Park Board · Thursday, April 7, 2022 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this board provides guidance Milissa Ching, Operations and direction in meeting the City's parks and Specialist recreational needs by advising the Mayor and Email Milissa Ching Parks & Recreation Director on matters relating to the planning; acquisition, development; and operation of parks, facilities and recreational Regular Members programs inside the City limits. 2022 - Bradley Book 2022* - Danielle Wolfrom Membership Githens 2022 - Ruben Nieto The Park Board is comprised of nine regular 2022 - Jonathan Richardson members, with four-year terms; and two 2022 - Linda Whitworth alternates, with two-year terms. All members 2023 - Chris Kovac are appointed by the Mayor and subject to 2024 - Zac Szablewski confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire 2024 - Marlene Waxse April 30 of the year listed. For more 2025 - Vacant information, see IMC 2.24.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Proposed Amendments to Title 18

Discussion · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development Daniel Martinez, Associate Planner · packet pp.5–97

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the April 7th Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to receive comments and feedback pertaining to draft code for the Landscape and Open Space topics listed below. • Landscape • Tree Preservation • Community Space and Green Necklace

3322 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ with the environmental board and the

0:03 ↗ development commission tonight

0:05 ↗ due to the virtual format of today's

0:06 ↗ meeting i'd like to start by providing

0:08 ↗ some basic guidelines

0:10 ↗ we have participants attending by

0:11 ↗ computer and others who may be attending

0:13 ↗ by phone

0:15 ↗ for all meeting attendees who wish to

0:17 ↗ speak please speak clearly and pause

0:18 ↗ frequently

0:20 ↗ state your name each time before

0:21 ↗ speaking

0:22 ↗ mute your microphone when not speaking

0:24 ↗ and if you have technical issues try

0:26 ↗ joining the meeting using a different

0:27 ↗ device such as a smartphone or tablet or

0:30 ↗ use the call-in information in the

0:31 ↗ meeting invite to call into the meeting

0:34 ↗ now we'll go ahead and go into

0:35 ↗ attendance uh

0:37 ↗ stefan will you please go ahead and call

0:41 ↗ attendance for policy and planning

0:43 ↗ commission

0:45 ↗ yes commissioner mail again

0:47 ↗ here

0:49 ↗ commissioner lewis

0:52 ↗ commissioner monahan

0:55 ↗ commissioner voice

0:58 ↗ here

1:00 ↗ commissioner phil

1:01 ↗ here

1:02 ↗ commissioner bader

1:04 ↗ here

1:05 ↗ and commissioner zaragoza

1:10 ↗ careful you have a quorum tonight

1:12 ↗ excellent thank you

1:14 ↗ okay i'm going to go ahead and go into

1:17 ↗ um

1:19 ↗ some parameters for tonight the public

1:20 ↗ hearing is for title 18 landscape and

1:23 ↗ open space updates

1:25 ↗ this part of the agenda will have

1:27 ↗ several parts to it which will start

1:28 ↗ with presentations on each topic

1:31 ↗ after each presentation we will open the

1:33 ↗ floor only to clarifying questions

1:37 ↗ from all board commission members

1:39 ↗ please reserve comments for for the

1:42 ↗ deliberations

1:44 ↗ um we are going to be short on time

1:46 ↗ tonight so

1:47 ↗ i want to emphasize

1:49 ↗ that we only ask questions during the

1:51 ↗ question time and reserve comments for a

1:53 ↗ deliberation

1:55 ↗ then we'll be opening up to public

1:57 ↗ comments before the park and

1:59 ↗ environmental board deliberations

2:03 ↗ the park board chair uh

2:08 ↗ go ahead and

2:09 ↗ facilitate the discussion

2:11 ↗ park board

2:12 ↗ stephen

2:14 ↗ park board our environmental board

2:17 ↗ environment

2:18 ↗ chair chair book will be facilitating

2:20 ↗ the deliberation discussions oh okay

2:23 ↗ from the park board

2:25 ↗ very good

2:26 ↗ i will face

2:27 ↗ tonight's discussions and encourage

2:28 ↗ feedback from board members for each

2:30 ↗ deliberation i ask that the planning

2:32 ↗ policy commission members mute

2:34 ↗ themselves and turn off their cameras

2:36 ↗ once each topic of the deliberation is

2:38 ↗ concluded we'll move through the

2:40 ↗ remaining topics at the same in the same

2:42 ↗ order

2:44 ↗ before the public hearing is closed

2:46 ↗ ppc will deliberate on these topics at

2:48 ↗ the april 14th meeting

2:50 ↗ after some discussions with staff i've

2:53 ↗ asked that we switch up the topics to be

2:55 ↗ presented

2:56 ↗ and we'll start with the community open

2:58 ↗ space

2:59 ↗ and the community and the green necklace

3:01 ↗ and then the tree preservation and the

3:04 ↗ we will conclude with the landscape and

3:05 ↗ open space

3:07 ↗ there's a lot of information to be

3:09 ↗ covered tonight and i will do my best to

3:11 ↗ make sure we are adjourned by 8 30

3:12 ↗ tonight if it looks like we're going to

3:14 ↗ go over i will ask the city to continue

3:16 ↗ the discussion in a future meeting

3:20 ↗ so staff uh please go ahead with your

3:22 ↗ first presentation tonight

3:26 ↗ tonight we are starting with dan

3:28 ↗ martinez or uh with uh our consultant

3:31 ↗ katie

3:32 ↗ who uh go ahead and start sharing your

3:34 ↗ screen katie

3:37 ↗ thank you steven um

3:40 ↗ and thank you all for being here in this

3:42 ↗ beautiful evening you have lots of other

3:43 ↗ things you could be doing so thank you

3:45 ↗ for giving your time to this important

3:47 ↗ topic

3:48 ↗ i'm going to be talking about the

3:50 ↗ community space and green necklace

3:51 ↗ chapter first

3:53 ↗ this was a chapter that was created

3:56 ↗ um to fulfill the goal 11

3:59 ↗ which wanted to implement elements of

4:02 ↗ the park strategic plan and green

4:04 ↗ necklace

4:05 ↗ vision through the land use code

4:09 ↗ this chapter also

4:12 ↗ combines uh existing

4:14 ↗ standards for

4:16 ↗ um

4:18 ↗ uh

4:19 ↗ or opens for what was called open space

4:21 ↗ for amenity space um community spaces

4:25 ↗ in um title 18 in the issaquah and talus

4:28 ↗ replacement regulations

4:31 ↗ and in um the central ethical design the

4:34 ↗ development standards there's also some

4:36 ↗ elements of the park strategic plan that

4:38 ↗ we've incorporated into this chapter

4:41 ↗ um some developer obligations that were

4:43 ↗ in the central isquad plan

4:45 ↗ and some elements of the

4:47 ↗ urban design manual from the

4:48 ↗ centralization design and development

4:51 ↗ standards

4:52 ↗ in general we were trying to create a

4:54 ↗ consolidated place for all of these

4:56 ↗ standards that have to do with

4:58 ↗ uh developer built amenity and open

5:02 ↗ natural areas throughout the city and it

5:05 ↗ was not the intent to create a chapter

5:07 ↗ that would guide the activities of the

5:09 ↗ parks department but rather reflecting

5:12 ↗ the obligations of developers in

5:14 ↗ contributing toward the green necklace

5:17 ↗ so the key changes um

5:20 ↗ and and changes are really

5:24 ↗ well the key changes here we introduced

5:26 ↗ some new terms there was some confusion

5:28 ↗ that i saw coming through in the public

5:30 ↗ comments so i just wanted to

5:31 ↗ clarify those now

5:34 ↗ in the existing code and

5:37 ↗ in some places in the park

5:39 ↗ strategic plan the term open space is

5:41 ↗ used

5:42 ↗ and uh for the parks plan open space

5:46 ↗ is referring to a natural area that's

5:49 ↗ unplanned and that isn't really intended

5:52 ↗ to be used for active recreation

5:54 ↗ the term open space in the land use code

5:57 ↗ was used to refer to

5:59 ↗ areas that may be provided at a

6:01 ↗ development for people to use

6:04 ↗ in for recreation enjoyment

6:06 ↗ so because those two terms conflicted in

6:09 ↗ meaning um we established three

6:12 ↗ different

6:13 ↗ um terms for

6:14 ↗ what used to be called open space so

6:17 ↗ uh natural area that's provided by a

6:19 ↗ developer is now called natural amenity

6:22 ↗ area

6:23 ↗ um if that amenity area is located

6:26 ↗ inside it's just called an amenity area

6:29 ↗ and then there's a third category called

6:31 ↗ community space and that came from the

6:34 ↗ central issaquah plan and it's uh

6:37 ↗ a particular type of natural and many

6:39 ↗ area that's intended to be open to the

6:41 ↗ public

6:42 ↗ so natural amenity areas for other

6:44 ↗ developments are intended for the

6:46 ↗ residents of of the housing development

6:48 ↗ and not for the general public but

6:50 ↗ community space is intended for the

6:52 ↗ general public

6:56 ↗ and so the chapter includes

6:59 ↗ also a new way of regulating space

7:02 ↗ to implement the green necklace by

7:05 ↗ adding new requirements for developments

7:08 ↗ that are adjacent to parks

7:10 ↗ or open spaces or

7:13 ↗ city-owned trails or a new a concept

7:16 ↗ called shared use routes

7:18 ↗ which existed in the central plan but is

7:20 ↗ new now applied city-wide

7:23 ↗ um

7:24 ↗ on so again here's a summary of those

7:27 ↗ terms the communities is

7:30 ↗ intended for public use natural amenity

7:32 ↗ areas are open space but

7:35 ↗ they're used they're intended for use by

7:37 ↗ residents

7:39 ↗ and the indoor amenities obviously

7:41 ↗ indoor and building orientation or

7:43 ↗ connection is this new

7:44 ↗ approach to

7:46 ↗ green necklace implementations

7:49 ↗ so part of the code includes a new map

7:53 ↗ this is

7:54 ↗ taken from

7:56 ↗ the park's strategic plan

7:58 ↗ and simplified for the land use code

8:02 ↗ it shows the trail the city-owned trails

8:05 ↗ the green necklace trails and the parks

8:07 ↗ and open spaces

8:09 ↗ that the parks department indicated they

8:12 ↗ wanted to

8:14 ↗ they wanted development to be oriented

8:16 ↗ to these facilities

8:20 ↗ so in reviewing

8:22 ↗ the comments so far

8:24 ↗ we've heard that there's needs to be

8:26 ↗ some clarity about these different types

8:28 ↗ of space community space versus other

8:30 ↗ space

8:31 ↗ um and to the extent that we need to add

8:33 ↗ clarity we'll make sure to do that in

8:35 ↗ the draft moving forward

8:37 ↗ there's questions whether this chapter

8:39 ↗ applied to parks and facilities that the

8:42 ↗ city would be developing and the answer

8:44 ↗ is no this just applies to

8:46 ↗ developer built amenities

8:49 ↗ and then there was a specific question

8:51 ↗ about the natural context zone and i

8:53 ↗ just quickly wanted to touch on that

8:55 ↗ because it's a similar idea

8:58 ↗ to this new building orientation code

9:00 ↗ that we have

9:02 ↗ the urban design manual required certain

9:05 ↗ development along critical areas to

9:08 ↗ orient toward those critical areas

9:11 ↗ and uh this code isn't meant to

9:14 ↗ replace that

9:15 ↗ uh but that the natural context

9:18 ↗ regulations actually currently are in

9:20 ↗ the building chapter so we're looking at

9:22 ↗ whether it makes more sense to move

9:24 ↗ those into this chapter instead

9:28 ↗ um

9:29 ↗ some more comments there was questions

9:30 ↗ about how

9:32 ↗ space was applied to residential

9:33 ↗ buildings i'm not going to go into that

9:36 ↗ too much here but i'm happy to answer

9:37 ↗ questions but essentially

9:39 ↗ i think that there may be have been some

9:41 ↗ confusion over um

9:44 ↗ what natural amenity requirements there

9:46 ↗ were for larger buildings and

9:48 ↗ essentially it's it's not less it's the

9:51 ↗ same and they have to do an extra step

9:54 ↗ if they're in central issaquah

9:56 ↗ and

9:59 ↗ so i wanted to quickly show this example

10:02 ↗ um of how the new code would be applied

10:04 ↗ to a site in izakawa so this is um

10:07 ↗ this is on holly street it's adjacent to

10:10 ↗ bernstein park

10:12 ↗ located in central issaquah

10:14 ↗ and it's located along a

10:16 ↗ through block passage which is down here

10:19 ↗ at the bottom

10:20 ↗ um it's six residential units so this is

10:22 ↗ a this is a

10:26 ↗ so under the new code since it's a

10:28 ↗ located adjacent to a park which is on

10:31 ↗ that green necklace map the development

10:33 ↗ would be required to orient in in some

10:36 ↗ way by having windows or entries to face

10:40 ↗ that um park and they would be required

10:43 ↗ to locate their natural amenity area in

10:46 ↗ that same area between the building and

10:47 ↗ the park

10:49 ↗ they also would be required

10:51 ↗ to connect to this through block passage

10:54 ↗ which provides

10:55 ↗ an access to the park

10:57 ↗ so that connection would have to come

11:00 ↗ somewhere in the development so that

11:01 ↗ that would be an easy way to facilitate

11:03 ↗ access to the park

11:05 ↗ um if this were a larger building there

11:08 ↗ was 22 units or more it would also have

11:10 ↗ to do an additional amenity

11:14 ↗ and if it were a senior living or

11:16 ↗ assisted living community there would be

11:17 ↗ additional indoor amenities space

11:19 ↗ requirements

11:21 ↗ if it were commercial or mixed use in

11:23 ↗ central issaquah they would also need to

11:26 ↗ build a public community space

11:30 ↗ so um our next steps for this code we're

11:34 ↗ we'll do a close review for any internal

11:36 ↗ inconsistencies

11:38 ↗ and make sure it's organized clearly

11:42 ↗ we may be adding those standards for the

11:43 ↗ natural context zone from the urban

11:45 ↗ design manual into this chapter

11:48 ↗ and then we may continue to work on

11:51 ↗ adding detail or clarification to that

11:53 ↗ green necklace map to make it easier to

11:56 ↗ use and clear

11:57 ↗ and clarify which sites it applies to

12:08 ↗ thank you planner cody and so

12:11 ↗ we'll go ahead and open up two questions

12:13 ↗ but before we start

12:15 ↗ um

12:16 ↗ we need to back up for a second and

12:18 ↗ stephen we need to call roll call for

12:20 ↗ the other boards on this uh call tonight

12:24 ↗ so uh steven would you like to go ahead

12:25 ↗ and take care of that

12:27 ↗ yes cheerful we'll start with uh park

12:30 ↗ board with uh chair book

12:34 ↗ hi this is uh park board chair brad book

12:37 ↗ i'm going to call roll call for the park

12:39 ↗ board attendees that we have this

12:41 ↗ evening

12:42 ↗ please

12:43 ↗ take yourself off mute and acknowledge

12:46 ↗ your presence when i call your name

12:47 ↗ danielle gibbons

12:49 ↗ president

12:52 ↗ jonathan richardson

12:54 ↗ president

12:56 ↗ uh that concludes park board uh ron

12:59 ↗ of attendees you want me to also do this

13:01 ↗ for the environmental board as well

13:04 ↗ uh no that's okay uh

13:06 ↗ chair book we're gonna go to uh staff

13:09 ↗ stacey to do the roll call for the

13:10 ↗ environmental board thank you

13:14 ↗ thanks stephen

13:15 ↗ um for the environmental board i'll go

13:17 ↗ ahead and call roll

13:18 ↗ danny maiden

13:21 ↗ don mcwilliams

13:24 ↗ yep present

13:26 ↗ rishi hazra has an excused absence

13:28 ↗ cameron fisher has an excused absence

13:31 ↗ laura levaco has excused absence uh

13:34 ↗ nancy davidson

13:36 ↗ yeah

13:38 ↗ dan hens

13:39 ↗ here

13:41 ↗ anne newcomb

13:42 ↗ she'll be joining us about seven o'clock

13:45 ↗ jamie finch has an excused absence

13:49 ↗ tom anderson

13:50 ↗ here

13:52 ↗ syria bella praguetta

13:56 ↗ and janet wahl

14:00 ↗ that's it for the environmental board

14:03 ↗ okay thank you

14:04 ↗ all right now for questions and how

14:06 ↗ we're going to handle this because we

14:07 ↗ have two boards tonight

14:09 ↗ um actually three boards so if you have

14:12 ↗ questions please post that you have a

14:14 ↗ question in the chat you don't need to

14:16 ↗ post the actual question just post that

14:18 ↗ you have a question

14:20 ↗ and

14:21 ↗ we'll go ahead and call on you um

14:24 ↗ so let's go ahead and open up for

14:26 ↗ commissioner questions and

14:33 ↗ give it a moment here

14:37 ↗ someone has to have a question

14:43 ↗ and we have nancy davidson she's the

14:45 ↗ first person for a question tonight so

14:49 ↗ thank you very much um my question kind

14:51 ↗ of ties to how this interacts war

14:54 ↗ relates to the other sections that we're

14:56 ↗ talking about tonight

14:58 ↗ particularly

14:59 ↗ particularly

15:01 ↗ i'm looking at the example that was

15:03 ↗ provided in terms of

15:05 ↗ how it ties to retaining trees

15:08 ↗ and other aspects of the code it seems

15:11 ↗ like this appears to be kind of an

15:13 ↗ isolated piece of code that hasn't taken

15:16 ↗ into the community goals of retaining

15:19 ↗ landscaping doing the um training

15:22 ↗ retaining tree canopies

15:24 ↗ maintaining um existing mature trees so

15:28 ↗ how do we make sure that that provision

15:30 ↗ as we're adopting community and amenity

15:33 ↗ spaces that we're trying to get those

15:35 ↗ focused on protecting the

15:38 ↗ community assets that we have in place

15:40 ↗ at this time

15:45 ↗ should i answer the questions right

15:46 ↗ after their

15:52 ↗ because yes katie uh go ahead and answer

15:55 ↗ the questions after the commissioner's

15:57 ↗ ask

15:58 ↗ okay thank you um so this this would

16:01 ↗ build on all of the other sections of

16:03 ↗ the code so if we take that example that

16:06 ↗ i was showing you before

16:09 ↗ i didn't highlight the trees there were

16:11 ↗ some trees located on the edges of the

16:13 ↗ property but

16:15 ↗ the development proposal would be

16:17 ↗ required to show how it's meeting the

16:19 ↗ tree retention and preservation code and

16:22 ↗ how it's meeting the landscape code and

16:24 ↗ how it's meaning the community spaces

16:26 ↗ code in addition to any building

16:28 ↗ standards and

16:29 ↗ form and intensity standards so it's not

16:33 ↗ this code would be would be required for

16:35 ↗ all projects

16:37 ↗ of five or more units

16:39 ↗ and

16:40 ↗ non-residential and multi-family

16:42 ↗ buildings

16:43 ↗ in central issaquah so it would be one

16:47 ↗ of many

16:49 ↗ standards that planners would look at

16:51 ↗ when evaluating a proposal

16:54 ↗ can i ask one follow-up question to what

16:56 ↗ you responded to me on and that is you

16:58 ↗ said it was central issaquah but this

17:00 ↗ would be throughout the city correct

17:03 ↗ so the chapter applies throughout the

17:04 ↗ city and it's um

17:06 ↗ the way that existing code right now

17:09 ↗ works

17:10 ↗ um they there are not um natural

17:13 ↗ amenities standards for non-residential

17:15 ↗ buildings except for central issaquah

17:19 ↗ and in the urban villages so

17:22 ↗ those would remain the same and

17:25 ↗ at this point we're not expanding those

17:27 ↗ natural amenities requirements to

17:29 ↗ non-residential and use developments

17:32 ↗ outside of central

17:33 ↗ but there's currently natural amenity

17:36 ↗ standards for residential uses all over

17:38 ↗ the city and that would that would stay

17:40 ↗ the same

17:42 ↗ so how are we creating a consistent code

17:44 ↗ if we're not applying this code of

17:46 ↗ natural amenity spaces throughout the

17:49 ↗ city of issaquah if it's only focused on

17:51 ↗ central issaquah

17:54 ↗ well the

17:56 ↗ the aspect that is being

17:58 ↗ applied city-wide are these green

18:00 ↗ necklace provisions so

18:03 ↗ those would those would apply outside

18:06 ↗ and inside central issaquah so any

18:08 ↗ properties that are

18:09 ↗ located along trails or parks would be

18:12 ↗ required to provide orientation and in

18:14 ↗ some cases connection to those

18:16 ↗ facilities

18:18 ↗ i think that it's a policy decision

18:20 ↗ whether to

18:22 ↗ require non-residential so for example a

18:25 ↗ retail use like a grocery store

18:28 ↗ outside of central issaquah doesn't need

18:30 ↗ to provide an amenity space right now

18:32 ↗ that that's the way the code currently

18:34 ↗ is

18:35 ↗ um so if the city wanted to change that

18:39 ↗ that would that would be an option but

18:41 ↗ that's just not how the code currently

18:42 ↗ is and it wasn't

18:45 ↗ changed in this draft either

18:48 ↗ thank you

18:51 ↗ thank you commissioner davidson and

18:54 ↗ commissioner anderson you have the floor

18:57 ↗ oh yes thank you tom anderson here

19:00 ↗ um

19:01 ↗ i'm wondering is there any part of this

19:02 ↗ provision that would provide an

19:04 ↗ incentive for existing developments uh

19:08 ↗ to provide improved trail access i

19:11 ↗ didn't see anything in there but i'm

19:12 ↗ just wondering if there's something i i

19:14 ↗ missed in that i'm i'm thinking in terms

19:16 ↗ of like here in the south end of town

19:18 ↗ there are some major multi-family

19:20 ↗ apartment building uh

19:22 ↗ complexes that uh in their backyard is

19:25 ↗ the rainier trail you know a great

19:27 ↗ resource and uh well humans have found

19:30 ↗ access there but it's very haphazard and

19:33 ↗ it would be nice for it to be better

19:34 ↗ aligned with these things

19:36 ↗ well it's not going to be redeveloped

19:39 ↗ and it's not a new development is there

19:42 ↗ any way that we can provide some

19:44 ↗ incentive

19:45 ↗ uh to existing developments to

19:48 ↗ improve this access to this uh

19:51 ↗ tremendous

19:52 ↗ uh green necklace

19:54 ↗ trail resources that we have

19:58 ↗ so the short answer is no there are not

20:00 ↗ incentives to add connections to

20:02 ↗ existing development

20:04 ↗ that would um

20:06 ↗ that would likely be a program that

20:08 ↗ would be located outside of the land use

20:10 ↗ code through the parks department or

20:13 ↗ some other

20:14 ↗ city program

20:16 ↗ um the only

20:18 ↗ the only actions that the land use

20:20 ↗ code uh

20:22 ↗ controls or is applicable applicable

20:24 ↗ applicable to is development and

20:27 ↗ redevelopment and subdivision activities

20:29 ↗ so

20:30 ↗ um

20:32 ↗ there would need to be a different tool

20:33 ↗ created i guess is what i'm saying if if

20:36 ↗ an incentive program was was needed to

20:38 ↗ be established

20:41 ↗ okay thank you

20:44 ↗ thank you commissioner anderson and

20:46 ↗ commissioner milligan you have the floor

20:49 ↗ thank you chair fall nine of milligan

20:50 ↗ here i wanted to ask about the

20:53 ↗ offset for community space by rooftop

20:56 ↗ amenities

20:57 ↗ especially going through the definitions

20:59 ↗ that you provided earlier that

21:01 ↗ amenities are for private use and

21:03 ↗ community spaces for public use

21:06 ↗ i i don't understand

21:08 ↗ why that would happen and is that from

21:11 ↗ old code or is there a way to make that

21:13 ↗ more consistent with the definitions to

21:16 ↗ keep

21:16 ↗ community spaces open the public

21:20 ↗ are you wondering specifically whether

21:22 ↗ rooftop community space is open to the

21:24 ↗ public

21:26 ↗ uh no i saw that there was a um that

21:28 ↗ some rooftop amenity space can count

21:32 ↗ against your requirement for community

21:34 ↗ space

21:35 ↗ okay and uh that didn't seem um to make

21:38 ↗ sense to me since they're two different

21:40 ↗ things and they're serving two different

21:41 ↗ needs

21:42 ↗ thank you

21:43 ↗ so for the the rooftop amenities space

21:46 ↗ uh that's allowed to count as community

21:48 ↗ space again the community space is

21:51 ↗ intended for public use

21:53 ↗ um that would be it would if it was

21:56 ↗ rooftop space it would still be

21:58 ↗ required to be open to the public so it

22:01 ↗ could be a

22:02 ↗ a restaurant that has a rooftop area

22:05 ↗ it could be a view platform or viewpoint

22:08 ↗ um it wouldn't be able to be private

22:11 ↗ to that building unless they were using

22:13 ↗ it to fulfill a natural amenity area

22:16 ↗ that was part of their

22:18 ↗ residential

22:19 ↗ requirement or just

22:21 ↗ on their own by their own choice

22:23 ↗ but in order to fulfill the community

22:25 ↗ space obligation

22:27 ↗ it would need to be open to the public

22:29 ↗ and also if they do provide

22:32 ↗ community space as a rooftop amenity

22:35 ↗ they can't fulfill all of their

22:36 ↗ obligations through the rooftop they

22:38 ↗ also have to have some at ground level

22:48 ↗ okay thank you commissioner milligan

22:50 ↗ and we're going to move on to

22:51 ↗ commissioner voice you have the floor

22:56 ↗ thank you chairfell am i pronouncing

22:57 ↗ your last name right miss cote

23:00 ↗ cody yes okay hi miss cody

23:03 ↗ um a few questions real quickly under

23:06 ↗ exceptions it writes that this chapter

23:08 ↗ does not apply to residential

23:10 ↗ development redevelopment or subdivision

23:12 ↗ of four or fewer units

23:14 ↗ we've had recent conversations about

23:16 ↗ possibly

23:17 ↗ enlarging a short platform four to nine

23:20 ↗ with that extent would that exception

23:22 ↗ also carry over if we were to move short

23:24 ↗ plots from four units to nine units

23:28 ↗ well um the reason that we used the four

23:31 ↗ unit threshold was to remain consistent

23:34 ↗ with the

23:35 ↗ one of the reasons was to remain

23:36 ↗ consistent with that short flat

23:38 ↗ threshold um in the current draft of the

23:42 ↗ subdivision chapter which you haven't

23:43 ↗ seen yet but it's coming your way soon

23:46 ↗ um we've we've kept the threshold at

23:49 ↗ five and that was based on direction

23:52 ↗ from the ppc so we haven't increased it

23:54 ↗ to nine units and i think that if

23:57 ↗ that the intent of

23:59 ↗ choosing that number um

24:01 ↗ was

24:03 ↗ for fewer units uh

24:05 ↗ the scale of that development still it

24:07 ↗ still makes sense to have

24:09 ↗ um

24:11 ↗ the

24:12 ↗ the natural amenity area be provided

24:15 ↗ through setbacks and

24:17 ↗ other

24:20 ↗ lot coverage and other standards that

24:22 ↗ can achieve those

24:25 ↗ but it would i think we would need to

24:27 ↗ have a

24:28 ↗ discussion if if that short plotting

24:31 ↗ level was increased

24:33 ↗ because it it would

24:35 ↗ i think it's important to have some

24:36 ↗ standards for when you get into larger

24:39 ↗ unit developments

24:41 ↗ sure

24:42 ↗ yeah no i agree i'm just kind of

24:44 ↗ wondering where the number four came

24:45 ↗ from and again i know we're having some

24:47 ↗ discussions about that uh question

24:49 ↗ number two real quickly is it says also

24:52 ↗ and i believe this is on page 9 of 19

24:56 ↗ c

24:58 ↗ 1 a the development must be oriented is

25:01 ↗ page 11 19

25:03 ↗ um under section two it also says the

25:05 ↗ facility selected must be appropriate

25:07 ↗ for the target housing market segment

25:10 ↗ um

25:11 ↗ happy to see this but how do we differ

25:14 ↗ from

25:15 ↗ brand new development brand new condos

25:17 ↗ from let's say a nursing home what's the

25:20 ↗ definition who decides what that target

25:22 ↗ segment is

25:25 ↗ that's a that's a good question the the

25:28 ↗ intent of that standard was

25:31 ↗ trying to recognize that different

25:33 ↗ uh

25:34 ↗ different populations have different

25:36 ↗ recreational

25:38 ↗ needs or desires and so

25:40 ↗ it would be incumbent on uh the

25:43 ↗ developer i suppose in conversation with

25:45 ↗ the city to determine what would be

25:47 ↗ appropriate

25:48 ↗ probably if they're building units that

25:51 ↗ are two and three bedroom units that

25:53 ↗ suggest there could be families perhaps

25:56 ↗ not always but it you know that's a

25:58 ↗ possibility

25:59 ↗ um

26:00 ↗ so playground equipment or some some

26:03 ↗ open space for

26:04 ↗ for playing would be appropriate whereas

26:06 ↗ if they're all studios that's more

26:08 ↗ likely to be you know in individuals or

26:11 ↗ couples and so that may indicate a

26:13 ↗ different type of amenity but i think

26:16 ↗ uh we we didn't want to try to guess all

26:19 ↗ of the

26:20 ↗ possible combinations of populations and

26:22 ↗ amenities uh just that it should there

26:25 ↗ should be some reason and it should

26:27 ↗ match what their

26:28 ↗ intended um

26:31 ↗ tenancy or users would be

26:34 ↗ right a nursing home you could find

26:36 ↗ probably

26:38 ↗ play school things and gyms both so

26:42 ↗ great thank you

26:45 ↗ thank you commissioner voice

26:47 ↗ and so i'm not seeing any additional

26:50 ↗ questions

26:51 ↗ so from there uh stephen let's go ahead

26:53 ↗ and open it up for uh public comment

26:56 ↗ and

26:58 ↗ we need to keep the

26:59 ↗ there is a time limit of no more than

27:01 ↗ five minutes so stephen is anyone signed

27:04 ↗ up for public comment on this topic

27:06 ↗ tonight

27:07 ↗ uh no one signed up beforehand and so

27:10 ↗ i'm checking if anybody has raised their

27:13 ↗ hands

27:14 ↗ on the attendance list and i'm not

27:16 ↗ seeing

27:17 ↗ any raised hands

27:20 ↗ but we can give them a minute

27:23 ↗ okay i see

27:25 ↗ raised hands with

27:28 ↗ connie marsh

27:29 ↗ soca and then mary lynch

27:32 ↗ so connie i'm gonna start with you i'm

27:34 ↗ gonna unmute you now

27:36 ↗ and make you a panelist so you should

27:38 ↗ show up in just a second

27:43 ↗ okay we see

27:44 ↗ hey sort of be interesting i i couldn't

27:46 ↗ raise my hand so

27:48 ↗ no one um connie marsh i live on squawk

27:51 ↗ mountain and the natural context zone

27:56 ↗ being incorporated could address

27:59 ↗ some of my concern with that uh

28:05 ↗ more critical area connections um

28:09 ↗ the language

28:11 ↗ is is not clear in the code so i'm

28:14 ↗ assuming that that is going to be

28:17 ↗ wrapped up so i'm going to focus on

28:19 ↗ private

28:21 ↗ parks

28:22 ↗ that are basically deed restricted to b

28:26 ↗ parks

28:27 ↗ yet they are going to have redevelopment

28:30 ↗ around them so i think what i'm going to

28:31 ↗ do is i'm going to focus on the rowley

28:33 ↗ park that's right there sort of off of

28:35 ↗ mall street and it's just this little

28:37 ↗ green space in the middle of centra

28:39 ↗ issaquah and my recollection is it is

28:42 ↗ part of their development agreement

28:44 ↗ and so

28:46 ↗ uh

28:47 ↗ it makes sense to me that if you are

28:50 ↗ going to be developing around that

28:52 ↗ because that's not all the property

28:53 ↗ around it that you would also

28:56 ↗ have to address that park as if it were

29:01 ↗ a park park

29:03 ↗ because

29:04 ↗ it is a

29:06 ↗ private

29:07 ↗ green space for people to be able to

29:12 ↗ enjoy and use and if everyone around it

29:14 ↗ turns their back to it and it's just

29:16 ↗ blank walls going over the little park

29:19 ↗ that will

29:20 ↗ that will harm the park so uh the idea

29:23 ↗ of this

29:24 ↗ private dedicated green space and how

29:28 ↗ you're going to redevelop around it is

29:30 ↗ is not at all addressed here

29:32 ↗ the

29:33 ↗ green uh necklace map in the park

29:35 ↗ strategic plan is not the map that

29:39 ↗ you're using in calling a green necklace

29:41 ↗ that map is pretty well dedicated to the

29:43 ↗ valley floor

29:45 ↗ and this conflict is confusing because

29:48 ↗ you are taking the green necklace

29:50 ↗ concept and spreading it all over the

29:53 ↗ city when originally it has just been in

29:56 ↗ the central issaquah area and with that

29:59 ↗ conflict

30:02 ↗ it it uh i think it's going to be hard

30:05 ↗ to implement and enforce because

30:07 ↗ everybody is thinking of different

30:09 ↗ things so i would use a different term

30:12 ↗ for the city-wide

30:15 ↗ uh

30:16 ↗ method of of dealing with parks and then

30:19 ↗ i would focus down on the central

30:21 ↗ issaquah plan area

30:23 ↗ and just called that the green necklace

30:26 ↗ that way you don't have to change your

30:27 ↗ park strategic plan and you would still

30:29 ↗ be consistent

30:31 ↗ and so then the last thing is you are

30:34 ↗ allowing your natural amenities space to

30:37 ↗ be private balconies

30:39 ↗ and um i'm saying no

30:42 ↗ i don't think private amenities space

30:45 ↗ natural amenity space should be private

30:48 ↗ balconies on the outsides of buildings

30:50 ↗ if you look at the description of why

30:52 ↗ you have it there's a definitely a

30:54 ↗ sociable

30:55 ↗ context and unless people are singing

30:57 ↗ opera off their balconies regularly in

31:00 ↗ issaquah i just don't think that you're

31:01 ↗ getting dissociability

31:04 ↗ factor that you are looking for so you

31:07 ↗ might be able to require the acquire

31:09 ↗ those in the building

31:11 ↗ section

31:12 ↗ but

31:13 ↗ i don't would not allow them here thank

31:15 ↗ you

31:22 ↗ okay see that mary lynch is signed up so

31:24 ↗ i'm gonna

31:25 ↗ unmute you now and make you a panelist

31:28 ↗ hi this is mary lynch i just wanted to

31:30 ↗ comment it's a little bit frustrating um

31:33 ↗ i don't know if you're aware of

31:35 ↗ this meeting is not live as promised on

31:39 ↗ either channel 21 or live streaming

31:42 ↗ and it took me again 20 minutes to get

31:46 ↗ into the meeting tonight so i was a

31:48 ↗ little bit worried that there wasn't any

31:50 ↗ public or the public comment had already

31:52 ↗ started

31:53 ↗ but i think it's advertised that these

31:55 ↗ meetings are going to be on

31:57 ↗ these

31:58 ↗ websites and tv channels they ought to

32:01 ↗ be there or some notice ought to go up

32:04 ↗ to let people know how they can get in

32:07 ↗ that's just just a comment

32:09 ↗ that's it thank you

32:17 ↗ gentle i don't see any other raised

32:19 ↗ hands for public commenting

32:21 ↗ all right and thank you very much

32:24 ↗ so we'll go ahead and we're going to

32:25 ↗ leave public comment open until the end

32:27 ↗ of the meeting

32:30 ↗ and we're going to move now into the

32:32 ↗ deliberations so

32:34 ↗ with that

32:36 ↗ the

32:37 ↗ park board is going to chair the

32:40 ↗ deliberations

32:42 ↗ and

32:43 ↗ during this time ppc will go ahead and

32:45 ↗ mute and turn off their cameras

32:52 ↗ thanks commissioner fall

32:54 ↗ this is brad book from the park board

32:57 ↗ so

32:59 ↗ if you could um

33:01 ↗ put into everyone as the drop down if

33:04 ↗ you have a question or a comment please

33:06 ↗ put that in the chat and i will call

33:08 ↗ upon you in order

33:12 ↗ and this applies both to the park board

33:14 ↗ and the environmental board

33:21 ↗ so we have a comment from nancy davidson

33:24 ↗ please go ahead

33:26 ↗ hi nancy davidson with the environmental

33:28 ↗ board

33:29 ↗ my comment is

33:31 ↗ kind of looking at the purpose of this

33:33 ↗ section which is more than

33:35 ↗ implementation of the green necklace but

33:37 ↗ it is more to

33:38 ↗ have an urban environment that's

33:40 ↗ saturated within a grave array of green

33:42 ↗ elements

33:44 ↗ it seems to me it's a quasi-urban

33:46 ↗ community and we need to focus on

33:50 ↗ providing these kinds of amenities at

33:52 ↗ areas outside of just the central

33:55 ↗ issaquah area we should be thinking

33:57 ↗ about how the whole community develops

34:00 ↗ and what kind of green spaces and areas

34:03 ↗ to gather we have that are not just in

34:05 ↗ central issaquad because the city is

34:08 ↗ going to change over time and these

34:10 ↗ spaces will be gone as we continue to

34:12 ↗ redevelop and so i would encourage us to

34:15 ↗ talk to the city council and ask them if

34:18 ↗ we really want to change the policy to

34:20 ↗ go further than just the central

34:22 ↗ discipline area and really try and focus

34:24 ↗ on the whole community of issaquah from

34:27 ↗ south cove all the way up to areas

34:29 ↗ around providence point so that we are

34:31 ↗ basically including the whole community

34:33 ↗ as we try and thinking about making it a

34:35 ↗ greener community making it a more

34:37 ↗ inviting community and really think

34:39 ↗ about doing this throughout the whole

34:41 ↗ city that's my comment thank you

34:45 ↗ thank you nancy

34:47 ↗ next we have comments from the park

34:49 ↗ board danielle gibbons go ahead danielle

34:56 ↗ thanks um i have a few comments um

34:59 ↗ one

35:00 ↗ with respect to and these are kind of

35:02 ↗ scattered about in the in the um

35:04 ↗ proposed code um with respect to rooftop

35:08 ↗ um i saw some language that that

35:11 ↗ delineated with

35:13 ↗ some types of activities or amenities

35:15 ↗ that would count

35:16 ↗ or would be permitted on rooftops um but

35:19 ↗ it didn't see anything with respect to

35:21 ↗ um like active recreation or fields and

35:25 ↗ that is something especially if it was

35:26 ↗ going to be open for community use

35:30 ↗ that i would like to make sure that that

35:32 ↗ would be permitted um there are fields

35:35 ↗ on top of schools

35:37 ↗ for example in seattle um

35:40 ↗ and that is something that we might you

35:42 ↗ know we we may want because we have a

35:46 ↗ deficit of flat

35:48 ↗ open land

35:51 ↗ another

35:53 ↗ um

35:56 ↗ i also felt like um in this section that

35:59 ↗ we talked about general general

36:02 ↗ amenities

36:03 ↗ so this was in uh

36:06 ↗ article two

36:08 ↗ um there were some notes that this was

36:10 ↗ brought forth from

36:13 ↗ the assisted living and senior housing

36:16 ↗ standards

36:17 ↗ and

36:19 ↗ as a result to me it felt like these

36:22 ↗ requirements as far as minimum size and

36:25 ↗ landscaping

36:26 ↗ did not really apply

36:28 ↗ or or needed to be you know modified in

36:31 ↗ some way

36:32 ↗ for areas where there would be kids and

36:35 ↗ families so i would just encourage

36:39 ↗ like a little bit of a deeper look at

36:41 ↗ that article to make sure that we're not

36:43 ↗ limiting what goes in

36:46 ↗ because of where the language came from

36:50 ↗ and um

36:54 ↗ let's see the plaza

36:56 ↗ um

36:57 ↗ the plaza language um

37:00 ↗ which was

37:11 ↗ sorry

37:16 ↗ um

37:18 ↗ well i can't find the plaza language but

37:20 ↗ in the plaza language um there is some

37:24 ↗ um requirements about

37:26 ↗ kind of what that what the maintenance

37:28 ↗ requirements would be and i would really

37:30 ↗ like to see there be a requirement for

37:33 ↗ um like snow removal and um

37:37 ↗ dealing with ice um and that that type

37:40 ↗ of winter weather

37:41 ↗ on plazas i did not see that in there

37:44 ↗ currently

37:45 ↗ um

37:46 ↗ and

37:47 ↗ i guess i have just kind of a general

37:49 ↗ question there were some areas in the

37:52 ↗ code in this draft that

37:54 ↗ um

37:56 ↗ where i saw some inconsistencies or some

37:58 ↗ missing language and whatnot and i was

38:00 ↗ just wondering what the best like i

38:02 ↗ don't want to deal with that on this

38:04 ↗ call um because they're more specific

38:06 ↗ questions but who would be the best

38:07 ↗ person to

38:09 ↗ um for me to provide those two thanks

38:15 ↗ uh thanks danielle um

38:18 ↗ i'm not seeing any other questions or

38:20 ↗ comments posted on the chat at this time

38:23 ↗ i would like to welcome you to if you do

38:26 ↗ have additional comments or questions

38:28 ↗ you can submit those to staff or the ppc

38:32 ↗ for further follow-up and that might

38:34 ↗ apply to you danielle in regards to your

38:36 ↗ inquiry

38:39 ↗ so that includes

38:42 ↗ the discussion from the park board and

38:46 ↗ environmental board at this time

38:49 ↗ okay and thank you chair book

38:53 ↗ and with that i'm going to go ahead and

38:55 ↗ bring this back over to steven so for

38:58 ↗ staff to go ahead and continue with the

39:00 ↗ next topic

39:04 ↗ thank you chair paul now we're going to

39:05 ↗ go to

39:06 ↗ dan martinez and i'm going to give him

39:09 ↗ presenting rights now

39:12 ↗ so dan go ahead and share your screen

39:13 ↗ when you're ready and um

39:16 ↗ he's going to move on to the

39:17 ↗ presentation thank you

39:23 ↗ all right can we all

39:24 ↗ all see this

39:29 ↗ not yet

39:39 ↗ how about now

39:43 ↗ great

39:46 ↗ all right so let's talk trees and i

39:49 ↗ apologize ahead of time i've had a sinus

39:51 ↗ infection um so my throat's a little dry

39:55 ↗ um

39:58 ↗ so i want to start by

40:00 ↗ talking a little bit about the

40:02 ↗ approach that we

40:04 ↗ were asked to take um this consisted of

40:08 ↗ uh nine different

40:11 ↗ um

40:13 ↗ tasks if you will

40:15 ↗ um we've we were asked to separate the

40:17 ↗ landscaping and tree preservation codes

40:20 ↗ out we've done that

40:21 ↗ and uh more importantly what we did was

40:25 ↗ combine the different sections of code

40:28 ↗ um that we have currently we have tree

40:32 ↗ regulations

40:33 ↗ uh scattered in various places

40:36 ↗ uh municipal code the old town standards

40:41 ↗ and then we also have them in the

40:43 ↗ central is aqua standards so um

40:46 ↗ importantly we've combined all of those

40:48 ↗ into one hopefully make it more

40:50 ↗ intuitive

40:52 ↗ for both staff and applicants

40:57 ↗ we've

40:58 ↗ adopted a tree canopy approach

41:02 ↗ the recommendation was to use land use

41:06 ↗ um zoning but we've gone with planning

41:09 ↗ sub areas and and i'll get into that in

41:14 ↗ some subsequent slides

41:18 ↗ um

41:19 ↗ apply right tree right place

41:22 ↗ method we believe we've addressed this

41:25 ↗ uh by expanding the opportunity to uh

41:28 ↗ plant offsite and pay fee in lube where

41:31 ↗ it was previously

41:33 ↗ only allowed for development and

41:36 ↗ redevelopment is

41:37 ↗ it's now available

41:39 ↗ for single-family residences

41:42 ↗ multi-family and

41:44 ↗ commercial properties

41:47 ↗ we've also enhanced our replacement

41:51 ↗ tree regulations

41:53 ↗ um

41:54 ↗ for example by

41:58 ↗ uh required

42:03 ↗ for so for example by requiring tree

42:05 ↗ replacement in situations where it was

42:08 ↗ previously not required um this should

42:11 ↗ hopefully address

42:13 ↗ uh concerns about losing canopy over

42:16 ↗ time

42:18 ↗ um

42:20 ↗ it wasn't very intuitive in the code

42:22 ↗ that

42:24 ↗ uh

42:25 ↗ arborist

42:27 ↗ credentials needed to be

42:30 ↗ clear and spelled out we hope we've

42:33 ↗ addressed this with with the current

42:35 ↗ code

42:36 ↗ we've adjusted the language

42:40 ↗ for the city tree fund and and we

42:42 ↗ recognize that there's more work to do

42:44 ↗ there

42:45 ↗ and that

42:47 ↗ establishing receiving sites is going to

42:49 ↗ be critical to the success of the

42:53 ↗ the tree fund

42:56 ↗ um tree value we previously didn't have

43:00 ↗ a mechanism for this

43:03 ↗ we've adopted

43:04 ↗ we are proposing to adopt the cost

43:07 ↗ approach

43:09 ↗ and the trunk formula method

43:14 ↗ uh update the tree list this is now

43:16 ↗ incorporated into code

43:19 ↗ the work of updating

43:21 ↗ the tree list

43:22 ↗ is

43:24 ↗ another task

43:26 ↗ but uh currently

43:29 ↗ just putting it into code was important

43:32 ↗ it wasn't previously and so it was

43:34 ↗ diffic difficult to implement because um

43:38 ↗ it was largely seen as

43:41 ↗ voluntary

43:44 ↗ um

43:46 ↗ develop more rigorous application and

43:49 ↗ review process to landmark trees this

43:52 ↗ has largely stayed the same

43:54 ↗ um

43:56 ↗ and that's because

43:58 ↗ right now in order to remove a landmark

44:01 ↗ tree and that's a tree that's considered

44:03 ↗ 30

44:04 ↗ inches

44:05 ↗ decibel um

44:08 ↗ at diameter at breast height

44:11 ↗ um

44:12 ↗ or greater

44:14 ↗ right now to remove

44:15 ↗ a tree that is a landmark tree it must

44:18 ↗ be a hazard tree and that can only be

44:21 ↗ determined by a

44:24 ↗ certified arborist

44:26 ↗ trained in that

44:28 ↗ assessment

44:30 ↗ and then finally uh to establish a

44:32 ↗ designation for exceptional trees we've

44:34 ↗ opted not to pursue this

44:37 ↗ we looked at exceptional tree

44:39 ↗ regulations in other cities and they

44:42 ↗ look very much

44:44 ↗ like what our heritage trees

44:49 ↗ look like in our current code the the

44:51 ↗ thing about our heritage trees is that

44:54 ↗ there are no regulations in our code

44:57 ↗ they're they're mentioned and there's

44:59 ↗ uh seemingly a heritage tree

45:02 ↗ program but it's not in code and so

45:05 ↗ that's that's one of the

45:07 ↗ topics for discussion for tonight

45:09 ↗ hopefully

45:14 ↗ as for major changes in the code i'm

45:17 ↗ going to discuss some of the major

45:19 ↗ changes and then

45:21 ↗ towards the end discuss

45:23 ↗ just highlight some of the

45:25 ↗ other changes but major changes include

45:27 ↗ this the adoption of the tree canopy

45:31 ↗ coverage goals

45:32 ↗ this entirely replaces the minimum tree

45:35 ↗ density in our existing code

45:38 ↗ and then we have

45:40 ↗ proposed a variance procedure to replace

45:42 ↗ our administrative adjustment of

45:45 ↗ standards process

45:52 ↗ so

45:56 ↗ this tree canopy coverage has

45:59 ↗ has been probably the biggest thing that

46:01 ↗ we've done with the code and it's

46:03 ↗ definitely raised the most

46:05 ↗ questions

46:06 ↗ um so

46:08 ↗ you know i have

46:10 ↗ three

46:11 ↗ specific topics that i'm really hoping

46:14 ↗ that the commissions discuss tonight

46:17 ↗ and this canopy coverage

46:19 ↗ is one of them um

46:22 ↗ i mentioned that this replaces our

46:24 ↗ minimum tree density requirements

46:27 ↗ and

46:28 ↗ in our existing code

46:31 ↗ [Music]

46:32 ↗ it requires a prescribed number of trees

46:35 ↗ for example 19 trees for a 23 000 square

46:39 ↗ foot

46:40 ↗ community facility site

46:43 ↗ so it's very prescriptive

46:45 ↗ um

46:46 ↗ based on lot size and land use

46:50 ↗ um

46:53 ↗ we're we're hopeful that tree canopy

46:55 ↗ coverage requirements will

46:58 ↗ offer an improved tool

47:01 ↗ to

47:02 ↗ to allow the city to maintain and

47:05 ↗ enhance canopy coverage

47:09 ↗ while being cognizant of the limitations

47:12 ↗ on tree planning and future development

47:20 ↗ um

47:22 ↗ so i mentioned earlier that in

47:25 ↗ the the gap analysis memo

47:28 ↗ um recommended

47:30 ↗ the use of land use designations

47:34 ↗ um

47:36 ↗ we opted not to use this uh this is

47:39 ↗ because

47:41 ↗ this is largely based on the urban tree

47:44 ↗ canopy assessment that the city had done

47:48 ↗ in 2019

47:50 ↗ it um

47:52 ↗ has these very broad

47:54 ↗ uh zoning designations single-family

47:57 ↗ with no distinction in lot sizes

47:59 ↗ multi-family

48:00 ↗ um there was even a

48:02 ↗ residential

48:04 ↗ uh category which primarily we found out

48:07 ↗ primarily consists of the rally dea area

48:13 ↗ um

48:14 ↗ so after much discussion we determined

48:17 ↗ that planning sub-areas should be used

48:20 ↗ because they might allow for more nuance

48:23 ↗ and might help existing areas retain

48:25 ↗ their uh distinct characters for for

48:28 ↗ example

48:30 ↗ we see that

48:32 ↗ the urban tree canopy percentage in old

48:35 ↗ town is currently 32 percent

48:38 ↗ uh while in

48:40 ↗ tiger mountain it's 91 percent uh we

48:44 ↗ don't feel that it would be fair

48:47 ↗ um to create a blanket regulation that

48:50 ↗ says

48:51 ↗ uh

48:53 ↗ single family

48:54 ↗ properties in old town have to do

48:56 ↗ exactly the same thing that single

48:58 ↗ family properties in tiger mountain are

49:00 ↗ doing

49:02 ↗ so we are hopeful that this

49:05 ↗ will be

49:06 ↗ a

49:08 ↗ good good approach

49:17 ↗ um

49:18 ↗ as as part of

49:22 ↗ this effort one of the things that i did

49:25 ↗ was

49:26 ↗ i reached out to

49:28 ↗ a development review arborist

49:31 ↗ at the city of lake forest park um

49:35 ↗ lake forest park is one of the cities we

49:37 ↗ were asked to look at because they

49:39 ↗ currently use tree canopy coverage

49:42 ↗ in their code um so i spoke with their

49:47 ↗ um arborist on staff

49:49 ↗ and she

49:51 ↗ absolutely recommended

49:53 ↗ canopy over minimum tree density based

49:55 ↗ on her own experiences but one of the

49:58 ↗ things that i thought was interesting

49:59 ↗ about what she

50:00 ↗ explained was that

50:04 ↗ we should also be

50:06 ↗ focusing on enhancing tree retention and

50:10 ↗ so we've done that in the code as well

50:14 ↗ um

50:15 ↗ a rigid formula

50:18 ↗ was not used we we had to exercise some

50:21 ↗ discretion

50:22 ↗ um

50:23 ↗ [Music]

50:24 ↗ and

50:25 ↗ arrived at these proposed

50:27 ↗ 30-year targets by taking existing tree

50:31 ↗ canopy

50:32 ↗ uh possible planting area

50:35 ↗ our very high level understanding of

50:37 ↗ fire breaks

50:40 ↗ and then coming up with some numbers

50:44 ↗ at the parks board meeting i i provided

50:46 ↗ a very small example of what it would

50:49 ↗ look like in practice on one site

50:52 ↗ i spoke with one of our residents who

50:54 ↗ mentioned

50:55 ↗ she didn't find that

50:56 ↗ very helpful

50:57 ↗ and that may be just a comparison side

51:01 ↗ by side of what's

51:05 ↗ in the urban tree canopy assessment

51:08 ↗ which is this table in blue

51:13 ↗ and it's these percentages

51:16 ↗ and

51:17 ↗ she wanted to see what it might look

51:19 ↗ like

51:20 ↗ with the proposed target so for example

51:24 ↗ um

51:25 ↗ central issaquah has a

51:28 ↗ currently has an urban tree canopy of 27

51:33 ↗ uh with the possible planting area of 15

51:38 ↗ so the

51:41 ↗ canopy coverage that we're proposing

51:44 ↗ um

51:45 ↗ while also recognizing that

51:48 ↗ central is a cause where we're directing

51:51 ↗ our a lot of our growth is

51:53 ↗ we've decided on 35

51:55 ↗ and

51:57 ↗ we took each planning sub area

51:59 ↗ and

52:02 ↗ arrived at figures based on

52:05 ↗ their geography and

52:08 ↗ topography

52:09 ↗ and just our understanding of the

52:12 ↗ applicable uh development regulations in

52:15 ↗ in those areas

52:25 ↗ we received a lot of

52:27 ↗ comments with

52:29 ↗ excuse me

52:35 ↗ we received a lot of comments asking

52:38 ↗ about what tools the city

52:40 ↗ intends to use to measure

52:42 ↗ canopy

52:44 ↗ um we the the expectation is going to be

52:48 ↗ that for large development projects

52:51 ↗ development redevelopment we're going to

52:53 ↗ ask uh that the applicant prepare have a

52:58 ↗ arborist prepare

53:00 ↗ the projections

53:02 ↗ uh for

53:04 ↗ our standard tree removal permit reviews

53:07 ↗ um where it's you know existing single

53:11 ↗ family multi-family commercial property

53:13 ↗ owners

53:14 ↗ will be doing a lot of the measuring

53:17 ↗ ourselves and

53:18 ↗ we can use uh the city's gis

53:22 ↗ uh king county imap google maps

53:25 ↗ and uh there are several

53:29 ↗ programs out there such as tree plotter

53:40 ↗ so we adopted a variance process and

53:43 ↗ this eliminates our administrative

53:45 ↗ adjustment of standards process the the

53:47 ↗ language in that process

53:50 ↗ um

53:51 ↗ can be vague it can be

53:53 ↗ very difficult to evenly implement so

53:58 ↗ we've adopted

54:00 ↗ this uh

54:02 ↗ this variance process it's based based

54:04 ↗ largely on existing procedures used in

54:08 ↗ redmond and sammamish

54:11 ↗ and it is a little more

54:15 ↗ rigorous

54:16 ↗ um

54:18 ↗ but

54:19 ↗ it also

54:20 ↗ allows us to have a tool

54:23 ↗ that can help us address some challenges

54:26 ↗ there are several instances

54:29 ↗ recently where

54:31 ↗ having this variance process now would

54:33 ↗ be

54:34 ↗ really helpful

54:40 ↗ some of the

54:41 ↗ other changes we've eliminated the tree

54:44 ↗ removal notification form

54:47 ↗ and now will require that all tree

54:50 ↗ removal be approved under a tree removal

54:53 ↗ permit

54:54 ↗ the reason we've done this is that

54:57 ↗ there's

54:58 ↗ been a lot of confusion with the tree

55:00 ↗ removal notification form

55:04 ↗ folks will submit it

55:06 ↗ thinking that they don't need a permit

55:09 ↗ very often the notification form

55:12 ↗ um is not the right form to use and a

55:16 ↗ permit's required either because it's a

55:18 ↗ landmark tree or it's a tree within a

55:20 ↗ critical area

55:21 ↗ [Music]

55:23 ↗ so we wanted to remove that confusion

55:26 ↗ and just process everything under one

55:29 ↗ permit type

55:32 ↗ we've eliminated max tree removal on

55:34 ↗ developed properties

55:36 ↗ the current code allows

55:39 ↗ [Music]

55:40 ↗ develop

55:42 ↗ lots

55:43 ↗ uh based on their size

55:45 ↗ to remove a maximum number of trees

55:49 ↗ without any

55:50 ↗ kind of permit

55:52 ↗ we want to be able to

55:55 ↗ account for tree replanting

55:59 ↗ so

56:00 ↗ everything now again is going to require

56:03 ↗ a tree removal permit

56:06 ↗ um we've increased our tree retention

56:08 ↗ from 30 percent to 35 percent in cinco

56:12 ↗ family zoning and that's just one

56:14 ↗ example um we've

56:17 ↗ um

56:18 ↗ we're proposing some changes to our

56:20 ↗ replacement trees

56:23 ↗ uh regulations and then we've

56:26 ↗ consolidated various exemptions into one

56:29 ↗ section that were previously just

56:31 ↗ kind of scattered throughout the code

56:37 ↗ so in my

56:39 ↗ in the draft in the memo that i prepared

56:44 ↗ i identified tree canopy coverage

56:46 ↗ targets

56:47 ↗ and heritage trees it's as two

56:51 ↗ discussion items but

56:54 ↗ after

56:55 ↗ reading a lot of the comments and

56:57 ↗ questions

56:58 ↗ that came in from the public

57:02 ↗ i think an important discussion is going

57:04 ↗ to be tracking mechanisms the question

57:06 ↗ has been

57:07 ↗ okay so how are we going to know

57:10 ↗ how does the city know which trees have

57:12 ↗ been

57:13 ↗ removed

57:15 ↗ how many trees have been replaced

57:18 ↗ what can we expect our canopy coverage

57:20 ↗ to be

57:21 ↗ um

57:22 ↗ we don't have answers to that because we

57:24 ↗ currently aren't proposing a tracking

57:27 ↗ mechanism

57:28 ↗ uh so

57:31 ↗ after receiving several questions about

57:33 ↗ this it it seems like it's an important

57:37 ↗ conversation to have and that is all for

57:41 ↗ my presentation

57:49 ↗ all right and thank you very much uh

57:51 ↗ planner martinez and so we're going to

57:53 ↗ go ahead and open this up to

57:55 ↗ commissioner questions

57:57 ↗ and while we're waiting for commissioner

57:59 ↗ questions i'm going to fire off a

58:00 ↗ question for you

58:02 ↗ so

58:06 ↗ looking at i'm going to use squawk mount

58:08 ↗ as an example

58:09 ↗ canopy coverage 45

58:12 ↗ how are you calculating canopy coverage

58:14 ↗ of 45 is that per lot or is that

58:17 ↗ the mountain

58:19 ↗ regional area

58:20 ↗ itself the canopy coverage goal would be

58:24 ↗ applied on a per lot basis

58:28 ↗ um

58:29 ↗ and

58:31 ↗ um it's it would be the same for i

58:34 ↗ understand this

58:36 ↗ not commercial up in squawk mountain but

58:38 ↗ the these goals apply evenly to

58:40 ↗ commercial

58:42 ↗ multi-family single-family lots

58:46 ↗ so with squawk mountain

58:49 ↗ if the

58:51 ↗ goal is 45

58:54 ↗ then the expectation would be that

58:58 ↗ either existing

59:00 ↗ um

59:01 ↗ a combination of existing

59:03 ↗ and

59:04 ↗ replanted trees

59:06 ↗ uh would meet that 45 percent

59:10 ↗ uh coverage currently

59:13 ↗ um

59:14 ↗ squawk mountain has 63

59:17 ↗ and that's just

59:19 ↗ across uh that planning sub area

59:22 ↗ there's also a possible planting area of

59:24 ↗ 17

59:26 ↗ um but we've gone with 45

59:29 ↗ recognizing that

59:30 ↗ uh there is we need to make

59:35 ↗ some concessions in for the sake of

59:39 ↗ wildfire safety

59:41 ↗ okay so 45 is the

59:44 ↗ goal 65

59:46 ↗ is the current

59:48 ↗ standard correct

59:51 ↗ correct so in some areas there are

59:54 ↗ we are

59:57 ↗ increasing we are hoping to increase

1:00:00 ↗ the canopy coverage and in other areas

1:00:03 ↗ like tiger mountain and squawk mountain

1:00:05 ↗ we recognize

1:00:07 ↗ uh

1:00:08 ↗ that because we are dealing with

1:00:11 ↗ multiple land uses

1:00:13 ↗ and because we are also

1:00:17 ↗ cognizant of uh wildfire risk there are

1:00:21 ↗ some areas that the um where the canopy

1:00:24 ↗ coverage is actually proposed to be

1:00:27 ↗ reduced

1:00:29 ↗ okay i don't know that i agree with that

1:00:32 ↗ but

1:00:33 ↗ um i appreciate that uh so my next

1:00:36 ↗ question is

1:00:37 ↗ dealing with

1:00:38 ↗ i have inside knowledge that there are

1:00:40 ↗ two five acre parcels down on the bottom

1:00:43 ↗ of squawk mountain near

1:00:44 ↗ mine hill road

1:00:46 ↗ that may be developed

1:00:49 ↗ they are fully treed so

1:00:52 ↗ there's probably several hundred trees

1:00:54 ↗ on there and your proposal is that they

1:00:56 ↗ would a developer would be able to go in

1:00:58 ↗ and actually remove every single tree

1:01:01 ↗ and if they would

1:01:03 ↗ if they absolutely do not know

1:01:05 ↗ okay

1:01:06 ↗ no um we have our tree retention

1:01:10 ↗ requirements

1:01:12 ↗ [Music]

1:01:15 ↗ and if that developer were proposing to

1:01:18 ↗ build

1:01:20 ↗ residential units they would be required

1:01:23 ↗ to retain

1:01:25 ↗ 35

1:01:26 ↗ of the total caliber

1:01:29 ↗ of inches in at diameter breast height

1:01:35 ↗ okay

1:01:36 ↗ okay because if they remove the trees

1:01:38 ↗ they're going to put in plum trees or

1:01:40 ↗ other small trees fruit trees and so on

1:01:43 ↗ which is not a dug fur and a dug fur is

1:01:46 ↗ a significant carbon sink for our

1:01:49 ↗ community especially as we have more

1:01:51 ↗ traffic and more people move in so that

1:01:53 ↗ was my fear thank you

1:01:55 ↗ yeah

1:01:56 ↗ okay uh looks like we have i'm gonna

1:01:58 ↗ move on to other questions here so we

1:02:00 ↗ have questions from commissioner heights

1:02:02 ↗ you have the floor

1:02:05 ↗ thank you uh yeah dan hintz here um

1:02:08 ↗ daniel thank you for the presentation i

1:02:10 ↗ i guess on a high level i would like to

1:02:12 ↗ hear just a little bit more how the um

1:02:14 ↗ possible planting areas

1:02:16 ↗ were determined and then i guess i'm

1:02:17 ↗ specifically curious with the um

1:02:21 ↗ the uh tree fonder in liu fund um you

1:02:24 ↗ know what are some of the mechanisms to

1:02:26 ↗ uh you know if a tree is you know

1:02:29 ↗ lost from one property i i guess you

1:02:31 ↗ know i'm struggling to see you know on

1:02:33 ↗ other private properties how trees would

1:02:34 ↗ go in i mean this is going to focus more

1:02:36 ↗ concentration of tree planting on you

1:02:38 ↗ know public right-of-ways and city parks

1:02:40 ↗ um i'm just kind of curious how

1:02:42 ↗ you foresee some of those um

1:02:44 ↗ in lieu kind of tree funds being used in

1:02:47 ↗ those potential planting areas and some

1:02:49 ↗ of the you know kind of red tape

1:02:50 ↗ barriers for for making sure that's you

1:02:53 ↗ know somewhat uh evenly distributed and

1:02:55 ↗ doesn't just get heavily concentrated in

1:02:57 ↗ public areas

1:03:00 ↗ sure so um i can't speak too much

1:03:04 ↗ to the possible planting areas question

1:03:07 ↗ unfortunately um i was not involved with

1:03:10 ↗ the

1:03:11 ↗ uh preparation of the

1:03:14 ↗ tree canopy

1:03:16 ↗ assessment i know that possible planting

1:03:19 ↗ area basically took into account

1:03:23 ↗ um

1:03:25 ↗ currently

1:03:26 ↗ green areas that are

1:03:28 ↗ treeless so it didn't take into account

1:03:32 ↗ impervious surfaces for example

1:03:34 ↗ it only took into account green spaces

1:03:38 ↗ that currently

1:03:39 ↗ do not have trees

1:03:42 ↗ um with regards to your second question

1:03:47 ↗ the

1:03:47 ↗ in louvre

1:03:49 ↗ bond wouldn't uh we're not proposing

1:03:51 ↗ that it be used solely for replanting

1:03:55 ↗ um

1:03:57 ↗ you know one of the

1:03:59 ↗ um

1:04:01 ↗ biggest things that i think

1:04:03 ↗ we

1:04:04 ↗ that that we're proposing to use it for

1:04:06 ↗ is something that the

1:04:08 ↗ community's actually been very vocal

1:04:10 ↗ about and that is acquiring maintaining

1:04:12 ↗ and preserving

1:04:14 ↗ um existing wooded areas so bergsma is

1:04:17 ↗ one right safe cougar mountain

1:04:20 ↗ that was a big

1:04:22 ↗ deal right

1:04:23 ↗ um so city tree funds could be used for

1:04:27 ↗ the acquisitions of property like that

1:04:30 ↗ um

1:04:33 ↗ but you're absolutely right we're

1:04:35 ↗ completely aware of the fact that

1:04:37 ↗ receiving sites and establishing those

1:04:40 ↗ sites is going to be really important

1:04:42 ↗ for replanting efforts we know that we

1:04:44 ↗ can't make commitments in the code um

1:04:47 ↗ for

1:04:47 ↗ private landowners so um there that

1:04:51 ↗ that's why

1:04:52 ↗ um

1:04:54 ↗ the tree fund right now outlines several

1:04:58 ↗ um

1:05:00 ↗ uses for the tree fund

1:05:04 ↗ that's super helpful thank you

1:05:05 ↗ yeah thanks dean

1:05:08 ↗ all right and thank you commissioner

1:05:09 ↗ heights and commissioner milligan you

1:05:11 ↗ have the floor

1:05:14 ↗ thank you chair fall this is nina

1:05:15 ↗ milligan

1:05:17 ↗ uh thank you mr martinez i have just a

1:05:19 ↗ couple questions um

1:05:21 ↗ one is at the

1:05:23 ↗ beginning of your talk you mentioned how

1:05:25 ↗ you expanded the

1:05:26 ↗ fee and lieu program to more

1:05:29 ↗ circumstances and i don't remember that

1:05:31 ↗ in the packets so that went too fast for

1:05:33 ↗ me i need more information on that

1:05:36 ↗ and then

1:05:37 ↗ when you're talking about the replanting

1:05:40 ↗ within the sub area

1:05:43 ↗ also help me understand this a little

1:05:45 ↗ better does this mean that

1:05:47 ↗ if i want to remove

1:05:50 ↗ trees from my property that brings the

1:05:52 ↗ canopy below 35 percent not the canopy

1:05:55 ↗ the um

1:05:58 ↗ is it i thought we were doing canopy but

1:06:01 ↗ then you were just talking about

1:06:02 ↗ calipers so i think we might be talking

1:06:03 ↗ about density am i going below 35

1:06:05 ↗ percent

1:06:07 ↗ and planting a tree down the street

1:06:09 ↗ somewhere is that what you're saying and

1:06:11 ↗ how does somebody get such a thing why

1:06:14 ↗ would we approve that

1:06:16 ↗ uh that they would go below the 35.

1:06:19 ↗ so thank you just need to understand

1:06:21 ↗ better

1:06:22 ↗ sure so

1:06:24 ↗ with the tree and lou um you know i

1:06:26 ↗ discussed it a little bit

1:06:28 ↗ right now

1:06:30 ↗ um you know we're we're not proposing to

1:06:33 ↗ use it entire entirely

1:06:36 ↗ for replanting efforts and and what i

1:06:39 ↗ meant by enhancing

1:06:41 ↗ um was that

1:06:43 ↗ in the current code the

1:06:45 ↗ establishment of the tree fund is

1:06:49 ↗ not much more than a blurb

1:06:52 ↗ [Music]

1:06:53 ↗ so we've been

1:06:57 ↗ purposeful about

1:06:59 ↗ um

1:07:00 ↗ which department is administering the

1:07:05 ↗ uh tree fund

1:07:06 ↗ um

1:07:09 ↗ i'm gonna interrupt you just so that i

1:07:10 ↗ can i can say better what i meant to say

1:07:13 ↗ and they didn't say

1:07:15 ↗ who could participate in the tree and

1:07:17 ↗ lou fund who's

1:07:19 ↗ who is um

1:07:20 ↗ qualified

1:07:22 ↗ to pay

1:07:23 ↗ to cut down trees

1:07:25 ↗ and then uh the other thing about 35.

