

1:48:39 ↗ draft um

1:48:40 ↗ while i don't mind doing questions and

1:48:42 ↗ having our deliberations in one setting

1:48:45 ↗ for us i think when we talk about force

1:48:47 ↗ of hillside preservation when we talk

1:48:49 ↗ about cipa these are questions that

1:48:51 ↗ would we be really benefited from

1:48:53 ↗ bringing in more voices and more

1:48:55 ↗ expertise in our community

1:48:57 ↗ as a commission i still stand by the

1:49:00 ↗ idea that if we raise our standards to

1:49:03 ↗ uh this what the state has set somewhere

1:49:06 ↗ in between that we're getting something

1:49:08 ↗ from it we know we need to drastically

1:49:10 ↗ change the way that we build in this

1:49:11 ↗ community and we need to find a way for

1:49:14 ↗ there to be some type of incentives and

1:49:15 ↗ trade-off and balance so i'm still in

1:49:17 ↗ favor of this i recall staff telling us

1:49:21 ↗ that there would be other things that

1:49:23 ↗ would happen without cepa for instance

1:49:26 ↗ when we talked about the effects of

1:49:28 ↗ building for instance with

1:49:30 ↗ transportation right of being able to

1:49:32 ↗ have an effect on the community and

1:49:34 ↗ these other

1:49:35 ↗ tiered effects that ended up happening

1:49:36 ↗ right and so we said

1:49:38 ↗ great this is going to be focused on so

1:49:40 ↗ we're going to propose this one focus

1:49:43 ↗ it does make me a little bit nervous

1:49:44 ↗ because the the property is not just a

1:49:48 ↗ building it's so many other things when

1:49:50 ↗ we talk tonight about salmon safe to me

1:49:52 ↗ it was like well

1:49:54 ↗ at sam and safe applicable to me says

1:49:56 ↗ well groundwater right everything needs

1:49:58 ↗ to be salmon safe because there isn't

1:50:00 ↗ just um if you're within a uh salmonoid

1:50:04 ↗ bearing stream it's uh how are you

1:50:06 ↗ impacting groundwater runoff that ends

1:50:08 ↗ up getting into those streams so

1:50:11 ↗ right now i'm a proponent of option two

1:50:14 ↗ of raising it

1:50:16 ↗ to the middle ground but not to the

1:50:18 ↗ maximums that are allowed

1:50:20 ↗ from the state

1:50:21 ↗ because

1:50:22 ↗ i i believe strongly that what we have

1:50:26 ↗ seen from a response from the community

1:50:27 ↗ has been one that is

1:50:30 ↗ backing environmental protections to a

1:50:32 ↗ much higher standard and so

1:50:34 ↗ i don't see

1:50:35 ↗ right now a movement within the

1:50:37 ↗ community to be going to those maximums

1:50:38 ↗ but i do agree that being able to raise

1:50:41 ↗ them

1:50:42 ↗ is warranted

1:50:43 ↗ um

1:50:45 ↗ and i'd love to hear you guys opinions

1:50:46 ↗ about that

1:50:52 ↗ we're referring to

1:50:53 ↗ options one two three and we don't have

1:50:56 ↗ the details available for us or for our

1:50:58 ↗ audience is there anyone who could bring

1:51:00 ↗ up the screen that has that chart

1:51:02 ↗ i actually too um want to make sure

1:51:04 ↗ we're focusing our conversation so there

1:51:07 ↗ are a few things that we're probably

1:51:09 ↗ getting into some of the carryovers

1:51:11 ↗ really are

1:51:12 ↗ uh going to go to

1:51:14 ↗ staff can't really help us out with some

1:51:15 ↗ of those carryovers

1:51:17 ↗ so really some of the things that we

1:51:18 ↗ want to talk about are what has changed

1:51:22 ↗ some of the carryover things items

1:51:25 ↗ if i'm getting this correct some of the

1:51:27 ↗ carryover items that we have

1:51:29 ↗ are literally i don't think that's what

1:51:30 ↗ we're trying to debate i think those are

1:51:32 ↗ some of the things that we're putting in

1:51:34 ↗ and then some of the ideas the wish

1:51:35 ↗ lists are going to that

1:51:37 ↗ uh famous white board

1:51:40 ↗ but

1:51:42 ↗ i digress

1:51:44 ↗ nina please

1:51:46 ↗ oh sir please

1:51:47 ↗ okay so i can comment on the thresholds

1:51:50 ↗ or stuff that's what's up in scope okay

1:51:52 ↗ um so i fell somewhere like kind of in a

1:51:55 ↗ happy maybe it's not happy but in the

1:51:58 ↗ middle ground where

1:52:00 ↗ i like it the there's a very stark

1:52:03 ↗ difference right between what the

1:52:04 ↗ thresholds are written right now in

1:52:05 ↗ issaquah and the state maximums as well

1:52:07 ↗ as the neighboring cities right i think

1:52:10 ↗ i don't have the table in front of us

1:52:11 ↗ but i know issaquah was at like four

1:52:13 ↗ units the state was at 30

1:52:15 ↗ um and then i think some of the

1:52:16 ↗ neighboring cities really they're 20 or

1:52:18 ↗ 30 right so there's a really big

1:52:19 ↗ difference between where we are um and

1:52:21 ↗ like what can be allowed and what is

1:52:23 ↗ allowed elsewhere

1:52:25 ↗ and so i don't know if like a solution

1:52:27 ↗ to that is like having almost like two

1:52:29 ↗ tiers right that you can go up to the

1:52:30 ↗ maximum if you allow or have some of the

1:52:33 ↗ sustainable the salmon safe and the lead

1:52:35 ↗ gold

1:52:36 ↗ um standards but that there's also a

1:52:38 ↗ level in between there and where it's

1:52:40 ↗ not like an all or nothing that there is

1:52:42 ↗ like a

1:52:43 ↗ maybe it's like a 10 unit or you know

1:52:46 ↗ stick with the four or whatever it is

1:52:47 ↗ but that

1:52:48 ↗ makes you exempt regardless um but you

1:52:50 ↗ can go up to a higher level with those

1:52:52 ↗ additional i think to have like no

1:52:55 ↗ um threshold at all unless you have the

1:52:57 ↗ sustainable development feels like it's

1:52:59 ↗ even more restrictive than what we have

1:53:02 ↗ now in some ways

1:53:09 ↗ do you

1:53:10 ↗ share like us to stay on this topic and

1:53:14 ↗ then move to another one after we've

1:53:15 ↗ talked about thresholds perhaps

1:53:19 ↗ you're afraid to debate or discuss the

1:53:22 ↗ in the entire packet as far as yeah

1:53:28 ↗ i do want to

1:53:30 ↗ refer to the document where it says upon

1:53:32 ↗ direction of the planning policy

1:53:34 ↗ commission

1:53:36 ↗ we've changed these exempt levels to the

1:53:38 ↗ highest level now i don't remember any

1:53:40 ↗ of us supporting the highest level

1:53:42 ↗ perhaps chair voice was because he is

1:53:44 ↗ tonight but i really don't recall and

1:53:46 ↗ i'm sorry i didn't look back at my notes

1:53:48 ↗ uh that that was the spirit of the day

1:53:50 ↗ and i don't recall it being the spirit

1:53:51 ↗ of the

1:53:52 ↗ public comments either

1:53:55 ↗ the

1:53:56 ↗ there were two things that i recall one

1:53:58 ↗ was that we wanted to have higher

1:54:00 ↗ standards lower thresholds and the other

1:54:03 ↗ was

1:54:06 ↗ to be consistent so there wasn't a one

1:54:08 ↗ threshold for this and another threshold

1:54:09 ↗ for that and another threshold for this

1:54:11 ↗ and so god i'm trying to figure out my

1:54:12 ↗ parking you know i do this and i'm

1:54:14 ↗ trying to figure out my setbacks

1:54:16 ↗ anyways finding some way to harmonize uh

1:54:18 ↗ numbers to make it easier for

1:54:20 ↗ development now on the note of being

1:54:22 ↗ easier for development to encourage

1:54:24 ↗ housing in issaquah highlands i do

1:54:27 ↗ recall that our target numbers for our

1:54:29 ↗ growth targets for the 2036 threshold

1:54:33 ↗ are very low and they'll all be in

1:54:34 ↗ central issaquah likely that they'll be

1:54:36 ↗ in larger structures not units of four

1:54:39 ↗ or ten

1:54:41 ↗ but more in mixed use in our central

1:54:43 ↗ isoqua at least that's what it seems our

1:54:45 ↗ policy is directing our new housing to

1:54:48 ↗ go

1:54:49 ↗ so with that

1:54:52 ↗ to change our threshold we're talking

1:54:54 ↗ about changing our threshold we're

1:54:55 ↗ talking about moving our threshold up

1:54:57 ↗ why would we move it up

1:54:59 ↗ well i don't know

1:55:00 ↗ most of those are going to fall under

1:55:02 ↗ sipa anyway i am especially

1:55:05 ↗ moved by the comment that commissioner

1:55:07 ↗ lewis

1:55:08 ↗ stated which was also an echo of

1:55:11 ↗ the public to say hey

1:55:14 ↗ building standards

1:55:16 ↗ like bill green or lead or whatever

1:55:18 ↗ standard we pick does not address all

1:55:20 ↗ the environmental issues that we have in

1:55:22 ↗ this

1:55:24 ↗ consideration so

1:55:26 ↗ if they don't replace

1:55:27 ↗ we use them as an incent to incentivize

1:55:30 ↗ but they don't replace the sipa

1:55:32 ↗ checklist

1:55:34 ↗ so while i thought that was maybe a good

1:55:36 ↗ idea at the time maybe i'm on tape

1:55:38 ↗ saying hey let's use the bill green as

1:55:40 ↗ an incentive now that i've seen it more

1:55:43 ↗ fully i'm not that in favor of it and

1:55:45 ↗ also i would not be in favor of that if

1:55:47 ↗ we increased our threshold why have an

1:55:49 ↗ incentive

1:55:51 ↗ if we've already said nobody has to do

1:55:53 ↗ the cpa checklist anyway

1:55:54 ↗ so uh it would be more compatible to

1:55:57 ↗ have the incentive if we kept to a low

1:56:00 ↗ number

1:56:01 ↗ 4 10 and then the corresponding

1:56:03 ↗ commercial numbers that go with that

1:56:05 ↗ table that is comparing us to other

1:56:07 ↗ cities

1:56:09 ↗ so that's just kind of where i'm leading

1:56:10 ↗ now i'm a little surprised that this

1:56:12 ↗ came out with the higher thresholds

1:56:15 ↗ i have two more

1:56:18 ↗ one more comment and that was

1:56:20 ↗ to amplify a question made by a chair

1:56:22 ↗ voice earlier about the reasonable fee

1:56:25 ↗ in this section that reasonable does not

1:56:28 ↗ define a standard and we need

1:56:32 ↗ a number of some kind

1:56:33 ↗ percentage of

1:56:35 ↗ project value or gun project cost

1:56:39 ↗ would be one place to start

1:56:42 ↗ that's it for now until another one of

1:56:44 ↗ you makes some brilliant comment that i

1:56:46 ↗ really miss i'm done with my brilliant

1:56:47 ↗ comments i realized that i'm the one

1:56:50 ↗ that we went down that rabbit hole so

1:56:52 ↗ um would anyone else like to comment as

1:56:54 ↗ far as the

1:56:56 ↗ environmental policy

1:57:00 ↗ i think it's fair to say

1:57:01 ↗ that from where i'm sitting

1:57:03 ↗ the environmental checklist

1:57:05 ↗ for that threshold determination is an

1:57:07 ↗ entirely relevant piece of this if i

1:57:09 ↗ recall when we were

1:57:12 ↗ participating in the formation of the

1:57:13 ↗ environmental board that was a checklist

1:57:15 ↗ that they were tasked with doing

1:57:17 ↗ and

1:57:19 ↗ and then as they've

1:57:20 ↗ come online and on

1:57:23 ↗ as the boards come on board

1:57:24 ↗ there have realigned a little bit and so

1:57:27 ↗ i think it would be relevant when we're

1:57:28 ↗ looking at this code the next time

1:57:30 ↗ to have a link to the environmental

1:57:32 ↗ checklist

1:57:33 ↗ to better understand how that works

1:57:36 ↗ when you're actually building how

1:57:38 ↗ how that goes through and whether or not

1:57:39 ↗ it'd be included in the code or whether

1:57:41 ↗ it's just an attachment for us to better

1:57:42 ↗ understand um would be appreciated how

1:57:45 ↗ that kind of ties in for me thank you

1:57:54 ↗ all right thank you

1:57:56 ↗ moving on to forested hillside

1:57:58 ↗ preservation

1:58:00 ↗ sure um can i just ask a clarifying

1:58:02 ↗ question so we can

1:58:04 ↗ formally take uh planning and policy

1:58:06 ↗ commission's recommendation on this

1:58:08 ↗ topic i just

1:58:10 ↗ i heard four different things so i want

1:58:12 ↗ to make sure that we're capturing it

1:58:14 ↗ correctly so previous discussions

1:58:16 ↗ included development commission as well

1:58:18 ↗ and i think some of that uh

1:58:20 ↗ you know raised the thresholds um

1:58:23 ↗ was a nod from some of the the joint

1:58:26 ↗ meetings uh conversation that we

1:58:27 ↗ previously had

1:58:29 ↗ uh so

1:58:30 ↗ at this point i'm gonna break it up into

1:58:33 ↗ two parts

1:58:34 ↗ so just for the record uh is there

1:58:38 ↗ consensus on

1:58:40 ↗ just

1:58:41 ↗ raising the threshold from four to

1:58:44 ↗ some middle you know medium or or

1:58:47 ↗ highest point let's let's take a vote

1:58:49 ↗ for raising the thresholds without

1:58:51 ↗ tie-in without with the

1:58:54 ↗ uh incentive for built green

1:58:57 ↗ is there general consensus that we need

1:58:58 ↗ to raise our thresholds or leave them

