Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to welcome you to the Milton Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, December 10th, our regular meeting at 6 PM. And I'd like to call to order our group and have a flag salute. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with justice for all. I have some issues on there. [laughter] I'm trying to turn it off. I was seeing if it was on and roll call. Uh, Commissioner Bole is absent. Commissioner Oler

present. Commissioner Johnson present. Commissioner Zoro here. Vice Chair Whan here. May I have a motion to excuse Commissioner Bole? Make a motion to excuse Commissioner Bole. is 19 days on vacation. I'll second that. [laughter] A motion has been made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Zoro to excuse Commissioner Bole from tonight's meeting. Any discussion? All those in favor, please signify with I.

I. Any opposed? The motion passes four to zero. Okay. Are there any additions, deletions, or corrections to tonight's agenda? I'd like to suggest an addition of uh just a general topic of starting the discussion on ideas

to suggest ideas to suggest as part of our work plan. Is that okay with another member of the group? Yeah. Okay. So, we have two people saying yes and more saying yes. Okay. So work plan just general overview. Okay. We make that item D on tonight's agenda. Okay. On to public participation. At the moment we have no one in our audience and thank you to anyone who may be watching. So we are on to the approval of minutes for October 7, 2025. May I have a motion? I'll move to I'll move to approve the minutes of October 7th, 2025. Okay.

Oh, wait. Yeah. October 7th. Correct. Okay. Yes. Second. Second. Okay. A motion's been made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Zoro to approve the minutes for Tuesday, October 7, 2025. Are there any comments? Nope. The only thing I noted was under the heading of excused, uh, we have a commissioner but known last name. And I I think that was just a little carryover. Well, you see roll call.

Excuse and commissioner. So, uh, yes. So, I I would like to suggest we Delete that. And commissioner, any other comments on the minutes? Okay. So, we have uh amended minutes u deleting the words and commissioner in the excused uh membership for roll call. All those in favor of the motion with amendment. I. Any opposed?

Motion passes four to zero. Thank you. So, we're on to our next topic for discussion tonight, which is uh PLN 20258 significant tree code. And uh I'd like to turn this over to our planning manager, manager stacker. Thank you. Thank you, chair and commission. Um, so yeah, so we talked about this at the last meeting. um got some great input from everybody and I wrestled with trying to take our existing little se subsection and try to fluff it up and I kind of felt like um it was enough of I think an important topic and enough of what I think we're trying to move toward to just pull it out and and it make it its own well how do I yeah make it its own it was like a sub subsection So just make it its own little se subsection um and its own new thing. So that's what I have here on page 7, 8, 9, and 10 is a proposed um community forest preservation subsection 1744115. And it would replace 1744 1110G, which is what's on 11. Um so first of all is the planning commission is there you know enough consensus that we are we think that makes sense to sort of really kind of quit having it as just a little sub subsection in landscaping and make it its own thing. And then with that this is um I sort of again pulled together from a couple different codes that I

found very useful. um try to you know kind of A is the obviously the purpose and intent B being definitions that specifically apply to this um applicability. So right now our landscaping only applies to kind of new big stuff. This would apply it to basically everything in in different levels. Um, so we can kind of go through each section in a second, but I figured I'd just sort of do an overview of what I was thinking. So, kind of the idea that, you know, any new development, including single families, two families, ADUs, would have to at least look at are we taking down trees and if we are taking down certain trees, some sort of replacement value where right now there's not that. Um, also looking at lots what um, we kind of talk about as sort of underdeveloped like yeah, maybe there's a house but it's, you know, it's a large lot. So um, maybe we still need to consider that in certain aspects. And then um, the idea of if they want so D is sort of just dealing with if you're removing a tree but it's not tied to a development. Um, so you have to go through a certain process. You know, if if it's dead or dying, this is what you do. If you for whatever reason you think you want to, but anyway, it kind of puts some parameters because we get these people who come in who sort of just want to clear their lot. And we basically tell them they can't, but there's not always the code to back it up. And so I would like to have that there. [snorts] Um obviously E talks about the exemptions of what they can they can remove without talking to us. Um F outlines what a tree survey needs to have. G talks about the

tree retention of you know if you're removing trees what you have to retain. And then H applies to if you are taking out trees um what you're taking out. So, in some ways, um, our again our our current code, if you look on page 11, it sort of says you should try to keep all the trees you can. Well, it's very reasonably retained. It's always hard when you have language that's kind of vague. And so, um, this the the proposal talks about you you're supposed to do 35% and any trees you remove that you can't keep. Beyond that, you have there's a certain retention level. It also um I guess I'm hitting the high points and then we can go through the other big one is under tree um retention. What I'm say so we created um I'm proposing we create a new definition. So right now we sort of have that significant tree though there hasn't been there's kind of been a definition but I've finalized that. So significant tree is anything with a m minimum every green with a minimum diameter of 12 in and deciduous with a minimum diameter of nine. I'm proposing we also create a another definition which is in called an exceptional tree. So basically if this tree is over 30 in or greater you're just not removing it [laughter] is kind of what we're saying. Um so that's kind of so in In a nutshell, that's sort of where I'm hitting on on the big overview of what I've been pulling from other stuff. So, if we want to um kind of go through the the individual sections specifically to see how everyone is feeling on that, that would be great. Um but this is this is where I came up with. I felt like instead of peacemailing what was already there, let's just start fresh. It kind

of sets that groundwork and then if we if I'm able to over the next couple of years to get more of an a program and a plan and everything, we already have this kind of set up to to back us. Um so do you want to start with purpose and intent and if anyone has comments with that? Well, does anyone have uh Yes. uh in just defining the discussion. Do you just want to give some overview comments in response to manager Snecker or do you want to jump right into paragraph by paragraph? What's the group's preference? Yes. Yes.

Um I' I'd support talking about it generally and then maybe going through. Okay. Me, too. Anyone else? Commissioner Ner, would you like to start?

I would. Um I really like this direction. Um, I think it makes a lot of sense to pull it out and sort of make it its own framework that we then flesh out. I like seeing that there's the um, basic tree risk assessment determined by a certified arborist. I like that that gives the um, framework for a standardized assessment. That's really important. um the inluff fee will probably I I might have some questions about that but but overall I think this is a great direction and I'm excited to work on it. Commissioner Zoro.

Yeah, I agree. I like it. I think it um incorporates a lot of what we talked about last time. I think the table the replacement ratio is really um effective and concise. Um, I have a few specific comments or questions. I don't know if maybe I'll wait until we go through each section to get to those. Okay. I agree. I repeat. [laughter]

Okay. Uh, from a general perspective, I'm uh again uh really pleased to see the topic coming before us. Uh I I agree that it makes a lot more sense to start with its own chapter in our municipal code and keep it all in one place instead of sending someone in various directions in the code. And uh it's a it's a starting point and uh hearing that it might take years to get other aspects going. I'm thinking, well, maybe we might want to flush this out a little bit more as opposed to my original thinking was we do need to get a stop gap measure because what I've witnessed in the community is this is a desirable place to live and people are building houses and [laughter] so uh we do need to get something done uh very soon and uh so um th those would be the the main topics. Uh I do have a question about uh looking at more in depth about how we approach the idea of uh not only tree retention but setting standards like everybody's got to have x amount of tree credits or something that really elevates the idea that it isn't just what's there and you got to make the most of it. that there's a goal to meet um for development and expanding the thresholds as well for when something like this comes up. So I look forward to diving in. So another round any other general comments?

Okay. Well, yes, I think this is a good start to get as I've always said in the past, we need something now and work on it later to improve it. as long as we have something which we don't really have now we need to do it because there is so much development going and so this would right now protect um the city in the trees and then next year whatever you know if we want to evaluate but to do a lot of rehashing and trying to find something else I don't think we should um this is pretty well written maybe some of the comments we have to do some stuff but I think the time is we don't delay and now we can't vote on it. We have to now wait till February to vote on it because if we don't have the January meeting and like I said we've got developments everywhere right now that um I did have I'll do my questions when we come around. So two quick comments just from what I Yeah. So um yeah, so this like I said this is intended this is focused right now on the the cutting down tree portion of it. Um it is still on our work plan this ne which will obviously carry into 2026 to to work through the rest of the landscaping chapter

or the landsing section which is more the um to some extent the especially with new development what they have to plant and what they have to you know what landscaping beds and stuff. So that's still coming. Um and and when I say, you know, my thinking is the idea of a full urban forestry program will take a couple years because you have to survey all the trees and you have to do public engagement and stuff. So yeah, this is the hope of let's slow, you know, let's let's get what we know we want and then work on the rest.

So starting any other general overview comments? Okay. Uh so starting off with uh page seven and a discussion of purpose and intent. Any uh comments? Commissioner Johnson? Nope. No. Nope.

Zaro. Oh. Um okay. I I I will just say I'm glad to see we've got the purpose and intent because that does begin to express the fact that this is something really meaningful to do and has impact and um if anyone comes across other purpose and intent statements uh before we get to our next meeting u because I've I've I've looked at studies that talk about health benefits that there's there's verifiable evidence that uh this communities with trees are healthier places to live and so okay so we're good with what we've got here at the moment is what I'm here okay so moving on to definitions and I excuse me manager stucker did you have anything you wanted to emphasize or add to the purpose and intent section

no I tried to you know again um I tried to cover both the you know things that I know people do care about um it was funny when I did the um outreach at the Milton days. All the kids were you could tell they learn in science because they were all like trees give us oxygen, you know, so but also do the idea of the storm water. I know that is very important to this community and and trees are a vital part. Tree canopy in general. And then yes, the whole idea, the last one sort of that idea is that it is it's good for our allaround health, shading, cooling it, everything. So yeah, I tried to kind of without getting too long hit what I think is some of the biggest topics. So

So going around again on that section, u I a question just popped in my head as you were talking which is uh do we need to have anything in here that ties it in with the comprehensive plan as a policy document? Is growth management act saying cities of our size have to have a climate sustainability chapter? I could definitely add something that says um and support the goals that are that I'm sure we have. So yeah, that would make sense to add um we're addressing those goals because that is the planning document. So yeah, I'll add something.