1:07:28 ↗ sure thank you for clarifying because i

1:07:30 ↗ was clearly not going in the right

1:07:32 ↗ direction

1:07:33 ↗ um

1:07:36 ↗ the the answer to that is that

1:07:39 ↗ i i look at it like mitigation

1:07:41 ↗ sequencing which is another chapter of

1:07:44 ↗ the code but

1:07:45 ↗ you are

1:07:47 ↗ the first step is to plant on-site

1:07:51 ↗ um where that's not feasible

1:07:54 ↗ um

1:07:56 ↗ you know i i i feel like i've been um

1:07:59 ↗ poked on this a little but

1:08:02 ↗ it's not always going to be feasible

1:08:05 ↗ we've also said that we want to

1:08:08 ↗ adopt a right tree right place

1:08:11 ↗ uh approach and sometimes when trees get

1:08:15 ↗ removed it's because they

1:08:17 ↗ aren't in the right place

1:08:20 ↗ um

1:08:21 ↗ so

1:08:22 ↗ we recognize that

1:08:24 ↗ off-site planning may have to occur

1:08:27 ↗ um that would be the second option

1:08:30 ↗ the third option would be this

1:08:33 ↗ tree in lube and now everybody

1:08:37 ↗ would qualify

1:08:39 ↗ provided that they cannot plant on site

1:08:42 ↗ and they cannot plant offsite

1:08:47 ↗ it was previously only

1:08:50 ↗ applied to development and redevelopment

1:08:53 ↗ projects but

1:08:55 ↗ now it's been expanded to

1:08:58 ↗ apply to

1:09:00 ↗ um

1:09:02 ↗ to

1:09:03 ↗ already developed lots

1:09:09 ↗ um and then just to clarify the 35

1:09:12 ↗ percent is that's um

1:09:15 ↗ for our

1:09:16 ↗ tree retention requirements and that

1:09:20 ↗ applies to development and redevelopment

1:09:25 ↗ and the

1:09:27 ↗ off-site

1:09:29 ↗ tree

1:09:30 ↗ planting within the sub area is for

1:09:32 ↗ those who were going below 35

1:09:36 ↗ no it it would that would be for

1:09:41 ↗ um

1:09:42 ↗ folks who cannot meet their

1:09:44 ↗ tree canopy goals on their own site okay

1:09:49 ↗ okay thank you

1:09:54 ↗ okay and thank you very much

1:09:55 ↗ commissioner milligan and commissioner

1:09:57 ↗ anderson i just want to point out though

1:09:59 ↗ uh before we move forward the time is 7

1:10:02 ↗ 41

1:10:03 ↗ so we are starting to run a little bit

1:10:05 ↗ behind

1:10:06 ↗ commissioner anderson you have the floor

1:10:09 ↗ okay thank you chair this is tom

1:10:11 ↗ anderson environmental board a few

1:10:14 ↗ meetings back we were reviewing uh

1:10:16 ↗ outdoor lighting

1:10:18 ↗ code and one of the things that came up

1:10:21 ↗ there is that there is a model lighting

1:10:23 ↗ ordinance

1:10:25 ↗ that's outside of uh provided by a third

1:10:28 ↗ party that some municipalities are

1:10:30 ↗ aligning with and i guess we tried to

1:10:32 ↗ align with that to some degree i'm

1:10:34 ↗ wondering is there anything like that

1:10:36 ↗ going on in the tree canopy

1:10:39 ↗ world where

1:10:40 ↗ municipalities are

1:10:42 ↗ taking

1:10:43 ↗ aligned approaches to things or is each

1:10:46 ↗ municipality just go on it alone i guess

1:10:49 ↗ well you did mention that we're trying

1:10:50 ↗ to align with lake city um

1:10:53 ↗ or lake forest park

1:10:55 ↗ on some things it just seems like the

1:10:58 ↗ perfect sort of thing that we shouldn't

1:11:00 ↗ all having to be reinventing this uh

1:11:02 ↗ each time that there should be some

1:11:04 ↗ commonality across

1:11:07 ↗ the municipality so is there anything

1:11:10 ↗ like that going on

1:11:12 ↗ uh i'm not aware of anything like that

1:11:15 ↗ we worked with a consulting arborist

1:11:18 ↗ um

1:11:19 ↗ who who made the recommendations they're

1:11:22 ↗ the ones who recommended that we look at

1:11:24 ↗ lake forest park

1:11:26 ↗ and uh snohomish county

1:11:29 ↗ were the two examples that we were given

1:11:32 ↗ to to look at but we

1:11:34 ↗ weren't made aware nor did i find

1:11:38 ↗ any kind of model ordinance i think

1:11:42 ↗ um

1:11:43 ↗ in in this case

1:11:45 ↗ there's you know

1:11:47 ↗ a a bit of plagiarism

1:11:51 ↗ if

1:11:52 ↗ it's it's taking uh existing language

1:11:55 ↗ and um

1:11:57 ↗ existing ordinances that seem to be

1:11:59 ↗ working

1:12:00 ↗ uh and adapting it to to our city

1:12:04 ↗ well plagiarism is good you know that's

1:12:07 ↗ reuse reuse should be all about real so

1:12:09 ↗ one more question um so this this code

1:12:13 ↗ is all about development and

1:12:15 ↗ redevelopment and the regulations that

1:12:17 ↗ apply specifically to those things i'm

1:12:20 ↗ wondering is there somewhere else in the

1:12:22 ↗ city code that affects

1:12:25 ↗ the homeowners

1:12:27 ↗ and developments that are not being

1:12:30 ↗ developed but just providing incentive

1:12:32 ↗ to

1:12:33 ↗ also address the overall the high level

1:12:37 ↗ goal we have we've established a goal

1:12:39 ↗ these codes are all about meeting that

1:12:41 ↗ goal but then there's all this uh

1:12:44 ↗ installed base of uh

1:12:47 ↗ housing and commercial

1:12:49 ↗ and uh well maybe with a little bit of

1:12:51 ↗ education and help uh people can help us

1:12:55 ↗ reach those goals by improving their

1:12:57 ↗ canopy coverage on their existing

1:13:00 ↗ uh structures and i know that's that's

1:13:02 ↗ something different than the code we're

1:13:04 ↗ looking at here but is there anything

1:13:06 ↗ like that or anything like that

1:13:07 ↗ envisioned in the city code that you're

1:13:10 ↗ aware of

1:13:13 ↗ um

1:13:15 ↗ one of the

1:13:16 ↗ please tell me if if i've misunderstood

1:13:19 ↗ your question but you know i i heard you

1:13:22 ↗ mention incentives and

1:13:24 ↗ uh one of the questions that we received

1:13:26 ↗ in the past was

1:13:28 ↗ um you know could if somebody plants uh

1:13:32 ↗ above their tree canopy

1:13:34 ↗ coverage goals um will the city

1:13:38 ↗ um

1:13:39 ↗ you know pay them

1:13:41 ↗ um

1:13:42 ↗ i don't believe that there's anything

1:13:44 ↗ we're not currently contemplating

1:13:46 ↗ anything

1:13:47 ↗ like that

1:13:49 ↗ um but i also heard you say

1:13:52 ↗ talk a lot of uh talk a little about

1:13:55 ↗ education

1:13:56 ↗ and one of the um

1:14:00 ↗ proposed programs for

1:14:02 ↗ the use of the

1:14:04 ↗ city in luffy's uh the tree and luffy's

1:14:10 ↗ um

1:14:10 ↗ would be urban forestry education so

1:14:14 ↗ being able to

1:14:17 ↗ either have staff or hire an

1:14:20 ↗ outside consultant that

1:14:23 ↗ can provide urban forestry education to

1:14:26 ↗ to the community

1:14:30 ↗ okay good thank you

1:14:33 ↗ and thank you commissioner anderson and

1:14:35 ↗ i like your comment about plagiarism

1:14:37 ↗ that's a great use

1:14:39 ↗ okay so we're going to go ahead and take

1:14:41 ↗ the last question here from ann and

1:14:44 ↗ commissioner you come you have the floor

1:14:48 ↗ thank you and you come here

1:14:51 ↗ um so i am wondering

1:14:54 ↗ when

1:14:55 ↗ a tree needs to be replaced like if

1:14:57 ↗ somebody takes one down

1:14:59 ↗ i didn't notice

1:15:01 ↗ is there a time frame

1:15:03 ↗ that they will have i didn't notice any

1:15:05 ↗ um time time frame that they

1:15:08 ↗ need to replace it in

1:15:11 ↗ yeah no that's a great great question

1:15:14 ↗ and i never mean to imply that the other

1:15:16 ↗ questions aren't great but um

1:15:18 ↗ the

1:15:19 ↗ there currently

1:15:21 ↗ is not um

1:15:24 ↗ like a hard and fast deadline for

1:15:27 ↗ replanting

1:15:29 ↗ um

1:15:30 ↗ what we

1:15:31 ↗ are proposing with this code is

1:15:34 ↗ um

1:15:35 ↗ six months

1:15:37 ↗ within the time of

1:15:40 ↗ replanting is typically going to

1:15:42 ↗ coincide with the approval of

1:15:46 ↗ a permit

1:15:48 ↗ so at permit issuance

1:15:51 ↗ six months up after that you would be

1:15:53 ↗ required to replant the um proposed the

1:15:57 ↗ draft code does

1:15:59 ↗ uh include language allowing

1:16:02 ↗ um

1:16:04 ↗ staff to

1:16:05 ↗ extend that

1:16:08 ↗ to ensure that there are

1:16:11 ↗ that the

1:16:12 ↗ replanting is is occurring under the

1:16:15 ↗ most optimal conditions

1:16:20 ↗ great thank you and then one other quick

1:16:23 ↗ quickie um i didn't notice

1:16:26 ↗ lidar in your measurements

1:16:29 ↗ uh plans

1:16:31 ↗ is that something that you've thought

1:16:32 ↗ about adding

1:16:35 ↗ it's not something that i've thought

1:16:36 ↗ about adding i'm uh i can't pretend to

1:16:40 ↗ have thought of that

1:16:41 ↗ um

1:16:44 ↗ but it's absolutely something that's on

1:16:47 ↗ my radar now so you know

1:16:50 ↗ we're we're still exploring

1:16:52 ↗ uh the different tools that we'll be

1:16:54 ↗ able to use both to

1:16:57 ↗ measure existing and to project

1:17:00 ↗ great thank you

1:17:04 ↗ okay and thank you very much um

1:17:07 ↗ commissioner newcomb and

1:17:10 ↗ i did get a question here from uh

1:17:13 ↗ commissioner mcwilliams he would like to

1:17:15 ↗ go and make a quick comment or a quick

1:17:17 ↗ question

1:17:18 ↗ yeah sorry i was on the wrong comment

1:17:20 ↗ channel there so you didn't see my

1:17:21 ↗ earlier question my question is about

1:17:23 ↗ your heritage trees um who's determining

1:17:26 ↗ the heritage trees do you have an

1:17:27 ↗ arborist on staff that's doing that and

1:17:30 ↗ then my other question is what prohibits

1:17:32 ↗ folks from removing trees over time so

1:17:35 ↗ if you're a resident i remove a tree

1:17:36 ↗ this year and then another one two years

1:17:38 ↗ and another one two years what prohibits

1:17:40 ↗ me from removing all the trees on my

1:17:42 ↗ lawn

1:17:45 ↗ sure so for the first question there's

1:17:49 ↗ um

1:17:50 ↗ no heritage tree

1:17:52 ↗ regulations they're mentioned in the

1:17:54 ↗ existing code

1:17:56 ↗ um and

1:17:58 ↗ we we don't have

1:18:01 ↗ an arborist on staff that would go out

1:18:03 ↗ and say this is a heritage tree the the

1:18:06 ↗ heritage tree program is um largely as i

1:18:10 ↗ understand it

1:18:13 ↗ something that

1:18:16 ↗ a resident

1:18:18 ↗ could nominate a tree to become a

1:18:20 ↗ heritage tree

1:18:22 ↗ based on certain

1:18:24 ↗ factors um

1:18:27 ↗ so so one of the the questions for

1:18:30 ↗ discussion was hopefully you know

1:18:33 ↗ should we be

1:18:35 ↗ adopting

1:18:37 ↗ um

1:18:38 ↗ that

1:18:40 ↗ process

1:18:41 ↗ into our code

1:18:44 ↗ that nomination process

1:18:46 ↗ and

1:18:47 ↗ um

1:18:48 ↗ so so that's one uh your second question

1:18:53 ↗ i'm sorry could you repeat it

1:18:57 ↗ it's about tree removal over time so can

1:18:59 ↗ i remove a tree today another one in a

1:19:01 ↗ year another one year after that

1:19:03 ↗ eventually remove all the trees off of

1:19:05 ↗ my property

1:19:08 ↗ the short answer is no

1:19:11 ↗ you would need

1:19:13 ↗ right now tree removal without

1:19:16 ↗ let me clarify

1:19:18 ↗ significant trees so a tree that

1:19:21 ↗ measures six inches

1:19:24 ↗ um in diameter at breast height

1:19:27 ↗ is considered a

1:19:30 ↗ significant tree

1:19:31 ↗ uh

1:19:32 ↗ if you would like to remove any

1:19:34 ↗ significant trees

1:19:36 ↗ on your property or

1:19:38 ↗ any tree period within a critical area

1:19:41 ↗ you will need a tree removal permit

1:19:47 ↗ [Music]

