Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, August 25, 2022 · City Council Digest

3. PUBLIC HEARING

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

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Valerie Porter, Associate Planner · packet pp.3–130

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the August 25, 2022, Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to hold a public hearing to receive public comments regarding the draft code for General Provisions, Procedures, and Permits.

4. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.131–133

▶ Watch from 2:17:40 Open packet at p.131 ↗

Staff report:

Page 132 of 133 Staff Support: Christen Leeson Staff Support: Stephen Padua

3588 segments .txt ↗

0:11 ↗ good evening everybody welcome to

0:13 ↗ tonight's planning policy meeting

0:15 ↗ it is the 25th of august and i'd like to

0:18 ↗ call this meeting to order at

0:20 ↗ 6 36 p.m

0:23 ↗ so is it just me

0:26 ↗ or ppc thursdays the hottest days of the

0:29 ↗ week i don't know how we keep ending up

0:31 ↗ here on the 90 plus degree days but it

0:34 ↗ seems to be happening so

0:36 ↗ hopefully we can make the most of it i

0:38 ↗ want to welcome our guests who are here

0:39 ↗ to speak welcome staff

0:42 ↗ and also welcome my fabulous colleagues

0:44 ↗ each and everyone who is so appreciated

0:46 ↗ to be here uh because of our attendance

0:50 ↗ so today's meeting is a hybrid meeting

0:52 ↗ the planning policy commission is in

0:54 ↗ person but we also have staff here in

0:56 ↗ person as well as virtually

0:58 ↗ members of the public may be attending

1:00 ↗ virtually or in person as well

1:02 ↗ comments at tonight's meeting may be

1:04 ↗ made in person or virtually and for all

1:07 ↗ who would like to speak during the

1:08 ↗ public comments speak clearly and pause

1:10 ↗ frequently state your name each time

1:13 ↗ before speaking

1:15 ↗ and if you're attending virtually by

1:16 ↗ computer or by phone and would like to

1:18 ↗ speak during the public comments

1:21 ↗ in addition to the

1:22 ↗ suggestions above please mute your

1:24 ↗ microphone when you're not speaking

1:27 ↗ and if you're having any technical

1:28 ↗ issues try joining the meeting using a

1:30 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

1:32 ↗ a tablet

1:33 ↗ you can use the call and information in

1:35 ↗ the meeting invite to call in

1:38 ↗ all right kristen

1:40 ↗ do we have a quorum tonight

1:45 ↗ yes we do

1:47 ↗ excellent

1:49 ↗ tonight we don't have any meeting

1:51 ↗ minutes to approve so our first item of

1:52 ↗ business are general public comments for

1:55 ↗ your planning policy commission

1:58 ↗ this comment period is for general

1:59 ↗ comments on items pertaining to the

2:01 ↗ commission

2:02 ↗ so please refrain from speaking on the

2:04 ↗ public hearing items for tonight's

2:06 ↗ agenda

2:07 ↗ is there anyone in the audience who

2:09 ↗ would like to make

2:11 ↗ brief public comments

2:15 ↗ no one has signed up to speak

2:18 ↗ trisha has is anyone online i do see a

2:21 ↗ virtual attendee who'd like to make

2:22 ↗ comments under the general comment

2:24 ↗ opportunity okay an excellent and one

2:26 ↗ thing that i i forgot to say last time

2:29 ↗ but i'll say it real briefly right now

2:30 ↗ is please limit your comments to five

2:32 ↗ minutes or less

2:37 ↗ connie i'm going to make you a panelist

2:39 ↗ now

2:43 ↗ just a moment

2:47 ↗ you should now have the option to unmute

2:49 ↗ and you may choose to turn your video on

2:55 ↗ okay

2:56 ↗ so hi i'm connie marsha i live up on

2:58 ↗ squawk and i'm going to make a comment

3:01 ↗ that i

3:03 ↗ um have made so many times in this

3:06 ↗ situation which is

3:08 ↗ uh

3:09 ↗ with the depth of the information being

3:13 ↗ provided to planning policy commission i

3:16 ↗ don't think it is appropriate to have

3:18 ↗ the new information

3:20 ↗ presented

3:21 ↗ then have a public hearing and then have

3:24 ↗ deliberation all

3:26 ↗ in the same meeting

3:29 ↗ one of the issues is a five-minute

3:32 ↗ public comment period for the public on

3:35 ↗ these topics

3:37 ↗ you can get nowhere in five minutes so

3:40 ↗ this time i actually had the time to

3:42 ↗ send you two very long in-depth emails

3:46 ↗ in the last meeting i had no time to do

3:48 ↗ that so my public comment was just

3:51 ↗ erased so i skipped you all and went

3:54 ↗ straight to city council i don't think

3:57 ↗ that's how it's supposed to work i'm one

3:59 ↗ of the last remaining public comment

4:02 ↗ people who does read this stuff and in

4:05 ↗ depth and i feel cut off and i feel like

4:09 ↗ your

4:11 ↗ deliberations are cut off because you

4:13 ↗ don't have time to think of varying top

4:16 ↗ uh

4:17 ↗ other issues with the breadth of

4:20 ↗ information that you're being provided

4:23 ↗ and um so i've said this i don't know

4:26 ↗ eight or ten times before

4:28 ↗ and i'm hoping that i am the crazy

4:31 ↗ person who says it over and over and

4:33 ↗ actually will get somewhere

4:35 ↗ though uh so there we are

4:37 ↗ i'm sweating here along with not you in

4:41 ↗ your air conditioned room but anyway bye

4:50 ↗ chair i don't see anyone else in our

4:52 ↗ virtual public who'd like to make

4:53 ↗ comments at this point there are a few

4:56 ↗ individuals

4:57 ↗ who have indicated they'd like to speak

4:59 ↗ under the public hearing

5:02 ↗ great thank you

5:04 ↗ so we're going to get down to the meat

5:06 ↗ of tonight's agenda which is the public

5:07 ↗ hearing for title 18 bucket six

5:10 ↗ general provisions procedures and

5:12 ↗ permits

5:14 ↗ exciting stuff

5:16 ↗ so tonight staff will present the

5:18 ↗ different presentations commissioners

5:20 ↗ will ask their clarifying questions and

5:22 ↗ once all pieces have been presented and

5:24 ↗ all questions asked we will open up for

5:26 ↗ the public hearing

5:29 ↗ lastly the commission will deliberate on

5:31 ↗ the entire chapter so staff kristen

5:36 ↗ your presentation please

5:57 ↗ there we go good evening my name is

5:58 ↗ kristen leeson i'm a senior planner with

6:00 ↗ the community planning and development

6:02 ↗ department and yes tonight we're talking

6:04 ↗ about what we're calling part two of

6:06 ↗ procedures and administration

6:09 ↗ so i will be

6:10 ↗ sharing the first part with you and then

6:12 ↗ followed by valerie porter and then mini

6:14 ↗ dollywall

6:16 ↗ so there are five pieces to this

6:18 ↗ legislative updates major updates levels

6:21 ↗ of review public projects and vesting

6:24 ↗ that we will be talking about tonight

6:27 ↗ first

6:28 ↗ legislative updates

6:30 ↗ so we're going to start with the rezone

6:32 ↗ process and what is new there so we have

6:36 ↗ differentiated between quasi-judicial

6:40 ↗ and legislative reasons and reasons that

6:42 ↗ require comprehensive plan amendments

6:44 ↗ and those that do not

6:46 ↗ and i'm going to take a step back

6:49 ↗ some of you may recall that ever over

6:51 ↗ the past two or three years

6:53 ↗ we have had difficulties in some

6:55 ↗ uncertainties regarding the

6:57 ↗ comprehensive plan docket

6:59 ↗ and reasons and what the process was

7:02 ↗ what some of the criteria were to

7:04 ↗ approve or not approve so our whole

7:07 ↗ purpose of this legislative updates and

7:09 ↗ you'll see it in every one of these is

7:10 ↗ to provide clarity in this so i'm going

7:13 ↗ to sound repetitive and i am repetitive

7:15 ↗ but that's why we've done it so

7:18 ↗ as i mentioned we differentiated between

7:20 ↗ quasi-juicial which i can't say and

7:23 ↗ legislative reasons

7:24 ↗ and the process for those for clarity

7:27 ↗ and we've also expanded the explanation

7:29 ↗ of processes for rezone requests for

7:32 ↗ clarity

7:34 ↗ for the comprehensive plan updates we

7:36 ↗ added a

7:37 ↗ comprehensive plan docket criteria for

7:40 ↗ decision which did not exist and that

7:41 ↗ was one of our issues prior to this

7:44 ↗ again clarity

7:46 ↗ we clarified docket approval process

7:48 ↗ and how that went because

7:51 ↗ the steps for that was not clear

7:53 ↗ we included exceptions to

7:55 ↗ annual amendments because what the state

7:58 ↗ says is that you can amend your

8:00 ↗ comprehensive plan once a year and the

8:02 ↗ state also provides exceptions but those

8:04 ↗ were not in our code so for transparency

8:06 ↗ we thought we would throw those in in

8:07 ↗ case for some reason we had to do a

8:09 ↗ second amendment that year we wanted

8:10 ↗ everybody to easily find out how we were

8:13 ↗ able to do that

8:15 ↗ and lastly land use code amendments we

8:18 ↗ expanded the application and approval

8:20 ↗ process because i think the whole thing

8:21 ↗ contained four lines

8:23 ↗ and so we

8:24 ↗ expanded that for clarity and we also

8:27 ↗ added approval criteria which did not

8:29 ↗ exist before so that helps the council

8:32 ↗ and the ppc when they make

8:34 ↗ recommendations staff when they make

8:35 ↗ recommendations and counsel when they

8:37 ↗ make final decisions

8:39 ↗ so that's all i have for legislative

8:42 ↗ you all have any questions

8:47 ↗ are we going to go through the whole

8:48 ↗ presentation first and then

8:49 ↗ do you want to you want to go through

8:50 ↗ the whole thing first sure okay all

8:52 ↗ right so next up is valerie

8:57 ↗ no i apologize that that was your entire

8:59 ↗ that's my entire presentation i know you

9:02 ↗ want me to present every time for how

9:03 ↗ thick that packet is that is amazing

9:06 ↗ how efficient

9:08 ↗ all right let's open up uh commissioner

9:10 ↗ milligan

9:11 ↗ i'll ask a question just to warm people

9:13 ↗ up a little bit it's not a very good

9:14 ↗ question uh but when we were talking

9:16 ↗ about what we conclude on the docket and

9:18 ↗ there was um individual property

9:23 ↗ request for rezone

9:25 ↗ and can you just remind me

9:28 ↗ how we avoid spot zoning when a party

9:31 ↗ comes forward with that kind of request

9:33 ↗ or you know what i'm talking about am i

9:35 ↗ saying that right you are and so this

9:37 ↗ this has come up before in the past and

9:39 ↗ that one's it's not difficult because

9:40 ↗ the spot zone is illegal

9:42 ↗ so what we have said in the past is that

9:44 ↗ we will continue this through the

9:45 ↗ process because that's what you've asked

9:46 ↗ us to do and the city council can deny

9:49 ↗ it and that's what we did and we

9:51 ↗ explained too

9:52 ↗ when we when this came through before

9:54 ↗ that spot zones are illegal

9:55 ↗ so if they were to approve it

9:58 ↗ um there would be cons consequences so

10:01 ↗ yes

10:02 ↗ so then what is the uh

10:04 ↗ justification for even allowing that and

10:06 ↗ having it as one of the items that we

10:08 ↗ allow on our docket in the past i've

10:10 ↗ always been told that the public and

10:12 ↗ it's true um the public has the right to

10:14 ↗ be heard

10:15 ↗ so they can take it through and the

10:17 ↗ council has the option to deny

10:20 ↗ yeah

10:22 ↗ i had a question about the application

10:24 ↗ procedures among page 68 of 110 for

10:27 ↗ anyone who's following their packet

10:29 ↗ and we talked about how a city

10:30 ↗ city-initiated

10:34 ↗ agenda item i'm curious if there's a

10:36 ↗ detailed plan for other boards and

10:38 ↗ commissions besides ppc

10:40 ↗ staff is already always great at giving

10:42 ↗ us the opportunity to do that but our

10:44 ↗ code right now is written to allow for

10:45 ↗ all of our boards and commissions to be

10:47 ↗ able to follow this

10:48 ↗ but i don't see a plan or place of how

10:50 ↗ we're planning on letting them know how

10:51 ↗ they can do that when they can do that

10:54 ↗ and present that

10:56 ↗ usually boards and commission stone

10:57 ↗ initiated it's initiated by staff and

10:59 ↗ there is a place that staff can initiate

11:01 ↗ it so staff liaisons if it's come up

11:03 ↗ through a board

11:05 ↗ that they wanted to do that could the

11:07 ↗ staff would talk to us is there any

11:09 ↗ discussions about how to better inform

11:11 ↗ the boards and commissions about how

11:12 ↗ they can work with staff to then maybe

11:14 ↗ put something on

11:16 ↗ um not in here but we can we could talk

11:18 ↗ with staff liaisons and share that with

11:20 ↗ them

11:28 ↗ any other questions for kristin

11:32 ↗ all right well thank you kristen you're

11:33 ↗ welcome

11:37 ↗ it's valerie is up next

11:39 ↗ valerie's on yep and she is yeah hello

11:42 ↗ my name is valerie reporter associate

11:44 ↗ planner with cpd

11:45 ↗ um like kristin said i'm going to be

11:47 ↗ talking about major updates next slide

11:55 ↗ all right so i'm going to briefly go

11:56 ↗ over some of the changes mainly because

11:59 ↗ many of the topics have already been

12:00 ↗ brought to ppc as policy questions and

12:03 ↗ so a lot of the changes that you're

12:04 ↗ going to or that you see in this chapter

12:07 ↗ are

12:08 ↗ changes that um reflect this direction

12:11 ↗ that we've received so the first topic

12:13 ↗ that we're going to

12:14 ↗ discuss is question definitions

12:19 ↗ and definitions

12:23 ↗ so all of the definitions from the

12:25 ↗ central issaquad development design

12:26 ↗ standards the design manual the

12:29 ↗ old town design you know standards all

12:31 ↗ of these um definitions that were in all

12:33 ↗ these different chapters have been

12:35 ↗ consolidated and placed in one chapter

12:38 ↗ we also made some additional changes to

12:40 ↗ the definitions like we tried to make

12:42 ↗ them clear if they had some standards we

12:44 ↗ removed those standards from the

12:46 ↗ definitions and then we also tried to

12:48 ↗ reference state code when possible just

12:50 ↗ to try to simplify the code

12:53 ↗ another change that we made in this

12:55 ↗ chapter is that we tried to consolidate

12:57 ↗ meetings we have

12:58 ↗ three kind of like neighborhood meetings

13:02 ↗ that all kind of serve the same purpose

13:03 ↗ so we have the neighborhood meeting the

13:05 ↗ environmental neighborhood meeting and

13:07 ↗ the community conference so we removed

13:09 ↗ that and now we just have one pre-op

13:11 ↗ or pre-pre-prior

13:14 ↗ our post meeting

13:17 ↗ another change is the administrative

13:19 ↗ adjustment or standards section so um

13:21 ↗ previously we just kind of outlined what

13:24 ↗ um

13:25 ↗ what topics were prohibited from

13:26 ↗ receiving an administrative adjusted

13:28 ↗ standards now we clearly you know

13:30 ↗ specify exactly what you can get an aas

13:33 ↗ for

13:34 ↗ the in each chapter going forward you're

13:37 ↗ going to see specific approval criteria

13:40 ↗ you probably didn't see it in the first

13:42 ↗ round but now we're going to go back and

13:43 ↗ add specific criteria in the next

13:46 ↗ chapters

13:48 ↗ we also try to

13:50 ↗ kind of simplify the levels of review so

13:52 ↗ one of the changes is that we've

13:53 ↗ eliminated the administrative site

13:55 ↗ development permit with no public

13:57 ↗ comment so we went from six levels to

14:00 ↗ five levels and then we also reverse the

14:03 ↗ level three and level four so just as an

14:05 ↗ example um a site development permit

14:08 ↗ today is

14:09 ↗ a level three but in the new code it's

14:11 ↗ going to be a level four but still going

14:13 ↗ to be reviewed by the development

14:15 ↗ commission

14:16 ↗ next slide

14:20 ↗ so

14:21 ↗ we also added the technical document

14:24 ↗ review section

14:26 ↗ which basically no longer allows us to

14:29 ↗ decision maker to review and approve

14:31 ↗ technical documents so again as an

14:33 ↗ example

14:34 ↗ the

14:35 ↗ development commission will no longer

14:37 ↗ you know review and approve

14:39 ↗ a traffic study or a critical error

14:41 ↗ report

14:42 ↗ that will be approved prior to the

14:44 ↗ project coming to the decision maker

14:47 ↗ we also

14:49 ↗ changed the public notification

14:52 ↗ section we've increased the notification

14:54 ↗ radius from 300 feet to 500 feet and

14:57 ↗ we've also are allowing notifications to

15:00 ↗ be sent to property owners as well as

15:02 ↗ renters

15:04 ↗ and then just in general we tried to

15:06 ↗ simplify and clarify the code so in

15:09 ↗ certain sections we either removed and

15:10 ↗ or relocated sections um so for example

15:14 ↗ we had a boards and commission section

15:16 ↗ where it kind of outlined

15:19 ↗ the task and responsibility of each you

15:21 ↗ know boarding commission we actually

15:23 ↗ relocated that section to title

15:26 ↗ 2 because we felt that that was

15:28 ↗ better suited

15:29 ↗ we also tried to you know just simplify

15:31 ↗ the code and replace text with tables to

15:33 ↗ make things a little bit more clearer

15:35 ↗ and then we also added sections like

15:38 ↗ application withdrawal or

15:39 ↗ reconsideration which allows the

15:41 ↗ decision maker to

15:43 ↗ re-evaluate a decision if there's any

15:46 ↗ errors in the application

15:48 ↗ and we did this to try to make the quota

15:50 ↗ a little bit more clear and also just

15:52 ↗ improve the process

15:55 ↗ and those are most of the changes are

15:57 ↗ there any questions

16:00 ↗ thank you valerie

16:03 ↗ any questions for valerie

16:08 ↗ hey valerie we miss seeing you but we're

16:10 ↗ glad you're here with us because this is

16:12 ↗ a big section

16:14 ↗ um i'm going to start with a big

16:16 ↗ meatball because i'm a little confused

16:18 ↗ about how we've been consolidating the

16:20 ↗ community meetings um

16:23 ↗ right i'm looking right here at our gold

16:25 ↗ outcome of improvement and development

16:28 ↗ uh not consolidation right so what i'm

16:31 ↗ actually seeing

16:32 ↗ is a little bit different from what our

16:34 ↗ goal was and when i was reviewing the

16:37 ↗ rcw what i found was guidance about what

16:40 ↗ happens when a developer wants to

16:41 ↗ consolidate their community meetings

16:44 ↗ our code right now looks to me like it

16:46 ↗ only discusses that option what happens

16:48 ↗ when a developer decides to consolidate

16:51 ↗ their permits and so we're doing it all

16:53 ↗ in one as the rcw dictates what i don't

16:56 ↗ see is any language in our code that

16:57 ↗ talks about when that doesn't happen

16:59 ↗ we would then have more community

17:01 ↗ meetings we would then actually need to

17:03 ↗ have kind of another section that says

17:04 ↗ when a developer does not consolidate

17:07 ↗ but i i feel like i might be reading

17:09 ↗ that wrong

17:10 ↗ is that

17:12 ↗ did we decide did we decide to only go

17:14 ↗ with

17:15 ↗ the rcw talks about if a developer

17:17 ↗ consolidates so we put our code to only

17:20 ↗ being applicable to a consolidated

17:23 ↗ format

17:25 ↗ um

17:27 ↗ uh that is a big meatball um

17:30 ↗ [Music]