Okay, thank you. So on definitions um general comments about the section or questions from anyone? Yes, Commissioner Zaro. I am wondering about exceptional trees. Um, if I am understanding correctly, it's a full stop. These trees do not come down. Is that the intention? That's the proposal.

Okay. I'm picturing a lot and someone wants to build affordable housing. Very important. I'm picturing one exceptional tree right in the middle of that lot. I'd prefer the tree to come down and affordable housing to be constructed. I guess the hope is or the thought is that they could build a I mean they're they're going to have to have some common area. So could that be where they put the common area is where that tree is?

I think maybe there you know I guess the if the suggestion is that we have something in here that allows us there's always that one weird circumstance. So, is there a way to say under extreme circumstances they could try to prove they have to take it down and then they'd have to Yeah. do something? Um

I think if there's a a one big old tree or a couple or a few that an apartment building would have to work around, I could see them taking their affordable housing somewhere else and not trying to design around said trees. I just think a full stop is too far, but I I can appreciate a big trick, too. Uh, I saw Commissioner Oler, you had your hand up. Yes.

Yes. Um, I'm thinking about hazard trees and I think we already know and already was alluded to that that is the area that we could see possibly being abused. Um, if I want to remove a tree and it seems like an exceptional tree or significant tree, well, no problem. I'll just make it a hazard tree and then I can remove it. I really like the basic tree risk assessment determined by a ser certified arborist and um I just maybe we go all the way with ISA and any other kinds of assessments of trees hazard or not. we ask for them to use the same kind of assessment just to give us blanket uh consistency so that we don't have I mean I don't know that this would be a problem but if we have one standard it's it's easier for everybody to understand and then yeah um to the point about exceptional trees I'm actually wondering about this tract that's at the end of 19th right now it is basically probably the last second growth forest in Milton and I'm wondering how it would impact that

home home not homeowner well I think it is a homeowner I'm not even sure who owns it but but haven't they already permanent correct would that make that forest permanent so we would need to think about that those are the two things I wanted to bring up that would be um I I should have their tree survey submitted. Yes, I do. So, that might be I would be happy to like take that as a great example to look and see what size those trees are

to see what if any of them even hit that except, you know, what would it have done to that? I mean, that development's in. It's going forward if they go all the way through because it's already in. But, it would be a good um real case study of um would any of those trees qualify for that? Where do they hit on that? How would that affect if under the proposed document? So, I will I will get that I'll probably send that to you guys early so you can um have some review on that and always email comments if you have thoughts. And I also um I'll note um Dustin Madden, our public works director, his background is actually like landscaping and everything. And so um I a lot of times will run things by him. So, I've been meeting when I can when he has time, which right now is not. But I had thought I was going to have him sort of review this with me and see if he had any thoughts um from both having been on the private sector side as well as on this side if he had any thoughts for that.

Yes, Commissioner Johnson. Has there been a study on the ability of fur tree versus deciduous trees on the oxygen type thing?

You know, do broadleaf trees provide more? Even though ours, we've had the fur trees, they tend to be dangerous at times after a certain age here in Milton because of the the low roots and stuff like that. So I just wonder I mean I understand the thing if there's a tree in the middle and it's one of the old Milton type tall fur trees but what if it's saying maybe we need a forest that's low lower shade and broad leaf versus the fur trees the you know the big ones. Uh that's a choice as we keep growing and expanding and adding more houses. Is the potential danger of keeping the old trees versus new trees that are broadleaf and provide actually more shade and I think more of a capability environmentally. It's just a thought. I don't know

the code historically um like from a landscaping side um leans towards deciduous trees challenge is people have a tendency to not know how to maintenance them and then you get these as my formal consultant used to say lollipop trees but theoretically yes nice broad deciduous with lots of shade are great but yeah I can do some and that's interesting they see that cuz I see fur trees that aren't taken care of at all. [laughter] Well, that too. I'm sure they don't. But they're, you know, because deciders are supposed to be nice and broad, a lot of times they go and chop them, right? Because they they don't let them. But that's the whole point is you

in parking lots you want them to provide shade or along the sidewalk. didn't know. But it's just a thought, you know, because I don't think we could ever go back to what Milton was with the fur and the evergreens. Yeah. And the challenge with is if they get too tall, then people get Yes. I had a friend that just spent a lot of money because there's we're damaging that, you know, the winds coming from the valley and the roots are lower, you know, higher up and with all this moisture, you know, that's more likely to tip over than a a broadleaf tree,

which not to get off, like I said, it it parallels with it is what we've discovered over the last 40 years is trying to figure out making sure people are putting the right tree in the right spot. Not um and when we get to to the planting side of it, um there are a couple, you know, Pierce County, City of Tacoma, City of Seattle, they do a really good job of keeping up to date what trees are best in what areas. And so referencing those, you know, maybe referencing those cities that have full-time people to know better of, you know, if you go to Yes, at Pierce County or city of Tacoma or probably Seattle, it says if your width is only this much and you have the lines and you have this, this is the type of trees that work versus ours just say this type of tree down the street. Well, that's probably may not be the wisest thing anymore. So, all right. So, uh uh I will I'd like to jump in on the conversation a little and then get us back on track with definition section.

We're get a little broad. Yeah. the idea of examples. I think that would be absolutely fabulous to have some recent developments uh and apply uh the uh code uh as uh proposed at the moment. I think that would be uh informative. Uh the other uh thing to just respond on if this is simply about retention perhaps that's something to say in the purpose and intent at the moment or maybe not. It's just if that's I can I can see the merits of you take it in pieces and uh uh yes

make it the best it can be.

Not so much the enhance right now. So um and u the idea of having you know certified you know arborists and people that are recognized as uh certified people I don't think getting into definition we do have certified arborists so we've listed a few uh organizations that would be uh accepted by the city so that would be I think that's important u and the idea of yes things can become hazard out of a wish for development. I I can see where um it's like lawyers that you know you can they can defend anything. So, but we it's it's better than what we have at the moment and if we find something better uh we can certainly update this uh need examples agents. Oh, the idea of incentives or and that parallels a bit with what Commissioner Zarl brought up uh is if we what's known obviously and and empirically is that it's the lowdensity developed areas where you have the most trees and you tend to have a lot of big beautiful trees and um in in managing a forest I know there's that whole thing of you've got a succession you've got a succession plan of new new trees growing to fill the role of trees that eventually uh have completed their lifespan. Um in looking at other codes, I've seen that there have been uh a variety of uh issues addressing sort of a standard or a hierarchy sort of like critical areas mitigation standards you got to go through. If you if you can do this, do this. If not, it it works its way down to finally u I'll just leave it at that and just say that

I think that's a good idea to set to put some thought to the idea of the degree to which latitude is given to the city uh to say okay we'll reduce your sideyard setback. I mean I don't want something to become unsafe but the idea of as a community value What makes Milton Milton is we've got quite a significant second growth forest happening here. So, uh perhaps exploring that idea if there is time. Um, I don't want to create an uns safe situation, but the idea of um, yeah, if they

I've I've shortened the if they were able to reduce this the setback from seven and a half to five feet, which is still legal by building code to save a tree on this side. It's that it would be worth it. It it's that sort of thing. And I know there's root zone protections uh and ways to protect the tree that uh and and then evaluating a tree and interpreting it as okay, it's this size now, but eventually it's going to be this size and the canopy is going to be

so much more. So there's a value in the young trees and wanting to keep them and uh as as well as a real value in the uh we call them exceptional some cities call them heritage but uh so uh if anyone has some interest in looking into what would be an idea or a concept or an approach uh because preserving what the development I have witnessed in the single family zone is we have lost some really outstanding big trees and uh so I would I would I'm interested in some sort of a compromise where we could accommodate the interest of the development and the degree to which a developer is you bring up a good point of well the incentive may be there but the developer developer might say no no but it certainly may catch some trees and help them to stay. Um, so, um, I think I'd want to see what the what the ways to work with it before I say, "Yeah, hard stop is the way to go." I'd like to see if

um, but I've witnessed some just spectacular trees recent in the last year taken down. And um, I'd like to I'd like to weigh towards that side of they have to stay. So that was a a note ear later on where we have tree retention and the discussion of exceptional trees. I had a note about variance. So back to definition certified arterist developed lot. I do have a comment about diameter about the what about diameter

number three. uh in the homework that I've done on the topic, I'll I'll sub submit a few other definitions because not all trees branch off 10 feet off the ground. Sometimes they can branch off low. Sometimes you have a, you know, trees that are real close together and eventually they grow. There's there's ground elevation issues. So, I don't know how nitty-gritty, but I do know in measuring trees where you are on the height of that trunk, how far you are above ground level, it can really make a difference. So, um, I think it's a a a good start, but and if I may, and if anyone else comes up with other definitions that might be a little more helpful and looking at that, I'm assuming that the city will make some sort of a user friendly handout that says, "Here's how you measure a tree type of thing, and here's how you plant a tree and such." Um, I had a question about hedge tree [laughter] and I I mean I've done some reading that cities outright say that doesn't count in the tree credit system. It it's not that it's a non- entity but for their goals of preserving native conifer forests so to speak uh arborvites and and so forth are like well

yes it's a hedge it's not a tree tree. So I wondered why it was here and nothing further was said about it. Okay. So did I miss it should have been and if it's so this is where I get into my when you're editing one thing and then you do another. So the point the point of putting in hedge tree was to say you cannot use a hedge tree as a replacement tree and if that got pulled that was it was as like a a little bit under the it was supposed to say that somewhere. So if it doesn't and and like I said, where is my head sheet max? Uh it's number five on page seven B5. So that's where the definition

that's where the definition is. And then originally I had Okay. It it I redid the table and it probably got cut. Originally um on the bottom of the table I had hedge trees cannot be used as replacement trees. So that was my intent. So I will add that language somewhere where it is appropriate because that that is the thing an arvita to me does not and they will do that they'll be like well we put in 50 arvitas well it's not that's not a tree a tree I mean it is but it's not depending on who you so yes that was the intent of putting it there and I think it got cut somewhere else so

I will put that is where it is supposed to say that hedge trees cannot be used as replacement Okay. Uh continuing uh with my first round of comments on definitions. Uh tree significant uh a 12 inch diameter just seems kind of big as a starting threshold and I was interested in hearing more from folks about.

So ours currently what does ours currently say? I think ours So ours ours currently says deciduous six and evergreens at 10 or no in excess of 10 feet in height. It doesn't diameter at all. Um so I was yes. So I pulled let's see um so yeah ours doesn't deal with diameter for evergreen trees. It only deals with height and it does deciduous at 6 in. Um, this is pulled from Furrest, um, which I was a part of when we redid theirs. Again, I think this is something that I don't know if there's any consistent what there's flexibility in that. Um, so I was trying to pull in a diameter instead of a height for the evergreen. Um

how about instead of putting a lot of time to it, we do some I know I'm interested in just seeing Yeah. Uh so the goal in defining significant trees is that the standard that you think would be most workable at a staff level is to define uh significant trees with a a numeric threshold based on the height of the tree or by the diameter. I think the diameter the diameter of the tree. Okay. And so ideas for what that diameter might be. Yes. And then healthy deciduous trees. Yeah. So my proposal was to move from six up to nine.

Okay. And but again it's diameter. So keeping them both at diameters and uh Okay. Both of those numbers seem kind of big to me but uh I'll do my homework and offer a range. Yeah. And again it it

okay there's that point again. It's a balancing act of and and that what I'm trying to find is that balance of acknowledging that we do need I mean we do people buy property to in most cases develop it so you need to you know so there they they have to be allowed to cut you know trees that they need but we also want to replace trees and preserve what we can so where's that balance of saying something like well if it's this big you can't do it at all but if it's this we're not going to count it against you know where's that fine line it. And so I was kind of trying to do both like okay we're not going to care about the 6 in but if 30 in we are going to care you know so right and also replacement it's

when you think about a very large diameter tree and and say well it's a one to one those ratios u matter Olympia's got quite an extensive user friendly a little more detailed than for us than a city that's got no arborist okay it does say well car we're getting ahead ourselves on definitions Okay. Um but just quickly on the significant tree part. Yeah,

it does say this is where I think um see where it is. Where am I going? Back here. Um so it does say under H replacement trees must be of a similar must be a type of similar to the tree being removed. Um so I think I was thinking that but I think I will make it very clear that hedge trees don't count as evergreen trees. So but we can discuss that more when we get to that subsection. Uh and other comments on definition

definitions uh the tree grove tree removal unde I appreciate seeing an underdeveloped lot from the perspective of um you especially that we have a lot of lots that now can be divided uh to smaller sizes etc. Um, I like that this is it's it's a clear way to say if you aren't at full density there, we consider uh that you're underdeveloped. I don't know if that's a Pierce County Planning Department standard. When I've seen buildable lands reports, uh, they seem to have a unique definition of underdeveloped. Yeah. Lots.

Um, the definition I looked on a couple different things. There's nothing that had necessarily an exact number. though I did I do pull an exact number under applicability for one and two family because I basically say if it's 10,000 square feet or greater um we could put in a specific a more specific number but it does it's it's a little bit on the flexibility but the idea being that if it could be further divided um and again I'm basically density so if you're only at you know you can have 12 units per acre and you're only at six you're definitely unde underdeveloped or structure coverage if you can cover you know we can cover 50% or 80% and you're only cover I mean I think of like um Bigfoot Java Bigfoot Java by Taco Bell it's this tiny little building and they just paved everything and it something like that to me was they didn't need that they just were able to so maybe those are things that we consider underdeveloped and can kind of control a little bit of not and and there may not have been any trees on that one anyway, but that's a lot that I just think of as completely underdeveloped. It's this one little coffee shop on a very large lot that could have multiple businesses on it. So,

so uh and this well, we'll get to applicability in a moment, but uh and undeveloped lot. Okay. Um anyone else with so second time around on the topic of definitions? Anyone else have any other Okay. Any further comments from staff on the definition department? Anything that we Well, we can send suggestions in. Okay. Um applicability. Next section. So, yeah. So, basically I'm trying to kind of pull in that it sort of applies to everything. So, new residential development. So, if you're putting in a new one family, two family ADUs, we're going to look at the tree standards. Um, because right now it it basically you can if you if it's a one family, two family in our residential lot, there is no replacement for trees um and no real requirement to keep them. It sort of excludes them from everything. And then um for under so new non-residential development so everything else or non-residential development expansion so to serve more than 2500 square f feet which basically is taking what we already um what we already say in the landscaping section and just kind of duplicating that here. And then again, three is sort of um that idea of underdeveloped is that lots may have a one family or two family structure, but if they're over 10,000 square feet um they were required to retain or plant during development or they're adjacent to or within a critical area buffer, this still applies to them as well. So that that should help protect against some of these oversized lots from just going in and cutting everything.

Comments. Commissioner, not on applicability. On applicability. Yes. Commissioner Zaro, Mr. Johnson, thoughts on applicability?

Oh, okay. Uh I'd like to uh ask any thought from uh manager Snicker on what about somebody who has wants to add on to their home? I've seen in some codes where they talk about if you're adding on x amount of square feet, you now fall under the requirements of tree retention or uh the tree protection standards. Um,

so as as proposed, unless your lot was over 10,000 square feet, it wouldn't because at some point it's there's that challenge with private once a house is built there is a challenge of um people, you know, how much can you control people cutting down trees on their own property. So the thinking, you know, the thinking I was like is if you're a standard lot and you have a standard house, you don't have a lot. I mean, so the other issue on uh so that was number one uh a comment there. Uh number two, new non-residential development and there you talk about non-residential development expansions

that disturb more than 2,500 square ft of area. So is that so it's not an existing non-residential site or is it an existing So the second half would be if it's an existing non-residential and they're expanding at least if they're disturbing more than 2500 square feet then they you know like I said I pulled that out of then they're subject to like the landscaping rules and everything in our current code. So I pulled that in here. So maybe add that distinction because the sentence starts with the word new non-residential. Okay. Yeah, I was trying to figure out how to do it. So it sounded so I'll maybe existing maybe not but

y u new non-residential development and existing non-residential development expans obviously if you're expanding you're there but just for the clarity the 10,000 foot lot size just seemed to be a little big as a threshold to start having tree retention. So my think I guess my thinking was is that idea of falling into that underdeveloped. So we allow I mean an 8,000 square foot lot is our standard lot. So, I was thinking if it's sort of a lot plus um Okay.

But again, some of these numbers are semi-arbitrary, so we can So, I I'm curious with item number three under applicability. It's it's an existing two family home on a on a lot. The lot is 10,000 square feet or more. This is a dealing with someone coming in and saying, "I want to cut down all the trees in my backyard." Is that what this is trying? Okay. So, it's not they're going to put it. Yeah. Yes.

Or they're going to build a new garage or an ADU or whatever. It's So, it's if it's an 8,000 square foot lot and they want to put a detached ADU in, they don't have to retain the trees. That's what I just say. Well, I guess. Yeah. So three is more dealing with just randomly taking things down. Number one deals with if you are adding something, if you're adding an ADU, we would look at that. Now, if you're 8,000 and you already took it down, then not. But if you're specifically come in and you say, "I'm going to add an ADU and I got these trees in the way," then we would say, "Oh, well, you have to follow all this." So it's a Okay.

Yeah. But three is more with you're already there, but then you decide you want to take down a whole bunch of trees. Hopefully, we can catch them before they do that and say, "No, no, no, no, wait. You have a huge lot. You can't just cut." And and more and more people do call us now. I I think 10 years ago, everyone just assumed they could take down their trees. We get a lot of calls now like, "Hey, can I take down this tree that's on my private property?" And we're like, "Well, is it where is it? Not is it not in a buffer?" Yeah, you can take it down. Please plant something. Um so I think you know yes three will take definitely some um getting out to the community but I think there is that mindset of both tree people who cut big trees and property owners that the city might require them

to do that. So yes three is basically dealing with existing houses that have existing trees and they're wanting to take you know they ask if they could take them down. Okay. And I appreciate 3C that and and it discussing where that tree is located in relationship to a critical area or a critical area buffer. I think that's important. And I did have a question in general that came up about how does this tailor with our critical areas landscaping and uh uh replacement and mitigation. If you're in a critical area, critical area buffer, title 18 takes precedent over this.

Okay. Um, but we do have some properties I was specifically thinking of. We've got properties that are allowing creeks that they just sort of they don't really think of themselves that way and they've never had studies done and so again hoping that this sort of helps with some of that. Okay. So, uh, second round robin. Yes, Commissioner Zaro on 3C. Um, how are we defining adjacent to? Is that within 10 feet? Is that good point within however we It says it's applicable. It doesn't say they can or can't. I mean it. Yeah. Could be um we could put a number. Pick a number and just say these trees within or within 10 ft of

other thoughts on the number uh the the specifying a distance instead of just saying adjacent to I mean theoretically if it's a critical error there would be a critical error buffer so really it'd be like if you're outside of the buffer right so maybe 10 feet of a buffer you have to any other It's getting okay. Commissioner Oler agrees with 10 feet. Commissioner Johnson. Um, so critical areas that's not storm water, just our regular critical the buffers. Okay.

Okay. So, if there is that buffer, can we just get rid of the within 10 ft and just say you have to be outside of the buffer or we're have we're adding a buffer to the buffer? You're singing my song there. [laughter] Did you? Yeah. So, I guess the question is if there is a critical area buffer because really if there's a critical area, the buffer would cover it. Is there an interest in adding just again just the idea that if they're let say within 10 feet of a buffer, we would also at least be applicable to look at it. How large is the buffer?

Buffers can be 100 150 ft. So it may not be necessary. Oh well in that case. So basically it would be like do you want to add a little bit to it? I think our I think 10 feet would not be anything compared to an actual buffer. I'll do some more. I'll I'll bring some I'll think through that one more. Okay. Thank you. And and I appreciate your your thinking about the how to make it a metric that No, I metrics is really really nice and because the more subjectivity in something the more you're really struggling and it Every time the state says reasonable, I just cringe. Go, who is this reasonable person? They're [laughter] talking reasonable people. Zero. Literally none.

But the idea the it could be something again as we're exploring ideas for future. My thinking was maybe Yeah, let me see if there's any situations that wouldn't be covered by chap titles 18, I guess. Well, the other piece of it is if you're going to save a tree on a PE on a property, having it associated with a with a a network, an environment. I mean to to have if if someone I mean that could be a negotiation point or

Yeah. So maybe that's there's a section where I say trees like this are prior, you know, are the preferred. So maybe this moves out of here to retention of trees near buffers is prefer your preferred choice or something. So more to think about but the idea of just because some buffers can be kind of twinky. It all depends upon and some don't have the wetland rating or that the because critical areas are uh hazardous slope right earthquake. Yeah, there's that too. There's so good stuff. Yes. Okay. So, more thinking on that one. And so, second time around on applicability. Anyone?

Or did I miscount? Are we on third? Okay. You got to keep on. [laughter] Okay. Okay. So, we're on to subsection D, removal of trees outside of a development permit.

So, I was trying to deal with the fact I get people who come in. I had one couple months ago. This guy comes in. He's technically owns two lots. His house is on one. Thankfully, the other lot doesn't have a house. and he like wanted to take all the trees down. They might all fall in the next storm and I'm like no. So in that case I told him he couldn't. Um but again these are things that questions we get issues we get if I had the wrong person the right or wrong person if they they could argue with me I think. And so um this is like so if someone comes in and says hey I this is what you can do outside of I'm building something. And the idea being that usually it's, you know, if it's a hazardous, dead or dying tree, that's fine. You can take, you have to prove it to us. It's going to show it through here and you can take it out. Um, this is where that defining significant comes into play. Um, and maybe we don't, you know, if they want to remove a tree and we're like, "Okay, it's a small little The idea being that there are sometimes just small little sapling trees, fine. You want to kind of clear it out a little bit." That's fine. Um, and it if they say, "Well, I for whatever reason it's, you know, I I own it and it's I it's blocking my son and I really want to take it out." Um but it does count as a significant tree. Well then fine maybe we my thinking my the would be like fine then you need to still do the replacement trees that we require if you were doing a development and you can take down that one 14 diameter tree but you're going to replace it you're going to put other trees on that property. So that was sort of my thinking just if there's no they're not building anything. They're simply coming in for some reason and saying that they want to take down trees. Now, if they come in and they

say, "I want to clear cut the whole property." I'll It'll be like, "No, you don't meet the following cr you don't meet the criteria." Um, so no. So, uh, exceptional trees, uh, is this an area where they're noted or So, this is so like, so basically under removal the I'm sorry, I spoke out of turn. I apologize.

So, no. So, so for D, removal of trees one, we're saying you have to your permit if there's no development permit is declared grading and filling permit. So, it says this is what you would fill out. Um, it says you have to have an arburish report if you want to. So, you have to hire someone to tell us. We're on page eight. And then there in order for the city to approve it, you removing that tree. It has to either be proven that it's hazardous, dead, or dying. That it's not significant or exceptional. So again, if it's just some 2-in tree that for whatever reason you feel like you want to come down um or if it does ident and maybe I should say if it identifies as a um I can clarify that the idea being is if it's a significant tree then you have to do the replacement trees as required by subsection 8 subsection H that was the intent. So they theoretically could do a significant tree if but they would then they're subject to the replacement that they would have to do if it was similar to a development

and then exceptional. So right now exceptional says you can't at all. Okay. Obviously we're going to discuss that when we get to that section but okay under this you would not be able to. Okay. Okay. Uh so uh first round round robin on the section D removal of tree or trees outside of a development permit. Yes, Commissioner Oler.

Yes. Here's where um and this is just an alignment kind of thing. The intent is already here. Um uh earlier it it does mention in definitions what hazard tree is and that it has to be defined in the ISA basic tree risk assessment and determined by a certified arborist. And just so that we align everything, um, here in D2 it says an arborist report, which is slightly less specific, but I'd be satisfied if we're just really clear every time we specify an arborist report that it's a required template of some kind where we've got the health rating system, risk category, um, what the defects in the tree are. Um, uh, maybe photographs come with it. Maybe we require a second opinion if it's an exceptional tree where people, you know, like you can't just get one person to be like, oh yeah, that's an this exceptional tree is if it's truly an exceptional tree, they need a second opinion. Um, so if we have like really clear standards for what we're expecting as to documentation and I would also ask for a second opinion for an exceptional tree, um, photographic documentation. And then that way we don't have any there's nothing subjective. Everything's always the same. People know they have to have this complete report. We need to see photographs of it. And if it's an exceptional tree, you can't just get one person to go, "Oh, yeah. This is a hazard tree." We're going to need like a second opinion or maybe the the opinion from the city, depending. So, that would be my Thank you for that.

DS and that's enough from me for now. So, are you suggesting uh Commissioner Oler that D2 would the issue be addressed if we used what is in our definitions saying a certified arborist since we defined certified arborist? Would that be I'm not talking about the certified arborist part. I'm talking about the tree assessment part. Okay. But who it's to be done by? Well, it definitely needs to be done by a certified arborist. Yes. So, we have a list of what we consider a certified arborist, but above and beyond that, we have a list of what we need to see in this tree assessment. Yes. And it needs to be the same for everybody, and we need pictures and all of all of that. Um, okay.

So, that's kind of like what's what's required for a tree report or a site that survey, but maybe that needs to say tree. Yeah. Make sure that all the terms are exactly the same so I'm not getting Well, you didn't say that here. You didn't say that there. That's right. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Other um points, questions, comments on Yes, Commissioner Johnson. So person on the street has a lot, they'll understand that this means this is my private property because it's not being developed. That this applies to me that I'm not building, but I have these trees and there's an issue with the trees. This is the part of people that are on have a lot and there's no development on that lot. So, okay. Okay. Which is much easier. Those are easier to enforce. I just want to clear steps in the code versus somebody who's taking down a tree in their backyard and they have a house,

right? But this is for the people that have a house on a piece of property, not a vacant lot. Uh, in most cases, D is going to be a vacant lot. But not all. As you were citing, you were saying, "Hey, somebody's got a large lot. They want to cut down some trees." An underdeveloped lot. It could be an undeveloped lot where it's vacant. It could be what we consider underdeveloped where, like you said, you know, they've got the equivalent of four lots, but they've only got a tiny little house. They would come in. We would go through that process with them.

Yeah. Let's look at my house. I have a vacant lot to the back of my property. So, because my house is on one lot and there's another lot attached to the mortgage, this would rep apply to my vacant lot. Correct. Okay. And as a homeowner, I would have to get the arbitus to come in, look at a tree before I could do anything with it, regardless of what tree it is. If it is um if it's if it's considered a significant tree which is any fur tree that's 35 that's diameter size. So well

deciduous. So if it was a deciduous or a significant tree right now depending on what type what level we do it'll either be 6 in or 9 in or 10 or 12. if it was at that um on a vacant lot, yes, you would just come in and say, "Hey, we want to take this down for some reason." And again, if it's under that, we you wouldn't necessarily have to. Um

Okay. So, what did do you have a concern like No, I just Are you just trying to understand? Um, there are people that are I'm seeing a lot of tree cutting lately. [laughter] And I know when we first moved in, of course, I don't know what it was back then. We had a tree in our neighborhood, somebody came through and cut all the top of the trees and took the Christmas parts. And so our tree was dying from the inside. And so Oh, I get there, too. Basically, I say you can't top trees, but we'll get there.

Yeah. Yeah. And that's what they did. No, I just wanted to make sure that if somebody had it was their property, they weren't developing it, they could still not do anything unless they apply to this. Okay. Yeah. I just didn't know if a regular citizen would understand it. And again, in most if you've got some little pear tree in the backyard and you take it down, nobody's going to care. Yeah. what we're what we're trying to get after is those people who have right a forest back there and someone you know comes in and just starts yeah

whether if it's for profit or a lot of times what I get more on the commercial and the industrial land is people are like oh I'm just going to cut down the trees throw gravel and park cars no you're not [laughter] so anyway well thank you uh on the topic ofception Questions D. Uh, Commissioner Johnson's comment about any tree and you got me thinking about what about species of tree. So if so exemptions would be where that would apply. So in in Commissioner Johnson's example, if she had laurel

Yep. that she says, you know, I need to cut that down. I'm tired of berries or whatever that there's no issue there, right? Uh okay. So, uh I I appreciate this idea and of D to try to encourage homeowners and and this is residential and non-residential, right? It's everybody. Um I am and yeah if you hit the applicable Yeah. So it would be residential if you're over 10,000 if you're 10,000 square feet or more. I guess if you're for that lot. Okay. Or or you're vacant.

Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Mountain Laurel Roadendrrons. Are they considered anything in here but a bush or a tree? I think they're they're a bush. Only rarely are they tall enough to be called a tree roodendrin and they still probably wouldn't be big enough diameter. So, okay. So, if we're looking at the diameter, okay, I just want because they are all around. There's some gorgeous tree rooadendrrons. Yeah, that's a whole another issue. Okay. But they're not a tree. So, another u thing to consider

is perhaps there's a list of trees that are wanted for replacement. I've seen some cities that really specify species and uh replacement ratios per species because uh but on this topic you may get comments like well they're cottonwoods

and or they're there's some other trees that are considered not so groovy but I mean they are part of the ecosystem. Well, and I I specifically actually did some research on cottonwood because yes, I get that. I had some I went round and round with a [sighs] landscape arborist once and he didn't think he had to count the cottonwood, but cottonwood are actually very valid, especially wetland trees in this area. So, I said yes, you have to count the cottonwood. So, uh so anyway, that was really just on that paragraph. I'm trying to stay on track and moving on to exemptions. But did you So the second round Robin on on paragraph D.

Anyone have any additional? I see Commissioner Johnson.

I just lost my thought. Um, you know, when we look at the city, we have a comp plan of vision. So it seems to me when we look at the trees and the landscape, we would want a vision for the entire city. I'm just thinking out loud right now like there we know we don't want um butterfly bushes that can grow onto a tree because they're invasive. When we say there's invasive trees, you cannot have any invasive tree. Th this is this putting also just saying you have to look at another level of the code that these are trees that are not absolutely not allowed as a replacement tree.

Um and that's kind of I think that's we're jumping ahead. But no, but I think that's where where you were kind of going and I think that's why you were thinking of it. And my short answer is I don't I don't think there is wording in here like that and there should be. So we will Well, I was still looking at exceptions. Is Oh, are we still on D or We're just finishing up D and now we're going to Oh, I was looking at exceptions. Sorry. Okay. So, I don't see anyone wanting to jump in on the second round, Robin, for D. So, we're on to E, exemptions. And uh first round robin on it, Commissioner Oler. Yes.

Yes. Um I like the exemptions. Um I agree with Laurel, English Holly, Leeland Cyprus, and non-native cultivated fruit trees. As we've already just alluded to, there may be some other trees that belong on the exemptions, other non-native trees that are nuisance trees. We could probably just piggyback on anybody that has more staff and more time as we already talked about a little bit earlier to maintain a list like we agree with the wazoo list from the cooperative extension or whatever. Um that would probably cover us because they keep that very up to date. So the exemption section is intended to be trees you can cut down without getting a permit.

Yep. So I will yeah I can add a you know or and trees on like you said that are listed by on the states nuisance tree list or something right so list the list okay use other people's work okay uh other comments on exemptions yes commissioners um are we allowing trees below our significant tree diameter to be removed without a permit with hand labor and light equipment. [laughter]

That's kind of how I interpret all of it, but I don't think it's explicitly stated. It's probably not as clear as it should be that there are certain trees you can just take out. Okay. Do you think if we add a number three to exemptions that just says any trees smaller than certain criteria?

Yeah. Yeah. Just to make it clear. And it may be some what I'm what's floating through my head is maybe something like if you're under this significant tree size on a developed lot, you don't need any thing or something. Yeah, I agree. versus vacant lots. I don't I I really want them to come in and get a permit even if they're taking down trees that are small. And I'm gonna say yes because

I want to make sure that's all they're doing. So I'll play with some language on because yeah, I mean it's like if it's a developed and there's a h a house or a duplex or apartments and it wasn't a required tree and it's sort of undersized, I they don't necessarily need to come in and get something from us. But, um, I don't vacant lots is what I'm really worried about for just Yeah. All right. Okay. I'll play with that.

So, any other, uh, thoughts on exemptions? We're on our first round. Um, is there I I like the idea of the list. Uh but we're going to have to pay attention to it because as you just as manager staller just mentioned cottonwoods do they are part of a succession of trees in an ecosystem ecosystem and

we have the hyobos creek and associated repairarian uh shoreline that you know would would have those trees that like to be in soggy soil kind of thing. So, uh, we may really need to have a smart landscape or arburous person think about that. But, um, uh, the other thing is, uh, the size issue. I I think that's that's a valid point as well because I was reading this as the only trees that are being retained are the ones that meet the definition of exception exceptional or significant. But I'm getting a sense that that's not quite what you were thinking when you were saying

my only my thinking is they the replacement you only have to the replacement only applies to those trees that are significant. Um, so if it's under, you can remove it. You don't have to replace. So then if you're, so if you came in for a permit and you're just wanting to remove a couple small trees, we'd give you a permit. You don't have to replace them because they're undersiz. Um, but is there times when we don't even need the permit because that's time and you know I I don't necessarily want to make a homeowner and I think we'd have a really hard time enforcing it if a homeowner's taking out you know they've got a 2 in something that's I mean we get those over here that fur tree over there. I swear in a year that you know some sprout will go and you've got a couple inches and you're like okay we're going to hack that down. I don't want them to feel like they have to come in and do a permit or us going. So, yeah, there's that there's that line of when do they need a permit, when do they don't, when do they have to replace, when do they don't? That I'll I'll try to work on clarifying that a little better

based on what I'm hearing. [snorts] So, are we ready to move on to number or letter F? Yes. We didn't do this second round, but seems like folks were done. Okay. Tree survey. Um so yeah so comments

just trying to define um and maybe like I said maybe it's tree assessment maybe it's tree report but trying to put in writing what the expectations are that they have to provide us so that we can adequately review the tree that they want the trees that they want to take down replace because right now I get a wide variety of stuff that people think is a tree report. So, uh, first round on the round robin, uh, Commissioner Johnson and then Commissioner Oler. Commissioner Johnson.

Um, when we look at, um, oh, I should have lost my space. When we talked about the size of the tree, map the tree with locations and number them. Does the will the number include the diameter of the PE tree and a photo? So, the first part is the map. The second part is assessment which would be size. Measure and provide the diameters defined in this section. It's but they'll be tied together the number to the measure. Okay. And um what's CMC? Oh, that's who I stole it from. Say what?

That's the whatever code I borrowed this information from. So, I need to switch I need to change that and um to whatever ours is. And if we don't have one, I need to make a definition for it. Do I have one definition for it? I think I don't No, we don't. Oh, do I not? And so the the assessment um also when we talk about the health of the tree is all from the arbitus. Yes.

Okay. And um so the goal really is trying to preserve as many of these trees as we can. Um and a hazardous tree is defined as one more than one, more than two, more than three characteristics of a hazardous tree. You know, could it be is it a hazard because it's uh limbs are uh falling down when a wind blows or is it a hazard because we see the it rotting? Is it a hazard because the uh uh the roots are above the ground and going into another p, you know, yard of a person? I I'm just wondering that's just all about it.

Yeah, I think that's where I need to track it back to our definition. Okay. Um because yeah that leaves it a little bit vague. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Oler on the topic of tree survey paragraph F. Yes. And it's just probably a continuation of what I was saying earlier about which we've already talked about standardizing what we consider a proper assessment from a certified arborist. But the other thing I was wondering about is the calculation of canopy because we do talk about that later and it's not really talked about in the tree survey and it's going to be interesting to know how they calculate the canopy. Calcul like what tree canopy.

Oh, canopy. Okay. Um because I think that plays into and we'll talk about it a little later. That plays into some of the definitions later. So, how if we can give them directions on how we expect them to calculate tree canopy under tree survey, that would be helpful. Okay. Um, let's see. Yeah. Um, oh yeah, off-site tree canopies. Okay. Yeah.

Where's off-site tree canopy in print? inventory the one B got it. Okay, this is what happens. This is why these are good because I like I said I borrow from here.

Yeah. Um and I don't know how we feel about do we want to see root zones as well? I don't know that we talk about root zones later, but that can also impact of course paved areas, sidewalks, um relation to like how close it is to uh the home, the foundation, and that kind of thing. Just a thought. I'm not sure how I feel feel about that, but that's probably enough for me for the moment. Pass on to the next.

Nice. Okay. Uh Commissioner Zaro, anything on the tree survey? Uh so I I agree with the comments so far that the issue of standardizing what's required um much like a wetland assessment from you know these these things matter and a consistent uh measuring program is really the way to make it fair. uh as I as reading I've done about tree canopy has been it's a drip line that that you look up that the drip line that's the size of the tree canopy and you think about how big will the tree get for some tree um programs and such

to get more trees or to have a credit system that someone says you have to have x amount of percentage of your lot with a tree canopy and then they create a credit system and so it becomes how it's calculated is So critical just like diameter how is it measured?

