City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, September 9, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee Meeting, July 8

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 0:25 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

and consideration.

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Tree Preservation Code Amendments COM 0109

60 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director of Community Planning & Development · packet pp.7–135

Topics: Land UseTrees

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jul 10, 2025

▶ Watch from 3:35 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

In May 2023, the City Council adopted a major update to the Land Use Code. This update included a complete rewrite of the Tree Preservation code, following extensive public input, as well as feedback from Boards, Commissions, and the City Council. The initiative was the result of a multi-year, cross-

2831 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ I don't have a gabble today.

0:07 ↗ All right, welcome everyone. I'm Council

0:09 ↗ Member Zach Hall and I'm calling the

0:10 ↗ September 9th, 2025 City Council

0:12 ↗ Planning, Development, and Environment

0:14 ↗ Committee to order at 6:33 p.m. I'm

0:17 ↗ joined by Council President Walsh and

0:19 ↗ Council Member Jang. Uh, quickly to run

0:21 ↗ through the agenda, we'll take public

0:23 ↗ comment at the top of the meeting. Uh

0:25 ↗ we'll do approval of minutes for the

0:27 ↗ July 8 meeting and then we'll run into

0:29 ↗ our only um measure of business today,

0:32 ↗ column 0109, the tree preservation code

0:34 ↗ amendments and we'll take announcements.

0:37 ↗ Um so moving into our first item on the

0:40 ↗ agenda, which is public comment. Um I

0:44 ↗ just want to check in with the clerk to

0:46 ↗ see if anyone signed in in advance for

0:47 ↗ public comment.

0:49 ↗ >> No chair, they have not.

0:51 ↗ >> And do we have any members of the public

0:52 ↗ online with us right now?

0:55 ↗ No chair, we do not.

0:56 ↗ >> Great. I do see some members of the

0:58 ↗ public with us. Anyone that would like

1:00 ↗ to provide public comment now? There

1:02 ↗ will also be an opportunity after the

1:04 ↗ presentation for public comment and our

1:06 ↗ question and answer period.

1:10 ↗ You want to go now or later?

1:13 ↗ >> You could you could do both, too. Yeah.

1:16 ↗ >> Later. Later. See you.

1:19 ↗ Good. Oh, you'd like to go now? All

1:22 ↗ right. you've heard our kind of public

1:24 ↗ comment guidelines many times. So, I'm

1:26 ↗ just going to say stick to

1:30 ↗ >> Yeah, I'll just say stick to five

1:32 ↗ minutes and um start with name and and

1:35 ↗ where you from. Thanks.

1:36 ↗ >> Uh David Kappler, 255 Southeast Andrews

1:40 ↗ Street, downtown Isiqua. Um actually

1:44 ↗ what surprised me going through all the

1:46 ↗ materials was there was no no issues

1:49 ↗ about solar access

1:52 ↗ to uh roofs and um the tree issue

1:57 ↗ surrounding that. Um the solar I in the

2:01 ↗ winter the the big trees across the

2:04 ↗ alley from my roof um definitely cuts

2:08 ↗ down the solar solar access in the

2:11 ↗ summer. Um it seems I get a lot of sun

2:14 ↗ and I it and it it's amazing to me how

2:18 ↗ much I can carry through with Pug Sound

2:20 ↗ Energy uh credit on that and how low my

2:24 ↗ utility bill electric bill is uh for for

2:28 ↗ a number of months. But um I didn't see

2:32 ↗ any mention about solar access and tree

2:35 ↗ issues and how that might um be an

2:39 ↗ important one um

2:42 ↗ for for for certain people and for when

2:45 ↗ you have great access to it. It's um it

2:48 ↗ is

2:50 ↗ it's a financial and should be an

2:52 ↗ environmental benefit too. That's

2:55 ↗ different than the tree that the trees

2:57 ↗ are doing, but um it's it's important.

3:01 ↗ Um that's that's it. Thank you. Thank

3:06 ↗ you very much. Um and unless you say

3:09 ↗ otherwise, I'll just assume other

3:10 ↗ members of the public will give public

3:12 ↗ comment later. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Uh

3:15 ↗ then we will move on to approval of the

3:18 ↗ minutes of the July 8th, 2025 meeting

3:21 ↗ minutes which were distributed in

3:22 ↗ advance. I'll just ask the committee any

3:24 ↗ corrections or opposition to approving

3:26 ↗ by unanimous consent. All right, great.

3:29 ↗ Uh hearing none, the July 8th, 2025

3:31 ↗ meeting minutes are approved as

3:32 ↗ presented. And we'll now move into the

3:35 ↗ business of the evening. Uh agenda item

3:38 ↗ comm 0109, tree preservation code

3:40 ↗ amendments presented by Director

3:42 ↗ Dollywal. And uh director, feel free to

3:44 ↗ take it away whenever you're ready.

3:47 ↗ >> Good evening, council committee and

3:49 ↗ members of the community who are here

3:50 ↗ tonight. Um I am going to quickly share

3:54 ↗ my screen. Um

3:58 ↗ let's see.

4:10 ↗ All right. So, uh, we're here tonight,

4:12 ↗ uh, to talk about tree preservation code

4:14 ↗ amendments, um, and review the draft and

4:19 ↗ and after committee discussion, you can

4:21 ↗ finalize your recommendation, uh, to

4:24 ↗ full city council for adoption. A little

4:27 ↗ bit of background on the process piece

4:29 ↗ here. So, in 2023, the city did a major

4:33 ↗ overhaul of uh, all land use regulations

4:35 ↗ and included in there was a chapter for

4:38 ↗ tree preservation. Uh some of the big

4:41 ↗ changes that were done with the tree

4:43 ↗ preservation code were the methodology

4:45 ↗ of how the tree preservation was going

4:47 ↗ to is was preserved. Um so instead of

4:50 ↗ counting the number of trees uh a canopy

4:53 ↗ coverage uh methodology approach was um

4:56 ↗ put in place to meet the city's um

4:59 ↗ climate action plan goals of increasing

5:01 ↗ a tree canopy to 55%.

5:04 ↗ Um so this helped um you know uh not

5:08 ↗ only look at the number of trees being

5:10 ↗ preserved but there were incentives to

5:12 ↗ preserve larger canopy trees because you

5:15 ↗ could um it was based on the canopy

5:18 ↗ instead of uh counting the tree density.

5:21 ↗ Um so then as part of that uh was also

5:25 ↗ the the whole study done um we used the

5:28 ↗ city's 2019 urban tree canopy study that

5:32 ↗ had done it based on neighborhoods

5:34 ↗ established what the tree canopy

5:36 ↗ coverage was and then a table was formed

5:38 ↗ in the code to establish that canopy

5:41 ↗ coverage um and increased a little bit

5:44 ↗ to meet the the IAAP goal um by

5:47 ↗ neighborhood. So when we started

5:49 ↗ implementing the code, it became obvious

5:51 ↗ that uh a neighborhood percentage didn't

5:55 ↗ really work out on a parcel by parcel

5:56 ↗ basis. So hence uh this uh effort in

6:00 ↗ 2025 was to fix that methodology. That

6:03 ↗ was the primary goal of bringing for

6:05 ↗ forward these code amendments and we

6:07 ↗ heard from applicants uh primarily

6:09 ↗ single family homeowners uh that removal

6:13 ↗ of one tree triggered the entire site to

6:15 ↗ be brought up uh to that percentage. So

6:17 ↗ it seemed disproportionate to the uh the

6:20 ↗ effort or the the action that the

6:23 ↗ applicant wanted to take and what uh we

6:26 ↗ were requiring. Um so we started in

6:29 ↗ about in April with conversation with

6:31 ↗ environmental board. Uh had a meeting

6:33 ↗ with planning and policy commission

6:35 ↗ followed through a couple meetings in

6:37 ↗ May and June. Um and July 10th is when

6:41 ↗ the planning and policy commission held

6:42 ↗ the formal hearing although public

6:44 ↗ comments came in throughout uh this

6:46 ↗ process and they deliberated at that

6:49 ↗ meeting on July 10th and and we are here

6:53 ↗ to present uh their recommendation to

6:55 ↗ you.

6:57 ↗ Um so the first uh main policy changes

7:01 ↗ as part of this grouping uh is really

7:04 ↗ the canopy co cover targets. So instead

7:08 ↗ of basing it on neighborhood uh it still

7:11 ↗ takes into account the tree canopy study

7:14 ↗ that had um established um percentages

7:18 ↗ based on potential plant planting areas.

7:21 ↗ So you know you take out your water

7:23 ↗ bodies, you take out your streets and

7:25 ↗ your impervious surface, your roof lines

7:26 ↗ and all that and and through that canopy

7:29 ↗ study you can establish what's the

7:30 ↗ planting possible planting areas by

7:32 ↗ neighborhood. So that factored in into

7:35 ↗ it. Uh we looked at land uses,

7:38 ↗ residential, commercial, mixed wherever

7:41 ↗ uh that belonged and then what were the

7:43 ↗ lot sizes and then what's in the table.

7:46 ↗ Now it takes all of that into

7:48 ↗ consideration and your canopy cover

7:51 ↗ targets are based on lot size and land

7:54 ↗ use. Um and it still takes into

7:57 ↗ consideration possible planting areas in

7:59 ↗ those neighborhoods as we parse those

8:01 ↗ out by zone. Uh the other um objective

8:05 ↗ uh or main policy change in the in these

8:07 ↗ proposed amendments is um

8:12 ↗ uh related I don't know what happened.

8:13 ↗ Okay. Um

8:17 ↗ um simplified regulations related to

8:20 ↗ hazardous trees or nuisance trees and

8:22 ↗ replacement for existing developed

8:24 ↗ properties. So to keep it simple, if you

8:26 ↗ take one tree out and it's a hazardous,

8:28 ↗ you can plant one one for one

8:30 ↗ replacement. If you think your property

8:32 ↗ has a lot of trees and you already meet

8:34 ↗ the percentage, you can give us the

8:36 ↗ calculation and um you don't have to

8:40 ↗ replant because you already meet your

8:41 ↗ percentage. Uh but if you don't want to

8:43 ↗ do the calculation, you just want to

8:45 ↗ take one out and replant, you can do the

8:47 ↗ streamline process with that. Uh we also

8:50 ↗ change the nuisance tree definition. So

8:52 ↗ it's not just um you know causing damage

8:55 ↗ but uh also likely to cause damage. So,

8:58 ↗ if we know this particular type of a

9:00 ↗ tree is going to create a uh a hazard on

9:04 ↗ sidewalk, streets by buckling, instead

9:07 ↗ of waiting for it to cause the damage,

9:08 ↗ we can preemptively um take some of the

9:11 ↗ actions uh or allow some of those

9:13 ↗ removals. Um the other one um was to

9:18 ↗ clarify that the table of tree canopy

9:21 ↗ coverage is only triggered when you're

9:23 ↗ doing brand new development or

9:25 ↗ redevelopment. And redevelopment is

9:27 ↗ defined in the land use code as 50%

9:30 ↗ improvement value. So and and and it's

9:32 ↗ also not just you know interior work.

9:35 ↗ You're you're actually expanding and

9:36 ↗ things like that for the purposes of the

9:38 ↗ tree code. The last big policy change

9:42 ↗ here was to build in some flexibility

9:44 ↗ for central Isiqua sub area because a

9:46 ↗ lot of trees there are parking lot trees

9:48 ↗ as redevelopment occurs. uh you know, is

9:51 ↗ there value in saving scrawny parking

9:54 ↗ lot trees versus getting redevelopment

9:56 ↗ or transition of those parking lots into

9:59 ↗ more intensive uses? Um so there's a

10:02 ↗ criteria to allow um those trees to be

10:06 ↗ replanted with the idea that you would

10:08 ↗ still be able to increase tree canopy in

10:11 ↗ those areas cuz the one of the things

10:13 ↗ that the canopy study has shown is that

10:16 ↗ places like that are urban heat island

10:18 ↗ effects. So we do need more trees in in

10:21 ↗ central Isiqua in the highlands because

10:24 ↗ um that's where um the there are the

10:27 ↗ canopy coverage is less not overall but

10:30 ↗ in certain areas um of the those sub

10:34 ↗ areas. Um let's see. So um you know a

10:40 ↗ few of these slides are real quickly

10:41 ↗ walking through what we heard from

10:43 ↗ environmental board and planning and

10:45 ↗ policy commission at these meetings. I'm

10:47 ↗ going to quickly go through them. Um but

10:48 ↗ it's just to give you a sense of what

10:51 ↗ sort of discussion happened at those

10:53 ↗ meetings. Uh environmental board also

10:55 ↗ wrote up a letter with the

10:56 ↗ recommendation that's in your packet. Um

10:59 ↗ there was discussion about how tree fund

11:01 ↗ is used. They wanted more real world

11:04 ↗ testing of you know on this parcel this

11:06 ↗ is the lot size how many trees and that

11:08 ↗ sort of stuff. Um they wanted to address

11:11 ↗ heat island effect u problem. Um there

11:15 ↗ was discussion about multifamily and

11:17 ↗ whether what's the right target for that

11:19 ↗ type of land use. Um also discussion

11:22 ↗ about coordination with wildfire

11:23 ↗ mitigation. Uh and part of that uh we'll

11:27 ↗ get into it a little bit. Um they wanted

11:30 ↗ to explore new approach for homeowner

11:32 ↗ association own trackcts. Um and then

11:35 ↗ also identify planting areas with

11:37 ↗ flexibility. Um the um

11:44 ↗ then uh some other things we heard was

11:46 ↗ public education was important around

11:48 ↗ trees, clarifying replacement

11:50 ↗ regulations,

11:52 ↗ uh relief for emergency events,

11:54 ↗ flexibility for central Isiqua. They

11:56 ↗ wanted a little bit more time to talk

11:58 ↗ about some of these things. Planning and

12:01 ↗ policy commission said, uh we don't have

12:03 ↗ a really small lot category. So,

12:06 ↗ anything less than 5,000, we should

12:08 ↗ probably add the category. And so, we

12:09 ↗ added that. Um, they talked about

12:13 ↗ city-owned properties. Um, you know, you

12:16 ↗ know, more of a program for how we can

12:18 ↗ do more plantings on city- owned

12:20 ↗ properties. So, that comes from the

12:22 ↗ urban forestry program and city's first

12:25 ↗ urban forestry plan. Um, they wanted to

12:28 ↗ discuss deciduous versus evergreen uh

12:30 ↗ replacement. So, you know, the code

12:32 ↗ currently allows um some sort of um you

12:36 ↗ know, flexibility. Uh they wanted to

12:38 ↗ adjust the hazardous tree exemption. Um

12:41 ↗ talked about tree giveaway programs. So,

12:44 ↗ not really code issues, but more

12:45 ↗ programmatic things. Um wanted us to

12:48 ↗ continue to to keep a pulse on wildfire

12:51 ↗ code updates and and and you know, keep

12:53 ↗ that on the radar for future

12:55 ↗ conversations, but add some fix small

12:58 ↗ fixes at this time. uh they wanted us to

13:00 ↗ include some example site plans for you

13:02 ↗ all. Um again we posed few policy

13:06 ↗ questions to both of them. I'll get into

13:08 ↗ that a little bit and like I said

13:11 ↗ environmental board has their

13:13 ↗ recommendation in a letter format in

13:14 ↗ your packet. the deliberation with the

13:17 ↗ planning and policy commission on July

13:19 ↗ 10th. Um they passed on the draft code

13:22 ↗ and asked us to make some of these

13:24 ↗ changes and one of them was um you know

13:27 ↗ if the tree is already down through a

13:30 ↗ bomb cyclone and others uh do we do we

13:33 ↗ really need a permit? Do we need an

13:34 ↗ arburous report to clarify that? Because

13:37 ↗ there's an emergency tree removal

13:39 ↗ section, but that is if there is an

13:42 ↗ impending danger and you're trying to

13:44 ↗ take it down. And so we've clarified

13:45 ↗ that if it's already a fallen tree, you

13:48 ↗ don't need an arborist report. It's

13:50 ↗ already down. Um they they wanted to

13:53 ↗ kind of make sure um you all um

13:57 ↗ understood the central ESQA flexibility

14:00 ↗ piece um that's in the draft code.

14:04 ↗ uh HOA permitting uh which isn't a code

14:07 ↗ issue, but you know, if a homeowner

14:08 ↗ association owns multiple tracks, this

14:11 ↗ happens uh for a Talis neighborhood that

14:13 ↗ we could review it all under one permit

14:15 ↗ instead of getting separate permits. And

14:17 ↗ that's just an implementation thing. We

14:19 ↗ don't need a code change for that. Um

14:22 ↗ they also wanted to clarify the

14:23 ↗ interplay between critical area code and

14:25 ↗ tree code that that's specifically

14:27 ↗ called out and so we made sure the

14:28 ↗ language is in there that um discusses

14:31 ↗ that because the critical area code also

14:33 ↗ has no net loss requirements and things

14:35 ↗ like that that come from state law. Um

14:38 ↗ so but you still need to meet critical

14:39 ↗ area code requirements uh if the if the

14:42 ↗ tree is in a in a critical area, steep

14:45 ↗ slopes, wetlands, stream buffers and so

14:48 ↗ um there was some awkward language about

14:50 ↗ onetoone replacement that came from

14:52 ↗ public uh comments as well and they

14:54 ↗ wanted to fix that. Um they also wanted

14:57 ↗ us to reach out to tribes about the

14:58 ↗ heritage tree program which uh Dan Hints

15:01 ↗ from parks department and I did meet

15:04 ↗ with them and um have proposed some uh

15:07 ↗ draft language uh in the code here. Um

15:11 ↗ so some of the policy questions that we

15:13 ↗ asked throughout this process was uh

15:15 ↗ should this you know if this if the site

15:17 ↗ meets the canopy coverage targets do we

15:20 ↗ really need onetoone replacement and the

15:22 ↗ answer was no. uh if you already have a

15:25 ↗ site that meets your canopy coverage and

15:27 ↗ you have a tree that needs to come out,

15:29 ↗ you do not need to replant it because

15:30 ↗ your site meets and both environmental

15:33 ↗ board and uh planning and policy

15:35 ↗ commission recommended that. Um we asked

15:38 ↗ them about this. This is the main policy

15:41 ↗ uh question about the methodology for

15:44 ↗ creating this table which is taking the

15:46 ↗ urban tree canopy potential planning

15:48 ↗ areas average lot size and then coming

15:51 ↗ up with a percentage. Um and so instead

15:54 ↗ of going by the neighborhood now it's

15:56 ↗ based on zone and the land use uh and

15:59 ↗ the lot size. Um so they agreed with the

16:02 ↗ proposed recommended uh table in the

16:05 ↗ draft. um some examples of what the old

16:08 ↗ method and the new method um show. So

16:11 ↗ for instance in Talis um overall

16:14 ↗ neighborhood canopy is 73% but that

16:17 ↗ includes some of the areas that are

16:19 ↗ protected open spaces. Um and uh 73% is

16:23 ↗ almost impossible for any lots to meet.

