Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, April 14, 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…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 24, 2022

packet pp.5–14

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 29, 2022

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, March 24, 2022

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Preliminary Recommendation on Proposed Amendments to Title 18, (A) Necklace

Katie Cote, BHS Consultants Daniel Martinez, Associate Planner For materials from the previous Planning Policy Commission meeting about proposed Preservation, Community Space and Green Necklace, see the Apr. 7, 2022 agenda. · packet pp.15–99

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the April 14 Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is for the PPC to deliberate and come to consensus regarding possible changes to the Landscape, Tree Preservation, and Community Space and Green Necklace draft regulations while taking into account comments from the public, the Environmental Board, and the Park Board.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.101–103

▶ Watch from 2:04:43 Open packet at p.101 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2022 Schedule (subject to change) 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

3212 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ all right let's go

0:04 ↗ all right well good evening planning

0:06 ↗ policy commission it's good to see all

0:08 ↗ of you

0:09 ↗ um

0:10 ↗ tonight i'd like to call

0:12 ↗ the april 14th planning policy

0:14 ↗ commission to order at 6 30.

0:17 ↗ due to the virtual format of today's

0:19 ↗ meeting i'd like to start by providing

0:21 ↗ some guidelines we have participants

0:24 ↗ attending by computer and others who may

0:26 ↗ be attending by phone

0:28 ↗ for all meeting attendees who wish to

0:29 ↗ see speak

0:31 ↗ please

0:32 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently

0:35 ↗ state your name each time before

0:37 ↗ speaking

0:38 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

0:39 ↗ speaking

0:40 ↗ and if you're having any technical

0:42 ↗ issues try joining the meeting using a

0:44 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

0:46 ↗ tablet

0:48 ↗ please use the call-in information in

0:49 ↗ the meeting invite to call

0:51 ↗ into the meeting

0:54 ↗ we're going to begin with some

0:55 ↗ housekeeping so kristin if you could

0:56 ↗ please take attendance

0:59 ↗ good thing um

1:01 ↗ sarah bader

1:04 ↗ not

1:05 ↗ here yet

1:06 ↗ for lewis

1:08 ↗ here

1:10 ↗ nina milligan

1:20 ↗ richard zaragoza

1:22 ↗ here

1:23 ↗ and sarah vader

1:25 ↗ here

1:27 ↗ and ron paul has an excused absence

1:29 ↗ tonight

1:33 ↗ hey thank you kristen

1:34 ↗ next order of business is the approval

1:36 ↗ of the march 24 24th meeting

1:40 ↗ i'm sure all of you have duly read those

1:42 ↗ minutes

1:43 ↗ and hearing i'd like to hear if there's

1:46 ↗ any corrections anything that needs to

1:47 ↗ be made

1:48 ↗ does anyone have any problem with a

1:49 ↗ minute

1:53 ↗ hearing none by unanimous consent uh the

1:56 ↗ meeting minutes are approved

1:59 ↗ so now we're going to move to the public

2:01 ↗ comment portion of the meeting

2:03 ↗ a few guidelines

2:06 ↗ first we want to let everybody know

2:07 ↗ who's attending the public comments are

2:09 ↗ an important part of the public

2:10 ↗ discourse

2:12 ↗ we take them seriously and they are

2:13 ↗ factored in to the decisions that are

2:15 ↗ made

2:17 ↗ for the members of the public that are

2:18 ↗ joining us this evening

2:20 ↗ welcome and if there is anyone meeting

2:23 ↗ now who would like to make public

2:24 ↗ comments

2:25 ↗ please raise your virtual hand

2:28 ↗ to do this

2:29 ↗ please press three if you're on the

2:31 ↗ phone

2:32 ↗ and if you join by computer or

2:33 ↗ smartphone

2:35 ↗ look for the hand icon

2:39 ↗ this varies by device one option may be

2:41 ↗ to go to the participant panel

2:44 ↗ and choose the raise icon

2:46 ↗ in the lower right hand corner

2:48 ↗ may also be located under the reactions

2:50 ↗ menu or more menu

2:53 ↗ um

2:54 ↗ also people should note that at this

2:56 ↗ point in the meeting we are taking

2:57 ↗ general public comments so this is not

2:59 ↗ specific to

3:01 ↗ uh the conversation that we're going to

3:02 ↗ have this is basically general public

3:04 ↗ comments for the planning policy

3:06 ↗ commission

3:07 ↗ when recognized please unmute your

3:08 ↗ microphone

3:10 ↗ state your name

3:11 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently and

3:14 ↗ please limit your comments to five

3:16 ↗ minutes or less

3:18 ↗ and then please mute your microphone

3:19 ↗ when done

3:22 ↗ and if for some reason you do lose a

3:23 ↗ connection

3:24 ↗ uh unexpectedly the meeting will need to

3:27 ↗ continue to proceed and you are

3:29 ↗ encouraged to rejoin the meeting

3:32 ↗ so with that do we have anyone who'd

3:34 ↗ like to make any public comments

3:39 ↗ yes we do susan neville would like to

3:41 ↗ speak

3:43 ↗ susan i have just made you a panelist

3:46 ↗ and you are unmuted and you can turn on

3:48 ↗ your camera if you would like

3:50 ↗ hello

3:52 ↗ and you can hear me i think right

3:55 ↗ okay

3:56 ↗ um hello everyone thanks for the

3:58 ↗ opportunity to speak tonight i'm going

4:00 ↗ to really speak to what we're discussing

4:02 ↗ later

4:04 ↗ and which is tree canopy i have a few

4:07 ↗ uh issues to bring up um

4:12 ↗ um we've already taken public comments

4:14 ↗ because we're held last meeting so we're

4:15 ↗ not taking public comments on the topics

4:17 ↗ for this eve oh so

4:19 ↗ these are general comments only

4:21 ↗ okay can i make these general

4:24 ↗ if they're not related to tonight's

4:26 ↗ topic yes

4:28 ↗ oh i spoke to somebody earlier and i

4:30 ↗ thought i could do that tonight

4:32 ↗ well um

4:34 ↗ i

4:35 ↗ really don't have it much to say but

4:37 ↗ thank you for all your work

4:40 ↗ and i look forward to a interesting

4:41 ↗ conversation thank you

4:44 ↗ i even got my video to work tonight

4:47 ↗ take care thank you

4:50 ↗ and just a good housekeeping note like

4:52 ↗ kristen you can probably tell me if i'm

4:54 ↗ saying this incorrectly one of the

4:56 ↗ reasons why is because legally if it's

4:58 ↗ not provided in the public hearing it

5:00 ↗ cannot be captured am i getting that

5:02 ↗ correct

5:04 ↗ i think so um

5:06 ↗ yes so this is still part of a public

5:08 ↗ hearing and all of our public comments

5:10 ↗ regarding this topic the public comment

5:12 ↗ period was opened and closed at the last

5:14 ↗ meeting and so those are the only

5:16 ↗ comments

5:17 ↗ um that we can deliberate on tonight and

5:19 ↗ in addition to that last time when we

5:21 ↗ had held public hearing we had both the

5:23 ↗ environmental board here in the park

5:24 ↗ board here and they were deliberating on

5:26 ↗ the same comments so to have additional

5:28 ↗ comments

5:29 ↗ um that they're unable to deliberate on

5:32 ↗ it's not so part of the public hearing

5:33 ↗ is not right

5:35 ↗ well appreciate that i think the

5:36 ↗ explainer helps yeah

5:38 ↗ thank you susan

5:43 ↗ is anyone else signed up to speak

5:49 ↗ no no one else is raising hands

5:55 ↗ all right well thank you very much

5:57 ↗ so tonight is as christian had mentioned

5:59 ↗ this is a continuation of the public

6:01 ↗ hearing for title 18 landscape and open

6:03 ↗ space code updates

6:05 ↗ tonight is the deliberation portion of

6:07 ↗ the public hearing so all clarifying

6:10 ↗ questions hopefully have already been

6:11 ↗ asked and tonight we'll be listening to

6:13 ↗ the presentations we've already

6:16 ↗ been able to look at the deliberations

6:18 ↗ from the previous boards just mentioned

6:21 ↗ and tonight's staff will be providing a

6:22 ↗ quick summary of public comments within

6:24 ↗ the scope of this project

6:26 ↗ and responses to then move on to policy

6:29 ↗ questions for pc ppc and then

6:31 ↗ deliberation and direction

6:34 ↗ so as on we did as on april 7th we're

6:37 ↗ going to start with community space and

6:39 ↗ green necklace and then move to tree

6:41 ↗ preservation and conclude with landscape

6:43 ↗ and open space

6:44 ↗ we'll deliberate after each topic so i

6:47 ↗ believe minnie

6:48 ↗ is our first presenter

6:50 ↗ so when you're me when you're ready

6:52 ↗ minnie uh please

6:54 ↗ present and it looks like it's gonna be

6:56 ↗ on the green necklace and community

6:57 ↗ space

6:59 ↗ good evening everyone um so kristen if

7:03 ↗ you will give me the

7:05 ↗ presenter ability i can open up this

7:20 ↗ you all see my screen

7:25 ↗ we can't see it it's not in presenter

7:27 ↗ mode still in your

7:31 ↗ i'd like now

7:32 ↗ and now you just need to change the

7:33 ↗ screen the display settings

7:36 ↗ to switch screens

7:41 ↗ there you go

7:43 ↗ okay does it work

7:45 ↗ yes

7:47 ↗ so um

7:49 ↗ we had a presentation where we shared um

7:52 ↗ the highlights of the changes for the

7:54 ↗ community space and green necklace at

7:56 ↗ your last meeting which you took

7:59 ↗ public comments um

8:01 ↗ and uh environmental board and

8:04 ↗ park board

8:05 ↗ gave you their input

8:07 ↗ so today

8:08 ↗ we're not going to repeat all of that

8:11 ↗ instead

8:13 ↗ see

8:14 ↗ we'll just quickly recap

8:17 ↗ some of the things that the goal and

8:19 ↗ making these changes for this chapter

8:20 ↗ was really

8:22 ↗ part of the goals and outcomes chart to

8:24 ↗ implement the park strategic plan

8:26 ↗ through actionable standards so the

8:28 ↗ policy was part of that plan but how

8:30 ↗ does it get implemented on the ground

8:33 ↗ um and also we've consolidated the

8:35 ↗ different codes and guidelines and

8:36 ↗ intent language in one place

8:40 ↗ a quick refresher on the terms so

8:42 ↗ community space was public outdoor area

8:45 ↗ built by the developers so examples

8:48 ↗ plazas and community gardens

8:50 ↗ natural amenity space was outdoor space

8:53 ↗ but for private use

8:55 ↗ and indoor amenity obviously for private

8:57 ↗ use only

8:59 ↗ and then uh the other part of besides

9:01 ↗ the open spaces the community spaces and

9:03 ↗ natural uh amenity spaces

9:06 ↗ was how are the buildings and

9:08 ↗ development oriented

9:10 ↗ uh when there is a desired connection or

9:13 ↗ a shared use route um

9:15 ↗ that they have to build it um also what

9:19 ↗ at what time do we want the connections

9:20 ↗ to city trails or shared use routes

9:23 ↗ and how to orient the buildings and face

9:26 ↗ the parks so that's sort of really big

9:28 ↗ picture what we were presenting to you

9:31 ↗ we included this map in in the

9:35 ↗ code for the purposes of implementing so

9:38 ↗ that when we do get an application for a

9:40 ↗ development we can look and at this map

9:42 ↗ and see if it you know the site is

9:45 ↗ adjacent to

9:46 ↗ a connection shown here

9:48 ↗ then they're required to provide that

9:50 ↗ connection

9:51 ↗ if it is next to a park or an open space

9:53 ↗ then the orientation requirements will

9:55 ↗ kick in

9:56 ↗ um a lot of discussion happened on this

9:59 ↗ um map as to what it shows but it

10:01 ↗ doesn't show so obviously refinements

10:03 ↗ can be made

10:06 ↗ we've included a summary of the public

10:08 ↗ comments in your packet with our

10:09 ↗ responses some of the things that were

10:12 ↗ said at the last public hearing meeting

10:15 ↗ and just this is very high level summary

10:18 ↗ um

10:19 ↗ were

10:20 ↗ from the public uh there was some

10:22 ↗ comments about um

10:24 ↗ should probably the public building

10:26 ↗ orientation be also considered for

10:28 ↗ private parks um and the the fact that

10:31 ↗ the map is not reflective of the park

10:33 ↗ strategic plan and it's focused more on

10:36 ↗ the central isola uh then i think there

10:38 ↗ were some comments about uh balconies

10:40 ↗ whether those should be

10:42 ↗ given credit for natural amenity space

10:44 ↗ some of the comments from the

10:46 ↗ commissioners that were the visiting

10:48 ↗ boards of park board and environmental

10:50 ↗ board included

10:53 ↗ you know some questions about whether

10:54 ↗ the natural amenities space for

10:56 ↗ non-residential buildings should be

10:59 ↗ required for development outside of

11:01 ↗ central issaquah um

11:03 ↗ there was also some questions about

11:05 ↗ rooftop amenities whether the sports

11:08 ↗ field or active recreation should be

11:10 ↗ allowed on those uh in those areas

11:14 ↗ something about the assisted living

11:16 ↗ facility and

11:18 ↗ that should not exclude the kids uh some

11:20 ↗ of the uh open spaces there and then

11:23 ↗ also to add plaza maintenance

11:25 ↗ requirements for

11:27 ↗ winter conditions

11:30 ↗ um so based on all that feedback here's

11:32 ↗ what we are going to do with this

11:34 ↗ we already know that this is something

11:36 ↗ we are going to have to do with the

11:38 ↗ second round of this draft we are going

11:40 ↗ to do an additional review for internal

11:42 ↗ consistency

11:43 ↗ organization

11:45 ↗ um

11:46 ↗ we'll look at adding some more detail to

11:47 ↗ the map to clarify

11:49 ↗ the building orientation

11:51 ↗ we're going to add more detail about the

11:54 ↗ building orientation based on type of

11:56 ↗ the park whether it's an active park

11:58 ↗ versus a passive or a conservation area

12:00 ↗ different

12:01 ↗ uh you know there'll be a more nuanced

12:03 ↗ approach to uh context there

12:06 ↗ also we're going to add the natural

12:08 ↗ context zone which currently lives in

12:11 ↗ the urban design manual in this location

12:14 ↗ so for tonight uh some of the

12:17 ↗ comments or questions have fed into some

12:20 ↗ of this additional discussion that might

12:21 ↗ be helpful for you all to consider

12:25 ↗ you know on this map

12:27 ↗ should we show the private parks or not

12:30 ↗ our recommendation is that we

12:33 ↗ stay with public parks and open space

12:35 ↗ however we can add some text um that

12:38 ↗ talks about any private parts uh any

12:41 ↗ development around private park should

12:43 ↗ also take the context into consideration

12:47 ↗ um the second question for your you know

12:49 ↗ consideration and discussion is the

12:52 ↗ natural amenity space for

12:53 ↗ non-residential projects uh outside of

12:56 ↗ central

12:57 ↗ do we need to add some requirement there

13:02 ↗ and then

13:03 ↗ the

13:04 ↗ threshold of five plus lots at this time

13:07 ↗ triggers a natural amenity space of 48

13:10 ↗ square feet per unit

13:12 ↗ um and should we raise that to nine nine

13:15 ↗ lots so smaller infill type of

13:17 ↗ development would not have to provide

13:19 ↗ this smaller amenity space and and

13:22 ↗ really the reason there is

13:24 ↗ for five lots times 50 you're gonna get

13:26 ↗ a 250 square foot area

13:29 ↗ and for these smaller uh developments

13:31 ↗ the hoas and and the upkeep of these

13:34 ↗ smaller

13:36 ↗ open spaces may not be as uh appealable

13:39 ↗ as um

13:40 ↗ nine lot um where you get a little bit

13:43 ↗ larger space but and you have a

13:45 ↗ homeowner association that takes care of

13:47 ↗ these spaces and so on and so forth um

13:50 ↗ another question to consider is about

13:53 ↗ the balcony should we take out the

13:56 ↗ credit that we currently give for

13:57 ↗ natural amenities space for balconies

14:00 ↗ and then the last question is really

14:02 ↗ um anything we've missed do you think

14:04 ↗ we've met the goal uh 11 uh or not so

14:09 ↗ that's sort of our attempt at capturing

14:11 ↗ all the discussion that has happened so

14:12 ↗ far

14:13 ↗ to give you some food for your

14:15 ↗ discussion

14:16 ↗ tonight

14:17 ↗ with that i'm going to pause at this

14:19 ↗ point

14:20 ↗ that concludes my presentation

14:25 ↗ great thank you minnie and before we

14:27 ↗ move on to deliberation by the planning

14:29 ↗ policy commission um we're going to

14:32 ↗ return to public comment momentarily to

14:34 ↗ let one speaker speak who apparently was

14:37 ↗ overlooked uh this does not mean we're

14:39 ↗ opening it up again it was just a

14:42 ↗ technical glitch so i want to make sure

14:44 ↗ that everyone who had their hand raised

14:45 ↗ at the appropriate time is given the

14:48 ↗ time to speak so kristen would you

14:50 ↗ please allow our speaker to become a

14:52 ↗ presenter

15:06 ↗ hello

15:18 ↗ going once

15:21 ↗ staff are you out there

15:23 ↗ i i am a

15:26 ↗ can you guys hear me

15:27 ↗ i could hear you minnie um yeah

15:30 ↗ i apologize i had to step away to

15:33 ↗ do something um what was the question

15:36 ↗ it always happens when you walk away for

15:38 ↗ us i know it does and i was actually

15:39 ↗ sitting here but i had a conversation

15:41 ↗ anyway go ahead

15:43 ↗ so yes um we're looking to uh let the

15:45 ↗ person who had a raise their hand at the

15:48 ↗ appropriate time be able to make their

15:49 ↗ comment and then we will move on um i

15:51 ↗ will make connie right now a panelist

15:55 ↗ and

15:56 ↗ connie you

15:58 ↗ should be a panelist now

16:00 ↗ thanks kristen

16:01 ↗ you're welcome i apologize

16:06 ↗ you're a panelist and you're unmuted you

16:07 ↗ can turn on your camera if you'd like

16:10 ↗ okay

16:12 ↗ okay that was oddly very hard

16:15 ↗ so i'm connie marsh i live up on squawk

16:18 ↗ you all have heard much from me

16:20 ↗ so um

16:23 ↗ i'm going to talk about process

16:27 ↗ because

16:29 ↗ i

16:29 ↗ um

16:31 ↗ one would like a few more seconds

16:33 ↗ between the end of

16:35 ↗ of does anybody want to speak and

16:37 ↗ closing out the public hearing because

16:39 ↗ sometimes it actually takes more than

16:41 ↗ four seconds to get your hand raised

16:44 ↗ so

16:45 ↗ then the next thing is

16:47 ↗ in my years

16:49 ↗ of commenting on code

16:53 ↗ i have never

16:55 ↗ heard in a non-quasi-judicial

16:59 ↗ situation where there isn't a near-term

17:02 ↗ decision at hand on a legislative item

17:06 ↗ to have public comment cut off

17:10 ↗ for a

17:12 ↗ discussion

17:14 ↗ even after other committees have had

17:17 ↗ this

17:18 ↗ situation so

17:20 ↗ does this mean that the public is not

17:22 ↗ going to be able to speak on this topic

17:25 ↗ when it goes in front of city council

17:28 ↗ because that is basically the same

17:30 ↗ situation where ppc and the other boards

17:33 ↗ will not be able to hear it though

17:35 ↗ council will

17:37 ↗ and if this has changed i would really

17:40 ↗ like to see the legal basis for this

17:43 ↗ because you guys have a table in your

17:46 ↗ package that we have never been able to

17:48 ↗ comment on to see if these responses to

17:52 ↗ our um

17:54 ↗ our quandaries questions and comments

17:57 ↗ were correctly or adequately addressed

18:00 ↗ and so that's actually the first time

18:02 ↗ we've ever seen the answers to those is

18:05 ↗ in your agenda so this is

18:08 ↗ um

18:09 ↗ things things that are missing and

18:11 ↗ things that are misunderstood are all

18:14 ↗ all in

18:15 ↗ that so i so strongly disagree that i've

18:19 ↗ already written my letter to the city

18:20 ↗ council asking for clarification on this

18:23 ↗ so

18:24 ↗ um i don't i don't know what to do about

18:26 ↗ it because i feel like public comment

18:28 ↗ was a little chopped off for making

18:31 ↗ our thoughts more clear as they were

18:34 ↗ misinterpreted in the table thank you

18:44 ↗ thank you

18:50 ↗ so i believe now we are going to

18:53 ↗ deliberate as a commission

18:56 ↗ so please feel free to begin

18:59 ↗ writing into the chat box

19:07 ↗ uh

19:08 ↗ commissioner

19:15 ↗ i just um i don't know if it was my

19:16 ↗ internet but i didn't see the slides

19:18 ↗ many during your

19:19 ↗ presentation i wasn't able to scribble

19:21 ↗ down all the different questions that

19:23 ↗ you raised fast enough so i wanted to

19:25 ↗ see if you could pull those back up sure

19:27 ↗ i'm happy to get

19:29 ↗ the questions slide back up

19:33 ↗ [Music]

19:44 ↗ you won't see me

20:12 ↗ all right here we go we've got a comment

20:15 ↗ from commissioner lewis

20:18 ↗ thank you fall i'm sorry haha cheer

20:20 ↗ voice

20:22 ↗ words of habit commissioner uh joy lewis

20:24 ↗ here um i think there's a couple things

20:26 ↗ to dissect i will start by saying that i

20:29 ↗ think this is one of the um

20:31 ↗ better sections as i went through it i

20:34 ↗ really want to say thank you to staff

20:36 ↗ for uh some of the changes that were

20:38 ↗ made from previous codes we've had i

20:39 ↗ think we have a lot of interesting ideas

20:41 ↗ in here

20:42 ↗ um

20:43 ↗ and i i want to start by kind of talking

20:45 ↗ a little bit about this idea about the

20:47 ↗ common natural amenity spaces

20:50 ↗ at this point i haven't seen compelling

20:52 ↗ evidence why we would have outdoor

20:54 ↗ balconies and rooftop amenities count

20:58 ↗ and unless these spaces are able to be

21:01 ↗ fully accessed by all residents

21:04 ↗ and we actually have language in the

21:06 ↗ code that directs that there be 24-hour

21:09 ↗ staircase access elevator access right

21:11 ↗ whatever have you to being able to have

21:13 ↗ these i don't see this as fulfilling the

21:15 ↗ requirement

21:16 ↗ and i would love to have a discussion

21:19 ↗ to see how other people feel about this

21:22 ↗ but i i think that right now if we want

21:24 ↗ to include it i think there are

21:26 ↗ components that are missing from the

21:27 ↗ code to be able to ensure that these

21:29 ↗ common natural spaces actually stay

21:32 ↗ common um for for everybody and really

21:35 ↗ get to the intent um and i think then we

21:37 ↗ also need to start talking about how

21:39 ↗ that has issues for security within the

21:42 ↗ building as well and so i think it's um

21:44 ↗ a complicated issue and so i it's one

21:46 ↗ that i would i would be in favor of

21:48 ↗ striking and would like to start there

21:50 ↗ with our discussions

22:00 ↗ all right well

22:02 ↗ commissioner lewis has put it on the

22:03 ↗ table

22:04 ↗ um so please commissioners feel free to

22:07 ↗ uh

22:08 ↗ answer the question before you or chime

22:11 ↗ in um commissioner milligan has a

22:14 ↗ question

22:15 ↗ yes uh thank you

22:18 ↗ chair of voice uh this is commissioner

22:21 ↗ nanny milligan um

22:23 ↗ minnie could you please show us do you

22:25 ↗ have a slide that has the definitions of

22:28 ↗ those different um spaces so we can

22:31 ↗ refresh our memory and and jump in on

22:33 ↗ this conversation

22:36 ↗ sure

22:36 ↗ thank you i'm having a hard time

22:40 ↗ searching through the big packet to get

22:42 ↗ it handy thank you

22:50 ↗ can you guys see the right

22:52 ↗ slide now

23:11 ↗ so just a little bit of clarification

23:12 ↗ for me um it's the natural amenity

23:15 ↗ spaces and i think this was

23:17 ↗ alluded to by commissioner lewis

23:20 ↗ those are the ones that would actually

23:21 ↗ have the patios and courtyards so those

23:24 ↗ would be okay so those are the private

23:27 ↗ residential

23:28 ↗ um

23:29 ↗ those are not those are the

23:32 ↗ so those are for everyone living in

23:34 ↗ their in their apartment building for

23:36 ↗ instance so a common rooftop

23:39 ↗ uh amenity

23:41 ↗ or

23:41 ↗ where anyone in that complex could go

23:44 ↗ use

23:45 ↗ versus your private balcony that only

23:47 ↗ the person that lives in the

23:49 ↗ in the unit gets to use

23:51 ↗ so

23:52 ↗ i think the the square footage is

23:54 ↗ allowed to be split so you get to count

23:56 ↗ what you can only use for private

23:59 ↗ uh units towards this common open space

24:02 ↗ requirement but it's only for the

24:03 ↗ residents of that complex not

24:06 ↗ uh anyone else not common public space

24:10 ↗ for people not part of that development

24:13 ↗ so is the goal just to get people

24:15 ↗ outside or is it actually to have

24:17 ↗ communal living where they're

24:19 ↗ interacting with one another or is it

24:20 ↗ just to get a breath of fresh air and

24:23 ↗ enjoy the environment well i think uh to

24:25 ↗ create more livable community you need

24:28 ↗ those common outdoor spaces so you can

24:30 ↗ interact with your neighbors and but

24:32 ↗ also having a larger outdoor space

24:35 ↗ um compared to your smaller balcony even

24:38 ↗ things like that so

24:39 ↗ but i think it

24:41 ↗ so nothing's changed here this is

24:43 ↗ already part of the curve and we just

24:45 ↗ kind of put it together in one place so

24:47 ↗ the current code allows

24:49 ↗ your private balconies to be counted

24:51 ↗ towards this square footage that's in

24:53 ↗ the code um and so i guess one of the

24:56 ↗ public comments was that that shouldn't

24:57 ↗ be allowed that that should be above and

24:59 ↗ beyond so if you want to put your

25:01 ↗ balcony that's great but beyond above

25:03 ↗ that you need this 48 square feet per

25:05 ↗ unit space that's common

25:09 ↗ okay and i i you know i don't want to

25:10 ↗ speak for other people but i think

25:12 ↗ that's what commissioner lewis might

25:13 ↗ have been alluding to

25:14 ↗ um so

25:18 ↗ that question's still on the table but

25:19 ↗ we also have some other things going on

25:21 ↗ so

25:22 ↗ um

25:23 ↗ commissioner milligan has a comment

25:25 ↗ please thank you voice nina milligan

25:28 ↗ here again uh thank you many for the

25:30 ↗ clarification and and thank you for um

25:33 ↗ commissioner lewis's um statement i

25:37 ↗ i live in star point up in uh issaquah

25:40 ↗ highlands which has lovely natural

25:43 ↗ amenity spaces in all those senses of

25:45 ↗ the words

25:46 ↗ where we have spaces that can be shared

25:48 ↗ by all

25:49 ↗ neighbors or residents in the building

25:52 ↗ however they are not accessible to the

25:55 ↗ general public

25:56 ↗ and i value them highly

25:59 ↗ the

26:01 ↗ to

26:03 ↗ to

26:04 ↗ have a trade-off with a private balcony

26:06 ↗ i i too

26:08 ↗ disagree with that i don't think a

26:10 ↗ private balcony should count against a

26:12 ↗ natural amenity space that can be shared

26:14 ↗ by

26:15 ↗ all the residents

26:17 ↗ i do

26:18 ↗ find the phrasing

26:22 ↗ um misleading a little bit because uh it

26:26 ↗ says it's natural

26:28 ↗ natural amenity space and i don't know

26:30 ↗ if we have some that it's implied that

26:32 ↗ it's ground level and it's um you know

26:35 ↗ connected to the land and it restores

26:37 ↗ our ground water you know any of the

26:39 ↗ other kind of things that natural spaces

26:41 ↗ do

26:42 ↗ um i i do

26:44 ↗ find

26:45 ↗ that the

26:46 ↗ wording has been confusing to me

26:49 ↗ but i don't believe that any uh private

26:52 ↗ only privately accessible space should

26:53 ↗ count against the requirement for the

26:57 ↗ community accessible space thank you

27:06 ↗ great thank you commissioner um a

27:08 ↗ question from commissioner sarah gozan

27:11 ↗ thank you chair

27:14 ↗ i think i have more of a comment now

27:15 ↗ than a question but

27:16 ↗ um

27:18 ↗ i'm thinking back to the video

27:20 ↗ uh during the pandemic of the people in

27:22 ↗ italy on their patios

27:24 ↗ all singing together somebody's playing

27:26 ↗ the violin they're all singing this

27:28 ↗ song as a community

27:30 ↗ um that's a beautiful scene and i think

27:32 ↗ that in urban situations and

27:36 ↗ public buildings where you have

27:38 ↗ balconies being out on your balcony is

27:40 ↗ essentially your yard space

27:42 ↗ gives you an opportunity to be outside

27:44 ↗ and to i think commune with your

27:45 ↗ neighbors maybe you can't reach out and

27:47 ↗ shake their hands but

27:49 ↗ you know being together outdoors with

27:51 ↗ them i think is a valuable thing so

27:53 ↗ i'm not totally

27:55 ↗ on board with not accepting them as a

27:57 ↗ part of those spaces i think they

27:59 ↗ definitely have value as far as communal

28:02 ↗ areas even if you can't reach out and

28:04 ↗ grab each other so

28:06 ↗ thanks

28:10 ↗ thank you

28:11 ↗ commissioner lewis with a comment

28:14 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis you

28:16 ↗ know minnie while you had that up it

28:18 ↗ reminded me

28:19 ↗ um about the the definitions of the

28:21 ↗ different spaces that we were discussing

28:23 ↗ um was something that i wanted to

28:25 ↗ include uh about um the way that we talk

28:28 ↗ about community spaces in this in this

28:30 ↗ code and there hasn't been any kind of

28:33 ↗ detail in the code about how we mark

28:35 ↗ community spaces

28:37 ↗ and being able to tie in our signage our

28:40 ↗ waypoints

28:42 ↗ to be able to really help the public

28:44 ↗ know what spaces are public and what are

28:46 ↗ private and when we put in here these uh

28:48 ↗ different varieties of things it would

28:50 ↗ be nice to be able to see um and for

28:52 ↗ frame of reference everyone i'm looking

28:54 ↗ on page 13 of 19 of um of the of the

28:56 ↗ code packet for this um it's section e2

29:00 ↗ uh where we talk about um the community

29:02 ↗ space i would like to see language about

29:03 ↗ how it's marked to be better identified

29:06 ↗ to the public of course for community

29:08 ↗ spaces thank you

29:14 ↗ yeah great point

29:16 ↗ commissioner milligan

29:20 ↗ thank you chairvoice uh commissioner

29:23 ↗ nina milligan again i think i'll just go

29:25 ↗ back to the other bullet points

29:28 ↗ and just finish up the topics that we're

29:30 ↗ talking about i want to respond to

29:32 ↗ commissioner zaragoza's comments about

29:33 ↗ balconies

29:34 ↗ and

29:37 ↗ elaborate that

29:38 ↗ the balconies are also of high value i

29:41 ↗ think they're just not interchangeable

29:43 ↗ with the

29:44 ↗ common areas that the natural amenity

29:46 ↗ areas intended to

29:49 ↗ to require

29:51 ↗ i wouldn't mind if we require balconies

29:54 ↗ too

29:55 ↗ uh i think that there but uh the market

29:57 ↗ should i hope direct

29:59 ↗ that these um

30:01 ↗ qualities be in our um

30:05 ↗ in our

30:06 ↗ uh

30:07 ↗ finnish buildings

30:09 ↗ i didn't mean uh to

30:10 ↗ say that the balconies weren't valuable

30:13 ↗ i do want to touch on a couple of these

30:16 ↗ the

30:17 ↗ question number one about private parks

30:19 ↗ being on the map

30:21 ↗ i uh boy i know this is a challenge here

30:23 ↗ in isoqua highlands where we have a lot

30:25 ↗ of private uh property that's publicly

30:27 ↗ accessible and the issues of liability

30:29 ↗ are always always crop up as you know

30:32 ↗ should we be directing people yeah go

30:34 ↗ over there you know sure you're welcome

30:36 ↗ here yeah go over there uh because of

30:38 ↗ the um issues of liability and i would

30:41 ↗ like to instruct the staff if they

30:43 ↗ haven't already which i'm sure they have

30:45 ↗ um to talk to those homeowners

30:46 ↗ associations like talis and issaquah

30:49 ↗ highlands to find a resolution for that

30:50 ↗ i don't feel qualified uh to do so i do

30:53 ↗ know it's a challenge

30:54 ↗ the um other one i want to talk about

30:56 ↗ was moving from five plus lots to nine

30:59 ↗ plus lots i don't remember us having a

31:02 ↗ consensus for doing that and and i

31:05 ↗ wouldn't be inclined to move the

31:07 ↗ requirement from five plus to nine plus

31:10 ↗ as the minimum

31:12 ↗ not mostly because um

31:16 ↗ there's i i wouldn't you know it's like

31:18 ↗ a discriminate against because there's

31:19 ↗ only

31:20 ↗ five or four units in that pack the

31:24 ↗ uh amenity space the gathering space the

31:26 ↗ place the base of a multi-family

31:29 ↗ uh

31:30 ↗ multi-family community

31:32 ↗ um still needs

31:34 ↗ uh a bit of anchoring a centering place

31:36 ↗ for all of the um

31:38 ↗ residents who live there so i disagree

31:40 ↗ with the going from five lots to nine

31:42 ↗ lots i also think that a builder could

31:44 ↗ easily get around that and say

31:46 ↗ uh

31:47 ↗ you know hey i'm gonna

31:49 ↗ it's anyway

31:51 ↗ let's not say that i'm just gonna say

31:52 ↗ that i think it should be the five

31:54 ↗ and then

31:56 ↗ um the last one

32:01 ↗ yeah i don't that's all i have the last

32:03 ↗ question asked about anything more

32:04 ↗ that's it

32:06 ↗ thank you

32:10 ↗ thank you

32:11 ↗ uh commissioner lewis with a comment

32:14 ↗ uh thank you chair voice commissioner

32:16 ↗ joy lewis i agree with nina's comments

32:18 ↗ about not increasing the threshold to

32:21 ↗ the nine lots uh right now we're talking

32:24 ↗ about you know 48 square feet of

32:26 ↗ requirement um i i remember back to my

32:29 ↗ apartment days i would challenge anyone

32:31 ↗ to uh really feel that that that 250

32:35 ↗ feet where we would put a bench in a

32:37 ↗ planting pot would be such a hardship

32:39 ↗ that it would uh

32:41 ↗ limit

32:42 ↗ the availability of people to build the

32:44 ↗ kind of housing that we want in issaquah

32:46 ↗ i don't see that as as being a hardship

32:49 ↗ right now and so i'm not inclined to

32:50 ↗ move it from the five lots unless

32:52 ↗ obviously staff has more compelling

32:54 ↗ information that you can tell me that

32:56 ↗ this would so drastically contribute uh

32:59 ↗ to getting our missing middle in some

33:01 ↗ sort of way

33:02 ↗ that's advantageous so i i'm not a fan

33:05 ↗ of doing that and to speak on that

33:07 ↗ particular point

33:08 ↗ um and i i do want to mention too that

33:13 ↗ uh that the proposed changes that we

33:16 ↗ have right now for goal 11 i do i do

33:18 ↗ think that we're achieving that so i do

33:20 ↗ want to say

33:21 ↗ thank you for that point

33:30 ↗ great thank you commissioner lewis

33:33 ↗ does anyone else have an additional

33:34 ↗ comment

33:39 ↗ so i'll just quickly say a couple

33:41 ↗ comments as i do agree with

33:43 ↗ oh i'm getting pointed out

33:46 ↗ um

33:47 ↗ i saw you nina um so a couple things

33:50 ↗ real quickly is i do believe we are

33:52 ↗ achieving the goals with goal evidence

33:53 ↗ for this particular um portion i think

33:56 ↗ commissioner lewis's comments right out

33:58 ↗ of the gate i think this one's pretty

33:59 ↗ well thought out pretty well rounded i

34:02 ↗ know some of the discussion questions

34:04 ↗ are really more about priorities

34:07 ↗ i understand everybody wants to build

34:09 ↗ the best quality buildings and that my

34:12 ↗ concern

34:14 ↗ and i think it's a legitimate concern

34:16 ↗ is isoqua is already

34:20 ↗ a pretty expensive place to live

34:22 ↗ and again to a lot of people's points

34:24 ↗ these are wonderful amenities and i

34:26 ↗ believe it will raise the quality of

34:27 ↗ life but i i do

34:30 ↗ think by doing some of these things as

34:33 ↗ long as people are prepared to make that

34:35 ↗ commitment i'm fine with it um

34:38 ↗ the property value here is not going to

34:40 ↗ become less expensive it's going to

34:42 ↗ become more expensive

34:44 ↗ i think things like i said little things

34:46 ↗ like increasing from five to nine i know

34:48 ↗ we've already discussed short flats um

34:51 ↗ again we can ask small developers who

34:54 ↗ are redeveloping and subdividing very

34:55 ↗ small lots to do more

34:58 ↗ um but that cost will be passed on

35:00 ↗ so i think it's something to think about

35:02 ↗ i'm kind of more with commissioner

35:04 ↗ saragoza as far as

35:06 ↗ i

35:07 ↗ i don't necessarily have a problem with

35:08 ↗ the balconies being counted

35:10 ↗ um as far as

35:12 ↗ the area

35:14 ↗ i think as we see eric izakawa be built

35:16 ↗ more into central issaquah we're going

