← Back to City Council Digest

Meeting concluded — minutes pending. The agenda below is what the City posted; minutes haven't been published yet. Issaquah approves Council minutes at the next meeting and ships them embedded in that next meeting's packet, so they typically land here 1–3 weeks after the meeting. Transcript and recording will appear once the City posts the YouTube video and our pipeline catches it.
Environmental Board Auto captions

Wednesday, October 13, 2021

6:30 PM · 2h 2m
Topic tracked across meetings:
Recommendation on Proposed Updates of the Issaquah Municipal Code, Title 18, (A) ID 1225 7/10
Section
Topic
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Board Membership
packet pp.3
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…
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2a
Minutes of Sept. 21, 2021
packet pp.5–7
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 09-21-21 Environmental Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board – Special Meeting 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting September 21, 2021 MINUTES
4. AGENDA ITEMS
4a
Title 18 Land Use Code Updates: Landscape, Trees, Open Space, and Community Spaces, (D)
90 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Community Planning & Development Director Daniel Martinez, Associate Planner · packet pp.9–82
Topics: Land UseTreesParks
Staff report:
Share with the Environmental Board the information on the land use code update related to 1) Landscaping, 2) Trees, and 3) Open Space, Community Space and Green Necklace. This was previously discussed with the Planning Policy Commission and Park Board on September 9, 2021.
0:02 good evening everyone my name is nancy
0:04 davidson and i'm the chair of the
0:06 issaquah environmental board
0:08 i want to welcome you all to the meeting
0:10 tonight um before we get started i have
0:13 a few different bits of information to
0:16 share with you today is the october 13th
0:18 2021
0:20 board meeting and due to the virtual
0:22 format of today's meeting i'd like to
0:24 start by providing some guidelines
0:27 we have participating participants
0:29 attending by computer and others who may
0:31 be attending by phone
0:33 for all meeting attendees please
0:35 speak clearly and pause frequently
0:38 state your name name each time before
0:40 speaking
0:42 mute your microphone when not speaking
0:45 if you're having technical issues try
0:47 joining the meeting using a different
0:48 device such as a smartphone or a tablet
0:51 or there's the call-in information in
0:53 the meeting invite that you can call in
0:56 into the meetings
0:58 with that we'll begin taking attendance
1:00 and taking the roll call of the
1:03 commissioners in attendance please
1:05 unmute and say here when gene calls your
1:07 name go ahead gene
1:10 okay starting from the top of the list i
1:12 don't see tom anderson on the call yet
1:15 uh next is surya bada pragata
1:19 here
1:21 and nancy davidson here
1:25 jamie finch
1:26 yeah
1:28 cameron fisher yeah
1:31 rishi hazra i don't think rishi has
1:33 joined yet
1:35 dan hintz
1:36 here
1:39 uh danny madden
1:42 okay and and newcomer
1:45 here
1:47 and janet
1:49 i don't think janet has joined yet but
1:51 uh laura labico and don mcwilliams had
1:54 excused absences as well
1:57 thank you
1:58 as a reminder to everyone here
2:01 if you
2:03 have a desire to speak please send a
2:04 chat to all participants and type
2:07 question or comment
2:08 and then i will work hard to try and
2:11 acknowledge you and if i miss you
2:12 someone will remind me i hope
2:14 uh please do not put any substantial
2:17 substantive comments in the chat
2:20 or any commissioners that could not join
2:22 us uh via this webex meeting and are on
2:26 the phone um we will
2:28 check in with you intermittently to see
2:30 if you have any comments i don't think
2:31 we've seen anyone yet have we jean that
2:34 not any commissioners that way
2:37 you can also press star 3 to raise your
2:40 hands
2:42 the next thing on the agenda is well
2:45 before i move on to that
2:48 we want to welcome gene he is now here
2:50 to uh join us gene paul is filling in to
2:54 kind of lead the
2:56 environmental board i understand he's a
2:58 management analyst with the city of
2:59 issaquah
3:00 and i think he's in this role in an
3:02 interim position until
3:04 megan's position is fully filled so
3:07 we'll welcome him and we'll try and be
3:08 nice to you along the way
3:11 and give it our best shot so thank you
3:13 for joining us
3:16 with that our next item on the agenda is
3:19 the approval of the minutes for
3:20 september 21st 2021 does anyone have any
3:24 comments or
3:26 changes that need to be made to that
3:28 meeting
3:32 seeing no one willing to comment or
3:34 break the minute stand approved
3:36 the next agenda topic is public comments
3:40 and before we get into public comments
3:42 i'm going to provide some guidelines for
3:44 public comments
3:45 public comments are an important part of
3:47 the public process
3:49 we take them seriously and factor them
3:51 into the decisions we make
3:53 for the members of the public joining us
3:55 welcome if there's anyone in the meeting
3:58 now who would like to make public
3:59 comments
4:00 please raise your virtual hand to do
4:02 this
4:03 if you're on the phone press star three
4:07 if you have joined by computer or
4:09 smartphone then look for a hand icon
4:11 this varies depending upon the device
4:13 you're using
4:14 one option needs to be to go to the
4:16 participant panel and select your name
4:19 then choose raise hand
4:21 it may also be
4:22 located under the reactions menu or more
4:25 menu
4:27 with that i'm going to ask gene to call
4:28 anyone that is
4:30 interested in providing public comment
4:31 for the meeting thank you
4:34 and there are three members who have
4:37 raised their hands
4:39 going to move one over to a panelist now
4:43 ann fletcher you should be able to
4:45 unmute and if you'd like to share video
4:47 you can do so as well
4:48 and just give me a second it when you're
4:50 recognized please make sure you unmute
4:52 your microphone state your name address
4:55 and relationship to the city uh speak
4:57 clearly and pause frequently for us all
5:00 try and limit your comments to five
5:01 minutes and mute your microphone when
5:03 you're done thanks ian i appreciate it i
5:04 forgot to say that
5:07 great
5:08 thank you nancy um good evening everyone
5:15 my name is ann fletcher and i am
5:19 a resident of issaquah and a people for
5:22 climate action member
5:25 really nice to see everybody again
5:27 and i would like to thank all of you
5:30 for considering this important title 18
5:32 update
5:34 and also thank
5:35 the city administration staff and
5:37 consultants
5:39 for their considerable efforts on this
5:44 i i am seeing more and more evidence of
5:47 coordination of the proposals
5:51 uh in the reports
5:53 uh with the comp plan and the climate
5:55 action plan and i think that's great i
5:58 really like to encourage
5:59 that it provides the connections and the
6:02 context for the community to understand
6:04 how this is all going to work together
6:07 with regard to the landscape section
6:11 i wanted to mention
6:13 an item that's still under review that
6:15 i've brought up before
6:17 and that is that a separate
6:19 administrative landscape development
6:21 document that deals with standards
6:24 that's separate from
6:25 but authorized by the title 18
6:29 needs to have an oversight mechanism
6:31 built into it for revisions so that
6:33 there is some kind of
6:35 input or awareness amongst the community
6:39 members when that gets revised
6:43 uh and then on with regarding trees
6:45 that's the one i have the most comments
6:47 about
6:49 i think that changing to a tree canopy
6:51 requirement by zone may have some really
6:54 good benefits
6:58 and i also believe that we need both
7:00 tree quantity entry quality
7:04 kinds of standards
7:06 and the big question is how will this
7:08 differential regulation by zone
7:11 ensure
7:12 the current quality of a strong tree
7:15 canopy
7:17 and that it is maintained enhanced
7:20 for the health and well-being
7:22 of our living community
7:26 and the second point i want to make on
7:27 trees is we should not lower standards
7:30 too much
7:31 for the urban and suburban areas
7:34 especially the built environment that
7:36 abuts our natural environment
7:39 we have a lot of that that runs right
7:41 through our town creeks native plants
7:44 salmon and other wildlife
7:46 so just because it's an urban area
7:48 doesn't mean that it's not affecting the
7:51 natural areas
7:52 that we are in
7:55 we may not be able to count on our
7:57 current canopy in the surrounding hills
7:59 if we have to create fire breaks to
8:02 prevent wildfires
8:05 and it may require that other areas and
8:07 zones have higher
8:10 higher requirements and that's why some
8:12 flexibility needs to be built into that
8:15 monitoring and adjusting
8:17 and my third point is that
8:21 so far what i've seen
8:23 addresses climate resiliency and talks
8:26 about urban heat islands and planting
8:29 drought resistant trees and so on
8:31 i would like to see the word
8:33 sequestration in there more
8:37 so mitigation
8:39 uh for example
8:41 which trees will survive best
8:44 and uh which ones
8:46 will sequester the most carbon
8:54 uh and i think that should be a a big
8:57 criterion for title 18. um my next point
9:00 is that having a projected 30-year
9:03 replacement canopy requirement for
9:05 development
9:07 even if it is successful
9:09 will be too late for any near-term
9:12 climate mitigation efforts
9:14 and so this timeline is really not a
9:16 sufficient improvement in our code
9:19 the next point is that variance
9:21 procedures should be delineated in the
9:24 title 18
9:26 code to avoid exceptions which allow
9:28 high tree removal for
9:31 what's called reasonable use
9:33 who defines reasonable use when there's
9:35 are large environmental impacts
9:38 the code may look great
9:40 but the exceptions can make things quite
9:42 different in reality
9:46 and finally
9:47 limit the amount allowed for in-lieu
9:49 replacement payments to a tree fund
9:52 instead strive for shared responsibility
9:55 and management of trees in our land
9:58 provide educational outreach to
10:00 landowners
10:01 and promote land stewardship attitudes
10:04 and a collective spirit a collaborative
10:07 spirit
10:08 thank you
10:22 gene do you have anyone else thank you
10:24 anne is anyone else interested in
10:26 commenting today yes there are two more
10:28 hands raised i'm gonna try and move the
10:30 next person up to make comments
10:40 so i believe the next person is susan
10:42 neville it's the uh
10:47 hello i'm a phone in can you hear me
10:50 yes
10:52 hi um this is susan deville i'm a long
10:54 time issaquah resident
10:56 of about 25 years and um
10:59 thank you for all gathering and uh going
11:02 over this important
11:04 i think this is kind of a special
11:06 request and i really appreciate it i've
11:08 been in um meetings of for this
11:12 particular
11:13 code section about one and a half times
11:16 um i think it's a real important
11:18 area i think again it's a technical area
11:21 and it's going to take some time
11:23 to really work it through for our
11:25 benefit in the long run i want to say to
11:28 anne really went through a huge list and
11:30 it's great i love it
11:32 um i'll quickly uh just
11:34 reiterate her landscape code um
11:38 asking for transparency on that document
11:42 that will be able to be flexible and
11:44 make changes as we
11:46 as we move forward which i think is
11:47 essential but some type of transparency
11:50 would be great
11:52 on the tree code
11:56 i've really been racking my brain around
11:58 this trying to understand it i think
11:59 it's really
12:00 complex
12:02 uh proposal
12:05 that i think
12:06 we're talking about maintaining a tree
12:08 canopy goal
12:10 and that will determine
12:13 our
12:14 rate moving forward but anne did cover
12:17 many things i wanted to
12:19 which was
12:21 the first one
12:22 was um
12:26 to achieve our canopy goals
12:29 during a development
12:33 they take into consideration
12:35 two aspects
12:37 what they're going to retreat retain and
12:40 plant in 30 years
12:42 as a canopy goal
12:44 and that will
12:46 not be sufficient as and mentioned
12:49 because
12:50 from day one to 30 years your your
12:52 canopy goal has reduced by the amount
12:55 that they have removed
12:57 another point was that we're also going
12:59 to be
13:01 looking at maybe five or six or eight
13:04 different land use types and lot sizes
13:07 with different canopy goals for each
13:11 it's just the simplest method to use for
13:14 developers
13:16 and planners and
13:18 homeowners um that was one of my other
13:22 questions
13:23 and lastly um
13:26 i think today we have a false sense of
13:28 what our tree canopy is
13:30 i've heard that it's 50 51 percent um
13:35 i think are we i still am not sure if
13:37 we're using
13:39 the open space around us that does not
13:41 belong to issaquah as that rate of 51
13:45 currently
13:46 and i really think that needs to be
13:48 explained a little bit better
13:50 and with that i know you have a lot to
13:52 cover
13:53 and thank you again for uh going through
13:56 this and listening to all the community
14:01 thank you
14:02 thank you susan for your comments we
14:04 appreciate them
14:06 gene anyone else
14:08 yes well more hand raised so i'll move
14:10 this person up as a panelist
14:16 it's the initial cm that the person can
14:19 now unmute and if they'd like to share
14:21 video they can do so as well
14:24 shocking it's connie marsh
14:29 so i'm gonna plus one on susan
14:33 and anne
14:35 with
14:36 um an emphasis on the tree canopy
14:40 uh presentation or proposal
14:43 basically being a smack with the heavy
14:45 hammer
14:46 when what we are going to require
14:50 is way more nuance
14:52 to have 20
14:54 tree canopy in the issaquah highlands
14:56 the valley floor
15:00 will only exacerbate the situation of
15:03 creating heat islands you may have
15:05 noticed this summer when we had the hot
15:07 weather we had huge red blobs right on
15:10 the issaquah highlands so if you want to
15:13 continue the big red blobs on the
15:14 issaquah highlands then this is the
15:16 pathway to go down that is exactly what
