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

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Zach Hall

Lindsey Walsh

Kelly Jiang

Motions and votes (3)

MAIN MOTION: 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, except no changes to the existing 18.812.060 Tree Canopy Coverage table.

Moved by Chair Hall · seconded by Council President Walsh

Carried 3-0

In favor: Zach Hall, Lindsey Walsh, Kelly Jiang

AMENDMENT: Strike the last part of the main motion reading: "except no changes to the existing 18.812.060 Tree Canopy Coverage table." There being no objection, the amendment was approved by unanimous consent.

Moved by Chair Hall · seconded by Council President Walsh

Carried by unanimous consent

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 Chair Hall · seconded by Council President Walsh

Carried 3-0

In favor: Zach Hall, Lindsey Walsh, Kelly Jiang