Despite its failure to adhere to the city’s own tree ordinance, and the concerns of a number of councilors that it didn’t fit in with the city’s vision, the Issaquah council still voted 7-0 to approve an amended plan for a new pair of U.S. Postal Service (USPS) buildings on Gilman Boulevard.

Voicing reservations but still keeping an eye on the vital I-90 undercrossing project, councilmembers voted to approve an amendment at a Jan. 19 public hearing, allowing the USPS to exceed new tree removal guidelines on proposed development plans.

The development plan had initially been approved last summer, but was brought back before council after the developer discovered the plan was non-compliant with tree removal regulations.

Issaquah Postmaster Marv Hertzberg said the USPS was happy with the assistance given by the city and the postal service remained committed to supporting the undercrossing project.

“The city has worked well with the postal service since the project’s inception,” he said. “We support the project 100 percent.”

The development is an important one for the city, as it would allow the construction of the proposed I-90 undercrossing from Gilman Boulevard to Southeast 56th Street and East Lake Sammamish Parkway adjacent to the current site of the postal building.

It is hoped the new crossing will relieve congestion at the city’s two other highway crossings.

The U.S. Postal Service sought the amendment after claiming they were unaware the new tree ordinance would affect them, and hadn’t yet vested or officially registered their development plans at the time the ordinance was passed.

The construction of two new buildings on the property would remove 1,364 trees — mostly smaller trees of 6 to 8 inches in diameter that the city still recognizes as “significant trees.”

Under those plans, less than half of the ordinance’s required 25 percent of those trees would be preserved.

USPS returned to the bargaining table with city officials and tried to work out a compromise, shifting the footprint of the building to accommodate a stand of trees and reducing proposed parking stalls from 172 down to 160.

Several councilmembers used the discussion on the amendment as an opportunity to criticize the development agreement’s allowances for parking stalls, saying it didn’t fit with the city’s vision of redeveloping the area in the future.

Councilmember Maureen McCarry said she had hoped for more density.

“This property is right next to a sea of parking spaces,” she said. “That is a problem in the Central Issaquah Plan. It needs to have density.”

Councilmember John Traeger said he acknowledged that the underpass needed to be built, but worried about the precedent the amendment would set for the community’s vision of the Central Issaquah area. He said the impervious surface area dedicated to a parking lot appeared out of sync with those plans.

“At least in the early direction the (Central Issaquah Plan) was going, was to not do these types of parking lots, so I’m a little concerned about that.”

Traeger concluded, however, that the decision before them required a balancing of priorities and said he felt the undercrossing needed to be built sooner rather than later.

The I-90 undercrossing is planned to connect Northwest Gilman Boulevard to Southeast 56th Street via a new two-lane street called “221st Place Southeast,” starting at a traffic signal near the post office.

Councilmember Joshua Schaer said he was disappointed the tree ordinance had apparently failed it’s first test, and said there were too many allowances and exceptions to the ordinance.

“(The tree ordinance) is really something that we need to take a look at again, to have to make sure this is meeting the intent that we had,” he said.