15:19 we don't want to have happen
15:23 what we want to do is have enough
15:26 tree canopy and year-round tree canopy
15:32 to provide
15:34 the
15:35 needs of the environment for what trees
15:37 and only trees and vegetation can do
15:40 sprinkled through out i don't have a
15:43 particular problem with our big
15:46 protected areas having it
16:01 honey i think we might have lost you you
16:03 may have to call in can anybody else
16:04 still here connie
16:07 okay connie
16:08 we lost your video do you want to try
16:10 and get back on please
16:13 well wait a minute
16:21 wow
16:28 well what i propose doing is starting
16:31 into the agenda topics because i'm not
16:33 sure when and if connie will be able to
16:36 call in
16:37 she also could instead of just video
16:40 calling she could also call in have you
16:42 seen anything from her jean
16:45 nothing new since she joined there's no
16:47 message and
16:48 nobody else has joined by phone since
16:51 she started her comments
16:54 okay
16:55 well um if she does come in um minnie
16:58 are you okay with the concept of perhaps
17:00 letting her
17:02 finish her comments taking a break if
17:04 gene kind of signals that she's back
17:07 does that work for you
17:08 yeah okay
17:10 all right well um i'll send her a text
17:12 because i do have a person her cell
17:14 phone um
17:15 once we start the next agenda item and
17:18 see if perhaps we can get her back or
17:20 else we can also take her comments at
17:21 the end of the meeting or on this topic
17:24 so either of those options work
17:26 so with that i'm going to close out
17:28 public comments unless gene has someone
17:30 else do you have anyone else gene
17:33 there are a couple other attendees who
17:34 have not raised their hands so i guess
17:36 this is the opportunity for them to
17:38 either raise their hand send a chat or
17:40 hit star 3 for the one calling user to
17:42 see if other any remaining attendees
17:45 that would like to make public comment
17:47 but as of now no
17:52 okay well i'm going to close this
17:54 section of public comic except for
17:56 connie marsh who still we still have
17:58 some time too if she manages to get back
18:00 with us connie it looks like he may be
18:01 back are you
18:07 okay
18:08 saying nothing i'm going to move on to
18:09 the agenda topics the first agenda topic
18:12 is regarding title 18 the land use code
18:15 update regarding trees or landscape
18:18 trees open space and community spaces
18:20 and with this i'm going to turn that
18:22 presentation over to many many thank you
18:24 for joining us
18:26 good evening everyone i'm glad to see
18:30 some of you um from
18:32 the marathon meeting that we had on the
18:34 natural environment topics uh today we
18:37 bring forth to you a smaller agenda
18:40 with three topics uh but before we get
18:43 into it you know i want to recognize
18:45 october is the national community
18:47 planning month where we celebrate the
18:49 role planning plays in creating great
18:51 communities
18:53 and
18:54 and you know here we are celebrating and
18:56 talking about trees and open space and
18:59 landscaping um and planning for the
19:01 future
19:02 um so appreciate everyone's time uh
19:05 spending this evening on the on these
19:06 topics today
19:08 um we covered the wetlands and the
19:10 streams and the water you know all those
19:12 technical comments uh and questions um
19:15 on those topics today we plan to cover
19:18 landscaping
19:19 so uh the trees and open space so let me
19:22 take a little bit of time to kind of go
19:24 over what what these three different uh
19:27 topics are and how the city code is set
19:29 up in terms of these regulations
19:32 um so landscaping is a chapter that if
19:34 someone wants to come in and develop a
19:36 piece of property with a building that's
19:40 you know five thousand square feet or it
19:42 could be a ten thousand square feet um
19:45 and wants to have
19:46 you know 20 parking spaces
19:49 in addition to all the other codes the
19:52 the landscaping chapter will determine
19:54 what kind of perimeter landscaping is
19:57 needed along the edges of the street um
19:59 the property
20:00 how do we spread out their parking
20:03 and create how much parking space spaces
20:06 do they have which then dictate how much
20:08 landscaping they need to put in their
20:10 parking stalls if they have a building
20:13 that's really a blank wall how do we use
20:16 the landscaping to create some of the
20:18 interest and design
20:20 so so for the landscaping chapter you
20:23 know the goals are obviously the climate
20:26 you know uh the urban um
20:29 all the good ecological benefits that
20:31 you're gonna get from landscaping but in
20:33 addition there are urban design aspects
20:35 that come into play for the landscaping
20:37 piece uh what type of trees do they have
20:40 does there are this you know diversity
20:43 species included and so on um
20:46 in addition to the trees what kind of
20:48 shrubs and the grasses are needed uh do
20:51 they perform any storm water filtration
20:54 function um and so that's the
20:56 landscaping piece then the tree
20:58 regulations really look at um tree
21:02 retention how many trees do you have on
21:04 your property can you preserve at least
21:06 25 percent
21:08 and and and what that
21:10 percentage looks like is something that
21:12 we need to kind of talk about as we
21:14 discuss the the the tree regulations
21:17 and and if you do have to remove a dead
21:20 tree or a diseased tree what does that
21:23 process look like
21:24 so that's the tree chapter
21:27 and then we have the this this open
21:30 space community spaces
21:32 and those kind of regulations that
21:34 really look at what's the the city's
21:36 vision for these open spaces uh we've
21:39 adopted the park strategic plan that has
21:41 a there's a connection required for some
21:44 trails
21:45 uh where the mountains just sound
21:47 greenway trust is and what that big
21:49 picture looks like and how do we
21:51 implement that when we get a development
21:53 project on a parcel by parcel basis so
21:56 that's our dilemma we're trying to
21:57 figure out you know this is the vision
21:59 that the city's adopted how do we
22:02 use the title 18 or the land use code
22:04 update to ensure that we
22:07 can get to that vision and also
22:10 make sure there aren't any barriers um
22:12 in the code that will prevent the city
22:14 from uh and you know achieving that
22:16 vision but it can be done just by the
22:18 code there's going to be other elements
22:21 you know the programs the funding that
22:24 goes with the other aspects that are not
22:26 just code related
22:28 um so that's some of the basics um
22:31 the other thing i think we want to cover
22:33 with you before we get into what the
22:35 topics are because there was some
22:37 confusion with the other boards and
22:39 commissions in terms of
22:41 what's a goal
22:43 what's a policy and what's a code
22:45 language
22:47 so a goal and a policy
22:49 lives in your long-range planning
22:51 documents the comprehensive plan the
22:54 strategic plan the climate action plan
22:56 that you all are working so hard on
22:59 um so those will have these goals and
23:01 policies so for the trees the goal right
23:04 now is
23:06 preserve 50 percent of the canopy
23:10 you can you know you add through the
23:12 climate action plan and the golden
23:14 policy work that you're doing you can
23:15 look at that what that goal needs to be
23:18 so the policy related to that goal could
23:20 be you should update your code so that
23:23 you know you can meet this goal you
23:25 should have some kind of an urban
23:27 forestry program
23:28 you should have some educational
23:30 opportunities to raise awareness you
23:32 should have some programs to do tree
23:34 planting so those are all policies under
23:36 that goal
23:37 now the code adoption
23:39 is going to be really very specific and
23:42 nuanced
23:44 details that that will get you
23:47 the implementation of some of those
23:49 goals and policies for instance
23:52 you know if you have
23:54 20 parking stalls how many trees do you
23:56 need to plant in that parking
24:00 island
24:01 what is the percentage for tree
24:03 retention
24:04 what's the process for modification of
24:06 some of these codes so in one-off
24:08 situations any modification should
24:11 require a public hearing so it's not
24:13 that you have a code but then you grant
24:15 out modifications that really don't get
24:16 you that vision um
24:19 and and so on and you know it could mean
24:21 if you cut down one tree that's eight
24:23 inches you have to plant four trees um
24:26 and that's where we'll get into the
24:28 nuances of what's the best approach for
24:30 those replacement ratios canopy coverage
24:33 and
24:34 orb diameter how do we measure those and
24:36 things like that so code is going to be
24:38 your nuanced really down to the to the
24:41 ground
24:42 uh implementation tool to get you those
24:45 visions that you've adopted for the city
24:48 through the goals and policies in your
24:49 long range plans
24:51 so with that i'm going to try and share
24:53 my screen here to walk you through
24:57 if gene can you make me a presenter
25:03 uh gene before you do that connie i
25:05 understand this back on i'd like to
25:06 complete before you get into your
25:08 presentation is that okay i'd like her
25:09 to be able to finish her public comments
25:12 jean can you bring her back on to um
25:15 sure let me try and move her back to
25:17 uh where she can make her comments
25:20 thank you
25:24 there she is
25:27 sorry about that comcast came out
25:30 thought they'd solve the problem and
25:31 here we are
25:33 blanked out
25:34 anyway um
25:37 am going to move on to
25:40 the open space section
25:46 uh let's see how do i say this the
25:48 park's plan
25:50 has a huge amount of capital investment
25:53 in order to achieve the vision
25:57 that
25:58 the title 18 update is going to have to
26:03 support
26:05 and there's very little conversation
26:09 about how
26:10 we are going to
26:13 know that we are gaining the vision
26:17 by how the systems
26:19 combine i don't really understand how we
26:22 know we're going to be making good code
26:25 unless we can understand how we are
26:27 going to be able to fund the capital
26:29 program for the public parks
26:32 we have we have some errors
26:34 that we know are errors in private parks
26:38 being built in places where the public
26:40 has no sense or feel that they can enter
26:44 we also have some interesting things
26:46 with places like costco
26:48 where costco has public areas where the
26:51 public cannot go because costco has
26:54 decided it wants to be a campus that
26:57 doesn't allow the public
26:59 so we need to know that the code
27:03 is going to actually do its share in
27:07 supporting getting us our
27:10 our parks and open space
27:13 that
27:14 we need and that's a conversation that
27:16 is missing parks board came to a meeting
27:19 and and i think they were stunned by the
27:22 whole thing so they didn't have very
27:23 much to say
27:24 i'm hopeful that you all will be able to
27:27 have more of a conversation
27:29 about the necessity of having our parks
27:33 and systems threaded throughout the city
27:35 and our development
27:37 areas
27:39 i appreciate that i don't know yet that
27:44 our staff
27:46 and the consultants fully understand how
27:49 important the protection of the
27:51 environment is to the city and frankly
27:54 to the world we are looking at the
27:56 compre the um
27:58 the um
28:00 central issaquah plan
28:03 that allowed a lot of the area to be
28:08 cleared
28:09 but the eis also required that we have
28:13 no loss
28:15 of the environment during that process
28:18 and so
28:20 if you keep that in mind
28:22 when there is conversation about how our
28:25 more highly developed areas
28:28 need to be more barren
28:31 our central isoqua plan eis basically
28:34 has said that is
28:35 not true and that we have to have these
28:38 places
28:39 that were planned in order to offset the
28:42 impacts to the environment of the
28:45 central isco plan
28:47 so um i know that might all be jargon
28:51 too and i apologize but thank you for
28:54 letting me come back and talk to you
28:59 thank you connie appreciate you coming
29:01 back and joining us okay benny i'm going
29:03 to turn it back over to you so you can
29:05 continue your presentation thank you
29:08 chair um so gene i'm going to try and
29:12 share my screen
29:18 okay i just made you a presenter again
29:20 so i think you should be able to
29:26 can you confirm you can see my
29:29 first slide on a whole screen
29:31 yes
29:32 so um
29:34 you know we want to
29:36 reserve some time for a conversation so
29:39 i'm going to quickly get through this
29:41 this was all in your packet and we've
29:43 previously covered it under
29:45 um other boards and commissions that
29:47 some of you may have already watched
29:48 that
29:49 meeting but
29:51 like i said there are three topics so
29:53 the first one is landscape
29:56 and then we have our staff uh daniel
29:59 martinez here today attending and and
30:01 i'll turn over the presentation over to
30:03 him he's going to talk over the
30:05 the tree management
30:07 aspects of the code he is the lead staff
30:10 that will be
30:11 working on the tree section of the code
30:13 that seems to have a lot of community
30:15 interest um
30:17 and then i'll wrap it up with the
30:19 discussion about the open space like you
30:21 all know we do have uh consultants who
30:24 are working on this so berger
30:27 is the consultant that worked on the
30:28 park strategic plan and they're helping
30:30 with the landscaping and open space
30:32 sections of the code for the tree
30:35 management we had engaged watershed
30:37 initially they did the presentation to
30:39 planning and policy commission but the
30:41 tree right at the code writing aspects
30:43 of it um are going to be handled by
30:45 staff
30:46 um with obviously technical support
30:49 will be you know will support as needed
30:51 on that
30:55 let's see if i can
30:58 to the next slide so three topics
31:02 uh so for the first topic i'll cover
31:04 what's the city's goal
31:06 what are some of the gaps that we've
31:08 identified so far
31:10 what is our thinking is at this point uh
31:12 for
31:13 how we are planning to update the
