Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, January 12, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of December 8, 2022

packet pp.3–7

▶ Watch from 1:23 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, December 8, 2022

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18 Final Draft

Discussion · packet pp.9–44

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · May 27, 2021 Planning Policy Commission · Jun 24, 2021 Planning Policy Commission · Jul 15, 2021 Planning Policy Commission · Jul 22, 2021

▶ Watch from 2:00:30 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the January 12, 2023, Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to introduce the consolidated draft Title 18 document, review the final process for the public hearings beginning January 19, and initiate policy discussions prior to the public hearings.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.45–46

▶ Watch from 2:02:04 Open packet at p.45 ↗

Staff report:

April

2933 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ foreign

0:06 ↗ good to see everybody happy New Year

0:09 ↗ it's been a long time

0:12 ↗ I'm still the chair right

0:14 ↗ okay okay

0:17 ↗ does everybody like a marathon

0:21 ↗ more of Sprinter

0:23 ↗ all right so for the next four weeks

0:25 ↗ we're going to be meeting every week

0:27 ↗ and we were going to be discussing the

0:29 ↗ title 18 code updates I want to thank

0:32 ↗ everyone for coming Commissioners public

0:34 ↗ staff and also a very warm welcome back

0:38 ↗ to Vice chair Bader

0:42 ↗ everybody

0:44 ↗ there

0:46 ↗ so we're going to begin with some

0:47 ↗ boilerplate stuff and then we will get

0:49 ↗ into our discussion for this evening

0:51 ↗ I'd like to call the January 12th

0:54 ↗ planning policy commission to order and

0:56 ↗ it is currently 6 33 pm

0:59 ↗ tonight's meeting is a hybrid meeting

1:01 ↗ the planning policy commission is in

1:03 ↗ person but staff or members of the

1:06 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

1:08 ↗ person

1:10 ↗ it seems obvious but we want to make it

1:13 ↗ official Kristen do we have a quorum

1:16 ↗ tonight

1:18 ↗ yes we do thank you

1:21 ↗ our first item of business is to take

1:23 ↗ action to approve the minutes for

1:25 ↗ December 8th are there any corrections

1:27 ↗ concerns to the draft minutes provided

1:29 ↗ in your agenda packets

1:34 ↗ hearing none the minutes are approved

1:36 ↗ in our next item of business is public

1:38 ↗ comment for this evening

1:41 ↗ some guidelines for public comment

1:43 ↗ tonight's comments can be made in person

1:50 ↗ laughs

1:56 ↗ [Laughter]

