Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, April 7, 2022 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.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. PUBLIC HEARING

Proposed Amendments to Title 18

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

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

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

4. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.99–101

Open packet at p.99 ↗

Staff report:

2022 1/20/22 1/27/22 Joint Meeting with Development Commission ▪ Public Hearing: Proposed 2022 Docket of Education: Title 18 - Building and Design Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map ▪ Neighborhood Overlay Standards Amendments January o Olde Town, Central Issaquah, Issaquah Joint Meeting with Development Commission Highlands, Talus Title 18: Education - Building and Design ▪ Neighborhood Overlay Standards o Olde Town, Central Issaquah, Issaquah Highlands, Talus 2/10/22 2/24/22 Joint Meeting with Development Commission Joint Meeting with Environmental Board

3322 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ with the environmental board and the

0:03 ↗ development commission tonight

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

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

0:08 ↗ some basic guidelines

0:10 ↗ we have participants attending by

0:11 ↗ computer and others who may be attending

0:13 ↗ by phone

0:15 ↗ for all meeting attendees who wish to

0:17 ↗ speak please speak clearly and pause

0:18 ↗ frequently

0:20 ↗ state your name each time before

0:21 ↗ speaking

0:22 ↗ mute your microphone when not speaking

0:24 ↗ and if you have technical issues try

0:26 ↗ joining the meeting using a different

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

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

0:31 ↗ meeting invite to call into the meeting

0:34 ↗ now we'll go ahead and go into

0:35 ↗ attendance uh

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

0:41 ↗ attendance for policy and planning

0:43 ↗ commission

0:45 ↗ yes commissioner mail again

0:47 ↗ here

0:49 ↗ commissioner lewis

0:52 ↗ commissioner monahan

0:55 ↗ commissioner voice

0:58 ↗ here

1:00 ↗ commissioner phil

1:01 ↗ here

1:02 ↗ commissioner bader

1:04 ↗ here

1:05 ↗ and commissioner zaragoza

1:10 ↗ careful you have a quorum tonight

1:12 ↗ excellent thank you

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

1:17 ↗ um

1:19 ↗ some parameters for tonight the public

1:20 ↗ hearing is for title 18 landscape and

1:23 ↗ open space updates

1:25 ↗ this part of the agenda will have

1:27 ↗ several parts to it which will start

1:28 ↗ with presentations on each topic

1:31 ↗ after each presentation we will open the

1:33 ↗ floor only to clarifying questions

1:37 ↗ from all board commission members

1:39 ↗ please reserve comments for for the

1:42 ↗ deliberations

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

1:46 ↗ tonight so

1:47 ↗ i want to emphasize

1:49 ↗ that we only ask questions during the

1:51 ↗ question time and reserve comments for a

1:53 ↗ deliberation

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

1:57 ↗ comments before the park and

1:59 ↗ environmental board deliberations

2:03 ↗ the park board chair uh

2:08 ↗ go ahead and

2:09 ↗ facilitate the discussion

2:11 ↗ park board

2:12 ↗ stephen

2:14 ↗ park board our environmental board

2:17 ↗ environment

2:18 ↗ chair chair book will be facilitating

2:20 ↗ the deliberation discussions oh okay

2:23 ↗ from the park board

2:25 ↗ very good

2:26 ↗ i will face

2:27 ↗ tonight's discussions and encourage

2:28 ↗ feedback from board members for each

2:30 ↗ deliberation i ask that the planning

2:32 ↗ policy commission members mute

2:34 ↗ themselves and turn off their cameras

2:36 ↗ once each topic of the deliberation is

2:38 ↗ concluded we'll move through the

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

2:42 ↗ order

2:44 ↗ before the public hearing is closed

2:46 ↗ ppc will deliberate on these topics at

2:48 ↗ the april 14th meeting

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

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

2:55 ↗ presented

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

2:58 ↗ space

2:59 ↗ and the community and the green necklace

3:01 ↗ and then the tree preservation and the

3:04 ↗ we will conclude with the landscape and

3:05 ↗ open space

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

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

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

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

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

3:16 ↗ the discussion in a future meeting

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

3:22 ↗ first presentation tonight

3:26 ↗ tonight we are starting with dan

3:28 ↗ martinez or uh with uh our consultant

3:31 ↗ katie

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

3:34 ↗ screen katie

3:37 ↗ thank you steven um

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

3:42 ↗ beautiful evening you have lots of other

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

3:45 ↗ for giving your time to this important

3:47 ↗ topic

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

3:50 ↗ community space and green necklace

3:51 ↗ chapter first

3:53 ↗ this was a chapter that was created

3:56 ↗ um to fulfill the goal 11

3:59 ↗ which wanted to implement elements of

4:02 ↗ the park strategic plan and green

4:04 ↗ necklace

4:05 ↗ vision through the land use code

4:09 ↗ this chapter also

4:12 ↗ combines uh existing

4:14 ↗ standards for

4:16 ↗ um

4:18 ↗ uh

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

4:21 ↗ for amenity space um community spaces

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

4:28 ↗ replacement regulations

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

4:34 ↗ development standards there's also some

4:36 ↗ elements of the park strategic plan that

4:38 ↗ we've incorporated into this chapter

4:41 ↗ um some developer obligations that were

4:43 ↗ in the central isquad plan

4:45 ↗ and some elements of the

4:47 ↗ urban design manual from the

4:48 ↗ centralization design and development

4:51 ↗ standards

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

4:54 ↗ consolidated place for all of these

4:56 ↗ standards that have to do with

4:58 ↗ uh developer built amenity and open

5:02 ↗ natural areas throughout the city and it

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

5:07 ↗ that would guide the activities of the

5:09 ↗ parks department but rather reflecting

5:12 ↗ the obligations of developers in

5:14 ↗ contributing toward the green necklace

5:17 ↗ so the key changes um

5:20 ↗ and and changes are really

5:24 ↗ well the key changes here we introduced

5:26 ↗ some new terms there was some confusion

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

5:30 ↗ comments so i just wanted to

5:31 ↗ clarify those now

5:34 ↗ in the existing code and

5:37 ↗ in some places in the park

5:39 ↗ strategic plan the term open space is

5:41 ↗ used

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

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

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

5:52 ↗ to be used for active recreation

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

5:57 ↗ was used to refer to

5:59 ↗ areas that may be provided at a

6:01 ↗ development for people to use

6:04 ↗ in for recreation enjoyment

6:06 ↗ so because those two terms conflicted in

6:09 ↗ meaning um we established three

6:12 ↗ different

6:13 ↗ um terms for

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

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

6:19 ↗ developer is now called natural amenity

6:22 ↗ area

6:23 ↗ um if that amenity area is located

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

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

6:31 ↗ community space and that came from the

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

6:37 ↗ a particular type of natural and many

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

6:41 ↗ public

6:42 ↗ so natural amenity areas for other

6:44 ↗ developments are intended for the

6:46 ↗ residents of of the housing development

6:48 ↗ and not for the general public but

6:50 ↗ community space is intended for the

6:52 ↗ general public

6:56 ↗ and so the chapter includes

6:59 ↗ also a new way of regulating space

7:02 ↗ to implement the green necklace by

7:05 ↗ adding new requirements for developments

7:08 ↗ that are adjacent to parks

7:10 ↗ or open spaces or

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

7:16 ↗ called shared use routes

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

7:20 ↗ new now applied city-wide

7:23 ↗ um

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

7:27 ↗ terms the communities is

7:30 ↗ intended for public use natural amenity

7:32 ↗ areas are open space but

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

7:37 ↗ residents

7:39 ↗ and the indoor amenities obviously

7:41 ↗ indoor and building orientation or

7:43 ↗ connection is this new

7:44 ↗ approach to

7:46 ↗ green necklace implementations

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

7:53 ↗ this is

7:54 ↗ taken from

7:56 ↗ the park's strategic plan

7:58 ↗ and simplified for the land use code

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

8:05 ↗ the green necklace trails and the parks

8:07 ↗ and open spaces

8:09 ↗ that the parks department indicated they

8:12 ↗ wanted to

8:14 ↗ they wanted development to be oriented

8:16 ↗ to these facilities

8:20 ↗ so in reviewing

8:22 ↗ the comments so far

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

8:26 ↗ some clarity about these different types

8:28 ↗ of space community space versus other

8:30 ↗ space

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

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

8:35 ↗ the draft moving forward

8:37 ↗ there's questions whether this chapter

8:39 ↗ applied to parks and facilities that the

8:42 ↗ city would be developing and the answer

8:44 ↗ is no this just applies to

8:46 ↗ developer built amenities

8:49 ↗ and then there was a specific question

8:51 ↗ about the natural context zone and i

8:53 ↗ just quickly wanted to touch on that

8:55 ↗ because it's a similar idea

8:58 ↗ to this new building orientation code

9:00 ↗ that we have

9:02 ↗ the urban design manual required certain

9:05 ↗ development along critical areas to

9:08 ↗ orient toward those critical areas

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

9:14 ↗ replace that

9:15 ↗ uh but that the natural context

9:18 ↗ regulations actually currently are in

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

9:22 ↗ whether it makes more sense to move

9:24 ↗ those into this chapter instead

9:28 ↗ um

9:29 ↗ some more comments there was questions

9:30 ↗ about how

9:32 ↗ space was applied to residential

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

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

9:37 ↗ questions but essentially

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

9:41 ↗ confusion over um

9:44 ↗ what natural amenity requirements there

9:46 ↗ were for larger buildings and

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

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

9:54 ↗ if they're in central issaquah

9:56 ↗ and

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

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

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

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

10:10 ↗ bernstein park

10:12 ↗ located in central issaquah

10:14 ↗ and it's located along a

10:16 ↗ through block passage which is down here

10:19 ↗ at the bottom

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

10:22 ↗ a this is a

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

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

10:31 ↗ that green necklace map the development

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

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

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

10:43 ↗ to locate their natural amenity area in

10:46 ↗ that same area between the building and

10:47 ↗ the park

10:49 ↗ they also would be required

10:51 ↗ to connect to this through block passage

10:54 ↗ which provides

10:55 ↗ an access to the park

10:57 ↗ so that connection would have to come

11:00 ↗ somewhere in the development so that

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

11:03 ↗ access to the park

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

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

11:10 ↗ to do an additional amenity

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

11:16 ↗ assisted living community there would be

11:17 ↗ additional indoor amenities space

11:19 ↗ requirements

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

11:23 ↗ central issaquah they would also need to

11:26 ↗ build a public community space

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

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

11:36 ↗ inconsistencies

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

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

11:43 ↗ natural context zone from the urban

11:45 ↗ design manual into this chapter

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

11:51 ↗ adding detail or clarification to that

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

11:56 ↗ use and clear

11:57 ↗ and clarify which sites it applies to

12:08 ↗ thank you planner cody and so

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

12:13 ↗ but before we start

12:15 ↗ um

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

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

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

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

12:25 ↗ and take care of that

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

12:30 ↗ board with uh chair book

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

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

12:39 ↗ board attendees that we have this

12:41 ↗ evening

12:42 ↗ please

12:43 ↗ take yourself off mute and acknowledge

12:46 ↗ your presence when i call your name

12:47 ↗ danielle gibbons

12:49 ↗ president

12:52 ↗ jonathan richardson

12:54 ↗ president

12:56 ↗ uh that concludes park board uh ron

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

13:01 ↗ for the environmental board as well

13:04 ↗ uh no that's okay uh

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

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

13:10 ↗ environmental board thank you

13:14 ↗ thanks stephen

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

13:17 ↗ ahead and call roll

13:18 ↗ danny maiden

13:21 ↗ don mcwilliams

13:24 ↗ yep present

13:26 ↗ rishi hazra has an excused absence

13:28 ↗ cameron fisher has an excused absence

13:31 ↗ laura levaco has excused absence uh

13:34 ↗ nancy davidson

13:36 ↗ yeah

13:38 ↗ dan hens

13:39 ↗ here

13:41 ↗ anne newcomb

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

13:45 ↗ jamie finch has an excused absence

13:49 ↗ tom anderson

13:50 ↗ here

13:52 ↗ syria bella praguetta

13:56 ↗ and janet wahl

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

14:03 ↗ okay thank you

14:04 ↗ all right now for questions and how

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

14:07 ↗ have two boards tonight

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

14:12 ↗ questions please post that you have a

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

14:16 ↗ post the actual question just post that

14:18 ↗ you have a question

14:20 ↗ and

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

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

14:26 ↗ commissioner questions and

14:33 ↗ give it a moment here

14:37 ↗ someone has to have a question

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

14:45 ↗ first person for a question tonight so

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

14:51 ↗ of ties to how this interacts war

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

14:56 ↗ talking about tonight

14:58 ↗ particularly

14:59 ↗ particularly

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

15:03 ↗ provided in terms of

15:05 ↗ how it ties to retaining trees

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

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

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

15:16 ↗ into the community goals of retaining

15:19 ↗ landscaping doing the um training

15:22 ↗ retaining tree canopies

15:24 ↗ maintaining um existing mature trees so

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

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

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

15:35 ↗ focused on protecting the

15:38 ↗ community assets that we have in place

15:40 ↗ at this time

15:45 ↗ should i answer the questions right

15:46 ↗ after their

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

15:55 ↗ the questions after the commissioner's

15:57 ↗ ask

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

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

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

16:06 ↗ i was showing you before

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

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

16:13 ↗ property but

16:15 ↗ the development proposal would be

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

16:19 ↗ tree retention and preservation code and

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

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

