Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, October 23, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 25, 2025

packet pp.3–4

▶ Watch from 0:42 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, September 25, 2025

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Landscaping Standards in Right of Way

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.5–28

Topics: Trees

Previously discussed: Transportation Advisory Board · Dec 4, 2024 Transportation Advisory Board · Jan 22, 2025 Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Feb 11, 2025

▶ Watch from 1:27 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will hear public comments and deliberate regarding proposed amendments to Chapter 18.606 of the Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC), Landscaping and the landscaping requirements in the Street Standards.

Planning Policy Commission Rules and Regulations (A)

Christen Leeson, Planning Manager · packet pp.29–30

▶ Watch from 6:27 Open packet at p.29 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the October 23

5. REPORTS

Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.31–32

Open packet at p.31 ↗

Staff report:

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

1292 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ Little bit of echo.

0:06 ↗ All right,

0:08 ↗ we are on. All right, good evening. I

0:11 ↗ would like to call the October 23rd

0:13 ↗ Planning Policy Commission meeting to

0:15 ↗ order at 6:32 p.m. Today's meeting is a

0:20 ↗ hybrid meeting. The Planning Policy

0:21 ↗ Commission is in person, but staff or

0:24 ↗ members of the public may be attending

0:26 ↗ virtually or in person.

0:29 ↗ Staff, do we have a quorum tonight?

0:32 ↗ >> Yes, we do.

0:34 ↗ >> Excellent.

0:37 ↗ Now, we will move on to the minutes.

0:40 ↗ Our first item of business is to take

0:42 ↗ action to approve the minutes for the

0:44 ↗ September 25th PPC meeting. Are there

0:47 ↗ any corrections to the draft minutes

0:49 ↗ provided in the agenda packet?

0:53 ↗ All right.

0:56 ↗ [snorts]

0:56 ↗ Excellent. Hearing none, the minutes are

1:00 ↗ approved.

1:02 ↗ And our next item of business will be

1:06 ↗ public comment for this meeting. We're

1:08 ↗ holding general public comment at this

1:10 ↗ time for all general topics being

1:12 ↗ discussed by the commission. Uh staff,

1:15 ↗ has anyone signed up to make public

1:16 ↗ comment?

1:18 ↗ >> No, chair, they have not.

1:21 ↗ >> All right. And seeing no one in the

1:22 ↗ room, we will move on to regular

1:25 ↗ business.

1:27 ↗ Uh regular business tonight. Uh our

1:29 ↗ first item is to review and discuss the

1:32 ↗ proposed amendments to title 18 chapter

1:35 ↗ 18606

1:36 ↗ landscaping standards in right of way.

1:40 ↗ Uh John Mortonson, our transportation

1:42 ↗ engineering manager, will be presenting

1:44 ↗ tonight. And John, I will turn it over

1:46 ↗ to you if you're ready.

1:47 ↗ >> I am. Thank you very much. I'm John

1:49 ↗ Mortonson. I am the city of Esquaz's

1:51 ↗ transportation engineering manager and

1:54 ↗ I'm here tonight to talk to you about

1:57 ↗ landscaping standards for the streets.

2:15 ↗ Did it share

2:38 ↗ Oh,

2:41 ↗ that's interesting.

3:11 ↗ There you are.

3:21 ↗ The purpose of tonight's item is that

3:23 ↗ the administration is seeking feedback

3:26 ↗ from the planning policy commission

3:28 ↗ about changes to Isqua municipal code

3:31 ↗ 18.606 606 and the street standards to

3:36 ↗ align the landscaping requirements for

3:38 ↗ streets with the comprehensive plan

3:41 ↗ critical areas code and the city's

3:44 ↗ strategic plan.

3:51 ↗ The direction that the administration is

3:53 ↗ requesting tonight are three questions.

3:55 ↗ The first one is does the commission

3:58 ↗ support the proposed deviation process

4:00 ↗ in the street standards to reduce or

4:02 ↗ eliminate the landscape planter strip to

4:04 ↗ preserve trees, protect critical areas,

4:09 ↗ provide driveway access to properties

4:10 ↗ that are not being developed as part of

4:13 ↗ the project that's developing the

4:15 ↗ street, and minimize or avoid impacts to

4:19 ↗ section 4F properties, which are

4:21 ↗ recreational properties. And I'll go

4:23 ↗ over that a little bit more later.

4:25 ↗ The next question is, does the

4:27 ↗ commission support the proposed

4:29 ↗ exemption to the landscaping standards

4:32 ↗ for rehabilitation projects and interim

4:35 ↗ bicycle and pedestrian connection

4:37 ↗ projects? And then the third question

4:40 ↗ for the commissioners for you to

4:42 ↗ consider are there any other changes to

4:45 ↗ consider which haven't been mentioned in

4:48 ↗ the documents?

4:51 ↗ Little bit of background on this. The

4:54 ↗ street standards are the standards that

4:56 ↗ are used to design street improvements.

4:59 ↗ Whether it's a private development

5:01 ↗ that's developing maybe some town homes

5:04 ↗ and they would build their frontage

5:06 ↗ improvements along the street or if the

5:08 ↗ city has a project

5:11 ↗ like the we had a project on 12th Avenue

5:15 ↗ Northwest near PCC where we added some

5:17 ↗ turn lanes and some protected bike lanes

5:19 ↗ and sidewalks. So the street standards

5:22 ↗ apply to both those situations. And the

5:25 ↗ street standards talk about a

5:28 ↗ requirement to have a landscape planter

5:30 ↗ strip that's 5 ft wide with street

5:32 ↗ trees. And also the same requirement

5:36 ↗ with more details is in

5:39 ↗ title 18 in 18.606.

5:44 ↗ >> [clears throat]

5:44 ↗ >> And so, as I mentioned, a landscape

5:47 ↗ planner strip is required between the

5:49 ↗ travel lanes and the sidewalk or in some

5:51 ↗ situations, we'll have the protected

5:54 ↗ bike lane next to the sidewalk, but

5:56 ↗ there's still a landscape planner strip

5:57 ↗ that's required to be installed. And

6:01 ↗ in

6:03 ↗ 18606, it has a deviation, but there's

6:06 ↗ only one possible deviation, and that is

6:08 ↗ for a safety risk. There are no other

6:12 ↗ deviations that are currently allowed

6:15 ↗ and that the administration has reviewed

6:18 ↗ this and we've worked with the mobility

6:20 ↗ and infrastructure committee and the

6:21 ↗ transportation advisory board found this

6:23 ↗ to be inconsistent with the

6:25 ↗ comprehensive plan which talks a lot

6:27 ↗ about the need to preserve trees and the

6:31 ↗ critical areas code which talks about

6:33 ↗ avoiding and minimizing impacts to

6:36 ↗ critical areas. And so in our

6:39 ↗ conversations with the mobility and

6:41 ↗ infrastructure committee and the

6:42 ↗ transportation advisory board, they

6:45 ↗ provided us with guard rails to write

6:49 ↗ deviations and exemptions that are

6:51 ↗ proposed tonight before this body.

6:56 ↗ As I mentioned before, a landscape

6:57 ↗ planner strip is required. This is just

7:00 ↗ a typical street section just showing

7:04 ↗ what a landscape planner strip is. um

7:06 ↗ could have grass, it could have shrubs,

7:08 ↗ it could have ground cover, but it also

7:11 ↗ has street trees. And for a pedestrian,

7:15 ↗ it is a great feature to have. It also

7:17 ↗ widens the roadway section out, which is

7:20 ↗ why we're talking about possible the

7:24 ↗ adding more deviations to reduce that

7:27 ↗ area.

7:35 ↗ The administration was working on a

7:36 ↗ project to come up with a proposed

7:39 ↗ concept for sidewalk on Squawk Mountain

7:42 ↗ on 12th Avenue Northwest and Mount

7:44 ↗ Olympus. And so this is a picture of

7:47 ↗ Mount Olympus. And this is really where

7:49 ↗ it first came about where we talk

7:51 ↗ started talking about this conflict

7:54 ↗ because

7:55 ↗ one of the things that I believe people

7:58 ↗ like living on Squawk Mountain for are

8:00 ↗ these big beautiful trees. And as we're

8:05 ↗ coming up with a preferred concept, we

8:07 ↗ realize that by code, a 5-ft planter

8:12 ↗ strip would have to be installed. So if

8:15 ↗ we were to put a planter strip and

8:18 ↗ sidewalk along this corridor, and it's a

8:21 ↗ corridor that the neighborhoods really

8:24 ↗ want sidewalk, a lot of these trees

8:26 ↗ would have to be cut down. And

8:29 ↗ we just thought that that wouldn't well

8:32 ↗ one that wouldn't be right and two I

8:35 ↗ could just see the community's reaction

8:37 ↗ if they saw all these trees marked to be

8:40 ↗ cut down so we could put in landscaping.

8:47 ↗ And likewise I've been mentioning

8:50 ↗ critical areas. So critical areas

8:53 ↗ there's a lot of different critical

8:54 ↗ areas including streams. got a picture

8:56 ↗ of a stream that is

8:59 ↗ parallel to 221st.

9:02 ↗ And so if in order to install sidewalk

9:07 ↗ along that street, it would have to and

9:10 ↗ planter strip, it would really get into

9:12 ↗ the stream buffer. I I don't haven't

9:16 ↗ measured it to see how close it get to

9:18 ↗ the stream or wetlands. So the picture

9:21 ↗ on the right is on Newport Way

9:24 ↗ or Maple, one of the two. Maybe it's

9:26 ↗ Maple there. Anyways, it's in that

9:28 ↗ vicinity, not too far from Target. And

9:31 ↗ the sidewalk currently doesn't have a

9:33 ↗ landscape planter strip, but if one were

9:35 ↗ to be installed, um, then it wouldn't

9:39 ↗ mean filling into the wetland,

9:42 ↗ which we're supposed to avoid and

9:44 ↗ minimize.

9:46 ↗ This picture is steep driveways. And the

9:48 ↗ reason why a deviation process for steep

9:51 ↗ driveways and this was for situations

9:53 ↗ where like a this is on northwest

9:57 ↗ Seamish Road. The city has a project to

9:59 ↗ install a construct a 12 to 14 ft shared

10:05 ↗ use path for bicyclists and pedestrians.

10:08 ↗ It's going to connect the South Lake

10:10 ↗ Seamish neighborhood with the state

10:12 ↗ park. And

10:15 ↗ this is one of the driveways along

10:18 ↗ there. And so the design team really

10:21 ↗ wants to minimize the width of the

10:24 ↗ planter strip in this area. That way

10:26 ↗ this driveway will not be any steeper

10:28 ↗ than it already is. I think it's about

10:30 ↗ 25%.

10:31 ↗ And when we met with the property owner

10:33 ↗ too, he was very adamant about not

10:35 ↗ wanting a steeper driveway. And he

10:37 ↗ actually encouraged the design engineers

10:39 ↗ to and they did this drive down and then

10:42 ↗ try and drive back up. and it was quite

10:43 ↗ challenging. And so this would apply

10:48 ↗ if

10:50 ↗ I'm a development or a city project were

10:54 ↗ to be installing sidewalk and this

10:57 ↗ adjacent property is not getting

10:59 ↗ redeveloped because if this adjacent

11:01 ↗ property was getting redeveloped, well

11:03 ↗ then they could regrade the site and not

11:04 ↗ have such a steep driveway. But just

11:06 ↗ trying to get a deviation so that way we

11:08 ↗ can tie into driveways in a situation

11:11 ↗ like this and not make it worse for the

11:14 ↗ resident.

11:16 ↗ And

11:17 ↗ a deviation was added for section 4f

11:20 ↗ properties. This is part of a

11:23 ↗ transportation funding bill, I think

11:24 ↗ from 1966

11:26 ↗ in section 4, but it's been codified

11:29 ↗ into federal law that transportation

11:32 ↗ projects are supposed that have federal

11:34 ↗ funding are supposed to avoid or

11:36 ↗ minimize impacts to recreational

11:39 ↗ properties. That could be a playground

11:42 ↗ at an elementary school. It could be a

11:45 ↗ city park. It could be the Harvey

11:49 ↗ Manning Park. It could be a wildlife

11:52 ↗ refuge, a number of things. And so a

11:54 ↗ deviation was added in order to be

11:56 ↗ consistent with the federal regulations.

11:58 ↗ And I think it would also depend on the

12:00 ↗ context of the section 4F property

12:03 ↗ because if it's a city park, well then

12:06 ↗ it probably makes sense to put in a

12:07 ↗ landscape planner strip because that's a

12:10 ↗ place where people are going to be

12:11 ↗ walking to and we'd like it to be an

12:13 ↗ ideal

12:14 ↗ walking environment for the pedestrians.

12:17 ↗ But if it's like the Harvey Manning Park

12:20 ↗ along Newport Way, well, it really

12:22 ↗ doesn't make sense to widen the road.

12:25 ↗ And actually, this might not be the best

12:27 ↗ example because we're not even planning

12:29 ↗ on putting sidewalk in this section of

12:31 ↗ Newport, but it was the one I had. Um,

12:34 ↗ but the whole idea is to preserve the

12:36 ↗ hillside and the the park to be a

12:39 ↗ forested hillside, not concrete and

12:43 ↗ landscaping.

12:46 ↗ And then

12:48 ↗ the administration worked with the

12:50 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee

12:52 ↗ and the transportation advisory board to

12:54 ↗ come up with an exemption for

12:57 ↗ rehabilitation projects. This is where

12:59 ↗ the use of the street would not be

13:01 ↗ changing, but the city would do

13:03 ↗ something to take care of the existing

13:05 ↗ infrastructure. And I've got two

13:07 ↗ examples in the photos here. The one on

13:09 ↗ the left is the Black Nugget retaining

13:11 ↗ wall. and that um it would be really

13:15 ↗ expensive to put in a landscape planter

13:18 ↗ strip. The retaining mall, something

13:21 ↗ needs to be done. We can't just leave it

13:23 ↗ in the current condition. There's a

13:25 ↗ design currently underway that'll build

13:27 ↗ a retaining wall in front of the

13:30 ↗ existing retaining wall in order to help

13:33 ↗ um have a

13:37 ↗ infrastructure that can last longer. And

13:39 ↗ then the picture on the right, that's

13:42 ↗ from if you're at Cougar Mountain Zoo

13:44 ↗ and you start driving up Cougar

13:46 ↗ Mountain,

13:48 ↗ 190th and 191st, and the road is really

13:50 ↗ deteriorating. And so want to make sure

13:54 ↗ that we have an exemption so that way

13:59 ↗ we can take care of this um the

14:01 ↗ pavement. And technically you'd

14:04 ↗ require a permit but um which would

14:07 ↗ trigger the landscaping requirements but

14:08 ↗ we don't want to do that cuz there's no

14:11 ↗ pedestrian generators. Lots of reasons

14:14 ↗ to not put in landscaping

14:17 ↗ along that corridor.

14:20 ↗ And then the next one is coming up with

14:22 ↗ an exemption for

14:24 ↗ interim bicycle and pedestrian

14:26 ↗ connections. These are

14:29 ↗ projects that would inst

14:32 ↗ So um interim non-motorized gaps and so

14:37 ↗ the

14:39 ↗ um picture on the left that is

14:44 ↗ a situation where I think it's on second

14:48 ↗ and I could be wrong but I think it's

14:50 ↗ second and it's a location that we

14:54 ↗ frequently get asked can you put

14:56 ↗ sidewalk in here and there's a park just

15:01 ↗ south of here and Gilman Village is just

15:04 ↗ north of there and there's sidewalk and

15:06 ↗ then there's three lots without sidewalk

15:09 ↗ and through the city clic system

15:12 ↗ multiple times people have said hey can

15:14 ↗ you please put in sidewalk and we have

15:17 ↗ to respond back and say we would love to

15:20 ↗ but in order to do that we'd have to

15:22 ↗ underground the overhead power we'd have

15:24 ↗ to install a landscape planter strip

15:27 ↗ take care of the plants for 3 years

15:29 ↗ either temporary or permanent

15:31 ↗ irrigation,

15:32 ↗ which means the expense of a water

15:35 ↗ meter, and it just gets really

15:36 ↗ expensive. And so what looks like the

15:38 ↗ easiest project just to go from point A

15:40 ↗ to point B and put in a little bit of

15:43 ↗ sidewalk

15:46 ↗ just becomes cost prohibitive. So it's a

15:50 ↗ way to try and fill in those kind of

15:51 ↗ gaps. Oh yeah, and on the right that is

15:53 ↗ a picture. So Confluence Park is just

15:56 ↗ south of there. Gilman Village is just

15:57 ↗ north of there. and that is Second

15:59 ↗ Avenue Northwest. And as you can see,

16:02 ↗ there's existing sidewalk on either side

16:04 ↗ of this gap.

16:07 ↗ So the proposal that's been developed

16:11 ↗ based on the feedback from the

16:13 ↗ transportation advisory board and the

16:14 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee

16:17 ↗ are to create a deviation criteria for

16:21 ↗ tree preservation protection of critical

16:23 ↗ areas, driveway access and recreational

16:27 ↗ properties and wanting to create the

16:30 ↗ guard rails that we've been requested

16:33 ↗ to. So the Washington State Department

16:35 ↗ of Transportation has

16:38 ↗ standards in their design manual for

16:40 ↗ pedestrian level of traffic stress and

16:43 ↗ we utilize that to say the city standard

16:46 ↗ would be two or better. And in most

16:50 ↗ cases that is done

16:55 ↗ it can be done with a landscape planner

16:57 ↗ strip. It can be done with a wide

16:58 ↗ sidewalk. It can be done if you have

17:01 ↗ less traffic volume or [clears throat]

17:05 ↗ fewer lanes. But if you're on a street

17:09 ↗ like East Lake Samish Parkway and you're

17:12 ↗ north of 56 where the speed limit, I

17:15 ↗ believe 40 m an hour, you really would

17:17 ↗ need to have a landscape planner strip

17:20 ↗ in order to have a pedestrian level of

17:23 ↗ traffic stress of two. And I guess I

17:25 ↗ should tell you the pedestrian level

17:29 ↗ traffic stress. That's how it feels as a

17:31 ↗ pedestrian, how stressed different users

17:34 ↗ are. And so [clears throat]

17:37 ↗ uh one would be everyone including young

17:40 ↗ children, people with disabilities, they

17:43 ↗ would feel comfortable. Two, it would be

17:45 ↗ most people, not everyone. And then

17:50 ↗ three and four, it gets more and more

17:51 ↗ stressful for more and more people. And

17:55 ↗ in order to qualify for the deviation

17:57 ↗ though, an applicant would need to have

18:00 ↗ an arborist, a certified arborist put

18:02 ↗ together a tree health and condition

18:05 ↗ assessment because there's no point of

18:09 ↗ not installing the planter strip in

18:11 ↗ order to preserve a tree if after the

18:14 ↗ project's constructed, the tree is just

18:16 ↗ going to die. And so need to have an

18:19 ↗ expert to weigh in on whether the tree

18:23 ↗ would become either a hazard or nuisance

18:25 ↗ tree after the project was complete. And

18:29 ↗ the deviation criteria utilized as many

18:32 ↗ existing definitions

18:34 ↗ for

18:36 ↗ landmark trees and significant trees

18:38 ↗ that are currently in Title 18 rather

18:41 ↗ than trying to reinvent new definitions.

18:45 ↗ And the critical areas report would be

18:50 ↗ very important for considering a

18:51 ↗ deviation to

18:54 ↗ not install a landscape planter strip in

18:57 ↗ order to

18:59 ↗ avoid or minimize impacts to a critical

19:01 ↗ area or its buffer. and

19:05 ↗ looking really at the driveway grade,

19:07 ↗ wanting to make sure that people have

19:10 ↗ safe access to their property and

19:14 ↗ also considering recreational use on

19:17 ↗ projects that have federal funds that

19:19 ↗ are next to recreational property.

19:24 ↗ I went a little bit into the pedestrian

19:26 ↗ level of traffic stress. Um,

19:30 ↗ but the deviation criteria would need to

19:34 ↗ look at the existing land use context.

19:37 ↗ Is it location with lots of pedestrians?

19:40 ↗ If that's the case, then makes a better

19:44 ↗ case for keeping the landscape planner

19:46 ↗ strip because it's a corridor that would

19:48 ↗ get really used a lot. Uh, what are the

19:50 ↗ needs of the multimodal users? the

19:52 ↗ roadway characteristics, equity and

19:54 ↗ costs. And one of the criteria also is

20:00 ↗ one of the criterion is

20:03 ↗ um need a 20 ft for a full width of a

20:08 ↗ planter strip. And so in situations

20:10 ↗ where there's trees, I'll come back to

20:14 ↗ the previous slide, but I want to show

20:16 ↗ this picture. So the bottom shows a

20:19 ↗ sidewalk where there's four trees that

20:22 ↗ are being preserved and the planter

20:25 ↗ strip moves closer to the road in order

20:28 ↗ to preserve those trees. The top one

20:30 ↗ though shows a picture where

20:33 ↗ the project could install 20 ft of a

20:37 ↗ landscape planter strip that would be 5

20:39 ↗ ft wide. And 20 ft was chosen because

20:42 ↗ city code says a planting bed needs to

20:46 ↗ be 100 square ft. If it's 5 ft wide,

20:48 ↗ just doing the math, you get to a 20

20:51 ↗ foot length. And so anytime with smooth

20:54 ↗ transitions, which is defined as having

20:56 ↗ a radius of

20:59 ↗ 15 ft, anytime we can a project can have

21:03 ↗ 20 ft, that there should be a landscape

21:06 ↗ planner strip that the goal is to put

21:08 ↗ those in when we're not oops avoiding

21:11 ↗ those areas. And I talked a little bit

21:13 ↗ about the exemptions where

21:14 ↗ rehabilitation projects where the

21:16 ↗ existing use would not be changing to

21:18 ↗ maintain existing infrastructure or

21:21 ↗ interim bicycle and pedestrian

21:23 ↗ connections to help with the city's

21:24 ↗ strategic plan goal of creating

21:30 ↗ mobility connections to help people get

21:31 ↗ around town.

21:35 ↗ The the direction needed from the

21:37 ↗ commission tonight is these three

21:40 ↗ questions. Does the commission support

21:42 ↗ the proposed deviation process in the

21:44 ↗ street standards to reduce or eliminate

21:46 ↗ the landscape planter strip to preserve

21:48 ↗ trees, protect critical areas, provide

21:51 ↗ driveway access to properties that are

21:53 ↗ not being developed, and minimize or

21:55 ↗ avoid impacts to section 4F properties?

21:58 ↗ Does the commission support the proposed

22:01 ↗ exemption to the landscaping standards

22:03 ↗ for rehabilitation projects and interim

22:06 ↗ bicycle and pedestrian connection

22:08 ↗ projects? And are there other things

22:10 ↗ that should be considered that are not

22:12 ↗ mentioned in the documents?

22:15 ↗ The timing and next step at your next

22:18 ↗ meeting, they're scheduled to be a

22:20 ↗ public hearing on November 13th. And

22:23 ↗ then this item will return to the

22:26 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee

22:27 ↗ just before Thanksgiving on November

22:30 ↗ 24th. And tenatively, this item would go

22:34 ↗ to the city council for adoption on

22:36 ↗ January 5th of next year.

22:40 ↗ And with that, are there any questions?

22:43 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you, John. Uh,

22:45 ↗ commissioners, we're going to open up to

22:47 ↗ questions. Uh, we'll try and have one

22:49 ↗ person at a time, but we'll do round rob

22:50 ↗ and make sure everyone gets a chance

22:51 ↗ before we move on. So, uh, let's go

22:53 ↗ ahead and start with Commissioner Crest

22:54 ↗ and then we'll just let me know if

23:15 ↗ Does that work? Yeah, there you go.

23:17 ↗ Okay, well we well I'll share this one.

23:19 ↗ I'll bring batteries next time. Um, so

23:22 ↗ thanks for that. Um, I I like the idea

23:25 ↗ for the deviations and the exemptions. I

23:28 ↗ think a lot of it is based on common

23:30 ↗ sense. So I think weaving that into the

23:32 ↗ examples that you gave are good ones. So

23:35 ↗ I have I have two questions. The first

23:36 ↗ one is um because I think it's important

23:39 ↗ because you can't have something that'll

23:40 ↗ work for everything. The process

23:44 ↗ and kind of the decision matrix of how

23:46 ↗ things can get a deviation or exemption

23:49 ↗ um and how that works in in in

23:52 ↗ practicality. And then the second

23:54 ↗ question was a little bit related to

23:55 ↗ that is the five- foot is um something

23:59 ↗ that may not work everywhere whether

24:02 ↗ it's a narrower street or something like

24:03 ↗ that. Is it better to have a 4ft or

24:05 ↗ slight for example versus no planning?

24:08 ↗ I'm not sure if that would also be

24:10 ↗ something that would be part of a

24:11 ↗ deviation or exemption, but just the pro

24:14 ↗ start with the how the process would

24:16 ↗ work. Um especially if if a developer or

24:19 ↗ someone wants to build something or um

24:22 ↗ or want to get something like the the

24:24 ↗ example on second is a good one. It's

24:25 ↗ like that would be a good one like use

24:27 ↗ common sense and just put a simple

24:28 ↗ sidewalk there and then fix it later.

24:30 ↗ How does that how does that work?

24:33 ↗ >> Oh, great questions.

24:36 ↗ I'm going to start with the second one

24:37 ↗ because that's the easiest one to

24:39 ↗ answer. And so it's it can either

24:42 ↗ eliminate or

24:45 ↗ re um reduce the landscape planter

24:48 ↗ strip. So the standard is 5 ft and that

24:51 ↗ is because that is the width needed for

24:55 ↗ a tree in order to avoid having the

24:58 ↗ roots cause a lot of problems with the

25:00 ↗ sidewalk. And so, for example, um

25:06 ↗ if possible, I I think it'd be better

25:08 ↗ for a project to reduce rather than

25:12 ↗ eliminate depending on where the tree

25:14 ↗ is. And which kind of gets into your

25:17 ↗ next question, which is about the

25:19 ↗ process. And so, they would put together

25:21 ↗ a deviation that would really be

25:25 ↗ all-encompassing. It would include the

25:27 ↗ arborist report andor critical areas

25:30 ↗ report. It would

25:35 ↗ really

25:35 ↗ >> so either the city or the developer

25:37 ↗ whoever would they would they would

25:38 ↗ propose a deviation. It's almost like

25:41 ↗ when you ask like for a permit you would

25:42 ↗ ask for a deviation of that.

25:44 ↗ >> Yes. Yeah. Thank you for the

25:45 ↗ clarification. Um yeah it would be

25:47 ↗ during the permitting process. And so

25:49 ↗ I'll walk through both the situations.

25:52 ↗ So let's say the city's got a project on

25:54 ↗ Swak Mountain. we're going to put in

25:56 ↗ sidewalk and when it comes time to apply

26:00 ↗ for a permit included in the permit

26:02 ↗ submittal would be the deviation and

26:06 ↗ then likewise for a private development

26:10 ↗ I'm guessing they would probably want to

26:11 ↗ do it during the land use phase in order

26:13 ↗ to set things up but it would be and

26:16 ↗ then who decides and how does that work

26:18 ↗ that's really the crux of the question

26:20 ↗ of the you know transparency of how it

26:22 ↗ all works and when comes into the

26:24 ↗ process and just How how does it work?

26:26 ↗ Um is it just you or is it like a panel

26:29 ↗ or how's it

26:30 ↗ >> Yeah, it it would be the

26:32 ↗ the reviewers on the permit. And so I

26:36 ↗ envision that it would be one of the

26:38 ↗ current planners. It would be someone

26:40 ↗ from engineering and

26:44 ↗ that they would come together and review

26:46 ↗ it and make a determination. And then

26:49 ↗ would there be a back sorry would there

26:51 ↗ be a back and forth then of because they

26:54 ↗ may not have all the facts when you fill

26:55 ↗ out something in a form you may not get

26:57 ↗ it like the steep driveway was a great

26:58 ↗ example unless you go out there and see

27:00 ↗ it and you're like okay well if unless

27:03 ↗ you do that you're launching somebody

27:04 ↗ into a busy road and that would that

27:06 ↗ would not work. Um, so is there is is

27:09 ↗ part of that process they review it,

27:11 ↗ they say yes or no and that's it or is

27:12 ↗ there the ability for the requesttor to

27:16 ↗ have that conversation, have people come

27:18 ↗ out, etc.

27:19 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. There's a back and forth and

27:21 ↗ so it could be in the first round there

27:24 ↗ might be

27:26 ↗ some comments or questions. It might be,

27:28 ↗ hey, address this aspect or

27:32 ↗ um something else. It or include a

27:35 ↗ profile of the driveway. Um but yeah, it

27:38 ↗ would be back and forth. It wouldn't be

27:40 ↗ a someone submits it, he gets approved

27:43 ↗ or denied, and that's it. It would go

27:45 ↗ through the regular permit review

27:48 ↗ process.

27:50 ↗ Gonna give you back your dead mic crest.

27:52 ↗ [laughter] I'm just kidding.

27:55 ↗ Uh, Commissioner Mulberu.

27:58 ↗ >> Um, I very much like your proposal. I

28:01 ↗ like the fact that it's taking into

28:03 ↗ account what exists rather than simply

28:06 ↗ trying to lay over um a uh the same

28:11 ↗ thing everywhere in the city. When my

28:13 ↗ father developed Sycamore in the 1960s,

28:17 ↗ he went through he went round and round

28:20 ↗ with the city of Isiqua to get them to

28:23 ↗ approve gutter and swale and to not have

28:26 ↗ street lights because he said it is a

28:28 ↗ country place. It is not we are it is

28:32 ↗ not a normal city even though it's

28:36 ↗ within the city of Isiqua. And I think

28:37 ↗ most people would say Sycamore is a nice

28:39 ↗ neighborhood because it worked with the

28:42 ↗ environment and I think what you have

28:45 ↗ proposed here is excellent at working

28:47 ↗ with the environment and creating

28:49 ↗ different textures and different

28:50 ↗ neighborhoods in the city.

28:53 ↗ So that's my opinion. I also think doing

28:57 ↗ doing a little something like the

28:58 ↗ sidewalk that doesn't require a huge

29:01 ↗ project just to at least improve it. I

29:05 ↗ think that's an excellent idea. So, I

29:07 ↗ support that as well.

29:09 ↗ >> Thank you.

29:11 ↗ >> Excellent. Anyone else? Commissioner

29:13 ↗ Zach.

29:14 ↗ >> Thank you. Well, I'm definitely on the

29:17 ↗ same page with both Commissioner Cross

29:18 ↗ and Commissioner Maul. Um, yes, this is

29:21 ↗ a wonderful idea, but my question is,

29:25 ↗ uh, how how long do you expect the

29:27 ↗ timeline of permitting process to be?

29:30 ↗ It's any kind of consideration about the

29:33 ↗ time cuz to me speeding up permitting

29:36 ↗ process is the thing [laughter]

29:40 ↗ the timing of the permit process. I

29:43 ↗ don't envision this taking longer and it

29:47 ↗ really it's also a deviation. So it's

29:50 ↗ the applicant wanting to do something

29:52 ↗ that's different from our standard. And

29:54 ↗ so if time is really of the essence,

29:58 ↗ they could do what they could do today,

30:00 ↗ which is just go with the standard that

30:03 ↗ if they want to preserve the trees,

30:05 ↗ which I think is a great idea. Um, but

30:08 ↗ it would also be reviewed concurrently

30:10 ↗ with the land use or the construction

30:13 ↗ permit that it would not add to the

30:15 ↗ timeline.

30:16 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you so much.

30:20 ↗ No, I was just going to concur that it

30:22 ↗ happens at the same time and sometimes

30:23 ↗ it doesn't come in at the same time as

30:25 ↗ the application and we say this isn't

30:27 ↗ going to work and then they request it,

30:28 ↗ but we all have timelines that we're

30:29 ↗ required to meet too. So, it it all

30:32 ↗ works out because we do other deviations

30:33 ↗ as well.

30:35 ↗ >> And then John, may I have you go back

30:36 ↗ one slide to your questions just to make

30:39 ↗ sure or I guess one more slide. There we

30:40 ↗ go. Just so we can do that. And then

30:42 ↗ just a reminder, uh, so we'll do our

30:44 ↗ formal recommendation at the next, uh,

30:48 ↗ at the next meeting. Um, so I think for

30:50 ↗ tonight, we just want to continue to ask

30:52 ↗ any questions, clarifying questions or

30:54 ↗ anything we have on it and then try and

30:55 ↗ give John some feedback on these

30:57 ↗ specific questions if we can. Cool.

31:00 ↗ >> Uh, do you have one, Commissioner Miller

31:02 ↗ Win?

31:03 ↗ >> I do. Um, my question is in regards to

31:06 ↗ critical areas. So, what I'd like to

31:09 ↗ know is if there is a demonstrated need

31:11 ↗ for uh public safety to have a sidewalk

31:14 ↗ area next to a critical area, how would

31:17 ↗ the deviation look like for that type of

31:20 ↗ request?

31:23 ↗ >> Yeah. So,

31:32 ↗ okay, let me make sure I heard the

31:34 ↗ question right. It's there's a

31:36 ↗ demonstrated safety need and there's a

31:40 ↗ critical area and so now we're in a

31:43 ↗ conflict. Great question and that's why

31:45 ↗ we would look at it the the permit

31:48 ↗ review process would look at it

31:49 ↗ holistically and the

31:54 ↗ level of service that the city is

31:56 ↗ putting in the standards for pedestrian

31:58 ↗ facilities is level of traffic stress of

32:01 ↗ two or better. And so then that

32:05 ↗ means when you go to the washd design

32:08 ↗ manual for all streets where the speed

32:10 ↗ limits less than 40 m an hour you can

32:12 ↗ achieve that without a landscape planner

32:14 ↗ strip. And so really the only situations

32:18 ↗ where we'd be looking at that are on

32:21 ↗ streets like Southeast 43rd I believe

32:26 ↗ East Lake Samish Parkway Isqua Fall City

32:29 ↗ Road. I might be missing one, but oh um

32:34 ↗ yes, 17th or S or 900, but those are

32:37 ↗ really the only situations where this

32:39 ↗ conflict would

32:43 ↗ happen. And in this situation, we talked

32:45 ↗ a lot with the transportation advisory

32:47 ↗ board. And that's where we came up with

32:49 ↗ this looking at the

32:54 ↗ um land use, the pedestrians, the

32:56 ↗ context, the equity, the cost because it

33:00 ↗ might depending on the need. If there's

33:03 ↗ a lot of pedestrians, well, one, maybe

33:05 ↗ we shouldn't have the speed limit be 40,

33:07 ↗ but let's just say that the council's

33:09 ↗ not going to change it and there's a lot

33:10 ↗ of pedestrians. And that might push it

33:14 ↗ into the situation where the city would

33:18 ↗ either accept a pedestrian level of

33:22 ↗ traffic stress of three or things to um

33:27 ↗ need to mitigate for the critical areas

33:31 ↗ impacts. Um, I think it'd really be

33:34 ↗ context

33:35 ↗ sensitive. Although, like I said, if we

33:38 ↗ have that many pedestrians on a 40 mph

33:41 ↗ street, I think at that point the

33:43 ↗ conversation needs to be the speed

33:45 ↗ limit's no longer appropriate.

33:48 ↗ >> Thank you.

33:51 ↗ >> And Commissioner Matthews, did you have

33:52 ↗ a question?

33:54 ↗ >> I actually did have a question that

33:56 ↗ carries on to the question that was just

33:58 ↗ asked um about the critical areas. I'm

34:01 ↗ not sure why that would be a deviation

34:02 ↗ and not just a subject on its own

34:04 ↗ because if you think about on 17th and

34:07 ↗ 900 you had brought that up as an

34:09 ↗ example they actually have elevated

34:10 ↗ boardwalks. So in that case why would

34:13 ↗ you put a sidewalk when you could put in

34:15 ↗ elevated boardwalk instead so that

34:17 ↗ you're not impacting and building into

34:20 ↗ the critical area. It seems like it

34:23 ↗ could be a subject on its own and not

34:25 ↗ part of a deviation process.

34:28 ↗ That is actually Thank you for

34:30 ↗ refreshing my memory. That is in the new

34:32 ↗ standards is to consider things like a

34:34 ↗ boardwalk.

34:36 ↗ >> So yes, thank you. I I failed to mention

34:38 ↗ that.

34:38 ↗ >> Okay. Oh, good. I must have read that.

34:41 ↗ That's probably why it popped into my

34:42 ↗ head. Thank you very much.

34:43 ↗ >> Yeah. And Commissioner,

34:49 ↗ >> I think it just has to like sync. It

34:51 ↗ kind of My god. Thank you.

34:52 ↗ >> Um, thanks Jesse. um have I guess it's

34:57 ↗ it's more of a a naive or a legal

35:00 ↗ question, but so the planter strips are

35:03 ↗ typically within the city's right of

35:05 ↗ way, correct?

35:06 ↗ >> Yes.

35:06 ↗ >> So, uh developer wants to build on

35:11 ↗ property. Um they're expected to plant

35:15 ↗ that planting strip and maintain it for

35:19 ↗ period of was that it three years. Um h

35:23 ↗ how does that work from a legal

35:24 ↗ standpoint? Um you know a private

35:27 ↗ developer is putting plantings on public

35:31 ↗ property is that is that an it's not an

35:34 ↗ unusual situation, but

35:36 ↗ >> it's not unusual and I've actually had a

35:39 ↗ few conversations with the city attorney

35:40 ↗ about it. Just wanting to

35:44 ↗ make sure that I understand it correctly

35:46 ↗ and it's very common. A lot of cities

35:49 ↗ have that. And it it even could be that

35:53 ↗ the city could put in the landscaping

35:55 ↗ and then the adjacent property owner

35:57 ↗ after the initial plant establishment

35:59 ↗ period is responsible for long-term

36:01 ↗ maintenance of it.

36:02 ↗ >> Okay. Um a follow- on question if I

36:05 ↗ will. Um,

36:08 ↗ so these planter strips are

36:12 ↗ if if a private developer,

36:15 ↗ let's say it's a renovation project and

36:17 ↗ it's homeowner and they're adding a

36:19 ↗ second story to their home, that

36:21 ↗ wouldn't necessarily trigger their

36:23 ↗ responsibility to put a planting strip

36:25 ↗ in front of their house.

36:27 ↗ >> Correct. They they would be exempt. And

36:29 ↗ I would also say if they were to do um

36:34 ↗ the middle housing, that is also exempt.

36:38 ↗ And if it's a vacant lot and you put in

36:41 ↗ a single family home, that's also exempt

36:43 ↗ from the standard. And that's not a

36:45 ↗ change from how it's been. Well, the

36:48 ↗ middle housing exemption's been in place

36:50 ↗ since May. And then the single family

36:53 ↗ housing's been in since at least 2010

36:56 ↗ and probably longer. Thanks for the

36:58 ↗ clarification.

37:01 ↗ >> Excellent. And we've completed our round

37:03 ↗ robin. So if anyone has additional

37:05 ↗ questions, uh, Commissioner Crest,

37:07 ↗ >> I can actually help you with that cuz I

37:09 ↗ went through this exact thing. So um, I

37:12 ↗ we had some trees die in the parkway

37:14 ↗ that the builder put in, brand new house

37:16 ↗ from 10 years ago. It was me as a

37:19 ↗ homeowner responsible work and I got

37:21 ↗ working with the city of what should go

37:23 ↗ there to to put the trees in, but it was

37:25 ↗ my expense and I maintain it even though

37:27 ↗ I don't own the property. Very weird,

37:29 ↗ but it just it is. But I have a vested

37:31 ↗ interest to make it look good. So it all

37:33 ↗ work.

37:34 ↗ >> I didn't put grass. I do ground cover.

37:36 ↗ But the um

37:37 ↗ >> I wanted to answer that. I do think it's

37:39 ↗ really interesting this whole thing

37:42 ↗ about conflict of you have two different

37:44 ↗ objectives and they could they can

37:46 ↗ conflict. I'll use I'll just pick two as

37:48 ↗ an example. One is the idea of putting

37:52 ↗ um parkways and sidewalks from a safety

37:54 ↗ pedestrian standpoint and tree

37:56 ↗ preservation.

37:58 ↗ So when you do have that conflict and

38:00 ↗ say I'm not sure if it's a public or

38:02 ↗ private if that matters in this

38:03 ↗ discussion, you have different people

38:06 ↗ who should probably weigh in within the

38:08 ↗ city because you something's going to

38:10 ↗ give. You can't do both, right? You

38:12 ↗ can't if you have a big tree there but

38:13 ↗ you need to put a sidewalk there. How is

38:15 ↗ how does that just work in practicality?

38:17 ↗ Because you're right, when you start

38:18 ↗ cutting trees down, everyone goes, "Oh

38:20 ↗ my god, what's going on?" So, the more

38:22 ↗ clear the city is with how those

38:25 ↗ decisions are made and how that works

38:26 ↗ makes people probably feel better about

38:29 ↗ when those red tags go on trees and then

38:32 ↗ they they get chopped down. So, how does

38:34 ↗ that work in practicality when there's a

38:36 ↗ conflict of of objectives?

38:39 ↗ Well, I guess the first answer is um I I

38:44 ↗ can say how I envision it going, but I

38:46 ↗ think the true test will be once it's

38:49 ↗ adopted to observe how it happens and

38:53 ↗ then see if the standards need to

38:55 ↗ change. But the way I envision it is if

38:58 ↗ an applicant, whether it's the city

39:00 ↗ developing its own capital project for a

39:03 ↗ transportation facility or a developer,

39:06 ↗ if they have trees that meet the

39:08 ↗ definitions that are in the standards,

39:10 ↗ whether it's a significant tree or a

39:12 ↗ landmark tree, and that an arborist says

39:16 ↗ that that tree, it's not going to become

39:20 ↗ a nuisance or hazard tree after the

39:23 ↗ improvement's been built. that then they

39:26 ↗ could apply for and get their deviation.

39:29 ↗ Now, if the arborist says

39:34 ↗ no, this tree isn't going to survive the

39:38 ↗ improvements,

39:40 ↗ then yeah, it would have the deviation

39:42 ↗ would not be approved. So, it's I guess

39:44 ↗ I'd say it's airing on the side of

39:47 ↗ approving it in order to preserve the

39:49 ↗ trees as long as the trees meet the

39:52 ↗ criteria of being a significant tree or

39:55 ↗ a landmark tree. I forget what else we

39:57 ↗ put in there. And that the arborist

40:01 ↗ has report also supports that that tree

40:04 ↗ would do well after the improvements.

40:08 ↗ >> Sometimes you may have to use the second

40:10 ↗ avenue example. Let's say there was a

40:12 ↗ big tree in the middle of that space,

40:14 ↗ that gap,

40:16 ↗ you'd have to cut it down. So, so, so

40:19 ↗ that decision would have to be made. So,

40:20 ↗ it's not like a is it going to hurt the

40:22 ↗ tree? It'll hurt the tree because it'll

40:23 ↗ be cut down, but the um but just how you

40:27 ↗ how do you get to that? Is it it's not

40:28 ↗ just the the planner or the the person

40:31 ↗ who's looking at the permit? I assume

40:32 ↗ they would have to bring in other folks

40:34 ↗ within the city to if you start cutting

40:36 ↗ down larger trees to to do something

40:40 ↗ like that. I'm just trying to understand

40:42 ↗ >> before there has to be an arborist

40:44 ↗ report. So an arborist will come out and

40:46 ↗ look at the tree and determine

40:47 ↗ >> no there's going to be let's say the

40:49 ↗ sidewalk has to go right where the tree

40:50 ↗ is. So you don't need an arborist for

40:51 ↗ that. You're like okay no tree will

40:53 ↗ survive if you have to put a sidewalk

40:55 ↗ through there. I'm I'm coming up with an

40:57 ↗ example based on

40:59 ↗ >> I'm stretching your example.

41:00 ↗ >> Okay. So I think in that case the

41:04 ↗ even with the current standards that

41:05 ↗ tree would be coming down.

41:08 ↗ >> Yeah. Now, I guess I will say,

41:11 ↗ um, I just had a thought is there have

41:15 ↗ been times though when the permit team

41:17 ↗ has said, "Hey, you, yeah, your typical

41:20 ↗ section shows that sidewalk going right

41:22 ↗ through that tree, but you have lots of

41:24 ↗ rightway.

41:25 ↗ Put the sidewalk further back." And I've

41:28 ↗ seen that.

41:30 ↗ >> And and we do have tree retention that's

41:33 ↗ required for every permit that is

41:34 ↗ submitted. And you also have um

41:38 ↗ uh tree coverage and you all remember

41:42 ↗ remember that from the tree code. So

41:43 ↗ those things are also considered when

41:45 ↗ these come through. If you take this

41:46 ↗ tree down, what's going to happen to

41:48 ↗ your tree retention and your tree

41:50 ↗ coverage?

41:50 ↗ >> Well, this is different though because

41:51 ↗ this is essentially on a rightaway where

41:53 ↗ where you need to have a sidewalk. I'm

41:55 ↗ just I'm It's not like I'm building a

41:57 ↗ >> It still factors in.

41:58 ↗ >> Yeah. And there's still tree

42:00 ↗ replacement. So, if it's a city project,

42:04 ↗ it's exempt from needing a tree permit,

42:06 ↗ but the project still needs to replace

42:08 ↗ the trees within the same sub area. And

42:12 ↗ just as someone who my division manages

42:15 ↗ these projects, we want to keep our

42:17 ↗ costs down and gets expensive when

42:19 ↗ you're replacing a bunch of trees. So,

42:21 ↗ we we like to try and avoid

42:25 ↗ >> um I uh disagree with the approach that

42:28 ↗ is being discussed here. So, we're just

42:31 ↗ trying to do questions right now and

42:32 ↗ then we can do deliberations and

42:34 ↗ discussions after that because I think

42:36 ↗ we're going to provide another

42:37 ↗ opportunity for public comment.

42:39 ↗ >> Question.

42:40 ↗ >> A question is yes.

42:42 ↗ >> Why is there the need for ex for

42:44 ↗ uniformity? Why did this does the city

42:47 ↗ not feel that that in fact perhaps this

42:51 ↗ would be a way to create different

42:54 ↗ approaches? I mean, if the tree is in

42:56 ↗ the middle, why can't the city make the

42:58 ↗ decision to simply have the path go both

43:01 ↗ ways around it so that we have things

43:03 ↗ that are interesting within the city

43:06 ↗ rather than everything looking

43:08 ↗ uniform? Why is that not considered

43:12 ↗ acceptable?

43:14 ↗ >> Well, I'd say it's acceptable. It's hard

43:19 ↗ to put it into a standard to say

43:25 ↗ to I don't know how to quite word that.

43:27 ↗ But I've also seen it um very

43:30 ↗ specifically where there is a project

43:32 ↗ going to cut down a whole bunch of trees

43:35 ↗ and the planner on the review said

43:40 ↗ put it here. And the applicant said oh

43:43 ↗ good idea let me draw this up. So it's

43:46 ↗ in practicality what you're saying

43:48 ↗ happens but I don't know how to quite

43:51 ↗ put it into the standards.

43:53 ↗ >> Okay. So that would be part of the city

43:56 ↗ of Isiqua's approach to dealing with

43:58 ↗ these standards is coming up with

44:00 ↗ something that might make good practical

44:03 ↗ sense even though it appears to be a

44:05 ↗ variance. Correct.

44:09 ↗ Well, I would say moving the if you have

44:14 ↗ 5T with trees in between the sidewalk

44:16 ↗ and the road, that wouldn't be a

44:18 ↗ deviation. Um,

44:20 ↗ >> okay.

44:20 ↗ >> So, someone could propose that and that

44:22 ↗ would just be approved.

44:24 ↗ >> Okay.

44:24 ↗ >> It's really when you're wanting to do

44:26 ↗ less than that that you need the

44:28 ↗ deviation. I was more thinking if you

44:30 ↗ had to had to uh put sidewalks on both

44:35 ↗ sides of the tree so you don't have to

44:37 ↗ cut down the tree

44:39 ↗ >> just so it looks interesting.

44:42 ↗ >> I I

44:45 ↗ that would when you start factoring in

44:47 ↗ the width needed to meet ADA standards

44:49 ↗ then that starts to be a lot of

44:51 ↗ concrete. I mean, it might be

44:52 ↗ interesting, but you need five feet.

44:54 ↗ Sometimes you can go down to four feet,

44:56 ↗ but usually our sidewalks are between

44:59 ↗ five and eight feet,

45:00 ↗ >> but

45:02 ↗ something to consider.

45:03 ↗ >> Okay,

45:04 ↗ >> good. We're probably getting a little

45:06 ↗ deep into the weeds or the trees, I

45:08 ↗ suppose, uh, for for right now. But uh

45:11 ↗ [laughter]

45:12 ↗ but uh for right now um I think we want

45:16 ↗ to see we'll we'll be able to deliberate

45:17 ↗ more next next meeting uh during the

45:19 ↗ public hearing uh when we make a formal

45:21 ↗ recommendation. But for the rest of this

45:23 ↗ evening, are there any additional

45:25 ↗ questions to clarify any of the

45:27 ↗ information that John shared with us

45:28 ↗ this evening?

45:33 ↗ Going once, going twice.

45:36 ↗ John, do you have what you need from us

45:37 ↗ tonight?

45:38 ↗ >> I do. Thank you very much. It was great

45:40 ↗ being here tonight with you all.

45:42 ↗ >> Yeah. Awesome. Um, yeah. So, while we

45:46 ↗ did pass our general public comment, uh,

45:49 ↗ we know that traffic and parking was a

45:51 ↗ little busy tonight. So, we did want to

45:53 ↗ offer an opportunity for a few folks who

45:55 ↗ have joined us in the room. Uh, if you

45:57 ↗ would like to make a public comment on

45:59 ↗ this topic at this time. No. Okay.

46:02 ↗ Excellent. Good. I think we're good.

46:04 ↗ Thank you.

46:08 ↗ All right. Thank you again, John. I

46:10 ↗ appreciate the uh the presentation and

46:13 ↗ personally, I really enjoyed the uh

46:14 ↗ photos, maps, and diagrams myself. So,

46:16 ↗ thank you. Uh next up,

46:20 ↗ we have a proposal to change the

46:23 ↗ election date of the PPC chair and vice

46:26 ↗ chair. Uh we will be taking action on

46:28 ↗ this tonight with a vote. So, Kristen

46:31 ↗ Leon, our isn't it principal planning

46:34 ↗ manager now? Okay. That's not my

46:36 ↗ >> No, just just just planning manager. Oh,

46:37 ↗ just playing manager. Okay. Will be

46:39 ↗ presenting tonight. So, Kristen, please

46:41 ↗ go ahead.

46:43 ↗ >> Let's see.

46:50 ↗ I've never seen this on my screen

46:51 ↗ before. Wait a second.

47:00 ↗ I just want to share a word. Anyone let

47:02 ↗ me share a word?

47:14 ↗ Bye, John. Thank you.

47:19 ↗ Oh, this maybe this is it.

47:22 ↗ Bye, John. Thank you.

47:23 ↗ >> You're welcome.

47:24 ↗ >> Okay, there we go.

47:25 ↗ >> Okay,

47:27 ↗ there we go. So, this this is a very

47:30 ↗ very Yes. Kristen Leon, planning manager

47:32 ↗ for the city of Isiqua. This is a very

47:34 ↗ simple discussion but one that needs to

47:36 ↗ be had. So last year we had probably I

47:41 ↗ think five new members join us and the

47:43 ↗ same night that they joined they had to

47:45 ↗ vote on a chair and vice chair but they

47:46 ↗ didn't know how meetings worked. They

47:48 ↗ didn't know who they were voting on and

47:50 ↗ we've been doing it this way for a very

47:52 ↗ long time. But I'm thinking it's time to

47:53 ↗ change. Let's let's give the new members

47:55 ↗ a chance to kind of figure out what they

47:57 ↗ really think is going to work best and

47:59 ↗ you all as well. So our proposal is that

48:02 ↗ we move the election date of chair and

48:06 ↗ vice chair from the first meeting in

48:09 ↗ May, which is the same day that the new

48:10 ↗ members start to either September or

48:14 ↗ January, which is just what other

48:18 ↗ commissions and boards have done. And

48:20 ↗ you all are different than any other

48:22 ↗ commission or board in the city in that

48:24 ↗ you meet twice a month at least as

48:27 ↗ opposed to once a month. Everybody else

48:29 ↗ meets about once a month, every other

48:30 ↗ month. So, you do get a little closer um

48:33 ↗ and better knowledge of each other and

48:35 ↗ the way things work in a shorter amount

48:36 ↗ of time. So, um at any rate, this is now

48:40 ↗ open for discussion. Um and there was

48:43 ↗ another proposal in here that the

48:44 ↗ officers also would hold their positions

48:47 ↗ for a one-year term or until their

48:49 ↗ successors are elected. And that's just

48:51 ↗ in case something comes up and we don't

48:54 ↗ meet so that they don't automatically

48:56 ↗ end say the f, you know, the first

48:58 ↗ meeting in September. What if we don't

48:59 ↗ meet the first meeting in September? So

49:01 ↗ you need to have somebody there for the

49:02 ↗ second. So that's that's the reason for

49:04 ↗ that wording. So now it's it's time for

49:06 ↗ you to discuss.

49:08 ↗ >> Awesome. Thanks, Kristen. Uh,

49:10 ↗ commissioners, do we have any questions

49:12 ↗ or comments regarding this matter?

49:16 ↗ Commissioner Matthews.

49:17 ↗ >> So, who will run the meetings in the

49:20 ↗ beginning if we don't have um a head of

49:23 ↗ for the group? So, right now, his name

49:26 ↗ just popped right out of my head. He's

49:28 ↗ not here. Jason Jason

49:30 ↗ >> is not here, but if if he's not running,

49:33 ↗ I mean, who would take that spot until

49:36 ↗ September?

49:37 ↗ >> Oh, he if we adopted this, it would

49:39 ↗ happen now.

49:40 ↗ >> So, he would they would he and uh Jesse

49:43 ↗ would continue.

49:44 ↗ >> Okay. Yes.

49:44 ↗ >> All right. Thanks.

49:46 ↗ >> Yeah. So it just shifts it. So instead

49:48 ↗ of right now it's April to or I guess

49:51 ↗ May to April

49:52 ↗ >> May to the end of April.

49:54 ↗ >> So instead it would shift it to

49:55 ↗ September to August. And so there would

49:57 ↗ be people already elected into those

49:59 ↗ roles when the new folks came on but

50:01 ↗ then we would do a new election in

50:03 ↗ September if this Yeah. So the idea

50:07 ↗ would be that the new folks who joined

50:08 ↗ the commission like for a while there

50:10 ↗ was four of us or five or six of us or

50:13 ↗ were operating for a little bit and then

50:14 ↗ we welcome kind of a new group so we

50:16 ↗ expanded. Um but you know like Kristen

50:19 ↗ was saying the first meeting you you had

50:21 ↗ to make an election and and choose a

50:24 ↗ chair and vice chair. So in this

50:26 ↗ adjustment, it would give you they would

50:28 ↗ already be in place for the new people

50:30 ↗ or the new commissioners and then they

50:33 ↗ would have from May to September to kind

50:35 ↗ of get to know them a little bit, go

50:37 ↗ through some meetings, understand maybe

50:39 ↗ why they would be um you know chosen as

50:43 ↗ potential electors. Um and so it just

50:46 ↗ kind of gives some time for that to

50:47 ↗ breathe before a vote is is chosen.

50:53 ↗ Uh, anyone else have questions,

50:54 ↗ comments? Commissioner Crest,

50:56 ↗ >> do you have an opinion? Which is better,

50:58 ↗ September or January? Do you have a

50:59 ↗ preference?

51:00 ↗ >> No preference.

51:01 ↗ >> Okay.

51:05 ↗ >> Yeah. Go ahead. Commissioner,

51:08 ↗ >> do you see any downside in shifting the

51:10 ↗ the dates?

51:11 ↗ >> I don't see any downsides.

51:13 ↗ >> Yeah.

51:13 ↗ >> No, either.

51:18 ↗ Commissioner Ze,

51:20 ↗ >> I have a question about the second

51:22 ↗ paragraph like first one is

51:25 ↗ understandable

51:26 ↗ >> about the second sentence.

51:27 ↗ >> Second sentence. Yeah.

51:32 ↗ >> And we don't see it now. So

51:34 ↗ >> I'm I'm sharing it right now.

51:36 ↗ >> Okay.

51:36 ↗ >> There we go.

51:38 ↗ Well, it's coming. There it is.

51:42 ↗ Okay.

52:04 ↗ It's

52:06 ↗ to me it's kind of like I don't know

52:09 ↗ repeats.

52:09 ↗ >> Well, the way the way that it's written

52:12 ↗ now, they hold it from April from May

52:16 ↗ 1st through April 30th period. Then

52:18 ↗ they're done. And then if you don't have

52:21 ↗ a meeting in May and June comes up,

52:24 ↗ who's running the meeting? So if you do

52:27 ↗ this until the next one is elected, then

52:30 ↗ that gives coverage for that one month.

52:35 ↗ Then if I may continue, I'm suggesting

52:38 ↗ September.

52:44 ↗ >> Yeah. Uh that's definitely open for

52:46 ↗ discussion if uh we can discuss it

52:49 ↗ before motion. Yeah. Okay. So yeah,

52:52 ↗ that's open for discussion is like when

52:53 ↗ we would have the election. So

52:55 ↗ Commissioner Mulu

52:57 ↗ >> given what happened this last year which

52:59 ↗ is we had very few meetings during the

53:01 ↗ summer.

53:02 ↗ >> Does it make sense to do it in January

53:05 ↗ simply because new members would have

53:07 ↗ not had uh would have missed maybe six

53:10 ↗ meetings [clears throat]

53:12 ↗ >> out of what you would have expected.

53:15 ↗ >> I am going to bring up that that is a

53:16 ↗ good point. We just I just had the

53:18 ↗ question. We we typically don't take

53:20 ↗ summers off. This is the first summer

53:22 ↗ that we've had a lot of meetings, but it

53:24 ↗ was just requested that we do take

53:25 ↗ August off this year. So,

53:30 ↗ >> yeah. Uh personally, I I agree with that

53:33 ↗ point. I think also January is typically

53:35 ↗ when we kind of like ramp into new

53:36 ↗ topics like we do our docket approval in

53:39 ↗ December for the new year. So to your

53:42 ↗ point, that might be a good alignment in

53:43 ↗ that it's kind of like, all right,

53:45 ↗ here's the new, you know, chair, vice

53:47 ↗ chair. Here's the docket for the year.

53:49 ↗ Like, we're off and running. Typically,

53:51 ↗ we're pretty consistent in the that time

53:53 ↗ of year, I would say. So,

53:57 ↗ >> that's it. That's it. You [laughter]

53:59 ↗ got my sales hat on tonight.

54:02 ↗ All right. Uh, any other comments,

54:04 ↗ questions, feedback, thoughts?

54:08 ↗ So, we need a formal motion here. Would

54:12 ↗ anybody like to make a motion?

54:13 ↗ Commissioner Matthews, I

54:15 ↗ >> make a motion that we adopt the January

54:17 ↗ date

54:20 ↗ >> and the proposed language as well and

54:22 ↗ the proposed language as well.

54:24 ↗ >> May I second it since I'm an alternate,

54:26 ↗ but

54:27 ↗ >> yeah,

54:28 ↗ >> I I second the motion.

54:29 ↗ >> Excellent. So, motion is on the table.

54:33 ↗ Should we take a vote?

54:35 ↗ >> All in favor say I and raise your hand.

54:38 ↗ Okay. All opposed.

54:40 ↗ All right. That's unanimous.

54:42 ↗ >> Thank you very much.

54:44 ↗ >> Absolutely.

54:46 ↗ Next on the agenda is reports. Uh, city

54:49 ↗ council updates. Anything to report on

54:51 ↗ that, Kristen?

54:59 ↗ I had to think for a minute. Let's see.

55:01 ↗ Uh, we have a few agenda bills going to

55:04 ↗ council on November 10th.

55:07 ↗ uh one is the comprehensive plan which

55:09 ↗ will actually be on consent

55:12 ↗ and

55:14 ↗ uh another one that will be on consent.

55:15 ↗ I'm sorry I can't remember what it is at

55:17 ↗ this moment. We are taking back the

55:19 ↗ Belleview College development agreement

55:21 ↗ discussion. I think that many talked

55:22 ↗ with you all about that. That goes on

55:24 ↗ the 10th. That'll be an interesting

55:25 ↗ discussion if you want to tune in.

55:27 ↗ >> Yeah, that's all I have. Thank you.

55:30 ↗ >> And any other updates from staff?

55:34 ↗ >> Not at this time. No.

55:36 ↗ >> All right,

55:38 ↗ [clears throat] commissioners. Any

55:39 ↗ further business this evening?

55:42 ↗ No. All right. Well, there being no

55:44 ↗ further business before the commission,

55:46 ↗ we will adjourn this meeting at 7:28

55:49 ↗ p.m. Thank you very much.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (1)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Christen Leeson, Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of September 25, 2025 With no changes or comments, the Minutes were approved. 3

Recommendations & actions (4)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of September 25, 2025 With no changes or comments, the Minutes were approved.
Mortenson replied that standards will be observed once adopted and changes made if needed and described a potential scenario.
Mortenson replied that there have been incidents when a sidewalk has been moved when there is sufficient right of way.
MOTION seconded by COMMISSIONER MOHL-BAROUH.