1:59:00 ↗ the same

1:59:05 ↗ yeah i think like i said i i apologize i

1:59:08 ↗ think i'm the reason we went down this

1:59:09 ↗ rabbit hole again i know this has kind

1:59:11 ↗ of been settled as far as

1:59:13 ↗ what you guys were looking for i might

1:59:16 ↗ have been trying to sneak in my own

1:59:17 ↗ prerogative once again

1:59:20 ↗ no but i i still i'm not sure i fully

1:59:23 ↗ understand where

1:59:25 ↗ is there a general consensus on raising

1:59:27 ↗ the thresholds

1:59:28 ↗ the details of whether we tie in with

1:59:30 ↗ the lead certification or not we can

1:59:32 ↗ parse it out but is there general

1:59:35 ↗ consensus on raising the thresholds i

1:59:38 ↗ just want to capture it correctly for

1:59:40 ↗ the council committee as to what your

1:59:42 ↗ recommendation is

1:59:45 ↗ i will

1:59:46 ↗ go on record as saying that i understand

1:59:49 ↗ the city's viewpoint about raising our

1:59:52 ↗ sepa thresholds and updating them i do

1:59:54 ↗ not agree with putting them at the

1:59:55 ↗ maximum

1:59:56 ↗ so if we were going to raise them it

1:59:58 ↗ would be that tier of 10 10

2:00:00 ↗ um and that would help us to what i

2:00:02 ↗ would hope is to then be able to build

2:00:04 ↗ that in with incentivizing for the

2:00:05 ↗ missing middle um but at this point my

2:00:09 ↗ recommendation is to

2:00:11 ↗ raise

2:00:12 ↗ but with green build standards

2:00:16 ↗ whichever we do i'd like to tie in to

2:00:19 ↗ our housing goals i'd like to tie into

2:00:21 ↗ the way that we want to build as a

2:00:22 ↗ community

2:00:23 ↗ and i think that this is a lovely carrot

2:00:25 ↗ as a way to do it um and if the city

2:00:28 ↗ wants to be more aggressive i certainly

2:00:30 ↗ would back um something more aggressive

2:00:32 ↗ about how we build green and issaquah

2:00:35 ↗ even when you don't have a separate

2:00:36 ↗ threshold i think that this is a

2:00:38 ↗ movement that needs to be

2:00:40 ↗ exacerbated very quickly in the way that

2:00:41 ↗ we build and so if this is the softball

2:00:44 ↗ way that we start it i think that's

2:00:46 ↗ great

2:00:47 ↗ otherwise uh

2:00:48 ↗ i would not recommend moving the sipa

2:00:51 ↗ threshold

2:00:52 ↗ to the maximum for this community

2:00:56 ↗ so you're for tying it with uh something

2:00:59 ↗ you know requiring a bill green or lead

2:01:01 ↗ certification

2:01:03 ↗ and with the middle mid range uh

2:01:06 ↗ increasing the threshold to mid-range

2:01:09 ↗ and i think i heard um

2:01:11 ↗ one comment about perhaps not tying it

2:01:14 ↗ with the built green

2:01:16 ↗ uh for the existing thresholds leaving

2:01:19 ↗ them at four

2:01:20 ↗ you know and four thousand you don't

2:01:22 ↗ have to build green you're exempt from

2:01:23 ↗ cpa that's the existing code but from

2:01:26 ↗ four to

2:01:28 ↗ twenty

2:01:28 ↗ you you are exempt from cpa if you go if

2:01:31 ↗ you are tied it with the built green

2:01:33 ↗ that was one

2:01:34 ↗ one suggestions submitted is there

2:01:37 ↗ support for that

2:01:42 ↗ yeah that was that was me so i support

2:01:45 ↗ yeah

2:01:46 ↗ but is that consensus among your fellow

2:01:49 ↗ commissioners with that idea

2:01:55 ↗ so it gets

2:01:56 ↗ that idea gets you everything it keeps

2:01:58 ↗ the existing thresholds

2:02:00 ↗ it builds the next tier but ties that

2:02:03 ↗ with requiring built green or lead

2:02:05 ↗ certification

2:02:07 ↗ and then it's a middle mid of the range

2:02:09 ↗ not the highest threshold allowed under

2:02:12 ↗ the state law but the mid range

2:02:15 ↗ may i go

2:02:16 ↗ so do i understand that we would keep

2:02:18 ↗ the threshold at four and whatever the

2:02:21 ↗ corresponding

2:02:22 ↗ um commercial is four thousand yeah and

2:02:25 ↗ if you

2:02:27 ↗ um if you

2:02:28 ↗ become leed certified with the standard

2:02:30 ↗ that we choose

2:02:32 ↗ up to ten thousand ten and ten thousand

2:02:36 ↗ you can do without the cepa checklist

2:02:38 ↗ anything over

2:02:42 ↗ no i'm sorry now i'm

2:02:44 ↗ yeah so anything over you would require

2:02:46 ↗ cpa so it could be 10 units and 10 000

2:02:49 ↗ or 20 units and 20 000.

2:02:52 ↗ so if it were at 10 000 the incentive

2:02:54 ↗ would be between 5 and 10

2:02:57 ↗ and 4 thousand and ten thousand

2:03:01 ↗ that those that group talking about the

2:03:03 ↗ missing middle

2:03:05 ↗ could be incentivized

2:03:07 ↗ and only that segment could be

2:03:10 ↗ incentivized with a uh green building

2:03:13 ↗ and and the lack of the sepa i cannot

2:03:15 ↗ believe that the siba is that

2:03:17 ↗ um trigger uh for that but um

2:03:21 ↗ i would be i would listen to that and

2:03:23 ↗ try to understand that a little better

2:03:24 ↗ but i'm really not interested in in

2:03:26 ↗ raising the threshold above ten thousand

2:03:29 ↗ ten and ten units and ten thousand

2:03:31 ↗ anything over ten units and ten thousand

2:03:32 ↗ should be doing the super checklist i

2:03:33 ↗ don't care what the building that's kind

2:03:35 ↗ of where i'm thinking

2:03:36 ↗ if you want all right some clarity

2:03:40 ↗ thank you so it sounds like we have

2:03:43 ↗ three votes for

2:03:45 ↗ raising the threshold to ten thousand

2:03:47 ↗ and and uh

2:03:49 ↗ and ten units or ten thousand

2:03:54 ↗ so there is consensus for that

2:03:56 ↗ raising the level to that level to that

2:03:58 ↗ level but there's also a consensus about

2:04:00 ↗ requiring the incent incentivizing the

2:04:03 ↗ green belt

2:04:06 ↗ as well is there consensus on that

2:04:09 ↗ yes

2:04:11 ↗ okay and you because i think are you

2:04:12 ↗ saying that you wouldn't even raise it

2:04:14 ↗ past the four without that

2:04:16 ↗ yeah so so there's also a variance right

2:04:19 ↗ now nina is completely is adding that on

2:04:22 ↗ right now right she's saying that she

2:04:24 ↗ wouldn't raise the threshold at all many

2:04:28 ↗ are you

2:04:29 ↗ i'm sorry let me let me clarify i would

2:04:31 ↗ allow uh increase

2:04:33 ↗ in the threshold if you're green

2:04:35 ↗ certified but no higher than 10

2:04:38 ↗ 10 000.

