Environmental Board & Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, August 26, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Board Membership

packet pp.5

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Staff Liaison Megan Curtis-Murphy, Senior About Sustainability Coordinator Created in 2020, the objective of the Email Environmental Board is to protect, preserve and enhance the natural environment and take Regular Members action on climate change to reduce its impacts 2022 - Dani Madan* by advising the Mayor, City Council and City 2022 - Don McQuilliams departments on the City’s plans, policies, 2023 - Rishi Hazra* regulations and programs related to 2023 - Cameron Fisher environmental stewardship. 2023 - Lara Lebeiko 2024 - Nancy Davidson 2024 - Dan Hintz Membership 2024 - Anne Newcomb The Environmental Board is comprised of nine 2025 - Jamie Finch regular members, and up to three alternates. All members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Alternate Members Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2022 - Tom Anderson…

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Title 18 Land Use Code Updates: Environmental Policies, (D) [2 hrs.] Sustainability

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development Katie Cote, BHC Consultants · packet pp.7–43

Topics: Land UseClimate

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

This is a continuation of

4. REPORTS

Council Updates

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.45–60

Open packet at p.45 ↗

Staff report:

8.03.21 – 8.19.21 Public Comment Update Natural Areas | Zoning & Uses | Zoning & Development Standards

Title 18 Code Update: Public Comments

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development

Topics: Land Use

4202 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ all right good evening i'd like to call

0:01 ↗ to the meeting to order at 6 33

0:05 ↗ welcome due to the virtual format of

0:07 ↗ today's meeting i'd like to start by

0:09 ↗ providing some guidelines

0:11 ↗ we have participants attending by

0:12 ↗ computer and others who may be attending

0:14 ↗ by phone we're all meeting attendees

0:16 ↗ please speak clearly and pause

0:18 ↗ frequently

0:19 ↗ state your name each time before

0:21 ↗ speaking mute your microphone when not

0:23 ↗ speaking

0:24 ↗ if having technical issues try joining

0:27 ↗ the meeting using different device such

0:28 ↗ as your smartphone or tablet or use the

0:31 ↗ call-in information in the meeting

0:33 ↗ invite to call into the meeting

0:36 ↗ for the overview tonight is a joint

0:38 ↗ meeting with the policy and planning

0:39 ↗ commission and the environmental board

0:43 ↗ and we'll be discussing title 18 updates

0:46 ↗ attendance kristen will you please go

0:48 ↗ ahead and start with attendance of

0:50 ↗ policy and planning commission

0:51 ↗ yes commissioner milligan

0:54 ↗ here

0:55 ↗ mr bader

1:01 ↗ i see you

1:02 ↗ um

1:05 ↗ you are you're muted

1:08 ↗ mr bader yeah hold on

1:11 ↗ you know we heard you thank you

1:13 ↗ hey um commissioner voice

1:19 ↗ here

1:20 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

1:22 ↗ dear

1:24 ↗ chairfall here

1:27 ↗ uh commissioners lewis and monahan have

1:29 ↗ excused absences commissioner zaragoza

1:31 ↗ will serve as a regular member

1:33 ↗ environmental board if i don't get all

1:35 ↗ of your names right i apologize

1:37 ↗ uh mr

1:38 ↗ davidson here

1:40 ↗ mr finch

1:42 ↗ here

1:44 ↗ fisher

1:45 ↗ yeah

1:46 ↗ commissioner hints

1:50 ↗ he had a last-minute uh

1:53 ↗ health issue get stung by a bunch of

1:54 ↗ wasps

1:56 ↗ al

1:56 ↗ thank you i'm sorry for him

2:01 ↗ he should be an excused absence he did

2:02 ↗ let us know before the meeting okay uh

2:05 ↗ commissioner

2:10 ↗ okay uh commissioner madden

2:17 ↗ mr mcwilliams

2:19 ↗ here

2:20 ↗ mr newcomb

2:25 ↗ commissioner anderson

2:30 ↗ uh commissioner

2:33 ↗ bola pragata

2:38 ↗ thank you mr wall

2:45 ↗ mr wall

2:52 ↗ i'm not a commissioner

2:56 ↗ you're not an environmental i'm sorry

2:57 ↗ well

2:59 ↗ are you a board member

3:01 ↗ yes

3:02 ↗ okay so i apologize if you all are

3:04 ↗ called board members and i was doing

3:05 ↗ commissioner i'm sorry um

3:07 ↗ and then

3:09 ↗ board member harza has an excused

3:11 ↗ absence so board member wall will serve

3:13 ↗ as a regular member tonight

3:18 ↗ okay thank you kristen

3:20 ↗ uh tonight and we're going to cover

3:22 ↗ three different public

3:24 ↗ uh three different opportunities for the

3:26 ↗ public comment

3:27 ↗ uh we're going to start with public

3:29 ↗ comment now

3:31 ↗ and we will have public comment for the

3:34 ↗ individual topics we will be discussing

3:36 ↗ and then when we conclude i can't speak

3:40 ↗ right

3:41 ↗ when we conclude our meeting tonight

3:43 ↗ we'll have a last opportunity for public

3:46 ↗ comment so if you have public comment

3:48 ↗ that you wanted to talk specifically

3:50 ↗ about a topic that we're going to be

3:52 ↗ addressing tonight please reserve that

3:54 ↗ time

3:55 ↗ um

3:56 ↗ and speak then

3:58 ↗ so kristin let's go ahead and open up

3:59 ↗ for our public comment tonight

4:01 ↗ do we have anybody from the general

4:03 ↗ public would like to speak

4:09 ↗ yeah if there's anyone who would like to

4:11 ↗ speak now please raise your virtual hand

4:14 ↗ and if you are

4:16 ↗ having trouble finding that and it's

4:17 ↗ difficult to find sometimes please just

4:19 ↗ type it in the chat and i will see it

4:30 ↗ no there is no one no one who wants to

4:32 ↗ speak right now

4:34 ↗ okay thank you very much uh kristen

4:36 ↗ so for regular business environmental

4:38 ↗ policies is part of the title 18 and

4:40 ↗ land use updates tonight mini dollywood

4:43 ↗ will

4:43 ↗ our community planning and development

4:45 ↗ director

4:46 ↗ and katie coat of bhc consultants will

4:49 ↗ lead our discussion about four specific

4:52 ↗ areas

4:53 ↗ aquatic critical areas geohazard

4:55 ↗ critical areas outdoor lighting and

4:58 ↗ climate change and sustainability

5:00 ↗ climate change and sustainability are is

5:02 ↗ one topic

5:04 ↗ so i'm going to go ahead and

5:07 ↗ hand it over to

5:09 ↗ mini for the rest of the presentation

5:14 ↗ thank you chair fall good evening

5:16 ↗ everyone and members of the community

5:19 ↗ so tonight our purpose of the meeting is

5:21 ↗ to continue the conversation that we

5:23 ↗ started on july 22nd

5:26 ↗ so we introduced where the gaps are and

5:28 ↗ what our proposed approaches we asked

5:30 ↗ you some specific questions to

5:34 ↗ give us some policy guidance

5:36 ↗ while they were very specific on certain

5:37 ↗ topics and then we followed up with a

5:40 ↗ survey uh so thank you all for taking

5:43 ↗ the time uh to

5:45 ↗ you know um take give us your feedback

5:47 ↗ on that and we've assimilated all of

5:49 ↗ that and it's included in your packet um

5:53 ↗ so tonight i think um kristen do you

5:55 ↗ want to share yeah

5:57 ↗ the powerpoint i think we just want to

6:00 ↗ uh listen tonight uh i would think we

6:02 ↗ ran out of time for discussion at the

6:04 ↗ last meeting so really the purpose of

6:07 ↗ this meeting is to

6:08 ↗ be able to um to get you know get

6:11 ↗ through uh the items that we didn't get

6:14 ↗ through last time

6:16 ↗ and in order to

6:18 ↗ facilitate and to

6:20 ↗ manage our time um what we're going to

6:23 ↗ propose is um like uh chair fault said

6:26 ↗ there are four topics so the first one

6:29 ↗ with the aquatic critical areas uh we

6:31 ↗ want to

6:32 ↗ you know budget at least 30 to 40

6:34 ↗ minutes and see if we can get a good

6:36 ↗ conversation started on that topic for

6:39 ↗ all of you

6:41 ↗ next slide

6:46 ↗ so the the main thing i think we've got

6:48 ↗ good feedback from you i think in

6:50 ↗ general everyone's supportive of using

6:52 ↗ the department of ecology's guidance you

6:54 ↗ want us to fix the stream definition

6:56 ↗ increase the buffers for streams uh

6:59 ↗ figure out a solution for ditch versus

7:01 ↗ stream debates

7:03 ↗ and also look at how do we treat

7:06 ↗ non-conforming situations um so we've

7:08 ↗ given you some additional information in

7:10 ↗ in your packets tonight in terms of

7:13 ↗ buffer

7:14 ↗ averaging or reduction so if you want to

7:17 ↗ have some discussion about that topic we

7:20 ↗ gave you some examples of some of the

7:22 ↗ other cities that you wanted to know uh

7:24 ↗ how they regulate them um i think for

7:27 ↗ most part the information is accurate

7:29 ↗ that we know of

7:31 ↗ i do believe that city of sammamish may

7:33 ↗ allow some buffer reduction for smaller

7:36 ↗ wetlands but for larger ones it does not

7:38 ↗ so

7:40 ↗ we also have some maps

7:42 ↗ in

7:43 ↗ uh your packet i'd be happy to take a

7:45 ↗ couple minutes to kind of explain those

7:47 ↗ um

7:49 ↗ next slide

7:53 ↗ so this one is an example of the site i

7:55 ↗ think the planning and policy commission

7:57 ↗ we took you on a tour and apologize

7:59 ↗ environmental board uh you may be

8:02 ↗ familiar with it this site though it's

8:04 ↗ on newport

8:05 ↗ uh called riva town homes uh it has a

8:08 ↗ larger wetland in the back and i think

8:10 ↗ some of the commissioners stood on the

8:13 ↗ outdoor space and we looked at some of

8:14 ↗ the uh dead um snags that were left

8:18 ↗ deliberately within the wetlands so you

8:20 ↗ can kind of conceptualize and visualize

8:22 ↗ what this area looks like

8:24 ↗ so under our existing code the the

8:27 ↗ dashed line is where the existing

8:29 ↗ wetland buffer is of 75 feet for the

8:32 ↗ category 2 wetland here

8:35 ↗ and it was reduced by 25 percent of so

8:39 ↗ that's where you see the the green

8:41 ↗ shaded area so that was the wetland that

8:44 ↗ was approved for this property which our

8:46 ↗ code allowed a 25 reduction i know

8:48 ↗ there's some debate about uh how the 25

8:51 ↗ feet is applied but it was applied for

8:53 ↗ the entire length of this which is

8:56 ↗ um

8:57 ↗ some comments you may have received from

8:59 ↗ a community member on that topic

9:01 ↗ but what we really want to focus our

9:03 ↗ discussion today is whether we should we

9:06 ↗ should look at buffer reductions or

9:08 ↗ completely uh look at the buffer

9:10 ↗ averaging aspect

9:13 ↗ so under the new department of ecology's

9:15 ↗ guidance you see the first shaded brown

9:18 ↗ uh portion if we went with just

9:20 ↗ establishing uh the standard new ecology

9:24 ↗ guidance that would be a hundred foot

9:25 ↗ buffer here

9:27 ↗ the option two and three

9:29 ↗ would would make it uh to 75 feet but

9:33 ↗ you would have to do certain impact

9:35 ↗ minimization measures you would also

9:38 ↗ have to

9:39 ↗ replant the buffer in order to get under

9:41 ↗ option three in order to get that to

9:43 ↗ that 75 feet it's still more than what

9:46 ↗ our current buffers are where the 75

9:48 ↗ feet could be reduced down to 56 feet

9:53 ↗ so that's sort of a visual i think some

9:54 ↗ of you wanted to see what does this

9:56 ↗ actually mean so we wanted to make sure

9:58 ↗ graphically we were able to explain this

10:01 ↗ next slide

10:06 ↗ uh

10:07 ↗ so

10:08 ↗ so overarching um question that we

10:11 ↗ really are looking for is

10:13 ↗ you know we've shared a lot of detailed

10:15 ↗ information for you we've got some

10:17 ↗ really good feedback from you and from

10:19 ↗ the community members through the

10:20 ↗ surveys through the testimony through

10:22 ↗ written comments that we've received so

10:24 ↗ we believe we have good guidance uh to

10:27 ↗ start creating the first draft

10:30 ↗ but if uh you all can think about if the

10:34 ↗ proposed approach that we've shared with

10:36 ↗ you does it meet the goals and outcomes

10:38 ↗ chart that the council had established

10:40 ↗ for this title 18 update so that's sort

10:43 ↗ of uh the bigger question that we're

10:45 ↗ really looking for you to

10:47 ↗ to give us uh some direction on

10:51 ↗ and next slide

10:55 ↗ so i think we'll pause here you can stop

10:57 ↗ presenting uh the slide um kristen so

11:01 ↗ that's uh the critical areas which

11:03 ↗ included the wetlands the streams

11:06 ↗ the the aquifer recharge

11:09 ↗ and the fish and wildlife habitat

11:13 ↗ areas

11:14 ↗ so with that i think uh we have some

11:17 ↗ questions um

11:19 ↗ that uh we want you to focus on in if as

11:22 ↗ you discuss this but we're open to

11:24 ↗ taking any feedback that you may have

11:26 ↗ that we

11:27 ↗ haven't uh synthesized

11:28 ↗ at this time so buffer averaging versus

11:31 ↗ buffer reduction one or the other or

11:34 ↗ both

11:35 ↗ um and uh do you have a preference for

11:39 ↗ the approach one two or three under um

11:43 ↗ under the guide guidance from ecology so

11:46 ↗ just establish the hundred foot buffer

11:48 ↗ in that example that we showed you or

11:50 ↗ allow that to go to 75 feet with some

11:53 ↗ minimization measures which means no

11:56 ↗ toxic flow into there and you know

11:57 ↗ there's a whole table from ecology that

12:00 ↗ we've shared with you in the past

12:02 ↗ or uh allow 75 feet but also require

12:05 ↗ replanting with it so those are two main

12:08 ↗ things in terms of policy discussion

12:11 ↗ uh but then the the the bigger

12:13 ↗ overarching question is do we are we on

12:15 ↗ the right track to meeting the golden

12:16 ↗ outcomes

12:18 ↗ so with that i'll turn it over to chair

12:20 ↗ fall excellent and many can you please

12:22 ↗ define uh buffer reduction in buffer

12:25 ↗ minimization

12:27 ↗ or buffer aubergine so for our

12:29 ↗ commissioners tonight sure so buffer

12:31 ↗ reduction is

12:33 ↗ if you have a hundred foot setback you

12:36 ↗ can reduce it to 75 feet so a 25

12:41 ↗ reduction is allowed it can there you

12:43 ↗ know um i think the community uh comment

12:47 ↗ that you received talked about a linear

12:49 ↗ length you can we can go down the

12:51 ↗ nuances of how we want to structure the

12:53 ↗ buffer reduction but at this stage we're

12:55 ↗ just looking for whether even we want to

12:57 ↗ pursue the buffer reduction and then

12:59 ↗ buffer averaging on the other hand

13:01 ↗ really means if you reduce 25 feet here

13:05 ↗ you have to increase 25 feet in the

13:07 ↗ other area so the overall area remains

13:10 ↗ the same but it allows some flexibility

13:13 ↗ uh if you want to improve in certain

13:16 ↗ reduce the

13:17 ↗ reduction you know your in one area but

13:20 ↗ you have to increase it in the other

13:21 ↗ area on your property

13:25 ↗ excellent thank you minnie all right so

13:26 ↗ let's go ahead and open up for questions

13:28 ↗ from the commissioners and i've got a

13:30 ↗ question first from nancy davidson

13:34 ↗ yes thank you very much this is nancy

13:36 ↗ davidson chair of the environmental

13:37 ↗ board minnie just a quick question

13:40 ↗ is there an option that we don't do

13:41 ↗ either is

13:43 ↗ that we don't give an option for buffer

13:45 ↗ reduction or an option for buffer

13:47 ↗ averaging so basically what the wetlands

13:50 ↗ are today are what the wetlands will be

13:52 ↗ in the future

13:54 ↗ uh sure there's that's the option i

13:56 ↗ think we would have to go and say why is

13:58 ↗ so different that we want to deviate

14:01 ↗ from uh ecology's guidance

14:04 ↗ so we would have to prepare a supporting

14:07 ↗ document uh to that effect and uh we do

14:10 ↗ have our technical experts herrera greta

14:14 ↗ presley from herrera is here

14:17 ↗ um so she can also wait you know do you

14:19 ↗ want to weigh in on that greta

14:21 ↗ sure can you hear me

14:22 ↗ yes

14:24 ↗ um

14:25 ↗ i i don't think it's any deviation from

14:27 ↗ ecology's

14:29 ↗ guidance

14:30 ↗ one of the first alternatives that they

14:33 ↗ offer is

14:34 ↗ just a straight up

14:36 ↗ uh

14:37 ↗ 100 foot buffer for category three

14:40 ↗ uh

14:41 ↗ 150 foot buffer category 3 wetlands or

14:43 ↗ 200 for category 2 wetlands

14:46 ↗ but then they allow for

14:49 ↗ some leniency so that you can

14:54 ↗ negotiate with projects builders that

14:56 ↗ sort of thing um through the buffer

14:59 ↗ averaging or the other scenarios

15:02 ↗ and let me just follow that up with

15:04 ↗ another question along the way so

15:07 ↗ let's say

15:09 ↗ i'm just throwing this out for ideas i

15:11 ↗ mean this is not a position i'm taking

15:13 ↗ if you said you weren't doing either but

15:15 ↗ you really needed to improve the

15:17 ↗ wetlands such as get rid of all the

15:18 ↗ blackberries in it or something like

15:20 ↗ that

15:21 ↗ um is there a way if you say you're not

15:23 ↗ allowing those two options that you

15:25 ↗ could put into the code if they improve

15:26 ↗ the wetland there is some leniency in

15:28 ↗ that just

15:30 ↗ trying to think through some options

15:31 ↗ here

15:33 ↗ uh

15:33 ↗ question to your question are you saying

15:35 ↗ in the wetland itself or the wetland

15:37 ↗ buffer

15:38 ↗ the wetland buffer or the wetland itself

15:40 ↗ some of them are overgrown as well i

15:42 ↗ mean it's an option just trying to think

15:44 ↗ outside the box

15:46 ↗ yeah there's um there's ways you could

15:48 ↗ could work that

15:50 ↗ thank you

15:54 ↗ all right and thank you uh davidson uh

15:57 ↗ commissioner

15:59 ↗ finch

16:00 ↗ got the floor

16:02 ↗ thanks jeff all right

16:03 ↗ uh vice chair speaking um

16:06 ↗ i had a question many would it be

16:08 ↗ possible to present i know in past

16:12 ↗ uh slide decks we had like the options

16:14 ↗ laid out it's just easier for me to look

16:16 ↗ to make sure that we're all speaking the

16:18 ↗ same language do we have a slide that we

16:20 ↗ could pull up during the discussion or

16:23 ↗ that would just make it easier for me to

16:24 ↗ make sure that i'm not

16:26 ↗ calling option one option two etc um

16:30 ↗ and then the the other question i had

16:32 ↗ was i know there was some other feedback

16:35 ↗ in the packet down near the bottom on

16:38 ↗ some of these topics

16:39 ↗ would it be possible

16:41 ↗ i'm just not totally clear on

16:44 ↗ the people that were making those

16:45 ↗ comments so is there is could someone

16:47 ↗ provide

16:48 ↗ a summary of what if there was any

16:51 ↗ comments on this topic within those

16:52 ↗ others that in some context on who was

16:54 ↗ making that comment

16:56 ↗ i just wasn't clear on that

16:58 ↗ uh are you discussing the survey

17:00 ↗ responses

17:02 ↗ not the survey responses that we as the

17:04 ↗ environmental board did but the ones

17:06 ↗ that were closer to the bottom that i it

17:08 ↗ was wet dot someone like jen at wet.land

17:11 ↗ and

17:12 ↗ someone else

17:13 ↗ and i don't know

17:15 ↗ who those people were

17:17 ↗ um

17:19 ↗ at the bottom of our packet we had some

17:21 ↗ commentary on oh yes uh so those

17:24 ↗ comments were received uh from uh

17:26 ↗ members of the public

17:28 ↗ um

17:29 ↗ not from the board members is that

17:31 ↗ so we've attached those did you want to

17:33 ↗ uh discuss those

17:36 ↗ okay no i just didn't know if those were

17:37 ↗ things that the city had like requested

17:39 ↗ a response from an expert or something

17:41 ↗ to provide comments so those were just

17:43 ↗ comments from those were comments from

17:44 ↗ the public correct

17:46 ↗ okay thank you

17:49 ↗ i was going to jump in here really

17:50 ↗ quickly i can't get my video to work but

17:51 ↗ um

17:53 ↗ yeah the

17:54 ↗ cleaning policy commission we we

17:56 ↗ continue to get title 18 comments from

17:58 ↗ the public sometimes they go to planning

18:00 ↗ policy commissions sometimes they don't

18:02 ↗ so the planning policy commission has

18:03 ↗ asked us to include new comments in the

18:05 ↗ packet each time each time we meet so

18:08 ↗ that they can get them all in one place

18:09 ↗ and that's what that is

18:11 ↗ thanks just want to make sure that

18:12 ↗ wasn't something different thank you

18:18 ↗ all right and thank you very much uh

18:20 ↗ vice chairfidge

18:22 ↗ so i also have a question here uh this

18:25 ↗ question goes to i believe katie

18:28 ↗ you said that king county has

18:31 ↗ a buffer reduction zone of 200 feet

18:34 ↗ or 150 feet

18:37 ↗ can you please go back over uh what

18:39 ↗ those buffer reduction zones are and how

18:41 ↗ those zones might be different than ours

18:43 ↗ if ours starts at 100 it sounds like we

18:45 ↗ are already at the county's minimum

18:50 ↗ that's probably a better question for

18:52 ↗ minnie or greta since that those memos

18:55 ↗ were their

18:57 ↗ work product um

18:59 ↗ i don't recall the king county guidance

19:03 ↗ speak to that

19:08 ↗ yeah um greta do you want to um i i

19:11 ↗ don't recall king county's uh discussion

19:13 ↗ i think what we were talking about was

19:15 ↗ department of ecology's recommended

19:17 ↗ guidance

19:18 ↗ for the buffers and they range

19:21 ↗ um so it it they range from you know x

19:24 ↗ to y depending on the habitat score

19:27 ↗ um so if it is treed or not trees and

19:31 ↗ things like that so there's a great

19:32 ↗ granular way of of categorizing them

19:37 ↗ um i think that was uh

19:40 ↗ which methodology we want to use for

19:41 ↗ that

19:42 ↗ uh but perhaps if you repeat your

19:44 ↗ question maybe greta can uh better

19:46 ↗ answer it sure uh so granted

19:49 ↗ based on

19:50 ↗ the department of ecology you're right i

19:52 ↗ misspoke i said king county

19:55 ↗ based on the

19:56 ↗ criteria set forth by the department of

19:58 ↗ ecology

19:59 ↗ on buffer

20:01 ↗ buffer zones

20:03 ↗ why is there such a difference between

20:07 ↗ what the city of issaquah has starting

20:09 ↗ at a minimum of 100 feet

20:11 ↗ versus what the department of ecology is

20:13 ↗ recommending

20:14 ↗ if those are

20:16 ↗ higher than 100 feet

20:20 ↗ um

20:21 ↗ i think

20:23 ↗ the discrepancy is from

20:27 ↗ i don't think issaquah is meeting the

20:28 ↗ minimum

20:29 ↗ buffer width

20:31 ↗ in their code right

20:32 ↗ now um

20:34 ↗ so you'd first have to

20:37 ↗ meet your the ecology's minimum buffer

20:40 ↗ width

20:41 ↗ and then

20:42 ↗ wanted to do reducing go go from there

20:45 ↗ so is this a new gap that we just

20:47 ↗ identified

20:49 ↗ i guess that's a question to many

20:52 ↗ yeah it's it's identified as a gap so in

20:54 ↗ your in the code update memo we did

20:56 ↗ identify that our

20:57 ↗ buffer wits are not meeting the

20:59 ↗ recommended guidance from ecology

21:02 ↗ okay

21:03 ↗ so in our

21:05 ↗ verbiage

21:06 ↗ um

21:08 ↗ in fact in one of our questions tonight

21:10 ↗ aquatic areas which option is preferred

21:12 ↗ option 100 foot buffer option 275 with

21:16 ↗ doe performance standards or option 3

21:19 ↗ 75 buffer with doe performance standards

21:22 ↗ and buffer enhancements

21:24 ↗ all three of those options are already

21:27 ↗ in deficit of

21:29 ↗ the department of ecology so why are we

21:32 ↗ only looking at going to 100 feet why

21:34 ↗ not

21:36 ↗ adopting the department of ecology's

21:38 ↗ buffer

21:40 ↗ standards

21:42 ↗ yeah let me let me kind of uh take a

21:44 ↗ step back and explain so

21:45 ↗ these options are for one example for a

21:48 ↗ category two wetland i think is the one

21:50 ↗ we showed you

21:52 ↗ so under a current code the the adopted

21:55 ↗ buffer width for this type of a wetland

21:57 ↗ is 75 feet

22:00 ↗ so

22:00 ↗ under the new ecology guidance if you

22:03 ↗ just want to adopt the buffer width it

22:05 ↗ would be 100 feet

22:08 ↗ so it would increase from 75 to 100 feet

22:10 ↗ but under a current code we also allow a

22:13 ↗ buffer reduction to go from 75 to 56.

22:17 ↗ um so these three options are under the

22:20 ↗ new ecology guidance

22:23 ↗ so they're just particular type of a

22:25 ↗ wetland yeah for one particular type of

22:27 ↗ a wetland okay and we have multiple diff

22:29 ↗ multiple types of wetlands so

22:32 ↗ the buffer reduction that you're posing

22:35 ↗ here option one option two option three

22:37 ↗ is an example of

22:39 ↗ what we would do if we had a

22:42 ↗ uh a criteria that was

22:44 ↗ a hundred foot buffer

22:46 ↗ but we have buffers that are 150 feet

22:50 ↗ and 200 feet that exist in the city of

22:52 ↗ isequa

22:56 ↗ yes potentially yes there could be for

22:59 ↗ the higher quality wetlands yes those

23:01 ↗ those buffalos would apply

23:03 ↗ uh

23:03 ↗ but keep in mind that a lot of our

23:05 ↗ buffer you know uh wetlands are are

23:08 ↗ impacted already because of development

23:10 ↗ around it so it depends on what we

23:13 ↗ what the existing

23:14 ↗ condition of that wetland is what its

23:16 ↗ habitat score is that's going to

23:18 ↗ determine what the buffers would be

23:20 ↗ under ecology and it could vary

23:22 ↗ depending on the type of a wetland

23:25 ↗ okay

23:26 ↗ all right and uh looks like we have uh

23:29 ↗ three more questions here i'm going to

23:31 ↗ go ahead and switch over to

23:35 ↗ jared davidson

23:38 ↗ hi this is nancy davidson again um

23:40 ↗ i guess my question for you mini is can

23:43 ↗ we combine these options let's let me

23:45 ↗ just throw out an idea which is if we

23:47 ↗ say the minimum standard is a hundred

23:50 ↗ foot buffer with performance standards

23:52 ↗ but if you want buffer averaging the

23:54 ↗ minimum you have to have is 75 feet or

23:56 ↗ do you see what i'm saying so that

23:58 ↗ basically we have a threshold that says

24:00 ↗ this is what we're doing with

24:01 ↗ performance standards but they have to

24:03 ↗ do more if they get any buffer averaging

24:06 ↗ or if they get

24:07 ↗ anything else so that there's a higher

24:10 ↗ threshold or more they're doing to

24:12 ↗ enhance the wetland or off-site

24:14 ↗ mitigation

24:16 ↗ to basically achieve

24:18 ↗ um in that extra 25 feet that they're

24:20 ↗ not taking they were obtaining the same

24:23 ↗ quality or the same end results out of

24:25 ↗ that 25 feet am i making any sense no

24:28 ↗ absolutely i think that that's ab

24:30 ↗ absolutely right

24:31 ↗ the criteria for buffer averaging

24:34 ↗ can include a required enhancement i

24:38 ↗ mean that is typical for any kind of

24:40 ↗ buffer reduction or buffer averaging you

24:42 ↗ would

24:43 ↗ you know you can tie the that you

24:45 ↗ qualify for buffer averaging only if you

24:47 ↗ enhance the what the buffer

24:50 ↗ um greta could speak to if we go for and

24:53 ↗ reach out further based on your previous

24:55 ↗ question which is enhance the actual

24:57 ↗ wetland uh then that can trigger

25:00 ↗ more permit requirements for applicants

25:02 ↗ you know to get more federal and state

25:04 ↗ possibly uh greta can speak to that but

25:07 ↗ that may be a hindrance for someone to

25:09 ↗ actually require it so as a policy maker

25:12 ↗ you just have to keep in mind that while

25:14 ↗ it may be uh

25:15 ↗ a good um you know

25:17 ↗ idea but will will it have unintended

25:20 ↗ consequence that nobody would request it

25:21 ↗ because it becomes too onerous at that

25:23 ↗ point and then they'll just leave the

25:25 ↗ the buffer width alone and not do any

25:28 ↗ enhancement or ask for buffer averaging

25:31 ↗ so you just have to weigh those

25:34 ↗ into your policy

25:42 ↗ i think a simple

25:45 ↗ the three options that ecology um gives

25:49 ↗ you for

25:50 ↗ buffer width i think using

25:52 ↗ the simplest one which is option one

25:54 ↗ which is the most

25:56 ↗ restrictive so the

25:58 ↗ has the most the widest buffers

26:00 ↗ um

26:01 ↗ and then allowing buffer averaging

26:04 ↗ on top of that

26:06 ↗ is the safest bet

26:07 ↗ for

26:08 ↗ simplicity um

26:11 ↗ because once you get into the third

26:13 ↗ option which allows for more flexibility

26:15 ↗ for development

26:16 ↗ um then you you sort of window away your

26:20 ↗ buffers

26:21 ↗ and then if you allow averaging on top

26:23 ↗ of that

26:24 ↗ then it sort of

26:26 ↗ reduces it even more

26:33 ↗ thank you

26:36 ↗ all right and thank you commissioner

26:37 ↗ davidson so we're gonna go ahead and go

26:39 ↗ to commissioner bader

26:41 ↗ yeah hi this is sarah vader i think my

26:43 ↗ question might have been answered um

26:46 ↗ just then but i was curious if

26:49 ↗ um

26:50 ↗ i liked the idea that was presented but

26:51 ↗ i think board member davidson before

26:53 ↗ about like the 100 foot but if you know

26:56 ↗ giving some leading scenes if they're

26:57 ↗ able to enhance um the buffer and i was

26:59 ↗ curious if

27:01 ↗ with a 75 foot buffer and

27:05 ↗ complying with the standards and buffer

27:06 ↗ enhancements if there's actually an

27:08 ↗ opportunity if it's better off for the

27:09 ↗ wetland um if the original like hundred

27:12 ↗ foot buffer wasn't

27:13 ↗ that great quality in the first place

27:19 ↗ all right right yeah that that's the

27:21 ↗ theory behind um

27:24 ↗ averaging enhancement um because you

27:26 ↗ could have a hundred foot of lawn

27:28 ↗ surrounding a wetland

27:30 ↗ and

27:31 ↗ it

27:32 ↗ has some

27:34 ↗ uh buffering qualities but not as much

27:36 ↗ as like a if you were to put it to

27:38 ↗ forest

27:39 ↗ but there's also the

27:41 ↗ temporal

27:42 ↗ loss or temporal issues associated with

27:45 ↗ trying to grow a forest around a wetland

27:48 ↗ but yeah essentially

27:50 ↗ thanks

27:53 ↗ all right thank you commissioner boehner

27:55 ↗ and board member finch you know you got

27:57 ↗ the port

28:00 ↗ thank you chair fall jamie finch

28:02 ↗ speaking um

28:03 ↗ can you remind me of exactly what the

28:05 ↗ doe performance standards what that term

28:08 ↗ means

28:14 ↗ uh performance standards for what

28:17 ↗ i don't know it's on this slide i'm

28:18 ↗ that's what i'm trying to figure out

28:20 ↗ what is that what that term like the 75

28:23 ↗ for example the 75 foot buffer with doe

28:25 ↗ performance standards

28:27 ↗ i think it's the impact minimization

28:30 ↗ standards credit that

28:31 ↗ is in the guidance i think

28:34 ↗ that if you

28:35 ↗ uh

28:36 ↗ you know

28:37 ↗ have stuff that's not as um

28:40 ↗ we can try and find the exact table but

28:42 ↗ there's a whole table uh which ecology

28:45 ↗ has put together in terms of what those

28:47 ↗ um impact minimization standards are

28:51 ↗ so for instance you're not

28:53 ↗ having toxic flow run into the wetland

28:56 ↗ you're putting less noise

28:58 ↗ um

28:59 ↗ creating uh uses next to the wetland um

29:02 ↗ and and other things like that so you're

29:05 ↗ you're minim by by you're putting what

29:07 ↗ kind of uses you're putting and by what

29:09 ↗ kind of uh stormwater

29:11 ↗ features and other things you're doing

29:13 ↗ that you're taking some about going

29:14 ↗ above and beyond a little bit then what

29:16 ↗ would otherwise be allowed on your

29:18 ↗ problem

29:20 ↗ okay thank you that's helpful um one

29:22 ↗ other question so

29:24 ↗ and

29:25 ↗ credit and mini you both kind of hit on

29:26 ↗ the fact that there's this big matrix of

29:28 ↗ like habitat scores different types of

29:31 ↗ wetlands

29:33 ↗ what i'm curious about is it seems like

29:34 ↗ we're answering for one very specific

29:37 ↗ type here

29:38 ↗ is this logic going to be applied across

29:41 ↗ that whole matrix or how does this the

29:43 ↗ answering this question apply across the

29:45 ↗ rest of that matrix

29:47 ↗ it would this was just meant as an

29:49 ↗ example to help uh simplify and give an

29:52 ↗ example where you can

29:53 ↗ you know

29:54 ↗ compare 100 to 75 to 75 but yes that

29:58 ↗ logic the option one two three logic

30:00 ↗ would apply to any type of a wetland the

30:02 ↗ widths would change

30:05 ↗ depending on the quality and the

30:06 ↗ category of the wetland

30:08 ↗ and do we have like

30:10 ↗ like what a proposal for what what each

30:13 ↗ one of these options would look like for

30:14 ↗ that whole matrix or is it just like we

30:17 ↗ need to answer with just this

30:21 ↗ i think if we're just looking for

30:22 ↗ guidance if if

30:24 ↗ you

30:25 ↗ we would create that when we create the

30:27 ↗ the code um based on which option you

30:30 ↗ prefer so the table itself and the code

30:33 ↗ will be for different types of uh and

30:35 ↗ categories of the wetlands and we would

30:37 ↗ establish the buffer widths based on the

30:39 ↗ category so yes the code itself will

30:42 ↗ look uh more nuanced it's more of at a

30:45 ↗ policy level

30:47 ↗ which one which way should we

30:49 ↗ be looking at it is what we're seeking

30:51 ↗ tonight

30:53 ↗ and if anyone

30:55 ↗ that matrix is on i think page 19 of our

30:58 ↗ packet from the end of july meeting if

31:01 ↗ anyone wants to look at that just for

31:02 ↗ context

31:06 ↗ all right perfect uh

31:08 ↗ and you're good uh board finch

31:11 ↗ excellent yes thank you

31:13 ↗ uh

31:15 ↗ i've got a question for many uh i'm

31:17 ↗ confused because we were just talking

31:19 ↗ about option two option three and option

31:21 ↗ two i heard someone mentioned that

31:24 ↗ there would be

31:25 ↗ buffer enhancements

31:27 ↗ and then buffer option three is

31:30 ↗ buffer doa or doe

31:33 ↗ with buffer enhancement so

31:35 ↗ are we talking about

31:37 ↗ option two has

31:40 ↗ performance standards or option two has

31:43 ↗ buffer enhancements only only above

31:47 ↗ performance standards which is your you

31:50 ↗ impact minimizations you know you're

31:52 ↗ you're minimizing your impact but you're

31:54 ↗ not really enhancing and planting the

31:57 ↗ the buffer option three is where you're

32:00 ↗ minimizing the impact based on what

32:02 ↗ you're doing the rest of the site and

32:04 ↗ you're also uh enhancing the buffer

32:07 ↗ so i'm going back to something that

32:10 ↗ commissioner bader

32:12 ↗ had um

32:14 ↗ asked

32:15 ↗ and if i'm not mistaking um commissioner

32:18 ↗ bader and correct me if i'm wrong

32:21 ↗ when you opposed the question you were

32:23 ↗ saying great you know let's go ahead and

32:25 ↗ put in buffer enhancements because we

32:28 ↗ the buffer may not be that great of

32:30 ↗ quality

32:32 ↗ referring to option two

32:34 ↗ but option two doesn't have a buffer

32:36 ↗ enhancement so we're

32:39 ↗ maybe you were thinking

32:41 ↗ option four would be

32:44 ↗ 75-foot buffer with buffer enhancements

32:46 ↗ not looking at performance standards

32:50 ↗ no i was thinking of the option three um

32:53 ↗ so to me option two is kind of a

32:55 ↗ non-factor i'm not sure why we wouldn't

32:58 ↗ want to require enhancements um so it

33:00 ↗ was either you know if not a hundred

33:02 ↗ foot are we better off with the 75 foot

33:04 ↗ buffer or could we be better off with

33:06 ↗ the 75 foot fair with the performance

33:08 ↗ standards and buffer enhancements if i

33:10 ↗ left a term out there it was just um

33:12 ↗ my mistake but i was referring to the

33:14 ↗ option three

33:15 ↗ no no no that's good you just made

33:17 ↗ option two sound better than option

33:18 ↗ three

33:20 ↗ yeah it sounds like um if i may say

33:23 ↗ maybe option two you know if everyone is

33:26 ↗ in consensus that we can take the option

33:28 ↗ to out off the table we just wanted to

33:29 ↗ kind of give you more options but if

33:31 ↗ that's something you're not interested

33:33 ↗ in then it's just comparing one and two

33:36 ↗ and what i heard commissioner davidson

33:38 ↗ say is could we even require

33:41 ↗ buffer enhancements with uh option one

33:44 ↗ so she created another option to just

33:47 ↗ say

33:48 ↗ the the standard if i understood you

33:50 ↗ correctly commissioner davidson that

33:52 ↗ that you would just require a buffer

33:54 ↗ enhancement

33:55 ↗ with without that that was my comment

33:57 ↗ yes

33:58 ↗ okay

33:59 ↗ okay excellent so we'll uh we'll come

34:02 ↗ back to this i guess after we do public

34:04 ↗ comment on this topic uh but we've got a

34:06 ↗ couple more questions

34:08 ↗ ron i'm going to interrupt you for a

34:10 ↗ minute um next actually commissioner

34:12 ↗ milligan had a question she just sent it

34:13 ↗ to host privately accidentally

34:16 ↗ okay we've actually got a couple here um

34:19 ↗ we've got a question from

34:21 ↗ um

34:25 ↗ our

34:27 ↗ board member wall

34:36 ↗ uh board member wall gear on you

34:42 ↗ down at wall

34:44 ↗ yes

34:45 ↗ go ahead you have the floor

34:46 ↗ yes and um

34:49 ↗ my

34:50 ↗ i didn't have a question i had a comment

34:53 ↗ that uh in the past

34:56 ↗ uh i have

34:58 ↗ always opposed the uh

35:01 ↗ getting a buffer reduction for

35:03 ↗ enhancement

35:04 ↗ because buffer reduction is permanent

35:08 ↗ and uh

35:09 ↗ unless you have continuing

35:11 ↗ mine uh monitoring

35:14 ↗ the um

35:15 ↗ enhanced

35:17 ↗ enhancement could uh could be just

35:19 ↗ temporary

35:20 ↗ and the wetland could

35:23 ↗ uh return to uh

35:26 ↗ uh being infested with invasive species

35:37 ↗ so i guess i would recommend

35:41 ↗ either if you can do it

35:43 ↗ a

35:44 ↗ 100

35:45 ↗ 100 foot buffer

35:48 ↗ and require

35:49 ↗ enhancement

35:52 ↗ uh and

35:53 ↗ at the very

35:55 ↗ most i would

35:57 ↗ prefer

36:00 ↗ buffer averaging

36:04 ↗ rather than a

36:06 ↗ overall

36:07 ↗ reduction of the buffer

36:15 ↗ okay uh excellent uh

36:18 ↗ are you looking for feedback from anyone

36:20 ↗ on that comment

36:24 ↗ uh

36:25 ↗ not necessarily

36:27 ↗ okay

36:28 ↗ uh we have another question here from uh

36:31 ↗ board member finch

36:35 ↗ i think uh board member mick williams

36:38 ↗ had a question before me

36:40 ↗ uh you are correct yes go ahead uh nick

36:43 ↗ williams

36:46 ↗ um i think this question is for greta

36:48 ↗ um so

36:49 ↗ a few minutes ago you mentioned that

36:51 ↗ with option one the 100 foot buffer that

36:53 ↗ could be long is that correct

36:58 ↗ um the existing condition could be

37:01 ↗ one um it just depends on where you're

37:04 ↗ at

37:05 ↗ so if you went with option three a 75

37:08 ↗ foot buffer with performance standards

37:10 ↗ and enhancements would that be long or

37:12 ↗ would that be required to be native

37:14 ↗ species

37:15 ↗ uh

37:16 ↗ you would you would apply

37:18 ↗ performance standards to that

37:20 ↗ requirement

37:22 ↗ which would probably be

37:24 ↗ uh native species native trees and

37:26 ↗ shrubs

37:28 ↗ thank you

37:32 ↗ actually that was a very good comment or

37:34 ↗ a question thank you very much uh

37:36 ↗ mcwilliam

37:37 ↗ and so uh board member finch you have

37:40 ↗ the floor

37:41 ↗ thank you chairfall jamie finch speaking

37:43 ↗ um

37:45 ↗ i know that two of the things that we

37:46 ↗ were asked to consider were around

37:48 ↗ buffer averaging and buffer reductions

37:51 ↗ but i don't see a clear call out in any

37:53 ↗ of these options whether they include

37:54 ↗ those or do not include those

37:57 ↗ is that intentional or do some of these

37:59 ↗ options have

38:01 ↗ either of those provisions or ideas

38:03 ↗ incorporated

38:05 ↗ so if i may answer that they're two

38:06 ↗ separate questions so this one was

38:08 ↗ really asking you what buffer woods to

38:11 ↗ establish

38:12 ↗ the second question would be

38:14 ↗ do you want to allow buffer uh reduction

38:18 ↗ um or just go with buffer averaging so

38:21 ↗ in for instance in this example if you

38:23 ↗ cho all chose

38:25 ↗ by consensus option three to say

38:28 ↗ uh for a category two wetland you want a

38:30 ↗ 75 foot buffer but you also want the

38:33 ↗ buffer enhanced for that 75 feet

38:36 ↗ then buffer averaging would then allow

38:39 ↗ you to reduce the buffer in one area to

38:42 ↗ go down to 56 feet but in the other area

38:46 ↗ you would have to increase it to 100

38:48 ↗ feet so overall your average

38:50 ↗ works out to be the same area

38:53 ↗ so

38:54 ↗ uh buffer averaging would be on top you

38:57 ↗ know would be a separate um criteria to

39:00 ↗ consider so first you have to establish

39:02 ↗ what buffer widths you want to establish

39:04 ↗ in the code and then you have to decide

39:07 ↗ whether you want to allow buffer

39:08 ↗ reduction

39:10 ↗ or buffer

39:12 ↗ averaging so now as we're discussing uh

39:15 ↗ buffer widths we are proposing

39:18 ↗ um

39:19 ↗ what buffer widths to establish

39:21 ↗ and i can see how it

39:23 ↗ you know the buffer enhancement is

39:25 ↗ already required

39:27 ↗ under option three

39:29 ↗ but if you

39:31 ↗ if you chose that then we would go and

39:33 ↗ consider what additional enhancements

39:35 ↗ would be needed or can be done what

39:38 ↗ would justify the buffer averaging

39:43 ↗ another question there's another

39:45 ↗ question that will be asked or asked and

39:48 ↗ discussing relative to averaging and

39:50 ↗ reductions is that correct correct yeah

39:52 ↗ okay um

39:54 ↗ i do think there's a little bit of a

39:57 ↗ chicken in the egg situation here

39:59 ↗ because i think those the two things go

40:01 ↗ hand in hand um but you're nodding and

40:04 ↗ smiling so i think

40:05 ↗ but yeah

40:08 ↗ that's that's what i'm struggling with

40:09 ↗ because it's all of our discussions are

40:11 ↗ like circling back to trying to figure

40:13 ↗ out how to incorporate all of those

40:15 ↗ things together so i do think it's a

40:17 ↗ little bit challenging to try to

40:19 ↗ do this in a two-part question but i

40:21 ↗ understand that it's

40:24 ↗ a little hard to

40:25 ↗ know but uh

40:27 ↗ it is tough having those separations you

40:29 ↗ could fold it into this one question i

40:32 ↗ think some people yeah so if you want to

40:34 ↗ just discuss both of those topics

40:36 ↗ and say yes you want option three with

40:39 ↗ buffer averaging on top of it or no

40:42 ↗ you know or that's it no but

40:45 ↗ so so yeah i think

40:47 ↗ it can there can be multiple options

40:49 ↗ created out of this framework but this

40:51 ↗ is the guidance the three options from

40:52 ↗ ecology and that's what we've laid out

40:54 ↗ in front of you okay

40:56 ↗ does the city have a position or a

40:58 ↗ preferred option on this

41:01 ↗ this question

41:04 ↗ you know um in i'll leave that up to the

41:07 ↗ technical expert greta to say but i

41:09 ↗ think at this point we're really looking

41:11 ↗ for

41:12 ↗ giving you the information so

41:14 ↗ you can make an informed decision or or

41:17 ↗ a choice that that will inform what

41:19 ↗ where we want to go with this um

41:21 ↗ obviously there are pros and cons like

41:24 ↗ uh all of you have come to that

41:25 ↗ conclusion that option two really is is

41:28 ↗ should be off the table because there's

41:30 ↗ really no benefit to giving them 75 feet

41:32 ↗ for a small impact minimization

41:35 ↗ the the pros for 100 feet are it's easy

41:38 ↗ for people they don't have to you know

41:41 ↗ um

41:42 ↗ do

41:42 ↗ enhancements or mitigation they they

41:45 ↗ stay away 100 feet and they don't have

41:48 ↗ to do the monitoring like

41:50 ↗ a board member wall was talking about

41:52 ↗ that with monitoring comes some

41:54 ↗ accountability and responsibility the

41:56 ↗ code will then require at least five

41:58 ↗ year monitoring every year you need to

42:00 ↗ give us a monitoring report there are

42:02 ↗ some criteria established for what's

42:04 ↗ successful what's not successful so

42:06 ↗ there's more

42:07 ↗ uh long-term commitment needed

42:09 ↗ so option one you don't have to do that

42:11 ↗ you just establish a buffer and it's

42:13 ↗ easier to implement an administer um but

42:17 ↗ the con is if it's all grass like um

42:20 ↗ uh commissioner

42:21 ↗ mcwilliams was saying then you're left

42:24 ↗ with no in you know no really net gain

42:26 ↗ for the environment

42:27 ↗ so

42:28 ↗ while there may be some gain and for

42:30 ↗ easy of implementation but it's really

42:32 ↗ not a good

42:33 ↗ option for uh improving the habitat if

42:36 ↗ it is degraded already um

42:39 ↗ so but with option

42:41 ↗ three

42:42 ↗ you

42:43 ↗ get the enhancements uh you still get

42:46 ↗ larger buffers than what you have today

42:48 ↗ so

42:49 ↗ you know

42:50 ↗ so those are pros and cons for option

42:52 ↗ one and three

42:57 ↗ thanks mate greta do you have anything

42:58 ↗ to add to that

43:01 ↗ um

43:02 ↗ yeah i don't i don't want to taint your

43:04 ↗ opinions with my

43:06 ↗ ecologist bent

43:09 ↗ uh because of course i'm going to say

43:11 ↗ make the

43:13 ↗ buffers as wide as possible and don't

43:14 ↗ allow reductions or averaging

43:19 ↗ but i think

43:21 ↗ generally what i see communities doing

43:23 ↗ is moving away from buffer reductions

43:27 ↗ and allowing for some averaging

43:32 ↗ great thanks both of you

43:42 ↗ sure fall i think you might be on mute

43:45 ↗ yes thank you

43:47 ↗ thank you board member finch and

43:49 ↗ commissioner milligan you have the floor

43:54 ↗ thank you

43:55 ↗ commissioner milligan here

43:57 ↗ uh now my head is really spinning but

43:59 ↗ thank you board member finch for uh

44:01 ↗ bringing that up because uh the fact of

44:04 ↗ the other topic question two is very

44:06 ↗ difficult

44:07 ↗ to not talk about when we're talking

44:08 ↗ about question one they do go hand in

44:10 ↗ hand so right now it's questions and

44:12 ↗ then we're going to have time for

44:14 ↗ comments later combining these two i

44:16 ↗ hope so that we can put those two things

44:18 ↗ together

44:19 ↗ and

44:20 ↗ i was just um spending a bit of time

44:22 ↗ with the

44:24 ↗ um

44:26 ↗ goals and objectives for the title 18 um

44:31 ↗ project and

44:33 ↗ i i am seeing in that to allow

44:36 ↗ flexibility

44:38 ↗ only if it will demonstrably improve

44:42 ↗ or equal

44:43 ↗ superior protection in the areas and so

44:45 ↗ my question is that we've got these two

44:48 ↗ things split we've got that flexibility

44:51 ↗ you could

44:52 ↗ you know perhaps have

44:54 ↗ buffer

44:55 ↗ averaging

44:57 ↗ but the

44:58 ↗ but it's not an incentive

45:00 ↗ we've already we would have already set

45:02 ↗ the standard

45:04 ↗ with question one

45:06 ↗ that there is no

45:07 ↗ incentive

45:10 ↗ for having a larger buffer or not buffer

45:13 ↗ averaging

45:14 ↗ could you say that

45:17 ↗ how do you combine these two so that

45:20 ↗ we get the

45:22 ↗ um the greatest buffer but if we did

45:25 ↗ have flexibility that we get something

45:27 ↗ in return it just seems it seems this is

45:29 ↗ what was so difficult to me to even do

45:31 ↗ the survey and i didn't do it because

45:32 ↗ these things are all split up into

45:34 ↗ sections that they

45:36 ↗ interact too much with each other yes

45:38 ↗ that's my it's a comment and a question

45:40 ↗ how do we

45:42 ↗ let's get these two together let's move

45:44 ↗ on

45:46 ↗ if i may answer your question um

45:48 ↗ commissioner milligan i think what i

45:50 ↗ hear you say is go with the

45:52 ↗ the largest protection but then allow

45:55 ↗ for flexibility so that would be that

45:57 ↗ option one of 100 feet but then you

45:59 ↗ would allow some kind of a

46:03 ↗ reduction

46:06 ↗ if you did

46:08 ↗ some enhancements but you could tie it

46:10 ↗ to just saying averaging 100 feet but

46:13 ↗ you allow averaging so under your

46:15 ↗ scenario where you were leaning if here

46:16 ↗ if i understood you correctly the

46:18 ↗ biggest protection but with some

46:20 ↗ flexibility so that's one option you you

46:22 ↗ could go and establish 100 foot buffer

46:24 ↗ but you allow buffer averaging with

46:26 ↗ enhancements

46:29 ↗ yeah yeah thank you minnie um i think

46:31 ↗ you're you're stating a possibility but

46:33 ↗ not necessarily my preference so i

46:36 ↗ appreciate that

46:38 ↗ i was just looking at how difficult it

46:40 ↗ is to split these two questions

46:42 ↗ and i'd like to bring them together

46:44 ↗ later when we um

46:46 ↗ voice our opinions

46:48 ↗ so i'm just gonna save it

46:53 ↗ so commissioner fall if there are more

46:55 ↗ questions you know we can ask greta but

46:57 ↗ otherwise you may probably um

47:00 ↗ want to

47:01 ↗ uh take public comments and then

47:03 ↗ deliberation on this topic

47:06 ↗ yeah we're we're starting to

47:08 ↗ be kind of in a time crunch here i've

47:10 ↗ got uh

47:12 ↗ comments from

47:15 ↗ uh commissioner davidson

47:17 ↗ and

47:19 ↗ commissioner fisher

47:22 ↗ commissioner jason

47:24 ↗ voice and commissioner zaragoza so let's

47:26 ↗ go ahead and just leave it to those four

47:28 ↗ and uh we'll cover those quickly

47:30 ↗ um let's go ahead and go to uh

47:32 ↗ commissioner davidson

47:34 ↗ mine's more appropriate for the

47:36 ↗ deliberation so i'll hold off thank you

47:38 ↗ excellent thank you uh commissioner

47:40 ↗ fischer

47:41 ↗ yeah likewise uh i think many also

47:44 ↗ answered my question earlier

47:46 ↗ regarding monitoring standards so oh

47:48 ↗ pass thank you

47:50 ↗ perfect and uh

47:52 ↗ commissioner voice

47:55 ↗ thank you chairfell so i def i don't

47:58 ↗ have a question i want to say thank you

47:59 ↗ to everyone who previously did because

48:01 ↗ uh it's enlightening

48:03 ↗ um i do think there's a couple things

48:05 ↗ that we also need to keep in mind

48:07 ↗ so i'm leaning towards option three i

48:10 ↗ think option one a longer buffer

48:13 ↗ with averaging and possible reductions

48:15 ↗ would be okay

48:16 ↗ or option three with averaging and again

48:19 ↗ i think what we need to keep in mind is

48:21 ↗ option three not only enhances the area

48:24 ↗ but it also allows the flexibility that

48:26 ↗ developers need

48:28 ↗ to make projects feasible

48:30 ↗ as well as with our dwindling land

48:32 ↗ supply we're having we're not going to

48:34 ↗ have these large land agreements um

48:38 ↗ such as talus and such as is aqua

48:40 ↗ highlands so when we redevelop certain

48:42 ↗ areas

48:43 ↗ you know they need to be able to situate

48:45 ↗ the lot in a way that makes sense

48:47 ↗ otherwise one they won't be built or two

48:49 ↗ they won't be sold

48:50 ↗ and the more stipulations and

48:52 ↗ regulations and things that we continue

48:54 ↗ to put

48:55 ↗ that price will be transferred to the

48:57 ↗ homeowner and as most people know um

48:59 ↗ this clause middle class is almost gone

49:02 ↗ and it's shrinking even quicker and so

49:04 ↗ when people talk about justice and all

49:06 ↗ of these things um this city you cannot

49:09 ↗ buy a house for four hundred thousand

49:10 ↗ dollars it's impossible a family who

49:13 ↗ makes

49:14 ↗ 130 000 cannot afford to live here

49:17 ↗ so

49:18 ↗ we also need to be cognizant of the fact

49:19 ↗ that

49:20 ↗ when we're building and we're

49:21 ↗ redeveloping land here um we need to do

49:24 ↗ it in a way that's feasible for

49:26 ↗ everybody who's a partner in this and

49:28 ↗ that also includes the developers and it

49:30 ↗ also includes keeping our pristine

49:31 ↗ environment which is why

49:33 ↗ isaqua is such a draw for so many people

49:36 ↗ so i think like i said looking at those

49:38 ↗ two options

49:40 ↗ option one you can increase the buffer

49:42 ↗ you can allow for reductions

49:44 ↗ possibly or but definitely averaging

49:47 ↗ or number three which i think is better

49:49 ↗ because you actually enhance the

49:51 ↗ environment

49:52 ↗ but again with averaging so they can

49:54 ↗ situate every lot is unique every

49:56 ↗ wetland is unique and you can move it

49:58 ↗ around in a way that makes most sense

50:00 ↗ nobody's going to buy something that

50:02 ↗ is

50:03 ↗ not aesthetically pleasing or doesn't

50:05 ↗ make any sense if you try to put

50:08 ↗ a three-story house you know those split

50:11 ↗ level houses popular in the 70s it's not

50:13 ↗ going to sell

50:14 ↗ so just again thinking there's a lot of

50:16 ↗ different components here want to make

50:18 ↗ sure that we have the room to move

50:20 ↗ especially as we move forward in the

50:21 ↗ next 20 years when we're going to be

50:23 ↗ seeing parts of old town and different

50:25 ↗ areas basically be brought down single

50:28 ↗ houses one at a time as like i said as

50:31 ↗ we're losing some of our land supply and

50:33 ↗ we continue to stick with trying to

50:36 ↗ force some of the building into the

50:38 ↗ central area

50:39 ↗ so again we need to allow flexibility

50:41 ↗ for people to continue to make it

50:43 ↗ feasible to want to build here

50:46 ↗ and live here

50:48 ↗ excellent thank you very much

50:50 ↗ commissioner voice

50:52 ↗ and commissioner zargoza said that his

50:54 ↗ answer was question or his question was

50:56 ↗ answered so thank you

50:58 ↗ all right so we're going to go ahead and

51:00 ↗ open up to public comment

51:06 ↗ yes

51:07 ↗ uh no one has their hands right if

51:09 ↗ anyone would like to speak please raise

51:10 ↗ your hand

51:12 ↗ and if you are having trouble finding it

51:14 ↗ please tell me in the chat we do have

51:17 ↗ one who would like to speak

51:19 ↗ i will move you over i believe

51:21 ↗ she can confirm in a minute so that this

51:23 ↗ is connie marsh

51:29 ↗ hey connie you are unmuted

51:32 ↗ okay yeah for some reason my hand

51:34 ↗ wouldn't go up

51:35 ↗ um

51:36 ↗ my name's connie marsh

51:38 ↗ and

51:40 ↗ there's a back story on this that

51:43 ↗ that that you aren't getting

51:46 ↗ and that is people let their land

51:50 ↗ be

51:51 ↗ [Music]

51:52 ↗ uh degraded in order to have the lowest

51:57 ↗ possible buffer

51:59 ↗ so for example if you have a beautiful

52:02 ↗ buffer then

52:05 ↗ in our current code you are not allowed

52:07 ↗ to reduce it

52:09 ↗ and

52:10 ↗ also

52:11 ↗ you

52:12 ↗ have the widest buffer if you have a

52:14 ↗ lousy buffer then your habitat scores

52:17 ↗ are low

52:18 ↗ and then you get to develop more

52:21 ↗ so we have this situation where we have

52:23 ↗ an incentive for people not to care take

52:27 ↗ their buffers

52:29 ↗ because they get development

52:32 ↗ area if they let their land go to pot so

52:36 ↗ to speak

52:37 ↗ not that pot is a bad thing

52:39 ↗ um

52:41 ↗ so

52:43 ↗ so you all

52:44 ↗ weren't given this backstory it is like

52:48 ↗ people don't plot about what to do their

52:51 ↗ la with their land before they put in an

52:53 ↗ application

52:55 ↗ so some of these things

52:57 ↗ that that

52:59 ↗ you are given

53:01 ↗ are

53:02 ↗ um

53:04 ↗ continuing that incentive to treat your

53:06 ↗ land badly

53:07 ↗ if you have a hundred foot buffer

53:10 ↗ and it doesn't matter you know

53:14 ↗ because they've treated it like crap now

53:16 ↗ they get a reduced buffer because

53:20 ↗ it's a lower habitat score for example

53:23 ↗ but if you say okay well lower habitat

53:26 ↗ score you still have 100 buffer you have

53:29 ↗ to enhance that buffer

53:31 ↗ so that's going to cost you money you

53:33 ↗ don't get to reduce that buffer

53:36 ↗ so they have less of incentive to let

53:39 ↗ their buffer just go to crap for the

53:41 ↗ rest of time

53:43 ↗ and i i watch it over and over and over

53:45 ↗ so this is not a thing that does not

53:47 ↗ happen

53:48 ↗ so i am more

53:50 ↗ um

53:52 ↗ uh

53:53 ↗ interested in how do we get our buffers

53:57 ↗ enhanced

53:58 ↗ and kept beautifully and even if people

54:02 ↗ are are going to redevelop they know

54:05 ↗ that their buffer

54:07 ↗ needs to stay great all the time and

54:11 ↗ even now they should be making a great

54:13 ↗ buffer because that is actually how we

54:15 ↗ get things

54:16 ↗ better and better and better and none of

54:19 ↗ that is really included in this

54:22 ↗ presentation which is a little

54:23 ↗ disappointing um the

54:26 ↗ emphasis that we can go down 25

54:29 ↗ of the entire buffer

54:31 ↗ is gives you an illusion that that is

54:35 ↗ true right now our code says you

54:37 ↗ basically get to reduce a corner of that

54:39 ↗ buffer you get to buffer average only a

54:42 ↗ corner of that buffer

54:45 ↗ not the whole line of the buffer so

54:49 ↗ when they're giving you these options

54:52 ↗ and comparing them to our prior buffer

54:55 ↗ it's it's it's not true

54:59 ↗ so

55:00 ↗ i guess i would say

55:02 ↗ um

55:04 ↗ flexibility in development at this point

55:07 ↗ in time has allowed people to cremate

55:10 ↗ their buffers and reduce the habitat and

55:13 ↗ reduce the value of our streams in

55:15 ↗ wetlands and i think that the idea is

55:19 ↗ we need to have an amazing town with

55:21 ↗ amazing buffers and amazing habitat and

55:24 ↗ that will

55:25 ↗ make people want to build here and they

55:28 ↗ will want to build here our

55:31 ↗ way

55:32 ↗ now the affordability issue it's like

55:34 ↗ okay

55:35 ↗ you want to live in santa barbara or you

55:38 ↗ want to live in watts

55:40 ↗ um i don't know that that is

55:42 ↗ that's possible to change here but for

55:45 ↗ me and and our values in the city of

55:48 ↗ issaquah i

55:50 ↗ think that

55:52 ↗ what our goal really is

55:54 ↗ is to imagine all of our critical areas

55:58 ↗ with healthy

56:01 ↗ functioning

56:02 ↗ buffers wide enough for both wildlife

56:06 ↗ habitat

56:08 ↗ and wildlife corridors

56:10 ↗ in perpetuity

56:12 ↗ and that is actually our end goal our

56:14 ↗ end goal is not how do we figure out how

56:17 ↗ to get development in there our end goal

56:20 ↗ is to how do we get those buffers

56:23 ↗ and allow for development

56:26 ↗ and

56:27 ↗ so i think this this conversation has

56:29 ↗ been pitched

56:31 ↗ for development as compared to being

56:34 ↗ pitched for both simultaneously

56:37 ↗ and that's the conversation that i would

56:39 ↗ like

56:40 ↗ to to see happen now nancy was the

56:43 ↗ closest to to that

56:46 ↗ minnie

56:47 ↗ was not close at all and so i fear that

56:51 ↗ staff and administration's point of view

56:54 ↗ is going to have a hard time combining

56:56 ↗ with um sort of the community value set

57:00 ↗ of of environment and and so this

57:03 ↗ conversation is sort of scaring me

57:05 ↗ and uh hopefully

57:08 ↗ hopefully i've given you a different

57:10 ↗ vision so that

57:13 ↗ that we can have both simultaneously

57:16 ↗ thank you

57:27 ↗ i'm not seeing anyone else that wants to

57:29 ↗ speak um but i'll give it just a minute

57:31 ↗ if anyone wants to raise their hand

57:34 ↗ and connie if you could put your hand on

57:36 ↗ that would be great

57:43 ↗ all right i'm not seeing anyone else who

57:44 ↗ wants to speak

57:49 ↗ okay excellent uh let's go ahead and

57:52 ↗ circle back to comments and discussion

57:54 ↗ so now we're going to go ahead and

57:57 ↗ discuss this topic

58:03 ↗ and we have a

58:04 ↗ comment from

58:06 ↗ commissioner davidson or chair davidson

58:08 ↗ all right

58:10 ↗ hi this is nancy davidson and i'm giving

58:12 ↗ comments on behalf of two people uh the

58:14 ↗ first one is one that came from one of

58:17 ↗ the board members dan heights who could

58:19 ↗ not be here tonight he sent his comments

58:21 ↗ to megan jamie and myself and i'm going

58:23 ↗ to just read those so that we all have

58:25 ↗ them um i just feel it's fair that he he

58:28 ↗ sent these at 6 00 p.m so he couldn't be

58:30 ↗ here tonight so i'm reading what he had

58:32 ↗ said i'm not sure you'll see this oh

58:34 ↗ sorry about that that's part of it but

58:37 ↗ the main point i want to make tonight is

58:38 ↗ on buffer averaging and reductions i do

58:41 ↗ not support either of these approaches

58:43 ↗ and would encourage more clear and

58:45 ↗ concise guidance on wetland buffers i

58:48 ↗ feel averaging and reductions work

58:50 ↗ against the goal of establishing

58:52 ↗ contiguous habitat and averaging creates

58:55 ↗ uneven buffers with more

58:57 ↗ quote edge end quote and less

59:00 ↗ core end quote habitat which is not the

59:04 ↗ direction you want that ratio to go when

59:06 ↗ prioritizing habitat for wildlife and

59:09 ↗ limiting the impacts of invasive weeds

59:12 ↗ i do personally support the inlue or

59:14 ↗ even wetland banking approach being

59:16 ↗ incorporated into the land use code from

59:19 ↗ my experience on site mitigation is

59:21 ↗ often an attempt to fit a square peg in

59:24 ↗ a round hole i feel that it is often not

59:26 ↗ successful and you can create healthier

59:28 ↗ contiguous habitat within lieu or

59:31 ↗ wetland banking programs that focus on

59:33 ↗ larger tracts of land

59:35 ↗ i do encourage the city to think about

59:37 ↗ how these options can be kept as local

59:39 ↗ as possible for example at lake samantha

59:41 ↗ state park and those are dan's comments

59:44 ↗ to

59:45 ↗ um to be presented into this um meeting

59:47 ↗ tonight

59:49 ↗ there you go that's one

59:50 ↗ in terms of nancy davidson's personal

59:52 ↗ comments um i am in favor of

59:56 ↗ sticking with the biggest

59:58 ↗ buffer possible and that would be the

1:00:00 ↗ 100 foot at a minimum with performance

1:00:03 ↗ standards i think we have done a lot

1:00:05 ↗ to impact the environment and our

1:00:07 ↗ streams and our habitat

1:00:09 ↗ i too do not support significant

1:00:12 ↗ reductions unless there's something

1:00:13 ↗ really big that you can do such as as

1:00:16 ↗ dan suggested

1:00:18 ↗ some kind of mitigation bank out there

1:00:20 ↗ that we could actually get something

1:00:21 ↗ bigger and better

1:00:23 ↗ i think the city has taken some very

1:00:25 ↗ significant hits

1:00:27 ↗ and the environment and our ecosystem is

1:00:29 ↗ showing that

1:00:30 ↗ and i

1:00:32 ↗ think that we should be thinking long

1:00:33 ↗ and hard about how to improve things and

1:00:35 ↗ not just focusing on how to support

1:00:37 ↗ development that's my perspective thank

1:00:39 ↗ you

1:00:44 ↗ and thank you very much chad davidson uh

1:00:47 ↗ we're gonna move on to

1:00:50 ↗ let's see where is my place

1:00:53 ↗ it looks like

1:00:57 ↗ board member

1:00:58 ↗ fisher

1:01:03 ↗ board member fisher has a floor

1:01:06 ↗ no comment from me

1:01:08 ↗ excellent

1:01:14 ↗ and board member finch

1:01:15 ↗ the other floor

1:01:17 ↗ thank you chairfall jamie finch speaking

1:01:20 ↗ um

1:01:21 ↗ my perspective is uh

1:01:24 ↗ similar to nancy's in that i think we

1:01:26 ↗ need to be prioritizing maximizing the

1:01:29 ↗ buffers and moving to that in the

1:01:31 ↗ example that we've been given the 100

1:01:33 ↗ foot along with performance

1:01:35 ↗ standards

1:01:36 ↗ i think any decision to

1:01:40 ↗ make any reductions or averaging

1:01:42 ↗ need to be

1:01:43 ↗ met with something and i understand the

1:01:46 ↗ the

1:01:47 ↗ administrative complexity of this but if

1:01:49 ↗ we're going to have something that

1:01:50 ↗ permanently to

1:01:52 ↗ commissioner walls uh common early that

1:01:55 ↗ permanently impacts this wetland

1:01:58 ↗ the mitigation needs to be somehow

1:02:00 ↗ permanent as well and and five years in

1:02:02 ↗ my opinion is not enough

1:02:04 ↗ um i understand that it's difficult to

1:02:06 ↗ monitor there's there's all kinds of

1:02:07 ↗ complexity but i think if we are looking

1:02:10 ↗ at ways to

1:02:11 ↗ ensure that

1:02:13 ↗ our developers and and ultimately the

1:02:15 ↗ landowners that end up that end up being

1:02:16 ↗ on these properties um

1:02:19 ↗ become stewards of the property if they

1:02:21 ↗ are close to a buffer and they've done

1:02:22 ↗ anything to uh to decrease the buffers

1:02:25 ↗ around that wetland so

1:02:27 ↗ i don't know what that that option looks

1:02:29 ↗ like but i think that's

1:02:31 ↗ if there's nothing that can

1:02:33 ↗ guarantee that we're going to have

1:02:34 ↗ permanent performance of with native

1:02:37 ↗ plants and and

1:02:40 ↗ an effective buffer

1:02:41 ↗ um it feels like we're not really

1:02:43 ↗ accomplishing much

1:02:45 ↗ thank you

1:02:50 ↗ thank you board member finch and

1:02:52 ↗ commissioner milligan you have the floor

1:02:57 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner

1:02:58 ↗ milligan here again i'm gonna save you a

1:03:01 ↗ lot of time because i'm going to talk

1:03:02 ↗ about question number two even though

1:03:04 ↗ we're not on it

1:03:05 ↗ because i don't think i could separate

1:03:07 ↗ these things as we just discussed in our

1:03:10 ↗ question period

1:03:11 ↗ the

1:03:13 ↗ buffer averaging or buffer reduction

1:03:15 ↗ when i look at the goals and objectives

1:03:17 ↗ from the um in the tabular form the the

1:03:21 ↗ directions that we've been given

1:03:23 ↗ there's a desire to have an increase in

1:03:25 ↗ protections and not allow a decrease in

1:03:28 ↗ protection so i hear from this and from

1:03:31 ↗ the survey and from

1:03:33 ↗ the fellow members of these boards and

1:03:34 ↗ commissions that buffer reduction is of

1:03:37 ↗ no interest to anybody

1:03:39 ↗ so we can move that off the table

1:03:41 ↗ simplify where we're going and say okay

1:03:43 ↗ are we allowing buffer averaging

1:03:46 ↗ setting that aside for just a moment

1:03:48 ↗ going back to questions one two three i

1:03:50 ↗ really appreciate the bold comments by

1:03:54 ↗ the chair and co-chair of the

1:03:55 ↗ environmental board with the foot buffer

1:03:58 ↗ and

1:03:59 ↗ performance standards but i think that

1:04:01 ↗ also from the guidance that we have from

1:04:03 ↗ the goals and objectives that were we're

1:04:05 ↗ supposed to look at the opportunity to

1:04:07 ↗ provide some flexibility and respect for

1:04:09 ↗ property owners

1:04:10 ↗ and one way i think we can do that is by

1:04:12 ↗ incentivizing further

1:04:17 ↗ improvement to our wetlands

1:04:20 ↗ as the public comment was speaking about

1:04:22 ↗ degraded wetlands what are we going to

1:04:24 ↗ do if we just leave them that way if we

1:04:26 ↗ just say 100 foot buffer

1:04:28 ↗ done leave it simple that's not adequate

1:04:31 ↗ if we had a combination of 100 foot

1:04:33 ↗ buffer

1:04:34 ↗ with performance standards

1:04:36 ↗ but if you wanted a 75 foot buffer you

1:04:39 ↗ have to do not only performance

1:04:40 ↗ standards but the second one which i

1:04:43 ↗ can't remember the wording that had

1:04:45 ↗ ongoing

1:04:47 ↗ five-year

1:04:48 ↗ review and reporting so that the health

1:04:51 ↗ of that

1:04:53 ↗ buffer

1:04:54 ↗ uh is for the future and not just a

1:04:57 ↗ band-aid at the time i think that kind

1:04:59 ↗ of incentive

1:05:00 ↗ would help us get better wetlands

1:05:04 ↗ rather than

1:05:05 ↗ just wetland buffers

1:05:08 ↗ so i'm looking for an incentive

1:05:10 ↗ opportunity here in combining these

1:05:13 ↗ things but for averaging i don't know

1:05:15 ↗ why would we bother if we want to allow

1:05:17 ↗ buffer averaging then let's tie it to

1:05:19 ↗ another incentive

1:05:20 ↗ let's take it up another a notch if you

1:05:22 ↗ want a buffer average then you have to

1:05:24 ↗ do something even more

1:05:26 ↗ i think those are the kinds of steps

1:05:27 ↗ that we could outline for people and

1:05:29 ↗ also i have one question that um could

1:05:32 ↗ be answered do we have a wetland

1:05:33 ↗ inventory of

1:05:35 ↗ where our wetlands are and how big they

1:05:37 ↗ are and

1:05:38 ↗ you know regardless of degradation

1:05:41 ↗ that's it thanks

1:05:47 ↗ and thank you commissioner milligan and

1:05:50 ↗ so i have a question comment here uh to

1:05:53 ↗ um

1:05:54 ↗ i like what uh

1:05:57 ↗ chair davidson had mentioned about um

1:06:00 ↗ keeping it to 100 foot and um vice chair

1:06:04 ↗ finch i think we need to we put enough

1:06:06 ↗ stress on our wetlands already we

1:06:09 ↗ definitely need to

1:06:10 ↗ i think

1:06:12 ↗ buckle down and protect what we already

1:06:15 ↗ have because the amount of stress that

1:06:16 ↗ we're placing on

1:06:19 ↗ our wetlands and the buffers

1:06:21 ↗ um but i also like what commissioner

1:06:23 ↗ milligan had just said so

1:06:26 ↗ why do we have to be at a 25 i mean 25

1:06:29 ↗ percent why

1:06:31 ↗ why 75 feet why can't we be maybe at

1:06:35 ↗ take it down to 10 10

1:06:37 ↗ or 15

1:06:39 ↗ and still get an enhancement and that

1:06:41 ↗ way we have a little bit of flexibility

1:06:44 ↗ to be able to

1:06:45 ↗ um to jason's point

1:06:47 ↗ offer that to developers so that they

1:06:49 ↗ can put a square house on a

1:06:53 ↗ on a round lot

1:06:56 ↗ and it will it'll work so um and we get

1:07:01 ↗ something in return

1:07:02 ↗ but we don't have to go all the way down

1:07:04 ↗ to 25. i think that's too much we've

1:07:07 ↗ already given up too much so let's not

1:07:10 ↗ give away everything yet that's

1:07:13 ↗ maybe half it um

1:07:15 ↗ to say

1:07:17 ↗ some smaller number than 25.

1:07:20 ↗ uh okay and that's my comment um i'm

1:07:23 ↗ going to go ahead and move on to

1:07:25 ↗ board member mcwilliams

1:07:30 ↗ thank you

1:07:31 ↗ williams here so i agree with all of you

1:07:33 ↗ i think the 100 foot buffer is

1:07:35 ↗ appropriate but i would like to see 100

1:07:37 ↗ foot buffer with enhancements and a

1:07:39 ↗ monitoring period on it and jamie this

1:07:42 ↗ might help you a little bit the

1:07:43 ↗ monitoring periods from my experience

1:07:45 ↗ are three five ten year and those are

1:07:47 ↗ establishment periods the idea behind it

1:07:49 ↗ that the vegetation is at full maturity

1:07:51 ↗ by that point doesn't need any

1:07:53 ↗ monitoring anymore

1:07:54 ↗ um i do think that we could provide

1:07:57 ↗ incentives to developers for

1:07:59 ↗ some form of buffer averaging

1:08:02 ↗ um

1:08:02 ↗ but i think that should be left up to

1:08:04 ↗ the land use professional that's

1:08:06 ↗ reviewing this because they're probably

1:08:07 ↗ closest to the situation and know more

1:08:09 ↗ about it than anybody

1:08:11 ↗ so i'm going to look to the expertise of

1:08:13 ↗ the staff on that

1:08:17 ↗ excellent thank you and

1:08:19 ↗ i don't see any more questions or

1:08:21 ↗ comments

1:08:22 ↗ we are getting we are over so we do need

1:08:25 ↗ to move forward uh

1:08:28 ↗ is it okay for me to conclude just give

1:08:30 ↗ me a nod

1:08:32 ↗ yeah okay all right so we're gonna go

1:08:34 ↗ ahead and conclude this topic and we're

1:08:35 ↗ gonna move on to the next topic uh mini

1:08:38 ↗ you have the floor

1:08:40 ↗ yeah uh thank you commissioners great um

1:08:43 ↗ suggestions and thoughts so i think

1:08:46 ↗ we folded the averaging conversation

1:08:49 ↗ into it so i'm not sure if you want to

1:08:52 ↗ have that again

1:08:53 ↗ i think i heard it loud and clear

1:08:56 ↗ that there isn't much support for uh

1:08:58 ↗ buffer reduction but we can take a a

1:09:00 ↗ call on that and and you know if you

1:09:03 ↗ want to ask anyone who hasn't spoken who

1:09:06 ↗ is in favor of buffer reduction

1:09:08 ↗ uh then we can have a discussion about

1:09:10 ↗ buffer reduction versus averaging

1:09:11 ↗ otherwise i think we've heard uh

1:09:14 ↗ averaging is as a possibility that we

1:09:15 ↗ should explore not everyone feels uh

1:09:18 ↗ averaging is uh needed um so i think at

1:09:23 ↗ this point where

1:09:24 ↗ it may be better to not just get back

1:09:26 ↗ into a conversation about averaging or

1:09:28 ↗ reduction but just to kind of look up

1:09:31 ↗ for consensus on both of those topics

1:09:34 ↗ together you know i heard

1:09:36 ↗ um

1:09:38 ↗ some

1:09:39 ↗ comments uh about 100 feet with

1:09:42 ↗ enhancement

1:09:43 ↗ so we can take take a call for how many

1:09:46 ↗ are in support of 100 feet with

1:09:48 ↗ enhancement and and if they

1:09:51 ↗ you know start with that and then um

1:09:54 ↗ i heard averaging you know if if someone

1:09:58 ↗ says no averaging at all then i think we

1:10:00 ↗ can ask that as a second question

1:10:02 ↗ um just just to kind of get get a

1:10:05 ↗ consensus vote on where where everyone

1:10:07 ↗ is that those are my suggestions but

1:10:10 ↗ feel free to see how

1:10:12 ↗ what makes sense to the rest of the

1:10:14 ↗ conversation here

1:10:16 ↗ so minnie are you suggesting that we

1:10:18 ↗ skipped the presentation that you were

1:10:20 ↗ going to give on question two

1:10:22 ↗ there is no presentation on that it was

1:10:23 ↗ just a question um asking so there is no

1:10:26 ↗ additional information

1:10:28 ↗ that we are ready to present at this

1:10:30 ↗ point it's just

1:10:32 ↗ looking for guidance yeah

1:10:34 ↗ so guidance uh well we've heard

1:10:37 ↗ i think we have two extremes here we've

1:10:38 ↗ heard 100 we've heard 75.

1:10:41 ↗ so

1:10:44 ↗ what about a consensus among all of us

1:10:46 ↗ say

1:10:47 ↗ uh

1:10:48 ↗ 10 or 15 percent

1:10:51 ↗ we wanted to ask the city for guidance

1:10:53 ↗ on that

1:10:56 ↗ for averaging or for reduction

1:10:59 ↗ well either or

1:11:02 ↗ so what's the ques i mean what do people

1:11:04 ↗ think of the averaging versus the

1:11:06 ↗ reduction

1:11:07 ↗ because that's what you're asking us

1:11:09 ↗ right is correct which one are we going

1:11:11 ↗ to pick so let's go ahead and decide

1:11:13 ↗ which one we're going to pick and then

1:11:15 ↗ of that do we want to stick with the 70

1:11:18 ↗ the

1:11:18 ↗ 100 or 75 or do we want to do something

1:11:21 ↗ in between

1:11:23 ↗ and that would be the compromise

1:11:24 ↗ bringing everybody together in a

1:11:25 ↗ consensus let's go ahead and uh

1:11:28 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:11:31 ↗ thank you chairfall nina milligan here

1:11:34 ↗ thank you minnie for summarizing i heard

1:11:36 ↗ you say

1:11:38 ↗ that

1:11:39 ↗ that you heard us say

1:11:41 ↗ then there isn't any support for buffer

1:11:44 ↗ reduction

1:11:45 ↗ and that there is

1:11:46 ↗ some support for buffer averaging

1:11:49 ↗ especially if it might be hooked to some

1:11:52 ↗ incentives or some other benefit

1:11:54 ↗ now i think she put that on the table

1:11:56 ↗ and said

1:11:58 ↗ is there anybody who disagrees with that

1:11:59 ↗ because i think that and she can nod or

1:12:02 ↗ shake her head to say this is what she

1:12:04 ↗ thought her take home was if you

1:12:06 ↗ disagree with that speak up now

1:12:09 ↗ that's what that's what i heard i don't

1:12:11 ↗ disagree with that by the way

1:12:17 ↗ excellent okay thank you commissioner

1:12:19 ↗ milligan uh

1:12:21 ↗ board member fisher

1:12:23 ↗ yeah cameron fisher here um just

1:12:25 ↗ listening to money there i i would

1:12:27 ↗ encourage uh if there is going to be

1:12:29 ↗ some kind of uh reduction or uh in a

1:12:32 ↗ buffer that we do it up via buffer

1:12:35 ↗ averaging versus reduction uh with

1:12:38 ↗ enhancements uh i think the

1:12:40 ↗ they'll uh improve the net gain of the

1:12:43 ↗ the wetland that you're ultimately

1:12:44 ↗ trying to protect

1:12:46 ↗ while still allowing development within

1:12:49 ↗ the the area

1:12:50 ↗ still creating a uh a wildlife corridor

1:12:53 ↗ and and the enhancements with uh with

1:12:55 ↗ with that uh buffer averaging uh so but

1:12:58 ↗ i would uh steer away from the buffer

1:13:01 ↗ reduction thank you

1:13:05 ↗ excellent thank you board member fischer

1:13:07 ↗ uh

1:13:08 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

1:13:10 ↗ thank you chair mr richard serkos i just

1:13:12 ↗ wanted to kind of make my

1:13:14 ↗ uh

1:13:16 ↗ my my state and things are clear i'm

1:13:18 ↗ definitely for

1:13:19 ↗ uh increasing to 100 feet

1:13:22 ↗ and no reductions at all but the

1:13:24 ↗ possibility of averaging and averaging

1:13:27 ↗ with enhancements would would be great

1:13:29 ↗ so

1:13:30 ↗ that's all

1:13:33 ↗ excellent thank you uh commissioner

1:13:35 ↗ zargoza and commissioner voice you have

1:13:37 ↗ the floor

1:13:39 ↗ thank you sure foul and

1:13:41 ↗ so i am for

1:13:43 ↗ buffer

1:13:44 ↗ averaging and reductions only in certain

1:13:48 ↗ certain circumstances i do think you

1:13:49 ↗ could tie it to the performance

1:13:50 ↗ standards and also

1:13:53 ↗ upgraded improvements but i do think

1:13:55 ↗ it's necessary i mean planning is the

1:13:56 ↗ most important thing a city can do

1:13:58 ↗ and we're thinking of as a quad a day as

1:14:00 ↗ it stands and we need to be thinking

1:14:02 ↗ about issaquah in 20 to 30 years and if

1:14:05 ↗ we're not allowing the opportunity for

1:14:07 ↗ redevelopment

1:14:08 ↗ because we're making things so

1:14:09 ↗ restrictive

1:14:10 ↗ um this city is going to find a way like

1:14:12 ↗ any pipe under pressure and then we're

1:14:15 ↗ going to be left with a lot of bad

1:14:17 ↗ decisions and bad up bad choices to make

1:14:20 ↗ in 20 to 30 years because we've

1:14:22 ↗ restricted ourselves so much

1:14:24 ↗ for today

1:14:25 ↗ when the city is going to look a lot

1:14:27 ↗ different in 30 years so i think like i

1:14:29 ↗ said giving us some flexibility

1:14:31 ↗ asking for

1:14:33 ↗ again some of those enhancements we

1:14:35 ↗ could even increase the buffer zone

1:14:37 ↗ but again we need to allow for

1:14:39 ↗ flexibility for future growth and also

1:14:41 ↗ for future redevelopment

1:14:44 ↗ again the city is not going to look like

1:14:46 ↗ how it does today in 30 years

1:14:51 ↗ thank you commissioner voice

1:14:53 ↗ okay question for many are you confused

1:14:56 ↗ yet

1:14:58 ↗ no i i think it the more

1:15:01 ↗ it's great to see some of the ideas per

1:15:03 ↗ from this discussion right everyone has

1:15:06 ↗ a good great viewpoint and it's and our

1:15:08 ↗ job is here really to make you

1:15:10 ↗ understand the pros and cons of each

1:15:11 ↗ policy choice that um that that's out

1:15:14 ↗ there so

1:15:15 ↗ uh

1:15:16 ↗ i think uh greta may have some

1:15:19 ↗ input as well

1:15:20 ↗ um

1:15:22 ↗ she just emailed me i want to make sure

1:15:24 ↗ your

1:15:25 ↗ uh

1:15:26 ↗ point can be made here greta do you want

1:15:29 ↗ to

1:15:30 ↗ make your point

1:15:33 ↗ sure um

1:15:35 ↗ i just wanted to make sure

1:15:38 ↗ there's

1:15:40 ↗ there's more options than just for

1:15:45 ↗ the buffer reduction and the buffer

1:15:47 ↗ averaging you can still have

1:15:50 ↗ buffer mitigation on

1:15:54 ↗ as an option or

1:15:55 ↗ it's always out there right so

1:15:57 ↗ uh if if a development wants to

1:16:00 ↗ impact

1:16:03 ↗ a buffer they have to provide an equal

1:16:06 ↗ or more

1:16:07 ↗ uh amount of a buffer somewhere else in

1:16:10 ↗ that same

1:16:12 ↗ you can apply either that same wetland

1:16:14 ↗ or that same uh watershed

1:16:17 ↗ anyway

1:16:18 ↗ um but i just wanted to make sure that

1:16:21 ↗ that

1:16:23 ↗ you know that

1:16:25 ↗ reduction and averaging are the only

1:16:27 ↗ options for getting a better white lip

1:16:29 ↗ buffer

1:16:35 ↗ so in that example that you just

1:16:37 ↗ explained greta for if i may break it

1:16:40 ↗ down so if you have a hundred foot

1:16:41 ↗ buffer

1:16:42 ↗ you require enhancements uh that's one

1:16:46 ↗ of the the topics that i think that was

1:16:47 ↗ discussed

1:16:48 ↗ but if you were impacting that 100-foot

1:16:51 ↗ buffer

1:16:52 ↗ um

1:16:53 ↗ and it's not a reduction but you you're

1:16:55 ↗ allowed to encroach into the buffer up

1:16:58 ↗ to a certain point of course

1:17:00 ↗ but that can then be

1:17:03 ↗ um

1:17:03 ↗ either averaged out on your property

1:17:05 ↗ through buffer averaging or you could

1:17:07 ↗ have some other opportunity to enhance

1:17:09 ↗ it somewhere else is that

1:17:11 ↗ did we understand your option correctly

1:17:14 ↗ right well buffer averaging is just a

1:17:16 ↗ mathematical um

1:17:20 ↗ operation whereas mitigation you have

1:17:22 ↗ you're you're bound by all the

1:17:24 ↗ performance standards um such as

1:17:27 ↗ planting standards monitoring standards

1:17:31 ↗ and reporting standards

1:17:33 ↗ so there's a little bit more

1:17:36 ↗ restrictions on top of

1:17:39 ↗ offer mitigation

1:17:41 ↗ as opposed to averaging

1:17:45 ↗ yeah

1:17:45 ↗ so what i'm saying

1:17:48 ↗ what i'm saying is

1:17:50 ↗ you can do away with reduction in

1:17:52 ↗ averaging and i don't think anyone's

1:17:54 ↗ gonna complain maybe the developers

1:17:56 ↗ might complain but you will still have

1:17:59 ↗ the buffer mitigation

1:18:01 ↗ component of your code

1:18:06 ↗ so it sounds like a can of worms at this

1:18:08 ↗ point because we have

1:18:10 ↗ if we

1:18:13 ↗ we allow mitigation

1:18:15 ↗ then

1:18:16 ↗ if someone wants to cut into the buffer

1:18:19 ↗ and they don't want to do

1:18:20 ↗ uh buffer averaging

1:18:22 ↗ and they don't want to

1:18:25 ↗ basically they're doing buffer reduction

1:18:26 ↗ but they're going to

1:18:28 ↗ pay that forward in some other area of

1:18:31 ↗ the

1:18:33 ↗ in issaquah

1:18:36 ↗ i can understand that might be

1:18:38 ↗ okay in some

1:18:42 ↗ buffer zones but other buffer zones

1:18:44 ↗ might be too critical or too important

1:18:46 ↗ to do that with so now

1:18:49 ↗ we're there's a whole new matrix or

1:18:51 ↗ criteria that says

1:18:53 ↗ well you could do it in this type of

1:18:55 ↗ buffer zone but you may not want to do

1:18:56 ↗ it in this type of buffer zone like is

1:18:58 ↗ aqua creek we don't want to

1:19:00 ↗ reduce the buffers anymore on naziqua

1:19:02 ↗ creek because there's already houses

1:19:04 ↗ built on the creek

1:19:06 ↗ so if a developer was to come in and

1:19:08 ↗ they wanted to do buffer averaging or

1:19:10 ↗ buffer reduction

1:19:11 ↗ and they want to expand onto

1:19:14 ↗ you know somewhere else down there in

1:19:15 ↗ lake samantha then that's kind of

1:19:16 ↗ defeating the purpose

1:19:19 ↗ but if they had a non-fish bearing

1:19:22 ↗ wetland

1:19:24 ↗ they could cut into that buffer and

1:19:25 ↗ maybe add it to

1:19:27 ↗ a part of the state park or add it or

1:19:29 ↗ not to the state park but add it to the

1:19:31 ↗ lake some amish area or to the iseq

1:19:33 ↗ creek area but how would they do that

1:19:36 ↗ they'd be buying into a trusts or a lan

1:19:40 ↗ development

1:19:42 ↗ right yeah there are mechanisms for

1:19:44 ↗ doing that um

1:19:47 ↗ but you could you could set your

1:19:48 ↗ parameters however you want you could

1:19:50 ↗ you could say

1:19:51 ↗ we only want mitigation on-site

1:19:54 ↗ or you could say

1:19:56 ↗ within the same watershed or you can say

1:19:58 ↗ within the same wetland complex but

1:20:00 ↗ maybe off-site

1:20:02 ↗ um so you can set it how whatever makes

1:20:04 ↗ sense

1:20:05 ↗ for your situation

1:20:09 ↗ i can see that being a case-by-case

1:20:11 ↗ basis because it depends on the wetland

1:20:13 ↗ quality of atlanta and the importance of

1:20:15 ↗ the wetland

1:20:16 ↗ true but you could you could say

1:20:18 ↗ um

1:20:20 ↗ for a category for wetland you can do

1:20:24 ↗ mitigation off-site er in lieu uh at a

1:20:27 ↗ mitigation bank but for any category one

1:20:30 ↗ or two wetlands you can't do that

1:20:34 ↗ okay that sounds better

1:20:37 ↗ because that's

1:20:38 ↗ that's a giving that's to jason's point

1:20:40 ↗ it's giving developers options and

1:20:43 ↗ flexibility

1:20:44 ↗ where it's not so critical

1:20:46 ↗ and to

1:20:48 ↗ uh commissioner fish

1:20:50 ↗ finches and um

1:20:54 ↗ davidson's point

1:20:55 ↗ of being more restrictive and in

1:20:59 ↗ protecting the environment to

1:21:01 ↗ board member walls point so

1:21:06 ↗ i

1:21:07 ↗ i think that's a golden opportunity but

1:21:09 ↗ how as a commission are we going to

1:21:12 ↗ decide that tonight

1:21:15 ↗ yeah i think tonight we're just looking

1:21:16 ↗ for um guidance so i think what we can

1:21:20 ↗ do tonight uh accomplish tonight is

1:21:22 ↗ eliminate the options that we don't need

1:21:24 ↗ to spend time recreating i think the

1:21:26 ↗ buffer reductions there was less support

1:21:29 ↗ for but there may be one or two folks

1:21:31 ↗ that may

1:21:32 ↗ want to keep that on the table um

1:21:35 ↗ the uh the other thing i think is out of

1:21:37 ↗ option one and

1:21:39 ↗ uh three there's more it sounds like

1:21:42 ↗ there's more support for option one if

1:21:44 ↗ we can just kind of take a tally and how

1:21:46 ↗ many people are in support of one or

1:21:48 ↗ three that we laid out to you

1:21:50 ↗ and then uh the exploration of doing

1:21:52 ↗ mitigation i think we can we've got

1:21:55 ↗ enough in order to give you more

1:21:56 ↗ detailed language for the code that can

1:22:00 ↗ give you more examples when we bring in

1:22:01 ↗ our first draft so we don't have to nail

1:22:03 ↗ it down tonight but we're seeking for

1:22:07 ↗ larger

1:22:08 ↗ guidance so that we don't spend time

1:22:10 ↗ crafting code language for something

1:22:11 ↗ that you there's completely no interest

1:22:13 ↗ or guidance on um

1:22:16 ↗ so that i think if you can accomplish

1:22:18 ↗ that

1:22:19 ↗ you take a vote on

1:22:20 ↗ are there people still interested in

1:22:22 ↗ buffer reduction

1:22:24 ↗ or just some more flexibility whether

1:22:26 ↗ it's buffer averaging this mitigation

1:22:30 ↗ proposal that greta had

1:22:33 ↗ we can we can get more

1:22:35 ↗ crafty with details and proposals for

1:22:37 ↗ you uh when we come back to

1:22:39 ↗ with some code language how would you

1:22:41 ↗ like us to uh

1:22:43 ↗ vote or send you our

1:22:46 ↗ show of hands maybe anyone for buffer

1:22:49 ↗ reduction

1:22:55 ↗ can i just make a comment yeah

1:22:58 ↗ are you able to see that in the chat

1:23:00 ↗ sometimes it doesn't show up

1:23:03 ↗ um so i just want to say that um i

1:23:06 ↗ support everybody with a hundred percent

1:23:09 ↗ um

1:23:10 ↗ buffer 100 100 footage buffer

1:23:13 ↗ with the buffer enhancements

1:23:16 ↗ and um

1:23:18 ↗ and then i also

1:23:20 ↗ uh see what jason is saying about the

1:23:22 ↗ equity and um

1:23:25 ↗ so i'm what i'm hoping is that

1:23:28 ↗ this will encourage when there's less

1:23:30 ↗ space and it's already happening in

1:23:31 ↗ issaquah i'll encourage people to build

1:23:34 ↗ upwards

1:23:36 ↗ um with both housing and parking

1:23:40 ↗ rather than outwards so when i first

1:23:42 ↗ moved here in 1984

1:23:44 ↗ um we weren't allowed to even have a

1:23:47 ↗ two-story building as i recall so it

1:23:50 ↗ everything's sprawled out

1:23:52 ↗ and there's a lot more room

1:23:54 ↗ to go up which i think is going to help

1:23:56 ↗ with equity

1:23:59 ↗ so i liked your um idea minnie

1:24:03 ↗ that we

1:24:05 ↗ we add one one more thing which is

1:24:08 ↗ keep it 100 foot and then add the

1:24:11 ↗ enhancements to protect the aquatic life

1:24:15 ↗ the buffer enhancements

1:24:18 ↗ thank you

1:24:23 ↗ okay so

1:24:24 ↗ you want to show a hands mini so we can

1:24:27 ↗ wrap this one up

1:24:28 ↗ sure so i think we um we did the um the

1:24:32 ↗ reduction so some flexibility with

1:24:34 ↗ buffer averaging whether it's through

1:24:36 ↗ averaging or the proposal that greta

1:24:38 ↗ explained we can you know look at that

1:24:40 ↗ so i think should we explore more

1:24:43 ↗ flexibility as long as there's a net

1:24:46 ↗ gain for the environment and flexibility

1:24:48 ↗ for the development

1:24:50 ↗ show of hands on that

1:24:55 ↗ so it seems like we have a pretty good

1:24:57 ↗ consensus on that so what was the

1:24:59 ↗ question

1:25:00 ↗ the question was if

1:25:03 ↗ um

1:25:04 ↗ we want to have allow

1:25:05 ↗ some flexibility whether it's through

1:25:07 ↗ buffer averaging or the proposal that

1:25:10 ↗ greta explained about mitigation in it

1:25:13 ↗ and it could vary we can get nuanced

1:25:15 ↗ with what that flexibility looks like

1:25:17 ↗ but having some flexibility which is not

1:25:19 ↗ buffer reduction

1:25:23 ↗ as a straight go that'll lead to a net

1:25:26 ↗ gain for enhancement

1:25:28 ↗ uh and provide flexibility for

1:25:30 ↗ development

1:25:31 ↗ depending upon the

1:25:33 ↗ buffer area

1:25:35 ↗ correct we'll get to the nuances through

1:25:37 ↗ our code language yeah we don't need to

1:25:39 ↗ get into

1:25:40 ↗ uh sorting out all the nuances but but i

1:25:43 ↗ think at a general policy level do you

1:25:45 ↗ want us to come back with some good

1:25:47 ↗ uh options

1:25:49 ↗ that gives more flexibility through

1:25:51 ↗ buffer averaging or the proposal that

1:25:54 ↗ greta just explained

1:25:57 ↗ significant number of hands on that last

1:25:58 ↗ one yeah

1:26:00 ↗ so and then the last thing i think is

1:26:02 ↗ the 100 foot with enhancement option

1:26:05 ↗ that you all discussed and came up with

1:26:07 ↗ which is different than the third three

1:26:09 ↗ options we had laid out which was the

1:26:11 ↗ 100 foot without the enhancement

1:26:13 ↗ but it seemed like you all

1:26:15 ↗ had a good discussion and

1:26:17 ↗ wanted 100 feet with enhancement if we

1:26:19 ↗ can get a show of hands for that

1:26:21 ↗ proposal

1:26:26 ↗ so like on my screen i see one two three

1:26:29 ↗ four five six seven eight

1:26:32 ↗ and folks that don't have their camera

1:26:35 ↗ on

1:26:36 ↗ can't tell but

1:26:38 ↗ um

1:26:39 ↗ someone just showed up

1:26:41 ↗ okay

1:26:42 ↗ so majority of you uh for that option

1:26:46 ↗ okay

1:26:47 ↗ so i think

1:26:48 ↗ at this stage of our code uh preparation

1:26:52 ↗ i think we've got guidance on the

1:26:53 ↗ aquatic critical areas uh obviously this

1:26:56 ↗ is not a done deal if you have other

1:26:59 ↗ questions or thoughts we have support

1:27:02 ↗ you know already have any detailed

1:27:03 ↗ questions you're confused about

1:27:04 ↗ something please reach out to me we want

1:27:06 ↗ to make sure we we give you all the

1:27:08 ↗ information that you need to make an

1:27:10 ↗ informed decision on this

1:27:14 ↗ excellent thank you minnie let's go

1:27:15 ↗ ahead and move on to geohazard and

1:27:18 ↗ critical areas

1:27:19 ↗ yes um

1:27:21 ↗ so kristen do you have the slide

1:27:24 ↗ up

1:27:26 ↗ i think we got very clear guidance from

1:27:28 ↗ you on

1:27:29 ↗ um on your written responses i think

1:27:32 ↗ that was really encouraging to read some

1:27:33 ↗ of uh the creative thinking of um

1:27:37 ↗ you know what i read in there was um

1:27:40 ↗ you know some examples of when you

1:27:42 ↗ thought larger buffers should apply so

1:27:44 ↗ those were really good you gave us some

1:27:46 ↗ guidance on when to incentivize over um

1:27:49 ↗ lower impact hillside development uh we

1:27:52 ↗ heard clear loud and clear

1:27:54 ↗ no tall retaining walls um

1:27:57 ↗ we did and you know you do understand

1:27:59 ↗ that some of these geotechnical things

1:28:00 ↗ have to be case by case so there was

1:28:02 ↗ validation of that will need to be done

1:28:05 ↗ through geotechnical analysis of each

1:28:07 ↗ development proposal

1:28:09 ↗ we heard some concerns about mapping

1:28:11 ↗ inventory primarily for cost concerns so

1:28:13 ↗ i think that those were our key

1:28:16 ↗ takeaways from your survey results

1:28:19 ↗ and we shared our proposed update

1:28:21 ↗ approach with you previously

1:28:23 ↗ we do have our technical expert jim

1:28:26 ↗ johnson you had some great questions for

1:28:28 ↗ him last time so he's here if you have

1:28:29 ↗ any further questions to answer those

1:28:32 ↗ um but but really what we're looking for

1:28:34 ↗ is

1:28:35 ↗ um

1:28:36 ↗ you know are we on track of meeting the

1:28:38 ↗ golden outcomes chart

1:28:40 ↗ uh with the proposed approach that we've

1:28:42 ↗ shared with you

1:28:44 ↗ so you can take off the screen for this

1:28:46 ↗ one

1:28:47 ↗ kristen thank you

1:28:56 ↗ okay and so minnie do you want me to

1:29:01 ↗ yeah i think one approach would be to uh

1:29:03 ↗ if anyone has any questions they can ask

1:29:06 ↗ that um and jim johnson's here you can

1:29:09 ↗ then take public comments on it and then

1:29:11 ↗ you can just do a deliberation of if you

1:29:14 ↗ uh think of any ideas that we've missed

1:29:16 ↗ let us know

1:29:17 ↗ okay that was really short presentation

1:29:20 ↗ i was expecting more

1:29:21 ↗ yeah i think we've done a lot of

1:29:23 ↗ presentations the purpose of this

1:29:24 ↗ meeting is really to listen to you all

1:29:27 ↗ um so

1:29:28 ↗ i understood okay so let's go ahead and

1:29:30 ↗ open up to uh commissioner questions

1:29:38 ↗ i'll give it a couple a minute here

1:29:49 ↗ and commissioner our board member

1:29:51 ↗ davidson

1:29:53 ↗ down the floor

1:29:54 ↗ i just have a quick question i know that

1:29:56 ↗ in our last conversation about this um

1:29:59 ↗ there was a conversation about a

1:30:01 ↗ landslide that happened in dallas and

1:30:03 ↗ has there ever been a code that has

1:30:04 ↗ required a developer that's working in a

1:30:08 ↗ hazard area such as a geologic hazard

1:30:10 ↗ area to require that they have insurance

1:30:13 ↗ or some kind of bond uh substantial out

1:30:16 ↗ there so that you know to basically hold

1:30:18 ↗ the city and keep it for a period of

1:30:21 ↗ time so the city's not

1:30:22 ↗ um left-hand

1:30:24 ↗ um handling this in case there is a

1:30:25 ↗ failure of some sort

1:30:27 ↗ yeah we've noted that comment so we'll

1:30:29 ↗ be working with our city attorney to

1:30:30 ↗ come up with some mechanism uh in the

1:30:33 ↗ code that requires that

1:30:41 ↗ all right and thank you very much board

1:30:42 ↗ member davidson looks like she's the

1:30:44 ↗ only

1:30:45 ↗ comment at the moment so let's go ahead

1:30:47 ↗ and open up to public comment

1:30:51 ↗ kristen do we have any members from the

1:30:52 ↗ public

1:30:54 ↗ like to speak tonight

1:30:57 ↗ yes

1:30:58 ↗ uh connie marsh would like to speak and

1:31:00 ↗ if anyone else would like to speak

1:31:01 ↗ please raise your hand but in the

1:31:02 ↗ meantime connie i will move you over

1:31:13 ↗ bonnie you are a panelist and you can

1:31:14 ↗ you've already done it

1:31:17 ↗ so that was interesting because you

1:31:20 ↗ you were asking us to agree to a

1:31:22 ↗ proposal but you didn't i wasn't clear

1:31:24 ↗ on what your proposal was

1:31:26 ↗ so out here in the world i have no idea

1:31:28 ↗ what you're talking about but i can tell

1:31:30 ↗ you the things that make me crazy about

1:31:32 ↗ our geotech

1:31:34 ↗ we allow uh we have a 50-foot buffer

1:31:37 ↗ standard for steep slopes and we allow a

1:31:41 ↗ reduction to a

1:31:43 ↗ foot steep slope buffer with a critical

1:31:46 ↗ area study and so

1:31:48 ↗ um

1:31:49 ↗ we're pretty easy about our reduction to

1:31:52 ↗ a 10 foot

1:31:54 ↗ buffer instead of a 50 foot buffer

1:31:56 ↗ and uh

1:31:58 ↗ the answer to that needs to be just no

1:32:01 ↗ way

1:32:02 ↗ there is no way that a 10-foot buffer is

1:32:04 ↗ appropriate on the

1:32:06 ↗ remaining land that people are trying to

1:32:08 ↗ develop especially if it's greenfield

1:32:10 ↗ development and it only causes problems

1:32:13 ↗ so

1:32:13 ↗ if your proposal is that you are going

1:32:17 ↗ to say

1:32:18 ↗ 50 foot steep slope buffer

1:32:22 ↗ with some much

1:32:25 ↗ larger

1:32:26 ↗ flexibility like down to

1:32:29 ↗ 30 foot buffer with a 50 foot setback i

1:32:33 ↗ might not dislike that so much if you

1:32:36 ↗ are also adding information on things

1:32:40 ↗ that are not steep slopes but things

1:32:43 ↗ that are erosion hazard and landslide

1:32:46 ↗ hazard areas that do not meet the steep

1:32:49 ↗ slope buffer criteria

1:32:52 ↗ then i would be interested in seeing how

1:32:54 ↗ we are protecting those and also

1:32:57 ↗ protecting the trees and the vegetation

1:32:59 ↗ that keep those slopes in place

1:33:02 ↗ along with the water that combines with

1:33:05 ↗ these steep slopes in order to make our

1:33:08 ↗ landslide hazards and so

1:33:12 ↗ because maybe i should have read it but

1:33:14 ↗ i didn't i don't know what you're

1:33:15 ↗ proposing

1:33:17 ↗ those are the things that need to be

1:33:20 ↗ in there we can no longer

1:33:22 ↗ grade and create retaining walls that

1:33:25 ↗ homeowners associations and the

1:33:27 ↗ community is responsible for maintaining

1:33:30 ↗ to the millions of dollars

1:33:32 ↗ over time we have to learn how to build

1:33:34 ↗ with the land and um and

1:33:38 ↗ drain with the land and keep our slopes

1:33:42 ↗ with the land and that will help

1:33:44 ↗ alleviate all of our steep slope hazards

1:33:47 ↗ many of our geotech

1:33:49 ↗ issues so again this is probably more

1:33:52 ↗ overarching and holistic than you had

1:33:56 ↗ discussed but it is the way i look at

1:33:59 ↗ our city

1:34:00 ↗ thank you

1:34:07 ↗ no one else has signed up or has asked

1:34:09 ↗ to speak

1:34:10 ↗ okay thank you

1:34:12 ↗ kristen and so let's go ahead and open

1:34:14 ↗ up to commissioner um

1:34:17 ↗ comments and debate

1:34:19 ↗ and so let's go ahead and

1:34:22 ↗ yeah comments or questions

1:34:24 ↗ pop them in there and commissioner

1:34:26 ↗ milligan you have the floor

1:34:30 ↗ make a chair fall don't mind being first

1:34:32 ↗ this time

1:34:33 ↗ anybody who knows me this is one of my

1:34:35 ↗ favorite topics

1:34:36 ↗ i found this

1:34:38 ↗ there's another reason why i didn't do

1:34:40 ↗ the survey is that i found that the

1:34:43 ↗ options made available to us did not

1:34:46 ↗ seem like appropriate alternatives or

1:34:48 ↗ didn't seem like uh you know solutionary

1:34:51 ↗ do you want to do this or that well this

1:34:54 ↗ isn't an or that and then there's so

1:34:56 ↗ many others i'll just point out a couple

1:34:59 ↗ of things i just think this needs a

1:35:00 ↗ little bit more work um one question

1:35:03 ↗ number 14 in the survey should other

1:35:05 ↗ environmentally aesthetic alternatives

1:35:08 ↗ to child vertical retaining walls

1:35:11 ↗ be incorporated into the land use code

1:35:14 ↗ okay well i'm glad that um it seems to

1:35:16 ↗ be interpreted that people don't want

1:35:18 ↗ tall retaining walls yeah we don't want

1:35:20 ↗ tall retaining walls

1:35:22 ↗ i for one like the speaker and the from

1:35:24 ↗ the public would rather have us build

1:35:26 ↗ with the land i don't want another

1:35:29 ↗ environmentally aesthetic alternative

1:35:32 ↗ i would rather have people build with

1:35:34 ↗ the land if there's a hill build with

1:35:37 ↗ the hill if there's a steep slope stay

1:35:38 ↗ away from it anyway i didn't think that

1:35:40 ↗ the options were

1:35:42 ↗ were useful to me here's another one um

1:35:45 ↗ when engineered slopes or walls are

1:35:46 ↗ created to meet the steep slope definite

1:35:50 ↗ mission should they be required how

1:35:51 ↗ critical why are we allowing engineered

1:35:54 ↗ slopes or walls to be created i mean the

1:35:56 ↗ whole premise was something that i

1:35:58 ↗ wasn't for so how can i answer that

1:35:59 ↗ question

1:36:01 ↗ i you know you guys

1:36:02 ↗ people who know me you just opened up a

1:36:04 ↗ pandora's box i'm just gonna go with it

1:36:07 ↗ number 17

1:36:08 ↗ should development applications be

1:36:10 ↗ allowed to regrade existing steep slopes

1:36:14 ↗ to a more a stable configuration no i

1:36:16 ↗ think we're trying to say we don't want

1:36:18 ↗ to change the topography and we worked

1:36:22 ↗ on this several years ago we changed the

1:36:24 ↗ language and i hope it doesn't revert

1:36:26 ↗ we

1:36:27 ↗ we

1:36:28 ↗ improved it a little bit we do not want

1:36:30 ↗ substantial changes to our topography

1:36:33 ↗ period

1:36:35 ↗ and if if we're going to be making some

1:36:37 ↗ changes now i'm just putting lay it down

1:36:40 ↗ please help me

1:36:42 ↗ find a way to not go backwards but to go

1:36:45 ↗ forwards on that initiative and to be

1:36:49 ↗ less manipulative of our environment and

1:36:51 ↗ to be more uh integrated with it in our

1:36:54 ↗ building

1:36:57 ↗ that's it it's so scary going first you

1:36:59 ↗ know you guys could all disagree with me

1:37:00 ↗ but uh that's me that's who i am bye

1:37:04 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan uh so i

1:37:07 ↗ have a comment uh that's kind of in line

1:37:10 ↗ with uh commissioner milligan i agree

1:37:12 ↗ with her on all these fronts

1:37:14 ↗ when looking at issaquah

1:37:16 ↗ looking at squawk mountain specifically

1:37:20 ↗ squawk mountain all the properties in

1:37:22 ↗ squawk mountain are built

1:37:24 ↗ the only way to build anything new is

1:37:26 ↗ either one to tear something down or to

1:37:28 ↗ buy a lot that is vacant

1:37:30 ↗ the lots that are vacant are vacant for

1:37:32 ↗ a reason no one's been able to build

1:37:34 ↗ anything on it because there's on steep

1:37:36 ↗ slopes

1:37:38 ↗ if we

1:37:41 ↗ ease

1:37:42 ↗ the requirements for steep slopes and

1:37:44 ↗ allow people to build on some of these

1:37:46 ↗ properties and i'm i look at these

1:37:49 ↗ properties i you can walk right past

1:37:51 ↗ them

1:37:53 ↗ there are landslides waiting to happen

1:37:55 ↗ i mean they've got water oozing out the

1:37:56 ↗ sides there's really lush ferns ferns

1:37:59 ↗ are growing on the side of the slope for

1:38:01 ↗ a reason

1:38:02 ↗ it's because they get a lot of water so

1:38:04 ↗ i i think at this point

1:38:07 ↗ there really isn't any property left on

1:38:10 ↗ squawk mountain that fits the definition

1:38:13 ↗ of it's buildable if it isn't already

1:38:16 ↗ built it's not really buildable so we

1:38:18 ↗ shouldn't be having a conversation about

1:38:20 ↗ having

1:38:21 ↗ um reducing steep slopes the the

1:38:24 ↗ mitigation around steep slopes i think

1:38:25 ↗ we should leave it

1:38:27 ↗ as it is and leave the 50-foot buffer

1:38:31 ↗ in place we shouldn't be allowing people

1:38:33 ↗ to

1:38:35 ↗ go from 50 feet to 10 feet because we're

1:38:37 ↗ going to build a retaining wall

1:38:39 ↗ retaining walls are man-made they fail

1:38:42 ↗ and they're expensive to maintain and

1:38:45 ↗ we're going to find that out the hard

1:38:46 ↗ way when king the king county wood wall

1:38:48 ↗ is going to fall down and we're going to

1:38:50 ↗ have to pay for it

1:38:51 ↗ but

1:38:52 ↗ uh

1:38:53 ↗ right off of newport is a developed

1:38:56 ↗ proposed development across from the

1:38:57 ↗ school

1:38:58 ↗ where they want to cut into the hillside

1:39:02 ↗ so where's the

1:39:03 ↗ buffer in that there is no buffer

1:39:05 ↗ they're actually cutting into the

1:39:07 ↗ hillside 20 feet and going up 50 feet

1:39:11 ↗ which means there's actually 50 feet of

1:39:13 ↗ mountain is going to be cut out so that

1:39:14 ↗ they could put in a development

1:39:16 ↗ i i think we need to have this

1:39:18 ↗ conversation i am absolutely not for

1:39:21 ↗ uh reducing the buffer

1:39:26 ↗ and uh i

1:39:28 ↗ looks like we have a

1:39:30 ↗ question or comment from um

1:39:32 ↗ board member finch

1:39:35 ↗ thank you cheerful jamie finch speaking

1:39:38 ↗ um i'm not go going to go into the

1:39:40 ↗ specifics of of the questions here i

1:39:42 ↗ just i think

1:39:44 ↗ taking a step back

1:39:46 ↗ and this echoes some of the other

1:39:47 ↗ comments that have been made

1:39:49 ↗ as i look to the future of squad what i

1:39:51 ↗ hope for where our development is focus

1:39:52 ↗ is the places that are already developed

1:39:55 ↗ will continue to get more dense and that

1:39:57 ↗ we find the majority of

1:39:59 ↗ future

1:40:00 ↗ whether it's low income regular income

1:40:03 ↗ alt whatever housing that we find is

1:40:05 ↗ primarily sourced from the existing

1:40:07 ↗ developed land and so i think

1:40:10 ↗ a lot of what it's not just this section

1:40:12 ↗ but

1:40:13 ↗ this section stands out

1:40:15 ↗ because it kind of goes in conflict with

1:40:18 ↗ our desire to keep

1:40:19 ↗ development to the forest or to the

1:40:21 ↗ valley floor and keep it off of

1:40:24 ↗ the steep slopes around the valley

1:40:26 ↗ so i do think that

1:40:28 ↗ as we think about

1:40:30 ↗ our direction on this

1:40:31 ↗ um i would

1:40:33 ↗ propose anything that we're doing that

1:40:35 ↗ focuses development in areas that are

1:40:36 ↗ already disturbed and obviously there's

1:40:38 ↗ there's a there's exceptions to that but

1:40:40 ↗ um

1:40:42 ↗ that focus development on areas that are

1:40:43 ↗ already disturbed in the places that we

1:40:45 ↗ have stated as a city that we want to

1:40:47 ↗ have development which is on the valley

1:40:50 ↗ floor so

1:40:51 ↗ obviously there's there's other hazards

1:40:53 ↗ other critical areas on the valley floor

1:40:54 ↗ so that's easier said than done

1:40:56 ↗ but but that would be my take as a

1:40:59 ↗ kind of a higher level on this question

1:41:01 ↗ thank

1:41:02 ↗ you excellent thank you board member

1:41:05 ↗ finch and board member uh mcwilliams

1:41:09 ↗ thank you chair um echoing on your

1:41:12 ↗ comment chair fall um

1:41:14 ↗ i i agree with you that we should have

1:41:16 ↗ setbacks on steep slopes and not reduce

1:41:18 ↗ them but you mentioned something that

1:41:20 ↗ kind of alerted me of cutting into

1:41:22 ↗ slopes to build roadways and whatnot to

1:41:24 ↗ get

1:41:25 ↗ ingress egress up there so how does that

1:41:28 ↗ play into this because i don't see that

1:41:30 ↗ anywhere in the code that defines that

1:41:33 ↗ mini is is there something in the code

1:41:35 ↗ that talks about cutting into hillsides

1:41:39 ↗ um you know i

1:41:42 ↗ jim do you want to take that one

1:41:49 ↗ all right just unmuted

1:41:50 ↗ um

1:41:53 ↗ so the code does not really

1:41:54 ↗ differentiate

1:41:56 ↗ specifically about cuts

1:41:58 ↗ what it does talk about is what you can

1:42:01 ↗ do

1:42:02 ↗ within the critical areas either making

1:42:04 ↗ a cut in a steep slope

1:42:06 ↗ or a cut in a landslide area

1:42:09 ↗ and how it addresses that is it talks

1:42:11 ↗ about whether the cut can be stable or

1:42:13 ↗ not

1:42:15 ↗ so it doesn't really say you can't make

1:42:17 ↗ cuts it just means it just

1:42:19 ↗ the code addresses the stability of

1:42:22 ↗ those cuts

1:42:25 ↗ thank you

1:42:27 ↗ yeah the other thing i would add to it

1:42:29 ↗ is i think the questions that we had

1:42:31 ↗ posed was which you all had really good

1:42:35 ↗ feedback on was when in what

1:42:37 ↗ circumstances should the buffers be

1:42:40 ↗ increased i think a discussion today is

1:42:41 ↗ you don't want to decrease them i think

1:42:43 ↗ that may be

1:42:44 ↗ [Music]

1:42:45 ↗ a little bit of takeaway but i think

1:42:47 ↗ what i read

1:42:49 ↗ in your responses for

1:42:52 ↗ examples of times when the buffer should

1:42:54 ↗ be larger than 50 feet so let me read a

1:42:56 ↗ couple of uh answers here you said if

1:42:59 ↗ the if it's at the top of a steep slope

1:43:02 ↗ uh the other one i think you said if

1:43:04 ↗ they're um you know we're going to get a

1:43:07 ↗ lot of rainstorms and um with the

1:43:10 ↗ climate change so therefore keep that in

1:43:12 ↗ mind as you consider increasing the the

1:43:16 ↗ the setbacks

1:43:17 ↗ um the other one i think was uh where

1:43:20 ↗ there's more fire uh hazards um and such

1:43:23 ↗ things of that nature or where there's a

1:43:26 ↗ landslide potential so i think that

1:43:29 ↗ that gives us a little bit of guidance

1:43:30 ↗ on on at times when more than 50 feet

1:43:33 ↗ maybe perhaps makes more sense um

1:43:37 ↗ um so i think we we did get some

1:43:39 ↗ guidance from you all in terms of some

1:43:41 ↗ examples um to give us some food for

1:43:43 ↗ thought when

1:43:45 ↗ we want to put some language in the code

1:43:47 ↗ for larger buffers

1:43:48 ↗ so i just wanted to point that out

1:43:50 ↗ because i think the discussion was

1:43:51 ↗ focusing on reducing the buffers but the

1:43:53 ↗ question really posed was when do you

1:43:55 ↗ think the buffer should be larger than

1:43:56 ↗ 50 feet

1:44:04 ↗ okay i don't see any more comments or

1:44:06 ↗ questions

1:44:07 ↗ so with that let's go ahead and

1:44:11 ↗ uh commissioner milligan has

1:44:13 ↗ she's waving her hand so she has a

1:44:15 ↗ question or comment

1:44:16 ↗ i'm just waiting for round two

1:44:18 ↗ thank you uh it's so good to hear from

1:44:21 ↗ the fellow commissioners milligan here

1:44:23 ↗ um uh chairfall i did want to uh just

1:44:26 ↗ touch again on your comments about

1:44:28 ↗ squawk mountain and squat mountain can

1:44:31 ↗ in many ways be one of those examples of

1:44:33 ↗ development that happened in the early

1:44:35 ↗ times where people who lived on a house

1:44:37 ↗ on a hill lived on it still lived on a

1:44:40 ↗ hill

1:44:41 ↗ after they built their house

1:44:43 ↗ and i want to point out that

1:44:45 ↗ redevelopment will be a challenge going

1:44:48 ↗ forward especially with communities like

1:44:51 ↗ squawk mountain and i

1:44:53 ↗ had some personal experience on mercer

1:44:55 ↗ island

1:44:56 ↗ and they were rewriting their

1:44:58 ↗ residential code because of

1:45:01 ↗ redevelopment so i think that we can't

1:45:04 ↗ ignore what will happen on squawk

1:45:05 ↗ mountain just because it's already built

1:45:07 ↗ on

1:45:08 ↗ it will be rebuilt on

1:45:11 ↗ so i don't want to neglect it and then

1:45:13 ↗ to something that many just said at our

1:45:16 ↗ previous meeting we talked about whether

1:45:18 ↗ we were recognizing

1:45:20 ↗ slopes because they are steep or because

1:45:24 ↗ they are steep and maybe

1:45:26 ↗ other slopes aren't as steep but they're

1:45:28 ↗ still unstable

1:45:30 ↗ and i think mr johnson said something

1:45:33 ↗ about that last time and i don't

1:45:35 ↗ remember the criteria about how he would

1:45:36 ↗ it would determine it but that would

1:45:38 ↗ broaden the

1:45:40 ↗ areas that would be protected

1:45:42 ↗ and

1:45:43 ↗ i think generally speaking when you look

1:45:44 ↗ for consensus if the consensus is to

1:45:47 ↗ increase our protections

1:45:49 ↗ uh in this and be more vigilant

1:45:54 ↗ yes let's do

1:45:56 ↗ it thank you

1:46:00 ↗ excellent thank you commissioner

1:46:01 ↗ milligan and kudos i

1:46:03 ↗ i second her

1:46:04 ↗ uh that's it for comments on this topic

1:46:07 ↗ here so uh

1:46:09 ↗ any the ball's back in your court great

1:46:12 ↗ uh thank you i think we've covered the

1:46:14 ↗ aquatic critical areas we've covered the

1:46:16 ↗ geological hazardous area so we can

1:46:18 ↗ excuse uh

1:46:20 ↗ jim johnson from this meeting he's

1:46:22 ↗ welcome to stay but

1:46:24 ↗ i want to give him an opportunity i

1:46:25 ↗ think we'll move on to

1:46:27 ↗ discussing

1:46:28 ↗ uh climate change and outdoor with that

1:46:32 ↗ i'm going to turn it over to katie she

1:46:33 ↗ will facilitate that

1:46:35 ↗ those topics

1:46:38 ↗ um kristin i think we'll take the

1:46:40 ↗ sustainability topic first and then do

1:46:42 ↗ outdoor lighting last

1:46:45 ↗ it's well thank you

1:46:47 ↗ um so

1:46:49 ↗ um

1:46:50 ↗ we wanted to give an opportunity to have

1:46:53 ↗ a longer conversation about the climate

1:46:55 ↗ change and sustainability topic it was

1:46:58 ↗ cut a bit short at the july 22nd meeting

1:47:02 ↗ and um i also wanted to acknowledge that

1:47:06 ↗ since july 22nd uh you all have heard

1:47:09 ↗ draft policies from the climate action

1:47:12 ↗ plan but

1:47:14 ↗ that the environmental board has been

1:47:15 ↗ working a lot with that group and that

1:47:18 ↗ also the ppc recently met on those new

1:47:21 ↗ policies so

1:47:23 ↗ um you're aware of a little bit more of

1:47:25 ↗ the direction the climate action plan is

1:47:27 ↗ going and then the title 18 group has

1:47:30 ↗ also been talking with the um cascadia

1:47:34 ↗ consulting

1:47:35 ↗ group that's doing the climate action

1:47:36 ↗ plan so our intention is as as the

1:47:39 ↗ policies become actions and strategies

1:47:42 ↗ that those actions and strategies

1:47:45 ↗ that are focused on title 18 or code

1:47:49 ↗ items

1:47:50 ↗ get pulled into our title 18 update work

1:47:53 ↗ directly and that we're in close

1:47:55 ↗ conversation with that with with um

1:47:58 ↗ the climate action plan folks so that

1:48:00 ↗ their trajectory is that the plan would

1:48:03 ↗ be adopted by the end of the year

1:48:05 ↗ and so it's our hope that we would be

1:48:08 ↗ able to start drafting um

1:48:11 ↗ preparing draft language

1:48:13 ↗ that addressed sustainability throughout

1:48:15 ↗ the code uh earlier in 2022

1:48:19 ↗ but for the purpose of tonight

1:48:22 ↗ um

1:48:23 ↗ we wanted to

1:48:25 ↗ present again some of the areas where

1:48:28 ↗ sustainability and climate

1:48:31 ↗ related

1:48:33 ↗ code set code can appear

1:48:35 ↗ um i have a list here of seven places

1:48:38 ↗ you'll notice that

1:48:40 ↗ two of the number six and seven are

1:48:42 ↗ actually

1:48:44 ↗ green building requirements and storm

1:48:45 ↗ water requirements that are outside of

1:48:48 ↗ title 18

1:48:49 ↗ but from the the survey responses we

1:48:52 ↗ heard that

1:48:54 ↗ um

1:48:55 ↗ the preference was not to have a

1:48:59 ↗ standalone point based system but rather

1:49:02 ↗ to

1:49:03 ↗ incorporate some point-based system but

1:49:05 ↗ also to elevate

1:49:08 ↗ the entire code or or

1:49:10 ↗ to elevate many sections of the code

1:49:13 ↗ to hopefully achieve better

1:49:15 ↗ sustainability results

1:49:17 ↗ so some of the places where that can

1:49:19 ↗ happen um one would be with land use

1:49:22 ↗ codes so this this has to do with

1:49:26 ↗ which uses are allowed in different

1:49:28 ↗ zones where mixed-use development maybe

1:49:31 ↗ is more appropriate um

1:49:34 ↗ mixed-use development helps to

1:49:36 ↗ reduce vehicle trips and

1:49:39 ↗ places housing near services and jobs

1:49:43 ↗ housing density near those services and

1:49:45 ↗ jobs also has climate

1:49:48 ↗ benefits and then

1:49:50 ↗ also looking at areas that may become

1:49:52 ↗ more vulnerable to

1:49:54 ↗ climate impacts as the years

1:49:57 ↗ go go by

1:49:59 ↗ particularly

1:50:00 ↗ thinking about

1:50:02 ↗ wildfire and flood hazards and so

1:50:05 ↗ looking

1:50:07 ↗ at the city of issaquah and trying to

1:50:08 ↗ find those places that could be

1:50:11 ↗ most vulnerable and

1:50:13 ↗ looking to limit the development

1:50:15 ↗ intensity there

1:50:17 ↗ we've talked a lot about critical areas

1:50:19 ↗ protections today but both critical

1:50:21 ↗ areas and tree retention and landscaping

1:50:25 ↗ codes

1:50:26 ↗ help to protect the existing environment

1:50:29 ↗ and to enhance the environment

1:50:33 ↗ and

1:50:34 ↗ also maintain and enhance our tree cover

1:50:36 ↗ and landscaping in general which has

1:50:40 ↗ climate

1:50:41 ↗ carbon sequestration benefits and also

1:50:45 ↗ other benefits to the environment

1:50:48 ↗ numbers four and five have to do with

1:50:51 ↗ electric vehicle charging and then

1:50:53 ↗ multimodal facilities such as bike

1:50:56 ↗ facilities or scooters or other things

1:50:58 ↗ that

1:50:59 ↗ may be

1:51:01 ↗ part of

1:51:03 ↗ requirements for new developments to

1:51:05 ↗ help to

1:51:07 ↗ encourage

1:51:08 ↗ travel that's not

1:51:10 ↗ fossil fuel based

1:51:12 ↗ and then these last two requirements

1:51:15 ↗ green building and green storm water our

1:51:18 ↗ requirements are are both ways to

1:51:22 ↗ to

1:51:23 ↗ reduce energy use and resource use and

1:51:26 ↗ also

1:51:27 ↗ provide better stormwater infiltration

1:51:30 ↗ and blood prevention and water

1:51:33 ↗ cleaning benefits so

1:51:36 ↗ the last two would not obviously be in

1:51:38 ↗ title 18 but um

1:51:40 ↗ part of what we will be doing as the

1:51:43 ↗ climate action plan uh

1:51:45 ↗ comes to a close is working on

1:51:49 ↗ thinking through which of these

1:51:51 ↗ um

1:51:53 ↗ could be required in some sort of

1:51:54 ↗ point-based system

1:51:56 ↗ and

1:51:58 ↗ which would be required for every

1:52:00 ↗ development which possibly

1:52:03 ↗ be

1:52:04 ↗ required an elevated level for

1:52:06 ↗ certain

1:52:08 ↗ incentives or point-based um

1:52:11 ↗ frameworks

1:52:13 ↗ so

1:52:13 ↗ we wanted to

1:52:16 ↗ take questions or comments in general on

1:52:18 ↗ the sustainability and climate change as

1:52:20 ↗ it relates to title 18 but also

1:52:24 ↗ see whether there's anything missing

1:52:26 ↗ from this list or

1:52:28 ↗ if there are items on this list that are

1:52:31 ↗ perhaps of a higher priority than apps

1:52:41 ↗ okay we'll go ahead and open it up to

1:52:44 ↗ commissioner questions

1:52:50 ↗ and our first question is from

1:52:53 ↗ board member don mcquilliams

1:52:58 ↗ hi katie um question for you and you may

1:53:00 ↗ not know the answer to this on number

1:53:02 ↗ seven your green storm water

1:53:03 ↗ infrastructure

1:53:04 ↗ so under the

1:53:06 ↗ current npds your storm water discharge

1:53:08 ↗ permit you're already required to use

1:53:11 ↗ green storm water as your preferred and

1:53:13 ↗ common mechanism when developing so are

1:53:15 ↗ you indicating that you want to go above

1:53:17 ↗ and beyond

1:53:19 ↗ the ecology requirements for this

1:53:24 ↗ you're correct that i'm not a stormwater

1:53:25 ↗ expert but i i know that there are

1:53:28 ↗ different levels of enhancement that can

1:53:30 ↗ go above and beyond the npds guidance

1:53:33 ↗ so we would be looking at you know they

1:53:35 ↗ would need to meet that minimum

1:53:37 ↗ obviously but um

1:53:39 ↗ if there were

1:53:41 ↗ you know there's different um created

1:53:43 ↗ artificially created wetlands that that

1:53:45 ↗ have different benefits than

1:53:47 ↗ stormwater systems that are underground

1:53:50 ↗ for example and some of those

1:53:52 ↗ are not required by code but um

1:53:55 ↗ are options for certain sites that are

1:53:57 ↗ trying to achieve higher levels of

1:53:59 ↗ filtration for water quality reasons

1:54:02 ↗ i'll be interested to see a little more

1:54:03 ↗ on what this point based system would

1:54:05 ↗ look like so maybe chat with your

1:54:07 ↗ stormwater folks and circle back with us

1:54:10 ↗ yeah definitely we'll well we're still

1:54:13 ↗ developing i don't think that the um

1:54:16 ↗ that the specifics of the storm water

1:54:17 ↗ code have been are are under

1:54:20 ↗ consideration right now but i do know

1:54:21 ↗ that the stormwater code

1:54:23 ↗ is going to be updated in in the near

1:54:26 ↗ future

1:54:27 ↗ so that might be coming later

1:54:29 ↗ all right thank you

1:54:37 ↗ and we have a question from board member

1:54:39 ↗ annie newcombe

1:54:43 ↗ thank you this is anne newcomb

1:54:46 ↗ um

1:54:46 ↗ so good job putting this list

1:54:48 ↗ together um

1:54:51 ↗ i've got a question so um i've noticed

1:54:54 ↗ that the hoas have a lot of rules that

1:54:59 ↗ are going to

1:55:01 ↗ make it difficult

1:55:03 ↗ um for us to meet our climate change

1:55:06 ↗ um or

1:55:08 ↗ our climate goals our climate action

1:55:10 ↗ plan goals

1:55:12 ↗ for instance

1:55:13 ↗ you know no um

1:55:15 ↗ inability to

1:55:17 ↗ hang laundry

1:55:18 ↗ and um

1:55:21 ↗ and then also i noticed uh

1:55:24 ↗ there's no irrigation so i'm i'm

1:55:27 ↗ thinking that um

1:55:29 ↗ having

1:55:30 ↗ gray water uh you know go out to water

1:55:34 ↗ people's yards would be helpful

1:55:36 ↗ and um if if the hoas are saying that

1:55:40 ↗ it's not possible then i'm wondering if

1:55:42 ↗ um

1:55:43 ↗ if this gets changed in um title 18

1:55:47 ↗ will the hoas have to comply

1:55:53 ↗ um so the hoa agreements are outside of

1:55:56 ↗ title 18 and the city

1:55:58 ↗ doesn't really have um

1:56:02 ↗ much control over those

1:56:04 ↗ okay but i think that there could

1:56:05 ↗ definitely be

1:56:07 ↗ outreach from the city as as a city

1:56:10 ↗ initiative to try and work with

1:56:11 ↗ different communities to incorporate

1:56:14 ↗ more climate-friendly practices into

1:56:16 ↗ their

1:56:17 ↗ ccnrs

1:56:19 ↗ [Music]

1:56:21 ↗ but i think that at this point the the

1:56:24 ↗ code wouldn't have the ability to go in

1:56:25 ↗ and change hoa rules

1:56:30 ↗ thank you for that

1:56:33 ↗ and then as far as the tree retention

1:56:37 ↗ and landscaping

1:56:38 ↗ requirements

1:56:40 ↗ um i know

1:56:43 ↗ i'm guessing

1:56:45 ↗ that the city of issaquah even though we

1:56:48 ↗ have a 51

1:56:49 ↗ tree canopy which is higher than most

1:56:52 ↗ other

1:56:53 ↗ cities

1:56:55 ↗ i'm guessing that residents are going to

1:56:56 ↗ want to keep that

1:56:58 ↗ um

1:56:59 ↗ so

1:57:00 ↗ i would like to propose that somehow

1:57:03 ↗ there's verbage that says um if you're

1:57:07 ↗ if you're developing you're

1:57:09 ↗ you're needing to cut some trees down

1:57:11 ↗ to

1:57:12 ↗ create something then you need to go

1:57:14 ↗ plant trees someplace else

1:57:17 ↗ in town if that's possible

1:57:22 ↗ yeah thank you for that comment i think

1:57:24 ↗ that's uh definitely

1:57:26 ↗ something that is uh already there's

1:57:29 ↗ already tree replacement um provisions

1:57:33 ↗ in the code but we're looking at

1:57:35 ↗ strengthening those and making sure that

1:57:36 ↗ they work and achieve

1:57:39 ↗ the desired tree academy coverage so

1:57:42 ↗ that's actually the topic of the next

1:57:44 ↗ ppc meeting oh good because i thought i

1:57:47 ↗ read something and i heard somebody say

1:57:49 ↗ with the title 18 that

1:57:52 ↗ we might be losing half of our tree

1:57:55 ↗ canopy or maybe i read it wrong um

1:57:59 ↗ so it's good to hear that if somebody

1:58:01 ↗ develops

1:58:03 ↗ they have to

1:58:05 ↗ replant the trees

1:58:07 ↗ thank you

1:58:10 ↗ all right and thank you very much board

1:58:11 ↗ member newcomb um

1:58:14 ↗ so i have a question regarding

1:58:18 ↗ topic number

1:58:20 ↗ [Music]

1:58:21 ↗ five multimodal facilities commute with

1:58:23 ↗ trip reduction and parking what do we

1:58:26 ↗ have i mean where are we

1:58:30 ↗ what are we looking to

1:58:31 ↗ right now because we have set policies

1:58:34 ↗ that are being developed

1:58:37 ↗ has that been ironed out or is that

1:58:39 ↗ being worked on by the transportation

1:58:41 ↗ board

1:58:46 ↗ so existing in code there are

1:58:48 ↗ requirements for bike parking and

1:58:52 ↗ certain large developments have to have

1:58:54 ↗ commute trip reduction

1:58:56 ↗ programs in place um and also obviously

1:58:59 ↗ there are parking requirements

1:59:01 ↗ what we would be doing um

1:59:04 ↗ after the climate action plan is done is

1:59:06 ↗ looking at these

1:59:08 ↗ regulations and seeing if there are

1:59:10 ↗ places where we can adjust them to

1:59:14 ↗ to be

1:59:16 ↗ um

1:59:18 ↗ to be i guess farther reaching for

1:59:20 ↗ sustainability goals one example

1:59:23 ↗ with parking

1:59:24 ↗ there's a recommendation that

1:59:27 ↗ one way to get more accessory dwelling

1:59:30 ↗ units would be

1:59:31 ↗ to not require

1:59:33 ↗ the adu to have its own parking place

1:59:35 ↗ because that is often a barrier

1:59:37 ↗ if you have to fit another parking place

1:59:39 ↗ on the site so one option would be if

1:59:42 ↗ you wanted to have more adus and that

1:59:44 ↗ that is a barrier to to take away that

1:59:47 ↗ requirement i'm not saying that we're

1:59:49 ↗ proposing that but that's just an

1:59:51 ↗ example of one revision that could have

1:59:53 ↗ to do with parking um

1:59:55 ↗ commute trip reduction goals could be

1:59:58 ↗ could be expanded to not just apply to

2:00:00 ↗ larger projects but

2:00:02 ↗ to apply more broadly in the community

2:00:06 ↗ and some of that may be

2:00:10 ↗ more of a programmatic level that the

2:00:12 ↗ city works on and some of it may be

2:00:14 ↗ connected with um mutual developments

2:00:17 ↗ but i think we haven't worked through

2:00:18 ↗ that yet

2:00:19 ↗ and maybe that would be an opportunity

2:00:21 ↗ to work the transportation board to talk

2:00:24 ↗ through some of those options okay

2:00:26 ↗ my thought was on the commute trip

2:00:28 ↗ reduction is working with partner

2:00:35 ↗ major employers

2:00:40 ↗ employers that hire that hire a

2:00:42 ↗ significant number of employees or

2:00:46 ↗ residents within issaquah like let's say

2:00:48 ↗ microsoft have a partner program with

2:00:49 ↗ them where

2:00:50 ↗ people could work from home or do

2:00:52 ↗ something else or a shuttle

2:00:54 ↗ that would take them to redmond instead

2:00:56 ↗ of having to put all these cars on the

2:00:58 ↗ road

2:00:59 ↗ um

2:01:00 ↗ and then the other part was uh bike

2:01:02 ↗ parking and so on so

2:01:04 ↗ i'm glad to hear that transportation

2:01:06 ↗ board and i think i heard you right is

2:01:08 ↗ going to be working on this and then

2:01:10 ↗ that means policy and planning

2:01:11 ↗ commission we're going to also hear

2:01:12 ↗ about this before it gets moved forward

2:01:17 ↗ without the idea

2:01:19 ↗ well any any changes to the code are

2:01:21 ↗ definitely coming to the planning and

2:01:22 ↗ policy commission

2:01:24 ↗ um

2:01:24 ↗ and

2:01:26 ↗ the example that you mentioned with the

2:01:28 ↗ with the microsoft shuttle that would

2:01:30 ↗ not be part of the title 18 update

2:01:32 ↗ because that

2:01:33 ↗ that code requirement if we're talking

2:01:35 ↗ about microsoft located in

2:01:38 ↗ redmond we wouldn't be able to require

2:01:39 ↗ that of microsoft but if there's a major

2:01:43 ↗ company coming

2:01:45 ↗ issaquah

2:01:47 ↗ for example

2:01:48 ↗ the new costco um

2:01:51 ↗ the new costco corporate building uh you

2:01:54 ↗ know if they were to a certain size they

2:01:56 ↗ would be required it's actually a state

2:01:58 ↗ program that large um

2:02:00 ↗ destinations are required to have

2:02:02 ↗ commute trip reduction measures in place

2:02:05 ↗ so

2:02:07 ↗ i'm not saying

2:02:08 ↗ for the commute part with an employer

2:02:10 ↗ like microsoft completely out of our

2:02:12 ↗ jurisdiction i totally understand that

2:02:16 ↗ but have some sort of program

2:02:19 ↗ where

2:02:20 ↗ the city could reach out to

2:02:22 ↗ the boeings the microsoft's

2:02:25 ↗ the amazons and work out some sort of

2:02:28 ↗ partner program maybe a sister city kind

2:02:30 ↗ of program where

2:02:32 ↗ we work with other city agencies to help

2:02:35 ↗ trip reduction

2:02:37 ↗ by

2:02:39 ↗ motivating

2:02:41 ↗ these organizations

2:02:43 ↗ by through

2:02:45 ↗ um working with us coming up with

2:02:47 ↗ solutions that would help reduce trips

2:02:51 ↗ i think it's a great idea

2:02:55 ↗ not sure who the right person

2:02:57 ↗ i'm not sure that it's part of the title

2:02:59 ↗ 18 update

2:03:01 ↗ um

2:03:02 ↗ but it you know it could be part of the

2:03:04 ↗ climate action plan because that the

2:03:06 ↗ climate action plan touches all levels

2:03:08 ↗ of the city so that could definitely be

2:03:12 ↗ everybody wants to work from home

2:03:14 ↗ that's been a huge benefit and a lot of

2:03:16 ↗ employers are realizing that works so

2:03:19 ↗ um kristin you had a

2:03:21 ↗ well i do i mean for years the city's

2:03:23 ↗ had a program in place where we work

2:03:25 ↗ with employers who have only changed it

2:03:27 ↗ it was to over 75 employees and we go in

2:03:29 ↗ and talk to the employers and work out

2:03:31 ↗ programs with them costco is matter of

2:03:33 ↗ fact the highest

2:03:34 ↗ uh

2:03:35 ↗ vancha program in the entire state

2:03:37 ↗ so we do have it we unfortunately are

2:03:40 ↗ lacking a program manager for that right

2:03:42 ↗ now um but i you know i it's still in

2:03:45 ↗ place i don't know what the monitoring

2:03:47 ↗ is like but but there's something out

2:03:48 ↗ there

2:03:50 ↗ i see

2:03:51 ↗ excellent all right that was my question

2:03:54 ↗ uh looks like we have a

2:03:56 ↗ question from commissioner uh or board

2:03:59 ↗ member davidson

2:04:01 ↗ thank you this is nancy davidson

2:04:04 ↗ and this is just kind of a general

2:04:05 ↗ question how does um artificial turf fit

2:04:07 ↗ into all of this and the reason i'm

2:04:09 ↗ asking that is

2:04:11 ↗ it reduces water consumption

2:04:13 ↗ i know some homeowners associations

2:04:15 ↗ don't allow it

2:04:16 ↗ but it seems like it could touch a lot

2:04:18 ↗ of points

2:04:20 ↗ but i'm not sure how effective it is it

2:04:23 ↗ um recharging aquifers and things like

2:04:25 ↗ that i'm not as familiar with it as i

2:04:27 ↗ probably should be is that an option we

2:04:29 ↗ could be looking at in our landscape

2:04:31 ↗ requirements basically to reduce the

2:04:32 ↗ amount of water that's going on the

2:04:34 ↗ ground or does that in

2:04:36 ↗ exchange reduce the amount of water

2:04:38 ↗ that's getting into the aquifer and thus

2:04:40 ↗ into the wetlands and other places so

2:04:42 ↗ just i just a little curious about that

2:04:47 ↗ you know i don't have a lot of

2:04:48 ↗ experience with artificial turf but i do

2:04:51 ↗ know with the

2:04:52 ↗ new

2:04:53 ↗ sports fields um

2:04:56 ↗ for example the new middle school that

2:04:59 ↗ that had a huge art had a foot you know

2:05:02 ↗ artificial football field and um it has

2:05:05 ↗ significant drainage requirements

2:05:08 ↗ because the the turf doesn't

2:05:10 ↗ soak in the water the same way that

2:05:13 ↗ lawn would so

2:05:16 ↗ it preserves water because you don't

2:05:17 ↗ have to water it but then it also

2:05:19 ↗ doesn't have the same water purification

2:05:22 ↗ and retention um that that a natural

2:05:25 ↗ material would have so i think there's

2:05:27 ↗ definitely pros and cons

2:05:29 ↗ um we haven't considered it but we can

2:05:31 ↗ add that to the list of some something

2:05:34 ↗ it seems to me like that would be an

2:05:36 ↗ interesting thing to at least have in

2:05:38 ↗ your

2:05:39 ↗ pocket for landscape requirements um you

2:05:42 ↗ know

2:05:43 ↗ trying to look at reduce the amount of

2:05:44 ↗ water that's going on turf i know a lot

2:05:46 ↗ of people don't water their lawns but

2:05:49 ↗ it's an option that's sitting out there

2:05:51 ↗ um

2:05:52 ↗ that still provides that kind of

2:05:54 ↗ greenness in a different sort of way

2:05:56 ↗ i've seen it go down very effectively

2:05:58 ↗ but a lot of places don't allow it i'm

2:06:00 ↗ not sure what the city is but i think

2:06:02 ↗ it's something

2:06:04 ↗ i don't know the pros and cons of it but

2:06:06 ↗ it's something to consider there you go

2:06:09 ↗ yeah

2:06:10 ↗ thank you board member davidson and

2:06:12 ↗ board member uh newcomb you have the

2:06:14 ↗ floor

2:06:17 ↗ um

2:06:18 ↗ i would just say that um we would want

2:06:21 ↗ to know what the ingredients are of the

2:06:22 ↗ artificial turf because if they're

2:06:24 ↗ plastic

2:06:25 ↗ that would be

2:06:26 ↗ bad for

2:06:27 ↗ the aquatic life and

2:06:32 ↗ as it goes downstream or even right

2:06:34 ↗ there

2:06:35 ↗ and then also

2:06:37 ↗ it would kill off all the microbes

2:06:39 ↗ underneath the um

2:06:42 ↗ underneath

2:06:43 ↗ and

2:06:44 ↗ um even grass

2:06:47 ↗ all plants sequester carbon

2:06:50 ↗ so um while we might be saving some

2:06:52 ↗ water

2:06:53 ↗ and we would be

2:06:55 ↗ giving up

2:06:56 ↗ some carbon sequestration and

2:06:58 ↗ potentially

2:06:59 ↗ poisoning aquatics with

2:07:02 ↗ plastic

2:07:03 ↗ so that would be my comment on that

2:07:09 ↗ and thank you board member newcomb i you

2:07:11 ↗ took the same question right out of my

2:07:13 ↗ mind or out of my mouth so i was gonna

2:07:14 ↗ ask the same thing

2:07:16 ↗ uh okay so i don't see any more

2:07:19 ↗ questions

2:07:20 ↗ let's go ahead and open up to public

2:07:22 ↗ comment and then we'll come back to uh

2:07:24 ↗ discussion

2:07:29 ↗ i believe we have one person who would

2:07:31 ↗ like to comment one moment please

2:07:41 ↗ honey i think you wanted to speak so i

2:07:43 ↗ made you a panelist yep here i am

2:07:46 ↗ all right so you know i was just

2:07:49 ↗ reading through the agenda and i'm

2:07:51 ↗ confused because

2:07:53 ↗ most of this is not really where i could

2:07:55 ↗ have ever seen to anticipate what i was

2:07:58 ↗ supposed to say

2:08:00 ↗ so

2:08:01 ↗ um here we go

2:08:03 ↗ uh at six and seven on this page talk

2:08:07 ↗ about point baits

2:08:08 ↗ uh based systems

2:08:12 ↗ but

2:08:13 ↗ so i'm gonna say that's like leads to me

2:08:16 ↗ but i don't know what green storm water

2:08:19 ↗ infrastructure is so

2:08:23 ↗ i can't

2:08:25 ↗ comment on that if there is green

2:08:28 ↗ stormwater infrastructure that would

2:08:30 ↗ help our stormwater going into lakes and

2:08:32 ↗ amish and help our

2:08:34 ↗ our streams and fish

2:08:37 ↗ i think it should just be required

2:08:39 ↗ instead of being part of a point based

2:08:42 ↗ system where they could choose to do or

2:08:44 ↗ not

2:08:45 ↗ do that

2:08:48 ↗ and

2:08:48 ↗ green building requirements

2:08:52 ↗ are similar if we want it just ask for

2:08:56 ↗ it

2:08:56 ↗ and then people will know what they have

2:08:59 ↗ to do and they can do a pro forma and

2:09:01 ↗ they can say yeah we can do it or no

2:09:04 ↗ it's too expensive and most developers

2:09:06 ↗ you know what

2:09:07 ↗ they want to build a new sequoia and

2:09:09 ↗ they'll just say okay we know we have to

2:09:10 ↗ do it and so we'll

2:09:12 ↗ we'll just do it

2:09:15 ↗ um the

2:09:17 ↗ tree retention and landscape

2:09:20 ↗ requirements

2:09:22 ↗ um

2:09:23 ↗ again

2:09:24 ↗ i i don't know what those mean so if you

2:09:29 ↗ are saying that we are aiming for

2:09:33 ↗ um

2:09:35 ↗ pre-retention

2:09:37 ↗ that will

2:09:39 ↗ keep

2:09:40 ↗ significant trees and trees that add

2:09:44 ↗ habitat

2:09:46 ↗ uh

2:09:46 ↗ and we will make it so that those need

2:09:49 ↗ to be retained in order to develop

2:09:53 ↗ i agree with that the ability to cut

2:09:56 ↗ down 80 foot dug first

2:10:00 ↗ and plant

2:10:02 ↗ two inch tall dug first at the top of

2:10:05 ↗ lake tradition

2:10:07 ↗ does not play with me

2:10:10 ↗ um it does not serve the same function

2:10:13 ↗ an 80-foot dog fur is a huge thing it's

2:10:16 ↗ a big carbon

2:10:18 ↗ sink it sucks up and treats storm water

2:10:20 ↗ and provides shade so tree retention

2:10:24 ↗ needs to be based upon the function of

2:10:28 ↗ those trees and what they do

2:10:31 ↗ not just a holistic ability to be able

2:10:33 ↗ to remove trees because they are

2:10:35 ↗ inconvenient and plant them elsewhere

2:10:38 ↗ and hope they survive because right now

2:10:41 ↗ we can plant trees elsewhere however

2:10:43 ↗ they we don't know if they get planted

2:10:45 ↗ and we don't know if they live landscape

2:10:47 ↗ requirements are similar

2:10:49 ↗ um in theory they're supposed to be

2:10:52 ↗ uh required in perpetuity

2:10:55 ↗ but

2:10:56 ↗ no one checks to see

2:10:58 ↗ if if landscape requirements are done in

2:11:02 ↗ perpetuity so the the list

2:11:05 ↗ to me

2:11:06 ↗ is is sort of interesting commute trip

2:11:09 ↗ reduction one of the big things is uh

2:11:12 ↗ school trips because we all groan when

2:11:15 ↗ school goes back in session and every

2:11:18 ↗ parent starts driving their kids to

2:11:20 ↗ school

2:11:21 ↗ and that is one of the single largest

2:11:25 ↗ impacts to the street system that we

2:11:27 ↗ have yet that does not fall under

2:11:30 ↗ commute trip reduction because it's too

2:11:33 ↗ it's diffuse right

2:11:35 ↗ and so that's seemingly

2:11:41 ↗ uh

2:11:42 ↗ not addressed in this so rather than

2:11:44 ↗ commute trip reduction for only those

2:11:47 ↗ larger businesses it needs to be some

2:11:50 ↗ sort of goal or program that as a

2:11:55 ↗ community we want to achieve in order to

2:11:58 ↗ make it so that our roads are drivable

2:12:00 ↗ for local people

2:12:03 ↗ and

2:12:04 ↗ um better for the environment and none

2:12:07 ↗ of the language here

2:12:10 ↗ sort of covers the concept of reducing

2:12:14 ↗ congestion

2:12:15 ↗ and making our lives better on a daily

2:12:19 ↗ basis while we lessen our impacts to the

2:12:23 ↗ planet

2:12:24 ↗ so there is a lack of personal

2:12:27 ↗ accountability

2:12:29 ↗ in our climate change and sustainability

2:12:32 ↗ here that

2:12:34 ↗ that um i think is going to be necessary

2:12:37 ↗ if we're going to wait if we're going to

2:12:39 ↗ make any progress toward our goals

2:12:42 ↗ on this it can't be just about

2:12:45 ↗ uh

2:12:47 ↗ them

2:12:48 ↗ it needs to be about all of us

2:12:51 ↗ uh thank you

2:13:05 ↗ okay kristen uh do we have any

2:13:07 ↗ additional

2:13:08 ↗ members of the public

2:13:11 ↗ no one else has raised their hand to

2:13:13 ↗ speak i'll give it a minute though if

2:13:14 ↗ you'd like to speak please raise your

2:13:15 ↗ hand

2:13:22 ↗ no no one else would like to speak at

2:13:24 ↗ this time

2:13:25 ↗ okay excellent uh we're going to open up

2:13:27 ↗ to

2:13:29 ↗ commissioner comments and i saw

2:13:32 ↗ it looks like a commit or a board member

2:13:35 ↗ newcomb uh but i wasn't sure if she had

2:13:37 ↗ a comment or question because it came in

2:13:39 ↗ just as we were transitioning over to

2:13:41 ↗ public comment

2:13:43 ↗ uh support member newcomer you have the

2:13:44 ↗ floor

2:13:46 ↗ awesome thank you this is anne newcomb

2:13:48 ↗ um i would like to suggest that um for

2:13:52 ↗ the green building requirements that

2:13:54 ↗ we ask for five star enviro house

2:13:58 ↗ code minimum

2:14:01 ↗ it's a more holistic approach

2:14:03 ↗ and um and then also

2:14:06 ↗ i got to thinking about the um

2:14:09 ↗ the

2:14:11 ↗ landscaping requirements and it would be

2:14:14 ↗ really nice if we could require that

2:14:16 ↗ people

2:14:18 ↗ use like organic gardening practices and

2:14:21 ↗ don't use

2:14:22 ↗ toxic chemicals on their yards

2:14:27 ↗ and the organic gardening practices will

2:14:29 ↗ sequester more carbon

2:14:31 ↗ as well

2:14:34 ↗ so

2:14:36 ↗ that's it for now

2:14:38 ↗ thanks

2:14:40 ↗ excellent thank you

2:14:44 ↗ board member finch

2:14:46 ↗ have a floor

2:14:48 ↗ thanks cheerful uh this is jamie finch

2:14:51 ↗ um

2:14:53 ↗ i don't see any major gaps in this list

2:14:57 ↗ i do think in terms of

2:14:58 ↗ areas that i would focus in on the most

2:15:01 ↗ uh i mean i think

2:15:03 ↗ land use and the way we develop and

2:15:06 ↗ continue to grow responsibly is probably

2:15:09 ↗ the most important because everything

2:15:11 ↗ that we try to do to reduce the impact

2:15:13 ↗ of climate change and be a sustainable

2:15:15 ↗ community will be centered i think

2:15:17 ↗ around that um so i think that in my

2:15:20 ↗ mind it's number one on this list i

2:15:21 ↗ think it's also number one in terms of

2:15:23 ↗ priority

2:15:24 ↗ uh and then

2:15:26 ↗ the other ones that i would look at as

2:15:28 ↗ other critical areas to focus on

2:15:32 ↗ probably wrong terms given that's one of

2:15:33 ↗ the options uh

2:15:36 ↗ number five number six

2:15:39 ↗ um

2:15:40 ↗ and number two and three obviously kind

2:15:42 ↗ of go hand in hand so i think those are

2:15:43 ↗ those would be kind of in my second tier

2:15:45 ↗ of uh areas that that help assuming that

2:15:49 ↗ we're developing

2:15:51 ↗ responsibly help to ensure that we have

2:15:53 ↗ a vibrant ecosystem as well as

2:15:56 ↗ uh

2:15:57 ↗ the population or the citizens of

2:15:59 ↗ issaquah continue to be able to uh move

2:16:01 ↗ about the city efficiently so as well as

2:16:04 ↗ in homes and buildings that are built

2:16:06 ↗ efficiently so those would be how i

2:16:08 ↗ would prioritize

2:16:10 ↗ from that list thank you

2:16:15 ↗ excellent

2:16:16 ↗ excellent thank you very much board

2:16:17 ↗ member finch

2:16:19 ↗ uh

2:16:20 ↗ commissioner milligan you have the floor

2:16:27 ↗ hi thank you commissioner milligan here

2:16:29 ↗ thank you chair fall

2:16:31 ↗ and thank you for the

2:16:32 ↗ comments to leverage

2:16:35 ↗ just to quickly

2:16:36 ↗ weigh in

2:16:38 ↗ uh number one land use as i said when we

2:16:41 ↗ met before

2:16:42 ↗ the mixed use development and housing

2:16:44 ↗ density is already planned in issaquah

2:16:46 ↗ for the central issaquah plan

2:16:49 ↗ and

2:16:50 ↗ the objective of adding housing density

2:16:54 ↗ to other residential areas the objective

2:16:56 ↗ stated was to reduce vehicle miles

2:16:58 ↗ traveled and it doesn't do it if all

2:17:01 ↗ you've got is houses there

2:17:03 ↗ all right so i reiterate looking at our

2:17:06 ↗ commercial deserts where we have housing

2:17:09 ↗ developments and with um

2:17:13 ↗ plenty of density plenty of people

2:17:15 ↗ living there who can't get anywhere

2:17:17 ↗ either because transportation options

2:17:18 ↗ are limited or they're just simply car

2:17:20 ↗ dependent

2:17:22 ↗ uh and

2:17:23 ↗ to go off of the vehicle miles traveled

2:17:25 ↗ we're talking about the commute trip

2:17:27 ↗ reduction act in this slide and and it

2:17:30 ↗ did seem a little bit

2:17:32 ↗ misplaced to talk about that here

2:17:35 ↗ because it is a state program that's

2:17:36 ↗ already in place what we wanted to do

2:17:38 ↗ was reduce vehicle miles traveled and

2:17:40 ↗ the mobility master plan addresses that

2:17:42 ↗ well and a lot of work went into that i

2:17:45 ↗ think that that

2:17:47 ↗ could provide the direction that we need

2:17:49 ↗ to interpret in our land use code

2:17:52 ↗ a couple of things that come to mind

2:17:53 ↗ there besides

2:17:56 ↗ areas housing areas where there aren't

2:17:58 ↗ any

2:18:00 ↗ services any daily needs services is

2:18:03 ↗ also the placement of our schools

2:18:04 ↗ especially elementary schools

2:18:06 ↗ they can be more dispersed and that can

2:18:08 ↗ reduce vehicle mouse traveled since

2:18:10 ↗ everybody seems to want to drive their

2:18:11 ↗ kids to school

2:18:14 ↗ uh and then i wanted to touch on trees

2:18:17 ↗ and and reiterate and i'm glad to hear

2:18:20 ↗ support here about increasing our tree

2:18:22 ↗ canopy especially in our built

2:18:24 ↗ environment certainly we have a higher

2:18:26 ↗ number and we should have a higher

2:18:28 ↗ number but how do we

2:18:32 ↗ how do we protect and increase our tree

2:18:35 ↗ canopy and our built environment part of

2:18:38 ↗ that goes to

2:18:39 ↗ what our audience member brought up

2:18:42 ↗ is about enforcement how can we

2:18:44 ↗ encourage the city to invest in

2:18:47 ↗ enforcing the standards that we create

2:18:50 ↗ here

2:18:51 ↗ in tree retention

2:18:53 ↗ and even in board member newcomb's

2:18:56 ↗ comment about

2:18:58 ↗ organic requirement of using organic

2:19:00 ↗ materials in our landscaping or even

2:19:03 ↗ native species now this is all doable

2:19:06 ↗ issaquah highlands has these standards

2:19:08 ↗ and they enforce them

2:19:10 ↗ and uh that's a third of issaquah so

2:19:12 ↗ it's it's not infeasible it doesn't stop

2:19:15 ↗ development you know these are things

2:19:17 ↗ that are compatible with development

2:19:19 ↗ yeah over four thousand homes up here

2:19:21 ↗ and very high standards same thing goes

2:19:24 ↗ for

2:19:25 ↗ green building requirements

2:19:27 ↗ increasing our rebuilding requirements

2:19:29 ↗ is not going to stop

2:19:30 ↗ building because

2:19:32 ↗ look because the quahogs look at dallas

2:19:35 ↗ they didn't have a problem with that and

2:19:36 ↗ then i want to

2:19:38 ↗ ask for clarification

2:19:41 ↗ about code and hoa rules if we increase

2:19:46 ↗ the strictness of our code

2:19:50 ↗ do

2:19:51 ↗ hoas need to follow and i saw i don't

2:19:55 ↗ know my screen this way now but i saw

2:19:56 ↗ lucy solomon in the room earlier she

2:19:58 ↗ really knows the answer to this question

2:20:00 ↗ but i understood that hoas could have

2:20:02 ↗ stricter rules

2:20:03 ↗ that hoas could not have

2:20:06 ↗ less strict rules than the city so i

2:20:09 ↗ just wanted to bring that back up

2:20:11 ↗ for um re

2:20:13 ↗ re-answering

2:20:15 ↗ that's it thank you very much

2:20:23 ↗ i don't know if i should reply to

2:20:25 ↗ nina right now but my uh

2:20:28 ↗ uh

2:20:30 ↗ um

2:20:32 ↗ my understanding is the same as yours

2:20:35 ↗ um

2:20:36 ↗ i guess the question

2:20:38 ↗ would be to take the example that um one

2:20:42 ↗ of the other commissioners or board

2:20:44 ↗ members gave was

2:20:48 ↗ clotheslines that's a really classic one

2:20:52 ↗ that many hoas do not allow them

2:20:56 ↗ i think the question is

2:20:59 ↗ the city is the city going to require

2:21:01 ↗ clotheslines

2:21:03 ↗ so you know it's a question of whether

2:21:06 ↗ um

2:21:07 ↗ there is a restriction that could be put

2:21:09 ↗ in place

2:21:11 ↗ but the city would choose to put a

2:21:12 ↗ restriction in place

2:21:14 ↗ that would lead to to the city being

2:21:16 ↗ more strict and then the hoa having to

2:21:19 ↗ address

2:21:30 ↗ okay uh

2:21:31 ↗ [Music]

2:21:32 ↗ we're moving on to

2:21:36 ↗ four peopleians

2:21:40 ↗ yeah hi don mcwilliams and i think this

2:21:42 ↗ question is for you katie um does this

2:21:45 ↗ program the climate change

2:21:46 ↗ sustainability or some other similar

2:21:48 ↗ program in the city have an education

2:21:50 ↗ and outreach component to it i.e a staff

2:21:53 ↗ member devoted to that

2:21:55 ↗ reason i ask because i'm hearing a lot

2:21:57 ↗ of questions here that can't really be

2:21:58 ↗ solved through

2:22:00 ↗ regulating people but through a

2:22:02 ↗ aggressive education and outreach

2:22:04 ↗ program you could certainly make some

2:22:06 ↗ headway

2:22:09 ↗ yeah so the the city has an office of

2:22:11 ↗ sustainability and um

2:22:15 ↗ right now megan curtis murphy is is the

2:22:18 ↗ head of that or she is the she's the one

2:22:20 ↗ that's heading up the climate action

2:22:22 ↗ plan um she's actually only with the

2:22:24 ↗ city for another month or so and then

2:22:26 ↗ they're hiring a new person but it would

2:22:27 ↗ be that person

2:22:29 ↗ that would um

2:22:31 ↗ be the best suited to organize public

2:22:34 ↗ outreach and i know that there there

2:22:36 ↗ will be some public outreach

2:22:38 ↗ as part of the climate action planning

2:22:39 ↗ process

2:22:41 ↗ and maybe going maybe the climate action

2:22:44 ↗ plan is also asking for additional

2:22:46 ↗ community education outreach

2:22:48 ↗ okay so maybe more to come on now

2:22:52 ↗ all right thank you

2:22:54 ↗ all right and thank you very much uh for

2:22:55 ↗ memory of williams

2:22:57 ↗ uh i've got a

2:22:59 ↗ comment here

2:23:00 ↗ question comment um it's a multi-part

2:23:03 ↗ here so the first part of this question

2:23:06 ↗ is having to do with our tree retention

2:23:09 ↗ uh looking at

2:23:11 ↗ um

2:23:12 ↗ our agenda page 26

2:23:16 ↗ 26 page 28 um item number seven

2:23:19 ↗ um

2:23:21 ↗ it says insurers retain ensures the city

2:23:24 ↗ retains 50 tree canopy i know we've

2:23:27 ↗ talked about 50 tree canopy and so on

2:23:29 ↗ what is the definition of tree canopy is

2:23:32 ↗ it

2:23:33 ↗ we got we're going to retain 50 of the

2:23:36 ↗ trees within the city of issaquah

2:23:39 ↗ because to connie's points we have some

2:23:41 ↗ trees that are four inches tall and we

2:23:43 ↗ have some trees that are 300 feet tall

2:23:46 ↗ i've got

2:23:47 ↗ three trees in my backyard that are

2:23:49 ↗ about 300 feet tall if i was to cut

2:23:51 ↗ those down

2:23:53 ↗ how many small four inch trees would i

2:23:55 ↗ have to plant to get the same carbon

2:23:56 ↗ sink out of those

2:23:58 ↗ so are we calculating 50 tree copy

2:24:04 ↗ boy that's a good question um i

2:24:07 ↗ i

2:24:08 ↗ will look and hopefully get a a nod of

2:24:10 ↗ approval from the other folks from the

2:24:12 ↗ city staff but my my hunch is that that

2:24:15 ↗ number came from

2:24:17 ↗ um

2:24:17 ↗ an

2:24:18 ↗ aerial image taking the drip lines of

2:24:21 ↗ the trees or the the

2:24:23 ↗ circumference of the tree canopies

2:24:25 ↗ and

2:24:26 ↗ taking that as a

2:24:28 ↗ fraction of the overall

2:24:30 ↗ land area of the city to to come up with

2:24:32 ↗ how much is covered with trees and

2:24:34 ↗ there's

2:24:35 ↗ aerial image you know aerial photography

2:24:37 ↗ tools that can be used to

2:24:39 ↗ to tell what is what's vegetation what's

2:24:42 ↗ building

2:24:43 ↗ um that's my hunch but i honestly am not

2:24:45 ↗ sure exactly how that 51 number came

2:24:48 ↗ came to be

2:24:50 ↗ i'm going to this is kristin leeson and

2:24:52 ↗ i'm going to concur with katie i recall

2:24:54 ↗ our gis

2:24:57 ↗ i'm going to call them guy this

2:24:58 ↗ department but one person in particular

2:25:00 ↗ who

2:25:01 ↗ calculated our free canopy for us

2:25:03 ↗ and that was what he did

2:25:05 ↗ okay so we can definitively say

2:25:09 ↗ the tree canopy is based on the width of

2:25:12 ↗ the images in gis

2:25:18 ↗ it would be the the amount of land area

2:25:20 ↗ covered by the

2:25:22 ↗ the trees branches

2:25:25 ↗ so

2:25:26 ↗ you know a small four small trees

2:25:30 ↗ versus one large tree may have very

2:25:32 ↗ different tree canopies to your point

2:25:35 ↗ okay

2:25:35 ↗ so

2:25:36 ↗ and the one thing i would add um

2:25:38 ↗ commissioner fall or just for

2:25:40 ↗ clarification is there's actually

2:25:42 ↗ companies that do this that specialize

2:25:44 ↗ in at the parks department contracts

2:25:47 ↗ with them

2:25:48 ↗ um it's not based on our gis because

2:25:50 ↗ rgis isn't updated every year

2:25:53 ↗ but they

2:25:54 ↗ do fly and do the calculation as

2:25:57 ↗ described

2:25:58 ↗ okay

2:25:59 ↗ so

2:26:00 ↗ we can definitively

2:26:04 ↗ our 51 tree canopy has been definitively

2:26:07 ↗ or mathematically calculated and is

2:26:10 ↗ reasonably accurate

2:26:13 ↗ when we go or when a developer wants to

2:26:16 ↗ go in and clear out a lot

2:26:19 ↗ maybe one of the things that's missing

2:26:21 ↗ is

2:26:23 ↗ not so much capturing the 50 tree canopy

2:26:28 ↗ but the quality of those trees or

2:26:32 ↗ the effect of

2:26:33 ↗ the environmental effectiveness

2:26:36 ↗ of the tree canopy that is being

2:26:38 ↗ proposed to be removed needs to be

2:26:40 ↗ replaced which means if they want to

2:26:43 ↗ remove

2:26:46 ↗ 50 trees that are 300 feet tall

2:26:49 ↗ it's going to require them to have to

2:26:52 ↗ replant

2:26:53 ↗ a lot more

2:26:55 ↗ four-inch trees and

2:26:56 ↗ you know

2:26:57 ↗ one-to-one ratio

2:27:00 ↗ um

2:27:00 ↗ so i think there's you know we're

2:27:02 ↗ talking about gap analysis or

2:27:05 ↗ identifying some gaps i think there's a

2:27:07 ↗ gap here

2:27:08 ↗ in the quality of trees that are being

2:27:10 ↗ removed

2:27:11 ↗ and

2:27:13 ↗ how are they going to be replaced and do

2:27:15 ↗ those trees really need to be removed

2:27:18 ↗ is maybe something that the city should

2:27:19 ↗ be looking at and thinking

2:27:21 ↗ we wanted a

2:27:23 ↗ very rigid tree

2:27:25 ↗ policy moving forward because we have

2:27:28 ↗ grown so much

2:27:30 ↗ that we really don't

2:27:32 ↗ we can't afford to lose any more trees

2:27:36 ↗ than we already have

2:27:39 ↗ because our population is expected to

2:27:41 ↗ grow the state wants us to almost nearly

2:27:43 ↗ double our population within the next 30

2:27:46 ↗ years

2:27:47 ↗ so we're going to put an enormous burden

2:27:50 ↗ on the existing tree canopy we have we

2:27:52 ↗ don't want a bunch of small trees to

2:27:54 ↗ replace the big trees that are already

2:27:56 ↗ here so maybe we need to put some more

2:27:58 ↗ verbiage around

2:28:00 ↗ this tree policy and how we calculate it

2:28:02 ↗ and the policies around removal of trees

2:28:07 ↗ and

2:28:08 ↗ the quality of those trees

2:28:12 ↗ yeah if i can just quickly respond

2:28:14 ↗ commissioner fell this is um a really

2:28:17 ↗ important topic to this code update and

2:28:19 ↗ one that you'll be getting lots of

2:28:21 ↗ detail on for the september 9th meeting

2:28:24 ↗ when we'll be addressing the tree

2:28:26 ↗ retention code

2:28:27 ↗ so um

2:28:29 ↗ that we're definitely considering the

2:28:32 ↗ quality of tree the health of tree the

2:28:34 ↗ size of the tree and what are

2:28:36 ↗ appropriate replacements

2:28:39 ↗ and considering

2:28:41 ↗ uh significant trees and landmark trees

2:28:43 ↗ so

2:28:44 ↗ definitely be talking about that

2:28:46 ↗ but for this for this exercise we're

2:28:48 ↗ just trying to make sure that the list

2:28:50 ↗ of topics is correct

2:28:52 ↗ um knowing that each of these seven

2:28:54 ↗ topics needs a lot more detailed

2:28:56 ↗ fleshing out um

2:28:59 ↗ and attention on their own

2:29:01 ↗ excellent okay thank you very much for

2:29:03 ↗ your feedback there uh

2:29:05 ↗ kitty uh

2:29:07 ↗ moving on to

2:29:08 ↗ the next comment here is from

2:29:10 ↗ commissioner voice

2:29:14 ↗ thank you chairfell you have all these

2:29:15 ↗ wonderful

2:29:17 ↗ questions and responses mine's gonna

2:29:18 ↗ seem pretty simple so

2:29:20 ↗ first i'd just like to uh

2:29:22 ↗ also concur with board member finch i

2:29:25 ↗ think it's a pretty well laid out list

2:29:28 ↗ um

2:29:29 ↗ i think like i said as far as somebody

2:29:31 ↗ asked the question you know how would

2:29:32 ↗ you prioritize it i think one three five

2:29:36 ↗ are all probably right up there i think

2:29:39 ↗ three and five simply because you can

2:29:40 ↗ get a lot of community buy-in

2:29:42 ↗ um and then one obviously is going to

2:29:44 ↗ have a huge impact not so sure about

2:29:46 ↗ number six although i know it's very

2:29:48 ↗ popular

2:29:49 ↗ but number seven it seems to make a lot

2:29:51 ↗ of sense so just as far as you guys

2:29:53 ↗ getting feedback it seems like a pretty

2:29:56 ↗ pretty good starting point to continue

2:29:58 ↗ to move as you guys continue to narrow

2:30:00 ↗ the focus and flush these things out

2:30:02 ↗ again i think somebody made the point

2:30:04 ↗ about parking and i think a lot can be

2:30:06 ↗ done with parking so

2:30:08 ↗ um it's a win-win for everybody right

2:30:11 ↗ developers don't want more parking it's

2:30:12 ↗ expensive we don't want more parking uh

2:30:15 ↗ impervious surface runoff

2:30:18 ↗ that's where we want to put most of our

2:30:20 ↗ density right so right now in the

2:30:21 ↗ centralizable area we've got 70 percent

2:30:24 ↗ is impervious surface so i think right

2:30:26 ↗ there is a win-win for everybody

2:30:28 ↗ involved so

2:30:30 ↗ i guess maybe a little bit of focus on

2:30:32 ↗ the parking aspect but uh that's how i'd

2:30:34 ↗ kind of rate them

2:30:36 ↗ but i think the list seems pretty pretty

2:30:38 ↗ good pretty good to be able for you guys

2:30:40 ↗ to be able to continue to narrow it down

2:30:42 ↗ i don't know if that was the original

2:30:43 ↗ question but i hope it was because

2:30:45 ↗ everybody else was so thoughtful so

2:30:47 ↗ thank you

2:30:51 ↗ [Music]

2:30:53 ↗ thank you very much commissioner voice

2:30:55 ↗ uh and board member annie newcomb

2:30:58 ↗ of the floor

2:31:02 ↗ so um

2:31:04 ↗ would it be appropriate to put

2:31:08 ↗ a code restricting

2:31:11 ↗ gas

2:31:12 ↗ pipes to be hooked up to new

2:31:15 ↗ construction

2:31:22 ↗ so that would be um

2:31:24 ↗ similar to the city of seattle that new

2:31:26 ↗ new construction can't be using natural

2:31:29 ↗ gas heating and

2:31:31 ↗ cooking is that

2:31:32 ↗ what you're suggesting yeah

2:31:35 ↗ that's definitely an option that

2:31:37 ↗ cities can consider

2:31:39 ↗ it would be part of the building code

2:31:41 ↗ rather than

2:31:42 ↗ the title 18 because title 18 doesn't

2:31:45 ↗ touch

2:31:46 ↗ most things that are inside the building

2:31:48 ↗ but that's definitely

2:31:50 ↗ something that

2:31:51 ↗ could be proposed

2:31:54 ↗ oh and i know we're not getting into the

2:31:57 ↗ nitty-gritty but maybe i could just say

2:31:59 ↗ one thing about the trees um

2:32:03 ↗ are you looking at climate resilient um

2:32:05 ↗ trees and fire resilient trees

2:32:08 ↗ as well when you're thinking about what

2:32:10 ↗ to replant

2:32:12 ↗ as

2:32:13 ↗ things get warmer

2:32:16 ↗ um so the the

2:32:18 ↗ list of approved trees the city has a

2:32:20 ↗ list of approved trees right now that

2:32:22 ↗ will be updated as part of the tree

2:32:24 ↗ retention work

2:32:25 ↗ um i don't know if a climate resilient

2:32:28 ↗ and fire resistant filter has been put

2:32:31 ↗ on that list but that's a really great

2:32:32 ↗ comment that i think we could pass along

2:32:35 ↗ to the um

2:32:37 ↗ to the consultant that's working on the

2:32:39 ↗ trees

2:32:41 ↗ awesome thank you

2:32:45 ↗ all right and thank you very much uh

2:32:46 ↗ commissioner newcomb i'm not seeing any

2:32:48 ↗ additional comments or questions so

2:32:50 ↗ let's go ahead and wrap up

2:32:52 ↗ and then

2:32:54 ↗ throw this back to uh mini

2:32:56 ↗ to continue on with the next topic

2:33:01 ↗ mr phillips yeah i think he's gonna wrap

2:33:04 ↗ it up

2:33:05 ↗ one more so um

2:33:07 ↗ if kristen you can just skip back one

2:33:09 ↗ slide

2:33:11 ↗ um the last topic we oh two slides i

2:33:14 ↗ guess

2:33:15 ↗ it's to the outdoor lighting there you

2:33:17 ↗ go

2:33:18 ↗ um so for outdoor lighting we um

2:33:21 ↗ presented a couple questions in the

2:33:23 ↗ survey that we felt we like we got good

2:33:25 ↗ feedback on um there were some comments

2:33:28 ↗ about so we asked about

2:33:30 ↗ um

2:33:31 ↗ doc lighting and how to acquire that

2:33:34 ↗ whether it should be to new development

2:33:36 ↗ or all new and existing

2:33:39 ↗ and then also asked about

2:33:41 ↗ using how to use lighting as a way to

2:33:44 ↗ achieve different urban design goals

2:33:47 ↗ and there seem to be some good consensus

2:33:50 ↗ that outdoor lighting

2:33:53 ↗ for docks new dock lighting it makes

2:33:56 ↗ sense obviously to require

2:33:59 ↗ some restrictions on on new development

2:34:01 ↗ but also

2:34:03 ↗ um perhaps later when docs are being

2:34:06 ↗ uh

2:34:07 ↗ being repaired or replaced or some some

2:34:10 ↗ level of change that at that point they

2:34:13 ↗ would be required to come into

2:34:14 ↗ complaints but with whatever new

2:34:17 ↗ lighting

2:34:18 ↗ standards we might have for docs

2:34:21 ↗ and then also that there was some

2:34:23 ↗ support for for using lighting for these

2:34:27 ↗ urban design

2:34:28 ↗ as well so staff feels like we have

2:34:31 ↗ pretty good direction um

2:34:34 ↗ to put forth or to put together some

2:34:36 ↗ draft lighting code so we're open for

2:34:39 ↗ additional questions and comment at this

2:34:42 ↗ time but we didn't have any specific

2:34:44 ↗ questions regarding lighting

2:34:50 ↗ all right thank you very much katie i'm

2:34:52 ↗ going to go ahead and open it up to

2:34:54 ↗ commissioner questions

2:35:08 ↗ and commissioner milligan do you have a

2:35:10 ↗ question

2:35:12 ↗ no one's going to go first

2:35:16 ↗ okay i am not seeing any questions on

2:35:18 ↗ this topic

2:35:24 ↗ board member andy newcomb has a question

2:35:29 ↗ will there be an led

2:35:31 ↗ requirement

2:35:34 ↗ for reduced electricity use

2:35:37 ↗ so

2:35:38 ↗ we part of the update um

2:35:41 ↗ to new industry standards will be

2:35:43 ↗ changing um nearly everything to leds

2:35:48 ↗ thank you

2:35:53 ↗ okay that is the only question we've had

2:35:56 ↗ so we're gonna go ahead and open up to

2:35:57 ↗ public comment

2:36:00 ↗ right now no one has their hand raised

2:36:02 ↗ for public comment but i'll give it just

2:36:04 ↗ a minute if someone would like to speak

2:36:11 ↗ no one would like to speak at this time

2:36:13 ↗ okay and so i'm going to go ahead and

2:36:16 ↗ come back to

2:36:19 ↗ commissioner

2:36:20 ↗ comments or discussions

2:36:30 ↗ not seen any

2:36:34 ↗ okay last chance

2:36:38 ↗ paul can i just ask one maybe at one

2:36:40 ↗ consensus question um

2:36:43 ↗ based on the

2:36:45 ↗ update approach that we've proposed we

2:36:48 ↗ get

2:36:49 ↗ since nobody has any comments i just

2:36:50 ↗ want to make sure can we get a thumbs up

2:36:52 ↗ consensus that the approach that we've

2:36:54 ↗ laid out for out for updating the

2:36:57 ↗ outdoor lighting standards

2:36:59 ↗ is consistent with the goals and

2:37:01 ↗ outcomes chart

2:37:14 ↗ okay and uh katie you got your answer

2:37:19 ↗ i

2:37:20 ↗ i did get an answer but now i see that

2:37:23 ↗ uh commissioner voice has a comment so

2:37:25 ↗ well

2:37:26 ↗ oh okay

2:37:28 ↗ we'll just have to make him wait because

2:37:29 ↗ he's too late i just can't go ahead

2:37:32 ↗ commissioner voice go ahead

2:37:34 ↗ thank you chair foul so the only thing

2:37:36 ↗ as far as

2:37:37 ↗ being

2:37:38 ↗ tied into our

2:37:40 ↗ our goals and policy goals um one thing

2:37:43 ↗ i noticed reading it is so is that also

2:37:46 ↗ every

2:37:47 ↗ retrofit everything is considered that

2:37:50 ↗ it needs to be upgraded lighting

2:37:52 ↗ um so if somebody

2:37:54 ↗ um

2:37:55 ↗ i don't know puts a small addition on

2:37:57 ↗ their dock would that also include um

2:38:00 ↗ updating all of this or are we talking

2:38:02 ↗ about like a 50

2:38:04 ↗ um i think i forget what standard it is

2:38:06 ↗ but there's something in old town that's

2:38:08 ↗ somewhat similar like once you reach a

2:38:10 ↗ percentage

2:38:11 ↗ then

2:38:12 ↗ the new code or the the requirements

2:38:14 ↗ come into play is that similar for this

2:38:16 ↗ or is this kind of different

2:38:18 ↗ i guess that's a question

2:38:22 ↗ i think it the details haven't been

2:38:24 ↗ drafted yet but i think it would it

2:38:26 ↗ could be a similar um

2:38:28 ↗ there's some standards that once you

2:38:31 ↗ if you have to replace um

2:38:33 ↗ or enlarge something to a certain number

2:38:35 ↗ and often it's 50

2:38:37 ↗ of the value or the size that then you

2:38:40 ↗ have to come into compliance with

2:38:44 ↗ all of the codes generally it acts as if

2:38:47 ↗ sure and i i guess i'd be generally in

2:38:49 ↗ favor for that that was the only part

2:38:50 ↗ that was kind of tripping me up was

2:38:52 ↗ you know are we talking about every time

2:38:54 ↗ someone um

2:38:56 ↗ for whatever reason

2:38:58 ↗ has to upgrade or we talk about

2:38:59 ↗ percentage so if that's the case i think

2:39:01 ↗ it's a win again we help out

2:39:04 ↗ our friends below the surface

2:39:06 ↗ and also i think aesthetically it's

2:39:08 ↗ important we want our city to be

2:39:09 ↗ beautiful so i see a lot of good in this

2:39:11 ↗ one

2:39:15 ↗ all right thank you commissioner voice

2:39:17 ↗ that is all the questions and so we're

2:39:20 ↗ gonna go ahead and close out and move

2:39:22 ↗ over to reports

2:39:24 ↗ kristin would you like to go ahead and

2:39:26 ↗ discuss any reports um i i can do that

2:39:29 ↗ i'm happy to but i also think that the

2:39:30 ↗ environmental board you've done a

2:39:31 ↗ fabulous job tonight and you can

2:39:33 ↗ probably go now

2:39:36 ↗ you don't need to stick around unless

2:39:37 ↗ you want to thank you thank you

2:39:39 ↗ everybody

2:39:40 ↗ nice having you on great discussion

2:39:42 ↗ tonight

2:39:46 ↗ so the only council report that i have

2:39:49 ↗ kitty if well you i don't i'll leave it

2:39:51 ↗ up to you um the only council report

2:39:53 ↗ that i have is that the sign code is

2:39:56 ↗ going for public hearing on september

2:39:57 ↗ 7th

2:39:59 ↗ in case you all want to tune in and

2:40:00 ↗ listen to that then you can provide your

2:40:02 ↗ own comment as residents not as

2:40:04 ↗ commissioned members if you'd like to do

2:40:06 ↗ that as well

2:40:07 ↗ um many do you have anything else to

2:40:09 ↗ share

2:40:11 ↗ no nothing else to add

2:40:14 ↗ okay

2:40:15 ↗ and

2:40:16 ↗ so other business and announcements

2:40:22 ↗ uh we just have the title 18 public

2:40:25 ↗ comments that were submitted since the

2:40:27 ↗ last time that we met and if you guys

2:40:29 ↗ have any questions on those we can

2:40:32 ↗ address that if you'd like to

2:40:34 ↗ okay

2:40:35 ↗ and

2:40:36 ↗ schedule

2:40:39 ↗ schedule

2:40:40 ↗ um schedule

2:40:42 ↗ is really long and you'll notice that we

2:40:45 ↗ sort of learned our lesson after the

2:40:46 ↗ first environmental discussion that

2:40:48 ↗ maybe we need to break things up into

2:40:49 ↗ two meetings each time

2:40:52 ↗ so we went from about 18 meetings to

2:40:54 ↗ about 36 meetings and carries us out to

2:40:56 ↗ the end of 2022

2:40:58 ↗ so and in some cases we have three

2:41:00 ↗ meetings and i realized today that i

2:41:02 ↗ left one out so we're going to add

2:41:03 ↗ another one but

2:41:05 ↗ um

2:41:06 ↗ yeah just take a look and let me know

2:41:07 ↗ ahead of time if you're not going to be

2:41:09 ↗ able to make any of those

2:41:11 ↗ and just you know eat healthy so you're

2:41:13 ↗ you're ready to go

2:41:14 ↗ yeah

2:41:16 ↗ that's how

2:41:18 ↗ excellent

2:41:19 ↗ i like being needed

2:41:21 ↗ we all like being needed

2:41:23 ↗ okay so with that let's go ahead and

2:41:25 ↗ conclude and uh i'm going to adjourn the

2:41:28 ↗ meeting at 9 15.

2:41:43 ↗ [Music]

2:41:56 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (5)

Ron Faul

Jason Voiss

Nina Milligan

Sara Bader

Richard Zaragoza, Alternate (serving as regular member)

Staff (6)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D

Katie Cote, BHC Consultants

Lucy Sloman, Land Dev. Manager

Jim Johnson, Golder Associates

Greta Presley, Herrera & Associates

Excused

Joy Lewis

Matt Monahan