16:26 ↗ code in addition to any building

16:28 ↗ standards and

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

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

16:35 ↗ all projects

16:37 ↗ of five or more units

16:39 ↗ and

16:40 ↗ non-residential and multi-family

16:42 ↗ buildings

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

16:47 ↗ of many

16:49 ↗ standards that planners would look at

16:51 ↗ when evaluating a proposal

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

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

16:58 ↗ said it was central issaquah but this

17:00 ↗ would be throughout the city correct

17:03 ↗ so the chapter applies throughout the

17:04 ↗ city and it's um

17:06 ↗ the way that existing code right now

17:09 ↗ works

17:10 ↗ um they there are not um natural

17:13 ↗ amenities standards for non-residential

17:15 ↗ buildings except for central issaquah

17:19 ↗ and in the urban villages so

17:22 ↗ those would remain the same and

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

17:27 ↗ natural amenities requirements to

17:29 ↗ non-residential and use developments

17:32 ↗ outside of central

17:33 ↗ but there's currently natural amenity

17:36 ↗ standards for residential uses all over

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

17:40 ↗ the same

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

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

17:46 ↗ natural amenity spaces throughout the

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

17:51 ↗ central issaquah

17:54 ↗ well the

17:56 ↗ the aspect that is being

17:58 ↗ applied city-wide are these green

18:00 ↗ necklace provisions so

18:03 ↗ those would those would apply outside

18:06 ↗ and inside central issaquah so any

18:08 ↗ properties that are

18:09 ↗ located along trails or parks would be

18:12 ↗ required to provide orientation and in

18:14 ↗ some cases connection to those

18:16 ↗ facilities

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

18:20 ↗ whether to

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

18:25 ↗ retail use like a grocery store

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

18:30 ↗ to provide an amenity space right now

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

18:34 ↗ is

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

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

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

18:42 ↗ is and it wasn't

18:45 ↗ changed in this draft either

18:48 ↗ thank you

18:51 ↗ thank you commissioner davidson and

18:54 ↗ commissioner anderson you have the floor

18:57 ↗ oh yes thank you tom anderson here

19:00 ↗ um

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

19:02 ↗ provision that would provide an

19:04 ↗ incentive for existing developments uh

19:08 ↗ to provide improved trail access i

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

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

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

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

19:18 ↗ there are some major multi-family

19:20 ↗ apartment building uh

19:22 ↗ complexes that uh in their backyard is

19:25 ↗ the rainier trail you know a great

19:27 ↗ resource and uh well humans have found

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

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

19:34 ↗ aligned with these things

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

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

19:42 ↗ any way that we can provide some

19:44 ↗ incentive

19:45 ↗ uh to existing developments to

19:48 ↗ improve this access to this uh

19:51 ↗ tremendous

19:52 ↗ uh green necklace

19:54 ↗ trail resources that we have

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

20:00 ↗ incentives to add connections to

20:02 ↗ existing development

20:04 ↗ that would um

20:06 ↗ that would likely be a program that

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

20:10 ↗ code through the parks department or

20:13 ↗ some other

20:14 ↗ city program

20:16 ↗ um the only

20:18 ↗ the only actions that the land use

20:20 ↗ code uh

20:22 ↗ controls or is applicable applicable

20:24 ↗ applicable to is development and

20:27 ↗ redevelopment and subdivision activities

20:29 ↗ so

20:30 ↗ um

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

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

20:36 ↗ an incentive program was was needed to

20:38 ↗ be established

20:41 ↗ okay thank you

20:44 ↗ thank you commissioner anderson and

20:46 ↗ commissioner milligan you have the floor

20:49 ↗ thank you chair fall nine of milligan

20:50 ↗ here i wanted to ask about the

20:53 ↗ offset for community space by rooftop

20:56 ↗ amenities

20:57 ↗ especially going through the definitions

20:59 ↗ that you provided earlier that

21:01 ↗ amenities are for private use and

21:03 ↗ community spaces for public use

21:06 ↗ i i don't understand

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

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

21:13 ↗ more consistent with the definitions to

21:16 ↗ keep

21:16 ↗ community spaces open the public

21:20 ↗ are you wondering specifically whether

21:22 ↗ rooftop community space is open to the

21:24 ↗ public

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

21:28 ↗ some rooftop amenity space can count

21:32 ↗ against your requirement for community

21:34 ↗ space

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

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

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

21:41 ↗ needs

21:42 ↗ thank you

21:43 ↗ so for the the rooftop amenities space

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

21:48 ↗ space again the community space is

21:51 ↗ intended for public use

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

21:56 ↗ rooftop space it would still be

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

22:01 ↗ could be a

22:02 ↗ a restaurant that has a rooftop area

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

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

22:11 ↗ to that building unless they were using

22:13 ↗ it to fulfill a natural amenity area

22:16 ↗ that was part of their

22:18 ↗ residential

22:19 ↗ requirement or just

22:21 ↗ on their own by their own choice

22:23 ↗ but in order to fulfill the community

22:25 ↗ space obligation

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

22:29 ↗ and also if they do provide

22:32 ↗ community space as a rooftop amenity

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

22:36 ↗ obligations through the rooftop they

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

22:48 ↗ okay thank you commissioner milligan

22:50 ↗ and we're going to move on to

22:51 ↗ commissioner voice you have the floor

22:56 ↗ thank you chairfell am i pronouncing

22:57 ↗ your last name right miss cote

23:00 ↗ cody yes okay hi miss cody

23:03 ↗ um a few questions real quickly under

23:06 ↗ exceptions it writes that this chapter

23:08 ↗ does not apply to residential

23:10 ↗ development redevelopment or subdivision

23:12 ↗ of four or fewer units

23:14 ↗ we've had recent conversations about

23:16 ↗ possibly

23:17 ↗ enlarging a short platform four to nine

23:20 ↗ with that extent would that exception

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

23:24 ↗ plots from four units to nine units

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

23:31 ↗ unit threshold was to remain consistent

23:34 ↗ with the

23:35 ↗ one of the reasons was to remain

23:36 ↗ consistent with that short flat

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

23:42 ↗ subdivision chapter which you haven't

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

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

23:49 ↗ five and that was based on direction

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

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

23:57 ↗ that the intent of

23:59 ↗ choosing that number um

24:01 ↗ was

24:03 ↗ for fewer units uh

24:05 ↗ the scale of that development still it

24:07 ↗ still makes sense to have

24:09 ↗ um

24:11 ↗ the

24:12 ↗ the natural amenity area be provided

24:15 ↗ through setbacks and

24:17 ↗ other

24:20 ↗ lot coverage and other standards that

24:22 ↗ can achieve those

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

24:27 ↗ have a

24:28 ↗ discussion if if that short plotting

24:31 ↗ level was increased

24:33 ↗ because it it would

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

24:36 ↗ standards for when you get into larger

24:39 ↗ unit developments

24:41 ↗ sure

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

24:44 ↗ wondering where the number four came

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

24:47 ↗ discussions about that uh question

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

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

24:56 ↗ c

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

25:01 ↗ page 11 19

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

25:05 ↗ facility selected must be appropriate

25:07 ↗ for the target housing market segment

25:10 ↗ um

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

25:14 ↗ from

25:15 ↗ brand new development brand new condos

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

25:20 ↗ definition who decides what that target

25:22 ↗ segment is

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

25:28 ↗ intent of that standard was

25:31 ↗ trying to recognize that different

25:33 ↗ uh

25:34 ↗ different populations have different

25:36 ↗ recreational

25:38 ↗ needs or desires and so

25:40 ↗ it would be incumbent on uh the

25:43 ↗ developer i suppose in conversation with

25:45 ↗ the city to determine what would be

25:47 ↗ appropriate

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

25:51 ↗ are two and three bedroom units that

25:53 ↗ suggest there could be families perhaps

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

25:58 ↗ possibility

25:59 ↗ um

26:00 ↗ so playground equipment or some some

26:03 ↗ open space for

26:04 ↗ for playing would be appropriate whereas

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

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

26:11 ↗ couples and so that may indicate a

26:13 ↗ different type of amenity but i think

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

26:19 ↗ of the

26:20 ↗ possible combinations of populations and

26:22 ↗ amenities uh just that it should there

26:25 ↗ should be some reason and it should

26:27 ↗ match what their

26:28 ↗ intended um

26:31 ↗ tenancy or users would be

26:34 ↗ right a nursing home you could find

26:36 ↗ probably

26:38 ↗ play school things and gyms both so

26:42 ↗ great thank you

26:45 ↗ thank you commissioner voice

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

26:50 ↗ questions

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

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

26:56 ↗ and

26:58 ↗ we need to keep the

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

27:01 ↗ five minutes so stephen is anyone signed

27:04 ↗ up for public comment on this topic

27:06 ↗ tonight

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

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

27:13 ↗ hands

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

27:16 ↗ seeing

27:17 ↗ any raised hands

27:20 ↗ but we can give them a minute

27:23 ↗ okay i see

27:25 ↗ raised hands with

27:28 ↗ connie marsh

27:29 ↗ soca and then mary lynch

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

27:34 ↗ gonna unmute you now

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

27:38 ↗ show up in just a second

27:43 ↗ okay we see

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

27:46 ↗ raise my hand so

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

27:51 ↗ mountain and the natural context zone

27:56 ↗ being incorporated could address

27:59 ↗ some of my concern with that uh

28:05 ↗ more critical area connections um

28:09 ↗ the language

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

28:14 ↗ assuming that that is going to be

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

28:19 ↗ private

28:21 ↗ parks

28:22 ↗ that are basically deed restricted to b

28:26 ↗ parks

28:27 ↗ yet they are going to have redevelopment

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

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

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

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

28:37 ↗ green space in the middle of centra

28:39 ↗ issaquah and my recollection is it is

28:42 ↗ part of their development agreement

28:44 ↗ and so

28:46 ↗ uh

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

28:50 ↗ going to be developing around that

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

28:53 ↗ around it that you would also

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

29:01 ↗ a park park

29:03 ↗ because

29:04 ↗ it is a

29:06 ↗ private

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

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

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

29:16 ↗ blank walls going over the little park

29:19 ↗ that will

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

29:23 ↗ of this

29:24 ↗ private dedicated green space and how

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

29:30 ↗ is not at all addressed here

29:32 ↗ the

29:33 ↗ green uh necklace map in the park

29:35 ↗ strategic plan is not the map that

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

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

29:43 ↗ valley floor

29:45 ↗ and this conflict is confusing because

29:48 ↗ you are taking the green necklace

29:50 ↗ concept and spreading it all over the

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

29:56 ↗ the central issaquah area and with that

29:59 ↗ conflict

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

30:05 ↗ to implement and enforce because

30:07 ↗ everybody is thinking of different

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

30:12 ↗ for the city-wide

30:15 ↗ uh

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

30:19 ↗ i would focus down on the central

30:21 ↗ issaquah plan area

30:23 ↗ and just called that the green necklace

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

30:27 ↗ park strategic plan and you would still

30:29 ↗ be consistent

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

30:34 ↗ allowing your natural amenities space to

30:37 ↗ be private balconies

30:39 ↗ and um i'm saying no

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

30:45 ↗ natural amenity space should be private

30:48 ↗ balconies on the outsides of buildings

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

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

30:54 ↗ sociable

30:55 ↗ context and unless people are singing

30:57 ↗ opera off their balconies regularly in

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

31:01 ↗ getting dissociability

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

31:07 ↗ might be able to require the acquire

31:09 ↗ those in the building

31:11 ↗ section

31:12 ↗ but

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

31:15 ↗ you

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

31:24 ↗ i'm gonna

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

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

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

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

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

31:39 ↗ either channel 21 or live streaming

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

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

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

31:50 ↗ public or the public comment had already

31:52 ↗ started

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

31:55 ↗ meetings are going to be on

31:57 ↗ these

31:58 ↗ websites and tv channels they ought to

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

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

32:07 ↗ that's just just a comment

32:09 ↗ that's it thank you

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

32:19 ↗ hands for public commenting

32:21 ↗ all right and thank you very much

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

32:25 ↗ leave public comment open until the end

32:27 ↗ of the meeting

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

32:32 ↗ deliberations so

32:34 ↗ with that

32:36 ↗ the

32:37 ↗ park board is going to chair the

32:40 ↗ deliberations

32:42 ↗ and

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

32:45 ↗ mute and turn off their cameras

32:52 ↗ thanks commissioner fall

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

32:57 ↗ so

32:59 ↗ if you could um

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

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

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

33:08 ↗ upon you in order

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

33:14 ↗ and the environmental board

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

33:24 ↗ please go ahead

33:26 ↗ hi nancy davidson with the environmental

33:28 ↗ board

33:29 ↗ my comment is

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

33:33 ↗ section which is more than

33:35 ↗ implementation of the green necklace but

33:37 ↗ it is more to

33:38 ↗ have an urban environment that's

33:40 ↗ saturated within a grave array of green

33:42 ↗ elements

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

33:46 ↗ community and we need to focus on

33:50 ↗ providing these kinds of amenities at

33:52 ↗ areas outside of just the central

