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

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF