Park Board · Monday, March 28, 2022 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Park Board About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this board provides guidance and Milissa Ching, Operations Specialist direction in meeting the City’s parks and Email recreational needs by advising the Mayor and Parks & Recreation Director on matters relating to the Regular Members planning; acquisition, development; and operation 2025 - Vacant of parks, facilities and recreational programs inside 2022 of 2025- Danielle Githens the City limits. 2024 - Marlene Waxe 2024 - Zack Szablewski Membership 2023 - Chris Kovac The Park Board is comprised of nine regular 2022 - Bradley Book members, with four-year terms; and two 2022 - Ruben Nieto alternates, with two-year terms. All members are 2022 - Jonathan Richardson appointed by the Mayor and subject to 2022 - Linda Whitworth confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For more information, see Alternate Members…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 28, 2022

packet pp.5–8

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 02-28-22 Park Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Park Board 7:00 PM Virtual Meeting February 28, 2022 DRAFT MINUTES

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18 - Land Use Code Update (I)

Discussion · 45 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.9–31

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 0:14 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the April 7th, 2022 Plan Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to provide comments and feedback pertaining to draft Chapter IMC 18.610 Landscape.

Hillside Park Schedule/Timeline Update

30 min · Jennifer Fink, Parks Planning and Projects Administrator · packet pp.33–40

Topics: Parks

Previously discussed: Park Board · Jul 26, 2021

▶ Watch from 0:22 Open packet at p.33 ↗

Staff report:

J E N NIFER F I NK , PA R K P L A N N E R & P ROJ EC T A D M I N I S T R ATO R What we’ve heard & learned Community Engagement February 24, 2021 - Community Meeting #1 • 58 registrants, ~45 attendees • Reviewed 2014 community discussion (play areas, field, circulation)

5. REPORTS

Director's Report

Chairperson's Report

Youth Report

3163 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ okay you are all set

0:04 ↗ good evening everyone welcome to the

0:07 ↗ march 28 2022 park board meeting

0:12 ↗ uh this evening we have

0:14 ↗ two regular business items we're going

0:16 ↗ to talk about title 18 land use code get

0:19 ↗ an update on that and also get an update

0:22 ↗ and discuss hillside park

0:26 ↗ but before we

0:28 ↗ go down the agenda items here i'd like

0:30 ↗ to go around

0:32 ↗ the

0:33 ↗ screen here i almost said room

0:36 ↗ and do a roll call so when i call your

0:38 ↗ name please take yourself off mute and

0:41 ↗ acknowledge your attendance

0:56 ↗ jonathan president

1:00 ↗ uh marlene

1:02 ↗ present

1:06 ↗ linda

1:08 ↗ president

1:12 ↗ and uh zach

1:22 ↗ uh i think we i think you mentioned

1:24 ↗ danielle is going to be joining us it

1:26 ↗ might be a few minutes late and don't

1:28 ↗ see reuben or jeremy at this point

1:31 ↗ uh in any event we're moving on

1:34 ↗ uh everybody have an opportunity to

1:35 ↗ review minutes from our last meeting in

1:37 ↗ february

1:40 ↗ does anybody have any corrections or

1:42 ↗ questions or comments

1:46 ↗ seeing anything

1:48 ↗ um anybody have any objections to

1:50 ↗ approval minutes

1:54 ↗ also not seeing anything so i hereby

1:56 ↗ approve minutes from our meeting of

1:58 ↗ february 28th

2:00 ↗ thank you for that

2:03 ↗ um melissa you had mentioned that we

2:04 ↗ have a few people from the community

2:07 ↗ with us this evening do any of them

2:10 ↗ have signed up to make comments

2:13 ↗ or raise their hand or anything in that

2:15 ↗ respect

2:16 ↗ no one is signed up in advance but i'll

2:18 ↗ go down the list and on you each and

2:20 ↗ give them each an opportunity first is

2:22 ↗ going to be david kepler

2:24 ↗ david you are unmuted and i'll make you

2:26 ↗ a panelist if you'd like to turn your

2:28 ↗ video

2:34 ↗ on okay

2:36 ↗ hey

2:37 ↗ hey david hey hello

2:40 ↗ i was actually on when brad was making

2:42 ↗ some comments about a certain property

2:45 ↗ go on i'm the uh

2:47 ↗ north face of uh squawk mountain yes

2:49 ↗ very pleased thank you

2:52 ↗ i'll adjust this a little bit um on the

2:54 ↗ hillside park i'll start start there um

2:57 ↗ we we know the issue is a wetland that

3:00 ↗ the um

3:01 ↗ and which most people don't

3:03 ↗ consider a wetland up at the ball field

3:05 ↗ there and in terms of habitat value

3:08 ↗ um

3:09 ↗ it's um it has to be pretty low we do

3:12 ↗ have a lot of really i believe pretty

3:15 ↗ high quality wetlands on that greater

3:18 ↗ piece of property there the hillside

3:20 ↗ with um

3:21 ↗ areas with well they're not real

3:23 ↗ friendly areas with the devil's club and

3:25 ↗ those kinds of things

3:27 ↗ but a lot of it is some full full year

3:30 ↗ springs are there so there's some water

3:32 ↗ available to uh to animals and that kind

3:36 ↗ of thing so uh in terms of restoration

3:39 ↗ we've got plenty of we've got places to

3:41 ↗ do that and i would hope we can involve

3:44 ↗ the community in helping out on that

3:47 ↗ restoration i hate to see a you know

3:50 ↗ huge cost going into uh to doing that

3:53 ↗ it's it's messy hard work but it's

3:55 ↗ certainly uh some kind of work that

3:57 ↗ community members can do and based on

4:00 ↗ the great work that's happened with the

4:01 ↗ green issaquah and it's been our

4:04 ↗ involvement with um the community as

4:06 ↗ volunteers has really been positive

4:09 ↗ also on hillside park we don't want to

4:12 ↗ look at that park kind of in isolation

4:14 ↗ it's it's a long um an 1890s

4:18 ↗ corridor that went from

4:20 ↗ snookum and snowballing falls to seattle

4:24 ↗ if you go back and look at the titles

4:26 ↗ and because when i lived in may valley

4:28 ↗ there was a corner of our our little

4:30 ↗ property where they had the uh

4:33 ↗ it showed

4:34 ↗ the the uh easement or ownership going

4:36 ↗ back to the 1890s and that's how this

4:39 ↗ corridor is there and it goes up from

4:41 ↗ the valley floor goes over the top of

4:44 ↗ the ridge there

4:46 ↗ that the um

4:47 ↗ that the park is on and then goes down

4:49 ↗ and as it goes down it actually connects

4:51 ↗ to king county trails and existing

4:54 ↗ trails and you can go south

4:57 ↗ from there from this power line corridor

5:00 ↗ we unfortunately don't quite have it

5:02 ↗ figured out to go north from there

5:04 ↗ towards tibbetts valley but

5:07 ↗ we've got we've got some opportunities

5:09 ↗ there so please look at this park as

5:11 ↗ part of a corridor

5:13 ↗ that um

5:14 ↗ will

5:15 ↗ will

5:15 ↗ be appreciated over time more than it is

5:18 ↗ now i think

5:20 ↗ um i mentioned the volunteers and that

5:23 ↗ um

5:25 ↗ the um property adjoining the the state

5:28 ↗ park and the the planning for that again

5:31 ↗ is an opportunity to

5:33 ↗ to involve volunteers

5:35 ↗ i don't think we can get the two wrecked

5:37 ↗ cars out of there or the um

5:39 ↗ the rv i don't know if that's a

5:41 ↗ contingent on

5:43 ↗ the the present owner getting those out

5:45 ↗ of there um there is some cleanup there

5:47 ↗ i've never seen syringes and any of that

5:49 ↗ kind of stuff that can complicate um

5:53 ↗ individuals working in a site but um

5:55 ↗ there'll be likely some garbage and some

5:57 ↗ cleanup beyond

5:59 ↗ removal of those vehicles that would be

6:01 ↗ glad to help out on

6:03 ↗ and then of course the planning

6:05 ↗ which

6:06 ↗ dealing with state parks is going to be

6:09 ↗ hopefully works out really well too but

6:11 ↗ um

6:12 ↗ the park the state that part of the

6:14 ↗ state park is part of the 600 acres that

6:17 ↗ stimpson bullet donated to the park

6:20 ↗ with significant restrictions on the use

6:23 ↗ of the land but trails

6:25 ↗ are typically allowed on there

6:27 ↗ and so i don't think we'll have um

6:29 ↗ issues with them in conflict with the

6:32 ↗ the the dedication of the property that

6:35 ↗ way

6:36 ↗ but john it's all is we've got a lot of

6:39 ↗ chance of the community involvement on

6:41 ↗ park properties and it's all for the

6:43 ↗ better and thank you very much for the

6:45 ↗ the hard work and amazing things that

6:47 ↗ are going on in the city

6:49 ↗ it's really neat thank you

6:51 ↗ thank you for joining us david and your

6:53 ↗ comments this evening

6:55 ↗ uh who's next melissa

6:59 ↗ okay so i'm gonna just move david down

7:02 ↗ um

7:04 ↗ to

7:05 ↗ participant and then we also have um

7:08 ↗ connie marsh has our hand raised so i'm

7:10 ↗ gonna

7:11 ↗ meet you connie and make you a panelist

7:13 ↗ as well i work on moving data back

7:18 ↗ oh uh

7:20 ↗ well i'm in the car so i'm assuming i am

7:22 ↗ unmuted can you all hear me at this

7:25 ↗ point

7:27 ↗ yes hello yes okay thank you thank you

7:30 ↗ so much i uh

7:32 ↗ i have a um

7:35 ↗ uh

7:37 ↗ comments about title 18 but i would

7:40 ↗ prefer to make them after the title 18

7:42 ↗ presentation is that going to be

7:44 ↗ allowable or no

7:49 ↗ uh no why don't you go ahead and make

7:51 ↗ your comments now since you're on the

7:52 ↗ line

7:53 ↗ since i am on the line okay i am merging

7:57 ↗ onto the freeway at this point okay now

8:00 ↗ i can make comments so

8:05 ↗ for the chapters that i think are most

8:07 ↗ important to you the community spaces

8:10 ↗ and the trees or fences

8:15 ↗ overlap with the parks board

8:18 ↗ is

8:19 ↗ um how well is this going to augment our

8:22 ↗ parks system

8:24 ↗ and without reading all of the language

8:27 ↗ and trying to figure out what it says

8:30 ↗ i would opine that

8:34 ↗ i cannot tell where

8:36 ↗ parks are actually going to be able to

8:40 ↗ fit in that will help your park system

8:43 ↗ it seems like there's a lot of

8:44 ↗ restrictions for where the parks are

8:47 ↗ allowed to be placed and i can't see how

8:50 ↗ the private parks

8:52 ↗ are going to align

8:54 ↗ um with the public parks clearly via

8:57 ↗ this coach

8:58 ↗ i am a little concerned that the

9:01 ↗ critical

9:02 ↗ areas

9:04 ↗ are left out i cannot tell whether the

9:07 ↗ green necklace

9:08 ↗ includes critical areas so that when you

9:11 ↗ look at the language does this mean

9:15 ↗ that

9:18 ↗ also

9:23 ↗ necessitate

9:25 ↗ uh

9:26 ↗ orientation of buildings um they do did

9:30 ↗ have that language in the central

9:32 ↗ issaquah plan it was called what a

9:34 ↗ natural context zone it is unclear to me

9:39 ↗ how that is going to work here so those

9:42 ↗ are just a few

9:45 ↗ pretty details on why

9:47 ↗ i think that this plan needs to go a

9:50 ↗ little bit back to the drawing board so

9:52 ↗ that we can understand what the results

9:54 ↗ will be

9:55 ↗ i was interested to hear what how many

9:58 ↗ was going to describe it better so that

10:00 ↗ i could make

10:02 ↗ uh comments that were more pertinent so

10:05 ↗ please excuse if if this doesn't have

10:08 ↗ anything to do with what mini says

10:11 ↗ and uh

10:12 ↗ i appreciate

10:14 ↗ my car noise

10:18 ↗ thank you connie didn't have so much

10:19 ↗ noise as much as a little hard to hear

10:21 ↗ from you but uh we we got it and we got

10:24 ↗ it on tape too

10:25 ↗ okay

10:27 ↗ thanks connie

10:28 ↗ sure

10:30 ↗ uh melissa you said there's one more

10:32 ↗ person

10:34 ↗ yes so we have um tim motley on the line

10:38 ↗ as well as julian rydell julian messaged

10:40 ↗ me that um they have no comment this

10:42 ↗ evening so i'm going to unmute tim and

10:44 ↗ see if he would like to make a comment

10:46 ↗ um tim you're on muted do you want to

10:48 ↗ make a comment this evening

10:50 ↗ hi thank you yes

10:52 ↗ i'm just here because i live a block

10:53 ↗ away from hillside park i'm interested

10:55 ↗ to see how that

10:57 ↗ how that

10:59 ↗ situation is addressing is moved forward

11:02 ↗ and

11:03 ↗ also interested in just uh

11:05 ↗ watching how the board works so

11:08 ↗ thank you for allowing me to sit in

11:12 ↗ thank you for joining us and your

11:13 ↗ comment this evening tim

11:18 ↗ uh so that's it right melissa

11:22 ↗ yep that is all okay

11:24 ↗ thank you

11:25 ↗ public comments are now closed

11:29 ↗ so we're on to regular business our

11:31 ↗ first line of business this evening is

11:33 ↗ uh title 18 land use code

11:36 ↗ and jeff is going to do a brief little

11:38 ↗ introduction here before we get started

11:39 ↗ with that so jeff that's you got the

11:41 ↗ floor

11:43 ↗ sounds good brad thanks so much good

11:45 ↗ evening uh park board members um great

11:48 ↗ uh great to be here uh yeah i just i

11:50 ↗ wanted to provide a quick introduction

11:52 ↗ um

11:53 ↗ to both minnie and and and daniel you

11:55 ↗ know the community planning and

11:56 ↗ development department um aka cpd has uh

12:01 ↗ certainly been leading a very complex

12:04 ↗ effort uh when it comes to

12:06 ↗ um this project known as title 18 it's

12:09 ↗ it basically what it is is it's revision

12:12 ↗ of the city's development code a really

12:14 ↗ really big lift um

12:16 ↗ you might recall

12:18 ↗ there were some conversations uh last

12:20 ↗ year uh that many joined us uh where

12:23 ↗ there was a sort of a process of setting

12:25 ↗ goals and trying to understand goals of

12:27 ↗ revisions

12:28 ↗ um there is going to be an upcoming

12:30 ↗ joint meeting

12:31 ↗ uh that that the park board has been

12:33 ↗ invited to on april 7th with the

12:36 ↗ planning policy commission um and the

12:38 ↗ environmental board tonight is really

12:40 ↗ intended um

12:42 ↗ again so appreciate minnie and and being

12:44 ↗ here to i think try and set some context

12:47 ↗ for that conversation on the seventh um

12:50 ↗ so the park board can a understand its

12:52 ↗ role sort of what's being asked

12:54 ↗ but also have an opportunity to

12:57 ↗ hear about these three sections of code

13:00 ↗ that are

13:01 ↗ have been presented in draft form

13:03 ↗ attached to your agenda were three memos

13:06 ↗ staff memos that cpd staff put together

13:10 ↗ they kind of highlighted the

13:12 ↗ the intent of those revisions so

13:14 ↗ really the goal tonight is to

13:18 ↗ take these section by section and uh

13:22 ↗ again hear from minnie and dan in terms

13:24 ↗ of not necessarily diving into the

13:26 ↗ details of the code but really

13:27 ↗ understanding what were some of the

13:29 ↗ goals that

13:30 ↗ uh were trying to be accomplished with

13:32 ↗ the revision

13:34 ↗ and how those might

13:36 ↗ pertain to parks

13:38 ↗ so with that again dan thanks so much

13:41 ↗ for being here minnie thanks so much for

13:43 ↗ being here i will

13:44 ↗ turn it over to you mini dollywall

13:47 ↗ community planning and development

13:48 ↗ director

13:50 ↗ good evening everyone um glad to be able

13:53 ↗ to come today um to set the stage for

13:57 ↗ your uh discussion on april 7th which

14:00 ↗ will be

14:01 ↗ all of you in the environmental board

14:04 ↗ and the planning and policy commission

14:06 ↗ so it's all three boards uh looking at

14:08 ↗ these three

14:10 ↗ sections together and so that april 7th

14:13 ↗ is the public hearing when you will

14:15 ↗ actually get comments from public and

14:17 ↗ then give your feedback to planning and

14:20 ↗ policy commission after you listen to

14:21 ↗ the community members

14:24 ↗ so we thought it may be easier to just

14:26 ↗ kind of get down to the basics of what

14:29 ↗ what these three chapters are because um

14:31 ↗ you all don't deal with code language um

14:34 ↗ and and you know don't look at

14:37 ↗ development review applications as they

14:38 ↗ come in so it can be a little bit um

14:42 ↗ difficult to

14:43 ↗ to figure out what how do we apply this

14:45 ↗ code so we figured we could uh maybe

14:47 ↗ break it down into three

14:49 ↗ sections so the first one that i'll talk

14:51 ↗ about is

14:53 ↗ the community spaces or green spaces or

14:56 ↗ natural amenities spaces

14:58 ↗ section so the way that section is going

15:00 ↗ to work is

15:03 ↗ the main purpose of that creating a new

15:05 ↗ section really is to align it with the

15:09 ↗ park strategic plan so currently you all

15:11 ↗ did probably have your fingerprints on

15:14 ↗ the great park strategic plan

15:16 ↗ that the city adopted not long ago

15:20 ↗ um there are sections in that long-range

15:22 ↗ plan that that

15:24 ↗ we used to go to outside of our land use

15:27 ↗ development code to figure out where are

15:30 ↗ the parks planned where's the shared use

15:32 ↗ route and as development occurred over a

15:35 ↗ period of time how do we make sure that

15:38 ↗ vision that the city has adopted as part

15:40 ↗ of this plan uh is met through this

15:43 ↗ incremental development that happens

15:46 ↗ over time

15:47 ↗ what we want to be really clear about is

15:49 ↗ the title 18 isn't

15:51 ↗ an avenue where new parks are going to

15:53 ↗ be built right so

15:55 ↗ so the city still has to has a program

15:57 ↗ to fund and build its own parks

16:00 ↗ but this section of the code will really

16:02 ↗ apply to as development occurs and

16:06 ↗ we can get developers to um build

16:10 ↗ these um

16:11 ↗ spaces that may be open to public for

16:14 ↗ instance the shared use paths or

16:16 ↗ it could be natural amenity spaces that

16:19 ↗ are only for the residents of that uh

16:22 ↗ building so if an apartment building

16:24 ↗ were to go in

16:26 ↗ anywhere in the city we would look at

16:28 ↗ this new map that's in your um i could

16:31 ↗ probably share it uh but it's it's based

16:33 ↗ informed from the park strategic

16:37 ↗ map and actually uh i see jennifer here

16:39 ↗ she may be able to walk you through on

16:41 ↗ that map

16:43 ↗ if um i have it open here if do you

16:46 ↗ melissa do i can i have the control to

16:48 ↗ actually show it

16:50 ↗ on my screen

16:51 ↗ let me make you a presenter

16:55 ↗ okay that's coming your way

16:57 ↗ great

17:06 ↗ see

17:11 ↗ can you all see my screen

17:15 ↗ great

17:16 ↗ so um

17:18 ↗ this is sort of the uh the new map that

17:21 ↗ will be in the code

17:22 ↗ and this dark purple line is the one of

17:27 ↗ the green necklace trail connections

17:29 ↗ that comes from park strategic plan and

17:32 ↗ then you have these uh varying

17:34 ↗ widths of these

17:35 ↗ lines so type 1 type 2

17:38 ↗ also included here are existing city

17:41 ↗ parks in dark green

17:43 ↗ open spaces in light green existing

17:47 ↗ strategic connections are in red

17:50 ↗ and pedestrian bike routes are in this

17:52 ↗ blue line so all of this is existing

17:55 ↗ planning documents from your park

17:57 ↗ strategic plan or

18:00 ↗ these other strategic connections that

18:02 ↗ we

18:03 ↗ want to maintain in the long run

18:05 ↗ so if we were to get a say for instance

18:08 ↗ a development that occurs right along

18:11 ↗ this

18:12 ↗ dark purple line

18:13 ↗ we would have that development

18:16 ↗ build their section of this connection

18:19 ↗ um

18:20 ↗ and so it will happen incrementally over

18:23 ↗ time

18:24 ↗ but um that's the whole purpose of this

18:26 ↗ is

18:27 ↗ that as uh development occurs we are

18:30 ↗ maintaining this vision of this

18:33 ↗ connection between the different park

18:34 ↗ systems

18:36 ↗ it doesn't show the future parks for the

18:38 ↗ that the city is going to build

18:41 ↗ however if there's an existing park or

18:44 ↗ the city acquires new land and and there

18:47 ↗ is a new city-owned park and some

18:50 ↗ development occurs next to it

18:52 ↗ then we want to make sure that there's

18:54 ↗ some language in the code that addresses

18:57 ↗ how um

18:59 ↗ that particular development for instance

19:00 ↗ cannot turn its back towards the park

19:03 ↗ cannot have a blank wall you know a

19:05 ↗ facade that completely ruins the look

19:07 ↗ and feel for that park but actually um

19:10 ↗ hasn't has uh you know respects its

19:12 ↗ context within where it's located so

19:15 ↗ that's at the prem and at the very basic

19:17 ↗ level that's what we're trying to do

19:19 ↗ here with this code is to recognize

19:22 ↗ um

19:23 ↗ uh the

19:25 ↗ i'm gonna stop sharing so i can get back

19:28 ↗ to

19:29 ↗ uh having all of you on the screen

19:31 ↗ um

19:32 ↗ so that's one of the main

19:35 ↗ parts of this because right now what

19:37 ↗ happens is we get a development and we

19:39 ↗ have to go back and figure out

19:41 ↗ what connection is needed what isn't

19:43 ↗ needed and how how it all plays out so

19:46 ↗ so that that's a one issue we're trying

19:48 ↗ to fix

19:49 ↗ the other one is the natural amenity

19:51 ↗ spaces

19:52 ↗ are being called out which are different

19:54 ↗ from open to general public you know

19:56 ↗ still developer built but open to

19:57 ↗ general public for instance plazas and

19:59 ↗ things like that but natural amenity

20:01 ↗ spaces could be something like

20:04 ↗ a residential community goes in and they

20:08 ↗ there's a need for

20:10 ↗ one

20:11 ↗ um you know it's it's hypothetically a

20:14 ↗ 50 unit apartment building or a

20:16 ↗ townhouse building

20:17 ↗ but there is a requirement for how much

20:19 ↗ per square f per unit open space is

20:22 ↗ needed for the residents of that

20:24 ↗ community

20:25 ↗ um so

20:27 ↗ this chapter will have a provision for

20:30 ↗ what that is how that should be

20:32 ↗ accommodated and so on and so forth um

20:36 ↗ so

20:37 ↗ at the end you know it'll be the

20:39 ↗ standards for the community spaces

20:41 ↗ um how

20:43 ↗ where it's located and giving that

20:45 ↗ context that's sort of the gist of what

20:48 ↗ this chapter is

20:49 ↗ um so i can pause here um to take any

20:53 ↗ questions and uh jennifer if you want to

20:55 ↗ put you know add in because you were

20:57 ↗ really helpful and

20:59 ↗ coming up with that map and

21:02 ↗ and our gis department so feel free to

21:05 ↗ to speak to the map or anything you'd

21:07 ↗ like to add

21:09 ↗ as you reviewed this section and

21:11 ↗ commented on it

21:17 ↗ you covered the map very well minnie

21:19 ↗ okay

21:20 ↗ for anyone who has remembers our efforts

21:23 ↗ in the park strategic plan that is

21:25 ↗ really that map represents a combination

21:27 ↗ of what is the green necklace map that

21:29 ↗ was derived in connection with the

21:31 ↗ planning policy commission but also

21:34 ↗ shows um our park strategic plan uh

21:37 ↗ connections so it's those that we feel

21:40 ↗ we are going to be able to move forward

21:43 ↗ getting out through development

21:48 ↗ and i had a comment slash question mini

21:50 ↗ so it's pertaining to that map

21:53 ↗ you know the map really

21:56 ↗ as it pertains to development and

21:58 ↗ proposed development whether residential

22:00 ↗ or commercial that map it seems is

22:02 ↗ intended to

22:04 ↗ show

22:05 ↗ um

22:07 ↗ recreation type spaces meaning

22:10 ↗ trails that would be activated or you

22:12 ↗ know connectivity goals and then the

22:15 ↗ parks it's not necessarily showing every

22:17 ↗ single piece of park and open space it's

22:20 ↗ it seems to be identifying parks that

22:22 ↗ have some type of develop component to

22:24 ↗ it that that

22:26 ↗ there would be a desire for

22:29 ↗ developers to orient themselves to

22:32 ↗ um

22:32 ↗ it

22:33 ↗ is it is it outlining open spaces is

22:36 ↗ there an expectation that

22:38 ↗ let's say the city owns an open space

22:40 ↗ parcel that a developer oriented to that

22:42 ↗ open space or is this map really trying

22:44 ↗ to more focus on those uh more activated

22:48 ↗ um

22:49 ↗ park spaces

22:51 ↗ yeah so so

22:52 ↗ the main part of the the map is to make

22:55 ↗ sure that the connections between these

22:57 ↗ park spaces are developed as development

22:59 ↗ occurs now it's not going to happen

23:01 ↗ overnight it'll happen incrementally as

23:03 ↗ as you get one project two project three

23:05 ↗ pro you know it'll happen in pieces over

23:08 ↗ a long period of time but what it will

23:11 ↗ prevent is someone building the building

23:13 ↗ right at the edge when there is a shared

23:14 ↗ use path shown so we would get that 15

23:18 ↗ foot or however wide that path needs to

23:20 ↗ be so that it preserved that connection

23:22 ↗ is preserved for the long term

23:24 ↗ um

23:25 ↗ the

23:26 ↗ the parks that are shown on this map are

23:29 ↗ existing we have some language to talk

23:31 ↗ about in the future the city owns the

23:33 ↗ park um

23:34 ↗ purchases land and builds a park you

23:36 ↗ would there would still be you know uh

23:38 ↗ some of these uh things would kick in i

23:40 ↗ think where this board can

23:43 ↗ provide some good feedback in this code

23:46 ↗ update would be

23:47 ↗ what what you see you know for these

23:50 ↗ existing parks how would you want to see

23:51 ↗ this development respecting that park

23:54 ↗ and and we can you know we can't really

23:56 ↗ get everything but we can prevent some

23:58 ↗ of the bad things from happening so the

24:00 ↗ code can be written to say you know this

24:03 ↗ is not you you can't do the backside of

24:06 ↗ your building you can't put your trash

24:08 ↗ and closure right at the entrance to a

24:09 ↗ park or or things of that nature so as

24:12 ↗ you look at this section of the code i

24:14 ↗ think what would be valuable for us to

24:17 ↗ hear from your perspective since you

24:19 ↗ deal with park design and and interact

24:21 ↗ you know hear from community members is

24:23 ↗ what how would you see the development

24:25 ↗ around a park and

24:26 ↗ what's missing from this section of the

24:28 ↗ code that uh probably we should think

24:30 ↗ about

24:33 ↗ i would just also like to add to the map

24:36 ↗ as to why some of the open space areas

24:38 ↗ aren't shown is

24:40 ↗ this was a map about improving

24:43 ↗ connectivity throughout and mobility

24:45 ↗ throughout

24:46 ↗ the city a lot of our open spaces we ne

24:51 ↗ sometimes we wouldn't necessarily want a

24:53 ↗ developer to go create a new trail or a

24:55 ↗ new access point or a new community

24:58 ↗ space right up against it and so we

25:01 ↗ looked at really all of the more active

25:03 ↗ in the existing trail connections and

25:05 ↗ was really are going to be the primary

25:07 ↗ veins throughout

25:10 ↗ issaquah

25:11 ↗ to make sure those were our prime spaces

25:13 ↗ we are focusing on

25:18 ↗ yeah i think jennifer had a good point

25:21 ↗ in in one of her review comments which

25:23 ↗ was you know if you have an access plan

25:26 ↗ for a park you you don't want like five

25:29 ↗ different access points to that park too

25:31 ↗ i i think at that at some point

25:34 ↗ we were looking at maybe adding you know

25:36 ↗ if you're next to the park you need to

25:37 ↗ have a connection to the park and it's

25:39 ↗ not necessarily a good thing because you

25:41 ↗ people will get confused about is this

25:43 ↗ public or private and they would wander

25:45 ↗ off into a into a private um you know

25:48 ↗ connection so while it may be desired to

25:50 ↗ have connections to the parks but within

25:53 ↗ that constraint of is it planned as part

25:55 ↗ of the park design uh and it may you

25:58 ↗ know it respects the park design from

26:00 ↗ that perspective but also

26:02 ↗ um

26:03 ↗ not not have

26:05 ↗ um things that that would be really

26:07 ↗ detrimental to the perk design so we can

26:10 ↗ write code language related to that

26:14 ↗ danielle you had something

26:18 ↗ yeah just on following up on on

26:21 ↗ just a question from jen's comment

26:24 ↗ if um

26:26 ↗ if the map doesn't include all parks is

26:29 ↗ that what

26:30 ↗ what i heard are open spaces

26:33 ↗ does that mean

26:34 ↗ that

26:36 ↗ the code language is the code language

26:38 ↗ limited i guess to the the map

26:41 ↗ and the parks and open spaces that are

26:43 ↗ on there i'm thinking of an example like

26:46 ↗ um the build the building example right

26:48 ↗ like you don't want the back of a

26:49 ↗ building or

26:51 ↗ or something um you know coming up

26:53 ↗ against a park necessarily would you

26:56 ↗ feel the same way about the open space

26:57 ↗ are we eliminating ourselves by not

26:59 ↗ showing everything on a map is my

27:00 ↗ question

27:03 ↗ this map was more for the connections

27:06 ↗ that we're needing developers to get to

27:08 ↗ there is language that should the

27:10 ↗ building be oriented towards an open

27:12 ↗ space or a park area there would still

27:14 ↗ be some of those allowables

27:16 ↗ you may not have the access the sidewalk

27:19 ↗ connections from that facility into an

27:21 ↗ open space where perhaps we don't want a

27:24 ↗ trail connection

27:26 ↗ however i think there is still language

27:28 ↗ in the code

27:29 ↗ mini and dan please correct me if i'm

27:31 ↗ wrong

27:32 ↗ about building orientation to those park

27:34 ↗ spaces uh for residents still

27:38 ↗ yeah are there parks that are not shown

27:40 ↗ on the map i um is that great

27:43 ↗ we have open space areas that have

27:45 ↗ parked in their names um that aren't

27:49 ↗ open space areas but may have other

27:50 ↗ restrictions on them covenants and

27:53 ↗ things that can that limits the use in

27:55 ↗ the activities that happen in them inky

27:58 ↗ johnson for an example

28:00 ↗ maybe a park um open space area it's

28:03 ↗ mostly wet wetland floodplain

28:06 ↗ we wouldn't want a developer

28:08 ↗ creating access through there

28:11 ↗ unless we were working very closely with

28:13 ↗ them in a planned connection but

28:18 ↗ this is where it gets difficult but with

28:20 ↗ the way the plan was written and the um

28:23 ↗ some of our primary connections that was

28:25 ↗ out of the green necklace mission when

28:28 ↗ we did that body of work was for the

28:30 ↗ main

28:31 ↗ veins of connection

28:32 ↗ now as we continue other work outside of

28:35 ↗ title 18

28:37 ↗ as we look at our creek corridor

28:39 ↗ planning that has not yet happened

28:42 ↗ there could be future opportunities to

28:44 ↗ provide trail connections but this is

28:46 ↗ really

28:47 ↗ focusing on the major corridors the

28:50 ↗ major parks

28:52 ↗ and major connections that we are able

28:54 ↗ to get implemented to for the green

28:57 ↗ necklace but yes there are park and open

28:59 ↗ space areas

29:01 ↗ um mostly open space

29:04 ↗ um areas that are not shown on that map

29:07 ↗ hey minnie and jen

29:09 ↗ to also try and respond to your question

29:12 ↗ danielle

29:13 ↗ my understanding is there are some open

29:15 ↗ space parcels the city owns that really

29:17 ↗ are serving primarily

29:19 ↗ a critical area protection

29:21 ↗ goal it doesn't have a necessarily a

29:24 ↗ recreational goal and so

29:26 ↗ in terms of best protecting

29:28 ↗ the habitat or that critical area it

29:31 ↗ might not be a

29:32 ↗ a parcel

29:34 ↗ that we necessarily want development to

29:36 ↗ orient to is that

29:39 ↗ i guess is that a way to put it as as

29:41 ↗ you were sort of looking at this map

29:47 ↗ why would you not identify those so that

29:50 ↗ everybody is aware of those critical

29:52 ↗ areas though i mean you know by not

29:55 ↗ putting them on the map it seems like

29:57 ↗ that that opens the door for

30:00 ↗ uh

30:01 ↗ you know

30:02 ↗ problems

30:04 ↗ i think the intent of the map in the

30:05 ↗ development code in this portion of

30:07 ↗ development code is where what areas are

30:10 ↗ you wanting develop if they're adjacent

30:12 ↗ to them how do you want the developers

30:14 ↗ to respond so it's not necessarily a

30:16 ↗ goal of

30:18 ↗ these critical areas or these other open

30:20 ↗ space areas aren't important

30:22 ↗ is my understanding

30:25 ↗ but it's really good feedback

30:28 ↗ and i you know i i don't i certainly

30:30 ↗ don't know the answer many

30:32 ↗ dan right i mean

30:34 ↗ you know identifying these other

30:35 ↗ publicly owned lands but you know maybe

30:39 ↗ um

30:40 ↗ the orientation

30:42 ↗ requirement might

30:44 ↗ be different

30:47 ↗ chris you had something

30:49 ↗ yeah i would recommend that to the

30:51 ↗ extent it's practicable see if there's a

30:54 ↗ way to color code the map

30:57 ↗ and you know i designate the different

30:59 ↗ types of areas

31:01 ↗ so that when a developer is looking at a

31:04 ↗ parcel considering a parcel

31:07 ↗ uh they can tell okay if we do this one

31:09 ↗ you know maybe it works but we gotta put

31:11 ↗ in a bunch of you know trail and

31:13 ↗ sidewalk and if we do this one we have

31:14 ↗ to orient it this way or we can there's

31:16 ↗ setbacks

31:18 ↗ as much as possible for them to

31:21 ↗ be able to spell out the rules as soon

31:23 ↗ as they can

31:26 ↗ danielle you had something more

31:28 ↗ well i'm just having a johnson property

31:30 ↗ as an example i mean that's a very big

31:34 ↗ parcel

31:35 ↗ isn't it that goes up

31:38 ↗ um

31:39 ↗ and you know when i thought when we

31:42 ↗ added that there

31:44 ↗ that there are parts of that parcel that

31:47 ↗ would be suitable for

31:49 ↗ you know not necessarily active

31:51 ↗ recreation but for park use for some

31:53 ↗ trails or you know some something else

31:56 ↗ in there and so it just makes me a

31:59 ↗ little nervous to say

32:00 ↗ that nothing that's you know just

32:03 ↗ i guess to ignore it right because we

32:05 ↗ don't know what we want to do with it

32:07 ↗ now

32:08 ↗ it's

32:09 ↗ seems like a bad idea

32:12 ↗ yeah you know we can um jennifer correct

32:13 ↗ me if i'm wrong we can do that exercise

32:15 ↗ we can create a map that shows all these

32:17 ↗ other ones

32:18 ↗ i think this map was uh taking the

32:21 ↗ attempt at um

32:22 ↗ bringing in the park strategic

32:25 ↗ plan which was the connection and the

32:27 ↗ green necklace between these gems

32:30 ↗ so it kind of focused on

32:32 ↗ that vision of connecting these green

32:35 ↗ spaces so in addition to these green

32:37 ↗ spaces there may be others um and if um

32:41 ↗ you know i don't know how hard it is for

32:43 ↗ us to know which ones are not on this

32:45 ↗ map and maybe we throw in another

32:47 ↗ colored map here um you know to indicate

32:50 ↗ those kind of

32:51 ↗ spaces that

32:53 ↗ aren't part of the green necklace

32:55 ↗ connections but

32:57 ↗ there are still open spaces and parks um

33:00 ↗ that the city owns

33:02 ↗ i think chris's suggestion could be a

33:04 ↗ good one where maybe it's the same map

33:06 ↗ but either through color you know color

33:08 ↗ coding and and a

33:11 ↗ you know a table that identifies

33:13 ↗ um and some clarification as to

33:18 ↗ how a developer will be asked to

33:21 ↗ [Music]

33:22 ↗ orient or um have it have a relationship

33:26 ↗ with that that public parcel depending

33:28 ↗ on the the color code

33:31 ↗ yeah i mean it could be

33:33 ↗ you know we could get as nuanced as we

33:35 ↗ want but if it is tibbetts park or you

33:38 ↗ know a more active park versus a a

33:40 ↗ passive park

33:42 ↗ or a more

33:44 ↗ natural open space then there's

33:46 ↗ different

33:47 ↗ um

33:49 ↗ you know requirements for development

33:51 ↗ around it yeah different relationships

33:54 ↗ yeah

33:55 ↗ yeah and some of our parks are just not

33:57 ↗ developed yet right so engage johnson

34:00 ↗ would be one of them it's like it's the

34:02 ↗ city owns it

34:03 ↗ and hasn't i don't think

34:06 ↗ at least my knowledge really done any

34:08 ↗ road bust work to think about what that

34:11 ↗ park might

34:12 ↗ might be so even though it has some

34:14 ↗ critical areas

34:16 ↗ i don't know that we you know know for

34:18 ↗ sure what you know what the future of

34:20 ↗ that park is

34:21 ↗ so i think it's especially

34:24 ↗ it's especially going to apply to the

34:25 ↗ creek corridor too because there's a lot

34:27 ↗ of parcels throughout that area

34:30 ↗ that are going to potentially be future

34:32 ↗ parks that should be identified

34:35 ↗ i don't like the idea of not having

34:37 ↗ everything on the map i i just think

34:40 ↗ that i agree with chris that having it

34:42 ↗ coded

34:43 ↗ properly so that you know you know it

34:45 ↗ also it prevents any problems down the

34:49 ↗ road you know if some developer looks at

34:51 ↗ something and doesn't see something

34:53 ↗ identified and then they move forward

34:55 ↗ with something and all of a sudden then

34:56 ↗ you bring something up

34:58 ↗ maybe that wasn't identified on the

35:01 ↗ initial map and that that kind of

35:02 ↗ creates a dilemma so i i think it's best

35:06 ↗ to disclose everything

35:08 ↗ and and properly code it you know so

35:10 ↗ that you know where there are

35:12 ↗ restrictions places that are

35:14 ↗ advisable to be building and places to

35:17 ↗ stay away from

35:19 ↗ sure i mean i think the context of the

35:21 ↗ buildings around the around every open

35:24 ↗ space in park is fine the connections

35:26 ↗ between these parks will be limited to

35:28 ↗ the ones that are part of the green

35:31 ↗ necklace you know vision which is very

35:34 ↗ identified in your park strategic plan

35:36 ↗ so so i think we have to kind of

35:38 ↗ separate those two out the connections

35:40 ↗ between the spaces is going to be this

35:41 ↗ green necklace connection and then the

35:44 ↗ context of a development around a park

35:47 ↗ is more broadly applicable to these

35:49 ↗ spaces but but then it it's it's more

35:52 ↗ nuanced in terms of active passive and

35:55 ↗ just an open space uh type of uh

35:58 ↗ requirement

35:59 ↗ so that's good feedback

36:02 ↗ and i would think you would want to you

36:04 ↗ know and and to be developed right like

36:07 ↗ some more active passive and you know

36:09 ↗ like we just haven't done anything with

36:11 ↗ them right so like you don't want to be

36:13 ↗ stuck later and say like well we can't

36:15 ↗ do anything because you know showed up

36:16 ↗ and the code is

36:19 ↗ you know

36:20 ↗ open space yep

36:23 ↗ i have another question does this you

36:25 ↗ said that this part of the code

36:28 ↗ applies to

36:30 ↗ common spaces in development

36:33 ↗ does it also apply to

36:35 ↗ is it just for landscaping purposes or

36:38 ↗ does it also apply to like the standards

36:40 ↗ for like a develo a playground for

36:42 ↗ example that a developer puts in

36:44 ↗ all of those um so

36:47 ↗ so it's divided into like a open to

36:50 ↗ general public versus just for the users

36:53 ↗ of that site

36:55 ↗ um

36:56 ↗ so um

36:59 ↗ you know

37:00 ↗ if you

37:01 ↗ i don't know if um we didn't include the

37:03 ↗ actual code but i think in your april 7

37:05 ↗ packet you'll you'll get all of that so

37:08 ↗ there's private natural amenity space

37:10 ↗ and common natural amenity space

37:13 ↗ um

37:14 ↗ i can again show my screen but basically

37:17 ↗ you know things like even rooftop

37:19 ↗ amenities or patios and decks uh it's

37:23 ↗ it's nuanced even up to that level

37:25 ↗ um or it could be an open space common

37:28 ↗ open space but the main distinction is

37:32 ↗ open to general public so in a in a

37:34 ↗ commercial area or something that you

37:36 ↗ can walk through up

37:38 ↗ a plaza area that abuts the street and

37:42 ↗ and it's really

37:43 ↗ uh

37:44 ↗ a space for anyone

37:46 ↗ that comes to that building versus the

37:50 ↗ the residents or the users of that

37:52 ↗ particular site so there's that

37:53 ↗ distinction

37:55 ↗ so does it

37:56 ↗ govern

37:58 ↗ the spaces that are just

38:00 ↗ applied to residents correct

38:02 ↗ yeah okay so if you wanted to like for

38:05 ↗ example

38:06 ↗ i live in talus and one of the initial

38:09 ↗ like kind of playgrounds that was put in

38:11 ↗ when it was

38:12 ↗ built was

38:13 ↗ you know not really suitable for like it

38:16 ↗ was replaced by the neighborhood pretty

38:18 ↗ promptly after the development right and

38:21 ↗ so would would this be where you would

38:23 ↗ kind of address

38:26 ↗ what the minimum standards are for that

38:28 ↗ type of

38:29 ↗ playground that would go into a

38:30 ↗ neighborhood

38:33 ↗ um

38:34 ↗ well that

38:35 ↗ not really i mean i think it would

38:38 ↗ happen on a site so one development

38:40 ↗ comes in then you look at what the needs

38:43 ↗ for that development are and what they

38:45 ↗ need to provide on their property

38:47 ↗ uh the the funding of the the parks on a

38:50 ↗ city-wide scale is the capital project

38:53 ↗ for city-owned parks that that happens

38:56 ↗ and jeff is raising his hand i'll defer

38:58 ↗ that question to him

39:00 ↗ do you want to speak oh i'm sorry minnie

39:02 ↗ i didn't want to interrupt i just go

39:03 ↗ ahead what i heard daniel speaking or

39:05 ↗ danielle speaking of was more

39:08 ↗ when a

39:10 ↗ developer is required to build one of

39:12 ↗ those private spaces that will be sold

39:15 ↗ it'll be privately built privately owned

39:18 ↗ sort of maybe hoa managed

39:20 ↗ this code would govern what

39:24 ↗ size or scale of play area the developer

39:27 ↗ would be required to build is that your

39:29 ↗ question danielle

39:30 ↗ that's exactly my question yeah so that

39:32 ↗ it would be what would you know if to

39:35 ↗ the extent that the developer is

39:36 ↗ required to put it in that it actually

39:38 ↗ is going to you know suit the needs of

39:40 ↗ the residents not just be kind of the

39:42 ↗ most

39:43 ↗ you know the easiest or least expensive

39:45 ↗ thing to put in and then have the

39:46 ↗ residents have to

39:48 ↗ you know deal with it later

39:51 ↗ that's my question

39:52 ↗ yeah so so the the open space

39:55 ↗ requirements for residential development

39:58 ↗ on their property that is open to only

40:00 ↗ their residents is going to be developer

40:03 ↗ built and owned and managed by the

40:05 ↗ homeowners association

40:08 ↗ that that would that's how the the code

40:10 ↗ is right now so it won't be build it and

40:13 ↗ turn it over to the city i mean the city

40:14 ↗ could then also have its own park and

40:17 ↗ things like that but

40:18 ↗ um that's open to more than just their

40:21 ↗ development so i think the example you

40:22 ↗ were giving was talus which has these

40:24 ↗ hoas that maintain their own individual

40:27 ↗ open spaces but

40:29 ↗ you know telus is slightly different

40:31 ↗ because it was developed as a

40:32 ↗ development agreement um you know so

40:35 ↗ there was a whole kind of a sub-area

40:37 ↗ planning that happened at the

40:38 ↗ development agreement stage

40:41 ↗ but now the development agreement has

40:43 ↗ been replaced by the um

40:46 ↗ the regulations that are currently in

40:48 ↗ place so um

40:50 ↗ if it is a an open space a tot lot or

40:55 ↗ whatever you know whatever that use of

40:57 ↗ active park or a passive park for the

40:59 ↗ users of that development then yes this

41:02 ↗ code would apply to them and it would

41:03 ↗ determine the size of that lot what the

41:06 ↗ function is how big it is depending on

41:09 ↗ the scale of the development

41:12 ↗ great and at some point are we i don't

41:15 ↗ think we haven't been provided yet with

41:17 ↗ a copy of this code like the draft code

41:19 ↗ are we gonna

41:20 ↗ it sounds like we're gonna get it before

41:21 ↗ the september or sorry the april 7th

41:24 ↗ meeting is it going to come

41:27 ↗ you were provided a draft so there was

41:29 ↗ an email that went to to the park board

41:33 ↗ um as well as the environmental board

41:35 ↗ and the planning policy i think it was

41:36 ↗ march 10th it was sent to you

41:40 ↗ yeah it was a couple weeks later right

41:41 ↗ yeah yes

41:43 ↗ the link is in there for each of these

41:46 ↗ sections of the draft code right okay

41:49 ↗ great i'll take a look at that then

41:50 ↗ thanks

41:52 ↗ yeah and i just posted the link on your

41:54 ↗ in your chat so you can uh link it

41:56 ↗ perfect thank you

42:02 ↗ great discussion thank you so much

42:04 ↗ minnie maybe we can go to the next area

42:06 ↗ but real quick i just wanted to

42:07 ↗ highlight many when we talk about these

42:11 ↗ the draft code is it talks about these

42:13 ↗ private spaces developer built

42:15 ↗ development developer maintained

42:19 ↗ i want to clarify and i think the park

42:20 ↗ board is interested in this from prior

42:22 ↗ discussions we've had

42:23 ↗ those

42:24 ↗ requirements are

42:26 ↗ separate from

42:28 ↗ the park impact fee so the developer

42:29 ↗ would still be paying the park impact

42:31 ↗ fee

42:32 ↗ for their impact to the public system

42:35 ↗ and also be required to to build these

42:38 ↗ private um

42:39 ↗ state on-site requirements

42:42 ↗ correct correct and yes absolutely i

42:44 ↗ think um there was some

42:46 ↗ um

42:47 ↗ so the park impact fees is for

42:49 ↗ system-wide park impacts and this is for

42:52 ↗ their particular development so two

42:54 ↗ different things park impact fees still

42:57 ↗ apply this is more for

42:59 ↗ in addition to that

43:01 ↗ is that is that something new i don't

43:03 ↗ remember that being the case for like

43:05 ↗ the atlas apartments i thought they when

43:07 ↗ they built center park that they

43:10 ↗ circumvented having to put in mitigation

43:14 ↗ you know we we i don't know um back when

43:17 ↗ atlas was we can look into how atlas

43:20 ↗ came about um but

43:22 ↗ if the general principle of the impact

43:25 ↗ fees isn't for their use i think in

43:27 ↗ atlas they they did dedicate the the

43:29 ↗ park to the city

43:31 ↗ um they built it and they gave the park

43:33 ↗ to the city so i think that may be the

43:36 ↗ difference there

43:37 ↗ gotcha yeah i would say brad in my i

43:40 ↗ wasn't quite around at the beginning of

43:42 ↗ atlas i certainly saw the outcome of it

43:44 ↗ i would say this draft code clarifies

43:48 ↗ um

43:49 ↗ better clarifies that distinction

43:50 ↗ on-site requirements don't replace

43:54 ↗ impact to the

43:56 ↗ broader public system

44:04 ↗ okay so we have two other groups i think

44:07 ↗ we can go to trees uh daniel because the

44:09 ↗ landscaping is pretty straightforward

44:12 ↗ and if we have time i want to make sure

44:14 ↗ you you all have the time to ask three

44:15 ↗ questions

44:17 ↗ so take it away then

44:20 ↗ hello everybody um my name is dan

44:23 ↗ martinez i'm a planner with cpd

44:27 ↗ and i've been

44:29 ↗ um the

44:31 ↗ primary point of contact for the tree

44:33 ↗ code

44:35 ↗ um we are having the meeting on april

44:38 ↗ 7th and when i had a discussion with

44:41 ↗ minnie about coming today i told her

44:43 ↗ uh that this would kind of be the the

44:45 ↗ trailer and april 7th would be the the

44:48 ↗ feature film so

44:50 ↗ this is just a primer of um what we're

44:53 ↗ doing

44:54 ↗ and i have a very short

44:58 ↗ uh presentation i don't know if i'm able

45:00 ↗ to share

45:05 ↗ i'm gonna pass that over to you coming

45:07 ↗ your way

45:08 ↗ great thanks

45:16 ↗ okay so

45:18 ↗ can you

45:22 ↗ we all see what

45:24 ↗ um what's up on my screen

45:28 ↗ yes

45:29 ↗ great

45:32 ↗ so the

45:34 ↗ the

45:35 ↗ overarching

45:37 ↗ goal with the tree code

45:39 ↗ was to conserve and

45:42 ↗ uh

45:43 ↗ protect existing canopy but it was also

45:45 ↗ to enhance it

45:47 ↗ so

45:48 ↗ currently the

45:50 ↗ city's uh comprehensive plan has a goal

45:53 ↗ of

45:55 ↗ 50

45:56 ↗ tree canopy coverage

45:58 ↗ for the entire city uh and with

46:02 ↗ the

46:04 ↗ climate action plan that goal was moved

46:07 ↗ up to 55 so we're not looking just to

46:10 ↗ preserve

46:11 ↗ tree canopy but we also want to make

46:14 ↗ sure that we continue to enhance it

46:21 ↗ with regards to

46:25 ↗ the

46:26 ↗ you know you might recognize this from

46:28 ↗ our september

46:31 ↗ uh

46:32 ↗ parks meeting

46:33 ↗ um

46:35 ↗ we wanted to establish separate

46:36 ↗ landscaping and tree preservation code

46:39 ↗ chapters we've done that so the

46:41 ↗ tree code is now its own

46:44 ↗ section of code completely separate and

46:46 ↗ distinct from the landscaping section

46:50 ↗ it update code to include a canopy

46:52 ↗ requirement

46:54 ↗ based on land use uh as we were

46:57 ↗ drafting the code we realized that land

47:00 ↗ use wasn't going to be an effective way

47:04 ↗ of

47:05 ↗ uh setting these tree canopy coverage

47:08 ↗ goals

47:10 ↗ and i have a couple slides to

47:12 ↗ demonstrate why

47:14 ↗ but what we've settled on for now is uh

47:17 ↗ planning sub areas we believe that this

47:19 ↗ gives us

47:21 ↗ a more nuanced approach

47:24 ↗ and it also helps

47:26 ↗ protect

47:30 ↗ each

47:31 ↗ neighborhood's kind of distinct

47:33 ↗ character

47:35 ↗ apply right

47:36 ↗ right tree right place method uh this

47:40 ↗ was primarily addressed

47:43 ↗ with the

47:45 ↗ um replacement tree standards and with

47:48 ↗ the retention standards that are in our

47:51 ↗ code

47:52 ↗ and then we'll strengthen landmark tree

47:54 ↗ standards incorporate exceptional tree

47:58 ↗ standards

47:59 ↗ we

48:01 ↗ did strengthen the landmark tree

48:02 ↗ standards we did not incorporate the

48:05 ↗ exceptional tree standards and the

48:06 ↗ reason for that was

48:08 ↗ uh

48:09 ↗ a lot of the exceptional tree standards

48:12 ↗ that we were asked to look at that other

48:14 ↗ cities use are very similar to what

48:18 ↗ we have for our heritage tree

48:21 ↗ um

48:22 ↗ heritage tree is uh

48:25 ↗ mentioned and defined in our tree code

48:27 ↗ but there's

48:28 ↗ not a lot uh

48:31 ↗ in terms of implementation

48:33 ↗ so what we're proposing to do

48:35 ↗ instead and it's a topic of discussion

48:37 ↗ is

48:38 ↗ um

48:40 ↗ rather than adopting this new

48:43 ↗ verbiage to just enhance and kind of

48:46 ↗ expand our heritage tree

48:49 ↗ language

48:55 ↗ so major changes uh tree canopy coverage

48:59 ↗ replaces minimum tree density and i've

49:03 ↗ prepared a very

49:04 ↗ small example of what what that means

49:08 ↗ um

49:09 ↗ eliminates administrative justice

49:11 ↗ standards

49:12 ↗ um

49:15 ↗ the criteria for an administrative

49:18 ↗ adjustment is

49:20 ↗ can be really difficult to implement

49:23 ↗ we found that perhaps adopting a

49:26 ↗ variance process might be more suitable

49:29 ↗ and

49:30 ↗ it might help

49:34 ↗ address some of the more common concerns

49:36 ↗ that we come across

49:40 ↗ um

49:41 ↗ other changes we consolidated various

49:44 ↗ exemptions into one section

49:46 ↗ we eliminated the tree removal

49:48 ↗ notification form

49:50 ↗ uh i'm gonna guess that most of the

49:52 ↗ folks on this call uh live in the city

49:55 ↗ so

49:56 ↗ if

49:57 ↗ you have a tree in your yard that you

50:00 ↗ would like to

50:02 ↗ remove

50:03 ↗ the city currently has two

50:06 ↗ um

50:08 ↗ processes that you might fall in

50:10 ↗ you can

50:11 ↗ apply for a tree removal notification

50:14 ↗ form or you can apply for a tree removal

50:17 ↗ permit

50:18 ↗ uh this was creating a lot of confusion

50:21 ↗ and frustration amongst residents

50:24 ↗ because what happens is that most tree

50:27 ↗ removal notification forms turn into

50:29 ↗ permits eventually

50:31 ↗ um

50:32 ↗ a lot of things that folks might think

50:35 ↗ while under a notification are actually

50:38 ↗ uh might require a permit so

50:41 ↗ moving forward everything is just going

50:43 ↗ to be a permit and hopefully that makes

50:46 ↗ things a little clearer for folks