33:55 ↗ issaquah area we should be thinking

33:57 ↗ about how the whole community develops

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

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

34:05 ↗ central issaquad because the city is

34:08 ↗ going to change over time and these

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

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

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

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

34:20 ↗ go further than just the central

34:22 ↗ discipline area and really try and focus

34:24 ↗ on the whole community of issaquah from

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

34:29 ↗ around providence point so that we are

34:31 ↗ basically including the whole community

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

34:35 ↗ greener community making it a more

34:37 ↗ inviting community and really think

34:39 ↗ about doing this throughout the whole

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

34:45 ↗ thank you nancy

34:47 ↗ next we have comments from the park

34:49 ↗ board danielle gibbons go ahead danielle

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

34:59 ↗ one

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

35:02 ↗ scattered about in the in the um

35:04 ↗ proposed code um with respect to rooftop

35:08 ↗ um i saw some language that that

35:11 ↗ delineated with

35:13 ↗ some types of activities or amenities

35:15 ↗ that would count

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

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

35:21 ↗ um like active recreation or fields and

35:25 ↗ that is something especially if it was

35:26 ↗ going to be open for community use

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

35:32 ↗ would be permitted um there are fields

35:35 ↗ on top of schools

35:37 ↗ for example in seattle um

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

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

35:46 ↗ deficit of flat

35:48 ↗ open land

35:51 ↗ another

35:53 ↗ um

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

35:59 ↗ we talked about general general

36:02 ↗ amenities

36:03 ↗ so this was in uh

36:06 ↗ article two

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

36:10 ↗ brought forth from

36:13 ↗ the assisted living and senior housing

36:16 ↗ standards

36:17 ↗ and

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

36:22 ↗ requirements as far as minimum size and

36:25 ↗ landscaping

36:26 ↗ did not really apply

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

36:31 ↗ some way

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

36:35 ↗ families so i would just encourage

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

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

36:43 ↗ limiting what goes in

36:46 ↗ because of where the language came from

36:50 ↗ and um

36:54 ↗ let's see the plaza

36:56 ↗ um

36:57 ↗ the plaza language um

37:00 ↗ which was

37:11 ↗ sorry

37:16 ↗ um

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

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

37:24 ↗ um requirements about

37:26 ↗ kind of what that what the maintenance

37:28 ↗ requirements would be and i would really

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

37:33 ↗ um like snow removal and um

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

37:40 ↗ of winter weather

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

37:44 ↗ currently

37:45 ↗ um

37:46 ↗ and

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

37:49 ↗ question there were some areas in the

37:52 ↗ code in this draft that

37:54 ↗ um

37:56 ↗ where i saw some inconsistencies or some

37:58 ↗ missing language and whatnot and i was

38:00 ↗ just wondering what the best like i

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

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

38:06 ↗ questions but who would be the best

38:07 ↗ person to

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

38:15 ↗ uh thanks danielle um

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

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

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

38:26 ↗ have additional comments or questions

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

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

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

38:36 ↗ inquiry

38:39 ↗ so that includes

38:42 ↗ the discussion from the park board and

38:46 ↗ environmental board at this time

38:49 ↗ okay and thank you chair book

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

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

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

39:00 ↗ next topic

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

39:05 ↗ go to

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

39:09 ↗ presenting rights now

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

39:13 ↗ when you're ready and um

39:16 ↗ he's going to move on to the

39:17 ↗ presentation thank you

39:23 ↗ all right can we all

39:24 ↗ all see this

39:29 ↗ not yet

39:39 ↗ how about now

39:43 ↗ great

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

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

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

39:55 ↗ um

39:58 ↗ so i want to start by

40:00 ↗ talking a little bit about the

40:02 ↗ approach that we

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

40:08 ↗ uh nine different

40:11 ↗ um

40:13 ↗ tasks if you will

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

40:17 ↗ landscaping and tree preservation codes

40:20 ↗ out we've done that

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

40:25 ↗ combine the different sections of code

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

40:32 ↗ regulations

40:33 ↗ uh scattered in various places

40:36 ↗ uh municipal code the old town standards

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

40:43 ↗ central is aqua standards so um

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

40:48 ↗ into one hopefully make it more

40:50 ↗ intuitive

40:52 ↗ for both staff and applicants

40:57 ↗ we've

40:58 ↗ adopted a tree canopy approach

41:02 ↗ the recommendation was to use land use

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

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

41:14 ↗ some subsequent slides

41:18 ↗ um

41:19 ↗ apply right tree right place

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

41:25 ↗ uh by expanding the opportunity to uh

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

41:31 ↗ it was previously

41:33 ↗ only allowed for development and

41:36 ↗ redevelopment is

41:37 ↗ it's now available

41:39 ↗ for single-family residences

41:42 ↗ multi-family and

41:44 ↗ commercial properties

41:47 ↗ we've also enhanced our replacement

41:51 ↗ tree regulations

41:53 ↗ um

41:54 ↗ for example by

41:58 ↗ uh required

42:03 ↗ for so for example by requiring tree

42:05 ↗ replacement in situations where it was

42:08 ↗ previously not required um this should

42:11 ↗ hopefully address

42:13 ↗ uh concerns about losing canopy over

42:16 ↗ time

42:18 ↗ um

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

42:22 ↗ that

42:24 ↗ uh

42:25 ↗ arborist

42:27 ↗ credentials needed to be

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

42:33 ↗ addressed this with with the current

42:35 ↗ code

42:36 ↗ we've adjusted the language

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

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

42:44 ↗ there

42:45 ↗ and that

42:47 ↗ establishing receiving sites is going to

42:49 ↗ be critical to the success of the

42:53 ↗ the tree fund

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

43:00 ↗ a mechanism for this

43:03 ↗ we've adopted

43:04 ↗ we are proposing to adopt the cost

43:07 ↗ approach

43:09 ↗ and the trunk formula method

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

43:16 ↗ incorporated into code

43:19 ↗ the work of updating

43:21 ↗ the tree list

43:22 ↗ is

43:24 ↗ another task

43:26 ↗ but uh currently

43:29 ↗ just putting it into code was important

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

43:34 ↗ diffic difficult to implement because um

43:38 ↗ it was largely seen as

43:41 ↗ voluntary

43:44 ↗ um

43:46 ↗ develop more rigorous application and

43:49 ↗ review process to landmark trees this

43:52 ↗ has largely stayed the same

43:54 ↗ um

43:56 ↗ and that's because

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

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

44:03 ↗ 30

44:04 ↗ inches

44:05 ↗ decibel um

44:08 ↗ at diameter at breast height

44:11 ↗ um

44:12 ↗ or greater

44:14 ↗ right now to remove

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

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

44:21 ↗ determined by a

44:24 ↗ certified arborist

44:26 ↗ trained in that

44:28 ↗ assessment

44:30 ↗ and then finally uh to establish a

44:32 ↗ designation for exceptional trees we've

44:34 ↗ opted not to pursue this

44:37 ↗ we looked at exceptional tree

44:39 ↗ regulations in other cities and they

44:42 ↗ look very much

44:44 ↗ like what our heritage trees

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

44:51 ↗ thing about our heritage trees is that

44:54 ↗ there are no regulations in our code

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

44:59 ↗ uh seemingly a heritage tree

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

45:05 ↗ that's that's one of the

45:07 ↗ topics for discussion for tonight

45:09 ↗ hopefully

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

45:17 ↗ going to discuss some of the major

45:19 ↗ changes and then

45:21 ↗ towards the end discuss

45:23 ↗ just highlight some of the

45:25 ↗ other changes but major changes include

45:27 ↗ this the adoption of the tree canopy

45:31 ↗ coverage goals

45:32 ↗ this entirely replaces the minimum tree

45:35 ↗ density in our existing code

45:38 ↗ and then we have

45:40 ↗ proposed a variance procedure to replace

45:42 ↗ our administrative adjustment of

45:45 ↗ standards process

45:52 ↗ so

45:56 ↗ this tree canopy coverage has

45:59 ↗ has been probably the biggest thing that

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

46:03 ↗ definitely raised the most

46:05 ↗ questions

46:06 ↗ um so

46:08 ↗ you know i have

46:10 ↗ three

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

46:14 ↗ that the commissions discuss tonight

46:17 ↗ and this canopy coverage

46:19 ↗ is one of them um

46:22 ↗ i mentioned that this replaces our

46:24 ↗ minimum tree density requirements

46:27 ↗ and

46:28 ↗ in our existing code

46:31 ↗ [Music]

46:32 ↗ it requires a prescribed number of trees

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

46:39 ↗ foot

46:40 ↗ community facility site

46:43 ↗ so it's very prescriptive

46:45 ↗ um

46:46 ↗ based on lot size and land use

46:50 ↗ um

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

46:55 ↗ coverage requirements will

46:58 ↗ offer an improved tool

47:01 ↗ to

47:02 ↗ to allow the city to maintain and

47:05 ↗ enhance canopy coverage

47:09 ↗ while being cognizant of the limitations

47:12 ↗ on tree planning and future development

47:20 ↗ um

47:22 ↗ so i mentioned earlier that in

47:25 ↗ the the gap analysis memo

47:28 ↗ um recommended

47:30 ↗ the use of land use designations

47:34 ↗ um

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

47:39 ↗ because

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

47:44 ↗ canopy assessment that the city had done

47:48 ↗ in 2019

47:50 ↗ it um

47:52 ↗ has these very broad

47:54 ↗ uh zoning designations single-family

47:57 ↗ with no distinction in lot sizes

47:59 ↗ multi-family

48:00 ↗ um there was even a

48:02 ↗ residential

48:04 ↗ uh category which primarily we found out

48:07 ↗ primarily consists of the rally dea area

48:13 ↗ um

48:14 ↗ so after much discussion we determined

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

48:20 ↗ because they might allow for more nuance

48:23 ↗ and might help existing areas retain

48:25 ↗ their uh distinct characters for for

48:28 ↗ example

48:30 ↗ we see that

48:32 ↗ the urban tree canopy percentage in old

48:35 ↗ town is currently 32 percent

48:38 ↗ uh while in

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

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

48:47 ↗ um to create a blanket regulation that

48:50 ↗ says

48:51 ↗ uh

48:53 ↗ single family

48:54 ↗ properties in old town have to do

48:56 ↗ exactly the same thing that single

48:58 ↗ family properties in tiger mountain are

49:00 ↗ doing

49:02 ↗ so we are hopeful that this

49:05 ↗ will be

49:06 ↗ a

49:08 ↗ good good approach

49:17 ↗ um

49:18 ↗ as as part of

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

49:25 ↗ was

49:26 ↗ i reached out to

49:28 ↗ a development review arborist

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

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

49:37 ↗ were asked to look at because they

49:39 ↗ currently use tree canopy coverage

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

49:47 ↗ um arborist on staff

49:49 ↗ and she

49:51 ↗ absolutely recommended

49:53 ↗ canopy over minimum tree density based

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

49:58 ↗ things that i thought was interesting

49:59 ↗ about what she

50:00 ↗ explained was that

50:04 ↗ we should also be

50:06 ↗ focusing on enhancing tree retention and

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

50:14 ↗ um

50:15 ↗ a rigid formula

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

50:21 ↗ discretion

50:22 ↗ um

50:23 ↗ [Music]

50:24 ↗ and

50:25 ↗ arrived at these proposed

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

50:31 ↗ canopy

50:32 ↗ uh possible planting area

50:35 ↗ our very high level understanding of

50:37 ↗ fire breaks

50:40 ↗ and then coming up with some numbers

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

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

50:49 ↗ look like in practice on one site

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

50:54 ↗ mentioned

50:55 ↗ she didn't find that

50:56 ↗ very helpful

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

51:01 ↗ by side of what's

51:05 ↗ in the urban tree canopy assessment

51:08 ↗ which is this table in blue

51:13 ↗ and it's these percentages

51:16 ↗ and

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

51:19 ↗ like

51:20 ↗ with the proposed target so for example

51:24 ↗ um

51:25 ↗ central issaquah has a

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

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

51:38 ↗ so the

51:41 ↗ canopy coverage that we're proposing

51:44 ↗ um

51:45 ↗ while also recognizing that

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

51:51 ↗ our a lot of our growth is

51:53 ↗ we've decided on 35

51:55 ↗ and

51:57 ↗ we took each planning sub area

51:59 ↗ and

52:02 ↗ arrived at figures based on

52:05 ↗ their geography and

52:08 ↗ topography

52:09 ↗ and just our understanding of the

52:12 ↗ applicable uh development regulations in

52:15 ↗ in those areas

52:25 ↗ we received a lot of

52:27 ↗ comments with

52:29 ↗ excuse me

52:35 ↗ we received a lot of comments asking

52:38 ↗ about what tools the city

52:40 ↗ intends to use to measure

52:42 ↗ canopy

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

52:48 ↗ that for large development projects

52:51 ↗ development redevelopment we're going to

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

52:58 ↗ arborist prepare

53:00 ↗ the projections

53:02 ↗ uh for

53:04 ↗ our standard tree removal permit reviews

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

53:11 ↗ family multi-family commercial property

53:13 ↗ owners

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

53:17 ↗ ourselves and

53:18 ↗ we can use uh the city's gis

53:22 ↗ uh king county imap google maps

53:25 ↗ and uh there are several

53:29 ↗ programs out there such as tree plotter

53:40 ↗ so we adopted a variance process and

53:43 ↗ this eliminates our administrative

53:45 ↗ adjustment of standards process the the

53:47 ↗ language in that process

53:50 ↗ um

53:51 ↗ can be vague it can be

53:53 ↗ very difficult to evenly implement so

53:58 ↗ we've adopted

54:00 ↗ this uh

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

54:04 ↗ largely on existing procedures used in

54:08 ↗ redmond and sammamish

54:11 ↗ and it is a little more

54:15 ↗ rigorous

54:16 ↗ um

54:18 ↗ but

54:19 ↗ it also

54:20 ↗ allows us to have a tool

54:23 ↗ that can help us address some challenges

54:26 ↗ there are several instances

54:29 ↗ recently where

54:31 ↗ having this variance process now would

54:33 ↗ be

54:34 ↗ really helpful

54:40 ↗ some of the

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

54:44 ↗ removal notification form

54:47 ↗ and now will require that all tree

54:50 ↗ removal be approved under a tree removal

54:53 ↗ permit

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

54:57 ↗ there's

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

55:00 ↗ removal notification form

55:04 ↗ folks will submit it

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

55:09 ↗ very often the notification form

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

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

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

55:20 ↗ critical area

55:21 ↗ [Music]

55:23 ↗ so we wanted to remove that confusion

55:26 ↗ and just process everything under one

55:29 ↗ permit type

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

55:34 ↗ developed properties

55:36 ↗ the current code allows

55:39 ↗ [Music]