1:19:49 ↗ one of the questions that we were asked

1:19:51 ↗ was on policing

1:19:53 ↗ um we don't

1:19:56 ↗ we we rely largely on

1:19:58 ↗ um

1:20:00 ↗ notification from the public

1:20:03 ↗ um my neighbors cutting down a tree do

1:20:05 ↗ they have a permit

1:20:08 ↗ um but we are not actively

1:20:10 ↗ um patrolling to see if people are

1:20:13 ↗ cutting down trees

1:20:19 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner

1:20:20 ↗ mcwilliams and so that concludes it for

1:20:23 ↗ our questions uh tonight on this topic

1:20:26 ↗ uh with that said let's go ahead and

1:20:28 ↗ open it up to public comments stephen do

1:20:30 ↗ we have any members from the public that

1:20:32 ↗ would like to speak tonight on this

1:20:34 ↗ topic

1:20:36 ↗ yes i see a few raised hands and i

1:20:38 ↗ received a comment from dave kepler who

1:20:40 ↗ would like to comment and

1:20:42 ↗ i'm going to

1:20:43 ↗ unmute you now and make you a panelist

1:20:50 ↗ hey um great thank you um i've been

1:20:53 ↗ fighting for trees actually since 1973

1:20:57 ↗ when i've been um and on a big scale

1:21:00 ↗ that whole for most of those 50 years

1:21:03 ↗ but at the same time i've got a solar on

1:21:05 ↗ my house here in downtown issaquah and i

1:21:08 ↗ got a very large garden

1:21:10 ↗ and uh tree canopy

1:21:12 ↗ already impacts both of those um

1:21:16 ↗ because of actually trees off of my

1:21:19 ↗ property but um i i think we want to

1:21:22 ↗ make sure we're not um eliminating

1:21:24 ↗ people's ability to have solar

1:21:26 ↗ which in our case we have a surplus each

1:21:29 ↗ year of electricity we beyond making a

1:21:32 ↗ running one car that's electric and um

1:21:35 ↗ most of our except for our gas furnace

1:21:38 ↗ admittedly in our gas hot water

1:21:40 ↗ we produce enough electricity to cover

1:21:42 ↗ all of that so we also have a huge

1:21:44 ↗ garden which we donate quite a bit of

1:21:46 ↗ produce to non-profit groups beyond what

1:21:49 ↗ needs our own needs so

1:21:51 ↗ tree canopy would

1:21:53 ↗ potentially could

1:21:55 ↗ really impact that what i went away is

1:21:57 ↗ not i want to see how we can

1:22:00 ↗ um

1:22:02 ↗ have ways for people to be planting

1:22:04 ↗ trees or supporting trees in other

1:22:06 ↗ places or perhaps

1:22:08 ↗ a community solar so my transfer of the

1:22:12 ↗ solar generation could i could be more

1:22:15 ↗ of a common kind of thing that somehow

1:22:17 ↗ would work but um

1:22:19 ↗ let's um

1:22:20 ↗ let's make sure we um figure those out

1:22:23 ↗ because certainly for climate uh trees

1:22:25 ↗ are very important but so is

1:22:28 ↗ not being dependent upon

1:22:30 ↗ coal burned in

1:22:32 ↗ wyoming or montana

1:22:35 ↗ thank you

1:22:41 ↗ okay i see

1:22:43 ↗ four more raised hands i'm starting with

1:22:45 ↗ uh connie i'm gonna meet here now and

1:22:48 ↗ make you a panelist

1:22:54 ↗ hi connie marsh again

1:22:56 ↗ um as i recall there is a solar

1:22:58 ↗ exemption in there

1:23:00 ↗ uh

1:23:01 ↗ but

1:23:02 ↗ so the heritage the heritage tree thing

1:23:06 ↗ has been sort of sitting burbling not

1:23:09 ↗ doing much for years and years and i

1:23:10 ↗ think it it's supposed to rely with the

1:23:13 ↗ park board who is here but the park

1:23:15 ↗ board has never really activated very

1:23:17 ↗ much on it now that whole

1:23:20 ↗ large stand of trees on newport way in

1:23:22 ↗ front of tibbetts valley park

1:23:25 ↗ i i think

1:23:27 ↗ it's not a heritage tree

1:23:30 ↗ but what it is

1:23:32 ↗ is it's a

1:23:33 ↗ it's that

1:23:35 ↗ a grouping of trees that are superior

1:23:38 ↗ and their place making in town and

1:23:40 ↗ something that should not be lost

1:23:43 ↗ so

1:23:44 ↗ our public works department right now in

1:23:47 ↗ this code has the ability to pretty much

1:23:49 ↗ take down trees

1:23:51 ↗ and they're

1:23:53 ↗ exempt

1:23:54 ↗ from

1:23:55 ↗ trying to say they can replant that's

1:23:57 ↗ very loose but for trees like that along

1:24:00 ↗ that corridor we need some recognition

1:24:03 ↗ that these are more than just a standard

1:24:06 ↗ street tree and we need to create

1:24:10 ↗ a list a map something that protects

1:24:13 ↗ these trees now they may have to go in

1:24:16 ↗ the end but they should have to go

1:24:18 ↗ through a large public process where the

1:24:21 ↗ people can say that these are the

1:24:23 ↗ important trees and we don't want them

1:24:26 ↗ down or they aren't so important and we

1:24:28 ↗ can we can do something else

1:24:31 ↗ and and that is really missing from the

1:24:33 ↗ code and if we let the code go forward

1:24:36 ↗ this way without those protections some

1:24:38 ↗ of our larger

1:24:40 ↗ more important trees are going to fall

1:24:42 ↗ by the wayside because of projects that

1:24:45 ↗ the city itself is doing not really as

1:24:48 ↗ much as private development though some

1:24:50 ↗ will fall for that so i would encourage

1:24:53 ↗ you to say that we do

1:24:55 ↗ need to

1:24:57 ↗ to protect these better trees in our

1:25:00 ↗ system and figure out how to do that

1:25:03 ↗ um

1:25:04 ↗ the tracking of trees and what's

1:25:06 ↗ happening and if we're gaining our

1:25:08 ↗ canopy i think is super important

1:25:10 ↗ because remember we're planting these

1:25:11 ↗ trees and we're counting on that canopy

1:25:14 ↗ to be mature in 30 years it's not like

1:25:16 ↗ we have the canopy now

1:25:18 ↗ and so people are planting their trees

1:25:21 ↗ and we're saying you can have these

1:25:22 ↗ impacts or do these things because in 30

1:25:25 ↗ years you're going to have a canopy if

1:25:27 ↗ we don't measure those trees or in some

1:25:28 ↗ way track them they will be gone and we

1:25:31 ↗ will have allowed this impact without

1:25:34 ↗ surety that we are actually going to get

1:25:36 ↗ the canopy that we are aiming for

1:25:39 ↗ and so i i think a traffic uh tracking

1:25:42 ↗ mechanism

1:25:44 ↗ is

1:25:45 ↗ is is

1:25:46 ↗ it's gonna cost some money

1:25:48 ↗ but it's the only way that we're gonna

1:25:50 ↗ get to our goals you get what you

1:25:53 ↗ measure right if you don't measure it

1:25:55 ↗ you aren't going to get it

1:25:56 ↗ so i want to complement that this was by

1:25:59 ↗ far the easiest piece of code that i

1:26:02 ↗ could read

1:26:03 ↗ and so i really appreciate

1:26:05 ↗ i could almost relax while reading this

1:26:07 ↗ code because i didn't have to fight

1:26:09 ↗ seemingly contradictory language i just

1:26:11 ↗ got to waffle on the themes thank you

1:26:22 ↗ okay we have

1:26:26 ↗ we have mary lynch with her raised hand

1:26:30 ↗ mary i'm gonna unmute you and make you a

1:26:32 ↗ panelist

1:26:35 ↗ okay this

1:26:36 ↗ this is mary lynch i just want to um

1:26:40 ↗ support what connie said because

1:26:42 ↗ i've already experienced out on newport

1:26:45 ↗ way where with public works projects or

1:26:48 ↗ the widening of newport way which is

1:26:50 ↗ actually done with developers

1:26:54 ↗ but because it was in the public

1:26:58 ↗ right away

1:26:59 ↗ the city

1:27:01 ↗ did not

1:27:02 ↗ account for any of the mature trees that

1:27:04 ↗ were cut down and these were mature

1:27:07 ↗ trees not only that presented some

1:27:10 ↗ significance as far as canopy but also

1:27:13 ↗ for shade for houses

1:27:15 ↗ and so last summer those houses that

1:27:18 ↗ normally would have been protected

1:27:20 ↗ um had no shade

1:27:22 ↗ and there there was no accounting for

1:27:25 ↗ where these were gonna you know no

1:27:27 ↗ mitigation

1:27:28 ↗ um for them and we see substantially um

1:27:33 ↗ trees along newport way as we ever get

1:27:36 ↗ the funding to widen it that again those

1:27:38 ↗ trees are going to go away

1:27:40 ↗ and there's nothing in the code

1:27:43 ↗ to assure that that gets put back in the

1:27:45 ↗ canopy

1:27:47 ↗ or mitigated in any way and street most

1:27:50 ↗ the street trees that the city has

1:27:52 ↗ designed really don't count for a lot of

1:27:54 ↗ canopy

1:27:55 ↗ and most the trees that they selected

1:27:58 ↗ like a long maple a lot of the life

1:28:01 ↗ of those trees are very short

1:28:03 ↗ so i think when we're looking at we need

1:28:06 ↗ to protect trees that are on public um

1:28:10 ↗ or you know

1:28:11 ↗ taken away by public works projects and

1:28:14 ↗ where we can't not take them away

1:28:16 ↗ specifically as connie said those um

1:28:19 ↗ sycamores that are along tibbetts field

1:28:22 ↗ i mean those are just it's just a

1:28:24 ↗ statement there and everybody refers to

1:28:26 ↗ it and for those to go away because

1:28:28 ↗ public works wants a project there i

1:28:30 ↗ don't think is is something we should

1:28:32 ↗ allow to happen or happen and we need to

1:28:34 ↗ protect those trees going forward

1:28:37 ↗ also we need along streams uh

1:28:40 ↗ anti-aircraft creek some trees came down

1:28:43 ↗ and the city replanted but there's no

1:28:46 ↗ accountability the city's come back in

1:28:48 ↗ and redone that stream now

1:28:50 ↗ three times since the first was done and

1:28:53 ↗ the trees that were planted at the first

1:28:56 ↗ street planting have now been taken out

1:28:58 ↗ and i've asked the city who's going to

1:29:00 ↗ come back and replant that

1:29:02 ↗ there's there's no um

1:29:05 ↗ no accountability

1:29:07 ↗ for it and so now we have just a parking

1:29:10 ↗ lot area next to anti-aircraft creek

1:29:13 ↗ where um there were supposed to be

1:29:15 ↗ trees there within the buffer zone and

1:29:17 ↗ there are none so the city needs to be

1:29:20 ↗ held accountable on their public works

1:29:22 ↗ projects to protect trees

1:29:25 ↗ to mitigate trees and then to account

1:29:27 ↗ for trees and as connie mentioned

1:29:30 ↗ i've seen

1:29:32 ↗ that the city really doesn't have a good

1:29:33 ↗ way of tracking

1:29:35 ↗ when in a permit they say you're

1:29:37 ↗ supposed to replant

1:29:38 ↗ no one comes out and checks to make sure

1:29:41 ↗ that it's replanted

1:29:42 ↗ so we need in the code to have that

1:29:45 ↗ tracking and the city needs to fund

1:29:48 ↗ someone to actually come out and make

1:29:51 ↗ sure that it happens because it has not

1:29:53 ↗ happened over the years thank you

1:30:08 ↗ okay we have

1:30:11 ↗ ann fletcher next

1:30:13 ↗ and i'm going to

1:30:16 ↗ unmute you now and make you a panelist

1:30:25 ↗ hi can you hear me

1:30:28 ↗ yes we can thank you i'm ann fletcher

1:30:30 ↗ i'm a resident and people for climate

1:30:33 ↗ action issaquah chapter

1:30:36 ↗ i just first want to thank all the

1:30:37 ↗ boards and commissions and the staff for

1:30:39 ↗ the heavy work that's been going on on

1:30:42 ↗ title 18 natural environment

1:30:44 ↗ clearly improvements are being made

1:30:47 ↗ the big question for me and for people

1:30:49 ↗ for climate action

1:30:51 ↗ are the codes strong enough

1:30:53 ↗ to meet crucial environmental

1:30:56 ↗ and climate goals that the city has

1:30:58 ↗ adopted

1:30:59 ↗ within the next decade even

1:31:03 ↗ overall

1:31:05 ↗ oversight and tracking

1:31:07 ↗ the code needs to help our system which

1:31:10 ↗ needs to improve

1:31:12 ↗ and i think you've heard that from

1:31:13 ↗ several other people

1:31:15 ↗ but to ensure

1:31:17 ↗ the needed strength

1:31:19 ↗ i would like to see in the code

1:31:23 ↗ built-in

1:31:24 ↗ requirements for measurement monitoring

1:31:26 ↗ and adjustment this is the tracking that

1:31:28 ↗ daniel brought up and other people have

1:31:30 ↗ brought up

1:31:32 ↗ this is often left to various city

1:31:35 ↗ department plans however plans

1:31:38 ↗ administrations departments and staff

1:31:40 ↗ come and go

1:31:42 ↗ also the plans need to be modified as

1:31:45 ↗ new information becomes available

1:31:48 ↗ and

1:31:49 ↗ this is where we need to improve

1:31:52 ↗ code is a common thread over time

1:31:55 ↗ to which everyone must attend

1:31:59 ↗ it should include instructions on best

1:32:01 ↗ practices

1:32:02 ↗ that enable the implementation for this

1:32:05 ↗ to really happen

1:32:07 ↗ at an open house on tuesday i learned

1:32:09 ↗ that this code

1:32:11 ↗ proposed code does not ensure these

1:32:13 ↗ mechanisms

1:32:15 ↗ now this code would require or could

1:32:17 ↗ require reallocation or additional

1:32:19 ↗ resources as p as people have brought up

1:32:23 ↗ yet

1:32:24 ↗ community members are here to let boards

1:32:26 ↗ commissions and council know

1:32:28 ↗ that

1:32:29 ↗ what our priorities are so that the

1:32:32 ↗ budget may reflect them

1:32:34 ↗ so

1:32:35 ↗ one of these priorities is having

1:32:38 ↗ code that requires these tracking

1:32:40 ↗ mechanisms

1:32:42 ↗ now we're not talking about amenities

1:32:44 ↗ here we're talking about real

1:32:45 ↗ consequences to basic health and safety

1:32:48 ↗ the best available science is telling us

1:32:50 ↗ what we do in the next eight years could

1:32:52 ↗ be crucial for our well-being

1:32:56 ↗ council is the final determiner of

1:32:58 ↗ whether these mechanisms should be in

1:33:00 ↗ the code or not

1:33:02 ↗ when the council adopted the climate

1:33:04 ↗ action plan council members spoke to

1:33:06 ↗ having the implementation work

1:33:08 ↗ and having it really work in contrast to

1:33:11 ↗ the past plans

1:33:13 ↗ i think they would be interested in a

1:33:14 ↗ code that does just that

1:33:17 ↗ if they don't want to be tied to this

1:33:19 ↗ code because it has budget implications

1:33:21 ↗ and that's their decision

1:33:22 ↗ but i think it should be presented to

1:33:24 ↗ them as a possible way to meet their

1:33:26 ↗ needs and the priorities of the

1:33:28 ↗ community

1:33:30 ↗ a specific example of this is the tree

1:33:32 ↗ canopy code which others have brought up

1:33:34 ↗ and i know you're short on time so i'm

1:33:35 ↗ not going to go into that in detail but

1:33:37 ↗ you can see the connection with

1:33:40 ↗ baseline

1:33:41 ↗ the trees we have now replanting trees

1:33:44 ↗ that are going to take 30 years

1:33:46 ↗ to become

1:33:48 ↗ the same tree canopy that they are

1:33:50 ↗ replacing

1:33:51 ↗ and the fact that we need that canopy

1:33:53 ↗ sooner

1:33:54 ↗ and how is that going to affect the 55

1:33:57 ↗ percent if we're not tracking this we're

1:34:00 ↗ not going to reach that very important

1:34:02 ↗ goal

1:34:05 ↗ so

1:34:06 ↗ i think that's all i have to say thank

1:34:07 ↗ you very much

1:34:13 ↗ thank you ann and then the last comment

1:34:15 ↗ we have is from steve steve i'm going to

1:34:19 ↗ unmute you now and make you a panelist

1:34:23 ↗ okay you're being a little overlapping

1:34:27 ↗ yes

1:34:28 ↗ go ahead

1:34:33 ↗ hi this is steve can you hear me okay

1:34:36 ↗ yes we can thank you

1:34:42 ↗ steve can you hear me

1:34:50 ↗ i'm going to send steve a chat really

1:34:53 ↗ quick

1:34:54 ↗ to let him know that

1:34:55 ↗ we can hear him

1:35:05 ↗ it says

1:35:07 ↗ steve if you can hear me and i'll go

1:35:09 ↗ ahead with your public comment

1:35:20 ↗ so anyway my public comment is this and

1:35:23 ↗ i don't want to repeat whatever we sent

1:35:24 ↗ in because i don't want to take any more

1:35:26 ↗ time than needed

1:35:27 ↗ uh several thousand people have spoken

1:35:29 ↗ about this

1:35:30 ↗ uh one i'd like to see some more verbage

1:35:33 ↗ or

1:35:34 ↗ terminology added about the idea of what

1:35:36 ↗ makes a project feasible and whether or

1:35:38 ↗ not it's okay to remove

1:35:40 ↗ or decide that only the developer can

1:35:42 ↗ simply say that it's not feasible and

1:35:43 ↗ that will actually move all the trees or

1:35:45 ↗ more trees than

1:35:47 ↗ we would like

1:35:48 ↗ uh i would like to see some additional

1:35:50 ↗ constraints placed on

1:35:53 ↗ he and knew of

1:35:54 ↗ so that you don't just

1:35:56 ↗ remove old groceries or trees that have

1:35:59 ↗ carbon sequestration

1:36:01 ↗ uh and some of the old agents would be

1:36:03 ↗ uh third i'd like to see more verbiage

1:36:06 ↗ that

1:36:07 ↗ talks about if they do do plantings

1:36:09 ↗ there's some bonding mechanisms so that

1:36:11 ↗ those trees that are replanted

1:36:13 ↗ are

1:36:14 ↗ nurtured and maintained to make sure

1:36:16 ↗ that they're growing not just simply

1:36:17 ↗ planting the trees if there's some

1:36:19 ↗ mechanism in the track and make sure

1:36:20 ↗ that those

1:36:21 ↗ get maintained for more than three years

1:36:24 ↗ because the

1:36:26 ↗ the cost of the bonding is not just the

1:36:28 ↗ cost of the tree refinement but it's

1:36:30 ↗ true cost of the public benefit of loss

1:36:32 ↗ with those

1:36:33 ↗ these are decent functionalities so i

1:36:35 ↗ think that needs to be looked at further

1:36:41 ↗ i think that we need to look at tree

1:36:42 ↗ canopy

1:36:43 ↗ both as

1:36:45 ↗ something in a prescriptive terms

1:36:50 ↗ again they understand i'm allowed to

1:36:54 ↗ keep accidental trees and that's how

1:36:55 ↗ they relate to this outsourcing continue

1:36:57 ↗ to look at trees from an ecosystem

1:36:59 ↗ perspective

1:37:00 ↗ perspective

1:37:04 ↗ especially along rivers and streams and

1:37:06 ↗ that type of thing so we're not just

1:37:08 ↗ looking at the water quality but the

1:37:09 ↗ whole ecosystem that's provided with

1:37:11 ↗ that and

1:37:13 ↗ so i think that means some broader that

1:37:16 ↗ we're not just

1:37:17 ↗ moving an existing standards but we're

1:37:19 ↗ looking we're asking what types of

1:37:20 ↗ standards

1:37:21 ↗ could be implemented

1:37:38 ↗ great thank you steve

1:37:43 ↗ chairfall that is all the public comment

1:37:51 ↗ okay and thank you very much uh stephen

1:37:53 ↗ for public comment and we're going to go

1:37:55 ↗ ahead and

1:37:56 ↗ move this over to uh commissioner

1:37:58 ↗ comments

1:38:00 ↗ and so uh

1:38:03 ↗ chair book would you like to go ahead

1:38:05 ↗ and take over from here for

1:38:07 ↗ deliberations

1:38:11 ↗ okay thank you commissioner fall

1:38:14 ↗ um it's time for comments from the park

1:38:17 ↗ board members and environmental board

1:38:20 ↗ members that are present

1:38:22 ↗ uh please uh put the drop down at

1:38:25 ↗ everyone and put in that you have a

1:38:27 ↗ comment and i will call upon you

1:38:31 ↗ and um

1:38:33 ↗ first comment

1:38:36 ↗ actually i'm going to ask a question to

1:38:38 ↗ danielle since she put in some

1:38:42 ↗ text here as a comment danielle would

1:38:44 ↗ you like me to read this or do you want

1:38:46 ↗ me to read this

1:38:48 ↗ about heritage trees oh

1:38:51 ↗ i'm happy to just explain it so

1:38:53 ↗ one of the things that the park board

1:38:56 ↗ does is serves as um

1:38:58 ↗ as a tree board every it's i think we're

1:39:01 ↗ supposed to be doing it like every year

1:39:03 ↗ um and that's in connection with

1:39:05 ↗ issaquah being a tree city usa city and

1:39:10 ↗ um

1:39:11 ↗ those heritage trees are

1:39:13 ↗ nominated by either members of the

1:39:15 ↗ public or um or city staff or we used to

1:39:18 ↗ have an arborist who would do it

1:39:21 ↗ and then are designated as heritage

1:39:24 ↗ trees

1:39:25 ↗ my understanding is that those heritage

1:39:26 ↗ trees as current

1:39:28 ↗ in their um

1:39:30 ↗ currently

1:39:31 ↗ the designation as a heritage tree does

1:39:33 ↗ not preclude that tree from

1:39:35 ↗ being removed at a later date so it's

1:39:37 ↗ not a permanent designation um but

1:39:40 ↗ that's just i just wanted to throw that

1:39:42 ↗ in the chat just since there seemed to

1:39:43 ↗ be a question about

1:39:45 ↗ heritage trees

1:39:48 ↗ thank you danielle

1:39:49 ↗ next we have a comment from don

1:39:52 ↗ mcgillians from the environmental board

1:39:55 ↗ go ahead don

1:39:56 ↗ hi donna williams from the environmental

1:39:58 ↗ board so two comments um first off just

1:40:01 ↗ to staff i would encourage you to look

1:40:03 ↗ for a arborist certification for your

1:40:05 ↗ arborist that you're hiring out there or

1:40:07 ↗ that are signing off on these plans you

1:40:10 ↗ can look to city of kirkland as a good

1:40:12 ↗ example of that where they have to go

1:40:14 ↗ through a training course to learn your

1:40:15 ↗ code before they can actually work for

1:40:17 ↗ the city or be representatives of the

1:40:19 ↗ developer

1:40:20 ↗ and then uh comment about you guys not

1:40:23 ↗ having an arborist i'm kind of disturbed

1:40:24 ↗ by that you've been a tree city since

1:40:27 ↗ the early 90s and if i heard it right

1:40:29 ↗ you don't have an arborist or a city

1:40:31 ↗ forester on staff

1:40:33 ↗ so who's managing

1:40:35 ↗ the trees in issaquah so i don't expect

1:40:38 ↗ you to answer that i would encourage the

1:40:40 ↗ boards and the staff to

1:40:42 ↗ raise that issue and

1:40:44 ↗ [Music]

1:40:45 ↗ uh

1:40:46 ↗ be proponents for hiring an arborist in

1:40:48 ↗ the future in the next budget cycle or

1:40:50 ↗ so

1:40:51 ↗ that's all thank you

1:40:53 ↗ thank you don

1:40:55 ↗ next comment is from dan

1:40:58 ↗ from the environmental board go ahead

1:40:59 ↗ dan

1:41:01 ↗ thanks brad dan hintz environmental

1:41:03 ↗ board i'll just quickly amplify don's

1:41:05 ↗ comments that was definitely one thing i

1:41:06 ↗ wanted to mention and it seems like

1:41:08 ↗ having an arborshon staff would be a

1:41:10 ↗ priority i think that certainly ties

1:41:12 ↗ into some of these desires around some

1:41:13 ↗ more of the on the ground tracking so

1:41:16 ↗ for me the tracking there's the kind of

1:41:18 ↗ high level airplane view and i

1:41:20 ↗ definitely want to kind of amplify and

1:41:22 ↗ newcomb's comment earlier about lidar

1:41:24 ↗ being a really really good tool for

1:41:26 ↗ you know both tree canopy coverage but

1:41:28 ↗ also tree canopy height you can get some

1:41:30 ↗ really really neat data which speaks you

1:41:32 ↗ know to carbon sequestration and other

1:41:34 ↗ you know environmental benefits of

1:41:35 ↗ canopy that you know big difference

1:41:37 ↗ between 10 foot tall trees and 100 plus

1:41:39 ↗ foot tall trees so i think there's

1:41:41 ↗ really neat opportunities there and then

1:41:43 ↗ yes having someone on the ground that's

1:41:44 ↗ maybe a little bit more accountable for

1:41:46 ↗ tracking uh the success of these trees

1:41:48 ↗ plantings how the uh tree mitigation

1:41:50 ↗ fund will be spent and used and um

1:41:53 ↗ i guess connie mentioned some of her

1:41:55 ↗ comments you know what what does

1:41:56 ↗ maintenance of these tree replantings

1:41:58 ↗ look like who's accountable for for you

1:42:00 ↗ know kind of trying to follow up on that

1:42:03 ↗ um

1:42:04 ↗ two more hopefully quick comments uh on

1:42:06 ↗ the um preferred or the master tree list

1:42:09 ↗ i know i think daniel mentioned that

1:42:10 ↗ that's gonna be updated i won't go in to

1:42:13 ↗ start listing the half dozen or so trees

1:42:16 ↗ on the preferred list that i don't think

1:42:17 ↗ should be on the preferred list i would

1:42:19 ↗ be honored and super happy to chat or

1:42:22 ↗ consult on that when that gets updated

1:42:24 ↗ for instance norway maple is on both the

1:42:26 ↗ preferred and non-preferred lists

1:42:28 ↗ currently so there's some discrepancies

1:42:30 ↗ some things that i think could be

1:42:31 ↗ considered to remove from the preferred

1:42:33 ↗ list i'd be considered if there would be

1:42:34 ↗ a little bit more

1:42:35 ↗ strength to the non-preferred list

1:42:37 ↗ versus being recommended not to use

1:42:39 ↗ versus actually being

1:42:41 ↗ you know disallowed to be used and

1:42:43 ↗ replanting efforts throughout the city

1:42:45 ↗ so i think there's a lot of potential

1:42:46 ↗ there and it's exciting to hear that

1:42:48 ↗ that should be moving forward and very

1:42:49 ↗ much a volunteer help on that um if that

1:42:52 ↗ there'd be interest there the last thing

1:42:54 ↗ i'll say that i know has come up from

1:42:55 ↗ too is you know i've been trying to read

1:42:58 ↗ uh you know a little bit more about the

1:42:59 ↗ the trunk method for

1:43:01 ↗ evaluation of trees i'm assuming that

1:43:03 ↗ will inform some of the costs that go

1:43:05 ↗ into these funds uh the in-lieu funds

1:43:08 ↗ um my best understand is it is valuing

1:43:10 ↗ current trees you know based on size

1:43:13 ↗ location species condition it doesn't

1:43:16 ↗ really have the temporal value or the

1:43:18 ↗ temporal loss of the tree that gets cut

1:43:20 ↗ down today and replaced you know as we

1:43:22 ↗ i've heard a lot of 30-year comments on

1:43:24 ↗ here

1:43:24 ↗ from connie and anne and i would say

1:43:26 ↗ especially for our conifers we're

1:43:28 ↗ talking 50 to 100 years before we're

1:43:29 ↗ really regaining some of those values

1:43:31 ↗ around uh carbon storage around rain

1:43:34 ↗ interception air pollution so

1:43:37 ↗ i would even argue there's there's a

1:43:38 ↗ longer time frame before we're recouping

1:43:40 ↗ some of those uh benefits of replanted

1:43:42 ↗ trees from trees lost so

1:43:45 ↗ i i don't know the trunk method seems

1:43:46 ↗ solid i i'm really curious to learn more

1:43:48 ↗ about it but i i feel like it still

1:43:49 ↗ doesn't uh incorporate that um

1:43:52 ↗ time loss value of tree cut down versus

1:43:54 ↗ tree planted today that's you know 30 50

1:43:57 ↗ or 100 years from maturity so

1:43:59 ↗ yeah thank you

1:44:03 ↗ uh thank you for that dan and next we

1:44:05 ↗ have a comment from tom anderson go

1:44:09 ↗ ahead tom

1:44:11 ↗ ah thank you chair book tom anderson

1:44:13 ↗ environmental board

1:44:17 ↗ so i know this is apart from development

1:44:19 ↗ this code is all about development and

1:44:21 ↗ redevelopment and it is my my feeling

1:44:25 ↗ though that to

1:44:26 ↗ um

1:44:28 ↗ there needs to be a public education

1:44:30 ↗ element to this to accomplish our

1:44:32 ↗ overall goals that we're striving for

1:44:35 ↗ and

1:44:36 ↗ so somewhere in the city's program

1:44:39 ↗ public education to teach people that

1:44:41 ↗ trees are our friends for a variety of

1:44:44 ↗ reasons

1:44:47 ↗ related to climate change and other

1:44:49 ↗ things and help people um

1:44:53 ↗ improve their canopy coverage to get

1:44:55 ↗ with the program and this is needs to be

1:44:58 ↗ a part of the overall strategy it's not

1:45:00 ↗ the strategy it's just part of the

1:45:02 ↗ overall strategy and just focusing on

1:45:04 ↗ development and redevelopment that won't

1:45:06 ↗ get us there thank you that's all i had

1:45:10 ↗ thank you for that comment tom

1:45:12 ↗ next up from the environmental board we

1:45:15 ↗ have a comment from nancy davidson go

1:45:17 ↗ ahead nancy

1:45:18 ↗ thank you very much um

1:45:20 ↗ nancy davidson environmental board

1:45:23 ↗ you know in the icap the city set a goal

1:45:26 ↗ of getting to 55 percent of total it's

1:45:29 ↗ called acreage covered by tree canopy by

1:45:32 ↗ 2035 which is a pretty ambitious goal

1:45:35 ↗ and it's something that we're really

1:45:36 ↗ working hard to try and achieve

1:45:38 ↗ but it's apparent that the mature trees

1:45:40 ↗ that we have in our community can't be

1:45:42 ↗ replaced with trees that will only

1:45:43 ↗ provide that kind of same coverage in

1:45:46 ↗ uh 30 40 or 80 years as dan mentioned

1:45:49 ↗ earlier so we need to find a way to

1:45:53 ↗ increase that canopy if we're cutting

1:45:54 ↗ down a tree in a more

1:45:56 ↗ quick fashion but one of the things that

1:45:58 ↗ i think is really important is tracking

1:46:01 ↗ how how many trees are removed and how

1:46:03 ↗ many trees are planted

1:46:04 ↗ and the reason i say that is it's pretty

1:46:07 ↗ easy to say that let's remove a tree

1:46:09 ↗ from a park or a tree from a public

1:46:10 ↗ right-of-way but we need to make sure

1:46:13 ↗ that every time we remove a tree we're

1:46:15 ↗ tracking it so we can track how we're

1:46:17 ↗ doing to achieving our icap goal which

1:46:19 ↗ is the climate action plan goal set by

1:46:21 ↗ the city and the and the council so i

1:46:24 ↗ would encourage us to really be looking

1:46:26 ↗ at um trying to track that as stated by

1:46:29 ↗ others and that we're really trying to

1:46:31 ↗ find a way to increase our coverage of

1:46:34 ↗ the canopy not just the number of trees

1:46:38 ↗ that's it thank you

1:46:40 ↗ thank you for that nancy

1:46:42 ↗ um i'm gonna just quickly read a little

1:46:45 ↗ comment from jeff watling here

1:46:47 ↗ lidar was used during recent tree canopy

1:46:50 ↗ study and was very instructive and

1:46:52 ↗ beneficial in that work um

1:46:54 ↗ just a little experiential

1:46:56 ↗ thing here that supports earlier

1:46:58 ↗ comments about lidar and its advantages

1:47:01 ↗ next we have a quick question from

1:47:03 ↗ danielle givens from the park board go

1:47:05 ↗ ahead danielle

1:47:09 ↗ no you can skip me i'm gonna follow up

1:47:11 ↗ directly with staff thanks

1:47:13 ↗ okay thanks danielle

1:47:18 ↗ uh looks like that conclude i'm gonna

1:47:20 ↗ just add one thing time is short

1:47:23 ↗ i would like for us to continue on here

1:47:26 ↗ until we conclude this this evening

1:47:29 ↗ i'll leave that up to ron

1:47:32 ↗ my only luck comment just to support

1:47:34 ↗ everybody is tracking tracking

1:47:36 ↗ tracking accountability accountability

1:47:38 ↗ accountability you know you can have a

1:47:39 ↗ whole bunch of

1:47:41 ↗ codes written up but if you don't keep

1:47:42 ↗ people accountable for them they're

1:47:44 ↗ they're fairly meaningless

1:47:46 ↗ i i think that there needs to be a good

1:47:48 ↗ strategy in place for accountability

1:47:50 ↗ and follow-up on these issues and

1:47:53 ↗ especially with the tree contractors who

1:47:56 ↗ are going to be primarily doing a lot of

1:47:58 ↗ the

1:47:58 ↗ tree removals

1:48:01 ↗ i think that that concludes everything

1:48:04 ↗ from the park board and uh

1:48:07 ↗ environmental board so back to you

1:48:09 ↗ commissioner fall

1:48:11 ↗ all right thank you very much uh chair

1:48:13 ↗ brook

1:48:14 ↗ so with that said i am gonna go ahead

1:48:17 ↗ and make a quick comment on

1:48:19 ↗ what chair book just simply said we had

1:48:21 ↗ several trees removed recently because

1:48:23 ↗ one of them was over our sewer line had

1:48:26 ↗ tree roots in the sewer line itself

1:48:29 ↗ the tree company came back and said the

1:48:30 ↗ city doesn't bother about

1:48:32 ↗ checking trees we'll cut them down don't

1:48:34 ↗ worry about it leave it up to us so with

1:48:37 ↗ that said there's the accountability

1:48:39 ↗ problem i have a real case scenario it

1:48:41 ↗ does exist

1:48:43 ↗ uh with that said uh stephen the floor

1:48:46 ↗ is yours for presentation we are at 8

1:48:49 ↗ 20. so if people need to leave at 8 30 i

1:48:51 ↗ certainly understand we need to keep

1:48:53 ↗ questions to a minimum and comments as

1:48:56 ↗ well

1:48:57 ↗ so with that said please be sensitive to

1:49:00 ↗ the time and uh stephen uh the floor is

1:49:03 ↗ yours

1:49:08 ↗ thank you i'm gonna turn it over to

1:49:09 ↗ katie uh who

1:49:12 ↗ i am going to give you presenting rights

1:49:13 ↗ now

1:49:14 ↗ thank you

1:49:17 ↗ okay go ahead and share your screen

1:49:19 ↗ okay

1:49:22 ↗ thank you i'm going to attempt to be

1:49:23 ↗ really quick so sorry if i'm talking

1:49:25 ↗ fast um but i want to respect everyone's

1:49:28 ↗ time so for the landscape code the idea

1:49:31 ↗ with this code was

1:49:32 ↗ not to make major changes to the way

1:49:34 ↗ that landscape is uh required through

1:49:37 ↗ title

1:49:38 ↗ 18 and to send the central standards and

1:49:41 ↗ the replacement regulations but

1:49:43 ↗ to put them all into one consolidated

1:49:45 ↗ place

1:49:47 ↗ we also wanted to um

1:49:50 ↗ incorporate some sustainability measures

1:49:52 ↗ through landscape planting standards and

1:49:54 ↗ irrigate irrigation standards

1:49:58 ↗ and

1:49:59 ↗ keeping to the goal of maintaining

1:50:00 ↗ neighborhood charm and distinctive

1:50:02 ↗ characters

1:50:03 ↗ so key changes we've made some changes

1:50:05 ↗ to recommended

1:50:08 ↗ plant type plant species to encourage

1:50:10 ↗ plant diversity and native and drought

1:50:12 ↗ tolerant species and pollinators

1:50:15 ↗ that was a response to public comment

1:50:17 ↗ that requested those types of plants be

1:50:19 ↗ encouraged or required

1:50:22 ↗ there's also updated standards for

1:50:24 ↗ irrigation to encourage uh water

1:50:27 ↗ water resource conservation

1:50:30 ↗ and also

1:50:32 ↗ some additional standards for tree

1:50:33 ↗ planting to encourage

1:50:35 ↗ healthier trees

1:50:37 ↗ that we decided to leave that in the

1:50:39 ↗ landscape code rather than in the tree

1:50:41 ↗ preservation code

1:50:43 ↗ and like i said we consolidated the

1:50:47 ↗ various parts of the code that dealt

1:50:48 ↗ with landscape into one place and then

1:50:50 ↗ we moved some sections like tree

1:50:52 ↗ preservation that had been together with

1:50:54 ↗ landscape into its own chapter moved

1:50:56 ↗ some other things like fencing that will

1:50:58 ↗ go in a different chapter as well

1:51:01 ↗ uh at the at the initial meeting we had

1:51:03 ↗ with the ppc um we discussed creating a

1:51:06 ↗ separate landscape standards document

1:51:08 ↗ where the kind of the nuts and bolts of

1:51:10 ↗ the landscape technical standards would

1:51:13 ↗ be located outside of title 18

1:51:15 ↗ after public comment and comment from

1:51:18 ↗ boards we did not do that and that was a

1:51:21 ↗ a last-minute change that we

1:51:23 ↗ reincorporated everything back into

1:51:26 ↗ title 18 so there's not going to be a

1:51:28 ↗ separate landscape standards document

1:51:31 ↗ so this is an example

1:51:33 ↗ that builds on the community space

1:51:36 ↗ the community space concept

1:51:38 ↗ i'm not going to spend a lot of time

1:51:39 ↗ here but i did want to point out this is

1:51:41 ↗ a non-residential building in central

1:51:44 ↗ issaquah

1:51:45 ↗ it would be required to have a community

1:51:48 ↗ space

1:51:49 ↗ um and

1:51:51 ↗ some landscaping

1:51:52 ↗ um

1:51:53 ↗ as well as whatever the applicable tree

1:51:55 ↗ regulations are

1:51:58 ↗ there's a community space space with

1:52:00 ↗ some seating and some some canopy

1:52:02 ↗ coverage

1:52:05 ↗ uh so we have received some comments on

1:52:07 ↗ this chapter um many of them surround

1:52:11 ↗ that the

1:52:13 ↗ document or the chapter is difficult to

1:52:15 ↗ understand and that there seem to be

1:52:16 ↗ some internal inconsistencies

1:52:19 ↗ we've also identified some some drafting

1:52:21 ↗ errors

1:52:23 ↗ and some mistakes in this current draft

1:52:26 ↗ so we'll definitely be taking a really

1:52:28 ↗ close look to make sure that it's

1:52:29 ↗ internally consistent that it doesn't

1:52:32 ↗ have contradictory parts

1:52:34 ↗ um

1:52:35 ↗ and if there's a way for us to rearrange

1:52:38 ↗ the layout or add graphics to make it

1:52:41 ↗ easier to understand

1:52:43 ↗ we're definitely going to prioritize

1:52:46 ↗ readability and usability the standards

1:52:48 ↗ themselves that we have in the code were

1:52:51 ↗ not intended to

1:52:53 ↗ majorly change

1:52:55 ↗ one unintended consequence of the

1:52:58 ↗ combining was the um the use of a

1:53:02 ↗ landscape standard for

1:53:04 ↗ border and frontage landscaping that

1:53:07 ↗ applies to the non-central issaquah

1:53:09 ↗ areas that's uh intended to separate

1:53:12 ↗ unlike uses

1:53:14 ↗ and because it was a the this code

1:53:16 ↗ applies it based on zone

1:53:18 ↗ it was inadvertently applied to some

1:53:20 ↗ parts of central issaquad that shared

1:53:22 ↗ the same zone so we'll be clarifying

1:53:24 ↗ that that those

1:53:26 ↗ those types of standards that um used to

1:53:29 ↗ not apply in central elizabeth will

1:53:30 ↗ continue not to apply in central

1:53:32 ↗ issaquah um

1:53:34 ↗ and and we'll make that clear in the

1:53:36 ↗ next round of revisions

1:53:38 ↗ so in our next steps we're going to

1:53:41 ↗ review the code find inconsistencies and

1:53:43 ↗ fix them

1:53:45 ↗ um clarify where it's applicable

1:53:48 ↗ um and then test the code and make sure

1:53:51 ↗ that if as planners apply it to projects

1:53:53 ↗ that it's working the way we intended it

1:53:56 ↗ to and there's no complex

1:54:05 ↗ okay and thank you uh planner code is

1:54:08 ↗ that concludes your presentation

1:54:11 ↗ very good and so we'll go ahead and open

1:54:13 ↗ up to commissioner questions again

1:54:15 ↗ remember sensitivity to time tonight we

1:54:18 ↗ don't want to go too far over here

1:54:20 ↗ so some people will need to branch off

1:54:24 ↗ uh please open up for questions so if

1:54:25 ↗ you have questions please post them in

1:54:27 ↗ the chat

1:54:45 ↗ okay now we're not getting any questions

1:54:47 ↗ so

1:54:48 ↗ someone please speak a question if you

1:54:50 ↗ have

1:54:51 ↗ uh it looks like jason voice is going to

1:54:52 ↗ be the first person with a question so

1:54:54 ↗ great thanks jason saving the day

1:54:58 ↗ here for you chair

1:54:59 ↗ so um on page 3 of 25 miss cote it

1:55:04 ↗ mentions the provisions of this chapter

1:55:06 ↗ apply to all zone property

1:55:09 ↗ i'm guessing you know obviously this has

1:55:10 ↗ to do with landscaping how does that

1:55:13 ↗ actually work i understand

1:55:15 ↗ um

1:55:16 ↗ development redevelopment new

1:55:18 ↗ development redevelopment

1:55:19 ↗ what does all existing development mean

1:55:27 ↗ so it's intended to apply to

1:55:31 ↗ development and redevelopment similar to

1:55:33 ↗ the other

1:55:34 ↗ to the previous chapter we discussed

1:55:39 ↗ the term zoned properties

1:55:41 ↗ is basically

1:55:43 ↗ referring to every property because

1:55:45 ↗ every property is owned property so the

1:55:48 ↗ intent is that it would apply everywhere

1:55:51 ↗ but it's not

1:55:52 ↗ it's not required retrospectively but it

1:55:55 ↗ would be you don't need to come into

1:55:57 ↗ compliance