31:15 section of the code and then obviously
31:18 what you all think is missing from the
31:20 discussion and should be included in the
31:22 update
31:25 you know again like i said the the
31:26 landscaping you know in addition to all
31:29 the environmental benefits from
31:32 you know storing the carbon and
31:34 providing climate benefits to improving
31:36 water and air quality enhancing the
31:38 habitat reducing polluted storm water
31:42 recreation providing shade
31:45 and the urban design aspects of it and
31:47 and frankly
31:48 a lot of studies are showing the mental
31:50 health benefits of of a good landscapes
31:53 that bring to the built environment so
31:56 we hope to attain all of these um
31:59 new landscapes
32:01 come into play bear in mind that the
32:04 code would only apply to new development
32:07 obviously if someone's landscaping is
32:09 not being maintained the code would have
32:11 provisions for how to enforce it if they
32:13 have some dead landscaping and things
32:14 like that
32:16 that would come into play as well
32:19 so some of our goals are to make sure
32:22 that we're coordinating with our street
32:24 standards
32:26 we're looking at different neighborhoods
32:28 and their unique uh aspects some of that
32:30 has come out today in terms of
32:32 you know where the heat islands are in
32:34 the city and and how some landscaping
32:36 requirements in those areas needs to be
32:39 more than than others that are in a
32:41 little bit better shape
32:44 how to update our parking lot
32:45 landscaping standards
32:49 then of course coordinating with our
32:51 parks strategic plan and the green
32:53 necklace uh what type of streets and
32:56 trail types we need to include to
32:58 maintain this connected uh green spaces
33:03 and then of course there's all those
33:05 nitty gritty details that make a
33:07 difference between how the health of
33:09 these trees that are planted
33:11 what are the details what are the soil
33:13 types that are needed if you're planting
33:15 trees in very small spaces
33:18 you know what type of pest management
33:20 practices really will give you the best
33:22 uh opportunity and really what that
33:24 minimum space needs to be for
33:27 the tree to grow and be healthy for a
33:30 long haul
33:32 and and the soil depths the
33:35 you know what and then of course the
33:37 procedural aspects what are the
33:38 inspections that are required when
33:40 you're doing the planting uh what are
33:42 some
33:43 long-term monitoring um aspects how are
33:46 we managing the tree fund and when how
33:49 to minimize people being able to pay
33:52 into the tree fund and really doing the
33:54 planting because there's a lot that goes
33:56 into getting the trees
33:57 planted and maintained over the long
33:59 haul so those are some of some of our
34:02 thought process for this update
34:05 so creating a city-wide baseline
34:08 standards that apply everywhere but then
34:10 also looking at the uniqueness of some
34:12 streets in the neighborhoods and and
34:15 filtering those out for those
34:17 right now our standards are spread out
34:19 in five different locations for central
34:21 isoqua you go into a different location
34:23 for
34:24 replacement regulations for talus and
34:26 highlands are in a different section of
34:28 the code and so on so consolidation and
34:31 those kind of things
34:32 and then of course number two is the
34:34 more technical details that need to be
34:37 vetted out this is something you heard
34:38 from the community in terms of where
34:40 they live
34:41 uh obviously first we need to figure out
34:43 what those are and then of course it
34:45 will be easy to kind of say
34:47 they're they're embedded in the code
34:48 they're referenced in the code or
34:51 where they live and what the transparent
34:53 process for them looks like
34:56 for any updates because we don't want to
34:58 have a very you know one size fits all
35:01 but also a canned approach that it
35:04 becomes really hard to
35:06 to amend because code amendment process
35:08 has to go through
35:10 uh certain uh process and procedures but
35:13 at the same time we want to be
35:14 transparent and open about what what
35:17 those standards are and not have some
35:20 way of changing what was publicly shared
35:24 some updates to the new trees
35:27 right size tree in the right place what
35:30 are you know all of those things so
35:33 and in our process we've looked at some
35:35 other cities this is our consultants
35:37 slides you know they talk about kirkland
35:40 seattle and wenatchee some of the the
35:42 highlights from those cities include
35:45 um you know coordinating the width of
35:46 the the planter based on what type of
35:48 tree you're planting what happens with
35:50 overhead utility lines the last thing
35:53 you do you want is you plant a tree and
35:56 then it gets topped which eventually
35:58 will make the tree die over the long
35:59 haul how do we
36:02 have some requirements that prevent
36:03 those kind of things from happening or
36:05 if you plant a tree at the street corner
36:07 that blocks the view
36:09 or um you know cars coming in and out or
36:12 fire trucks coming in and out you know
36:13 how to how to avoid some of those things
36:16 um so that in the end the tree needs to
36:19 end up being taken out because it was a
36:21 problem
36:23 how to have soil volume requirements so
36:27 that the tree is healthy over the long
36:29 haul
36:30 um in wenatchee i think they talked
36:32 about shrub heights um and parking lot
36:35 landscaping so some some
36:37 you know good things that some folks
36:39 have figured out we want to learn from
36:40 them
36:41 um but also be unique to what isoqua's
36:44 desires are
36:46 um so that's sort of
36:48 the nutshell very high level um you know
36:52 sharing with you what what we're
36:54 thinking on the landscaping chapter so i
36:56 want to take a pause and
36:59 have an opportunity to have a discussion
37:02 on the landscaping and then we'll uh get
37:05 into uh the tree discussion that uh will
37:08 be facilitated by daniel
37:12 okay thank you minnie are there any
37:14 comments or questions for many at this
37:17 point in time from the board
37:24 well i guess i have one comment i'll
37:25 start this um off many in my experience
37:28 working in another community
37:30 we found that straight trees often
37:32 created an issue
37:35 with regards to lifting sidewalks and
37:37 creating trip hazards and i didn't see
37:39 that anywhere in your list of things to
37:41 be considered and
37:43 uh that is another huge liability to the
37:45 city along the way so i'm hoping that as
37:48 you develop your standards your
37:51 for landscaping and or trees that you're
37:53 really thoughtful in terms of that
37:55 because it's a very expensive
37:57 proposition
37:59 uh yeah thank you chair that's a very
38:01 excellent point actually we've had
38:03 started the conversations with our
38:04 streets department and they have
38:06 highlighted
38:07 how much of a problem it is in issaquah
38:09 and it is quite a bit of a problem
38:11 because you have smaller planting strips
38:13 that have these large trees and over
38:15 time they're buckling up the sidewalks
38:17 and you know all of those they call it
38:19 high edges
38:20 so some of these um standards you know
38:23 silver cells or
38:25 structural soil requirements those will
38:27 be all handled in with this code update
38:29 it'll apply to the new code obviously
38:32 going back and retrofitting existing
38:34 pre-existing conditions
38:36 is an issue that the city will have to
38:38 deal with and you know if that means we
38:41 may end up losing some trees
38:43 and then but the replanting will have to
38:46 be the right right tree and the right
38:48 spot
38:49 um what what does that mean for the tree
38:52 canopy coverage goals i think is as part
38:54 of the conversation so uh excellent
38:56 point it's it's a it is an issue that's
39:00 going to come fair and square in front
39:02 of this community
39:03 and i would add one more thing to that
39:05 many um just as a comment
39:08 and that is that typically i have found
39:10 in my experience having good details of
39:13 how to plant the trees and what's
39:15 expected
39:16 depths and things like that and actually
39:18 having someone look at them
39:19 before they fill it with dirt because
39:22 can prevent some of those challenges and
39:24 make more successful tree canopy and you
39:26 know a longer living tree and i'm hoping
39:29 that i know that's not a code issue but
39:31 as it's passed along it's something that
39:34 needs to be done as well which is if we
39:37 want to sustain this canopy we need to
39:39 actually
39:41 observe some of these trees going in and
39:42 not just assume they're because
39:44 landscapers know how to do it right
39:46 right
39:47 um but not necessarily to the standard
39:49 that we're hoping that will last over a
39:50 long time anyway just my comments
39:53 yeah i know that that's again an
39:55 excellent point i think um
39:57 we need to do the soil inspections
39:59 before the plants are planted in um
40:01 because then we're not going to have
40:03 them rip them out um
40:05 you know at that stage and and and so
40:08 having having you know the codes are
40:10 only so good as as long as they're
40:12 implemented so we obviously the
40:14 implementation of the first step is
40:16 getting the codes in place the second
40:18 step on how we implement them is going
40:19 to be equally important
40:21 okay great all right we have a comment
40:23 from ann and go ahead please
40:28 thanks nancy and newcomb here
40:32 so i'm wondering
40:34 many if we can be looking at what kinds
40:36 of fertilizers to use um
40:39 you know staying away from
40:41 chemical fertilizers that'll
40:44 pollute the waters
40:46 and um
40:48 and then also
40:49 some compost like cedar grove compost
40:52 can have plastic in it and that's not
40:54 good for
40:55 the water the fish either
40:57 um so
41:00 i know it might be
41:02 too much to ask but it would be really
41:04 great if isabella could get maybe a
41:06 digester or
41:08 something and create their own or just
41:10 find some good sources of
41:15 natural fertilizer is that something
41:17 that could be part of the code
41:20 you know
41:21 definitely it's going to take more than
41:22 the code but i think the code can have
41:24 best management practices for vegetation
41:26 management and especially it becomes
41:29 more critical in terms of the pesticides
41:31 and things like that you know when
41:33 there's more danger of things getting
41:34 into the streams and and water courses
41:37 so and department of ecology has an
41:39 oversight on that department of
41:40 agriculture you know you need some sort
41:43 of permits from them so we'll have some
41:45 language in the code related to
41:46 vegetation management
41:48 absolutely and so in that um you know
41:51 best again we talked about the best
41:53 management practices for planting the
41:55 soil details we can certainly
41:57 incorporate uh you know fertilizer and
41:59 compost uh best management practices for
42:02 that
42:03 great and good job with this plan
42:06 and then this might be another area i
42:08 know i sent an email about the 30-year
42:10 plan king county's 30-year plan and
42:12 and a
42:14 canopy tool um i wonder if king county
42:17 would have some great references for
42:20 the urban designs too
42:22 just a thought
42:24 thank you
42:27 thank you anne um very good comments uh
42:31 next up we have dan dan go ahead
42:35 yeah
42:37 can everybody hear me okay
42:39 oh i think daniel i think that was was
42:41 that for me nancy
42:43 yeah oh i'm sorry
42:46 multiple dancers sorry yeah
42:49 no problem i missed that
42:51 um well this is dan speaking with i
42:54 guess a little bit of a question
42:56 followed by a comment but um
42:59 minnie i'd love to hear just a little
43:00 bit more about what the standards
43:02 currently are or what's being talked
43:04 about for requirements around species um
43:07 to me there could be a pretty
43:10 simple
43:11 guideline around you know whether
43:14 i think most of this are relics you know
43:16 around city but you still see a lot of
43:18 landscape species that are you know
43:19 listed noxious weeds you know based on
43:21 king county's
43:22 noxious weed list um some that have been
43:25 recently added like horse chestnut black
43:27 locust and the obvious ones like holly
43:29 laurel some of the ground covers i'll
43:32 just be curious if if that's being kind
43:34 of taken into consideration or kind of
43:35 what that um
43:37 species selection kind of process looks
43:39 like for for the landscaping
43:43 yeah and you know again excellent point
43:45 um absolutely i think
43:47 we will have
43:49 the noxious weeds we'll probably
43:51 reference the king county noxious weed
43:53 list um because they've done already
43:55 such great work on on that
43:58 in terms of um
44:00 you know if they already have that that
44:02 could
44:03 it's going to take more of a program to
44:05 kind of
44:08 but as a new development that comes in a
44:11 new landscaping that's put in it becomes
44:14 that that doesn't quite come into play
44:16 but the species
44:19 for their
44:26 okay minnie you're fading in and out we
44:28 lost minnie
44:31 there she is
44:34 yeah my my um
44:37 actions are not that stable today i
44:39 don't know what's going on hopefully i
44:41 can continue on um
44:44 so um so
44:46 for the for the new projects where this
44:48 landscaping code would come into play
44:50 obviously we want them to to have more
44:52 diversity of species um we want them to
44:56 have more you know a combination
44:59 of things what we tend to see is
45:01 sometimes the landscape architects tends
45:03 to use the same sort of
45:05 you know pallet that they're more
45:07 comfortable with they know their plants
45:09 and things like that um the other thing
45:11 i think we've heard through the
45:12 community
45:13 feedback and through planning and policy
45:15 commission park boards uh discussions
45:17 were you know having more requirement
45:19 for dot draw tolerance species because
45:22 the climate change issues um how do we
45:25 incorporate that um
45:27 so we're looking at um those issues um
45:31 to be incorporated
45:35 anything else dan
45:38 okay
45:39 um with that we'll move on to jamie