55:40 ↗ develop

55:42 ↗ lots

55:43 ↗ uh based on their size

55:45 ↗ to remove a maximum number of trees

55:49 ↗ without any

55:50 ↗ kind of permit

55:52 ↗ we want to be able to

55:55 ↗ account for tree replanting

55:59 ↗ so

56:00 ↗ everything now again is going to require

56:03 ↗ a tree removal permit

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

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

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

56:14 ↗ example um we've

56:17 ↗ um

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

56:20 ↗ replacement trees

56:23 ↗ uh regulations and then we've

56:26 ↗ consolidated various exemptions into one

56:29 ↗ section that were previously just

56:31 ↗ kind of scattered throughout the code

56:37 ↗ so in my

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

56:44 ↗ i identified tree canopy coverage

56:46 ↗ targets

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

56:51 ↗ discussion items but

56:54 ↗ after

56:55 ↗ reading a lot of the comments and

56:57 ↗ questions

56:58 ↗ that came in from the public

57:02 ↗ i think an important discussion is going

57:04 ↗ to be tracking mechanisms the question

57:06 ↗ has been

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

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

57:12 ↗ been

57:13 ↗ removed

57:15 ↗ how many trees have been replaced

57:18 ↗ what can we expect our canopy coverage

57:20 ↗ to be

57:21 ↗ um

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

57:24 ↗ currently aren't proposing a tracking

57:27 ↗ mechanism

57:28 ↗ uh so

57:31 ↗ after receiving several questions about

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

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

57:41 ↗ my presentation

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

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

57:53 ↗ go ahead and open this up to

57:55 ↗ commissioner questions

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

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

58:00 ↗ question for you

58:02 ↗ so

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

58:08 ↗ as an example

58:09 ↗ canopy coverage 45

58:12 ↗ how are you calculating canopy coverage

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

58:17 ↗ the mountain

58:19 ↗ regional area

58:20 ↗ itself the canopy coverage goal would be

58:24 ↗ applied on a per lot basis

58:28 ↗ um

58:29 ↗ and

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

58:34 ↗ understand this

58:36 ↗ not commercial up in squawk mountain but

58:38 ↗ the these goals apply evenly to

58:40 ↗ commercial

58:42 ↗ multi-family single-family lots

58:46 ↗ so with squawk mountain

58:49 ↗ if the

58:51 ↗ goal is 45

58:54 ↗ then the expectation would be that

58:58 ↗ either existing

59:00 ↗ um

59:01 ↗ a combination of existing

59:03 ↗ and

59:04 ↗ replanted trees

59:06 ↗ uh would meet that 45 percent

59:10 ↗ uh coverage currently

59:13 ↗ um

59:14 ↗ squawk mountain has 63

59:17 ↗ and that's just

59:19 ↗ across uh that planning sub area

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

59:24 ↗ 17

59:26 ↗ um but we've gone with 45

59:29 ↗ recognizing that

59:30 ↗ uh there is we need to make

59:35 ↗ some concessions in for the sake of

59:39 ↗ wildfire safety

59:41 ↗ okay so 45 is the

59:44 ↗ goal 65

59:46 ↗ is the current

59:48 ↗ standard correct

59:51 ↗ correct so in some areas there are

59:54 ↗ we are

59:57 ↗ increasing we are hoping to increase

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

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

1:00:05 ↗ we recognize

1:00:07 ↗ uh

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

1:00:11 ↗ multiple land uses

1:00:13 ↗ and because we are also

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

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

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

1:00:27 ↗ reduced

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

1:00:32 ↗ but

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

1:00:36 ↗ question is

1:00:37 ↗ dealing with

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

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

1:00:43 ↗ of squawk mountain near

1:00:44 ↗ mine hill road

1:00:46 ↗ that may be developed

1:00:49 ↗ they are fully treed so

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

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

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

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

1:01:01 ↗ and if they would

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

1:01:05 ↗ okay

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

1:01:10 ↗ requirements

1:01:12 ↗ [Music]

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

1:01:18 ↗ build

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

1:01:23 ↗ to retain

1:01:25 ↗ 35

1:01:26 ↗ of the total caliber

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

1:01:35 ↗ okay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:01:53 ↗ was my fear thank you

1:01:55 ↗ yeah

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

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

1:02:00 ↗ have questions from commissioner heights

1:02:02 ↗ you have the floor

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

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

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

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

1:02:14 ↗ possible planting areas

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

1:02:17 ↗ specifically curious with the um

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:02:57 ↗ public areas

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

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

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

1:03:10 ↗ the

1:03:11 ↗ uh preparation of the

1:03:14 ↗ tree canopy

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

1:03:19 ↗ area basically took into account

1:03:23 ↗ um

1:03:25 ↗ currently

1:03:26 ↗ green areas that are

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

1:03:32 ↗ impervious surfaces for example

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

1:03:38 ↗ that currently

1:03:39 ↗ do not have trees

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

1:03:47 ↗ the

1:03:47 ↗ in louvre

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

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

1:03:55 ↗ um

1:03:57 ↗ you know one of the

1:03:59 ↗ um

1:04:01 ↗ biggest things that i think

1:04:03 ↗ we

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

1:04:06 ↗ is something that the

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

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

1:04:12 ↗ and preserving

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

1:04:17 ↗ one right safe cougar mountain

1:04:20 ↗ that was a big

1:04:22 ↗ deal right

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

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

1:04:30 ↗ um

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

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

1:04:37 ↗ receiving sites and establishing those

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

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

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

1:04:47 ↗ for

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

1:04:51 ↗ that's why

1:04:52 ↗ um

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

1:04:58 ↗ um

1:05:00 ↗ uses for the tree fund

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

1:05:05 ↗ yeah thanks dean

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

1:05:09 ↗ heights and commissioner milligan you

1:05:11 ↗ have the floor

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

1:05:15 ↗ milligan

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

1:05:19 ↗ couple questions um

1:05:21 ↗ one is at the

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

1:05:25 ↗ you expanded the

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

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

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

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

1:05:36 ↗ and then

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

1:05:40 ↗ within the sub area

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

1:05:45 ↗ better does this mean that

1:05:47 ↗ if i want to remove

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

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

1:05:55 ↗ the um

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

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

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

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

1:06:05 ↗ percent

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

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

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

1:06:14 ↗ would we approve that

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

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

1:06:21 ↗ better

1:06:22 ↗ sure so

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

1:06:26 ↗ discussed it a little bit

1:06:28 ↗ right now

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

1:06:33 ↗ use it entire entirely

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

1:06:39 ↗ meant by enhancing

1:06:41 ↗ um was that

1:06:43 ↗ in the current code the

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

1:06:49 ↗ not much more than a blurb

1:06:52 ↗ [Music]

1:06:53 ↗ so we've been

1:06:57 ↗ purposeful about

1:06:59 ↗ um

1:07:00 ↗ which department is administering the

1:07:05 ↗ uh tree fund

1:07:06 ↗ um

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

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

1:07:13 ↗ and they didn't say

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

1:07:17 ↗ lou fund who's

1:07:19 ↗ who is um

1:07:20 ↗ qualified

1:07:22 ↗ to pay

1:07:23 ↗ to cut down trees

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

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

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

1:07:32 ↗ direction

1:07:33 ↗ um

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

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

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

1:07:44 ↗ the code but

1:07:45 ↗ you are

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

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

1:07:54 ↗ um

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

1:07:59 ↗ poked on this a little but

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

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

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

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

1:08:15 ↗ removed it's because they

1:08:17 ↗ aren't in the right place

1:08:20 ↗ um

1:08:21 ↗ so

1:08:22 ↗ we recognize that

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

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

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

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

1:08:37 ↗ would qualify

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

1:08:42 ↗ and they cannot plant offsite

1:08:47 ↗ it was previously only

1:08:50 ↗ applied to development and redevelopment

1:08:53 ↗ projects but

1:08:55 ↗ now it's been expanded to

1:08:58 ↗ apply to

1:09:00 ↗ um

1:09:02 ↗ to

1:09:03 ↗ already developed lots

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

1:09:12 ↗ percent is that's um

1:09:15 ↗ for our

1:09:16 ↗ tree retention requirements and that

1:09:20 ↗ applies to development and redevelopment

1:09:25 ↗ and the

1:09:27 ↗ off-site

1:09:29 ↗ tree

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

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

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

1:09:41 ↗ um

1:09:42 ↗ folks who cannot meet their

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

1:09:49 ↗ okay thank you

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

1:09:55 ↗ commissioner milligan and commissioner

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

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

1:10:02 ↗ 41

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

1:10:05 ↗ behind

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

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

1:10:11 ↗ anderson environmental board a few

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

1:10:16 ↗ outdoor lighting

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

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

1:10:23 ↗ ordinance

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

1:10:28 ↗ party that some municipalities are

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

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

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

1:10:36 ↗ going on in the tree canopy

1:10:39 ↗ world where

1:10:40 ↗ municipalities are

1:10:42 ↗ taking

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

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

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

1:10:50 ↗ to align with lake city um

1:10:53 ↗ or lake forest park

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

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

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

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

1:11:04 ↗ commonality across

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

1:11:10 ↗ like that going on

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

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

1:11:18 ↗ um

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

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

1:11:24 ↗ lake forest park

1:11:26 ↗ and uh snohomish county

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

1:11:32 ↗ to to look at but we

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

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

1:11:42 ↗ um

1:11:43 ↗ in in this case

1:11:45 ↗ there's you know

1:11:47 ↗ a a bit of plagiarism

1:11:51 ↗ if

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

1:11:55 ↗ and um

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

1:11:59 ↗ working

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

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

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

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

1:12:13 ↗ is all about development and

1:12:15 ↗ redevelopment and the regulations that

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

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

1:12:22 ↗ city code that affects

1:12:25 ↗ the homeowners

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

1:12:30 ↗ developed but just providing incentive

1:12:32 ↗ to

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

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

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

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

1:12:44 ↗ installed base of uh

1:12:47 ↗ housing and commercial

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

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

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

1:12:57 ↗ canopy coverage on their existing

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

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

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

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

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

1:13:10 ↗ aware of

1:13:13 ↗ um

1:13:15 ↗ one of the

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

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

1:13:22 ↗ mention incentives and

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

1:13:26 ↗ in the past was

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

1:13:32 ↗ above their tree canopy

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

1:13:38 ↗ um

1:13:39 ↗ you know pay them

1:13:41 ↗ um

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

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

1:13:46 ↗ anything

1:13:47 ↗ like that

1:13:49 ↗ um but i also heard you say

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

1:13:55 ↗ education

1:13:56 ↗ and one of the um

1:14:00 ↗ proposed programs for

1:14:02 ↗ the use of the

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

1:14:10 ↗ um

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

1:14:14 ↗ being able to

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

1:14:20 ↗ outside consultant that

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

1:14:26 ↗ to the community

1:14:30 ↗ okay good thank you

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

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

1:14:37 ↗ that's a great use

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

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

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

1:14:48 ↗ thank you and you come here

1:14:51 ↗ um so i am wondering

1:14:54 ↗ when

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

1:14:57 ↗ somebody takes one down

1:14:59 ↗ i didn't notice

1:15:01 ↗ is there a time frame

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

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

1:15:08 ↗ need to replace it in

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

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

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

1:15:18 ↗ the

1:15:19 ↗ there currently

1:15:21 ↗ is not um

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

1:15:27 ↗ replanting

1:15:29 ↗ um

1:15:30 ↗ what we

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

1:15:34 ↗ um

1:15:35 ↗ six months

1:15:37 ↗ within the time of

1:15:40 ↗ replanting is typically going to

1:15:42 ↗ coincide with the approval of

1:15:46 ↗ a permit

1:15:48 ↗ so at permit issuance

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

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

1:15:57 ↗ draft code does

1:15:59 ↗ uh include language allowing

1:16:02 ↗ um

1:16:04 ↗ staff to

1:16:05 ↗ extend that

1:16:08 ↗ to ensure that there are

1:16:11 ↗ that the

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

1:16:15 ↗ most optimal conditions

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

1:16:23 ↗ quickie um i didn't notice

1:16:26 ↗ lidar in your measurements

1:16:29 ↗ uh plans

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

1:16:32 ↗ about adding

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

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

1:16:40 ↗ have thought of that

1:16:41 ↗ um

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

1:16:47 ↗ my radar now so you know

1:16:50 ↗ we're we're still exploring

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

1:16:54 ↗ able to use both to

1:16:57 ↗ measure existing and to project

1:17:00 ↗ great thank you

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

1:17:07 ↗ commissioner newcomb and

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

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

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

1:17:17 ↗ question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:17:42 ↗ lawn

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

1:17:49 ↗ um

1:17:50 ↗ no heritage tree

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

1:17:54 ↗ existing code

1:17:56 ↗ um and

1:17:58 ↗ we we don't have

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

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

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

1:18:10 ↗ understand it

1:18:13 ↗ something that

1:18:16 ↗ a resident

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

1:18:20 ↗ heritage tree

1:18:22 ↗ based on certain

1:18:24 ↗ factors um

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

1:18:30 ↗ discussion was hopefully you know

1:18:33 ↗ should we be

1:18:35 ↗ adopting

1:18:37 ↗ um

1:18:38 ↗ that

1:18:40 ↗ process

1:18:41 ↗ into our code

1:18:44 ↗ that nomination process

1:18:46 ↗ and

1:18:47 ↗ um

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:19:05 ↗ my property

1:19:08 ↗ the short answer is no

1:19:11 ↗ you would need

1:19:13 ↗ right now tree removal without

1:19:16 ↗ let me clarify

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

1:19:21 ↗ measures six inches

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

1:19:27 ↗ is considered a

1:19:30 ↗ significant tree

1:19:31 ↗ uh

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

1:19:34 ↗ significant trees

1:19:36 ↗ on your property or

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

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

1:19:47 ↗ [Music]

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

1:19:51 ↗ was on policing

1:19:53 ↗ um we don't

1:19:56 ↗ we we rely largely on

1:19:58 ↗ um

1:20:00 ↗ notification from the public

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

1:20:05 ↗ they have a permit

1:20:08 ↗ um but we are not actively

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

1:20:13 ↗ cutting down trees

1:20:19 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:20:34 ↗ topic

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

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

1:20:40 ↗ would like to comment and

1:20:42 ↗ i'm going to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:21:08 ↗ got a very large garden

