Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, Mr. Chair, we're ready to go when you are. All right, perfect. The time is 6:30. It's Wednesday, March 4th. I'll call this meeting to the Lakewood Planning Commission to order. Welcome everybody. Uh, please call the role. Robert Estrada here. Christian Flores here. Mark here. Lynn Larson is currently absent. Jim Merritt is excused this evening. Sharon Wallace here. You have quorum.

Thank you. All please stand. We'll do the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Before we move any further into the meeting, we'll just take a moment of silence for those around the world that are experiencing hard times in the war zone. All right. Uh, I trust you all had an opportunity to review the minutes that were sent to you. Um, is there a motion to approve the minutes of our meeting from February 18th, 2026? It has been motioned and seconded that we approve the meeting minutes from February 18th, 2026. Is there any discussion? Seeing none and hearing none, we'll move on to the vote. All those in favor of approving the minutes from February 18th, 2026, signify by saying I. I. All those opposed, please signify by saying no. The motion is approved. Miss Bureau, are there any agenda updates?

No, Mr. Chair.

Perfect. We'll move on to public comment. Public comments or testimony on public hearings are accepted by mail, email, or by inerson or virtual attendance. May comments to Kev Karen Devo, Planning Commission Clerk, 6000 Main Street Southwest, Lakewood, Washington 98499 or email kero@ cityoflwood. us. Comments received by noon on the day of the meeting will be approved as you were will be provided to the commission electronically. Inerson and virtual comments will be heard. Each person has three minutes. Attendees are allowed to speak during public comment or public hearings only. Those attending in person will be called on by the chair. Those attending via Zoom should use the raise hand function to indicate they wish to speak. Once the chair calls your name, you will be unmuted. First, state your name and city of residence and then provide your testimony. Miss Spear, is there anybody online?

There is not, Mr. Chair. I see nobody present. Is there anybody in the hallway who would like to provide public comment today? No. All right, then. I will declare this public comment period closed. We'll move on to the public hearing. Today we will have a public hearing on proposed changes to Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 related to rental housing licensing and inspection. Miss Spear, is there anybody online for the public hearing? There is not, but if you would uh allow, I'd like to just do a quick brief overview of what is the subject of the hearing tonight. Outstanding.

So, as you just mentioned, this is related to amendments to Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 5.60. 6, which regulates how rental housing in the city of Lakewood receives its licensing and inspections through the city's rental housing safety program. There are 16 amendments in the uh proposals that you talked about at last week's meeting with uh last meeting with housing program manager Jeff Gum here to answer your questions. There's no changes to what you reviewed at the last time. uh but quickly the intention here is basically to correct an unintended consequence of the way it's currently written that was exempting things from uh inspection and licensing when that was not uh the intent of the chapter. So this is really cleaning up uh what is subject to licensing and registration and the things that can be exempted from the inspection process and it also removes accessory dwelling units, transitional housings and shelters from the exemption. So they will always be uh inspected. And then there's also the reducing the number of years of property can be exempt uh reducing that from 10 years down to five. So with that, tonight is the public hearing and then potential action by commission. If council, I'm excuse me, if commission is ready to do that tonight. It will then move on to the city council for review starting March 16th. That's it, Mr. Chair. And then in terms of anyone online, there is no one online to testify. Is there anybody in the building who would like to provide comments for the public hearing? Please indicate by moving towards the podium. All right, it's a big crowd out there tonight. Seeing none in hearing none, I will declare this public hearing closed. We move on to

unfinished business. Uh yes. And so I'll just reopen what I was just sharing with you to give you uh language for a potential motion if the planning commission is ready to do it. It would be to approve resolution 20263 which is included in your packet for tonight recommending updates to the city council regulations governing rental housing licensing and inspections. Outstanding. Mr. Strada, if you'd like to make a comment, we need to motion to uh to bring it to discussion first. Okay. Um make a motion that we open for discussion. Outstanding. There a second.

Second.

It's a motion and seconded to uh approve the resolution 2022-03. It is now on the floor for discussion. Mr. Estrada. Okay, I'll go with that route. What I wanted to do was ask a question regarding but since I was going to vote for approval of the motion anyway, I will we'll we will assume this this role here. Quick question, a quick comment uh Miss Spear on um the attachment the last the the resolution excuse me the resolution. Yes. The last whereas

the proposed amendments further the goals. Is that what you're referring to? The attachment A that had the resolution I believe. Sorry, I don't have it on the screen here. Sure. I'll share it. One second. Uh bear with me, please. right there.

You corrected it. Okay. There was already an error there. So, it was on mine. Okay. See, it's not there anymore. So, okay. Thank you. Certainly,

uh, Mr. Chair, I I was I am going to vote in favor of this uh resolution. Uh all my questions were answered adequately by Mr. Gum last the last meeting and uh you know also I learned a heck of a lot uh about uh about the city and its uh rental programs and I think we have we're doing a pretty good job. As I mentioned to you, I have firsthand experience uh with his inspectors coming out and uh from the very beginning we saw how this program we really needed this program we've seen the pictures how bad some of these units were in fact uh not being maintained by by uh land by homeowners. But anyway, I thank you very much for listening to me.

Is there any other discussion?

I'll just offer my comments briefly. I think this, as you pointed out, u Mr. Estrada, this program was born out of necessity and has evolved and really put the city in a good position today that we were certainly not in at the beginning of the program. and these these changes uh streamline some of that and these administrative changes will will be uh beneficial and I I think Mr. Gum has done a phenomenal job of of really using a policy tool to bring about positive change for the entire community um in in terms of safety, wellness, health all the way around. So I too will be voting to approve. One last opportunity. Is there any other discussion? All right. It has been motioned and seconded to approve the proposed changes to Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 related to rental housing licensing and inspection. And uh I don't have all that verbiage right in front of me still, Miss Spear.

It's basically to approve uh resolution 2003 26-3. That's sufficient. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. All those opposed, signify by saying no. The motion is approved. And we move on to our next topic, tree p tree canopy goal and tree preservation regulations. Miss Spear.

Thank you. I'll open up once again. Give me just a moment, please. It's too bad that uh Mr. Larson's not here tonight because this was something that he was wanting to have the discussion about. Um so hopefully he'll be able to watch this after the fact. But what I'm going to do tonight is um walk through some information that's been gathered over the last four or five years now by the city of Lakewood regarding um the current state of the trees, if you will, in the in the city, but also coupling that with some requirements that we're now trying to uh follow and comply with from state law as well as city council adopted goals uh that the planning commission has also had discussions about in recent years. and then just give a little bit of information about how the program is going uh to date. So in 2022, there was a new set of tree regulation protections that were adopted uh into our municipal code at chapter 1870 article 3. And that is the result of a work uh plan that had not only staff working on it with consultants, but they also convened what they called the tree advisory committee. and they met, I believe, for about a year and ended up with some of the recommendations that were ultimately sent to council came from that advisory group. The following year, the city then also adopted a citywide tree canopy goal. And you'll see there the definition of what exactly tree canopy means. It's essentially the leaves, branches, and stems that are the tree coverage above the ground when you're looking down from the top. And that was the goal was set at 40% citywide by the year 2050. Uh this is a note that some of you were here but others maybe have heard from those who were here. The planning commission actually recommended a canopy goal of 30% and then when the council took the uh matter up they went

ahead and made a change and adopted a 40% canopy goal in its ordinance 775. As we sit here tonight, the uh city planning document, the big one, the comprehensive plan, has a couple of different goals referring to trees or urban forestry in some way. So in our energy and climate change chapter there is um a clear statement to enhancing quality and sustainability of the urban forest and urban tree canopy for the reasons of mitigating heat island effects, storm water drainage concerns and then also environmental quality. And then there's a more complicated or uh lengthy goal laid out in the natural environment element that refers specifically to an urban forestry program. Uh talking about uh funding one, standing one up and then maintaining it over time. Looking at street trees for uh planting and maintenance, retaining significant trees and tree stands and retention of such. looking at a tree fund, continuing that to preserve wooded areas, restore and enhance native trees, and provide for education and research. And then here is where you see the tree canopy goal that was adopted by city council of 40% citywide. And then looking at uh opportunities for equity uh when evaluating the tree canopy distribution across the city. So, as the city has now taken those goals that were adopted, staff in the planning and public works as well as the parks and recreation and community services departments have been trying to gather some data that now will assist uh implementing those goals that were just mentioned from our comprehensive plan. So there was a tree canopy analysis done um all electronically basically through lidar in 2022 that accompanied the adoption of that new regulatory code. We

also uh as a city adopted an energy and climate change work plan which was based on uh a lot of work that examined what type of uh effects of climate change the city of Lakewood could anticipate. So, um, drier area, drier years, hotter, uh, years, more more really hot days, potential for flooding when there was flooding to happen, uh, and other other things, air quality, uh, over time as well. There in the following year was a partnership with the UDub Evans School. They have a school of public governance and policy. their students provided for us as their uh master's capstone project a document called establishing the roots of urban forestry and implementation guide and it was it was an opportunity for the city to take advantage of those kids I'll call them kids but they were master students um who went out into the community and asked questions first of all what do you know about how climate maybe has been affecting you lately have you been experiencing things as a property owner as a resident uh as someone who commutes through Lakewood, have you experienced changes in the weather or changes in your quality of life? And then also as a result of all of that outreach that they did, they provided the city recommendations on how to be effective in our public outreach regarding these topics as well as others. There was some great advice in there. Next year, we did an update to the natural environment and climate change elements in our comprehensive plan. There was significant research done uh through consultants and again public outreach. And then in 2024, three different things happened. There was an updated urban forest assessment report. There was also actual people driving around in uh the city of Lakewood on some of the hottest days to track where in the city were the hottest temperatures. And uh out of that,

probably not a surprise to anyone, the areas with less trees had higher temperatures. And then uh the Pierce County actually did an analysis report as a result of that. So we have access to that information related to Lakewood as well. So I'm going to start to go into a little more detail about the 2024 Lakewood tree assessment report. Excuse me. One second. Can I have five minutes? Five minute recess, please. Do we need a Do we need a vote for that? We just adjourn for five minutes. If you could if you could do that and come back.

We'll just take a fivem minute recess. Thank you, sir.

that ready to continue if you're ready. No worries. Please continue.

Pull it back together. Thank you. So, allow me to now share the correct document. My apologies. So we went through um the different sources of data that were collected after the policies and uh regulations were adopted since 2022. What we now currently have within our uh city code are actually three different uh areas that address trees in some way. There is the tree preservation code at again title 18A chapter 70.300 talking about regulating how to uh maintain or remove trees providing incentives to preserve trees. We have also our critical areas ordinance which protects uh critical areas including priority white oak or gary oak woodlands. Woodlands is there defined at the bottom of the screen. And then we also have within the city's shoreline master program protection of trees within uh shoreline areas that are governed by that chapter. So the larger lakes in the city for instance actually are subject to the city's shoreline master program. So we're going to go back first to the 2022 tree assessment information just for some background. And as part of that process that went through the tree advisory committee, there was this analysis made of the type of land cover that the city had. Uh top right you'll see a number of different colors indicated on the pie chart. Um the highest percentage there is the impervious surface and then you see herbaceous grass, tree canopy, water, shrubs and soil or bare earth. So, as a city to have that much impervious surface and then the rest being non impervious is actually pretty good. And then when you look down at the bottom under the tree canopy assessment,

what that assessment found was that um the citywide coverage for trees was at about 26%. 72% was on privately owned property and 28% was on public land. And um out of the private land, 28% of it had urban tree canopy and 22% of the public land had urban tree canopy. So if you think about that, there's going to be bare spaces, whether it's in a park, open space, or somebody's backyard, that sort of thing. The other thing that uh the 2022 assessment showed was uh through land uses within where there are uses happening. Again, top right, residential is about 59% of the land use across the city. And then you'll see a number of other colors. The second largest is actually open space and recreation at about 17%. Multifamily uh meaning five or more units, so apartments essentially about 6% of the city, 5% public institutional, so that could be colleges or public schools. It could be governmentowned property, uh the colleges, etc. air corridor that is over on the far east side of the city where there's a limited amount of land uses because of safety issues with North McCord airfield and then we had uh trans the commercial and industrial analyzed the public right ofway and water and open space bottom left here you'll see comparison of as of 2022 at least the tree coverage in Lakewood versus some other jurisdictions again at about 26% under this analysis you See Tacoma is at 20% uh and then others are uh above that or below that. Then began a goal setting process through the tree uh advisory committee. And so there was a look at the quote tree equity scores. The um American

Forest Association I believe is the organization does this map and it talks about the quality of and health of the trees, the amount of the trees per acre. Um, and essentially you end up with a color-coded map. Green, not surprisingly, has more trees. The orange has less. Uh, and so what that was found at the time was that where you see the brighter orange, that is where poorer, lower economic income uh, folks are in the city, 20 to 40% of uh, people of color in the area where there was the most trees, but you see um, a higher percentage there in the lower income brackets. The other thing that came out of the tree advisory committee was a a goal to actually get all of the census groups or census tracks within the city of Lakewood to an equity score of 75. So right now or at 2022 I should have said the um percentage was lower than that. You'll see there was actually uh 17 out of all of the uh census tracks were below 63. Then you had a 64 to 79 score, 80 to 89 and on up. And so the idea was to bring all of these that were below 63 and those between 64 and 75, add the trees in those parts of the city. So everybody had a tree equity score of at least 75. The analysis at that point was about 60,000 trees would be needed to get the block groups to a score of 75. The tree uh advisory committee then looked at a couple of other areas including the uh canopy cover and where in the city it was less than 25% results of surface temperature differences uh where the people of color in the city were living and then also areas where there was a possibility of at least uh 50% of a parcel could be used for planting of trees. So they

combined all of those different maps and ended up with some prioritized areas of where they recommended tree planting should be focused. And so uh I'll go over this a couple more times on a couple future slides, but basically this is open space parkland to the northeast. This is part of Springbrook and then over I5 up into a little bit of what's now our station uh district sub area. This area here is part of Lake View, one of the lower economic areas of the city. Down here is Woodbrook, another um isolated area because it's across from uh I-5, but it's also a poorer area of the city. This is Pierce College, but also residential uh neighborhoods around it. And then more residential areas off to the southeast from Pierce College. And then this kind of uh parallelogram is in between Lake Stilicum and Fort Stilikum Park. So, if you were to take that same uh map there of where they prioritized the uh plantings to happen first and try to compare that to the zoning, uh again, we're talking about open space land, which was uh owned either by uh the city of Lakewood or perhaps uh some of it owned by uh Pierce County. And then you'll have residential areas. The yellow, so that's going to be private property owners. The dark blue is a public institution, Pierce College. Again, down in uh Woodbrook, the uh gray is industrial area actually. So, it would be a matter of working with uh the property owners there to see if they're able to add some additional tree cover uh particularly in their uh parking areas as a great opportunity. And then up in Springbrook, again, an industrial spot there. When you look at the area in Lake View, that is a multif family area. So, higher density, but maybe some potential there to add some additional trees. That is actually an area where right now we have quite a bit of development happening with the Kendrick

apartments that are uh being built. And uh again, the area between Lake Silicon and Fort Silicon Park residential areas. So, it would be dealing with private property owners and um offering them opportunities hopefully to add trees to their property. If you look one more time at that same area that was prioritized by the tree advisory committee, um this is a comparison. The larger map shows you where all of the residential zones that were at the time single family only. They are now different as you know from state law changes where we no longer have really single family areas. It's you have at least an ADU. You could have multiple um houses on a lot. But these areas of the city, when you compare that again to where some of these priority areas are, it is going to be a matter of of talking to and encouraging private property owners as well as public to add trees to their property in order to achieve the tree canopy goal. So that was all in 2022. Then we had our 2024 tree assessment report which was done in a in a more um in-depth way. There were three different ways that trees were analyzed in the city. There was actually a physical walking around by I think four or five individuals who looked at touched almost 12,000 trees that were located within the public rights of way in city parks on public school property and other public institutional grounds like Western State Hospital or St. Clair Hospital. And the analysis is not just are they there and what is their size, but it actually included um an analysis of their health and if they needed some maintenance or if they were uh getting toward the end of their healthy life. Then there was an electronic analysis called flat for large acre uh natural areas where maybe it didn't make sense or was very difficult to physically walk through. So, Fort Stilicon Park, Celely

Lake Park, Wards Lake Park, and then the South Puget Sound Wildlife Area were all done uh through that flat analysis. And then the third part that was done in our 24 report was again using lidar again an electronic um analysis from above looking at privatelyowned large acreage properties and then tracking and identifying which census tracks in um the city had less than a 35% tree canopy. So this is just a comparison of the uh places in the city where each one of those techniques was used. This first map on the left is where uh people were actually out walking the property looking at the trees physically. And so as you can see it it tracks really the public rights away, the roads. It's was in the parks uh and it was in um some of the areas where large uh school properties like over here Pierce College and uh Clover Park as well. the flat assessment for Fort Silicon, South Puget Sound Wildlife, Seely Lake Park, and Words Lake. And then LAR was used again for those private large acreage areas, um, Tacoma Golf and Country Club, Meadow Park, Golf Course, Oakbrook, Western State Hospital, and then the final map to the right is that analysis conclusion of where in the city which areas had a tree canopy of lower than 35%. And if we look at that on a larger map, you'll see here it's it kind of makes sense color-wise. The darker blue means there's more tree canopy cover. The lighter colors means there's less. Probably not a surprise along the I-5 corridor up into South Tacoma Way and Pacific Avenue. That's going to be between 0 and 10%. You've got uh the limitations because again of flight paths. Historically, trees are uh limited so they don't affect flight path and the ability for people to take off

and land to North McCord. And then the darker blue is around the lakes. It's in uh areas that have historically been um owned by or maintained at higher property values. You do have down in Woodbrook, Tilicum, and Springbrook, those areas uh south of I5 and then just to the north of it on the south end of the city. kind of a mixed bag where you have some areas that are between 10 and 20 uh and actually on the edge of uh Telum at the top and then at the far east end of Woodbrook you've got some higher percentages there. This report which is more refined and more on the ground real information was uh found that there was a 24.4% canopy cover which means there would need to be an increase of 15.6% 6% to hit that 40% goal by 2050. The canopy coverage showed that most of the city's um available land for planting trees was in the residential areas. Uh open space and recreation had uh the next largest category and then commercial and industrial again because of the land use there. As you can imagine, there was less trees there and less uh space for trees to be planted. So getting into that a little bit more, the report actually talked about quote plantable areas and this was an idea to say these are areas in the city uh as you conduct future planning for where you want to um prioritize in your urban forestry program for instance where uh the consultants at the time felt were the places to look to first. So this is not the same analysis that what happened in 22 with that tree advisory committee who looked at all of those other criteria and said these are the places to prioritize. This one was where just by looking at the land now how it's being used. Does it have pavement on it

or not? What kind of um coverage is there already? Where do we have quote plantable areas? And there was about 31% of the city identified as plantable. So, if you were to say, okay, we're not going to look even at the rest of the city. We're just going to look at those quote plantable areas. Um, half of all of the identified areas would have had to be 100% tree canopy to hit the 40% goal. That's probably not a realistic thing to try to do. So the question then becomes okay how do we take this information about what's plantable and what's not and roll it in to considerations with what our land use planning is for different parts of the city. the areas that had the highest amount of plantable area identified. Again, I don't think this will be a surprise, but is the residential areas um zones residential 2, three, and four. And then the open space and recreation uh zones 1 and two. So, all of these zones in the city had at least 5% of their area or 5% of the plantable area for the city overall. looking at that plantable area and trying to understand what are what is the caution there with using the number that's recommended because again it didn't take into uh consideration things like in the rightway we still are going to be building more roads we're going to be expanding roads we're going to be adding sidewalks and that's going to take away area where trees aren't right now but they won't go likely in the future because there's going to be a road or a sidewalk right and then for the uh parks that were identified or the open space area that was identified that's not going to become 100% covered with trees because it's a park for intended for sports fields or for other open space activities. And on the school grounds, there's going to be again that idea of

using open space for something other than having tree stands. So, the areas that were quote plantable were identified and there are sources of information for the city, but it's not um suggested that that A is 100% accurate because it didn't have all of the information about how the land is going to be used going forward, and B, if you were to only look at the plantable areas, that leaves a lot of the um other parts of the city without any increase in tree canopy. Down here at the bottom you'll see again uh parks and residential areas is where there is the most plantable area identified. The schools St. Clair and Western State Hospital had about 7%. Lakewood G Lake Garden, excuse me. Oak Brook Golf Course and then Tacoma Country and Golf Club had almost 6% identified there. And then commercial and industrial areas across the city the lowest percentages. So looking at the residential areas, which is where supposedly there's the highest percentages for adding trees, this is where the um idea where sometimes you'll hear me or others say there's kind of this what's going to trump what in policies for land use. Are we going to do just housing density and housing growth or are we going to talk about tree preservation and how do you do that on the same acreage of property? Right? So, we're looking at areas in the city identified for at least two units per acre, at least two units per lot up to six or more per lot in the R4 zone. And then you're also looking at all of these different types of uses that could happen on any of those uh parcels now across the city. And the the dance that's going to have to happen over time is okay, if we're going to put a duplex up to a fiveplex on what used to have a single family home, how are we also going to increase

tree canopy coverage on that parcel, is it possible to do, and if so, is it um what's the cleverest, most efficient way to do it to have it succeed over time? So, that's the kind of discussion that we'll need to start to have uh within the city between now and 2050 for this goal to happen. So, kind of what I already just said, but how are we going to be meeting the city's housing and job targets? Um, when we're also trying to increase the tree canopy um not only because of the goal that the city council adopted, but because of the newer rules in state law now about climate change planning. And then how are our open space and recreation lands, the parcels that are identified as parks or as just um passive open space, does it make sense to try to increase tree canopy there given the other uses that are on uh those lands? And that's uh what I wanted to share with you tonight. Um again, I'm sure if Mr. Larson was here tonight, he would have had some comments to to bring forward, but if there's anything uh Mr. chair that you guys would like to discuss more than happy to try to answer anything.

Go ahead.

Well, for the future once we have this uh discussion, I believe the solution for me is very simple. It will be allowing and incentivizing builders to go two, three stories, four stories instead of using more land. That will look contractors and builders and investors are very creative. Just tell them what you want and they will figure it out. as a contractor, as a as an investor, I can keep the same trees on the same lot where a house was and I can build a sixlex without touching the trees as long as the city will give me the permits and will help me on getting all this um documentation in order instead of having the I'm going to just throw somebody under the bus. instead of having the um the per the department uh hammering me down on on my plans or or my goal in this uh building

for example that's one way to do it Mr. Estrada thank you Mr. Sure. Uh one comment first of all you mentioned uh the areas have less number of trees. Uh of course that means those are the hotter areas that also mean and it also is where our lower income folks are living which which means that they pay more for utilities. So just a consequence of of not having pre or of having so many apartments.

But I have a question, Miss Spear. Um and one of our charts um this presentation by the way it seems a little bit different than what I saw on uh what you provided. It is different and so I will get you the updated version. Yeah.

Ah okay. Well, I I noticed that in one of the charts we had, it said that residential 2 had 576 acres. 250 of them already had canopy. So, we had about 178 acres that were plantable. My question is why wasn't residential one included? They have 441 acres, 212 canopy, 131 plantable.

Please don't get dizzy. I'm going to scroll again. Sorry. Um Oops. And then it went away. Okay. I apologize. I will slow down and I will get us to where there's information to respond to your question. So this is the full table showing um plantable area and land area. And so residential one as you say commissioner is 441 acres total with 212 uh covered in tree canopy plantable area. So what's left is 131 or so acres or about 30% of residential one and that constitutes 3.8% of the total plantable area in the city. That previous slide where I was just summarizing was to show the areas that were 5% or more. So that was a purely arbitrary thing on my part to pull out the areas where the highest percentages were identified as future plantable areas. So you if you were to look here, you'd see the same information. It's just I just summarized those higher percentage uh plantable areas.

Not that it's not usable. It's just in your with your data you indicated 5% and up. Yeah. I just pulled from from this chart here. And so it was residential 2, three, and four. And then open space uh and recreation one and two that were all at least 5% of the total citywide plantable area. So, uh, for instance, you can see here down at the very bottom, rightway is only half of 1% of the area where plantable, uh, space was identified. The industrial business park 2 and a half% of the total citywide. So, it's it's there. Um, but I just pulled the the higher percentages out.

Okay. And then you mentioned as well, Commissioner, the U maps and things that the tree advisory committee looked at. Again, forgive me. I'm going to scroll quickly. Okay, so this goes back to the 2022 analysis. This is the overall tree assessment, urban tree canopy from 2022. And the map looks very similar to the one from 2024, but it's at a higher, less specific level. And it was all done electronically rather than with anything happening on the ground. This is the tree equity score I mentioned where it's you know how many trees per acre coupled with a couple of other um criteria that's through uh American forests and uh generally speaking the south and the eastern parts of the city are where you have a lower tree score. This is the purely the tree canopy cover by percentage that is below 25%. So the higher or lighter the color, the lower number of trees per acre you would have. These are the surface area temperatures. And so I'm going to try to toggle back and forth and and make a point here. You see the lower I'm sorry, the darker colors are the better, if you will. Got more trees. If you then go to your surface area, the darker colors is where it's hotter. And so the higher lighter colors here equal darker colors in terms of heat. That's just a really highle general comparison between those two charts. And then you look at the people of color. Again, darker color is a higher percentage. So fewer trees, higher temperatures, more people of color. And then what you ended up was okay now

that we look at where in um the city is there at least 50% of uh parcels open for for additional planting of trees. The darker colors equals there's more opportunity to plant on the trees, excuse me, on the parcel. More trees. Lighter colors there's less opportunity but again it's over 50%. Oops. And so that final little uh map that showed just those areas that were prioritized by the tree advisory committee, this one, this is the composite then of putting all of those different things together, all of the things that they looked at in the advisory group. And so these areas, if you'll recall, this is where there was higher temperatures, there were fewer trees, and there was also this um 50% or higher uh tree plantable area that they had in 2022. So that's where this map came from.

I have two more questions, but I don't want to um somebody else has a question first. I have a few, but go ahead. Okay. Um another question. the area South Puget Sound something something where the hatchery is at. The South Puget Sound wildlife area. Who owns that?

The state owns it. I believe they administer it for sure. It's um kind of surrounded um by Oakbrook really generally speaking, but it is it's a wildlife area where they just did some planting with uh Northwest Youth Corps. Um and so there's opportunity maybe to actually do some additional planting there, but it is not open for development. It is a wildlife like um corridor for for wildlife to move through the city. So if we planted trees galore there in that area that hit some of our percentage requirement but it doesn't belong to us though.

It it's not city city city owned. Um but we certainly as a city hope with our urban forestry program to be making partnerships with the state with the county that may own property within our area uh within the city boundaries. And then also private property owners are obviously going to have to be willing to engage in order to successfully hit that that um number even if it's 30% let alone the 40 it's going to take more than just stuff happening on city own property. And one more question. The alliance construction here does that were they required to uh to plant trees and to have a park or whatever within the uh confines

both. There will be a park for the occupants of those um housing units that are being built now. And they also have um I can't remember the exact ratio, but it is a significantly higher number of trees that will be planted than were taken down. So by the time it's done, there will be a higher tree canopy cover than there was before. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Strada. Anybody else have any questions?

I had a question. Um, are we looking a little bit at what could you help me with what kind of incentives are there for different people to use their parcels and also um are there certain types of tree combinations that are going to be suggested by the city so that we end up with the right mix of trees that are desired? Yeah. Um, one of the things that's happening under state law is we are required to create a native and climate resilient list of species both for city projects but also for the public to access. And we're working now already with Pierce Conservation District, Tacoma Tree Foundation, and the Tacoma Bird Alliance to develop kind of a little outreach sheet that says, "Hey, these are the types of species that work well together that also work well with our climate as it changes." And um hopefully this is how you would plant them and maintain them.

Then I had one other question if you don't mind. Um the issue of water is is important and um have uh has a city come up on any thoughts of how to do that because these trees as they get bigger use a lot of water and it gets expensive. So what are your thoughts or what are the city's thoughts? Uh we're not at that point yet. Okay.

We'll we'll have to be working with the Tacoma uh excuse me the Lakewood Water District in order to uh bring them up to speed on the type of planning that we're now needing to do for tree canopy as well as jobs and people. Okay. Um and it will be because the city does not own the utility, it will be a matter of having them take this into account in their planning going forward um for not only what happens within the city itself but also the the water that they wheel to other areas. Okay. Thank you. Does any other member have any questions?

Okay, Miss Bear, I have a couple questions. Um you'd mentioned that this body recommended to the city council uh for a 30% tree canopy coverage uh and the council elected to implement a 40% standard. Um is that goal realistic and is it similarly aligned with other municipalities in our region or is it above or below?

Um it is above what um sorry how to say it. I believe the city of Tacoma, for instance, that is currently at 20%. They are increasing their canopy, but they're not going up to 40%. Um, and I I think their number is in flux right now. They're trying to figure out how and what they can realistically achieve. On the other end of the spectrum, you have some jurisdictions to the north in King County that are already over 40%. But every jurisdiction is unique in terms of its age and its size and its development patterns. How things have been built out to date which affect what trees are still standing or have been planted. So I think for us we are a jurisdiction with um again the effect of the base being immediately next door. We have a number of large lakes. Uh and then we have um the the two colleges, the um Western State Hospital as well as St. Clair. So there's things that are large acreage for a reason that may or may not make sense to have a lot of trees on those properties.

And so we're going to have to take all of that into account over time to see if 40% is reachable. And again, that weighing of land being used for climate resiliency work and how that can be reconciled with the amount of density we're supposed to be planning for as a city because we're we are supposed to be one of those areas that grows more than the unincorporated part of the county. Whether we're going to hit 40% or not by 2050, I I don't know. But that's it's a significant increase. 15% plus is a significant increase.

Um, having lofty goals is good. Right? It is good to want to move forward. The important thing about having goals is incrementally moving towards your goals. With that in mind, my next question is I think based on the slides that were presented here tonight and what I've seen before from the 2020 to the 2050 goal, there was a delta of about 16,000 trees. It's projected to to be able to meet that requirement. on back of the napkin. Math tells me that's about uh 533 trees per year that we need to plant to reach that goal by 2050. And if you move forward from 2020 to 20 now, we've completed five years. We should have planted just under 2700 trees. Is that a reality? Have we planted 2,700 trees or do we even know or where are we at in that in that arc?

We do not know that. Um, I would doubt that it's anywhere near that number. Uh, and the way that the city is incentivizing tree um, excuse me, incentivizing development to retain trees on site is things like additional height as Commissioner Flores has mentioned. Um, also reducing parking, reducing some of the other fees. There's the opportunity as well to pay a fee in lie, meaning if you aren't able to keep a tree on site, but you would put dollars toward um the city planting a number of trees in a in a different place in a more concentrated stand. Um but it is up to the private property owner ultimately at this point to either retain or plant additional trees beyond what might be absolutely required if they try to pull a permit from the city. whether we can get the momentum to get that kind of number planted every year. Again, it's it's going to be up to um people changing probably the way they think right now about what they want to do with their property.

Certainly, I I don't disagree with that. Uh I don't I don't remember the exact breakdown on on city- owned property versus publicly owned property, but the city certainly has a sizable portion of that. Um it it seems like it we might be coming up a little short if we're if we have stated goals to achieve, but we do not have realistic tracking metrics in place. I mean, I applied for a city business license today, and there were plenty of questions in there about all kinds of things, including parking and how many trips might be um initiated out of my office. um if if we're going to track it, we're going to spend money on it, we need to actually track it, right?

Absolutely. And that's part of the development of the urban forestry program. Um one other question I had in the liar map there were there was a slide with multiple methods of assessment. Uhhuh. It appeared that we included uh Meadow Park Golf Course and Camp Murray at least in that one slide and those properties are outside of the bounds of Lakewood. Were they incorporated in the math and the calculation or was that just that one method of assessment? They were if are you referring to what you see? Yeah. Um here for instance.

Correct. Um the LAR is done through census tracks which don't match city boundaries. And so you'll see the Camp Murray and then the Meadow Park. They were included just the parts that were within city for this one map, but it wasn't calculated uh within the totals. Perfect. And then I had one other question with regards to calculating MA area. And I I know Mr. Larson was here. He would appreciate this question. Do we exclude the uh square footage or acreage area that is water out of our land calculation for uh coverage available area meaning subtract

yeah take out the water covered area out of our land mass. Yes, we did. Okay. Um Mr. Chair, yes I can make comment. Please go ahead. piggy back on on piggy back on what you just said. I think uh in the slides it showed that the city of Lakewood had 19 square acres. That don't seem like a heck of a lot. That's not right. Of of water. No, total land. 19,000 thousand. Okay. Yeah. And 17,000 of that is land and 1,000 of that is water. So that's how that comes out. Uh so the water was not included into Right. Right.

Uh and if I one more question if I may add incentivizing um uh property owners to not to cut down or if they're going to cut to to replant. That's only applicable to those who have property over 10,000 square feet. uh and how many properties are less than 10,000 that in fact have trees that we actually don't have no control over. Yeah. And to just try to bring that home for people um one more time. Oh, dang it. Sorry. Close your eyes. I'll tell you when to look. Sorry. I have it in here. I know. Okay. So, there is a map here showing you all of the residential areas. Most of what you see here, the dark purple in particular and then the orange, they are going to be below 10,000 square feet, meaning they are exempt from the requirements to retain trees or plant trees at a certain percentage if you take something down. It is the larger parcels above 10,000 square feet that are currently regulated by our city's code. So, what uh Commissioner Estrada was just mentioning is it's a matter of trying to um appeal to the goodwill and the the the logic of those that own these parcels that are less than 10,000 square ft because right now there's there is no regulation in place. They were exempted when the program was adopted a few years ago from um retaining trees on site. And so whether those regulations are going to

change at some point, I couldn't tell you. uh as part of the urban forestry program development for instance, maybe the council would take that up. But otherwise, it is trying to make people aware of the situation, invite them to hopefully access low or no cost um trees uh that the city could help them get. Uh for instance, we do have a couple of tree sales that we're planning for this year and urban tree giveaways uh that we hope will start this process over time. uh but they they uh on those two colors in particular, the purple and the dark orange here uh are likely not subject to those tree regulations. Thank you,

Mr. Pier. I have one more uh question and this comes back to to counting and tracking and metrics. Um we are correct me if I'm wrong. We issue permits or we control uh tree removal, right? because we we permit for that and we offer the ability to pay into the tree fund, right, if that's not the desired route.

Understanding it might be a a big ask to track every single tree because we can't control every single tree, but what we can control is how many permits we've issued, how many in lie of payments we've received. um it seems like this information is out there somewhere and we maybe just haven't looked in the right place for it. It would be good to at least see some type of a tracking that may help the uh private push as well if if it's like hey we're we're 80% of the way there with city activity if private land owners can can step up here. We can really close this gap. I think in the storytelling that might go a long way.

Agreed. And we hope to have something up on our website in the not too distant future. Perfect. Uh, and I had one more thing and it is escaping me at the moment. So, I guess does any other council member or commission member have any comments?

I just had a question. And so, what are we thinking of to try to encourage um residents both larger land owners and smaller to plant trees? Are do we have some kind of a thought process? Because not everyone can do the same things, but I think we had incentives there. There are a lot of people maybe they only put one in their yard or maybe they leave one in or maybe somebody else puts in 50 but but everybody would count and so do we have a thought process of how we're going to address that? It's it's going to come through the urban forestry program and the advisory process that at this point the city council is deciding whether it's going to be a new stood up advisory board to them

or actually they're talking about u whether the planning commission would pick that up a part as part of what it does. The next time they're going to cover that topic is actually next Monday night. Um, where they're going to give staff further direction as to whether they want a new advisory board that would take its recommendations to you and then up to council or if the conversation would be held here and then up to council. We're going to see where they want it to go. But the idea is there will be um yes recommendations on how to get people interested and engaged and what can be done to make it as easy as possible for whether it's a commercial or a residential property owner to to access trees and and get it going. Thank you.

Miss Spear, my question dawned on me while I was waiting. Okay. With regard to the tree fund, what are the authorized uses of and spend of those monies out of that fund? It is listed specifically in code. It includes uh maintaining trees that are in place now, whether it's maintenance or restoration or replanting of areas where trees have been taken down over time. It is the funding for the education programs that we're talking about. It is um the M, if you will, of the urban forestry pro program once it's running. And then if the city council were to find something else that's somehow related to trees that they wanted to add as another one, but there's a specific list in code.

Okay. I have no other questions. Nothing. Thank you. All right.

Okay. Thank you. And with that, we move on uh to next steps. Uh looks like council member Tabo was unable to join us tonight but in terms of accepts I just mentioned it but next Monday night they will be talking about the role of what's being called at this point the natural environment and climate change advisory board and how that will continue to come to fruition. Your next meeting will be March 18th and we'll be jumping to a couple of different topics. We're going to have some information in front of you regarding um the shoreline master program. Uh there's an amendment that's being proposed in order to incorporate a parcel into Edgewater Park. There will be some conversation about the city's uh um ADA transition plan, American with Disabilities Act transition plan for uh sidewalks and other areas of the city will be in front of you. And I believe there's one other topic that escapes me. And then as we get into April, we'll be starting the process of our 2026 comprehensive plan amendment package.

Anything else? Nope, that's it. All right. Well, if you're watching on Zoom or YouTube, have a great week. I will remind you all that time changes this coming weekend and the longer days are coming. Council uh Commissioner Estrada, I want to welcome our new commissioner. Oh, yes. Please. And u and work hard. Thank you. Yes, apologies. Thank you for joining the team. We missed you last week and I was all mentally prepared at our last meeting to do that. But welcome. It's wonderful to have you joining us on the deis and we look forward to many discussions in the future. Right, that being said, the