Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, January 26, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. PUBLIC HEARING

Title 18 Final Draft (Parts 5-8: Specified Use Standards, Development Standards, Neighborhood Overlay, Environment) and Shoreline Master Program, (D)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development Public Hearing Order: Commission and DOE · packet pp.3–969

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Proposed Title 18 and Shoreline Master Program Amendments JANUARY 26, 2023 | PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINNIE DHALIWAL, COMMUNITY PLANNING &

4. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.971–972

▶ Watch from 47:28 Open packet at p.971 ↗

Staff report:

April

3136 segments .txt ↗

0:10 ↗ foreign

0:12 ↗ good evening everyone thank you for

0:14 ↗ joining us this evening uh I'd like to

0:16 ↗ call the January 26 meeting of the

0:18 ↗ planning policy commission to order it

0:20 ↗ is currently 6 31 pm

0:24 ↗ tonight's meeting is a hybrid meeting

0:25 ↗ the planning policy commission is in

0:27 ↗ person but staff or members of the

0:29 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

0:32 ↗ person

0:33 ↗ Stephen the numbers are a little bit

0:34 ↗ shakier tonight but I think we still

0:36 ↗ have a quorum

0:38 ↗ chair voice that's correct excellent and

0:41 ↗ since we're talking about attendance I

0:43 ↗ would like just to inform everyone that

0:45 ↗ one of our commissioners has had to

0:47 ↗ resign due to uh some familial

0:50 ↗ obligations so commissioner Longoria

0:53 ↗ will no longer be with us we wish her

0:54 ↗ well

0:56 ↗ we're going to begin this evening with

0:57 ↗ public comment and the guidelines they

1:00 ↗ never change comments at tonight's

1:02 ↗ meeting may be made in person or

1:04 ↗ virtually

1:05 ↗ uh

1:07 ↗ we've got some

1:08 ↗ guidelines but Jared do we have anyone

1:11 ↗ that's set up signed up to speak tonight

1:14 ↗ no one has signed up and no one has

1:17 ↗ signed up in person tonight but is there

1:19 ↗ anybody in the room that would like to

1:20 ↗ speak

1:21 ↗ we do have one excellent uh so we'll

1:24 ↗ still go over the guidelines so for all

1:25 ↗ those who would like to speak during

1:27 ↗ public comments please speak clearly and

1:29 ↗ pause frequently state your name each

1:32 ↗ time before speaking and if you are

1:33 ↗ attending virtually by computer or by

1:35 ↗ phone and would like to speak during

1:36 ↗ public comments in addition to the above

1:39 ↗ please

1:40 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

1:42 ↗ speaking and if you're having any

1:43 ↗ technical issues try to join the meeting

1:45 ↗ using a different device such as a

1:47 ↗ smartphone or tablet please use the call

1:49 ↗ and information in the meeting invite to

1:52 ↗ call into the meeting if you'd like to

1:54 ↗ do so virtually

1:56 ↗ one thing I will mention is right now is

2:00 ↗ reserved for general public comments so

2:02 ↗ these if you want to get your title 18

2:05 ↗ and Shoreline master program comments on

2:08 ↗ the record we will be doing that a

2:10 ↗ little later this evening during the

2:11 ↗ public hearing

2:13 ↗ public comments are an important part of

2:15 ↗ the process we take them seriously

2:17 ↗ they're factored into the decisions that

2:19 ↗ we make

2:20 ↗ we do ask that you please keep your

2:22 ↗ public comments to five minutes or less

2:25 ↗ all right

2:28 ↗ yeah I think we're ready

2:34 ↗ okay

2:36 ↗ um any other general public comments

2:38 ↗ going once going twice

2:40 ↗ nothing virtually

2:42 ↗ don't

2:43 ↗ Perfect all right the next item on the

2:46 ↗ agenda is the public hearing uh this is

2:48 ↗ the title 18 code update as well as the

2:51 ↗ shoreline master program updates

2:54 ↗ we're going to hold the second of three

2:57 ↗ public meetings tonight

2:59 ↗ we held the first one last Thursday and

3:02 ↗ staff will be presenting and PPC will be

3:05 ↗ deliberating policy questions for parts

3:07 ↗ five through eight this evening although

3:09 ↗ public

3:10 ↗ hearing comments can be made on any part

3:14 ↗ of the title 18 update as well as the

3:16 ↗ shoreline master program

3:19 ↗ process wise we will ask this staff to

3:23 ↗ please make a presentation this evening

3:24 ↗ and we're going to follow what we did

3:26 ↗ last Thursday after the presentation

3:28 ↗ we'll have some clarifying comments from

3:31 ↗ the Commissioners then we will have the

3:33 ↗ public hearing comments after that we

3:35 ↗ will close the public hearing and then

3:37 ↗ move on to deliberations with the

3:40 ↗ commissioners

3:41 ↗ so

3:44 ↗ I think now we want to open the public

3:45 ↗ hearing

3:47 ↗ and we will open it at 6 35 pm

3:53 ↗ I believe now we're going to turn it

3:55 ↗ over to staff to hear the presentation

3:58 ↗ on Parts five through eight

4:04 ↗ good evening Commissioners and members

4:06 ↗ of the community here

4:08 ↗ um

4:09 ↗ I'm going to try and share my screen

4:13 ↗ just a second

4:18 ↗ says I'm already in the event join again

4:29 ↗ I had to join again guys they

4:37 ↗ okay let's hope this works

4:40 ↗ um

4:42 ↗ to share

4:49 ↗ I'm unable to share at this point

4:56 ↗ maybe in the meeting twice

5:32 ↗ looks like I may be

5:34 ↗ okay

5:41 ↗ okay let's

5:49 ↗ there you go all right

5:57 ↗ so good evening again this is our second

6:00 ↗ day our second public hearing date we

6:04 ↗ had the first one on January 9th but

6:06 ↗ we've had many many meetings on these

6:07 ↗ topics So today we're officially holding

6:11 ↗ a second public hearing on the

6:13 ↗ Consolidated draft of Title 18 and

6:15 ↗ Shoreline master program update

6:18 ↗ um

6:18 ↗ the process like uh chair voice

6:21 ↗ explained we opened the public hearing

6:23 ↗ there's a staff presentation clarifying

6:26 ↗ questions from the commission public

6:27 ↗ comment on the items for the public

6:29 ↗ hearing we close the public hearing and

6:31 ↗ then the commission will deliberate So

6:35 ↗ today we're covering part five through

6:37 ↗ eight of the

6:39 ↗ title 18 so part five is the specified

6:43 ↗ use standard in here we have accessory

6:46 ↗ and temporary uses such as mobile uses

6:49 ↗ and food trucks that we previously

6:51 ↗ discussed this also part five also

6:54 ↗ includes affordable housing standards

6:56 ↗ where we've done some cleanup

6:58 ↗ coordinated with Arch and made some

7:00 ↗ consistency type of changes no policy

7:04 ↗ changes made under that chapter same

7:07 ↗ thing with the wireless communication

7:08 ↗ facilities we've aligned it with the FCC

7:10 ↗ regulations added some graphics and to

7:13 ↗ help illustrate and and more

7:15 ↗ housekeeping kind of changes there

7:18 ↗ part 6 includes a lot of things it's the

7:22 ↗ development standards that apply so last

7:24 ↗ time we covered the zoning which sort of

7:26 ↗ sets the stage in the bases

7:28 ↗ here in part six we have Urban Design

7:31 ↗ and site planning building design

7:33 ↗ standards parking Landscaping community

7:37 ↗ and amenity spaces and so we've

7:39 ↗ highlighted a policy question for you

7:42 ↗ all to discuss in under the amenity

7:44 ↗ spaces outdoor lighting is a separate

7:47 ↗ chapter as well as science

7:49 ↗ um

7:50 ↗ then part 7 includes the neighborhood

7:52 ↗ overlays so these are regulations that

7:56 ↗ are so unique to certain parts of

7:57 ↗ Issaquah that they have been maintained

8:00 ↗ to maintain the neighborhood character

8:02 ↗ of these areas so this is for Old Town

8:05 ↗ Central Issaquah uh Issaquah Highlands

8:08 ↗ and Talus

8:10 ↗ um

8:11 ↗ then part 8 is comprises of a lot of

8:16 ↗ things and I'll quickly go through them

8:18 ↗ a lot of golden outcomes chart that the

8:21 ↗ council had established for this code

8:22 ↗ update relate to uh part eight as well

8:25 ↗ so in here is the sipa Environmental

8:29 ↗ Policy chapter where we increase the

8:32 ↗ thresholds to 10 units or ten thousand

8:35 ↗ square feet for projects that have to go

8:37 ↗ through environmental they have to fill

8:39 ↗ out the CPA checklist and go through an

8:41 ↗ additional layer of process so CPA for

8:46 ↗ those of you that joined this

8:47 ↗ conversation later is the state law and

8:51 ↗ that establishes some of these flexible

8:53 ↗ thresholds the city had them pretty low

8:56 ↗ at four square feet or four thousand and

8:59 ↗ so we've increased them and still be

9:02 ↗ aligned with state law state law

9:04 ↗ actually allows a lot more than 10 and

9:06 ↗ 10 000 but based on previous discussions

9:08 ↗ that's where the direction from planning

9:11 ↗ and policy commission was

9:12 ↗ uh We've uploaded the public notice

9:14 ↗ standards as well under the critical

9:17 ↗ areas code

9:19 ↗ um there are some procedural changes we

9:22 ↗ had some exemptions uh that we've now

9:24 ↗ aligned with the state law uh and then I

9:27 ↗ think we discussed the process for

9:29 ↗ public agency and utility exemptions

9:31 ↗ we've added more criteria to it but

9:34 ↗ whether it needs to be level one and

9:36 ↗ level two was discussed at the last

9:37 ↗ meeting

9:38 ↗ the critical area studies so these are

9:41 ↗ technical reports that you know whether

9:43 ↗ it's a wetland biologist or a Geotech

9:46 ↗ engineer that prepares these studies and

9:49 ↗ then the city this is a consultant team

9:51 ↗ usually that has the subject matter

9:53 ↗ expert and then ensures that they are in

9:56 ↗ compliance with the city so

9:58 ↗ a lot of work occurred on on these areas

10:01 ↗ to provide Clarity and and really to

10:04 ↗ avoid the those debates on what needs to

10:06 ↗ be in the study and how and all that so

10:09 ↗ um that's uh in your packet um there was

10:12 ↗ discussion about reasonable use

10:14 ↗ exception uh so we've cleaned up the

10:16 ↗ criteria there which is a if if there's

10:19 ↗ a property that's completely encumbered

10:22 ↗ with critical areas

10:24 ↗ um you you we have to go through a

10:26 ↗ process where we don't take away all

10:29 ↗ development rights for that property so

10:31 ↗ there has to be a reasonable use

10:32 ↗ evaluation

10:36 ↗ um and and which is a public hearing

10:38 ↗ process to let

10:40 ↗ um some development occur on that

10:42 ↗ property

10:43 ↗ and then

10:45 ↗ um there were some quirkiness and

10:47 ↗ awareness with how the density was

10:49 ↗ calculated so we've all cleaned that up

10:52 ↗ it was wasn't very heavily used section

10:54 ↗ but it did add a lot of confusion

10:57 ↗ for the wetlands the buffers are now

10:59 ↗ aligned with Department of ecology's

11:01 ↗ best available science they have gone up

11:03 ↗ slightly but mostly it's based on

11:06 ↗ habitat score and not just um so there's

11:10 ↗ a whole methodology and there's a

11:12 ↗ significant increase at the time we we

11:14 ↗ shared you know we're aligned with our

11:16 ↗ peer cities we would our code just had

11:18 ↗ not been updated uh to reflect some of

11:21 ↗ those things

11:21 ↗ the buffer reductions and buffer

11:24 ↗ averaging is no longer an option which

11:26 ↗ is consistent with the guidance from

11:29 ↗ ecology

11:30 ↗ stormwater facilities such as

11:32 ↗ underground vaults you can plant trees

11:35 ↗ and things over it so you cannot have

11:37 ↗ those in the Wetland buffer either

11:39 ↗ um streams we our definitions were not

11:43 ↗ aligned with fish and wildlife and the

11:45 ↗ state regulations so that has been done

11:47 ↗ uh the classification is per Washington

11:50 ↗ Department of Fish and Wildlife uh

11:52 ↗ during the first round of review we

11:54 ↗ heard that we needed to look at fish

11:56 ↗ bearing streams and the buffers whether

11:57 ↗ that met the best available signs if we

11:59 ↗ kept them at 100 feet we did that and

12:03 ↗ those are going going up with this

12:04 ↗ update 250 feet

12:07 ↗ but for reduction in averaging no longer

12:09 ↗ an option if you have a culvert and

12:12 ↗ you're building a road over it or you

12:14 ↗ know that's part of your development

12:16 ↗ project those culverts need to be

12:18 ↗ replaced to be fish friendly we have an

12:21 ↗ overlay of fish and wildlife

12:22 ↗ conservation areas there is some

12:25 ↗ discussion about how does this interplay

12:27 ↗ with the streams and the wetlands in one

12:29 ↗ draft we had the streams under this

12:31 ↗ however Wetlands were not so now we have

12:34 ↗ a wetland section a stream section and a

12:37 ↗ fish and wildlife conservation area so

12:38 ↗ you you have to show how you're in

12:40 ↗ compliance with all of them

12:42 ↗ critical Aquifer recharge areas

12:45 ↗ so the city had performed a

12:48 ↗ hydrogeologic study in 2019

12:51 ↗ and our existing code had three

12:54 ↗ designations but there were four

12:56 ↗ designations recommended by that study

12:59 ↗ so we have updated our code to reflect

13:02 ↗ what we learned from that larger

13:04 ↗ undertaking that the city did

13:06 ↗ and part of the update also included

13:09 ↗ some land uses and businesses that can

13:13 ↗ have a detrimental effect to the

13:14 ↗ drinking water supply

13:16 ↗ um and you all have received a comment

13:18 ↗ letter today uh um and you know we can

13:22 ↗ discuss more about it as we get to that

13:24 ↗ topic

13:25 ↗ um but the the the intent of the

13:28 ↗ prohibited land uses list is do not

13:31 ↗ allow New Uses that we know could have

13:33 ↗ detrimental effect it you know it's not

13:36 ↗ the entire intent to uh unduly restrict

13:39 ↗ some of the things for existing

13:41 ↗ businesses that are in in existence uh

13:44 ↗ and so

13:46 ↗ um there's some discussion to be had on

13:48 ↗ that uh new standards uh for temporary

13:51 ↗ dewatering and Underground Construction

13:53 ↗ have been added we also had

13:57 ↗ um comments from Department of Health

14:00 ↗ and Sammamish water plateau and we've

14:02 ↗ Incorporated those

14:05 ↗ um the geological hazardous areas is you

14:08 ↗ know there's a lot of area in Issaquah

14:09 ↗ that fall into that category and and

14:12 ↗ this area is more for protection of

14:15 ↗ Public Safety and others as opposed to

14:17 ↗ some of the Wetland and stream which is

14:19 ↗ more ecological uh benefits

14:22 ↗ um and we have our consultant online

14:25 ↗ today so and we have a policy question

14:28 ↗ related to steep slopes so if you want

14:30 ↗ to get into more detail we can do that

14:32 ↗ but in short the new regulations were

14:34 ↗ added for coal mine there's a setback

14:36 ↗ for coal mines now

14:39 ↗ um there was a lot of debate about peat

14:41 ↗ settlement prone critical areas those

14:43 ↗ have been included in this draft

14:45 ↗ and then

14:47 ↗ um Mitigation Of landslides seismic coal

14:50 ↗ mine has a lot of discussion and updates

14:52 ↗ and very technical terms

14:55 ↗ buffer reductions from steep slopes is

14:58 ↗ the item that we have for policy

15:00 ↗ discussion today

15:02 ↗ there was a perception that you know we

15:05 ↗ have a 50-foot buffer that the city has

15:07 ↗ always granted a 10-foot buffer

15:10 ↗ reduction but it's based off of the

15:12 ↗ safety considerations of Geo geological

15:15 ↗ reports so we've laid out some options

15:18 ↗ for you to debate

15:20 ↗ Shoreline master program so this is

15:23 ↗ something that the city undertook as an

15:26 ↗ update in 29 a couple of years ago

15:29 ↗ where Council asked us to include some

15:32 ↗ more additional updates to Common line

15:34 ↗ setback where if your neighbors had a

15:37 ↗ certain setback you could make an

15:39 ↗ argument that you would get the same

15:40 ↗ thing and there was a concern that that

15:43 ↗ was too close to the lake and it didn't

15:44 ↗ really meet the best available science

15:46 ↗ and so we looked at that we actually had

15:49 ↗ our consultant do GIS study and that you

15:52 ↗ know eliminating that is not going to be

15:54 ↗ an impact on any property owner

15:56 ↗ significantly so that has been

15:59 ↗ eliminated as requested by Council in

16:01 ↗ the past Shoreline buffer reduction

16:04 ↗ incentive so there's an incentive that

16:06 ↗ you could go build it closer to the lake

16:08 ↗ if you remove your bulkhead nobody

16:11 ↗ really took on that incentive and it's

16:14 ↗ really not the best practice so that has

16:17 ↗ been removed and there's a requirement

16:19 ↗ that if you do a new development you

16:21 ↗ have to build a new bulkhead that is

16:24 ↗ more ecologically you know meets those

16:27 ↗ guidelines there are new dockline

16:29 ↗ writing standards those have been added

16:32 ↗ and then lastly the the shoreline master

16:36 ↗ program has an appendix to the critical

16:38 ↗ areas code so the new critical area code

16:41 ↗ would be adopted with the s p

16:44 ↗ um update there are the the other thing

16:47 ↗ with this Shoreline master program that

16:48 ↗ you heard from Department of ecology

16:50 ↗ representative last time you will make a

16:53 ↗ recommendation to council Council will

16:55 ↗ approve it but the final uh effect that

16:57 ↗ it can go in is after Department of