1:21:10 ↗ and uh tree canopy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:21:49 ↗ needs our own needs so

1:21:51 ↗ tree canopy would

1:21:53 ↗ potentially could

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

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

1:22:00 ↗ um

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

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

1:22:06 ↗ places or perhaps

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

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

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

1:22:17 ↗ would work but um

1:22:19 ↗ let's um

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

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

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

1:22:28 ↗ not being dependent upon

1:22:30 ↗ coal burned in

1:22:32 ↗ wyoming or montana

1:22:35 ↗ thank you

1:22:41 ↗ okay i see

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

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

1:22:48 ↗ make you a panelist

1:22:54 ↗ hi connie marsh again

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

1:22:58 ↗ exemption in there

1:23:00 ↗ uh

1:23:01 ↗ but

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:23:17 ↗ much on it now that whole

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

1:23:22 ↗ front of tibbetts valley park

1:23:25 ↗ i i think

1:23:27 ↗ it's not a heritage tree

1:23:30 ↗ but what it is

1:23:32 ↗ is it's a

1:23:33 ↗ it's that

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

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

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

1:23:43 ↗ so

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

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

1:23:49 ↗ take down trees

1:23:51 ↗ and they're

1:23:53 ↗ exempt

1:23:54 ↗ from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:24:38 ↗ of our larger

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

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

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

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

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

1:24:53 ↗ you to say that we do

1:24:55 ↗ need to

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

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

1:25:03 ↗ um

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:25:16 ↗ we have the canopy now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:25:42 ↗ mechanism

1:25:44 ↗ is

1:25:45 ↗ is is

1:25:46 ↗ it's gonna cost some money

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

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

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

1:25:55 ↗ you aren't going to get it

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

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

1:26:02 ↗ could read

1:26:03 ↗ and so i really appreciate

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

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

1:26:09 ↗ seemingly contradictory language i just

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

1:26:22 ↗ okay we have

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

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

1:26:32 ↗ panelist

1:26:35 ↗ okay this

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

1:26:40 ↗ support what connie said because

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

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

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

1:26:50 ↗ actually done with developers

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

1:26:58 ↗ right away

1:26:59 ↗ the city

1:27:01 ↗ did not

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

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

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

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

1:27:13 ↗ for shade for houses

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

1:27:18 ↗ normally would have been protected

1:27:20 ↗ um had no shade

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

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

1:27:27 ↗ mitigation

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

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

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

1:27:38 ↗ trees are going to go away

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

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

1:27:45 ↗ canopy

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

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

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

1:27:54 ↗ canopy

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

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

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

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

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

1:28:10 ↗ or you know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:28:34 ↗ protect those trees going forward

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

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

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

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

1:28:48 ↗ and redone that stream now

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

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

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

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

1:29:00 ↗ come back and replant that

1:29:02 ↗ there's there's no um

1:29:05 ↗ no accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:29:22 ↗ projects to protect trees

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

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

1:29:30 ↗ i've seen

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

1:29:33 ↗ way of tracking

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

1:29:37 ↗ supposed to replant

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

1:29:41 ↗ that it's replanted

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

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

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

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

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

1:30:08 ↗ okay we have

1:30:11 ↗ ann fletcher next

1:30:13 ↗ and i'm going to

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

1:30:25 ↗ hi can you hear me

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

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

1:30:33 ↗ action issaquah chapter

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

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

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

1:30:42 ↗ title 18 natural environment

1:30:44 ↗ clearly improvements are being made

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

1:30:49 ↗ for climate action

1:30:51 ↗ are the codes strong enough

1:30:53 ↗ to meet crucial environmental

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

1:30:58 ↗ adopted

1:30:59 ↗ within the next decade even

1:31:03 ↗ overall

1:31:05 ↗ oversight and tracking

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

1:31:10 ↗ needs to improve

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

1:31:13 ↗ several other people

1:31:15 ↗ but to ensure

1:31:17 ↗ the needed strength

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

1:31:23 ↗ built-in

1:31:24 ↗ requirements for measurement monitoring

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

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

1:31:30 ↗ brought up

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

1:31:35 ↗ department plans however plans

1:31:38 ↗ administrations departments and staff

1:31:40 ↗ come and go

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

1:31:45 ↗ new information becomes available

1:31:48 ↗ and

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

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

1:31:55 ↗ to which everyone must attend

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

1:32:01 ↗ practices

1:32:02 ↗ that enable the implementation for this

1:32:05 ↗ to really happen

1:32:07 ↗ at an open house on tuesday i learned

1:32:09 ↗ that this code

1:32:11 ↗ proposed code does not ensure these

1:32:13 ↗ mechanisms

1:32:15 ↗ now this code would require or could

1:32:17 ↗ require reallocation or additional

1:32:19 ↗ resources as p as people have brought up

1:32:23 ↗ yet

1:32:24 ↗ community members are here to let boards

1:32:26 ↗ commissions and council know

1:32:28 ↗ that

1:32:29 ↗ what our priorities are so that the

1:32:32 ↗ budget may reflect them

1:32:34 ↗ so

1:32:35 ↗ one of these priorities is having

1:32:38 ↗ code that requires these tracking

1:32:40 ↗ mechanisms

1:32:42 ↗ now we're not talking about amenities

1:32:44 ↗ here we're talking about real

1:32:45 ↗ consequences to basic health and safety

1:32:48 ↗ the best available science is telling us

1:32:50 ↗ what we do in the next eight years could

1:32:52 ↗ be crucial for our well-being

1:32:56 ↗ council is the final determiner of

1:32:58 ↗ whether these mechanisms should be in

1:33:00 ↗ the code or not

1:33:02 ↗ when the council adopted the climate

1:33:04 ↗ action plan council members spoke to

1:33:06 ↗ having the implementation work

1:33:08 ↗ and having it really work in contrast to

1:33:11 ↗ the past plans

1:33:13 ↗ i think they would be interested in a

1:33:14 ↗ code that does just that

1:33:17 ↗ if they don't want to be tied to this

1:33:19 ↗ code because it has budget implications

1:33:21 ↗ and that's their decision

1:33:22 ↗ but i think it should be presented to

1:33:24 ↗ them as a possible way to meet their

1:33:26 ↗ needs and the priorities of the

1:33:28 ↗ community

1:33:30 ↗ a specific example of this is the tree

1:33:32 ↗ canopy code which others have brought up

1:33:34 ↗ and i know you're short on time so i'm

1:33:35 ↗ not going to go into that in detail but

1:33:37 ↗ you can see the connection with

1:33:40 ↗ baseline

1:33:41 ↗ the trees we have now replanting trees

1:33:44 ↗ that are going to take 30 years

1:33:46 ↗ to become

1:33:48 ↗ the same tree canopy that they are

1:33:50 ↗ replacing

1:33:51 ↗ and the fact that we need that canopy

1:33:53 ↗ sooner

1:33:54 ↗ and how is that going to affect the 55

1:33:57 ↗ percent if we're not tracking this we're

1:34:00 ↗ not going to reach that very important

1:34:02 ↗ goal

1:34:05 ↗ so

1:34:06 ↗ i think that's all i have to say thank

1:34:07 ↗ you very much

1:34:13 ↗ thank you ann and then the last comment

1:34:15 ↗ we have is from steve steve i'm going to

1:34:19 ↗ unmute you now and make you a panelist

1:34:23 ↗ okay you're being a little overlapping

1:34:27 ↗ yes

1:34:28 ↗ go ahead

1:34:33 ↗ hi this is steve can you hear me okay

1:34:36 ↗ yes we can thank you

1:34:42 ↗ steve can you hear me

1:34:50 ↗ i'm going to send steve a chat really

1:34:53 ↗ quick

1:34:54 ↗ to let him know that

1:34:55 ↗ we can hear him

1:35:05 ↗ it says

1:35:07 ↗ steve if you can hear me and i'll go

1:35:09 ↗ ahead with your public comment

1:35:20 ↗ so anyway my public comment is this and

1:35:23 ↗ i don't want to repeat whatever we sent

1:35:24 ↗ in because i don't want to take any more

1:35:26 ↗ time than needed

1:35:27 ↗ uh several thousand people have spoken

1:35:29 ↗ about this

1:35:30 ↗ uh one i'd like to see some more verbage

1:35:33 ↗ or

1:35:34 ↗ terminology added about the idea of what

1:35:36 ↗ makes a project feasible and whether or

1:35:38 ↗ not it's okay to remove

1:35:40 ↗ or decide that only the developer can

1:35:42 ↗ simply say that it's not feasible and

1:35:43 ↗ that will actually move all the trees or

1:35:45 ↗ more trees than

1:35:47 ↗ we would like

1:35:48 ↗ uh i would like to see some additional

1:35:50 ↗ constraints placed on

1:35:53 ↗ he and knew of

1:35:54 ↗ so that you don't just

1:35:56 ↗ remove old groceries or trees that have

1:35:59 ↗ carbon sequestration

1:36:01 ↗ uh and some of the old agents would be

1:36:03 ↗ uh third i'd like to see more verbiage

1:36:06 ↗ that

1:36:07 ↗ talks about if they do do plantings

1:36:09 ↗ there's some bonding mechanisms so that

1:36:11 ↗ those trees that are replanted

1:36:13 ↗ are

1:36:14 ↗ nurtured and maintained to make sure

1:36:16 ↗ that they're growing not just simply

1:36:17 ↗ planting the trees if there's some

1:36:19 ↗ mechanism in the track and make sure

1:36:20 ↗ that those

1:36:21 ↗ get maintained for more than three years

1:36:24 ↗ because the

1:36:26 ↗ the cost of the bonding is not just the

1:36:28 ↗ cost of the tree refinement but it's

1:36:30 ↗ true cost of the public benefit of loss

1:36:32 ↗ with those

1:36:33 ↗ these are decent functionalities so i

1:36:35 ↗ think that needs to be looked at further

1:36:41 ↗ i think that we need to look at tree

1:36:42 ↗ canopy

1:36:43 ↗ both as

1:36:45 ↗ something in a prescriptive terms

1:36:50 ↗ again they understand i'm allowed to

1:36:54 ↗ keep accidental trees and that's how

1:36:55 ↗ they relate to this outsourcing continue

1:36:57 ↗ to look at trees from an ecosystem

1:36:59 ↗ perspective

1:37:00 ↗ perspective

1:37:04 ↗ especially along rivers and streams and

1:37:06 ↗ that type of thing so we're not just

1:37:08 ↗ looking at the water quality but the

1:37:09 ↗ whole ecosystem that's provided with

1:37:11 ↗ that and

1:37:13 ↗ so i think that means some broader that

1:37:16 ↗ we're not just

1:37:17 ↗ moving an existing standards but we're

1:37:19 ↗ looking we're asking what types of

1:37:20 ↗ standards

1:37:21 ↗ could be implemented

1:37:38 ↗ great thank you steve

1:37:43 ↗ chairfall that is all the public comment

1:37:51 ↗ okay and thank you very much uh stephen

1:37:53 ↗ for public comment and we're going to go

1:37:55 ↗ ahead and

1:37:56 ↗ move this over to uh commissioner

1:37:58 ↗ comments

1:38:00 ↗ and so uh

1:38:03 ↗ chair book would you like to go ahead

1:38:05 ↗ and take over from here for

1:38:07 ↗ deliberations

1:38:11 ↗ okay thank you commissioner fall

1:38:14 ↗ um it's time for comments from the park

1:38:17 ↗ board members and environmental board

1:38:20 ↗ members that are present

1:38:22 ↗ uh please uh put the drop down at

1:38:25 ↗ everyone and put in that you have a

1:38:27 ↗ comment and i will call upon you

1:38:31 ↗ and um

1:38:33 ↗ first comment

1:38:36 ↗ actually i'm going to ask a question to

1:38:38 ↗ danielle since she put in some

1:38:42 ↗ text here as a comment danielle would

1:38:44 ↗ you like me to read this or do you want

1:38:46 ↗ me to read this

1:38:48 ↗ about heritage trees oh

1:38:51 ↗ i'm happy to just explain it so

1:38:53 ↗ one of the things that the park board

1:38:56 ↗ does is serves as um

1:38:58 ↗ as a tree board every it's i think we're

1:39:01 ↗ supposed to be doing it like every year

1:39:03 ↗ um and that's in connection with

1:39:05 ↗ issaquah being a tree city usa city and

1:39:10 ↗ um

1:39:11 ↗ those heritage trees are

1:39:13 ↗ nominated by either members of the

1:39:15 ↗ public or um or city staff or we used to

1:39:18 ↗ have an arborist who would do it

1:39:21 ↗ and then are designated as heritage

1:39:24 ↗ trees

1:39:25 ↗ my understanding is that those heritage

1:39:26 ↗ trees as current

1:39:28 ↗ in their um

1:39:30 ↗ currently

1:39:31 ↗ the designation as a heritage tree does

1:39:33 ↗ not preclude that tree from

1:39:35 ↗ being removed at a later date so it's

1:39:37 ↗ not a permanent designation um but

1:39:40 ↗ that's just i just wanted to throw that

1:39:42 ↗ in the chat just since there seemed to

1:39:43 ↗ be a question about

1:39:45 ↗ heritage trees

1:39:48 ↗ thank you danielle

1:39:49 ↗ next we have a comment from don

1:39:52 ↗ mcgillians from the environmental board

1:39:55 ↗ go ahead don

1:39:56 ↗ hi donna williams from the environmental

1:39:58 ↗ board so two comments um first off just

1:40:01 ↗ to staff i would encourage you to look

1:40:03 ↗ for a arborist certification for your

1:40:05 ↗ arborist that you're hiring out there or

1:40:07 ↗ that are signing off on these plans you

1:40:10 ↗ can look to city of kirkland as a good

1:40:12 ↗ example of that where they have to go

1:40:14 ↗ through a training course to learn your

1:40:15 ↗ code before they can actually work for

1:40:17 ↗ the city or be representatives of the

1:40:19 ↗ developer

1:40:20 ↗ and then uh comment about you guys not

1:40:23 ↗ having an arborist i'm kind of disturbed

1:40:24 ↗ by that you've been a tree city since

1:40:27 ↗ the early 90s and if i heard it right

1:40:29 ↗ you don't have an arborist or a city

1:40:31 ↗ forester on staff

1:40:33 ↗ so who's managing

1:40:35 ↗ the trees in issaquah so i don't expect

1:40:38 ↗ you to answer that i would encourage the

1:40:40 ↗ boards and the staff to

1:40:42 ↗ raise that issue and

1:40:44 ↗ [Music]