50:51 ↗ uh changes to minimum tree retention we

50:54 ↗ noticed that uh comparable cities in the

50:57 ↗ region

50:58 ↗ uh had a 35 retention rate for single

51:02 ↗ family areas so that's what we're

51:04 ↗ proposing where it was previously 30

51:06 ↗ so it's a increase of five percent

51:09 ↗ retention

51:11 ↗ and

51:13 ↗ uh changes to replacement trees

51:15 ↗ um

51:17 ↗ some of the biggest changes are

51:20 ↗ specifying

51:22 ↗ getting into more detail about the types

51:23 ↗ of trees that we want to see

51:26 ↗ and

51:28 ↗ in

51:29 ↗ response to some of the comments that we

51:31 ↗ heard

51:33 ↗ regarding

51:35 ↗ winter and summer coverage what we've

51:38 ↗ said is okay

51:40 ↗ the majority of replacement trees are

51:43 ↗ going to be evergreens

51:46 ↗ and hopefully that that addresses kind

51:48 ↗ of that year-round coverage and those

51:50 ↗ year-round benefits

51:58 ↗ so as i mentioned

52:02 ↗ the

52:03 ↗ the initial thought

52:04 ↗ was to use

52:06 ↗ zoning

52:07 ↗ um designations

52:10 ↗ um and it would have looked like this

52:13 ↗ so

52:15 ↗ the way that the

52:16 ↗ 2019 tree canopy coverage

52:19 ↗ assessment

52:21 ↗ broke down zoning areas it was

52:24 ↗ very general so you have urban village

52:28 ↗ commercial multi-family

52:31 ↗ single family and then community

52:33 ↗ facilities it's it only it's only about

52:36 ↗ five

52:37 ↗ different areas

52:39 ↗ and it didn't make

52:41 ↗ a lot of sense to us when

52:44 ↗ we were thinking about how distinct each

52:48 ↗ uh sub area or neighborhood is

52:51 ↗ and that's why we wanted to go that

52:54 ↗ route instead

52:55 ↗ uh as an example

52:58 ↗ old town has uh

53:01 ↗ tree canopy coverage right now of 32

53:05 ↗ while tiger mountain has 91

53:09 ↗ so our thinking was

53:10 ↗ rather than clump everything into one

53:12 ↗ single family designation

53:16 ↗ it doesn't make sense for a single

53:17 ↗ family residents

53:19 ↗ in old town to have to do the same thing

53:22 ↗ as folks on tiger mountain

53:25 ↗ um

53:26 ↗ so as i mentioned before i think it just

53:28 ↗ provides a little more nuance and it uh

53:31 ↗ hopefully will allow

53:33 ↗ um

53:35 ↗ neighborhoods to

53:37 ↗ maintain their existing character

53:44 ↗ and then just as an example of um

53:48 ↗ you know as i mentioned the biggest

53:50 ↗ difference is tree canopy coverage is

53:53 ↗ replacing

53:54 ↗ uh minimum tree density so

53:57 ↗ just as a very small example we have

54:00 ↗ blackberry park

54:01 ↗ uh it's in the greenwood point

54:04 ↗ neighborhood

54:05 ↗ um

54:07 ↗ and just so i can go go back to show you

54:10 ↗ what

54:11 ↗ this would mean

54:13 ↗ this if we were going by

54:15 ↗ zoning designation

54:18 ↗ um

54:20 ↗ give me one second

54:36 ↗ okay so if we were going by zoning

54:38 ↗ designation alone

54:40 ↗ um what the

54:43 ↗ canopy study said was that

54:47 ↗ that um

54:48 ↗ the minimum canopy would be 55

54:52 ↗ plus a possible planting area of 21

54:58 ↗ so

55:00 ↗ but what the greenwood point

55:02 ↗ canopy coverage does is it says it's a

55:05 ↗ flat 60 percent

55:08 ↗ uh this is based on

55:10 ↗ um what's there now and what's possible

55:14 ↗ planting area

55:17 ↗ so if

55:19 ↗ today

55:20 ↗ looking at blackberry park

55:23 ↗ the code requires four significant trees

55:25 ↗ for every five thousand square feet

55:28 ↗ um

55:29 ↗ and for a park that is twenty three

55:32 ↗ thousand

55:33 ↗ and

55:34 ↗ square feet what that came out to is

55:37 ↗ 19 trees

55:39 ↗ is what would be needed for

55:42 ↗ blackberry park in order to meet today's

55:46 ↗ minimum tree density requirement

55:49 ↗ what the canopy coverage goal does is it

55:52 ↗ says

55:53 ↗ okay

55:54 ↗ 30 years from now

55:57 ↗ if we plant

55:59 ↗ x number of trees

56:01 ↗ the canopy coverage for

56:03 ↗ this park would need to be

56:05 ↗ sixty percent

56:07 ↗ so it's not not

56:10 ↗ a

56:11 ↗ um

56:12 ↗ as prescriptive

56:14 ↗ as

56:14 ↗ saying 19 trees of any variety

56:19 ↗ because you can

56:20 ↗ now choose

56:23 ↗ to plant specific trees that might

56:27 ↗ have a broader canopy coverage so it

56:30 ↗ would

56:31 ↗ very likely be a lot less than 19 but

56:33 ↗ you would be

56:34 ↗ picking species and location

56:37 ↗ based on that projected 30-year growth

56:43 ↗ and that's all i have but i'm happy to

56:46 ↗ answer questions

56:50 ↗ you take that screen down dan so that we

56:52 ↗ can see everyone

56:54 ↗ absolutely

57:00 ↗ chris you got a question

57:03 ↗ hi daniel

57:04 ↗ hey chris

57:07 ↗ uh

57:08 ↗ so would there be some kind of a formula

57:11 ↗ that would help

57:13 ↗ you know an applicant

57:16 ↗ translate

57:17 ↗ 30 coverage at the end of 30 years

57:21 ↗ back to

57:24 ↗ certain types of trees and and what they

57:26 ↗ would what their potential is or you

57:27 ↗ know

57:28 ↗ kind of get to the present value of the

57:30 ↗ trees to the future value of the trees

57:33 ↗ yeah absolutely so um you know that's a

57:38 ↗ work in progress um

57:41 ↗ what

57:42 ↗ we're proposing right now is

57:45 ↗ that

57:46 ↗ a

57:47 ↗ development application

57:50 ↗ would have

57:51 ↗ you know most most of the time those

57:54 ↗ development applications

57:56 ↗ uh having

57:59 ↗ tree review whether it's for removal

58:03 ↗ or replanting but it's very often both

58:07 ↗ so it's

58:08 ↗ when we receive a development

58:10 ↗ application we're looking at retention

58:12 ↗ removal

58:13 ↗ and eventually replanting that's usually

58:16 ↗ prepared by either a certified arborist

58:19 ↗ or a licensed

58:21 ↗ landscape architect

58:23 ↗ what we've said is for development

58:25 ↗ proposals

58:27 ↗ you can have your

58:29 ↗ licensed light landscape architect

58:32 ↗ or designer

58:33 ↗ or arborist

58:35 ↗ prepare that canopy

58:37 ↗ coverage

58:38 ↗ as part of your submittal

58:42 ↗ so

58:43 ↗ a development proposal will say

58:46 ↗ we are going to

58:48 ↗ keep our 35 retention

58:51 ↗ and

58:52 ↗ based on that retention

58:55 ↗ plus

58:57 ↗ nine more

58:59 ↗ cedars of pick your variety

59:02 ↗ that will get us to our canopy coverage

59:04 ↗ goal within 30 years and that that'll

59:07 ↗ need to be prepared by somebody capable

59:09 ↗ of doing it

59:12 ↗ when it comes to kind of the

59:14 ↗ uh day-to-day tree permit reviews chris

59:18 ↗ you want to remove two trees on your

59:21 ↗ property

59:22 ↗ but

59:23 ↗ now you want to replant what we're gonna

59:24 ↗ do is we're gonna have

59:26 ↗ um

59:28 ↗ some

59:29 ↗ hopefully easy to understand

59:31 ↗ guidelines

59:33 ↗ uh for you know specific trees equal

59:36 ↗ specific

59:38 ↗ uh coverage in a 30-year period

59:41 ↗ um

59:42 ↗ and we'll hopefully be able to develop

59:44 ↗ some better tools for

59:46 ↗ how we measure that out and how we

59:48 ↗ educate the public

59:52 ↗ go ahead chris and then danielle

59:54 ↗ okay then just real quick follow up

59:56 ↗ sorry danielle to jump back in front

59:59 ↗ so then first

1:00:01 ↗ like

1:00:02 ↗ development development we want to

1:00:04 ↗ protect trees and ensure coverage which

1:00:07 ↗ is the point of this uh but then in a

1:00:09 ↗ case of like a park like a field

1:00:12 ↗ uh we'll be there be adequate uh

1:00:16 ↗ exceptions or allowances so that a

1:00:18 ↗ baseball field will not be required to

1:00:20 ↗ have you know certain tree coverage

1:00:23 ↗ um

1:00:23 ↗ and still be meeting code requirements

1:00:28 ↗ sure so what we've done is

1:00:32 ↗ there's currently language in the code

1:00:33 ↗ that allows

1:00:35 ↗ uh any development application to

1:00:39 ↗ either plant on-site or off-site it's

1:00:42 ↗ always preferable to do it on-site

1:00:45 ↗ um but what the code says is if

1:00:48 ↗ it's not feasible

1:00:50 ↗ to do it on-site

1:00:52 ↗ then you can

1:00:55 ↗ do it off-site

1:00:58 ↗ we've

1:00:59 ↗ tweaked the language a little bit to

1:01:00 ↗ make it a little easier

1:01:03 ↗ to plant off-site so in the case of a

1:01:06 ↗ park

1:01:07 ↗ or a ball field or blackberry park where

1:01:10 ↗ you say hey i can't possibly fit 19

1:01:13 ↗ trees

1:01:14 ↗ on this property

1:01:16 ↗ what we're saying is

1:01:18 ↗ you can replant off-site

1:01:21 ↗ the equivalent number of trees but it

1:01:23 ↗ has to be within the same planning

1:01:25 ↗ sub-area

1:01:26 ↗ so that there's no

1:01:28 ↗ loss of coverage within that sub-area

1:01:36 ↗ go ahead daniel that was actually my

1:01:38 ↗ question pretty much was how this

1:01:41 ↗ interfaces with um fields and spaces

1:01:44 ↗ that where we actually don't want to

1:01:45 ↗ have

1:01:46 ↗ um

1:01:47 ↗ you know a bunch of shaded area um

1:01:50 ↗ so i think that

1:01:52 ↗ i think you answered my question

1:01:55 ↗ yeah

1:01:56 ↗ you know

1:01:59 ↗ you i would you would hate to

1:02:00 ↗ unintentionally

1:02:02 ↗ create i mean i would just look at that

1:02:04 ↗ map at blackberry park and thinking well

1:02:07 ↗ i can't remember the percentage of

1:02:08 ↗ coverage you said but it was a pretty

1:02:10 ↗ high percentage and that's a

1:02:12 ↗ neighborhood park that people you know

1:02:14 ↗ might want to actually you know enjoy

1:02:15 ↗ sun in right so

1:02:18 ↗ just something to we got to be cognizant

1:02:21 ↗ of

1:02:22 ↗ sure and it's i catch your friends

1:02:24 ↗ without running into a tree

1:02:27 ↗ yeah it's it's understandable and that's

1:02:30 ↗ why we you know

1:02:32 ↗ um we don't want the loss of canterbury

1:02:35 ↗ canopy we we understand the reason for

1:02:38 ↗ not planting the number of trees but we

1:02:40 ↗ don't want that loss of canopy so what

1:02:42 ↗ we're saying is um you can have your

1:02:44 ↗ ball field but you're going to be

1:02:46 ↗ replanting this equivalent number of

1:02:48 ↗ trees off site

1:02:50 ↗ and do we have areas in the city that or

1:02:52 ↗ have been identified as where we would

1:02:54 ↗ like to increase a tree a tree canopy

1:02:58 ↗ so that trees can be planted in a an

1:03:02 ↗ area that would opt you know like that

1:03:04 ↗ would be

1:03:05 ↗ great to have additional trees planted

1:03:10 ↗ yeah i mean the tree canopy assessment

1:03:12 ↗ from 2019

1:03:15 ↗ identifies

1:03:16 ↗ um

1:03:17 ↗ possible planting areas

1:03:19 ↗ um

1:03:21 ↗ so that's one way to look at it

1:03:23 ↗ you know some of it is

1:03:25 ↗ private property so we you know can't

1:03:27 ↗ make commitments

1:03:29 ↗ on somebody else's behalf

1:03:31 ↗ uh some of it is public

1:03:33 ↗ um but then we're also trying to be

1:03:34 ↗ cognizant

1:03:36 ↗ of

1:03:37 ↗ um

1:03:38 ↗ providing fire breaks and addressing

1:03:40 ↗ urban or you know wildfire concerns so

1:03:44 ↗ it's definitely a um

1:03:48 ↗ difficult needle to thread but we're

1:03:51 ↗ you know we're gonna

1:03:53 ↗ this is what we're proposing it's um

1:03:56 ↗ similar

1:03:58 ↗ to what other cities

1:04:00 ↗ are doing now and

1:04:02 ↗ um the great thing about it

1:04:05 ↗ um and i spoke with andrea today and

1:04:09 ↗ andrew snyder and she said she wanted me

1:04:12 ↗ to share broadly that you know the great

1:04:14 ↗ thing about the code is that we can

1:04:16 ↗ adopt

1:04:18 ↗ um learn and and tweak when when we need

1:04:21 ↗ to so

1:04:23 ↗ daniel how are you going about

1:04:27 ↗ any potential changes to factor in

1:04:30 ↗ climate change and the potential

1:04:33 ↗ need for different types of trees in

1:04:36 ↗ different areas because of drought

1:04:38 ↗ conditions

1:04:39 ↗ i mean how is that being dealt with

1:04:44 ↗ yeah you know i can't say that

1:04:47 ↗ um

1:04:48 ↗ that's been

1:04:49 ↗ a

1:04:51 ↗ factor that we've really

1:04:52 ↗ considered

1:04:54 ↗ what we have said is that

1:04:59 ↗ when you are replacing trees

1:05:01 ↗ um

1:05:02 ↗ let me back up a little bit

1:05:04 ↗ when you're retaining trees so

1:05:06 ↗ development has you know 35 retention

1:05:10 ↗ requirement

1:05:12 ↗ what we've outlined now is we've said

1:05:15 ↗ these are the priorities and you have to

1:05:17 ↗ tell us how you're meeting these

1:05:18 ↗ priorities and at the top of those

1:05:20 ↗ priorities are healthy

1:05:24 ↗ native

1:05:25 ↗ significant trees

1:05:29 ↗ and what we've said for replacement is

1:05:31 ↗ that

1:05:32 ↗ trees need to also be

1:05:34 ↗ native

1:05:36 ↗ so

1:05:37 ↗ but in terms of addressing

1:05:39 ↗ um

1:05:41 ↗ climate change

1:05:43 ↗ i think that's something that we can

1:05:44 ↗ possibly do with the tree list that we

1:05:49 ↗ have to kind of create we we have one

1:05:51 ↗ now that isn't super

1:05:53 ↗ enforceable

1:05:54 ↗ uh the proposed code makes

1:05:57 ↗ a reference to a tree list that's going

1:06:00 ↗ to be maintained by the city

1:06:02 ↗ so we're going to need to be working the

1:06:04 ↗ city is going to need to work with

1:06:06 ↗ an arborist a consultant to

1:06:08 ↗ um go through the existing tree list

1:06:11 ↗ decide whether to edit it or just toss

1:06:13 ↗ it out completely and start from scratch

1:06:15 ↗ um

1:06:17 ↗ but we but

1:06:18 ↗ what you've suggested is absolutely

1:06:21 ↗ something that we can consider i had a

1:06:23 ↗ similar conversation with uh connie just

1:06:26 ↗ last week

1:06:27 ↗ where she suggested you know this street

1:06:29 ↗ tree lit or this tree list uh needs to

1:06:32 ↗ be able to address you know longer

1:06:35 ↗ longevity of trees right so we don't

1:06:38 ↗ want to have trees on this list that

1:06:41 ↗ have either a very short life span or

1:06:45 ↗ you know have are susceptible to uh

1:06:48 ↗ disease currently

1:06:50 ↗ um so those are all good suggestions

1:06:52 ↗ that we'll need to take into account

1:06:57 ↗ uh chris and then jen

1:07:03 ↗ okay the last two

1:07:05 ↗ um and

1:07:08 ↗ daniel and i have discussed code in

1:07:09 ↗ other settings before it is

1:07:13 ↗ immensely

1:07:14 ↗ uh complicated and you can get down to

1:07:17 ↗ debating you know a single comma or a

1:07:19 ↗ word or whatever so acknowledging that

1:07:22 ↗ um a couple thoughts

1:07:24 ↗ i don't know

1:07:26 ↗ i don't even know my opinion on this but

1:07:27 ↗ have you considered

1:07:29 ↗ uh like a fee in lieu also

1:07:32 ↗ and then

1:07:33 ↗ that's one question sure and the other

1:07:35 ↗ one related to this climate change topic

1:07:37 ↗ it's

1:07:39 ↗ difficult

1:07:40 ↗ to know how to respond to it because

1:07:43 ↗ it's

1:07:44 ↗ sort of new and happening fast but

1:07:47 ↗ uh i personally am seeing

1:07:51 ↗ you know what's happening in my yard and

1:07:53 ↗ areas you know with the hemlocks and

1:07:55 ↗ arbors came and told me why it's dying

1:07:57 ↗ he said they just can't handle it the

1:07:58 ↗ way the other ones do the drier summers

1:08:01 ↗ and

1:08:02 ↗ you know maybe we don't know enough now

1:08:04 ↗ but it's

1:08:05 ↗ worth considering you know in a few

1:08:08 ↗ years or every so often to revisit with

1:08:11 ↗ that perspective in mind because we

1:08:12 ↗ might be planting trees that

1:08:14 ↗ aren't going to survive the next 115

1:08:17 ↗ degree heat wave day

1:08:19 ↗ um and then we've you know we've lost

1:08:21 ↗ something there

1:08:22 ↗ so yeah those two things

1:08:24 ↗ thank you

1:08:26 ↗ uh yeah fee and lou that's that's in

1:08:28 ↗ code now

1:08:30 ↗ um so

1:08:32 ↗ just to make sure that i'm addressing it

1:08:34 ↗ all um

1:08:35 ↗ there are three options

1:08:38 ↗ plant on site

1:08:40 ↗ plant off-site

1:08:42 ↗ uh fee in lieu

1:08:45 ↗ those are all things that are in code

1:08:46 ↗ now and they're being carried over

1:08:49 ↗ to the

1:08:51 ↗ uh to the draft code

1:08:53 ↗ and as i mentioned um

1:08:56 ↗ i think the language now provides a

1:08:59 ↗ little bit more

1:09:01 ↗ um

1:09:02 ↗ flexibility in

1:09:04 ↗ pursuing those options i

1:09:07 ↗ again i think ideally you're planning on

1:09:09 ↗ sight

1:09:11 ↗ and then off site and then

1:09:13 ↗ um

1:09:15 ↗ we do have this

1:09:17 ↗ tree fund

1:09:19 ↗ referenced in the code

1:09:20 ↗ and and

1:09:22 ↗ what we didn't have

1:09:24 ↗ in the code before

1:09:26 ↗ is kind of the administrative procedures

1:09:28 ↗ and

1:09:29 ↗ this draft

1:09:30 ↗ addresses that

1:09:35 ↗ uh jen you had something and then i want

1:09:37 ↗ zach to maybe

1:09:39 ↗ uh step in with the comment that he just

1:09:41 ↗ made

1:09:42 ↗ if you if you have enough a connection

1:09:44 ↗ zack

1:09:46 ↗ go ahead jen i just wanted to quickly

1:09:48 ↗ build upon um what chris had mentioned

1:09:51 ↗ about um climate change and how trees

1:09:54 ↗ are starting to show it knowing we're

1:09:56 ↗ really encouraging

1:09:58 ↗ native trees i would like to go on

1:10:01 ↗ record that urban environments are not

1:10:03 ↗ always necessarily