16:59 ↗ ecology approves it so they will have to

17:02 ↗ review and approve everything related to

17:04 ↗ SMP

17:06 ↗ um

17:06 ↗ a transfer of development rights

17:10 ↗ some of the highlights of the changes

17:12 ↗ we've made are forested hillsides are

17:14 ↗ now eligible as sending sites so the

17:16 ↗ basic concept here is you save open

17:18 ↗ space here but you you can give those

17:22 ↗ development rights to someone else uh in

17:25 ↗ addition to what's already allowed under

17:27 ↗ Zoning for the receiving site so you get

17:29 ↗ more density in your receiving site but

17:31 ↗ you're able to preserve open space

17:33 ↗ um somewhere else

17:35 ↗ um

17:36 ↗ and so we've added uh you can you can be

17:39 ↗ considered a sending site if you are a

17:41 ↗ forested hillside

17:43 ↗ the density calculations where you got a

17:46 ↗ little bit of bonus for being in a

17:47 ↗ critical area we've maintained it in

17:49 ↗ this chapter it's the purpose is to

17:51 ↗ incentivize preservation of those areas

17:54 ↗ that probably aren't suited for

17:56 ↗ development

17:58 ↗ TDR certification

18:00 ↗ process levels

18:03 ↗ these are currently set up as if you

18:06 ↗ want a certification you're a level one

18:08 ↗ so if someone has a sending site you're

18:10 ↗ already showing on the map and they'll

18:11 ↗ say how many units are we certified for

18:14 ↗ they can apply for a level one decision

18:16 ↗ and we would do the math calculation and

18:18 ↗ tell them how many TDR units you can

18:21 ↗ sell

18:22 ↗ the receiving site that's actually going

18:25 ↗ to get the additional density there are

18:27 ↗ three different options they can go more

18:29 ↗ height impervious more impervious

18:32 ↗ surface and you know one other thing so

18:34 ↗ there's a menu of options they can

18:35 ↗ choose from and the the calculation that

18:38 ↗ happens for that is a level two path

18:42 ↗ however if you want to change the map

18:45 ↗ there's some inconsistencies between the

18:47 ↗ map and the text that we've cleaned up

18:49 ↗ the map showed some sending sites but

18:51 ↗ the text said if you zoned this you're

18:53 ↗ not allowed as a sending site so that

18:55 ↗ has been fixed in this draft however

18:58 ↗ amending the map is still a level five

19:00 ↗ decision

19:02 ↗ um

19:02 ↗ fun for the conversations we've learned

19:04 ↗ that perhaps ascending site should be a

19:07 ↗ lower standard but that's a separate

19:09 ↗ conversation where we'll continue to

19:11 ↗ review that and get back to you on that

19:14 ↗ um we've added some TDR Bank approved

19:16 ↗ activities and things that already

19:19 ↗ existed in the in the code but we made

19:21 ↗ that more clear of how the costs are

19:23 ↗ determined how the exchange of funds

19:25 ↗ happens What's the timing of the payment

19:27 ↗ and such

19:28 ↗ uh landmarks this is really we've

19:31 ↗ adopted King County Landmark

19:33 ↗ preservation code instead of having a

19:35 ↗ hardwired into our code and then King

19:38 ↗ County's code becomes a little off um so

19:41 ↗ that's the main thing that's changed

19:44 ↗ there a forested hillside preservation

19:46 ↗ this is a brand new chapter this is one

19:49 ↗ of the Mandate you know the goals that

19:51 ↗ Council had

19:53 ↗ for this update so we've created some

19:57 ↗ design standards if you're building on a

19:59 ↗ hillside grading how are you getting

20:01 ↗ your street access there's some

20:02 ↗ measurement and mapping section and and

20:05 ↗ there's some compliance options so

20:08 ↗ there's some flexibility built into this

20:10 ↗ and this is one of the deviations

20:12 ↗ permitted

20:14 ↗ so now that's sort of the summary or

20:17 ↗ highlight at a very high level of uh

20:19 ↗ part five through eight

20:21 ↗ um there's a lot to unpack

20:23 ↗ um for at least the new members but we

20:26 ↗ kept it at that level for you

20:30 ↗ um so at the beginning we had six policy

20:33 ↗ questions that we had teased out of this

20:35 ↗ update that perhaps were things you

20:37 ↗ wanted to discuss and or had asked us to

20:40 ↗ go back in the first round uh and come

20:43 ↗ back with more information so we

20:45 ↗ discussed the first three at the last

20:47 ↗ meeting this one is outdoor amenity

20:49 ↗ spaces

20:51 ↗ so currently you the city has 48 square

20:55 ↗ feet per unit as the minimum

20:58 ↗ outdoor amenity space required for

21:01 ↗ residential development

21:03 ↗ um so some of the options we've laid out

21:05 ↗ for you

21:06 ↗ um were and I think the existing code

21:08 ↗ you could put a balcony that is six by

21:11 ↗ eight and still comply with the 48

21:13 ↗ square feet

21:14 ↗ um because it's an outdoor space so we

21:16 ↗ heard during the first round of comments

21:18 ↗ that that seems uh not to meet

21:21 ↗ um the mark for what Issaquah Community

21:24 ↗ desires or is aligned with a comp plan

21:27 ↗ um so we've looked at our peer cities we

21:29 ↗ shared all that research and that's true

21:31 ↗ our standards were much lower than some

21:33 ↗ of our peer cities so the options were

21:36 ↗ to keep it at 48 option two is to

21:39 ↗ increase the 200 square feet that is

21:41 ↗ administration's recommendation or we

21:44 ↗ can go up to 200 square feet and in one

21:48 ↗ of your

21:49 ↗ um you know memos we laid out some pros

21:51 ↗ and cons

21:52 ↗ but this is what we have in the draft

21:54 ↗ code right now so residential five plus

21:58 ↗ units is 100 square feet 22 plus units

22:02 ↗ you have 100 per unit but you also have

22:05 ↗ 400 common amenity area

22:08 ↗ and for just larger projects

22:12 ↗ and then for Talus and Highlands that

22:16 ↗ that's the work that was done with the

22:18 ↗ replacement regulations the standard is

22:20 ↗ already in the code of 250 square feet

22:22 ↗ so we've maintained that and carried

22:24 ↗ that forward

22:26 ↗ um

22:26 ↗ next policy question that we have is

22:29 ↗ steep slope buffers should we should the

22:31 ↗ city adopt a different policy regarding

22:33 ↗ steep slope buffers

22:35 ↗ so we've laid out four options for you

22:37 ↗ all to consider the first one which is

22:40 ↗ in the proposed draft and is

22:42 ↗ administration's recommendation is to

22:44 ↗ keep the 50-foot standard buffer

22:46 ↗ which can be reduced up to you know to a

22:50 ↗ minimum of 10 feet with the peer review

22:52 ↗ but the peer review actually determines

22:54 ↗ the exact buffer based on very specific

22:57 ↗ site conditions

22:59 ↗ um option two that we've laid out is you

23:01 ↗ you know the buffers are based on slope

23:03 ↗ height uh the problem here is uh slope

23:06 ↗ Topography is what you know the the

23:08 ↗ height is one criteria but the types of

23:10 ↗ soil the amount of water hydrology or

23:12 ↗ the geology of the site doesn't get

23:16 ↗ taken into consideration here we

23:18 ↗ developed a third option with our

23:20 ↗ consultant team where we took the slope

23:23 ↗ geology you took all those three things

23:25 ↗ the problem here is you still need

23:28 ↗ Geotech peer reviewed to determine if

23:30 ↗ the the characteristics of the geology

23:32 ↗ are are correct so you can't have you

23:36 ↗ can forego the actual assessment on site

23:41 ↗ um option four is was developed just

23:44 ↗ um for policy consideration it's similar

23:46 ↗ to one

23:48 ↗ um but if you all feel that there really

23:50 ↗ needs to be a more clamping of the

23:53 ↗ buffer reduction than perhaps the buffer

23:56 ↗ reduction piece is limited to 50 of the

24:00 ↗ slope height and we'll get into more

24:02 ↗ details about this but I've included

24:04 ↗ some graphics here for your

24:05 ↗ consideration these were in your packet

24:07 ↗ on the I believe on the January 12th

24:10 ↗ agenda packet

24:11 ↗ so just to get a little bit you know

24:14 ↗ everyone on the same page here so height

24:17 ↗ is the slope height is from the toe to

24:20 ↗ the top of perpendicular distance so in

24:23 ↗ this you see this H that's labeled there

24:28 ↗ um so under this option two

24:31 ↗ you could have from the crest of the

24:35 ↗ slope which is

24:37 ↗ um you would have Point half of the

24:39 ↗ height from the toe of the slope you

24:42 ↗ would have 0.7 of the height diff

24:44 ↗ difference and from the sides of the

24:46 ↗ slope you would have point two h

24:48 ↗ so this table here kind of shows you how

24:52 ↗ the different buffers would work we can

24:54 ↗ pick one for instance

24:57 ↗ um if you have a slope height of 60 feet

24:59 ↗ then from the crest you would have a 30

25:03 ↗ foot buffer from the toe you have a 42

25:06 ↗ foot buffer from the side you would have

25:08 ↗ 12 foot buffer

25:10 ↗ um

25:11 ↗ and under your third option three

25:14 ↗ it it's this table that gets into the

25:18 ↗ slope material there's five or six kind

25:20 ↗ you know Glacier tilt to sedimentary

25:23 ↗ bedrock and then you have these

25:25 ↗ different variations

25:27 ↗ um based on the crest toe or side

25:32 ↗ um so that's

25:34 ↗ question five question six uh came from

25:38 ↗ the code testing Provisions that the

25:40 ↗ critical area code for homeowners needed

25:43 ↗ some more vetting we have uh included a

25:48 ↗ question for you and I think we heard

25:49 ↗ last time that we need to break it down

25:51 ↗ a little bit

25:52 ↗ um so this is our attempt at maybe

25:54 ↗ perhaps breaking it down but the

25:56 ↗ question really was are there any

25:57 ↗ additional incentives or flexibilities

26:00 ↗ for small home renovation projects you

26:04 ↗ know that aren't detrimental to Wetland

26:05 ↗ and stream buffer but can be a huge uh

26:09 ↗ cost burden to do simple additions

26:13 ↗ so this is complex so I'll try my best

26:16 ↗ to kind of walk you through

26:18 ↗ um what's in the code so we have a

26:20 ↗ critical area studies uh section which

26:24 ↗ says the director can waive the

26:26 ↗ requirement for a critical area study

26:29 ↗ related to an existing single-family

26:31 ↗ home or lot

26:33 ↗ if it's one of these if it's all four of

26:36 ↗ these there is no alteration of the

26:39 ↗ critical areas or required buffers

26:41 ↗ and the proposal will not affect the

26:44 ↗ critical area in a manner that's you

26:46 ↗ know contrary to what the city's goals

26:48 ↗ are the minimum standards required by

26:51 ↗ this chapter are met

26:53 ↗ and a critical area study was prepared

26:56 ↗ and previously for a development for

26:59 ↗ that home and it identified so there's

27:02 ↗ no point in spending more money on doing

27:04 ↗ a study

27:06 ↗ then we have a section in the code that

27:09 ↗ deals about non-conforming structures

27:12 ↗ so here the changes to existing legal

27:16 ↗ non-conforming structures that are

27:18 ↗ within a wetland or a stream buffer

27:21 ↗ an alteration or an expansion of a

27:24 ↗ non-conforming development is allowed

27:26 ↗ this is not just for single family it's

27:28 ↗ for everyone and expansion is allowed

27:31 ↗ outside of the required buffer you can

27:33 ↗ expand them vertically to add more

27:35 ↗ stories

27:37 ↗ or the building expansion over existing

27:41 ↗ impervious surfaces allowed as long as

27:44 ↗ you're not going closer to the Wetland

27:46 ↗ or the Stream

27:47 ↗ and the buffer enhanced so if it's but

27:50 ↗ however if this expansion is more than

27:52 ↗ 500 square feet you have to do buffer

27:54 ↗ enhancements so that's how

27:57 ↗ non-conforming structures in wetlands

28:00 ↗ and or stream buffers are created the

28:03 ↗ disconnect here was

28:05 ↗ number number three you can expand into

28:08 ↗ an if you already have a patio you can

28:11 ↗ enclose it in your house example but the

28:15 ↗ critical area study

28:17 ↗ um

28:18 ↗ exemption didn't say that you didn't you

28:20 ↗ know it didn't meet that you still had

28:22 ↗ to do a critical area study in order to

28:24 ↗ enclose

28:25 ↗ uh a patio so

28:29 ↗ given that that's our understanding of

28:31 ↗ of the um issues that came during the

28:33 ↗ testing uh We've laid out a couple of

28:36 ↗ options and we can develop code language

28:38 ↗ based on the direction you all give us

28:41 ↗ so under option one

28:43 ↗ we would keep the waivers from the

28:45 ↗ critical area you know there are

28:47 ↗ existing waivers that I just talked

28:48 ↗ about uh there's the non-conforming

28:51 ↗ chapter and the only thing here we would

28:52 ↗ do is we would make it explicitly clear

28:55 ↗ that if there's an existing impervious

28:57 ↗ surface for single family expansions you

29:00 ↗ don't need to do a critical area study

29:01 ↗ that you can enclose it

29:03 ↗ under option two uh if you want to go

29:06 ↗ beyond that we could look at uh you know

29:09 ↗ what's the uh what how much flexibility

29:12 ↗ do you want to give to a single family

29:14 ↗ homeowner do you want to allow

29:15 ↗ expansions

29:17 ↗ um you know up to 100 square feet 10 by

29:19 ↗ 10 500 you know roughly 25 by 20 square

29:24 ↗ feet along a building Edge so if you

29:27 ↗ already have a house can you expand

29:28 ↗ along the edge or if the stream is here

29:31 ↗ and can you expand it on the other side

29:34 ↗ of the house so there's already a house

29:35 ↗ between the stream of the Wetland can

29:37 ↗ you do an expansion on the other side

29:40 ↗ we've attempted to say well we would

29:42 ↗ allow it under if it's only in the outer

29:44 ↗ 25 percent of the required buffer

29:47 ↗ and then you actually enhance how much

29:50 ↗ you impacted somewhere else on your

29:52 ↗ property as long as no significant trees

29:55 ↗ were removed so we would put some sort

29:58 ↗ of some caveats on it I think given

30:00 ↗ where we are we still recommend option

30:02 ↗ one here some of the reasons we're going

30:05 ↗ with the option to potentially could be

30:09 ↗ you know

30:10 ↗ um

30:11 ↗ without a without an annual monitoring

30:14 ↗ or report requirement and others you

30:17 ↗ could get degradation of your buffers if

30:19 ↗ the homeowner doesn't maintain doesn't

30:21 ↗ plan doesn't water over time you know

30:24 ↗ will it really uh be be a useful

30:27 ↗ exercise but

30:28 ↗ um you know we can further develop it if

30:31 ↗ you think that's the way we need to go

30:33 ↗ so that's all our policy questions and

30:36 ↗ our discussion the purpose tonight is to

30:38 ↗ hear from the public in your discussion

30:40 ↗ so I will stop here

30:46 ↗ thank you

30:48 ↗ thank you director dollywall all right

30:51 ↗ this worked really well last week so I

30:54 ↗ think what I'd like to do Minnie is have

30:56 ↗ us

30:57 ↗ have you start with part five we'll get

31:00 ↗ the clarifying question for part five

31:01 ↗ part six part seven part eight turn it

31:04 ↗ over to public hearing and then when we

31:05 ↗ deliberate we'll have you guide us and

31:08 ↗ we'll just start with the public uh the

31:10 ↗ the questions that you have and then

31:12 ↗ towards the end we'll just kind of have

31:14 ↗ a

31:15 ↗ a general discussion about what we just

31:17 ↗ talked about

31:18 ↗ so I think we'll start with just part

31:21 ↗ five

31:22 ↗ and see who has questions regarding part

31:25 ↗ five

31:27 ↗ and if you guys wouldn't mind doing that

31:29 ↗ you guys were so wonderful last week so

31:31 ↗ just let me know I'll call your guys's

31:33 ↗ name so we make sure to get it on the

31:35 ↗ record and we'll start there

31:53 ↗ foreign

31:56 ↗ any uh any questions as far as part five

32:02 ↗ nothing okay actually can I jump in

32:05 ↗ would you mind putting the policy

32:07 ↗ questions up on the screen as we go

32:08 ↗ through them

32:10 ↗ that'd be great

32:12 ↗ yeah please

32:35 ↗ it only works if I'm paying attention

32:37 ↗ right let's have a clarifying question

32:39 ↗ on what we're asking clarifying

32:41 ↗ questions on

32:42 ↗ um are we asking about the policy

32:44 ↗ questions or the parts I think the parts

32:46 ↗ so you guys don't have to be right now

32:48 ↗ just go ahead and ask any questions you

32:50 ↗ have as far as part five what would be

32:51 ↗ helpful Minnie exactly that's that

32:54 ↗ stream would be helpful specified use

32:56 ↗ standards

32:59 ↗ and I'll start I have a couple since uh

33:01 ↗ we'll let our commissioners gather their

33:03 ↗ thoughts

33:05 ↗ so I didn't write down all the

33:06 ↗ applicable actual code I just wrote down

33:09 ↗ the page so on page 205 of 946 it talks

33:13 ↗ about a deviation for senior housing can

33:15 ↗ be sought for disabled and low-income

33:17 ↗ persons

33:18 ↗ um

33:19 ↗ my question is are we talking about

33:23 ↗ Senior Living having a mix of

33:28 ↗ and to me that seems a little odd

33:30 ↗ because Senior Living is is towards 55

33:33 ↗ and older we're talking about people of

33:35 ↗ a different generation being part of

33:36 ↗ these these projects these developments

33:43 ↗ I will need to pull up that particular

33:45 ↗ section I think we just carried forward

33:46 ↗ that existing code language for that but

33:48 ↗ I I do want to answer your question

33:51 ↗ do you have that handy

33:53 ↗ Christian what was the page number

33:56 ↗ 205 of 946.

33:59 ↗ 200 and what five five okay let me see

34:03 ↗ if I can pull it up here

34:27 ↗ are you from your agenda packet yes

34:45 ↗ so I can pull it up on the screen if

34:48 ↗ that's useful for anyone else

34:51 ↗ um

34:54 ↗ so this is under

34:57 ↗ commercial retail and mixed-use

34:59 ↗ standards

35:14 ↗ I'm still not getting to do you have a

35:17 ↗ section the section number by any chance

35:19 ↗ no I didn't bring the massive Tome with

35:21 ↗ me sorry so I just wrote down page

35:24 ↗ numbers

35:25 ↗ um

35:26 ↗ it was 205 of 946 of the large binder

35:30 ↗ that was given to us oh off the binder

35:32 ↗ okay

35:41 ↗ I like I said I I made I made a Mist I

35:44 ↗ should have got the app it was the

35:45 ↗ senior

35:46 ↗ um

35:47 ↗ Senior Living Senior

35:50 ↗ uh standards

35:53 ↗ I'll have to become a little bit better

35:55 ↗ prepared

35:58 ↗ foreign

37:31 ↗ yeah I think I found it too so senior

37:35 ↗ housing standards

37:37 ↗ 18.500.060 under the purpose and intent

37:41 ↗ section it says uh the provided

37:45 ↗ incentives through parking requirement

37:47 ↗ reductions and density bonus Provisions

37:50 ↗ to develop housing opportunities for

37:52 ↗ persons 55 years or older in a

37:55 ↗ responsive and appropriate manner

37:58 ↗ regulate the bulk height and spacing to

38:01 ↗ provide adequate lighting blah blah blah

38:02 ↗ so then I think it goes into you're

38:06 ↗ talking about the deviation correct so

38:09 ↗ under D it talks about the deviation may

38:12 ↗ be sought to allow occupancy of housing

38:14 ↗ developed using senior housing standards

38:17 ↗ by persons with special housing needs

38:21 ↗ other than seniors such as disabled or

38:24 ↗ low-income persons per the approval

38:27 ↗ criteria allowed deviations in this

38:29 ↗ chapter

38:30 ↗ so you're gonna have to bear with me

38:31 ↗ because that's how all my questions are

38:33 ↗ written this evening but no that was the

38:35 ↗ question that's my concern I mean

38:37 ↗ generally senior housing I mean is there

38:40 ↗ any issue with having a a generational

38:45 ↗ difference I mean that's I think the

38:47 ↗ point that I'm getting at the idea is

38:49 ↗ we're going to have people of all

38:50 ↗ different ages possibly possibly again

38:53 ↗ low income living with a bunch of

38:55 ↗ seniors that strikes me as odd yeah I

38:58 ↗ think my read of this is It's extending

39:01 ↗ the the senior housing to uh special

39:04 ↗ housing needs other than seniors and so

39:08 ↗ um having some of these Provisions also

39:11 ↗ apply to those other uh categories that

39:14 ↗ it's it's listed but

39:17 ↗ I would have to get back to you on I

39:20 ↗ think this is something that we've

39:21 ↗ carried forward from our existing code I

39:23 ↗ don't know if who else is online Kristen

39:26 ↗ or Valerie who worked on this uh if they

39:28 ↗ have any more background Stephen

39:31 ↗ do you know

39:39 ↗ okay

39:41 ↗ we'll get back to you on this one okay

39:44 ↗ I bought you guys some time I will work

39:49 ↗ with me

39:50 ↗ any other uh clarifying questions as far

39:53 ↗ as um

39:55 ↗ part five

40:01 ↗ I have a few more but they're all going

40:03 ↗ to go like that

40:12 ↗ all right

40:16 ↗ just a question to make sure I'm asking

40:18 ↗ this at the right time is that outdoor

40:19 ↗ amenity space what part is that in so I

40:22 ↗ ask my question on that at the right

40:23 ↗ time

40:24 ↗ I'm sorry the outdoor amenity space

40:26 ↗ policy question what part part six part

40:29 ↗ six okay I'll hold up

40:32 ↗ okay maybe I can do this in a more

40:34 ↗ General sense

40:36 ↗ um

40:40 ↗ all right so

40:42 ↗ page 255 of 946 at the bottom I'm

40:46 ↗ interested how we got the numbers for

40:48 ↗ the general affordable housing section

40:51 ↗ and again these are rough notes I don't

40:53 ↗ have the Tome but I'm just wondering if

40:55 ↗ we got these from Arch

40:57 ↗ or a comparative City

41:03 ↗ yeah

41:03 ↗ I would have to defer to Kristen on this

41:06 ↗ one okay

41:13 ↗ is she online Steven

41:20 ↗ so we'll come back to that when

41:22 ↗ Christian joins us

41:39 ↗ yeah 255 of 9 46.

41:45 ↗ foreign

41:56 ↗ I have one final one I think I'll leave

41:59 ↗ you alone until part six uh regarding

42:02 ↗ the

42:03 ↗ wcf's this is on page 239 of 254.