1:40:45 ↗ uh

1:40:46 ↗ be proponents for hiring an arborist in

1:40:48 ↗ the future in the next budget cycle or

1:40:50 ↗ so

1:40:51 ↗ that's all thank you

1:40:53 ↗ thank you don

1:40:55 ↗ next comment is from dan

1:40:58 ↗ from the environmental board go ahead

1:40:59 ↗ dan

1:41:01 ↗ thanks brad dan hintz environmental

1:41:03 ↗ board i'll just quickly amplify don's

1:41:05 ↗ comments that was definitely one thing i

1:41:06 ↗ wanted to mention and it seems like

1:41:08 ↗ having an arborshon staff would be a

1:41:10 ↗ priority i think that certainly ties

1:41:12 ↗ into some of these desires around some

1:41:13 ↗ more of the on the ground tracking so

1:41:16 ↗ for me the tracking there's the kind of

1:41:18 ↗ high level airplane view and i

1:41:20 ↗ definitely want to kind of amplify and

1:41:22 ↗ newcomb's comment earlier about lidar

1:41:24 ↗ being a really really good tool for

1:41:26 ↗ you know both tree canopy coverage but

1:41:28 ↗ also tree canopy height you can get some

1:41:30 ↗ really really neat data which speaks you

1:41:32 ↗ know to carbon sequestration and other

1:41:34 ↗ you know environmental benefits of

1:41:35 ↗ canopy that you know big difference

1:41:37 ↗ between 10 foot tall trees and 100 plus

1:41:39 ↗ foot tall trees so i think there's

1:41:41 ↗ really neat opportunities there and then

1:41:43 ↗ yes having someone on the ground that's

1:41:44 ↗ maybe a little bit more accountable for

1:41:46 ↗ tracking uh the success of these trees

1:41:48 ↗ plantings how the uh tree mitigation

1:41:50 ↗ fund will be spent and used and um

1:41:53 ↗ i guess connie mentioned some of her

1:41:55 ↗ comments you know what what does

1:41:56 ↗ maintenance of these tree replantings

1:41:58 ↗ look like who's accountable for for you

1:42:00 ↗ know kind of trying to follow up on that

1:42:03 ↗ um

1:42:04 ↗ two more hopefully quick comments uh on

1:42:06 ↗ the um preferred or the master tree list

1:42:09 ↗ i know i think daniel mentioned that

1:42:10 ↗ that's gonna be updated i won't go in to

1:42:13 ↗ start listing the half dozen or so trees

1:42:16 ↗ on the preferred list that i don't think

1:42:17 ↗ should be on the preferred list i would

1:42:19 ↗ be honored and super happy to chat or

1:42:22 ↗ consult on that when that gets updated

1:42:24 ↗ for instance norway maple is on both the

1:42:26 ↗ preferred and non-preferred lists

1:42:28 ↗ currently so there's some discrepancies

1:42:30 ↗ some things that i think could be

1:42:31 ↗ considered to remove from the preferred

1:42:33 ↗ list i'd be considered if there would be

1:42:34 ↗ a little bit more

1:42:35 ↗ strength to the non-preferred list

1:42:37 ↗ versus being recommended not to use

1:42:39 ↗ versus actually being

1:42:41 ↗ you know disallowed to be used and

1:42:43 ↗ replanting efforts throughout the city

1:42:45 ↗ so i think there's a lot of potential

1:42:46 ↗ there and it's exciting to hear that

1:42:48 ↗ that should be moving forward and very

1:42:49 ↗ much a volunteer help on that um if that

1:42:52 ↗ there'd be interest there the last thing

1:42:54 ↗ i'll say that i know has come up from

1:42:55 ↗ too is you know i've been trying to read

1:42:58 ↗ uh you know a little bit more about the

1:42:59 ↗ the trunk method for

1:43:01 ↗ evaluation of trees i'm assuming that

1:43:03 ↗ will inform some of the costs that go

1:43:05 ↗ into these funds uh the in-lieu funds

1:43:08 ↗ um my best understand is it is valuing

1:43:10 ↗ current trees you know based on size

1:43:13 ↗ location species condition it doesn't

1:43:16 ↗ really have the temporal value or the

1:43:18 ↗ temporal loss of the tree that gets cut

1:43:20 ↗ down today and replaced you know as we

1:43:22 ↗ i've heard a lot of 30-year comments on

1:43:24 ↗ here

1:43:24 ↗ from connie and anne and i would say

1:43:26 ↗ especially for our conifers we're

1:43:28 ↗ talking 50 to 100 years before we're

1:43:29 ↗ really regaining some of those values

1:43:31 ↗ around uh carbon storage around rain

1:43:34 ↗ interception air pollution so

1:43:37 ↗ i would even argue there's there's a

1:43:38 ↗ longer time frame before we're recouping

1:43:40 ↗ some of those uh benefits of replanted

1:43:42 ↗ trees from trees lost so

1:43:45 ↗ i i don't know the trunk method seems

1:43:46 ↗ solid i i'm really curious to learn more

1:43:48 ↗ about it but i i feel like it still

1:43:49 ↗ doesn't uh incorporate that um

1:43:52 ↗ time loss value of tree cut down versus

1:43:54 ↗ tree planted today that's you know 30 50

1:43:57 ↗ or 100 years from maturity so

1:43:59 ↗ yeah thank you

1:44:03 ↗ uh thank you for that dan and next we

1:44:05 ↗ have a comment from tom anderson go

1:44:09 ↗ ahead tom

1:44:11 ↗ ah thank you chair book tom anderson

1:44:13 ↗ environmental board

1:44:17 ↗ so i know this is apart from development

1:44:19 ↗ this code is all about development and

1:44:21 ↗ redevelopment and it is my my feeling

1:44:25 ↗ though that to

1:44:26 ↗ um

1:44:28 ↗ there needs to be a public education

1:44:30 ↗ element to this to accomplish our

1:44:32 ↗ overall goals that we're striving for

1:44:35 ↗ and

1:44:36 ↗ so somewhere in the city's program

1:44:39 ↗ public education to teach people that

1:44:41 ↗ trees are our friends for a variety of

1:44:44 ↗ reasons

1:44:47 ↗ related to climate change and other

1:44:49 ↗ things and help people um

1:44:53 ↗ improve their canopy coverage to get

1:44:55 ↗ with the program and this is needs to be

1:44:58 ↗ a part of the overall strategy it's not

1:45:00 ↗ the strategy it's just part of the

1:45:02 ↗ overall strategy and just focusing on

1:45:04 ↗ development and redevelopment that won't

1:45:06 ↗ get us there thank you that's all i had

1:45:10 ↗ thank you for that comment tom

1:45:12 ↗ next up from the environmental board we

1:45:15 ↗ have a comment from nancy davidson go

1:45:17 ↗ ahead nancy

1:45:18 ↗ thank you very much um

1:45:20 ↗ nancy davidson environmental board

1:45:23 ↗ you know in the icap the city set a goal

1:45:26 ↗ of getting to 55 percent of total it's

1:45:29 ↗ called acreage covered by tree canopy by

1:45:32 ↗ 2035 which is a pretty ambitious goal

1:45:35 ↗ and it's something that we're really

1:45:36 ↗ working hard to try and achieve

1:45:38 ↗ but it's apparent that the mature trees

1:45:40 ↗ that we have in our community can't be

1:45:42 ↗ replaced with trees that will only

1:45:43 ↗ provide that kind of same coverage in

1:45:46 ↗ uh 30 40 or 80 years as dan mentioned

1:45:49 ↗ earlier so we need to find a way to

1:45:53 ↗ increase that canopy if we're cutting

1:45:54 ↗ down a tree in a more

1:45:56 ↗ quick fashion but one of the things that

1:45:58 ↗ i think is really important is tracking

1:46:01 ↗ how how many trees are removed and how

1:46:03 ↗ many trees are planted

1:46:04 ↗ and the reason i say that is it's pretty

1:46:07 ↗ easy to say that let's remove a tree

1:46:09 ↗ from a park or a tree from a public

1:46:10 ↗ right-of-way but we need to make sure

1:46:13 ↗ that every time we remove a tree we're

1:46:15 ↗ tracking it so we can track how we're

1:46:17 ↗ doing to achieving our icap goal which

1:46:19 ↗ is the climate action plan goal set by

1:46:21 ↗ the city and the and the council so i

1:46:24 ↗ would encourage us to really be looking

1:46:26 ↗ at um trying to track that as stated by

1:46:29 ↗ others and that we're really trying to

1:46:31 ↗ find a way to increase our coverage of

1:46:34 ↗ the canopy not just the number of trees

1:46:38 ↗ that's it thank you

1:46:40 ↗ thank you for that nancy

1:46:42 ↗ um i'm gonna just quickly read a little

1:46:45 ↗ comment from jeff watling here

1:46:47 ↗ lidar was used during recent tree canopy

1:46:50 ↗ study and was very instructive and

1:46:52 ↗ beneficial in that work um

1:46:54 ↗ just a little experiential

1:46:56 ↗ thing here that supports earlier

1:46:58 ↗ comments about lidar and its advantages

1:47:01 ↗ next we have a quick question from

1:47:03 ↗ danielle givens from the park board go

1:47:05 ↗ ahead danielle

1:47:09 ↗ no you can skip me i'm gonna follow up

1:47:11 ↗ directly with staff thanks

1:47:13 ↗ okay thanks danielle

1:47:18 ↗ uh looks like that conclude i'm gonna

1:47:20 ↗ just add one thing time is short

1:47:23 ↗ i would like for us to continue on here

1:47:26 ↗ until we conclude this this evening

1:47:29 ↗ i'll leave that up to ron

1:47:32 ↗ my only luck comment just to support

1:47:34 ↗ everybody is tracking tracking

1:47:36 ↗ tracking accountability accountability

1:47:38 ↗ accountability you know you can have a

1:47:39 ↗ whole bunch of

1:47:41 ↗ codes written up but if you don't keep

1:47:42 ↗ people accountable for them they're

1:47:44 ↗ they're fairly meaningless

1:47:46 ↗ i i think that there needs to be a good

1:47:48 ↗ strategy in place for accountability

1:47:50 ↗ and follow-up on these issues and

1:47:53 ↗ especially with the tree contractors who

1:47:56 ↗ are going to be primarily doing a lot of

1:47:58 ↗ the

1:47:58 ↗ tree removals

1:48:01 ↗ i think that that concludes everything

1:48:04 ↗ from the park board and uh

1:48:07 ↗ environmental board so back to you

1:48:09 ↗ commissioner fall

1:48:11 ↗ all right thank you very much uh chair

1:48:13 ↗ brook

1:48:14 ↗ so with that said i am gonna go ahead

1:48:17 ↗ and make a quick comment on

1:48:19 ↗ what chair book just simply said we had

1:48:21 ↗ several trees removed recently because

1:48:23 ↗ one of them was over our sewer line had

1:48:26 ↗ tree roots in the sewer line itself

1:48:29 ↗ the tree company came back and said the

1:48:30 ↗ city doesn't bother about

1:48:32 ↗ checking trees we'll cut them down don't

1:48:34 ↗ worry about it leave it up to us so with

1:48:37 ↗ that said there's the accountability

1:48:39 ↗ problem i have a real case scenario it

1:48:41 ↗ does exist

1:48:43 ↗ uh with that said uh stephen the floor

1:48:46 ↗ is yours for presentation we are at 8

1:48:49 ↗ 20. so if people need to leave at 8 30 i

1:48:51 ↗ certainly understand we need to keep

1:48:53 ↗ questions to a minimum and comments as

1:48:56 ↗ well

1:48:57 ↗ so with that said please be sensitive to

1:49:00 ↗ the time and uh stephen uh the floor is

1:49:03 ↗ yours

1:49:08 ↗ thank you i'm gonna turn it over to

1:49:09 ↗ katie uh who

1:49:12 ↗ i am going to give you presenting rights

1:49:13 ↗ now

1:49:14 ↗ thank you

1:49:17 ↗ okay go ahead and share your screen

1:49:19 ↗ okay

1:49:22 ↗ thank you i'm going to attempt to be

1:49:23 ↗ really quick so sorry if i'm talking

1:49:25 ↗ fast um but i want to respect everyone's

1:49:28 ↗ time so for the landscape code the idea

1:49:31 ↗ with this code was

1:49:32 ↗ not to make major changes to the way

1:49:34 ↗ that landscape is uh required through

1:49:37 ↗ title

1:49:38 ↗ 18 and to send the central standards and

1:49:41 ↗ the replacement regulations but

1:49:43 ↗ to put them all into one consolidated

1:49:45 ↗ place

1:49:47 ↗ we also wanted to um

1:49:50 ↗ incorporate some sustainability measures

1:49:52 ↗ through landscape planting standards and

1:49:54 ↗ irrigate irrigation standards

1:49:58 ↗ and

1:49:59 ↗ keeping to the goal of maintaining

1:50:00 ↗ neighborhood charm and distinctive

1:50:02 ↗ characters

1:50:03 ↗ so key changes we've made some changes

1:50:05 ↗ to recommended

1:50:08 ↗ plant type plant species to encourage

1:50:10 ↗ plant diversity and native and drought

1:50:12 ↗ tolerant species and pollinators