17:32 ↗ i guess

17:33 ↗ i don't know if um so the the

17:35 ↗ pre-application meetings are

17:38 ↗ um

17:39 ↗ something that you know the community or

17:41 ↗ the administration has decided to do

17:44 ↗ i don't think they're dictated by the

17:45 ↗ rcw

17:46 ↗ um but

17:47 ↗ the reason why we've consolidated them

17:50 ↗ is because a lot of them serve the same

17:51 ↗ purpose and we've also received

17:53 ↗ direction from

17:55 ↗ our council that um

17:57 ↗ how one of the meetings was set up it

17:59 ↗ wasn't in our best interest which is why

18:02 ↗ one of the the community conference was

18:04 ↗ eliminated

18:05 ↗ um the neighborhood meeting

18:07 ↗ slash

18:08 ↗ or neighborhood meeting and the

18:10 ↗ environmental meeting are essentially

18:12 ↗ the same meeting

18:13 ↗ i think the only difference is that one

18:15 ↗ just focuses on environment

18:18 ↗ you know critical areas on are adjacent

18:20 ↗ to the site and so it just really made

18:22 ↗ sense

18:24 ↗ to not kind of over complicate the

18:26 ↗ process and just to try to streamline it

18:29 ↗ because how we are doing it right now if

18:31 ↗ a project wants to move forward we would

18:33 ↗ have a

18:35 ↗ neighborhood meeting slash community

18:37 ↗ conference on the same day and try to

18:40 ↗ you know have all of the different

18:41 ↗ groups together and it kind of

18:44 ↗ at the at this moment it's kind of

18:47 ↗ complicating the process and then i

18:49 ↗ think also we've heard from the

18:51 ↗ community members that um they feel like

18:53 ↗ they're not actually getting that

18:54 ↗ opportunity to have that open dialogue

18:57 ↗ with the um developer so like for

18:59 ↗ instance the neighborhood meetings are

19:01 ↗ supposed to be more informal and so that

19:04 ↗ the community can speak directly to the

19:06 ↗ developer and say you know what they

19:08 ↗ like what they don't like or things that

19:10 ↗ are happening in their neighborhood but

19:11 ↗ they're not really able to get that with

19:13 ↗ all the meetings and so we just tried to

19:15 ↗ reformat it so that that could occur

19:19 ↗ but sorry i can't really speak to the

19:20 ↗ consolidation part from minnie's raising

19:24 ↗ her hand in chambers

19:28 ↗ in terms of the consolidation um that

19:31 ↗ you're talking about so that's the state

19:32 ↗ law for

19:33 ↗ ev you know instead of having a series

19:35 ↗ of public hearings you you're

19:39 ↗ it's part of the streamlining under the

19:40 ↗ state law that happened many years ago

19:44 ↗ applicants have the option to request be

19:46 ↗ consolidated to the higher level of

19:48 ↗ review for example if a project triggers

19:51 ↗ a variance application which would be

19:54 ↗ under the proposed draft a level three

19:56 ↗ and then they also had a development

19:58 ↗ commission approval for something for

20:01 ↗ the project which would be a level four

20:03 ↗ they can consolidate that into a level

20:06 ↗ four

20:07 ↗ at the applicant's discretion so we will

20:10 ↗ have language if it's not in the

20:12 ↗ current draft so that's what the state

20:14 ↗ law requirements are for consolidation

20:16 ↗ of public hearing so so the idea there

20:18 ↗ is that if someone wants to appeal it it

20:22 ↗ gets consolidated into one appeal and

20:24 ↗ one public hearing so it doesn't drag

20:26 ↗ out the process with multiple public

20:28 ↗ hearings so am i reading this correct

20:30 ↗ that we formatted our code to align to

20:33 ↗ that without there being a separate

20:35 ↗ section that says i think if you don't

20:37 ↗ consolidate then this is the path

20:39 ↗ i think that what you're talking about

20:41 ↗ is the public me

20:43 ↗ it's not the public dis it's not the

20:44 ↗ decision it's not the tail end it's the

20:46 ↗ actual early input happened in different

20:49 ↗ formats we called it different things it

20:52 ↗ added to confusion if there were two

20:54 ↗ types of meetings triggered it didn't

20:56 ↗ make sense for the community members to

20:57 ↗ come to two different meetings so that's

20:59 ↗ the part of the earlier community

21:02 ↗ feedback meeting is is called one

21:04 ↗ community meeting instead of four

21:06 ↗ different flavors

21:07 ↗ of meetings

21:09 ↗ but right now

21:10 ↗ am i reading it correct that we have it

21:12 ↗ written as one regardless we have for

21:14 ↗ the early meeting it's called

21:16 ↗ pre-application community meeting in the

21:18 ↗ proposed draft okay thank you that's

21:21 ↗ what i was trying to

21:22 ↗ see if i was reading that right yeah

21:26 ↗ who wants to follow up that question

21:32 ↗ yeah hey this is i guess i don't need to

21:34 ↗ introduce myself anymore you can read

21:35 ↗ who i am um

21:37 ↗ but i had a

21:38 ↗ kind of a question building on that

21:40 ↗ because when i read about the meeting

21:42 ↗ consolidation the question that came up

21:44 ↗ is does that like eliminate voices

21:46 ↗ and i think what i hear you say is that

21:49 ↗ it's actually like public feedback

21:51 ↗ saying like i don't want to attend four

21:52 ↗ different meetings um i'd rather attend

21:54 ↗ one and have that more open dialogue and

21:56 ↗ so this is actually solving not just

21:58 ↗ making it easier for the developer and

22:00 ↗ staff to kind of only attend one but

22:02 ↗ also

22:03 ↗ there's a community kind of engagement

22:05 ↗ sure so under the existing

22:08 ↗ you know code we've had where an

22:11 ↗ environmental neighborhood meeting is

22:13 ↗ triggered and and a collaboration

22:15 ↗ meeting if i'm i don't know if i'm

22:16 ↗ getting the names right but

22:18 ↗ um

22:19 ↗ so one is chaired by the development

22:22 ↗ commission the other one is staffed by

22:24 ↗ staff and it created a logistical

22:26 ↗ nightmare to kind of do them you know on

22:28 ↗ separate nights didn't make sense for

22:30 ↗ the community members to have to spend

22:31 ↗ two nights to talk about the same

22:33 ↗ project so we structured it where it was

22:36 ↗ just open dialogue without the

22:38 ↗ development commission but they couldn't

22:39 ↗ hear that because they were only part of

22:41 ↗ this

22:42 ↗ you know other other things so that

22:44 ↗ added another logistical challenge so

22:46 ↗ yes it's the way we currently have

22:48 ↗ different types of meetings is as

22:50 ↗ challenging to implement

22:52 ↗ for staff and for the community members

22:54 ↗ to understand the differences

23:01 ↗ first of all i want to ask if this is a

23:03 ↗ place where we ask the question in our

23:05 ↗ packet we are talking about uh we have a

23:08 ↗ you have a question to us about the

23:09 ↗ thresholds for level review is this the

23:11 ↗ chapter or is that later

23:13 ↗ we have policy questions following

23:15 ↗ valerie but is this the section in our

23:17 ↗ presentation that i can ask again

23:20 ↗ it'll follow valerie's okay it'll come

23:23 ↗ up i'll ask later then thank you

23:29 ↗ any further questions uh regarding

23:31 ↗ valerie's presentation

23:33 ↗ i have one for valerie about adjustment

23:35 ↗ of standards something we had talked

23:36 ↗ about early on in this process was

23:38 ↗ having a little more daylight into how

23:41 ↗ um these adjustments happen and

23:43 ↗ effectively created creating a checklist

23:45 ↗ right for there to be a consistency

23:47 ↗ across projects for both community

23:49 ↗ awareness and for developers to be able

23:50 ↗ to understand i didn't see that is that

23:53 ↗ something that's still in process or is

23:54 ↗ that something that we decided to drop

23:56 ↗ off because it's not really mentioned

23:57 ↗ right now in our in any of the language

24:00 ↗ yeah um so basically in this section

24:03 ↗ we're just um referencing the specific

24:05 ↗ sections that have these um aas um

24:08 ↗ instead we're going to go back into all

24:10 ↗ those

24:11 ↗ sections and create approval criteria

24:14 ↗ that makes it very clear about you know

24:16 ↗ when you can get a deviation and what

24:18 ↗ that criteria needs to be so that we can

24:20 ↗ apply it consistently so it's still in

24:22 ↗ the works thank you thank you the list

24:25 ↗ is in the draft right so the things that

24:27 ↗ people can apply for

24:29 ↗ a specific deviation that allows

24:31 ↗ administrative flexibility is in your

24:33 ↗ draft the criteria for that list will be

24:36 ↗ in individual chapters and that we will

24:38 ↗ see

24:39 ↗ next correct so the existing code has

24:42 ↗ you can't apply for these five things as

24:44 ↗ administrative deviations but anything

24:46 ↗ everything else can be applied for with

24:48 ↗ this very broad criteria so that's

24:51 ↗ eliminated

24:52 ↗ instead you have specific things that

24:54 ↗ you can ask for but the criteria for

24:56 ↗ those specific things you'll see in the

24:58 ↗ consolidated draft okay thank you

25:05 ↗ any further questions for valerie's

25:07 ↗ presentation

25:10 ↗ hearing none thank you valerie

25:13 ↗ and mini i believe europe

25:15 ↗ yes so let me share

25:18 ↗ the screen again

25:37 ↗ so the next one is the level of review

25:40 ↗ so we posed a policy question to all of

25:42 ↗ you

25:43 ↗ um

25:44 ↗ what's the size of the building that

25:46 ↗ should be reviewed administratively as

25:48 ↗ opposed to by the development commission

25:51 ↗ so level one and two

25:53 ↗ and versus level four um the current

25:57 ↗ existing code

25:59 ↗ um so we so some of these thresholds

26:01 ↗ come from the existing code so there

26:03 ↗ isn't a magic number with 45 000 but

26:05 ↗ that's what's in our existing code um so

26:08 ↗ we use those as a bases however we try

26:11 ↗ to to simplify it because the existing

26:13 ↗ code in central

26:15 ↗ also has another layer it says this

26:18 ↗ square feet and or

26:21 ↗ three acres or less than three acres or

26:23 ↗ more than three acres so in the way

26:25 ↗ we've implemented this code that really

26:27 ↗ hasn't come into play if you're actually

26:29 ↗ developing

26:30 ↗ uh a building that's the threshold so

26:33 ↗ we've streamlined it to not have those

26:34 ↗ two two layers uh but just call it uh

26:38 ↗ square footage of the building

26:40 ↗ so under the option a we have if it's

26:42 ↗ less than four thousand it's reviewed

26:44 ↗ administratively

26:46 ↗ um

26:47 ↗ with um you know more like a building

26:49 ↗ permit if it's greater than 4 000 but

26:52 ↗ less than 45 000 it requires a notice of

26:55 ↗ public um you know so there is some

26:58 ↗ public

26:59 ↗ comment period in the beginning before

27:02 ↗ an administrative decision is issued and

27:04 ↗ then anything larger than 45 000 is the

27:07 ↗ development commission now with a public

27:09 ↗ hearing

27:10 ↗ um

27:10 ↗ option b

27:12 ↗ uh builds off of how our current code is

27:14 ↗ because there's also this in addition to

27:16 ↗ the site size there's another layer

27:18 ↗ which is high you know

27:21 ↗ prominent streets basically

27:23 ↗ so um

27:25 ↗ the top part is the same as option a but

27:28 ↗ if you are on a prominent street that we

27:30 ↗ included a map in your in your packet

27:33 ↗ that if you're less than four thousand

27:35 ↗ it still stays like a building permit

27:37 ↗ but if it's greater than four thousand

27:39 ↗ it automatically gets bumped up to a

27:41 ↗ development commission

27:42 ↗ so the issue here is if you really don't

27:45 ↗ front that street but it's a 10 000

27:47 ↗ square foot building

27:50 ↗ then you get a different process but if

27:52 ↗ you're on the street it's the same kind

27:54 ↗ of an impact it's a different process so

27:56 ↗ it can create this consistency of some

28:00 ↗ property owners might say

28:02 ↗ well that particular project went

28:04 ↗ through a public hearing but we

28:06 ↗ which was a you know not exactly on that

28:08 ↗ front on fronting that street we didn't

28:11 ↗ have to so we're posing the question to

28:13 ↗ you all

28:14 ↗ you know what's the right threshold uh

28:16 ↗ that um should be reviewed

28:18 ↗ administratively as opposed to going to

28:20 ↗ the

28:22 ↗ to the development commission and this

28:24 ↗ idea of the option a doesn't build off

28:27 ↗ the idea that if certain streets get

28:29 ↗ more scrutiny than other parts of the

28:31 ↗ city

28:34 ↗ so this map is included i think it

28:36 ↗ doesn't show i-90 but that's part of the

28:38 ↗ list of the projects

28:40 ↗ that would get the higher scrutiny

28:43 ↗ so the next uh thing that we posed a

28:45 ↗ question about was the

28:47 ↗ city projects you know cities road

28:49 ↗ projects parks projects and other

28:51 ↗ infrastructure

28:52 ↗ um what's the appropriate level of land

28:55 ↗ use review and permitting um for the

28:57 ↗ capital improvement projects

29:00 ↗ and we laid out our proposed options uh

29:04 ↗ the reason for treating these uh in a in

29:07 ↗ a more comprehensive way is there's a

29:09 ↗ lot of information that's built into the

29:12 ↗ into these projects early on

29:14 ↗ um there's community input received

29:16 ↗ during the design phases there you know

29:19 ↗ for them to get these on the city's

29:21 ↗ capital improvement list there's a whole

29:23 ↗ process that goes into there there's the

29:25 ↗ project cost allocation that happens at

29:27 ↗ the council level so there's already all

29:29 ↗ this public input that's received and

29:32 ↗ then when the permitting side comes in

29:34 ↗ there should be no surprises of oh you

29:37 ↗ need to meet this because it's not

29:39 ↗ meeting these um permitting requirements

29:42 ↗ so what we're proposing is we've broken

29:44 ↗ it down into projects city projects that

29:47 ↗ are within existing right-of-way and

29:49 ↗ there are two flavors of those one is

29:51 ↗ just a repair and maintenance you know

29:53 ↗ repaving a street that not expanding or

29:55 ↗ anything

29:56 ↗ you don't need land use approval

29:59 ↗ if you were putting

30:02 ↗ a sewer pipe which is over certain

30:03 ↗ square footage you might trigger cipa so

30:06 ↗ those sipa and shoreline thresholds are

30:08 ↗ already baked in the state law so they

30:10 ↗ would still comply with those but there

30:12 ↗ won't be an added

30:14 ↗ review

30:15 ↗ at the permitting stage it would happen

30:17 ↗ early in the process

30:18 ↗ the second option flavor of the public

30:21 ↗ projects in within the city right away

30:23 ↗ our expansion of existing streets or

30:25 ↗ infrastructure or providing new streets

30:28 ↗ in those things again public input and

30:30 ↗ outreach happens early

30:32 ↗ and then late you know when it comes

30:33 ↗ time for permitting that we would issue

30:35 ↗ a consolidated review

30:37 ↗ which would ensure compliance with

30:40 ↗ critical areas code

30:41 ↗ you know we would have them go have the

30:43 ↗ city go through

30:44 ↗ why can't you avoid it how can you

30:46 ↗ minimize your impact what is the

30:48 ↗ mitigation if there is an unavoidable

30:50 ↗ impact um if there is clearing and great

30:53 ↗ grabbing you know so storm water

30:55 ↗ and

30:57 ↗ temporary erosion control measures would

30:59 ↗ be reviewed through a site work but it

31:00 ↗ would be a consolidated permit rather

31:02 ↗ than multiple permits um

31:06 ↗ and then the second type of public

31:08 ↗ projects are not within the right-of-way

31:09 ↗ but on a separate parcel so a new park

31:11 ↗ or an expansion of an existing park so

31:14 ↗ repair and maintenance

31:15 ↗ no land use approval cpu shoreline if

31:18 ↗ you trigger any of those thresholds

31:20 ↗ an expansion or a new use

31:24 ↗ public input early on and consolidated

31:27 ↗ level of review at the end

31:29 ↗ separate cpa and shoreline if those are

31:31 ↗ triggered

31:32 ↗ so that's our proposal the last thing i

31:35 ↗ think we've posed some policy questions

31:37 ↗ for you are related to vesting which

31:40 ↗ code applies to projects at what time

31:44 ↗ they apply for their applications

31:46 ↗ so in our state uh vested rights

31:49 ↗ doctrine um

31:51 ↗ has three specific things a building

31:53 ↗ permit allows vesting so if a building

31:55 ↗ permit comes in and it's deemed complete

31:57 ↗ by the city the rules in place at that

32:00 ↗ time would apply for or to that uh the

32:03 ↗ review itself might take two years and

32:04 ↗ the code might change but there's

32:06 ↗ they're applicable at the time they

32:08 ↗ apply for the building permit uh the

32:10 ↗ second thing allowed under the state law

32:12 ↗ is um short subdivisions and um

32:17 ↗ excuse me uh short flats and

32:19 ↗ subdivisions um if they get the

32:21 ↗ preliminary plat approval that's the

32:23 ↗ time that the uh the rules in play

32:26 ↗ would um be would apply to them again

32:29 ↗ the idea here is if you get a

32:31 ↗ preliminary plat and you've designed

32:33 ↗ your infrastructure based on on the

32:36 ↗ codes in place then you are allowed to

32:39 ↗ finish your subdivision um

32:41 ↗ from that time

32:42 ↗ or the state law allows a development

32:44 ↗ agreement to vest when a lot of in you

32:47 ↗ know work is going to happen over a

32:49 ↗ large uh long period of time

32:52 ↗ and it's to protect um interests for and

32:55 ↗ cities not being able to change codes

32:57 ↗ often

32:58 ↗ uh

32:59 ↗ the city can however choose to specify

33:02 ↗ in their own code anything above and

33:05 ↗ beyond what's allowed in the in the

33:06 ↗ state law so we are in a packet we

33:08 ↗ included uh information of what the

33:11 ↗ cities are allowed to authorize to

33:13 ↗ change you know we can

33:15 ↗ figure out what's deemed a complete

33:17 ↗ application that's going to be baked in

33:19 ↗ your

33:20 ↗ in your in the city's codes

33:22 ↗ we may decide other applications besides

33:25 ↗ subdivision short flight and building

33:27 ↗ permits like site development permits

33:29 ↗ those converse to complete application

33:31 ↗ we can also say an explicit expiration

33:34 ↗ date

33:35 ↗ whether it can be tied to an expiration

33:37 ↗ permit

33:38 ↗ that protects

33:40 ↗ things to not drag on for too long and

33:41 ↗ the codes evolve over that period of

33:43 ↗ time

33:44 ↗ if there's serious threat to public

33:46 ↗ health and safety the city can impose

33:48 ↗ new regulations that doesn't come into

33:50 ↗ play a whole lot but but there are

33:52 ↗ ability for the city to do that

33:55 ↗ um

33:56 ↗ or if there's a major modification to

33:58 ↗ the application that was submitted uh

34:01 ↗ and it changes completely and it's it's

34:03 ↗ a huge

34:04 ↗ change from what they try to get the

34:06 ↗ investing in the city can say

34:09 ↗ you need to file a new application and

34:11 ↗ the rules in play at the time you file

34:13 ↗ that application will you'll be subject

34:15 ↗ to those

34:16 ↗ so the options we've laid out for you to

34:19 ↗ give policy direction or recommendation

34:21 ↗ to counsel are

34:24 ↗ that we

34:25 ↗ follow what's allowed in the state law

34:27 ↗ and

34:28 ↗ those are the three things that best you

34:30 ↗ and we stick with that

34:32 ↗ option two or you can expand the list

34:35 ↗ from those three to other land use

34:36 ↗ applications

34:38 ↗ and option three is you can have a time

34:41 ↗ period of a limit

34:43 ↗ uh you know six months or whatever uh

34:45 ↗ from the time the code is applied

34:48 ↗ you will you if you have this grace

34:50 ↗ period of six whatever time period

34:53 ↗ to be vested to the old code

34:56 ↗ so that pretty much concludes

34:58 ↗ those three policy options or

35:01 ↗ questions that we've laid out for you

35:04 ↗ great thank you minnie do we have any

35:06 ↗ clarifying questions for many

35:10 ↗ thank you chair thanks minnie so that

35:13 ↗ this is where i was going and and what i

35:15 ↗ wanted to know and i thought and you you

35:17 ↗ almost

35:18 ↗ answered my question because what i'm

35:20 ↗ having a hard time is comparing how is

35:21 ↗ this different

35:23 ↗ uh so if we could uh just elaborate a

35:25 ↗ little bit more um is the 45 000 for

35:28 ↗ instance a threshold in the old code um

35:31 ↗ and

35:32 ↗ uh are there

35:34 ↗ is there also because i'm having a hard

35:36 ↗ time comparing them

35:38 ↗ between the four thousand and the forty

35:40 ↗ five thousand do you mind spending just

35:42 ↗ another moment on what's the difference

35:43 ↗ between the old one and this new

35:45 ↗ proposal

35:46 ↗ yeah so the the old one has um for

35:49 ↗ option one uh you know is or option two

35:53 ↗ option b is very similar to what's

35:56 ↗ already in the code the issue with the

35:58 ↗ code is we have one standard in the

36:00 ↗ central issaquah we have a slightly

36:01 ↗ different thing outside of central

36:03 ↗ issaquah and and those things so

36:05 ↗ for the most part it aligns with

36:08 ↗ your option two

36:10 ↗ that's in your packet from what's

36:11 ↗ already there but what option two

36:13 ↗ doesn't have is another layer which is

36:16 ↗ three acres or below below is

36:19 ↗ administrative three acres and a more

36:22 ↗ than three acres is is uh development

36:24 ↗ commission so we've eliminated that

36:26 ↗ we've kept the the thresholds the same

36:28 ↗ under option b

36:33 ↗ uh thank you and then the next question

36:36 ↗ has to do with the definition of a

36:38 ↗ building

36:39 ↗ and whether

36:41 ↗ just thinking about different

36:44 ↗ applications of this threshold buildings

36:46 ↗ projects what other considerations are

36:48 ↗ there

36:49 ↗ um so you're you're considering if there

36:52 ↗ is not a building a park

36:54 ↗ i don't know the definition i don't i

36:56 ↗ haven't looked at our definition that's

36:58 ↗ in the packet here um

37:00 ↗ okay one i guess one thing i'm thinking

37:02 ↗ about is imagine

37:04 ↗ you had two buildings that were 40 000

37:07 ↗ square feet that

37:09 ↗ i don't know shared some amenity or

37:11 ↗ something and they were part of a larger

37:13 ↗ campus or something no that's a good

37:15 ↗ point yeah i think we can clarify the

37:17 ↗ language to say

37:18 ↗ cumulatively so if you had a lot of

37:20 ↗ small ones then they all added up to 45

37:23 ↗ 000 then that would be the threshold

37:25 ↗ that would apply individually you may be

37:27 ↗ a town home project that has four

37:28 ↗ different buildings but cumulatively

37:31 ↗ it's 45 000 or more but individually

37:33 ↗ they're not it would it would trigger

37:37 ↗ all episodes that's currently not there

37:39 ↗ but uh something that could we can add

37:41 ↗ yes

37:41 ↗ to clarification correct

37:45 ↗ many i have i'm gonna start with

37:47 ↗ question one that you had for us and you

37:49 ↗ gave us two different options and the

37:50 ↗ way that i read it and and nina's

37:53 ↗ fantastic comment kind of confirmed that

37:55 ↗ the first option is kind of the status

37:57 ↗ quo as we've had it's amended but our

38:00 ↗ thresholds are carried over

38:03 ↗ the the option b is more status quo

38:06 ↗ except for the three acre piece option

38:08 ↗ one we took out the

38:10 ↗ the high visibility street option so we

38:13 ↗ made it consistent throughout the city

38:15 ↗ so you don't get a higher scrutiny if

38:18 ↗ you're along these streets

38:19 ↗ uh

38:20 ↗ everyone has the same threshold if

38:22 ↗ you're 4040 below 45

38:26 ↗ above 45. because this map is something

38:28 ↗ we've already been using of the cry

38:30 ↗ visibility and so right now staff is

38:32 ↗ recommending we move away from it what

38:34 ↗ i'm curious about is there's some other

38:36 ↗ option that staff was exploring when

38:38 ↗ they were going through these options um

38:41 ↗ i think it's i think it's fair to say

38:42 ↗ that the high visibility hasn't worked

38:44 ↗ very well right now

38:46 ↗ so is there is there something else

38:48 ↗ where you guys were looking at right now

38:50 ↗ for this first question as another

38:51 ↗ option to be presented

38:53 ↗ um we didn't consider a third option but

38:56 ↗ we can if there is um you know

38:59 ↗ some desire to explore uh i mean out of

39:02 ↗ the top of my head i can say the third

39:04 ↗ option might be

39:05 ↗ you don't have the high priority streets

39:08 ↗ but you have

39:09 ↗ four you know more things uh that

39:11 ↗ threshold could be lower 45 000 could be

39:14 ↗ slightly lower

39:16 ↗ i certainly thought about that yeah so i

39:17 ↗ was curious if that did

39:19 ↗ uh

39:20 ↗ is that because of the direction from

39:23 ↗ the best practices of the administration

39:25 ↗ or is that direction of counsel i mean

39:26 ↗ there was probably some legislative

39:28 ↗ history of why that threshold was chosen

39:30 ↗ so that's already existing in our code

39:33 ↗ so we weren't completely trying to get

39:35 ↗ rid of that threshold either okay yeah

39:38 ↗ um does anyone else want to stick on

39:39 ↗ question one

39:42 ↗ so then i'm gonna move on to question

39:44 ↗ two and um

39:45 ↗ i i feel like i've asked this question

39:47 ↗ before so i should know the answer so

39:48 ↗ you're gonna have to humor me uh when we

39:50 ↗ talk about the capital improvement

39:52 ↗ projects why is the city not held to the

39:54 ↗ same standard

39:56 ↗ city's held to a higher standard because

40:00 ↗ you know the the fact that a project

40:02 ↗ makes it into the capital improvement

40:05 ↗ project list

40:07 ↗ has to go through a whole robust

40:09 ↗ public outreach i mean this year there

40:11 ↗ was a whole all the boards and

40:12 ↗ commissions got to weigh in what you

40:14 ↗ make it what should make it so so the

40:16 ↗ city is committed to getting those

40:17 ↗ feedback the issue happens with the

40:19 ↗ public projects is there's a lowest bid

40:22 ↗ award i mean it has all these other

40:25 ↗ scrutinies that happen so

40:27 ↗ you've gone through a public outreach

40:29 ↗ process you've taken the public input on

40:31 ↗ what the design of the spark should look

40:33 ↗ like

40:35 ↗ at that time

40:36 ↗ the permitting and compliance with the

40:39 ↗ city's code you know the design should

40:41 ↗ already

40:42 ↗ meet cities code

40:44 ↗ it shouldn't be at the tail end that

40:47 ↗ you're you're having to you you would

40:49 ↗ still get a permit where the state law

40:51 ↗ and impact to critical area and all of

40:52 ↗ those things would be evaluated but

40:54 ↗ that's not the time to talk about what

40:56 ↗ should the design

40:57 ↗ you know what's the site development

40:59 ↗ permit

41:00 ↗ what is this access okay and is this

41:03 ↗ design of this

41:04 ↗ building on this parkland okay

41:07 ↗ those things have already occurred

41:09 ↗ through public outreach and input so

41:12 ↗ it's it's a higher standard um they've

41:14 ↗ got a lower standard i agree they've

41:16 ↗ already occurred but what i'm reading it

41:18 ↗ is then what would be the harm in

41:19 ↗ continuing to have the same level of

41:22 ↗ when we need to have a public meeting

41:24 ↗ the way that things are consolidated in

41:25 ↗ theory then it should be smooth but

41:27 ↗ we've seen historically that there has

41:28 ↗ been issues with capital improvement

41:30 ↗ projects even though

41:32 ↗ it already has gotten all that feedback

41:35 ↗ so what i'm wondering is why we haven't

41:36 ↗ built in kind of a safety valve to say

41:38 ↗ we want to ensure by having this be the

41:40 ↗ same process the same way that we're

41:42 ↗ consolidating permits we still want to

41:43 ↗ go through and have that same level of

41:45 ↗ scrutiny it should be much smoother

41:47 ↗ because we've had all these other things

41:48 ↗ in place

41:49 ↗ why why wouldn't we have that as well i

41:52 ↗ think that there's a couple of reasons

41:54 ↗ why i mean what's the what's the outcome

41:56 ↗ or the added value of that process right

41:59 ↗ it's communities money

42:01 ↗ that is being spent on redundant process

42:03 ↗ the process has already occurred in the

42:05 ↗ beginning so

42:07 ↗ um

42:08 ↗ and and just to have that unknown

42:11 ↗ with because it has to go through a

42:13 ↗ whole bidding process and the bid

42:15 ↗ documents and the lowest bid and then it

42:17 ↗ it becomes time crunch and suddenly the

42:20 ↗ city can put in 50 conditions on five

42:22 ↗ different permits and then

42:24 ↗ the way the contractors would charge the

42:26 ↗ city would be any change order from one

42:28 ↗ of those things so it doesn't work

42:30 ↗ effectively

42:31 ↗ to to divvy up public projects in in

42:34 ↗ that fashion for on the permitting side

42:36 ↗ because of all that work that has

42:37 ↗ occurred up front

42:39 ↗ okay thank you

42:45 ↗ any more questions for minnie

42:49 ↗ all right well thank you minnie

42:52 ↗ so that

42:54 ↗ is it for our presentations and that is

42:55 ↗ it for the commissioners clarifying

42:57 ↗ questions

42:59 ↗ i'd like to open the public hearing

43:01 ↗ tonight at 7 18.

43:05 ↗ a small text 7 18 p.m

43:08 ↗ has anyone presented signed up to speak

43:11 ↗ and

43:13 ↗ in person and if so please come to the

43:15 ↗ podium and state your name before making

43:17 ↗ your comments

43:19 ↗ we do ask that you keep your comments

43:20 ↗ limited to five minutes or less

43:23 ↗ anyone here to speak

43:28 ↗ we appear to have three memorandums

43:48 ↗ uh we just had it about five minutes ago

43:52 ↗ yeah it was rolled into mini or i'm

43:54 ↗ sorry was it valerie's

43:56 ↗ minis

44:00 ↗ correct

44:04 ↗ and chair uh we have

44:06 ↗ six people who've provided notice that

44:09 ↗ they would like to make comments at the

44:10 ↗ hearing a few in the room and then we've

44:12 ↗ had a few people queue up virtually so

44:14 ↗ i'd like to propose that we go through

44:16 ↗ those who've indicated a desire to speak

44:18 ↗ and then open it up both in the room and

44:20 ↗ virtually

44:21 ↗ that works for you okay

44:23 ↗ so the first person who signed up is a

44:25 ↗ virtual attendee karen eastby

44:28 ↗ karen in just a moment here i will make

44:31 ↗ you a

44:32 ↗ panelist so you should see the option to

44:35 ↗ unmute and can choose to turn your video

44:37 ↗ on

44:48 ↗ okay

44:49 ↗ i'm trying to start my video

44:52 ↗ um let's see

44:55 ↗ okay

44:58 ↗ [Music]

45:00 ↗ okay

45:04 ↗ it's not working let's see

45:08 ↗ okay great

45:09 ↗ can you see me

45:12 ↗ yes

45:13 ↗ okay great um so as you said my name is

45:16 ↗ karen eastby and i'm here on behalf of

45:18 ↗ the master builders association of king

45:20 ↗ and snohemish counties we are the

45:22 ↗ largest home builders association in the

45:24 ↗ united states with about 2 600 members

45:27 ↗ thank you very much for the opportunity

45:28 ↗ to provide comment on the proposed title

45:30 ↗ 18 updates and my comments tonight

45:33 ↗ relate to the vesting options being

45:34 ↗ considered with the title 18 update

45:37 ↗ uh so homebuilders depend on vested

45:39 ↗ rights to successfully plan new

45:40 ↗ communities on time and within budget

45:42 ↗ which are two factors critical

45:45 ↗ to housing affordability and the

45:46 ↗ availability of homes in our area

45:50 ↗ this is vitally important because at the

45:51 ↗ moment the puget sound region is facing

45:53 ↗ a housing crisis as we all know

45:55 ↗ according to the puget sound regional

45:57 ↗ council estimates over the next 30 years

45:59 ↗ we need to add about 1.8 million people

46:02 ↗ and according to estimates from the

46:03 ↗ national organization up for growth we

46:06 ↗ are already over 200 000 homes behind

46:09 ↗ our anticipated growth

46:11 ↗ the housing shortage drives up the cost

46:12 ↗ of home ownership and for each 1 000

46:15 ↗ added to the cost of a newly built home

46:17 ↗ in the state of washington approximately

46:20 ↗ 2 200 families are priced out of the

46:22 ↗ opportunity to own a home

46:24 ↗ in issaquah both zillow and redfin

46:26 ↗ estimates uh showed that the average

46:29 ↗ cost of a home is over a million dollars

46:31 ↗ so builders take on risk when they

46:33 ↗ choose project investing provides

46:35 ↗ certainty and predictability for all

46:37 ↗ parties that development rules won't

46:39 ↗ change which could otherwise jeopardize

46:41 ↗ a project after initiation

46:43 ↗ investing is crucial to ensuring

46:44 ↗ stability and fairness and development

46:46 ↗ process and all these things can

46:48 ↗ contribute to a lower final cost of

46:51 ↗ homes

46:52 ↗ so that said so we don't the master

46:54 ↗ builders association doesn't support

46:55 ↗ recommending option one as it's

46:57 ↗ currently proposed and that's the one

46:59 ↗ that allows for vesting only as

47:01 ↗ explicitly provided in state law and

47:02 ↗ specified in active development

47:04 ↗ agreements

47:05 ↗ because we think it will make it more

47:07 ↗ difficult to best projects going forward

47:09 ↗ we do have our support option two which

47:11 ↗ allows vesting at the time a completed

47:13 ↗ application

47:15 ↗ is submitted and also allows vesting

47:17 ↗ with the other various land use

47:18 ↗ applications

47:20 ↗ providing builders with the reasonable

47:21 ↗ ability to best projects going forward

47:23 ↗ as provided in option two gives them

47:25 ↗ certainty that they can finish their

47:27 ↗ current projects and confirmation

47:30 ↗ and predictability the confirmation that

47:32 ↗ they can like predictably plan

47:34 ↗ and build in a sequel in the future

47:35 ↗ which is important as well because you

47:36 ↗ don't want to put people off the

47:38 ↗ building

47:39 ↗ if they're not sure that they can invest

47:42 ↗ for future projects

47:44 ↗ however we would request that if this is

47:46 ↗ the route that you do choose to go that

47:47 ↗ you consider recommending also a delay

47:50 ↗ to the effective date of the title 18

47:51 ↗ update due to the significant covet

47:54 ↗ related delays that many have faced over

47:56 ↗ the past two or three years and i think

47:58 ↗ that was sort of part of option three

48:00 ↗ but but we would like the bulk of option

48:03 ↗ two just

48:04 ↗ also with a bit more time to get those

48:06 ↗ applications and before these title 18

48:09 ↗ updates come into effect

48:11 ↗ um the other thing i'll just see quickly

48:13 ↗ is we just give given how

48:16 ↗ the impact that this could have

48:17 ↗ uh on issaquah's growth going forward it

48:20 ↗ might be a good idea to take more

48:21 ↗ community consultation investing options

48:23 ↗ before making a recommendation

48:25 ↗ it's been limited and it obviously

48:27 ↗ includes the public hearing tonight but

48:29 ↗ it would serve the city to ensure that

48:30 ↗ the breadth of viewpoints are heard on

48:32 ↗ this issue

48:33 ↗ so um i'll just i'll just say that and

48:36 ↗ uh regardless uh we would encourage

48:38 ↗ isabel to ensure that there's sufficient

48:39 ↗ flexibility the best projects going

48:41 ↗ forward no matter which option you

48:42 ↗ choose um

48:44 ↗ doing so allows builders who want to

48:45 ↗ plan projects and it's quite to do

48:47 ↗ similar contents i've also submitted

48:49 ↗ more detailed written comments which i

48:51 ↗ encourage you to consider thank you all

48:52 ↗ very much for your time and your

48:54 ↗ consideration of our position thanks

49:00 ↗ the next person who signed up to make

49:02 ↗ comments is in the room hossein karam

49:13 ↗ well hello

49:14 ↗ cheer voice

49:16 ↗ fellow commissioners

49:18 ↗ love the staff

49:19 ↗ my name is hussein koram i'm a developer

49:22 ↗ in uh that doing a project in issaquah

49:26 ↗ and

49:26 ↗ i'm here

49:28 ↗ to thank you for the opportunity to talk

49:30 ↗ before you about the issue of vesting

49:32 ↗ i'm very grateful to the staff to have

49:34 ↗ worked with me for so long

49:36 ↗ it's been almost three years or a little

49:38 ↗ over three years and

49:40 ↗ i i just want to vote for and encourage

49:43 ↗ you to

49:45 ↗ consider option three

49:46 ↗ i think uh all projects who have been

49:49 ↗ like mine in this site development

49:51 ↗ permit for the last three years and by

49:54 ↗ the way issachol is a difficult

49:55 ↗ municipality it's a lot of challenges

49:58 ↗ our slopes and you know

50:01 ↗ wetlands and

50:03 ↗ you know streams that beauty but also

50:05 ↗ create challenges for us developers too

50:07 ↗ it does take longer and it takes things

50:09 ↗ more complicated well guess what combine

50:12 ↗ that with issue of covet

50:15 ↗ we are still in a state of emergency in

50:17 ↗ washington state

50:19 ↗ we're talking about close to three years

50:22 ↗ 1.8 people 1.8 million people have

50:26 ↗ gotten kobe in our state and i'm sad to

50:28 ↗ say

50:29 ↗ uh about 14 000 people have died

50:33 ↗ there was a point in time that i in the

50:35 ↗ last two years i was going through my

50:36 ↗ permitting i just didn't know if i'm

50:38 ↗ going to be around next week or next

50:39 ↗ month or

50:41 ↗ what would happen to my parents so

50:43 ↗ the problem wasn't that big of a deal i

50:45 ↗ mean it was but it wasn't because we

50:47 ↗ were so worried about life so we have

50:49 ↗ been to some very difficult times

50:53 ↗ and i cannot think of one thing one

50:55 ↗ thing in our economy that does not take

50:58 ↗ longer or cost more because of covet it

51:01 ↗ has really affected our lives and i'd

51:02 ↗ like you to consider that

51:04 ↗ for all projects who have been

51:07 ↗ in the site development permit instead

51:10 ↗ of issaquah to grant them a

51:13 ↗ six months extension to june 30th to be

51:15 ↗ able to turn in their building permit

51:18 ↗ actually the city of seattle so you know

51:21 ↗ city of seattle did that they extended

51:24 ↗ for the

51:26 ↗ ibc which is international uh

51:29 ↗ international building code

51:31 ↗ every three years

51:33 ↗ the international building court ibc is

51:35 ↗ updated and it's up updated with

51:37 ↗ advanced notice they do release

51:40 ↗ information that these are the quotes

51:42 ↗ that's kind of the bible of construction

51:44 ↗ and

51:45 ↗ and design and for city of seattle to

51:48 ↗ come and delay ibc which is the rule of

51:51 ↗ the land in construction for six months

51:53 ↗ because of covet it means a lot

51:56 ↗ means it has really affected every life

51:59 ↗ every aspect

52:01 ↗ of our construction and design industry

52:06 ↗ you know and the way i found about the

52:08 ↗ the code change uh

52:10 ↗ i i really wouldn't be here honestly if

52:12 ↗ i'd been known 20 months ago when this

52:14 ↗ process started that there may be issue

52:17 ↗ of uh investing uh i would hurry up i

52:20 ↗ would do what i could like i'm doing

52:22 ↗ right now and other developers i'm sure

52:24 ↗ would do the same thing too

52:26 ↗ i got an email late may and i'm lucky i

52:29 ↗ didn't go through my junk mail i you

52:32 ↗ know i and i i caught it it took me

52:35 ↗ almost a week to figure out what this

52:36 ↗ really means so i i really think we owe

52:39 ↗ it to our developers

52:41 ↗ to have gone through so much to have

52:43 ↗ invested

52:44 ↗ hundreds of thousands and millions of

52:46 ↗ their uh of their hard-earned cash

52:49 ↗ enough their lives to give them a little

52:51 ↗ more uh respect and give them a little

52:53 ↗ bit of time to get out of this thing now

52:55 ↗ i do think most of them probably will

52:58 ↗ but you just never know a heart attack

53:01 ↗ an accident something could really

53:03 ↗ happen at the last minute to their

53:06 ↗ consultants to the staff here uh to

53:09 ↗ we could have another pandemic a war

53:12 ↗ something could break out and really

53:14 ↗ could screw things up for anyone

53:16 ↗ unexpectedly so i think it's the right

53:18 ↗ thing to do the humane thing to do would

53:20 ↗ be consider these challenges for us

53:23 ↗ we're the people too we're not any

53:24 ↗ different

53:26 ↗ we provide housing i provide housing and

53:28 ↗ provide

53:29 ↗ a service to the community

53:31 ↗ and i think we should be

53:33 ↗ called a partner of the city in that

53:36 ↗ respect you know and by the way the rcw

53:38 ↗ 36.70

53:41 ↗ [Music]