Yeah. So I think the way they use canopy is the way we have used tree grove which I do define. So I'll I'll play to make again consistency through this. So I appreciate when someone you guys finding those things. Uh the other um uh issue in in my study uh number two assessment sub paragraph C tree health I did some reading and a point was brought out about viable versus viability and the thought was well what's the current condition and will this tree survive development um you know, will this tree survive once the development happens? And and uh so it just it just got me really thinking about tree health in terms of

Yeah. We not retainable retainable with mitigations. Yeah. But that idea of yeah, we can keep this tree, but by the time they get done with all of their heavy equipment, they've so compacted the soil, there's no water and oxygen getting to the roots. And um and while they're supposed to protect those trees, they're not. The other side I get to is I get a lot of neighbors when they take down maybe there's six trees and they take down five and then the one that's left, they're very concerned. Is it going to fall on my house?

Does that make it a hazard? And so having real standards about how you define a hazardous tree is all the more important. Um and then if hazardous then the valuation. Okay. So and this tree survey is utilized with underdeveloped lots that are over 10,000 square feet and undeveloped lots of any size. Yes.

Okay. Is this also used as was mentioned earlier um on determining what a hazardous tree is? In essence, yes, it would be an abbreviated version, but the idea is that they, you know, they don't necess have to do a tree survey over the whole property if they're only discussing one tree, but they would need to provide us, here's the lot, here's where that tree is located. Here's we went out and we tested it and this is the pictures and this is why we've determined it's dying and there's no way to save it. So, yes, let it be taken out. Right. Is there in thinking about adjoining properties and tree roots do go cross property lines? Uh they don't know those boundaries.

So a development happens in a in a hypothetical. Uh tree roots uh the development on the adjoining property damages the tree on a neighbor's property because they've just gone along and done some terrace. You know, they've done some real earth moving. I don't know how to address that or to uh to to do a heads up and just in analyzing a development and saying, "Well, where are you going to bring your bulldozers in or your excavators?" And I've I've had the opportunity to watch the intensity of heavy equipment that can arrive at a site and it's

it's it's stunning. So in watching that and then thinking about adjoining property owners and realizing what they're doing there is affecting the adjoining property owner. Yeah. So that's where it does that's where we got into that why I need to fix the language. But the inventory does say it needs to include any off-site trees that may be subject so that they're either overhanging and you know kind of the idea is usually like you're saying you're thinking that the tree drip system. So wherever they overhang is probably the bulk of what is going to be if they're damaging that. So those should come in as well on the tree survey so that we can try to avoid those and protect those as we can.

But there is that issue of adjoining property owners have the right to take their fence line up into you know another 50t up there and say my neighbor's tree I don't want them overhanging my fence. So you end up with that. But I know I know we get into the weeds on things, but it in case it sparks a sense of maybe

No, there is I get those questions and there is kind of the way it's interesting the way the state law reads is it's kind of like you can as long as you don't kill the the tree. [laughter] So yes, you can sort of trim back on your side of your property as long as it does it's as long as you're not killing the tree. So there's that. But it becomes a civil issue, not a city enforcement issue. But there is some language that is sort of trying to figure out how do you balance that of yes you can cut back but you can't you know poison or purpose do a hack job that or purposely try to

problems. Yes. So uh so that's round one. Uh round two on uh tree survey paragraph F. Any additional comments? Any additional observations from staff? Oh, Commissioner Johnson. Um, we don't talk about electrical lines, power lines on the survey and the trees that are put in a front yard that they're goes over the power lines. So, I'm just curious. So, this would be trees that are existing, right? Um, that could be part of the hazard assessment.

Yeah. And I suppose if they came in and said, "Hey, there's power lines here. That's why we're that's our reasoning for wanting to cut it down." They I would assume they would provide that. Obviously, when we go to replacement, they have to provide us landscaping plans. And then we do look at where lines are to figure out. I mean, for me, what I'd like, and I'm not recalling right now, that trees are kept away from them because of the cost it takes for trees over and the loss of power and stuff. I see people planting small things underneath the trees and the, you know, and I go, why are you planting it there? Plant it further in the yard. Yeah, the canopy may do it over, but it's better. And I don't know how you can restrict that.

Well, like I said, that that falls more, you're talking more about when they do the replacement tree planting or any, you know. Yeah. So that Yeah. And in development, a new development, keep it away from if there's power lines and everything else. Also, if under the landscaping rules right now, which again, they need some fluffing up as well, but it specifically says like if you're doing street trees, right, um there are different trees if it's if there are power lines versus if there's not power lines. They can only grow so tall. The idea being [clears throat] that you know Yeah. Um okay. So looking at our time, we're approaching

7:30 or so. Um any other second round robin on tree survey paragraph? Nope. Okay. First round robin on tree retention? Nope. Uh we brought up the topic already of looking into some wiggle room about exceptional trees shall be preserved if it if there's a circumstance where there's some kind of discretion about allowing other building envelope standards or dimensional standard. I mean, I've seen some codes that say, well, to preserve the tree, we'll let you go taller or you know that

and then you got to think about, well, yeah, but then if accidentally the tree dies, some some incentives or you know, give and take can have their loopholes as well. Sorry we have to think that way, but anyway. So, that was brought up. uh tree retention 35% of significant trees shall be preserved. So this is to for for full transparency the way this is written is that exceptional trees have to be preserved. There's no replacement for them.

No replacement. You're only required to or not only you are required to retain 35% of whatever we determine is significant. If you need to if you can't do that that's when the replacement kick kicks in. So if you have, you know, whatever, I guess if you have three trees that are significant, theoretically you could take down two and not have to replace any the way this is written because you're you're retaining 30 roughly a third. If you want to cut down all three, then for that third tree, it would kick in. So it's not all significant trees. The way this is written, it's only the 35%. So again, that's something we need to think about. is do we want all significant trees have to have a replacement? But again, then you start getting into you the you you realistically cannot depending on how many trees are on a property. You can't always do that. Um and you've got one property that has two trees and you got another property that has 50 trees. So trying to find that balance. Um, again, that's a number that was used in another jurisdiction. That number could go up, they could go down. We could rethink Exactly. We could say you have to retain 35% and still replace half. I, you know, I so round robin number one, uh, thoughts on the idea, uh, tree tree retention.

One, two, three. Thoughts? Yes, Commissioner Zoro. Um, G2 35%. I would suggest increasing it to 50 for the sake of increasing it and for the sake of having um an even number. 35% I think Yeah. You'd have to have 70 trees to make it sense. Yeah. Um I think just saying half would be a lot more straightforward and the likely Yeah. And then they would that also increases the likelihood that they probably will want less than that. They would have to re do replacements for anything less than 50%. Yeah. Good.

Okay. So, I see head nods on the 50% uh in agreement with that number. I appreciate seeing it expanded. I do have a question. We're talking about quantity of trees. Yes, we're not talking about tree canopy or hey, you got tree credits. You've and we're not using a tree credit system. But it got me I went off in directions. I know he could go all over the place. This was just my thinking was just number of trees. Um I suppose you could look at diameter of I mean I was just going off of number

because it does it is the canopy that makes the difference. It is the size of the canopy that makes the difference. So yeah, that's interesting to think of it that way. I mean, you you could again just playing out things to think on your brain because this is what my brain does. Let's say, you know, if you've got 10 trees and half of them are 6 in and half of them are 12 inch, theoretically, you could take down the 12 in. Now, you'd have to you'd have a higher replacement value and keep the six. Or do you say it's the total of diameter? I don't know. which is kind of getting at that tree canopy because there's only I mean you can't completely measure that. That gets real hard.

I like keeping it as number. I think it's straightforward. I think we could expand it and expand it and expand it and it just becomes too too much to keep track of and to measure. I think theoretically the bigger the tree you cut down the more. So in some ways it may actually encourage them to keep the bigger trees because the replacement value is less if you're keeping the versus the lower the smaller trees. I mean there is a difference between like a columnar tree will have less canopy than a big branching tree.

Yeah. So perhaps the wording to so the commission what I'm hearing is saying siding on the idea of the quantity of trees not a quantity of the accumulated diameter like you you took all the trees you added up all their diameters and then yeah put that in half. Okay. Uh and we can see how it works and revisit it over time. But if the number is the issue, then it needs to be 50% of the quantity or the number of so there isn't a confusion there. U thank you. Any any other thoughts? Uh Commissioner Johnson?

Nope. I'm fine. Uh tree retention one two. This is where again on three I I did put at least the idea that keeping the trees together if you've got a group of trees versus a bunch of ice, you know, is the priority, which would make sense. You would think that would benefit them as well. Yeah. But it's here in writing. So when we look at it, we can say, hey, this is we've acknowledged this is a priority. So I'll add on the first round, Robin, uh the tree grove concept. What I didn't see is as earlier mentioned spacing. That's what

a spacing. So when you say a tree grove, does that mean that the branches are touching one another? What what's meant by a grove beyond the number of them? A grouping of five or more significant and or exceptional trees with contiguous canopy cover and must be considered part of a group when Okay, so to some degree they're touching. So, two branches touching the canopy itself. And are we okay with five or more? Do we want So, the idea is again this is I took the definition from somebody. Um, so the idea and the idea is that it's you kind of take it as a group. Yeah, I'd go for smaller, but given we have smaller lots,

protecting a growing said for even if it's three trees together is better than three spread out trees. Classically, people plant three birch trees together. So we will say three or more. How is that deal? Okay. Deal. [laughter] Okay. So the definition on page eight for number nine tree grove is now being changed to three or three or more. Okay. Uh all right. So that any other second round robin on uh tree retention? No. Okay. So moving on to tree replacement.

So yeah. So this is where we get in. So basically the idea is um if if they're like okay we need to we can only save 40% because of whatever we're trying to do then they need to replace the 10%. Um so the idea is that they have to replace so number one says they have to replace with a type similar to being removed or better something comparable or greater to benefit. So that's why I was kind of like, do I need to say hedge trees? But I will just to be clear. Um, so the idea is that they can't come back with puny little trees when they're taking out something of more significance. Um, number two talks about the replacement ratio. Again, it does lower it a little bit from what we have or increase it depending on how you want to say from what we have now. So those numbers can be played with. Um, it specifically says that street required street trees and parking lot trees are not counted. These are in addition to the landscaping requirements we already have. [snorts] Um if be not not just because they choose but if best landscaping practices say um they have so many they have too many trees to replace because mo you know again most trees are supposed to be maybe you know 30 feet on center or something and so they've done all that and they still have five extra trees. Um, basically it's saying they may do um they may do and in lie of fee which again I I from what I I've talked to our attorneys um we can do this through our deviation process that they could then um pay the cost of the tree plus the installation cost established by a professional landscaper architect or landscaping contractor. ctor. Um and then that would go into a fund. The

finance director will eventually we would probably um create a fund that specifically says in lie of tree fund. Um and then my thinking being that um again those funds could be used on public property rightway. Um maybe you know I'm trying to leave it somewhat vague to give us some possibilities. Maybe we are able to I know Tacoma gives out um coupons so that people who don't have trees can go buy a tree to plant on their property. So basically we can use that fund to again kind of improve the canopy. Um I thought I had but I'm not seeing it. So I'm wondering if it didn't make it into this version. Um I had played with the idea and I think we had discussed it at the last meeting um of maybe saying um or I guess it kind of says here I guess it's under the replacement plantings the idea that like if you cut down an evergreen tree you can either do one tree that's taller or two trees that are shorter. So it sort of gives the incentive to hopefully maybe get some bigger more established trees you you know so like here it says one 10 foot or two between six and 10 two 10 foot or four. So it's like the incentive is to hopefully you have to do you do fewer trees if you can get them a little bit bigger with the hope um that we don't have that for the deciduous so I can play with that.

So thank you for that. Uh, so starting on page nine, H, tree replacement. Yes, Commissioner Oler. Yes. I have a a few few things and this is so minor. And to this is just a little when they say 2inch caliper trees, they mean diameter, right? That's diameter. So it's the same. Um, just verbiage to to align caliper with diameter um for the deciduous trees replacement plantings. Then the other thing is I'm a little me worried about if it's easier to pay the inlue of fee

every time someone will choose to do that. So if they're like, "Oh, replacement tree and I can get these two cheap trees." Well, screw it. I'm going to knock down all the trees and I'm just going to give the city this 50 bucks. Maybe we make that more of a pain point or be like, "You know what? You have to replace the canopy." So the pay would be to replace the canopy that was lost and we have some kind of canopy calculation that then gets paid to the city.

So part of Matt was trying to put in here is that they could only do it if they can demonstrate that that to plant any more trees on the property would exceed best landscaping practices. So they can't just choose to. They would have to go through our deviation process and make the case. that was the intent. I can make that more obvious if that would help or we could add to I you know or we can consider some more the inl penalties is the right word but de des decentize

yeah decentivize the inlaw of fees should include the cost of the comparable canopy somehow. And we don't have a definition and we don't have a definition for canopy. Then we have we have grove. So I needed Okay, we talked about that. Well, the other thing too is like it's not in the Yeah, I need to use we'll pick one and Okay. Yeah, we maybe we switch to canopy but I will

maybe it's canopy or whatever it is. whatever have but like we could also think about and maybe this is going a little farther a field than we want to right now but what are our canopy goals as an entire city like do we want 35% for the entire city and then we seek to go towards that goal and then that's like so clearly the goal

and that's where I do um I think this is our first step like I said as I've tried to pitch this as the stopgate because I do I think um we do you know want I there is value and there's a lot of resources right now and we're all encouraged to start engaging with the community to come up with that so that it really is the community saying no we do value this I think they do I think we do

but to go through those steps so we can show look we did and both like I said uh the both the state uh DNR um Pierce County um city of Tacoma, they all have specialists that are that have developed plans on how to do this. They are more than happy to help the smaller communities. So, this is that first step. Meeting at Milton Days was another one of those first steps. So I I and we could put language in here that says um this, you know, somehow that the city is working towards a full urban canopy plan or something. We could

Yeah, I think I I like that because I think that is the goal.

Yeah. And I I do like that the city will then have this fund to plant trees and to help um private property owners who may not be able to afford the trees plant trees. I really like that. I really like 4B. So the other thing that we may run into is the um replacement trees shall remain in a this is five replacement trees shall remain in a healthy condition for a minimum of 5 years after installation. Milton bless our hearts where we always have stumbled is in the enforcement part. And I'm not blaming anybody. It just seems to be how it happens. It's been really hard for the city to enforce its own guidelines and rules for whatever reason over the years before any of us were ever involved in any of this. So any anytime we put something like that in, it's it's just considering the impacts to staff, how are we going to ensure that happens? You know, that's what I worry about.

I have an idea. Yes. Every they tag trees in forest. So maybe every tree that's replacement tree has to carry in the date and it it's the metal thing they just put on a tree. Little tag. It's the tag that states the year the tree was planted. I volunteer to be a tree guardian and I'm going to go visit. [laughter] We need the tree elves. I'm a nosy neighbor. Show me your trees. [laughter] Additional concerns. Commissioner Oler, that's probably good for me. Very good. Okay. Addition concerns Commissioner.

Um, yes, real quick. In lie of if they choose to if the options are paying that cost, if we make that higher or too high, the other option is to plant more trees against best landscaping practices. Sorry, that's okay. I have called the hall tomorrow. They're picking up all my junk. [laughter] Yeah. So, it's [clears throat] And who's defining best landscaping practices?

Well, because they have to turn in a landscaping plan that is by a certified landscaper as part of that part.

Um, yeah. So maybe maybe consider like you said there maybe give a couple options like you could put in a more established tree for that. Um like maybe there you know this is this is your your we we talked about like this is your steps. Your first step is to put them all on the property. Second would be to um make more established trees and that equals a you know instead of five little trees you can put in three big trees. And then the third option after you've gone through all that would be if there's any trees left or something. So I'll play with that to kind of incentivize good quality trees and then if you have to because too often what has happened I think in the la the contrast to that is I think what has happened in the past is they've come and said well we can't plant any more trees because of this and so they've used it to just not have to do anything

beyond what they've planted. So we're losing we're not getting anything for that. So that's kind of where the inloo of came of is at least they can pay us, right? And we can plant them someplace else. Yeah. Other concerns, Commissioner Zoro? Nope. First round robin. Commissioner Johnson on tree replacement. Any thoughts?

Uh, okay. I've got a few. um relative to the fee in lie I would like I agree that this becomes an easy way to just you know do what you want to do and just pay the it's just the cost of doing business kind of thing when our goal is to preserve retain trees and enhance the tree canopy. So, I would encourage uh the option should be prefaced with a statement that specifies the priority for on-site replacement trees. Like we have something that says when you have to replace a tree, the first thing to be considered is it has to be on site. You can't say, "Well, you know, I'll just or or I'll I'll do these replacement trees, but Milton, you can go put them in the right away." It we're trying to keep it on site. So stronger language u specifying a priority on site is the first thing. Uh and then uh uh the other issue is as I add on to other things here quickly arborist quality. I can remember speaking to an urban forester who said you know you can go to a home improvement center and get a pretty poor excuse for a tree. And some cities have said, well, we didn't set a standard for the quality of the tree. Um the um no hedge trees should be specified as allowed.

Uh the other thing about and it's relative to the getting to the point of saying, well, I can't do it on site.

It's got to be in the neighborhood. I think it's what I'm witnessing in parts of town is the parts of town that were unique for the extensive number of trees and the height and the maturity and such. They get all clearcut and then well we have a few more lollipop trees on Milton Way. It's like that's not fair. So there should be a priority. I think that should be that it has it needs as best as possible close to the site or in the neighborhood. And how do you define neighborhood? It can be a conversation, but something that just uh doesn't amount to an exodus of trees where we've got them and then, you know, the neighborhood loses the health benefits, the beauty, the the cooling, etc. Uh let's see. Uh so that hierarchy of where the money goes. The other thing, and it's a bit of a backtrack, but it's been in the back of my mind, is in applicability. I'll just put it as a question to you. Unit lot development. So, do these rules are they set up for the parent lot or and it's just a question is that issue of unit lot development how will that work in with this process and don't need an answer now but it's it's been in the back of my mind as I've observed what's going on. So uh the other thing about page 10 item number five uh director 5B the director shall have the right to inspect the health and condition. Doesn't that put the onus on a staff person or is you know somebody who's not a tree specialist and that seems I mean I can appreciate looking at it and say well I don't have to hire an arborist but it just seems yeah it should just be something like the director has the right to request inspection but the idea is the idea is that the city can inspect these trees is the

intent. So,

but do we have somebody who has this the credentials or the skills to say, "Yeah, that tree is on its way out or that planting has failed." So, more food for thought about that. And I know there's a balance in equity and thinking about people resisting it because man, just to turn around and prune my tree, I got to hire an arborist. Well, how expensive is it that you're pruning? So, it's finding that balance. Uh, and as far as the minimum tree replacement ratio, uh, I'll send in some suggestions because what I don't see is the concept of, you know, a tree that's a really big tree with a big canopy. Uh, it seems like it there needs to be a better ratio set up especially with species and and I can provide you a list on that. I never really thought about, you know, a tree at full maturity, you know, it varies by species and therefore replacement

uh equity on that. So, okay. Any other thoughts on tree replacement from folks in the moment? Okay. Uh the last page, uh 11, significant tree and grove protection. And before I go any further, we've been talking about tree canopy. One tree can have a canopy. So I keep hearing and I might be misunderstanding people saying well we we've covered it in tree grove but an individual tree has its own canopy. So I'm so we need to play about having a definition for tree canopy that specifies how it is measured

but okay sorry I apologize for backtracking there but u on page 11 significant tree and tree grove protection. So that is the existing code. Okay. So, that was just for comparison. And I'm I apologize. I didn't It doesn't It's It's really in small letters. City of Milton. It should have been, but that's Yes, that's because I'm always trying to get these out at the last minute making last minute changes. So, that's just what we currently have so you could compare the two and how small it is versus what we're proposing. Okay. Right. Four pages. G is current state, former state. Good. All right.

Okay. So uh we've covered this topic uh for the evening. Any closing comments from folks? Okay. So uh B for our regular agenda is the January meeting conflict. Folks bring out your calendars. Uh so what is the conflict?

So I will be on a cruise. [laughter] I will be on vacation on on that date. Um it's also we're in, you know, obviously we're in the process of advertising for some new um planning commission members. We're also it's a transition with the council. So I had suggested maybe we just cancel the January meeting coming back in February. Um, I would be happy to send out um sort of early January and well, yeah, before I leave, maybe some revisions on this if people want to be able to look at it and think about it and make some comments and stuff through January on the tree stuff with the idea that February we could hold the public hearing. If everyone loves it, you could vote on it in February because we would have had it or we we have a few more and we push it off until March, but we could have it ready if in theory people are pretty comfortable with it in February if we wanted to. So that was my suggestion. So u how do other commissioners So what would some other options be? We have the meeting in your absence. We we can

you can or you could have it later in January. Okay. Or we could have it later in January. I'd say later in January for me versus cancelling. It's already smack dab in the middle of January, January 14. And so the one in February looks like it's February 11. So counseling's fine. So cancelling is fine with Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Zaro, Commissioner. Okay. So, but she said she would send us something to read so we'd be ready to roll in fe so the public hearing could be held. I love that idea. Yeah.

Okay. All right. So, the decision is and may I have a motion uh to uh cancel the meeting? I move to cancel the January 14th planning commission meeting. Second. Okay. Motion's been made by Commissioner Oler. Seconded by Commissioner Zaro to cancel the planning commission's regularly scheduled commission meeting in January, January 14, 2026. Any discussion? All those in favor of cancing the meeting signify by saying I. I. Any opposed?

The motion carries unanimously. So, no meeting on the 14th. Okay. And then um it was recommended that again because we are missing we only have four tonight. We're missing one. We're hopefully getting a couple more that um we just move the elections to the in this case the February meeting um which kind of made sense as well. And I didn't provide you with any of the documentation. So if everyone's okay with that, we will do that in February. Okay. So our bylaws do allow us flexibility end of the year or as soon as possible thereafter. So, uh, moving the election to the February meeting would be the net result

and that, as I understand our bylaws is okay. Yep. Um, and so can I have a motion, please, to uh postpone the election of officers uh commissioner offices um to the February meeting? I move to postpone the commission office elections to the 2026 February meeting. So seconded. Okay. Motion's been made by Commissioner Zoro, seconded by Commissioner Oler to postpone uh elections for commission offices until February 11, 2026. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I.

I.

I. Opposed. Motion carries. Four to zero. Uh last thing on our uh regular agenda was to just begin that conversation not to get into much depth but to to encourage commissioners to start compiling a list of ideas uh and staff as well. Well, and like I said, I will um I can send out um probably tomorrow I can send out our current work plan of how what's left on it from 2025 as a starter of are we still happy with what's left on it um and what we still have to do and then yeah then that way we would have a good then everyone could think through that as we go into February where we would be talking about the work plan. So,

y the and the other thing would be if you could add to that the uh horizon for when we get back into that routine of okay, time to update the critical areas, the big picture, okay, or the shoreline master program or those big ones that just it just feels weird to not have a big project like that [laughter] before us. So nice. So that would be the other thing of just sort of a heads up of and that might inform what we do in the interim. Yep. As well. Okay. So work plan discussion. Any further comments? Okay. Completed. Now we're on to item seven for tonight's agenda, staff reports.

Um yes. So, um I did want to let you know, so one of the things that we did come out of the comprehensive plan was this idea that a a desire to do a sub area plan for um the business zone along Highway 99. Um we um last year or this I guess technically it's still 2025 but um the council had um we've have a contract with a grant writer and she has um she is currently working on a grant with she had reached out to department of commerce and it sounds like there is a sub agency under within the department of commerce that um technically gets grants for rural cities for economic development, but if you're under 10,000, they consider you a rural city. My guess is they must have enough money that they're willing to So anyway, it looks like that um they it sounded pretty much like you fill out the application correctly and you get this money. Um I believe there's a 20 20% match. So I think it I think they give us 7500 and then we would match that with 20% and that's just for planning and so it looks like um probably by the middle of next year we should hopefully be able to start that process of a sub area. Um we do also um you know we have framework is our sort of contract planning service so we can continue to use them for that kind of thing. So, the idea would be that we would um start that sub area plan for that area, really get involved with those neighborhood, those property owners, hopefully get a feel of what they're wanting versus what we're wanting. Um we've done a lot of work now with Sound Transit because they'll be going 99. Um we've actually been focusing on what those fronted streets

would look like, sidewalks, so we'll be able to use that. Is is all of this playing in? So the and then it sounds like that this um it's an acronym but the sub the agency that we're getting this grant from for economics they actually have they also will do grants to actually develop certain things like like a couple million dollars if you hit the right triggers. So, that's part of what our grant writer Kristen is looking at is not only us qualifying, but what are those things they might fund um and do we hit any of those? Because it talks about um infrastructure. So, are there infrastructure we need? Does that does sidewalks count for that? I don't know. So she's trying to see so that when we do that grant and we do that sub area plan that we are also keep being conscious of what could we possibly get additional funding for to actually develop. Um and that is perfect because that area is for economic growth. That's what that whole area is.

Anyway, so I'm a little excited about that. Um I'm excited to that she's doing all the work for me and then we will So um assuming that it sounds like I said we probably wouldn't if everything hits right because you have to hit with their meetings and this and that and um probably wouldn't get the funding till the middle of the year and then we would start out with that but then obviously we would keep the planning commission in the loop because um eventually that sub area plan would be zoning changes possibly use changes design guidelines for that area all that kind of stuff. So anyway, that was my excitement for the day. Okay, so we're on to commissioner reports. Commissioner Oler, would you like to start us off?

Uh, yes. Please stay safe out there. They're evacuating parts of Sumar and Puallup as well as ordering as we speak. It's kind of hairy, so please be careful. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Zoro, nothing from me. Commissioner Johnson,

I would just like to say I think we've had a very good year and what only concerns me is why aren't more people in the city stepping up to participate in city government and you know when we look at the election for council unimposed we don't have I don't know if we have people applying now for the two positions on the council but it is sad that uh people are either so stressed or just hopeless that they don't want to participate. So, I hope people out there um if you're beginning, this is a good one to start with for the city and [clears throat] uh we really need some people. I've worked on some people. I've pulled one in from before. [laughter] I'm still trying. Okay, thank you uh for that. Um two general themes. uh first is to say thank you to all of you for excusing me for uh some meetings over the year. Uh life has been extremely complicated and um it's I will leave it at that just to say uh thank you very much for your

yep patience and understanding and um it seems things are going to be a smoother sailing good for you

u going forward. Uh the other thing is uh what I've observed with issues that have come up and they may not be things that the planning commission uh is involved with, but I'd just love to get it on the record for staff to consider uh witnessing um a redevelopment of properties. Uh it seems that there needs to be a stronger requirement uh with thresholds for a survey to be done. um if there isn't a fence in place, people start guessing and it gets to be a civil issue. I understand. But I think we could avoid u some problems and um u give the city assurance that yes, the setbacks are being met. Um, I'm I won't go into a lot of detail, but to see people bulldozing other people's property and, you know, like, well, I thought it was mine, you know, just there's got to be there there really needs to be um a stronger threshold for that in in my opinion. Uh, the other thing with all the rain, it's made me pay attention as several driveways through Milton I've seen are getting paved. Uh, I've already mentioned it to Director Madden, but just put it on the record to just say our driveway engineering standards um need some improving and um what I've witnessed is driveways when they're paved flat and you're uphill, it's just a slle to send water right into your neighbor's driveway and now it's your downhill neighbor's problem. And so, uh, that idea of treating the driveway like a road and you have curb or a a pitch or a crown or something that gets the uphill properties with downhill driveways, getting that water into the uh, storm drainage system as is appropriate. Um, the other thing over the summer witnessing development, I really would like to see us improve

our standards with developers, builders, contractors cleaning up their mess. Um, you know, and I don't know if, and I have made an assumption that it would apply to everybody, but apparently it only applies to really big projects. And it's really a bummer to have redevelopment happening in an existing neighborhood with infill and these trucks are just rolling by shedding lots of dirt and um there should be something about cleaning up their mess and uh respecting property lines and not dumping their mess onto other properties. So, uh, it's been it's been interesting to observe, uh, the trouble and, um, also I hope that the city will take a look at our noise ordinance. I know you can do things to work on property 24 hours a day, but you know, a nail gun going off might not trip a uh decibel level, but you know, come 10:00 at night and somebody's nail gunning away. Uh it it's I just would like to see if we could make some improvements. uh because I think what we're going to see happening especially with changes in our code is we're going to see a lot more infield development and um so these effects uh are very jarring to a neighborhood and I hope we get some stronger standards. So uh that is my report and um so we're on to the next topic of next regular meeting. It's scheduled for February 11, 2026. And now that we've completed all of our items, I call the meeting adjourned at 8:08. hard to believe it's