1:10:06 ↗ the best place for native plants if

1:10:08 ↗ they're not going to get adequate water

1:10:12 ↗ natural drainage

1:10:14 ↗ things like that so as we're looking at

1:10:16 ↗ our plant list i would really encourage

1:10:18 ↗ us to look at drought tolerant

1:10:20 ↗ plants in our urban settings and keep

1:10:23 ↗ the native plants more in our foothills

1:10:25 ↗ areas riparian areas

1:10:27 ↗ where they have access to those waters

1:10:30 ↗ because heat islands can really cause

1:10:32 ↗ our native plants to dry up very quickly

1:10:35 ↗ ferns in a median or

1:10:38 ↗ you know hemlocks in a parking lot are

1:10:40 ↗ just a recipe for

1:10:42 ↗ dryness and so i would encourage looking

1:10:45 ↗ at some drought-tolerant trees

1:10:49 ↗ yeah no that's great and i think one of

1:10:51 ↗ the um things

1:10:54 ↗ that this having the tree list

1:10:57 ↗ live outside of code

1:11:00 ↗ you know frankly makes it easier for us

1:11:03 ↗ to kind of adapt

1:11:06 ↗ because

1:11:07 ↗ what the code says now what the draft

1:11:09 ↗ says now is you know we're going to be

1:11:12 ↗ maintaining this tree list and you're

1:11:15 ↗ able to choose

1:11:17 ↗ uh

1:11:18 ↗ to replant trees based on this list and

1:11:21 ↗ and i think um

1:11:24 ↗ you know not having any code we're not

1:11:26 ↗ having to go back to council every time

1:11:27 ↗ we decide

1:11:28 ↗ uh that a certain species is

1:11:31 ↗ no longer gonna work for us right we can

1:11:34 ↗ um

1:11:35 ↗ update the tree

1:11:36 ↗ list and and make sure that we're

1:11:38 ↗ staying

1:11:39 ↗ abreast of

1:11:41 ↗ any new diseases or challenges

1:11:46 ↗ well it goes beyond just a tree list

1:11:47 ↗ though i mean at right tree right place

1:11:49 ↗ i mean

1:11:50 ↗ you know the the right place is the key

1:11:52 ↗ there because you could plant a cedar

1:11:54 ↗ tree in the wrong place and it's not

1:11:55 ↗ going to live you know so i mean really

1:11:57 ↗ each individual

1:11:59 ↗ project actually has to have some sort

1:12:01 ↗ of an assessment made as to what the

1:12:03 ↗ right tree is for that place i would

1:12:05 ↗ think

1:12:06 ↗ and i don't know if that's going to be

1:12:08 ↗ spelled out in the code or not

1:12:12 ↗ it is

1:12:13 ↗ um what we've said is um we don't

1:12:16 ↗ require a

1:12:18 ↗ um

1:12:19 ↗ narrative now we we can ask for one

1:12:22 ↗ uh we don't require it what the draft

1:12:25 ↗ code says is

1:12:26 ↗ now you're going to be submitting one

1:12:28 ↗ you're going to provide a project

1:12:30 ↗ narrative from

1:12:31 ↗ your arborist

1:12:34 ↗ that says that tells us

1:12:36 ↗ um

1:12:38 ↗ why these trees were chosen

1:12:40 ↗ you know

1:12:41 ↗ are they going to achieve your canopies

1:12:43 ↗ number one but then

1:12:46 ↗ um how how do they meet our list of uh

1:12:50 ↗ priorities and location

1:12:53 ↗ you know falls among those things

1:12:59 ↗ did i see more hands here jen you had

1:13:00 ↗ something

1:13:01 ↗ and then danielle

1:13:04 ↗ no jen

1:13:05 ↗ i had a follow-up question to that like

1:13:07 ↗ well that

1:13:08 ↗ is

1:13:08 ↗ it's a narrative

1:13:10 ↗ and explaining you know why you're

1:13:12 ↗ choosing your trees does that also apply

1:13:14 ↗ to like like a development where

1:13:16 ↗ a developer is planting trees near near

1:13:19 ↗ a home

1:13:20 ↗ that like um you know in 10 years is

1:13:23 ↗ going to outgrow that space and have to

1:13:25 ↗ be

1:13:26 ↗ you know removed or might damage a

1:13:28 ↗ sidewalk and that that type of thing or

1:13:30 ↗ is it just in the common spaces of a

1:13:32 ↗ development

1:13:35 ↗ it's

1:13:36 ↗ usually all of it

1:13:38 ↗ um we're looking

1:13:42 ↗ and we we

1:13:44 ↗ have that assessment now in code and

1:13:47 ↗ then it clarifies it more in this draft

1:13:50 ↗ is

1:13:52 ↗ um you know sometimes folks will choose

1:13:55 ↗ to

1:13:56 ↗ um

1:13:57 ↗ retain

1:13:58 ↗ a tree uh and then they say but i'm

1:14:02 ↗ gonna

1:14:03 ↗ you know build a structure

1:14:06 ↗ absolutely right next to it and

1:14:08 ↗ you know

1:14:09 ↗ we kind of have to

1:14:12 ↗ um it's not super intuitive how we get

1:14:16 ↗ there but the way it works is

1:14:19 ↗ there is a provision in the code that

1:14:21 ↗ says you can't

1:14:23 ↗ do anything within the drip line of a

1:14:25 ↗ tree

1:14:28 ↗ um

1:14:29 ↗ but that's not super intuitive we

1:14:30 ↗ usually have to point that out to folks

1:14:32 ↗ um

1:14:34 ↗ so in this new code we've just kind of

1:14:36 ↗ tried to make that clear that if you're

1:14:39 ↗ retaining trees

1:14:41 ↗ you're not planting anywhere

1:14:44 ↗ i'm sorry you're not

1:14:46 ↗ constructing anything not just a

1:14:48 ↗ structure but even a sidewalk that's

1:14:51 ↗ going to be impacted by

1:14:54 ↗ the root of those trees

1:14:56 ↗ and then we're we also want to make sure

1:14:58 ↗ that when you are proposing to plant

1:15:01 ↗ trees

1:15:02 ↗ um

1:15:04 ↗ that you're being thoughtful about right

1:15:06 ↗ tree right place

1:15:11 ↗ well thank you for that danielle

1:15:12 ↗ thank you

1:15:14 ↗ we need to probably you were right uh

1:15:16 ↗ minnie we had a lot of discussion about

1:15:18 ↗ trees it looks like and probably had

1:15:19 ↗ could have more but we need to move

1:15:21 ↗ along here so i know i know you need to

1:15:23 ↗ talk about landscape yet so

1:15:25 ↗ yeah uh so that'll be real short but uh

1:15:27 ↗ relative recap the tree discussion

1:15:29 ↗ excellent discussion i think the code is

1:15:32 ↗ going to evolve and we want to make sure

1:15:34 ↗ all viewpoints are sort of incorporated

1:15:37 ↗ so as you come prepared to april 7th

1:15:40 ↗ discussion you know think about what do

1:15:42 ↗ these regulations make sense for parks

1:15:44 ↗ if not then what does and how so we'd

1:15:48 ↗ rather have that discussion now as we're

1:15:50 ↗ writing our code and and you know good

1:15:52 ↗ discussion about where are we going to

1:15:54 ↗ replant and what does replanting look

1:15:56 ↗ like and and are do we have room for

1:15:58 ↗ replanting in the same area if that's

1:16:01 ↗ what we're going to require what does it

1:16:03 ↗ mean for an existing park that already

1:16:05 ↗ is a pre-existing park

1:16:09 ↗ you know how do these three regulations

1:16:11 ↗ should they apply and how do they apply

1:16:13 ↗ it to the park so think about those kind

1:16:15 ↗ of things and give us some feedback as

1:16:17 ↗ um on april 7th

1:16:19 ↗ the landscaping part is really straight

1:16:22 ↗ uh straightforward it really only

1:16:24 ↗ applies to

1:16:25 ↗ as private development occurs on private

1:16:28 ↗ property

1:16:29 ↗ what is the landscaping requirement for

1:16:32 ↗ parking spaces what is the landscaping

1:16:34 ↗ requirement along the perimeter of the

1:16:36 ↗ properties um

1:16:38 ↗ and what are some some of the intended

1:16:40 ↗ goals for that landscaping you know i

1:16:43 ↗ heard

1:16:44 ↗ drought tolerant species

1:16:46 ↗ diversity of plant species

1:16:48 ↗ um

1:16:49 ↗ requirement and and how that

1:16:53 ↗ the purpose of the landscaping section

1:16:54 ↗ is to soften the buildings you know uh

1:16:57 ↗ the hardscape uh also the the air

1:17:00 ↗ quality improvement and all those other

1:17:02 ↗ ecological benefits that come from

1:17:04 ↗ landscaping but in addition is the urban

1:17:06 ↗ design

1:17:07 ↗ and and uh softening of the hardscape

1:17:10 ↗ requirement that that are part of that

1:17:12 ↗ landscaping chapter

1:17:14 ↗ so um currently our our landscaping

1:17:17 ↗ chapter is split in five different

1:17:18 ↗ documents so we go to a different

1:17:20 ↗ section for the

1:17:22 ↗ properties in the centralistic well we

1:17:24 ↗ go to different for old town and then

1:17:26 ↗ for replacement regulations for talis

1:17:28 ↗ and issaquah highlands and it becomes

1:17:30 ↗ complicated to

1:17:32 ↗ to answer a simple question so part of

1:17:34 ↗ that is just consolidating it in one

1:17:37 ↗ area

1:17:38 ↗ uh still keeping some of the

1:17:40 ↗ the special natural context for these

1:17:44 ↗ neighborhoods of old town and central

1:17:46 ↗ issaquah and these um

1:17:48 ↗ missouri islands and

1:17:50 ↗ and uh talis and the rest of the city

1:17:53 ↗ you know how do we combine all of those

1:17:55 ↗ pieces so that really

1:17:57 ↗ not a whole lot of substantive changes

1:17:59 ↗ other than

1:18:00 ↗ um

1:18:01 ↗ having diversity of species requirement

1:18:04 ↗ some requirement for drug tolerant right

1:18:08 ↗ species per right space right tree those

1:18:11 ↗ kind of requirements are sprinkled in in

1:18:13 ↗ this code update so um

1:18:15 ↗ as your

1:18:16 ↗ as you look at the three i would

1:18:18 ↗ prioritize your time for the community

1:18:21 ↗ spaces piece then your trees and then if

1:18:23 ↗ you have more time you know look at the

1:18:25 ↗ landscaping but you you guys don't

1:18:27 ↗ aren't going to come into

1:18:29 ↗ um

1:18:30 ↗ you know

1:18:31 ↗ apply that section of the code as much

1:18:37 ↗ uh jeff get something

1:18:39 ↗ yeah just uh looking ahead for the

1:18:41 ↗ seventh well first just minnie and dan

1:18:44 ↗ thanks so much for uh just helping to

1:18:46 ↗ facilitate this dana i i like your

1:18:49 ↗ analogy of uh this is the trailer uh for

1:18:51 ↗ the for the motion picture on the 7th i

1:18:54 ↗ hope this was helpful i certainly

1:18:56 ↗ appreciated

1:18:57 ↗ your feedback

1:18:59 ↗ park board members

1:19:01 ↗ mini in preparation for the 7th

1:19:04 ↗ is the format of that meeting going to

1:19:06 ↗ be similar and sort of taking it

1:19:09 ↗ topic by topic of these three

1:19:12 ↗ of these three categories

1:19:14 ↗ yeah so

1:19:15 ↗ the way we've been holding the joint

1:19:17 ↗ meetings is we'll pick up one topic

1:19:19 ↗ we will do a presentation on it you you

1:19:22 ↗ know then you'll hear the public

1:19:23 ↗ comments on it and the questions from

1:19:25 ↗ the board members and then

1:19:28 ↗ we want to make sure you and the

1:19:30 ↗ environmental board who are going to be

1:19:31 ↗ visiting boards get the time to give

1:19:34 ↗ your viewpoint to ppc planning and

1:19:37 ↗ policy commission

1:19:41 ↗ so if you have feedback for planning and

1:19:43 ↗ policy commission that would be your

1:19:44 ↗ opportunity after you hear from

1:19:47 ↗ staff doing the presentation after year

1:19:49 ↗ from the community members planning

1:19:51 ↗ policy commission also wants to hear

1:19:52 ↗ your input and feedback as they will be

1:19:55 ↗ making their final recommendation to

1:19:57 ↗ counsel on the code

1:20:02 ↗ sounds good sounds like a lot of people

1:20:05 ↗ at that meeting i don't know how many uh

1:20:06 ↗ i don't know how many opinions are going

1:20:08 ↗ to be able to get fit in in a couple

1:20:09 ↗ hours but we'll see how it goes

1:20:15 ↗ so i think that's a wrap from the sounds

1:20:18 ↗ of things i appreciate you oh you got

1:20:20 ↗ something last year daniel well i just i

1:20:22 ↗ was curious if we could get an answer to

1:20:24 ↗ zach's question that he put in the chat

1:20:27 ↗ right whether um

1:20:29 ↗ there were any incentives for private

1:20:31 ↗ land owners to increase tree density on

1:20:33 ↗ private land

1:20:37 ↗ either in the current code or in the

1:20:39 ↗ future that's something that we're

1:20:41 ↗ thinking about like does that does that

1:20:43 ↗ tree impact the

1:20:45 ↗ you know can could that be used by

1:20:47 ↗ private landowners for example to

1:20:50 ↗ plant additional trees that are

1:20:51 ↗ appropriate for their land

1:20:53 ↗ you know good really good question um

1:20:56 ↗ dan i don't know if you want to

1:20:58 ↗ answer in terms of the tree but i think

1:21:00 ↗ what we've heard is that the nobody

1:21:02 ↗ really took the incentives

1:21:04 ↗ so as when development comes you know

1:21:07 ↗ the the value of protecting the tree and

1:21:10 ↗ and doing this uh wasn't as um

1:21:14 ↗ you know financially and an incentive

1:21:17 ↗ for them because they had to really work

1:21:18 ↗ around a tree and it really so they

1:21:20 ↗ would jump to the conclusion of okay how

1:21:22 ↗ much is the fee in lua if we would just

1:21:24 ↗ pay the fee and luau and kind of do that

1:21:26 ↗ but we have so therefore we haven't gone

1:21:29 ↗ down the path of an incentives based

1:21:31 ↗ approach

1:21:32 ↗ um even for like affordable housing you

1:21:35 ↗ know where you say you could get this

1:21:37 ↗ much you know additional stuff if you

1:21:39 ↗ put more affordable units we haven't

1:21:41 ↗ seen much success um with the

1:21:43 ↗ implementation of the incentives but

1:21:46 ↗ um

1:21:47 ↗ um

1:21:49 ↗ for private labor owners yeah to

1:21:51 ↗ increase

1:21:52 ↗ yeah good i think the way that i read

1:21:54 ↗ this question and maybe zach could chime

1:21:56 ↗ in if you can hear but it's it's more

1:21:58 ↗ like if i owned a piece of property

1:22:01 ↗ that that could

1:22:03 ↗ i bet where i could add trees to it

1:22:05 ↗ like is there a you know can can the

1:22:08 ↗ city like is there are there any

1:22:10 ↗ incentives to have me do that i'm not

1:22:12 ↗ the developer taking trees out but

1:22:14 ↗ as a receiving site

1:22:16 ↗ yeah so you someone's cutting somewhere

1:22:18 ↗ else and can you designate your private

1:22:20 ↗ property as a receiving site for someone

1:22:22 ↗ else yeah good question i don't think

1:22:25 ↗ we've done it we haven't exp

1:22:27 ↗ you know set the code like that at this

1:22:29 ↗ point

1:22:30 ↗ um

1:22:32 ↗ so the the question would be you can

1:22:35 ↗ plant it now but it's also the long-term

1:22:37 ↗ longevity you know the

1:22:40 ↗ the part that it does it's it it gets

1:22:42 ↗ maintained over a long period of time

1:22:44 ↗ and um

1:22:46 ↗ yeah i i don't think we've we've

1:22:48 ↗ addressed that in the code

1:22:50 ↗ good

1:22:52 ↗ yeah

1:22:53 ↗ there's nothing in the code now and if

1:22:55 ↗ i'm reading zack's

1:22:57 ↗ um

1:22:58 ↗ question correctly there there aren't

1:23:01 ↗ any incentives for

1:23:03 ↗ exceeding

1:23:05 ↗ the tree canopy gold

1:23:08 ↗ that that's just not something that's

1:23:10 ↗ been

1:23:11 ↗ contemplated

1:23:12 ↗ as as part of this draft

1:23:21 ↗ that's a good point and something to

1:23:23 ↗ consider

1:23:24 ↗ okay thank you and thanks

1:23:27 ↗ danielle sorry mom my connections

1:23:32 ↗ body

1:23:34 ↗ great question like that covered it

1:23:36 ↗ though okay

1:23:37 ↗ thank you minnie thank you danielle or

1:23:39 ↗ thank you daniel appreciate your uh

1:23:42 ↗ input here tonight and we'll see you on

1:23:43 ↗ the 7th

1:23:46 ↗ great thanks for having me

1:23:51 ↗ okay

1:23:53 ↗ seems like i do this to you frequently

1:23:55 ↗ jennifer uh that uh your time gets a

1:23:57 ↗ little more limited but fortunately you

1:23:59 ↗ know we um

1:24:01 ↗ we didn't really have a full bore agenda

1:24:02 ↗ this evening so we can squeeze it all in

1:24:04 ↗ so

1:24:06 ↗ you're on with hillside park that's

1:24:08 ↗ great melissa could you make me present

1:24:10 ↗ her

1:24:12 ↗ yep on its way over

1:24:14 ↗ thank you you're welcome so many of

1:24:17 ↗ these slides we have

1:24:19 ↗ uh fortunately seen before so that might

1:24:23 ↗ help um expedite

1:24:25 ↗ uh this review but i'm here tonight to

1:24:28 ↗ provide you a brief update on the

1:24:30 ↗ hillside park

1:24:32 ↗ project

1:24:35 ↗ so as you may recall

1:24:38 ↗ last year which seems so long ago

1:24:40 ↗ with the pandemic i'm going to walk

1:24:42 ↗ through what our prior engagement

1:24:45 ↗ has been and what we've heard and

1:24:46 ↗ learned from the community

1:24:49 ↗ february 24th we had our first community

1:24:52 ↗ meeting we had

1:24:54 ↗ a lot of participation from the

1:24:56 ↗ community and we really looked at what

1:24:58 ↗ the 2014 community discussions had been

1:25:02 ↗ concerns from the neighborhood as well

1:25:04 ↗ as

1:25:05 ↗ the play areas field and really need for

1:25:08 ↗ trail circulation

1:25:10 ↗ in march 5th we closed our first online

1:25:14 ↗ survey and we received 221 responses

1:25:17 ↗ from the neighborhood

1:25:18 ↗ june 10th we had our second

1:25:21 ↗ meeting

1:25:22 ↗ which uh really focused on the wetland

1:25:26 ↗ and the discovery of the wetland

1:25:28 ↗ and on june 23rd

1:25:32 ↗ we had an on-site open house to talk

1:25:35 ↗ about the impacts the discovery of the

1:25:37 ↗ playfield being a an actual wetland

1:25:41 ↗ but it's not just a drainage problem but

1:25:43 ↗ there's a actual environmental function

1:25:45 ↗ occurring there

1:25:47 ↗ and what it would mean to the park if we

1:25:49 ↗ kept it or what to do with it and we