2:06 ↗ it's been a long winter

2:17 ↗ has to has to has to has to test it has

2:22 ↗ foreign

2:29 ↗ testing

2:33 ↗ all right I think we got it Jared

2:36 ↗ all right well that was fun

2:40 ↗ for all who would like to speak during

2:41 ↗ the public comments we ask that you

2:43 ↗ would please speak clearly and pause

2:45 ↗ frequently

2:46 ↗ we ask that you state your name each

2:48 ↗ time before you speak and if you are

2:50 ↗ attending virtually by computer or by

2:52 ↗ phone

2:53 ↗ um please mute your microphone when

2:55 ↗ you're not speaking and if you're having

2:57 ↗ any technical issues please try joining

2:59 ↗ the meeting using a different device

3:00 ↗ such as a smartphone or tablet

3:03 ↗ and or you can use the call and

3:05 ↗ information

3:06 ↗ in the meeting invite to call in

3:09 ↗ public comments they are important they

3:12 ↗ help us in coming to the decisions that

3:14 ↗ we make we take them seriously and they

3:16 ↗ are factored in comments may be general

3:19 ↗ or related to the topics that we are

3:21 ↗ discussing tonight

3:22 ↗ and we do please ask that you keep them

3:25 ↗ to five minutes or less

3:27 ↗ Jared has anybody signed up this evening

3:29 ↗ to make public comments

3:31 ↗ no one has signed up in the room to

3:33 ↗ speak but I will allow a few seconds for

3:36 ↗ attendees online to raise their hand to

3:38 ↗ indicate if they'd like to speak and

3:40 ↗ there is one person here who desires to

3:42 ↗ speak

3:45 ↗ two

3:53 ↗ okay

4:03 ↗ takes a team

4:05 ↗ um we want to start with the people in

4:06 ↗ the room first because they uh you know

4:09 ↗ they decided to join us on this dreary

4:10 ↗ night so please I believe Connie I

4:13 ↗ believe you're up first

4:27 ↗ hi my name is Connie Marsh I live on

4:30 ↗ squawk and uh as you've noticed I've

4:34 ↗ been crawling through Title 18 multiple

4:37 ↗ times I think I've I've done three so

4:40 ↗ far and so here's my my

4:44 ↗ conclusion

4:47 ↗ in case you all didn't read it all

4:50 ↗ most of the intent

4:55 ↗ seems to be getting really close to be

4:58 ↗ being agreed upon the conceptually right

5:01 ↗ and then I read the language and then I

5:05 ↗ is does the LA

5:18 ↗ um

5:19 ↗ does the language match the intent

5:22 ↗ are there contradictions in the language

5:25 ↗ because as soon as you get

5:27 ↗ contradictions in the code it basically

5:29 ↗ makes it un implementable

5:33 ↗ are your definitions the same throughout

5:37 ↗ the code because little tiny words can

5:40 ↗ make a huge difference and for example

5:42 ↗ the term open space which is defined is

5:46 ↗ used

5:47 ↗ I I I'm estimating about 20 times in

5:51 ↗ this code in about 20 different ways

5:53 ↗ which means it's a word with very little

5:56 ↗ meaning and it's hard to implement

5:59 ↗ so

6:01 ↗ as this is a super super super important

6:05 ↗ product I'm just going to stand here and

6:08 ↗ ask you all to

6:11 ↗ read the code in that sort of a detail

6:15 ↗ and read it with the words in mind and

6:18 ↗ with the flow if I was doing a project

6:21 ↗ would I be able to understand the

6:23 ↗ pathway that I would need to take and

6:26 ↗ then would I be able to understand the

6:28 ↗ words enough to know what I needed to do

6:31 ↗ and at what point in time and when I

6:34 ↗ read the code there are several sections

6:36 ↗ that are just well and truly broken

6:39 ↗ right they need a rework there are other

6:42 ↗ places that are very close but it's the

6:46 ↗ language issues now me who am I I'm just

6:49 ↗ this person who lives on squawk who is

6:51 ↗ like really happy that Santa gave me

6:53 ↗ code for Christmas right these guys are

6:55 ↗ trying to do it but they're sort of cut

6:57 ↗ the code is cut into different people

6:59 ↗ writing different pieces right now it

7:02 ↗ does not come through in a uniform tone

7:04 ↗ or language and I don't think you're

7:07 ↗ going to get the results that you intend

7:10 ↗ to get with the code as it stands

7:13 ↗ anything you all can do at midnight or

7:17 ↗ whenever to help with those details will

7:21 ↗ help

7:22 ↗ our city long-term protect our

7:25 ↗ environment and also our developers to

7:27 ↗ build more easily because someone will

7:29 ↗ actually understand what the language

7:31 ↗ means and everything won't be a

7:33 ↗ three-hour meeting to know what that

7:36 ↗ word really means so uh you know what I

7:40 ↗ thought I've sent a lot out I'll say

7:42 ↗ more and more with different meanings

7:44 ↗ but that is me you know pleading and

7:46 ↗ begging for you to really take this

7:49 ↗ seriously and do some seriously hard

7:51 ↗ work and maybe you'll love code as much

7:53 ↗ as I do in the end thank you

8:16 ↗ good evening planning policy commission

8:18 ↗ thank you for your time here today my

8:20 ↗ name is Brooke Lang and I made some

8:22 ↗ comments uh back in the about May time

8:25 ↗ frame of last year on two items one of

8:28 ↗ them we've had some fairly significant

8:30 ↗ progress on which is

8:34 ↗ 18.404.303 just want to say that I'm in

8:37 ↗ support of what has been put in in the

8:39 ↗ draft to you that has been published and

8:41 ↗ everything I think this works out

8:43 ↗ wonderful and addresses some of the

8:46 ↗ issues and problems that were not

8:48 ↗ addressed in the title 18 prior to that

8:51 ↗ being put in

8:52 ↗ the next issue is it won't take a lot of

8:54 ↗ time here the other comment that I made

8:55 ↗ that I spoke about was

8:58 ↗ for the size of an Adu an auxiliary

9:02 ↗ dwelling unit and I made some comments

9:05 ↗ about that back in May which has been

9:06 ↗ published and is in all the Publications

9:08 ↗ and everybody's working on that and to

9:10 ↗ refresh your memory this is in the case

9:12 ↗ of the ideas where having people that we

9:15 ↗ want to be able to stay in their homes

9:17 ↗ so when you look at elderly adults that

9:20 ↗ the only way they're going to be able to

9:21 ↗ stay inside the City of Issaquah and in

9:24 ↗ the home that they've known their whole

9:25 ↗ life is to live into an auxiliary

9:28 ↗ dwelling unit where when people are

9:30 ↗ older they need to have separate rooms

9:32 ↗ in 24-hour nursing care so that means

9:34 ↗ you're going to require three rooms plus

9:37 ↗ adequate space in order for them to stay

9:40 ↗ in their home and the working with the

9:44 ↗ city everything seems to come up with

9:45 ↗ you know a thousand square feet is

9:47 ↗ definitely what some cities are at but

9:49 ↗ there are very many many cities that

9:50 ↗ have the Adu set at 1200 100 and I want

9:53 ↗ to make clear my comments before when I

9:55 ↗ put in there was I said well I don't

9:57 ↗ know you know 1800 square feet I was

9:59 ↗ kind of just throwing out some numbers

10:00 ↗ before I had some time to do some more

10:02 ↗ research and find out what really makes

10:04 ↗ sense for the City of Issaquah so I want

10:06 ↗ to clarify the comments before where we

10:08 ↗ threw out the idea that it would be 1800

10:10 ↗ square feet is not ultimately what we

10:12 ↗ wanted to put together that was just to

10:14 ↗ get the ball rolling to work with people

10:16 ↗ and do the numbers so now I've come back

10:18 ↗ and said what seems to be right is what

10:21 ↗ many many cities do is 1200 square feet

10:23 ↗ would be the maximum for an Adu which

10:26 ↗ would be enough to leave an elderly

10:28 ↗ couple in their home with a 24-hour

10:30 ↗ nursing care where they can remain there

10:33 ↗ now I do realize that there are some

10:35 ↗ Lots in the City of Issaquah population

10:37 ↗ global warming everything you know we

10:39 ↗ need to be dense if we're going to you

10:42 ↗ know have more area that we leave for

10:44 ↗ untouched land and so the city of

10:47 ↗ issaquah's made things a lot more denser

10:49 ↗ as is all cities around the country in

10:51 ↗ the world and so I I do understand that

10:53 ↗ if you have a very small lot because

10:55 ↗ you're doing density then maybe

10:57 ↗ increasing the size of the Adu gets to

10:59 ↗ be not quite what would be conducive so

11:02 ↗ I believe that to be technical what we

11:04 ↗ should do on this is if you're going to

11:05 ↗ go over the thousand square feet and

11:07 ↗ maybe you're going to say look if you're

11:08 ↗ going to go to 1200 square feet then

11:10 ↗ maybe you should have a lot that's at

11:12 ↗ minimum 150 percent the size of the

11:15 ↗ minimum lot

11:16 ↗ so you have a minimum lot size now and

11:18 ↗ you can put a thousand square foot Adu

11:20 ↗ on it but if your lot size is say 150

11:23 ↗ percent of that and we could see if the

11:25 ↗ planning policy commission thinks that's

11:27 ↗ right or 140 percent or 160 percent

11:29 ↗ something around that that you guys

11:30 ↗ think is right

11:32 ↗ that we would say well then you could go

11:33 ↗ up to 1200 and that would be enough in

11:36 ↗ talking to a lot of Architects and

11:37 ↗ different things to be able to leave

11:39 ↗ people in their property in their home

11:42 ↗ so I think you know I'm certainly open

11:44 ↗ to questions for anything on that but I

11:46 ↗ I want to say that the maximum would be

11:48 ↗ 1200 if you're over a thousand square

11:51 ↗ feet then you have to have for now I'll

11:54 ↗ just call it a hundred and fifty percent

11:55 ↗ of what the minimum lot size is to do

11:58 ↗ that other 200 that would make sense and

12:00 ↗ then elderly people can stay in their

12:02 ↗ home now the last thing I want to

12:03 ↗ impress upon the policy and Planning

12:05 ↗ Commission is that we should do this

12:07 ↗ during this Title 18 redo we know that a

12:10 ↗ lot of people know about this item and

12:12 ↗ it and things were discussed before and

12:14 ↗ looked at in the city but we do now know

12:16 ↗ that this has been out in the public for

12:20 ↗ since May of last year and now there's

12:23 ↗ more public comments and everything on

12:24 ↗ it now so I think for people that want

12:26 ↗ to be involved they certainly know this

12:28 ↗ is here and they have opportunity even

12:30 ↗ past today to come back and make

12:32 ↗ comments to you if they want to so I

12:34 ↗ want to make that clear that we believe

12:36 ↗ this needs to be done during this Title

12:38 ↗ 18 and to finish it up when you finish

12:40 ↗ it up this should not be something that

12:42 ↗ extends Beyond this or moves farther

12:44 ↗ because I think it's clearly way out in

12:47 ↗ the public and this is the second time

12:48 ↗ that we're in the public talking about

12:50 ↗ the Adu size and so for people that are

12:52 ↗ interested they certainly have time to

12:54 ↗ come back and and give their more public

12:56 ↗ comments to this public comment before

12:59 ↗ you make up your minds uh any questions

13:01 ↗ you can reach me or would reach out to

13:03 ↗ all of you to see if there's any

13:05 ↗ questions that we could do this so that

13:07 ↗ uh for for at least this situation for

13:09 ↗ elderly people I'm sure there's other

13:11 ↗ situations too that would Encompass uh

13:14 ↗ that amount of extra square foot but

13:16 ↗ still with extra property square foot

13:17 ↗ too thank you very much

13:24 ↗ thank you both

13:25 ↗ uh Jared do we have anyone else that

13:27 ↗ would like to make a public comment this

13:29 ↗ evening

13:31 ↗ no one has indicated that they would

13:33 ↗ like to speak online at this time okay

13:35 ↗ thank you

13:37 ↗ we're going to move on to our regular

13:38 ↗ business tonight

13:40 ↗ and we are going to begin our discussion

13:42 ↗ as far as the title 18 Consolidated

13:44 ↗ draft this is phase three of the title

13:47 ↗ 18 update

13:49 ↗ you may recall we've been discussing the

13:51 ↗ draft

13:52 ↗ in six different buckets to more easily

13:55 ↗ break down and dissect the code in

13:57 ↗ pieces

13:58 ↗ during phase one the staff and

14:00 ↗ consultant team worked with planning

14:01 ↗ policy and other boards and commissions

14:03 ↗ to identify gaps where Title 18 falls

14:06 ↗ short of achieving the city's adopted

14:08 ↗ long-term Visions best practices or

14:11 ↗ state law

14:12 ↗ for phase two of the project

14:15 ↗ the team held a series of meetings with

14:16 ↗ the planning policy commission and other

14:18 ↗ relevant boards and commissions to

14:20 ↗ discuss the potential policy changes

14:23 ↗ these discussions were each followed by

14:25 ↗ a meeting with the Planning Development

14:27 ↗ and environmental Council committees to

14:30 ↗ receive final Direction

14:32 ↗ now we're on to phase three which

14:34 ↗ compiles all the works we've done so far

14:38 ↗ this includes follow-up edits by staff

14:41 ↗ additional consultant analysis analysis

14:44 ↗ and a code testing process which

14:46 ↗ resulted in additional edits

14:49 ↗ tonight is our first look at Title 18 in

14:53 ↗ its entirety we will be asking

14:55 ↗ clarifying questions about the draft

14:57 ↗ reviewing as well as making discussion

15:01 ↗ tonight we are not looking to make

15:03 ↗ decisions this is about critiquing

15:06 ↗ criticizing possibly adding pulling away

15:09 ↗ but we're not actually looking to

15:10 ↗ deliberate on the policies question

15:12 ↗ policy questions that we'll be looking

15:14 ↗ at

15:15 ↗ staff's going to guide us through and

15:18 ↗ we're going to begin with the

15:19 ↗ presentation just as far as the next

15:21 ↗ three meetings and what we have to look

15:23 ↗ forward to

15:25 ↗ so I believe I'm passing that off too

15:28 ↗ many

15:29 ↗ good evening Commissioners it seems like

15:32 ↗ in the chat there is some

15:35 ↗ issue with the audio for folks that are

15:38 ↗ attending online

15:40 ↗ that they're not able to hear or it's

15:43 ↗ coming out choppy

15:45 ↗ I don't know did we do a test yes we are

15:48 ↗ working on it at this time trying to

15:49 ↗ resolve the issue

15:51 ↗ okay should we proceed or should we wait

15:53 ↗ for the issue to be resolved so they can

15:55 ↗ participate we believe we should proceed

15:59 ↗ um how long do you think it'll take to

16:01 ↗ fix the issue

16:09 ↗ we can go ahead and let's try and give

16:10 ↗ them five minutes and see if we can

16:13 ↗ figure it out let's give him five

16:14 ↗ minutes anyone wants to take a break

16:16 ↗ so we'll go offline for about five

16:18 ↗ minutes yeah we also have our City

16:19 ↗ attorney Rachel Turpin

16:21 ↗ um attending virtually as well so just

16:24 ↗ wanted okay to everyone to know

16:52 ↗ TV happens

20:15 ↗ online

20:16 ↗ we have a small presentation I'm just

20:18 ↗ going to go through it and let me share

20:21 ↗ my screen here

20:23 ↗ and make sure everyone can

20:27 ↗ see

20:31 ↗ okay great

20:32 ↗ um so tonight uh we're here after almost

20:36 ↗ two years of having worked through the

20:39 ↗ big land use code update very important

20:41 ↗ project for the city

20:42 ↗ and we want to walk you through the

20:46 ↗ history a little bit but more of what

20:48 ↗ what's in front of you and and some

20:50 ↗ processing procedures so we wanted to

20:52 ↗ have a chance for all of you to have a

20:54 ↗ have an opportunity to Talk Amongst

20:56 ↗ yourselves tell us what you think and

20:58 ↗ before you get into the public hearings

21:00 ↗ for the Consolidated draft so

21:03 ↗ um the purpose of the meeting tonight is

21:05 ↗ really to give you an overview of Title

21:07 ↗ 18 we've given you the link to

21:10 ↗ um the the entire Consolidated code and

21:13 ↗ the shoreline master program

21:15 ↗ we'll go over the public hearing process

21:19 ↗ what will it look like in the upcoming

21:21 ↗ three meetings we'll also introduce the

21:24 ↗ policy questions that we've laid out in

21:26 ↗ your packet before and and

21:28 ↗ um and answer any questions you might

21:30 ↗ have for the those we don't expect you

21:32 ↗ to deliberate on those policy questions

21:35 ↗ at this time but we wanted to just

21:37 ↗ introduce them and get you thinking

21:40 ↗ about as you read the 700 page document

21:44 ↗ so you can ask us questions about the

21:47 ↗ code about Shoreline master program you

21:50 ↗ can ask us about the process or about

21:52 ↗ and or about the policy questions

21:55 ↗ so for the new members that were not

21:59 ↗ with us from the very beginning and and

22:02 ↗ for the the members that have lived

22:03 ↗ through it we divided the whole code

22:06 ↗ update into three different phases the

22:08 ↗ first one was the gaps analysis what we

22:10 ↗ called and it was really at a high level

22:12 ↗ looking at the scope of the work scope

22:15 ↗ of the project and coming up with where

22:17 ↗ are the missing pieces that we need to

22:19 ↗ fix where we fell short in terms of

22:22 ↗ state law aligning with the city's

22:24 ↗ policies where the where were the the

22:27 ↗ missing pieces in the code that needed

22:28 ↗ to be addressed and we divided it based

22:30 ↗ on topics so we had 26 total commission

22:34 ↗ board meetings we had four meetings with

22:36 ↗ the council members

22:37 ↗ and then we launched into our phase two

22:40 ↗ which was really the the draft uh when

22:44 ↗ we released the draft code for each of

22:45 ↗ the six buckets

22:47 ↗ um so for the six different topic areas

22:50 ↗ for lack of better word natural

22:51 ↗ environment Landscaping zoning and uses

22:56 ↗ development standards and processing

22:58 ↗ procedures so all of those were the

23:00 ↗ topic areas that had a lot of stuff

23:02 ↗ under each one of them

23:04 ↗ um we had a draft code for and you all

23:07 ↗ held a public hearing and that there

23:10 ↗ were 25 commission board meetings 10

23:12 ↗ meetings with the council members and we

23:14 ↗ also had 12 additional public meetings

23:17 ↗ um and now we're at phase three we have

23:21 ↗ Consolidated all that input that we got

23:23 ↗ from the community and from the boards

23:25 ↗ and commissions and from the council

23:27 ↗ committee into this Consolidated draft

23:29 ↗ many yeah do you mind if I interrupt you

23:32 ↗ for one moment sure so unfortunately we

23:34 ↗ thought we fixed our technical issues we

23:37 ↗ are still not able to broadcast

23:40 ↗ over WebEx so I do ask Vice chair Bader

23:44 ↗ or anyone in the public that's having

23:46 ↗ problems with their audio please join us

23:49 ↗ on YouTube

23:50 ↗ or ictv if you have Comcast or Xfinity

23:54 ↗ and for those who would like to be I

23:57 ↗ guess this is really directed as device

23:58 ↗ chair Bader Vice chair Bader if you

24:01 ↗ would like to comment when we get to the

24:03 ↗ part of the process where planning

24:05 ↗ policy speaks up please feel free to

24:07 ↗ call in here is the number

24:10 ↗ the number is 206.

24:13 ↗ 207

24:16 ↗ -1700

24:19 ↗ and the access code

24:22 ↗ is 2499

24:25 ↗ 742

24:28 ↗ -4971

24:31 ↗ pound

24:34 ↗ and uh commissioner Lewis is is helping

24:37 ↗ us out here so she's going to text that

24:39 ↗ information to you so we do apologize we

24:41 ↗ thought we had it fixed but apparently

24:43 ↗ it is still out so many plea so again

24:46 ↗ please join us on YouTube live or ictv

24:49 ↗ mini please

24:52 ↗ hey yeah

24:55 ↗ um so um now we're in phase three

24:58 ↗ we have three formal public hearings

25:01 ↗ scheduled with the planning and policy

25:03 ↗ commission where you will take public

25:05 ↗ comments

25:07 ↗ um and then deliberate and make your

25:09 ↗ formal recommendation to council

25:11 ↗ committee who will then review and make

25:16 ↗ a you know pass it on to city council

25:19 ↗ full city council for adoption so that's

25:21 ↗ how the process is going to work in the

25:24 ↗ upcoming months

25:25 ↗ um

25:27 ↗ let's see

25:30 ↗ um so I just wanted to walk you guys

25:32 ↗ through what you know when you look at

25:34 ↗ that 700 page document it's divided into

25:36 ↗ eight parts so part one is really

25:40 ↗ um General Provisions

25:43 ↗ um it's basically covering whose and

25:45 ↗ what does Title 18 apply to there's a

25:49 ↗ chapter about comprehensive plan and

25:51 ↗ land use code amendment process so you

25:55 ↗ know when anyone can petition or the

25:57 ↗ city itself has its own rules to follow

26:00 ↗ when you want when you have a

26:02 ↗ comprehensive plan Amendment which is

26:04 ↗ supposed to be looked at holistically

26:05 ↗ it's your 20-year vision and planning

26:09 ↗ document for the city accommodating

26:11 ↗ growth for next 20 years making sure

26:14 ↗ that there is enough capacity for

26:16 ↗ transportation infrastructure and other

26:18 ↗ things so but also you know what is

26:21 ↗ important to Issaquah is that

26:22 ↗ Environmental Protection is it historic

26:25 ↗ preservation whatever you know is

26:27 ↗ captured in that comprehensive plan from

26:29 ↗ a policy document but Title 18

26:31 ↗ establishes a process for how to amend

26:34 ↗ it and all that then we have a lengthy

26:37 ↗ chapter about definitions you heard

26:38 ↗ about public comments on on the

26:40 ↗ definitions but they estab if we're

26:43 ↗ non-defined terms and such it'll it'll

26:47 ↗ we have definitions when it's a common

26:49 ↗ term you know we've kind of cleaned up

26:51 ↗ this section we've Consolidated all the

26:54 ↗ definitions from five different

26:56 ↗ documents into one location here we've

26:59 ↗ deleted unnecessary definitions

27:02 ↗ and we have intermingled regulations for

27:06 ↗ under the definitions section so we've

27:08 ↗ moved that into actual regulation

27:10 ↗ section

27:12 ↗ and and as far as the land use process

27:15 ↗ goes we've clarified uh the process when

27:18 ↗ anyone can seek an amendment to a comp

27:21 ↗ plan or a land use code

27:24 ↗ um

27:24 ↗ so that's part one

27:28 ↗ part two

27:30 ↗ um captures the procedures so this is

27:35 ↗ where we have

27:37 ↗ um

27:40 ↗ some highlights of things we've done

27:41 ↗ here is

27:44 ↗ um

27:46 ↗ we used to have a lot of processing

27:48 ↗ procedures and they were inconsistent it

27:49 ↗ had organically grown over a period of

27:51 ↗ time we had separate documents done for

27:54 ↗ Central Issaquah but there were

27:56 ↗ different ones for

27:57 ↗ Talus and Highlands so this is our

28:00 ↗ attempt at creating procedures that are

28:03 ↗ consistent and clear

28:05 ↗ um for all of the different land use

28:08 ↗ permits how to apply them what's

28:10 ↗ involved and what how different aspects

28:14 ↗ of the development pop up so some

28:15 ↗ highlights of the changes here are we

28:18 ↗ have a new step-by-step process for

28:20 ↗ permits we used to have a multitude of

28:23 ↗ community meetings so now you have a new

28:26 ↗ pre-application community meeting it's

28:28 ↗ Consolidated there was a lot of debate

28:30 ↗ about who handles this type of

28:33 ↗ pre-application community meeting is it

28:35 ↗ the the staff is it the development

28:38 ↗ commission and and sometimes the project

28:40 ↗ triggered both and then who would sit

28:42 ↗ through those so all of that is cleaned

28:45 ↗ up

28:46 ↗ um we used to have uh administrative

28:48 ↗ adjustment of Standards sprinkled

28:50 ↗ throughout so a very broad

28:53 ↗ criteria but very vague and arbitrary so

28:57 ↗ instead of that we have a more defined

28:59 ↗ deviation process for a handful of

29:01 ↗ things that do should be looked at and

29:04 ↗ you know so we've given you that as a

29:07 ↗ policy question of the list of

29:09 ↗ deviations in the code is that all that

29:11 ↗ we should consider under administrative

29:13 ↗ deviations and are you okay with the

29:16 ↗ criteria

29:17 ↗ so you can look at that

29:20 ↗ we also used to have a table that mixed

29:23 ↗ up whether it's a permitted use and

29:25 ↗ what's the level of review and and it

29:28 ↗ was very complicated and difficult to

29:30 ↗ administer big and and sometimes a use

29:33 ↗ had a different standard you know for

29:36 ↗ instance a daycare it didn't matter if

29:38 ↗ it was five thousand square feet or a

29:39 ↗ hundred thousand square feet it was just

29:41 ↗ one process level of review so instead

29:44 ↗ of having it based on the use it's now

29:46 ↗ based on what's the actual development

29:49 ↗ and we had a lot of discussions about

29:50 ↗ the threshold you know what makes sense

29:53 ↗ and we also went back to cancel and then

29:55 ↗ they asked us to go back to development

29:57 ↗ commission which we did and we was we've

30:00 ↗ taken that out you have a table of

30:01 ↗ permitted uses but it's Consolidated

30:03 ↗ from five different documents so you

30:05 ↗ don't have to figure out where your

30:06 ↗ property is and then figure out which

30:07 ↗ document to go to

30:09 ↗ so that establishes whether the use is

30:12 ↗ allowed

30:13 ↗ but then we have a separate table for

30:15 ↗ the levels of review so they're listed

30:18 ↗ as five levels of review and under each

30:20 ↗ one you'll see that has the different

30:23 ↗ um types of things that establish which

30:26 ↗ level of review is needed

30:29 ↗ um then we have a site development

30:33 ↗ permit threshold we had we discussed you

30:36 ↗ know what is it that should have an

30:38 ↗ administrative threshold what is it that

30:40 ↗ needs to go to development commission we

30:43 ↗ had a priority streets issue we've

30:46 ↗ cleaned all of that up and it's very

30:48 ↗ clear now what is whose purview the

30:52 ↗ different types of projects will fall

30:54 ↗ under

30:56 ↗ um we've also introduced a new technical

30:59 ↗ review process and a little background

31:02 ↗ on that is

31:04 ↗ um you know what we heard from the

31:05 ↗ development commission was they're not

31:07 ↗ the technical experts when we put in all

31:10 ↗ these very technical documents in front

31:12 ↗ of them and ask them to approve those

31:14 ↗ they expressed some concern with that

31:16 ↗ they thought they'd bring value to the

31:18 ↗ city and in terms of building design

31:20 ↗ site design you know getting Community

31:22 ↗ input and kind of resolving those things

31:24 ↗ but not necessarily a geotechnical

31:26 ↗ report that has a very specific soil

31:29 ↗ profile and and so on and so forth

31:31 ↗ uh so we've introduced this this concept

31:34 ↗ that um you and and what we heard from

31:37 ↗ the developers was we can't give them

31:39 ↗ any answer until the tail end the

31:41 ↗ project goes to the development

31:42 ↗ commission that that we can't tell you

31:45 ↗ whether it's a wetland type two or three

31:47 ↗ until you know it's going to be approved

31:49 ↗ by the development commission so so this

31:52 ↗ interim step is an administrative review

31:55 ↗ process that's going to get

31:56 ↗ peer-reviewed by all our subject matter

31:58 ↗ experts soils engineer uh to Wetland

32:01 ↗ biologists to whoever

32:04 ↗ um you know is going to look at that

32:06 ↗ technical report and then we can provide

32:09 ↗ a decision on the parameters of that

32:12 ↗ technical report so it can they can

32:14 ↗ establish how much of their property is

32:15 ↗ buildable and what they can do and

32:17 ↗ cannot do

32:19 ↗ um we'll flag that for your policy

32:21 ↗ discussion because some of the comments

32:22 ↗ that have come in uh have raised some

32:25 ↗ points of you know should this be a

32:27 ↗ level one and if you have a building

32:29 ↗ permit that didn't require any notice

32:31 ↗ that makes sense to have it as a level

32:33 ↗ one but if you have something that's

32:35 ↗ going to go to a development commission

32:36 ↗ we would do the notice and all that but

32:39 ↗ I think we need to kind of talk about

32:40 ↗ that a little bit as you look at it how

32:43 ↗ how we how you all think we should

32:45 ↗ handle this interim technical review

32:48 ↗ piece but the intent is so that we can

32:51 ↗ give predictable

32:53 ↗ consistent answers that are technical in

32:56 ↗ nature early in the process there's

32:58 ↗ still a procedural element to it that we

33:00 ↗ still take Community feedback and those

33:02 ↗ are appealable but then how do we

33:04 ↗ capture them with the development

33:06 ↗ commission review process

33:09 ↗ um public notice procedures we heard

33:13 ↗ um you know we need to post the site

33:15 ↗ early that's the time when the community

33:17 ↗ input is more valuable for the

33:19 ↗ Developers for the community members

33:21 ↗ because they can influence and you know

33:23 ↗ nobody's invested a lot of money and if

33:25 ↗ we just post the site at the 14 days

33:28 ↗ prior to the hearing it's too late at

33:30 ↗ that point

33:31 ↗ so we've started doing that now but

33:34 ↗ we've formalized that in our code to do

33:36 ↗ that early

33:37 ↗ we've also changed it to 500 feet of the

33:42 ↗ property neighboring property owners and

33:43 ↗ not just the property owners but tenants

33:45 ↗ when more than 30 percent of our

33:47 ↗ community members are renters we do also

33:50 ↗ want to care to notify anyone that lives

33:52 ↗ in the community not just the property

33:53 ↗ owners so so we've made some of those

33:55 ↗ procedural changes

33:57 ↗ um so that's part two

34:00 ↗ part three is division of land so this

34:05 ↗ is where

34:07 ↗ when you divide your land there's state

34:09 ↗ law established in the 70s they've

34:11 ↗ established that it's in the interest of

34:13 ↗ the state to have these formalized

34:15 ↗ process

34:17 ↗ um for dividing

34:18 ↗ under this section what some of the

34:22 ↗ highlights that we've captured are we

34:26 ↗ didn't have a subdivision design

34:27 ↗ standards so we've Incorporated those

34:31 ↗ there's the unit lot subdivision has

34:34 ↗ been added there's some confusion about

34:37 ↗ it that will capture in the public

34:38 ↗ comments Matrix for you for next meeting

34:41 ↗ but I'll address it now

34:44 ↗ um what a unit lot subdivision is you

34:46 ↗ know if you're if you're if your zoning

34:48 ↗ allows you to build Town Homes it's not

34:50 ↗ like it's circumventing what's already

34:52 ↗ allowed under the permitted use table it

34:55 ↗ takes you still have to go to the

34:56 ↗ permitted use and see what's allowed and

34:58 ↗ on your zoning and then if a town home

35:01 ↗ is allowed you can use this unit lot

35:04 ↗ subdivision which encourages home

35:06 ↗ ownership for smaller Lots as opposed to

35:10 ↗ if someone did a town home they would

35:12 ↗ have to condom you know set it as a

35:14 ↗ condo it would be a joint ownership of

35:16 ↗ the land and then people own their units

35:18 ↗ unit lot subdivision allows you to own

35:21 ↗ your unit and your land so we this is a

35:25 ↗ process it's not allowing a different

35:28 ↗ type of form of a development in a in a

35:31 ↗ Zone in a zone that it's not already

35:32 ↗ allowed under

35:33 ↗ so we've added that

35:36 ↗ we discussed a lot about the threshold

35:39 ↗ for short plant

35:41 ↗ and and the difference between short

35:43 ↗ plaid and the subdivision for the new

35:45 ↗ members is short plaid as administrative

35:48 ↗ and subdivision is a public hearing

35:51 ↗ process with the hearing examiner so we

35:53 ↗ had anything more than four Lots was

35:56 ↗ automatically a hearing we did a peer

35:59 ↗ City research and a lot of cities had

36:01 ↗ updated it and and you know the outcome

36:03 ↗ is the same it's not that it's any

36:05 ↗ different you we would still do a public

36:07 ↗ notice component to a short plaid but

36:11 ↗ it's not a public hearing so it saves a

36:13 ↗ lot of time for a process that gives you

36:17 ↗ the same end result

36:18 ↗ so that threshold is now nine Lots

36:21 ↗ instead of four Lots

36:24 ↗ we've also clarified the application

36:28 ↗ submittal requirements at least for the

36:30 ↗ subdivision portion we've kind of set

36:32 ↗ that in our code this is what determines

36:34 ↗ a complete application so there's no

36:36 ↗ debate about that

36:37 ↗ and then we have a very specific design

36:39 ↗ criteria so when when a hearing examiner

36:42 ↗ or staff is evaluating they really have

36:44 ↗ a criteria to say yes you need it or you

36:46 ↗ don't

36:47 ↗ um and then

36:49 ↗ the extensions were all over the map the

36:53 ↗ state law that limits how long things

36:55 ↗ can go on

36:56 ↗ so we've cleaned all of that up and

36:59 ↗ established a real clear guidance of you

37:02 ↗ build this within this time if you have

37:03 ↗ an approval if you don't then things

37:06 ↗ expire and you know you can resubmit and

37:09 ↗ things of that nature

37:11 ↗ um

37:12 ↗ so moving on to part four is the zoning

37:17 ↗ um and it it really defines the

37:20 ↗ character so

37:23 ↗ I think most of you already know this

37:25 ↗ but I'll just kind of go over uh what is

37:28 ↗ the underlying zoning establishes what

37:30 ↗ are the uses allowed what is the intent

37:32 ↗ of that zoning what uses can go in there

37:35 ↗ what will development look like within

37:37 ↗ those zones how tall how wide you know

37:40 ↗ all of those developments so but that's

37:42 ↗ your basic

37:43 ↗ underlying premise that establishes some

37:46 ↗ of those um so we haven't changed any

37:48 ↗ zoning we haven't said

37:50 ↗ everything's own residential is now Zone

37:53 ↗ commercial or you know the other way

37:54 ↗ around

37:55 ↗ um because that was not the scope of the

37:56 ↗ project uh this this update the

37:58 ↗ comprehensive plan policies were the

38:00 ↗ same but we've cleaned up a lot here

38:03 ↗ there were a lot of

38:05 ↗ um you know nuances there some

38:07 ↗ highlights here the use tables thanks to

38:10 ↗ Kristen that she probably spent

38:12 ↗ so much time just making sure all the

38:15 ↗ X's were crossed and the t's were done

38:17 ↗ but it's one table now instead of go to

38:20 ↗ five different places to get figure out

38:21 ↗ whether the use is allowed we've

38:24 ↗ reformatted them we've added the Zone

38:27 ↗ descriptions where they were missing

38:29 ↗ more clarification and Graphics so this

38:32 ↗ was a consolidation cleanup

38:34 ↗ uh part so that that was the focus in

38:37 ↗ this particular part

38:41 ↗ um part five then we have these really

38:43 ↗ specific uses

38:45 ↗ um like adus you heard some public

38:48 ↗ comments in that so there's a section

38:49 ↗ about adus for some reason we've uh

38:52 ↗ Issaquah has some of these very specific

38:54 ↗ things that were an issue at one point

38:56 ↗ but we maintained that legislative

38:58 ↗ history doggy daycares uh cannabis

39:01 ↗ retail production you know all of those

39:04 ↗ things that happen with the state law

39:06 ↗ and and where those are allowed and how

39:07 ↗ many we've kind of maintained that motor

39:10 ↗ vehicle sales hazardous waste facilities

39:13 ↗ Wireless Communications and affordable

39:15 ↗ housing you know there's a lot here but

39:18 ↗ they're all under these specific type of

39:20 ↗ things that we have regulations on

39:24 ↗ and what we've done here is you probably

39:27 ↗ remember folks that the food trucks were

39:30 ↗ a big thing you heard a lot of comments

39:33 ↗ um and and um on that topic and we've

39:37 ↗ heard loud and clear what the what the

39:40 ↗ commentary was I think the the issue was

39:42 ↗ we can't limit them to 60 days and so we

39:44 ↗ have not proposed a term limit

39:48 ↗ um on that

39:50 ↗ um but we've duplicated and outdated

39:52 ↗ standards we've removed them

39:54 ↗ um we've we've always been processing

39:57 ↗ food trucks but now it's a formal

39:59 ↗ process in in the code

40:01 ↗ affordable housing standards

40:04 ↗ um some of the things were really

40:06 ↗ consistency with other

40:08 ↗ um you heard you had the arch

40:10 ↗ presentation last time so they've helped

40:13 ↗ us have some consistent regulations

40:16 ↗ there

40:17 ↗ we've added some requirements for

40:19 ↗ interior and exterior finishes

40:22 ↗ establish a time limit between the

40:25 ↗ building permits submittal and issuance

40:26 ↗ of you know so a lot of details there

40:28 ↗ but but the intent really is cleanup it

40:31 ↗ wasn't a big major policy issue of

40:33 ↗ changing the affordable housing

40:36 ↗ we had some specific

40:39 ↗ um amount to a formula for Hama how you

40:42 ↗ developed your bonus density and we've

40:44 ↗ cleaned that up so

40:47 ↗ um you know Kristen worked with Arch and

40:49 ↗ and that's been the focus of really

40:51 ↗ streamlining some of those things and

40:52 ↗ and clean up

40:54 ↗ um wireless communication facilities

40:57 ↗ um you know there's been some FCC

40:59 ↗ regulations that have come into play the

41:01 ↗ city had update updated before but we've

41:04 ↗ aligned some of the the regulations just

41:06 ↗ so that they're they're consistent with

41:08 ↗ that we've added some illustrations of

41:10 ↗ scale and pole placement and things just

41:12 ↗ to again clean up

41:15 ↗ um

41:15 ↗ part six is your development standards

41:18 ↗ you know what does the development look

41:20 ↗ like how will they function which way is

41:23 ↗ the entrance how much parking is needed

41:26 ↗ what and where does the landscape need

41:29 ↗ to be how much Community Open Spaces

41:31 ↗ required all of that is under

41:34 ↗ the development standards section and

41:37 ↗ some highlights there

41:39 ↗ um

41:40 ↗ Urban Design and site planning we have

41:44 ↗ existing code

41:46 ↗ um for areas outside of central Issaquah

41:50 ↗ we've looked at that and and taken a

41:53 ↗ look at the not the architectural design

41:55 ↗ but just the Urban Design and site

41:57 ↗ design and tried to make some

42:00 ↗ uh adjustments so it's applicable in you

42:02 ↗ know multi-family in one area versus the

42:05 ↗ other usually has some site design

42:06 ↗ considerations that probably should be

42:08 ↗ the same

42:10 ↗ Old Town design guidelines for duplex

42:14 ↗ and multi-family zones like driveways

42:17 ↗ and garages and things

42:18 ↗ it doesn't apply to single-family only

42:21 ↗ zones but where the duplexes are

42:24 ↗ permitted you know we've kind of made

42:27 ↗ those standard there was only very

42:29 ↗ little Delta differences but there were

42:31 ↗ different flavors of those things we

42:34 ↗ have some solid waste collection space

42:36 ↗ standards those are consistent now

42:41 ↗ circulation sidewalks Sky Bridges all of

42:44 ↗ those things move to the street

42:45 ↗ standards update so parallel with this

42:48 ↗ is the transportation Advisory Board is

42:51 ↗ looking at some of the street standards

42:54 ↗ we had those sprinkled throughout Title

42:57 ↗ 18 but we also had them entitled 12 so

43:00 ↗ we've removed them from Title 18 because

43:02 ↗ it was slightly inconsistent and all

43:04 ↗ that and those are being addressed in

43:06 ↗ title 12.

43:08 ↗ building design

43:11 ↗ in the central Issaquah we have an

43:14 ↗ architectural style guidelines

43:18 ↗ and we you know those are you have to

43:21 ↗ pick out of these five styles and if you

43:23 ↗ meet them or you don't meet them and

43:25 ↗ then we have some of these existing

43:28 ↗ businesses that are part of a

43:31 ↗ comprehensive plan adopted by the

43:33 ↗ council as Issaquah gems so booms candy

43:36 ↗ Gilman Village all these unique things

43:39 ↗ that you know don't fit into one box

43:42 ↗ that all these architectural Styles

43:44 ↗ apply so we've established some

43:46 ↗ exemptions from that Style Guidelines

43:48 ↗ for those three properties that are on

43:51 ↗ the Issaquah gem list

43:54 ↗ um

43:55 ↗ and then parking uh we had you all had a

43:58 ↗ lot of debate and discussion we've taken

44:00 ↗ that through the council committee it is

44:03 ↗ also on the future updates list but

44:06 ↗ there's a there's quite a bit we've

44:07 ↗ accomplished in uh the parking

44:10 ↗ so we've won they used to be slightly

44:13 ↗ different standards in central to the

44:15 ↗ rest of the city and all of those things

44:16 ↗ so those are have been Consolidated

44:20 ↗ um the the table is updated with more

44:22 ↗ metrics to calculate the required

44:25 ↗ parking and I think we went to the

44:27 ↗ transportation manual parking generation

44:30 ↗ manual to to cross-reference and and

44:32 ↗ clean up their of four

44:35 ↗ the central standards we have a new

44:38 ↗ tiered regulation so if you're within

44:39 ↗ yeah you know Transit

44:42 ↗ um capturing those slightly different

44:44 ↗ from if you're not within quarter mile

44:46 ↗ of of Transit

44:48 ↗ um a lot of work was done in the city

44:51 ↗ for electric vehicle charging stations

44:53 ↗ and and you know even for bikes and

44:55 ↗ shared parking

44:56 ↗ um so those have been updated based on

44:59 ↗ guidance from you all and members of the

45:01 ↗ public Landscaping

45:04 ↗ we

45:06 ↗ have some more sustainability measures

45:09 ↗ you know more native drug tolerant

45:12 ↗ resistant species more diversity of

45:14 ↗ species required because you don't want

45:17 ↗ um you know climate change is impacting

45:18 ↗ how Landscaping is done

45:21 ↗ um

45:22 ↗ and then we have the community and

45:24 ↗ amenities spaces so that's a brand new

45:26 ↗ chapter

45:27 ↗ you can look at it and tell us if it

45:30 ↗ needs more work

45:32 ↗ there is a policy question we've asked

45:35 ↗ you on that and I think the the previous

45:37 ↗ conversations we had with all of you

45:40 ↗ were we had a 48 square feet per unit

45:43 ↗ standard Which is far lower than most of

45:46 ↗ our neighboring Pier cities

45:48 ↗ and someone by you know in a big

45:50 ↗ apartment building you could have an um

45:53 ↗ a deck four by eight four by eight by

45:56 ↗ six and you could meet that requirement

45:59 ↗ um so what we heard during the public

46:01 ↗ comments was you need common amenity

46:03 ↗ spaces

46:05 ↗ that are more than 48 square feet you

46:07 ↗ probably should have a private open

46:09 ↗ space that's 48 square feet but common

46:11 ↗ open space should be more

46:13 ↗ then we had a lot of things about maybe

46:17 ↗ um having Sports fields and things like

46:20 ↗ that you know allowing those kind of

46:21 ↗ uses for rooftop amenities you know

46:23 ↗ trying to be creative with what can and

46:26 ↗ and as you as you develop a Suburban

46:28 ↗ Escape in central to a more urban Escape

46:31 ↗ be creative with how you incorporate

46:34 ↗ those amenity spaces within your thing

46:37 ↗ so

46:38 ↗ one of the policy questions we'll get to

46:40 ↗ it is what is the right amount of open

46:42 ↗ space amenity space uh needed for that

46:47 ↗ um so that part six part seven is the

46:50 ↗ design standard so this is again

46:52 ↗ maintaining that neighborhood overlay

46:55 ↗ but some places are unique and we've

46:58 ↗ maintained that through this code update

47:01 ↗ Old Town Central Dallas and Highlands

47:03 ↗ each has its own overlay design

47:05 ↗ standards so those have been maintained

47:07 ↗ but they're in one place now you don't

47:10 ↗ have to go find it in five different

47:11 ↗ documents if you're trying to figure

47:13 ↗ that out and the last part is the

47:16 ↗ environment

47:17 ↗ a lot of time was spent talking about

47:20 ↗ this section

47:22 ↗ and it does include the outdoor lighting

47:26 ↗ I think or maybe the outdoor lighting

47:27 ↗ isn't the other one I won't belabor the

47:29 ↗ point but there was a lot of changes

47:31 ↗ that were made to the outdoor lighting

47:33 ↗ section

47:34 ↗ um

47:35 ↗ the environment piece so there's the

47:39 ↗ state environment Policy Act that's

47:40 ↗ really looking at what are the adverse

47:42 ↗ impacts to the environment if you do

47:43 ↗ this so we've aligned that with the

47:45 ↗ state law we've increased the thresholds

47:48 ↗ there I think you all asked about that

47:50 ↗ it anything over four units had to go

47:53 ↗ through a State Environmental Policy Act

47:55 ↗ review they had to fill out a checklist

47:57 ↗ but the outcome was sort of the same but

48:00 ↗ it seemed like an onerous process with

48:03 ↗ the same outcome so we have increased

48:05 ↗ that threshold similar to the short plat

48:07 ↗ and maintain that consistency of

48:10 ↗ anything over nine units

48:13 ↗ requires CPA checklist to be filled out

48:18 ↗ um so procedural changes the exemptions

48:21 ↗ and things like that for in the critical

48:23 ↗ areas code Wetlands streams we've uh for

48:26 ↗ Wetlands we have aligned them with the

48:28 ↗ Department of ecologies uh best

48:30 ↗ available science for streams we heard

48:33 ↗ during our first round that we need to

48:36 ↗ do more uh so we did do a best available

48:38 ↗ science evaluation on our fish bearing

48:41 ↗ streams and the buffers recommended and

48:43 ↗ that are 150 feet

48:45 ↗ so that's in in your Consolidated draft

48:49 ↗ then we have the section fish and

48:52 ↗ wildlife conservation areas

48:54 ↗ you'll see as part of the public

48:57 ↗ comments that you get next time there's

48:58 ↗ still some confusion about if you have a

49:00 ↗ wetland those regulations apply if you

49:03 ↗ have a stream those regulations apply

49:04 ↗ and and as the special wildlife habitat

49:07 ↗ conservation and overlay or how do those

49:10 ↗ interplay and I think we can tweak some

49:12 ↗ language and make that clear but we can

49:14 ↗ walk you through that if you uh want to

49:19 ↗ we also have 50 percent of our drinking

49:22 ↗ water comes from the well so that's the

49:25 ↗ critical Aquifer recharge areas

49:28 ↗ so the city did a study and a

49:31 ↗ hydrogeologic model that looked at you

49:34 ↗ know how can the contaminants get into

49:36 ↗ that water and how can we prevent them

49:37 ↗ and and which is this catchment area

49:40 ↗ so that all technical work was done we

49:43 ↗ shared that technical report we got some

49:45 ↗ good comments Lakeside submitted some

49:47 ↗ comments and and pointed out some things

49:49 ↗ in the study where it was snapping to

49:52 ↗ the parcel boundaries it was a GIS thing

49:54 ↗ and so we worked with that consultant to

49:56 ↗ fix a few of those things in the study

49:58 ↗ so we've updated studies available

50:01 ↗ online

50:03 ↗ um but that critical lack of our

50:05 ↗ recharge area now has four designations

50:08 ↗ Cara one two three four

50:11 ↗ um

50:12 ↗ and then we have some you know uh if you

50:15 ↗ are in one and two which is the closest

50:16 ↗ to your drinking water supply area you

50:19 ↗ have some prohibited uses so if you

50:22 ↗ already have those non-ex um you know

50:24 ↗ conforming uses you can stay and you can

50:26 ↗ expand we're not penalizing you if

50:28 ↗ you're there but any new ones new new

50:31 ↗ gas stations probably not a good idea to

50:33 ↗ put those tanks close to your water

50:36 ↗ supplies so

50:38 ↗ um so there's some changes there

50:39 ↗ geologically hazardous areas

50:42 ↗ um uh we have we work with our

50:45 ↗ Consultants we really cleaned that up we

50:49 ↗ have established Coal Mine hazards the

50:51 ↗ coal mines all over the city uh and we

50:54 ↗ didn't have a buffer uh requirement we

50:56 ↗ would still do a study but we didn't

50:57 ↗ have a buffer so we've started we put a

50:59 ↗ buffer and that's Public Safety so the

51:01 ↗ difference between your Wetlands streams

51:04 ↗ is the ecological habitat you know

51:07 ↗ um is sort of the goal there versus for

51:11 ↗ geological hazardous areas it's the

51:13 ↗ public safety uh drives some of those

51:15 ↗ things so so you'll see that we have

51:19 ↗ highlighted one of the policy questions

51:21 ↗ on steep slopes I think during the first

51:23 ↗ round we heard

51:25 ↗ that a 40 slope that's you know 40 feet

51:29 ↗ in vertical difference or 50 feet versus

51:30 ↗ the 200 feet is a very different type of

51:33 ↗ a sleep perhaps we should look at a

51:35 ↗ sliding scale we'll get into those

51:36 ↗ specifics in a little bit

51:38 ↗ so that's environment and then separate

51:40 ↗ from Title 18 we have

51:43 ↗ um Shoreline master program

51:46 ↗ so in your packet for next time we've

51:49 ↗ included a summary of changes in the s p

51:51 ↗ but it's really the city did this update

51:54 ↗ in 2019

51:55 ↗ so we're not changing your your

51:59 ↗ designations or anything in the

52:00 ↗ shoreline but we are attaching the new

52:03 ↗ critical areas code as an appendix

52:05 ↗ there's new dock lighting standards in

52:07 ↗ there and that was an ask from our

52:09 ↗ Council because lighting has detrimental

52:13 ↗ effects to Aquatic Life so we've

52:15 ↗ included those in the shoreline master

52:18 ↗ program

52:20 ↗ so that's sort of a summary of all

52:23 ↗ that's you know high level at 50 000

52:25 ↗ feet level of all the different eight

52:27 ↗ parts and some highlights of the changes

52:30 ↗ so now we'll talk about

52:32 ↗ [Music]

52:32 ↗ um

52:33 ↗ what's coming up in terms of schedule

52:35 ↗ for you all so next Thursday

52:38 ↗ um is the public hearing so it's January

52:40 ↗ 26th and so is February 2nd

52:43 ↗ we think what we can do is

52:47 ↗ um you can take the public comments on

52:50 ↗ each of those nights for anything that

52:52 ↗ anyone wants to speak

52:55 ↗ um but then you have a discussion the

52:57 ↗ first night on Parts one through four

53:00 ↗ and maybe SMP but maybe s p can go to

53:04 ↗ parts five and eight you can determine

53:06 ↗ which you know what makes sense for you

53:08 ↗ SMP is a little bit connected with

53:10 ↗ critical areas so perhaps

53:13 ↗ um the second night makes more sense

53:16 ↗ um and then on February 2nd is when you

53:19 ↗ will really

53:20 ↗ have a full deliberation and make a

53:24 ↗ motion to pass on your formal

53:26 ↗ recommendation to council

53:29 ↗ um what will a public hearing process

53:31 ↗ and each of these nights look like we

53:33 ↗ can capture staff presentation based on

53:36 ↗ what you think may be helpful for you

53:37 ↗ let us know you can ask clarifying

53:40 ↗ questions you get your public comments

53:42 ↗ and then you deliberate but no formal

53:45 ↗ action until February 2nd so you can

53:48 ↗ have a discussion among yourself if you

53:50 ↗ know and tell us how you want does this

53:52 ↗ work not work and what would you like to

53:54 ↗ see differently

53:56 ↗ I can pause here and before we get into

53:59 ↗ the policy questions if you want

54:03 ↗ sure okay anyone from the commission

54:05 ↗ have any questions about the

54:06 ↗ presentation thus far

54:13 ↗ thank you for that presentation many

54:16 ↗ um I have a question that has a little

54:19 ↗ bit to do with user experience

54:21 ↗ um I kind of want to keep everything a

54:22 ↗ little bit Broad and kind of wait for

54:24 ↗ some of the Nitty Gritty when we're

54:25 ↗ actually in it

54:26 ↗ um so we've talked a lot especially we

54:28 ↗ had fantastic contributions from the

54:31 ↗ development commission about this and

54:32 ↗ really about how we use code right and

54:35 ↗ changing how we've kind of adjusting to

54:38 ↗ a more Modern Life an example could be I

54:42 ↗ know we suggested using tags on notice

54:43 ↗ boards I don't see anything about that

54:45 ↗ in the code right now about how we're

54:47 ↗ actually making it easier to have a user

54:49 ↗ interface for both the public as well as

54:51 ↗ when you're actually in it and using the

54:53 ↗ code so we had a great public comment

54:56 ↗ that pointed out how flow charts had

54:58 ↗ been previously used and are gone now

54:59 ↗ and it's a micro example I think of how

55:02 ↗ as we go through the code it's a

55:05 ↗ fantastic thing to say

55:06 ↗ how do you actually use this code how do

55:09 ↗ we actually have an easy user interface

55:11 ↗ and in earlier discussions there was

55:13 ↗ this comment about we're not there yet

55:15 ↗ we got to write it and see how it goes

55:17 ↗ but reading it as I'm reading it I'm not

55:20 ↗ seeing anything that would indicate for

55:22 ↗ instance here's this easy link that

55:24 ↗ takes me once I'm in it I'm I'm in this

55:27 ↗ tier so then here's the Easy Access Link

55:29 ↗ of me being able to see right without

55:31 ↗ just going through a page by Page by

55:33 ↗ page and I didn't see anything in our

55:34 ↗ packet that actually addresses how we

55:36 ↗ made our code easier to use right not

55:39 ↗ just the language do we have any updates

55:41 ↗ on kind of yeah so um you know there's

55:44 ↗ this company called code publishing that

55:46 ↗ does it for all the municipal

55:48 ↗ governments it's a matter of what is the

55:51 ↗ appropriate time to give it to them

55:53 ↗ so when all the substantive changes and

55:55 ↗ the review is done the idea is when you

55:58 ↗ formalize your your recommendation that

56:01 ↗ we would have them look for it they do a

56:03 ↗ bunch of things they look for references

56:05 ↗ if that's incorrect correct and not

56:07 ↗ incorrect you can go to City of

56:09 ↗ Redmond's web page you think council

56:11 ↗ members are on it um do you hover over

56:15 ↗ it there's a hyperlink that takes you to

56:17 ↗ a definition if it's a defined term

56:18 ↗ they'll do it they'll put it all out in

56:21 ↗ that form

56:22 ↗ um but if you make changes then you go

56:25 ↗ back to them and so so I think in

56:28 ↗ working with our city clerk we've

56:30 ↗ determined that the right time to do

56:32 ↗ that would be after you formalize your

56:34 ↗ recommendation that that we would send

56:36 ↗ it off to them it it's it will take them

56:39 ↗ a month or two to kind of put it all

56:40 ↗ together

56:42 ↗ but then your second part about

56:45 ↗ um you know how do we help the applicant

56:47 ↗ so that's going to be the implementation

56:48 ↗ phase of this thing rolling out a brand

56:51 ↗ new website that has all this the

56:53 ↗ explanation and handouts and things like

56:55 ↗ that you can't oversimplify your code

56:58 ↗ because the intent you know it's a

57:00 ↗ complex document for a reason and land

57:02 ↗ use regulations are complex because

57:04 ↗ you're trying to prevent someone from

57:05 ↗ abusing it you're trying to meet the

57:07 ↗ policy guidance so it's it you have to

57:09 ↗ walk that fine line in terms of your

57:11 ↗ language and all that you can't just say

57:12 ↗ you can build you know so

57:15 ↗ so not to say it's perfect

57:18 ↗ um but given the scale and scope of this

57:21 ↗ project in consolidation our plan is to

57:24 ↗ do the implementation and get all of

57:26 ↗ those you know flowcharts the flowcharts

57:29 ↗ currently in the code don't match the

57:30 ↗ text language so it doesn't make sense

57:32 ↗ to have both because then you if you

57:35 ↗ make one change here and there but but

57:37 ↗ we do intend to roll that out but it'll

57:39 ↗ be during the implementation phase of

57:42 ↗ well after you know we get to the

57:45 ↗ substantive part of the code update

57:47 ↗ uh will this commission get an

57:49 ↗ opportunity later on in our agenda once

57:51 ↗ it gets to that phase to be able to

57:53 ↗ interact with it again absolutely yeah

57:55 ↗ we can thank you

58:00 ↗ any other uh

58:03 ↗ no other questions from the commission

58:04 ↗ as far as the presentation thank you

58:06 ↗ Minnie that was fantastic so how do we

58:08 ↗ want to go about the policy questions do

58:10 ↗ we want to just we'll just start with

58:12 ↗ one and work our way down sure I can

58:14 ↗ introduce one and then we can pause if

58:17 ↗ you want to have a discussion about it

58:18 ↗ before we move to the next sure let's

58:19 ↗ facilitate that and again I I think to

58:21 ↗ staff's point really what we're looking

58:23 ↗ for is critique polling pushing adding

58:26 ↗ but again not necessarily deliberating

58:28 ↗ on the actual point being made so that's

58:32 ↗ the idea to make these questions

58:33 ↗ stronger better again we can add to it

58:36 ↗ we can

58:37 ↗ perfectly fine to try and strengthen

58:40 ↗ them but that I think is the goal for

58:42 ↗ tonight

58:43 ↗ sure so yeah we can start with question

58:45 ↗ one and I'll let you facilitate this

58:47 ↗ many

58:48 ↗ um so um you know I mean I think it's a

58:52 ↗ fair question why just these six

58:54 ↗ questions right

58:56 ↗ so this was our attempt at what we heard

58:59 ↗ from public from you all from the

59:03 ↗ planning and policy commission and we

59:04 ↗ went back and did some more substantive

59:07 ↗ work but we wanted to highlight for you

59:10 ↗ to to say okay well did we hit the mark

59:12 ↗ is it okay and do you want us to go back

59:15 ↗ and do some more work on this so or

59:19 ↗ something that came through legal review

59:21 ↗ and and it was

59:23 ↗ um you know not we haven't had a chance

59:24 ↗ to talk to you all about so the first

59:27 ↗ one site-specific rezones

59:30 ↗ um what's the process and what's the

59:31 ↗ criteria

59:33 ↗ we've had a lot of discussion

59:36 ↗ um you all had a uh you know an actual

59:39 ↗ example that you ran through at the end

59:42 ↗ of last year where you were making a

59:45 ↗ recommendation to cancel on a

59:46 ↗ site-specific rezone

59:48 ↗ so um I think based on our city

59:52 ↗ attorney's opinion it should be a

59:55 ↗ quasi-judicial matter subject to

59:58 ↗ appearance of fairness Doctrine and

1:00:01 ↗ limited to One open record hearing

1:00:03 ↗ because it's it's for one specific

1:00:06 ↗ property

1:00:08 ↗ um so the some of the options for you

1:00:10 ↗ all to consider is number one is that

1:00:13 ↗ the hearing examiner who is usually a

1:00:16 ↗ legal person that makes a recommendation

1:00:18 ↗ to city council and hearing examiner

1:00:23 ↗ holds the open public record hearing

1:00:25 ↗ hears from everyone creates the record

1:00:27 ↗ and then city council has all of that

1:00:31 ↗ record they can't actually

1:00:33 ↗ get um talk to the community members

1:00:35 ↗ directly because they're Borrowed by

1:00:37 ↗ appearance of fairness Doctrine and and

1:00:39 ↗ the limit of one open record hearing but

1:00:41 ↗ they would make the final decision on it

1:00:43 ↗ this is our recommendation uh another

1:00:46 ↗ option is that the Planning Commission

1:00:48 ↗ makes a recommendation to city council

1:00:50 ↗ after you all hold the public hearing

1:00:52 ↗ the council makes a final decision you

1:00:55 ↗ too

1:00:57 ↗ um would be subject to the parents of

1:00:59 ↗ fairness uh Doctrine you too could not

1:01:02 ↗ run to someone at a grocery store and

1:01:04 ↗ they have a conversation or Talk Amongst

1:01:06 ↗ yourselves because you make

1:01:09 ↗ recommendations on a lot of legislative

1:01:11 ↗ decisions

1:01:12 ↗ it can add confusion whether you're

1:01:15 ↗ wearing a legislative hat or a

1:01:17 ↗ quasi-judicial hat development

1:01:19 ↗ commission handled all the

1:01:20 ↗ quasi-judicial matters they play that

1:01:22 ↗ role mixing the two roles can be

1:01:24 ↗ problematic

1:01:26 ↗ um so that's why we

1:01:29 ↗ um

1:01:29 ↗ suggested option one option three is

1:01:33 ↗ that the council actually holds the

1:01:36 ↗ final open record hearing by themselves

1:01:38 ↗ and and makes they don't get a

1:01:41 ↗ recommendation they they hear directly

1:01:44 ↗ from the community members in their open

1:01:46 ↗ record hearing and make a decision so

1:01:48 ↗ that's sort of the process I'll capture

1:01:51 ↗ the second one real quick because it's

1:01:53 ↗ kind of tied

1:01:55 ↗ is the rezone criteria so in your

1:01:58 ↗ packets as you read through those pay

1:02:01 ↗ attention to the approval criteria for

1:02:03 ↗ site-specific rezones

1:02:05 ↗ so we've tried to clean it up there was

1:02:07 ↗ a lot of discussion and debate about

1:02:09 ↗ what does this mean what does you know

1:02:11 ↗ additional density if it is can be

1:02:13 ↗ located in a regional growth Center or

1:02:15 ↗ not what's the issue with the targets is

1:02:18 ↗ it development agreement so we've tried

1:02:20 ↗ to

1:02:21 ↗ uh you know make those criteria

1:02:25 ↗ explicitly clear so that's sort of the

1:02:28 ↗ one

1:02:29 ↗ and two questions

1:02:31 ↗ I can stop here if you want to

1:02:33 ↗ have any questions for us or

1:02:37 ↗ open it up

1:02:38 ↗ commissioner Milligan

1:02:42 ↗ okay thank you

1:02:44 ↗ commissioner dollywall so in the case

1:02:46 ↗ and this is just um setting the stage

1:02:48 ↗ kind of question in the case of the

1:02:50 ↗ first policy question you

1:02:53 ↗ um there is the

1:02:55 ↗ recommendation is how it is in the draft

1:02:58 ↗ if I'm remembering correctly that's

1:02:59 ↗ correct okay and then in the second one

1:03:03 ↗ about the criteria

1:03:05 ↗ um uh what's in the packet or you know

1:03:07 ↗ what you're presenting to is this the

1:03:09 ↗ same that's in the draft and they're

1:03:11 ↗ there don't seem to be hey we weren't

1:03:13 ↗ sure about A or B on this one this is

1:03:16 ↗ just it and push back on it as it is is

1:03:19 ↗ that am I no I think we we in order to

1:03:22 ↗ release the draft we had to put some

1:03:24 ↗ language in there you know if we made

1:03:25 ↗ option one two three the num it gets

1:03:27 ↗ kind of unwieldy so

1:03:30 ↗ um but we wanted you to have so we can

1:03:31 ↗ go back and change the draft based on if

1:03:34 ↗ you pick a different option then we

1:03:35 ↗ would just change it in our draft

1:03:39 ↗ and then the

1:03:41 ↗ um the range of possibilities for the

1:03:44 ↗ approval criteria

1:03:47 ↗ what do you imagine how do you imagine

1:03:49 ↗ we would participate with that list

1:03:51 ↗ given you know like the legal

1:03:53 ↗ limitations or you know how can we

1:03:56 ↗ participate with uh reviewing that list

1:03:58 ↗ yeah I think um you bring the value of

1:04:00 ↗ your lived experience in the city and so

1:04:03 ↗ uh that's where you bring you know your

1:04:05 ↗ expertise of what makes sense so you

1:04:08 ↗ would put the filter of if I was living

1:04:10 ↗ next to this property and someone asked

1:04:12 ↗ for a rezone and what would that mean

1:04:13 ↗ and is this is this criteria going to

1:04:16 ↗ satisfy it so if you want additional

1:04:18 ↗ criteria to be added if you if you think

1:04:20 ↗ some criteria should come off

1:04:22 ↗ um you know you can make a

1:04:24 ↗ recommendation obviously we can we are

1:04:27 ↗ going to have our City attorney attend

1:04:28 ↗ all our planning and policy hearings so

1:04:31 ↗ if you have direct questions for them

1:04:33 ↗ you know we want to make sure that you

1:04:34 ↗ you have the same support as Council

1:04:37 ↗ does so um

1:04:39 ↗ yeah

1:04:44 ↗ yeah anyone else like to comment

1:04:48 ↗ commissioner Patterson

1:04:50 ↗ so my experience with uh in particular

1:04:53 ↗ question one is our recent specific site

1:04:55 ↗ rezone conversation that we had a couple

1:04:57 ↗ months ago looking at option one where

1:05:00 ↗ that process would run more through the

1:05:02 ↗ hearing examiner what vehicle or meeting

1:05:05 ↗ would that take place in for the the

1:05:07 ↗ public discussion

1:05:10 ↗ uh it would be a public hearing so the

1:05:12 ↗ notification to surrounding Property

1:05:15 ↗ Owners publication in this in the

1:05:17 ↗ newspaper on the site on

1:05:20 ↗ um you know on all of those notice

1:05:23 ↗ requirements would we would get the word

1:05:24 ↗ out the people would make comments

1:05:27 ↗ either through writing email or come in

1:05:30 ↗ terms of a hearing probably here with a

1:05:32 ↗ hearing Examiner

1:05:34 ↗ so that'd be at the same time as like a

1:05:36 ↗ council meeting or no that would be

1:05:38 ↗ before okay the council meeting so then

1:05:41 ↗ the hearing examiner will create a

1:05:43 ↗ report with all the exhibits attached

1:05:46 ↗ for any comments that you know they

1:05:48 ↗ receive and pass on uh to city council

1:05:52 ↗ so then we would put it on a formal city

1:05:54 ↗ council meeting agenda packet for them

1:05:57 ↗ to discuss and then in between steps

1:06:00 ↗ obviously the hearing examiner would

1:06:02 ↗ make the recommendation would there be

1:06:04 ↗ any potential opportunity for the PPC to

1:06:07 ↗ make any kind of just comments not

1:06:09 ↗ necessarily recommendations on the

1:06:11 ↗ recommendation prior to it going to

1:06:12 ↗ council

1:06:14 ↗ [Music]

1:06:15 ↗ um

1:06:16 ↗ so three step two-step recommendation I

1:06:19 ↗ guess technically yeah it would be

1:06:21 ↗ um good question

1:06:23 ↗ um Rachel I'm not sure if you can

1:06:24 ↗ participate can you speak to that if you

1:06:27 ↗ if you can still hear us

1:06:30 ↗ she is watching right oh

1:06:33 ↗ I can hear partially can you repeat the

1:06:36 ↗ question it it

1:06:38 ↗ cut out yeah I can try and repeat the

1:06:41 ↗ question

1:06:42 ↗ um so in terms of who makes the decision

1:06:45 ↗ on site-specific rezones

1:06:48 ↗ um so our first option was the hearing

1:06:50 ↗ examiner holds an open record hearing

1:06:52 ↗ and goes to the city council the

1:06:54 ↗ question is

1:06:55 ↗ after the city a hearing examiner holds

1:06:58 ↗ the

1:07:00 ↗ um

1:07:00 ↗ open record hearing can we bring that to

1:07:03 ↗ PPC and have them weigh in before it

1:07:07 ↗ goes to city council

1:07:09 ↗ we could there we could we could do that

1:07:14 ↗ um

1:07:18 ↗ you mind if I jump in I think what I'm

1:07:20 ↗ wondering is the one of the reasons that

1:07:22 ↗ we're trying to figure out the tiers

1:07:24 ↗ right now if we if I don't mind going

1:07:25 ↗ through the hypothetical is that we only

1:07:27 ↗ need one space to have a public hearing

1:07:29 ↗ the curios the Curious thing is to

1:07:31 ↗ inject a third tier and to say that then

1:07:34 ↗ when council's making their decision

1:07:35 ↗ there would been in theory see the

1:07:37 ↗ hearing examiner the public comments as

1:07:40 ↗ well as then your board of advisors

1:07:43 ↗ effectively who are supposedly in tune

1:07:46 ↗ with code and with policies for the city

1:07:48 ↗ also than weighing in on the site yeah

1:07:51 ↗ it adds a level of confusion for people

1:07:54 ↗ you know the surrounding community

1:07:55 ↗ members won't know would they who's the

1:07:57 ↗ actual Authority and who's so it it adds

1:08:00 ↗ some complexity that doesn't you know

1:08:03 ↗ could be problematic you again would

1:08:06 ↗ wouldn't

1:08:07 ↗ you know we we have public comment at

1:08:10 ↗ every PPC meeting but technically you're

1:08:12 ↗ not you can't have a public hearing but

1:08:15 ↗ we don't control what people say at a

1:08:16 ↗ public comment so it can add

1:08:19 ↗ complexity

1:08:22 ↗ but it could also add something Dynamic

1:08:24 ↗ to the council being able to make their

1:08:26 ↗ decision I mean with that complexity

1:08:28 ↗ also comes maybe a richer understanding

1:08:30 ↗ from having more voices in on the

1:08:32 ↗ conversation

1:08:34 ↗ in this theory-tiered hypothetical yeah

1:08:37 ↗ I think that's kind of where the the

1:08:39 ↗ foundation of my question came from is

1:08:41 ↗ the idea that from the process we had

1:08:43 ↗ recently done uh I've found a lot of

1:08:46 ↗ value in the discussion and conversation

1:08:47 ↗ that occurred between the panel of

1:08:49 ↗ advisors being the PPC uh and in this

1:08:53 ↗ case I also understand the idea of the

1:08:55 ↗ hearing examiner being kind of the

1:08:57 ↗ authority in a quasi-judicial manner so

1:08:59 ↗ I was wondering if there was some

1:09:00 ↗ opportunity to obviously take the public

1:09:02 ↗ comment for sure uh have an open

1:09:05 ↗ discussion with the PPC But ultimately

1:09:07 ↗ the decision or the recommendation comes

1:09:09 ↗ from the hearing examiner for the

1:09:11 ↗ council to make the decision

1:09:16 ↗ we can we can look into that and you

1:09:18 ↗ know I don't know Rachel do you heard

1:09:21 ↗ part of it

1:09:23 ↗ yeah I I get the question can you hear

1:09:26 ↗ me yeah

1:09:28 ↗ yes there's nothing that would like

1:09:30 ↗ legally preclude you from doing that I

1:09:33 ↗ think that the

1:09:36 ↗ reason that we are recommending a

1:09:39 ↗ hearing examiner process is that for

1:09:41 ↗ site-specific rezones the the purpose is

1:09:44 ↗ to kind of is to draft a code that has

1:09:49 ↗ um very specific criteria that really

1:09:53 ↗ aren't discretionary and

1:09:56 ↗ to have a hearing examiner make a

1:10:00 ↗ decision based on whether or not you

1:10:03 ↗ meet the criteria

1:10:05 ↗ or whether the applicant meets the

1:10:07 ↗ criteria I think that

1:10:10 ↗ what we would want to avoid is

1:10:16 ↗ getting into a situation where there was

1:10:19 ↗ um decisions were being made

1:10:23 ↗ based on

1:10:30 ↗ issues that were outside of that

1:10:32 ↗ criteria and you know it's just hearing

1:10:36 ↗ examiners tend to be

1:10:38 ↗ you know they don't they're not they

1:10:39 ↗ don't come from the community they they

1:10:41 ↗ do this as a job so they're just a

1:10:44 ↗ little bit more black and white about

1:10:46 ↗ applying the criteria but there isn't a

1:10:50 ↗ any other specific legal reason that you

1:10:53 ↗ you couldn't do it that way it's just

1:10:55 ↗ that's it

1:10:59 ↗ with quasi-judicial matters I think it's

1:11:01 ↗ just best practice to kind of leave it

1:11:04 ↗ up to uh to an expert to to apply those

1:11:09 ↗ criteria and so it's a different matter

1:11:12 ↗ when it's something that's more let you

1:11:13 ↗ know legislative or discretionary but

1:11:16 ↗ when you're talking about something

1:11:18 ↗ where you know someone either meets a

1:11:20 ↗ qualification or they don't I think that

1:11:23 ↗ sometimes it's better to just have a

1:11:25 ↗ third party neutral make those

1:11:26 ↗ determinations

1:11:31 ↗ I'm going to jump in and I'll just close

1:11:35 ↗ that conversation by saying I think it's

1:11:36 ↗ incredibly interesting because I think

1:11:38 ↗ it solves one of the problems that I see

1:11:40 ↗ with the difference between one and two

1:11:42 ↗ and that's that you're cutting out

1:11:44 ↗ Community involvement in a pretty

1:11:46 ↗ significant way we as a community and as

1:11:50 ↗ a commission ask for more Community

1:11:52 ↗ involvement right now I see the

1:11:53 ↗ recommendation reading we're going to

1:11:56 ↗ have an additional cost either that

1:11:57 ↗ needs to be passed on to the applicant

1:11:59 ↗ or taken on by the taxpayer to have the

1:12:02 ↗ hearing examiner right right now us up

1:12:04 ↗ here we take on that cost right we're a

1:12:06 ↗ volunteer board so to have the hearing

1:12:09 ↗ examiner who is not a part of the commit

1:12:11 ↗ Community to be the one advising the

1:12:13 ↗ council I see is being a very different

1:12:16 ↗ vibe than what we had originally talked

1:12:19 ↗ about over the last couple years I also

1:12:22 ↗ see right now an issue with saying that

1:12:25 ↗ planning policy commission is not

1:12:28 ↗ capable of wearing multiple hats it

1:12:30 ↗ sounds to me like it's an hour training

1:12:32 ↗ speaking of somebody who has served

1:12:34 ↗ formally on the uvdc who had to wear at

1:12:37 ↗ quasi judicial hat it's not an

1:12:39 ↗ impossible thing to ask our board

1:12:40 ↗ members to be able to be held to that

1:12:42 ↗ standard and it's also not unexpected

1:12:45 ↗ for us to be able to have the experts in

1:12:47 ↗ our field that we want input from in the

1:12:49 ↗ community to be held to that so I know

1:12:51 ↗ I'm seeing a little bit of a lack of

1:12:53 ↗ trust I'm seeing a little bit of the

1:12:54 ↗ black and white leading us down a path

1:12:56 ↗ that gives our community a little less

1:12:58 ↗ of a say when trying to advise the

1:13:00 ↗ council

1:13:02 ↗ I'm I'm a little confused why we

1:13:05 ↗ wouldn't be able to find a path forward

1:13:08 ↗ that had more Community

1:13:11 ↗ to me the biggest thing I think is being

1:13:13 ↗ able to make sure that there's one place

1:13:15 ↗ I think that's the biggest legal

1:13:16 ↗ requirement saying that there's one

1:13:17 ↗ place that holds the public hearing so

1:13:20 ↗ that when Council gets it there isn't

1:13:22 ↗ confusion about where community members

1:13:25 ↗ are able to be involved we have a clear

1:13:26 ↗ space in the code that says if you want

1:13:28 ↗ to participate this is the place

1:13:32 ↗ sure do you have anything to add Rachel

1:13:35 ↗ um I mean yeah that's why we're we raise

1:13:37 ↗ this as a policy question for you all to

1:13:39 ↗ weigh in right we did we didn't say this

1:13:41 ↗ is the right thing and we put that in

1:13:42 ↗ the code it is our job to tell you

1:13:45 ↗ what's the right thing to do and and I

1:13:47 ↗ think uh for

1:13:48 ↗ um our legal team to tell you what is

1:13:50 ↗ the right thing for the city to do and

1:13:52 ↗ so that's why we've kind of presented it

1:13:54 ↗ that way

1:13:55 ↗ um the the council can choose to do what

1:13:58 ↗ they think is appropriate for Issaquah

1:14:01 ↗ um you do bring the point of community

1:14:03 ↗ input is still going to happen you still

1:14:05 ↗ are notifying you're still getting input

1:14:07 ↗ from the neighbors it's just what who

1:14:10 ↗ plays what role in that and so it's not

1:14:13 ↗ reducing the community input it that

1:14:16 ↗ that component has been cleaned up and

1:14:18 ↗ and will continue it's just who makes

1:14:21 ↗ the recommendation and if the council

1:14:23 ↗ goes against the ppc's recommendations

1:14:24 ↗ and they kind of worry about you know

1:14:27 ↗ how did this happen you know so so the

1:14:29 ↗ process in the past hasn't been all that

1:14:31 ↗ it has its challenges sure but that is

1:14:35 ↗ the element of you know your citizen

1:14:37 ↗ boards are a part of the process for

1:14:40 ↗ that very purpose it's another way of

1:14:42 ↗ bringing in your community sure so right

1:14:44 ↗ now by having a hearing examiner who's

1:14:46 ↗ outside of the community and somebody

1:14:47 ↗ who needs to help incur that cost is

1:14:51 ↗ is it is it completely different

1:14:52 ↗ direction to go it's what I'm trying to

1:14:54 ↗ point out I'm not saying one is right or

1:14:56 ↗ wrong no it's a fair question and so I I

1:15:00 ↗ think the the value for the

1:15:04 ↗ is in terms of getting the criteria

1:15:06 ↗ right so that's why we want you all to

1:15:08 ↗ to stay at a policy level and make sure

1:15:11 ↗ that things don't fall to the crack with

1:15:13 ↗ the hearing examiner or with Council

1:15:15 ↗ that that we have the right evaluation

1:15:17 ↗ mechanism when these things happen and

1:15:21 ↗ they shouldn't happen when you do a

1:15:22 ↗ comprehensive plan and you you establish

1:15:24 ↗ this is what we want the city to be at a

1:15:27 ↗ policy level these things should be more

1:15:29 ↗ mechanical processing not policy

1:15:32 ↗ discussion for a particular project in a

1:15:34 ↗ particular site so there's a difference

1:15:36 ↗ between those two layers

1:15:38 ↗ um

1:15:39 ↗ and and and it hasn't been clean in the

1:15:42 ↗ past and so we're just trying to make it

1:15:44 ↗ clear

1:15:49 ↗ yes commissioner altimore

1:15:52 ↗ thank you this is a new commissioner

1:15:54 ↗ question so the answer might be obvious

1:15:56 ↗ but you mentioned that the development

1:15:58 ↗ commission does do the quasi-judicial is

1:16:00 ↗ there a reason why this decision

1:16:02 ↗ wouldn't fall under their purview

1:16:04 ↗ since they already played that role

1:16:07 ↗ so choose to delegate uh the rezone for

1:16:10 ↗ authority to development commission they

1:16:12 ↗ can

1:16:14 ↗ um but they their focus is when you are

1:16:18 ↗ developing this where's your access

1:16:19 ↗ where you know so they're they're

1:16:21 ↗ training and and and and and evaluation

1:16:24 ↗ is on a development site and a project

1:16:27 ↗ not so much on what's allowed here which

1:16:30 ↗ is more of your purview

1:16:33 ↗ thank you

1:16:35 ↗ right and again like I said we want to

1:16:37 ↗ take these questions apart but we don't

1:16:39 ↗ want to deliberate them we're all going

1:16:40 ↗ to have the opportunity to say we like

1:16:41 ↗ it we don't tonight we're just trying to

1:16:43 ↗ make these questions better so moving

1:16:46 ↗ forward

1:16:48 ↗ yeah commissioner Milligan

1:16:50 ↗ thank you chair

1:16:52 ↗ to amplify what you just said I'm

1:16:55 ↗ tempted to jump in and and say how I

1:16:57 ↗ think about these things but one of the

1:16:58 ↗ things you might be looking for from us

1:17:00 ↗ is have you given us enough

1:17:03 ↗ options to choose from do we want

1:17:06 ↗ another option and so when we get back

1:17:09 ↗ together and we're deliberating these we

1:17:10 ↗ can talk about it given the set of

1:17:13 ↗ circumstances that we think would work

1:17:15 ↗ serve us better I don't have another one

1:17:18 ↗ I'm just saying if anybody has another

1:17:20 ↗ one it seems like now would be the time

1:17:22 ↗ to say hey I think we need a couple more

1:17:24 ↗ options or maybe is this something that

1:17:26 ↗ we could not think about and reach out

1:17:28 ↗ to the staff between meetings for

1:17:30 ↗ consideration right and I think to

1:17:32 ↗ commissioner Lewis and commissioner

1:17:34 ↗ Patterson if that is an option that you

1:17:36 ↗ guys would like to see as possibly a

1:17:37 ↗ third tier then let's make it an option

1:17:39 ↗ but like I said tonight we're not

1:17:41 ↗ looking to deliberate we still have

1:17:42 ↗ about six more questions to go through

1:17:44 ↗ we want to pull these apart

1:17:47 ↗ on um on question two I was curious if

1:17:50 ↗ there was a reason or if we were able to

1:17:52 ↗ have language uh that specifically talks

1:17:55 ↗ about approval criteria having to do

1:17:57 ↗ being in conflict with our policy so to

1:18:00 ↗ give a wild example let's say an

1:18:01 ↗ applicant has a tree lot and He is

1:18:04 ↗ wanting to build on that trade lot but

1:18:06 ↗ Issaquah has a tree policy right and so

1:18:09 ↗ it says hey we need to increase it and

1:18:11 ↗ this is going to impact it and that

1:18:13 ↗ would be a reason to be able to deny the

1:18:16 ↗ applicant's criteria if we had language

1:18:19 ↗ in here that specifically said a rezone

1:18:21 ↗ is not warranted if it is in conflict

1:18:24 ↗ with one of our policies right right now

1:18:25 ↗ we have it we're talking about things

1:18:27 ↗ that we don't actually ever mention how

1:18:29 ↗ it may come into alignment with our

1:18:30 ↗ long-term strategic planning or is that

1:18:32 ↗ able to be put into a approval criteria

1:18:34 ↗ I know it's something we've come across

1:18:36 ↗ in our work because we're more tuned

1:18:37 ↗ into it is that language possible or

1:18:40 ↗ left out sure I mean I I think the more

1:18:43 ↗ specific you can be the better uh you

1:18:47 ↗ know just to say you need to be

1:18:48 ↗ consistent with this 700 page document

1:18:51 ↗ that it it it you can make it like that

1:18:55 ↗ but what's the staff report like that

1:18:57 ↗ going to look like what it which is the

1:18:59 ↗ criteria so you want to be more specific

1:19:01 ↗ about

1:19:03 ↗ land use development and permitted uses

1:19:06 ↗ and you know so that's what you're

1:19:08 ↗ getting with the your rezone is what can

1:19:10 ↗ go in there uh compared to so you have

1:19:13 ↗ to tailor it to what you're approving

1:19:15 ↗ with that not just every plan that the

1:19:17 ↗ city has done because those can change

1:19:19 ↗ over time so you go to your

1:19:21 ↗ comprehensive planning policies

1:19:24 ↗ um

1:19:24 ↗ uh for for majority of it but yeah if

1:19:27 ↗ there's a specific policy that's better

1:19:29 ↗ than just broad statements like you've

1:19:32 ↗ got to comply with all all of these well

1:19:34 ↗ not like but yeah in effect it would say

1:19:36 ↗ you need to reference and it would have

1:19:38 ↗ our have our long-term strategic plan as

1:19:40 ↗ a city and if you're it's on the

1:19:42 ↗ applicant to say why

1:19:44 ↗ or the city to say this actually is in

1:19:46 ↗ contrast to our stated policies that are

1:19:49 ↗ enacted right so rather than not

1:19:51 ↗ referencing the 700 the 700 page uh code

1:19:54 ↗ what I'm saying is that we actually have

1:19:56 ↗ policy baked into it is that a

1:19:58 ↗ possibility

1:20:00 ↗ you know Rachel can weigh in my opinion

1:20:02 ↗ would be that you probably want to be

1:20:04 ↗ what specific policy you you're kind of

1:20:06 ↗ interested in and those strategic plan

1:20:09 ↗ is the is a five-year term kind of a

1:20:12 ↗ thing that strategically we want to get

1:20:15 ↗ this this is the budgeting process this

1:20:17 ↗ is your comprehensive planning process

1:20:19 ↗ but strategically we want to get here in

1:20:21 ↗ five years that's what just strategic

1:20:24 ↗ plan is and how does that tie in into a

1:20:26 ↗ rezone

1:20:27 ↗ you know and let's give me an example of

1:20:30 ↗ which specific policy should we consider

1:20:33 ↗ um it can become vague yeah

1:20:42 ↗ so I think I see something that would

1:20:45 ↗ interest commissioner Lewis in a number

1:20:47 ↗ seven by the way

1:20:50 ↗ uh that you could build on

1:20:52 ↗ the these list of criteria I recognize

1:20:57 ↗ them some a little bit and some of it

1:20:59 ↗ have been massaged and some of them are

1:21:01 ↗ new is there a a model that you use to

1:21:04 ↗ say oh gosh this city does it so well

1:21:06 ↗ and emulate somebody else or where did

1:21:09 ↗ or were these created organically

1:21:12 ↗ you know we we try to maintain the

1:21:14 ↗ legislative intent

1:21:15 ↗ um for it I I think Kristen can speak to

1:21:18 ↗ that uh maybe I think you all looked at

1:21:21 ↗ other cities to see I don't think

1:21:23 ↗ anyone's correct yeah we did we looked

1:21:26 ↗ at we looked at several cities and

1:21:27 ↗ there's not one city that does it

1:21:29 ↗ consistently the only thing that we

1:21:30 ↗ could find consistently is that it has a

1:21:33 ↗ benef public benefit and Welfare and

1:21:36 ↗ health and that thing that's what we

1:21:38 ↗ found consistently so

1:21:40 ↗ you know trying to work

1:21:42 ↗ with all of those and balance it and see

1:21:44 ↗ what works best for us is what we did

1:21:50 ↗ should we move on to the next question I

1:21:52 ↗ just had one quick question as far as

1:21:54 ↗ the approval criteria and again this

1:21:56 ↗ might be a better question for

1:21:58 ↗ a legal eagle but to me when I read uh

1:22:02 ↗ 0.6 will not materially uh detrimental

1:22:07 ↗ so to me traffic being the number one

1:22:09 ↗ concern in our city is probably the most

1:22:11 ↗ deleterious problem we have why isn't

1:22:14 ↗ that why can't that be a part of our

1:22:16 ↗ approval process

1:22:19 ↗ right okay because I definitely like to

1:22:21 ↗ see it because again that is Far and

1:22:24 ↗ Away the number one concern of every

1:22:25 ↗ resident this well the majority of

1:22:27 ↗ residents in the city

1:22:29 ↗ so again I I would like again I know it

1:22:32 ↗ has to go through legal analysis but I'd

1:22:34 ↗ like to know why that couldn't be part

1:22:36 ↗ of the approval criteria

1:22:40 ↗ yeah I mean

1:22:41 ↗ I mean generally that that seems a

1:22:44 ↗ concrete thing that that's important to

1:22:46 ↗ to establish that could be crafted my

1:22:49 ↗ lived experience yes good

1:22:52 ↗ that's that's what brings value to this

1:22:54 ↗ whole thing is you know you know your

1:22:56 ↗ community the best and so what what

1:22:57 ↗ what's that

1:22:59 ↗ evaluation that should be done so

1:23:02 ↗ okay

1:23:03 ↗ um I think we can move on Minnie

1:23:06 ↗ um so the next one uh is deviations

1:23:10 ↗ um

1:23:11 ↗ so like I explained earlier uh we have

1:23:14 ↗ these specific nine or ten uh things

1:23:17 ↗ that anyone can ask for

1:23:20 ↗ administrative deviations but these have

1:23:23 ↗ a very specific criteria in the code in

1:23:25 ↗ your packets

1:23:27 ↗ you will have we've kind of instead of

1:23:30 ↗ you going back and forth between the 700

1:23:33 ↗ page document we did cut and paste all

1:23:35 ↗ of it in one place I think it's for this

1:23:38 ↗ meetings agenda packet the policy

1:23:40 ↗ questions are next this one

1:23:43 ↗ yeah so in your packet for this meeting

1:23:46 ↗ we try to make it easy for you so it's

1:23:48 ↗ all in here but that's that's everyone

1:23:52 ↗ you've got you you're establishing these

1:23:54 ↗ rules everyone abide by them

1:23:56 ↗ consistently but these are things that

1:23:59 ↗ you can you need some flexibility but

1:24:01 ↗ you also need some predictability and so

1:24:03 ↗ very clear criteria for that instead of

1:24:06 ↗ um the administrative adjustments with a

1:24:09 ↗ broad criteria

1:24:11 ↗ um that's it for the deviations I don't

1:24:14 ↗ know if you have any questions about

1:24:16 ↗ that particular one

1:24:18 ↗ my only question was on the language

1:24:20 ↗ about deviations for the Wireless

1:24:21 ↗ Communications seemed extremely Broad

1:24:25 ↗ and very favorable to uh to the provider

1:24:29 ↗ rather than to the community and I was

1:24:31 ↗ wondering if we could add language that

1:24:33 ↗ said that effectively again for this

1:24:37 ↗ specific thing because again it was me

1:24:39 ↗ reading the language and remembering

1:24:40 ↗ conversations with the community has had

1:24:42 ↗ regarding this is that when noticed

1:24:45 ↗ neighbors have no issues right so we

1:24:48 ↗ would put in a requirement that when

1:24:50 ↗ changing any kind of equipment that

1:24:53 ↗ anyone impacted within the area that the

1:24:56 ↗ city decides is noticed and they have an

1:24:58 ↗ up there and if nobody has any trouble

1:25:00 ↗ then it can be moved ahead with a

1:25:01 ↗ deviation

1:25:02 ↗ he that sometimes is can become

1:25:06 ↗ problematically it can definitely come

1:25:07 ↗ problematic but when we start talking

1:25:09 ↗ about small cell we're talking about on

1:25:11 ↗ squawk alone I mean you could be talking

1:25:13 ↗ about an allowable deviation that could

1:25:16 ↗ be putting a massive amount of equipment

1:25:18 ↗ right now as it's written it's not

1:25:20 ↗ limiting at all it precludes public

1:25:23 ↗ comment it's it's I see it as being

1:25:25 ↗ dangerous as written right now so my

1:25:28 ↗ suggestion is onerous but I think is we

1:25:30 ↗ need to find another way to come at this

1:25:32 ↗ specific part of the deal yeah my

1:25:35 ↗ recommendation would be if you're not

1:25:36 ↗ comfortable with that then you should

1:25:37 ↗ say you shouldn't give it a deviation

1:25:39 ↗ for that as opposed to maybe you can get

1:25:42 ↗ it if your neighbors don't complain

1:25:43 ↗ about it and then we get one letter that

1:25:45 ↗ complains about it and then we go well

1:25:46 ↗ you can't really give it to you right so

1:25:48 ↗ that doesn't serve anyone any good okay

1:25:51 ↗ um I'll just say it's a flag for me

1:25:53 ↗ right now okay on the deviations okay

1:25:59 ↗ commissioners

1:26:01 ↗ all right

1:26:03 ↗ please continue

1:26:05 ↗ so the next question is the Outdoor

1:26:07 ↗ amenity space

1:26:09 ↗ so this is one we have you all asked us

1:26:13 ↗ what what does it you know can we keep

1:26:16 ↗ the private uh Open Spaces from

1:26:19 ↗ outdoor amenity spaces and what what's

1:26:22 ↗ the right size so we did a pure City

1:26:26 ↗ research and shared all that information

1:26:28 ↗ with you previously

1:26:31 ↗ but what recommendation is to increase

1:26:34 ↗ the the outdoor amenity space to 100

1:26:38 ↗ square feet per unit

1:26:40 ↗ um

1:26:41 ↗ and but we've given you some options you

1:26:43 ↗ could keep the existing requirements

1:26:45 ↗ um you could change it to 100 or you

1:26:48 ↗ have your third option make it 200. for

1:26:51 ↗ Highlands and Talus our existing code

1:26:53 ↗ has 250 square feet of new park

1:26:56 ↗ development per unit so we've maintained

1:26:58 ↗ that in your Draft for Dallas and

1:27:00 ↗ Highlands is 250.

1:27:04 ↗ buffer Central we had 48 so that would

1:27:08 ↗ go up to 100.

1:27:10 ↗ so that's not out of line with you know

1:27:12 ↗ I mean bottle and Kirkland ask for 200

1:27:16 ↗ um and some other cities and and more

1:27:19 ↗ downtown areas you have a little bit

1:27:21 ↗ less open space but this creates the

1:27:24 ↗ community and and this is for you know

1:27:27 ↗ uh residential and and then you have

1:27:28 ↗ your plazas and other things for

1:27:30 ↗ commercial uses but this this is all in

1:27:32 ↗ that chapter of community in open space

1:27:33 ↗ that if you read it and you have

1:27:36 ↗ feedback on how to reorganize it or

1:27:38 ↗ anything where we can certainly

1:27:41 ↗ address that but this question gets to

1:27:43 ↗ the amount right and just for a little

1:27:47 ↗ bit of context we Central issaquise

1:27:50 ↗ where we are hoping to put a lot of our

1:27:52 ↗ our growth in the future so yeah I think

1:27:55 ↗ that's all I had dad

1:27:57 ↗ question and and this is just the

1:28:00 ↗ minimum right the developers have the

1:28:03 ↗ option like in Issaquah Highlands to

1:28:05 ↗ have a larger space essentially

1:28:08 ↗ okay yeah that was done through a master

1:28:10 ↗ plan Community you know a slightly

1:28:13 ↗ different tool this would be on one

1:28:15 ↗ project how much do you space for a

1:28:18 ↗ project yeah okay

1:28:23 ↗ foreign

1:28:25 ↗ discussion about the one the options

1:28:28 ↗ would we be able to reach out to staff

1:28:30 ↗ to request an additional option if that

1:28:33 ↗ was something that a commissioner wanted

1:28:34 ↗ to do prior to when we decide this

1:28:36 ↗ policy question yep

1:28:46 ↗ development comes in they do have to pay

1:28:48 ↗ their fair share for uh Parks

1:28:52 ↗ um new maintenance and you know all

1:28:54 ↗ those other things that the city can use

1:28:55 ↗ that for so

1:28:57 ↗ great thank you commissioner altmore

1:28:59 ↗ thank you commissioner smuede

1:29:02 ↗ um anybody else

1:29:06 ↗ all right so this one steep slope

1:29:08 ↗ buffers

1:29:09 ↗ um this is really

1:29:12 ↗ um you know safety factors geologically

1:29:14 ↗ hazardous areas and and this isn't we

1:29:18 ↗ have a separate chapter in the code

1:29:19 ↗ about forested Hillside preservation and

1:29:22 ↗ and design with your Hillside the focus

1:29:25 ↗ here is safety considerations

1:29:27 ↗ so what's in the proposed draft which is

1:29:32 ↗ 50 foot standard buffer if you have a 40

1:29:34 ↗ slope or more

1:29:36 ↗ that's more than 20 feet in vertical

1:29:38 ↗ height so not just a little Mound that's

1:29:41 ↗ 40 that that doesn't come into play so

1:29:43 ↗ if your vertical distance is you know

1:29:45 ↗ difference from the top and the bottom

1:29:47 ↗ is more than

1:29:49 ↗ 20 feet and your slope is 40 percent

1:29:53 ↗ then you're prohibited from doing you

1:29:56 ↗ know doing development on it and you

1:29:58 ↗ have a 50 foot standard buffer

1:30:00 ↗ yeah however the the purpose of the

1:30:04 ↗ buffer is to protect for life safety

1:30:06 ↗ reasons you can request that to be

1:30:09 ↗ reduced if your geotechnical engineer

1:30:11 ↗ makes a case and our geotechnical

1:30:14 ↗ engineer agrees that that makes sense

1:30:16 ↗ from a technical

1:30:19 ↗ you know side then that can be reduced

1:30:22 ↗ to a 10 feet minimum the option too is I

1:30:25 ↗ think what you asked us was can you have

1:30:28 ↗ a slope height with a variable buffer

1:30:30 ↗ width so we asked our consultant to go

1:30:33 ↗ research that and I'll get into that in

1:30:36 ↗ in the next few slides

1:30:38 ↗ um and then option third uh you know so

1:30:41 ↗ then what he determined with the height

1:30:42 ↗ is that there's a lot more things that

1:30:44 ↗ go into safety factors it's not just the

1:30:47 ↗ height it's the the you know geology of

1:30:50 ↗ the site that's equally important so

1:30:52 ↗ then he developed the option third based

1:30:55 ↗ on uh slope geology

1:30:58 ↗ and then even then it determined that

1:31:00 ↗ you still can't forego that you actually

1:31:03 ↗ have to go and look at it

1:31:06 ↗ um on a case-by-case basis you still

1:31:09 ↗ need to do a Geotech study you still

1:31:11 ↗ need to look at the soils the amount of

1:31:13 ↗ water the type of you know all of that

1:31:15 ↗ becomes pretty complex pretty quickly so

1:31:18 ↗ one size doesn't fit all in that

1:31:21 ↗ scenario either so then we developed a

1:31:24 ↗ fourth option just to discuss that is

1:31:28 ↗ you you have a 50-foot buffer you can

1:31:31 ↗ ask for a buffer reduction but you limit

1:31:34 ↗ the standard buffer reduction to 50

1:31:36 ↗ percent of the slope height so you know

1:31:39 ↗ it'll just that's just another variable

1:31:41 ↗ so we'll get into the specifics of

1:31:44 ↗ um what that looks like

1:31:45 ↗ um

1:31:46 ↗ in the example two which is based on

1:31:49 ↗ this height if you look at this h

1:31:53 ↗ um if it's 20 feet then you have a 10

1:31:57 ↗ foot from the crest and then from the

1:32:00 ↗ toe you have a 14 feet in the side

1:32:02 ↗ buffer you have four so it's based on

1:32:04 ↗ those formula it's half

1:32:07 ↗ from the crest have the height 0.7 times

1:32:11 ↗ the height and 0.2 times the height he

1:32:14 ↗ he created this for us but then he

1:32:16 ↗ really said it doesn't you can't really

1:32:19 ↗ act and vacuum and come up with this

1:32:22 ↗ formula because there's still going to

1:32:24 ↗ be so many variables but this is what

1:32:26 ↗ you'll get if you go with this formula

1:32:28 ↗ based on the height

1:32:30 ↗ so that's one option then he looked at

1:32:34 ↗ the geology and came up with 0.4 times

1:32:38 ↗ the height and so this takes into

1:32:42 ↗ consideration the height as well as the

1:32:44 ↗ slope material type

1:32:46 ↗ it still doesn't take into consideration

1:32:48 ↗ hydrology and other things and so

1:32:50 ↗ there's some limitations

1:32:51 ↗ based on this as well

1:32:54 ↗ so we just wanted to kind of flag that

1:32:56 ↗ for you all

1:32:58 ↗ um it's and you know we've done the work

1:33:01 ↗ I think we've come to the same

1:33:02 ↗ conclusion that it still makes sense to

1:33:06 ↗ do a site-by-site assessment and if

1:33:08 ↗ there is no safety reasons then that

1:33:12 ↗ setback can be reduced

1:33:14 ↗ to 10 feet so you still have a 10 foot

1:33:17 ↗ buffer and a 15 foot building setback so

1:33:20 ↗ even if you got the maximum buffer

1:33:23 ↗ reduction you still are 25 feet away

1:33:26 ↗ from top or bottom of the slope

1:33:32 ↗ I was rather that was rather technical

1:33:34 ↗ so does anyone have any questions about

1:33:36 ↗ uh

1:33:37 ↗ that particular one knowledge so just to

1:33:40 ↗ clarify the um the simpler

1:33:43 ↗ option number one is the preferred

1:33:48 ↗ option administrations administrations

1:33:51 ↗ and and uh is that quite similar to the

1:33:55 ↗ past the existing it is however

1:33:59 ↗ there was

1:34:01 ↗ um it still it's based on safety it's

1:34:04 ↗ not you know preservation of ecological

1:34:07 ↗ functions and things of that and that's

1:34:08 ↗ been handled in the forested hillside so

1:34:11 ↗ however there's been a lot of fixes in

1:34:13 ↗ the code in terms of critical area study

1:34:15 ↗ what can and cannot be done

1:34:18 ↗ um you know and and these are like not

1:34:20 ↗ pre-graded sites so if you already have

1:34:22 ↗ graded your sites different you know you

1:34:25 ↗ there's no prohibition if you already

1:34:27 ↗ have a graded site versus an ungraded

1:34:29 ↗ site so there's a distinction there as

1:34:31 ↗ well

1:34:34 ↗ sorry and then my question is that the

1:34:36 ↗ option one factors in the geotechnical

1:34:40 ↗ study as well as hydrology as well yeah

1:34:43 ↗ they look at it

1:34:47 ↗ code we've really repelled out what your

1:34:49 ↗ Geotech report should include so there's

1:34:52 ↗ a we used to have debates about what

1:34:54 ↗ what is included what's not included and

1:34:56 ↗ so that has all been cleaned up so our

1:34:58 ↗ subject matter expert our geotechnical

1:35:01 ↗ engineer worked with us to create that

1:35:03 ↗ and it's in the code now what what

1:35:05 ↗ should your your tech report include and

1:35:09 ↗ what the evaluation will look like for

1:35:11 ↗ from a peer review standpoint okay and

1:35:14 ↗ do you think they would add something on

1:35:15 ↗ hydrology just it's just it's part of

1:35:18 ↗ that on the Geotech yeah because I look

1:35:20 ↗ at it as two different things Geotech is

1:35:22 ↗ more earth-based soils hydrology is

1:35:26 ↗ drainage per se but you're saying it's

1:35:28 ↗ included but with slopes it does it come

1:35:31 ↗ into play because if you're building a

1:35:33 ↗ retaining wall you know they do look at

1:35:35 ↗ are you going to build pressure for

1:35:37 ↗ water and all those kind of things so

1:35:39 ↗ they do evaluate structural design of

1:35:42 ↗ walls and things like that okay because

1:35:45 ↗ I was looking at like drainage water

1:35:47 ↗ actually going in the direction of the

1:35:50 ↗ property correct and so in the Geo

1:35:53 ↗ Hazard section there's also the

1:35:55 ↗ landslide potential areas you know that

1:35:57 ↗ does happen in Issaquah so that has its

1:36:01 ↗ own section steep slopes is a separate

1:36:03 ↗ section coal mines is a whole section

1:36:05 ↗ and then the building code also has a

1:36:08 ↗ seismic

1:36:10 ↗ um you know when you design your

1:36:11 ↗ buildings you have to design them so

1:36:13 ↗ that in whichever Zone you're in in case

1:36:15 ↗ of an earthquake you meet those safety

1:36:17 ↗ standards okay and I guess once it gets

1:36:21 ↗ to design I think one of the things I

1:36:22 ↗ was harping on is the drainage the

1:36:25 ↗ actual water flooding basically and also

1:36:28 ↗ once it gets to design they would

1:36:30 ↗ actually

1:36:31 ↗ divert the water per se if they if

1:36:36 ↗ an example that maybe utilized moves

1:36:41 ↗ forward with placing a property around

1:36:43 ↗ one of those slopes if they get and if

1:36:46 ↗ they're able to Booth through

1:36:47 ↗ essentially

1:36:48 ↗ yeah I mean storm water will look at

1:36:52 ↗ that I mean it or the engineering team

1:36:54 ↗ from the city will look at any kind of

1:36:56 ↗ development that that looks at you know

1:36:59 ↗ is going to alter the hydrology or

1:37:01 ↗ anything like that yes we we do review

1:37:03 ↗ for all of that but that's also

1:37:05 ↗ different titles in title 16 for

1:37:07 ↗ stormwater specifically is handled in a

1:37:10 ↗ title you know 16. okay thank you

1:37:17 ↗ I just wanted to clarify the language

1:37:18 ↗ right now we have on option one it says

1:37:20 ↗ the current proposed code and I wasn't

1:37:22 ↗ clear if that is the draft in front of

1:37:26 ↗ us yeah that's right what's in the draft

1:37:27 ↗ and that's not what is currently in our

1:37:29 ↗ code that is also what's currently what

1:37:31 ↗ is it so what is both and I was curious

1:37:34 ↗ if there's an option where if we went

1:37:36 ↗ with number one but we just took out the

1:37:39 ↗ buffer reduction criteria there is no

1:37:41 ↗ reduction is that an option to say

1:37:44 ↗ here's your standard buffer and there is

1:37:46 ↗ no reduction yeah but except for you

1:37:48 ↗ what are you basing 50 feet on right so

1:37:52 ↗ well hopefully we're basing it on a

1:37:54 ↗ purpose that's why it's in our code

1:37:55 ↗ right I mean yeah it is in our code but

1:37:57 ↗ you can ask for you know then you can

1:37:59 ↗ make a case whether it's safe to go

1:38:01 ↗ closer to it or not if you don't want to

1:38:03 ↗ spend the money on geotechnical

1:38:05 ↗ engineering and ask for a buffer

1:38:07 ↗ reduction you have plenty of room on

1:38:09 ↗ your property you can just go with a 50

1:38:11 ↗ foot and stay away

1:38:13 ↗ from from the slope if you are short on

1:38:17 ↗ space but it's safe to build there

1:38:19 ↗ then then that's when the buffer

1:38:22 ↗ reduction comes into play

1:38:24 ↗ I think that's what my hard part is as

1:38:26 ↗ I'm saying what if we took the opposite

1:38:28 ↗ stance and we said it's not safe you've

1:38:30 ↗ got to prove it to us there is no buffer

1:38:32 ↗ reduction and we put in some sort of

1:38:35 ↗ variance where we're saying like yeah

1:38:36 ↗ you'd have to present a compelling case

1:38:38 ↗ because we're saying no but there are

1:38:43 ↗ engineer our Consulting engineer who's

1:38:45 ↗ done work throughout this area is saying

1:38:49 ↗ that there is no you know you can

1:38:50 ↗ there's not a safety reason you can

1:38:53 ↗ build safely within because you still

1:38:56 ↗ have remember you still have 25 foot

1:38:58 ↗ from the top and the bottom if we take

1:39:00 ↗ the building set back into consideration

1:39:02 ↗ so you if you're within 25 feet you meet

1:39:06 ↗ the safety standards there

1:39:09 ↗ so that's not even an option for us to

1:39:10 ↗ just say here's the standard buffer

1:39:13 ↗ and and to do a no buffer reduction from

1:39:15 ↗ the table as well you have to base it on

1:39:17 ↗ what what why and we were saying our

1:39:20 ↗ technical expert is saying there is no

1:39:22 ↗ basis for go just have a blanket take

1:39:25 ↗ away because it's all safety driven

1:39:30 ↗ it's easy for me to be like well yeah

1:39:32 ↗ water Landslide I mean mine shafts I

1:39:35 ↗ mean like you know get in line of all

1:39:36 ↗ the reasons why we have these

1:39:38 ↗ protections needed and missing right now

1:39:40 ↗ in our code so I'm wondering why we

1:39:42 ↗ don't just take the stance of saying but

1:39:43 ↗ that's why you need to do an assessment

1:39:45 ↗ by a expert that knows all of that to

1:39:49 ↗ establish what is safe and what's not

1:39:52 ↗ safe right so by that standard we would

1:39:55 ↗ not do number one and we would go with a

1:39:57 ↗ more technical equation to be able to

1:40:00 ↗ measure out what you still have to do

1:40:02 ↗ you still have unless you're staying 50

1:40:04 ↗ feet away from the slope the city could

1:40:06 ↗ still ask for you know if there was a

1:40:08 ↗ landslide potential area right next to

1:40:10 ↗ it we would still ask for a Geotech

1:40:12 ↗ report we would still ask for all of

1:40:14 ↗ that

1:40:15 ↗ but definitely but if there is no other

1:40:18 ↗ indication from any mapping that the

1:40:21 ↗ city has that there's a landslide

1:40:23 ↗ potential or anything and you you're

1:40:25 ↗ staying 50 feet away then then you're

1:40:28 ↗ fine

1:40:29 ↗ um you don't have to go through this

1:40:31 ↗ added step okay

1:40:33 ↗ thank you

1:40:39 ↗ darn you commissioner Lewis inspired a

1:40:41 ↗ question I'm sorry not to have my notes

1:40:43 ↗ fully on my screen here is there a

1:40:45 ↗ difference in the

1:40:47 ↗ um

1:40:49 ↗ the party who's responsible for proving

1:40:52 ↗ it paying for the studies having the

1:40:55 ↗ review done is there a difference

1:40:56 ↗ between these three

1:40:58 ↗ on who is responsible to

1:41:01 ↗ develop a

1:41:03 ↗ study that proves either to reduce the

1:41:06 ↗ um buffer or to have a specific buffer

1:41:11 ↗ calculation different qualifications for

1:41:14 ↗ yeah no it would be the same it would be

1:41:16 ↗ the geotechnical engineer who would be

1:41:18 ↗ better and who pays for that

1:41:20 ↗ the applicant pays for their consultant

1:41:23 ↗ to do it the city hires a consultant to

1:41:26 ↗ peer review so which is a smaller cost

1:41:28 ↗ than actually the design because they

1:41:30 ↗ have a state of license Washington State

1:41:33 ↗ they stamp it for safety you know so

1:41:35 ↗ they take that responsibility of that

1:41:37 ↗ it's designed for that our consultant is

1:41:40 ↗ verifying that their calculations are

1:41:42 ↗ accurate they haven't missed anything

1:41:44 ↗ and so they pay the applicant would pay

1:41:47 ↗ it's a pass-through cost for a

1:41:49 ↗ specialized Geotech study so we do and

1:41:52 ↗ all three are the the same in that cost

1:41:54 ↗ burden

1:41:56 ↗ yes okay

1:42:02 ↗ in the provided documentation that we

1:42:04 ↗ have it mentions a couple times that

1:42:06 ↗ there's public perception

1:42:08 ↗ um that the buffer reductions are

1:42:11 ↗ granted too often as well as that

1:42:14 ↗ adopting this proposed option one would

1:42:17 ↗ result in more of that I was curious if

1:42:19 ↗ there was any data available to back

1:42:21 ↗ that up on how often those buffer

1:42:24 ↗ reductions are granted I mean we

1:42:26 ↗ captured that as a public comment so yes

1:42:28 ↗ that's that's what we heard during the

1:42:30 ↗ first round that that that is what we

1:42:34 ↗ needed to address and

1:42:36 ↗ um and you know we can run the data of

1:42:38 ↗ how many peer reviews it's hard because

1:42:40 ↗ it's we don't do a step you know we

1:42:42 ↗ can't run a report from a permitting

1:42:43 ↗ because it's part of a project and and

1:42:45 ↗ without actually manually going through

1:42:47 ↗ that but but anecdotally yes I mean we

1:42:50 ↗ we have granted uh buffer reductions but

1:42:53 ↗ they've been based on safety you know

1:42:55 ↗ standards

1:42:56 ↗ um so it's it's not untrue that we have

1:42:58 ↗ given buffer reductions from 50 feet to

1:43:01 ↗ 10 feet but they've met the standard

1:43:05 ↗ on that note I would also like to follow

1:43:06 ↗ up with uh why maybe just a little more

1:43:09 ↗ explanation on why option one was

1:43:12 ↗ favored over option four as I I

1:43:15 ↗ understand the differences but it seems

1:43:16 ↗ like from the public perception that

1:43:18 ↗ option four could potentially be I guess

1:43:20 ↗ a middle ground or something we came up

1:43:23 ↗ with option four if you felt strongly

1:43:25 ↗ about it but uh you know you still get

1:43:28 ↗ the same kind of a so

1:43:31 ↗ under option four

1:43:33 ↗ um you know we would we could create the

1:43:35 ↗ scenario but um you're getting a buffer

1:43:37 ↗ reduction beyond the so if I may go back

1:43:41 ↗ to the slides

1:43:42 ↗ um that showed so in this line where you

1:43:45 ↗ see the slope height is

1:43:48 ↗ um

1:43:49 ↗ so let's pick a number which is 50 feet

1:43:52 ↗ is your buffer

1:43:54 ↗ um so the first line item if when you

1:43:57 ↗ have a 10 foot

1:43:59 ↗ you know buffer at the crest you have a

1:44:02 ↗ 20 foot height difference

1:44:05 ↗ So

1:44:06 ↗ currently our buffers can go down to 10

1:44:10 ↗ feet under the buffer reduction

1:44:13 ↗ but if you had a 50-foot buffer your

1:44:18 ↗ slope height is 100 feet under this mat

1:44:21 ↗ the way it works out so you're really

1:44:23 ↗ looking at going from 50 foot buffer to

1:44:26 ↗ 10 feet

1:44:28 ↗ and looking at the middle one

1:44:30 ↗ that it can be

1:44:33 ↗ half the height I don't want to get into

1:44:36 ↗ the weeds yeah maybe lose some of you

1:44:38 ↗ um

1:44:39 ↗ but that would be if it's a 60 foot

1:44:41 ↗ height you've got a 30 foot buffer so

1:44:44 ↗ you wouldn't get a 10 foot buffer you

1:44:47 ↗ would get a 30-foot buffer

1:44:50 ↗ if you know I mean that's

1:44:53 ↗ if you think that's really an issue in

1:44:56 ↗ Issaquah we we can do that Although our

1:44:59 ↗ analysis in talking with our Geotech you

1:45:02 ↗ know they felt that that

1:45:04 ↗ was not the case so

1:45:07 ↗ but we've laid it out as an option if

1:45:09 ↗ you feel strongly about it

1:45:16 ↗ any additional questions

1:45:20 ↗ last question was this came through the

1:45:23 ↗ testing exercise

1:45:25 ↗ of a critical area code and it can be

1:45:27 ↗ onerous for homeowners

1:45:29 ↗ um so we're asking you through your

1:45:32 ↗ lived experience and your in you know

1:45:34 ↗ value that you bring to this process

1:45:37 ↗ are there other additional incentives

1:45:40 ↗ and flexibility that we should provide

1:45:41 ↗ for single-family residential homeowners

1:45:43 ↗ who are you know who are really only

1:45:45 ↗ doing a small renovation project but

1:45:47 ↗ they happen to have a wetland or a

1:45:50 ↗ stream on their property so we laid out

1:45:52 ↗ two options we can maintain our existing

1:45:56 ↗ Provisions we currently have you don't

1:45:58 ↗ need to do a critical area study as long

1:46:01 ↗ as you're not impacting the critical

1:46:03 ↗ area and you're you know outside the

1:46:05 ↗ buffer and all that

1:46:07 ↗ um

1:46:07 ↗ and if you have a impervious surface you

1:46:11 ↗ can you know enclose it uh or you can go

1:46:14 ↗ higher you don't have to do a critical

1:46:16 ↗ area study but any kind of expansion uh

1:46:19 ↗ kind of doesn't let you get away with

1:46:22 ↗ that so

1:46:24 ↗ um as you read through I think this came

1:46:26 ↗ up at the environmental board I gave

1:46:28 ↗ them a couple of uh relevant sections of

1:46:31 ↗ the code we can email those to you

1:46:34 ↗ and number two is that we can modify the

1:46:37 ↗ criteria to allow expansions along a

1:46:41 ↗ building side or along that's opposite

1:46:43 ↗ of the critical area but we have a limit

1:46:45 ↗ you know 500 square feet I just picked

1:46:48 ↗ one but it could be 100 square feet

1:46:50 ↗ as long as it's outside in you know it's

1:46:53 ↗ it's in the outer side of the buffer

1:46:57 ↗ and you're not actually removing any

1:46:59 ↗ significant habitat that would be

1:47:01 ↗ beneficial to uh to the critical area

1:47:05 ↗ the issue with making these kind of

1:47:07 ↗ exemptions and you know uh the idea here

1:47:10 ↗ is that instead of spending the money in

1:47:12 ↗ the critical area report they spend the

1:47:13 ↗ money planting the vegetation near the

1:47:16 ↗ stream that can have a more of a benefit

1:47:19 ↗ um the the that's a pro the con could be

1:47:23 ↗ that

1:47:24 ↗ um you know it will depend on the

1:47:25 ↗ homeowner whether they maintain that

1:47:27 ↗ vegetation whether they do it not the

1:47:30 ↗ other problem sometimes is you know you

1:47:32 ↗ don't know until you have a specialist

1:47:33 ↗ on your site is it really truly a

1:47:36 ↗ wetland and where is a boundary or not

1:47:37 ↗ but we wanted to highlight that because

1:47:39 ↗ that that is something that came up

1:47:41 ↗ during the testing of

1:47:43 ↗ um that sometimes this could be onerous

1:47:45 ↗ to homeowners so that's what we've

1:47:49 ↗ teased out in terms of policy questions

1:47:51 ↗ but if you have a particular topic you

1:47:54 ↗ want to kind of us highlight during a

1:47:57 ↗ presentation patients during the public

1:47:58 ↗ hearing feel free to reach out to us we

1:48:01 ↗ will tease out a few more things from

1:48:03 ↗ the public comments that we've received

1:48:06 ↗ um a couple more questions related to

1:48:08 ↗ some of the topics but here's those

1:48:12 ↗ three meetings upcoming

1:48:14 ↗ um do you mind if I interrupt you yep do

1:48:17 ↗ we have any questions as far as policy

1:48:19 ↗ question six

1:48:21 ↗ commissioner altimore

1:48:23 ↗ more of a comment since you're talking

1:48:25 ↗ about the questions themselves it took

1:48:28 ↗ me about 10 times to read option two to

1:48:31 ↗ even begin to know what that was

1:48:32 ↗ actually saying and so I don't know if

1:48:34 ↗ there's a way to refine that language to

1:48:36 ↗ make it a little clearer uh to be able

1:48:38 ↗ to it I got there but it it took quite a

1:48:42 ↗ no we tried to pack too much in in that

1:48:45 ↗ one and a little piece absolutely we can

1:48:47 ↗ break it down thank you

1:48:50 ↗ I'll go real quick I second that um and

1:48:52 ↗ I was curious I don't see an

1:48:53 ↗ administrative recommendation for option

1:48:55 ↗ one or two we have we don't have that we

1:48:58 ↗ just it was more about do you want to do

1:49:00 ↗ it we can develop based on either way so

1:49:03 ↗ effectively then one right is the

1:49:05 ↗ maintain that's what's in the code now

1:49:07 ↗ yeah and that's what the administration

1:49:08 ↗ would recommend

1:49:11 ↗ we're open to you know if you can come

1:49:13 ↗ up with a creative way to address uh the

1:49:16 ↗ unknowns the the fact that the

1:49:18 ↗ environment could degrade over a period

1:49:20 ↗ of Time how do we you know or limit to

1:49:23 ↗ what kind of additions potentially are

1:49:26 ↗ okay

1:49:27 ↗ um so that's just more for discussion

1:49:30 ↗ than thought

1:49:31 ↗ let me ask you this many

1:49:33 ↗ um kind of thinking outside the box here

1:49:35 ↗ we heard an earlier public comment about

1:49:37 ↗ people Aging in place

1:49:39 ↗ I don't know if this is discriminate

1:49:41 ↗ discriminatory based on age I don't even

1:49:43 ↗ know if it's legal but possibly if

1:49:45 ↗ someone is a certain age could that be

1:49:47 ↗ something that has opened up you know as

1:49:49 ↗ far as like an Adu

1:49:52 ↗ I don't know if that's a better question

1:49:53 ↗ for

1:49:55 ↗ legal counsel I don't know yeah you know

1:49:57 ↗ we can have the city journey into that I

1:49:59 ↗ mean those are hard to enforce too I

1:50:01 ↗ mean we don't you know it's like

1:50:03 ↗ exercising government's power to say

1:50:05 ↗ who's living here I mean that's not plus

1:50:07 ↗ people yeah okay yeah no just like I

1:50:11 ↗ said outside the box anyone else have

1:50:12 ↗ any questions great commissioner ask

1:50:14 ↗ them wait thank you very much my

1:50:17 ↗ question is so option two is is in

1:50:20 ↗ addition to option one

1:50:22 ↗ um and I ask that because if they're

1:50:25 ↗ doing expansion on the sides of the

1:50:28 ↗ buildings

1:50:29 ↗ is it the expansion on the sides of the

1:50:32 ↗ buildings on impervious area or green

1:50:35 ↗ area basically well expansion would

1:50:37 ↗ generally be improved

1:50:41 ↗ in per required buffer that

1:50:43 ↗ by allowing

1:50:45 ↗ expansions yeah so so I guess the

1:50:48 ↗ question is the expansion will be in

1:50:51 ↗ previous area but the existing state uh

1:50:54 ↗ before the expansion has to be already

1:50:57 ↗ impervious area

1:51:01 ↗ so if you have if you have a house

1:51:05 ↗ already and you expanded it on the sides

1:51:07 ↗ the side of the house

1:51:09 ↗ based on option two

1:51:13 ↗ existed can you still expand on the side

1:51:17 ↗ of the house if it's grass next to the

1:51:19 ↗ house or as opposed to

1:51:22 ↗ impervious area

1:51:24 ↗ if if you have a patio on the side of

1:51:27 ↗ the house you know it's impervious you

1:51:29 ↗ can enclose it under a code now

1:51:32 ↗ um if it is grass and you and it's in

1:51:37 ↗ the buffer of a stream or a wetland then

1:51:39 ↗ you can't build on it then you can't

1:51:41 ↗ expand

1:51:42 ↗ okay okay there we go thank you so it

1:51:46 ↗ builds on option one essentially

1:51:49 ↗ where option one says you can

1:51:51 ↗ essentially expand

1:51:54 ↗ and correct me if I'm wrong with it

1:51:56 ↗ impervious areas

1:52:01 ↗ time here

1:52:09 ↗ so option one allows you to only enclose

1:52:13 ↗ an existing impervious service if you

1:52:15 ↗ have a patio you can enclose it option

1:52:18 ↗ two is going above and beyond that it's

1:52:20 ↗ letting you expand into a grass area as

1:52:24 ↗ long as you know if if your stream is

1:52:26 ↗ here here's your house the buffer is 150

1:52:29 ↗ feet but it's divided by your house you

1:52:33 ↗ know it's on the other side of the house

1:52:34 ↗ so you're not really getting closer to

1:52:37 ↗ the stream you already have a structure

1:52:38 ↗ in between do you want to allow a minor

1:52:42 ↗ addition on the opposite end it's still

1:52:44 ↗ within the buffer okay yeah okay do you

1:52:48 ↗ want to let some grass get a wave and

1:52:50 ↗ and you know increase their footprint

1:52:52 ↗ okay and I think the key thing is it's

1:52:54 ↗ still within the buffer so okay thank

1:52:57 ↗ you

1:53:02 ↗ chair my question is moving on from

1:53:05 ↗ these two options were you moving on yet

1:53:09 ↗ let me ask the rest of the commission

1:53:11 ↗ yes any other questions

1:53:14 ↗ thank you Minnie for for the

1:53:16 ↗ presentation of those policy questions

1:53:17 ↗ and thank you everybody for contributing

1:53:19 ↗ to hopefully make those questions

1:53:20 ↗ stronger for staff and stronger for our

1:53:22 ↗ residents

1:53:24 ↗ um if there are no further

1:53:26 ↗ improvements I'll say improvements

1:53:30 ↗ commissioner million thank you I do have

1:53:33 ↗ a question about questions just not that

1:53:35 ↗ particular one

1:53:37 ↗ so then uh commissioner I mean director

1:53:40 ↗ Dolly wall did you say that this is your

1:53:43 ↗ list and that if we had other areas of

1:53:46 ↗ concern how do we present them or bring

1:53:49 ↗ them forward for discussion in our

1:53:51 ↗ subsequent meetings yeah if you need our

1:53:54 ↗ assistance to to develop those reach out

1:53:57 ↗ to us you know we can help you frame the

1:53:59 ↗ question you can bring it during your

1:54:01 ↗ deliberation so you're welcome to bring

1:54:04 ↗ up anything during your deliberation but

1:54:05 ↗ if you want us to help you frame it do

1:54:09 ↗ some pros and cons and lay that out or

1:54:11 ↗ just or just talk it out loud with us

1:54:13 ↗ we're happy to help and included in our

1:54:16 ↗ presentation

1:54:19 ↗ I'm gonna piggyback on that and say as

1:54:22 ↗ I've been reading the code I am finding

1:54:25 ↗ that

1:54:27 ↗ um

1:54:28 ↗ I'm getting multiple voices from the

1:54:31 ↗ code it feels like it's written by

1:54:33 ↗ different people to me different

1:54:34 ↗ sections it does not feel like it's

1:54:36 ↗ coming with one voice and I'm worried

1:54:38 ↗ that part of that is because I've had so

1:54:40 ↗ many touches on it and I've seen so many

1:54:43 ↗ iterations of it so I'm going to put it

1:54:44 ↗ on me rather than actually the code and

1:54:46 ↗ I will say that I think I would really

1:54:48 ↗ appreciate as we move it to the next

1:54:49 ↗ three meetings having our presentations

1:54:52 ↗ very clearly talk about policy changes

1:54:56 ↗ old code nude code new language from

1:54:59 ↗ last draft I had requested that prior

1:55:02 ↗ and I'm finding in the way that we had

1:55:05 ↗ the code presented to us our binders it

1:55:08 ↗ is not super clear right it is this is

1:55:10 ↗ what it is here's a note but there isn't

1:55:12 ↗ an easy color coding for instance that

1:55:15 ↗ tells me existing language updated from

1:55:18 ↗ our last draft right so it's super

1:55:22 ↗ helpful I'm requesting to be able to

1:55:24 ↗ have when we're discussing and

1:55:26 ↗ deliberating this all together is being

1:55:27 ↗ able to have a little bit of a deeper

1:55:29 ↗ dive of talking about

1:55:30 ↗ how the link with policy and having the

1:55:33 ↗ link with us and being able to talk

1:55:34 ↗ about it a little more granular level in

1:55:36 ↗ our presentations I think will be

1:55:38 ↗ helpful

1:55:40 ↗ there's a lot yeah

1:55:42 ↗ and you have a two out you know so what

1:55:45 ↗ uh what are some of the things that

1:55:47 ↗ you're curious about so you know we will

1:55:50 ↗ have to kind of

1:55:52 ↗ produce those documents for you we have

1:55:54 ↗ done that with your previous meetings

1:55:57 ↗ packet we called it a common Matrix but

1:56:01 ↗ that that's the Consolidated list of

1:56:03 ↗ changes that have changed from the last

1:56:06 ↗ time you saw it when we had the first

1:56:08 ↗ draft we summarized these are these are

1:56:11 ↗ the summary changes we had a memo that

1:56:13 ↗ said here are the changes

1:56:15 ↗ in your second draft in a Consolidated

1:56:17 ↗ draft we have a table that established

1:56:20 ↗ it's the cons we called it internally a

1:56:22 ↗ Consolidated list but it's it's a table

1:56:24 ↗ that lists for each part what changed

1:56:28 ↗ and it was informed by public comments

1:56:30 ↗ or what you asked us to or what council

1:56:32 ↗ committee asked us for so beyond those

1:56:35 ↗ two tools uh you know I think the best

1:56:39 ↗ strategy would be to sit down with you

1:56:40 ↗ and go through each of the parts and

1:56:44 ↗ kind of highlight that for you

1:56:46 ↗ um I would just say as you guys are

1:56:48 ↗ putting together our packets for the

1:56:50 ↗ next couple weeks to kind of keep an eye

1:56:52 ↗ on how you can kind of give us

1:56:54 ↗ um that granular view was is very

1:56:58 ↗ helpful do you want to um

1:57:00 ↗ do you have anything to add Kristen you

1:57:02 ↗ see you looking at me so I wasn't sure

1:57:05 ↗ just a note take it for what it's worth

1:57:08 ↗ okay

1:57:09 ↗ now we want to be helpful so you know

1:57:11 ↗ whatever that that's helpful for your

1:57:12 ↗ deliberation we want to give you that

1:57:16 ↗ um

1:57:17 ↗ so

1:57:18 ↗ um

1:57:19 ↗ but I want to point to what you already

1:57:21 ↗ have uh which is the the summary memos

1:57:23 ↗ from the first draft that we have a

1:57:26 ↗ Consolidated comment that you know what

1:57:28 ↗ changed from the first draft and then

1:57:30 ↗ you have an executive summary that's

1:57:32 ↗ captured at a high level of part one

1:57:35 ↗ this is what we change part two this is

1:57:36 ↗ what we change so those are the three

1:57:41 ↗ documents we've produced

1:57:43 ↗ maybe it's easy to give like an example

1:57:45 ↗ like outdoor lighting for instance being

1:57:47 ↗ able to say we had a draft we had

1:57:50 ↗ discussions we talked about it with the

1:57:52 ↗ environmental board right and now the

1:57:54 ↗ version that we're looking at how is our

1:57:57 ↗ how has that evolved from the last draft

1:57:59 ↗ like I'm finding I'm having to like go

1:58:01 ↗ back and try to compare some language to

1:58:03 ↗ be like wait are we missing something I

1:58:04 ↗ feel like I'm not seeing something so

1:58:07 ↗ um there are sections that are presented

1:58:09 ↗ to us like here it is but I'm having a

1:58:12 ↗ hard time actually being able to compare

1:58:14 ↗ the exact Apple to Apple on a section

1:58:18 ↗ yeah

1:58:20 ↗ commissioner Lewis let me just um add to

1:58:23 ↗ that in the document there are gray

1:58:25 ↗ boxes and there are orange boxes and I

1:58:28 ↗ can't quite tell

1:58:29 ↗ why some are gray and the others are

1:58:31 ↗ orange so a little bit of guide on the

1:58:33 ↗ mapping because that helps us when we

1:58:36 ↗ look through here I couldn't figure out

1:58:38 ↗ the pattern

1:58:39 ↗ what are the gray ones and

1:58:42 ↗ what are the orange ones yeah I don't

1:58:44 ↗ know either I I think they were blue and

1:58:46 ↗ orange so Stephen was trying to delete

1:58:48 ↗ some of them and I think the color kept

1:58:50 ↗ changing or something like that so it's

1:58:51 ↗ more of a formatting thing oh so we had

1:58:54 ↗ two flavors we had a change no no no we

1:58:57 ↗ in the style guide you're right we had a

1:59:01 ↗ change explainer and an issue

1:59:03 ↗ highlighter is what we called it so the

1:59:05 ↗ issue was there's an issue with this we

1:59:07 ↗ need to kind of kind of talk about this

1:59:08 ↗ so those were internal things that we we

1:59:12 ↗ call them issue highlighters and change

1:59:13 ↗ explainers so the change explainers

1:59:15 ↗ remained in the draft that you have but

1:59:18 ↗ they're two different colors I don't

1:59:19 ↗ know why they're two different colors

1:59:20 ↗ they should all be I do appreciate those

1:59:24 ↗ little markers in here so you can thumb

1:59:26 ↗ through and see you know the word new or

1:59:28 ↗ changed or something like that so that

1:59:30 ↗ has been very helpful but to

1:59:32 ↗ commissioner Lewis's point where that

1:59:35 ↗ would just be

1:59:37 ↗ too hard because each

1:59:41 ↗ consideration is not isolated anyway let

1:59:47 ↗ alone say how much how much did this

1:59:49 ↗ change here and how much did this what

1:59:50 ↗ was it in the old document well it

1:59:52 ↗ doesn't just sit there anyway because

1:59:54 ↗ it's also changed over here and it's

1:59:55 ↗ changed over there

1:59:57 ↗ so I don't know that's a that's a

1:59:59 ↗ question Christmas wish that

2:00:03 ↗ yeah I just I think we just got to fight

2:00:05 ↗ through it but thank you for the markers

2:00:08 ↗ that's my

2:00:09 ↗ okay I wish I that he had color-coded

2:00:12 ↗ markers that meant something

2:00:17 ↗ any last questions as far as our policy

2:00:19 ↗ questions I'm going to ask many to start

2:00:22 ↗ moving forward so

2:00:24 ↗ um I believe many are going to kind of

2:00:26 ↗ let us know the layout of what you've

2:00:28 ↗ are we moving on to are we done with

2:00:30 ↗ regular business

2:00:32 ↗ so we're ready to go on to uh city

2:00:34 ↗ council updates

2:00:36 ↗ sure I don't know if you have any more

2:00:38 ↗ to your slides no no no no we're we're

2:00:41 ↗ wrapped up okay

2:00:43 ↗ all right so please uh city council

2:00:45 ↗ updates so uh with the council committee

2:00:48 ↗ we've been uh talking to them about the

2:00:49 ↗ contractor code of conduct

2:00:52 ↗ um which has been on the city's work

2:00:53 ↗ plan for a number of years

2:00:55 ↗ we had a draft that we circulated we had

2:00:58 ↗ a public meeting and received some

2:01:01 ↗ feedback uh from the community members

2:01:03 ↗ and from Master Builders Association and

2:01:06 ↗ at the last Council committee meeting

2:01:08 ↗ they approved it

2:01:10 ↗ and the main issue there is the

2:01:12 ↗ communicate you know so there's divided

2:01:14 ↗ up into four different parts keeping

2:01:16 ↗ things clean keeping him safe and and

2:01:19 ↗ notification keeping everyone apprised

2:01:21 ↗ of so it's it's being how to be a good

2:01:23 ↗ neighbor if you're doing construction

2:01:25 ↗ and keeping all that so we're figuring

2:01:28 ↗ out the the notice process which larger

2:01:33 ↗ projects what the template for the sign

2:01:35 ↗ should look like that the contractor

2:01:36 ↗ would put up

2:01:38 ↗ um and having a point person that

2:01:40 ↗ someone could call and and have a a

2:01:43 ↗ question about it or anything like that

2:01:45 ↗ so that is scheduled to go to full

2:01:48 ↗ Council for February 6th for adoption

2:01:52 ↗ by resolution

2:01:54 ↗ that's going on with Council uh anything

2:01:57 ↗ else

2:02:04 ↗ any other announcements nothing

2:02:07 ↗ all right Commissioners anything I'd

2:02:09 ↗ like to add before we adjourn please

2:02:11 ↗ commissioner Milligan I just want to

2:02:13 ↗ tell everybody I'm not going to be able

2:02:14 ↗ to be here on the 26th so I may be

2:02:17 ↗ looking for so sorry to ruin the Quorum

2:02:19 ↗ here

2:02:20 ↗ I'll be looking to maybe set aside some

2:02:24 ↗ time to touch those topics or submit by

2:02:27 ↗ email or something

2:02:28 ↗ that's okay I'm out of town

2:02:32 ↗ all right well thank you everyone it's

2:02:34 ↗ good to see everybody Happy New Year I

2:02:37 ↗ do want to mention to the people that

2:02:39 ↗ have been trying to follow us on WebEx

2:02:41 ↗ it sounds like it was kind of a wide

2:02:44 ↗ outage so so and to our Noble staff who

2:02:47 ↗ tried so hard to get us back online this

2:02:49 ↗ sounds like a regional problem or

2:02:51 ↗ Regional correct

2:02:53 ↗ yeah well it was an uh Comcast or

2:02:56 ↗ internet outage in Issaquah Okay so

2:03:00 ↗ yeah

2:03:01 ↗ um hopefully you guys can all go home

2:03:03 ↗ and enjoy your Comcast uh like to

2:03:07 ↗ adjourn this meeting tonight and it is

2:03:09 ↗ currently 8 35. 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 (9)

Voiss

Bader (Virtual)

Commissioners Altimore

Esemuede

Kennedy

Lewis

Longoria (Virtual)

Milligan

Patterson Absence: None

Staff (2)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christian Geitz, Current Planning Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Rachel Turpin, Madrona Law 2. Approval of Minutes CHAIR VOISS asked for changes or comments regarding the December 8, 2022 Minutes. There were none

the Minutes were approved. (Issues with audio, corrected) 3