45:41 jamie go ahead
45:43 thanks nancy jamie speaking
45:45 um minnie i was hoping you could share a
45:47 little bit like i understand that this
45:49 update will kind of
45:52 closely define the starting point i'm
45:54 curious about like the ongoing process
45:56 especially as it relates to like
45:58 aggressive invasives like what
46:01 first of all what will the will this
46:02 portion of the code speak to like the
46:04 level of maintenance required or removal
46:06 of invasive species into what are the
46:09 enforcement mechanisms staffing that
46:11 would go along with that
46:13 but yeah i just would love to hear a bit
46:15 more about that topic
46:18 yeah so um you know when you when you do
46:20 your um
46:22 plantings and things along the critical
46:24 areas um
46:26 we do have current code requirements for
46:29 uh monitoring for five years um and
46:32 maintaining those for a long period of
46:34 time for landscaping that that's outside
46:37 of those critical areas they have to
46:39 maintain it in a good well condition
46:42 otherwise it becomes a code enforcement
46:44 issue so we would generally approach it
46:47 as you know if all your trees are dead
46:49 we would approach it as a code
46:50 enforcement problem and saying you you
46:52 have not maintained your landscaping to
46:54 the standards you needed to maintain
46:57 the bonds and the monitoring
46:59 aspects um
47:01 you know
47:03 are our tools that you could use if you
47:06 plant new plantings generally what we
47:08 see is contractors have a one-year
47:10 warranty or a two-year warranty you know
47:12 so that's maintained for that period of
47:14 time but the the longevity of
47:17 and the well-being of the plantings
47:19 depends on if they really did those soil
47:21 amendments
47:22 when they first planted these things um
47:26 so so i think the approach is to kind of
47:28 make sure that all that work is done so
47:30 that the landscaping is thriving
47:32 if it is not then it will be a code
47:35 enforcement action
47:36 um in terms of the invasives um i
47:40 certainly i think we can have language
47:42 in the code to say it is your
47:43 responsibility to to maintain i think we
47:46 all currently have some code related to
47:48 that um
47:50 that addresses the maintenance
47:53 aspects
47:59 um any other questions or comments on
48:01 this section for many
48:07 okay minnie i think we've completed this
48:09 one i'll let you move on
48:12 sure so daniel do you want me to share
48:15 my screen with the presentation or how
48:18 do you want to handle that
48:20 no it's okay
48:28 well this time anderson speaking i just
48:30 wanted to jump in
48:33 some technical difficulties so at the
48:36 time here ended up having to reboot i
48:38 was on the phone uh
48:40 listening in
48:42 back but anyway
48:45 thanks tom for joining us again
48:52 i'll go ahead and get started my name is
48:54 daniel martinez i'm one of the planners
48:57 with the community planning and
48:58 development department
48:59 and as many mentioned
49:02 i'm
49:03 going to be the lead staff working on
49:06 the
49:07 tree portion of the code
49:11 so the city's goal is to conserve and
49:14 protect existing canopy on a citywide
49:18 scale
49:18 part of the update is ensuring alignment
49:21 of tree regulations
49:23 and trying to ensure a no net loss of
49:26 tree canopy
49:28 and
49:29 one one of the numbers
49:31 um at the last meeting that
49:34 uh kept coming up was was 51 51
49:39 the city's current tree canopy based on
49:42 a study that was completed in 2019
49:48 now our our land use goal
49:51 in our comprehensive plan is for 15
49:56 which means we are uh exceeding our goal
50:00 one
50:03 another
50:05 part of this tree management
50:08 uh section of the code is to try and
50:10 maintain the forested character of the
50:12 city
50:13 and retaining its designation as a tree
50:16 city usa
50:20 i mentioned the
50:22 tree canopy study again that was done in
50:25 2019
50:27 our parks department was
50:30 lead staff for that particular study and
50:32 they engaged a consultant
50:36 benefits of a tree canopy is
50:39 and and just so that
50:41 we all understand what that is a tree
50:43 canopy is the widest distance of a
50:45 tree's branches from the trunk
50:48 uh canopy and associative uh vegetation
50:51 are critical to storm water capture and
50:53 infiltration
50:55 shading providing clean air
50:57 and
50:58 increasing property values of private
51:00 land owners
51:04 tree canopy can be achieved
51:06 in several ways and you'll hear a little
51:10 bit about how other jurisdictions are
51:12 doing it and
51:14 um some of our thoughts for
51:16 incorporating their methods
51:18 uh into our code
51:22 currently we use a tree rotation
51:24 retention and replacement standards
51:26 through our title 18 in the municipal
51:28 code
51:30 we have voluntary tree planning on
51:32 private lots
51:34 a city
51:35 tree planting programs
51:38 and environmental stewardship
51:44 today's regulations are
51:47 largely based on tree retention and
51:50 tree density
51:57 and the purpose of
52:00 both of those is to protect the
52:02 environment and preserve the natural
52:04 forested character as i mentioned
52:05 earlier
52:07 and enhance the aesthetics of the
52:08 community
52:11 we have two different types of
52:14 designations
52:16 for the city we have what's called a
52:19 significant tree
52:20 and that is a tree that is
52:23 six inches diameter in breast height or
52:26 greater
52:28 or eight inches for a cottonwood or
52:31 alder
52:33 we also have what we call a landmark
52:35 tree and that is a
52:37 tree that is 30 inches or greater in
52:40 diameter breast height
52:48 and
52:49 one of the some of the opportunities
52:51 that we
52:52 are aware of for improving our canopy is
52:56 to create a city-wide
52:58 cohesive approach to tree management
53:01 and to strengthen
53:03 and clarify all aspects of the review
53:06 permitting and approval process for
53:08 retention and replacement
53:12 i mentioned the
53:15 the comprehensive plan and our fifty
53:17 percent
53:19 goal if you're interested in that in
53:20 that that's
53:22 um land use goal b
53:24 uh central isoqua plan also has a goal
53:28 specific to
53:31 that
53:32 that plan
53:34 but that's kind of been one of the
53:36 challenges is that we have current
53:38 regulations
53:39 that are different for central israel
53:42 and different for the rest of the city
53:46 and one of the goals is to
53:49 make sure that we update to just one set
53:52 of regulations for for the entire city
54:01 lake forest park is one of the cities
54:06 that that we looked at for canopy
54:08 preservation
54:10 there it can't be covered is measured by
54:12 the percentage of
54:14 existing trees and projected canopy
54:17 coverage to be provided by newly planted
54:20 trees
54:25 not sure if you read the memo but one of
54:27 the
54:30 things that we are looking to focus on
54:32 is to move away from a density approach
54:35 and to
54:36 work more towards a retention and
54:38 replacement approach and really just
54:40 focus on canopy
54:45 another possibility is to adopt
54:50 an additional tree type
54:54 and that would be
55:04 uh a designation for an exceptional tree
55:08 uh again lake forest park has this
55:11 standard and i understand
55:16 that one of the things that our code
55:18 doesn't do is a is provide
55:21 a variance process or an exception
55:24 process for the removal of landmark
55:26 trees it's essentially they need to be
55:29 causing damage or they need to be
55:32 considered high risk
55:34 by an arborist
55:36 this
55:37 we are considering a
55:39 variance type process for the removal
55:43 of land landmark trees
55:55 so so if i'm going to
55:57 summarize kind of what our that the gap
56:01 analysis memo said
56:03 we want to make sure that we can
56:04 establish a separate landscaping and
56:06 tree preservation
56:08 code chapters
56:11 we want to update the code to include a
56:13 canopy requirement based on land use
56:17 we want to apply a right tree right
56:19 place method
56:21 method so that's location of species and
56:24 quality
56:25 will be used to analyze tree retention
56:28 replacement
56:29 and then finally we want to strengthen
56:31 our landmark tree
56:32 standards
56:35 provide a
56:37 exception process and then we also want
56:41 incorporate
56:43 standards for exceptional trees
56:50 and with that i'll
56:52 hand it over for questions and
56:54 discussion
56:56 thank you daniel for your presentation
56:58 are there any questions or comments from
57:00 board members regarding this
57:02 the tree management discussion in
57:04 landscaping
57:09 uh tom anderson please go ahead
57:14 um yes tom anderson speaking am i coming
57:17 through
57:18 yes
57:19 it's okay good um i'm wondering like
57:22 how do you apply how does the city apply
57:24 these this goal to management of park
57:27 land
57:30 park might have some open space because
57:32 they want to have open space there but
57:35 we could improve our tree canopy if we
57:37 planted trees in the middle of memorial
57:39 field for example well it has two
57:41 functions it's a park area that's used
57:44 for
57:45 sports which
57:47 doesn't need trees and
57:50 so maybe you'd want to put trees there
57:52 to achieve your goals now maybe that's a
57:55 silly example memorial field but other
57:58 port parks like confluence park a lot of
58:01 nice open space it's
58:03 very enjoyable the way that it is but
58:05 you could achieve a better tree canopy
58:08 percentage if you planted more trees
58:09 there is that is that a part of the
58:12 equation at all um how does that work
58:17 that's not uh this is the first time
58:19 i've heard a
58:21 someone make that suggestion and so so
58:24 far it has not been part of the
58:26 conversation
58:30 what
58:31 we do have is
58:33 we have native growth protection
58:34 easements which is a little you know
58:36 it's different i recognize that it's
58:37 different than
58:38 than what you're saying but
58:41 uh native group protection easements are
58:44 one area in which we
58:47 designate pieces of land to
58:51 not be developed
58:53 and to provide for native vegetation
58:55 including
58:57 arch tree canopy
59:00 well let me put it this way suppose
59:03 suppose you
59:04 do the measurement again and it comes
59:06 out to be 48 percent
59:08 and so oh my what should we do what
59:10 should we do well the city could do some
59:12 things about that by planting some more
59:13 trees on parkland um or we could just
59:16 wait until uh
59:18 tighten up the regulations on private
59:20 land owners and and five years from now
59:22 we might get back to 51
59:27 is that is that a
59:29 plausible scenario or
59:31 what would we do if we did draw up to 48
59:34 i guess that's part of the question
59:38 i think
59:39 i'm gonna let minnie answer that
59:42 yeah you know that is a good question i
59:44 think we we need to have that part of
59:46 the conversation in terms of and be
59:48 realistic about i mean it yes we need to
59:51 set an aspirational goal through our
59:53 comprehensive plan through the climate
59:55 action plan of what that goal should be
59:57 you know if you want to increase it
59:59 to whatever that percentage amount is is
1:00:02 is great and then the hard work is
1:00:05 how do we make that happen
1:00:07 we know wildfire danger issues you know
1:00:10 you heard from community members today
1:00:12 those are real what does that mean we're
1:00:14 still trying to understand those we're
1:00:16 at you know as it was at the fringe
1:00:18 where you have your developed area and
1:00:20 you have your forest land and so
1:00:23 the dip in the canopy if you are going
1:00:26 to have some fire breaks and things like
1:00:27 that as we study that issue more
1:00:30 what is that what will that do to the
1:00:31 tree canopy and where will that that
1:00:34 compensation need to occur we heard
1:00:36 about street
1:00:37 trees buckling up sidewalks and and and
1:00:41 dying as a result of it because they
1:00:42 were the wrong type of tree planted in
1:00:44 the wrong place so what happens when
1:00:47 those need to be replaced you're not
1:00:49 going to get a big tree you know over uh
1:00:52 it's going to take a long number of
1:00:53 years to grow so i think in the last uh
1:00:57 uh conversation when we had the the
1:00:59 consultant said that
1:01:02 you know the tree canopy isn't going to
1:01:04 be the steep curve or a flat curve
1:01:07 they're going to be this jagged curve so
1:01:09 over some years you might have some
1:01:11 temporal loss and you might
1:01:15 and you might as well continue to press
1:01:17 towards that
1:01:18 that goal that's over that time horizon
1:01:21 that that the community sets itself up
1:01:24 for that goal that'll be important how
1:01:26 we do it i think the programs it'll be a
1:01:29 combination of things
1:01:31 where should the trees be planted
1:01:33 through the environmental stewardship
1:01:35 program from the city obviously near the
1:01:37 creeks and the wetlands there's going to
1:01:39 be double benefit because you can shade
1:01:41 the trees the you know the water
1:01:43 temperatures will go down so obviously
1:01:45 that should be prioritized
1:01:47 parkland that
1:01:48 the city owns you know the parks have a
1:01:51 whole process that they go through a
1:01:52 community planning exercise there's a
1:01:54 lot of community input into is is the
1:01:57 parking active park for sports and other
1:02:00 things or is that a passive park with
1:02:02 trails so all of those things get
1:02:04 factored into the park design but
1:02:05 ultimately the park design goes through
1:02:07 a public process that then is funded by
1:02:10 city council
1:02:12 yes it will be a scramble to find
1:02:14 the the spaces that we want to plant
1:02:16 these trees on you know trees on but the
1:02:19 goals would be to spread them around so
1:02:21 that you can
1:02:22 not have heat island impacts and and
1:02:24 other things and then get some more
1:02:26 environmental benefits but it is a it's
1:02:29 a good point if you if on a aerial map
1:02:31 you see a lot of green space and it's an
1:02:33 active sports field
1:02:36 you shouldn't be counting that towards
1:02:38 an area that can assume a lot of trees
1:02:40 because that likely won't happen because
1:02:42 of programmatic needs it could probably
1:02:44 you could plant more along the fringes