53:42 ↗ oto talks about furnace and

53:45 ↗ unpredictability and

53:47 ↗ land use

53:48 ↗ codes or laws in the cities and i think

53:52 ↗ those are very important words

53:53 ↗ predictability and fairness

53:56 ↗ and i'm sure that the city of issaquah

53:59 ↗ lovely commissioners lovely staff they

54:01 ↗ would consider those things

54:04 ↗ we're a small community here and i think

54:07 ↗ we don't want to create difference

54:08 ↗ between us if there's a hardship

54:10 ↗ hardship is for anyone

54:12 ↗ and at the day's end

54:14 ↗ if somebody lost vesting

54:16 ↗ i don't think anybody will probably

54:18 ↗ nobody will but if somebody did lost

54:19 ↗ fasting and lost

54:21 ↗ years of their life and millions of

54:23 ↗ dollars sir

54:25 ↗ you've reached your five minutes i'm

54:26 ↗ sorry who would benefit urge you to vote

54:29 ↗ consider it for a six month extension

54:31 ↗ for a site development permit to june

54:33 ↗ 30th thank you

54:38 ↗ the next person signed up is also in the

54:40 ↗ room mike nightcrim

54:47 ↗ yeah hello my name is mike nekrum and

54:49 ↗ i'm from bellevue washington

54:51 ↗ i come to you

54:53 ↗ a multi-generational family my

54:55 ↗ great-grandfather was able to homestead

54:57 ↗ gig harbor after serving a few years

54:59 ↗ under ulysses grant funding civil war

55:01 ↗ and freeing americans

55:04 ↗ so they could have equal liberty as all

55:06 ↗ the other americans do my grandfather

55:08 ↗ developed mostly original university

55:10 ↗ district and i with my degree in

55:12 ↗ construction management nearly 70s

55:14 ↗ university of washington architecture i

55:16 ↗ built homes all across the east side

55:18 ↗ first home in the city of mercer island

55:21 ↗ i had six inspections pulled a permit in

55:23 ↗ the city of bellevue here a few years

55:25 ↗ ago those six inspections have now grown

55:27 ↗ to 46 inspections i built 50 homes up in

55:31 ↗ talus had a great time i moved a lot of

55:33 ↗ great families into that neighborhood

55:36 ↗ we have to have option three

55:40 ↗ to move forward

55:42 ↗ fortunately i had the opportunity to be

55:43 ↗ appointed to the city of kirkland's

55:45 ↗ growth management commission i

55:46 ↗ co-authored the city's cop plan in 1995

55:50 ↗ and we called it our 2020 plan that came

55:52 ↗ and left a couple years ago and if you

55:54 ↗ want to see

55:55 ↗ what we were trying to create in 1995

55:57 ↗ going downtown kirkland we we hit up

56:00 ↗ pretty well

56:01 ↗ when we build a home nowadays

56:03 ↗ we have to prepare plans so unlike that

56:06 ↗ home i did on mercer island i have to

56:08 ↗ have a licensed architect licensed

56:10 ↗ structural engineer licensed civil

56:11 ↗ engineer

56:12 ↗ a licensed surveyor

56:15 ↗ licensed geotech and a licensed

56:17 ↗ landscape architect it takes a long time

56:20 ↗ to develop that process when you change

56:23 ↗ regulations then we have to reset that

56:26 ↗ whole process back into motion

56:28 ↗ it is really difficult to build homes in

56:30 ↗ this area i sit on the national board of

56:33 ↗ directors and national association of

56:34 ↗ home builders i am seattle's

56:36 ↗ representative that

56:37 ↗ we sit around in florence three times a

56:40 ↗ year the other builders across the

56:41 ↗ nation cannot believe what i tell them

56:44 ↗ we deal with here in the state of

56:45 ↗ washington don't make it worse all right

56:48 ↗ we've got the growth management act i

56:50 ↗ support it i help co-author a comp plan

56:53 ↗ to it

56:54 ↗ staff's position on the option one is

56:56 ↗ out of compliance with gma so gm8

57:00 ↗ was consolidated to 13 goals

57:02 ↗ no one goal was more important than

57:04 ↗ another goal they were equal

57:07 ↗ two of the goals

57:08 ↗ specifically read to

57:10 ↗ property rights the property rights

57:11 ↗ landowner shall be protected from

57:13 ↗ arbitrary and discriminatory actions

57:16 ↗ when you change regulations

57:18 ↗ after a presentation and application

57:20 ↗ been made that becomes arbitrary

57:23 ↗ goal number seven

57:25 ↗ permits states right here state law

57:28 ↗ applicants for both state and local

57:30 ↗ government which would be the city of

57:31 ↗ this call here

57:32 ↗ should be processed in a timely and fair

57:34 ↗ manner to ensure predictability

57:37 ↗ we're simply asking for predictability

57:40 ↗ six months even in that case really

57:42 ↗ isn't long enough jose and i think did a

57:44 ↗ pretty good job of presenting just just

57:46 ↗ some of the few pitfalls that we've had

57:48 ↗ to face over the past few years

57:51 ↗ so

57:52 ↗ folks it's really hard to build a home

57:54 ↗ i raised the fifth generation uh here in

57:57 ↗ the state

57:58 ↗ and uh

57:59 ↗ i'm having a pretty hard time finding a

58:01 ↗ home for one of my daughters here let's

58:03 ↗ not make it worse let's follow state law

58:05 ↗ let's go with option three do the best

58:07 ↗ we can i'm gonna uh submit this document

58:10 ↗ as staff i want it uh uh entered in the

58:12 ↗ record uh the planning goals and as

58:16 ↗ highlighted of the growth management act

58:18 ↗ hey thanks for listening and i

58:19 ↗ appreciate your time i was there i spent

58:21 ↗ four years with the city of kirkland's

58:23 ↗ planning commission i

58:24 ↗ enlisted our meetings putting together a

58:26 ↗ comp plan but pretty proud of what we

58:28 ↗ were able to accomplish and been fun to

58:30 ↗ be part of the isquall

58:32 ↗ build out that you all are seeing today

58:34 ↗ thanks

58:40 ↗ the next speaker is a virtual attendee

58:42 ↗ beth duran chang beth in just a moment

58:45 ↗ here i'll move you up

58:47 ↗ oh goodness

58:48 ↗ looks like beth has dropped off

58:53 ↗ all right so the next person who signed

58:55 ↗ up is also a virtual attendee kyler

58:57 ↗ danielson kyler i will make you a

58:59 ↗ panelist now you should see an option to

59:01 ↗ unmute and can choose to turn your video

59:03 ↗ on

59:12 ↗ okay

59:14 ↗ hi

59:15 ↗ thank you for the opportunity to comment

59:17 ↗ today my name is kyler danielson and i'm

59:19 ↗ a land chiefs project manager for

59:20 ↗ lakeside industries

59:22 ↗ numerous pages of the agenda packet

59:25 ↗ include definitions but i didn't hear

59:27 ↗ much in the staff presentation or

59:29 ↗ commission questions about those and

59:31 ↗ upon our review of the proposed changes

59:33 ↗ to the definitions in comparison to the

59:36 ↗ previous code we discovered that there

59:38 ↗ are

59:39 ↗ over a hundred significant changes

59:41 ↗ additions or deletions of definitions

59:44 ↗ that were not clearly identified in the

59:46 ↗ draft code document

59:48 ↗ the result is that the planning policy

59:50 ↗ commission the city council and the

59:52 ↗ general public cannot conduct a

59:54 ↗ meaningful review of the collective

59:56 ↗ proposed changes to the code many of the

59:59 ↗ definition changes alter the impact of

1:00:01 ↗ related substantive provisions but we

1:00:03 ↗ don't really

1:00:05 ↗ have the ability to see them at the same

1:00:07 ↗ time

1:00:09 ↗ we therefore request staff to provide a

1:00:11 ↗ more comprehensive document that denotes

1:00:14 ↗ all the changes to the definitions and

1:00:17 ↗ summarizes the potential impacts to the

1:00:19 ↗ related substantive provisions this

1:00:21 ↗ would allow the planning policy

1:00:22 ↗ commissions the city council and the

1:00:24 ↗ public to have a more to more fully

1:00:27 ↗ understand the collective and the actual

1:00:30 ↗ impact of those changes

1:00:32 ↗ finally the changes proposed today um

1:00:34 ↗ besides the definitions are expansive

1:00:36 ↗ and cover many different issues

1:00:38 ↗ properties and proposals and i

1:00:40 ↗ echo connie's comments from earlier that

1:00:43 ↗ the substance of this meeting is hefty

1:00:45 ↗ and requires more than one meeting for

1:00:47 ↗ the planning policy commission and the

1:00:49 ↗ general public to fully digest this

1:00:51 ↗ content and its impacts on the city

1:00:53 ↗ development future

1:00:55 ↗ so thanks for the opportunity and

1:00:57 ↗ thanks for your time

1:01:06 ↗ the next speaker is also a virtual

1:01:08 ↗ attendee susie burke

1:01:12 ↗ susie i'm making you a panelist now you

1:01:14 ↗ should see the option to unmute and can

1:01:17 ↗ choose to turn your video on

1:01:23 ↗ hi there i'm susie burke fremont dock

1:01:26 ↗ company i just want to echo what several

1:01:29 ↗ you've had some very good input here

1:01:31 ↗ tonight

1:01:32 ↗ um it's really important that people

1:01:34 ↗ have time to digest any changes that are

1:01:38 ↗ serious changes to vesting to the

1:01:41 ↗ application process

1:01:43 ↗ but before that you folks really do have

1:01:47 ↗ a hefty load

1:01:49 ↗ and i just i can't

1:01:51 ↗ back up further i mean the idea of the

1:01:54 ↗ definitions and

1:01:56 ↗ reading this packet is is a big long

1:01:58 ↗ process and i give it to you with uh i'm

1:02:02 ↗ glad you're there to do it but my input

1:02:05 ↗ is

1:02:07 ↗ even after you agree on absolutely

1:02:09 ↗ everything and you understand absolutely

1:02:12 ↗ everything the citizens need to be able

1:02:15 ↗ to know and understand too there are

1:02:18 ↗ property owners that are not necessarily

1:02:21 ↗ developers every day of their lives and

1:02:23 ↗ this is the one time that they need to

1:02:26 ↗ be able to know

1:02:27 ↗ and to know what they can do with

1:02:29 ↗ property they already own it is

1:02:32 ↗ extremely important what you're dealing

1:02:34 ↗ with and i thank you for giving it the

1:02:36 ↗ time

1:02:37 ↗ and

1:02:38 ↗ thank you for letting me have a moment

1:02:40 ↗ to speak

1:02:44 ↗ the next speaker is also a virtual

1:02:46 ↗ attendee susan neville

1:02:48 ↗ susan in just a moment here i will make

1:02:50 ↗ you a panelist

1:02:54 ↗ hello

1:02:57 ↗ we can hear you

1:02:58 ↗ oh good

1:03:00 ↗ okay

1:03:02 ↗ hi everybody

1:03:04 ↗ good to be here

1:03:05 ↗ um

1:03:07 ↗ my name is susan deville i'm a long time

1:03:09 ↗ isa club resident

1:03:11 ↗ and i really do hope i speak for the 37

1:03:13 ↗ 000 residents in issaquah

1:03:17 ↗ i would really like to go back to

1:03:20 ↗ consolidating

1:03:22 ↗ meetings

1:03:23 ↗ and i know that's what we started with

1:03:25 ↗ today

1:03:27 ↗ i never had an idea that we would lose

1:03:29 ↗ meetings rather than improve on them

1:03:32 ↗ and

1:03:34 ↗ when i saw that we were possibly

1:03:37 ↗ definitely losing one to two and i don't

1:03:39 ↗ know what the new review process

1:03:42 ↗ is going to

1:03:43 ↗ also

1:03:44 ↗ have the implications on how many

1:03:47 ↗ meetings will be cancelled when those go

1:03:49 ↗ into effect so i'm really unclear so i'm

1:03:52 ↗ not walking away feeling like i've

1:03:53 ↗ gotten any

1:03:55 ↗ benefit from this change and i'm not

1:03:57 ↗ sure

1:03:58 ↗ who

1:04:00 ↗ this is benefiting so

1:04:02 ↗ i think that needs to be a little bit

1:04:04 ↗ more clear

1:04:05 ↗ i totally agree with susie burke who

1:04:08 ↗ just spoke

1:04:09 ↗ thank you so much um it's been a very

1:04:12 ↗ tough

1:04:13 ↗ go

1:04:14 ↗ through going through all this is just

1:04:16 ↗ a really long process and there's a lot

1:04:18 ↗ to digest

1:04:20 ↗ so i really appreciate her talking

1:04:22 ↗ and then lastly i think

1:04:24 ↗ the forty five thousand

1:04:27 ↗ uh

1:04:28 ↗ thousand threshold changes we're looking

1:04:30 ↗ at for review

1:04:32 ↗ if i remember back i know the

1:04:34 ↗ developmental commission

1:04:36 ↗ had said they were having a problem with

1:04:38 ↗ this and i really respect their judgment

1:04:41 ↗ and i think that's what was what came

1:04:43 ↗ down last time so i'm just going to

1:04:45 ↗ leave it with that thank you everyone

1:04:47 ↗ and have a good night

1:04:54 ↗ we have one more person who's signed up

1:04:57 ↗ uh

1:04:58 ↗ to make comments

1:05:00 ↗ uh it's a virtual attendee connie marsh

1:05:02 ↗ connie

1:05:04 ↗ i have made you a panelist

1:05:08 ↗ did you like it

1:05:10 ↗ yeah

1:05:11 ↗ okay so

1:05:14 ↗ because i only have five minutes i'm

1:05:16 ↗ going to go fast again

1:05:19 ↗ the summary print presentation provided

1:05:21 ↗ by staff doesn't actually reflect the

1:05:24 ↗ words in their draft code and that

1:05:27 ↗ concerns me because i don't know what

1:05:29 ↗ we're going to get in the end and

1:05:31 ↗ without substantive review where we can

1:05:33 ↗ actually spend time going through that

1:05:36 ↗ um

1:05:37 ↗ i agree with kyler we don't have enough

1:05:38 ↗ time

1:05:39 ↗ and i i basically agree with everything

1:05:43 ↗ she said so we're gonna plus one there

1:05:46 ↗ uh

1:05:47 ↗ along with susan

1:05:49 ↗ the

1:05:50 ↗ consolidation of the community meetings

1:05:53 ↗ is unclear especially when in the table

1:05:56 ↗ presented in the draft code it basically

1:05:58 ↗ calls those meetings as optional

1:06:01 ↗ so it sounds like we're consolidating

1:06:03 ↗ meetings but we don't necessarily ever

1:06:05 ↗ have to have any of them

1:06:06 ↗ and uh

1:06:08 ↗ so no big fat no on that

1:06:12 ↗ let's go to administrative adjustment of

1:06:14 ↗ standards now this is a change in

1:06:18 ↗ uh

1:06:19 ↗ expectation from what we were told we

1:06:22 ↗ were sit we were told for a long time

1:06:24 ↗ that we were going to in the end have a

1:06:26 ↗ chapter on deviations so that we were

1:06:29 ↗ not going to have a discussion of

1:06:31 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

1:06:33 ↗ or deviations per chapter

1:06:35 ↗ so that we'd we could actually

1:06:37 ↗ understand what those might look like

1:06:40 ↗ and yet here we are at the end

1:06:43 ↗ talking about administrative adjustment

1:06:46 ↗ of standards per chapter without the

1:06:49 ↗ benefit of doing them

1:06:51 ↗ per chapter so i resist that

1:06:54 ↗ one thing that looks

1:06:56 ↗ okay is it looks like critical areas are

1:07:00 ↗ not going to be able to be deviateable

1:07:03 ↗ but then there is one little

1:07:07 ↗ beautiful word in that whole

1:07:10 ↗ adjustment section which is feasible

1:07:13 ↗ things will be mitigated to the maximum

1:07:16 ↗ extent feasible we do not have a

1:07:18 ↗ definition of feasible and remember when

1:07:21 ↗ we had that whole reasonable use sort of

1:07:24 ↗ conversation

1:07:25 ↗ um i think that's what it was

1:07:28 ↗ it must be super clear because staff not

1:07:31 ↗ just the department head is going to be

1:07:33 ↗ able to be making these changes and we

1:07:36 ↗ have had a very hard time

1:07:38 ↗ creating criteria narrow and solid

1:07:41 ↗ enough to actually get the development

1:07:44 ↗ that we want using administrative

1:07:47 ↗ adjustment of standards and it is

1:07:49 ↗ unclear as to what the public peak into

1:07:52 ↗ these adjustment of standards will be

1:07:54 ↗ the notification progress process etc

1:07:58 ↗ so moving on to notifications

1:08:01 ↗ uh

1:08:02 ↗ there's nothing talking about the active

1:08:04 ↗ projects list or

1:08:06 ↗ how there could be better ways to

1:08:09 ↗ actually notify the public for example

1:08:12 ↗ today we're just getting the master

1:08:14 ↗ builders association to these meetings

1:08:17 ↗ it seems to me

1:08:19 ↗ there are a lot more people with a lot

1:08:21 ↗ more land who would have been coming to

1:08:23 ↗ these meetings all the time so how come

1:08:25 ↗ they didn't know what would be a

1:08:27 ↗ successful notification program process

1:08:30 ↗ that seems to me to be a whole meeting

1:08:32 ↗ but we're doing everything all in one

1:08:34 ↗ meeting all together at the end

1:08:37 ↗ so now the review for thresholds that

1:08:39 ↗ forty five thousand square feet came

1:08:41 ↗ specifically with the central issaquah

1:08:44 ↗ plan

1:08:45 ↗ and it was only allowed

1:08:47 ↗ uh because then we required a

1:08:51 ↗ significant website presence where

1:08:54 ↗ people could see what all of the

1:08:55 ↗ development would be in the specific

1:08:58 ↗ central issaquah area what this is

1:09:00 ↗ potentially doing is taking that forty

1:09:03 ↗ five thousand square feet and making

1:09:05 ↗ that the way it is all over all of

1:09:08 ↗ issaquah

1:09:09 ↗ and well those streets

1:09:12 ↗ and the streets we chose to

1:09:15 ↗ to

1:09:16 ↗ raise the review level might not be

1:09:19 ↗ perfect

1:09:20 ↗ at least it is something where people

1:09:22 ↗ can see what new development may be

1:09:25 ↗ impacting their lives and their

1:09:28 ↗ businesses and so if you go with the

1:09:30 ↗ straight 45 000 square feet you will not

1:09:33 ↗ have that visibility and the

1:09:36 ↗ notification

1:09:38 ↗ so we um

1:09:40 ↗ even in i think it was urban village

1:09:42 ↗ development commission they had a hard

1:09:44 ↗ time

1:09:45 ↗ not seeing the 3 000 square foot

1:09:48 ↗ projects because they were finding that

1:09:49 ↗ there were issues and problems

1:09:52 ↗ when these narrow tight areas were not

1:09:55 ↗ being sufficiently reviewed so i say

1:09:59 ↗ that has to be

1:10:00 ↗ much much lower

1:10:02 ↗ or you have to create criteria or some

1:10:06 ↗ method to only allow these large places

1:10:10 ↗ to go where there won't be adjacent

1:10:12 ↗ impact now i don't think you're going to

1:10:13 ↗ find that

1:10:15 ↗ um

1:10:16 ↗ now we're going to go to the public now

1:10:19 ↗ it is funny

1:10:20 ↗ [Music]