42:09 ↗ um I thought we did have some

42:10 ↗ protections for views and Vistas

42:13 ↗ but I didn't see any language for that I

42:16 ↗ did see in the permitted use table on

42:18 ↗ page 249 of 946 table 18.5

42:22 ↗ 12.100 point a but can you remind me

42:26 ↗ what is a conditional

42:28 ↗ allowable reason to obstruct a viewer

42:31 ↗ Vista with the WCF

42:37 ↗ good question

42:39 ↗ um

42:41 ↗ let me pull up the wireless code here

42:53 ↗ foreign

43:05 ↗ you had 18.5

43:08 ↗ 12.100 point a

43:16 ↗ so it's the sighting so these are just

43:19 ↗ gender General standards so macro

43:22 ↗ Wireless communication facilities

43:24 ↗ location

43:27 ↗ um but you were talking about the Open

43:29 ↗ The View protections right correct

43:37 ↗ let me pull it up on the screen so we

43:40 ↗ can look at it together

44:08 ↗ foreign

44:16 ↗ so in here is this

44:20 ↗ section on the siding

44:22 ↗ it's talking about locating uh so under

44:25 ↗ a is for the macro so the larger towers

44:28 ↗ and such

44:29 ↗ um

44:31 ↗ it establishes it's within thousand feet

44:34 ↗ it has denied that they can't co-locate

44:36 ↗ non-residential zones located in the

44:40 ↗ setback

44:41 ↗ what's allowed what's allowed with

44:44 ↗ conditions and I think you're saying

44:46 ↗ when blocking natural Vistas correct

44:49 ↗ that was the only language I saw about

44:51 ↗ the WCF

44:53 ↗ um

44:54 ↗ that had anything to do with blocking

44:57 ↗ views and Vistas it says allowed with

45:00 ↗ conditions so my question is what kind

45:02 ↗ of conditions would make that allowable

45:05 ↗ yeah I think that Under The View

45:08 ↗ Corridor preservation we have that

45:11 ↗ listed as a one of the deviations that

45:13 ↗ you can request for

45:15 ↗ so let me

45:17 ↗ pull that out so this is saying that

45:20 ↗ just because you're um

45:23 ↗ it's a good question I I don't think

45:25 ↗ that particular section has anything

45:27 ↗ related to the deviations

45:30 ↗ um but

45:32 ↗ there's this other section

45:52 ↗ so 18 600 has a preservation of view

45:56 ↗ corridor is

45:59 ↗ piece so let's go to that one

46:08 ↗ screen again

46:30 ↗ so in here to

46:32 ↗ um to seek a deviation from views and

46:34 ↗ Vista standard the applicant must

46:36 ↗ provide a view shed study to assess the

46:39 ↗ impact

46:41 ↗ um and then it goes on to say if the

46:46 ↗ views will not be altered or impacted no

46:48 ↗ further actions require the deviation

46:50 ↗ may be approved if they will be impacted

46:52 ↗ may be approved if it uses one of the

46:54 ↗ increasing distance between high-rise

46:56 ↗ building Towers retaining or creating

46:58 ↗ new view corridors or strategic

47:01 ↗ placement so I don't think it gets at

47:03 ↗ the tower

47:05 ↗ um and but there would be some sort of

47:08 ↗ an assessment needed to say have you

47:10 ↗ minimized the change in the view

47:12 ↗ corridor you know if you can look it in

47:14 ↗ a place where it meets your objectives

47:16 ↗ however it doesn't it it maintains some

47:19 ↗ if it's at the end of a street and you

47:21 ↗ have a direct view to something then

47:23 ↗ then perhaps The View Corridor

47:25 ↗ assessment is on the Whiteboard I think

47:27 ↗ we need to do a little bit more

47:28 ↗ announcements

47:31 ↗ foreign

47:35 ↗ apologize for that

47:38 ↗ um so

47:40 ↗ um but good question that I think having

47:42 ↗ that in the table that you can approve

47:43 ↗ with condition and macro that there

47:46 ↗ needs to be some link between the

47:48 ↗ criteria for for that particular section

47:51 ↗ for wireless communication facilities so

47:53 ↗ we can look further into that and

47:54 ↗ propose some amendments

47:57 ↗ great thank you thank you yeah I think

47:58 ↗ Christian has something more to add I

48:00 ↗ just wanted to add that that kind of the

48:02 ↗ the way in which a wireless carrier will

48:05 ↗ step through the process they'll look at

48:07 ↗ you know they've got to prove that

48:09 ↗ there's nothing within a thousand feet

48:10 ↗ of where they want to go and show that

48:12 ↗ there's you know it's not it's not

48:15 ↗ possible

48:16 ↗ um and they're they're going to show you

48:18 ↗ know where their their lack of coverage

48:20 ↗ is so they're going to provide their

48:22 ↗ analysis I can't recall that the name

48:24 ↗ that that study but why they need that

48:27 ↗ that Tower in that one location and that

48:30 ↗ it's it's not allowed within a thousand

48:32 ↗ feet around it and we would seek that

48:36 ↗ shifting to be in a location that is

48:39 ↗ outside of a Vista or a view corridor

48:41 ↗ but if if they've got the the evidence

48:45 ↗ to show that this is this is going to

48:47 ↗ provide the service that the community

48:50 ↗ is is needing from a wireless carrier

48:53 ↗ then then we'll step through that

48:55 ↗ process and and see and seeks conditions

48:57 ↗ out through

48:59 ↗ um

49:00 ↗ what many mentioned no I appreciate that

49:02 ↗ Christian we had that conversation on

49:04 ↗ wireless and small cells and it feels

49:06 ↗ like ages ago and I I don't remember all

49:09 ↗ of it like I said I just this is me

49:11 ↗ being punished for uh going through 500

49:13 ↗ pages and writing down things in

49:15 ↗ shorthand so everyone's gonna have to

49:17 ↗ bear with me a little bit tonight but

49:18 ↗ that is how I wrote everything out so I

49:21 ↗ do appreciate it like I said I just

49:22 ↗ that's what I noticed I appreciate many

49:25 ↗ doubling back and explaining that so

49:27 ↗ that takes care of my questions for part

49:29 ↗ five yeah we do have a Christian online

49:32 ↗ to enter your affordable housing

49:34 ↗ question

49:36 ↗ if you don't mind repeating for her

49:39 ↗ no not at all

49:41 ↗ hi Kristin

49:43 ↗ so

49:44 ↗ on page 255 of 946 at the bottom I'm

49:49 ↗ just wondering how we got these

49:50 ↗ particular numbers for affordable

49:52 ↗ housing I'm just wondering if they were

49:53 ↗ provided by Arch were these provided by

49:55 ↗ a comparative City just wondering how we

49:59 ↗ got these numbers

50:04 ↗ there so I'm trying to catch up I only

50:08 ↗ have one screen what is the number is it

50:10 ↗ it's 18514

50:13 ↗ do you know no I don't

50:20 ↗ know

50:22 ↗ what are the

50:25 ↗ sorry I'm still trying to get there so I

50:27 ↗ pulled it up on the screen I think if

50:29 ↗ you all oh thank you is there okay

50:33 ↗ do you see the Set uh

50:36 ↗ you're talking about some numbers

50:38 ↗ correct

50:40 ↗ so are they under

50:44 ↗ 514020 it was the section

50:48 ↗ like I said unfortunately no um

50:50 ↗ commissioner is at the at the bottom of

50:53 ↗ that page there is the piece on square

50:55 ↗ footage could that be the numbers that

50:57 ↗ you were talking about like I said I'm a

50:59 ↗ little lost without my tone okay yeah

51:01 ↗ there's this square footage of

51:02 ↗ affordable housing units within a

51:04 ↗ development with affordable units no

51:06 ↗ market rate in general must be no less

51:09 ↗ than 500 square feet for Studio unit

51:12 ↗ 600 for one bedroom and 800 for two

51:14 ↗ bedroom and thousand for three bedroom

51:16 ↗ does that ring correct and then it says

51:20 ↗ the direction the director has a

51:22 ↗ discretion to approve proposal for

51:24 ↗ smaller units based on criteria that the

51:27 ↗ rooms within the units provide adequate

51:29 ↗ space for intended residential use and

51:33 ↗ the affordability level is decreased

51:36 ↗ from what is required by the code

51:39 ↗ so the numbers are 500 600 and 800 and

51:43 ↗ thousand correct typical and I'm

51:46 ↗ wondering where we got those numbers so

51:47 ↗ I'm wondering if the comparative city is

51:49 ↗ this we were they provided by Arch I'm

51:51 ↗ just wondering where City got these

51:52 ↗ numbers

51:54 ↗ yes we worked with this is Kristen

51:56 ↗ Leeson senior planner and we did work

51:58 ↗ with

51:59 ↗ on those numbers and did do they are

52:03 ↗ they're comparable to other cities in

52:05 ↗ fact in most cases I think they're

52:06 ↗ exactly the same

52:09 ↗ great thank you Kristen yeah you better

52:10 ↗ believe I won't forget my book next week

52:14 ↗ all right any further questions uh Vice

52:17 ↗ chair Bader yeah just a quick question I

52:20 ↗ think I've asked this um before but

52:24 ↗ um the it reads under the required

52:28 ↗ affordable housing so 18 514070

52:32 ↗ um it has the inclusionary zoning just

52:33 ↗ in central Issaquah it's my

52:35 ↗ understanding though right that we'll

52:37 ↗ look to potentially expand outside that

52:38 ↗ in the housing kind of Grant

52:40 ↗ conversations

52:43 ↗ yes that is part of our uh housing

52:46 ↗ action

52:48 ↗ plan implementation grant that we

52:50 ↗ received and it's part of our housing

52:52 ↗ strategy is to expand inclusionary

52:54 ↗ zoning and we are working with

52:56 ↗ Consultants right now

52:58 ↗ about how how to do that

53:00 ↗ and where all right all right that's

53:01 ↗ what I thought thanks

53:05 ↗ any further clarifying questions on part

53:08 ↗ five

53:10 ↗ all right I think we go to part six

53:21 ↗ part six includes all of these things

53:23 ↗ Urban Design site planning building

53:26 ↗ design parking Landscaping outdoor

53:28 ↗ spaces

53:30 ↗ lighting signs

53:37 ↗ Vice chair Bader thanks I have a

53:40 ↗ question on the outdoor amenity space

53:42 ↗ and the like purpose of that is that for

53:44 ↗ like use of residents within that

53:47 ↗ development or is there like some

53:48 ↗ intended public benefit of that outdoor

53:51 ↗ space

53:51 ↗ yeah so I think for residential

53:53 ↗ developments that is the the intent for

53:55 ↗ the folks living in that development

53:58 ↗ um there are some plazas and other kind

54:01 ↗ of requirements for commercial so there

54:02 ↗ would be a public space for those

54:05 ↗ and then if you if that chapter also

54:07 ↗ includes the trail connections you so if

54:10 ↗ you have to build a road along the

54:12 ↗ street Frontage you know Mountain sign

54:13 ↗ Greenway trust or or some trail

54:15 ↗ connection that would be a public

54:16 ↗ connection

54:30 ↗ I just had one question regarding Park

54:32 ↗ and there I don't have the exact

54:35 ↗ um number for the page but I read it in

54:39 ↗ a piece where it said the vision for

54:41 ↗ Parkin is for today with possible

54:45 ↗ conversion in the future per se so just

54:49 ↗ an elaboration on that and Park in in

54:52 ↗ part six on the vision for parking

54:54 ↗ within Issaquah

54:58 ↗ for a for an open space section do you

55:03 ↗ think

55:04 ↗ yeah I think it it

55:06 ↗ pertains to existing Park and now or

55:10 ↗ actually for development basically how

55:13 ↗ we would essentially

55:16 ↗ um

55:18 ↗ from what I see the intent was more so

55:20 ↗ to limit parking for I guess you could

55:24 ↗ say like Vehicles gas vehicles and

55:26 ↗ promote

55:27 ↗ um other forms of transportation per se

55:33 ↗ um let's see if we can

55:35 ↗ figure out which section that might be

55:39 ↗ in

56:07 ↗ the essence I believe was to promote

56:09 ↗ other modes of transportation

56:13 ↗ that may reduce the the parking

56:16 ↗ requirements within the city

56:19 ↗ but do you think it was in the community

56:20 ↗ in amenity spaces chapter

56:23 ↗ um

56:24 ↗ I believe I what I can do I can dig in

56:27 ↗ in price and then send an email

56:30 ↗ to get more clarification

56:46 ↗ any other clarifying questions as far as

56:48 ↗ part six

56:51 ↗ all right I'm looking at my notes and

56:52 ↗ you know what's funny

56:53 ↗ as is I as they continue I'm starting to

56:57 ↗ note like the tables so I think what

56:59 ↗ happened is just the amount of homework

57:01 ↗ scared me so I was just trying to burn

57:03 ↗ through them with shorthand it's not a

57:06 ↗ small task so we really really

57:07 ↗ appreciate all of you spending your

57:10 ↗ personal time going through a very

57:11 ↗ complex document but I think as I

57:13 ↗ started burning through it I got more

57:15 ↗ comfortable I could slow down so this is

57:17 ↗ the last one that's going to be a little

57:18 ↗ odd but uh

57:20 ↗ page 370 of 707 does that help a little

57:23 ↗ bit more if we're actually going through

57:25 ↗ the the draft code so page 370 of 707

57:29 ↗ there's new language based on the

57:31 ↗ approach

57:33 ↗ of through block passages

57:35 ↗ so the question is I believe it mentions

57:38 ↗ there's a restriction if it's a private

57:43 ↗ property right so technically it doesn't

57:46 ↗ need to be used for public use

57:48 ↗ so if there's a trail that abuts to a

57:51 ↗ private residential and it goes through

57:54 ↗ and it's not technically for public use

57:56 ↗ what does that do for the city's green

57:58 ↗ necklace

58:01 ↗ so can you repeat that so you have a

58:03 ↗ problem

58:04 ↗ Trail that's adjacent to that property

58:07 ↗ but not on the property right it just

58:09 ↗ the wording it describes it going

58:10 ↗ through

58:12 ↗ um right it goes through a private

58:15 ↗ property where it's restricted to public

58:17 ↗ use but residents may be like a

58:19 ↗ multi-family all right so now it's only

58:22 ↗ it's restricted to those people in the

58:23 ↗ multi-family development how does that

58:25 ↗ work for the city's Greek necklace

58:28 ↗ right I mean do people just stop where

58:31 ↗ that I mean for example and I I'm let's

58:34 ↗ just say you're going through the veil

58:37 ↗ um where you're going through

58:38 ↗ um

58:40 ↗ what's next to the veil um Atlas Atlas

58:42 ↗ right in the city's green necklace is

58:44 ↗ going through it but they have a fence

58:46 ↗ and the trail is only in that part of it

58:48 ↗ I mean is that what the is that what

58:50 ↗ it's stating there that's my question

58:54 ↗ and this is 370 page number 370. correct

59:00 ↗ um I'll share my screen I have questions

59:03 ↗ get better after this

59:06 ↗ I will pull it up

59:09 ↗ um so you can yeah

59:12 ↗ it looks like you're for a number two it

59:15 ↗ could be because it says for residential

59:17 ↗ uses the trail is not required to be

59:19 ↗ open to the public but it must be easily

59:21 ↗ accessible for all residents thank you

59:23 ↗ commissioner Altima you are welcome with

59:25 ↗ the save

59:36 ↗ I'm not sharing

59:40 ↗ 369 okay

1:00:06 ↗ so uh 18608-050

1:00:10 ↗ is that the section

1:00:12 ↗ we're looking at

1:00:14 ↗ someone said that

1:00:16 ↗ that's page 360. yes Minnie that's the

1:00:20 ↗ section go to 4A takes a village so the

1:00:23 ↗ intent is this section establishes

1:00:26 ↗ additional development requirements for

1:00:28 ↗ sites located adjacent to green necklace

1:00:30 ↗ amenities

1:00:32 ↗ B shows the map

1:00:34 ↗ of city-owned parks open spaces and

1:00:37 ↗ trails that form the green necklace

1:00:40 ↗ and we're saying that the map may be

1:00:42 ↗ updated as the city purchases additional

1:00:44 ↗ you know areas or anything like that

1:00:46 ↗ it's a subsection

1:00:49 ↗ c4c it talks about a site that meets the

1:00:53 ↗ description for more than one of the

1:00:55 ↗ following locations must meet the

1:00:57 ↗ development requirements for each

1:00:58 ↗ applicable location

1:01:01 ↗ any site sharing a property boundary

1:01:04 ↗ with a city-owned park or open space

1:01:07 ↗ C1

1:01:10 ↗ C4 okay

1:01:14 ↗ any site abutting city-owned Trail

1:01:17 ↗ including those shown

1:01:19 ↗ side abutting city-owned Trails the

1:01:22 ↗ development must provide a trail

1:01:23 ↗ connecting to the development side to

1:01:25 ↗ the park

1:01:29 ↗ that's right there mini 482 for

1:01:33 ↗ residential uses the trail is not

1:01:34 ↗ required to be open to the public but it

1:01:37 ↗ must be easily accessible for all

1:01:39 ↗ residents so that's my question is does

1:01:41 ↗ the green necklace just have gaps in it

1:01:43 ↗ where

1:01:44 ↗ it just stops

1:01:47 ↗ yeah you know this is a section that we

1:01:49 ↗ went back and forth with the parks

1:01:51 ↗ department as well and and others and so

1:01:54 ↗ um I think

1:01:56 ↗ um where what this is getting at is

1:02:01 ↗ I think you have to look at it from the

1:02:04 ↗ perspective of

1:02:07 ↗ uh yeah Stephen seems to have figured

1:02:09 ↗ that one out so uh Stephen put a long

1:02:11 ↗ range planning manager so uh the

1:02:13 ↗ intention with the language is basically

1:02:14 ↗ you have the uh the core Network for the

1:02:16 ↗ green necklace what this is requiring or

1:02:19 ↗ this section is requiring is any

1:02:21 ↗ development adjacent to it is creating a

1:02:23 ↗ a

1:02:24 ↗ basically a connection to it for that

1:02:27 ↗ development not necessarily as

1:02:28 ↗ pass-through but for the development

1:02:30 ↗ itself

1:02:32 ↗ thank you that was very helpful Stephen

1:02:34 ↗ thank you

1:02:37 ↗ that's it for me

1:02:41 ↗ all right I believe we can move on to

1:02:43 ↗ clarifying questions for part seven

1:02:55 ↗ neighborhood overlays

1:02:58 ↗ any questions concerning neighborhood

1:02:59 ↗ overlays

1:03:08 ↗ old town is 18700 Central is 702.

1:03:12 ↗ Highlands is seven or six and Talus is

1:03:16 ↗ 708. so those are the four chapters

1:03:18 ↗ right I mean a lot of this section was

1:03:20 ↗ basically lifted and adapted so there's

1:03:22 ↗ not a lot of new stuff here

1:03:25 ↗ all right going once going twice

1:03:28 ↗ all right we'll see if we get any more

1:03:30 ↗ for environment part eight

1:03:47 ↗ all right here's a general question

1:03:49 ↗ chair voice uh threshold determination I

1:03:52 ↗ was able to do my own I know you guys

1:03:54 ↗ refer to it as far as going to sipa and

1:03:57 ↗ things like that but could you give a

1:03:58 ↗ little bit more context as far as the

1:04:00 ↗ process

1:04:02 ↗ right just as far as the DNS I mean I I

1:04:06 ↗ get it I just it's it's a little bit

1:04:07 ↗ convoluted and again I know you can't

1:04:09 ↗ write basically c book into the code but

1:04:12 ↗ it took me a little while to find it

1:04:13 ↗ like I said it breaks it down when I

1:04:15 ↗ actually looked at the

1:04:17 ↗ um

1:04:19 ↗ the wac I mean it's quite convoluted and

1:04:21 ↗ then you go to the sipa website it's

1:04:22 ↗ much it's easier to understand

1:04:24 ↗ but as far as the process sure so uh

1:04:28 ↗ State Environmental Policy Act uh was

1:04:31 ↗ initiated in 1970s when cities did not

1:04:34 ↗ have a lot of regulations you know to

1:04:37 ↗ protect critical areas or an impact and

1:04:39 ↗ things it's a tool in addition to the

1:04:42 ↗ development regulations that the city

1:04:44 ↗ has so things like that may fall through

1:04:46 ↗ the cracks CPA can be used as a you know

1:04:49 ↗ there's this impact it needs to be

1:04:51 ↗ mitigated

1:04:52 ↗ um and CPA can be used as a tool for

1:04:54 ↗ those mitigation assessments so the

1:04:57 ↗ different levels of determination

1:04:59 ↗ depending on the impact that might come

1:05:01 ↗ through so for a project of any scale

1:05:04 ↗ first test is whether it whether it

1:05:07 ↗ needs to go through cipa or not is it

1:05:09 ↗ exempt or not exempt and that level that

1:05:12 ↗ threshold of whether it's exempt is

1:05:15 ↗ regulated by the state law of what you

1:05:17 ↗ what can be Exempted and what can't be

1:05:19 ↗ the cities can adopt these flexible

1:05:21 ↗ thresholds and that's where we have some

1:05:23 ↗ flexibility and we have had the lowest

1:05:27 ↗ you know four units and four thousand

1:05:30 ↗ square feet it can go up to 60 units and

1:05:33 ↗ 30 000 square feet big and that's the

1:05:36 ↗ guidance from you know a lot of work was

1:05:38 ↗ uh occurred at the state level and those

1:05:40 ↗ were the the bookends that were set up

1:05:43 ↗ um so the first test is is it exempt or

1:05:45 ↗ is it not exempt if it's not exempt then

1:05:48 ↗ you start out with

1:05:50 ↗ in in our study it would be if you are

1:05:52 ↗ locating it within Central Issaquah then

1:05:55 ↗ you could be considered a planned action

1:05:57 ↗ under the planned action ordinance so

1:05:59 ↗ the city did an Eis and when they did

1:06:03 ↗ the central escort plan looked at this

1:06:05 ↗ is how much can be built in the Air

1:06:07 ↗ Supply these are the number of trips

1:06:09 ↗ that can come in here without an

1:06:11 ↗ additional impact so they looked at it

1:06:13 ↗ more at a sub-area level and identified

1:06:15 ↗ what mitigations might be needed as

1:06:17 ↗ development occurs so it's a little

1:06:19 ↗ complicated for for us because there's

1:06:21 ↗ the planned action piece that can occur

1:06:23 ↗ but other outside of that planned action

1:06:25 ↗ area

1:06:26 ↗ uh you would fill out a checklist and

1:06:29 ↗ it's a department of ecology's required

1:06:31 ↗ format for the checklist you look at

1:06:33 ↗ impact to the air the water quality you

1:06:36 ↗ know there's multiple things you

1:06:38 ↗ evaluate you say how your project may

1:06:40 ↗ impact or not the applicant submits that

1:06:43 ↗ the city doesn't notice the post site is

1:06:45 ↗ posted and we evaluate the checklist to

1:06:48 ↗ say yes there is an impact or no if

1:06:51 ↗ there is no impact from that proposed

1:06:53 ↗ development we issue a determination of

1:06:54 ↗ non-significance and but it is

1:06:57 ↗ appealable there's a comment period and

1:06:59 ↗ then it can be appealed as

1:07:01 ↗ administratively under our code

1:07:03 ↗ if there is an impact then you can work

1:07:07 ↗ with an applicant and mitigate that

1:07:09 ↗ impact and the city can then the the can

1:07:12 ↗ issue a mitigated determination of

1:07:15 ↗ non-significance that there might be an

1:07:17 ↗ impact but if you do these mitigation

1:07:19 ↗ things there's not an impact if it is

1:07:22 ↗ truly a huge impact on whatever category

1:07:25 ↗ of environment then it can be a

1:07:27 ↗ determination of significance be issued

1:07:29 ↗ and a full Eis should be done for that

1:07:31 ↗ project so it's different scales of

1:07:34 ↗ projects and different review but

1:07:35 ↗ majority of them fill out a checklist

1:07:37 ↗ and you know any impacts are regulated

1:07:41 ↗ through our development and that's the

1:07:42 ↗ basis for why it makes sense to raise

1:07:45 ↗ some of those thresholds and streamline

1:07:47 ↗ some of the processes

1:07:50 ↗ thank you

1:07:51 ↗ any other questions as far as the

1:07:54 ↗ environment

1:07:55 ↗ commissioner Essen White

1:07:57 ↗ yeah this is in regards to the critical

1:07:59 ↗ Aquifer

1:08:00 ↗ recharge area regarding non-conform and

1:08:04 ↗ existing properties

1:08:07 ↗ um and and correct me if I'm wrong I

1:08:09 ↗ didn't see any area where it talked

1:08:11 ↗ about limited expansion to exist in

1:08:15 ↗ non-conforming properties within that

1:08:18 ↗ area

1:08:21 ↗ um sure so um I I think if I understand

1:08:23 ↗ your question correctly

1:08:25 ↗ um

1:08:26 ↗ the the critical Aquifer recharge area

1:08:29 ↗ there are four classifications compared

1:08:32 ↗ to three from before so as part of that

1:08:35 ↗ update is also a list of prohibited land

1:08:38 ↗ uses so if there is an existing business

1:08:42 ↗ uh it you know that the prohibited land

1:08:44 ↗ use is no new business and in that list

1:08:47 ↗ can go come be located within those

1:08:50 ↗ designation areas that are designated as

1:08:53 ↗ Kara one two and there may be you know

1:08:56 ↗ other prohibitions if you are an

1:08:59 ↗ existing business in Cara one or two and

1:09:03 ↗ you're on that prohibited list you can

1:09:05 ↗ continue to operate I think one one of

1:09:08 ↗ the comments you receive from Lakeside

1:09:09 ↗ and they're here today represented so

1:09:12 ↗ they can speak to their concern with

1:09:14 ↗ that language is that it it's not

1:09:16 ↗ explicitly clear for how the

1:09:19 ↗ non-conforming you know if that they

1:09:21 ↗ would become non-conforming and then the

1:09:23 ↗ non-conforming chapter would apply so so

1:09:27 ↗ the non-conforming chapter has multiple

1:09:29 ↗ thresholds you know if you don't meet

1:09:31 ↗ the setback or you don't meet your

1:09:32 ↗ parking requirements or so those are

1:09:34 ↗ things that if you're non-conforming

1:09:36 ↗ standards or there's a section about

1:09:39 ↗ non-confirming uses so there are

1:09:42 ↗ prohibitions for non-conforming uses

1:09:44 ↗ like if you have not in operation for x

1:09:46 ↗ amount of years or whatever then then

1:09:48 ↗ you become a you know thing so so I

1:09:52 ↗ think the tie in between the prohibited

1:09:54 ↗ uses list and the non-conforming chapter

1:09:57 ↗ is the is the part that's been raised as

1:10:00 ↗ a as a that there is not a not a strong

1:10:04 ↗ Link in in terms of all Clarity of how

1:10:06 ↗ that would apply exactly and would this

1:10:10 ↗ code

1:10:11 ↗ talk about

1:10:13 ↗ um to the point of

1:10:15 ↗ if we have that existing property within

1:10:18 ↗ that care area and and that property

1:10:22 ↗ owner wants to expand how would that be

1:10:26 ↗ addressed yeah we can clarify some

1:10:29 ↗ language related to that I think for now

1:10:33 ↗ for the purpose of Cara regulations is

1:10:35 ↗ to protect the water quality not to

1:10:37 ↗ limit their ability to expand

1:10:40 ↗ however you know they may be a gas

1:10:44 ↗ station that is on that prohibited list

1:10:47 ↗ used for instance they would be allowed

1:10:50 ↗ to do the maintenance they would be

1:10:51 ↗ allowed to replace their you know their

1:10:54 ↗ underground tanks and things so majority

1:10:56 ↗ of the pollution prevention is you know

1:10:58 ↗ underground tanks and how how can that

1:11:00 ↗ happen but does it make sense to allow

1:11:04 ↗ you know 10 additional underground tanks

1:11:07 ↗ probably not a good idea and I don't

1:11:08 ↗ think that's a realistic proposal that

1:11:10 ↗ anyone would propose but we do want them

1:11:13 ↗ to be if they were to expand

1:11:15 ↗ their building and they are in

1:11:17 ↗ compliance with zoning there's no

1:11:19 ↗ prohibition for that so it's only for

1:11:21 ↗ the things that may have a negative

1:11:23 ↗ impact on

1:11:25 ↗ um on the drinking water supply so so I

1:11:28 ↗ think that the other piece to that is

1:11:30 ↗ that

1:11:32 ↗ how would we limit the expansion because

1:11:35 ↗ that area is delineated

1:11:37 ↗ um that critical recharge area has

1:11:40 ↗ delineated for a reason because if

1:11:43 ↗ there's any leakage or whichever I know

1:11:46 ↗ it's protected but sometimes there's

1:11:48 ↗ leaks and it gets into the drinking

1:11:51 ↗ water into the ground water is there

1:11:55 ↗ um I think what you're saying right now

1:11:57 ↗ it's not

1:11:59 ↗ um it's not spoken the language isn't

1:12:01 ↗ spoken to right now it appears to be

1:12:04 ↗ creating some confusion so yeah okay so

1:12:08 ↗ talk through it a little bit more or

1:12:10 ↗ look at it again sure okay thank you

1:12:15 ↗ thank you thank you commissioner

1:12:18 ↗ any other questions is regarding part

1:12:21 ↗ eight environment

1:12:24 ↗ all right so this one just

1:12:26 ↗ this one just is kind of copy so page 16

1:12:29 ↗ 614 of 707

1:12:35 ↗ 18.802.190 A3

1:12:38 ↗ so the notes the notes are getting

1:12:40 ↗ better I am a little slow so just give

1:12:43 ↗ me the page number again please

1:12:46 ↗ you

1:12:48 ↗ you're 14 6 14. of 707 yep

1:12:54 ↗ so I just don't remember discussing this

1:12:57 ↗ and this describes a wet season at the

1:12:59 ↗ discretion of the city

1:13:01 ↗ uh from October to April I believe is

1:13:03 ↗ what it said so how does that work in

1:13:05 ↗ terms of the permitting process right so

1:13:07 ↗ you're looking for geological hazards

1:13:10 ↗ um I just sounded interesting I just

1:13:12 ↗ wondering if you could speak to that for

1:13:13 ↗ a minute how does that work with permits

1:13:15 ↗ like if you are in a geological Hazard

1:13:17 ↗ and you want to see a wet season pass

1:13:19 ↗ before determining

1:13:22 ↗ viability being able to build how does

1:13:25 ↗ we've never talked about it so that

1:13:27 ↗ caught my eye sure uh we do have Jim

1:13:30 ↗ Johnson on the line who helped uh with

1:13:32 ↗ this I will defer to them but I will say

1:13:35 ↗ this section is really about the

1:13:37 ↗ mitigation of landslide hazards so if

1:13:40 ↗ there has been a landslide you know we

1:13:42 ↗ want to make sure that it any mitigation

1:13:45 ↗ that was done that it survives a typical

1:13:48 ↗ wet season so if you have you know and

1:13:51 ↗ that's defined from October to April in

1:13:53 ↗ a typical year but Emily Appleton our

1:13:56 ↗ engineering manager and Jim johnsoner

1:13:59 ↗ are you online

1:14:01 ↗ to take this one and explain

1:14:03 ↗ I can share my screen on which section

1:14:08 ↗ right here

1:14:12 ↗ hi I'm Emily Appleton I manage the

1:14:14 ↗ engineering department and we worked

1:14:16 ↗ closely with Jim Johnson of Golder to

1:14:19 ↗ develop this code so I am going to let

1:14:22 ↗ our expert Jim Johnson describe the

1:14:26 ↗ theory behind that

1:14:28 ↗ Emily if you could bring up the code

1:14:31 ↗ language

1:14:32 ↗ I think by your description of what you

1:14:36 ↗ mentioned I think I understand a little

1:14:38 ↗ bit what what is uh what you're talking

1:14:41 ↗ about but if you could bring enough that

1:14:42 ↗ would be helpful

1:14:45 ↗ um I think if it if I'm correct it's

1:14:47 ↗ pertaining to someone who may be

1:14:51 ↗ uh proposing a mitigation to stabilize a

1:14:56 ↗ landslide

1:14:57 ↗ uh and

1:15:00 ↗ what the code language would say is that

1:15:03 ↗ their mitigation needs to be shown to be

1:15:07 ↗ effective

1:15:08 ↗ by having the mitigation completed

1:15:12 ↗ and then

1:15:14 ↗ having the mitigation go through a

1:15:17 ↗ winter season

1:15:19 ↗ a winter wet season and the reason is is

1:15:23 ↗ that most of the landslides are caused

1:15:26 ↗ by either direct rainfall infiltration

1:15:29 ↗ or INF or fluctuations in the

1:15:32 ↗ groundwater level

1:15:34 ↗ so we would want to make sure that that

1:15:36 ↗ mitigation uh

1:15:39 ↗ holds through the winter so the the best

1:15:42 ↗ test of that mitigation is Mother Nature

1:15:45 ↗ itself

1:15:46 ↗ so that's the the idea behind it

1:15:53 ↗ excellent thank you yeah like I said

1:15:56 ↗ just caught my eye I don't remember

1:15:57 ↗ recall talking about it so I was like

1:15:59 ↗ huh

1:16:00 ↗ okay well that does it for me

1:16:03 ↗ Commissioners any other clarifying

1:16:05 ↗ questions before we turn it over

1:16:09 ↗ all right

1:16:11 ↗ okay I believe we are now at the public

1:16:14 ↗ comment period of the public hearing so

1:16:17 ↗ I'll just mention this one more time we

1:16:19 ↗ do ask everyone whether they're joining

1:16:21 ↗ us in person or virtually to speak

1:16:24 ↗ clearly and pause for frequently please

1:16:26 ↗ state your name when you begin to speak

1:16:30 ↗ and if you are speaking virtually please

1:16:32 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

1:16:34 ↗ speaking and if you're having any

1:16:35 ↗ technical issues uh try joining the

1:16:37 ↗ meeting using a different device such as

1:16:39 ↗ a smartphone or tablet

1:16:41 ↗ you could also use the call in

1:16:42 ↗ information into the meeting in the

1:16:45 ↗ meeting invite to call in

1:16:47 ↗ we do ask that people keep it to five

1:16:49 ↗ minutes or less so Jared I guess we can

1:16:53 ↗ start with the people in the room in

1:16:55 ↗ case they want to leave and then we'll

1:16:57 ↗ go virtual okay

1:16:59 ↗ okay

1:17:04 ↗ foreign

1:17:06 ↗ hi everybody

1:17:08 ↗ thanks for allowing me to speak my name

1:17:10 ↗ is Kim Lee director of real estate

1:17:12 ↗ development at Lakeside Industries and

1:17:15 ↗ Issaquah resident

1:17:17 ↗ we submitted a comment letter that's

1:17:19 ↗ been referred to to staff and the

1:17:21 ↗ commission this afternoon and follow up

1:17:23 ↗ to our comments from last week and

1:17:24 ↗ previous

1:17:26 ↗ while our concerns with the Cara

1:17:28 ↗ regulations and non-conformants remain

1:17:30 ↗ perhaps more importantly we want to

1:17:33 ↗ convey our shared goal of protecting the

1:17:35 ↗ city's aquifer and drinking Wells

1:17:39 ↗ we've been operating in our same

1:17:40 ↗ Issaquah location for the last 70 years

1:17:43 ↗ and in that time we've taken great

1:17:45 ↗ measures to ensure a clean operation and

1:17:48 ↗ preservation of habitat

1:17:50 ↗ again we work here and we live here

1:17:54 ↗ we've planted over a hundred thousand

1:17:55 ↗ trees on our property and made a sizable

1:17:59 ↗ land donation to further City's

1:18:01 ↗ conservation goals

1:18:03 ↗ as written the car regulations would

1:18:06 ↗ deem our operation as we understand it a

1:18:08 ↗ legal non-conforming use

1:18:10 ↗ which would make it challenging if not

1:18:12 ↗ impossible to upgrade our facilities

1:18:14 ↗ into the future

1:18:17 ↗ in our letter we also noted that if

1:18:19 ↗ there are other that there are other

1:18:21 ↗ possible impacts to Residents and

1:18:23 ↗ businesses because of these Cara changes

1:18:25 ↗ Beyond just Lakeside

1:18:28 ↗ I also want to point out that we have a

1:18:30 ↗ dedicated land use and environmental

1:18:32 ↗ department at Lakeside whose job is to

1:18:35 ↗ ensure not only that we're complying

1:18:36 ↗ with all the rules and regulations

1:18:39 ↗ but they're also challenging us

1:18:40 ↗ constantly to continue reducing our

1:18:42 ↗ environmental footprint

1:18:44 ↗ we love it here in Issaquah and we want

1:18:46 ↗ to stay here

1:18:48 ↗ so it's important that the code be

1:18:49 ↗ written so that we can continue to

1:18:51 ↗ promote better outcomes for our

1:18:53 ↗ community and for our environment thank

1:18:54 ↗ you

1:19:00 ↗ thank you uh would anyone else in the

1:19:03 ↗ room like to speak

1:19:05 ↗ all right do we have anyone virtually

1:19:07 ↗ who would like to speak

1:19:08 ↗ no one has indicated that they would

1:19:10 ↗ like to speak at this time

1:19:13 ↗ we do have one

1:19:17 ↗ you're an error panelist you should see

1:19:19 ↗ the option to unmute and you have five

1:19:21 ↗ minutes

1:19:33 ↗ hi Joanna did you still want to speak on

1:19:35 ↗ public comment tonight

1:19:48 ↗ okay Joanna we're gonna come back to you

1:19:51 ↗ can you hear me now yes we can go ahead

1:19:54 ↗ and please okay I'm sorry about that

1:19:58 ↗ um my name is Joanna Bueller and I live

1:20:00 ↗ in a supply and I'm

1:20:02 ↗ um talking for Save Lake Sammamish

1:20:06 ↗ um you've received a letter from us

1:20:09 ↗ already a letter of comment which came

1:20:11 ↗ uh I believe was delivered to you today

1:20:14 ↗ I want to emphasize the need for

1:20:19 ↗ um Shoreline buffers on especially on

1:20:22 ↗ Lake tamamish

1:20:24 ↗ um

1:20:26 ↗ the water quality save Lakes of Amish

1:20:28 ↗ has worked for

1:20:30 ↗ almost 35 years now on water quality and

1:20:35 ↗ the water quantity in Lake Sammamish and

1:20:39 ↗ I'm particularly concerned about the

1:20:42 ↗ Kokanee and their survival these are

1:20:45 ↗ wild native Lakes managed Kokanee and

1:20:48 ↗ one of the things that is impacting them

1:20:50 ↗ is the temperature as we have the

1:20:53 ↗ climate change so that temperature of

1:20:56 ↗ the water is getting warmer in summers

1:20:58 ↗ and the lake Spanish without going into

1:21:01 ↗ lots of detail stratifies and so at the

1:21:06 ↗ by the end of summer the the top layer

1:21:10 ↗ of Lake Sammamish is too warm for

1:21:13 ↗ salmonets and that's Kokanee or Sakai or

1:21:17 ↗ any other salmonids including those

1:21:19 ↗ traveling to Esquire Hatchery

1:21:22 ↗ the lower portion of the water is too

1:21:26 ↗ has no oxygen so no fish can live down

1:21:30 ↗ there so there's the middle of the

1:21:31 ↗ sandwich which is exactly the right it

1:21:34 ↗ still has well it's not exactly the

1:21:35 ↗ right but it has sufficient

1:21:38 ↗ oxygen and is cool enough for the

1:21:42 ↗ salmonids to survive as we the

1:21:45 ↗ temperature of the lake goes up that

1:21:48 ↗ little middle of the sandwich that

1:21:50 ↗ Goldilocks zone is

1:21:54 ↗ um shrinking and it becomes squeezing

1:21:56 ↗ narrower and narrower

1:21:59 ↗ so we need to provide more shade on our

1:22:03 ↗ Creeks we need to provide more shade on

1:22:06 ↗ our Shoreline and if you look at Google

1:22:08 ↗ Earth

1:22:10 ↗ the lake salami Shoreline is pretty much

1:22:14 ↗ denuded of vegetation people have

1:22:18 ↗ removed all of the natural buffer zone

1:22:21 ↗ which they are supposed to have

1:22:25 ↗ um

1:22:25 ↗ and so we don't have sufficient

1:22:28 ↗ um vegetation to allow fish particularly

1:22:32 ↗ the the this fry to forage and to be

1:22:37 ↗ along the shoreline this is a real

1:22:39 ↗ problem and it's um getting worse the

1:22:43 ↗ King County did a report in May of 22

1:22:47 ↗ released in May 22 and it's the lakes of

1:22:50 ↗ Amish water quality and Kokanee report

1:22:53 ↗ and it documents and shows the evidence