1:02:47 um and so on and so forth so
1:02:49 you know point well taken
1:02:51 well i think there there are some
1:02:53 opportunities you know so we're not
1:02:55 going to plant trees on memorial field
1:02:57 but uh like some of the lots that were
1:02:59 acquired in the last few years along its
1:03:01 o'clock creek between front street and
1:03:04 sequoia creek there on
1:03:06 the west side
1:03:08 there there's vacant spaces in there
1:03:10 that could have trees um i i think that
1:03:13 they should be planted would be my
1:03:15 preference uh to increase some coverage
1:03:17 in there well what what is the obstacle
1:03:20 to getting her maybe there's a
1:03:22 landscaping plant for those little mini
1:03:24 parks that just hasn't been executed yet
1:03:27 i i don't know but
1:03:30 i would look to some areas like that i
1:03:31 think that there are opportunities on
1:03:34 some of these little
1:03:35 parkland areas that are not active parks
1:03:38 but passive parks
1:03:40 that could have
1:03:42 coverage uh the other question i have is
1:03:45 about the
1:03:47 precision
1:03:48 of the measurement uh you know every
1:03:50 measurement is perfect and and i'm
1:03:52 wondering well when we measured at 51
1:03:57 what sort of error
1:03:58 can we expect in that if we measure it
1:04:01 each time do we get five percent
1:04:03 different or
1:04:05 one or two percent or what what sort of
1:04:07 precision should we expect on that
1:04:09 measurement
1:04:14 from the tree canopy study yes
1:04:17 yeah you know it's a very technical
1:04:19 thing um the last time the city the
1:04:22 parks department led that uh effort and
1:04:26 of course a lot of it is um
1:04:28 i i don't know the answer exactly how
1:04:31 precise it is but it is a tool that a
1:04:34 lot of communities are using it is based
1:04:36 on aerial imagery but the aerial imagery
1:04:39 has gotten so good
1:04:41 at a lot of these things i mean you can
1:04:44 narrow it down to the the leaf and you
1:04:46 know which tree it is and that kind of
1:04:48 stuff so
1:04:50 but i i can't give you a number in terms
1:04:52 of it's 100 accurate or or it has a
1:04:55 margin of plus minus 2
1:04:58 that would be a question for the experts
1:05:02 yeah well i i wonder about it in terms
1:05:04 of this
1:05:05 how close we are to the border and
1:05:07 whether uh dithering back and forth
1:05:09 across the border causes us to change
1:05:11 our behavior in that way
1:05:13 well understanding that that error
1:05:16 would be
1:05:18 part of the policy but
1:05:21 uh i know there there is an error oh i
1:05:23 know that for sure
1:05:25 she might have
1:05:27 so that's something to consider
1:05:31 that's all i had
1:05:33 thank you tom
1:05:34 i'm gonna step in before i call on the
1:05:36 next person and i have a question for
1:05:37 you minnie i looked at your approach was
1:05:39 to update
1:05:41 the code to include canopy requirements
1:05:43 based on land use
1:05:44 and my thoughts are as i look to the
1:05:47 city to the west of us that being
1:05:49 bellevue and the rapid urbanization
1:05:51 that's happening in that city is they
1:05:53 take buildings down and put multi-story
1:05:55 buildings up
1:05:56 um on a case-by-case basis
1:06:00 are we now going to require as buildings
1:06:02 maybe let's call target and it goes down
1:06:04 becomes a multi-story multi-family above
1:06:07 type thing are they going to be required
1:06:09 then since they have to bait it's based
1:06:12 on the land use code they have to start
1:06:14 providing more of a canopy
1:06:16 um as you know these
1:06:18 parking lots become condos with retail
1:06:21 on the bottom floor are we going to
1:06:23 require it on a lot by lot basis in the
1:06:26 urban centers
1:06:28 parcel by parcel basis
1:06:32 that is my understanding i'll have
1:06:33 daniel explain the the three approaches
1:06:35 i think those three approaches that were
1:06:37 laid out in the memo were for
1:06:39 uh if you have
1:06:41 ten trees and you want to cut down one
1:06:43 tree one tree what how do we look at
1:06:46 whether you meet your canopy coverage
1:06:48 goals or not
1:06:49 so right now
1:06:50 um you know if you have a single if you
1:06:52 own a residential lot
1:06:55 uh you need a tree density a minimum
1:06:57 tree density of
1:06:59 some trees and there are four trees for
1:07:02 five thousand square feet uh correct me
1:07:03 if i'm wrong daniel but i think
1:07:05 something like that so
1:07:07 um there is a tree density requirement
1:07:09 and it's just
1:07:11 number of trees divided by the square
1:07:13 per square feet of the lot area the
1:07:16 approach i think the that's laid out and
1:07:18 that we're considering um
1:07:21 doing is instead of
1:07:23 a really a numbers game it's more about
1:07:26 what's the quality in the canopy
1:07:28 coverage of that existing tree that you
1:07:30 want to take down
1:07:32 so if it is you know 10 inches
1:07:35 wide and it has
1:07:37 is an evergreen tree with this
1:07:39 large canopy coverage the arborist will
1:07:42 determine what your canopy coverage is
1:07:44 and you have to replace it by planting
1:07:46 other trees that meet the the canopy
1:07:49 coverage
1:07:50 um i will let daniel explain if i have
1:07:53 kind of misspoken on the approach
1:07:56 no that that was correct and the example
1:07:59 you gave was also accurate so for
1:08:02 commercial areas for example
1:08:05 uh we require a minimum of four
1:08:08 significant trees for every 5 000 square
1:08:11 feet and so if you're developing a
1:08:14 property right now you have
1:08:16 to meet both
1:08:18 retention
1:08:20 and that could be 30
1:08:22 so you can't cut down more than 30 of
1:08:26 the trees that are existing and then
1:08:28 when you are developing your property
1:08:30 you have to also meet density meaning
1:08:34 if you have a
1:08:36 10 thousand square foot
1:08:39 that you're developing in your
1:08:40 commercial building
1:08:42 uh you have to provide a minimum of
1:08:46 eight
1:08:47 trees
1:08:53 i guess it concerns me then how we
1:08:56 structured the exceptions because in the
1:08:59 commercial core if they redevelop to a
1:09:01 higher density
1:09:03 and they usually have trees in their
1:09:04 parking lot already because of the
1:09:06 landscaping strips or future or previous
1:09:09 codes
1:09:11 it is going to be very challenging
1:09:13 for them to do this and they're always
1:09:14 going to be asking for exceptions
1:09:17 and or exemptions or something to get
1:09:19 them around these requirements
1:09:21 and how do we have the teeth and the
1:09:23 wherewithal to stand up
1:09:25 so that that doesn't occur so that we're
1:09:27 actually getting the canopy that we're
1:09:28 trying to get out of this i mean i'm
1:09:30 concerned about that because i can see
1:09:32 it very easily happening
1:09:34 yeah so the couple things there um sure
1:09:37 i mean i i think the the retention
1:09:39 requirements would apply so if there's a
1:09:41 parking lot we all know those parking
1:09:43 lots right now it really barely have any
1:09:45 trees but if it was a really nicely
1:09:47 planted parking lot
1:09:49 they would have to preserve 30 of those
1:09:51 trees for the tree retention we can kind
1:09:54 of look at what that retention number
1:09:56 needs to be with this update we could
1:09:57 require larger percentage
1:10:00 you know for retention um
1:10:03 but then you get into those competing
1:10:06 uh priorities um right so
1:10:09 if you want um people living close by
1:10:12 and not having a car centric city where
1:10:15 people can walk to and and have all of
1:10:17 that so redevelopment of a surface
1:10:19 parking lot is a good thing in that
1:10:21 respect because otherwise a you know 500
1:10:25 stall parking garage parking lot is not
1:10:28 necessarily
1:10:29 meeting that vision so so i think
1:10:31 there's going to be some of those
1:10:33 competing things that that will come
1:10:35 into play but as far as the tree
1:10:37 regulations and the landscaping
1:10:39 regulations come into play i think you
1:10:40 bring up a good point what does that
1:10:42 mean for redevelopment
1:10:44 the tree retention requirements for
1:10:46 redevelopment versus an undeveloped site
1:10:49 perhaps needs to be nuanced out in the
1:10:54 thank you
1:10:55 that covers my question sorry to
1:10:57 interrupt with you guys i think we have
1:10:58 and you come coming up next thanks ann
1:11:04 yeah thank you nancy
1:11:07 and here
1:11:09 so yeah i liked tom's idea of
1:11:13 looking at the parks
1:11:15 especially the ones near the the creeks
1:11:18 like um confluence park
1:11:22 bernstein park and thinking about
1:11:25 do we need all of this grass or
1:11:27 could we plant some more trees to
1:11:29 increase our tree canopy
1:11:34 as we are looking at the tree canopy i
1:11:37 liked and
1:11:38 and fletcher's idea
1:11:42 putting in the verbiage about carbon
1:11:44 sequestration
1:11:47 so um
1:11:48 it's good to remember that 50
1:11:51 of a tree is carbon you know it's of
1:11:54 course it also goes into the soil
1:11:57 but that's something to look at
1:11:59 as we're looking at the tree canopy
1:12:01 which trees
1:12:03 sequester more carbon
1:12:06 and then i'm going to plug the king
1:12:07 county 30-year forest plan again um
1:12:10 because they have a lot of
1:12:12 great ideas i think it's going to be an
1:12:14 interesting dance as we go forward
1:12:16 having a lot of trees and climate change
1:12:21 and fire i just got back from paradise
1:12:24 california i was down there that's where
1:12:26 the campfire was i was down there for my
1:12:28 aunt's 90th birthday party
1:12:30 they had a lot of um
1:12:33 restrictions on cutting trees down in
1:12:35 their codes
1:12:37 it just started making me think about
1:12:40 ours but i don't think we're anything
1:12:42 them in california and we're very
1:12:45 practical with
1:12:47 our trees and we're also looking at
1:12:49 forest health and
1:12:52 the native undergrowth and
1:12:54 we're on the in the pacific northwest
1:12:56 which is um
1:13:01 hot and dry and hopefully we would never
1:13:03 get that way
1:13:04 but um
1:13:06 kathleen wolfe um
1:13:09 and the other scientists did a great job
1:13:11 with the
1:13:12 forest 30-year forest health plan for
1:13:15 king county and they did also look at um
1:13:18 you know what vegetation and trees
1:13:21 might we start thinking about that are
1:13:23 farther south like in the pacific
1:13:25 northwest but in oregon
1:13:27 not as far south as california but in
1:13:29 oregon
1:13:30 um how might that
1:13:33 work better for the future
1:13:35 and so um
1:13:37 i'm wondering if you're looking at stuff
1:13:38 like that daniel
1:13:43 we have
1:13:45 but um you know
1:13:47 part of this um having this conversation
1:13:51 is to elicit these comments and these
1:13:53 questions so that we can look at those
1:13:55 things
1:13:57 more closely
1:13:58 awesome
1:14:00 and um
1:14:02 thank you
1:14:06 and i do have an answer uh to tom's
1:14:09 earlier question i um
1:14:11 took a look and the margin of error is
1:14:15 three and a half percent
1:14:17 meaning that the range is uh
1:14:21 47.7 percent
1:14:23 to 54.7
1:14:25 of tree canopy
1:14:29 thank you for that daniel
1:14:32 hey dan hans you're up next
1:14:36 all right thanks nancy dan hintz um
1:14:39 i guess i have two questions or one one
1:14:42 being a clarification and hopefully a
1:14:43 few comments i can make pretty quickly
1:14:45 here um
1:14:46 i i do just want to be clear
1:14:48 many you might have described this i
1:14:50 just want to be clear on the retention
1:14:52 rate um
1:14:53 i thought daniel mentioned it's it's
1:14:55 only a 30
1:14:57 loss or is it a 30 retention of trees on
1:15:00 sites and also how is that defined is
1:15:02 that based on
1:15:05 pbh or you know is there selection for
1:15:07 certain quality of trees too on that i
1:15:09 would just like to hear a little bit
1:15:10 more on the retention part of it
1:15:15 i i know you've directed it at many i'm
1:15:17 happy to um
1:15:18 answer
1:15:22 it's different based on
1:15:25 you know i mentioned earlier that we
1:15:27 have different standards for
1:15:29 centralization and the rest of the city
1:15:34 and so if we're talking about
1:15:36 uh issaquah at large uh for single
1:15:41 family duplex
1:15:44 um and short flats
1:15:46 you're looking at 30
1:15:48 uh total dbh
1:15:50 um uh of significant trees in the
1:15:54 developable both side area so you're
1:15:57 taking out
1:16:00 trees you're not you're not counting
1:16:02 trees that are in critical areas if the
1:16:04 site is encumbered by critical areas
1:16:07 and as to your question about quality or
1:16:11 species we don't have any
1:16:15 standards for that i think that's
1:16:17 quality is something that come up a few
1:16:20 times and i think that that is something
1:16:22 that we
1:16:24 could pursue
1:16:29 i understand that you know a cottonwood
1:16:31 or an alder
1:16:33 may not have the same value to
1:16:36 to uh some folks or to the environment
1:16:40 as another species so that's something
1:16:42 that that
1:16:44 we could
1:16:45 potentially pursue
1:16:47 awesome well daniel that's perfect
1:16:49 because i think you kind of got up my
1:16:50 second question i was trying to remember
1:16:51 from one of our earlier meetings about
1:16:53 overlap with critical areas whether that
1:16:55 be stream buffers wetland buffers so
1:16:57 that's i just wanted to be clear on that
1:16:59 i thought that's the case you actually
1:17:00 answered my second question there so
1:17:03 i guess my comments are yeah i think
1:17:05 they're i think there's a big range
1:17:06 between a significant tree at six inch
1:17:08 diameter and a landmark tree at 30 inch
1:17:10 diameter so i think there could be some
1:17:12 nuance and unfortunately i think yes
1:17:14 there's some trees i personally wouldn't
1:17:16 consider that significant at six to
1:17:17 eight inch diameter talking about i know
1:17:19 it's i think eight inch you said for all
1:17:20 there's cottonwoods but um i think there
1:17:23 could be some nuance there based on
1:17:24 species or even some kind of
1:17:26 intermediate thresholds on dbh
1:17:29 personally i think 30 retention is is
1:17:32 pretty low um for some of these sites so
1:17:34 i don't know if that's something that
1:17:35 could be considered bumping that up
1:17:39 so those are just a couple comments kind