1:55:59 ↗ but if you are um

1:56:01 ↗ redeveloping your site substantially or

1:56:04 ↗ building a new development you would be

1:56:06 ↗ required to comply

1:56:08 ↗ great that was a little unclear for me

1:56:10 ↗ and then further down the page it

1:56:12 ↗ mentions there must be a diversity of

1:56:13 ↗ tree and shrubs

1:56:15 ↗ uh species in the site landscaping i'm

1:56:17 ↗ wondering who enforces this

1:56:20 ↗ and i imagine this is also applicable to

1:56:24 ↗ applicable

1:56:25 ↗ to uh new development and redevelopment

1:56:27 ↗ not necessarily retroactively

1:56:29 ↗ but who would enforce that

1:56:31 ↗ yeah so like a landscape permit

1:56:34 ↗ that's right so um a landscape plan is

1:56:38 ↗ required with applications for certain

1:56:40 ↗ types of development and the landscape

1:56:42 ↗ plan would show

1:56:44 ↗ where landscaping is going and include a

1:56:46 ↗ plant list and a planting plan so the

1:56:49 ↗ the planner would review that to make

1:56:51 ↗ sure that it had diversity and it met

1:56:54 ↗ the planting

1:56:55 ↗ separation standards and the soil

1:56:57 ↗ standards in the landscape code

1:56:59 ↗ okay i think i think he clarified that

1:57:01 ↗ with the first question is again it's

1:57:03 ↗ not retroactive this is talking about

1:57:06 ↗ new applications or substantial uh

1:57:09 ↗ redevelopment of a lot and then finally

1:57:11 ↗ a little bit of a concern but it is a

1:57:13 ↗ question

1:57:15 ↗ page 8 of 25 mentions

1:57:18 ↗ allowing lawns to brown during the

1:57:19 ↗ summer and i know this is for water

1:57:21 ↗ conservation but my fear is

1:57:25 ↗ is there a concern with the city because

1:57:29 ↗ you know obviously letting lawns brown

1:57:31 ↗ we run the risk of allowing them to die

1:57:35 ↗ and then you're

1:57:36 ↗ basically ripping up lawns which i would

1:57:38 ↗ imagine is exactly what we don't want to

1:57:40 ↗ do

1:57:41 ↗ so i'm just i guess it's a concern but

1:57:46 ↗ i guess i really don't know how

1:57:48 ↗ i'm trying to state it as a question so

1:57:49 ↗ ron doesn't get mad at me um

1:57:53 ↗ but uh

1:57:55 ↗ so

1:57:56 ↗ the

1:57:57 ↗ the the logic behind that is just what

1:57:59 ↗ you said it's a water conservation

1:58:01 ↗ measure

1:58:02 ↗ uh lawns tend to do just fine if they go

1:58:05 ↗ brown during the summer and then they

1:58:07 ↗ get that

1:58:08 ↗ fall rain and they come back over the

1:58:10 ↗ winter um

1:58:12 ↗ i can speak from experience because my

1:58:14 ↗ lawn goes around every summer and it

1:58:16 ↗ always comes back but you know there is

1:58:18 ↗ a chance that

1:58:19 ↗ uh in certain circumstances a lawn

1:58:22 ↗ that's not watered could die um

1:58:25 ↗ and

1:58:26 ↗ you know i think

1:58:28 ↗ the city just decided that that they

1:58:30 ↗ would propose this this is a i believe

1:58:32 ↗ this is a new standard uh but it it

1:58:35 ↗ contributed to some of the

1:58:37 ↗ sustainability goals um and it was

1:58:39 ↗ something that other cities have have

1:58:41 ↗ done and it has been

1:58:43 ↗ um not unsuccessful i should say i don't

1:58:45 ↗ know how successful it's been but i'm

1:58:48 ↗ obviously i'm worried aesthetically what

1:58:49 ↗ that looks like and then you know not

1:58:51 ↗ everybody's a green thumb so some people

1:58:53 ↗ might take it to the extreme

1:58:55 ↗ so i'm done thank you

1:59:00 ↗ thank you commissioner voice uh so i

1:59:02 ↗ didn't mean to scare off everybody from

1:59:04 ↗ not asking a question

1:59:06 ↗ because of time uh being sensitive to

1:59:09 ↗ time

1:59:10 ↗ if you have a question please ask the

1:59:12 ↗ question because this is a time in which

1:59:14 ↗ it's really important to hear those

1:59:16 ↗ questions so

1:59:17 ↗ um

1:59:18 ↗ are there any more questions because so

1:59:20 ↗ far jason's the only person who's come

1:59:22 ↗ forward with that question and i want to

1:59:24 ↗ make sure all the commissioners have a

1:59:26 ↗ chance to have questions

1:59:30 ↗ get a second here

1:59:38 ↗ okay crickets

1:59:41 ↗ and we got a question from uh

1:59:43 ↗ commissioner danielle

1:59:44 ↗ so uh

1:59:47 ↗ where's yours

1:59:48 ↗ so my question is actually a follow-up

1:59:50 ↗ to the to the comment that was just made

1:59:52 ↗ and um as i was reading that lawn

1:59:55 ↗ browning section

1:59:57 ↗ i was wondering if if i was reading this

1:59:59 ↗ correctly that um

2:00:01 ↗ it means that

2:00:03 ↗ does this mean that um

2:00:05 ↗ new developments that install lawn do

2:00:08 ↗ not are not required to install

2:00:10 ↗ irrigation with that lawn is that the

2:00:14 ↗ am i reading that correctly

2:00:18 ↗ i'm not sure i would have to look into

2:00:20 ↗ that more closely i don't know if if

2:00:22 ↗ that

2:00:23 ↗ provision

2:00:25 ↗ it just exempts

2:00:25 ↗ not be turned on sorry

2:00:28 ↗ so i guess i read it that it would be

2:00:30 ↗ exempt from installing irrigation and i

2:00:33 ↗ understand that there are times um and

2:00:35 ↗ maybe it's maybe in the future it will

2:00:37 ↗ be all the time right that we need to be

2:00:40 ↗ conserving water in the summer and it

2:00:43 ↗ would not be appropriate to water lawns

2:00:45 ↗ but there um

2:00:47 ↗ are other times where it has been

2:00:50 ↗ where we haven't been in that position

2:00:52 ↗ and um i would prefer to

2:00:55 ↗ not give future developments just a

2:00:57 ↗ blank um

2:00:59 ↗ ability to not install irrigation on

2:01:01 ↗ grass and i would prefer to instead to

2:01:04 ↗ say that you know there are times when

2:01:05 ↗ it's okay to

2:01:08 ↗ you know if there is a water shortage or

2:01:09 ↗ other circumstances that

2:01:11 ↗ [Music]

2:01:12 ↗ that those lawns don't need to be

2:01:14 ↗ watered

2:01:19 ↗ especially with respect to common areas

2:01:21 ↗ and

2:01:23 ↗ you know community community

2:01:25 ↗ gathering spaces

2:01:27 ↗ in neighborhoods

2:01:29 ↗ thanks

2:01:31 ↗ and thank you

2:01:33 ↗ commissioner giftens i think

2:01:35 ↗ i agree with her on a point that may be

2:01:38 ↗ based on community impact so

2:01:41 ↗ uh we may want to change the code so

2:01:43 ↗ that if it is a

2:01:45 ↗ necessity for environmental community

2:01:48 ↗ space then maybe that would be irrigated

2:01:50 ↗ where if it's just a

2:01:53 ↗ an aesthetic purpose then maybe not

2:01:56 ↗ um okay so with that let's go ahead and

2:01:58 ↗ conclude it i'm gonna go ahead and open

2:01:59 ↗ up to public comment uh we do need to

2:02:02 ↗ make public comments uh rather short if

2:02:05 ↗ you do have additional or long questions

2:02:09 ↗ an email to the city staff would be

2:02:12 ↗ most appropriate

2:02:13 ↗ stephen let's go ahead and open up for

2:02:15 ↗ public comment

2:02:18 ↗ i see one raised hand um

2:02:20 ↗ connie i'm gonna mute you now and make

2:02:23 ↗ you a panelist

2:02:25 ↗ go ahead

2:02:27 ↗ so connie marsh again um the underlying

2:02:30 ↗ basis for this code was we gathered it

2:02:33 ↗ all together

2:02:34 ↗ and because our old landscape code was

2:02:37 ↗ working

2:02:38 ↗ our old landscape code was not working

2:02:41 ↗ and it was not usable for small

2:02:44 ↗ businesses and it didn't scale up well

2:02:47 ↗ for large businesses and it was a

2:02:49 ↗ disincentive for people who had existing

2:02:53 ↗ landscaping to maintain their

2:02:55 ↗ landscaping

2:02:56 ↗ so i think we need to ask the basic

2:02:59 ↗ question

2:03:00 ↗ was was that old landscape code good

2:03:04 ↗ and

2:03:05 ↗ why if it has issues we should fix those

2:03:09 ↗ issues that seems to be the biggest

2:03:13 ↗ problem that wasn't considered because i

2:03:15 ↗ i have people griping at me about their

2:03:17 ↗ landscape stuff

2:03:18 ↗ all the time

2:03:20 ↗ thank you

2:03:25 ↗ and careful i do not see any other

2:03:27 ↗ raised hands for public comment

2:03:29 ↗ okay with that we'll go ahead and close

2:03:31 ↗ officially close public comment at 8 35

2:03:35 ↗ and we'll open up for um

2:03:38 ↗ deliberations and so

2:03:41 ↗ chair brooke would you like to go ahead

2:03:42 ↗ and take over for deliberations

2:03:46 ↗ okay everyone park board environmental

2:03:49 ↗ board it's your last opportunity in the

2:03:51 ↗ evening to make a few comments about

2:03:54 ↗ landscaping

2:03:55 ↗ so

2:03:57 ↗ please uh drop down everyone and

2:04:01 ↗ make a comment or indicate that you want

2:04:03 ↗ to make a comment i'll call on you

2:04:13 ↗ so given the

2:04:15 ↗ [Music]

2:04:19 ↗ john mcgilliams you have a comment go

2:04:21 ↗ ahead dan

2:04:22 ↗ thank you brad don mclendon's

2:04:24 ↗ environmental board i'll make it quick

2:04:26 ↗ um you mentioned in your goals that you

2:04:28 ↗ want a nexus between landscaping and

2:04:30 ↗ storm water and i just want to encourage

2:04:32 ↗ you to look down that path so we know

2:04:34 ↗ today that

2:04:35 ↗ um 6ppd you may have heard of it or 6pbq

2:04:40 ↗ is what's killing some of our coho

2:04:41 ↗ salmon and it can be treated with

2:04:43 ↗ bioretention and or rain gardens for a

2:04:46 ↗ simpler term so i encourage you to

2:04:49 ↗ get with your utility folks and better

2:04:51 ↗ understanding how you can get the

2:04:53 ↗ landscaping code in line with what

2:04:55 ↗ you're doing with the stormwater

2:04:57 ↗ management

2:05:00 ↗ thank you for that don

2:05:02 ↗ next comment from the environmental

2:05:03 ↗ board again nancy davidson go ahead

2:05:05 ↗ nancy

2:05:06 ↗ thank you very much and i would

2:05:08 ↗ encourage you to i agree with dawn's

2:05:10 ↗ comment i was going to make that same

2:05:11 ↗ one in addition uh the code does require

2:05:14 ↗ that um a permanent efficient irrigation

2:05:17 ↗ system installed in all landscapes

2:05:19 ↗ except for single family lots

2:05:21 ↗ i'm not sure that's necessarily that our

2:05:24 ↗ existing single family lots i think

2:05:26 ↗ that's something we need to think long

2:05:28 ↗ and hard about if we really want

2:05:29 ↗ permanent efficient irrigation systems

2:05:31 ↗ on all of our properties

2:05:33 ↗ and i would also encourage us to really

2:05:35 ↗ think long and hard about what kind of

2:05:38 ↗ landscape areas we really want to have

2:05:41 ↗ in our existing developments i mean we

2:05:42 ↗ would like to retain some of what we

2:05:44 ↗ have and as the property redevelops

2:05:47 ↗ instead of having it tear out its

2:05:48 ↗ existing landscaping we want it to have

2:05:51 ↗ to retain what it can not just the trees

2:05:53 ↗ but some of the landscaping the shrubs

2:05:54 ↗ and other areas so we need to really be

2:05:57 ↗ thoughtful about that and i'm not really

2:05:58 ↗ seeing that in this chapter that's my

2:06:00 ↗ comment thank you

2:06:02 ↗ thank you for that nancy

2:06:04 ↗ uh hi anne got next comment from ann

2:06:08 ↗ newcomb from the environmental council

2:06:09 ↗ go ahead ann

2:06:11 ↗ hey thanks fred

2:06:12 ↗ uh man newcomb here

2:06:15 ↗ um i always like to promote organic

2:06:17 ↗ gardening practices

2:06:19 ↗ so if we

2:06:21 ↗ could include that that would be great

2:06:24 ↗ um

2:06:25 ↗ i think everybody knows here that it's

2:06:27 ↗ you know it's

2:06:28 ↗ it's not just good for the soils it's um

2:06:30 ↗ it's good for

2:06:32 ↗ carbon sequestration

2:06:35 ↗ and then since we're talking about

2:06:37 ↗ irrigation um just a reminder that we do

2:06:41 ↗ talk about um

2:06:43 ↗ gray water

2:06:45 ↗ uh

2:06:46 ↗ in the climate action plan so hopefully

2:06:48 ↗ there will be more of that happening

2:06:51 ↗ using

2:06:52 ↗ water that normally we

2:06:56 ↗ use in our sinks um

2:06:59 ↗ and having it go out and water our

2:07:02 ↗ plants thank you

2:07:05 ↗ thank you ann

2:07:07 ↗ not seeing any other comments from

2:07:10 ↗ either board so that concludes uh

2:07:14 ↗ discussion from both boards back to you

2:07:17 ↗ commissioner fall

2:07:19 ↗ excellent thank you very much chair book

2:07:21 ↗ so we're gonna go ahead and

2:07:24 ↗ that concludes our presentations for the

2:07:28 ↗ night

2:07:29 ↗ um

2:07:30 ↗ we normally have reports although

2:07:32 ↗ because this is a shared uh meeting

2:07:34 ↗ tonight uh the rest of the board members

2:07:37 ↗ can go ahead

2:07:38 ↗ and check off if they like the reports

2:07:42 ↗ are usually

2:07:43 ↗ based on ppc so

2:07:46 ↗ i will

2:07:47 ↗ have a good night everyone

2:07:49 ↗ if you're not on ppc

2:07:51 ↗ have a good night you're on ppc stay on

2:07:55 ↗ good night

2:07:56 ↗ and stephen let's go ahead and go into

2:07:57 ↗ reports are there any reports for

2:07:59 ↗ tonight

2:08:00 ↗ uh thank you trevor we can keep it uh

2:08:02 ↗ really quick um many do you do you have

2:08:05 ↗ anything you want to

2:08:07 ↗ uh you know um real real quick we did

2:08:09 ↗ have a council uh study session on the

2:08:12 ↗ first uh topic area of uh

2:08:16 ↗ national environment critical areas and

2:08:18 ↗ all that great work that all the boards

2:08:20 ↗ and commissions did um we

2:08:22 ↗ ran out of time with the last meeting

2:08:24 ↗ where you did the deliberations so we're

2:08:26 ↗ readjusting our schedule to come back to

2:08:28 ↗ you

2:08:29 ↗ and at that time we'll give you a longer

2:08:31 ↗ briefing of uh what the council said

2:08:33 ↗ and what we're going to you know

2:08:36 ↗ incorporate in the first draft so

2:08:38 ↗ just wanted to put that um

2:08:40 ↗ that we're shifting the whole schedule

2:08:42 ↗ to accommodate additional uh meeting uh

2:08:44 ↗ for that topic um and at that time we'll

2:08:47 ↗ brief you on council's uh discussion on

2:08:50 ↗ that topic

2:08:52 ↗ that's all i have

2:08:56 ↗ okay

2:08:57 ↗ and so stephen anything any additional

2:09:00 ↗ before we adjourn

2:09:02 ↗ nope uh the next meeting is april 14th

2:09:04 ↗ where ppc will deliberate and you'll

2:09:06 ↗ receive all comments that have been

2:09:09 ↗ received as part of the project for

2:09:11 ↗ deliberations on april 14th okay good

2:09:14 ↗ job steven real quick reminder

2:09:17 ↗ so the way the public comments are set

2:09:19 ↗ up i think there was maybe some

2:09:21 ↗ confusion so in your packet for today we

2:09:24 ↗ incorporated all the comments that we've

2:09:26 ↗ received that informed the writing of

2:09:28 ↗ the draft so we provided a more complete

2:09:31 ↗ response to them as the public hearing

2:09:34 ↗ it folds up you know we get comments

2:09:36 ↗ towards the end we were getting comments

2:09:39 ↗ today and

2:09:40 ↗ at the public hearing so we're going to

2:09:42 ↗ consolidate all of those public comments

2:09:45 ↗ and include them at your deliberation

2:09:47 ↗ time frame

2:09:48 ↗ and then also for members of the public

2:09:50 ↗ if your list if you're you know just so

2:09:52 ↗ that we we're clear on if you have

2:09:55 ↗ comments that you want to send to

2:09:57 ↗ planning and policy commission i think

2:09:59 ↗ most of you do that you send them

2:10:00 ↗ directly via email

2:10:02 ↗ um

2:10:03 ↗ and those are the comments that we are

2:10:04 ↗ going to incorporate in the table if you

2:10:06 ↗ have clarifying questions we're happy to

2:10:09 ↗ address it uh you know feel free to

2:10:10 ↗ reach out to staff me um but it gets a

2:10:14 ↗ little

2:10:15 ↗ uh harder to track

2:10:17 ↗ the questions from the official comments

2:10:19 ↗ that come to planning and policy

2:10:20 ↗ commission but we're doing our best we

2:10:22 ↗ want to hear anything and everything

2:10:24 ↗ that anyone has to say

2:10:26 ↗ so keep those coming and thank you for

2:10:28 ↗ all your time

2:10:31 ↗ thank you minnie uh just a reminder i'm

2:10:33 ↗ not gonna be here on the 14th so jason

2:10:37 ↗ will be chairing the meeting i've

2:10:39 ↗ already sent an email to uh staff to let

2:10:41 ↗ them know but i just want to bring it up

2:10:42 ↗ here

2:10:44 ↗ i do want to bring up the amount of

2:10:46 ↗ content make it public here so it's on

2:10:48 ↗ record

2:10:49 ↗ it's a little too much content we had to

2:10:51 ↗ speed through

2:10:53 ↗ i

2:10:54 ↗ the three topics were a bit much we did

2:10:57 ↗ get through but

2:10:59 ↗ uh it was very rushed and i know

2:11:01 ↗ comments are really important and i want

2:11:03 ↗ the commissioners to be able to have an

2:11:05 ↗ ample time to be able to

2:11:06 ↗ say what they need to say without

2:11:08 ↗ feeling like they're they're being

2:11:10 ↗ rushed or the public being rushed so

2:11:13 ↗ my ask is that the city

2:11:18 ↗ work on reducing the amount of content

2:11:20 ↗ that's presented during the meeting so

2:11:22 ↗ that we can stay focused on

2:11:26 ↗ the important topics that need to be

2:11:29 ↗ discussed

2:11:30 ↗ but

2:11:31 ↗ i think it's too much

2:11:33 ↗ [Music]

2:11:34 ↗ so with that said i'm going to let it go

2:11:36 ↗ meeting is 8 43 we're going to adjourn

2:11:39 ↗ so

2:11:41 ↗ um

2:11:42 ↗ oh hang on a second it looks like a

2:11:44 ↗ nine ahead

2:11:46 ↗ question here you know knight

2:11:48 ↗ go ahead

2:11:53 ↗ never mind it's just a meeting question

2:11:55 ↗ i'll ask steven later okay very good all

2:11:58 ↗ right so we're going to go ahead and

2:11:59 ↗ adjourn at 8 43. have a good night

2:12:01 ↗ everybody

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.