← Back to City Council Digest

Meeting concluded — minutes pending. The agenda below is what the City posted; minutes haven't been published yet. Issaquah approves Council minutes at the next meeting and ships them embedded in that next meeting's packet, so they typically land here 1–3 weeks after the meeting. Transcript and recording will appear once the City posts the YouTube video and our pipeline catches it.
Planning Policy Commission - 09 Sep 2021 Auto captions

Thursday, September 9, 2021

Topic tracked across meetings:
Recommendation on Proposed Updates of the Issaquah Municipal Code, Title 18, (A) ID 1225 5/10
Section
Topic
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.3
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
3a
Title 18 Land Use Code Updates: Landscape, Trees, Open Space, and Community Spaces, (D)
Kim Frappier, Watershed Consulting · packet pp.5–25
Topics: Land UseTreesParks
Staff report:
Get policy direction on the land use code update related to 1) Landscaping, 2) Trees, and 3) Open Space, Community Space and Green Necklace.
4. REPORTS
4a
Council Updates
Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.27–28
Staff report:
8.20.21 – 9.01.21 Public Comment Update Natural Areas
4b
Title 18 Code Update: Public Comments Received
Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development
Topics: Land Use
5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
5a
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.29–34
Staff report:
2/11/21 2/25/21
1:51 start in 10 seconds for the recorder
1:55 everybody except for ron please meet
1:59 okay uh
2:00 i'd like to call to order the september
2:02 9th joint policy and planning commission
2:05 with the parks board
2:07 the time is 6 32
2:10 and welcome due to the virtual format of
2:12 today's meeting i'd like to start by
2:14 providing some basic guidelines
2:16 we have participants attending by
2:18 computer and others who may be attending
2:19 by phone or all meeting attendees speak
2:23 please speak clearly and pause
2:25 frequently
2:26 state your name each time before
2:27 speaking
2:28 mute your microphone when not speaking
2:31 if having technical issues try joining
2:33 the meeting using a different device
2:34 such as a smartphone or tablet and use
2:37 the call-in feature
2:38 call-in information that is in the
2:40 virtual
2:42 meeting invite
2:44 tonight is again a joint meeting between
2:47 the policy and planning commission and
2:48 the parks board
2:50 to provide direction for the title 18
2:52 updates
2:54 kristin will you please call uh
2:56 attendance for ppc and then
2:59 jennifer for
3:02 the park board
3:07 lewis
3:10 here
3:11 mr monahan
3:13 here
3:14 mr voice
3:18 here
3:19 mr milligan
3:23 you know she's on her way i will um let
3:25 you know when she arrives uh
3:27 commissioner zaragoza
3:29 here
3:30 mr bader
3:32 here and chair fall
3:35 present
3:36 thank you
3:43 redbook
3:44 here
3:46 danielle gittins
3:50 absent ruben nieto
3:55 danielle will be a little bit late
3:57 reuben let us know that he won't be able
3:59 to attend okay great thank you very much
4:02 jonathan richardson
4:04 president
4:06 linda whitworth
4:09 thank you
4:10 kris kovac
4:15 zach zablowski
4:19 here
4:21 marlene
4:22 waxy
4:24 here
4:26 thank you
4:42 you're muted ron
4:46 all right i was just wrapping up so
4:48 sorry y'all
4:50 talking to myself um okay so tonight's
4:53 structure we're gonna go ahead and start
4:54 off with public comment
4:56 and then we will jump into the
4:58 presentation and after each topic of the
5:01 presentation
5:02 and there are going to be three topics
5:04 today
5:06 and we will
5:08 have
5:10 presentation
5:12 questions
5:13 we'll open it for public comment and
5:15 then we will bring it back to ppc and
5:18 the park board for um discussion
5:21 and then we'll move on to the next topic
5:24 and so with that said uh kristen i'm
5:27 going to go ahead and open the floor to
5:30 the staff for their presentation
5:33 great before we start i'd like to note
5:34 that nina milligan is now present
5:37 and i'm going to hand it over to
5:40 kim frapier and minnie dollywall
5:44 so good evening
5:46 commissioners and board members
5:48 appreciate your time
5:49 to come tonight and talk about very
5:52 important topics you've heard some
5:54 community comments that have been uh
5:56 given to you so what we the plan for
5:58 tonight is to cover
5:59 uh landscape topics open space and
6:02 community spaces uh including green
6:04 necklace and trees um so we have our
6:08 consulting team here who who is going to
6:11 lead the the conversation today um
6:14 and i want to introduce stephanie from
6:16 berger and her team
6:18 if you want to wave uh to everyone so
6:20 they can see who you are
6:22 um and then we also have kim from um
6:26 anyone else from your team here
6:27 stephanie
6:30 all right
6:31 marin is here as well and she will uh
6:35 i don't see her image actually but i
6:37 think she's on and she'll be here to
6:39 help uh field questions and interject as
6:42 needed
6:42 i just made marin a panelist
6:45 thank you so much great thanks
6:47 right and then we have a watershed kim
6:51 from watershed here
6:52 uh to walk through on the trees um so
6:56 kim if you want to wave to everyone so
6:58 they can see who you are
7:00 great everyone
7:02 thanks
7:03 um so with that um
7:05 spending any more time i'll turn it over
7:07 to stephanie who's going to um
7:09 go over the landscaping topics then
7:11 we'll switch to trees and then we'll
7:13 come back to the open space so stephanie
7:16 the floor is yours
7:20 thanks so much okay i'm gonna try
7:22 sharing my screen i think i got it
7:26 and you guys
7:28 can you guys see
7:30 that slide does that seem right anything
7:32 weird going on with it
7:34 you're all good
7:36 okay thanks
7:42 here we go
7:43 okay um so as has been covered already
7:47 these are going to be the topics you see
7:49 on the screen there are kind of the
7:50 three topics for today
7:54 high level we're thinking so we have
7:56 about two and a half hours of time as
7:58 you know and so we're thinking
8:00 presentation and discussion
8:02 um for landscape code will be about 20
8:04 minutes about one hour for tree
8:06 management and about 45 minutes for open
8:08 space green necklace and we'll we'll
8:10 just kind of see how it goes and evolve
8:12 as needed
8:14 so uh
8:16 really quickly i wanted to
8:18 say
8:19 for the topics that burger
8:23 marin and i with burger partnership are
8:26 delving into
8:29 landscape open space community space
8:31 green necklace um
8:33 for those topics we actually had a group
8:36 meeting with various city departments to
8:37 help us understand
8:39 kind of
8:40 issues and hopes for the code and so
8:43 that included
8:45 departments like parks public works
8:47 economic development and planning and
8:49 that really helped us tease out some of
8:51 the items of this update it needed to
8:53 address
8:54 and we've also seen many public and
8:57 board comments come through which i'll
8:58 try to address throughout the
8:59 presentation but of course feel free to
9:02 ask more clarifying questions during the
9:03 comment period
9:08 before diving into the landscape code i
9:11 wanted to just really high level talk
9:13 about how these three topics sort of
9:15 interact with each other
9:17 um so landscape code is generally about
9:22 technical regulations and details for
9:25 planting
9:27 requirements and that includes things
9:29 like shrubs new trees irrigation
9:33 and then things like tree planting
9:35 details then go then support the tree
9:38 management
9:40 aspect of the code and so um tree
9:42 management and obviously kim is going to
9:45 help way more into this but it's
9:47 generally about preserving protecting
9:49 and promoting healthy trees and tree
9:51 canopy in the city
9:53 and then
9:54 open a community space in the green
9:56 necklace is more about creating a high
9:59 quality system of public spaces and
10:01 connections and then those visions and
10:05 that implementation integrates landscape
10:08 code tree management code and also
10:11 integrates things like you know critical
10:13 area code and
10:14 right away and that kind of thing
10:16 so that's just kind of a
10:18 high-level picture of how they all
10:20 interact i guess um mini kim or marin is
10:23 there anything you want to add to that
10:29 nope not hearing anything okay
10:34 so on to landscape so this is a little
10:37 bit of an overview of what the
10:38 presentation is going to look like i'm
10:40 going to touch on
10:41 sort of what the goal of the code is and
10:44 then a summary of the gaps that we've
10:46 seen and heard and then our
10:48 touch on what our approaches and then
10:50 like like we've said open it up for
10:53 discussion
10:56 so the overarching purpose of really any
11:00 landscape code in my opinion is to
11:02 create um long-lived safe beautiful and
11:05 maintainable spaces
11:07 and
11:08 basically
11:10 you know
11:11 put that into requirements
11:14 make that goal and
11:17 have requirements that then developers
11:19 and other people
11:20 can use to create those spaces
11:24 um some of so the city currently has a
11:28 lot of landscape code but we've heard
11:30 that there are quite a few issues such
11:32 as um
11:34 inconsistent details throughout areas of
11:36 the city
11:37 um long-term maintenance issues such as
11:40 who is maintaining what and for what
11:41 period of time and there's not enough
11:44 information on
11:46 species allowed kind of dependent on
11:48 location so say like
11:51 the medians of a street or
11:54 tree strips for example or maybe i don't
11:57 know parking lot buffers
11:59 um i've also heard that there's um not
12:02 enough info on code compliance
12:05 inspections that are required and then
12:07 timelines for those inspections so
12:09 really like how do you make sure that
12:12 the maintenance and the landscaping that
12:15 is required by code is being implemented
12:19 in terms of meeting overarching title 18
12:22 goals
12:23 there's a few things so landscape code
12:25 can help protect and reinforce things
12:27 like neighborhood character
12:29 and it can also help support green
12:31 necklace implementation
12:34 for both of those things largely
12:36 landscape code um
12:38 kind of
12:39 can help help implement those things
12:41 largely by updating requirements for
12:44 things like different right-of-way and
12:45 trail types and kind of updating and
12:48 build environment buffers buffer
12:50 standards as well
12:58 this outlines kind of our high level
13:00 approach to how we're thinking about
13:03 updating the code so
13:06 the approach is to number one create
13:08 baseline standards
13:10 and then uniquely use those standards by
13:12 neighborhood and zone
13:14 and then the second one is to update
13:16 landscape installation standards and the
13:18 third one is to update tree standards so
13:20 i'm going to delve into all those a
13:21 little bit more here
13:25 the current preference that we've heard
13:26 for landscape standards is actually to
13:28 have a document that lives outside of
13:31 code that is but that is referenced by
13:33 code
13:34 and there's a few reasons for that
13:37 um the
13:38 largest reason is that it'll that would
13:41 allow for
13:43 timely updates to standards as best
13:45 practices evolve
13:47 because things like you know products
13:49 and
13:52 even even kind of best practices for
13:54 types of plants they're constantly
13:56 changing and so that would allow a
13:58 little bit more flexibility to update
14:00 those as new information and research
14:04 comes out
14:08 for the landscape installation standards
14:11 that would include things like more
14:14 strict irrigation standards including
14:16 best practices
14:18 more information on plant size species
14:21 spacing quality
14:23 and that would include requirements for
14:26 both install and full growth and so the
14:29 idea behind that is
14:30 there's there'll be kind of an eye to
14:32 sustainability like especially in terms
14:35 of species and that kind of thing but
14:38 then also long-term maintainability so
14:41 for instance you don't want
14:43 plants to end up outgrowing their space
14:46 and then your people will have to come
14:48 back in and like take out plants or trim
14:50 plants or something like that
14:53 tree standards would include things like
14:55 irrigation and soil volume
14:58 but really mostly it's about putting the
15:00 right tree in the right place
15:02 so for many cities that means
15:05 coordinating
15:06 with width of planter strip
15:09 amount of soil volume that's available
15:12 coordination with street view triangles
15:14 and offsets from above ground and
15:16 underground utilities so
15:19 um i've seen a couple tree
15:21 quite a few tree codes that actually
15:25 think about all of those things and
15:26 implement all those things
15:30 part of the citywide baseline standards
15:32 will include standards for who's
15:34 maintaining areas for what length of
15:36 time
15:37 also best manage best vegetation
15:40 management practices including methods
15:43 for protection of groundwater i've heard
15:45 that that's a big concern
15:47 and then also
15:49 like i mentioned previously periodic
15:51 review for coatings
15:56 as we're looking through all this we're
15:58 we are researching kind of pure cities
16:01 and taking cues from them and seeing you
16:04 know what we like about what they're
16:06 doing and how we might integrate them
16:08 so here's a few of the pure city codes
16:10 we've been using as inspiration for
16:12 example kirkland and seattle both have
16:15 pretty strong tree codes um seattle in
16:18 particular has a relatively new code
16:20 with very strict soil volume
16:21 requirements that actually often
16:23 requires
16:25 developers to connect tree areas with
16:27 soil cells underneath sidewalks
16:30 it's definitely not a cheap thing but it
16:33 is a current best management practice in
16:35 the profession
16:36 um many cities also have planting
16:39 requirements per zone
16:41 so one that i've personally referenced a
16:43 lot is the wenatchee code which includes
16:46 things like requirements for shrub
16:48 height size screening allowed amount of
16:51 grasses parking lot planting
16:53 and we're recommending using something
16:56 like this and then varying it by zone in
16:58 the city to provide variation within the
17:01 urban fabric
17:06 so at this point
17:08 um we're hoping for some input from you
17:11 guys so i will um
17:14 bounce it back
17:16 to you
17:18 hi this is
17:21 this is kristin and i wanted to note i
17:23 realized that we forgot the public
17:24 comment period at the very beginning so
17:26 maybe before the commission
17:28 and boards members speak we could have
17:31 public comment i'll leave that up to our
17:33 chair
17:36 for a public comment and then we will
17:40 come back because i don't know do we
17:42 have anybody for public comment yes we
17:44 do um we have many people here so i yeah
17:46 i apologize for that
17:49 we're going to go ahead and open this uh
17:51 forum up to public comment the public
17:53 comment isn't necessarily in reference
17:55 to the topic we just discussed
17:58 we will go through three different
18:00 topics
18:01 each topic will
18:03 have you'll have an opportunity to speak
18:07 on on those topics so uh we will open
18:10 public comments three times
18:12 so with that said uh kristen i'm gonna
18:14 go ahead and open it to general public
18:16 comments if anyone would like to speak
18:18 anyone would like to speak please raise
18:20 your virtual hand and if you're having
18:21 trouble finding a hand please let me
18:23 know in the message
18:26 and i will get to you
18:30 is there anyone who would like to speak
18:33 all right we have susan neville i'm
18:34 going to make you a panelist
18:41 um hello can you hear me yes you are
18:44 unmuted thank you
18:46 hi i'm susan aville i'm a long-term
18:48 resident of 25 years of issaquah um
18:51 thanks for taking the time to speak with
18:52 us and
18:54 go through this process
18:55 um i will talk to the landscape code
18:58 first
18:59 since you're on it
19:01 i'm really
19:02 curious about the landscape
19:04 specification document listed in the
19:06 memo
19:07 and this is covering planting standards
19:09 etc and what it was is a separate
19:12 document
19:13 that will coincide with the
19:16 title codes but not be part of
19:19 and it's also governed by administration
19:22 and i was wondering if you could speak
19:24 to that sometime and maybe
19:28 tell us some parameters concerning it
19:30 what it would be allowed or not allowed
19:32 under it and also maybe share a past
19:34 example
19:36 of how this benefit how this new
19:38 approach would benefit all parties
19:41 and then i will wait for my tree canopy
19:43 later thank you
19:55 would you like me to take a stab at that
19:57 guys
19:58 uh not quite yet let me see if there's
20:00 anyone else who would like to speak
20:02 and susan if you could un-raise your
20:04 hand that would be great
20:06 anyone else would like to speak
20:12 no okay
20:16 no one else would like to speak this
20:17 time
20:28 so ron would you like to hear um
20:31 members speak or ask questions or do
20:34 what would you like um
20:37 we'll close public comments
20:39 for this for the general topics we will
20:42 open up to questions from ppc in the
20:46 parks board
20:47 then we will open it up to public
20:49 comment for landscape related topics and
20:53 then we'll close public comment and open
20:55 up to
20:56 uh ppc and
20:58 parks board discussion
21:02 so let's go ahead and open this up to uh
21:05 questions are there any questions from
21:09 members of the commissions
21:13 so please go ahead and notate that in
21:15 the chat
21:17 and when you do so make sure all
21:19 panelists are selected otherwise your
21:22 question may not be answered
21:34 okay i am not seeing any questions
21:37 regarding the landscape
21:41 a couple more seconds here
21:44 and we got a question from joy lewis
21:48 good evening commissioner joy lewis here
21:50 i was hoping for landscaping i know uh
21:53 minnie's um opening document tried to uh
21:56 paint us as being like a tech this is a
21:58 highly technical document right that
22:00 we're going to be seeing when we do our
22:02 draft review um but we honestly on the
22:05 landscape section we didn't really get a
22:06 lot of information we kind of got
22:08 information about information coming so
22:11 it's a little hard to ask questions
22:14 about what we haven't seen right so it
22:17 would be really helpful if you guys
22:18 could address the specifics about for
22:20 instance
22:21 the specifications of the document being
22:23 able to allude to the engineering
22:24 document we have was very helpful to me
22:26 since i've read that before but again
22:29 being able to figure out having a living
22:31 breathing document is great as far as we
22:33 know who's amending it right is council
22:35 only the only allowed to amend it is
22:37 this going to be happening from an
22:38 administrative standpoint i'd love to
22:41 get some more um details on the on not
22:43 necessarily what the document would
22:45 entail but what that the life of that
22:48 document would look like for our
22:50 landscaping code and i'd also like to
22:52 ask questions regarding kind of this
22:54 refinement of the species table that was
22:56 mentioned um if that's something that
22:58 hasn't been fully baked and we'll be
23:00 getting that with wrapped that's fine
23:02 but um again i was hoping to get some
23:04 more details that weren't really
23:06 included in our pack at this time for
23:08 those two things
23:14 um i i could
23:16 as a just a model
23:18 to answer commissioner lewis's question
23:22 describe
23:24 the way it works right now with the
23:28 utility
23:30 standards we have four existing
23:32 standards streets
23:35 well actually five we have streets
23:38 water sewer storm
23:40 and actually our waste enclosure
23:44 standards all five of those are
23:46 authorized in code but the standards
23:50 exist outside of the adopted imc islam
23:54 municipal code
23:58 they're available on our website
24:01 applicants and
24:03 consultants have to
24:06 use those we treat them just like we
24:08 would adopted standards
24:11 if someone
24:13 does not want to
24:15 follow
24:17 the
24:17 [Music]
24:19 standard that's in there they have to
24:21 submit a deviation
24:23 which is reviewed by
24:27 all the relevant departments
24:29 and
24:31 and then is included in the uh
24:35 instruction documents so that's kind of
24:37 the process piece of it
24:40 um does that answer your question
24:42 commissioner lewis
24:43 i'm curious because one one point that's
24:45 been mentioned about why this approach
24:47 would be a positive one is that it can
24:49 be adjusted more in a real-time format
24:52 than necessarily when we go through
24:55 changes to our code through the comp
24:56 plan for instance um so by allowing that
24:59 right i'm guessing um it would be nice
25:01 to be able to have um a formality laid
25:04 out as far as like when amendments need
25:06 to happen
25:07 right or how often deviations are being
25:11 requested and granted right kind of that
25:13 um standard how is this document living
25:16 and breathing does that need to go to
25:18 council does this all stay within
25:19 administration right kind of what is
25:21 that oversight of how that the life of
25:23 the document will be
25:25 so the way it's worked with um the
25:29 engineering standards is that the public
25:32 works director has to sign off on those
25:35 changes um they don't go to council so
25:38 in that sense it's kind of like the
25:40 administrative adjustment of standards
25:43 that even for
25:45 adopted code are currently in place
25:48 one thing i also wanted to add is that
25:51 in fact
25:53 i was just looking the street standards
25:56 is where many of our
25:58 like all of our irrigation standards
26:00 exist in the street standards right now
26:03 which is problematic um because it only
26:06 applies to the places the street
26:08 standards apply and um which isn't
26:12 everywhere where we might care about um
26:15 affecting or shaping the
26:18 character of irrigation
26:20 um and then there are also five
26:24 landscape
26:26 details that are in there mainly like
26:28 planting trees and
26:30 some soil depths
26:33 i think one of the things
26:37 is that if we
26:40 continue or take this approach of
26:42 creating a set of landscape standards
26:45 there are certain um very technical
26:48 pieces that are in code such as soil
26:50 amendments and
26:54 other details like that i'm they're not
26:56 all pouring out of my head right now
26:58 sorry
27:00 but that we would
27:02 as part of our code tracking need to
27:05 identify
27:06 to you all the kinds of things that we
27:09 have moved
27:10 from
27:11 the imc into the standards to make sure
27:14 that we're setting that bar in the right
27:15 place
27:18 thank you that is very helpful to
27:20 clarify and then as far as in
27:21 landscaping there was a mention about
27:23 doing like species lists as far as like
27:26 allowable species and things like that i
27:28 was hoping that we could have
27:29 some more information on that or is that
27:31 again something that is still being put
27:33 together and baked and we'll see that
27:34 when we see a draft
27:37 so we um we don't
27:40 i i don't think we well
27:42 we have a tree a street tree list
27:45 which was mentioned in the memo and
27:47 which exists on our website and was
27:49 created
27:51 in 2019 by a coalition of maybe five or
27:54 six departments
27:56 that all had
27:58 a role in this
28:01 i i think that um
28:06 you know the the process of putting
28:08 something into the municipal code is
28:10 probably a six-month process
28:12 um or changing something and if for
28:15 instance
28:17 tree blight
28:19 was coming through and we had specified
28:21 a tree
28:23 for a certain street or a certain
28:25 classification of street
28:28 it would be good to be able to make that
28:30 change more quickly than it might take
28:32 to go through council
28:34 but i also understand that
28:38 the community
28:39 and staff want to have something that we
28:41 can rely on
28:43 that we feel like we know what we're
28:45 going to get
28:46 and that
28:48 there's a level of predictability
28:53 so what's the likelihood that when we
28:54 see a draft document the next time that
28:56 we're going to have further information
28:59 on this concept of species lists for
29:02 landscaping design standards
29:05 um i'm probably not the best person to
29:07 speak about that i haven't i haven't
29:09 been working on the draft
29:11 at this point
29:13 yes stephanie if you can um
29:15 take a stab at answering that question i
29:18 think the mechanics of whether it lives
29:19 in the code or it's a separate appendix
29:22 to the code we can make it work i think
29:24 we do want to share what the what these
29:27 specifications and standards are so our
29:29 intent is that through this process we
29:32 would we would share with the community
29:33 and and the commissioners
29:35 what what the changes are from the our
29:37 existing standards but then as time goes
29:40 on we want we you know there are some
29:42 pros and cons of both sides yes you're
29:44 absolutely right in terms of um you're
29:46 not having that transparent visibility
29:49 on on some amendments um balancing that
29:52 with um if it's a really technical
29:55 detail then really the technical people
29:57 will know whether it's right or wrong uh
30:00 not a policy level discussion with
30:02 council so so we can weigh that in but i
30:05 think once you see these uh the list the
30:08 tree lists or or the specifications then
30:10 you then we can figure out whether they
30:12 should be in the code it does make code
30:14 long and
30:15 hard to for people to read and
30:17 understand um
30:19 but so i think the mechanics can be
30:21 worked out at once you actually see um
30:24 that document stephanie do you have
30:25 anything to add
30:29 um i guess just in terms of
30:32 timing because that was brought up a
30:34 couple of times of like what the um
30:37 when the those details would be
30:39 available for review
30:40 um so to date um
30:44 most of the process has been really
30:45 focused on identifying kind of those
30:48 gaps and where we need to fill in those
30:50 gaps um and so the kind of the next step
30:54 will be kind of flushing that out and
30:57 adding that detail
30:58 so my understanding this might be me
31:01 speaking out of turn but my
31:03 understanding
31:04 is that um
31:06 between now and like early next year is
31:08 when a lot of that detail is going to be
31:10 developed and ready for review
31:12 thank you everybody
31:18 all right and thank you
31:22 oh looks like the next question we have
31:25 is from
31:26 uh sarah bader
31:29 commissioner sara bader you have the
31:30 floor yeah that's okay i am
31:33 take my question away i don't know what
31:35 the formal term for that is but i
31:37 rescind my question
31:38 excellent
31:40 all right and so moving on it looks like
31:42 the next question we have is
31:50 oh that's it
31:52 are there any other questions i'm not
31:54 seeing any additional questions in the
31:56 chat
31:58 okay so with that said we will go ahead
32:01 and close the questions we'll open it up
32:03 to public comment for landscape topics
32:06 and then we will uh move on to
32:09 uh discussion
32:11 so kristin is there anyone from the
32:13 public that would like to make comments
32:15 about the landscape standards we have
32:17 three people who would like to speak
32:18 first i'm going to make ken eisenman a
32:21 piano someone a panelist
32:34 and you are
32:37 a panelist and you are unmuted you can
32:39 turn on your camera if you would like
32:42 okay i i wish i knew how to turn the
32:44 camera on i've participated in many of
32:46 these meetings i could never find the
32:47 camera button
32:49 but um i'll uh i'll work on that uh but
32:53 i wanted to comment
32:55 about
32:57 the
32:58 comment that was made earlier about
33:02 long-term maintainability and i think
33:05 that's really important
33:07 i'm a
33:08 resident of the talus community we're
33:10 getting on 20 years old and
33:12 we see uh all around our neighborhood
33:15 where
33:18 you know
33:18 right tree uh right place didn't happen
33:22 big trees uh planted tight against homes
33:26 uh huge trees and tiny little street
33:28 strips that uh are getting
33:31 uh hit by the trucks uh the roots are
33:34 pushing up the sidewalks
33:36 uh street pits that uh tree pits that
33:40 were never deep enough to be able to get
33:42 down
33:43 into good soil um you know buckling
33:46 curbs etc
33:49 the irrigation code
33:51 really needs to be updated also from a
33:54 maintainability standpoint i think
33:57 there's this false sense that
33:59 drip irrigation is the best thing in the
34:01 world it's
34:03 very water efficient
34:05 but it's a nightmare in terms of
34:07 maintenance we find here that
34:10 we've got to replace it every few years
34:13 for a variety of reasons it's just not
34:15 as durable as spray irrigation
34:18 i'd like to see
34:20 uh language in the irrigation
34:22 requirements that you have to put a real
34:24 um you know line voltage irrigation
34:27 controller in not
34:29 you know
34:30 these
34:31 cheap battery controllers in
34:34 master valves that turn the main lines
34:36 off so i'm
34:38 really interested in
34:41 seeing the specifications for irrigation
34:44 tighten up
34:45 and
34:46 look to the the long-term durability and
34:50 maintainability uh once the developers
34:52 are gone the
34:54 homeowners and the residents and the
34:56 homeowner associations are gonna have to
35:00 uh spend money on
35:03 so thank you
35:12 next we have mary lynch
35:16 mary i am going to make you a panelist
35:20 can never mind you did it thank you
35:26 okay
35:27 yes this is mary lynch um thank you for
35:29 recognizing me finally i'm not sure how
35:31 to get in
35:32 um i thank you
35:33 all the members of the commission and
35:36 others attending a letter but earlier
35:39 with some of my concerns but i'd like to
35:41 build on what ken just said and i really
35:44 think with the landscape code both at
35:46 this on the small level you know single
35:49 house
35:50 on the sub development and upon the
35:52 larger developments that there needs to
35:55 be more considerations
35:57 in the code and in landscaping and more
36:00 integration with public works
36:03 when planning landscaping on where tree
36:06 signs should be
36:08 because just along our new roadway out
36:10 here we have trees that are planted in
36:12 front of signs so you can't see the
36:14 signs and they're important signs uh
36:17 there's actually was a radar sign that
36:19 was put in and a tree was put
36:21 uh in front of it after the time was
36:24 already there so those sort of
36:26 integration code standards practices
36:28 need to happen
36:30 also i don't really feel that if a
36:32 street is going to be widened um that
36:35 tree should be allowed to be planted in
36:37 that and considered as part of the
36:39 mitigation or the landscape code it's
36:42 you know they should be identified as
36:44 temporarily being planted there but know
36:47 that in five ten years those are going
36:49 to be cut down and removed
36:51 um so those really shouldn't go towards
36:54 a developer
36:55 um part of their mitigation or part of
36:58 even the tree canopy if you know you're
37:00 going to be removing them and they're
37:02 planted in
37:04 a street easement or where things are
37:06 going to be developed also from our
37:08 experience with our hoa
37:11 when it was landscaped we had screening
37:13 easements but there was no landscape
37:16 that was put in those screening
37:18 easements and some of these were along
37:20 critical areas and i know the code has
37:23 been some of it's been updated but there
37:25 still needs to be landscaping when
37:27 you're talking about a screening
37:28 easement that are things that are going
37:30 to be sustainable
37:32 and things that people are going to want
37:33 in those screening easements and then
37:35 also have the code so the hoas and the
37:38 people can help enforce it because the
37:40 problem with our development every time
37:42 i've tried to get help from the city
37:43 over the years to get help it's been
37:46 very minimal they basically say you're
37:48 going to have to sue the neighbors or
37:50 you're going to have to sue your
37:53 other
37:53 you know
37:54 your other hoas because they're cleaning
37:57 out or cutting trees
37:59 also with the tree codes
38:02 and i would maybe talk about it later
38:04 with trees but with cutting of trees we
38:06 need to be better on the small
38:08 properties and making sure we have
38:10 mitigation but getting back to the hoa
38:14 one of the hoas
38:15 windsor green up in was king county now
38:18 sammamish when they formed that
38:20 development part of the hoa
38:23 with their open space is they went out
38:26 and worked with to get a land
38:28 conservancy to actually manage that open
38:30 space and make sure that it was
38:33 maintainable and i would like to see
38:35 that in city code and best practices
38:38 that when they're working with hoas or
38:40 developments and identifying that
38:42 something's going to be an open space
38:45 is that there is something in perpetuity
38:48 and a true management manager of that
38:51 because a lot of hoas come and go and
38:54 have no rules on how they maintain
38:56 things
38:58 another thing to consider with the
38:59 landscaping is also views and and ken
39:02 kind of alluded to it but we have a lot
39:05 of landscaping that's going on where
39:08 when the trees grow up they block the
39:09 views and the first thing that the
39:11 person wants to do
39:13 is actually
39:15 cut down those trees when they move in
39:17 and so there needs to be codes and in
39:20 the landscape that looks at what type
39:22 you're planting and then code so it can
39:24 be enforced that people can't remove
39:26 those or cut those without some sort of
39:29 permission and mitigation thank you
39:39 hello again connie marsh would like to
39:41 speak next connie i'm going to make you
39:43 a panelist
39:49 anna you are a panelist
39:52 hey you all
39:53 funny marsh here
39:56 and
39:57 susan ken
39:59 and mary are wise
40:01 we have all been working with this
40:04 landscape code
40:06 for many many years like 20 years
40:09 and so
40:10 when the city comes to you with a
40:13 landscape code and they present it sort
40:15 of in the way that they did outlining
40:18 the problems that they perceived
40:21 for us
40:22 those are not those are not our problems
40:26 and so it's a little concerning
40:28 to to see what they presented and what
40:31 their solutions are
40:33 um when i look at it in an overarching
40:36 way
40:37 it isn't just right plant in right place
40:41 it is
40:43 why do we have landscaping what are we
40:46 trying to do with landscaping what is
40:49 its function and what are the results
40:51 that we want from it
40:54 and that is how you create
40:56 your landscape code
40:59 we have areas in issaquah highlands and
41:01 talis that are
41:03 like
41:04 street trees in nick or street trees and
41:06 strawberries now
41:08 what is the function for that well the
41:10 function for that is we were told that
41:13 we needed to put in trees and we need to
41:15 put in ground cover
41:17 and
41:18 um so that's what we get
41:21 and i need to see the language that
41:24 describes
41:25 what we actually
41:27 want
41:28 to have happen are we trying to treat
41:31 the water are we trying to take upgrade
41:35 are we trying to create
41:37 shade are we trying to make a pleasant
41:39 walking experience and so
41:42 you the the
41:43 the placement of the plants
41:46 themselves all has to funnel in with the
41:50 why are we doing it at all question and
41:53 so that is the intense statement that we
41:56 sort of have in our our code the intent
41:58 and purpose for landscaping and then
42:01 that gets you into the public
42:03 landscaping
42:05 private landscaping and then these these
42:09 sort of
42:10 linear corridor landscaping that we
42:13 fight all the time
42:15 and
42:16 and so for me what they're presenting
42:19 misses
42:20 misses the holistic look that we need to
42:23 take for our landscaping code
42:27 um if we want to have our landscaping
42:30 look different per neighborhood
42:32 then we need to reach out to those
42:34 neighborhoods and say hey neighborhood
42:36 what is it that you think your
42:38 neighborhood should look like and if we
42:41 were going to let you plant in the
42:42 medians and maintain them what would you
42:44 do because
42:46 what is your vibe what is your thing and
42:48 that is how you get character per
42:51 neighborhood you actually have the
42:53 neighbors do it
42:54 and right now we don't really have a a
42:57 pathway for legitimate neighbors taking
43:00 care of their own
43:02 own jurisdiction um they sneak it out
43:05 they sneak the plants out they sneak the
43:07 watering out because it's not really
43:09 allowed in the city and it should be
43:12 if we if we feel like we want to take
43:14 care of our public spaces and make the
43:16 mars i think there should be a pathway
43:18 to do
43:19 that
43:20 um so this is a very
43:23 over
43:24 arching um
43:26 view
43:28 because they didn't provide many details
43:31 though i wouldn't have liked the details
43:32 anyway because i don't really like the
43:34 way they're doing it
43:36 thank you
43:45 is there anyone else who would like to
43:46 comment
43:57 no no one else would like to comment at
44:00 this time
44:02 okay so we'll go ahead and open it up to
44:04 uh discussion
44:06 and
44:07 please
44:10 put in the chat that you would like to
44:11 make a discussion and while we're
44:13 waiting for someone to discuss i would
44:15 like to go and make a
44:17 comment here as well
44:19 uh to connie's point my wife and i take
44:23 care of a
44:25 median island in the middle of the
44:27 street
44:28 and landscaped it and we got
44:31 no support from the city to do
44:34 that
44:35 uh it was quite dinner taking it was all
44:37 full of um
44:39 invasive weeds and and uh
44:42 himalayan blackberries and we removed
44:43 them all
44:44 but it would be nice if the city
44:48 we got permission to landscape it
44:52 but we didn't get any resources to help
44:54 support it and it is enormous amount of
44:56 work
44:57 um and it would be nice if the city
45:00 would be able to provide some sort of
45:02 resources to help maintain it because
45:04 it's we're the only people on the on
45:06 this
45:07 in the neighborhood that are willing to
45:09 maintain it and
45:11 truth be said
45:13 we're sort of
45:14 tired of maintaining it
45:16 and we don't want to go back to
45:19 himalayan blackberries and lots of weeds
45:24 maybe a discussion should be
45:27 identifying
45:31 parcels that are within the public
45:34 right-of-way that should be maintained
45:37 that are not currently being maintained
45:39 and
45:40 i understand
45:42 we need to ask questions about
45:43 what does the neighborhood want and
45:46 sometimes
45:49 we need to look back at that and say
45:51 well you know what the neighborhood's
45:52 tired the neighborhood doesn't have time
45:54 and we need the city to help
45:57 take over that responsibility
46:00 um so that's my comment to that uh
46:03 and we have a
46:06 looks like a comment from nina milligan
46:09 so nida you have a floor
46:13 thank you chair fall commissioner
46:15 milligan here
46:16 and i really want to um say although i'm
46:19 not going to comment about all of them i
46:20 really appreciate all the public
46:22 comments and the emails that came
46:23 through
46:24 they were all very helpful and i know
46:25 that the staff is listening
46:28 and if i do
46:29 uh reiterate one or another uh now it's
46:32 not because i thought any less of the
46:34 others just some of them resonated a
46:36 little more
46:37 uh with the things that i was taking
46:39 notes on when i was looking through the
46:40 packet
46:41 um the
46:43 purpose tonight the asked for feedback
46:46 is are we on the right track are we
46:48 suggesting the right things and i have
46:51 to um
46:52 agree with commissioner lewis in that
46:55 well i don't know it's not very specific
46:58 did you really say anything the
46:59 substance there i don't mean it's that
47:01 sassy but um i i didn't feel like i had
47:04 anything to comment on because all of it
47:07 was a very basic high level
47:09 fairly obvious stuff and as an example
47:13 i made note that where it says
47:19 update landscaping in parking lot
47:22 standards well okay yeah i mean that's
47:25 kind of what we're doing throughout uh
47:26 title 18 we're updating uh about the
47:29 standards um you could say something a
47:32 little more specific or maybe i'm just
47:34 looking forward to the future
47:37 code but indicate tip your hand a little
47:39 bit and say you're going to increase the
47:41 tree canopy and parking lots
47:43 and establish some
47:46 long-term maintenance something you know
47:48 tell us a little bit about which way
47:50 you're heading so that we have something
47:51 to say
47:53 to give you feedback on otherwise i just
47:54 really don't have that much feedback to
47:56 give but i did want to
47:59 chime in about the um
48:01 moving the standards to a separate
48:03 document
48:04 mostly uh in support of the concerns
48:06 from the public comments and uh uh thank
48:09 you lucy for all of your uh details and
48:12 showing us where it does work and that's
48:14 really reassuring um one thing that
48:16 might help is increase transparency and
48:19 i don't know which way you'd like to do
48:20 this but maybe there's some way with
48:22 technology today that would be simple to
48:25 share a public notice uh when
48:28 standards change
48:30 something you know that shows that
48:31 you're not doing something sneaky behind
48:33 the curtain or in the back office
48:36 but rather it is out in the public eye
48:37 it might not affect a particular
48:39 application or something that's
48:41 happening right away but it would allow
48:42 the public to participate
48:44 and then the last thing
48:46 i wanted um support it was uh connie
48:49 marsha's comment about and i wrote down
48:52 objective oriented code rather than
48:54 saying
48:55 do this
48:57 have our landscape perform a function
49:00 and
49:01 i think if we found more opportunities
49:04 put that objective-oriented
49:06 standard in our language we may be more
49:09 likely to get what we wanted because
49:12 indeed we don't want just things we
49:14 don't want we don't just want trees and
49:15 parking lots we want to make parking
49:18 lots cooler
49:20 better for the climate better for the
49:23 human experience better for hydrology
49:26 those
49:28 purpose
49:29 statements might be very helpful when
49:30 you get around sharing the code with us
49:33 that concludes my comments on landscape
49:36 thank you chair paul
49:38 those were excellent comments by the way
49:40 um commissioner milligan i concur and
49:45 next question we have is from our
49:47 comment is from commissioner lewis
49:51 commissioner joy lewis here i want to
49:54 start
49:55 by seconding the sas of commissioner
49:57 nina milligan it's right on par with how
50:00 i felt about the landscaping section i i
50:03 definitely
50:04 thought it was
50:05 very macro uh and it was a good
50:08 announcement of things to come without
50:10 giving me much details about where we're
50:12 headed um
50:14 for for my preference i would really
50:17 like to see you know there's there's an
50:18 allusion to well some neighborhoods are
50:20 going to be more impacted than others
50:22 some neighbors have certain design codes
50:24 and some don't i'd love to know what
50:26 those are who's going to be getting more
50:28 owner standards who's going to be maybe
50:30 getting some left you know we kind of
50:32 alluded to how there's going to be
50:33 changes
50:34 okay so what's the impact going to be
50:36 right so i would love um this is
50:38 supposed to be our background and gaps
50:40 analysis night before we actually deep
50:42 dive um i kind of feel like we still
50:44 need a little bit more background about
50:45 where we've been what we need to be
50:47 fixing about where we need to go but i'm
50:49 kind of hoping that that's going to come
50:51 because maybe again the documentation
50:52 just isn't quite there yet to where we
50:55 want to be um
50:57 i i certainly um want to echo the fact
50:59 that i've appreciated the comments we've
51:01 heard from the public and i really felt
51:03 a huge ding on um inside just a huge
51:07 bell dinging ringing when connie marsh
51:09 mentioned that there needs to be a
51:11 pathway for public ownership of public
51:13 spaces um it really is the heart of this
51:16 city um the way we interact with our
51:18 environmental space and i did not get
51:20 that at all from this document in
51:22 landscaping um and so to me
51:25 it was a huge wake-up call it was a
51:27 great way to put it and i hope that um
51:29 everybody else felt the same way about
51:31 it if no i can totally talk more about
51:34 my feelings
51:35 um but you know being able to talk too
51:37 about having having trees that are
51:39 actually going to reach the water table
51:40 right being able to plant things that
51:42 are positive for pollinators right
51:43 there's so many ways that we need um our
51:46 our landscaping code to get up
51:48 and so i look forward to seeing more i
51:50 appreciate the work that's being done um
51:52 and i hope that we're able to uh keep
51:55 going on it thanks everybody
52:01 excellent thank you very much
52:02 commissioner lewis and we have a comment
52:06 from commissioners or gozo
52:09 thank you chair uh commissioner richard
52:11 sergosa
52:12 uh first i want to thank the public
52:14 comments they're always so
52:16 good and i learn a lot from them and
52:18 they tend to influence me like
52:20 i come here with some ideas and then i
52:22 you know these comments and especially
52:23 having them in the beginning
52:25 they're just great all the emails i
52:27 really appreciate them and i wanted to
52:28 mirror uh
52:30 maybe mirror hopefully um some of those
52:32 comments
52:35 one
52:36 thing that i i i picked up on really
52:38 quickly in the document was this
52:40 protection of landmark trees
52:42 but do we have a bias towards landmark
52:44 trees as we're making these plans for
52:47 what trees should go where and the right
52:49 tree in the right place are we creating
52:51 opportunities for those trees to
52:53 eventually become landmark trees
52:55 are we talking about tree canopies in
52:58 the next two years or in the next 30
53:01 years yeah you know can we get larger
53:03 spaces for trees that will eventually be
53:06 very very large landmark trees that set
53:10 the tone that create an identity for our
53:12 community and not just
53:14 10 trees that are going to be replaced
53:16 in three years
53:17 you know
53:18 like our second commenter talked about
53:20 durable systems that are going to be
53:22 replaced every two years
53:24 are we trying to make plans that will
53:27 last and
53:28 and
53:29 build the community and make it a better
53:31 place and not just something that's
53:33 going to be replaced continuously so
53:35 everything constantly looks like a new
53:36 fresh tree
53:38 um so i think you know that it makes
53:40 sense to have a bias towards these
53:41 landmark trees if if so much percentage
53:44 of all the trees that we plant have the
53:46 potential to become landmark trees i
53:48 think i'd rather see
53:50 a few landmark trees than hundreds of
53:52 replaceable trees right having that
53:55 canopy come from fewer trees rather than
53:57 many
53:58 um and i also want to mirror the the
54:01 the comments from connie marsh
54:03 about you know what is the plan
54:06 what is the vision for this
54:08 you know 10 square yards
54:10 um in the work that i do we always start
54:12 with the vision dock right that vision
54:13 dock is sometimes super high level you
54:15 know sometimes it's just expressing
54:18 the emotion that we want to portray in
54:19 whatever that end result is and you know
54:22 what is that like what is our vision for
54:24 this
54:25 you know 10 square yards of block
54:28 right and maybe it is practical maybe
54:30 this shade maybe it's just experiential
54:32 right we just want to have what feels
54:34 like a park even though it's the front
54:36 of you know a shop um so i think
54:38 beginning with those vision docs and
54:40 really understanding
54:41 what we want from this space is
54:43 important
54:44 beyond the practical
54:46 you know
54:48 rules and things like that so
54:51 thank you
54:55 excellent thank you very much
54:56 commissioner zaragoza
54:58 and i am not seeing any additional
55:00 comments
55:02 so we are going to go ahead and
55:05 we've got a comment
55:07 from commissioner voice
55:10 you off the floor
55:12 thank you chair foul so i'm gonna let
55:14 everybody in on a little secret
55:16 i am not an arborist
55:20 so i guess my feeling is i'm generally
55:22 supportive of having
55:25 basically a specification document
55:27 uh doesn't mean that i don't want to see
55:29 what the city has planned
55:30 but i do think the idea of bringing back
55:34 every time some some type of new
55:36 improvement new technology i think
55:38 trying to bring it back and adopt it to
55:40 code i think that's pretty cumbersome
55:42 so i just a little bit of feedback for
55:44 me i typically like that i do have a
55:47 question for staff here in a second
55:50 um and then i also like consistency and
55:53 maybe that's just the type of person i
55:54 am so when i think of consistent
55:57 street cityscapes
55:59 i don't really know
56:00 how uniform and how much more arbitrary
56:03 we're going to make it if we're trying
56:05 to basically go to the whims of every
56:07 single neighborhood in the city i don't
56:08 know what that looks like so i'd like to
56:10 hear more about it i know certain areas
56:12 in our city have certain characteristics
56:14 we don't want that to change but how
56:16 does that work with like the public
56:17 right away
56:18 right so i'm thinking of cities like
56:20 berlin
56:21 seattle uh very consistent in their
56:24 policies and that's why they look so
56:26 lovely
56:27 it's kind of like going to neighborhoods
56:28 and having an hoa standard in this area
56:30 and a completely different standard in
56:32 another area so i just want to hear more
56:34 about it i'm sure everybody here is very
56:36 interested in hearing more about it
56:39 but it's not to say that
56:41 neighborhoods can't be unique and
56:43 different
56:44 it's just like i said how do you treat
56:45 like the public areas and the right of
56:48 ways i mean are those all going to be
56:49 you know are we using different plants
56:51 different things in those areas that we
56:52 do up in the highlands
56:54 so again questions
56:56 i actually do the idea of having public
56:59 ownership and i thought that was a
57:01 comment
57:02 um typically people care more when they
57:04 have that investment so how can we
57:06 encourage that what does that look like
57:07 those are all great questions
57:09 and then i had a conversation with one
57:11 of our
57:13 public comments tonight one of our
57:15 commentators and it was a great one i'd
57:17 also like to know if we have some type
57:19 of repository where we're putting in our
57:22 best practices that's great it's
57:23 wonderful
57:24 but we've also had a lot of failed
57:26 attempts
57:28 if anyone in the city keeps track of
57:29 that
57:30 everybody can drive down gilman can
57:32 drive up through talus and see the
57:34 busted up sidewalks
57:35 so is anybody actually keeping track of
57:38 our failures
57:40 i don't know but i think that would be
57:41 something that could be probably part of
57:43 the code not specification document
57:45 but it was a great comment
57:48 i'm going to out you because it was such
57:50 a great comment mr eastman so again
57:52 something like a repository where we can
57:55 learn from our mistakes we're continuing
57:57 learning about new technologies best
57:59 practices but also making sure we're not
58:02 repeating things of the past
58:04 so thank you
58:07 excellent well said
58:09 um i would also like to make a comment
58:11 as well when it comes to resources in
58:13 terms to
58:14 [Music]
58:16 private
58:21 maintenance of public spaces and that
58:23 would be
58:28 looking towards the resources where
58:31 would people be able to get the plants
58:34 is that something that we can get from
58:35 king county is that something we can get
58:37 from the city
58:38 uh can we get them at a discount
58:41 what plants should we pick because there
58:43 could be conversations about some
58:45 neighbors wanting to put in roses and
58:46 while roses are not native or
58:49 so i think maybe having a resource that
58:52 the
58:53 private citizens can
58:56 reach out to and get consultation and
58:59 or materials to help make these public
59:03 spaces
59:05 enhanced
59:07 okay
59:08 i don't see any additional comments so
59:10 we're going to go ahead and close this
59:11 topic out and we're going to move on to
59:14 tree code
59:16 and kristin i'm going to open the floor
59:17 back up to staff
59:25 or mini daliwa yeah sure um so i
59:29 actually it's the watershed uh kim
59:31 you're here
59:32 um she's gonna lead us uh through the
59:34 tree code um presentation
59:37 go ahead
59:39 great and
59:40 stephanie is in charge of my
59:42 presentation so
59:44 i will
59:46 hlc gets me loaded up
1:00:03 thank you stephanie
1:00:07 good evening again uh my name is kim
1:00:09 frappier and i am an environmental
1:00:11 planner and certified arborist with a
1:00:12 watershed company
1:00:14 and as you know our team was tasked with
1:00:18 doing a gaps analysis of
1:00:21 the tree of code component of the
1:00:24 of the city code and providing
1:00:27 policy direction for the revision
1:00:29 process
1:00:30 and so tonight
1:00:33 i'm going to provide a brief background
1:00:36 on the city's tree canopy today
1:00:39 a summary of the key plans and sources
1:00:42 that we referenced when doing our gaps
1:00:43 analysis
1:00:45 i'll provide a high level synopsis of
1:00:48 our update approach
1:00:50 and then of course we'll have an
1:00:51 opportunity for discussion and questions
1:00:56 next slide please
1:01:03 okay so
1:01:05 the city's overarching goal
1:01:09 for tree canopy is to conserve and
1:01:11 protect the existing canopy on a city
1:01:13 scale that is the guiding
1:01:17 the guiding goal
1:01:19 that is being carried out throughout the
1:01:21 city to be quote today
1:01:23 next slide please
1:01:30 so the city of issaquah's current tree
1:01:32 canopy
1:01:34 was most recently assessed in 2019
1:01:37 and the results of that study showed
1:01:40 that the city had an average of 51
1:01:42 percent
1:01:43 can be covered city-wide and so what
1:01:45 does this mean
1:01:47 so an individual trees canopy so for one
1:01:51 it's the widest distance of a tree's
1:01:53 branches from the trunk this includes
1:01:56 the total amount of leaves and branches
1:01:58 on its stems or trunk
1:02:01 which would intercept rainfall or
1:02:03 provide shade for example
1:02:05 collectively
1:02:07 the tree canopy cover
1:02:09 that's part of that 51 percent
1:02:11 member that we're looking at is the
1:02:13 footprint or surface area of the land
1:02:16 covered by the combined canopies of all
1:02:18 standing trees
1:02:20 in a given area when viewed from above
1:02:26 i can tell from the discussion tonight
1:02:27 that i'm preaching to the choir and a
1:02:29 lot of you
1:02:31 are already well versed in this
1:02:32 information but i'm going to reiterate
1:02:36 which is that tree canopy is critical to
1:02:38 a number of
1:02:40 ecosystem services that really
1:02:42 impact and increase the livability of
1:02:44 the city of issaquah such as storm water
1:02:47 capture and infiltration
1:02:49 shading and cooling that reduces urban
1:02:51 heat island effects provides clean air
1:02:54 increases the property values for
1:02:56 private landowners
1:02:58 other benefits include you know carbon
1:03:00 sequestration and
1:03:02 mitigation mitigating the impacts of
1:03:04 climate change as well as numerous
1:03:06 social physical and mental health
1:03:08 benefits to the community
1:03:10 the graphic here that depicts how candy
1:03:13 cover varies across the city by land use
1:03:16 not surprising
1:03:18 those highly developed land uses such as
1:03:20 commercial uses have a lower canopy
1:03:22 cover at 26
1:03:24 while community facilities and
1:03:26 conservancy which would be
1:03:29 more of our public open spaces and
1:03:31 natural areas are at 74
1:03:35 so preserving and enhancing a city's
1:03:38 tree canopy can actually be achieved in
1:03:40 many ways you know
1:03:42 what we're talking about tonight is how
1:03:45 do so through tree retention and
1:03:47 replacement standards through title 18.
1:03:51 other ways that
1:03:52 we preserve tree canopy is through
1:03:54 voluntary tree planting on private lots
1:03:56 or a city-initiated tree planting
1:03:59 program
1:04:00 or managed park space as well as other
1:04:03 environmental storage efforts
1:04:08 the next slide please
1:04:14 the city of issaquah
1:04:16 and has been regulating tree retention
1:04:18 and density since 2008
1:04:21 tree density meaning
1:04:24 the quantity of trees
1:04:26 per lot size
1:04:29 and the purpose and intent of the city's
1:04:32 current tree preservation regulations
1:04:34 are to one you know protect the
1:04:36 environment and preserve the natural
1:04:37 forest and character of issaquah two to
1:04:40 ensure public safety
1:04:42 and that gets into issues around you
1:04:44 know hazard trees
1:04:46 and three you know enhance the aesthetic
1:04:48 assets of the community
1:04:52 so current tree regulations require
1:04:55 retention and preservation of what's
1:04:57 called significant trees and these are
1:04:59 defined as trees that are six inch in
1:05:01 diameter or greater
1:05:04 it also calls for the regulation of
1:05:07 landmark trees and these are trees equal
1:05:09 to or greater than 30 inch dbh and i
1:05:13 really liked what mr zaragoza had to say
1:05:16 about
1:05:18 you know thinking about canopy and
1:05:19 timeline and uh
1:05:23 and how we need to be planting for those
1:05:24 landmark trees because our our hope
1:05:27 is that we are planting the trees that
1:05:29 are going to be our future canopy
1:05:32 in the long term
1:05:36 uh so through this update to title 18
1:05:41 the city is hoping to create a cohesive
1:05:43 approach to tree management
1:05:48 the next slide please
1:05:54 the first step in our assessment
1:05:58 for our gaps analysis was to review
1:06:00 existing plan documents to identify
1:06:02 policy goals and understand the current
1:06:04 regulatory framework for tree management
1:06:06 in the city
1:06:08 so this included a review of the current
1:06:10 landscaping and tree retention code
1:06:12 um issaquah's comprehensive plan
1:06:15 essential issaquah plan development
1:06:17 standards as well
1:06:19 additionally we also reviewed
1:06:22 the data provided to us by the city on
1:06:25 the city's
1:06:27 title 18 update goals policy changes and
1:06:29 desired outcomes
1:06:31 and we also
1:06:32 had an opportunity to review community
1:06:34 observations and feedback
1:06:37 and what we learned through that process
1:06:39 was that there is a consistent policy
1:06:42 commitment to maintaining and enhancing
1:06:43 this across tree canopy environmental
1:06:46 sustainability and protecting the
1:06:48 forested character of the city
1:06:50 in terms of a regulatory framework we
1:06:52 found that the city
1:06:54 is really looking to consolidate tree
1:06:57 management standards under one set of
1:06:59 regulations versus having different
1:07:01 standards that apply to separate
1:07:03 neighborhoods as has been the case with
1:07:05 the centralization
1:07:09 we've observed that the city code would
1:07:12 benefit from some retooling to
1:07:14 strengthen and clarify all aspects of
1:07:19 review
1:07:21 permitting and approval processes for
1:07:23 tree retention and replacement
1:07:28 okay next slide please
1:07:33 so as part of our research
1:07:35 um similar to what stephanie and the
1:07:38 burger team did is that we reviewed tree
1:07:40 retention and canopy
1:07:42 um preservation ordinances from other
1:07:44 cities in the region
1:07:46 as well as standard best tree management
1:07:48 practices
1:07:49 and rather than go into great depth for
1:07:52 each topic covered in the gaps analysis
1:07:54 memo that we provided i'd like to
1:07:57 highlight just two
1:07:59 of the issues two of the key issues that
1:08:01 we've identified as part of our
1:08:02 assessment
1:08:05 first
1:08:06 and for tree retention and replacement
1:08:09 regulations we looked at three different
1:08:12 methodologies for tree retention and
1:08:14 replacement standards um one and i don't
1:08:17 have this outlined in the slide you have
1:08:19 to forgive me i was trying to get away
1:08:21 from having too much verbage
1:08:23 on the slide but
1:08:27 i'm happy to go over this again or
1:08:28 answer more detailed questions
1:08:30 so the first approach
1:08:32 is what the city is currently using
1:08:33 which is a tree density approach as i
1:08:35 described earlier
1:08:37 the second methodology is called the
1:08:39 tree credit approach which allowed a
1:08:42 project a certain number of credits per
1:08:45 lot area
1:08:47 based on the diameter of the tree rather
1:08:49 than the number of individual trees
1:08:54 that approach is actually used for
1:08:55 example by the city of kirkland
1:08:58 the third methodology which we've
1:09:00 highlighted here is using a tree canopy
1:09:03 based approach and this approach
1:09:05 identifies canopy cover goals for lot
1:09:08 sizes and land use types
1:09:11 and it is measured by the percentage of
1:09:14 canopy provided by existing trees
1:09:17 or the projected canopy coverage to be
1:09:19 provided by newly planted or immature
1:09:21 trees when they reach maturity
1:09:24 and different jurisdictions who use this
1:09:26 method you know
1:09:28 set different timelines in the future
1:09:30 for that what they would consider a
1:09:32 mature tree you know
1:09:34 to identify that canopy measure for the
1:09:37 city of lake forest park that's 30 years
1:09:39 snohomish county uses 20 years
1:09:43 but this method allows jurisdictions to
1:09:45 identify canopy retention goals in the
1:09:47 context of different land uses and
1:09:49 development pressures
1:09:52 and specifically ties
1:09:55 retention to canopy goals
1:10:00 next slide please
1:10:04 the next topic that i'd like to
1:10:06 highlight is landmark tree retention
1:10:09 exceptions
1:10:10 like so i
1:10:12 so this is something that we've
1:10:14 identified for further consideration and
1:10:16 which is to develop a clear and rigorous
1:10:19 process for evaluating the removal of
1:10:22 landmark trees so those are the
1:10:24 the big ones that are 30 inch diameter
1:10:27 or greater
1:10:29 currently there's no specific exception
1:10:31 review process
1:10:33 um in the current code
1:10:35 the city does regulate them um
1:10:38 but there isn't a
1:10:40 very rigorous review process for
1:10:42 exceptions and so
1:10:44 the city of redmond for example outlines
1:10:46 a procedure and criteria for the
1:10:48 granting of exceptions
1:10:50 when a landowner or developer wants to
1:10:53 remove large january trees and so these
1:10:55 would include
1:10:57 issues such as
1:10:58 special circumstances that may exist in
1:11:01 the size
1:11:02 shape and typography
1:11:04 of the property
1:11:07 or that perhaps the circumstances where
1:11:10 compliance with the code would
1:11:11 jeopardize reasonable use of the
1:11:13 property
1:11:15 or that the proposed meditation removal
1:11:17 replacement and mitigation measures
1:11:21 met the standards outlined in the
1:11:23 regulations
1:11:26 or that the granting of the exception or
1:11:28 standard reduction
1:11:29 would be detrimental to public welfare
1:11:31 or injurious to adjacent property in
1:11:33 some way so
1:11:35 all that to say
1:11:37 that it just sets up some clear criteria
1:11:41 that a landowner or developer would have
1:11:43 to go through
1:11:44 her review
1:11:46 [Music]
1:11:47 to make that request
1:11:49 so there's a little bit more
1:11:51 stringent regulation on that
1:11:55 next slide please
1:12:01 so our update approach so to summarize
1:12:04 the proposed policy direction and
1:12:06 approach and we've identified the
1:12:08 following areas for further
1:12:09 consideration
1:12:11 and you know just
1:12:13 in hearing your comments before you just
1:12:15 want to acknowledge that these are
1:12:17 high-level
1:12:19 suggestions for policy direction we were
1:12:22 not tasked with developing
1:12:25 detailed
1:12:26 codes you know as part of this process
1:12:28 so again this was more of a gaps
1:12:29 analysis and policy assessment
1:12:33 but the first
1:12:34 recommendation which
1:12:37 is to establish separate landscaping and
1:12:39 tree preservation chapters we feel that
1:12:42 although these chapters are interrelated
1:12:45 and it would
1:12:46 create some ease in
1:12:49 access and use of the codes um to have
1:12:52 them separated out
1:12:56 the second
1:12:57 as i discussed earlier is to update the
1:13:00 tree retention and replacement
1:13:02 regulation so that standards are based
1:13:04 on canopy cover goals for different land
1:13:09 the third
1:13:11 we've heard a little bit about wright
1:13:12 plant right place tonight and
1:13:15 we like we were calling it right tree
1:13:17 right place uh that when developing
1:13:19 specific regulations for retention and
1:13:21 replacement the criteria will be
1:13:24 included to strengthen the requirements
1:13:26 for species and health of the trees
1:13:28 retained and the location in species of
1:13:31 replacement trees will be either on site
1:13:33 or within the same land use
1:13:37 prioritizing those
1:13:39 areas that have low canopy cover
1:13:44 so as noted earlier i
1:13:46 we just mentioned developing special
1:13:48 exception policies and for landmark
1:13:50 trees
1:13:52 and then
1:13:53 and number five
1:13:56 is really a list of other
1:13:58 topics that i covered in the memo that i
1:14:02 that are important but that i
1:14:05 wasn't going to go into quite as much
1:14:06 detail but that i'll just summarize
1:14:08 briefly here
1:14:11 there were some areas where we just felt
1:14:13 like there could just be some that could
1:14:15 be just made more robust
1:14:18 in terms of the requirements and the
1:14:19 definitions
1:14:21 and so for example
1:14:25 strengthening the required professional
1:14:27 artist credentials and level of
1:14:28 experience for those arborists managing
1:14:30 tree protection during construction that
1:14:32 was something that we observed um
1:14:36 the city of mercer island has a
1:14:38 has a really robust detailed
1:14:40 um requirements around
1:14:44 their qualified arborist requirements
1:14:47 the second and we've heard this from we
1:14:50 saw this in
1:14:52 in reading the code ourselves and then
1:14:54 it was validated in what we heard from
1:14:56 the community comments was to develop an
1:14:58 in-lieu fund with very cl with a clear
1:15:01 mechanism and monitoring component to
1:15:03 ensure that off-site replacement trees
1:15:06 are replanted in
1:15:08 the land use zones from which they were
1:15:10 or i'm sorry the land use areas from
1:15:12 what which they were removed
1:15:15 or in similar areas with low canopy
1:15:17 cover
1:15:20 another topic um that rose to the top
1:15:23 was tree valuation uh the value of
1:15:26 significant and protected trees in this
1:15:27 chapter
1:15:28 is based on the guide for plant
1:15:30 appraisal
1:15:31 um published by the council of tree and
1:15:33 landscape appraisers that's already in
1:15:34 place in the code however what we're
1:15:36 suggesting is that the cost to the city
1:15:38 for trees replaced for example and also
1:15:42 include
1:15:43 establishment and maintenance costs
1:15:45 because
1:15:47 and this applies specifically to those
1:15:51 fees that are incurred
1:15:53 from code violations um because it's not
1:15:56 just the
1:15:58 it's not just the wholesale cost of the
1:16:00 tree the replacement but it's also the
1:16:02 labor
1:16:03 and the maintenance cost that goes into
1:16:05 that then
1:16:10 we've we've heard tonight a little bit
1:16:12 about the
1:16:14 master tree list and
1:16:15 we also wanted to reiterate that point
1:16:18 that we'd like to see a slightly more
1:16:21 detailed best practice resource um
1:16:24 this would include updating
1:16:27 the city's preferred master tree list
1:16:29 and prohibited tree list to add an
1:16:31 educational component to this that
1:16:33 actually talks more specifically about
1:16:36 you know that right tree right place
1:16:38 designating how the which trees are
1:16:40 suitable for
1:16:42 specific size planting strips under
1:16:44 power lines
1:16:45 those that perform well in drought
1:16:47 conditions and in urban areas
1:16:52 so and then lastly and
1:16:55 which actually ties in with the landmark
1:17:00 designation
1:17:01 is the idea of actually developing an
1:17:03 exceptional tree designation
1:17:07 this does exist in some cities such as
1:17:09 the city of seattle um and these are
1:17:12 trees that receive an extra layer of
1:17:14 protections due to their unique
1:17:16 combination of size and species age
1:17:20 location and health
1:17:22 and that are worthy of long-term
1:17:24 retention
1:17:28 and so
1:17:30 that is our overall update approach
1:17:35 next slide please
1:17:40 and so similar to the question posed
1:17:43 earlier you know we
1:17:45 would like to know whether
1:17:47 the proposed approach
1:17:49 that's been
1:17:51 chosen and the topics that we have
1:17:53 presented
1:17:57 help move the city forward in terms of
1:18:00 you know
1:18:01 in terms of your 2018 goals and outcomes
1:18:06 and so i'd like to open it up to
1:18:11 and discussion
1:18:13 questions
1:18:14 excellent and thank you very much
1:18:16 consultant uh kim frippier
1:18:18 so we're gonna go ahead and open it up
1:18:20 to questions from commissioners and
1:18:22 while we are waiting
1:18:24 cheerful if i may um introduce the staff
1:18:28 assigned to this project who's working
1:18:30 so he may be able to assist with some
1:18:32 questions about how it's done um
1:18:34 how trees are regulated today
1:18:37 so dan martinez are you here
1:18:40 and can um
1:18:42 so um he'll be able to assist with the
1:18:45 at the end questions and answers um so
1:18:47 he's the staff that'll be working on the
1:18:49 tree code
1:18:50 okay and you said his name is
1:18:54 can you daniel martinez
1:18:58 excellent thank you very much mr
1:19:00 martinez uh you have the floor
1:19:03 or did you
1:19:05 did you have a comment or a question
1:19:08 i don't have anything to say at the
1:19:10 moment uh just that i'm available to
1:19:14 answer questions if needed excellent
1:19:16 thank you very much mr martinez uh okay
1:19:18 so we're gonna go ahead and open it up
1:19:19 we have uh
1:19:21 commissioner milligan who has a question
1:19:25 thank you chair fall commissioner nina
1:19:27 milligan here
1:19:28 uh my question has to do with what we
1:19:30 measure
1:19:31 i i want to know a little bit more about
1:19:33 the difference between measuring
1:19:37 diameter and measuring tree canopy
1:19:41 is is our objective always canopy and
1:19:45 how do we get the canopy we want if what
1:19:47 we're measuring is a tree trunk i just
1:19:49 don't know enough about how these things
1:19:52 manifest and i want to understand better
1:19:54 how to compare the credit system with
1:19:57 the canopy based system for measurement
1:20:01 that's my question thank you
1:20:06 yeah and that's a good question um and
1:20:10 with the
1:20:11 the assumption is that a larger diameter
1:20:14 tree is going to have a larger canopy
1:20:17 and and so
1:20:19 when we're measuring
1:20:23 when we're looking at it from a
1:20:24 retention standpoint
1:20:26 you know there
1:20:27 and there is this assumed correlation
1:20:30 between
1:20:31 you know a larger diameter
1:20:32 tree and a canopy now in terms of
1:20:37 canopy city-wide you know
1:20:40 that actually would need to be
1:20:42 that is a separate kind of measurement
1:20:44 and an assessment that you know needs to
1:20:46 be done
1:20:50 it's a different process and so
1:20:52 i'm not i don't know if i'm answering
1:20:54 your question but i think uh
1:20:57 but in terms of canopy you know there's
1:21:02 typically when you're measuring canopy
1:21:04 you are you can do it from aerial photos
1:21:07 so that's one thing and that would be
1:21:09 and that is how those cities that are
1:21:12 using canopy cover as a measure
1:21:15 you know as for retention
1:21:17 they typically are either
1:21:19 having a qualified arborist you know
1:21:21 measure it from the ground you know and
1:21:24 taking actually on the ground
1:21:25 measurements from the trunk
1:21:27 to the outer point of the
1:21:29 you know of the
1:21:31 can of the canopy itself with the edge
1:21:32 of the tree of the branches or they're
1:21:35 doing it from aerial photos
1:21:41 how else can i help elucidate that but i
1:21:44 think i think you answered it kim thank
1:21:48 in that there's an assumption
1:21:51 uh that
1:21:52 tree trunk diameter produces a
1:21:56 particular canopy
1:21:57 but i don't know that they measure the
1:22:00 quite measure the same thing so i'll
1:22:02 just look forward to the more discussion
1:22:05 on that and i would say that you know it
1:22:08 and i would also add that it varies by
1:22:09 species because you know for example
1:22:13 you know an oak tree has a very you know
1:22:15 a mature oak tree would have a very
1:22:17 broad wide canopy cover whereas
1:22:20 something
1:22:23 you know even like a douglas fir or you
1:22:26 you know it is very
1:22:29 it's much more linear you know and
1:22:31 does not have this might not have the
1:22:32 same spread
1:22:35 you know so i think that when you're
1:22:36 talking about this is why i think that
1:22:39 it's important to
1:22:40 talk about
1:22:41 issues around species selection
1:22:46 you know when we talk about you know
1:22:48 canopy replacement retention
1:23:13 oh i'm not hearing
1:23:18 okay thank you so
1:23:20 sorry i stepped away for just a quick
1:23:22 moment did something happen
1:23:24 oh no i just didn't hear anything and i
1:23:26 was worried that maybe my audio got cut
1:23:28 off oh
1:23:29 no my dog was telling me he had to go to
1:23:31 the restroom so
1:23:34 sorry for y'all uh okay so i do have a
1:23:37 quick question here um
1:23:40 consultant uh kim can you please go back
1:23:43 to the map
1:23:44 that you showed for
1:23:46 canopy density goals
1:23:48 uh sure stephanie could you help me with
1:24:02 that that yes that's like good thanks so
1:24:05 i'm looking for i'm looking at the
1:24:07 community facilities uh conservancy
1:24:10 which is uh what we call tradition
1:24:12 plateau off of i-90 it's on the lower
1:24:14 right hand corner
1:24:17 the questions that i have is one
1:24:20 those trees that are there what do those
1:24:24 in terms of a benefit to the city
1:24:29 um if the city has more population and
1:24:33 we have more air pollution
1:24:35 do the trees that are in the
1:24:38 area of the
1:24:40 tradition plateau benefit
1:24:42 the city of issaquah
1:24:45 and if we were to lose that area
1:24:49 what would that do to our actual total
1:24:53 i'm hearing that you know the city of
1:24:54 israel we're averaging about 50 percent
1:24:58 almost the entire area of the of that
1:25:00 community facilities conservancy area is
1:25:03 tree so if we were to lose that what
1:25:05 would be the real target of
1:25:08 our tree canopy
1:25:12 so i would actually have to go
1:25:15 i don't know if i can answer that
1:25:17 question for you um without getting more
1:25:19 information
1:25:20 so i think it's a good question
1:25:23 i think that so community facilities i'd
1:25:26 have to actually i didn't highlight that
1:25:27 here today i'll have to go back to the
1:25:30 um original document and look at that
1:25:34 or is that just oh i see oh there oh i
1:25:37 see it now it's right okay
1:25:40 or is that when i see community
1:25:42 facilities conservancy
1:25:44 and that's purple and all the other
1:25:46 areas that are purple
1:25:48 yeah those are two different
1:25:52 in other words is that 74 percent which
1:25:55 is basically all of the community
1:25:57 facilities or is that just
1:25:59 looking at that one
1:26:01 geological area or
1:26:03 the community facilities conservancy is
1:26:05 everything that's in purple
1:26:08 and so the one that you're talking about
1:26:10 isn't for some reason was i'd have to go
1:26:13 look at the details of the canopy study
1:26:15 again
1:26:16 um it looks like that is a separate
1:26:18 category
1:26:21 and this is this is jeff watling uh
1:26:23 parks community services director just
1:26:25 want to jump in ron good question i just
1:26:27 want to clarify
1:26:28 what kim was saying you're right even
1:26:30 though the the community facilities
1:26:32 conservancy
1:26:34 label is over tradition plateau that 74
1:26:38 represents all cf all community
1:26:41 facilities um
1:26:44 properties throughout
1:26:45 the city
1:26:51 jeff so the area that's
1:26:53 below what i'm i'm referring to
1:26:55 tradition plateau that's in white it
1:26:57 kind of looks like uh
1:26:59 it goes in towards the
1:27:03 the single-family areas
1:27:06 that is all owned by dnr or state right
1:27:09 so and that
1:27:11 so that is outside the city of issaquah
1:27:13 so this tree canopy study when i was
1:27:15 done was just looking at parcels within
1:27:17 the city of issaquah so
1:27:19 tradition plateau
1:27:21 that the city owns is what you see in
1:27:24 purple the the white basically
1:27:26 represents any parcels outside of the
1:27:29 city of issaquah boundary but you're
1:27:30 absolutely right west tiger mountain is
1:27:32 primarily publicly owned by
1:27:35 uh dnr um
1:27:37 and and well primarily dnr
1:27:40 would it be
1:27:41 and this is still a question it's not
1:27:44 necessarily comment but the question is
1:27:46 would it be in the city's interest our
1:27:49 best interest to annex that area to
1:27:52 capture that tree canopy
1:27:55 so that it would not be at risk of
1:27:57 vlogging
1:28:01 that's a significant policy question i
1:28:03 would say if the sole reason is risk of
1:28:06 logging um if it's already publicly
1:28:08 owned it's probably under some degree of
1:28:11 conservancy as owned by dnr
1:28:15 and you know from uh planning uh legal
1:28:18 reasons uh it's not in a potential
1:28:20 annexation area so we cannot legally
1:28:23 uh annex it anyways the cities can only
1:28:26 annex things that are designated
1:28:27 potential annexation areas
1:28:29 and to add to what what um
1:28:34 was just shared it's also
1:28:36 outside the urban growth boundary
1:28:38 okay so but i guess the question i have
1:28:42 is then
1:28:43 if that area is logged that would be a
1:28:45 significant risk to the city of issaquah
1:28:54 so is there something we can do to work
1:28:56 with dnr to make sure that west tiger
1:28:59 area isn't logged because they're
1:29:01 logging they're aggressively logging
1:29:03 east tiger right now
1:29:05 and i would hate to see that happen on
1:29:07 west tiger and i don't know if they're
1:29:10 what the logging policies are for west
1:29:13 tiger if there are protections in place
1:29:16 or if it's all
1:29:18 open to
1:29:19 [Music]
1:29:21 lease sales and losses so ron jeff again
1:29:24 i happy to sort of take this offline my
1:29:26 understanding is what you're seeing
1:29:28 logged east of tiger is actually
1:29:30 property owned by weyerhaeuser it's not
1:29:32 that's not dnr owned property
1:29:36 i was not aware of that
1:29:39 okay thank you uh next comment then is
1:29:42 commissioner lewis yeah on the floor
1:29:48 thank you commissioner joy lewis here i
1:29:50 want to start with an easy question so
1:29:53 we keep talking about a 51
1:29:56 tree retention
1:29:57 but also our document references like on
1:29:59 page 7 of 7b 50
1:30:02 can you help clarify for me why
1:30:04 sometimes we say 50 and why sometimes we
1:30:06 say 51 just like on the record right
1:30:09 because this is a number we talk about a
1:30:10 lot right
1:30:11 in separate areas it comes up a lot can
1:30:14 you help me understand why sometimes we
1:30:16 say 50 and why sometimes we say 51 for
1:30:32 yeah you know um go ahead
1:30:35 i was just gonna say my understanding
1:30:37 again
1:30:38 parks director here so i i don't know
1:30:40 the code but
1:30:41 the tree canopy study that was re that
1:30:44 most recently done represented that
1:30:46 we're at 50
1:30:48 51 canopy cover so that's sort of
1:30:50 stating our current
1:30:52 condition i believe there's language in
1:30:54 the code that spoke to the goal of 50
1:30:57 um so when i hear 51 reference that's
1:31:00 where we currently exist 50 i think has
1:31:03 been the historical target
1:31:05 thank you i i appreciate that because we
1:31:08 see both numbers it's easy to think one
1:31:10 is a typo
1:31:12 and they're so close together so it
1:31:14 would be fair to say right now that the
1:31:16 information we have is to say that we
1:31:18 have hit and are aiming to maintain our
1:31:21 canopy coverage correct
1:31:23 but with canopy coverage being what it
1:31:26 is we're often going to be losing more
1:31:28 right so then we have this policy of
1:31:30 trying to then offset for what we know
1:31:33 we're losing and then trying to build up
1:31:35 right because we know we're losing some
1:31:37 and just off from aging of the natural
1:31:39 life of a tree cycle from storms and
1:31:41 things like that right so how much of a
1:31:44 buffer than percentage are we putting in
1:31:46 to say we've hit that magic number
1:31:49 and we want to keep it and so we have a
1:31:52 lot of talk about how we're doing that
1:31:53 as far as like when people are purposely
1:31:55 taking out trees to try to do something
1:31:57 what are we doing to actually just
1:31:58 maintain the 51 percent i didn't see
1:32:00 anything in our document about that
1:32:04 what percentage do we buffer our 51 to
1:32:07 keep 51
1:32:09 right someone's got a tree equation for
1:32:11 me i know it
1:32:12 that's it this is just yeah
1:32:15 you know what i'll say on that is what
1:32:17 50 51 versus 55 i think at the end of
1:32:20 the day what the code
1:32:23 is the focus of this discussion today
1:32:26 which is how do we preserve how do we
1:32:29 make sure the replacement ratios if you
1:32:32 cut down one then how many do you need
1:32:34 to replant there is the temporal loss if
1:32:37 of anything you know of a diseased tree
1:32:40 that dies
1:32:42 the young one is going to take 30 years
1:32:44 to grow up into
1:32:46 and give you the the canopy for that
1:32:47 long period of time so i think the focus
1:32:50 for for the purposes of the code update
1:32:54 how what other standards for retention
1:32:57 how many replacement uh do we need
1:33:01 so so it's more of that and how we
1:33:03 manage the canopy you know doing the
1:33:05 studies every year a delta difference of
1:33:08 one two one percent or whatever how we
1:33:11 that captures in in a satellite imagery
1:33:14 we still need to kind of do that to kind
1:33:16 of keep track so we don't clear cut all
1:33:18 of the area and we lose that canopy
1:33:20 coverage so that's a goal at a much
1:33:22 higher level
1:33:23 but title 18 is a much more fine grained
1:33:27 uh piece in terms of
1:33:29 and this will come only into play when
1:33:31 you're redeveloping or developing your
1:33:33 properties you know there are existing
1:33:35 homes people can plant new trees so
1:33:37 that's why i think kim's first slide
1:33:39 talked about the different ways to
1:33:41 encourage more canopy it isn't just
1:33:44 through code update and what the code
1:33:45 requires it's through those programmatic
1:33:48 things that you all talked about what
1:33:50 how do we
1:33:51 maintain programmatically how do we
1:33:54 um you know do a giveaway a tree of uh
1:33:58 you know our birthday celebrations where
1:34:00 we all go and plant uh trees so those
1:34:02 are more program things that will be
1:34:04 coupled with
1:34:06 the code writing which will the code
1:34:09 generally will prevent
1:34:11 uh losses will require replacements um
1:34:16 so how how that you know the the
1:34:18 discussion tonight should focus on what
1:34:21 the code means i think the canopy
1:34:23 coverage goals is a policy level
1:34:25 discussion that is really important but
1:34:27 i think at this
1:34:28 stage of helping us craft the code to
1:34:32 bring back to you it would be helpful to
1:34:34 to bring it back to what the tree
1:34:36 regulations really are or should be
1:34:39 i guess my question is about the number
1:34:41 that we keep talking about right
1:34:44 51 right we've heard overwhelmingly from
1:34:47 the public that they want to increase
1:34:50 that number um i don't know that i've
1:34:52 ever in my six years here on my
1:34:55 commission have heard anyone say to go
1:34:57 the opposite direction right so i think
1:35:00 it's relevant for us to be talking about
1:35:02 as we hit that number how we maintain
1:35:04 that number and when many i think what
1:35:07 you to paraphrase you just said 50 51 or
1:35:11 well i think that's an interesting
1:35:12 comment then so why not 55
1:35:15 right so
1:35:16 uh if if the city's position is that
1:35:19 these percentage points are highly um
1:35:22 flexible then what are what is the harm
1:35:25 in moving that percentage yeah let me
1:35:27 clarify i wasn't saying they're flexible
1:35:30 that's for the community to decide what
1:35:32 the canopy coverage goals are
1:35:36 the implementation tool the title 18
1:35:40 difference that it'll make whether it's
1:35:42 any one of those numbers um
1:35:45 isn't
1:35:46 that much different for what the code
1:35:48 will say for one versus the other
1:35:52 um so you can in through this code
1:35:54 process you can assume you want more
1:35:56 trees
1:35:58 therefore the time will tell whether we
1:36:00 hit that mark of 55 or we did better
1:36:03 than that so that's the monitoring
1:36:05 program that will show
1:36:07 what happens the code is a slice of that
1:36:09 piece
1:36:10 uh and part of what my concern is is
1:36:12 that right now
1:36:14 um our you know what was referenced as
1:36:16 being basically the community facilities
1:36:18 and our single family homes are carrying
1:36:20 a huge share of that canopy retention
1:36:23 right and so as we plan for building out
1:36:26 and continuing our growth we know that
1:36:29 we're going to be having less of
1:36:31 specifically our single family home
1:36:33 areas which are i believe the you know
1:36:35 the first the percentage was like 55
1:36:37 right compared to multi-family homes
1:36:39 that were somewhere in the 20s right so
1:36:41 if we look at the number that we're at
1:36:42 right now
1:36:44 sorry what just came on a step in so and
1:36:46 we look at the number that we have now
1:36:48 of saying if we know we're moving more
1:36:50 towards uh development
1:36:53 concentrated in the valley floor that's
1:36:55 going to be returning a tree canopy rate
1:36:57 in the mid-20s versus single-family
1:37:00 homes that are returning somewhere
1:37:02 around 55
1:37:03 yes sorry kim oh no no i don't i just
1:37:06 wanted to raise my hand just you finish
1:37:07 and then i'll come on when you're done
1:37:09 i'll i just wanted to i just thought
1:37:12 was 48
1:37:13 how it is that we have these numbers and
1:37:15 how it is that we're retaining them when
1:37:17 we're also then projecting how we do our
1:37:20 growth to be taking away from our places
1:37:23 that are holding the burden of our tree
1:37:25 canopy that's so important to us
1:37:37 i was just going to
1:37:38 i don't know if this is going to
1:37:39 directly address what you were
1:37:41 mentioning
1:37:42 joy or
1:37:43 but that what's coming up for me is i
1:37:45 think what's important to remember about
1:37:47 those high level tree canopy values is
1:37:50 that um
1:37:52 you know is that the our urban forests
1:37:55 are dynamic systems you know both
1:37:58 naturally you know because of
1:38:00 you know natural tree health and disease
1:38:03 you know but also because of urban
1:38:04 development and that what we you know
1:38:07 many touched on the idea of the temporal
1:38:10 loss and i think that
1:38:13 i think that that
1:38:15 is really uh i think that's something
1:38:17 important to take and to keep in mind
1:38:19 when we're developing tree codes is that
1:38:22 you know that tree canopy
1:38:24 is not always going to be this i don't
1:38:26 know if i could show you a graph it's
1:38:27 not always going to be climbing steadily
1:38:29 you know that there is going to be
1:38:31 um you know some shifting and there may
1:38:33 be some years where we see a little bit
1:38:35 of a dip but then
1:38:37 the trees that we're planting start to
1:38:38 mature we're going to see an increase
1:38:40 you know and and so what we tend to see
1:38:43 over time is kind of this jagged line
1:38:46 you know
1:38:47 and uh and the hope you know the
1:38:50 my understanding is that there's this
1:38:51 commitment to no net loss and i think
1:38:54 that the best thing that we can do as um
1:38:57 stewards of urban forest is to make sure
1:38:59 that we have a really good monitoring
1:39:01 and adaptive management approach to tree
1:39:03 management and so
1:39:05 you know the city is going through this
1:39:06 process to
1:39:08 try to improve and strengthen
1:39:10 fine detailed processes around trees and
1:39:13 development you know because we know
1:39:15 that that's what we're going to be
1:39:15 losing most of our trees right
1:39:18 you know that there's a process of
1:39:19 monitoring
1:39:21 whether it be you know annually or
1:39:24 buy in you biennially you know that
1:39:25 there's a process in place and that that
1:39:28 you know that's not something that i
1:39:29 included in the memo but i think it's a
1:39:31 good it's something to consider um
1:39:34 which is to actually write that into the
1:39:36 code you know so for example
1:39:38 uh snohomish county
1:39:42 which also uses
1:39:44 a canopy
1:39:46 and provocative based approach to tree
1:39:49 retention they actually have written
1:39:51 into their code that they do an annual
1:39:53 assessment
1:39:55 of their um
1:39:58 other tree retention so they literally
1:40:00 look at all of their permits every year
1:40:02 and their planner
1:40:03 does an assessment of
1:40:06 of how things are going every year you
1:40:08 know what types of trees they're losing
1:40:10 you know it gives them a snapshot
1:40:11 annually and then
1:40:13 you know beyond that you know so that
1:40:15 helps them assess how things are going
1:40:16 at that minor scale with actual tree
1:40:18 code regulation but then they go up but
1:40:20 then they also do
1:40:22 that higher level canopy analysis to see
1:40:27 you know
1:40:28 to see if there's any movement also in
1:40:31 that higher level you know landscape
1:40:33 scale
1:40:34 canopy cover and so that's something
1:40:37 that the city could consider um
1:40:39 you know is integrating those two
1:40:42 assessment
1:40:43 tools into the code so that they can
1:40:45 then um
1:40:48 you know that that they can adapt
1:40:51 processes as needed you know
1:40:54 i know that we
1:40:55 i know rewriting code is not easy you
1:40:57 know but it but it is a profit you know
1:40:59 it is a possibility to
1:41:01 um no that's fantastic that's exactly
1:41:03 what we're here to do actually so i
1:41:04 really appreciate that answer because
1:41:06 that's what i was looking for
1:41:08 in the document right because right now
1:41:10 you're telling me right the document is
1:41:12 telling me that the strongest protection
1:41:14 for our existing canopy is to do this
1:41:16 canopy approach right you laid out these
1:41:17 three different approaches and so
1:41:20 that then makes me want to know more
1:41:22 about why that approach is and how we
1:41:24 use that approach right so like that
1:41:25 suggestion of how we write it into the
1:41:27 code is that missing piece for me of
1:41:30 saying okay how do we get where we want
1:41:32 to be
1:41:33 um because right now we're having this
1:41:35 discussion that's only based on height
1:41:37 and width right rather than actually
1:41:39 talking about what we need to sustain
1:41:41 our ecosystem right being able to
1:41:43 actually account for more than just
1:41:45 heightened width right because i'm