16:26 ↗ U the the language in the code did not

16:29 ↗ allow any fee in lie of option and the

16:32 ↗ lot size was not considered. So um under

16:36 ↗ the new method the canopy coverage is

16:38 ↗ 25%. It's feasible for most lots. Uh if

16:42 ↗ you really can't do this then you can

16:44 ↗ put a fee in lie of you can still pay

16:46 ↗ fee in lie of um and lot size is

16:49 ↗ considered. Um the

16:54 ↗ uh part about the another example

16:56 ↗ Oldtown um had a 33% because that you

17:00 ↗ know that's what was for the whole

17:02 ↗ neighborhood. uh it goes up to 35%. So

17:05 ↗ this is where it got slightly up. Um

17:09 ↗ again fee and loo was provided as an

17:11 ↗ option in most cases to build in that

17:13 ↗ flexibility that if there's really no

17:15 ↗ room on your property then you can pay

17:18 ↗ um fee in Lua for replacement. Um

17:22 ↗ the third question we asked them was um

17:27 ↗ you know when do these target uh

17:30 ↗ percentages uh come into play? um in all

17:33 ↗ situations or only when with new

17:35 ↗ development or redevelopment and so I

17:37 ↗ think everyone consensus around new

17:40 ↗ development and redevelopment

17:42 ↗ replacement uh should be one to one or

17:44 ↗ one to2 we'll get into that um

17:48 ↗ uh so yeah the clarification that

17:50 ↗ hazardous or nuisance trees are onetoone

17:53 ↗ replacement unless of course your

17:54 ↗ property already meets the uh table

17:58 ↗ canopy coverage then no replacement is

18:00 ↗ required landmark trees need to be

18:02 ↗ repled based at 1 to2 um and central

18:07 ↗ esiqua uh flexibility you can reduce

18:10 ↗ your percentage of 25% need to be tree

18:14 ↗ preservation. So the way the tree

18:16 ↗ regulations work is there's a separate

18:18 ↗ section about tree preservation. So if

18:21 ↗ you're doing any sort of development you

18:23 ↗ need to save some of those existing

18:24 ↗ trees. Typically in this in central

18:27 ↗ Isiqua it's 25%.

18:29 ↗ Then you have this table that

18:31 ↗ establishes what percentage you need to

18:34 ↗ to meet when you're all said and done

18:36 ↗ with your rede development or

18:37 ↗ redevelopment. So for the purposes of

18:42 ↗ saving the existing trees, it's because

18:44 ↗ even if you plant a new tree, it's going

18:45 ↗ to take 20 years to to grow. So there's

18:48 ↗ a temporal loss of benefits from the

18:51 ↗ tree. So the idea that you at least get

18:52 ↗ to save some some of those existing and

18:54 ↗ there's a priority like save the biggest

18:56 ↗ ones, save the ones in a grouping.

18:58 ↗ However, we we you know came into some

19:01 ↗ of the development proposals that you

19:03 ↗ really can't save even 25%. Uh when

19:08 ↗ you're looking at redevelopment, the

19:10 ↗ trail head project being one um and and

19:14 ↗ others. So the the council had to uh do

19:17 ↗ add that in their in your housing, you

19:19 ↗ know, development agreement piece or

19:21 ↗ housing authority agreement. Um so we've

19:25 ↗ defined when you when you're allowed to

19:28 ↗ take out more than you know 20 more than

19:32 ↗ 75%.

19:33 ↗ uh it mean it's either a nuisance or a

19:35 ↗ hazard or you need it for site access or

19:38 ↗ you need it for frontage improvements or

19:39 ↗ utility connections or there's a

19:42 ↗ conflict between forming intensity

19:43 ↗ standard. So if you we're trying to you

19:45 ↗ know get more dense development in

19:47 ↗ central Isiqua then and there's a clump

19:49 ↗ of trees in the middle of the site then

19:51 ↗ that probably needs to go in order to

19:53 ↗ put the building there but you still can

19:54 ↗ plant trees around the perimeter and and

19:57 ↗ other places. Um, so that's sort of the

20:00 ↗ criteria and in order to not give

20:04 ↗ everyone uh, you know, no incentive for

20:09 ↗ taking every tree out, the the bee gets

20:11 ↗ into some of the nuances that yes, you

20:14 ↗ can, you know, take down more than 75%.

20:18 ↗ But the ones that you need to replant

20:21 ↗ for those are for every one tree 6 in of

20:26 ↗ diameter you need to plant one tree. So

20:28 ↗ you still need to account for the ones

20:30 ↗ you've taken down and and get those in

20:33 ↗ place in addition to meeting your canopy

20:35 ↗ coverage. So there's a little bit of an

20:37 ↗ incentive if there's a way they want to

20:39 ↗ someone wants to preserve existing

20:41 ↗ trees. They don't have you know they

20:44 ↗ don't have to replant those. So it gets

20:46 ↗ complex but I'm happy to answer any

20:47 ↗ questions you might have um around it.

20:51 ↗ >> I have a I have a quick one then just to

20:53 ↗ clarify. So would this set of

20:56 ↗ flexibility criteria then cover the

20:58 ↗ example that you had kind of earlier in

21:00 ↗ the presentation around new central

21:04 ↗ isqua development in parking lots where

21:07 ↗ we're anticipating um larger density

21:09 ↗ where the trees are maybe in some median

21:13 ↗ strip in the middle of the parking lot

21:14 ↗ where the building is actually going to

21:16 ↗ be itself.

21:17 ↗ >> Yeah.

21:17 ↗ >> Okay. It does. Okay.

21:19 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. So, here's an actual example

21:22 ↗ that development commission just

21:23 ↗ approved earlier this month. So, the

21:26 ↗ proposal is was to take down this

21:28 ↗ building. It's in mixeduse um central

21:31 ↗ Isiqua. Um and there's a stream on one

21:35 ↗ side of the property. Uh there are some

21:37 ↗ conifers or evergreens along the stream

21:40 ↗ that they could save and they are going

21:42 ↗ to save, but they're going to infill uh

21:44 ↗ a lot of that to help with this, you

21:46 ↗ know, with the stream buffer. But some

21:49 ↗ of these other trees because frontage

21:51 ↗ improvement uh is required like bigger

21:54 ↗ sidewalks and and things of that nature.

21:56 ↗ Some of those trees along the perimeter

21:57 ↗ needed to go. Um and it's a townhouse

22:00 ↗ development. So overall when the project

22:03 ↗ is done, it'll still meet our our

22:04 ↗ coverage objectives. It'll be but it'll

22:06 ↗ be newer trees and as many trees in the

22:09 ↗ stream buffer that they could save, uh

22:11 ↗ they did. Um but flexibility was needed

22:14 ↗ in order for the redevelopment to go

22:15 ↗ instead of getting um these parking lot

22:18 ↗ trees to be preserved.

22:20 ↗ Um so wildfire mitigation um we

22:24 ↗ consulted with uh East Side Fire and

22:26 ↗ Rescue. uh we're using the standards in

22:29 ↗ the National Fire Professional

22:32 ↗ Association

22:33 ↗ uh training module which is relying on

22:36 ↗ some of the the guidance but uh we have

22:39 ↗ very good folks from um Epher that are

22:42 ↗ doing this. We met with Kate and she

22:44 ↗ kind of explained to us how they go

22:46 ↗ about doing it. They're not taking a

22:47 ↗ blanket approach of clear up everything

22:49 ↗ around the structures. So we felt

22:51 ↗ comfortable having that discussion.

22:53 ↗ environmental board member that actually

22:55 ↗ had them come to her property. We've

22:57 ↗ done this assessment also. Um discussed

23:00 ↗ this. Uh so we have a limited way of uh

23:04 ↗ anyone that has gone through this

23:06 ↗ process with East Side Fire and Rescue

23:09 ↗ can um get get a tree removal permit

23:12 ↗ approved as long as it's not in a

23:14 ↗ critical area because critical area

23:16 ↗ regulations still apply. Um, one of the

23:19 ↗ comments we heard from East Side Fire

23:21 ↗ and Rescue is to take out the reference

23:23 ↗ to East Side Fire and Rescue, but allow

23:26 ↗ anyone that has national, you know, the

23:29 ↗ certification, uh, that we accept that.

23:32 ↗ Um, we believe at this point it's a

23:34 ↗ temporary, you know, band-aid measure

23:36 ↗ until we get the wildfire risk

23:39 ↗ assessment maps from Department of

23:41 ↗ Natural Resources and we have a more

23:43 ↗ robust discussion about it. Um because

23:46 ↗ we also don't want anyone coming and

23:48 ↗ saying I'm certified with NFPA and

23:50 ↗ therefore I need to take these trees

23:51 ↗ down. Um there's more of a little bit of

23:54 ↗ a comfort level if it's coming from East

23:56 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue. But that uh is

23:59 ↗ based just on their own um you know

24:02 ↗ where they are today and and the program

24:04 ↗ and and their uh desire to maybe let

24:08 ↗ anyone who is and it could be King

24:10 ↗ County Conservation District who who is

24:12 ↗ this. uh we can always come back and

24:14 ↗ revisit that. Um

24:17 ↗ so the other I think we kind of I walked

24:20 ↗ you through these um as we were going

24:23 ↗ through.

24:24 ↗ Um and then we asked them any other

24:27 ↗ changes they wanted to consider and so

24:29 ↗ there were a few tweaks here and there

24:30 ↗ that that were made to the code. Um so

24:33 ↗ whatever um is in front of you was

24:35 ↗ discussed with PPC and the five or six

24:38 ↗ bullet points that they wanted to uh us

24:41 ↗ to make those changes. So, we've made

24:43 ↗ those changes and we have a draft code

24:45 ↗ in front of you. Uh, the next steps

24:47 ↗ would be after your discussion

24:49 ↗ deliberation, we would um take it to if

24:52 ↗ you're ready to deliberate tonight uh

24:54 ↗ for August October 6th, we can put it

24:57 ↗ for a city council adoption

25:00 ↗ and you can tell us if you want it on

25:02 ↗ consent or regular depending on your

25:04 ↗ discussion tonight.

25:07 ↗ That concludes my presentation. Again,

25:10 ↗ we have this code for your discussion

25:12 ↗ and finalizing your recommendation to

25:14 ↗ cancel.

25:17 ↗ >> And I should say one thing about the

25:19 ↗ public comments uh that were made

25:22 ↗ tonight about the solar access. So there

25:24 ↗ is already a section in the code back in

25:27 ↗ 2023 which uh allows removal of trees

25:31 ↗ providing solar access to building

25:33 ↗ incorporating an active solar energy

25:35 ↗ system. So that is already uh baked in

25:38 ↗ our code. Um and then I think um as you

25:42 ↗ hear some other public uh comments uh

25:44 ↗ tonight, it's been helpful to hear real

25:47 ↗ world examples of folks uh having some

25:50 ↗ issues uh with and and all of their

25:53 ↗ feedback has helped make the code better

25:55 ↗ and we've incorporated as much as we

25:57 ↗ could in in this code. there may be a

25:59 ↗ few things that they probably want to

26:01 ↗ share with you um to focus on.

26:07 ↗ >> Thank you very much, Dr. Dolly. I'll

26:10 ↗ open it up to the committee for

26:12 ↗ questions.

26:15 ↗ Anyone have questions? Council

26:16 ↗ President, start with you.

26:18 ↗ >> Yep. Um the environmental board asked uh

26:22 ↗ to do code testing. Did we do that? Was

26:26 ↗ that just the examples that were

26:29 ↗ provided?

26:31 ↗ >> Correct. So we looked at some of those

26:32 ↗ specific sites and so that was early on

26:35 ↗ at the at the stage. So then we had

26:38 ↗ specific sites and lot sizes and looked

26:41 ↗ at um the examples that we shared.

26:45 ↗ >> Okay. Um if replanting needs to be done,

26:51 ↗ can it be done within the critical area?

26:54 ↗ >> Yes. Okay. So, they'd be able to add to

27:00 ↗ and enhance a critical area um and not

27:03 ↗ necessarily have to plant outside of

27:06 ↗ that critical area if they were removing

27:08 ↗ >> the because that's improving, you know,

27:10 ↗ it's not a loss. It's improving the

27:12 ↗ critical area. You can also take down

27:14 ↗ hazardous and nuisance trees in a

27:16 ↗ critical area. um you know and you know

27:19 ↗ the section goes goes into uh some other

27:24 ↗ higher bar that you know you have to

27:26 ↗ show can you avoid it, can it be

27:28 ↗ mitigated, can you leave the snags in

27:30 ↗ place and in a limited fashion but not

27:32 ↗ clear cutting for wildfire risk

27:34 ↗ assessment would be would be more of a

27:37 ↗ severe impact that couldn't qu meet our

27:40 ↗ critical area code.

27:42 ↗ >> Okay.

27:44 ↗ Um, my big question,

27:50 ↗ I understand why our current code isn't

27:53 ↗ working

27:55 ↗ and I think it's a big problem that

27:56 ↗ we've had it for 2 years while it isn't

27:59 ↗ working.

28:00 ↗ I don't understand why

28:05 ↗ we're necessarily not looking to do

28:08 ↗ something more similar to what other

28:11 ↗ cities are doing, have been doing what

28:14 ↗ we used to do. I understand our idea is

28:18 ↗ to increase tree canopy and that that is

28:23 ↗ a fantastic goal. Um, I'm just not sure

28:27 ↗ I understand the relationship between

28:30 ↗ that and the customer service of dealing

28:34 ↗ with homeowners who are trying to take

28:36 ↗ down trees, trying to make adjustments

28:38 ↗ to their property or the benefits that

28:41 ↗ we get from

28:44 ↗ being able to more cost-effectively

28:48 ↗ build affordable housing. Um, so I'm

28:51 ↗ trying to understand why we think this

28:55 ↗ is better than taking the approaches

28:58 ↗ that other cities around us do. Um, and

29:02 ↗ whether it's worth the

29:05 ↗ additional

29:06 ↗ regulatory cost or, you know, the the

29:09 ↗ time it takes to interpret and

29:11 ↗ understand and um deal with the code

29:15 ↗ that we're putting in place here.

29:17 ↗ >> Uh, sure. Sure. I want to make sure I

29:19 ↗ understand. So, you're talking about the

29:21 ↗ methodology, the canopy coverage

29:22 ↗ methodology versus just counting the

29:24 ↗ trees.

29:26 ↗ Yeah. I mean, that was all discussed um

29:29 ↗ during the initial update and and the

29:32 ↗ the pros and cons. The bene benefit of

29:35 ↗ that was um that there's some incentive

29:39 ↗ for people to keep larger larger canopy

29:42 ↗ trees. So, if you have five on your

29:44 ↗ property and you only needed to save

29:47 ↗ one, you would take the largest tree

29:50 ↗ canopy and you would leave the the

29:51 ↗ smallest tree. You know, in a in a

29:53 ↗ hypothetical example, with a canopy

29:56 ↗ coverage, you there's more of an

29:58 ↗ incentive of keeping a a tree that

30:00 ↗ provides larger canopy if you are

30:03 ↗ allowed to take four and save one.

30:05 ↗ Right? So, if there's a percentage of

30:07 ↗ canopy, you have more options. you have

30:10 ↗ um but there's an there's a expectation

30:14 ↗ that you would preserve larger canopy

30:18 ↗ that that was sort of the discussion

30:19 ↗ back at the time. Um counting trees may

30:23 ↗ be simpler uh for tree preservation or

30:27 ↗ measure you know the tree preservation

30:28 ↗ piece still measures the diameter. So,

30:31 ↗ it still talks about you need to save

30:32 ↗ 25% of the diameter, but if you're doing

30:35 ↗ a new development of uh a property, it

30:39 ↗ it's not you need to, you know, it's

30:41 ↗ based on for this site, you need to have

30:44 ↗ at least 25% canopy coverage or 35%

30:47 ↗ canopy coverage. So, it's it's

30:49 ↗ >> okay. So if I'm understanding it then

30:53 ↗ the idea as much as we're calling this

30:55 ↗ tree canopy

30:57 ↗ >> the tree canopy concept only comes into

30:59 ↗ place if somebody's doing a

31:01 ↗ redevelopment

31:03 ↗ otherwise it uses a more traditional

31:08 ↗ concept and similar to what other cities

31:11 ↗ do related to diameter breast height

31:14 ↗ right

31:14 ↗ >> yeah so there three three sections so

31:17 ↗ tree preservation is by diameter

31:20 ↗ the the new development and

31:22 ↗ redevelopment is by canopy coverage and

31:25 ↗ then you have a hazardous tree or a

31:28 ↗ nuisance tree replacement which is sort

31:29 ↗ of a canopy coverage. So if you take

31:31 ↗ down a huge um you know dug fur that has

31:37 ↗ x percentage of canopy coverage, you

31:39 ↗ need to plan something that eventually

31:42 ↗ will be uh that prov you know there

31:45 ↗ won't be a net loss. Mhm.

31:47 ↗ >> Um because if you just do one for one

31:50 ↗ replacement, you might take down a Doug

31:52 ↗ fur and plant a small apple tree and

31:55 ↗ then you you know, which isn't going to

31:58 ↗ give you the kind of canopy coverage as

31:59 ↗ as a 20, you know, larger tree that will

32:02 ↗ grow overtime. So there could be

32:04 ↗ potential loss of canopy for the

32:07 ↗ citywide pieces. So I think it all ties

32:10 ↗ into what the policy discussions for the

32:13 ↗ city were to increase the canopy

32:15 ↗ coverage by 55% and how to how to

32:18 ↗ achieve that.

32:19 ↗ >> Okay. So I understand the

32:22 ↗ >> tree the hazardous tree I understand the

32:25 ↗ infill and redevelopment when you're

32:28 ↗ talking about tree preservation when

32:30 ↗ does that come into account?

32:32 ↗ >> That comes into play with development

32:35 ↗ and redevelopment. So you you still

32:38 ↗ so if you have to do redevelopment

32:41 ↗ eventually you need to meet this canopy

32:43 ↗ coverage but if you have existing trees

32:45 ↗ you need to make an attempt to save them

32:47 ↗ at least 25% of them. So there's not a

32:50 ↗ temporal loss that you know if in in the

32:54 ↗ next 20 years you won't have that sort

32:56 ↗ of canopy coverage. So there's some

32:58 ↗ requirement to keep existing trees. So

33:01 ↗ if if someone was doing a plat for

33:03 ↗ example and building 20 new new lots or

33:06 ↗ >> 20 new town homes or whatever uh there

33:09 ↗ are

33:11 ↗ large trees that can be preserved that

33:14 ↗ potentially you know are providing shade

33:18 ↗ other ecological benefits that come with

33:20 ↗ trees then you you have to save at least

33:23 ↗ 25% of those. In some areas, I think the

33:26 ↗ largest preservation requirement is 35%.

33:29 ↗ And that's based on caliber inches. So,

33:32 ↗ you measure, you know, there are 10

33:34 ↗ trees, one is 2 in, the other one is 20

33:37 ↗ in, you add up all your inches, and 25%

33:40 ↗ of those inches you got to save. So, you

33:43 ↗ have flexibility which trees you want to

33:44 ↗ save. You could save a lot of small ones

33:46 ↗ in a corner because it's in a grouping,

33:48 ↗ or you could save one big one. But

33:50 ↗ overall, your caliper inches get

33:53 ↗ preserved with the idea that you don't

33:56 ↗ clearcut the entire site. You're able to

33:59 ↗ save some during development and

34:01 ↗ redevelopment. So, that doesn't come

34:03 ↗ into play with with

34:06 ↗ existing homeowners or anything like

34:08 ↗ that. So, okay, I'm going to have to

34:12 ↗ think all of that over again because

34:14 ↗ this is a very meaty topic. It really

34:17 ↗ gets down into, you know, where are our

34:20 ↗ goals and our priorities as a city and

34:23 ↗ what are the downsides of making certain

34:26 ↗ decisions. So, thank you.

34:29 ↗ >> And just to jump on that real quick and

34:31 ↗ then we'll go to Council Member Jen,

34:33 ↗ didn't you also say so like in a in a

34:36 ↗ residential lot, a single family

34:37 ↗ residential lot, if you meet canopy goal

34:41 ↗ uh target already, you don't have to do

34:44 ↗ a one for one replacement. So it also

34:46 ↗ does make its way back into it

34:48 ↗ sometimes, right? Tree

34:49 ↗ >> the canopy coverage thing still. Yeah.

34:52 ↗ So if you if you have pretty heavily

34:55 ↗ canopy canopied lot and you have a

34:58 ↗ hazard tree or a nuisance tree, you can

35:00 ↗ take it out without replacement.

35:03 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Um Council Member Jane,

35:06 ↗ go ahead.

35:08 ↗ >> Um thanks Director Dollywal for this

35:10 ↗ great presentation. Um could you explain

35:12 ↗ how subdivision could potentially affect

35:14 ↗ the percentage of tree canopy required?

35:16 ↗ So just you know basically from 10 to

35:19 ↗ 15,000 square feet per lot it's 45%

35:22 ↗ required from 5 to 10,000 ft 35%

35:25 ↗ required 5,000 less 25%. So, I'm curious

35:28 ↗ like if you had also Okay, so if you

35:32 ↗ have a 10,000 foot lot, let's say, you

35:34 ↗ know, you need either 35%

35:38 ↗ or 45% um tree canopy. If you get

35:41 ↗ subdivided into four 2500 foot square

35:44 ↗ foot lots, would you then go down to the

35:46 ↗ 25% requirement?

35:51 ↗ Sorry if that question was unclear.

35:53 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I hear I hear what

35:55 ↗ you're saying. Let me find that table

35:57 ↗ here. Um, so you in your example that

36:00 ↗ you were talking about, there's a

36:01 ↗ 10,000t lot.

36:03 ↗ >> Yeah.

36:03 ↗ >> Um, and if it's zoned any one of these,

36:06 ↗ it's it's probably like a 45% canopy.

36:09 ↗ >> Yeah.

36:10 ↗ >> Uh, and then you're down to

36:13 ↗ say 5,000 ft,

36:16 ↗ >> four lots,

36:18 ↗ >> and those are at 25% each.

36:22 ↗ So yeah, with subdivision you

36:24 ↗ potentially could in in your example.

36:27 ↗ Yeah.

36:28 ↗ >> Um so 45%

36:31 ↗ of 10,000 is going to be 4500 square

36:34 ↗ foot of canopy cover and then uh 25% of

36:39 ↗ 5,000 is

36:43 ↗ >> Yeah.

36:44 ↗ >> Yeah.

36:44 ↗ >> I mean it would it' be you know 25% of

36:47 ↗ the whole area compared to 45% of the

36:48 ↗ whole

36:48 ↗ >> Yeah. 25 per each lot because but your

36:51 ↗ lot size is getting smaller. So yes, in

36:53 ↗ that example you could potentially lose

36:56 ↗ that.

36:57 ↗ >> Uh however, I would say that you know as

36:59 ↗ there'll be a few checks and balances.

37:01 ↗ So the first would be you come in and

37:03 ↗ you want to shortplat your 10,000t lot

37:05 ↗ into four lots.

37:07 ↗ >> Yeah.

37:07 ↗ >> Right. So the 25% free preservation

37:10 ↗ requirement might kick in. So you will

37:12 ↗ have to save some for your platt plat

37:15 ↗ itself at that time. And then for each

37:18 ↗ lot you would. So

37:20 ↗ theoretically, yes, it could be a dip.

37:23 ↗ Um, practically, you know, between tree

37:26 ↗ preservation and getting this, there'll

37:28 ↗ be that balance of getting development

37:30 ↗ and still getting some tree canopy.

37:32 ↗ Yeah.

37:32 ↗ >> Yeah. Well, thanks for clarifying. Um, I

37:35 ↗ guess one other thing that is a bit

37:37 ↗ confusing in the code now that I'm

37:39 ↗ looking at it again is that, you know,

37:41 ↗ there's one section that says 5,000 to

37:43 ↗ 10,000 square feet and the next one says

37:45 ↗ 10,000 to 15,000 ft². I don't know if

37:47 ↗ there's any lot that is exactly 10,000

37:50 ↗ square ft, you know, with not not

37:53 ↗ >> fall under that category that which

37:55 ↗ category it would fall into. So, I'd

37:56 ↗ recommend changing it one of them to

37:58 ↗ like 9999 or 10,0001

38:00 ↗ >> or less than or more than or something

38:02 ↗ like that. Yeah, yeah, we can make that

38:05 ↗ change.

38:05 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

38:08 ↗ >> Um, oh, yeah, I did have more questions.

38:10 ↗ Um, okay, so I was curious, there's one

38:13 ↗ section on replacement trees that says,

38:15 ↗ you know, there's an inspection

38:16 ↗ required. Who performs those

38:18 ↗ inspections?

38:20 ↗ Um, basically it's like there's an

38:22 ↗ required inspection to confirm that the,

38:24 ↗ you know, tree species and all planting

38:28 ↗ whatever is good.

38:30 ↗ >> Yeah. So we have a staff member um

38:32 ↗ senior planning inspector who reviews

38:35 ↗ the tree permits and also goes and does

38:38 ↗ inspections for uh trees. Okay, great.

38:42 ↗ Um and then there are a few things that

38:45 ↗ um we had talked about that I don't

38:47 ↗ think are incorporated in this tree code

38:49 ↗ update in particular. you know, codes

38:51 ↗ related to um wildfire and removing tree

38:54 ↗ hazard trees within wildfire buffers. Um

38:57 ↗ as well as potentially, you know, the

38:59 ↗ cost of tree permits, which are we've

39:02 ↗ heard in some of our public comments

39:04 ↗ that they're very high. Um so I'm

39:05 ↗ curious when we're planning on um

39:07 ↗ looking at those.

39:09 ↗ >> Yeah. So, uh, for the wildfire, um, risk

39:13 ↗ assessment maps that Department of

39:15 ↗ Natural Resources is producing are

39:17 ↗ anticipated to come out next summer. So,

39:20 ↗ once we get those, uh, then we will, uh,

39:23 ↗ review them, see where they go. Uh,

39:27 ↗ there's also, you know, going to be some

39:29 ↗ state legislation potentially around

39:32 ↗ that because some of the lessons that

39:34 ↗ were learned from Oregon were when those

39:37 ↗ maps came out, insurance is pulled out.

39:39 ↗ um people lost insurance coverage and

39:41 ↗ those kind of things, right? So, we need

39:43 ↗ to wait and see how that all um plays

39:46 ↗ out with the state rolling out new maps,

39:49 ↗ any changes in state law. Um and then

39:54 ↗ and then the interplay between trees and

39:58 ↗ critical areas if there's some

40:00 ↗ clarification on what what that looks

40:02 ↗ like. um for if you are in a stream

40:06 ↗ buffer for instance um and wildfire risk

40:09 ↗ assessment if there's an overlap between

40:11 ↗ those two what to do. Uh so that'll be

40:14 ↗ the meteor discussion uh but that that

40:17 ↗ will follow after uh the maps are done.

40:21 ↗ Uh as you may remember, we had this

40:23 ↗ conversation with council in the past uh

40:26 ↗ when wildland urban interface was an

40:28 ↗ optional item under the building code

40:31 ↗ which is in title 16. And at the time um

40:35 ↗ the city did adopt just one provision of

40:37 ↗ that code which was if you have a home

40:40 ↗ at the end of uh a driveway which is

40:42 ↗ more than 300 ft, you have to provide a

40:44 ↗ turnaround for fire uh equipment to get

40:47 ↗ up and serve the home. But the the tree

40:51 ↗ mitigation stuff was not handled. There

40:53 ↗ are other things that can be done for

40:55 ↗ structure hardening. You know, the type

40:57 ↗ of roofs, you know, to avoid embers from

40:59 ↗ taking off, the insulation protection,

41:02 ↗ blocking some of the openings, hardening

41:05 ↗ your structure and so on, and keeping

41:08 ↗ some space between dry vegetation in

41:11 ↗ your home. So, it'll be a fullon

41:13 ↗ discussion, but it will follow after

41:15 ↗ some next summer when the maps are out.

41:18 ↗ In terms of the cost of tree permits, we

41:20 ↗ heard a lot of public testimony and and

41:22 ↗ you know that's informed some of our

41:24 ↗ thought process here. Currently, um we

41:27 ↗ bring forth our fee ordinance to council

41:30 ↗ for annual inflation increases in

41:32 ↗ November. Uh so we will t and and then

41:35 ↗ during that time we tackle some of these

41:37 ↗ other things that either need to

41:39 ↗ streamline some fees because they're too

41:40 ↗ complex or make some of these

41:42 ↗ adjustments. So, we'll incorporate some

41:44 ↗ of that feedback uh during that time

41:47 ↗ when the the fees are updated. And the

41:49 ↗ feedback specifically from public um

41:52 ↗ comments during this update were related

41:54 ↗ to the cost of $350 is excessive and is

41:58 ↗ a barrier for people trying to come into

42:00 ↗ compliance that they might take down the

42:01 ↗ trees without getting a permit. uh we

42:04 ↗ have no fee permit for hazardous trees

42:07 ↗ and we have $350 permit for any other

42:10 ↗ type of tree removal, nuisance tree or

42:12 ↗ anything like that. So, you know, we can

42:15 ↗ bring forth some analysis that shows

42:18 ↗ maybe lowering the $350 fee but creating

42:21 ↗ a blanket fee for all permits so we're

42:24 ↗ not distinguishing because we do have

42:26 ↗ debates with folks of this is a hazard

42:28 ↗ tree, not a nuisance tree because the

42:29 ↗ hazard tree is zero cost. So there may

42:33 ↗ be some room for us to to fix some of

42:35 ↗ that problem and and look at how many

42:37 ↗ have we issued. You know, it's a it's

42:39 ↗ not a huge cost to the city, but we'll

42:42 ↗ bring that with the fee ordinance

42:44 ↗ update.

42:45 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

42:53 ↗ >> Maybe I'll just ask more broadly too

42:55 ↗ before we um launch into next round of

42:58 ↗ public comment. Um

43:02 ↗ it's it feels challenging to to

43:05 ↗ understand at times. Uh and I imagine

43:07 ↗ this is probably an area of code where

43:09 ↗ residents interact with more frequently

43:11 ↗ than other areas of code. Um

43:15 ↗ regardless of any changes committee

43:18 ↗ might like to see, let's say we decide

43:20 ↗ to move forward to council and then

43:22 ↗ council gives you the thumbs up and we

43:24 ↗ adopt it into code. what is done on the

43:27 ↗ implementation side to um help residents

43:31 ↗ interact or different code users

43:33 ↗ interact with the code. We've heard

43:34 ↗ things like kind of a matrix to really

43:37 ↗ visually see what's needed based on what

43:39 ↗ tree you have or what you're trying to

43:41 ↗ do. There's the kind of make your own

43:44 ↗ adventure story books from when we were

43:46 ↗ kids, right? For like you you're

43:48 ↗ starting out, you have a tree, here's

43:49 ↗ step one, step two. Just try and make it

43:52 ↗ more digestible for residents. what are

43:53 ↗ the things that kind of happen on the

43:54 ↗ back end that maybe we should be aware

43:56 ↗ of?

43:57 ↗ >> Yeah, great question and great feedback

43:59 ↗ uh from community members. We have a

44:01 ↗ lot, you know, we can certainly

44:03 ↗ prioritize the tree permits in terms of

44:05 ↗ the handouts, the communication piece. I

44:07 ↗ mean, there's a lot you can do these

44:09 ↗ days with more interactive things that

44:11 ↗ you're talking about, more

44:13 ↗ scenario-based examples for people to

44:15 ↗ understand and more clear guidance of

44:17 ↗ what you need and here's what here's you

44:19 ↗ go about doing it. So, we'll definitely

44:22 ↗ after council's adoption uh work on

44:25 ↗ videos, handouts, newsletters, a public

44:28 ↗ education piece, workshops, whatever

44:30 ↗ that uh implementation is is desired by

44:33 ↗ council. But definitely the website

44:36 ↗ update and handouts for sure.

44:40 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Um any other questions

44:42 ↗ from committee before we go into the

44:44 ↗ next round of public comment?

44:46 ↗ No. All right. Great. Then we're going

44:48 ↗ to go into um public comment next. Um

44:51 ↗ I'll just check in with our committee

44:53 ↗ clerk real quick to see if there are any

44:55 ↗ members of the public that have joined

44:56 ↗ us virtually.

44:58 ↗ >> No, chair.

44:59 ↗ >> Okay. So, no one's with us virtually. We

45:01 ↗ do have members of the public here. Um I

45:03 ↗ assume you'd like to provide public

45:06 ↗ comment. Is that correct? Okay. I won't

45:08 ↗ go through our whole list of uh kind of

45:10 ↗ guidelines since I've seen you kind of

45:12 ↗ interact here before. So, just a

45:14 ↗ reminder that um feel free to come on up

45:16 ↗ whichever of you would like to come

45:17 ↗ first to the lectern here. Uh five

45:19 ↗ minutes um and then please unmute and

45:22 ↗ start with your name and and address or

45:24 ↗ your relationship to the city. And then

45:25 ↗ just a reminder that we can't do Q&A

45:27 ↗ right now, but uh we can try to ask

45:30 ↗ staff to respond or follow up as needed.

45:32 ↗ Um

45:34 ↗ so, whoever would like to come up first,

45:36 ↗ come on up.

45:44 ↗ Thanks for having me. Uh my name is

45:46 ↗ Richard Scarce. I'm a resident of the

45:48 ↗ Montro neighborhood in west end of uh

45:50 ↗ Isiqua. I'm also the vice president of

45:52 ↗ the HOA with Montro. Uh thanks for

45:56 ↗ having this meeting and I know I've

45:58 ↗ enjoyed the interactions we've had with

46:00 ↗ the city and working on the code over

46:02 ↗ the last few months. Uh just to recap

46:05 ↗ some of the points I brought up at the

46:07 ↗ last time I was here, we went over the

46:10 ↗ complexity of the tree code and I think

46:13 ↗ a lot of it has to do with what the

46:16 ↗ priorities are for the city of working

46:22 ↗ because not only the homeowners have to

46:24 ↗ work these details but also city

46:25 ↗ employees have to work the details and

46:28 ↗ involving arborists and specialists and

46:31 ↗ experts and tree companies. and

46:33 ↗ everybody else in the process. Is the

46:36 ↗ permit process

46:38 ↗ emphasizing

46:40 ↗ the safe removal of a tree or is it

46:44 ↗ emphasizing competition between experts?

46:47 ↗ Because our experience in the past is

46:51 ↗ very adversarial with the city employees

46:54 ↗ trying to get a permit approved, trying

46:57 ↗ to prove whether a tree is hazardous or

46:59 ↗ a nuisance, supplying photographs,

47:03 ↗ paying for arborists where one arborist

47:05 ↗ supports your position and another

47:07 ↗ arborist doesn't support your position.

47:09 ↗ when in essence what is going on here is

47:13 ↗ the safe removal of a tree and replacing

47:15 ↗ it if necessary.

47:18 ↗ Closing the loop, what you have before

47:20 ↗ the situation is a tree, what you have

47:23 ↗ after the situation is a tree. And we

47:26 ↗ spend an awful lot of time debating the

47:29 ↗ condition of the tree versus

47:32 ↗ accomplishing the goal of the permit

47:34 ↗ process.

47:36 ↗ I currently am a homeowner that had a

47:39 ↗ nuisance tree removed. Probably should

47:41 ↗ have called it a hazardous tree because

47:43 ↗ it would have not cost me the $350.

47:46 ↗ The permit is still open. The can I have

47:49 ↗ 100% canopy over plantable area

47:54 ↗ and I have not replaced the tree, but I

47:57 ↗ have not heard anything from the city

47:59 ↗ with regard to the permit that I applied

48:02 ↗ for last November.

48:04 ↗ So there is no closed loop process in

48:06 ↗ implementation right now to verify if

48:09 ↗ anything is getting done

48:12 ↗ and I don't know if that's a staffing

48:14 ↗ issue or or what

48:17 ↗ you have to have staff to implement the

48:19 ↗ code otherwise why engage in in the

48:24 ↗ process. So, we talked last time about

48:27 ↗ complexity.

48:29 ↗ Isiqua is the most expensive permit in

48:31 ↗ this county by far. Uh, most cities in

48:35 ↗ the area range between $40 and $200 for

48:38 ↗ a permit. Isaacqua's over 350.

48:42 ↗ So, that is a disincentive for

48:46 ↗ homeowners to even engage.

48:48 ↗ If you require replacement and you don't

48:52 ↗ have a place to put it, faced with a fee

48:55 ↗ in lie of of $1,000

48:58 ↗ to put a tree somewhere else

49:02 ↗ is a disincentive

49:04 ↗ to follow the process or engage in the

49:07 ↗ process and add to that the cost of an

49:09 ↗ arborist, the cost of a tree removal and

49:11 ↗ everything else. It's it's a huge

49:15 ↗ disincentive to follow the process. the

49:18 ↗ canopy percentage issue.

49:22 ↗ Like I had mentioned before,

49:26 ↗ I have almost 100% coverage on plantable

49:29 ↗ area.

49:30 ↗ It's an 11,000 square ft lot. But when

49:34 ↗ you deduct the structures, the

49:36 ↗ driveways, the patios, the decks, the

49:39 ↗ walkways that are on that property,

49:42 ↗ if it's a 10,000 ft property and you

49:44 ↗ have

49:46 ↗ in the case you're supposed to have 45%

49:48 ↗ coverage

49:50 ↗ and and 60% of the property is covered

49:54 ↗ by structure,

49:55 ↗ that means that you're short

50:00 ↗ given the canopy calculation.

50:03 ↗ You'd have to have more than 120%

50:06 ↗ coverage of plantable area under trees.

50:11 ↗ Otherwise, we're digging up driveways to

50:13 ↗ plant trees.

50:15 ↗ So, the canopy calculation when it

50:17 ↗ considers gross property area versus net

50:20 ↗ or plantable property area is out of

50:22 ↗ whack.

50:24 ↗ If your structure covers

50:27 ↗ the available percentage

50:30 ↗ and you're required to meet a 100%

50:33 ↗ threshold really is what it comes down

50:35 ↗ to. In every category of uh lot size,

50:40 ↗ a 5,000 ft lot, the structure probably

50:42 ↗ takes up 70% of the lot

50:46 ↗ and so on. So that doesn't really work

50:48 ↗ that well.

50:50 ↗ Um, code fixes. I really did enjoy.

50:54 ↗ >> Please be advised, you are at five

50:56 ↗ minutes.

50:56 ↗ >> I'm sorry. I'll thank you. Wrap it up.

50:58 ↗ Uh, there is another HOA issue, Zach,

51:02 ↗ that uh we're dealing with of requiring

51:05 ↗ a bond for replacement trees in the NGPE

51:08 ↗ area. And uh this area is subject to

51:11 ↗ root rot.

51:13 ↗ So, if we're going to invest in a bond

51:16 ↗ for replacement trees and put them into

51:18 ↗ an area that has root rot, uh it's kind

51:20 ↗ of uh you see where that logic goes. So,

51:25 ↗ just wanted to bring that up. Thanks.

51:29 ↗ Yeah, thank you very much. Who'd like to

51:32 ↗ come up next? Yeah, go ahead.

51:42 ↗ Okay.

51:44 ↗ I'm shorter. Um, Susan Glicksburg, also

51:47 ↗ Montro neighborhood. Um, I'm here as a

51:49 ↗ homeowner, but also am on my homeowners

51:52 ↗ association board. Um,

51:55 ↗ so um, I'm going to start with thank

51:57 ↗ you. I think some of the points that we

51:59 ↗ have made have um, been received and

52:02 ↗ have been altered in the code. The

52:04 ↗ biggest one was the onetoone

52:05 ↗ replacement. um we we were dealing with

52:08 ↗ having to put seven trees on a lot where

52:10 ↗ you could only really plant one

52:13 ↗ additional tree and that has been solved

52:16 ↗ and I I appreciate that. Um and also the

52:20 ↗ emergency removal has been clarified.

52:22 ↗ However, I think there's still one more

52:24 ↗ thing and that is when you read it, it

52:27 ↗ says um if a tree falls on a structure,

52:31 ↗ they must then replant another tree,

52:34 ↗ which seems sort of adding insult to

52:36 ↗ injury. Um so, if there's any kind of

52:39 ↗ relief that can be given for someone who

52:41 ↗ has suffered a a loss like that, then

52:45 ↗ having to pay to put a tree in seems a

52:49 ↗ little bit overkill. Um that's my first

52:52 ↗ some that's my first point is the

52:53 ↗ emergency um tree removal. Um my second

52:57 ↗ point is is I think there's still some

52:59 ↗ clarity needed around when you can

53:02 ↗ remove a tree and I um used an example

53:05 ↗ that I actually lived um I had a tree on

53:10 ↗ the it was in the NGPE so it's the

53:12 ↗ homeowners association um responsibility

53:16 ↗ but it was a tree with feeder trees

53:19 ↗ coming out of it and it used to be a

53:21 ↗ three kind of prong tree. One was taken,

53:25 ↗ one part of it was taken out way back.

53:27 ↗ The other part shattered across my

53:29 ↗ neighbor's backyard in a windstorm and

53:32 ↗ it left one upshoot. And then there are

53:35 ↗ all these little feeder trees that are

53:36 ↗ getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

53:38 ↗ Um, when you walked around the back of

53:40 ↗ the tree, it was clearly rotten. I could

53:43 ↗ I could see it. An arborist could see

53:45 ↗ it. Um, it was noted as that in an

53:47 ↗ arborist report. And for some reason it

53:51 ↗ did not reach the level of being

53:54 ↗ sufficiently hazardous or nuisances. And

53:57 ↗ I don't know this may have changed with

53:59 ↗ but it's not clear to me by reading the

54:02 ↗ code that that my tree would have um

54:05 ↗ risen to the level of having to be

54:06 ↗ removed. Um it was eventually removed

54:09 ↗ after two years of going back and forth.

54:11 ↗ Um, we finally did get agreement from

54:13 ↗ the city, but I I'm not sure why. And I

54:16 ↗ think there needs to be clarity about

54:19 ↗ when you can remove a tree, who makes

54:22 ↗ that decision, what's the criteria for

54:25 ↗ making that decision. Um,

54:28 ↗ uh, and I think that's the end of my

54:30 ↗ comments. So, I I do appreciate the the

54:33 ↗ leaps forward that we've made with the

54:35 ↗ onetoone and clarifying the emergency

54:38 ↗ part. Thank you.

54:40 ↗ Thank you. Can we have some other

54:42 ↗ members of the public?

54:45 ↗ Would either of you? Yeah. Come on up.

54:55 ↗ Connie Marsh live on squawk.

54:58 ↗ This is about the 20th time I've talked

55:00 ↗ about this particular topic. So, I'm

55:02 ↗ very tired of going over the same

55:04 ↗ information,

55:06 ↗ but I will try one more time because who

55:09 ↗ can stop me. So, the beginning of this

55:13 ↗ was about neighborhoods and going to

55:15 ↗ square footage. And I have chafed at

55:17 ↗ this from the beginning. I don't

55:19 ↗ understand. If you're in Montro, you

55:22 ↗ have this enormous

55:24 ↗ number of trees and then you have some

55:26 ↗ little lots.

55:28 ↗ Why are we not looking at the

55:30 ↗ neighborhood as a total to see if they

55:33 ↗ are accommodating their percentage for

55:35 ↗ the neighborhood? And so their

55:38 ↗ magnificent open space would allow fewer

55:42 ↗ trees in these small lots and we would

55:45 ↗ still be getting our canopy goal. But in

55:48 ↗ this code change, we're ignoring that

55:52 ↗ holistic concept of what the

55:54 ↗ neighborhoods want, where they want

55:57 ↗ their trees, and how they want to live.

56:00 ↗ And we're making this weird, you know,

56:02 ↗ differentiation in square footage of

56:07 ↗ things for redevelopment. Um, makes no

56:10 ↗ sense to me in how a normal person lives

56:12 ↗ their lives. We've talked about it over

56:14 ↗ and over. PPC actually said, you know,

56:16 ↗ it needs to be both. But the city keeps

56:20 ↗ coming down with just about the exact

56:22 ↗ same code every time. Now, replacement

56:27 ↗ trees, simple, right? You take down a

56:29 ↗ tree, you replace a tree. They say,

56:32 ↗ well, you know, if you're meeting the

56:34 ↗ canopy, well, then you have to go

56:35 ↗ through this whole rigomearroll of

56:37 ↗ canopy. Forget about it.

56:39 ↗ Make it neighborhoodwide,

56:42 ↗ one for one,

56:44 ↗ somewhere in the neighborhood. Fine. So

56:47 ↗ now the the question is,

56:51 ↗ is this thing ripe? Is it time? Are we

56:54 ↗ even having the correct conversations? I

56:57 ↗ maintain that we are not having the

56:59 ↗ correct conversations

57:00 ↗ at this point in time. If you change the

57:03 ↗ code for the central isqua area, you are

57:05 ↗ actually impacting the EIS for what the

57:10 ↗ tree coverage is supposed to be on those

57:12 ↗ lots. You're also not looking at the

57:15 ↗ recommendations from the environmental

57:17 ↗ board which did not agree with what many

57:20 ↗ presented today. If you read their

57:22 ↗ language, they said one to one

57:25 ↗ regardless of tree canopy. You know,

57:27 ↗ plant the tree, it'll die fine. So PPC

57:31 ↗ said not ripe. We need to go through

57:35 ↗ this again. We need to set it back. But

57:37 ↗ it was shoved through where the council

57:39 ↗ is supposed to make these decisions. We

57:41 ↗ are reluctantly putting it forward

57:44 ↗ because this is complicated and we don't

57:47 ↗ think it's time but you know we're done

57:48 ↗ with it. So move it along. That is not

57:51 ↗ how it was represented. So, it is it's

57:55 ↗ time to go back and look at what we are

58:00 ↗ doing per neighborhood in this town.

58:03 ↗ What we want to have happen. How do you

58:04 ↗ make it so simple that you can actually

58:07 ↗ get a permit through? I have a guy down

58:10 ↗ the street who'd waited for months for a

58:12 ↗ permit for a tree that was going to fall

58:14 ↗ on his house. He just said, "I'm cutting

58:15 ↗ her down. I don't care if I have to pay

58:17 ↗ $750 because it's going to cost more

58:20 ↗ than that because it's going to fall on

58:21 ↗ my house." So, $350 fee, fine. But the

58:26 ↗ city has its own employed arborist for

58:29 ↗ the community to use. So, they're paying

58:32 ↗ $ 350. But they get an arborist service

58:34 ↗ to tell them what they can do with their

58:37 ↗ tree. Cut her down. Have to keep it.

58:39 ↗ Limit up. Good. Paid for, right? That's

58:41 ↗ part of your permit. That's what we need

58:44 ↗ to do because they're paying the fee.

58:45 ↗ They're paying the arborist. They're

58:46 ↗ paying to cut it down. Then they're pay

58:48 ↗ trying to figure out what their canopy

58:50 ↗ is. Oh my goodness.

58:52 ↗ like hire a guy on a Sunday and cut her

58:54 ↗ down. Right? That's the only rational

58:56 ↗ answer. So, it's not ripe, not ready to

59:01 ↗ go, send her back. Thank you.

59:06 ↗ Thank you. Um, we have one more member

59:09 ↗ of the public with us. Would you like to

59:11 ↗ make any more comments? No. Uh, and let

59:14 ↗ me just check back in with our committee

59:15 ↗ clerk, too. Uh, and actually before I do

59:18 ↗ that,

59:20 ↗ um, I'm noticing some camera issues,

59:22 ↗ too. So, um, Chance, please flicker the

59:25 ↗ light if you if you need us to stop and

59:26 ↗ take a recess for anything. Otherwise,

59:28 ↗ I'm just going to keep going, but I'll

59:30 ↗ go to our committee clerk. Is there

59:31 ↗ anyone online with us at the moment?

59:33 ↗ >> No, there is no one online. We did have

59:35 ↗ a technical issue that was only for one

59:38 ↗ camera, so we should be good.

59:41 ↗ >> Like auto zooms on things. So we are I

59:44 ↗ last night too.

59:45 ↗ >> So we should be good to go right now.

59:47 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you very much for checking

59:48 ↗ on that. Um all right then we're going

59:51 ↗ to move into committee discussion. Um

59:55 ↗ direction needed is let's go to that

59:58 ↗ slide real quick.

1:00:00 ↗ Um just to review the draft of the

1:00:03 ↗ proposed amendments and finalize our

1:00:05 ↗ recommendation to the council for

1:00:06 ↗ adoption. So no particular questions we

1:00:08 ↗ want to answer, just general comments.

1:00:10 ↗ So we'll start with the council

1:00:11 ↗ president.

1:00:13 ↗ I know Connie will be shocked shocked to

1:00:16 ↗ hear this, but I absolutely agree with

1:00:19 ↗ Connie that this is not right to move

1:00:22 ↗ forward to council. I don't know what we

1:00:24 ↗ are trying to achieve with this. I don't

1:00:26 ↗ know whether or not the changes achieve

1:00:29 ↗ that. Um, and I think we really need to

1:00:34 ↗ take these two questions entirely

1:00:37 ↗ separately. One question is what do we

1:00:40 ↗ do with an existing homeowner

1:00:44 ↗ um who has a tree that needs to be

1:00:47 ↗ removed whether or not it's hazardous or

1:00:49 ↗ not. I'm looking at other cities like

1:00:52 ↗ both. If you're under 20,000 square ft,

1:00:55 ↗ you're not in a by a shoreline, you're

1:00:57 ↗ not with a critical area, you know, any

1:01:00 ↗ of those things, no permit required. So

1:01:04 ↗ I'm still not

1:01:06 ↗ understanding why when we are trying to

1:01:11 ↗ address this issue which

1:01:15 ↗ from my standpoint came up for two

1:01:17 ↗ reasons. One we put in code in 2023

1:01:22 ↗ that caused problems and two we had a

1:01:26 ↗ bomb cyclone that exacerbated this

1:01:30 ↗ issue.

1:01:32 ↗ I think we need to take a step back and

1:01:34 ↗ understand the situation that homeowners

1:01:37 ↗ and probably HOAs are experiencing with

1:01:40 ↗ the costs and the delays and the

1:01:42 ↗ requirements. And really,

1:01:47 ↗ it would take a big lift for me to

1:01:49 ↗ understand why we would want to put

1:01:52 ↗ something in place that is not similar

1:01:55 ↗ to what other cities in the area have

1:01:57 ↗ done. Um,

1:02:01 ↗ so that's my perspective when it comes

1:02:03 ↗ to hazardous and nuisance and just

1:02:06 ↗ existing homeowner situations where they

1:02:08 ↗ have trees. When we're talking about

1:02:11 ↗ redevelopment and infill development,

1:02:15 ↗ um, I really do not understand why

1:02:19 ↗ central Isaqua would be treated

1:02:22 ↗ separately. Um, I think the idea of

1:02:27 ↗ working collaborative with builders to

1:02:31 ↗ achieve something that will help the

1:02:35 ↗ community's canopy and help the look of

1:02:39 ↗ a development um, in the future and help

1:02:42 ↗ keep costs low is extremely vital. And

1:02:47 ↗ so I think that those would be the

1:02:50 ↗ elements that I would be looking at when

1:02:51 ↗ we're talking about tree code when it

1:02:54 ↗ comes to redevelopment is how do we

1:02:58 ↗ achieve those goals? And I just don't

1:03:00 ↗ see that necessarily in here. So I'm

1:03:03 ↗ very much for

1:03:06 ↗ taking on the tree code and fixing the

1:03:09 ↗ errors that we have put in place. Um,

1:03:13 ↗ but I just don't think this is

1:03:16 ↗ ready nor does it meet does it define

1:03:19 ↗ what problems we're trying to solve, the

1:03:22 ↗ outcomes we're expecting to achieve with

1:03:24 ↗ this and how this will help um community

1:03:27 ↗ members.

1:03:30 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh, Council Member Chang, go

1:03:31 ↗ ahead.

1:03:32 ↗ >> Yeah, I agree with everything that

1:03:35 ↗ Council President Walsh and Connie uh

1:03:37 ↗ said as well. I think, you know, the

1:03:39 ↗ first step in any type of process should

1:03:43 ↗ be let's define upfront what the goals

1:03:45 ↗ are and get to consensus on that. And I

1:03:47 ↗ actually looking back on this, you know,

1:03:50 ↗ I don't see those goals defined

1:03:52 ↗ anywhere. And so I think that makes it

1:03:53 ↗ really hard for us to, you know, see if

1:03:55 ↗ we're successful. We spent a lot of time

1:03:57 ↗ working on this. Um, but you know, I

1:04:01 ↗ think some of my questions around, you

1:04:03 ↗ know, does subdividing the lots impact

1:04:06 ↗ the amount of canopy that you have to

1:04:08 ↗ preserve. Um, I think that to me, you

1:04:11 ↗ know, in addition to all the other

1:04:12 ↗ concerns that were brought up, I I think

1:04:14 ↗ one of the things that we've seen is a

1:04:16 ↗ lot of these types of developments that

1:04:18 ↗ are really tall and skinny. And if for a

1:04:20 ↗ developer, you're like, "Oh, if I

1:04:22 ↗ subdivide into the smaller lot size, I

1:04:23 ↗ can retain fewer trees." that actually

1:04:26 ↗ encourages them to go in that direction

1:04:28 ↗ rather than you know some of the

1:04:29 ↗ development types that are more um

1:04:32 ↗ similar to what we see in Oldtown with

1:04:33 ↗ you know duplexes or forplexes on a

1:04:36 ↗ larger lot. So that to me is a concern

1:04:39 ↗ on the development side. I think in

1:04:41 ↗ terms of the goals you know there's a

1:04:42 ↗ few things like we want to have tree

1:04:44 ↗ canopy. We also want to make it easy to

1:04:47 ↗ follow the process for tree removal when

1:04:50 ↗ that's necessary. And I I think

1:04:53 ↗ obviously, you know, those two are going

1:04:55 ↗ to be intention because if you want to

1:04:57 ↗ have as much tree canopy as possible,

1:04:58 ↗ you're going to want to make it as hard

1:04:59 ↗ as possible to remove trees. But I think

1:05:02 ↗ the feedback that we've received from

1:05:05 ↗ basically everyone is that you know the

1:05:08 ↗ current requirements are so strict and

1:05:11 ↗ it causes kind of almost like an

1:05:13 ↗ adversarial relationship between you

1:05:15 ↗ know the residents of our community or

1:05:18 ↗ you know people in the community and the

1:05:19 ↗ government which is not something that

1:05:21 ↗ we want to have. Um so I think and just

1:05:25 ↗ given that I think maybe

1:05:28 ↗ we want to

1:05:31 ↗ I think I agree with um Council

1:05:34 ↗ President Walsh that we need to go back

1:05:35 ↗ and start with, you know, what are the

1:05:36 ↗ goals of this process and then and

1:05:40 ↗ determine is what we have now actually

1:05:42 ↗ getting us to those goals. You know,

1:05:44 ↗ we've made a lot of changes. Um, I

1:05:46 ↗ think, you know, the neighborhood thing

1:05:50 ↗ versus the lot size thing, you know, I

1:05:54 ↗ could be persuaded either way, but I do

1:05:56 ↗ think that neighborhoods that have like

1:05:58 ↗ a very significant, you know, open space

1:06:01 ↗ as part of the development like Talis,

1:06:03 ↗ you know, the example that you showed, I

1:06:04 ↗ actually live like right near there. And

1:06:07 ↗ those lots, I mean, it's like basically

1:06:08 ↗ 0% impervious area. And the only tree

1:06:11 ↗ canopy that they have is from like

1:06:12 ↗ street trees and, you know, trees in the

1:06:15 ↗ um wetland that's behind the

1:06:17 ↗ development. So like the amount of tree

1:06:19 ↗ canopy that you have is basically

1:06:20 ↗ completely out of your control. Um, so

1:06:23 ↗ it's just really hard for me to

1:06:25 ↗ understand why we need to require those

1:06:27 ↗ people to have 25% tree canopy when they

1:06:30 ↗ have zero plantable area, which is fine

1:06:32 ↗ because they are near, you know, like

1:06:35 ↗ 4,000 acres of basically like 100% tree

1:06:38 ↗ canopy on Cougar Mountain.

1:06:41 ↗ >> So,

1:06:42 ↗ >> could I just clarify uh one item on

1:06:45 ↗ that? Right.

1:06:45 ↗ >> So in the example of the Talis property

1:06:48 ↗ for instance, the the canopy coverage

1:06:51 ↗ won't come into play because if someone

1:06:53 ↗ that already has a developed property

1:06:55 ↗ and they have a hazardous or a nuisance

1:06:57 ↗ tree, all they need to do is replace one

1:06:59 ↗ for one. If they can't replace on their

1:07:02 ↗ property, they can pay a fee in lie of

1:07:04 ↗ which can be a tree planted somewhere

1:07:06 ↗ else within the same sub area. So, so in

1:07:09 ↗ those examples, uh, the canopy coverage

1:07:12 ↗ table doesn't come into play unless they

1:07:14 ↗ tear down the house and they're trying

1:07:15 ↗ to redevelop. Just want to make sure

1:07:17 ↗ that that f, you know, the difference of

1:07:19 ↗ when when it's applicable is is clear.

1:07:23 ↗ So, one of the objectives that this code

1:07:26 ↗ does is is adds that clarity of onetoone

1:07:30 ↗ replacement. So, which is a huge help to

1:07:33 ↗ existing homeowners and it goes to the

1:07:36 ↗ fact that you don't have to meet the

1:07:38 ↗ coverage. You know, you don't even have

1:07:40 ↗ to do onetoone replacement if you meet

1:07:42 ↗ the canopy coverage requirements. So,

1:07:44 ↗ that's a big fix for what we heard from

1:07:47 ↗ homeowners. And if council wants to not

1:07:50 ↗ change the canopy coverage percentages

1:07:51 ↗ and put that on a different path, that

1:07:54 ↗ one code amendment of doing onetoone

1:07:57 ↗ replacement and not requiring

1:07:59 ↗ replacement trees if you meet the canopy

1:08:01 ↗ coverage is going to help the existing

1:08:04 ↗ homeowners significantly. If that's the

1:08:06 ↗ goal the council wants to achieve, then

1:08:08 ↗ I think that part of the the code

1:08:10 ↗ amendment could move forward if you all

1:08:13 ↗ decide to do that.

1:08:17 ↗ I see the city administrator turned on

1:08:19 ↗ his mic. Let's go over to you.

1:08:21 ↗ >> Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair, members of

1:08:22 ↗ the committee. U trees are tough in

1:08:25 ↗ Isiqua. Um we have a lot of them. People

1:08:28 ↗ value them very much. And I think that

1:08:30 ↗ the community standard that your staff

1:08:33 ↗ has been asked to enforce over an very

1:08:35 ↗ extended period of time has been uh

1:08:38 ↗ trust no one. That the tree is king.

1:08:41 ↗ That you need to make sure that we

1:08:43 ↗ protect the tree at every opportunity

1:08:46 ↗ and that the threshold should be very

1:08:48 ↗ very high for any change regardless of

1:08:51 ↗ the real world circumstance. that that

1:08:54 ↗ has been the the community standard that

1:08:55 ↗ your staff has been asked to implement

1:08:57 ↗ again over a long period of time. Um

1:09:00 ↗ what you have before you tonight as

1:09:02 ↗ you've said uh comes out of the the

1:09:05 ↗ additional business we've had over the

1:09:07 ↗ last 9 or 10 months because of the bomb

1:09:08 ↗ cyclone. Um and as many indicated

1:09:11 ↗ there's a couple pieces here uh that the

1:09:13 ↗ administration really feels strongly

1:09:15 ↗ about because we feel that will provide

1:09:17 ↗ residents relief. Uh now um but the

1:09:21 ↗ committee also has raised some serious

1:09:23 ↗ questions about the general premise of

1:09:27 ↗ how we regulate trees. You know, do we

1:09:30 ↗ trust our residents to do the right

1:09:32 ↗ thing or is the tree the king? And as

1:09:35 ↗ our staff there, not on behalf of the

1:09:37 ↗ resident, but on behalf of the tree and

1:09:40 ↗ is being here almost six years, I my

1:09:44 ↗ impression has always been that the

1:09:46 ↗ staff is there for the tree, not the

1:09:48 ↗ resident, not the property owner, not

1:09:50 ↗ the neighborhood, but for the tree. And

1:09:52 ↗ so, um, if the council feels that we

1:09:55 ↗ need to revisit this so that we take

1:09:57 ↗ into the real world examples, that's

1:09:59 ↗ great. And I think the idea of of of

1:10:01 ↗ setting um some policy questions up

1:10:04 ↗ first and have some general agreement

1:10:06 ↗ would be very helpful to us. I think

1:10:08 ↗ that's going to take some time in order

1:10:10 ↗ to go back to all of the stakeholders

1:10:11 ↗ that have already participated in this

1:10:14 ↗ process. So if the committee uh feels

1:10:18 ↗ that we do need to take a a a larger

1:10:20 ↗ look at some of the general committee

1:10:22 ↗ standards behind this, that's great and

1:10:24 ↗ we can come back with a in pretty short

1:10:26 ↗ order a process uh that won't take

1:10:29 ↗ forever but will take some time uh to

1:10:31 ↗ do. But in the meantime, there are

1:10:33 ↗ probably a couple pieces here that

1:10:36 ↗ there's general agreement on. And if we

1:10:38 ↗ can shake those loose, send them to the

1:10:40 ↗ full council, relay to the full council

1:10:42 ↗ this discussion this evening, hopefully

1:10:44 ↗ get consensus, adopt some changes, but

1:10:47 ↗ then go back and have the larger

1:10:49 ↗ discussion. I think that would be a very

1:10:51 ↗ productive way to proceed.

1:10:57 ↗ >> All right. Um, so this is going to be a

1:11:00 ↗ longer committee meeting. Um, so yeah, I

1:11:03 ↗ mean, I was also just going to Well,

1:11:04 ↗ thank you very much for kind of level

1:11:06 ↗ setting us there. I think that kind of

1:11:08 ↗ sets up the rest of the committee. I was

1:11:09 ↗ going to echo comments from the

1:11:11 ↗ committee. Just I think from my

1:11:12 ↗ perspective, it's just

1:11:15 ↗ very complex. I I think it probably gets

1:11:19 ↗ us the outcomes that we want, but it

1:11:20 ↗ just seems very complex for users and

1:11:22 ↗ for residents. And is there now a way

1:11:24 ↗ for us to have a very simple policy that

1:11:27 ↗ gets us the same outcome? And I just

1:11:28 ↗ don't know the answer to that yet. So,

1:11:30 ↗ um I would hope that we could keep hold

1:11:32 ↗ of this issue at this committee. Um uh

1:11:35 ↗ although of course I would be open

1:11:37 ↗ thoughts about going back to boards and

1:11:39 ↗ commissions though they've had several

1:11:40 ↗ touches already on these. Um so now you

1:11:43 ↗ asked the question of what are the and I

1:11:45 ↗ was going to ask this question too based

1:11:46 ↗ on what was coming up on what are the

1:11:48 ↗ things we could come to agreement on

1:11:51 ↗ that have been identified by community

1:11:53 ↗ members like the one for one replacement

1:11:55 ↗ and things like that that we could send

1:11:57 ↗ to council. Um maybe I'll just open it

1:12:00 ↗ up generally uh for any kind of general

1:12:02 ↗ comments about that. But I think I'm

1:12:03 ↗ going to need some help from staff just

1:12:05 ↗ in terms of are first and foremost are

1:12:07 ↗ you hearing

1:12:11 ↗ how do I want to frame this? Um so a

1:12:13 ↗ larger discussion is going to take

1:12:15 ↗ several months. um you and your staff

1:12:19 ↗ are the ones who have been interacting

1:12:21 ↗ with community the most in terms of what

1:12:24 ↗ policies really should bubble up and go

1:12:27 ↗ to council next month um to be

1:12:29 ↗ responsive in your eyes. What are those

1:12:32 ↗ handful of policies that are most

1:12:36 ↗ important that we should talk about

1:12:39 ↗ right now to see if there's consensus?

1:12:41 ↗ >> Sure. the existing homeowners that want

1:12:43 ↗ to take down trees, people are waiting

1:12:45 ↗ to have this new code in place. So if

1:12:48 ↗ they hear it's delayed or it's not done,

1:12:51 ↗ that could be an issue uh to be

1:12:54 ↗ explained to them uh why, you know,

1:12:56 ↗ people will need to know why and and so

1:13:00 ↗ so I think that in terms of um the

1:13:04 ↗ priority for existing homeowners, it's

1:13:06 ↗ letting them cut down and replace for

1:13:09 ↗ onetoone. If they meet the canopy

1:13:11 ↗ coverage, they don't need to uh replant

1:13:14 ↗ is priority number one. And there's a

1:13:16 ↗ lot of people waiting in line to get

1:13:18 ↗ their permits, you know, waiting to get

1:13:20 ↗ that amendment in place.

1:13:23 ↗ The along with that to make it effective

1:13:25 ↗ would be some other provisions that talk

1:13:29 ↗ about this particular table does not

1:13:32 ↗ only applies to development and

1:13:33 ↗ redevelopment and you know the the comm

1:13:36 ↗ the boards and commissions have debated

1:13:38 ↗ that I think there's general consensus

1:13:40 ↗ on your side that full canopy coverage

1:13:43 ↗ requirement only comes into play for

1:13:45 ↗ development or redevelopment. So that

1:13:47 ↗ would be number two, which is sort of

1:13:49 ↗ part of the first um first amendment. Um

1:13:54 ↗ you know, and then there were some

1:13:55 ↗ benign things that that we met with

1:13:58 ↗ tribes, they commented on it. You know,

1:14:00 ↗ if we if adding a definition, is that

1:14:03 ↗ too big a deal to delay? I mean, there

1:14:06 ↗ may be a suite of things that we could

1:14:08 ↗ that aren't controversial, aren't big

1:14:10 ↗ policy issues that that are more on the

1:14:12 ↗ cleanup side. That would be the third

1:14:15 ↗ priority that that at least we make it

1:14:17 ↗ with this first round.

1:14:19 ↗ The bigger meteor discussion that you

1:14:22 ↗ want to have more time to think about

1:14:24 ↗ would be the percentage and changing

1:14:27 ↗ that methodology to land use and lot

1:14:29 ↗ size. If you are interested in just

1:14:31 ↗ keeping that that to the neighborhood

1:14:34 ↗ scale at this point, it will come into

1:14:36 ↗ play and be problematic for new

1:14:38 ↗ development and redevelopment, but it

1:14:40 ↗ won't impact uh existing homeowners

1:14:42 ↗ wanting to take stuff down and and

1:14:44 ↗ replant and replace. That would be our

1:14:46 ↗ recommendation.

1:14:48 ↗ >> Okay. Okay. So then just so I'm

1:14:50 ↗ following kind of these three buckets.

1:14:53 ↗ First the existing homeowners bucket

1:14:54 ↗ that you're saying let them replace one

1:14:56 ↗ for one and if they meet coverage

1:14:59 ↗ already don't have to replant or do

1:15:01 ↗ don't have to replace.

1:15:03 ↗ >> Then there's the full p full canopy

1:15:05 ↗ coverage only coming into play for

1:15:07 ↗ redevelopment or development and

1:15:08 ↗ redevelopment projects.

1:15:10 ↗ >> And then some cleanup definition items

1:15:12 ↗ as well that we don't necessarily have

1:15:14 ↗ defined out before us tonight. And then

1:15:17 ↗ the meteor discussion around

1:15:19 ↗ >> the canopy coverage and whether you want

1:15:22 ↗ to provide flexibility for central

1:15:23 ↗ isquire. Yes. Oh

1:15:24 ↗ >> and then central squad too.

1:15:26 ↗ >> Those two are more meteor discussions.

1:15:28 ↗ Do you want to have some flexibility

1:15:30 ↗ beyond central isqua is what I heard not

1:15:34 ↗ have. So those two the the table based

1:15:36 ↗ on neighborhood size versus lot size.

1:15:39 ↗ Those two can be parsed out. The rest it

1:15:42 ↗ falls under those first three buckets.

1:15:45 ↗ >> Okay. So then let's go to committee real

1:15:48 ↗ quick um for general comments or any

1:15:50 ↗ comments on kind of um agreement on that

1:15:54 ↗ kind of bucket of things and pulling out

1:15:56 ↗ those meteor items. Uh council

1:15:57 ↗ president, go ahead.

1:15:58 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean I think that's a great way

1:16:01 ↗ to go forward. I would just ask I know

1:16:04 ↗ one of the things with the 2023 change

1:16:06 ↗ was to do this neighborhood idea. So the

1:16:12 ↗ because we're saying the tree canopy

1:16:15 ↗ coverage goals that table wouldn't be

1:16:18 ↗ changed in this time period. But that

1:16:22 ↗ table we're saying would only apply to

1:16:25 ↗ redevelopment. So there would still be a

1:16:28 ↗ pretty big barrier to any redevelopment

1:16:31 ↗ while we have this conversation in areas

1:16:33 ↗ that

1:16:35 ↗ the neighborhood has a large tree canopy

1:16:37 ↗ coverage. Um but for individual

1:16:40 ↗ homeowners in particular people that are

1:16:42 ↗ waiting on a permit, we feel like the

1:16:46 ↗ one toone replacement

1:16:48 ↗ um and no replacement if they meet

1:16:50 ↗ canopy coverage and having the table

1:16:52 ↗ only applying to redevelopment would

1:16:54 ↗ address correct

1:16:56 ↗ >> the immediate needs.

1:16:58 ↗ >> Yeah. And if if the council committee

1:17:00 ↗ wants to address the redevelopment and

1:17:01 ↗ development portion and add that

1:17:03 ↗ flexibility, then you could go with

1:17:05 ↗ that. Do it now, but come back because

1:17:08 ↗ one of the other things that the city's

1:17:10 ↗ part has an opportunity to participate

1:17:12 ↗ in is King County is doing a new canopy

1:17:14 ↗ coverage study. So Dan Hints and I and

1:17:18 ↗ our GIS folks have met and we're trying

1:17:21 ↗ to figure out what data can help inform

1:17:24 ↗ some of those discussions. you know, can

1:17:26 ↗ we parse out developed versus

1:17:28 ↗ undeveloped portions by neighborhood?

1:17:30 ↗ How would those can we get that fine

1:17:32 ↗ grain data that then can help inform

1:17:34 ↗ some of the policy discussions that's

1:17:37 ↗ underway? And then we can always, you

1:17:39 ↗ know, revisit this. If you if if you

1:17:42 ↗ want to address the redevelopment and

1:17:44 ↗ development flexibility in a in a way

1:17:46 ↗ because that that table is going to help

1:17:48 ↗ people instead of 73% you've got 35%. So

1:17:53 ↗ it's not ownorous for folks. It's

1:17:54 ↗ actually loosening the tree code. But if

1:17:57 ↗ you don't if you're not ready for that

1:17:59 ↗ sort of um discussion, you want more

1:18:02 ↗ thought, then our recommendation would

1:18:04 ↗ be we wait until this new data comes

1:18:06 ↗ into play and then tinker with this

1:18:09 ↗ because that may inform us uh

1:18:11 ↗ realistically can we you know what what

1:18:14 ↗ makes more sense.

1:18:16 ↗ >> Okay. Okay. So, I guess I would ask the

1:18:18 ↗ committee. I think what director Dolly

1:18:20 ↗ Well said about, you know, making a

1:18:23 ↗ change to the table for that

1:18:25 ↗ redevelopment is only going to be

1:18:28 ↗ beneficial at this time while we are

1:18:31 ↗ revisiting things.

1:18:34 ↗ I think I agree with that.

1:18:38 ↗ Um though I think they the idea of

1:18:41 ↗ simplifying everything entirely is my

1:18:44 ↗ number one goal. And I think the other

1:18:47 ↗ feedback I would put out there is even

1:18:50 ↗ if we did adopt a portion of this, what

1:18:54 ↗ I would be asking for in a future

1:18:56 ↗ conversation with the community and

1:18:59 ↗ policy goals isn't just for those

1:19:01 ↗ redevelopment sites. It's for everything

1:19:04 ↗ like how do we create the best user

1:19:06 ↗ experience and achieve our policy goals.

1:19:10 ↗ Um

1:19:12 ↗ so

1:19:12 ↗ >> and that's perfectly fine. I mean, but

1:19:15 ↗ it's going to take some time and again,

1:19:19 ↗ >> this is this is a substantial change in

1:19:23 ↗ process.

1:19:24 ↗ >> Um, and so I just just want to make sure

1:19:28 ↗ that all of your colleagues are buying

1:19:30 ↗ into this and then as we go to our

1:19:32 ↗ boards and commissions, they're buying

1:19:33 ↗ into this. Um because again this is just

1:19:37 ↗ a substantial change in in process and

1:19:40 ↗ community standards probably at the end

1:19:41 ↗ of the day remains but it's a

1:19:43 ↗ substantial change in process. So if we

1:19:46 ↗ can shake loose again a few of these we

1:19:48 ↗ can repackage this um we can bring it to

1:19:52 ↗ the full council. This was planning to

1:19:54 ↗ go when

1:19:56 ↗ >> um I think we said October

1:19:58 ↗ 9. What did it say? What's the date?

1:20:02 ↗ Um,

1:20:03 ↗ >> if we could do this, I guess we can look

1:20:05 ↗ at the calendar quickly u without coming

1:20:08 ↗ back to the committee with this

1:20:10 ↗ repackaged you know limited number of

1:20:13 ↗ things. I think that would be the

1:20:14 ↗ administration's preference. um and then

1:20:16 ↗ come back to you

1:20:19 ↗ either in October or November with a

1:20:22 ↗ plan for larger discussion and share

1:20:24 ↗ when the the first piece this comes to

1:20:26 ↗ the council share with your colleagues

1:20:28 ↗ the larger vision and just kind of get

1:20:31 ↗ their general head nod that they're okay

1:20:34 ↗ because I would hate to get through this

1:20:35 ↗ and someone say why is the city council

1:20:38 ↗ making it so easy for people to take

1:20:39 ↗ down trees don't you understand we're a

1:20:41 ↗ tree city blah blah blah I I don't want

1:20:44 ↗ it 6 months from now to have another

1:20:46 ↗ group of residents come before us and

1:20:47 ↗ say what are you doing? So,

1:20:51 ↗ >> so for the committee it sounds like then

1:20:54 ↗ there are four areas that we would move

1:20:56 ↗ forward with which is that one to one

1:20:59 ↗ replacement or no replacement if they

1:21:01 ↗ meet canopy coverage. The table only

1:21:04 ↗ applies to 50% or above redevelopment.

1:21:07 ↗ The third new one is

1:21:10 ↗ we will update the table percentages

1:21:15 ↗ and then the fourth one is clean up

1:21:16 ↗ including the landmark tree definitions.

1:21:20 ↗ So is that what

1:21:22 ↗ we have understood?

1:21:26 ↗ I guess so. I'm looking at this list of

1:21:29 ↗ amendments and in terms of the major

1:21:31 ↗ amendments,

1:21:32 ↗ you know, if we are doing the um

1:21:36 ↗ updating the table with the

1:21:37 ↗ neighborhoods, I think that's basically

1:21:39 ↗ the first two major amendments. I think

1:21:41 ↗ pretty much all the minor and cleanup

1:21:44 ↗ amendments are fine. You know, it's like

1:21:46 ↗ changes to definitions and things like

1:21:48 ↗ that. Um and then the major ones are

1:21:50 ↗ more like policy decisions of you know

1:21:54 ↗ allowing the one toone replacement. Um

1:21:56 ↗ and then

1:21:58 ↗ uh and you know giving the fee and loo

1:22:02 ↗ option all that kind of stuff. Um I

1:22:04 ↗ guess the last one on here um which we

1:22:07 ↗ haven't discussed yet is you know the

1:22:08 ↗ allowed deviation se section for central

1:22:10 ↗ Isiqua which we have you know receive

1:22:13 ↗ public comments in support of I think

1:22:15 ↗ that's something we could also revisit

1:22:16 ↗ later but is that something where we

1:22:18 ↗ want to say you know at least in the

1:22:20 ↗ interim we're okay with this

1:22:24 ↗ and it's the last one on page four um

1:22:26 ↗ says introduce tree retention

1:22:27 ↗ flexibility for properties in the

1:22:29 ↗ central isqua sub area

1:22:33 ↗ Do we want to keep preserving random

1:22:36 ↗ parking lot trees?

1:22:39 ↗ Because I think I think one thing that

1:22:41 ↗ I've been hearing is that you know this

1:22:43 ↗ is I think on on balance all these

1:22:47 ↗ amendments are better than what we have

1:22:49 ↗ right now and as long as

1:22:51 ↗ >> a lot better I should add.

1:22:53 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:22:53 ↗ >> Not just a minor but better.

1:22:54 ↗ >> Yeah. So I think what we you know what

1:22:56 ↗ we're presented with tonight is better

1:22:58 ↗ than the current state. And I think the

1:23:01 ↗ question is not is this the end all be

1:23:04 ↗ all but like should we do this now I and

1:23:06 ↗ I think you know the administration is

1:23:08 ↗ also acknowledging that we've heard from

1:23:10 ↗ our residents that we want to you know

1:23:12 ↗ continue improving but adopting this

1:23:14 ↗ code now with all these significant

1:23:16 ↗ improvements doesn't necessarily mean

1:23:18 ↗ that we're going to just stop working on

1:23:22 ↗ this.

1:23:25 ↗ >> I guess my own that's a good point. Um,

1:23:28 ↗ that's well taken. I guess my only

1:23:30 ↗ concern would be in staff time and cost

1:23:35 ↗ now implementing code in in whatever

1:23:40 ↗ we however we train staff to use and

1:23:44 ↗ apply code. So

1:23:46 ↗ it would it not be better to press pause

1:23:48 ↗ on more of this while we have deeper

1:23:51 ↗ conversations but address some of the

1:23:53 ↗ things that are immediate to avoid any

1:23:56 ↗ kind of

1:23:58 ↗ >> yeah I think from a staff's perspective

1:24:00 ↗ this clarifies a bunch of stuff

1:24:02 ↗ >> which we haven't been able to give that

1:24:05 ↗ flexibility to staff to provide that

1:24:08 ↗ answer. So this this definitely the the

1:24:11 ↗ version that you have in front of you is

1:24:13 ↗ going to help staff provide clear and

1:24:15 ↗ concise answers on questions related to

1:24:18 ↗ tree code. We are also doing internal

1:24:20 ↗ training. We've had staff turnover. The

1:24:23 ↗ individual that was doing tree permits

1:24:24 ↗ is no longer with the city. Jason has

1:24:27 ↗ been our point person and he goes out to

1:24:29 ↗ the site more often. You know he

1:24:31 ↗ actually had with an HOA um meeting with

1:24:34 ↗ Montro folks because of another critical

1:24:36 ↗ area piece. So, we're doing more on

1:24:38 ↗ field assessments with these things and

1:24:40 ↗ not just looking at what homeowners have

1:24:42 ↗ provided. We're providing more of a

1:24:43 ↗ service of helping them get to the

1:24:46 ↗ finish line, providing suggestions and

1:24:48 ↗ ideas. So, so your question of whether

1:24:51 ↗ this version will help staff, I think it

1:24:54 ↗ will immensely help staff um because it

1:24:57 ↗ clarifies so many things that are

1:24:59 ↗ confusing uh currently in the code

1:25:02 ↗ >> and it will provide immediate relief to

1:25:04 ↗ residents.

1:25:09 ↗ And so then just so it's right in my

1:25:11 ↗ head, are we still talking about the

1:25:13 ↗ kind of limited scope of changes that

1:25:15 ↗ you walked through or are you talking

1:25:17 ↗ about adopting everything that's before

1:25:19 ↗ us with a commitment to

1:25:23 ↗ revisiting soon after?

1:25:24 ↗ >> Yeah, you know, I've gone through the

1:25:25 ↗ whole list and it seems like the two

1:25:27 ↗ things that you guys want to pull out

1:25:31 ↗ probably are the table

1:25:33 ↗ >> with percentages. If you think that you

1:25:36 ↗ know live with the larger percentages

1:25:38 ↗ until you get it right uh and the

1:25:41 ↗ central isqua flexibility whether that

1:25:43 ↗ should be beyond central Isukqua to

1:25:45 ↗ other properties as well. So those two

1:25:48 ↗ are bigger meteor policy type of things,

1:25:51 ↗ but the version if you decide to go with

1:25:53 ↗ all of it will be, you know, you could

1:25:57 ↗ recommend doing this whole thing, but

1:25:59 ↗ pulling those two pieces out and getting

1:26:01 ↗ a commitment that we have a deeper

1:26:03 ↗ conversation after this new tree canopy

1:26:06 ↗ data comes in to restart that

1:26:08 ↗ conversation and figure out a more

1:26:11 ↗ fine-tuning or complete redo of those

1:26:13 ↗ tables and flexibility provisions. those

1:26:15 ↗ two seem larger policy objectives that

1:26:19 ↗ you all were were concerned about if I

1:26:21 ↗ am.

1:26:21 ↗ >> So then is that Oh, go ahead.

1:26:23 ↗ >> I disagree. Um I I think this whole

1:26:26 ↗ thing is a larger policy conversation.

1:26:29 ↗ So, um I think there's just huge

1:26:32 ↗ questions here and I think city

1:26:33 ↗ administrator Bob Kutz in talking about

1:26:35 ↗ whether or not tree is king or the

1:26:38 ↗ homeowner um and resident is king really

1:26:40 ↗ approaches the level of do we have the

1:26:44 ↗ right approach here. So I I wouldn't say

1:26:47 ↗ that it's just those two areas.

1:26:51 ↗ Maybe the question I would ask in how

1:26:53 ↗ much we decide to recommend to council

1:26:56 ↗ right now is like you obviously have

1:27:00 ↗ this packaged up to us. it. I don't know

1:27:04 ↗ whether it would just take more work to

1:27:07 ↗ get this to council in a small modified

1:27:11 ↗ version versus okay, maybe we take this

1:27:17 ↗ and then we send the big question back

1:27:20 ↗ because the idea that this does help

1:27:26 ↗ existing residents that are Yeah. So

1:27:30 ↗ maybe help us understand how easy is it

1:27:32 ↗ to pull a few items out of this and

1:27:35 ↗ implement it and present that to council

1:27:38 ↗ versus taking the whole section but also

1:27:42 ↗ telling council hey we want to restart

1:27:45 ↗ this process but adopt this in the

1:27:47 ↗ meantime.

1:27:49 ↗ Yeah, obviously taking the whole package

1:27:51 ↗ is easier. Uh for sure it helps um you

1:27:55 ↗ know development and redevelopment

1:27:56 ↗ category folks uh as well. It provides

1:27:59 ↗ flexibility in central Isiqua for sure.

1:28:01 ↗ So that's the pro of that approach. You

1:28:04 ↗ know you get if you want to pull things

1:28:07 ↗ out then I think I was just skimming

1:28:09 ↗ through the 16 pages that we have given

1:28:11 ↗ to you. That's why I teased out those

1:28:13 ↗ two uh pieces. The central ESQUA we

1:28:15 ↗ would strike that out and we would

1:28:17 ↗ strike out any changes to the table.

1:28:18 ↗ keep the table as is but clarify that it

1:28:21 ↗ only applies to development and

1:28:22 ↗ redevelopment. So, those are two options

1:28:23 ↗ I'm thinking. You know, um the third one

1:28:26 ↗ is you just do very limited um thing.

1:28:31 ↗ But like Council Member Jen, you were

1:28:33 ↗ saying, the other stuff seems pretty

1:28:35 ↗ benign to me. I mean, skimming through

1:28:36 ↗ and reading through, I mean, fixing a

1:28:38 ↗ few clauses here and there that that's

1:28:40 ↗ more in the cleanup category. Um

1:28:44 ↗ so,

1:28:46 ↗ in terms of Yeah.

1:28:50 ↗ No, no worries. Um, this new code also

1:28:53 ↗ creates a fee and loo tree replacement

1:28:55 ↗ which we currently don't have. Do we

1:28:58 ↗ feel like adding that when that may not

1:29:00 ↗ be the ultimate

1:29:03 ↗ um way that we address the policy is a

1:29:07 ↗ good method or something that we should

1:29:09 ↗ >> Yeah, we we allowed fee in lie of but it

1:29:12 ↗ wasn't for all sorts of situations. The

1:29:15 ↗ fee in lie of was already there. We do

1:29:16 ↗ get fee in lie of the city's been

1:29:18 ↗ collecting the money. were working with

1:29:20 ↗ parks department on where to spend it

1:29:22 ↗ and all that that's been in in even

1:29:24 ↗ under the old code that was a provision

1:29:26 ↗ >> it it really prohibited fee in Lua for

1:29:29 ↗ certain circumstances so we've broadened

1:29:31 ↗ that because we don't we can't

1:29:33 ↗ anticipate every possible scenario and

1:29:36 ↗ in some cases it they really can't plant

1:29:38 ↗ anything on site and so then they can

1:29:40 ↗ pay fee in low so we've broadened the

1:29:42 ↗ applicability of it for more situations

1:29:46 ↗ okay thank

1:29:55 ↗ All right. Yeah, I'm I mean I'm I think

1:29:57 ↗ I'm I'm thinking it might be best to

1:30:01 ↗ move forward with the two things that

1:30:03 ↗ we've identified several times now

1:30:05 ↗ removed.

1:30:07 ↗ Is that I just want to confirm that's

1:30:09 ↗ the way we're all thinking about this

1:30:11 ↗ right now.

1:30:12 ↗ >> What things removed? the the larger

1:30:14 ↗ policy questions that we've talked

1:30:16 ↗ about. So the changes uh to methodology

1:30:19 ↗ from canopy to land use and lot size and

1:30:21 ↗ then the central isqua discussion

1:30:25 ↗ >> is that option two as you had identified

1:30:28 ↗ that

1:30:31 ↗ >> is that what we're all okay with as at

1:30:34 ↗ this point

1:30:38 ↗ >> council member J go ahead

1:30:41 ↗ >> I think in terms of the central isa

1:30:43 ↗ thing I think if I think on in terms of,

1:30:47 ↗ you know, changing the table from the

1:30:48 ↗ neighborhoods to the lot sizes. That's

1:30:50 ↗ something where there's a lot of

1:30:51 ↗ unanswered questions. So, I I'm okay

1:30:53 ↗ with removing that. In terms of adding

1:30:55 ↗ flexibility for central Isiqua, I don't

1:30:57 ↗ think we want to also add more

1:30:59 ↗ flexibility somewhere else is a reason

1:31:01 ↗ for us not to add flexibility to central

1:31:03 ↗ Isiqua right now. Um especially you know

1:31:07 ↗ because we have received public comments

1:31:08 ↗ in support of this and seems like the

1:31:12 ↗ administration has heard loud and clear

1:31:14 ↗ from us many times that this needs to be

1:31:16 ↗ an ongoing conversation and we need to

1:31:17 ↗ look more into um you know allowing

1:31:19 ↗ flexibility in other neighborhoods in

1:31:21 ↗ the city. So I think the central isqua

1:31:23 ↗ piece I'm fine with keeping it in. Um,

1:31:25 ↗ you know, I don't like going back to the

1:31:28 ↗ residents h I just don't feel like I can

1:31:31 ↗ say something like the reason we didn't

1:31:33 ↗ offer you more flexibility is because we

1:31:35 ↗ think every that other people should

1:31:37 ↗ also have more flexibility. So, we're

1:31:38 ↗ hold we're keeping that from you as a

1:31:41 ↗ you know ransom so that we can get

1:31:42 ↗ flexibility everywhere. That that

1:31:44 ↗ doesn't really make sense to me as an

1:31:45 ↗ argument that we can make to the public.

1:31:47 ↗ So I'm okay with keeping um the central

1:31:50 ↗ isol flexibility and uh waiting and you

1:31:53 ↗ know holding the discussion on the lot

1:31:56 ↗ size piece until uh or lot size versus

1:31:59 ↗ neighborhoods versus whatever the case

1:32:01 ↗ may be until um you know we continue the

1:32:03 ↗ process in the coming months.

1:32:05 ↗ >> Okay. No, that's a really good point

1:32:07 ↗ actually. I think I'm comfortable with

1:32:08 ↗ that too then. Council President, you as

1:32:09 ↗ well.

1:32:10 ↗ >> Yeah. So as I understand it then we

1:32:13 ↗ wouldn't update the table. So we would

1:32:15 ↗ keep the idea of neighborhoodbased

1:32:19 ↗ targets

1:32:21 ↗ for only for things that are 50% plus

1:32:24 ↗ redevelopment. So that still stands as a

1:32:28 ↗ big thing for like Montro which says

1:32:32 ↗ each lot would have to have 67%.

1:32:35 ↗ Um

1:32:37 ↗ rather than you know the new ideas um

1:32:41 ↗ which are much smaller.

1:32:44 ↗ But

1:32:47 ↗ that only applies to redevelopment, not

1:32:50 ↗ to

1:32:52 ↗ individual homeowners who are trying to

1:32:54 ↗ remove a tree because of issues.

1:32:57 ↗ >> Okay.

1:32:57 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. So what would happen in that

1:33:00 ↗ scenario that you all are debating would

1:33:02 ↗ be under this tree canopy coverage, we

1:33:05 ↗ would make the first a that it only

1:33:07 ↗ applies to development and

1:33:08 ↗ redevelopment, right? interior remodels

1:33:11 ↗ and tenant improvements will not are not

1:33:14 ↗ subject to this requirement. We would

1:33:15 ↗ add make that change. We would make fix

1:33:18 ↗ some of the leave some of these changes

1:33:20 ↗ planning sub area leave the table as is

1:33:24 ↗ um

1:33:27 ↗ and not add the the new table. So, but

1:33:30 ↗ we would probably add a a map of this

1:33:32 ↗ these neighborhoods cuz I think that was

1:33:34 ↗ missing from the code and so people had

1:33:36 ↗ a hard time figuring out okay where is

1:33:39 ↗ this neighborhood or whatever because

1:33:40 ↗ now the comp plan neighborhood map

1:33:43 ↗ doesn't quite you know cuz there's a

1:33:44 ↗ category called King County and so but

1:33:48 ↗ that came from uh the urban tree canopy

1:33:52 ↗ study that parks department had done

1:33:54 ↗ that's how they qualified some of these

1:33:56 ↗ neighborhoods. know um that that's

1:34:00 ↗ that's the issue with that table is that

1:34:02 ↗ it needs a map but we have a map from

1:34:04 ↗ that study. So we would put just put

1:34:06 ↗ that map uh here.

1:34:11 ↗ >> Okay. Um and perhaps then it would also

1:34:15 ↗ make sense for you and I as chair I

1:34:18 ↗ could also follow up and connect with

1:34:19 ↗ you to make sure whatever is brought to

1:34:21 ↗ council reflects the content of this

1:34:23 ↗ conversation as well. Um, but are we

1:34:25 ↗ feeling comfortable to move forward kind

1:34:28 ↗ of as we've described, amended to the

1:34:30 ↗ council with this commitment to have a

1:34:32 ↗ larger policy discussion around

1:34:35 ↗ everything we've talked about tonight?

1:34:38 ↗ Anything else you'd like to tease out

1:34:40 ↗ from the committee before we head to um

1:34:43 ↗ council on October 6th? Then yes, city

1:34:47 ↗ administrator, go ahead.

1:34:49 ↗ Well, thank you for taking the time to

1:34:51 ↗ be diligent about pieces that we can

1:34:53 ↗ shake loose because I think that's

1:34:55 ↗ helpful for residents. It's also helpful

1:34:57 ↗ for staff. And when we talk staff, you

1:34:59 ↗ know, there's one person in the field,

1:35:01 ↗ Jason Bond, who is, you know, trying to

1:35:04 ↗ do his best representing you, the

1:35:06 ↗ municipal code, to implement what is the

1:35:10 ↗ the standard and the law. So, thank you

1:35:12 ↗ for the diligence tonight. I think the

1:35:13 ↗ only other piece is what's the time

1:35:15 ↗ frame for you to start talking about the

1:35:18 ↗ bigger picture. Um you have two meetings

1:35:20 ↗ left before the council term ends. Um

1:35:24 ↗ you have a meeting in December and then

1:35:26 ↗ you have a meeting next month in October

1:35:28 ↗ which is the final review of the comp

1:35:30 ↗ plan amendments. Um I honestly don't

1:35:32 ↗ know that

1:35:32 ↗ >> and fire code fire fees

1:35:35 ↗ >> and fire fees. Um we're not going to be

1:35:38 ↗ ready for an October meeting to talk

1:35:39 ↗ about this. So, if you would like, we

1:35:42 ↗ can put this on the the the meeting in

1:35:44 ↗ December, which is currently has no

1:35:46 ↗ agenda items, uh, on December 2nd. Um,

1:35:50 ↗ to at least begin the discussion,

1:35:53 ↗ I think we can be ready.

1:35:54 ↗ >> I think I want to find out from Dan Hint

1:35:57 ↗ when the new canopy study that's

1:35:58 ↗ underway is uh, is going to be done and

1:36:02 ↗ perhaps it makes sense to wait until we

1:36:04 ↗ have new data. Well, but I think there's

1:36:06 ↗ a larger issue that the council's

1:36:08 ↗ raising that the entire process

1:36:11 ↗ >> should be streamlined. Um, and I think

1:36:14 ↗ we need to start talking about that. And

1:36:16 ↗ I think information from Dan about that

1:36:19 ↗ is is a piece of a data point that needs

1:36:21 ↗ to come to that meeting. Um but um I

1:36:24 ↗ think the council's looking at make this

1:36:26 ↗ more simple and if we are we need to get

1:36:29 ↗ some parameters so that we can start the

1:36:31 ↗ year going back to boards and

1:36:33 ↗ commissions seeing if there's any change

1:36:35 ↗ in policy from a new mayor and council

1:36:38 ↗ um and be ready to go. So we I think can

1:36:41 ↗ commit to be ready in December to at

1:36:43 ↗ least provide a a framework to start a

1:36:47 ↗ discussion recognizing that it's not a

1:36:49 ↗ one meeting discussion.

1:36:51 ↗ >> Yeah. No, I think that makes sense then.

1:36:53 ↗ And then let me ask you this. Last night

1:36:55 ↗ we had a conversation around long-term

1:36:57 ↗ planning, prioritization. Given that

1:36:59 ↗ framing in December, would tonight's

1:37:03 ↗ conversation impact

1:37:05 ↗ um planning? Yeah,

1:37:06 ↗ >> it might. And we'll and we'll go back

1:37:08 ↗ over the next several weeks,

1:37:10 ↗ >> okay,

1:37:10 ↗ >> and sort through that. Um again, you

1:37:13 ↗ know, my sense is this is this is a

1:37:15 ↗ major shift. It's not it's not an

1:37:18 ↗ impossible one, but I think this idea

1:37:21 ↗ that easier is better

1:37:25 ↗ is is a hard one for trees in the city

1:37:27 ↗ of Esqua. And so, let us take some

1:37:30 ↗ opportunity. We'll we'll even before you

1:37:32 ↗ see this in December when we come back

1:37:34 ↗ to you for the budget, if for some

1:37:35 ↗ reason we think there's resources

1:37:36 ↗ needed, we'll we'll we'll put that into

1:37:38 ↗ the budget discussion. But otherwise,

1:37:40 ↗ uh, we would commit to come back on

1:37:42 ↗ December 2nd

1:37:44 ↗ to to continue the larger conversation.

1:37:47 ↗ >> Okay.

1:37:49 ↗ Very good. Oh, is this the the map you

1:37:51 ↗ had?

1:37:51 ↗ >> This is the map from the canopy study uh

1:37:53 ↗ that that was used in the first 2023

1:37:56 ↗ update that has um how you know what

1:38:01 ↗ these percentages are. So you can kind

1:38:03 ↗ of see

1:38:05 ↗ Talis is 73, but it doesn't parse out

1:38:08 ↗ developed area versus non-developed

1:38:10 ↗ area. So what we're trying to do with

1:38:12 ↗ the new canopy study that Dan is going

1:38:14 ↗ to assist in King County and we're

1:38:16 ↗ partnering with others is to get more

1:38:18 ↗ fine grain data of Inelis 73%

1:38:22 ↗ you know here are the undeveloped

1:38:24 ↗ protected spaces that have 90% here's

1:38:28 ↗ the developed portion and what's the

1:38:30 ↗ percentage there and that can then

1:38:32 ↗ inform what makes sense um for us. So

1:38:35 ↗ that's why I was suggesting perhaps we

1:38:38 ↗ get that data that may shed some more

1:38:40 ↗ light about the right percentages if we

1:38:42 ↗ want to stick with the neighborhood

1:38:43 ↗ methodology.

1:38:46 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

1:38:48 ↗ >> Um any other kind of closing comments on

1:38:50 ↗ this from council?

1:38:52 ↗ >> Can we have a motion?

1:38:53 ↗ >> What's that?

1:38:54 ↗ >> Do we have a motion?

1:38:55 ↗ >> Do you need a motion tonight or

1:38:58 ↗ >> Absolutely.

1:39:00 ↗ >> And I'm saying we won't put it on

1:39:02 ↗ consent.

1:39:02 ↗ >> We can give you a motion. Yeah.

1:39:05 ↗ >> So, don't want to take a minute.

1:39:08 ↗ >> Uh, sure.

1:39:09 ↗ >> Yeah. Do you want to take

1:39:09 ↗ >> Why don't we get Can we have five

1:39:11 ↗ minutes?

1:39:11 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay. We're going to take a 5m

1:39:13 ↗ minute break uh 5m minute recess to come

1:39:15 ↗ up with a motion and we'll come back in

1:39:17 ↗ 5 minutes to to read that out. Thank

1:39:18 ↗ you. Thanks.

1:39:29 ↗ >> Right. And we'll talk.

1:39:30 ↗ >> I move

1:47:32 ↗ Sorry,

1:47:44 ↗ >> Chance. Ready?

1:47:45 ↗ >> Yeah, Chance, I think we're ready to get

1:47:47 ↗ going again. If you flash the on air for

1:47:49 ↗ me, I'll know we're ready to go.

1:47:51 ↗ Perfect. Wow. How do you do that so

1:47:53 ↗ quick?

1:47:54 ↗ >> All right, we are back from recess with

1:47:56 ↗ a motion uh in front of us. Um, so, um,

1:47:59 ↗ I will read it off and then we can make

1:48:02 ↗ some comments on it if we have any other

1:48:04 ↗ remaining comments that we'd like to

1:48:05 ↗ make. Uh, so I move to forward the

1:48:07 ↗ proposed draft tree code to city council

1:48:09 ↗ for final adoption amending Isiqua

1:48:12 ↗ Municipal Code 18.812

1:48:15 ↗ as shown in the exhibit C in the agenda

1:48:17 ↗ packet except no changes to the existing

1:48:20 ↗ 18.812.060

1:48:22 ↗ tree canopy coverage table.

1:48:27 ↗ Do you need a second?

1:48:28 ↗ >> I would imagine we need a second.

1:48:29 ↗ >> Yeah. Second.

1:48:30 ↗ >> All right. So, then we have a first and

1:48:32 ↗ a second and a motion on the table. Uh

1:48:34 ↗ any comments from committee that we'd

1:48:37 ↗ still like to Yeah, Council President,

1:48:38 ↗ go ahead. Yeah, I just want to clarify

1:48:40 ↗ and just make sure that the feedback

1:48:43 ↗ that we are providing here is that while

1:48:45 ↗ we don't agree with the approach of this

1:48:49 ↗ code, it does get us to a point in the

1:48:54 ↗ interim while we re-evaluate our entire

1:48:56 ↗ approach to tree code to help out

1:48:59 ↗ certain homeowners who have been waiting

1:49:00 ↗ on these tree permits. And it allows

1:49:03 ↗ staff to have the clarification so that

1:49:06 ↗ instead of doing a 1:7 replacement, you

1:49:09 ↗ can do a 1:1 replacement and other

1:49:11 ↗ things that are just kind of emergency

1:49:13 ↗ or urgent and changes while we bring

1:49:17 ↗ back this entire question of how do we

1:49:21 ↗ approach tree canopy and tree

1:49:24 ↗ replacement and permitting and other

1:49:27 ↗ things so that we better kind of have a

1:49:30 ↗ comprehensive conversation

1:49:32 ↗ about who is king and how what staff

1:49:37 ↗ should be um protecting in those cases.

1:49:39 ↗ So that's the the feedback I would

1:49:41 ↗ provide on that.

1:49:44 ↗ >> Thank you. And you know I think um Oh,

1:49:47 ↗ did you want to go first? Go ahead,

1:49:48 ↗ Council Member J.

1:49:49 ↗ >> Yeah, I guess I would agree with what

1:49:51 ↗ Council President Walsh said. You know,

1:49:53 ↗ it seems to me like a lot of this code

1:49:55 ↗ came about in response to resident

1:49:56 ↗ concerns. It seems like passing this,

1:49:59 ↗ you know, moving this forward to council

1:50:00 ↗ now will help resolve a lot of, you

1:50:02 ↗ know, urgent and timely issues. And we

1:50:05 ↗ want to make it very loud and clear to

1:50:06 ↗ everyone that we hear what people have

1:50:08 ↗ to say that the current approach is

1:50:10 ↗ still overly complicated. You know,

1:50:13 ↗ there's like three different times when

1:50:15 ↗ you might need to refer to tree code and

1:50:17 ↗ we use totally different things like

1:50:18 ↗ number of trees or canopy coverage or uh

1:50:22 ↗ you know, diameter, breast height. So

1:50:24 ↗ it's like is there a way that we can

1:50:26 ↗ just make it actually simple to

1:50:28 ↗ understand instead of needing to have

1:50:30 ↗ like a 100step flowchart. And so that's

1:50:33 ↗ kind of the approach that I'd like to

1:50:34 ↗ see us take, you know, moving forward.

1:50:36 ↗ That said, I think this, you know, the

1:50:39 ↗ motion that's at hand simplifies things

1:50:42 ↗ for our staff and allows more

1:50:44 ↗ flexibility to a lot of um, you know,

1:50:48 ↗ our homeowners and folks that are uh,

1:50:50 ↗ using our tree code. So I think we

1:50:53 ↗ should move this forward right now. But

1:50:55 ↗ also, you know, we need to continue the

1:50:58 ↗ discussion and kind of start from first

1:50:59 ↗ principles of what is the goal of the

1:51:01 ↗ tree code here. Is it to protect trees

1:51:04 ↗ at all costs or is it to, you know, make

1:51:07 ↗ sure that we can have a safe community

1:51:11 ↗ um or balance, you know, have a balance

1:51:14 ↗ between the goals of tree preservation

1:51:16 ↗ versus safety to life and property and

1:51:19 ↗ resident experience?

1:51:24 ↗ Yeah, thank you. Um, first of all, thank

1:51:26 ↗ you, Director Dollywal and city

1:51:28 ↗ administrator Bob Quiz for navigating us

1:51:30 ↗ through this um this challenging

1:51:33 ↗ discussion tonight. Um, I want to um nyx

1:51:38 ↗ the king argument and I think balance is

1:51:41 ↗ the right word here. You know what we're

1:51:43 ↗ it's a difficult conversation, right?

1:51:45 ↗ We're trying to find the balance between

1:51:47 ↗ our eye cap goals, our tree canopy

1:51:50 ↗ coverage goals, and not being too overly

1:51:53 ↗ burdensome or ownorous on residents in

1:51:56 ↗ the city, right? And that's a sliding

1:51:57 ↗ scale. The policy question is simply not

1:52:00 ↗ left or right, but right where does that

1:52:03 ↗ sit on the scale, right? So I think it

1:52:05 ↗ makes sense for us to um as you've

1:52:07 ↗ highlighted to us correct what needs to

1:52:10 ↗ be cor corrected right now for people

1:52:12 ↗ who are waiting and for some of the

1:52:13 ↗ issues that have been identified by code

1:52:15 ↗ users but also be able to take a step

1:52:18 ↗ back and say how do we make this uh

1:52:19 ↗ simpler moving forward and uh I'm eager

1:52:22 ↗ to having that kind of framework uh

1:52:24 ↗ conversation in in December and better

1:52:27 ↗ understanding how we can then have that

1:52:28 ↗ fuller conversation uh going into next

1:52:31 ↗ year. I do just want to say too,

1:52:34 ↗ as we heard tonight, this has had many

1:52:37 ↗ touches with different community boards

1:52:38 ↗ and commissions and this is a very

1:52:40 ↗ different um vision that we're talking

1:52:43 ↗ about here tonight. Um and I would hope

1:52:46 ↗ um that no none of the boards or

1:52:48 ↗ commissions think that we are neglecting

1:52:50 ↗ their work here. Of course, we're not

1:52:52 ↗ doing that. um this is something that we

1:52:55 ↗ just need to get right and and so the

1:52:57 ↗ committee is wanting to um to push a

1:53:00 ↗ little bit on this and make sure we're

1:53:01 ↗ all on the same page on in terms of what

1:53:04 ↗ are our future goals here and being more

1:53:06 ↗ simple and I and I would imagine that

1:53:08 ↗ we're all on the same page there. So

1:53:10 ↗ anyways again thank you. We have a

1:53:11 ↗ motion um in a second on the table.

1:53:14 ↗ >> I want to make sure I explain one thing

1:53:16 ↗ clearly. So, uh, the onetoone

1:53:19 ↗ replacement, um, if you have a hazardous

1:53:22 ↗ tree in an existing property, right? But

1:53:24 ↗ if you meet the percentage canopy

1:53:26 ↗ coverage goals, you don't have to do

1:53:28 ↗ that. That's in in the code. However,

1:53:30 ↗ with not changing this table, those

1:53:33 ↗ percentages are going to be higher. So

1:53:35 ↗ for instance, if you live on Squawk

1:53:37 ↗ Mountain and currently the code says 63%

1:53:42 ↗ canopy coverage. So in order to not do

1:53:45 ↗ replacement, you would have a 63%age

1:53:49 ↗ thing that you have to show. Under the

1:53:51 ↗ new proposed code, if you were, you

1:53:53 ↗ know, it could vary from 30% to 40 40%

1:53:57 ↗ depending on the size of your lot. So,

1:54:00 ↗ it's it's not going to there's a little

1:54:02 ↗ bit of um a thing for existing

1:54:04 ↗ homeowners, the higher bar if we don't

1:54:07 ↗ make the change to the to the table.

1:54:09 ↗ Just wanted to make sure that folks

1:54:11 ↗ understood the nuance of that. Um

1:54:14 ↗ >> I think that's clear. I'll just double

1:54:16 ↗ check. I'm seeing nods here cuz there's

1:54:18 ↗ the broader conversation we'd like to

1:54:19 ↗ have as tree canopy as that kind of

1:54:22 ↗ measuring or is the yard stick. Is that

1:54:24 ↗ really the right yard stick anyway? So I

1:54:27 ↗ think it's the direction you're hearing

1:54:29 ↗ from council is stick with the existing

1:54:31 ↗ percentages there

1:54:33 ↗ >> higher. So it's less

1:54:35 ↗ >> helpful for existing homeowners because

1:54:37 ↗ there'll be more replacements needed for

1:54:40 ↗ removals.

1:54:42 ↗ >> Yes. But one for one replacements

1:54:43 ↗ instead of one for

1:54:45 ↗ >> but but I think the argument you're

1:54:47 ↗ going to get get is my tree is fully

1:54:50 ↗ >> lot you know

1:54:51 ↗ >> um covered with trees. Why do I have to

1:54:53 ↗ replant? We do have some some of those

1:54:56 ↗ circumstances that were going to be

1:54:59 ↗ helpful if with a lower percentage they

1:55:01 ↗ didn't have to replant.

1:55:03 ↗ >> Mhm.

1:55:03 ↗ >> So there's there's just wanted to be

1:55:06 ↗ sure that not changing the percentage is

1:55:09 ↗ a little bit problem for some folks.

1:55:12 ↗ >> May I ask a question?

1:55:13 ↗ >> You may. Go ahead.

1:55:14 ↗ >> So if you can't put it on your lot under

1:55:17 ↗ what's now been proposed, you have to go

1:55:20 ↗ pay $1,000 still.

1:55:22 ↗ >> That's correct. Okay.

1:55:26 ↗ So, I know a homeowner in Squawk

1:55:28 ↗ Mountain

1:55:29 ↗ is waiting for this. And I think how

1:55:32 ↗ you've explained it to him, that

1:55:33 ↗ homeowner is still

1:55:36 ↗ burdened because that homeowner has no

1:55:39 ↗ other place to put a tree and now we'll

1:55:42 ↗ have to still do the the one forone

1:55:45 ↗ replacement and we'll have to spend the

1:55:47 ↗ $1,000 or pay for a tree to go in public

1:55:50 ↗ property.

1:55:52 ↗ So just anecdotally.

1:55:59 ↗ >> So

1:56:01 ↗ if we adopt

1:56:03 ↗ the table

1:56:05 ↗ change,

1:56:06 ↗ >> correct?

1:56:08 ↗ >> It changes us from a neighborhood area

1:56:12 ↗ to a

1:56:13 ↗ >> lot size.

1:56:14 ↗ >> Yeah. So, anyone living on Squawk

1:56:17 ↗ Mountain that has a lot size of 5,000 to

1:56:19 ↗ 10,000 square ft would only need to show

1:56:22 ↗ 35% canopy coverage and not have to do

1:56:25 ↗ replacement versus 63

1:56:28 ↗ under the if you don't change the the

1:56:30 ↗ table.

1:56:32 ↗ So, it doesn't solve the problem for

1:56:34 ↗ existing homeowners completely by not

1:56:36 ↗ changing the table. I just wanted to

1:56:39 ↗ make sure that we

1:56:40 ↗ >> and the thing is I'm trying not to make

1:56:42 ↗ things overly complex by changing to a

1:56:46 ↗ certain type of land use and a certain

1:56:48 ↗ type of lot size and a certain

1:56:50 ↗ percentage of canopy coverage and and

1:56:53 ↗ and it it's it's a lot of

1:56:59 ↗ requirements and pieces to understand

1:57:01 ↗ compared to just a neighborhood by

1:57:05 ↗ neighborhood tree canopy. And so I guess

1:57:10 ↗ second piece of that is how long are we

1:57:12 ↗ talking on this um for

1:57:16 ↗ >> I mean it'll have to go through the

1:57:18 ↗ whole process again. We have to do

1:57:19 ↗ anytime we change regulations we have to

1:57:21 ↗ do SEPA again. We have to give a 60-day

1:57:24 ↗ notice to Department of Commerce.

1:57:26 ↗ >> We have to go through all the the you

1:57:29 ↗ know boards and commissions. So it's not

1:57:31 ↗ going to be immediate at least a 4 month

1:57:33 ↗ process to just meet the basic checks

1:57:36 ↗ and

1:57:41 ↗ >> that's also going to delay some other

1:57:43 ↗ you know like so we'll have to

1:57:45 ↗ prioritize if if this is an more of a

1:57:48 ↗ priority at that point. So the concept

1:57:52 ↗ is right now while it gives them the

1:57:55 ↗ ability to

1:57:58 ↗ get their permit, cut down a tree that

1:58:01 ↗ is necessary and replace one to one. If

1:58:05 ↗ that particular lot would not be able to

1:58:09 ↗ house an additional tree, then they

1:58:12 ↗ cannot get the permit

1:58:16 ↗ uh cut down a tree unless they're

1:58:18 ↗ willing to spend the $1,000.

1:58:22 ↗ >> It's correct. And so the similar example

1:58:24 ↗ for Talis neighborhood, someone has an

1:58:27 ↗ existing hazard tree, they would have to

1:58:29 ↗ replant that or pay $1,000 because

1:58:32 ↗ they're not going to be able to meet

1:58:33 ↗ 73%. Which is what we had highlighted

1:58:36 ↗ that that was a problem. These

1:58:38 ↗ percentages didn't work on a parcel by

1:58:40 ↗ parcel basis.

1:58:49 ↗ I guess this one is tough cuz I think

1:58:54 ↗ you know just switching to the canopy

1:58:58 ↗ coverage like the table with a different

1:59:00 ↗ use cases.

1:59:02 ↗ I don't I mean that's like changing what

1:59:04 ↗ we're basing that's like a bigger policy

1:59:06 ↗ decision than I think even the

1:59:08 ↗ percentages by neighborhood. Um, and I

1:59:11 ↗ do see there's a crossed out change to

1:59:13 ↗ talis that lowers it from 73% to 28%.

1:59:16 ↗ Interesting. Um, but

1:59:21 ↗ I guess my other question which I asked

1:59:23 ↗ earlier was, you know, the tree permit

1:59:25 ↗ fees. Are we thinking of

1:59:30 ↗ revisiting the fee in L for replanting a

1:59:32 ↗ tree? Cuz $1,000 is quite a lot of

1:59:37 ↗ money.

1:59:38 ↗ Well, that's that's a we had just gotten

1:59:41 ↗ that estimate. That's how much it costs

1:59:43 ↗ between the the tree cost and the labor

1:59:46 ↗ and maintenance cost. So, it's a bundled

1:59:48 ↗ rate for maintenance and so the city has

1:59:52 ↗ to take on planting, maintaining and all

1:59:55 ↗ that.

2:00:04 ↗ Yeah. I guess I just in terms of the

2:00:07 ↗ canopy coverage, it seems like,

2:00:11 ↗ you know, most of the times when people

2:00:13 ↗ are going to have to meet these is

2:00:14 ↗ essentially when you're doing

2:00:15 ↗ development on some kind of law and

2:00:17 ↗ we're not differentiating between at the

2:00:19 ↗ at least at this point, we don't have

2:00:20 ↗ good enough data to differentiate

2:00:22 ↗ between canopy coverage on that's on,

2:00:26 ↗ you know, individual lots versus that's

2:00:27 ↗ like in the public right away or on, you

2:00:30 ↗ know, undeveloped land. So, if we decide

2:00:33 ↗ to change the numbers in this table, is

2:00:36 ↗ that also something that would go

2:00:37 ↗ through the whole six-month process?

2:00:39 ↗ >> That's correct. poof.

2:00:47 ↗ So if your goal is to help the existing

2:00:50 ↗ homeowners in the interim until we get

2:00:53 ↗ the new data for the canopy coverage, my

2:00:55 ↗ recommendation would be to make the

2:00:58 ↗ changes in the table with a

2:01:00 ↗ recommendation to council to prioritize

2:01:03 ↗ this work.

2:01:05 ↗ As soon as we get the new canopy

2:01:07 ↗ coverage data, then we have a more, you

2:01:10 ↗ know, focused discussion about approach

2:01:12 ↗ one, leave it on the neighborhoods. Now

2:01:14 ↗ we have this data, we can just simplify

2:01:16 ↗ it, create a neighborhood map and come

2:01:18 ↗ up with a percentage that takes into

2:01:21 ↗ account developable land. Option two,

2:01:24 ↗ you know, keep this land use category

2:01:27 ↗ and and by the time between this change

2:01:30 ↗ and that we would have implemented it.

2:01:33 ↗ And you know if I mean it's it's pretty

2:01:35 ↗ standard for folks to know you know I

2:01:37 ↗ want to add my deck what's my zoning and

2:01:40 ↗ what are my requirements. People are

2:01:42 ↗ used to calling the city to get those

2:01:44 ↗ sort of uh information. So I imagine it

2:01:47 ↗ it's the same thing. you know, what's my

2:01:49 ↗ percentage? What, you know, we give us

2:01:51 ↗ your address and we'll look it up and

2:01:53 ↗ tell you what's your zoning and then we

2:01:56 ↗ can create website stuff, you know,

2:01:58 ↗ behind the scenes where they can add

2:01:59 ↗ their address and they can look up their

2:02:01 ↗ zoning and their percentage. So we can

2:02:03 ↗ work on the on the tools and the

2:02:06 ↗ implementation part to make this easy

2:02:08 ↗ for folks to understand as well uh until

2:02:11 ↗ we have a more robust discussion.

2:02:18 ↗ >> Council president.

2:02:20 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean I I don't love the idea. I

2:02:23 ↗ don't know where any of these numbers

2:02:24 ↗ came from or anything but

2:02:28 ↗ I guess if what we are faced with here

2:02:31 ↗ is trying to

2:02:33 ↗ deal with problems that we have created

2:02:37 ↗ with our code. Um

2:02:42 ↗ adopting the full thing

2:02:46 ↗ is probably better. I don't like it. I

2:02:50 ↗ don't like it at all, but it

2:02:55 ↗ keeps from

2:02:57 ↗ half-solving an issue that residents are

2:03:00 ↗ currently facing. So,

2:03:07 ↗ >> council member Jane, go ahead. Yeah, I

2:03:10 ↗ mean I don't think this is great, but

2:03:13 ↗ you know, to uh the city administrator's

2:03:15 ↗ point, there's some residents right now

2:03:17 ↗ who are, you know, facing the prospect

2:03:19 ↗ of having to pay $1,000 to replant a

2:03:22 ↗ tree when they already have 45% tree

2:03:24 ↗ canopy on their lot, which is very

2:03:26 ↗ significant. So, I think,

2:03:29 ↗ you know, we can we can adopt this for

2:03:32 ↗ now. Obviously, it's not great and we

2:03:34 ↗ want to revisit it, but we can do that

2:03:37 ↗ later. and give some folks relief for

2:03:41 ↗ the next 9 months before we as we go

2:03:45 ↗ through this journey yet again.

2:03:48 ↗ >> And just be clear that that is what

2:03:49 ↗ you're suggesting that the committee go

2:03:51 ↗ with the original recommendation to move

2:03:54 ↗ the full thing forward.

2:03:56 ↗ >> I I believe so because that will you

2:03:57 ↗ know like um Council President Walsh

2:03:59 ↗ said if you if you're trying to solve

2:04:01 ↗ the problem for the homeowners then

2:04:02 ↗ halfolving it won't get the the results.

2:04:05 ↗ So if the issue is to make it easier for

2:04:07 ↗ homeowners, then yes, that would be a my

2:04:09 ↗ recommendation.

2:04:10 ↗ >> And you wouldn't have any concerns?

2:04:15 ↗ You described like how we can make it

2:04:17 ↗ easier and um easier to understand for

2:04:21 ↗ ease of use concerns. We'll work on

2:04:23 ↗ that.

2:04:23 ↗ >> You're not concerned about cost or

2:04:25 ↗ implementation of anything like that?

2:04:26 ↗ >> No, I think that should be pretty

2:04:27 ↗ straightforward. Yeah.

2:04:29 ↗ >> Okay.

2:04:29 ↗ >> Yeah.

2:04:31 ↗ What kind of amendments would we need to

2:04:33 ↗ make to the motion that is currently on

2:04:35 ↗ the table?

2:04:37 ↗ >> That's

2:04:37 ↗ >> Sorry, we can't we can't take public

2:04:39 ↗ comment anymore in the rest of this

2:04:40 ↗ meeting. I apologize about that. We have

2:04:44 ↗ we have an agenda that lists public

2:04:45 ↗ comment at the beginning and and after

2:04:48 ↗ council question and answer and then we

2:04:49 ↗ can't take comments. My apologies.

2:04:54 ↗ >> So, I move to forward the proposed to

2:04:56 ↗ city council for final adoption as shown

2:04:59 ↗ in exhibit. And so you would just take

2:05:00 ↗ out the the last part out.

2:05:12 ↗ >> So we have a motion on the table with a

2:05:15 ↗ second. How do we adjust that to

2:05:19 ↗ >> I think as the motion maker I can just

2:05:21 ↗ accept this as a friendly amendment. And

2:05:24 ↗ were you the second?

2:05:25 ↗ >> You agree?

2:05:26 ↗ >> Yep.

2:05:26 ↗ >> Okay. Then let's strike that and then we

2:05:30 ↗ have an amended motion. Does that all

2:05:33 ↗ sound right to our committee clerk? I

2:05:36 ↗ think so.

2:05:37 ↗ >> Um

2:05:38 ↗ >> yes.

2:05:39 ↗ >> Okay.

2:05:41 ↗ So then we have an amended motion on the

2:05:43 ↗ table. Any other final comments before

2:05:45 ↗ we take a vote?

2:05:49 ↗ Nothing. Okay. Uh all those in favor say

2:05:51 ↗ I. I.

2:05:52 ↗ >> I.

2:05:53 ↗ >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? All right.

2:05:55 ↗ And that passes 300. Again, thank you

2:05:58 ↗ very much for walking us through a very

2:06:00 ↗ challenging um discussion. We are moving

2:06:02 ↗ forward this um to the council and I

2:06:04 ↗ will have um some heavy comments and

2:06:07 ↗ remarks, not heavy, but uh extensive

2:06:10 ↗ comments and remarks for um the council

2:06:12 ↗ at that October 6th meeting as well. So,

2:06:15 ↗ any any final remarks that um either of

2:06:18 ↗ you would like to share with the

2:06:19 ↗ committee?

2:06:19 ↗ >> No, I think we heard your feedback. Um

2:06:21 ↗ we'll take that uh to task. So, as we

2:06:24 ↗ work through the new uh canopy coverage,

2:06:27 ↗ you know, the idea being it's simple,

2:06:29 ↗ it's clear, the flexibility, you know,

2:06:32 ↗ should exist for everyone. So, we'll

2:06:34 ↗ we'll keep thinking about those as we

2:06:36 ↗ package this for further conversations

2:06:38 ↗ with boards and commissions in the

2:06:40 ↗ future.

2:06:41 ↗ >> All right. Thank you very much. Um, all

2:06:44 ↗ right. So, that concludes that item

2:06:47 ↗ then. So, the next item on our agenda is

2:06:50 ↗ announcements. Um any announcements by

2:06:53 ↗ committee. Um all right. Then our next

2:06:56 ↗ meeting is scheduled for October 7th

2:06:58 ↗ which is my birthday. Um and the

2:07:01 ↗ preliminary agenda which I will be

2:07:03 ↗ thrilled to talk about on my birthday

2:07:05 ↗ are COM 0173 the fire code permit fee

2:07:08 ↗ increase and epher budget and comm 0177

2:07:11 ↗ the 2025 comprehensive plan amendments

2:07:13 ↗ and reszone. So a light meeting. Um, so

2:07:17 ↗ there being no further business uh

2:07:19 ↗ before this committee, then we are

2:07:20 ↗ adjourned at 8:40 p.m. And thank you all

2:07:22 ↗ for tuning in.

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Motions and votes (1)

Forward the proposed draft tree code to City Council for final adoption, amending Issaquah Municipal Code 18.812 as shown in the Exhibit C in the agenda packet. The motion carried 3-0. The item was scheduled to be brought before the City Council at their October 6, 2025 Regular Meeting. Other Commit…

Moved by (main motion as amended) · seconded by

Carried 3-0