Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, July 10, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 22, 2025

packet pp.3–8

▶ Watch from 1:00 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, May 22, 2025

4. PUBLIC HEARING

Title 18: Tree Preservation Amendments (A)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director of Community Planning & Development Public Hearing Order: Commission · packet pp.9–120

Topics: Land UseTrees

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Community Planning & Development 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Light Rail Station Planning Introduction

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Planner · packet pp.121–133

Open packet at p.121 ↗

Staff report:

The July 10th meeting will introduce the Central Issaquah Station & Alignment Study ("the Study") and provide the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) with: • An overview of the City’s light rail planning efforts, • The Study’s purpose and timeline, and • Opportunities for the PPC to engage and provide input at key milestones.

6. REPORTS

Council Update

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.135–137

Open packet at p.135 ↗

Staff report:

Staff Support: Stephen Padua Staff Support: Christen Leeson 4/10/25 4/24/25 ▪ Chairs Election ▪ Tree Code

2962 segments .txt ↗

0:11 ↗ Great. All right. Well, good evening

0:13 ↗ everyone. Good evening, Planning Policy

0:15 ↗ Staff, guests. We'd like to call the

0:17 ↗ meeting of the July 10th Planning Policy

0:19 ↗ Commission to order. We're a little bit

0:22 ↗ behind. It's 6:34 p.m. Uh, tonight's

0:26 ↗ meeting is a hybrid meeting. The

0:27 ↗ planning policy commission is in person,

0:29 ↗ but staff or members of the public may

0:31 ↗ be attending virtually or in person this

0:34 ↗ evening. We do have a few excused

0:36 ↗ absences. Uh, Commissioner Miller Irwin,

0:40 ↗ Commissioner Mole, uh, Baroo, and Vice

0:44 ↗ Chair Patterson. And we also have

0:46 ↗ Commissioner Adair joining us virtually.

0:49 ↗ But I do want to ask the, uh, question,

0:51 ↗ do we have a quorum this evening?

0:54 ↗ >> Yes.

0:56 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you, Tisha. Let's begin

0:58 ↗ with a little bit of house cleaning of

1:00 ↗ the approval of minutes. So, we want to

1:03 ↗ take action on the minutes from May

1:04 ↗ 22nd.

1:06 ↗ And does anyone have any questions,

1:08 ↗ concerns corrections?

1:12 ↗ I have a minor correction. Vice Chair

1:15 ↗ Patterson did not adjourn us. That would

1:17 ↗ have been me. Just proving we all do

1:20 ↗ read our packets, right?

1:23 ↗ And moving along, we will go to public

1:25 ↗ comment. And right now, we're going to

1:27 ↗ hold general public comment. We will

1:29 ↗ have a time in the meeting when we open

1:31 ↗ the public hearing um when we begin to

1:34 ↗ discuss the tree preservation code. But

1:36 ↗ this is for general public comments.

1:37 ↗ This is for the good of the order, the

1:39 ↗ planning policy commission. So, if you

1:41 ↗ would like to speak on any general

1:43 ↗ topic, now is the time. And staff, has

1:46 ↗ anyone signed up to make general public

1:48 ↗ comments?

1:49 ↗ >> No. Oh, and we don't have any members of

1:51 ↗ the public with us virtually at this

1:53 ↗ time.

1:54 ↗ >> Would anyone in the room like to make

1:55 ↗ general public comments?

1:58 ↗ >> Okay.

2:01 ↗ All right. We'll move along to the

2:03 ↗ business of the day, which is the public

2:06 ↗ hearing, Title 18, the tree preservation

2:09 ↗ amendments.

2:11 ↗ So, we're going to hold the public

2:12 ↗ hearing regarding these amendments. And

2:14 ↗ the purpose of this public hearing is to

2:15 ↗ provide a formal opportunity for public

2:17 ↗ comment on the proposed amendments.

2:20 ↗ We'll open the public hearing which will

2:22 ↗ be followed by a presentation from

2:24 ↗ staff. Then the PPC will have uh time to

2:28 ↗ ask follow-up questions. We'll take

2:30 ↗ public testimony. We'll close the public

2:33 ↗ hearing and then the planning policy

2:35 ↗ commission will have an opportunity to

2:36 ↗ debate and make a recommendation if they

2:39 ↗ so wish for this topic. Minnie Dollywal,

2:43 ↗ our CPD director, will be presenting

2:45 ↗ this evening. So, Minnie, when you are

2:47 ↗ ready, please feel free to go ahead.

2:50 ↗ >> Good evening, uh, commissioners and

2:52 ↗ members of the community. I am going to

2:55 ↗ share my screen and pull this up.

3:19 ↗ Bear with me for a second.

3:30 ↗ Sure.

3:34 ↗ I might need some assistance tissue.

3:56 ↗ Okay. Well, maybe it worked.

4:04 ↗ I think there was some update to this

4:07 ↗ that is um so good evening again. Um so

4:12 ↗ tonight we're here um to hold a official

4:15 ↗ public hearing for tree preservation

4:17 ↗ code amendments. Um

4:22 ↗ and those are chapter 18.812

4:25 ↗ of the Isiqua Municipal Code. Um a

4:28 ↗ little bit of background. uh we did the

4:30 ↗ major update to title 18 um that was

4:33 ↗ adopted in May of 2023. Since then when

4:36 ↗ we implemented the tree code and a few

4:39 ↗ things that surfaced as a result of

4:41 ↗ implementation

4:43 ↗ um made us uh relook at the tree

4:45 ↗ preservation code and that's why we're

4:47 ↗ here uh to discuss and um make make

4:51 ↗ suggest those amendments. um

4:53 ↗ environmental board and both planning

4:55 ↗ and policy commission have had multiple

4:56 ↗ touches with it including the community

4:58 ↗ members have had an opportunity to weigh

5:00 ↗ in but tonight's the official public

5:02 ↗ hearing. So we started with um going to

5:05 ↗ the environmental board back in April

5:07 ↗ and then planning and policy commission

5:09 ↗ in May we had two meetings and then in

5:12 ↗ June with the environmental board. Um

5:15 ↗ the major policy changes that have uh

5:17 ↗ that are proposed as part of this um uh

5:21 ↗ assortment of amendments um number one

5:24 ↗ is we've revised the tree canopy cover

5:26 ↗ targets. So having you know the original

5:29 ↗ the code now is based on the areawide

5:32 ↗ percentages that are applied on a parcel

5:34 ↗ by parcel basis. So that's not the

5:37 ↗ proposal that's in front of you. It's to

5:40 ↗ set the canopy cover by land use and lot

5:42 ↗ size rather than by sub area. Uh and the

5:45 ↗ and the intention there is that you look

5:47 ↗ at how much of it is developable. How

5:49 ↗ much of it is going to remain uh pvious

5:52 ↗ surface that can actually take some uh

5:54 ↗ trees and getting the right tree planted

5:56 ↗ in the right spot. Um number two um is

6:00 ↗ simplified regulations related to tree

6:02 ↗ removal for hazardous nuisance trees and

6:05 ↗ replacement for existing developed

6:07 ↗ residential properties. The intent here

6:10 ↗ is if you already have a developed

6:12 ↗ property and you have a tree that's

6:14 ↗ either hazardous or nuisance, a nuisance

6:17 ↗ could be that it could potentially

6:19 ↗ become a nuisance. You know, it's not

6:21 ↗ there yet, but it could become uh a

6:24 ↗ nuisance in the future, uh being too

6:26 ↗ close to your house, growing into the

6:28 ↗ foundations, ripping up the sidewalk,

6:30 ↗ whatever. Uh or a hazardous tree, which

6:33 ↗ is which could be dead, dying, or

6:35 ↗ disease that's leaning and could fall.

6:38 ↗ um are just some examples. There's a

6:40 ↗ definition of those two in the code. Um

6:43 ↗ and so simplifying a process for those

6:46 ↗ to be taken out. So the the proposal is

6:50 ↗ to have a replacement of one to one um

6:54 ↗ as a very simple process. uh if um

6:58 ↗ you're not able to do the you know if if

7:01 ↗ your property has a lot of trees already

7:05 ↗ and you are meeting the canopy coverage

7:09 ↗ thresholds uh that are in 1888 8.2060

7:11 ↗ 2060 then you can present your canopy

7:14 ↗ coverage information and get don't have

7:16 ↗ to replant either. That's how the code

7:18 ↗ is written right now. Uh the proposed

7:20 ↗ code um so onetoone replacement uh but

7:24 ↗ that can be foregone for properties that

7:26 ↗ actually have a lot of trees already and

7:28 ↗ meet the uh canopy coverage

7:30 ↗ requirements. Uh we've clarified uh that

7:33 ↗ the compliance of the full tree canopy

7:36 ↗ coverage is triggered with new and major

7:38 ↗ redevelopment and major redevelopment is

7:41 ↗ 50% of the value of the structure. Not

7:44 ↗ all interior includes expansion on the

7:46 ↗ outside. Um the last major policy update

7:50 ↗ are is that we've added flexibility for

7:52 ↗ tree retention requirements in central

7:54 ↗ Isiqua. That's the area that the city's

7:56 ↗ designated most of its growth. future

7:59 ↗ light rail station is go you know

8:01 ↗ designated to come to central Isiqua. Um

8:04 ↗ but uh the idea there is that as

8:07 ↗ redevelopment happen some of those tree

8:09 ↗ canopy coverage may be lost. Um but

8:12 ↗ having some checks and balances in place

8:14 ↗ uh of a criteria for saving those at

8:17 ↗ least getting getting trees to be saved

8:20 ↗ that can be saved but getting those

8:22 ↗ replaced that cannot be saved uh because

8:25 ↗ of um uh conflict with other uh cities

8:28 ↗ policies of getting growth in central

8:31 ↗ Isiqua. So that's sort of the main top

8:33 ↗ four topics and there's a lot of other

8:35 ↗ cleanup sort of uh edits throughout the

8:38 ↗ document that I won't go into but happy

8:40 ↗ to answer any questions you might have.

8:42 ↗ A little bit of uh summary of what the

8:45 ↗ feedback we received from environmental

8:47 ↗ board initially. Uh there is a pack

8:50 ↗ there's a letter that they wrote that

8:51 ↗ they do as part of the charter to go to

8:54 ↗ city council that's in your packet as

8:55 ↗ well. Uh they wanted us to do some more

8:58 ↗ code testing. Uh wanted us to clarify

9:00 ↗ how tree fund is used. Um they also had

9:04 ↗ concerns about heat island effect and

9:06 ↗ how these some of these regulations

9:07 ↗ might impact that being you know we are

9:09 ↗ all experiencing hot summers and trees

9:12 ↗ are a you know help in that respect. Um

9:16 ↗ they also wanted us to look at

9:17 ↗ multifamily targets. Wildfire mitigation

9:20 ↗ was a concern for them uh and

9:23 ↗ identifying planting areas with

9:24 ↗ flexibility. And then for HOAs, they

9:27 ↗ wanted to kind of see if they were

9:29 ↗ taking down trees in multiple areas,

9:31 ↗ could they get one permit, for instance?

9:33 ↗ No code amendments are needed for that,

9:34 ↗ but but that is a policy now. Um I think

9:38 ↗ single family target you all thought

9:41 ↗ were a little bit inequitable. Um

9:44 ↗ initially

9:45 ↗ um in back in May, um we got some

9:49 ↗ feedback about more public education.

9:51 ↗ you know that will of course happen

9:53 ↗ after the code is adopted in terms of

9:55 ↗ easier to understand handouts and

9:56 ↗ implementation tools that we can put

9:59 ↗ out. Um clarify replacement requirements

10:02 ↗ which we've done to say 1 one if you

10:05 ↗ meet the canopy you don't have to for

10:07 ↗ landmark it's 1:2 uh so on uh simplify

10:11 ↗ single family requirements move tree

10:13 ↗ removal section move it so that it's

10:16 ↗ clear when those three different things

10:18 ↗ apply. So we have tree removal for

10:20 ↗ existing developed properties then we

10:22 ↗ have tree preservation requirements that

10:25 ↗ apply to anything that you're

10:26 ↗ redeveloping. So if you're tearing

10:28 ↗ something down and rebuilding, you still

10:30 ↗ need to save 25 or 35% depending on

10:33 ↗ where you are of existing tree caliber

10:36 ↗ inches. So which is different than your

10:39 ↗ canopy cover. And then we have canopy

10:41 ↗ cover requirements for new trees and and

10:44 ↗ existing trees combined would you would

10:46 ↗ get at the end of the day. So that's how

10:49 ↗ this is all structured. Um relief for

10:52 ↗ emergency events. I think bomb cyclone

10:55 ↗ was fresh and clear in everyone's mind

10:57 ↗ of you know whether they would whether

10:59 ↗ city should even require tree permits

11:01 ↗ when you clearly see the down tree um

11:05 ↗ and then central Isiqua flexibility

11:08 ↗ requirements and then they wanted

11:10 ↗ another meeting which we held with them

11:11 ↗ in June um in the feedback from you all

11:15 ↗ uh previously was um what about really

11:18 ↗ small lots so we added a percentage for

11:20 ↗ 5,000 I believe it's 25% Um you also

11:24 ↗ asked us to focus on city- owned

11:26 ↗ properties for heat disparity. Um so

11:28 ↗ that happens through the urban forestry

11:30 ↗ program. Um clarify deciduous versus

11:34 ↗ evergreen replacement. Um adjust

11:36 ↗ hazardous tree exemption. Um you you all

11:40 ↗ talked about tree giveaway program which

11:43 ↗ can occur. It happens with the

11:44 ↗ sustainability and parks department and

11:47 ↗ some some of the tree funds can be used

11:49 ↗ uh for that. Um and then you all asked

11:52 ↗ uh to review the wildf fire code updates

11:55 ↗ and then include some sample site plans

11:57 ↗ that we have shared with you previously.

12:00 ↗ So um then we posed five policy

12:04 ↗ questions that are also in your packet

12:05 ↗ to environmental board and that's what

12:07 ↗ they gave us the feedback on which we

12:09 ↗ have included the final edits. Um

12:13 ↗ and you know the rest of my presentation

12:16 ↗ here um is really um one for one

12:19 ↗ replacement if the site meets or exceeds

12:22 ↗ the canopy coverage. Um and you know

12:24 ↗ they can they don't have to replant. So

12:27 ↗ as you deliberate you can use some of

12:28 ↗ this information as you do your

12:30 ↗ deliberation or there may be other

12:31 ↗ questions you want to use for your

12:33 ↗ deliberation. Canopy coverage

12:35 ↗ percentage. Uh we did include the facet

12:38 ↗ report that kind of gives you some

12:39 ↗ background on how we came to uh these

12:42 ↗ percentages and and numbers. Um while

12:45 ↗ the data isn't specific for each of the

12:48 ↗ parcel, we don't have canopy coverage

12:49 ↗ data. For you know for developed lots

12:52 ↗ it's x percentage for undeveloped areas

12:54 ↗ it's y percentage. Um but we have an

12:58 ↗ opportunity now with to work with uh

13:01 ↗ King County. they're doing the canopy uh

13:03 ↗ you know fly over and all that and and

13:06 ↗ then we can work with them over what

13:09 ↗ geographies make sense for us for the

13:11 ↗ future to to capture some of the data

13:13 ↗ for future uh code updates. Uh so we'll

13:16 ↗ continue to work with our parks

13:17 ↗ department and King County um on that

13:20 ↗ effort. Um

13:23 ↗ um when do these things apply? Um we've

13:27 ↗ clarified that you know tree canopy is

13:29 ↗ only for new and redevelopment.

13:31 ↗ Um hazardous nuisance is 1 one landmark

13:35 ↗ removal is 1 to2. Um the criteria for

13:40 ↗ central isa flexibility. Um, so you have

13:44 ↗ your 25% you caliper inches that you

13:47 ↗ need to save, but you're allowed to rem,

13:49 ↗ you know, go below that if you uh it's a

13:53 ↗ tree that's a nuisance or a hazardous

13:55 ↗ tree or you need to take it down because

13:57 ↗ of site access. Uh, a lot of these trees

14:00 ↗ are going to come down because of

14:01 ↗ frontage improvements. Um, the city's

14:03 ↗ plan to have sidewalk, wider sidewalks,

14:06 ↗ tree uh, you know, cover are could

14:09 ↗ potentially take down some of the trees

14:10 ↗ along frontage. um public works

14:13 ↗ department is working on street

14:15 ↗ standards update where they are looking

14:17 ↗ at some deviations from the the

14:20 ↗ landscaping with standards in the public

14:23 ↗ right of way. So that may inform where

14:26 ↗ there may be some flexibility or not. Um

14:30 ↗ but you know as redevelopment occurs

14:32 ↗ it's more it you know there's the

14:34 ↗ competing priorities. You do want to

14:35 ↗ build that infrastructure of continuous

14:37 ↗ sidewalks with a row of trees, but some

14:40 ↗ of those older uh stuff that may be in

14:42 ↗ the wrong place may need to be uh taken

14:44 ↗ out in order to get the new stuff built.

14:47 ↗ Um utility connections could be another

14:49 ↗ thing. And then the building placement

14:51 ↗ if you know that's the only place where

14:52 ↗ the building could go. But a lot of

14:54 ↗ these trees besides the ones along the

14:56 ↗ street frontage are parking lot trees.

14:58 ↗ So they're not really high caliber

15:01 ↗ inches and and um and those kind of

15:04 ↗ trees. Some of the feedback I think in

15:06 ↗ the public comments you've received is

15:09 ↗ what if there's a landmark tree um in

15:12 ↗ these areas? Should every effort be made

15:14 ↗ to preserve the landmark tree? And I

15:16 ↗ think environmental board also gave some

15:18 ↗ of that direction to see if there's a

15:20 ↗ clump of trees or uh landmark trees to

15:23 ↗ try and preserve those to the extent

15:25 ↗ they can be preserved. Um and then

15:28 ↗ number B is saying if the deviation

15:31 ↗ uh is approved, replacement trees have

15:34 ↗ to be still planted. So it's, you know,

15:36 ↗ there's not a net loss of canopy. Uh

15:40 ↗ there may be temporal loss because

15:41 ↗ you've taken a larger tree that's

15:43 ↗ providing a shade and you're planting a

15:45 ↗ smaller tree that's going to grow in 20

15:46 ↗ years. Um however, in the long haul, uh

15:50 ↗ there is not a loss of canopy is sort of

15:52 ↗ the intent here. Um so you can do your

15:55 ↗ replacement trees onsite, offsite or pay

15:58 ↗ fee in lie of um and then it goes into

16:01 ↗ one tree for every 6 in diameter um

16:05 ↗ removed is basically the replacement for

16:08 ↗ those and these replacement trees are

16:11 ↗ not going to count towards your minimum

16:13 ↗ minimum canopy coverage requirement. So

16:15 ↗ there's an incentive built into that

16:17 ↗ last sentence. If you keep some of those

16:19 ↗ your existing larger trees, you can

16:21 ↗ count them towards your overall

16:23 ↗ percentage that you have to meet. But if

16:25 ↗ you take those down, you have to replace

16:27 ↗ them and they won't count towards your

16:30 ↗ canopy coverage. So your canopy coverage

16:32 ↗ would go a little bit above and beyond.

16:34 ↗ Uh which in in a lot of these instances

16:36 ↗ would be payment and fee in lie of um

16:39 ↗ type of a situation. So um so there's

16:42 ↗ there's that um with this uh criteria. I

16:46 ↗ wanted to highlight that for you all to

16:48 ↗ discuss. Uh wildfire mitigation. The

16:52 ↗ guidance we've received um so far is to

16:56 ↗ let if fire department comes in and

16:59 ↗ makes a uh determination that it is a

17:01 ↗ risk or a nuisance tree, you know, um

17:03 ↗ from a wildfire perspective, then we

17:05 ↗ would accept that um and allow removal

17:08 ↗ of trees under that provision. Just so

17:10 ↗ that everyone's aware um wildfire urban

17:14 ↗ interface codes are un under work.

17:18 ↗ Department of natural resources is

17:20 ↗ working on them. Then state building

17:22 ↗ code council in Washington state is

17:24 ↗ going to adopt them and then they will

17:26 ↗ become you know it's going to go be more

17:28 ↗ than just the the tree issue there. It's

17:31 ↗ also what type of materials on the roof

17:33 ↗ you know and things of that nature

17:35 ↗ that'll come uh from it. But it's a pro

17:37 ↗ it's a work in progress. It's not

17:38 ↗ adopted yet. Um, so our question was,

17:41 ↗ should we wait until all of that is done

17:43 ↗ before we allow this because there's no

17:45 ↗ really guidance. Is it 30 feet clear

17:48 ↗ from your property that you is a

17:50 ↗ wildfire risk? Is it 5T? Um, so I think

17:53 ↗ the guidance um um one of the

17:56 ↗ environmental board members actually had

17:58 ↗ fire department come in and do this

18:00 ↗ assessment for them. And we've talked to

18:02 ↗ fire department and they're doing they

18:05 ↗ look at it very conservatively. So

18:07 ↗ they're not going to say you can clear

18:08 ↗ cut your whole lot and and do that. So

18:12 ↗ that's the interim uh fix until the the

18:15 ↗ wildfire urban interface codes come into

18:17 ↗ play. Um again I have a list of uh these

18:20 ↗ same questions if you want to discuss

18:22 ↗ these during your deliberations. Um and

18:25 ↗ then in ter if you um depending on

18:29 ↗ public comments you uh after you close

18:31 ↗ the public hearing you can deliberate

18:33 ↗ tonight and if you're ready you can make

18:35 ↗ your final recommendation to council

18:38 ↗ tonight. Um council is on break in

18:40 ↗ August so we will take it to uh the

18:43 ↗ first meeting in September for them to

18:44 ↗ adopt. Um if you need another meeting uh

18:49 ↗ we have a second meeting in July that we

18:50 ↗ can come back to you with some

18:52 ↗ additional information if you choose. uh

18:54 ↗ to do that. I think that concludes my

18:57 ↗ presentation.

19:01 ↗ >> All right. Well, thank you. Thank you,

19:03 ↗ Director Dollywal.

19:05 ↗ Um okay,

19:11 ↗ we'll start with some questions if uh

19:13 ↗ from anyone from the commission,

19:14 ↗ including Commissioner Adair, who we

19:16 ↗ also see. Just raise your hand uh

19:18 ↗ virtually if you have any questions. Um,

19:20 ↗ but anyone that would like to open this

19:21 ↗ up, now is the time to ask some

19:23 ↗ questions.

19:26 ↗ Uh, Commissioner Crass.

19:28 ↗ >> Hello, Commissioner Crass. So, versus a

19:32 ↗ comment, then it'll it'll lead into a

19:33 ↗ question. Um, just from a layman's

19:37 ↗ perspective, the whole caliper canopy

19:39 ↗ thing is a bit confusing and probably

19:41 ↗ hard to follow. And I'm not sure if

19:43 ↗ there's an easy if then guide for some

19:47 ↗ for a developer whoever to understand it

19:49 ↗ better, but I think that's overall it's

19:51 ↗ more of a statement. Um, and I'd just

19:53 ↗ like to know more of the thinking of if

19:56 ↗ someone has to take a tree down, why and

19:58 ↗ and they do replace it,

20:02 ↗ why should that not count? Are we just

20:04 ↗ adding another layer? I'm curious to

20:06 ↗ thinking of having two different tiers

20:08 ↗ of sometimes it counts, sometimes it

20:10 ↗ doesn't. I think it number one I don't

20:13 ↗ think it's necessarily

20:16 ↗ clear or fair and I'd just like to

20:18 ↗ understand more of the background on

20:19 ↗ that.

20:19 ↗ >> Yeah. So that's just in the central

20:21 ↗ Isiqua area. So that's not your

20:23 ↗ residential properties or anything like

20:25 ↗ that for there. You take one down you

20:27 ↗ you can do one to one replacement unless

20:29 ↗ you show either you you have lots of

20:31 ↗ trees and you meet your canopy coverage

20:33 ↗ already. So replacement may be waved for

20:36 ↗ them. So that's the simplified path for

20:38 ↗ existing. Now in the central Isiqua, you

20:41 ↗ know, one of the things that the that

20:44 ↗ the canopy studies have kind of shown is

20:47 ↗ that's where the urban heat island

20:49 ↗ effect is. That's where there are fewer

20:51 ↗ trees. That's where you have a lot of

20:53 ↗ parking lots and less greenery and all

20:55 ↗ of that kind of stuff. So for whatever

20:57 ↗ little trees you have that can be

21:01 ↗ preserved is is sort of an incentive for

21:04 ↗ someone to save a larger tree if they

21:06 ↗ can save it. Um, but then uh at the end

21:11 ↗ of the day, you need to meet 25% canopy

21:14 ↗ coverage for your site when you do your

21:16 ↗ redevelopment. But you can do you can

21:19 ↗ count that all with your smaller trees,

21:21 ↗ which eventually will grow, but

21:23 ↗ temporarily you're not going to have

21:25 ↗ that coverage. You're not going to have

21:27 ↗ the shade um because there's a smaller

21:30 ↗ newer trees that are being planted. If

21:32 ↗ you get to save some of the older trees,

21:36 ↗ then you can count them towards your So

21:38 ↗ that's just an incentive based approach

21:41 ↗ uh to keep existing trees because a lot

21:43 ↗ of times it's more hassle for for

21:46 ↗ develop development to deal with around

21:49 ↗ a tree. You have to preserve it and work

21:52 ↗ around it. It's much easier to just take

21:54 ↗ it down and you know do it from the

21:56 ↗ beginning. But you do lose that that

21:58 ↗ shade for the next, you know, next

22:01 ↗ decade until the tree becomes larger.

22:04 ↗ That's sort of the thought process

22:05 ↗ there.

22:07 ↗ >> Is since it's only in the um central

22:10 ↗ Esco area.

22:11 ↗ >> Yeah.

22:11 ↗ >> Is is there already a study like a

22:14 ↗ visual study to see the lots like how

22:16 ↗ big of a problem is this? Like how much

22:19 ↗ how much of the areas is pretty wooded

22:22 ↗ versus is it mostly parking lots anyway?

22:24 ↗ So this is just a theoretical

22:26 ↗ conversation or is this are there going

22:28 ↗ to be some loss be a big issue?

22:30 ↗ >> Yeah, we don't have any full inventory

22:32 ↗ of trees. Um I think um as part of the

22:35 ↗ urban forestry plan, the intent is to

22:37 ↗ get some of that for the street trees or

22:39 ↗ city- owned trees, but every tree on

22:42 ↗ every private property, we do not have

22:44 ↗ an inventory of those. But, you know,

22:47 ↗ you drive up on Newport, you see nice

22:51 ↗ tall trees along Tibbitz uh park, you

22:55 ↗ see some of those along the, you know,

22:57 ↗ if you keep Yeah. So, just anecdotal

22:59 ↗ information, but we don't have a good,

23:02 ↗ you know, they're 100 trees or they're

23:04 ↗ 200 trees. We don't know.

23:08 ↗ >> Other questions? Uh, Commissioner

23:10 ↗ Zachro.

23:12 ↗ >> Hi. I would actually like to bring up uh

23:15 ↗ one of the questions that brought uh

23:17 ↗ during the comments from the public that

23:20 ↗ we got in preparation for the meeting.

23:22 ↗ Uh and the question is who's who's

23:24 ↗ getting to decide what tree is a

23:26 ↗ nuisance tree, dying tree, dead tree. Is

23:28 ↗ this an applicant getting to decide or

23:30 ↗ is there be any uh commit like someone

23:33 ↗ from the city will help with that? So

23:35 ↗ how this process is seen? Yeah, the

23:38 ↗ applicant makes an application for um

23:41 ↗ you know initial determination that this

23:43 ↗ is a hazardous you know that could fall

23:45 ↗ on my house or this is a nuisance that

23:47 ↗ the roots might grow into my foundation

23:50 ↗ in the next you know 5 years or what

23:52 ↗ whatever that assessment is happens by

23:55 ↗ the homeowner. Uh the city makes the

23:57 ↗ final decision whether they agree or

23:59 ↗ disagree with that.

24:04 ↗ Commissioner Matthews.

24:07 ↗ Um,

24:07 ↗ >> a couple of people have brought up the

24:09 ↗ cultural significant trees and I believe

24:12 ↗ that that's not even known if there are

24:14 ↗ any in Isiqua. So, if you wanted to

24:18 ↗ preserve those trees, how would you go

24:20 ↗ about it? Would you have the tribes

24:22 ↗ whenever somebody came in and said they

24:24 ↗ want to build a new development on

24:26 ↗ Xacres, would you have the tribes come

24:28 ↗ in and go through an inventory of the

24:30 ↗ trees? I mean, is that a possibility or

24:32 ↗ is that just something that we're not

24:34 ↗ going to look at?

24:37 ↗ >> Yeah, you know, um I mean, those are

24:39 ↗ comments that you received to tonight,

24:41 ↗ too. I I honestly don't know the answer

24:44 ↗ uh of how that sort of a program works.

24:47 ↗ Um I've read in news, you know, I think

24:50 ↗ city of Seattle was dealing with it, but

24:52 ↗ I I don't know uh implementation wise

24:55 ↗ how that would work. I think the the

24:57 ↗ comments tonight were saying within 60

24:59 ↗ days they would do it, but it's unclear

25:01 ↗ to me when would we engage with that.

25:03 ↗ So, I just need to talk to them more to

25:05 ↗ understand.

25:13 ↗ >> Commissioner Dair,

25:20 ↗ you're muted.

25:26 ↗ So maybe one idea might be since they

25:28 ↗ said cultural trees are all red cedar

25:30 ↗ and then a specific type of deciduous

25:32 ↗ trees that if those come up in the

25:35 ↗ inventory during redevelopment kind of

25:39 ↗ flags that you might need a closer look

25:41 ↗ at them. Just an idea.

25:48 ↗ >> All right. Well, I I have a few

25:49 ↗ questions. Um, Commissioner

25:52 ↗ Commissioner, I'm sorry, Director

25:53 ↗ Dollywal. Um, so going back to policy

25:56 ↗ question five for central is a qual. I

25:58 ↗ just want to make sure I understand. Can

25:59 ↗ we put that slide back up real quickly?

26:14 ↗ There's a couple of points I just little

26:16 ↗ bit of clarification will help.

26:33 ↗ Well, let me see if I can if I can do

26:36 ↗ right. Let me see if I can do this off

26:37 ↗ the cuff. I think my original point was

26:39 ↗ Minnie was so for central Isiziqua we

26:44 ↗ have a 25% minimum uh tree canopy.

26:47 ↗ Correct?

26:49 ↗ Now, if a developer, because obviously

26:51 ↗ they need to be able to develop these

26:53 ↗ projects that are feasible. I mean,

26:54 ↗ again, I get that some trees are going

26:56 ↗ to be in the way. The concern is heat

26:58 ↗ islands and things like this. Is that

27:01 ↗ they have to have 25% even if they cut

27:03 ↗ down trees to make their development

27:05 ↗ work on the lot. they still need to have

27:08 ↗ that 25% on the property or that 25%

27:12 ↗ could be counted in fee of Lou or

27:14 ↗ offsite or they still need the 25% on

27:18 ↗ the property. Okay. So the when they cut

27:21 ↗ down if the property has 30% of trees

27:24 ↗ currently but they need to take out 15%

27:27 ↗ in where they currently are they still

27:30 ↗ need to get up to 10% on the property.

27:34 ↗ And if they go up still has to be on

27:37 ↗ site.

27:40 ↗ So if let's just

27:42 ↗ >> Yeah. No, just trust me these numbers

27:44 ↗ are fun. Um so imagine a site has 30%

27:48 ↗ currently right before the developer

27:50 ↗ comes in and they knock out we'll say

27:54 ↗ 20%. So they just need to do it in order

27:56 ↗ to make the property the the project

27:59 ↗ work. So now they're down to 10%.

28:03 ↗ Right? So they still have to plant extra

28:06 ↗ 15% of canopy on site and the

28:24 ↗ Sorry about that. Um so if they if they

28:27 ↗ can preserve at least 25% of the caliber

28:30 ↗ inches then they've met the first bar.

28:33 ↗ So they saved say 10 trees um but took

28:37 ↗ out 20 others. So out of 30 they took 20

28:40 ↗ out but they saved 10. They've met the

28:42 ↗ first tree preservation requirement.

28:44 ↗ Then they have to replant so that the

28:47 ↗ total of those 10 trees and the newly

28:50 ↗ planted trees gives at the end of the

28:53 ↗ day 25% canopy coverage for the site.

28:58 ↗ >> What happens to So again, if if the site

29:00 ↗ had 35% coverage prior to construction,

29:04 ↗ >> yeah,

29:05 ↗ >> they only have to meet 25%.

29:07 ↗ >> Correct.

29:07 ↗ >> So what happens to that extra 10%. Does

29:10 ↗ that extra It's lost. It is lost. So

29:12 ↗ they don't have to do fee and loo they

29:14 ↗ don't have to do replacement offsite for

29:16 ↗ those 10%.

29:18 ↗ >> Correct. Because at at the end of the

29:20 ↗ day they they met both tree preservation

29:22 ↗ which is 25% of your caliber inches.

29:25 ↗ They met the 25% canopy coverage at the

29:28 ↗ end of the day when they're said and

29:31 ↗ done with their development.

29:32 ↗ >> So if 25% is the number they have to

29:34 ↗ have physically on site where would the

29:36 ↗ fee andlue and offsite replanted trees

29:40 ↗ come into play?

29:41 ↗ >> Yeah. So if they took all the trees

29:42 ↗ down, they didn't save these 10, they

29:45 ↗ took everything down, they didn't meet

29:46 ↗ the tree preservation

29:48 ↗ uh part of saving at least 25% caliber

29:51 ↗ inches, then they would have to pay fee

29:54 ↗ in lie of and still meet their 25%.

29:58 ↗ Okay, that that's where it gets a little

30:00 ↗ confusing because I guess I don't know

30:01 ↗ what happens if they've knocked down all

30:03 ↗ those trees. They still have to get back

30:05 ↗ up to 20 years

30:06 ↗ >> with the new newly planted trees will

30:09 ↗ have to meet the 25% canopy goals, but

30:12 ↗ they because they've cut down everything

30:14 ↗ else. They would need to either replant

30:17 ↗ those on site. So their overall canopy

30:20 ↗ coverage could be not 25% but say 30%

30:24 ↗ because they replanted those on site or

30:27 ↗ they could pay fee in lie of or they

30:29 ↗ could plant on offsite in that same sub

30:32 ↗ area.

30:42 ↗ >> I think it might be dead. Sure. Okay.

30:46 ↗ Thanks.

30:53 ↗ little switcheroo. Um,

30:57 ↗ so again, I guess the question is what

31:00 ↗ would trigger them to have to do the fee

31:01 ↗ and loo and the replacement if they have

31:03 ↗ to physically have to have 25% canopy

31:06 ↗ coverage on site. I guess that's where

31:07 ↗ I'm getting

31:08 ↗ >> because they're clear cutting every

31:09 ↗ single tree on the site,

31:11 ↗ >> right? But but if they're replanting

31:13 ↗ everything on site, why would even

31:15 ↗ replacement offsite be an option?

31:17 ↗ because they they still need to meet the

31:19 ↗ 25 the way it's proposed. They still

31:22 ↗ need to meet your the new canopy

31:25 ↗ coverage goals of 25%. But because

31:28 ↗ there's a temporal loss of those trees

31:31 ↗ that were larger, but they couldn't save

31:35 ↗ 25% of those um then they those are the

31:39 ↗ ones that they are replanting either by

31:41 ↗ bumping up the canopy coverage on site,

31:43 ↗ planting offsite or paying paying fee in

31:46 ↗ lie of So the central lizqua is really

31:49 ↗ more about the diameter not so much

31:52 ↗ >> anywhere the tree preservation part if

31:55 ↗ you own a single family lot undeveloped

31:58 ↗ lot you would be required to save 30%

32:01 ↗ caliber per inches of existing trees and

32:04 ↗ at the end of the day meet whatever

32:06 ↗ percentage depending on the size of the

32:08 ↗ lot you you have. So tree preservation

32:11 ↗ and canopy coverage go hand in hand. One

32:13 ↗ is one is geared towards saving existing

32:16 ↗ larger trees. The other one is say is

32:19 ↗ long-term. Where do you end up after all

32:22 ↗ all said and done?

32:23 ↗ >> Okay.

32:25 ↗ Ultimately, they need to have 25%

32:27 ↗ coverage and then they need to replace

32:29 ↗ the

32:31 ↗ >> what they took out the larger trees.

32:33 ↗ Yeah.

32:33 ↗ >> Okay. I'm going to move on because I

32:34 ↗ don't quite understand it, but uh Okay,

32:37 ↗ Commissioner Zacharov,

32:40 ↗ >> I have a follow-up question. Uh what if

32:43 ↗ the property does not allow for 25% to

32:46 ↗ be covered with trees anymore? So they

32:49 ↗ built something bigger.

32:51 ↗ >> Yeah, I think that the idea is that

32:53 ↗ these percentages have already been

32:55 ↗ lowered from what they were that this

32:57 ↗ the that the balance of development and

33:01 ↗ the trees can occur. So it's not all

33:03 ↗ concrete jungle that you actually can

33:05 ↗ soften some of those hardcapes by

33:08 ↗ landscaping. If for some reason they

33:11 ↗ can't meet it, absolutely the code still

33:12 ↗ allows off-site planting or payment and

33:15 ↗ fee in lie of but it's a higher bar.

33:19 ↗ >> Thank you,

33:21 ↗ >> Commissioner Craftsman.

33:22 ↗ >> Let's let's talk caliper for a moment.

33:24 ↗ Um so is the intent for the tree

33:28 ↗ preservation counting the calipers for

33:30 ↗ larger more established trees is that

33:32 ↗ the

33:34 ↗ >> So here's here's the reason why I asked

33:36 ↗ that. Mhm.

33:37 ↗ >> If you have a piece of property, and

33:38 ↗ I'll even say not in just someone wants

33:41 ↗ to build on a lot that has a bunch of

33:44 ↗ scrub little 1 in 2in trees and they're

33:47 ↗ just all over the place.

33:49 ↗ >> Do those need to be counted or are those

33:52 ↗ they're almost like weeds. So if you

33:53 ↗ start adding a bunch of

33:55 ↗ >> Yeah. So the the rules only apply to

33:57 ↗ significant.

33:57 ↗ >> Okay. So at what point what makes

33:59 ↗ >> I think it's six inches in our code.

34:01 ↗ >> Okay. So anything six inches or over

34:02 ↗ then Okay, that asks my question. So if

34:04 ↗ you have a bunch of weedlike trees,

34:06 ↗ you're not those could add up to a lot

34:07 ↗ if you add up those.

34:09 ↗ >> Sure. And the intent is with a caliber

34:12 ↗ inches that if you save one large tree,

34:14 ↗ you saved more. So there's an incentive

34:17 ↗ to save larger trees than bunch of

34:19 ↗ smaller ones.

34:20 ↗ >> It was probably in the packet in the 137

34:22 ↗ pages. I might have missed the 6 in. But

34:24 ↗ thank you,

34:26 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews.

34:29 ↗ >> I had two more questions. Um, the first

34:31 ↗ one has to do with the losses of trees

34:32 ↗ and emergencies, and I know that there's

34:35 ↗ they're requesting not to have to do

34:37 ↗ permits at that time. Is it worthwhile

34:39 ↗ actually tracking locations, species,

34:42 ↗ and um the loc I said location and the

34:46 ↗ number of trees that have fallen just so

34:47 ↗ that you could keep a record of what we

34:49 ↗ have lost over time. And so instead of

34:52 ↗ having them have permits to take these

34:54 ↗ down just to record what what was taken

34:56 ↗ out.

34:58 ↗ >> Sure. I mean that that could be done. It

35:00 ↗ won't be 100% accurate. We could

35:02 ↗ voluntarily have um folks report, you

35:05 ↗ know, if you have a down tree, please,

35:07 ↗ you know, put your information here. Um

35:10 ↗ it'll be voluntary that people do it. Um

35:13 ↗ the real assessment will come with the

35:16 ↗ tree canopy studies. So overall, the

35:19 ↗ goal for Isiqua is to increase the

35:21 ↗ canopy coverage for climate action plan.

35:24 ↗ Um and and that's where it would become

35:26 ↗ are we meeting our targets or not but

35:28 ↗ that won't necessarily be accounting for

35:31 ↗ how many trees did we lose. I think that

35:34 ↗ right now parks department has done an

35:36 ↗ assessment for the ones on the trees in

35:38 ↗ the park in the parks and such. They

35:40 ↗ have a good idea of you know

35:41 ↗ approximately how much has been lost but

35:44 ↗ we don't have good information about

35:45 ↗ throughout the city what was lost

35:48 ↗ >> on private property. Um the second

35:51 ↗ question has to do with the first policy

35:53 ↗ question um about the one-on-one

35:56 ↗ replacement if the site meets or

35:57 ↗ exceeds. That doesn't include landmark

36:00 ↗ trees though, right? That just includes

36:02 ↗ your 6 in or greater.

36:04 ↗ >> Um we do have a landmark tree section.

36:07 ↗ So removal of landmark trees replacement

36:10 ↗ is 1:2 ratio,

36:11 ↗ >> right?

36:12 ↗ >> Yeah.

36:12 ↗ >> So that doesn't include this first. The

36:14 ↗ first doesn't count against landmark

36:16 ↗ trees then. It's just for typical

36:18 ↗ >> the same sort of um requirement I think

36:21 ↗ is is carried the language that says if

36:23 ↗ you meet or exceed

36:25 ↗ >> you still uh you could get a pass. So

36:28 ↗ you could take it out for the landmark

36:29 ↗ trees if you wanted to

36:31 ↗ >> always have replacement for landmark

36:32 ↗ trees if that's the policy direction you

36:35 ↗ want to have.

36:38 ↗ >> Commissioner

36:40 ↗ >> um can we talk about arborists for a

36:42 ↗ moment? I think there's there have been

36:44 ↗ some comments that um suggest there's

36:47 ↗ confusion about when an arborist is

36:50 ↗ required particularly in cases where the

36:54 ↗ trees disease or death seems to be quite

36:58 ↗ obvious. Can you clarify that?

37:00 ↗ >> Yeah, I I think in the uh the current

37:02 ↗ existing code uh it was there was no

37:05 ↗ wiggle room to say you we can wave the

37:07 ↗ arburist report. I think it was sort of

37:10 ↗ that balance of you want everyone to

37:12 ↗ kind of do the right thing, but if

37:14 ↗ someone just wants to, you know, use

37:17 ↗ that as a loophole. So that that's sort

37:20 ↗ of where it was. We've softened that

37:21 ↗ language to say if it's clearly dead and

37:24 ↗ it looks dead, we don't need an arborist

37:26 ↗ report.

37:26 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

37:31 ↗ And then I think uh uh chair voice just

37:34 ↗ one thing going back to the one to one

37:36 ↗ we're talking about single family lots

37:38 ↗ mini and to your point earlier we were

37:40 ↗ talking off camera momentarily

37:44 ↗ if there already have a higher

37:47 ↗ percentage of the required tree canopy

37:49 ↗ in that lot then they could take it down

37:52 ↗ and not do one for one. Correct.

37:53 ↗ >> Correct. That's how it's proposed right

37:55 ↗ now. That's the idea is to give our

37:56 ↗ homeowners some flexibility. If they've

37:58 ↗ already clearly have a backyard that has

38:01 ↗ and they're 40% and a 25 to 35%

38:05 ↗ uh area that's required, they can take

38:07 ↗ it out without having to pay the $1,000

38:10 ↗ for the the tree replacement.

38:12 ↗ >> Correct.

38:13 ↗ >> Okay. I think that'll I think that

38:15 ↗ should probably make some homeowners

38:16 ↗ pretty happy. I mean, that one's pretty

38:17 ↗ straightforward. I think the Facet

38:19 ↗ report was fascinating. Um

38:22 ↗ >> Yeah.

38:23 ↗ >> It it still is. you know, they still

38:25 ↗ have to document that they meet the

38:27 ↗ canopy coverage uh requirement. So,

38:30 ↗ there's still a little bit of you've got

38:32 ↗ to show us that you you meet this and

38:35 ↗ that has to be prepared by an or you

38:37 ↗ know, so there there's a it's not as

38:40 ↗ streamlined if you want to take that

38:41 ↗ approach, but the way the code is

38:43 ↗ written, if you don't want to do that

38:44 ↗ and you're happy to replant onetoone,

38:46 ↗ you you can take that path. You can just

38:48 ↗ replant and good. Or if you want to make

38:52 ↗ your case that you already have meet the

38:55 ↗ uh canopy coverage objectives or

38:57 ↗ percentages, then you can give us the

38:59 ↗ the study in the report and do it that

39:01 ↗ way.

39:02 ↗ >> And just quickly, if a tree or

39:04 ↗ placement's roughly $1,000, how much

39:06 ↗ does an arborist report?

39:10 ↗ >> You know, it can cost hundreds of

39:11 ↗ dollars for sure.

39:14 ↗ >> So it's not where does the cost benefit,

39:17 ↗ right? some point if if a tree

39:19 ↗ replacement's a thousand and a landmark

39:21 ↗ tree is two trees per one so that would

39:24 ↗ cost 2,000 an arborous report tech

39:27 ↗ typically like a couple hundred

39:30 ↗ >> you know I I don't want to misspeak so

39:33 ↗ we could get some cost estimates for

39:35 ↗ what what it takes we could come up with

39:37 ↗ a system where they could you know

39:39 ↗ homeowner could come up with a good but

39:41 ↗ you know homeowner would need to know

39:43 ↗ the species of the tree they would need

39:44 ↗ to know um you know aerial coverage

39:47 ↗ could be used like a Google Maps or

39:49 ↗ something, but it needs to be on a scale

39:52 ↗ uh for them. You know, we would need

39:53 ↗ some documentation that it's meets the

39:55 ↗ percentage,

39:57 ↗ >> right? I'm just saying if the if they're

39:58 ↗ if they're waved off because they have

40:00 ↗ so many trees, but they have to pay $900

40:02 ↗ for an arborist report.

40:04 ↗ >> Yeah. What's Yeah. So, the but

40:08 ↗ correct.

40:08 ↗ >> Okay.

40:10 ↗ Um

40:12 ↗ are there any other questions?

40:16 ↗ I think the last question I have just

40:18 ↗ regards uh new development. So again,

40:21 ↗ we're talking about areas outside of

40:23 ↗ central Isiqua, but if you're remodeling

40:26 ↗ your home and it's it's we're not

40:28 ↗ talking big development, you're not

40:29 ↗ talking about getting back up to the

40:31 ↗ tree canopy coverage for that particular

40:33 ↗ lot. You're talking about the one or the

40:36 ↗ one to two. Yeah. or again going back to

40:38 ↗ the previous conversation, but if you're

40:40 ↗ a new development and you're expanding

40:43 ↗ your house's footprint,

40:45 ↗ then you would be required, it would

40:47 ↗ kick in that if you've cleared enough

40:48 ↗ trees, you need to get back up to

40:51 ↗ whatever that lot's threshold is.

40:53 ↗ >> Correct. And within reason, if you

40:55 ↗ already have a driveway, you can't pay,

40:57 ↗ you know, plant it over your driveway or

40:59 ↗ anything, but you would need to then you

41:01 ↗ would need to go offsite or payment and

41:04 ↗ fee in off. Yes.

41:05 ↗ >> Okay. I think those ones are

41:06 ↗ straightforward. Like I said, the

41:07 ↗ central Isco still, but I think we need

41:10 ↗ to move on. So, I don't want to beat a

41:11 ↗ dead horse.

41:12 ↗ >> Yeah, the central Isco one is is an

41:14 ↗ important just because of the heat

41:15 ↗ island effect there too, but you also

41:18 ↗ want to allow redevelopment. So, this is

41:19 ↗ sort of that balanced approach of at

41:21 ↗ least you can get some replanting

41:23 ↗ offsite or some money for replanting

41:26 ↗ offsite,

41:26 ↗ >> right? And I and again, I'll I'll save

41:28 ↗ it for the deliberations. The facet

41:30 ↗ report was made everything a lot

41:31 ↗ clearer, at least in my view. I was

41:33 ↗ telling Minnie I wish I would have read

41:34 ↗ that first and then read the packet. It

41:36 ↗ it helped a lot. But I did go back and I

41:38 ↗ very quickly read the packet again. Um

41:42 ↗ but again I think for the most part I'm

41:44 ↗ I'm pretty s again I think I think some

41:46 ↗ of these changes are fine. I just uh

41:49 ↗ centraliz the one that's sticking in my

41:50 ↗ craw a bit because again I but I I think

41:52 ↗ I'm okay because we basically

41:54 ↗ established that 25% still need to be on

41:57 ↗ site unless there is very extenduating

42:00 ↗ cons circumstances.

42:03 ↗ >> I mean if if you

42:05 ↗ >> if you all as a re want to recommend

42:08 ↗ strike out the last sentence and just

42:11 ↗ the you know we could take that forward

42:13 ↗ to council as your recommendation. I I

42:15 ↗ just want you all to to think about it

42:18 ↗ in in terms of the the the

42:22 ↗ you know thing is everyone will then

42:23 ↗ clear cut everything.

42:25 ↗ >> No, no, that's what I don't that's what

42:26 ↗ I don't

42:26 ↗ >> so there's no incentive for anyone to

42:28 ↗ save anything because we you've given

42:30 ↗ them the

42:30 ↗ >> No, we want to keep that incentive for

42:32 ↗ sure. I'm just trying to make sure I

42:34 ↗ 100% get it before we make a

42:36 ↗ recommendation.

42:36 ↗ >> Yeah.

42:37 ↗ >> Yeah. Commissioner Crafts,

42:39 ↗ >> it kind of goes back to like how do we

42:41 ↗ get out of theory into reality because

42:43 ↗ we probably know there's certain parcels

42:45 ↗ that are going to most likely be the red

42:47 ↗ the development thing areas around where

42:51 ↗ the potential light rail could be. So

42:53 ↗ Thomas coming there probably talk um and

42:57 ↗ by understand like if these are like

42:59 ↗ warehouses with big parking lots anyway

43:01 ↗ and they don't have any trees now it's

43:03 ↗ then it's like okay well now now they

43:05 ↗ have to do something with trees. I'm

43:07 ↗ just trying to understand if there's a

43:08 ↗ lot the bigger parcels that may get

43:10 ↗ developed and I think it may be worth

43:13 ↗ having someone do an informal audit of

43:16 ↗ what those are to see kind of what how

43:18 ↗ much tree is on them already.

43:20 ↗ >> Yeah.

43:21 ↗ >> Because it may be oh there's only a

43:22 ↗ couple areas where this could be an

43:24 ↗ issue the other ones are not

43:26 ↗ >> and it kind of if I was in council I

43:28 ↗ would probably ask for that.

43:29 ↗ >> Sure. There are two or three projects

43:31 ↗ that are currently under review that

43:33 ↗ were used as case studies and I think we

43:36 ↗ shared some of them uh previously with

43:38 ↗ you. One is a complete tear down and

43:40 ↗ rebuilding. Uh the other one is an

43:43 ↗ office building that they're tearing

43:44 ↗ down and building town homes on it. And

43:46 ↗ there's a stream they're going to, you

43:48 ↗ know, restore the the buffer in the

43:49 ↗ stream, but the way the the it's the

43:53 ↗ developable portion of the lot. Even in

43:55 ↗ that particular instance, the parking

43:57 ↗ lot trees were conifers. And so they

43:59 ↗ were in a decent shape that you know you

44:02 ↗ could preserve because you you you have

44:04 ↗ that added thing of shading the the

44:07 ↗ stream. If you take those down, then

44:09 ↗ your stream's more exposed for a longer

44:11 ↗ period of time.

44:12 ↗ >> For those examples, do we know like the

44:13 ↗ caliper inches and the canopy now is

44:15 ↗ kind of like a snapshot of what those

44:17 ↗ are?

44:17 ↗ >> Yeah, we looked at all of that. Yeah.

44:19 ↗ >> Does that exist?

44:23 ↗ >> Oh, Commissioner Dares.

44:26 ↗ Um

44:29 ↗ Um I don't know if I'm I guess I'll try

44:32 ↗ and do a solid for council because it'll

44:34 ↗ be probably a little bit too late for

44:35 ↗ us. Maybe they don't need it. Maybe they

44:37 ↗ they'll appreciate it. But you know what

44:39 ↗ might be helpful many at least for

44:40 ↗ central Isiqua. I know it would be

44:42 ↗ helpful for me but again we don't have

44:44 ↗ the time is maybe taking a couple

44:47 ↗ different situations in central

44:48 ↗ Isiziqua. Take the Home Depot for

44:50 ↗ example. What does that look like?

44:52 ↗ Right? And you can even do a visual of

44:54 ↗ Home Depot and kind of show here's just

44:57 ↗ pvious surface. It's complete warehouse.

44:59 ↗ What does the code requirement that

45:01 ↗ we're we're offering up what does that

45:03 ↗ look like with a Home Depot renovation?

45:06 ↗ And then maybe taking something smaller

45:07 ↗ like I forgive me because I know it's

45:11 ↗ brand new but brand brown butter car

45:12 ↗ wash, right? What would that look like?

45:14 ↗ And I just I know it would have helped

45:16 ↗ me because again a lot of this makes

45:18 ↗ perfect sense. That's the one I'm

45:19 ↗ getting a little stuck up on.

45:20 ↗ >> Okay.

45:21 ↗ >> But having said that, I know we probably

45:22 ↗ need to move along. So I'll ask one more

45:24 ↗ time questions, commissioners.

45:29 ↗ >> Okay.

45:31 ↗ If there are no Well, there is no more

45:33 ↗ questions. We are going to open the

45:34 ↗ public hearing at 7:19 p.m. And I do

45:38 ↗ believe we have some people that would

45:40 ↗ like to speak. And we'll begin with

45:41 ↗ people that are here um in person.

45:47 ↗ >> Yes. Richard Scarce

45:49 ↗ Scarce.

46:01 ↗ Okay. My name is Richard Scarce. I'm a

46:04 ↗ resident of Montro and currently vice

46:07 ↗ president of the HOA there. I'm also a

46:13 ↗ current participant in the tree permit

46:16 ↗ process for my own personal property. So

46:20 ↗ I've had quite a few dealings with

46:22 ↗ members of the city about that

46:24 ↗ situation. But I'd like to sort of start

46:27 ↗ my comments from looking at it from a

46:30 ↗ broad scale, drilling down on what we're

46:34 ↗ seeing in codes throughout King County

46:37 ↗ in the area and then sort of summarized

46:41 ↗ by my own personal experiences.

46:44 ↗ Uh, I know that when I first came into

46:47 ↗ contact with tree issues, a lot of this

46:50 ↗ was justified by having the city wanting

46:52 ↗ to maintain the tree city status and so

46:55 ↗ on and so forth. There are 94 cities in

46:58 ↗ the state that are tree cities.

47:03 ↗ There's well over a dozen just in our

47:05 ↗ area. Seamish is one of the few adjacent

47:08 ↗ to us that is not a tree city. So, I

47:11 ↗ went through and looked at the codes in

47:13 ↗ some of these other cities and uh

47:18 ↗ basically made some notes on how our

47:22 ↗ code compares to other tree city codes

47:26 ↗ in neighboring cities and towns,

47:29 ↗ Newcastle, Belleview, Mercer Island, and

47:31 ↗ so on. There are those that are

47:33 ↗ restrictive as isqua is in Mercer

47:37 ↗ Island, Belleview and Redmond. Very

47:41 ↗ similar codes. There are also other tree

47:44 ↗ cities like Covington, both North Bend,

47:48 ↗ Madina that are not as restrictive as

47:51 ↗ the Sequoas.

47:53 ↗ Madina surprised me a little bit, but a

47:56 ↗ lot of it has to do with the fact that

47:58 ↗ there is a threshold of where and most

48:02 ↗ of my comments are going to be centered

48:03 ↗ around single family homes. Uh I'll

48:06 ↗ leave other comments to others about

48:09 ↗ larger tracks.

48:11 ↗ A personal homeowner single family home

48:14 ↗ has to deal with the city, get permits,

48:16 ↗ try to remove a tree, so on, incur

48:19 ↗ costs.

48:20 ↗ the thresholds of when you have to get a

48:23 ↗ permit vary greatly.

48:27 ↗ And I found in the case of Covington was

48:31 ↗ probably the most generous

48:33 ↗ removals of invasive trees, nuisance

48:36 ↗ trees, dead trees,

48:39 ↗ any emergency removals, no permits

48:42 ↗ required.

48:43 ↗ They allow up to three trees on any lot,

48:46 ↗ 7,200 square feet or less.

48:51 ↗ no questions asked.

48:54 ↗ That means that the city isn't incurring

48:56 ↗ costs to process all of the individual

49:00 ↗ tree requests that are coming in,

49:03 ↗ permits and such. There are other

49:06 ↗ clarifications

49:07 ↗ that I found to be rather important. Uh

49:12 ↗ one uh city mentions uh removal of trees

49:17 ↗ do not require permit if the tree is

49:19 ↗ within 10 ft of a structure.

49:22 ↗ Now when I look at the canopy report,

49:24 ↗ I'm kind of jumping ahead here a little

49:26 ↗ bit. The canopy and situation in my

49:30 ↗ case, the imperous surfaces and

49:33 ↗ structures on the property

49:36 ↗ take up about twothirds of the lot.

49:39 ↗ The other third of the lot is 100%

49:42 ↗ covered in trees.

49:44 ↗ But in my dealing with the city, I have

49:46 ↗ to replace a tree that's already subject

49:49 ↗ to 100% coverage

49:52 ↗ or I have to pay to plant something

49:54 ↗ somewhere else. So you were asking costs

49:57 ↗ earlier. It was $350ome dollars for the

50:00 ↗ permit, $600 to remove the tree. I had

50:04 ↗ another tree I wanted to remove but

50:06 ↗ required an arborist report. That was

50:08 ↗ another $250

50:10 ↗ and I would have been required to

50:12 ↗ replace

50:15 ↗ two for one on was what the last

50:19 ↗ policy was and I don't have a place to

50:22 ↗ put them. So, you know, I've incurred

50:25 ↗ these situations here within the last

50:27 ↗ few months and it's it's just something

50:29 ↗ to mention. Other things uh there's no

50:32 ↗ mention about uh taking trees off of

50:34 ↗ steep slopes

50:37 ↗ which is an important factor here. Uh

50:40 ↗ wetlands critical areas there's no

50:43 ↗ mention in the code for a lot of these

50:45 ↗ exemptions that or prohibitions that you

50:48 ↗ shouldn't take trees off of these

50:50 ↗ properties.

50:51 ↗ So

50:56 ↗ the size threshold is an also a factor

50:59 ↗ that uh in North Ben for example it's 12

51:02 ↗ to 15 in there's a different level for

51:06 ↗ conifers and deciduous trees

51:09 ↗ all of these things need to be reviewed

51:13 ↗ and I I do apologize I forgot to mention

51:16 ↗ something very important at the

51:17 ↗ beginning we usually do about five

51:18 ↗ minutes that's my mistake so why don't

51:20 ↗ we let the two speaker since there's

51:22 ↗ only two go for seven minutes. I think

51:23 ↗ that's fair. That I I I apologize. I

51:25 ↗ forgot to mention that at the beginning.

51:27 ↗ So,

51:28 ↗ >> I was I I I noticed it was there. I

51:30 ↗ won't take up much more time. Uh the

51:33 ↗ other thing to get to the cost of the

51:34 ↗ fees themselves. The fee here is $350 or

51:39 ↗ more. Uh I've seen some comments that it

51:42 ↗ was attributable to cost to cover costs

51:46 ↗ incurred by the city. Well, if the

51:48 ↗ thresholds were higher, fewer permits

51:50 ↗ were required, there would be less costs

51:53 ↗ because I spent two months talking to

51:55 ↗ the city to get a nuisance tree done

51:59 ↗ and supplied I don't know how many

52:01 ↗ updates of photos and everything else. I

52:03 ↗ know why there's a lot of cost because

52:06 ↗ it wasn't a simple decision

52:08 ↗ and it should have been.

52:11 ↗ the rates in these other cities. The

52:13 ↗ most expensive permit right now is in

52:16 ↗ Mercer Island, $29.

52:18 ↗ The least expensive is $42 in

52:20 ↗ Woodenville.

52:22 ↗ Ours is 353.

52:28 ↗ So,

52:31 ↗ there are more there's more data there.

52:33 ↗ I'll be welcome to answer any of your

52:34 ↗ questions. So,

52:38 ↗ thank you.

52:39 ↗ >> All right. Thank you. And and again, I

52:41 ↗ apologize for that. That is my fault.

52:43 ↗ So, we will um and I believe it's only

52:45 ↗ fair to let our next speaker also have

52:47 ↗ seven minutes if she'd like.

52:49 ↗ >> Yes, Susan Glicksburg.

52:56 ↗ >> Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Um I'm

52:59 ↗ Susan Glicksburg. I also am on the

53:02 ↗ Montro board and a resident of Montro

53:04 ↗ and I've been at the environmental board

53:08 ↗ giving my comments and my comments will

53:10 ↗ probably be a little more detailed um

53:13 ↗ than Richard's. Um

53:16 ↗ in looking at the code as it currently

53:19 ↗ is with the rewrites, there's still some

53:21 ↗ confusion.

53:23 ↗ Um I think the one one Thank you was

53:25 ↗ clarified. Um we've been dealing with um

53:28 ↗ interpretations of six trees when one's

53:31 ↗ one has to be taken out, six trees have

53:33 ↗ to be planted. And we have obviously

53:35 ↗ from 100% down to about 8% tree coverage

53:38 ↗ on our lots because our lots are

53:40 ↗ primarily structure and infrastructure.

53:43 ↗ Um so thank you for clarifying that. I

53:46 ↗ think that will be helpful. But the

53:48 ↗ wording still says not less than which

53:51 ↗ implies it can be more than. So I think

53:54 ↗ being really clear and just saying it's

53:55 ↗ one one would be helpful. Um also I

54:00 ↗ think it's unclear as to uh what

54:03 ↗ requires a permit. Maybe it's clear

54:05 ↗ about what requires a permit, but an

54:06 ↗ arborist report, you have to dig through

54:08 ↗ to find where a permit's required, where

54:11 ↗ a permit's not required, where an

54:13 ↗ arborist report is required, and then

54:16 ↗ whether there's a fee associated with

54:18 ↗ the tree permit because I think one of

54:19 ↗ my comments what the response was

54:21 ↗ there's no fee associated with it. So, I

54:23 ↗ think it would be helpful to say a fee

54:25 ↗ is required, fee is not required um for

54:29 ↗ the different scenarios. Um

54:33 ↗ the last thing is the emergency tree

54:34 ↗ removal. Um obviously everybody's

54:37 ↗ thinking back to the bomb cyclone. We

54:38 ↗ had trees that fell over the roads. We

54:40 ↗ had trees that fell on houses. Um

54:44 ↗ to have to I know it's a delayed thing.

54:47 ↗ You take pictures, you get an arborist

54:49 ↗ report. If the tree fell on a house or

54:52 ↗ across a a road, it has to be removed.

54:55 ↗ We can't function obviously with trees

54:57 ↗ on houses or trees across roads. So, why

54:59 ↗ would an arborist report be required? It

55:02 ↗ seems like that should be an easy one

55:03 ↗ where you say it's an emergency. The

55:06 ↗ tree, you take the pictures, you show

55:07 ↗ the city, we removed the tree from the

55:09 ↗ house, from the road. Um, just for

55:12 ↗ consideration. And then lastly, um, we

55:17 ↗ have an example in our community. We

55:19 ↗ have trees that are sort of landscape

55:21 ↗ trees that go up as we go up the village

55:24 ↗ park drive, which is the entrance to our

55:26 ↗ community. Um there are two dead trees.

55:30 ↗ We have been um they're obviously dead.

55:34 ↗ Com comments come from our homeowners

55:35 ↗ saying, "These trees are dead. When are

55:37 ↗ they going to be removed?" Well, our

55:38 ↗ struggle is the city won't let us remove

55:40 ↗ them. Um

55:43 ↗ uh and again, they're obviously dead. We

55:46 ↗ want to do the right thing in Montro. We

55:48 ↗ are very careful about NGP trees and our

55:53 ↗ residents removing them when they're not

55:54 ↗ supposed to. But if there are two dead

55:56 ↗ trees, it should be a simple process to

55:58 ↗ get a tree permit to remove those trees,

56:01 ↗ replant two additional trees, and um

56:05 ↗ maintain the tree cover cuz right now

56:06 ↗ they're not providing any tree cover.

56:08 ↗ Obviously, they're dead. So, we need

56:10 ↗ some help with that. And also um I think

56:13 ↗ you put in the slides there was

56:14 ↗ something about homeowners associations.

56:17 ↗ Um, when we as a homeowners association

56:20 ↗ apply for a tree permit, it's been under

56:22 ↗ the individual on the board's name and

56:26 ↗ then when we change roles, that name has

56:29 ↗ to be changed. So, if there's some way

56:31 ↗ that we can apply for a permit as a

56:33 ↗ homeowners association, that would be

56:35 ↗ helpful. And a lot of this isn't, I

56:37 ↗ think, clear from the um code. So, those

56:41 ↗ are my comments. making it clearer about

56:44 ↗ um when a permit's required um and what

56:48 ↗ the fees are um would be helpful because

56:50 ↗ again we want to do the right thing but

56:52 ↗ all these requirements make people want

56:54 ↗ to do the wrong thing. So anyway, thank

56:57 ↗ you for your consideration and um we

56:59 ↗ look forward to seeing the final code.

57:05 ↗ >> Thank you Richard. Thank you Susan. Um,

57:09 ↗ Tisha, do we have anyone online that

57:11 ↗ would like to comment?

57:12 ↗ >> We have one caller online. Uh, caller,

57:15 ↗ if you press star three on your phone,

57:18 ↗ that will raise your hand and we can

57:19 ↗ call on you if you're interested in

57:22 ↗ making comments.

57:25 ↗ Just pausing for a minute here, but I'm

57:27 ↗ not seeing a raised hand from that

57:29 ↗ individual.

57:36 ↗ Oh, and there it is.

57:38 ↗ >> That's why I was pausing for dramatic

57:40 ↗ effect.

57:41 ↗ >> All right. So, caller

57:43 ↗ gonna make you a panelist now and

57:52 ↗ just requested that you unmute. You have

57:55 ↗ the floor for seven minutes.

58:05 ↗ Okay. Give me just a minute here.

58:08 ↗ Oh. Oh, shoot.

58:10 ↗ Caller, my apologies. I saw you just

58:12 ↗ unmuted and it coincided with me trying

58:15 ↗ to help you. If you can unmute one more

58:17 ↗ time.

58:28 ↗ >> Okay.

58:28 ↗ >> Hello.

58:29 ↗ >> We can hear you. Thank you.

58:31 ↗ >> Okay. Yes. Well, yes. My name is Robera

58:34 ↗ Brown and I'm an Isiqua resident. Um,

58:38 ↗ and I just have two quick questions. Um,

58:42 ↗ and obviously it's a very complex and I

58:45 ↗ appreciate all the work that's gone into

58:47 ↗ it. I followed the title 18 development,

58:51 ↗ the original one, and was very excited

58:53 ↗ about the tree preservation and now I'm

58:57 ↗ a little disappointed. But one quick

59:00 ↗ comment has to do with wildlife

59:03 ↗ mitigation.

59:04 ↗ Um, and I attended this uh uh spring

59:09 ↗ symposium of the Northwest Horicultural

59:12 ↗ Society where some speakers are in fact

59:14 ↗ working on with uh Department of Natural

59:17 ↗ Resources and others on codes for the

59:21 ↗ state and so forth. And as a consequence

59:25 ↗ of listening to them, I would join the

59:27 ↗ chorus of those who are strongly

59:29 ↗ recommending that we wait until the

59:32 ↗ city's wildlife urban interface code is

59:35 ↗ developed before

59:38 ↗ putting this in this element. And one

59:42 ↗ reason for that that I learned is that

59:45 ↗ the Natural Fire Protection Association

59:47 ↗ guidelines are extremely general and

59:52 ↗ considered somewhat severe for the Puget

59:55 ↗ Sound area and I know that the fire

59:58 ↗ departments are accepting those as the

1:00:02 ↗ guideline at least I believe so and so I

1:00:06 ↗ think it's needs to be more nuanced

1:00:09 ↗ before we just throw throw it in as an

1:00:12 ↗ exception. Anything that the fire

1:00:15 ↗ department approves can be accepted. Um,

1:00:20 ↗ and I hate to say this, but wildfire is

1:00:22 ↗ one of the latest excuses used to remove

1:00:26 ↗ trees.

1:00:27 ↗ And we also need to emphasize the need

1:00:31 ↗ to remove underbrush, which is even more

1:00:33 ↗ important than trees. Trees in fact as

1:00:36 ↗ we all know can help prevent fire by

1:00:39 ↗ preventing heat islands and it depends

1:00:42 ↗ on the tree. There are trees that are

1:00:44 ↗ fire resistant. I've been following for

1:00:46 ↗ example in Berkeley they have a

1:00:48 ↗ beautiful um devel development of their

1:00:52 ↗ code for wildfire and and this is also

1:00:56 ↗ fire resistance. It's not fireproofing.

1:01:01 ↗ So, we're not going to an extreme.

1:01:04 ↗ And so, I would just like to recommend

1:01:07 ↗ that it be removed from the exemption

1:01:10 ↗ for now. And there could be other ways

1:01:13 ↗ if it clearly there's a problem to bring

1:01:15 ↗ it in as a nuisance tree or something.

1:01:18 ↗ And that we wait until we can really

1:01:20 ↗ develop that with several nuances with

1:01:24 ↗ balance and knowledge, possibly even as

1:01:27 ↗ a separate section. And that's my major

1:01:30 ↗ comment. I had one other related to

1:01:32 ↗ arborist and I understand there's a lot

1:01:35 ↗ of problems with that, but I'd like to

1:01:37 ↗ follow up on Mark Clemen's public

1:01:39 ↗ comment that there are arborists and

1:01:43 ↗ there are arborists. Arborists who work

1:01:45 ↗ for tree removing companies

1:01:49 ↗ often do what the developer asks and

1:01:52 ↗ state that the tree is diseased or dying

1:01:56 ↗ when in fact I've seen this firsthand.

1:01:58 ↗ It's perfectly healthy. So if there's

1:02:00 ↗ some way to develop guidelines for

1:02:04 ↗ arborists that work independently or at

1:02:07 ↗ least that are respected for independent

1:02:09 ↗ judgment and I have no expertise in how

1:02:11 ↗ to do that, but thank you. I appreciate

1:02:14 ↗ the work. Take care.

1:02:22 ↗ >> There's no one else indicating a desire

1:02:24 ↗ to speak.

1:02:25 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Tisha. And I'd also

1:02:27 ↗ like to point out we did receive um

1:02:29 ↗ public comments. Obviously, this goes

1:02:31 ↗ back a long time. You guys received the

1:02:32 ↗ matrix and then we also received some

1:02:35 ↗ very

1:02:36 ↗ late 11th hour comments uh today which

1:02:39 ↗ I'm sure everybody read in their in

1:02:41 ↗ their fullness. So, um, I want to thank

1:02:43 ↗ everyone for speaking on behalf of the

1:02:45 ↗ public hearing and we will, seeing as

1:02:49 ↗ there are no more speakers, we're going

1:02:50 ↗ to close the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.

1:02:56 ↗ So, there is formal action requested on

1:02:58 ↗ this agenda item. I am looking for the

1:03:01 ↗ commissioner uh, who is willing to make

1:03:04 ↗ a motion.

1:03:07 ↗ Commissioner Krauss,

1:03:08 ↗ >> I'd like to recommend approval of the

1:03:10 ↗ proposed Title 18 tree preservation

1:03:12 ↗ amendments as presented.

1:03:15 ↗ >> All right. Is there a second?

1:03:17 ↗ >> I'll second.

1:03:18 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Allener. So,

1:03:20 ↗ it's only appropriate that the person

1:03:22 ↗ who made the motion should have the

1:03:24 ↗ opportunity to go first if they so

1:03:26 ↗ choose.

1:03:28 ↗ >> And this is the time for us to

1:03:29 ↗ deliberate, obviously. Uh, I think we

1:03:31 ↗ covered a lot of ground and we've seen

1:03:35 ↗ it a couple times and I appreciated

1:03:37 ↗ going back and forth between some of the

1:03:40 ↗ different boards and commissions because

1:03:41 ↗ it is it covers lots of different areas.

1:03:44 ↗ So, um I mean my only feedback was it'd

1:03:48 ↗ be nice to especially the this the

1:03:50 ↗ centralistical one just getting more

1:03:53 ↗ granular on some of the bigger

1:03:54 ↗ properties and seeing what those could

1:03:56 ↗ be and it'll make it will either make us

1:03:58 ↗ feel better or make us scratch our heads

1:04:00 ↗ and say this is going to be much harder

1:04:02 ↗ but at least we'll know. So, I think

1:04:04 ↗ I've covered all my other comments.

1:04:06 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Kratz. Well

1:04:07 ↗ said. Uh,

1:04:11 ↗ commissioners,

1:04:13 ↗ Commissioner Zacharov,

1:04:16 ↗ >> um, I'm on a position now that we've

1:04:18 ↗ heard some very valuable comments today

1:04:21 ↗ and they should be considered before we

1:04:24 ↗ proceed with just adopting this plan.

1:04:27 ↗ So, I would maybe ask for some more time

1:04:32 ↗ to work on this.

1:04:37 ↗ Commissioner Dair.

1:04:42 ↗ >> Uh, I agree with Commissioner Zack Roth.

1:04:45 ↗ I think some of the comments today were

1:04:47 ↗ really compelling

1:04:49 ↗ and I think we should especially be kind

1:04:52 ↗ of considering yeah the difficulty of

1:04:55 ↗ removing, you know, dead trees in an

1:04:58 ↗ emergency. I don't know if this document

1:05:01 ↗ goes far enough to clarify when people

1:05:03 ↗ could just remove dead and diseased

1:05:05 ↗ nuisance trees like after the bomb

1:05:07 ↗ cyclone. But on top of that, um, sorry

1:05:11 ↗ if you heard my daughter.

1:05:14 ↗ I also wanted to address the overhang

1:05:16 ↗ issue which is in these amendments. I'm

1:05:18 ↗ not sure if that's what we're voting on

1:05:20 ↗ today, but the idea that overhang handy

1:05:23 ↗ counts towards your percentage, which

1:05:25 ↗ we've had a discussion about that before

1:05:27 ↗ and I don't think it's made it into this

1:05:29 ↗ document that at least not the one that

1:05:32 ↗ I'm looking at. And I could send an

1:05:34 ↗ image about what my concern is, but I do

1:05:40 ↗ also kind of want to discuss

1:05:43 ↗ whether overhang canopy can be included

1:05:47 ↗ in somebody's pre-annopy percentages.

1:05:50 ↗ >> I believe it is.

1:05:52 ↗ >> Yeah, I believe it is.

1:05:54 ↗ >> Yeah. So I I think it should not be

1:05:56 ↗ included personally and I just we kind

1:05:59 ↗ of discussed this at the time and I

1:06:01 ↗ think there so I'm not sure

1:06:06 ↗ how to proceed because was this voted on

1:06:09 ↗ at the time?

1:06:12 ↗ >> I I can't remember. I don't believe it

1:06:13 ↗ was voted on.

1:06:16 ↗ >> Yeah, I didn't think it was voted on and

1:06:18 ↗ I just would like further discussion on

1:06:20 ↗ that issue as well is what I'm trying to

1:06:22 ↗ say. Okay.

1:06:25 ↗ Uh, Commissioner Matthews,

1:06:28 ↗ >> I agree with the last two commissioners

1:06:30 ↗ on there's a lot of issues I think that

1:06:32 ↗ we haven't resolved that are in notes,

1:06:35 ↗ but we haven't really considered them in

1:06:37 ↗ full yet and I think that we should

1:06:39 ↗ before we adopt this in full.

1:06:44 ↗ >> Commissioner like to speak.

1:06:48 ↗ Okay. Um, as for myself, um, we have

1:06:52 ↗ seen this multiple multiple times. I

1:06:55 ↗ mean, I'm happy to take a vote and if we

1:06:57 ↗ want to use the second of the second

1:07:00 ↗ meeting in July, which is TBD as now, we

1:07:02 ↗ can. Um, my personal thinking is again,

1:07:07 ↗ when we did the original tree code in

1:07:10 ↗ 2023, we knew we were making a big jump

1:07:13 ↗ from 50 to 55. We knew, you know, the

1:07:16 ↗ product was not perfect. We knew it was

1:07:17 ↗ ambitious. It was aggressive. It's what

1:07:19 ↗ the community wanted. They wanted even

1:07:21 ↗ more coverage and that's what we tried

1:07:23 ↗ to do. We also knew that this was going

1:07:26 ↗ to come back and be tweaked once it

1:07:27 ↗ lived in the real world. Um I think

1:07:29 ↗ these tweaks basically speak to a lot of

1:07:31 ↗ that. 55% is pretty aggressive. Um you

1:07:35 ↗ know, I'm not going to say that there

1:07:36 ↗ aren't some things that I'm learning.

1:07:37 ↗ I'm perfectly comfortable moving

1:07:39 ↗ forward, but that's fine.

1:07:41 ↗ Um just a few of the things that were

1:07:43 ↗ brought up as far as the HOA and the

1:07:46 ↗ owners. Um, I think the idea right now

1:07:48 ↗ is we're moving towards it depends on

1:07:50 ↗ where the tree is. If the tree is on a

1:07:52 ↗ homeowner's lot, then that would be

1:07:56 ↗ responsibility of the homeowner. If it's

1:07:57 ↗ in a common area, that would go to the

1:07:59 ↗ HOA. So, I think there are

1:08:00 ↗ clarifications we're making. Um,

1:08:04 ↗ I think the relief for fallen trees,

1:08:06 ↗ we've kind of already discussed a little

1:08:08 ↗ bit in the very beginning, which is you

1:08:11 ↗ don't need to. I mean, right now the way

1:08:12 ↗ it's written is if someone does take

1:08:15 ↗ down a nuisance tree, they have to

1:08:16 ↗ document it. I mean, they can't just cut

1:08:18 ↗ it and then expect I mean, they have to

1:08:20 ↗ document it. They have to send it in.

1:08:21 ↗ And if the city finds in its findings

1:08:24 ↗ that the tree was not a nuisance, then

1:08:26 ↗ they can be penalized. If they find

1:08:28 ↗ after looking into it, then they can be

1:08:30 ↗ um it can be waved. So, I think a lot of

1:08:32 ↗ this stuff has been addressed.

1:08:36 ↗ A couple of things that I I I guess if

1:08:38 ↗ we do go to another meeting, um what I

1:08:41 ↗ would suggest are I am curious to know

1:08:43 ↗ why our permits are more expensive than

1:08:45 ↗ our sister cities. I'd like to know a

1:08:47 ↗ little bit more why ours are so

1:08:49 ↗ expensive. Um

1:08:52 ↗ as far as the firefighters, again, I

1:08:55 ↗ know for this is just an interim thing

1:08:57 ↗ until the state does begin to pass their

1:09:00 ↗ laws. I know we're coming out with our

1:09:02 ↗ own. So again, I'm I'm fine with the

1:09:04 ↗ firefighters be playing an interim role

1:09:06 ↗ at the moment, which is what this is

1:09:08 ↗ proposing.

1:09:10 ↗ Uh kind of like Commissioner Crass, I'm

1:09:11 ↗ I'm I'm

1:09:13 ↗ trying to get my head around the central

1:09:15 ↗ Isiqua plan fairly, but um that wouldn't

1:09:19 ↗ keep me from moving this forward because

1:09:21 ↗ I just make a note for council that

1:09:23 ↗ yeah, look at some visuals and you know,

1:09:25 ↗ you obviously they'll use their best

1:09:26 ↗ judgment. We're not actually adopting

1:09:28 ↗ anything ourselves. we're sending a

1:09:30 ↗ recommendation and we can send that

1:09:31 ↗ recommendation with asking council to

1:09:34 ↗ look at a few things that we struggled

1:09:36 ↗ with. That's perfectly fine. Um, again,

1:09:39 ↗ we're not adopting any policy this

1:09:41 ↗ evening. So, I just want to make that

1:09:43 ↗ real clear. If you guys have concerns,

1:09:46 ↗ we can you're probably going to have

1:09:48 ↗ same concerns in two weeks. We can still

1:09:49 ↗ send those on their way. All we're doing

1:09:52 ↗ is saying this has this can move

1:09:53 ↗ forward. So, I just want to make that

1:09:55 ↗ clear. Um, couple more thoughts, but

1:09:58 ↗ let's hear from Commissioner Adair.

1:10:05 ↗ >> So, I I agree with you in principle on a

1:10:08 ↗ lot of that, Commissioner Cross. I just

1:10:10 ↗ think my main issue right now is that I

1:10:13 ↗ feel like we're discussing these things

1:10:14 ↗ and I understand it when we're

1:10:16 ↗ discussing it, it all makes sense. And

1:10:17 ↗ then when I'm looking at the actual tree

1:10:20 ↗ code document, I'm not seeing that what

1:10:23 ↗ we discussed is being reflected in that

1:10:26 ↗ specific document. So then I'm going

1:10:28 ↗ back to that and saying, "Oh, wait.

1:10:29 ↗ Well, we discussed overhang and we kind

1:10:31 ↗ of came to a consensus." Thought like at

1:10:34 ↗ the time on overhang, but now I'm

1:10:36 ↗ looking at the document itself that we

1:10:39 ↗ were sent with the agenda packet and

1:10:41 ↗ it's not being reflected. And so like

1:10:43 ↗ for example with the nuisance trees and

1:10:45 ↗ the removals of the nuisance trees when

1:10:47 ↗ you way you explained it perfectly

1:10:49 ↗ reasonable and I understand that and

1:10:51 ↗ then I'm looking at the agenda packet of

1:10:55 ↗ the of the actual tree code and it's

1:10:58 ↗ it's not coming across I guess as

1:11:00 ↗ clearly as it could. Now, I'm I'm happy

1:11:02 ↗ moving forward and maybe we have a

1:11:05 ↗ meeting where we kind of make a bullet

1:11:07 ↗ point list of concerns we'd like city

1:11:09 ↗ council to explain, but that that's just

1:11:12 ↗ where I'm coming from.

1:11:14 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Dair. No, and

1:11:16 ↗ it's perfectly fair. I mean, if if

1:11:17 ↗ that's ever the way everyone feels. I'm

1:11:18 ↗ just like I said, this is just my

1:11:20 ↗ opinion, but again, if if everybody

1:11:21 ↗ feels that way, that's why we have a

1:11:23 ↗ July 24th, I believe it is, that is open

1:11:27 ↗ for us. Um, but we also need to be aware

1:11:31 ↗ of the timeline so council can do their

1:11:33 ↗ job. So again, let's try and all kind of

1:11:36 ↗ come with the idea that July 24th, let's

1:11:39 ↗ whether you want to tack on amendments,

1:11:40 ↗ whether you want to vote no on it, let's

1:11:42 ↗ let's try and make sure this does move

1:11:43 ↗ forward in whatever fashion. Yay, nay,

1:11:45 ↗ whatever. But we do need to come to a

1:11:48 ↗ conclusion here. Commissioner Zacharov.

1:11:51 ↗ >> Okay. What if we send it to the council

1:11:53 ↗ with bullet points that we kind of like

1:11:55 ↗ want want them to look to pay more

1:11:58 ↗ attention to several things there?

1:12:00 ↗ >> Yeah, I think that's perfectly fine. I

1:12:01 ↗ don't I don't think that's a problem any

1:12:02 ↗ right.

1:12:04 ↗ >> I mean again if you guys want another

1:12:06 ↗ meeting that's perfectly fine too. I

1:12:07 ↗ just again at some point we just we also

1:12:10 ↗ need to conclude and so

1:12:12 ↗ >> Sure. Yeah. if if the commissioners are

1:12:14 ↗ ready to give us direction on fix this,

1:12:17 ↗ fix that, you know, that can all be

1:12:18 ↗ captured in your recommendation and

1:12:21 ↗ we'll make those edits to the document

1:12:22 ↗ that we take to the council committee.

1:12:26 ↗ >> So quick, I guess is correct to say

1:12:28 ↗ point of order. Even though the public

1:12:30 ↗ hearing's closed, if we had the meeting

1:12:32 ↗ next week, we wouldn't open a public

1:12:34 ↗ hearing. It would just be to come up

1:12:36 ↗ with ideas for the council to consider

1:12:40 ↗ >> when they're looking at the

1:12:41 ↗ recommendations.

1:12:42 ↗ >> Yeah. The official public hearing was

1:12:44 ↗ today. It's closed. You could reopen it

1:12:46 ↗ and open it till tomorrow. But I think

1:12:48 ↗ at at some point the comments come in

1:12:51 ↗ and then the deliberation starts. Um the

1:12:54 ↗ reality is I think we still let people

1:12:56 ↗ make comments during the general comment

1:12:58 ↗ period. So it's not like we ever cut

1:13:00 ↗ off, but the official public hearing is

1:13:02 ↗ over. The idea being that we can capture

1:13:04 ↗ all the public comments and then say

1:13:06 ↗ here's what we did with them and here's

1:13:09 ↗ a response back. So, I think my feeling

1:13:12 ↗ is Thank you, Minnie. I think my feeling

1:13:14 ↗ is um we can take a quick vote on who

1:13:17 ↗ wants to have another meeting. Uh if you

1:13:20 ↗ feel like you want to take in more of

1:13:23 ↗ some of the things you heard this

1:13:24 ↗ evening or if you're struggling with

1:13:25 ↗ some of the issues still, that's fine.

1:13:27 ↗ Um we could also do it the other way and

1:13:29 ↗ just tack on some of our concerns and

1:13:31 ↗ let this thing continue to move forward.

1:13:33 ↗ Uh either way is acceptable. I just like

1:13:35 ↗ I said, I want to make sure we're

1:13:36 ↗ sticking to the timeline. So, let's just

1:13:38 ↗ start with a quick uh show of hands. Who

1:13:40 ↗ would prefer to have the meeting on the

1:13:43 ↗ 24th to have us a follow-up?

1:13:49 ↗ Okay.

1:13:51 ↗ Yeah. So, we have one commissioner, so

1:13:53 ↗ we will not have another meeting. Um, so

1:13:56 ↗ what we want to do and try to accomplish

1:13:58 ↗ this evening before we move on is let's

1:14:01 ↗ start.

1:14:02 ↗ I don't think they need to be

1:14:03 ↗ amendments, do they? Because we're not

1:14:05 ↗ trying to amend things. We're just

1:14:06 ↗ trying to bring things to council's

1:14:08 ↗ attention, concerns. I mean, you can

1:14:09 ↗ make an amendment obviously if if you

1:14:11 ↗ don't like something that you see that

1:14:12 ↗ you completely disagree with, but if

1:14:14 ↗ they're just concerns, we can send that

1:14:16 ↗ along with our recommendation saying,

1:14:18 ↗ "Hey, these are a few things we'd like

1:14:20 ↗ council to pay attention to." I think

1:14:23 ↗ that's fair, right, Minnie?

1:14:24 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:14:25 ↗ >> Yeah. We want to capture consensus. So,

1:14:28 ↗ if there's disagreement over a change,

1:14:30 ↗ then half of you want it, half of you

1:14:32 ↗ don't, then you probably should take a

1:14:33 ↗ vote on that one. that discussion.

1:14:36 ↗ >> Commissioner Oler.

1:14:37 ↗ >> Yeah. I just wanted to go back to

1:14:39 ↗ Commissioner Adair's comment about

1:14:40 ↗ overhang. I and and I'm asking um

1:14:44 ↗ Director um Dylan Walt to clarify the

1:14:48 ↗ intent there. My sense is that if you've

1:14:51 ↗ got a lot and you have overhanging trees

1:14:54 ↗ that are mature, um if you don't count

1:14:58 ↗ those toward your coverage,

1:15:01 ↗ um you may not have room to plant trees

1:15:05 ↗ and have additional coverage because

1:15:07 ↗ you've already got some of your property

1:15:09 ↗ covered by those overhanging trees. Is

1:15:11 ↗ that what the intent was? Yeah, I think

1:15:13 ↗ we we heard some debate like if there is

1:15:15 ↗ coverage on my property even though the

1:15:16 ↗ tree is not on my, you know, is on the

1:15:18 ↗ sidewalk, why shouldn't that count

1:15:20 ↗ towards my coverage? And I think that's

1:15:22 ↗ what reflected in the in the draft that

1:15:25 ↗ it does count

1:15:29 ↗ if I'm not mistaken. That that's how

1:15:31 ↗ it's written.

1:15:32 ↗ >> Yeah. No, it makes sense to me. I mean,

1:15:34 ↗ again, trying to be user friendly.

1:15:38 ↗ >> Uh, Commissioner Zack

1:15:42 ↗ Oh, okay. Commissioner Dair.

1:15:47 ↗ >> Right. So, uh, my impression of the

1:15:50 ↗ meeting was that there was some

1:15:52 ↗ discussion. I'm going to try and share

1:15:54 ↗ my screen. Let me know if this works. I

1:15:58 ↗ have a picture

1:16:00 ↗ that I can show you.

1:16:04 ↗ Okay. And this is my concern

1:16:06 ↗ specifically with overhang. And so,

1:16:07 ↗ maybe Minnie, you can help address it.

1:16:09 ↗ And maybe I'm understanding this

1:16:11 ↗ incorrectly, but if you can see this, we

1:16:14 ↗ have two blocks side by side. And in lot

1:16:17 ↗ two, their overhang counts towards a

1:16:19 ↗ percentage of lot one. So let's say lot

1:16:22 ↗ one develops and they redo their trees

1:16:25 ↗ based on their overhang for lot two. But

1:16:28 ↗ then later on you have lot two is now

1:16:31 ↗ developed. So lot one is still

1:16:33 ↗ technically in compliance. They met

1:16:36 ↗ their requirements. Now, lot two has

1:16:39 ↗ their own requirements and what we have

1:16:42 ↗ is a net loss and canopy while both are

1:16:44 ↗ in compliance. And that was mainly my

1:16:47 ↗ concern and that that I brought up at

1:16:48 ↗ the meeting and I don't think was um

1:16:53 ↗ quite reflected in the document at the

1:16:55 ↗ time that we've seen now. So, it wasn't

1:16:58 ↗ necessarily about sidewalk trees, but

1:17:00 ↗ that overhang canopy of neighboring

1:17:02 ↗ parcels or maybe this section in and

1:17:04 ↗ including that.

1:17:06 ↗ That's where we are.

1:17:09 ↗ >> So I if I understand your your concern

1:17:12 ↗ is that lot one doesn't control the

1:17:14 ↗ development on lot two and lot two when

1:17:16 ↗ that develops could potentially take the

1:17:18 ↗ tree down which counts towards your

1:17:20 ↗ canopy. I mean yeah there's there's a

1:17:22 ↗ lot of those if scenarios that can play

1:17:24 ↗ out. Um but at that point, yes, lot one

1:17:28 ↗ would become nonconforming for the

1:17:31 ↗ canopy coverage, but not by much. Uh if

1:17:34 ↗ it's just one tree that overhangs kind

1:17:36 ↗ of a thing. Um and then when they

1:17:39 ↗ redevelop or they do something, that's

1:17:41 ↗ when it would come into play. Uh but

1:17:44 ↗ potentially when lot two is being

1:17:46 ↗ developed, we could, you know, look at

1:17:49 ↗ that. But it does add that you you're

1:17:52 ↗ counting your neighbors tree towards

1:17:54 ↗ your canopy coverage problem.

1:17:58 ↗ >> That was great. I appreciate the visual,

1:18:00 ↗ Commissioner Derek. Uh, awesome. I will

1:18:02 ↗ say I I think that's probably

1:18:04 ↗ negligible. A lot of people don't let

1:18:06 ↗ their neighbors, you know, their trees

1:18:09 ↗ and shrubs grow in their yard. So, I I

1:18:11 ↗ would I do appreciate the visual. I

1:18:12 ↗ would think it'd be negligible. I think

1:18:14 ↗ if we tried to start counting canopies

1:18:16 ↗ and what overhangs we we find ourselves

1:18:19 ↗ going down a rabbit hole that could be

1:18:20 ↗ very difficult. Um just my opinion.

1:18:24 ↗ Would you like anyone want to follow up

1:18:26 ↗ or do we want to move on to another

1:18:27 ↗ concern?

1:18:30 ↗ Okay. Um I believe Minnie

1:18:34 ↗ somewhere in this 137 pages uh we do

1:18:38 ↗ bring up the HOA and the homeowner

1:18:40 ↗ split. Correct.

1:18:42 ↗ Um I think the the comments uh were more

1:18:46 ↗ today tonight's comments were who signs

1:18:49 ↗ who has authority to sign for the HOA. I

1:18:52 ↗ think we've said the president or

1:18:54 ↗ someone we need a human being to kind of

1:18:56 ↗ say that we can't have a generic HOA

1:18:58 ↗ board is my understanding and that's

1:19:01 ↗ probably where

1:19:07 ↗ Yeah. So whoever the current board who

1:19:10 ↗ whoever can actually represent the HOA

1:19:12 ↗ board

1:19:19 ↗ recent

1:19:20 ↗ >> Yeah. I think I think the point is is

1:19:21 ↗ the bottom line is unfortunately we

1:19:24 ↗ can't control who's in charge of the

1:19:25 ↗ HOA. That's part of the HOA structure.

1:19:28 ↗ But ultimately someone has the authority

1:19:30 ↗ to reach out as far as the HOA. My thing

1:19:33 ↗ is does if there's an issue between the

1:19:35 ↗ HOA, it's really what's in the common

1:19:36 ↗ area and what's on somebody's specific

1:19:38 ↗ lot.

1:19:39 ↗ >> Yeah, we'll work with u with the HOAs,

1:19:42 ↗ you know. Um obviously it's not static.

1:19:45 ↗ HOA boards and presidents change.

1:19:48 ↗ Correct.

1:19:48 ↗ >> U but whoever has the authority to speak

1:19:50 ↗ for the HOA has the authority to apply

1:19:53 ↗ for the permit at the time the permit is

1:19:55 ↗ applied for.

1:19:56 ↗ >> Yeah, I I think that's more than fair.

1:19:58 ↗ Um I believe the other one a concern was

1:20:00 ↗ the firefighters. I'm just going to

1:20:02 ↗ really quickly many touched on that.

1:20:04 ↗ Basically, it's an interim thing. This

1:20:06 ↗ is not a long-term solution. We are

1:20:08 ↗ waiting for uh Washington state

1:20:10 ↗ legislators. We're waiting for our own

1:20:12 ↗ isqua plan to go. And so, I'm I'm

1:20:14 ↗ perfectly fine with the firefighting

1:20:16 ↗ situation. Commissioner Zacharov,

1:20:18 ↗ >> thank you. Uh well, my concern is about

1:20:22 ↗ permits. How can we speed up permits for

1:20:24 ↗ nuisance trees, dying and dead trees,

1:20:27 ↗ and all of the emergency situations? And

1:20:30 ↗ also of course looking at the cost cuz

1:20:33 ↗ yes if it's if we are the most expensive

1:20:35 ↗ city this is kind of like unfair and

1:20:37 ↗ it's understandable and it shouldn't be

1:20:39 ↗ that way. That's one thing and the other

1:20:41 ↗ thing is um many comments have that is

1:20:46 ↗ uh what are we doing with um the the

1:20:50 ↗ process the easy process of just

1:20:53 ↗ removing significant trees is a concern

1:20:56 ↗ for many people. And then the other

1:20:57 ↗ thing is um we we did not discuss the um

1:21:02 ↗ problem areas and slopes and and trees

1:21:04 ↗ can be removed easily there. So it

1:21:06 ↗ probably should we should take a look at

1:21:08 ↗ that and I would recommend the council

1:21:10 ↗ to take a look at that that

1:21:13 ↗ I'm I'm done. Thank you.

1:21:15 ↗ >> No, you're fine. I think as as far as

1:21:17 ↗ the slopes, let me know if I'm wrong,

1:21:18 ↗ Minnie, but I think the slopes it's

1:21:20 ↗ still your property. So it's still part

1:21:22 ↗ of the tree canopy. I mean again if even

1:21:24 ↗ if you have to clear it there's other

1:21:26 ↗ parts of the code which say what trees

1:21:28 ↗ you can remove on a steep slope

1:21:29 ↗ regardless. Some of these trees you

1:21:30 ↗ can't remove and for some reason if you

1:21:34 ↗ were able to remove trees on a steep

1:21:36 ↗ slope um then the tree code kicks in.

1:21:39 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean the slow the steep slope is

1:21:41 ↗ also a stability issue.

1:21:43 ↗ >> Uh and the roots and stuff hold on to

1:21:45 ↗ the stability of the slope. So the last

1:21:47 ↗ thing you want is clear cutting and then

1:21:48 ↗ a landslide or anything like that. But

1:21:50 ↗ that's the critical area code that

1:21:52 ↗ applies. So, we have buffers from how

1:21:54 ↗ far back you can be. If it's a hazard

1:21:57 ↗ tree that's going to, you know, fall and

1:21:59 ↗ land on a road down below because it's

1:22:02 ↗ now diseased and it's leaning, it's on a

1:22:04 ↗ steep slope, we would allow that removal

1:22:07 ↗ at that point, but it's only hazardous

1:22:09 ↗ trees and nuisance trees anywhere in the

1:22:12 ↗ for that matter. Yeah.

1:22:13 ↗ >> But ultimately, there's code that

1:22:14 ↗ supersedes that and there's also that

1:22:17 ↗ when they go for the building permit,

1:22:18 ↗ all of this stuff would be addressed.

1:22:21 ↗ >> Correct. So I think again it's not a big

1:22:23 ↗ concern for myself.

1:22:25 ↗ >> Yeah. In terms of the fee issue that has

1:22:27 ↗ come up. So there is a $0 fee for

1:22:29 ↗ hazardous tree removal. So you know I

1:22:32 ↗ don't know why we have that because we

1:22:33 ↗ do spend time figuring out it's a thing.

1:22:36 ↗ So so it's a no cost permit. There's a

1:22:39 ↗ $3ome dollar for the other permits. Um

1:22:44 ↗ and the permit fees are not in this

1:22:47 ↗ title. they are in title three and

1:22:50 ↗ council looks at the the fee schedule on

1:22:53 ↗ you know we've been taking fees to

1:22:55 ↗ council on an annual basis uh because of

1:22:58 ↗ the cost of living expense and other

1:23:00 ↗ things so some of these other cities may

1:23:02 ↗ have never touched their fees for a long

1:23:03 ↗ period of time labor costs go up so we

1:23:06 ↗ do all do keep up our fees since I've

1:23:08 ↗ been here for the last 3 four years

1:23:10 ↗ we've had that so that it's not a big

1:23:12 ↗ jump so they don't go for $42 for some

1:23:15 ↗ of the city and next you know when they

1:23:17 ↗ look at these budgets, it's becomes a

1:23:19 ↗ $500 fee. So that may be a slight

1:23:21 ↗ difference, but these are based on true

1:23:23 ↗ costs um that of time, but there but I

1:23:26 ↗ wanted to point out a hazardous tree is

1:23:28 ↗ a $0 fee.

1:23:29 ↗ >> Great.

1:23:30 ↗ >> Yeah. Commissioner C.

1:23:30 ↗ >> On the fees, I think it's also you don't

1:23:32 ↗ want to inscent an unintended

1:23:34 ↗ consequence. If your fees go up, then

1:23:36 ↗ people are just going to cut trees down

1:23:38 ↗ with no they're just going to do

1:23:39 ↗ nighttime permits and just do it.

1:23:41 ↗ >> Yeah. Your fees double if you cut

1:23:42 ↗ without a permit.

1:23:43 ↗ >> Yeah. No one's gonna count

1:23:45 ↗ >> unless you do it on Grand Ridge and

1:23:46 ↗ you're on the news.

1:23:48 ↗ >> Sure.

1:23:48 ↗ >> Um but I think there needs to be a

1:23:50 ↗ balance. I think that was a very good

1:23:52 ↗ data point that came in.

1:23:54 ↗ >> Um because unless you look, you have no

1:23:56 ↗ idea. This is like this is what it is

1:23:58 ↗ here. Um but I do think there isn't if

1:24:01 ↗ it gets too expensive and maybe it's

1:24:03 ↗ there, maybe it's not, but then people

1:24:05 ↗ are going to just do something without

1:24:07 ↗ permits and then you're going to have a

1:24:08 ↗ different issue than um so you want to

1:24:10 ↗ have that balance.

1:24:11 ↗ >> Sure. Sure. But I, you know, I want

1:24:13 ↗ anyone who's listening that you cut down

1:24:15 ↗ trees without permits, you you are going

1:24:17 ↗ to be double feed. So if you, if your

1:24:20 ↗ neighbor calls, cuz the community's eyes

1:24:22 ↗ are on these trees. People that live in

1:24:24 ↗ this community value the trees. So we

1:24:26 ↗ don't go about catching people, but we

1:24:27 ↗ hear from neighbors all the time if if

1:24:29 ↗ there's illegal cutting.

1:24:30 ↗ >> For the record, I was not condoning

1:24:32 ↗ that. I'm just saying human nature. You

1:24:35 ↗ know, the river will find its course if

1:24:37 ↗ it's

1:24:37 ↗ >> Sure. But if you get caught, you have to

1:24:39 ↗ pay 700 then 300,

1:24:41 ↗ >> I think. can and again I'll just look

1:24:43 ↗ for a little bit of head nods and

1:24:45 ↗ whatever. I think maybe just to let

1:24:47 ↗ council know we're concerned that it

1:24:49 ↗ does seem that our tree permits are

1:24:51 ↗ higher than most. If they could look at

1:24:53 ↗ that because we don't want to encourage

1:24:54 ↗ bad behavior.

1:24:55 ↗ >> Sure.

1:24:55 ↗ >> I think that would be something that we

1:24:57 ↗ could see going up there and just

1:24:58 ↗ >> Yeah. I just didn't know if everyone

1:25:00 ↗ knew that hazardous tree removal is $0.

1:25:02 ↗ The other one is if the tree is already

1:25:04 ↗ down, you don't need a permit. So if the

1:25:06 ↗ snowstorm occurs or a bomb cyclone

1:25:09 ↗ happens, the tree is already down.

1:25:11 ↗ There's not a tree permit needed for a

1:25:13 ↗ tree that's already uh removed.

1:25:15 ↗ >> Is that that's actually written?

1:25:16 ↗ >> That's my understanding.

1:25:18 ↗ >> That's maybe as a followup just to make

1:25:19 ↗ sure those are

1:25:20 ↗ >> those are clear.

1:25:22 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:25:22 ↗ >> Okay. Um

1:25:25 ↗ we're going to move on from permits. U

1:25:28 ↗ is there any other concerns we'd like to

1:25:29 ↗ to send along with this recommendation

1:25:31 ↗ to council?

1:25:33 ↗ Again, I just for me, like I said,

1:25:35 ↗ again, maybe they won't need it, but

1:25:37 ↗ some visuals regarding the centraliz

1:25:39 ↗ helpful because I'd like to follow it

1:25:40 ↗ up. That's really again with something

1:25:43 ↗ we've seen and touched so many times,

1:25:44 ↗ I'm very comfortable with a large

1:25:46 ↗ majority of it. Uh that's one area. I

1:25:48 ↗ mean, it makes sense for what Facet said

1:25:51 ↗ to be able to do by lots instead of sub

1:25:54 ↗ areas. So, again, reading that report

1:25:56 ↗ was fantastic. Um it seems to be more

1:25:58 ↗ equitable for homeowners, smaller lots.

1:26:01 ↗ I appreciate the PPC actually asking for

1:26:03 ↗ smaller lots. I thought that was great.

1:26:05 ↗ Um, so again, I'm I'm pretty happy with

1:26:07 ↗ the cake that's been baked, especially

1:26:09 ↗ someone who was actually part of the

1:26:11 ↗ tree code originally. Um, again, we

1:26:14 ↗ always knew this was going to come back

1:26:15 ↗ and be tinkered with. Commissioner Dair,

1:26:22 ↗ >> just a quick little request and maybe

1:26:24 ↗ this can be sent to city council. I'm

1:26:26 ↗ just really curious about uh the math

1:26:29 ↗ that Facet used. It was a great report.

1:26:31 ↗ I did read it. It helped a lot. I know I

1:26:34 ↗ got a formula working backwards from

1:26:36 ↗ their table. But if someone wants to

1:26:38 ↗ just send me the actual mathematical

1:26:41 ↗ formula, I would really appreciate it.

1:26:42 ↗ Okay. Awesome.

1:26:44 ↗ >> Oh, you're talking about pi and r. Yeah,

1:26:47 ↗ I saw that.

1:26:49 ↗ Yeah.

1:26:50 ↗ >> Yeah. No, like the area times the

1:26:52 ↗ percentage of the current canopy times

1:26:54 ↗ the, you know, the average. Great. I

1:26:57 ↗ would love to see that. Yeah, that was

1:26:59 ↗ that was some interesting man.

1:27:04 ↗ >> All right. Um I think so it sounds like

1:27:07 ↗ hopefully many you were able to document

1:27:09 ↗ some of our concerns, some of the things

1:27:11 ↗ we'd like to see go along with this

1:27:12 ↗ recommendation.

1:27:13 ↗ >> So what I have so far is um you know

1:27:17 ↗ we'll confirm the language supports down

1:27:19 ↗ trees don't require a permit some

1:27:21 ↗ visuals for central Isiqua. Uh there was

1:27:23 ↗ some debate about the overlap trees, but

1:27:25 ↗ we'll we can take a look at the but I

1:27:28 ↗ think there's con you I mean I want to

1:27:30 ↗ make sure I capture

1:27:33 ↗ >> I think I I said it was negligible. I

1:27:35 ↗ mean I don't know if everyone feels that

1:27:36 ↗ way. I I do appreciate Commissioner

1:27:38 ↗ Dar's awesome visual though.

1:27:41 ↗ >> So where do where leave as is as it's

1:27:44 ↗ proposed? Okay.

1:27:45 ↗ >> Okay. I think we're okay.

1:27:46 ↗ >> Is that the consensus around that topic?

1:27:50 ↗ >> Are we all right? Okay. I'm getting a

1:27:52 ↗ lot of headlines, so we're good.

1:27:54 ↗ >> Um, and then, um, that's what I have so

1:27:59 ↗ far. So, who can sign for HOA? That's

1:28:01 ↗ really not a code issue. That's more an

1:28:02 ↗ implementation thing that we'll make

1:28:04 ↗ sure. Uh, the interplay between critical

1:28:07 ↗ area code and tree code. We'll see if we

1:28:10 ↗ want to add some at least reference to

1:28:13 ↗ if you are in a stream buffer, critical

1:28:16 ↗ area, slope, wetland, you also are

1:28:18 ↗ subject to critical area regulations.

1:28:20 ↗ just so that that link can be maintained

1:28:23 ↗ or you know called out. Um

1:28:27 ↗ uh and then um other things I think we

1:28:30 ↗ heard uh tonight were some language

1:28:32 ↗ around one to one and just making it

1:28:34 ↗ clear uh that it's just one to one so we

1:28:36 ↗ can fix the language um related to to

1:28:40 ↗ making you know take out any ambiguity

1:28:43 ↗ or or how you know folks are reading

1:28:45 ↗ make it plain plain language there. Um,

1:28:49 ↗ what else?

1:28:51 ↗ The the trib's comment. Yes. So, I will

1:28:55 ↗ reach out to them and see. I think it's

1:28:58 ↗ more about a heritage tree program,

1:29:00 ↗ which isn't necessarily part of the the

1:29:03 ↗ code, but I'm thinking we have a

1:29:05 ↗ heritage tree program, at least for

1:29:07 ↗ city-owned trees, that parks department

1:29:10 ↗ can get designation for heritage uh

1:29:13 ↗ trees uh separately. But I need to

1:29:16 ↗ understand more about what tribes uh

1:29:18 ↗ concerns are on that. If you have any

1:29:21 ↗ feedback on that topic of cultural

1:29:24 ↗ sensitive trees, I can keep that, you

1:29:27 ↗ know, take that to council from your

1:29:29 ↗ perspective.

1:29:30 ↗ >> Excellent. Well, thank you, May. Is

1:29:32 ↗ there any other concerns the PPC would

1:29:34 ↗ like to address?

1:29:38 ↗ >> All right. So, I believe there is a

1:29:40 ↗ motion on the floor and because we did

1:29:42 ↗ not amend anything, we just added some

1:29:44 ↗ of our PPC flavor to it. I think uh

1:29:47 ↗ basically we just need to repeat the

1:29:49 ↗ motion and then ask for a vote. Is that

1:29:51 ↗ correct?

1:29:54 ↗ >> So, if Yeah. Um

1:29:57 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:29:59 ↗ >> Sure. Go for it, Commissioner. Um, I'd

1:30:01 ↗ like to recommend approval of the

1:30:03 ↗ proposed title 18 tree preservation

1:30:06 ↗ amendments as presented

1:30:07 ↗ >> with our additional comments. I

1:30:09 ↗ >> with additional comments that we just

1:30:11 ↗ >> Excellent. Is there a second? We'll

1:30:13 ↗ we'll do a form of that and I'll I'll

1:30:15 ↗ redux here.

1:30:16 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you, Commissioner

1:30:18 ↗ Olener. I got to read up on Robert's

1:30:19 ↗ rules. It's been a while. Um, all in

1:30:22 ↗ favor? I

1:30:25 ↗ >> Okay, I believe that was unanimous.

1:30:28 ↗ >> Oh, all opposed.

1:30:31 ↗ No one.

1:30:34 ↗ >> Okay. Well, again, thank you

1:30:35 ↗ commissioners. Thank you for your hard

1:30:36 ↗ work on uh what's been a big project for

1:30:39 ↗ us for the last

1:30:39 ↗ >> Yeah. So, if I may repeat the next steps

1:30:41 ↗ on this for members of the community uh

1:30:44 ↗ here, we will take your recommendation

1:30:47 ↗ to council committee um in September. Um

1:30:50 ↗ and in that we will package all the all

1:30:53 ↗ the information we heard today. Um, and

1:30:55 ↗ then council committee then makes the

1:30:58 ↗ their their recommendation to full

1:30:59 ↗ counsel who will then actually adopt the

1:31:01 ↗ ordinances

1:31:04 ↗ and I'm happy to connect with anyone

1:31:06 ↗ offline and we can talk more.

1:31:09 ↗ >> Excellent. Well, again, we want to thank

1:31:10 ↗ everyone for commenting um those in

1:31:12 ↗ person, those online or on the telephone

1:31:15 ↗ and of course all the previous comments

1:31:17 ↗ that we have received.

1:31:20 ↗ Ready to move on?

1:31:22 ↗ All right. The next item on our agenda

1:31:25 ↗ is an introduction and a learning

1:31:28 ↗ tutorial on the light rail station

1:31:30 ↗ planning. This should be interesting.

1:31:33 ↗ And tonight, uh, Thomas Vald Dre, Thomas

1:31:37 ↗ Valdres, sorry, senior transportation

1:31:40 ↗ planner will be presenting. So, Thomas,

1:31:42 ↗ when you are ready, please go ahead with

1:31:43 ↗ your presentation.

1:31:47 ↗ I do apologize. I need one minute here

1:31:49 ↗ to prepare.

1:32:47 ↗ Great. Thanks so much for having me

1:32:48 ↗ tonight. I'm Thomas Haldres, senior

1:32:50 ↗ transportation planner. Uh, tonight I

1:32:51 ↗ will be presenting on the central Isqua

1:32:54 ↗ station and alignment study. Next slide,

1:32:57 ↗ please. Uh just hoping to give an

1:32:59 ↗ introduction, provide some background

1:33:00 ↗ information, um talk about the light

1:33:03 ↗ rail planning activities we've done over

1:33:05 ↗ the last uh 10 or so years. Um talk

1:33:09 ↗ about the purpose of the study, what

1:33:11 ↗ we're hoping to achieve, and the

1:33:13 ↗ timeline that we have over the next 18

1:33:15 ↗ months and the ways that we hope to

1:33:18 ↗ engage with this uh commission. Next

1:33:20 ↗ slide.

1:33:22 ↗ Uh so this slide represents just at a

1:33:25 ↗ very high level the light rail

1:33:26 ↗ activities we've done. Um so in 2012 we

1:33:30 ↗ adopted the central Isqua plan. Um this

1:33:34 ↗ sees uh central Isqua as a very walkable

1:33:37 ↗ vibrant urban uh neighborhood.

1:33:40 ↗ In 2015 the city worked with the Puget

1:33:43 ↗ Sound Regional Council to designate the

1:33:46 ↗ urban core area as a regional growth

1:33:48 ↗ center. Um so we are expecting the

1:33:50 ↗ majority of jobs and housing growth to

1:33:52 ↗ occur um in this area. In 2016, voters

1:33:56 ↗ approved ST3. This is a ballot measure.

1:33:58 ↗ It uh will expand high-capacity transit

1:34:01 ↗ throughout the region. Um and we can see

1:34:03 ↗ a lot of this work being played out

1:34:04 ↗ currently. Um is squad just happens to

1:34:07 ↗ be sort of the last uh project on that

1:34:09 ↗ continuum.

1:34:11 ↗ Uh last year we adopted the light rail

1:34:14 ↗ planning guide. This talks about uh at a

1:34:17 ↗ very high level just things that we

1:34:19 ↗ anticipate will be uh topics that we'll

1:34:21 ↗ need to address who work with Sound

1:34:23 ↗ Transit.

1:34:25 ↗ And uh very recently in April of this

1:34:29 ↗ year, we adopted a vision and guiding

1:34:31 ↗ principles for the station area around

1:34:34 ↗ central Isqua.

1:34:36 ↗ Uh I'll get get into more of that uh in

1:34:39 ↗ a future slide.

1:34:41 ↗ So this this green area represents the

1:34:44 ↗ regional growth center boundary. Um this

1:34:46 ↗ is generally where we expect light rail

1:34:48 ↗ will be placed. This project is a sound

1:34:51 ↗ transit project but the city is working

1:34:53 ↗ proactively to um study areas that we

1:34:57 ↗ think as a community it would be good to

1:34:59 ↗ locate light rail.

1:35:03 ↗ This next slide talks about the line

1:35:06 ↗ itself. So, this is the what we're

1:35:08 ↗ calling Ski Link, South Kirkland Isiqua

1:35:11 ↗ Link. Um, which we think is kind of fun

1:35:13 ↗ given our connection to the mountains.

1:35:15 ↗ Um, so the line itself will connect from

1:35:18 ↗ South Kirkland, uh, connecting through

1:35:20 ↗ Belleview out to Eastgate and then it'll

1:35:23 ↗ terminate at a southern terminus in

1:35:25 ↗ central Isqua.

1:35:30 ↗ So, I just wanted to pause here and just

1:35:32 ↗ mention, and I get this question fairly

1:35:34 ↗ often, so I just want to like get ahead

1:35:36 ↗ of all this. Sound Transit is the

1:35:38 ↗ project lead. They're going to plan,

1:35:40 ↗ design, build, and manage the service

1:35:43 ↗ that we will receive. They make all the

1:35:46 ↗ final decisions on where the station

1:35:48 ↗ will go, where the track will be

1:35:50 ↗ located. Um, and really just their

1:35:53 ↗ intent is to align with their own

1:35:55 ↗ regional priorities. So as a region we

1:35:57 ↗ have certain things that we're trying to

1:35:59 ↗ do. Sound Transit is going to try to

1:36:01 ↗ achieve that with a light rail station.

1:36:04 ↗ The city we're hoping and the community

1:36:07 ↗ members of this area we're hoping to

1:36:10 ↗ also align our local priorities so that

1:36:13 ↗ that is part of the equation. So the

1:36:15 ↗ really the the point of the study is to

1:36:18 ↗ ensure that we are getting ahead of

1:36:21 ↗ this. Um we are several years before

1:36:23 ↗ sound transit is even beginning. We want

1:36:26 ↗ to make sure that we have a laser

1:36:28 ↗ focused view on what we're trying to

1:36:30 ↗ achieve with this study um and with the

1:36:34 ↗ service that we will be getting. So um

1:36:36 ↗ this is a recipe that other communities

1:36:39 ↗ have done. So we're really just kind of

1:36:41 ↗ following the the process that has

1:36:42 ↗ worked for other communities. And so

1:36:44 ↗ this this study itself is part of that

1:36:47 ↗ um that process that we uh have begun

1:36:50 ↗ about three years ago.

1:36:54 ↗ So this this document uh which was a

1:36:57 ↗ product of a transit study that we

1:36:58 ↗ kicked off in 2022. This document uh

1:37:02 ↗ talks about the prerequisites for a

1:37:05 ↗ station area, the things that we know a

1:37:08 ↗ light rail station will need to be

1:37:09 ↗ successful. It also talks about the

1:37:12 ↗ timeline. So Sound Transit will um be

1:37:15 ↗ bringing light rail to the community as

1:37:17 ↗ early as 2041. and they follow a uh

1:37:21 ↗ pattern in terms of their timeline

1:37:23 ↗ following a FTA funding process. So

1:37:26 ↗ working backwards, the earliest that

1:37:28 ↗ Sound Transit will approach Isiqua is

1:37:31 ↗ about 2027. So we have a couple years to

1:37:34 ↗ prepare and that is why uh the study

1:37:36 ↗ that I'll talk about in a minute will be

1:37:39 ↗ uh finishing up right before that

1:37:41 ↗ timeline. So we're trying to get ahead

1:37:42 ↗ of all this. Um, we acknowledge that

1:37:45 ↗ there are some key considerations that

1:37:47 ↗ we need to be thinking about with the

1:37:48 ↗ light rail uh station. Um, so we've

1:37:51 ↗ thought about that a little bit. We're

1:37:52 ↗ going to dig into that a little bit more

1:37:53 ↗ with this study. Um, there's also some

1:37:56 ↗ conceptual locations that were located

1:37:58 ↗ with this planning guide. So, we're

1:38:00 ↗ going to dig into that a little bit more

1:38:01 ↗ with this study. And, uh, one of the

1:38:03 ↗ first proactive steps out of this

1:38:06 ↗ planning guide is to develop a vision

1:38:08 ↗ and guiding principles. So, next slide,

1:38:10 ↗ please. And that's something that we did

1:38:12 ↗ over the last 18 months. Um so we we did

1:38:15 ↗ finish this in April. Um over a very

1:38:19 ↗ lengthy process, we worked with

1:38:21 ↗ community members, developed focus

1:38:22 ↗ groups, um had a survey that was taken

1:38:25 ↗ by over 805 I believe uh participants uh

1:38:30 ↗ heard a lot of feedback

1:38:32 ↗ overwhelmingly.

1:38:34 ↗ uh there's a lot of excitement about a

1:38:35 ↗ light rail station, but we also want to

1:38:37 ↗ make sure that it uh you know feels like

1:38:39 ↗ an extension of the community. So this

1:38:42 ↗ document and uh there's a very succinct

1:38:45 ↗ uh couple page uh area that that talks

1:38:48 ↗ about the vision statement itself and

1:38:50 ↗ then a couple key guiding principles

1:38:51 ↗ that we're going to be thinking about as

1:38:52 ↗ we think about where a station could go

1:38:55 ↗ in central Isqua and where that track

1:38:57 ↗ alignment could also go.

1:39:02 ↗ So this study the primary deliverable is

1:39:05 ↗ to have a planning report. This report

1:39:07 ↗ is going to be given directly to Sound

1:39:09 ↗ Transit when they're ready which we

1:39:10 ↗ think is about 2027. Um I think the key

1:39:14 ↗ crux is you know something we're all

1:39:15 ↗ thinking about is where is the station

1:39:17 ↗ going to go? And so that's going to be

1:39:19 ↗ the uh the primary uh time spent on this

1:39:23 ↗ is just working with the community um

1:39:26 ↗ having a lot of conversations and

1:39:29 ↗ picking that one uh location that we're

1:39:31 ↗ really going to rally behind. So this

1:39:33 ↗ document uh will begin by looking at

1:39:35 ↗ existing conditions as they are now in

1:39:38 ↗ central Isqua, but also uh where we

1:39:40 ↗ anticipate growth will happen uh between

1:39:43 ↗ now and 2044.

1:39:46 ↗ the vision and guiding principles

1:39:48 ↗ document that we developed in April.

1:39:50 ↗ That's going to be our northstar and

1:39:52 ↗ that's going to help us uh create

1:39:54 ↗ measurable criteria. Uh we're going to

1:39:56 ↗ do that before we even look at any

1:39:58 ↗ locations. Uh we don't want to sort of

1:40:01 ↗ uh fit a location uh like too early. So

1:40:05 ↗ we want to develop the criteria just at

1:40:07 ↗ a very high level. This is what we're

1:40:08 ↗ hoping to achieve. The community has

1:40:10 ↗ already said we want X Y and Z in terms

1:40:12 ↗ of a vision guiding principles. So let's

1:40:14 ↗ like make that into a point system. Um

1:40:17 ↗ so that point system that uh evaluation

1:40:19 ↗ criteria will be then used as we

1:40:22 ↗ consider up to six locations for where

1:40:25 ↗ light rail could go in central Isqua.

1:40:28 ↗ And uh through many conversations the

1:40:30 ↗ goal is going to be to just pick that

1:40:32 ↗ one location and stick with it. Um the

1:40:35 ↗ city is really trying to partner with

1:40:37 ↗ Sound Transit. Uh we acknowledge that

1:40:40 ↗ over the last couple years we've seen

1:40:42 ↗ that light rail has been stalled in

1:40:44 ↗ terms of its uh you know operations. Um

1:40:47 ↗ a lot of that has to do with people just

1:40:49 ↗ they can't figure out where to put the

1:40:51 ↗ station and then they got to study it

1:40:52 ↗ again. So if we can really get the

1:40:55 ↗ community involved and say hey like

1:40:57 ↗ we've talked about this for many years

1:40:59 ↗ and this location is going to be a good

1:41:02 ↗ fit for the community. um hoping that

1:41:04 ↗ can really ease uh Sound Transit and

1:41:07 ↗ making sure that you know we can help

1:41:09 ↗ them achieve their project. Um

1:41:16 ↗ so this is the timeline that we're

1:41:17 ↗ expecting for this project and I'm

1:41:19 ↗ anticipating about three uh touch points

1:41:22 ↗ with the PPC. So we are uh in Q3. Um we

1:41:27 ↗ are about to kick off this study and

1:41:30 ↗ we'll then look into sighting and

1:41:32 ↗ alignment conditions. I'll want to come

1:41:35 ↗ back to the PPC. Um I'm on the calendar

1:41:38 ↗ uh in Q4 uh to talk about that

1:41:40 ↗ evaluation criteria. So interested to um

1:41:43 ↗ to hear what you all have to say.

1:41:46 ↗ I'm meeting with six boards and

1:41:47 ↗ commissions. So I'm getting a lot of

1:41:49 ↗ feedback. Um, I'm also really interested

1:41:51 ↗ in hearing what other folks from the

1:41:53 ↗ community are thinking. So, um, my goal

1:41:55 ↗ is really to chat with anybody uh, as

1:41:58 ↗ often as they want. Um, I'd love to hear

1:42:02 ↗ lots of perspectives on this. In Q1 of

1:42:06 ↗ next year, I'm also on uh, the calendar

1:42:09 ↗ to bring back a couple alternatives to

1:42:12 ↗ uh, to look at. Um so we're hoping to

1:42:14 ↗ just do a couple alternatives and then

1:42:15 ↗ if something you know gets developed

1:42:17 ↗ through the process we'll have some

1:42:19 ↗ space to maybe look at one or more uh

1:42:22 ↗ additional locations but um we are

1:42:24 ↗ really constrained in budget. Uh six

1:42:26 ↗ locations is as much as we can do. Um

1:42:29 ↗ we're very thankful that council

1:42:31 ↗ approved funding for this project. It's

1:42:33 ↗ going to be really important to uh make

1:42:35 ↗ sure that we're prepared for those

1:42:37 ↗ discussions with Sound Transit. So

1:42:38 ↗ really appreciate it. Um but we do want

1:42:40 ↗ to sort of be really uh judicious with

1:42:43 ↗ the locations that we study

1:42:45 ↗ um by the end of the year. And this is

1:42:48 ↗ in order to uh really get ahead of Sound

1:42:50 ↗ Transit. We are hoping to adopt this by

1:42:54 ↗ the end of um 2026.

1:43:00 ↗ So that's all I have. I'm happy to

1:43:02 ↗ answer any questions at this point, but

1:43:03 ↗ just know I'll be back um very soon

1:43:06 ↗ again.

1:43:08 ↗ Lots of questions, Thomas. Lots of

1:43:10 ↗ questions. That's so fascinating. Uh,

1:43:12 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

1:43:14 ↗ >> I noticed that it showed that one of the

1:43:17 ↗ stations at Lake Mont Boulevard. Does

1:43:19 ↗ that mean,

1:43:21 ↗ you probably don't know this answer, but

1:43:23 ↗ does that mean it's going down Newport

1:43:24 ↗ Way into downtown or is it going to be

1:43:26 ↗ on I90 into downtown?

1:43:28 ↗ >> Yeah, it's a great question. Um so

1:43:30 ↗ Lakemon Station is a provisional station

1:43:33 ↗ um that was identified by Sound Transit

1:43:35 ↗ in 2016. And the provisional part is if

1:43:39 ↗ they have the money for it. Um so

1:43:45 ↗ in all honesty, we're not sure that the

1:43:46 ↗ station will actually be built. Um it is

1:43:49 ↗ possible that it's built, but that's a

1:43:51 ↗ really key consideration to think about.

1:43:53 ↗ Um the study is really focused on

1:43:54 ↗ central Isqua. Um, in the 2016 ballot

1:43:58 ↗ measure that Sound Transit, um, you

1:44:01 ↗ know, put through and that voters voted

1:44:03 ↗ on, the conceptual idea was to run it

1:44:06 ↗ down I90. So, that's sort of the the

1:44:09 ↗ thinking that we have at this point is

1:44:10 ↗ that they'll run it down 90 I90.

1:44:14 ↗ >> Commissioner,

1:44:17 ↗ >> um, obviously there's a lot of

1:44:18 ↗ infrastructure that goes along with

1:44:20 ↗ creating a new station and line. Um,

1:44:24 ↗ does the ballot measure funding cover

1:44:27 ↗ things like parking garage, uh, changes

1:44:31 ↗ to, uh, local and regional roadways,

1:44:35 ↗ etc.?

1:44:36 ↗ >> Yeah, another great question. The ballot

1:44:37 ↗ measure does provide for parking. Um, so

1:44:40 ↗ in our plan, uh, the the conceptual plan

1:44:44 ↗ that Sound Transit uh, put forth in

1:44:45 ↗ 2016, it includes a 500 stall parking

1:44:49 ↗ uh, yeah, parking lot, I guess. uh next

1:44:53 ↗ to the station. So that is sort of the

1:44:55 ↗ the default that Sound Transit will be

1:44:57 ↗ starting with.

1:45:00 ↗ >> Commissioner Grass.

1:45:02 ↗ >> Um hi. So when they picked other

1:45:05 ↗ locations for the ones that already

1:45:07 ↗ exist, how did Sound Sound Transit, how

1:45:10 ↗ did they go about doing this? Because it

1:45:12 ↗ sounds like we're thinking about it for

1:45:13 ↗ years. I mean, at what point do they

1:45:15 ↗ start engaging?

1:45:17 ↗ Um, have they already and have they

1:45:19 ↗ already started looking at isqua to say,

1:45:21 ↗ "Oh, this is kind of where we think it's

1:45:23 ↗ going to be and then you guys kind of

1:45:25 ↗ So, I'm just curious how they've done it

1:45:27 ↗ in the past and how they're doing it

1:45:28 ↗ now."

1:45:31 ↗ >> Yeah, there the the thinking has changed

1:45:33 ↗ a lot over the years. Um, so this is

1:45:35 ↗ something that, you know, in the in the

1:45:37 ↗ light planning guide, um, we're we

1:45:38 ↗ acknowledge that Sound Transit's um,

1:45:40 ↗ goalpost will often shift. So, we we

1:45:42 ↗ want to be on top of that. Um in 20 20

1:45:46 ↗ uh 15 I believe is what I said uh we

1:45:49 ↗ designated uh central Isqua as a

1:45:51 ↗ regional growth center. Um so that was

1:45:54 ↗ that was really the impetus of um us

1:45:57 ↗ being on the map for for sound transit.

1:46:00 ↗ So we are you know at that point we

1:46:03 ↗ identified that we will be having a lot

1:46:05 ↗ of growth. Um that growth will provide

1:46:07 ↗ jobs and housing. Um so Sound Transit is

1:46:10 ↗ providing transit service. Um, so

1:46:14 ↗ they're really interested in having a

1:46:16 ↗ lot of people, a lot of jobs, a lot of

1:46:19 ↗ uh, you know, school uh, activity. They

1:46:22 ↗ want to move people. So where there's

1:46:24 ↗ densities of people or where it's

1:46:26 ↗ planned to be, that's where they're

1:46:27 ↗ going to want to put service. So um, in

1:46:29 ↗ terms of Lakemont, that was another

1:46:31 ↗ provisional station. Um, there's some

1:46:33 ↗ density over there um, in that in that

1:46:36 ↗ part of uh, I believe it's

1:46:37 ↗ unincorporated Belleview. Um so they

1:46:40 ↗ they acknowledge that there are there

1:46:42 ↗ are people and jobs and housing there

1:46:44 ↗ that they want to connect. Um so that is

1:46:46 ↗ sort of like their their thought

1:46:47 ↗ process. I was more like when do they

1:46:50 ↗ engage and say oh where Costco is now

1:46:53 ↗ that's where we want it. I mean, how do

1:46:54 ↗ they go about thinking about where are

1:46:56 ↗ they and how they they're the they're

1:46:59 ↗ the ones who are choosing where it goes

1:47:00 ↗ and I assume it doesn't matter what's

1:47:02 ↗ there now because they'll do eminent

1:47:03 ↗ domain to I because there's things in

1:47:08 ↗ already built there. So, I'm just

1:47:10 ↗ curious how that works and when do they

1:47:12 ↗ engage in that and if they already have

1:47:17 ↗ >> um there is a planning process that is

1:47:19 ↗ how they begin any of these studies. So

1:47:21 ↗ they'll look at a couple locations and

1:47:23 ↗ they'll look at things like how much

1:47:25 ↗ land costs and how much their budget is

1:47:28 ↗ and the you know the areas that they're

1:47:30 ↗ trying to connect in terms of jobs and

1:47:32 ↗ housing. Um they're going to look at the

1:47:35 ↗ land use capabilities. So in central

1:47:38 ↗ Isqua we allow for higher density which

1:47:41 ↗ is why they would put it there and not

1:47:42 ↗ like somewhere else. Um like in as an

1:47:46 ↗ example in Oldtown we have provisions

1:47:48 ↗ that like would not even allow that.

1:47:50 ↗ >> We already know what's going to be in

1:47:51 ↗ central. I'm just saying within that

1:47:53 ↗ green area.

1:47:54 ↗ >> Y

1:47:54 ↗ >> it's it they need certain number of

1:47:56 ↗ acres.

1:47:57 ↗ >> I'm just curious how when do they start

1:47:59 ↗ engaging

1:48:01 ↗ >> because they have to buy the land. I'm

1:48:03 ↗ just curious. So we say in 2027 they're

1:48:06 ↗ going to start doing it or have they

1:48:07 ↗ already started doing it?

1:48:09 ↗ >> They've not done that. So they will

1:48:11 ↗ begin the planning process. They will

1:48:13 ↗ identify locations. They will then uh do

1:48:16 ↗ an environmental review to make sure

1:48:18 ↗ that there's no fatal flaws with any

1:48:20 ↗ location. At that point, I believe is

1:48:22 ↗ when they start purchasing. Um so we can

1:48:25 ↗ think about that being like in the

1:48:28 ↗ 2030s. Yeah.

1:48:32 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews,

1:48:34 ↗ >> I'm sorry.

1:48:34 ↗ >> I'm going to jump way ahead of the

1:48:36 ↗ horse, but the cart's way behind. But um

1:48:40 ↗ you know you look at the station in

1:48:41 ↗ Mercer Island and made me wonder does

1:48:45 ↗ Mercer Island does have any say in how

1:48:47 ↗ the final station is designed or is that

1:48:49 ↗ completely up to sound transit?

1:48:52 ↗ >> Yeah, we we do have a lot um of levers

1:48:55 ↗ uh to use. So you know uh Commissioner

1:48:58 ↗ Crass had mentioned about like the uh

1:49:00 ↗ the footprint of the station and sort of

1:49:02 ↗ like the operational needs. um we we

1:49:05 ↗ have the ability to use land use and um

1:49:08 ↗ zoning to sort of facilitate that. So we

1:49:11 ↗ can say specifically like if we don't

1:49:14 ↗ want the track in this part of Oldtown

1:49:16 ↗ or sorry in this part of central Esqua,

1:49:19 ↗ if we don't want a station to be located

1:49:21 ↗ there, like you know, we we would we

1:49:24 ↗ would formalize that. Um, in terms of

1:49:26 ↗ the operational components, we want to

1:49:28 ↗ make sure that we're not um, preventing

1:49:32 ↗ Sound Transit or King County Metro for

1:49:35 ↗ that matter who's going to bring

1:49:37 ↗ connective buses. Um, we want to make

1:49:39 ↗ sure that we're not like preventing them

1:49:41 ↗ from doing what they need to do, but

1:49:43 ↗ also like we want to make sure that it's

1:49:45 ↗ going to be compatible with the

1:49:46 ↗ community. So, um, each parcel will be

1:49:50 ↗ studied. they have um you know uh they

1:49:56 ↗ they have folks in their staff that will

1:49:57 ↗ look at like sort of the value that a

1:49:59 ↗ land could be to their needs. Um and

1:50:03 ↗ then you know they would they would

1:50:04 ↗ consider like operational things. And as

1:50:07 ↗ we're doing this study, we are bringing

1:50:09 ↗ in these agencies. So we're not just

1:50:11 ↗ thinking about it with consultants and

1:50:13 ↗ just us. Um we have a team that uh I'm

1:50:16 ↗ calling ski team. I'm trying to be fun

1:50:18 ↗ with it. Um, but it's going to be

1:50:20 ↗ WASHDOT, um, the Department of

1:50:22 ↗ Transportation, uh, PJ Regional Council,

1:50:26 ↗ um, you know, all of our transit

1:50:28 ↗ agencies. We're bringing them in so that

1:50:30 ↗ they can, uh, help us know what the

1:50:33 ↗ needs are going to be. Um, acknowledging

1:50:35 ↗ that because we are end of the line, um,

1:50:39 ↗ potentially bus operators are going to

1:50:40 ↗ need a place to use a restroom and like

1:50:42 ↗ they're going to need to stop and rest

1:50:43 ↗ and like there's needs there's like land

1:50:46 ↗ needs for that. Um, also we know that in

1:50:49 ↗ every end of the line station, you can

1:50:50 ↗ see this in Redmond. Um, for example,

1:50:53 ↗ the the line that just opened up,

1:50:54 ↗ there's additional length in the track

1:50:56 ↗ in order to like stop the the trains.

1:50:59 ↗ So, we're thinking about all these

1:51:01 ↗ things. There's going to be like uh

1:51:03 ↗ needs for all these and hoping to bring

1:51:05 ↗ all these ideas um really looking into

1:51:07 ↗ this this year um but also continuing

1:51:10 ↗ those conversations as um Sound

1:51:12 ↗ Transit's goalpost uh may shift. Um so

1:51:15 ↗ we are thinking about um sort of

1:51:17 ↗ operational considerations and like the

1:51:18 ↗ the land that would be required for any

1:51:20 ↗ of these decisions.

1:51:23 ↗ >> Commissioner Zagrop,

1:51:25 ↗ >> thank you. Uh qu my question is do you

1:51:29 ↗ have any plans from the uh Sound Transit

1:51:32 ↗ now how many people they are expecting

1:51:35 ↗ to have on their trains daily?

1:51:40 ↗ I believe that the 2016 numbers were

1:51:42 ↗ about uh 8,000 riders um initially.

1:51:46 ↗ Yeah.

1:51:47 ↗ >> Okay. And we have only 500 parking

1:51:50 ↗ spots. That that is my concern.

1:51:54 ↗ >> Parking is a definite concern. Um but

1:51:57 ↗ there are ways around that. Um you can

1:51:59 ↗ see this in Redmond. They use a

1:52:01 ↗ distributed parking network. Um so they

1:52:03 ↗ have uh parking rides. They have a

1:52:07 ↗ couple parking rides in Redmond. Um

1:52:08 ↗ they're also within vicinity of other

1:52:10 ↗ stations that have parking. So um

1:52:13 ↗ depending on where like folks are

1:52:15 ↗ traveling from, there's there's options.

1:52:17 ↗ Um, so that's going to be an important

1:52:19 ↗ strategy as we try to thread the needle

1:52:21 ↗ between the vision and guiding

1:52:22 ↗ principles which say we want a like

1:52:25 ↗ urban walkable

1:52:27 ↗ uh neighborhood that's like really like

1:52:30 ↗ a nice place to be versus um for example

1:52:33 ↗ a on the other side of the coin there's

1:52:36 ↗ a station that is only a parking lot

1:52:38 ↗ with nothing around it and you wouldn't

1:52:40 ↗ really want to spend any time there. So

1:52:42 ↗ those are sort of and you can see these

1:52:44 ↗ around the region they they exist. Um so

1:52:47 ↗ we're trying to move towards the vision

1:52:50 ↗ uh of like having a nice you know

1:52:54 ↗ walkable urban village. Um and that

1:52:57 ↗ parking lot is parking is very important

1:52:59 ↗ but we also want to be judicious with

1:53:02 ↗ where we put that parking and those

1:53:04 ↗ resources. Um they should exist but just

1:53:07 ↗ where they exist is another question.

1:53:12 ↗ Uh a followup um as um well as the end

1:53:16 ↗ of the line station we're probably we

1:53:18 ↗ are aware that uh people from Preston

1:53:21 ↗ people from Northbend probably will be

1:53:22 ↗ using our our station to go to the

1:53:25 ↗ airport. So um do we have any kind of

1:53:29 ↗ like conversations with those cities to

1:53:31 ↗ provide parking there and then kind of

1:53:33 ↗ like busing people here something like

1:53:35 ↗ that?

1:53:37 ↗ >> Yeah. Um, you know, uh, King County

1:53:39 ↗ Metro runs our buses and, uh, they've

1:53:41 ↗ been thinking about this much longer

1:53:43 ↗ than we have. Um, one example is, uh, in

1:53:46 ↗ Samish, they're going to build a new

1:53:48 ↗ parking structure. So, that's, you know,

1:53:50 ↗ that is a a thing that is known. I

1:53:52 ↗ believe it's supposed to be built a year

1:53:54 ↗ after, um, we receive service. Um, so

1:54:00 ↗ Metro is currently, uh, you know,

1:54:02 ↗ strapped for money. Um, so, but that is

1:54:04 ↗ part that is built into their planning.

1:54:07 ↗ Um I anticipate that more uh connective

1:54:10 ↗ and like parking facilities could be in

1:54:12 ↗ their their planning. Um yeah, we met

1:54:15 ↗ Metro is very interested in and so is

1:54:17 ↗ Sound Transit. Um connecting park and

1:54:20 ↗ ride facilities to light rail and we can

1:54:22 ↗ see this happening in Belleview and

1:54:24 ↗ Redmond. Um most of their service that

1:54:26 ↗ is really being improved uh between now

1:54:30 ↗ uh and like actually in the next couple

1:54:31 ↗ months will be uh more reliable like

1:54:34 ↗ faster bus service uh getting people out

1:54:36 ↗ of their cars um to light rail service

1:54:39 ↗ so they can like get into uh the city in

1:54:42 ↗ Seattle or like Redmond or Bellev where

1:54:44 ↗ lot lots of the major um job centers

1:54:46 ↗ are. So I I believe that that's going to

1:54:48 ↗ be the strategy moving forward for them.

1:54:49 ↗ So, I would imagine that more um of

1:54:52 ↗ these park and ride facilities would be

1:54:54 ↗ uh in play. Yeah.

1:54:58 ↗ >> Commissioner Adair, would you like to

1:54:59 ↗ ask a question or speak?

1:55:04 ↗ >> Nope. Okay. Um Yeah. No, I I think

1:55:08 ↗ that's great. Thomas, I know we've

1:55:09 ↗ talked about this before and uh clearly

1:55:12 ↗ I really like the idea of an urban

1:55:13 ↗ village, high-end restaurants, high-end

1:55:16 ↗ uh shopping, something like similar to

1:55:18 ↗ like the Braver in Bellev. I mean,

1:55:20 ↗ that's like you said, you want people to

1:55:21 ↗ be bustling. You want it to be a place

1:55:23 ↗ that's lively, especially with the end

1:55:25 ↗ of the line. We have our own

1:55:26 ↗ circumstances and the last thing we want

1:55:28 ↗ is just empty parking structures that

1:55:30 ↗ could create a whole different situation

1:55:32 ↗ where it could be not a very pleasant

1:55:34 ↗ place. So, I'm glad to hear you guys are

1:55:36 ↗ spending all this time planning. The

1:55:38 ↗ idea is to influence Sound Transit.

1:55:41 ↗ Uh, to your credit, the more work we do

1:55:44 ↗ and the more work that we're able to

1:55:45 ↗ present to them, um, you know, obviously

1:55:47 ↗ they're going to take that report

1:55:48 ↗ seriously. So, I think that's the idea

1:55:50 ↗ is we're trying to we're trying to

1:55:51 ↗ influence their decision as much as

1:55:53 ↗ possible. So, uh, hats off and I know

1:55:56 ↗ it's a lot of hard work and it's going

1:55:58 ↗ to be a while before you see it all come

1:56:00 ↗ to fruition, but it'll be great when it

1:56:01 ↗ happens. 2044, right? That's the current

1:56:05 ↗ We're hoping for 2041, but um some

1:56:07 ↗ transit said they can deliver as late as

1:56:09 ↗ 2044. So, we're doing what we can to

1:56:13 ↗ make it as as smooth of a project for

1:56:15 ↗ them as possible, acknowledging that

1:56:16 ↗ it's not our project, but we're going to

1:56:18 ↗ make it easy for them to do the right

1:56:19 ↗ thing by this community.

1:56:21 ↗ >> Yeah. No, that's fantastic. That's

1:56:23 ↗ great. Um yeah, come back anytime. We

1:56:26 ↗ love talking about Sand Transit.

1:56:29 ↗ >> Okay. Well, thank you, Thomas. Everybody

1:56:30 ↗ gots to ask questions, concerns. All

1:56:34 ↗ right. Uh we're going to move along. So

1:56:37 ↗ again, thank you Thomas uh for city

1:56:39 ↗ council updates from I believe Minnie.

1:56:46 ↗ >> So earlier um on Tuesday um planning

1:56:49 ↗ policy um planning development and

1:56:51 ↗ environment committee we had two items.

1:56:54 ↗ One was impact fee updates. Um so the

1:56:58 ↗ new state law was passed that says we

1:57:01 ↗ have to base our impact fees bas for

1:57:04 ↗ residential prop development based on

1:57:06 ↗ the size of the unit. We had single

1:57:08 ↗ family rate and we had multif family

1:57:10 ↗ rate but we had to redo based on a

1:57:13 ↗ sliding scale based on the size of the

1:57:15 ↗ unit. So there's a lot of math that went

1:57:18 ↗ into what that scale is and and all that

1:57:21 ↗ but at the end of the day we established

1:57:23 ↗ a minimum uh you know cuz you based on

1:57:26 ↗ an occupant and for a lot of these it

1:57:28 ↗ was about 800 square ft unit um and then

1:57:33 ↗ at the maximum end it's 3500. So at that

1:57:36 ↗ point the rates flatten out but be

1:57:38 ↗ between those two sizes is a sliding

1:57:41 ↗ scale. So that got uh discussed and

1:57:44 ↗ debated and is in going to go to council

1:57:47 ↗ on the 21st. Uh the other item was

1:57:50 ↗ Belleview College uh who owns about 21

1:57:53 ↗ acres up on Highlands. Um and it's

1:57:56 ↗ undeveloped right now. Um Belleview

1:57:59 ↗ College intended to build a satellite

1:58:01 ↗ campus back in 2010 and 2011 when they

1:58:03 ↗ entered into a development agreement.

1:58:05 ↗ their enrollment, their their whole

1:58:07 ↗ strategy has changed. And at this point,

1:58:10 ↗ they are looking for leasing the land

1:58:13 ↗ for the highest and best uh you know,

1:58:15 ↗ investment opportunity that they can get

1:58:17 ↗ as a um not to sell but to get some

1:58:21 ↗ lease um money and and and dollars

1:58:24 ↗ because they've they have also been hit

1:58:26 ↗ by a state budget and other things. So,

1:58:29 ↗ um, that was discussed, um, and that's

1:58:31 ↗ going to council to give them a 2-year

1:58:34 ↗ extension because their entitlements to

1:58:36 ↗ build residential expire at the end of

1:58:38 ↗ this year. Um, but they wanted two more

1:58:41 ↗ years to kind of plan for what they want

1:58:43 ↗ to plan to do with the property. And so,

1:58:46 ↗ um, but they can build the campus, the

1:58:48 ↗ satellite, the institutional use, they

1:58:50 ↗ that development agreement goes on until

1:58:52 ↗ 2040, I believe. those two items uh

1:58:56 ↗ title 18 policy updates that you all had

1:58:58 ↗ discussed we discussed those with the

1:59:00 ↗ council committee last not this last um

1:59:04 ↗ meeting but the previous one so those

1:59:06 ↗ are also slated for adoption on the July

1:59:08 ↗ 21st. So a lot happening with council on

1:59:11 ↗ July 21st. The other item council has

1:59:14 ↗ been looking at is the transitoriented

1:59:17 ↗ development project site uh next to the

1:59:20 ↗ transit center um about 4 acre lot

1:59:23 ↗ between Newport and Maul Street. Uh the

1:59:27 ↗ city has been engaged in that process to

1:59:29 ↗ get some affordable housing for a long

1:59:32 ↗ period of time since I believe 2015 or

1:59:34 ↗ or even past before that facilitated the

1:59:37 ↗ relocation of the cell tower on Tibetz

1:59:40 ↗ Park uh because there were a lot of

1:59:42 ↗ carriers with that. The Lumen owned the

1:59:44 ↗ property now King County Housing

1:59:46 ↗ Authority owns it. Um we are currently

1:59:49 ↗ reviewing their uh land use approval to

1:59:53 ↗ build two buildings, one affordable

1:59:54 ↗ building uh and one market rate building

1:59:58 ↗ that development commission will uh make

2:00:00 ↗ a decision on. But during that process,

2:00:04 ↗ they um are going to council or before

2:00:07 ↗ the development commission decision,

2:00:08 ↗ they're going to council for some

2:00:11 ↗ deviations approved under what they call

2:00:14 ↗ what is called a housing cooperative

2:00:16 ↗ agreement. So there's a tool between

2:00:19 ↗ King County Housing Authority and the

2:00:21 ↗ cities can enter into to provide some

2:00:24 ↗ flexibility. And so some of the things

2:00:25 ↗ they've asked for in that are related to

2:00:28 ↗ not balconies for every unit, not having

2:00:31 ↗ a step back on the topmost unit. Um not

2:00:35 ↗ lining up because there's a new road

2:00:37 ↗ that's going to go along the edge. a

2:00:39 ↗ new, you know, to bl break up the mega

2:00:42 ↗ blocks. There's a code requirement to

2:00:44 ↗ put up a new throughb block uh passage

2:00:47 ↗ with a new street. Uh so they've asked

2:00:49 ↗ for some deviations related to you.

2:00:52 ↗ They're not going to line that new

2:00:53 ↗ street with commercial uses. There'll be

2:00:55 ↗ a parking garage um along that edge,

2:00:58 ↗ things of that nature. So, and then the

2:01:00 ↗ tree um stuff that came that you all

2:01:04 ↗ debated on the central isqua, I mean

2:01:06 ↗ that showcased some of those things. uh

2:01:08 ↗ even though there's a wetland on the

2:01:10 ↗ property, they're saving some trees

2:01:11 ↗ there, but the trees along the the

2:01:14 ↗ street edge and in the middle of the um

2:01:16 ↗ the property are going to go. So,

2:01:18 ↗ they're getting some deviations related

2:01:20 ↗ to that through this HCA, housing

2:01:23 ↗ cooperative agreement with council.

2:01:25 ↗ That's that's what's land use stuff and

2:01:28 ↗ you know, council's dealing with among

2:01:30 ↗ other things.

2:01:32 ↗ >> Okay. Well, thank you, Minnie.

2:01:34 ↗ Any other updates? Any city updates? Any

2:01:36 ↗ fun updates? Uh no, we um you know the

2:01:40 ↗ permit process improvements was our

2:01:42 ↗ priority um and that is still our

2:01:44 ↗ priority for 2025. We've been working

2:01:47 ↗ away at you know working through our

2:01:49 ↗ standard operating procedures and others

2:01:52 ↗ but uh economic vitality commission was

2:01:55 ↗ um also asking questions on that. So,

2:01:58 ↗ I'm going to them next week, the 16th,

2:02:01 ↗ to give them an update on the permit

2:02:03 ↗ process improvements cuz they haven't

2:02:05 ↗ heard from us um what we're doing. So,

2:02:10 ↗ >> all right. We love the EVC.

2:02:12 ↗ Um okay, I believe that takes care of

2:02:16 ↗ most things. Any any mention of the

2:02:18 ↗ calendar? I know we're next meeting a

2:02:22 ↗ TBD

2:02:25 ↗ >> is out. um she comes back um next week

2:02:29 ↗ and so we'll send a cancellation notice

2:02:32 ↗ if there's nothing on the agenda. My

2:02:33 ↗ sense is we're going to cancel it.

2:02:35 ↗ >> Okay.

2:02:37 ↗ >> All right. Well, again, thank you

2:02:38 ↗ everyone for a wonderful discussion this

2:02:40 ↗ evening. Thank you to our awesome staff.

2:02:43 ↗ Um Tisha Geyser, Thomas Vald somewhere

2:02:46 ↗ around here, and obviously Mini

2:02:48 ↗ Dollywal. Uh thank you guys for coming.

2:02:50 ↗ Thank you Betty everybody. And we will

2:02:52 ↗ adjourn this evening at 8:37 p.m.

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 Adair (virtual)

Krass

Matthews

Oliner

Zakharoff

Staff (2)

Minnie Dhaliwal, CPD Director Tisha Gieser, City Clerk Thomas Valdriz, Senior Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of March 22, 2025 Chair Voiss stated that Chair Voiss

not Vice-Chair Patterson had adjourned the meeting. With no other comments, the Minutes were approved. 3