1:41:47 concerned with our canopy approach we're
1:41:49 only looking at these very specific
1:41:51 numbers and then therefore that's where
1:41:53 we're putting all of our eggs in our bat
1:41:54 in that one basket right up saying well
1:41:56 then these trees must be this this
1:41:58 height to be able to reach this
1:41:59 percentage right we're getting this tree
1:42:01 equation effectively where if we um
1:42:05 lose particular areas it would be very
1:42:08 easy to backslide in a very real way
1:42:12 and that's the whole intent is to
1:42:13 rewrite this code so that we don't do
1:42:15 that so i appreciate that answer very
1:42:17 much kim and i hope that staff
1:42:19 pay attention because i did thanks
1:42:22 everybody
1:42:25 that was excellent commissioner lewis
1:42:27 thank you
1:42:28 and thank you very much for the uh for
1:42:31 the answers there um consultant kim
1:42:34 uh looks like we have a question from
1:42:36 commissioner voice you have the floor
1:42:39 thank you chair foul so mine's really
1:42:41 actually more of a point of
1:42:42 clarification so if i understand this
1:42:44 correctly basically what's going to
1:42:45 happen is 50 to 51 whatever is decided
1:42:49 that is the the number we are shooting
1:42:51 for but really the mechanism that holds
1:42:53 us all together is how aggressive we
1:42:56 want to be in terms of monitoring
1:42:57 monitoring which obviously costs money
1:43:00 but ultimately i think um ms frappier
1:43:04 you mentioned that basically this is
1:43:06 going to average so one year if we have
1:43:08 a major land land-use agreement with a
1:43:10 developer
1:43:11 it could take a dip by a couple
1:43:12 percentage points but then again
1:43:14 if we're able to get some of our
1:43:16 our youngsters out there doing arbor day
1:43:18 um you know so we can have the benefits
1:43:21 of again but this ideally
1:43:23 it's not that it can never drop below 50
1:43:25 percent
1:43:27 because that to me makes no sense i mean
1:43:29 nothing's that finite life so the idea
1:43:31 is again this is the number that the
1:43:33 city has set for itself
1:43:35 and like you said basically it goes up
1:43:36 and it goes down but ideally it needs to
1:43:38 be averaging around this or going up
1:43:40 preferably going up
1:43:42 but we're not talking about well this
1:43:43 land use agreement can't go through
1:43:45 because we might drop to 49
1:43:48 do i have that do i have that clear
1:43:51 is that basically how i'm understanding
1:43:54 the canopy code
1:44:01 well i i think if i understand your
1:44:02 question correctly the the overall
1:44:04 canopy
1:44:06 goal is one part of it so the community
1:44:09 decides what their goal is how we may
1:44:12 get to that goal is happens through
1:44:14 multiple ways uh one is through the
1:44:17 title 18 code that is going to prevent
1:44:19 clear cutting of land protecting the
1:44:22 trees
1:44:23 getting replacement when they're cut
1:44:25 uh the second bucket is when the city
1:44:28 does programmatic plantings um you know
1:44:31 and inves in and some of those things
1:44:34 and forms partnerships with other people
1:44:36 that does the plantings
1:44:38 but how the title 18 is going to be
1:44:40 implemented by this canopy
1:44:43 in instead of the the diameter of the
1:44:45 tree so if you want to my understanding
1:44:48 of it and correct me if i'm wrong uh dan
1:44:50 or kim
1:44:52 so right now there's a tree density so
1:44:54 if you have a la one acre lot you have
1:44:56 to have so many trees and if you fall
1:44:58 below that tree density then
1:45:01 then you have replacement trees
1:45:04 the canopy go the way this will work the
1:45:07 proposed approach is you have a canopy
1:45:10 coverage goal
1:45:11 so if you have a really large tree
1:45:13 that's really a big canopy that gets
1:45:16 more credit than smaller trees so
1:45:19 and then same thing with the replanting
1:45:21 of those but we're not assessing for
1:45:23 every tree permit we're not then doing a
1:45:26 tree canopy coverage analysis or
1:45:28 equation for the whole city
1:45:30 that kind of programmatic thing will
1:45:32 happen annually if you know those were
1:45:34 our report you know uh like kim
1:45:37 suggested doing an assessment of how did
1:45:39 we do how you know those kind of things
1:45:41 and readjusting some of our standards as
1:45:43 we go along if we miss the target but
1:45:46 the idea is we don't miss the target we
1:45:48 have these codes in place and we have
1:45:49 these programs in place that help the
1:45:52 community keep up
1:45:53 with with their goals of maintaining the
1:45:55 canopy coverage
1:45:56 yeah and minnie if i could just add i
1:45:58 think it's important because i think
1:46:00 that the fact that
1:46:02 we're
1:46:03 discussing canopy cover city-wide i
1:46:05 think it's getting
1:46:07 i think
1:46:08 um it's important that we separate out
1:46:12 what we're proposing for the tree
1:46:13 retention and replacement policy because
1:46:15 the tree retention and replacement
1:46:17 policy and the use of canopy cover
1:46:19 that's at a small scale that we're
1:46:21 talking lot size
1:46:23 using that as a
1:46:26 that is a
1:46:30 it's just a different process than what
1:46:32 is used for looking at
1:46:34 landscape scale canopy cover
1:46:37 is that and i
1:46:41 yeah like i said i was just following up
1:46:42 with uh commissioner lewis because again
1:46:44 i think the community it is something
1:46:46 that is pretty important to them
1:46:48 um keeping that large canopy i'm just
1:46:50 like trying to figure out exactly what
1:46:52 this means so we keep talking about goal
1:46:54 and then over here we're saying no this
1:46:56 is the number and again we're going to
1:46:58 be vigilant about that in terms of our
1:47:00 monitor monitoring
1:47:03 which i think all of us hope so again
1:47:05 just trying to make sure i understand
1:47:07 because again i hear goal i hear average
1:47:09 i hear this
1:47:10 i just want to make sure i get it all so
1:47:12 appreciate it thank you
1:47:15 jump in for a moment and kind of
1:47:17 summarize what i've heard and at um hope
1:47:22 add some clarity
1:47:25 is the number that
1:47:27 that is a goal
1:47:29 in the
1:47:30 um comprehensive plan
1:47:34 51 percent is the number that the latest
1:47:38 tree can and peace study
1:47:40 uh said that our city had so we're
1:47:42 exceeding our goal by one percent right
1:47:47 it's also worth noting that the last
1:47:50 tree canopy study was lower than the 50
1:47:54 i believe it was 48 and so
1:47:56 uh even with development over
1:48:00 the last
1:48:01 uh the seven or eight years between the
1:48:04 tree canopy studies
1:48:06 even with that development occurring
1:48:08 there was an increase of three percent
1:48:12 um in our tree canopy from 48 to 51
1:48:17 that i'm aware of um our tree code
1:48:19 hasn't been written with the
1:48:22 intent of
1:48:26 getting to exactly 50
1:48:28 our tree code
1:48:29 uh ensures that we are retaining a
1:48:32 certain percentage of trees during uh
1:48:35 development and it also ensures that we
1:48:38 are have a minimum density
1:48:41 of trees on a particular lot
1:48:45 and that's what we're working towards
1:48:47 now and we'll
1:48:49 and a lot of what we
1:48:52 considering or what's been discussed is
1:48:55 increasing the standards that we have
1:48:58 for retention
1:49:04 um one more thing i would want to add is
1:49:06 that um while
1:49:08 our goal is 50
1:49:11 and we do want to be
1:49:14 regional leaders it's it's worth noting
1:49:17 that a lot of our comparable cities are
1:49:20 in the region have a much lower goal
1:49:22 than 50
1:49:26 i believe redmond and kirkland both have
1:49:28 40 percent
1:49:30 um there are
1:49:31 there's at least one city i can think of
1:49:33 that doesn't have a goal at all
1:49:36 and i think the national average is 40
1:49:39 so 50
1:49:42 you know we're we're up there
1:50:06 ron i believe that brad book had a
1:50:09 comment and a question
1:50:13 uh thank you brad book from the park
1:50:16 board
1:50:17 you know i'm not exactly sure if this
1:50:18 belongs in title 18 but to me it has
1:50:22 some element that it should be
1:50:24 and i guess
1:50:26 you know i i harbour back to the
1:50:29 initial goal that was mentioned that the
1:50:31 whole concept of trees is to conserve
1:50:33 and protect the canopy
1:50:35 and i guess i would like to know
1:50:36 curiosity speech
1:50:39 where are the elements of assessment and
1:50:42 planning for wildfires in relationship
1:50:44 to our trees and forests
1:50:48 i mean it's a component that maybe
1:50:50 belongs elsewhere as a separate plan but
1:50:53 it seems like some codes need to address
1:50:56 in terms of risk management within the
1:50:59 community
1:51:02 so you know that's my question and part
1:51:04 comment
1:51:10 yeah that's um an excellent question do
1:51:12 you want me to take uh take a first
1:51:15 um try to answer it i can see chair fall
1:51:18 on the
1:51:19 that's good
1:51:20 um sure so um that's an excellent
1:51:23 question i think there's a lot of talk
1:51:25 about wildfires and and safety and you
1:51:29 know uh we'll be looking at that there
1:51:31 is a state law that has come into place
1:51:34 that looks at other things besides trees
1:51:36 you know building materials what what
1:51:38 type of roof do you know when when
1:51:40 there's the interplay between developed
1:51:43 areas and
1:51:45 you know
1:51:47 and sequoia as you all know is is right
1:51:49 at that edge um in terms of what that
1:51:52 does for the tree code um and the tree
1:51:56 canopy coverage you know if there needs
1:51:58 to be some clearance between the
1:52:00 buildings and where people are living
1:52:02 and where the forest land starts uh how
1:52:05 much that needs to be
1:52:06 there's work occurring regionally we're
1:52:09 uh sort of getting ourselves up to speed
1:52:12 on what that means um
1:52:14 so it'll be addressed uh through this
1:52:16 title 18 code updated in certain ways
1:52:19 but it it is a point that we need to
1:52:21 take into consideration as we're looking
1:52:23 at the tree codes and um and landscaping
1:52:26 how do we how do we
1:52:28 you know manage that risk
1:52:31 so it is an excellent point that should
1:52:32 be taken into consideration but we don't
1:52:34 have all the answers yet on that topic
1:52:42 okay and thank you i'm not seeing any
1:52:44 additional questions so we're going to
1:52:46 go and move on to uh public comment
1:52:49 or the tree canopy
1:52:53 and kristen would you like to go ahead
1:52:54 and open it up for uh public comment for
1:52:56 the tree canopy
1:53:02 sure um if anyone has any public
1:53:05 comments please raise your hands
1:53:10 connie i saw yours go up and then come
1:53:13 do you have western
1:53:16 yes connie marsh does
1:53:23 connie you are a panelist now
1:53:28 indeed it is connie again
1:53:31 and um
1:53:33 i'm going to tell you the story of tree
1:53:36 retention as i've experienced it for the
1:53:38 last 20 years
1:53:41 so we have a code that basically
1:53:44 has allowed a hundred percent of lots to
1:53:47 be cleared because
1:53:51 the developers
1:53:52 one have had development agreements
1:53:55 or two just have to show that they can't
1:53:59 keep the trees
1:54:00 and um
1:54:02 the inability to build
1:54:05 exactly what they want on the lot is
1:54:08 enough
1:54:09 to get them over the hump to be able to
1:54:12 clear
1:54:15 100 of the trees and put money into the
1:54:18 tree fund
1:54:19 which has been this oblique
1:54:22 not even oblique
1:54:24 black hole
1:54:25 where
1:54:26 we could never figure out where and how
1:54:29 and if any of the trees were ever being
1:54:32 planted and the amount of money was so
1:54:35 small that it was only for the trees
1:54:37 themselves it wasn't for the maintenance
1:54:39 care and feeding of those trees
1:54:42 so when i look at this tree code and
1:54:44 they talk about no net loss and they
1:54:47 don't discuss how they are going to
1:54:53 keep people from 100 percent clear
1:54:56 cutting their lots because it's
1:54:57 convenient to do so rather than
1:54:59 retaining the trees
1:55:02 i i i my heart sinks again
1:55:07 because i can't tell you how many years
1:55:09 i've been fighting this exact same
1:55:12 thing
1:55:12 and so when we say no net loss of tree
1:55:15 canopy you do have to remember that
1:55:19 um from the map that's lakes mammoth
1:55:21 street park that's lake tradition
1:55:23 plateau that is the 500 acres of
1:55:26 protected open space from talus
1:55:30 that are being put into that tree canopy
1:55:33 and the reason that our tree canopy is
1:55:36 is higher than other neighborhoods is
1:55:38 because we have all of this external
1:55:41 tree canopy
1:55:42 if you ask them as i think someone did
1:55:45 was that joy what exactly is the tree
1:55:48 canopy
1:55:49 in the rest of town as a whole
1:55:52 i think it's low
1:55:53 right you look at this highlands 20 tree
1:55:56 canopy you look at central issaquah 20
1:56:00 tree canopy and then the rest of it you
1:56:03 have you have overdel park lovely you
1:56:05 have squawk mountain which you can
1:56:06 barely see
1:56:08 but all of the newer areas don't have
1:56:10 trees and as as one of the commissioners
1:56:12 said that is our future we are going to
1:56:15 be creating apartments not single-family
1:56:17 houses i think we have zoning for like
1:56:20 31 new single-family houses and the rest
1:56:23 of it is in multi-family housing which
1:56:26 is going to put us in that 20 percent
1:56:28 creek tree canopy
1:56:30 and so when you say
1:56:34 no net loss of trees
1:56:36 and you say our goal is 50 tree candy
1:56:40 that goal was from
1:56:44 it's an old goal 2007 i sat in a meeting
1:56:48 with keith nevin and argued about tree
1:56:50 canopy when i was much younger much much
1:56:53 younger
1:56:54 and so to say that we cannot advance
1:56:56 further than that in this time of sort
1:56:59 of climate crisis where we need as much
1:57:01 tree as we can to me
1:57:04 flies in the face of what we should be
1:57:06 discussing now so i'm going to bring it
1:57:09 sorry ann if you're listening
1:57:12 we have said that we had wanted to
1:57:14 thread sustainability
1:57:16 and climate change action through all of
1:57:20 our code and that is what is missing
1:57:23 why do we have these trees what
1:57:25 functions do they provide
1:57:29 and then how do we increase both our
1:57:33 resiliency and our our protection
1:57:37 against advancing climate change and
1:57:40 those are the things that we need to be
1:57:42 measuring it's not simply canopy it is
1:57:44 the function
1:57:46 of all of these items in trying to
1:57:49 preserve the environment in which we
1:57:51 live so that our children and our
1:57:52 children's children will be able to
1:57:54 survive
1:57:56 so then again you ask me
1:57:58 is this the right path no
1:58:01 this is not the right path this is a
1:58:03 slight deviation
1:58:05 of the path that we had been taking that
1:58:08 was allowing us to count trees far away
1:58:11 and to slaughter the interior of our
1:58:13 town which is where our salmon swim
1:58:16 through so um i disagree we can do so
1:58:21 much better if you guys stand up and say
1:58:23 we can do better than this then we'll
1:58:25 get something better if you if you just
1:58:28 stand and say hey 51 is okay a slight
1:58:31 change in code is okay we're going to
1:58:32 get more of the same and it'll break my
1:58:35 heart again and it's broken so many
1:58:37 times in the last 20 years i've been
1:58:39 doing this i just don't know how much
1:58:41 more i can stand it's just
1:58:44 makes me a little crazy or thank you
1:58:55 mary lynch would like to make comment
1:58:59 thank you i just thank you okay
1:59:04 um just to build on what connie said the
1:59:07 other thing i haven't heard anything is
1:59:09 why we need trees is for storm water
1:59:11 management
1:59:13 um and something i didn't mention during
1:59:15 the landscaping bellevue seattle a lot
1:59:18 of the other cities have already worked
1:59:20 with neighborhoods to get community rain
1:59:23 gardens in their neighborhood uh to help
1:59:26 with storm water management and actually
1:59:28 had a community bellevue pays the
1:59:30 community to build those and works with
1:59:32 them the trees need to be considered we
1:59:34 need our trees for storm water
1:59:36 management
1:59:38 as connie said i sat through i don't
1:59:40 know how many meetings in 2007 in 2008
1:59:44 to get our first
1:59:46 single family in our tree retention
1:59:48 programs
1:59:49 what i found is as far as on the
1:59:51 single-family
1:59:52 lots it isn't working
1:59:54 if someone happens and i know a few that
1:59:57 have happened and go get permits
2:00:00 it's an act of congress to get one
2:00:02 approved especially if it's in
2:00:05 a wetlands but they still do get a you
2:00:07 know planet but i don't know how many
2:00:10 people when i've asked them and when
2:00:12 i've seen they cut a tree on their
2:00:13 single family lot no they didn't get a
2:00:16 permit
2:00:17 in our hoa a couple times i've called
2:00:20 the police to try and get them to stop
2:00:22 cutting but they've already cut
2:00:24 and so on the single family lots i don't
2:00:27 think the city has done a very good job
2:00:29 on existing lots and protecting our tree
2:00:32 canopies and what's there uh they're
2:00:34 gone with the redevelopment and somebody
2:00:37 brought it up a week ago of you know
2:00:39 with squawk there is going to be more
2:00:41 redevelopment it's already happened and
2:00:43 as you see it happen they want bigger
2:00:45 homes and more trees come down and i
2:00:48 don't see with the permits on a single
2:00:51 family that they've ever required i know
2:00:54 in our neighborhood
2:00:55 even on our open space the city has
2:00:58 never required us to pay anything in
2:01:01 nor have we had to replant any tree
2:01:04 in our open space and in our screening
2:01:06 easements that's not part of it
2:01:09 that has to be part of a new code going
2:01:11 forward
2:01:12 we have to start requiring people that
2:01:15 they have to replant trees
2:01:17 and as connie mentioned with the other
2:01:19 community forest
2:01:21 has anybody taken a walk in lake
2:01:24 tradition lately and seen the
2:01:26 devastation that the climate has done
2:01:28 this year the trees that are down and
2:01:31 it's only going to take one little spark
2:01:34 and that whole thing is gone because we
2:01:36 haven't done a good job of managing
2:01:40 that forest
2:01:42 we have dead trees it needs to be
2:01:44 thinned there's a whole bunch of stuff
2:01:45 that needs to happen and that's 50 you
2:01:48 know 74 of our tree canopy that we
2:01:51 aren't protecting because we aren't
2:01:53 managing it
2:01:54 was anybody up on the highlands on the
2:01:58 hottest day of the year
2:01:59 it was the hottest day of the year in
2:02:01 king county
2:02:03 why was that there are no trees to speak
2:02:05 of in the highlands
2:02:07 so that's what we have to look forward
2:02:09 to unless we start
2:02:11 setting our goals repriorizing and say
2:02:14 we don't want to be all concrete we do
2:02:16 want to save our trees and we want to
2:02:18 plant new ones
2:02:20 and these little arbor day things that
2:02:22 you say the problem is they go and plant
2:02:25 a little tree and how well do they
2:02:27 protect it where is it planted you know
2:02:29 we need orchestrated
2:02:32 places of how we're going to grow our
2:02:35 tree canopy to replace what we have and
2:02:37 how are we going to protect
2:02:39 and manage what we have now and we
2:02:41 aren't doing that and i don't see that
2:02:43 in the code
2:02:56 is there anyone else oh yes we have one
2:02:58 more who would like to speak david
2:03:00 kepler
2:03:04 babe you are a panelist now and you are
2:03:07 unmuted you can turn on your camera if
2:03:09 you would like
2:03:13 hello hopefully i'm coming through
2:03:16 um i think that
2:03:18 pulling around with a few percentage
2:03:20 points
2:03:21 is important
2:03:25 really quality of that canopy is really
2:03:29 the key
2:03:30 um not that we if 10 percent of high
2:03:33 quality is not what we're after but
2:03:36 emphasizing that improving the quality
2:03:39 of that canopy that we have is really
2:03:41 important on cougar mountain
2:03:43 um upper cougar of the upper above
2:03:47 palace was logged in the 70s and lower
2:03:50 down south of talus was also logged in
2:03:53 the 70s those areas came back mostly in
2:03:57 alder some maple some cottonwood
2:04:00 and the county lands up higher they're
2:04:03 going now in clear cutting
2:04:05 literally clear cutting those
2:04:07 70s logging areas and planting
2:04:10 evergreen type trees because they're
2:04:13 looking for a long-term forest health
2:04:16 their talus agreement we got that
2:04:19 property that was
2:04:21 south of directly south on cougar
2:04:24 and that's got a lot of alder maple does
2:04:26 not have a lot of of evergreen trees
2:04:29 um across the on the squawk side the
2:04:32 huge donation that was over there that
2:04:34 area was logged much earlier maybe up
2:04:38 closer to 100 years 80 90 years ago and
2:04:41 that has very large evergreen trees and
2:04:43 is a much higher
2:04:45 quality forest in terms of how much
2:04:48 carbon it's holding and the diversity it
2:04:51 provides for animals birds
2:04:54 the whole whole thing so
2:04:56 emphasizing quality of this is very
2:04:59 important in
2:05:01 not just
2:05:02 what we see from
2:05:04 an airplane or a satellite
2:05:06 um uh circles of green so
2:05:10 quality is really a key that we got to
2:05:12 bring into the conversation and it all
2:05:15 gets more complicated when we do that
2:05:17 admittedly
2:05:18 thank you
2:05:32 susan neville i would like to make a
2:05:34 comment
2:05:36 susan i am making you a panelist
2:05:38 um hi yes i really can't add much more i
2:05:42 concur with everything that's been said
2:05:44 but i just want to say that um canopy
2:05:47 goals was mentioned twice as a community
2:05:50 decision but i i don't think i'm
2:05:53 qualified to do that i can only say that
2:05:55 i don't believe 50 is enough because due
2:05:57 to climate change alone we are having
2:06:00 issues
2:06:01 so i really would like to see more
2:06:03 science involved in that decision
2:06:05 because when that goes forward to city
2:06:07 council
2:06:09 they will view that as a community
2:06:11 decision and right now i cannot put my
2:06:14 name behind that so thank you all for
2:06:16 listening so much
2:06:25 there's anyone else that would like to
2:06:26 speak please raise your hand
2:06:28 uh ann fletcher would like to speak one
2:06:31 moment
2:06:32 if you've already spoken and you don't
2:06:33 want to speak again please put your hand
2:06:34 down thank you but ann fletcher
2:06:37 i am making you a panelist
2:06:40 and you are unmuted you can turn on your
2:06:42 camera if you would like
2:06:49 thank you
2:06:51 a lot of people have said
2:06:53 things about climate change and that is
2:06:57 perspective that i look at things from
2:06:59 uh when i read this and so i just wanted
2:07:02 to add in one more thing
2:07:05 that is
2:07:07 that there is a climate action plan
2:07:09 that's being
2:07:10 uh developed right now
2:07:13 parallel to title 18.
2:07:15 and there is a lot of linkage between
2:07:18 the car the climate action plan and
2:07:21 the title 18
2:07:23 and so
2:07:26 having
2:07:27 the two work together and influence each
2:07:30 other is important
2:07:32 i noticed that the words carbon
2:07:35 sequestration was not listed
2:07:38 really anywhere in the materials that
2:07:41 came out and it was mentioned
2:07:44 once by this beaker
2:07:47 by kim
2:07:48 uh as it wasn't on the slide it was
2:07:50 mentioned as an additional function
2:07:54 there are lots of connections
2:07:57 between all of our issues
2:08:00 and solutions
2:08:02 and i would like to see
2:08:05 how that linkage is happening with the
2:08:10 climate action plan
2:08:12 and the title 18
2:08:14 and i would like to have climate
2:08:16 terminology being put into
2:08:19 uh things that we normally didn't use to
2:08:22 put them into but it's all connected
2:08:24 into our trees into our landscapes into
2:08:26 our open spaces
2:08:28 uh that is the main thing
2:08:31 uh that i wanted to make sure that we
2:08:33 made that connection thank you
2:08:43 is there anyone else that would like to
2:08:44 speak
2:08:51 i'm going to assume that david kepler
2:08:53 and susan deville
2:08:55 still just have their hands up
2:08:57 if not maybe blink
2:08:59 your hands
2:09:01 oh kristen
2:09:03 i just realized i was muted
2:09:07 would now be an appropriate time for me
2:09:08 to respond to that speaker or should i
2:09:10 wait till the end until everyone's had a
2:09:11 chance to speak
2:09:12 let's wait till the end please okay
2:09:17 i think uh i think no one else would
2:09:20 like to speak right now
2:09:25 so kim you can go ahead now
2:09:30 sorry about that um no i was just wanted
2:09:33 to speak to the last
2:09:37 the last person's um concerned about
2:09:40 climate change and i would say that that
2:09:42 she is corrected in the memo
2:09:45 we did not use the word carbon
2:09:46 sequestration when we were listing the
2:09:48 benefits
2:09:51 you know but we tried to
2:09:53 address it
2:09:55 in the nuts and bolts of how it would
2:09:57 actually get applied within title 18
2:10:00 um which is
2:10:02 in the section on the
2:10:05 i'm providing an updated preferred tree
2:10:07 list and developing best practices and
2:10:09 guideline resources for developers and
2:10:11 homeowners
2:10:12 and we do speak
2:10:17 to the impacts of climate change
2:10:20 and the importance of integrating best
2:10:22 practices which are constantly evolving
2:10:26 um because in terms of our
2:10:30 tree species selection and the
2:10:33 horticultural practices that are used
2:10:35 this applies to the landscaping code as
2:10:38 because as much as trees
2:10:42 help mitigate the impacts of climate
2:10:44 change you know and
2:10:46 capture carbon provide shade
2:10:49 trees are also being heavily impacted by
2:10:52 climate change and we are
2:10:54 seeing that um with the losses in
2:10:57 western red cedar and declines in muslim
2:10:59 hemlock you know speaking about our
2:11:01 native species
2:11:02 and so
2:11:04 as cities move forward we
2:11:06 you know highly recommend
2:11:09 we start
2:11:10 um hoping to guide you know and be
2:11:14 uh be at the forefront of best practices
2:11:17 how to actually
2:11:19 uh select species that are more drought
2:11:21 tolerant that we'll be able to weather
2:11:26 you know our summer droughts
2:11:30 you know and i think a couple of other
2:11:32 folks brought up issues around being
2:11:34 able to respond to
2:11:36 insect and tree disease outbreaks i
2:11:38 think in the context of the landscaping
2:11:41 and so i think that
2:11:44 um you know this is something that we we
2:11:46 have brought up in the context of
2:11:49 you know the more detailed
2:11:52 you know um
2:11:55 implementation you know that we think
2:11:56 that this is important and so my hope i
2:11:59 hope that that is seen as something
2:12:00 that's congruent with
2:12:02 you know with the
2:12:04 assistant the climate sustainability
2:12:06 goals of the city you know that that's
2:12:10 that that is something that that we're
2:12:12 considering and that we're being
2:12:13 thoughtful about
2:12:14 uh and um
2:12:17 anyway so i just wanted to mention that
2:12:19 that was that section i think it was
2:12:21 number seven on the memo
2:12:24 um when we started talking about you
2:12:25 know it is more than just about right
2:12:27 plant right place we need to be looking
2:12:30 to the future um and thinking about
2:12:33 what's you know what is our what are our
2:12:35 best practices going to be about
2:12:37 assessing
2:12:38 which tree species are
2:12:42 not only more adaptable to a changing
2:12:44 climate but you know are specifically
2:12:49 you know horticulturally
2:12:51 appropriate to plant in
2:12:55 in urban dense urban environments you
2:12:58 know so anyway i just wanted to add that
2:13:04 all right uh thank you very much uh
2:13:06 consultant kim and uh christian
2:13:09 so we're gonna go ahead and close public
2:13:10 comment
2:13:12 and we're gonna open it up to
2:13:13 commissioner uh discussion
2:13:19 i do want to remind uh commissioners it
2:13:22 is 8 43 so
2:13:25 you don't want to get
2:13:27 stretch this out for
2:13:29 too long
2:13:30 and looks like we have a question from
2:13:37 uh commissioner lewis
2:13:38 at the floor
2:13:41 thank you chairfall i've got two
2:13:43 questions that i want to touch on and
2:13:45 then a third point the first i wanted to
2:13:47 touch on was the arborist discussion
2:13:48 that was in our packet
2:13:50 um while um i appreciated the link to
2:13:54 mercer island for a reference of code
2:13:56 they had far more actually when i was
2:13:58 searching for arborist about adult
2:14:00 entertainment so i'm really happy that i
2:14:02 now have that in my repertoire of
2:14:05 information and i will tell you that i
2:14:06 did not find it to be super specific i
2:14:09 will tell you that it's a very common
2:14:11 thing when you live in the burbs to have
2:14:13 arborists come around
2:14:15 and tell you that your trees are
2:14:16 diseased when in fact they are not to
2:14:18 try to drum up services for themselves
2:14:21 so the idea that particular designations
2:14:24 that are not terribly hard to get are
2:14:26 the way that we're going to measure
2:14:27 having independent consultants decide if
2:14:29 our trees are or not appropriate um i
2:14:32 found a little bit concerning
2:14:35 i also found it it's actually very easy
2:14:37 to get an arborist to certify that a
2:14:40 tree is diseased when it's not for a
2:14:42 very small fee to be able to then get
2:14:45 that permit to have it be taken down is
2:14:47 another thing that's very popular in the
2:14:48 burbs for people who want to tear down
2:14:50 their old growth trees and put in sport
2:14:52 courts
2:14:53 and that's kind of the little nudge
2:14:54 nudge wink wink that goes around is to
2:14:56 just say ah an arborist will take care
2:14:58 of that for you um so the idea that we
2:15:00 are now going to have
2:15:02 arborists that being our judge and
2:15:05 juries of our precious tree canopy it
2:15:07 could go well it could also not go so
2:15:10 well so
2:15:11 i think that that is another
2:15:13 is a bigger discussion to be had and i'm
2:15:15 kind of curious why you wouldn't have
2:15:17 somebody on staff like an enforcement
2:15:19 officer right if this is something
2:15:21 that's a priority for the city why we
2:15:23 wouldn't have somebody in-house who is
2:15:25 actually a member of our esteemed city
2:15:28 staff who would um
2:15:30 be doing that i think might be a more uh
2:15:32 productive conversation to be having
2:15:33 rather than just arming out anybody who
2:15:35 has a particular arborist certification
2:15:38 so um
2:15:40 has that been discussed i guess that's
2:15:41 really my question
2:15:42 uh enforcement officer for the city to
2:15:45 use instead of
2:15:46 independent arborists has that been
2:15:49 discussed thought about
2:15:50 yeah um you know i'll take that one i
2:15:52 think as we figure out how we want to
2:15:55 regulate these and what kind of
2:15:56 resources are needed we'll certainly
2:15:58 have that discussion we have existing
2:16:00 staff who's
2:16:01 um you know expressed interest in um
2:16:04 getting the certification to be an
2:16:05 arborist um dan being one of them so
2:16:08 we'll we'll get the resources we'll work
2:16:10 on that i think the the part the first
2:16:13 step is to figure out the code and then
2:16:15 if we go the route of actually having uh
2:16:19 the need for getting in our arborist um
2:16:22 resources available to the city we will
2:16:24 definitely have that conversation and
2:16:26 and get that going yep
2:16:28 okay my second question is about the um
2:16:31 about the limitations of the inlu tree
2:16:34 fund and basically like how do we make
2:16:36 this an option of last resort and
2:16:38 frankly like too high for someone to
2:16:41 want to pay into right like how do we
2:16:43 how do we make the in lu tree fun to be
2:16:46 so egregious someone's like i guess i
2:16:48 better just keep the tree
2:16:52 in the fund anybody want to talk about i
2:16:55 think that's a good suggestion i think
2:16:57 we'll have to vet it out in terms of a
2:16:59 legal you know can we charge more than
2:17:01 what the the trees i think your policies
2:17:03 can be what you what your retention
2:17:05 needs to be so right now if we say we
2:17:07 have a 25 retention
2:17:09 uh and uh what i think one of the
2:17:12 community members was saying that that
2:17:14 the city has granted exceptions to it
2:17:16 and just collected the money uh for fee
2:17:18 and luau you could strengthen
2:17:21 to to you know 25 you know take out
2:17:24 those administrative waivers that can be
2:17:26 granted for
2:17:28 going below 25 so mandate the 25
2:17:32 retention
2:17:33 um and and really strengthen the code
2:17:35 for getting those waivers
2:17:37 would be the first step uh the second
2:17:39 tool like you mentioned is an intriguing
2:17:42 one in terms of what it should be the
2:17:43 cost of fee in luff i also heard that
2:17:46 our fees only cost the the planting but
2:17:49 not the maintenance because it you know
2:17:51 you can't just plant a tree and walk
2:17:53 away it's going to take number of years
2:17:55 for it to to have some success rate so
2:17:58 we can look at what that dollar amount
2:18:00 needs to be um and keep in mind like
2:18:03 your idea about
2:18:05 deterring people to pay and and much
2:18:08 easier for them to to keep and uh you
2:18:11 know from a developer's perspective
2:18:13 that's a
2:18:14 no matter what i think the the cost of
2:18:17 preserving a tree is a lot more
2:18:19 expensive for them um then to
2:18:22 uh take it down
2:18:24 so i think it's not just how much we
2:18:27 charge them but it's also how much is it
2:18:28 going to cost them to to work around a
2:18:32 so balancing those out uh is a good
2:18:36 suggestion we can look into thank thank
2:18:38 you i guess um
2:18:40 the next time that we're going to be
2:18:42 meeting all together with the park sport
2:18:44 that i understand is going to be like
2:18:45 april right so we have a pretty good
2:18:47 chunk of time it would be nice um to see
2:18:51 more of this conversation right
2:18:53 consultant kim has made some very nice
2:18:56 points that were not included in our
2:18:59 packet but that are starting to dive
2:19:01 into what are the choices of how we deal
2:19:04 with the code right and i believe the
2:19:05 sheep and correct me my wrong even
2:19:07 specifically said i wasn't hired to do
2:19:09 this specifically i'm here to do this
2:19:11 big overarching thing i'm not here to
2:19:13 actually drop out the code i would have
2:19:15 liked to see staff present options
2:19:18 telling us here are different directions
2:19:20 we can go this is how much we can do
2:19:22 with the code here's what we can do and
2:19:23 we could have all had a discussion about
2:19:25 what is it that we want to have staff
2:19:28 pursue
2:19:29 rather than necessarily the discussion
2:19:32 that isn't happening right and then
2:19:34 they're just waiting until the draft
2:19:35 code comes right so right now we haven't
2:19:38 been able to really get a good gauge of
2:19:40 kind of like
2:19:41 having a discussion about species
2:19:43 selection right for being able to have
2:19:44 that canopy retention we haven't really
2:19:46 gotten into that nitty gritty i'm hoping
2:19:48 that it comes i'm hoping that we
2:19:49 actually see some actual code for best
2:19:52 practices
2:19:53 um and i'm hoping that this uh starts to
2:19:55 get a lot more technical and a lot
2:19:57 quicker for us to be able to do the
2:19:59 update that we need so i appreciate
2:20:01 everyone's work on that thank you
2:20:06 mr milliken has a comment
2:20:10 thank you commissioner nina milligan
2:20:13 thank you
2:20:14 commissioner joy for going ahead of me
2:20:16 this way i can just agree with you
2:20:18 but i do also want to preface uh that
2:20:23 you know again
2:20:24 there's a lot to agree about in the work
2:20:27 that the staff and the consultants have
2:20:28 done really there's a lot of great stuff
2:20:30 in here and the public has provided a
2:20:33 lot of wonderful comments i'm looking in
2:20:35 the chat though and i hope the park
2:20:38 board realizes that this is a joint
2:20:40 meeting
2:20:41 you're not just guests
2:20:43 so uh please do chime in thank you brad
2:20:46 for speaking up earlier
2:20:48 and i have a few things that i want to
2:20:50 comment on the tree topic and i will be
2:20:53 brief cheerful i promise i will
2:20:56 uh one thing i wanted to just put a pin
2:20:59 in and say hey think about this is that
2:21:01 we talk about tree canopy and we talk
2:21:03 about some of the things we talk about
2:21:05 um warming and
2:21:08 storm water and some other things but
2:21:10 one of the functions that we don't talk
2:21:11 about is habitat
2:21:13 and so i just wanted to ask somebody to
2:21:16 jot down that word how do we incorporate
2:21:19 function
2:21:21 functioning habitat for birds and such
2:21:24 in this kind of code is there a place
2:21:26 for that
2:21:28 the next thing is about the commercial
2:21:31 canopy 20 to 30 percent
2:21:34 you know we were talking about the
2:21:35 burden that this puts on the other parts
2:21:37 of the city and i'm just reminded that
2:21:39 you know we've got so much capacity in
2:21:42 our land use in central issaquah
2:21:44 that we could actually do what someone
2:21:47 had mentioned to me as an option do you
2:21:49 want to build pencils nice and tall we
2:21:52 have such building heights available or
2:21:54 do we want to build loaves that cover
2:21:56 over the ground i'm all for the pencils
2:21:59 open up the space if we have a strong
2:22:01 tree requirement maybe we'll just get
2:22:04 some wonderful
2:22:05 tall buildings that preserve land space
2:22:08 around them
2:22:11 you asked for us to comment about the
2:22:13 different ways of
2:22:14 evaluating or measuring how we're going
2:22:16 to retain our
2:22:18 our tree inventory the difference
2:22:20 between the credit system and the canopy
2:22:23 cover
2:22:25 commissioner zaragoza said it earlier
2:22:27 about the number of trees and the
2:22:30 significant trees
2:22:33 that is playing into something that was
2:22:35 already working on my brain and the
2:22:36 other is
2:22:38 the um
2:22:40 the prospective look of the canopy cover
2:22:43 policy the canopy cover says plant a
2:22:45 tree today that in 30 years will do you
2:22:47 some good
2:22:49 credit system is asking you to plant a
2:22:52 tree that has a measurable significance
2:22:55 today
2:22:56 and and i think that's worth looking at
2:22:58 i'm leaning towards the credit system i
2:23:00 also think that it's more enforceable i
2:23:03 think it's more understandable by the
2:23:05 public and the landowners
2:23:08 i think it might give us better outcomes
2:23:14 i'm bucking the tide there on the canopy
2:23:16 cover policy leaning towards credit
2:23:19 and then thank you commissioner lewis
2:23:22 this is the big one fee and lou
2:23:25 why do we even offer it i know we cannot
2:23:28 restrict a property owner from being
2:23:30 unable to use their property
2:23:32 but boy that is the bitter end and there
2:23:35 should be
2:23:37 little to no exceptions
2:23:39 for upholding the standards that we put
2:23:42 in place and why we would say that
2:23:44 somebody who is able to
2:23:46 pay instead of comply just seems so
2:23:50 shallow to me i cannot
2:23:52 see the fairness in that and i don't see
2:23:55 a shared responsibility
2:23:57 in maintaining our green tree city or
2:24:01 the landscape all the standards that we
2:24:03 make when we say that wealthy developers
2:24:05 or somebody else can come in and pay a
2:24:07 fee because they're going to have this
2:24:08 profitability thing going on and this
2:24:10 private land owner
2:24:12 doesn't have that kind of
2:24:14 leverage that's not a shared
2:24:16 responsibility for the environment that
2:24:18 we live in and i'd rather have something
2:24:20 that is fair uh i also just don't think
2:24:23 that money
2:24:25 equals trees that money doesn't even
2:24:27 grow on trees i had to say it i saw joy
2:24:30 she was waiting for me to say that
2:24:33 okay that's it thanks folks
2:24:38 thank you very much commissioner
2:24:39 milligan nice little classic joke there
2:24:44 for some reason i just knew you were
2:24:45 gonna say that um okay so
2:24:48 uh commissioner milligan did bring up a
2:24:49 good comment and that is we don't hear
2:24:53 any comments or questions from the parks
2:24:55 board and this is definitely a joint
2:24:57 commission so
2:24:59 are there any questions or comments from
2:25:01 the parks board
2:25:02 let me give you guys a couple seconds
2:25:04 here to respond
2:25:08 hey while they're thinking about it this
2:25:09 is jeff watling parks and community
2:25:11 services director um just a general
2:25:13 comment i appreciate that commissioner
2:25:15 milligan and you're right
2:25:18 this has been a terrific joint meeting
2:25:20 and and if you don't live in the code
2:25:23 and the park board does not live in the
2:25:26 it can be rather intimidating so
2:25:29 i i just hope that
2:25:31 lack of questions or feedback doesn't
2:25:34 isn't judged as oh my gosh the park
2:25:36 board's not getting anything out of this
2:25:38 they certainly may be
2:25:39 but title 18 and again
2:25:41 code and things that you live in
2:25:44 um are not necessarily something the
2:25:46 park board lives in on the sort of
2:25:48 management maintenance stewardship
2:25:50 capital development side of things so um
2:25:54 just that i guess that that
2:25:56 contextual comment thanks
2:26:02 okay and we have a comment from
2:26:04 commissioner voice
2:26:06 great thank you chairfell
2:26:08 so just a few little bit of feedback for
2:26:13 consultant kim as she's being
2:26:15 affectionately called tonight uh there's
2:26:17 quite a few things that i like and i
2:26:18 think that we found some agreement with
2:26:21 our public comment so just to name a few
2:26:23 i like the idea of making exceptional
2:26:25 tree status as part of the code i think
2:26:27 that would be good i think also that
2:26:30 i think commissioner milligan mentioned
2:26:33 something that i had considered but i do
2:26:35 like the idea of the credit system where
2:26:37 we're actually planting trees today that
2:26:39 make the difference because it's been
2:26:41 brought up all night but a lot of these
2:26:43 trees again they're planted and somebody
2:26:45 walks away they wither and die there's
2:26:47 just not a lot of oversight or
2:26:48 accountability for a seed or seedling so
2:26:51 i think there's some great comments i
2:26:52 think we can get
2:26:54 um basically blend what the community
2:26:56 wants which is again we've heard about
2:26:58 it from the climate perspective as well
2:27:00 as the aesthetic perspective and but the
2:27:02 one area where i do disagree
2:27:05 is i do think we should be looking at
2:27:07 some of our neighbors um so again i
2:27:09 think the 50 tree canopy is about
2:27:12 appropriate we're already much ahead i
2:27:14 also appreciate the comment made by
2:27:17 one of our commentators that it's really
2:27:18 about the quality
2:27:19 right you can jump the number up to 60
2:27:21 percent we could become very less
2:27:23 competitive than all of our neighbors
2:27:24 but one thing that happens this happens
2:27:26 for everybody
2:27:28 is when you're a hammer everything's a
2:27:30 nail and the one thing we have to
2:27:31 remember is we have a lot of competing
2:27:33 interest in this city
2:27:35 a lot of them we have a gma that we have
2:27:37 to also contend with so i know everyone
2:27:39 here wants to just check off i like a
2:27:41 tree i like a tree makes things really
2:27:43 easy but it's just it's not
2:27:45 reality
2:27:47 the reality is we have a bunch of
2:27:48 competing interests in this city and
2:27:51 again we want a quality code not
2:27:53 this code that we just go crazy over
2:27:56 here on something which completely
2:27:58 disallows for
2:28:00 a lot of other things that needs to
2:28:01 happen in the city for us to be
2:28:02 successful and then finally i'll mention
2:28:05 so again i think if we're already
2:28:06 beating mercer island and redmond
2:28:09 that's pretty good
2:28:10 um doesn't mean we can't go higher but
2:28:12 i'd have to hear a convincing reason why
2:28:16 and i agree i think quality over
2:28:18 quantity any day big on that and then
2:28:21 finally to commissioner milligan's last
2:28:22 point i like what she had mentioned
2:28:24 about the pencils and the um
2:28:27 and the lows i thought that was a great
2:28:28 example
2:28:29 and i only say cities out loud that i'm
2:28:32 going to say something positive about i
2:28:34 think woodenville is an area that has
2:28:36 done a really good job with their
2:28:37 commercial sector
2:28:38 also having a lot of coverage in their
2:28:41 trees you know i kind of look at
2:28:42 woodenville when you drive through
2:28:44 and it's pretty green
2:28:46 um especially down in their commercial
2:28:48 district whereas we go through ours and
2:28:51 a lot of hot surf you know hot spots
2:28:54 so we can
2:28:57 we don't have to reinvent the wheel
2:28:59 every single time and sometimes we just
2:29:02 need to point staff and go well you know
2:29:04 and again every city is unique every
2:29:06 township's unique but you know we can
2:29:08 learn a lot from people who have already
2:29:10 you know gone through the trenches and
2:29:12 just say
2:29:13 that's interesting how did they
2:29:14 accomplish that and i think if we're
2:29:16 looking for a commercial area
2:29:18 to not look like our commercial area
2:29:20 today
2:29:21 you know rather than try and reinvent
2:29:23 this from dust we just look and go well
2:29:25 woodenville has a pretty unique and
2:29:27 pretty green commercial area how did
2:29:30 they get that what did they do
2:29:33 thank you
2:29:36 very good commenter commissioner voice
2:29:38 thank you
2:29:40 i'm not seeing any additional comments
2:29:42 so we're going to go ahead and close out
2:29:43 uh the tree code and we are going to
2:29:46 really quickly um i wanted to let you
2:29:48 know that kim wanted to respond to some
2:29:50 of these comments
2:29:53 thank you yeah i just wanted to make one
2:29:55 note um
2:29:58 about
2:30:01 commissioner milligan's comment about
2:30:03 the tree density versus tree canopy
2:30:09 tree density would be
2:30:11 you know is a completely valid and
2:30:12 effective tool just like the tree canopy
2:30:15 for lot size
2:30:17 is i just want to
2:30:19 acknowledge that any
2:30:22 um kind of tree retention and
2:30:25 replacement program is going to see
2:30:27 temporal loss of canopy that the tree
2:30:29 density method doesn't necessarily mean
2:30:31 that you are
2:30:33 because the the tree replacement the
2:30:35 trees that are getting replaced are
2:30:36 still going to be potentially small
2:30:38 trees you know and they're not going to
2:30:40 necessarily
2:30:44 have the same um ecological functioning
2:30:48 as a big tree you know until they're
2:30:49 able to grow and mature and so i just
2:30:52 wanted to put that out there that it's
2:30:54 something to important to recognize that
2:30:58 that you're going to see temporal loss
2:30:59 regardless
2:31:01 you know if you're taking out trees
2:31:03 you know
2:31:04 you're not going to have you're not
2:31:05 going to immediately have the same
2:31:07 ecosystem benefit from the from a mature
2:31:09 tree you know so if they're
2:31:12 let's say they're planting five
2:31:16 uh you know
2:31:17 one inch diameter
2:31:20 cedars to replace you know
2:31:23 a six inch
2:31:26 diameter tree you know that they're and
2:31:28 it's not always one to one i mean i'm
2:31:30 i'm just trying to make the point that
2:31:32 you know that there's still going to be
2:31:33 this temporary
2:31:36 loss of canopy regardless of whether
2:31:38 you're using a diameter methodology a
2:31:42 density methodology or a canopy
2:31:44 mythology does that make sense
2:31:46 so i would just say that as the city
2:31:48 moves into
2:31:50 the actual
2:31:51 details of the code development you know
2:31:53 that's something that
2:31:55 and that they'll
2:31:57 that will just be a variable that will
2:31:58 be there regardless of what methodology
2:32:01 they decide
2:32:05 that's it
2:32:07 okay and thank you very much uh
2:32:09 consultant kim it looks like we have uh
2:32:11 commissioner milligan with another
2:32:13 comment
2:32:15 thank you commissioner milligan just to
2:32:17 comment and to call her consultant kim
2:32:20 likes everybody else's in that fond way
2:32:22 thank you very much for your hard work
2:32:23 and staying up late with us tonight
2:32:25 uh yeah i appreciate what you're saying
2:32:27 and and the um the jagged line that you
2:32:30 described earlier is um is to be assumed
2:32:33 i think so i was just um convinced by
2:32:36 the language in the credit system more
2:32:38 than the density system how that might
2:32:41 benefit us in the retention of large
2:32:43 trees
2:32:46 commissioner zaragoza's comment earlier
2:32:49 and how can we incentivize the
2:32:51 preservation of the large trees and
2:32:52 which system would do the best and i
2:32:54 want to add i guess i'm going to add one
2:32:56 more thing and lucy's going to kill me
2:32:58 for doing this we used to talk about it
2:33:00 in urban village planning is a tree on
2:33:04 top of a building the same as a tree on
2:33:06 the ground
2:33:08 and it's a green space you know that's
2:33:10 some park on the top of the building the
2:33:12 same as a green space that's on the
2:33:13 ground and i said
2:33:16 it's better on the ground and she said
2:33:18 why and i said i don't know i just know
2:33:20 it's better but um
2:33:22 the if you're counting green canopy
2:33:24 a canopy of trees you could be counting
2:33:27 trees that are sitting on top of
2:33:28 buildings right
2:33:30 just want to put another little note in
2:33:32 there let's uh let's not
2:33:34 let's check to see if they're the same
2:33:36 which i don't think they are
2:33:38 give different credit to trees on the
2:33:41 ground for their function
2:33:43 than trees on buildings
2:33:46 i just had another moment there so i
2:33:48 thought i'd get that in thank you
2:33:49 commissioner fall chair paul
2:33:52 no worries thank you
2:33:54 uh all right so with that we're gonna go
2:33:56 ahead and close that out and we're gonna
2:33:58 move on to open space
2:34:04 so christian who is going to give us a
2:34:05 presentation on open spaces
2:34:08 daphne is going to be um talking about
2:34:10 the open space and green necklace again
2:34:13 stephanie floor's yours
2:34:17 all right thanks everybody
2:34:21 all right i'll share my screen here
2:34:23 again
2:34:26 here we go
2:34:28 um so uh similar to the other two topics
2:34:31 pretty pretty similar um
2:34:34 pretty similar
2:34:36 table kind of a summary of contents
2:34:38 there
2:34:42 um there we go okay um so i'll just dive
2:34:46 right in to um
2:34:49 our understandings of what the goal is
2:34:52 for this landscape
2:34:54 sorry this open space community space
2:34:56 and green necklace code
2:34:59 the goal as we understand them is to
2:35:01 create a high quality system of vibrant
2:35:04 varied and interesting public spaces and
2:35:07 connections and really make sure that
2:35:09 those
2:35:11 public systems are preserved and
2:35:14 enhanced throughout code
2:35:17 so um
2:35:20 see so currently the city regulates
2:35:24 um open and community space development
2:35:27 but the standards are spread
2:35:29 across quite a few documents and are
2:35:31 pretty inconsistently applied throughout
2:35:33 the city
2:35:34 um so that's part of the thing that
2:35:36 we're looking at and trying to address
2:35:38 through this update um a few key
2:35:40 concepts i want to touch on um which
2:35:45 these will not be a surprise to anyone
2:35:48 but just these are pretty critical ones
2:35:51 to this conversation
2:35:53 one is partnerships with developers
2:35:56 so for many of these kind of larger
2:35:59 cities system visions that also includes
2:36:02 things like the green necklace
2:36:05 many of these visions are dependent on
2:36:07 public-private partnerships to build
2:36:09 those systems
2:36:10 currently in code so there's
2:36:13 huge opportunities for wins on both
2:36:16 sides but what we're finding is that
2:36:18 there's strict
2:36:19 there's a need for stricter and clearer
2:36:21 regulations to really achieve what does
2:36:23 it cause envisioning here
2:36:26 um so
2:36:27 one of the examples of kind of these
2:36:30 vision systems is the green necklace
2:36:33 which i think you guys are all pretty
2:36:34 familiar with but i'll touch on it
2:36:36 briefly here
2:36:38 it's a the green necklace is a network
2:36:40 of parks and shared use routes within
2:36:43 and also connecting beyond central
2:36:45 issaquah
2:36:46 so this vision has been incorporated in
2:36:49 code for about nine years um evolving
2:36:52 along the way
2:36:54 um the most recent updates there we go
2:36:58 um was in the 2018 park strategic plan
2:37:01 which you can see that update on the
2:37:02 screen here
2:37:04 um and as i alluded to before part of
2:37:07 the reason why this vision is kind of an
2:37:09 important focus of this this code update
2:37:11 is because some of the challenges of
2:37:14 implementing this vision have
2:37:16 highlighted some of the downfalls in the
2:37:17 existing code
2:37:22 so um
2:37:24 some of the gaps
2:37:26 and issues that we've seen and heard
2:37:28 include
2:37:30 a need for a more robust and
2:37:32 reinforceable design and review process
2:37:36 more specifics on locations and types of
2:37:38 spaces that are being required
2:37:40 and some consolidation and definition on
2:37:43 standards or types of spaces like say
2:37:46 trails playground
2:37:48 dog areas pea patches
2:37:50 um and then specifics on who is
2:37:52 providing a space who's been maintaining
2:37:56 and then
2:37:57 that also includes
2:37:59 needing clarity on things like park
2:38:01 impact fees
2:38:03 and updating that code there
2:38:06 in terms of meeting overarching title 18
2:38:08 goals we're seeing that codes around
2:38:10 neighborhood character can really be
2:38:12 simplified and distilled
2:38:15 right now a lot of the neighborhood
2:38:17 codes kind of are largely repetitive so
2:38:20 we can consolidate them and then talk
2:38:23 about how their neighborhoods are
2:38:24 uniquely differentiating within that
2:38:27 and then
2:38:28 codes around green necklace and
2:38:30 implementation like i said before just
2:38:32 need more clarity on what is required
2:38:34 and where
2:38:39 so our approach um number one is
2:38:43 going to be too high level for you guys
2:38:45 that's all good i get it
2:38:48 so similar to the landscape code um it's
2:38:51 uh thus the idea is to create baseline
2:38:54 standards for open and community space
2:38:56 and then uniquely use those standards by
2:38:58 neighborhood and zone to reinforce
2:39:00 established neighborhood characteristics
2:39:02 that's the thought there
2:39:04 and then number two here looks at how to
2:39:07 elevate the design and management
2:39:09 processes
2:39:10 surrounding open space and the green
2:39:13 necklace would be part of that
2:39:15 a large part of this would be clarifying
2:39:17 requirements for public and private
2:39:19 spaces
2:39:20 and city or developer build spaces i'll
2:39:23 dive into that a little bit more here in
2:39:25 a minute
2:39:26 um number three
2:39:28 is exploring how locations
2:39:31 maps in city vision such as the green
2:39:33 necklace plan are actually
2:39:35 used in implementation that's a big um
2:39:39 thing that we're going to be looking at
2:39:41 during this approach update
2:39:45 so diving in a little bit more
2:39:49 um first let's look at
2:39:51 a potential design and management
2:39:53 process that we're thinking about so
2:39:55 we're exploring a three-tier
2:39:57 classification system to help solve some
2:39:59 of the issues that is currently seen
2:40:02 with developers providing a quality and
2:40:04 connected public space system
2:40:07 so um breaking these down a little bit
2:40:10 um classification a that you see here
2:40:12 would be city built owned and managed so
2:40:16 that would be things like
2:40:17 city parks or city owned trails to your
2:40:21 classification b would be developer
2:40:23 built but then it would be transitioned
2:40:24 to city ownership and management
2:40:30 a and b
2:40:32 would basically have the same
2:40:33 requirements for things like public
2:40:35 outreach parks and planning review
2:40:38 throughout the design process and
2:40:40 permitting and these tiers would create
2:40:43 things like the citywide visions like
2:40:45 the green necklace
2:40:49 tier c
2:40:51 would be developer built owned and
2:40:54 managed
2:40:56 so uh b and c
2:40:59 um since those are both developer built
2:41:02 um classifications would um
2:41:06 they would have
2:41:07 requirements for quality and investment
2:41:09 and be tied to parks impact fees and so
2:41:12 um because they're not going through
2:41:15 like the process like say the parks
2:41:16 department would go through with a
2:41:18 consultant and really have
2:41:22 like the parks department works with
2:41:23 consultants to make sure that the design
2:41:25 and the quality is really there the code
2:41:27 would have to basically
2:41:29 make sure that that quality is there and
2:41:31 those standards for quality are there
2:41:33 for the developers to follow
2:41:35 and then just basically really just like
2:41:38 clearly tell the developer what we're
2:41:40 expecting and um so they're not
2:41:42 surprised by any review process
2:41:45 and any city input that comes back to
2:41:50 classification c would be developer
2:41:53 provided publicly accessible spaces that
2:41:57 are actually totally separate from city
2:41:59 public space visions
2:42:02 the spaces provided by classification c
2:42:05 would enrich the systems but not be
2:42:07 critical to the success of the systems
2:42:10 so really we're saying a and b creates
2:42:12 these city visions of public space
2:42:15 systems and then c is like additive to
2:42:17 that system and just enriches it but
2:42:19 it's not
2:42:20 not mission critical
2:42:27 um so elaborating on
2:42:30 approach three a little bit
2:42:32 um one of the critical pieces of
2:42:34 implement in implementing the green
2:42:36 necklace and other city visions is the
2:42:39 location of elements and then how
2:42:41 strictly those locations are required
2:42:44 so part of our approach is to look at
2:42:46 how much rigidity or flexibility is
2:42:48 allowed on where amenities are located
2:42:51 um some pros of rigidity you can see on
2:42:54 the screen there
2:42:56 are that requiring specific locations
2:42:58 even within
2:43:00 specific parcels themselves
2:43:02 ensures that we get the optimal public
2:43:05 system of perks and trails and for
2:43:08 instance we would be able to know that
2:43:10 we would get the best views get the best
2:43:12 connectivity between
2:43:14 existing or proposed
2:43:16 trails or parks and we would get the
2:43:19 best adjacencies for use
2:43:22 the cons
2:43:24 um are that requiring specific locations
2:43:27 can be a really pricey and inconvenient
2:43:29 proposition for developers
2:43:31 um similar to say saving a big tree on
2:43:34 their property like we talked about
2:43:36 earlier like that can really that might
2:43:38 deter them from wanting to develop on a
2:43:40 particular parcel perhaps
2:43:43 so you know
2:43:46 we would get the best views connectivity
2:43:47 in adjacencies con might go with the
2:43:49 developers
2:43:52 there's definitely some things to weigh
2:43:54 there
2:43:56 um so
2:43:58 i mean that was
2:44:01 that was my lightning round but um
2:44:05 that is kind of the kind of open space
2:44:08 and green necklace approach in a
2:44:10 nutshell and i know that there's a ton
2:44:12 more to talk about um but i just wanted
2:44:15 to open it up to the floor to
2:44:18 see if you think that this approach
2:44:20 would successfully implement some of
2:44:22 that public space vision visioning like
2:44:25 the green necklace
2:44:30 excellent thank you very much uh
2:44:33 consultant stephanie i'm gonna go ahead
2:44:36 and open up to the
2:44:38 commissions for
2:44:40 questions
2:44:49 not seen any questions
2:44:56 i have one i'm going to put in a queue
2:45:01 all right excellent we've got a
2:45:02 commission a question from commissioner
2:45:04 milligan you have the floor someone's
2:45:07 got to ask a question uh one thing
2:45:09 there was a b and c and then i wondered
2:45:12 how does it um
2:45:14 how is it considered the municipal
2:45:16 highlands where you have the developer
2:45:18 built
2:45:20 city-owned and the homeowners
2:45:22 association responsible for the
2:45:26 maintenance
2:45:27 uh or you know the implementation of
2:45:29 these things it seemed like there was
2:45:30 one more combination because of all of
2:45:32 our master planned communities but maybe
2:45:36 let me know if those are taken into
2:45:38 consideration
2:45:42 yeah that's a good point there very well
2:45:44 maybe
2:45:45 a fourth fifth maybe even a sixth tier
2:45:48 that we haven't roped in there you know
2:45:51 so that's that's great input thank you
2:46:03 excellent thank you we have a question
2:46:04 from commissioner lewis
2:46:08 thank you chairfall commissioner joy
2:46:10 lewis so i wanna before i ask a question
2:46:12 i wanna make sure that i'm understanding
2:46:14 your question right because in relation
2:46:16 to open space and the green necklace
2:46:19 staff is asking us
2:46:21 does this approach work but really the
2:46:24 only approach that you guys are
2:46:25 presenting are the one that we already
2:46:27 have right so
2:46:30 i'm sorry consultant stephanie had up on
2:46:32 our screen an example of here's a pro
2:46:35 you get what what you want the con is
2:46:39 that maybe the developer isn't happy
2:46:43 is that what's been happening i mean i'm
2:46:45 a little confused i don't feel like
2:46:47 we're reinventing the wheel at all right
2:46:48 now right to me this question is like is
2:46:51 status quo still working is that what
2:46:53 the question is for open spaces i'd i
2:46:56 would love to understand what you guys
2:46:59 are asking because right now i'm not
2:47:00 seeing
2:47:01 you're asking me abc
2:47:03 and you're saying a and a b
2:47:05 gives us the result of wanting to plan
2:47:08 our community to be what we want there's
2:47:10 like there's no situation where i'm
2:47:12 going to trade that in right the pros
2:47:14 that you're giving me are exactly what i
2:47:16 want and then my cons to doing that are
2:47:19 to say well they might not want to build
2:47:22 okay well if they don't do it i'm
2:47:24 guessing somebody else will right you
2:47:25 don't exactly have endurance of people
2:47:27 not wanting to build an as a claw even
2:47:29 if we make it extremely onerous in
2:47:31 certain occasions so i don't understand
2:47:34 what the question is for this piece
2:47:36 right now right
2:47:37 we've been doing a and b right
2:47:40 should we continue to do amd is that is
2:47:43 that what's thank you jeff i see a hand
2:47:49 yeah joy i i i think i'll get to
2:47:51 answering your question but again as as
2:47:53 parks and community services director i
2:47:55 i'm going to speak through the context
2:47:57 of operationalizing this and and i think
2:48:00 some of what
2:48:01 i've observed i've been here five years
2:48:06 as we adopted the park strategic plan
2:48:08 and really engaged the community on
2:48:10 what kind of public system they want
2:48:13 and and how do we invest in the public
2:48:14 system we have how do we better connect
2:48:16 that public system
2:48:18 these visions these ideas of these
2:48:21 concepts of the greens necklace the
2:48:22 effort we did with what you saw
2:48:25 stephanie produced was how do we start
2:48:28 put some some actual meat on this idea
2:48:33 in this concept i i think what
2:48:34 stephanie's presenting to you tonight
2:48:37 as a question is more
2:48:40 it's not a b or c
2:48:42 it's um it's probably all the above and
2:48:47 speaking from experience i'd say what
2:48:49 what we've witnessed the last couple of
2:48:52 years is not accomplishing it would not
