City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, May 3, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Comment 5 - 146 ID 1043 Title 18: Landscape and Open b) Space Review Minnie Dhaliwal, Director of Community Planning & Development

90 min · packet pp.147–203

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 0:33 Open packet at p.147 ↗

Staff report:

Provide feedback to staff and a

Code Enforcement Changes Lauri Dunning, Code Enforcement Officer ID 1128

60 min

Topics: Public Safety

▶ Watch from 1:19:42

3916 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ hello welcome everyone i council member

0:08 ↗ hunt call the may 3rd 2022 city council

0:12 ↗ planning development and environment

0:13 ↗ committee to order this meeting will be

0:16 ↗ conducted in person and virtually in

0:18 ↗ compliance with the governor's

0:19 ↗ proclamation related to the kobit 19

0:21 ↗ emergency and open public meetings there

0:23 ↗ are multiple public comment

0:24 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting there

0:27 ↗ is a general public comment opportunity

0:29 ↗ at the beginning of the meeting or you

0:30 ↗ can make comments after the presentation

0:32 ↗ and counsel question and answer periods

0:33 ↗ on tonight's agenda items

0:36 ↗ members of the public may address

0:38 ↗ council at this time as the first item

0:41 ↗ on our agenda

0:44 ↗ is public comment

0:45 ↗ um

0:46 ↗ those who are signed up in advance to

0:48 ↗ make comments will be called on first if

0:49 ↗ you are joining us virtually and would

0:51 ↗ like to make comments please raise your

0:52 ↗ virtual hand if you are on the phone

0:54 ↗ press star 3 and if you have joined by

0:57 ↗ computer or smartphone look for the hand

0:59 ↗ icon this varies by device one option

1:02 ↗ may be to go to the participant panel

1:03 ↗ and choose the raise hand icon in the

1:05 ↗ lower right hand corner

1:08 ↗ and i do not see anyone in the room so i

1:10 ↗ will skip past any in-person

1:13 ↗ opportunities unless somebody comes into

1:16 ↗ the room

1:18 ↗ and at this time i'll we'll check in

1:19 ↗ with city clerk has anyone indicated a

1:22 ↗ desire to give public comment at this

1:24 ↗ time

1:26 ↗ yes council member hunts susan neville

1:28 ↗ is attending virtually and would like to

1:30 ↗ speak

1:32 ↗ ms neville i'm making you a panelist you

1:34 ↗ should now see the option to unmute and

1:36 ↗ you may also turn on your video

1:40 ↗ hello

1:41 ↗ hello

1:43 ↗ good

1:45 ↗ uh hello everybody thank you

1:48 ↗ council members

1:49 ↗ for

1:50 ↗ volunteering to lead this important

1:52 ↗ project

1:53 ↗ is i know it's going to be a long one

1:56 ↗ but with lots of good things

1:59 ↗ um

2:00 ↗ based on recent confusion concerning

2:02 ↗ when a meeting is closed to the public

2:04 ↗ comments

2:06 ↗ will someone be speaking to the

2:07 ↗ parameters concerning this new type of

2:09 ↗ workshop meeting we're having this

2:11 ↗ evening and going forward

2:14 ↗ and then my other question was will

2:15 ↗ public comments

2:16 ↗ today that was turned in be included in

2:19 ↗ the total packet

2:21 ↗ as we move forward

2:23 ↗ i had another issue i wanted to discuss

2:26 ↗ too was

2:28 ↗ i'm just reiterating what i had sent in

2:30 ↗ regarding tree canopy

2:33 ↗ the important tree canopy changes that

2:35 ↗ were put in place as you review this

2:37 ↗ this uh draft

2:39 ↗ this evening but please keep in mind

2:42 ↗ we do not have a specific person or area

2:45 ↗ who are going to monitor these changes

2:48 ↗ such as protecting our current canopy

2:51 ↗ was a big one

2:54 ↗ and also the target goal of 55 in eight

2:56 ↗ years

2:58 ↗ and keeping tabs on the number of trees

3:00 ↗ being removed and replaced

3:02 ↗ and most importantly where they are

3:04 ↗ being removed and replaced to

3:07 ↗ guarantee we have the right tree in the

3:08 ↗ right place which is um

3:11 ↗ a big initiative that you will see as we

3:13 ↗ speak more to this

3:15 ↗ um

3:17 ↗ i just want to reiterate it was brought

3:19 ↗ up many times but not included

3:21 ↗ in the packet today and i don't even

3:24 ↗ know if a position

3:26 ↗ or a system that we're speaking of

3:29 ↗ would be placed in the code changes but

3:32 ↗ even a

3:34 ↗ uh ppc mini member suggested

3:37 ↗ including something of this type into

3:39 ↗ the actual code and i just wanted to

3:41 ↗ share that with you and look forward to

3:44 ↗ this meeting thank you

3:46 ↗ thank you susan

3:48 ↗ has anyone else indicated a desire to

3:51 ↗ speak at this time

3:55 ↗ council member hunt i see no further

3:57 ↗ hands raised at this time okay

4:01 ↗ thank you um

4:03 ↗ then

4:04 ↗ with that i will

4:06 ↗ move on to id 1043

4:10 ↗ title 18 landscape and open space review

4:12 ↗ this will be led by council member

4:15 ↗ at sorry this will be led by director of

4:17 ↗ community planning and development mini

4:19 ↗ dollywall so i'll hand it over to minnie

4:22 ↗ good evening council members and members

4:24 ↗ of the public

4:25 ↗ i am going to bring up uh this

4:29 ↗ presentation real quick on my screen

4:37 ↗ okay can everyone hear me okay

4:41 ↗ great

4:42 ↗ so can you make me a presenter

4:49 ↗ let's see share

4:51 ↗ application

4:54 ↗ thank you

5:01 ↗ can everyone see my screen

5:03 ↗ with the presentation perfect

5:05 ↗ um so today we're seeking input from

5:09 ↗ the newly formed planning development

5:12 ↗ and environment committee the first

5:14 ↗ meeting of the committee

5:15 ↗ on the draft title 18 landscape open

5:18 ↗ space

5:19 ↗ and tree regulations

5:22 ↗ specifically we're asking if there are

5:23 ↗ any additional considerations that ppc

5:25 ↗ should study

5:27 ↗ prior to finalizing their

5:28 ↗ recommendations to city council

5:32 ↗ and really we're looking for direction

5:34 ↗ whether the proposed changes meet the

5:35 ↗ goals and outcomes intended for these

5:37 ↗ topics or if there are any additional

5:40 ↗ topics for us to consider

5:42 ↗ when we're making the final edits to the

5:44 ↗ draft code

5:46 ↗ there are three sub topics under this

5:49 ↗ bigger

5:51 ↗ topic of landscape and open space and

5:53 ↗ they are

5:54 ↗ community spaces and green necklace

5:56 ↗ tree preservation in landscaping

6:00 ↗ the goals and outcomes for these topics

6:03 ↗ were

6:05 ↗ retaining 55 of the canopy coverage

6:08 ↗ that was established by the icap that

6:11 ↗ the council adopted in december of 2021

6:14 ↗ retaining neighborhood charm

6:17 ↗ ensuring sustainable development and

6:19 ↗ climate goals

6:21 ↗ and also implementing park strategic

6:23 ↗ plan and green necklace

6:27 ↗ and where we are in the process

6:29 ↗ we had our first phase which was the

6:31 ↗ gaps analysis which was jointly planning

6:34 ↗ policy commission park board

6:35 ↗ environmental board discussed that that

6:38 ↗ discussion and public comments informed

6:41 ↗ the first draft then we had the draft

6:44 ↗ released an open house in the draft

6:46 ↗ public hearings and then planning and

6:49 ↗ policy commission deliberation

6:51 ↗ and today we're here

6:53 ↗ to bring forth ppc's recommended first

6:56 ↗ draft and changes that we are going to

6:58 ↗ incorporate

6:59 ↗ moving forward

7:01 ↗ you know after

7:03 ↗ all of this we intend to have a combined

7:05 ↗ hearing on the combined draft at ppc and

7:09 ↗ then the formal city council review and

7:11 ↗ adoption process will start later this

7:14 ↗ year

7:15 ↗ the information that we included in the

7:17 ↗ packet was the summary of the proposed

7:19 ↗ changes how they align with the golden

7:21 ↗ outcome

7:23 ↗ we included links to the planning policy

7:25 ↗ commission including

7:27 ↗ those packets included detailed common

7:30 ↗ tracking

7:31 ↗ matrix matrix that

7:34 ↗ included the comments we received the

7:36 ↗ responses and so on

7:38 ↗ we also included a summary of the

7:40 ↗ environmental board recommendation and

7:42 ↗ the planning policy commission and joint

7:45 ↗ boards and commission meetings meeting

7:47 ↗ minutes

7:48 ↗ um

7:49 ↗ also in your packet is a public feedback

7:52 ↗ loop matrix that includes um

7:55 ↗ how

7:56 ↗ we you know went from getting the

7:58 ↗ initial feedback how we incorporated in

8:00 ↗ the draft what the highlights of the

8:03 ↗ comments were on the public draft and

8:06 ↗ what the next steps are going to be

8:08 ↗ um

8:09 ↗ also included was the draft code we did

8:12 ↗ annotate in the draft code

8:14 ↗ and the blue boxes the items that we

8:17 ↗ intend to

8:18 ↗ incorporate and fix with the second

8:20 ↗ draft

8:22 ↗ so the first topic community space and

8:24 ↗ green necklace

8:26 ↗ as you can see

8:28 ↗ the first box over here shows where how

8:31 ↗ it's split in different sections of the

8:33 ↗ code in different documents so it's in

8:35 ↗ the municipal code 1807 it's in the

8:39 ↗ replacement regulations for highlands

8:41 ↗ and talus

8:42 ↗ uh then we have the central issaquah

8:44 ↗ design development standards we have a

8:46 ↗ park strategic plan we have the central

8:48 ↗ essequal plan and the urban design

8:51 ↗ manual so all of this stuff

8:53 ↗ is going to be incorporated into this

8:55 ↗ one chapter

8:57 ↗ that intends to implement the park

8:59 ↗ strategic plan

9:01 ↗ and consolidate all of these sections

9:03 ↗ into one chapter

9:06 ↗ some of the key changes um you know

9:08 ↗ there's some new terms

9:10 ↗ that we've formed in here obviously

9:12 ↗ we're going to take a look at it and get

9:13 ↗ your feedback on whether these make

9:14 ↗ sense

9:16 ↗ but open space

9:18 ↗ was

9:19 ↗ a different uh term under the park's

9:21 ↗ plan and and so on and so forth so

9:24 ↗ what we've come up with is an amenity

9:27 ↗ area and a community space i'll get into

9:29 ↗ those in a little bit

9:32 ↗ and looking at the park strategic plan

9:35 ↗ and seeing where the requirements are

9:37 ↗ for

9:38 ↗ green necklace and and what those mean

9:40 ↗ in terms of regulations and how those

9:41 ↗ can be implemented with uh when we get

9:44 ↗ development over a longer period of time

9:48 ↗ so uh community space is really public

9:52 ↗ outdoor area that's developed

9:54 ↗ as that we get as part of the

9:55 ↗ development but it's open to general

9:58 ↗ public so an example is a plaza

10:01 ↗ outdoor space for private use is called

10:04 ↗ natural amenity space this could be an

10:07 ↗ example of a patio courtyard for an

10:09 ↗ apartment building

10:11 ↗ indoor amenity obviously could be

10:13 ↗ recreation room in a multi-family

10:15 ↗ complex

10:17 ↗ the other thing that's included in this

10:19 ↗ chapter is building orientation or

10:22 ↗ connection

10:23 ↗ so looking at the green necklace vision

10:26 ↗ um

10:28 ↗ this chapter will include a new map that

10:30 ↗ shows city-owned parks not just in the

10:33 ↗ central issaquah but throughout the city

10:35 ↗ open space space and connections between

10:37 ↗ the parks

10:38 ↗ um

10:39 ↗ and it requires when we get development

10:42 ↗ for property adjacent to these amenities

10:44 ↗ to take certain actions so

10:46 ↗ if you are

10:47 ↗ a property next to a map that shows a

10:50 ↗ shared public use route so mountains to

10:52 ↗ sound greenway

10:54 ↗ route then you have to develop that as

10:56 ↗ part of your frontage improvements or if

10:59 ↗ there is a development next to a trail

11:01 ↗ connection you have to provide that

11:03 ↗ trail connection um

11:05 ↗ or if you are a development right next

11:07 ↗ to a park

11:08 ↗ or uh then you have to orient and design

11:11 ↗ your building so that you can you don't

11:13 ↗ have blank walls along the in the parks

11:15 ↗ you actually have uh more of a context

11:18 ↗ um of development around it

11:21 ↗ um

11:23 ↗ here's a map um that shows um what we've

11:26 ↗ taken from the green park strategic map

11:29 ↗ looking at the other maps the parks that

11:31 ↗ the city has

11:32 ↗ um obviously some more refinement and um

11:36 ↗ you know

11:37 ↗ description of what type 1 type 2 type 3

11:39 ↗ means and bringing that forward from the

11:41 ↗ park strategic

11:42 ↗ plan so we'll fine-tune this map but

11:45 ↗ this is

11:46 ↗ the map in this draft

11:50 ↗ so based on all the feedback that we

11:51 ↗ received

11:52 ↗ here's some things that we're going to

11:54 ↗ incorporate and moving forward

11:57 ↗ the map like i said we're going to

11:59 ↗ ensure it captures the entire city

12:01 ↗ includes a legend that actually explains

12:04 ↗ the different types of connections

12:06 ↗ and then looking at the building

12:08 ↗ orientation section one of the feedback

12:10 ↗ from the park board was

12:12 ↗ there different types of parks so an

12:14 ↗ active passive or just a

12:17 ↗ conservation area

12:18 ↗ we're going to take a stab at having a

12:21 ↗ more nuanced approach to what

12:23 ↗ building orientation means based on the

12:26 ↗ type of park

12:28 ↗ there were public comments on balconies

12:31 ↗ should not count towards common

12:33 ↗ amenities based requirements so

12:35 ↗ right now

12:37 ↗ under the existing code

12:39 ↗ there's a requirement for residential to

12:41 ↗ have 48 square feet per unit and you can

12:44 ↗ choose whether you can have it all as a

12:46 ↗ private open space or

12:48 ↗ all as common open space

12:52 ↗ so based on the feedback um

12:54 ↗ the the direction from planning and

12:56 ↗ policy commission is that the balconies

12:58 ↗ is in addition to

13:00 ↗ your common open space that you

13:02 ↗ shouldn't get to count your balconies

13:03 ↗ towards your required common open space

13:06 ↗ so obviously this means you know looking

13:08 ↗ at really what that number is how does

13:11 ↗ it play out

13:12 ↗ between

13:13 ↗ private and

13:15 ↗ common open space so we'll we'll come up

13:17 ↗ with

13:18 ↗ standards that don't allow balconies to

13:21 ↗ be counted towards common open space

13:24 ↗ um um director dollywood you have a

13:25 ↗ question if you just

13:27 ↗ very briefly um so when we talk about

13:30 ↗ balconies and i

13:32 ↗ kind of

13:33 ↗ kind of get up to speed really fast on

13:34 ↗ this but um

13:35 ↗ what about a patio something at ground

13:37 ↗ level does that um same things apply or

13:39 ↗ is it treated differently yeah i think

13:41 ↗ the idea here was if it's just private

13:43 ↗ open space or common open space so there

13:45 ↗ was a desire to not let the private open

13:48 ↗ space be counted towards meeting your

13:50 ↗ common open space requirements so patio

13:52 ↗ would be the same as the balcony perfect

13:55 ↗ thank you

13:58 ↗ the next one is

14:00 ↗ really amenity spaces for

14:01 ↗ non-residential or mixed-use

14:04 ↗ development

14:05 ↗ and in here um i think one of the the

14:08 ↗ commissioners had asked

14:10 ↗ perhaps this should be expanded to

14:12 ↗ city-wide so i went back and looked at

14:15 ↗ exactly what

14:16 ↗ it says in the draft code so

14:18 ↗ um

14:19 ↗ the existing code and the draft code

14:21 ↗ only has these

14:23 ↗ natural amenities spaces for

14:24 ↗ non-residential uh mixed use in central

14:27 ↗ issaquad talos or esqua island so

14:31 ↗ but there isn't that much land outside

14:33 ↗ of these areas that really allows

14:35 ↗ non-residential

14:37 ↗ so the discussion of the planning and

14:38 ↗ policy commission was do we really want

14:40 ↗ to change the policy and go beyond these

14:42 ↗ three areas to allow

14:44 ↗ um

14:45 ↗ to require non-uh you know amenity

14:47 ↗ spaces for non-residential uh

14:49 ↗ developments at the time i think we were

14:52 ↗ my my response uh and you've heard some

14:54 ↗ public comments on that was we're you

14:56 ↗ know we're not doing in more of a policy

14:59 ↗ change with this code update so perhaps

15:02 ↗ that's something we can look at in the

15:03 ↗ future but really you know it's it's not

15:05 ↗ that big a deal if you want to make it

15:07 ↗ city-wide because there isn't that much

15:09 ↗ area outside of central issaquah talus

15:11 ↗ or highlands that you can do

15:13 ↗ non-residential

15:15 ↗ um but you know one example would be

15:17 ↗ intensive commercial

15:20 ↗ which

15:21 ↗ isn't a walkable pedestrian kind of a

15:23 ↗ you know so having a plaza in those

15:25 ↗ spaces didn't really make a whole lot of

15:27 ↗ uh sense and so we we had left it not

15:30 ↗ changing the basic code requirements

15:32 ↗ with this consolidation exercise so

15:34 ↗ that's one item that you've heard uh

15:36 ↗ public comments on in you know that were

15:39 ↗ emailed to you tonight

15:40 ↗ um the other things were i think one of

15:43 ↗ the commissioners wanted us to look at

15:45 ↗ roof amenity to see if sports fields

15:47 ↗ could be added uh to be allowed as a

15:50 ↗ rooftop amenity so we'll look at that

15:54 ↗ the other things were more

15:56 ↗ for senior assisted living that perhaps

15:59 ↗ there was some fine-tuning of the

16:01 ↗ requirements needed for those

16:03 ↗ some desire to have maintenance of plaza

16:06 ↗ things like snow removal as

16:08 ↗ a required code

16:12 ↗ you know some something related to

16:14 ↗ maintenance related to weather issues

16:17 ↗ and then of course uh some confusion

16:19 ↗ with the terms definitions and how these

16:21 ↗ required spaces are reviewed so

16:23 ↗ obviously we'll look at all of that

16:25 ↗ so that pretty much is um

16:28 ↗ the community spaces i have an example

16:29 ↗ here to share with you what this really

16:31 ↗ means on the ground

16:33 ↗ so here's a site that abuts a city park

16:36 ↗ it's shown on that map

16:39 ↗ along holly street is the mountains to

16:41 ↗ sound greenway uh connection so

16:43 ↗ when with this new code we would require

16:46 ↗ the frontage along holly

16:48 ↗ uh street to meet um

16:50 ↗ for them to provide that frontage that

16:52 ↗ meets that minimum width design for that

16:55 ↗ uh overall connection

16:57 ↗ um it also butts um a park

17:00 ↗ the existing code and the new code will

17:02 ↗ have a requirement for a

17:05 ↗ you know a cross block connection which

17:07 ↗ you see on the south side here and then

17:09 ↗ orientation of this building uh towards

17:12 ↗ this park would not be a blank space

17:16 ↗ so those are the red arrows uh you know

17:18 ↗ one's a through block connection the

17:19 ↗ other one is the orientation uh along

17:22 ↗ the holley street on along your left

17:24 ↗ side would be the the connection

17:27 ↗ required from the

17:29 ↗ from the map

17:30 ↗ um

17:31 ↗ and then 48 square feet per unit is the

17:34 ↗ amenity space so they could do it um

17:37 ↗ as a combination under the this current

17:39 ↗ draft uh as in you know balconies for

17:42 ↗ each one of these units

17:44 ↗ or they could have a rooftop common

17:46 ↗ amenity area or they could have an

17:49 ↗ amenity area right next to the park

17:51 ↗ um

17:54 ↗ and if this was more than

17:56 ↗ 22 plus units they would need an

17:58 ↗ additional 400 square feet

18:00 ↗ of open space

18:02 ↗ and for assist and if it was an assisted

18:04 ↗ living senior housing it would have an

18:07 ↗ additional 48 square feet of indoor

18:09 ↗ amenity space per unit um

18:14 ↗ and that pretty much concludes

18:16 ↗ that topic i don't know if you want to

18:18 ↗ pause for discussion

18:21 ↗ i will check in i think that would be

18:23 ↗ maybe not for discussion but maybe for

18:25 ↗ questions since there's a number of

18:26 ↗ sections and then we'll take public

18:28 ↗ comments and then

18:29 ↗ do discussion on the different sections

18:32 ↗ so i did have some questions um

18:34 ↗ okay and i'll keep an eye on the chat in

18:37 ↗ case um council president walsh has any

18:39 ↗ questions on this section so my my first

18:42 ↗ question you showed the

18:44 ↗ um

18:45 ↗ map and

18:47 ↗ of

18:48 ↗ the green necklace

18:49 ↗ and

18:51 ↗ i

18:52 ↗ wondered you said it's from a number of

18:54 ↗ different

18:56 ↗ plans and

18:58 ↗ how

18:59 ↗ ultimately to apply it i imagine you

19:01 ↗ would need the street level where do

19:03 ↗ these connections actually happen

19:05 ↗ because the map although it is

19:07 ↗ clarified from what i've seen as earlier

19:09 ↗ versions where there's fuzzier lines

19:11 ↗ it's still

19:12 ↗ i it's still not it seems at this

19:15 ↗ street level where you would need to put

19:17 ↗ these connections so how would a

19:18 ↗ developer actually use that to know if

19:20 ↗ they

19:21 ↗ if they're along this corridor and would

19:23 ↗ need to

19:24 ↗ adhere to the green necklace

19:26 ↗ specifications

19:27 ↗ sure no good question so the earlier map

19:30 ↗ that you're referring to is in the park

19:32 ↗ strategic map which is these bubbles and

19:34 ↗ so we've taken that and worked with the

19:37 ↗ parks department

19:38 ↗ um

19:39 ↗ and our gis folks to kind of create this

19:41 ↗ so this is at a parcel level um it'll be

19:44 ↗ a gis layer so you could search your

19:47 ↗ property and see if it shows up anything

19:50 ↗ on it that's our intent that that would

19:52 ↗ be how it would be implemented

19:54 ↗ um

19:55 ↗ and so it is at a parcel level you

19:57 ↗ should be able to you know zoom in for

19:59 ↗ the code it shows up at a zoomed out

20:01 ↗ scale so you can't really see the

20:03 ↗ parcels but

20:04 ↗ yeah

20:06 ↗ okay great um so that's that's a

20:08 ↗ refinement that

20:10 ↗ that staff would do

20:11 ↗ from those existing plans that have the

20:14 ↗ more fuzzy guidelines yeah so this is

20:17 ↗ more um

20:18 ↗ parcel-based uh that was more uh you

20:21 ↗ know general um

20:24 ↗ but um

20:26 ↗ in terms of implementation it'll be a

20:28 ↗ gis layer

20:30 ↗ okay

20:31 ↗ um

20:32 ↗ great thank you for that so on the on

20:35 ↗ the natural amenities and the question

20:37 ↗ or the the comments that you made about

20:40 ↗ central and

20:42 ↗ the highland central issaquah the

20:43 ↗ highlands and talis

20:45 ↗ um

20:46 ↗ it seems that

20:48 ↗ um

20:50 ↗ it seems that we have at least green

20:52 ↗ necklace

20:53 ↗ components in other

20:55 ↗ areas in some of these maps is that

20:57 ↗ correct

20:58 ↗ um

21:00 ↗ i'm sure i'm not sure i fully understand

21:02 ↗ i think the green necklace concept

21:05 ↗ extends beyond central issaquah

21:08 ↗ um and

21:10 ↗ the highlands and talus is that correct

21:12 ↗ well i think the park strategic plan

21:14 ↗ talks about green necklace sort of more

21:17 ↗ focused on central so perhaps maybe we

21:19 ↗ don't need to use it you know some of

21:21 ↗ the discussion we're having with parks

21:22 ↗ department is perhaps we don't use the

21:24 ↗ word green necklace because it's adding

21:26 ↗ to the confusion of whether it's just

21:28 ↗ central or it's city-wide so it's it's

21:31 ↗ connections between the parks city-wide

21:34 ↗ my understanding is that the park

21:35 ↗ strategic plan was more of a focus on

21:38 ↗ the central issaquah where green

21:40 ↗ necklace term was used

21:44 ↗ but i could be wrong

21:45 ↗ okay um

21:47 ↗ that isn't my understanding but i think

21:48 ↗ that would be good to to look into um

21:51 ↗ and it is fuzzy on that map but um i

21:55 ↗ i think that would be that would be good

21:56 ↗ and since we have this open question

21:58 ↗ about application of this beyond

22:00 ↗ central highlands and

22:02 ↗ um telus i think that would be good to

22:04 ↗ check i

22:05 ↗ i would like it to comply with the

22:07 ↗ existing plans um

22:09 ↗ then

22:10 ↗ oh i wondered how

22:12 ↗ i surely other cities have um terms for

22:15 ↗ public areas and so i wondered about

22:17 ↗ this natural amenity if it's something

22:19 ↗ that's used in other cities codes and if

22:21 ↗ it would be

22:22 ↗ something that people would recognize

22:23 ↗ and understand sort of intuitively or if

22:25 ↗ it's something unique to us

22:28 ↗ well you know i think everyone calls it

22:30 ↗ a slightly different but you know

22:31 ↗ recreation spaces some people call it

22:33 ↗ that open spaces is a pretty common term

22:36 ↗ i think there was some confusion between

22:37 ↗ open spaces how they are

22:39 ↗ determined under the park's plan and so

22:41 ↗ this was an attempt to not confuse the

22:44 ↗ two

22:44 ↗ um

22:45 ↗ but we're open to feedback did it you

22:47 ↗ know once we have the definitions did

22:49 ↗ were the were the terms confusing

22:55 ↗ when you guys were reading it was it

22:58 ↗ obvious or

22:59 ↗ um

23:00 ↗ well i i'm more

23:02 ↗ more a question about how common the

23:03 ↗ term is for from the perspective of a

23:07 ↗ developer or a person who's looking to

23:09 ↗ take a look interpret the code yeah

23:11 ↗ we'll take a look if you can

23:13 ↗ it wasn't new to me yeah offer that

23:15 ↗ um

23:17 ↗ okay

23:18 ↗ uh one other question so there's a lot

23:20 ↗ of um in the

23:22 ↗ you you mentioned this private versus

23:24 ↗ public differentiation is there anything

23:26 ↗ in the code currently that requires the

23:29 ↗ signage or indication that it's public

23:33 ↗ you know it does uh we i mean but in

23:36 ↗ practice some of these public um spaces

23:39 ↗ don't quite work that way and and that

23:41 ↗ has not you know sometimes the signage

23:43 ↗ is there but it's so small

23:45 ↗ it's not obvious but but more so than

23:47 ↗ signage it's the design and the location

23:50 ↗ so if it's not really

23:51 ↗ a budding a public realm nobody gets

23:54 ↗ into a complex to figure out that this

23:56 ↗ is a public space um

24:00 ↗ so that that's sort of an issue i think

24:02 ↗ that came to light when we did the tour

24:04 ↗ that some of these spaces aren't um

24:07 ↗ obvious to general public that they're

24:08 ↗ open to them okay and that wasn't

24:11 ↗ something that's

24:12 ↗ um

24:14 ↗ changed specifically it's addressed by

24:16 ↗ design but not by the signage component

24:18 ↗ in this update but we can strengthen it

24:20 ↗ we can look at you know strengthening

24:22 ↗ the design aspects of

24:27 ↗ public spaces

24:29 ↗ okay

24:29 ↗ well i will save my comments on that but

24:32 ↗ thank you for those

24:33 ↗ answers and i see council president

24:35 ↗ walsh also has a question

24:38 ↗ thank you yeah i just want to follow up

24:40 ↗ on some of the questions that

24:43 ↗ council member hunt was saying because

24:45 ↗ those those were kind of my core

24:47 ↗ questions around this idea which is

24:50 ↗ is

24:51 ↗ first of all does our current code

24:53 ↗ have a requirement for

24:57 ↗ a certain amount of either indoor or

24:59 ↗ outdoor private amenity space in

25:03 ↗ multi-family units or is that something

25:06 ↗ that we're introducing as a new concept

25:08 ↗ here

25:09 ↗ so the current code the existing code

25:12 ↗ has a 48 square feet per unit

25:14 ↗ requirement but you can choose to make

25:17 ↗ it all public

25:18 ↗ or all private but there's no

25:20 ↗ combination you can't say some of it is

25:23 ↗ public and some of it is private so

25:25 ↗ that's just the way it's written and

25:27 ↗ implemented you can just put balconies

25:29 ↗ on each one six feet by eight feet and

25:32 ↗ you've met your requirement

25:34 ↗ or

25:35 ↗ you get all of it together as a common

25:37 ↗ space and you don't have the balconies

25:39 ↗ so that's just the way it's it's written

25:42 ↗ right now

25:43 ↗ um

25:44 ↗ this okay yeah

25:47 ↗ and in practice how um

25:50 ↗ what have we seen development do then is

25:53 ↗ it typically do we see you know 80

25:56 ↗ percent or more are using private spaces

25:59 ↗ what

26:00 ↗ what has been the situation so some of

26:02 ↗ the comments we received from um i think

26:05 ↗ uh christie from rowley had made a

26:07 ↗ comment about the balconies that based

26:09 ↗ on the new energy code for the buildings

26:12 ↗ um

26:13 ↗ these are very hard to meet the

26:14 ↗ balconies add another layer of

26:16 ↗ complexity for energy code requirements

26:19 ↗ um

26:20 ↗ and then penetration the weather issues

26:22 ↗ you know it's just they're harder

26:26 ↗ in terms of uh what the market demands

26:29 ↗ you know a lot of these apartment

26:30 ↗ buildings that we've seen have rooftop

26:32 ↗ amenities i mean the residents are

26:34 ↗ really it and it changes and varies over

26:36 ↗ time to

26:37 ↗ what what may be more kind of desirable

26:40 ↗ a lot of apartment complexes now

26:42 ↗ in order to attract do have these

26:44 ↗ amenities you know whether it's a

26:46 ↗ rooftop

26:49 ↗ common areas or

26:50 ↗ our indoor recreation type of facilities

26:54 ↗ so it can vary

26:55 ↗ uh based on

26:57 ↗ but from a code perspective

26:59 ↗ um

27:00 ↗ i think the decision or more research

27:02 ↗ what we're going to do is whether

27:05 ↗ private and and common if we want to

27:07 ↗ separate those two what's the right

27:09 ↗ standard for each one

27:11 ↗ um

27:12 ↗ in terms of square foot per unit

27:16 ↗ okay but my question was what are we

27:18 ↗ seeing in development not just i

27:20 ↗ appreciate including the comments from

27:23 ↗ the rally perspective of it's difficult

27:27 ↗ to develop

27:29 ↗ balconies given

27:31 ↗ the building requirements and such but

27:34 ↗ with our current code what have we seen

27:36 ↗ developers do

27:39 ↗ i think in general um

27:41 ↗ for the ones that i'm familiar with

27:44 ↗ that are currently under process

27:47 ↗ they're going to do more of a common

27:49 ↗ space than the balcony approach

27:53 ↗ so we have 200 review that i'm familiar

27:55 ↗ with

27:58 ↗ okay and then the second question going

28:01 ↗ back to some of the things

28:03 ↗ councilmember hunt was saying

28:04 ↗ what

28:05 ↗ what is the standard in

28:08 ↗ our other neighborhood

28:10 ↗ neighboring communities about

28:12 ↗ requirements in multi-family residential

28:15 ↗ units for

28:16 ↗ private

28:18 ↗ communal space versus

28:21 ↗ community

28:22 ↗ open space that's available to the

28:24 ↗ larger community yeah that's the

28:26 ↗ research we will have to do with the

28:28 ↗ second draft because i think in the

28:29 ↗ first draft the focus was to consolidate

28:31 ↗ and not change the standards

28:34 ↗ and so

28:35 ↗ given this desire to to have a separate

28:38 ↗ requirement for balconies uh we will

28:40 ↗ have to kind of look at that they

28:42 ↗ they're really

28:43 ↗ vary all over the spectrum

28:45 ↗ um

28:46 ↗ but we'll have to kind of take a look at

28:48 ↗ um

28:49 ↗ some some studies haven't updated the

28:51 ↗ code so they're based on a little bit uh

28:54 ↗ percent you know older standards where

28:56 ↗ it was more of a garden style apartments

28:58 ↗ now you have

29:00 ↗ more of an urban

29:01 ↗ escape

29:02 ↗ you know bigger buildings

29:04 ↗ the standards different some have a

29:06 ↗ percentage

29:07 ↗ of this gross floor area some have per

29:10 ↗ unit requirement so they're all over the

29:12 ↗ the spectrum but we will research that

29:15 ↗ uh with a second draft and and make a

29:17 ↗ recommendation

29:19 ↗ okay then that brings me into this

29:21 ↗ question of

29:22 ↗ what what is this process then like

29:26 ↗ when

29:28 ↗ when we're providing feedback when the

29:31 ↗ community is providing feedback at

29:34 ↗ you know ppc and joint board and

29:36 ↗ commission meetings

29:38 ↗ and we're kind of developing this set of

29:40 ↗ ideas of these are the types of things

29:43 ↗ that are going to need to be

29:46 ↗ in a second draft

29:48 ↗ what is the community's ability to

29:51 ↗ then

29:52 ↗ like if we're making comments here can

29:55 ↗ the community then continue to provide

29:58 ↗ comments

29:59 ↗ based on our comments because there was

30:01 ↗ some

30:02 ↗ question at the previous meetings about

30:04 ↗ the limitations uh regarding a public

30:07 ↗ hearing so can you talk me through what

30:09 ↗ that what that process looks like um

30:11 ↗ well i think the process is you

30:14 ↗ at this stage we're asking you know the

30:17 ↗ scope of the the the update was not to

30:20 ↗ go and

30:21 ↗ redo the the amount of open space

30:24 ↗ required for spaces right so

30:26 ↗ uh it was more in terms of um

30:29 ↗ how do we create how do we implement the

30:31 ↗ park strategic plan

30:33 ↗ i think in the first draft we took the

30:35 ↗ different scattered

30:37 ↗ requirements in all different places and

30:38 ↗ put them in one place based on the

30:40 ↗ feedback that we heard at this time

30:42 ↗ on

30:43 ↗ that we need to look at

30:46 ↗ private versus public space and have

30:48 ↗ separate standards when we do that

30:50 ↗ research we're obviously going to

30:52 ↗ include that as part of the the second

30:56 ↗ consolidated draft and make a

30:58 ↗ recommendation so there will be an

31:00 ↗ opportunity for public comment um at

31:02 ↗ that time and then the council will then

31:06 ↗ review the final recommendation from ppc

31:09 ↗ so there will be additional

31:10 ↗ opportunities um

31:13 ↗ as part of that consolidated draft

31:19 ↗ okay and i think those are my questions

31:23 ↗ thank you council president walsh and i

31:24 ↗ i will add too that we also receive

31:27 ↗ email comments at any time and those are

31:30 ↗ also included in our decision making

31:33 ↗ process so that's another way that

31:34 ↗ there's opportunity for getting comments

31:37 ↗ to us

31:38 ↗ um

31:39 ↗ okay i think i think

31:41 ↗ we are good to proceed

31:46 ↗ so

31:47 ↗ for the next

31:49 ↗ um

31:51 ↗ topic

31:58 ↗ okay so the next one is uh the tree

32:01 ↗ chapter so previously the tree and the

32:03 ↗ landscaping chapter were intermingled so

32:06 ↗ this is a separate section now

32:08 ↗ uh some of the key changes really are

32:11 ↗ tree canopy coverage goals replace the

32:14 ↗ minimum tree density and what does this

32:15 ↗ really mean

32:17 ↗ um so under the under the existing code

32:19 ↗ minimum tree density was if you have a

32:22 ↗ your single family home and your you

32:25 ↗ need to save five trees

32:27 ↗ they could all be the

32:29 ↗ two inch caliper you know or significant

32:31 ↗ trees it didn't matter whether they were

32:33 ↗ a 30

32:34 ↗ inch caliper dug further versus a small

32:38 ↗ tree

32:39 ↗ so the coverage goals really replace

32:41 ↗ that

32:43 ↗ so that there is more weight given to

32:45 ↗ you have a percentage of the canopy uh

32:48 ↗ coverage that you have to maintain so it

32:51 ↗ encourages larger bigger trees

32:54 ↗ that have larger canopy to be preserved

32:57 ↗ um

32:58 ↗ and then um tree retention requirements

33:01 ↗ for single family are increased we've

33:03 ↗ clarified the tree replacement

33:05 ↗ requirements uh we have on our existing

33:07 ↗ code a tree removal form um that you

33:10 ↗ know and that created so much more

33:12 ↗ confusion than what it solved uh because

33:15 ↗ is it a permit is it a form uh so it's

33:18 ↗ all you do you just apply for a tree

33:20 ↗ permit um and then we had an adjustment

33:24 ↗ uh administrative adjustment of

33:26 ↗ standards which with a pretty vague

33:28 ↗ criteria and what we heard loud and

33:30 ↗ clear

33:30 ↗ was most people applied for that and god

33:33 ↗ uh we got money in lieu of trees so

33:36 ↗ we've eliminated the administrative

33:38 ↗ adjustment of standards

33:40 ↗ however in order to give due process

33:42 ↗ there is a variance criteria

33:45 ↗ but it is a public process

33:48 ↗ and

33:49 ↗ some of the comments we heard was

33:51 ↗ tracking of tree removal you heard

33:54 ↗ earlier some comments related to that

33:56 ↗ that that's important

33:59 ↗ some sort of reporting for replacement

34:01 ↗ trees

34:02 ↗ is

34:03 ↗ important

34:04 ↗ then i think there were some concerns

34:06 ↗ about exemptions for city right-of-way

34:08 ↗ um

34:09 ↗ and then concerns for that single-family

34:11 ↗ property owners would now be able to pay

34:14 ↗ fee in lieu of as opposed to replacing

34:16 ↗ uh planting trees back on their property

34:20 ↗ and then also that the fee in lieu

34:22 ↗ should account for maintenance and loss

34:23 ↗ of benefits there was some concern that

34:26 ↗ you know the 30-year target

34:29 ↗ there is not an accountability for

34:30 ↗ short-term loss so which unfortunately

34:33 ↗ with tree removal there is a short-term

34:35 ↗ loss and that's hard to

34:38 ↗ account for

34:39 ↗ um heritage tree program that has been

34:43 ↗ there was a discussion at planning a

34:45 ↗ policy commission whether that should be

34:46 ↗ codified and there was unanimous

34:49 ↗ agreement that that should be in the

34:51 ↗ code

34:52 ↗ um a little bit description of how this

34:54 ↗ canopy coverage goals are applied per

34:56 ↗ lot

34:58 ↗ so um you know the city uh park

35:00 ↗ department led this uh tree canopy study

35:03 ↗ which

35:04 ↗ became a baseline for some of this

35:06 ↗ discussion so

35:08 ↗ for instance

35:09 ↗ in central issaquah the tree canopy

35:11 ↗ coverage is 27

35:14 ↗ it also identified the study um that

35:17 ↗ there's a possible planting area of 15

35:19 ↗ percent

35:20 ↗ um

35:21 ↗ and so

35:22 ↗ we looked at that

35:24 ↗ and said what should be on a parcel by

35:27 ↗ parcel basis a requirement for canopy

35:30 ↗ coverage goals so we came up with a 35

35:34 ↗ so this is where we're going to do some

35:36 ↗ more testing of the code to see if it's

35:38 ↗ achievable

35:39 ↗ it is the right percentage or not um but

35:44 ↗ and then we take another example say

35:46 ↗ isoqua highlands

35:47 ↗ existing tree canopy is 27 possible

35:50 ↗ planting area 20 percent

35:52 ↗ um and the

35:55 ↗ uh per parcel basis would be 45 so we

35:58 ↗ understand that this could be

35:59 ↗ problematic for a 5 000 square foot lot

36:02 ↗ they're not going to meet 45 canopy

36:04 ↗ coverage so

36:06 ↗ the the unintended consequence of this

36:08 ↗ would be if there is a problem tree

36:10 ↗ that's growing into the foundations and

36:11 ↗ it needs to come out

36:13 ↗ we would grant them a permit we would

36:16 ↗ capture what the 45

36:19 ↗ canopy coverage goal needs to be and

36:21 ↗ then they would pay fee in luau

36:23 ↗ where we would have a triage of this

36:25 ↗ tree needs to be planted within the

36:27 ↗ sub-area

36:28 ↗ and if it can't be planted within that

36:30 ↗ sub-area it can be planted off-site so

36:32 ↗ plant-on-site if possible within the

36:34 ↗ sub-area and then outside of the

36:36 ↗ sub-area

36:39 ↗ and then there are some other um you

36:41 ↗ know neighborhoods like squawk mountain

36:42 ↗ has 63 tree canopy coverage uh there's

36:46 ↗ planting areas of 17 percent uh but

36:49 ↗ because of some of the fringe areas and

36:52 ↗ the desire to

36:53 ↗ to

36:54 ↗ be forward thinking that there could be

36:56 ↗ potential loss of trees uh for wildfire

36:59 ↗ protection when you're right at the edge

37:01 ↗ of the wild you know uh urban

37:03 ↗ uh fringe

37:05 ↗ um so we've picked a 45 percent but

37:07 ↗ there's no

37:08 ↗ you know hard setting rule for these

37:10 ↗ percentages so our we are going to

37:12 ↗ continue to work um

37:14 ↗ and test these percentages we intend to

37:17 ↗ talk back with um

37:19 ↗ the folks that helped the the firm that

37:21 ↗ helped us do the tree canopy and see

37:23 ↗ what that means

37:25 ↗ understanding that

37:27 ↗ replacement off-site is tricky um

37:30 ↗ especially for privately held

37:32 ↗ land so your possible planting areas

37:35 ↗ could include

37:36 ↗ some privately held land so it's hard to

37:39 ↗ say that all of that can be replanted

37:42 ↗ because it may not so uh but

37:45 ↗ but the grinding principle in all of

37:47 ↗ this has been how do we achieve the 55

37:49 ↗ percent aspirational goal that was set

37:51 ↗ up with the climate action plan

37:54 ↗ so that's this

37:58 ↗ again tree canopy coverage

38:01 ↗ we'll continue to refine it to see if we

38:03 ↗ want to have the sub

38:05 ↗ area approach and then have a more

38:07 ↗ fine-grained approach for you know

38:09 ↗ residential and commercial distinction

38:13 ↗ um so we intend to do these edits in the

38:16 ↗ next round um

38:18 ↗ we are going to implement the tree

38:20 ↗ removal and replacement and how do we

38:22 ↗ track it so

38:24 ↗ obviously we can you know track it

38:26 ↗ through permit requirements but there

38:28 ↗ are going to be some

38:29 ↗ trees that get removed and you know that

38:32 ↗ a hazardous or

38:34 ↗ snow event or something you know it

38:35 ↗ won't be a full

38:37 ↗ um accounting but at least for the ones

38:39 ↗ that get a tree permit we could have a

38:41 ↗ system

38:42 ↗ um

38:43 ↗ and um the reporting for replacement

38:46 ↗ trees so we're

38:48 ↗ thinking about what that could mean it

38:49 ↗ could mean you know you have if you

38:51 ↗ replanted a tree you have to take a

38:52 ↗ picture and for the next two growing

38:55 ↗ seasons you

38:56 ↗ you know upload it to make sure it's

38:58 ↗ still healthy and staying

39:00 ↗ without making it undue hardship for

39:02 ↗ someone to you know go through the

39:04 ↗ process but

39:05 ↗ we'll continue to fine-tune that

39:08 ↗ um

39:09 ↗ fee and luff some more clarification

39:12 ↗ needed there

39:13 ↗ more work and analysis and the three

39:15 ↗ canopy coverage targets that i just went

39:17 ↗ over

39:18 ↗ and then of course codifying the

39:20 ↗ heritage tree program

39:23 ↗ that's the tree chapter

39:29 ↗ councilmember ray um a couple of things

39:32 ↗ um

39:34 ↗ i know that you said that you were that

39:36 ↗ determined the fee for in lieu of um

39:40 ↗ is something you're looking at um and

39:42 ↗ then use the very um ambiguous word

39:44 ↗ appropriate how do you determine what's

39:46 ↗ an appropriate fee for a for a tree

39:50 ↗ yeah you know we're going to be working

39:51 ↗ with a consultant to kind of figure out

39:53 ↗ because it's it's the the cost of the

39:55 ↗ tree it's the planting

39:57 ↗ labor and materials and then the the

40:00 ↗ maintenance of it so it should account

40:02 ↗ for all of those

40:03 ↗ um

40:05 ↗ so that is something we intend to come

40:07 ↗ up with a number so that we can adopt it

40:09 ↗ in a fee resolution so we don't have to

40:11 ↗ figure out what that fee amount is going

40:13 ↗ to be

40:15 ↗ and um so kind of on the same

40:18 ↗ vein

40:19 ↗ one of the things that you talked about

40:21 ↗ was

40:22 ↗ if i take a tree down over here i may

40:25 ↗ replant a tree someplace else you know

40:27 ↗ starting with the in you know same pro

40:29 ↗ parcel same sub area you know somewhere

40:32 ↗ else in the city um

40:34 ↗ how do we

40:35 ↗ how do we determine where best to put

40:38 ↗ the replacement tree

40:40 ↗ and how do our canopy targets play into

40:43 ↗ the determination of where

40:45 ↗ that tree should go

40:48 ↗ because it's it

40:50 ↗ you know my thinking is

40:52 ↗ um

40:53 ↗ not all not all trees are created equal

40:56 ↗ and not all places um need the tree as

40:58 ↗ badly as the place you just cut it down

41:00 ↗ so how do we how do we

41:02 ↗ strike that balance

41:05 ↗ good question you know um

41:07 ↗ obviously with the climate action plan

41:10 ↗ uh the the idea is the

41:13 ↗ urban island effect you know heat effect

41:16 ↗ so that's that's why putting it where it

41:18 ↗ can go grow but if it was a wrong tree

41:21 ↗ planted in the wrong place then no point

41:23 ↗ in kind of repeating that mistake again

41:27 ↗ but perhaps a smaller tree could go in

41:29 ↗ that same spot but if that doesn't work

41:33 ↗ then then you know the the

41:35 ↗ having a more uh robust a tree

41:38 ↗ um fee and luau program that is managed

41:41 ↗ well i mean right now i think um parks

41:44 ↗ department does a great job with the

41:46 ↗ green essequa program and and the

41:48 ↗ planting and that all that that occurs

41:51 ↗ on city-owned lands i mean that's all

41:53 ↗ what the city would be able to regulate

41:55 ↗ um

41:57 ↗ in terms of the replacement trees but

41:59 ↗ uh there's no perfect answer for where

42:02 ↗ the replacement trees are going to go uh

42:04 ↗ and

42:05 ↗ if they if we can identify

42:07 ↗ you know in the sub-area some

42:09 ↗ replacement

42:12 ↗ sites um that are publicly held

42:15 ↗ perhaps that's one way to handle it

42:18 ↗ privately held in the same sub-area are

42:20 ↗ going to be difficult to to manage um

42:24 ↗ and and make sure that they the trees

42:26 ↗ get planted but they stay for you know

42:28 ↗ for the long haul for the next 30 years

42:31 ↗ that that tree is a replacement tree and

42:33 ↗ it it stays

42:36 ↗ do you envision that the fee in lieu of

42:38 ↗ um would be based on the size of the

42:40 ↗ canopy

42:41 ↗ or the size of the tree or

42:44 ↗ is it a sliding scale is it a fixed

42:45 ↗ scale how do you envision that yeah so

42:48 ↗ so the the the

42:51 ↗ the fee in lieu of would be per tree but

42:54 ↗ the canopy will determine your canopy

42:57 ↗ coverage will determine how many

42:58 ↗ replacement trees you need so if you cut

43:01 ↗ down a really large canopy tree that

43:03 ↗ will mean more trees need to be planted

43:05 ↗ therefore the fee in lieu of will be

43:07 ↗ that many trees times the the feed per

43:10 ↗ tree

43:11 ↗ okay great thank you

43:15 ↗ all right

43:19 ↗ sorry

43:20 ↗ thank you

43:21 ↗ um so a few

43:24 ↗ questions um

43:27 ↗ so

43:28 ↗ do we have a sense of how other

43:30 ↗ communities handle their tree canopy

43:33 ↗ requirements and code

43:36 ↗ is

43:37 ↗ it seems like this concept of creating

43:40 ↗ neighborhood level or sub-area level

43:43 ↗ goals is

43:45 ↗ something new so i'm trying to

43:47 ↗ understand if that's

43:49 ↗ completely

43:50 ↗ something that developers aren't going

43:52 ↗ to be used to and other cities haven't

43:54 ↗ done or if that's

43:56 ↗ kind of a standard idea how far

43:59 ↗ out ahead of the idea are we on this

44:02 ↗ yeah when we were researching mount lake

44:04 ↗ terrace is the other city that has this

44:06 ↗ canopy coverage

44:08 ↗ methodology

44:10 ↗ so there are fewer cities but i think a

44:12 ↗ lot more cities are are realizing um the

44:15 ↗ more robust tree regulations so

44:18 ↗ i i think most folks are used to just

44:21 ↗ counting the number of trees and you

44:23 ↗ know they're it's easy they can count

44:25 ↗ uh but it doesn't get it doesn't

44:27 ↗ distinguish

44:29 ↗ uh a better quality tree from a um

44:32 ↗ crappy tree so

44:33 ↗ um

44:36 ↗ i i think in terms of

44:38 ↗ figuring out the canopy coverage for the

44:40 ↗ next 30 years we'll have to kind of come

44:43 ↗ up with some

44:45 ↗ uh during the implementation of you know

44:48 ↗ this type of a tree means this

44:50 ↗ percentage canopy coverage in the next

44:52 ↗ 30 years so there'll be some tools that

44:54 ↗ we can develop during implementation

44:56 ↗ that that should help but it is more

44:58 ↗ complex than just counting the number of

45:00 ↗ trees

45:02 ↗ toward that idea um one of the concepts

45:06 ↗ was you know you you have to

45:09 ↗ either

45:09 ↗ measure the

45:12 ↗ radius of the tree and then go out a

45:14 ↗ certain number of feet or you measure

45:16 ↗ what the canopy of the tree is or

45:19 ↗ another alternative is to actually

45:22 ↗ do a radar lidar

45:26 ↗ from the air so i'm trying to understand

45:28 ↗ how

45:29 ↗ feasible that is whether we understand

45:32 ↗ what the costs are to developers for

45:35 ↗ that how feasible is it going to be for

45:37 ↗ us

45:38 ↗ with our staff

45:39 ↗ to

45:40 ↗ be able to say definitively

45:43 ↗ this is what your tree canopy coverage

45:46 ↗ was

45:47 ↗ and this is what you're moving to

45:50 ↗ um

45:52 ↗ what are going to be the difficulties in

45:54 ↗ the scenario

45:57 ↗ yeah um you know i think daniel is here

46:00 ↗ on the line and so we um

46:02 ↗ do you want to um

46:04 ↗ speak to the difficulties that we may

46:07 ↗ encounter daniel

46:10 ↗ sure

46:12 ↗ hi um

46:14 ↗ [Music]

46:15 ↗ yeah so we are for development projects

46:19 ↗ we

46:20 ↗ are

46:21 ↗ we would be requiring

46:23 ↗ um

46:24 ↗ arborist recommendations which is

46:26 ↗ something that we already do now

46:30 ↗ part of the arbor's recommendations

46:32 ↗ moving forward will include for them to

46:35 ↗ do that assessment

46:38 ↗ when it comes to smaller scale projects

46:43 ↗ or just a standard tree removal permit

46:47 ↗ staff will be able to do that part of

46:50 ↗ that is going to be

46:52 ↗ um

46:56 ↗ looking for programs

46:58 ↗ uh to assist staff there's one the

47:01 ↗ the company that performed the tree

47:05 ↗ canopy analysis

47:07 ↗ uh planet geo they have a program

47:11 ↗ that we currently have access to

47:15 ↗ it's called tree plotter

47:17 ↗ and that would that will allow staff to

47:22 ↗ make those those measurements

47:29 ↗ okay and then my kind of final question

47:32 ↗ is

47:32 ↗ around the fee in lieu

47:35 ↗ um so

47:36 ↗ i know many cities have problems with

47:40 ↗ this concept of

47:43 ↗ paying a fee in lieu and then

47:46 ↗ all we end up is with is

47:48 ↗ fewer trees and lower tree canopy so

47:52 ↗ do we have a best practice example of an

47:56 ↗ area that has done this well or

47:59 ↗ or a goal that we're trying to go after

48:02 ↗ as far as a best practice for

48:05 ↗ finding a way to make this work

48:11 ↗ i'm sorry is that question for me or for

48:13 ↗ minnie

48:14 ↗ either probably for director dollywood

48:18 ↗ yeah you know i mean um

48:21 ↗ obviously i think the goal is is to

48:24 ↗ preserve the canopy

48:26 ↗ is it easy to to do this abs you know

48:30 ↗ not

48:31 ↗ sure it can be easy but it does it's in

48:34 ↗ practice it never is

48:36 ↗ uh there are going to be

48:38 ↗ uh loss in canopy for a variety of

48:41 ↗ reasons you know weather related

48:43 ↗ wildfire is a big concern there may be

48:46 ↗ some thinning needed related to that

48:50 ↗ or just general um you know disease and

48:52 ↗ and decay of of some of those trees that

48:55 ↗ happens

48:56 ↗ what the codes can do is prevent a clear

48:59 ↗ cutting

49:00 ↗ so what the codes can really help is you

49:03 ↗ can't just go in and

49:05 ↗ clear cut the whole site and and do your

49:08 ↗ development so

49:09 ↗ that those things the codes are really

49:11 ↗ good at

49:12 ↗ now every individual homeowner that has

49:14 ↗ a problem tree obviously it's going to

49:16 ↗ get removed the replacement is going to

49:19 ↗ depend on educational aspects i think in

49:22 ↗ general community members desire and

49:24 ↗ like essoqua for its greenery so i think

49:27 ↗ there's that desire to

49:29 ↗ to have that so it will have to be

49:30 ↗ coupled by not just the codes but also

49:33 ↗ the great green

49:35 ↗ it's a you know the green square program

49:37 ↗ that the parks runs and other things

49:39 ↗ that will

49:40 ↗ keep up the canopy so it'll it's going

49:42 ↗ to take more than the codes if that

49:45 ↗ helps

49:50 ↗ okay those are my questions thank you

49:54 ↗ okay i think we're ready to proceed

49:58 ↗ so the next um the last chapter is

50:02 ↗ landscape um so this is more of a

50:04 ↗ technical pieces you know what type of

50:07 ↗ trees what size of trees what type of

50:09 ↗ soil amendments are needed

50:11 ↗ what square footage of landscaping do

50:13 ↗ you need when you're doing your

50:14 ↗ development

50:16 ↗ that's what this is this chapter deals

50:18 ↗ with

50:19 ↗ as you can see

50:20 ↗ you know right now we have scattered

50:23 ↗ standards in four different locations so

50:25 ↗ it will consolidate it into one place

50:28 ↗ the goal

50:29 ↗ is also to retain neighborhood charm

50:32 ↗ and ensure sustainability through

50:33 ↗ landscape standards

50:36 ↗ some of the key changes

50:38 ↗ you know we've tried to have

50:40 ↗ sustainability integrated with the

50:42 ↗ irrigation plant diversity native

50:44 ↗ drought tolerant plant selection

50:47 ↗ um we've updated the standards for

50:49 ↗ irrigation

50:51 ↗ we have required a minimum planting with

50:53 ↗ the five feet

50:55 ↗ or minimum soil quantities because one

50:57 ↗ of the things that happens is the wrong

50:59 ↗ tree at the wrong place and you get the

51:01 ↗ sidewalks buckling up and high edges

51:05 ↗ and

51:07 ↗ then there was some discussion about

51:09 ↗ fences i think we'll look at that um to

51:13 ↗ see the relationship of where we put the

51:15 ↗ fence to where the landscaping is

51:17 ↗ the parking lot landscaping was

51:19 ↗ consolidated

51:21 ↗ i think we heard some questions about

51:24 ↗ we have some screening requirements um

51:26 ↗ that probably aren't um are a little

51:29 ↗ outdated

51:30 ↗ so we'll take a look at that

51:33 ↗ so here's the list of things we intend

51:35 ↗ to incorporate with the next draft

51:38 ↗ perimeter landscaping and parking lot

51:40 ↗ landscaping this is pretty standard for

51:42 ↗ a lot of cities to have these

51:44 ↗ you know required landscaping areas

51:47 ↗ developers have know what they need to

51:49 ↗ do they can meet these requirements

51:51 ↗ there's not

51:52 ↗ back and forth on it so you if if you

51:55 ↗ care to get some green space it's good

51:57 ↗ to say x amount and you can get that

52:00 ↗ the drawback of this is um sometimes um

52:05 ↗ you know flexibility is good it's better

52:07 ↗ to have a row of trees that it's that's

52:09 ↗ existing be be preserved um rather than

52:13 ↗ put a small six by six uh island in a

52:15 ↗ parking lot but we'll look at that uh so

52:18 ↗ that we can you know ensure uh

52:20 ↗ predictability but yet provide some

52:22 ↗ flexibility

52:24 ↗ um there's a chapter um natural context

52:27 ↗ um requirements this came from public

52:30 ↗ comments uh that's currently in the

52:32 ↗ central issaquah urban design section so

52:34 ↗ we'll we'll bring that forward into this

52:36 ↗ chapter

52:37 ↗ um and uh one of the environmental board

52:40 ↗ members um you know had good comments on

52:43 ↗ the

52:44 ↗ tree list that there are some

52:46 ↗ inaccuracies there so we will uh update

52:49 ↗ that we'll reach out to uh people within

52:53 ↗ the your boards and commissions that

52:54 ↗ have that expertise and hopefully uh can

52:57 ↗ fine tune that list

53:00 ↗ and then also some connection between

53:02 ↗ landscaping and

53:04 ↗ and storm water

53:06 ↗ there was some desire to have rain

53:08 ↗ gardens and grey water usage so it's a

53:11 ↗ little

53:12 ↗ weak in that area so we'll look into

53:14 ↗ that

53:16 ↗ then there were some comments about

53:17 ↗ re-landscaping you know how can we make

53:19 ↗ it less onerous so even if you're not

53:22 ↗ doing redevelopment but if you want to

53:24 ↗ upgrade your landscaping and you have to

53:26 ↗ go through this a lot of hoops in the

53:28 ↗ permitting process then perhaps there

53:29 ↗ isn't an incentive for folks to upgrade

53:31 ↗ it

53:32 ↗ so we'll look at that in the procedures

53:34 ↗ section

53:36 ↗ um again some more flexibility with the

53:38 ↗ idea that to meet the goals and outcomes

53:41 ↗ for this update

53:42 ↗ and then of course consistency and

53:44 ↗ organization we'll look at that

53:47 ↗ so that pretty much

53:49 ↗ concludes that chapter the next steps

53:52 ↗ are going to be

53:53 ↗ ppc hearing on a consolidated draft

53:56 ↗ with council review

53:58 ↗ later and and we intend to come back to

54:01 ↗ you all in june with zoning and uses

54:03 ↗ section

54:06 ↗ that concludes

54:08 ↗ the presentation

54:12 ↗ thank you thank you

54:13 ↗ oh thank you director dollywood sorry

54:15 ↗ about that

54:16 ↗ um

54:17 ↗ so

54:19 ↗ uh do we have any questions on this last

54:20 ↗ section

54:21 ↗ um

54:23 ↗ and i don't see any questions from

54:24 ↗ council president walsh on the section i

54:26 ↗ had

54:27 ↗ oh

54:28 ↗ now she does okay um go ahead council

54:30 ↗ president walsh

54:32 ↗ thank you um i just had some questions

54:34 ↗ about

54:36 ↗ irrigation

54:37 ↗ there were some comments in

54:40 ↗ the

54:41 ↗ environmental board and

54:43 ↗ some of the meetings can you

54:44 ↗ explain what the approach is for

54:48 ↗ irrigation and what some of those

54:50 ↗ questions are that we're we might be

54:51 ↗ looking to resolve in a second draft

54:54 ↗ yeah so um i think um because of um hot

54:58 ↗ summer um and uh climate change you know

55:02 ↗ there was a

55:03 ↗ the we put some language in the code to

55:05 ↗ say

55:06 ↗ you know browning of

55:08 ↗ your your lawns is okay and so

55:11 ↗ if you have an existing landscaping uh

55:14 ↗ you're not gonna get code enforcement

55:16 ↗ concerns during the summer months to let

55:18 ↗ your

55:19 ↗ you know grass go brown

55:21 ↗ um however i think where we ended up

55:24 ↗ with the conversation with the boards

55:26 ↗ and commissions was if you're building

55:28 ↗ in a new development and you're putting

55:31 ↗ in landscaping that we do require uh

55:33 ↗ landscape irrigation uh to be put in

55:36 ↗ place so there is not enough you know

55:38 ↗ you you have more drought tolerant

55:40 ↗ species and you have more plant

55:42 ↗ diversity in all of those things but you

55:44 ↗ still have to irrigate it because

55:46 ↗ otherwise um

55:48 ↗ those plants the new plants that are

55:50 ↗ going to be planted aren't going to make

55:51 ↗ it

55:52 ↗ we'll look at i think we we had heard

55:54 ↗ previously about drip irrigation versus

55:57 ↗ the the standard irrigation requirements

56:01 ↗ i i'm not a big fan of putting too much

56:03 ↗ technology into code because things can

56:05 ↗ change

56:06 ↗ and you know there may be a more

56:08 ↗ innovative

56:09 ↗ way of irrigation that comes along and

56:11 ↗ and we have a hardwired thing in the

56:13 ↗ code um but it just leaves that you have

56:16 ↗ to be a licensed landscape architect to

56:19 ↗ produce your plans and then you produce

56:20 ↗ your land irrigation

56:24 ↗ drawings with it if you have irrigation

56:26 ↗ in a required public frontage so along

56:29 ↗ the street trees and things there we

56:31 ↗ have a requirement for what you need to

56:33 ↗ meet obviously some of those

56:35 ↗ focus of those things are you know in

56:38 ↗ backflow devices so you're not

56:39 ↗ contaminating drinking water supplies

56:41 ↗ and those kind of things but

56:44 ↗ so irrigation under this draft is

56:46 ↗ required for new landscaped areas

56:51 ↗ but the gray water usage discussion

56:53 ↗ occurred i think a lot of area is in the

56:55 ↗ critical area aquifer recharge so there

56:58 ↗ are

56:59 ↗ concerns about again

57:01 ↗ having development over your

57:04 ↗ drinking water supply and using

57:07 ↗ gray water is is a concern but

57:10 ↗ to the extent you can you know

57:12 ↗ store rain water and use it for

57:15 ↗ irrigation those kind of mechanisms we

57:17 ↗ can look into with the next draft

57:22 ↗ thank you

57:26 ↗ thank you i had one question on this

57:28 ↗ last section um there is some wording in

57:31 ↗ here about for example

57:33 ↗ just not disturbing the native soil um

57:37 ↗ to the extent practical practicable and

57:40 ↗ i wondered

57:42 ↗ how

57:43 ↗ we um

57:44 ↗ how we determine if it is to the extent

57:47 ↗ of practicable

57:49 ↗ we know i mean that that's the we will

57:51 ↗ have to fix that i think

57:54 ↗ the developers will say well it's not

57:56 ↗ possible and then we will have a debate

57:58 ↗ and and nobody wins in that debate and

58:00 ↗ so

58:01 ↗ we really want to have more

58:03 ↗ predictability for what that means some

58:05 ↗ of the comments that came in were i

58:07 ↗ think the code says if you disturb it

58:09 ↗ you store it on site and reuse it

58:13 ↗ uh i think the comments we heard from

58:15 ↗ some were it's really not practical to

58:18 ↗ kind of store it on site because you

58:20 ↗ have you know construction active

58:22 ↗ construction site going on you can't

58:24 ↗ really do that so

58:26 ↗ i i think it's a

58:29 ↗ nice thing to require uh i think the

58:32 ↗ intent is because of storm water and

58:34 ↗ other reasons there should be an attempt

58:36 ↗ but we'll have to

58:38 ↗ you know we either require it or we say

58:42 ↗ we don't require it

58:44 ↗ yeah

58:45 ↗ yeah okay thank you you saw where i was

58:46 ↗ going with that

58:48 ↗ um do we have any other questions at

58:50 ↗ this time okay uh no other questions

58:53 ↗ so at this time let me just check

58:58 ↗ i think i think we're good um at this

59:00 ↗ time we will then have public comments

59:03 ↗ on this item and so um there is no one

59:06 ↗ in the audience um presently so i will

59:09 ↗ ask

59:10 ↗ city clerk if there is anyone

59:12 ↗ on the call

59:13 ↗ that would

59:15 ↗ is indicating a desire to speak on this

59:17 ↗ item

59:20 ↗ yes council member hunt

59:22 ↗ connie marsh has her virtual hand raised

59:26 ↗ ms marsh i'm making you a panelist

59:29 ↗ you should now see the option to unmute

59:31 ↗ and you may also turn on your video

59:39 ↗ there we go

59:42 ↗ i'm sending my video okay

59:45 ↗ i

59:46 ↗ yes i am sunburned because i'm down in

59:48 ↗ san francisco setting fence posts

59:52 ↗ anyway i'm connie marsh and i typically

59:55 ↗ am on squawk mountain

59:57 ↗ um

59:58 ↗ so

1:00:00 ↗ uh

1:00:02 ↗ many comments many addressed so i'm

1:00:05 ↗ gonna go

1:00:07 ↗ with

1:00:08 ↗ uh we'll start with trees first

1:00:12 ↗ which

1:00:12 ↗ is the tree canopy is a very simplistic

1:00:17 ↗ mechanism for the functions of trees

1:00:21 ↗ so

1:00:22 ↗ um

1:00:23 ↗ right tree in the right place

1:00:26 ↗ and

1:00:27 ↗ what

1:00:28 ↗ does it

1:00:30 ↗ do and how do you actually get people to

1:00:33 ↗ do that right

1:00:35 ↗ and so then that moves you over to the

1:00:37 ↗ landscape code

1:00:39 ↗ which

1:00:40 ↗ it's unclear to me so far

1:00:45 ↗ uh who the authority is

1:00:48 ↗ that you will be the city will be using

1:00:52 ↗ to make sure that you get the right

1:00:54 ↗ tree in the right place

1:00:57 ↗ and whether they are going to have to

1:00:59 ↗ replace the other functions besides pure

1:01:02 ↗ canopy that trees

1:01:05 ↗ provide

1:01:06 ↗ so

1:01:07 ↗ [Music]

1:01:08 ↗ in the ppc meeting that had new

1:01:11 ↗ information where the community was not

1:01:13 ↗ allowed to speak

1:01:14 ↗ the one of the new bits of information

1:01:17 ↗ was well these commercial areas like

1:01:19 ↗ central issaquah and the highlands it's

1:01:21 ↗ going to be hard to get the trees in but

1:01:23 ↗ if you look at the maps that show where

1:01:26 ↗ the heat sinks are those are exactly

1:01:28 ↗ where the heat sinks are that we're

1:01:30 ↗ trying to mend

1:01:32 ↗ so i think we need to remember

1:01:35 ↗ what actually are we trying

1:01:38 ↗ to do what problem are we trying to

1:01:40 ↗ solve with these codes and i think one

1:01:43 ↗ of my frustrations is

1:01:45 ↗ we're we're deep in the code

1:01:48 ↗ but

1:01:49 ↗ we don't seem to go

1:01:54 ↗ we don't seem to go back to what

1:01:56 ↗ problems we'll be trying to solve and is

1:01:59 ↗ this going to do that and for example

1:02:03 ↗ if we reduce the tree canopy in

1:02:06 ↗ iskwa highlands that will not solve that

1:02:09 ↗ heat sink problem

1:02:11 ↗ we have plenty of area up in the ischool

1:02:14 ↗ islands it's actually public area that

1:02:16 ↗ we've tried to replant for many many

1:02:18 ↗ years

1:02:19 ↗ but the people come down and they cut

1:02:21 ↗ down all of the new plantings or they

1:02:23 ↗ take them out because they don't want

1:02:25 ↗ their views changed i don't know but

1:02:28 ↗ those tree plantings have never

1:02:30 ↗ succeeded

1:02:33 ↗ and that is the reality of life so then

1:02:36 ↗ you go to code enforcement which is a

1:02:38 ↗ little later on

1:02:39 ↗ so after you weave all of these things

1:02:42 ↗ together are you going to solve

1:02:45 ↗ your problem so i guess i'm asking you

1:02:48 ↗ to think about it

1:02:50 ↗ not as much in the gears as it's being

1:02:53 ↗ presented

1:02:54 ↗ but

1:02:55 ↗ lift up to 30 000 feet and say wow

1:02:59 ↗ what is our problem with trees that we

1:03:01 ↗ want to solve we need shade right which

1:03:04 ↗ is sort of canopy we need storm water

1:03:06 ↗ yes we also need habitat

1:03:09 ↗ and we need wildlife corridors and we

1:03:12 ↗ never talk except for in a very small

1:03:14 ↗ area in the introduction of the tree

1:03:16 ↗ code it talks about these functions but

1:03:19 ↗ then it never loops back to say how what

1:03:21 ↗ we're doing is is getting us those

1:03:23 ↗ things okay

1:03:24 ↗ so that is a little bit

1:03:27 ↗ on trees is it sort of bounces back and

1:03:30 ↗ forth

1:03:31 ↗ if you talk about

1:03:33 ↗ landscaping what i do is i drive around

1:03:36 ↗ issaquah and i say

1:03:38 ↗ what's good and what's terrible

1:03:39 ↗ landscaping and does this landscape code

1:03:42 ↗ actually get us something better and

1:03:46 ↗ what i see in central issaquah

1:03:48 ↗ and

1:03:50 ↗ many other parts of town is a bunch of

1:03:52 ↗ scraggly lines of trees that actually

1:03:56 ↗ prevent um

1:03:58 ↗ people from being able to walk

1:04:02 ↗ through

1:04:02 ↗ and so i don't know why we have these

1:04:04 ↗ little scraggly lines of trees and we

1:04:06 ↗ aren't getting rid of them in this code

1:04:09 ↗ so

1:04:10 ↗ what

1:04:11 ↗ what actually is our landscaping

1:04:14 ↗ or in our varying areas how much

1:04:17 ↗ screening do

1:04:18 ↗ we

1:04:19 ↗ need and i think if you guys could

1:04:22 ↗ provide some of what your point of view

1:04:24 ↗ is on this topic it would be helpful to

1:04:26 ↗ get something better for

1:04:29 ↗ our town

1:04:31 ↗ um

1:04:32 ↗ and then when we go back to what was our

1:04:34 ↗ first

1:04:35 ↗ our

1:04:36 ↗ our for oh oh

1:04:38 ↗ okay so the parks department situation

1:04:41 ↗ that i sent you i actually spent a lot

1:04:43 ↗ of my vacation time here looking up the

1:04:46 ↗ park strategic plan so that you could

1:04:48 ↗ get more of the comprehensive plan

1:04:50 ↗ language

1:04:51 ↗ of what we are aiming for in our

1:04:54 ↗ parks

1:04:56 ↗ and so when you look at what is provided

1:04:59 ↗ to you there's a lot of confusion about

1:05:01 ↗ what is the green necklace as compared

1:05:03 ↗ to what is sort of the city-wide parks

1:05:06 ↗ system and i think that needs to be

1:05:10 ↗ clarified

1:05:11 ↗ entirely so that then we can understand

1:05:16 ↗ whether we want to only focus on the

1:05:19 ↗ green necklace and my answer would be no

1:05:22 ↗ we need all of this to be city wide

1:05:24 ↗ because we actually want

1:05:26 ↗ our park linkages and

1:05:28 ↗ connectivity

1:05:30 ↗ city-wide and the map that you are

1:05:32 ↗ seeing is a city

1:05:35 ↗ wide map it's not a green necklace

1:05:38 ↗ map

1:05:39 ↗ um

1:05:40 ↗ so

1:05:41 ↗ i know that minnie made some comments

1:05:44 ↗ about this ms marsh i'm sorry to

1:05:45 ↗ interrupt your you're

1:05:47 ↗ running over time can you please uh yeah

1:05:49 ↗ yeah

1:05:50 ↗ i'm almost

1:05:51 ↗ did did you tell me i only had five

1:05:54 ↗ minutes

1:05:55 ↗ uh that's

1:05:56 ↗ typical for public comment five minutes

1:05:59 ↗ and you're a little older i didn't know

1:06:00 ↗ this is the new this is a new committee

1:06:02 ↗ so i wasn't sure what my limits are with

1:06:05 ↗ with all of this so

1:06:07 ↗ good to know

1:06:08 ↗ um

1:06:09 ↗ my and that was my consideration is for

1:06:13 ↗ looking at the

1:06:15 ↗ uh the definitions of the parks and

1:06:18 ↗ getting them concrete so people actually

1:06:20 ↗ can look at this and know what you're

1:06:22 ↗ talking about because at this point in

1:06:24 ↗ time they don't

1:06:26 ↗ thanks

1:06:27 ↗ thank you connie

1:06:29 ↗ does anybody else indicating is anybody

1:06:32 ↗ else indicating a desire to give

1:06:34 ↗ comments at this time

1:06:37 ↗ council member hunt i do not see any

1:06:39 ↗ other raised virtual hands

1:06:42 ↗ okay great thank you

1:06:46 ↗ then um at this time and seeing as

1:06:49 ↗ there's no one in the audience to give

1:06:50 ↗ comments

1:06:51 ↗ we will move into

1:06:53 ↗ committee discussion and committee

1:06:55 ↗ recommendation

1:06:56 ↗ and

1:06:59 ↗ who would like to start us off i'll be

1:07:01 ↗ happy council member ray um do you want

1:07:03 ↗ to take them one at a time or you want

1:07:04 ↗ to take them all

1:07:06 ↗ how would you like them

1:07:08 ↗ um

1:07:09 ↗ i think these are

1:07:12 ↗ well

1:07:13 ↗ i think these are separate and

1:07:14 ↗ enough that uh we could do them one at a

1:07:17 ↗ time and then um make a recommendation

1:07:19 ↗ at the end um but let's see i see

1:07:22 ↗ council president walsh also nodding so

1:07:24 ↗ let's let's do it that way one at a time

1:07:27 ↗ um

1:07:30 ↗ so on community spaces i i really don't

1:07:33 ↗ have much to say about that i think it

1:07:35 ↗ is um i liked us implementing our

1:07:37 ↗ current policies in a more consistent

1:07:38 ↗ way i think that's important

1:07:40 ↗ i would like to see as we go forward

1:07:43 ↗ some of the questions around what are

1:07:44 ↗ our neighboring communities doing around

1:07:46 ↗ public spaces or community spaces and

1:07:49 ↗ um how are how are they addressing it

1:07:51 ↗ and then

1:07:52 ↗ going forward beyond that even

1:07:54 ↗ maybe coming up with some um

1:07:57 ↗ common parlance some common language

1:07:59 ↗ about what we call things so that um you

1:08:01 ↗ know we align with other communities so

1:08:03 ↗ um but um all in all i thought that that

1:08:05 ↗ was a good very nice job

1:08:10 ↗ thank you councilmember ray um council

1:08:12 ↗ president walsh go ahead

1:08:15 ↗ thank you

1:08:16 ↗ i agree that we should come up with a

1:08:18 ↗ common parlance and and see what other

1:08:22 ↗ communities are doing

1:08:23 ↗ i would propose at the very least

1:08:25 ↗ calling it outdoor and indoor amenity

1:08:29 ↗ areas

1:08:31 ↗ generally though my feel is that

1:08:34 ↗ private space should

1:08:36 ↗ be decided by the market as a

1:08:40 ↗ individual unit differentiator

1:08:43 ↗ and shouldn't be a requirement in code

1:08:46 ↗ the exception being retirement

1:08:48 ↗ communities and

1:08:50 ↗ other communal living situations um i

1:08:54 ↗ also don't know if we want to

1:08:56 ↗ essentially encourage rooftop decks um

1:09:00 ↗ personally i have one and it's been a

1:09:02 ↗ nightmare and i wouldn't wish it on many

1:09:06 ↗ people um but that's just my personal

1:09:08 ↗ situation uh generally i

1:09:11 ↗ i think

1:09:12 ↗ we want to be

1:09:14 ↗ looking for more community space

1:09:17 ↗ and

1:09:19 ↗ especially if the market in its current

1:09:21 ↗ situation with the requirements

1:09:23 ↗ is giving us community space

1:09:27 ↗ and also kind of balconies and other

1:09:30 ↗ private spaces

1:09:32 ↗ um i don't want to move

1:09:36 ↗ toward a situation where people can kind

1:09:38 ↗ of split the difference i i don't think

1:09:40 ↗ that would give us what we're looking at

1:09:43 ↗ um in general and then

1:09:45 ↗ i really like the way the information

1:09:47 ↗ was provided about the connection and

1:09:49 ↗ orientation to open space and the use of

1:09:51 ↗ the map i just want to make sure that

1:09:53 ↗ that is

1:09:54 ↗ really solid and a really usable

1:09:57 ↗ situation when we're looking down at the

1:10:00 ↗ parcel

1:10:01 ↗ specific area so those are my thoughts

1:10:07 ↗ all right thank you

1:10:09 ↗ so firstly i wanted to say

1:10:11 ↗ thank you for laying out all of the

1:10:12 ↗ comments that we've received in the

1:10:14 ↗ matrix i think that continues to be a

1:10:15 ↗ helpful way to show the changes that are

1:10:18 ↗ being made in response to all of the

1:10:19 ↗ public comments that we continue to

1:10:21 ↗ receive and all of the commission's

1:10:23 ↗ input and all of the public meetings and

1:10:26 ↗ um

1:10:27 ↗ i personally wanted to recognize you and

1:10:30 ↗ your staff for putting that all together

1:10:32 ↗ on the community spaces piece

1:10:35 ↗ one of the

1:10:36 ↗ things that i think this code

1:10:39 ↗ should do is make sure to make and it

1:10:42 ↗ says in there somewhere make people feel

1:10:45 ↗ welcome you should feel like you

1:10:47 ↗ have

1:10:48 ↗ are you are correct to be there and that

1:10:50 ↗ you're you're welcome in these um

1:10:52 ↗ communal spaces

1:10:54 ↗ and so i think when the intent for those

1:10:57 ↗ spaces is to be a public space a plaza

1:11:00 ↗ for example one of the things that i've

1:11:03 ↗ noticed in for example seattle is they

1:11:05 ↗ have a consistent signing that's

1:11:08 ↗ prominent and it says that this is a

1:11:10 ↗ public place and you you can be here i

1:11:12 ↗ think that is important because yes

1:11:14 ↗ there are design elements that you can

1:11:16 ↗ you can use to make it be more or less

1:11:18 ↗ inviting and definitely that

1:11:22 ↗ the requirements of having the more

1:11:24 ↗ oriented towards the public spaces etc

1:11:26 ↗ should help but i think signage is also

1:11:29 ↗ important and is a very clear and

1:11:31 ↗ especially if it's done in a clear

1:11:32 ↗ consistent way that can be a really

1:11:34 ↗ useful tool

1:11:36 ↗ so i would encourage us to look at that

1:11:38 ↗ and i do think some neighboring cities

1:11:40 ↗ i've definitely seen it in seattle uh

1:11:43 ↗ have have this sort of signage that i

1:11:45 ↗ think we could

1:11:46 ↗ we could require

1:11:50 ↗ on the green necklace

1:11:53 ↗ it is great to see more definition of

1:11:56 ↗ this

1:11:57 ↗ definition on this and i think having

1:12:00 ↗ the gis layer so people actually know

1:12:02 ↗ where these connections need to be will

1:12:03 ↗ help it come to life which will be great

1:12:07 ↗ um i

1:12:09 ↗ i uh

1:12:10 ↗ wonder about um just

1:12:13 ↗ making sure that it it again is um

1:12:17 ↗ signed and is that information becomes

1:12:20 ↗ available to people because part of it

1:12:21 ↗ is you know the connections

1:12:23 ↗ that we want to make between our parks

1:12:25 ↗ and our community spaces and have those

1:12:28 ↗ connections be used so i would encourage

1:12:30 ↗ us also to to

1:12:32 ↗ make sure that it's

1:12:34 ↗ clear to the user that you can walk you

1:12:37 ↗ know by this building to get to another

1:12:38 ↗ connection etc because i think that will

1:12:40 ↗ be a a challenge but um if it can be

1:12:44 ↗ done well and people feel welcome along

1:12:46 ↗ this green necklace that would be

1:12:48 ↗ wonderful

1:12:51 ↗ um

1:12:54 ↗ and then my last comment is on the

1:12:58 ↗ the amenities um citywide versus the

1:13:02 ↗ the central issaquah highlands and talus

1:13:06 ↗ i think unless we have a

1:13:09 ↗ unless we have a reason for

1:13:12 ↗ sticking to the um to those restrictions

1:13:15 ↗ that isn't that the other that our

1:13:17 ↗ previous code did it that way um i think

1:13:20 ↗ one of our goals with this

1:13:22 ↗ over over um overhaul one of the skills

1:13:25 ↗ of this improvement to our code is to

1:13:27 ↗ standardize and i think having a b

1:13:29 ↗ city-wide is more standard you don't

1:13:31 ↗ have to wonder if you're on one side of

1:13:33 ↗ a boundary or the other and so um i

1:13:36 ↗ think

1:13:38 ↗ that that it wasn't done city-wide in

1:13:41 ↗ the past isn't for me a good reason to

1:13:43 ↗ do it that way so i would revisit that

1:13:46 ↗ if there are exceptions like you said

1:13:47 ↗ intensive commercial maybe it doesn't

1:13:49 ↗ make a ton of sense for intensive

1:13:50 ↗ commercial um

1:13:52 ↗ i'm not sure i think actually maybe it

1:13:54 ↗ does in some cases but in any event if

1:13:56 ↗ there are exceptions because of a you

1:13:57 ↗ know a reason then i think that could be

1:13:59 ↗ laid out but i don't i i think citywide

1:14:02 ↗ when it can be done when the code can be

1:14:04 ↗ applied citywide i think that's more

1:14:06 ↗ standard so we should go with that

1:14:08 ↗ those are my

1:14:10 ↗ comments on the community spaces

1:14:12 ↗ so unless we have any other comments on

1:14:16 ↗ this one

1:14:17 ↗ i will go next to the trees

1:14:20 ↗ and anybody like to start us off on the

1:14:22 ↗ trees part of the

1:14:25 ↗ code

1:14:26 ↗ update i'm happy to start trees but i

1:14:30 ↗ would also give

1:14:32 ↗ council president the opportunity to

1:14:33 ↗ start this one if she was so inclined

1:14:36 ↗ councilmember ray i think you have the

1:14:37 ↗ four all right

1:14:40 ↗ so

1:14:41 ↗ this is a hard topic this is probably

1:14:43 ↗ one of the most emotionally charged

1:14:45 ↗ topics um that we get to deal with and

1:14:49 ↗ you know trees fall down trees need to

1:14:51 ↗ be removed um trees become a danger and

1:14:54 ↗ and we and you know and develop land we

1:14:57 ↗ have to take down trees sometimes

1:15:00 ↗ um and so with all of these

1:15:01 ↗ circumstances it's really a huge

1:15:03 ↗ balancing act of how do you balance the

1:15:06 ↗ need to take down trees with maintaining

1:15:08 ↗ our tree canopy and um i really

1:15:10 ↗ appreciate the

1:15:12 ↗ you know maintaining the the tree canopy

1:15:14 ↗ um as defined by the squad climate

1:15:17 ↗ action plan and driving tree retention

1:15:19 ↗ and as connie marsh was talking about no

1:15:22 ↗ you know

1:15:23 ↗ saving hot spots in various parts of the

1:15:25 ↗ city i think that's really important

1:15:26 ↗ um

1:15:27 ↗ but trees are

1:15:29 ↗ are more than that to an awful lot of

1:15:31 ↗ people who live here i mean trees are

1:15:32 ↗ part of the aesthetic of neighborhoods

1:15:34 ↗ and so

1:15:35 ↗ um

1:15:37 ↗ some of my my kind of bissell reaction

1:15:39 ↗ is

1:15:40 ↗ um a ten inch tree is not equal to five

1:15:43 ↗ two inch trees you know they're just not

1:15:45 ↗ the same and so we have to we have to

1:15:47 ↗ balance that and um replacing a tree in

1:15:51 ↗ an open space that's owned by the city

1:15:53 ↗ when i take it down in the neighborhood

1:15:55 ↗ isn't the same because the people who

1:15:57 ↗ are missing that tree they're from their

1:15:59 ↗ neighborhood

1:16:00 ↗ are never going to see it that's in the

1:16:01 ↗ in the open space so

1:16:03 ↗ how do we how do we balance that and

1:16:05 ↗ then

1:16:06 ↗ you know the other problem is if i take

1:16:08 ↗ a tree down over here because of

1:16:10 ↗ whatever reason

1:16:11 ↗ um how do i plant the right tree

1:16:14 ↗ wherever that might be so it will thrive

1:16:16 ↗ and

1:16:17 ↗ and fill the void so

1:16:19 ↗ i don't know that i have a lot of

1:16:20 ↗ answers but i have a lot of questions

1:16:21 ↗ for for this one because i think like i

1:16:24 ↗ said this is probably one of the most

1:16:25 ↗ emotionally charged

1:16:27 ↗ uh issues for this community is um

1:16:30 ↗ why did you cut down my tree and i got

1:16:32 ↗ to tell you when uh

1:16:33 ↗ in oh i don't know how long i've been on

1:16:35 ↗ council but i'm going to sound like

1:16:37 ↗ toilet marts here in a second talking

1:16:38 ↗ about way back when but we had a thing

1:16:41 ↗ in telus call and it was lovingly called

1:16:42 ↗ trimageddon because people started

1:16:45 ↗ coming out and started cutting down

1:16:46 ↗ trees and the neighborhood just lost

1:16:48 ↗ their mind and

1:16:50 ↗ i mean they really did there it's almost

1:16:52 ↗ like someone you know like

1:16:54 ↗ hung on to a true tree hugger so that

1:16:56 ↗ they wouldn't cut down any more trees so

1:16:59 ↗ it's super important and i'm excited

1:17:01 ↗ that we're taking it on um and i'm

1:17:03 ↗ really anxious to see how you solve all

1:17:05 ↗ of my problems thanks minnie

1:17:09 ↗ thank you councilmember ray um one thing

1:17:11 ↗ i think towards the end we're going to

1:17:13 ↗ be

1:17:15 ↗ trying to create a recommendation which

1:17:17 ↗ will be things for ppc um and our

1:17:20 ↗ commissions to revisit that we feel need

1:17:22 ↗ to be revisited so if you can formulate

1:17:25 ↗ that into something to be revisited um

1:17:27 ↗ then that would be great and for and

1:17:29 ↗ we'll try to wrap it up at the end with

1:17:31 ↗ all of our recommendations so uh council

1:17:34 ↗ president walsh did you have any

1:17:35 ↗ comments on the trees okay

1:17:37 ↗ go ahead

1:17:39 ↗ thanks

1:17:40 ↗ yeah um

1:17:42 ↗ i just find this really confusing to

1:17:45 ↗ have neighborhood level

1:17:47 ↗ or

1:17:48 ↗ sub-area level goals apply at the parcel

1:17:53 ↗ level as a requirement you know as

1:17:57 ↗ somebody who lives in the highland on a

1:17:59 ↗ 5 000 square foot lot um

1:18:02 ↗ i'm just trying to imagine

1:18:05 ↗ what would happen if i'm sitting here

1:18:07 ↗ going okay i've got maybe a nuisance

1:18:09 ↗ tree that has to get

1:18:11 ↗ cut down

1:18:12 ↗ and i've got a hole of three trees on my

1:18:16 ↗ lot that's not going to get anywhere

1:18:19 ↗ close to the percentage requirement and

1:18:21 ↗ kind of what that means for me as a

1:18:25 ↗ community member so

1:18:27 ↗ um

1:18:28 ↗ i'm just having a really hard time

1:18:30 ↗ understanding

1:18:32 ↗ how this would apply and i think what i

1:18:34 ↗ would like to see is

1:18:37 ↗ some

1:18:38 ↗ examples from different areas picking

1:18:42 ↗ some parcels

1:18:43 ↗ and trying to understand both from a

1:18:46 ↗ single-family residence and a

1:18:48 ↗ multi-family residence

1:18:50 ↗ particularly when we're looking at

1:18:53 ↗ redevelopment or

1:18:55 ↗ [Music]

1:18:56 ↗ just the loss of

1:18:58 ↗ a single tree and what that's going to

1:19:01 ↗ mean for

1:19:02 ↗ those homeowners

1:19:04 ↗ or

1:19:05 ↗ developers if they're doing

1:19:06 ↗ redevelopment because

1:19:08 ↗ with the code as it is written i'm just

1:19:10 ↗ having a really hard under time

1:19:12 ↗ understanding

1:19:14 ↗ what this is actually going to look at

1:19:16 ↗ like um what it's going to look like

1:19:19 ↗ from

1:19:20 ↗ not only a requirement of either you

1:19:22 ↗ know if i can't

1:19:24 ↗ put the trees on

1:19:26 ↗ my lot how am i going to find someplace

1:19:28 ↗ else what is the fee in lieu how am i

1:19:31 ↗ going to navigate that what kind of

1:19:33 ↗ expertise am i going to

1:19:35 ↗ get at and then

1:19:36 ↗ the other piece for me is how does that

1:19:38 ↗ differ from

1:19:40 ↗ other

1:19:40 ↗ um local communities if

1:19:44 ↗ if this is

1:19:45 ↗ so much more

1:19:46 ↗ stringent and it gets us what i what we

1:19:48 ↗ want i can understand but i'm not

1:19:52 ↗ i'm not entirely clear whether the

1:19:56 ↗ sub-area

1:19:58 ↗ requirements

1:20:00 ↗ and kind of based on the goals that

1:20:03 ↗ that chart whether that

1:20:05 ↗ has a sense of achieving what we want or

1:20:08 ↗ or whether the numbers were

1:20:10 ↗ kind of just pulled out i

1:20:13 ↗ yeah so i have a

1:20:15 ↗ hard

1:20:16 ↗ time understanding how this will be

1:20:19 ↗ applicable and whether it's going to get

1:20:20 ↗ us what we want thanks

1:20:24 ↗ okay thank you council president walsh

1:20:26 ↗ and um as i mentioned earlier i think at

1:20:28 ↗ the end we'll try to

1:20:29 ↗ create some a list of topics so it

1:20:32 ↗ sounds like that could also be one of

1:20:34 ↗ them and then

1:20:37 ↗ i will give my comments on the trees so

1:20:39 ↗ i think there's a lot of improvements

1:20:41 ↗ here the removal of the tree form which

1:20:43 ↗ caused confusion

1:20:45 ↗ and replacing that with the permit

1:20:46 ↗ process that

1:20:48 ↗ involving an arborist and involving the

1:20:51 ↗ need for expert opinion is also i think

1:20:53 ↗ a positive development

1:20:55 ↗ um

1:20:56 ↗ i am mostly concerned about two things

1:21:00 ↗ one the potential for

1:21:03 ↗ just

1:21:04 ↗ the removal of trees over time and the

1:21:07 ↗ the gradual removal of trees going from

1:21:10 ↗ 35 percent to you know then you remove a

1:21:13 ↗ bunch of trees and get to that and that

1:21:14 ↗ now you have a smaller percentage and

1:21:16 ↗ continuing to remove trees

1:21:18 ↗ um

1:21:19 ↗ i i know that that can be an issue on

1:21:23 ↗ certain properties as they they remove a

1:21:25 ↗ couple trees at a time and then they

1:21:27 ↗ want to remove more so just

1:21:30 ↗ i think that the issue there is is

1:21:32 ↗ monitoring because i don't think the

1:21:34 ↗ code

1:21:35 ↗ really allows that but then you get into

1:21:37 ↗ how are we tracking and how are we

1:21:39 ↗ actually monitoring over time

1:21:41 ↗ so that would be something that i think

1:21:43 ↗ we could make sure that we are equipped

1:21:46 ↗ to

1:21:47 ↗ enforce what we have on the books and to

1:21:50 ↗ monitor to enforce it i think we need to

1:21:52 ↗ have some monitoring there

1:21:55 ↗ so that would be good to know it does

1:21:56 ↗ occur to me that this may be a

1:21:58 ↗ conversation also

1:22:00 ↗ about resourcing which isn't in code but

1:22:02 ↗ you know staffing resources which would

1:22:04 ↗ then be part of our conversation when we

1:22:06 ↗ get to budget um so if that if if that's

1:22:10 ↗ the way that we need to address

1:22:11 ↗ monitoring then it may not be in code

1:22:13 ↗ but i would still like to know what the

1:22:15 ↗ plan is for that

1:22:16 ↗ um

1:22:18 ↗ and then um

1:22:20 ↗ on the tree canopy per parcel there is

1:22:25 ↗ a pretty

1:22:26 ↗ significant decrease in what's currently

1:22:28 ↗ the canopy cover of squawk versus what

1:22:30 ↗ would be allowed on the parcel

1:22:32 ↗ i

1:22:33 ↗ um and i think that was true of some

1:22:35 ↗ other areas as well i um

1:22:40 ↗ i think if we are

1:22:41 ↗ talking about fire breaks i think it

1:22:43 ↗ would be good to get an expert opinion

1:22:45 ↗ about whether that particular percentage

1:22:48 ↗ can be justified on

1:22:50 ↗ justified by fire breaks my

1:22:51 ↗ understanding is there's a certain area

1:22:53 ↗ around the house but um potentially

1:22:56 ↗ if you have a much larger area a lot of

1:22:58 ↗ that area could already be farther away

1:23:00 ↗ from your house if you have a smaller

1:23:01 ↗ lot then maybe it is requiring a larger

1:23:04 ↗ percentage of the lot to be a fire break

1:23:07 ↗ and in either case i think maybe if

1:23:09 ↗ that's the goal we should have code

1:23:11 ↗ about that um not about not justifying a

1:23:15 ↗ certain percentage of the canopy

1:23:17 ↗ due to the fact that you need a fire

1:23:18 ↗ break around the house um

1:23:20 ↗ and i i sort of similarly to council

1:23:24 ↗ president walsh just wondered

1:23:26 ↗ um

1:23:28 ↗ it seems there was a lot of judgment

1:23:30 ↗ that went into getting those percentages

1:23:31 ↗ based on what was there and what was

1:23:33 ↗ plantable and

1:23:35 ↗ if we go that route with all these

1:23:37 ↗ differentiators really making sure that

1:23:39 ↗ we do achieve our

1:23:41 ↗ end goal which is in our climate action

1:23:43 ↗ plan which is 55

1:23:45 ↗ i think with all of those combinations

1:23:48 ↗ i'm not

1:23:49 ↗ i'm not sure that that gets us there but

1:23:51 ↗ i would want to make sure that we

1:23:54 ↗ are accounting for um for our existing

1:23:56 ↗ goal which is overall 55 and then making

1:23:59 ↗ sure that within each neighborhood they

1:24:01 ↗ are also retaining their

1:24:03 ↗ tree forested character

1:24:10 ↗ i think that those are my comments on

1:24:13 ↗ the trees um there there was also a

1:24:16 ↗ conversation about screening and you had

1:24:18 ↗ mentioned

1:24:19 ↗ director dollywall that

1:24:21 ↗ you

1:24:22 ↗ were were you planning on revisiting the

1:24:24 ↗ screening the parking lots trees or that

1:24:26 ↗ was something that

1:24:27 ↗ yeah i think that was in the landscape

1:24:29 ↗ chapter uh we have some you can screen

1:24:32 ↗ by wall you know it was more of a

1:24:34 ↗ parking lot screening um so yeah we will

1:24:37 ↗ look at that okay great thank you um so

1:24:40 ↗ those are my comments on trees i think

1:24:41 ↗ there's a lot a lot to like here um

1:24:45 ↗ then the last section is landscape and

1:24:49 ↗ who would like to start us off on

1:24:50 ↗ landscape comments i really don't have

1:24:52 ↗ any comments on landscape so i'll i'll

1:24:54 ↗ let uh

1:24:55 ↗ president walsh go first on this one all

1:24:57 ↗ right council president walsh

1:25:00 ↗ okay i've got a few um

1:25:03 ↗ i really don't understand why there's a

1:25:06 ↗ difference in the landscape requirements

1:25:08 ↗ especially around the parking and stuff

1:25:10 ↗ like that where we have one standard for

1:25:13 ↗ central issaquah isaac highland and

1:25:15 ↗ telus versus the remainder of the city i

1:25:18 ↗ really

1:25:19 ↗ really tried to understand

1:25:21 ↗ what the differences proposed were for

1:25:24 ↗ each of them and they looked awfully

1:25:26 ↗ similar for me so i'd love to get a

1:25:29 ↗ sense of

1:25:30 ↗ why we decided we needed two

1:25:33 ↗ standards there

1:25:35 ↗ um

1:25:36 ↗ i

1:25:37 ↗ really would like to consolidate if

1:25:40 ↗ possible

1:25:42 ↗ and then going beyond that i really want

1:25:44 ↗ to stress

1:25:45 ↗ i want to find some way to

1:25:49 ↗ handle the idea of irrigation and gray

1:25:54 ↗ water and native plants that don't

1:25:57 ↗ require as much

1:25:59 ↗ watering or irrigation just some sense

1:26:03 ↗ of a better way to do that

1:26:06 ↗ and i was looking at redmond's new code

1:26:09 ↗ that they adopted in february and i

1:26:12 ↗ really like the ecological score

1:26:14 ↗ requirements section that they have

1:26:16 ↗ which provides a table of options it

1:26:18 ↗ says like you know if you use this

1:26:21 ↗ amount of native plants or you keep this

1:26:23 ↗ amount of

1:26:25 ↗ native soil on site you use

1:26:28 ↗ gray water or green roofs or any things

1:26:31 ↗ like that i think that

1:26:33 ↗ ultimately gets us toward our goal

1:26:37 ↗ um

1:26:38 ↗ in

1:26:39 ↗ a better way it also addresses things

1:26:41 ↗ like having confirmed trees and you know

1:26:44 ↗ all of the things that we want but which

1:26:47 ↗ may not be

1:26:48 ↗ applicable or

1:26:50 ↗ best achievable on any individual lot so

1:26:54 ↗ it allows for

1:26:56 ↗ customization in a table that's really

1:26:58 ↗ clear and easy to understand

1:27:01 ↗ similarly they also have a really nice

1:27:02 ↗ section on irrigation where they say

1:27:05 ↗ it's required for greater than 500

1:27:07 ↗ square feet with an automatic system

1:27:10 ↗ designed to conserve water and a rain

1:27:12 ↗ sensor device i think while

1:27:15 ↗ not having certain

1:27:17 ↗ sets of technology required in code we

1:27:20 ↗ can still think about

1:27:23 ↗ what are the goals well i only want

1:27:25 ↗ irrigation required if it's large enough

1:27:28 ↗ that it's going to

1:27:30 ↗ need it if it's non-native plantings

1:27:33 ↗ that are going to need it

1:27:35 ↗ and if we're going to do irrigation i

1:27:38 ↗ want it somehow to conserve water and

1:27:41 ↗ have a rain sensor

1:27:42 ↗ so that it's not

1:27:44 ↗ adding water usage at times that aren't

1:27:47 ↗ needed so um i'd just like to kind of

1:27:50 ↗ take a step back and really make sure

1:27:52 ↗ that with the landscaping we're

1:27:54 ↗ achieving what we want to there that

1:27:57 ↗ being said i do really appreciate um

1:28:01 ↗ looking at

1:28:03 ↗ the

1:28:04 ↗ allowed and preferred or whatever the

1:28:06 ↗ list of trees was and um

1:28:09 ↗ letting one of the commission members

1:28:11 ↗ help with that i think that will help us

1:28:14 ↗ get where we want um

1:28:17 ↗ i had something else i was thinking

1:28:18 ↗ about that i didn't write down and i

1:28:21 ↗ cannot remember

1:28:25 ↗ okay well it's gone now but thank you

1:28:30 ↗ all right thank you

1:28:32 ↗ um so i had a few comments uh one is and

1:28:36 ↗ i i made this comment earlier about the

1:28:38 ↗ wording extents practicable just to make

1:28:41 ↗ sure that we have

1:28:42 ↗ um if we're requiring it it's required

1:28:45 ↗ and um make sure that that wording is

1:28:47 ↗ not there

1:28:49 ↗ um

1:28:50 ↗ the other

1:28:51 ↗ thing uh

1:28:52 ↗ i believe that

1:28:54 ↗ so there's references to turf throughout

1:28:56 ↗ this section and i believe that

1:28:58 ↗ artificial turf would also be governed

1:29:01 ↗ by this section is that correct

1:29:06 ↗ it isn't there's nothing specific to it

1:29:09 ↗ but since it's

1:29:10 ↗ turf and i believe it's in it would be

1:29:12 ↗ here if it yeah we probably should look

1:29:14 ↗ at that um and you know the more uh the

1:29:17 ↗ issue with the school

1:29:19 ↗ uh district that came up so we'll look

1:29:21 ↗ at that yep yes um so that that would be

1:29:24 ↗ my uh request is to look into um

1:29:27 ↗ specifically there's some tire material

1:29:30 ↗ that is used in artificial turf

1:29:33 ↗ and to make sure that we are using our

1:29:35 ↗ best available science about that and

1:29:37 ↗ its implications for um

1:29:40 ↗ because there's some potential

1:29:41 ↗ implications

1:29:43 ↗ for that for ecological functioning and

1:29:46 ↗ specifically um salmon and fish and so

1:29:48 ↗ just to make sure that we

1:29:50 ↗ have used this opportunity to update

1:29:53 ↗ this section regarding

1:29:55 ↗ turf artificial turf materials and the

1:29:57 ↗ city on our own fields uses

1:30:00 ↗ a different material already to address

1:30:03 ↗ this so that would be an opportunity to

1:30:04 ↗ make sure that future

1:30:06 ↗ any future application of that would be

1:30:08 ↗ using that same standard

1:30:10 ↗ um

1:30:11 ↗ and then

1:30:12 ↗ other than that i the

1:30:15 ↗ the comments about um

1:30:17 ↗ so

1:30:18 ↗ there's a lot of

1:30:19 ↗ there is a lot of uh landscaping

1:30:22 ↗ requirements for parking lots

1:30:25 ↗ and um you know screening and where it's

1:30:28 ↗ tree i think the the diagrams help but

1:30:31 ↗ i'm still it's still not totally clear

1:30:33 ↗ to me

1:30:36 ↗ what

1:30:37 ↗ those

1:30:38 ↗ are trying to achieve so maybe more

1:30:41 ↗ visuals about what we want to use the

1:30:46 ↗ landscaping for would be helpful

1:30:49 ↗ um

1:30:50 ↗ i guess i just

1:30:51 ↗ that that section

1:30:52 ↗ it was clear how to comply with the code

1:30:55 ↗ but i think it wasn't completely clear

1:30:56 ↗ what the

1:30:58 ↗ goal was

1:30:59 ↗ um to me

1:31:01 ↗ so those are those are my comments on

1:31:02 ↗ the landscaping section again thank you

1:31:04 ↗ for all of the work that went into

1:31:07 ↗ addressing the comments from the

1:31:08 ↗ commissions i think that was very

1:31:09 ↗ helpful

1:31:12 ↗ all right so now at this point let's um

1:31:15 ↗ we are tasked with

1:31:18 ↗ clarifying if there are any things that

1:31:19 ↗ we would like the commissions to revisit

1:31:22 ↗ before

1:31:24 ↗ in the next steps of this process

1:31:27 ↗ and

1:31:28 ↗ other than that make a recommendation

1:31:29 ↗ for this to go to continue in the

1:31:31 ↗ process is that

1:31:33 ↗ fair okay

1:31:35 ↗ um so i will

1:31:38 ↗ i've taken some

1:31:39 ↗ notes um

1:31:42 ↗ and i will try to formulate some

1:31:44 ↗ recommendations here although if there's

1:31:46 ↗ other

1:31:48 ↗ if if i miss anything or if we want

1:31:51 ↗ something restated let me know

1:31:53 ↗ um so

1:31:55 ↗ the first one was community spaces um we

1:31:58 ↗ had we had comments on a number of

1:32:00 ↗ things but i think the only thing that

1:32:03 ↗ we wanted

1:32:05 ↗ revisiting were the city-wide

1:32:07 ↗ application of the code and then

1:32:09 ↗ signage

1:32:11 ↗ um is that

1:32:13 ↗ councilmember walsh did you have

1:32:14 ↗ anything that you would like revisited i

1:32:16 ↗ know i have down focus on the public

1:32:19 ↗ spaces but i'm not sure if that's

1:32:20 ↗ something you would like them to revisit

1:32:22 ↗ or

1:32:25 ↗ um i'm not sure whether it's a ppc

1:32:28 ↗ revisit or staff revisit and bring back

1:32:31 ↗ to us but the the sense of

1:32:34 ↗ these amenities spaces versus community

1:32:38 ↗ spaces

1:32:40 ↗ what

1:32:41 ↗ what the standard is for other

1:32:45 ↗ neighboring communities

1:32:47 ↗ and then also

1:32:51 ↗ any naming

1:32:53 ↗ norms that we might look at

1:32:56 ↗ okay so so maybe we can categorize

1:32:58 ↗ things into

1:33:00 ↗ requests for things that we believe need

1:33:02 ↗ to be revisited and then

1:33:05 ↗ information requests that we we just

1:33:07 ↗ want more information on um so

1:33:11 ↗ okay so would those be information

1:33:13 ↗ requests then under that

1:33:15 ↗ framing

1:33:16 ↗ i think so yeah

1:33:18 ↗ okay um

1:33:20 ↗ great

1:33:21 ↗ anything else for cuny spaces all right

1:33:24 ↗ under trees

1:33:25 ↗ we

1:33:27 ↗ have

1:33:28 ↗ a lot of

1:33:29 ↗ concern so my

1:33:31 ↗ my

1:33:32 ↗ thought on trees would be

1:33:35 ↗ revisiting this maybe an information

1:33:37 ↗ request

1:33:39 ↗ but looking at some examples of what

1:33:42 ↗ would be allowed under the

1:33:45 ↗ code from a practical standpoint in the

1:33:47 ↗ different neighborhoods and that that

1:33:50 ↗ could help us because a lot of our

1:33:51 ↗ concern were

1:33:53 ↗ about does this

1:33:54 ↗ keep the forested character that we we

1:33:57 ↗ want and you know how would this be

1:33:59 ↗ applied on a parcel that's

1:34:01 ↗ x you know size of x

1:34:04 ↗ and how would it work in one

1:34:06 ↗ neighborhood versus another

1:34:08 ↗ so i'm wondering if we have some

1:34:09 ↗ examples if that would

1:34:12 ↗ help and then it wouldn't be it wouldn't

1:34:14 ↗ need to go back to ppc just we need some

1:34:15 ↗ examples to understand

1:34:19 ↗ okay

1:34:29 ↗ do we have any anything within the tree

1:34:32 ↗ category that we want

1:34:34 ↗ that we believe needs to be revisited by

1:34:36 ↗ ppc so i i don't know if this this is

1:34:39 ↗ something needs to be revisited but um

1:34:43 ↗ when the council president was talking

1:34:44 ↗ about you know her personal example of

1:34:47 ↗ of replacing a tree i think there's a

1:34:49 ↗ difference between

1:34:52 ↗ how to apply this to

1:34:55 ↗ existing developed areas and new

1:34:57 ↗ developed areas

1:34:59 ↗ because i think the standards are

1:35:01 ↗ different and one of the things that i'm

1:35:02 ↗ struck with is

1:35:04 ↗ particularly a new development the fee

1:35:07 ↗ in lieu of trees creates an incentive to

1:35:10 ↗ cut down trees because

1:35:12 ↗ the fee is lower than the cost of

1:35:14 ↗ maintaining the trees and so if there's

1:35:16 ↗ a way that we can drive the incentive

1:35:19 ↗ out of this

1:35:20 ↗ um to cut down trees particularly in new

1:35:22 ↗ development i would be all for that so i

1:35:25 ↗ don't know if that's a

1:35:27 ↗ ppc question or if that's a staff

1:35:29 ↗ question but it's a question that

1:35:32 ↗ i think we need to address and this is

1:35:34 ↗ how do we how do we incentivize the

1:35:36 ↗ right behavior

1:35:37 ↗ and write right is always an ambiguous

1:35:40 ↗ word but you know the behavior that i

1:35:42 ↗ think that our citizens want to see so

1:35:44 ↗ that's the only other thing i would have

1:35:46 ↗ that

1:35:47 ↗ what you had there council member hunt

1:35:54 ↗ okay okay so so we do then want to look

1:35:58 ↗ maybe we would request that ppc look if

1:36:02 ↗ the

1:36:03 ↗ code the variance because that's a

1:36:05 ↗ variance i believe that you would need

1:36:07 ↗ to go to the

1:36:08 ↗ fee in lieu of

1:36:11 ↗ is that correct

1:36:12 ↗ um

1:36:13 ↗ no the variance would be that

1:36:16 ↗ you're not meeting your percentage

1:36:18 ↗ but um but you can't meet it you know so

1:36:22 ↗ the fee and luau would you would comply

1:36:24 ↗ with the code uh if it's a healthy tree

1:36:27 ↗ that um

1:36:29 ↗ you need to take out because that's the

1:36:31 ↗ only way you can add your utility line

1:36:33 ↗ or something like that that would be a

1:36:35 ↗ variance criteria for that

1:36:38 ↗ but if you can meet you know

1:36:41 ↗ if if the code doesn't allow you to take

1:36:43 ↗ out a healthy tree and you want to take

1:36:45 ↗ one out then you apply for a variance

1:36:47 ↗ if the code allows you you can meet your

1:36:50 ↗ square footage or percentage

1:36:52 ↗ but as shy short of meeting it on site

1:36:55 ↗ and you want to pay fee in lieu of then

1:36:57 ↗ you would go down that path there's also

1:36:59 ↗ tree retention requirements i think what

1:37:02 ↗ casper ray was talking about so for new

1:37:05 ↗ development you have to have 35 you know

1:37:08 ↗ so so many percentage of your uh

1:37:10 ↗ significant trees have to be preserved

1:37:12 ↗ and that's just a number

1:37:14 ↗ um or a percentage number it is it's not

1:37:17 ↗ necessarily a canopy thing daniel do you

1:37:20 ↗ want to explain um

1:37:22 ↗ the tree retention requirements

1:37:28 ↗ which are separate from the tree removal

1:37:30 ↗ and replacement

1:37:32 ↗ yeah so

1:37:34 ↗ uh the retention requirements

1:37:37 ↗ apply largely to development or

1:37:39 ↗ redevelopment it's not something

1:37:42 ↗ that you would do as a single family

1:37:45 ↗ homeowner

1:37:46 ↗ so if you have

1:37:49 ↗ um a hypothetical

1:37:51 ↗ one acre site that's completely forested

1:37:55 ↗ and you want to develop it into

1:37:58 ↗ a single family track

1:38:00 ↗ development

1:38:01 ↗ uh you would be

1:38:03 ↗ required to

1:38:06 ↗ retain

1:38:07 ↗ 35

1:38:09 ↗ of the existing caliber inches

1:38:12 ↗ for the site

1:38:14 ↗ so it's not

1:38:15 ↗ based on

1:38:17 ↗ number of trees you're not we're not

1:38:19 ↗ saying that you have to

1:38:20 ↗ keep 35

1:38:22 ↗ of

1:38:23 ↗ the trees it's based on caliper inches

1:38:27 ↗ so you're

1:38:28 ↗ there's an incentive there to keep the

1:38:31 ↗ largest trees

1:38:34 ↗ uh because they're going to help you

1:38:35 ↗ meet that 35 percent

1:38:41 ↗ and if i if i can't or i don't what do i

1:38:44 ↗ do or do i have to

1:38:47 ↗ you as part of development or

1:38:49 ↗ redevelopment you have to that's a

1:38:52 ↗ requirement

1:38:54 ↗ i suppose that you could

1:38:56 ↗ request a variance to

1:39:00 ↗ go lower than that

1:39:02 ↗ i based on the way that the

1:39:06 ↗ variance approval criteria is written i

1:39:09 ↗ don't know

1:39:10 ↗ that you're going to get

1:39:11 ↗ a yes

1:39:14 ↗ so we've strengthened the code where you

1:39:16 ↗ are required to save 35 it used to be

1:39:19 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

1:39:21 ↗ and you could just apply for it and it

1:39:23 ↗ was granted and you just paid fee in

1:39:25 ↗ lieu of okay so that's gone away okay

1:39:27 ↗ great thank you i think that's maybe

1:39:29 ↗ what i'm what i'm looking for

1:39:30 ↗ thank you minnie

1:39:33 ↗ okay um

1:39:34 ↗ so do we

1:39:36 ↗ i wonder though if we could still look

1:39:39 ↗ at if there are other places where

1:39:41 ↗ there's the application of in

1:39:43 ↗ fee in lieu if we can strengthen that

1:39:45 ↗ and and reduce the usage of that because

1:39:48 ↗ that is a

1:39:49 ↗ concern

1:39:51 ↗ if there are other opportunities to you

1:39:53 ↗ know kind of perform that same activity

1:39:55 ↗ um that makes sense i mean what i really

1:39:58 ↗ want is for us to incent the right

1:40:00 ↗ behavior and to disincent

1:40:03 ↗ um

1:40:03 ↗ the wrong behavior so um what what i

1:40:06 ↗ just heard was really was really

1:40:07 ↗ encouraging because that's um that's

1:40:09 ↗ great um so if there are other prairies

1:40:11 ↗ where that

1:40:13 ↗ kind of

1:40:14 ↗ thought process can occur then i say

1:40:16 ↗ let's let's explore those

1:40:24 ↗ okay great

1:40:26 ↗ um

1:40:27 ↗ so i think that's it for

1:40:29 ↗ trees the last one is the landscaping

1:40:32 ↗ part of this

1:40:33 ↗ landscaping chapter and um

1:40:37 ↗ let's see

1:40:38 ↗ uh council president walsh do you think

1:40:41 ↗ that did you have a specific

1:40:45 ↗ question that you would like revisited

1:40:47 ↗ by ppc from your comments

1:40:50 ↗ yes i'd like to know

1:40:52 ↗ why there's a difference in the

1:40:53 ↗ landscape requirements and whether

1:40:57 ↗ the parking lot requirements

1:41:00 ↗ and whether

1:41:02 ↗ there's a reason we should

1:41:04 ↗ continue that maybe that's a question

1:41:07 ↗ for director dollywell first

1:41:09 ↗ um before i say

1:41:11 ↗ it's something that i want to see go

1:41:13 ↗ back to pbc

1:41:17 ↗ all right director dollywood could you

1:41:19 ↗ please um

1:41:20 ↗ help us understand why there are

1:41:22 ↗ differences in the

1:41:23 ↗ uh parking lot landscaping requirements

1:41:25 ↗ for the different neighborhoods yeah you

1:41:27 ↗ know i'm i'm not exactly sure how much

1:41:30 ↗ of a difference it's going to make

1:41:31 ↗ between those two so we'll look for ways

1:41:34 ↗ to standardize it but but the basic but

1:41:36 ↗ the the basic premise of it was you're

1:41:39 ↗ going to have more urban development in

1:41:42 ↗ these urban villages and in central

1:41:44 ↗ issaquad that

1:41:45 ↗ that um you don't have

1:41:48 ↗ a more of a suburban um

1:41:51 ↗ environment where you have larger you

1:41:53 ↗ know parking lots um i mean with

1:41:55 ↗ redevelopment you're gonna get

1:41:56 ↗ structured parking and so on and so

1:41:59 ↗ forth so therefore the the delta

1:42:01 ↗ difference between

1:42:03 ↗ uh what a parking lot landscaping in

1:42:05 ↗ these areas looks like versus the

1:42:07 ↗ outside of these areas but we can look

1:42:09 ↗ for you know if it's only

1:42:11 ↗ not much of a difference then we can

1:42:13 ↗ standardize it i mean i i think with

1:42:15 ↗ this consolidation exercise some of

1:42:17 ↗ those nuances are coming out you know we

1:42:19 ↗ we've had these different differences

1:42:21 ↗ but are they that different to remain

1:42:23 ↗ different

1:42:27 ↗ okay um council president walsh does

1:42:29 ↗ that address your

1:42:32 ↗ thoughts on that yeah it sounds like

1:42:33 ↗ that's something that can potentially

1:42:35 ↗ happen at an administration level um and

1:42:38 ↗ then my other big question was on

1:42:40 ↗ irrigation i feel like there's still a

1:42:43 ↗ question whether

1:42:45 ↗ irrigation should be

1:42:48 ↗ required um to be installed and so i

1:42:51 ↗ know the administration has said that

1:42:53 ↗ they're going to take a look on

1:42:56 ↗ the second draft about

1:42:58 ↗ gray water and storm water and

1:43:01 ↗ rain gardens and all of that does that

1:43:04 ↗ include irrigation or is that a larger

1:43:08 ↗ question that would have to go back to

1:43:10 ↗ ppc for consideration

1:43:14 ↗ um i i think what our thought process on

1:43:17 ↗ that was um was that we would encourage

1:43:20 ↗ uh you know rain you know installation

1:43:23 ↗ of rain gardens or

1:43:25 ↗ if you have a stormwater biosoil that

1:43:28 ↗ can count towards your some landscaping

1:43:30 ↗ requirements so encouraging some of

1:43:32 ↗ those

1:43:33 ↗ um areas that um

1:43:36 ↗ encourage stormwater on-site

1:43:38 ↗ infiltration but again we would need to

1:43:40 ↗ coordinate with the storm water

1:43:42 ↗ um you know the work that's occurring

1:43:44 ↗ with the storm water plan to see if

1:43:46 ↗ that's even feasible in the

1:43:48 ↗ redevelopment areas and if so but at

1:43:50 ↗ least in the landscaping chapter we

1:43:52 ↗ don't want to prevent

1:43:54 ↗ folks from

1:43:55 ↗ being able to

1:43:57 ↗ have dual purpose so if you have a space

1:44:00 ↗ where you can treat your storm water and

1:44:01 ↗ you can plant those grasses that

1:44:03 ↗ actually eliminate some of those

1:44:05 ↗ contaminants

1:44:06 ↗ those kind of things so we would make it

1:44:08 ↗ more more of a incentive for someone to

1:44:12 ↗ double count you you can clean your

1:44:14 ↗ storm water and you can count towards

1:44:16 ↗ your landscaping so if there's

1:44:17 ↗ opportunities like that

1:44:19 ↗ through rain garden or other

1:44:20 ↗ opportunities we want to encourage that

1:44:25 ↗ that's not in the code right now

1:44:28 ↗ so we would make it more of an

1:44:32 ↗ incentive okay but what about irrigation

1:44:37 ↗ yeah the draft right now requires

1:44:39 ↗ irrigation and i think our

1:44:40 ↗ recommendation is we shouldn't say

1:44:42 ↗ you're not required to

1:44:44 ↗ provide irrigation

1:44:46 ↗ um

1:44:47 ↗ at this stage without really

1:44:49 ↗ understanding

1:44:50 ↗ um that you're not gonna have dead

1:44:52 ↗ plants i mean summers are getting warmer

1:44:54 ↗ the first two planting seasons are gonna

1:44:57 ↗ be tough uh so

1:44:59 ↗ you do need to

1:45:00 ↗ have some irrigation for newly planted

1:45:02 ↗ areas but i think some of the other

1:45:04 ↗ ideas you you talked about having water

1:45:07 ↗ conservation water sensors and those

1:45:09 ↗ kind of things we can certainly uh look

1:45:11 ↗ at that

1:45:12 ↗ ecological score you know option that

1:45:15 ↗ you gave you were talking about we can

1:45:16 ↗ certainly explore that

1:45:21 ↗ okay thank you

1:45:23 ↗ thank you

1:45:24 ↗ um i i know that also some of the hoas

1:45:27 ↗ earlier in this process we had heard

1:45:29 ↗ comments about

1:45:30 ↗ the need for maintaining irrigation and

1:45:33 ↗ that that falls then upon the homeowners

1:45:35 ↗ association once it's been installed and

1:45:37 ↗ that that can be an ongoing issue so

1:45:40 ↗ i think just looking at if there are

1:45:43 ↗ practical ways to keep the plants alive

1:45:45 ↗ using drought tolerant plants etc

1:45:48 ↗ then that would be great it also takes

1:45:50 ↗ the burden off of the people that have

1:45:51 ↗ to maintain those plants so

1:45:54 ↗ um okay

1:45:56 ↗ so i from from my standpoint because

1:45:58 ↗ it's a new topic and ultimately uh

1:46:01 ↗ planning policy commission will approve

1:46:03 ↗ the uh make a recommendation on the

1:46:05 ↗ whole chapter and i think that probably

1:46:07 ↗ the artificial turf would probably need

1:46:10 ↗ to go by

1:46:11 ↗ planning policy commission further

1:46:13 ↗ consideration but it also needs to be

1:46:15 ↗ researched by staff and

1:46:17 ↗ so that would be my request on the

1:46:19 ↗ landscaping

1:46:20 ↗ part

1:46:22 ↗ um

1:46:25 ↗ all right well i think

1:46:28 ↗ do you have what you need from us or

1:46:30 ↗ okay sure just one quick clarification

1:46:33 ↗ so when you when we talked about

1:46:35 ↗ information and going back to planning

1:46:37 ↗ and policy commission so we're going to

1:46:38 ↗ take all of this

1:46:40 ↗ redo

1:46:41 ↗ and we intend to check in with the

1:46:44 ↗ planning policy commission with the

1:46:45 ↗ consolidated draft but we'll pull out

1:46:47 ↗ these things that have changed and give

1:46:49 ↗ them the analysis so they can weigh in

1:46:52 ↗ is that sort of your understanding

1:46:55 ↗ um i think so and then there were some

1:46:57 ↗ specific things that i think we flagged

1:46:59 ↗ that we would that weren't really

1:47:02 ↗ addressed like

1:47:03 ↗ um

1:47:05 ↗ the

1:47:06 ↗ the ones

1:47:07 ↗ that i raised which come to mind because

1:47:09 ↗ i raised them but like signage not

1:47:12 ↗ really addressed and then this

1:47:13 ↗ artificial turf one so to call those out

1:47:15 ↗ since they're new and we would like to

1:47:17 ↗ make sure that they have go through the

1:47:19 ↗ same process as everything else we'll do

1:47:22 ↗ yep

1:47:23 ↗ okay so are we

1:47:25 ↗ good all right

1:47:26 ↗ um

1:47:27 ↗ so we this is our first meeting in this

1:47:29 ↗ format and we can choose to make a

1:47:32 ↗ formal recommendation but on this item

1:47:33 ↗ since this continuing work in progress

1:47:35 ↗ we can also

1:47:37 ↗ i think continue

1:47:38 ↗ and move along to the next item

1:47:41 ↗ all right

1:47:44 ↗ um

1:47:45 ↗ so then i think we're all in agreement

1:47:47 ↗ that we can move on to our next and

1:47:51 ↗ final item

1:47:53 ↗ so the

1:47:54 ↗ last item on our agenda then is id1128

1:47:57 ↗ code enforcement changes and

1:48:00 ↗ this will be presented by lori dunning

1:48:02 ↗ code enforcement officer so welcome

1:48:05 ↗ laurie and you have the floor

1:48:12 ↗ thank you can you all hear me

1:48:16 ↗ hello can you hear me yes we can hear

1:48:18 ↗ you

1:48:19 ↗ thank you

1:48:23 ↗ my name is lori dunning i'm the code

1:48:25 ↗ enforcement officer for the city of

1:48:27 ↗ issaquah and i thank

1:48:28 ↗ the committee

1:48:30 ↗ committee chair hunt nice to meet you

1:48:32 ↗ meet you

1:48:33 ↗ um

1:48:34 ↗ council member ray

1:48:36 ↗ and council president walsh um thank you

1:48:38 ↗ for your time tonight um

1:48:41 ↗ oh that's a different slide i guess we

1:48:43 ↗ started with

1:48:44 ↗ um mini's presenting but i'm actually

1:48:46 ↗ presenting this tonight

1:48:48 ↗ um so i'm going to run through our

1:48:50 ↗ powerpoint and then um

1:48:53 ↗ deputy city attorney anne marie soto is

1:48:56 ↗ here to answer any legal questions that

1:48:58 ↗ we have because i think there's going to

1:48:59 ↗ be a few

1:49:01 ↗ so

1:49:03 ↗ city clerk if you'd like to go to the

1:49:05 ↗ next slide

1:49:06 ↗ thank you

1:49:07 ↗ so our purpose tonight

1:49:09 ↗ is we would are proposing

1:49:12 ↗ some code enforcement changes to um fill

1:49:15 ↗ up our toolbox um

1:49:18 ↗ current code enforcement provisions are

1:49:20 ↗ outdated contain conflicts across the

1:49:22 ↗ municipal code

1:49:24 ↗ changes are required to provide legally

1:49:26 ↗ defensible enforcement procedures

1:49:30 ↗ and are necessary for protecting

1:49:31 ↗ neighborhoods community assets and the

1:49:33 ↗ environment in general

1:49:36 ↗ next slide

1:49:38 ↗ so we're seeking direction

1:49:40 ↗ feedback and recommendation on adopting

1:49:42 ↗ procedural amendments for several

1:49:44 ↗ existing codes including title 18 to

1:49:47 ↗ eliminate conflicts

1:49:49 ↗ and feedback and recommendation on

1:49:51 ↗ adopting

1:49:52 ↗ a separate code enforcement chapter

1:49:54 ↗ under title 8

1:49:57 ↗ entitled health and safety which should

1:49:58 ↗ be a very appropriate

1:50:00 ↗ that establishes code enforcement

1:50:02 ↗ process and procedures and related

1:50:04 ↗ amendments throughout the imc

1:50:07 ↗ next slide

1:50:09 ↗ so our background

1:50:11 ↗ is our current processes are confusing

1:50:13 ↗ unclear they are undefined

1:50:17 ↗ and they're unclear for staff citizens

1:50:18 ↗ and property owners alike

1:50:20 ↗ the current citation system ticket

1:50:22 ↗ system does not require actual abatement

1:50:25 ↗ or

1:50:26 ↗ achieving compliance of code violations

1:50:29 ↗ only payments of fines

1:50:31 ↗ and then code violations and thus

1:50:34 ↗ citizen requests

1:50:36 ↗ go unresolved

1:50:38 ↗ so

1:50:39 ↗ the the pictures i've included are

1:50:42 ↗ actual cases that i've been involved in

1:50:44 ↗ in another jurisdiction

1:50:46 ↗ so better codes give us better legal

1:50:48 ↗ tools to

1:50:50 ↗ [Music]

1:50:51 ↗ achieve compliance

1:50:53 ↗ next slide

1:50:55 ↗ so our proposal

1:50:57 ↗ is

1:50:58 ↗ code amendments across the imc several

1:51:00 ↗ titles to eliminate the conflicts update

1:51:03 ↗ outdated codes some as old as 1984 i

1:51:06 ↗ think i've seen

1:51:08 ↗ proposed separate code enforcement

1:51:11 ↗ chapter in title 8 as we've said to

1:51:13 ↗ provide a civil notice of violation

1:51:15 ↗ process rather than civil infraction or

1:51:18 ↗ tickets the new process uses a hearing

1:51:21 ↗ examiner appeals process which will

1:51:24 ↗ require actual abatement and not just

1:51:27 ↗ paying penalties

1:51:29 ↗ that don't actually resolve the problem

1:51:32 ↗ the new process also includes the

1:51:34 ↗ potential for financial penalties and

1:51:36 ↗ liens against property titles as

1:51:38 ↗ necessary to ensure ongoing compliance

1:51:42 ↗ next slide

1:51:45 ↗ so title 18 amendments um resolution

1:51:49 ↗ 2021-06 included factors to consider

1:51:52 ↗ when placing any title 18 changes on a

1:51:54 ↗ separate track and

1:51:55 ↗ [Music]