1:22:56 ↗ of this lack of oxygen and increase in

1:22:59 ↗ temperature

1:23:00 ↗ uh one of the best things we can do is

1:23:03 ↗ get more cold water into the lake and

1:23:06 ↗ that means shading The Creeks making

1:23:08 ↗ sure they're shaded all the way down to

1:23:11 ↗ the lake

1:23:13 ↗ um and on the shoreline we have almost

1:23:16 ↗ all of the

1:23:18 ↗ vegetation particularly the mature trees

1:23:20 ↗ have been removed and what we would hope

1:23:24 ↗ you could do and make sure and there is

1:23:26 ↗ word wording to this effect to deal with

1:23:30 ↗ the cumulative impact and in our letter

1:23:32 ↗ there's specific

1:23:34 ↗ suggestions but we need to have people

1:23:38 ↗ when they have come in for any permit

1:23:41 ↗ they need to be required to re-vegetate

1:23:45 ↗ uh the shoreline and so that and it

1:23:49 ↗ should be tied to permit this is

1:23:52 ↗ particularly outlined in our letter but

1:23:55 ↗ I it it has real it sounds oh we want a

1:23:59 ↗ buffer zone here and we want trees

1:24:02 ↗ um but it has a real life impact and

1:24:05 ↗ whether or not we're going to have any

1:24:07 ↗ cell monitors remaining in Lake

1:24:09 ↗ Sammamish and this Watershed is a big

1:24:13 ↗ question as the lake warms and the water

1:24:17 ↗ warms like some Amish is fed only by

1:24:19 ↗ groundwater so again preserving those

1:24:22 ↗ Cara areas is very very important in

1:24:25 ↗ order to have cleaner cold water flowing

1:24:28 ↗ in

1:24:30 ↗ um so that's my my plea is for more

1:24:34 ↗ vegetative cover to help the wildlife

1:24:37 ↗ and the fish and the survival ultimately

1:24:40 ↗ of a very important resource which is

1:24:43 ↗ Lake Sammamish

1:24:45 ↗ um and we don't want to have dead fish

1:24:48 ↗ and

1:24:50 ↗ you know eutrophic Lake which is so rich

1:24:54 ↗ in nutrients that it's just uh dying

1:24:57 ↗ basically it's choking to death on

1:24:59 ↗ nutrients so thank you very much for

1:25:02 ↗ considering our comments and we

1:25:06 ↗ appreciate uh your efforts thank you

1:25:13 ↗ all right are there any further public

1:25:15 ↗ comments

1:25:17 ↗ there is one more present or one more

1:25:19 ↗ public comment they have raised their

1:25:20 ↗ hand

1:25:22 ↗ um I will now make you a panelist and

1:25:24 ↗ you should now see the option to unmute

1:25:26 ↗ and you will have five minutes

1:25:31 ↗ ah shockingly it's Connie Marsh

1:25:35 ↗ he doesn't know me well enough to know

1:25:37 ↗ what cm is so uh yes agreeing with

1:25:40 ↗ Joanna

1:25:42 ↗ um which brings up that we can make all

1:25:45 ↗ the rules we want but if people don't

1:25:47 ↗ follow him and uh and everything

1:25:51 ↗ goes away we have to figure out how we

1:25:55 ↗ actually require them and enforce them

1:25:57 ↗ and that's probably a further situation

1:26:01 ↗ so onward

1:26:03 ↗ um one Wireless towers are allowed in

1:26:07 ↗ all Community facility zones and this

1:26:11 ↗ requires a city permission to use that

1:26:14 ↗ land

1:26:15 ↗ but that particular decision of yes no

1:26:19 ↗ on whether

1:26:21 ↗ someone should be able to use public

1:26:23 ↗ land is strictly administrative in this

1:26:26 ↗ code

1:26:27 ↗ uh and that needs to have a public

1:26:31 ↗ opinion after it gets into the after yes

1:26:34 ↗ and you say you're going to development

1:26:36 ↗ develop it then the public can speak but

1:26:40 ↗ the public should be able to speak

1:26:41 ↗ before it's even allowed

1:26:45 ↗ um and then I made a lot of comments

1:26:47 ↗ about the community spaces but they're

1:26:49 ↗ not in the chart addressing my comments

1:26:53 ↗ and so I'm not sure where they

1:26:55 ↗ disappeared to

1:26:57 ↗ um and I would like to to see them

1:27:00 ↗ actually out in the public I don't think

1:27:03 ↗ that that chapter is good to go it's too

1:27:06 ↗ confusing and conflicting in both

1:27:08 ↗ language and description so uh if you

1:27:12 ↗ could

1:27:13 ↗ do something about that trails should

1:27:16 ↗ not be allowed to mitigate off-site

1:27:19 ↗ after they intrude in a critical area

1:27:22 ↗ buffer that would actually be a buffer

1:27:25 ↗ reduction and we keep saying that we are

1:27:28 ↗ not allowing buffer reductions yet that

1:27:31 ↗ is in the code

1:27:33 ↗ and so are several other impacts to our

1:27:36 ↗ buffers as in utilities and the director

1:27:39 ↗ has an ability to reduce the buffer yet

1:27:42 ↗ we keep saying in the summary that we

1:27:44 ↗ are not allowing any buffer reductions

1:27:46 ↗ or buffer uh mitigations so that's not

1:27:50 ↗ that's not strictly true so we need to

1:27:52 ↗ examine those places where that they are

1:27:57 ↗ being allowed to be impacted and decide

1:28:00 ↗ whether we should or should not

1:28:03 ↗ um now this one is way off your radar

1:28:07 ↗ but the banners on Front Street

1:28:10 ↗ if you can picture front straight in

1:28:12 ↗ their banners those are only allowed for

1:28:14 ↗ non-profits that get money from the city

1:28:16 ↗ and then further activities specifically

1:28:20 ↗ funded by the city after the non-profits

1:28:23 ↗ profits have been funded but the there

1:28:26 ↗ is no language in the code guiding the

1:28:29 ↗ use of these banners and saying how it's

1:28:32 ↗ supposed to look or feel right now it

1:28:34 ↗ says they're supposed to support the

1:28:36 ↗ feel of Old Town which I actually have

1:28:39 ↗ never seen that happen with one of these

1:28:41 ↗ banners so I don't

1:28:44 ↗ I don't know if it's even true that only

1:28:46 ↗ people who are getting money from the

1:28:49 ↗ city should be able to use the banners

1:28:51 ↗ on Front Street they cost like five

1:28:53 ↗ hundred dollars to to put up a banner so

1:28:56 ↗ why would that only be for non-profits

1:29:00 ↗ funded by the city

1:29:02 ↗ I don't know

1:29:03 ↗ so

1:29:05 ↗ um the also the scheduling of

1:29:07 ↗ applications for those banners is more

1:29:11 ↗ than vague I tried to track it and uh it

1:29:15 ↗ was it was impossible to track and more

1:29:19 ↗ than confusing so that also needs to be

1:29:22 ↗ adjusted so I'm going to say a good

1:29:25 ↗ thing having the 150 foot buffers

1:29:29 ↗ is definitely an upgrade the new

1:29:33 ↗ um

1:29:37 ↗ uh criteria is is better the lack of

1:29:41 ↗ reduction for the most part is better so

1:29:44 ↗ I think you've gained a lot of territory

1:29:46 ↗ in this critical area section the

1:29:50 ↗ community space section needs a redo

1:29:53 ↗ it's just not functioning so no one's

1:29:57 ↗ spoken to that Community spacious spaces

1:30:00 ↗ section so I don't know what you think

1:30:04 ↗ about it but I would appreciate some

1:30:06 ↗ comment there okay thank you

1:30:13 ↗ all right Jordan

1:30:15 ↗ we do have two call-in users tonight I

1:30:18 ↗ am going to go through one of each just

1:30:21 ↗ to make sure that if they would like to

1:30:22 ↗ speak there given the option to call in

1:30:25 ↗ user three I will go ahead and unmute

1:30:27 ↗ you if you do not wish to speak please

1:30:29 ↗ refrain or let us know that you would

1:30:32 ↗ not like to speak

1:30:33 ↗ and you are unmuted

1:30:40 ↗ Fallen user 3 has not uh we'll we'll go

1:30:44 ↗ to four

1:30:45 ↗ column user 4 you will be unmuted

1:30:54 ↗ 206 300

1:31:02 ↗ and we have no one else left to speak

1:31:04 ↗ tonight

1:31:06 ↗ foreign

1:31:07 ↗ we'll give it to 10 seconds unless

1:31:09 ↗ somebody throws up a hand

1:31:22 ↗ no one else has indicated that they

1:31:24 ↗ would like to speak

1:31:25 ↗ all right thank you Jared and I do want

1:31:26 ↗ to thank all three of our uh public

1:31:29 ↗ commenters this evening uh two of them

1:31:31 ↗ who have also written in I know that

1:31:34 ↗ we've received their emails as well so

1:31:37 ↗ hopefully everyone's read them and it'll

1:31:40 ↗ be able to help us make a better and

1:31:42 ↗ even more informed decision

1:31:45 ↗ with that said we will close the public

1:31:47 ↗ hearing this evening at 8080 803 pm

1:31:56 ↗ Commissioners we are ready to deliberate

1:31:58 ↗ uh as far as Parts five through eight

1:32:01 ↗ this evening

1:32:03 ↗ and I think we'll have many guide as

1:32:04 ↗ we'll bring up with the staff questions

1:32:06 ↗ the policy questions and then at the end

1:32:08 ↗ we can deliberate on anything you've

1:32:10 ↗ heard including the public commentary

1:32:11 ↗ this evening or

1:32:14 ↗ anything off topic but let's start with

1:32:16 ↗ a guided conversation and we'll just

1:32:19 ↗ start with policy question I believe

1:32:21 ↗ that was for Minnie policy question

1:32:23 ↗ before yeah the first one

1:32:25 ↗ is the related to outdoor amenity space

1:32:32 ↗ commissioner altamore

1:32:35 ↗ thank you so in looking at the options

1:32:37 ↗ that have been proposed by the staff I

1:32:40 ↗ would like to suggest

1:32:42 ↗ um option one but but allowing for no or

1:32:46 ↗ not allowing balconies to meet that

1:32:48 ↗ requirement which is specified from

1:32:50 ↗ other cities option two the hundred

1:32:52 ↗ square feet can be really cost

1:32:53 ↗ prohibitive for the development of

1:32:55 ↗ multi-family housing and just feels like

1:32:57 ↗ too big of a stretch for larger

1:32:59 ↗ developments for smaller ones maybe

1:33:01 ↗ there could be some criteria or some

1:33:03 ↗ tiering that could be put in there but

1:33:05 ↗ my preference would to see would be to

1:33:07 ↗ see us keep the 48 feet but not allow it

1:33:09 ↗ to be uh

1:33:11 ↗ uh qualified by balconies

1:33:16 ↗ commissioner Kennedy

1:33:18 ↗ as clarification my recollection when

1:33:21 ↗ you talked about this a policy question

1:33:23 ↗ was that the option to the 100 square

1:33:26 ↗ feet is sort of in accordance with

1:33:31 ↗ comparable cities

1:33:33 ↗ is that correct that's correct we had

1:33:35 ↗ included with your packet before peer

1:33:38 ↗ City research so in the January 12th

1:33:40 ↗ agenda packet of what some of the other

1:33:43 ↗ cities require and

1:33:45 ↗ um you know from from that research

1:33:47 ↗ bottle Kirkland have 200 square feet per

1:33:49 ↗ unit requirement and so but going from

1:33:53 ↗ 48 to 100 is where we had recommended

1:33:55 ↗ and

1:33:56 ↗ um

1:33:58 ↗ so yeah we did look at peer cities and

1:34:01 ↗ and made that recommendation

1:34:05 ↗ thank you I think with peer cities at

1:34:10 ↗ um you know a much larger amount that

1:34:12 ↗ sort of that happy medium between our

1:34:14 ↗ current 48 and their use of 200 the 100

1:34:17 ↗ makes a lot of sense

1:34:21 ↗ yeah commissioner Kennedy commissioner

1:34:22 ↗ altimore

1:34:24 ↗ so I looked at that as well and um there

1:34:27 ↗ this conversation is actually happening

1:34:29 ↗ in all of the peer cities as well and

1:34:31 ↗ there's a lot of advocacy from housing

1:34:33 ↗ developers both on the affordable and

1:34:35 ↗ the uh the market rate side to reduce

1:34:39 ↗ these because they are impacts to

1:34:41 ↗ development so it is just something I

1:34:43 ↗ want us to consider and that's why I'm

1:34:45 ↗ saying if we don't stick with the 48 I

1:34:47 ↗ would rather we look at a tiered system

1:34:48 ↗ rather than just across the board a

1:34:51 ↗ standard 100 because even in the cons in

1:34:53 ↗ that original uh policy question packet

1:34:55 ↗ it is identified that that can be very

1:34:57 ↗ prohibitive or very large with a larger

1:35:01 ↗ larger development

1:35:04 ↗ commissioner Patterson

1:35:07 ↗ I'd like to piggyback on that as well

1:35:09 ↗ I'm in alignment with what commissioner

1:35:12 ↗ altamora said I did the most American

1:35:14 ↗ thing I could think of which was take

1:35:15 ↗ the example and compare it to a football

1:35:17 ↗ field so 30 000 square feet for a 300

1:35:21 ↗ unit that's literally half a football

1:35:22 ↗ field uh at that basically option two so

1:35:26 ↗ if you consider a 300 unit which is I

1:35:29 ↗ think one is going in by the transit

1:35:30 ↗ center over by Tibbetts uh in the near

1:35:32 ↗ future imagine then on top of their

1:35:35 ↗ building also having you know 50 yards

1:35:38 ↗ of a 50-yard football field of um

1:35:40 ↗ outdoor amenity space now there is of

1:35:43 ↗ course rooftop I think is considered an

1:35:45 ↗ outdoor space things like that where you

1:35:48 ↗ could kind of see it working in some

1:35:50 ↗ ways but to your point

1:35:52 ↗ you know it might make sense for a

1:35:54 ↗ hundred unit to have 100 square feet

1:35:55 ↗ that's a more reasonable size but if

1:35:58 ↗ you're talking about a 300 unit where

1:36:00 ↗ you're having to also accommodate such a

1:36:02 ↗ huge area of outdoor amenity space I'm

1:36:05 ↗ kind of more in line with

1:36:06 ↗ maybe a tiered approach where we would

1:36:08 ↗ be able to consider you know the size of

1:36:11 ↗ the property itself or the building

1:36:12 ↗ that's going there itself as well as the

1:36:15 ↗ amenity space

1:36:17 ↗ foreign

1:36:18 ↗ thank you

1:36:20 ↗ would anyone else like to speak to Vice

1:36:23 ↗ chair Bader

1:36:24 ↗ I guess this is more of a ction than a

1:36:27 ↗ comment of like what actually is outdoor

1:36:30 ↗ amenity space you know can it be like a

1:36:32 ↗ grassy area

1:36:34 ↗ um you know on the side of the parking

1:36:36 ↗ lot does that count as like outdoor

1:36:38 ↗ amenity space if it has like a bench on

1:36:40 ↗ it or something or is it like

1:36:42 ↗ kind of perky more perky area

1:36:46 ↗ um Christian may be able to get you the

1:36:49 ↗ specifics I think we Define

1:36:51 ↗ um an amenity space outdoor

1:36:57 ↗ foreign

1:37:04 ↗ yeah so it can it can include uh and it

1:37:07 ↗ can it can be broken up into multiple

1:37:09 ↗ areas so it could be rooftop amenities

1:37:11 ↗ it could be ground floor amenities it

1:37:13 ↗ could be you know private private you

1:37:16 ↗ know Community open space that's not

1:37:18 ↗ open to the public so it's not just kind

1:37:20 ↗ of in a in a an example of a 300 unit

1:37:24 ↗ building with a rooftop amenity

1:37:26 ↗ as kind of the only space you know the

1:37:28 ↗ idea is that there is ground floor areas

1:37:32 ↗ um and it's indoor and outdoor so it you

1:37:34 ↗ know there are outdoor requirements

1:37:35 ↗ there's indoor so it could be you know

1:37:37 ↗ kind of Blended

1:37:38 ↗ um with some of those thresholds

1:37:46 ↗ commissioner SM wait it

1:37:48 ↗ then so and this in a way clarifying A

1:37:52 ↗ little bit of a question

1:37:54 ↗ um so you stated that it's indoor and

1:37:57 ↗ outdoor these amenity spaces I believe

1:38:00 ↗ on a previous

1:38:02 ↗ um

1:38:03 ↗ um session we were told that in this in

1:38:06 ↗ the Highland area esca Highlands

1:38:09 ↗ typically they use 200 to 250 square

1:38:13 ↗ feet

1:38:14 ↗ yes so um that's you know we have a

1:38:17 ↗ requirement in our in our existing code

1:38:19 ↗ uh for new parks and standard of 250

1:38:24 ↗ square feet per new unit and so anything

1:38:28 ↗ going in new you know most of those

1:38:30 ↗ places are already built but so for

1:38:32 ↗ instance in Telus you have existing

1:38:34 ↗ Parkland but if if we were putting in

1:38:36 ↗ new units in there you would have to

1:38:39 ↗ have 250 square feet uh per unit

1:38:42 ↗ requirement so that is already in the

1:38:44 ↗ code and we carried that forward we did

1:38:46 ↗ not make that change any change to those

1:38:48 ↗ regulations and then

1:38:50 ↗ um

1:38:51 ↗ the central Issaquah is the one that had

1:38:54 ↗ the 48 square feet and then the rest of

1:38:56 ↗ the city I think doesn't have one now or

1:39:00 ↗ it was deferring to Central so you know

1:39:02 ↗ you had those five different codes uh

1:39:04 ↗ pointing to each other and so we've kind

1:39:06 ↗ of brought them together in one section

1:39:09 ↗ but also part of this chapter is

1:39:12 ↗ since the code was updated the city did

1:39:15 ↗ the park strategic Plan update where is

1:39:17 ↗ this concept of green necklace that

1:39:19 ↗ comes into play of having these parks

1:39:21 ↗ and then these connections uh between

1:39:23 ↗ the parks so

1:39:25 ↗ um and some policies at the

1:39:27 ↗ comprehensive plan level of uh you know

1:39:29 ↗ how how much the Community Values those

1:39:32 ↗ outdoor spaces and amenities so that is

1:39:35 ↗ all that led to our recommendation on on

1:39:38 ↗ on this issue yeah and that's where I

1:39:40 ↗ was going to lead to about like the

1:39:42 ↗ public benefit and if it improves the

1:39:45 ↗ the um the experience of the of the

1:39:48 ↗ Issaquah constituents

1:39:50 ↗ um basically I'm actually for the 100

1:39:52 ↗ square feet per unit very well thank you

1:39:58 ↗ hmm thank you thank you commissioner

1:40:02 ↗ Vice chair Bader

1:40:04 ↗ yeah I'm for it as well I think that a

1:40:07 ↗ you know a balcony serves a very

1:40:09 ↗ different purpose than a rooftop than

1:40:11 ↗ you know a playground

1:40:13 ↗ um and I think

1:40:15 ↗ um to commissioner esimoto's point just

1:40:17 ↗ about kind of like the sense of

1:40:18 ↗ community the quality of living space

1:40:21 ↗ that we're providing and also support

1:40:24 ↗ the kind of increase to 100 and I

1:40:26 ↗ remember on the tiered point and this

1:40:28 ↗ might be different than what you're what

1:40:29 ↗ you're talking about remember the first

1:40:31 ↗ time we talked about this we had talked

1:40:32 ↗ a little bit about oh should we give

1:40:34 ↗ like

1:40:35 ↗ um exceptions or you know allow for less

1:40:38 ↗ if it's affordable and we kind of talked

1:40:40 ↗ about the loss of that sort of space if

1:40:42 ↗ we did something like that and that's

1:40:43 ↗ not what we want to encourage in you

1:40:45 ↗ know affordable housing

1:40:47 ↗ um you know that's being built and so

1:40:50 ↗ um I support it for the you know 100

1:40:51 ↗ kind of across the across the board

1:40:53 ↗ given that it can be made up of multiple

1:40:56 ↗ different types of amenity spaces

1:41:01 ↗ foreign

1:41:02 ↗ ER yeah I I'm in agreement with

1:41:06 ↗ commissioner SM Wade Vice chair Bader

1:41:09 ↗ um I believe commissioner Kennedy as

1:41:10 ↗ well but uh yeah I think 48 is is very

1:41:14 ↗ minimal and I think 200 might be a

1:41:17 ↗ little bit too big for our Township at

1:41:19 ↗ this point there's not a lot of 300 plus

1:41:22 ↗ buildings that I'm aware of I think the

1:41:23 ↗ last one was built along I-90 you know

1:41:27 ↗ the place where I live I think is 130 30

1:41:29 ↗ units and it's quite big

1:41:31 ↗ so

1:41:33 ↗ um I have no problem going up to 100

1:41:35 ↗ square feet I do think

1:41:38 ↗ we can do it yes an up or down but it

1:41:42 ↗ wouldn't bother me either it'd be

1:41:44 ↗ interesting to see the tiered thing

1:41:45 ↗ because again if you do have buildings

1:41:48 ↗ that get over to 300 units uh you know

1:41:51 ↗ maybe we do take a look but I'm

1:41:53 ↗ comfortable with option two myself

1:41:56 ↗ maybe at this point and again because

1:41:59 ↗ I'm actually I did bring this

1:42:02 ↗ I did bring this agenda so I'm looking

1:42:04 ↗ at Mountlake Terrace looking at uh

1:42:07 ↗ some of our peer cities Kirkland Bothell

1:42:10 ↗ these were these are all at 200. I mean

1:42:12 ↗ bellevue's at 800. so we're we're at 48

1:42:16 ↗ right now I think we can use an upgrade

1:42:21 ↗ we want uh would anyone like to

1:42:24 ↗ let's do this who's all in favor for

1:42:27 ↗ option two as it stands

1:42:33 ↗ all right so we're gonna move on

1:42:36 ↗ it was almost a majority oh no I'm sorry

1:42:38 ↗ it was almost uh unanimous so

1:42:43 ↗ we had one hold up

1:42:49 ↗ all right we'll go to policy questions

1:42:51 ↗ number two is on the steep slope buffers

1:42:55 ↗ and our recommendation is option one

1:43:09 ↗ foreign

1:43:12 ↗ option one gives the developer the

1:43:17 ↗ flexibility of just moving forward with

1:43:20 ↗ the proposed code at a 50-foot buffer

1:43:23 ↗ and if they would want to reduce that

1:43:27 ↗ buffer they would have to be able to

1:43:30 ↗ show evidence in in of the site

