Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening, everybody. I'm going to call the July 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Lacey Planning Commission to order. We do have a quorum here. Currently, we have two members absent, Judy and Spencer. And I am going to ask Robert, please, to read the land acknowledgement, of course.

We, the city of Lacey, are on the ancestral land of the tribal people of the Treaty of Medicine Creek, including the Nisqually Indian Tribe and Squaxin Island Tribe. We acknowledge and remember those tribal people not recognized today who were absorbed or relocated into their tribes for survival. We recognize the ancestors and their descendants who are still here. We recognize and respect the tribal people and their descendants who are still here. We recognize and respect the tribal people of the Medicine Creek as the traditional stewards of this land since time in memoriam and their role today in taking care of these lands in perpetuity. We recognize and have the responsibility to call attention to the histories of disposition, forced removal, and abridged treaty rights that allowed our nation, state, and city to develop as they have today. We recommend that community members read the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854.

Thank you. And I want to remind members of the public, we absolutely do take that to heart. It's not just something we read, I wrote. So please acknowledge that. I'm looking for a motion second on approval of tonight's agenda.

So moved.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Okay. And then Aaron second. Any opposed? All right. And then the June 10th minutes.

I motion to approve the June 10th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Second. And that was Alan. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve the June 10th minutes. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Awesome. Okay, now I'm going to open it up for public comment with a brief little respite here. So members of Terragon here, you will get one opportunity for a three-minute comment. I'm going to give you the opportunity to defer your three minutes. to when we bring your subject up on the agenda, or you may use your time now. So which would you prefer? Okay, thank you. Okay, so first up is Shaylee Marzolf.

Second.

Okay, you're allowed to talk.

Hi, there, I'm Shaylee Mars off a long time resident. I'm in here today to make comment about the tree ordinance amendment. I noticed that on the docket is to propose moving back to allowing 5 trees to be cut in a 5 year period rather than 3, which I think is great. I think that solves a lot of problems, but I also wanted to call attention to the exemption section where. I think we need to have some provisions in there for large trees that cause property damage and are known to cause property damage. Homeowners should have the latitude to be able to remove trees that are known to drop limbs on their homes, have been determined by arborists to have neighbors in their own homes be targets of those trees. Homeowners that have to deal with septic issues, foundation issues. even their private sidewalks they should all have the latitude to be able to remove trees based on those factors regardless of the standard five and in in five years i i think i think a provision needs to be done for that um because there are a lot of lots in lacey even small city lots that have more than five fur trees uh in their little tiny backyards so even getting rid of five isn't going to be enough So that's something that I think should be considered when we're going to rewrite stuff like this, is to give some property owners some latitude to keep themselves safe, keep their neighbors safe, and they should have a right to do that. The city's allowed to remove trees based on breaking up sidewalks, and they can remove 300 of them. They just did that. Property owners should have those same rights. They should be able to control their safety in their own city lot. So that's all I got to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let's go to Jennifer Bain. And I should have said this before Shaley spoke. Three minutes. Nothing offensive. And speak to the subject at hand, please.

I'm actually here in person. I signed up online. Oh, there you are.

That's awesome. It's good to see you.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. i'm actually neighbors with shaley we've been to a couple of meetings about this. And it's our house and the trees that are dropping limbs on our neighbors homes, so I appreciate very, very much that the ordinance has been updated to include five trees. And I want to just second what Shaley said is I, my hope is that homeowners have the latitude also maybe some consideration written in there for case by case basis. However, that's a, you know, carried out with through the city so that you can kind of see and come out, even if someone came out to inspect the property. And although the arborist that came to our house said, well, your trees are healthy, they may be healthy, but they're leaning and they're dangerous. And they were proven dangerous just based on the, you know, the homeowner's insurance that poor Shaley has had to deal with. And our neighbors have had to deal with having limbs drop in their yard, on their fences, on their rooftops. So I would like you to consider what Shaley said and what our, what we are asking, just for additional consideration that goes beyond just the five trees, because I do plan on taking out the two additional trees that are leaning over my house just so that they don't drop limbs on my roof. But there are two additional trees in our yard that are really, really large that I've had pruned to death, but I've already had them dropped even after the pruning, 12 foot limb in my backyard, just because it's up so high and the wind blew really hard. So something to write in a case by case basis, something in there to just kind of have some measure in there that allows for something like that. I would really appreciate it. That could be added or considered. Thank you.

And thank you for taking the time to come in person. Thank you. Is there anybody else in person like to make a public comment? Certainly, I didn't sign up.

I did not sign up at all. That's okay. Three minutes. Three minutes. Nothing offensive. My name is David Radebeau. I live on 40th Court, northeast Lacey.

And although I'm not speaking in this role, I am president of H-O-A.

We have a couple of open space tracks with lots and lots and lots of trees. We actually... square feet. And some are, there'll be a problem at some point. I don't know when. I hope it's not soon because we don't have the money right now to cut it down anyway. But in the future, because of some open space tracking, HOA, we'd be required to replace trees at a ratio depending on the size of the tree that we're removing. Um, we have five Scots pines, which have taken some damage from these birds, split insects. Um, I'll be having regular reviews of that for at what point they become a hazard, because if they become a hazard and a storm wind blows them down, they're closing the road. Um, they're that big. And, um, so we, when we get to the point where we have hazard issue that we have to address, We have to be able to have a way to address it. The mitigation pathway, if I have to take down all five scotch pines at that time, at one time, given the current ratios for open space tracks, and I believe it's section 71 of the tree, 071 of the tree ordinance, would require 15 mitigation trees, and we simply do not have room for that. There's no way. A while back, I asked staff, what would it cost? What are the mitigation costs? didn't know so uh we're walking into a jam here at some point i hope it's long in the future after i'm not president um nonetheless it's something that we need to address and we need to um the code needs to address that at some point um that's also we do need tree preservation do need to look at a broader view at having a good tree canopy in the city that is important that is good but uh We also need a way to address safety issues. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'm just going to say from experience, president of HOA is a lifetime job. I'm grooving to other people. All right. Thank you. Thank you, members of the public, for your comments. We appreciate it. That is the end of public comment. Any commissioner members' reports?

Just if you didn't notice, the city is starting a new project called Coffee with Council. So on Thursday at Cotter Point at 7.30 in the morning, you can meet at least two of the city council members and kind of get caught up on what's going on. So for members of the public or commissioners that don't get the chance to go to the city council meetings, you have an opportunity to potentially meet with them. And then there's always a Lacey Night Market. The next one is this Friday.

department report a couple things tonight um the first I'll mention is that last night the city council adopted an ordinance to um adopt the amendments that came through the planning commission uh related to several topics which have hit your hit your desk lately uh being um the middle housing amendments the accessory dwelling unit amendments amendments to the parking code conversion of existing buildings, daycare amendments, all of those required updates that we've been taking through Planning Commission as a result of amendments and Thanks to state law to address the bills that have been passing related to those topics. So, again, thanks to the Planning Commission for all your hard work on that. And thanks to the staff. Hans and Jennifer did a great job last night teeing up the item with very little question from the council. So that passed with little issue, which was great to see. And then the 2nd item I have is just wanted to make everybody aware on planning commission that Aaron Skelly who was kind of the clerk of the planning commission in combination with Catherine is no longer working for the city. She's taken another position elsewhere. So, for all of your communications, please make sure that you, you. loop in Catherine like you have with Aaron in the past, as Catherine will now be the clerk of the planning commission until we are able to fill that position. Aaron's vacancy and apologies for the packet coming a little late this month. We wanted to start off Catherine easy. So we said, how about 496 pages in your first packet? So there was a little bit logistical issues and getting that out on time. But I appreciate, Catherine, all your work on those things. But like I said, if there are things that are going to be gone, let either myself or Catherine know, and we'll make sure to communicate that to the rest of the team. So with that, that's the end of the report.

Thank you. So Catherine, just please send all the members of the commission a quick email, just so your email is in our radar. do that send out the thing and i've emailed it to the wrong thing so my bad you could even get that all right at this point i'm going to close the regular meeting in a public hearing we are going to be hearing about the stormwater strategic plan and royce

Thank you all for being here today. My name is Rae Shung. I'm the stormwater permit planner. I'm going to go over a quick overview of what the strategic plan is and what it all incorporates for this. We are updating our 2020 stormwater comprehensive plan to be the 2026 stormwater strategic plan. We, the stormwater section of the water resources, part of the public works department and Hervera consultants updated the plan. This plan guides out by shift. Click that. This plan guides, it's a plan that guides our stormwater utilities, our stormwater utilities programs, projects, and activities. It ensures compliance with our stormwater permit from the state. It addresses water quality and flooding issues, and it provides some transparency to the public. It started with our stormwater utility, which was established in 1985. for 50 plus inches of rain per year. It addresses two issues with that amount of rain, which is water quality to protect our surface waters and our groundwaters, and then water quantity, which helps prevent flooding and erosion. With this utility, we have several activities that we provide to the community. The main one is our design, construct, and maintain the stormwater infrastructure. And we have over 7,000 storm drains, 150 miles of storm pipe, 50 stormwater facilities, and many numerous dry wells, infiltration trenches, and outfalls. Other activities along with that as public involvement, which is education, events, stewardships, activities. We have street sweeping, spill response and cleanup, flood abatement. We regulate construction sites for development and redevelopment. We inspect private stormwater facilities. We map the stormwater system, both the public and the private, and we offer pollution prevention assistance to businesses. In 2007, we got our first stormwater permit from the Department of Ecology. It's the Western Washington Phase II stormwater permit, Minnesota stormwater permit. It applies to 90 cities and five Western Washington counties. It authorizes discharges from our stormwater system into surface waters and it is a programmatic approach to water pollution and water quality protection. We are now in the 2024-2029 permit and we have a bunch of different, a bunch of new requirements, which they do every permit cycle, they add new requirements. This permit requires us to have a stormwater management program, and it kind of manages the overall stormwater requirements of the permit. Its intent is to reduce the discharge and pollutants from our stormwater system. It has nine specific components, and each one of those components has activities that have specific deadlines that we have to meet. Those nine components consist of stormwater planning, public education and outreach, public involvement and participation, our stormwater mapping and documentation, illicit discharge detection and elimination, controlling runoff from development and redevelopment construction projects, stormwater management of existing development areas, source control of existing development and operations and maintenance. But we also have a few other requirements, which are our total maximum daily loads, our TMDLs. We are part of three, Deschutes River, Henderson Inlet, and Budd Inlet. We also have to pay for monitoring and assessments. It's a combined fund where all the municipalities, most of them, I would say, pay into this, and they all provide projects for new projects. stormwater quality, water quality and treatments. And then we also have to do annual reporting, which is due by March 31st of every year. This year's permit requirements, the new ones, incorporate our water quality retrofits, our 6PBD quinone, PFAS and firefighting foam, PCBs and building materials, enhanced source control, more mapping, controlling runoff on smaller sites, environmental justice in overburdened communities, and then tree canopy goals and policies. The plan itself has quite a few elements. It's got the background information, which is the purpose, the long-term goals, what we're currently doing, And our accomplishments land use soils surface water drainage systems and that and then it evaluates our stormwater program management program and all the activities in our. And the activities that we do, and then it provides more activity recommendations to be in compliance with our permit along with staffing. We also identify capital improvement projects that are either problem areas or those stormwater retrofits that are the permit requirement. Then we prioritize those and have cost estimates, and then we have an implementation schedule. It also has a bunch of supporting documents in the appendices, our gap analysis, each capital improvement project information, So it's a sheet that tells you what it is and how much it will cost. And then the stormwater financial analysis that will say, how much do we need to increase the rates in order to do all of the things that are required of us? It helps us to plan ahead. by looking at the long-term goals and our land use trends, our evolving regulations, the climate resiliency, the climate change personnel and resources, and our capital projects. This year, our plan is our 2026 through 2035 plan. And we looked at what we had for current staff, which is, you can see there for water resources, there's seven FTEs, that includes our manager. And then for operations maintenance, it includes the street sweepers as well. There's seven and a half and their manager at a half FTE. It has recommended that between 2026 and 2035, We hired two and a half more staff for water resources and three and a half more staff for operations. We also, to be in compliance with this plan and all the regulations and the city's long-term goals, that we have a few additional activities than what we're doing now, which would be overburdened communities, pet waste stations, overburdened community outreach. We're going to eventually need a new vector truck. The fall sweeper rental for neighborhoods. We do a really good job on our main thoroughfares, but some of the neighborhoods need some help and attention with the street trees. Ditch and culvert maintenance. So that's cleaning out our ditches and our culverts. catch basin grout repair program. That's so that we don't have failure of the inside of those catch basins. And then the stormwater conveyance condition assessment, rehabilitation and replacement. So it's basically assessing all of the lines to make sure that they still have life in them. And then if they don't, making sure we can get it on the calendar to get those either rehabilitated or replaced. Then we have our capital improvement projects. Those projects come from previous plans or those water quality retrofits that's a permit requirement, or we're going to improve or restore some of the facilities we have that are failing. addressing current flooding issues that residents have pointed out to us in their neighborhoods. It includes summary sheets with cost estimates, and right at the moment for the 2026-2035 planning period, it's about $36 million. We have a few projects that we completed recently. The last projects we did in stormwater were from 2023. And one of them was the Westminster pond, which is in the north side of the city. It was to add a pretreatment device to remove the sediment so it didn't put a ton of sediment in that pond and we didn't have to keep digging that out. And then we replaced the oil water separator if I'm not mistaken, with the same kind of treatment device. Is that correct?

We changed the treatment a little bit. There wasn't a lot of oil in that stormwater, but we did replace a trouble-prone oil-water separator with a new treatment device.

So the stormwater utility is what funds all of our program's activities and projects. It is a self-supporting Service fee, which is found on the utility bill. You can see it highlighted there on the right hand side. It does not come from general fund tax dollars. And then the rate study was done by the FCS group that used our current utility revenues, expenditures, operating revenues and levels of service. At this time, the stormwater rates for the city of Lacey are kind of smack dab in the middle of other local municipalities. I can't really see it there, but the graph shows Tomwater, Shelton, Olympia, and Puyallup all higher than us, while Centralia, Lakewood, and Yelm are all lower than us. That's for our current 2026 rates. With the two recommended scenarios that are in there, one includes grant funding with some of those capital improvement projects. In other words, we could get funds to help pay for those from the state. And one includes no grant funding where we don't get any funding, but we still have to fund those projects anyways.

Can I assume the gold bar is our current rate?

Yes. So I was getting there. I was about to do that next. So the current rate, the darker bar, the 15.46 is what you're currently paying on your stormwater utility bill now. The two rate increases would make it either 16.92 or 17.16 dollars. As you can see, those are both still lower rates. then Tumwater, Shelton, Olympia, and Puyallup right now. So that increase, if approved by council, would go into effect next year. And we'd still be lower than them. And those communities will probably all raise their rates as well. So we will continue to be right in the middle of the bar with either option of those scenarios. And then, of course, for public education and outreach, we've done postings on online platforms, Jolt articles, the Facebook page. You can see a metric from the Facebook page from one of our posts right there on the right-hand side. We got quite a bit of good engagement throughout the time. We've got Lacey Life and Stream Team. We did a stormwater survey. We had the stormwater story map. We had an open house workshop, and we've been here twice before to give presentations. briefings to the Planning Commission. So we're here tonight for the public hearing, and then we have a council work session on July 28th. It has been asked that we split that work session in two. So the first work session will be briefing the council on the plan itself, and then we will have another more in-depth work session with the council just on the rates themselves later in August. And then hopefully we'll get that all approved and be able to adopt with the citywide comprehensive plan amendments that you'll hear about tonight.

Thank you. First of all, that was an impressive presentation of a PowerPoint. You didn't read every slide word for word. And you added enough information around them. It was very understandable. So thank you. You're so very welcome.

Can I just add a couple of things? First of all, the staff's recommendation tonight is obviously to take any public testimony that you receive. consider it but our recommendation is to make a recommendation of approval to the city council on this plan tonight the other is you heard from royce about the rates and it's important to keep in mind that you know while we need to make sure that the plan is financially feasible and implementable and doing that we need to make sure that we're charging the appropriate amounts in our utility bills it's not necessarily the purview of the planning commission to weigh in on those rates Uh, that is the, uh, purview of the city council. So, um, if you do have any comments on that, we'd be happy to pass those along, but it's not necessarily what is in front of you tonight. We want to consider the recommendations of the plan and make sure those things are, like I said, financially viable, but not necessarily weighing in on on the specifically on the rates. Yeah.

And to add to that process here would be, we, we should not consider the rates that is up to the purview of the council. If they're not happy with what we send forward, then it's up to them to send it back to us for reconsideration. So keep that in mind. So with that, I'm going to ask, do any of the members of the public have a comment for this hearing?

It looks like none. Do you have an attendee in the audience? If you do have a comment on this for the public hearing, you can go ahead and use the raise hand function, and we'll go ahead and bring you in. Seeing none, and it doesn't look like we have anybody in the room, so I think it'd be safe to go ahead and close the public hearing.

Yeah, so at this point, I'm going to close the public hearing. I'm going to reopen the regular meeting, and this is where members of the commission get to discuss and ask questions. At the end of this, what we're looking for is a recommendation to the City Council to either adopt this or to not adopt this. So I'm going to start on the line. Jennifer?

Hi. No, I have no questions at the moment. Thanks. Okay. Kieran?

No questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Robert? Oh, no, just appreciate this and the thoroughness of your presentation. It sounds like you are able to achieve meeting our standards, but and also kind of keep us right in line where we're at. So I appreciate the thoughtfulness. No questions.

Aaron? Yeah, no questions. But yeah, similar to Robert. Yeah, thorough plan. But I'd say that we're hitting everything we need to be hitting and we'll keep moving forward on getting everything up to date and function. So yeah, thank you for all your work.

Again, I want to reiterate what everybody else is saying. Thank you for the presentation. And I have no questions at this time.

Thank you. Tonya?

I don't have any questions, but I agree with everybody. It was a wonderful presentation.

Thank you. It was. It was wonderful. The most refreshing PowerPoint presentations I've ever seen. Thank you all very much. So I want to thank you all for your hard work, you know, keeping, as the city grows, and I'm going to date myself here, but I moved to the city when it was 6,600 people. And it's hard to keep our head above water, keep our thoughts in line for our citizens. And it's Density changes, environmental conditions change, requirements change. I just appreciate the work you do. So thank you. So I would be looking for a motion on a recommendation to the city council.

I motion to recommend the stormwater strategic plan to the city council as written.

Second.

Tonya second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to move this forward to City Council with the recommendation to pass. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now we're going to talk about urban forest management.

I feel like I'm batting eighth after that presentation.

You've been there. All you have to do is get on base, all right? Get on base.

I'll hit it right down the third line. Yes, so my name is Lindsay Fields. I'm the climate sustainability coordinator and community economic development. I haven't seen planning commission for a while so it's great to see the new folks I haven't seen yet and then see everyone I have seen before. Tonight we're going to be briefly talking about the urban forestry management plan update. It is due for an update this year. It is typically updated every five years, I think. Before 2021, it might have been a few more years than five. But it was also a goal and a policy in our comprehensive plan to update the urban forestry management plan. every five years starting in 2026. So this is where we're at. We are reviewing RFQs right now for consultant. So we, again, are very early stages, but we have some information to share and one minor detail. There we go. So background again. So in 1985, and I had to do my research on this one. Didn't realize that we very, very first plan we had was a city of Lacey beautification project, which sort of laid out how we were going to deal with vegetation and trees and landscapes that evolved with some regulations in the 90s. Eventually getting our first urban forestry plan update roughly 20 or 2004. And then after that, another update in 2013, I want to say, and then 2021, starting in 2020, that would have been with a tree task force that we had going and a new tree canopy assessment. I think at the time in 2013, we also got a street tree inventory done then and a private street tree inventory. So Had some work done doing that part, and this this update will look a little bit different stuff been having conversation around what our future looks like. Since we are one of the the fastest growing city and thurston county we have some I think some rethinking to do about urban force right. So there's new regulations for climate resilience, which includes like defensible space, the wildlife urban interface mapping, and then also some climate resilience goals and greenhouse gas emission goals for the comp plan. So some current goals. So we had 29% with almost a 30% canopy coverage with the greenhouse gas emission goals. UGA and the city limits, about 28% canopy cover. One of the goals with Justin City Limits, I think, was no net loss. Although we have developed significantly since then. And I would say we're nearing sort of that end period for greenfield development in the city of Lacey. Like we really have developed out quite a bit. So again, looking to different goals and policies with this update. We also am working closely with the stormwater team because they have a permit update coming up that includes some canopy goals for city-owned property. So we have... We have... worked with this company called NearMap. They did a new canopy assessment for us. They did a flyover this summer. So when we have the most leaf on, we wanted to get the biggest canopy coverage we could. And then that is currently getting assessed right now. We haven't gotten any numbers yet. So just got that flyover done and working with them to get our mapping software updated for our canopy. One of the big things is, I'm sure we will continue to hear about emerald ash borer, which will affect a lot of private trees, as you'll see. I was actually pretty shocked that ash trees make up about 35% of private trees on properties. So again, just more things that we need to plan for in the future. And if you weren't aware, emerald ash borer sort of gets worse as our climate gets warmer as well. So again, one of those climate change, climate resilience things we'll have to plan for. Yep, we opted, we adopted a comprehensive plan, I think, literally like December 24 or third of last year it was it was pretty late in the year but we got it in time. It included three new elements a housing element, a climate element which had two sub elements the climate resilience sub element and then the greenhouse gas emissions reduction sub element. And we have goals and policies in the housing element and the two climate elements that speak to street trees, the urban forest itself, and our goals and policies that we need to work into that plan. One of the other things is you'll be hearing about tree amendments and just some like updates. The big thing conversation I've been hearing a lot about is, again, defensible space and how we might need to accommodate that in the future with the increase of heat, increase of smoke. You know, the city of Lacey, one of our things we found with our vulnerability and risk assessment was that heat extremes and wildfire are top priority. sort of two hazards for climate change as we move into the future. So be a lot of conversations around that, this plan too, I think. So we will be convening a community advisory group for this update as well. We haven't, a lot of buttons on this. I didn't mess it up too bad though. So last time we had a tree task force with a lot of community members, members from the building community, from the residential HOAs. We'll be doing that again. And, you know, adding, I think we've talked maybe about TCD, having some more folks, maybe a youth voice on there, if we can get someone there. in school right now and not that I think the council ended early summer. So we might have some new youth council, but we will be putting this group together again. The community group will be most likely starting in October. I think that's probably the earliest we can get everyone together, have about six monthly meetings that'll go during the day. So timeframes will most likely be on Thursdays because that's typically a day we don't have commissions or councils. And then so avoiding those Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Mondays, because I don't think anyone wants to meet on a Monday. Could be wrong about that. Most likely times two to four, three to five or like four to six p.m. So during the day, maybe getting into a little bit of after work hours. Well, most likely meet in person, although there'll probably be a option to attend in person as well. Again, they'll be providing input into goals, policies, looking at our canopy assessments, hearing concerns that they have about trees, about urban forests in the city of Lacey, and sort of wrapping that up to make recommendations for you and for city council in conjunction with our consultants. So they'll be presenting their findings and things like that. a really brief timeline. So convene staff team, we're doing that right now, we're working on that. Convene the community group hopefully in September, get invites out, get folks to say yes, start in October. Those meetings sort of ending in February, March. We'll finalize our canopy assessment by the end of September. So that can just go right into the consultant work. And then hopefully the goal is to have a consultant finalized by the end of August as well. So fall will really be hitting the ground running, getting this update completed and done. And then adoption by spring of 2027. We do have climate planning dollars for this work. So we have $100,000 in climate planning funding. And that ends in June of 27. So we have some time to get that done. And questions, comments, or concerns. And I will say the last thing that we're sort of looking for is we will need or hope to have someone from planning commission to sit on that work group. So if there's...

So before we get to questions, I do want to bring that up. So I would like one of us to volunteer to be the liaison, planning commission liaison with this group. It's similar to what we did with the parks thing a couple years ago. So it would be really good to have somebody there with eyes on that can come back to the commission and report on progress before we get the final Somebody raise their hand. There we go. Kirian, thank you.

sorry i have to pull teeth on that well so yeah so as jeff mentioned you know we would really like somebody to be the liaison between this group and the planning commission and be able to provide you know kind of back to the planning commission information on what the the committee is developing and those kinds of things so i think that would be really important that to have this position filled the one thing and i appreciate carrying you raising your hand i'm just remembering that um as of december the end of december you will no longer be a planning commissioner you will be termed And so I'm wondering if, and thank you for raising your hand, I'm wondering if potentially you might want to like start and then once you're done with the planning commission, we may be able to transition to another member. Maybe get your thoughts on that.

I'm happy to support in any way that that I can. And I was asking, also curious about the meeting times to ensure and I don't know if that's something we can discuss maybe later after the meeting and emails.

Yes, we don't have specific times. Now, those are sort of the options for Thursday, anywhere from starting time at two to anytime at six. So We can definitely discuss times.

Thank you, Curious. We're not ready to throw you away yet. All right. So for questions, I'm going to start with Tanya.

Thank you for the presentation.

Ellen? So for the, maybe I can back her up. As long as it's Thursdays early on in the afternoon between two and four, I'd probably do it. uh, as well. So I can back her up as well. So.

Awesome. Thank you. Great.

Aaron. Uh, I mean, no questions right now. I assume you have part of the, um, this community group, like you'll be looking for like folks, like low income, vulnerable communities and then, uh, to address that more. Okay.

Great. Absolutely. And we'll be, um, adding some community groups as well to the group. So, um, folks who are sort of doing like TCAT or restoring earth connections who have like community pulse sort of and do the work at a smaller community level.

Great. Thank you. Robert? Nothing to add. Thank you. Kieran?

Yeah, I really appreciate the work that's gone into this. And with my school community and with students, we're actively getting plants. The Nisqually Tribe has been very generous about donating baby trees at the Student Green Congress and Billy Frank Day celebration. It's a high school celebration. I believe we have Arbor Day where kids are given baby trees as well. And I was curious if there is a guide for children. I've had some kids say, oh, you know, I can't accept a tree because I live in an apartment. And I didn't know if a guide could be added to this or created to help children know where exactly is appropriate to maybe plant trees where we're trying to encourage afforestation. And is that something that we have been looking into?

We could definitely build in a goal or policy that talks about education, specifically youth education and building out more resources. Yeah, just to understand, you know, what the difference is between an urban forest versus, you know, old growth or even just like, you know, forest land. So, you know, that's actively logging. We can definitely build that into some sort of education. goal or policy within the plan. The other thing is I have talked to Stephanie Bishop at Thurston Conservation District who does South Sound Green and they're actively looking for pilot programs for community tree monitoring programs. Tacoma does one. So that's something else we might want to build into a plan as well. So taking on that and those sort of programs.

Thank you. Jennifer.

Yeah, great presentation. I'd love to see how important it is to your team that you involve the community for decision making. No questions for me. Thanks.

So again, refreshingly, you did not just read your PowerPoint. I appreciate that.

I'm at least batting clean up.

No, you made it on base.

Excellent.

All right. Thank you all.

Thank you, Lindsay. I'll be back for Urban Forestry. Thank you.

Okay, now we're moving on to tree regulation.

Good evening all. Take a second here to get my PowerPoint launched.

Those were my neighbors. Yeah, I had no idea they were coming. And so I know exactly what they're talking about.

Fancy seeing you here.

No, they're across the street. Basically, they took ownership of the house after renting it for a long time. And the previous owner.

All right, you ready? Yeah, go ahead.

Okay, so my name is Shepard for the record. I'm a language planner here at the City of Lacey. The topics that I'm going to cover as part of this presentation partially dovetail into what Lindsay actually was just presenting on. Council has asked us to take a targeted look at a few tree code specific topics that they've been hearing about. in recognition of the fact that we will also be probably digging back into a lot of tree related topics as a part of the urban forestry update. And then also the likely outcome of that following that. So this is a few topics early on that Council wanted to have us take a look at. So in the recognition of that some of these may grow into larger areas of review as well as part of upcoming projects that Lindsay was presenting on But with that in mind, the topics that we're taking a look at this evening have to do with the residential lot tree retention standards, and also as a kind of add on to that, unpermitted clearing and mitigation enforcement. That's something that our code enforcement has been encountering somewhat in tandem with some of the feedback that we've been receiving as part of the residential lot tree retention requirements. So taking a look at both of those in tandem, we're also taking a look at tree track requirements within our commercial areas as part of this review, specifically the woodland district and our general commercial district. And then we're also taking a look at one definition for our class five code at the state level, so we wanted to remedy that. But with that, I'll jump right into that first topic here. So as has also been presented this evening, and I imagine you guys are relatively aware of, council has been receiving a large number of community feedback on pre-retention, specifically as it relates to residential lots. They've asked us to take a look at some potential avenues to respond to that. One proposal, so currently as things stand right now, the regulation is you're allowed to remove three trees within a five-year period on your residential lot. And again, this is specific to residential lots that we're talking about here. Historically before that, I believe, and Ryan, correct me if I'm wrong, it was five trees in a three-year period. And this was in 2022 that this was actually changed from the five trees in a three-year period to the three trees in a five-year period. Our middle ground option of the moment is five trees in a five-year period, which the hope is that it might take some steps as far as addressing some of the current concerns that have been raised in recognition that there are probably additional steps that we can also take in the future. That is one of the proposed changes that is reflected in your packet that you can see this evening as part of this presentation. The other item related to this that came up specifically with our current planning and code enforcement that they've been running into is that there's not a whole lot of recourse as far as within their code, as far as being able to respond to different situations as they come up. It's pretty rigid as far as the process that we're allowed to follow in response to unpermitted clearing. And both our current planning and code enforcement have asked for some additional flexibility in that area to have more of a nuanced response to different situations as they come up instead of just kind of to apply unilaterally to all situations so there is some additional language in the draft code amendments that would actually give our current planning a little bit more opportunity and then also our code enforcement some more flexibility as far as uh some more pathways to respond to that instead of just kind of the current one that we're operating under right now is just kind of more of a fee uh result or outcome based on the number of trees that were removed. So that language is also in there and you can take a look at that. Moving into the tree tract requirements within our commercial zones. So actually looking at our current forestry management plan, it calls out a lot of our older historic commercial areas as being developed long in advance of our current tree regulations that we have in place today. As a result of that, a lot of our now relatively fully developed commercial areas are having to reconcile new tree regulations with their built out kind of environment that they live in. So our urban forestry management plan recognizes that challenge that's going on there. And it references it as being relatively counter our goals for urban kind of densification and creating that urban center and core that we're looking for in certain parts of the community. So one of the proposals as part of this is to remove the tree tract requirement from both of our woodland district and our general commercial districts. And as a point of clarity, this wouldn't be changing the number of trees that are required on both those sites. It would just be changing the requirement of having all of those trees located in a specific tree tract. So it gives more design flexibility on a site across the site, gives larger commercial developments a little bit more flexibility in how they arrange and accomplish that tree requirement that they're required to hit. So that's another proposal there. And then the last one that I referenced at the beginning of this presentation is our class five forest practices definitions. And right now we are missing language that states 5,000 feet of board or sorry, Let me read this again. 5,000 feet or more of board feet are removed from a site. That is language that exists at the state level, but we didn't carry it forward into our local LMC's. So while it is just a clarification, our current planning staff has asked for us to better mirror that state level definition to eliminate some confusion that they're navigating. But with that, those are the areas that council has asked us to take a look at now in advance of the work that Lindsay is going to be doing just because of their pressing nature. So looking forward, or actually include some next steps here, as far as tonight, this is really a review of the material that we're planning on considering. You guys all have those draft amendments in your packets for your additional review. Currently, we have a public hearing scheduled for August 26th. or we'll have the opportunity to hear from the public on the proposed changes as currently drafted. And then following that, you guys will have an additional opportunity to review public feedback, what's currently drafted, and provide additional direction to staff and council at that time.

So what we're looking for tonight is just if you have any questions for Hans, if you have any thoughts that he can carry forward, refine what they're proposing. There is no recommendation required tonight. So I'll start with Robert.

Sure. I appreciate the middle ground of five and five. I do understand that there are some exceptions, right? So I think like when we do a housing development, with land use application right like that's how we kind of clear out like bradley park as an example of right there was a lot of old forest and then because we were adding residentials i am curious if there's just a way to maybe offset because there are some areas including the public comment which is in in my neighborhood i didn't realize my neighbors were here for public comment where we live in enterprise in the 1974 subdivision on all like kind of two-tenths of an acre. And a lot of the trees are the same age because they're all planted at the same time. And so in this individual case, they're kind of coming into ownership and trying to mitigate many, many trees. So I don't know if there's a different path that we could look into, like offsetting, right? Like the idea of like, hey, we take down a tree, but we're planting a new tree. I know it's not going to provide the same tree coverage today but it is potentially a path of like we do care we do want long-term growth there are some things to consider so i appreciate the five to five i'd also just be interested to see if there was any sort of alternative path uh for private individuals who care about you know the the canopy um but also care about their neighbors not having limbs drop on them um

I'll maybe respond to the first thing you brought up, Robert, which is, so it's five trees in a five-year period is the proposal, but there is still the requirement to retain a certain number of trees per the square footage of the plot. And the ratio there is four trees per 5,000 square feet. So just round numbers, because it's easy to think of. If you have a 5000 square foot lot, you're required to have four trees on it. So if you came to our counter and you had four trees on your lot and you wanted to remove one, you're able to do that five trees in a five year period. So we would give you a permit over the counter. The permit card would say that you're required to replant one tree on that lot. So with the removal of the trees, there's still the requirement that you maintain that standard of four trees per 5,000 square feet. I think as part of the update to the urban forest management plan, one of the things that we want to look at is that ratio of four trees per 5,000 square feet. still an appropriate ratio. What does that look like on a lot over time? Is that too many trees? Is that too few? And so that's some of the analysis we'll be doing through our future update to our urban forest management plan. Getting to your kind of second comment, which was also raised during the public comment, is there the ability to be able to kind of have some kind of staff or director discretion in terms of something that maybe doesn't hit the level of an exemption or you know something that's determined as dead diseased or hazardous that you know is exempt that's something that's done through an assessment done by our city arborist I think it's something that we'll look into and as we develop the code language for the final the public hearing version we'll see if there's some ability to be able to put in some language related to that I've heard from you or from public comment that that seems to be something that you know it makes sense in a lot of our Other similar code sections, we've got some staff discretion, some director discretion to be able to do those kinds of things in similar circumstances. So we'll look into that and see if that's something maybe we can add some language on as well.

Yeah, and before we get to Aaron, I want to make a comment, personal experience here. So the first few years we lived in our house, we live over by the fairgrounds in a development that was put on a former commercial tree farm. So those trees, I mean, they were well managed, but, you know, they're mature now and they're close together. And over the first few years, my wife and I had added five trees to our property, third of an acre lot. In addition to what was already there, we didn't cut anything down. And we had a letter from the neighbor one day. It was a personal confrontation. I'm sorry, they made my life hell. But we got a letter from our neighbor, hey, that tree is bothering me. I'm afraid it's going to fall in my house. And it, at the time, was the tallest tree in the neighborhood. It was well over 100 feet. And so I had an arborist come out. The tree was perfectly healthy. It was a fir. And then I contacted my insurance company, and they said, once you get that letter from your neighbor, you better take that tree down. And so I was basically forced to take the tree down. So I think that needs to be something that's a consideration in our plan, right? That shouldn't count against my five. And I don't have any problem taking out five trees and adding five, but there needs to be a consideration for those situations. And that goes back to the public comment. It goes back to Robert's comment. There needs to be a provision to cover those situations.

It's also just trees are, it's a, it is a, is a five foot tree. you know Japanese maple tree that I bought from Home Depot the same as a 70 year old fir tree that's in my backyard that's leaning over and right now like a tree is a tree right the way that we look at it which it feels I understand like right we don't want to wipe out all of these little trees but like right there are I don't know and maybe the exception is based on size maybe it's I don't know I don't know what it is but just I like the idea of having some level of discretion Because in this particular example, like, yeah, I'm seeing, you know, someone has 10, 70 foot, you know, fir trees in their backyard and they're all leaning like this, but they're all alive. That's a scary situation, right? Yes. Aaron?

Yeah, I mean, yeah, just I go in and yeah, living here definitely have the same same issues. And so, yeah, having that flexibility, the ability to make exemptions and exceptions for certain situations, I think, is very important. Yeah, especially. You know, thinking about, yeah, Jeff, your story about a letter, and I don't know what the city's liability is. Like, say, if someone's continuously coming to the city saying, I need this tree cut, I need this tree cut, and we don't do anything, and then it falls on their house, like, does that open up the city to something or something? And, you know, even if it doesn't, you know, it still creates that animosity of like, you know, well, I went to the city and they ignored me or like they just they wouldn't they wouldn't budge. So, yeah, just being able to make those exemptions and have that flexibility built in there somewhere to to allow that for safety and but while still meeting all our goals of being a tree. the coverage that we need to, uh, or yeah, climate resilience and everything else that we're trying to, that C is trying to achieve.

I, uh, pretty much, uh, the sentiments of the young lady probably caring. Um, I am one of those homeowners that have widow makers in my backyard. I thought it was a fluke the first time it actually was a lawn dart and it The only thing that, I'm glad there was nobody there, but it speared through not only my roof, into my bedroom, and it was stopped by a computer desk. And it didn't break anything else. It was a straight lawn dart. Insurance took care of that. Second time, it happened again. And then the third time was the last couple of years. Now it went through my skylight. And so I have a widow maker that's in my property. And then I have a widowmaker that's just right outside my greenbelt. Now, the trunk of the tree is against my fence line. Its roots are way under into my pond. The city did remove a diseased tree over by my front yard. And now I have a tree that is uprooting the sidewalk. The city did come out last year and it would just... He's like, wait another year. It'll meet the task condition standards of the city to further removal. So that's where I'm at. And again, I've lived there since 2010 and yeah, three times to tap it. And, you know, I think that now thinking that I'm making stuff up. So I don't know.

Thank you. Tonya? I was just curious why it went from five trees in three years to three trees in five years.

So, um, in the last time we updated urban force management plan in 2021, um, you know, we did a very similar process where we had a tree task force and they made some recommendations that went through the planning commission and then all the way to the council. And so we were hearing from the community at the time that it was really important to the community and the task force that said we want more flexibility in terms of being able to take more trees down on developed residential lots. Very similar to what you're hearing tonight. And so we came up with kind of two different options. One would be to allow more trees more on. you know, to be through that exemption. Um, so I, I, I think it was, it was at the time was five trees in a three year period. And then also, um, be able to remove more trees based on the size of the lot. So we equated bigger lots that had more trees, like, cause maybe, um, Three trees in a five-year period isn't enough when you've got a half-acre lot. And some of those lots do exist. Most of our lots are still small, relatively small, suburban, 5,000 square foot lots. But some of them, especially on the lakes and other places, are quite large. And so we came up with kind of a formula to be able to remove more trees based on the size of the lot. And at the time, we went to council, and council, the night that they were to adopt the ordinance to do that, they said, Ryan, we hear what you're saying, but we are actually going to make it more restrictive. And so the council, which is their prerogative as the final decision makers, considered all the information that was presented. And instead of making, our assumption was that night that they were going to make it more lenient in terms of removing trees, they actually made it more restrictive.

Okay.

And so here we are with some of our recommendations, which are now running full circle back around to being able to remove more trees on residential lots.

And I want to remind everybody on the commission and in the public, part of that sentiment on the council comes from every time a development proposal comes in front of them, the number one top comment from the public is trees. And so they're very, very sensitive to that because our citizens love our trees, understandably. Jennifer.

Yeah, so I had the same thought process that appeared in the group a few times, and Ryan pretty much answered it, saying that they will be looking at a verbiage for discretion, exceptions, flexibility. Yep, so same concerns. Don't need to repeat what's been said, but I appreciate the conversation at the table.

Thank you. Carrie, you got anything?

Yes, sir. I was just thinking about the tree density and about the different types of trees. And with four trees per 5,000 square feet, I'm thinking about my neighborhood where we have 1,000 square foot houses and a third of an acre lots. So that's 12 trees for that third of an acre or eight trees for like a quarter acre, which is amazing. But I don't know if there's a way to really define what a tree is if we're thinking about the infill with ADUs for properties like ours that have that room to build the ADUs to also accommodate 12 trees and possibly infill. It seems like it's a challenging math question to where those trees would go. And I was curious, are those situations where that tree credit would go that people could say like, well, I have this third of an acre, but I want to build an ADU and maybe the tree credits would go to other places in the city?

Yeah, so those are all really good questions, Kieran, that you bring up and things that we are going to be looking at through the broader update to our urban forest management plan. As you heard from Lindsay, we've got a new housing element and then now with the infill development regulations and those kinds of things that allow you know, up to two ADUs, potentially up to four units, maybe even six units per lot. How do you balance the need of, you know, the development there with the need to either retain or plant more trees? So we're going to be looking at those things, you know, in depth through the update to the urban forest management plan, because, you know, the four trees per 5,000 square It's been in our regulations now probably around 18 years. Lacey's a lot different today than it was 18 years ago in terms of the level of density and intensity on an individual lot. So yeah, we'll be looking at that. And then the tree credit issue is we do allow for some fee in lieu of opportunities through our permitting process. So for example, if potentially you want to remove trees or, or are required to plant more. There are some options to be able to basically pay into a city tree account. And then the city uses that money to, you know, put trees in parks or those kinds of city owned properties. So we're going to be also looking at how do we utilize that program right now there? We do have a balance in that fund. I'm not sure exactly what it is off the top of my head to be able to So we have some people that have paid into that. It's not a lot of money, but we'll see if that's maybe an opportunity if people maybe don't have the property to be able to plant more trees or would like to be removed more than what's allowed under our exemptions is to be able to pay into a fund potentially to support the city's tree account, I guess is what I would call it. And then-

I would like, I have a lot of respect for the city council, but I'd also like to point out after that, what was that storm that came through May? What did they call that? The microburst. The microburst.

There are still trees that were destroyed in that microburst that have not been replaced by the city. And it's very obvious.

Quick question from me. Is that fund still ongoing?

Correct, yeah. Not too many people know about it, including finance, but yes, we definitely have.

All right. Thank you, Hans. Yeah, and so really quickly, there was one general change that took a step to respond to some of these concerns. Just to circle back around to that in recognition of that there's definitely more steps to be had and things that we can look at. The five trees within a five-year period, how does that stand with the planning commission? Is that generally in favor of? Does that feel like a good step in the right direction?

I think what we're hearing here is we would like to see what you come back with, with the exceptions, before we can weigh in on that. Is that fair?

Yes, I agree.

Okay, cool. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Now we are on to a private comprehensive plan amendment rezone request. So this is a request that has come before us before. There's a property out in Hawks Prairie. This area was rezoned in 2020. And prior to this, actually, there was another company that came to the city council to have this very site rezoned from the neighborhood commercial to industrial. And the city council turned them down because they felt like the development, the way it's zoned now is the way city council wanted it to look. In 2020, it was cemented. This request came through as part of the, it was one of the 50 that were presented during our last comprehensive plan update. It was not one that made it through the planning commission as recommended to go forward. I would like to remind the commission that last year during our discussion of neighborhood commercial, that that was a very, very important element to our neighbors on keeping that neighborhood commercial. And the Planning Commission also came down on the side of that neighborhood commercial is very important. We have very, very few neighborhood commercial sites that are still undeveloped. There are four in this area. One of them has already been developed. Two are currently going under permitting for development. So neighborhood commercial is definitely something that is going on in this area. So before we have discussion, I would like to hear from a representative from the company that's here. So please, one of you, three minutes. Nothing offensive. Stick to the subject at hand. And state who you are and where you're from.

Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for coming today. My name is Diana Boshirova. I'm here on behalf of Tilden commercial development team in support of the proposed rezone from neighborhood commercial to high density residential. We are a regional developer with 25 years of experience in retail and housing development, including Tilden apartments here in Lacey. So the subject property has been actively marketed for commercial development for several years now. It has not attracted any viable prospective tenants. The site is located next to several established commercial centers that serve the surrounding community. Holcomb Baytown Center is one mile away. It offers 40,000 square foot of commercial space. Murillo Campus is located directly across the street. It's got neighborhood services, including a coffee shop. There is a median market of gas just a couple of blocks north that will add another commercial element to the Lamed corridor. And the conditions surrounding the subject property have significantly changed since the previous owner rezoned it in 2020. Building apartments immediately adjacent to the property was a success. It was completed in 2024. leased up quickly and last year it received a prestigious industry award night of the stars naob as the best garden style community in western washington and we think the proposed reason would allow a natural extension of this residential development to the subject site the rezone is consistent with the city of lacey comprehensive plan Lacey's affordable housing strategy recognizes that housing demand continues to outpace supply. This proposal would help to address that. The proposal is consistent with City of Lacey land use policies. It is an infill opportunity, the site already is serviced by roads, utilities, nearby services, and adding housing there would allow to use that infrastructure efficiently. Economic development and strategic plan that was referenced in the staff report provides a valuable citywide guidance and focuses on broader economic priorities. But we think it's also important to consider each individual parcel that is zoned commercial. And at this particular subject side, the commercial requirement is not supported by tenant demand. Maintaining this requirement would unlikely to result in a feasible project and most likely will leave the property undeveloped. That outcome probably doesn't benefit the community. We think this rezone request would allow a small undeveloped long vacant parcel that is currently there. Okay. to be transformed and benefit the community. And we would love an opportunity to meet with the planning commission again and talk about the concepts that we think would be successful at this site.

Thank you. So I'm going to let Ryan tee this up for us.

And we'll just promptly turn it over to Hans.

Please, please tee this up and give us the staff recommendations here.

Let me see if I grabbed the right. Yeah.

All right. There again.

Okay. Um, again, I'm shepherd city of Lacey. Long range planner. Here again. And Jeff covered actually a good number of the points that I was planning on running through. So some of this might also be echoed or some of this is echoed in your staff report as well. So this is kind of the PowerPoint presentation version as in the staff report. But just as some background and context so that you guys can get oriented, this site is located on the corner of Willamette Drive and 31st Ave Northeast. It's these two parcels here that are highlighted in pink. I know that's kind of small and hard to see. So I'm going to actually shrink the participants window. I don't know if we can get a little bit more size on the screen here. I don't know if that helped at all. OK.

We would drag down the captions.

That's as big as I get.

That's it. That's it.

It might be in the three dots on top with the white rectangle to the right. Over, over.

I don't think we want you to look at that.

I'm not sure. Content only.

OK. OK. It's better?

Well, it's slightly bigger. We'll get there. But yeah, so this is the subject site that the request is about. It's a bit of just site details, address. So the two parcels are 3202 and 3220 Willamette Drive, Northeast. Parcel numbers in total, it covers about 1.8 acres in site. So the site that's on the left side of the screen there is the larger site and that includes 1.4 acres and then the smaller site to the right is 0.4 acres approximately. Its current condition is undeveloped clear. As far as zoning designations, currently it has a neighborhood commercial district designation. I imagine a lot of you are relatively familiar with that with the updates that we went through on that and I will cover that in a little bit here but At a high level, permitted uses include horizontal and vertical mixed use, so a combination of residential and commercial uses. That said, there are provisions in that zoning designation that do require a commercial contingent or component of a site development, primarily focused around corners and high activity intersections. That said, the majority of that code transitions from more of what would be kind of our maybe consider traditional donning standards where you have a list of permitted uses to one of that's more form-based in nature. So it's a little bit more flexible as far as design and the types of uses that can go in there and their interaction between them. It comes with a maximum height of four floors when mixed use is implemented. And then up to a total of 55 maximum height when mixed use is implemented. So again, that's a combination of commercial and residential use. When it's just one use, either commercial or residential, it's a smaller footprint as far as buildings tying back into kind of more of that form-based style. So there is some nuance there depending on what's being proposed. And then moving over into the comprehensive plan future land use map, it has a designation of traditional mixed use. Transitional. Transitional mixed use. Thank you. Which promotes a mix of development styles and really the goal of is kind of occupy that transition zone between lower density styles of development and higher density styles of development. And it's also intended to provide some kind of activity nodes within areas of the community. The requested designation is for high density residential zoning. The primary permitted use within that designation is residential. Minimum density for high density residential is 12 units per acre. Maximum height is 50 feet. And then on the future land use side, the designation would be residential. And again, the primary use in that designation is residential. That encompasses things like our low density residential, our moderate density residential, and our high density residential. But the goal there is really to provide a range of residential uses in a general area working in some green spaces community gathering destinations and other kind of model uses as well. As far as the rezone process, there are two pathways for review that are spelled out within our code. So this is chapter 11. Rezone requests that are consistent with our comprehensive plan, future land use map, and then those that are not. So this request would require a comprehensive plan plan change as well as a zoning change. So the criteria for that situation when that comes about is listed here. There's really four main criterion that we would be evaluating a request based on. This is also in your packet, but those have to do with merit and value for the community, how it impacts adjacent uses, the conditions that may have changed since the last rezone, if there was a rezone that recently took place, and how those conditions may impact that site, either positively or negatively, just any changing conditions there that would reflect or promote a need for a change. And then the last one there is consistent with the comprehensive plan, while not necessarily the future land use map, still the goals and policies as identified by the community. and making sure that those are consistent both with the site, what's being proposed in the surrounding area. So holding true to those golden policy goals and policies, even if the designation changes. Those are the things that we're looking for in an application. And then, yeah, this is the part where Jeff touched on a bit. I think you actually went a little bit farther back than I was planning on as far as your history of the site. That said, I was planning on going back just to really just before 2020 when the last rezone for the site actually took place. So in 2019 and farther back, the site had a community commercial zoning designation. And while we've actually consolidated that as part of our comprehensive plan into other zones, it falls somewhere between kind of that neighbor commercial and general commercial designation as far as level of intensity and style of commercial uses that you would have seen in that community commercial designation, given it no longer exists anymore. But that's as far as kind of a point of reference where that would have fallen. Moving forward into 2020 is actually when that first rezone request came about and it was requested to not only rezone the site, but also split it into two smaller or two zones, I should say. The larger one being 9.51 acres of high density residential, the smaller one being that neighborhood commercial zone of two acres. And looking at the findings from that time as part of the staff recommendation and planning recommendation of that rezone, that was something that ultimately was recommended and got moved forward. And part of the findings from that recommendation included references of that neighbor commercial still meeting the intent of the comprehensive plan again at that time because we have updated that. But specifically around neighborhood scale commercial nodes and how the importance of providing those smaller neighborhood level kind of shopping options that promote more kind of neighborhood interactions, walking the smaller scale, not really a regional draw, but something that you might pop over to for, you know, that last item that you're looking for. instead of having to run all the way back and adapt. So also getting at things like VMT reductions and other goals like that that were prominently featured in the comprehensive plan at that time and also in the one currently. Moving forward into really 2022 to 2024, so following that first rezone designation, the 9.51 acres were developed into multifamily residential uses, which is the Tilden Apartments that are there today. And then also immediately adjacent to that, south west of that across the intersection or roundabout there was another 5.8 acres in that same time period that also was developed which is now the Carlo Apartments today and there's a little given this is quite small so I don't really Just to you guys being able to see much of what's going on there. But the summary is that around 400 additional residential units have gone in within about 200 feet of the target location within the last few years of this site being rezoned. So a heavy influx of residential uses, I guess, what we're getting out there. And then getting into more recent times, so it was actually starting at the end of 2022 and moving all the way into 2024 was our update to the neighborhood commercial districts, which I believe a lot of you participated in. And it was a full overhaul of what was our neighborhood commercial districts zone into what it is today. And this was in, I won't say completely, but in large part actually driven by residents north of I-5, actually in the Hawks Prairie area, asking for the neighbor commercial districts to be more in alignment with what they were looking for from a commercial district at that time, specifically as it related to grocery stores and gas stations were two kind of hot trigger points that were pretty prominent in the community at that time. But that said, other outcomes of that update included a significant increase in the amount of housing that is actually permitted in these zones. So historically at that time, residential uses were only permitted above ground floor commercial. As a result of this update, residential uses are now permitted both horizontally, so actually just on the site, but not necessarily directly on top of commercial, and then also vertically mixed use in a more traditional sense on top of commercial. There was the removal of gas stations as a permitted use, which was a hot item, and then expanded allowances for things like grocery stores, daycares, and community I was going to truncate that year-to-two-year process into about three bullets. Those were the big takeaways. I will note that all of the different neighborhood commercial district owners and business operators were contacted as part of that outreach and invited to, and many actually did participate in that process, providing comments and feedback that helps get that code to where it is today. And then moving into the comprehensive plan, This is gonna be a lot of familiar topics to a lot of you guys, but one or a few areas that I did wanna highlight. So Sustainable Thurston has been kind of a guiding plan from quite a while ago. But that has been carried forward in a lot of our different planning documents over the years, including our last comprehensive plan and then also this most recent update. But really what it does is it sets a goal for at 2035 of 70% of households within a half mile. So it's more or less a 15 minute walking radius to be within or within a close proximity of a urban or neighborhood center. One of the primary intents of the neighborhood commercial districts is to occupy a lot of those gaps that our larger commercial centers kind of leave farther along on our community, kind of more out towards the periphery. Community feedback also is part of the conference plan, as we've previously shared with you guys, had a lot to do with goals for walkability, neighborhood-oriented gathering spaces, local shopping options, encouragement zone or part of the community. Also at that time, we did do a range of comprehensive plan rezones in tandem with that update as Jeff referenced. This site was initially submitted as part of that consideration. Actually with you guys, a rezone prioritization rubric was developed because we did receive so many of them to help us kind of review all the submittals and figure out which ones we felt confident as part of the comprehensive plan, and really those that warranted additional review that we weren't going to be able to provide as part of the update process of the comp plan at that time. This site specifically was identified as one of those that warranted additional kind of more targeted review than what we could provide within the comp plan. And then actually this year, earlier this year, we concluded the Economic Development Strategic Plan. And that plan does have a lot of takeaways, some of which are specific to this area. And really, I'm not going to read these, but in summary, it does identify that zone as still an area that would be compatible for commercial development. finding from our economic development strategic plan. I encourage you guys to all take a look at that and read it if you have some extra time. This is really just a timeline graphic of those past six years that we just ran through, but really starting pre-2020 when it was community commercial, then the first rezone took place, then the residential developments came into play. We then updated the neighborhood commercial update, then the comp plan update. And then actually this year we had the economic development strategic plan. And now we're also taking a look at the second request for a rezone on that site. And one of the reasons that I bring that visual up and one of the things that we'll likely be getting to later is that it hasn't, at least in our view, in kind of a long range planning, community planning perspective, existed in its current state for an extended period of time. And one of the things that community planning really needs to do with balance kind of the here and now, priorities with the longer term kind of growth projections and anticipated needs of the community over time. So that's where we're kind of always trying to find that middle ground or that balance that seems to meet both needs. But some of the takeaways from the staff report that we highlighted include kind of a range of different goals and policies that we didn't view specifically were in alignment with this proposal. Those, again, are bulleted in your staff report, but generally they relate to community priorities for walkable neighborhood-oriented gathering spaces, local shopping options, reductions in VMT targets, the need for grocery centers. There's a range of different goals and policies that are highlighted that kind of speak to these. And then also on the economic side, there's a bin in recognizing that there's a huge need for residential development. There are challenges around there, but the need to balance that with buy their groceries, that kind of thing. So recognizing that as people come in, they're also going to need these destinations to support their other day-to-day uses. So there's that, but then also that potential loss of tax base by eliminating additional commercial zones that then would lead to leakage to other communities potentially. And then as Jeff said, we do have four neighborhood commercial districts of them is fully developed two of them one of them is going through permitting right now the other one is actually actively being constructed so this is the last remaining neighbor commercial district zone in that area of fox prairie um but based on how the others have been progressing it is our belief that the the there is a pathway forward where this could be developed with some a commercial component um and then also actually uh We do have another Senate bill coming up. I know that we've rolled a lot of these out in front of you guys recently, but this one actually requires cities to allow residential uses in areas zoned currently for commercial and mixed use. So it's that constant balance of identifying zones that have a commercial designation and ensuring that they exist for the future need, balance to find what that medium is. It's always a moving target. So as far as next steps, we are here again today, July 22nd, where we're reviewing the application, the submitted materials, the staff report. We have a public hearing scheduled for August 26th, where we'll hear from the community on this topic. And then following that up, we'll have additional opportunities for you guys to discuss, share your thoughts and provide feedback to staff. We can answer any questions. Also, we do have a representation from the applicant here this evening, so I'm sure that they'd be happy to answer any additional questions they may have.

A few things here. First of all, yes, I would like to encourage any commission members that have questions of the potential developer here to please ask them so you can get your questions answered. What we're looking for here, this is not where we make a recommendation. That would be after the public hearing. What we're looking for here is that the developers get an opportunity to hear where the planning commission sits on this, and so the staff gets an opportunity to hear where the planning commission is on this. Traditionally, I let all you go first, but I'm going to weigh in with my 40 years of land use experience here. And one thing I would tell you is, as a resident of the city, decisions that are made like this, 50 years from now, how are people going to view that decision? Is it going to be viewed favorably or is it going to be, gosh, I wish there was a little market right down the street from me that was a lot closer than that development is farther up the road. Because these decisions last a long time. You know, is this a project that is well-intentioned but is not going to feed into the vision that the neighbors out there gave us as we were developing the amendments to the comprehensive plan last year? I mean, we just went through it. It's not even a year old yet. I'm one member on this commission. And so I would be anxious to hear what the rest of your thoughts are. So with that, I'm going to start with Robert.

I think I would echo what Jeff had to say as far as just being cautious to make large changes. I think I appreciate the staff giving us the context of that. At this point, three of four have been successfully either developed or developing, which precedent would then indicate that there is a path forward for that use. And I do worry about the strain of how much residential we are building north of I-5 without some of those additional resources for them. And so it's causing a longer commute in, more strain on the core services that we do have in more of the dense areas. And so... At this time, I would just say I'm interested to kind of learn more, hear more, but I'm cautious to make a change at the moment.

Eric? Yeah, I'd like to certainly see what more information comes forward and hear more, but I mean... Yeah. On the face of it. I mean, the, that history that you provide Honda, I mean, it seems like, you know, some of the demand for what the proposed uses was there and, and, and yeah, that, that all the other developments are moving along and, um, as it is, yeah, thinking about like vehicle miles traveled and just that area in general and what sort of needs that area would need, yeah, as it's proposed would seem to fit that. And yeah, who knows, maybe in the future, yeah, there's other changes that would then allow for more residential or are there other changes? Obviously, yeah, this isn't the end-all be-all comprehensive plan. It'll change in the future. So yeah, I think letting it play out as it is, but yeah.

certainly i'm happy to hear more and see what other information there is i'm willing to listen i have my mic worked already with the with the trucks going through there and the density of the traffic trucks that are not supposed to be using some of those roadways supposed to be going through the entrance of the main and over there at exit 111 using dirt row and all that stuff and creaming uh basically the trucks running over the circles Um, so yeah, and then to add the additional traffic, um, I'm willing to listen, see what comes out.

I agree with you. We have to think about, um, 50 years from now and what the demographic out there is going to look like, you know, um, so changing a zone now may be more detrimental. been helpful. Jennifer.

So I have a handful of thoughts on this one. So firstly, I would like to know what the community and economic development department has to say about that parcels potential. And then regarding the developer representative, I have a few questions. for her. In your rezone application towards the bottom of it, it was written, under its existing zoning, prior efforts to develop a commercial use have proven infeasible. I would like to hear more about that. You also mentioned in your three minutes that there's not a tenant demand for a commercial entity. How did you decide there wasn't a tenant demand to have a commercial entity in that parcel? And then The concern I have is that around building apartments, I see families pushing baby carriages, young people running, friends walking together. And it seems to me that having a commercial entity to visit there would support and enhance the local's lifestyle. I agree with the staff report that suggests that rezoning and ultimately adding more apartment units doesn't support the comprehensive plan goals or add merit or value. And I would be concerned that the change might simply increase traffic and decrease quality of life while supporting a more car-centric community rather than pursuing a more walkable one. So I'd like to hear the thoughts on that concern from the developer.

I'll speak. Yeah, please. I'm Dave. Good to be here. I'm with the sister company of Vergon. And so I'm the chair of property services. Our job is to manage the projects that we sell still. And I'm specifically on the commercial side of things. So it's Jennifer, correct? Can you hear me OK? OK. So when I heard about this project first, I said, great. Let me get going on this side. I absolutely love it. I absolutely do. We're engaged heavily on the commercial side on lots of our projects. South Hill, Kent Station, things like that. We have a lot of different commercial elements. Goodness, I would love a grocer there. A grocer will never, ever go on this side. It just will not ever go. 50 years from now, we're not going to be dense enough for a small neighborhood grocer to be there. We just won't. The opportunities for commercial there, I can take any one of those tenants from the Meridian Campus Center and get them over to our site because we'll build what's brand new, what's nice, what's shiny. But that's going to tube those poor guys across the street. That's not fair. There's just not a demand for commercial space. The way we are kind of where we present to the road, we don't present to the busiest will ever there at all. We're on that 31st Street. Our frontage is not retail focus. So we could go after services like the medical. We could go after like the daycare. But if we moved into like a daycare competitor to that poor daycare that's across the street, that would just be detrimental to them. Where the commercial is focused in this area, in Hawks Prairie, there's such a great opportunity around the 7-Eleven, around Cabela's, all that land there. That's a stone's throw from where we are. I would love to work on that side. We can get that done. Where we are here, what we hear from the brokers about the demand, we put this on SEVA, which is Commercial Brokers Association. We put this on LoopNet and we put this on CoStar, Jennifer, and all of those are where the brokers go either from outside in or the local brokers go to SEBA and we hang our sign. We had maybe one sign in the last two years and we have views on SEBA, but like 26 seconds, 15 seconds and no inquiries. That's how the brokerage community reaches out is through SEBA and through LoopNet CoStar and then through signs. And we know all the brokers. We know the First Western guys. We know the Ketter, Matthews folks. They're all lovely. They're all we can't even engage with them on this site. So that's kind of where I'm coming from and I'm happy to answer any further questions if I do pick up on it, so.

Okay, thank you for your response. Now, just regarding . Is this?

You're freezing.

Would you like more of a, okay. Asking the chair, Jeff, if you'd like more of a dialogue from me, a response to that, or regarding the format tonight. Of course, the connection's back.

So I think I heard what you said. Your connection got a little long.

It looks like this is a bad time for this.

Oh, yeah.

He was getting good.

But I appreciate his feedback. Thank you, Jennifer.

Thank you. Harriet?

Yeah, I was going to put on my Judith hat and shout out for We Want to Sprouts, but I understand what you're saying, that you know, they put out the feelers and the feelers aren't there just at this moment for, for what's, uh, wanted in that community. Um, but we did do a lot of work to try to build an integrated, uh, uh, apartment, uh, living space and commercial space with very well thought out designs and ideas and, and, uh, parameters. So it's hard to think that, um, you know, the only thing that you can build in that location is what's already built there. But it'll be interesting to research more and to understand this better and to see how this decision needs to be made for our community.

Thank you. So I would like to thank you for your comment. I've got, like I said, 40 years in land use experience. And what I'll say to the commission is site like this, so this zoning is very new. The zoning is existing right now. And yes, there is huge demand right now for the development that they're proposing. I will tell you, a site like this, you're looking at a 10 to 15 year marketing. And all the developers know this, right? So it's not like it's gonna sell tomorrow. So right now, from SEBA and Kit and Matthews and all those sites. No, they're not getting any response. For one thing, you've got interest rates that are out to the moon, right? So there isn't going to be demand for that type of development right now. But you're looking, like I said, typically on a site like this, a 10 to 15 year marketing. So it's not like we expected to develop a Sprouts tomorrow. You've got to wait for the market to mature a little bit to see it. You've got to wait for sprouts to be ready to expand to a site like this. And we haven't had that time. That's my opinion. We have not had that time to allow the market for this spot to develop.

So I think, thank you for going around. I appreciate everybody's feedback. One of the questions that I have, and we don't need to go around the room, but if you do have anything, please raise your hand or let us know. So as Hans mentioned, we're about a month out, I think at this point from moving forward for a public hearing. And as part of that, we'll do a, fully fleshed out staff report with recommendations and potentially even findings should the Planning Commission want to make a recommendation that night. In developing that information, is there specific questions that the Planning Commission would like answers to or any additional specific information that you would like us to gather as a part of that report that would help support one way or another, the planning commission's recommendation.

Yeah, I was just curious, and I know they might not have the explicit plans drawn out 100%, but I was curious about the potential for the affordable element within the apartment that they're trying to build on that location.

You want to wait and answer that later?

So I think what Kieran might be referencing is that there is a affordable residential requirement within neighborhood commercial districts when you are building residential, not on top of commercial uses. If that is, and I am guessing here, but if that is the question, that requirement would not apply to high density residential.

If we changed it.

Correct.

Correct.

Is that the question?

I apologize for the time it takes to unmute. And yes, because there is a 20% affordable housing requirement for mixed-use residential or neighborhood commercial. And so I was just curious if that component would be carried over into plans to develop that space if it was to be rezoned.

No, it would not. I'd be interested in knowing, you kind of pointed to the other three neighborhood commercial. And so maybe just helping us compare, like, are these, right? Like, even though they're same zones, were they the same parcel size? Are they, what ended up being developed? Some context to maybe help us flesh out what it could be versus just, well, the other ones are developed, right? So just what's that next level so we can make a better informed decision.

And- Go ahead and finish. Let us know from the time that those sites were zoned to now how long that's been just to inform the commitment. I kind of do know what I'm talking about. Anything else? All right. So I do want to thank all of our guests, public employees. Thank you very much for your time. And we look forward to engaging in the future. I'm going to call the meeting adjourned. Our next meeting is August 12th. I will not be here. Robert will be taking the reins that evening.

Web site still says that Tanya is the vice chair, so. it made me look when when kieran was like i was like oh no who else's terms expired i went on there and it was like how anymore am i i was like fine she can stay