Planning Policy Commission - 26 Aug 2021 · Thursday, August 26, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION Staff Liaison Christen Leeson, Senior About Planner Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Email policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah's future Regular Members growth through continued review and 2022 – Joy Lewis improvement to the City's Comprehensive Land 2022 – Matt Monahan Use Plan and related land use documents. 2022 – Jason Voiss 2022 – Vacant Membership 2023 – Nina Milligan The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2024 – Ron Faul seven regular members, with four-year terms; 2024 – Sara Bader and several alternates, with two-year terms. All members are appointed by the Mayor and Alternate Members subject to confirmation by the City Council. 2022 - Richard Zaragoza Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2023 - Vacant more information, see IMC 18.03 and Rules & Regulations. Meetings Unless…

3. REGULAR BUSINESS

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

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

Topics: Land UseClimate

▶ Watch from 4:36 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

This is a continuation of

4. REPORTS

Council Updates

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

Open packet at p.45 ↗

Staff report:

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

Title 18 Code Update: Public Comments

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development

Topics: Land Use

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.61–65

▶ Watch from 2:40:16 Open packet at p.61 ↗

Staff report:

2/11/21 2/25/21

4202 segments .txt ↗

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

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

0:05 ↗ welcome due to the virtual format of

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

0:09 ↗ providing some guidelines

0:11 ↗ we have participants attending by

0:12 ↗ computer and others who may be attending

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

0:16 ↗ please speak clearly and pause

0:18 ↗ frequently

0:19 ↗ state your name each time before

0:21 ↗ speaking mute your microphone when not

0:23 ↗ speaking

0:24 ↗ if having technical issues try joining

0:27 ↗ the meeting using different device such

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

0:31 ↗ call-in information in the meeting

0:33 ↗ invite to call into the meeting

0:36 ↗ for the overview tonight is a joint

0:38 ↗ meeting with the policy and planning

0:39 ↗ commission and the environmental board

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

0:46 ↗ attendance kristen will you please go

0:48 ↗ ahead and start with attendance of

0:50 ↗ policy and planning commission

0:51 ↗ yes commissioner milligan

0:54 ↗ here

0:55 ↗ mr bader

1:01 ↗ i see you

1:02 ↗ um

1:05 ↗ you are you're muted

1:08 ↗ mr bader yeah hold on

1:11 ↗ you know we heard you thank you

1:13 ↗ hey um commissioner voice

1:19 ↗ here

1:20 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

1:22 ↗ dear

1:24 ↗ chairfall here

1:27 ↗ uh commissioners lewis and monahan have

1:29 ↗ excused absences commissioner zaragoza

1:31 ↗ will serve as a regular member

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

1:35 ↗ of your names right i apologize

1:37 ↗ uh mr

1:38 ↗ davidson here

1:40 ↗ mr finch

1:42 ↗ here

1:44 ↗ fisher

1:45 ↗ yeah

1:46 ↗ commissioner hints

1:50 ↗ he had a last-minute uh

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

1:54 ↗ wasps

1:56 ↗ al

1:56 ↗ thank you i'm sorry for him

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

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

2:05 ↗ commissioner

2:10 ↗ okay uh commissioner madden

2:17 ↗ mr mcwilliams

2:19 ↗ here

2:20 ↗ mr newcomb

2:25 ↗ commissioner anderson

2:30 ↗ uh commissioner

2:33 ↗ bola pragata

2:38 ↗ thank you mr wall

2:45 ↗ mr wall

2:52 ↗ i'm not a commissioner

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

2:57 ↗ well

2:59 ↗ are you a board member

3:01 ↗ yes

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

3:04 ↗ called board members and i was doing

3:05 ↗ commissioner i'm sorry um

3:07 ↗ and then

3:09 ↗ board member harza has an excused

3:11 ↗ absence so board member wall will serve

3:13 ↗ as a regular member tonight

3:18 ↗ okay thank you kristen

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

3:22 ↗ three different public

3:24 ↗ uh three different opportunities for the

3:26 ↗ public comment

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

3:29 ↗ comment now

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

3:34 ↗ individual topics we will be discussing

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

3:40 ↗ right

3:41 ↗ when we conclude our meeting tonight

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

3:46 ↗ comment so if you have public comment

3:48 ↗ that you wanted to talk specifically

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

3:52 ↗ addressing tonight please reserve that

3:54 ↗ time

3:55 ↗ um

3:56 ↗ and speak then

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

3:59 ↗ for our public comment tonight

4:01 ↗ do we have anybody from the general

4:03 ↗ public would like to speak

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

4:11 ↗ speak now please raise your virtual hand

4:14 ↗ and if you are

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

4:17 ↗ difficult to find sometimes please just

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

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

4:32 ↗ speak right now

4:34 ↗ okay thank you very much uh kristen

4:36 ↗ so for regular business environmental

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

4:40 ↗ land use updates tonight mini dollywood

4:43 ↗ will

4:43 ↗ our community planning and development

4:45 ↗ director

4:46 ↗ and katie coat of bhc consultants will

4:49 ↗ lead our discussion about four specific

4:52 ↗ areas

4:53 ↗ aquatic critical areas geohazard

4:55 ↗ critical areas outdoor lighting and

4:58 ↗ climate change and sustainability

5:00 ↗ climate change and sustainability are is

5:02 ↗ one topic

5:04 ↗ so i'm going to go ahead and

5:07 ↗ hand it over to

5:09 ↗ mini for the rest of the presentation

5:14 ↗ thank you chair fall good evening

5:16 ↗ everyone and members of the community

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

5:21 ↗ to continue the conversation that we

5:23 ↗ started on july 22nd

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

5:28 ↗ what our proposed approaches we asked

5:30 ↗ you some specific questions to

5:34 ↗ give us some policy guidance

5:36 ↗ while they were very specific on certain

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

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

5:43 ↗ the time uh to

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

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

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

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

5:55 ↗ want to share yeah

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

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

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

6:04 ↗ last meeting so really the purpose of

6:07 ↗ this meeting is to

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

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

6:14 ↗ through last time

6:16 ↗ and in order to

6:18 ↗ facilitate and to

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

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

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

6:29 ↗ with the aquatic critical areas uh we

6:31 ↗ want to

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

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

6:36 ↗ conversation started on that topic for

6:39 ↗ all of you

6:41 ↗ next slide

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

6:48 ↗ good feedback from you i think in

6:50 ↗ general everyone's supportive of using

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

6:54 ↗ want us to fix the stream definition

6:56 ↗ increase the buffers for streams uh

6:59 ↗ figure out a solution for ditch versus

7:01 ↗ stream debates

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

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

7:08 ↗ given you some additional information in

7:10 ↗ in your packets tonight in terms of

7:13 ↗ buffer

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

7:17 ↗ have some discussion about that topic we

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

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

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

7:27 ↗ most part the information is accurate

7:29 ↗ that we know of

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

7:33 ↗ allow some buffer reduction for smaller

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

7:38 ↗ so

7:40 ↗ we also have some maps

7:42 ↗ in

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

7:45 ↗ couple minutes to kind of explain those

7:47 ↗ um

7:49 ↗ next slide

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

7:55 ↗ think the planning and policy commission

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

7:59 ↗ environmental board uh you may be

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

8:04 ↗ on newport

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

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

8:10 ↗ some of the commissioners stood on the

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

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

8:18 ↗ deliberately within the wetlands so you

8:20 ↗ can kind of conceptualize and visualize

8:22 ↗ what this area looks like

8:24 ↗ so under our existing code the the

8:27 ↗ dashed line is where the existing

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

8:32 ↗ category 2 wetland here

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

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

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

8:44 ↗ was approved for this property which our

8:46 ↗ code allowed a 25 reduction i know

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

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

8:53 ↗ the entire length of this which is

8:56 ↗ um

8:57 ↗ some comments you may have received from

8:59 ↗ a community member on that topic

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

9:03 ↗ discussion today is whether we should we

9:06 ↗ should look at buffer reductions or

9:08 ↗ completely uh look at the buffer

9:10 ↗ averaging aspect

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

9:15 ↗ guidance you see the first shaded brown

9:18 ↗ uh portion if we went with just

9:20 ↗ establishing uh the standard new ecology

9:24 ↗ guidance that would be a hundred foot

9:25 ↗ buffer here

9:27 ↗ the option two and three

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

9:33 ↗ you would have to do certain impact

9:35 ↗ minimization measures you would also

9:38 ↗ have to

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

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

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

9:46 ↗ our current buffers are where the 75

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

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

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

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

9:58 ↗ graphically we were able to explain this

10:01 ↗ next slide

10:06 ↗ uh

10:07 ↗ so

10:08 ↗ so overarching um question that we

10:11 ↗ really are looking for is

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

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

10:17 ↗ really good feedback from you and from

10:19 ↗ the community members through the

10:20 ↗ surveys through the testimony through

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

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

10:27 ↗ start creating the first draft

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

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

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

10:38 ↗ chart that the council had established

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

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

10:45 ↗ really looking for you to

10:47 ↗ to give us uh some direction on

10:51 ↗ and next slide

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

10:57 ↗ presenting uh the slide um kristen so

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

11:03 ↗ included the wetlands the streams

11:06 ↗ the the aquifer recharge

11:09 ↗ and the fish and wildlife habitat

11:13 ↗ areas

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

11:17 ↗ questions um

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

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

11:24 ↗ taking any feedback that you may have

11:26 ↗ that we

11:27 ↗ haven't uh synthesized

11:28 ↗ at this time so buffer averaging versus

11:31 ↗ buffer reduction one or the other or

11:34 ↗ both

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

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

11:43 ↗ under the guide guidance from ecology so

11:46 ↗ just establish the hundred foot buffer

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

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

11:53 ↗ minimization measures which means no

11:56 ↗ toxic flow into there and you know

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

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

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

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

12:08 ↗ things in terms of policy discussion

12:11 ↗ uh but then the the the bigger

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

12:15 ↗ the right track to meeting the golden

12:16 ↗ outcomes

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

12:20 ↗ fall excellent and many can you please

12:22 ↗ define uh buffer reduction in buffer

12:25 ↗ minimization

12:27 ↗ or buffer aubergine so for our

12:29 ↗ commissioners tonight sure so buffer

12:31 ↗ reduction is

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

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

12:41 ↗ reduction is allowed it can there you

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

12:47 ↗ that you received talked about a linear

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

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

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

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

12:57 ↗ pursue the buffer reduction and then

12:59 ↗ buffer averaging on the other hand

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

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

13:07 ↗ other area so the overall area remains

13:10 ↗ the same but it allows some flexibility

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

13:16 ↗ reduce the

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

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

13:21 ↗ area on your property

13:25 ↗ excellent thank you minnie all right so

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

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

13:30 ↗ question first from nancy davidson

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

13:36 ↗ davidson chair of the environmental

13:37 ↗ board minnie just a quick question

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

13:41 ↗ either is

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

13:45 ↗ reduction or an option for buffer

13:47 ↗ averaging so basically what the wetlands

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

13:52 ↗ in the future

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

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

13:58 ↗ so different that we want to deviate

14:01 ↗ from uh ecology's guidance

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

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

14:10 ↗ have our technical experts herrera greta

14:14 ↗ presley from herrera is here

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

14:19 ↗ want to weigh in on that greta

14:21 ↗ sure can you hear me

14:22 ↗ yes

14:24 ↗ um

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

14:27 ↗ ecology's

14:29 ↗ guidance

14:30 ↗ one of the first alternatives that they

14:33 ↗ offer is

14:34 ↗ just a straight up

14:36 ↗ uh

14:37 ↗ 100 foot buffer for category three

14:40 ↗ uh

14:41 ↗ 150 foot buffer category 3 wetlands or

14:43 ↗ 200 for category 2 wetlands

14:46 ↗ but then they allow for

14:49 ↗ some leniency so that you can

14:54 ↗ negotiate with projects builders that

14:56 ↗ sort of thing um through the buffer

14:59 ↗ averaging or the other scenarios

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

15:04 ↗ another question along the way so

15:07 ↗ let's say

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

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

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

15:15 ↗ you really needed to improve the

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

15:18 ↗ blackberries in it or something like

15:20 ↗ that

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

15:23 ↗ allowing those two options that you

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

15:26 ↗ the wetland there is some leniency in

15:28 ↗ that just

15:30 ↗ trying to think through some options

15:31 ↗ here

15:33 ↗ uh

15:33 ↗ question to your question are you saying

15:35 ↗ in the wetland itself or the wetland

15:37 ↗ buffer

15:38 ↗ the wetland buffer or the wetland itself

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

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

15:44 ↗ outside the box

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

15:48 ↗ could work that

15:50 ↗ thank you

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

15:57 ↗ commissioner

15:59 ↗ finch

16:00 ↗ got the floor

16:02 ↗ thanks jeff all right

16:03 ↗ uh vice chair speaking um

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

16:08 ↗ possible to present i know in past

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

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

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

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

16:20 ↗ could pull up during the discussion or

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

16:24 ↗ make sure that i'm not

16:26 ↗ calling option one option two etc um

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

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

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

16:38 ↗ some of these topics

16:39 ↗ would it be possible

16:41 ↗ i'm just not totally clear on

16:44 ↗ the people that were making those

16:45 ↗ comments so is there is could someone

16:47 ↗ provide

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

16:51 ↗ comments on this topic within those

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

16:54 ↗ making that comment

16:56 ↗ i just wasn't clear on that

16:58 ↗ uh are you discussing the survey

17:00 ↗ responses

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

17:04 ↗ environmental board did but the ones

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

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

17:11 ↗ and

17:12 ↗ someone else

17:13 ↗ and i don't know

17:15 ↗ who those people were

17:17 ↗ um

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

17:21 ↗ commentary on oh yes uh so those

17:24 ↗ comments were received uh from uh

17:26 ↗ members of the public

17:28 ↗ um

17:29 ↗ not from the board members is that

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

17:33 ↗ uh discuss those

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

17:37 ↗ things that the city had like requested

17:39 ↗ a response from an expert or something

17:41 ↗ to provide comments so those were just

17:43 ↗ comments from those were comments from

17:44 ↗ the public correct

17:46 ↗ okay thank you

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

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

17:51 ↗ um

17:53 ↗ yeah the

17:54 ↗ cleaning policy commission we we

17:56 ↗ continue to get title 18 comments from

17:58 ↗ the public sometimes they go to planning

18:00 ↗ policy commissions sometimes they don't

18:02 ↗ so the planning policy commission has

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

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

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

18:09 ↗ and that's what that is

18:11 ↗ thanks just want to make sure that

18:12 ↗ wasn't something different thank you

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

18:20 ↗ vice chairfidge

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

18:25 ↗ question goes to i believe katie

18:28 ↗ you said that king county has

18:31 ↗ a buffer reduction zone of 200 feet

18:34 ↗ or 150 feet

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

18:39 ↗ those buffer reduction zones are and how

18:41 ↗ those zones might be different than ours

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

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

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

18:52 ↗ minnie or greta since that those memos

18:55 ↗ were their

18:57 ↗ work product um

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

19:03 ↗ speak to that

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

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

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

19:15 ↗ department of ecology's recommended

19:17 ↗ guidance

19:18 ↗ for the buffers and they range

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

19:24 ↗ to y depending on the habitat score

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

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

19:32 ↗ granular way of of categorizing them

19:37 ↗ um i think that was uh

19:40 ↗ which methodology we want to use for

19:41 ↗ that

19:42 ↗ uh but perhaps if you repeat your

19:44 ↗ question maybe greta can uh better

19:46 ↗ answer it sure uh so granted

19:49 ↗ based on

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

19:52 ↗ misspoke i said king county

19:55 ↗ based on the

19:56 ↗ criteria set forth by the department of

19:58 ↗ ecology

19:59 ↗ on buffer

20:01 ↗ buffer zones

20:03 ↗ why is there such a difference between

20:07 ↗ what the city of issaquah has starting

20:09 ↗ at a minimum of 100 feet

20:11 ↗ versus what the department of ecology is

20:13 ↗ recommending

20:14 ↗ if those are

20:16 ↗ higher than 100 feet

20:20 ↗ um

20:21 ↗ i think

20:23 ↗ the discrepancy is from

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

20:28 ↗ minimum

20:29 ↗ buffer width

20:31 ↗ in their code right

20:32 ↗ now um

20:34 ↗ so you'd first have to

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

20:40 ↗ width

20:41 ↗ and then

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

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

20:47 ↗ identified

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

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

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

20:56 ↗ identify that our

20:57 ↗ buffer wits are not meeting the

20:59 ↗ recommended guidance from ecology

21:02 ↗ okay

21:03 ↗ so in our

21:05 ↗ verbiage

21:06 ↗ um

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

21:10 ↗ aquatic areas which option is preferred

21:12 ↗ option 100 foot buffer option 275 with

21:16 ↗ doe performance standards or option 3

21:19 ↗ 75 buffer with doe performance standards

21:22 ↗ and buffer enhancements

21:24 ↗ all three of those options are already

21:27 ↗ in deficit of

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

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

21:34 ↗ not

21:36 ↗ adopting the department of ecology's

21:38 ↗ buffer

21:40 ↗ standards

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

21:44 ↗ step back and explain so

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

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

21:50 ↗ we showed you

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

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

21:57 ↗ is 75 feet

22:00 ↗ so

22:00 ↗ under the new ecology guidance if you

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

22:05 ↗ would be 100 feet

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

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

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

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

22:20 ↗ new ecology guidance

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

22:25 ↗ wetland yeah for one particular type of

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

22:29 ↗ multiple types of wetlands so

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

22:35 ↗ here option one option two option three

22:37 ↗ is an example of

22:39 ↗ what we would do if we had a

22:42 ↗ uh a criteria that was

22:44 ↗ a hundred foot buffer

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

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

22:52 ↗ isequa

22:56 ↗ yes potentially yes there could be for

22:59 ↗ the higher quality wetlands yes those

23:01 ↗ those buffalos would apply

23:03 ↗ uh

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

23:05 ↗ buffer you know uh wetlands are are

23:08 ↗ impacted already because of development

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

23:13 ↗ what the existing

23:14 ↗ condition of that wetland is what its

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

23:18 ↗ determine what the buffers would be

23:20 ↗ under ecology and it could vary

23:22 ↗ depending on the type of a wetland

23:25 ↗ okay

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

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

23:31 ↗ go ahead and switch over to

23:35 ↗ jared davidson

23:38 ↗ hi this is nancy davidson again um

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

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

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

23:47 ↗ say the minimum standard is a hundred

23:50 ↗ foot buffer with performance standards

23:52 ↗ but if you want buffer averaging the

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

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

23:58 ↗ basically we have a threshold that says

24:00 ↗ this is what we're doing with

24:01 ↗ performance standards but they have to

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

24:06 ↗ or if they get

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

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

24:12 ↗ enhance the wetland or off-site

24:14 ↗ mitigation

24:16 ↗ to basically achieve

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

24:20 ↗ not taking they were obtaining the same

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

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

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

24:30 ↗ absolutely right

24:31 ↗ the criteria for buffer averaging

24:34 ↗ can include a required enhancement i

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

24:40 ↗ buffer reduction or buffer averaging you

24:42 ↗ would

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

24:45 ↗ qualify for buffer averaging only if you

24:47 ↗ enhance the what the buffer

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

24:53 ↗ reach out further based on your previous

24:55 ↗ question which is enhance the actual

24:57 ↗ wetland uh then that can trigger

25:00 ↗ more permit requirements for applicants

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

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

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

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

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

25:14 ↗ it may be uh

25:15 ↗ a good um you know

25:17 ↗ idea but will will it have unintended

25:20 ↗ consequence that nobody would request it

25:21 ↗ because it becomes too onerous at that

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

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

25:28 ↗ enhancement or ask for buffer averaging

25:31 ↗ so you just have to weigh those

25:34 ↗ into your policy

25:42 ↗ i think a simple

25:45 ↗ the three options that ecology um gives

25:49 ↗ you for

25:50 ↗ buffer width i think using

25:52 ↗ the simplest one which is option one

25:54 ↗ which is the most

25:56 ↗ restrictive so the

25:58 ↗ has the most the widest buffers

26:00 ↗ um

26:01 ↗ and then allowing buffer averaging

26:04 ↗ on top of that

26:06 ↗ is the safest bet

26:07 ↗ for

26:08 ↗ simplicity um

26:11 ↗ because once you get into the third

26:13 ↗ option which allows for more flexibility

26:15 ↗ for development

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

26:20 ↗ buffers

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

26:23 ↗ of that

26:24 ↗ then it sort of

26:26 ↗ reduces it even more

26:33 ↗ thank you

26:36 ↗ all right and thank you commissioner

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

26:39 ↗ to commissioner bader

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

26:43 ↗ question might have been answered um

26:46 ↗ just then but i was curious if

26:49 ↗ um

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

26:51 ↗ i think board member davidson before

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

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

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

26:59 ↗ curious if

27:01 ↗ with a 75 foot buffer and

27:05 ↗ complying with the standards and buffer

27:06 ↗ enhancements if there's actually an

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

27:09 ↗ wetland um if the original like hundred

27:12 ↗ foot buffer wasn't

27:13 ↗ that great quality in the first place

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

27:21 ↗ theory behind um

27:24 ↗ averaging enhancement um because you

27:26 ↗ could have a hundred foot of lawn

27:28 ↗ surrounding a wetland

27:30 ↗ and

27:31 ↗ it

27:32 ↗ has some

27:34 ↗ uh buffering qualities but not as much

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

27:38 ↗ forest

27:39 ↗ but there's also the

27:41 ↗ temporal

27:42 ↗ loss or temporal issues associated with

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

27:48 ↗ but yeah essentially

27:50 ↗ thanks

27:53 ↗ all right thank you commissioner boehner

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

27:57 ↗ the port

28:00 ↗ thank you chair fall jamie finch

28:02 ↗ speaking um

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

28:05 ↗ doe performance standards what that term

28:08 ↗ means

28:14 ↗ uh performance standards for what

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

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

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

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

28:25 ↗ performance standards

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

28:30 ↗ standards credit that

28:31 ↗ is in the guidance i think

28:34 ↗ that if you

28:35 ↗ uh

28:36 ↗ you know

28:37 ↗ have stuff that's not as um

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

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

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

28:47 ↗ um impact minimization standards are

28:51 ↗ so for instance you're not

28:53 ↗ having toxic flow run into the wetland

28:56 ↗ you're putting less noise

28:58 ↗ um

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

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

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

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

29:09 ↗ kind of uh stormwater

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

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

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

29:16 ↗ would otherwise be allowed on your

29:18 ↗ problem

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

29:22 ↗ other question so

29:24 ↗ and

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

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

29:28 ↗ like habitat scores different types of

29:31 ↗ wetlands

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

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

29:37 ↗ type here

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

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

29:43 ↗ answering this question apply across the

29:45 ↗ rest of that matrix

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

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

29:52 ↗ example where you can

29:53 ↗ you know

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

29:58 ↗ logic the option one two three logic

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

30:02 ↗ widths would change

30:05 ↗ depending on the quality and the

30:06 ↗ category of the wetland

30:08 ↗ and do we have like

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

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

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

30:17 ↗ need to answer with just this

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

30:22 ↗ guidance if if

30:24 ↗ you

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

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

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

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

30:35 ↗ categories of the wetlands and we would

30:37 ↗ establish the buffer widths based on the

30:39 ↗ category so yes the code itself will

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

30:45 ↗ policy level

30:47 ↗ which one which way should we

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

30:51 ↗ tonight

30:53 ↗ and if anyone

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

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

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

31:02 ↗ context

31:06 ↗ all right perfect uh

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

31:11 ↗ excellent yes thank you

31:13 ↗ uh

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

31:17 ↗ confused because we were just talking

31:19 ↗ about option two option three and option

31:21 ↗ two i heard someone mentioned that

31:24 ↗ there would be

31:25 ↗ buffer enhancements

31:27 ↗ and then buffer option three is

31:30 ↗ buffer doa or doe

31:33 ↗ with buffer enhancement so

31:35 ↗ are we talking about

31:37 ↗ option two has

31:40 ↗ performance standards or option two has

31:43 ↗ buffer enhancements only only above

31:47 ↗ performance standards which is your you

31:50 ↗ impact minimizations you know you're

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

31:54 ↗ not really enhancing and planting the

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

32:00 ↗ minimizing the impact based on what

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

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

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

32:10 ↗ commissioner bader

32:12 ↗ had um

32:14 ↗ asked

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

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

32:21 ↗ when you opposed the question you were

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

32:25 ↗ put in buffer enhancements because we

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

32:30 ↗ quality

32:32 ↗ referring to option two

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

32:36 ↗ enhancement so we're

32:39 ↗ maybe you were thinking

32:41 ↗ option four would be

32:44 ↗ 75-foot buffer with buffer enhancements

32:46 ↗ not looking at performance standards

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

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

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

32:58 ↗ want to require enhancements um so it

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

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

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

33:06 ↗ the 75 foot fair with the performance

33:08 ↗ standards and buffer enhancements if i

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

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

33:14 ↗ option three

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

33:17 ↗ option two sound better than option

33:18 ↗ three

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

33:36 ↗ and what i heard commissioner davidson

33:38 ↗ say is could we even require

33:41 ↗ buffer enhancements with uh option one

33:44 ↗ so she created another option to just

33:47 ↗ say

33:48 ↗ the the standard if i understood you

33:50 ↗ correctly commissioner davidson that

33:52 ↗ that you would just require a buffer

33:54 ↗ enhancement

33:55 ↗ with without that that was my comment

33:57 ↗ yes

33:58 ↗ okay

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

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

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

34:06 ↗ couple more questions

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

34:10 ↗ minute um next actually commissioner

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

34:13 ↗ to host privately accidentally

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

34:19 ↗ we've got a question from

34:21 ↗ um

34:25 ↗ our

34:27 ↗ board member wall

34:36 ↗ uh board member wall gear on you

34:42 ↗ down at wall

34:44 ↗ yes

34:45 ↗ go ahead you have the floor

34:46 ↗ yes and um

34:49 ↗ my

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

34:53 ↗ that uh in the past

34:56 ↗ uh i have

34:58 ↗ always opposed the uh

35:01 ↗ getting a buffer reduction for

35:03 ↗ enhancement

35:04 ↗ because buffer reduction is permanent

35:08 ↗ and uh

35:09 ↗ unless you have continuing

35:11 ↗ mine uh monitoring

35:14 ↗ the um

35:15 ↗ enhanced

35:17 ↗ enhancement could uh could be just

35:19 ↗ temporary

35:20 ↗ and the wetland could

35:23 ↗ uh return to uh

35:26 ↗ uh being infested with invasive species

35:37 ↗ so i guess i would recommend

35:41 ↗ either if you can do it

35:43 ↗ a

35:44 ↗ 100

35:45 ↗ 100 foot buffer

35:48 ↗ and require

35:49 ↗ enhancement

35:52 ↗ uh and

35:53 ↗ at the very

35:55 ↗ most i would

35:57 ↗ prefer

36:00 ↗ buffer averaging

36:04 ↗ rather than a

36:06 ↗ overall

36:07 ↗ reduction of the buffer

36:15 ↗ okay uh excellent uh

36:18 ↗ are you looking for feedback from anyone

36:20 ↗ on that comment

36:24 ↗ uh

36:25 ↗ not necessarily

36:27 ↗ okay

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

36:31 ↗ board member finch

36:35 ↗ i think uh board member mick williams

36:38 ↗ had a question before me

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

36:43 ↗ williams

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

36:48 ↗ um so

36:49 ↗ a few minutes ago you mentioned that

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

36:53 ↗ could be long is that correct

36:58 ↗ um the existing condition could be

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

37:04 ↗ at

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

37:08 ↗ foot buffer with performance standards

37:10 ↗ and enhancements would that be long or

37:12 ↗ would that be required to be native

37:14 ↗ species

37:15 ↗ uh

37:16 ↗ you would you would apply

37:18 ↗ performance standards to that

37:20 ↗ requirement

37:22 ↗ which would probably be

37:24 ↗ uh native species native trees and

37:26 ↗ shrubs

37:28 ↗ thank you

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

37:34 ↗ a question thank you very much uh

37:36 ↗ mcwilliam

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

37:40 ↗ the floor

37:41 ↗ thank you chairfall jamie finch speaking

37:43 ↗ um

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

37:46 ↗ were asked to consider were around

37:48 ↗ buffer averaging and buffer reductions

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

37:53 ↗ of these options whether they include

37:54 ↗ those or do not include those

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

37:59 ↗ options have

38:01 ↗ either of those provisions or ideas

38:03 ↗ incorporated

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

38:06 ↗ separate questions so this one was

38:08 ↗ really asking you what buffer woods to

38:11 ↗ establish

38:12 ↗ the second question would be

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

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

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

38:23 ↗ cho all chose

38:25 ↗ by consensus option three to say

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

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

38:33 ↗ buffer enhanced for that 75 feet

38:36 ↗ then buffer averaging would then allow

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

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

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

38:48 ↗ feet so overall your average

38:50 ↗ works out to be the same area

38:53 ↗ so

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

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

39:00 ↗ consider so first you have to establish

39:02 ↗ what buffer widths you want to establish

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

39:07 ↗ whether you want to allow buffer

39:08 ↗ reduction

39:10 ↗ or buffer

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

39:15 ↗ buffer widths we are proposing

39:18 ↗ um

39:19 ↗ what buffer widths to establish

39:21 ↗ and i can see how it

39:23 ↗ you know the buffer enhancement is

39:25 ↗ already required

39:27 ↗ under option three

39:29 ↗ but if you

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

39:33 ↗ consider what additional enhancements

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

39:38 ↗ would justify the buffer averaging

39:43 ↗ another question there's another

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

39:48 ↗ discussing relative to averaging and

39:50 ↗ reductions is that correct correct yeah

39:52 ↗ okay um

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

39:57 ↗ chicken in the egg situation here

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

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

40:04 ↗ smiling so i think

40:05 ↗ but yeah

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

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

40:11 ↗ like circling back to trying to figure

40:13 ↗ out how to incorporate all of those

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

40:17 ↗ little bit challenging to try to

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

40:21 ↗ understand that it's

40:24 ↗ a little hard to

40:25 ↗ know but uh

40:27 ↗ it is tough having those separations you

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

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

40:34 ↗ just discuss both of those topics

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

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

40:42 ↗ you know or that's it no but

40:45 ↗ so so yeah i think

40:47 ↗ it can there can be multiple options

40:49 ↗ created out of this framework but this

40:51 ↗ is the guidance the three options from

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

40:54 ↗ in front of you okay

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

40:58 ↗ preferred option on this

41:01 ↗ this question

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

41:07 ↗ technical expert greta to say but i

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

41:11 ↗ for

41:12 ↗ giving you the information so

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

41:17 ↗ a choice that that will inform what

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

41:21 ↗ obviously there are pros and cons like

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

41:25 ↗ conclusion that option two really is is

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

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

41:32 ↗ for a small impact minimization

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

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

41:41 ↗ um

41:42 ↗ do

41:42 ↗ enhancements or mitigation they they

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

41:48 ↗ to do the monitoring like

41:50 ↗ a board member wall was talking about

41:52 ↗ that with monitoring comes some

41:54 ↗ accountability and responsibility the

41:56 ↗ code will then require at least five

41:58 ↗ year monitoring every year you need to

42:00 ↗ give us a monitoring report there are

42:02 ↗ some criteria established for what's

42:04 ↗ successful what's not successful so

42:06 ↗ there's more

42:07 ↗ uh long-term commitment needed

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

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

42:13 ↗ easier to implement an administer um but

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

42:20 ↗ uh commissioner

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

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

42:26 ↗ for the environment

42:27 ↗ so

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

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

42:32 ↗ not a good

42:33 ↗ option for uh improving the habitat if

42:36 ↗ it is degraded already um

42:39 ↗ so but with option

42:41 ↗ three

42:42 ↗ you

42:43 ↗ get the enhancements uh you still get

42:46 ↗ larger buffers than what you have today

42:48 ↗ so

42:49 ↗ you know

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

42:52 ↗ one and three

42:57 ↗ thanks mate greta do you have anything

42:58 ↗ to add to that

43:01 ↗ um

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

43:04 ↗ opinions with my

43:06 ↗ ecologist bent

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

43:11 ↗ make the

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

43:14 ↗ allow reductions or averaging

43:19 ↗ but i think

43:21 ↗ generally what i see communities doing

43:23 ↗ is moving away from buffer reductions

43:27 ↗ and allowing for some averaging

43:32 ↗ great thanks both of you

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

43:45 ↗ yes thank you

43:47 ↗ thank you board member finch and

43:49 ↗ commissioner milligan you have the floor

43:54 ↗ thank you

43:55 ↗ commissioner milligan here

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

43:59 ↗ thank you board member finch for uh

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

44:04 ↗ the other topic question two is very

44:06 ↗ difficult

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

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

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

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

44:14 ↗ comments later combining these two i

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

44:18 ↗ together

44:19 ↗ and

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

44:22 ↗ with the

44:24 ↗ um

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

44:31 ↗ project and

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

44:36 ↗ flexibility

44:38 ↗ only if it will demonstrably improve

44:42 ↗ or equal

44:43 ↗ superior protection in the areas and so

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

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

44:51 ↗ you could

44:52 ↗ you know perhaps have

44:54 ↗ buffer

44:55 ↗ averaging

44:57 ↗ but the

44:58 ↗ but it's not an incentive

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

45:02 ↗ the standard

45:04 ↗ with question one

45:06 ↗ that there is no

45:07 ↗ incentive

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

45:13 ↗ averaging

45:14 ↗ could you say that

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

45:20 ↗ we get the

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

45:25 ↗ have flexibility that we get something

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

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

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

45:32 ↗ these things are all split up into

45:34 ↗ sections that they

45:36 ↗ interact too much with each other yes

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

45:40 ↗ how do we

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

45:44 ↗ on

45:46 ↗ if i may answer your question um

45:48 ↗ commissioner milligan i think what i

45:50 ↗ hear you say is go with the

45:52 ↗ the largest protection but then allow

45:55 ↗ for flexibility so that would be that

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

45:59 ↗ would allow some kind of a

46:03 ↗ reduction

46:06 ↗ if you did

46:08 ↗ some enhancements but you could tie it

46:10 ↗ to just saying averaging 100 feet but

46:13 ↗ you allow averaging so under your

46:15 ↗ scenario where you were leaning if here

46:16 ↗ if i understood you correctly the

46:18 ↗ biggest protection but with some

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

46:22 ↗ could go and establish 100 foot buffer

46:24 ↗ but you allow buffer averaging with

46:26 ↗ enhancements

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

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

46:33 ↗ not necessarily my preference so i

46:36 ↗ appreciate that

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

46:40 ↗ is to split these two questions

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

46:44 ↗ later when we um

46:46 ↗ voice our opinions

46:48 ↗ so i'm just gonna save it

46:53 ↗ so commissioner fall if there are more

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

46:57 ↗ otherwise you may probably um

47:00 ↗ want to

47:01 ↗ uh take public comments and then

47:03 ↗ deliberation on this topic

47:06 ↗ yeah we're we're starting to

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

47:10 ↗ got uh

47:12 ↗ comments from

47:15 ↗ uh commissioner davidson

47:17 ↗ and

47:19 ↗ commissioner fisher

47:22 ↗ commissioner jason

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

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

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

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

47:32 ↗ commissioner davidson

47:34 ↗ mine's more appropriate for the

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

47:38 ↗ excellent thank you uh commissioner

47:40 ↗ fischer

47:41 ↗ yeah likewise uh i think many also

47:44 ↗ answered my question earlier

47:46 ↗ regarding monitoring standards so oh

47:48 ↗ pass thank you

47:50 ↗ perfect and uh

47:52 ↗ commissioner voice

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

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

47:59 ↗ to everyone who previously did because

48:01 ↗ uh it's enlightening

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

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

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

48:10 ↗ think option one a longer buffer

48:13 ↗ with averaging and possible reductions

48:15 ↗ would be okay

48:16 ↗ or option three with averaging and again

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

48:21 ↗ option three not only enhances the area

48:24 ↗ but it also allows the flexibility that

48:26 ↗ developers need

48:28 ↗ to make projects feasible

48:30 ↗ as well as with our dwindling land

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

48:34 ↗ have these large land agreements um

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

48:40 ↗ highlands so when we redevelop certain

48:42 ↗ areas

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

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

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

48:49 ↗ they won't be sold

48:50 ↗ and the more stipulations and

48:52 ↗ regulations and things that we continue

48:54 ↗ to put

48:55 ↗ that price will be transferred to the

48:57 ↗ homeowner and as most people know um

48:59 ↗ this clause middle class is almost gone

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

49:04 ↗ when people talk about justice and all

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

49:09 ↗ buy a house for four hundred thousand

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

49:13 ↗ makes

49:14 ↗ 130 000 cannot afford to live here

49:17 ↗ so

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

49:19 ↗ that

49:20 ↗ when we're building and we're

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

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

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

49:28 ↗ that also includes the developers and it

49:30 ↗ also includes keeping our pristine

49:31 ↗ environment which is why

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

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

49:38 ↗ two options

49:40 ↗ option one you can increase the buffer

49:42 ↗ you can allow for reductions

49:44 ↗ possibly or but definitely averaging

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

49:49 ↗ because you actually enhance the

49:51 ↗ environment

49:52 ↗ but again with averaging so they can

49:54 ↗ situate every lot is unique every

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

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

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

50:02 ↗ is

50:03 ↗ not aesthetically pleasing or doesn't

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

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

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

50:13 ↗ going to sell

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

50:16 ↗ different components here want to make

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

50:20 ↗ especially as we move forward in the

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

50:23 ↗ seeing parts of old town and different

50:25 ↗ areas basically be brought down single

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

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

50:33 ↗ we continue to stick with trying to

50:36 ↗ force some of the building into the

50:38 ↗ central area

50:39 ↗ so again we need to allow flexibility

50:41 ↗ for people to continue to make it

50:43 ↗ feasible to want to build here

50:46 ↗ and live here

50:48 ↗ excellent thank you very much

50:50 ↗ commissioner voice

50:52 ↗ and commissioner zargoza said that his

50:54 ↗ answer was question or his question was

50:56 ↗ answered so thank you

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

51:00 ↗ open up to public comment

51:06 ↗ yes

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

51:09 ↗ anyone would like to speak please raise

51:10 ↗ your hand

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

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

51:17 ↗ one who would like to speak

51:19 ↗ i will move you over i believe

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

51:23 ↗ is connie marsh

51:29 ↗ hey connie you are unmuted

51:32 ↗ okay yeah for some reason my hand

51:34 ↗ wouldn't go up

51:35 ↗ um

51:36 ↗ my name's connie marsh

51:38 ↗ and

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

51:43 ↗ that that you aren't getting

51:46 ↗ and that is people let their land

51:50 ↗ be

51:51 ↗ [Music]

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

51:57 ↗ possible buffer

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

52:02 ↗ buffer then

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

52:07 ↗ to reduce it

52:09 ↗ and

52:10 ↗ also

52:11 ↗ you

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

52:14 ↗ lousy buffer then your habitat scores

52:17 ↗ are low

52:18 ↗ and then you get to develop more

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

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

52:27 ↗ their buffers

52:29 ↗ because they get development

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

52:36 ↗ to speak

52:37 ↗ not that pot is a bad thing

52:39 ↗ um

52:41 ↗ so

52:43 ↗ so you all

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

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

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

52:53 ↗ application

52:55 ↗ so some of these things

52:57 ↗ that that

52:59 ↗ you are given

53:01 ↗ are

53:02 ↗ um

53:04 ↗ continuing that incentive to treat your

53:06 ↗ land badly

53:07 ↗ if you have a hundred foot buffer

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

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

53:16 ↗ they get a reduced buffer because

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

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

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

53:29 ↗ to enhance that buffer

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

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

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

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

53:41 ↗ rest of time

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

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

53:47 ↗ happen

53:48 ↗ so i am more

53:50 ↗ um

53:52 ↗ uh

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

53:57 ↗ enhanced

53:58 ↗ and kept beautifully and even if people

54:02 ↗ are are going to redevelop they know

54:05 ↗ that their buffer

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

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

54:13 ↗ buffer because that is actually how we

54:15 ↗ get things

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

54:19 ↗ that is really included in this

54:22 ↗ presentation which is a little

54:23 ↗ disappointing um the

54:26 ↗ emphasis that we can go down 25

54:29 ↗ of the entire buffer

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

54:35 ↗ true right now our code says you

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

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

54:42 ↗ corner of that buffer

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

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

54:52 ↗ and comparing them to our prior buffer

54:55 ↗ it's it's it's not true

54:59 ↗ so

55:00 ↗ i guess i would say

55:02 ↗ um

55:04 ↗ flexibility in development at this point

55:07 ↗ in time has allowed people to cremate

55:10 ↗ their buffers and reduce the habitat and

55:13 ↗ reduce the value of our streams in

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

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

55:21 ↗ amazing buffers and amazing habitat and

55:24 ↗ that will

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

55:28 ↗ will want to build here our

55:31 ↗ way

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

55:34 ↗ okay

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

55:38 ↗ want to live in watts

55:40 ↗ um i don't know that that is

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

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

55:48 ↗ issaquah i

55:50 ↗ think that

55:52 ↗ what our goal really is

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

55:58 ↗ with healthy

56:01 ↗ functioning

56:02 ↗ buffers wide enough for both wildlife

56:06 ↗ habitat

56:08 ↗ and wildlife corridors

56:10 ↗ in perpetuity

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

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

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

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

56:23 ↗ and allow for development

56:26 ↗ and

56:27 ↗ so i think this this conversation has

56:29 ↗ been pitched

56:31 ↗ for development as compared to being

56:34 ↗ pitched for both simultaneously

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

56:39 ↗ like

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

56:43 ↗ closest to to that

56:46 ↗ minnie

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

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

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

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

57:00 ↗ of of environment and and so this

57:03 ↗ conversation is sort of scaring me

57:05 ↗ and uh hopefully

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

57:10 ↗ vision so that

57:13 ↗ that we can have both simultaneously

57:16 ↗ thank you

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

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

57:31 ↗ if anyone wants to raise their hand

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

57:36 ↗ that would be great

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

57:44 ↗ wants to speak

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

57:52 ↗ circle back to comments and discussion

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

57:57 ↗ discuss this topic

58:03 ↗ and we have a

58:04 ↗ comment from

58:06 ↗ commissioner davidson or chair davidson

58:08 ↗ all right

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

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

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

58:17 ↗ the board members dan heights who could

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

58:38 ↗ on buffer averaging and reductions i do

58:41 ↗ not support either of these approaches

58:43 ↗ and would encourage more clear and

58:45 ↗ concise guidance on wetland buffers i

58:48 ↗ feel averaging and reductions work

58:50 ↗ against the goal of establishing

58:52 ↗ contiguous habitat and averaging creates

58:55 ↗ uneven buffers with more

58:57 ↗ quote edge end quote and less

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

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

59:06 ↗ prioritizing habitat for wildlife and

59:09 ↗ limiting the impacts of invasive weeds

59:12 ↗ i do personally support the inlue or

59:14 ↗ even wetland banking approach being

59:16 ↗ incorporated into the land use code from

59:19 ↗ my experience on site mitigation is

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

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

59:26 ↗ successful and you can create healthier

59:28 ↗ contiguous habitat within lieu or

59:31 ↗ wetland banking programs that focus on

59:33 ↗ larger tracts of land

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

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

59:39 ↗ as possible for example at lake samantha

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

59:44 ↗ to

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

59:47 ↗ tonight

59:49 ↗ there you go that's one

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

59:52 ↗ comments um i am in favor of

59:56 ↗ sticking with the biggest

59:58 ↗ buffer possible and that would be the

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

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

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

1:00:07 ↗ streams and our habitat

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

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

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

1:00:16 ↗ dan suggested

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

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

1:00:21 ↗ bigger and better

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

1:00:25 ↗ significant hits

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

1:00:29 ↗ showing that

1:00:30 ↗ and i

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

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

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

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

1:00:39 ↗ you

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

1:00:47 ↗ we're gonna move on to

1:00:50 ↗ let's see where is my place

1:00:53 ↗ it looks like

1:00:57 ↗ board member

1:00:58 ↗ fisher

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

1:01:06 ↗ no comment from me

1:01:08 ↗ excellent

1:01:14 ↗ and board member finch

1:01:15 ↗ the other floor

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

1:01:20 ↗ um

1:01:21 ↗ my perspective is uh

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

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

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

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

1:01:33 ↗ foot along with performance

1:01:35 ↗ standards

1:01:36 ↗ i think any decision to

1:01:40 ↗ make any reductions or averaging

1:01:42 ↗ need to be

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

1:01:46 ↗ the

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

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

1:01:50 ↗ permanently to

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

1:01:55 ↗ permanently impacts this wetland

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

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

1:02:02 ↗ my opinion is not enough

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

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

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

1:02:10 ↗ at ways to

1:02:11 ↗ ensure that

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

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

1:02:16 ↗ on these properties um

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

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

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

1:02:25 ↗ around that wetland so

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

1:02:29 ↗ like but i think that's

1:02:31 ↗ if there's nothing that can

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

1:02:34 ↗ permanent performance of with native

1:02:37 ↗ plants and and

1:02:40 ↗ an effective buffer

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

1:02:43 ↗ accomplishing much

1:02:45 ↗ thank you

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

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

1:02:57 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner

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

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

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

1:03:04 ↗ we're not on it

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

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

1:03:10 ↗ question period

1:03:11 ↗ the

1:03:13 ↗ buffer averaging or buffer reduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:03:31 ↗ the survey and from

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

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

1:03:37 ↗ no interest to anybody

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

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

1:03:43 ↗ are we allowing buffer averaging

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

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

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

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

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

1:03:58 ↗ and

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

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

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

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

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

1:04:09 ↗ property owners

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

1:04:12 ↗ incentivizing further

1:04:17 ↗ improvement to our wetlands

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

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

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

1:04:26 ↗ just say 100 foot buffer

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

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

1:04:33 ↗ buffer

1:04:34 ↗ with performance standards

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

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

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

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

1:04:45 ↗ ongoing

1:04:47 ↗ five-year

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

1:04:51 ↗ of that

1:04:53 ↗ buffer

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

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

1:04:59 ↗ of incentive

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

1:05:04 ↗ rather than

1:05:05 ↗ just wetland buffers

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

1:05:10 ↗ opportunity here in combining these

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

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

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

1:05:19 ↗ another incentive

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

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

1:05:24 ↗ do something even more

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

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

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

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

1:05:33 ↗ inventory of

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

1:05:37 ↗ are and

1:05:38 ↗ you know regardless of degradation

1:05:41 ↗ that's it thanks

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

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

1:05:53 ↗ um

1:05:54 ↗ i like what uh

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

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

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

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

1:06:09 ↗ definitely need to

1:06:10 ↗ i think

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

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

1:06:16 ↗ we're placing on

1:06:19 ↗ our wetlands and the buffers

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

1:06:23 ↗ milligan had just said so

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

1:06:29 ↗ percent why

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

1:06:35 ↗ take it down to 10 10

1:06:37 ↗ or 15

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

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

1:06:44 ↗ to be able to

1:06:45 ↗ um to jason's point

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

1:06:49 ↗ can put a square house on a

1:06:53 ↗ on a round lot

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

1:07:01 ↗ something in return

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

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

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

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

1:07:13 ↗ maybe half it um

1:07:15 ↗ to say

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

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

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

1:07:25 ↗ board member mcwilliams

1:07:30 ↗ thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:07:43 ↗ monitoring periods from my experience

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

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

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

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

1:07:53 ↗ monitoring anymore

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

1:07:57 ↗ incentives to developers for

1:07:59 ↗ some form of buffer averaging

1:08:02 ↗ um

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

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

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

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

1:08:09 ↗ about it than anybody

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

1:08:13 ↗ the staff on that

1:08:17 ↗ excellent thank you and

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

1:08:21 ↗ comments

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

1:08:25 ↗ to move forward uh

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

1:08:30 ↗ me a nod

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

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

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

1:08:38 ↗ you have the floor

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

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

1:08:46 ↗ we folded the averaging conversation

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

1:08:52 ↗ have that again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:09:10 ↗ buffer reduction versus averaging

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

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

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

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

1:09:23 ↗ this point where

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

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

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

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

1:09:34 ↗ together you know i heard

1:09:36 ↗ um

1:09:38 ↗ some

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

1:09:42 ↗ enhancement

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

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

1:09:48 ↗ enhancement and and if they

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:10:10 ↗ feel free to see how

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

1:10:14 ↗ conversation here

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

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

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

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

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

1:10:26 ↗ additional information

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

1:10:30 ↗ point it's just

1:10:32 ↗ looking for guidance yeah

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

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

1:10:38 ↗ heard 100 we've heard 75.

1:10:41 ↗ so

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

1:10:46 ↗ say

1:10:47 ↗ uh

1:10:48 ↗ 10 or 15 percent

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

1:10:53 ↗ on that

1:10:56 ↗ for averaging or for reduction

1:10:59 ↗ well either or

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

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

1:11:06 ↗ reduction

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

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

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

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

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

1:11:18 ↗ the

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

1:11:21 ↗ in between

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

1:11:24 ↗ bringing everybody together in a

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

1:11:28 ↗ commissioner milligan

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

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

1:11:36 ↗ you say

1:11:38 ↗ that

1:11:39 ↗ that you heard us say

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

1:11:44 ↗ reduction

1:11:45 ↗ and that there is

1:11:46 ↗ some support for buffer averaging

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

1:11:52 ↗ incentives or some other benefit

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

1:11:56 ↗ and said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:12:17 ↗ excellent okay thank you commissioner

1:12:19 ↗ milligan uh

1:12:21 ↗ board member fisher

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

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

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

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

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

1:12:35 ↗ averaging versus reduction uh with

1:12:38 ↗ enhancements uh i think the

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

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

1:12:44 ↗ trying to protect

1:12:46 ↗ while still allowing development within

1:12:49 ↗ the the area

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

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

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

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

1:13:01 ↗ reduction thank you

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

1:13:07 ↗ uh

1:13:08 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

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

1:13:12 ↗ wanted to kind of make my

1:13:14 ↗ uh

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

1:13:18 ↗ definitely for

1:13:19 ↗ uh increasing to 100 feet

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

1:13:24 ↗ possibility of averaging and averaging

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

1:13:29 ↗ so

1:13:30 ↗ that's all

1:13:33 ↗ excellent thank you uh commissioner

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

1:13:37 ↗ the floor

1:13:39 ↗ thank you sure foul and

1:13:41 ↗ so i am for

1:13:43 ↗ buffer

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

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

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

1:13:50 ↗ standards and also

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:14:07 ↗ redevelopment

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

1:14:09 ↗ restrictive

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

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

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

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

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

1:14:22 ↗ restricted ourselves so much

1:14:24 ↗ for today

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

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

1:14:29 ↗ said giving us some flexibility

1:14:31 ↗ asking for

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

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

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

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

1:14:41 ↗ for future redevelopment

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

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

1:14:51 ↗ thank you commissioner voice

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

1:14:56 ↗ yet

1:14:58 ↗ no i i think it the more

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:15:14 ↗ there so

1:15:15 ↗ uh

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

1:15:19 ↗ input as well

1:15:20 ↗ um

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

1:15:24 ↗ your

1:15:25 ↗ uh

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

1:15:29 ↗ to

1:15:30 ↗ make your point

1:15:33 ↗ sure um

1:15:35 ↗ i just wanted to make sure

1:15:38 ↗ there's

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

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

1:15:47 ↗ averaging you can still have

1:15:50 ↗ buffer mitigation on

1:15:54 ↗ as an option or

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

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

1:16:00 ↗ impact

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

1:16:06 ↗ or more

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

1:16:10 ↗ that same

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

1:16:14 ↗ or that same uh watershed

1:16:17 ↗ anyway

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

1:16:21 ↗ that

1:16:23 ↗ you know that

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

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

1:16:29 ↗ buffer

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

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

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

1:16:41 ↗ buffer

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

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

1:16:47 ↗ discussed

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

1:16:51 ↗ buffer

1:16:52 ↗ um

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

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

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

1:17:00 ↗ but that can then be

1:17:03 ↗ um

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

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

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

1:17:09 ↗ it somewhere else is that

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

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

1:17:16 ↗ mathematical um

1:17:20 ↗ operation whereas mitigation you have

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

1:17:24 ↗ performance standards um such as

1:17:27 ↗ planting standards monitoring standards

1:17:31 ↗ and reporting standards

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

1:17:36 ↗ restrictions on top of

1:17:39 ↗ offer mitigation

1:17:41 ↗ as opposed to averaging

1:17:45 ↗ yeah

1:17:45 ↗ so what i'm saying

1:17:48 ↗ what i'm saying is

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

1:17:52 ↗ averaging and i don't think anyone's

1:17:54 ↗ gonna complain maybe the developers

1:17:56 ↗ might complain but you will still have

1:17:59 ↗ the buffer mitigation

1:18:01 ↗ component of your code

1:18:06 ↗ so it sounds like a can of worms at this

1:18:08 ↗ point because we have

1:18:10 ↗ if we

1:18:13 ↗ we allow mitigation

1:18:15 ↗ then

1:18:16 ↗ if someone wants to cut into the buffer

1:18:19 ↗ and they don't want to do

1:18:20 ↗ uh buffer averaging

1:18:22 ↗ and they don't want to

1:18:25 ↗ basically they're doing buffer reduction

1:18:26 ↗ but they're going to

1:18:28 ↗ pay that forward in some other area of

1:18:31 ↗ the

1:18:33 ↗ in issaquah

1:18:36 ↗ i can understand that might be

1:18:38 ↗ okay in some

1:18:42 ↗ buffer zones but other buffer zones

1:18:44 ↗ might be too critical or too important

1:18:46 ↗ to do that with so now

1:18:49 ↗ we're there's a whole new matrix or

1:18:51 ↗ criteria that says

1:18:53 ↗ well you could do it in this type of

1:18:55 ↗ buffer zone but you may not want to do

1:18:56 ↗ it in this type of buffer zone like is

1:18:58 ↗ aqua creek we don't want to

1:19:00 ↗ reduce the buffers anymore on naziqua

1:19:02 ↗ creek because there's already houses

1:19:04 ↗ built on the creek

1:19:06 ↗ so if a developer was to come in and

1:19:08 ↗ they wanted to do buffer averaging or

1:19:10 ↗ buffer reduction

1:19:11 ↗ and they want to expand onto

1:19:14 ↗ you know somewhere else down there in

1:19:15 ↗ lake samantha then that's kind of

1:19:16 ↗ defeating the purpose

1:19:19 ↗ but if they had a non-fish bearing

1:19:22 ↗ wetland

1:19:24 ↗ they could cut into that buffer and

1:19:25 ↗ maybe add it to

1:19:27 ↗ a part of the state park or add it or

1:19:29 ↗ not to the state park but add it to the

1:19:31 ↗ lake some amish area or to the iseq

1:19:33 ↗ creek area but how would they do that

1:19:36 ↗ they'd be buying into a trusts or a lan

1:19:40 ↗ development

1:19:42 ↗ right yeah there are mechanisms for

1:19:44 ↗ doing that um

1:19:47 ↗ but you could you could set your

1:19:48 ↗ parameters however you want you could

1:19:50 ↗ you could say

1:19:51 ↗ we only want mitigation on-site

1:19:54 ↗ or you could say

1:19:56 ↗ within the same watershed or you can say

1:19:58 ↗ within the same wetland complex but

1:20:00 ↗ maybe off-site

1:20:02 ↗ um so you can set it how whatever makes

1:20:04 ↗ sense

1:20:05 ↗ for your situation

1:20:09 ↗ i can see that being a case-by-case

1:20:11 ↗ basis because it depends on the wetland

1:20:13 ↗ quality of atlanta and the importance of

1:20:15 ↗ the wetland

1:20:16 ↗ true but you could you could say

1:20:18 ↗ um

1:20:20 ↗ for a category for wetland you can do

1:20:24 ↗ mitigation off-site er in lieu uh at a

1:20:27 ↗ mitigation bank but for any category one

1:20:30 ↗ or two wetlands you can't do that

1:20:34 ↗ okay that sounds better

1:20:37 ↗ because that's

1:20:38 ↗ that's a giving that's to jason's point

1:20:40 ↗ it's giving developers options and

1:20:43 ↗ flexibility

1:20:44 ↗ where it's not so critical

1:20:46 ↗ and to

1:20:48 ↗ uh commissioner fish

1:20:50 ↗ finches and um

1:20:54 ↗ davidson's point

1:20:55 ↗ of being more restrictive and in

1:20:59 ↗ protecting the environment to

1:21:01 ↗ board member walls point so

1:21:06 ↗ i

1:21:07 ↗ i think that's a golden opportunity but

1:21:09 ↗ how as a commission are we going to

1:21:12 ↗ decide that tonight

1:21:15 ↗ yeah i think tonight we're just looking

1:21:16 ↗ for um guidance so i think what we can

1:21:20 ↗ do tonight uh accomplish tonight is

1:21:22 ↗ eliminate the options that we don't need

1:21:24 ↗ to spend time recreating i think the

1:21:26 ↗ buffer reductions there was less support

1:21:29 ↗ for but there may be one or two folks

1:21:31 ↗ that may

1:21:32 ↗ want to keep that on the table um

1:21:35 ↗ the uh the other thing i think is out of

1:21:37 ↗ option one and

1:21:39 ↗ uh three there's more it sounds like

1:21:42 ↗ there's more support for option one if

1:21:44 ↗ we can just kind of take a tally and how

1:21:46 ↗ many people are in support of one or

1:21:48 ↗ three that we laid out to you

1:21:50 ↗ and then uh the exploration of doing

1:21:52 ↗ mitigation i think we can we've got

1:21:55 ↗ enough in order to give you more

1:21:56 ↗ detailed language for the code that can

1:22:00 ↗ give you more examples when we bring in

1:22:01 ↗ our first draft so we don't have to nail

1:22:03 ↗ it down tonight but we're seeking for

1:22:07 ↗ larger

1:22:08 ↗ guidance so that we don't spend time

1:22:10 ↗ crafting code language for something

1:22:11 ↗ that you there's completely no interest

1:22:13 ↗ or guidance on um

1:22:16 ↗ so that i think if you can accomplish

1:22:18 ↗ that

1:22:19 ↗ you take a vote on

1:22:20 ↗ are there people still interested in

1:22:22 ↗ buffer reduction

1:22:24 ↗ or just some more flexibility whether

1:22:26 ↗ it's buffer averaging this mitigation

1:22:30 ↗ proposal that greta had

1:22:33 ↗ we can we can get more

1:22:35 ↗ crafty with details and proposals for

1:22:37 ↗ you uh when we come back to

1:22:39 ↗ with some code language how would you

1:22:41 ↗ like us to uh

1:22:43 ↗ vote or send you our

1:22:46 ↗ show of hands maybe anyone for buffer

1:22:49 ↗ reduction

1:22:55 ↗ can i just make a comment yeah

1:22:58 ↗ are you able to see that in the chat

1:23:00 ↗ sometimes it doesn't show up

1:23:03 ↗ um so i just want to say that um i

1:23:06 ↗ support everybody with a hundred percent

1:23:09 ↗ um

1:23:10 ↗ buffer 100 100 footage buffer

1:23:13 ↗ with the buffer enhancements

1:23:16 ↗ and um

1:23:18 ↗ and then i also

1:23:20 ↗ uh see what jason is saying about the

1:23:22 ↗ equity and um

1:23:25 ↗ so i'm what i'm hoping is that

1:23:28 ↗ this will encourage when there's less

1:23:30 ↗ space and it's already happening in

1:23:31 ↗ issaquah i'll encourage people to build

1:23:34 ↗ upwards

1:23:36 ↗ um with both housing and parking

1:23:40 ↗ rather than outwards so when i first

1:23:42 ↗ moved here in 1984

1:23:44 ↗ um we weren't allowed to even have a

1:23:47 ↗ two-story building as i recall so it

1:23:50 ↗ everything's sprawled out

1:23:52 ↗ and there's a lot more room

1:23:54 ↗ to go up which i think is going to help

1:23:56 ↗ with equity

1:23:59 ↗ so i liked your um idea minnie

1:24:03 ↗ that we

1:24:05 ↗ we add one one more thing which is

1:24:08 ↗ keep it 100 foot and then add the

1:24:11 ↗ enhancements to protect the aquatic life

1:24:15 ↗ the buffer enhancements

1:24:18 ↗ thank you

1:24:23 ↗ okay so

1:24:24 ↗ you want to show a hands mini so we can

1:24:27 ↗ wrap this one up

1:24:28 ↗ sure so i think we um we did the um the

1:24:32 ↗ reduction so some flexibility with

1:24:34 ↗ buffer averaging whether it's through

1:24:36 ↗ averaging or the proposal that greta

1:24:38 ↗ explained we can you know look at that

1:24:40 ↗ so i think should we explore more

1:24:43 ↗ flexibility as long as there's a net

1:24:46 ↗ gain for the environment and flexibility

1:24:48 ↗ for the development

1:24:50 ↗ show of hands on that

1:24:55 ↗ so it seems like we have a pretty good

1:24:57 ↗ consensus on that so what was the

1:24:59 ↗ question

1:25:00 ↗ the question was if

1:25:03 ↗ um

1:25:04 ↗ we want to have allow

1:25:05 ↗ some flexibility whether it's through

1:25:07 ↗ buffer averaging or the proposal that

1:25:10 ↗ greta explained about mitigation in it

1:25:13 ↗ and it could vary we can get nuanced

1:25:15 ↗ with what that flexibility looks like

1:25:17 ↗ but having some flexibility which is not

1:25:19 ↗ buffer reduction

1:25:23 ↗ as a straight go that'll lead to a net

1:25:26 ↗ gain for enhancement

1:25:28 ↗ uh and provide flexibility for

1:25:30 ↗ development

1:25:31 ↗ depending upon the

1:25:33 ↗ buffer area

1:25:35 ↗ correct we'll get to the nuances through

1:25:37 ↗ our code language yeah we don't need to

1:25:39 ↗ get into

1:25:40 ↗ uh sorting out all the nuances but but i

1:25:43 ↗ think at a general policy level do you

1:25:45 ↗ want us to come back with some good

1:25:47 ↗ uh options

1:25:49 ↗ that gives more flexibility through

1:25:51 ↗ buffer averaging or the proposal that

1:25:54 ↗ greta just explained

1:25:57 ↗ significant number of hands on that last

1:25:58 ↗ one yeah

1:26:00 ↗ so and then the last thing i think is

1:26:02 ↗ the 100 foot with enhancement option

1:26:05 ↗ that you all discussed and came up with

1:26:07 ↗ which is different than the third three

1:26:09 ↗ options we had laid out which was the

1:26:11 ↗ 100 foot without the enhancement

1:26:13 ↗ but it seemed like you all

1:26:15 ↗ had a good discussion and

1:26:17 ↗ wanted 100 feet with enhancement if we

1:26:19 ↗ can get a show of hands for that

1:26:21 ↗ proposal

1:26:26 ↗ so like on my screen i see one two three

1:26:29 ↗ four five six seven eight

1:26:32 ↗ and folks that don't have their camera

1:26:35 ↗ on

1:26:36 ↗ can't tell but

1:26:38 ↗ um

1:26:39 ↗ someone just showed up

1:26:41 ↗ okay

1:26:42 ↗ so majority of you uh for that option

1:26:46 ↗ okay

1:26:47 ↗ so i think

1:26:48 ↗ at this stage of our code uh preparation

1:26:52 ↗ i think we've got guidance on the

1:26:53 ↗ aquatic critical areas uh obviously this

1:26:56 ↗ is not a done deal if you have other

1:26:59 ↗ questions or thoughts we have support

1:27:02 ↗ you know already have any detailed

1:27:03 ↗ questions you're confused about

1:27:04 ↗ something please reach out to me we want

1:27:06 ↗ to make sure we we give you all the

1:27:08 ↗ information that you need to make an

1:27:10 ↗ informed decision on this

1:27:14 ↗ excellent thank you minnie let's go

1:27:15 ↗ ahead and move on to geohazard and

1:27:18 ↗ critical areas

1:27:19 ↗ yes um

1:27:21 ↗ so kristen do you have the slide

1:27:24 ↗ up

1:27:26 ↗ i think we got very clear guidance from

1:27:28 ↗ you on

1:27:29 ↗ um on your written responses i think

1:27:32 ↗ that was really encouraging to read some

1:27:33 ↗ of uh the creative thinking of um

1:27:37 ↗ you know what i read in there was um

1:27:40 ↗ you know some examples of when you

1:27:42 ↗ thought larger buffers should apply so

1:27:44 ↗ those were really good you gave us some

1:27:46 ↗ guidance on when to incentivize over um

1:27:49 ↗ lower impact hillside development uh we

1:27:52 ↗ heard clear loud and clear

1:27:54 ↗ no tall retaining walls um

1:27:57 ↗ we did and you know you do understand

1:27:59 ↗ that some of these geotechnical things

1:28:00 ↗ have to be case by case so there was

1:28:02 ↗ validation of that will need to be done

1:28:05 ↗ through geotechnical analysis of each

1:28:07 ↗ development proposal

1:28:09 ↗ we heard some concerns about mapping

1:28:11 ↗ inventory primarily for cost concerns so

1:28:13 ↗ i think that those were our key

1:28:16 ↗ takeaways from your survey results

1:28:19 ↗ and we shared our proposed update

1:28:21 ↗ approach with you previously

1:28:23 ↗ we do have our technical expert jim

1:28:26 ↗ johnson you had some great questions for

1:28:28 ↗ him last time so he's here if you have

1:28:29 ↗ any further questions to answer those

1:28:32 ↗ um but but really what we're looking for

1:28:34 ↗ is

1:28:35 ↗ um

1:28:36 ↗ you know are we on track of meeting the

1:28:38 ↗ golden outcomes chart

1:28:40 ↗ uh with the proposed approach that we've

1:28:42 ↗ shared with you

1:28:44 ↗ so you can take off the screen for this

1:28:46 ↗ one

1:28:47 ↗ kristen thank you

1:28:56 ↗ okay and so minnie do you want me to

1:29:01 ↗ yeah i think one approach would be to uh

1:29:03 ↗ if anyone has any questions they can ask

1:29:06 ↗ that um and jim johnson's here you can

1:29:09 ↗ then take public comments on it and then

1:29:11 ↗ you can just do a deliberation of if you

1:29:14 ↗ uh think of any ideas that we've missed

1:29:16 ↗ let us know

1:29:17 ↗ okay that was really short presentation

1:29:20 ↗ i was expecting more

1:29:21 ↗ yeah i think we've done a lot of

1:29:23 ↗ presentations the purpose of this

1:29:24 ↗ meeting is really to listen to you all

1:29:27 ↗ um so

1:29:28 ↗ i understood okay so let's go ahead and

1:29:30 ↗ open up to uh commissioner questions

1:29:38 ↗ i'll give it a couple a minute here

1:29:49 ↗ and commissioner our board member

1:29:51 ↗ davidson

1:29:53 ↗ down the floor

1:29:54 ↗ i just have a quick question i know that

1:29:56 ↗ in our last conversation about this um

1:29:59 ↗ there was a conversation about a

1:30:01 ↗ landslide that happened in dallas and

1:30:03 ↗ has there ever been a code that has

1:30:04 ↗ required a developer that's working in a

1:30:08 ↗ hazard area such as a geologic hazard

1:30:10 ↗ area to require that they have insurance

1:30:13 ↗ or some kind of bond uh substantial out

1:30:16 ↗ there so that you know to basically hold

1:30:18 ↗ the city and keep it for a period of

1:30:21 ↗ time so the city's not

1:30:22 ↗ um left-hand

1:30:24 ↗ um handling this in case there is a

1:30:25 ↗ failure of some sort

1:30:27 ↗ yeah we've noted that comment so we'll

1:30:29 ↗ be working with our city attorney to

1:30:30 ↗ come up with some mechanism uh in the

1:30:33 ↗ code that requires that

1:30:41 ↗ all right and thank you very much board

1:30:42 ↗ member davidson looks like she's the

1:30:44 ↗ only

1:30:45 ↗ comment at the moment so let's go ahead

1:30:47 ↗ and open up to public comment

1:30:51 ↗ kristen do we have any members from the

1:30:52 ↗ public

1:30:54 ↗ like to speak tonight

1:30:57 ↗ yes

1:30:58 ↗ uh connie marsh would like to speak and

1:31:00 ↗ if anyone else would like to speak

1:31:01 ↗ please raise your hand but in the

1:31:02 ↗ meantime connie i will move you over

1:31:13 ↗ bonnie you are a panelist and you can

1:31:14 ↗ you've already done it

1:31:17 ↗ so that was interesting because you

1:31:20 ↗ you were asking us to agree to a

1:31:22 ↗ proposal but you didn't i wasn't clear

1:31:24 ↗ on what your proposal was

1:31:26 ↗ so out here in the world i have no idea

1:31:28 ↗ what you're talking about but i can tell

1:31:30 ↗ you the things that make me crazy about

1:31:32 ↗ our geotech

1:31:34 ↗ we allow uh we have a 50-foot buffer

1:31:37 ↗ standard for steep slopes and we allow a

1:31:41 ↗ reduction to a

1:31:43 ↗ foot steep slope buffer with a critical

1:31:46 ↗ area study and so

1:31:48 ↗ um

1:31:49 ↗ we're pretty easy about our reduction to

1:31:52 ↗ a 10 foot

1:31:54 ↗ buffer instead of a 50 foot buffer

1:31:56 ↗ and uh

1:31:58 ↗ the answer to that needs to be just no

1:32:01 ↗ way

1:32:02 ↗ there is no way that a 10-foot buffer is

1:32:04 ↗ appropriate on the

1:32:06 ↗ remaining land that people are trying to

1:32:08 ↗ develop especially if it's greenfield

1:32:10 ↗ development and it only causes problems

1:32:13 ↗ so

1:32:13 ↗ if your proposal is that you are going

1:32:17 ↗ to say

1:32:18 ↗ 50 foot steep slope buffer

1:32:22 ↗ with some much

1:32:25 ↗ larger

1:32:26 ↗ flexibility like down to

1:32:29 ↗ 30 foot buffer with a 50 foot setback i

1:32:33 ↗ might not dislike that so much if you

1:32:36 ↗ are also adding information on things

1:32:40 ↗ that are not steep slopes but things

1:32:43 ↗ that are erosion hazard and landslide

1:32:46 ↗ hazard areas that do not meet the steep

1:32:49 ↗ slope buffer criteria

1:32:52 ↗ then i would be interested in seeing how

1:32:54 ↗ we are protecting those and also

1:32:57 ↗ protecting the trees and the vegetation

1:32:59 ↗ that keep those slopes in place

1:33:02 ↗ along with the water that combines with

1:33:05 ↗ these steep slopes in order to make our

1:33:08 ↗ landslide hazards and so

1:33:12 ↗ because maybe i should have read it but

1:33:14 ↗ i didn't i don't know what you're

1:33:15 ↗ proposing

1:33:17 ↗ those are the things that need to be

1:33:20 ↗ in there we can no longer

1:33:22 ↗ grade and create retaining walls that

1:33:25 ↗ homeowners associations and the

1:33:27 ↗ community is responsible for maintaining

1:33:30 ↗ to the millions of dollars

1:33:32 ↗ over time we have to learn how to build

1:33:34 ↗ with the land and um and

1:33:38 ↗ drain with the land and keep our slopes

1:33:42 ↗ with the land and that will help

1:33:44 ↗ alleviate all of our steep slope hazards

1:33:47 ↗ many of our geotech

1:33:49 ↗ issues so again this is probably more

1:33:52 ↗ overarching and holistic than you had

1:33:56 ↗ discussed but it is the way i look at

1:33:59 ↗ our city

1:34:00 ↗ thank you

1:34:07 ↗ no one else has signed up or has asked

1:34:09 ↗ to speak

1:34:10 ↗ okay thank you

1:34:12 ↗ kristen and so let's go ahead and open

1:34:14 ↗ up to commissioner um

1:34:17 ↗ comments and debate

1:34:19 ↗ and so let's go ahead and

1:34:22 ↗ yeah comments or questions

1:34:24 ↗ pop them in there and commissioner

1:34:26 ↗ milligan you have the floor

1:34:30 ↗ make a chair fall don't mind being first

1:34:32 ↗ this time

1:34:33 ↗ anybody who knows me this is one of my

1:34:35 ↗ favorite topics

1:34:36 ↗ i found this

1:34:38 ↗ there's another reason why i didn't do

1:34:40 ↗ the survey is that i found that the

1:34:43 ↗ options made available to us did not

1:34:46 ↗ seem like appropriate alternatives or

1:34:48 ↗ didn't seem like uh you know solutionary

1:34:51 ↗ do you want to do this or that well this

1:34:54 ↗ isn't an or that and then there's so

1:34:56 ↗ many others i'll just point out a couple

1:34:59 ↗ of things i just think this needs a

1:35:00 ↗ little bit more work um one question

1:35:03 ↗ number 14 in the survey should other

1:35:05 ↗ environmentally aesthetic alternatives

1:35:08 ↗ to child vertical retaining walls

1:35:11 ↗ be incorporated into the land use code

1:35:14 ↗ okay well i'm glad that um it seems to

1:35:16 ↗ be interpreted that people don't want

1:35:18 ↗ tall retaining walls yeah we don't want

1:35:20 ↗ tall retaining walls

1:35:22 ↗ i for one like the speaker and the from

1:35:24 ↗ the public would rather have us build

1:35:26 ↗ with the land i don't want another

1:35:29 ↗ environmentally aesthetic alternative

1:35:32 ↗ i would rather have people build with

1:35:34 ↗ the land if there's a hill build with

1:35:37 ↗ the hill if there's a steep slope stay

1:35:38 ↗ away from it anyway i didn't think that

1:35:40 ↗ the options were

1:35:42 ↗ were useful to me here's another one um

1:35:45 ↗ when engineered slopes or walls are

1:35:46 ↗ created to meet the steep slope definite

1:35:50 ↗ mission should they be required how

1:35:51 ↗ critical why are we allowing engineered

1:35:54 ↗ slopes or walls to be created i mean the

1:35:56 ↗ whole premise was something that i

1:35:58 ↗ wasn't for so how can i answer that

1:35:59 ↗ question

1:36:01 ↗ i you know you guys

1:36:02 ↗ people who know me you just opened up a

1:36:04 ↗ pandora's box i'm just gonna go with it

1:36:07 ↗ number 17

1:36:08 ↗ should development applications be

1:36:10 ↗ allowed to regrade existing steep slopes

1:36:14 ↗ to a more a stable configuration no i

1:36:16 ↗ think we're trying to say we don't want

1:36:18 ↗ to change the topography and we worked

1:36:22 ↗ on this several years ago we changed the

1:36:24 ↗ language and i hope it doesn't revert

1:36:26 ↗ we

1:36:27 ↗ we

1:36:28 ↗ improved it a little bit we do not want

1:36:30 ↗ substantial changes to our topography

1:36:33 ↗ period

1:36:35 ↗ and if if we're going to be making some

1:36:37 ↗ changes now i'm just putting lay it down

1:36:40 ↗ please help me

1:36:42 ↗ find a way to not go backwards but to go

1:36:45 ↗ forwards on that initiative and to be

1:36:49 ↗ less manipulative of our environment and

1:36:51 ↗ to be more uh integrated with it in our

1:36:54 ↗ building

1:36:57 ↗ that's it it's so scary going first you

1:36:59 ↗ know you guys could all disagree with me

1:37:00 ↗ but uh that's me that's who i am bye

1:37:04 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan uh so i

1:37:07 ↗ have a comment uh that's kind of in line

1:37:10 ↗ with uh commissioner milligan i agree

1:37:12 ↗ with her on all these fronts

1:37:14 ↗ when looking at issaquah

1:37:16 ↗ looking at squawk mountain specifically

1:37:20 ↗ squawk mountain all the properties in

1:37:22 ↗ squawk mountain are built

1:37:24 ↗ the only way to build anything new is

1:37:26 ↗ either one to tear something down or to

1:37:28 ↗ buy a lot that is vacant

1:37:30 ↗ the lots that are vacant are vacant for

1:37:32 ↗ a reason no one's been able to build

1:37:34 ↗ anything on it because there's on steep

1:37:36 ↗ slopes

1:37:38 ↗ if we

1:37:41 ↗ ease

1:37:42 ↗ the requirements for steep slopes and

1:37:44 ↗ allow people to build on some of these

1:37:46 ↗ properties and i'm i look at these

1:37:49 ↗ properties i you can walk right past

1:37:51 ↗ them

1:37:53 ↗ there are landslides waiting to happen

1:37:55 ↗ i mean they've got water oozing out the

1:37:56 ↗ sides there's really lush ferns ferns

1:37:59 ↗ are growing on the side of the slope for

1:38:01 ↗ a reason

1:38:02 ↗ it's because they get a lot of water so

1:38:04 ↗ i i think at this point

1:38:07 ↗ there really isn't any property left on

1:38:10 ↗ squawk mountain that fits the definition

1:38:13 ↗ of it's buildable if it isn't already

1:38:16 ↗ built it's not really buildable so we

1:38:18 ↗ shouldn't be having a conversation about

1:38:20 ↗ having

1:38:21 ↗ um reducing steep slopes the the

1:38:24 ↗ mitigation around steep slopes i think

1:38:25 ↗ we should leave it

1:38:27 ↗ as it is and leave the 50-foot buffer

1:38:31 ↗ in place we shouldn't be allowing people

1:38:33 ↗ to

1:38:35 ↗ go from 50 feet to 10 feet because we're

1:38:37 ↗ going to build a retaining wall

1:38:39 ↗ retaining walls are man-made they fail

1:38:42 ↗ and they're expensive to maintain and

1:38:45 ↗ we're going to find that out the hard

1:38:46 ↗ way when king the king county wood wall

1:38:48 ↗ is going to fall down and we're going to

1:38:50 ↗ have to pay for it

1:38:51 ↗ but

1:38:52 ↗ uh

1:38:53 ↗ right off of newport is a developed

1:38:56 ↗ proposed development across from the

1:38:57 ↗ school

1:38:58 ↗ where they want to cut into the hillside

1:39:02 ↗ so where's the

1:39:03 ↗ buffer in that there is no buffer

1:39:05 ↗ they're actually cutting into the

1:39:07 ↗ hillside 20 feet and going up 50 feet

1:39:11 ↗ which means there's actually 50 feet of

1:39:13 ↗ mountain is going to be cut out so that

1:39:14 ↗ they could put in a development

1:39:16 ↗ i i think we need to have this

1:39:18 ↗ conversation i am absolutely not for

1:39:21 ↗ uh reducing the buffer

1:39:26 ↗ and uh i

1:39:28 ↗ looks like we have a

1:39:30 ↗ question or comment from um

1:39:32 ↗ board member finch

1:39:35 ↗ thank you cheerful jamie finch speaking

1:39:38 ↗ um i'm not go going to go into the

1:39:40 ↗ specifics of of the questions here i

1:39:42 ↗ just i think

1:39:44 ↗ taking a step back

1:39:46 ↗ and this echoes some of the other

1:39:47 ↗ comments that have been made

1:39:49 ↗ as i look to the future of squad what i

1:39:51 ↗ hope for where our development is focus

1:39:52 ↗ is the places that are already developed

1:39:55 ↗ will continue to get more dense and that

1:39:57 ↗ we find the majority of

1:39:59 ↗ future

1:40:00 ↗ whether it's low income regular income

1:40:03 ↗ alt whatever housing that we find is

1:40:05 ↗ primarily sourced from the existing

1:40:07 ↗ developed land and so i think

1:40:10 ↗ a lot of what it's not just this section

1:40:12 ↗ but

1:40:13 ↗ this section stands out

1:40:15 ↗ because it kind of goes in conflict with

1:40:18 ↗ our desire to keep

1:40:19 ↗ development to the forest or to the

1:40:21 ↗ valley floor and keep it off of

1:40:24 ↗ the steep slopes around the valley

1:40:26 ↗ so i do think that

1:40:28 ↗ as we think about

1:40:30 ↗ our direction on this

1:40:31 ↗ um i would

1:40:33 ↗ propose anything that we're doing that

1:40:35 ↗ focuses development in areas that are

1:40:36 ↗ already disturbed and obviously there's

1:40:38 ↗ there's a there's exceptions to that but

1:40:40 ↗ um

1:40:42 ↗ that focus development on areas that are

1:40:43 ↗ already disturbed in the places that we

1:40:45 ↗ have stated as a city that we want to

1:40:47 ↗ have development which is on the valley

1:40:50 ↗ floor so

1:40:51 ↗ obviously there's there's other hazards

1:40:53 ↗ other critical areas on the valley floor

1:40:54 ↗ so that's easier said than done

1:40:56 ↗ but but that would be my take as a

1:40:59 ↗ kind of a higher level on this question

1:41:01 ↗ thank

1:41:02 ↗ you excellent thank you board member

1:41:05 ↗ finch and board member uh mcwilliams

1:41:09 ↗ thank you chair um echoing on your

1:41:12 ↗ comment chair fall um

1:41:14 ↗ i i agree with you that we should have

1:41:16 ↗ setbacks on steep slopes and not reduce

1:41:18 ↗ them but you mentioned something that

1:41:20 ↗ kind of alerted me of cutting into

1:41:22 ↗ slopes to build roadways and whatnot to

1:41:24 ↗ get

1:41:25 ↗ ingress egress up there so how does that

1:41:28 ↗ play into this because i don't see that

1:41:30 ↗ anywhere in the code that defines that

1:41:33 ↗ mini is is there something in the code

1:41:35 ↗ that talks about cutting into hillsides

1:41:39 ↗ um you know i

1:41:42 ↗ jim do you want to take that one

1:41:49 ↗ all right just unmuted

1:41:50 ↗ um

1:41:53 ↗ so the code does not really

1:41:54 ↗ differentiate

1:41:56 ↗ specifically about cuts

1:41:58 ↗ what it does talk about is what you can

1:42:01 ↗ do

1:42:02 ↗ within the critical areas either making

1:42:04 ↗ a cut in a steep slope

1:42:06 ↗ or a cut in a landslide area

1:42:09 ↗ and how it addresses that is it talks

1:42:11 ↗ about whether the cut can be stable or

1:42:13 ↗ not

1:42:15 ↗ so it doesn't really say you can't make

1:42:17 ↗ cuts it just means it just

1:42:19 ↗ the code addresses the stability of

1:42:22 ↗ those cuts

1:42:25 ↗ thank you

1:42:27 ↗ yeah the other thing i would add to it

1:42:29 ↗ is i think the questions that we had

1:42:31 ↗ posed was which you all had really good

1:42:35 ↗ feedback on was when in what

1:42:37 ↗ circumstances should the buffers be

1:42:40 ↗ increased i think a discussion today is

1:42:41 ↗ you don't want to decrease them i think

1:42:43 ↗ that may be

1:42:44 ↗ [Music]

1:42:45 ↗ a little bit of takeaway but i think

1:42:47 ↗ what i read

1:42:49 ↗ in your responses for

1:42:52 ↗ examples of times when the buffer should

1:42:54 ↗ be larger than 50 feet so let me read a

1:42:56 ↗ couple of uh answers here you said if

1:42:59 ↗ the if it's at the top of a steep slope

1:43:02 ↗ uh the other one i think you said if

1:43:04 ↗ they're um you know we're going to get a

1:43:07 ↗ lot of rainstorms and um with the

1:43:10 ↗ climate change so therefore keep that in

1:43:12 ↗ mind as you consider increasing the the

1:43:16 ↗ the setbacks

1:43:17 ↗ um the other one i think was uh where

1:43:20 ↗ there's more fire uh hazards um and such

1:43:23 ↗ things of that nature or where there's a

1:43:26 ↗ landslide potential so i think that

1:43:29 ↗ that gives us a little bit of guidance

1:43:30 ↗ on on at times when more than 50 feet

1:43:33 ↗ maybe perhaps makes more sense um

1:43:37 ↗ um so i think we we did get some

1:43:39 ↗ guidance from you all in terms of some

1:43:41 ↗ examples um to give us some food for

1:43:43 ↗ thought when

1:43:45 ↗ we want to put some language in the code

1:43:47 ↗ for larger buffers

1:43:48 ↗ so i just wanted to point that out

1:43:50 ↗ because i think the discussion was

1:43:51 ↗ focusing on reducing the buffers but the

1:43:53 ↗ question really posed was when do you

1:43:55 ↗ think the buffer should be larger than

1:43:56 ↗ 50 feet

1:44:04 ↗ okay i don't see any more comments or

1:44:06 ↗ questions

1:44:07 ↗ so with that let's go ahead and

1:44:11 ↗ uh commissioner milligan has

1:44:13 ↗ she's waving her hand so she has a

1:44:15 ↗ question or comment

1:44:16 ↗ i'm just waiting for round two

1:44:18 ↗ thank you uh it's so good to hear from

1:44:21 ↗ the fellow commissioners milligan here

1:44:23 ↗ um uh chairfall i did want to uh just

1:44:26 ↗ touch again on your comments about

1:44:28 ↗ squawk mountain and squat mountain can

1:44:31 ↗ in many ways be one of those examples of

1:44:33 ↗ development that happened in the early

1:44:35 ↗ times where people who lived on a house

1:44:37 ↗ on a hill lived on it still lived on a

1:44:40 ↗ hill

1:44:41 ↗ after they built their house

1:44:43 ↗ and i want to point out that

1:44:45 ↗ redevelopment will be a challenge going

1:44:48 ↗ forward especially with communities like

1:44:51 ↗ squawk mountain and i

1:44:53 ↗ had some personal experience on mercer

1:44:55 ↗ island

1:44:56 ↗ and they were rewriting their

1:44:58 ↗ residential code because of

1:45:01 ↗ redevelopment so i think that we can't

1:45:04 ↗ ignore what will happen on squawk

1:45:05 ↗ mountain just because it's already built

1:45:07 ↗ on

1:45:08 ↗ it will be rebuilt on

1:45:11 ↗ so i don't want to neglect it and then

1:45:13 ↗ to something that many just said at our

1:45:16 ↗ previous meeting we talked about whether

1:45:18 ↗ we were recognizing

1:45:20 ↗ slopes because they are steep or because

1:45:24 ↗ they are steep and maybe

1:45:26 ↗ other slopes aren't as steep but they're

1:45:28 ↗ still unstable

1:45:30 ↗ and i think mr johnson said something

1:45:33 ↗ about that last time and i don't

1:45:35 ↗ remember the criteria about how he would

1:45:36 ↗ it would determine it but that would

1:45:38 ↗ broaden the

1:45:40 ↗ areas that would be protected

1:45:42 ↗ and

1:45:43 ↗ i think generally speaking when you look

1:45:44 ↗ for consensus if the consensus is to

1:45:47 ↗ increase our protections

1:45:49 ↗ uh in this and be more vigilant

1:45:54 ↗ yes let's do

1:45:56 ↗ it thank you

1:46:00 ↗ excellent thank you commissioner

1:46:01 ↗ milligan and kudos i

1:46:03 ↗ i second her

1:46:04 ↗ uh that's it for comments on this topic

1:46:07 ↗ here so uh

1:46:09 ↗ any the ball's back in your court great

1:46:12 ↗ uh thank you i think we've covered the

1:46:14 ↗ aquatic critical areas we've covered the

1:46:16 ↗ geological hazardous area so we can

1:46:18 ↗ excuse uh

1:46:20 ↗ jim johnson from this meeting he's

1:46:22 ↗ welcome to stay but

1:46:24 ↗ i want to give him an opportunity i

1:46:25 ↗ think we'll move on to

1:46:27 ↗ discussing

1:46:28 ↗ uh climate change and outdoor with that

1:46:32 ↗ i'm going to turn it over to katie she

1:46:33 ↗ will facilitate that

1:46:35 ↗ those topics

1:46:38 ↗ um kristin i think we'll take the

1:46:40 ↗ sustainability topic first and then do

1:46:42 ↗ outdoor lighting last

1:46:45 ↗ it's well thank you

1:46:47 ↗ um so

1:46:49 ↗ um

1:46:50 ↗ we wanted to give an opportunity to have

1:46:53 ↗ a longer conversation about the climate

1:46:55 ↗ change and sustainability topic it was

1:46:58 ↗ cut a bit short at the july 22nd meeting

1:47:02 ↗ and um i also wanted to acknowledge that

1:47:06 ↗ since july 22nd uh you all have heard

1:47:09 ↗ draft policies from the climate action

1:47:12 ↗ plan but

1:47:14 ↗ that the environmental board has been

1:47:15 ↗ working a lot with that group and that

1:47:18 ↗ also the ppc recently met on those new

1:47:21 ↗ policies so

1:47:23 ↗ um you're aware of a little bit more of

1:47:25 ↗ the direction the climate action plan is

1:47:27 ↗ going and then the title 18 group has

1:47:30 ↗ also been talking with the um cascadia

1:47:34 ↗ consulting

1:47:35 ↗ group that's doing the climate action

1:47:36 ↗ plan so our intention is as as the

1:47:39 ↗ policies become actions and strategies

1:47:42 ↗ that those actions and strategies

1:47:45 ↗ that are focused on title 18 or code

1:47:49 ↗ items

1:47:50 ↗ get pulled into our title 18 update work

1:47:53 ↗ directly and that we're in close

1:47:55 ↗ conversation with that with with um

1:47:58 ↗ the climate action plan folks so that

1:48:00 ↗ their trajectory is that the plan would

1:48:03 ↗ be adopted by the end of the year

1:48:05 ↗ and so it's our hope that we would be

1:48:08 ↗ able to start drafting um

1:48:11 ↗ preparing draft language

1:48:13 ↗ that addressed sustainability throughout

1:48:15 ↗ the code uh earlier in 2022

1:48:19 ↗ but for the purpose of tonight

1:48:22 ↗ um

1:48:23 ↗ we wanted to

1:48:25 ↗ present again some of the areas where

1:48:28 ↗ sustainability and climate

1:48:31 ↗ related

1:48:33 ↗ code set code can appear

1:48:35 ↗ um i have a list here of seven places

1:48:38 ↗ you'll notice that

1:48:40 ↗ two of the number six and seven are

1:48:42 ↗ actually

1:48:44 ↗ green building requirements and storm

1:48:45 ↗ water requirements that are outside of

1:48:48 ↗ title 18

1:48:49 ↗ but from the the survey responses we

1:48:52 ↗ heard that

1:48:54 ↗ um

1:48:55 ↗ the preference was not to have a

1:48:59 ↗ standalone point based system but rather

1:49:02 ↗ to

1:49:03 ↗ incorporate some point-based system but

1:49:05 ↗ also to elevate

1:49:08 ↗ the entire code or or

1:49:10 ↗ to elevate many sections of the code

1:49:13 ↗ to hopefully achieve better

1:49:15 ↗ sustainability results

1:49:17 ↗ so some of the places where that can

1:49:19 ↗ happen um one would be with land use

1:49:22 ↗ codes so this this has to do with

1:49:26 ↗ which uses are allowed in different

1:49:28 ↗ zones where mixed-use development maybe

1:49:31 ↗ is more appropriate um

1:49:34 ↗ mixed-use development helps to

1:49:36 ↗ reduce vehicle trips and

1:49:39 ↗ places housing near services and jobs

1:49:43 ↗ housing density near those services and

1:49:45 ↗ jobs also has climate

1:49:48 ↗ benefits and then

1:49:50 ↗ also looking at areas that may become

1:49:52 ↗ more vulnerable to

1:49:54 ↗ climate impacts as the years

1:49:57 ↗ go go by

1:49:59 ↗ particularly

1:50:00 ↗ thinking about

1:50:02 ↗ wildfire and flood hazards and so

1:50:05 ↗ looking

1:50:07 ↗ at the city of issaquah and trying to

1:50:08 ↗ find those places that could be

1:50:11 ↗ most vulnerable and

1:50:13 ↗ looking to limit the development

1:50:15 ↗ intensity there

1:50:17 ↗ we've talked a lot about critical areas

1:50:19 ↗ protections today but both critical

1:50:21 ↗ areas and tree retention and landscaping

1:50:25 ↗ codes

1:50:26 ↗ help to protect the existing environment

1:50:29 ↗ and to enhance the environment

1:50:33 ↗ and

1:50:34 ↗ also maintain and enhance our tree cover

1:50:36 ↗ and landscaping in general which has

1:50:40 ↗ climate

1:50:41 ↗ carbon sequestration benefits and also

1:50:45 ↗ other benefits to the environment

1:50:48 ↗ numbers four and five have to do with

1:50:51 ↗ electric vehicle charging and then

1:50:53 ↗ multimodal facilities such as bike

1:50:56 ↗ facilities or scooters or other things

1:50:58 ↗ that

1:50:59 ↗ may be

1:51:01 ↗ part of

1:51:03 ↗ requirements for new developments to

1:51:05 ↗ help to

1:51:07 ↗ encourage

1:51:08 ↗ travel that's not

1:51:10 ↗ fossil fuel based

1:51:12 ↗ and then these last two requirements

1:51:15 ↗ green building and green storm water our

1:51:18 ↗ requirements are are both ways to

1:51:22 ↗ to

1:51:23 ↗ reduce energy use and resource use and

1:51:26 ↗ also

1:51:27 ↗ provide better stormwater infiltration

1:51:30 ↗ and blood prevention and water

1:51:33 ↗ cleaning benefits so

1:51:36 ↗ the last two would not obviously be in

1:51:38 ↗ title 18 but um

1:51:40 ↗ part of what we will be doing as the

1:51:43 ↗ climate action plan uh

1:51:45 ↗ comes to a close is working on

1:51:49 ↗ thinking through which of these

1:51:51 ↗ um

1:51:53 ↗ could be required in some sort of

1:51:54 ↗ point-based system

1:51:56 ↗ and

1:51:58 ↗ which would be required for every

1:52:00 ↗ development which possibly

1:52:03 ↗ be

1:52:04 ↗ required an elevated level for

1:52:06 ↗ certain

1:52:08 ↗ incentives or point-based um

1:52:11 ↗ frameworks

1:52:13 ↗ so

1:52:13 ↗ we wanted to

1:52:16 ↗ take questions or comments in general on

1:52:18 ↗ the sustainability and climate change as

1:52:20 ↗ it relates to title 18 but also

1:52:24 ↗ see whether there's anything missing

1:52:26 ↗ from this list or

1:52:28 ↗ if there are items on this list that are

1:52:31 ↗ perhaps of a higher priority than apps

1:52:41 ↗ okay we'll go ahead and open it up to

1:52:44 ↗ commissioner questions

1:52:50 ↗ and our first question is from

1:52:53 ↗ board member don mcquilliams

1:52:58 ↗ hi katie um question for you and you may

1:53:00 ↗ not know the answer to this on number

1:53:02 ↗ seven your green storm water

1:53:03 ↗ infrastructure

1:53:04 ↗ so under the

1:53:06 ↗ current npds your storm water discharge

1:53:08 ↗ permit you're already required to use

1:53:11 ↗ green storm water as your preferred and

1:53:13 ↗ common mechanism when developing so are

1:53:15 ↗ you indicating that you want to go above

1:53:17 ↗ and beyond

1:53:19 ↗ the ecology requirements for this

1:53:24 ↗ you're correct that i'm not a stormwater

1:53:25 ↗ expert but i i know that there are

1:53:28 ↗ different levels of enhancement that can

1:53:30 ↗ go above and beyond the npds guidance

1:53:33 ↗ so we would be looking at you know they

1:53:35 ↗ would need to meet that minimum

1:53:37 ↗ obviously but um

1:53:39 ↗ if there were

1:53:41 ↗ you know there's different um created

1:53:43 ↗ artificially created wetlands that that

1:53:45 ↗ have different benefits than

1:53:47 ↗ stormwater systems that are underground

1:53:50 ↗ for example and some of those

1:53:52 ↗ are not required by code but um

1:53:55 ↗ are options for certain sites that are

1:53:57 ↗ trying to achieve higher levels of

1:53:59 ↗ filtration for water quality reasons

1:54:02 ↗ i'll be interested to see a little more

1:54:03 ↗ on what this point based system would

1:54:05 ↗ look like so maybe chat with your

1:54:07 ↗ stormwater folks and circle back with us

1:54:10 ↗ yeah definitely we'll well we're still

1:54:13 ↗ developing i don't think that the um

1:54:16 ↗ that the specifics of the storm water

1:54:17 ↗ code have been are are under

1:54:20 ↗ consideration right now but i do know

1:54:21 ↗ that the stormwater code

1:54:23 ↗ is going to be updated in in the near

1:54:26 ↗ future

1:54:27 ↗ so that might be coming later

1:54:29 ↗ all right thank you

1:54:37 ↗ and we have a question from board member

1:54:39 ↗ annie newcombe

1:54:43 ↗ thank you this is anne newcomb

1:54:46 ↗ um

1:54:46 ↗ so good job putting this list

1:54:48 ↗ together um

1:54:51 ↗ i've got a question so um i've noticed

1:54:54 ↗ that the hoas have a lot of rules that

1:54:59 ↗ are going to

1:55:01 ↗ make it difficult

1:55:03 ↗ um for us to meet our climate change

1:55:06 ↗ um or

1:55:08 ↗ our climate goals our climate action

1:55:10 ↗ plan goals

1:55:12 ↗ for instance

1:55:13 ↗ you know no um

1:55:15 ↗ inability to

1:55:17 ↗ hang laundry

1:55:18 ↗ and um

1:55:21 ↗ and then also i noticed uh

1:55:24 ↗ there's no irrigation so i'm i'm

1:55:27 ↗ thinking that um

1:55:29 ↗ having

1:55:30 ↗ gray water uh you know go out to water

1:55:34 ↗ people's yards would be helpful

1:55:36 ↗ and um if if the hoas are saying that

1:55:40 ↗ it's not possible then i'm wondering if

1:55:42 ↗ um

1:55:43 ↗ if this gets changed in um title 18

1:55:47 ↗ will the hoas have to comply

1:55:53 ↗ um so the hoa agreements are outside of

1:55:56 ↗ title 18 and the city

1:55:58 ↗ doesn't really have um

1:56:02 ↗ much control over those

1:56:04 ↗ okay but i think that there could

1:56:05 ↗ definitely be

1:56:07 ↗ outreach from the city as as a city

1:56:10 ↗ initiative to try and work with

1:56:11 ↗ different communities to incorporate

1:56:14 ↗ more climate-friendly practices into

1:56:16 ↗ their

1:56:17 ↗ ccnrs

1:56:19 ↗ [Music]

1:56:21 ↗ but i think that at this point the the

1:56:24 ↗ code wouldn't have the ability to go in

1:56:25 ↗ and change hoa rules

1:56:30 ↗ thank you for that

1:56:33 ↗ and then as far as the tree retention

1:56:37 ↗ and landscaping

1:56:38 ↗ requirements

1:56:40 ↗ um i know

1:56:43 ↗ i'm guessing

1:56:45 ↗ that the city of issaquah even though we

1:56:48 ↗ have a 51

1:56:49 ↗ tree canopy which is higher than most

1:56:52 ↗ other

1:56:53 ↗ cities

1:56:55 ↗ i'm guessing that residents are going to

1:56:56 ↗ want to keep that

1:56:58 ↗ um

1:56:59 ↗ so

1:57:00 ↗ i would like to propose that somehow

1:57:03 ↗ there's verbage that says um if you're

1:57:07 ↗ if you're developing you're

1:57:09 ↗ you're needing to cut some trees down

1:57:11 ↗ to

1:57:12 ↗ create something then you need to go

1:57:14 ↗ plant trees someplace else

1:57:17 ↗ in town if that's possible

1:57:22 ↗ yeah thank you for that comment i think

1:57:24 ↗ that's uh definitely

1:57:26 ↗ something that is uh already there's

1:57:29 ↗ already tree replacement um provisions

1:57:33 ↗ in the code but we're looking at

1:57:35 ↗ strengthening those and making sure that

1:57:36 ↗ they work and achieve

1:57:39 ↗ the desired tree academy coverage so

1:57:42 ↗ that's actually the topic of the next

1:57:44 ↗ ppc meeting oh good because i thought i

1:57:47 ↗ read something and i heard somebody say

1:57:49 ↗ with the title 18 that

1:57:52 ↗ we might be losing half of our tree

1:57:55 ↗ canopy or maybe i read it wrong um

1:57:59 ↗ so it's good to hear that if somebody

1:58:01 ↗ develops

1:58:03 ↗ they have to

1:58:05 ↗ replant the trees

1:58:07 ↗ thank you

1:58:10 ↗ all right and thank you very much board

1:58:11 ↗ member newcomb um

1:58:14 ↗ so i have a question regarding

1:58:18 ↗ topic number

1:58:20 ↗ [Music]

1:58:21 ↗ five multimodal facilities commute with

1:58:23 ↗ trip reduction and parking what do we

1:58:26 ↗ have i mean where are we

1:58:30 ↗ what are we looking to

1:58:31 ↗ right now because we have set policies

1:58:34 ↗ that are being developed

1:58:37 ↗ has that been ironed out or is that

1:58:39 ↗ being worked on by the transportation

1:58:41 ↗ board

1:58:46 ↗ so existing in code there are

1:58:48 ↗ requirements for bike parking and

1:58:52 ↗ certain large developments have to have

1:58:54 ↗ commute trip reduction

1:58:56 ↗ programs in place um and also obviously

1:58:59 ↗ there are parking requirements

1:59:01 ↗ what we would be doing um

1:59:04 ↗ after the climate action plan is done is

1:59:06 ↗ looking at these

1:59:08 ↗ regulations and seeing if there are

1:59:10 ↗ places where we can adjust them to

1:59:14 ↗ to be

1:59:16 ↗ um

1:59:18 ↗ to be i guess farther reaching for

1:59:20 ↗ sustainability goals one example

1:59:23 ↗ with parking

1:59:24 ↗ there's a recommendation that

1:59:27 ↗ one way to get more accessory dwelling

1:59:30 ↗ units would be

1:59:31 ↗ to not require

1:59:33 ↗ the adu to have its own parking place

1:59:35 ↗ because that is often a barrier

1:59:37 ↗ if you have to fit another parking place

1:59:39 ↗ on the site so one option would be if

1:59:42 ↗ you wanted to have more adus and that

1:59:44 ↗ that is a barrier to to take away that

1:59:47 ↗ requirement i'm not saying that we're

1:59:49 ↗ proposing that but that's just an

1:59:51 ↗ example of one revision that could have

1:59:53 ↗ to do with parking um

1:59:55 ↗ commute trip reduction goals could be

1:59:58 ↗ could be expanded to not just apply to

2:00:00 ↗ larger projects but

2:00:02 ↗ to apply more broadly in the community

2:00:06 ↗ and some of that may be

2:00:10 ↗ more of a programmatic level that the

2:00:12 ↗ city works on and some of it may be

2:00:14 ↗ connected with um mutual developments

2:00:17 ↗ but i think we haven't worked through

2:00:18 ↗ that yet

2:00:19 ↗ and maybe that would be an opportunity

2:00:21 ↗ to work the transportation board to talk

2:00:24 ↗ through some of those options okay

2:00:26 ↗ my thought was on the commute trip

2:00:28 ↗ reduction is working with partner

2:00:35 ↗ major employers

2:00:40 ↗ employers that hire that hire a

2:00:42 ↗ significant number of employees or

2:00:46 ↗ residents within issaquah like let's say

2:00:48 ↗ microsoft have a partner program with

2:00:49 ↗ them where

2:00:50 ↗ people could work from home or do

2:00:52 ↗ something else or a shuttle

2:00:54 ↗ that would take them to redmond instead

2:00:56 ↗ of having to put all these cars on the

2:00:58 ↗ road

2:00:59 ↗ um

2:01:00 ↗ and then the other part was uh bike

2:01:02 ↗ parking and so on so

2:01:04 ↗ i'm glad to hear that transportation

2:01:06 ↗ board and i think i heard you right is

2:01:08 ↗ going to be working on this and then

2:01:10 ↗ that means policy and planning

2:01:11 ↗ commission we're going to also hear

2:01:12 ↗ about this before it gets moved forward

2:01:17 ↗ without the idea

2:01:19 ↗ well any any changes to the code are

2:01:21 ↗ definitely coming to the planning and

2:01:22 ↗ policy commission

2:01:24 ↗ um

2:01:24 ↗ and

2:01:26 ↗ the example that you mentioned with the

2:01:28 ↗ with the microsoft shuttle that would

2:01:30 ↗ not be part of the title 18 update

2:01:32 ↗ because that

2:01:33 ↗ that code requirement if we're talking

2:01:35 ↗ about microsoft located in

2:01:38 ↗ redmond we wouldn't be able to require

2:01:39 ↗ that of microsoft but if there's a major

2:01:43 ↗ company coming

2:01:45 ↗ issaquah

2:01:47 ↗ for example

2:01:48 ↗ the new costco um

2:01:51 ↗ the new costco corporate building uh you

2:01:54 ↗ know if they were to a certain size they

2:01:56 ↗ would be required it's actually a state

2:01:58 ↗ program that large um

2:02:00 ↗ destinations are required to have

2:02:02 ↗ commute trip reduction measures in place

2:02:05 ↗ so

2:02:07 ↗ i'm not saying

2:02:08 ↗ for the commute part with an employer

2:02:10 ↗ like microsoft completely out of our

2:02:12 ↗ jurisdiction i totally understand that

2:02:16 ↗ but have some sort of program

2:02:19 ↗ where

2:02:20 ↗ the city could reach out to

2:02:22 ↗ the boeings the microsoft's

2:02:25 ↗ the amazons and work out some sort of

2:02:28 ↗ partner program maybe a sister city kind

2:02:30 ↗ of program where

2:02:32 ↗ we work with other city agencies to help

2:02:35 ↗ trip reduction

2:02:37 ↗ by

2:02:39 ↗ motivating

2:02:41 ↗ these organizations

2:02:43 ↗ by through

2:02:45 ↗ um working with us coming up with

2:02:47 ↗ solutions that would help reduce trips

2:02:51 ↗ i think it's a great idea

2:02:55 ↗ not sure who the right person

2:02:57 ↗ i'm not sure that it's part of the title

2:02:59 ↗ 18 update

2:03:01 ↗ um

2:03:02 ↗ but it you know it could be part of the

2:03:04 ↗ climate action plan because that the

2:03:06 ↗ climate action plan touches all levels

2:03:08 ↗ of the city so that could definitely be

2:03:12 ↗ everybody wants to work from home

2:03:14 ↗ that's been a huge benefit and a lot of

2:03:16 ↗ employers are realizing that works so

2:03:19 ↗ um kristin you had a

2:03:21 ↗ well i do i mean for years the city's

2:03:23 ↗ had a program in place where we work

2:03:25 ↗ with employers who have only changed it

2:03:27 ↗ it was to over 75 employees and we go in

2:03:29 ↗ and talk to the employers and work out

2:03:31 ↗ programs with them costco is matter of

2:03:33 ↗ fact the highest

2:03:34 ↗ uh

2:03:35 ↗ vancha program in the entire state

2:03:37 ↗ so we do have it we unfortunately are

2:03:40 ↗ lacking a program manager for that right

2:03:42 ↗ now um but i you know i it's still in

2:03:45 ↗ place i don't know what the monitoring

2:03:47 ↗ is like but but there's something out

2:03:48 ↗ there

2:03:50 ↗ i see

2:03:51 ↗ excellent all right that was my question

2:03:54 ↗ uh looks like we have a

2:03:56 ↗ question from commissioner uh or board

2:03:59 ↗ member davidson

2:04:01 ↗ thank you this is nancy davidson

2:04:04 ↗ and this is just kind of a general

2:04:05 ↗ question how does um artificial turf fit

2:04:07 ↗ into all of this and the reason i'm

2:04:09 ↗ asking that is

2:04:11 ↗ it reduces water consumption

2:04:13 ↗ i know some homeowners associations

2:04:15 ↗ don't allow it

2:04:16 ↗ but it seems like it could touch a lot

2:04:18 ↗ of points

2:04:20 ↗ but i'm not sure how effective it is it

2:04:23 ↗ um recharging aquifers and things like

2:04:25 ↗ that i'm not as familiar with it as i

2:04:27 ↗ probably should be is that an option we

2:04:29 ↗ could be looking at in our landscape

2:04:31 ↗ requirements basically to reduce the

2:04:32 ↗ amount of water that's going on the

2:04:34 ↗ ground or does that in

2:04:36 ↗ exchange reduce the amount of water

2:04:38 ↗ that's getting into the aquifer and thus

2:04:40 ↗ into the wetlands and other places so

2:04:42 ↗ just i just a little curious about that

2:04:47 ↗ you know i don't have a lot of

2:04:48 ↗ experience with artificial turf but i do

2:04:51 ↗ know with the

2:04:52 ↗ new

2:04:53 ↗ sports fields um

2:04:56 ↗ for example the new middle school that

2:04:59 ↗ that had a huge art had a foot you know

2:05:02 ↗ artificial football field and um it has

2:05:05 ↗ significant drainage requirements

2:05:08 ↗ because the the turf doesn't

2:05:10 ↗ soak in the water the same way that

2:05:13 ↗ lawn would so

2:05:16 ↗ it preserves water because you don't

2:05:17 ↗ have to water it but then it also

2:05:19 ↗ doesn't have the same water purification

2:05:22 ↗ and retention um that that a natural

2:05:25 ↗ material would have so i think there's

2:05:27 ↗ definitely pros and cons

2:05:29 ↗ um we haven't considered it but we can

2:05:31 ↗ add that to the list of some something

2:05:34 ↗ it seems to me like that would be an

2:05:36 ↗ interesting thing to at least have in

2:05:38 ↗ your

2:05:39 ↗ pocket for landscape requirements um you

2:05:42 ↗ know

2:05:43 ↗ trying to look at reduce the amount of

2:05:44 ↗ water that's going on turf i know a lot

2:05:46 ↗ of people don't water their lawns but

2:05:49 ↗ it's an option that's sitting out there

2:05:51 ↗ um

2:05:52 ↗ that still provides that kind of

2:05:54 ↗ greenness in a different sort of way

2:05:56 ↗ i've seen it go down very effectively

2:05:58 ↗ but a lot of places don't allow it i'm

2:06:00 ↗ not sure what the city is but i think

2:06:02 ↗ it's something

2:06:04 ↗ i don't know the pros and cons of it but

2:06:06 ↗ it's something to consider there you go

2:06:09 ↗ yeah

2:06:10 ↗ thank you board member davidson and

2:06:12 ↗ board member uh newcomb you have the

2:06:14 ↗ floor

2:06:17 ↗ um

2:06:18 ↗ i would just say that um we would want

2:06:21 ↗ to know what the ingredients are of the

2:06:22 ↗ artificial turf because if they're

2:06:24 ↗ plastic

2:06:25 ↗ that would be

2:06:26 ↗ bad for

2:06:27 ↗ the aquatic life and

2:06:32 ↗ as it goes downstream or even right

2:06:34 ↗ there

2:06:35 ↗ and then also

2:06:37 ↗ it would kill off all the microbes

2:06:39 ↗ underneath the um

2:06:42 ↗ underneath

2:06:43 ↗ and

2:06:44 ↗ um even grass

2:06:47 ↗ all plants sequester carbon

2:06:50 ↗ so um while we might be saving some

2:06:52 ↗ water

2:06:53 ↗ and we would be

2:06:55 ↗ giving up

2:06:56 ↗ some carbon sequestration and

2:06:58 ↗ potentially

2:06:59 ↗ poisoning aquatics with

2:07:02 ↗ plastic

2:07:03 ↗ so that would be my comment on that

2:07:09 ↗ and thank you board member newcomb i you

2:07:11 ↗ took the same question right out of my

2:07:13 ↗ mind or out of my mouth so i was gonna

2:07:14 ↗ ask the same thing

2:07:16 ↗ uh okay so i don't see any more

2:07:19 ↗ questions

2:07:20 ↗ let's go ahead and open up to public

2:07:22 ↗ comment and then we'll come back to uh

2:07:24 ↗ discussion

2:07:29 ↗ i believe we have one person who would

2:07:31 ↗ like to comment one moment please

2:07:41 ↗ honey i think you wanted to speak so i

2:07:43 ↗ made you a panelist yep here i am

2:07:46 ↗ all right so you know i was just

2:07:49 ↗ reading through the agenda and i'm

2:07:51 ↗ confused because

2:07:53 ↗ most of this is not really where i could

2:07:55 ↗ have ever seen to anticipate what i was

2:07:58 ↗ supposed to say

2:08:00 ↗ so

2:08:01 ↗ um here we go

2:08:03 ↗ uh at six and seven on this page talk

2:08:07 ↗ about point baits

2:08:08 ↗ uh based systems

2:08:12 ↗ but

2:08:13 ↗ so i'm gonna say that's like leads to me

2:08:16 ↗ but i don't know what green storm water

2:08:19 ↗ infrastructure is so

2:08:23 ↗ i can't

2:08:25 ↗ comment on that if there is green

2:08:28 ↗ stormwater infrastructure that would

2:08:30 ↗ help our stormwater going into lakes and

2:08:32 ↗ amish and help our

2:08:34 ↗ our streams and fish

2:08:37 ↗ i think it should just be required

2:08:39 ↗ instead of being part of a point based

2:08:42 ↗ system where they could choose to do or

2:08:44 ↗ not

2:08:45 ↗ do that

2:08:48 ↗ and

2:08:48 ↗ green building requirements

2:08:52 ↗ are similar if we want it just ask for

2:08:56 ↗ it

2:08:56 ↗ and then people will know what they have

2:08:59 ↗ to do and they can do a pro forma and

2:09:01 ↗ they can say yeah we can do it or no

2:09:04 ↗ it's too expensive and most developers

2:09:06 ↗ you know what

2:09:07 ↗ they want to build a new sequoia and

2:09:09 ↗ they'll just say okay we know we have to

2:09:10 ↗ do it and so we'll

2:09:12 ↗ we'll just do it

2:09:15 ↗ um the

2:09:17 ↗ tree retention and landscape

2:09:20 ↗ requirements

2:09:22 ↗ um

2:09:23 ↗ again

2:09:24 ↗ i i don't know what those mean so if you

2:09:29 ↗ are saying that we are aiming for

2:09:33 ↗ um

2:09:35 ↗ pre-retention

2:09:37 ↗ that will

2:09:39 ↗ keep

2:09:40 ↗ significant trees and trees that add

2:09:44 ↗ habitat

2:09:46 ↗ uh

2:09:46 ↗ and we will make it so that those need

2:09:49 ↗ to be retained in order to develop

2:09:53 ↗ i agree with that the ability to cut

2:09:56 ↗ down 80 foot dug first

2:10:00 ↗ and plant

2:10:02 ↗ two inch tall dug first at the top of

2:10:05 ↗ lake tradition

2:10:07 ↗ does not play with me

2:10:10 ↗ um it does not serve the same function

2:10:13 ↗ an 80-foot dog fur is a huge thing it's

2:10:16 ↗ a big carbon

2:10:18 ↗ sink it sucks up and treats storm water

2:10:20 ↗ and provides shade so tree retention

2:10:24 ↗ needs to be based upon the function of

2:10:28 ↗ those trees and what they do

2:10:31 ↗ not just a holistic ability to be able

2:10:33 ↗ to remove trees because they are

2:10:35 ↗ inconvenient and plant them elsewhere

2:10:38 ↗ and hope they survive because right now

2:10:41 ↗ we can plant trees elsewhere however

2:10:43 ↗ they we don't know if they get planted

2:10:45 ↗ and we don't know if they live landscape

2:10:47 ↗ requirements are similar

2:10:49 ↗ um in theory they're supposed to be

2:10:52 ↗ uh required in perpetuity

2:10:55 ↗ but

2:10:56 ↗ no one checks to see

2:10:58 ↗ if if landscape requirements are done in

2:11:02 ↗ perpetuity so the the list

2:11:05 ↗ to me

2:11:06 ↗ is is sort of interesting commute trip

2:11:09 ↗ reduction one of the big things is uh

2:11:12 ↗ school trips because we all groan when

2:11:15 ↗ school goes back in session and every

2:11:18 ↗ parent starts driving their kids to

2:11:20 ↗ school

2:11:21 ↗ and that is one of the single largest

2:11:25 ↗ impacts to the street system that we

2:11:27 ↗ have yet that does not fall under

2:11:30 ↗ commute trip reduction because it's too

2:11:33 ↗ it's diffuse right

2:11:35 ↗ and so that's seemingly

2:11:41 ↗ uh

2:11:42 ↗ not addressed in this so rather than

2:11:44 ↗ commute trip reduction for only those

2:11:47 ↗ larger businesses it needs to be some

2:11:50 ↗ sort of goal or program that as a

2:11:55 ↗ community we want to achieve in order to

2:11:58 ↗ make it so that our roads are drivable

2:12:00 ↗ for local people

2:12:03 ↗ and

2:12:04 ↗ um better for the environment and none

2:12:07 ↗ of the language here

2:12:10 ↗ sort of covers the concept of reducing

2:12:14 ↗ congestion

2:12:15 ↗ and making our lives better on a daily

2:12:19 ↗ basis while we lessen our impacts to the

2:12:23 ↗ planet

2:12:24 ↗ so there is a lack of personal

2:12:27 ↗ accountability

2:12:29 ↗ in our climate change and sustainability

2:12:32 ↗ here that

2:12:34 ↗ that um i think is going to be necessary

2:12:37 ↗ if we're going to wait if we're going to

2:12:39 ↗ make any progress toward our goals

2:12:42 ↗ on this it can't be just about

2:12:45 ↗ uh

2:12:47 ↗ them

2:12:48 ↗ it needs to be about all of us

2:12:51 ↗ uh thank you

2:13:05 ↗ okay kristen uh do we have any

2:13:07 ↗ additional

2:13:08 ↗ members of the public

2:13:11 ↗ no one else has raised their hand to

2:13:13 ↗ speak i'll give it a minute though if

2:13:14 ↗ you'd like to speak please raise your

2:13:15 ↗ hand

2:13:22 ↗ no no one else would like to speak at

2:13:24 ↗ this time

2:13:25 ↗ okay excellent uh we're going to open up

2:13:27 ↗ to

2:13:29 ↗ commissioner comments and i saw

2:13:32 ↗ it looks like a commit or a board member

2:13:35 ↗ newcomb uh but i wasn't sure if she had

2:13:37 ↗ a comment or question because it came in

2:13:39 ↗ just as we were transitioning over to

2:13:41 ↗ public comment

2:13:43 ↗ uh support member newcomer you have the

2:13:44 ↗ floor

2:13:46 ↗ awesome thank you this is anne newcomb

2:13:48 ↗ um i would like to suggest that um for

2:13:52 ↗ the green building requirements that

2:13:54 ↗ we ask for five star enviro house

2:13:58 ↗ code minimum

2:14:01 ↗ it's a more holistic approach

2:14:03 ↗ and um and then also

2:14:06 ↗ i got to thinking about the um

2:14:09 ↗ the

2:14:11 ↗ landscaping requirements and it would be

2:14:14 ↗ really nice if we could require that

2:14:16 ↗ people

2:14:18 ↗ use like organic gardening practices and

2:14:21 ↗ don't use

2:14:22 ↗ toxic chemicals on their yards

2:14:27 ↗ and the organic gardening practices will

2:14:29 ↗ sequester more carbon

2:14:31 ↗ as well

2:14:34 ↗ so

2:14:36 ↗ that's it for now

2:14:38 ↗ thanks

2:14:40 ↗ excellent thank you

2:14:44 ↗ board member finch

2:14:46 ↗ have a floor

2:14:48 ↗ thanks cheerful uh this is jamie finch

2:14:51 ↗ um

2:14:53 ↗ i don't see any major gaps in this list

2:14:57 ↗ i do think in terms of

2:14:58 ↗ areas that i would focus in on the most

2:15:01 ↗ uh i mean i think

2:15:03 ↗ land use and the way we develop and

2:15:06 ↗ continue to grow responsibly is probably

2:15:09 ↗ the most important because everything

2:15:11 ↗ that we try to do to reduce the impact

2:15:13 ↗ of climate change and be a sustainable

2:15:15 ↗ community will be centered i think

2:15:17 ↗ around that um so i think that in my

2:15:20 ↗ mind it's number one on this list i

2:15:21 ↗ think it's also number one in terms of

2:15:23 ↗ priority

2:15:24 ↗ uh and then

2:15:26 ↗ the other ones that i would look at as

2:15:28 ↗ other critical areas to focus on

2:15:32 ↗ probably wrong terms given that's one of

2:15:33 ↗ the options uh

2:15:36 ↗ number five number six

2:15:39 ↗ um

2:15:40 ↗ and number two and three obviously kind

2:15:42 ↗ of go hand in hand so i think those are

2:15:43 ↗ those would be kind of in my second tier

2:15:45 ↗ of uh areas that that help assuming that

2:15:49 ↗ we're developing

2:15:51 ↗ responsibly help to ensure that we have

2:15:53 ↗ a vibrant ecosystem as well as

2:15:56 ↗ uh

2:15:57 ↗ the population or the citizens of

2:15:59 ↗ issaquah continue to be able to uh move

2:16:01 ↗ about the city efficiently so as well as

2:16:04 ↗ in homes and buildings that are built

2:16:06 ↗ efficiently so those would be how i

2:16:08 ↗ would prioritize

2:16:10 ↗ from that list thank you

2:16:15 ↗ excellent

2:16:16 ↗ excellent thank you very much board

2:16:17 ↗ member finch

2:16:19 ↗ uh

2:16:20 ↗ commissioner milligan you have the floor

2:16:27 ↗ hi thank you commissioner milligan here

2:16:29 ↗ thank you chair fall

2:16:31 ↗ and thank you for the

2:16:32 ↗ comments to leverage

2:16:35 ↗ just to quickly

2:16:36 ↗ weigh in

2:16:38 ↗ uh number one land use as i said when we

2:16:41 ↗ met before

2:16:42 ↗ the mixed use development and housing

2:16:44 ↗ density is already planned in issaquah

2:16:46 ↗ for the central issaquah plan

2:16:49 ↗ and

2:16:50 ↗ the objective of adding housing density

2:16:54 ↗ to other residential areas the objective

2:16:56 ↗ stated was to reduce vehicle miles

2:16:58 ↗ traveled and it doesn't do it if all

2:17:01 ↗ you've got is houses there

2:17:03 ↗ all right so i reiterate looking at our

2:17:06 ↗ commercial deserts where we have housing

2:17:09 ↗ developments and with um

2:17:13 ↗ plenty of density plenty of people

2:17:15 ↗ living there who can't get anywhere

2:17:17 ↗ either because transportation options

2:17:18 ↗ are limited or they're just simply car

2:17:20 ↗ dependent

2:17:22 ↗ uh and

2:17:23 ↗ to go off of the vehicle miles traveled

2:17:25 ↗ we're talking about the commute trip

2:17:27 ↗ reduction act in this slide and and it

2:17:30 ↗ did seem a little bit

2:17:32 ↗ misplaced to talk about that here

2:17:35 ↗ because it is a state program that's

2:17:36 ↗ already in place what we wanted to do

2:17:38 ↗ was reduce vehicle miles traveled and

2:17:40 ↗ the mobility master plan addresses that

2:17:42 ↗ well and a lot of work went into that i

2:17:45 ↗ think that that

2:17:47 ↗ could provide the direction that we need

2:17:49 ↗ to interpret in our land use code

2:17:52 ↗ a couple of things that come to mind

2:17:53 ↗ there besides

2:17:56 ↗ areas housing areas where there aren't

2:17:58 ↗ any

2:18:00 ↗ services any daily needs services is

2:18:03 ↗ also the placement of our schools

2:18:04 ↗ especially elementary schools

2:18:06 ↗ they can be more dispersed and that can

2:18:08 ↗ reduce vehicle mouse traveled since

2:18:10 ↗ everybody seems to want to drive their

2:18:11 ↗ kids to school

2:18:14 ↗ uh and then i wanted to touch on trees

2:18:17 ↗ and and reiterate and i'm glad to hear

2:18:20 ↗ support here about increasing our tree

2:18:22 ↗ canopy especially in our built

2:18:24 ↗ environment certainly we have a higher

2:18:26 ↗ number and we should have a higher

2:18:28 ↗ number but how do we

2:18:32 ↗ how do we protect and increase our tree

2:18:35 ↗ canopy and our built environment part of

2:18:38 ↗ that goes to

2:18:39 ↗ what our audience member brought up

2:18:42 ↗ is about enforcement how can we

2:18:44 ↗ encourage the city to invest in

2:18:47 ↗ enforcing the standards that we create

2:18:50 ↗ here

2:18:51 ↗ in tree retention

2:18:53 ↗ and even in board member newcomb's

2:18:56 ↗ comment about

2:18:58 ↗ organic requirement of using organic

2:19:00 ↗ materials in our landscaping or even

2:19:03 ↗ native species now this is all doable

2:19:06 ↗ issaquah highlands has these standards

2:19:08 ↗ and they enforce them

2:19:10 ↗ and uh that's a third of issaquah so

2:19:12 ↗ it's it's not infeasible it doesn't stop

2:19:15 ↗ development you know these are things

2:19:17 ↗ that are compatible with development

2:19:19 ↗ yeah over four thousand homes up here

2:19:21 ↗ and very high standards same thing goes

2:19:24 ↗ for

2:19:25 ↗ green building requirements

2:19:27 ↗ increasing our rebuilding requirements

2:19:29 ↗ is not going to stop

2:19:30 ↗ building because

2:19:32 ↗ look because the quahogs look at dallas

2:19:35 ↗ they didn't have a problem with that and

2:19:36 ↗ then i want to

2:19:38 ↗ ask for clarification

2:19:41 ↗ about code and hoa rules if we increase

2:19:46 ↗ the strictness of our code

2:19:50 ↗ do

2:19:51 ↗ hoas need to follow and i saw i don't

2:19:55 ↗ know my screen this way now but i saw

2:19:56 ↗ lucy solomon in the room earlier she

2:19:58 ↗ really knows the answer to this question

2:20:00 ↗ but i understood that hoas could have

2:20:02 ↗ stricter rules

2:20:03 ↗ that hoas could not have

2:20:06 ↗ less strict rules than the city so i

2:20:09 ↗ just wanted to bring that back up

2:20:11 ↗ for um re

2:20:13 ↗ re-answering

2:20:15 ↗ that's it thank you very much

2:20:23 ↗ i don't know if i should reply to

2:20:25 ↗ nina right now but my uh

2:20:28 ↗ uh

2:20:30 ↗ um

2:20:32 ↗ my understanding is the same as yours

2:20:35 ↗ um

2:20:36 ↗ i guess the question

2:20:38 ↗ would be to take the example that um one

2:20:42 ↗ of the other commissioners or board

2:20:44 ↗ members gave was

2:20:48 ↗ clotheslines that's a really classic one

2:20:52 ↗ that many hoas do not allow them

2:20:56 ↗ i think the question is

2:20:59 ↗ the city is the city going to require

2:21:01 ↗ clotheslines

2:21:03 ↗ so you know it's a question of whether

2:21:06 ↗ um

2:21:07 ↗ there is a restriction that could be put

2:21:09 ↗ in place

2:21:11 ↗ but the city would choose to put a

2:21:12 ↗ restriction in place

2:21:14 ↗ that would lead to to the city being

2:21:16 ↗ more strict and then the hoa having to

2:21:19 ↗ address

2:21:30 ↗ okay uh

2:21:31 ↗ [Music]

2:21:32 ↗ we're moving on to

2:21:36 ↗ four peopleians

2:21:40 ↗ yeah hi don mcwilliams and i think this

2:21:42 ↗ question is for you katie um does this

2:21:45 ↗ program the climate change

2:21:46 ↗ sustainability or some other similar

2:21:48 ↗ program in the city have an education

2:21:50 ↗ and outreach component to it i.e a staff

2:21:53 ↗ member devoted to that

2:21:55 ↗ reason i ask because i'm hearing a lot

2:21:57 ↗ of questions here that can't really be

2:21:58 ↗ solved through

2:22:00 ↗ regulating people but through a

2:22:02 ↗ aggressive education and outreach

2:22:04 ↗ program you could certainly make some

2:22:06 ↗ headway

2:22:09 ↗ yeah so the the city has an office of

2:22:11 ↗ sustainability and um

2:22:15 ↗ right now megan curtis murphy is is the

2:22:18 ↗ head of that or she is the she's the one

2:22:20 ↗ that's heading up the climate action

2:22:22 ↗ plan um she's actually only with the

2:22:24 ↗ city for another month or so and then

2:22:26 ↗ they're hiring a new person but it would

2:22:27 ↗ be that person

2:22:29 ↗ that would um

2:22:31 ↗ be the best suited to organize public

2:22:34 ↗ outreach and i know that there there

2:22:36 ↗ will be some public outreach

2:22:38 ↗ as part of the climate action planning

2:22:39 ↗ process

2:22:41 ↗ and maybe going maybe the climate action

2:22:44 ↗ plan is also asking for additional

2:22:46 ↗ community education outreach

2:22:48 ↗ okay so maybe more to come on now

2:22:52 ↗ all right thank you

2:22:54 ↗ all right and thank you very much uh for

2:22:55 ↗ memory of williams

2:22:57 ↗ uh i've got a

2:22:59 ↗ comment here

2:23:00 ↗ question comment um it's a multi-part

2:23:03 ↗ here so the first part of this question

2:23:06 ↗ is having to do with our tree retention

2:23:09 ↗ uh looking at

2:23:11 ↗ um

2:23:12 ↗ our agenda page 26

2:23:16 ↗ 26 page 28 um item number seven

2:23:19 ↗ um

2:23:21 ↗ it says insurers retain ensures the city

2:23:24 ↗ retains 50 tree canopy i know we've

2:23:27 ↗ talked about 50 tree canopy and so on

2:23:29 ↗ what is the definition of tree canopy is

2:23:32 ↗ it

2:23:33 ↗ we got we're going to retain 50 of the

2:23:36 ↗ trees within the city of issaquah

2:23:39 ↗ because to connie's points we have some

2:23:41 ↗ trees that are four inches tall and we

2:23:43 ↗ have some trees that are 300 feet tall

2:23:46 ↗ i've got

2:23:47 ↗ three trees in my backyard that are

2:23:49 ↗ about 300 feet tall if i was to cut

2:23:51 ↗ those down

2:23:53 ↗ how many small four inch trees would i

2:23:55 ↗ have to plant to get the same carbon

2:23:56 ↗ sink out of those

2:23:58 ↗ so are we calculating 50 tree copy

2:24:04 ↗ boy that's a good question um i

2:24:07 ↗ i

2:24:08 ↗ will look and hopefully get a a nod of

2:24:10 ↗ approval from the other folks from the

2:24:12 ↗ city staff but my my hunch is that that

2:24:15 ↗ number came from

2:24:17 ↗ um

2:24:17 ↗ an

2:24:18 ↗ aerial image taking the drip lines of

2:24:21 ↗ the trees or the the

2:24:23 ↗ circumference of the tree canopies

2:24:25 ↗ and

2:24:26 ↗ taking that as a

2:24:28 ↗ fraction of the overall

2:24:30 ↗ land area of the city to to come up with

2:24:32 ↗ how much is covered with trees and

2:24:34 ↗ there's

2:24:35 ↗ aerial image you know aerial photography

2:24:37 ↗ tools that can be used to

2:24:39 ↗ to tell what is what's vegetation what's

2:24:42 ↗ building

2:24:43 ↗ um that's my hunch but i honestly am not

2:24:45 ↗ sure exactly how that 51 number came

2:24:48 ↗ came to be

2:24:50 ↗ i'm going to this is kristin leeson and

2:24:52 ↗ i'm going to concur with katie i recall

2:24:54 ↗ our gis

2:24:57 ↗ i'm going to call them guy this

2:24:58 ↗ department but one person in particular

2:25:00 ↗ who

2:25:01 ↗ calculated our free canopy for us

2:25:03 ↗ and that was what he did

2:25:05 ↗ okay so we can definitively say

2:25:09 ↗ the tree canopy is based on the width of

2:25:12 ↗ the images in gis

2:25:18 ↗ it would be the the amount of land area

2:25:20 ↗ covered by the

2:25:22 ↗ the trees branches

2:25:25 ↗ so

2:25:26 ↗ you know a small four small trees

2:25:30 ↗ versus one large tree may have very

2:25:32 ↗ different tree canopies to your point

2:25:35 ↗ okay

2:25:35 ↗ so

2:25:36 ↗ and the one thing i would add um

2:25:38 ↗ commissioner fall or just for

2:25:40 ↗ clarification is there's actually

2:25:42 ↗ companies that do this that specialize

2:25:44 ↗ in at the parks department contracts

2:25:47 ↗ with them

2:25:48 ↗ um it's not based on our gis because

2:25:50 ↗ rgis isn't updated every year

2:25:53 ↗ but they

2:25:54 ↗ do fly and do the calculation as

2:25:57 ↗ described

2:25:58 ↗ okay

2:25:59 ↗ so

2:26:00 ↗ we can definitively

2:26:04 ↗ our 51 tree canopy has been definitively

2:26:07 ↗ or mathematically calculated and is

2:26:10 ↗ reasonably accurate

2:26:13 ↗ when we go or when a developer wants to

2:26:16 ↗ go in and clear out a lot

2:26:19 ↗ maybe one of the things that's missing

2:26:21 ↗ is

2:26:23 ↗ not so much capturing the 50 tree canopy

2:26:28 ↗ but the quality of those trees or

2:26:32 ↗ the effect of

2:26:33 ↗ the environmental effectiveness

2:26:36 ↗ of the tree canopy that is being

2:26:38 ↗ proposed to be removed needs to be

2:26:40 ↗ replaced which means if they want to

2:26:43 ↗ remove

2:26:46 ↗ 50 trees that are 300 feet tall

2:26:49 ↗ it's going to require them to have to

2:26:52 ↗ replant

2:26:53 ↗ a lot more

2:26:55 ↗ four-inch trees and

2:26:56 ↗ you know

2:26:57 ↗ one-to-one ratio

2:27:00 ↗ um

2:27:00 ↗ so i think there's you know we're

2:27:02 ↗ talking about gap analysis or

2:27:05 ↗ identifying some gaps i think there's a

2:27:07 ↗ gap here

2:27:08 ↗ in the quality of trees that are being

2:27:10 ↗ removed

2:27:11 ↗ and

2:27:13 ↗ how are they going to be replaced and do

2:27:15 ↗ those trees really need to be removed

2:27:18 ↗ is maybe something that the city should

2:27:19 ↗ be looking at and thinking

2:27:21 ↗ we wanted a

2:27:23 ↗ very rigid tree

2:27:25 ↗ policy moving forward because we have

2:27:28 ↗ grown so much

2:27:30 ↗ that we really don't

2:27:32 ↗ we can't afford to lose any more trees

2:27:36 ↗ than we already have

2:27:39 ↗ because our population is expected to

2:27:41 ↗ grow the state wants us to almost nearly

2:27:43 ↗ double our population within the next 30

2:27:46 ↗ years

2:27:47 ↗ so we're going to put an enormous burden

2:27:50 ↗ on the existing tree canopy we have we

2:27:52 ↗ don't want a bunch of small trees to

2:27:54 ↗ replace the big trees that are already

2:27:56 ↗ here so maybe we need to put some more

2:27:58 ↗ verbiage around

2:28:00 ↗ this tree policy and how we calculate it

2:28:02 ↗ and the policies around removal of trees

2:28:07 ↗ and

2:28:08 ↗ the quality of those trees

2:28:12 ↗ yeah if i can just quickly respond

2:28:14 ↗ commissioner fell this is um a really

2:28:17 ↗ important topic to this code update and

2:28:19 ↗ one that you'll be getting lots of

2:28:21 ↗ detail on for the september 9th meeting

2:28:24 ↗ when we'll be addressing the tree

2:28:26 ↗ retention code

2:28:27 ↗ so um

2:28:29 ↗ that we're definitely considering the

2:28:32 ↗ quality of tree the health of tree the

2:28:34 ↗ size of the tree and what are

2:28:36 ↗ appropriate replacements

2:28:39 ↗ and considering

2:28:41 ↗ uh significant trees and landmark trees

2:28:43 ↗ so

2:28:44 ↗ definitely be talking about that

2:28:46 ↗ but for this for this exercise we're

2:28:48 ↗ just trying to make sure that the list

2:28:50 ↗ of topics is correct

2:28:52 ↗ um knowing that each of these seven

2:28:54 ↗ topics needs a lot more detailed

2:28:56 ↗ fleshing out um

2:28:59 ↗ and attention on their own

2:29:01 ↗ excellent okay thank you very much for

2:29:03 ↗ your feedback there uh

2:29:05 ↗ kitty uh

2:29:07 ↗ moving on to

2:29:08 ↗ the next comment here is from

2:29:10 ↗ commissioner voice

2:29:14 ↗ thank you chairfell you have all these

2:29:15 ↗ wonderful

2:29:17 ↗ questions and responses mine's gonna

2:29:18 ↗ seem pretty simple so

2:29:20 ↗ first i'd just like to uh

2:29:22 ↗ also concur with board member finch i

2:29:25 ↗ think it's a pretty well laid out list

2:29:28 ↗ um

2:29:29 ↗ i think like i said as far as somebody

2:29:31 ↗ asked the question you know how would

2:29:32 ↗ you prioritize it i think one three five

2:29:36 ↗ are all probably right up there i think

2:29:39 ↗ three and five simply because you can

2:29:40 ↗ get a lot of community buy-in

2:29:42 ↗ um and then one obviously is going to

2:29:44 ↗ have a huge impact not so sure about

2:29:46 ↗ number six although i know it's very

2:29:48 ↗ popular

2:29:49 ↗ but number seven it seems to make a lot

2:29:51 ↗ of sense so just as far as you guys

2:29:53 ↗ getting feedback it seems like a pretty

2:29:56 ↗ pretty good starting point to continue

2:29:58 ↗ to move as you guys continue to narrow

2:30:00 ↗ the focus and flush these things out

2:30:02 ↗ again i think somebody made the point

2:30:04 ↗ about parking and i think a lot can be

2:30:06 ↗ done with parking so

2:30:08 ↗ um it's a win-win for everybody right

2:30:11 ↗ developers don't want more parking it's

2:30:12 ↗ expensive we don't want more parking uh

2:30:15 ↗ impervious surface runoff

2:30:18 ↗ that's where we want to put most of our

2:30:20 ↗ density right so right now in the

2:30:21 ↗ centralizable area we've got 70 percent

2:30:24 ↗ is impervious surface so i think right

2:30:26 ↗ there is a win-win for everybody

2:30:28 ↗ involved so

2:30:30 ↗ i guess maybe a little bit of focus on

2:30:32 ↗ the parking aspect but uh that's how i'd

2:30:34 ↗ kind of rate them

2:30:36 ↗ but i think the list seems pretty pretty

2:30:38 ↗ good pretty good to be able for you guys

2:30:40 ↗ to be able to continue to narrow it down

2:30:42 ↗ i don't know if that was the original

2:30:43 ↗ question but i hope it was because

2:30:45 ↗ everybody else was so thoughtful so

2:30:47 ↗ thank you

2:30:51 ↗ [Music]

2:30:53 ↗ thank you very much commissioner voice

2:30:55 ↗ uh and board member annie newcomb

2:30:58 ↗ of the floor

2:31:02 ↗ so um

2:31:04 ↗ would it be appropriate to put

2:31:08 ↗ a code restricting

2:31:11 ↗ gas

2:31:12 ↗ pipes to be hooked up to new

2:31:15 ↗ construction

2:31:22 ↗ so that would be um

2:31:24 ↗ similar to the city of seattle that new

2:31:26 ↗ new construction can't be using natural

2:31:29 ↗ gas heating and

2:31:31 ↗ cooking is that

2:31:32 ↗ what you're suggesting yeah

2:31:35 ↗ that's definitely an option that

2:31:37 ↗ cities can consider

2:31:39 ↗ it would be part of the building code

2:31:41 ↗ rather than

2:31:42 ↗ the title 18 because title 18 doesn't

2:31:45 ↗ touch

2:31:46 ↗ most things that are inside the building

2:31:48 ↗ but that's definitely

2:31:50 ↗ something that

2:31:51 ↗ could be proposed

2:31:54 ↗ oh and i know we're not getting into the

2:31:57 ↗ nitty-gritty but maybe i could just say

2:31:59 ↗ one thing about the trees um

2:32:03 ↗ are you looking at climate resilient um

2:32:05 ↗ trees and fire resilient trees

2:32:08 ↗ as well when you're thinking about what

2:32:10 ↗ to replant

2:32:12 ↗ as

2:32:13 ↗ things get warmer

2:32:16 ↗ um so the the

2:32:18 ↗ list of approved trees the city has a

2:32:20 ↗ list of approved trees right now that

2:32:22 ↗ will be updated as part of the tree

2:32:24 ↗ retention work

2:32:25 ↗ um i don't know if a climate resilient

2:32:28 ↗ and fire resistant filter has been put

2:32:31 ↗ on that list but that's a really great

2:32:32 ↗ comment that i think we could pass along

2:32:35 ↗ to the um

2:32:37 ↗ to the consultant that's working on the

2:32:39 ↗ trees

2:32:41 ↗ awesome thank you

2:32:45 ↗ all right and thank you very much uh

2:32:46 ↗ commissioner newcomb i'm not seeing any

2:32:48 ↗ additional comments or questions so

2:32:50 ↗ let's go ahead and wrap up

2:32:52 ↗ and then

2:32:54 ↗ throw this back to uh mini

2:32:56 ↗ to continue on with the next topic

2:33:01 ↗ mr phillips yeah i think he's gonna wrap

2:33:04 ↗ it up

2:33:05 ↗ one more so um

2:33:07 ↗ if kristen you can just skip back one

2:33:09 ↗ slide

2:33:11 ↗ um the last topic we oh two slides i

2:33:14 ↗ guess

2:33:15 ↗ it's to the outdoor lighting there you

2:33:17 ↗ go

2:33:18 ↗ um so for outdoor lighting we um

2:33:21 ↗ presented a couple questions in the

2:33:23 ↗ survey that we felt we like we got good

2:33:25 ↗ feedback on um there were some comments

2:33:28 ↗ about so we asked about

2:33:30 ↗ um

2:33:31 ↗ doc lighting and how to acquire that

2:33:34 ↗ whether it should be to new development

2:33:36 ↗ or all new and existing

2:33:39 ↗ and then also asked about

2:33:41 ↗ using how to use lighting as a way to

2:33:44 ↗ achieve different urban design goals

2:33:47 ↗ and there seem to be some good consensus

2:33:50 ↗ that outdoor lighting

2:33:53 ↗ for docks new dock lighting it makes

2:33:56 ↗ sense obviously to require

2:33:59 ↗ some restrictions on on new development

2:34:01 ↗ but also

2:34:03 ↗ um perhaps later when docs are being

2:34:06 ↗ uh

2:34:07 ↗ being repaired or replaced or some some

2:34:10 ↗ level of change that at that point they

2:34:13 ↗ would be required to come into

2:34:14 ↗ complaints but with whatever new

2:34:17 ↗ lighting

2:34:18 ↗ standards we might have for docs

2:34:21 ↗ and then also that there was some

2:34:23 ↗ support for for using lighting for these

2:34:27 ↗ urban design

2:34:28 ↗ as well so staff feels like we have

2:34:31 ↗ pretty good direction um

2:34:34 ↗ to put forth or to put together some

2:34:36 ↗ draft lighting code so we're open for

2:34:39 ↗ additional questions and comment at this

2:34:42 ↗ time but we didn't have any specific

2:34:44 ↗ questions regarding lighting

2:34:50 ↗ all right thank you very much katie i'm

2:34:52 ↗ going to go ahead and open it up to

2:34:54 ↗ commissioner questions

2:35:08 ↗ and commissioner milligan do you have a

2:35:10 ↗ question

2:35:12 ↗ no one's going to go first

2:35:16 ↗ okay i am not seeing any questions on

2:35:18 ↗ this topic

2:35:24 ↗ board member andy newcomb has a question

2:35:29 ↗ will there be an led

2:35:31 ↗ requirement

2:35:34 ↗ for reduced electricity use

2:35:37 ↗ so

2:35:38 ↗ we part of the update um

2:35:41 ↗ to new industry standards will be

2:35:43 ↗ changing um nearly everything to leds

2:35:48 ↗ thank you

2:35:53 ↗ okay that is the only question we've had

2:35:56 ↗ so we're gonna go ahead and open up to

2:35:57 ↗ public comment

2:36:00 ↗ right now no one has their hand raised

2:36:02 ↗ for public comment but i'll give it just

2:36:04 ↗ a minute if someone would like to speak

2:36:11 ↗ no one would like to speak at this time

2:36:13 ↗ okay and so i'm going to go ahead and

2:36:16 ↗ come back to

2:36:19 ↗ commissioner

2:36:20 ↗ comments or discussions

2:36:30 ↗ not seen any

2:36:34 ↗ okay last chance

2:36:38 ↗ paul can i just ask one maybe at one

2:36:40 ↗ consensus question um

2:36:43 ↗ based on the

2:36:45 ↗ update approach that we've proposed we

2:36:48 ↗ get

2:36:49 ↗ since nobody has any comments i just

2:36:50 ↗ want to make sure can we get a thumbs up

2:36:52 ↗ consensus that the approach that we've

2:36:54 ↗ laid out for out for updating the

2:36:57 ↗ outdoor lighting standards

2:36:59 ↗ is consistent with the goals and

2:37:01 ↗ outcomes chart

2:37:14 ↗ okay and uh katie you got your answer

2:37:19 ↗ i

2:37:20 ↗ i did get an answer but now i see that

2:37:23 ↗ uh commissioner voice has a comment so

2:37:25 ↗ well

2:37:26 ↗ oh okay

2:37:28 ↗ we'll just have to make him wait because

2:37:29 ↗ he's too late i just can't go ahead

2:37:32 ↗ commissioner voice go ahead

2:37:34 ↗ thank you chair foul so the only thing

2:37:36 ↗ as far as

2:37:37 ↗ being

2:37:38 ↗ tied into our

2:37:40 ↗ our goals and policy goals um one thing

2:37:43 ↗ i noticed reading it is so is that also

2:37:46 ↗ every

2:37:47 ↗ retrofit everything is considered that

2:37:50 ↗ it needs to be upgraded lighting

2:37:52 ↗ um so if somebody

2:37:54 ↗ um

2:37:55 ↗ i don't know puts a small addition on

2:37:57 ↗ their dock would that also include um

2:38:00 ↗ updating all of this or are we talking

2:38:02 ↗ about like a 50

2:38:04 ↗ um i think i forget what standard it is

2:38:06 ↗ but there's something in old town that's

2:38:08 ↗ somewhat similar like once you reach a

2:38:10 ↗ percentage

2:38:11 ↗ then

2:38:12 ↗ the new code or the the requirements

2:38:14 ↗ come into play is that similar for this

2:38:16 ↗ or is this kind of different

2:38:18 ↗ i guess that's a question

2:38:22 ↗ i think it the details haven't been

2:38:24 ↗ drafted yet but i think it would it

2:38:26 ↗ could be a similar um

2:38:28 ↗ there's some standards that once you

2:38:31 ↗ if you have to replace um

2:38:33 ↗ or enlarge something to a certain number

2:38:35 ↗ and often it's 50

2:38:37 ↗ of the value or the size that then you

2:38:40 ↗ have to come into compliance with

2:38:44 ↗ all of the codes generally it acts as if

2:38:47 ↗ sure and i i guess i'd be generally in

2:38:49 ↗ favor for that that was the only part

2:38:50 ↗ that was kind of tripping me up was

2:38:52 ↗ you know are we talking about every time

2:38:54 ↗ someone um

2:38:56 ↗ for whatever reason

2:38:58 ↗ has to upgrade or we talk about

2:38:59 ↗ percentage so if that's the case i think

2:39:01 ↗ it's a win again we help out

2:39:04 ↗ our friends below the surface

2:39:06 ↗ and also i think aesthetically it's

2:39:08 ↗ important we want our city to be

2:39:09 ↗ beautiful so i see a lot of good in this

2:39:11 ↗ one

2:39:15 ↗ all right thank you commissioner voice

2:39:17 ↗ that is all the questions and so we're

2:39:20 ↗ gonna go ahead and close out and move

2:39:22 ↗ over to reports

2:39:24 ↗ kristin would you like to go ahead and

2:39:26 ↗ discuss any reports um i i can do that

2:39:29 ↗ i'm happy to but i also think that the

2:39:30 ↗ environmental board you've done a

2:39:31 ↗ fabulous job tonight and you can

2:39:33 ↗ probably go now

2:39:36 ↗ you don't need to stick around unless

2:39:37 ↗ you want to thank you thank you

2:39:39 ↗ everybody

2:39:40 ↗ nice having you on great discussion

2:39:42 ↗ tonight

2:39:46 ↗ so the only council report that i have

2:39:49 ↗ kitty if well you i don't i'll leave it

2:39:51 ↗ up to you um the only council report

2:39:53 ↗ that i have is that the sign code is

2:39:56 ↗ going for public hearing on september

2:39:57 ↗ 7th

2:39:59 ↗ in case you all want to tune in and

2:40:00 ↗ listen to that then you can provide your

2:40:02 ↗ own comment as residents not as

2:40:04 ↗ commissioned members if you'd like to do

2:40:06 ↗ that as well

2:40:07 ↗ um many do you have anything else to

2:40:09 ↗ share

2:40:11 ↗ no nothing else to add

2:40:14 ↗ okay

2:40:15 ↗ and

2:40:16 ↗ so other business and announcements

2:40:22 ↗ uh we just have the title 18 public

2:40:25 ↗ comments that were submitted since the

2:40:27 ↗ last time that we met and if you guys

2:40:29 ↗ have any questions on those we can

2:40:32 ↗ address that if you'd like to

2:40:34 ↗ okay

2:40:35 ↗ and

2:40:36 ↗ schedule

2:40:39 ↗ schedule

2:40:40 ↗ um schedule

2:40:42 ↗ is really long and you'll notice that we

2:40:45 ↗ sort of learned our lesson after the

2:40:46 ↗ first environmental discussion that

2:40:48 ↗ maybe we need to break things up into

2:40:49 ↗ two meetings each time

2:40:52 ↗ so we went from about 18 meetings to

2:40:54 ↗ about 36 meetings and carries us out to

2:40:56 ↗ the end of 2022

2:40:58 ↗ so and in some cases we have three

2:41:00 ↗ meetings and i realized today that i

2:41:02 ↗ left one out so we're going to add

2:41:03 ↗ another one but

2:41:05 ↗ um

2:41:06 ↗ yeah just take a look and let me know

2:41:07 ↗ ahead of time if you're not going to be

2:41:09 ↗ able to make any of those

2:41:11 ↗ and just you know eat healthy so you're

2:41:13 ↗ you're ready to go

2:41:14 ↗ yeah

2:41:16 ↗ that's how

2:41:18 ↗ excellent

2:41:19 ↗ i like being needed

2:41:21 ↗ we all like being needed

2:41:23 ↗ okay so with that let's go ahead and

2:41:25 ↗ conclude and uh i'm going to adjourn the

2:41:28 ↗ meeting at 9 15.

2:41:43 ↗ [Music]

2:41:56 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (16)

Administration/Staff: Ron Faul

Christen Leeson

Senior Planner Jason Voiss

Minnie Dhaliwal

Director

CP&D Nina Milligan Katie Cote

BHC Consultants Sara Bader Lucy Sloman

Land Dev. Manager Richard Zaragoza

Alternate (serving as Jim Johnson

Golder Associates regular member) Greta Presley

Herrera & Associates Commissioners Not Present: Joy Lewis (Excused) Matt Monahan (Excused) Environmental Board Members Present: Nancy Davidson

Jamie Finch

Don McQuilliams Cameron Fisher Anne Newcomb Janet Wall

Alternate (serving as regular member) Board Members Not Present: Dani Madan* Rishi Hazra Dan Hintz (Excused) Lara Lebeiko Tom Anderson

Alternate Surya Bollapragada*

Alternate *Youth/young adult members