Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, February 2, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. PUBLIC HEARING

Recommendation on Title 18 Final Draft Procedures, Subdivisions, Zoning, Specified Use Standards, Development Standards, Neighborhood Overlay, Environment) and Shoreline Master Program, (A)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development Public Hearing Order: Commission and DOE Recommendation · packet pp.3–1010

Topics: Land Use

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

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the February 2, 2023, meeting is to hold a public hearing with the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) regarding the Title 18 Land Use Code updates. This meeting will focus on deliberations for the proposed Title 18 update.

4. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.1011–1012

▶ Watch from 3:07:52 Open packet at p.1011 ↗

Staff report:

Staff Support: Stephen Padua Staff Support: Thomas Valdriz 3/9/23 3/23/23  HAPI Grant: Findings and Draft Regulations  Comprehensive Plan Transportation Review  HAPI Grant: Findings and Draft Regulations March

4521 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ good evening everybody

0:11 ↗ um if you're starting to feel like it's

0:13 ↗ Groundhog's Day

0:14 ↗ it's because today is Groundhog's Day

0:17 ↗ and Punxsutawney Phil

0:19 ↗ has forecasted we have a lot more

0:21 ↗ planning policy commission meetings in

0:23 ↗ 2023

0:25 ↗ I'd like to call

0:27 ↗ the February 2nd meeting of the planning

0:29 ↗ policy commission to order and it is

0:31 ↗ currently 6 31 pm

0:33 ↗ tonight's meeting is a hybrid meeting

0:35 ↗ the planning policy commission is in

0:37 ↗ person but staff or members of the

0:39 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

0:41 ↗ person

0:42 ↗ Stephen tonight do we have a quorum

0:45 ↗ chair boys yes you do excellent we're

0:47 ↗ going to move along quickly I would have

0:49 ↗ a lot to do that tonight so we'll begin

0:51 ↗ with public comments these are general

0:53 ↗ public comments for the commission or

0:57 ↗ the city and I have some guidelines to

0:59 ↗ share with you guys tonight

1:01 ↗ but they can be made in person or

1:03 ↗ virtually

1:04 ↗ uh Jared has anyone signed up to make

1:06 ↗ General Public comments this evening

1:08 ↗ no one has signed up in person tonight

1:10 ↗ but I will give a moment for those

1:11 ↗ online to raise a hand if they would

1:13 ↗ like a like to make a public comment

1:22 ↗ no one has indicated that they would

1:24 ↗ like to speak at this time okay great

1:26 ↗ thank you Jared so we're going to dive

1:28 ↗ right into our main business tonight

1:30 ↗ which is our public hearing tonight we

1:33 ↗ are holding the commission's last public

1:35 ↗ hearing regarding the proposed

1:36 ↗ amendments to Title 18 and the shoreline

1:38 ↗ master program

1:40 ↗ we previously have held public hearings

1:42 ↗ on January 19th and 26th so tonight we

1:46 ↗ will conclude our deliberations and

1:47 ↗ discuss our recommendations for City

1:49 ↗ Council

1:50 ↗ the procedure for tonight's public

1:52 ↗ hearing will be as follows

1:55 ↗ staff is going to make a presentation

1:57 ↗ again PPC will ask our clarifying

2:00 ↗ questions and then we will open up the

2:02 ↗ public hearing

2:04 ↗ um

2:05 ↗ for public comment

2:07 ↗ during that portion of the presentation

2:10 ↗ members of the public may feel free to

2:11 ↗ comment on Title 18 the shoreline master

2:14 ↗ program and the proposed commission's

2:17 ↗ recommendations in the letter

2:19 ↗ once all members of the public in

2:21 ↗ attendance who wish to make comment have

2:23 ↗ spoken we will close the public hearing

2:25 ↗ and the PPC will begin to deliberate and

2:28 ↗ take action

2:29 ↗ so we will go ahead and open the public

2:31 ↗ hearing at 6 33 pm

2:35 ↗ midi I believe you have a presentation

2:38 ↗ to share with us

2:44 ↗ good evening Commissioners and members

2:46 ↗ of the community I will try and share my

2:49 ↗ screen here real quick

2:59 ↗ foreign

3:06 ↗ public meeting public hearing on the

3:09 ↗ Consolidated draft as you know we've had

3:11 ↗ many series of public hearings on

3:13 ↗ individual components but

3:15 ↗ um here we are tonight

3:17 ↗ um with the final public hearing um

3:21 ↗ on Title 18 and Shoreline master program

3:23 ↗ the process is the same for all of the

3:26 ↗ public hearings we'll open the public

3:28 ↗ hearing we'll do a little staff

3:30 ↗ presentation you all can ask clarifying

3:33 ↗ questions you will take the public

3:34 ↗ comment then you close the public

3:36 ↗ hearing and then there'll be

3:37 ↗ deliberation

3:39 ↗ so the the real quick uh we want to kind

3:42 ↗ of capture the conversations and

3:44 ↗ discussions we've had in the past two

3:46 ↗ meetings about these policy questions on

3:48 ↗ the Consolidated draft as you may

3:51 ↗ remember we've had policy guidance

3:53 ↗ throughout this process for the last two

3:55 ↗ years but these were the funds that you

3:57 ↗ either had asked us to do more research

4:00 ↗ on or they came in as edits after the

4:03 ↗ you know consolidation was done so site

4:06 ↗ specific reasons at the last meeting

4:09 ↗ um you all recommended hearing examiner

4:13 ↗ to be the uh the person who holds the

4:15 ↗ public hearing and makes a

4:17 ↗ recommendation to city council the

4:19 ↗ reason site specific his own criteria

4:22 ↗ you gave us some edits we've included

4:24 ↗ them in the attachment c as part of your

4:27 ↗ packet deviation criteria there was

4:30 ↗ discussion and some questions related to

4:32 ↗ it however there wasn't a specific

4:35 ↗ direction to change anything and at this

4:38 ↗ point and one of the public comments was

4:42 ↗ related to the through block connection

4:43 ↗ should be added to the deviations list

4:45 ↗ and when we looked at all the lists

4:48 ↗ those are actually existing in our code

4:50 ↗ there is a supplement for through block

4:52 ↗ Connections in your packet

4:54 ↗ and trails which was asked by which we

4:58 ↗ can address if there's any questions on

5:00 ↗ it but we've included these two in the

5:03 ↗ list which is in the updated attachment

5:05 ↗ C on outdoor amenity you also you know

5:09 ↗ that we laid out a few options and we

5:11 ↗ landed at 100 square feet per unit

5:13 ↗ steep slope buffers option one was

5:16 ↗ decided by you all which was our

5:19 ↗ recommendation as well with a 50-foot

5:20 ↗ buffer in minimum 10 feet Allowed by

5:23 ↗ Geotech review the one question on

5:26 ↗ critical area code for homeowners you

5:28 ↗ asked us to come back with a third

5:30 ↗ option

5:32 ↗ and then we also discussed in the last

5:34 ↗ two meetings some of the other policy

5:36 ↗ questions that were raised uh technical

5:39 ↗ document review I think we discussed

5:42 ↗ pros and cons and it is at level one and

5:45 ↗ I think the direction from you was to

5:46 ↗ keep it at level one public utility

5:48 ↗ exemptions were bumped up to level two

5:51 ↗ Master site plan criteria for Major

5:54 ↗ versus minor you receive some comments

5:56 ↗ we have not

5:58 ↗ made any changes

6:00 ↗ and then I think we we did we talked

6:03 ↗ about adding some phasing language for

6:04 ↗ properties over 15 Acres

6:07 ↗ non-conformance chapter no policy change

6:09 ↗ to that as well site development permits

6:12 ↗ I think we got direction from you to

6:14 ↗ clarify that interior improvements

6:16 ↗ regardless of the value are not subject

6:19 ↗ to site development permit so uh the one

6:23 ↗ question you asked us to come back with

6:24 ↗ really is

6:26 ↗ um the the basic idea there is what oops

6:29 ↗ uh what incentives of flexibility should

6:32 ↗ be given to single family homeowners who

6:34 ↗ are doing small home renovation projects

6:36 ↗ that encourage Wetland stream buffer

6:38 ↗ enhancement so this came out of the code

6:41 ↗ testing program

6:43 ↗ a little refresher of what's in the code

6:46 ↗ so we have a chapter called

6:49 ↗ non-conforming structure so that's that

6:52 ↗ deals with your grandfathered rights and

6:55 ↗ when structures are in a wetland or a

6:58 ↗ stream buffer you are allowed these

7:01 ↗ things you can expand outside of the

7:04 ↗ buffers you can add vertically to add

7:06 ↗ stories and you can do building

7:09 ↗ expansion over existing impervious

7:11 ↗ surface that's already in the code

7:14 ↗ so as we talk about option two and three

7:16 ↗ we can add some language here that

7:18 ↗ allows building expansions along you

7:21 ↗ know on the opposite side of the

7:23 ↗ building from the critical area and

7:25 ↗ there are two variations with or without

7:27 ↗ a critical area study the other chapter

7:30 ↗ uh related to this is when are critical

7:34 ↗ area studies needed and how they can be

7:37 ↗ onerous for single small home renovation

7:40 ↗ projects so what option one addresses is

7:45 ↗ that we can add specifically here that

7:47 ↗ no critical area studies required if

7:49 ↗ you're expanding on an existing

7:51 ↗ impervious surface as it's allowed under

7:53 ↗ this section

7:54 ↗ so again the three options the first is

7:57 ↗ we're not changing allowing more

7:59 ↗ expansions it's already allowed that if

8:02 ↗ you have an impervious surface you can

8:03 ↗ expand on it but we won't ask for a

8:06 ↗ critical area study

8:08 ↗ um for the homeowners

8:10 ↗ option two is you can allow up to 500

8:13 ↗ square feet expansion out on the

8:17 ↗ opposite side of the critical area as

8:20 ↗ long as you it's a one-time expansion

8:22 ↗ you have no other critical area

8:24 ↗ modification previously approved you're

8:27 ↗ going to mitigate it at a minimum

8:29 ↗ one-to-one ratio and then you're not

8:31 ↗ removing any significant tree

8:33 ↗ so that option two is without a critical

8:37 ↗ area study you can do that and option

8:39 ↗ three is identical to option two however

8:42 ↗ it would require a critical area study

8:44 ↗ so you all can decide if uh these three

8:48 ↗ options address the information you'd

8:50 ↗ asked us for and if you have a

8:52 ↗ preference for

8:54 ↗ one of these so that pretty much

8:57 ↗ concludes my presentation I think we can

9:00 ↗ take on clarifying questions now also

9:04 ↗ want to note you've previously heard

9:06 ↗ public comments and then some have come

9:09 ↗ in via email to you from the time they

9:11 ↗ the packet was published so

9:14 ↗ if you want to discuss any of the public

9:16 ↗ comments we can do that as well

9:19 ↗ thank you Minnie so you're you're in

9:21 ↗ clarifying questions now just on based

9:23 ↗ on the policy question that you just

9:24 ↗ previewed

9:25 ↗ all right are there any clarifying

9:27 ↗ questions

9:28 ↗ commissioner Milligan thank you thank

9:30 ↗ you many uh does it mean that you could

9:33 ↗ only pick one of those of the three

9:36 ↗ options is that what you're what we're

9:38 ↗ no that was our attempt to simplify it

9:40 ↗ for you all you can come up with your

9:42 ↗ own option okay yeah

9:44 ↗ but uh but you could pick two of the

9:47 ↗ three sure yeah okay

9:54 ↗ thank you for the clarifying questions

9:59 ↗ all right

10:00 ↗ now remind me many because uh we're

10:03 ↗ gonna make a lot of motion a lot of

10:05 ↗ commotion tonight but uh do you want us

10:09 ↗ to give you Direction right now or do we

10:10 ↗ want to wait allow the public hearing

10:12 ↗ comments to happen you probably want to

10:14 ↗ allow public hearing yeah the public

10:16 ↗ comments then after you close your

10:18 ↗ public here unless they're clarifying

10:20 ↗ questions or you want to discuss now you

10:22 ↗ can wait till the deliberations

10:29 ↗ okay well we will move on

10:42 ↗ all right Minnie so you're gonna have to

10:44 ↗ help me out I'm phoning a friend are we

10:46 ↗ done with your presentations Are We Now

10:48 ↗ moving into the big presentations uh no

10:51 ↗ the presentation part is over so now you

10:54 ↗ can take public comments on this item

10:56 ↗ tonight

10:57 ↗ right so we're going to take public

10:58 ↗ comments on this item and all the other

11:02 ↗ I'll let Steven explain the order

11:15 ↗ all right well now is the time to start

11:18 ↗ taking clarifying questions for

11:19 ↗ everything you have tonight

11:21 ↗ so I imagine

11:23 ↗ yeah so I imagine now I'm going to get

11:25 ↗ some responses so Now's the Time to

11:27 ↗ start asking questions about everything

11:29 ↗ that was in your agenda packet

11:31 ↗ um

11:32 ↗ please feel free to start raising your

11:35 ↗ hands I have to imagine some people have

11:37 ↗ like questions about some of that

11:46 ↗ enough

11:47 ↗ um

11:49 ↗ yeah tonight's gonna be fun

11:51 ↗ we we'll start with draft code

11:54 ↗ anyhow anybody have any clarifying

11:56 ↗ questions as far as the draft code

12:00 ↗ oh commissioner Lewis please

12:03 ↗ thank you I appreciate this time this

12:05 ↗ evening to talk about Title 18 with our

12:07 ↗ esteemed staff

12:09 ↗ um something we haven't discussed and I

12:11 ↗ want to make sure I'm clear on is a bike

12:14 ↗ code for bike racks we had spent quite a

12:18 ↗ bit of time discussing this

12:20 ↗ um in in our old code when we this

12:23 ↗ commission Put It Forward we've been a

12:26 ↗ big proponent of it through the gaps

12:27 ↗ analysis continued on through draft this

12:30 ↗ current final draft is different than

12:32 ↗ we've seen and this commission has yet

12:34 ↗ to discuss it at all I'm curious why

12:36 ↗ we've landed where we have for instance

12:39 ↗ code that dictated shower usage has been

12:42 ↗ removed we've kept where our bike racks

12:45 ↗ need to be either by at a SECU with

12:48 ↗ where security is or at the front right

12:50 ↗ is there a chance of having a little bit

12:51 ↗ of a discussion about

12:54 ↗ why we've landed where we have on bike

12:56 ↗ racks

12:57 ↗ yes as uh Stephen long range planning

13:00 ↗ manager for the language on the byte

13:02 ↗ code that's in the draft code that was

13:04 ↗ provided to the commission it includes

13:06 ↗ a lot of the suggestions that was

13:08 ↗ received from the planning policy

13:09 ↗ commission as well as the transportation

13:10 ↗ Advisory board and the development

13:12 ↗ Commission on where what should be

13:14 ↗ required when it's required and then

13:17 ↗ there's going to be construction detail

13:18 ↗ and Engineering detail that will be

13:20 ↗ moved into the street standards in terms

13:21 ↗ of like how it gets constructed in place

13:23 ↗ so it's primarily just the policies of

13:25 ↗ where it should go on private

13:26 ↗ development that's in the title 18 code

13:29 ↗ does that help answer your question

13:31 ↗ uh when we go through the other titles

13:33 ↗ and this comes up more specifically will

13:35 ↗ there be an opportunity to maybe amend

13:37 ↗ the language we have now when we have

13:39 ↗ when this commission has the opportunity

13:40 ↗ to kind of dive into a deeper form of it

13:43 ↗ to then be able to make a recommendation

13:45 ↗ to council to go back and maybe tweak

13:46 ↗ that language when we have more concrete

13:48 ↗ things later on

13:51 ↗ the commission could either recommend an

13:53 ↗ amendment to the code tonight as part of

13:56 ↗ the deliberations or they could

13:57 ↗ recommend as part of the letter for city

14:00 ↗ council to consider what the bike

14:01 ↗ standards be changed in a certain way

14:03 ↗ does that give direction for what I'm

14:05 ↗ wondering is that when the bike

14:06 ↗ standards get addressed is it Title IX

14:08 ↗ that will then do it uh title 12.

14:11 ↗ entitled 12 for a street standards yes

14:13 ↗ uh when this commission does that when

14:15 ↗ since title 12 is is on our docket to

14:17 ↗ eventually be going through next I think

14:18 ↗ in to the next two calendar years

14:21 ↗ um that we would then be able to at that

14:23 ↗ time looking at a finer detail then be

14:25 ↗ able to make a recommendation to council

14:27 ↗ to amend maybe the language here once

14:29 ↗ we're diving into it then yes okay thank

14:31 ↗ you

14:35 ↗ foreign

14:36 ↗ thank you commissioner Lewis

14:38 ↗ excellent question get us started

14:40 ↗ there's got to be more questions about

14:42 ↗ our draft code than that

14:51 ↗ commissioner Lewis

14:53 ↗ I would like to put out something juicy

14:56 ↗ and see if we can get anybody to say

14:57 ↗ something else uh staff was so great to

14:59 ↗ give me their time this week about some

15:01 ↗ of the questions one of the things I

15:02 ↗ asked about was regarding I'm a wireless

15:05 ↗ facilities if there's any movement on

15:09 ↗ being able to actually put a scale in

15:11 ↗ for the language that we use diagrams

15:13 ↗ that say what is small cell what is a

15:15 ↗ what we call a small Tower versus a

15:18 ↗ macro Tower

15:19 ↗ from our discussion is there any

15:21 ↗ movement on the wireless facilities

15:23 ↗ being able to be

15:25 ↗ um have a human scale put in

15:29 ↗ is that

15:31 ↗ was that discussed earlier and um

15:34 ↗ in our in our meeting earlier this week

15:36 ↗ off offline um with myself and yourself

15:39 ↗ many and Stephen and Christian I'm

15:41 ↗ curious if they if the addition later on

15:44 ↗ so you're just looking at the graphics

15:46 ↗ to have a human right next to a human

15:48 ↗ scale and we can do that to be able to

15:51 ↗ say what is what do we consider to be

15:52 ↗ small cell small Tower versus macro so

15:56 ↗ one thing that we're going to be looking

15:57 ↗ at with the implementation of the code

15:58 ↗ is being able to describe things that

16:00 ↗ are defined by other entities so for the

16:03 ↗ instance Wireless facilities we would

16:05 ↗ describe on our website what exactly

16:06 ↗ each of those would be rather than

16:08 ↗ defining the code because every time

16:10 ↗ they would change the definitions then

16:12 ↗ we would need a change in the code right

16:13 ↗ so it's easier just to reference how

16:15 ↗ they Define it on their uh resources

16:17 ↗ because right now we have a Graphic that

16:19 ↗ has the human scale of a person in a

16:20 ↗ poll and it seemed like it would be a

16:22 ↗ fitting place for us to also have the

16:23 ↗ human scale of the equipment that we're

16:25 ↗ talking about

16:28 ↗ it would you would come back to if they

16:30 ↗ changed their definitions on what those

16:32 ↗ would be then we would always have to

16:33 ↗ come back to our code to update that

16:35 ↗ Graphics I think Stephen if I understand

16:37 ↗ your question correctly you're just

16:38 ↗ asking for some more clarity on the

16:40 ↗ graphics not changing the definitions or

16:42 ↗ anything just making the graphics more

16:44 ↗ clear so that when you look at it how is

16:46 ↗ it written in relationship to a human

16:48 ↗ yes yeah we can look into that I'm

16:50 ↗ curious I'm cure I'm curious too because

16:52 ↗ it kind of gets to the heart of how how

16:55 ↗ the usability of the code right that's

16:56 ↗ something that we should really we can

16:58 ↗ look at including the graphics and as

16:59 ↗ you guys go through with the tightening

17:01 ↗ and review

17:02 ↗ um if if there is a place to be able to

17:04 ↗ be putting in detail on

17:11 ↗ commissioner Milligan not sure about the

17:14 ↗ right place here thank you chair voice

17:16 ↗ if I have a question about site-specific

17:19 ↗ rezones criteria that didn't get into

17:23 ↗ tonight's documentation yet is that

17:25 ↗ something that could be

17:27 ↗ added to the letter

17:29 ↗ we talked about it but I don't think

17:31 ↗ there's was a change in the criteria

17:33 ↗ site-specific rezones and we don't talk

17:36 ↗ about it in the letter yet

17:37 ↗ a search change sure I mean we we can

17:41 ↗ bring up the criteria when you're doing

17:42 ↗ your deliberation and you can make a

17:44 ↗ motion to amend the criteria and discuss

17:46 ↗ it during your deliberation you can also

17:49 ↗ add it to the letter either one of those

17:50 ↗ will work

17:52 ↗ so I'm sorry which were the two times

17:53 ↗ that you could do it tonight uh when you

17:56 ↗ are deliberating

17:57 ↗ um if you have clarifying questions on

17:58 ↗ the criteria we can bring it up now do

18:01 ↗ you want to discuss no no that's okay I

18:02 ↗ just wondered when when I might make it

18:04 ↗ of the record to address it during your

18:07 ↗ deliberations you can make a motion to

18:08 ↗ add it to the draft code

18:10 ↗ or you can make a motion to add it to

18:13 ↗ the letter okay

18:15 ↗ thanks

18:19 ↗ thank you commissioner million

18:27 ↗ commissioner Lewis I'm going to phrase

18:29 ↗ this in the form of a question since

18:31 ↗ it's question time I had made it

18:33 ↗ outlandish proposal uh that we uh would

18:38 ↗ sit well whatever the high school

18:39 ↗ hypothetical number would be of the I

18:41 ↗ believe nine deviations that we have

18:43 ↗ laid out in our code that we would have

18:45 ↗ an applicant choose a number of

18:47 ↗ deviations that a site permit couldn't

18:50 ↗ have every deviation applied to them it

18:53 ↗ was any thoughts about how the

18:56 ↗ administration received that yeah those

18:57 ↗ you can arbitrarily pick a number like

19:00 ↗ that they're very different things and

19:01 ↗ each one you you would evaluate it on

19:03 ↗ the merits of each one I think the

19:06 ↗ legacy of the aas's was that how many

19:08 ↗ can you apply for that that is no longer

19:11 ↗ the case here you wouldn't apply

19:14 ↗ um you know a deviation for a retaining

19:17 ↗ wall and a deviation for going from one

19:20 ↗ to the other so there's each one has its

19:22 ↗ own specific criteria so on um limiting

19:26 ↗ a maximum number of doesn't we we do not

19:29 ↗ recommend that so I guess I'm curious

19:31 ↗ because it's pretty common in design

19:32 ↗ standards for us to say in the code

19:34 ↗ right now pick two of these pick three

19:36 ↗ of these right these are the things that

19:37 ↗ we want you to have and you need to have

19:39 ↗ this many so in my hypothetical world

19:42 ↗ right I would say with for instance if

19:45 ↗ you want um to have an additional cut

19:47 ↗ for an elevator then you need to modify

19:49 ↗ your site because you're not able to

19:50 ↗ then also use another deviation for

19:52 ↗ instance right you need to modify your

19:55 ↗ plan for the site based on the number of

19:57 ↗ deviations you have so that not all

20:00 ↗ deviations can apply to a single site

20:02 ↗ from a practical standpoint not all of

20:04 ↗ them are going to apply to one project

20:06 ↗ anyways because it's very specific thing

20:08 ↗ that you're looking at but you you

20:11 ↗ either meet that criteria or you don't

20:13 ↗ and that's the evaluation that that is

20:16 ↗ so I think it'll be good conversation

20:18 ↗ for you in or evaluation if if you

20:20 ↗ disagree with any of the deviations and

20:22 ↗ the criteria that can be taken out

20:26 ↗ um but picking a arbitrary number and

20:28 ↗ saying you can only get five out of 10.

20:31 ↗ so the better route to go is to limit

20:33 ↗ the deviations that we all have based on

20:35 ↗ the Merit of what the deviation is for I

20:38 ↗ mean if the deviation to allow the

20:40 ↗ setback between the retaining walls to

20:42 ↗ be less because you're trying to

20:44 ↗ preserve the trees and you disagree that

20:45 ↗ people shouldn't get that deviation

20:47 ↗ everyone should meet the 10 feet and

20:48 ↗ doesn't matter whether you can save the

20:50 ↗ trees or not then you can have that

20:52 ↗ debate or discussion on it thank you

20:54 ↗ very much

20:59 ↗ foreign

21:15 ↗ leave it open here for a little bit make

21:17 ↗ sure everyone has as many clarifying

21:19 ↗ questions as they possibly can before we

21:21 ↗ move on

21:42 ↗ I have a quick question just as far as

21:43 ↗ the definitions is there a reasonvesting

21:45 ↗ isn't a part of the definitions

21:50 ↗ is that found somewhere else

21:53 ↗ um I think some I'm not sure about our

21:57 ↗ definitions piece but

21:59 ↗ um we don't I mean there's a section

22:01 ↗ about investing and what that means but

22:04 ↗ um the the definition you would revert

22:06 ↗ back to a common you know

22:09 ↗ um like a universal term yeah

22:20 ↗ anyone else with any clarifying

22:22 ↗ questions

22:29 ↗ all right well thank you commissioners

22:31 ↗ we will now open the floor for public

22:34 ↗ comments for the public hearing

22:37 ↗ we do have a few things to stipulate so

22:40 ↗ to all of those who would like to speak

22:42 ↗ tonight you can speak in person or

22:44 ↗ virtually we do ask that you speak

22:46 ↗ clearly and pause frequently that you

22:48 ↗ state your name each time before you

22:49 ↗ speak

22:50 ↗ and if you are attending virtually by

22:52 ↗ computer or by phone and would like to

22:54 ↗ speak during this time in addition to

22:57 ↗ the above please mute your microphone

22:58 ↗ when you're not speaking and if you're

23:00 ↗ having any technical issues

23:01 ↗ try joining the meeting using a

23:03 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

23:05 ↗ tablet you can use the call-in

23:06 ↗ information in the meeting invite to

23:08 ↗ call in

23:10 ↗ this is a very serious part of our

23:12 ↗ meeting and our decision making process

23:14 ↗ so we do take them seriously we do

23:16 ↗ Factor them in and they will be factored

23:17 ↗ into

23:18 ↗ and as it has been the last year and a

23:21 ↗ half

23:22 ↗ they can be anything as far as Title 18

23:25 ↗ the shoreline master program

23:28 ↗ but now is the time to get your comments

23:31 ↗ on the record

23:33 ↗ having said that we do ask that you keep

23:35 ↗ them to five minutes or less

23:37 ↗ so Jared do we have people who would

23:39 ↗ like to speak during the public hearing

23:42 ↗ we do have a few people who would like

23:44 ↗ to speak tonight I will open up the

23:45 ↗ floor to the gentleman who is here

23:48 ↗ thank you

23:52 ↗ thank you

23:53 ↗ good evening Commissioners I've been

23:56 ↗ here a few times now thank you again for

23:58 ↗ listening to me uh I may have to leave

24:00 ↗ before the meeting's over I deal

24:02 ↗ globally so I've got some meetings for

24:04 ↗ India that I've got to go attend to so

24:05 ↗ if I can't stay the whole time uh we'll

24:07 ↗ see uh how long I'm here for but you'll

24:10 ↗ understand why I'm saying I'm going to

24:12 ↗ be here because this has to do with the

24:13 ↗ motion so we have talked about the size

24:16 ↗ of an Adu unit which is I'm here to

24:18 ↗ speak about tonight and understand the

24:20 ↗ process a little bit better this has

24:23 ↗ been out in front of the public

24:24 ↗ massively through this process in the

24:26 ↗ sense as far back as April and May of

24:28 ↗ last year and then I've been here a few

24:31 ↗ times bringing it up too so definitely

24:33 ↗ the public is certain have been here

24:36 ↗ uh this is this is for the entire

24:39 ↗ population of Issaquah in that something

24:41 ↗ that's very important to families that

24:43 ↗ live in Issaquah is that people are able

24:46 ↗ to potentially remain in their

24:48 ↗ properties that they have by having an

24:49 ↗ Adu unit and so this is a small item in

24:53 ↗ the sense of what we've brought up here

24:55 ↗ um and for a variety of reasons this is

24:58 ↗ brought to to the group here to the

25:00 ↗ commissioner here instead of this was

25:01 ↗ included in the draft we don't have time

25:03 ↗ to go through that now but that's fine

25:05 ↗ as long as the commission you know puts

25:07 ↗ it in the draft and then it can be

25:09 ↗ looked at further before it's a hundred

25:11 ↗ percent done so I'm here to ask for this

25:14 ↗ to be put in the draft and we've we've

25:16 ↗ talked about this a little before we did

25:18 ↗ say this is a small item in that the way

25:20 ↗ that I brought it up is an extra 200

25:23 ↗ square feet on the Adu unit at a one to

25:26 ↗ ten ratio meaning we understand there

25:29 ↗ are sizes uh for Adu units right now and

25:33 ↗ as I said two weeks ago when I was here

25:35 ↗ at six thousand nine thousand thirty

25:38 ↗ five thousand five acres are the sizes

25:40 ↗ uh in the zoning of the property within

25:43 ↗ Issaquah that you can put an Adu unit on

25:46 ↗ and so we are saying that in what I

25:50 ↗ proposed two weeks ago was a just 200

25:52 ↗ square feet more would be a lot for

25:55 ↗ citizens of of Issaquah to be able to

25:58 ↗ remain in their property with an Adu

26:01 ↗ unit and we had a lot of experience in

26:03 ↗ this and building I have a building

26:04 ↗ background also in that 200 extra square

26:06 ↗ feet makes a big difference when you're

26:09 ↗ talking about uh at minimum a couple

26:11 ↗ staying in their home where they have to

26:13 ↗ have separate rooms and 24-hour nursing

26:16 ↗ care and in something that they were

26:17 ↗ that's one example now there are other

26:19 ↗ examples too but that's probably the one

26:21 ↗ that's you know maybe a big part of that

26:23 ↗ as to why that extra 200 square feet and

26:26 ↗ we feel that that's very uh working with

26:30 ↗ the the city and what the citizens are

26:32 ↗ really looking for when you realize that

26:34 ↗ on the small size you know the lot six

26:36 ↗ or nine thousand square feet that you're

26:37 ↗ saying that you know they have to have

26:39 ↗ more square feet in the lot because

26:40 ↗ clearly there's a thought of how big

26:42 ↗ should an Adu unit be on a piece of

26:45 ↗ property that's x amount of square feet

26:47 ↗ and that's why we said you know the that

26:49 ↗ someone would have to have a larger lot

26:51 ↗ in order to be able to add that 200 you

26:53 ↗ know just the 200 square feet more so

26:55 ↗ that's a big part of what was put on the

26:58 ↗ record and asking you to add to the to

27:01 ↗ the draft to be put in there it's not

27:03 ↗ just adding 200 square feet it's adding

27:05 ↗ 200 square feet at a minimum one to ten

27:08 ↗ ratio that you have to have a bigger lot

27:10 ↗ if you had the the bigger if you wanted

27:12 ↗ to add that 200 square feet so that all

27:15 ↗ families in Issaquah that want to do

27:16 ↗ this could remain in their property to

27:18 ↗ remain on their property that's the

27:20 ↗ biggest part so from what I understand

27:22 ↗ and on the record here this is 18 5 14.

27:26 ↗ and if I have something wrong then the

27:29 ↗ the staff over here can correct that so

27:31 ↗ when I think you're going to get to that

27:33 ↗ when you do motions so I'm here to see

27:35 ↗ if any of the Commissioners have any

27:37 ↗ questions or thought about that with my

27:38 ↗ experience and stuff behind that and I

27:40 ↗ am asking for someone to make a motion I

27:44 ↗ understand someone has to second the

27:46 ↗ motion and then I understand you have to

27:48 ↗ vote on it and then it could be simply

27:51 ↗ added to the draft and that doesn't mean

27:53 ↗ it's it's done I mean like I said that

27:55 ↗ we kind of wanted this in the draft to

27:57 ↗ begin with but for a variety of reasons

27:58 ↗ that didn't happen but clearly none of

28:00 ↗ this is done until you know obviously

28:01 ↗ the city council looks at it and

28:04 ↗ certainly there's more time for other

28:05 ↗ public comments if there was something

28:08 ↗ that is wrong with that and certainly

28:10 ↗ open if if the Commissioners with all

28:12 ↗ your experience has some things that you

28:15 ↗ thought it should be I mean we've just

28:16 ↗ brought this to you and your expertise

28:18 ↗ on saying a one to ten ratio a larger

28:21 ↗ lot if you wanted the extra 200 square

28:23 ↗ feet so remaining minute did any

28:25 ↗ Commissioners have any questions or

28:27 ↗ anything about what we're asking for or

28:29 ↗ what we're saying

28:34 ↗ I see lots of smiles

28:37 ↗ all right thank you for your time thank

28:39 ↗ you very much for your time excuse me

28:40 ↗ sir please state your name for the

28:41 ↗ record uh my name is Brooke Perfect full

28:43 ↗ name uh Brookline perfect

28:46 ↗ thank you

28:51 ↗ all right Jared I think that takes it

28:52 ↗ for our in-house crowd

28:54 ↗ how about our virtual crowd so for our

28:57 ↗ virtual crowd I will be opening up or I

28:59 ↗ will bring up Karen Espy Karen I am

29:02 ↗ about to make you a panelist you should

29:04 ↗ see the function to unmute and you can

29:07 ↗ display your video if you would like to

29:09 ↗ you have five minutes

29:15 ↗ whoops

29:16 ↗ I think I can start my video oh

29:19 ↗ I think it's working uh can you hear me

29:22 ↗ we can

29:24 ↗ great okay uh good evening Commissioners

29:26 ↗ my name is Karen eastby and I'm the king

29:28 ↗ County Manager At The Master Builders

29:30 ↗ Association I want to thank you for the

29:32 ↗ opportunity to work with study staff in

29:34 ↗ the planning policy Commission on these

29:36 ↗ substantial changes to title 18. we

29:39 ↗ appreciate the engagement throughout the

29:40 ↗ update process and for your

29:42 ↗ responsiveness and transparency while

29:44 ↗ preparing these draft changes we

29:46 ↗ specifically want to thank you for

29:48 ↗ several positive updates including

29:50 ↗ changing the short plot threshold from

29:52 ↗ 49 units introducing a process for unit

29:54 ↗ watt subdivision to help facilitate a

29:57 ↗ simple home ownership opportunities and

29:59 ↗ the administrative approval of final

30:01 ↗ thoughts

30:02 ↗ we do however still have some concern to

30:04 ↗ which we have outlined in previous

30:05 ↗ comments to the city we will continue

30:07 ↗ working with our home builders and the

30:09 ↗ city to provide more in-depth feedback

30:11 ↗ as the updates proceed

30:13 ↗ tonight I just wanted to highlight

30:15 ↗ quickly a specific concern regarding the

30:17 ↗ potential impacts of the vesting section

30:19 ↗ in chapter two the feedback I'm

30:21 ↗ receiving from my members is that site

30:23 ↗ development permits should be allowed to

30:25 ↗ best Builders take on substantial risk

30:27 ↗ in Building Homes investing at the site

30:30 ↗ development permit stage provides

30:32 ↗ predictability and certainty and sets

30:34 ↗ expectations for the city and home

30:36 ↗ builders about what code they need to

30:37 ↗ adhere to without this change some

30:40 ↗ projects that would have vested and gone

30:42 ↗ forward to construction will become

30:44 ↗ infeasible or more expensive due to the

30:47 ↗ higher Financial instability and cost

30:49 ↗ associated with changing code during the

30:51 ↗ permitting process

30:53 ↗ we're in a housing crisis we desperately

30:56 ↗ need more homes for more people and it's

30:58 ↗ vital that Issaquah allows for certainty

31:01 ↗ and predictability in the home building

31:02 ↗ process Mbox urges the PPC to provide

31:06 ↗ for vesting the site development permit

31:08 ↗ stage so thank you again for your work

31:10 ↗ on these changes we look forward to

31:12 ↗ continuing to work with the city on this

31:14 ↗ code update and on other housing related

31:16 ↗ issues thank you for your time

31:19 ↗ foreign

31:26 ↗ next we have Kim Lee Kim Lee I am going

31:30 ↗ to make you a panelist

31:32 ↗ you should see the option to unmute and

31:35 ↗ you have the option to show your video

31:36 ↗ as well and you will have five minutes

31:43 ↗ hi everybody

31:45 ↗ you can hear me okay

31:48 ↗ yes we can okay great

31:51 ↗ hi my name is Kim Lee director of real

31:54 ↗ estate development at Lakeside

31:56 ↗ Industries and also an Issaquah resident

31:59 ↗ I I also wanted to thank you guys

32:02 ↗ um and and make a point uh of mentioning

32:05 ↗ that our appreciation for both staff and

32:08 ↗ Commissioners for your attention to our

32:10 ↗ Title 18 concerns

32:12 ↗ um since last week we've had a number of

32:14 ↗ meetings with staff

32:16 ↗ um and feel

32:17 ↗ really confident that we'll be able to

32:19 ↗ reach a resolution that's mutually

32:21 ↗ acceptable that protects our aquifer and

32:24 ↗ allows us to continue to operate in the

32:26 ↗ City of Issaquah

32:28 ↗ um and and we trust that we'll see those

32:30 ↗ those that updated language in the next

32:33 ↗ Consolidated draft so thank you for that

32:36 ↗ um we also submitted some comments ahead

32:39 ↗ of the meeting tonight pertaining to

32:41 ↗ transfer to development rights or tdrs

32:45 ↗ so we Lakeside are in full support of a

32:48 ↗ TDR revamp not just because we're a

32:51 ↗ built-in buyer to realize our vibrant

32:54 ↗ new Urban Village project but also

32:57 ↗ because the program will make

32:58 ↗ significant progress in advancing the

33:00 ↗ city's open space preservation goals so

33:03 ↗ we believe it's it's an all-around good

33:06 ↗ move and and are here as a resource to

33:09 ↗ help collaborate and move that process

33:12 ↗ forward forward this TDR section in the

33:16 ↗ in the title 18 code is one part of the

33:19 ↗ overall puzzle

33:21 ↗ um

33:22 ↗ so and I also uh didn't mention this in

33:25 ↗ this week's letter but also wanted to

33:27 ↗ highlight uh Corinne's comments about

33:30 ↗ vesting and we we agree uh and I believe

33:34 ↗ we've made previous comments that site

33:36 ↗ development permits uh should also be a

33:39 ↗ mechanism for investing uh that's that's

33:41 ↗ very important for large-scale projects

33:44 ↗ waiting until building permits submittal

33:47 ↗ to vest uh is you you've heard the same

33:50 ↗ thing it's extremely expensive extremely

33:52 ↗ risky

33:54 ↗ um and it's a big deal and it's also not

33:56 ↗ consistent with other jurisdictions so

33:58 ↗ um thanks again for the collaboration

34:00 ↗ and we look forward to continue working

34:01 ↗ with you guys

34:10 ↗ perfect next up we have Connie Marsh

34:13 ↗ Connie you will have five minutes you

34:15 ↗ may turn on your video if you'd like and

34:17 ↗ you should now see the option to unmute

34:21 ↗ go ahead

34:26 ↗ hi Connie Marsh

34:28 ↗ um

34:29 ↗ winding up huh people

34:32 ↗ so I'm going to start with I read the

34:37 ↗ draft comment letter to send to council

34:40 ↗ and I must say I did not experience

34:43 ↗ these months and months and seemingly

34:45 ↗ years of meetings as reflected in the

34:48 ↗ tone of that letter I thought it was way

34:51 ↗ harder work and you all dug in and did a

34:54 ↗ much more in-depth job than was

34:57 ↗ reflected in that letter it's sort of

35:00 ↗ gritty and that letter has a tone of

35:03 ↗ sweetness and like like it was Happy

35:05 ↗ Happy Joy Joy the whole time and I don't

35:07 ↗ think that that would have been a

35:09 ↗ thoughtful process so I would like to

35:10 ↗ have a more realistic tone in that

35:12 ↗ letter uh but anyway that is sort of a

35:15 ↗ Fluff on top of the cake so the topic of

35:20 ↗ things that we're missing I listened to

35:23 ↗ you all say that you would like to see

35:25 ↗ that uh this some sort of scaling for

35:28 ↗ housing Targets in the site-specific

35:31 ↗ rezones is one of the criteria and that

35:34 ↗ did not get changed in the list of

35:37 ↗ changes and I thought that that was a

35:39 ↗ particularly important thing and I

35:41 ↗ didn't want that to drop off the face of

35:43 ↗ the Earth

35:44 ↗ environmental board last night had a

35:46 ↗ meeting I think you should have gotten a

35:49 ↗ letter from them this morning they told

35:51 ↗ us that was going to happen

35:53 ↗ and one of the things that was said at

35:55 ↗ that meeting is that the level one

35:59 ↗ review for technical documents was

36:03 ↗ only technical documents that were stand

36:06 ↗ alone and that

36:09 ↗ other things that are level two level

36:11 ↗ three or level four whatever reviews

36:14 ↗ would go to be noticed and have a

36:18 ↗ community meeting I don't think that's

36:20 ↗ clear and I don't think when you all

36:23 ↗ talked about that last time that that

36:26 ↗ was clear to you so I would like to have

36:29 ↗ that be explicitly clear so people going

36:33 ↗ through it will know me I vote for some

36:37 ↗ things level one but if they're a larger

36:40 ↗ impact to a critical area or a big

36:42 ↗ technical review document it should be

36:45 ↗ level two so it might even be that it

36:47 ↗ requires a bump up from level one I

36:50 ↗ don't know but I can say it's not clear

36:51 ↗ now environmental board felt the same

36:54 ↗ way they were satisfied with Minnie's

36:56 ↗ explanation but that explanation is not

36:59 ↗ what was told to you all at that point

37:02 ↗ so

37:04 ↗ um I want to talk about deviations for

37:08 ↗ retaining walls now one of the things

37:10 ↗ that's been happening with retaining

37:12 ↗ walls is people talk about oh we don't

37:15 ↗ want retaining walls chasing up a hill

37:17 ↗ and then they build a taller retaining

37:19 ↗ wall and they have to take down all

37:21 ↗ those trees to accommodate the structure

37:23 ↗ of the taller retaining wall so you

37:25 ↗ don't really get more trees so I don't

37:29 ↗ remember what kind of a study is

37:31 ↗ required or what proof the department

37:34 ↗ needs to provide to say that you're

37:37 ↗ going to be taking out fewer trees

37:41 ↗ um with a single taller retaining wall

37:45 ↗ is a deviation so if it's not there I

37:49 ↗ would ask that that they have to prove

37:52 ↗ the net gain and I don't think it's

37:54 ↗ there so last night at the meeting I we

37:59 ↗ were told that there is going to be a

38:01 ↗ different draft with all the inclusions

38:03 ↗ and changes going to city council and I

38:08 ↗ did not really know that that was going

38:09 ↗ to happen and so I would also like

38:12 ↗ clarification for what city what product

38:15 ↗ the city council is going to get now you

38:18 ↗ guys are done so you don't even have to

38:19 ↗ read you can Scamper the other direction

38:21 ↗ but for someone like me I need to know

38:24 ↗ if I need to spend another you know

38:26 ↗ pencil out another week to know what's

38:28 ↗ going on so I can make more comments and

38:32 ↗ last of all I want to say that I so

38:34 ↗ appreciate the work that you all have

38:36 ↗ done and the conversations that you've

38:38 ↗ had and that you have actually dived

38:41 ↗ into this language and really done an

38:44 ↗ excellent job for the community and so I

38:47 ↗ know that usually I'm harsh but I just

38:50 ↗ want to tell you all today awesome job

38:53 ↗ and I do appreciate you but I will wind

38:55 ↗ some more to another day thank you

39:01 ↗ perfect next we have two more

39:04 ↗ individuals one is Steve perea please

39:09 ↗ correct me if I misspell your name

39:11 ↗ um I am now making you a panelist please

39:14 ↗ um unmute your mic and begin whenever

39:17 ↗ you're ready thank you

39:23 ↗ hi this is Steve Pereira can you hear me

39:25 ↗ okay we can

39:27 ↗ cool so I had a couple thoughts I wanted

39:30 ↗ to share first I'll start with of course

39:31 ↗ thank you all for your time and

39:33 ↗ dedication to making our city a better

39:35 ↗ place it's appreciated a couple thoughts

39:38 ↗ off the top of my head uh and they're

39:39 ↗ not in a particular order uh and they're

39:42 ↗ not going to be as

39:44 ↗ specific as I or phrased as best as I

39:48 ↗ would like

39:49 ↗ the first I think is that I think there

39:52 ↗ was a list of night items that were

39:54 ↗ considered one of them included the word

39:57 ↗ environment and I would like to see that

39:59 ↗ strengthened to talk about the natural

40:00 ↗ environment specifically rather than

40:03 ↗ because environment is kind of broad it

40:04 ↗ could be any number of things uh second

40:07 ↗ was whether or not

40:10 ↗ there was a review that homeowners would

40:12 ↗ have to do to see the environmental

40:15 ↗ impact to their changes

40:18 ↗ and I would like to see that required

40:22 ↗ because otherwise it seems to me I heard

40:24 ↗ director Dolly wall and I'm not trying

40:26 ↗ to put words in her mouth state that it

40:28 ↗ would be up to the city to have to

40:30 ↗ understand what those changes and codes

40:31 ↗ were

40:32 ↗ and policy and enforcements basically

40:34 ↗ Shifting the cost from the homeowner who

40:37 ↗ wants to make changes

40:40 ↗ to the cost for the city to understand

40:42 ↗ what those were and that seems

40:43 ↗ inappropriate for the city who's

40:45 ↗ struggling with its own budget needs to

40:48 ↗ have to pay for increased notification

40:51 ↗ or changes uh

40:55 ↗ third thing was

40:59 ↗ the

41:01 ↗ the threshold for

41:04 ↗ not requiring super regulations increase

41:07 ↗ into I think up to nine units or ten

41:10 ↗ units or ten thousand square feet I

41:12 ↗ think I would like to see

41:14 ↗ I I find myself opposed to that I would

41:16 ↗ like to see what benefits strategically

41:19 ↗ or historically we've gotten

41:21 ↗ from

41:23 ↗ having super required and what benefits

41:25 ↗ would we try to retain we would not get

41:28 ↗ or have happen with those changes going

41:30 ↗ forward

41:31 ↗ uh before I would look at having that

41:33 ↗ moved forward

41:34 ↗ I think at the same time we're trying to

41:36 ↗ protect the environment

41:38 ↗ and pay for Mitigation Of efforts

41:41 ↗ we're losing things that we should be

41:44 ↗ enforcing by our regulation that we

41:47 ↗ can't afford to pay to have happen by

41:49 ↗ loosening those regulations

41:50 ↗ uh next stop was mitigation and I think

41:54 ↗ there just didn't need to be a title

41:56 ↗ enforcement mechanism

41:57 ↗ where we don't allow mitigation or

42:00 ↗ degradation of critical areas or

42:02 ↗ uh critical habitats to repairing

42:05 ↗ corridors or anything and where there is

42:09 ↗ these bright lines that for some reason

42:11 ↗ it needs to be more clearer other than

42:14 ↗ financial cost to the development

42:18 ↗ when those are linear there's some

42:20 ↗ better public good that's put forward

42:24 ↗ and the mitigation is something more

42:26 ↗ strenuous or costly than just for

42:28 ↗ example

42:29 ↗ the removal of evasive plants or species

42:34 ↗ from an area there needs to be something

42:36 ↗ long term that the public benefits or

42:39 ↗ get some public good from

42:43 ↗ I think that's going to do it for me

42:45 ↗ again thank you for your time

42:49 ↗ awesome thank you Steve

42:54 ↗ we do have one last call-in user

42:58 ↗ um Elizabeth Maupin I am about to unmute

43:02 ↗ your call-in so please ready and you

43:05 ↗ will have five minutes to make public

43:06 ↗ comment

43:07 ↗ and you are unmuted

43:10 ↗ hello my name is Elizabeth

43:12 ↗ can you hear me we can

43:16 ↗ all right

43:18 ↗ um I live at 100 Big Bear place in

43:21 ↗ Issaquah

43:22 ↗ I have a couple of comments and

43:25 ↗ questions one is that we are desperately

43:29 ↗ short on housing that is Affordable and

43:33 ↗ now that modular

43:36 ↗ manufactured housing has become much

43:39 ↗ better than it was

43:41 ↗ what Provisions are there for adding

43:45 ↗ that are we making any provision for

43:49 ↗ people who are living in mobile homes

43:52 ↗ and I have noticed

43:55 ↗ in the past that when you're when

43:59 ↗ something is happening with a property

44:01 ↗ change in zone or it's going to be uh

44:05 ↗ torn down or whatever uh that the signs

44:09 ↗ are parallel to the road and sometimes

44:12 ↗ these are on roads where there's fast

44:16 ↗ traffic and uh no place to pull over no

44:22 ↗ sidewalk so no one can read those signs

44:27 ↗ they have to risk standing in a culvert

44:31 ↗ or

44:32 ↗ on a steep Hillside trying to read that

44:35 ↗ sign and no real easy access to get

44:39 ↗ there so that doesn't help the public to

44:42 ↗ make any comments because they don't

44:45 ↗ know what's going on

44:47 ↗ if you'd like to respond to any of those

44:49 ↗ please

44:57 ↗ I think that's

44:59 ↗ mostly it I would like to see a plan

45:03 ↗ that makes it possible not just in the

45:07 ↗ central growth area but

45:10 ↗ across the region for us to have more

45:14 ↗ housing that people can actually afford

45:17 ↗ thank you

45:19 ↗ awesome thank you Elizabeth

45:24 ↗ that is it for all our public comment

45:26 ↗ tonight

45:27 ↗ an excellent both thank you Jared and

45:29 ↗ thank you for everybody I chose to speak

45:32 ↗ this evening as well as everyone who has

45:34 ↗ been writing us emails and writing staff

45:36 ↗ emails as well that we've all been

45:37 ↗ receiving

45:39 ↗ um

45:39 ↗ throughout this entire process but also

45:41 ↗ in particular this last week

45:45 ↗ if there is no one else left to speak

45:47 ↗ which Jared has just mentioned we will

45:50 ↗ close the public hearing at 7 16 pm

45:56 ↗ Commissioners for deliberations we're

45:58 ↗ going to go through seven several

46:00 ↗ motions tonight

46:01 ↗ so this it's going to be a it's going to

46:05 ↗ be interesting it's going to be fun it's

46:06 ↗ we're going to get through this it's

46:09 ↗ going to change slightly when we get to

46:11 ↗ the letter so there's going to be a

46:13 ↗ discrepancy but we've got phenomenal

46:15 ↗ staff who's going to guide us through

46:17 ↗ this process

46:18 ↗ but we do I do ask that when you please

46:22 ↗ remember when emotion is made a second

46:24 ↗ is required even to begin discussion if

46:28 ↗ nobody makes a second that motion fails

46:31 ↗ it does not carry forward

46:34 ↗ this is a part of our commission's rules

46:36 ↗ and regulations

46:38 ↗ so I believe we're going to begin the

46:41 ↗ sequence of motions will go as follows

46:43 ↗ first we will have a motion on the

46:45 ↗ recent policy changes we've discussed

46:47 ↗ these last two meetings

46:49 ↗ next we'll have a motion on the

46:51 ↗ shoreline master program

46:54 ↗ after that we'll have a motion on the

46:57 ↗ complete draft of title 18.

47:00 ↗ and then we're going to end tonight's

47:02 ↗ meeting

47:03 ↗ making a motion approving

47:06 ↗ or amending however we have it the

47:09 ↗ letter to city council through so

47:11 ↗ there's four parts of tonight's evening

47:13 ↗ stay with me so we're going to start

47:17 ↗ with motion on the policy questions

47:22 ↗ and I believe that's that's basically

47:24 ↗ where we're starting right Stephen and

47:25 ↗ there's a little bit more here I don't

47:27 ↗ know if that comes after we want to

47:29 ↗ start

47:34 ↗ okay

47:37 ↗ do the Commissioners do any of the

47:39 ↗ Commissioners up here feel like any item

47:41 ↗ needs additional discussion

47:44 ↗ if so we can pull that item out as a

47:47 ↗ separate motion

47:50 ↗ yes this is where it's gonna get a

47:51 ↗ little sticky but this is the policy

47:53 ↗ question just

47:59 ↗ I'm reading that right correct okay

48:04 ↗ okay because

48:07 ↗ commissioner Milligan is there a slide

48:09 ↗ or something that tells us what these

48:11 ↗ policy questions were how how do we

48:12 ↗ follow the bouncing ball here

48:15 ↗ yes I believe it looks like we do some

48:18 ↗ figures

48:19 ↗ there's one policy question yeah

48:25 ↗ so is the request to pull up the policy

48:27 ↗ questions all of them

48:33 ↗ right

48:34 ↗ okay

48:36 ↗ I think we're going back to the the last

48:39 ↗ one right

48:42 ↗ so I think we had discussion on all the

48:45 ↗ policy questions in the past and you all

48:48 ↗ took informal vote so

48:51 ↗ here's the list of the questions the six

48:54 ↗ and then these are the other five that

48:57 ↗ you all weighed on

48:59 ↗ so you could make a motion on

49:03 ↗ all of the ones and then the critical

49:05 ↗ area one is the one that you asked us to

49:07 ↗ come back with

49:08 ↗ so a couple ways to do it is to make a

49:12 ↗ motion

49:13 ↗ to approve all the ones except the

49:16 ↗ critical area that you want to

49:17 ↗ separately weigh in on or if there's any

49:20 ↗ other one from this list that you want

49:22 ↗ to have a separate motion on

49:28 ↗ so is there a draft motion language that

49:31 ↗ may help with that commissioner Lewis

49:34 ↗ thank you uh share with your humorous I

49:38 ↗ will tell you that I believe what we

49:39 ↗ should do is to make a motion on this if

49:41 ↗ if seconded that can then open debate

49:43 ↗ and allow someone to say hey I'd like to

49:45 ↗ change this rather than us going in

49:47 ↗ individually through this with a chair

49:49 ↗ like it all right I'd like to motion

49:51 ↗ that this uh the planning policy

49:53 ↗ commission consider adopting the policy

49:56 ↗ questions that are in front of us this

49:57 ↗ evening

49:59 ↗ second

50:01 ↗ now open it up for deliberation

50:07 ↗ commissioner Lewis

50:09 ↗ thank you I want to specifically talk to

50:11 ↗ my fellow um

50:13 ↗ Commissioners tonight about the steep

50:14 ↗ slope buffers option we've we've talked

50:16 ↗ about it a few times in this in this

50:18 ↗ space and right now the commission

50:21 ↗ settled on option one which to me is

50:23 ↗ effectively doing business as usual it

50:26 ↗ aligns to our old code and we were

50:29 ↗ presented with four different options

50:32 ↗ and before the informal vote of the last

50:35 ↗ meeting there had been discussions that

50:37 ↗ some people were for a variety of other

50:39 ↗ things and I would love to see if there

50:42 ↗ is still a consensus on the first in my

50:45 ↗ opinion I think we've presented as a

50:47 ↗ commission that we are divided on the

50:50 ↗ technical review that's presented to us

50:52 ↗ for the geological standards for the

50:53 ↗ steep slopes and it would be fair to say

50:55 ↗ that with we've had several different

50:59 ↗ opinions because we don't feel that we

51:01 ↗ have adequate information to properly

51:03 ↗ make an advisement on this issue

51:11 ↗ commissioner altimore

51:15 ↗ so I am still in support of uh number

51:18 ↗ one looking at those other options I

51:21 ↗ think they brought unnecessary

51:22 ↗ technicality when there is a Geotech

51:25 ↗ study that's done and the expert

51:26 ↗ recommendations will come part of that

51:28 ↗ that buffer that is needed and the only

51:30 ↗ thing they can get is that 10 feet and

51:33 ↗ so I'm still in support of number one

51:35 ↗ based on the presentations as they were

51:37 ↗ made

51:38 ↗ thank you commissioner altmore

51:40 ↗ commissioner Milligan

51:42 ↗ no I'll have uncanny memories I do not

51:45 ↗ have these documents before me because I

51:48 ↗ didn't know I was going back in time so

51:51 ↗ to remember that I was for the first one

51:53 ↗ or the second or third

51:55 ↗ can't even remember

51:58 ↗ just saying

52:01 ↗ unsatisfactory though so I'm listening

52:03 ↗ to commissioner Lewis and what she has

52:05 ↗ to say excellent thank you

52:12 ↗ commissioner SM muede

52:14 ↗ yes I remember

52:16 ↗ that particular that particular

52:19 ↗ policy question a little bit as well I'm

52:23 ↗ actually still for that option one

52:26 ↗ um I know it's somewhat business as

52:28 ↗ usual but we still have the protection

52:30 ↗ to be able to have that geotechnical

52:32 ↗ study if they want to be moved beyond

52:35 ↗ that buffer to get to 10 feet so I'm

52:38 ↗ still for that

52:40 ↗ thank you commissioner

52:46 ↗ I'll go on the record I'm still for

52:48 ↗ option one as well

52:51 ↗ sure Patterson

52:53 ↗ I am also still for option one I am now

52:55 ↗ recalling that uh discussion as well

52:58 ↗ um I also brought the idea of

53:00 ↗ potentially exploring option for a few

53:02 ↗ meetings back but was reassured that

53:04 ↗ while these are granted uh they are only

53:08 ↗ being granted when passing a review so

53:11 ↗ it's not that they're just kind of uh

53:13 ↗ you know checking the box they're

53:14 ↗ actually getting the full-on review

53:17 ↗ um and therefore I feel like it's a

53:18 ↗ reasonable code

53:24 ↗ all right

53:25 ↗ um I believe now we can vote

53:30 ↗ we found in a friend all night I believe

53:32 ↗ now we can vote so for our

53:35 ↗ um tonight for the recorder who's

53:37 ↗ recording the minutes

53:39 ↗ commissioner Lewis prior to a vote chair

53:41 ↗ I would recommend that we discuss the

53:43 ↗ final policy question that we haven't

53:44 ↗ answered from that list on the motion

53:51 ↗ okay

53:53 ↗ so we have the critical areas policy

53:55 ↗ question

53:56 ↗ I'll start with started by saying I

53:59 ↗ thought it was an interesting

53:59 ↗ recommendation that we combination the

54:02 ↗ three things that were put in front to

54:04 ↗ of us so um just to get discussion

54:06 ↗ started I would say what if we propose a

54:08 ↗ number one and a number three which says

54:10 ↗ that um if you are not in your critical

54:13 ↗ area buffer you are able to do work on

54:16 ↗ what is currently impervious surface and

54:18 ↗ you were able to do work with a proper

54:21 ↗ study

54:30 ↗ commissioner Amelia is that option five

54:34 ↗ what is that say it again

54:38 ↗ and it's a different it's an additional

54:40 ↗ option or it's an amendment to one of

54:42 ↗ them so many if you want to put up the

54:43 ↗ slide staff had proposed two that wasn't

54:46 ↗ resolved last meeting this meeting we've

54:49 ↗ gotten a third option

54:50 ↗ um and nine of you so

54:52 ↗ um lovely asked staff are we able to

54:54 ↗ combo this and they said sure and so

54:58 ↗ just uh to have our popcorn with extra

55:00 ↗ butter I'm curious what I'm putting out

55:02 ↗ for one one and three as possibilities

55:07 ↗ thank you commissioner altmore

55:09 ↗ does three refer to an existing study

55:12 ↗ that hadn't passed that five-year

55:14 ↗ expiration or is this a new study

55:19 ↗ okay

55:22 ↗ yeah director

55:26 ↗ I was trying to open up the slide and

55:28 ↗ it's not letting me share so let me try

55:30 ↗ one more time

55:34 ↗ a little different way

55:49 ↗ I'm losing comes out of the black school

55:52 ↗ you want to shoot okay

55:58 ↗ foreign

56:17 ↗ options

56:19 ↗ yeah okay yes so my question is in

56:22 ↗ option three is that a prior study that

56:26 ↗ hasn't passed the five-year expiration a

56:28 ↗ new study or a combo of both

56:30 ↗ it would be a um it could be if if it's

56:34 ↗ still valid because it's less than five

56:36 ↗ years we would accept it but if it is

56:39 ↗ past five years that would require a new

56:41 ↗ critical areas study

56:45 ↗ I don't know what the average is but I'm

56:47 ↗ guessing that if they're looking to

56:49 ↗ expand these are probably going to be

56:51 ↗ older homes

56:53 ↗ um that'd be my guess yeah so

56:55 ↗ practically I don't think people will

56:57 ↗ have a an older study handy you know

57:00 ↗ it'll be in Practical means it'll be a

57:03 ↗ newer study that they'll have to

57:04 ↗ undertake

57:07 ↗ commissioner simulated

57:09 ↗ with that new critical area study for

57:13 ↗ the expansion

57:15 ↗ outside the impervious area

57:19 ↗ look at

57:22 ↗ the effects from just that individual

57:25 ↗ house or from a certain like an area

57:30 ↗ like I guess you could say like a

57:32 ↗ drainage area per se and because I feel

57:36 ↗ that or I believe that if

57:38 ↗ we would allow something like that for

57:41 ↗ one house let's just say what's to say

57:44 ↗ that the house next to it and the house

57:46 ↗ next to that do the same thing and

57:49 ↗ possibly change

57:51 ↗ pervious area to impervious per se that

57:55 ↗ may actually affect that on the stream

57:58 ↗ that we're trying to protect from just

58:00 ↗ the drainage

58:02 ↗ sure yeah as you consider this you

58:04 ↗ should take that into consideration that

58:06 ↗ it's cumulative it's not just one

58:08 ↗ individual homeowner they could be a few

58:10 ↗ you know or a lot of homeowners that

58:12 ↗ would then could potentially come in for

58:14 ↗ this 500 square foot additions to their

58:17 ↗ homes making cumulatively the impervious

58:20 ↗ surface larger along a critical area

58:24 ↗ the mitigation at one to one ratio as

58:27 ↗ opposed to you know offset some of that

58:29 ↗ so if there's blackberries along the

58:33 ↗ Wetland or a stream that the the idea is

58:36 ↗ that even if you're allowing homeowners

58:39 ↗ to expand this one 500 up to 500 feet

58:43 ↗ that they are some gain to the

58:45 ↗ environment by plantings and other

58:47 ↗ things but those plantings then also

58:49 ↗ have to be maintained over a long period

58:51 ↗ of time it's not a one-time planning so

58:52 ↗ as we discussed previously there's the

58:56 ↗ there's back and forth in terms of will

58:57 ↗ it be successful or will it not you know

59:02 ↗ it there's pros and cons

59:08 ↗ Mr altmore

59:10 ↗ thank you so

59:12 ↗ if I'm remembering this correctly the

59:14 ↗ whole point of this was whether or not

59:15 ↗ you had to have a critical area study

59:17 ↗ and three says you do so isn't three

59:20 ↗ just what we have right now

59:23 ↗ three does not allow you to expand in

59:26 ↗ the buffer you if you and the only

59:28 ↗ expansions allowed under the existing

59:30 ↗ code or if you have an existing

59:31 ↗ impervious surface you can build on it

59:34 ↗ the three goes beyond that to let you go

59:36 ↗ take out your lawn area your you know

59:39 ↗ non non-pervious impervious surface to

59:42 ↗ be

59:43 ↗ um included in your expansion

59:57 ↗ uh myself I'm between two and three I do

1:00:00 ↗ like having a little bit of

1:00:02 ↗ uh to commissioner altimore's Point

1:00:05 ↗ um

1:00:06 ↗ they have a requiring the study will

1:00:08 ↗ kind of help mitigate some of the things

1:00:10 ↗ that may go wrong with option two I know

1:00:12 ↗ many just had mentioned that it's kind

1:00:14 ↗ of a pros and cons wait and see what

1:00:16 ↗ happens I do like allowing homeowners to

1:00:18 ↗ do what they need to do with their own

1:00:21 ↗ property you know because if I'm reading

1:00:23 ↗ number two right it's not that they can

1:00:24 ↗ build into the buffer

1:00:26 ↗ well I think number two is allowing an

1:00:29 ↗ expansion so if if you have a stream and

1:00:32 ↗ you have your house but on the opposite

1:00:34 ↗ side on the opposite side so it's

1:00:35 ↗ farther away from the stream but it

1:00:37 ↗ could still be in the buffer you have a

1:00:39 ↗ you know 100 150 foot buffer so your

1:00:42 ↗ entire house may be in the buffer so

1:00:44 ↗ this only applies to non-conforming

1:00:46 ↗ structures they're already in the buffer

1:00:49 ↗ and is are we limiting them to that

1:00:51 ↗ footprint for perpetuity or are we

1:00:54 ↗ letting them do a little a little bit of

1:00:56 ↗ expansion in exchange for some

1:00:59 ↗ enhancements along the critical area

1:01:03 ↗ so you are losing your you know like you

1:01:06 ↗ all are discussing you would increase

1:01:08 ↗ your impervious surface cumulative lead

1:01:10 ↗ could be a more you know it could be in

1:01:12 ↗ but the idea is that it's still being

1:01:14 ↗ the impact is still being offset by uh

1:01:17 ↗ medication that you're doing on your

1:01:19 ↗ property

1:01:21 ↗ so for I guess for an example if we're

1:01:24 ↗ talking about

1:01:27 ↗ a company that because of no fault

1:01:29 ↗ through their own is now in a buffer

1:01:30 ↗ because of this code update

1:01:32 ↗ and then they wanted to expand but they

1:01:35 ↗ can't

1:01:36 ↗ let's say they get the critical areas

1:01:37 ↗ studied but the critical areas studies

1:01:39 ↗ says you can't do what you want to do

1:01:42 ↗ option two would allow them some

1:01:43 ↗ flexibility flexibility option three

1:01:45 ↗ with the critical area study that would

1:01:47 ↗ take that away if they were if there was

1:01:50 ↗ a reason they couldn't build in that

1:01:51 ↗ yeah you could do what you want to do

1:01:53 ↗ under either option two or three the

1:01:55 ↗ option three just will require you to

1:01:57 ↗ hire a biologist and prepare a report

1:01:59 ↗ and prepare the mitigation plan it just

1:02:02 ↗ won't be a homeowner LED uh but there

1:02:05 ↗ will be a report so it'll be a little

1:02:07 ↗ bit more costly option three will you'll

1:02:09 ↗ have a professional do the study and do

1:02:11 ↗ the report and all that but what you

1:02:14 ↗ want to do would be is the same under

1:02:16 ↗ option two or three it's the only

1:02:18 ↗ difference is three would require the

1:02:19 ↗ report and I know the report's going to

1:02:22 ↗ vary obviously by size but I mean for a

1:02:24 ↗ typical homeowner what does a report

1:02:25 ↗ like that look like

1:02:27 ↗ I mean someone has to figure out where

1:02:29 ↗ the boundary of the Wetland or the

1:02:31 ↗ stream is so there'll be a biologist

1:02:32 ↗ that generally comes and flags then then

1:02:35 ↗ the surveyor comes and picks it up

1:02:37 ↗ you're looking at a few thousand dollars

1:02:40 ↗ um to do that so I guess the question is

1:02:43 ↗ a few thousand dollars if someone has

1:02:44 ↗ the coin to build a 500 square foot

1:02:46 ↗ Edition

1:02:48 ↗ that should be properly baked in the

1:02:50 ↗ cake

1:02:53 ↗ commissioner

1:02:56 ↗ and I think you have the costs for the

1:02:59 ↗ for the study but then the cost

1:03:01 ↗ additional to the mitigation as well

1:03:04 ↗ correct and that's what homeowners would

1:03:06 ↗ have to consider as well because

1:03:10 ↗ um

1:03:11 ↗ when you're looking at critical area

1:03:12 ↗ what you're trying to protect it's still

1:03:15 ↗ going to be protected because

1:03:17 ↗ um we're still not going to move forward

1:03:20 ↗ with encroaching on it so that

1:03:22 ↗ mitigation cost would probably increase

1:03:24 ↗ if you're going to go with two where you

1:03:27 ↗ encroach in that buffer per se okay all

1:03:30 ↗ right so about 500 square foot of

1:03:32 ↗ additional planting area that you will

1:03:34 ↗ plant your shrubs trees ground cover

1:03:36 ↗ next to your critical area and then

1:03:39 ↗ maintain it for you know until

1:03:42 ↗ everything has a chance to take off so

1:03:44 ↗ exactly yeah and I think that's you know

1:03:47 ↗ I clarifying it for me it's put in the

1:03:50 ↗ the the

1:03:52 ↗ um how do I say the decision in the

1:03:54 ↗ homeowner's hand but you're also still

1:03:57 ↗ protecting

1:03:59 ↗ um

1:04:00 ↗ to a certain extent the environment

1:04:02 ↗ still so okay there you go

1:04:07 ↗ commissioner Patterson one other

1:04:10 ↗ clarifying question on the the

1:04:11 ↗ mitigation piece of this that they'll

1:04:13 ↗ have to take place in either option two

1:04:15 ↗ or three or both options as well

1:04:18 ↗ so in option two if they don't have a

1:04:20 ↗ critical area study how do they know

1:04:22 ↗ what to mitigate or how to mitigate

1:04:25 ↗ and so that would be in

1:04:30 ↗ you know plan mitigation plan for small

1:04:32 ↗ mitigation plan that we can provide them

1:04:34 ↗ and then but you know assistance in the

1:04:36 ↗ ground so it will be cities resources

1:04:40 ↗ will be used to to help the homeowners

1:04:42 ↗ in that effect got it

1:04:45 ↗ um based on what we've been discussing

1:04:47 ↗ I'm kind of leaning towards the

1:04:49 ↗ compromise approach of option one and

1:04:51 ↗ three being combined the reason being

1:04:54 ↗ because option one is I think the

1:04:56 ↗ flexibility that some of the feedback we

1:04:58 ↗ got during the testing phase was like oh

1:04:59 ↗ we have this you know patio here we just

1:05:01 ↗ want to enclose it you know it's already

1:05:03 ↗ existing it's not really an impact so to

1:05:05 ↗ speak so why can't we just do it

1:05:08 ↗ um whereas option three is for to kind

1:05:11 ↗ of look at more of the environmental

1:05:12 ↗ side it's doing things the right way it

1:05:15 ↗ does have a cost impact to it however I

1:05:19 ↗ think it's the more responsible approach

1:05:21 ↗ if we are truly considering that this is

1:05:23 ↗ a critical area and uh you know the

1:05:26 ↗ impacts associated with that hopefully

1:05:28 ↗ it can be offset with the guide

1:05:30 ↗ mitigation and without impacting City

1:05:32 ↗ resources further so I think it's kind

1:05:35 ↗ of the compromise to combine option one

1:05:37 ↗ and three

1:05:40 ↗ commissioner

1:05:42 ↗ just to clarify I think option three

1:05:44 ↗ adds the 500 square feet whereas option

1:05:47 ↗ one is just building over the impervious

1:05:51 ↗ area that's correct so yeah I don't

1:05:53 ↗ think they debate about the option one

1:05:55 ↗ that that I think we fully supported

1:05:57 ↗ just clarifying that you don't really

1:05:59 ↗ need a critical area study for that so

1:06:01 ↗ exactly and then option three adds the

1:06:04 ↗ 500 square feet that could be on the

1:06:07 ↗ side of the bill then okay my only

1:06:09 ↗ concern and I'll share with everyone is

1:06:11 ↗ uh what happens to a particular business

1:06:14 ↗ I won't say their name but what happens

1:06:16 ↗ if because through no fault of their own

1:06:19 ↗ our buffers are moving into their their

1:06:21 ↗ property I mean they have this property

1:06:23 ↗ they bought this property long ago

1:06:24 ↗ knowing what their buffers were for 20

1:06:27 ↗ something years now that that buffer

1:06:29 ↗ line is encroaching on their buildings

1:06:32 ↗ so what happens when they want to expand

1:06:35 ↗ out build out

1:06:36 ↗ they still have to get the critical area

1:06:38 ↗ study

1:06:39 ↗ and if they're if there's on an aquifer

1:06:42 ↗ for example is there still a way for

1:06:44 ↗ them to build out I don't want people to

1:06:46 ↗ be punished because we're encroaching on

1:06:48 ↗ their property I want the environment to

1:06:49 ↗ be protected but I don't want to see

1:06:51 ↗ people get punished because we're up up

1:06:55 ↗ zoning is about not the right word but

1:06:56 ↗ because we're moving towards them

1:06:59 ↗ that's my concern

1:07:03 ↗ I mean this this provision would be in a

1:07:06 ↗ non-conforming structure so it's already

1:07:08 ↗ doesn't comply with the code and it's

1:07:10 ↗ not just would be for the homeowner it

1:07:11 ↗ would be for anyone to be able to do

1:07:13 ↗ this a 500 foot expansion

1:07:16 ↗ um we can write it to just be homeowners

1:07:19 ↗ but I think to be fair it would be for

1:07:22 ↗ anyone to be able to add 500 square feet

1:07:26 ↗ I just I I think yeah okay so

1:07:29 ↗ non-conforming use that really has it

1:07:31 ↗ that's not necessarily the structure

1:07:33 ↗ themselves we're just talking about

1:07:34 ↗ critical areas on the property yeah so

1:07:37 ↗ non-conforming structures in the streams

1:07:40 ↗ and the wetlands already get a little

1:07:42 ↗ bit of a break because like I shared um

1:07:46 ↗ if I can share it now again let me try

1:07:49 ↗ one more time

1:07:51 ↗ if you can go to another slide

1:07:53 ↗ um

1:07:54 ↗ Stephen on uh yeah so this particular

1:07:58 ↗ non-conforming section only applies to

1:08:01 ↗ if you are within a stream or a wetland

1:08:03 ↗ buffer you're allowed to you know go

1:08:07 ↗ vertically up or you're allowed to

1:08:09 ↗ expand over an existing impervious

1:08:11 ↗ surface those gives are already in there

1:08:14 ↗ in in the existing code that we've

1:08:16 ↗ carried forward

1:08:18 ↗ um but yes with the buffers increasing

1:08:21 ↗ if there is a structure that was

1:08:23 ↗ previously not you know was not

1:08:26 ↗ non-conforming that now does become

1:08:28 ↗ non-conforming they'll have the same you

1:08:30 ↗ know they can maintain it and do all of

1:08:32 ↗ that but they there are limitations on

1:08:34 ↗ expansion there are limitations of them

1:08:35 ↗ being built out commissioner Lewis

1:08:39 ↗ chair I share your concern and that's

1:08:41 ↗ why I think that this isn't an

1:08:44 ↗ interesting way to go because on one

1:08:46 ↗ hand we say yes you're not able to put a

1:08:48 ↗ sun room off of the string bank for

1:08:51 ↗ instance which may be ideal because

1:08:52 ↗ you're in the buffer however in an area

1:08:54 ↗ of your property that isn't abutting the

1:08:56 ↗ critical area and you want to be able to

1:08:59 ↗ have that flexibility to put in a

1:09:01 ↗ bedroom for a child that's come back

1:09:03 ↗ from college for instance it just won't

1:09:04 ↗ leave right or whether it be an extra

1:09:06 ↗ bathroom or a mud room or whatever it is

1:09:08 ↗ that a property says I need this little

1:09:10 ↗ bit we're having that waiting room of

1:09:12 ↗ saying yes these other sides of your

1:09:13 ↗ property you're not able to do something

1:09:15 ↗ with so and you don't currently have an

1:09:17 ↗ impervious surface to build over this

1:09:20 ↗ would give an Avenue for these

1:09:22 ↗ particularly encumbered properties to do

1:09:24 ↗ again a little bit more I mean what

1:09:26 ↗ you're doing with 500 square feet is is

1:09:28 ↗ not going to be a massive renovation and

1:09:31 ↗ I'm hoping that the cost of having a

1:09:33 ↗ critical area study

1:09:34 ↗ um will be you know I think most of us

1:09:36 ↗ know that the price of of lumber alone

1:09:38 ↗ is so agreed pages that that additional

1:09:41 ↗ cost won't make your project so

1:09:42 ↗ prohibitive but it will help you because

1:09:44 ↗ one thing we want when we're building

1:09:46 ↗ this code is to be able to have ways to

1:09:48 ↗ build in that mitigation we need to have

1:09:50 ↗ a way to have homeowners be able to work

1:09:52 ↗ with the city and I'm hoping that by

1:09:54 ↗ having this study we kind of get the

1:09:55 ↗ best of both worlds right of that kind

1:09:57 ↗ of tug of war where they can go and how

1:09:59 ↗ we can be better stewards of the land

1:10:04 ↗ Mr Baltimore

1:10:06 ↗ thank you and I'd also

1:10:08 ↗ um responding to one of your concerns

1:10:10 ↗ with the businesses that have been

1:10:11 ↗ around a long time if they are on

1:10:13 ↗ aquifer if they are in a critical area

1:10:16 ↗ we do have a responsibility to to take

1:10:19 ↗ what we've learned about what happens to

1:10:21 ↗ the environment and apply that not in an

1:10:23 ↗ unfair way but in a way that is doing

1:10:26 ↗ our best to balance their needs and the

1:10:28 ↗ needs of making sure that our drinking

1:10:30 ↗ water stays safe and the salmon can

1:10:32 ↗ still do what they need to do so I think

1:10:35 ↗ there are risks to all of us as we learn

1:10:37 ↗ more about what the environmental

1:10:39 ↗ impacts are and so I think that may be a

1:10:42 ↗ reality we have to face in these

1:10:44 ↗ conversations

1:10:47 ↗ thank you anyone else

1:10:50 ↗ commissioner simulator

1:10:52 ↗ and just uh clear clarify a little bit

1:10:55 ↗ we the critical area

1:10:58 ↗ um discussion is separate from the

1:11:00 ↗ aquifer discussion where it existed

1:11:03 ↗ property would be possibly over the

1:11:06 ↗ recharge area

1:11:08 ↗ yeah so this is only for wetlands and

1:11:11 ↗ streams not any other critical area

1:11:14 ↗ that's how the existing code is written

1:11:17 ↗ for those two critical areas only

1:11:18 ↗ exactly yeah and I was just clarifying

1:11:21 ↗ because

1:11:22 ↗ I I would probably say the 500 square

1:11:24 ↗ feet is is okay within this scenario but

1:11:29 ↗ I would probably I would have

1:11:30 ↗ reservations for a recharge air for

1:11:33 ↗ aquifer because that's that's our

1:11:35 ↗ drinking water and then the salmon as

1:11:37 ↗ well

1:11:40 ↗ thank you commissioner that was a great

1:11:43 ↗ question

1:11:46 ↗ are there any first thing I'll add to

1:11:47 ↗ this conversation is because we have

1:11:51 ↗ um our Issaquah Creek and the North Fork

1:11:54 ↗ you know our shorelines of the state so

1:11:57 ↗ Department of ecology has to approve

1:11:59 ↗ those so whatever recommendation you

1:12:01 ↗ make here

1:12:03 ↗ will be part of will have to be part of

1:12:05 ↗ the shoreline master program approved by

1:12:07 ↗ Department of ecology so it's never a

1:12:10 ↗ complete thing until all of those

1:12:11 ↗ approvals are done so just wanted to put

1:12:13 ↗ that

1:12:14 ↗ um

1:12:15 ↗ caveat there

1:12:18 ↗ okay thank you

1:12:19 ↗ um and I believe now we could probably

1:12:21 ↗ go for a vote

1:12:25 ↗ please counsel

1:12:27 ↗ hi Anne-Marie Soto Deputy City attorney

1:12:29 ↗ I just want to clarify the motion that

1:12:32 ↗ was made was to approve all the policy

1:12:34 ↗ decisions but if you're going to include

1:12:37 ↗ a decision on one of those one or all of

1:12:41 ↗ those options you just discussed the

1:12:43 ↗ easiest way to do that would probably be

1:12:44 ↗ to make a motion to amend to include

1:12:48 ↗ whatever options you want vote on that

1:12:50 ↗ and then you have your full vote on the

1:12:53 ↗ entire thing assuming you all agree on

1:12:57 ↗ whatever the options are

1:12:59 ↗ thank you uh you know what's funny is

1:13:00 ↗ Stephen actually coached me but so much

1:13:03 ↗ information so quick that I already

1:13:04 ↗ forgot that part but thank you

1:13:07 ↗ um all right would anyone like to make a

1:13:09 ↗ motion uh

1:13:10 ↗ motion to an amend

1:13:16 ↗ commissioner Lewis I'd like to make a

1:13:19 ↗ I'd like to move to amend the last

1:13:22 ↗ policy uh that was presented to us to

1:13:25 ↗ include options one and three

1:13:29 ↗ is there a second second

1:13:32 ↗ all right all in favor

1:13:37 ↗ I believe that's unanimous

1:13:46 ↗ yeah maybe we go back to the slide with

1:13:47 ↗ the instructions

1:13:55 ↗ would anyone like to make a motion on

1:13:57 ↗ the policy

1:14:02 ↗ voice can we see the slide that has the

1:14:05 ↗ mo the details of the motion yeah that

1:14:10 ↗ one so it's all of these and none others

1:14:13 ↗ it's these with the amendment

1:14:18 ↗ [Music]