1:51:57 ↗ so there is there any urgency or time

1:51:58 ↗ sensitivity

1:52:00 ↗ what is the budgetary and or resource

1:52:02 ↗ staff

1:52:03 ↗ impact

1:52:05 ↗ other other planned work is there other

1:52:07 ↗ planned work that would be delayed

1:52:09 ↗ what benefit public or otherwise would

1:52:11 ↗ be gained or conversely what is lost by

1:52:14 ↗ not pulling to top it out topic out

1:52:16 ↗ separately

1:52:17 ↗ are there trade-offs or potential

1:52:19 ↗ conflicts with other parts of title 18

1:52:22 ↗ and then any other considerations

1:52:24 ↗ appearing relevant

1:52:26 ↗ next slide

1:52:28 ↗ so

1:52:29 ↗ my

1:52:30 ↗ options by having and continuing our

1:52:33 ↗ same process um we don't have a very

1:52:36 ↗ full toolbox we have a very empty

1:52:37 ↗ toolbox right now with city staff

1:52:40 ↗ so this is the same property again a

1:52:42 ↗ property i am very familiar with and i

1:52:45 ↗ did inspire and compel compliance with

1:52:48 ↗ this property owner

1:52:49 ↗ um that two-story edition of the house

1:52:53 ↗ actually that was built without permits

1:52:55 ↗ at all

1:52:56 ↗ and obviously they have junk vehicles

1:52:58 ↗ they have trash they have other stuff

1:53:00 ↗ going in the backyard

1:53:02 ↗ and

1:53:03 ↗ the um property or the photo on the

1:53:06 ↗ right is actually the final result um

1:53:08 ↗ after two years of using our process

1:53:12 ↗ compelling compliance um

1:53:14 ↗ i don't

1:53:15 ↗ i don't think we had to take it to

1:53:16 ↗ superior court but we did take it to

1:53:19 ↗ um

1:53:20 ↗ different levels and tickets would not

1:53:22 ↗ have compelled this

1:53:25 ↗ change tickets would have taken away the

1:53:27 ↗ money that they put into permitting to

1:53:29 ↗ come up with the final result

1:53:31 ↗ next slide

1:53:34 ↗ so we're seeking recommendation and

1:53:35 ↗ committee feedback to present code

1:53:38 ↗ enforcement code amendments to the

1:53:40 ↗ council for adoption and to provide

1:53:42 ↗ staff with the tools to actually compel

1:53:45 ↗ compliance and again it's an actual

1:53:47 ↗ house that i worked with

1:53:49 ↗ um with permits

1:53:51 ↗ um to see the final result in a very

1:53:53 ↗ public street and jurisdiction i worked

1:53:55 ↗ at previously

1:53:57 ↗ um

1:53:57 ↗ [Music]

1:53:58 ↗ and this is what our this is our goal is

1:54:01 ↗ to comply or compel compliance

1:54:04 ↗ um and not actually just collect fees

1:54:08 ↗ i think that's the last slide is that

1:54:09 ↗ the next slide

1:54:10 ↗ chris

1:54:12 ↗ the timing in the next steps so we're

1:54:13 ↗ seeking regular counsel

1:54:16 ↗ secret separate track title 18

1:54:19 ↗ amendments on may 16th

1:54:21 ↗ and

1:54:22 ↗ june 21st for the code enforcement

1:54:25 ↗ ordinances opt-in adoption

1:54:29 ↗ and that's the last slide

1:54:33 ↗ all right

1:54:34 ↗ thank you very much um for that

1:54:36 ↗ presentation and we will now take um any

1:54:40 ↗ questions for

1:54:42 ↗ um lori and i

1:54:44 ↗ believe also we have anne marie um if

1:54:46 ↗ there are legal questions as well

1:54:48 ↗ um

1:54:50 ↗ so

1:54:52 ↗ hello uh councilmember ray

1:54:55 ↗ great

1:54:56 ↗ thank you lori and uh love love the

1:54:58 ↗ photos that was uh that made it very

1:55:00 ↗ real can you talk a little bit of

1:55:01 ↗ difference about what's the difference

1:55:03 ↗ between fines versus forcing compliance

1:55:06 ↗ and what that looks like in practical

1:55:08 ↗ terms and um

1:55:11 ↗ just to give me a little more

1:55:12 ↗ understanding of kind of what what

1:55:14 ↗ what you're hoping to accomplish

1:55:17 ↗ sure um that's a great question um

1:55:20 ↗ so

1:55:22 ↗ where i've worked in the past and even

1:55:24 ↗ and even here in issaquah um

1:55:27 ↗ i've seen where we've collected

1:55:28 ↗ assessments or fines or tickets or

1:55:30 ↗ penalties whatever

1:55:32 ↗ and to be honest um

1:55:36 ↗ collecting money from a property owner

1:55:39 ↗ um takes away the resources that they

1:55:42 ↗ would have to let's say get a permit if

1:55:45 ↗ they you know did they did some illegal

1:55:46 ↗ construction or or did something that

1:55:49 ↗ they're gonna need some money to fix

1:55:51 ↗ that

1:55:51 ↗ um

1:55:53 ↗ and i think uh uh deputy uh city

1:55:56 ↗ attorney soto and i are in the same

1:55:57 ↗ agreement we're in the same frame of

1:55:58 ↗ mind that yeah we would rather have

1:56:00 ↗ compliance and ongoing

1:56:02 ↗ um

1:56:03 ↗ you know permanent compliance you know

1:56:05 ↗ get a permit for your for your land

1:56:07 ↗ altering project for your construction

1:56:09 ↗ to make sure

1:56:10 ↗ life safety and environmental

1:56:13 ↗ assets are protected

1:56:15 ↗ so

1:56:16 ↗ just get sending out a ticket

1:56:18 ↗ um or you know an invoice takes the

1:56:21 ↗ money it takes away the money that they

1:56:22 ↗ could put you know towards compliance

1:56:25 ↗ i think that's great can you talk a

1:56:27 ↗ little bit about what i want to make

1:56:28 ↗ sure that we recognize because i see um

1:56:30 ↗ anne-marie is raising her physical hand

1:56:32 ↗ so anne-marie

1:56:34 ↗ yeah sorry i'm i'm not always used to

1:56:36 ↗ the the webex version so i was like i

1:56:38 ↗ don't know where the hand raises uh so i

1:56:41 ↗ just wanted to provide a little bit more

1:56:43 ↗ um information about the fines versus

1:56:46 ↗ the notice of civil violation process

1:56:49 ↗ that staff is recommending so what the

1:56:52 ↗ city currently has for violations of the

1:56:55 ↗ municipal code they're either deemed

1:56:57 ↗ civil infractions that are enforced by

1:57:00 ↗ issuing a ticket that can then be

1:57:03 ↗ appealed to the municipal court the

1:57:05 ↗ municipal court has the ability to

1:57:09 ↗ require the person to pay the ticket or

1:57:11 ↗ they can reduce the amount of money that

1:57:14 ↗ the person has to pay but they don't

1:57:16 ↗ have the the authority to actually

1:57:18 ↗ compel compliance you could issue a

1:57:21 ↗ ticket every single day and that might

1:57:24 ↗ compel compliance because a person gets

1:57:26 ↗ tired of getting you know a ticket every

1:57:28 ↗ single day but ultimately that's not a

1:57:31 ↗ process that

1:57:32 ↗ leads to someone who can actually say

1:57:34 ↗ you must do xyz by this date

1:57:38 ↗ you also have in your current code the

1:57:41 ↗ um that some violations of the code are

1:57:43 ↗ crimes they're designated as either

1:57:46 ↗ misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors and

1:57:49 ↗ as i'm sure you all know that is a

1:57:51 ↗ criminal process that goes through a

1:57:53 ↗ completely different

1:57:55 ↗ set of procedures than civil violations

1:57:57 ↗ what we don't have are just normal civil

1:58:01 ↗ violations that are not handled through

1:58:03 ↗ the issuance of a ticket that is the

1:58:06 ↗ process that we're recommending this is

1:58:08 ↗ a process that's pretty common in a lot

1:58:10 ↗ of jurisdictions

1:58:12 ↗ lori and i actually worked together in

1:58:15 ↗ another jurisdiction where we adopted a

1:58:18 ↗ very similar process and it was

1:58:19 ↗ something that actually worked for that

1:58:21 ↗ jurisdiction and so this gives you the

1:58:24 ↗ ability to issue a notice of violation

1:58:27 ↗ that outlines the corrective action that

1:58:29 ↗ is required

1:58:30 ↗ and it states that if you don't complete

1:58:32 ↗ it by x date then and you might be

1:58:35 ↗ assessed a fine

1:58:37 ↗ you get the an opportunity to appeal

1:58:40 ↗ that appeal then would go to a hearing

1:58:42 ↗ examiner the hearing examiner has the

1:58:44 ↗ ability to order compliance and to order

1:58:48 ↗ payment of fines

1:58:50 ↗ most of the time as laurie mentioned

1:58:52 ↗ we're not actually seeking we're not

1:58:54 ↗ seeking the payment of fines we're

1:58:56 ↗ seeking compliance so there are

1:58:58 ↗ provisions in this draft that would

1:59:00 ↗ allow for reduction of fines or waiver

1:59:03 ↗ of fines in certain circumstances

1:59:05 ↗ because really we're just trying to get

1:59:06 ↗ compliance and then ultimately if you go

1:59:09 ↗ through that whole process

1:59:11 ↗ and there's still no compliance you

1:59:13 ↗ still have the ability to go to superior

1:59:16 ↗ court to get a warrant of abatement

1:59:18 ↗ where a judge actually is telling the

1:59:21 ↗ person you must do

1:59:23 ↗ this corrective action by x-state and if

1:59:25 ↗ you don't then the city has the ability

1:59:28 ↗ to go upon the property correct the

1:59:30 ↗ violation and then assess the cost of

1:59:34 ↗ that abatement against the property

1:59:40 ↗ this this is great and you just you just

1:59:42 ↗ answered my follow-up question which is

1:59:44 ↗ what is the inducement then to

1:59:46 ↗ compel compliance

1:59:48 ↗ so great so i'm thank you for that

1:59:54 ↗ all right great

1:59:56 ↗ um council president walsh did you have

1:59:57 ↗ any questions on this

1:59:59 ↗ not seeing any okay then um i do not

2:00:01 ↗ have any questions so we will call for

2:00:04 ↗ public comments on this item um send you

2:00:07 ↗ i will check on city clerk because

2:00:08 ↗ anybody

2:00:09 ↗ on the line um wishing to make comments

2:00:12 ↗ on this item

2:00:14 ↗ council member hunt i see connie

2:00:16 ↗ marsha's hand raised but i'm not clear

2:00:18 ↗ if it was from the previous agenda item

2:00:21 ↗ or not ms marsh can you illuminate us

2:00:39 ↗ ms marsh

2:00:43 ↗ council member hunt i believe that's a

2:00:45 ↗ hand raised from the previous topic and

2:00:46 ↗ i see no other virtual hands raised at

2:00:48 ↗ the moment

2:00:49 ↗ all right thank you very much um there

2:00:52 ↗ being no public comments on this then we

2:00:54 ↗ will move to our

2:00:56 ↗ committee recommendations

2:00:58 ↗ and i see we have some comments for

2:01:00 ↗ council president

2:01:02 ↗ comments from council president walsh i

2:01:04 ↗ also will remind the committee that on

2:01:06 ↗ this one we do have a recommendation

2:01:08 ↗ that we can make so i can

2:01:10 ↗ go ahead and make that motion once we're

2:01:11 ↗ ready and we can make a formal

2:01:13 ↗ recommendation on this one

2:01:17 ↗ council president

2:01:19 ↗ thanks

2:01:20 ↗ um

2:01:21 ↗ so

2:01:23 ↗ i guess my

2:01:24 ↗ my comments on this are more on

2:01:27 ↗ on the presentation um if this

2:01:32 ↗ then moves forward to general counsel

2:01:34 ↗ because i i love i love the concept of

2:01:38 ↗ hey

2:01:39 ↗ we're taking something that through our

2:01:41 ↗ hands-on experience we find doesn't work

2:01:45 ↗ we have experience in making a change to

2:01:48 ↗ another method that does work

2:01:52 ↗ um

2:01:53 ↗ i think i mean

2:01:55 ↗ that is ultimately the perfect scenario

2:01:58 ↗ it's what exactly what we want to see

2:02:01 ↗ in a municipal government is

2:02:04 ↗ taking proactive action on something

2:02:06 ↗ that isn't working

2:02:08 ↗ to fix it so

2:02:11 ↗ i like the concept i think

2:02:13 ↗ what i would need to see in looking at

2:02:16 ↗ this going forward is

2:02:18 ↗ a better understanding what each of

2:02:20 ↗ those titles section changes because

2:02:24 ↗ what we got was kind of floating

2:02:26 ↗ sections with

2:02:28 ↗ basically redlining

2:02:31 ↗ but i had a really hard time

2:02:33 ↗ understanding what

2:02:35 ↗ each of those sections referred to and

2:02:37 ↗ kind of whether the proposed financial

2:02:40 ↗ or legal penalties were appropriate i

2:02:43 ↗ didn't have anything to compare it

2:02:44 ↗ against and in some cases

2:02:46 ↗ you're proposing

2:02:48 ↗ changing the financial penalty

2:02:51 ↗ downward in other cases you were

2:02:53 ↗ eliminating it

2:02:55 ↗ and so i just think

2:02:57 ↗ working us through that concept would be

2:03:00 ↗ really helpful

2:03:03 ↗ so

2:03:04 ↗ those are kind of my comments council

2:03:07 ↗ member hunt you said

2:03:09 ↗ you're

2:03:10 ↗ that we have a potential motion which

2:03:12 ↗ would be kind of an official

2:03:15 ↗ recommendation

2:03:17 ↗ of moving this forward so

2:03:21 ↗ trying to think how i place my comments

2:03:25 ↗ in relationship to my

2:03:27 ↗ my thoughts on the recommendation

2:03:30 ↗ should i wait

2:03:32 ↗ well um

2:03:33 ↗ council president walsh do you is is

2:03:36 ↗ your request

2:03:38 ↗ for when this comes back a request that

2:03:40 ↗ there be a version that is the clean

2:03:43 ↗ without the red line changes a clean

2:03:45 ↗ code version that you could

2:03:47 ↗ read no that doesn't address you no i

2:03:50 ↗ think it just needs more explanation

2:03:53 ↗ more

2:03:53 ↗ um

2:03:55 ↗ context

2:03:56 ↗ um unders

2:03:58 ↗ providing like

2:04:00 ↗ i'm trying to pull up the right pieces

2:04:03 ↗ but there were a lot of different title

2:04:04 ↗ sections and i understand that code

2:04:06 ↗ enforcement applies to a lot of

2:04:08 ↗ different

2:04:09 ↗ areas of our code so

2:04:11 ↗ i just feel like as somebody who's not

2:04:14 ↗ as

2:04:15 ↗ familiar

2:04:16 ↗ with

2:04:18 ↗ some of those concepts i just want to be

2:04:20 ↗ i want to be handheld a little bit more

2:04:22 ↗ laurie just just hold my hand take me

2:04:25 ↗ through it

2:04:26 ↗ and i think that would be really useful

2:04:28 ↗ for

2:04:28 ↗ the rest of council because while while

2:04:31 ↗ i can see in concept that this is great

2:04:34 ↗ i'm ultimately

2:04:36 ↗ as a voting member responsible for

2:04:40 ↗ the specifics of it and so i need to

2:04:42 ↗ understand

2:04:45 ↗ what the proposed changes are why there

2:04:47 ↗ was a change

2:04:49 ↗ more or less and whether that's similar

2:04:53 ↗ to other communities or

2:04:56 ↗ you know

2:04:57 ↗ i guess i'm just saying at some point

2:04:59 ↗ we're gonna have to look into the

2:05:00 ↗ details but i don't know if that's what

2:05:03 ↗ this is because

2:05:04 ↗ what we're really looking at

2:05:06 ↗ here is kind of a

2:05:08 ↗ is it just the question of is this

2:05:11 ↗ appropriate

2:05:12 ↗ for

2:05:13 ↗ a separate title

2:05:15 ↗ track from title 18

2:05:18 ↗ anne-marie would you like to discuss

2:05:20 ↗ that

2:05:22 ↗ yeah so

2:05:23 ↗ here

2:05:24 ↗ hopefully this can provide a little bit

2:05:26 ↗ more context so

2:05:29 ↗ the title 18

2:05:30 ↗ piece is because we are recommending

2:05:33 ↗ some changes that impact title 18 purely

2:05:37 ↗ to fix the conflicts that are found

2:05:39 ↗ within um title 1

2:05:43 ↗ and title 18 right now and title 16. um

2:05:48 ↗ but if we wait to address those

2:05:51 ↗ particular issues until the complete

2:05:55 ↗ title 18 update is done at the end of

2:05:57 ↗ the year we're going to be creating more

2:05:59 ↗ conflicts if we adopt this new code

2:06:01 ↗ enforcement

2:06:02 ↗ chapter

2:06:03 ↗ uh with respect to your comments about

2:06:06 ↗ the uh the different uh changes to the

2:06:10 ↗ violations and you know why are some

2:06:12 ↗ things that the amount has gone up and

2:06:14 ↗ some have gone down

2:06:16 ↗ you know we can provide a little bit

2:06:18 ↗ more information about that to the

2:06:20 ↗ council at the next meeting i think

2:06:22 ↗ that's a really good comment

2:06:24 ↗ frankly

2:06:25 ↗ we did not get into

2:06:27 ↗ every single one of those

2:06:29 ↗ details because there are so many so

2:06:32 ↗ just for example in the city's current

2:06:34 ↗ code in chapter 1.36

2:06:37 ↗ there's a section of civil infractions

2:06:40 ↗ and it's a table that lists all of these

2:06:43 ↗ different violations with a fine

2:06:46 ↗ most of that is outdated

2:06:49 ↗ so there are

2:06:51 ↗ things that are listed there as being

2:06:53 ↗ civil infractions that state law

2:06:54 ↗ provides are crimes there are things in

2:06:57 ↗ there that are listed as infractions

2:06:59 ↗ with a penalty of you know x number of

2:07:01 ↗ dollars that is greater than the penalty

2:07:03 ↗ that's allowed by state law

2:07:06 ↗ for a civil infraction there are

2:07:08 ↗ penalties that are listed in their there

2:07:12 ↗ that are listed in this chapter 1.36 and

2:07:15 ↗ then listed somewhere else in the code

2:07:17 ↗ as having a different type of violation

2:07:20 ↗ or a different penalty and so what we're

2:07:23 ↗ trying to do here

2:07:24 ↗ is for getting rid of that table in

2:07:27 ↗ particular

2:07:28 ↗ and having consistent penalties for

2:07:31 ↗ anything that's a misdemeanor will have

2:07:33 ↗ the same penalty provision anything

2:07:35 ↗ that's a gross misdemeanor same penalty

2:07:37 ↗ provision anything that's an infraction

2:07:39 ↗ same penalty anything that's a civil

2:07:41 ↗ violation same penalty and then we're um

2:07:45 ↗ going to

2:07:46 ↗ we're recommending that basically every

2:07:48 ↗ violation every civil violation of the

2:07:52 ↗ issaquah municipal code

2:07:54 ↗ would be treated as a civil

2:07:57 ↗ violation through uh that would be um

2:08:00 ↗ addressed through a notice of civil

2:08:02 ↗ violation rather than an infraction

2:08:05 ↗ unless it specifically pointed out that

2:08:07 ↗ it's an infraction

2:08:09 ↗ so it's only those things that are

2:08:12 ↗ remaining in the code that say that

2:08:14 ↗ they're an infraction that would be

2:08:16 ↗ issued a ticket and those are things

2:08:18 ↗ where you might need for example a more

2:08:21 ↗ immediate um

2:08:23 ↗ resolution so you know something like

2:08:26 ↗ someone's uh having an event without a

2:08:29 ↗ permit

2:08:30 ↗ you don't want to issue them a notice of

2:08:32 ↗ violation and then you give them a time

2:08:34 ↗ you have to complete it by the state you

2:08:36 ↗ just want to give them a ticket or

2:08:38 ↗ something like littering

2:08:40 ↗ where you know those are things that are

2:08:41 ↗ typically enforced by police you don't

2:08:44 ↗ want to

2:08:45 ↗ have someone litter

2:08:47 ↗ someone you actually see them littering

2:08:49 ↗ and then you have to go through a

2:08:50 ↗ process of code enforcement going and

2:08:52 ↗ writing a notice of violation and

2:08:55 ↗ sending them a notice in the mail

2:08:56 ↗ because they had littered no you want

2:08:58 ↗ the police to be able to immediately

2:09:00 ↗ write someone a ticket because they saw

2:09:03 ↗ them littering

2:09:04 ↗ so we really were thoughtful as to the

2:09:08 ↗ types of violations that should be

2:09:10 ↗ addressed through you know crimes versus

2:09:13 ↗ infractions versus civil violations we

2:09:16 ↗ did discuss it with all of the other

2:09:18 ↗ departments that are involved with code

2:09:20 ↗ enforcement including police public

2:09:23 ↗ works parks planning fire they all had

2:09:27 ↗ an opportunity to weigh in on this to

2:09:29 ↗ make sure that they were comfortable

2:09:31 ↗ with the changes that were made we did

2:09:33 ↗ receive some comments but for the most

2:09:35 ↗ part we didn't see receive any

2:09:38 ↗ feedback aside from a couple of minor

2:09:41 ↗ details so you know i hope that provides

2:09:43 ↗ a little bit more context it is

2:09:45 ↗ something where

2:09:46 ↗ you know for the next stage we can

2:09:48 ↗ include some more of that information

2:09:51 ↗ that will help the the council as a

2:09:53 ↗ whole

2:09:54 ↗ but because there's so many changes that

2:09:56 ↗ are being made we didn't go line by line

2:10:00 ↗ you know in a powerpoint explaining this

2:10:02 ↗ change you know is to this penalty

2:10:05 ↗ because x and then go through you know

2:10:07 ↗ every single violation in the code

2:10:09 ↗ because we would we would be covering

2:10:11 ↗ pretty much every single title of the

2:10:12 ↗ code then

2:10:17 ↗ yeah no i really appreciate

2:10:20 ↗ the explanations that you've given in

2:10:22 ↗ this that

2:10:23 ↗ that gives a lot more context and sense

2:10:26 ↗ of

2:10:27 ↗ hey this is the reason why

2:10:30 ↗ and here's what

2:10:32 ↗ what consolidation looks like and here's

2:10:34 ↗ kind of the before picture and the after

2:10:36 ↗ picture and here's the lines that draw

2:10:39 ↗ us between the two so that's really

2:10:42 ↗ useful um

2:10:43 ↗ councilmember hunt i guess the question

2:10:47 ↗ i would have for you is

2:10:50 ↗ are we

2:10:51 ↗ focusing more on

2:10:55 ↗ the the proposed changes and