1:50:15 ↗ that was a response to public comment

1:50:17 ↗ that requested those types of plants be

1:50:19 ↗ encouraged or required

1:50:22 ↗ there's also updated standards for

1:50:24 ↗ irrigation to encourage uh water

1:50:27 ↗ water resource conservation

1:50:30 ↗ and also

1:50:32 ↗ some additional standards for tree

1:50:33 ↗ planting to encourage

1:50:35 ↗ healthier trees

1:50:37 ↗ that we decided to leave that in the

1:50:39 ↗ landscape code rather than in the tree

1:50:41 ↗ preservation code

1:50:43 ↗ and like i said we consolidated the

1:50:47 ↗ various parts of the code that dealt

1:50:48 ↗ with landscape into one place and then

1:50:50 ↗ we moved some sections like tree

1:50:52 ↗ preservation that had been together with

1:50:54 ↗ landscape into its own chapter moved

1:50:56 ↗ some other things like fencing that will

1:50:58 ↗ go in a different chapter as well

1:51:01 ↗ uh at the at the initial meeting we had

1:51:03 ↗ with the ppc um we discussed creating a

1:51:06 ↗ separate landscape standards document

1:51:08 ↗ where the kind of the nuts and bolts of

1:51:10 ↗ the landscape technical standards would

1:51:13 ↗ be located outside of title 18

1:51:15 ↗ after public comment and comment from

1:51:18 ↗ boards we did not do that and that was a

1:51:21 ↗ a last-minute change that we

1:51:23 ↗ reincorporated everything back into

1:51:26 ↗ title 18 so there's not going to be a

1:51:28 ↗ separate landscape standards document

1:51:31 ↗ so this is an example

1:51:33 ↗ that builds on the community space

1:51:36 ↗ the community space concept

1:51:38 ↗ i'm not going to spend a lot of time

1:51:39 ↗ here but i did want to point out this is

1:51:41 ↗ a non-residential building in central

1:51:44 ↗ issaquah

1:51:45 ↗ it would be required to have a community

1:51:48 ↗ space

1:51:49 ↗ um and

1:51:51 ↗ some landscaping

1:51:52 ↗ um

1:51:53 ↗ as well as whatever the applicable tree

1:51:55 ↗ regulations are

1:51:58 ↗ there's a community space space with

1:52:00 ↗ some seating and some some canopy

1:52:02 ↗ coverage

1:52:05 ↗ uh so we have received some comments on

1:52:07 ↗ this chapter um many of them surround

1:52:11 ↗ that the

1:52:13 ↗ document or the chapter is difficult to

1:52:15 ↗ understand and that there seem to be

1:52:16 ↗ some internal inconsistencies

1:52:19 ↗ we've also identified some some drafting

1:52:21 ↗ errors

1:52:23 ↗ and some mistakes in this current draft

1:52:26 ↗ so we'll definitely be taking a really

1:52:28 ↗ close look to make sure that it's

1:52:29 ↗ internally consistent that it doesn't

1:52:32 ↗ have contradictory parts

1:52:34 ↗ um

1:52:35 ↗ and if there's a way for us to rearrange

1:52:38 ↗ the layout or add graphics to make it

1:52:41 ↗ easier to understand

1:52:43 ↗ we're definitely going to prioritize

1:52:46 ↗ readability and usability the standards

1:52:48 ↗ themselves that we have in the code were

1:52:51 ↗ not intended to

1:52:53 ↗ majorly change

1:52:55 ↗ one unintended consequence of the

1:52:58 ↗ combining was the um the use of a

1:53:02 ↗ landscape standard for

1:53:04 ↗ border and frontage landscaping that

1:53:07 ↗ applies to the non-central issaquah

1:53:09 ↗ areas that's uh intended to separate

1:53:12 ↗ unlike uses

1:53:14 ↗ and because it was a the this code

1:53:16 ↗ applies it based on zone

1:53:18 ↗ it was inadvertently applied to some

1:53:20 ↗ parts of central issaquad that shared

1:53:22 ↗ the same zone so we'll be clarifying

1:53:24 ↗ that that those

1:53:26 ↗ those types of standards that um used to

1:53:29 ↗ not apply in central elizabeth will

1:53:30 ↗ continue not to apply in central

1:53:32 ↗ issaquah um

1:53:34 ↗ and and we'll make that clear in the

1:53:36 ↗ next round of revisions

1:53:38 ↗ so in our next steps we're going to

1:53:41 ↗ review the code find inconsistencies and

1:53:43 ↗ fix them

1:53:45 ↗ um clarify where it's applicable

1:53:48 ↗ um and then test the code and make sure

1:53:51 ↗ that if as planners apply it to projects

1:53:53 ↗ that it's working the way we intended it

1:53:56 ↗ to and there's no complex

1:54:05 ↗ okay and thank you uh planner code is

1:54:08 ↗ that concludes your presentation

1:54:11 ↗ very good and so we'll go ahead and open

1:54:13 ↗ up to commissioner questions again

1:54:15 ↗ remember sensitivity to time tonight we

1:54:18 ↗ don't want to go too far over here

1:54:20 ↗ so some people will need to branch off

1:54:24 ↗ uh please open up for questions so if

1:54:25 ↗ you have questions please post them in

1:54:27 ↗ the chat

1:54:45 ↗ okay now we're not getting any questions

1:54:47 ↗ so

1:54:48 ↗ someone please speak a question if you

1:54:50 ↗ have

1:54:51 ↗ uh it looks like jason voice is going to

1:54:52 ↗ be the first person with a question so

1:54:54 ↗ great thanks jason saving the day

1:54:58 ↗ here for you chair

1:54:59 ↗ so um on page 3 of 25 miss cote it

1:55:04 ↗ mentions the provisions of this chapter

1:55:06 ↗ apply to all zone property

1:55:09 ↗ i'm guessing you know obviously this has

1:55:10 ↗ to do with landscaping how does that

1:55:13 ↗ actually work i understand

1:55:15 ↗ um

1:55:16 ↗ development redevelopment new

1:55:18 ↗ development redevelopment

1:55:19 ↗ what does all existing development mean

1:55:27 ↗ so it's intended to apply to

1:55:31 ↗ development and redevelopment similar to

1:55:33 ↗ the other

1:55:34 ↗ to the previous chapter we discussed

1:55:39 ↗ the term zoned properties

1:55:41 ↗ is basically

1:55:43 ↗ referring to every property because

1:55:45 ↗ every property is owned property so the

1:55:48 ↗ intent is that it would apply everywhere

1:55:51 ↗ but it's not

1:55:52 ↗ it's not required retrospectively but it

1:55:55 ↗ would be you don't need to come into

1:55:57 ↗ compliance

1:55:59 ↗ but if you are um

1:56:01 ↗ redeveloping your site substantially or

1:56:04 ↗ building a new development you would be

1:56:06 ↗ required to comply

1:56:08 ↗ great that was a little unclear for me

1:56:10 ↗ and then further down the page it

1:56:12 ↗ mentions there must be a diversity of

1:56:13 ↗ tree and shrubs

1:56:15 ↗ uh species in the site landscaping i'm

1:56:17 ↗ wondering who enforces this

1:56:20 ↗ and i imagine this is also applicable to

1:56:24 ↗ applicable

1:56:25 ↗ to uh new development and redevelopment

1:56:27 ↗ not necessarily retroactively

1:56:29 ↗ but who would enforce that

1:56:31 ↗ yeah so like a landscape permit

1:56:34 ↗ that's right so um a landscape plan is

1:56:38 ↗ required with applications for certain

1:56:40 ↗ types of development and the landscape

1:56:42 ↗ plan would show

1:56:44 ↗ where landscaping is going and include a

1:56:46 ↗ plant list and a planting plan so the

1:56:49 ↗ the planner would review that to make

1:56:51 ↗ sure that it had diversity and it met

1:56:54 ↗ the planting

1:56:55 ↗ separation standards and the soil

1:56:57 ↗ standards in the landscape code

1:56:59 ↗ okay i think i think he clarified that

1:57:01 ↗ with the first question is again it's

1:57:03 ↗ not retroactive this is talking about

1:57:06 ↗ new applications or substantial uh

1:57:09 ↗ redevelopment of a lot and then finally

1:57:11 ↗ a little bit of a concern but it is a

1:57:13 ↗ question

1:57:15 ↗ page 8 of 25 mentions

1:57:18 ↗ allowing lawns to brown during the

1:57:19 ↗ summer and i know this is for water

1:57:21 ↗ conservation but my fear is

1:57:25 ↗ is there a concern with the city because

1:57:29 ↗ you know obviously letting lawns brown

1:57:31 ↗ we run the risk of allowing them to die

1:57:35 ↗ and then you're

1:57:36 ↗ basically ripping up lawns which i would

1:57:38 ↗ imagine is exactly what we don't want to

1:57:40 ↗ do

1:57:41 ↗ so i'm just i guess it's a concern but

1:57:46 ↗ i guess i really don't know how

1:57:48 ↗ i'm trying to state it as a question so

1:57:49 ↗ ron doesn't get mad at me um

1:57:53 ↗ but uh

1:57:55 ↗ so

1:57:56 ↗ the

1:57:57 ↗ the the logic behind that is just what

1:57:59 ↗ you said it's a water conservation

1:58:01 ↗ measure

1:58:02 ↗ uh lawns tend to do just fine if they go

1:58:05 ↗ brown during the summer and then they

1:58:07 ↗ get that

1:58:08 ↗ fall rain and they come back over the

1:58:10 ↗ winter um

1:58:12 ↗ i can speak from experience because my

1:58:14 ↗ lawn goes around every summer and it

1:58:16 ↗ always comes back but you know there is

1:58:18 ↗ a chance that

1:58:19 ↗ uh in certain circumstances a lawn

1:58:22 ↗ that's not watered could die um

1:58:25 ↗ and

1:58:26 ↗ you know i think

1:58:28 ↗ the city just decided that that they

1:58:30 ↗ would propose this this is a i believe

1:58:32 ↗ this is a new standard uh but it it

1:58:35 ↗ contributed to some of the

1:58:37 ↗ sustainability goals um and it was

1:58:39 ↗ something that other cities have have

1:58:41 ↗ done and it has been

1:58:43 ↗ um not unsuccessful i should say i don't

1:58:45 ↗ know how successful it's been but i'm

1:58:48 ↗ obviously i'm worried aesthetically what

1:58:49 ↗ that looks like and then you know not

1:58:51 ↗ everybody's a green thumb so some people

1:58:53 ↗ might take it to the extreme

1:58:55 ↗ so i'm done thank you

1:59:00 ↗ thank you commissioner voice uh so i

1:59:02 ↗ didn't mean to scare off everybody from

1:59:04 ↗ not asking a question

1:59:06 ↗ because of time uh being sensitive to

1:59:09 ↗ time

1:59:10 ↗ if you have a question please ask the

1:59:12 ↗ question because this is a time in which

1:59:14 ↗ it's really important to hear those

1:59:16 ↗ questions so

1:59:17 ↗ um

1:59:18 ↗ are there any more questions because so

1:59:20 ↗ far jason's the only person who's come

1:59:22 ↗ forward with that question and i want to

1:59:24 ↗ make sure all the commissioners have a

1:59:26 ↗ chance to have questions

1:59:30 ↗ get a second here

1:59:38 ↗ okay crickets

1:59:41 ↗ and we got a question from uh

1:59:43 ↗ commissioner danielle

1:59:44 ↗ so uh

1:59:47 ↗ where's yours

1:59:48 ↗ so my question is actually a follow-up

1:59:50 ↗ to the to the comment that was just made

1:59:52 ↗ and um as i was reading that lawn

1:59:55 ↗ browning section

1:59:57 ↗ i was wondering if if i was reading this

1:59:59 ↗ correctly that um

2:00:01 ↗ it means that

2:00:03 ↗ does this mean that um

2:00:05 ↗ new developments that install lawn do

2:00:08 ↗ not are not required to install

2:00:10 ↗ irrigation with that lawn is that the

2:00:14 ↗ am i reading that correctly

2:00:18 ↗ i'm not sure i would have to look into

2:00:20 ↗ that more closely i don't know if if

2:00:22 ↗ that

2:00:23 ↗ provision

2:00:25 ↗ it just exempts

2:00:25 ↗ not be turned on sorry

2:00:28 ↗ so i guess i read it that it would be

2:00:30 ↗ exempt from installing irrigation and i

2:00:33 ↗ understand that there are times um and

2:00:35 ↗ maybe it's maybe in the future it will

2:00:37 ↗ be all the time right that we need to be

2:00:40 ↗ conserving water in the summer and it

2:00:43 ↗ would not be appropriate to water lawns

2:00:45 ↗ but there um

2:00:47 ↗ are other times where it has been

2:00:50 ↗ where we haven't been in that position

2:00:52 ↗ and um i would prefer to

2:00:55 ↗ not give future developments just a

2:00:57 ↗ blank um

2:00:59 ↗ ability to not install irrigation on

2:01:01 ↗ grass and i would prefer to instead to

2:01:04 ↗ say that you know there are times when

2:01:05 ↗ it's okay to

2:01:08 ↗ you know if there is a water shortage or

2:01:09 ↗ other circumstances that

2:01:11 ↗ [Music]