2:04:39 ↗ it's that um delta

2:04:43 ↗ between that four under four

2:04:45 ↗ is they don't have it anyway

2:04:48 ↗ if you're above that you might have to

2:04:50 ↗ but you don't have to if you do green

2:04:51 ↗ certified and above ten thousand you

2:04:53 ↗ have to do a separate checklist anyway

2:04:56 ↗ okay that's that's an idea that's a

2:04:59 ↗ proposal i put up

2:05:01 ↗ is there consensus on that

2:05:03 ↗ i think you have a majority my my

2:05:06 ↗ comment is a moot point at this point so

2:05:08 ↗ we're going to move along

2:05:09 ↗ okay thank you

2:05:11 ↗ so we are now moving on to forested

2:05:13 ↗ hillside preservation

2:05:18 ↗ i'm going to start this discussion off

2:05:20 ↗ with a positive i really enjoyed this

2:05:22 ↗ chapter i thought it was very well done

2:05:24 ↗ i really appreciated the graphics i

2:05:27 ↗ thought it was very readable um i do

2:05:30 ↗ have a couple comments i would love in

2:05:32 ↗ our intent section b i'd like to add an

2:05:35 ↗ eight that talks about wildlife habitat

2:05:37 ↗ preservation

2:05:39 ↗ and wildlife crossings i think are

2:05:41 ↗ missing right now from how we talk about

2:05:43 ↗ forested and steep slopes

2:05:45 ↗ it's not just about the canopy it's also

2:05:47 ↗ about the undergrowth and it's also

2:05:49 ↗ about how we interact as a whole in our

2:05:50 ↗ forests and i think that's missing right

2:05:52 ↗ now from our language and so i'd like to

2:05:54 ↗ see how that can be included and i for

2:05:56 ↗ me the easiest way was to put that in

2:05:58 ↗ with the intent b8 but um obviously if

2:06:00 ↗ you think there's language that's more

2:06:02 ↗ appropriate somewhere else then

2:06:04 ↗ please feel free i will say that the

2:06:06 ↗ idea of um

2:06:08 ↗ you know we've had so many good

2:06:09 ↗ conversations about terrorist slopes but

2:06:12 ↗ seeing that picture being like well if

2:06:13 ↗ you want your micro terracing then

2:06:14 ↗ you're taking out the whole hillside for

2:06:16 ↗ me was like well that isn't what we

2:06:18 ↗ wanted at all so um i hope that uh the

2:06:22 ↗ intent

2:06:23 ↗ carries through as far as um how

2:06:25 ↗ how we built you know a good example was

2:06:27 ↗ nina's question that we had about um the

2:06:30 ↗ tiered decking right what we want to

2:06:31 ↗ avoid is

2:06:34 ↗ having these big giant supports these

2:06:36 ↗ big giant cuts we want to support

2:06:38 ↗ building into the environment and

2:06:39 ↗ minimizing that as much as possible

2:06:42 ↗ um

2:06:43 ↗ and

2:06:44 ↗ you know i'm gonna put a button in my

2:06:46 ↗ tdr um questions because i think that's

2:06:48 ↗ really more appropriate for another area

2:06:50 ↗ but i do look forward to when we have it

2:06:51 ↗ and when tdrs come back to us

2:06:54 ↗ bringing this part into the discussion

2:06:55 ↗ because i don't think we really talked

2:06:56 ↗ about it when we did tdr so

2:06:58 ↗ it would be nice to kind of bring a full

2:07:00 ↗ circle approach i think to that

2:07:03 ↗ discussion is what i'm going to say

2:07:06 ↗ i'm

2:07:07 ↗ i feel like this code reads like the

2:07:10 ↗ implementation of the policies that

2:07:12 ↗ we've set forward so that's a really big

2:07:13 ↗ positive for me

2:07:15 ↗ but i don't really have a concept of how

2:07:16 ↗ this is going to pan out into work

2:07:18 ↗ product and how it's going to give us a

2:07:20 ↗ result that we want um

2:07:23 ↗ quite yet so

2:07:25 ↗ good work but i think that there's a

2:07:26 ↗ little bit more to be done

2:07:28 ↗ thank you

2:07:33 ↗ thank you chair

2:07:35 ↗ i do want to thank the staff for this

2:07:37 ↗ i'm so excited to have

2:07:39 ↗ a code because this was a policy that we

2:07:41 ↗ worked on so many years ago and what are

2:07:43 ↗ you going to do with it wow we think

2:07:44 ↗ this is really important but we didn't

2:07:45 ↗ have anything to back it up so really

2:07:48 ↗ fabulous

2:07:49 ↗ glad to see it

2:07:51 ↗ i think it's a great start and we're

2:07:52 ↗ going to learn by the things that

2:07:55 ↗ happened that weren't what we intended

2:07:57 ↗ but i think chair lewis i mean

2:08:00 ↗ commissioner lewis has pointed out

2:08:01 ↗ already a gap

2:08:03 ↗ in the terraced

2:08:05 ↗ low walls that might need to i think

2:08:07 ↗ that needs to be reconsidered

2:08:08 ↗ because of its lack of tree preservation

2:08:11 ↗ on a forested hillside

2:08:13 ↗ and then

2:08:15 ↗ fleshing out the language about the

2:08:16 ↗ terrace deck which just kind of leaves

2:08:18 ↗ you wondering those are a couple of the

2:08:21 ↗ high level things that i thought could

2:08:22 ↗ be

2:08:24 ↗ improved upon and but i really want to

2:08:26 ↗ thank you for this chapter

2:08:28 ↗ thank you

2:08:31 ↗ oh this plus one all that i wrote down

2:08:33 ↗ in my notes i really like all the

2:08:34 ↗ pictures in here i feel like as somebody

2:08:36 ↗ who does not spend their life in code i

2:08:37 ↗ really liked the pictures and

2:08:40 ↗ helped me understand a lot about what

2:08:41 ↗ was being said i have it's maybe a

2:08:44 ↗ question so if i can't maybe i'll try to

2:08:46 ↗ disguise it as a comment somehow but on

2:08:48 ↗ the really big retaining wall i agree

2:08:52 ↗ with the like

2:08:53 ↗ not the little terraces and then you

2:08:54 ↗ knock out all the trees but

2:08:56 ↗ um again i live in talus and there's a

2:08:59 ↗ gigantic retaining wall by the new

2:09:01 ↗ development and it's orange um

2:09:04 ↗ and so would just ask that like

2:09:06 ↗ somewhere in there there's like

2:09:08 ↗ somewhere in code there's like a design

2:09:09 ↗ standard for what these retaining walls

2:09:11 ↗ if they are gigantic should look like um

2:09:13 ↗ because in the winter it's really stark

2:09:15 ↗ um you can see it from like all

2:09:17 ↗ different points in the neighborhood

2:09:18 ↗ this huge huge huge retaining wall

2:09:21 ↗ up at the top of the neighborhood so

2:09:23 ↗ just put that put that out there

2:09:28 ↗ thank you commissioner bader

2:09:30 ↗ like you i don't live in the code so

2:09:32 ↗ again the graphics are fantastic uh

2:09:35 ↗ reads well i really enjoyed it i just as

2:09:37 ↗ far as my personal opinion it looks good

2:09:41 ↗ again to commissioner lewis's point the

2:09:43 ↗ terrace slopes that might have to be

2:09:45 ↗ tightened up i actually appreciate

2:09:46 ↗ having some of the flexibility

2:09:48 ↗ that was incorporated in here so good

2:09:50 ↗ job

2:09:54 ↗ any other point anyone would like to

2:09:56 ↗ make as far as the forested hillside

2:09:58 ↗ protection packet

2:10:02 ↗ all right moving along to accessory and

2:10:04 ↗ temporary uses and sustainable micro

2:10:06 ↗ infrastructure

2:10:18 ↗ i'll go first while you guys rummage

2:10:20 ↗ through your notes um

2:10:25 ↗ this was pretty interesting and i'm

2:10:27 ↗ afraid i'm not going to do it justice uh

2:10:31 ↗ for all that it really means you know it

2:10:33 ↗ seems like little stuff successory and

2:10:36 ↗ it's temporary and

2:10:37 ↗ and i wish i could have spent more time

2:10:39 ↗ with it because i think it is pretty

2:10:40 ↗ substantial and because uh on the

2:10:43 ↗ memorandum it points to retaining

2:10:46 ↗ uh community charm and and so i'm not

2:10:50 ↗ quite sure if this does

2:10:52 ↗ um

2:10:53 ↗ just throwing that out there that was i

2:10:55 ↗ was thinking okay well where does this

2:10:57 ↗ really retain our community uh character

2:10:59 ↗ but

2:11:00 ↗ uh i did want to

2:11:02 ↗ reiterate from my question period

2:11:07 ↗ while we're looking at it

2:11:09 ↗ that some decks are allowed to be three

2:11:11 ↗ feet from the neighboring property

2:11:14 ↗ i thought that was odd it didn't matter

2:11:16 ↗ to me how tall it was

2:11:18 ↗ i was surprised to see that and

2:11:21 ↗ and director dollywall pointed out that

2:11:24 ↗ there might be another

2:11:26 ↗ standard that we could refer to that

2:11:28 ↗ pulls that back a little bit closer to

2:11:30 ↗ the other which was five feet

2:11:32 ↗ and then

2:11:33 ↗ the other comment i had

2:11:36 ↗ had to do with the

2:11:39 ↗ um

2:11:41 ↗ temporary uses and food trucks in

2:11:43 ↗ particular

2:11:44 ↗ trying to grapple with

2:11:47 ↗ uh the private property

2:11:49 ↗ 60-day limit

2:11:50 ↗ and if i understand correctly this

2:11:53 ↗ code is saying that if it's longer than

2:11:56 ↗ so it can be there longer than 60 days

2:11:58 ↗ but then it falls under

2:12:00 ↗ the use table

2:12:02 ↗ and

2:12:04 ↗ will we be um are there any that are

2:12:07 ↗ disallowed use

2:12:10 ↗ and should have asked that question but

2:12:11 ↗ it was our our brilliant um

2:12:14 ↗ participants who came and testified

2:12:16 ↗ during public

2:12:17 ↗ hearing that

2:12:19 ↗ pointed out that gap in my understanding

2:12:21 ↗ about could would a food truck

2:12:24 ↗ be allowed would a

2:12:25 ↗ food service use be allowed in a

2:12:27 ↗ commercial district for instance which

2:12:29 ↗ might be where one of them is

2:12:31 ↗ and in that case uh 60 days is only

2:12:34 ↗ a administrative limit

2:12:37 ↗ you would just have to

2:12:38 ↗ apply for a permanent

2:12:42 ↗ location or a permit for permanent use

2:12:46 ↗ so anyway i'm not sure if we have a

2:12:47 ↗ problem here and if the staff wants to

2:12:49 ↗ clarify because we did hear some

2:12:51 ↗ interesting information from the public

2:12:52 ↗ i would appreciate that

2:12:54 ↗ because i i guess because the it doesn't

2:12:57 ↗ seem quite right to me that we would

2:12:59 ↗ limit food truck

2:13:00 ↗ locations for 60 days it just doesn't

2:13:03 ↗ seem quite right i need to know more

2:13:09 ↗ um the 60 days would be

2:13:12 ↗ in one location and you could either

2:13:15 ↗ i guess do both if you're there for more

2:13:16 ↗ than 60 days you could try to renew your

2:13:18 ↗ permit or you could um

2:13:21 ↗ you know try to request a more permanent

2:13:23 ↗ um

2:13:26 ↗ location but it's it's kind of gray

2:13:28 ↗ right now so again looking for direction

2:13:31 ↗ on that

2:13:34 ↗ uh valerie do you want to actually put

2:13:35 ↗ up your two questions please

2:13:37 ↗ some policy questions

2:13:41 ↗ well valerie puts that up i will i will

2:13:44 ↗ jump in and say that i

2:13:46 ↗ i really appreciated the work that went

2:13:48 ↗ into this i think it is an excellent

2:13:50 ↗ start because we've had several

2:13:52 ↗ discussions in this commission about

2:13:54 ↗ addressing this need in the community

2:13:56 ↗ and this is a great start so i want to

2:13:58 ↗ acknowledge that

2:13:59 ↗ when i was reading through i did find it

2:14:02 ↗ to be very limited to

2:14:05 ↗ maybe more prescribed uses christmas

2:14:07 ↗ trees right it's a good example of

2:14:09 ↗ something that pops up

2:14:11 ↗ if you have um

2:14:14 ↗ a different retail use whether it's food

2:14:16 ↗ related or not food related i would like

2:14:18 ↗ to see this community be more inclusive

2:14:20 ↗ about how as a community we are dealing

2:14:22 ↗ with that so i'd like to have a little

2:14:24 ↗ more language that talks about allowing

2:14:27 ↗ retail in these micro pop-ups um and i

2:14:30 ↗ think that there's an interesting

2:14:32 ↗ argument to be made about things that

2:14:34 ↗ are um

2:14:35 ↗ able to be moved right whether they have

2:14:36 ↗ an attached motor or they're on a

2:14:38 ↗ trailer that needs to be hitched

2:14:40 ↗ because

2:14:42 ↗ i mean whether i mean what if it's

2:14:43 ↗ something where it's on a trailer so

2:14:45 ↗ it's easily movable but it's like a

2:14:46 ↗ little shed right and so you this is how

2:14:49 ↗ you are able to operate your

2:14:51 ↗ micro business what i'd like to see us

2:14:53 ↗ moving towards is a community that has

2:14:55 ↗ more allowances for small businesses we

2:14:58 ↗ know that um any type of whether it's

2:15:00 ↗ retail or food this is a great incubator

2:15:02 ↗ for being able to see if your business

2:15:04 ↗ can sustain

2:15:05 ↗ a more substantial lease in the

2:15:07 ↗ community and it's something that really

2:15:09 ↗ can be used as a tool to bring community

2:15:11 ↗ together i think there are so many great

2:15:13 ↗ examples in um

2:15:15 ↗ cities i've visited across the state and

2:15:17 ↗ across the pacific northwest that have

2:15:18 ↗ done a great job in both public and

2:15:20 ↗ private spaces of joining together so

2:15:22 ↗ maybe what a big solution could be to

2:15:24 ↗ this code right now is to have um for

2:15:28 ↗ the 60 days is to be allowed to

2:15:30 ↗ file for another 60 days right and maybe

2:15:32 ↗ we'll say you can do that two times and

2:15:34 ↗ then you need to actually have a more

2:15:35 ↗ permanent location for the one year

2:15:37 ↗ permit um but i do think that there

2:15:39 ↗ needs to be a little bit more allowance

2:15:41 ↗ maybe whether that's a one-time and

2:15:43 ↗ until you end up getting 120 days right

2:15:44 ↗ if you reapply or whether it ends up

2:15:46 ↗ being two and you get three um

2:15:48 ↗ especially because i think that when we

2:15:49 ↗ think about a seasonality of summertime

2:15:52 ↗ or a seasonality of the holidays

2:15:55 ↗ when we talked about festival lighting i

2:15:57 ↗ think is a good example of how how do we

2:15:59 ↗ make spaces that encourage

2:16:02 ↗ community coming together and i think

2:16:04 ↗ this could be a great tool for that

2:16:06 ↗ i'd love to see the city actually

2:16:07 ↗ propose

2:16:09 ↗ a large lot where food trucks are

2:16:12 ↗ welcome and food trucks are encouraged

2:16:14 ↗ so this code can be highly restrictive

2:16:17 ↗ because this is where we find that it's

2:16:20 ↗ best right um

2:16:22 ↗ i'd love to spend time talking about

2:16:24 ↗ where i think that would be appropriate

2:16:25 ↗ but that's not what we're doing here

2:16:26 ↗ today instead is to say that i think

2:16:28 ↗ that there's room to add addendums to

2:16:30 ↗ this right to be able to say as a

2:16:32 ↗ community this is what we're going to do

2:16:34 ↗ and this is why this is more prescribed

2:16:36 ↗ in these other areas but without those

2:16:38 ↗ um

2:16:39 ↗ other tools to this it does feel a

2:16:41 ↗ little more prescribed than what we were

2:16:43 ↗ hoping to see

2:16:44 ↗ um and so i'd

2:16:48 ↗ yeah i don't i don't know that that um

2:16:52 ↗ helps you guys lead into a discussion

2:16:53 ↗ but that's kind of how i was feeling

2:16:54 ↗ about it

2:17:01 ↗ anyone else have anything to

2:17:03 ↗ say about

2:17:06 ↗ where are we

2:17:08 ↗ well first uh the two prompt questions

2:17:11 ↗ or accessory and temporary uses

2:17:14 ↗ mr baby

2:17:15 ↗ yeah so i am

2:17:17 ↗ agree with commissioner lewis it feels

2:17:20 ↗ um if i'm paraphrasing her correctly it

2:17:23 ↗ feels as it's written right now to be a

2:17:24 ↗ little limiting i like the idea of kind

2:17:26 ↗ of having options um to extend and i

2:17:29 ↗ think we heard that from the the public

2:17:31 ↗ and you know we saw a pretty like

2:17:32 ↗ significant amount of written comment as

2:17:34 ↗ well on this

2:17:36 ↗ um so it's support kind of again options

2:17:38 ↗ to make it a little easier to extend but

2:17:40 ↗ not like totally deregulate

2:17:42 ↗ it

2:17:43 ↗ [Music]