2:48:54 be creating the connected unified
2:48:58 grand public system that this
2:49:00 this city wants and so i i i think what
2:49:03 the differentiation between a b and c is
2:49:07 you know what there are some
2:49:08 it's more about expectations i guess is
2:49:11 how i would put it that if
2:49:13 if there are some big rocks that this
2:49:15 community wants some big public spaces
2:49:18 this community wants you know what
2:49:19 private develop we can't sit around and
2:49:21 wait for private development to produce
2:49:24 that there are
2:49:26 city-owned city-managed city-created
2:49:29 public elements that probably need to be
2:49:31 created and and so what's the process
2:49:34 for going about and doing that
2:49:36 um if we know that there are gaps that
2:49:38 there are there are just half dues that
2:49:40 this community wants we're gonna
2:49:43 in the parks department we're sort of
2:49:44 the development arm of the city we might
2:49:47 have to go out and buy the land and
2:49:48 develop it and that's a very different
2:49:51 process
2:49:54 maybe a scale that you would create as a
2:49:56 private developer is building their
2:49:59 developing their property and developing
2:50:01 their site
2:50:02 a site-based requirement that says hey
2:50:04 you need to provide a small public plaza
2:50:07 that's a that's an important element too
2:50:09 but it's a very different scale than
2:50:12 like you know
2:50:14 a myriad of those small scale public
2:50:16 plazas is probably not going to create
2:50:17 the unified green necklace that this
2:50:19 community wants and
2:50:20 so we're not coming with answers tonight
2:50:23 i i think and again i'm i'm just putting
2:50:25 my lens on how we see the code and
2:50:28 trying to accomplish there's this green
2:50:30 necklace vision but the code
2:50:34 there's not a lot of actionable elements
2:50:36 that are going to produce
2:50:38 perhaps what this this city wants in
2:50:41 terms of green necklace so we're trying
2:50:43 to differentiate
2:50:44 the cases where
2:50:45 [Music]
2:50:47 in some cases the city's gonna have to
2:50:48 take the lead and sort of become the
2:50:51 the project manager in other cases there
2:50:53 might be partnerships that we we can do
2:50:56 with private development but those are
2:50:58 those probably should be considered
2:50:59 different types of approaches
2:51:01 i hope that helps that does help thank
2:51:04 you jeff i think that um you know when
2:51:06 preserving open spaces and creating this
2:51:09 green corridor have been values that
2:51:11 we've
2:51:12 had as a community that we've um put
2:51:14 such an emphasis on and so it's really
2:51:17 for me when from where i'm sitting is
2:51:18 trying to figure out like what what
2:51:20 change is going to be coming about to
2:51:22 help strengthen these community wishes
2:51:24 right because i completely agree that we
2:51:27 haven't necessarily gotten what we want
2:51:29 and we are seeing a gap in that vision
2:51:32 and i love that idea of how
2:51:35 how do we get there right what what code
2:51:36 changes are effectively going to give us
2:51:38 a better result than we've had in the
2:51:40 um and so um for to
2:51:44 jump from my question to move into more
2:51:46 of an answer gap to say that i would
2:51:48 love in when we were having discussions
2:51:51 about part one right when we were
2:51:53 talking about things um
2:51:55 uh this is again part two for those that
2:51:57 are joining us in our in our title 18
2:51:59 buckets um to tell you that uh here is
2:52:02 would be a great way to start talking
2:52:04 about how do we
2:52:05 include um our marshes how do we include
2:52:08 our wetlands right how do we create a
2:52:10 green necklace that also helps serve us
2:52:13 in other ways and purposes how do we
2:52:15 protect the land that we know that we
2:52:18 um to have a vital ecosystem to be able
2:52:20 to link that in with the green necklace
2:52:22 i think is a very interesting way to
2:52:24 start to bring together in the code how
2:52:27 we actually start doing real land
2:52:28 protection in a way that we haven't in
2:52:30 the past so um i hope that we can you
2:52:33 know we can build on that if anyone has
2:52:35 it with lucy i'd love to hear from you
2:52:37 thank you
2:52:38 well i just wanted to build on
2:52:40 um what uh jeff watling was saying
2:52:43 because i think that
2:52:45 while we've tried while many your uh
2:52:48 your observation commissioner lewis that
2:52:52 these are things that we're doing
2:52:54 um that's true that we may have used
2:52:57 many of the techniques represented in a
2:52:59 b and c
2:53:01 but i don't think we have an overarching
2:53:03 strategy
2:53:06 achieves that big picture vision
2:53:10 and is holistic in the way that you
2:53:12 described i think that's really
2:53:14 important and what we're trying i think
2:53:16 we've all um
2:53:18 struggled
2:53:20 what is our strategy and how does it
2:53:23 contribute and i think the other piece
2:53:25 that i would add
2:53:27 is i think that um director watling's
2:53:30 point about different scales is really
2:53:33 um critical
2:53:35 because these smaller um
2:53:38 private developer spaces can be an
2:53:41 essential part of a sustainable
2:53:44 uh plan
2:53:46 because people
2:53:48 then have access to spaces that they can
2:53:51 walk to
2:53:52 um without necessarily having to get
2:53:55 into their car
2:53:56 um and so it's trying i i think
2:54:00 um it's
2:54:01 what stephanie described is deceptively
2:54:04 simple
2:54:06 but has a whole lot of layers embedded
2:54:09 in it that
2:54:10 we're trying to figure out how to
2:54:13 layer those up to achieve all of these
2:54:15 things
2:54:18 thank you lucy i think that uh we you
2:54:21 know what we've seen
2:54:22 why we're here right is why title 18
2:54:25 needs to be addressed is that we do need
2:54:27 to have stricter regulations for
2:54:29 developers right we know that um
2:54:31 developers come to us constantly telling
2:54:34 us actually we need less you'll get more
2:54:36 of what you want if we have less and yet
2:54:37 we're not getting that right so from
2:54:39 where i'm sitting is we need to put
2:54:42 those and we need to implement those
2:54:44 the things that we want right and
2:54:46 be make plain in our community what it
2:54:49 is that we're looking for and if right
2:54:50 now our code isn't doing that then let's
2:54:52 make it let's make it so
2:54:55 i know easier said than done but um if
2:54:58 that's the feedback that you guys are
2:54:59 looking for right now in open spaces and
2:55:00 green necklace it's um it's easy to
2:55:04 to sentence again from from a from a
2:55:06 wide vantage point to be able to say
2:55:08 yeah that's what we want but um i very
2:55:11 much appreciate a recognition of saying
2:55:14 we haven't been getting what we want and
2:55:16 let's figure out a way to actually bake
2:55:17 into our code to get that so thank you
2:55:22 thank you very much commissioner lewis
2:55:24 and we have a question from commissioner
2:55:27 richardson
2:55:31 yeah thanks commissioner um yeah i just
2:55:34 want to make a quick part
2:55:35 there's a reference to the requirement
2:55:37 for publicly accessible spaces provided
2:55:40 by developers but i think we should just
2:55:42 make a note that
2:55:43 i think there's a difference between
2:55:44 that working in application and
2:55:46 networking to check a box and i think of
2:55:48 you know
2:55:49 example would be a rooftop terrace which
2:55:51 maybe is is utilized 90 by the residents
2:55:54 of that specific building because
2:55:56 they're the only ones that know about it
2:55:58 and there's not an opportunity for
2:55:59 somebody just kind of walking
2:56:02 along the green necklace to kind of
2:56:03 stumble upon that easily and so i would
2:56:05 just encourage us to think through
2:56:07 um you know if we do consider that as as
2:56:10 part of this
2:56:12 is is it truly open
2:56:16 excellent thank you very much to
2:56:18 commissioner richardson i'm not seeing
2:56:19 any other additional
2:56:21 questions at the moment so we're going
2:56:23 to go ahead and open this up to public
2:56:24 comment
2:56:26 and kristen do we have any members of
2:56:28 the public that would like to speak on
2:56:30 uh concerning open spaces
2:56:33 no one has their hands raised at this
2:56:35 time but if anyone would like to speak
2:56:38 please raise your hand or let me know in
2:56:39 the chat and i will
2:56:42 i'll make it possible
2:56:52 uh one mary lynch would like to make a
2:56:54 comment
2:56:55 mary you are a panelist
2:57:00 i thank you i was uh just for those that
2:57:03 don't know i was part of the citizens
2:57:05 task force back in
2:57:07 the 2012 or whenever we did that and one
2:57:10 of the things that i see a little bit
2:57:13 left out of here
2:57:14 um is
2:57:16 with the green necklace it wasn't just
2:57:19 for people and it was more also for
2:57:21 habitat
2:57:23 and wildlife corridors and that's why we
2:57:25 were stressing along some of the streams
2:57:28 is to protect those
2:57:30 so that part of the whole experience of
2:57:32 issaquah is the greenness the mountains
2:57:35 but also the wildlife and the birds
2:57:40 kind of way we talked about with the
2:57:41 tree codes with the landscaping codes
2:57:44 and with others even when you're talking
2:57:46 about reducing buffers along the creeks
2:57:50 if you reduce them down so far that our
2:57:53 creeks aren't working our marshes aren't
2:57:55 working
2:57:56 kind of like what's happened down by
2:57:58 trader joe's and that marshland which is
2:58:01 just a cesspool
2:58:04 you know
2:58:05 not letting that happen again
2:58:07 and creating a green necklace that also
2:58:10 includes someone besides concrete
2:58:12 pathways for pedestrians or bicyclists
2:58:15 thank you
2:58:24 no one else has their hands raised to
2:58:25 speak
2:58:28 okay and thank you mr christensen i'm
2:58:30 still going to go ahead and close public
2:58:31 comment and open up for commissioner um
2:58:36 comments and discussion
2:58:39 any comments or discussion concerning
2:58:41 the topics
2:58:46 we have a
2:58:48 comment from commissioner bader so go
2:58:50 ahead you have the floor
2:58:52 eight thanks this is sarah bader and
2:58:54 i'll be quick because i am sleepy and i
2:58:56 just wanted to make
2:58:58 um i guess a call that especially as we
2:59:01 talk about access that we um access to
2:59:04 open space that we apply an equity lens
2:59:06 um to our consideration of this part of
2:59:08 the code in particular
2:59:09 um and i don't know you know the level
2:59:11 of granularity when it mentions kind of
2:59:13 differentiating by neighborhood or
2:59:15 allowing kind of specific neighborhoods
2:59:17 to modify um
2:59:20 the standards based on the community
2:59:22 context i just want to make sure that um
2:59:24 that kind of equitable access to open
2:59:26 space is is a key consideration and this
2:59:29 in this piece of code that's it
2:59:32 thank you commissioner vader and
2:59:34 commissioner book
2:59:36 have the floor
2:59:38 uh kind of a question and a comment um
2:59:40 you know we are within the midst of the
2:59:42 snoqualmie tribe initiating the
2:59:44 ancestral lands movement
2:59:47 and i guess i throw that out there just
2:59:49 as um
2:59:52 you know out of curiosity
2:59:54 is there any indication that this whole
2:59:56 process will ever be
2:59:58 discussed with the snowcolony tribe
3:00:01 uh specifically their environmental and
3:00:03 natural resources department
3:00:06 where they could perhaps shed some
3:00:09 some light on
3:00:13 you know what the city plans to do with
3:00:15 our lands
3:00:23 you know i'll i'll say that's a good
3:00:25 point there we did engage with them uh
3:00:28 with the to the snoqualmie tribe and the
3:00:30 makashi tribe on the environmental
3:00:33 portions and they're interested in
3:00:35 giving us um written comments on those
3:00:37 sections so we'll be sending them the
3:00:39 drafts as they get prepared for those
3:00:41 topics but we can certainly um engage
3:00:44 with them on on this topic as well
3:00:47 it's a good point
3:00:50 great thank you very much commissioner
3:00:51 book and commissioner voice
3:00:54 you have the floor
3:00:56 thank you sure foul and real quickly
3:00:57 could i ask consultant stephanie could
3:01:00 you put up the last slide i believe it
3:01:04 there's two things i just wanted to
3:01:05 address real quickly because again it
3:01:07 goes to kind of what commissioner
3:01:08 lewis's question was
3:01:10 which if i think i'm getting this right
3:01:15 perfect thank you
3:01:18 so as far as
3:01:19 is again we're talking about these a b
3:01:21 and c
3:01:23 different categories that again it
3:01:25 sounds like the the problem is is we're
3:01:26 not seeing enough continuity between
3:01:28 what we wanted and what's actually
3:01:30 happening on the ground reality
3:01:32 so i think what's interesting about a
3:01:36 or not i'm sorry not a but c
3:01:38 is uh it
3:01:40 it sounds good in theory but what's
3:01:42 what's the mechanism to make sure that
3:01:44 it continually be
3:01:45 is being owned and managed properly
3:01:48 again more of a quality thing
3:01:51 um is there's like are we trying to add
3:01:53 like a trust fund or something that will
3:01:54 outlive the development i mean once they
3:01:57 cut tape and
3:01:58 leave
3:01:59 so what kind of mechanism can we put in
3:02:01 place to ensure
3:02:03 that that continually be that's paid
3:02:05 that's paid attention to
3:02:07 um so that would be one thing and then
3:02:09 as far as the pros and cons
3:02:11 down below i think one of the things is
3:02:14 this is an area where you can be quite
3:02:16 bullish with developers i think the
3:02:18 thing that developers want
3:02:20 is they want
3:02:22 they want clear direction so right they
3:02:24 don't want to put in permits to fight
3:02:26 get shot down but i think you can
3:02:28 actually
3:02:30 bullish with them on some of that stuff
3:02:33 as far as
3:02:34 you know categorizing it or prior
3:02:36 prioritizing it
3:02:38 i think seeing the city
3:02:40 and again i understand it's expensive
3:02:43 but seeing the city take the initiative
3:02:45 to maybe buy some of those lands that
3:02:47 they can't get agreements with you know
3:02:49 as far as a partnership
3:02:51 i think it's what the city wants i think
3:02:52 it's appropriate
3:02:54 the city's done a good job in some of
3:02:55 our parks confluence park comes to mind
3:02:57 where they built that beautiful bridge a
3:02:58 few years ago
3:03:00 so again i think i think the vision is
3:03:03 still appropriate it's just finding
3:03:05 those mechanisms like i said that have
3:03:06 been lost for the last six to eight
3:03:08 years where it just it didn't happen as
3:03:10 well and it never does but now that
3:03:12 we've had six years eight years to look
3:03:14 back and see what's worked well what
3:03:17 worked poorly um again i think there's
3:03:19 some opportunities for the city here
3:03:21 again it's not going to come cheap but
3:03:22 this is one of the things that the city
3:03:24 would like to see
3:03:26 just my two cents um like i said the one
3:03:28 thing i'd like to know about
3:03:30 c is how we actually keep the feet to
3:03:33 the fire
3:03:34 so thank you
3:03:39 thank you very much commissioner voice
3:03:41 i'm not seeing any additional comments
3:03:47 i'll go and give it a few more seconds
3:03:49 here if anybody wants to chime in with
3:03:51 one last comment before we close out the
3:03:52 discussion
3:04:02 and any
3:04:03 comments or
3:04:04 from the city staff before it goes out
3:04:11 you know i'll say it thank you so much
3:04:13 for everyone's time i know it this is a
3:04:15 lot of heavy lifting um but this is
3:04:18 definitely going to give us a glimpse of
3:04:20 what you all are thinking what's more
3:04:22 important to you hearing from the
3:04:24 community members before we spend our
3:04:26 time and resources writing the first
3:04:28 draft it may seem
3:04:30 a little bit you know you want more and
3:04:32 we want to give you more in terms of
3:04:34 what the code and the options are i
3:04:36 think we did do have some key takeaways
3:04:39 tonight uh that'll help us um prepare
3:04:42 the first draft um for you all back um i
3:04:45 believe sometime in in
3:04:48 you know after february early part of
3:04:49 next year we'll be back with an actual
3:04:51 code more details uh and and things like
3:04:55 things of that nature so appreciate
3:04:56 everyone's time
3:04:58 thank you very much uh letter mini uh
3:05:01 we're gonna go ahead and close out
3:05:05 kristen's gonna go ahead and lead with
3:05:07 reports are there any uh city council
3:05:10 updates
3:05:11 or um
3:05:12 i'm happy to do that i would like to
3:05:14 dismiss the park board though and thank
3:05:16 you very very much for attending and for
3:05:19 your participation in this meeting
3:05:21 it's a good discussion i hope you all
3:05:22 got some good things out of it too
3:05:25 thank you all for con attending have a
3:05:27 good night
3:05:32 so all i have and many can probably
3:05:35 expand on this is that um the
3:05:40 mini is taking the title 18 discussion
3:05:44 to the september 14th council session
3:05:46 council study session um to talk about
3:05:49 sort of what we've talked about so far
3:05:51 uh with the environment and decisions or
3:05:53 recommendations that have been made
3:05:54 there
3:05:55 um i mentioned the park board meeting
3:05:56 tonight
3:05:58 going to discuss the schedule
3:06:00 and how many meetings will occur it can
3:06:03 occur um so don't don't write anything
3:06:06 in ink on your calendar yet it may be
3:06:08 changing
3:06:10 and many do you have anything to add to
3:06:13 no thank you uh kristen i think uh the
3:06:16 idea is that you all had a good
3:06:18 discussion about the natural environment
3:06:19 topics with the environmental board we
3:06:22 had an affinity uh group meeting where
3:06:25 we invited the you know as the other
3:06:27 stakeholders and had the discussion got
3:06:29 their feedback now we want to take that
3:06:31 part and share it with the council
3:06:33 and get their take on it um before we go
3:06:36 and start writing code for the natural
3:06:38 environment topics so we're sharing with
3:06:41 them um all your good work um and and
3:06:44 getting their feedback um prior to
3:06:46 writing the code so that's how one of
3:06:48 the purpose the other thing i think
3:06:49 we're asking them is
3:06:51 um to balance out uh your
3:06:54 you know and get some focus on title 18
3:06:58 is big there are lots of topics they had
3:07:01 uh you know council had arranged for
3:07:03 the golden outcomes chart with some high
3:07:06 priorities so we want to get some
3:07:08 feedback from council on should the rest
3:07:11 of the conversation with
3:07:13 your board and your commission and other
3:07:15 boards focus on those priority topics
3:07:19 at least at the policy guidance level
3:07:23 because otherwise we can do this you
3:07:25 know keep doing this for all the topics
3:07:27 and and pretty much overwhelm everyone
3:07:30 so we want to get some direction on
3:07:33 um which topics
3:07:35 should we focus just on the high
3:07:36 priority topics and and and just try to
3:07:40 get some handle on the scope
3:07:41 uh so that's our our uh
3:07:44 loopback with council on september 14th
3:07:47 and we'll brief you um after the meeting
3:07:49 um on what direction we've given
3:07:54 also wanted to mention that the public
3:07:55 hearing for the sign code was on
3:07:58 monday
3:07:59 tuesday was on tuesday and it will be
3:08:02 going for
3:08:03 action council action on september 20th
3:08:06 also on september 20th if you're
3:08:07 interested um we are taking the arch
3:08:11 regional coalition for housing
3:08:14 we're taking that work program
3:08:16 administrative budget to council and we
3:08:18 are taking the new school impact fees to
3:08:21 council both on consent and we'll also
3:08:23 be having a discussion about what to do
3:08:25 with some of the um
3:08:26 sales tax money that we are
3:08:29 getting right now that can be used for
3:08:30 affordable housing we'll have
3:08:32 discussions about what to do with that
3:08:33 if you're interested all on september
3:08:35 20th big night
3:08:39 excellent thank you uh
3:08:41 okay so i guess we're gonna go ahead and
3:08:43 open it back up to
3:08:46 okay no more public comment
3:08:50 got it or we'll have to eliminate that
3:08:52 from the script then
3:08:55 so maybe next time all right so with
3:08:57 that i'm going to go ahead and adjourn
3:08:59 the meeting at 9 39.
3:09:05 thank you all
3:09:06 thank you all
Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.