2:01:12 ↗ that those lawns don't need to be

2:01:14 ↗ watered

2:01:19 ↗ especially with respect to common areas

2:01:21 ↗ and

2:01:23 ↗ you know community community

2:01:25 ↗ gathering spaces

2:01:27 ↗ in neighborhoods

2:01:29 ↗ thanks

2:01:31 ↗ and thank you

2:01:33 ↗ commissioner giftens i think

2:01:35 ↗ i agree with her on a point that may be

2:01:38 ↗ based on community impact so

2:01:41 ↗ uh we may want to change the code so

2:01:43 ↗ that if it is a

2:01:45 ↗ necessity for environmental community

2:01:48 ↗ space then maybe that would be irrigated

2:01:50 ↗ where if it's just a

2:01:53 ↗ an aesthetic purpose then maybe not

2:01:56 ↗ um okay so with that let's go ahead and

2:01:58 ↗ conclude it i'm gonna go ahead and open

2:01:59 ↗ up to public comment uh we do need to

2:02:02 ↗ make public comments uh rather short if

2:02:05 ↗ you do have additional or long questions

2:02:09 ↗ an email to the city staff would be

2:02:12 ↗ most appropriate

2:02:13 ↗ stephen let's go ahead and open up for

2:02:15 ↗ public comment

2:02:18 ↗ i see one raised hand um

2:02:20 ↗ connie i'm gonna mute you now and make

2:02:23 ↗ you a panelist

2:02:25 ↗ go ahead

2:02:27 ↗ so connie marsh again um the underlying

2:02:30 ↗ basis for this code was we gathered it

2:02:33 ↗ all together

2:02:34 ↗ and because our old landscape code was

2:02:37 ↗ working

2:02:38 ↗ our old landscape code was not working

2:02:41 ↗ and it was not usable for small

2:02:44 ↗ businesses and it didn't scale up well

2:02:47 ↗ for large businesses and it was a

2:02:49 ↗ disincentive for people who had existing

2:02:53 ↗ landscaping to maintain their

2:02:55 ↗ landscaping

2:02:56 ↗ so i think we need to ask the basic

2:02:59 ↗ question

2:03:00 ↗ was was that old landscape code good

2:03:04 ↗ and

2:03:05 ↗ why if it has issues we should fix those

2:03:09 ↗ issues that seems to be the biggest

2:03:13 ↗ problem that wasn't considered because i

2:03:15 ↗ i have people griping at me about their

2:03:17 ↗ landscape stuff

2:03:18 ↗ all the time

2:03:20 ↗ thank you

2:03:25 ↗ and careful i do not see any other

2:03:27 ↗ raised hands for public comment

2:03:29 ↗ okay with that we'll go ahead and close

2:03:31 ↗ officially close public comment at 8 35

2:03:35 ↗ and we'll open up for um

2:03:38 ↗ deliberations and so

2:03:41 ↗ chair brooke would you like to go ahead

2:03:42 ↗ and take over for deliberations

2:03:46 ↗ okay everyone park board environmental

2:03:49 ↗ board it's your last opportunity in the

2:03:51 ↗ evening to make a few comments about

2:03:54 ↗ landscaping

2:03:55 ↗ so

2:03:57 ↗ please uh drop down everyone and

2:04:01 ↗ make a comment or indicate that you want

2:04:03 ↗ to make a comment i'll call on you

2:04:13 ↗ so given the

2:04:15 ↗ [Music]

2:04:19 ↗ john mcgilliams you have a comment go

2:04:21 ↗ ahead dan

2:04:22 ↗ thank you brad don mclendon's

2:04:24 ↗ environmental board i'll make it quick

2:04:26 ↗ um you mentioned in your goals that you

2:04:28 ↗ want a nexus between landscaping and

2:04:30 ↗ storm water and i just want to encourage

2:04:32 ↗ you to look down that path so we know

2:04:34 ↗ today that

2:04:35 ↗ um 6ppd you may have heard of it or 6pbq

2:04:40 ↗ is what's killing some of our coho

2:04:41 ↗ salmon and it can be treated with

2:04:43 ↗ bioretention and or rain gardens for a

2:04:46 ↗ simpler term so i encourage you to

2:04:49 ↗ get with your utility folks and better

2:04:51 ↗ understanding how you can get the

2:04:53 ↗ landscaping code in line with what

2:04:55 ↗ you're doing with the stormwater

2:04:57 ↗ management

2:05:00 ↗ thank you for that don

2:05:02 ↗ next comment from the environmental

2:05:03 ↗ board again nancy davidson go ahead

2:05:05 ↗ nancy

2:05:06 ↗ thank you very much and i would

2:05:08 ↗ encourage you to i agree with dawn's

2:05:10 ↗ comment i was going to make that same

2:05:11 ↗ one in addition uh the code does require

2:05:14 ↗ that um a permanent efficient irrigation

2:05:17 ↗ system installed in all landscapes

2:05:19 ↗ except for single family lots

2:05:21 ↗ i'm not sure that's necessarily that our

2:05:24 ↗ existing single family lots i think

2:05:26 ↗ that's something we need to think long

2:05:28 ↗ and hard about if we really want

2:05:29 ↗ permanent efficient irrigation systems

2:05:31 ↗ on all of our properties

2:05:33 ↗ and i would also encourage us to really

2:05:35 ↗ think long and hard about what kind of

2:05:38 ↗ landscape areas we really want to have

2:05:41 ↗ in our existing developments i mean we

2:05:42 ↗ would like to retain some of what we

2:05:44 ↗ have and as the property redevelops

2:05:47 ↗ instead of having it tear out its

2:05:48 ↗ existing landscaping we want it to have

2:05:51 ↗ to retain what it can not just the trees

2:05:53 ↗ but some of the landscaping the shrubs

2:05:54 ↗ and other areas so we need to really be

2:05:57 ↗ thoughtful about that and i'm not really

2:05:58 ↗ seeing that in this chapter that's my

2:06:00 ↗ comment thank you

2:06:02 ↗ thank you for that nancy

2:06:04 ↗ uh hi anne got next comment from ann

2:06:08 ↗ newcomb from the environmental council

2:06:09 ↗ go ahead ann

2:06:11 ↗ hey thanks fred

2:06:12 ↗ uh man newcomb here

2:06:15 ↗ um i always like to promote organic

2:06:17 ↗ gardening practices

2:06:19 ↗ so if we

2:06:21 ↗ could include that that would be great

2:06:24 ↗ um

2:06:25 ↗ i think everybody knows here that it's

2:06:27 ↗ you know it's

2:06:28 ↗ it's not just good for the soils it's um

2:06:30 ↗ it's good for

2:06:32 ↗ carbon sequestration

2:06:35 ↗ and then since we're talking about

2:06:37 ↗ irrigation um just a reminder that we do

2:06:41 ↗ talk about um

2:06:43 ↗ gray water

2:06:45 ↗ uh

2:06:46 ↗ in the climate action plan so hopefully

2:06:48 ↗ there will be more of that happening

2:06:51 ↗ using

2:06:52 ↗ water that normally we

2:06:56 ↗ use in our sinks um

2:06:59 ↗ and having it go out and water our

2:07:02 ↗ plants thank you

2:07:05 ↗ thank you ann

2:07:07 ↗ not seeing any other comments from

2:07:10 ↗ either board so that concludes uh

2:07:14 ↗ discussion from both boards back to you

2:07:17 ↗ commissioner fall

2:07:19 ↗ excellent thank you very much chair book

2:07:21 ↗ so we're gonna go ahead and

2:07:24 ↗ that concludes our presentations for the

2:07:28 ↗ night

2:07:29 ↗ um

2:07:30 ↗ we normally have reports although

2:07:32 ↗ because this is a shared uh meeting

2:07:34 ↗ tonight uh the rest of the board members

2:07:37 ↗ can go ahead

2:07:38 ↗ and check off if they like the reports

2:07:42 ↗ are usually

2:07:43 ↗ based on ppc so

2:07:46 ↗ i will

2:07:47 ↗ have a good night everyone

2:07:49 ↗ if you're not on ppc

2:07:51 ↗ have a good night you're on ppc stay on

2:07:55 ↗ good night

2:07:56 ↗ and stephen let's go ahead and go into

2:07:57 ↗ reports are there any reports for

2:07:59 ↗ tonight

2:08:00 ↗ uh thank you trevor we can keep it uh

2:08:02 ↗ really quick um many do you do you have

2:08:05 ↗ anything you want to

2:08:07 ↗ uh you know um real real quick we did

2:08:09 ↗ have a council uh study session on the

2:08:12 ↗ first uh topic area of uh

2:08:16 ↗ national environment critical areas and

2:08:18 ↗ all that great work that all the boards

2:08:20 ↗ and commissions did um we

2:08:22 ↗ ran out of time with the last meeting

2:08:24 ↗ where you did the deliberations so we're

2:08:26 ↗ readjusting our schedule to come back to

2:08:28 ↗ you

2:08:29 ↗ and at that time we'll give you a longer

2:08:31 ↗ briefing of uh what the council said

2:08:33 ↗ and what we're going to you know

2:08:36 ↗ incorporate in the first draft so

2:08:38 ↗ just wanted to put that um

2:08:40 ↗ that we're shifting the whole schedule

2:08:42 ↗ to accommodate additional uh meeting uh

2:08:44 ↗ for that topic um and at that time we'll

2:08:47 ↗ brief you on council's uh discussion on

2:08:50 ↗ that topic

2:08:52 ↗ that's all i have

2:08:56 ↗ okay

2:08:57 ↗ and so stephen anything any additional

2:09:00 ↗ before we adjourn

2:09:02 ↗ nope uh the next meeting is april 14th

2:09:04 ↗ where ppc will deliberate and you'll

2:09:06 ↗ receive all comments that have been

2:09:09 ↗ received as part of the project for

2:09:11 ↗ deliberations on april 14th okay good

2:09:14 ↗ job steven real quick reminder

2:09:17 ↗ so the way the public comments are set

2:09:19 ↗ up i think there was maybe some

2:09:21 ↗ confusion so in your packet for today we

2:09:24 ↗ incorporated all the comments that we've

2:09:26 ↗ received that informed the writing of

2:09:28 ↗ the draft so we provided a more complete

2:09:31 ↗ response to them as the public hearing

2:09:34 ↗ it folds up you know we get comments

2:09:36 ↗ towards the end we were getting comments

2:09:39 ↗ today and

2:09:40 ↗ at the public hearing so we're going to

2:09:42 ↗ consolidate all of those public comments

2:09:45 ↗ and include them at your deliberation

2:09:47 ↗ time frame

2:09:48 ↗ and then also for members of the public

2:09:50 ↗ if your list if you're you know just so

2:09:52 ↗ that we we're clear on if you have

2:09:55 ↗ comments that you want to send to

2:09:57 ↗ planning and policy commission i think

2:09:59 ↗ most of you do that you send them

2:10:00 ↗ directly via email

2:10:02 ↗ um

2:10:03 ↗ and those are the comments that we are

2:10:04 ↗ going to incorporate in the table if you

2:10:06 ↗ have clarifying questions we're happy to

2:10:09 ↗ address it uh you know feel free to

2:10:10 ↗ reach out to staff me um but it gets a

2:10:14 ↗ little

2:10:15 ↗ uh harder to track

2:10:17 ↗ the questions from the official comments

2:10:19 ↗ that come to planning and policy

2:10:20 ↗ commission but we're doing our best we

2:10:22 ↗ want to hear anything and everything

2:10:24 ↗ that anyone has to say

2:10:26 ↗ so keep those coming and thank you for

2:10:28 ↗ all your time

2:10:31 ↗ thank you minnie uh just a reminder i'm

2:10:33 ↗ not gonna be here on the 14th so jason

2:10:37 ↗ will be chairing the meeting i've

2:10:39 ↗ already sent an email to uh staff to let

2:10:41 ↗ them know but i just want to bring it up

2:10:42 ↗ here

2:10:44 ↗ i do want to bring up the amount of

2:10:46 ↗ content make it public here so it's on

2:10:48 ↗ record

2:10:49 ↗ it's a little too much content we had to

2:10:51 ↗ speed through

2:10:53 ↗ i

2:10:54 ↗ the three topics were a bit much we did

2:10:57 ↗ get through but

2:10:59 ↗ uh it was very rushed and i know

2:11:01 ↗ comments are really important and i want

2:11:03 ↗ the commissioners to be able to have an

2:11:05 ↗ ample time to be able to

2:11:06 ↗ say what they need to say without

2:11:08 ↗ feeling like they're they're being

2:11:10 ↗ rushed or the public being rushed so

2:11:13 ↗ my ask is that the city

2:11:18 ↗ work on reducing the amount of content

2:11:20 ↗ that's presented during the meeting so

2:11:22 ↗ that we can stay focused on

2:11:26 ↗ the important topics that need to be

2:11:29 ↗ discussed

2:11:30 ↗ but

2:11:31 ↗ i think it's too much

2:11:33 ↗ [Music]

2:11:34 ↗ so with that said i'm going to let it go

2:11:36 ↗ meeting is 8 43 we're going to adjourn

2:11:39 ↗ so

2:11:41 ↗ um

2:11:42 ↗ oh hang on a second it looks like a

2:11:44 ↗ nine ahead

2:11:46 ↗ question here you know knight

2:11:48 ↗ go ahead

2:11:53 ↗ never mind it's just a meeting question

2:11:55 ↗ i'll ask steven later okay very good all

2:11:58 ↗ right so we're going to go ahead and

2:11:59 ↗ adjourn at 8 43. have a good night

2:12:01 ↗ everybody

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (15)

Faul

Voiss

Commissioners Bader

Milligan

Zaragoza Absence: Commissioner Lewis (Excused)

Commissioner Monahan (Excused) Environmental Board Members Present: Commissioners Anderson

Davidson

Hintz

McQuilliams

Newcomb (late) Absence: Commissioners Finch (Excused)

Fisher (Excused)

Hazra (Excused)

Labeiko (Excused) Commissioners Maden (Unexcused)

Bollapragada (Unexcused)

Wall (Unexcused) Page 5 of 37 APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 04-07-22 Special Joint Meeting Planning Policy Commission-Environmental Board-Park Board Meeting

Staff (1)

Millie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Daniel Martinez, Associate Planner Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Valerie Porter, Associate Planner Lucy Sloman, Planning Manager