1:25:52 ↗ kind of explored options with the

1:25:54 ↗ neighborhood

1:25:56 ↗ as to what to do

1:25:58 ↗ and

1:25:59 ↗ i also started talking about how to

1:26:01 ↗ explore

1:26:02 ↗ achieving some low impact

1:26:04 ↗ play options

1:26:06 ↗ there's a great diversity of

1:26:10 ↗ thought as to the level of play and the

1:26:13 ↗ types of play that should be introduced

1:26:14 ↗ there and we're really trying to find

1:26:16 ↗ some balance and bridge some differences

1:26:19 ↗ between the neighborhood

1:26:21 ↗ and so we just talked about

1:26:23 ↗ what some ideas for low impact play

1:26:26 ↗ might look like

1:26:28 ↗ and then on july 26 we held another

1:26:30 ↗ special meeting out at hillside park it

1:26:33 ↗ was a park board meeting

1:26:35 ↗ and again the board some more supported

1:26:38 ↗ the community feedback to

1:26:40 ↗ retain the

1:26:42 ↗ play field as a usable

1:26:45 ↗ active space within the park which means

1:26:47 ↗ we'll need to mitigate the wetland

1:26:51 ↗ and again we talked about the

1:26:53 ↗ differences of opinions

1:26:55 ↗ and how we might explore some low impact

1:26:57 ↗ play options that

1:26:59 ↗ also provide those who would like to

1:27:01 ↗ play introduced to have some play

1:27:03 ↗ options but those who don't want

1:27:05 ↗ significant change

1:27:09 ↗ that there wouldn't be

1:27:11 ↗ and just as a reminder as to the impacts

1:27:14 ↗ that the wetland

1:27:16 ↗ has on the property uh this was from our

1:27:19 ↗ earlier presentations

1:27:22 ↗ we have a about a six thousand

1:27:24 ↗ square foot uh wetland which is the

1:27:27 ↗ green area out on site it's a class

1:27:30 ↗ three wetland with a very low habitat

1:27:32 ↗ value

1:27:33 ↗ and a 75-foot buffer and it really

1:27:37 ↗ impacts quite a bit of the site as you

1:27:39 ↗ can see here is the

1:27:42 ↗ entrance to the park here

1:27:46 ↗ and as we look at really what that means

1:27:49 ↗ and some of our setbacks and trees it

1:27:51 ↗ really left if we were to leave the

1:27:54 ↗ wetland as a current

1:27:57 ↗ as is and not mitigate it elsewhere

1:28:01 ↗ we would lose all of the field function

1:28:03 ↗ of the wetland

1:28:05 ↗ or excuse me all of the play field

1:28:07 ↗ functionality sorry it's getting like

1:28:09 ↗ all the play field functionality and

1:28:11 ↗ have very little usable space within the

1:28:13 ↗ open area

1:28:15 ↗ itself

1:28:18 ↗ so since that july meeting

1:28:21 ↗ i know everyone has been wondering what

1:28:24 ↗ has been going on

1:28:25 ↗ at the july park board meeting we talked

1:28:27 ↗ about our next steps being we need to

1:28:30 ↗ get some geotechnical work understand

1:28:32 ↗ what is happening with the wetland the

1:28:35 ↗ direction the water is moving and so in

1:28:38 ↗ august we contracted with a geotechnical

1:28:40 ↗ consultant aesi to help us out

1:28:44 ↗ they needed to wait until the wet season

1:28:47 ↗ so we could start seeing kind of how the

1:28:49 ↗ waters were moving through the soil and

1:28:51 ↗ where they were gathering

1:28:53 ↗ and they conducted that field work in

1:28:56 ↗ november and i had sent an email to the

1:28:58 ↗ neighborhood notifying them that there

1:28:59 ↗ was going to be some temporary

1:29:01 ↗ disruption out of the site

1:29:04 ↗ and then in december

1:29:06 ↗ we started looking at mitigation options

1:29:10 ↗ and

1:29:11 ↗ where we could potentially mitigate this

1:29:14 ↗ also includes

1:29:16 ↗ there's been some change in legislation

1:29:18 ↗ which is

1:29:19 ↗ going to likely require us to involve

1:29:21 ↗ the army corps as part of our permitting

1:29:24 ↗ process

1:29:25 ↗ and so we've initiated those

1:29:27 ↗ conversations as well

1:29:29 ↗ and in january of this year

1:29:31 ↗ we received our final report from aesi

1:29:35 ↗ which is now allowing us to

1:29:38 ↗ figure out how we'll drain the play

1:29:41 ↗ field if we're going to grade it or if

1:29:43 ↗ we're going to put in an under drain

1:29:45 ↗ system underground

1:29:48 ↗ but as we start looking at that work we

1:29:51 ↗ also need to continue with our

1:29:53 ↗ mitigation options and so

1:29:55 ↗ we're looking um

1:29:57 ↗ herrera is also helping us with some

1:29:59 ↗ drainage options as to how to drain the

1:30:02 ↗ wetland

1:30:03 ↗ and we're also

1:30:05 ↗ continuing

1:30:06 ↗ to explore some

1:30:08 ↗ low impact play options and we've got an

1:30:11 ↗ upcoming community workshop

1:30:16 ↗ so as we look at what's next

1:30:19 ↗ we are going to be having a community

1:30:21 ↗ workshop

1:30:22 ↗ these are tentative dates as of today

1:30:25 ↗ because we've got a few balls in the air

1:30:28 ↗ still with some of our consultant teams

1:30:30 ↗ and making sure we have ample

1:30:32 ↗ information but we're looking at doing

1:30:34 ↗ for our third community workshop

1:30:37 ↗ a virtual meeting

1:30:39 ↗ potentially on may 3rd

1:30:41 ↗ talking about

1:30:44 ↗ the draft agenda items would be the

1:30:46 ↗ geotechnical findings or mitigation

1:30:48 ↗ options

1:30:50 ↗ also looking at some

1:30:52 ↗ further concepts for some low play

1:30:55 ↗ options

1:30:57 ↗ low impact play options

1:30:59 ↗ and also an update on kind of where

1:31:01 ↗ we're at with the budget

1:31:05 ↗ we'll also and then on may 5th we'd

1:31:08 ↗ likely follow up and have the same

1:31:10 ↗ meeting but out on site and maybe mark

1:31:12 ↗ out

1:31:14 ↗ where some of the players would be

1:31:16 ↗ heightened scale so it's more of a how

1:31:19 ↗ does this fit into the environment and

1:31:21 ↗ really

1:31:22 ↗ talk through some of those findings with

1:31:25 ↗ the neighborhood

1:31:27 ↗ we'll also look at

1:31:29 ↗ so as a next step once we have that

1:31:31 ↗ community workshop and we get a little

1:31:33 ↗ more information

1:31:35 ↗ we'll come up with a preferred design

1:31:37 ↗ for the community it's going to also

1:31:39 ↗ include how we're going to mitigate the

1:31:41 ↗ wetland

1:31:43 ↗ and doing our environmental review which

1:31:46 ↗ is a kind of a pre-step to the

1:31:47 ↗ permitting process

1:31:49 ↗ and um any play area options that would

1:31:52 ↗ be proposed we'd hopefully hone in on

1:31:54 ↗ that and take that back out to the

1:31:56 ↗ community as well

1:31:59 ↗ once we had a preferred final design

1:32:02 ↗ for the park and the mitigation of the

1:32:04 ↗ wetland

1:32:06 ↗ we'll enter into our permitting process

1:32:09 ↗ and then

1:32:11 ↗ unfortunately due to the time frame that

1:32:13 ↗ um the permitting process takes as well

1:32:15 ↗ as um

1:32:17 ↗ having to engage the army corps we're

1:32:19 ↗ not anticipating being able to enter

1:32:21 ↗ into bid award

1:32:23 ↗ and our construction process until

1:32:26 ↗ likely 2023 sometime

1:32:29 ↗ so with that i just want to quickly

1:32:32 ↗ share with you the park board discussion

1:32:34 ↗ and kind of

1:32:35 ↗ where we're going

1:32:37 ↗ as far as our next steps with

1:32:40 ↗ with you and see if you had any

1:32:42 ↗ further thoughts

1:32:44 ↗ on our approach

1:32:48 ↗ can you take that down thanks jeff

1:32:53 ↗ so my lead in question jennifer would be

1:32:55 ↗ um

1:32:57 ↗ for what we know now does it look like

1:32:59 ↗ uh on-site mitigation will occur

1:33:02 ↗ i mean do we have an area that's going

1:33:05 ↗ to be we have checked out the spots on

1:33:07 ↗ site we've also checked a few off-site

1:33:10 ↗ and we are not at a point to determine

1:33:13 ↗ yet where

1:33:14 ↗ so we're still working through some of

1:33:16 ↗ those finer details but we will share

1:33:19 ↗ that with you and the rationale when we

1:33:21 ↗ have it put together

1:33:24 ↗ can i add something to that jen that's a

1:33:26 ↗ great question brad and and i know dave

1:33:28 ↗ asked the question dave kepler in public

1:33:30 ↗ comments um

1:33:32 ↗ and i think as we're becoming more

1:33:34 ↗ informed and understanding what

1:33:37 ↗ the army corps of engineers involvement

1:33:38 ↗ would be this will there's a permit

1:33:40 ↗ called a jarpa

1:33:42 ↗ we would submit that

1:33:44 ↗ given the

1:33:46 ↗ proposed

1:33:48 ↗ mitigation of of that wetland the core

1:33:51 ↗ and their feedback will

1:33:54 ↗ in many ways greatly inform um

1:33:56 ↗ what sort of mitigation option that

1:33:59 ↗ they'll

1:34:00 ↗ um

1:34:00 ↗ support so we're going to lay out

1:34:02 ↗ options and then

1:34:04 ↗ really these um

1:34:06 ↗ permitting agencies and and other voices

1:34:08 ↗ will probably greatly influence uh what

1:34:11 ↗ mitigation or where that mitigation

1:34:13 ↗ occurs

1:34:15 ↗ so more to

1:34:16 ↗ come

1:34:18 ↗ we we don't get that we don't get to

1:34:20 ↗ call

1:34:20 ↗ we don't get to make all of those

1:34:22 ↗ decisions on our own

1:34:25 ↗ so there's been a change to have to

1:34:27 ↗ bring in the core i mean

1:34:29 ↗ is that based upon the the level of of

1:34:32 ↗ wetland that you're talking about or is

1:34:34 ↗ that now all wetland issues to put it to

1:34:36 ↗ put it simply it's based upon the

1:34:39 ↗ administration change at the federal

1:34:41 ↗ government

1:34:44 ↗ add a little more red tape huh

1:34:47 ↗ good thing for you know it's actually

1:34:48 ↗ it's probably in some ways i guess i

1:34:50 ↗ would say

1:34:51 ↗ without getting into presidential

1:34:52 ↗ politics it's just bringing back what

1:34:54 ↗ was what was there previously is how i

1:34:57 ↗ would put it

1:34:58 ↗ well in the long term hopefully a good

1:35:00 ↗ thing

1:35:05 ↗ uh marlene you had something

1:35:07 ↗ yeah and i'm sorry if this has already

1:35:08 ↗ been covered but

1:35:10 ↗ or if i missed it i know there was a lot

1:35:12 ↗ of public conversation about well we're

1:35:14 ↗ trying to deal with all this wetland

1:35:16 ↗ situation

1:35:17 ↗ ensuring that we are at least mowing and

1:35:19 ↗ sort of making the field like

1:35:21 ↗ back to where it was

1:35:23 ↗ is that all like has that happened is

1:35:25 ↗ everything good there like

1:35:28 ↗ are we good with that plan for the

1:35:29 ↗ summer like what's going on there yes

1:35:32 ↗ yes we we did work with last year and we

1:35:35 ↗ resumed maintenance and we'll continue

1:35:37 ↗ to do so until we're through this

1:35:39 ↗ process

1:35:41 ↗ perfect and then one follow-up um

1:35:43 ↗ appreciate that you're talking to the

1:35:45 ↗ community again about um sort of the

1:35:46 ↗ play styles i think i also remembered

1:35:49 ↗ um and maybe you guys have this data i

1:35:51 ↗ thought we were there was a fairly large

1:35:53 ↗ split between people who wanted quite a

1:35:55 ↗ lot of play

1:35:57 ↗ and people who didn't want any and it

1:35:58 ↗ seems like we've landed in the closer to

1:36:01 ↗ the people who don't want any camp

1:36:03 ↗ and so i guess i would like to

1:36:04 ↗ understand a little bit

1:36:06 ↗ how that decision got made and sort of

1:36:09 ↗ what community involvement was there or

1:36:11 ↗ even if we can remember

1:36:13 ↗ what the split was between

1:36:15 ↗ people who wanted sort of bigger play

1:36:17 ↗ area and people who didn't i'd just be

1:36:19 ↗ curious i've kind of forgotten but i

1:36:21 ↗ remember that being a point of quite a

1:36:23 ↗ bit of discussion

1:36:25 ↗ yeah marlene i'll take a first crack at

1:36:27 ↗ this great great point yeah you're right

1:36:29 ↗ i would say

1:36:30 ↗ the you know within the survey

1:36:33 ↗ um and trying to get gauge community in

1:36:37 ↗ interest in any play or some scale of

1:36:39 ↗ play

1:36:40 ↗ the some scale of play meaning

1:36:43 ↗ a lot

1:36:44 ↗ a a a medium amount and a in a little

1:36:47 ↗ bit

1:36:48 ↗ collectively those were added up to

1:36:52 ↗ roughly

1:36:53 ↗ and forgive me i'm not going to get it

1:36:55 ↗ nailed down but roughly 50 percent and

1:36:58 ↗ then there was 50 percent who said no

1:37:00 ↗ play

1:37:00 ↗ so

1:37:02 ↗ what i think we're trying to do in

1:37:04 ↗ beginning to explore these options is to

1:37:06 ↗ show

1:37:07 ↗ probably varying degrees of play but how

1:37:11 ↗ all of those varying degrees of play

1:37:12 ↗ could be

1:37:14 ↗ incorporated in to

1:37:16 ↗ the natural feel and environment of the

1:37:18 ↗ park so that

1:37:19 ↗ even in varying scales of play

1:37:22 ↗ it

1:37:23 ↗ also honors i think the collective goal

1:37:26 ↗ of the community that balanced goal of

1:37:28 ↗ we still want hillside park to feel and

1:37:31 ↗ and sort of look like hillside park so

1:37:34 ↗ we're hoping that these options of play

1:37:38 ↗ have a degree of scale to them as well

1:37:42 ↗ right yeah i know i if i remember

1:37:43 ↗ correctly there were a lot of really

1:37:44 ↗ good

1:37:45 ↗ ideas there that were very like natural

1:37:48 ↗ in nature and

1:37:50 ↗ so

1:37:51 ↗ that's part of our goal is really

1:37:53 ↗ maintaining that low visual impact while

1:37:55 ↗ still providing some opportunities um

1:37:58 ↗ for the group and as jeff said yeah it

1:38:00 ↗ was close to a 50 50-50 split

1:38:02 ↗ as far as how diverse but i think we all

1:38:05 ↗ if we were to say oh to any one of us

1:38:08 ↗ what's your idea for a playground here

1:38:11 ↗ or a play area we would all have

1:38:13 ↗ different perspectives on that and so

1:38:15 ↗ we're trying to come up with some

1:38:17 ↗ options to really help balance uh the

1:38:20 ↗ experience but provide some diversity

1:38:23 ↗ of options out there for everyone

1:38:25 ↗ recognizing that there are you know the

1:38:27 ↗ extreme

1:38:29 ↗ ideas that exist and try and find an

1:38:32 ↗ area middle ground

1:38:35 ↗ jennifer i suspect that methuen will be

1:38:38 ↗ back into the mix here when we start

1:38:40 ↗ having these meetings in may is that

1:38:42 ↗ right that is correct good

1:38:47 ↗ any questions comments from the board

1:38:50 ↗ on hillside

1:38:54 ↗ not seeing anything thanks jennifer as

1:38:57 ↗ always you stepped to the plate and

1:38:59 ↗ contained your time limit to the point

1:39:01 ↗ we have we got plenty of time now we got

1:39:03 ↗ 20 minutes here for the rest of it so

1:39:06 ↗ thank you for that

1:39:10 ↗ uh so we're gonna move on to reports and

1:39:12 ↗ i'm gonna take things out of order here

1:39:14 ↗ a little bit um i'm gonna go first and

1:39:16 ↗ then we're gonna have um

1:39:19 ↗ and we're gonna have uh the youth report

1:39:22 ↗ and then uh jeff is gonna go last

1:39:25 ↗ because he has such great

1:39:27 ↗ great news for us all it's a good thing

1:39:29 ↗ to end on so

1:39:31 ↗ uh for my section here um

1:39:33 ↗ [Music]

1:39:35 ↗ earth day april 22nd

1:39:38 ↗ the city is actually going well beyond

1:39:40 ↗ earth day this year and declaring april

1:39:42 ↗ is earth month

1:39:44 ↗ uh and so there are several things uh

1:39:47 ↗ going on uh in earth month

1:39:49 ↗ uh to kind of kick things off um

1:39:52 ↗ on march 30th which is just uh this week

1:39:56 ↗ couple days from now

1:39:57 ↗ uh the green issaquah virtual

1:39:59 ↗ orientation is taking place so for any

1:40:02 ↗ of those

1:40:03 ↗ interested or if you know people that

1:40:05 ↗ are interested in getting involved in

1:40:06 ↗ green issaquah that's a good opportunity

1:40:09 ↗ to get plugged into that

1:40:12 ↗ if you haven't seen that

1:40:15 ↗ publication come out from the city and

1:40:16 ↗ you want to know more let me know and

1:40:18 ↗ i'll send something to you

1:40:21 ↗ what's zach put in here apel and i've

1:40:23 ↗ done a few coconuts seminar first time

1:40:25 ↗ counted well over 100

1:40:26 ↗ wow good news on kokanee uh and thank

1:40:29 ↗ you zach for uh you and april getting

1:40:32 ↗ involved with the kokanee count

1:40:34 ↗ um

1:40:35 ↗ great to actually see that news over 100

1:40:38 ↗ and

1:40:39 ↗ this time was 65 over three trapping

1:40:42 ↗ sections good good good good news

1:40:45 ↗ um

1:40:46 ↗ a couple more things going on in april

1:40:48 ↗ and earth month but i won't go into

1:40:50 ↗ detail about that

1:40:52 ↗ um

1:40:53 ↗ other than to say that on april 24th

1:40:56 ↗ there's a combined celebration from the

1:40:58 ↗ city on earth day and arbor day

1:41:01 ↗ uh again that's april 24th that that's

1:41:04 ↗ gonna go on

1:41:06 ↗ uh my last thing is uh you know we're

1:41:09 ↗ kind of wrapping up terms now here at

1:41:11 ↗ the end of april

1:41:14 ↗ uh

1:41:15 ↗ uh jeff and several of you from the

1:41:18 ↗ board participated in interviews with

1:41:20 ↗ some of us and and a bunch of new people

1:41:23 ↗ as well

1:41:25 ↗ so we'll look forward to our next

1:41:27 ↗ meeting in april announcing who the

1:41:29 ↗ board will be next year

1:41:32 ↗ uh and uh like i said we're going to

1:41:35 ↗ have several new people so that's

1:41:37 ↗ that's encouraging

1:41:39 ↗ [Music]