1:14:34 ↗ so turquoise for clarification on the

1:14:36 ↗ motion

1:14:37 ↗ um you can just approve what was

1:14:39 ↗ discussed at the last two public

1:14:40 ↗ hearings as well as tonight and not have

1:14:43 ↗ to list out all of them

1:14:45 ↗ let's do that Stephen

1:14:48 ↗ so how do we word that how do we phrase

1:14:50 ↗ that

1:14:56 ↗ it is

1:14:58 ↗ all right but do I do this or is this is

1:15:00 ↗ this open for the floor for everybody

1:15:07 ↗ everyone's going to get a shot tonight

1:15:08 ↗ so please don't be shy commissioner

1:15:14 ↗ I moved to recommend the approval of the

1:15:16 ↗ policy changes to the January 11th

1:15:18 ↗ version of the draft code as discussed

1:15:21 ↗ at the January 19th of January 26th

1:15:24 ↗ commission meetings

1:15:27 ↗ foreign

1:15:28 ↗ I just want to clarify so there was

1:15:31 ↗ there was a motion on the floor

1:15:34 ↗ to adopt the policy changes that were on

1:15:38 ↗ the screen then you move to amend that

1:15:41 ↗ to include item or options one and three

1:15:44 ↗ with respect to the critical areas that

1:15:47 ↗ was that was approved by the PPC so now

1:15:52 ↗ you're voting on that original motion

1:15:54 ↗ that would then also include options one

1:15:57 ↗ and three for the critical areas so

1:16:00 ↗ that's the motion that's still on the

1:16:02 ↗ floor

1:16:04 ↗ the no new motion needs to be made that

1:16:06 ↗ that is the motion

1:16:08 ↗ yes you would just vote on that

1:16:15 ↗ yes

1:16:17 ↗ all right there is emotion on the floor

1:16:19 ↗ all in favor of the last

1:16:23 ↗ policy of the motion

1:16:30 ↗ you have majority

1:16:34 ↗ I might be annoyed by the end of night

1:16:37 ↗ what's that

1:16:40 ↗ one opposed

1:16:42 ↗ oh voice phone okay

1:16:45 ↗ I'm not gonna be friends with anybody

1:16:46 ↗ after this commissioner Kennedy

1:16:50 ↗ aye commissioner Milligan

1:16:53 ↗ abstain

1:16:54 ↗ or whatever

1:16:57 ↗ yes commissioners

1:17:00 ↗ yes commissioner Lewis

1:17:03 ↗ aye commissioner Patterson

1:17:05 ↗ aye

1:17:13 ↗ all those opposed

1:17:52 ↗ all right we're going to move along to

1:17:53 ↗ the Shoreline master program

1:18:01 ↗ foreign

1:18:09 ↗ would anyone like to make a motion on

1:18:10 ↗ the shoreline master program

1:18:12 ↗ commissioner Lewis

1:18:15 ↗ I like to move that this commission

1:18:16 ↗ adopt the shoreline master program as

1:18:19 ↗ stated in our draft code

1:18:24 ↗ Mr Patterson I second that motion

1:18:28 ↗ oh

1:18:31 ↗ it's open for discussion would anyone

1:18:32 ↗ like to discuss the shoreline master

1:18:34 ↗ program

1:18:38 ↗ commissioner Milligan uh thank you the

1:18:42 ↗ shoreline master program is something

1:18:44 ↗ that we needed an update on and I'm

1:18:46 ↗ excited to vote to approve it however I

1:18:52 ↗ think that this is and this might be a

1:18:54 ↗ recurring theme for me tonight this is a

1:18:56 ↗ new starting line of future improvements

1:18:58 ↗ that can happen we can continue to

1:19:01 ↗ improve we just have to stop somewhere

1:19:03 ↗ and then start again like in a relay

1:19:05 ↗ race and so I'm excited that we have

1:19:08 ↗ improvements and we have clearer

1:19:10 ↗ language in our to protect our

1:19:12 ↗ shorelines and I'm looking forward to

1:19:15 ↗ the next chapter in that as well at the

1:19:18 ↗ same time complicated

1:19:23 ↗ thank you commissioner Lewis

1:19:26 ↗ thank you chair I'd like to make a

1:19:28 ↗ comment about the shoreline master

1:19:29 ↗ program in a little bit of um of a wish

1:19:32 ↗ list right now we have designated

1:19:35 ↗ samanoid bearing streams because the

1:19:38 ↗ department of ecology has told us that

1:19:40 ↗ we're allowed to think those are

1:19:41 ↗ important however I would argue that all

1:19:43 ↗ of our waterways are vitally important

1:19:45 ↗ to our community and right now as we

1:19:48 ↗ work on our stormwater surface water

1:19:49 ↗ Wastewater master program plan there is

1:19:53 ↗ funding to for us to be looking uh

1:19:55 ↗ better at how water flows and

1:19:56 ↗ contributes to our community which will

1:19:58 ↗ make a huge impact on things like the

1:20:00 ↗ Laughing Jacobs Creek in a variety of

1:20:01 ↗ areas that are being threatened right

1:20:03 ↗ now by heavy development so what I would

1:20:06 ↗ like to see is a move to request the

1:20:09 ↗ council put more funding into our

1:20:12 ↗ non-saminoid-bearing streams as well to

1:20:15 ↗ have better information for water

1:20:16 ↗ protection in this community that we

1:20:18 ↗ don't currently have I love the work

1:20:21 ↗ that we've done to upgrade the storm

1:20:22 ↗ water master plan but I think that we

1:20:24 ↗ can do better with the guidance of our

1:20:27 ↗ fantastic staff thank you

1:20:37 ↗ any further comment

1:20:41 ↗ foreign

1:20:46 ↗ on the floor we can vote

1:20:49 ↗ yeah I don't know if I have to say the

1:20:51 ↗ magic words right now

1:20:53 ↗ magic words

1:21:03 ↗ all in favor

1:21:07 ↗ unanimous

1:21:13 ↗ all right

1:21:14 ↗ two down

1:21:16 ↗ we are now going to move on

1:21:21 ↗ to the title 18 draft

1:21:25 ↗ so if someone like to make a motion we

1:21:27 ↗ can again commissioner Lewis

1:21:29 ↗ I would like to make a motion to amend

1:21:31 ↗ two points on title 18.

1:21:35 ↗ oh I would uh I I thank you I would like

1:21:39 ↗ to make a motion uh to adopt uh Title 18

1:21:42 ↗ by the planet pink policy commission as

1:21:44 ↗ drafted

1:21:46 ↗ is there a second

1:21:51 ↗ for the point of discussion

1:21:56 ↗ yeah okay there's a second let's open it

1:22:00 ↗ up to discussion

1:22:05 ↗ sorry commissioner Lewis I would like to

1:22:08 ↗ make an amendment I actually have two

1:22:09 ↗ amendments but I'm going to start and

1:22:11 ↗ first ask that my commissioner is human

1:22:13 ↗ humor me with the First Amendment to

1:22:15 ↗ title 18. I'm going to direct you to uh

1:22:18 ↗ part two of our letter to help you

1:22:21 ↗ better understand but my motion right

1:22:23 ↗ now uh is to change the policy language

1:22:28 ↗ of Title 18 uh specifically regarding uh

1:22:32 ↗ zero oh that's part three sorry

1:22:34 ↗ um

1:22:35 ↗ ah thank you sorry this is my motion on

1:22:38 ↗ uh part two which has to do with moving

1:22:40 ↗ us to a hearing examiner

1:22:42 ↗ and I would like to humor

1:22:45 ↗ um

1:22:46 ↗ be humored with an amendment to the

1:22:48 ↗ current code

1:22:50 ↗ and we'll detail if a discussion is

1:22:51 ↗ necessary

1:22:53 ↗ I'm making an amendment

1:22:55 ↗ oh it's regarding the hearing the

1:22:57 ↗ hearing Examiner

1:22:59 ↗ to be the final Arbiter that goes to

1:23:01 ↗ council

1:23:03 ↗ discussion

1:23:05 ↗ for site-specific result for specific

1:23:07 ↗ reasons on politics

1:23:11 ↗ commissioner Lewis I think read your

1:23:14 ↗ full sentence that you're adding on to

1:23:16 ↗ that this is what you're proposing

1:23:26 ↗ I my in my my Amendment would State then

1:23:29 ↗ that I move that the commission should

1:23:31 ↗ have a meeting to discuss and advise on

1:23:33 ↗ how a rezone application could conflict

1:23:36 ↗ or with a city policy as the primary

1:23:39 ↗ holder of policy familiarity

1:23:42 ↗ that letter of opinion would be

1:23:43 ↗ submitted to the hearing examiner and as

1:23:45 ↗ an official comment get on the record to

1:23:47 ↗ city council

1:23:49 ↗ and I welcome a second to be able to

1:23:50 ↗ further discuss

1:23:54 ↗ commissioner

1:23:56 ↗ second further discussion

1:23:58 ↗ commissioner Lewis

1:24:00 ↗ [Applause]

1:24:03 ↗ so the planning policy commission is the

1:24:06 ↗ first and primary body responsible for

1:24:08 ↗ soliciting and hearing public input on

1:24:10 ↗ land matters in this community

1:24:12 ↗ the PPC members bring an important

1:24:13 ↗ expertise to the consideration of plans

1:24:15 ↗ and implementation that reflect the

1:24:17 ↗ perspectives experience and values of

1:24:20 ↗ their community

1:24:21 ↗ the Commissioners listened to staff

1:24:22 ↗ recommendations and public input way all

1:24:25 ↗ the evidence pay attention to the

1:24:27 ↗ relevant criteria and then make a

1:24:28 ↗ thoughtful considered recommendation to

1:24:30 ↗ the city council while I agree that the

1:24:32 ↗ current plan that is entitled 18 to have

1:24:35 ↗ a hearing examiner make that final

1:24:37 ↗ recommendation I do not believe that we

1:24:39 ↗ are adequately holding the voices of the

1:24:41 ↗ community right now and how it is

1:24:42 ↗ planned and I would like to though this

1:24:44 ↗ commission has discussed it to reopen

1:24:46 ↗ the idea that it would come before this

1:24:49 ↗ this body not as a public hearing but

1:24:52 ↗ instead to give the advice of the

1:24:54 ↗ current planning policy Commission on

1:24:56 ↗ the record to city council through the

1:24:58 ↗ hearing examiner for these specific

1:25:00 ↗ reasons

1:25:04 ↗ commissioner Kennedy

1:25:07 ↗ um well I totally respect your desire to

1:25:09 ↗ have this commission really have a voice

1:25:11 ↗ in that process

1:25:12 ↗ unfortunately I really see that as

1:25:14 ↗ defeating the purpose of the hearing

1:25:15 ↗ examiner and really putting the analysis

1:25:18 ↗ of a site Zone request request in their

1:25:22 ↗ hands

1:25:23 ↗ um we are citizens of Issaquah so we

1:25:26 ↗ have every ability to attend those

1:25:29 ↗ meetings and give our personal feedback

1:25:32 ↗ um I feel that bringing the policy

1:25:34 ↗ commission into a formal discussion

1:25:38 ↗ to then take to the hearing examiner to

1:25:41 ↗ then take to the city council

1:25:43 ↗ sort of puts an extra step we're now

1:25:46 ↗ making that process even more onerous

1:25:48 ↗ than it was before

1:25:50 ↗ so and it seems to sidestep the change

1:25:53 ↗ that we have proposed to Title 18 which

1:25:55 ↗ is to have that process go through a

1:25:57 ↗ hearing examiner examiner versus this

1:26:00 ↗ commission so I would like to see it

1:26:03 ↗ stay as is and change the process to a

1:26:06 ↗ hearing examiner as has been proposed by

1:26:10 ↗ the policy

1:26:11 ↗ proposed that we've just voted on

1:26:15 ↗ thank you commissioner Kennedy

1:26:18 ↗ commissioner Milligan

1:26:19 ↗ uh thank you commissioner Kennedy I

1:26:21 ↗ agree with you that the reason we moved

1:26:24 ↗ to the hearing examiner is that we felt

1:26:27 ↗ that this would become more of a

1:26:29 ↗ technical review now I don't agree with

1:26:31 ↗ all the criteria and the site-specific

1:26:33 ↗ rezones so I think that I have an

1:26:35 ↗ amendment coming up that I hope will

1:26:36 ↗ help with that uh and if we have very

1:26:40 ↗ specific criteria for the hearing

1:26:43 ↗ examiner to make an objective decision

1:26:45 ↗ about then we will have a technical

1:26:47 ↗ review before it goes to city council

1:26:50 ↗ and in that then it falls under that

1:26:52 ↗ kind of level one level two sort of

1:26:53 ↗ thing so I want to keep it with the

1:26:55 ↗ hearing examiner for seeing if it um

1:26:58 ↗ matched criteria

1:27:00 ↗ in a very objective way and the the

1:27:02 ↗ public comment gotta love them but you

1:27:05 ↗ know you it's either on or it's off and

1:27:07 ↗ that's what we're going to try to get to

1:27:08 ↗ and you shouldn't have to argue about

1:27:10 ↗ whether it's on or it's off we need

1:27:11 ↗ better criteria and if we have better

1:27:13 ↗ criteria the hearing examiner will be

1:27:15 ↗ able to do the job for us

1:27:18 ↗ thank you commissioner Milligan

1:27:25 ↗ yeah with no further discussion we will

1:27:27 ↗ take a vote on commissioner Lewis's

1:27:30 ↗ Amendment all in favor

1:27:35 ↗ all opposed

1:27:40 ↗ the Motions defeated thank you thank you

1:27:41 ↗ Julie

1:27:44 ↗ be an expert by the end of the night

1:27:47 ↗ all right

1:27:48 ↗ moving along

1:27:50 ↗ commissioner Lewis has put an amendment

1:27:52 ↗ up does anyone else have any amendments

1:27:54 ↗ do you we want to take this to parts

1:27:57 ↗ did you guys have like things like

1:27:59 ↗ people

1:28:01 ↗ okay so we were just looking for more

1:28:04 ↗ amendments to Title 18 draft code before

1:28:08 ↗ uh

1:28:09 ↗ commissioner Milligan

1:28:11 ↗ thank you mine's not written out or

1:28:13 ↗ rehearsed but it's on the same topic of

1:28:16 ↗ site-specific rezones and I can I

1:28:20 ↗ welcome any editing to make this clearer

1:28:24 ↗ but I move to amend the

1:28:29 ↗ Title 18 or the previous motion to take

1:28:34 ↗ the growth targets bullet

1:28:37 ↗ and delete it replace it with a bulleted

1:28:43 ↗ item up in the category of the criteria

1:28:45 ↗ that says when we don't allow so this is

1:28:49 ↗ the top part that says when we don't

1:28:51 ↗ allow a site-specific rezone and there's

1:28:53 ↗ a part when we do allow a site for

1:28:55 ↗ specific rezone

1:28:56 ↗ and up in the don't allow say we do not

1:28:59 ↗ allow a site-specific rezone if the

1:29:03 ↗ growth targets have been

1:29:05 ↗ met

1:29:10 ↗ I think I've just tried I got it I'm

1:29:13 ↗ just I I'd like to second okay

1:29:16 ↗ commissioner Lewis so uh please

1:29:18 ↗ uh so I'll do start the discussion so

1:29:21 ↗ the way that this would work then is

1:29:23 ↗ I understood that one of the I just

1:29:26 ↗ strike that whole thing because that

1:29:27 ↗ language hasn't helped us at all and I

1:29:29 ↗ don't think it helps saying whether

1:29:30 ↗ something's on or off to say you haven't

1:29:32 ↗ met a growth Target that's 20 years from

1:29:34 ↗ now so that whole criteria has not

1:29:37 ↗ helped in our past and I don't know how

1:29:38 ↗ it's going to help a hearing examiner so

1:29:40 ↗ what would help and what would be the

1:29:42 ↗ reason why we would have something that

1:29:44 ↗ would look at growth targets and that is

1:29:46 ↗ to make sure we don't go over them

1:29:49 ↗ so if that's the concern that we may go

1:29:52 ↗ over our growth targets and we wouldn't

1:29:54 ↗ do a site-specific rezone and by the way

1:29:57 ↗ this would be outside the regional

1:30:00 ↗ growth Center there is a thing that says

1:30:01 ↗ that we allow them inside I haven't

1:30:03 ↗ amended that one yet

1:30:07 ↗ uh and so this would create the

1:30:10 ↗ protection that we would not go over our

1:30:13 ↗ growth targets which may be the purpose

1:30:15 ↗ for having that bullet point in there

1:30:17 ↗ anyway

1:30:22 ↗ Mr Lewis

1:30:25 ↗ I'd like to say that I support uh this

1:30:28 ↗ Amendment uh and find this to be a

1:30:31 ↗ suitable change from where I said

1:30:34 ↗ thank you commissioner Lewis so if I

1:30:36 ↗ have this correct commissioner Milligan

1:30:38 ↗ because I have I think I have the same

1:30:39 ↗ problem I see those those targets using

1:30:42 ↗ being used often more often than not

1:30:44 ↗ against the city

1:30:46 ↗ um I think we've heard a lot a couple of

1:30:49 ↗ petitioners keep mentioning that we

1:30:50 ↗ hadn't hit our Target well we just

1:30:51 ↗ restarted our targets you know how often

1:30:54 ↗ are we already in the clear so I thought

1:30:56 ↗ that argument was bogus from the

1:30:58 ↗ beginning is that your Amendment

1:31:00 ↗ I mean I know it's not yes certainly but

1:31:02 ↗ ideally it's just we're just the

1:31:04 ↗ rationale yes sir that the um that the

1:31:07 ↗ way it's written now is something can

1:31:09 ↗ that can hardly ever be used every time

1:31:11 ↗ you set a new Target because you will

1:31:13 ↗ not have ever it will always apply and

1:31:16 ↗ so then it does it's a meaningless

1:31:18 ↗ measure

1:31:20 ↗ I bet the meaningful measure could be

1:31:22 ↗ that

1:31:23 ↗ we have a growth Target and we don't

1:31:25 ↗ want to go over it

1:31:28 ↗ commissioner altimore

1:31:31 ↗ I don't have a concern if we're saying

1:31:33 ↗ that we haven't exceeded the growth

1:31:35 ↗ Target except the growth targets of the

1:31:38 ↗ floor they are the minimum amount that

1:31:40 ↗ we need to be able to meet both the

1:31:42 ↗ population that we have now and the

1:31:43 ↗ population that we know is coming and so

1:31:46 ↗ I was yeah I was just out of

1:31:48 ↗ presentation yesterday about this and so

1:31:51 ↗ I'm okay with the not to exceed I was

1:31:54 ↗ more concerned about the proposal of the

1:31:56 ↗ 10 20 30 percent because I think that

1:31:59 ↗ would unnecessarily Governor the hold

1:32:01 ↗ back development but actually the way

1:32:04 ↗ this is written doesn't bother me in

1:32:08 ↗ terms of if you were still in our

1:32:10 ↗ targets yes this is more complicated in

1:32:12 ↗ its language but it is in essence saying

1:32:14 ↗ the same thing as the amendment you're

1:32:16 ↗ proposing

1:32:21 ↗ no thank you commissioner altmore well I

1:32:23 ↗ believe uh commissioner Milligan has a

1:32:26 ↗ motion

1:32:27 ↗ Amendment

1:32:29 ↗ already uh so we'll call for a vote if

1:32:32 ↗ there's no further discussion

1:32:34 ↗ um

1:32:35 ↗ commissioner

1:32:37 ↗ trying to wrap my head around it um

1:32:40 ↗ where you have

1:32:42 ↗ a growth Target and it it's the call of

1:32:45 ↗ Polish not a policy it's a criteria to

1:32:48 ↗ new development basically if if we

1:32:52 ↗ haven't reached that growth Target then

1:32:55 ↗ we can't push forward with that rezone

1:32:58 ↗ per se is that is that am I clear on

1:33:01 ↗ that

1:33:04 ↗ commissioner Milligan if we had met our

1:33:08 ↗ growth Target

1:33:12 ↗ and and that criteria was added as a

1:33:18 ↗ disallow a site-specific rezone

1:33:22 ↗ you cannot because the all three zones

1:33:24 ↗ are to up Zone

1:33:26 ↗ here so it would be disallowed if we had

1:33:30 ↗ outside the regional growth Center there

1:33:33 ↗ is a there is a caveat in this in the

1:33:35 ↗ criteria that allow for it in the

1:33:38 ↗ regional growth Center anyway you know

1:33:40 ↗ to your point so you could exceed your

1:33:41 ↗ agree you could exceed your growth

1:33:43 ↗ Target in the regional growth Center

1:33:45 ↗ yeah but if it's outside of it and you

1:33:48 ↗ had already met it the site-specific

1:33:50 ↗ rezone would be disallowed

1:33:55 ↗ thank you for that clarification

1:34:00 ↗ any further just a point of

1:34:02 ↗ clarification so we have

1:34:04 ↗ um the criteria up on the screen so I

1:34:06 ↗ think the discussion is focused on 2B

1:34:10 ↗ and commissioner Milgen are you

1:34:12 ↗ proposing an amendment to the language

1:34:14 ↗ on 2B

1:34:17 ↗ my amendment was to strike the language

1:34:21 ↗ to be

1:34:23 ↗ and add a bullet

1:34:27 ↗ to the

1:34:28 ↗ um the top section

1:34:31 ↗ where it says that well right under it

1:34:33 ↗ would be a new number two

1:34:35 ↗ a rezone would not where it says a

1:34:39 ↗ reason would not have an adverse impact

1:34:40 ↗ it would be of a similar flavor and it

1:34:42 ↗ would say the reason would not be

1:34:43 ↗ allowed

1:34:45 ↗ outside the regional growth Center if we

1:34:47 ↗ had already met our growth targets

1:34:50 ↗ so that in in poetry here up at the

1:34:53 ↗ beginning it would be these are the

1:34:54 ↗ things that when it would not be allowed

1:34:55 ↗ and these are the things when it would

1:34:57 ↗ be allowed okay so the so it's just a

1:35:00 ↗ language change because you will get

1:35:01 ↗ that same effect under two

1:35:03 ↗ so and do a it says you if the requested

1:35:07 ↗ rezone results in increased housing

1:35:09 ↗ density uh it you can only be supported

1:35:13 ↗ if it is in the regional growth Center

1:35:14 ↗ or if it's located outside the

1:35:17 ↗ county-wide housing growth targets must

1:35:19 ↗ not be met so I think your proposed

1:35:21 ↗ amendment is the same thing that 2B is

1:35:24 ↗ getting at

1:35:26 ↗ if we are understanding it correctly

1:35:28 ↗ it's trying but when the growth targets

1:35:31 ↗ have not been must not be met by the

1:35:34 ↗ time they would never like right now our

1:35:37 ↗ growth targets would never be met am I

1:35:39 ↗ missing something here

1:35:41 ↗ that's the way I read it commissioner

1:35:42 ↗ Lewis

1:35:43 ↗ the way that I see striking B is that we

1:35:47 ↗ are not measuring our additional density

1:35:50 ↗ outside of the regional growth Center

1:35:53 ↗ outside of where we're trying to put our

1:35:55 ↗ density effectively by a Target that is

1:35:57 ↗ in the future right now what the issue

1:35:59 ↗ is is that I mean have we met the

1:36:01 ↗ previous housing Target that is passed I

1:36:03 ↗ mean it's a constantly moving ball that

1:36:06 ↗ is generally 15 to 20 years in the

1:36:08 ↗ future so by allowing the language right

1:36:11 ↗ now the concern is that we will be up

1:36:13 ↗ zoning in areas where we don't want our

1:36:15 ↗ growth because there is a wiggle room to

1:36:18 ↗ be able to say but you haven't met your

1:36:20 ↗ target yet because it's impossible for

1:36:21 ↗ us to meet our Target that's how many of

1:36:23 ↗ us have read the language in the code so

1:36:26 ↗ if you would like to add language on the

1:36:29 ↗ changes that we've read this and sitting

1:36:31 ↗ from the position we have of doing

1:36:33 ↗ site-specific green zones it's been an

1:36:34 ↗ issue

1:36:35 ↗ correct I think the language was fixed

1:36:37 ↗ but the way it was before but it may not

1:36:39 ↗ have completely captured some of yes and

1:36:41 ↗ so

1:36:42 ↗ commissioner Milligan's amendment is to

1:36:45 ↗ strike out B and just say reasons

1:36:49 ↗ outside of regional growth centers are

1:36:51 ↗ not permitted if

1:36:55 ↗ the housing targets have not been met

1:37:04 ↗ if the housing targets

1:37:07 ↗ have been met a site-specific rezone

1:37:10 ↗ outside the regional growth Center is

1:37:11 ↗ not allowed

1:37:18 ↗ any you know the housing Target is one

1:37:20 ↗ there's only one housing Target you're

1:37:23 ↗ all you're always in one you're

1:37:25 ↗ somewhere in one you're somewhere in the

1:37:26 ↗ 30 years or the 25 years so there's only

1:37:29 ↗ one housing Target in any given time and

1:37:32 ↗ if you have already met your housing

1:37:35 ↗ targets

1:37:38 ↗ you cannot

1:37:40 ↗ have am I getting it backwards you guys

1:37:53 ↗ thank you I think so because if I the

1:37:56 ↗ way I understood it and that's kind of

1:37:58 ↗ what I was agreeing with is

1:38:00 ↗ often you're never we've never hit our

1:38:02 ↗ Target I mean if you're talking about a

1:38:03 ↗ 30-year Target you're moving for 25

1:38:05 ↗ years you haven't hit your target it's

1:38:07 ↗ those last five years I mean especially

1:38:09 ↗ with the last ones that you're finally

1:38:11 ↗ above so basically what you're saying is

1:38:13 ↗ the majority of the time

1:38:15 ↗ you haven't hit your target so you can

1:38:16 ↗ still keep building outside the regional

1:38:18 ↗ growth Center I don't I don't think

1:38:20 ↗ that's what the essence of what you

1:38:22 ↗ wanted yeah because I agree with you I I

1:38:25 ↗ think you can't use a table that 85

1:38:27 ↗ percent of the time you're always going

1:38:28 ↗ to be under

1:38:29 ↗ it's only during the last couple years I

1:38:31 ↗ think when we had our

1:38:33 ↗ when we just redid this that's not

1:38:35 ↗ always the case I'm sorry because yeah

1:38:37 ↗ it's like think about when Issaquah

1:38:39 ↗ Highlands and Talus came in we went past

1:38:42 ↗ our growth Targets in a hurry we were

1:38:45 ↗ way ahead of our growth targets

1:38:47 ↗ um long before they were due

1:38:50 ↗ okay

1:39:04 ↗ Mr Lewis so either we're ready to vote

1:39:07 ↗ many or you find that you need further

1:39:09 ↗ clarification because I think that there

1:39:10 ↗ is in some ways a consensus on the

1:39:12 ↗ feeling that we're getting from the code

1:39:14 ↗ language so it's also easy for us to

1:39:16 ↗ withdraw the amendment uh or if

1:39:18 ↗ obviously the author of it would if

1:39:20 ↗ staff says we get your intent and we

1:39:22 ↗ want to rewrite this section so that

1:39:24 ↗ it's presented because we agree with you

1:39:26 ↗ right I mean the other thing I'm not

1:39:27 ↗ sure we understand the intent is that's

1:39:30 ↗ why I asked the point of clarification

1:39:31 ↗ because we can explain the way it's

1:39:33 ↗ written now but by deleting B and adding

1:39:37 ↗ another point that really that states

1:39:39 ↗ the same maybe the outcome is the same

1:39:42 ↗ as I think our understanding which maybe

1:39:44 ↗ we may not fully understand

1:39:46 ↗ um uh the amendment either but

1:39:50 ↗ if if

1:39:53 ↗ it's not in the regional growth Center

1:39:55 ↗ what is the intent for rezones do you

1:39:58 ↗ say you can't have increased density at

1:40:01 ↗ all regardless of the growth targets or

1:40:04 ↗ if the growth targets have been met in

1:40:06 ↗ only in that case will you're not

1:40:09 ↗ allowed which is what B is saying

1:40:11 ↗ or

1:40:18 ↗ I think the idea if don't let me speak

1:40:20 ↗ for you commissioner Milligan but the

1:40:21 ↗ idea is to limit it when we haven't

1:40:23 ↗ reached our growth targets the idea is

1:40:26 ↗ to be packing that into the regional

1:40:27 ↗ growth Center

1:40:29 ↗ and again I might be getting a little

1:40:30 ↗ twist of two now but but that's the idea

1:40:33 ↗ is why have a regional growth Center if

1:40:35 ↗ people can up Zone uh like the last

1:40:37 ↗ previous episode did again I mean these

1:40:40 ↗ aren't anywhere where we want our

1:40:41 ↗ infrastructure where we want these

1:40:43 ↗ things to go

1:40:45 ↗ so how do you encourage people to build

1:40:48 ↗ in the regional growth Center

1:40:51 ↗ um and how do you extrapolate the the

1:40:53 ↗ the growth targets from that I I think

1:40:56 ↗ the idea is again we just don't want

1:40:58 ↗ people up zoning all over the place I

1:41:00 ↗ mean that's why I even have the regional

1:41:01 ↗ growth Center

1:41:03 ↗ that used to encourage them to push that

1:41:05 ↗ density into the policy direction to not

1:41:08 ↗ allow up zones outside of regional

1:41:10 ↗ growth Center in any case it can be that

1:41:12 ↗ strict but I think you're getting closer

1:41:14 ↗ to what we feel yeah let me uh let me

1:41:16 ↗ ask this question if I could the um the

1:41:18 ↗ way that this is written now how is this

1:41:20 ↗ different from the way it was in 2022

1:41:24 ↗ I'm sorry so oh I'm sorry can you repeat

1:41:26 ↗ that how is this uh to be different from

1:41:30 ↗ what we had in 2022 as a criteria

1:41:35 ↗ I think the criteria the intent hasn't

1:41:37 ↗ changed it's just the way it was worded

1:41:39 ↗ it's now ABC before it was just all

1:41:41 ↗ jumbled up in one and there were

1:41:43 ↗ different there was confusion about that

1:41:45 ↗ as my understanding we can pull out the

1:41:47 ↗ old old one if that will help

1:41:51 ↗ the way follow-up is it hasn't been

1:41:53 ↗ successful

1:41:56 ↗ later

1:41:59 ↗ and then the question is what happens I

1:42:01 ↗ know it's rare if um we do reach that

1:42:04 ↗ Target and we still need to expand and

1:42:08 ↗ where would we be able to ex to do

1:42:11 ↗ resounds for that density increase if if

1:42:15 ↗ you have people who are living in

1:42:17 ↗ Issaquah and who want to live in

1:42:18 ↗ Issaquah as well I think that's really

1:42:20 ↗ where that goes the other side of that

1:42:22 ↗ the piece of that

1:42:24 ↗ um letter B in there so I have a point

1:42:28 ↗ of clarification to your voice for

1:42:31 ↗ this language which really originated

1:42:34 ↗ from the comprehensive plan which looked

1:42:35 ↗ at encouraging development inside the

1:42:37 ↗ regional growth Center but it didn't

1:42:39 ↗ restrict it to the regional growth

1:42:41 ↗ Center in order to incorporate that as

1:42:42 ↗ part of the development regulations and

1:42:44 ↗ needs to be coming from the comp plan

1:42:46 ↗ first so this might be this might be a

1:42:49 ↗ discussion for the comprehensive plan

1:42:50 ↗ periodic update before we added to the

1:42:53 ↗ development regulations

1:42:59 ↗ commissioner million

1:43:02 ↗ I'm gonna cheat here I'm considering uh

1:43:06 ↗ um vacating my

1:43:08 ↗ Amendment motion to amend

1:43:11 ↗ to to replace it with a new motion to

1:43:14 ↗ amend to strike to be

1:43:19 ↗ so I think uh I'm uh would like to how

1:43:23 ↗ do I move to vacate my as the author to

1:43:27 ↗ vacate my motion does it need to be

1:43:30 ↗ asserted by the secondary yeah so you

1:43:32 ↗ would just withdraw your motion and has

1:43:36 ↗ to be agreed to by Council or

1:43:38 ↗ commissioner Lewis

1:43:39 ↗ uh

1:43:41 ↗ I'm sorry what did you say I I do to

1:43:43 ↗ withdraw withdraw withdraw my emotion

1:43:45 ↗ motion to amend

1:43:47 ↗ agreed

1:43:51 ↗ uh I'd like to move to amend Title 18 in

1:43:55 ↗ the site-specific

1:43:57 ↗ uh rezone criteria by removing to be

1:44:01 ↗ from the criteria I second

1:44:04 ↗ discussion I think I've already

1:44:06 ↗ discussed it

1:44:07 ↗ commissioner altimore

1:44:11 ↗ does this then preclude a site rezone

1:44:14 ↗ outside of the regional growth Center

1:44:18 ↗ I think that would be the consequence of

1:44:20 ↗ that yeah yes

1:44:25 ↗ I will when the I will when the vote

1:44:27 ↗ comes up yeah thank you um yeah I mean

1:44:30 ↗ it is for increased you know housing

1:44:33 ↗ density it could if it's a commercial

1:44:34 ↗ property or anything like that that

1:44:36 ↗ probably won't apply but yes for res if

1:44:39 ↗ you're trying to do a reason to get

1:44:42 ↗ additional housing that would not be

1:44:44 ↗ allowed outside of regional growth

1:44:46 ↗ Center is what the outcome of that

1:44:47 ↗ Amendment would be

1:44:50 ↗ oh man commissioner million thank you uh

1:44:52 ↗ I'm excited about this that we've gotten

1:44:55 ↗ to this because we have the

1:44:59 ↗ um

1:45:00 ↗ beneficial situation where our building

1:45:03 ↗ capacity far exceeds our growth targets

1:45:08 ↗ and we have fairly new

1:45:12 ↗ comprehensive plan and

1:45:15 ↗ um

1:45:16 ↗ City overlays that show where we want

1:45:18 ↗ our growth because of Economic

1:45:21 ↗ Development Transportation Planning all

1:45:24 ↗ sorts of criteria have gone into the

1:45:27 ↗ kind of wedding cake design of the urban

1:45:30 ↗ growth Center and the regional growth

1:45:31 ↗ Center in the central Issaquah plan and

1:45:34 ↗ it's not that old and it's a great plan

1:45:36 ↗ and it is to be a more sustainable a

1:45:39 ↗ more vibrant a more densely populated

1:45:42 ↗ and much more housing

1:45:44 ↗ if we did not have enough building

1:45:47 ↗ capacity to take up multiple times of

1:45:51 ↗ our growth Target than maybe we would

1:45:54 ↗ want to be entertaining

1:45:57 ↗ um site-specific up zones but we do have

1:46:00 ↗ a lot of capacity already to increase

1:46:02 ↗ our housing significantly many more

1:46:05 ↗ times than our

1:46:07 ↗ Target growth targets commissioner

1:46:11 ↗ yeah I think the thin there we always

1:46:14 ↗ talk about affordable housing and and

1:46:16 ↗ planning and policy we're looking out 10

1:46:19 ↗ 20 30 however many decades as well so I

1:46:24 ↗ would say to remove something like that

1:46:26 ↗ actually limits us and actually puts the

1:46:28 ↗ onus on maybe the next commission or the

1:46:31 ↗ commission's years to come to actually

1:46:33 ↗ add something back in if it does become

1:46:37 ↗ an issue with the scarcity of homes we

1:46:40 ↗ understand there's the master plan and

1:46:42 ↗ aspect and what not and we plan but it's

1:46:44 ↗ not always

1:46:45 ↗ implemented per se and with the

1:46:48 ↗ different revisions that may come so

1:46:51 ↗ that's just a little bit that I wanted

1:46:53 ↗ to add there

1:46:55 ↗ commissioner altimore

1:46:57 ↗ thank you so there are nine criteria I

1:47:01 ↗ think it's nine in here this isn't a

1:47:03 ↗ wide open path to uh increasing density

1:47:06 ↗ wherever people want but I think

1:47:09 ↗ limiting the increase in density of the

1:47:11 ↗ into the regional growth Center is just

1:47:14 ↗ too limiting we are in a housing crisis

1:47:16 ↗ in this region there's no question about

1:47:18 ↗ that and Issaquah has to play its part

1:47:20 ↗ and whether we like it or not we are one

1:47:22 ↗ of the few communities that has any land

1:47:24 ↗ left

1:47:25 ↗ and I think limiting to this extent is

1:47:28 ↗ too limiting and there are criteria to

1:47:30 ↗ be able to keep this from going out of

1:47:32 ↗ control without having to just close it

1:47:35 ↗ into the regional growth Center

1:47:40 ↗ thank you commissioner Kennedy

1:47:42 ↗ uh cheer boys I mean I have the language

1:47:45 ↗ for the existing code I think one of the

1:47:47 ↗ questions you asked was how has it

1:47:48 ↗ changed from what's in the code now so

1:47:51 ↗ the existing code does not have this

1:47:54 ↗ category of regional growth Center you

1:47:56 ↗ don't the growth targets don't matter

1:47:57 ↗ but for the rest they do matter so those

1:48:00 ↗ that was cleaned up after the last site

1:48:02 ↗ specific the existing code just says the

1:48:05 ↗ requested rezone results in increased

1:48:07 ↗ housing density the additional density

1:48:09 ↗ shall only be allowed if the growth

1:48:12 ↗ management act housing targets have not

1:48:14 ↗ been met unless the city council

1:48:16 ↗ approves a development agreement so

1:48:18 ↗ there's not this three different

1:48:19 ↗ categories of just one item it doesn't

1:48:22 ↗ distinguish between regional growth

1:48:24 ↗ Center and outside so I just wanted

1:48:26 ↗ everyone to know that that was fixed was

1:48:28 ↗ made thank you commissioner Lewis

1:48:32 ↗ from the information that I have gotten

1:48:34 ↗ from staff over the years I will say

1:48:37 ↗ that I don't believe that we in Issaquah

1:48:40 ↗ have a housing crisis across the board

1:48:42 ↗ the way this region does I'm proud of

1:48:44 ↗ the fact that we met our housing targets

1:48:45 ↗ and we were the only municipality who

1:48:47 ↗ did that and did it well and on top of

1:48:50 ↗ that we have stepped up in many ways and

1:48:53 ↗ have been working for many years on how

1:48:55 ↗ we increase housing and it's incredibly

1:48:57 ↗ important that we put it where we want

1:49:00 ↗ it that means putting it where there's

1:49:02 ↗ Transit that means putting it where

1:49:03 ↗ there's available services and having a

1:49:05 ↗ multimodal approach what we need here in

1:49:08 ↗ Issaquah is a variety of housing types

1:49:10 ↗ that's what we're not getting we need

1:49:12 ↗ across the board housing right now we

1:49:15 ↗ don't have an issue with housing we have

1:49:16 ↗ an issue with being able to house

1:49:18 ↗ everybody we need to live work and play

1:49:20 ↗ in Issaquah and right now it's

1:49:21 ↗ incredibly different difficult to be

1:49:23 ↗ able to work and live in Issaquah it's

1:49:26 ↗ incredibly different to be able to

1:49:27 ↗ afford to live in our community and in

1:49:30 ↗ our sister communities which have some

1:49:31 ↗ of the highest ZIP codes in the country

1:49:33 ↗ so the idea that we would be directing

1:49:36 ↗ where we want to put our housing is

1:49:37 ↗ exactly what we're here to do if we get

1:49:40 ↗ into a situation where right now this

1:49:42 ↗ code doesn't serve us that's why we make

1:49:44 ↗ amendments that's why we're here and

1:49:45 ↗ that's what we do I strongly encourage

1:49:47 ↗ this right now

1:49:51 ↗ thank you Mr Lewis

1:49:53 ↗ I'm torn because uh I I do agree with

1:49:55 ↗ commissioner Milligan and commissioner

1:49:56 ↗ Lewis I just don't know if this is too

1:49:58 ↗ draconian that's my only concern it

1:50:02 ↗ doesn't seem we've been very effective

1:50:03 ↗ at pushing housing where we've wanted it

1:50:05 ↗ the commissioner loses point and just

1:50:08 ↗ from the site-specific reasons that I

1:50:11 ↗ can remember in the last three years I

1:50:12 ↗ don't think any of them had were even

1:50:14 ↗ near where we wanted it so they keep

1:50:17 ↗ coming

1:50:18 ↗ they keep getting up zoned and there

1:50:20 ↗ seems to be no incentive to drive these

1:50:22 ↗ people into the regional growth Center I

1:50:23 ↗ just don't know if the language is too

1:50:24 ↗ Draconian that's where I'm a little hung

1:50:26 ↗ up

1:50:29 ↗ Mr million think it's your voice and I

1:50:31 ↗ gotta say I am loving this conversation

1:50:33 ↗ I love disagreement and and to be

1:50:36 ↗ amongst such an intelligent panel here

1:50:38 ↗ who all have something to contribute the

1:50:41 ↗ um the backstop is the development

1:50:43 ↗ agreement and think about the how we

1:50:45 ↗ contributed and I think I recall that we

1:50:48 ↗ exceeded our growth targets through the

1:50:50 ↗ development agreements of the of the

1:50:51 ↗ urban Villages of Issaquah Highlands and

1:50:54 ↗ Talus and with that we were able to

1:50:57 ↗ unlike the site-specific rezone that

1:51:00 ↗ just recently happened

1:51:02 ↗ bargained for further benefits when we

1:51:05 ↗ added density you know commercial Zone

1:51:08 ↗ Transportation facilities whatever it is

1:51:10 ↗ that that makes that increased density

1:51:13 ↗ that up Zone well supported and in this

1:51:18 ↗ last time we upzoned property that did

1:51:21 ↗ not get any of those other benefits

1:51:24 ↗ bundled into that so the development

1:51:26 ↗ agreement as the backstop the

1:51:27 ↗ development agreement is what lets us up

1:51:30 ↗ Zone with the kinds of benefits that

1:51:32 ↗ we're looking to provide in the regional

1:51:34 ↗ growth Center

1:51:35 ↗ and you could do it anywhere

1:51:38 ↗ yeah that's interesting commissioner

1:51:40 ↗ doesn't Wade

1:51:41 ↗ yeah I think the key thing is that

1:51:44 ↗ um B essentially is saying that hey if

1:51:48 ↗ we reach that

1:51:50 ↗ growth Target what do we do the process

1:51:54 ↗ to be able to

1:51:56 ↗ um

1:51:57 ↗ get to the point where you can change

1:51:59 ↗ the policy

1:52:01 ↗ sometimes takes longer than to actually

1:52:05 ↗ meet the need for the growth so having

1:52:08 ↗ be in place supports it in the in the

1:52:12 ↗ case where hey we've met our growth

1:52:15 ↗ party which hasn't happened per se and

1:52:18 ↗ um in in the near term per se so it's

1:52:22 ↗ it's that Safeguard and oh hey we have a

1:52:25 ↗ growing population it could be tomorrow

1:52:27 ↗ or it could be 10 20 years from now but

1:52:30 ↗ at least we have that in the policy to

1:52:33 ↗ be able to support us for the future

1:52:39 ↗ all right is there any further

1:52:40 ↗ discussion uh with the most

1:52:43 ↗ with the amendment

1:52:48 ↗ right

1:52:57 ↗ thank you commissioner Lewis so we'll do

1:53:00 ↗ avoid both

1:53:02 ↗ we will do it yes we'll call for a vote

1:53:04 ↗ on the amendment on the floor we'll

1:53:06 ↗ begin with commissioner Kennedy

1:53:08 ↗ nay

1:53:12 ↗ aye Milligan

1:53:14 ↗ nay all tomorrow

1:53:20 ↗ yay

1:53:23 ↗ nay Patterson

1:53:25 ↗ connect voice

1:53:31 ↗ the motion is defeated

1:53:34 ↗ the amendment

1:53:40 ↗ commissioner Lewis I would like to make

1:53:43 ↗ a motion to let everyone know that I

1:53:44 ↗ only have two more of these uh but uh

1:53:46 ↗ I'm gonna in the interest of uh the time

1:53:49 ↗ in our community I uh that is here with

1:53:51 ↗ us I'm going to skip forward I have one

1:53:52 ↗ on three but I'll be coming back to it

1:53:54 ↗ because right now for

1:53:55 ↗ uh part five I'd like to make a motion

1:53:59 ↗ to amend the Adu square footage do I

1:54:03 ↗ have a second

1:54:08 ↗ I'll second that thank you commissioner

1:54:11 ↗ Patterson uh please open to discuss

1:54:14 ↗ commissioner Lewis thank you I've made

1:54:17 ↗ this motion because we have had a

1:54:19 ↗ discussion about this from the public

1:54:21 ↗ but yet we haven't had an opportunity to

1:54:23 ↗ discuss this with staff in particular I

1:54:26 ↗ will say that it's my understanding that

1:54:28 ↗ the city council set this at a thousand

1:54:31 ↗ that they have an interest in keeping it

1:54:32 ↗ at a thousand and from where I said I

1:54:34 ↗ don't have a reason to move it however

1:54:36 ↗ we have not had the opportunity to

1:54:38 ↗ discuss it and so I wanted to open it up

1:54:39 ↗ tonight I don't feel that I have gotten

1:54:42 ↗ kind of in any particular information

1:54:44 ↗ that tells me what type of living is

1:54:47 ↗ precluded in the thousand feet as in a

1:54:50 ↗ former apartment dweller I will tell you

1:54:51 ↗ that you can do a lot with a thousand

1:54:53 ↗ feet uh two bedrooms a kitchen and a

1:54:56 ↗ bath right it's it's it can be Heaven if

1:54:57 ↗ you've been living in you know

1:54:59 ↗ 423 square feet which is my record

1:55:02 ↗ um uh shout out to Foggy Bottom and uh

1:55:05 ↗ the price to live in DC so what I will

1:55:07 ↗ say is that I think that this it needs a

1:55:11 ↗ further discussion to say where are the

1:55:13 ↗ needs of our community and maybe where

1:55:15 ↗ the thousand feet not being met I don't

1:55:18 ↗ know that I support moving it but I do

1:55:20 ↗ support us having a discussion about it

1:55:22 ↗ right now and that's really what my

1:55:23 ↗ concern is that maybe there hasn't been

1:55:25 ↗ a detailed look at if the Thousand

1:55:28 ↗ serves us or not I couldn't tell you at

1:55:30 ↗ this point I don't have an issue but I

1:55:32 ↗ want to give it the chance to breathe

1:55:33 ↗ right now

1:55:35 ↗ thank you commissioner Lewis don't think

1:55:36 ↗ that's well said commissioner altimore

1:55:39 ↗ so I was curious about this so I went

1:55:41 ↗ and did some reading because there's a

1:55:43 ↗ bunch of bills at the state and there's

1:55:44 ↗ been a lot of conversations about this

1:55:46 ↗ and a thousand is pretty generous when

1:55:50 ↗ you look across a variety of communities

1:55:52 ↗ and thinking about what has been

1:55:54 ↗ proposed

1:55:55 ↗ uh three bedrooms plus uh communal

1:55:58 ↗ living space and some and kitchen and

1:56:00 ↗ all those things that's pretty

1:56:01 ↗ significant for an Adu you're really

1:56:03 ↗ talking about a full second dwelling

1:56:06 ↗ um there on the property so I feel

1:56:08 ↗ comfortable with a thousand square foot

1:56:11 ↗ limit I think that that keeps us in in

1:56:13 ↗ the high end of many of our local cities

1:56:17 ↗ and nationally has us definitely in the

1:56:19 ↗ high end

1:56:21 ↗ thank you appreciate that information

1:56:22 ↗ commissioner Milligan uh thank you

1:56:25 ↗ commissioner altimore I agree with you

1:56:26 ↗ wholeheartedly that this takes it out of

1:56:30 ↗ the accessory category and turns it into

1:56:32 ↗ we just subdivided the lot yeah so I

1:56:35 ↗ agree with keeping it at a thousand

1:56:37 ↗ um someday maybe some larger properties

1:56:40 ↗ maybe are a state you know single family

1:56:43 ↗ estate Zone could be looking at a

1:56:45 ↗ different

1:56:46 ↗ proportional size to the accessory

1:56:49 ↗ um

1:56:50 ↗ but for now I would like to keep it at a

1:56:52 ↗ thousand because I do think that's quite

1:56:53 ↗ adequate my condo is a little over 700

1:56:57 ↗ and it's bloody that's

1:57:00 ↗ the same here uh any further discussion

1:57:03 ↗ I'll just add a commissioner Patterson

1:57:06 ↗ please uh may I ask a question to

1:57:09 ↗ director volleyball

1:57:11 ↗ um did that a thousand square foot

1:57:12 ↗ numbers that pure City do we have any

1:57:15 ↗ understanding of where that number came

1:57:17 ↗ from um you know the city did a robust

1:57:19 ↗ code update when the edu legislation was

1:57:23 ↗ passed which was before my time here so

1:57:26 ↗ I don't know the specifics of what was

1:57:27 ↗ analyzed and all that but generally you

1:57:30 ↗ know cities range from 800 to 1000 but I

1:57:33 ↗ think the the comment today was tying it

1:57:36 ↗ to the lot size so

1:57:39 ↗ um you know like all that discussion

1:57:41 ↗ about what is the additional so perhaps

1:57:44 ↗ when the

1:57:45 ↗ comprehensive Plan update communication

1:57:48 ↗ is going on in terms of looking at if

1:57:50 ↗ you have a you know half an acre lot

1:57:54 ↗ it's a different size than a 6 000

1:57:57 ↗ square foot a lot so tying it

1:58:00 ↗ proportionally to that size

1:58:03 ↗ um is is something that the city can

1:58:04 ↗ look for look at in the future but this

1:58:06 ↗ was in something we add you know did a

1:58:09 ↗ lot of research but the city did do a

1:58:11 ↗ full public Outreach update to the Adu

1:58:15 ↗ regulations not too long ago some of you

1:58:17 ↗ were probably on the PPC

1:58:20 ↗ um at the time this was being discussed

1:58:22 ↗ so you may have more to weigh in

1:58:27 ↗ uh commissioner voice I'll just add for

1:58:29 ↗ uh

1:58:30 ↗ to wrap this up I agree with

1:58:32 ↗ commissioner Lewis I think just not

1:58:34 ↗ enough information while I appreciate

1:58:36 ↗ the public comments again

1:58:39 ↗ I'm I'm pretty confident that staff has

1:58:41 ↗ always provided us more information when

1:58:43 ↗ we ask for these things and that's what

1:58:45 ↗ I would be looking for especially if it

1:58:48 ↗ is truly tied to the actual size of the

1:58:50 ↗ lot not the edu so

1:58:53 ↗ there is an amendment to vote on

1:58:57 ↗ who so we will vote

1:59:00 ↗ that's for the vote Voice

1:59:06 ↗ right

1:59:08 ↗ okay

1:59:09 ↗ commissioner Lewis is my shoulder to cry

1:59:12 ↗ on lean on

1:59:15 ↗ so

1:59:16 ↗ all in favor of the amendment

1:59:22 ↗ okay commissioner Lewis would you like

1:59:24 ↗ to remind us of your Amendment please

1:59:27 ↗ the amendment is to modify the existing

1:59:30 ↗ thousand square foot

1:59:31 ↗ Adu requirement

1:59:34 ↗ from what it is but there is no

1:59:35 ↗ Amendment as to what it should be but so

1:59:36 ↗ I can give I can give the language the

1:59:38 ↗ language of the amendment didn't it

1:59:39 ↗ didn't say but okay right

1:59:51 ↗ to change it

1:59:53 ↗ you want to change it

1:59:56 ↗ oh

1:59:59 ↗ yeah okay

2:00:01 ↗ so all in favor

2:00:04 ↗ all opposed

2:00:07 ↗ unanimous

2:00:10 ↗ all right

2:00:13 ↗ anyone feel like the slow kid today uh

2:00:15 ↗ commissioner Lewis if Mike fellow

2:00:18 ↗ Commissioners will humor me this is my

2:00:20 ↗ last motion on Title 18 and it goes to

2:00:22 ↗ part three I'd like to make a an

2:00:25 ↗ amendment to the current zero lot line

2:00:28 ↗ development standard it currently reads

2:00:31 ↗ that it will apply to Central Issaquah

2:00:33 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands as well as Talus

2:00:36 ↗ I would then like to end the zero lot

2:00:38 ↗ line therefore removing

2:00:41 ↗ um the 7.26 dwelling Acres that it would

2:00:44 ↗ apply to throughout our community a

2:00:47 ↗ second

2:00:50 ↗ all right discussion commissioner Lewis

2:00:52 ↗ thank you as the author of this

2:00:54 ↗ amendment I'd like to say that I am

2:00:56 ↗ encouraged by the use of adding zero lot

2:00:59 ↗ line uh to our code I think it is a

2:01:02 ↗ useful tool especially when discussing

2:01:04 ↗ micro housing

2:01:05 ↗ um and being able to get a diversity of

2:01:07 ↗ housing types I think it makes a lot of

2:01:09 ↗ sense however I have concerns right now

2:01:11 ↗ that I don't believe have been uh met

2:01:14 ↗ right now and demonstrated that the

2:01:16 ↗ effects of the neighborhood character

2:01:17 ↗ specifically for South cope and when we

2:01:20 ↗ look at where the single

2:01:22 ↗ single homes that would be impacted by

2:01:24 ↗ this change so what I'd like to propose

2:01:27 ↗ is that we rolled this out a more

2:01:29 ↗ deliberate and conservative way right

2:01:31 ↗ now for our code allowing it in our

2:01:34 ↗ areas like in our Urban Villages of

2:01:35 ↗ Talus and the highlands and where we

2:01:37 ↗ want to be putting in

2:01:39 ↗ um small lot homes to be able to

2:01:41 ↗ encourage home ownership at a variety of

2:01:44 ↗ price points in central Issaquah but

2:01:46 ↗ again the I would recommend us starting

2:01:48 ↗ out a little a little slower on this by

2:01:51 ↗ taking and removing out the single

2:01:52 ↗ family lots

2:01:55 ↗ commissioner looking

2:01:58 ↗ thank you commissioner Lewis when we

2:02:00 ↗ talked about this at our meeting a

2:02:02 ↗ couple meetings ago

2:02:04 ↗ and director recommended and how about

2:02:08 ↗ this density of the single family and

2:02:10 ↗ when I heard those words I thought yeah

2:02:11 ↗ that sounds fine because that's pretty

2:02:13 ↗ dense and then I saw on the zoning map

2:02:15 ↗ because I didn't have it handy then oh

2:02:17 ↗ wait a minute that's South Cove that's

2:02:19 ↗ here that's there I thought now wait a

2:02:21 ↗ minute the the places that I thought

2:02:23 ↗ that the zero lot lines were most

2:02:25 ↗ important especially to protect from

2:02:26 ↗ non-conforming uses this is a qua

2:02:28 ↗ Highlands Talus you know the places that

2:02:31 ↗ are using them that are listed and so on

2:02:33 ↗ reconsideration even though I did say at

2:02:35 ↗ that meeting oh yeah that sounds pretty

2:02:36 ↗ good looking at the zoning map it didn't

2:02:39 ↗ seem quite right so I I thank you for

2:02:41 ↗ commissioner Lewis for

2:02:43 ↗ making the amendment to strike the

2:02:46 ↗ language about the 7.26 dwelling units

2:02:48 ↗ per acre included in the serial dot line

2:02:55 ↗ any further discussion

2:02:59 ↗ all right

2:03:01 ↗ do you want to repeat your Amendment I

2:03:04 ↗ feel like no

2:03:07 ↗ I will repeat that um I am uh would like

2:03:10 ↗ to amend Title 18 in regards to uh part

2:03:15 ↗ three and to say that zero lot line will

2:03:19 ↗ only apply to Central Issaquah the

2:03:22 ↗ Issaquah Highlands and to Talus and it

2:03:25 ↗ will be striking the addition of

2:03:27 ↗ single-family dwellings that are reside

2:03:29 ↗ on 7.26 units per acre

2:03:33 ↗ all all in favor of commissioner Lewis's

2:03:36 ↗ Amendment

2:03:39 ↗ unanimous

2:03:47 ↗ are there any other amendments I believe

2:03:50 ↗ there are

2:03:54 ↗ all right

2:03:56 ↗ we're going to move along

2:04:01 ↗ if we're going to vote on the motion for

2:04:03 ↗ the amendments

2:04:05 ↗ for the motion for

2:04:08 ↗ idle 18 as amended thank you Joy

2:04:11 ↗ commissioner Lewis

2:04:15 ↗ I know but we haven't had a discussion

2:04:17 ↗ on the original motion have we

2:04:20 ↗ yeah

2:04:22 ↗ thank you let's have a good discussion

2:04:23 ↗ uh this you know there might be various

2:04:25 ↗ times that this is appropriate to say

2:04:26 ↗ but this is the big vote on the big

2:04:28 ↗ Title 18 and this is the thing we've

2:04:30 ↗ been working on the last two years and

2:04:31 ↗ thank you all the rest of you joined

2:04:33 ↗ this party

2:04:34 ↗ um uh Midway and you've really been

2:04:36 ↗ great contributors to it uh I it's it's

2:04:39 ↗ a humbling experience to to be part of

2:04:41 ↗ voting on such a big

2:04:43 ↗ piece of work and and it's even hard to

2:04:46 ↗ vote on it because you can't I for one

2:04:49 ↗ can't say that I can comprehensively say

2:04:51 ↗ hey I I worked on this whole thing and I

2:04:54 ↗ support this whole thing because I've

2:04:57 ↗ just been

2:04:58 ↗ um selective and tried to contribute

2:05:00 ↗ where I thought that I could uh really

2:05:02 ↗ the work has been done by the staff and

2:05:04 ↗ our consultants and the rest of the all

2:05:06 ↗ the administration and I really

2:05:08 ↗ appreciate all the work that's been done

2:05:10 ↗ the Persistence of the public who've

2:05:12 ↗ come to the meetings here in council

2:05:15 ↗ chambers and have visited Us online

2:05:17 ↗ they've brought

2:05:19 ↗ such incredible insight and experience

2:05:22 ↗ to this these deliberations and so I've

2:05:25 ↗ really enjoyed the whole process I'm

2:05:28 ↗ glad to be voting for adopting the title

2:05:31 ↗ 18 as amended but I'm going to say it

2:05:33 ↗ again because it just was a theme that

2:05:35 ↗ was working with me as I thought about

2:05:37 ↗ this moment that we're in another

2:05:39 ↗ starting line

2:05:40 ↗ um here let's let's get to the next

2:05:43 ↗ starting line so we can take advantage

2:05:45 ↗ of all the improvements that have been

2:05:48 ↗ worked on and refined over these last

2:05:51 ↗ two years so I'm excited to be

2:05:53 ↗ supporting the motion

2:05:56 ↗ I second that commissioner Milligan

2:06:00 ↗ well said well said

2:06:03 ↗ all right

2:06:05 ↗ now you can help me

2:06:09 ↗ well if you're just going to give me my

2:06:10 ↗ microphone you know I'm going to say

2:06:12 ↗ something I want to piggyback on and

2:06:14 ↗ affirm both chair voices and

2:06:16 ↗ commissioner Milligan's comments and I

2:06:19 ↗ also want to mention that there's been a

2:06:21 ↗ tremendous amount of work on this

2:06:22 ↗ document we're so excited to be able to

2:06:24 ↗ pass it on and to see how it changes how

2:06:27 ↗ it grows how it how it's really a living

2:06:29 ↗ and breathing thing we talk so much

2:06:31 ↗ about policy

2:06:33 ↗ and we say the teeth is in the code

2:06:34 ↗ right and it's been an honor to be able

2:06:36 ↗ to work on the code but it's also been

2:06:38 ↗ an honor of all the other voices who

2:06:39 ↗ have been a part of this right we've had

2:06:41 ↗ other Commissioners other people um

2:06:43 ↗ Stellar staff members that have left us

2:06:44 ↗ right we've had so many people who have

2:06:46 ↗ touched this document who are no longer

2:06:49 ↗ a part of this process but they're um

2:06:51 ↗ the reverberations are there I want to

2:06:53 ↗ say thank you to our our other boards

2:06:55 ↗ and commissions who we've leaned on

2:06:57 ↗ heavily there's huge sections of this

2:06:59 ↗ code that have changed and been for the

2:07:03 ↗ better because of all the different

2:07:03 ↗ voices on it so I'm proud of this work

2:07:06 ↗ and I'm proud to continue the discussion

2:07:08 ↗ when we move to additional

2:07:10 ↗ recommendations to talk about how this

2:07:12 ↗ document can continue to grow and get

2:07:13 ↗ better as we advise Council and the

2:07:16 ↗ motion is to approve Title 18 as amended

2:07:20 ↗ [Music]

2:07:22 ↗ all right there's a motion to approve

2:07:24 ↗ Title 18 as amended all in favor

2:07:30 ↗ aye

2:07:32 ↗ unanimous

2:07:34 ↗ I also would like to say thank you to

2:07:35 ↗ everyone

2:07:36 ↗ um commissioner Milligan and

2:07:38 ↗ commissioner Lewis said it great so I

2:07:41 ↗ will leave it there I do think of

2:07:43 ↗ certain staff and Commissioners that are

2:07:45 ↗ uh

2:07:46 ↗ uh Lucy sloman commissioner Monahan

2:07:52 ↗ Keith Nevin

2:07:53 ↗ right there's just so many people to

2:07:55 ↗ list but again a big heartfelt thank you

2:07:58 ↗ to all of the people who helped so

2:08:01 ↗ we're gonna move on and we are now going

2:08:04 ↗ to

2:08:05 ↗ begin and we'll end this meeting with

2:08:07 ↗ our discussion discussion of the

2:08:09 ↗ approval letter to city council

2:08:33 ↗ that was a lot of work commissioner

2:08:35 ↗ thank you for all the great discussions

2:08:37 ↗ uh now we are moving on to our last item

2:08:40 ↗ which will be discussion of the letter

2:08:42 ↗ I'm going to walk you through each of

2:08:43 ↗ the suggested edits that were received

2:08:46 ↗ by Commissioners prior to tonight's

2:08:48 ↗ meeting before I get started are there

2:08:50 ↗ any additional edits that aren't

2:08:52 ↗ recognized on your list

2:08:57 ↗ sorry commissioner Milligan

2:09:02 ↗ I do have one

2:09:05 ↗ where are they oh the um

2:09:08 ↗ the one about uh deviations in code

2:09:12 ↗ chapters how do I insert that

2:09:16 ↗ Stephen

2:09:20 ↗ this one

2:09:26 ↗ yeah thank you it's an additional uh an

2:09:30 ↗ additional item for the letter

2:09:35 ↗ and may I describe

2:09:37 ↗ this so I hope that these this wording

2:09:39 ↗ uh captures some famous any edits uh

2:09:41 ↗ they can help the purpose of this is

2:09:44 ↗ that we have

2:09:47 ↗ throughout the code

2:09:50 ↗ the places where the deviations uh

2:09:53 ↗ allowed deviations are described so

2:09:55 ↗ often procedures which is an earlier

2:09:58 ↗ section

2:10:00 ↗ procedures part two we say when we allow

2:10:04 ↗ deviations and then as per each section

2:10:07 ↗ whether it's hillsides or

2:10:09 ↗ um

2:10:11 ↗ window transparency adult entertainment

2:10:13 ↗ other things are out in subject matter

2:10:15 ↗ in various subject matter chapters and

2:10:18 ↗ we haven't had a chance to discuss these

2:10:21 ↗ and I haven't had a chance to challenge

2:10:22 ↗ them so I just want to make sure the

2:10:24 ↗ council looked very carefully at whether

2:10:27 ↗ they desire to include those deviations

2:10:31 ↗ because they are points by which we do

2:10:35 ↗ not

2:10:36 ↗ enforce or hold to our standards

2:10:41 ↗ they just need another they need more

2:10:43 ↗ time

2:10:45 ↗ did I capture that in that new bullet

2:10:47 ↗ folks I think so so just for

2:10:50 ↗ clarification for the rest of the

2:10:52 ↗ commission this was provided

2:10:54 ↗ um to staff after this was given to you

2:10:57 ↗ prior to tonight's meeting so we added

2:11:00 ↗ we had time to add it to the

2:11:01 ↗ presentation to help with discussion

2:11:05 ↗ commissioner Lewis a quick question

2:11:07 ↗ where deviations is it in part two or is

2:11:10 ↗ it in part one in general where where do

2:11:12 ↗ deviations fall in chapter in title 18.

2:11:17 ↗ which part there in various parts

2:11:22 ↗ we don't have a section I see so

2:11:24 ↗ right right now you would like to make

2:11:26 ↗ you're not making an amendment to any of

2:11:28 ↗ our recommendations to Council in

2:11:30 ↗ various parts are you doing this in the

2:11:31 ↗ in the additional recommendations areas

2:11:33 ↗ where you're going to want to put that

2:11:35 ↗ in our letter right because we're

2:11:37 ↗ talking about our letter and Nina your

2:11:39 ↗ comment on deviations do you want so

2:11:40 ↗ would that be in the additional

2:11:41 ↗ recommendations

2:11:44 ↗ okay

2:11:45 ↗ Stephen you think is that what I'm

2:11:50 ↗ well no the additional recommendations

2:11:52 ↗ that's future

2:11:57 ↗ so it could be too much General General

2:11:59 ↗ recommendations at the beginning of the

2:12:01 ↗ letter or it could be part two where

2:12:03 ↗ you're addressing the full list of all

2:12:05 ↗ the deviations General recommendations

2:12:09 ↗ uh General and overall comments yes

2:12:11 ↗ that's that's where I want it because uh

2:12:14 ↗ additional recommendations is assuming

2:12:16 ↗ that this comes after the adoption of

2:12:17 ↗ title 18.

2:12:24 ↗ did you get what you needed Stephen okay

2:12:26 ↗ uh commissioner Lewis uh Stephen I'd

2:12:29 ↗ like to withdraw edit number 11 as um

2:12:32 ↗ it's just no longer needed

2:12:42 ↗ uh well the late I'm sorry on on five

2:12:44 ↗ the language would need to be changed is

2:12:46 ↗ uh to we still need to remove the you

2:12:49 ↗ know have a period after Talus and

2:12:51 ↗ remove that language

2:12:58 ↗ Mr Lewis chair I'm going to start this

2:13:00 ↗ off because right now I am the

2:13:02 ↗ commissioner who has edit number one

2:13:04 ↗ um I would like in this section that

2:13:06 ↗ we're doing a general overall comments

2:13:08 ↗ to make a motion

2:13:10 ↗ um to add a new bullet to General

2:13:12 ↗ overall comments it says this commission

2:13:13 ↗ recognizes that an extensive review of

2:13:15 ↗ this document has not been done by this

2:13:18 ↗ commission given the time constraints

2:13:19 ↗ presented for the final draft

2:13:25 ↗ something like a second it's on motion

2:13:27 ↗ second

2:13:30 ↗ all right please proceed

2:13:33 ↗ liberations uh in this letter to council

2:13:36 ↗ I think it's incredibly important that

2:13:37 ↗ we talk about uh the things that we like

2:13:39 ↗ that we don't like the things that we've

2:13:40 ↗ changed but I think it's important that

2:13:42 ↗ we specify that this commission has not

2:13:43 ↗ been given the time to be able to go

2:13:45 ↗ over title 18. what's the granularity

2:13:47 ↗ that is necessary after watching several

2:13:50 ↗ Council meetings talking about uh how

2:13:53 ↗ they feel that PPC is doing the Deep

2:13:57 ↗ dive and that they have the 30 000 foot

2:13:58 ↗ view I want them to know that we have

2:14:02 ↗ done and we've done the job that we're

2:14:04 ↗ able to do in the month that we've had

2:14:06 ↗ the final draft of title 18. I think we

2:14:08 ↗ could do three more meetings and make

2:14:10 ↗ this document even better but I think

2:14:12 ↗ what we want to do is to pass this on to

2:14:14 ↗ council have them enrich it and have it

2:14:16 ↗ and get it on the books right is what

2:14:18 ↗ our our main goal is and so I think it's

2:14:20 ↗ important that they know that we are

2:14:21 ↗ right now doing what we can do uh what

2:14:24 ↗ with the time that we've been allotted

2:14:27 ↗ uh commissioner Kennedy

2:14:30 ↗ um I see a paragraph in the letter

2:14:32 ↗ already that basically says that same

2:14:34 ↗ thing where we state that we recognize

2:14:36 ↗ the scope of this project and not

2:14:37 ↗ include discussion on all policy issues

2:14:39 ↗ we look forward to working with the

2:14:41 ↗ administration to continue to make

2:14:42 ↗ improvements

2:14:43 ↗ so I think we've kind of already

2:14:45 ↗ generally said that

2:14:49 ↗ these are all tomorrow

2:14:52 ↗ ditto commissioner Kennedy

2:15:00 ↗ all right

2:15:02 ↗ well we've got a few varying opinions so

2:15:06 ↗ yeah we'll call for a Voice vote on

2:15:11 ↗ edit number one commissioner Lewis's

2:15:14 ↗ Amendment

2:15:15 ↗ um in favor commissioner Kennedy

2:15:18 ↗ no

2:15:19 ↗ commissioner Milligan

2:15:23 ↗ no

2:15:24 ↗ commissioner

2:15:28 ↗ commissioner Lewis yes

2:15:30 ↗ commissioner Patterson no

2:15:32 ↗ commissioner voice yes

2:15:36 ↗ defeated

2:15:45 ↗ Mr Lewis I am the author of edit number

2:15:48 ↗ two to add a bullet to General overall

2:15:50 ↗ comments the commission would appreciate

2:15:52 ↗ the opportunity to fully evaluate the

2:15:54 ↗ impact of the development regulations as

2:15:56 ↗ part of the comprehensive planned

2:15:57 ↗ periodic update

2:15:59 ↗ do I have a second

2:16:02 ↗ Mr Patterson I'll second that

2:16:10 ↗ uh thank you as the author well I would

2:16:13 ↗ say is that in the uh right now we've

2:16:16 ↗ talked a lot about in the gaps

2:16:18 ↗ um in our gaps analysis is kind of how

2:16:20 ↗ this document is going to end up living

2:16:22 ↗ and breathing we've talked a lot about

2:16:23 ↗ usability and how it needs to differ

2:16:25 ↗ from the previous code but this

2:16:27 ↗ commission has not been afforded that

2:16:28 ↗ opportunity because it doesn't exist

2:16:30 ↗ right now I think it's important right

2:16:32 ↗ now when we talk about our general

2:16:33 ↗ overall comments

2:16:36 ↗ um in the general section that we talk

2:16:38 ↗ about how there is an expectation that

2:16:40 ↗ we have about how this is going to be

2:16:43 ↗ um

2:16:44 ↗ actually used by the people who are

2:16:46 ↗ using it and making sure that there's a

2:16:48 ↗ component to it of

2:16:50 ↗ that it is not

2:16:52 ↗ just words on a screen that is

2:16:54 ↗ accurately being linked that there is a

2:16:57 ↗ usability aspect that we haven't been

2:16:59 ↗ able to view or see right now because

2:17:01 ↗ we're just looking at words on a page

2:17:03 ↗ and that shouldn't be how it is for the

2:17:05 ↗ experienced user when they're doing it

2:17:07 ↗ in a largely digital format

2:17:13 ↗ anyone else like to contribute

2:17:15 ↗ commissioner altimore

2:17:17 ↗ I have a question so I did make a note

2:17:20 ↗ about a usability study or understanding

2:17:23 ↗ going back and understanding the

2:17:24 ↗ usability of this code

2:17:26 ↗ and it may just be my

2:17:29 ↗ newness to this process but

2:17:31 ↗ um that doesn't feel like what comment

2:17:34 ↗ to says comment to I don't know I didn't

2:17:36 ↗ quite understand what you were asking

2:17:38 ↗ for and if you are going toward a uh

2:17:41 ↗ evaluation of the updates and the the

2:17:44 ↗ usability of this new code it feels like

2:17:46 ↗ that would be different words than

2:17:48 ↗ what's here

2:17:51 ↗ uh right now I think that the language

2:17:53 ↗ uh the staff and I talked about was

2:17:56 ↗ um trying to give wording that would

2:17:58 ↗ allow PPC to be able to have on their

2:18:00 ↗ docket and their agenda the ability to

2:18:02 ↗ Circle back on

2:18:05 ↗ on effectively

2:18:07 ↗ um what the impact of of these

2:18:10 ↗ regulations that we're changing and

2:18:12 ↗ modifying and putting in and being able

2:18:13 ↗ to have that discussion down the line

2:18:16 ↗ right now is not something that

2:18:18 ↗ necessarily comes back to us because we

2:18:19 ↗ don't set our agenda so what I would

2:18:21 ↗ like to do is to kind of what this

2:18:23 ↗ commission has done before on various

2:18:24 ↗ things is we've planned to flag asking

2:18:26 ↗ Council and the administration to be

2:18:28 ↗ able to say hey this is something that

2:18:29 ↗ we want to see back at this particular

2:18:30 ↗ time frame and it's kind of raising an

2:18:32 ↗ issue that I don't think is captured in

2:18:33 ↗ the letter

2:18:43 ↗ commissioner Kennedy

2:18:45 ↗ question

2:18:47 ↗ um you're talking about development

2:18:48 ↗ regulations when that go to the

2:18:50 ↗ development Commission

2:18:54 ↗ are we asking for regulations that will

2:18:57 ↗ that do go to the development commission

2:18:59 ↗ to also come to us no I'm trying to read

2:19:01 ↗ the language in

2:19:03 ↗ you know I

2:19:05 ↗ right now I

2:19:07 ↗ right I think what I'm trying to capture

2:19:09 ↗ is again some of the things that we saw

2:19:11 ↗ in this title I'd like to see moving

2:19:12 ↗ forward going in the comprehensive plan

2:19:14 ↗ I think we looked at this through an

2:19:15 ↗ environmental lens which was appropriate

2:19:17 ↗ for some of the things that we're doing

2:19:19 ↗ but I am concerned because again as

2:19:22 ↗ planning policy we have a unique

2:19:23 ↗ responsibility right ours is not the

2:19:26 ↗ scope we are not the environmental board

2:19:27 ↗ we do that is not our sole mandate

2:19:30 ↗ one thing that was not brought up often

2:19:32 ↗ enough here was economic impact we're

2:19:34 ↗ going to have the opportunity to do that

2:19:35 ↗ with the comprehensive plan because

2:19:36 ↗ we're going to be built dealing with

2:19:38 ↗ more building structure to Vinnie's

2:19:41 ↗ Point earlier fars but I would like to

2:19:43 ↗ see how some of these things have an

2:19:45 ↗ impact that's my concern we've made a

2:19:48 ↗ lot of tightening a lot of restrict

2:19:49 ↗ restrictive language has just gone in

2:19:52 ↗ and I'd like to see the full measure of

2:19:54 ↗ what we just did

2:19:56 ↗ so that is what I'm looking for is for a

2:19:58 ↗ review

2:20:00 ↗ um within a year or two or I guess well

2:20:04 ↗ yeah there's no time but that's

2:20:06 ↗ ultimately my my piece of it that's

2:20:08 ↗ where this came from and staff helped me

2:20:11 ↗ massage the language but that is the

2:20:12 ↗ idea

2:20:13 ↗ is again we have a planning policy that

2:20:17 ↗ is different from your environmental

2:20:18 ↗ board the equity board both those boards

2:20:21 ↗ are brand new so planning policy used to

2:20:23 ↗ have a little bit broader scope but

2:20:24 ↗ again

2:20:25 ↗ those boards have a mandate you know I

2:20:28 ↗ think Equity board their mandate is to

2:20:30 ↗ look at city government look at the

2:20:32 ↗ distribution of resources and again we

2:20:35 ↗ touched a lot on environmental and I'd

2:20:37 ↗ like to see where that took us because

2:20:38 ↗ again we did not spend time on economic

2:20:41 ↗ factors or runners

2:20:42 ↗ that is my concern

2:20:50 ↗ any further discussion

2:20:55 ↗ all right

2:20:56 ↗ are there any objections

2:21:01 ↗ well I've got I've got so many sheets up

2:21:03 ↗ here I gave up a long time ago

2:21:06 ↗ this tap has been phenomenal but yeah

2:21:08 ↗ I'm just I'm Waking it now

2:21:10 ↗ um are there any objections

2:21:12 ↗ all right

2:21:13 ↗ so I believe that it too passes I

2:21:15 ↗ understand that correctly

2:21:22 ↗ commissioner million uh I have changed

2:21:25 ↗ to the letter that I think Falls now

2:21:27 ↗ Stephen if we put it under General about

2:21:30 ↗ the deviations

2:21:32 ↗ is that right

2:21:33 ↗ so I'm going to move

2:21:36 ↗ that the commission I'm going to move

2:21:38 ↗ that we add a bullet to the general and

2:21:40 ↗ overall comments that says the

2:21:42 ↗ commission requests the city council

2:21:43 ↗ evaluate the purpose of all deviations

2:21:46 ↗ and subject matter sections

2:21:49 ↗ a second

2:21:50 ↗ and I think I already described this a

2:21:52 ↗ little bit a bit just for the the record

2:21:54 ↗ that we talked about process but

2:21:57 ↗ I wasn't here for a discussion about

2:22:00 ↗ um when we allow deviations under what

2:22:02 ↗ conditions and some of them seem quite

2:22:05 ↗ arbitrary to me uh

2:22:09 ↗ one of them has to do with a window

2:22:12 ↗ transparency and that is you can you

2:22:14 ↗ don't have to follow the window

2:22:15 ↗ transparency standard if you have a use

2:22:19 ↗ inside that business that wants to have

2:22:22 ↗ more opaque Windows well the reason why

2:22:24 ↗ we have window transparency standard at

2:22:26 ↗ all is that we want our ground floor

2:22:28 ↗ retail to be vibrant and active with the

2:22:30 ↗ streets we want our sidewalks to be safe

2:22:33 ↗ because there are eyes on the street

2:22:34 ↗ they're all you know countless reasons

2:22:37 ↗ why we put a limit on opacity on ground

2:22:42 ↗ floor windows in retail areas and to say

2:22:45 ↗ that well if somebody moves into that

2:22:47 ↗ section who needs to have opacity then

2:22:49 ↗ they just get to have it you know it

2:22:51 ↗ just seems like an arbitrary um

2:22:54 ↗ uh reason maybe the standards wrong but

2:22:56 ↗ to to leave it as a uh and these are

2:23:00 ↗ decided administratively too so it's

2:23:02 ↗ we're not giving the right tools if we

2:23:05 ↗ say we have a standard but you can break

2:23:07 ↗ it yeah go ahead so I wanted the council

2:23:09 ↗ to look at these because it would take

2:23:10 ↗ too long for us to look at it now and

2:23:12 ↗ we're passing it on

2:23:16 ↗ um I appreciate uh adding this language

2:23:18 ↗ to the letter

2:23:19 ↗ um many knows that I've struggled with

2:23:20 ↗ deviations and wanting to be able to get

2:23:23 ↗ this um to get this right and so I think

2:23:26 ↗ being able to call out the fact that um

2:23:28 ↗ you know there's a wonderful line at the

2:23:30 ↗ end of our sign code that says there

2:23:32 ↗ will be no deviations to the sign code

2:23:34 ↗ it ranged me it's saying to me going why

2:23:36 ↗ is this language not pervasive

2:23:38 ↗ throughout our documents we work so hard

2:23:40 ↗ to say this is the city we want and in

2:23:43 ↗ the right conditions and I don't know

2:23:45 ↗ that they are always the right

2:23:46 ↗ conditions and um so I I second this

2:23:50 ↗ language

2:23:53 ↗ commissioner million can I add to my

2:23:55 ↗ comments uh the other thing is that one

2:23:57 ↗ of the major goals of our update to the

2:23:59 ↗ title 18 was to make a more predictable

2:24:01 ↗ code and one of the things in working

2:24:03 ↗ for a developer that I see is that when

2:24:06 ↗ you go into this very expensive process

2:24:08 ↗ of finding out am I doing what's going

2:24:10 ↗ to get approved when you have a whole

2:24:12 ↗ bunch of vague reasons why it could get

2:24:17 ↗ approved even outside the standards then

2:24:20 ↗ you are it's risky it's dangerous it's

2:24:22 ↗ time consuming and I don't think it is

2:24:24 ↗ encouraging to developers it doesn't

2:24:26 ↗ give them a predictable landscape and

2:24:28 ↗ that was one of the main things we

2:24:29 ↗ wanted to do was give them a predictable

2:24:31 ↗ landscape and then because I just talked

2:24:33 ↗ about window transparency which is

2:24:35 ↗ probably not important to everybody

2:24:36 ↗ adult entertainment could be and if you

2:24:39 ↗ look at the deviations about where you

2:24:41 ↗ can put adult entertainment it seemed

2:24:44 ↗ kind of well do we really do we care

2:24:46 ↗ where adult entertainment goes or not

2:24:49 ↗ and after you look at the deviations to

2:24:51 ↗ me it looked like we didn't quite care

2:24:53 ↗ so I think these topics need further

2:24:57 ↗ um

2:24:58 ↗ analysis thank you

2:25:01 ↗ thank you commissioner million yeah I

2:25:03 ↗ mean the commissioner Milligan's Point

2:25:06 ↗ I've always kind of wondered there must

2:25:08 ↗ be a legal reason why we even have adult

2:25:10 ↗ entertainment

2:25:12 ↗ um okay I'm getting a nod from Council

2:25:14 ↗ because yeah it yeah so that's all I

2:25:17 ↗ needed to know I won't waste people's

2:25:19 ↗ time any further yeah that's always

2:25:21 ↗ struck me is on all right any objections

2:25:25 ↗ oh yeah commissioner altamar

2:25:28 ↗ so um the way this is worded is a little

2:25:31 ↗ concerning to me because it just feels

2:25:33 ↗ like we're just tossing the football to

2:25:34 ↗ the council and it's a pretty big

2:25:36 ↗ football and so I'm wondering if um

2:25:39 ↗ there could be an amendment to the

2:25:41 ↗ amendment that basically says that there

2:25:43 ↗ is a um that the commission recommends

2:25:46 ↗ further evaluation of deviations and

2:25:49 ↗ doesn't say to the council you have to

2:25:50 ↗ do it

2:25:51 ↗ um

2:25:52 ↗ because it just I if I were the council

2:25:54 ↗ and I read this I uh I would be like

2:25:58 ↗ wait you're giving your work to me so um

2:26:01 ↗ but as as you had said chair voice we

2:26:04 ↗ want to continue to reevaluate uh

2:26:06 ↗ commissioner Lewis you said we want this

2:26:08 ↗ to be a living document so can we just

2:26:10 ↗ say that we believe there should be some

2:26:12 ↗ further study of deviations

2:26:21 ↗ does the author to the motion accept the

2:26:23 ↗ proposed language

2:26:31 ↗ okay

2:26:34 ↗ I'm not twisting her

2:26:40 ↗ good that's good

2:26:45 ↗ any objective commissioner Kennedy well

2:26:47 ↗ just one note that I think your point

2:26:49 ↗ was that we not put it on the city

2:26:52 ↗ council that the city council further

2:26:54 ↗ evaluate that the commission requests

2:26:56 ↗ further evaluation of the deviations in

2:26:59 ↗ subject matter sections just sort of

2:27:01 ↗ making it abroad we should look at these

2:27:03 ↗ again at some point but we're not going

2:27:05 ↗ to punt the football until they do yep

2:27:11 ↗ I do want to punt now you guys are

2:27:13 ↗ pushing me

2:27:15 ↗ yeah I do not accept the uh I want to

2:27:17 ↗ stick with my Amendment and then it can

2:27:20 ↗ pass or fail

2:27:21 ↗ and then we can do another one

2:27:24 ↗ but I'm going to stick with I wanted I

2:27:26 ↗ wanted somebody in the public

2:27:28 ↗ somebody who was uh responsive to the

2:27:31 ↗ public rather than it just be a staff

2:27:33 ↗ evaluation but it could putting the

2:27:35 ↗ burden on the staff and you want to

2:27:37 ↗ discussed in the discussion of titling

2:27:39 ↗ Title 18 24 Title 18 is approved that's

2:27:42 ↗ what I thought yeah thank you Stephen

2:27:43 ↗ yeah I'm going to stick with the I

2:27:45 ↗ appreciate I appreciate that perspective

2:27:47 ↗ but I think I do want to put it

2:27:51 ↗ are there any objections

2:27:56 ↗ no objections

2:28:02 ↗ uh all right we'll do a Voice vote

2:28:05 ↗ commissioner Kenny

2:28:15 ↗ I'm not big on planting it to them but

2:28:17 ↗ I'll accept

2:28:24 ↗ no objections

2:28:27 ↗ commissioner altimore no objections

2:28:29 ↗ commissioner

2:28:31 ↗ no objections commissioner Lewis no

2:28:34 ↗ objection commissioner Patterson no

2:28:36 ↗ objections Mr voice no objections

2:28:47 ↗ all right moving on to where are we yeah

2:28:50 ↗ part one edit number three huh

2:28:53 ↗ yeah that's right yeah thank you

2:28:56 ↗ so moving on to edit number three

2:29:01 ↗ thank you chair uh that's me so we're in

2:29:04 ↗ part one the general Provisions

2:29:05 ↗ um I'd like to add a bullet that says

2:29:07 ↗ the commission would appreciate the

2:29:08 ↗ opportunity to full oh wait no sorry ha

2:29:10 ↗ ha part one I would like to enable the

2:29:13 ↗ commission encourages additional

2:29:14 ↗ language to the doc uh to this document

2:29:16 ↗ that supports increasing Community

2:29:17 ↗ engagement currently all level of one

2:29:20 ↗ and two reviews have no oversight from

2:29:21 ↗ the community and further tracking and

2:29:23 ↗ increased opportunities for public

2:29:24 ↗ engagement are needed and I'm looking

2:29:26 ↗ for a second

2:29:30 ↗ thank you

2:29:30 ↗ is anyone second

2:29:35 ↗ I second that

2:29:37 ↗ commissioner Lewis thank you uh one of

2:29:40 ↗ the main well we had many goals but one

2:29:42 ↗ of the so we'll call the top five goals

2:29:44 ↗ that we had with this Title 18 overhaul

2:29:46 ↗ was an increase in transparency and

2:29:49 ↗ there are actually many places where

2:29:51 ↗ it's made sense to us to to not increase

2:29:53 ↗ transparency and public involvement uh

2:29:55 ↗ and what I would like to see is that we

2:29:58 ↗ include metrics in our tracking

2:30:01 ↗ um of as we go on of how we're using

2:30:03 ↗ this code that allows more transparency

2:30:05 ↗ I would like to add language that talks

2:30:07 ↗ about giving more opportunities for

2:30:09 ↗ there to be neighborhood meetings on

2:30:12 ↗ things and so I think that it's worth

2:30:14 ↗ having the PPC advise the council that

2:30:17 ↗ we support additions to uh of language

2:30:21 ↗ right now that I think that these

2:30:23 ↗ components are missing it that we still

2:30:24 ↗ believe these to be vital engagements

2:30:32 ↗ commissioner altimore

2:30:36 ↗ I think again only in the conversations

2:30:38 ↗ that I've been in in these last few

2:30:39 ↗ months but in the conversations that I

2:30:41 ↗ have been part of and the reading that

2:30:44 ↗ I've done of these changes I do think

2:30:46 ↗ that there's a decent amount of public

2:30:48 ↗ involvement and um uh I just I don't

2:30:51 ↗ think that we need to to add that piece

2:30:53 ↗ I think we could certainly if we wanted

2:30:55 ↗ to say something that I think it does

2:30:56 ↗ reflect in this letter so never mind

2:30:58 ↗ that I said that I think we have

2:31:00 ↗ encouraged the public involvement I

2:31:02 ↗ think we definitely support that but I

2:31:04 ↗ don't I wouldn't say that we need to say

2:31:06 ↗ they're absolutely definitively needs to

2:31:08 ↗ be more

2:31:10 ↗ thank you commissioner Milligan uh thank

2:31:14 ↗ you commissioner altimore I agree with

2:31:15 ↗ you that I thought we carefully tried to

2:31:18 ↗ carve out the things where decisions

2:31:21 ↗ could be made in a predictable fashion

2:31:23 ↗ with predictable criteria by staff to

2:31:27 ↗ increase the predictability of say

2:31:29 ↗ permitting and

2:31:32 ↗ every time we add

2:31:35 ↗ unnecessarily and I would not want to

2:31:38 ↗ prevent the public from engaging in

2:31:42 ↗ substantive decisions but if we have set

2:31:46 ↗ up the

2:31:47 ↗ um

2:31:48 ↗ circumstances in the criteria by which

2:31:51 ↗ we think something is okay we should be

2:31:53 ↗ able to just approve it that's a level

2:31:55 ↗ one and and so public engagement at that

2:31:58 ↗ point just adds cost to perhaps a

2:32:01 ↗ developer a development or a something

2:32:03 ↗ or other that we wanted and then we were

2:32:05 ↗ just trying to make it uh more process

2:32:08 ↗ more predictable easier more streamlined

2:32:10 ↗ so I'm not in support of this one

2:32:14 ↗ however I don't want to be misconstrued

2:32:16 ↗ that I'm not in support of public

2:32:18 ↗ engagement

2:32:19 ↗ people know me I certainly am

2:32:24 ↗ thank you commissioner Milligan uh just

2:32:26 ↗ for the record commissioner smoide did

2:32:28 ↗ have to leave so just wanted to point

2:32:30 ↗ that out

2:32:32 ↗ all right

2:32:36 ↗ any further comments

2:32:39 ↗ commissioner Patterson

2:32:41 ↗ um I do agree with the spirit of this

2:32:44 ↗ Edition

2:32:45 ↗ um you know just not getting in the

2:32:48 ↗ weeds but there were a couple uh

2:32:49 ↗ segments within the code that call out

2:32:51 ↗ for instance like posting in the local

2:32:52 ↗ newspaper which is I think unfortunately

2:32:55 ↗ kind of a bit of a Dying Breed if you

2:32:57 ↗ will

2:32:58 ↗ um and so I think you know calling

2:33:00 ↗ attention to the idea of continuing to

2:33:03 ↗ evolve our community engagement may be a

2:33:06 ↗ way to uh you know kind of freeze it so

2:33:09 ↗ that it is still

2:33:11 ↗ uh you know promoting that transparency

2:33:13 ↗ promoting that Community involvement and

2:33:15 ↗ evolving with the you know the

2:33:16 ↗ communication standards that uh that

2:33:19 ↗ were evolving uh every day

2:33:24 ↗ thank you commissioner Patterson

2:33:26 ↗ um

2:33:27 ↗ all right I do believe we're probably

2:33:29 ↗ gonna have a little bit of a split here

2:33:30 ↗ so commissioner Kennedy those in favor

2:33:33 ↗ of

2:33:35 ↗ the amendment what's that

2:33:38 ↗ those in favor

2:33:43 ↗ nay commissioner Milligan nay

2:33:46 ↗ commissioner altimore nay thank you

2:33:49 ↗ commissioner Lewis yay commissioner

2:33:51 ↗ Patterson yay commissioner voice nay

2:33:57 ↗ all right

2:34:01 ↗ we are where are we

2:34:04 ↗ so for the record we're removing

2:34:06 ↗ um yeah removing number four because it

2:34:08 ↗ was discussed as part of amendment

2:34:13 ↗ and and uh edit number five we've

2:34:16 ↗ already voted on his Amendment so it's

2:34:17 ↗ all so that's just a clerical change

2:34:19 ↗ that you guys are making

2:34:22 ↗ uh so

2:34:24 ↗ we're on to part five of Title 18 chair

2:34:29 ↗ if I may

2:34:30 ↗ please edit number six uh right now

2:34:33 ↗ we're on a third bullet point part for

2:34:35 ↗ number six one two three

2:34:39 ↗ where are we heart

2:34:42 ↗ five

2:34:44 ↗ six

2:34:46 ↗ well this is the green necklace

2:34:54 ↗ oh it's an in part five

2:34:57 ↗ thank you uh part five wireless

2:34:59 ↗ communication facilities need to be

2:35:00 ↗ further reviewed to ensure carriers show

2:35:03 ↗ impacts on communities and to uh and

2:35:07 ↗ need to be reviewed to ensure greater

2:35:08 ↗ visibility and review by impacted

2:35:10 ↗ community

2:35:11 ↗ so uh my amendment is is such because

2:35:15 ↗ right now as the wireless facilities

2:35:18 ↗ code is written

2:35:19 ↗ the way that notice will be given will

2:35:21 ↗ effectively be after a wireless facility

2:35:25 ↗ even a macro Tower would be after the

2:35:28 ↗ fact I believe that we need to call

2:35:30 ↗ attention to the current code to talk

2:35:33 ↗ about that we need to have a greater

2:35:34 ↗ visibility and review by impacted

2:35:36 ↗ communities than it's currently included

2:35:40 ↗ second

2:35:43 ↗ since she already talked in my turn

2:35:47 ↗ I want to suggest an edit somewhere

2:35:50 ↗ somehow when I'm reading this it says a

2:35:52 ↗ wireless communication facilities need

2:35:55 ↗ to be reviewed to ensure greater

2:35:56 ↗ visibility that sounds to me like you

2:35:59 ↗ want the wireless communication facility

2:36:01 ↗ to be

2:36:02 ↗ [Laughter]

2:36:05 ↗ that's what you mean but that's the way

2:36:06 ↗ that reads to me

2:36:08 ↗ um

2:36:10 ↗ to ensure

2:36:15 ↗ public awareness or

2:36:19 ↗ something something other than greater

2:36:22 ↗ visibility and just fishing there

2:36:24 ↗ commissioner Kennedy you could just take

2:36:26 ↗ out the greater visibility I mean we

2:36:28 ↗ get where you're coming from with it but

2:36:30 ↗ if you just said review to ensure review

2:36:32 ↗ by the impact Community I think is what

2:36:34 ↗ you're really trying to get is that the

2:36:36 ↗ community gets to know about it first

2:36:38 ↗ well and exactly is that right now I

2:36:40 ↗ think that there is a gap in allowing

2:36:43 ↗ the affected Community to be able to be

2:36:46 ↗ in on the process prior to permitting

2:36:52 ↗ yeah for the record I think that's

2:36:54 ↗ incorrect

2:36:56 ↗ um so we do have a notice of application

2:36:58 ↗ for our level two so the site is posted

2:37:01 ↗ the community members get a notice in

2:37:03 ↗ mail and all that so that is part of a

2:37:05 ↗ level two process

2:37:07 ↗ and level two is director so they're

2:37:09 ↗ noticed but there is no community

2:37:11 ↗ meeting

2:37:13 ↗ so unless there's critical areas unless

2:37:15 ↗ there's a critical right so right now we

2:37:16 ↗ could put a macro Tower somewhere in our

2:37:19 ↗ community you could be noticed that it

2:37:20 ↗ was happening but it's under director

2:37:23 ↗ approval for level two my understanding

2:37:25 ↗ is that's from our existing code so that

2:37:27 ↗ was what was approved under the existing

2:37:30 ↗ code move stayed the same because the

2:37:32 ↗ city you all did a lot of work in 2018

2:37:34 ↗ or whenever the wireless chapter was

2:37:37 ↗ done so the review process stayed

2:37:39 ↗ parallel to what is in the existing code

2:37:42 ↗ right but just so that you know it's not

2:37:45 ↗ a after the fact there is a notice that

2:37:47 ↗ goes during the public during the review

2:37:50 ↗ abroad right so the way that we've

2:37:53 ↗ talked about my concerns right now with

2:37:55 ↗ the wireless facilities because of

2:37:58 ↗ language that was changed for legal

2:38:00 ↗ reasons to adhere with different federal

2:38:02 ↗ laws for it there is now what is called

2:38:06 ↗ allowed with

2:38:08 ↗ with um meetings there used to be three

2:38:11 ↗ columns for the rest of you

2:38:13 ↗ um it said allowed discouraged and

2:38:16 ↗ prohibited discouraged didn't mean

2:38:18 ↗ anything from a legal perspective we

2:38:21 ↗ can't deny it you can you know you can

2:38:23 ↗ argue with people but you can deny a

2:38:25 ↗ project on that so it allowed aloud with

2:38:27 ↗ conditions and prohibited so it's just

2:38:29 ↗ the terminology change but none of the

2:38:31 ↗ standards changed the review process

2:38:33 ↗ stayed the same

2:38:36 ↗ commissioner altimore

2:38:38 ↗ just wondering if instead of the word

2:38:41 ↗ visibility you'd want transparency or

2:38:43 ↗ Community transparency so you don't have

2:38:45 ↗ that question about whether it's the

2:38:48 ↗ actual Tower yeah accepted yeah

2:38:52 ↗ accepted

2:39:07 ↗ is there any further discussion

2:39:10 ↗ are there any objections

2:39:27 ↗ all right part six edit number seven

2:39:29 ↗ greater environmental expectations of

2:39:32 ↗ development are needed to fully support

2:39:34 ↗ our environmental problem policies

2:39:38 ↗ so that's an additional language to the

2:39:41 ↗ current first bullet point

2:39:58 ↗ so motioned is there a second for

2:40:00 ↗ language

2:40:03 ↗ sure I'll second

2:40:18 ↗ uh what I would uh what I would say with

2:40:22 ↗ um with this statement is that right now

2:40:24 ↗ the policies that we have in place with

2:40:27 ↗ um

2:40:28 ↗ the Issaquah climate plan is to say that

2:40:32 ↗ our our current Title 18 does not meet

2:40:36 ↗ our policy we're inching towards it but

2:40:39 ↗ to come along to align with the policies

2:40:42 ↗ that we have in place which is largely

2:40:44 ↗ what our job is is to be able to apply

2:40:45 ↗ to policies is that we have yet to be

2:40:47 ↗ able to raise the standards on many

2:40:50 ↗ things to match our goals Energy

2:40:54 ↗ Efficiency in new construction for

2:40:57 ↗ instance and the requirements that we

2:41:00 ↗ have to be able to hold our

2:41:01 ↗ administrative buildings as well to our

2:41:04 ↗ code I believe that we need to expect

2:41:06 ↗ more of our development when it comes to

2:41:08 ↗ environmental impacts and

2:41:12 ↗ and see that here is I think which were

2:41:14 ↗ part six

2:41:20 ↗ commissioner Milligan thank you uh yeah

2:41:22 ↗ I seconded this motion because uh I

2:41:25 ↗ think it just calls out the

2:41:27 ↗ um that we've gotten we've come a long

2:41:29 ↗ way that's where the first part

2:41:31 ↗ um talks but there's still a way to go

2:41:33 ↗ and you just can't get it all done

2:41:35 ↗ today so

2:41:37 ↗ I appreciate the motion

2:41:44 ↗ any further discussion

2:41:49 ↗ yeah I mean I have my own thoughts on it

2:41:51 ↗ but I think I'm going to be outnumbered

2:41:53 ↗ so uh Voice vote commissioner Kennedy

2:41:57 ↗ aye commissioner Milligan aye

2:41:59 ↗ commissioner altimore

2:42:01 ↗ aye commissioner Lewis aye

2:42:04 ↗ commissioner Patterson aye commissioner

2:42:06 ↗ voice hey

2:42:10 ↗ um

2:42:14 ↗ edit number eight for part six right now

2:42:17 ↗ it states that the commission believes

2:42:18 ↗ the updated language for the outdoor

2:42:20 ↗ lighting improves the code's ability to

2:42:22 ↗ preserve shorelines along Lake Sammamish

2:42:25 ↗ and improve the city's ability to

2:42:26 ↗ address lighting pollution

2:42:28 ↗ um I would like to add language that

2:42:31 ↗ talks about

2:42:32 ↗ um in future updates the commission

2:42:34 ↗ would appreciate further discussion on

2:42:35 ↗ enforcement for those that have been

2:42:38 ↗ following the model lighting ordinance

2:42:40 ↗ throughout its process we've driven

2:42:43 ↗ ourselves to a place where we've started

2:42:46 ↗ to add it to our code to be able but

2:42:48 ↗ right now we don't have a discussion of

2:42:49 ↗ how we're going to actually regulate

2:42:50 ↗ whether people are following our model

2:42:53 ↗ model lighting ordinance we don't list

2:42:56 ↗ what a lumen's expectation is and how

2:42:59 ↗ the city is going to be tracking and

2:43:00 ↗ having enforcement it's a second part of

2:43:03 ↗ the code that is not going to be able to

2:43:05 ↗ be done in this Title 18 update but I

2:43:07 ↗ think that it's something that needs to

2:43:09 ↗ be addressed and it's something that

2:43:11 ↗ needs to be created it's a whole new

2:43:13 ↗ thing it's not going to be easy to Chunk

2:43:14 ↗ in and therefore it's going to need to

2:43:16 ↗ have actual resources given to the

2:43:19 ↗ administration to be able to talk about

2:43:20 ↗ how we enforce the code that we just all

2:43:24 ↗ advised we put towards Council

2:43:28 ↗ I have a second second

2:43:33 ↗ commissioner Kennedy

2:43:36 ↗ um appreciate the the general nature of

2:43:38 ↗ it but I guess my two concerns would be

2:43:41 ↗ how it would ever be tracked for future

2:43:43 ↗ updates at whatever point in time and

2:43:46 ↗ however enforcement whatever

2:43:49 ↗ we followed up I mean our city staff

2:43:52 ↗ isn't going to go around checking

2:43:53 ↗ people's lighting so I'm just wondering

2:43:55 ↗ about tracking this change and

2:43:57 ↗ enforcement

2:43:58 ↗ practicality well what I'm not

2:44:00 ↗ suggesting that that that's what it is

2:44:02 ↗ what I'm suggesting is that this is

2:44:03 ↗ something that still needs to be done

2:44:04 ↗ and created right so right now there is

2:44:06 ↗ no measurable way for us in our code AS

2:44:10 ↗ written to be able to track it so I'm

2:44:12 ↗ not suggesting that tracking happen

2:44:13 ↗ because there hasn't been a framework

2:44:15 ↗ created so this model lighting ordinance

2:44:18 ↗ is brand new to title 18. previously our

2:44:21 ↗ lighting code has been different

2:44:23 ↗ depending on where you were in the city

2:44:25 ↗ and this is our first attempt to have a

2:44:27 ↗ unified lighting code that addresses

2:44:28 ↗ things like our policies to be able to

2:44:30 ↗ encourage nighttime pollinators to be

2:44:32 ↗ able to have a decreased energy use and

2:44:35 ↗ to be able to stop the ever increasing

2:44:37 ↗ light pollution and spread that has

2:44:39 ↗ happened to Issaquah so there are

2:44:41 ↗ several different policies that come

2:44:42 ↗ into effect when we're making this model

2:44:43 ↗ lighting ordinance that we put through

2:44:45 ↗ we have a gap right I'm not suggesting

2:44:48 ↗ we're going to create that Gap tonight

2:44:49 ↗ or even in this Title 18 however it's a

2:44:51 ↗ gap that needs to be called because

2:44:52 ↗ Council needs to allow resources to

2:44:54 ↗ staff to stay hey we care about this how

2:44:57 ↗ are we going to put this code into place

2:44:58 ↗ right

2:45:00 ↗ what that looks like with co-enforcement

2:45:02 ↗ officers I'm not deeming to say what it

2:45:04 ↗ is what I'm saying is that it's

2:45:05 ↗ something that needs to be looked up

2:45:07 ↗ follow through on

2:45:14 ↗ all right any further comments

2:45:17 ↗ are there any objections

2:45:21 ↗ all right so we will do a Voice vote

2:45:23 ↗ commissioner Kennedy

2:45:25 ↗ nay commissioner Milligan yay

2:45:28 ↗ aye

2:45:30 ↗ commissioner altimore

2:45:32 ↗ aye commissioner Lewis aye commissioner

2:45:34 ↗ Patterson

2:45:35 ↗ aye commissioner voice I

2:45:49 ↗ can speak to this one I would like to

2:45:51 ↗ make an amendment to add a bullet point

2:45:54 ↗ to part six that calls out that the

2:45:57 ↗ commission supports expanding the

2:45:58 ↗ minimum outdoor amenity space to

2:46:00 ↗ recognize the importance of outdoor

2:46:01 ↗ space in the community

2:46:03 ↗ second

2:46:04 ↗ excellent uh pretty straightforward here

2:46:07 ↗ when we set out on these public hearings

2:46:09 ↗ a few weeks ago we were given I think

2:46:10 ↗ six to eight policy questions almost

2:46:12 ↗ every single one was called out the

2:46:14 ↗ result of where we landed on those was

2:46:16 ↗ called out throughout the letter with

2:46:19 ↗ the exception of this one and so I felt

2:46:21 ↗ it was important that because it was

2:46:22 ↗ brought to our attention and we came up

2:46:24 ↗ to that conclusion to actually increase

2:46:26 ↗ that that they should be brought to the

2:46:28 ↗ attention within this letter

2:46:33 ↗ commissioner Milligan uh thank you

2:46:35 ↗ commissioner Patterson I'm really glad

2:46:36 ↗ that you're keeping track

2:46:38 ↗ because this is an important topic that

2:46:42 ↗ we have grappled with and have dealt

2:46:44 ↗ with sometimes better in development

2:46:47 ↗ agreements but not necessarily in the

2:46:48 ↗ code so I'm really glad that you've

2:46:50 ↗ added this thank you very much

2:46:57 ↗ any further commentary on

2:46:59 ↗ the addition of this new language

2:47:02 ↗ any objections

2:47:08 ↗ for the record there were no objections

2:47:11 ↗ all right we are moving on to edit

2:47:13 ↗ number seven

2:47:15 ↗ I'm sorry edit part seven

2:47:19 ↗ nope

2:47:20 ↗ thank you yeah go ahead uh currently

2:47:22 ↗ we're now discussing the last part of uh

2:47:24 ↗ Title 18 part 8 which is the natural

2:47:27 ↗ environment

2:47:29 ↗ um I have one two three four different

2:47:31 ↗ uh well actually no one strickens now so

2:47:33 ↗ three there's I have three suggestions

2:47:36 ↗ um right now and so uh I'm gonna I can

2:47:39 ↗ make a motion on every single one but

2:47:40 ↗ what I'm gonna say about this is to say

2:47:41 ↗ that I don't believe that the planning

2:47:44 ↗ policy commission has given adequate

2:47:46 ↗ time to both the questioning of the code

2:47:49 ↗ as well as a deep dive into why it is

2:47:51 ↗ the evolution of it

2:47:53 ↗ part of what we were impacted with our

2:47:55 ↗ time constraints luckily the

2:47:58 ↗ environmental board put together a

2:48:00 ↗ fantastic letter and did focused on a

2:48:03 ↗ deeper dive and I think it's important

2:48:04 ↗ that we voice our support for the

2:48:07 ↗ recommendations that they do things like

2:48:09 ↗ tree preservation have not even come up

2:48:12 ↗ in the final draft right now in front of

2:48:15 ↗ PPC there's a variety of things and I

2:48:17 ↗ think we get to actually spend a whole

2:48:18 ↗ evening on it and instead what we want

2:48:20 ↗ to do is bring Title 18 to the council

2:48:23 ↗ and so I've recommended a few things

2:48:25 ↗ um I would also like to speak to the

2:48:27 ↗ fact that right now on number 12

2:48:29 ↗ um we've had a lot of discussion from a

2:48:33 ↗ particular member of the community about

2:48:36 ↗ the impacts of Cara and what I will say

2:48:38 ↗ about that is that it's my understanding

2:48:40 ↗ that they're under a development

2:48:41 ↗ agreement and that they don't need to

2:48:43 ↗ have anything to do with Title 18 and

2:48:46 ↗ that this conversation has skewed from

2:48:49 ↗ the whole point of the new language that

2:48:52 ↗ we have on Cara updated technology has

2:48:55 ↗ allowed us to do something very

2:48:57 ↗ significant and that is to help protect

2:48:59 ↗ one of our most precious resources and I

2:49:01 ↗ don't appreciate the disparagement

2:49:03 ↗ that's happened and I would strike this

2:49:05 ↗ completely because I don't believe that

2:49:06 ↗ there has been some sort of ill effect

2:49:08 ↗ from updating our code to be more state

2:49:12 ↗ of the art and how we protect our

2:49:13 ↗ groundwater

2:49:14 ↗ so I appreciate the comments that we've

2:49:16 ↗ had I appreciate that staff will

2:49:18 ↗ continue to work with them and I have

2:49:20 ↗ full confidence that anybody who is in

2:49:22 ↗ this city who is impacted by Cara will

2:49:24 ↗ be able to find a way forward with our

2:49:26 ↗ great staff I don't believe that it is

2:49:28 ↗ supported by this commission to say that

2:49:30 ↗ we have serious concerns about it in

2:49:31 ↗ fact I'd rather Champion the changes

2:49:33 ↗ that we've made to Cara right now in

2:49:36 ↗ title 18. so I have a very different

2:49:37 ↗ take on it agree with it what you will

2:49:39 ↗ so um

2:49:41 ↗ I uh I also called out earlier that I

2:49:44 ↗ think that we can actually do better and

2:49:46 ↗ when we've talked to for instance one of

2:49:49 ↗ our fantastic staff members Doug yormick

2:49:51 ↗ and talks about we have to work with

2:49:53 ↗ what we've got right the resources that

2:49:54 ↗ have been allocated to us to be able to

2:49:56 ↗ make the determinations that we did to

2:49:57 ↗ write code there's still resources that

2:50:00 ↗ the council would need to give to the

2:50:02 ↗ administration for us to be able to

2:50:04 ↗ further

2:50:05 ↗ look at the impacts for instance right

2:50:07 ↗ now peat and wetlands right could really

2:50:11 ↗ use resources to be talking about how

2:50:13 ↗ does our ecology work together how can

2:50:15 ↗ we have a better code that's more

2:50:16 ↗ specific to being able to understand

2:50:19 ↗ groundwater runoff I mean there's a

2:50:21 ↗ whole variety of things so I think that

2:50:23 ↗ we can strengthen some language for this

2:50:25 ↗ part eight in the environment

2:50:27 ↗ and I've made three suggestions that I'm

2:50:31 ↗ that I welcome anyone

2:50:33 ↗ agree or not agreement

2:50:35 ↗ commissioner Milligan are you making a

2:50:38 ↗ motion of all three at once I kind of I

2:50:41 ↗ was like

2:50:42 ↗ am I getting 20. I'd like to make a

2:50:45 ↗ motion to uh on the edit number 10. the

2:50:48 ↗ commission supports the recent work on

2:50:50 ↗ the environmental section and believes

2:50:52 ↗ that further protections are needed with

2:50:54 ↗ funding from city council to support

2:50:55 ↗ strengthening our environmental

2:50:57 ↗ practices do I have a second

2:51:05 ↗ I'll second that

2:51:07 ↗ okay

2:51:12 ↗ would I even like to add to the

2:51:13 ↗ discussion commissioner altimore

2:51:16 ↗ a question for you commissioner Lewis

2:51:18 ↗ does number 13 if we support the letter

2:51:21 ↗ that we've received preclude number the

2:51:24 ↗ need for number 10.

2:51:28 ↗ my understanding from conversations with

2:51:30 ↗ staff that the city council would need

2:51:33 ↗ to budget for the availability of both

2:51:36 ↗ doing studies a variety of things so

2:51:39 ↗ number 13 supports the letter from the

2:51:43 ↗ environmental board what we can do is to

2:51:46 ↗ recommend to council as we've as we've

2:51:49 ↗ dived into Section 8 is to say we need

2:51:52 ↗ further whether it be staff being able

2:51:56 ↗ to find time to be able to get to have

2:51:58 ↗ you know get grants for this very work

2:52:00 ↗ right there's a whole variety of things

2:52:01 ↗ but the staff needs to be given the

2:52:04 ↗ resources to be able to do that and

2:52:06 ↗ that's what I'm trying to call out

2:52:08 ↗ separate from the letter for number 13.

2:52:17 ↗ commissioner Milligan yeah and I

2:52:19 ↗ appreciate the spirit of that

2:52:21 ↗ um commissioner Lewis and and a great

2:52:23 ↗ question commissioner altimore because I

2:52:24 ↗ was thinking that the um number 13 that

2:52:28 ↗ talks about our support of the

2:52:29 ↗ environmental board very comprehensive

2:52:31 ↗ letter which helps point out the um

2:52:35 ↗ um additional opportunities or where in

2:52:37 ↗ places where Title 18 Lacks

2:52:40 ↗ uh I I don't know that this where

2:52:43 ↗ whereas I don't disagree with the spirit

2:52:45 ↗ of this I don't think this is the place

2:52:47 ↗ where we tell the city council how to

2:52:50 ↗ fund or when to fund it seems like a

2:52:52 ↗ budget question rather than a what do we

2:52:54 ↗ have in title 18. so I'm the only reason

2:52:56 ↗ I'm not inclined to support it is

2:52:59 ↗ because I am going to support number 13

2:53:01 ↗ and I hope that um gets a lot of it done

2:53:04 ↗ except for the funding part so right now

2:53:06 ↗ the first bullet reads the commission

2:53:07 ↗ supports the change

2:53:09 ↗ uh to the environmental sections much of

2:53:13 ↗ the draft regulations have been

2:53:15 ↗ clarified

2:53:18 ↗ uh this I agree with because it uh by

2:53:21 ↗ its constrained wording does not say hey

2:53:26 ↗ we got it all done it says hey this is

2:53:29 ↗ better let's pass this so we can use it

2:53:31 ↗ uh and it and it implies that there's

2:53:34 ↗ still work to do because of the language

2:53:36 ↗ is very conservative

2:53:43 ↗ any further comment

2:53:46 ↗ all right

2:53:48 ↗ um we'll do a voice Voice vote

2:53:49 ↗ commissioner Kennedy

2:53:52 ↗ you've proven the language that was

2:53:54 ↗ offered

2:53:56 ↗ nay

2:53:57 ↗ commissioner Milligan nay

2:53:59 ↗ commissioner altimore nay commissioner

2:54:02 ↗ Lewis yay

2:54:03 ↗ commissioner Patterson nay commissioner

2:54:06 ↗ voice nay

2:54:11 ↗ I'd like to make a motion to remove

2:54:13 ↗ bullet 3 and remove the commission has

2:54:15 ↗ suggested additional refinements to

2:54:17 ↗ clarify the impacts of care regulations

2:54:19 ↗ on existing uses do I have a second

2:54:23 ↗ second

2:54:32 ↗ what's the purpose of removing this

2:54:37 ↗ I am proposing that we remove this

2:54:39 ↗ because I would rather actually or we

2:54:42 ↗ can change it I think that the

2:54:43 ↗ advancements that we've made to Cara in

2:54:46 ↗ Title 18 are something to be exonerated

2:54:49 ↗ I think that we've used technology to be

2:54:51 ↗ able to widen our knowledge of how how

2:54:55 ↗ surface water infiltrates our

2:54:57 ↗ groundwater and I'm concerned that the

2:55:00 ↗ comments that have been in previous

2:55:01 ↗ meetings uh by this commission have

2:55:05 ↗ instead casted as being something that's

2:55:07 ↗ giving negative impacts to our community

2:55:10 ↗ and that they're somehow some sort of

2:55:12 ↗ exhaustive regulations that are going to

2:55:14 ↗ instead impede what people can do

2:55:16 ↗ because of the updated care map I think

2:55:19 ↗ that the updated care map is uh I'm

2:55:21 ↗ fully supportive of it and uh so I would

2:55:25 ↗ remove this bullet entirely because I

2:55:27 ↗ think it casts the tone that I don't

2:55:29 ↗ personally agree with from the work

2:55:31 ↗ that's been done

2:55:37 ↗ director Dollywood sure um you know I

2:55:40 ↗ think

2:55:41 ↗ um the discussion along the for the Kara

2:55:44 ↗ purposes has been this prohibited uses

2:55:46 ↗ list

2:55:47 ↗ so there is some work to be done to

2:55:50 ↗ clarify the language and the intent of

2:55:52 ↗ that prohibited uses list I think the

2:55:54 ↗ intent has always been any New Uses are

2:55:57 ↗ not allowed the existing there's a line

2:56:00 ↗ in there that talks about existing

2:56:01 ↗ businesses can stay I think it needs a

2:56:04 ↗ little bit more clarity to to provide

2:56:06 ↗ that Clarity for everyone and that's

2:56:08 ↗ based on the public comments we've

2:56:10 ↗ received but also on our own review of

2:56:12 ↗ you know is it capturing the intent of

2:56:15 ↗ what that list of prohibited uses is for

2:56:19 ↗ so just wanted to clarify that it's not

2:56:21 ↗ the Kara map that has been fixed and the

2:56:24 ↗ study has been updated and all that but

2:56:27 ↗ the language piece for existing uses

2:56:29 ↗ still needs some work and while I fully

2:56:32 ↗ support that the language on this point

2:56:34 ↗ says that the commission has suggested

2:56:36 ↗ additional refinements but we have yet

2:56:38 ↗ to actually have a real conversation

2:56:40 ↗ about how Cara is even written to the

2:56:43 ↗ way that we addressed part eight in the

2:56:46 ↗ last meeting was absolutely minimal the

2:56:50 ↗ questions

2:56:51 ↗ um the Cara map wasn't even brought up

2:56:53 ↗ in the last meeting which was the public

2:56:54 ↗ hearing on it for the final draft code

2:56:56 ↗ so I don't support the current language

2:56:58 ↗ because I don't believe the commission

2:56:59 ↗ has suggested that additional refinement

2:57:01 ↗ is because we have yet to have a

2:57:02 ↗ discussion of it so I would strike that

2:57:04 ↗ language from this letter because I

2:57:06 ↗ don't believe that we've had an adequate

2:57:07 ↗ space for that conversation I don't

2:57:10 ↗ think it represents us which is why I'm

2:57:11 ↗ suggesting the removal of the bullet

2:57:13 ↗ point

2:57:17 ↗ foreign

2:57:23 ↗ explanation because again I think my

2:57:26 ↗ concern has always been the existing

2:57:27 ↗ uses so people that already have their

2:57:30 ↗ structures their businesses built out

2:57:31 ↗ that's that's been my concern since uh

2:57:34 ↗ since we started hearing public comment

2:57:36 ↗ on it so

2:57:38 ↗ um probably gonna split oddly so again a

2:57:41 ↗ Voice vote commissioner Kennedy are you

2:57:43 ↗ for the removal of this section

2:57:46 ↗ I'm actually going to abstain on this

2:57:48 ↗ one

2:57:48 ↗ I don't know enough about the Cara

2:57:50 ↗ portion of this to understand whether we

2:57:53 ↗ really should have this in or not so I'm

2:57:55 ↗ an Upstate okay commissioner Milligan

2:57:58 ↗ nay

2:58:00 ↗ commissioner altimore

2:58:03 ↗ nay commissioner Lewis yay commissioner

2:58:06 ↗ Patterson nay commissioner voice nay

2:58:13 ↗ I'd like to make an amendment to add a

2:58:15 ↗ bullet point to part eight the bullet

2:58:18 ↗ point would say the commission supports

2:58:20 ↗ the letter of recommendation by the

2:58:22 ↗ environmental board and seconds their

2:58:23 ↗ concerns and joins their enthusiasm for

2:58:25 ↗ what has been achieved

2:58:27 ↗ uh Christopher Patterson I'll second

2:58:30 ↗ that

2:58:35 ↗ yep the only problem I have is we again

2:58:38 ↗ we're we're trying to make a very

2:58:39 ↗ concise letter I don't care for the

2:58:41 ↗ language enthusiasm or

2:58:45 ↗ things of that nature it's one thing to

2:58:47 ↗ uh agree with them but again we

2:58:49 ↗ purposely strip some of that language

2:58:51 ↗ from the letter originally so to put it

2:58:53 ↗ here seems odd

2:58:55 ↗ commissioner Milligan uh thank you chair

2:58:57 ↗ voice I agree the sentiment here is to

2:59:01 ↗ point to that good work and say we're

2:59:03 ↗ not giving you all those comments but

2:59:05 ↗ they are and so then if we

2:59:09 ↗ um

2:59:10 ↗ would the motioner consider removing the

2:59:15 ↗ second half of the sentence starting

2:59:17 ↗ with and seconds

2:59:20 ↗ I wouldn't

2:59:23 ↗ all right

2:59:24 ↗ then I'm gonna go for it if you do that

2:59:27 ↗ a little horse trading sweet okay are

2:59:32 ↗ there uh

2:59:33 ↗ I guess we'll start with are there any

2:59:35 ↗ objections with that

2:59:38 ↗ yeah

2:59:39 ↗ no objections

2:59:42 ↗ yes that that particular bullet if we

2:59:46 ↗ can add that that'd be great so we have

2:59:48 ↗ a few additional

2:59:49 ↗ recommendations uh commissioner Lewis

2:59:53 ↗ our additional recommendations second

2:59:55 ↗ sections we recommend future additional

2:59:58 ↗ review of the following topics to

2:59:59 ↗ advance the city's Vision within land

3:00:01 ↗ use code honestly I wrote a couple extra

3:00:03 ↗ while we were sitting here like

3:00:06 ↗ mitigation banking having stronger

3:00:08 ↗ language that's something we discussed

3:00:10 ↗ and yet somehow fell off once we finally

3:00:13 ↗ got to final draft code I think there's

3:00:15 ↗ serious concerns about the mitigation

3:00:17 ↗ banking code right now I've got

3:00:21 ↗ increased transparency through greater

3:00:23 ↗ public involvement I've got a review of

3:00:25 ↗ the usability of this document I've got

3:00:27 ↗ continued Environmental Protections

3:00:31 ↗ and

3:00:37 ↗ I would say that uh

3:00:40 ↗ if anyone has

3:00:42 ↗ any other things to add to additional

3:00:43 ↗ recommendations I don't see any language

3:00:45 ↗ from any other commissioner for this

3:00:47 ↗ section but things that we call

3:00:49 ↗ attention to

3:00:50 ↗ um

3:00:51 ↗ as we move forward

3:00:52 ↗ eager to hear if anyone has anything

3:00:57 ↗ this is just tiny but I think the word

3:00:59 ↗ housing is missing after missing middle

3:01:02 ↗ because it just says missing middle

3:01:03 ↗ which is a little confusing

3:01:12 ↗ yep sorry

3:01:14 ↗ can we can we discuss uh what what

3:01:17 ↗ commissioner Lewis I believe it's not

3:01:19 ↗ yet okay

3:01:20 ↗ um

3:01:21 ↗ so uh the increased transparency through

3:01:25 ↗ greater public involvement I feel like

3:01:26 ↗ we already talked about that and I I

3:01:28 ↗ don't personally feel the need for that

3:01:29 ↗ one

3:01:30 ↗ um

3:01:32 ↗ the review of usability of this document

3:01:34 ↗ is that what we agreed got picked up in

3:01:37 ↗ that first bullet so that it doesn't

3:01:39 ↗ need to be here because that's exactly

3:01:41 ↗ what I would like to see is the word

3:01:43 ↗ usability that we actually do understand

3:01:45 ↗ that but when we talked about that very

3:01:49 ↗ first

3:01:50 ↗ uh I think it was number two sorry the

3:01:53 ↗ second one

3:01:54 ↗ um I feel like that's what we said that

3:01:56 ↗ was for and so do we also need to say it

3:01:59 ↗ down under the last part

3:02:00 ↗ so I'm

3:02:02 ↗ uh yes on one

3:02:04 ↗ no one too no one three or yes I'm 14 no

3:02:08 ↗ one fifteen no one sixteen if they were

3:02:10 ↗ caught other places

3:02:13 ↗ um I guess that would go to commissioner

3:02:15 ↗ Lewis or the author I I can speak to I

3:02:18 ↗ guess uh number 16 but if you want to

3:02:20 ↗ speak to 14 and 15. I can withdraw 16 if

3:02:22 ↗ I as I feel we've already done it and

3:02:25 ↗ I'm the only one who thought that it was

3:02:27 ↗ something that needed to be called out

3:02:28 ↗ in this document so I can strike 16 from

3:02:32 ↗ it and uh I can make separate amendments

3:02:34 ↗ and motions but I don't believe that

3:02:36 ↗ while I do think that we talk about the

3:02:39 ↗ essence I don't believe we've called out

3:02:43 ↗ um the usability of the document I would

3:02:45 ↗ think it's something to say that um

3:02:46 ↗ again that would be a direction from

3:02:48 ↗ Council to be able to tell the

3:02:49 ↗ administration you need to spend the

3:02:51 ↗ time to actually be charting and telling

3:02:53 ↗ the public how many times are things

3:02:55 ↗ going under director review right how

3:02:57 ↗ um how are we

3:02:59 ↗ um the same way that we did a study to

3:03:02 ↗ say hey how does this actually work in

3:03:04 ↗ practice we kind of need to continue to

3:03:06 ↗ do that to see how is Title 18 doing it

3:03:08 ↗ when we're when you're living and

3:03:09 ↗ breathing in this code is it easy to

3:03:12 ↗ toggle between is it easy to say if I

3:03:13 ↗ need to do this then I need to do this

3:03:15 ↗ we haven't had serve you into that and I

3:03:17 ↗ would like uh I would like that right

3:03:19 ↗ now that's I think is a big enough thing

3:03:20 ↗ that it should be on on the Whiteboard

3:03:23 ↗ it's it's not a it's not a small thing

3:03:25 ↗ to ask for it's not going to just be

3:03:27 ↗ hand this off and somebody answer this

3:03:28 ↗ question

3:03:30 ↗ so I would I would keep 14 and 15 and

3:03:32 ↗ I'd like to make an amendment

3:03:34 ↗ for additional recommendations for

3:03:36 ↗ continued Environmental Protections and

3:03:38 ↗ I'd like to see if I have a second

3:03:44 ↗ I'll second that

3:03:46 ↗ thank you

3:03:47 ↗ so the new Amendment strike 16 we're

3:03:51 ↗ just talking about 14 and 15.

3:03:56 ↗ 14's fine

3:04:03 ↗ right is there

3:04:05 ↗ any discussion

3:04:07 ↗ any objection

3:04:09 ↗ okay

3:04:10 ↗ I'd like to make a motion to an

3:04:12 ↗ additional bullet on additional

3:04:13 ↗ recommendations that would say a review

3:04:15 ↗ of the usability of this document

3:04:17 ↗ referring to the title 18 code

3:04:20 ↗ a second

3:04:24 ↗ rooster Patterson uh one clarifying

3:04:26 ↗ question for you commissioner Lewis as

3:04:29 ↗ uh commissioner Altima door was pointing

3:04:31 ↗ out we kind of covered the I guess you

3:04:34 ↗ could call it the um usability or being

3:04:38 ↗ able to measure the impacts of the how

3:04:40 ↗ Title 18 is being used my recommendation

3:04:43 ↗ on this one would be to actually add the

3:04:45 ↗ word accessibility I think that's

3:04:47 ↗ something that you had kind of called

3:04:48 ↗ out meetings ago about like how people

3:04:50 ↗ physically see this document online how

3:04:53 ↗ it could be

3:04:54 ↗ um you know accessed and used in

3:04:57 ↗ filtered to be like Oh I'm trying to

3:04:59 ↗ build a new house on the LA or you know

3:05:00 ↗ whatever it is that they actually are

3:05:03 ↗ navigating through the code how can we

3:05:07 ↗ make it accessible to the public how can

3:05:09 ↗ we make it so it's easy to use so it's

3:05:12 ↗ kind of just in addition to usability

3:05:14 ↗ just the accessibility part as well I

3:05:17 ↗ accept the additional word of

3:05:18 ↗ accessibility as it definitely gets to

3:05:20 ↗ my intent which I think is a little bit

3:05:22 ↗ different from the wording we already

3:05:23 ↗ did on that bullet point of the impact

3:05:25 ↗ of development regulations which equally

3:05:28 ↗ important but a little bit different so

3:05:37 ↗ any further discussion

3:05:39 ↗ any objections

3:05:43 ↗ all right

3:05:45 ↗ yeah

3:05:47 ↗ is there are there any additional

3:05:50 ↗ amendments from the Commissioners in the

3:05:52 ↗ last uh

3:05:53 ↗ three hours

3:05:57 ↗ all right thank you very much

3:06:02 ↗ and staff you have what you need

3:06:05 ↗ yes we do excellent

3:06:07 ↗ question

3:06:09 ↗ is there an official motion to approve

3:06:12 ↗ the letter

3:06:14 ↗ with the edits

3:06:16 ↗ okay I thought you said you were you had

3:06:18 ↗ everything you needed done okay sorry

3:06:26 ↗ I have a motion

3:06:29 ↗ I move that we approve the letter to the

3:06:33 ↗ city council

3:06:35 ↗ um

3:06:36 ↗ uh yeah on Title 18 complete draft as

3:06:40 ↗ amended

3:06:42 ↗ is there a secretary second

3:06:46 ↗ any discussion

3:06:50 ↗ hearing none we'll vote to move all of

3:06:52 ↗ those in favor say yes

3:06:55 ↗ yes

3:06:57 ↗ unanimous

3:07:00 ↗ um

3:07:03 ↗ wait a second

3:07:17 ↗ I believe we're under reports

3:07:21 ↗ all right

3:07:23 ↗ uh staff are there any city council

3:07:24 ↗ updates you'd like to provide

3:07:27 ↗ yes just really quick uh we'll be

3:07:29 ↗ bringing all of the commission's

3:07:31 ↗ recommendations from tonight and all the

3:07:33 ↗ previous meetings from the last two

3:07:35 ↗ years to the council committee next week

3:07:38 ↗ on Tuesday February 7th so they'll be

3:07:41 ↗ reviewing all the recommendations from

3:07:43 ↗ from your letter to the

3:07:45 ↗ um materials that you reviewed tonight

3:07:50 ↗ all right are there any other businesses

3:07:52 ↗ or announcements

3:07:53 ↗ director Dolly wall no no thank you

3:07:55 ↗ thank you all the new members who took a

3:07:58 ↗ deeper dive into a very complex code and

3:08:01 ↗ the others that they leaned on and and

3:08:03 ↗ all that to you know it's many many

3:08:05 ↗ nights of uh reading and sitting through

3:08:08 ↗ these meetings so uh you know we really

3:08:11 ↗ truly value all that you brought your

3:08:14 ↗ fingerprints all over these regulations

3:08:15 ↗ they're better because of your input and

3:08:18 ↗ collaboration with all the other boards

3:08:20 ↗ and commissions you know you sat through

3:08:21 ↗ so many of those joint boards and

3:08:24 ↗ commissions we did it through the

3:08:26 ↗ pandemic in Virtual environment and here

3:08:28 ↗ we are in person today so it's it's to

3:08:31 ↗ your credit where we are today and we're

3:08:34 ↗ not done you know Council will

3:08:36 ↗ appreciate getting your your letter your

3:08:39 ↗ recommendation so we'll Circle back with

3:08:41 ↗ you as as this progresses forward so

3:08:43 ↗ thank you

3:08:45 ↗ thank you director Dollywood uh

3:08:47 ↗ commissioner Milligan

3:08:49 ↗ thank you chair voice I want to thank

3:08:50 ↗ you and we got really good at this by

3:08:53 ↗ the end of the evening but I I must I

3:08:55 ↗ want to thank you throughout the process

3:08:56 ↗ you stepped into the chair position uh

3:08:59 ↗ part of the way through our working on

3:09:01 ↗ this

3:09:01 ↗ and you have really provided a valuable

3:09:04 ↗ service to the commission we've grown

3:09:07 ↗ with new members you've kept us

3:09:09 ↗ marching along to a completion at the

3:09:13 ↗ same time you've contributed substantive

3:09:16 ↗ comments and and considerations and and

3:09:18 ↗ doing those two things at the same time

3:09:21 ↗ is is difficult and I just want to thank

3:09:24 ↗ you I want to thank Vice chair Bader

3:09:27 ↗ also for the service that she's provided

3:09:29 ↗ in our our previous leadership that we

3:09:31 ↗ had during the two years thank you chair

3:09:34 ↗ voice

3:09:36 ↗ thank you

3:09:38 ↗ are there any further

3:09:40 ↗ any further comments

3:09:43 ↗ all right well thank you commissioner

3:09:44 ↗ Milligan and again I want to also thank

3:09:47 ↗ everyone the Commissioners who have been

3:09:50 ↗ a part of this project whether in the

3:09:52 ↗ beginning or whether it's the ending so

3:09:54 ↗ again thank you commissioner Kennedy

3:09:55 ↗ commissioner altimore commissioner

3:09:57 ↗ esmwide

3:09:59 ↗ commissioner Patterson and of course

3:10:01 ↗ commissioner Milligan and commissioner

3:10:03 ↗ Lewis and also Vice chair Bader who

3:10:05 ↗ wasn't able to be here tonight I also

3:10:07 ↗ want to thank staff director dollywall

3:10:10 ↗ senior planner Leeson it's Steve and

3:10:14 ↗ Jared everybody Tim a Doug I mean

3:10:17 ↗ there's there's like you said the list

3:10:18 ↗ is probably too long

3:10:20 ↗ yeah so again it's it's the attorneys

3:10:23 ↗ yes we have new new Council Christian

3:10:26 ↗ um so again it's it's been a huge uh

3:10:30 ↗ has been a huge effort it's been a big

3:10:32 ↗ lift and we're looking forward to our

3:10:35 ↗ next challenge it's going to be coming

3:10:37 ↗ pretty quickly I believe our next

3:10:39 ↗ meeting is the 23rd

3:10:41 ↗ and I believe that's going to be our

3:10:43 ↗ first look at

3:10:44 ↗ it's the comp

3:10:46 ↗ plan

3:10:47 ↗ comprehensive or is that

3:10:50 ↗ I don't know on our calendar the meeting

3:10:53 ↗ on February 23rd I believe is going to

3:10:56 ↗ be looking at just introduction to the

3:10:57 ↗ conference plan as well as some

3:10:59 ↗ introduction uh discussions about

3:11:00 ↗ housing excellent so our new

3:11:02 ↗ Commissioners will be able to join from

3:11:04 ↗ the very beginning and I also do want to

3:11:05 ↗ say very much appreciated I know it's

3:11:07 ↗ difficult I'm sure there are times you

3:11:09 ↗ wanted to clot back

3:11:11 ↗ but uh no again big lift from everyone

3:11:14 ↗ so everyone deserves a big ground of

3:11:16 ↗ applause thank you very much yep

3:11:21 ↗ and with there being no further business

3:11:22 ↗ tonight uh this meeting of the planning

3:11:24 ↗ policy is

3:11:26 ↗ adjourned at 9 42 pm thank you everyone

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Voiss

Commissioners Altimore

Esemuede

Kennedy

Lewis

Milligan

Patterson Absence: Vice-Chair Bader (Excused)

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christian Geitz, Planning Manager Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager 2