1:17:40 of on the answer i got from daniel there
1:17:42 which is great um looking through the
1:17:45 memo a few comments i just want to make
1:17:46 quickly here
1:17:49 specifically i really like uh the
1:17:51 emphasis on species selection and
1:17:53 retention and replacement of native
1:17:55 conifers so i just want to kind of
1:17:57 amplify that
1:17:58 in the memo there uh just and i
1:18:00 appreciate how it's called out they
1:18:02 provide
1:18:03 more ecological functions they're more
1:18:04 long-lived um i'd even advocate for you
1:18:07 as best as possible native species but
1:18:09 we have some really good uh species like
1:18:13 citrus atlantica you know some european
1:18:15 pine species that actually do really
1:18:17 well in kind of hot drought or even kind
1:18:19 of more pollution roadside areas i think
1:18:21 there's a lot of flexibility there but
1:18:23 obviously our conifers are serving rain
1:18:25 interception storm water those benefits
1:18:27 year-round versus our deciduous trees
1:18:29 that obviously drop leaves so really
1:18:31 like that
1:18:33 i really
1:18:34 am kind of interested in maybe learning
1:18:36 a little bit more i guess i'll just just
1:18:38 kind of also amplify uh strengthening
1:18:40 some of the arborist qualifications and
1:18:42 expertise i will say personally from my
1:18:44 experience i can
1:18:47 i feel a little frustrated and sometimes
1:18:48 i think there's kind of a clear
1:18:51 bias of tree removal for arborist
1:18:53 companies that are both doing the risk
1:18:54 assessment and you know potentially the
1:18:56 removal there's an incentive for them to
1:18:58 take out trees and easily kind of
1:18:59 convince landowners that like yes this
1:19:01 could be a hazard to your roof car or
1:19:03 whatever and i don't want to
1:19:05 say that that doesn't exist but i do
1:19:07 feel like often there there is an
1:19:08 incentive to um you know remove trees
1:19:11 that arborist put out on people and i
1:19:12 would be really curious to see what kind
1:19:14 of more rigorous
1:19:16 uh qualifications would look like for
1:19:18 that and also you know how the city
1:19:20 arborist i actually didn't know city
1:19:21 visible has a designated arborist and
1:19:23 kind of what their role serves and and
1:19:25 some of these conversations around tree
1:19:26 removal
1:19:28 um so just want to kind of comment on
1:19:30 um and then the last comment um is on
1:19:34 the um in lieu
1:19:37 city tree fund
1:19:39 i've been trying to read a little bit
1:19:41 and found mixed things on the trunk
1:19:42 formula method um i will just say yeah i
1:19:45 mean of course if it's a small tree and
1:19:47 you can replace the similar size at a
1:19:48 nursery i just don't see that being a
1:19:51 actual tangible thing for most of our
1:19:53 tree loss you're replacing trees that
1:19:55 we're talking for conifers two decades
1:19:57 to become a significant tree at six to
1:19:59 eight inches diameter at breast height
1:20:03 i don't know if the trunk um
1:20:06 sorry one more time i believe the trump
1:20:07 formula method really counts that kind
1:20:09 of temporal loss i feel like minnie
1:20:11 brought that up a little bit um you know
1:20:13 we talk about that a lot for wetlands
1:20:14 and wetland mitigation you know we're
1:20:16 removing something replanting it which
1:20:18 is great but we're talking decades we're
1:20:19 talking a human lifetime before they
1:20:22 become you know landmark trees is that
1:20:24 designation so
1:20:26 um i i really think there could be more
1:20:28 more analysis and even more
1:20:29 justification around higher values for
1:20:32 for tree replacement so
1:20:36 that's a comment i have there so that
1:20:38 that you know we're talking decades
1:20:40 lifetimes replacement there i think
1:20:42 not true is echoing me there maybe that
1:20:44 was connie but um another last thing
1:20:46 this is you know something i'm pretty
1:20:47 sure is in our code but i have a hard
1:20:49 time talking about tree canopy and all
1:20:51 this stuff without also talking about
1:20:52 impervious surfaces so
1:20:54 um when we're talking about some of
1:20:55 these urban developments in these areas
1:20:57 when we pave over areas we can unpave
1:20:59 them i know that but i see no evidence
1:21:01 of that happening in cities it's a
1:21:03 elsewhere
1:21:04 it just ties so dramatically to the
1:21:06 health of our vegetation health of our
1:21:08 storm water streams fish
1:21:11 so i know maybe that's a different
1:21:12 conversation obviously different part of
1:21:13 the land use code but i i have a hard
1:21:15 time not combining tree canopy and also
1:21:18 talking about impervious surfaces and
1:21:20 some of the really high density areas we
1:21:22 have there so um yeah the kind of more
1:21:25 equal distribution of a forest can be
1:21:27 really limited by um
1:21:29 some of those kind of densely paved
1:21:31 areas so okay i'm sorry that was pretty
1:21:33 long but i will i'll leave it at that
1:21:36 dan i don't know if i if i agree i
1:21:38 actually think impervious surface and
1:21:42 are totally related
1:21:44 you know if we have a 95
1:21:48 maximum allowable impervious surface
1:21:51 that's
1:21:52 clearly not going to allow for the kind
1:21:54 of tree canopy that the city uh is is
1:21:58 looking for oh i think you think that's
1:21:59 what i was saying sorry yeah yeah yeah
1:22:02 okay you do it okay so yeah yeah yeah so
1:22:04 i i don't know what some of the
1:22:05 regulations are on that but i think
1:22:06 those are very connected
1:22:08 um yeah i i agree they're connected and
1:22:11 and i don't know
1:22:14 and and i think that there's an
1:22:16 opportunity there to look at you know
1:22:19 what are the imperfect surface ratios
1:22:23 and if we have those impervious surface
1:22:25 ratios are we going to actually achieve
1:22:27 the treat canopy that that we want
1:22:31 yeah awesome um going back
1:22:34 to your um
1:22:36 previous comment about 30 being low
1:22:42 30 is for single family designations and
1:22:45 duplexes
1:22:46 it's actually 25
1:22:49 or uh commercial and multi-family
1:22:51 developments and it's 25 percent
1:22:54 uh through central issaquah
1:22:58 and because uh
1:22:59 connie is
1:23:01 on the call
1:23:02 and and i see her hand up i'm going to
1:23:06 get ahead of this
1:23:08 a little bit and
1:23:09 also mention that
1:23:12 in central isoqua you can
1:23:14 if you are a developer and you come in
1:23:16 with an application
1:23:18 you can request to go down to zero
1:23:23 free retention
1:23:25 per our current code
1:23:28 so that's something else
1:23:30 that i know
1:23:32 we probably should look at
1:23:36 great
1:23:38 thanks for the feedback daniel um and
1:23:40 great comments dan
1:23:42 uh moving on to jamie jamie finch go
1:23:44 ahead
1:23:46 thanks nancy jamie speaking um daniel i
1:23:49 was wondering
1:23:50 i just want to make sure that i
1:23:51 understand the differences between the
1:23:53 current approach and the proposed
1:23:56 updated approach so i was wondering if
1:23:57 you could walk us through
1:23:59 a hypothetical like say
1:24:01 what you could choose but maybe a fully
1:24:04 forced lock with that was covered with
1:24:05 100 significant trees how would that
1:24:08 differ
1:24:09 in this current like what we use today
1:24:11 versus what and percentages like i know
1:24:13 setting aside percentages that i know
1:24:15 those are going to be defined but i
1:24:16 would love to hear just the the
1:24:18 parameters that that developer would be
1:24:21 subject to under the current approach
1:24:23 and then what were what is being
1:24:24 proposed
1:24:27 sure so i can kind of tell you what
1:24:31 it would look like under current
1:24:36 we don't because we have several ideas
1:24:40 on the table about future approach that
1:24:44 it's not really possible for me to
1:24:46 um just pick one and
1:24:49 um and and run with it because
1:24:52 it's entirely possible that we're gonna
1:24:54 have a combination of a pro of
1:24:56 approaches
1:24:58 currently
1:25:00 um you mentioned if you have a
1:25:03 completely forested site and you have
1:25:04 100 trees
1:25:08 we we wouldn't necessarily look at the
1:25:10 number of trees we would look at the
1:25:13 total caliper inches
1:25:17 or all of the trees combined so if you
1:25:20 have if those hundred trees come out to
1:25:23 a thousand caliber inches you are
1:25:27 and you're building a single family
1:25:29 development
1:25:35 you know under the municipal code then
1:25:37 you're required to retain 300 inches
1:25:43 caliper of trees and that could
1:25:47 end up being six
1:25:49 50 inch trees you know
1:25:52 but that's what the code uh says today
1:25:56 okay and
1:25:57 the tree canopy approach that you would
1:25:59 have to retain
1:26:01 retain
1:26:03 of the tree i just want to make sure i
1:26:05 understand the difference between and
1:26:06 that's i think the proposed approach
1:26:08 right and i'm sure there's some nuance
1:26:10 down the road but like
1:26:12 that's our current approach
1:26:13 that's our current approach is caliper
1:26:16 inches routine
1:26:17 yeah so what i was talking about was the
1:26:19 proposed approach which i believe is a
1:26:22 tree canopy based look at how we would
1:26:24 calculate tree density is that correct
1:26:30 like i said there are a couple of
1:26:33 potential ways to look at it one of them
1:26:35 is a cost approach to true evaluation
1:26:41 and another one is a trunk formula
1:26:43 method that that
1:26:45 dan talked about
1:26:49 and and to be completely honest because
1:26:51 i don't want to
1:26:52 try and make it up on the fly i i'm not
1:26:55 familiar enough with the application of
1:26:58 those or the implementation of those to
1:27:00 to be able to
1:27:02 truly
1:27:03 um walk you through that in a
1:27:06 logical way
1:27:09 so there was those three different
1:27:11 options around calculation of tree
1:27:13 density how were those applied to this
1:27:15 update and this might get back to many's
1:27:17 original
1:27:18 point around like goals versus
1:27:20 code versus
1:27:22 but i'm just trying to understand how
1:27:23 those three options that were
1:27:26 uh brought up in the update or in the
1:27:30 how does a plot how we're supposed to
1:27:31 think about applying that
1:27:39 i'm trying to pull up uh the memo here i
1:27:41 think what you're getting at is the in
1:27:43 the memo we talked about the canopy
1:27:46 approach
1:27:49 hang on
1:27:50 just quickly get to that
1:28:01 so let me share my screen and pull that
1:28:03 up here real quick
1:28:06 so we can all look at what
1:28:09 said in there
1:28:46 so let's see if i can share
1:28:56 can you all see my screen
1:29:01 so um i think what uh commissioner finch
1:29:04 is talking about is this piece
1:29:08 right developed citywide tree retention
1:29:10 based on canopy cover goals by land use
1:29:13 type and lot size
1:29:16 the place that it specifically
1:29:17 referenced is a bit higher up it's
1:29:20 under tree density determination methods
1:29:25 at least online on page 18
1:29:29 so down here we said
1:29:32 the third methodology is the canopy
1:29:35 based approach
1:29:36 this approach identifies canopy coverage
1:29:39 goals for lot sizes and land use types
1:29:42 and then i think the idea under this
1:29:44 approach is to measure the percentage of
1:29:46 the canopy
1:29:48 provided by the existing trees
1:29:50 uh and then look at the projected canopy
1:29:54 provided by the newly planted trees so
1:29:56 if you take one tree out and you
1:29:59 which
1:30:00 you obviously can figure out what the
1:30:01 canopy is of that tree but the new tree
1:30:04 that you're going to plant or new trees
1:30:07 that you're going to plant you have to
1:30:08 project what the canopy of that tree is
1:30:11 going to be obviously it's going to
1:30:12 depend on is it well maintained does it
1:30:15 grow up to be the right
1:30:17 size tree and all that so when they
1:30:20 reach the maturity is sort of but in
1:30:22 order to figure that out
1:30:24 it'll have to be by done by someone that
1:30:27 knows a lot about trees and arbor uh
1:30:29 certified arborist and all that
1:30:32 so what this would do is it would avoid
1:30:37 the scenario that daniel was uh
1:30:39 explaining under the current methodology
1:30:42 you you cumulatively count the the
1:30:46 diameter of all the trees and then you
1:30:48 have to preserve 30
1:30:50 which could only mean you clear-cut the
1:30:53 whole thing and you're left with three
1:30:54 trees standing that are the larger trees
1:30:56 but they're in the corner so you've kind
1:30:58 of lost that tree canopy spread out
1:31:01 throughout the lot under this approach
1:31:04 it's not a numbers game it's more about
1:31:07 the canopy coverage for those trees
1:31:11 so i think that it avoids some of those
1:31:15 pitfalls of the existing code
1:31:18 okay thanks and so with that then if we
1:31:20 were to go that's the proposed approach
1:31:21 by the city correct
1:31:23 if we were to go that approach
1:31:25 let's say that the retention 30 for
1:31:28 single families stayed the same that
1:31:30 would mean that they would need to
1:31:31 retain 30
1:31:32 of the tree cover
1:31:34 for the canopy cover that would that
1:31:36 would then be the metric for calculating
1:31:38 what that 30 how that 30 is defined for
1:31:40 retention and then for replacement
1:31:43 you know if you uh then it would come
1:31:45 out okay you've you've taken down you
1:31:47 you have to retain these many based on
1:31:49 the canopy
1:31:50 you know uh calculations then for the
1:31:54 ones that you took out there may be some
1:31:57 replacement ratios for those
1:31:59 and those replacement ratios are again
1:32:02 going to be based off of what the canopy
1:32:04 of this tree that you're planting today
1:32:06 will be in 30 years and will we meet
1:32:08 that canopy uh coverage objective in the
1:32:12 so both for retention and for
1:32:14 replacement is my understanding that how
1:32:16 this would work
1:32:18 his details haven't been flushed out i
1:32:19 mean as we start you at this point we're
1:32:22 saying is this the right kind of
1:32:24 you know big picture idea to pursue and
1:32:26 then we'll work out all the details and
1:32:28 share the the code uh you know first
1:32:30 draft with you all
1:32:32 yeah i just want to make sure that i
1:32:34 understood
1:32:35 the distinction which just seems like a
1:32:37 fairly significant distinction between
1:32:39 like caliber inches versus canopy being
1:32:41 the key metric that would define
1:32:43 retention like that would be used and
1:32:48 thank you minnie that's helpful and then
1:32:50 i i know there was some mention of
1:32:53 uh the 30-year
1:32:55 aspect like
1:32:57 with that factor in the
1:32:59 basically
1:33:00 guess that canopy at 30 years is that
1:33:03 going to be factored into that only the
1:33:06 is that in the retention piece of it or
1:33:07 is that in some other aspect of of how
1:33:10 that would be applied in the replacement
1:33:12 in the replacement okay
1:33:16 thank you and i think my my last
1:33:18 question
1:33:19 and this is more of a comment i guess
1:33:21 would be based on that i am curious
1:33:26 what the replacement
1:33:28 levels are going to be because
1:33:29 presumably if we're trying to basically
1:33:31 maintain our tree canopy today like we
1:33:33 have we're basically at our goal for
1:33:35 maintaining tree canopy and if there's
1:33:38 let's say everyone
1:33:39 only retains 30 on the lots that are
1:33:42 developed that assume some net loss from
1:33:45 that so i'm just curious that that
1:33:47 really seems like a really important
1:33:49 aspect of like
1:33:50 and i don't know i don't remember seeing
1:33:52 any detail around what that would look
1:33:54 like what those ratios would look like
1:33:56 but that seems like a really important
1:33:58 topic because if we're planning on
1:34:00 trying to retain tree canopy that seems
1:34:02 like the only mechanism to actually do
1:34:04 that um because otherwise every
1:34:07 developed property is going to result in
1:34:10 net loss and
1:34:11 we're going to slowly chip away at our
1:34:13 any buffer that we have for that goal so
1:34:16 that's a part of this i assume that's in
1:34:18 scope for this update is that correct
1:34:20 correct and so so the the replacement
1:34:23 ratios are going to be a lot larger and
1:34:26 then if you you know uh we talked about
1:34:28 the fee in luff uh obviously we don't
1:34:30 want someone clear-cutting the whole lot
1:34:32 you know asking for deviations and then
1:34:34 just paying the money in lieu of that
1:34:37 but in circumstances where
1:34:39 they meet the retention requirements
1:34:41 they have to meet this canopy coverage
1:34:44 goals but they can't plant on their
1:34:46 property in that case we want some of
1:34:48 that planting to occur in a location you
1:34:51 know somewhere else off site or whatever
1:34:54 but but an actual tree gets planted for
1:34:56 that uh replacement um so i think all of
1:35:00 those details will be part of that
1:35:01 replacement ratio i think um
1:35:04 i don't know if you have anything to add
1:35:06 daniel on the replacement are we further
1:35:09 along on how the replacement will look
1:35:12 um no so my understanding and this is
1:35:15 also in the memo um commissioner finch
1:35:18 if you go to page 20 of the packet
1:35:23 the the memo does a pretty good job of
1:35:27 outlining
1:35:29 how retention and replacement would
1:35:31 would would work together so
1:35:35 a developer is going to
1:35:38 retain
1:35:39 only 30
1:35:41 so it sounds like we're going to be
1:35:42 going doing away with caliper inches and
1:35:45 it sounds like we're going to be doing
1:35:46 away with
1:35:48 minimum density instead we're going to
1:35:50 have this canopy that we're looking at
1:35:54 um that
1:35:56 off that table on page 20 kind of
1:35:59 provides for
1:36:01 uh the different land use types and lot
1:36:04 sizes and what the canopy goal is and
1:36:08 and that's where that 30-year mark comes
1:36:11 is it's a combination of retention
1:36:14 and replacement and replacement is going
1:36:17 to be
1:36:18 um you are achieving your
1:36:21 if it's a single-family residential lot
1:36:25 greater than fifteen thousand square
1:36:26 feet your canopy
1:36:28 cover goal is sixty to seventy percent
1:36:31 uh so we would be looking at replacement
1:36:34 trees
1:36:35 um and
1:36:37 looking forward into the future in 30
1:36:39 years
1:36:42 is it going to be feasible for that lot
1:36:44 to achieve canopy goal of 60 to 70
1:36:47 percent
1:36:50 one point of clarification to to make
1:36:55 is that we don't currently have a city
1:36:59 arborist on staff
1:37:01 it's um city arborist is mentioning code
1:37:04 but we don't currently have one so
1:37:07 i think that's going to be
1:37:10 discussion for
1:37:11 decisions makers to make
1:37:14 whether they want to keep that in code
1:37:20 actually
1:37:21 have that position as an fte or whether
1:37:24 we want to take that out and rely on um
1:37:28 consultants
1:37:30 quick question on what you just said so
1:37:32 am i correct that let's say they took it
1:37:34 down to 30 retention regardless of how
1:37:36 it's calculated then if it's a single
1:37:38 family residential that's
1:37:40 let's say it's it's under 10 000 feet
1:37:43 they would not really have much
1:37:45 mitigation or like replacement to do
1:37:48 because that if they're getting to the
1:37:50 goal they're basically already at that
1:37:51 goal is that
1:37:52 an accurate way to think about that i'm
1:37:54 just not clear how these yeah yeah
1:37:56 applied to their replacement so you're
1:37:58 looking at 25 to 35
1:38:00 is that 10 lots less than 10 000 square
1:38:03 feet so if
1:38:04 yeah if you go down to 30
1:38:07 then you could
1:38:09 um based on on this you could say that
1:38:12 um already
1:38:14 meet their goal okay
1:38:17 i know i've been going on for a while so
1:38:19 i'm gonna wrap this up really quick but
1:38:21 i i do think that this is a little bit
1:38:23 concerning in my mind because it seems
1:38:25 like this table will not especially
1:38:28 because
1:38:29 if someone has taken 70 off of their
1:38:31 current property that are trees today
1:38:33 that are covering 70
1:38:35 and replanting
1:38:37 let's say they did have to replant 5
1:38:40 that is going to be that 5 in 30 years
1:38:42 that seems like not a very good trade
1:38:45 um so i do wonder and hopefully i'm
1:38:47 understanding this correctly this seems
1:38:49 like a really important part of this
1:38:51 update and if we're serious about
1:38:53 retaining canopy these goals don't seem
1:38:56 aggressive enough to do that um but
1:38:59 maybe i'm missing something but that
1:39:00 that seems
1:39:02 based on what we will just walk through
1:39:04 uh that seems to be how i'm reading this
1:39:07 it seems like those goals are not not
1:39:09 aggressive enough
1:39:13 yeah and part of it could be that um you
1:39:15 know as i mentioned earlier i i'm not
1:39:18 um super familiar with the application
1:39:21 of this in a real real world setting so
1:39:24 i'm uh happy to talk to
1:39:27 the consultant try and understand it a
1:39:29 little bit more
1:39:32 and then provide
1:39:33 follow-up and and some sort of real
1:39:36 world example
1:39:37 at another time
1:39:39 yeah and there's the opportunity to look
1:39:41 at these percentages you know as we do
1:39:43 the draft uh code writing um typically
1:39:47 in a single family home that's less than
1:39:49 10 000 square feet you know an average
1:39:52 needs has a built-in you know a house
1:39:56 has a driveway has a patio and then how
1:39:59 much areas left around it
1:40:01 will have landscaping plus trees
1:40:04 so 25 to 30 percent and on an average
1:40:08 it i think what they what the consultant
1:40:10 did here was it looked at what the
1:40:12 existing
1:40:13 canopy coverage were for these different
1:40:16 uses based on the study that was done
1:40:18 and established these percentages based
1:40:21 on what's there on the ground now but
1:40:23 certainly more detail and more analysis
1:40:25 needs to be done
1:40:27 yeah i do wonder is the right way to do
1:40:30 is it based on the current developed
1:40:31 environment or is it the existing
1:40:34 response of that zoning type power what
1:40:36 is the the makeup of those like i just
1:40:39 i'm guessing a lot of the existing
1:40:41 developable land is up on hillsides
1:40:43 that's fully forced it that might not be
1:40:45 the same as what our average
1:40:46 single-family home is today because of
1:40:49 some of these i just wonder are we like
1:40:51 are we backing into this to the wrong
1:40:53 answer by uh looking at what's out there
1:40:56 today
1:40:58 thank you
1:40:59 good point
1:41:03 thanks jamie great feedback um at this
1:41:06 point
1:41:07 tom i'm going to jump over you and go to
1:41:08 janet since we have not heard from her
1:41:10 yet janet please go ahead
1:41:17 janet waltz this is uh janet wall can
1:41:19 you hear me
1:41:21 yes thank you
1:41:24 uh at least uh 10 years ago probably
1:41:27 more there was a big volunteer effort
1:41:30 to remove the ivy on the trees
1:41:34 uh along iskwa creek
1:41:38 in the uh squawk access trail area
1:41:42 uh since then the ivy has grown back
1:41:46 possibly endangering the trees by
1:41:48 weakening
1:41:50 them to may
1:41:53 and making them more vulnerable to being
1:41:56 blown down
1:41:58 maintenance is needed to protect these
1:42:00 trees obviously the current regulations
1:42:02 are not working in that regard
1:42:07 can there be something that would
1:42:09 strengthen
1:42:11 the regulations i'm not sure exactly who
1:42:14 owns the property that the trees are on
1:42:17 but they're right along the is
1:42:19 far creek
1:42:26 do you want me to respond uh daniel so
1:42:31 yes i think uh the code can do
1:42:34 you know provide some language in terms
1:42:36 of long-term maintenance it can have
1:42:38 some more teeth for if you know if you
1:42:41 don't do the maintenance then these are
1:42:42 the penalties or if you take down
1:42:45 these trees illegally these are the
1:42:47 penalties i mean all of that enforcement
1:42:49 mechanisms can be strengthened and made
1:42:52 harsher and stronger
1:42:55 in terms of uh whether they where you
1:42:58 know the property owner ultimately will
1:42:59 be responsible for this it's going to
1:43:01 take more than the code to kind of make
1:43:03 a big difference on the ground you know
1:43:05 that's where i think we talked about
1:43:07 there's the code there's the
1:43:09 environmental stewardship program from
1:43:11 the city there is the educational
1:43:13 opportunities to kind of raise awareness
1:43:15 there's showing people how to do this
1:43:18 easily how to remove
1:43:20 iv and you know what are best ways to do
1:43:23 it so it's going to take a combination
1:43:25 of things but the code itself uh yes we
1:43:27 can add some more
1:43:29 um you know language and strengthen the
1:43:32 code as for maintenance requirement and
1:43:34 what the penalties are if you don't
1:43:35 maintain i think that can be considered
1:43:38 in the code update
1:43:43 thank you
1:43:45 janet is that it
1:43:47 uh yes that was one of my concerns is is
1:43:51 uh i see a number of places where
1:43:54 there are a lot of
1:43:57 invasive plants
1:43:59 along cree or creeks that
1:44:01 can create a problem with the canopy
1:44:04 cover
1:44:07 i i would like to see
1:44:09 better maintenance and
1:44:12 to maintain the the trees that we have
1:44:15 that are already shading the creek
1:44:18 okay uh tom you had something else to
1:44:21 add tommy anderson please
1:44:24 uh yeah this is tom anderson speaking uh
1:44:26 this may be a bit off the wall but i'm
1:44:28 wondering
1:44:29 are you aware of any jurisdictions that
1:44:31 has tried have tried things like having
1:44:33 an incentive to a property owner for
1:44:35 increasing their
1:44:36 uh canopy cover so i'm thinking about
1:44:39 things like
1:44:41 well let's give you a reduced storm
1:44:44 sewer rate
1:44:45 you have greater than a certain
1:44:47 percentage or you've improved your
1:44:49 coverage is this is this
1:44:53 tried anywhere
1:44:59 an excellent point you know in any
1:45:01 regulation there's the incentives and
1:45:03 the carrots and the sticks approach uh
1:45:06 so the incentives work for people uh you
1:45:09 know especially for the development side
1:45:11 they only work if they're financially
1:45:14 really an incentive otherwise
1:45:16 um we have incentives to pro you know
1:45:19 you get extra height if you provide
1:45:20 affordable housing
1:45:22 how many people actually take up on that
1:45:25 the economics then come into play about
1:45:27 if those those incentives really have to
1:45:31 um so the penalty of if you cut these
1:45:34 extra down you really the the cost of
1:45:36 the tree replacement the fee in lieu
1:45:38 could be really high
1:45:40 so both approaches can be looked at but
1:45:42 you know we're happy to do more research
1:45:44 on the incentives idea and i think
1:45:46 that's an excellent idea to see
1:45:48 um not only from a requirement
1:45:50 standpoint but
1:45:52 but also seeing
1:45:53 if if we can
1:45:55 sprinkle some incentives throughout this
1:45:57 uh yeah well i'm i'm i'm thinking of the
1:46:01 not the development uh event because
1:46:03 there you the city has a big stick over
1:46:05 a developer and
1:46:07 a levy all kinds of fees etc but uh okay
1:46:11 i'm i'm a property owner and i've got uh
1:46:13 my little lot here and and uh oh i've
1:46:16 got to pay this uh
1:46:18 storm sewer bill every month um oh but
1:46:21 i'm right on the edge here if i just
1:46:23 added a few more trees i'd be up to 60
1:46:25 percent and i'd get a lower rate well
1:46:28 the storm sewer rate is so low that
1:46:31 there's a bunch of center there but it
1:46:32 could be higher you know okay we could
1:46:34 use this as a as a a method to make it a
1:46:38 real incentive up that rate for the
1:46:40 people who have a low canopy coverage
1:46:44 provided some
1:46:45 meaningful uh advantages to planting
1:46:48 trees on
1:46:50 property owners
1:46:52 a lot so i don't know just a wild and
1:46:54 crazy idea but
1:46:56 it's an it's a great uh idea
1:47:00 in terms of it you know it may probably
1:47:02 not live in the code but you're bringing
1:47:04 up a policy standpoint you know policy
1:47:06 discussion for the for the city
1:47:09 um and i'm not familiar with our
1:47:10 stormwater rates over here but but a lot
1:47:13 of cities have them based on uh the the
1:47:15 percentage of impervious surface you
1:47:17 have the more impervious surface you
1:47:19 have the higher your rates are and i i
1:47:21 don't know if that's the case with
1:47:22 isoqua or not