1:43:33 ↗ conditions to be able to get to that 10

1:43:36 ↗ feet so I think from an economic

1:43:38 ↗ economic standpoint option one would

1:43:41 ↗ actually be

1:43:43 ↗ one of the options the actually only

1:43:45 ↗ option that I would support on on this

1:43:48 ↗ one

1:43:51 ↗ thank you commissioner

1:43:54 ↗ anyone else like to weigh in on policy

1:43:56 ↗ question five

1:43:59 ↗ nice chair Vader all right come up with

1:44:02 ↗ something

1:44:03 ↗ um yeah I support option one two I think

1:44:05 ↗ the con is kind of interesting the

1:44:07 ↗ public perception con because presumably

1:44:10 ↗ staff don't believe that that's the case

1:44:12 ↗ and it won't result in similar outcomes

1:44:14 ↗ and therefore that'll be overcome you

1:44:16 ↗ know by implementation anyway yeah I

1:44:18 ↗ mean it's true the city has granted

1:44:20 ↗ these buffer reductions in a very

1:44:21 ↗ regular basis but uh those are based on

1:44:24 ↗ science those are based on the

1:44:26 ↗ geotechnical engineers agreeing so

1:44:29 ↗ unless you know you know what went into

1:44:31 ↗ that decision you may perceive that

1:44:33 ↗ everyone gets this but it's based on

1:44:36 ↗ safety factors and other other reasons

1:44:39 ↗ so yeah yeah because the others just

1:44:41 ↗ feel like kind of over complicating for

1:44:43 ↗ the sake of over complicating which I

1:44:45 ↗ don't think is

1:44:46 ↗ valuable

1:44:49 ↗ Mr Patterson

1:44:51 ↗ I'm in alignment with the two

1:44:53 ↗ Commissioners that have spoke I think

1:44:55 ↗ last time we brought this up I did

1:44:57 ↗ try and advocate for the public

1:44:59 ↗ perception a little bit to ask about

1:45:00 ↗ option four as that seemed like maybe a

1:45:02 ↗ middle ground but

1:45:04 ↗ um I think you did a great job

1:45:05 ↗ explaining it last time director about

1:45:07 ↗ that one line there on option one which

1:45:09 ↗ is peer review determines exact buffer

1:45:11 ↗ based on site conditions I mean I think

1:45:13 ↗ that that's the most Fair across the

1:45:15 ↗ board I mean we're checking the safety

1:45:17 ↗ box we have it's pretty clear-cut what's

1:45:19 ↗ available there two and three are over

1:45:21 ↗ complicated and and four is a little too

1:45:23 ↗ rigid so I think one gives the best

1:45:25 ↗ flexibility and and checks all the boxes

1:45:33 ↗ thank you anyone else would like to

1:45:35 ↗ comment on policy question five

1:45:39 ↗ okay I'm basically in agreement I was

1:45:41 ↗ torn I was between one and four but I

1:45:43 ↗ think commissioner Patterson said it

1:45:45 ↗ pretty well number four seems a little

1:45:47 ↗ rigid and if you're already doing the

1:45:49 ↗ peer review

1:45:50 ↗ it it pays for itself right so you

1:45:53 ↗ should have the obliga you should have

1:45:54 ↗ the flexibility that comes with those

1:45:56 ↗ peer reviews I mean that's why we get

1:45:57 ↗ them

1:45:58 ↗ um to be quite honest perception is not

1:46:00 ↗ a concern to me I mean if it's effective

1:46:02 ↗ policy it's effective policy just

1:46:03 ↗ because people don't think you did

1:46:05 ↗ anything that's that is not the right

1:46:07 ↗ reason to be making policy so I'm in

1:46:09 ↗ agreement policy uh option one

1:46:13 ↗ all right so to help lighten the burden

1:46:17 ↗ for next Thursday all in favor of option

1:46:20 ↗ one please raise your hand

1:46:24 ↗ unanimous

1:46:25 ↗ great thank you and we can have our

1:46:28 ↗ consultant who joined us thank you Jim

1:46:30 ↗ Johnson you're free to go we're going to

1:46:34 ↗ move on to the next topic

1:46:36 ↗ thank you Minnie

1:46:40 ↗ so number six is this critical area code

1:46:43 ↗ for homeowners

1:46:45 ↗ um

1:46:47 ↗ and we laid out two options

1:46:52 ↗ and we've morphed them based on some

1:46:54 ↗ feedback that we needed to kind of

1:46:56 ↗ explain these a little bit more so I

1:46:59 ↗ have them up on the screen if you need

1:47:01 ↗ me to go through them again

1:47:07 ↗ so I mean basically under option one

1:47:09 ↗ we're not changing any policy other than

1:47:12 ↗ clarifying that we would not require a

1:47:15 ↗ critical area study if you have a patio

1:47:17 ↗ and you want to enclose it so if you

1:47:19 ↗ already have an impervious surface

1:47:20 ↗ you're not expanding into the buffer or

1:47:22 ↗ anything but so that's the only thing

1:47:25 ↗ option one would do option two is

1:47:27 ↗ changing some policy to allow smaller

1:47:31 ↗ additions for homeowners

1:47:33 ↗ and coming up with some criteria for

1:47:36 ↗ when you know how to put some bookends

1:47:39 ↗ and and make sure that it doesn't

1:47:40 ↗ degrade the environment over the long

1:47:42 ↗ term

1:47:44 ↗ foreign

1:47:47 ↗ like to speak to uh policy question six

1:47:52 ↗ commissioner altimore

1:47:54 ↗ thank you so under option two uh number

1:47:58 ↗ one says expansion is in the outer 25 of

1:48:01 ↗ the required buffer so that means that

1:48:03 ↗ there would be expansion into the buffer

1:48:05 ↗ but there wouldn't be a the critical

1:48:07 ↗ area of study

1:48:09 ↗ um

1:48:10 ↗ uh yeah I mean the the intention here is

1:48:13 ↗ that you're not you know if if your

1:48:15 ↗ stream is right there we're not going to

1:48:16 ↗ let people go extremely close to it that

1:48:19 ↗ it's far away you have 150 foot you know

1:48:22 ↗ not this won't have been applied to the

1:48:24 ↗ Shoreline stuff but for wetlands and

1:48:27 ↗ other things that as long as you you

1:48:30 ↗ know it's it's ways away and you're only

1:48:32 ↗ you know adding a 10 foot Edition and

1:48:35 ↗ you you're going to plant your buffer

1:48:37 ↗ and you're going to expand your buffer

1:48:39 ↗ in another area but close to where your

1:48:41 ↗ home is you have a little bit of an

1:48:43 ↗ impact

1:48:44 ↗ um we it'll be challenging to do that

1:48:47 ↗ without a critical area study I think

1:48:50 ↗ some of that burden would be borne by

1:48:52 ↗ the city to go verify the boundaries we

1:48:55 ↗ would have to do some assessment of our

1:48:56 ↗ own

1:48:57 ↗ to make that happen so it's not the

1:49:00 ↗ cleanest way to do things and it could

1:49:03 ↗ be challenging to implement

1:49:07 ↗ is it possible to implement option two

1:49:10 ↗ if they are out of the buffer if it is

1:49:13 ↗ side or on the other side of the

1:49:15 ↗ building and they don't go they can do

1:49:16 ↗ that now I mean they can't yeah um so

1:49:19 ↗ under option one we could expand that to

1:49:21 ↗ say so you're getting that you don't

1:49:24 ↗ need a critical area study if you are

1:49:26 ↗ not only expanding on the impervious

1:49:28 ↗ surface but you're also expanding

1:49:30 ↗ outside of the buffer I think someone

1:49:33 ↗ will have to make that call that it's

1:49:35 ↗ clearly outside the buffer

1:49:37 ↗ um oh and without the critical area

1:49:39 ↗ starting correct gotcha okay that makes

1:49:41 ↗ sense thank you

1:49:44 ↗ great comment that helped me too

1:49:46 ↗ commissioner

1:49:49 ↗ and that expansion outside of the buffer

1:49:52 ↗ would still

1:49:53 ↗ um be bound to the requirements for

1:49:58 ↗ um like water quality like if you're

1:50:00 ↗ expanding outside the critical buffer

1:50:03 ↗ but you're changing green area to

1:50:05 ↗ impervious area

1:50:07 ↗ you would still be required to meet the

1:50:09 ↗ water quality standards correct yeah so

1:50:12 ↗ yeah the stormwater regulations will

1:50:14 ↗ have to they'll have to comply with that

1:50:16 ↗ absolutely okay

1:50:18 ↗ very well thanks I I'm actually for

1:50:21 ↗ option one per se with those

1:50:23 ↗ clarifications from

1:50:25 ↗ um commissioner altimore

1:50:30 ↗ thank you would anyone else like to

1:50:31 ↗ speak to uh this policy question

1:50:34 ↗ please

1:50:37 ↗ coming in late is one of the newer

1:50:39 ↗ Commissioners is there a problem with

1:50:41 ↗ option one that people have identified

1:50:43 ↗ that we want to try to fix yeah so this

1:50:45 ↗ came through the code testing provision

1:50:47 ↗ so one of the sites uh that was selected

1:50:50 ↗ was a single family home

1:50:53 ↗ and in order to allow the um the

1:50:58 ↗ enclosure of a patio or something like

1:51:00 ↗ that you know it was determined that our

1:51:02 ↗ code says you have to do a critical area

1:51:04 ↗ study which costs thousands of dollars

1:51:06 ↗ and so and the end result is we still

1:51:09 ↗ allow them to enclose the the things of

1:51:11 ↗ what purpose did the critical area

1:51:13 ↗ studies solve or provide additional

1:51:15 ↗ information when the other section

1:51:17 ↗ already allows you to to enclose it so

1:51:20 ↗ option one solves that correct so it's

1:51:22 ↗ redundant and we would just clean up the

1:51:25 ↗ language to make it explicitly clear

1:51:27 ↗ that enclosure of impervious surface you

1:51:29 ↗ don't have to do a critical area study

1:51:31 ↗ terrific thank you

1:51:34 ↗ Vice chair Bader just a clarifying

1:51:37 ↗ question I apologize this might have

1:51:38 ↗ been covered on the meeting where there

1:51:40 ↗ were the audio issues so apologies that

1:51:42 ↗ I'm repeating um questions but is this

1:51:45 ↗ applying only to homes that because we

1:51:48 ↗ now have a bigger buffer are were like

1:51:50 ↗ not previously

1:51:51 ↗ no this would be to anyone to anybody

1:51:54 ↗ yeah yeah

1:51:56 ↗ so if you have a critical area buffer on

1:51:58 ↗ your property into a single-family home

1:52:00 ↗ you happen to have an impervious surface

1:52:03 ↗ your driveway or your patio and you want

1:52:05 ↗ to enclose it we would not require a

1:52:08 ↗ critical area study Interruption one and

1:52:10 ↗ we would make that explicitly clear so

1:52:12 ↗ the way it works in theory if we don't

1:52:14 ↗ have exceptions or that if you have a

1:52:16 ↗ buffer it's not just if you want to

1:52:18 ↗ build inside that buffer it's if there's

1:52:19 ↗ any buffer on your property you would

1:52:21 ↗ have to have equivalent okay but there

1:52:23 ↗ are certain exemptions so uh this is

1:52:26 ↗ where we can give folks a waiver from

1:52:28 ↗ critical area study for single-family

1:52:30 ↗ homes if they're not altering the area

1:52:33 ↗ the buffer it's not going to affect in

1:52:35 ↗ any manner contrary the minimum

1:52:38 ↗ standards are met

1:52:40 ↗ um

1:52:41 ↗ and actually oops this is

1:52:47 ↗ um yeah so there are four of these

1:52:49 ↗ no alteration it'll more in effect the

1:52:52 ↗ critical area and the minimum standards

1:52:54 ↗ are met and

1:52:56 ↗ the previous homeowner had done a study

1:52:58 ↗ and we would say okay no point in spend

1:53:00 ↗ even though we have now put in a

1:53:02 ↗ five-year uh you know expiration I

1:53:05 ↗ believe uh because that's what is a

1:53:07 ↗ standard practice things change over a

1:53:09 ↗ period of time

1:53:10 ↗ so we would under option one we would

1:53:13 ↗ add add an item here to make it clear

1:53:16 ↗ that

1:53:17 ↗ for a single family homeowner if you're

1:53:19 ↗ expanding on an existing impervious

1:53:20 ↗ surface you can also be granted a waiver

1:53:23 ↗ or an exemption from doing the study

1:53:25 ↗ yeah

1:53:29 ↗ um I have one thing to kind of build off

1:53:31 ↗ that and then I'll go to commissioner

1:53:32 ↗ ask some wedding so we're talking a lot

1:53:34 ↗ about non-conforming uses and and this

1:53:36 ↗ kind of reminds me of that if if

1:53:39 ↗ let's say there's a single family lot

1:53:42 ↗ and the buffer has been X for the last

1:53:45 ↗ as long as the code has been now we're

1:53:48 ↗ upping those buffers what happens to

1:53:50 ↗ that property that's been sitting on

1:53:51 ↗ that critical area does that begin to do

1:53:54 ↗ are they grandfathered into that old

1:53:57 ↗ um buffer setbacks or does it start to

1:53:59 ↗ encroach on their property now that the

1:54:02 ↗ code has been updated

1:54:04 ↗ yeah so

1:54:06 ↗ um there are a special

1:54:09 ↗ um exemptions for wetland and stream

1:54:11 ↗ buffers in our non-conforming chapter

1:54:13 ↗ and we did not change those uh if I can

1:54:16 ↗ quickly find them here I will bring them

1:54:19 ↗ up

1:54:22 ↗ right I mean I'm less interested in what

1:54:25 ↗ what the actual buffers were I'm

1:54:27 ↗ wondering for those houses that are

1:54:29 ↗ sitting next to critical areas with the

1:54:31 ↗ code update

1:54:32 ↗ are do they are they consistent with the

1:54:35 ↗ old buffers or does no the new buffers

1:54:38 ↗ would apply to every problem so they do

1:54:39 ↗ start encroaching on there correct okay

1:54:42 ↗ but you you have some grandfathered

1:54:45 ↗ rights to maintain your property and and

1:54:47 ↗ and stay and rebuild on the footprint

1:54:50 ↗ and you know in case there's a fire or

1:54:52 ↗ anything like that you can so in you

1:54:54 ↗ know accident earthquakes and stuff you

1:54:56 ↗ can rebuild

1:54:57 ↗ um but the buffer does continue to move

1:54:59 ↗ towards the house yeah so you're not

1:55:01 ↗ grandfathered for buffers the buffers

1:55:03 ↗ apply to everyone equally okay no I

1:55:06 ↗ appreciate that thank you

1:55:09 ↗ commissioner

1:55:11 ↗ So to that point

1:55:13 ↗ um with the new buffers per se

1:55:16 ↗ what if you have impervious area within

1:55:20 ↗ that critical area buffer is that

1:55:22 ↗ possible and then would they still be

1:55:25 ↗ able to expand

1:55:27 ↗ or put a canopy over that impervious

1:55:30 ↗ area

1:55:33 ↗ so I'm going to bring

1:55:36 ↗ um

1:55:51 ↗ so let me walk you through this section

1:56:18 ↗ okay can you all see this

1:56:20 ↗ so this is in the non-conforming chapter

1:56:24 ↗ and it talks about changes to existing

1:56:28 ↗ legal non-conforming structures

1:56:30 ↗ involving Wetland or stream buffers

1:56:33 ↗ if it's a new developmental

1:56:34 ↗ Redevelopment you have to comply so if

1:56:37 ↗ it was a complete tear down

1:56:39 ↗ and rebuild you would need to meet the

1:56:41 ↗ setbacks and the buffers

1:56:43 ↗ alteration and expansion of existing

1:56:46 ↗ non-conforming development is allowed

1:56:48 ↗ outside of the buffer areas you can

1:56:52 ↗ expand vertically to add more stories

1:56:55 ↗ uh you can expand over existing

1:56:57 ↗ impervious surface within the buffer as

1:57:00 ↗ long as the building expansion doesn't

1:57:02 ↗ encroach closer towards a wetland or a

1:57:04 ↗ stream if it's more than 500 you have to

1:57:07 ↗ do a buffer enhancements

1:57:09 ↗ or four if they're damaged or destroyed

1:57:12 ↗ due to accidents or nature you may

1:57:14 ↗ reconstruct the original building

1:57:15 ↗ footprint

1:57:22 ↗ and this is existing policy that we

1:57:25 ↗ haven't changed it's just geared forward

1:57:28 ↗ all right any further comment on this

1:57:31 ↗ particular policy question

1:57:33 ↗ so I guess I'll be a little bit of the

1:57:35 ↗ contrarian I

1:57:37 ↗ like the flexibility I mean

1:57:39 ↗ we'll talk about it in a moment but

1:57:41 ↗ letting homeowners do more on their

1:57:43 ↗ property especially with the safeguards

1:57:45 ↗ built in

1:57:46 ↗ I'm probably never really going to have

1:57:47 ↗ a problem with that I understand they're

1:57:49 ↗ at a critical area but I would be

1:57:51 ↗ interested to know if there's any way we

1:57:53 ↗ can have a better monitoring system and

1:57:56 ↗ again it sounds like it's it would come

1:57:58 ↗ from the city and we're not talking

1:58:01 ↗ about critical area study what's what

1:58:03 ↗ would you have to say to that director

1:58:05 ↗ Dolly wall

1:58:07 ↗ yeah I mean

1:58:08 ↗ um you know if we would have to have

1:58:11 ↗ staff trained in doing Wetland

1:58:13 ↗ delineations uh and stream buffer

1:58:16 ↗ delineation so that would be a

1:58:18 ↗ certification Pro you know it takes a

1:58:21 ↗ lot for someone to know and and get

1:58:22 ↗ there'll be a wetland biologist and all

1:58:24 ↗ that so that that would that would be

1:58:27 ↗ needed we would go out to the site

1:58:28 ↗ exactly do the the things but then I

1:58:31 ↗ think the debate would be well where's

1:58:34 ↗ the survey usually what happened with

1:58:36 ↗ with the delineations is the biologist

1:58:38 ↗ goes and flags these things and then the

1:58:41 ↗ surveyor comes in and picks it up and

1:58:42 ↗ draws it on a plan and you know exactly

1:58:44 ↗ here's the boundary and here's the

1:58:46 ↗ buffer

1:58:48 ↗ um so that could be problematic for for

1:58:51 ↗ us to kind of take on that

1:58:52 ↗ responsibility but you know you could

1:58:55 ↗ you you would you could limit it to say

1:58:57 ↗ you can only expand if there is a

1:59:00 ↗ wetland and there's a building already

1:59:02 ↗ here

1:59:03 ↗ then you can only expand on the other

1:59:05 ↗ side in a limited fashion I think you

1:59:08 ↗ can make that call that your the buffer

1:59:09 ↗ is already interrupted but the addition

1:59:12 ↗ that you do that same square footage you

1:59:15 ↗ somehow have to replant uh we could make

1:59:18 ↗ the monitoring easier for homeowners by

1:59:21 ↗ saying you know every year send us a

1:59:23 ↗ photo as opposed to a technical

1:59:25 ↗ monitoring report to make sure they

1:59:28 ↗ watered the plants and they're doing

1:59:29 ↗ well but again it you know our the our

1:59:33 ↗ experience and Department of ecology is

1:59:34 ↗ experience is that those things over

1:59:36 ↗ time you know blackberries take over and

1:59:39 ↗ it's a lot of work to to maintain those

1:59:41 ↗ things

1:59:42 ↗ um so

1:59:44 ↗ there there could be issues with

1:59:47 ↗ implementation of that from costs and

1:59:50 ↗ and practicality yeah

1:59:52 ↗ I appreciate that like I said I just uh

1:59:55 ↗ and again I mean it's not like they're

1:59:57 ↗ going to be able to build new

1:59:58 ↗ construction in those areas regardless I

2:00:01 ↗ just again if if they are if these new

2:00:03 ↗ codes do you know I'm thinking of some

2:00:06 ↗ like you know whether it's streams or

2:00:08 ↗ buffers I mean I I don't I guess this

2:00:10 ↗ really wouldn't have to do with lakes of

2:00:12 ↗ Amish because of the SMP but it just

2:00:14 ↗ seems it seems odd that we would have

2:00:18 ↗ such a direct impact especially when

2:00:19 ↗ they already have guidelines to keep us

2:00:21 ↗ out of certain areas I mean if they

2:00:23 ↗ encroach it a little bit

2:00:24 ↗ plus there's the design of the house I

2:00:26 ↗ mean you can only do additions and

2:00:29 ↗ you know certain areas as far as the

2:00:30 ↗ structure itself right you can't put an

2:00:33 ↗ addition where a front door is

2:00:35 ↗ so

2:00:36 ↗ I don't know like I said I I guess

2:00:39 ↗ before I go further let me see if I'm

2:00:41 ↗ outnumbered this time

2:00:44 ↗ so um all gays for number one

2:00:54 ↗ okay we're not quite there on the EAS

2:00:56 ↗ yet but let's see if we can get there

2:00:57 ↗ with a little bit further clarification

2:00:59 ↗ Vice chair Bader

2:01:01 ↗ yeah I think I'm okay with one I'm

2:01:05 ↗ trying to figure out two I'm like if

2:01:08 ↗ they're different

2:01:10 ↗ um and like the part of two so I I don't

2:01:13 ↗ in theory don't have a problem if like

2:01:14 ↗ the book because presumably the buffer

2:01:16 ↗ is going to do its job right that's why

2:01:18 ↗ it's there and so if the house is

2:01:20 ↗ outside of the buffer and the expansion

2:01:23 ↗ is on this side then it's not going into

2:01:25 ↗ the buffer it's not reducing the buffer

2:01:28 ↗ um I get that it could have impacts

2:01:31 ↗ um but presumably then the buffer is

2:01:33 ↗ still maintained and so yeah let me kind

2:01:35 ↗ of explain that I wish a graphic would

2:01:37 ↗ be really good here so you have your

2:01:39 ↗ buffer here your house is already in the

2:01:43 ↗ buffer and the buffer extend you know

2:01:46 ↗ your buffer the entire house could be in

2:01:48 ↗ the buffer we may have a situation where

2:01:49 ↗ the entire thing is in the buffer so and

2:01:52 ↗ the expansion itself will lie within the

2:01:54 ↗ buffer if the expansion is outside the

2:01:56 ↗ buffer you can do that you now under the

2:01:59 ↗ code so that that's not an issue these

2:02:01 ↗ should be do we need a critical area

2:02:03 ↗ study

2:02:05 ↗ and so you could add that you know so

2:02:09 ↗ that's needed in order to determine the

2:02:11 ↗ impact to that the the example that you

2:02:13 ↗ had where the addition is outside the

2:02:17 ↗ buffer you can do it that's allowed the

2:02:20 ↗ the question would be do you need a

2:02:21 ↗ critical area study for that if the

2:02:23 ↗ entire house is in the buffer and the

2:02:26 ↗ expansion is going to be in the buffer

2:02:28 ↗ yeah then otherwise you're building like

2:02:31 ↗ an outhouse sorry correct correct yeah

2:02:35 ↗ yeah yeah

2:02:36 ↗ okay

2:02:38 ↗ so really option two with I mean really

2:02:42 ↗ option one if you're already going to

2:02:43 ↗ get the critical study it really option

2:02:46 ↗ two becomes kind of a moot point

2:02:48 ↗ it might be am I kind of getting that

2:02:50 ↗ right I mean I mean you could you could

2:02:52 ↗ have adoption three where you just say

2:02:54 ↗ you could do yeah not just not require

2:02:58 ↗ um you know that you allow expansion

2:03:02 ↗ if you're if you're if you have an

2:03:05 ↗ interrupted buffer I think that's the

2:03:06 ↗ term some some cities use so if your

2:03:09 ↗ buffer is already interrupted by your

2:03:11 ↗ house

2:03:12 ↗ so between the buffer in your house you

2:03:15 ↗ know it's already interrupted that you

2:03:17 ↗ can do the expansions on the other side

2:03:19 ↗ of your house

2:03:20 ↗ so you're not making the the buffer

2:03:22 ↗ interrupting it even more right but like

2:03:26 ↗ you said under this code already you can

2:03:27 ↗ go up and you can go out you just can't

2:03:29 ↗ you can go out

2:03:32 ↗ as long as the addition is outside the

2:03:34 ↗ buffer so you could allow an uh going

2:03:36 ↗ out within the buffer because it's

2:03:39 ↗ already interrupted

2:03:40 ↗ because you have a house already there

2:03:42 ↗ between the buffer and that so yeah it

2:03:45 ↗ gets nuanced and it gets

2:03:47 ↗ complex and so that would be a policy

2:03:49 ↗ change to

2:03:51 ↗ to do that and

2:03:53 ↗ well if I mean

2:03:55 ↗ there's a democracy up here so uh how

2:03:58 ↗ many people are still wishy-washy on one

2:04:01 ↗ two and three and would like to see the

2:04:02 ↗ invisible option three that we don't get

2:04:04 ↗ to see right now

2:04:06 ↗ me

2:04:08 ↗ and how many people just want to go with

2:04:10 ↗ option one

2:04:14 ↗ absolutely

2:04:16 ↗ all right well it's three three so can

2:04:19 ↗ we see an invisible number three and

2:04:21 ↗ we'll be bringing that one back so you

2:04:22 ↗ got two knocked out tonight but maybe

2:04:24 ↗ next Thursday we see an option three for

2:04:27 ↗ for policy questions sure we can work

2:04:29 ↗ because again I

2:04:31 ↗ if I'm understanding it the way it's

2:04:33 ↗ written I'd like to allow the

2:04:35 ↗ flexibility for the homeowner especially

2:04:37 ↗ if they're already encumbered by an

2:04:39 ↗ intrusive

2:04:40 ↗ buffer

2:04:42 ↗ again

2:04:45 ↗ that to me just seems it seems kind of

2:04:47 ↗ odd because again I don't know the shape

2:04:48 ↗ of a lot I don't know the shape of the

2:04:49 ↗ house I mean you can't necessarily just

2:04:52 ↗ do an addition just I mean sometimes it

2:04:54 ↗ has to be projected one way or the other

2:04:56 ↗ so that's my feeling on it

2:04:58 ↗ three of three three Washi three steady

2:05:01 ↗ so but do you all and the third option

2:05:05 ↗ do you want to kind of do for smaller

2:05:07 ↗ additions up to 500 or you don't want a

2:05:10 ↗ complete rebuild of a okay so still keep

2:05:13 ↗ that

2:05:14 ↗ some smaller Edition piece to it in

2:05:18 ↗ eruption three okay fair enough

2:05:20 ↗ yeah like sure better sorry I think this

2:05:22 ↗ is a to the public I have two newborns

2:05:25 ↗ at home and I think it's showing it's

2:05:26 ↗ showing right now in my brain capacity

2:05:28 ↗ just so I'm really clear so option one

2:05:31 ↗ is kind of like the most strict so it's

2:05:33 ↗ only waived if they're building on an

2:05:36 ↗ existing impervious Circle correct

2:05:38 ↗ option two gives them more ability to

2:05:41 ↗ again potentially do a addition or

2:05:44 ↗ whatever

2:05:45 ↗ um and so it gives them a little more

2:05:46 ↗ flexibility than option one does correct

2:05:48 ↗ okay

2:05:50 ↗ yeah you will allow encroachments into

2:05:52 ↗ the buffer that I don't have impervious

2:05:54 ↗ surface

2:05:55 ↗ with some restrictions on the it's

2:05:59 ↗ already interrupted it's on the other

2:06:00 ↗ side you're not taking down any trees

2:06:03 ↗ and whatever else you want to add to

2:06:05 ↗ that list

2:06:09 ↗ commissioner altmore

2:06:12 ↗ sorry I was settled but I think what I

2:06:15 ↗ heard you say before is is connected to

2:06:17 ↗ what you just said which is that option

2:06:19 ↗ one it's on that current impervious

2:06:21 ↗ surface but if you also want to do a

2:06:25 ↗ greater expansion than that you have the

2:06:27 ↗ ability under the um

2:06:30 ↗ the what would you call non-diversions

2:06:32 ↗ the uh deviation the deviations that

2:06:35 ↗ exist now which means that if there was

2:06:37 ↗ a study within the last five years or

2:06:39 ↗ and those other pieces are met then you

2:06:41 ↗ can give them the director can can allow

2:06:44 ↗ that correct uh yeah those four criteria

2:06:47 ↗ if someone meets those four criteria we

2:06:49 ↗ can not require a critical area study

2:06:51 ↗ but that does not allow you to do any

2:06:54 ↗ expansion in the buffer area in the

2:06:57 ↗ buffer area but outside the buffer area

2:06:59 ↗ you can correct and so is the

2:07:01 ↗ distinction among the three of us and

2:07:02 ↗ the three of us inside the buffer area

2:07:04 ↗ versus outside the buffer area

2:07:07 ↗ I think for me it's it's it's being

2:07:09 ↗ inside right because I'm seeing these

2:07:11 ↗ buffers continue to encroach on the

2:07:12 ↗ house in the project

2:07:13 ↗ right these are going to all be upgraded

2:07:15 ↗ so it's the same thing I guess when we

2:07:17 ↗ get there you know I'm going to want to

2:07:18 ↗ ask about some of these non-conforming

2:07:20 ↗ uses so for me again they're being asked

2:07:23 ↗ to do less and less with their property

2:07:25 ↗ you know and again not every Lawton and

2:07:28 ↗ not every house is situated to have an

2:07:29 ↗ addition up or in front or on the sides

2:07:33 ↗ and I'm just asking for flexibility now

2:07:36 ↗ if they all have to have a critical

2:07:37 ↗ areas now if they can do option one and

2:07:40 ↗ or if they can build into the buffer at

2:07:43 ↗ all it requires is a critical study

2:07:46 ↗ then I guess that maybe that's the

2:07:48 ↗ invisible option three I just don't know

2:07:50 ↗ but I'd like to see option three yeah we

2:07:52 ↗ can create a couple more options I just

2:07:54 ↗ study one without study one

2:07:57 ↗ a limited expansion in an interrupted

2:08:00 ↗ buffer right so we're not talking about

2:08:02 ↗ new construction we're talking about

2:08:04 ↗ existing homes I mean look at how many I

2:08:06 ↗ mean again I don't know how many streams

2:08:08 ↗ and buffers are in Old Town but I mean

2:08:09 ↗ those houses date back to the 60s so

2:08:12 ↗ again we're we're continuing to limit

2:08:14 ↗ what people can do on their properties

2:08:16 ↗ that's that's sure I mean we would we

2:08:19 ↗ would

2:08:20 ↗ um we can you know create a couple more

2:08:23 ↗ options but the basic idea being

2:08:26 ↗ flexibility and and net gain to the

2:08:30 ↗ environment so if the buffer is already

2:08:33 ↗ you know interrupted there's a house

2:08:35 ↗ already there

2:08:36 ↗ and you want to expand on the other side

2:08:39 ↗ and you're willing to do some more

2:08:41 ↗ enhancements to your stream by planting

2:08:43 ↗ and other things than than presumably

2:08:46 ↗ you've improved the quality of the

2:08:48 ↗ stream yet you're not set with the you

2:08:51 ↗ know you can do limited editions up to

2:08:54 ↗ 500 square feet to your home right

2:08:56 ↗ because let me know if I'm wrong mini

2:08:59 ↗ but we got rid of averaging I mean that

2:09:01 ↗ would have been something that would

2:09:02 ↗ have come into play here so if we've

2:09:03 ↗ gotten completely rid of it and we're

2:09:05 ↗ saying no these are the boundaries yet

2:09:07 ↗ our old code used to be able to say okay

2:09:08 ↗ you really want to do the expansion here

2:09:10 ↗ well then you've got an average more

2:09:12 ↗ buffer here well we no longer allow

2:09:13 ↗ averaging so again we're just we're

2:09:16 ↗ continuing to put restrictions on people

2:09:18 ↗ and not giving them a lot of options in

2:09:21 ↗ my opinion and that's been my opinion

2:09:22 ↗ for years so anyway yeah we can define

2:09:25 ↗ an interrupted buffer so it would only

2:09:27 ↗ apply in those cases and it would only

2:09:29 ↗ allow a limited expansion in exchange

2:09:32 ↗ for buffer enhancement concept so we can

2:09:35 ↗ flush that out a little bit more

2:09:37 ↗ um are we still three and three

2:09:43 ↗ three for one

2:09:45 ↗ three for

2:09:46 ↗ invisible option all right all right so

2:09:50 ↗ I think yeah if we could come back to

2:09:52 ↗ this one next Thursday maybe with some

2:09:54 ↗ more options maybe we can get you either

2:09:56 ↗ a majority or a unanimous

2:09:58 ↗ sounds good all right thank you

2:10:01 ↗ all right so I think now we'll just kind

2:10:03 ↗ of have uh you know Commissioners if

2:10:05 ↗ you'd like to comment on anything in

2:10:07 ↗ particular as far as the last

2:10:09 ↗ um

2:10:10 ↗ four parts I mean if anything's tugging

2:10:12 ↗ your heartstrings you'd like to comment

2:10:13 ↗ on anything please yeah and uh while

2:10:17 ↗ you're going that I just want to take

2:10:18 ↗ one second to introduce uh Anne-Marie

2:10:20 ↗ Soto um from a Madrona legal team is

2:10:23 ↗ here as well online so if you have any

2:10:25 ↗ questions for City attorney she is here

2:10:29 ↗ to assist you with with legal questions

2:10:31 ↗ thanks Anne Murray

2:10:36 ↗ foreign

2:10:43 ↗ this was the environmental part and

2:10:46 ↗ we've heard a lot of public comments and

2:10:47 ↗ like I said

2:10:49 ↗ um in my opinion people that are

2:10:51 ↗ concerned with the environment which is

2:10:52 ↗ a lot of people in Issaquah a lot of

2:10:54 ↗ residents here they should be very happy

2:10:55 ↗ with the code as it's been written I

2:10:58 ↗ mean we have verbiage that has been

2:11:00 ↗ tightened we have protections that have

2:11:02 ↗ been enhanced language clarified and a

2:11:05 ↗ much more focused code I mean did they

2:11:07 ↗ get everything they wanted no and trust

2:11:09 ↗ me I didn't get everything I wanted I

2:11:11 ↗ mean I think one of the few at least for

2:11:12 ↗ me one of the few victories I got was

2:11:14 ↗ the short plot was able to go from four

2:11:15 ↗ to nine and even that was a little bit

2:11:17 ↗ of a fight people still wanted levels of

2:11:19 ↗ review where the state said this is

2:11:21 ↗ redundant so again I guess what I would

2:11:24 ↗ say to to Residents is that they should

2:11:26 ↗ feel pretty good about as far as their

2:11:28 ↗ environmental code I mean

2:11:30 ↗ what I've seen over this process is is

2:11:33 ↗ again that maybe that's why I was

2:11:34 ↗ fighting for option three so much is

2:11:36 ↗ I've seen a lot of

2:11:38 ↗ more restrictions more clarification

2:11:41 ↗ again that's what people residents in

2:11:43 ↗ this city value and they've made that

2:11:45 ↗ very clear

2:11:47 ↗ um

2:11:48 ↗ and it's also what the council wanted so

2:11:50 ↗ again we're going with what they want

2:11:52 ↗ but some of the areas where I wish we

2:11:54 ↗ would have had more flexibility for some

2:11:55 ↗ development and things I don't feel like

2:11:57 ↗ we got but I think the people that are

2:12:00 ↗ concerned about the environment should

2:12:01 ↗ be very happy with with what they're

2:12:03 ↗ seeing as far as this code as far as I'm

2:12:04 ↗ concerned

2:12:06 ↗ foreign

2:12:08 ↗ s

2:12:15 ↗ commissioner

2:12:17 ↗ yeah being one of the new Commissioners

2:12:20 ↗ and just going through the code and

2:12:22 ↗ sitting through these sessions since

2:12:25 ↗ September I've actually been able to see

2:12:27 ↗ a lot of the work that's actually got

2:12:30 ↗ into this and actually learned from it

2:12:33 ↗ as well just to understand what I

2:12:37 ↗ understand I need as a person who lives

2:12:39 ↗ in Issaquah but also what others need as

2:12:41 ↗ well and

2:12:43 ↗ um I I'm pretty satisfied with what's in

2:12:47 ↗ the actual code right now of course it's

2:12:50 ↗ not perfect that's why it's updated

2:12:53 ↗ every so often but at the end of the day

2:12:57 ↗ I think with the commend on the planning

2:13:01 ↗ team over here as well as my fellow

2:13:06 ↗ Commissioners as well on this and and

2:13:09 ↗ the Commissioners that may not be here

2:13:11 ↗ now who were who were before us as well

2:13:13 ↗ so that's my three cents

2:13:19 ↗ well said commissioner

2:13:22 ↗ um

2:13:23 ↗ any other discussions I mean the one

2:13:25 ↗ thing I would like to come back since it

2:13:27 ↗ was brought up tonight not only in a

2:13:29 ↗ public comment but a public

2:13:31 ↗ well I guess it was a public comment it

2:13:33 ↗ was just through email is the

2:13:34 ↗ non-conforming use I won't say the name

2:13:37 ↗ because I don't know if it's appropriate

2:13:39 ↗ or not I should probably ask you guys

2:13:40 ↗ that question next time before the

2:13:42 ↗ meeting but you know my concern is we

2:13:46 ↗ have a business that has been here for

2:13:48 ↗ 70 years and this is my concern and

2:13:49 ↗ again maybe they're looking for the same

2:13:51 ↗ clarification that I am is you know

2:13:54 ↗ whether or not they're a great public

2:13:56 ↗ partner which it seems they are I don't

2:13:58 ↗ know if that should have any bearing on

2:14:00 ↗ code but I'm wondering if there's

2:14:01 ↗ something like a special waiver or we

2:14:03 ↗ just need more clarification for them it

2:14:05 ↗ seems

2:14:06 ↗ it seems wrong to have a business be

2:14:08 ↗ here for 70 years build their

2:14:10 ↗ infrastructure and not have the

2:14:12 ↗ opportunity to expand because again now

2:14:14 ↗ they're non-conformed legally

2:14:15 ↗ non-conforming so again I need more

2:14:17 ↗ understanding about what that means

2:14:19 ↗ because and again to director

2:14:22 ↗ dollywall's point

2:14:24 ↗ maybe there's a big misunderstanding but

2:14:26 ↗ that was a question I had last week as

2:14:28 ↗ well as I'm not understanding the term

2:14:30 ↗ legally non-conforming and what does

2:14:32 ↗ that allow them to do on their property

2:14:34 ↗ I just know if they've been here for 70

2:14:35 ↗ years built their infrastructure and now

2:14:38 ↗ they can't build out

2:14:39 ↗ you know to me that that doesn't seem

2:14:41 ↗ quite right and especially you know and

2:14:43 ↗ again I don't think there should be any

2:14:45 ↗ particular consideration but if it's

2:14:47 ↗ manufacturing to me I that tugs in my

2:14:49 ↗ heartstring because I'd like to see more

2:14:51 ↗ Manufacturing in Issaquah you know all

2:14:53 ↗ those manufacturing jobs

2:14:55 ↗ that Bell you know never mind shouldn't

2:14:57 ↗ say City's names that some of our

2:14:59 ↗ cities our friendly neighbors don't want

2:15:02 ↗ because all they want is Tech

2:15:04 ↗ bring your manufacturing here

2:15:06 ↗ um but again I don't know what type of

2:15:08 ↗ message that sends if we're saying well

2:15:10 ↗ you've been great to work with but you

2:15:12 ↗ can't build out and you know and again

2:15:14 ↗ I'm talking about the care and the

2:15:15 ↗ aquifers for that particular project but

2:15:18 ↗ I I need more information but that one

2:15:20 ↗ yeah that that one concerns me because I

2:15:22 ↗ really don't know where we stand and I'd

2:15:24 ↗ like to hear a lot more before you know

2:15:27 ↗ I I'd like to hear more before this

2:15:30 ↗ this uh this run ends next Thursday

2:15:46 ↗ foreign

2:15:52 ↗ with me I think uh if there's no other

2:15:55 ↗ comments that those really my two like I

2:15:57 ↗ said I think people should be pretty

2:15:59 ↗ happy with with what they're seeing a

2:16:01 ↗ lot of work went into it we're not quite

2:16:03 ↗ done we have one more meeting but uh you

2:16:06 ↗ know I feel very good about it again I

2:16:08 ↗ don't think everybody gets everything

2:16:09 ↗ they want but I think the people for who

2:16:11 ↗ the environment is very important and I

2:16:13 ↗ bring this up because that's what

2:16:15 ↗ tonight was about part eight uh should

2:16:17 ↗ feel pretty good about what they're

2:16:18 ↗ seeing again just going through it I

2:16:20 ↗ mean again language tightened everything

2:16:22 ↗ clarification so I'm hopeful that other

2:16:25 ↗ people feel the same way and I know a

2:16:27 ↗ lot of our public comments have have

2:16:28 ↗ mentioned that whether it's just

2:16:31 ↗ mentioning how this is much better

2:16:34 ↗ um than what the we used to have but uh

2:16:36 ↗ yeah no I'm excited I'm excited to hear

2:16:38 ↗ what everyone has to say next Thursday

2:16:40 ↗ when we uh do the up or down at the very

2:16:43 ↗ end

2:16:44 ↗ um possibly with amendments and then we

2:16:46 ↗ kind of recap over the last two

2:16:48 ↗ Thursdays tonight and last Thursday

2:16:52 ↗ all right so I know everybody wants to

2:16:54 ↗ go home so we will move on

2:16:57 ↗ and I believe all we have left to do is

2:17:01 ↗ a little bit of house cleaning

2:17:03 ↗ and if we can get some uh city council

2:17:08 ↗ updates from staff

2:17:09 ↗ or any other business they'd like to

2:17:11 ↗ provide us

2:17:13 ↗ please go ahead

2:17:15 ↗ reports

2:17:17 ↗ chair voice we don't have the city

2:17:18 ↗ council report for you tonight

2:17:20 ↗ okay

2:17:23 ↗ any other business or announcements from

2:17:25 ↗ staff Commissioners anything for the

2:17:28 ↗ good of the order

2:17:31 ↗ all right so there is one more public

2:17:34 ↗ hearing that'll be next Thursday as I

2:17:36 ↗ mentioned this is going to basically

2:17:37 ↗ capture a lot of what we've discussed

2:17:39 ↗ over the last two Thursdays

2:17:41 ↗ um

2:17:43 ↗ I believe we're going to still have a

2:17:45 ↗ presentation we're going to do basically

2:17:47 ↗ quite quite similar

2:17:49 ↗ I have my notes from my conversation

2:17:51 ↗ with with Kristen the other day

2:17:53 ↗ so looks like we're going to be doing a

2:17:56 ↗ little bit of through block passages

2:17:57 ↗ zoning Maps list of edits and possibly

2:18:01 ↗ acipa addendum does that sound right

2:18:02 ↗ Stephen

2:18:06 ↗ okay fair enough we'll get the full

2:18:09 ↗ packet to the commission and discuss it

2:18:11 ↗ with you okay

2:18:12 ↗ and we actually will get a new agenda

2:18:14 ↗ packet for

2:18:15 ↗ right okay excellent and um yeah I guess

2:18:19 ↗ the only other news is that we are

2:18:21 ↗ canceling February 9th

2:18:24 ↗ that is correct we took another look at

2:18:27 ↗ the calendar and we figured the

2:18:29 ↗ commission could use a few weeks before

2:18:31 ↗ we start diving into the comprehensive

2:18:33 ↗ plan and discussing housing

2:18:36 ↗ staff is very nice

2:18:37 ↗ so thank you everybody

2:18:39 ↗ um appreciate you joining us this

2:18:41 ↗ evening and we will adjourn tonight at 8

2:18:43 ↗ 50 pm thank you for coming

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 (7)

Voiss

Bader

Commissioners Altimore

Esemuede

Kennedy

Patterson Absence: Commissioners Lewis

Milligan (Excused)

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christian Geitz, Planning Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Emily Appleton, CPD Engineering Manager Jim Johnson, Consultant 2