Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, May 22, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 08,2025

packet pp.5–8

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, May 08, 2025

4. PUBLIC HEARING

2025 Title 18 Policy Amendments

Action · 30 min · Christen Leeson, Principal Planner Public Hearing Order: Commission · packet pp.9–89

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will hold a public hearing and take public comment on the proposed 2025 Title 18, Land Use Code clarifying annual updates.

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18 Tree Preservation Amendments

60 min · Doug Yormick, Environmental Planner · packet pp.91–184

Topics: Land UseTrees

Previously discussed: Environmental Board · Apr 9, 2025

▶ Watch from 13:51 Open packet at p.91 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will hear public comments and deliberate regarding amendments to Chapter 18.812 of the Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC), Tree Preservation.

6. REPORTS

Council Update

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.185–186

▶ Watch from 1:42:01 Open packet at p.185 ↗

Staff report:

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

2329 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ Good evening, Planning Policy

0:09 ↗ Commission. Uh, we're going to start

0:11 ↗ this evening by calling this meeting to

0:13 ↗ order. It's currently 6:30

0:16 ↗ p.m. Been gone for a month. I think I'm

0:19 ↗ still the chair. I might not be. Um,

0:22 ↗ anything exciting happened in the last

0:24 ↗ month? Maybe the last 24

0:26 ↗ hours? No. Okay, we'll get to uh an

0:31 ↗ email that we all received last night um

0:33 ↗ a little later this evening, but I did

0:36 ↗ want to mention that tonight's meeting

0:38 ↗ is a hybrid meeting. The Planning Policy

0:40 ↗ Commission is in person, but staff or

0:43 ↗ members of the public may be attending

0:44 ↗ virtually or in person. Kristen, do we

0:48 ↗ have a quorum this evening? Yes, we do.

0:50 ↗ All right, got a little housekeeping to

0:52 ↗ get to and we'll begin with the approval

0:55 ↗ of minutes. So, our first item is to

0:58 ↗ take action on those meeting minutes in

0:59 ↗ your agenda packet. Any corrections, any

1:02 ↗ concerns that you may

1:05 ↗ have? Nothing. Okay. Going once, going

1:09 ↗ twice. Those meeting minutes are

1:11 ↗ approved. And moving along, we will get

1:14 ↗ to right now our public comment. And

1:17 ↗ we're going to hold general public

1:18 ↗ comment at this time. Um, and we're also

1:21 ↗ going to have public comment during our

1:23 ↗ public hearing a little later.

1:25 ↗ staff. Has anyone signed up to make

1:27 ↗ public comments?

1:29 ↗ No one has signed up, but we do have

1:31 ↗ someone in the audience that would like

1:32 ↗ to make a comment. Okay. So, we'll read

1:35 ↗ some guidelines for those comments. And

1:37 ↗ we do ask that all people that are

1:39 ↗ making public comments that you speak

1:41 ↗ clearly, pause frequently, and state

1:43 ↗ your name before you speak. And if you

1:46 ↗ are attending virtually by computer or

1:48 ↗ by phone, um please raise your hand and

1:51 ↗ please mute your microphone until you

1:52 ↗ are asked to speak. If you're having any

1:55 ↗ technical issues, please try joining the

1:56 ↗ meeting use a tablet or a different

1:58 ↗ device. Or you can also use the call-in

2:01 ↗ information in the meeting invite. This

2:03 ↗ is a important part of the public

2:05 ↗ process. The planning policy commission

2:07 ↗ does take these comments into

2:09 ↗ consideration and they are part of the

2:11 ↗ decisions that we make. They may be

2:14 ↗ general at this time and we do ask that

2:15 ↗ people keep them to five minutes or

2:17 ↗ less. So if there is someone in the room

2:19 ↗ that would like to speak, please go

2:21 ↗ ahead.

2:25 ↗ Thank you, Chair Voice, Vice Chair P

2:27 ↗ Patterson, and the planning policy

2:29 ↗ commissioners. Um, my name is Lindseay

2:31 ↗ Walsh. I'm on the city council, the city

2:33 ↗ council president. Um, and we always

2:36 ↗ like to come in at the beginning of your

2:39 ↗ terms just to take a moment to thank you

2:43 ↗ so much for all of this hard work. Um,

2:45 ↗ and I want to say it specifically as

2:47 ↗ someone who started out in one of those

2:49 ↗ chairs on the planning commission. Um, I

2:52 ↗ know how much work it is for you guys to

2:55 ↗ come up to speed on what what a land use

2:57 ↗ code is and then what our land use code

2:59 ↗ is and to really take in the big picture

3:04 ↗ longterm projections and vision for the

3:08 ↗ city. And so I really just want to come

3:11 ↗ by and say I know we're not here all the

3:14 ↗ time because we can't be. Um but the

3:17 ↗ city council not only watches your

3:20 ↗ meetings, albeit I will say on two times

3:22 ↗ speed because you know I'm an efficiency

3:24 ↗ person. Um but we also pay attention to

3:29 ↗ uh the evaluations that you've done, the

3:31 ↗ um decisions that you've made. And we

3:34 ↗ know that our work and what we adopt um

3:37 ↗ eventually is so much stronger because

3:40 ↗ of everything that you have done. The

3:43 ↗ times that you have question staff, the

3:45 ↗ times that you have asked staff to come

3:47 ↗ back for more information, recognizing

3:50 ↗ that that's hard to do as a volunteer.

3:53 ↗ That doesn't always come naturally to

3:55 ↗ us. And so I really I want to thank you

3:58 ↗ for the hours of work that most people

4:01 ↗ don't see. The fact that you read over

4:03 ↗ these huge packets and come prepared

4:06 ↗ with questions is just very very

4:08 ↗ impressive and we know that what we see

4:12 ↗ as the end result is stronger because of

4:14 ↗ it. So I just wanted to stop by and say

4:16 ↗ thank you. Um and we appreciate you.

4:21 ↗ All right. Well, thank you Council

4:22 ↗ President Walsh. And they are huge

4:25 ↗ packets and they're only getting bigger.

4:27 ↗ I don't get that. But uh would anyone

4:30 ↗ else like to speak?

4:52 ↗ I'm a user of the tree code. I take care

4:55 ↗ of the Talis property, our 90 acres, our

4:58 ↗ 1300 street trees, etc. So, I'm familiar

5:01 ↗ with the revision. Uh, I like uh

5:05 ↗ virtually all of what the what the new

5:08 ↗ code uh and the revised suggested new

5:10 ↗ code looks like. Quite frankly, I don't

5:12 ↗ think it's gone far enough though. Uh,

5:14 ↗ and let me elaborate. Um, I I think in

5:18 ↗ the end you've got to balance uh the

5:20 ↗ rights of uh of the residents, the

5:23 ↗ ability to do ease of business with the

5:25 ↗ city and preserving our trees. Um, I

5:29 ↗ think the original title 18 is

5:31 ↗ completely out of touch with residents

5:33 ↗ and how much is the executing that code

5:35 ↗ costing the taxpayers and the benefit.

5:37 ↗ Is it really worth it? I just encourage

5:39 ↗ you to simplify simplify and simplify.

5:42 ↗ Um, I tell you that uh all trees are not

5:46 ↗ appropriate trees. You know, you've got

5:48 ↗ hazard trees that fall on homes and

5:51 ↗ endanger lives and property. You've got

5:53 ↗ nuisance trees that destroy property.

5:55 ↗ You got big trees planted in small

5:57 ↗ spaces in some of these communities. Um,

6:00 ↗ you got resident concerns about

6:02 ↗ wildfires and uh windstorms. Let's be

6:06 ↗ honest, trees block the sunlight from

6:08 ↗ our homes. So, every tree is not a great

6:12 ↗ tree. I mean, I love Isiqua. It's Tree

6:14 ↗ City. Um, but I think the current uh

6:18 ↗ Title 18 code has gone way too far. I

6:22 ↗ really like some of the revisions.

6:24 ↗ Um I would say that Isqua is surrounded

6:27 ↗ by the Isqua Alps. You know we've got

6:29 ↗ 100% tree canopy uh you know in our um

6:33 ↗ uh open spaces. Um but I want to talk

6:37 ↗ about the urban villages. I mean they

6:39 ↗ were really designed for minimal

6:41 ↗ resident yards and the acreage was

6:44 ↗ reserved for the open spaces and the

6:45 ↗ parks and the playgrounds. In my

6:47 ↗ community, you know, our homes are 2500

6:50 ↗ square foot of property. So, you put a

6:53 ↗ 2,000 square foot home and a driveway

6:55 ↗ and a walkway on there and maybe 25% of

7:00 ↗ my yard uh is my backyard. I mean, the

7:04 ↗ current regulation uh that I have read

7:07 ↗ says I've got to have complete shade in

7:09 ↗ my backyard to comply with this

7:11 ↗ regulation. I don't think that's

7:13 ↗ reasonable for small lots. Maybe for a

7:15 ↗ 10,000 square foot lot, but not for a

7:17 ↗ small lot like mine. And my entire

7:19 ↗ neighborhood is that way. the entire

7:21 ↗ neighborhoods up in uh Highlands are

7:23 ↗ like that. So, it doesn't really fit the

7:25 ↗ urban village um uh requirement that

7:28 ↗ you've put in there. Uh I think I'm

7:30 ↗ entitled for to a little bit of

7:32 ↗ sunshine. We don't want to live in a

7:34 ↗ cave. Um, so, uh, I would encourage you

7:38 ↗ look at an aerial view of Isiqua and

7:40 ↗ really see how much property these small

7:44 ↗ homes have and ask yourself, do you

7:46 ↗ really want to mandate that 25% of it is

7:49 ↗ under canopy? Uh, so that's my ask on

7:52 ↗ that. Um, I think the other thing I want

7:54 ↗ you to consider is, and I see it all

7:56 ↗ over my neighborhood, the developer put

7:58 ↗ in trees to sell the homes. He didn't

8:01 ↗ care that 20 years later, these trees

8:03 ↗ are now 40 foot and they're three feet

8:05 ↗ away from the house. And what a burden

8:07 ↗ for the homeowner. And what a headache

8:09 ↗ to try and go through the city process

8:11 ↗ to remove that. You got to get an

8:12 ↗ arborist report. Then you got to go

8:14 ↗ through this owner's permitting, you

8:16 ↗ know, and then you've got to pay a guy

8:19 ↗ with a chainsaw to take it down. And

8:21 ↗ then if you don't want to put one back,

8:22 ↗ then there's the extortion of this tree

8:24 ↗ fund. $1,000 to plant a $1 seedling.

8:28 ↗ Come on. That feels like extortion. So,

8:31 ↗ uh, excuse me for getting a little

8:33 ↗ worked up about this, but I would just

8:36 ↗ ask you to consider this. Is this really

8:38 ↗ what the residents want, or is this

8:40 ↗ overreach in terms of we need more

8:42 ↗ trees? Where did this 4% growth come

8:45 ↗ from? Isiqua is already one of the most

8:48 ↗ populated uh cities uh in Washington in

8:52 ↗ terms of tree canopy. We need 4% more.

8:55 ↗ Well, maybe the 4% more needs to go

8:57 ↗ somewhere else, but not in the urban

8:59 ↗ villages. Uh, so, uh, I would just ask

9:03 ↗ you to really consider not only the

9:05 ↗ environmental perspective, and I know

9:08 ↗ you're asking the environmental board

9:09 ↗ their pers their, uh, two cents on this,

9:12 ↗ but what about the residents that have

9:14 ↗ to use the tree code, and what do they

9:16 ↗ think of it? Uh, one other comment on

9:19 ↗ middle housing. I I see it as

9:22 ↗ well-intentioned, but I feel that

9:24 ↗ legislation has also gone too far. I

9:26 ↗ mean, we live in Isiqua because it's

9:28 ↗ suburbia at its best. We've got enough

9:30 ↗ issues with crime and traffic and

9:32 ↗ parking. Federal housing is only going

9:34 ↗ to make this worse. I don't want an ADU

9:37 ↗ in my neighbor's backyard when I live on

9:40 ↗ 2500 square foot um property. I know you

9:44 ↗ got to comply with the state rules on

9:48 ↗ this, but you don't have to overachieve.

9:50 ↗ Thanks for your time.

9:57 ↗ And thank you, Connie. Would you like to

9:59 ↗ speak?

10:04 ↗ All right, Connie Marsha Levansk. I love

10:06 ↗ it when Ken gets all fired up. It's fun.

10:10 ↗ And interestingly, being super

10:12 ↗ environmentally oriented, I don't

10:14 ↗ disagree with Ken on the tree code. Uh,

10:18 ↗ but I have a little different lens on

10:21 ↗ it.

10:23 ↗ Um, we have examined our tree canopy and

10:27 ↗ included these large open spaces as part

10:30 ↗ of our tree canopy goals in in sort of

10:34 ↗ an odd way. And so some of the open

10:37 ↗ spaces with all the trees are making the

10:40 ↗ tree canopy goals higher. Uh I think we

10:43 ↗ need to go back and we need to say,

10:45 ↗ okay, what do we want the tree canopy to

10:47 ↗ look like in those developed

10:50 ↗ neighborhoods? And I don't think that

10:52 ↗ the city's going, "Oh, well, you have

10:53 ↗ this kind of a lot, so if you have that

10:55 ↗ kind of a lot, you need this much in

10:58 ↗ trees." I think neighborhood by

11:00 ↗ neighborhood, you say, "Well, what does

11:02 ↗ our neighborhood feel like? And what

11:04 ↗ does the neighborhood want it to be?

11:06 ↗ Because we have said that we want all of

11:08 ↗ our neighborhoods to seem individual and

11:12 ↗ like you know where you are where when

11:14 ↗ you are in that spot. And so I think the

11:18 ↗ people should have a say in their tree

11:21 ↗ canopy. Now that doesn't mean someplace

11:24 ↗ can be naked. I think we should be able

11:27 ↗ to have other forms of green that aren't

11:30 ↗ necessarily trees that serve the

11:32 ↗ function that trees do. So, my friend

11:34 ↗ Dave Kappler has solar panels and a

11:37 ↗ vegetable garden in his backyard. He's

11:39 ↗ not a fan of trees. He's an old town,

11:41 ↗ right? But trees would harm his ability

11:44 ↗ to grow food and create electricity for

11:50 ↗ the grid. And those are both serving

11:52 ↗ functions that we want for climate

11:54 ↗ action that they say is all about trees.

11:57 ↗ We don't need more trees where we

11:59 ↗ already have

12:00 ↗ 90% trees. Now, when you talk about the

12:04 ↗ urban villages, it's very interesting

12:06 ↗ because in Isiqua Highlands, we have a

12:08 ↗ component of our comprehensive plan that

12:11 ↗ specifically calls out Isqua Highlands

12:13 ↗ because the trees that were planted and

12:15 ↗ planted actually never took and we have

12:18 ↗ a lot of naked hillsides in Isqua

12:20 ↗ Highlands. Well, let's have a

12:21 ↗ conversation about what that would look

12:23 ↗ like and who should do it. I don't think

12:26 ↗ this is ready for prime time. I don't

12:28 ↗ like going to zoning and looking at the

12:30 ↗ different lot sizes for redevelopment. I

12:34 ↗ think that the simplicity of replacing a

12:38 ↗ tree with a tree is at least viable for

12:43 ↗ uh people who are taking down hazard and

12:45 ↗ nuisance trees at this point and that's

12:48 ↗ easier than what's in the code. So go

12:50 ↗ ahead and put that in. But take the rest

12:52 ↗ of this holistic change out and um wait

12:55 ↗ for the tree inventory study. Wait for

12:59 ↗ the neighborhood visioning that you're

13:01 ↗ going to do. We actually have visions

13:02 ↗ for our central Isiqua plan

13:04 ↗ neighborhoods already. I don't know if

13:05 ↗ you've looked at that lately, but they

13:07 ↗ fairly well define what we expect the

13:10 ↗ characters of central Isiqua areas to

13:13 ↗ be. Um and so use use that type of a

13:17 ↗ thing

13:18 ↗ instead for the moment. Um, I had

13:21 ↗ another thing and it's totally

13:23 ↗ absolutely gone. Oh well, you'll

13:27 ↗ probably see me again. Thanks.

13:33 ↗ Thank you, Connie. Thank you, Ken. I

13:35 ↗ believe that's everybody in the room,

13:37 ↗ but Amanda, do we have anyone online

13:39 ↗ that would like to speak? No, chair, we

13:41 ↗ do not. Okay. Well, thank you to our

13:45 ↗ speakers.

13:49 ↗ So, we are going to move into our first

13:51 ↗ item of regular business, which tonight

13:53 ↗ is a public hearing. These are the title

13:56 ↗ 18 policy code

14:00 ↗ amendments. And the purpose of this

14:03 ↗ public hearing is to provide a formal

14:05 ↗ opportunity for the public to comment on

14:07 ↗ these proposed amendments. We're going

14:09 ↗ to open this public hearing. It'll be

14:11 ↗ followed by a presentation from staff

14:14 ↗ and then the PPC can ask for follow-up

14:17 ↗ questions. We'll take public testimony,

14:20 ↗ close the public hearing, and then the

14:22 ↗ planning policy commission will have an

14:23 ↗ opportunity to debate and make a

14:26 ↗ recommendation if they choose to.

14:30 ↗ Kristen Leon, our principal planner,

14:32 ↗ will be presenting this evening.

14:34 ↗ Kristen, when you are ready, please go

14:35 ↗ ahead.

14:37 ↗ Hello. As Jason just mentioned, uh I am

14:40 ↗ Kristen Leon, principal planner with the

14:42 ↗ community planning and development

14:43 ↗ department. And yes, we are going to

14:44 ↗ hold a public hearing tonight on the

14:46 ↗ proposed title 18, also known as the

14:48 ↗ land use code policy amendments. So we

14:51 ↗ will I will make a presentation, then we

14:53 ↗ will take public comment followed by

14:55 ↗ deliberation. Actually, I skipped the

14:57 ↗ questions part. So I will make a

14:59 ↗ presentation, then you all can ask

15:00 ↗ clarifying questions, then we will take

15:02 ↗ public comment. you all deliberate and

15:04 ↗ then as he stated make a recommendation

15:06 ↗ if

15:08 ↗ appropriate. So we're doing this because

15:11 ↗ we updated the code in 28 in uh 2023

15:16 ↗ title 18 we updated it complete overhaul

15:19 ↗ and we want to make sure it's good. So

15:21 ↗ it this is all about quality control and

15:24 ↗ uh we keep a running list of amendments

15:26 ↗ that need to be made and we are going to

15:30 ↗ continue with this next year and the

15:32 ↗ next year to make sure it is

15:37 ↗ good. So this round of amendments we

15:39 ↗ broke into three different parts. There

15:41 ↗ are uh minor amendments which are really

15:44 ↗ more clarifying. There are state

15:46 ↗ required amendments and there are policy

15:48 ↗ amendments. And those are the ones in

15:50 ↗ which you guys in which you had the

15:52 ↗ opportunity more of an opportunity um to

15:55 ↗ discuss whether or not this is the right

15:57 ↗ thing for the

15:58 ↗ city. I'm going to start I'm going to

16:00 ↗ run through these by category and I

16:02 ↗ won't get into detail on each of them

16:04 ↗ unless you have questions. Um first one

16:06 ↗ is adult family homes and daycare

16:08 ↗ centers. It simply was confusing. They

16:10 ↗ were allowed outright in single family

16:12 ↗ zones and yet we said that they needed

16:15 ↗ to get a home business occupation or a

16:16 ↗ home business license which makes no

16:18 ↗ sense. So we are removing the home

16:20 ↗ business license piece since they are

16:22 ↗ allowed by right and simplifying that

16:25 ↗ legislated legislative action

16:27 ↗ exemptions. We required things like

16:29 ↗ notice of applications for legislative

16:32 ↗ citywide projects like the land use

16:34 ↗ code. Nobody to send an application to.

16:36 ↗ Um we required posting. Not quite sure

16:39 ↗ where we'd post these things. So what we

16:41 ↗ have done is added exemptions just three

16:43 ↗ of them um to the process. We still have

16:47 ↗ to notify in the paper. We still notify

16:48 ↗ on the website. We still notify through

16:50 ↗ agendas. Um land use permit extensions.

16:54 ↗ We were land use permits had the

16:56 ↗ opportunity to prematurely expire um

16:59 ↗ before construction permits were issued.

17:02 ↗ So we've added an automatic extension of

17:04 ↗ land use permits until a b building

17:06 ↗ permit has been a complete building

17:09 ↗ permit application has been

17:12 ↗ submitted. Our table of and you see

17:14 ↗ there's an asterk by that one and I'll

17:15 ↗ get to that in a second. um our table of

17:17 ↗ permitted uses. We just had several uses

17:19 ↗ that were omitted during the title 18

17:21 ↗ update. So, we

17:23 ↗ actually had one of our friends go

17:25 ↗ through all of our tables of permitted

17:27 ↗ uses and figured out what was missing

17:29 ↗ and we are putting those back. We've put

17:31 ↗ those back in. In addition, we added the

17:34 ↗ which you all have already seen as a

17:35 ↗ part of the co-living amendments. We

17:36 ↗ added in co-living and single room

17:39 ↗ occupancy which yeah, like I said,

17:41 ↗ you've already seen. Um, as for the

17:43 ↗ changes in the land use permit

17:45 ↗ extensions, we changed the word

17:48 ↗ construction to building because

17:49 ↗ construction can mean site work or

17:51 ↗ building. And so we just wanted to

17:53 ↗ clarify that it's just the building

17:54 ↗ permit has you have to have a complete

17:56 ↗ application. And then to the table which

17:58 ↗ is right above it in the same section,

17:59 ↗ we added that site development permit

18:01 ↗ you have three years to submit a

18:03 ↗ complete building

18:04 ↗ application. And then

18:07 ↗ uh uh for a larger site development

18:10 ↗ permit, you have five years to submit a

18:11 ↗ complete building application. That was

18:13 ↗ just to help clarify even the

18:15 ↗ sentence. Parking corrections. Uh we had

18:18 ↗ omitted senior and assisted housing

18:20 ↗ during title 18 update. So we added

18:22 ↗ those back in and updated the ratios on

18:25 ↗ some of the new stuff that we had done

18:26 ↗ to during uh title 18 update. Again,

18:30 ↗ there is an asterk here. I'll get to in

18:31 ↗ a minute. But, um, additional height, I

18:34 ↗ left out a word, applicability. Um, it

18:37 ↗ was just confusing and there was an in

18:38 ↗ an an incorrect interpretation from the

18:40 ↗ code. So, we updated to the previous

18:43 ↗ version. We added an applicability

18:45 ↗ section to make it a little easier to

18:47 ↗ understand. Central is a quad

18:49 ↗ development bonus program. That whole

18:50 ↗ thing is intended to both get affordable

18:52 ↗ housing and to get open space. Yet, we

18:56 ↗ left out the fact that FEL could be used

18:59 ↗ for affordable housing. So, we added

19:00 ↗ that back in. We also took away the

19:02 ↗ administration's responsibility of how

19:04 ↗ those fees are spent. It's the council's

19:06 ↗ responsibility, not the administration's

19:08 ↗ electric vehicle standards. Uh the table

19:10 ↗ was out of date with state with the

19:12 ↗ building code and the building codes in

19:13 ↗ place, so we just removed it. And then

19:16 ↗ replaces replacement of omitted

19:18 ↗ footnotes. This one you all haven't

19:19 ↗ seen. Um this is new, but when we were

19:22 ↗ going through the tables, we realized

19:24 ↗ that there were some footnotes that had

19:25 ↗ been omitted as well. And what we did

19:27 ↗ when we did the title 18 update, we took

19:30 ↗ footnotes that were there and we either

19:32 ↗ added a reference in the table of

19:33 ↗ permitted uses or we um put them in as

19:39 ↗ regulations in the code because some of

19:43 ↗ them were regulations in a table of

19:44 ↗ permitted uses which didn't make sense.

19:46 ↗ So we made them as regulations in the

19:48 ↗ standards. Um so we looks like I deleted

19:52 ↗ something. Uh we replace those as

19:53 ↗ regulations in the code.

19:56 ↗ And these happen to be for office and

20:00 ↗ for office uses.

20:03 ↗ Yeah. So the asterisk that was on there

20:06 ↗ was the approval criteria for up to 120

20:10 ↗ ft. Um it shouldn't have been changed at

20:14 ↗ all. In an effort to just be consistent,

20:16 ↗ I went through and I said it needs to be

20:18 ↗ um 120 ft maximum for

20:22 ↗ um in the mineral resource zone. But

20:24 ↗ that's not the case because our mineral

20:26 ↗ resource uses are in the intensive

20:28 ↗ commercial zone. So it's it was actually

20:31 ↗ supposed to stay as it was in the

20:32 ↗ mineral resource as for a mineral

20:34 ↗ resource

20:38 ↗ use. State required amendments. Do you

20:41 ↗ have any questions about the minor

20:42 ↗ amendments first of

20:44 ↗ all? Okay. State required amendments.

20:48 ↗ Um, one of those was that we are

20:50 ↗ required to allow existing commercial

20:54 ↗ and mixeduse structures to be converted

20:57 ↗ to multif family residential

20:59 ↗ zoning and without meeting all of our

21:03 ↗ typical multif family development

21:04 ↗ standards. So, some of the amendments

21:06 ↗ that we made parking uh we may we're

21:10 ↗ allowed to require the retention of the

21:11 ↗ existing parking. We can't require more

21:13 ↗ but can make them keep what's there.

21:15 ↗ concurrency. They are exempt from doing

21:18 ↗ concurrency. In density, they are exempt

21:20 ↗ from meeting the density standards

21:22 ↗ except that um they can actually provide

21:25 ↗ 50% more units than would normally be

21:28 ↗ allowed within that zone. So, if we

21:30 ↗ allow 14 units in a zone, we can now

21:33 ↗ allow 21 units in the zone.

21:36 ↗ Um, residential parking configurations.

21:39 ↗ These were just the Washington

21:42 ↗ administrative code had many, many,

21:44 ↗ many, many amendments that were

21:46 ↗ required. Um, there were new EV capable

21:49 ↗ requirements. Um, different exceptions

21:52 ↗ for different building use types, update

21:55 ↗ accessible parking, removed multif

21:57 ↗ family. We've talked about this one, but

21:59 ↗ moving structured parking requirements

22:01 ↗ for multif family. We can no longer

22:02 ↗ require that. So, that's changing in our

22:04 ↗ code. We now allow grass block pavers to

22:07 ↗ count as pvious

22:09 ↗ surface and we now have a tree retention

22:11 ↗ exemption. We talked about this one at

22:13 ↗ the last meeting where if you can't meet

22:15 ↗ both the tree code and the parking code

22:17 ↗ then parking could give a little bit so

22:18 ↗ that you can keep the trees. Excuse

22:21 ↗ me. Co-living I accidentally put under

22:24 ↗ um policy but that wasn't policy in your

22:26 ↗ table. Um it's a state requirement and

22:29 ↗ it requires that we allow co-living um

22:32 ↗ in all zones that allow for at least six

22:35 ↗ units and that includes mixeduse

22:37 ↗ residential zones. So we added a

22:40 ↗ co-living um

22:42 ↗ definition uh and single room occupancy.

22:46 ↗ And then parking, we have an exemption

22:49 ↗ for off- streetet parking if they're

22:50 ↗ within a half a mile of a major transit

22:52 ↗ stop. We cannot require off- streetet

22:54 ↗ parking. when we do get to require off-

22:57 ↗ streetet parking, it's only 0.25 spaces

22:59 ↗ per unit. And the reason is is that

23:02 ↗ these are not full units. These don't

23:05 ↗ have kitchens in them. Um they're

23:07 ↗ typically one room. And so that's why

23:10 ↗ they don't count as a full unit.

23:12 ↗ Typically, it's around four or five

23:13 ↗ units that count as one unit.

23:16 ↗ So policy amendments, uh wayfinding was

23:19 ↗ the first one. We had a requirement that

23:21 ↗ wayfinding was required with new

23:22 ↗ development but we didn't have any

23:24 ↗ standards associated with it. So we

23:25 ↗ included detailed standards heat pump

23:28 ↗ and mechanical equipment setbacks with

23:30 ↗ recent power outages and so forth. Bless

23:32 ↗ you with people power out recent power

23:34 ↗ outages and so forth. We had gotten

23:36 ↗ complaints that our standards were

23:38 ↗ impractical that the noise levels were

23:40 ↗ too low. um they typically need to be

23:43 ↗ that's typically higher than say heat

23:45 ↗ pumps um allow for and that we also have

23:49 ↗ denture denser residential developments

23:52 ↗ than a lot of other cities or than King

23:54 ↗ County which is definitely more rural.

23:56 ↗ Um so we lowered our max decibel limit

24:02 ↗ and we lowered or did we raise it? Uh

24:05 ↗ raised it have to check. Um, and then

24:08 ↗ allowed for mitigating measures. So, if

24:10 ↗ they need to, they can put in additional

24:11 ↗ fencing, additional landscaping. Um, the

24:14 ↗ placement could be further out. Um, and

24:17 ↗ they could just, you know, put it in

24:18 ↗ quiet mode at

24:19 ↗ night. Next, um, rooster and chicken

24:24 ↗ husbandry. Previously in title 18, we

24:26 ↗ had certain regulations for this. Uh, we

24:29 ↗ moved to King County's code, which is

24:31 ↗ intended for a less dense environment

24:33 ↗ than we have here in Isiqua. So we added

24:36 ↗ language regarding the age of roosters

24:37 ↗ and chickens, minimum size of lots, size

24:40 ↗ and distance of dwellings shelters um

24:42 ↗ from property lines and we require that

24:44 ↗ they have places to run uh that kind of

24:48 ↗ thing. Uh bees and beekeeping. We joked

24:52 ↗ in house that we were talking about the

24:53 ↗ birds and the bees. Um beekeeping. Um

24:56 ↗ the land the King County code um again

25:00 ↗ we used to we used to have our own

25:02 ↗ regulations. We moved to the King County

25:04 ↗ code which was intended for less dense

25:06 ↗ communities. So we reestablished the

25:08 ↗ previous standards and then we added

25:10 ↗ some clarity and we also added uh noise

25:14 ↗ uh um sorry we defined it nuisance

25:18 ↗ define nuisance and then provided more

25:20 ↗ enforcability for

25:22 ↗ this. Lastly common and private amenity

25:25 ↗ space. We also talked about this one

25:27 ↗ last week at our meeting. Currently we

25:30 ↗ require developers have said that asking

25:32 ↗ them to do what we are asking them to do

25:34 ↗ is infeasible. It makes their project

25:36 ↗ infeasible. Um not meaning that they

25:38 ↗ can't get funding for it but that they

25:40 ↗ will not benefit from it financially. So

25:44 ↗ um we currently require 48 Yeah, you can

25:49 ↗ take you can take the box. Uh we

25:51 ↗ currently require 48 square feet of

25:53 ↗ private space with each unit plus 100

25:56 ↗ square feet of common space per unit. So

25:58 ↗ it's a total of 148 square feet per

26:01 ↗ unit. Our proposal is to allow a

26:04 ↗ deviation and that as long as you

26:06 ↗ require 100 still provide 148 square

26:10 ↗ feet per unit. Um that can be all

26:13 ↗ combined into one one space when to

26:15 ↗ maybe put it all into common spaces. um

26:18 ↗ as long as 50% of the units still have

26:23 ↗ uh 48 square feet attached to

26:28 ↗ them. Okay, so that's all of the a

26:32 ↗ proposed amendments. So staff and the

26:35 ↗ administration recommend the that you

26:37 ↗ all recommend approval of the proposed

26:38 ↗ title 18 policy amendments as presented.

26:41 ↗ That's all I have. Do you all have any

26:43 ↗ questions?

26:44 ↗ All right. Well, thank you, Kristen. Um,

26:48 ↗ any questions from the commissioners?

26:51 ↗ Yeah, Commissioner Crass. Um, we've gone

26:54 ↗ through all this before, so thank you

26:56 ↗ for summarizing it again. What's

26:58 ↗ different than the last time? I'm just

27:00 ↗ trying to because then we could talk

27:02 ↗ about some of the what's been changed

27:05 ↗ since we saw it last. That may be just

27:07 ↗ those few things that I mentioned. Okay.

27:09 ↗ Um, that micro units were removed as a

27:12 ↗ type of co-living housing. Um, we

27:15 ↗ already had microunits in our code. So,

27:16 ↗ we just pulled them out as part of the

27:18 ↗ definition of co-l livingiving and moved

27:19 ↗ it back to an individual use. Um, the

27:24 ↗ approval criteria I accidentally this

27:26 ↗ should not have changed at all. It

27:27 ↗ should have remained as increased height

27:30 ↗ um up to and including 120 ft maximum

27:32 ↗ for mineral resource use and not for the

27:35 ↗ zone.

27:36 ↗ And then the last one is this one that

27:38 ↗ we originally called this a construction

27:40 ↗ permit and we now call it a building

27:42 ↗ permit to be for more specificity and

27:45 ↗ then added to the table that complete

27:48 ↗ applications had to be submitted within

27:50 ↗ that

27:50 ↗ time. Okay,

27:54 ↗ any other questions?

27:57 ↗ Commissioner D.

28:00 ↗ Hi, I have a question about beekeeping.

28:03 ↗ Uh my brother's a beekeeper and he was

28:05 ↗ just wondering why it was June and not

28:08 ↗ July. He thinks it should be July and so

28:12 ↗ if who was consulted that's all. Um

28:14 ↗ where did the I I don't know who the

28:18 ↗ consultant was. I don't even think we

28:19 ↗ had a consultant. I think we were I know

28:20 ↗ that we referred to other cities to see

28:22 ↗ what they do. Um I can't tell you why

28:24 ↗ it's June over July, but may I ask you

28:26 ↗ why it should be July and not June? Uh I

28:29 ↗ can double check with him and send that

28:31 ↗ to you. His suggestion just for for

28:33 ↗ reference was that uh it would become

28:35 ↗ July and that you cap the number of

28:39 ↗ spawning hives they have during

28:42 ↗ reproduction season because he said it

28:44 ↗ could get out of control if you don't.

28:47 ↗ Thank you. So I can follow up with you

28:48 ↗ on that. Thank you.

28:52 ↗ Did not know

28:54 ↗ that. Any other questions for Kristen?

28:59 ↗ All

29:02 ↗ right, we will go ahead and open the

29:04 ↗ public hearing at 6:59 p.m. And Amanda

29:09 ↗ or Kristen, has anyone signed up this

29:11 ↗ evening to give public testimony?

29:15 ↗ No, but there might be someone in the

29:17 ↗ audience that would like to make a

29:18 ↗ comment.

29:23 ↗ Tonnie, do you want to speak?

29:33 ↗ Hi, Connie Marsh again.

29:36 ↗ Um, I would have liked to have had that

29:39 ↗ presentation in advance so that I could

29:43 ↗ have commented on it. I couldn't read it

29:46 ↗ and I just don't like coming to a public

29:49 ↗ hearing illprepared. And now I feel

29:52 ↗ illprepared. So with that, I'm going to

29:55 ↗ tell you um what made me grumpy before,

29:58 ↗ but it has new information now that went

30:01 ↗ so fast that I don't understand whether

30:04 ↗ it's resolved or not. And that is um

30:09 ↗ extending the

30:12 ↗ uh site development permit and master

30:16 ↗ site plans.

30:18 ↗ um if you have a complete building

30:23 ↗ application. And so there was a new

30:25 ↗ table that was put up saying that you

30:28 ↗ had to something something with a

30:31 ↗ complete

30:32 ↗ application 3 years and 5 years.

30:35 ↗ However, we also in code have the

30:38 ↗ ability to

30:40 ↗ extend applications.

30:43 ↗ And for example, the school district

30:45 ↗ just extended their application which

30:48 ↗ then triggered um them not having to do

30:52 ↗ master site plan or site development

30:54 ↗ permit. So, what this is doing is this

30:57 ↗ is stretching out the amount of time

31:00 ↗ that they get to use old code because if

31:04 ↗ you have to go back and change your you

31:06 ↗ have a major modification for your

31:07 ↗ master site plan or site development

31:09 ↗ permit or you have to go back and do a

31:11 ↗ lot of rework

31:13 ↗ um uh you might have to go to old code.

31:16 ↗ If your permit expires, you definitely

31:19 ↗ have to update your code. And so um I

31:24 ↗ don't think we need that long of a

31:26 ↗ period of time uh to allow people to do

31:30 ↗ use old

31:31 ↗ code when best available science and all

31:34 ↗ kinds of other things are are shown in

31:37 ↗ supported in new code. So, uh, the

31:40 ↗ amount of

31:41 ↗ time, how long should a person be able

31:45 ↗ to a place be able to

31:48 ↗ build with that permit in place? 3

31:53 ↗ years, 5 years, 20 years? And so,

31:58 ↗ um, without understanding what it

32:01 ↗ actually says, I'm having a hard time,

32:04 ↗ uh, forming an opinion, but I think that

32:07 ↗ would that would be a great conversation

32:09 ↗ to have to ask exactly what that means

32:12 ↗ and ask about the ability to also extend

32:15 ↗ the application, not in addition to the

32:19 ↗ extensions they allow. Okay, that felt

32:21 ↗ like absolute jibber, so I apologize.

32:32 ↗ Thank you. Would anyone else like to

32:34 ↗ speak uh for the public

32:37 ↗ hearing? All right. Well, looks like

32:40 ↗ nobody else in the room. So, Amanda, it

32:42 ↗ sounds like we have somebody online.

32:44 ↗ Yes, Chair, we do. Kyler, I am unmuting

32:47 ↗ your line.

32:52 ↗ Kyler Danielson. and I'm a land use

32:54 ↗ project manager for Lakeside Industries,

32:57 ↗ um, which is a family-owned company with

32:58 ↗ deep roots in the city. Lakeside owns

33:01 ↗ and operates an asphalt plant and a mine

33:03 ↗ um, in Isiqua, and our headquarters are

33:06 ↗ also located in Isiqua. Um, and I

33:09 ↗ originally signed up to make a comment

33:10 ↗ on the mineral resource use and mineral

33:14 ↗ resource zone change language. Um, and

33:16 ↗ Kristen actually already mentioned this

33:19 ↗ during her presentation and um, made the

33:21 ↗ change that I was hoping she would. And

33:24 ↗ so I am just commenting to thank her and

33:27 ↗ to support the edit there. Um, and uh,

33:30 ↗ we recognize all of the hard work that

33:33 ↗ this team has put into the these code

33:36 ↗ revisions and the original drafting and

33:38 ↗ appreciate your efforts and um, just

33:41 ↗ thank you.

33:49 ↗ How are all the comments for online?

33:52 ↗ Thank you. All right. And thank you to

33:55 ↗ our speakers this

33:58 ↗ evening. So if no one else is going to

34:02 ↗ speak and I will leave it open for a

34:06 ↗ moment. Um we had somebody walk in the

34:08 ↗ room.

34:12 ↗ Oh, would you like to speak for the

34:14 ↗ public hearing regarding the title 18

34:17 ↗ policy amendments?

34:22 ↗ Okay. There's not a public hearing

34:24 ↗ tonight. So, this is the only

34:25 ↗ opportunity to talk. We've already taken

34:27 ↗ general public comment, but there

34:29 ↗ there's definitely an exciting

34:30 ↗ discussion about tree code coming up.

34:33 ↗ So, all right. Okay. Well, having said

34:38 ↗ that, we will close the public hearing

34:40 ↗ at 7:04 p.m. There is formal action

34:44 ↗ requested on this agenda item. So, in

34:46 ↗ order to begin to deliberate, uh, we

34:48 ↗ will need someone to make a motion.

34:55 ↗ Vice Chair Patterson.

34:59 ↗ All right. Thank you, Chair Voice. Uh, I

35:00 ↗ would like to move to recommend approval

35:02 ↗ of the 2025 Title 18 policy amendments

35:06 ↗ as presented. Is there a

35:09 ↗ second, Commissioner Zachar? Thank you.

35:11 ↗ All right, we can now open up for

35:15 ↗ deliberations. Um, again, it is a public

35:18 ↗ hearing. We really want to limit

35:19 ↗ questions. We've had our time. Um, I

35:22 ↗ appreciate the speakers bringing new

35:23 ↗ information or new questions, but again,

35:25 ↗ that's we want to keep questions very

35:27 ↗ limited.

35:28 ↗ uh now's the time to

35:31 ↗ debate or

35:33 ↗ not. But uh if anyone has any any

35:36 ↗ thoughts on this, please feel free to

35:45 ↗ share. All right. Well, I guess I'll

35:48 ↗ share share voice. Um, honestly, this is

35:51 ↗ stuff we've been working on for the past

35:54 ↗ 8 months, and a lot of it we've seen,

35:56 ↗ we've deliberated, we've talked about,

35:59 ↗ uh, with a few minor adjustments. This

36:02 ↗ all is again stuff we're very familiar

36:04 ↗ with. I know some of our newer

36:06 ↗ commissioners have caught on to the tail

36:08 ↗ part of some of it, but again, most of

36:10 ↗ this is uh, good house cleaning. Some of

36:12 ↗ this is coming from the state and the

36:14 ↗ policy discussions. is really I honestly

36:16 ↗ thought the the outdoor um living space

36:20 ↗ would have been a little bit feistier

36:21 ↗ but I guess not. I am a little curious

36:24 ↗ about the math. So just real quickly

36:27 ↗ because the math if

36:29 ↗ 50% right so if 50% of the units are at

36:33 ↗ 148 the other 50% can use some of their

36:37 ↗ square footage to go to common areas. Is

36:39 ↗ that correct?

36:42 ↗ Sort of. So all of the units have to

36:45 ↗ have 148 ft. But for 50% of those

36:50 ↗ units, all of that 148 square ft can be

36:54 ↗ put into common open space, common

36:57 ↗ amenity space. Okay. And then the other

36:59 ↗ 50% can have to do 100 into common and

37:02 ↗ 48 on their site on their unit. Thank

37:05 ↗ you for that. Um again, we need to make

37:07 ↗ it uh feasible for people to develop our

37:11 ↗ new developments. And again, if that's a

37:12 ↗ feedback that we're hearing from the

37:14 ↗ building community, it's important to

37:17 ↗ listen. I'm okay with all of the

37:19 ↗ amendments. Is there anybody who's not

37:21 ↗ or who would like to make any comments

37:23 ↗ in addition? Commissioner Miller Irwin.

37:26 ↗ Thank you. I just have a clarifying

37:28 ↗ question which is related to a public

37:31 ↗ comment made on the um the land use uh

37:35 ↗ permit extension. So, um, most

37:38 ↗ construction takes place where people

37:41 ↗ are living. And so, if there's automatic

37:43 ↗ extensions on land use permits, um, what

37:47 ↗ are the stop gaps to make sure that

37:49 ↗ there's not an eternal kind of, uh,

37:51 ↗ construction project going

37:56 ↗ on? Did you say internal or eternal?

38:00 ↗ Eternal. Oh, okay. So, um, sorry.

38:05 ↗ Um so process is you come in and you get

38:08 ↗ your land use permit, a site development

38:10 ↗ permit typically. Um and then you get

38:13 ↗ your building permit and once you get

38:15 ↗ your building permit that land

38:17 ↗ use the timeline there are timelines for

38:20 ↗ each of these things. So the land use

38:21 ↗ permit can last three to five years and

38:23 ↗ then you come in and you get your

38:24 ↗ building permit and once that building

38:26 ↗ permit is issued that's the timeline

38:28 ↗ that takes over. Um so there are

38:30 ↗ timelines but there is no timeline on

38:32 ↗ construction. itself. I mean, it takes

38:35 ↗ as long to build a building as it takes

38:36 ↗ as long to build a building. We do have

38:39 ↗ rules in place about noise and hours of

38:43 ↗ operation. Um, many many many things

38:45 ↗ that was updated I think last year. Um,

38:48 ↗ the construction rules. So, those those

38:50 ↗ are in place.

38:52 ↗ Thank you.

38:55 ↗ As someone with friends in the

38:56 ↗ developing the development community, I

38:58 ↗ can tell you has some very strict

39:00 ↗ rules, well known for it.

39:04 ↗ Um, we have a special guest. Thank you.

39:07 ↗ For the record, Mini Jolly, community

39:09 ↗ planning and development director. Just

39:11 ↗ quickly want to clarify your question.

39:13 ↗ So, like Kristen explained, there are

39:15 ↗ different phases of, you know, you get

39:17 ↗ your land use permits. Once you turn in

39:19 ↗ your building permit, you're vested to

39:21 ↗ the code because the building permit has

39:23 ↗ come in. And then we do have building

39:26 ↗ code title 16 not title 18 that has time

39:30 ↗ limits built into that. So which is

39:33 ↗ there are two steps there. It's 18

39:35 ↗ months to actually get your building

39:37 ↗ permit and then two years to build it.

39:40 ↗ There are provisions to extend building

39:42 ↗ permits. Uh the building official has

39:44 ↗ the authority to build them because one

39:46 ↗ sizefits-all

39:48 ↗ uh kind of approach doesn't work. If

39:49 ↗ you're building a house versus a larger

39:51 ↗ project, your timelines are going to be

39:53 ↗ slightly different. But but those

39:55 ↗ triggers get triggered. So it isn't

39:58 ↗ eternity that you have once your

40:00 ↗ building permit is in it will sunset

40:02 ↗ because the building code itself is

40:04 ↗ updated through cycles. So there's new

40:06 ↗ building code you know energy efficiency

40:08 ↗ and technology changes and those kind of

40:10 ↗ things. We're not changing any of the

40:12 ↗ timelines. This particular provision is

40:15 ↗ just clarifying because the table

40:17 ↗ exists. It says 3 years for STP and you

40:21 ↗ know and 5 years for STP. What what does

40:24 ↗ that mean? It meant that you turn in

40:26 ↗ your building permit. It didn't say 3

40:29 ↗ years to turn in your building permit.

40:31 ↗ Uh because it's not three years to build

40:33 ↗ your project. It is 3 years to turn in

40:36 ↗ your building permit. And that's the

40:37 ↗ clarifying. So the terms aren't

40:38 ↗ changing. It's clarification of what

40:40 ↗ that expiration for land use means. I

40:44 ↗ hope that's clear. Very clear. Thank you

40:47 ↗ very much. Thank you.

40:50 ↗ All right. Well, thank you, Minnie.

40:52 ↗ Yeah. The other thing too is I mean all

40:54 ↗ developers trying to get these projects

40:56 ↗ finished quickly as possible. None of

40:58 ↗ them are are purposely holding them up.

41:00 ↗ So they all have an incentive to make

41:02 ↗ sure they're handing over the keys as

41:03 ↗ quickly as possible. All right. So there

41:06 ↗ doesn't appear to be a whole lot of

41:07 ↗ discussion around these policy

41:09 ↗ amendments. There is a motion on the

41:13 ↗ floor. So I

41:16 ↗ suppose help me out here Kristen phoning

41:19 ↗ a friend. There's already a motion on

41:21 ↗ the floor. Mhm. Basically, all we need

41:23 ↗ now is a vote. Just restate the motion

41:26 ↗ and take a vote. Okay. So, the motion is

41:27 ↗ to recommend approval of the proposed

41:29 ↗ Title 18 policy amendments as

41:33 ↗ presented. All in favor? Say I.

41:38 ↗ I. All right. Unanimous. Okay. No, I

41:41 ↗ just wanted to note that these will go

41:42 ↗ to the

41:44 ↗ uh planning, development, and

41:46 ↗ environmental committee in July and then

41:51 ↗ to council. No, I'm wrong. They'll go in

41:54 ↗ June and then they'll go to council in

41:56 ↗ July. Thank you.

42:00 ↗ All right. Thank you, Kristen.

42:05 ↗ So, our next item of regular business is

42:07 ↗ to review the proposed Title 18 tree

42:10 ↗ preservation amendments. Doug Yormick,

42:13 ↗ our environmental planner, will be

42:15 ↗ presenting on this topic. So, Doug, when

42:17 ↗ you're ready, please go ahead.

42:59 ↗ Good evening, commission. My name is

43:00 ↗ Doug Yormick, environmental planner. Um,

43:03 ↗ with me is also Minnie Dollywal, uh, CPD

43:06 ↗ director, and together we're here to

43:09 ↗ continue the conversation for our tree

43:12 ↗ code amendments, uh,

43:22 ↗ IMC1812, so little change. This was

43:25 ↗ supposed to be a hearing and

43:27 ↗ environmental board wants another touch

43:29 ↗ at this. So this is now an opportunity

43:31 ↗ to just provide an update on um the tree

43:35 ↗ code that CPD staff has been working on

43:38 ↗ with our environmental consultants

43:44 ↗ facet. Uh just some quick background. So

43:47 ↗ we updated our land use code in

43:52 ↗ 2023. Um several changes were adopted as

43:55 ↗ as part of that overhaul. And one of

43:58 ↗ those changes was replacing tree density

44:00 ↗ on site with a tree canopy coverage

44:02 ↗ requirement

44:04 ↗ um to help with achieving 55% canopy

44:07 ↗ coverage goal that's in the climate

44:09 ↗ action plan. Um since adoption, staff

44:12 ↗ have identified um several areas in the

44:15 ↗ tree code that

44:19 ↗ um require updates for better

44:22 ↗ implementation.

44:24 ↗ um provide some equity with with

44:27 ↗ property owners and then some

44:29 ↗ consistency. Uh, council 2 heard these

44:32 ↗ concerns and have asked staff to prepare

44:35 ↗ uh, tree code amendments and then we

44:38 ↗ worked with our environmental

44:39 ↗ consultants

44:41 ↗ um, updating the code, establishing new

44:44 ↗ canopy requirements and uh, presented to

44:48 ↗ both environmental board and commission

44:50 ↗ last month.

44:55 ↗ So, in our April 9th environmental board

44:58 ↗ meeting,

45:00 ↗ um we were provided seven areas of

45:03 ↗ feedback um to go back and evaluate our

45:07 ↗ tree code. And during this presentation,

45:09 ↗ I I'll show you the these items and and

45:13 ↗ how we've either addressed them or

45:15 ↗ provided responses to the environmental

45:17 ↗ board.

45:20 ↗ First item was was code testing and um

45:25 ↗ staff have begun to develop a plan for

45:27 ↗ code testing. We are going to utilize

45:30 ↗ similar approach to missing middle for

45:33 ↗ code testing and we will be evaluating

45:35 ↗ our tree code to a variety of different

45:38 ↗ development types in and areas in the

45:40 ↗ city and then cross reference them with

45:43 ↗ um other standards just to make sure

45:44 ↗ that there is no conflict between the

45:47 ↗ tree code and our other development

45:49 ↗ standards. the results of the code

45:52 ↗ testing. We're going to be presented to

45:55 ↗ um council committee in July, but we'll

45:58 ↗ probably have some code testing um

46:02 ↗ information for you at the next planning

46:04 ↗ policy commission in the July if I'm

46:09 ↗ remembering

46:10 ↗ correctly. Another item was just uh just

46:14 ↗ clarification on how the tree fund is

46:18 ↗ utilized, how we get money. So um kind

46:22 ↗ of developed this

46:23 ↗ little slide here. So when

46:27 ↗ um planner will invoice an applicant if

46:30 ↗ if they're going to be utilizing fe um

46:34 ↗ that fee is $1,000 per tree. that was

46:38 ↗ worked on between our department and our

46:40 ↗ urban forester um Dan Hints and that is

46:44 ↗ the co we determined that was the cost

46:46 ↗ of the tree and for three years of

46:50 ↗ maintenance by park staff. Um so planner

46:54 ↗ will invoice the applicant. it's

46:55 ↗ deposited into a dedicated fund and then

46:58 ↗ that money is dispersed by the urban

47:00 ↗ forest supervisor um in accordance with

47:04 ↗ the criteria that's outlined in the tree

47:06 ↗ preservation

47:10 ↗ code. There was significant discussion

47:13 ↗ on heat island effects and

47:17 ↗ um a lot of this is um a lot of this is

47:21 ↗ handled in the urban forest management

47:23 ↗ plan. Um this slide shows kind of the

47:27 ↗ heat disparity map that was created as

47:29 ↗ as part of that urban forestry

47:31 ↗ management plan.

47:35 ↗ Um Oldtown and central Isiqua have the

47:38 ↗ highest heat disparities. Um our

47:40 ↗ forested hillsides have the

47:45 ↗ lowest. Um tree installation

47:49 ↗ um will be prioritized in areas that

47:52 ↗ have higher heat disparity and then our

47:54 ↗ urban forestry program will focus on

47:56 ↗ tree installation in in those specific

48:05 ↗ areas. Multifamily canopy targets were

48:08 ↗ also a area of focus during that April

48:12 ↗ 9th meeting. Um and then but at this

48:17 ↗ time we don't propose any changes to the

48:20 ↗ multif family canopy targets which are

48:22 ↗ at 40% for the multif family high and

48:27 ↗ multif family medium zoned properties.

48:30 ↗ Um, we want to collect more data on

48:36 ↗ um, our next tree canopy assessment,

48:38 ↗ which our department is working with

48:40 ↗ parks on getting something set up for

48:43 ↗ this

48:46 ↗ year. Multif family zoned properties are

48:48 ↗ primarily located in Oldtown um, along

48:51 ↗ Newport and East Sunset Way and along

48:53 ↗ Front Street South. These properties are

48:56 ↗ already developed with multif family

48:59 ↗ housing and if these sites were to be

49:02 ↗ redeveloped they'd be subject to strict

49:04 ↗ district standards um 50% max impervious

49:08 ↗ surface um extensive landscape

49:10 ↗ requirements and they would also have to

49:12 ↗ retain um 35% of the caliper inches on

49:17 ↗ site. So, taking all of these things

49:19 ↗ together,

49:21 ↗ um there would there would be a

49:24 ↗ preservation of significant canopy

49:26 ↗ coverage for those sites if they were to

49:36 ↗ redevelop. And then wildfire mitigation.

49:40 ↗ Um, we discussed wildfire mitigation

49:43 ↗ with East Side Fire and Rescue and we'll

49:47 ↗ continue to coordinate efforts to

49:48 ↗ balance city goals for safety in the

49:50 ↗ environment. We've in this code

49:52 ↗ amendment, we did add language um to the

49:55 ↗ approval criteria that would allow a

49:58 ↗ wildfire um mitigation report to be

50:02 ↗ submitted for the purposes of tree

50:04 ↗ removal for wildlife or wildlife

50:07 ↗ wildfire mitigation. Um, these

50:10 ↗ assessments are done by East Side Fire

50:12 ↗ and Rescue and they follow best

50:15 ↗ practices by the National Fire

50:17 ↗ Protection Association in the Institute

50:20 ↗ for Business and Home Safety and the US

50:22 ↗ Forest Service. Um, but these

50:25 ↗ recommendations are primarily just

50:26 ↗ guidance. Um, future state standards

50:29 ↗ regarding wildland urban interface u may

50:32 ↗ not align with this. So if we end up

50:35 ↗ getting some state standards for the

50:38 ↗ wildland urban interface, we would have

50:40 ↗ to come back and and revisit this with a

50:42 ↗ future code amendment. And also the

50:45 ↗ wildfire mitigation report may result in

50:48 ↗ a site um canopy less than the targets

50:51 ↗ that we would have in in the proposed

50:54 ↗ amendments.

51:03 ↗ large project process. Um this is for

51:07 ↗ our larger managed sites um such as HOAs

51:11 ↗ who have extensive

51:14 ↗ um open space and so we explored having

51:18 ↗ a separate process which would include

51:21 ↗ possibly some sort of management plan

51:23 ↗ that would be submitted to the city.

51:27 ↗ Um, instead of having that, what we did

51:30 ↗ was we changed our internal process to

51:32 ↗ allow one permit for multiple parcels

51:35 ↗ because that was that was something that

51:36 ↗ we heard um from these HOAs is if they

51:39 ↗ had multiple open spaces and they were

51:42 ↗ trying to manage their trees, they would

51:43 ↗ have to submit a tree removal permit for

51:46 ↗ each of the parcels. Now, we'll just be

51:49 ↗ asking for one permit and have them um

51:53 ↗ kind of provide details of where these

51:56 ↗ trees are located, even if they're on

51:58 ↗ multiple properties. And then we would

51:59 ↗ be able to track it through that instead

52:01 ↗ of having them submit multiple permits

52:04 ↗ and add

52:10 ↗ costs. Um, as part of this, we're also

52:12 ↗ trying to identify areas within the city

52:16 ↗ for off-site tree plantings. So, our

52:18 ↗ department has been working with parks

52:21 ↗ to coordinate um suitable off-site

52:24 ↗ planting locations if you can't plant

52:27 ↗ onsite um within each sub area or

52:31 ↗ neighborhood with an emphasis on

52:33 ↗ expanding tree canopy in areas that have

52:35 ↗ the highest heat disparities. Um the

52:38 ↗ sites on this slide represent our

52:40 ↗ preliminary discussions for sites within

52:42 ↗ central Isiqua. Um more will be

52:45 ↗ identified as uh discussions progress.

52:48 ↗ We're also exploring right-of-way

52:50 ↗ plantings in locations to assist in heat

52:52 ↗ disparities especially in um central

52:55 ↗ Isiqua where we have the highest heat

52:58 ↗ disparities. And these conversations

53:01 ↗ will continue to identify more locations

53:11 ↗ So last week we had another meeting with

53:14 ↗ the environmental board and we received

53:17 ↗ additional

53:19 ↗ feedback. Um so over the next couple of

53:22 ↗ weeks staff will work to address the

53:24 ↗ feedback from the environmental board

53:26 ↗ and we will hold another meeting with

53:28 ↗ the board next month.

53:36 ↗ And then during our discussion with the

53:39 ↗ commission last month um we heard the

53:45 ↗ uh following feedback and what the the

53:48 ↗ main one that that we heard was that um

53:51 ↗ we are placing the burden of um

53:54 ↗ achieving our canopy coverage goals of

53:56 ↗ 55% too much on to single family

53:59 ↗ residents um especially when compared to

54:02 ↗ multif family or commercial commercial

54:05 ↗ properties in the

54:09 ↗ city. So, similar to multif family, um

54:14 ↗ we don't propose any changes for single

54:16 ↗ family at this time. Um again, we want

54:19 ↗ to collect new data and um kind of be

54:23 ↗ able to fine-tune the canopy coverage

54:26 ↗ for these single family homes.

54:29 ↗ Um, so this will also be part of the the

54:33 ↗ effort that we're working on with parks

54:35 ↗ to have a new tree canopy assessment

54:37 ↗ sometime this year.

54:39 ↗ Um, and but we're also only proposing uh

54:44 ↗ the tree canopy targets to be met for

54:47 ↗ single family uh properties for new and

54:51 ↗ redevelopment. So, if you're you're

54:53 ↗ coming in for a tree removal permit to

54:55 ↗ remove a hazardous tree or a nuisance

54:57 ↗ tree, um we're not asking for full

55:00 ↗ canopy coverage requirements at that

55:02 ↗ time. Um if your site is below, it's

55:05 ↗ just we're we're asking for a one:1

55:07 ↗ ratio for a significant tree.

55:11 ↗ um and for the methodology to come up

55:17 ↗ with the canopy targets for single

55:19 ↗ family. Um we worked with our

55:22 ↗ environmental consultants and we looked

55:24 ↗ at both lot sizes and the potential

55:27 ↗ planting areas. And again, just like

55:29 ↗ with the multif family, there are there

55:31 ↗ are district standards for single

55:33 ↗ family. Um, the maximum impervious

55:36 ↗ surface for single family zone lots,

55:38 ↗ depending on which which zone you're in,

55:40 ↗ is between 30 and 50% leaving a lot of

55:43 ↗ space that could be used for tree

55:45 ↗ plantings.

55:47 ↗ Um, when when compared to to other land

55:55 ↗ uses, so timing and next steps, um,

55:59 ↗ environmental board would like another

56:00 ↗ touch at this. So, we're going to

56:02 ↗ continue to refine the um our proposed

56:05 ↗ amendments and bring them back to

56:06 ↗ environmental board on June 11th. Um and

56:10 ↗ then following that, we will come back

56:12 ↗ to planning policy commission for a

56:14 ↗ public hearing on July 10th. Um which

56:18 ↗ will push council committee to September

56:21 ↗ and then council adoption in early

56:24 ↗ October.

56:28 ↗ So, in your packets, um, we have, uh,

56:33 ↗ five policy questions for you to

56:35 ↗ consider, um, for our next meeting in

56:37 ↗ July

56:42 ↗ 10th. And then with

56:45 ↗ that, any questions?

56:49 ↗ Great. Thank you, Doug.

56:52 ↗ Commissioner Crass, is that a hand? Feel

56:54 ↗ like it's a game show. I always have to

56:55 ↗ buzz buzz in first. Hi. Thanks. Um I

56:58 ↗ have two questions. They're not related.

57:01 ↗ Um the first one, thank you for talking

57:03 ↗ about single family and the burden

57:05 ↗ there. If I remember from before, I

57:07 ↗ think the smallest designation was

57:09 ↗ 10,000 ft lots and smaller. Is that

57:11 ↗ right? Or is it Yes, that's correct. Um

57:13 ↗ one of the one of the speakers made a

57:15 ↗ very good point. There's a lot lots that

57:17 ↗ are smaller. So, does it make sense to

57:19 ↗ have a 5,000 and smaller and have a

57:22 ↗ different view on that? Because there's

57:24 ↗ a very big difference once you put a

57:26 ↗ house a driveway um between a 5,000 or

57:31 ↗ less and and a 10,000. I think that may

57:34 ↗ be worth kind of revisiting. So, that's

57:37 ↗ a question and a statement all together.

57:39 ↗ So, first I'll start with the question.

57:41 ↗ Do you do you have the ability to have a

57:43 ↗ another designation for I would call

57:45 ↗ very small lots of 5,000 and less?

57:48 ↗ I would say most of our very small lots

57:51 ↗ occur in the urban villages where we

57:53 ↗ reduced the tree canopy. So for in in

57:57 ↗ Ken's instance in Talis, it was a 73%

58:00 ↗ canopy coverage requirement for that

58:03 ↗ neighborhood. Um now for Talis it's 25%

58:08 ↗ regardless of of what the lot size is.

58:11 ↗ Um for the single family these are for

58:14 ↗ um lots that are zoned specifically for

58:17 ↗ single family. Um so this would be our

58:19 ↗ single family small lot, single family

58:21 ↗ duplex, single family estate zoned lots.

58:25 ↗ Um, and those thresholds were were

58:29 ↗ chosen because those tend to fall in

58:31 ↗ line to where those particular th those

58:35 ↗ for those zones, those particular those

58:37 ↗ are the lot sizes for those particular

58:39 ↗ zones. But two two things on that. At a

58:41 ↗ 3,000 foot lot, use that as an example,

58:43 ↗ which may have been brought up, 25% is

58:46 ↗ still significant once you have all the

58:48 ↗ other stuff that has to fit on that. Um,

58:51 ↗ and it's actually more than that because

58:53 ↗ if you look at like Isqua Valley, you

58:55 ↗ have a lot of infill where you can have

58:58 ↗ 2500 square foot lots. So you have, you

59:01 ↗ know, house taken out and then multi,

59:03 ↗ you know, split into multiple lots, all

59:06 ↗ very small lots. It's probably even hard

59:08 ↗ to get to 25% on those. It's just

59:10 ↗ something to I would love some more

59:12 ↗ thought on that.

59:13 ↗ Um the other question I have is when you

59:17 ↗ think about the uh the heat issues in

59:20 ↗ town, would you call it heat disparity?

59:22 ↗ Is that okay? Is that the the correct

59:24 ↗ term? When you think about that as an

59:26 ↗ issue and also having more tree coverage

59:29 ↗ there, what's the thought of the city

59:31 ↗ owned land, specifically the parkways,

59:33 ↗ taking on some more heavy lifting of the

59:36 ↗ city putting in more parkway trees to

59:38 ↗ get canopy, but also getting more

59:40 ↗ greenery in areas that have more

59:42 ↗ concrete and we'll always have more

59:44 ↗ concrete because that's why we're

59:45 ↗ purposely putting more development

59:46 ↗ there. So, is there thoughts on a bigger

59:48 ↗ push on city-owned use parkways as one

59:51 ↗ example? um also along the trails on um

59:55 ↗ the old reineer trail and all that you'd

59:57 ↗ probably do a lot more. So thoughts on

59:59 ↗ that? Um a lot of that would be handled

1:00:02 ↗ under either the street standards which

1:00:04 ↗ is public works for and I'm talking

1:00:07 ↗ specifically for for right-of-way trees

1:00:09 ↗ and um even trails because our our trail

1:00:12 ↗ standards will be included into the

1:00:14 ↗ street standards. Um, so there's there's

1:00:16 ↗ a lot of room um to provide canopy

1:00:20 ↗ coverage, especially over the rightway.

1:00:23 ↗ The title 18 and specifically the this

1:00:26 ↗ tree preservation code is is more for

1:00:31 ↗ individual lots. Um so once we get into

1:00:34 ↗ areas like right of way um that's

1:00:36 ↗ outside of what we can handle or what we

1:00:40 ↗ can do in the land use code and that

1:00:42 ↗ would fall in to but the more you do

1:00:44 ↗ there the less burden you then have on

1:00:46 ↗ the individual lot. So it's like once

1:00:47 ↗ again it's the balance of there's more

1:00:49 ↗ heavy lifting in all the parkways then

1:00:50 ↗ the thing right across the sidewalk may

1:00:53 ↗ have a little bit more relief where it's

1:00:55 ↗ probably harder to do. So I think it's

1:00:56 ↗ looking at that more holistically

1:00:58 ↗ because you have a goal for the whole

1:00:59 ↗ city which includes all of it. Yes. And

1:01:01 ↗ I I believe the when I was speaking with

1:01:04 ↗ Dan Hints, I think onethird of the city

1:01:06 ↗ is right ofway. So there's

1:01:10 ↗ there's a lot of room there to Yeah, it'

1:01:12 ↗ be good to have an assessment of what

1:01:14 ↗ what can be done. What's the gap of what

1:01:16 ↗ what it is now versus what it could be?

1:01:17 ↗ And then does that help you and some of

1:01:19 ↗ the other goals? That's the whole Okay.

1:01:21 ↗ Thanks.

1:01:26 ↗ Hi, can you talk about the multif family

1:01:29 ↗ limit again because I think you said 40%

1:01:31 ↗ but on our grid it says 25% to 30. May

1:01:35 ↗ have misspoke.

1:01:46 ↗ uh it's it's 30% and then for village

1:01:50 ↗ residential

1:01:52 ↗ um it's 25 and village residential is a

1:01:55 ↗ zone I believe it's is that central

1:01:58 ↗ Isqua yeah that's that's central

1:02:03 ↗ isiqua so sorry about misspeaking but

1:02:07 ↗ 30% not 40

1:02:10 ↗ good catch

1:02:15 ↗ Any other comments,

1:02:18 ↗ concerns? Vice Chair Patterson. Thank

1:02:21 ↗ you, Chair. Uh just a clarifying

1:02:23 ↗ question on the large project um permit

1:02:26 ↗ coverage uh single permit. Um just

1:02:29 ↗ curious, do parcels have to be connected

1:02:31 ↗ to each other for that to apply or can

1:02:34 ↗ they is there any other criteria besides

1:02:36 ↗ having like the same developer? I guess

1:02:40 ↗ um it would if they're if they're

1:02:42 ↗ managed by the same HOA. Um and this

1:02:46 ↗ also goes for park properties cuz there

1:02:48 ↗ are several parks in the city that span

1:02:51 ↗ multiple parcels. So this was also

1:02:53 ↗ something that we heard from our parks

1:02:55 ↗ department when they would manage trees

1:02:57 ↗ on you know Tibbitz Valley Park for

1:03:00 ↗ instance and would have to submit four

1:03:02 ↗ separate tree permits because each of

1:03:04 ↗ the trees were on separate lots. Now,

1:03:07 ↗ since it's managed by parks or if it's

1:03:11 ↗ an HOA managing talis's open space, now

1:03:14 ↗ it can just be one permit to remove

1:03:18 ↗ um multiple hazardous trees or nuisance

1:03:20 ↗ trees on site. Gotcha. So, as an

1:03:22 ↗ example, say for your parks example,

1:03:24 ↗ there's trees in confluence and trees in

1:03:27 ↗ Tibbitz, they could still use one

1:03:29 ↗ permits that are the same. No, for in

1:03:30 ↗ that instance, that would be two just

1:03:32 ↗ because it's two separate parks. But if

1:03:34 ↗ it's all one park spanning multiple

1:03:37 ↗ parcels, it would just be one permit.

1:03:39 ↗ Got it. Okay. Thank you.

1:03:43 ↗ Uh Commissioner

1:03:46 ↗ um, can you talk so you mentioning the

1:03:49 ↗ new your ah sorry uh revising the canopy

1:03:54 ↗ coverage goals. Can you talk about the

1:03:56 ↗ methodology that you're going to be

1:03:58 ↗ using going forward with that?

1:04:01 ↗ So um so our methodology looked at

1:04:06 ↗ um existing land uses and how they were

1:04:09 ↗ developed and then looking at what the

1:04:12 ↗ potential planting area is. So how much

1:04:14 ↗ space can that site actually hold for

1:04:17 ↗ more trees. Um, so when you have areas

1:04:21 ↗ that are commercially, you know, they're

1:04:24 ↗ commercial land uses with 80 to 90%

1:04:26 ↗ impervious coverage, there's not a whole

1:04:29 ↗ lot of space left on site to plant more

1:04:32 ↗ trees. Um, so looking at that, because

1:04:35 ↗ there isn't a whole lot of potential

1:04:37 ↗ planting area, there's not a whole lot

1:04:38 ↗ of space for canopy coverage.

1:04:41 ↗ um those were looked at is to try to

1:04:44 ↗ establish some sort of percentage

1:04:46 ↗ because what we were utilizing before

1:04:48 ↗ was taking whatever the the canopy

1:04:50 ↗ coverage goals for that neighborhood and

1:04:53 ↗ then applying them to each individual

1:04:55 ↗ lot. So, this is looking at it in a

1:04:58 ↗ different a different approach.

1:05:02 ↗ Thank you,

1:05:05 ↗ Commissioner Matthews.

1:05:07 ↗ Hi, I s uh saw a comment come through

1:05:09 ↗ about um a neighborhood where two trees

1:05:13 ↗ came down where they had eagles nesting

1:05:16 ↗ in the trees. And I was wondering in the

1:05:19 ↗ permit process because you can't really

1:05:20 ↗ look at a permit application easily. You

1:05:22 ↗ have to actually sign in and start one.

1:05:24 ↗ Mhm. Does is there a process for

1:05:27 ↗ ensuring that if there are birds like

1:05:30 ↗ eagles nesting that those trees don't

1:05:33 ↗ come down until after the nesting period

1:05:36 ↗ because I know for sign permits if there

1:05:39 ↗ is like a bird like an osprey nesting on

1:05:43 ↗ a sign. This happened to me a while ago

1:05:44 ↗ when I did the 76 sign. We couldn't

1:05:47 ↗ touch that sign

1:05:49 ↗ until the osprey's actually left the

1:05:51 ↗ region. So, is there a process to ensure

1:05:55 ↗ when permits are issued for trees that

1:05:58 ↗ they check for nesting and wildlife

1:06:00 ↗ before and that they establish a period

1:06:03 ↗ um when those trees could come down?

1:06:06 ↗ Currently, we don't have information in

1:06:09 ↗ our system for um we have like ospreys

1:06:13 ↗ or other birds of prey or eagles. Um so,

1:06:16 ↗ that would be something that we would

1:06:17 ↗ have to discuss internally on how we

1:06:19 ↗ would be able to acquire that

1:06:21 ↗ information. and then

1:06:24 ↗ um set some sort of policy for that. But

1:06:26 ↗ currently we we don't have that

1:06:28 ↗ information when we're when we're

1:06:30 ↗ reviewing for a tree

1:06:31 ↗ permit. So as a followup, it maybe it

1:06:34 ↗ requires like a site visit um when

1:06:37 ↗ you're bringing down significant trees

1:06:39 ↗ that an inspector goes out just to make

1:06:41 ↗ sure there's no nesting. I mean, because

1:06:43 ↗ that's pretty obvious if there's a giant

1:06:45 ↗ nest and a bunch of trees. Yeah. Just a

1:06:49 ↗ piggyback on Commissioner Matthews, I

1:06:51 ↗ was actually shocked when I I saw that

1:06:53 ↗ because I thought it was illegal to take

1:06:54 ↗ down a tree with an eagle's nest.

1:06:57 ↗ I mean, I again, not to impugn the the

1:06:59 ↗ person who sent the message by any

1:07:00 ↗ means. I don't know if they made a

1:07:01 ↗ mistake or, you know, but again, that

1:07:04 ↗ was shocking because I know for years, I

1:07:06 ↗ mean, you can't even pick up an eagle

1:07:08 ↗ feather. So, I heard you took down the

1:07:10 ↗ nest. It was like, whoa, that is a major

1:07:12 ↗ foul. Mhm.

1:07:14 ↗ So, so when you when someone gets a tree

1:07:16 ↗ permit, does someone go out is there a

1:07:18 ↗ site visit always or sometimes or never?

1:07:21 ↗ We have an inspector who will go out um

1:07:24 ↗ to ensure if there's a replacement tree

1:07:26 ↗ that that tree was installed, but not

1:07:28 ↗ every not every permit has a a site

1:07:31 ↗ visit.

1:07:34 ↗ Commissioner, and um there is a review

1:07:38 ↗ by an arborist if that is that correct?

1:07:42 ↗ And would the arborist scope of work

1:07:45 ↗ include noticing whether there were

1:07:47 ↗ nesting

1:07:49 ↗ birds for a tree

1:07:52 ↗ removal can an arborous report.

1:07:56 ↗ Typically for a hazardous tree it's just

1:07:58 ↗ going to be a track form which is just

1:08:00 ↗ going to show like provide some

1:08:02 ↗ information and then make a

1:08:04 ↗ recommendation on um its overall risk

1:08:07 ↗ assessments for hitting a particular

1:08:10 ↗ target.

1:08:12 ↗ um you know, their evaluation should

1:08:16 ↗ probably see that and then provide that

1:08:18 ↗ information to us. Um but when it's just

1:08:22 ↗ a track

1:08:24 ↗ form, there's no way for us to really

1:08:26 ↗ know unless they're telling us that

1:08:28 ↗ there is a a nest in that tree.

1:08:32 ↗ Is that something that we can require as

1:08:34 ↗ part of the arborist report?

1:08:39 ↗ I don't

1:08:41 ↗ Yeah. May that be one way to address uh

1:08:44 ↗ the

1:08:51 ↗ issue. Okay. Well, we should probably

1:08:54 ↗ start getting through Doug's policy

1:08:56 ↗ questions. So, unless you guys have any

1:08:58 ↗ other questions, um let's go ahead and

1:09:01 ↗ start with question one.

1:09:04 ↗ So, does the commission agree with the

1:09:05 ↗ new TR tree canopy coverage percentages

1:09:08 ↗ based on zoning, lot size, or should

1:09:10 ↗ they remain based on

1:09:12 ↗ neighborhood? Any thoughts on that,

1:09:23 ↗ Commissioner Krauss? Thanks. You have

1:09:25 ↗ you have to do both in many ways. You

1:09:28 ↗ have to take into consideration lot size

1:09:30 ↗ otherwise it just doesn't work for the

1:09:32 ↗ conversation we just had on a very small

1:09:35 ↗ lot as an example versus other sized lot

1:09:38 ↗ unless you take that into consideration

1:09:39 ↗ you can't have a neighborhood only type

1:09:43 ↗ unless someone can explain that how that

1:09:45 ↗ would work. So I

1:09:47 ↗ think having a lot size is super is core

1:09:51 ↗ and and then have maybe there's an

1:09:52 ↗ overlay. It's not an or it's an it

1:09:54 ↗ should be an and have an and of what

1:09:56 ↗ does that mean from a sub area or or

1:09:59 ↗ neighborhood as well but I think you

1:10:00 ↗ have to I would think there's a

1:10:02 ↗ component of both in there. I I would

1:10:04 ↗ agree. I think hearing our public

1:10:08 ↗ speaker this evening also just common

1:10:10 ↗ sense is again you're going to have

1:10:12 ↗ smaller lots the idea that and I

1:10:14 ↗ understand what you guys are doing with

1:10:15 ↗ neighborhoods right so I think a mantro

1:10:17 ↗ you know they're much higher but some

1:10:19 ↗ they lose a couple trees it doesn't

1:10:20 ↗ affect them but it could affect someone

1:10:22 ↗ on a smaller postage size lot so I I

1:10:26 ↗ kind of agree with uh commissioner crass

1:10:28 ↗ is it's got to be looked at holistically

1:10:31 ↗ in order to get where we want to go um

1:10:34 ↗ it's got to be user friendly for the

1:10:36 ↗ people that are using it because again I

1:10:38 ↗ as much as I love trees too I'm

1:10:39 ↗ surrounded by them and I get a very

1:10:41 ↗ brief little bit of sunlight every day

1:10:43 ↗ but usually I'm in the shade works out

1:10:45 ↗ great in the summer but not so much in

1:10:47 ↗ the winter. Any other feedback for

1:10:50 ↗ question one? Commissioner Zacharov.

1:10:53 ↗ Yeah. Uh I'm also kind of like walking

1:10:55 ↗ in my mind through my neighborhood. It's

1:10:58 ↗ in the highlands and I'm thinking about

1:10:59 ↗ the different parts of the highlands and

1:11:02 ↗ different tree canopy there and there

1:11:04 ↗ are some lots where I don't even see it

1:11:07 ↗ visible to get like trees more trees

1:11:11 ↗ there or any trees there. So the lots

1:11:13 ↗ are very small like there's literally uh

1:11:16 ↗ a house and then just a driveway

1:11:19 ↗ together and that's that's it. So yeah,

1:11:21 ↗ I also have a question there for the

1:11:23 ↗ size of the lot. Thank you.

1:11:28 ↗ So just so if I understand this

1:11:30 ↗ correctly, Doug, so like in central Liza

1:11:33 ↗ the tree canopy coverage is much less

1:11:35 ↗ because obviously that's where our

1:11:36 ↗ growth is going. So I'm thinking of some

1:11:38 ↗ of the smaller houses down by Memorial

1:11:40 ↗ Park. They're not going to be required

1:11:41 ↗ to have the same canopy coverage per lot

1:11:44 ↗ or per neighborhood I should as it is

1:11:46 ↗ now as um a new development outside of

1:11:50 ↗ that. Okay. Just want to make sure I

1:12:00 ↗ turn my microphone back on. Um, why we

1:12:03 ↗ are in conversations with parks is to

1:12:06 ↗ have suitable off-site planting

1:12:08 ↗ locations to where if it isn't feasible

1:12:12 ↗ for you

1:12:13 ↗ to have the the tree canopy coverage

1:12:16 ↗ because your lot is very small, there's

1:12:18 ↗ there's more options for you to be able

1:12:21 ↗ to plant offsite. Um, we have that

1:12:23 ↗ option in our code, but we don't really

1:12:25 ↗ provide any space for that. It's kind of

1:12:29 ↗ talk back and forth between the

1:12:31 ↗ applicants, parks, try to get a a spot

1:12:34 ↗ if there is is one. And also as a as a

1:12:38 ↗ another resort, too, is is the fee in

1:12:41 ↗ um, right? And it just it seems

1:12:42 ↗ burdensome burdensome on residents, you

1:12:45 ↗ know, with all the costs that they have

1:12:46 ↗ that all of a sudden now they're being

1:12:48 ↗ passed to pay possibly a few thousand

1:12:50 ↗ dollars in order to do fee and loo when

1:12:52 ↗ they're building um in an area that's

1:12:55 ↗ already has a lower requirement. Yeah.

1:13:00 ↗ Would anyone else like to go other than

1:13:02 ↗ Commissioner Crass?

1:13:06 ↗ Commissioner Crass. Uh I don't think I

1:13:09 ↗ heard any of this discussed. Is there

1:13:10 ↗ thought between deciduous versus

1:13:12 ↗ evergreen and

1:13:15 ↗ um what you want to see and are the

1:13:17 ↗ requirements the same or like the what

1:13:21 ↗ what Jason was saying was in the in the

1:13:24 ↗ summer having coverage is nice but at

1:13:26 ↗ least deciduous trees lose their leaves

1:13:28 ↗ so he can get his winter tan if he

1:13:31 ↗ really wants to go outside under his

1:13:32 ↗ porch. Um what is what is the thoughts

1:13:35 ↗ of deciduous versus evergreen as part of

1:13:38 ↗ the tree code or is that not part of it

1:13:40 ↗ at all? In currently in the tree code

1:13:43 ↗ our our preference is for evergreen.

1:13:45 ↗ Deciduous would be would be okay too.

1:13:49 ↗ And

1:13:50 ↗ um we have a preferred tree list

1:13:55 ↗ um as a as a resource to use for you to

1:13:58 ↗ be able to select the the tree. But

1:14:02 ↗ um preference is evergreen, but we're

1:14:05 ↗ not going to stop someone from planting

1:14:07 ↗ a deciduous tree. It just would have

1:14:10 ↗ Yeah, we would just be looking at the

1:14:11 ↗ canopy the mature canopy coverage of

1:14:13 ↗ that tree. So what followup is why is

1:14:17 ↗ there a preference on that? Because if

1:14:19 ↗ we want to like in the winter where it's

1:14:21 ↗ dark here, having deciduous trees allow

1:14:24 ↗ maybe you have the best of both worlds

1:14:26 ↗ where you have nice coverage in the

1:14:28 ↗ summer, but then it also allows

1:14:32 ↗ um some sense that you're still outside

1:14:35 ↗ a little bit without being in a cave.

1:14:37 ↗ So, I'm curious the thought pattern of

1:14:39 ↗ why why evergreen?

1:14:48 ↗ I'm familiar with the tree list. The

1:14:50 ↗ tree list has both. So, Mhm. Yeah. Yeah.

1:14:54 ↗ Tree list has both. Um, evergreen is

1:14:58 ↗ that's the dominant tree

1:15:01 ↗ species in western Washington forest. So

1:15:04 ↗ that that

1:15:06 ↗ is more than likely why it was was

1:15:08 ↗ selected. But like I said, we're not

1:15:10 ↗ like it's our preference for evergreen,

1:15:13 ↗ but deciduous would would be suitable if

1:15:16 ↗ that's what you wanted to plant. I was

1:15:18 ↗ going to say cuz like in in urban areas,

1:15:20 ↗ deciduous may I mean we're not that's

1:15:22 ↗ not a forest by definition. So yeah.

1:15:26 ↗ And then for for right ofway trees,

1:15:28 ↗ they're they're going to be deciduous.

1:15:36 ↗ Yes you

1:15:39 ↗ have. All right, let's move on to

1:15:41 ↗ question two. Does the commission agree

1:15:42 ↗ that the full tree canopy coverage

1:15:45 ↗ requirement should only be required for

1:15:46 ↗ new development or major development?

1:15:56 ↗ This is Yeah, sorry, I'm looking at my

1:15:59 ↗ P. I'm gonna pull that up. So,

1:16:02 ↗ Oh apologize.

1:16:06 ↗ I just realized my mistake. Thank you,

1:16:08 ↗ Manny, for pointing that out to me.

1:16:11 ↗ Presentation has the wrong policy

1:16:13 ↗ questions on it. So,

1:16:15 ↗ good catch. They're they're in a

1:16:17 ↗ different order. environmental board and

1:16:24 ↗ then it goes off of those.

1:16:30 ↗ I'm going to build on Doug's really

1:16:31 ↗ quickly while he's opening that up. Um,

1:16:33 ↗ deciduous trees also, yes, they're

1:16:34 ↗ native to Isiqua or not is to the area,

1:16:38 ↗ but they also have year-round

1:16:39 ↗ environmental benefits. You know, carbon

1:16:42 ↗ monoxide and that sort of thing. If you

1:16:44 ↗ lose your leaves, you know, in in the

1:16:46 ↗ winter, you're not serving the

1:16:48 ↗ community, you know, environmentally as

1:16:50 ↗ well as you would be with the deciduous

1:16:51 ↗ trees that keep all of that functioning

1:16:54 ↗ year round.

1:17:08 ↗ All right, Commissioner Matthews,

1:17:10 ↗ what um percentage is considered major

1:17:13 ↗ redevelopment? I think I might have

1:17:14 ↗ asked this before, but I don't recall.

1:17:17 ↗ It's 50% of the King County assessed

1:17:20 ↗ improvement value over a three-year

1:17:22 ↗ period. Thanks,

1:17:30 ↗ Commissioner Dair. And so with that

1:17:33 ↗ question, uh, it would still be kind of

1:17:36 ↗ by default a onetoone replacement, but

1:17:39 ↗ they

1:17:40 ↗ wouldn't, right? But they only have to

1:17:42 ↗ reassess, they only have to meet canopy

1:17:44 ↗ requirements if it's a new new

1:17:48 ↗ development or major, but you would

1:17:50 ↗ still have to do a onetoone replacement

1:17:52 ↗ if you removed a tree. Correct. Correct.

1:18:01 ↗ Vice Chair Patterson.

1:18:04 ↗ Uh I'm I'm supportive of uh this

1:18:08 ↗ requirement only applying to new

1:18:10 ↗ development or major redevelopment. Uh

1:18:13 ↗ just for a couple reasons. One to not

1:18:15 ↗ penalize the existing you know stand or

1:18:18 ↗ what's going on currently. Uh and mostly

1:18:21 ↗ because those scenarios of new

1:18:23 ↗ development and major redevelopment

1:18:25 ↗ outside of a bomb cyclone are probably

1:18:27 ↗ the most uh or most common opportunity

1:18:31 ↗ for loss and u restoration. Meaning

1:18:35 ↗ you're that's when you're going to see a

1:18:36 ↗ lot of trees taken away and a lot of you

1:18:38 ↗ know an opportunity to add more trees

1:18:39 ↗ would be during those uh develop new

1:18:42 ↗ development or redevelopment phases. Um

1:18:45 ↗ so I think I'm I'm personally supportive

1:18:47 ↗ of that. Okay. Great. Thank

1:18:55 ↗ you. Any other comments on question

1:18:59 ↗ two? Moving on to question three. Does

1:19:02 ↗ the comm the board agree that tree

1:19:04 ↗ replacement for tree removal permits for

1:19:06 ↗ hazardous nuisance trees should be a

1:19:09 ↗ onetoone replacement for non-landmark

1:19:11 ↗ trees and a one two replacement for

1:19:14 ↗ landmark trees?

1:19:24 ↗ Uh, Commissioner Dair. So, just to

1:19:27 ↗ clarify, so it would mean you'd replace

1:19:29 ↗ one landmark tree with two regular

1:19:31 ↗ trees, two new trees, correct? If you

1:19:34 ↗ removed it. Okay, then I think that's

1:19:36 ↗ fine. I agree with

1:19:41 ↗ that.

1:19:45 ↗ Any Commissioner Aller? I'm also

1:19:47 ↗ supportive of

1:19:53 ↗ that. Any other comments on number

1:19:56 ↗ three? I just say my only concern with

1:19:59 ↗ number three is for a nuisance or a

1:20:01 ↗ hazardous tree, my concern is the one

1:20:03 ↗ toone replacement. I'm not as concerned

1:20:05 ↗ with the landmark tree. Um people can

1:20:08 ↗ have the reasons for needing one of

1:20:09 ↗ those to move. It's really just, you

1:20:11 ↗ know, does that does that create an

1:20:13 ↗ issue where people ignore hazards and

1:20:16 ↗ potential problems if they're worried

1:20:18 ↗ about something like this? I I don't

1:20:21 ↗ know if it really does. Um, you know,

1:20:23 ↗ $1,000 doesn't seem like a lot, but I'm

1:20:26 ↗ there's some people that just, you know,

1:20:28 ↗ just let it fester. That's my only

1:20:29 ↗ concern there. I I don't know if that's

1:20:32 ↗ a valid concern, but you know, if I'm a

1:20:34 ↗ property owner, maybe you just let it

1:20:35 ↗ go. You know, the tree is dead. you

1:20:37 ↗ know, it has issues, but you know, you

1:20:40 ↗ don't really want to pay the city the

1:20:42 ↗ 1:1 ratio. So, that's my only concern

1:20:44 ↗ about that as far as nuisance trees. Um,

1:20:47 ↗ the landmark one, I don't know if it

1:20:49 ↗ should be one:1 because again, if we're

1:20:51 ↗ talking about trees that are hazardous

1:20:53 ↗ or a

1:20:55 ↗ problem. So again, I just I just wonder

1:20:58 ↗ about that consequence where people put

1:21:01 ↗ something off that does become a problem

1:21:03 ↗ like you had mentioned earlier becomes a

1:21:05 ↗ life or property issue. Uh you know

1:21:09 ↗ often times people are faced with

1:21:10 ↗ something like going through permits or

1:21:13 ↗ doing something like that or paying

1:21:14 ↗ money. They could just look the other

1:21:16 ↗ way. That's my only concern with this.

1:21:19 ↗ Commissioner Matthews, um to piggyback

1:21:22 ↗ on what you said and one of the

1:21:24 ↗ environmental

1:21:25 ↗ um some of the questions they came

1:21:27 ↗ through from their meeting was about

1:21:30 ↗ providing assistance in cases like that.

1:21:32 ↗ So, or basically it was about if there's

1:21:34 ↗ a bomb cyclone or a tree falls over that

1:21:36 ↗ we would help or the city would help

1:21:39 ↗ cover the cost for that new tree and

1:21:41 ↗ maybe that's an option that we could

1:21:43 ↗ bring forward with these landmark trees

1:21:45 ↗ cuz I you know typically I could see the

1:21:47 ↗ one to two because landmark trees are

1:21:49 ↗ usually quite large and the only reason

1:21:51 ↗ it would become a nuisance tree if it

1:21:53 ↗ got sickly or if it part of it fell off

1:21:55 ↗ and you wouldn't be it wouldn't survive.

1:21:58 ↗ So, I think that maybe that would be

1:21:59 ↗ something we should think about.

1:22:02 ↗ since they brought that forward. I

1:22:03 ↗ thought that was actually a pretty good

1:22:04 ↗ idea. If there was a fund dug for

1:22:07 ↗ something like that, would that be

1:22:08 ↗ something that would

1:22:10 ↗ uh um be able to support like a fee and

1:22:14 ↗ loo, you know, to be able to help people

1:22:16 ↗ that might not be able to afford it or

1:22:19 ↗ encourage people to not let problems

1:22:27 ↗ fester? you know, like if if that's part

1:22:30 ↗ of the the fund, could that be something

1:22:32 ↗ to help subsidize some of these trees

1:22:34 ↗ that uh again, I don't know if that's a

1:22:37 ↗ valid use for fee l funds,

1:22:41 ↗ but so I'm I'm pulling up that code

1:22:44 ↗ right now just to to look at it to see

1:22:46 ↗ if there's anything

1:22:49 ↗ um related to what you're saying. and

1:22:52 ↗ there isn't one in in any of the the

1:22:56 ↗ seven. But then there's the last one is

1:22:58 ↗ other purposes relating to trees as

1:23:01 ↗ determined by city council

1:23:02 ↗ actions.

1:23:20 ↗ Um, I think it's something that could be

1:23:24 ↗ considered

1:23:27 ↗ open to think it would be

1:23:29 ↗ a fair. I think that would that would be

1:23:32 ↗ a a larger discussion on uh how the city

1:23:36 ↗ would want to use the money collected

1:23:39 ↗ for the tree fund. Okay.

1:23:44 ↗ Commissioner Adair, and would something

1:23:46 ↗ wasn't at the last meeting there was a

1:23:49 ↗ discussion about the tree giveaway

1:23:51 ↗ programs. So maybe that could be part of

1:23:53 ↗ it where since you're giving away free

1:23:55 ↗ trees as part of this promotion that

1:23:58 ↗ people who lost trees or have to remove

1:24:01 ↗ dead trees can apply for a free tree

1:24:04 ↗ replacement. Yeah, good point. Yeah. And

1:24:08 ↗ that's that's managed through

1:24:10 ↗ um parks. Dan Hints is

1:24:15 ↗ the the person who kind of mobilizes

1:24:19 ↗ that.

1:24:21 ↗ So,

1:24:22 ↗ okay. Any other comments on question

1:24:27 ↗ three, Commissioner Kra? Wait, nope.

1:24:30 ↗ Never

1:24:31 ↗ mind. There it looks like there's two

1:24:33 ↗ number threes, Doug. So, there is

1:24:37 ↗ I'll read question three part B. Does

1:24:40 ↗ the commission agree to follow flex

1:24:42 ↗ allow flexibility from tree preservation

1:24:45 ↗ requirements for central Isiqua sub

1:24:47 ↗ area? If so, does the commission have

1:24:50 ↗ any feedback on the proposed approval

1:24:52 ↗ criteria for such flexibility?

1:25:01 ↗ Did did we miss that part of the

1:25:03 ↗ presentation?

1:25:05 ↗ I I I presented on that the last

1:25:10 ↗ um meeting. It did it was included in

1:25:12 ↗ the packet but it was not in the

1:25:14 ↗ presentation.

1:25:16 ↗ Yeah.

1:25:38 ↗ Yes, just forgive the scrolling right

1:25:42 ↗ now. I'll get to that section. So,

1:25:47 ↗ um so this is in the um proposed

1:25:51 ↗ amendments. Um so we added a section in

1:25:56 ↗ here allow deviations to this chapter

1:25:58 ↗ and this will just would pertain to

1:26:01 ↗ properties within central

1:26:12 ↗ Isiqua. So and this would be for new and

1:26:16 ↗ redevelopments.

1:26:19 ↗ Um, infill development is is mostly what

1:26:22 ↗ we're looking at here. And

1:26:25 ↗ um, should make this

1:26:28 ↗ bigger.

1:26:32 ↗ Sorry. Yes, can do that.

1:26:55 ↗ Okay. So, with this we're looking at

1:26:57 ↗ sites that are um already developed

1:27:02 ↗ um or vacant sites that have unsuitable

1:27:05 ↗ trees. This is the the language that we

1:27:08 ↗ have come up so far. This is a say a

1:27:11 ↗ work in progress. Um looking for

1:27:14 ↗ direction from uh commission

1:27:17 ↗ environmental board on how we can

1:27:19 ↗ strengthen this. Um but essentially if

1:27:22 ↗ if your site would qualify

1:27:26 ↗ um you could reduce down to um 0%

1:27:30 ↗ retention. you would still have to meet

1:27:32 ↗ the canopy coverage requirements for

1:27:34 ↗ that um for that property. And for

1:27:39 ↗ any for

1:27:42 ↗ um place replace one tree for every 6 in

1:27:47 ↗ of caliper inch below that 25% either

1:27:52 ↗ onsite, offsite or uh pay into the tree

1:27:56 ↗ fund. And we're looking at this for

1:27:59 ↗ infield development that might have uh

1:28:02 ↗ parking lot trees that um are on the

1:28:05 ↗ site that might not be suitable for that

1:28:09 ↗ the whatever development that's going

1:28:11 ↗ there. Um or maybe it's perimeter

1:28:14 ↗ landscape trees um or there's trees that

1:28:18 ↗ are conflicting with um required

1:28:21 ↗ utilities that would have to come in

1:28:23 ↗ there. So that that's what we're looking

1:28:25 ↗ at for allowing a deviation just for

1:28:28 ↗ central. This would not this would not

1:28:30 ↗ be for

1:28:34 ↗ citywide

1:28:41 ↗ thoughts. I think if we're talking about

1:28:43 ↗ putting all our density in central

1:28:44 ↗ Isiqua, I think you're going to have to

1:28:46 ↗ be flexible. I think you're going to

1:28:47 ↗ have to allow deviations in order to

1:28:49 ↗ build what we need to build down there

1:28:51 ↗ if that's what we're serious about. So

1:28:54 ↗ ultimately, I know this is about

1:28:55 ↗ halfbaked. I know there's some language

1:28:57 ↗ that also has to get cleaned up, but

1:28:59 ↗ ultimately again, I I think I think it's

1:29:01 ↗ got to be part of the process. We don't

1:29:03 ↗ live in a world where people are going

1:29:04 ↗ to be able to fashion the developments

1:29:06 ↗ we want them to bring in here um on

1:29:08 ↗ pre-existing sites without ask without

1:29:11 ↗ without letting them have some

1:29:14 ↗ maneuverability, you know, with those

1:29:16 ↗ sites. So, while I know this needs a

1:29:19 ↗ little cleaning, generally in favor for

1:29:21 ↗ it.

1:29:24 ↗ Yeah, Vice Chair Patterson. Thanks,

1:29:26 ↗ Chair Voice. Um yeah, I'm definitely in

1:29:29 ↗ favor of flexibility for central Isqua

1:29:30 ↗ in particular. Uh my understanding on

1:29:33 ↗ this one is basically we're shifting

1:29:35 ↗ from like one to one tree replacement

1:29:37 ↗ more to like the canopy coverage, right?

1:29:40 ↗ Like you had mentioned, they would still

1:29:41 ↗ have to meet the canopy coverage with

1:29:43 ↗ the redevelopment. So that would still

1:29:45 ↗ occur. We just wouldn't necessarily be

1:29:46 ↗ counting tree by tree from what was

1:29:48 ↗ there before. Yeah. Um so how how a

1:29:52 ↗ development would work, how development

1:29:54 ↗ works,

1:29:55 ↗ so there's tree retention. So you have

1:29:58 ↗ to retain a certain percentage of the

1:30:00 ↗ calipiber inches of whatever trees that

1:30:02 ↗ are on site. And then you have the

1:30:04 ↗ canopy requirements. This would allow a

1:30:07 ↗ deviation to the retention requirements

1:30:09 ↗ but would not get you out of the canopy

1:30:11 ↗ requirement. And for uh properties that

1:30:14 ↗ are zoned in central Isiqua, the

1:30:16 ↗ retention is 25% of the caliber inches.

1:30:21 ↗ Um and so this would allow you to go

1:30:24 ↗ below that 25% with

1:30:28 ↗ um documentation arburous report

1:30:30 ↗ demonstrating that you would meet the

1:30:32 ↗ criteria for this and then you would

1:30:36 ↗ have to do whatever landscape

1:30:37 ↗ requirements are for that development

1:30:39 ↗ and then still demonstrate that you are

1:30:41 ↗ meeting the the canopy coverage goals

1:30:43 ↗ for that particular area or for that um

1:30:46 ↗ land use.

1:30:48 ↗ So theoretically, we wouldn't lose any

1:30:50 ↗ tree canopy. Is that a fair assessment?

1:30:55 ↗ Yeah.

1:30:57 ↗ Yeah.

1:30:59 ↗ Let's go on.

1:31:06 ↗ Okay.

1:31:08 ↗ Um anybody?

1:31:11 ↗ Commissioner Allen, I know that the

1:31:13 ↗ language here is going to be changed and

1:31:15 ↗ and refined, but um on uh paragraph B,

1:31:20 ↗ it I I just uh wonder whether the the

1:31:24 ↗ the variation uh the variance process um

1:31:29 ↗ needs to be refined such that the an

1:31:32 ↗ applicant can't simply say um we're just

1:31:36 ↗ going to pay into the fund and not meet

1:31:39 ↗ the canopy requirement. ments and I I

1:31:41 ↗ think the language in paragraph B is a

1:31:44 ↗ little vague on that if I'm reading it

1:31:47 ↗ correctly.

1:31:49 ↗ Yeah, the the intent is

1:31:52 ↗ not for the development to get out of

1:31:57 ↗ the canopy requirements. We're trying to

1:32:00 ↗ have them still meet those canopy

1:32:01 ↗ requirements. You couldn't pay into the

1:32:03 ↗ tree fund to get out. you can pay into

1:32:05 ↗ the tree fund for the replacement trees

1:32:09 ↗ for the retention purposes. Um, but I

1:32:12 ↗ what I would end

1:32:13 ↗ up what would happen is most of those

1:32:16 ↗ trees would get replaced as part of that

1:32:19 ↗ canopy coverage. And if they couldn't if

1:32:22 ↗ they've already exceeded their canopy

1:32:25 ↗ goals for that particular land use, then

1:32:27 ↗ the remaining can go into the tree fund

1:32:29 ↗ at this ratio, one tree for every 6 in.

1:32:33 ↗ Great. Thanks for the clarification.

1:32:35 ↗ But I this could get rewarded. So it's I

1:32:40 ↗ see I see what you're saying when when

1:32:42 ↗ looking at

1:32:47 ↗ it. All right. Moving along to wildfire

1:32:51 ↗ mitigation. Does the commission have

1:32:53 ↗ feedback on including a standard to

1:32:55 ↗ allow tree removals based on wildfire

1:32:58 ↗ risk assessment on a lot by lot basis or

1:33:02 ↗ wait until wildfire urban interface

1:33:05 ↗ codes are developed and adopted by the

1:33:06 ↗ city?

1:33:13 ↗ Commissioner Millinder Irwin. Thank you.

1:33:17 ↗ Um the policy question that's posed here

1:33:20 ↗ is um is is it appropriate to include a

1:33:23 ↗ standard to allow tree removals based on

1:33:26 ↗ the fire risk assessment on a lot bylot

1:33:28 ↗ basis? Um I come at this from a lens as

1:33:31 ↗ a a large-scale HOA manager. And I think

1:33:34 ↗ that anytime an HOA makes a request to

1:33:37 ↗ remove trees, it's almost always tied to

1:33:40 ↗ two reasons. either addressing a

1:33:43 ↗ nuisance tree or trees on the property,

1:33:45 ↗ but also to address some type of u

1:33:48 ↗ wildfire risk mitigation. So, I think

1:33:50 ↗ that um a um a primmer

1:33:55 ↗ um a standard being developed in order

1:33:58 ↗ to give that guidance would be essential

1:34:00 ↗ especially for large scale properties.

1:34:02 ↗ So, I would absolutely agree with

1:34:04 ↗ proceeding on a lot by lot basis in this

1:34:07 ↗ particular case to give that guidance.

1:34:10 ↗ Okay,

1:34:13 ↗ great. Anyone like to

1:34:16 ↗ add? Uh, Vice Chair Patterson,

1:34:21 ↗ do we have a timeline on the wildlife

1:34:22 ↗ urban interface codes? No, that's kind

1:34:25 ↗ of a somewhere down the road thing.

1:34:27 ↗ Okay, cool. Yeah, it's a big somewhere

1:34:29 ↗ down the road. Somewhere down the road.

1:34:31 ↗ It's It's two years.

1:34:37 ↗ Yikes. That's kind of scary.

1:34:38 ↗ Commissioner there. Yeah. So, I was

1:34:41 ↗ going to ask what Vice Chair Patterson

1:34:44 ↗ asked, but to jump off of that, if it's

1:34:46 ↗ two years in the row in two years in the

1:34:49 ↗ coming, I would think that we should do

1:34:52 ↗ it on a lot by lot basis just because

1:34:55 ↗ wildfire is just going to become more

1:34:57 ↗ and more of a risk as time goes on.

1:35:00 ↗ That's a great point. Um to piggyback

1:35:03 ↗ off Commissioner Adair, yeah, maybe

1:35:05 ↗ that's the standard until it can be

1:35:08 ↗ looked at upon once you guys are able to

1:35:10 ↗ get your hands on the uh that risk

1:35:13 ↗ assessment. So, lot by lot until you're

1:35:17 ↗ able to give us more

1:35:19 ↗ data. Yeah, good

1:35:22 ↗ comments. All right, any other comments

1:35:25 ↗ as far as wildfire mitigation?

1:35:29 ↗ We're almost done. Are there other

1:35:31 ↗ changes to

1:35:32 ↗ consider? I've got something to say

1:35:34 ↗ there, but we will go and look for more

1:35:37 ↗ comments

1:35:53 ↗ first. All right, I'll I'll kick it off.

1:35:55 ↗ Chair voice. Um, what I thought was

1:35:57 ↗ interesting when I was reading The

1:35:58 ↗ Matrix from a lot of the residents is

1:36:02 ↗ it's hard to say that there was probably

1:36:04 ↗ a majority that wanted us to kind of

1:36:08 ↗ leave what had been put in place a

1:36:09 ↗ couple years ago, but what was

1:36:11 ↗ interesting is there was quite a large

1:36:13 ↗ number. I mean, again, I wouldn't say it

1:36:15 ↗ was like 6040 and the 40 other percent

1:36:17 ↗ that said, you know, there needs to be

1:36:19 ↗ some changes. Um but what I also noticed

1:36:21 ↗ is with that majority is their language

1:36:23 ↗ started to soften and they started to go

1:36:25 ↗ okay some of these changes are necessary

1:36:27 ↗ some of them are needed some of them uh

1:36:29 ↗ do look good. I

1:36:31 ↗ think while I know this is a work in

1:36:34 ↗ progress there is a lot of work left

1:36:36 ↗ here and that is kind of my overall

1:36:38 ↗ feeling. I'm a little bummed out that

1:36:40 ↗ we're not going to get to touch this

1:36:42 ↗ after the environmental board because

1:36:43 ↗ it's going to um a public hearing right

1:36:46 ↗ after. And I know we're on a compressed

1:36:49 ↗ timeline. You mentioned that this is

1:36:50 ↗ going to the city council committee I

1:36:52 ↗ believe in September September and then

1:36:55 ↗ going for council adop adoption a little

1:36:57 ↗ later. So I guess that's going to be up

1:36:59 ↗ to the commissioners to really do their

1:37:00 ↗ homework because you're going to see

1:37:01 ↗ this thing probably in a very different

1:37:03 ↗ form the next time it comes back to us.

1:37:06 ↗ But I do think there is quite a bit of

1:37:08 ↗ work. I mean these are big questions.

1:37:10 ↗ The only thing I would say as someone

1:37:11 ↗ who was working on that tree canopy

1:37:14 ↗ code, it was a big push to go from I

1:37:16 ↗ believe it was 50% Kristen and we went

1:37:19 ↗ to 55 and there were comments that

1:37:21 ↗ weren't completely on board with that.

1:37:23 ↗ Now the majority of residents definitely

1:37:25 ↗ wanted to see that canopy go up and I

1:37:28 ↗ think the thinking at the time was, you

1:37:29 ↗ know, don't let perfect be the enemy of

1:37:31 ↗ good, but we knew there was going to be

1:37:33 ↗ some things to be reworked. And I do

1:37:34 ↗ think one thing this code has to do is

1:37:36 ↗ it does have to work with residents and

1:37:38 ↗ builders and developers and the city and

1:37:41 ↗ it doesn't sound like it has really

1:37:43 ↗ functioned as well as everyone had

1:37:45 ↗ hoped. So I applaud you guys for coming

1:37:48 ↗ back at it and looking at it. I think

1:37:50 ↗ it's necessary. Um, again, just through

1:37:53 ↗ the questions and Doug, you've done a

1:37:55 ↗ fantastic job there, but there is a lot

1:37:57 ↗ more that has to bake this in this

1:38:00 ↗ particular cake and I just know with the

1:38:02 ↗ compressed timeline, we're not going to

1:38:04 ↗ get an opportunity to have Doug do a

1:38:05 ↗ presentation like this again. So, it is

1:38:07 ↗ going to be very important for that

1:38:08 ↗ public hearing and I think for us it's

1:38:10 ↗ in July. You guys really, you know, look

1:38:13 ↗ at this, tear it apart, and we'll

1:38:14 ↗ probably have a a very long public

1:38:16 ↗ hearing about the tree code when that

1:38:18 ↗ comes up.

1:38:20 ↗ Um, but I will say what was interesting

1:38:23 ↗ too about the matrix about the the

1:38:25 ↗ comments that we got is what I noticed

1:38:28 ↗ is most of the people that 40% that

1:38:31 ↗ really wanted to see some of these

1:38:32 ↗ changes they tended to be people that

1:38:34 ↗ had actually used the code whereas the

1:38:37 ↗ comments that had you know had kept

1:38:40 ↗ going you know we don't want to do this

1:38:42 ↗ we all recommended 55% those had been

1:38:44 ↗ more people that were worried about

1:38:47 ↗ policy so I think those are things to

1:38:49 ↗ keep in

1:38:50 ↗ mind. Um, yeah, that's kind of my piece

1:38:53 ↗ on it. Like I said, I think some of

1:38:55 ↗ these uh changes are absolutely needed,

1:38:58 ↗ but um yeah, we're going to have some

1:38:59 ↗ work on this when it comes up in July.

1:39:03 ↗ Kristen, um I I believe that in July

1:39:06 ↗ there's a way that we can find to get uh

1:39:08 ↗ planning policy commission to have two

1:39:10 ↗ touches on this. I think that would be

1:39:11 ↗ great. I think we'd all feel a lot

1:39:13 ↗ better about it. Okay. Um, yeah, if we

1:39:15 ↗ can make that happen because again, it's

1:39:16 ↗ a big lift and again I I think a lot of

1:39:18 ↗ the intent is there, but obviously

1:39:20 ↗ there's language that's going to change.

1:39:22 ↗ There's going to be a few changes, so

1:39:23 ↗ that would be fantastic if staff could

1:39:25 ↗ make that happen.

1:39:27 ↗ Okay. Um, Commissioner Matthews, I

1:39:30 ↗ actually had a a general comment. Um, I

1:39:33 ↗ kind of kind of find it a little

1:39:35 ↗ confusing when I try to think about what

1:39:38 ↗ the tree code is for, you know, the city

1:39:41 ↗ and then you have a parks group and then

1:39:43 ↗ you have forest group, urban forest

1:39:45 ↗ group, and how does this all come

1:39:47 ↗ together? I'm not trying to make it more

1:39:49 ↗ complicated, but um I really like maps

1:39:52 ↗ and it would be nice to see overlays on

1:39:54 ↗ how

1:39:55 ↗ everybody what their part is because,

1:39:58 ↗ you know, when we're talking about maybe

1:40:00 ↗ we don't have room to plant a tree at

1:40:03 ↗ the small house, where can we get it?

1:40:05 ↗ So, it'd be kind of nice to just get an

1:40:07 ↗ overall view of the entire city and how

1:40:09 ↗ all these departments and you could do

1:40:11 ↗ it just with a map and overlays to give

1:40:14 ↗ people a feel for what the whole goal is

1:40:17 ↗ for the entire city. So, thank you.

1:40:20 ↗ Yeah, that's a great comment. I mean,

1:40:21 ↗ there's a lot of a lot of different

1:40:23 ↗ players in this, right? You've got the

1:40:24 ↗ environmental board, you've got the

1:40:26 ↗ climate action plan, you've got uh the

1:40:29 ↗ urban forestry, that new one that just

1:40:30 ↗ came out, you've got us because of land

1:40:32 ↗ use. So, again, lots of people

1:40:36 ↗ working on this and trying to make it as

1:40:38 ↗ best as we can for the city. Uh,

1:40:40 ↗ Commissioner Dare. And yeah, just to

1:40:43 ↗ piggyback off of uh, Commissioner

1:40:45 ↗ Matthews, also some like just sample

1:40:47 ↗ site plans of what it might look like

1:40:50 ↗ under the new code versus the old code

1:40:53 ↗ would be really helpful. So, we can see,

1:40:54 ↗ oh, okay, this is what 50% canopy

1:40:58 ↗ coverage looks like on a single family

1:41:00 ↗ property versus 25%.

1:41:06 ↗ Absolutely

1:41:07 ↗ helpful. All right. Any other comments

1:41:10 ↗ um for

1:41:12 ↗ Doug? All right, Doug. Well, thank you

1:41:14 ↗ for the presentation. That was a great

1:41:16 ↗ discussion. Appreciate it,

1:41:17 ↗ everyone. Is there Did you get

1:41:19 ↗ everything you needed, Doug, as far as

1:41:21 ↗ feedback? I did. Yes. Okay, great. Thank

1:41:24 ↗ you. We're going to move on to reports.

1:41:28 ↗ And I believe Kristen, you're taking

1:41:30 ↗ over here. Or is it me? Uh, do you just

1:41:32 ↗ want council right now or do you want We

1:41:34 ↗ just want council right now. All right,

1:41:35 ↗ council. Um, yay. Monday, middle housing

1:41:40 ↗ was approved by city council and uh

1:41:43 ↗ Valerie Porter rightly so got many many

1:41:45 ↗ kudos all around from executive from

1:41:48 ↗ council from everyone. She even got a

1:41:49 ↗ mug. Um, so yeah,

1:41:52 ↗ that that is that's done. So that's my

1:41:55 ↗ city council report. Excellent. Well,

1:41:57 ↗ congratulations to Valerie and all the

1:41:59 ↗ staff that worked on that.

1:42:01 ↗ Um, all right. Other business and

1:42:04 ↗ announcements. Are there any

1:42:06 ↗ announcements to the calendar?

1:42:08 ↗ Um, not to the calendar at this point.

1:42:11 ↗ I'm going to have to go back and relook

1:42:12 ↗ at it now. Okay. Um, I believe you want

1:42:15 ↗ to make some, but before you do, I have

1:42:17 ↗ a couple of brief uh little things. One

1:42:19 ↗ is just a reminder because this

1:42:21 ↗ commission meets more than any other

1:42:23 ↗ commission and you guys are on TV every

1:42:26 ↗ two weeks. Um, it's an election year. So

1:42:30 ↗ go as an individual and support whoever

1:42:32 ↗ you would like. Wear all the pins you

1:42:34 ↗ want to when you go to the grocery

1:42:35 ↗ store. But when you are here as a

1:42:36 ↗ commissioner, please do not wear any

1:42:39 ↗ buttons, any clothing, anything

1:42:41 ↗ representing any anyone running for

1:42:43 ↗ anything. Okay? Because you are a

1:42:45 ↗ commissioner here and you are impartial.

1:42:46 ↗ All right?

1:42:49 ↗ Um, and then as you all know, Stephen is

1:42:53 ↗ going to be leaving the city. And so I

1:42:57 ↗ will take over once again as the liaison

1:42:59 ↗ for the planning policy commission

1:43:00 ↗ starting now. So please send any

1:43:02 ↗ comments to me and you will be receiving

1:43:04 ↗ all of your correspondence from me.

1:43:06 ↗ Yeah. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you,

1:43:08 ↗ Kristen. Um, yeah, I believe that's kind

1:43:11 ↗ of that's kind of the big news. And it's

1:43:15 ↗ not just Stephen, but it's also Doug and

1:43:18 ↗ it's also Jen Davis Hayes who this

1:43:21 ↗ commission's worked for. Um, we want to

1:43:23 ↗ appreci we want to say thank you to both

1:43:26 ↗ Doug and to Jen uh for their wonderful

1:43:29 ↗ work for the city and we wish you guys

1:43:31 ↗ well on your paths ahead. And then

1:43:34 ↗ obviously Stephen who is very special to

1:43:36 ↗ this commission. Um, I've gotten to know

1:43:39 ↗ Stephen over the years. He's as gracious

1:43:41 ↗ and kind and just a fantastic public

1:43:44 ↗ employee. I think he's going to be

1:43:46 ↗ sorely missed and I think Kirkland has

1:43:50 ↗ acquired just an an amazing guy and I

1:43:52 ↗ think um everybody in Isiqua can speak

1:43:55 ↗ to what they just got. So, I do want to

1:43:57 ↗ say best of luck to Stephen. I'm sure

1:44:00 ↗ he'll be great at his new job. And if

1:44:02 ↗ anyone else would like to say anything

1:44:04 ↗ about Stephen before because I'm sure

1:44:06 ↗ he's watching. He's got to be watching.

1:44:10 ↗ Um, but yeah, we're gonna miss him

1:44:12 ↗ dearly here. And but we're also very

1:44:15 ↗ thankful that Kristen will be stepping

1:44:17 ↗ up. Uh, also a very familiar face for

1:44:19 ↗ our planning policy commission. Just

1:44:21 ↗ don't leave

1:44:23 ↗ Kristen. But they do say things happen

1:44:25 ↗ in threes. So with Doug and Jen and now

1:44:28 ↗ Stephen, hopefully we're safe for a

1:44:30 ↗ little while. Is there any comments uh

1:44:33 ↗ anything for the good of the order, the

1:44:34 ↗ good of the commission that anyone would

1:44:36 ↗ like to make before we

1:44:40 ↗ adjourn? Okay. Well, thank you

1:44:43 ↗ everybody. We will adjourn the meeting

1:44:45 ↗ uh this meeting of the planning policy

1:44:47 ↗ commission at 8:14 p.m. Thank you.

1:44:53 ↗ Sorry.

1:44:55 ↗ Yes.

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)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Patterson

Commissioners Adair

Krass

Matthews

Millender-Irwin

Oliner

Zakharoff

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community P & D Amanda Jackson, Meeting & Records Assistant Christen Leeson, Principal Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of May 8, 2025