2:10:58 ↗ adjustments that we would want to see to

2:11:00 ↗ those changes or

2:11:03 ↗ as we would usually do for policy or are

2:11:05 ↗ we

2:11:06 ↗ focusing more on should this be a

2:11:08 ↗ separate track from title 18 and our

2:11:11 ↗ feedback on what that process is

2:11:14 ↗ right so my thought is that we can use

2:11:17 ↗ this opportunity to do both

2:11:19 ↗ we can review the content and

2:11:21 ↗ and

2:11:22 ↗ have that discussion but we can also

2:11:24 ↗ make the recommendation on the separate

2:11:25 ↗ track the recommended timing that's in

2:11:28 ↗ our

2:11:29 ↗ in the slide deck that was presented is

2:11:32 ↗ may 16th regular council meeting

2:11:34 ↗ um and then june 21st also regular

2:11:37 ↗ council meetings so um

2:11:40 ↗ city

2:11:40 ↗ administrator bob woods yes uh council

2:11:43 ↗ member members of the committee uh we're

2:11:45 ↗ really looking for two separate actions

2:11:47 ↗ here the first is to deal with the title

2:11:49 ↗ 18

2:11:50 ↗ requirements that the council has which

2:11:52 ↗ is procedural

2:11:54 ↗ not substantive to the matter

2:11:57 ↗ the second is the substance of the

2:11:58 ↗ matter and so that we're here this

2:12:00 ↗ evening asking the committee

2:12:02 ↗ for its recommendation to move forward

2:12:04 ↗ to the full council so i think based on

2:12:06 ↗ council president walsh's

2:12:09 ↗ comments this evening i think you have a

2:12:10 ↗ couple of choices

2:12:12 ↗ you can

2:12:13 ↗ have additional questions this evening

2:12:16 ↗ be satisfied with what you're seeing but

2:12:17 ↗ ask that the presentation to the council

2:12:20 ↗ be done in a little bit different way

2:12:21 ↗ because one of the things we're going to

2:12:22 ↗ be asking all the committees moving

2:12:24 ↗ forward is how would you like this

2:12:26 ↗ presented to the council will this be a

2:12:27 ↗ consent calendar item will this be a

2:12:29 ↗ regular business item and i think from

2:12:30 ↗ council member walsh's comments if we

2:12:33 ↗ can get through at least the the

2:12:35 ↗ substance with the committee this

2:12:36 ↗ evening but the desire to have it more

2:12:38 ↗ uh

2:12:39 ↗ carefully described at council then

2:12:41 ↗ perhaps the recommendation is it comes

2:12:43 ↗ back to council as requested but on the

2:12:46 ↗ regular business and so that there's a

2:12:47 ↗ presentation uh at that so that i think

2:12:50 ↗ those are the two separate tracks one

2:12:53 ↗ being just the title 18 and the second

2:12:55 ↗ the disposition of the actual matter

2:12:57 ↗ um right i think that aligns with what i

2:12:59 ↗ was thinking so the

2:13:01 ↗ may 16th regular may 16th regular

2:13:04 ↗ council meeting separate track that

2:13:05 ↗ would also need to be on an agenda so

2:13:07 ↗ that could be consent but then the item

2:13:09 ↗ would for a council would come back with

2:13:11 ↗ additional information um june 21st and

2:13:14 ↗ we could we could put it on regular

2:13:16 ↗ business if that's a if that's um the

2:13:18 ↗ desire of the council but or or ask that

2:13:21 ↗ to be formatted in a different way and

2:13:22 ↗ leave it on consent but make sure that

2:13:24 ↗ the written document is a little clearer

2:13:26 ↗ so

2:13:27 ↗ that's the flexibility i think now that

2:13:29 ↗ we have returning to committees it's

2:13:31 ↗ really the committee's decision okay

2:13:33 ↗ great

2:13:34 ↗ um thank you for for that so um

2:13:39 ↗ i will go ahead and make my comments um

2:13:41 ↗ i

2:13:41 ↗ i think

2:13:43 ↗ it's to me it seems straightforward we

2:13:46 ↗ have our city code enforcement officer

2:13:49 ↗ saying we don't have the tools

2:13:52 ↗ needed to enforce the code

2:13:55 ↗ here we are making all these updates to

2:13:57 ↗ title 18 and improving our code and we

2:13:59 ↗ don't have the tools to enforce it so we

2:14:02 ↗ need to make a change and then we also

2:14:04 ↗ have our um

2:14:05 ↗ our city attorney saying

2:14:07 ↗ the same thing so from my perspective i

2:14:10 ↗ i think this is something that

2:14:12 ↗ we should put on a separate track it

2:14:13 ↗ seems to meet the criteria of having a

2:14:15 ↗ public benefit because we need to be

2:14:17 ↗ able to enforce

2:14:18 ↗ our

2:14:19 ↗ code and and give the city staff the

2:14:22 ↗ tools they need to to do that

2:14:25 ↗ so i think it meets those criteria and i

2:14:26 ↗ think it's also

2:14:28 ↗ there's there's a one of the criteria

2:14:30 ↗ about

2:14:31 ↗ being able to be done separately and in

2:14:33 ↗ this case i think if there's an

2:14:35 ↗ extra benefit for it being done

2:14:36 ↗ separately because if we can get this

2:14:38 ↗ right and then we update all of title 18

2:14:40 ↗ then we can then

2:14:42 ↗ enforce those

2:14:43 ↗ um

2:14:44 ↗ changes uh so i i think it's makes a lot

2:14:47 ↗ of sense to put on a separate track

2:14:50 ↗ um

2:14:51 ↗ so i'll i'll start there i think maybe

2:14:53 ↗ we can take these items one at a time if

2:14:55 ↗ we all agree on it being on a separate

2:14:57 ↗ track we can make a recommendation to um

2:15:00 ↗ to do

2:15:01 ↗ that first so i'll go ahead and make a

2:15:04 ↗ motion to recommend that

2:15:08 ↗ the

2:15:09 ↗ that this item be put on a separate

2:15:11 ↗ track of title 18 amendments and that

2:15:12 ↗ this return on the consent calendar

2:15:16 ↗ on may 16th

2:15:18 ↗ can i ask a question just i think i've

2:15:21 ↗ got this but i really do want to make

2:15:22 ↗ sure before we do this so the the first

2:15:24 ↗ question really is to bring to the

2:15:27 ↗ council and seek the full council's

2:15:29 ↗ approval to move forward with a separate

2:15:31 ↗ track and title 18.

2:15:33 ↗ that's correct under council policy we

2:15:36 ↗ would the council would refuse to

2:15:38 ↗ consider it without that exception okay

2:15:40 ↗ so that this is this is really the

2:15:41 ↗ procedural step that's correct to to get

2:15:43 ↗ the councils okay to move forward with a

2:15:46 ↗ separate title 18 amendment great thank

2:15:48 ↗ you that's what i thought i just wanted

2:15:49 ↗ to make sure

2:15:53 ↗ okay um

2:15:55 ↗ do that again

2:15:56 ↗ no so i i think i've made the motion we

2:15:58 ↗ don't actually need a second because

2:15:59 ↗ we're only three people so um is there

2:16:02 ↗ any

2:16:03 ↗ discussion uh thoughts on this um

2:16:06 ↗ where we we can go ahead and

2:16:09 ↗ vote on this particular part and then we

2:16:11 ↗ can move to the second part which is the

2:16:13 ↗ regular

2:16:14 ↗ the

2:16:15 ↗ the content that we would

2:16:17 ↗ have recommendations on

2:16:19 ↗ all right so all in favor of making that

2:16:21 ↗ recommendation to put this on a separate

2:16:22 ↗ track and have that be on consent

2:16:25 ↗ signify by saying aye aye

2:16:28 ↗ aye

2:16:28 ↗ great okay um so the second part of this

2:16:31 ↗ would be the what actually we want to

2:16:34 ↗ recommend on the substance that would go

2:16:36 ↗ back to the council um

2:16:39 ↗ and this could be an opportunity for

2:16:42 ↗ um council president walsh or

2:16:45 ↗ my fellow council member accounts member

2:16:47 ↗ ray to make any

2:16:49 ↗ suggestions and i will say from my

2:16:51 ↗ perspective i thought the pictures were

2:16:53 ↗ were great it makes the point and i

2:16:55 ↗ think the other thing that was very

2:16:57 ↗ compelling is that the money that you

2:16:59 ↗ could just be spending on fines could be

2:17:01 ↗ used to actually do what we need the

2:17:03 ↗ code to do and make the changes

2:17:05 ↗ necessary to the

2:17:07 ↗ property to bring it into compliance so

2:17:09 ↗ i think i think the narrative to me

2:17:12 ↗ made a lot of sense um if we

2:17:15 ↗ if we want to have more information

2:17:17 ↗ about the specific changes i think it'd

2:17:19 ↗ be good to

2:17:20 ↗ to clarify that and we can make sure

2:17:22 ↗ that

2:17:23 ↗ that

2:17:24 ↗ staff have the information they need to

2:17:25 ↗ make those changes

2:17:27 ↗ so i'll hand it back to council

2:17:29 ↗ president walsh um

2:17:32 ↗ for

2:17:33 ↗ or yeah if you have specific changes

2:17:36 ↗ that he recommends a presentation

2:17:42 ↗ i guess i would just say maybe somebody

2:17:44 ↗ go back into the meeting and listen to

2:17:48 ↗ the description of process that anne

2:17:50 ↗ marie

2:17:52 ↗ um had kind of listed out of

2:17:55 ↗ this is how it

2:17:56 ↗ happens currently this is the proposed

2:17:59 ↗ because i agree the

2:18:01 ↗ the

2:18:02 ↗ images and

2:18:03 ↗ the

2:18:04 ↗ assurance of have done this before

2:18:07 ↗ and this worked is great

2:18:10 ↗ but what's missing is the

2:18:13 ↗ how do we induce

2:18:16 ↗ somebody to actually fix

2:18:18 ↗ why

2:18:19 ↗ is the why do the fines

2:18:22 ↗ not work and get us what we want and

2:18:26 ↗ um

2:18:27 ↗ what what are the

2:18:29 ↗ what's the ultimate

2:18:31 ↗ if somebody doesn't do what we want

2:18:33 ↗ what's what's the potential ultimate

2:18:37 ↗ inducement so i think if we include

2:18:40 ↗ those pieces

2:18:42 ↗ that's good i think the other thing from

2:18:45 ↗ my perspective again is

2:18:47 ↗ anytime you're

2:18:49 ↗ changing

2:18:51 ↗ penalties i just

2:18:53 ↗ want to make sure that we are

2:18:55 ↗ not way out of line

2:18:57 ↗ with our

2:18:59 ↗ neighboring cities and anything that's

2:19:02 ↗ kind of a norm and in particular in

2:19:04 ↗ marie as you said in a time where

2:19:07 ↗ not

2:19:09 ↗ we're

2:19:10 ↗ we're in agreement with the state

2:19:13 ↗ limitations um kind of delineating all

2:19:16 ↗ of those pieces so that we know we're

2:19:19 ↗ making a good decision in some cases

2:19:21 ↗ we're eliminating a thousand dollar fine

2:19:24 ↗ in other cases we've got

2:19:27 ↗ something of potential imprisonment in

2:19:30 ↗ jail for up to 364 days um so

2:19:34 ↗ i think with that information

2:19:37 ↗ our fellow council members can make an

2:19:40 ↗ effective decision

2:19:45 ↗ all right um

2:19:46 ↗ councilmember ray yeah i'm gonna concur

2:19:49 ↗ with uh council president walsh that the

2:19:51 ↗ descriptions we heard tonight were um

2:19:54 ↗ from uh both lorien from uh emery were

2:19:57 ↗ were were great and added a lot to the

2:19:59 ↗ conversation and i think if we um

2:20:02 ↗ updated the presentation to include some

2:20:03 ↗ of that information i think that'd be

2:20:05 ↗ great uh what struck me is uh kind of an

2:20:07 ↗ interesting thing about the committee

2:20:08 ↗ structure is it's an opportunity for us

2:20:11 ↗ to ask questions which that actually

2:20:13 ↗ helps improve the quality of the

2:20:14 ↗ presentation going forward to the to the

2:20:16 ↗ full council so that was my

2:20:18 ↗ my just personal takeaway from this

2:20:20 ↗ evening's conversation and

2:20:22 ↗ um and i think it's great that we are

2:20:24 ↗ getting this in compliance are

2:20:26 ↗ aligned with um

2:20:29 ↗ with the reality i guess so i think

2:20:31 ↗ there's a very compelling argument to to

2:20:34 ↗ move forward with this so i'm pretty

2:20:35 ↗ excited and i think the 21st is great

2:20:38 ↗ all right great so the last question

2:20:40 ↗ would be if we think this

2:20:43 ↗ should be on regular

2:20:44 ↗ business

2:20:45 ↗ or if this should if we believe that

2:20:47 ↗ this could be on consent and

2:20:50 ↗ a reminder that any council member can

2:20:51 ↗ pull any item off of consent so that's

2:20:53 ↗ always an option if if somebody did want

2:20:56 ↗ to pull the item off of consent um but

2:20:59 ↗ i'll open it up to my fellow committee

2:21:02 ↗ members if you have

2:21:04 ↗ thoughts

2:21:08 ↗ councilman i have several thoughts and

2:21:11 ↗ then they conflict with each other but i

2:21:13 ↗ i'm struck with that um in many many

2:21:16 ↗ ways this is fairly straightforward and

2:21:18 ↗ can go on consent that being said um i

2:21:21 ↗ think the explanation um

2:21:24 ↗ of

2:21:25 ↗ of why we're doing what we're doing is

2:21:26 ↗ too complex is would be better served in

2:21:29 ↗ person in a presentation and so my guess

2:21:32 ↗ my feeling is it should be on regular

2:21:34 ↗ business so that we can actually get the

2:21:36 ↗ presentation from lori and from

2:21:38 ↗ um anne-marie

2:21:40 ↗ um as we got it tonight because i think

2:21:42 ↗ that was super helpful

2:21:46 ↗ all right uh councilmember

2:21:48 ↗ walsh

2:21:50 ↗ thoughts i'm also back and forth on that

2:21:53 ↗ this concept as as we're moving

2:21:57 ↗ from this committee structure

2:21:59 ↗ how

2:22:01 ↗ how much duplication we want to have at

2:22:04 ↗ the

2:22:06 ↗ at the council meeting versus

2:22:10 ↗ putting something on consent part of it

2:22:13 ↗ is

2:22:13 ↗ how much do we

2:22:15 ↗ need something to be surfaced

2:22:18 ↗ and kind of presented

2:22:21 ↗ i don't think we're

2:22:23 ↗ necessarily requesting changes to the

2:22:26 ↗ content here

2:22:28 ↗ just clarification of how it is

2:22:30 ↗ presented

2:22:33 ↗ um

2:22:35 ↗ i'm not sure i have a strong feeling i

2:22:37 ↗ think it's more about

2:22:39 ↗ what we want to do

2:22:41 ↗ from a practice going forward do you

2:22:44 ↗ have any thoughts on that council member

2:22:46 ↗ hunt

2:22:48 ↗ city administrator bob quits has

2:22:49 ↗ indicated he has thoughts

2:22:52 ↗ yes councilman members of the committee

2:22:54 ↗ uh this is all kind of new and i think

2:22:57 ↗ one of the challenges we have

2:22:59 ↗ is

2:23:00 ↗ why things go on a regular agenda um i

2:23:03 ↗ think there was a time things went on a

2:23:05 ↗ regular agenda because you wanted to air

2:23:06 ↗ it you wanted to have the press write

2:23:07 ↗ about it you wanted to have people watch

2:23:09 ↗ it at a meeting those things don't

2:23:11 ↗ largely happen anymore so perhaps

2:23:13 ↗ another thought a committee

2:23:15 ↗ recommendation would be to the

2:23:16 ↗ administration to say yes we'll place us

2:23:18 ↗ on consent but we would like the mayor

2:23:20 ↗ to highlight this in the mayor's report

2:23:22 ↗ we'd like to have our communications

2:23:24 ↗ group perhaps you know do a little video

2:23:27 ↗ that we could put on social media

2:23:29 ↗ because that i think is one of the

2:23:31 ↗ reasons you put things on a regular or

2:23:32 ↗ at least it has been in the past um but

2:23:35 ↗ again if this is felt that there's not

2:23:37 ↗ a council discussion on the the content

2:23:40 ↗ but really just how do you air this

2:23:42 ↗ there are other options so that may be

2:23:44 ↗ another recommendation the committee

2:23:46 ↗ could make

2:23:47 ↗ yeah thank you for that um i agree i

2:23:49 ↗ think um

2:23:50 ↗ this this is new but at the same time

2:23:53 ↗ if we as a committee don't have changes

2:23:56 ↗ that we want to see big changes that we

2:23:58 ↗ we feel need to be made which i don't

2:24:00 ↗ believe we do and we also don't

2:24:02 ↗ have different uh

2:24:05 ↗ opinions that we want to make sure get

2:24:06 ↗ across the council in the recommendation

2:24:08 ↗ in case there's multiple

2:24:10 ↗ perspectives on this committee which i

2:24:12 ↗ also am not hearing i think it can be on

2:24:14 ↗ consent and um i i also agree that i

2:24:18 ↗ think one of the pieces of this is the

2:24:20 ↗ public awareness and there are ways we

2:24:22 ↗ could make sure that the community is

2:24:24 ↗ aware of these changes that will better

2:24:26 ↗ reach the community than putting it on

2:24:28 ↗ regular business and for our fellow

2:24:30 ↗ council members they can watch these

2:24:31 ↗ meetings which is one of the other

2:24:32 ↗ benefits of this process and so they can

2:24:35 ↗ hear the presentation so if we if we're

2:24:37 ↗ looking to duplicate um information

2:24:39 ↗ there's there's ways that council can

2:24:41 ↗ get the same conversation already so i

2:24:43 ↗ think that's also

2:24:44 ↗ a good reason that it can just go on

2:24:46 ↗ consent so that would be my

2:24:48 ↗ my process at this point if it doesn't

2:24:51 ↗ doesn't have big changes doesn't have

2:24:54 ↗ controversy or or differing

2:24:56 ↗ perspectives that we would want to share

2:24:57 ↗ like a minority and majority opinion

2:24:59 ↗ from our our committee which we we don't

2:25:01 ↗ have

2:25:02 ↗ um so let's go forward with that so i'll

2:25:04 ↗ go ahead and make a motion to put um the

2:25:08 ↗ code enforcement ordinances adoption on

2:25:10 ↗ the regular

2:25:12 ↗ uh council meeting agenda for june 24th

2:25:15 ↗ first on the consent agenda

2:25:18 ↗ all those in favor please signify by

2:25:20 ↗ saying aye aye

2:25:23 ↗ i

2:25:24 ↗ all right

2:25:25 ↗ great um and do we have any additional

2:25:27 ↗ uh feedback for

2:25:30 ↗ for staff on this item

2:25:32 ↗ and do you have what you need on this

2:25:34 ↗ item

2:25:38 ↗ all right

2:25:39 ↗ great i'm seeing

2:25:41 ↗ not seeing any further questions so that

2:25:44 ↗ was great and thank you thank you both

2:25:46 ↗ for um being here and presenting to

2:25:48 ↗ laurie and anne marie

2:25:50 ↗ um so uh with that we are at the end of

2:25:54 ↗ our agenda this evening i will give an

2:25:57 ↗ opportunity if there are council members

2:25:58 ↗ who would like to make any announcements

2:26:01 ↗ that um are timely that you would need

2:26:03 ↗ to make

2:26:04 ↗ i'm not seeing any so then with that um

2:26:07 ↗ we can adjourn this

2:26:10 ↗ this committee meeting at 8 58 p.m and

2:26:13 ↗ have a good evening everyone thank you

2:26:16 ↗ good night

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 (3)

Victoria Hunt

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Staff (3)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk

Recommendations & actions (1)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Councilmember Hunt moved that the substantive Code Enforcement amendments be brought back to the full City Council at its regular meeting on June 21 on the consent agenda.