Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, April 24, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 10, 2025

packet pp.3–6

▶ Watch from 0:52 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, March 27, 2025

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18: Tree Code Update

Discussion · Doug Yormick, Environmental Planner · packet pp.7–49

Topics: Land UseTrees

▶ Watch from 1:34 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

At the April 24th, 2025 meeting, the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will review and discuss proposed amendments to Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC) Title 18 proposed amendments to Chapter 18.812, Tree Preservation Code.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.51–52

▶ Watch from 1:25:32 Open packet at p.51 ↗

Staff report:

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

2010 segments .txt ↗

0:09 ↗ All right. Good evening. I'd like to

0:12 ↗ call the April 24th Planning Policy

0:15 ↗ Commission meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.

0:19 ↗ Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The

0:21 ↗ Planning Policy Commission is in person.

0:23 ↗ Uh but staff or members of the public

0:25 ↗ may be attending virtually or in person.

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

0:31 ↗ Vice Chair Patterson, yes, you do. And

0:34 ↗ Chair Voice is excused tonight and

0:36 ↗ Commissioner Millander Irwin, uh, maybe

0:39 ↗ in traffic.

0:41 ↗ Excellent. And then thank you as well to

0:43 ↗ Commissioner Mole for joining us

0:45 ↗ online. All right. Now, we will to the

0:49 ↗ minutes. So, our first item of business

0:52 ↗ is to take action to approve the minutes

0:54 ↗ for the April 9th PPC meeting. Are there

0:57 ↗ any corrections to the draft minutes

0:59 ↗ provided in the agenda

1:03 ↗ packet? All right. Hearing none, the

1:05 ↗ minutes are

1:07 ↗ approved. The next item of business is

1:11 ↗ public comment. For this meeting, we're

1:12 ↗ holding general public comment at this

1:14 ↗ time for all general topics being

1:16 ↗ discussed by the commission. Uh staff,

1:19 ↗ has anybody signed up to make a public

1:20 ↗ comment? No, sir. There are no public

1:23 ↗ comments today.

1:26 ↗ All

1:28 ↗ right. Excellent. If there are no public

1:30 ↗ comments, then we will move on to our

1:34 ↗ regular business for the evening. And

1:36 ↗ that regular business this evening is

1:38 ↗ the title 18 tree code

1:40 ↗ amendments. Um, so Douglas Yormick, our

1:44 ↗ environmental planner, will be

1:46 ↗ presenting on this topic tonight. Uh,

1:48 ↗ Doug, go ahead.

1:56 ↗ All right. Good evening, commissioners.

1:59 ↗ Uh, sorry I couldn't be there in person.

2:01 ↗ I am in Chalan representing the city at

2:04 ↗ a planning conference. So, I am joining

2:06 ↗ from my hotel

2:09 ↗ room. So, um, thank you everyone. Um I'm

2:13 ↗ the environmental planner with community

2:15 ↗ planning and development and uh Steven

2:17 ↗ Padua is also with me to um address any

2:21 ↗ comments um in person. Um together we're

2:25 ↗ here to propose the amendments to

2:28 ↗ chapter 18812 um our tree preservation

2:31 ↗ code.

2:38 ↗ So, this meeting will introduce uh I'm

2:40 ↗ I'm on the second slide, Stephen. The

2:44 ↗ purpose. There you

2:46 ↗ go. Um this meeting will introduce the

2:49 ↗ amendments to the tree code um our staff

2:53 ↗ has been working on with our

2:55 ↗ environmental consultant facet. Um next

2:58 ↗ slide.

3:02 ↗ So, a little bit of background. Um, in

3:04 ↗ May 2023, council approved a major

3:08 ↗ update to title 18, the city's land use

3:11 ↗ code. Um, this included an overhaul of

3:13 ↗ our tree preservation code. Um, since

3:15 ↗ then, several changes were or since

3:18 ↗ then, uh, as part of that, several

3:20 ↗ changes were adopted as part of the

3:22 ↗ overhaul. Uh, one such change was

3:25 ↗ replacing tree density on individual

3:28 ↗ lots with a standard for tree canopy

3:31 ↗ coverage to help implement the city's

3:33 ↗ um, climate action goal of uh, hitting

3:37 ↗ 55% canopy coverage by 2035.

3:41 ↗ Um, since this was adopted, uh, staff

3:45 ↗ have have identified several areas for

3:48 ↗ improvement for better clarity to

3:50 ↗ interpret and apply the standards

3:51 ↗ equitably and consistently. Um, council

3:54 ↗ 2 has heard concerns from residents and

3:56 ↗ have asked staff to prepare amendments

3:59 ↗ to the tree

4:01 ↗ code. Next slide. Thank you.

4:05 ↗ Um so we have um grouped our proposed

4:10 ↗ amendments into three categories based

4:11 ↗ on the type of change in the code. Um so

4:14 ↗ we created a change matrix identifying

4:17 ↗ these three categories and included that

4:19 ↗ into your packet both clarifying and

4:22 ↗ minor. We've gathered information from

4:24 ↗ 100 plus tree removal permits and

4:27 ↗ development

4:28 ↗ activity and feedback from residents and

4:31 ↗ stakeholders.

4:32 ↗ Um, additionally, um, some came from

4:35 ↗ other sources such as Washington state

4:37 ↗ law um case

4:39 ↗ law. Major represents a significant

4:43 ↗ departure from our current code or

4:45 ↗ policy questions brought up during

4:46 ↗ review. Um, it's this category that

4:49 ↗ we're going to um, go more in depth

4:52 ↗ during this

4:54 ↗ presentation. Next slide.

4:58 ↗ So these are the list of clarifying

5:01 ↗ amendments. Um these amendments don't

5:04 ↗ introduce any significant changes to the

5:07 ↗ existing

5:08 ↗ regulations but instead seek to remove

5:10 ↗ ambiguities. Um make rules easier to

5:13 ↗ understand or apply. Um these changes do

5:17 ↗ not have any policy questions to

5:20 ↗ discuss. Next

5:24 ↗ slide. And then the these are the list

5:27 ↗ of minor amendments that we've

5:29 ↗ identified. And these amendments are

5:31 ↗ intended to address specific issues or

5:34 ↗ or correct minor deficiencies that we've

5:36 ↗ found in our code um without making

5:38 ↗ large-scale changes to the overall land

5:40 ↗ use

5:42 ↗ framework. Next

5:46 ↗ slide. Then these three are identified

5:50 ↗ as our major amendments. Um these

5:52 ↗ amendments do propose policy level

5:55 ↗ changes um with the intent of still

5:58 ↗ achieving our desired outcome of hitting

6:01 ↗ our 55% target um by 2035. Um it's these

6:05 ↗ amendments um we'll discuss in more

6:09 ↗ detail. Next

6:15 ↗ slide. Um so this is our current canopy

6:20 ↗ targets. um that we approved back in

6:24 ↗ 2023. Our current practice places the

6:27 ↗ burden of meeting our canopy target

6:29 ↗ goals on individual property owners

6:31 ↗ without consideration um for lot size or

6:34 ↗ existing improvements on that lot.

6:37 ↗ Instead, it more generalized using sub

6:41 ↗ areas or neighborhoods

6:43 ↗ capturing in in instances capturing

6:46 ↗ forested hillsides and open spaces

6:49 ↗ um within each sub area. While while

6:51 ↗ this approach um created meaningful

6:54 ↗ targets to achieve, it's difficult to

6:56 ↗ administer on a wby-watt basis.

7:00 ↗ Um so we heard from comm community from

7:03 ↗ the community from stakeholders um and

7:06 ↗ the administration about pursuing

7:07 ↗ another strategy without compromising

7:10 ↗ our overall uh goal of of hitting that

7:12 ↗ 55% by

7:15 ↗ 2035. Next slide.

7:20 ↗ So, so we partnered with the

7:23 ↗ environmental consulting firm Facet um

7:26 ↗ to develop a new strategy taking into

7:29 ↗ consideration feedback that that we've

7:31 ↗ received. Um this approach evaluated the

7:35 ↗ existing canopy with land uses and

7:38 ↗ potential planting areas, lot size and

7:40 ↗ zoning like those those were taken into

7:43 ↗ consideration when developing the the

7:45 ↗ new canopy targets.

7:47 ↗ Um so instead of

7:50 ↗ um a strategy of applying the sub areas

7:53 ↗ canopy targets onto the individual

7:55 ↗ property itself, we're proposing to

7:58 ↗ create a specific canopy that's more

8:00 ↗ targeted towards the the land use or the

8:03 ↗ intensity of the land use. Um and then

8:06 ↗ for single family, we go a step further

8:08 ↗ and even include lot size as a

8:10 ↗ consideration.

8:14 ↗ So these new targets are just one tool

8:17 ↗ to achieve our goal of 55%

8:21 ↗ uh by

8:22 ↗ 2035. Another tool is the urban forest

8:25 ↗ management plan developed by parks which

8:28 ↗ looks at city-owned properties and

8:31 ↗ facilities

8:32 ↗ um and and uh trees within the right of

8:35 ↗ way. So we should think of like taking

8:39 ↗ together both of these um as a

8:42 ↗ comprehensive approach should still

8:44 ↗ allow us to achieve our intended target

8:46 ↗ of 55%

8:49 ↗ um and reduce heat island effects and

8:52 ↗ storm water mitigation um in in a

8:56 ↗ rapidly changing world.

9:01 ↗ So the the targets that we currently

9:04 ↗ have in title 18 for the sub areas have

9:07 ↗ been incorporated into the urban forest

9:10 ↗ management

9:11 ↗ plan. Um so those overall neighborhood

9:15 ↗ targets aren't going away.

9:18 ↗ We have a recommendation from Facet to

9:22 ↗ periodically review our canopy coverage

9:25 ↗ to ensure that we're on track um and

9:28 ↗ then to adjust our approach as as

9:30 ↗ necessary. So um CPND staff are

9:34 ↗ communicating with parks about this

9:36 ↗ approach and and its frequency.

9:40 ↗ And then also say in doing this update

9:43 ↗ um we we did look at other jurisdictions

9:46 ↗ tree preservation codes and according to

9:50 ↗ um 2024 King County guide to developing

9:55 ↗ urban tree regulations um on for

10:00 ↗ blanking on the full

10:01 ↗ name

10:03 ↗ 2024 King County Guide to developing

10:07 ↗ effective tree regulations on private

10:10 ↗ property. I think I got it all.

10:12 ↗ Um, and in it they identified Isiqua as

10:15 ↗ being as rated a level four out of four,

10:18 ↗ which is the the highest, meaning we

10:20 ↗ take a comprehensive approach to tree

10:22 ↗ protection. Um, and then even when

10:25 ↗ compared to the other jurisdictions that

10:28 ↗ have the same rating as us, um, we have

10:30 ↗ a higher individual canopy target.

10:39 ↗ All right, next

10:41 ↗ slide. So, the the next couple of slides

10:43 ↗ I'm I put together some case studies.

10:46 ↗ Um, this is a town home development in

10:49 ↗ in the Talis neighborhood. And as many

10:52 ↗ of you are aware, the Talis neighborhood

10:55 ↗ um the lots within Talis neighborhood

10:57 ↗ tend to be very small when compared to

10:58 ↗ other neighborhoods. This was purposeful

11:01 ↗ to cluster developments and to maintain

11:03 ↗ abundant open space.

11:05 ↗ What this image doesn't really show are

11:09 ↗ the additional improvements that are on

11:10 ↗ the site such as driveways and walkways

11:13 ↗ um which take up additional potential

11:16 ↗ planting

11:17 ↗ area. So when looking at these lots

11:20 ↗ there's little opportunity for tree

11:22 ↗ canopy. Um so the target in Talis

11:26 ↗ neighborhood was 75%. So achieving 75%

11:30 ↗ is is almost impossible for for most

11:33 ↗ lots in Talis. Um there isn't much

11:36 ↗ potential planting area to plant on

11:39 ↗ these lots since most are have you know

11:43 ↗ the home and the necessary improvements

11:46 ↗ on a very small space.

11:51 ↗ Um pretty much and then you have

11:54 ↗ forested open spaces as well. So there

11:57 ↗ isn't potential for for off-site uh tree

12:01 ↗ plantings within within Talis and uh

12:04 ↗ currently rightway trees

12:08 ↗ um the canopies extend onto the

12:11 ↗ individual lots don't contribute to the

12:13 ↗ the tree canopy coverage for that

12:15 ↗ individual lot. So by implementing a

12:18 ↗ canopy coverage for the individual lot

12:20 ↗ of 25% which is what we're proposing for

12:23 ↗ a single family lot of this size is

12:26 ↗ feasible for most within the sub area.

12:28 ↗ Um this allows for easier

12:31 ↗ implementation of the canopy

12:33 ↗ requirements and it's also proportionate

12:35 ↗ and equitable for the property

12:38 ↗ owner. Next

12:41 ↗ slide. This is another case study. Um,

12:44 ↗ this was a single family addition in the

12:47 ↗ Oldtown neighborhood. Uh, the lot size

12:50 ↗ is

12:51 ↗ 9,688 square ft. Um, it has an existing

12:54 ↗ canopy coverage of

12:57 ↗ 1,922. Um, no trees were proposed to be

13:00 ↗ removed with this addition. Um, under

13:03 ↗ the current regulations,

13:06 ↗ um, the sub the Oldtown sub area has a

13:09 ↗ 33% canopy coverage. um meaning that the

13:13 ↗ applicant would have to plant um

13:16 ↗ 1,275 square ft of of canopy cover.

13:20 ↗ Under the new method um for a single

13:23 ↗ family lot of this size, the proposed

13:25 ↗ canopy coverage is 35%. So in this

13:28 ↗ instance, the applicant would have to

13:29 ↗ plant more on on this lot. So as for

13:34 ↗ single family, as as lot size increases,

13:36 ↗ the requirement increases and and vice

13:39 ↗ versa.

13:42 ↗ All right, next

13:47 ↗ slide. So, our thresholds to comply and

13:51 ↗ how we calculate canopy coverage are

13:53 ↗ proposed to be changed under both the

13:55 ↗ current and proposed. All new and

13:57 ↗ redevelopment must comply. Um, however,

14:00 ↗ the current method can be problematic,

14:02 ↗ especially for small sites. Um, going

14:04 ↗ back to the Talis example, each of the

14:06 ↗ town home lots would require 75% canopy

14:10 ↗ coverage. For such a small site with

14:12 ↗ almost maximum imperous surface, this

14:14 ↗ this can be impossible. Um, under the

14:17 ↗ revised method, the lot must comply with

14:19 ↗ the new canopy targets. Um, so going

14:21 ↗ back to the Talis example, um, it would

14:24 ↗ be 25% of the lot would require canopy

14:28 ↗ coverage.

14:30 ↗ Additionally, the site debuts green

14:31 ↗ space with potential for overhanging

14:34 ↗ canopy. Um, so when reviewing a tree

14:37 ↗ removal permit or a newer redevelopment,

14:39 ↗ this overhanging canopy can be captured

14:42 ↗ um for the the canopy coverage for that

14:44 ↗ lot. Um staff felt that overhanging

14:49 ↗ canopy should be considered um since

14:51 ↗ that canopy theoretically should remain

14:54 ↗ since um we only allow tree removal

14:57 ↗ that's qualified and and that's when a

14:59 ↗ tree is dead, dying, diseased, is has

15:02 ↗ been deemed hazardous or or as a

15:04 ↗ nuisance which is causing obvious

15:06 ↗ physical damage or has the potential

15:10 ↗ to. Another change is if an individual

15:13 ↗ lot is meeting the tree canopy targets,

15:17 ↗ replacement trees won't be necessary.

15:20 ↗ So, our current method imposes property

15:23 ↗ owners with a qualifying tree removal.

15:25 ↗ Um, full canopy coverage

15:28 ↗ requirements. Um, often this results in

15:30 ↗ a single tree being removed. Um, but the

15:33 ↗ property owner having to plant several

15:35 ↗ trees adding costs and without

15:37 ↗ considering the land use or property

15:40 ↗ size. Um, this results in a property

15:43 ↗ owner sometimes having to pay thousands

15:45 ↗ of dollars in additional costs for just

15:47 ↗ removing a single tree. Um, this method

15:50 ↗ isn't proportionate to the action being

15:52 ↗ taken and can be punitive for the

15:54 ↗ property

15:55 ↗ owner. Next slide.

16:03 ↗ And another major change is to

16:06 ↗ reintroduce some flexibility to the

16:08 ↗ central Isiqua neighborhood. So um the

16:13 ↗ sub area is targeted for growth with

16:15 ↗ urban densities and intensities and in

16:17 ↗ most locations this will be infill

16:18 ↗ development.

16:25 ↗ So currently the tree retention

16:27 ↗ requirements

16:29 ↗ um for central Isiqua is 25% of the

16:31 ↗ total caliper inches of the within the

16:34 ↗ developable site area. Um and the

16:36 ↗ developable site area is is the area

16:39 ↗ defined anywhere outside of critical

16:40 ↗ areas in their buffers um or exclusively

16:43 ↗ used easements.

16:46 ↗ Currently we have no remedy to

16:50 ↗ um reduce this requirements without

16:52 ↗ going through the variance process and

16:54 ↗ as you go through the variance criteria

16:57 ↗ um a a reduction in the tree retention

17:00 ↗ wouldn't be

17:02 ↗ supported since most of the projects in

17:05 ↗ central will be infill developments um

17:09 ↗ of it be infill development of existing

17:11 ↗ suburban style development. Many of the

17:13 ↗ trees that are existing on site uh tend

17:16 ↗ to be parking lot trees or maybe

17:18 ↗ perimeter landscape trees um and in some

17:23 ↗ instances these are poorly maintained um

17:26 ↗ and just not the right tree in the right

17:29 ↗ spot may not survive uh any sort of

17:33 ↗ development that occurs. So by

17:36 ↗ reintroducing some flexibility, we can

17:39 ↗ continue to target growth into central

17:42 ↗ um review would occur under the land use

17:46 ↗ permit with an accompanied arborist

17:48 ↗ report. And to to qualify for the

17:51 ↗ deviation, the applicant must meet the

17:53 ↗ criteria for um the the retention the

17:57 ↗ the deviation from the retention and and

18:00 ↗ anything below

18:02 ↗ 25% retention um will be required to pay

18:05 ↗ into the tree fund and then in all all

18:08 ↗ cases the development must meet the

18:09 ↗ proposed canopy coverage

18:12 ↗ targets. And then next

18:16 ↗ slide. So this is another case study

18:19 ↗ example that I pulled up from central

18:21 ↗ Isiqua. Um as you can see this is a

18:24 ↗ existing office building. This is being

18:26 ↗ proposed. This is a proposed

18:28 ↗ redevelopments. Uh it'll be a

18:30 ↗ residential development and

18:33 ↗ um currently the applicant would have to

18:37 ↗ um save or retain 25% of the trees in in

18:42 ↗ the developable site area. And as you

18:43 ↗ can see, most are um parking lot trees

18:46 ↗ and there's some perimeter landscape

18:48 ↗ trees. So, I'm just using this as an

18:51 ↗ example

18:52 ↗ um to show kind of what we're we're

18:56 ↗ looking at in central. And so, the

18:58 ↗ flexibility would allow a reduction to

19:01 ↗ that 25%

19:03 ↗ uh tree retention. And then once the

19:06 ↗ site has been developed, it they would

19:09 ↗ have to demonstrate that they're going

19:10 ↗ to meet their 20-year canopy targets.

19:12 ↗ and and we would review that during uh

19:14 ↗ during permit

19:17 ↗ review. Next

19:20 ↗ slide. So earlier this month um we had a

19:25 ↗ introduction kickoff meeting with the

19:26 ↗ environmental board and these are the

19:30 ↗ seven items in which we um we identified

19:34 ↗ to bring up for further consideration

19:36 ↗ and and

19:39 ↗ review. Next slide.

19:42 ↗ U before we move on, Doug, I'm gonna

19:44 ↗ invite um two environmental board

19:47 ↗ members to kind of speak on the the

19:49 ↗ board feedback. Uh Don, did you want

19:52 ↗ to go through the list?

19:57 ↗ Yeah. Yeah, sure. So, I'll just kind of

19:59 ↗ share some high level thoughts from what

20:01 ↗ the environmental board thought. So, I'm

20:03 ↗ Don McWills. I'm the chair of the

20:04 ↗ environmental board for those of you

20:06 ↗ that don't know me. Um so there was some

20:08 ↗ cons there was a lot of talk about

20:10 ↗ wildfires on the environmental board um

20:12 ↗ at the meeting and we had some concerns

20:16 ↗ about down trees, dead trees um

20:20 ↗ hazardous trees that could be inside the

20:23 ↗ burn zone and be subject to this code if

20:26 ↗ people were have to get permits to take

20:28 ↗ those

20:29 ↗ down. Um we recommended that we do some

20:32 ↗ piloting with this code to kind of see

20:34 ↗ what it would look like. So like the

20:35 ↗ scenario that we just saw there um but

20:38 ↗ do some more of those so we could get a

20:40 ↗ better look at it on the multi-family

20:43 ↗ targeting um we found it

20:46 ↗ difficult to site trees um adjacent to

20:49 ↗ those multif family lots and on those

20:52 ↗ lots um I know there's a fee and loo

20:54 ↗ program for that um but kind of the idea

20:57 ↗ is we want to keep those trees you know

20:58 ↗ kind of in the neighborhood if possible

21:02 ↗ um there was a talk from a citizen about

21:05 ↗ uh her HOA and having a lot of issues

21:08 ↗ trying to get a tree permit um for

21:10 ↗ multiple trees within the HOA. So, they

21:13 ↗ had several trees that were hazard trees

21:14 ↗ in the HOA and they had to get

21:16 ↗ standalone permits for each one. So, we

21:17 ↗ had asked uh that staff look into

21:20 ↗ that. Um more flexibility in the

21:22 ↗ planting area and then we wanted some

21:25 ↗ clarification on the tree fund. Um we

21:27 ↗ understand it's going to the tree fund,

21:28 ↗ but we want to know exactly, you know,

21:29 ↗ what what where is the tree fund? Is it

21:31 ↗ a dedicated fund? How is it used? So,

21:34 ↗ some more details there. And then with

21:36 ↗ regard to the downtown effect, um we

21:38 ↗ wanted we were concerned about heat

21:40 ↗ island. Um if we pull all the trees and

21:43 ↗ uh you know allow the the developers

21:45 ↗ just to put the trees around the

21:46 ↗ perimeters or into little pockets, um

21:49 ↗ you could have potential heat island

21:50 ↗ effect downtown.

21:55 ↗ Great. Thank you, Don. Um,

21:57 ↗ commissioners, before we let Don go, is

22:00 ↗ there any questions about some of the

22:01 ↗ comments from the environmental board

22:03 ↗ that you want any clarity on?

22:08 ↗ Go ahead, Commissioner Adair. Hi. Um,

22:11 ↗ can I have some clarification on the

22:14 ↗ wild fire? What they would kind of hope

22:16 ↗ for? Basically, would the idea be that

22:18 ↗ people who could remove down trees

22:20 ↗ without permits that were already down?

22:22 ↗ Is that the idea?

22:24 ↗ It wasn't so much well down trees, yes.

22:27 ↗ Um, you know, being able to cut those

22:28 ↗ up, move them out of the way. Um, but it

22:30 ↗ was more focused on, you know, if you

22:32 ↗ have

22:33 ↗ potentially fire fuel trees within if

22:36 ↗ they could fall on your house, um, that

22:38 ↗ are diseased, that are dying, um, that

22:40 ↗ probably should be removed. Um, finding

22:44 ↗ a easier way to permit those trees

22:48 ↗ rather than a standalone, you know, tree

22:50 ↗ by tree permit. you know, having be able

22:52 ↗ to have an arborist come in and do kind

22:54 ↗ of a full-sight evaluation rather than,

22:57 ↗ you know, taking one tree at a time

23:00 ↗ thing. And that came from one of our

23:03 ↗ board members who's very uh very

23:06 ↗ concerned about wildfires. She lives up

23:07 ↗ on the hill on the south side.

23:13 ↗ And Commissioner Mole, I see your hand

23:14 ↗ up if you'd like to go ahead and ask.

23:16 ↗ Yes. Um, is is there any plan to

23:21 ↗ identify those trees that are dead and

23:24 ↗ and create fuel? I bring this up because

23:27 ↗ I happen to own a lot in Sycamore that I

23:31 ↗ just have never paid attention to and it

23:34 ↗ was pointed out to me by somebody who

23:35 ↗ lived nearby that I had a dead 100 ft

23:38 ↗ tree on on that lock and because I

23:42 ↗ because I am becoming because I am not

23:46 ↗ in isqua all the time and no one had

23:49 ↗ told me. We took the tree out, but um

23:54 ↗ but the tree was absolutely stoned dead

23:57 ↗ and I didn't know. So, what are we doing

23:59 ↗ about absentee owners to to identify

24:03 ↗ dead trees and

24:05 ↗ um and uh perhaps send them a notice

24:09 ↗ that maybe they should take it down?

24:15 ↗ I can take a stab at responding to that,

24:17 ↗ Commissioner Mole. So, um, one of the

24:19 ↗ things that we're doing as part of this

24:21 ↗ process, uh, with the feedback that we

24:22 ↗ got from the environmental board is

24:23 ↗ we're connecting with East Side Fire and

24:25 ↗ Rescue. They conduct, um,

24:29 ↗ home emergency assessment for

24:33 ↗ homeowners. And part of what they look

24:36 ↗ at is wildfire risk to homes. and and

24:38 ↗ some of the recommendations oftent times

24:40 ↗ is pruning of trees or or um getting rid

24:44 ↗ of any brush that could be used as fuel

24:47 ↗ um if there is any risk of wildfire. And

24:49 ↗ so one of the things we're looking at is

24:51 ↗ is what's in those reports? Is that

24:52 ↗ something that could be used in place of

24:55 ↗ an arburish report to um allow for

24:58 ↗ pruning of trees on a property? Um to

25:01 ↗ your question, Commissioner Mole, in

25:03 ↗ terms of who's responsible for that,

25:05 ↗ right now the responsibility is on the

25:07 ↗ property owners. Um I don't know of any

25:10 ↗ other process of being able to identify

25:13 ↗ that otherwise, but that could be one of

25:14 ↗ the questions we posed to East Side Fire

25:17 ↗ and Rescue as we're having the

25:18 ↗ conversation with them. I think that

25:20 ↗ would be appropriate. In this case,

25:22 ↗ there was no home on the property. There

25:25 ↗ is no home on the property. So, I am in

25:28 ↗ effect an absentee owner. Got it. And

25:31 ↗ and I'm thinking that there are lot that

25:33 ↗ there are multiple properties around the

25:35 ↗ city of Isiqua that have absentee owners

25:38 ↗ who may or may not be aware of the

25:39 ↗ condition of a tree. And we had the same

25:42 ↗ thing in a a lot across uh on a a lot

25:46 ↗ near um our the house that we owned in

25:50 ↗ Sycamore. And this this was these are

25:52 ↗ not small trees. These are like, oh my

25:54 ↗ god, big big

25:57 ↗ trees. Um, and there and I don't know

26:00 ↗ that that owner was ever was ever

26:02 ↗ informed that the tree was dead.

26:05 ↗ We'll pose some of those questions to

26:07 ↗ East Fire and Res and get back to the

26:08 ↗ commission on that. That would be great.

26:11 ↗ Um, I did want to say from personal

26:13 ↗ experience, it is the property owner's

26:15 ↗ responsibility to look at those trees.

26:18 ↗ Um, we have I work at an HO or I work

26:20 ↗ with my HOA to have an arborist come in

26:23 ↗ once a year at spring to to look at all

26:26 ↗ the trees to see if any are dead because

26:28 ↗ when insurance policies come, if your

26:30 ↗ tree falls, you're responsible. So, the

26:33 ↗ homeowner is ultimately responsible for

26:35 ↗ maintaining or the health of their trees

26:38 ↗ or to review to see um if their trees

26:41 ↗ are healthy. A actually my when when we

26:45 ↗ discovered the problem I I asked my

26:48 ↗ daughter who's a real estate attorney if

26:49 ↗ that was in fact the case and it's not

26:53 ↗ as as clear as you're making it sound

26:57 ↗ when it comes to

26:59 ↗ insurance. So there there is it it

27:02 ↗ depends on if the owner should have

27:04 ↗ known that that tree had the potential

27:07 ↗ to be a hazard because you might have a

27:09 ↗ tree that is not a hazard to an

27:11 ↗ adjoining house but is in fact a hazard

27:14 ↗ to the community itself.

27:17 ↗ So we'll connect with East Side Fire and

27:19 ↗ Rescue about some of this topic and get

27:21 ↗ back to the commission about what what

27:22 ↗ their feedback is. Yeah. Okay. Thank

27:24 ↗ you, Stephen. Um any questions for the

27:27 ↗ environmental board chair before we move

27:29 ↗ on? Um I had a comment in regards to the

27:33 ↗ um the discussion we just had about East

27:35 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue and I do have some

27:37 ↗ um experience with the fire risk

27:39 ↗ mitigation report that they um will

27:42 ↗ produce after doing an inspection um of

27:45 ↗ a um um an owner's lot. And um as an HOA

27:50 ↗ manager um when some properties have um

27:55 ↗ are developed, developers want to give

27:57 ↗ the the look and feel that our property

27:59 ↗ has been there forever. And one of the

28:00 ↗ ways of doing that is to plant a lot of

28:03 ↗ trees. And over the years, as these

28:05 ↗ small trees get bigger, the placement of

28:08 ↗ those trees become problematic. and they

28:10 ↗ will usually pull attention in terms of

28:13 ↗ either insurance companies looking at

28:15 ↗ them and deeming them either a fire risk

28:17 ↗ because they're too close to the

28:19 ↗ structure, overhanging a roof, and

28:21 ↗ deemed to be either a fire hazard or

28:23 ↗ just an overall hazard. Um, the

28:26 ↗ recommendations that I've seen in those

28:27 ↗ fire risk mitigation reports from East

28:29 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue indicate that the

28:31 ↗ trees need to be removed. So in the

28:34 ↗ particular property that I manage, that

28:36 ↗ would uh represent a reduction in the

28:39 ↗ tree canopy, but in this case, we're

28:41 ↗ overplanted. And so what is an HOA that

28:45 ↗ is effectively overplanted and is

28:48 ↗ needing to I guess comply with um fire

28:52 ↗ risk mitigation recommendations to do in

28:55 ↗ this particular case.

28:58 ↗ Excellent. Thank you, Commissioner

29:00 ↗ Miller Irwin.

29:02 ↗ Uh any other questions or comments for

29:04 ↗ our environment environmental board

29:06 ↗ chair uh Nick Williams? Yes,

29:09 ↗ Commissioner I dare. Hi. Um if you could

29:11 ↗ just go into more detail on number five

29:14 ↗ for identify planning areas with

29:16 ↗ flexibility. I didn't quite hear that.

29:17 ↗ So if you could expand a little more, I

29:19 ↗ would appreciate it.

29:21 ↗ [Music]

29:22 ↗ Yeah, Stephen and Doug, maybe you could

29:24 ↗ help me with this one. Um I don't

29:25 ↗ remember this entire conversation. And I

29:27 ↗ think it was around the multifamily

29:28 ↗ homes

29:31 ↗ and the need to kind of have some set

29:34 ↗ aside areas that could be used as future

29:38 ↗ planting areas. Was that where that

29:39 ↗ conversation was going? It was I I

29:42 ↗ recall that there was concerns that we

29:44 ↗ would have to be installing trees in

29:47 ↗ people's backyards that would end up,

29:49 ↗ you know, getting in between the houses

29:51 ↗ and then when we're fully grown, they'd

29:52 ↗ be a full canopy over the backyard, make

29:54 ↗ it unusable. It' be difficult. and then

29:56 ↗ people would end up just cutting those

29:58 ↗ trees down. So, does that sound

30:00 ↗ familiar? That it was part of that

30:02 ↗ conversation. It was also part of the

30:04 ↗ conversation where you have sites that

30:06 ↗ have maximized their impervious surface

30:08 ↗ and so there's no plantable area. And so

30:11 ↗ having an alternative place is

30:13 ↗ identified um in other places of the

30:16 ↗ city, particularly public spaces. Um,

30:18 ↗ this is a conversation we're having with

30:19 ↗ Dan Hens, our urban forestry, who's

30:21 ↗ joined us tonight as part of his

30:23 ↗ implementation of the urban forestry

30:24 ↗ management plan and program. Um, part of

30:28 ↗ his job is helping identify some of

30:29 ↗ those alternative planning areas

30:31 ↗ throughout the city. Dan, do you want to

30:32 ↗ talk a little bit more about that?

30:35 ↗ [Music]

30:37 ↗ Yep. Hello everyone. I'm Dan Hint, urban

30:39 ↗ forest supervisor with our parks and

30:41 ↗ community services department. Um, and

30:43 ↗ yeah, this has been really kind of ad

30:45 ↗ hoc and formal when there's been a need

30:46 ↗ for off-site tree replacements. You

30:48 ↗ know, working with our parks department

30:50 ↗ to find locations. I think this has been

30:52 ↗ a goal identified in our urban forest

30:54 ↗ management plan that Stephen and Doug

30:56 ↗ have referenced to formalize that uh

30:58 ↗ kind of essentially receiving sites um

31:01 ↗ for uh you know some of these areas

31:03 ↗ where you can't meet the canopy targets

31:05 ↗ on the uh development developed

31:07 ↗ properties. So that's that's a that's a

31:09 ↗ process I want to work on with community

31:11 ↗ planning to make sure we kind of have

31:12 ↗ that set up identified, you know,

31:13 ↗ throughout the different sub areas of

31:15 ↗ the city.

31:21 ↗ Commissioner D, does that help answer

31:22 ↗ your question? Awesome. Thank you.

31:25 ↗ Great. Thank you very much. Any other

31:27 ↗ questions or comments for Chair Mc

31:30 ↗ Williams? Uh, go ahead, Commissioner

31:32 ↗ Mole.

31:37 ↗ Oh, you're on mute.

31:39 ↗ Commissioner Mole, you are

31:47 ↗ there. We go. Okay, you should be muted

31:49 ↗ now. Yes. Am I unmuted? Okay.

31:52 ↗ Um, is there a is there any discussion

31:56 ↗ about ways to compensate owners who

31:59 ↗ donate property? Um, who have sites that

32:03 ↗ don't have a lot of trees and who are

32:05 ↗ willing to make those sites these this

32:08 ↗ is individual homeowners. Make those

32:11 ↗ sites available to the general community

32:13 ↗ for planting. I'm saying that because I

32:16 ↗ own some lot I mean my my father planted

32:19 ↗ a thousand trees around is he was he was

32:22 ↗ instrumental in making sure that we

32:24 ↗ increase tree canopy and I I have lots

32:27 ↗ of trees on my own homes my own home and

32:31 ↗ I would be willing to make property that

32:34 ↗ I have available for tree planting which

32:36 ↗ would help with the canopy.

32:39 ↗ Is there any discussion about those

32:41 ↗ identifying those lots that have very

32:44 ↗ little tree coverage and where the

32:45 ↗ owners would be willing to provide to to

32:48 ↗ allow for

32:50 ↗ planting? Has there been any discussion

32:52 ↗ of that?

32:56 ↗ Dan, I can let you speak to that more.

32:58 ↗ You're involved in more of those

32:59 ↗ discussions if you if you're able. Yeah,

33:03 ↗ Ellen, that's a really great question. I

33:04 ↗ I don't think there's been specific

33:06 ↗ discussions kind of at the kind of

33:08 ↗ single property or single family kind of

33:10 ↗ level. We've talked about that a little

33:12 ↗ bit with some of our bigger HOAs that

33:14 ↗ might have potential receiving sites

33:16 ↗ where we could do trees. Um so that

33:18 ↗ would be, you know, kind of working with

33:19 ↗ them if they have developments in their

33:21 ↗ HOAs and identifying sites that we could

33:24 ↗ have tree replacements. So, you know, I

33:25 ↗ think we have the most, you know,

33:27 ↗ control uh and opportunities obviously

33:30 ↗ with our public spaces and figuring out

33:31 ↗ access agreements, things like that. Uh,

33:33 ↗ the incentive idea is really

33:35 ↗ interesting, too. I mean, we'd have to

33:36 ↗ figure out how that would how that would

33:38 ↗ work, but I think identifying sites

33:40 ↗ like, you know, what you're describing

33:41 ↗ is a is a very interesting idea, but I

33:43 ↗ wouldn't say it's something we've

33:44 ↗ discussed in much detail other than, you

33:46 ↗ know, kind of like said the larger HOAs,

33:48 ↗ maybe like Isqua Highlands and and

33:50 ↗ Talis. Um, trying to kind of identify

33:52 ↗ some of those off-site receiving areas.

33:55 ↗ H have there been any discussions about

33:58 ↗ allowing transfer? So, for example, if

34:01 ↗ an owner has a a major tree that needs

34:04 ↗ to be removed and that owner is fine

34:06 ↗ with planting but on a different lot,

34:10 ↗ um, and and would that has has there

34:13 ↗ been any discussion about allowing that

34:14 ↗ transferability?

34:18 ↗ Stephen Doug, I might hand that back to

34:20 ↗ you. And my understanding, I mean, if

34:21 ↗ it's in, you know, based on our current

34:22 ↗ code, if it's in the same sub area,

34:24 ↗ then, you know, yes, you know, we try to

34:26 ↗ prefer on-site replacement first, you

34:28 ↗ know, off-site within the sub area and

34:30 ↗ then if we need to move to other sub

34:32 ↗ areas, I think is kind of our order, but

34:34 ↗ I I would defer to Doug and like Doug's

34:36 ↗ nodding like I hopefully got that right.

34:37 ↗ But um so so so yes, I'm not sure how

34:40 ↗ often that happens. Like I said, I'm

34:42 ↗ mostly managing public trees. Um, so

34:44 ↗ often it's, you know, a different, you

34:46 ↗ know, public works transportation

34:47 ↗ project needs to do some off-site trees.

34:48 ↗ We'll identify spots in our park system

34:50 ↗ that we can do that. Um, but I'm not

34:52 ↗ sure how much that's happening kind of

34:53 ↗ private to private properties. Okay.

34:56 ↗ Yeah.

34:57 ↗ I', you know,

35:00 ↗ it's all of us planners work on tree

35:03 ↗ removal permits. So, I can only really

35:06 ↗ speak for what I know the ones that I

35:08 ↗ have reviewed and just from discussions

35:12 ↗ with the other planners, I don't think

35:13 ↗ that happens. It would be allowed if if

35:15 ↗ you wanted to have an agreement with a

35:18 ↗ neighbor or another property owner

35:19 ↗ within that sub area to plant a tree.

35:22 ↗ Um, that would just be a neighbor to

35:24 ↗ neighbor or resident to resident

35:26 ↗ agreement. Uh, we wouldn't get in the

35:28 ↗ way of that. And if they allow the

35:29 ↗ planting to be there, um, we would make

35:32 ↗ we would ensure that the tree was

35:33 ↗ planted with an inspection once it was

35:35 ↗ in the ground. Um, yeah. So that that

35:39 ↗ would that would be allowed.

35:41 ↗ Okay. Um, so so that transferability

35:44 ↗ would be allowed. The other thing is for

35:47 ↗ those areas where that are damp,

35:49 ↗ obviously you're going to plant trees

35:51 ↗ whose roots do well in in damp soil,

35:55 ↗ but but some some of the regulations,

35:58 ↗ the environmental regulations that

36:00 ↗ identify wetlands include trees. So if

36:04 ↗ you plant a tree with that that's good

36:07 ↗ for in damp soil conditions that's used

36:11 ↗ as an identifier for whether or not

36:13 ↗ there's a wetlands on that that a part

36:15 ↗ part of that property becomes wetlands.

36:17 ↗ Mhm. How are you guys identifying ways

36:21 ↗ so that somebody can plant a tree and 30

36:23 ↗ years later they don't find out that

36:25 ↗ they've created wetlands?

36:27 ↗ Um I can speak to that a little bit.

36:30 ↗ Yes, you're you're right. Um vegetation

36:33 ↗ is is one of the criteria that's used to

36:36 ↗ identify wetlands. Um in addition to

36:39 ↗ that, you you'd have to look at other

36:41 ↗ indicators as well. Um one is soil. So

36:44 ↗ you would does it have hydric soil or

36:47 ↗ wetland type soils. Um and then you'd

36:50 ↗ also have to look at hydrarology too.

36:52 ↗ Um, so in order for it to be determined

36:56 ↗ to be a wetland, it needs water within

36:59 ↗ 12 in of the surface for 2 weeks out of

37:02 ↗ the growing year, which is enough time

37:04 ↗ for it to produce hydric soils. If you

37:06 ↗ don't have those requirements, even if

37:07 ↗ it's damp, that doesn't necessarily mean

37:09 ↗ that it's a wetland. There's there's

37:11 ↗ going to be other indicators that um a

37:13 ↗ wetland biologist would go out and

37:15 ↗ identify. And if that tree has um it's

37:20 ↗ there's a in

37:22 ↗ there's an indicator and if it's meets

37:24 ↗ that indication but the soils aren't

37:27 ↗ hydric then that's not a that's not a

37:29 ↗ wetland. Um I realized we we we had

37:33 ↗ planted trees that were we planted trees

37:36 ↗ that were appropriate for damp soil Mhm.

37:40 ↗ at the time and because

37:44 ↗ um because the amount of water does not

37:47 ↗ stay constant over 30 years 40 years

37:50 ↗ Mhm. Those trees were used as wetlands

37:53 ↗ identifiers even though they were

37:56 ↗ planted because they were appropriate to

37:58 ↗ the site. Are we going are are will the

38:03 ↗ staff be dealing with that? I mean is

38:05 ↗ like can you register your tree so that

38:08 ↗ you so that if somebody plants a tree

38:11 ↗ that is wetlands appropriate because the

38:13 ↗ last thing you want is some is somebody

38:15 ↗ planting a pear tree and sort of its

38:17 ↗ roots tend to rot in wetlands. Mhm.

38:21 ↗ Commissioner Mull. Sorry, I'm gonna jump

38:22 ↗ in real quick. We actually have a

38:23 ↗ comment in the room that will help

38:25 ↗ address this scenario. I'll pass it to

38:26 ↗ Stephen real quick. Yeah, I'm going to

38:27 ↗ pass it on to our sustainability manager

38:30 ↗ who has uh some insight on this topic.

38:32 ↗ Thanks, Stephen. Uh Stacy Vin McKentry.

38:35 ↗ I'm the sustainability manager with the

38:36 ↗ city and also the leazison to the

38:38 ↗ environmental board, which is why I was

38:40 ↗ here tonight. Um but I just wanted to

38:42 ↗ speak briefly to the question around um

38:45 ↗ incentivizing tree plantings on private

38:47 ↗ property. Uh my role at the city is

38:50 ↗ overseeing implementation of the city's

38:52 ↗ climate action plan and we actually have

38:54 ↗ an action that explicitly says that. Um

38:58 ↗ a couple years ago we looked into

39:00 ↗ incentive programs for um either

39:03 ↗ maintaining or planting trees on private

39:05 ↗ property. Many of the programs that

39:07 ↗ exist are for much larger uh land than

39:11 ↗ what we have within our city limits. Um,

39:15 ↗ and so, uh, a year ago, we worked and

39:18 ↗ with Dan's team and worked with the UDub

39:20 ↗ Evans School to look at options for

39:23 ↗ incentivizing tree planting on private

39:25 ↗ property. And the recommendation that

39:27 ↗ came out of that project was a tree

39:30 ↗ giveaway program. So, we'll be piloting

39:33 ↗ that um, sustainability and uh, uh,

39:36 ↗ dance program, urban forestry. We'll be

39:38 ↗ piloting that program in the fall as one

39:41 ↗ option. um and then hopefully looking at

39:44 ↗ other ways to expand incentivizing the

39:46 ↗ the tree plantings on private property.

39:48 ↗ So, just wanted to provide um some of

39:50 ↗ that context and share one of the

39:52 ↗ programs that we'll be launching this

39:53 ↗ fall as a pilot. Excellent. Thank you so

39:56 ↗ much for that information. Um before I

39:59 ↗ know we we probably have some more

40:00 ↗ questions that we want to ask, but

40:01 ↗ before we get into that, uh do we want

40:03 ↗ to finish the presentation out? Is there

40:04 ↗ any more uh information to cover? This

40:08 ↗ is pretty close to the end of the

40:09 ↗ presentation. And so if there's any

40:10 ↗ other questions for our environmental

40:12 ↗ board members, um, now is the time.

40:15 ↗ Otherwise, we can let them go.

40:18 ↗ All right. So, looking around one more

40:19 ↗ time for questions to the envir

40:21 ↗ environmental board folks who kindly

40:23 ↗ joined us this

40:29 ↗ evening. All right. Uh, well, thanks to

40:32 ↗ the environmental board for for joining

40:34 ↗ us and providing uh this feedback. um

40:37 ↗ your knowledge and expertise on this

40:38 ↗ topic is uh very important to the

40:40 ↗ conversation and I know helped us stay

40:43 ↗ informed as well. So we can continue on.

40:46 ↗ Yeah, thank you for having us.

40:59 ↗ Um so these are four policy questions

41:02 ↗ that that we have identified.

41:05 ↗ Um we want to bring to your attention

41:08 ↗ for discussion at um the next planning

41:12 ↗ policy commission hearing on May 22nd.

41:16 ↗ Um and these questions are included in

41:19 ↗ your

41:22 ↗ packet. Next

41:26 ↗ slide. And then this is just a timeline

41:29 ↗ for um next steps through

41:31 ↗ implementation. So, we will be returning

41:34 ↗ to the environmental board on May 14th.

41:36 ↗ Um, followed by planning policy

41:38 ↗ commission hearing on May

41:40 ↗ 22nd. Uh, we'll go to the PTE council

41:44 ↗ committee on June 10th. And we've um

41:47 ↗ tentatively scheduled July 7th as city

41:50 ↗ council

41:53 ↗ adoption. And then next

41:56 ↗ slide. And

41:58 ↗ then that's it. Do you have any

42:01 ↗ questions? Excellent. I am sure that we

42:04 ↗ do. So, I'll just ask our commissioners

42:06 ↗ to please raise your hand and wait to be

42:08 ↗ called on and we'll try and give

42:09 ↗ everyone an opportunity to speak before

42:11 ↗ we kind of come back around. Um, and I

42:13 ↗ will start with Commissioner Crass,

42:14 ↗ please. Hey Doug, thank you for your

42:17 ↗ work. Um, this is Commissioner Crass.

42:19 ↗ Uh, two questions. Um, the first has a

42:21 ↗ couple parts. is on very small lots

42:24 ↗ because I know um lot size I think in

42:28 ↗ where I live you could do like two 2500

42:30 ↗ to 3,000 foot lots and I know you

42:32 ↗ mentioned um getting to

42:35 ↗ 25% um canopy. Um do we know that that

42:38 ↗ is very doable because that's still 750

42:41 ↗ ft once you have the the the building

42:44 ↗ the driveways all the impervious

42:46 ↗ surfaces if there's any shrubs. Is there

42:49 ↗ much do you have some examples? Um

42:51 ↗ that's that's the first part of it. So

42:52 ↗ I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

42:53 ↗ And then um talk a little bit more about

42:56 ↗ fee and loo. So if someone's either um

42:59 ↗ building on a small lot or or remodeling

43:01 ↗ where they need a permit, how does that

43:03 ↗ work for a very small lot? And like

43:06 ↗ what's the cost of something like that?

43:07 ↗ Is that um kind of within what something

43:10 ↗ a homeowner can do? Because I think

43:12 ↗ intent could be there but there may not

43:13 ↗ be enough space. And then I have one

43:15 ↗ other question after. Okay. So for for

43:18 ↗ your first question and we believe that

43:22 ↗ the 25%

43:24 ↗ is is more doable than what the current

43:28 ↗ is for based on sub area. So if you're

43:30 ↗ using talis as an example that would be

43:32 ↗ 75% canopy coverage. Um we're also we

43:36 ↗ haven't taken away the flexibility. So,

43:38 ↗ if you still couldn't um hit that

43:40 ↗ target, you know, say it's 750 square ft

43:45 ↗ is was the what you needed to to hit, um

43:48 ↗ there's still options to to plant

43:51 ↗ offsite or or pay into the tree fund,

43:53 ↗ which then leads into your your second

43:55 ↗ question. So during permit review, if if

43:59 ↗ you have to do um a fee in L for for

44:02 ↗ tree pay into the tree fund, um we have

44:05 ↗ it is $1,000 and that covers the cost of

44:08 ↗ the tree and some ongoing maintenance

44:11 ↗ for that tree once, you know, when it

44:14 ↗ goes into the fund and then it's

44:15 ↗ distributed by by parks to to plant

44:18 ↗ trees in in other areas of the city. So,

44:20 ↗ it should it should be able to cover the

44:22 ↗ cost of of maintaining that tree as well

44:24 ↗ while it's while it's young and and

44:27 ↗ starting to grow. Okay. So, thousand

44:28 ↗ it's not like tens of thousands of

44:30 ↗ dollars to someone. Okay. And then the

44:32 ↗ one last thing and I'll I'll turn my mic

44:34 ↗ off is um we kind of jumped to some of

44:36 ↗ the specifics, but I'd love your

44:38 ↗ thoughts on I mean there's a goal of um

44:41 ↗ having canopy over sidewalks um and

44:45 ↗ having it more livable and walkable

44:46 ↗ city. So having tree canopies, these are

44:50 ↗ not necessarily on people's property,

44:51 ↗ but on parkways or on other um public

44:54 ↗ lands that cover sidewalks and what's

44:57 ↗ the thought of tree canopies for cooling

45:00 ↗ the city versus uh on property? And I

45:04 ↗ think we're only talking about on

45:05 ↗ property, so I think I'd love to hear

45:06 ↗ some more thoughts on that. Yeah. Um,

45:09 ↗ I'll I'll get started and then I'm going

45:11 ↗ to have Dan jump in because that's going

45:13 ↗ to be more of um his expertise with the

45:16 ↗ the urban forest management plan. So, we

45:19 ↗ we discuss on private property for for

45:22 ↗ the tree code because we're we just

45:24 ↗ regulate within the boundaries of of a

45:27 ↗ property. Um, so things that are in the

45:29 ↗ right of way um those are those those

45:33 ↗ standards are regulated differently um

45:35 ↗ and not necessarily in the land use

45:37 ↗ code. Um, so I'll let Dan jump in and

45:41 ↗ kind of discuss what his urban forest

45:44 ↗ management plan has to say for, you

45:46 ↗ know, right ofway trees, street trees,

45:48 ↗ things like that.

45:52 ↗ Yeah, thanks Doug. Um, yeah, great

45:55 ↗ question. So, our urban forest

45:56 ↗ management plan does look at uh

45:58 ↗ essentially heat disparity uh and kind

46:01 ↗ of variability across the city. So,

46:03 ↗ there's actually some really good

46:04 ↗ resources out on that. Um, American

46:06 ↗ Forest is a great national nonprofit

46:08 ↗ that does this work across the country

46:10 ↗ kind of modeling some of that as well as

46:12 ↗ locally here. King County has been doing

46:14 ↗ a lot of studies on urban heat island

46:16 ↗ effects and where that's most pronounced

46:18 ↗ in the county. So, there's some very

46:20 ↗ good resources. Like I said, nationally,

46:21 ↗ most of them are done by census blocks,

46:23 ↗ so they don't perfectly line up with our

46:25 ↗ sub area definitions in the city, but

46:27 ↗ they're pretty close. Um, so you do see,

46:30 ↗ um, and this is something, you know,

46:31 ↗ Doug or Stephen, I'd be happy to send

46:33 ↗ out to the, um, uh, commission

46:35 ↗ afterwards if that would be helpful. Um,

46:38 ↗ but you, you do see some, uh, variations

46:40 ↗ of, uh, you know, especially kind of in

46:43 ↗ central Isiqua along Gilman, you know,

46:45 ↗ getting into the highlands a little bit,

46:47 ↗ uh, north is aqua of, you know, 5

46:49 ↗ degrees Fahrenheit, uh, you know, warmer

46:52 ↗ than what would be in a, you know, kind

46:54 ↗ of non-developed state. So essentially

46:56 ↗ we've identified these areas which which

46:58 ↗ I think all of us to some extent could

46:59 ↗ do without a without a report

47:01 ↗ necessarily just based on you know the

47:02 ↗ amount of pavement and just kind of

47:04 ↗ walking through some of those areas on

47:05 ↗ our hot days in the summer. But uh you

47:07 ↗ know we we do have those areas

47:09 ↗ identified. We do have those areas

47:11 ↗ marked as priorities for as Stacy

47:13 ↗ mentioned our tree giveaway. as much as

47:15 ↗ we can do that on private property in

47:17 ↗ those areas. We're going to try to

47:18 ↗ prioritize both the outreach and the

47:20 ↗ offering of trees, at least a percentage

47:22 ↗ of them, to some of those uh census

47:24 ↗ block areas that have those biggest heat

47:26 ↗ disparities. Uh and then from our

47:28 ↗ efforts, whether that's, you know, funds

47:29 ↗ coming from the tree fund or other park

47:31 ↗ initiatives for tree planting, really

47:33 ↗ prioritize those census block or

47:35 ↗ neighborhood areas for uh you know,

47:38 ↗ shade and cover. So, yeah, really really

47:39 ↗ thinking about the goal in those areas.

47:41 ↗ And obviously we have a lot of

47:42 ↗ environmental salmon recovery, water

47:44 ↗ quality goals as we get into our, you

47:46 ↗ know, bigger open spaces and areas along

47:48 ↗ the creek. So it's it's certainly, you

47:50 ↗ know, kind of customizing to, you know,

47:52 ↗ the needs in those areas and and yeah,

47:54 ↗ like I said, central Isiqua, a little

47:55 ↗ bit of Oldtown, a little bit of North

47:57 ↗ Isiqua, kind of around Lakeside. Those

47:58 ↗ are the areas we see some of the higher

48:00 ↗ uh heat disparities in the city. So um

48:03 ↗ that's that's essentially kind of how

48:05 ↗ we're planning our efforts or how we're

48:06 ↗ prioritizing some of our tree planting

48:08 ↗ initiatives moving forward with that

48:10 ↗ information.

48:11 ↗ Thanks. Thanks, Dan. Yes. Excellent.

48:15 ↗ Thank you both. Um, moving on. Katy, do

48:18 ↗ you have or sorry, Commissioner

48:20 ↗ Zacharov, do you have anything you'd

48:22 ↗ like to

48:23 ↗ ask? All right, Commissioner Matthews.

48:27 ↗ I did have a couple of questions. The

48:28 ↗ first is, um, would you change the

48:30 ↗ numbers? You you changed the approach

48:33 ↗ for how you calculate the numbers. I

48:35 ↗ noticed that Tiger Mountain was

48:36 ↗ originally 91% and now it's 85%. Can you

48:40 ↗ tell me what made that decision? Why it

48:43 ↗ was changed down instead of maintained

48:45 ↗ at 81%. 91, I'm

48:53 ↗ sorry. Um, well, we went we went

48:57 ↗ differently with the canopy coverage

49:00 ↗ targets as as proposed. So, yes,

49:02 ↗ originally it was it was 91%. Um, now

49:06 ↗ it's going based on what the land use is

49:09 ↗ instead of it just being within the sub

49:11 ↗ area in Tiger Mountain. There's there's

49:14 ↗ a lot of of tree coverage already. Um,

49:16 ↗ so if it's a single family lot on in

49:19 ↗ Tiger Mountain neighborhood, um, it

49:22 ↗ would it would follow the canopy

49:23 ↗ coverage requirements based on the um,

49:26 ↗ lot

49:27 ↗ size. So, it can be anywhere depending

49:30 ↗ on the lot size um from 35 to 60%. Um

49:35 ↗ but we're still trying to hit that

49:37 ↗ target for um the Tiger Mountain sub

49:41 ↗ area. We're just not putting the the

49:44 ↗ burden of 91% on each of the individual

49:48 ↗ lots that are within that sub area.

49:50 ↗ Okay. Because it um actually in the

49:52 ↗ zone, it actually looks like Tiger

49:54 ↗ Mountain is pretty much just the

49:56 ↗ forested uh hiking area. said no

49:58 ↗ neighborhoods included when you look at

50:01 ↗ the zoning map. So that's why I was a

50:02 ↗ little confused. We're out of the sub

50:03 ↗ area and now just looking at the

50:05 ↗ mountain itself. Yeah, we're because

50:08 ↗ we're we're looking at the individual

50:10 ↗ lot instead of taking the entire sub

50:13 ↗ area and then implementing that target

50:17 ↗ onto each of the individual lots. Um

50:22 ↗ I'm still a little bit of confused about

50:24 ↗ that one. I wonder if you could take it

50:26 ↗ and take just take a look because it

50:27 ↗ it's supposed to be by zone and when you

50:29 ↗ look at the zone

50:31 ↗ um under the under houses in Right.

50:34 ↗ Right. It doesn't look like there's

50:36 ↗ homes in that zone at all. Just the

50:39 ↗ Yeah, that would be like a conservancy

50:40 ↗ zone probably. Yeah, it's in a

50:42 ↗ conservancy zone and the the numbers did

50:44 ↗ change. So that's why I was just

50:46 ↗ curious. Okay.

50:49 ↗ Um my second question, it actually may

50:52 ↗ not be able to be covered under this,

50:54 ↗ but in some cases where you can't meet

50:57 ↗ that 25% target in the central area, is

51:00 ↗ it possible to um have an alternative

51:04 ↗ for like green roofs, which is something

51:06 ↗ that we don't really do in the US that

51:08 ↗ much, but it's basically up and coming

51:10 ↗ in Europe um because it does help with

51:14 ↗ the heat zones that people have been

51:16 ↗ concerned about because that is a huge

51:17 ↗ concern. once we start building up the

51:19 ↗ central area is that we're not going to

51:21 ↗ get relief. It's going to get warmer. So

51:23 ↗ maybe that's an option that could be I

51:26 ↗ mean it affects a lot of things like

51:28 ↗ building code and everything else, but I

51:30 ↗ didn't know if that was actually an

51:32 ↗ option that was being

51:34 ↗ considered at all.

51:38 ↗ Um yes and no. It's we it's been talked

51:42 ↗ about um and it would be allowed if if a

51:47 ↗ building in central wanted to do some

51:48 ↗ sort of green roof. We don't have any

51:51 ↗ like there there are no standards that

51:52 ↗ prevent that from happening. Um we never

51:55 ↗ really looked at it as like as a way to

51:57 ↗ capture canopy. um not sure how large of

52:02 ↗ a tree you you could get on on a roof um

52:07 ↗ without really affecting like how the

52:09 ↗ building is is constructed and

52:11 ↗ structural engineering and stuff. But I

52:13 ↗ know it can happen and I mean that's

52:15 ↗ something that we we can continue to

52:16 ↗ explore and consider um if if the tree

52:20 ↗ large enough that might be able to help

52:23 ↗ you with your canopy coverage. I

52:25 ↗ actually think I might not have asked my

52:27 ↗ question properly, but it was like

52:28 ↗ rather than having to meet the canopy

52:31 ↗ standards if they could alternate and do

52:34 ↗ a kind of like we were talking about

52:36 ↗ with impervious services, there's no

52:37 ↗ buildable, but actually not having to

52:41 ↗ provide the canopy, but actually do like

52:42 ↗ a green roof instead to, you know, so an

52:46 ↗ alternate to the canopy, if that makes

52:49 ↗ sense.

52:51 ↗ Yeah, Dan's got his hand up, so I'm

52:53 ↗ going to let him.

52:57 ↗ Oh, you're muted, Dan.

53:05 ↗ Add to your second question, but I can

53:06 ↗ add a little more context to your first

53:08 ↗ maybe, Doug, since I have some of these

53:09 ↗ documents open, but a lot of our

53:12 ↗ guidance is coming from a 2019 report,

53:14 ↗ which is our first comprehensive tree

53:16 ↗ canopy analysis across the city. uh it

53:18 ↗ looked at our overall you know whole

53:21 ↗ square mileage of Isiziqua tree canopy

53:24 ↗ uh at 51% and that's what helped you

53:26 ↗ know set this goal of 55% in our climate

53:28 ↗ action plan but within that report it

53:30 ↗ also looked at uh tree canopy by by

53:33 ↗ zoning and land use and by the sub

53:35 ↗ areas. So to your question about Tiger

53:37 ↗ Mountain, hopefully I can provide a

53:38 ↗ little more clarity there, but Tiger

53:40 ↗ Mountain as a sub area was identified at

53:42 ↗ 91% cover in that um 2019 study. But if

53:47 ↗ you look at community conservies across,

53:49 ↗ you know, essentially open spaces across

53:51 ↗ the city, it was actually about a 75%

53:54 ↗ tree cover. So Tiger Mountain's a little

53:55 ↗ higher than maybe some other forested

53:57 ↗ open spaces that might have more canopy

53:59 ↗ gaps, invasive species, things like

54:01 ↗ that. So I believe Doug if I don't have

54:03 ↗ this open right now but I believe it is

54:05 ↗ across the city as a as a zoning use of

54:07 ↗ you know community facilities at 85%

54:09 ↗ now. So yes for Tiger Mountain that

54:11 ↗ comes down 6% but across the entire city

54:14 ↗ based on the measurement once again it's

54:16 ↗ a little out of date. These are things

54:17 ↗ that we plan on updating ideally every 5

54:19 ↗ years so we can kind of track success or

54:21 ↗ if we're going backwards on tree canopy.

54:24 ↗ Uh but across the city you know that was

54:25 ↗ 74% measured in 2019 and and now at 85%.

54:30 ↗ So, it's it's actually as a whole across

54:32 ↗ the city coming up a bit, but uh

54:34 ↗ compared to where Tiger Mountain itself

54:36 ↗ was is a slight decrease. So, hopefully

54:37 ↗ that clarifies that first question of

54:39 ↗ yours a little bit.

54:42 ↗ Yes, thank you.

54:44 ↗ Excellent. Thank you very much. Uh,

54:46 ↗ Commissioner Olner.

54:48 ↗ Yeah, I had a uh question of

54:49 ↗ clarification. So, I know we're talking

54:51 ↗ within the context of Title 18, which

54:54 ↗ applies to private lots and private

54:57 ↗ property. Um but the overall target of

55:01 ↗ uh 55% uh canopy by

55:05 ↗ 2035, does that include public lands or

55:08 ↗ just the uh lands the properties covered

55:11 ↗ by um title 18?

55:15 ↗ [Music]

55:16 ↗ Doug, if you I can take that real quick.

55:18 ↗ Doug, if you want me to. It it is it is

55:19 ↗ citywide. So it includes it includes

55:21 ↗ both private properties and public

55:24 ↗ properties in the city. And you know we

55:26 ↗ our our park system is is yeah

55:28 ↗ remarkably about 20% of our land cover

55:30 ↗ is equ 1500 acres of open space another

55:33 ↗ few hundred acres of maintained parks

55:35 ↗ and facilities. So um to answer your

55:38 ↗ question it is citywide and we are

55:39 ↗ looking at tree planting goals that you

55:42 ↗ know still prioritize most of that on

55:44 ↗ public lands. Um but you know looking at

55:46 ↗ these initiatives like these tree

55:47 ↗ giveaways or incentive programs for

55:49 ↗ canopy uh you know both uh maintenance

55:52 ↗ and care and then you know new planting

55:54 ↗ of trees to form new canopy uh on

55:56 ↗ private property as well. So it it is

55:59 ↗ both.

56:01 ↗ Great. Thank you. Uh just one other

56:04 ↗ question and that has to do with

56:05 ↗ maintenance. So if a private property

56:07 ↗ owner um plants trees uh but doesn't

56:11 ↗ maintain them, doesn't water them, um

56:14 ↗ doesn't trim them, um does the city have

56:17 ↗ any recourse or you know how is that

56:19 ↗ handled?

56:23 ↗ So right now how it's being handled is

56:27 ↗ is we do an inspection once the the tree

56:30 ↗ has been planted. We don't really have

56:32 ↗ any ongoing requirements for that. If if

56:36 ↗ it's the individual property owner that

56:37 ↗ has planted the tree, um if they have

56:41 ↗ paid into, you know, the the tree fund

56:44 ↗ and now this tree is planted on public

56:46 ↗ property, then that tree would would be

56:49 ↗ maintained by by park staff.

56:53 ↗ Okay. Thank you.

56:55 ↗ Excellent. And Commissioner Dear,

56:58 ↗ hi. So I have kind of a an umbrella

57:02 ↗ question which is uh when looking at the

57:05 ↗ changes to title 18 and I'm looking at

57:07 ↗ the comment matrix. One of the comments

57:09 ↗ from the city was it has been difficult

57:11 ↗ to interpret and apply the current code

57:14 ↗ equitably inconsistency which has led to

57:16 ↗ applicant frustrations. Uh could we get

57:19 ↗ some examples of a scenario? It doesn't

57:22 ↗ have to be an exact person, but a

57:24 ↗ scenario where someone is frustrated or

57:27 ↗ they're not able to get what they need,

57:29 ↗ you know.

57:34 ↗ Yeah. No, to think I'm on the spot to to

57:38 ↗ some scenarios. Um, I think the the

57:41 ↗ biggest one was the the replacement

57:46 ↗ requirements if you weren't meeting the

57:48 ↗ individual

57:49 ↗ um canopy coverage requirements for your

57:52 ↗ lots. Um, that was that was frustrating

57:55 ↗ for a lot of people who who were just

57:57 ↗ trying to remove a tree that that may be

57:59 ↗ hazardous. um remove a single tree and

58:02 ↗ then come back and like well you are

58:05 ↗ deficient you know 15% canopy coverage

58:08 ↗ so now you're going to have to plant x

58:10 ↗ number of trees. Um that that was

58:14 ↗ frustrating. Um the scenarios where this

58:17 ↗ was a small single family lot doing a

58:20 ↗ small addition removing no trees. Um

58:22 ↗ they were also deficient but their lot

58:25 ↗ on two sides of budded um green space.

58:29 ↗ It it was you know protected along a

58:32 ↗ creek had significant canopy overhang

58:34 ↗ from from mature vegetation or mature

58:37 ↗ trees that were were there and they

58:39 ↗ couldn't they couldn't capture that. Um

58:42 ↗ so they planted some trees on on their

58:44 ↗ property and then also had to pay the

58:46 ↗ remainder in into the tree fund. Um,

58:49 ↗ those were those are two examples where

58:51 ↗ the the property owner was was fairly

58:53 ↗ frustrated with with our process.

59:00 ↗ Follow-up question then. Um, how does

59:02 ↗ changing from sub areas to individual

59:05 ↗ lot zoning help in those scenarios? I

59:08 ↗ I'm not quite seeing the connection.

59:11 ↗ So for for a single family lot, um

59:15 ↗ instead of it just being sub area, um

59:18 ↗ you know, in in some cases the the

59:21 ↗ canopy target for that sub area might be

59:23 ↗ incredibly high, 75% for Talis, for

59:26 ↗ instance, and and you have a small lot

59:28 ↗ and you're not you're not ever going to

59:30 ↗ be able to meet that

59:32 ↗ 75%. Um that that tends to be probably

59:35 ↗ the biggest headache. Um, and since we

59:39 ↗ deal mostly with when it comes to tree

59:41 ↗ removal permits, they're it's mostly

59:43 ↗ single family residences that are doing

59:46 ↗ it. And then in in some instances, it's

59:48 ↗ it's HOAs. And that's another

59:49 ↗ frustration frustration is is HOAs

59:53 ↗ having to apply for multiple permits

59:57 ↗ because they have trees. They they

59:59 ↗ manage trees on multiple parcels within

1:00:00 ↗ that HOA. Um, so they have to submit a

1:00:03 ↗ tree removal permit for each of those

1:00:05 ↗ properties instead of just having some

1:00:08 ↗ sort of one permit that could capture

1:00:10 ↗ all of them.

1:00:14 ↗ Did I did I help answer that first

1:00:16 ↗ question because I can try to expand. So

1:00:19 ↗ I I understand the multi-eritting and

1:00:22 ↗ everything. I guess I think what I'm

1:00:23 ↗ confused by is the idea of the sub areas

1:00:27 ↗ moving to the individual lot zoning

1:00:29 ↗ because in a lot of cases the single

1:00:31 ↗ families percentages actually seem to

1:00:34 ↗ increase and it seemed to be that the

1:00:36 ↗ commercial and retail and multif family

1:00:38 ↗ all decreased. So it does feel like the

1:00:40 ↗ single families are bearing more of a

1:00:42 ↗ burden for having that tree canopy than

1:00:45 ↗ other groups.

1:00:48 ↗ You're you're correct in pointing that

1:00:51 ↗ out. In some instances that that is the

1:00:53 ↗ case. Um where there is a relief from

1:00:57 ↗ that is allowing overhanging canopy from

1:01:00 ↗ an adjacent parcel or um green space

1:01:04 ↗ right ofway trees that extend onto the

1:01:06 ↗ property um to be able to capture that

1:01:08 ↗ canopy as well. whereas right now you're

1:01:11 ↗ you're not able to capture that canopy

1:01:13 ↗ as as part of your your site's um

1:01:16 ↗ overall canopy.

1:01:19 ↗ Um I think of of anything else but but

1:01:23 ↗ yes in in some

1:01:26 ↗ instances your your canopy for a single

1:01:28 ↗ family will will increase um not by

1:01:31 ↗ much. um at least from what we what

1:01:34 ↗ we've been able to determine it's it's

1:01:36 ↗ not going to be my much and in most

1:01:37 ↗ cases it may remain the same or just

1:01:39 ↗ slightly decrease because now we're

1:01:41 ↗ taking the burden of the sub area off of

1:01:43 ↗ that individual lot and and

1:01:51 ↗ [Music]

1:01:53 ↗ yeah I'll I'll add to that just a little

1:01:55 ↗ bit um because I I've I've worked with

1:01:57 ↗ Talis a fair amount on on type of these

1:01:59 ↗ projects we have a lot of city open

1:02:01 ↗ space that absuts the talis HOA and

1:02:04 ↗ yeah, exactly what Doug's describing the

1:02:06 ↗ fact that Talis, you know, when we did

1:02:07 ↗ this study in 2019 across the entire

1:02:10 ↗ neighborhood or sub area was 75% but

1:02:13 ↗ that is highly inflated because there's

1:02:15 ↗ also a lot of conservancies or native

1:02:17 ↗ growth protection areas uh in there

1:02:20 ↗ about 100 or so acres. So, you know,

1:02:22 ↗ that probably has a 80 90% tree cover

1:02:25 ↗ which really drives up the rest of it.

1:02:26 ↗ So that's where kind of merging the

1:02:28 ↗ zonings and just averaging it across the

1:02:30 ↗ sub area just didn't work. Um when you

1:02:33 ↗ have this kind of neat history in Isiqua

1:02:36 ↗ where we set aside a lot of open space

1:02:37 ↗ with these denser developments like

1:02:39 ↗ Talis and Isqua Highlands. So that was

1:02:42 ↗ my read why that mostly didn't work is

1:02:44 ↗ because a lot of these forest and open

1:02:45 ↗ spaces were included in those sub areas

1:02:47 ↗ really inflated the tree canopy in those

1:02:49 ↗ areas like tels for example at 75% and

1:02:52 ↗ to think that you're going to achieve

1:02:53 ↗ that on a less than 10,000 foot lot is

1:02:55 ↗ is nearly impossible to also have a home

1:02:58 ↗ there. Um I would say to your your next

1:03:00 ↗ question about um single family and kind

1:03:03 ↗ of the responsibility there. Um there's

1:03:06 ↗ definitely nuance to this, but in that

1:03:07 ↗ same 2019 study, single family across

1:03:10 ↗ the city was measured at 55% tree

1:03:12 ↗ canopy. So for those larger lots, which

1:03:15 ↗ I don't have it up right now, I think

1:03:16 ↗ it's more than 15,000 square feet. That

1:03:18 ↗ actually is going up a little bit to a

1:03:20 ↗ 60% requirement or at least as proposed

1:03:23 ↗ as is right now. Um but then as you tear

1:03:26 ↗ down to you know 10 to 15,000 feet or

1:03:28 ↗ under 10,000 those are coming down but

1:03:30 ↗ it but it is hard to say with that 55%

1:03:33 ↗ measurement in 2019 you know how much of

1:03:36 ↗ that was from those larger properties

1:03:37 ↗ versus smaller properties. We do not

1:03:39 ↗ have that fine grain of data to to tease

1:03:41 ↗ that out. So, these are kind of our best

1:03:43 ↗ estimates and and and and also kind of

1:03:45 ↗ comparisons as Doug mentioned earlier to

1:03:47 ↗ other cities that have similar uh tree

1:03:49 ↗ canopy um uh uh uh goals as it relates

1:03:53 ↗ to relates to zoning. So, I I think your

1:03:56 ↗ point's well taken, but you know, this

1:03:58 ↗ is our best information based on, you

1:03:59 ↗ know, what other cities are doing and

1:04:01 ↗ based on the data we have, which you

1:04:03 ↗ know, does show that overall single

1:04:04 ↗ family canopy at 55%. But that is a

1:04:06 ↗ little harder to tease out how much of

1:04:08 ↗ that is, you know, contributed from

1:04:09 ↗ bigger lots versus smaller lots. But

1:04:12 ↗ we're trying to tease that out as best

1:04:14 ↗ we can.

1:04:17 ↗ Yeah. Just and to kind of clarify and

1:04:19 ↗ articulate my concern a little better

1:04:20 ↗ here. Um I am just concerned that the

1:04:24 ↗ burden of this the cost you know

1:04:26 ↗ maintaining a tree is really expensive

1:04:28 ↗ especially a conifer tree. uh you know

1:04:31 ↗ getting them pruned yearly is like

1:04:33 ↗ a,500 whatever. So putting that all on

1:04:38 ↗ single families versus you have

1:04:40 ↗ commercial and multif family units which

1:04:43 ↗ are being given options to have a much

1:04:46 ↗ lower percentage of canopies and they're

1:04:48 ↗ giving options like you know fee and l

1:04:52 ↗ etc. doesn't really seem fair, right? If

1:04:55 ↗ you're looking at it, if you're

1:04:57 ↗ especially if you're just thinking about

1:04:59 ↗ cost

1:05:09 ↗ distribution. All right, let's see. Uh,

1:05:12 ↗ Commissioner Miller Irwin, do you have

1:05:13 ↗ any questions or comments on this topic?

1:05:16 ↗ No, I don't. Um, I think that staff has

1:05:18 ↗ done a phenomenal job in clarifying this

1:05:20 ↗ issue and answering some great questions

1:05:22 ↗ tonight. So, no, thank you. Good. And

1:05:25 ↗ Commissioner Mole wanted to give you an

1:05:26 ↗ opportunity to uh speak at this time as

1:05:30 ↗ well if desired. Okay. I already asked

1:05:33 ↗ all of my questions when uh previously.

1:05:37 ↗ Excellent. Thank you, Commissioner Mole.

1:05:39 ↗ Coming back around. Uh, everyone's had

1:05:40 ↗ an opportunity. Does anyone have a

1:05:42 ↗ follow-up question or comment? Go ahead,

1:05:43 ↗ Commissioner Dair. Hi again. Okay, so I

1:05:47 ↗ also have a question about lot overhang.

1:05:50 ↗ So my question is if a property owner is

1:05:52 ↗ allowed to remove trees and they still

1:05:54 ↗ meet the canopy requirement, right? Like

1:05:57 ↗ let's say I have a 10,000 ft lot and I

1:05:59 ↗ have

1:06:01 ↗ 45%. And that includes overhang trees on

1:06:05 ↗ my neighbor's property, right?

1:06:08 ↗ Um, so then let's say my neighbor wants

1:06:11 ↗ to remove some of their trees that

1:06:14 ↗ include those canopy trees, right? Um,

1:06:18 ↗ is the other law owner who's now

1:06:20 ↗ responsible to bring the site into

1:06:22 ↗ compliance? Does that make sense? So

1:06:24 ↗ like let's Yeah, that yes, that that

1:06:28 ↗ makes sense. Um first let's start with

1:06:31 ↗ like how our how our code is is written

1:06:34 ↗ and and we have not changed this in the

1:06:37 ↗ proposal is that a tree has to to be a

1:06:40 ↗ qual it has to qualify for a tree

1:06:42 ↗ removal. So if it's a healthy tree,

1:06:45 ↗ unless unless it's causing physical

1:06:47 ↗ damage to a structure or or you know

1:06:50 ↗ that's it has to be a hazard tree, dead,

1:06:53 ↗ dying, diseased. Um so a healthy tree

1:06:58 ↗ will more than likely not be removed. Um

1:07:01 ↗ and if a neighbor removes that canopy

1:07:05 ↗ that overhangs onto your property, the

1:07:08 ↗ person responsible for that and that

1:07:09 ↗ that property owner would have to

1:07:11 ↗ replace that tree. Now, they may be in a

1:07:13 ↗ location that it isn't going to create

1:07:15 ↗ that overhang anymore. Um, but it would

1:07:18 ↗ be when that adjacent property came in

1:07:22 ↗ with a tree removal permit or some sort

1:07:25 ↗ of development permit. Maybe they're

1:07:27 ↗ doing an addition. um that's when we

1:07:29 ↗ would do the calculations for the tree

1:07:32 ↗ canopy coverage and and if they were

1:07:34 ↗ less than what the canopy target is for

1:07:37 ↗ that particular zone in lot size um they

1:07:40 ↗ would have to

1:07:42 ↗ um plant a tree at that time to to cover

1:07:45 ↗ that uh canopy to get it back up to what

1:07:49 ↗ it's supposed to be for the zone.

1:07:55 ↗ Excellent. Thank you. And Commissioner

1:07:57 ↗ Mo, I see you have a question at this

1:07:58 ↗ time. Go ahead. Yes. Um, I am a bit

1:08:01 ↗ confused. Are you saying that if you

1:08:03 ↗ plant a tree on your property and it

1:08:06 ↗ overhangs the neighbor's property that

1:08:08 ↗ you receive credit for the

1:08:10 ↗ canopy when on somebody else's land,

1:08:14 ↗ the canopy that overhangs onto your

1:08:17 ↗ property? Cuz that's still canopy that's

1:08:20 ↗ on your property. So, you wouldn't get

1:08:23 ↗ the full canopy. You wouldn't get full

1:08:25 ↗ canopy credit for that tree that's on

1:08:28 ↗ the adjacent property, but whatever the

1:08:30 ↗ portion that

1:08:32 ↗ overhang would receive some credit for

1:08:34 ↗ canopy for

1:08:37 ↗ that. I'm more thinking of the negative

1:08:41 ↗ when you remove

1:08:43 ↗ uh when you remove a portion of the

1:08:45 ↗ canopy because a property owner has the

1:08:47 ↗ right to remove limbs that overhang.

1:08:54 ↗ So, what I'm I guess what I'm wondering

1:08:56 ↗ is are are we are we blurring the lines

1:08:59 ↗ of ownership here?

1:09:06 ↗ I don't think we're blurring the lines

1:09:09 ↗ of ownership. If if the property owner

1:09:11 ↗ prunes the tree back that's on the that

1:09:14 ↗ overhangs on their property that they

1:09:17 ↗ would not get the credit for that

1:09:19 ↗ overhang because that canopy isn't

1:09:21 ↗ overhanging their property.

1:09:24 ↗ I Okay, but the person who planted the

1:09:27 ↗ tree is getting some credit. Is that

1:09:29 ↗ correct or am I

1:09:30 ↗ misinterpreting? No, the the person that

1:09:32 ↗ planted the tree is getting the canopy

1:09:36 ↗ that's on their property.

1:09:40 ↗ Okay. But not on on the adjoining

1:09:42 ↗ property. No. Okay. Great. No. Yeah. So,

1:09:46 ↗ if like say 250 square ft of canopy

1:09:51 ↗ extends onto the neighbor's property,

1:09:54 ↗ you're not getting that 250 ft on your

1:09:57 ↗ property, just the portion that's

1:09:59 ↗ captured within your property

1:10:00 ↗ boundaries. Okay. The reason that I'm

1:10:03 ↗ bringing this up is as we continue to

1:10:06 ↗ increase de development density, we're

1:10:09 ↗ going to run into more and more um

1:10:12 ↗ overhanging trees as they get larger.

1:10:15 ↗ And I just wanted to make sure that that

1:10:17 ↗ there was some some understanding for

1:10:19 ↗ us. So, thank you very much. I

1:10:21 ↗ appreciate it. Tug

1:10:25 ↗ Commissioner Matthews. So, I did have a

1:10:27 ↗ question. That was actually one I was

1:10:28 ↗ thinking about for a while, but I did

1:10:30 ↗ have a question about the property to

1:10:32 ↗ property overhangs. So, say that the

1:10:35 ↗ person got a 25% or whatever that went

1:10:37 ↗ to their 25% or whatever percentage it

1:10:40 ↗ was on their property, but the neighbor

1:10:42 ↗ decides to cut the overhang. And then

1:10:46 ↗ this person now wants to get a permit to

1:10:48 ↗ do some work on their home. And so when

1:10:50 ↗ the canopy is now calculated, it doesn't

1:10:54 ↗ meet the criteria. So what happens then?

1:10:57 ↗ You have to actually pay into the the

1:11:00 ↗ tree fund at that time.

1:11:04 ↗ Um let me see if I got your I think I

1:11:06 ↗ understand what you're saying. So you

1:11:08 ↗ have two two properties, two neighboring

1:11:11 ↗ property is tree canopy overhangs onto

1:11:15 ↗ the neighbor's property. They cut that

1:11:18 ↗ canopy back. that overhangs their

1:11:20 ↗ property and now come in for a

1:11:22 ↗ development permit. Is that the Is that

1:11:24 ↗ the scenario? Did I get that scenario

1:11:26 ↗ correct? Right. So, yeah. So, it's the

1:11:29 ↗ person who got the credit for the

1:11:31 ↗ overhang. Mhm. I mean, because this

1:11:34 ↗ could happen. Somebody decides they need

1:11:35 ↗ to cut the tree or move that tree out

1:11:38 ↗ and now you want to redevelop your house

1:11:40 ↗ or put a new siding on or a porch and

1:11:42 ↗ you go for a permit. Now you no longer

1:11:45 ↗ meet that criteria that you used to meet

1:11:48 ↗ and that wasn't anything to do with you.

1:11:50 ↗ Are you now having to to go back and

1:11:52 ↗ plant another tree to meet that? I think

1:11:56 ↗ because it it becomes muddied when you

1:11:58 ↗ add overhang property to property.

1:12:00 ↗ That's what I'm trying to say. It's

1:12:02 ↗ going to in the future somebody's going

1:12:04 ↗ to go, "Hey, I it's not my fault he took

1:12:07 ↗ his tree out. Why do I have to plant

1:12:08 ↗ another tree or why do I have to pay

1:12:10 ↗ into this tree fund?" Mhm. I I could

1:12:12 ↗ just see that happening.

1:12:15 ↗ Does that make sense? Like it's really

1:12:17 ↗ complicated property to property.

1:12:20 ↗ Yeah. No, I I I see that and and and can

1:12:24 ↗ see the complications

1:12:26 ↗ because what what we were trying to

1:12:29 ↗ achieve with that is just like the tree

1:12:32 ↗ like trees don't necessarily follow our

1:12:35 ↗ rules for property lines. So just taking

1:12:39 ↗ it as a looking at it as a whole instead

1:12:41 ↗ of just with what's within to capture

1:12:45 ↗ everything within within that

1:12:46 ↗ neighborhood. And

1:12:49 ↗ um so to go back to the the first the

1:12:52 ↗ question that you were asking before, if

1:12:54 ↗ the if the person had pruned back their

1:12:58 ↗ their tree and then the neighbor came in

1:13:01 ↗ for a development permit and that canopy

1:13:04 ↗ doesn't overhang, it's that they would

1:13:06 ↗ have to still meet the canopy targets

1:13:08 ↗ for for that and may have may result in

1:13:12 ↗ having to either plant a tree on site um

1:13:15 ↗ or offsite within the same sub area or

1:13:18 ↗ pay into the tree fund.

1:13:22 ↗ Yeah, that makes sense to me. But I

1:13:24 ↗ could just see that somebody's going to

1:13:25 ↗ be upset about it.

1:13:28 ↗ It's like one of those mine

1:13:30 ↗ yesterday. So, that's just something I

1:13:32 ↗ thought would be, you know, something to

1:13:34 ↗ consider as far as the language, the

1:13:37 ↗ clarification goes.

1:13:39 ↗ Excellent. Thank you. Thanks,

1:13:40 ↗ Commissioner Matthews. Uh, Commissioner

1:13:42 ↗ Crass, real quick. Hi, Commissioner

1:13:43 ↗ Crass. Um, you may or may not have

1:13:45 ↗ covered this. So, new construction, I

1:13:47 ↗ get that would trigger the uh review of

1:13:50 ↗ tree canopy. What level of remodel would

1:13:53 ↗ trigger this type of analysis where the

1:13:56 ↗ homeowner would have to do it? Like,

1:13:58 ↗ would a deck do it? Is it a minor? Like,

1:14:00 ↗ if they do something, what what type of

1:14:02 ↗ building permit would actually call for

1:14:05 ↗ this?

1:14:07 ↗ We we look at compliance with the tree

1:14:09 ↗ code with you

1:14:12 ↗ know pretty much most ground disturbing

1:14:14 ↗ activities. So if if yes if you are

1:14:17 ↗ constructing a deck um that would be

1:14:19 ↗ something that could trigger review of

1:14:23 ↗ um the the tree canopy. Um obviously

1:14:27 ↗ tree removal is is another one. Um,

1:14:31 ↗ redevelopment is defined in our land use

1:14:35 ↗ coach as believe it's

1:14:39 ↗ uh, now I'm blanking off the top of my

1:14:41 ↗ head. 50% of the King County assessed

1:14:44 ↗ value. Yeah, there's at seven I think

1:14:47 ↗ it's seven is it 75% of the assessed

1:14:49 ↗ King County improvement value or it

1:14:51 ↗ might be 50% for for redevelopment.

1:14:54 ↗ So does that mean a deck a deck wouldn't

1:14:57 ↗ trigger that unless you were building

1:14:58 ↗ building a really extravagant Okay. So

1:15:00 ↗ it's not like someone someone's put No

1:15:02 ↗ someone's doing a getting a plumbing

1:15:03 ↗ permit. It doesn't trigger this.

1:15:04 ↗ Correct. And anything inside home but it

1:15:06 ↗ has to be over 50% of the value of the

1:15:08 ↗ land or the building portion which is a

1:15:11 ↗ pretty big remodel. Yes. So a small

1:15:12 ↗ remodel would not trigger this. It would

1:15:14 ↗ be a pretty significant remodel major

1:15:16 ↗ addition or something but it has to meet

1:15:18 ↗ that threshold. That's what we have to

1:15:19 ↗ find. Okay. That's very helpful. Thank

1:15:21 ↗ you. and and in some cases where maybe

1:15:24 ↗ the addition isn't that large but

1:15:26 ↗ results in the removal of a tree in

1:15:28 ↗ order to accommodate that addition then

1:15:31 ↗ then um review of the canopy would be

1:15:34 ↗ required at that point. Gotcha. Uh

1:15:36 ↗ Commissioner Adair,

1:15:41 ↗ hi. Can you go into more depth on how

1:15:44 ↗ fee and Lou works? Is it something like

1:15:46 ↗ let's say I want to take down a tree and

1:15:49 ↗ redevelop my watt? you know, I'm meeting

1:15:51 ↗ the requirements.

1:15:53 ↗ Um, is there a process to do free fee

1:15:57 ↗ and loo? Like, do I have to prove

1:15:58 ↗ there's no alternative or can I just

1:16:00 ↗ jump straight there and say like, you

1:16:02 ↗ know what, I don't want to add another

1:16:03 ↗ tree. I'm just going to give you a

1:16:04 ↗ $1,000 check. How does that work?

1:16:08 ↗ Mhm. So, we have um kind of a hierarchy

1:16:13 ↗ that

1:16:15 ↗ we follow for for that instance. and go

1:16:19 ↗ back to the example of the single family

1:16:21 ↗ homeowner who I mean planted some trees

1:16:24 ↗ and then paid the rest in into the tree

1:16:26 ↗ fund. Um we follow that hierarchy but

1:16:30 ↗ it's not set to where

1:16:33 ↗ like if you can't meet it or you know

1:16:37 ↗ there might be other circumstances like

1:16:39 ↗ we us as staff will work with you in

1:16:42 ↗ order for you to get to compliance with

1:16:45 ↗ that. Um, but it's not necessarily you

1:16:48 ↗ have to jump through a bunch of hoops to

1:16:49 ↗ get to the next like to plant off site

1:16:53 ↗ in the same sub area or then to plant um

1:16:55 ↗ into the tree fund. We just follow that

1:16:57 ↗ hierarchy, but there there aren't like

1:16:59 ↗ jumps or like really specific standards

1:17:03 ↗ that you have to hit in order to get to

1:17:05 ↗ that um pay into the tree fund. Um, and

1:17:08 ↗ then how where we collect that money is

1:17:10 ↗ is during the permit review. um we'll

1:17:14 ↗ add that fee and then the permit tech

1:17:18 ↗ will invoice the applicant at that point

1:17:20 ↗ and then to receive your permits you've

1:17:22 ↗ got to pay for all of your permit fees

1:17:24 ↗ and that would that fee would be

1:17:25 ↗ included in in there and then it gets

1:17:28 ↗ deposited into an account.

1:17:30 ↗ And to provide a little clarity of part

1:17:32 ↗ of what we're looking at is just

1:17:34 ↗ potential planting areas on the site,

1:17:36 ↗ but also looking at the survivability of

1:17:38 ↗ where the potential planting areas are

1:17:40 ↗ to help us determine and make that

1:17:42 ↗ judgment on, you know what, that's

1:17:45 ↗ that's not going to be a great area for

1:17:46 ↗ trees are likely not going to survive.

1:17:48 ↗ So, let's give you this option of the uh

1:17:51 ↗ tree

1:17:53 ↗ fenlu fund um as a alternative.

1:17:58 ↗ So, I'm just wondering what the guard

1:18:00 ↗ rails are though in the opposite case.

1:18:03 ↗ For example, like you know, we're we're

1:18:05 ↗ assuming best case scenario, people have

1:18:07 ↗ good intentions and they're just trying

1:18:08 ↗ to do the best, but like what if Jeff

1:18:10 ↗ Bezos has a 10,000 square foot property

1:18:12 ↗ and he wants to put a soccer field in

1:18:14 ↗ and take out a 100 trees? Can he write a

1:18:17 ↗ check for 100 grand and get away with

1:18:19 ↗ it? Or is there a some kind of guard

1:18:22 ↗ rail in place to keep that from

1:18:24 ↗ happening?

1:18:26 ↗ the the guard rail is that the the lot

1:18:28 ↗ would have to meet the the canopy

1:18:31 ↗ coverage um or you pay into the fe but

1:18:34 ↗ also for you know a development such as

1:18:37 ↗ that you have tree retention

1:18:39 ↗ requirements you also have to meet um so

1:18:43 ↗ for a single family lots you know you

1:18:45 ↗ would have to maintain 35% of the

1:18:48 ↗ caliber ines that are on site so there

1:18:50 ↗ there are other guard rails and other

1:18:52 ↗ standard use where you couldn't just

1:18:54 ↗ clear cut your lot and then pay into the

1:18:57 ↗ tree fund like a 100 grand and and then

1:18:59 ↗ just walk away. Um there are other

1:19:01 ↗ triggers in in the tree code as well

1:19:03 ↗ that um or other standards in the tree

1:19:06 ↗ code that we would have to look at in in

1:19:08 ↗ a scenario such as that. I have kind of

1:19:11 ↗ a piggybacking question off of that. Um

1:19:13 ↗ I I believe in the the old or previous

1:19:16 ↗ method uh there was no fee in L for the

1:19:18 ↗ trees and then we've now added that in.

1:19:20 ↗ Is that correct? And if so, what was the

1:19:22 ↗ kind of reasoning or catalyst for that?

1:19:28 ↗ um fem has been

1:19:30 ↗ in our code

1:19:33 ↗ um from the 2023 update as a as a

1:19:37 ↗ method. I mean it was it was in our

1:19:39 ↗ previous code as well. Um so this isn't

1:19:42 ↗ the tree code isn't or the the tree fund

1:19:45 ↗ isn't um new. We've now added um more

1:19:50 ↗ language in in the recent update in 23

1:19:55 ↗ um that identify um the the standards in

1:20:00 ↗ place for um what the tree fund can be

1:20:03 ↗ used for um things like that. So, we've

1:20:06 ↗ added more robust language in in the 23

1:20:09 ↗ update. Um, but we didn't we didn't

1:20:12 ↗ really touch those in this proposed

1:20:15 ↗ these proposed amendments. Okay.

1:20:24 ↗ Looking down the line. Commissioner

1:20:25 ↗ Mole, do you have a question or comment?

1:20:27 ↗ Uh, no. Okay.

1:20:31 ↗ You're not

1:20:34 ↗ looking

1:20:34 ↗ [Music]

1:20:36 ↗ around. All right.

1:20:40 ↗ Excellent.

1:20:42 ↗ I have another question. Okay. Um, what,

1:20:46 ↗ and this might be in the code. What how

1:20:49 ↗ does a landmark tree become a nuisance

1:20:51 ↗ tree? Can we talk about that? Cuz I did

1:20:53 ↗ see that pop up in the amendment and I'm

1:20:55 ↗ curious.

1:20:58 ↗ Yeah. So, a landmark tree can become a

1:21:02 ↗ nuisance tree if it's causing obvious

1:21:04 ↗ physical damage to a structure or has

1:21:08 ↗ the potential to cause obvious physical

1:21:10 ↗ damage. And I think that's the the

1:21:12 ↗ distinction that we made in in this

1:21:14 ↗ these proposed amendments is the

1:21:17 ↗ um is the potential to cause. So you'd

1:21:20 ↗ have to document, you know, the the tree

1:21:23 ↗ is, you know, the the roots have like

1:21:27 ↗ damaging the foundation of the home and

1:21:30 ↗ an arborist has evaluated it and said

1:21:32 ↗ that there's there's nothing that they

1:21:34 ↗ can do in order to stop the um you know

1:21:39 ↗ the roots from damaging there. There's

1:21:40 ↗ nothing that they can do to the tree to

1:21:42 ↗ save the tree and also protect the the

1:21:46 ↗ home or the structure itself. And then

1:21:48 ↗ in that case they would be classified as

1:21:50 ↗ a nuisance tree. Um or if the tree is

1:21:52 ↗ growing into like has a potential trying

1:21:56 ↗ to think of a scenario all I'm thinking

1:21:58 ↗ of is power lines or or telephone lines

1:22:00 ↗ or whatever. Um but they know that tree

1:22:02 ↗ is just going to grow into it and cause

1:22:04 ↗ problems. Um I guess that could be

1:22:06 ↗ another another scenario too.

1:22:13 ↗ Commissioner Oller,

1:22:15 ↗ I have a very minor question relating to

1:22:18 ↗ cabling of trees, which uh I understand

1:22:21 ↗ you're trying to um affect a change in

1:22:24 ↗ the in title 18 to uh prohibit cabling

1:22:29 ↗ of trees. I was just curious to know why

1:22:31 ↗ that's no longer considered a good idea.

1:22:35 ↗ Um maybe Dan has a more detailed

1:22:38 ↗ explanation. Um, I know that it's not

1:22:41 ↗ best practice. Um, but Dan might be able

1:22:44 ↗ to speak to why it's not best practice

1:22:46 ↗ anymore. Yeah, it it is still done um in

1:22:51 ↗ scenarios, but you know, essentially the

1:22:53 ↗ best practice is then requiring an

1:22:55 ↗ engineer to be inspecting that every

1:22:57 ↗ year or two. So, it's it's not one of

1:22:58 ↗ those things you just put the cabling in

1:23:00 ↗ and be like, you know, we're we're set.

1:23:01 ↗ We can walk away from this. I mean,

1:23:03 ↗ you're doing that in a situation with a

1:23:05 ↗ tree that has at least some level of

1:23:07 ↗ risk and that's why you're trying to

1:23:08 ↗ mitigate that risk with cabling or

1:23:10 ↗ bracing. So, I I I do know there's been

1:23:12 ↗ a couple scenarios in the city where,

1:23:14 ↗ you know, and you know, unfortunately,

1:23:15 ↗ we've whether that be on private or, you

1:23:17 ↗ know, public as well where we've taken

1:23:19 ↗ that approach and just the having the

1:23:21 ↗ expertise keeping up with that and, you

1:23:24 ↗ know, essentially, like I said, having

1:23:25 ↗ those those inspections is a very kind

1:23:27 ↗ of specialized thing. We have a lot of

1:23:29 ↗ engineers that work for the city and you

1:23:31 ↗ know myself as an arborist but I I am

1:23:32 ↗ not qualified to inspect you know

1:23:34 ↗ bracing and the materials and climbing

1:23:36 ↗ trees and doing all that. So I think

1:23:38 ↗ that's where it kind of has has you know

1:23:40 ↗ both both just the followup you know

1:23:42 ↗ with that type of approach to you know

1:23:44 ↗ trying to extend the life of trees um

1:23:46 ↗ and some of the risk and liability that

1:23:48 ↗ comes with that I think is kind of my

1:23:50 ↗ understanding is why we have kind of

1:23:52 ↗ moved away from that. So, um, Doug,

1:23:55 ↗ hopefully that's kind of in line with

1:23:56 ↗ what you've heard, too. But,

1:24:00 ↗ great. Thank you.

1:24:07 ↗ Yep. All right. Going

1:24:10 ↗ once going

1:24:12 ↗ twice. Excellent. Well, thank you so

1:24:16 ↗ much, uh, Doug and Dan for being on

1:24:18 ↗ tonight and, uh, answering all of our

1:24:19 ↗ questions. I know we put you through

1:24:20 ↗ your paces there, but you handled it

1:24:22 ↗ amazingly. So, thank you so much for the

1:24:24 ↗ overview of information on the tree

1:24:26 ↗ code. I understand we'll be able to talk

1:24:28 ↗ more about this, I think, in about a

1:24:29 ↗ month. Uh, so we look forward to uh to

1:24:32 ↗ revisiting the topic at that time.

1:24:36 ↗ Okay. Thank you, commissioners, and uh

1:24:39 ↗ have a great wonderful evening.

1:24:42 ↗ Excellent. Thank you both so

1:24:43 ↗ much. All right, looking at the next

1:24:46 ↗ item on the agenda, which is

1:24:49 ↗ reports, city council updates. Stephen,

1:24:52 ↗ is there any updates to share? Yes, Vice

1:24:54 ↗ Chair Patterson. Oh, for council update

1:24:57 ↗ on Monday night, city council adopted

1:24:59 ↗ the title 18 clarifying amendments that

1:25:01 ↗ the commission previously reviewed. Um

1:25:04 ↗ they also adopted the uh amended

1:25:06 ↗ shoreline master program that the

1:25:07 ↗ commission held a public hearing on. And

1:25:09 ↗ then they also um if you're interested,

1:25:12 ↗ they looked at the preferred concept

1:25:14 ↗ that was presented to council on the

1:25:16 ↗ Squawk Mountain non-motorized project.

1:25:18 ↗ if you're interested in learning more

1:25:19 ↗ about that on from Monday's council

1:25:21 ↗ meeting. Um otherwise, there's no other

1:25:23 ↗ items going to council until May, which

1:25:25 ↗ is going to be the middle housing

1:25:29 ↗ regulations. Excellent. And any other

1:25:32 ↗ business or announcements? None from

1:25:34 ↗ staff.

1:25:35 ↗ All right. Anything else for the good of

1:25:37 ↗ the

1:25:39 ↗ order? Excellent. Well, then we will

1:25:42 ↗ adjourn this meeting at 8:00 p.m. Thank

1:25:46 ↗ you very much.

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (8)

Vice-Chair Patterson

Commissioners Adair

Krass

Matthews

Millender-Irwin

Mohl-Barouh (virtual)

Oliner

Zakharoff

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community P & D Amanda Jackson, Meeting & Records Assistant Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director Douglas Yormick, Environmental Planner (virtual) Dan Hintz, Urban Forest Supervisor (virtual) Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of April 10, 2025