1:10:21 ↗ you've reached your five minutes

1:10:23 ↗ you know what

1:10:25 ↗ the five minutes

1:10:26 ↗ is

1:10:27 ↗ impossible

1:10:29 ↗ impossible

1:10:30 ↗ with a meeting like this

1:10:37 ↗ chair no one else has signed up to make

1:10:38 ↗ comments

1:10:42 ↗ all right well thank you everybody uh

1:10:45 ↗ one more time is there anyone who'd like

1:10:46 ↗ to make any public comments regarding

1:10:48 ↗ the public hearing

1:10:52 ↗ please

1:10:56 ↗ hey everybody uh my name is doug basler

1:10:58 ↗ i'm not a real estate guy i'm not a

1:11:01 ↗ developer i'm i'm i'm a dad i have

1:11:05 ↗ five kids

1:11:06 ↗ all boys except for the four girls

1:11:09 ↗ and um

1:11:12 ↗ my uh

1:11:14 ↗ i got two of them married i got two of

1:11:16 ↗ my daughters married off i got a couple

1:11:17 ↗ more if anybody's interested um

1:11:20 ↗ but uh they just recently bought a home

1:11:22 ↗ here

1:11:23 ↗ uh in issaquah and um

1:11:26 ↗ they're

1:11:28 ↗ uh

1:11:29 ↗ dinks which is unfortunate for me

1:11:30 ↗ because the grandkids from the other

1:11:32 ↗ daughter like way better but um

1:11:35 ↗ this this house was uh you know a

1:11:37 ↗ million bucks

1:11:38 ↗ and they're both working and it's you

1:11:41 ↗ know at the edge of you know what they

1:11:42 ↗ can afford

1:11:44 ↗ and uh my daughter's like i've spent my

1:11:46 ↗ life savings and you know

1:11:48 ↗ it's back to top ramen and those types

1:11:51 ↗ of things and so just in the interest of

1:11:53 ↗ fairness i'm speaking in favor of option

1:11:56 ↗ three

1:11:57 ↗ to you know we've all been through a lot

1:11:59 ↗ over the last couple of years

1:12:01 ↗ and

1:12:02 ↗ you know these guys that are building

1:12:03 ↗ our houses and

1:12:05 ↗ trying to make our our housing more

1:12:07 ↗ affordable

1:12:08 ↗ i think we can give them six months and

1:12:10 ↗ give them some time to to recover just

1:12:12 ↗ like the rest of us need

1:12:14 ↗ and i just in the interest of fairness

1:12:17 ↗ and i'll just leave you with this quote

1:12:19 ↗ uh h jackson brown said live so that

1:12:23 ↗ when your children think of fairness

1:12:25 ↗ caring and integrity

1:12:27 ↗ they think of you

1:12:29 ↗ thank you

1:12:40 ↗ i was trying i was trying to do the math

1:12:41 ↗ too but uh anyway i want to say thank

1:12:43 ↗ you to everyone who made uh

1:12:45 ↗ public comments tonight

1:12:48 ↗ we have one more

1:12:49 ↗ all right

1:12:54 ↗ hello my name is frank koram i'm

1:12:56 ↗ hussain's partner and brother

1:13:00 ↗ we have been

1:13:02 ↗ living in western washington for 44

1:13:04 ↗ years

1:13:06 ↗ and we have seen this place

1:13:09 ↗ basically exploding population and

1:13:12 ↗ opportunities jobs

1:13:15 ↗ housing and also the prices have

1:13:18 ↗ skyrocketed in the last especially 10 15

1:13:22 ↗ years

1:13:23 ↗ and uh

1:13:24 ↗ i'm definitely

1:13:26 ↗ you know

1:13:28 ↗ because of these main reasons plus they

1:13:31 ↗ the actual fact that we have gone to

1:13:33 ↗ once in a hundred years pandemic

1:13:35 ↗ uh are really

1:13:37 ↗ in support of the option number three

1:13:40 ↗ for extension at least six months

1:13:42 ↗ for the existing projects that are in

1:13:45 ↗ the pipeline

1:13:46 ↗ for this and other projects that we have

1:13:49 ↗ so that's my opinion

1:13:52 ↗ by my decision

1:13:58 ↗ all right well thank you thank you very

1:14:00 ↗ much

1:14:04 ↗ every time i ask somebody else comes up

1:14:06 ↗ so

1:14:07 ↗ well again i want to thank everybody for

1:14:09 ↗ making public comments tonight in

1:14:10 ↗ regards to uh our hearing um if there is

1:14:15 ↗ no further comments

1:14:21 ↗ it are we gonna be uh are you speaking

1:14:24 ↗ on the same

1:14:26 ↗ is it is are you are you again for

1:14:27 ↗ option three let's

1:14:29 ↗ all right so thank you appreciate it

1:14:32 ↗ so we do have a large tally for option

1:14:34 ↗ three um again i wanna thank everybody

1:14:37 ↗ for uh participating tonight

1:14:39 ↗ it's great to hear voices from the

1:14:41 ↗ community from different perspectives

1:14:42 ↗ and we appreciate it

1:14:45 ↗ with that i'd like to close the public

1:14:46 ↗ hearing at

1:14:48 ↗ 7 50 pm

1:14:53 ↗ now it's time for our deliberations

1:14:56 ↗ so i'd like to propose that we go

1:14:58 ↗ through this the way that we heard it

1:15:00 ↗ through presentations

1:15:01 ↗ and

1:15:02 ↗ yeah we'll begin there

1:15:05 ↗ oh i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i'd

1:15:07 ↗ like to propose that we take a brief

1:15:09 ↗ recess before we deliberate i think

1:15:11 ↗ that's a great idea joy thank you

1:15:16 ↗ [Music]