1:41:41 ↗ in addition i want to

1:41:44 ↗ say now here that we're going to go

1:41:45 ↗ ahead and have leadership elections at

1:41:48 ↗ our next meeting in april we've kind of

1:41:50 ↗ done them sometimes in april sometimes

1:41:52 ↗ in may

1:41:53 ↗ especially with a bunch of new people

1:41:55 ↗ coming on it makes better sense to do it

1:41:57 ↗ in april so that people that get voted

1:42:00 ↗ in

1:42:00 ↗ are coming from the collective board

1:42:03 ↗ that actually knows these people rather

1:42:05 ↗ than 40 percent new people coming in and

1:42:07 ↗ doesn't know anyone

1:42:09 ↗ so we're going to have elections at our

1:42:10 ↗ next board meeting

1:42:13 ↗ i would just like to say that it's been

1:42:15 ↗ uh been a great run for me i've really

1:42:17 ↗ appreciated the opportunity and um

1:42:20 ↗ it's been very enjoyable but

1:42:22 ↗ with all things

1:42:24 ↗ uh it's always good to have some new

1:42:28 ↗ energy into the mix

1:42:30 ↗ and so i do want to say at this point

1:42:32 ↗ that it is time for me to move on and to

1:42:35 ↗ pass the baton to someone else

1:42:38 ↗ to take this leadership position on the

1:42:41 ↗ board for next year

1:42:43 ↗ so i just want to give that opportunity

1:42:45 ↗ to let you know of that

1:42:47 ↗ so be thinking about

1:42:50 ↗ your personal interests

1:42:52 ↗ and people that you might be interested

1:42:55 ↗ in serving in that position

1:42:58 ↗ um

1:42:59 ↗ you know for next term starting in may

1:43:02 ↗ um

1:43:04 ↗ you know it goes beyond you know just

1:43:06 ↗ for you that might be thinking about it

1:43:08 ↗ it certainly goes beyond just managing

1:43:11 ↗ meetings you know it's

1:43:13 ↗ really gives you an opportunity to

1:43:15 ↗ somewhat have a platform not only within

1:43:18 ↗ the board but also within the city

1:43:21 ↗ and so it's it's a really good

1:43:23 ↗ opportunity i encourage people that um

1:43:26 ↗ that might have some interest to express

1:43:28 ↗ that interest

1:43:30 ↗ here moving forward

1:43:32 ↗ so

1:43:33 ↗ that's all i had to say about that and

1:43:35 ↗ and hopefully that we do have a few

1:43:38 ↗ interested very well qualified people

1:43:40 ↗ that would like to take the baton

1:43:43 ↗ and run with it from there so it's

1:43:44 ↗ always good to have some new enthusiasm

1:43:47 ↗ not that i don't still have enthusiasm

1:43:49 ↗ but it's waning as i get older i see

1:43:53 ↗ so with that i will going to move things

1:43:56 ↗ on to ryan and sean to give us a little

1:43:59 ↗ bit of an update on the youth board

1:44:04 ↗ sean i'll let you start since i was not

1:44:06 ↗ at the last meeting since i was in

1:44:07 ↗ arizona so i'll fill in the gaps with

1:44:09 ↗ some community service stuff once you

1:44:10 ↗ wrap up

1:44:12 ↗ awesome yeah um i'll keep this short i

1:44:14 ↗ guess

1:44:15 ↗ um

1:44:16 ↗ essentially what we did at least i'll

1:44:19 ↗ first start with state of mind which we

1:44:22 ↗ completely reinvented um we have a new

1:44:24 ↗ date for it i am not quite certain what

1:44:27 ↗ it is but we're in the process of

1:44:29 ↗ contacting new speakers to hopefully

1:44:30 ↗ adapt better to the virtual format

1:44:33 ↗ um so that is a youth mental health

1:44:35 ↗ conference that we are hopefully

1:44:37 ↗ planning on getting done

1:44:39 ↗ in may

1:44:40 ↗ um what i do know more about is the two

1:44:43 ↗ events that we're planning um for

1:44:46 ↗ community engagement so again i feel

1:44:48 ↗ like i've said this before but dodgeball

1:44:50 ↗ donuts which is

1:44:51 ↗ engaging high schoolers with police

1:44:53 ↗ officers um in the city of issaquah

1:44:55 ↗ um we've managed to secure trophies for

1:44:58 ↗ the tournament so it's a dodgeball

1:45:00 ↗ tournament um as well as donuts we have

1:45:03 ↗ a donut sponsor

1:45:04 ↗ um and now we're in the process of

1:45:06 ↗ confirming how many police officers is

1:45:08 ↗ able to make it to the event um and then

1:45:11 ↗ we'll be able to figure out how many

1:45:14 ↗ students is a is can be can sign up um

1:45:18 ↗ for teams at the event we

1:45:20 ↗ are also planning the annual triathlon

1:45:24 ↗ um the icy kids triathlon which happens

1:45:27 ↗ every june early june uh despite or

1:45:31 ↗ well it didn't happen during the

1:45:32 ↗ pandemic but we're hopefully going to

1:45:34 ↗ bring that back

1:45:35 ↗ we've already established

1:45:37 ↗ event logistics such as front lawn

1:45:39 ↗ activities inclusive of registration

1:45:42 ↗ food music other activities such as

1:45:44 ↗ entertainment

1:45:45 ↗ and we're hopefully going to nail down

1:45:48 ↗ logistics with run um the running course

1:45:51 ↗ throughout the community as well as

1:45:53 ↗ biking and swimming um in the next

1:45:55 ↗ meeting so yeah that's all i have for

1:45:57 ↗ events for youth

1:45:59 ↗ thank you sean um i'll touch base just

1:46:02 ↗ on community service stuff um

1:46:04 ↗ really quickly uh so as a board we're

1:46:06 ↗ definitely looking to sort of engage in

1:46:08 ↗ earth day since a lot of people on the

1:46:10 ↗ board are very sustainability

1:46:10 ↗ sustainability-minded

1:46:12 ↗ um so we are looking into possibly doing

1:46:14 ↗ a team bonding event with the mountains

1:46:16 ↗ to sound greenway i know that they do a

1:46:18 ↗ lot of work over uh their nursery at the

1:46:20 ↗ state park so uh that's something that

1:46:22 ↗ we've been looking into as well is

1:46:23 ↗ something that we're gonna do as a board

1:46:27 ↗ thank you ryan thank you sean always

1:46:29 ↗ good to hear from you great great

1:46:30 ↗ activities that you're getting involved

1:46:32 ↗ in as well here and

1:46:35 ↗ so i guess that leaves us with uh jeff

1:46:37 ↗ you get to have the honor of giving us

1:46:40 ↗ the big wrap-up news here tonight so

1:46:43 ↗ yeah

1:46:44 ↗ yeah no thanks brad ryan sean thanks so

1:46:47 ↗ much for your work and just hats off as

1:46:49 ↗ well our recreation team at the

1:46:51 ↗ community center

1:46:52 ↗ uh just does a great job in working with

1:46:54 ↗ the youth board you guys come up with

1:46:56 ↗ some great creative stuff

1:46:58 ↗ i did mention to chief schwann

1:47:00 ↗ um

1:47:01 ↗ you know if there's room i i wouldn't

1:47:04 ↗ mind getting a parks and rec team into

1:47:06 ↗ that into that dodge ball and donuts

1:47:08 ↗ just to just to see if we can

1:47:10 ↗ um carry our carry our weight but uh

1:47:13 ↗ great stuff that you and the rest of the

1:47:15 ↗ youth board are doing we just love it

1:47:17 ↗ the community loves it

1:47:18 ↗ so yeah two two really quick updates i

1:47:22 ↗ want to provide um

1:47:24 ↗ without burying the lead

1:47:26 ↗ melissa can i share my screen

1:47:30 ↗ i want to share with you all uh some

1:47:32 ↗ work that we've been engaging on really

1:47:34 ↗ since last summer

1:47:37 ↗ as

1:47:38 ↗ you all know uh we have many many

1:47:41 ↗ strategic goals within the park

1:47:42 ↗ strategic plan one of them being

1:47:46 ↗ acquisition and really beginning to

1:47:50 ↗ um can you all see that

1:47:52 ↗ yep

1:47:53 ↗ all right let me turn it to slideshow as

1:47:55 ↗ i'm

1:47:57 ↗ walking and chewing gum at the same time

1:48:00 ↗ so um

1:48:02 ↗ you know

1:48:03 ↗ how we take a look at acquisitions in

1:48:05 ↗ the city and how we uh really um begin

1:48:08 ↗ to become even that much more strategic

1:48:10 ↗ in how we make our investments uh we've

1:48:12 ↗ been one of the goals within that

1:48:14 ↗ strategic plan was how do we take a look

1:48:16 ↗ at our forested hillsides how do we take

1:48:18 ↗ a look at

1:48:20 ↗ opportunities to create clear

1:48:22 ↗ connections

1:48:24 ↗ with the city system and how the city

1:48:26 ↗ system connects to

1:48:29 ↗ the vast public lands that surround

1:48:32 ↗ surround the city

1:48:34 ↗ that strategic plan just to put context

1:48:36 ↗ for that really led to

1:48:39 ↗ the strategic work of of looking at the

1:48:41 ↗ bergsma property for an acquisition

1:48:45 ↗ there's a 20-acre piece on squawk

1:48:47 ↗ mountain

1:48:48 ↗ um

1:48:49 ↗ that had been proposed for development

1:48:51 ↗ for many many years uh called squawk

1:48:53 ↗ mountain estates if any of you are sort

1:48:55 ↗ of familiar with some of the development

1:48:58 ↗ proposals over the the years on this

1:49:00 ↗ site you're probably familiar it's 20

1:49:01 ↗ acres

1:49:03 ↗ it's on the what would be the north

1:49:06 ↗ east face of squawk mountain

1:49:11 ↗ this map sort of shows highlights a

1:49:13 ↗ little bit it

1:49:15 ↗ is just north of the state park lands

1:49:18 ↗ that were mentioned in the public

1:49:20 ↗ comment

1:49:21 ↗ and it goes all the way down

1:49:24 ↗ right up next to and near

1:49:26 ↗ sunrise place southwest which is in the

1:49:30 ↗ kilkari neighborhood if you're familiar

1:49:32 ↗ with

1:49:34 ↗ familiar with that part of town

1:49:38 ↗ we went to city council and had some

1:49:40 ↗ conversations following

1:49:43 ↗ like i said a number of discussions i've

1:49:45 ↗ had relationship i formed with the owner

1:49:48 ↗ beginning last summer

1:49:50 ↗ that led to

1:49:52 ↗ council

1:49:54 ↗ us presenting a proposal to city council

1:49:56 ↗ the opportunity to buy this us property

1:49:59 ↗ for 2.5 million dollars

1:50:02 ↗ last monday night city council

1:50:05 ↗ authorized the mayor to enter into a

1:50:06 ↗ purchase and sale agreement for this

1:50:09 ↗ for this property

1:50:12 ↗ we are now entering into more

1:50:15 ↗ more due diligence as we work towards a

1:50:18 ↗ perspective

1:50:19 ↗ closing probably sometime in

1:50:22 ↗ mid to late may

1:50:24 ↗ so a little bit about this site and why

1:50:27 ↗ we

1:50:28 ↗ think it is of such importance

1:50:31 ↗ certainly as you look at an acquisition

1:50:33 ↗ of this size and scale you want it to be

1:50:35 ↗ multiple benefits

1:50:37 ↗ along with what i was highlighting just

1:50:38 ↗ a few of the the goals and policies that

1:50:41 ↗ this intersects with in terms of parks

1:50:43 ↗ trails and open space also meets um some

1:50:46 ↗ key environmental goals within the

1:50:48 ↗ environmental plan

1:50:49 ↗ the climate action plan certainly talks

1:50:51 ↗ about

1:50:54 ↗ forest

1:50:56 ↗ preservation

1:50:57 ↗ and a number of other

1:50:59 ↗ goals within the climate action plan

1:51:02 ↗ this site's relationship to cabin creek

1:51:05 ↗ uh which runs along the

1:51:08 ↗ can you als oh

1:51:09 ↗ can you see my cursor

1:51:13 ↗ okay

1:51:14 ↗ so cabin creek kind of runs along this

1:51:16 ↗ portion of the the site

1:51:19 ↗ and is right near the main fork of

1:51:21 ↗ issaquah creek as it comes here so

1:51:23 ↗ certainly

1:51:24 ↗ again this type of forested hillside

1:51:26 ↗ preservation

1:51:28 ↗ certainly meets a lot of raya 8 the

1:51:30 ↗ watershed that we're in

1:51:33 ↗ uh their goals uh both for for salmon as

1:51:35 ↗ well as as um habitat

1:51:39 ↗ as i mentioned 20 acres on the northeast

1:51:41 ↗ corner of squawk um its adjacency the

1:51:44 ↗ state park was really attractive

1:51:47 ↗ have had multiple conversations with the

1:51:49 ↗ state park as we've been exploring this

1:51:52 ↗ uh not only are they supportive of this

1:51:54 ↗ acquisition but they're very supportive

1:51:56 ↗ of

1:51:57 ↗ looking at a future trail connection

1:51:59 ↗ we feel that connectivity is is a real

1:52:02 ↗ opportunity in that

1:52:04 ↗ not only connecting the state park but

1:52:07 ↗ just on the other side of sunrise as an

1:52:09 ↗ opportunity to

1:52:11 ↗ connect to the squawk mountain access

1:52:14 ↗ trail and to the mine hill trail as

1:52:16 ↗ we're

1:52:17 ↗ working on our crete corridor plan

1:52:19 ↗ really creating a

1:52:21 ↗ um

1:52:23 ↗ a strong trail connection um into old

1:52:26 ↗ town

1:52:28 ↗ and the rainier trail and and points in

1:52:30 ↗ between but really i think uh further

1:52:33 ↗ creating a more formal gateway into

1:52:35 ↗ squawk mountain

1:52:37 ↗ um as well as with 20 acres there are a

1:52:40 ↗ number of opportunities for loop trails

1:52:42 ↗ on the site

1:52:43 ↗ for

1:52:44 ↗ the surrounding neighborhood

1:52:46 ↗ as well

1:52:47 ↗ a funding strategy for this real quick

1:52:49 ↗ oh sorry about that

1:52:52 ↗ itchy trigger

1:52:53 ↗ 2.5 million dollars

1:52:55 ↗ we

1:52:57 ↗ already have some funding from king

1:52:58 ↗ county conservation futures which is a

1:53:00 ↗ grant source

1:53:01 ↗ we're going to

1:53:03 ↗ we're submitting a grant application for

1:53:04 ↗ additional funds that would get us up to

1:53:06 ↗ 50 funded by

1:53:09 ↗ king county conservation futures uh

1:53:12 ↗ there is some open space mitigation

1:53:14 ↗ funds that the city's had for years that

1:53:15 ↗ need to be spent on an acquisition by

1:53:17 ↗ the end of this year uh this is

1:53:19 ↗ certainly a

1:53:20 ↗ tremendous opportunity to use those

1:53:22 ↗ funds there that would leave

1:53:24 ↗ a million dollars within our existing

1:53:27 ↗ um pko one two is the capital project

1:53:30 ↗ for um acquisitions

1:53:32 ↗ um

1:53:33 ↗ uh that

1:53:34 ↗ uh that fund has about three million

1:53:36 ↗ dollars um um

1:53:38 ↗ in its balance as uh since 2019 uh the

1:53:42 ↗ city through the capital plan um has

1:53:45 ↗ been

1:53:45 ↗ um sort of storing away funds uh year

1:53:48 ↗ over year

1:53:49 ↗ as these strategic acquisition

1:53:51 ↗ opportunities become available there's

1:53:53 ↗ funds available as opposed to trying to

1:53:56 ↗ find funds in the midst of trying to to

1:53:59 ↗ close a deal so

1:54:01 ↗ tremendous opportunity

1:54:04 ↗ as we look at

1:54:06 ↗ we wanted to share with council this is

1:54:07 ↗ the slide that we have shared with them

1:54:09 ↗ and then shared after the study session

1:54:11 ↗ announcing this

1:54:13 ↗ looking at our estimated m o maintenance

1:54:15 ↗ and operations for this site we can

1:54:17 ↗ incorporate

1:54:19 ↗ this

1:54:20 ↗ certainly in its undeveloped state

1:54:21 ↗ within our current operation

1:54:24 ↗ and then as we're looking at future

1:54:26 ↗ trail work future phase work with trails

1:54:29 ↗ we would

1:54:30 ↗ certainly be taking into account

1:54:32 ↗ what those

1:54:34 ↗ operation costs would be as as

1:54:37 ↗ trails are actually formalized on the

1:54:39 ↗ site this takes a little bit different

1:54:41 ↗ uh view of the site and i think she

1:54:43 ↗ really shows uh the opportunity uh that

1:54:45 ↗ this acquisition gives for the community

1:54:47 ↗ to really become that gateway into

1:54:50 ↗ the public lands

1:54:52 ↗ up on squawk mountain in the state park

1:54:54 ↗ this is looking

1:54:56 ↗ sort of south would that be southwest as

1:54:59 ↗ you're looking at the site gives you a

1:55:01 ↗ sense from our gis staff of the grade as

1:55:04 ↗ it heads up

1:55:05 ↗ into the state park

1:55:07 ↗ there are some existing sort of access

1:55:09 ↗ roads within the site that already

1:55:13 ↗ create some opportunities for loops

1:55:16 ↗ i'll actually go to the next slide

1:55:18 ↗ because it shows some photos of the site

1:55:21 ↗ um

1:55:22 ↗ from various views uh the center picture

1:55:24 ↗ here is cabin creek um

1:55:27 ↗ on that one edge of the property this

1:55:29 ↗ bigger picture is a view looking south

1:55:32 ↗ towards squawk mountain state park as

1:55:34 ↗ you're up at the top of the 20 acres

1:55:37 ↗ this picture's worth noting and that one

1:55:39 ↗ it's just a very healthy understory um

1:55:42 ↗ on pretty much the entirety of this site

1:55:45 ↗ but

1:55:46 ↗ the topography and the opportunity for

1:55:48 ↗ connection in the state park

1:55:50 ↗ there is some

1:55:52 ↗ some great opportunities so we certainly

1:55:53 ↗ look forward to

1:55:55 ↗ that future work with the state park

1:55:57 ↗ to

1:55:58 ↗ identify those connections

1:56:01 ↗ well the last slide is the the motion we

1:56:03 ↗ don't need to take the motion tonight so

1:56:05 ↗ um i'm going to stop sharing

1:56:10 ↗ but um again thank you for i think the

1:56:13 ↗ the the seeds that

1:56:15 ↗ you have all planted through the park

1:56:17 ↗ strategic plan is what really informs

1:56:20 ↗ and creates these opportunities to

1:56:23 ↗ um seek out these types of acquisitions

1:56:25 ↗ so

1:56:26 ↗ much as i think bergson has really

1:56:28 ↗ created that gateway um from issaquah

1:56:31 ↗ into cougar mountain uh this 20 acres

1:56:34 ↗ really creates that community

1:56:36 ↗ opportunity for a long-term generational

1:56:38 ↗ gateway

1:56:40 ↗ um from issaquah's system and its trail

1:56:42 ↗ system up into squawk mountain so

1:56:46 ↗ kudos kudos to the community

1:56:54 ↗ it's very exciting um i live on squats

1:56:56 ↗ i'm very excited as well to see just

1:56:58 ↗ additional

1:56:59 ↗ uh connections for everyone um one of

1:57:01 ↗ the reasons i think a lot of us live

1:57:02 ↗ here is to have more access to trails

1:57:05 ↗ and and how quickly we can get out there

1:57:06 ↗ so great job

1:57:13 ↗ well the other real nice thing is i mean

1:57:14 ↗ it's actually creep going down there so

1:57:17 ↗ it's you know a real critical area here

1:57:19 ↗ too

1:57:20 ↗ and i mean one of the problems that

1:57:21 ↗ they've had in developing it as well and

1:57:24 ↗ so the road system that they've put in

1:57:25 ↗ there jeff already is that going to be

1:57:27 ↗ somewhat decommissioned into more of a

1:57:29 ↗ trail type kind of system you think in

1:57:31 ↗ the future

1:57:33 ↗ yeah that's the work we would begin

1:57:35 ↗ doing with planning um whether it's

1:57:37 ↗ decommissioned or whether

1:57:39 ↗ yeah but converting that

1:57:42 ↗ to and these are

1:57:44 ↗ access roads that have been on that site

1:57:46 ↗ for for a long long time

1:57:48 ↗ i think way way back in the

1:57:50 ↗ 70s and 80s there was a cabin up on this

1:57:53 ↗ site before it was

1:57:55 ↗ um sold to the to the current owner so

1:57:59 ↗ but just nice to know that there there

1:58:00 ↗ really are some opportunities to convert

1:58:02 ↗ those to trails yep

1:58:05 ↗ great connection to the state park land

1:58:07 ↗ there too so

1:58:09 ↗ look forward to that

1:58:12 ↗ i would think people in kelkari are

1:58:14 ↗ going to really like this as well i mean

1:58:15 ↗ it's in their back door to actually gain

1:58:18 ↗ access to the state park eventually

1:58:20 ↗ so it's really good news for a lot of

1:58:23 ↗ the community

1:58:28 ↗ so that's the end of my report

1:58:30 ↗ okay

1:58:31 ↗ anything else to say jeff about anything

1:58:36 ↗ thanks for the discussion tonight uh

1:58:37 ↗ blackberry park the bid award occurred

1:58:40 ↗ um at the same meeting last monday night

1:58:42 ↗ so

1:58:44 ↗ welcome to post pandemic world there's

1:58:47 ↗ some supply chain issues we're working

1:58:49 ↗ through as the those parts and all that

1:58:51 ↗ are being ordered but we will be under

1:58:53 ↗ construction this summer and uh look

1:58:55 ↗ forward to completing that uh project

1:58:57 ↗ for that

1:58:58 ↗ for that neighborhood

1:59:02 ↗ any comments at all about uh change of

1:59:04 ↗ leadership

1:59:08 ↗ um

1:59:09 ↗ boy other than uh

1:59:12 ↗ thank you no other than a big a huge

1:59:15 ↗ thank you and i would say a thank you to

1:59:17 ↗ all of you i i think as we've been going

1:59:19 ↗ through park board applications a number

1:59:21 ↗ of you have

1:59:22 ↗ have

1:59:23 ↗ um submitted for reappointments a number

1:59:26 ↗ of you have chosen not to

1:59:28 ↗ i think we'll have next month to really

1:59:30 ↗ celebrate and give a big thank you to

1:59:32 ↗ those

1:59:33 ↗ um

1:59:34 ↗ uh of you have served great terms and in

1:59:36 ↗ many times many ways served

1:59:39 ↗ prior to me being here i know

1:59:41 ↗ just in my

1:59:42 ↗ almost six years here already holy cow

1:59:45 ↗ um that goes by fast um i've so

1:59:47 ↗ appreciated just the engagement uh with

1:59:50 ↗ this group and and i think how

1:59:53 ↗ um you all are really leaning into um

1:59:56 ↗ your work and and really a much more

1:59:58 ↗ strategic look at how we

2:00:00 ↗ um

2:00:02 ↗ um

2:00:02 ↗ how we steward this uh this park system

2:00:05 ↗ to you brad yeah hats off as serving as

2:00:08 ↗ chair

2:00:09 ↗ um i look forward and certainly

2:00:11 ↗ available as well

2:00:13 ↗ if any of you want to talk about what

2:00:14 ↗ that chair rule looks like

2:00:17 ↗ i think brad and i enjoy our agenda

2:00:19 ↗ meetings every single month

2:00:22 ↗ if anyone is

2:00:24 ↗ maybe considering um

2:00:26 ↗ uh that chair role i would certainly

2:00:28 ↗ invite you and brad to i don't want to

2:00:30 ↗ speak for you as well but i i there's

2:00:32 ↗ always room at the virtual table to join

2:00:34 ↗ that agenda building meeting

2:00:37 ↗ um to sort of see that that part of the

2:00:39 ↗ chair roll as well so

2:00:42 ↗ thanks jeff that's the part i was

2:00:43 ↗ looking forward to create a little

2:00:45 ↗ inspiration for the next step

2:00:49 ↗ announcements other business anybody

2:00:51 ↗ have anything

2:00:54 ↗ not seeing anything i appreciate all

2:00:56 ↗ your attendance this evening

2:00:59 ↗ and we'll see you next month and

2:01:02 ↗ enjoy earth month

2:01:04 ↗ and uh

2:01:06 ↗ and maybe some sunshine to boot

2:01:09 ↗ so with that

2:01:11 ↗ meeting is adjourned have a good evening

2:01:14 ↗ everyone everyone thanks everyone

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF