Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everyone. I call the 11/19/2025 Planning Commission meeting to order. The main purpose of tonight's meeting is to hold a study session on the urban forest management plan. Before we move on to agenda items, I'd like to acknowledge our hybrid meeting format. City of Bothell is providing the option to attend this meeting either in person or remotely via Zoom. Those who are participating via Zoom, the chat and question functions are not available to for use to ensure compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. We have a public comment agenda item at the beginning of the meeting. Please limit all comments to three minutes. Please note the city of Bothell does not tolerate verbal harassment. Remember this during your comments.

Public comment will be allowed both in person and via Zoom. Those wishing to comment via Zoom were asked to submit an online form by 3PM today. People wishing to submit written comments were also asked to submit those comments by 3PM. Email was encouraged as well and will be acknowledged. Those in attendance may also make comments and have been asked to indicate their desire to comment on the sign in sheets.

Imagine Bothell notice, city website, and tonight's agenda all provided information to the public for providing comments. Video of this meeting will be streamed live as well as recorded and available for later viewing on the city's YouTube channel. A call in number was provided on the meeting agenda for members of the public who wish to call in by phone to listen listen live to the meeting. For our phone in callers, during staff presentations, staff will make every effort to specify which materials they're referencing so that everyone can follow along. At this point, we'll take a moment to acknowledge the attendance of the commissioners. Commissioner Jones?

Here.

Commissioner Westerbeck? Here. Commissioner Lever?

Here.

Commissioner Robson? Here. Commissioner Sills?

Here.

And commissioner Gustafson? Here. In addition, community development staff in attendance include deputy director Gates, Cameron Collivan, planner, and Deborah Powers, planner. Lastly, before we begin, I'd like to reiterate some meeting guidelines. For all meeting attendees, please speak clearly and pause frequently. State your name each time before speaking. Mute your microphone when not speaking. If you are also streaming the live video feed, please turn the sound off as there is a delay. At specific breaks in the presentation, I'll be calling on members who wish to speak or ask a question. If you wish to speak, please indicate this by raising your hand.

I will call on you as I see you. This will avoid the problem of having two people speaking at the same time. Identify yourself before you ask a question, make a motion, second a motion, or participate in debate, and please mute your microphone when not speaking. First item on the agenda is public comment. The city has accepted visitor comment in writing as well as accepted sign up sheets for those who wish to speak at tonight's meeting. My understanding is we have not received any comments in writing. There's no one in the audience to sign up on the sign in sheets. Is there anyone in the Zoom room seeking to participate? There is nobody in the Zoom waiting room. Alright.

That being the case, we will move on. No public comments this evening. And next agenda item is the approval of the November 5 minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

Commissioner Westerbork here. I move to approve the minutes as written.

Alright. It's been moved that the minutes be approved. Is there a second?

Commissioner Lever hopes to approve.

Okay. Commissioner Lever has seconded motion to approve the minutes. Any discussion around the minutes? Seeing none, all in favor of approving the minutes as submitted, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye. Okay.

Approval of the minutes is unanimous. That brings us to our primary agenda item for this evening's meeting, the study session on the urban forest management plan. Staff would like to begin.

Alright. Thank you very much. Let me get my screen shared here. Okay. So included in your packets for this week was a full initial draft of the urban forest management plan for review.

Since this was the first time that the commission's getting a chance to review the full content of the plan. We have made a couple of schedule updates that I wanted to run by you all for tonight. So we'll go over those, and then most of the discussion tonight will kind of revisit some of the topics we've covered at the past two meetings, such as tree canopy goal and the revised strategies and actions that are included in the plan to get some additional feedback on those, before we come back. So in terms of schedule updates, we have shifted the final findings, conclusions, and recommendations meeting to December 17 to give us more time for discussion and review on that. We will then come back and hold a study session after the holidays with city council on January 13, and then it'll be on the agenda for potential adoption on February 10.

Any questions there? Okay. So we're gonna start off today's discussion, revisiting the some of what we heard at the last meeting regarding citywide tree canopy goals. So we shared this graph at the last meeting that kind of provided a range of options that we could look at, ranging from no no net loss over the next twenty years to 2045 all the way up to a 4% increase in citywide tree canopy. So based on the latest tree canopy assessment data, we're sitting at 44% citywide.

What we heard from the commissioners last week is that we wanted to set an achievable target that sets us up for success, something that we could realistically implement giving staffing and resources, and also something that addresses, you know, the public need, to make sure that we're slowing canopy loss and increasing over time.

Moved it to 46.

Mhmm.

Oh, yeah. So so as a result of that, what we included in the plan was a proposal for a 2% increase of aiming for 46% by 2045. And so if we look at how that compares to some neighboring jurisdictions, you'll see that our existing canopy cover is relatively high in comparison to neighboring cities. Some some of the higher ones including our neighbors of Kenmore and Woodinville at 4645% as well as Issaquah at 51%. And you'll see most of the neighboring cities have somewhat similar goals that are increases that range from either staying at the same percentage or increasing about five percentage with a few standouts from there.

And there are a couple of cities that actually reached their prior canopy cover goals, which included, was it Kirkland and

Kirkland and Issaquah. Mhmm. I think Lake Forest Park, but they then they adjusted their goal Yeah. After they reached them.

Mhmm. Yeah. So this is something that can be flexible and revisit over time, but at least gives us a starting goal port goalpost to aim for. So just looking at that in alignment with public input, taking a look back at the public survey that we ran, 74 of respondents would like to see an increase in the overall number of trees in Bothell, while 26% said they'd like to maintain. And then, like I was mentioning, what we kinda heard last meeting was a need to balance our housing goals with tree preservation and planting, providing flexibility and incentives to support those tree canopy goals, and setting ourselves up for success with realistic targets.

And then just to kinda scale back and look at the big picture here is that, you know, one of the main goals of the GMA is to direct growth within urban centers to protect more rural forested land. So our challenge as a city is really how we balance that and accommodate that growth while maintaining tree cover throughout. And then building off of that, you know, it's not just the citywide percentage we wanna look at, but making sure that those benefits are evenly spread throughout the city, priorly priorly, for those most in need and to also help with heat reduction. And so we specifically included, the strategy on your screen there to prioritize planting where it's needed most, focusing on low canopy areas, underserved neighborhoods, and areas with the highest development pressures. When we looked at tree equity scores in comparison with regional averages, so looking at the same set of cities that we looked at on your screen a few slides ago in regards to tree canopy goals, Our score is relatively high with an average of 93 out of a 100.

There are a couple of areas in census tracks within Bothell that have a 100 out of a 100 score with our lowest census track being in the North Creek area scoring a 79 out of a 100. And the regional average just for comparison was 88, a score of 88. So this can really help us as we develop planting strategies and programs in more detail to really prioritize those areas for new trees. So just going back to kind of the options, just wanted to get plan commission commissioner feedback on if we are okay with that 2% increase and a goal of 46% by 2045, or if we wanna shoot a little lower, more ambitious, any feedback you all have on that?

Commissioner Sills and then commissioner Johns.

Yeah. Commissioner Sills, I think I think the goal is good, and I like having a well defined goal. I think the next slide you went to where it talked about tree equity and prioritizing low canopy areas, does that help or hinder us getting to the goal? Because I think if if if you're wanting to prioritize the low canopy increasing in the low canopy areas, that's your goal. Right?

Your goal might be we want the lowest canopy areas to get up to 44% right, which I don't know. It might be a lot harder, might be easier. I don't know. So I I just think those two things need to align or your goal needs to change because it might trying to do both might make it just really hard to reach our goal.

Yeah. That's a a good point to bring up or distinction to make. So this is just setting the tree canopy goal would just be setting it citywide, so encompassing all areas of the city. But how we get there and what that looks like on the ground, is gonna be dependent on where we prioritize those efforts. So that's kind of where, the tree equity factors in and where we prioritize those new plantings or strategies to reach that citywide target, if that makes sense.

Mister Jones?

Mister Commissioner Jones, I have a similar question, and it's it really has to do with what this is going to look like on the ground. And so I guess building on what commissioner Sills said, let's imagine those census tracts where, I guess, the score is 79 out of a 100. What's the percentage tree canopy covered there? And what percent would we need to get to so that those census tracts are actually hitting, whether it's 88 or 93 or whatever it is, helps you to get to that point. What does that mean in terms of how that spreads out across the city?

So I'm I'm curious to see what this looks like.

Yeah. That's a good question and something that we can come back with more details on. I'd have to pull up the data in a bit more detail to look at that. But one thing that might be helpful for tonight's discussion, so I've included up in on the screen there kind of an estimate of the new trees that would be required to hit these goals. And so some of the assumptions that go into this are an assumption of about seven and a half acres of tree loss, which is what we saw between 2015 and twenty three twenty twenty three continuing with no action, and then what would be required to mitigate that from there.

And so that's kind of what factored into these projections. And the assumption being that not all of this would fall on the city per se. It would be a combination of new development, city planting programs, working with nonprofits, etcetera, to reach those goals.

I just have a quick follow-up. And and one is I I would absolutely like to see some, I guess, some more granularity so we sort of have a feel for how this is going to look. And then second was and I think I missed the meeting where it sounds as if you heard a lot of support for the 2%. And I'm wondering why. So I'm I'm wondering what would stop us from going to three percent or to 4%. I realize there are additional trees, but I'd like to understand what the constraints are.

I guess the the primary consideration is just looking at existing staff and funding capacity. Building that out to accommodate whatever the goal ends up being over the next couple years.

Sorry. Just one quick follow-up. How were the other comparison cities able to do that? Because I noticed that some of them have goals that maybe are more than 2%, some of them within a shorter period of time. We are all subject to the same growth targets. And so I'm wondering how some cities can go in that direction and others can't. And it may be that some are just not being realistic as well.

Do you wanna take that one?

Mara, I think that was the crux of aspirational versus realistic and trying to strike what would be maybe a happy medium, and I think that's why we bumped it up from 44 to 46. We looked at or we considered in that timeline, in that horizon that gives us two cycles that we're regularly doing our canopy assessments, two canopy assessments so that we can then look at because you would slice and dice up the city too and look at right away neighborhoods in different zoning areas to see where there were trends and can it be gain or loss. And then we can pull, like, what Matt referred to in previous meetings as the levers, you know, where they're whether they're public education or planting programs or incentives or or with the code and policy approach as well. So it's that's how we ended up with 46% from the last meeting, but that's why we're bringing it up again tonight. But I did also wanna address that in the Planet Geo's canopy or I'm sorry in the yeah in the canopy cover assessment.

I don't know if you remember PPA which was potential planting area. That was that was something that that was a derived from the canopy assessment to see, well, where can we plant trees in the city where where it's possible? And then the the of course, looking at the equity study and the equity scores that that establishes some priority, sense of priority is where to start. But it's there's that, but then there's the flip side of that too, which is slowing the loss of existing canopy And we we looked at that arrow that pushes that curve or bends that curve from, you know, no net loss or don't do anything all the way up to that reaching that 46. So and that's typically through a regulatory approach, but not that those other levers can be moved as well.

So hopefully, that helps.

Commissioner

Hi. Sarah Gustafson here. I do like this discussion about how ambitious can we be and how can we quantify it. So I'm wondering if there's been any discussion of a numerical stretch goal surrounding the census tracts that are underserved by canopy. In other words, has there been any thought about a goal that every canopy deficient tract should be raised to 88%, which is the area average.

And I did miss the October 22 meeting, so I apologize if this was already discussed there.

I don't think that was discussed at the last meeting, but it's definitely a good suggestion for consideration, and something that we could fold into the recommended strategies and actions.

Thank you. There's actually just to mention too that some cities whereas a lot of the cities that we looked at have an it's a citywide averaging at citywide tree canopy cover goal, that percentage, but there are some cities that also regulate or have targets in zoning areas or sub areas as well. Again, that starts to shift to capacity to regulate to that level of detail, but just to just that analysis has not been done here, and we were just looking at at this point a citywide average tree canopy cover goal. Although we do assess those different areas when we're looking at, we have looked at the percentages in all of those different areas so that when we see trends with the next assessment, we we could see what where was the gain, where was the loss, and what do we need to do about it.

Other commissioners? Commissioner Jones?

Just a quick add on to that. I I do think a couple of meetings ago, when I say meetings in terms of talking about this, I think we did bring up this idea about sort of differential goals and what that might mean and and how that might be received from the public particularly in areas that are seeing a lot of development. Would those be areas to have different types of policies? And what and there was a question of whether this would be acceptable to people to have something that was, you know, differentiated by zone. So it would be interesting to hear some more about that.

I actually had a more basic question. As I run over this, question occurred to me. How do you define percent coverage? You know, I look at my yard. I've got two evergreens in the back. I've got a maple up front. Does that plot a 100% covered or because it feels when I look out of Bothell, it doesn't feel like it's 44% covered with trees. How do you define coverage? How much of a lot has to have a tree to be determined to be covered?

Yeah. So it's really based on the full canopy growth. So seeing if I have an image here from the tree canopy assessment. But, essentially, you know, if you were to look down at your lot from an aerial view, how much of the land would be obscured or covered by tree canopy.

But so it's really a a higher level view. It's not not a granular evaluation.

Right.

And presumably, we get a lot of mileage out of North Creek Forest, Shelton View Forest, and the the Wayne property and stuff along the slough. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Sills?

Yeah. I guess I'm still struggling with, like, what is our goal? Do we want to increase Canopy where it's lower for equity purposes, or do we want to reach the 46% overall target? Because I'm thinking that not all areas are created equal. We don't have unlimited resources.

If there's an area where we can plant a lot of trees successfully that is, you know, a fifth of the price of doing it somewhere else. Like, are we really gonna prioritize somewhere else? Because so, again, it's just I think those those two goals might come into conflict at times because not it's not easy or straightforward everywhere. And you referenced the PPA, I think, so I'll have to take a closer look at that because I don't remember that from the report, but I think that's really relevant. And then, again, just making sure everything is tying back to that overarching goal and not getting in the way of it.

Other commissioners? Alright.

Okay. So it sounds like that it might be we can look at options for maybe more targeted goals in addition to citywide, how we can more specifically address, you know, the areas that have the lowest existing, and are currently underserved more directly, whether that be based on census track or tying it directly to, zoning districts, we can take a look at a couple of those options and, come back with those for consideration, at our next meeting. What was there any more discussion around just the, citywide target in general in terms of ambition levels? Is that kinda sitting? Are we comfortable with that that number?

Commissioner Robson?

From what I can tell, we're actually still kind of up in the air in that depending on whether or not we prioritize what we are prioritizing. I think all of us were okay with the 2%, but we have not established whether or not that gets priority over increasing the percentage of coverage in lower coverage areas. So I I'm thinking that's what we're chewing on right now.

And if I can add in a little bit, the goal will give the Planning Commission and City Council staff the guidance, the guiding light to go towards when we get into the details of chapter 12.18, the the tree and landscape code next year. So it it is it is really hard to kinda get at the details of, you know, what what would be the the the code revisions, the the arrow that could bump it up, recognizing the discussion around priorities, and we can feed that into the the urban forestry strategies to say, you know, we want to prioritize, you know, something along the lines of prioritizing in areas that that have planting potential, and focusing that, that can help us develop code standards for, okay. If if a project cannot fit trees on its site, where should they go? Well, they should probably go to one of the under planted areas of of the city. We can write that into planting requirements, so sort of off-site mitigation for a site that's really encumbered with fill in the blank.

I don't know what it might be. So we could we could look to maybe focus on some strategies to bring back that with the wrap up of the plan would indicate how we could attempt to move towards adjusting so we can get at those priorities that commissioner Sills is is is thinking about there, and then we can make sure that we we we have a we get to a goal that we can strive for, and use that as we move as we move forward to develop the detailed codes.

Commissioner Jones?

I I think that all sounds extremely reasonable. I think what I'm struggling with is that, for example, in the report, it says that 15% of the land is suitable for planting. So only about 15%. I think this is what you were referring to. I guess I don't know and then we also have that certain areas we wanna prioritize, And then we have a goal of increasing by 2%. I don't know if it if it all works. You know? Not that it has to work to the tenth decimal point, but I don't know if it works. And so it's hard to say, yeah, I think that's reasonable at 2% goal. It sounds fine because I don't know if you we can meet the sub goals, I guess, is what I'm saying given what's available.

Because it's not only that in some areas, it'll be more expensive or some areas, it'll be cheaper to plant. In some areas, you can't plant anymore. So there's so there are some constraints on the problem.

Commissioner Robson.

Thank you. From what I'm understanding, we aren't correct me if I'm wrong we aren't meeting goals at all. We're setting goals. Because we're zoning, we say how people build, whether or not they build, is up to them. Where they build is up to them.

We're setting the goals, but it's the builders who meet them. And so what we need to balance is the builders building affordable housing versus losing trees and balancing those two, which is I think you missed that meeting and saw it, where the 2% came in so that we can balance those two things out while still being aspirational with our two percent. And I really appreciated your commentary about not being able to get granular because we are not at the granular level. That is not our purview. Am I understanding that correctly?

It it will be next year. So essentially, the the urban forest management plan is gonna set the policy direction. And then as we come back next year with the details of the code amendments, this discussion will really inform what strategies we look at and bring forward at that time.

Yeah. Commissioner Rupson made an important point that we did struggle with the goal of increasing availability and affordability of housing with the desire to preserve the tree cover. And there is conflict there. And where that balance is is something we're we're trying to trying to work through. Other commissioners? Okay.

So a couple of thoughts here. It sounded like one thing that might be helpful for you all to see maybe as follow-up or at the next meeting is kind of a breakdown from the tree canopy assessment of the different census tracts or sub areas with the potential planting areas and how that kinda coincides with our our citywide goal. And then maybe we could look at adding more detail to or an additional strategy in addition to this one that gets sets almost like a more specific target to raise those census tracts with more trees planted. Does that make sense? Would

there be any what I'm struggling with is should we look at the potential tree planting areas with areas that we're looking at focusing housing growth as well better connect? Just a a thought.

So this is commissioner Jones. I I think we absolutely should be looking at those overlays. I think it'll it's gonna be an interesting discussion because if hypothetically, the areas that have lower coverage and align with the more vulnerable census tracts in terms of populations are the places we're pushing more housing. We're we're we may be dealing with affordability and trying to help that, but at the same time causing more heat distress for folks. So we we have to it's it's gonna be one of those tough discussions, but the discussion has helped if we could see some of those overlays. So that would be terrific.

But I also just wanted to say is, like, I I I see how it just where we wanna get get to the calculation. What's the calculation? What's the number of trees? And and where do we need to plant versus at the that's like the overarching policy guidance of a canopy covered goal that's an it's a average citywide, and that's and it's part of that kinda wash, rinse, repeat cycle that the green high like, the greenhouse gas emissions inform the climate action plan, and here's all the strategies of addressing or, you know, changing that, pushing that curve. It's kind of the same thing.

Like, well, we've got all these different levers, whether they're incentives or code and policy based, but, know, we'll be able to look at we see what the trend we see where the loss was from 2015 to 2023, and we'll also be able to see where that get where gains and loss losses are in the next cycle, whether it's eight year, ten year, five year cycle, and be able to make those changes too. So I I realized that it it's like we feel like we wanna get this spot on, but like we mentioned also before is that other cities have reached. They set their goal, and they've reached them. So then they have the same discussion, how much how much more should we change the goal, you know, raise it or no net loss or how aspirational do we wanna be from here. So just to just I just wanted to put that out there as, like, the it's not a the feeling I I get is the it's a critical decision and that it's permanent, but it's not.

It's it's not it doesn't have that permanence because it's something that's changing over time. So it basically comes back to, well, what's it sounds like we wanted to have a target or a canopy covered goal that was realistic, that was feasible, and yet not yet yet something to strive for and something to use all the mechanisms that we have to to bend that curve as well. So but we'll we can bring back more information as well, but just to put put out there the the general policy of the canopy cover goal that we're it sounds like we're not trying to regulate canopy cover on a lot by lot basis. I mean, it we could we could get to that level of granularity as as well, but it's we're we're just looking at overall citywide at average can it become a goal.

Something else that kinda spring into mind since I've been around a long time is a while ago, we talked about public number of years ago. And trees really weren't part of that conversation at all. And in fact, when it was pointed out that Six Oaks maintained that piece of land and protected those trees, it was almost a feeling like that was a loophole opposed to success. So

and

and see there's gonna be a tremendous amount of work, and I'm not suggesting we do it right now. But I think we should be open to looking at how that part of the code works with this as well in the future. Commissioner Sills.

Yeah. I I do firmly believe. I don't think we need to make a choice. I think we can plant more trees and have more housing. I think we can have an ambitious goal. I just don't want these subgoals, like, almost getting in our way of doing those other things. And so I just worry that if we try to, like and have this and have that and add all this complexity, it's yeah. It's not the end of the world if we don't reach our goal, but, like, I don't know. I just I think it's important to the community that we try to do it the right way, the most fiscally responsible way, and just, like, have everything ladder up to to that and and see how it works. And then, like you said, we can go from there.

We can figure out. And I think I loved having the draft report that was kinda reflected. It's like, if this stuff isn't working, we have other levers we can pull. Like, I think that's really smart. So I just I I don't think they need to be in conflict with each other. I think a lot of times people make it about that, unfortunately. But, you know, I just think we could do both. We just shouldn't add too much complexity to to our goal.

Commissioner Lever.

Thank you. This is a very interesting conversation when we start thinking about the implementation and then what are we signaling to the city in terms of what are the priorities and where the investment goes. So my comment is sort of in alignment in terms of the the fact of, like, what is feasible, especially with the current environment, like political and at at every level where we think about, like, funding. We're losing funding for initiatives such as this one. So I think in terms of being aggressive with our goals, I'm always in support of, especially if there's no sort of real consequence of not meeting the goal so that we can aggressively try to secure funding to reach the goal.

And at the same time, I know that in order to do that, you need to have the internal capacity to do so and also having an understanding of where the money is coming from. So I am more leaning towards making sure that the goals are more on the conservative side just to make sure that staff does not spin their wheels when it comes to using their limited capacity to try to achieve goals that may not be unfortunately doable given from the restrictions that we're seeing at every level. Thank you.

K. I think we can proceed.

Alright. Well, thank you for that. That's that's helpful feedback. And, like we said, we'll, maybe come back with some additional information on this topic, but I think this gives us some good direction between now and the next meeting. So looking at the overall revised strategies and actions, at our last meeting, we kind of focused that discussion on just the just that section of the report.

And so I wanted to kind of run through just the changes that were made to kind of the second half of the report between last meeting and this one. So our overall goal was to try to streamline the strategies, reduce the overall number since we identified a couple of overlaps between various recommendations. So just reducing those redundancies, streamlining the strategies, and making it simpler simpler to implement and for people to read through. So hopefully, that was reflected in the updated report. And then I was going to run through kinda each of the focus areas and just generally cover the recommendations and the topics that are covered within there to make sure that we're kind of capturing everything that we need to within the report.

So the first focus area, focuses on tree management, our policies and codes and standards. So that was a lot of what we dug into in more detail during the last meeting. So this is primarily focused on strengthening our codes and design standards, developing right tree, right place guidance in the form of a tree consolidated tree manual, improving our permitting and development review processes, expanding incentives for tree retention and planting, and then integrating climate resilient species and practices throughout. And so I guess one of the the things that we heard during the discussion during the last meeting was a little hesitant of looking at tree permits, and I just wanted to kinda bring that back for discussion. So one of the one of the common things that we heard at our open house meeting was a bit of concern over our current thresholds, for tree retention.

So, as it currently stands, any lots under 20,000 square feet or that have under a certain amount of required landscaping area are that is when the tree retention standards are triggered. And so one of the things that we heard from the public was just looking at ways that we can maybe address that. Because if we are gonna if we are gonna strengthen our tree retention requirements for developers, we don't wanna see those trees then lost five years down the line by individual property owners. So I'm just trying to figure out feasible ways to look at slowing those losses in that form that is not related to new development per se.

I actually had a couple of perhaps minor comments on that section. I looked at page 30, and it talks about forest remnants connecting wildlife corridors. I think it's the opposite. The corridors connect, at least in my mind, corridors connect the forest remnants. That's on page 39. I think it's even in bold. Yeah. It's right around there. Also, in that area, you talk about key pests. And one thing I note walking amongst some of the trees here is a a pest that's a real problem for some of these trees is ivy.

It runs up the trees. It weighs them down, and I I didn't see that reference. So I don't know if that's something we wanna talk about or think about, but I know in in some areas, people are actually going around and trimming the IV around the bases of trees to reduce that. So those were the two that hit me. Commissioner Sills?

Yeah. Kind of along similar minor lines. On page 35, when you introduce the framework and you have this listed, it says that it's organized around five primary goals, and then you list this and and the others. And to me, I think and then I think you refer to them here as strategies and elsewhere as strategies. So I think just, like, our goal is the 2%. Right? And then this, these are strategies. Like, our goal is not to create a permitting system. That's a means to the goal. And then, like, just in terms of, like, again, kinda minor, but I would reorganize these.

Like, I would flip and have community engagement first, then the urban force and I know it it's not, like, in order, but just, like, starting with the policy changes and everything right out of the gate, I think, kinda sends the wrong message. But I I hear that there's a a place for that, and you make some valid points with that. But yeah. So I don't wanna get too ahead of other strategies, but I was just kind of, like, as a way of organizing my thinking or our thinking about what is what, that was I just thought that those should be referred to as strategies.

Other commissioners? Commissioner Robson?

You had mentioned that you were looking for maybe more solidity in our feelings on design standards for current owners. And like Commissioner Sills said, you made some really good points about if we're setting these for developers, we don't want them to be undone then by the owners. And so from that perspective, I really am leaning towards at least some permitting for owners, particularly as we talked about during last session, for the really, really big trees. I do feel like, particularly the ones with over three feet in their diameter should have some regulations around how those are regarded whether or not they can be removed, how easily, and so on. So just from my point of view, I'm comfortable with introducing some policy and codes and standards for owners and coming down on that side of our wiffle waffling from last time.

Other commissions? Commissioner Jones.

I just have a question. So in terms of that same topic, so the developer has certain rules. They put up the development, and then the homeowner, say there's a tree, homeowner decides they wanna put in an ADU. They can just cut down the tree unless we have permits. Is that correct? Or is there something already preventing that? Or do we even wanna prevent that? I don't know.

So it depends on the lot. The existing lot size would be one of the factors there. So if it's a smaller lot under 20,000 and there's no critical areas and it's just one tree, that has to be removed as part of the ADU, you know, we would review that project through a building permit, but, there wouldn't necessarily be anything to prevent that tree removal that would stop, you know, them from building an ADU. But even when kind of the scenarios that we're talking about here are, you know, obviously, this excludes any hazardous trees, which there are exemptions for. But when a a private property owner, yeah, multiple years down the line from when the subdivision is built, then wanting to remove a couple of trees in their front yard or in their backyard for, you know, view or other reasons, easier maintenance and yard cleanup, are ones that we commonly hear.

There there aren't a lot of protections in in those scenarios, so that is an area that we kinda wanna look at.

Commissioner

Hi. Sarah Gustafson here. My understanding is that the current bottle standards require permit review or other kinds of review when a treat to be removed goes beyond eight inches in diameter. And I'd like to confirm my understanding. And I'm curious about whether it makes sense to revisit that part of the regulations, perhaps to 10 inches so that we support thinning of smaller trees so that we show the community that we're not going to require permits without reason.

And, also, most of all, so that we could focus more resources on conducting compliance regulation monitoring for those larger trees. And I'm not sure about the science of this. I'd like to know where this might be discussed. Thank you so much.

Yeah. That's a a good distinction to bring up, and I think there's a couple different areas within the current urban forest management plan where we've tried to address this. So, yes, our current significant tree definition is for all trees over eight inches in diameter. And so the tree retention standards would not apply to any smaller trees below that no matter the lot size or required landscaping amount, etcetera. So one of the things that is being proposed as part of the recommendations of this report is relooking at that significant tree definition and maybe lowering that to six inches so that would capture slightly smaller trees and just a larger percentage of trees for retention.

And then lost my train of thought on the second area there, but it'll come back to me. Yes. The larger trees. So the other recommendation that's included in this report is creating a new definition for larger, more mature trees and creating some higher requirements or mitigation for any removals of of trees over that size in addition.

Thank you so much. Yes. I think if we're going to consider going towards six inches, we might also want to consider going larger. And I'm speaking from personal experience because we just had a bunch of small or smaller trees removed to support growth of the larger ones. Because I'm not sure of the logistics of going smaller.

I think that's quantity over quality. So I'd like to see just some different perspectives there if it seems like that could be a valuable consideration.

I just would just mention throw out there. So there's almost like two different tree or forest management practices here that we're talking about. So traditional stand management, so forests and or groves of trees. In a forested setting, that is a very typical management approach is to thin smaller trees so that the larger established trees can grow with more light resources, water, etcetera. In urban settings, that in this case, when we're talking about trying to set a threshold, the size threshold for retention, especially on say, like on development sites, we we want to capture those smaller trees because those smaller trees are there's greater potential for for retaining them because they are smaller versus the just think of the very large trees and their critical root zone, how much more they're covering that lot.

And with excavations and such, it's it is harder to retain those larger trees. Not that we can't do that or build in in the code mechanisms of how to do that and ask for applicants arborists to describe how you're going to retain that tree. But that's the kind of the logic behind that six inch threshold. It's for retention on development sites so that you're you're capturing or the applicant, the property owner is capturing those smaller trees that means six inches is still up can be up to thirty years growth, twenty years growth. So it's so it's, you know, great sized tree to try to retain if it's worthy of retention, the condition, and whatnot.

So that's that's just to point out the kind of the difference between just establishing, you know, why we would establish that size threshold when it comes to regulating tree retention on development sites.

Thank you. Yes. I would definitely like to dive more into the protection during construction of those larger trees, but I'm guessing we'll discuss that later. That's a really good point, and I appreciate it.

I see Matt McConne would like to weigh in.

Hello, wonderful people. I was I've been standing in the background. I just wanted to build off of what was just said in that why we would look at the six inch DBH. One, it's a it's a very common number in a lot of your comparison cities on the region. That's a that's a standard.

And so we were looking at, you know, different standards of different cities and what they're doing. And then just to build off of, the previous point, counting those smaller trees, increases the, total quantity based off of the same percentage of retention. Right? So so right now, your code, your retention code is based off of a percentage of the the trunk, the DBH of all trees over a certain amount, so eight inches. And so if you lower that down to the standard, it increases the total number that you're basing your retention percentage off of.

It's not saying you have to keep those six inch trees. What it's saying is now you have to keep a larger quantity of that same percent or however you work out the code. So it's just increasing the trees that count towards that retention. And then to the earlier point, if you do have to knock down those larger trees, retaining the smaller trees, those are your future trees. Right?

And so, you know, thinking about succession, there's there's still value of holding on to some of those smaller trees and allowing them to grow because they're your your large mature trees in 2045, right, which is where your goals are, which will be picked up in your assessments and go towards that. So just thinking about kind of all those parts and pieces. I think there's there's a lot of arguments for kind of lowering that threshold a little bit. So that's little more of the thinking behind that.

Thank you. Yeah. You're really expanding my brain right now. I do have one more question, but I'd like to see if anyone else has other thoughts on this particular detail or anything else. Commissioners?

Alright. Proceed.

Commissioner Gustafson.

Thank you so much, chair. Sarah Gustafson here again. This is making sense because my understanding is also that if somebody did want to take down trees for the health of larger trees, they could still apply for a permit and justify it to the city. It doesn't necessarily mean that all six inch and above trees would automatically need to be retained no matter what.

Yes. That's the idea. It's it's just to track and monitor and have a discussion around it and set, if you so choose, mitigation for those trees. It's not to say all trees, yeah, under a certain size are absolutely completely banned from being removed. You must keep them under all conditions. It's just it's bringing those into the conversation.

Great. Appreciate it.

I'm gonna I'm gonna pile on one more piece to this. Two more pieces. Sorry. You know, the as as Deb mentioned, a six inch diameter tree, we we we refer to it as a small tree. It's not a small tree.

These are 30 to 60 foot tall trees. You know, Doug firs can be 30 to 60 feet at that at that DBH. Big big maples might only be about 30 feet. But when we're looking at compacted development and reduced buildable reduced landscape area, there may only be one or two smaller trees, medium sized trees. And if we have a standard, if we move in that direction, and then we get into the regulations later but how to deal with it, we have we have the opportunity for that that little nudge, that lift on the chart to say, okay.

We're at least looking at these and we're evaluating them. And when there might only be one or two on a site because we've maxed out the density as we wanna see for housing, we can we can maybe find that balance. So yeah.

Thanks.

Alright. We'll go ahead and move on to some of the other sections. So the next focus area was all about, city operations and our municipal program. So, one of the key things identified through the internal staff survey as well as follow-up meetings with various departments is just a desire to really strengthen cross departmental coordination between CDE, Public Works, and the Parks Department in our treat related efforts. Really defining service levels and what we could do with a certain amount of additional resources, particularly when it comes to, I think, like, a planting program and really building that up in the future.

Expanding staff training opportunities, continuing to maintain our Tree City USA designation, and maybe looking at pursuing a couple of other recognition programs to set us up for future grant opportunities. And similarly, to the cross departmental coordination, just developing a unified forestry program overall. So is there anything that we thought might be missing within the the set of recommendations?

Mister Jones?

So nothing missing. I mean, this all sounds wonderful. I wanna go back to page I think it's page 16 where it shows a comparison of how much Bothell how much of Bothell's funding is devoted to the urban forestry program, and it looks like we're far behind our peers. And so I'm just wondering what you will need to be able to do this. And that relates to an overall point about the report is while I don't think this is the level at which you're gonna, you know, have dollars and cents and things like that, but it would be nice to get a sense for high cost, low cost, medium cost for some of these.

I would think that city council would wanna see that. I would think that the public would wanna see that for discussion because some of these are costs for the developer and eventually the homeowner. Some of these are costs for city staff directly. And so it would be good to understand that when looking at this.

Yeah. That's a great point. The funding comparison is something that we actually really struggled with because a lot of what that's relying on is available TreeCityUSA reporting data. And so this can really vary depending on the year. So for example, Bothell this year had a higher amount spent on tree efforts because we had the tree canopy assessment done, all the street tree inventory, all this work on the urban forestry plan that we can now count towards our annual spending for Tree City USA.

So it is a little difficult for us to rely get a reliable comparison of, where we stand in relation to neighboring jurisdictions. For instance, in 2024, our our expenditures were relatively in line, with neighboring jurisdictions, while prior years like 2022, '23 were a little below as as we included in the report. So it really varies. And so that is one of the challenges with kinda utilizing this data for comparison. One of the other challenges is that our expenditures are split across multiple departments.

And so coordinating that and getting reliable reporting and tracking of all that is is a little challenging as well. But yeah.

I'm just I was just gonna add, but the point to a cost range of the actions, which I I let's see. I wanted it wasn't the climate action plan had, like, the range range of cost is something that can be incorporated into the plan too. So it is a it would be a gauge for, you know, just say if there's a grant announcement, you know, and it's just like what Oh, no. No. That one's that one has 1 dollar sign. That one has 3 dollar signs. You know, how you could how you could, you know, approach prioritizing implementing the different actions as well. So that would be, yeah, something we could build in or add into

Yeah. The implementation. I think one thing that we we can more clearly compare is the service levels or what services other cities provide comparison to Bothell. So that's something maybe we can draw out a little better in the report.

Commissioner Sills?

Yeah. I I love that idea that you just mentioned, like, draw out what they offer. I really liked this idea as a whole. I just hate the branding, and I know I'm getting kind of ahead of ourselves, but I think giving it that customer service, like, lens is really important to it succeeding and being embraced by the community. And so, like, the thing that I went down a rabbit hole on is, like, what if you call them the Bothell Tree Doctors?

So you can, like, call them up. And when you have a small tree next to a big tree, you can get all their insight. And it's like this really collaborative environment where, you know, people have access to these experts just like we're we get to talk to you guys today. And I know like, I'm sure you have that to a certain extent already. But, again, it's just all about the branding and people, like, knowing about it and and, you know, them even having, like, uniforms, like, their first responders, like, just making it live beyond, like, a web page on bothellwa.gov, I just think, is how it could be successful versus, like, here is our new municipal program that is dedicated to trees.

So, again, I'm getting way ahead of it. I know that's all about in the implementation, but I just got excited about what it could be. So I think it's a really great seed idea.

Comments? Okay. Oh,

commissioner Gustafson. Sarah Gustafson here. I love Bothell Tree doctors. I wanna see them out maybe with little caps. I really think these are some cool ideas for getting people excited about it.

K. We'll move on to the next section here. So this section primarily focuses on kind of upkeep of some of the new data that we've acquired, and it also encompasses kind of the Canopy goals that we were talking about earlier as well. So some of the recommendations in this section relate to maintaining and expanding our street tree inventory. So I think when, we talked about that effort, you know, we we see it as phase one and that we do wanna broaden this in the future to incorporate trees in our parks and other public facilities.

So we will look at funding opportunities in the near future to continue to build that out and also integrating it with our our day to day operations. The other things included in this section are continuing to do regular tree canopy assessments. So as Deb mentioned, that we can monitor progress over time and see how we may need to adjust. Developing a cyclical maintenance and monitoring plan, so that, you know, we can better, allow trees to grow in succession. And then prioritizing planting where it's needed most and securing long term protection of key forested areas, like Shelton View Forest and others through land acquisition and partnerships to make sure that those are retained in perpetuity.

Any comments or suggestions on this section?

Okay.

The next section focused on funding and resources. So this is, you know, obviously a key factor in all of this is securing that long term funding to sustain these new programs and get them off the ground using some of the new data and great information that we've gotten out of this work, like the comparison to neighboring cities and those differences in service levels. For decision making, leveraging our existing partnerships and continuing to build those out and pursuing external grant funding opportunities to really expand our capacity. And then I think as commissioner Sills was talking about, looking at a collaborative approach where we can also provide resources to help support private property owners and not only being able to provide them technical support, but maybe some financial support. You know, if we're gonna place responsibility and have them maintain right of way trees than really being able to support that in in a meaningful manner.

So those are some of the recommendations in this section.

Commissioners? I I would like to see it be a little more explicit on what on the private property owner. You know, certainly, the city has a very strong role, city property ownership, developers, what they do. But then afterwards, there are the private property owners. And it's kinda woven in here, but I I almost had a look for it, it felt like.

And we are looking for private owners to maintain the trees, to not take them down without thought. So and and it would certainly be different. I wouldn't see. I I almost feel it'd be more educational and advisory as opposed to mandatory, but I think you can get a long way with that, and I'd like to see that be part of it. Other comments? Commissioner Lever.

Thank you. This is commissioner Lever. I just wanna echo the I need to make sure that we continue to understand how expensive this may be for owners as well and that we can really understand, like, what are what are the ways in which we can help through the tree doctor or any of the other ways in which we can get people involved and then really secure funding for our city because as, we clearly know this is very, very expensive, and, and we definitely need to continue to amplify the need to secure funding and that also this becomes, accessible to our residents. Thank you.

Well, and and like so many other things, I think the best way to make it more affordable for the private owners is to have the right trees. You know, I get out there and I see sidewalks heaving because the wrong tree was there or they're growing into the power lines because, again, they weren't placed properly. So education outreach ahead of time save a whole lot down the road. Mister Lever, are you still another comment? Or okay.

You. Apologies. I forgot to let I bring my

Okay. No problem. Didn't wanna miss you. That is an excellent segue to the next section here, which is around community engagement. But as part of that, really creating resources that provide clear and consistent guidance.

Guidance. So as we go about the code and construction and design standard updates, not only making those clearer for private property owners and developers, but also creating some supplemental materials to go with those, you know, providing clear instructions on our website, maybe handouts for people that visit our permitting counter that really just create more clarity around what is required by the city, how to properly care for trees, and so on. This section also talks a little bit about our existing partnerships, with schools, nonprofits, and local organizations, and really continuing to expand those to promote tree planting, care, and and education. Some of the new things that are included in the recommendations are looking at establishing more volunteer programs for tree stewardship such as like a adopt a tree program or something similar. And then recognizing notable trees through something like a heritage tree program and community leadership around tree retention and planting.

Any comments on this section?

Commissioner Sills.

Yeah. I I think it's looking good. One thing that I saw in the report that is kind of, like, living in my brain now is the part about how bad lawns are for the environment. And so I I was just like I mean, I knew that, but I guess I hadn't really thought about it in terms of all of this, how it goes together. So I guess I was thinking, like, as part of that first action, like, is it worth also educating on, like, lawn alternatives that are stormwater and tree friendly?

Like, should we be getting people to plant trees instead of grass? Like, is is that feasible? Does that make sense from a you know, just everything else going on? But that just kind of sparked to me, like, well, this is an opportunity here and could also help us meet our goals. So supportive of all that.

I would say maybe the one where I'm kind of like, like, we'll have to see how much resources that's that that it needs is the fourth one. Like, it's okay, but I don't I don't want a lot of city resources going towards, like, recognizing notable trees. So that's just the one I think that if if we have limited resources, maybe that can be, like, paused or not, like, focused too much of staff time on that.

Commissioner Jones.

So I supportive of all of these. And and overall, I mean, this is just a fantastic start to just a very important goal in terms of the urban forestry. I wanna go back to a point that the chair said, which is, you know, how he had to kinda search for some of these things. I wonder if and I know the report's long and I know there's some repetition and things like that, and you certainly have to lay it out with these strategies that sort of align with each of these five categories. But I wonder if there's another way to present it as well where it's clear who is the lead on each.

So which of these actions sort of fall on the developer? Which of these actions sort of fall on the city directly? Which of these fall on the homeowner? So that we get a sense as to both the both the reg the sort of restrictions that might be there, but also the incentives that might be there, because they're all the way through each of these. And it might be it might be nice for us. And you make a really good point several times throughout the report that the only way we're gonna meet whatever the goal is that we end up with is from a partnership among all of these groups. And I wonder if might help to sort of spell that out as well.

I think we do yeah. Agree in both in the way that it's organized and formatted can show that much clearer that now than the narrative that that how it's laid out now. So

And I will add that, yeah, one thing that will be helpful I think between now and the next time we come back is that it the report will be going to graphic design. And so that'll really help tell the story a little bit better with better visuals and layout to really convey some of these things. But I think in general, we can also try to draw things these things out and better identify responsible parties throughout.

Okay.

Alright. And then finally, the implementation section at the very end was kind of the new piece that you all hadn't seen yet. So how we get there. And this this might be where we look at making some of those things clearer, or maybe breaking this out a little better between, you know, private homeowners, new development, etcetera. So some of the things that are included in the implementation section are are proposed timelines for each of the actions, clear department leads and supporting roles.

For it breaks down each of the strategies in a little bit more detail in terms of implementation steps and provide some detailed considerations around each of them. So was there anything that stood out within this section that could either be streamlined or needed added that we may need to think about?

Commissioners? Seeing none. K.

So we've we've kinda hit all

of Sorry. This is commissioner. Sorry. I just wanna acknowledge that, you know, some of the things that I'm reading here and then I saw in the in the document are definitely things that I I continue to hear in this space, and I'm really, really happy to see them showing up officially now. And I'm really excited to see what the the implementation looks like and getting reports on progress made. So thank you.

Okay. So I was gonna say that we've we've kind of been discussing each of these throughout. So thank you all for all of your feedback tonight. We will provide just in terms of next steps. So we will bring this item back on December 17 with some additional details and follow-up on the discussion tonight as well as an updated version of the plan, for consideration. And during that meeting, we'll try to work through the finance conclusions and recommendations as well during that time.

Alright. Thank you for this report. It represents tremendous amount of work. It's a really important and complicated topic that is gonna be really significant to the future of the city and continuing to improve our livability here. So thank you for your work on that. Think I speak with the commission on that. Thank you. So moving forward, our next item is reports from members. Members? Anything for the group? Hi. Commissioner Gustafson. Oh, and commissioner Lever.

Should I go first? Is there a question?

You first. I'm sorry.

Okay. Yeah.

Thank you.

Things moved.

One thing that might be of note to the planning commission is that the city council recently has approved lowering the speed limit to 20 miles per hour in all residential areas. And I think this comes on the heels of some data showing that even without additional enforcement or changes to road design, this kind of action can still reduce top speeds in neighborhoods. I'd love to hear a little bit more from the community development department about how they're planning to roll out this plan and any, community engagement with, PTAs in the community, scout groups, anybody who can help pass the word out about this change and, getting people on board.

The the speed limit updates is spearheaded by the police department as well as city manager's office. We can pass along the the interest wanting to in include as many groups as possible in in getting the word out, And I can I can I'll let them know?

Yes. Thank you. I think it would have a greater impact if we're gonna spend so much money on changing the signs to really kind of make this a discussion point among the community so that it becomes a community standard. Thank you.

Commissioner Lever.

Thank you. So I want to, again, congratulate the city for all the things that you do post on social media and that I'm back. So I've been resharing things that are posted, and I also signed up for the upcoming focus group on the affordable housing. So I am gonna be attending the homeownership one. Really looking forward to doing that, and then I'm sharing with my network to make sure that we get as much participation as we need to.

And the other thing I just wanted to share, as all of us, now there were elections, and I am just really excited to see what the new there's changes everywhere all the time, and then I'm really interested to see how that's gonna translate into from a regional level into our city. So really looking forward to staying connected to see what the priorities are for our new electeds. So thank you so much.

Alright. Any other reports from members? Commissioner Jones?

So I I wanna bring this up as more of a a suggestion for being proactive, and I know that parking is on the agenda. But I was at my annual homeowners meeting, let's say, what was it, last week, and we live adjacent to Lot P. And the there were significant concerns primarily about parking. And the way the concerns were described, it was clear that folks were not aware that the city is planning to have a parking management program because what many folks have heard and the only thing they've heard is the state does no longer mandates that complexes have to have parking, and it's up to the local cities and communities. And the city of Bothell is not planning to have any.

But yet there isn't that other piece that shows the proactive nature. And I was I'm raising it because I do think the city needs to get ahead of this because it could cause angst on projects that we all want to have happen. So I'm just raising it.

Yeah. That is definitely a topic that's come up a lot and I think is a conversation that we're kinda building into the downtown sub area plan update and the focus groups that are happening around that because we do know that parking is a big issue. So we'll we'll continue to highlight that topic, throughout that process for sure.

Yeah. I'd echo commissioner Jones' comment and things that have been said by the this commission many times. Parking is a really big issue. And, boy, you get out there and say you're on the planning commission, you often get an earful about parking. And it's only so long we can see that say that city's thinking about doing something. I I think we're past the point of getting ahead of it, quite frankly. But it's important, and it it does Anything else from members? Alright. Reports from staff.

One note and then one update on on schedule. Last night, city council adopted through resolution the climate action plan as well as the k four c continued commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So really excited to see that. Really excited to see the work of this commission, move forward to wrap up there, and we'll move into implementation next year and be coming back to make sure that we're updating not only city council, but planning commission on those efforts, and circling back as we will with any subsequent development standards or or codes, linking it back to the to the climate action plan. Up only update on schedule.

Tentatively, there will be a December 3 planning commission meeting. We're working through the finer details with the public works department on transportation impact fees and that project. If it's not the third, that will that will move into the seventeenth meeting with the next part of the urban forestry management plan. So maybe just one more meeting this year. We will see, and I'll keep you posted.

Alright. Thank you. So there being no further business, is there a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Sills?

Commissioner Sills moved to adjourn.

You're a second.

Commissioner Joe Jones second.

All in favor of adjourn?

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Alright. The meeting is adjourned at 07:30PM. Our next meeting, as we just heard, is tentatively scheduled for December 3. Watch your email. And have a nice Thanksgiving, all.