1:20:35 ↗ for

1:20:58 ↗ all right well thank you everyone

1:21:03 ↗ appreciate uh

1:21:05 ↗ that quick five minute rest bit so we

1:21:07 ↗ are back and we are going to begin our

1:21:09 ↗ deliberations over the presentations

1:21:11 ↗ we've just heard

1:21:12 ↗ and we will start with

1:21:15 ↗ your policy questions so staff

1:21:18 ↗ if you could go ahead and please put

1:21:19 ↗ those back up

1:21:21 ↗ to jogger memory

1:21:46 ↗ all right while i'm shuffling through my

1:21:47 ↗ pages does anyone

1:21:49 ↗ want to make a comment about this uh

1:21:50 ↗ particular policy question

1:21:58 ↗ i'm going to uh start off by saying um a

1:22:01 ↗ big thank you to everybody who came and

1:22:02 ↗ spoke with us tonight and everybody who

1:22:04 ↗ emailed comments to us throughout the

1:22:05 ↗ week we do read your emails and your

1:22:06 ↗ comments and they help tremendously and

1:22:08 ↗ so i want to thank everybody for their

1:22:10 ↗ participation in this process

1:22:12 ↗ and to staff who's done a fantastic job

1:22:16 ↗ i myself contacted staff today because i

1:22:18 ↗ was wanting some direction and there was

1:22:21 ↗ an immediate response immediate help and

1:22:23 ↗ i want to say thank you to everybody

1:22:25 ↗ involved because this is a big lift and

1:22:26 ↗ we know that it's a big lift um

1:22:29 ↗ i'm going to now actually address your

1:22:31 ↗ question which is to say that i want to

1:22:34 ↗ start with a thank you

1:22:35 ↗ we as well as many members of the

1:22:38 ↗ community have talked about our desire

1:22:39 ↗ to keep dc involved and this was a

1:22:42 ↗ question that we had along the way and i

1:22:44 ↗ really want to acknowledge staff that

1:22:45 ↗ they heard us and they built that in and

1:22:47 ↗ i really appreciate that

1:22:50 ↗ my next thing is a little bit a little

1:22:53 ↗ more a little less

1:22:54 ↗ appreciative and that is when we refer

1:22:57 ↗ to the table on page 77 of 110 and

1:22:59 ↗ that's

1:23:00 ↗ table 18.204.040-1

1:23:04 ↗ and we start looking at pre-application

1:23:05 ↗ community meeting optional optional

1:23:07 ↗ optional except for preliminary plats as

1:23:09 ↗ required

1:23:11 ↗ when we start seeing pre-decision open

1:23:13 ↗ record public hearing no no

1:23:15 ↗ notice a decision

1:23:17 ↗ no for level one review

1:23:19 ↗ i have huge problems with that i don't

1:23:21 ↗ believe that this is the intent that we

1:23:23 ↗ have asked for as we've been discussing

1:23:24 ↗ how we want to redo title 18. so i think

1:23:27 ↗ it's very applicable when we're looking

1:23:29 ↗ at the level of administrative review to

1:23:32 ↗ say is this correct when we're presented

1:23:35 ↗ with it as is

1:23:37 ↗ so um i currently do not agree

1:23:41 ↗ um with

1:23:42 ↗ everything is presented i love how stuff

1:23:44 ↗ gave us these pros and cons i completely

1:23:46 ↗ agree

1:23:47 ↗ about the consistency issue

1:23:49 ↗ for having

1:23:51 ↗ this visibility street standard

1:23:54 ↗ i agree with staff's recommendation to

1:23:55 ↗ do away with it however i would very

1:23:58 ↗ much like to keep up a higher level of

1:24:00 ↗ review

1:24:01 ↗ i think that it would be applicable to

1:24:04 ↗ talk about how we have a different

1:24:05 ↗ option besides one and two and we talk

1:24:08 ↗ about a hybrid model because at the

1:24:10 ↗ heart of this what we're really trying

1:24:11 ↗ to do is synchronize a lot of code

1:24:14 ↗ throughout the city and be able to have

1:24:16 ↗ a standard

1:24:17 ↗ right now i'm not seeing an option that

1:24:19 ↗ works for us right now

1:24:22 ↗ i'll start off with that

1:24:26 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

1:24:33 ↗ yeah um i want to echo almost i think

1:24:36 ↗ everything um that one said i want to

1:24:38 ↗ extend my thanks as well

1:24:39 ↗ um to the public comment and to those

1:24:41 ↗ who emailed it's really helpful i don't

1:24:43 ↗ have a i'm not a developer and so to

1:24:44 ↗ hear your perspective is really

1:24:47 ↗ valuable and i appreciate it i also

1:24:51 ↗ wondered about kind of some of the the

1:24:53 ↗ no's and the optionals

1:24:55 ↗ on that table

1:24:57 ↗ and why they're why they're there and

1:24:59 ↗ not required

1:25:01 ↗ i also want to kind of revisit my

1:25:04 ↗ comment from before about

1:25:06 ↗ whether that decision to kind of go from

1:25:08 ↗ the three or four meetings to the one

1:25:10 ↗ meeting was based on public feedback and

1:25:12 ↗ just acknowledged that i know we heard a

1:25:13 ↗ little bit of public feedback that

1:25:15 ↗ that's

1:25:16 ↗ not preferred

1:25:18 ↗ and so think that there might be some

1:25:20 ↗ some way to think about that

1:25:22 ↗ and then lastly i want to also echo

1:25:25 ↗ commissioner

1:25:26 ↗ lewis's comments scare me

1:25:29 ↗ um on the

1:25:31 ↗ thresholds and looking at the examples

1:25:33 ↗ here of like thinking about city hall

1:25:36 ↗ and the library like two very prominent

1:25:40 ↗ buildings right

1:25:41 ↗ um not having that more in-depth review

1:25:44 ↗ um you know if they were to be built

1:25:46 ↗ today feels a little

1:25:48 ↗ a little crazy um and so

1:25:50 ↗ i think like an option

1:25:52 ↗ three

1:25:52 ↗ that was kind of mentioned

1:25:54 ↗ where that threshold is lower i don't

1:25:56 ↗ know what that level is because i think

1:25:58 ↗ in theory 15 000 maybe and that's low

1:26:00 ↗ but then again thinking of like the

1:26:01 ↗ prominence of that building

1:26:03 ↗ um you know i would want to see that go

1:26:05 ↗ through a more more in-depth review and

1:26:07 ↗ so i don't know if i have like something

1:26:08 ↗ concrete on you know what the answer to

1:26:10 ↗ that is but

1:26:11 ↗ um in general would support a lower

1:26:14 ↗ threshold and maybe um you know

1:26:16 ↗ something about like impactor or

1:26:18 ↗ prominence um

1:26:20 ↗ as a factor in that

1:26:25 ↗ commissioner

1:26:28 ↗ thank you so plus one to both of you

1:26:29 ↗ brilliant uh ladies thank you and also

1:26:32 ↗ uh but i get to say my own thank you uh

1:26:34 ↗ to the staff and uh and to the public

1:26:38 ↗ and i was i was thinking today how

1:26:40 ↗ cash you know we always come in here

1:26:41 ↗ guns firing you know it's it's like you

1:26:43 ↗ don't hear anything that we agree with

1:26:45 ↗ you about that you've delivered you know

1:26:47 ↗ you deliver hundreds of pages to us and

1:26:49 ↗ then we go straight for those six pages

1:26:51 ↗ that we don't like

1:26:52 ↗ and i want to make sure that you hear

1:26:54 ↗ the omission of the things that we don't

1:26:57 ↗ talk about they're thinking oh yeah

1:26:58 ↗ that's cool okay that's cool a lot of

1:27:00 ↗ good work here and really appreciate it

1:27:02 ↗ and you know we're getting uh closer to

1:27:04 ↗ um

1:27:05 ↗ to

1:27:07 ↗ coming together on these things now i'm

1:27:09 ↗ really glad to start with this uh

1:27:11 ↗ question let me um say though clearly

1:27:15 ↗ the public who came public who showed up

1:27:17 ↗ on screen and those emails are helpful i

1:27:19 ↗ read them too

1:27:21 ↗ so thank you i didn't want that to go

1:27:22 ↗ without so at the 45

1:27:26 ↗ not to repeat anything that these uh two

1:27:29 ↗ commissioners have said because they

1:27:30 ↗ they already said it so well but to

1:27:33 ↗ complement that if we're taking a

1:27:36 ↗ standard from central issaquah which is

1:27:38 ↗ expected to be a denser

1:27:40 ↗ developed area where larger projects

1:27:42 ↗ with larger buildings would be maybe in

1:27:44 ↗ thinking in that context of 45 000 feet

1:27:47 ↗ would square foot would be great but in

1:27:49 ↗ the rest of the city

1:27:51 ↗ so many projects would go without the

1:27:54 ↗ wisdom and review of the development

1:27:56 ↗ commission and looking back over my

1:27:58 ↗ notes this week at the meetings that we

1:28:01 ↗ had with the development commission

1:28:03 ↗ the just high value of that organization

1:28:07 ↗ and the services that they provide

1:28:09 ↗ i would not be in favor of the way that

1:28:12 ↗ this is set up now

1:28:15 ↗ because it's not recognizing the

1:28:17 ↗ difference between central issaquah and

1:28:18 ↗ the rest of the city and i don't think

1:28:20 ↗ it's recognizing the value that the

1:28:21 ↗ development commission brings

1:28:23 ↗ so i am not agree with this i don't have

1:28:26 ↗ a um

1:28:27 ↗ i don't have another idea and

1:28:29 ↗ i think one of the reasons why i don't

1:28:31 ↗ is as commissioner lewis brought up the

1:28:33 ↗ complexity of

1:28:36 ↗ the

1:28:37 ↗ issue of just putting the square footage

1:28:39 ↗ on it and i just brought it up the other

1:28:41 ↗ day people i mean with the

1:28:43 ↗ uh

1:28:45 ↗ director dollywood thank you i was

1:28:47 ↗ trying to see what your title was

1:28:49 ↗ uh and and that

1:28:51 ↗ you could come in with pieces

1:28:54 ↗ and and avoid the threshold i think

1:28:57 ↗ there needs to be just a little bit more

1:28:58 ↗ consideration to fulfill the spirit and

1:29:02 ↗ i think this will be my closing comment

1:29:04 ↗ on this but i might need to say it again

1:29:06 ↗ later if you can't say that we've

1:29:08 ↗ improved public awareness then we

1:29:11 ↗ haven't met the objective of the update

1:29:14 ↗ so that would be the sniff test i don't

1:29:16 ↗ think this does

1:29:17 ↗ i'm not sure what it does but it's

1:29:19 ↗ somewhere around there

1:29:20 ↗ keep keep dialing in on it thank you

1:29:24 ↗ all right well thank you commissioners

1:29:26 ↗ um

1:29:27 ↗ so again fantastic comments from my

1:29:30 ↗ colleagues here

1:29:31 ↗ i think part of the problem is we have a

1:29:33 ↗ collective trauma in the city of what

1:29:35 ↗ happened prior to the moratorium

1:29:37 ↗ everyone is concerned about what may or

1:29:39 ↗ may not happen it is the reason that

1:29:40 ↗ triggered the moratorium in the first

1:29:42 ↗ place

1:29:43 ↗ myself i mean you guys should already

1:29:45 ↗ know my answer when it comes to this i

1:29:47 ↗ like streamline processes i like

1:29:48 ↗ efficiency

1:29:50 ↗ i do see the point that the development

1:29:52 ↗ commission has been a fantastic review

1:29:54 ↗ board um but again i actually like some

1:29:56 ↗ of the efficiency by going down to

1:29:58 ↗ option one i believe option two even

1:30:00 ↗ states uh that it makes it a little bit

1:30:03 ↗ not a little bit makes it more complex

1:30:06 ↗ i think

1:30:08 ↗ issaquah needs to decide whether it

1:30:10 ↗ wants to be a city that has development

1:30:12 ↗ and is open to it or continue to go with

1:30:15 ↗ something that i've said here for a very

1:30:17 ↗ long time continue to have the

1:30:19 ↗ reputation of being hostile

1:30:22 ↗ again i think there's areas where

1:30:24 ↗ i could even agree with fudging the

1:30:26 ↗ numbers because again it does seem

1:30:28 ↗ pretty

1:30:29 ↗ strange that something as large as a

1:30:31 ↗ library largest city hall wouldn't have

1:30:33 ↗ that type of review

1:30:35 ↗ but in terms of being able to have some

1:30:37 ↗ of this done administratively

1:30:39 ↗ i think that is an opportunity missed

1:30:43 ↗ so i am the

1:30:44 ↗ outlier here once again

1:30:51 ↗ uh thank you chair voice uh and i do

1:30:53 ↗ want to agree with you with the

1:30:55 ↗ spirit of while we improve public

1:30:58 ↗ awareness we streamline and make it

1:31:00 ↗ easier for us to get the great projects

1:31:02 ↗ we want

1:31:03 ↗ i'm totally in agreement with you in the

1:31:05 ↗ other thing i missed commenting about is

1:31:07 ↗ the visibility streets i remember

1:31:09 ↗ this coming up and and approving it

1:31:11 ↗ somehow i don't know why i was involved

1:31:13 ↗ in that but um they

1:31:15 ↗ it seemed like a good idea at the time

1:31:16 ↗ now it just seems like it adds

1:31:18 ↗ complexity and doesn't give us value i i

1:31:20 ↗ think every street is a visible street

1:31:22 ↗ every street matters to everybody in

1:31:24 ↗ issaquah to say that these ones are more

1:31:26 ↗ valuable than where these other folks

1:31:28 ↗ live just seems up just doesn't feel

1:31:31 ↗ right to me

1:31:32 ↗ so simplifying for two reasons one for

1:31:35 ↗ the sake of uh making it easier to

1:31:37 ↗ process the good projects that we would

1:31:39 ↗ like to have and number two because it

1:31:41 ↗ seems um unfair to the other streets

1:31:46 ↗ no and i will say the commissioner

1:31:48 ↗ milligan's point who i think made it

1:31:49 ↗ very well um

1:31:51 ↗ i i think again there's a little bit of

1:31:53 ↗ collective trauma here about what

1:31:54 ↗ happened about six or seven years ago i

1:31:56 ↗ am not in favor of ugly buildings if

1:31:58 ↗ anyone i'm probably the guy's more

1:32:00 ↗ worried about aesthetics than the other

1:32:02 ↗ things thankfully i have wonderful

1:32:03 ↗ colleagues wonderful staff wonderful

1:32:05 ↗ other boards and commissions that have

1:32:06 ↗ all these overlays to make sure that our

1:32:08 ↗ enter our buildings are more greener or

1:32:10 ↗ they're more efficient they've got a lot

1:32:12 ↗ of other wonderful things going on so

1:32:14 ↗ again i am the last person again i think

1:32:16 ↗ part of the reason uh some of this wave

1:32:18 ↗ of code and things that happened prior i

1:32:21 ↗ think

1:32:21 ↗ the staff's gonna have to tell me when

1:32:23 ↗ the moratorium ended but i think some of

1:32:25 ↗ this stuff came into effect so hard

1:32:27 ↗ because of it there was so much work

1:32:29 ↗ done during that period and i'm not

1:32:31 ↗ going to single out some of the

1:32:32 ↗ buildings that happened that might have

1:32:34 ↗ triggered it but

1:32:35 ↗ yeah again

1:32:36 ↗ to a point i've always made i'm open to

1:32:39 ↗ have my mind changed and and i think

1:32:41 ↗ commissioner milligan made a few great

1:32:43 ↗ points and yes every street in issaquah

1:32:45 ↗ is a visible street there shouldn't be a

1:32:47 ↗ difference between one or the other

1:32:50 ↗ but i i'm going to be more in favor of

1:32:52 ↗ streamlining processes

1:32:54 ↗ to get us the building and the

1:32:55 ↗ development that we

1:32:57 ↗ so

1:32:58 ↗ you know

1:32:59 ↗ to obviously need

1:33:01 ↗ well i'm ready for a bumper sticker

1:33:03 ↗ every street is visible in asaqua and so

1:33:06 ↗ i think what we do have as a consensus

1:33:08 ↗ to tell you that we agree with

1:33:11 ↗ doing away with some of this right that

1:33:13 ↗ we do want to streamline that is a big

1:33:15 ↗ part of the process of what we're doing

1:33:16 ↗ for them um i don't want to start

1:33:18 ↗ putting out numbers of what i think is

1:33:20 ↗ the appropriate i do appreciate uh

1:33:22 ↗ switching to the idea of you using our

1:33:24 ↗ floor area ratio right using far i so

1:33:27 ↗ there's there's good stuff here but what

1:33:28 ↗ i would encourage staff is to come back

1:33:30 ↗ to us with some more options and tell us

1:33:32 ↗ because right now it does feel

1:33:34 ↗ like a big jump right and it feels like

1:33:36 ↗ it's counterintuitive to the process of

1:33:38 ↗ what we wanted to do was to be putting

1:33:40 ↗ more daylight more accessibility on

1:33:42 ↗ these projects

1:33:47 ↗ that's good feedback so at least there's

1:33:49 ↗ consensus on not prioritizing some

1:33:52 ↗ streets at the cost of other so it

1:33:55 ↗ should be

1:33:56 ↗ uniformly and consistently applied uh

1:33:58 ↗ the scale of the development um will

1:34:02 ↗ will come back with some options i think

1:34:04 ↗ we've had some discussions about a 10

1:34:06 ↗ 000 square foot versus a 20 000 square

1:34:08 ↗ feet for sepa thresholds so we'll we'll

1:34:11 ↗ evaluate whether it makes sense the

1:34:13 ↗ reality of the the existing code now

1:34:17 ↗ is anything on those priority streets or

1:34:19 ↗ gets bumped up to the development

1:34:21 ↗ commission so anything larger than 4 000

1:34:23 ↗ is going to the development commission

1:34:24 ↗ so if we land at something 10 000 or 20

1:34:27 ↗ 000 but we'll lay out the option so you

1:34:30 ↗ you all can see

1:34:31 ↗ the pros and cons and then pick one but

1:34:33 ↗ if you have any feedback for our

1:34:34 ↗ analysis

1:34:36 ↗ you know let us know at any point

1:34:39 ↗ but we'll we'll eliminate the high

1:34:42 ↗ priority street option we'll have some

1:34:45 ↗ different options for the scale of the

1:34:47 ↗ project um that that'll be

1:34:49 ↗ administrative versus public hearing

1:34:51 ↗ sounds good

1:34:56 ↗ does anyone have anything else to add to

1:34:58 ↗ uh policy question one

1:35:03 ↗ all right i think we're ready to move on

1:35:12 ↗ who has policy questions

1:35:15 ↗ yes we're looking for a

1:35:17 ↗ change in the slide

1:35:27 ↗ oh okay there we go

1:35:46 ↗ so i'm going to start by playing devil's

1:35:48 ↗ advocate and say that

1:35:50 ↗ i think that i would be able to be moved

1:35:53 ↗ on this with greater presentation from

1:35:55 ↗ the city so to the points that were made

1:35:57 ↗ uh by members of the co of the public

1:35:59 ↗ that more information needs to be gone

1:36:02 ↗ through on this

1:36:03 ↗ as we sit right now i feel more hesitant

1:36:06 ↗ i will tell you um with the information

1:36:08 ↗ that i've been given i'm more type you

1:36:10 ↗ know towards type a right for repair and

1:36:13 ↗ maintenance

1:36:14 ↗ um and

1:36:15 ↗ i don't know that that is necessarily

1:36:17 ↗ based accurately i think it's just on

1:36:20 ↗ the information that i have which is

1:36:22 ↗ solely what's been given my packet so

1:36:24 ↗ what again i would encourage on this

1:36:26 ↗ particular discussion topic which is

1:36:27 ↗ hard because i know you're coming to us

1:36:28 ↗ saying

1:36:29 ↗ help us move forward and i almost want

1:36:33 ↗ to come back to you with more questions

1:36:34 ↗ of saying what more can you give me to

1:36:37 ↗ help you right does that if that i don't

1:36:39 ↗ know that this is terribly helpful but

1:36:41 ↗ right now

1:36:42 ↗ my opinion of this um of what is

1:36:44 ↗ appropriate is to have

1:36:46 ↗ a same level of scrutiny and to have a

1:36:48 ↗ high level of review i think that um

1:36:50 ↗ when we're doing repair and maintenance

1:36:53 ↗ obviously our state code will dictate it

1:36:55 ↗ but anything prior to that having a

1:36:57 ↗ level one review

1:36:58 ↗ doesn't feel true to the spirit of what

1:37:00 ↗ the community wants

1:37:02 ↗ so i would encourage staff to come back

1:37:04 ↗ to us with

1:37:05 ↗ more examples i appreciate your answers

1:37:07 ↗ to me minnie very much because it helps

1:37:09 ↗ me understand um

1:37:11 ↗ where we want to be good stewards of

1:37:13 ↗ taxpayer money and that was a great

1:37:15 ↗ example of something that i was like why

1:37:16 ↗ are we doing this right so again if our

1:37:19 ↗ chart looked a little bit different and

1:37:21 ↗ we didn't have so many no's so that i

1:37:23 ↗ knew that when there is a level one

1:37:25 ↗ there is still right a pre-application

1:37:28 ↗ community meeting even after we've had

1:37:29 ↗ all these things right i can appreciate

1:37:31 ↗ that we've already had all these

1:37:32 ↗ different places for input but i still

1:37:34 ↗ don't think that should negate the

1:37:36 ↗ opportunity for when we have the permit

1:37:38 ↗ we're beginning it to then have a

1:37:39 ↗ community meeting because in theory it

1:37:40 ↗ should go pretty smoothly right we've

1:37:42 ↗ already done all of our due diligence we

1:37:44 ↗ should be able to have a complete

1:37:46 ↗ alignment to what is code but we've seen

1:37:48 ↗ in the past that doesn't happen so

1:37:50 ↗ when level one review looks like this

1:37:52 ↗ it's hard for me to advocate for that

1:37:54 ↗ does but that doesn't mean that i'm

1:37:56 ↗ sitting here in a position saying i

1:37:57 ↗ absolutely don't think we should do that

1:37:59 ↗ i just think that i need a little bit

1:38:01 ↗ more

1:38:02 ↗ information to be able to feel better

1:38:04 ↗ about it

1:38:08 ↗ uh thanks for this yeah uh plus one on

1:38:11 ↗ maintenance seemed that sounded just

1:38:13 ↗ great when i got into the other two of

1:38:15 ↗ expansion and new projects

1:38:17 ↗ the level of review did not seem

1:38:20 ↗ adequate for a couple reasons one is

1:38:22 ↗ it's not only because it's public money

1:38:24 ↗ but it's a public project and

1:38:27 ↗ to have

1:38:29 ↗ lewis said earlier a lower

1:38:31 ↗ level of scrutiny than you might have

1:38:32 ↗ with a private project the um

1:38:35 ↗ partnership with the people because it

1:38:37 ↗ is the people's

1:38:38 ↗ property

1:38:39 ↗ that we're developing uh i i would think

1:38:42 ↗ that there could be a higher level of

1:38:46 ↗ review

1:38:48 ↗ that would have

1:38:50 ↗ felt more

1:38:52 ↗ adequate to me this just didn't seem

1:38:54 ↗ adequate that that's the level of of

1:38:57 ↗ discomfort that i had at this so

1:38:58 ↗ something something a little more would

1:39:00 ↗ probably get me there

1:39:05 ↗ yeah i want to start because i realized

1:39:07 ↗ not intentionally in my last comments i

1:39:09 ↗ didn't thank staff and so i wanted to

1:39:10 ↗ jump on the

1:39:12 ↗ staff love bandwagon and thank staff as

1:39:14 ↗ well it was not intentional to leave you

1:39:16 ↗ all out of that

1:39:18 ↗ um i appreciate everything um agree with

1:39:21 ↗ the repair and maintenance making sense

1:39:22 ↗ i almost wonder what the

1:39:24 ↗ um expansion um or new projects if

1:39:28 ↗ there's also like a threshold thing

1:39:30 ↗ there like for example if you know

1:39:32 ↗ you're just extending like a sidewalk

1:39:34 ↗ from

1:39:35 ↗ you know there to the end of the curb

1:39:36 ↗ but it's a new sidewalk like does that

1:39:38 ↗ need to be like a whole big thing like

1:39:40 ↗ maybe not but if it's expanding like a

1:39:42 ↗ road by a lane

1:39:43 ↗ um then that you know makes sense to

1:39:46 ↗ have a more in-depth process of review

1:39:48 ↗ and so again i am not very helpful and

1:39:50 ↗ then i don't know what those thresholds

1:39:51 ↗ are um but wonder if that's um kind of

1:39:54 ↗ an approach to find a happy middle

1:39:56 ↗ somewhere in there

1:40:01 ↗ yeah so um you know there's

1:40:04 ↗ you want to think about it in a way of

1:40:06 ↗ what

1:40:07 ↗ what we are trying you know is it the

1:40:08 ↗ public input

1:40:10 ↗ is the issue or is it uh you know

1:40:13 ↗ putting them through a review process in

1:40:14 ↗ itself is is one thing but what are we

1:40:16 ↗ evaluating it against what criteria so

1:40:19 ↗ we have a site development permit with

1:40:21 ↗ the criteria is written for

1:40:23 ↗ you know a private development on a

1:40:25 ↗ private piece of property so

1:40:27 ↗ so what is it that um you know in

1:40:30 ↗ addition to the community input which

1:40:32 ↗ should occur earlier in the design

1:40:34 ↗ process because it's harder to change

1:40:36 ↗ plans when they're fully baked and all

1:40:38 ↗ that kind of stuff so

1:40:40 ↗ so if that's already built into the

1:40:42 ↗ process early on what what's the value

1:40:45 ↗ added but but also what's the criteria

1:40:47 ↗ it should be evaluated against

1:40:50 ↗ um so i think that would be helpful

1:40:52 ↗ information for us because we can create

1:40:54 ↗ the process but the process in itself

1:40:56 ↗ doesn't

1:40:57 ↗ result in any different outcome

1:40:59 ↗ um

1:41:01 ↗ so

1:41:02 ↗ that would be my yeah it's just a kind

1:41:05 ↗ of chime and one of the things that i

1:41:07 ↗ flagged um in the text was that it

1:41:09 ↗ occurs early during the design phase and

1:41:12 ↗ like just thinking of like the

1:41:13 ↗ conversation we're having now right if

1:41:14 ↗ there's option one option two option

1:41:15 ↗ three you might get input on that but

1:41:18 ↗ then there might be like more like or a

1:41:19 ↗ different input once that just like

1:41:21 ↗ choice is then made um so it was just

1:41:23 ↗ that i couldn't tell from here if it's

1:41:25 ↗ just the

1:41:26 ↗ one and done or if there is like a

1:41:28 ↗ subsequent um even before permitting

1:41:30 ↗ kind of opportunity for public comment

1:41:32 ↗ yeah so you know we can we can look at

1:41:34 ↗ that one option i'm thinking out of the

1:41:36 ↗ top of my head here but we'll coordinate

1:41:38 ↗ with our streets uh department and our

1:41:40 ↗ parks department um in terms of how

1:41:44 ↗ you know i think the comfort level of

1:41:46 ↗ what that initial feedback looks like

1:41:48 ↗ perhaps is is important for you all to

1:41:50 ↗ understand i mean they go out to these

1:41:52 ↗ meetings they have open houses they you

1:41:54 ↗ know share what the the plans are so

1:41:57 ↗ what that process looks like from a

1:41:59 ↗ community input

1:42:01 ↗ but one option could be that if if there

1:42:03 ↗ is a parties of record established for

1:42:05 ↗ the folks that engage during that

1:42:08 ↗ process that we keep them apprised as

1:42:10 ↗ the project moves forward so we could

1:42:12 ↗ build in sending a notice of application

1:42:14 ↗ when this whatever level we settle on

1:42:17 ↗ comes in so they know that now this is

1:42:19 ↗ moved on to the permitting stage

1:42:21 ↗ and here it's posted on the active

1:42:23 ↗ project you know we can we can build in

1:42:25 ↗ some sort of um process related to that

1:42:29 ↗ but

1:42:30 ↗ but it would be the consolidated permit

1:42:32 ↗ it would be one permit not a site

1:42:34 ↗ development permit which doesn't quite

1:42:36 ↗ blend in for for this based on what the

1:42:39 ↗ what the criteria is written for

1:42:44 ↗ all right well thank you

1:42:46 ↗ so

1:42:47 ↗ i like stuff too so i'm just going to

1:42:49 ↗ say that out loud

1:42:51 ↗ but yes i agree with number one and i do

1:42:54 ↗ want to say something is i don't feel

1:42:55 ↗ like this was fleshed out enough having

1:42:57 ↗ said that

1:42:59 ↗ i think having the input at the design

1:43:01 ↗ stage is more than enough i do

1:43:05 ↗ that is the and whether we make that

1:43:06 ↗ bigger i don't know that could be a

1:43:08 ↗ question whether we have multiple open

1:43:10 ↗ houses but during the design stage

1:43:12 ↗ before the bids come in

1:43:13 ↗ that's the critical part uh to again to

1:43:16 ↗ have a re and i want to appreciate uh

1:43:18 ↗ say thank you to many for explaining it

1:43:19 ↗ so well because again that's not said

1:43:21 ↗ here those points that you made are so

1:43:24 ↗ pertinent yet they weren't involved in

1:43:26 ↗ our packet so again i think

1:43:28 ↗ again i'm here to be persuaded and

1:43:30 ↗ that's something that

1:43:32 ↗ tugs at my heartstrings because again

1:43:34 ↗ every time there's a change order that

1:43:35 ↗ just pushes out the projects farther and

1:43:38 ↗ farther it costs more money and where

1:43:40 ↗ the city really wants i would imagine

1:43:42 ↗ where the public really wants to be

1:43:44 ↗ involved in is with the design

1:43:46 ↗ so when i look at the new festival

1:43:47 ↗ street

1:43:48 ↗ that they've just put in

1:43:50 ↗ it looks beautiful and i'm sure that

1:43:52 ↗ probably came up over the pandemic when

1:43:54 ↗ they strung up those lights you know

1:43:56 ↗ well let's make this a festival street

1:43:58 ↗ in front street um so again i think the

1:44:00 ↗ critical part for having that type of

1:44:02 ↗ discussion which i do believe is

1:44:04 ↗ completely necessary is during the

1:44:06 ↗ design stage before we start submitting

1:44:08 ↗ bids

1:44:09 ↗ because once we start submitting bids

1:44:11 ↗ and then you have a change and then we

1:44:13 ↗ go through a type of review process

1:44:15 ↗ then this thing becomes exponentially

1:44:17 ↗ exponentially bigger and

1:44:19 ↗ more costly

1:44:21 ↗ and again those are things that

1:44:23 ↗ they seem redundant and unnecessary

1:44:28 ↗ chair you will be happy to know that

1:44:29 ↗ this very commission worked on festival

1:44:31 ↗ streets long before the pandemic and the

1:44:33 ↗ community spent a good chunk of time

1:44:35 ↗ talking about it so you should know that

1:44:37 ↗ there was a great deal of wonderful

1:44:38 ↗ conversation and

1:44:40 ↗ implementing different designs and we

1:44:42 ↗ are very happy to see it beginning to

1:44:44 ↗ unfold before our very eyes for our

1:44:45 ↗ community uh i will say that um

1:44:51 ↗ there is also an issue here that isn't

1:44:54 ↗ just about

1:44:56 ↗ community input on design

1:44:58 ↗ the city has not always been the

1:45:00 ↗ greatest arbiter of being able to

1:45:02 ↗ regulate themselves and there have been

1:45:05 ↗ times when projects have gone through

1:45:06 ↗ that have not adhered to the very code

1:45:08 ↗ that we have

1:45:09 ↗ so expecting us to police ourselves in

1:45:12 ↗ the same way that we always have is a

1:45:14 ↗ little bit of an issue so there needs to

1:45:16 ↗ be a few more built-in ways of saying

1:45:18 ↗ that we will be held to the same

1:45:21 ↗ standard and level of account that

1:45:22 ↗ doesn't mean that we necessarily need to

1:45:24 ↗ send everything to a hearing examiner

1:45:26 ↗ right

1:45:27 ↗ because we do want to be good financial

1:45:29 ↗ stewards but what we want to make sure

1:45:30 ↗ is that we don't have

1:45:32 ↗ things in our history where we've taken

1:45:34 ↗ out heritage trees because it didn't fit

1:45:37 ↗ with what

1:45:38 ↗ somebody in a particular project thought

1:45:40 ↗ was the right thing to do again all on

1:45:42 ↗ staff right so there needs to be a

1:45:43 ↗ little bit more built in of saying

1:45:45 ↗ there's a different level of review but

1:45:47 ↗ these are the check boxes that we're

1:45:48 ↗ going to make sure happen so that we're

1:45:50 ↗ having continuity throughout as a good

1:45:52 ↗ partner in the community

1:45:56 ↗ i did not realize that that was

1:45:57 ↗ something uh

1:45:59 ↗ prior to my time that you guys had

1:46:00 ↗ worked on i thought that was honestly

1:46:02 ↗ something uh yeah i was kind of

1:46:03 ↗ wondering how come i haven't seen this

1:46:05 ↗ before i but i thought the inspiration

1:46:06 ↗ actually came from the pandemic when we

1:46:08 ↗ had

1:46:10 ↗ the different eateries and every

1:46:11 ↗ streetery's outside and then they strung

1:46:13 ↗ up those beautiful lights and by the way

1:46:14 ↗ this is off topic uh the beautiful

1:46:16 ↗ flower arrangements on front street

1:46:18 ↗ fantastic job

1:46:20 ↗ love to see those a little earlier in

1:46:21 ↗ the year but fantastic job regardless

1:46:23 ↗ the street looks lovely

1:46:25 ↗ so i would like to note 2014 the

1:46:28 ↗ downtown streetscape consecutive

1:46:30 ↗ conceptual plan was adopted and it's on

1:46:32 ↗ the website if you'd like to see it but

1:46:34 ↗ it included the altar alder festival

1:46:36 ↗ street interesting yes

1:46:38 ↗ yeah so far it looks fantastic i'm

1:46:40 ↗ excited to see it uh all right any other

1:46:43 ↗ comments as far as

1:46:45 ↗ policy question number one again

1:46:50 ↗ minnie do you have what you need

1:46:53 ↗ yeah i think i um

1:46:56 ↗ so uh more of a point of order so do you

1:47:00 ↗ want us to take this feedback and and

1:47:04 ↗ come up with some way of closing the

1:47:06 ↗ loop with the public comments that we

1:47:07 ↗ received early

1:47:09 ↗ um

1:47:10 ↗ or how would you like us to come back i

1:47:13 ↗ mean is part of the final or are the

1:47:16 ↗ options you are asking us to come back

1:47:17 ↗ with or um i want to be clear that you

1:47:20 ↗ know i heard multiple kind of things but

1:47:23 ↗ uh i think we had what i heard was plus

1:47:26 ↗ maintenance issues you know pretty

1:47:28 ↗ consensus on those the new and enhanced

1:47:31 ↗ uh things we

1:47:33 ↗ um

1:47:34 ↗ could persuade everyone with the same

1:47:37 ↗ level of review but some accountability

1:47:39 ↗ for holding ourselves to the same

1:47:41 ↗ standards that have been adopted so

1:47:44 ↗ we'll look at what that accountability

1:47:46 ↗ looks like

1:47:48 ↗ um from a public um

1:47:50 ↗ review process yeah i think that it

1:47:52 ↗ could be that both under packets a and b

1:47:55 ↗ right we could um we could with a

1:47:57 ↗ different presentation be able to see

1:47:59 ↗ that b is the in the best interest but

1:48:02 ↗ that would mean adjusting what level one

1:48:04 ↗ is in a sense right not actually

1:48:06 ↗ changing the outcome of the director

1:48:08 ↗ being um the decision maker right but uh

1:48:11 ↗ but having a public comment opportunity

1:48:13 ↗ so no notification

1:48:15 ↗ not necessarily a public hearing but it

1:48:16 ↗ may be a notice required yes

1:48:19 ↗ so i think that um it doesn't

1:48:20 ↗ necessarily need to be that this section

1:48:23 ↗ changes right it could just be that our

1:48:25 ↗ that you don't give us options for b it

1:48:27 ↗ could just be that you still present the

1:48:28 ↗ same but you're showing us how we're

1:48:30 ↗ actually amending and changing the level

1:48:32 ↗ one review for the city will include

1:48:34 ↗ these steps

1:48:35 ↗ right so that's what i don't want to say

1:48:36 ↗ that we would implement it's just that

1:48:38 ↗ as presented right now

1:48:40 ↗ we definitely have an agreement on a

1:48:43 ↗ sounds good yeah i'll just say for me

1:48:45 ↗ many um again

1:48:47 ↗ this was not the explanatory enough it

1:48:50 ↗ was your presentation that helped me get

1:48:52 ↗ there so you know again i'm here to work

1:48:56 ↗ with a bunch of different people staff

1:48:58 ↗ my colleagues

1:48:59 ↗ again my big thing is i like this type

1:49:01 ↗ of whatever we come up with whatever it

1:49:03 ↗ looks like it needs to happen prior

1:49:06 ↗ to bids being commenced and things like

1:49:09 ↗ that

1:49:10 ↗ i think if we try to do the review as

1:49:11 ↗ it's continuing to move as it's

1:49:13 ↗ presented

1:49:14 ↗ we end up

1:49:16 ↗ the city ends up being in the losing

1:49:18 ↗ position

1:49:22 ↗ uh thank you i just want to thank you

1:49:24 ↗ for the word accountability that is

1:49:26 ↗ where i was so unsure and unclear about

1:49:30 ↗ what was uncomfortable about that and uh

1:49:33 ↗ commissioner lewis was bringing up that

1:49:35 ↗ the public input isn't necessarily to

1:49:37 ↗ improve the design or you know change

1:49:39 ↗ things had already been worked on but it

1:49:41 ↗ shines a light and makes accountability

1:49:43 ↗ for those who are making decisions who

1:49:45 ↗ could see him to the public

1:49:47 ↗ and be um

1:49:50 ↗ well just say just just

1:49:54 ↗ public visibility creates accountability

1:49:57 ↗ that's what i think

1:49:59 ↗ i'm looking forward to i'm really glad

1:50:00 ↗ you brought up the word

1:50:03 ↗ sounds good

1:50:05 ↗ okay

1:50:06 ↗ we got what we

1:50:08 ↗ needed

1:50:33 ↗ before we jump into vesting i do want to

1:50:35 ↗ mention something

1:50:36 ↗ half of our packet was definitions which

1:50:38 ↗ has not been touched on at all tonight i

1:50:40 ↗ will tell you that um

1:50:43 ↗ staff was great about discussing with me

1:50:46 ↗ about the definitions section and

1:50:49 ↗ i will say for anybody who also slogged

1:50:52 ↗ through every word

1:50:54 ↗ realized i needed to break it up a

1:50:55 ↗ little bit because it's easy to read

1:50:56 ↗ without actually taking a critical eye

1:50:58 ↗ to it but

1:50:59 ↗ knowing what i know about definitions

1:51:00 ↗ and knowing that there are a variety of

1:51:02 ↗ legal reasons and constraints about what

1:51:04 ↗ we can change and why made me wonder how

1:51:07 ↗ is the best use of our time in

1:51:08 ↗ discussion definitions tonight so what i

1:51:11 ↗ will say is that

1:51:12 ↗ from my perspective right now i'm kind

1:51:14 ↗ of putting a pin in it because what i'm

1:51:16 ↗ looking for is the next time that we see

1:51:17 ↗ definitions i know it's going to be

1:51:19 ↗ updated i know that it's going to be

1:51:20 ↗ richer i know it's going to be better

1:51:22 ↗ and it's going to be ready for a little

1:51:23 ↗ bit more feedback so

1:51:25 ↗ know that it's not something that has

1:51:27 ↗ escaped us and that we look forward to a

1:51:31 ↗ very detailed discussion about

1:51:32 ↗ definitions because it really does make

1:51:34 ↗ an impact it really is important and

1:51:36 ↗ though we haven't touched on it tonight

1:51:38 ↗ it is something that in the next draft i

1:51:40 ↗ know we will enjoy

1:51:44 ↗ yeah and since we're going to bring up

1:51:45 ↗ definitions i will

1:51:47 ↗ second what commissioner lewis just have

1:51:49 ↗ to say i thought the public comment

1:51:51 ↗ tonight about definitions was spot on i

1:51:54 ↗ did slog through that

1:51:56 ↗ made for some great reading again i you

1:51:58 ↗ know i'm definitely not

1:52:00 ↗ a dictionary i'm not miriam webster so

1:52:03 ↗ i'm usually trusting but there were

1:52:04 ↗ definitely some areas where it kept

1:52:05 ↗ saying refer here refer there and again

1:52:08 ↗ i'm not going to be able to write the

1:52:09 ↗ definitions that's a

1:52:11 ↗ purely a very technical and legal thing

1:52:12 ↗ as commissioner lewis pointed out but

1:52:15 ↗ yes it did seem like a lot of the packet

1:52:17 ↗ to get no attention does not seem

1:52:19 ↗ appropriate

1:52:30 ↗ all right vesting

1:52:33 ↗ heard a lot about vesting this evening

1:52:40 ↗ would anyone like to go i can go first

1:52:43 ↗ so first of all i want to thank thank

1:52:45 ↗ you to everybody who made a public

1:52:46 ↗ comment tonight on

1:52:48 ↗ uh this particular topic

1:52:51 ↗ prior to what some people think

1:52:53 ↗ the letters and the emails that we

1:52:55 ↗ receive we read them all

1:52:57 ↗ and it's very important that people

1:52:58 ↗ understand that because i think

1:52:59 ↗ sometimes

1:53:00 ↗ there is a misconception that because

1:53:02 ↗ it's emailed it doesn't have the same

1:53:04 ↗ weight that a public comment in person

1:53:07 ↗ might make i actually happen to believe

1:53:09 ↗ the opposite i believe that me being

1:53:12 ↗ able to read something and then re-read

1:53:14 ↗ something uh is actually much more

1:53:16 ↗ fundamental easier for me when i hear in

1:53:18 ↗ public of course i'm paying attention

1:53:20 ↗ but i only get one shot to hear it and

1:53:22 ↗ also trying to run the meeting as a

1:53:24 ↗ chair

1:53:25 ↗ you know i can miss things so again i

1:53:27 ↗ want people to understand that

1:53:28 ↗ regardless whether you make them

1:53:30 ↗ publicly or not sending in the

1:53:32 ↗ information i believe i read at least

1:53:34 ↗ eight

1:53:35 ↗ one firm a lawyer one from the mba and i

1:53:37 ↗ won't continue to name names but all of

1:53:39 ↗ them are fantastically written i read

1:53:42 ↗ all of them i read a couple of them

1:53:44 ↗ twice just to make sure i understood the

1:53:46 ↗ spirit of what they were saying

1:53:48 ↗ so again

1:53:50 ↗ please do not think that just because

1:53:52 ↗ you weren't able to speak publicly that

1:53:53 ↗ it does not count that is part of the

1:53:55 ↗ public process

1:54:00 ↗ yeah

1:54:01 ↗ i appreciate that

1:54:03 ↗ i'm gonna you know also part of being up

1:54:06 ↗ here is to represent the community and i

1:54:07 ↗ overwhelmingly heard people opt for

1:54:10 ↗ option three now here's the part that

1:54:12 ↗ i'm going to say that might break a few

1:54:14 ↗ hearts

1:54:15 ↗ is the

1:54:16 ↗ planning policy commission

1:54:18 ↗ only provides recommendations and i am

1:54:20 ↗ happy to provide the recommendation that

1:54:22 ↗ i do full-heartedly agree with

1:54:24 ↗ especially during the pandemic

1:54:26 ↗ that there should be some built-in delay

1:54:28 ↗ for people that have had their projects

1:54:30 ↗ in permit

1:54:31 ↗ over the course of the pandemic the sad

1:54:33 ↗ part is we are not the authority that

1:54:35 ↗ can make it happen all we can do is

1:54:36 ↗ provide a recommendation

1:54:39 ↗ however

1:54:40 ↗ again i do believe that when people have

1:54:42 ↗ vested the time and energy to get these

1:54:44 ↗ permits through that it is important we

1:54:46 ↗ acknowledge again i'm here

1:54:48 ↗ as a son of a contractor not a developer

1:54:52 ↗ i've never put in a permit for a large

1:54:54 ↗ project but i do understand the time

1:54:56 ↗ that it takes for contractors to push

1:54:58 ↗ these things through

1:55:00 ↗ i'm going to go back a little bit to

1:55:02 ↗ what i said earlier there is i believe a

1:55:04 ↗ little bit of a collective trauma in

1:55:06 ↗ issaquah

1:55:07 ↗ from years ago

1:55:09 ↗ but i do believe that we have enough

1:55:10 ↗ overlays and enough enough

1:55:12 ↗ accountability in different places

1:55:15 ↗ um

1:55:16 ↗ that i think like i said we need to give

1:55:18 ↗ some latitude to the developers who want

1:55:21 ↗ to come and build an issaquah

1:55:23 ↗ because again i work in a small industry

1:55:26 ↗ and i hear a lot of things and again i'm

1:55:27 ↗ not going to continue to repeat myself

1:55:29 ↗ i'd like izakawa to be more welcoming to

1:55:31 ↗ those type of developments again we've

1:55:33 ↗ had discussions as far as the missing

1:55:35 ↗ middle as far as not having any condos

1:55:38 ↗ here as far as not having enough certain

1:55:40 ↗ type of housing so all of these things

1:55:42 ↗ are essential needs that we need in

1:55:43 ↗ order to help house people that work

1:55:46 ↗ here so they can actually live and work

1:55:48 ↗ here

1:55:49 ↗ and issaquah could essentially use some

1:55:52 ↗ of these things so i am listening to the

1:55:54 ↗ public comment that i heard tonight that

1:55:56 ↗ i heard through the written statements

1:55:58 ↗ and

1:55:59 ↗ i'm in favor of option three

1:56:04 ↗ can i ask a question is that allowed

1:56:09 ↗ for advice so um i have a question about

1:56:13 ↗ how if option if it's really option one

1:56:16 ↗ option two or option three

1:56:18 ↗ or if it's option one or option two

1:56:21 ↗ plus option three um because option

1:56:23 ↗ three reads to me as like a

1:56:25 ↗ extension um four things already in the

1:56:27 ↗ pipeline whereas option one or option

1:56:29 ↗ two are like how vesting works going

1:56:31 ↗ forward so i just wanted clarification

1:56:33 ↗ there yeah you can come up with option

1:56:34 ↗ four that's a combination

1:56:36 ↗ we'll obviously review it with legal and

1:56:39 ↗ everything else so

1:56:41 ↗ so i'll vote um again i think i

1:56:44 ↗ appreciate the public comment and the um

1:56:46 ↗ desire for that

1:56:48 ↗ option three um

1:56:53 ↗ and then i'll i'll leave it there

1:56:55 ↗ i won't make it more complicated by

1:56:57 ↗ adding an option four

1:57:04 ↗ we're going down the line i'm gonna i'm

1:57:06 ↗ gonna say that

1:57:08 ↗ the information that was presented to me

1:57:10 ↗ by staff made me concur on option one

1:57:14 ↗ because i don't have enough information

1:57:15 ↗ to tell what various land use

1:57:17 ↗ applications could be with option two

1:57:19 ↗ right what you presented me and what the

1:57:21 ↗ information i was able to see was what

1:57:23 ↗ state law allows that looks good when

1:57:26 ↗ you tell me various land use

1:57:27 ↗ applications i get a little nervous

1:57:29 ↗ right so right now i'm not in favor of

1:57:31 ↗ option two but that could be because i'm

1:57:33 ↗ again not informed properly right um so

1:57:37 ↗ i

1:57:38 ↗ at this point would like to tell staff

1:57:41 ↗ that i am uncomfortable with the

1:57:42 ↗ recommendation of option three because i

1:57:44 ↗ don't believe we're at that place yet

1:57:46 ↗ we've heard a lot of amazing comments

1:57:48 ↗ from the public i know we've all been

1:57:50 ↗ personally affected economically

1:57:53 ↗ culturally

1:57:54 ↗ and there is a variance that needs to

1:57:57 ↗ occur in a discussion from council if

1:57:58 ↗ this is something they want to consider

1:58:01 ↗ at this point council has not asked me

1:58:03 ↗ to consider this staff bringing up this

1:58:05 ↗ option three in terms of vesting as far

1:58:07 ↗ as a moratorium some sort of delay on

1:58:09 ↗ the work that we're all doing on title

1:58:11 ↗ 18 makes me very uncomfortable i think

1:58:14 ↗ that we're working very hard on this

1:58:15 ↗ because there's a reason for it we need

1:58:17 ↗ to update title 18 as quickly as we can

1:58:21 ↗ that is why we're all working so hard

1:58:23 ↗ this is why we have an aggressive

1:58:24 ↗ calendar and the idea of us trying to

1:58:26 ↗ push it out because of other un

1:58:29 ↗ mitigating factors makes me

1:58:31 ↗ uncomfortable and frankly i don't think

1:58:32 ↗ we're there yet we haven't seen draft

1:58:35 ↗ two we don't know how our calendar is

1:58:37 ↗ going to be impacted by the rate of

1:58:38 ↗ which we're able to go through this

1:58:40 ↗ so i don't think that i think this is a

1:58:42 ↗ little early in the in the

1:58:43 ↗ in the dialogue to be discussing option

1:58:46 ↗ three so i'm going to be reserving my

1:58:48 ↗ comments on option three until i think

1:58:50 ↗ that we're at an appropriate time for it

1:58:51 ↗ at this time i appreciate the staff of

1:58:53 ↗ considering it i think it's something we

1:58:54 ↗ all need to be considering it but i

1:58:56 ↗ think we're too early in the process to

1:58:57 ↗ be saying whether or not it's a good

1:58:58 ↗ idea

1:59:02 ↗ man now to go okay

1:59:05 ↗ uh i need i i want to ask a question too

1:59:07 ↗ or or five questions because vesting

1:59:10 ↗ this is a huge topic i'm tempted not to

1:59:12 ↗ talk at all about it but uh i think that

1:59:16 ↗ i can contribute some

1:59:18 ↗ reflections one is i want to

1:59:22 ↗ understand from you all separate from

1:59:24 ↗ the title 18

1:59:26 ↗ update date

1:59:28 ↗ today

1:59:30 ↗ how does a

1:59:31 ↗ project vest

1:59:33 ↗ right now

1:59:38 ↗ yeah so you know we we didn't want to

1:59:40 ↗ have all of those discussions because it

1:59:43 ↗ um

1:59:45 ↗ this vesting statute still applies right

1:59:49 ↗ um

1:59:50 ↗ so

1:59:51 ↗ but but that but that's not the purview

1:59:53 ↗ of the planning and policy commission to

1:59:55 ↗ make decisions on the projects that are

1:59:57 ↗ currently being reviewed under

1:59:59 ↗ uh the existing code that is

2:00:02 ↗ administration you know we'll look at

2:00:03 ↗ what the code is we'll review it with

2:00:05 ↗ legal and make decisions on that so we

2:00:08 ↗ want to kind of not get

2:00:10 ↗ the issue

2:00:11 ↗ to to kind of go into

2:00:13 ↗ what is happening with this project and

2:00:15 ↗ what is the existing code because it's

2:00:17 ↗ it doesn't

2:00:18 ↗ matter we the what we're asking for

2:00:20 ↗ recommendation is what should the new

2:00:22 ↗ code uh be that's why we didn't kind of

2:00:25 ↗ get into the nitty-gritty well there are

2:00:26 ↗ two things happening here though and

2:00:27 ↗ this is where i'm confused uh in this

2:00:31 ↗ triplet that they seem they don't seem

2:00:33 ↗ to all go there there's something that's

2:00:35 ↗ not like the other in here it was

2:00:37 ↗ brought up by earlier commissioners

2:00:39 ↗ there's number three is saying that

2:00:42 ↗ current applicants are having a problem

2:00:43 ↗ vesting with the current code

2:00:46 ↗ and thus they want an extension

2:00:49 ↗ so that they can stay with the current

2:00:51 ↗ code rather than going with the title 18

2:00:53 ↗ yeah

2:00:54 ↗ it's not just for um

2:00:57 ↗ that that would be for the projects that

2:00:59 ↗ are under review not necessarily under

2:01:01 ↗ the existing code being vested or not

2:01:02 ↗ west you know so that's a separate

2:01:05 ↗ conversation in a separate discussion uh

2:01:07 ↗ under option three would apply to anyone

2:01:12 ↗ that would you know depending on how

2:01:15 ↗ it's worded and how it's structured that

2:01:17 ↗ would be the language in the code you

2:01:19 ↗ you know it's allowed for the city to

2:01:21 ↗ say on this day of the adoption we're

2:01:24 ↗ giving a grace period of x number of

2:01:26 ↗ days

2:01:27 ↗ so

2:01:28 ↗ okay okay then uh let me say that again

2:01:32 ↗ i think one two and three are not

2:01:34 ↗ i can't i can't put those all and say

2:01:36 ↗ hey can i how can i pick between these

2:01:38 ↗ three

2:01:39 ↗ if i'm just talking about it do i

2:01:41 ↗ approve number three or not

2:01:45 ↗ two considerations come in my mind why

2:01:47 ↗ aren't applications getting

2:01:49 ↗ approved today

2:01:51 ↗ under the current code why is this a

2:01:53 ↗ problem it's really hard for me to say

2:01:55 ↗ gee i should give you an extension if i

2:01:56 ↗ don't know that there's a problem or not

2:01:58 ↗ if there's not a problem why would i

2:01:59 ↗ give an extension the other thing is

2:02:03 ↗ if we had six more months to work on

2:02:06 ↗ this code

2:02:07 ↗ i'd take it and then i'd just say that's

2:02:10 ↗ where we'll draw the line that could be

2:02:12 ↗ the extension

2:02:13 ↗ so i'm not inclined

2:02:16 ↗ just on face value to say hey i'm going

2:02:18 ↗ to adopt code but everybody gets six

2:02:19 ↗ months to catch up a code that we've

2:02:21 ↗ been working for two years doing unless

2:02:23 ↗ you can tell me that there's been a

2:02:24 ↗ problem with people getting their

2:02:26 ↗ applications vested previous but that's

2:02:29 ↗ a that's different these things don't go

2:02:31 ↗ together in my mind yeah so you know

2:02:33 ↗ anyone can apply for a complete building

2:02:35 ↗ permit application and be vested so

2:02:39 ↗ um if you have a land use application

2:02:41 ↗ that's you know you

2:02:43 ↗ under the state statute those three are

2:02:45 ↗ your ways you get investing so

2:02:48 ↗ people have that option i mean we're not

2:02:50 ↗ adopting the code tomorrow you have the

2:02:53 ↗ the months to apply for a a building

2:02:55 ↗ permit

2:02:57 ↗ um so i don't know if that answers your

2:02:58 ↗ question

2:03:00 ↗ yeah i guess it does i just don't know

2:03:02 ↗ why people need an extension if they're

2:03:03 ↗ able to get vested today everybody in

2:03:05 ↗ the room

2:03:06 ↗ everybody who's ever written us people

2:03:07 ↗ have been following us for the last two

2:03:08 ↗ years they've all been able to vest

2:03:10 ↗ their permits

2:03:12 ↗ if that's the case then i would not be

2:03:15 ↗ inclined to give six months extension to

2:03:17 ↗ applicants i'd give six months extension

2:03:20 ↗ to me to work better on better code

2:03:24 ↗ would the emergency have been the

2:03:25 ↗ pandemic itself having to meet virtually

2:03:29 ↗ i know that was brought up in one of the

2:03:31 ↗ public comments

2:03:33 ↗ you know basically but from

2:03:36 ↗ march of 2020 till i mean what summer of

2:03:39 ↗ that year

2:03:40 ↗ everybody was getting their zoom set up

2:03:41 ↗ things like that so i don't know is that

2:03:43 ↗ the emergency

2:03:46 ↗ question

2:03:47 ↗ yeah

2:03:48 ↗ yeah i mean in terms of the permit

2:03:50 ↗ processing um you know we didn't shut

2:03:52 ↗ down

2:03:54 ↗ the permit processing and that has

2:03:55 ↗ continued uh throughout the pandemic

2:03:58 ↗ we're set up virtually and it's actually

2:04:00 ↗ nobody's coming into the permit center

2:04:02 ↗ because people like to just upload their

2:04:04 ↗ stuff online and we were set up for

2:04:05 ↗ online permitting way prior to

2:04:08 ↗ uh the pandemic so the transition for

2:04:11 ↗ the permitting side wasn't significant

2:04:13 ↗ there um there were some issues with

2:04:15 ↗ payments and things like that but those

2:04:17 ↗ got drop off you know uh things and so

2:04:20 ↗ but now we're open so if there's a

2:04:23 ↗ there's a fee for paying by

2:04:25 ↗ a credit card so for some folks that

2:04:28 ↗ wanted to actually pay by check

2:04:30 ↗ uh hadn't you know we had to mail it um

2:04:33 ↗ and then we would get it so but that was

2:04:34 ↗ only at the issuance of the permit that

2:04:36 ↗ came into play but now that the permit

2:04:38 ↗ center is open anyone can walk in and

2:04:40 ↗ make the payment

2:04:41 ↗ so well i know for me like uh in our

2:04:43 ↗ company you know just like the supply

2:04:45 ↗ chain problem that's a complete pandemic

2:04:47 ↗ problem

2:04:49 ↗ yeah compounded by government but

2:04:51 ↗ regardless

2:04:52 ↗ it's a real problem

2:04:54 ↗ things that used to take four weeks now

2:04:56 ↗ take 12 to 16 weeks so again

2:05:00 ↗ even though the online applications may

2:05:01 ↗ have been people could have been meeting

2:05:03 ↗ with different business partners

2:05:04 ↗ different things like that different i

2:05:06 ↗ think one of the public comments

2:05:08 ↗ mentioned uh the different engineers

2:05:10 ↗ they have to meet with so

2:05:12 ↗ again i

2:05:13 ↗ i don't think it's a whole lot to ask

2:05:15 ↗ and it was very clear what the public

2:05:17 ↗ itself

2:05:19 ↗ yeah if wanted

2:05:19 ↗ under construction if you have a permit

2:05:21 ↗ issued you you know you we're not

2:05:23 ↗ changing the rules that apply to you if

2:05:25 ↗ you're under construction and supply

2:05:26 ↗ chain head right

2:05:28 ↗ yeah

2:05:30 ↗ yeah so but

2:05:32 ↗ one more thing so uh to affirm something

2:05:35 ↗ that um commissioner lewis said the word

2:05:37 ↗ in the question is various

2:05:40 ↗ i think the word is various and uh um

2:05:44 ↗ certain certain land use well that's a

2:05:46 ↗ good word that's certain but it doesn't

2:05:47 ↗ tell me which ones they are and and so

2:05:50 ↗ if if the certain land use applications

2:05:52 ↗ or these people are unable to get vested

2:05:54 ↗ in the current code for some fault of

2:05:56 ↗ the city then certainly i'm backing them

2:05:58 ↗ up every bit of the way but

2:06:00 ↗ um but if it's just to get another six

2:06:03 ↗ months with old code that we've been

2:06:05 ↗ trying to change for two years i'm not

2:06:07 ↗ really

2:06:08 ↗ i'm not really excited about that but if

2:06:10 ↗ the city is is failing to get people

2:06:12 ↗ vested i'm concerned about that and if

2:06:14 ↗ that's the sentiment that i'm hearing uh

2:06:17 ↗ in the public comments that's a

2:06:20 ↗ different topic that's all i'm saying i

2:06:21 ↗ want to defend the people who are are

2:06:23 ↗ commenting uh they seem to be expressing

2:06:25 ↗ a frustration that maybe is not being uh

2:06:28 ↗ discussed in this

2:06:30 ↗ maybe this isn't the place

2:06:32 ↗ where that frustration is coming from i

2:06:34 ↗ don't know

2:06:35 ↗ just saying it

2:06:39 ↗ in an ever-changing world let's wait

2:06:42 ↗ until we're actually

2:06:43 ↗ through our final draft code right we

2:06:46 ↗ have are still in this middle of this

2:06:48 ↗ process

2:06:49 ↗ i do not believe that this is the time

2:06:50 ↗ for this conversation and i don't even

2:06:52 ↗ know right now if staff or the council

2:06:56 ↗ is considering this and so for me to

2:06:58 ↗ consider advising on it is way premature

2:07:01 ↗ i don't see option three as being linked

2:07:03 ↗ to options one and two at this time and

2:07:05 ↗ i would be happy to look at option three

2:07:07 ↗ when asked to do so at a time when we've

2:07:09 ↗ actually made it through title 18.

2:07:16 ↗ i think you got a few different opinions

2:07:18 ↗ there so i don't think it's going to get

2:07:19 ↗ any clearer

2:07:20 ↗ so we can take the recommendation from

2:07:22 ↗ the planning policy commission was split

2:07:24 ↗ on this issue and capture your your

2:07:27 ↗ comments uh to planning commission

2:07:29 ↗ without a consensus so i think that we

2:07:31 ↗ can move it forward that way um

2:07:35 ↗ yeah okay sounds good sounds good

2:07:38 ↗ thank you yes thank you

2:07:44 ↗ do we have any other policy questions

2:07:53 ↗ well i know uh

2:07:55 ↗ commissioner lewis brought up the

2:07:56 ↗ definitions again plus two to that that

2:07:58 ↗ was a big chunk of our our packet and

2:08:01 ↗ again i do want to say thank you to

2:08:02 ↗ everyone who did make public comments um

2:08:06 ↗ that we were able to read and hear

2:08:08 ↗ and uh yeah we'll have some feedback for

2:08:11 ↗ staff

2:08:12 ↗ even when the meeting's over

2:08:14 ↗ go ahead commissioner

2:08:16 ↗ i'm trying to find it thank you chair

2:08:17 ↗ voice uh i i want to talk a little bit

2:08:19 ↗ about variances

2:08:21 ↗ in the approval criteria

2:08:25 ↗ the um it i thought the feedback i

2:08:28 ↗ wanted to give is i thought that

2:08:30 ↗ it allowed for a little too much

2:08:31 ↗ subjectivity because what we're trying

2:08:33 ↗ to do is allow for variances but to make

2:08:35 ↗ it more predictable for the applicant

2:08:37 ↗ and for the staff who approve them or

2:08:39 ↗ they actually variances are approved by

2:08:41 ↗ a hearing examiner right now and so like

2:08:43 ↗ one of the phrases that caught my eye

2:08:45 ↗ was in harmony is something in harmony

2:08:48 ↗ with something and then you could get

2:08:51 ↗ you know anyway that phrasing did not

2:08:53 ↗ seem appropriate

2:08:54 ↗ or

2:08:56 ↗ enforceable or usable and then the other

2:08:58 ↗ thing was is how

2:09:00 ↗ i wanted to bring up for discussion if

2:09:02 ↗ anybody else noticed how

2:09:06 ↗ the approval of a variance

2:09:08 ↗ could create precedent for neighboring

2:09:10 ↗ properties

2:09:11 ↗ and that the neighboring properties

2:09:13 ↗ could then get a variance because the

2:09:15 ↗ earlier guy got a variance but that

2:09:16 ↗ can't be the only criteria why the

2:09:18 ↗ neighboring property gets

2:09:20 ↗ variants because there's that little

2:09:21 ↗ clause at the end

2:09:23 ↗ and they

2:09:25 ↗ uh where where was this um

2:09:28 ↗ oh and i thought this was

2:09:31 ↗ odd how this kind of precedent setting

2:09:33 ↗ language is in the variance code where

2:09:36 ↗ also

2:09:37 ↗ a variance can only apply to a special

2:09:41 ↗ unique

2:09:42 ↗ circumstance so anyway there was some

2:09:44 ↗ there's just a little bit of

2:09:48 ↗ contradictory or complex language in

2:09:51 ↗ that part and then the subjectivity and

2:09:54 ↗ the approval criteria just wanted to

2:09:55 ↗ bring those up for

2:09:57 ↗ um if anybody had any other thoughts or

2:09:59 ↗ just to take that with you

2:10:01 ↗ see if it helps

2:10:03 ↗ well that's good feedback thank you

2:10:05 ↗ we'll uh take a look at that um

2:10:08 ↗ you know out of the top of my head the

2:10:10 ↗ neighboring properties may be

2:10:12 ↗ you know

2:10:13 ↗ if everyone has a five foot setback and

2:10:16 ↗ the code requires a ten foot setback

2:10:18 ↗ does it make you know does that the

2:10:20 ↗ street presence doesn't make sense so

2:10:22 ↗ maybe that's what it's getting at but

2:10:23 ↗ we'll take a take a look at the the

2:10:25 ↗ other subjective stuff definitely we

2:10:27 ↗ won't tighten that

2:10:34 ↗ yeah i mean reading through

2:10:36 ↗ the entire packet

2:10:38 ↗ again so much of it is procedural so

2:10:40 ↗ much of it uh there's so much that

2:10:42 ↗ involves you know the planning

2:10:43 ↗ department or the permit department

2:10:45 ↗ um again there's so legalese that you

2:10:48 ↗ know i i don't sit in a planning

2:10:50 ↗ permitting department

2:10:52 ↗ day to day so yeah there's there's some

2:10:54 ↗ gimmicky things in there that definitely

2:10:56 ↗ caught my eye as well

2:10:58 ↗ i just don't i'm not able to tell what

2:11:00 ↗ exactly is needed by necessary by the

2:11:02 ↗ city but there does seem to be a couple

2:11:04 ↗ redundancies there also seems to be some

2:11:06 ↗ other thing that

2:11:07 ↗ you know again i'll offer you some

2:11:09 ↗ feedback by email

2:11:11 ↗ but

2:11:12 ↗ you know probably could go through the

2:11:13 ↗ whole packet with you tonight about

2:11:14 ↗ definitions procedures ask you 10 15

2:11:17 ↗ different questions about why this is

2:11:18 ↗ like that i'm kind of leaning on staff

2:11:21 ↗ which i know does a fantastic job but

2:11:23 ↗ why certain procedures are there and i'm

2:11:25 ↗ i'm sure we'll get there but yeah

2:11:26 ↗ they're definitely some contradictory

2:11:28 ↗ and

2:11:29 ↗ some oddball stuff in there

2:11:34 ↗ anybody else

2:11:38 ↗ all right does anyone else have anything

2:11:40 ↗ to deliberate as far as the public

2:11:42 ↗ hearing this evening

2:11:46 ↗ sure

2:11:48 ↗ oh

2:11:48 ↗ i just meant as far as

2:11:51 ↗ okay

2:11:52 ↗ um all right well that takes care of the

2:11:56 ↗ planning policy commission's

2:11:57 ↗ deliberations on

2:11:59 ↗ the public hearing for title 18 bucket

2:12:01 ↗ six thank you everybody

2:12:04 ↗ now we're going to move to reports and

2:12:06 ↗ the reports from

2:12:07 ↗ the city council updates so i'd like to

2:12:10 ↗ ask staff if you could provide any if

2:12:12 ↗ you have any

2:12:13 ↗ um sure so you know title 18 is getting

2:12:16 ↗ reviewed by planning development and

2:12:18 ↗ environment committee they've gone

2:12:20 ↗ through bucket five

2:12:22 ↗ so the bucket six will go to them on

2:12:24 ↗ september 22nd

2:12:26 ↗ on september 7th they're gonna they

2:12:28 ↗ asked us to come back to them

2:12:30 ↗ with um

2:12:32 ↗ bucket four uh which was building and

2:12:35 ↗ design had a lot of uh things that we

2:12:38 ↗ were going to include in the final draft

2:12:40 ↗ they wanted to have have those flushed

2:12:43 ↗ out a little bit more so we're doing a

2:12:45 ↗ check-in with them on that topic on

2:12:48 ↗ september 7th

2:12:50 ↗ and then taking

2:12:51 ↗ your feedback that they'd asked us about

2:12:53 ↗ the zero lot line and the

2:12:56 ↗ street connectivity issue so we'll brief

2:12:58 ↗ them on your

2:12:59 ↗ relook at that issue on september 7th

2:13:02 ↗ so that's um what's happening with the

2:13:05 ↗ planning and the white board

2:13:09 ↗ a list was shared with the committee uh

2:13:12 ↗ then it was shared with the full council

2:13:14 ↗ it is gonna come to you all because we

2:13:16 ↗ were waiting for the bucket six to wrap

2:13:19 ↗ up and then we'll we'll share that list

2:13:21 ↗ with you the urgency of sharing it with

2:13:23 ↗ the council or before

2:13:26 ↗ bucket sex was done was because of the

2:13:28 ↗ budget cycle so there's some decisions

2:13:30 ↗ and had to be made in terms of which

2:13:32 ↗ were the order of priority what can be

2:13:34 ↗ added in

2:13:35 ↗ so

2:13:36 ↗ the committee if said we're going to

2:13:39 ↗ look at three criteria is it covered

2:13:41 ↗ under the existing goals and outcomes is

2:13:44 ↗ it covered under the second one was

2:13:46 ↗ other adopted co you know plans like

2:13:49 ↗ like you know strategic plan mobility

2:13:51 ↗ plan and all that and then the level of

2:13:53 ↗ effort needed

2:13:55 ↗ uh so then we also shared with council

2:13:58 ↗ of all the other things that the city

2:14:00 ↗ long-range planning division is going to

2:14:02 ↗ undertake in the next upcoming two years

2:14:04 ↗ which will come to you all

2:14:06 ↗ uh as the periodic update of

2:14:08 ↗ comprehensive plan so that's a huge lift

2:14:12 ↗ of every eight years the cities are

2:14:14 ↗ required to do a complete look at uh

2:14:16 ↗ comprehensive plan so given all those

2:14:19 ↗ things in the transit studies in the

2:14:20 ↗ works

2:14:21 ↗ and all that

2:14:23 ↗ so

2:14:23 ↗ they picked three based on existing

2:14:26 ↗ workload those three criteria that they

2:14:29 ↗ chose that they wanted us to work on in

2:14:31 ↗ the next

2:14:32 ↗ couple of years

2:14:34 ↗ stream buffers a more on the grounds

2:14:36 ↗ assessment of those

2:14:38 ↗ the implementation of housing strategies

2:14:40 ↗ plan

2:14:41 ↗ missing middle is one of them but

2:14:43 ↗ you know globally the adopted housing

2:14:45 ↗ strategies plan implementation of those

2:14:48 ↗ uh and then parking

2:14:50 ↗ they felt uh that the parking

2:14:53 ↗ stuff that we're doing with this update

2:14:55 ↗ uh didn't fully capture the golden

2:14:57 ↗ outcomes that the council had laid out

2:14:59 ↗ for this so they wanted to at least get

2:15:01 ↗ that done

2:15:02 ↗ um in the next couple of years so that's

2:15:05 ↗ where they've landed

2:15:06 ↗ on the on the whiteboard but we'll bring

2:15:08 ↗ the entire whiteboard and and for you to

2:15:11 ↗ provide your input on

2:15:13 ↗ that's it for

2:15:15 ↗ council updates

2:15:17 ↗ um we have uh

2:15:19 ↗ uh we have

2:15:21 ↗ our new planning manager has started i

2:15:23 ↗ don't know if christian guys are still

2:15:24 ↗ online

2:15:26 ↗ he is so

2:15:27 ↗ we'd like to introduce him

2:15:29 ↗ if you can turn on your camera question

2:15:39 ↗ we see a cloud

2:15:42 ↗ it's slowly moving

2:15:50 ↗ i i am here um

2:15:54 ↗ for some reason we can't see your

2:15:57 ↗ uh see you on we can hear you

2:16:02 ↗ it's maybe a bandwidth issue

2:16:04 ↗ uh but christian comes to us from city

2:16:07 ↗ of kirkland

2:16:09 ↗ you can see him there he is

2:16:12 ↗ so i'll let him introduce himself

2:16:15 ↗ hi christian this is the planning policy

2:16:17 ↗ commission

2:16:19 ↗ hi nice to meet you all yeah uh my name

2:16:21 ↗ is christian getz uh i come from the

2:16:22 ↗ city of kirkland i was there for about

2:16:24 ↗ 15 years

2:16:25 ↗ uh worked through uh many number of

2:16:28 ↗ permit projects

2:16:29 ↗ well uh within the planning department

2:16:31 ↗ uh worked on a lot of shoreline

2:16:34 ↗ environment projects uh capital

2:16:36 ↗ improvement review uh very interested in

2:16:38 ↗ the conversations tonight about how the

2:16:41 ↗ city reviews city projects uh i was very

2:16:44 ↗ involved in those at the city within the

2:16:47 ↗ planning department so working with my

2:16:49 ↗ counterparts over in

2:16:50 ↗ capital projects parks department

2:16:53 ↗ uh and i'm looking forward to working

2:16:55 ↗ with everyone and uh seeing you all in

2:16:57 ↗ person

2:16:59 ↗ pretty soon

2:17:04 ↗ yeah welcome

2:17:06 ↗ thanks

2:17:09 ↗ all right minnie yeah and lastly my turn

2:17:11 ↗ to say thank you i know we've been

2:17:12 ↗ giving you so much but this is a

2:17:14 ↗ milestone

2:17:16 ↗ you went through six buckets and you

2:17:18 ↗ know

2:17:19 ↗ uh we couldn't have done it without your

2:17:21 ↗ you know diligence asking us hard

2:17:24 ↗ questions keeping us you know

2:17:26 ↗ accountable on what we give you how we

2:17:29 ↗ give you and

2:17:30 ↗ so i really really appreciate all your

2:17:32 ↗ hard work

2:17:36 ↗ and we appreciate staff's artwork that's

2:17:38 ↗ how the feeling is mutual

2:17:40 ↗ are there any other business or

2:17:42 ↗ announcements from staff

2:17:47 ↗ is there anything for the good of the

2:17:48 ↗ order

2:17:50 ↗ except somebody has to remind me uh

2:17:52 ↗ what's the deadline for applications for

2:17:54 ↗ planning policy commission 26 i think

2:17:57 ↗ tomorrow i believe

2:18:00 ↗ no we had an extension i know to the

2:18:02 ↗ 26th so it's tomorrow

2:18:05 ↗ well that's

2:18:07 ↗ today's the 25th

2:18:09 ↗ so tomorrow

2:18:10 ↗ tomorrow

2:18:11 ↗ okay folks tomorrow and i'm not talking

2:18:14 ↗ to anybody in here because we're already

2:18:16 ↗ here i'm talking to the audience and

2:18:18 ↗ anybody who has a friend we have so many

2:18:21 ↗ wonderful public comments we have people

2:18:24 ↗ who contribute at so many different

2:18:26 ↗ levels yet i'd like to see more people

2:18:28 ↗ sitting up here with us you have one

2:18:31 ↗ more day

2:18:33 ↗ it can be done the application is like a

2:18:35 ↗ resume just get your resume out if

2:18:38 ↗ you're interested i want to testify that

2:18:41 ↗ this is such a fun group to work with

2:18:44 ↗ and the work is hard yeah but that's why

2:18:47 ↗ it's fun that's why we like it it's

2:18:49 ↗ significant

2:18:50 ↗ and

2:18:51 ↗ then it's a way to contribute to your

2:18:53 ↗ city that's unlike any other

2:18:55 ↗ we just confirmed yes the deadline is

2:18:57 ↗ tomorrow tomorrow august 26th do it

2:19:00 ↗ apply

2:19:02 ↗ thank you

2:19:03 ↗ what a fantastic team we all have one

2:19:05 ↗ another's backs so what uh

2:19:08 ↗ yes plus two commissioner milligan

2:19:11 ↗ any any other thing

2:19:13 ↗ are we any other comments nothing

2:19:16 ↗ so we're gonna close tonight's meeting

2:19:18 ↗ at 8 55 pm thank you everyone

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 (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Valerie Porter, Associate Planner 2