2:17:45 ↗ on that point the other which i think is

2:17:47 ↗ tied into question number two

2:17:49 ↗ um

2:17:50 ↗ kind of

2:17:51 ↗ thought that i had that wasn't clear to

2:17:53 ↗ me and how it was written again was on

2:17:55 ↗ like this requirement for a location and

2:17:57 ↗ circulation plan um for

2:18:00 ↗ and again it read to me like if you were

2:18:02 ↗ there for more than an hour and i think

2:18:03 ↗ the nature of food trucks a lot of the

2:18:05 ↗ times when you're like booking them for

2:18:06 ↗ an event right is that you're going to

2:18:08 ↗ call up a couple of days before and say

2:18:09 ↗ hey can you come to my like

2:18:12 ↗ event you know for four hours and like

2:18:14 ↗ that probably doesn't allow for a time

2:18:16 ↗ for like an official plan so i think i

2:18:18 ↗ don't know what the threshold is but i

2:18:20 ↗ think if we're going to require that it

2:18:21 ↗ needs to be something that's like more

2:18:23 ↗ than you know a day right um because i

2:18:26 ↗ think we're gonna see a lot of i could

2:18:27 ↗ see that being really harmful to you

2:18:29 ↗ know the businesses that do

2:18:31 ↗ move around all over the place um

2:18:34 ↗ i'll stop there i have one more thing to

2:18:36 ↗ say on this section that i was just

2:18:37 ↗ confused

2:18:39 ↗ um i'm gonna

2:18:40 ↗ actually wrote down the numbers this

2:18:42 ↗ time

2:18:43 ↗ um it was just something that confused

2:18:44 ↗ me as i was reading it um

2:18:47 ↗ the list in the packet of kind of like

2:18:49 ↗ the applicable uses

2:18:50 ↗ included um

2:18:53 ↗ one of the construction trailers or like

2:18:55 ↗ temporary office buildings and that was

2:18:57 ↗ listed right above the table that then

2:18:59 ↗ had the 60 you know 60 day 7 day

2:19:02 ↗ whatever it applies to and then later on

2:19:04 ↗ down below it actually said there's

2:19:06 ↗ language that the construction trailers

2:19:08 ↗ can be there for the duration of the

2:19:10 ↗ project

2:19:11 ↗ and so it was confusing to me to have

2:19:12 ↗ that in the list right above the table

2:19:14 ↗ so i don't know if it's just a matter of

2:19:16 ↗ taking that up out of the list but that

2:19:17 ↗ wasn't clear

2:19:21 ↗ and if i can piggyback off of

2:19:22 ↗ commissioner bader's comments i do i do

2:19:25 ↗ agree right now with the city's

2:19:26 ↗ determination that in construction use

2:19:28 ↗ that it should be on site i had a hard

2:19:30 ↗ time understanding why it would be

2:19:32 ↗ permitted to be off-site from your

2:19:33 ↗ location so

2:19:36 ↗ at this point i'm also agreeing with

2:19:37 ↗ that recommendation by the city i know

2:19:39 ↗ that's not in our discussion but

2:19:44 ↗ valerie do you think you have what you

2:19:46 ↗ need

2:19:47 ↗ um i don't think um you guys touched on

2:19:50 ↗ the second question which is should a

2:19:52 ↗ business like or a separate permit be

2:19:54 ↗ required in addition to the business

2:19:55 ↗ license

2:19:58 ↗ and only take a stab at that

2:20:05 ↗ uh yeah i think they already have a lot

2:20:07 ↗ of permits uh and the business license

2:20:10 ↗ is local it's the izakawa business

2:20:12 ↗ license

2:20:14 ↗ um i didn't see i didn't have enough

2:20:16 ↗ information or to say oh yeah another

2:20:19 ↗ permit what kind of permit

2:20:22 ↗ it just was

2:20:23 ↗ i would say no unless you told me

2:20:25 ↗ something else

2:20:29 ↗ i mean because i think you're

2:20:30 ↗ specifically talking about private

2:20:32 ↗ residences in that it's a it's zoned as

2:20:34 ↗ a residential area

2:20:37 ↗ so the second permit would be

2:20:41 ↗ basically for

2:20:42 ↗ anyone if it's private property or um

2:20:45 ↗ well actually in the right of way you

2:20:47 ↗ require a permit anyway right so if it's

2:20:49 ↗ for private property you would be

2:20:50 ↗ required to get a second permit right

2:20:52 ↗ now the only permit that we require them

2:20:55 ↗ to get is the city business license but

2:20:58 ↗ we actually don't track that so we don't

2:21:00 ↗ know how many food trucks are currently

2:21:02 ↗ in the city we don't know where they are

2:21:04 ↗ so don't either and i like food trucks

2:21:08 ↗ so the the separate

2:21:10 ↗ permit would allow us to track that and

2:21:13 ↗ also

2:21:14 ↗ give us an opportunity to kind of

2:21:16 ↗ evaluate you know where they are on the

2:21:17 ↗ site does it make sense are they taking

2:21:19 ↗ up parking spaces

2:21:21 ↗ right now it's just kind of oh i'm going

2:21:24 ↗ to operate um on this property i have an

2:21:26 ↗ agreement

2:21:27 ↗ and go and operate and my question is

2:21:29 ↗ does the intent end up then being

2:21:31 ↗ stopping it from regularly occurring in

2:21:34 ↗ residential areas

2:21:36 ↗ food trucks are not

2:21:38 ↗ allowed in residential areas at all

2:21:40 ↗ right so but if they are operating in a

2:21:43 ↗ residential area we wouldn't know

2:21:45 ↗ because that's what i'm saying does this

2:21:46 ↗ solve that problem

2:21:48 ↗ is that what it's intended to try to

2:21:51 ↗ it's yes it would help but if someone's

2:21:54 ↗ going to break a rule

2:21:57 ↗ they're going to break it regardless and

2:21:59 ↗ then we just have to try to get code

2:22:00 ↗ enforcement

2:22:01 ↗ well i appreciate that explanation

2:22:03 ↗ valerie because yes i think the

2:22:05 ↗ the more information the better i'm

2:22:07 ↗ surprised we don't are not able to keep

2:22:09 ↗ track

2:22:10 ↗ so yeah i mean we need to know exactly

2:22:12 ↗ what's going on in our businesses

2:22:15 ↗ so yeah i think a resounding yes for

2:22:17 ↗ number two again it's not necessarily

2:22:19 ↗ for the fee

2:22:20 ↗ but yeah we should absolutely have an

2:22:22 ↗ idea of where businesses are operating

2:22:25 ↗ in the city

2:22:26 ↗ and i think i think part of the maybe

2:22:28 ↗ the misunderstanding came from a

2:22:30 ↗ particular public comment who

2:22:32 ↗ mentioned that he was operating in

2:22:34 ↗ residential areas which again i'm happy

2:22:37 ↗ to hear is not part of the code because

2:22:38 ↗ that kind of goes i think what we're

2:22:40 ↗ talking about private property we're

2:22:41 ↗ talking about

2:22:42 ↗ um

2:22:43 ↗ right privately owned property i won't

2:22:46 ↗ use the example he used but you know a

2:22:48 ↗ particular gas station that has that

2:22:50 ↗ food truck there for a while they have a

2:22:51 ↗ private agreement

2:22:55 ↗ so yes to number two

2:22:57 ↗ private property like i said i tend to

2:22:59 ↗ try to want to be hands off on that

2:23:02 ↗ but definitely should have an idea who's

2:23:04 ↗ where

2:23:05 ↗ and who's there

2:23:07 ↗ i mean i think it's fair too for the

2:23:09 ↗ code to be saying um the difference

2:23:11 ↗ between a mobile and immobile unit right

2:23:14 ↗ for the micro housing as well uh that i

2:23:16 ↗ think it could be addressed to right

2:23:18 ↗ even if it's on a trailer right the

2:23:19 ↗ ability to move something versus um

2:23:22 ↗ so easily is something that i think our

2:23:24 ↗ code the next draft could address of how

2:23:26 ↗ we want to be prescriptive and where we

2:23:28 ↗ want to be prescriptive

2:23:33 ↗ well since you mentioned parking which

2:23:35 ↗ was in my notes

2:23:37 ↗ how else do we regulate whether the

2:23:39 ↗ parking that was required for a

2:23:41 ↗ commercial use

2:23:43 ↗ is actually still

2:23:44 ↗ performing to the level that it was

2:23:47 ↗ intended

2:23:48 ↗ and as parking kind of the new gold

2:23:50 ↗ going forward if we're going to try to

2:23:53 ↗ limit parking because we don't want to

2:23:54 ↗ designate that much space to cars it's

2:23:56 ↗ more and more valuable

2:23:58 ↗ and then when people use it for other

2:23:59 ↗ uses rather than what we intended them

2:24:01 ↗ to do because we had a minimum parking

2:24:02 ↗ regulation um

2:24:05 ↗ i could see that

2:24:06 ↗ uh but there the

2:24:08 ↗ you should know doesn't the business

2:24:10 ↗ license say where you were operating

2:24:12 ↗ your business

2:24:15 ↗ depends so um there's a lot of business

2:24:19 ↗ food trucks that come in um and

2:24:22 ↗ operate for maybe a day like costco they

2:24:25 ↗ rarely have food trucks that come on

2:24:26 ↗ their site and just operate for a day

2:24:30 ↗ but for some of the more permanent

2:24:31 ↗ locations like the gentleman who spoke

2:24:33 ↗ he's going to be located at the grain so

2:24:35 ↗ yes his business license clearly says i

2:24:37 ↗ will be operating at this location but

2:24:40 ↗ if they're coming in for a week or an

2:24:43 ↗ event we don't know where they're going

2:24:45 ↗ to be operating

2:24:47 ↗ yeah i think what's interesting here and

2:24:49 ↗ i don't want to talk too much longer but

2:24:50 ↗ i think you're getting an idea that

2:24:52 ↗ needs a little work but you're on the

2:24:54 ↗ right track is that it's the property

2:24:56 ↗ owner whose

2:24:58 ↗ um requirement is being curtailed by the

2:25:00 ↗ use on their land

2:25:02 ↗ and and so maybe the more of the burden

2:25:04 ↗ goes that way and if we flip the script

2:25:06 ↗ and look that way what would we see

2:25:09 ↗ who would would

2:25:11 ↗ would what if they had the requirement

2:25:14 ↗ to say i am dedicating a certain portion

2:25:16 ↗ of my land to a use

2:25:19 ↗ rather than the burden on the

2:25:21 ↗ small business owner food truck person

2:25:24 ↗ and then back to the um it wasn't clear

2:25:27 ↗ to me that the um

2:25:29 ↗ renewal of the 60 day and you know we

2:25:32 ↗ could just have it it's every 60 day and

2:25:34 ↗ it's renewed as long as forever

2:25:36 ↗ and then because of that renewal then

2:25:38 ↗ the city and whoever else needs some

2:25:40 ↗ kind of control and oversight would have

2:25:42 ↗ it every 60 days

2:25:43 ↗ um so maybe that's a good happy middle

2:25:45 ↗ there

2:25:48 ↗ well i think there is no renewal right

2:25:49 ↗ now so that was something that we had

2:25:51 ↗ talked about so is there kind of a

2:25:52 ↗ consensus right now about allowing

2:25:54 ↗ either a one or multi-time use for the

2:25:58 ↗ 60 of being

2:26:00 ↗ so i think what's interesting to take

2:26:01 ↗ back to you guys is um is in having it

2:26:04 ↗ less prescriptive um so

2:26:07 ↗ we just had such a good discussion about

2:26:08 ↗ shared use parking and being able to

2:26:11 ↗ have this city as this third party of

2:26:13 ↗ saying here is a um

2:26:17 ↗ you know some sort of business you know

2:26:18 ↗ i'm thinking of you know dentists and

2:26:20 ↗ things that are vital to a community

2:26:21 ↗ that are located in prime transit

2:26:23 ↗ locations but that don't use their

2:26:25 ↗ property during certain hours right and

2:26:27 ↗ being able to have

2:26:28 ↗ an agreement so that we're actually

2:26:30 ↗ having an outlet of saying

2:26:32 ↗ no here but this is where right and

2:26:34 ↗ trying to actually have a little bit

2:26:35 ↗ more um

2:26:36 ↗ a little bit more of a sense of this is

2:26:39 ↗ where we want this right and so the same

2:26:41 ↗ way that we love when you guys give us

2:26:42 ↗ maps and intent and being able to say

2:26:44 ↗ this is why we want to put it like this

2:26:46 ↗ because here's the flip side right and

2:26:48 ↗ kind of having that second part of it

2:26:49 ↗ and because we're going to be so

2:26:50 ↗ prescriptive here this is another way

2:26:52 ↗ that we can go about it but we certainly

2:26:54 ↗ don't want to be um

2:26:56 ↗ overly prescriptive because the whole

2:26:57 ↗ point of this was to be able to make it

2:26:59 ↗ easier to do it in our community

2:27:07 ↗ great thank you

2:27:09 ↗ all right any other comments as far as

2:27:12 ↗ accessory and temporary uses and

2:27:15 ↗ micro infrastructure

2:27:18 ↗ we're going to move along to

2:27:19 ↗ through block passages

2:27:23 ↗ this was i think this

2:27:25 ↗ smallest bit of code

2:27:32 ↗ i

2:27:33 ↗ love the idea of through block passages

2:27:37 ↗ when doing these

2:27:39 ↗ prescribed communities

2:27:41 ↗ and communities that i've lived

2:27:43 ↗ in before on the east coast when they

2:27:45 ↗ would do through blocks they were always

2:27:48 ↗ places that were easy to know that it

2:27:49 ↗ was for pedestrians only because there

2:27:51 ↗ was often things like community

2:27:54 ↗ natural gas fire pits set up there was

2:27:57 ↗ games right community games cornhole and

2:27:59 ↗ things like that that were built into

2:28:01 ↗ the infrastructure so um it was like

2:28:04 ↗ basically these like little um festival

2:28:05 ↗ streets is how they were and they really

2:28:08 ↗ helped desire um have a place for

2:28:10 ↗ community to come together and i think

2:28:11 ↗ that that's what i see as being a real

2:28:13 ↗ benefit of through passageways

2:28:16 ↗ now if we're instead looking at them as

2:28:19 ↗ a more

2:28:20 ↗ multimodal right keep cars away then i

2:28:22 ↗ think that's a very different thing and

2:28:24 ↗ so i kind of want um i would like to see

2:28:27 ↗ how we use

2:28:29 ↗ the through block passageways to make

2:28:31 ↗ more of a community space right we talk

2:28:33 ↗ a lot about green spaces that are

2:28:35 ↗ required when we put up

2:28:37 ↗ i don't want to take the place of that

2:28:38 ↗ what i want to do is have these as an

2:28:40 ↗ addendum of how we're adding more space

2:28:42 ↗ right we talk about um

2:28:44 ↗ you know i think there's like a bench

2:28:45 ↗ every like 25 feet or something like

2:28:46 ↗ that right how do we build in these

2:28:48 ↗ things right so um i appreciated that

2:28:50 ↗ the code added things like signage

2:28:53 ↗ seating lighting

2:28:54 ↗ but another thing that we always talk

2:28:56 ↗ about with through block passages is how

2:28:58 ↗ does the public know that they are

2:28:59 ↗ invited into that realm so it's not just

2:29:01 ↗ signage um that is within the community

2:29:04 ↗ and within the development it's without

2:29:06 ↗ the community of knowing that this is

2:29:07 ↗ something so that can be hard to kind of

2:29:09 ↗ know this is a private space versus an

2:29:12 ↗ open community space so i think that

2:29:13 ↗ that's something that while there is

2:29:14 ↗ language about signage that i think

2:29:15 ↗ maybe we could be adding to that a

2:29:16 ↗ little bit

2:29:17 ↗ um

2:29:19 ↗ but i do wonder if they're um

2:29:22 ↗ if we should be doing it

2:29:25 ↗ everywhere and so i'd love for us to be

2:29:26 ↗ having a conversation of that central

2:29:29 ↗ versus

2:29:30 ↗ versus city-wide

2:29:32 ↗ so

2:29:33 ↗ commissioner lewis just pulled at my

2:29:35 ↗ heartstrings

2:29:36 ↗ she mentioned the aesthetic quality of

2:29:38 ↗ having through block passage

2:29:40 ↗ passages because i typically think they

2:29:43 ↗ add quite a bit of value

2:29:45 ↗ i have a friend who has one the only

2:29:47 ↗ reason it wouldn't is if it leads

2:29:49 ↗ literally to cold sac but i guess for

2:29:52 ↗ that that particular

2:29:54 ↗ set of housing it might so i'm generally

2:29:56 ↗ in favor of them now whether or not the

2:29:58 ↗ the widths and things i imagine staff

2:30:01 ↗ has already worked that out looking at

2:30:02 ↗ other

2:30:04 ↗ different cities and seeing what their

2:30:05 ↗ standards were so i'm sure those numbers

2:30:07 ↗ are probably right where they need to be

2:30:09 ↗ i'm generally in favor of through block

2:30:11 ↗ passaging i would kind of you know

2:30:13 ↗ looking at the two policy questions

2:30:16 ↗ um

2:30:19 ↗ i kind of lean towards number two which

2:30:21 ↗ would be to kind of look out throughout

2:30:22 ↗ the city where we can do this because

2:30:24 ↗ again commissioner lewis uh knowing me

2:30:26 ↗ well enough to know that having the fire

2:30:28 ↗ pits and the festival streets again

2:30:30 ↗ those are the things that drive

2:30:31 ↗ community

2:30:32 ↗ and there's an opportunity here to do it

2:30:36 ↗ not only in just newly built

2:30:38 ↗ subdivisions but throughout the city the

2:30:40 ↗ one that i have a little bit tougher

2:30:41 ↗ time getting around is redevelopment

2:30:44 ↗ but i guess that would be part of it

2:30:45 ↗ right because if you don't do it in

2:30:46 ↗ redevelopment you're never going to see

2:30:48 ↗ it done because the subdivisions just

2:30:49 ↗ don't come up that i'm enough especially

2:30:52 ↗ in kind of the areas where the map plays

2:30:54 ↗ out

2:30:54 ↗ so again generally in favor

2:30:57 ↗ uh completely in favor generally

2:30:59 ↗ completely in favor of through block

2:31:00 ↗ passages i think they make the add value

2:31:02 ↗ to the community the neighborhood

2:31:05 ↗ it drives community

2:31:07 ↗ so i like it

2:31:11 ↗ ditto

2:31:18 ↗ thank you yeah um

2:31:20 ↗ number well the questions are different

2:31:23 ↗ um the first question is in the

2:31:25 ↗ development of subdivision only

2:31:27 ↗ and another place that we've used

2:31:29 ↗ through through block passages is with

2:31:31 ↗ large commercial developments such as

2:31:33 ↗ costco

2:31:34 ↗ and that was

2:31:36 ↗ critical and very important and and one

2:31:39 ↗ of the more maybe

2:31:41 ↗ important place to put it because of the

2:31:43 ↗ massing of those buildings and the

2:31:45 ↗ impenetrable

2:31:47 ↗ structure that these large things can be

2:31:49 ↗ has anybody tried to walk in washington

2:31:51 ↗ dc oh my god it is like a forever to get

2:31:55 ↗ to the next block and that's what we're

2:31:57 ↗ trying to prevent against we're trying

2:31:58 ↗ to create a pedestrian friendly and

2:32:00 ↗ connected community so i would say that

2:32:03 ↗ in the answer to question one if i'm

2:32:05 ↗ understanding it correctly is that we

2:32:06 ↗ should require through block passages

2:32:09 ↗ period and then is the standard based on

2:32:12 ↗ a map

2:32:14 ↗ or is it based on a

2:32:17 ↗ tolerant distance between

2:32:19 ↗ a

2:32:20 ↗ a through

2:32:21 ↗ passage of any kind

2:32:23 ↗ and when i'm looking at

2:32:25 ↗ what we used to have and what we've had

2:32:26 ↗ in isoqua highlands and i think in

2:32:28 ↗ dallas too we had 200 or 250 feet or

2:32:31 ↗ whatever it is but the the risk there is

2:32:33 ↗ that you could be requiring a passage

2:32:36 ↗ that doesn't go anywhere so i like the

2:32:38 ↗ idea of the map but i like the

2:32:40 ↗ flexibility of just saying that a

2:32:42 ↗ certain block is too long

2:32:44 ↗ so if there's some way to combine those

2:32:45 ↗ things

2:32:46 ↗ that would that would be nice to give

2:32:48 ↗ the developer

2:32:51 ↗ flexibility to state what is important

2:32:53 ↗ what is important is that we don't have

2:32:55 ↗ to go too far before we can turn and

2:32:56 ↗ change direction especially as a

2:32:58 ↗ pedestrian or a disabled

2:33:00 ↗ modal person you know whatever the

2:33:02 ↗ motivation is that we're trying to

2:33:05 ↗ uh achieve or accomplish

2:33:07 ↗ so some kind of combination between a

2:33:09 ↗ minimum standard and a map

2:33:12 ↗ and then back to the neighborhood plans

2:33:14 ↗ uh you know this has been a part of

2:33:16 ↗ issaquah highlands standards and i'm

2:33:18 ↗ hoping that we don't lose those

2:33:19 ↗ standards in the overlays

2:33:21 ↗ so when we look at overlays for talis or

2:33:24 ↗ issaquah islands if you can keep these

2:33:26 ↗ standards there then you only have to do

2:33:29 ↗ the other neighborhoods that don't have

2:33:30 ↗ these standards so

2:33:32 ↗ i don't want to have to go back and redo

2:33:34 ↗ esco highlands because we already have

2:33:35 ↗ it

2:33:41 ↗ any other feelings as far as through

2:33:43 ↗ block passages say that three times fast

2:33:47 ↗ valerie

2:33:48 ↗ excellent

2:33:51 ↗ all right well that takes care of the

2:33:53 ↗ deliberation portion of tonight's

2:33:54 ↗ meeting

2:33:56 ↗ going once

2:33:57 ↗ going twice

2:34:00 ↗ we are moving along to

2:34:02 ↗ uh the next item of regular business

2:34:04 ↗ this is fun

2:34:06 ↗ vice chair so as we all know um we

2:34:09 ↗ recently had uh mr monaghan vice chair

2:34:12 ↗ monahan depart his last meeting was two

2:34:15 ↗ weeks ago

2:34:16 ↗ so we currently have the vice chair

2:34:18 ↗ position open to phil

2:34:20 ↗ like to try and see if

2:34:22 ↗ we can get something here tonight but i

2:34:24 ↗ will go through the procedure

2:34:27 ↗ it's a very similar product it is the

2:34:29 ↗ process that we conducted in may

2:34:31 ↗ but

2:34:32 ↗ basically what we're going to do is

2:34:33 ↗ first i will call for any nominations

2:34:35 ↗ for anyone who would like to be vice

2:34:37 ↗ chair or think someone may be good in

2:34:39 ↗ the role

2:34:40 ↗ when all nominations have been made

2:34:43 ↗ we'll close the nominations

2:34:45 ↗ if only one nomination is made

2:34:48 ↗ you are it

2:34:50 ↗ you've been elected

2:34:52 ↗ and if there are multiple nominations

2:34:54 ↗ we will hold time at our next meeting

2:34:58 ↗ to have a proper vote

2:35:02 ↗ now

2:35:03 ↗ are the

2:35:04 ↗ yes

2:35:05 ↗ does the nominee have to accept the

2:35:07 ↗ nomination because of what you just said

2:35:09 ↗ just by nominating absolutely thank you

2:35:13 ↗ we are we are a commission of four

2:35:16 ↗ we don't have a lot of

2:35:17 ↗ a lot of leeway here no of course they

2:35:19 ↗ don't

2:35:20 ↗ um if for some reason if someone wants

2:35:22 ↗ to turn down the nomination uh we can

2:35:24 ↗ try again

2:35:27 ↗ see where we end up we'll see if that

2:35:28 ↗ happens

2:35:29 ↗ so right now i'd like to see um i don't

2:35:32 ↗ know if there's any formal language

2:35:33 ↗ stephen or

2:35:35 ↗ yeah

2:35:36 ↗ would

2:35:36 ↗ anyone like to nominate someone to be

2:35:39 ↗ vice chair of the planning policy

2:35:40 ↗ commission

2:35:42 ↗ commissioner milligan

2:35:43 ↗ i'd like to nominate commissioner bader

2:35:49 ↗ all right are there any other

2:35:50 ↗ nominations for vice chair

2:35:55 ↗ does commissioner peter accept

2:35:58 ↗ no way no i'm just kidding

2:36:00 ↗ well thank you

2:36:04 ↗ all right well thank you vice chair

2:36:06 ↗ bader

2:36:08 ↗ yeah wonderful

2:36:10 ↗ reports we're moving on to reports so we

2:36:13 ↗ have some city council updates that i'd

2:36:16 ↗ like to ask staff to provide if they

2:36:18 ↗ have any which i believe

2:36:20 ↗ there's miss dollywood

2:36:22 ↗ yeah uh good evening again um so we did

2:36:27 ↗ have a discussion with the committee of

2:36:29 ↗ the whole so we've been taking all the

2:36:30 ↗ buckets that you all pass on to a

2:36:33 ↗ council committee

2:36:35 ↗ so that happened on august 4th

2:36:38 ↗ with

2:36:39 ↗ the planning development environment

2:36:41 ↗ development and environment committee

2:36:44 ↗ and

2:36:45 ↗ they

2:36:47 ↗ had good discussion on those topics they

2:36:50 ↗ wanted

2:36:51 ↗ some more feedback on the parking topic

2:36:54 ↗ but then we also gave them the

2:36:56 ↗ whiteboard list i think there was a

2:36:58 ↗ question earlier asked about what's the

2:37:00 ↗ process for that

2:37:01 ↗ and we

2:37:03 ↗ did uh have a conversation with them i'm

2:37:06 ↗ going to post in your

2:37:07 ↗ chat over here hopefully everyone can

2:37:09 ↗ get it so that's the link to the august

2:37:11 ↗ 8th council

2:37:13 ↗ uh

2:37:14 ↗ of the committee of the whole uh meeting

2:37:17 ↗ where there we included the whiteboard

2:37:19 ↗ that we currently have the committee

2:37:20 ↗ asked us to put it in the goals what's

2:37:23 ↗ our desired outcome how is it tied to

2:37:26 ↗ existing codes and policies is it

2:37:28 ↗ covered under the goals and and outcomes

2:37:30 ↗ chart so that council could prioritize

2:37:33 ↗ some items uh with a focus of the budget

2:37:36 ↗ cycle of 2023 and 2024 as you know the

2:37:40 ↗ city council is going to start working

2:37:42 ↗ on the budget for the in a biennial

2:37:45 ↗ year 23 and 24

2:37:47 ↗ so there was good discussion

2:37:50 ↗ at the council level on the white board

2:37:52 ↗ uh it includes all the items up to

2:37:55 ↗ bucket five so as you all deliberate on

2:37:58 ↗ bucket six

2:37:59 ↗ uh we'll add additional items that might

2:38:01 ↗ come in uh like we discussed the

2:38:03 ↗ wireless uh facilities and and others

2:38:06 ↗ that might come in with the bucket six

2:38:08 ↗ so i you know given the lateness of the

2:38:10 ↗ hour i don't want to keep you from

2:38:12 ↗ getting home but you're welcome to look

2:38:14 ↗ at the list and reach out if you have

2:38:16 ↗ questions or want to talk further

2:38:19 ↗ chair voice just to clarify we'll send

2:38:21 ↗ you an email with the link because i

2:38:22 ↗ know you can't see it right now on your

2:38:24 ↗ screens

2:38:25 ↗ nope

2:38:27 ↗ thanks steven

2:38:29 ↗ the lateness of the hour indeed thank

2:38:31 ↗ you minnie uh

2:38:33 ↗ finally do we have any other business or

2:38:36 ↗ announcements from

2:38:38 ↗ our wonderful staff who've been

2:38:39 ↗ tremendous tonight valerie or stephen

2:38:43 ↗ no there are announcements

2:38:47 ↗ i know everybody wants to stay here

2:38:48 ↗ right

2:38:50 ↗ okay there being no further business uh

2:38:52 ↗ before the commission we adjourn the

2:38:54 ↗ meeting at 9 17 p.m

2:38:57 ↗ nice

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 (4)

Voiss

Commissioners Bader

Lewis

Milligan Absence: None

Staff (4)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Holly Keeton, Senior Planner Stephen Padua, Manager, Long Range Planning Valerie Porter, Associate Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) CHAIR VOISS asked for changes or comments regarding the June 23, 2022 Minutes. There were none

the Minutes were approved. b) CHAIR VOISS asked for changes or comments regarding the July 20, 2022 Minutes. There were none

the Minutes were approved. c) CHAIR VOISS asked for changes or comments regarding the July 28, 2022 Minutes. There were none

the Minutes were approved. 3