1:47:24 but we can certainly take that as a
1:47:26 policy discussion when the storm water
1:47:28 surface water plan is being discussed to
1:47:31 have some policies that incentivize
1:47:34 people to have less impervious surface
1:47:36 and more trees planted in within those
1:47:39 uh areas
1:47:41 yeah well that's good and so it should
1:47:44 be not just impervious surface but uh
1:47:46 can it be covered yeah well perhaps um
1:47:51 let's see i guess this causes me to
1:47:53 think of another question like well okay
1:47:55 the city has done this measurement and
1:47:58 will periodically do it
1:48:00 is it possible for a particular lot
1:48:03 owner to
1:48:04 get the answer for their particular lot
1:48:06 from that study
1:48:08 or will the city i guess another way
1:48:10 look at that will the city use that
1:48:12 measurement as the basis for the before
1:48:15 uh coverage on a lot that's to be
1:48:18 developed
1:48:19 and then feed that into okay you're
1:48:21 going to cut all these trees down
1:48:23 therefore
1:48:24 here's the resulting coverage is that is
1:48:27 that how that will be used on a per lot
1:48:30 basis or is that like something a
1:48:33 developer would have to do a separate
1:48:35 assessment a separate measurement
1:48:38 for a particular lot as it goes into a
1:48:40 development project
1:48:43 yeah if i understand your question
1:48:44 correctly you're wondering about how the
1:48:47 tree canopy study that's done at a city
1:48:50 wide be used by developers on a on a
1:48:53 parcel based side so
1:48:55 my understanding is that that that will
1:48:58 probably not work the the idea of the
1:49:00 tree canopy study is to really look at
1:49:02 everything comprehensively and
1:49:04 cumulatively so it looks at that but for
1:49:07 each development
1:49:08 it's it's a much more fine-grained
1:49:10 information we need we need a survey of
1:49:13 where the trees are what their sizes are
1:49:15 so we get a lot more detailed
1:49:17 information
1:49:18 with the development application
1:49:22 so okay thank you that's all i had
1:49:27 okay folks okay folks uh thank you all
1:49:30 for your great feedback i think that
1:49:31 it's been very um constructive and we've
1:49:35 provided some good feedback to the city
1:49:37 um at this point many i'm going to turn
1:49:39 you over for the next section of this um
1:49:42 sure so the last section um
1:49:45 we wanted to share with you was really
1:49:48 this um open space requirements and and
1:49:51 we're still sort of uh
1:49:53 the main thing we want to capture in
1:49:55 that is all that work that was done with
1:49:58 for the parks and open space
1:50:01 park strategic plan that identified
1:50:04 these are the linkages we want these are
1:50:06 the green necklace connected open spaces
1:50:09 and green spaces we
1:50:10 we desire for
1:50:12 this community
1:50:13 how do we make sure that
1:50:16 in the code and as redevelopment occurs
1:50:19 that that vision it can be achieved
1:50:22 now obviously i think we are
1:50:24 coordinating very um closely with our
1:50:27 parks department
1:50:29 and in terms of what what really makes
1:50:32 sense for uh at the time of development
1:50:35 it's much more easier to get
1:50:37 a trail connection that that is
1:50:40 identified on a map it's much more
1:50:42 easier to get here's the mountains to
1:50:45 sound greenway
1:50:46 you know corridor and if you're doing
1:50:49 development right on this corridor your
1:50:51 frontage needs to look like this and i
1:50:54 think um probably not your group but
1:50:56 we've toured some of the sites in
1:50:59 issaquah where there was recent
1:51:01 redevelopment so riva town homes up on
1:51:03 newport that was identified as a
1:51:06 corridor so what does that frontage look
1:51:08 like how wide the sidewalk needs to be
1:51:10 what kind of trees need to be planted up
1:51:11 there so all of that needs to be closely
1:51:14 coordinated between the code
1:51:16 requirements and what the vision under
1:51:18 the park strategic plan is now where it
1:51:21 gets tricky is
1:51:23 obviously if you get a you know a
1:51:25 residential development we will have an
1:51:27 open space requirement that says you
1:51:28 need x square feet for per unit and you
1:51:32 need to have this as a rooftop unit as a
1:51:34 ground floor
1:51:36 open space uh some of this can be
1:51:38 counted by your balconies you know all
1:51:41 of that
1:51:42 open private open space for that
1:51:44 development standard
1:51:46 so developer built developer maintained
1:51:49 for the people that are going to be
1:51:52 using it are on that site
1:51:55 then we have in some cases um
1:51:59 where the example i gave you a trail
1:52:01 connection or a mountains to sun
1:52:02 greenway connection
1:52:04 those are need to be open for any
1:52:06 community member
1:52:08 so those will be built by the developer
1:52:11 but they'll get turned over to the city
1:52:13 for maintenance and will be open for all
1:52:16 community use
1:52:19 and then of course the vision for
1:52:22 as part of the park strategic plan
1:52:24 includes these larger parks and and
1:52:27 things that
1:52:29 probably won't happen on a personal but
1:52:30 personal basis but those will be the
1:52:33 capital improvements that the city will
1:52:35 need to do
1:52:36 and fund through some of those park
1:52:38 acquisitions um land acquisitions and
1:52:41 and park planning development um you
1:52:45 stages so there's various tiered
1:52:48 approach to that uh currently issaquah
1:52:53 we have fractured um
1:52:55 codes that apply some apply in the
1:52:58 central issaquah area others in the
1:53:00 municipal code have a different criteria
1:53:03 some of the developments that occurred
1:53:05 talus and issaquah highlands had a whole
1:53:07 thing that was negotiated through the
1:53:09 development agreement of what the
1:53:11 parking you know open spaces need to be
1:53:13 so part of our approach is going to be
1:53:15 to take comprehensive look at all of
1:53:17 those take a look at this comprehensive
1:53:21 plan or the spark strategic plan and
1:53:24 identify opportunities for
1:53:26 these standards for different tiers of
1:53:28 spaces
1:53:30 the hardest one is
1:53:32 where the developer builds turns it over
1:53:35 to the city
1:53:37 and what that looks like it's much
1:53:39 easier to get that accomplished through
1:53:42 trail connections or the
1:53:44 the you know long corridor connections
1:53:47 but getting a full park built as part of
1:53:49 a private development
1:53:51 is a challenge i think the code
1:53:53 currently has you will get a credit for
1:53:55 your park impact fees
1:53:58 it becomes a nightmare to implement what
1:54:00 that credit is going to be it's on a
1:54:03 case-by-case basis
1:54:05 so that folds in this park impact fee
1:54:08 discussion
1:54:09 um so right now
1:54:11 the city has an established park impact
1:54:14 that come into play if you're doing a
1:54:16 different type of a use there are
1:54:18 different
1:54:19 rates for different type of uses
1:54:21 depending on the usage
1:54:23 some of the things we are considering is
1:54:26 these open space requirements perhaps
1:54:28 should factor in if you are within a 10
1:54:30 minute walking distance of a park it
1:54:32 probably has a different standard
1:54:35 for how much open space you need versus
1:54:37 if you're far away from you know so
1:54:39 there's some sort of an equitable
1:54:41 distribution
1:54:42 but it's all
1:54:44 you know at a very preliminary stage so
1:54:46 we're um you know
1:54:49 we welcome any and all comments on on
1:54:52 this issue of how do we
1:54:54 take that vision for the parks and open
1:54:56 space strategic plan
1:54:59 and make that fold that into code
1:55:01 requirements understanding that code
1:55:03 will give you
1:55:04 a limited you know vision um we
1:55:07 don't want to preclude you
1:55:09 from getting that vision by allowing a
1:55:11 building or a development where
1:55:14 there is a future connection for a trail
1:55:16 and things like that so removing the
1:55:19 barriers for a future connection getting
1:55:21 the connection as part of the
1:55:23 development
1:55:24 all of that i think needs to have some
1:55:26 ground truthing of what's really
1:55:29 achievable
1:55:30 through the implementation of the code
1:55:33 and what's an aspirational thing in the
1:55:36 that we may never get because it it'll
1:55:38 get negotiated through this park impact
1:55:42 fee credit and and all that so is it
1:55:44 better for the city to to have a more
1:55:48 consistent and a fair approach to just
1:55:50 say you you have to pay your park impact
1:55:53 and then you provide these trail
1:55:54 connections and leave it at that
1:55:58 so that's that's where we're at i think
1:56:00 it's very preliminary uh discussions
1:56:02 we're having with the
1:56:04 the parks um
1:56:06 um we as as i think some community
1:56:09 member mentioned we did have this
1:56:10 discussion with the park planning and
1:56:12 policy commission and the parks board
1:56:14 together we do intend to continue this
1:56:16 conversation with the parks board on the
1:56:18 24th i believe this coming monday
1:56:21 uh or the or the 25th um whenever their
1:56:24 next meeting is we will
1:56:27 have some more facilitated conversation
1:56:29 with them about the the vision in the
1:56:31 park strategic plan
1:56:34 i think that's all we have on this topic
1:56:36 for now
1:56:38 thank you manny are there any comments
1:56:39 or questions for
1:56:42 excuse me
1:56:56 i'm not seeing any at this time
1:56:59 um so i guess that concludes that
1:57:01 conversation piece
1:57:03 i need to go back and find the agenda
1:57:05 sorry
1:57:08 any other comments in general on all of
1:57:10 the work that has been presented by the
1:57:12 um by minion or staff
1:57:17 i've lost the agenda sorry
1:57:39 gene i think um you're now presenting
1:57:41 what's you know what is happening within
1:57:43 the city for the that applies to the
1:57:46 environmental board upcoming meetings
1:57:48 things like that
1:57:50 sure i have uh three quick updates for
1:57:53 uh reports tonight the first is on the
1:57:55 community convening on climate so that
1:57:57 meeting is scheduled for next wednesday
1:57:59 october 20th at 6 30. and right now we
1:58:02 have four uh board members who have
1:58:04 indicated a desire to attend
1:58:06 those members are jamie finch danny
1:58:09 madden janet wall and anne newcomb so
1:58:12 because we have four we're right at the
1:58:13 limit
1:58:14 for forming of a quorum so kind of the
1:58:17 request from the administration is that
1:58:19 no more board members uh decide at the
1:58:22 last minute to join that meeting and
1:58:24 inadvertently form a quorum so those
1:58:27 four are are good to attend but uh
1:58:29 please no more um for that meeting
1:58:31 tomorrow or next week rather
1:58:34 the next item is the next meeting
1:58:37 for the environmental boards that's
1:58:39 scheduled for november 10th
1:58:41 the agenda for that meeting includes
1:58:44 voting on the final recommendations for
1:58:46 the climate action plan and also a
1:58:49 discussion and input on the storm and
1:58:51 surface water master plan
1:58:54 and then the last update is just on the
1:58:56 hiring process for the new
1:58:58 sustainability manager
1:59:01 city closed the last round of
1:59:04 applications on october 1st i believe
1:59:06 there'll be interviews at the end of
1:59:08 next week and the hope is that a staff
1:59:11 member will be on board by the beginning
1:59:13 of december but
1:59:15 in the interim i'm expecting to help
1:59:18 support the board for the november
1:59:19 meeting and hopefully we'll have
1:59:22 better news on a full-time staff member
1:59:24 filling that role soon
1:59:30 thank you gene uh are there any other
1:59:32 comments or business or announcements
1:59:34 from the board members or other
1:59:36 participants in the meeting
1:59:39 uh and go ahead
1:59:43 i just have a question for minnie um
1:59:46 will these codes override um the hoa
1:59:50 rules
1:59:55 it seems like the hoas sometimes get in
1:59:57 the way of
1:59:58 having good environmental
2:00:02 guidelines
2:00:04 yeah so you know we don't necessarily
2:00:07 get to see all the hoa rules but
2:00:10 we can enforce the code the city adopted
2:00:14 so part of the the conversation i think
2:00:17 with hoas would be once the code is
2:00:19 adopted to share one of the what the new
2:00:22 rule conditions are so they can be
2:00:24 consistent so there can be some work
2:00:27 done in terms of reaching out to the
2:00:28 hoas and
2:00:30 sharing what the rules and regulations
2:00:32 are that are adopted and so they can
2:00:35 avoid the conflict uh
2:00:38 we we don't inform i mean the city
2:00:39 cannot enforce hoa rules um but we can't
2:00:42 enforce the adopted municipal code
2:00:46 great thank you
2:00:51 great are there jamie you had a comment
2:00:55 thanks nancy jamie speaking i just
2:00:57 wanted to give everyone
2:00:59 just a little bit of insight into
2:01:02 a task force that um actually mayor
2:01:04 paulie formed
2:01:07 to help us identify
2:01:10 setting aside the cip what's in the
2:01:12 specific projects that we've
2:01:14 set aside funding for we have a long
2:01:16 list of items that are not funded at
2:01:18 this time
2:01:20 and mayor paulie has formed a task force
2:01:23 that is really looking at okay of those
2:01:25 projects what buckets do we want to
2:01:27 prioritize and how might you go about
2:01:29 funding those and um
2:01:32 nancy actually um was nice enough to
2:01:34 allow me to join that that task force
2:01:36 and so that's something that we're now a
2:01:38 couple meetings in it's still very early
2:01:39 but i just wanted to give everyone
2:01:41 insight into that that's something
2:01:42 that's going on i don't really have a
2:01:44 ton to share at this point but um that's
2:01:47 something that will continue to develop
2:01:49 throughout this year and we'll get more
2:01:51 detail on what's there as
2:01:53 something as anything relevant comes up
2:01:58 thanks jamie any other comments or
2:02:01 questions
2:02:04 thing none um at this point i'm going to
2:02:07 adjourn the meeting thank you all for
2:02:08 all your time and great feedback to the
2:02:10 city and look forward to seeing you in
2:02:13 november
2:02:15 take care
Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.