35:18 ↗ to have less and less land supply

35:21 ↗ um balconies do provide an opportunity

35:24 ↗ to enjoy the environment which i think

35:26 ↗ is pretty much the basis of our goal now

35:28 ↗ is it the best way to do it

35:31 ↗ probably not um but again as we start

35:33 ↗ infilling into central israel and other

35:35 ↗ areas um we are going to have less and

35:38 ↗ less to work with so if we make these

35:40 ↗ two stringent

35:42 ↗ i just

35:43 ↗ i see costs getting higher and i don't

35:45 ↗ know if what we're getting in return is

35:48 ↗ worth it

35:49 ↗ so those are a couple things that i'm a

35:51 ↗ little concerned about again people

35:52 ↗ could make arguments i'm not

35:55 ↗ i'm not particularly sold either way i

35:57 ↗ just those are some concerns

35:59 ↗ as we continue to move forward through

36:01 ↗ the process

36:04 ↗ all right

36:05 ↗ and we have comments more comments

36:08 ↗ commissioner bader

36:10 ↗ yeah thanks this is sarah vader and i am

36:12 ↗ i completely agree with you um

36:14 ↗ commissioner

36:15 ↗ point that i was going to make um

36:18 ↗ looking at kind of an expense of

36:19 ↗ affordability just kind of official

36:22 ↗ affordable housing but also the kind of

36:24 ↗ missing middle um housing as

36:25 ↗ commissioner lewis alluded to is there

36:28 ↗ either a like incentive that if a

36:31 ↗ certain percentage and i don't know

36:32 ↗ where our affordable housing code is

36:34 ↗ going to land if this is going to be

36:35 ↗ required anyway but is there if there is

36:37 ↗ a certain percentage of

36:39 ↗ you know those five lots that are

36:42 ↗ more affordable um you know can we

36:44 ↗ lessen some of these restrictions and i

36:46 ↗ i want to preface that by saying i don't

36:48 ↗ want to kind of sacrifice quality of

36:50 ↗ life um

36:51 ↗ in affordable housing but is there could

36:53 ↗ it be reduced maybe um if there is more

36:56 ↗ of an affordable housing component to

36:58 ↗ kind of continue to incentivize

37:02 ↗ that type of

37:04 ↗ development

37:12 ↗ different thought

37:13 ↗ um commissioner monahan

37:16 ↗ hey thanks um matt monahan here uh

37:19 ↗ completely agree with um both jason and

37:21 ↗ sarah a plus one everything they said

37:23 ↗ and then um i'll comment on the first

37:26 ↗ um point i take nina's point that yeah

37:29 ↗ we should probably talk to some of the

37:30 ↗ the bigger hoas out there completely

37:31 ↗ agree but i'd be inclined to not include

37:35 ↗ private parks

37:36 ↗ um you know the city of issaquah would

37:38 ↗ be as the local government publishing a

37:40 ↗ map and so i don't want there to be any

37:42 ↗ possibility that somebody could be

37:45 ↗ you know

37:46 ↗ relying on a city map to do something

37:49 ↗ that might technically violate some

37:51 ↗ property rights somewhere i don't want

37:52 ↗ the city to be you know the voice of

37:54 ↗ that potential jeopardy um i know i'm a

37:57 ↗ lawyer but i'm definitely not a property

37:58 ↗ lawyer so i don't know what the issues

38:00 ↗ would be but i don't want us want us to

38:02 ↗ encourage the city to get anywhere close

38:04 ↗ to that particular issue so i think they

38:05 ↗ should be left off

38:07 ↗ thanks

38:10 ↗ great thanks commissioner so you're

38:11 ↗ basically saying that the city shouldn't

38:12 ↗ publish the private natural amenities

38:16 ↗ in their city maps yes because i think

38:19 ↗ that would lead any

38:21 ↗ citizen who looked at it being like oh

38:22 ↗ yeah i can definitely go there and enjoy

38:24 ↗ it and there might be circumstances

38:26 ↗ where they can't um and i don't want the

38:28 ↗ city being the one who might have

38:30 ↗ encouraged that individual to

38:32 ↗ unknowingly violate some property rights

38:34 ↗ somewhere

38:38 ↗ great thank you

38:39 ↗ uh commissioner milligan

38:43 ↗ thank you

38:44 ↗ maddie milligan uh thank you so much on

38:46 ↗ uh matt for bringing that up uh your

38:48 ↗ voice i was i'm just gonna clarify that

38:51 ↗ i think he's referring to public and

38:53 ↗ private parks not natural amenity areas

38:56 ↗ which are definitely just residents only

38:59 ↗ just for the listening public there are

39:00 ↗ so many terms flying around here

39:03 ↗ hard to keep track of them thank you

39:06 ↗ for following up on that matt

39:11 ↗ and thank you for following up on that

39:12 ↗ commissioner

39:15 ↗ it's a group effort

39:17 ↗ so looking out to our planning policy

39:19 ↗ commissioners is there anywhere areas

39:21 ↗ where we find consensus with one another

39:24 ↗ is there anything we can pass on to help

39:26 ↗ this first draft be a strong first draft

39:30 ↗ in order for the city to then churn and

39:32 ↗ turn and then deliver us a better

39:35 ↗ uh final copy

39:40 ↗ commissioner i don't

39:43 ↗ think i hear agreement about the five

39:46 ↗ plus or nine plus lots um i'm

39:50 ↗ i still think it's a it's a small but

39:52 ↗ significant requirement

39:55 ↗ and when we talk about affordability one

39:57 ↗ of the things that commissioner bader

39:59 ↗ said that i thought i appreciated a

40:00 ↗ great deal and i think some others did

40:02 ↗ too is that in affordable housing we

40:05 ↗ don't want a quality of life to be less

40:07 ↗ and we're just trying to find out that

40:09 ↗ balance that makes it so it's just not

40:12 ↗ you're just not able to build for the

40:14 ↗ missing middle and i think that the

40:16 ↗ requirements of 48 square feet per unit

40:20 ↗ is

40:21 ↗ very reasonable

40:24 ↗ but boy if if there's somebody who has

40:26 ↗ some um maybe it's 30 i don't know that

40:29 ↗ makes it what where is the tipping point

40:31 ↗ there that makes it so that

40:33 ↗ this

40:35 ↗ multi-family residential could be built

40:37 ↗ and that

40:39 ↗ this particular amenity is not the

40:42 ↗ tipping point for it

40:44 ↗ i i don't believe that it would be

40:46 ↗ um somebody else has some other

40:48 ↗ more compelling information i'd love to

40:50 ↗ hear it but i want to stick with the

40:51 ↗ five

40:52 ↗ not the nine

40:53 ↗ thank you

40:59 ↗ commissioner

41:01 ↗ thank you chair so i i could stick with

41:05 ↗ five as it is today

41:07 ↗ and i think including balconies

41:10 ↗ in that i think helps you know those

41:14 ↗ people are trying to create those

41:16 ↗ buildings you know if it's if it's

41:18 ↗ cheaper easier for them to use less

41:20 ↗ square footage by putting in balconies

41:21 ↗ on every apartment

41:23 ↗ um rather than having to have large open

41:26 ↗ spaces i think

41:28 ↗ that makes it easier

41:30 ↗ right

41:31 ↗ maybe i'm

41:34 ↗ maybe the balconies go away for the nine

41:37 ↗ maybe there's some middle ground

41:47 ↗ thank you and and again we we have a lot

41:49 ↗ of opinionated people on planning policy

41:52 ↗ commission it's why we have so much fun

41:54 ↗ um i think first of all can we all get

41:56 ↗ behind commissioner monahan's point i

41:58 ↗ think i can as far as not having the

42:01 ↗ city publish

42:03 ↗ private parts does anybody feel that is

42:06 ↗ a good thing or a bad thing

42:08 ↗ i'm seeing a bunch of thumbs up

42:11 ↗ so i think the city and the staff can

42:13 ↗ take that one to the bank

42:15 ↗ um let's go down and

42:17 ↗ i'm up it's gone uh minnie can you

42:20 ↗ put up your questions so this yeah the

42:22 ↗ second question was should the

42:25 ↗ natural amenity space requirements for

42:28 ↗ non-residential

42:29 ↗ projects be extended beyond central so

42:32 ↗ you guys didn't discuss this yet but

42:35 ↗ this was i think one of the

42:36 ↗ environmental board members um asking

42:38 ↗ that we only require

42:40 ↗ these spaces within the central asset

42:43 ↗ club but if someone's doing a commercial

42:45 ↗ development not in these areas but you

42:48 ↗ know in commercial intensive zone which

42:50 ↗ is more industrial type of look should

42:52 ↗ should these

42:54 ↗ uh amenity spaces be required city-wide

42:58 ↗ you're right we didn't touch that one

43:02 ↗ you know it's hard i mean we all want

43:04 ↗ our city to be beautiful but we also

43:06 ↗ need to be practical and again in in

43:09 ↗ in our industrial area kind of where the

43:10 ↗ quarry is do you really need to have

43:12 ↗ balconies on buildings i know

43:15 ↗ again for every board a hammer is a nail

43:17 ↗ so we're all coming at it a little

43:18 ↗ differently but does that make any real

43:21 ↗ sense

43:22 ↗ again i want our city to be beautiful to

43:23 ↗ drive by and look at and for people to

43:26 ↗ go wow

43:27 ↗ but it doesn't make sense and are we

43:29 ↗ going to attract the type of development

43:30 ↗ in certain areas that we want

43:33 ↗ and that people can afford

43:35 ↗ yeah and if a major ad and the reason

43:38 ↗ why we didn't do that is because with

43:40 ↗ this update we weren't changing any

43:41 ↗ policy so we were trying to keep the

43:44 ↗ the regulations aligned with the policy

43:46 ↗ of what the desired outcomes are for

43:49 ↗ these areas so that that's one of the

43:50 ↗ reasons why

43:51 ↗ this particular draft did not go above

43:54 ↗ and beyond and add these requirements to

43:56 ↗ other areas

43:58 ↗ so our recommendation is to not change

44:00 ↗ policy at this point and go beyond what

44:03 ↗ already is in the code related to this

44:05 ↗ but since this was a

44:07 ↗ comment and uh by one of your fellow

44:09 ↗ commissioners we wanted to have an

44:10 ↗ opportunity to discuss

44:13 ↗ you know and i appreciate the background

44:14 ↗ i think it's important to have that

44:15 ↗ context

44:17 ↗ anybody have any thoughts on that

44:22 ↗ i don't know if these are old comments

44:23 ↗ or new comments

44:25 ↗ commissioner lewis has a new comment

44:29 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis i will

44:31 ↗ say many that at this point i agree with

44:32 ↗ the city's recommendation

44:34 ↗ to not change policy and make it

44:36 ↗ city-wide if for some reason uh the city

44:39 ↗ thinks that this is something that's

44:40 ↗ worth exploring i'm certainly open to

44:42 ↗ hearing it but right now i haven't been

44:43 ↗ given enough information to be able to

44:45 ↗ fully weigh the pros and cons and so i

44:47 ↗ will say that my position of agreeing

44:49 ↗ with right now the city position is more

44:50 ↗ of a default position because i don't

44:52 ↗ think that i've been we've been given

44:53 ↗ the space that's kind of why i haven't

44:55 ↗ brought it up as a discussion so if it's

44:57 ↗ something that council thinks it's

44:58 ↗ interesting i'd certainly be willing to

45:00 ↗ look at it more detailed for when we see

45:02 ↗ the next draft but at this point i agree

45:04 ↗ with your recommendation

45:07 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

45:08 ↗ commissioner sergosa

45:11 ↗ thank you uh commissioner sarah goes and

45:12 ↗ i apologize for not stating my name the

45:14 ↗ last couple comments i just realized it

45:17 ↗ um but i wanted to say that i i think

45:20 ↗ extending it out

45:22 ↗ it would be a great discussion i think

45:23 ↗ that is something that we should

45:25 ↗ probably consider and think about but i

45:27 ↗ totally agree with the recommendation

45:28 ↗ that for now

45:30 ↗ let's leave it alone and not uh you know

45:33 ↗ extend the policies as they are

45:39 ↗ thank you

45:40 ↗ commissioner milligan

45:42 ↗ uh thank you nina milligan here i have a

45:45 ↗ question if i can ask minnie a quick

45:47 ↗ question just before i make my comment

45:49 ↗ and that is minnie can you remind me um

45:51 ↗ is this talking about commercial and

45:53 ↗ mixed use

45:56 ↗ yeah yeah okay so um especially because

46:00 ↗ of the mixed use because that's

46:01 ↗ residential and commercial uh but even

46:04 ↗ if it's just commercial

46:06 ↗ i would love to have this conversation

46:08 ↗ and it is hard to hold back and say hey

46:11 ↗ we're just trying to update and bring

46:14 ↗ our code into compliance and not do

46:17 ↗ changes i agree with the previous two

46:20 ↗ commissioners uh to put this in the bike

46:23 ↗ rack is that what we're calling it

46:25 ↗ uh yeah we've had a few terms whiteboard

46:28 ↗ i think was where we went and we'll put

46:30 ↗ it put it somewhere because we really

46:32 ↗ would like to have this come back uh as

46:34 ↗ soon as as we possibly can but resisting

46:37 ↗ the temptation this time thank you very

46:38 ↗ much

46:42 ↗ great thank you commissioner milligan

46:43 ↗ i'm going to throw in my my hat behind

46:45 ↗ my fellow colleagues and agree

46:47 ↗ um we've got a lot on our plate we're

46:49 ↗ already doing a lot of heavy lifting i'm

46:51 ↗ not looking for a perfect code i'm

46:53 ↗ looking for a good code and again all of

46:55 ↗ this stuff can be

46:56 ↗ looked at again in the future

46:58 ↗ but right now that wasn't what was asked

47:00 ↗ of us and to start

47:02 ↗ um

47:03 ↗ opening pandora's box

47:05 ↗ at this point

47:07 ↗ doesn't make a lot of sense so um

47:10 ↗ commissioner monahan i believe you're

47:11 ↗ the only one who doesn't support

47:12 ↗ commissioner bader if you guys would

47:13 ↗ like to speak on this um please feel

47:15 ↗ free i'll give you guys a couple seconds

47:17 ↗ to let me know otherwise um

47:19 ↗ i think we'll move on

47:21 ↗ and see if we can't get consistent

47:23 ↗ consensus on the last two

47:30 ↗ hearing none um what was the next so i

47:32 ↗ think you the staff can also take that

47:34 ↗ one that we're comfortable to

47:36 ↗ just keep it where it is right now uh

47:39 ↗ what was the recommendation of staff

47:41 ↗ so

47:42 ↗ the next question is um

47:44 ↗ should the natural amenity space

47:46 ↗ threshold be increased from five lots to

47:49 ↗ nine lots

47:51 ↗ here you might find not as much

47:53 ↗ consensus

47:55 ↗ would anyone like to go

47:57 ↗ i'm i'm personally i'm a proponent of

47:59 ↗ raising it um i'd like to see some of

48:01 ↗ our infill happen

48:02 ↗ and again just

48:04 ↗ i'm concerned that some of the the

48:06 ↗ stringent requirements that happen i

48:08 ↗ mean when we were talking about short

48:10 ↗ flats a couple months ago i think i

48:12 ↗ might have been

48:13 ↗ one of the people that was in favor of

48:14 ↗ seeing that raised from four i think we

48:17 ↗ were talking four back then four to nine

48:19 ↗ so that's my piece but please

48:23 ↗ open floor

48:30 ↗ and i know everybody has already we've

48:32 ↗ already captured comments so i know

48:34 ↗ i know a couple commissioners that i'm

48:35 ↗ looking at already feel that they'd like

48:37 ↗ to keep it where it is so

48:40 ↗ um if anyone would like to have their

48:41 ↗ two cents please feel free to right now

48:43 ↗ otherwise i think the city knows their

48:46 ↗ i think it was two and two

48:49 ↗ up well three and

48:52 ↗ three and two

48:54 ↗ might have to go back to the recording

48:55 ↗ and look

48:57 ↗ well how many for keeping it at five

49:00 ↗ raise your hand

49:03 ↗ three

49:05 ↗ three two three oh okay

49:08 ↗ one of the commissioners has a comment

49:12 ↗ commissioner bader

49:14 ↗ yeah this is sarah bader i am um

49:17 ↗ more in favor of keep

49:20 ↗ at five but one two

49:22 ↗ just kind of think

49:24 ↗ of

49:25 ↗ trouble

49:27 ↗ um

49:35 ↗ sure i think the two nuances we heard

49:37 ↗ was one was can it be tied to an

49:39 ↗ affordable housing but i think there

49:41 ↗ wasn't consensus on a treating

49:44 ↗ affordable housing different than the

49:45 ↗ others but we can you know explore that

49:48 ↗ the other one was maybe we allow the

49:50 ↗ private balconies for less than five

49:53 ↗ um

49:54 ↗ lots to count towards the common space

49:57 ↗ um if you're going to get rid of the

50:00 ↗ balcony to be counted but

50:02 ↗ let the the smaller developments count

50:04 ↗ the balconies

50:06 ↗ was the other um kind of nuanced to this

50:10 ↗ topic

50:14 ↗ we are nothing if not a democracy so the

50:17 ↗ commissioners have spoken

50:19 ↗ so

50:20 ↗ moving on i think we only have one more

50:21 ↗ question and then we can move on to the

50:23 ↗ presentation the last one was the

50:25 ↗ private balcony um you know should that

50:28 ↗ be

50:29 ↗ should the natural uh amenity space be

50:31 ↗ allowed uh to be counted to the

50:34 ↗ balconies be counted towards natural

50:36 ↗ amenities bases

50:37 ↗ yes or

50:38 ↗ no i think we just heard an earful about

50:41 ↗ that so yeah so no is the sort of the

50:44 ↗ majority opinion sounds like

50:47 ↗ how many for yeses

50:49 ↗ is everybody comfortable with uh

50:51 ↗ mini's proposal is that a no a hard no

50:57 ↗ all right and then the last one was

50:58 ↗ really anything else we missed in this

51:00 ↗ draft if you would like to add to the

51:02 ↗ list that we should explore you know

51:04 ↗ research

51:05 ↗ ad

51:06 ↗ or does it meet the golden outcomes that

51:08 ↗ we had charted so we heard

51:11 ↗ we're um when they're headed in the

51:13 ↗ right direction

51:16 ↗ yeah i believe so

51:19 ↗ that concludes this uh topic and the

51:22 ↗ next one we're going to do is trees and

51:24 ↗ that's

51:26 ↗ dan's going to do the presentation on

51:27 ↗ that

51:34 ↗ one kristen might may i please have uh

51:39 ↗ sharing access

51:42 ↗ actually i'm going to have to ask minnie

51:44 ↗ to please pass the presenter role on

51:46 ↗ please

51:48 ↗ okay so i go in under share

51:52 ↗ and stop sharing well let me see if i

51:54 ↗ can do it

51:59 ↗ who would you look at that

52:01 ↗ i did

52:04 ↗ have presenting privileges now dan

52:06 ↗ wonderful thank you

52:15 ↗ okay well good evening everybody um i'm

52:19 ↗ gonna be discussing trees

52:21 ↗ uh and i'm gonna first start by going

52:24 ↗ through a summary of comment responses

52:28 ↗ and then from there

52:30 ↗ i have a couple of policy questions that

52:33 ↗ i would like

52:35 ↗ the commission to to discuss

52:42 ↗ so summary of comments

52:43 ↗ uh

52:45 ↗ we i i tried to compile all of the

52:47 ↗ different things that we heard we

52:49 ↗ received a lot of comments on trees both

52:51 ↗ from the

52:52 ↗ parks board

52:54 ↗ uh the environmental board

52:56 ↗ some of what we heard last week our

52:59 ↗ previously from the planning policy

53:01 ↗ commission

53:02 ↗ and

53:03 ↗ then the ones that we received from uh

53:06 ↗ from residents

53:07 ↗ uh

53:08 ↗ tracking of replacement trees

53:11 ↗ uh came up a lot

53:13 ↗ and basically the the gist of that was

53:16 ↗ what tools is the city going to use

53:20 ↗ um

53:20 ↗ to track

53:22 ↗ replacement trees and

53:24 ↗ um if at all

53:25 ↗ and uh we originally had not

53:29 ↗ intended

53:30 ↗ to or we did not include

53:32 ↗ tracking in code

53:35 ↗ but our recommendation moving forward is

53:37 ↗ to

53:38 ↗ put tracking into into code um and then

53:43 ↗ the how will be

53:44 ↗ uh another discussion

53:48 ↗ but we expect that we will use

53:51 ↗ uh aerial technology such as lidar gis

53:54 ↗ and then on the ground inspections

53:57 ↗ um we also heard about bonding and

54:00 ↗ reporting for replacement trees

54:02 ↗ uh we will be exploring that

54:05 ↗ uh exemptions for the city this came up

54:09 ↗ a few times as well

54:10 ↗ and

54:11 ↗ it largely relates to an existing

54:14 ↗ exemption carried over to the new code

54:18 ↗ uh

54:19 ↗ it's for

54:20 ↗ right-of-way

54:22 ↗ uh

54:22 ↗ because streets and sidewalks are

54:25 ↗ considered uh essential facilities so

54:28 ↗ currently the public works department

54:31 ↗ is allowed to remove trees within the

54:33 ↗ right of way

54:35 ↗ without any kind of

54:37 ↗ permit

54:40 ↗ but it should be

54:41 ↗ noted that there are no other exemptions

54:44 ↗ in the code so

54:46 ↗ departments removing trees that's parks

54:48 ↗ and public works

54:49 ↗ they are still expected to

54:53 ↗ submit tree removal permits

54:58 ↗ uh planting off

55:00 ↗ let's see

55:04 ↗ we also heard concerns about

55:06 ↗ uh single-family properties now being

55:09 ↗ allowed to plant off-site or pay in lieu

55:12 ↗ uh this was previously not in code

55:15 ↗ and

55:16 ↗ uh has been

55:18 ↗ it was only

55:20 ↗ allowed in

55:22 ↗ uh for development and redevelopment

55:25 ↗ projects

55:26 ↗ um we've carried it over to single for

55:28 ↗ our family properties

55:30 ↗ uh one of the reasons being that

55:32 ↗ replanting is now required in every

55:35 ↗ instance

55:36 ↗ so if we want to make sure that

55:38 ↗ we are approaching right tree right

55:41 ↗ place that we are considering

55:44 ↗ offering flexibility to

55:47 ↗ homeowners who may need it

55:49 ↗ that that's why that was carried over

55:53 ↗ uh fianlu should account for maintenance

55:55 ↗ and loss of benefits we are going to

55:57 ↗ explore including maintenance into the

56:00 ↗ fee in lieu

56:03 ↗ fian liu is not codified it changes with

56:05 ↗ the market based on the cost of tree

56:08 ↗ and

56:10 ↗ stakes labor

56:13 ↗ 30-year targets do not account for loss

56:16 ↗ of short-term

56:17 ↗ benefits that's that's true

56:20 ↗ um you know if we are going to

56:25 ↗ um i think there's an acknowledgement

56:27 ↗ that

56:28 ↗ if we were gonna allow for

56:31 ↗ uh trees to be removed including

56:34 ↗ um hazardous trees

56:36 ↗ that there is going to be a short-term

56:39 ↗ loss of the values and benefits

56:42 ↗ that trees provide um i do think that

56:46 ↗ uh you know we have approval criteria so

56:48 ↗ that

56:49 ↗ not just anybody can come in and

56:52 ↗ ask to remove a tree

56:54 ↗ that's currently the case today

56:56 ↗ um you could remove a certain number of

56:58 ↗ trees on your property without a

57:01 ↗ permit

57:02 ↗ we've eliminated that option and so now

57:04 ↗ everything requires a permit um and you

57:07 ↗ need to to meet approval criteria so we

57:10 ↗ are doing what we can while also being

57:14 ↗ cognizant of

57:16 ↗ property rights

57:21 ↗ uh the first policy question that i have

57:25 ↗ i only have two

57:27 ↗ is

57:29 ↗ should we codify the nomination process

57:33 ↗ and

57:34 ↗ establish regulations for heritage trees

57:38 ↗ uh

57:40 ↗ the recommendation that we have is to

57:43 ↗ codify the heritage tree program and the

57:46 ↗ nomination process and establish

57:49 ↗ regulations for removal

57:51 ↗ um

57:52 ↗ we currently have this heritage tree

57:56 ↗ program that lives outside the code

57:59 ↗ um

58:00 ↗ it i don't see it used very often

58:05 ↗ we don't have a

58:07 ↗ tracking mechanism

58:09 ↗ for those trees for when they

58:12 ↗ where they are

58:14 ↗ when are they being uh

58:16 ↗ removed

58:17 ↗ um so this would put it into code and

58:19 ↗ make it uh cpd's responsibility to

58:24 ↗ um

58:26 ↗ track where these trees are being uh are

58:29 ↗ located and also track any removal

58:32 ↗ that's one of the benefits of adopting

58:34 ↗ it

58:38 ↗ right now there's also no

58:41 ↗ regulations that treat heritage trees

58:44 ↗ differently

58:45 ↗ from any other

58:47 ↗ significant tree in the city

58:49 ↗ so we would now now the code

58:52 ↗ would apply to these heritage trees

58:55 ↗ and they would be treated similarly to

58:57 ↗ landmark trees meaning that they would

58:59 ↗ need to

59:00 ↗ be designated as hazardous by a

59:03 ↗ certified arborist in order to be

59:05 ↗ removed

59:08 ↗ the only

59:09 ↗ con

59:10 ↗ is that

59:12 ↗ our removal regulations for landmark

59:14 ↗ trees

59:16 ↗ would be

59:17 ↗ applied to this there there would be

59:19 ↗ nothing else that that we can do if it's

59:21 ↗ deemed hazardous by an arborist then

59:24 ↗ they would be allowed to remove it um

59:26 ↗ there's there's

59:28 ↗ not anything more we could do in in that

59:30 ↗ particular case

59:35 ↗ the second question that i have

59:38 ↗ relates to

59:40 ↗ should the proposed canopy coverage be

59:43 ↗ further refined by lot size and land use

59:47 ↗ we heard this a lot

59:49 ↗ we have these established or these

59:51 ↗ proposed i'm sorry uh canopy coverage

59:56 ↗ percentages

59:58 ↗ uh they're based on sub-area

1:00:01 ↗ and they make they currently make no

1:00:04 ↗ distinction between

1:00:06 ↗ lot sizes or land use

1:00:09 ↗ so our recommendation would be to

1:00:11 ↗ further refine the proposed canopy

1:00:13 ↗ coverage

1:00:14 ↗ to account for lot sizes and land use

1:00:18 ↗ we think this would allow for

1:00:20 ↗ more granularity by taking into account

1:00:24 ↗ that for example commercial lots are

1:00:26 ↗ different than than a single family lot

1:00:32 ↗ the

1:00:35 ↗ downside to this may mean that canada

1:00:38 ↗ coverage is reduced

1:00:40 ↗ in um

1:00:42 ↗ and when i say it's reduced

1:00:45 ↗ i mean the targets not um the goal is

1:00:48 ↗ still to maintain and enhance canopy

1:00:50 ↗ coverage but

1:00:51 ↗ uh

1:00:52 ↗ in some cases we may need to as we

1:00:56 ↗ refine these canopy coverage targets

1:01:00 ↗ we may need to reduce some of these

1:01:02 ↗ targets

1:01:04 ↗ to to account for lot sizes and land

1:01:07 ↗ uses

1:01:09 ↗ and

1:01:10 ↗ that is

1:01:12 ↗ all i have and

1:01:13 ↗ pass it on to you to discuss

1:01:20 ↗ great thank you daniel

1:01:31 ↗ gonna let our chat board percolate here

1:01:33 ↗ for a minute

1:01:50 ↗ mr lewis

1:01:54 ↗ thank you chair voice commissioner joy

1:01:56 ↗ lewis i'm not going to address either of

1:01:58 ↗ those policy questions right now because

1:01:59 ↗ i think there's quite a bit for us to

1:02:01 ↗ discuss about true preservation before

1:02:03 ↗ we get into addressing our policy

1:02:05 ↗ questions that have been asked from us i

1:02:07 ↗ don't often do this but i i want to

1:02:09 ↗ refer

1:02:10 ↗ um commissioners to an email that we

1:02:12 ↗ received from susan neville yesterday

1:02:15 ↗ she very eloquently and very precisely

1:02:18 ↗ captured what i think that we've heard

1:02:20 ↗ from our environmental board

1:02:22 ↗ as well as from concerned citizens that

1:02:24 ↗ right now we're really missing some key

1:02:26 ↗ positions in staff right now and i

1:02:30 ↗ want our um our commission to recommend

1:02:33 ↗ to the administration and to council to

1:02:35 ↗ budget for an urban forest management

1:02:38 ↗ position as well as um a review arborist

1:02:42 ↗ i actually think that we need both i

1:02:44 ↗ think there's a case to be made for

1:02:45 ↗ having both positions if we had one i

1:02:47 ↗ think that would be okay and i think

1:02:48 ↗ that the code needs to be rewritten so

1:02:50 ↗ that instead of saying a qualified

1:02:52 ↗ professional arborist we direct them to

1:02:55 ↗ staff um that in that specific role that

1:02:57 ↗ staff has i think that it would be

1:03:00 ↗ wrong for us to continue to expect

1:03:02 ↗ uh to get a different result and still

1:03:05 ↗ be doing the same thing with uh i

1:03:07 ↗ appreciate dan saying that this next

1:03:09 ↗ time we get a draft we're going to be

1:03:10 ↗ getting additional mechanisms for

1:03:12 ↗ tracking which are completely missing i

1:03:14 ↗ think half of the

1:03:16 ↗ the coin is missing here right now from

1:03:18 ↗ our tree preservation policy um and code

1:03:20 ↗ that's here and i don't think that we're

1:03:22 ↗ really addressing our issues of pay to

1:03:24 ↗ remove it's very easy to have an

1:03:26 ↗ arborist look at your tree

1:03:28 ↗ say that there's woodpecker marks on it

1:03:30 ↗ it is dying because there's bugs in it

1:03:32 ↗ and it can be taken down

1:03:34 ↗ because you pay them a fee to do so it

1:03:36 ↗ is not accurate for our community and

1:03:38 ↗ it's not accurate for our tree count so

1:03:41 ↗ i think that we need to seriously

1:03:42 ↗ address

1:03:43 ↗ tree preservation by talking about how

1:03:45 ↗ we're actually going to be preserving

1:03:46 ↗ trees um there's been a lot of great

1:03:48 ↗ work that's been put into this code but

1:03:50 ↗ i think that uh comments about

1:03:52 ↗ specifically how staff insure it are

1:03:55 ↗ very important and need to be passed on

1:03:56 ↗ by this commission i'd love to hear from

1:03:58 ↗ other people about this thanks

1:04:05 ↗ and here we shall commissioner milligan

1:04:11 ↗ thank you chairwise uh thank you

1:04:12 ↗ commissioner lewis and we do have our

1:04:15 ↗ policy questions uh that i a couple of

1:04:18 ↗ them i would like to answer but i want

1:04:19 ↗ to um for the sake of organization

1:04:23 ↗ i'm going to stick with chair lewis's

1:04:26 ↗ characterization first and try to

1:04:28 ↗ discuss around this so that we might be

1:04:30 ↗ able to get to some consensus for staff

1:04:32 ↗ and uh i

1:04:34 ↗ agree and have long wished that we had a

1:04:37 ↗ designated

1:04:38 ↗ arborist on our staff

1:04:41 ↗ for that advocacy that that a

1:04:44 ↗ staff member would and the expertise

1:04:47 ↗ that would support these goals and and

1:04:50 ↗ strongly held beliefs that the trees are

1:04:52 ↗ some of the most important things in our

1:04:54 ↗ city

1:04:55 ↗ uh and with that

1:04:58 ↗ i would hope that the

1:04:59 ↗ concerns that all of us seem to have but

1:05:02 ↗ i i especially have and i've heard from

1:05:04 ↗ others is that sure we got all this

1:05:07 ↗ all this code we're working on here but

1:05:09 ↗ how are we going to enforce it who's

1:05:11 ↗ going to enforce it how does

1:05:13 ↗ uh a city keep its trees rather than

1:05:15 ↗ deal with issues when somebody's

1:05:17 ↗ cut a tree and they shouldn't have

1:05:19 ↗ especially

1:05:21 ↗ when the

1:05:22 ↗ fallback of somebody who cut a tree who

1:05:25 ↗ shouldn't have is a 30-year gap i mean

1:05:27 ↗ we're all frustrated with this 30-year

1:05:29 ↗ gap i don't know how to make that better

1:05:32 ↗ except if we can

1:05:34 ↗ use tree preservation

1:05:36 ↗ as the as the

1:05:38 ↗ standard safety mechanism

1:05:41 ↗ uh another way to

1:05:45 ↗ more highly value tree preservation is

1:05:47 ↗ to

1:05:48 ↗ look hard at this off-site and pay in

1:05:51 ↗ lieu

1:05:52 ↗ opportunity yeah instead of tree

1:05:55 ↗ preservation

1:05:56 ↗ so i

1:05:58 ↗ i want to

1:06:00 ↗ i brought that up before it comes up

1:06:02 ↗ again

1:06:04 ↗ i don't think we should be in general

1:06:07 ↗ offering off-site and pay in lieu

1:06:09 ↗ instead of

1:06:10 ↗ preserving trees and so why would i want

1:06:12 ↗ to extend it to single-family

1:06:16 ↗ zones

1:06:17 ↗ from where it already is

1:06:19 ↗ and just in closing about these

1:06:23 ↗ comments i i want to find a place and

1:06:26 ↗ i'm just going to use this one right

1:06:27 ↗ here um susan novell's comments on this

1:06:31 ↗ were really helpful and i'm glad that

1:06:33 ↗ commissioner lewis used those for

1:06:35 ↗ leverage for this comment but we've

1:06:36 ↗ gotten a lot of great comments and i

1:06:39 ↗ think it must be hard for staff here we

1:06:41 ↗ have this opportunity of a group of

1:06:42 ↗ people saying whether we agree or not

1:06:45 ↗ and the public comment comes in and

1:06:47 ↗ shotgun

1:06:48 ↗ but i wish i could say gee i agree with

1:06:51 ↗ that public comment i agree with that

1:06:53 ↗ public comment i agree with that one but

1:06:55 ↗ i nobody has the time for that i just

1:06:58 ↗ want to encourage our public and the

1:07:00 ↗ people who are speaking out and the

1:07:01 ↗ staff who are listening to them

1:07:03 ↗ to find those nexus of agreement

1:07:07 ↗ where

1:07:08 ↗ that

1:07:09 ↗ member of the public is finding uh

1:07:11 ↗ support

1:07:12 ↗ in that their comments can have the

1:07:15 ↗ weight that they deserve because they

1:07:16 ↗ really have been very helpful

1:07:19 ↗ we'll

1:07:20 ↗ talk about heritage trees and other

1:07:21 ↗ things later thanks

1:07:27 ↗ great thank you commissioner milligan

1:07:29 ↗ uh commissioner zaragoza

1:07:33 ↗ thanks but i think my question was

1:07:35 ↗ answered

1:07:39 ↗ commissioner bader yeah hi this is sarah

1:07:43 ↗ bader this is a question that's not

1:07:45 ↗ directly related to these two questions

1:07:47 ↗ but it kind of came into my mind as i

1:07:50 ↗ was driving around the other day so i'm

1:07:51 ↗ going to

1:07:52 ↗ ask it anyway if it's not appropriate

1:07:54 ↗ just let me know but i had a kind of

1:07:55 ↗ case example of seeing how the code what

1:07:58 ↗ the code would look like in practice

1:08:00 ↗ where

1:08:01 ↗ i was driving um you know i turned right

1:08:03 ↗ on gilman um and that new jackson shell

1:08:06 ↗ station

1:08:07 ↗ i noticed the little teeny like teeny

1:08:09 ↗ teeny tiny little like sapling trees

1:08:12 ↗ that they planted there

1:08:14 ↗ where like the difference between those

1:08:15 ↗ guys and like the nice big trees like on

1:08:18 ↗ the next lot over was like stark um and

1:08:22 ↗ so i was curious like is that the type

1:08:25 ↗ of replacement that is going to be

1:08:27 ↗ allowed or encouraged in this new

1:08:30 ↗ version of the code

1:08:35 ↗ would staff like to step in great

1:08:36 ↗ question

1:08:38 ↗ yeah that is a good question uh one of

1:08:40 ↗ the comments that we received recently

1:08:44 ↗ and i i actually think it might have

1:08:46 ↗ come

1:08:47 ↗ from commissioner lewis

1:08:49 ↗ was to

1:08:51 ↗ um look at what other cities are doing

1:08:54 ↗ and

1:08:55 ↗ look at what replic what their

1:08:58 ↗ replacement requirements are so

1:09:00 ↗ currently our replacement requirements

1:09:03 ↗ are for decidious trees you're looking

1:09:04 ↗ at a two inch caliper tree is a

1:09:08 ↗ replacement tree

1:09:09 ↗ for a conifer

1:09:11 ↗ um we ask for seven to eight feet

1:09:14 ↗ um

1:09:16 ↗ so i thought it was a good suggestion

1:09:18 ↗ that got passed on to me and

1:09:20 ↗ we're going to start looking around and

1:09:22 ↗ see what what other cities are doing

1:09:28 ↗ because those those little saplings

1:09:30 ↗ probably are like two inches but when

1:09:32 ↗ they're next to like trees that are like

1:09:34 ↗ 16 inches right it doesn't quite

1:09:37 ↗ i don't know i don't know if that's

1:09:38 ↗ quite the replacement that we would want

1:09:41 ↗ to see especially if we're trying to

1:09:42 ↗ maintain canopy and that sort of thing

1:09:44 ↗ so i'll leave it at that but

1:09:47 ↗ it is hard um in terms of survivability

1:09:52 ↗ it

1:09:53 ↗ you know it'd be and cost um it'd be

1:09:56 ↗ great to have a replacement tree that

1:09:59 ↗ was already eight inches um

1:10:03 ↗ that would be extremely expensive and

1:10:06 ↗ there'd be less success possibility of

1:10:10 ↗ success for that tree surviving

1:10:20 ↗ great thank you that makes quite a bit

1:10:22 ↗ of sense

1:10:26 ↗ any other comments for daniel on tree

1:10:28 ↗ preservation

1:10:31 ↗ i'll add my two cents here in a minute

1:10:33 ↗ but i want to give fellow commissioners

1:10:35 ↗ another

1:10:36 ↗ opportunity another bite at the apple

1:10:46 ↗ all right well just a couple of

1:10:49 ↗ top mine topics um i do think the

1:10:51 ↗ exemptions for city in terms of the

1:10:53 ↗ right-of-way is appropriate i don't have

1:10:55 ↗ a problem

1:10:56 ↗ we're not talking about

1:10:59 ↗ potential right of ways we're talking

1:11:00 ↗ about existing right of ways correct

1:11:02 ↗ daniel

1:11:09 ↗ when we are looking at a development

1:11:13 ↗ project so

1:11:15 ↗ i it sounds like what you're saying is

1:11:17 ↗ if we're looking at a plot and

1:11:18 ↗ somebody's going to

1:11:20 ↗ build a road

1:11:23 ↗ that is going to be future right away

1:11:25 ↗ with this code apply

1:11:27 ↗ um

1:11:29 ↗ that's a bit more complex we would apply

1:11:32 ↗ our retention standards

1:11:34 ↗ they would need to replant replacement

1:11:36 ↗ trees

1:11:37 ↗ and street trees

1:11:39 ↗ and

1:11:40 ↗ this exemption accounts for existing

1:11:43 ↗ right-of-way

1:11:45 ↗ okay so that yeah

1:11:47 ↗ that's kind of how i read it so again i

1:11:50 ↗ i'm okay with the city as far as having

1:11:51 ↗ those exemptions

1:11:53 ↗ i'm going to take

1:11:55 ↗ the different route than my my fellow

1:11:57 ↗ colleagues and i actually think

1:12:00 ↗ you know right now

1:12:01 ↗ a single-family home

1:12:03 ↗ currently

1:12:04 ↗ it's just simply how many you can take

1:12:06 ↗ out a year

1:12:07 ↗ i think by having to

1:12:10 ↗ show a permit and i think that is an

1:12:12 ↗ additional

1:12:14 ↗ regulation i'm comfortable with that but

1:12:16 ↗ i think once you start getting

1:12:18 ↗ not allowing them to pay the tree in

1:12:21 ↗ lieu or

1:12:22 ↗ having to try and somehow make up that

1:12:24 ↗ 30-year loss i think we start getting

1:12:26 ↗ into undue burden and unnecessary

1:12:28 ↗ hardship

1:12:29 ↗ so

1:12:31 ↗ that's my comment on that

1:12:33 ↗ and then yes as far as heritage trees so

1:12:35 ↗ i'd like to try and get a answer for

1:12:37 ↗ your policy questions um yes

1:12:41 ↗ certainly

1:12:42 ↗ um

1:12:42 ↗ yeah i believe that should be codified

1:12:45 ↗ and

1:12:47 ↗ i think

1:12:48 ↗ that and then yes i would like to

1:12:50 ↗ basically

1:12:51 ↗ um agree with commissioner lewis i think

1:12:53 ↗ the tracking piece is completely missing

1:12:56 ↗ um and again i want to appreciate daniel

1:12:58 ↗ mentioning that

1:13:00 ↗ they are going to put it into code but

1:13:02 ↗ we still don't know how

1:13:04 ↗ very important stuff and while we trust

1:13:07 ↗ our staff and love our staff um would

1:13:09 ↗ definitely want to see that in any type

1:13:11 ↗ of code that

1:13:12 ↗ gets across the finish line so i'm not

1:13:14 ↗ sure the timeline you guys are working

1:13:16 ↗ on but that's an incredibly incredibly

1:13:19 ↗ important part of what we're doing so

1:13:21 ↗ not having it at the moment is

1:13:24 ↗ to joy's point i'm point it's basically

1:13:27 ↗ i mean we've got half of a coin

1:13:29 ↗ so um

1:13:31 ↗ definitely would like to see some of

1:13:32 ↗ that come up

1:13:33 ↗ sooner rather than later

1:13:36 ↗ and

1:13:37 ↗ that's what i have for now

1:13:39 ↗ uh we have a few more comments from

1:13:41 ↗ other commissioners so commissioner

1:13:43 ↗ lewis

1:13:46 ↗ thank you chair voice commissioner joy

1:13:48 ↗ lewis i want to address the policy

1:13:49 ↗ question we have in front of our screen

1:13:51 ↗ and say that i agree with the

1:13:53 ↗ recommendation to codify the current

1:13:55 ↗ heritage tree program i would like to

1:13:57 ↗ see it strengthened in some way right

1:13:59 ↗ now it reads a little bit to me like

1:14:01 ↗ even once you've been designated you're

1:14:03 ↗ still going to be able to take it out um

1:14:06 ↗ so while i would like to see this added

1:14:08 ↗ to code i'd also like to see us

1:14:10 ↗ take a stand somehow in the code of

1:14:12 ↗ really making there be a distinction

1:14:14 ↗ between these landmark trees and these

1:14:16 ↗ heritage trees as being

1:14:19 ↗ not so easy to bypass with with the

1:14:21 ↗ band-aid of economic hardship um and i

1:14:24 ↗ think that an example can be the in lieu

1:14:27 ↗ of tree fund

1:14:29 ↗ i don't want money i want trees

1:14:32 ↗ i want the lua fund to be very difficult

1:14:35 ↗ to pay into right i don't uh want it to

1:14:38 ↗ be the default that i think sometimes

1:14:40 ↗ that it can be and so i'd like to see

1:14:42 ↗ another deeper dive into that in our

1:14:44 ↗ next code um

1:14:46 ↗ in our next draft for the code to be

1:14:48 ↗ able to really see how we're um kind of

1:14:50 ↗ really fine-tuning this tool um i'd like

1:14:52 ↗ to see language that really talks about

1:14:55 ↗ i know last meeting uh daniel your

1:14:57 ↗ presentation talked about how the in

1:14:59 ↗ lieu of tree fund would be able to go

1:15:00 ↗ towards that we you know different

1:15:03 ↗ projects that are tree related for

1:15:05 ↗ instance purchasing of lands and things

1:15:07 ↗ like that and it hits me a little bit

1:15:09 ↗ wrong i would like to see the in lieu of

1:15:11 ↗ tree fund be actually be used in the

1:15:13 ↗ place where we want to be in lieuing for

1:15:15 ↗ instance so um i think that the to your

1:15:18 ↗ policy question it's a yes but it

1:15:21 ↗ extrapolates to what are we really going

1:15:22 ↗ to do about it show me show me that we

1:15:24 ↗ care and how we're going to do it

1:15:26 ↗ through the code thanks

1:15:31 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

1:15:32 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:15:35 ↗ thank you chair voice

1:15:36 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

1:15:39 ↗ uh i agree with the um qualification

1:15:43 ↗ codifying the heritage tree program and

1:15:46 ↗ the nomination

1:15:47 ↗ process and established regulations um

1:15:51 ↗ i i did not memorize them when i heard

1:15:54 ↗ them last time so from the um i think it

1:15:57 ↗ was

1:15:58 ↗ the environmental board uh who

1:16:01 ↗ brought some of the details about that

1:16:03 ↗ and and i'm sorry i don't have that but

1:16:04 ↗ i do appreciate

1:16:06 ↗ the statement that's here and agree with

1:16:07 ↗ it and uh thank you

1:16:09 ↗ commissioner lewis yeah i don't want

1:16:11 ↗ money i just want trees uh sometimes

1:16:13 ↗ it's just too easy to pay

1:16:15 ↗ your way

1:16:17 ↗ thank you

1:16:21 ↗ bumper sticker

1:16:22 ↗ one money just one tree

1:16:26 ↗ uh any other further comments

1:16:30 ↗ so i think one thing we can give you

1:16:32 ↗ consensus on daniel is that yes we would

1:16:34 ↗ like to see

1:16:36 ↗ the heritage tree program codified

1:16:39 ↗ i think commissioner lewis brings up

1:16:41 ↗ some good points commissioner milligan

1:16:42 ↗ so again hopefully by the next time we

1:16:44 ↗ see this draft you'll be able to

1:16:47 ↗ bring those into it as well

1:16:50 ↗ i don't think we've done as well on

1:16:52 ↗ question number two so maybe if you

1:16:53 ↗ could throw that up one more time and

1:16:55 ↗ let's see if we can help you out before

1:16:56 ↗ we move on to our final presentation

1:17:07 ↗ all right so who's ready to take this

1:17:09 ↗ faustinian deal

1:17:20 ↗ somebody help me here

1:17:24 ↗ faustian

1:17:30 ↗ and so can someone i'm going to put my

1:17:32 ↗ ignorance on display but can send

1:17:34 ↗ someone tell me what that means

1:17:38 ↗ deal with the devil

1:17:40 ↗ yeah i saved the best for last

1:17:47 ↗ all right we have one more policy

1:17:49 ↗ question um it's not

1:17:51 ↗ completely necessary that we give daniel

1:17:53 ↗ an answer but we'd like to give him a

1:17:54 ↗ little bit of guidance anybody have

1:17:56 ↗ anything

1:17:59 ↗ again there's a con but there are some

1:18:01 ↗ pros

1:18:02 ↗ commissioner milligan i see you

1:18:05 ↗ hi

1:18:06 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:18:10 ↗ i

1:18:11 ↗ want to answer this question not exactly

1:18:13 ↗ the way that it is asked but to refer

1:18:16 ↗ back to our overarching concern that

1:18:19 ↗ these regulations are great but how are

1:18:21 ↗ we going to enforce them and what kind

1:18:23 ↗ of

1:18:24 ↗ resources does the city have

1:18:26 ↗ to enforce them

1:18:29 ↗ whatever

1:18:30 ↗ way

1:18:31 ↗ works in enforcing them and meeting the

1:18:35 ↗ overall

1:18:36 ↗ canopy goal the sub areas seem to be

1:18:40 ↗ well divided

1:18:42 ↗ uh and

1:18:43 ↗ appropriate for their

1:18:46 ↗ distinctions in the different areas and

1:18:49 ↗ so it made sense to me then

1:18:52 ↗ and seemed like something and also not

1:18:55 ↗ that i wanted

1:18:57 ↗ off-site

1:18:59 ↗ tree replacements but because there was

1:19:01 ↗ the line around the sub-area that meant

1:19:04 ↗ that the canopy in that area would be

1:19:07 ↗ consistent and maintained and protected

1:19:09 ↗ or restored

1:19:11 ↗ in 30 years

1:19:12 ↗ you know i know you hear my frustration

1:19:14 ↗ i don't know if lot size and land use is

1:19:17 ↗ the answer

1:19:18 ↗ to this one i'd love to hear from the

1:19:20 ↗ other commissioners

1:19:28 ↗ all right other commissioners

1:19:31 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:19:36 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis at this

1:19:38 ↗ point i'm not seeing how by uh changing

1:19:41 ↗ um and refining it by lot size and land

1:19:44 ↗ use that we're gaining further

1:19:46 ↗ protections uh and so i'm not um a

1:19:49 ↗ proponent of this right now but i feel

1:19:51 ↗ like it may just be because i'm poorly

1:19:52 ↗ educated on if you were to go into the

1:19:55 ↗ details of it with me about what work

1:19:57 ↗ how we're actually gaining something

1:19:58 ↗ from it but right now i'm not seeing um

1:20:01 ↗ a benefit uh what i what the goal that i

1:20:04 ↗ want to get to is the 55

1:20:07 ↗ right and the goal of the 55 percent is

1:20:10 ↗ um

1:20:12 ↗ is not an insignificant one and it's

1:20:14 ↗ going to take a lot of work so if we're

1:20:16 ↗ dedicated to that as a community

1:20:18 ↗ i don't know that this is advantageous

1:20:20 ↗ to us

1:20:21 ↗ so at this point i wouldn't i wouldn't

1:20:23 ↗ back it but but that also feels like

1:20:25 ↗ it's

1:20:26 ↗ not based on a full full body of

1:20:28 ↗ information so thanks

1:20:35 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis i would

1:20:36 ↗ echo that because again um while

1:20:39 ↗ everybody appreciates knowing more and

1:20:41 ↗ having more granularity um like i said i

1:20:44 ↗ really don't quite get what we're

1:20:46 ↗ getting i do understand the con which is

1:20:49 ↗ we can be have some of our canopy

1:20:51 ↗ reduced

1:20:52 ↗ but again if the goal is to increase it

1:20:55 ↗ um

1:20:56 ↗ you're gonna need a little bit more

1:20:57 ↗ information on that

1:20:59 ↗ for me

1:21:00 ↗ sure

1:21:01 ↗ um if i can maybe add a little bit of

1:21:04 ↗ clarity to what uh the concern is here

1:21:08 ↗ so um you know foreign for example our

1:21:11 ↗ sub-area planning

1:21:13 ↗ model

1:21:14 ↗ shows that in issaquah highlands that

1:21:16 ↗ currently has a 25 canopy coverage

1:21:19 ↗ now

1:21:20 ↗ because we want the whole overall canopy

1:21:22 ↗ coverage goal of 55 to be met

1:21:25 ↗ we

1:21:26 ↗ have established a threshold uh daniel

1:21:28 ↗ correct me what that is for highlands 35

1:21:31 ↗ or something

1:21:33 ↗ for now so if we take an example of a

1:21:35 ↗ sub-area

1:21:36 ↗ um and pick one so i picked the super

1:21:39 ↗ highlands

1:21:40 ↗ uh the current canopy coverage go that

1:21:43 ↗ exists based on our study is what

1:21:46 ↗ danielle can you help me the current um

1:21:50 ↗ let's see the current

1:21:52 ↗ it's currently at 27.

1:21:54 ↗ we've proposed 45

1:21:58 ↗ we could

1:22:00 ↗ it and the reason that we ask for

1:22:02 ↗ granularity based on

1:22:04 ↗ lot size and land use is

1:22:09 ↗ it's come to our attention that for

1:22:11 ↗ example in the issaquah highlands

1:22:13 ↗ does it make

1:22:15 ↗ would it be feasible

1:22:16 ↗ for a single family 5 000 square foot

1:22:19 ↗ lot in the highlands to reach 45 canopy

1:22:25 ↗ that's

1:22:26 ↗ one of the questions

1:22:27 ↗ so that's why we were thinking that yes

1:22:30 ↗ 45 probably makes sense for larger

1:22:33 ↗ lots and things but there still needs to

1:22:35 ↗ be this

1:22:37 ↗ test for what it means on the ground for

1:22:40 ↗ some of these smaller lots and things

1:22:42 ↗ where these you know these uh percentage

1:22:45 ↗ canopy goals may be aspirational but

1:22:47 ↗ they're not going to be

1:22:49 ↗ feasible to be met and so

1:22:51 ↗ what would that mean for someone that

1:22:53 ↗ has a tree growing in their foundation

1:22:56 ↗ and so on and so forth that needs to

1:22:58 ↗ come out for some you know safety

1:23:00 ↗ concerns that we don't create a code

1:23:02 ↗ that becomes uh has this sort of an

1:23:06 ↗ unintended implication

1:23:08 ↗ um

1:23:09 ↗ so that's why

1:23:10 ↗ taking this

1:23:11 ↗ sub-area approach but then further

1:23:13 ↗ refining it

1:23:15 ↗ to to make sure that some of these

1:23:17 ↗ unintended consequences can be addressed

1:23:21 ↗ was the next level of

1:23:22 ↗ research we were thinking may be useful

1:23:25 ↗ to do before the code is adopted in the

1:23:27 ↗ second draft

1:23:29 ↗ so that leads to your second question

1:23:31 ↗ that should we look at the sub-area plan

1:23:33 ↗ and some further refinements

1:23:35 ↗ to do the reality check

1:23:38 ↗ and that could be based on land use or

1:23:40 ↗ lot size

1:23:42 ↗ i don't know if that helps or

1:23:45 ↗ give you some context

1:23:51 ↗ well thank you minnie i believe it did

1:23:53 ↗ because we have a few comments

1:23:54 ↗ commissioner bader

1:23:57 ↗ yeah hi this is sarah bader again kind

1:23:59 ↗ of a i'm just trying to interpret what's

1:24:02 ↗ here a little bit so i'm looking at

1:24:03 ↗ talus um which is where i live and the

1:24:06 ↗ chart on the left says

1:24:08 ↗ if i'm understanding this that oh the

1:24:10 ↗ tree canopy is at 73

1:24:13 ↗ but that there's very little possible

1:24:15 ↗ planting area yet the target um or the

1:24:18 ↗ talus sub area is only 45 percent which

1:24:21 ↗ kind of reads to me

1:24:22 ↗ you could just chop down left and right

1:24:25 ↗ and tell us um

1:24:27 ↗ i'm not sure why the target for talis is

1:24:31 ↗ so much lower than when i'm interpreting

1:24:33 ↗ the actual to be

1:24:35 ↗ just as an example

1:24:37 ↗ help me understand that

1:24:39 ↗ absolutely

1:24:40 ↗ uh so

1:24:42 ↗ this was

1:24:43 ↗ our attempt at

1:24:45 ↗ um

1:24:46 ↗ trying to account

1:24:48 ↗ for whether it would be feasible for a

1:24:52 ↗ single family lot in

1:24:54 ↗ talus to

1:24:55 ↗ maintain

1:24:57 ↗ 73 percent

1:24:59 ↗ canopy uh keep in mind that there a lot

1:25:02 ↗ of the canopy in

1:25:04 ↗ um

1:25:05 ↗ telus comes from preserved open spaces

1:25:10 ↗ those open spaces are uh subject to

1:25:13 ↗ native growth protection easement

1:25:16 ↗ protections

1:25:17 ↗ you can't just go chopping down trees

1:25:19 ↗ and native growth protection easements

1:25:22 ↗ um trees would need to be considered

1:25:24 ↗ hazardous in order for

1:25:26 ↗ us to approve

1:25:28 ↗ uh any tree removal within an uh ngpe

1:25:32 ↗ so that's that's why the

1:25:35 ↗ current canopy is so high in talus is

1:25:38 ↗ because of all these preserved spaces

1:25:40 ↗ um

1:25:41 ↗ [Music]

1:25:43 ↗ you know how big and you know the size

1:25:45 ↗ of lots in talus varies right and some

1:25:48 ↗ of these lots are smaller

1:25:50 ↗ um

1:25:51 ↗ what does it seem like any of the those

1:25:55 ↗ small lots could

1:25:56 ↗ uh feasibly have 73

1:26:00 ↗ canopy we we don't think so

1:26:03 ↗ and so that's why we've said

1:26:05 ↗ um

1:26:07 ↗ 45

1:26:08 ↗ and and you know there's

1:26:10 ↗ i i explained a little last week and

1:26:13 ↗ i'll reiterate there there wasn't a hard

1:26:16 ↗ science to this you know it was

1:26:18 ↗ um using some discretion based on

1:26:22 ↗ what's there now

1:26:24 ↗ what's a possible planting area who owns

1:26:28 ↗ that possible planting area

1:26:31 ↗ um

1:26:32 ↗ you know what do our development

1:26:34 ↗ regulations look like

1:26:36 ↗ that that all was taken into account

1:26:38 ↗ when establishing these targets

1:26:42 ↗ that's great that's really helpful that

1:26:44 ↗ um

1:26:44 ↗ answered my question about the

1:26:46 ↗ discrepancy there thank you

1:26:50 ↗ fantastic thank you uh commissioner

1:26:53 ↗ milligan

1:26:54 ↗ thank your voice nina milligan here

1:26:57 ↗ um i think that i

1:27:00 ↗ did not understand

1:27:03 ↗ uh where we were and where we were going

1:27:05 ↗ and i still don't quite understand it

1:27:09 ↗ to the point that

1:27:11 ↗ many made i certainly did not want to

1:27:13 ↗ burden each lot

1:27:16 ↗ with

1:27:16 ↗ maintaining

1:27:18 ↗ the canopy coverage

1:27:20 ↗ i thought

1:27:21 ↗ that we were

1:27:23 ↗ saying that that sub area would

1:27:26 ↗ aggregate

1:27:28 ↗ to

1:27:29 ↗ that canopy coverage that is set in the

1:27:32 ↗ table on the right so that itself

1:27:35 ↗ highlands on the whole would have a

1:27:36 ↗ canopy coverage of 45. that's what i

1:27:39 ↗ thought the goal was and that's what i

1:27:41 ↗ meant to support

1:27:43 ↗ rather than burdening each household to

1:27:45 ↗ do its part although they would over

1:27:48 ↗ overall do that now

1:27:50 ↗ commissioner vader's question

1:27:52 ↗ brings up a question to me

1:27:55 ↗ that

1:27:56 ↗ why is talis at 72 because of natural

1:27:59 ↗ growth natural protection growth areas

1:28:01 ↗ and issaquah highlands is only at 27.

1:28:05 ↗ because and what i wonder about is where

1:28:07 ↗ are the boundaries being drawn

1:28:10 ↗ the forested areas

1:28:12 ↗ that are protected in isabel highlands

1:28:14 ↗ and around the edges of physical

1:28:15 ↗ highlands where they included and i

1:28:17 ↗ there are a few places i can't find the

1:28:19 ↗ map i can't remember if we had it in our

1:28:21 ↗ packet

1:28:22 ↗ um

1:28:23 ↗ but there might be um something to look

1:28:25 ↗ at in the map that

1:28:27 ↗ i am not saying that i support because

1:28:31 ↗ i'm not sure that the 27 seems right to

1:28:33 ↗ me

1:28:35 ↗ thank you

1:28:40 ↗ thank you

1:28:42 ↗ any further comments from commissioners

1:28:48 ↗ just quickly to clarify um chair uh if i

1:28:51 ↗ may and provide some response to

1:28:55 ↗ the commissioner's questions

1:28:56 ↗ so um

1:28:58 ↗ one i think the the city boundaries some

1:29:00 ↗ of the preserved areas for isoqua

1:29:02 ↗ highlands may be outside the city limits

1:29:04 ↗ and the city

1:29:05 ↗ the tree canopy study probably just

1:29:07 ↗ looked at the city boundaries and so

1:29:09 ↗ that may explain some of the percentages

1:29:12 ↗ the other part i think what you were

1:29:13 ↗ saying was um area wide versus a lot by

1:29:17 ↗ lot so

1:29:18 ↗ you know the from a policy standpoint we

1:29:20 ↗ can have a discussion about sub-area but

1:29:23 ↗ at the time of regulations we issue

1:29:25 ↗ permits for each person that wants to

1:29:27 ↗ cut the tree or preserve the tree or

1:29:29 ↗ plant you know what so it has to be

1:29:32 ↗ some some criteria for the lot

1:29:35 ↗ and um not because otherwise for each

1:29:38 ↗ tree we can do an analysis of what does

1:29:41 ↗ this mean for the area-wide

1:29:43 ↗ um but for a policy level for complex we

1:29:47 ↗ can establish the the threshold at a

1:29:49 ↗ sub-area level so that's that's where

1:29:51 ↗ the struggle has been so we don't expect

1:29:54 ↗ to solve these percentages tonight

1:29:57 ↗ with their discussion i think the

1:29:58 ↗ question we're really hoping to get from

1:30:00 ↗ you is

1:30:01 ↗ we continue with the sub area approach

1:30:04 ↗ but we do a more ground truthing and

1:30:06 ↗ more testing of this and come up with a

1:30:09 ↗ little bit more nuanced approach that

1:30:10 ↗ that is more based on reality on the

1:30:13 ↗ ground and can work

1:30:15 ↗ um at a parcel by parcel level yet

1:30:19 ↗ move us towards the 55 threshold

1:30:28 ↗ thank you minnie

1:30:29 ↗ so let's just do a quick uh round robin

1:30:31 ↗ maybe we can even do this visually is

1:30:33 ↗ everybody okay with that should the

1:30:35 ↗ proposed canopy coverage be further

1:30:36 ↗ refined

1:30:41 ↗ i can't see everybody because the

1:30:43 ↗ presentation's up but

1:30:47 ↗ maybe somebody else can

1:30:52 ↗ there we go

1:30:53 ↗ all right

1:30:55 ↗ what do we have for dan do we have any

1:30:57 ↗ consensus at all or is this uh are we

1:30:59 ↗ gonna move along

1:31:04 ↗ get one

1:31:11 ↗ i see two

1:31:15 ↗ all right

1:31:17 ↗ um commissioner milligan

1:31:20 ↗ hi

1:31:21 ↗ i wasn't clear what your question

1:31:23 ↗ how what you were phrasing were you

1:31:24 ↗ saying that they continue to work on

1:31:26 ↗ this not that this is

1:31:29 ↗ the question that was asked of us but

1:31:31 ↗ that there will be some further thing to

1:31:33 ↗ talk about but what what did you say

1:31:35 ↗ let's go with nina's thing

1:31:41 ↗ everybody right thumbs up so there you

1:31:43 ↗ go daniel

1:31:44 ↗ that is the mood of the commission

1:31:48 ↗ i hope you're able to get what you

1:31:49 ↗ needed for question one and

1:31:51 ↗ there you go for question two

1:31:54 ↗ so that concludes um that portion

1:31:58 ↗ tonight's deliberation and now we're

1:31:59 ↗ going to move into the last and final

1:32:01 ↗ presentation i believe many this is you

1:32:03 ↗ correct

1:32:05 ↗ that's correct so let me bring this up

1:32:08 ↗ um

1:32:10 ↗ kristen can i become can you give me the

1:32:12 ↗ share there you go

1:32:32 ↗ so last uh chapter landscaping

1:32:36 ↗ um

1:32:37 ↗ let's see if i can advance um what we've

1:32:40 ↗ done here is really consolidated the

1:32:43 ↗ landscaping

1:32:44 ↗ standards that were spread throughout

1:32:46 ↗ various documents

1:32:47 ↗ uh we've attempted to retain the

1:32:49 ↗ neighborhood charm and distant

1:32:52 ↗ characters as part of the landscaping

1:32:55 ↗ um and we're also trying to ensure that

1:32:58 ↗ sustainability through these standards

1:33:00 ↗ is achieved

1:33:01 ↗ um

1:33:03 ↗ yep

1:33:04 ↗ is there something some kind of a text

1:33:07 ↗ box or something hovering in front of

1:33:09 ↗ your presentation

1:33:10 ↗ all we can there's there we go that's

1:33:12 ↗ better

1:33:13 ↗ yeah okay thank you

1:33:16 ↗ yeah i don't know how to get rid of this

1:33:18 ↗ little

1:33:19 ↗ back thing

1:33:20 ↗ um so

1:33:22 ↗ real quick key changes that we shared

1:33:25 ↗ with you last time um sustainability is

1:33:27 ↗ integrated through irrigation plant

1:33:30 ↗ diversity and drought tolerant plant

1:33:32 ↗ selection

1:33:33 ↗ which didn't exist in the code before

1:33:36 ↗ we've upgraded the standards for

1:33:37 ↗ irrigation tree planting

1:33:40 ↗ consolidated into one chapter

1:33:43 ↗ um

1:33:45 ↗ and then

1:33:47 ↗ there were some fence related provisions

1:33:49 ↗ we've kind of consolidated them the

1:33:51 ↗ parking lot landscape code is

1:33:53 ↗ consolidated

1:33:55 ↗ but there are differences between

1:33:56 ↗ central specific and non-central uh lot

1:33:59 ↗ standards which we tried to maintain

1:34:03 ↗ initially we had talked about having a

1:34:04 ↗ separate document which we are no longer

1:34:06 ↗ uh pursuing at this point

1:34:09 ↗ um

1:34:10 ↗ let's see

1:34:12 ↗ so uh after our discussion some of the

1:34:15 ↗ public comments at the public hearing

1:34:17 ↗ last

1:34:19 ↗ meeting

1:34:20 ↗ related to

1:34:21 ↗ that perhaps at the code doesn't work

1:34:23 ↗ for small businesses

1:34:25 ↗ and there were some comments about the

1:34:27 ↗ old code had some problems we should fix

1:34:30 ↗ them instead of moving forward

1:34:33 ↗ some of the commissioners comments again

1:34:35 ↗ high level comments here

1:34:37 ↗ there was discussion about irrigation

1:34:39 ↗ and lawns

1:34:40 ↗ should lawns be allowed to have

1:34:42 ↗ irrigation system

1:34:45 ↗ there was um some comments about uh

1:34:47 ↗ landscaping chemicals and impacts and

1:34:50 ↗ and also can we use gray water for

1:34:53 ↗ irrigation

1:34:54 ↗ so real quickly um you know obviously

1:34:56 ↗ we're going to test the code for small

1:34:58 ↗ businesses and see what that um

1:35:01 ↗ what if any changes can need to be made

1:35:04 ↗ so we'll add it to our list uh to review

1:35:07 ↗ um

1:35:08 ↗ if there were specific problems um you

1:35:10 ↗ know we'll we'll take a look at that as

1:35:12 ↗ well but if if there are specific things

1:35:14 ↗ that

1:35:15 ↗ folks know were problems we'd love to

1:35:17 ↗ hear those as well

1:35:20 ↗ in terms of the irrigation and lawns let

1:35:23 ↗ me just quickly clarify so the

1:35:25 ↗ landscaping code doesn't really require

1:35:28 ↗ lawns to be planted rather discourages

1:35:30 ↗ lawn

1:35:31 ↗ it's more focused on planting

1:35:34 ↗ ground cover and shrubs and

1:35:37 ↗ trees

1:35:39 ↗ but for existing um lawns

1:35:42 ↗ you know the the there is language in

1:35:44 ↗ the code that says that there won't be a

1:35:46 ↗ co-enforcement issue if the lawns are

1:35:49 ↗ um dry out over the hot summer um and

1:35:52 ↗ that's not going to be pursued as a code

1:35:54 ↗ enforcement concern

1:35:56 ↗ that's where some of the the language

1:35:58 ↗ for browning of the lawns

1:36:01 ↗ has come up

1:36:02 ↗ um again we'll take a look at the

1:36:04 ↗ chemical use throughout the code i think

1:36:06 ↗ that common came up with the critical

1:36:08 ↗ areas as well uh we've received some

1:36:11 ↗ comments from king county noxious weed

1:36:13 ↗ program uh which has recommended 50 feet

1:36:17 ↗ you know herbicides within 50 feet of

1:36:19 ↗ these critical areas

1:36:20 ↗ there's really

1:36:22 ↗ no reason why we can go bigger

1:36:24 ↗ throughout the city it's more about

1:36:27 ↗ um enforcement of um

1:36:30 ↗ and education and telling people what

1:36:33 ↗ what not to do

1:36:34 ↗ uh gray water for irrigation um you know

1:36:38 ↗ there are some consequences here for the

1:36:40 ↗ aquifer recharge um and because 40

1:36:44 ↗ percent of the city's drinking water

1:36:46 ↗ comes from the aquifer

1:36:48 ↗ um so there there can be some concerns

1:36:51 ↗ from uh going that path but we will look

1:36:53 ↗ at all of these

1:36:55 ↗ and see um in the next draft how best to

1:36:58 ↗ address them

1:37:00 ↗ so

1:37:01 ↗ um

1:37:02 ↗ in terms of you know like i said we'll

1:37:05 ↗ review it for inconsistency

1:37:07 ↗ issues clarify the applicability

1:37:10 ↗ irrigation

1:37:11 ↗ uh one of the other things i think came

1:37:13 ↗ up was screening we'll take a look at

1:37:15 ↗ that

1:37:16 ↗ and we'll test the code for unintended

1:37:19 ↗ consequences for small businesses and

1:37:21 ↗ others so we'll make some refinements

1:37:24 ↗ related to that

1:37:26 ↗ the question for your discussion is

1:37:28 ↗ really are we meeting goal 8 and 9

1:37:32 ↗ which was you know we preserving

1:37:34 ↗ distinctive neighborhoods

1:37:36 ↗ and uh implementation of the climate

1:37:38 ↗ goals and community development

1:37:41 ↗ um

1:37:42 ↗ so really the question is are we meeting

1:37:44 ↗ these goals or are there additional

1:37:46 ↗ uh changes that you all would like to

1:37:49 ↗ see in the next draft

1:37:52 ↗ that pretty much

1:37:53 ↗ concludes the presentation on this topic

1:38:02 ↗ button

1:38:03 ↗ thank you minnie

1:38:06 ↗ all right

1:38:08 ↗ we'll open this up to deliberation

1:38:12 ↗ there's a couple there's a couple

1:38:13 ↗ questions a low-hanging fruit and i know

1:38:15 ↗ i'm sure there's going to be a lot of

1:38:16 ↗ concerns and comments but

1:38:20 ↗ are we meeting our policy goals or

1:38:21 ↗ there's one question i know we can

1:38:23 ↗ either answer or not

1:38:30 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:38:32 ↗ okay i'll go first

1:38:35 ↗ nana milligan here thank you uh mini for

1:38:37 ↗ the presentation

1:38:38 ↗ uh

1:38:40 ↗ i think you guys have done a really good

1:38:41 ↗ job of this chapter and and generally

1:38:43 ↗ with all the things that we've been

1:38:44 ↗ talking about tonight and i should take

1:38:45 ↗ a moment just to say that thank you you

1:38:47 ↗ know we're finding look at that look at

1:38:49 ↗ the little things we're finding you know

1:38:50 ↗ to improve they are significant uh but

1:38:53 ↗ it's not like uh we're unhappy with the

1:38:55 ↗ product

1:38:56 ↗ uh i wanted to address

1:38:59 ↗ uh irrigation and the browning of

1:39:02 ↗ uh lawns which i uh in issaquah

1:39:04 ↗ highlands we've had that policy for a

1:39:05 ↗ long time and i think it's just fabulous

1:39:07 ↗ i think it works very well here in this

1:39:09 ↗ urban village setting

1:39:11 ↗ i wondered and wanted to look at

1:39:16 ↗ more deeply how lawns can work in

1:39:21 ↗ a wildfire protection of

1:39:24 ↗ private property uh other communities

1:39:27 ↗ would have a greater threat perhaps and

1:39:29 ↗ want to use

1:39:30 ↗ green lawns for a fire break

1:39:33 ↗ space

1:39:35 ↗ so i want to bring that up and then

1:39:37 ↗ added added a note to my uh notes right

1:39:39 ↗ now when you're talking about gray water

1:39:42 ↗ just

1:39:42 ↗ i'd love to be able to support that and

1:39:45 ↗ i didn't see that we had a definition

1:39:46 ↗ for gray water in our policy and maybe

1:39:48 ↗ there's some way to define the gray

1:39:49 ↗ water that would make it compatible with

1:39:52 ↗ the aquifer recharge and allow people to

1:39:55 ↗ um

1:39:56 ↗ exercise that a wonderful

1:39:59 ↗ conservation water conservation thing

1:40:02 ↗ my main comment that i want to bring up

1:40:04 ↗ here

1:40:05 ↗ and it's very general i don't know if it

1:40:06 ↗ helps us here but maybe you can help me

1:40:09 ↗ later we're talking about uh protecting

1:40:11 ↗ neighborhood charm character

1:40:15 ↗ and

1:40:15 ↗ all these details about landscaping or

1:40:18 ↗ in this section here but to me during

1:40:20 ↗ this time and during tree

1:40:23 ↗ retention and some of these other topics

1:40:26 ↗ along around this

1:40:28 ↗ i am

1:40:29 ↗ my mind goes back to our

1:40:33 ↗ our building code setbacks

1:40:37 ↗ and allowable space on a lot

1:40:40 ↗ on which you can build a structure

1:40:43 ↗ and i just i feel that's just comes back

1:40:46 ↗ and haunts me while we talk about these

1:40:47 ↗ other things the more house the less

1:40:49 ↗ space we have for trees you know there's

1:40:51 ↗ this tree going into the foundation yeah

1:40:52 ↗ of course because there's no space left

1:40:55 ↗ on this in this lot i wanted uh and i i

1:40:59 ↗ bring this up specific to neighborhood

1:41:02 ↗ characters many neighborhoods benefit

1:41:04 ↗ from having

1:41:06 ↗ say residents residential single-family

1:41:08 ↗ homes or

1:41:10 ↗ other residential structures that take

1:41:11 ↗ up a very small part of their lot and

1:41:14 ↗ that is a wonderful part of that

1:41:16 ↗ neighborhood and of that neighborhood's

1:41:17 ↗ charm

1:41:19 ↗ i'm asking many i'm looking at her and

1:41:21 ↗ saying hey if there's a way you could

1:41:23 ↗ help me bring this back up later and to

1:41:26 ↗ see how it might be able to help us with

1:41:28 ↗ landscape and tree retention when uh

1:41:30 ↗ when and if we look again at um

1:41:33 ↗ uh buildable area i think is what it's

1:41:35 ↗ referred to

1:41:37 ↗ sure sure well we'll track it with um

1:41:40 ↗ you know when when you have the

1:41:41 ↗ conversation about form and intensity

1:41:43 ↗ and then the the overlap between the

1:41:45 ↗ landscaping and the foreman intensity i

1:41:47 ↗ think would be a good opportunity yeah

1:41:49 ↗ that'd be great thanks minnie and thank

1:41:50 ↗ you that's me that's my comments

1:41:56 ↗ thank you commissioner

1:41:57 ↗ uh commissioner lewis

1:42:01 ↗ thank you chair voice commissioner joy

1:42:03 ↗ lewis

1:42:04 ↗ i had the most difficult time with this

1:42:07 ↗ particular section that we were looking

1:42:08 ↗ at tonight

1:42:10 ↗ i believe there's a lot of

1:42:12 ↗ mistaken code that was brought over old

1:42:15 ↗ code that was brought over that hasn't

1:42:16 ↗ been working for us um i want to thank

1:42:19 ↗ many for the time that she's given me

1:42:21 ↗ for me to call out some specifics that i

1:42:23 ↗ see that are issues and i'm not going to

1:42:24 ↗ go into some of the nitty gritty right

1:42:25 ↗ now since staff knows things that i'd

1:42:27 ↗ like to see addressed but i will say i'd

1:42:29 ↗ like to see significant improvements the

1:42:31 ↗ next time that we see this draft i think

1:42:33 ↗ that there is a lot of room for

1:42:34 ↗ improvement in this in in several of the

1:42:36 ↗ sections um

1:42:38 ↗ i'd also like to see a greater time with

1:42:40 ↗ our um i realize that our storm water

1:42:42 ↗ plan is still in the works but i think

1:42:44 ↗ this is a great place to have tie in in

1:42:45 ↗ our code about expectations that we have

1:42:48 ↗ with water

1:42:49 ↗ i don't see any um comments right now in

1:42:52 ↗ the code any kind of clarification

1:42:55 ↗ where we address the other members of

1:42:56 ↗ our community which are the animals that

1:42:58 ↗ we live with i think it's very important

1:43:00 ↗ that we have um

1:43:02 ↗ pathways and recognition of their needs

1:43:04 ↗ right now in the landscaping code and i

1:43:06 ↗ can see it it's completely absent

1:43:09 ↗ i also think there's a serious refining

1:43:11 ↗ that needs to happen on our use of

1:43:13 ↗ chemicals in fact i would love for our

1:43:15 ↗ commission to have a discussion about

1:43:17 ↗ lawns i think we should grandfather in

1:43:19 ↗ the old lawns and ban all lawns

1:43:22 ↗ if you want to talk about a fire break

1:43:24 ↗ moss lawns are the best thing for a fire

1:43:26 ↗ break uh there's a variety of things

1:43:28 ↗ that we can do to better conserve our

1:43:30 ↗ water promote pollinators and right now

1:43:32 ↗ i don't see our landscaping code doing

1:43:34 ↗ that and i think when we talk about icap

1:43:37 ↗ i think we need to say um how are we

1:43:39 ↗ really reflecting the values that we

1:43:41 ↗ passed through

1:43:42 ↗ on our climate action plan sorry i'll

1:43:43 ↗ stop using acronyms on our climate

1:43:45 ↗ action plan and we can actually see and

1:43:47 ↗ codify what we want to have happen and

1:43:49 ↗ so i think there's a lot of room right

1:43:51 ↗ now so i'm going to give a really harsh

1:43:53 ↗ grade and i'm going to say that policies

1:43:55 ↗ i believe it's 8 and 9 are could be

1:43:57 ↗ better met right i don't want to say

1:43:59 ↗ that we're failing right now i think

1:44:00 ↗ that we can do better i think that this

1:44:01 ↗ is exactly what it is a first draft and

1:44:03 ↗ i'm very excited to see the next one

1:44:06 ↗ thank you

1:44:12 ↗ encouragement

1:44:14 ↗ love it

1:44:16 ↗ uh

1:44:18 ↗ commissioners

1:44:21 ↗ now is the time to deliberate

1:44:25 ↗ to commissioner lewis's point that again

1:44:27 ↗ even though much more work i think uh

1:44:30 ↗ probably needs to happen and he needs to

1:44:32 ↗ be seen this is our opportunity to at

1:44:34 ↗ least send this draft off

1:44:36 ↗ in whatever

1:44:37 ↗ way we think it should go for better for

1:44:39 ↗ worse as far as like i said are you guys

1:44:42 ↗ comfortable with what you're seeing or

1:44:44 ↗ to commissioner lewis's point

1:44:46 ↗ are there some big changes you'd like to

1:44:48 ↗ see

1:44:49 ↗ now is the time to do it before we get

1:44:50 ↗ our second

1:44:52 ↗ draft later in the year

1:45:05 ↗ have a moment

1:45:19 ↗ i thought this was going to be the the

1:45:20 ↗ topic that um

1:45:22 ↗ set it off

1:45:24 ↗ i think this is why we pushed this one

1:45:25 ↗ back to the end uh but maybe the

1:45:27 ↗ commissioner loses point maybe there's

1:45:29 ↗ just a lot that is left wanting

1:45:39 ↗ all right going once going twice

1:45:44 ↗ um staff mini do you have what you need

1:45:46 ↗ from the planning policy

1:45:48 ↗ yes so i think thank you all for

1:45:51 ↗ all your work going through all of these

1:45:54 ↗ uh topics uh thank you to the community

1:45:56 ↗ members who spent a significant amount

1:45:58 ↗ of time brought in all the comments to

1:46:01 ↗ us in writing and there's all included

1:46:03 ↗ in your packet

1:46:05 ↗ we really want to listen to all of you

1:46:07 ↗ and and you know

1:46:09 ↗ and make it a better product so i think

1:46:10 ↗ we're going to take all this information

1:46:12 ↗ that we've received so far

1:46:14 ↗ uh presented to city council on

1:46:18 ↗ may 3rd

1:46:20 ↗ with your formal recommendation and

1:46:22 ↗ direction on some of these things that

1:46:23 ↗ has come forth

1:46:25 ↗ and since they're going to a council

1:46:27 ↗ committee format now so it'll go to

1:46:30 ↗ their committee

1:46:31 ↗ um on may 3rd

1:46:34 ↗ and then

1:46:35 ↗ on april 28th we're going to continue

1:46:38 ↗ the conversation with you all on the

1:46:40 ↗ first bucket which is the natural

1:46:41 ↗ environment so we ran out of time with

1:46:43 ↗ the outdoor lighting and on all those

1:46:45 ↗ conversations so we've made

1:46:46 ↗ adjustments to the schedule to include

1:46:48 ↗ um you know push everything further down

1:46:50 ↗ and have this april 28 dedicated to

1:46:55 ↗ get get the conversation on the first

1:46:57 ↗ topic area the natural environment

1:46:59 ↗ critical areas s p

1:47:01 ↗ outdoor lighting um all of that wrapped

1:47:03 ↗ up with you all for

1:47:05 ↗ so we can start working on the second

1:47:07 ↗ draft for that

1:47:09 ↗ okay well thank you um so i'm going to

1:47:11 ↗ throw this out there one more time is

1:47:12 ↗ there any consensus we can give as far

1:47:14 ↗ as landscape

1:47:16 ↗ it's a big important topic for our

1:47:18 ↗ community it affects every single one of

1:47:20 ↗ us so now is a good time to mention it i

1:47:23 ↗ think joy had some wonderful comments

1:47:25 ↗ that i would not only echo but um

1:47:28 ↗ yeah echo double down on a couple of

1:47:31 ↗ things i think the browning of the lawn

1:47:33 ↗ i think um like i said from aesthetic

1:47:36 ↗ point of view

1:47:37 ↗ bothers me to no end i grew up with the

1:47:39 ↗ with my dad who the greenest house the

1:47:42 ↗ greenest lawn in the neighborhood so for

1:47:44 ↗ me to let that go is pretty tough but i

1:47:46 ↗ do think people make a good point i

1:47:47 ↗ think as far as being in an urban area

1:47:50 ↗ and again this part of the goals is to

1:47:52 ↗ get better at conserving water and using

1:47:55 ↗ climate

1:47:56 ↗ some habits are hard to break

1:47:58 ↗ i still go around neighborhoods and

1:47:59 ↗ judge who has the greenest lawn

1:48:01 ↗ so that's a tough one for me um the gray

1:48:04 ↗ water thing also

1:48:07 ↗ like you said i don't i i don't want to

1:48:09 ↗ slam or or you know speak poorly of

1:48:11 ↗ other towns but you think of tragedies

1:48:13 ↗ that happen in flint michigan i think

1:48:14 ↗ our aquifers are incredibly important so

1:48:17 ↗ we definitely need a better definition

1:48:19 ↗ of what's going on and what greywater is

1:48:21 ↗ defined as

1:48:23 ↗ those are a couple things like i said i

1:48:25 ↗ personally

1:48:26 ↗ just me putting this out there i like a

1:48:28 ↗ light touch when it comes to people's

1:48:30 ↗ personal landscaping

1:48:32 ↗ i think some of the old code that could

1:48:33 ↗ be carried in as far as the city or

1:48:36 ↗ commercial

1:48:37 ↗ could be more stringent

1:48:39 ↗ and i also like joy's point commissioner

1:48:41 ↗ lewis's point as far as chemicals now i

1:48:44 ↗ used to be a little bit more against

1:48:46 ↗ this but

1:48:46 ↗ i think the problem really is

1:48:48 ↗ enforcement right

1:48:50 ↗ how do you enforce what people are using

1:48:52 ↗ um i think it's city wide and commercial

1:48:54 ↗ it's a lot easier obviously in

1:48:56 ↗ residential not as easy but i think we

1:48:59 ↗ can still have the language to

1:49:01 ↗ at least push people and encourage

1:49:02 ↗ people in the right direction

1:49:04 ↗ so a couple of my thoughts and again i

1:49:06 ↗ thought commissioner lewis had some

1:49:07 ↗ great points on it so hopefully you do

1:49:09 ↗ have enough to move forward with

1:49:12 ↗ landscaping

1:49:13 ↗ and again i'm just going to throw this

1:49:14 ↗ out there because uh

1:49:16 ↗ we're actually running on time

1:49:18 ↗ you know that's crazy so one more time

1:49:21 ↗ guys does anybody have anything to add

1:49:23 ↗ for landscape

1:49:27 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:49:29 ↗ oh i can't have this end on time

1:49:33 ↗ i want to uh affirm uh commissioner

1:49:35 ↗ lewis nightingale again speaking um

1:49:38 ↗ commissioner lewis's comment about um

1:49:40 ↗ habitat and wildlife i don't know how to

1:49:42 ↗ answer that

1:49:43 ↗ but i do want to support the sentiment

1:49:46 ↗ that she um

1:49:48 ↗ expressed

1:49:49 ↗ and in that

1:49:50 ↗ i also have um just because your voice

1:49:54 ↗ is so convincing we must comment uh i i

1:49:59 ↗ i didn't have a good enough lens when

1:50:00 ↗ going through the

1:50:03 ↗ uh the code uh to look for this but now

1:50:06 ↗ i am inspired in this deliberation to

1:50:08 ↗ mention it that do we have protections

1:50:11 ↗ in the landscaping uh for those uses

1:50:14 ↗ that are along boundary lines that

1:50:17 ↗ can somewhat infringe on another

1:50:19 ↗ person's property you know the height of

1:50:21 ↗ fences the height of even plantings even

1:50:24 ↗ a you know a big

1:50:26 ↗ old gnarly

1:50:27 ↗ laurel 10 foot high

1:50:31 ↗ fence

1:50:32 ↗ could be oppressive to another to a

1:50:34 ↗ neighboring property we have building

1:50:36 ↗ heights and we and we move buildings off

1:50:40 ↗ from the boundary line to protect um the

1:50:42 ↗ impacts on the neighbor so i bring that

1:50:45 ↗ up this is an example maybe if

1:50:47 ↗ and like i wish i had something specific

1:50:50 ↗ now but i didn't have this lens on to be

1:50:53 ↗ mindful of

1:50:54 ↗ the

1:50:56 ↗ codes that we can use that protect um

1:50:59 ↗ neighbors from each other

1:51:00 ↗ in the landscaping

1:51:02 ↗ that's all

1:51:03 ↗ good point i think we can um

1:51:06 ↗ a lot of times the the fence height at

1:51:08 ↗ the property line is is deemed to be if

1:51:10 ↗ it's a structure it has to meet your

1:51:12 ↗ setback requirements so you really

1:51:14 ↗ should can't put really tall you know

1:51:16 ↗ barricades right on your property line

1:51:18 ↗ generally it's like six to seven feet

1:51:20 ↗ doesn't need a building permit and you

1:51:22 ↗ can put it right at your property line

1:51:24 ↗ that's why somehow somehow they end up

1:51:26 ↗ being six or seven feet otherwise they

1:51:28 ↗ have to meet the setback um we can look

1:51:31 ↗ at you know the placement of the fences

1:51:33 ↗ in relationship to uh landscaping

1:51:36 ↗ because if you put a nice landscaping

1:51:38 ↗ then you block it with the fence then

1:51:41 ↗ you know uh so we that's certainly

1:51:42 ↗ something we can explore in terms of how

1:51:45 ↗ the code is currently written and if

1:51:46 ↗ there's a way to make it better

1:51:49 ↗ yeah and uh and just to clarify that the

1:51:52 ↗ focus is to

1:51:55 ↗ protect

1:51:56 ↗ neighbors from what the other neighbor

1:51:58 ↗ does things that have real impacts on

1:52:00 ↗ one another i like having

1:52:03 ↗ some private property

1:52:05 ↗ rights

1:52:06 ↗ as long as they don't impact the

1:52:08 ↗ neighbor thank you

1:52:20 ↗ all right

1:52:21 ↗ well fantastic discussion everybody i

1:52:23 ↗ want to say thank you for the great

1:52:26 ↗ comments and deliberation that we've had

1:52:29 ↗ on all three topics i'm hopeful and i

1:52:31 ↗ think staff has enough to work with at

1:52:33 ↗ least to

1:52:35 ↗ get this first draft rolling

1:52:37 ↗ and looking forward to hear our second

1:52:39 ↗ draft

1:52:40 ↗ i do have one comment for the good of

1:52:42 ↗ the order

1:52:43 ↗ and then i'd like to open it up for a

1:52:45 ↗ general public comment very quickly

1:52:47 ↗ afterwards so please commissioner lewis

1:52:51 ↗ thank you chairvoice i wasn't sure where

1:52:53 ↗ on the agenda that was coming next um i

1:52:55 ↗ do want to say that i emailed staff

1:52:58 ↗ specifically about this and i want to

1:52:59 ↗ make a comment that i was disappointed

1:53:01 ↗ that we did not continue the public

1:53:04 ↗ discussion from the last meeting to this

1:53:06 ↗ one

1:53:07 ↗ i don't see any reason why in regards to

1:53:10 ↗ a legal reason or for robert's rules of

1:53:12 ↗ order that we shouldn't have continued

1:53:14 ↗ an opportunity for the public to speak

1:53:16 ↗ tonight

1:53:17 ↗ while i recognize that there are a

1:53:19 ↗ variety of places that the public can

1:53:20 ↗ comment both directly to staff

1:53:23 ↗ and council work sessions

1:53:25 ↗ i really find that the the planning

1:53:27 ↗ policy commission is a vital part of our

1:53:29 ↗ mission is to allow a space for the

1:53:31 ↗ public to be able to speak and to only

1:53:33 ↗ have one meeting in front of us the last

1:53:36 ↗ meeting which was a triple attended

1:53:38 ↗ joint board and commission meeting as a

1:53:40 ↗ space for them i found troubling and i

1:53:42 ↗ think it's something that we could have

1:53:43 ↗ done better on and i would like to

1:53:45 ↗ encourage in the future that as we are

1:53:48 ↗ debating and talking about the next

1:53:51 ↗ three through six buckets

1:53:53 ↗ for title 18 that we have more venues

1:53:55 ↗ for the public to be able to engage with

1:53:57 ↗ us thanks very much

1:54:12 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis and thank

1:54:13 ↗ you for the segue i was wondering i was

1:54:15 ↗ going i've done that before okay took a

1:54:18 ↗ second um so now we're going to open it

1:54:20 ↗ up for general public comment kristen do

1:54:23 ↗ we have anyone who'd like to speak

1:54:26 ↗ um if their hands are still up so i'm

1:54:28 ↗ assuming that they would still like to

1:54:30 ↗ speak and the first one who raised her

1:54:31 ↗ hand tonight was susan the bill so i'm

1:54:33 ↗ going to see if she would like to speak

1:54:35 ↗ and make her a panelist

1:54:41 ↗ susan you are a panelist if you want to

1:54:44 ↗ turn on your camera

1:54:45 ↗ you mastered it last time

1:54:47 ↗ i don't look as good as i did

1:54:50 ↗ but thank you so much everyone i was

1:54:53 ↗ really impressed by the meeting and the

1:54:54 ↗ questions and

1:54:56 ↗ the dialogue and i appreciate um

1:55:00 ↗ the interest you're taking in allowing

1:55:02 ↗ us to speak thank you

1:55:09 ↗ thank you

1:55:10 ↗ next i'm going to

1:55:15 ↗ okay susan is an attendee again next is

1:55:18 ↗ connie

1:55:20 ↗ nope

1:55:21 ↗ next is mary lynch

1:55:26 ↗ mary you are now a panelist and you are

1:55:29 ↗ unmuted

1:55:30 ↗ whoops

1:55:34 ↗ now you're unmuted and you can turn on

1:55:35 ↗ your camera if you would like

1:55:39 ↗ okay thank you this is mary lynch and

1:55:41 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis for also

1:55:43 ↗ speaking up

1:55:44 ↗ um because i want to go back to the tree

1:55:47 ↗ code and

1:55:48 ↗ the our comments in general is i really

1:55:51 ↗ feel that a lot of our public comments

1:55:53 ↗ are not being addressed

1:55:55 ↗ um

1:55:56 ↗ mine finally got in although ones that

1:55:58 ↗ i've made in the past have not made it

1:56:00 ↗ in

1:56:02 ↗ to the notes

1:56:04 ↗ and i really think there needs to be a

1:56:05 ↗ little bit better job of doing that i do

1:56:08 ↗ appreciate all the commissioners

1:56:09 ↗ speaking up and the comments with me

1:56:11 ↗ tonight

1:56:12 ↗ one of my concerns in my public comics

1:56:14 ↗ gets back again to the tree code and

1:56:16 ↗ public right-of-way

1:56:21 ↗ and that what i heard tonight and the

1:56:22 ↗ way it was said is along newport way

1:56:26 ↗ there will not be new development with a

1:56:28 ↗ lot of the the widening of newport whey

1:56:31 ↗ but there will be obtaining of land

1:56:35 ↗ um

1:56:36 ↗ you know from existing developments that

1:56:38 ↗ have their had their trees up for 30 and

1:56:40 ↗ 40 years and some other ones that are

1:56:43 ↗ significant trees that what i heard said

1:56:45 ↗ the policy would be that since they're

1:56:47 ↗ in the right of way

1:56:49 ↗ and it's not a new development that

1:56:51 ↗ those trees can be removed without any

1:56:53 ↗ mitigation and i don't agree with that

1:56:56 ↗ because a lot of these developments have

1:56:57 ↗ put those trees in for shade

1:57:00 ↗ and also noise abatement

1:57:03 ↗ and and viewing and we need to respect

1:57:06 ↗ those existing developments

1:57:08 ↗ where the right-of-way is being changed

1:57:11 ↗ and also in our parks on typical parks

1:57:13 ↗ there's no plan to redo tibbetts park

1:57:16 ↗ but those trees may come down

1:57:18 ↗ if the newport way is white and we need

1:57:20 ↗ to have mitigation and hopefully some of

1:57:22 ↗ those protected

1:57:25 ↗ i also want to talk about the

1:57:26 ↗ landscaping

1:57:28 ↗ uh oh wait getting back to the trees um

1:57:30 ↗ also i

1:57:32 ↗ am part of a homeowners association that

1:57:34 ↗ has an open space that

1:57:36 ↗ provides the

1:57:37 ↗ shade or the the tree canopy

1:57:40 ↗ over the years every time we've cut down

1:57:43 ↗ a hazardous tree there's really been no

1:57:45 ↗ requirement for us to replant the tree

1:57:48 ↗ and i've had a hard time talking with

1:57:50 ↗ our homeowners board to make sure that

1:57:54 ↗ you know to try and get them to replant

1:57:56 ↗ but the code does not and the existing

1:57:59 ↗ permits does not mandate that we cut

1:58:03 ↗ or that we replant for hazardous trees

1:58:06 ↗ and we can cut any number of trees every

1:58:09 ↗ year and the city has not accounted for

1:58:12 ↗ all the trees and the hazardous trees we

1:58:15 ↗ have taken down

1:58:17 ↗ plus all the trees that have fallen over

1:58:20 ↗ over the years in our common space

1:58:22 ↗ because there is no requirements for

1:58:24 ↗ open or for the city or private

1:58:27 ↗ developments to manage their

1:58:30 ↗ tree space so like what you're saying

1:58:31 ↗ you're counting on talus and

1:58:35 ↗ the highlands for the those open spaces

1:58:39 ↗ to protect your

1:58:41 ↗ canopy

1:58:42 ↗ but there's no plan to protect or to

1:58:45 ↗ keep the health of those trees so unless

1:58:47 ↗ there's a change in the code that

1:58:49 ↗ requires

1:58:50 ↗ public and private to protect and manage

1:58:53 ↗ those open spaces

1:58:55 ↗ you're you're going to fail with your

1:58:57 ↗ tree canopy because with global warming

1:59:00 ↗ those trees are going to come down and

1:59:02 ↗ if we don't have an active management

1:59:04 ↗ plan for those areas we're going to lose

1:59:06 ↗ them

1:59:07 ↗ also want to go then with the landscape

1:59:10 ↗ and

1:59:11 ↗ give you an example in arizona

1:59:14 ↗ tucson does not allow

1:59:17 ↗ for

1:59:18 ↗ green yards because they realize the

1:59:20 ↗ space that they're in the amount of

1:59:21 ↗ water it takes

1:59:23 ↗ is they want natural yards with cactuses

1:59:26 ↗ and all you go up into phoenix and

1:59:29 ↗ you've got all the northern people that

1:59:31 ↗ have come from the midwest that

1:59:33 ↗ kind of was referred to

1:59:35 ↗ you you've made it if you have a green

1:59:37 ↗ yard and the amount of water that's

1:59:40 ↗ wasted

1:59:41 ↗ in phoenix to keep those green yards

1:59:43 ↗ they also have one of the highest pollen

1:59:46 ↗ contents

1:59:47 ↗ due to that grass

1:59:49 ↗ and if you talk to bee owners may you

1:59:52 ↗ shouldn't even be if you have green

1:59:53 ↗ yards you shouldn't be mowing yards in

1:59:56 ↗ may because that's when the bees come

1:59:58 ↗ out and

1:59:59 ↗ regenerate so i don't think we should be

2:00:02 ↗ having codes that mandate or even

2:00:05 ↗ encourage

2:00:06 ↗ green yards but we should be going with

2:00:09 ↗ natural habitat

2:00:10 ↗ for our yards because most of this land

2:00:13 ↗ we're dealing with is glacial till

2:00:15 ↗ that is not conducive to green grass

2:00:18 ↗ most peoples don't know how to put in a

2:00:20 ↗ yard appropriately so it's going to be

2:00:22 ↗ green or maintained

2:00:23 ↗ most of the yards are on sloped areas so

2:00:26 ↗ you're going to have your water you're

2:00:27 ↗ going to have water runoff and use any

2:00:30 ↗ chemicals those are going into the storm

2:00:32 ↗ water so i think we need it seriously as

2:00:35 ↗ some of the commissioners

2:00:37 ↗ said look at our landscaping codes for

2:00:39 ↗ private and public

2:00:41 ↗ and commercial areas and make sure it

2:00:44 ↗ fits

2:00:45 ↗ our area

2:00:47 ↗ not somebody else's area but our area

2:00:50 ↗ and also for climate change thank you

2:01:07 ↗ kristen do we have any more public

2:01:08 ↗ comments

2:01:10 ↗ no no one else has raised their hand

2:01:13 ↗ okay well i want to thank the public for

2:01:15 ↗ sticking around and making some valid uh

2:01:18 ↗ some great comments um i know we all

2:01:21 ↗ take them to heart

2:01:23 ↗ and

2:01:24 ↗ now we come to reports

2:01:27 ↗ so city council updates if uh staff

2:01:31 ↗ kristin or minnie if you have any

2:01:32 ↗ updates for us

2:01:34 ↗ um this is mini um no uh we don't have

2:01:38 ↗ any specific um

2:01:40 ↗ updates we will update you on the

2:01:42 ↗ natural environment when we brief them

2:01:44 ↗ at at your next meeting on the 28th um

2:01:47 ↗ if i could i would take like to take a

2:01:50 ↗ couple minutes just to kind of

2:01:51 ↗ you know address some of the comments

2:01:53 ↗ about the process

2:01:56 ↗ so

2:01:57 ↗ as you all know this is a heavy lift for

2:02:00 ↗ all of you

2:02:01 ↗ staff community members and we really

2:02:04 ↗ value all the you know all the input

2:02:06 ↗ that we're getting from everyone we're

2:02:08 ↗ listening we're doing our best to track

2:02:10 ↗ all the comments that are coming in and

2:02:13 ↗ we want to you know this is everyone's

2:02:15 ↗ code and everyone has a stake in it and

2:02:18 ↗ there is never our intent to not get

2:02:20 ↗ public comments or not track them uh

2:02:22 ↗ we're committed to it from the beginning

2:02:25 ↗ till the end

2:02:26 ↗ uh the the process the way it's laid out

2:02:29 ↗ right now

2:02:30 ↗ is when you get your first public

2:02:32 ↗ hearing comments

2:02:33 ↗ we include a public matrix comment

2:02:36 ↗ matrix with our response of everything

2:02:38 ↗ we heard that informed the first draft

2:02:41 ↗ so that's the comment matrix you'll see

2:02:44 ↗ with your first packet when you are

2:02:45 ↗ holding the public hearing

2:02:47 ↗ during the public hearing and all the

2:02:49 ↗ comments that come on the draft code are

2:02:52 ↗ folded in at your des with your

2:02:54 ↗ deliberation packet

2:02:56 ↗ the issue we run into is when the public

2:02:59 ↗ hearing when we keep getting public

2:03:01 ↗ comments after the public hearing we

2:03:04 ↗ can't have a live stream of those

2:03:06 ↗ comments making into the matrix

2:03:09 ↗ so there is a cutoff of the comments

2:03:11 ↗ that can actually be folded into the

2:03:13 ↗ matrix for all of you to have a

2:03:15 ↗ deliberation

2:03:16 ↗ and when we first set out the process i

2:03:19 ↗ think the request from planning and

2:03:20 ↗ policy commission members was

2:03:22 ↗ you

2:03:23 ↗ you were fine with having these joint

2:03:25 ↗ meetings but you wanted your own meeting

2:03:27 ↗ when you were finalizing your

2:03:28 ↗ deliberation and we've honored that and

2:03:31 ↗ we've given you one meeting where you

2:03:33 ↗ can actually have a thoughtful

2:03:34 ↗ conversation and deliberation on the

2:03:36 ↗ topic

2:03:38 ↗ that's how the process was set up and we

2:03:40 ↗ apologize if there was confusion about

2:03:42 ↗ it

2:03:43 ↗ but uh you know

2:03:45 ↗ at this point um it was good to see that

2:03:48 ↗ you were all were able to you know

2:03:50 ↗ finish on time and have a good

2:03:51 ↗ conversation um

2:03:54 ↗ this is not the end though if folks have

2:03:57 ↗ comments we welcome them

2:03:59 ↗ we you know we'll be going to council

2:04:01 ↗ with uh with this package your your

2:04:03 ↗ recommendation

2:04:05 ↗ we're you know they can submit their

2:04:06 ↗ comments then we come back for a public

2:04:09 ↗ hearing um

2:04:10 ↗ those comments can you know additional

2:04:12 ↗ comments can come in at that point but

2:04:14 ↗ having a rolling set of comments may has

2:04:17 ↗ bring some challenges

2:04:19 ↗ and and we were trying to balance that

2:04:21 ↗ with giving you the information so you

2:04:23 ↗ could have a thoughtful conversation and

2:04:24 ↗ the time to have the thoughtful

2:04:26 ↗ conversation so just wanted to kind of

2:04:28 ↗ explain some of the

2:04:29 ↗ some of the confusion about the process

2:04:32 ↗ so that's all i have to say

2:04:35 ↗ great thank you

2:04:36 ↗ minnie um

2:04:41 ↗ all right so no city council updates um

2:04:43 ↗ other business and announcements

2:04:45 ↗ mini kristin

2:04:48 ↗ no many covered mine earlier so we're

2:04:49 ↗ good to go

2:04:52 ↗ okay

2:04:53 ↗ nothing for the good of the order

2:04:54 ↗ commissioners

2:04:59 ↗ all right well it's been

2:05:01 ↗ it's been fun and i think a lot of a lot

2:05:04 ↗ of wonderful

2:05:05 ↗ information has been passed along i

2:05:06 ↗ think the deliberations were fantastic

2:05:09 ↗ so having said all of that i'd like to

2:05:11 ↗ adjourn tonight's meeting of the

2:05:12 ↗ planning policy commission at 8 36

2:05:15 ↗ thank you everyone

2:05:17 ↗ thanks good night everyone

2:05:19 ↗ thank you great job chair boys

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 (6)

Voiss

Commissioners Bader

Lewis

Milligan

Monahan

Zaragoza Absence: Chair Faul (Excused)

Staff (1)

Millie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Daniel Martinez, Associate Planner 2. Approval of Minutes