Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I can move.

Welcome everyone. I would like to call to order the planning commission session for Monday, April 13, 2026. Uh, Iris or Christine, I see you're both here. Will you please call roll? Near present. James Bruce here. Moreno here. Mitchell is absent. G Guinea is absent. Sly here. Wing And for DRC we have um leak not present yet. Um Commissioner Mino here. Ju

here. Zangry here. Saloni here. Thank you. Did I get Liban Lindström present? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Moving to item number three, approval of minutes from the planning commission meeting on March 9th, 2026. Do I hear a motion to approve the meeting minutes as written? I'd like to move to approve the minutes as written. Do I hear a second?

Second. Right. All those in favor of approving the minutes from March 9th, 2026 as written, please say I. I. I. Motion passes. Iris and Christina, do we have anyone for public comment tonight? No.

Thank you. Agenda item number five, Commission for Citizen Involvement, general updates. We have three different postcards from neighborhood associations. First up is the Westlake Neighborhood Association meeting. It is going to be Tuesday, April 21st, 2026 at 6:30, Oak Creek Elementary School Library. Meeting agenda will be welcome and introductions, some new business, and uh introduction of candidates for board of directors. We also have Evergreen Neighborhood Association that is meeting Thursday, April 30th at 6 p.m. at the Windward Community Room. People are invited to come connect with their neighbors. The agenda is a casual conversation with food and presentations, an ENA overview and election of officers, learning about the backyard habitat program and the Clacamus County update from commissioner Martha Shrader and updates on preparedness and disaster planning in the neighborhood. Lastly, we have the North Northshore Country Club District Neighborhood Association annual meeting Monday, May 4th at 700 p.m. on International Firefighters Day, Oiggo Heritage House, 39810th Street with a guest presentation by Chris Derky, chair of the Lake Oiggo Fire Station Rebuild Pack. Next item number six, we have our joint work set work session with the development review commission. So, thank you all for moving your regular time to

join us here at our time. And we will be having the tree regulation amendments PP24-00006 presented to us by Jessica Neonalu, community development director. Jessica, are you ready to present?

Yes. Thank you, Chair Nhak. Really appreciate it. And first of all, I just want to start off by um welcoming our guests here tonight from the development review commission. Thank you so much for coming. I know this is an off night for you. Um I will say that back when we did an update to our urban and community forestry plan, uh we also invited the development review commission to come have a joint study session with the planning commission and it went really well and it was it was very helpful and there was a lot of great discussion um between the two groups. Um, as you know, the planning commission uh is a policy body that makes recommendations to our city council. And while the DRC does not have that function, they're the ones who actually apply the code in real in the real world. And I know you all have a lot of experience with um tree uh the tree code through our appeals because our we have type two applications that can be appealed to the development review commission. So, lots of knowledge to bring here and again, thank you so much for being here tonight. Um, I thought I does everyone has everyone met each other before on these commissions? Would it be helpful if maybe we just did a quick uh go through about your name and maybe how long you've been on your commission and we can just kind of run down the line real quick. Do you want to start?

Sure. Again, hi everyone. Uh, I am Mal Salon. Um, I serve on the DNC uh DRC uh since last summer. I'm a landscape um architect and um it's good to serve with my fellow committee.

Uh good evening. I'm Dwight Sandry. Is it Is that on? Yeah, there it goes. Uh I'm a retired civil engineer, lived in Lake Asiggo 30ome years. I have lived in Mountain Park and have been a member of DRC. This is my second term. Hello, my name is John Dues and I am a retired architect. Um have moved to Lake Asiggo from Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota about five years ago and um I'm serving my second term on the DRC.

Hi, my name is Yuko Amino. I'm an architect. Um, I've been on the DRC for two years now and I am also on the tree task force. So, hello. I'm Larry Lindstöm. I'm the chair of the DRC. I've been on the commission since 2024 and I'm happy to be here with all of you. Thanks for having us. You want to introduce yourself, Maria? My turn. Danna Moreno. This is my fourth year in my first term. My name is Jeremy Sly and this is um my first term and I'm about a year and a half in.

Thank you all for coming tonight. My name is James Bruce. Uh this is my first year on the planning commission and I'm an attorney here in Lake Asiggo. Hi everyone. I'm Rachel Nehach, the chair of the planning commission for this upcoming year. I believe it's my third or fourth year first term on the commission and I am also a project manager at Hosienda CDC. So you may be familiar with the project over on Boonberry. Uh I am the one in charge of that. So if you have any questions after uh come find me, happy to answer them.

Good evening. I'm Jim Twing. I'm a resident here of Lake Oiggo for about 30 years. I'm an attorney of about 50 years and uh enjoying my third year of being on the planning commission. Well, thanks everybody. Again, welcome. And um I think what we'll do is maybe do some quick introductions for the project team and then we'll just jump right into the study session. Oh, Commissioner Leak, I'm so sorry. Thank you.

Better late than never. Um I'm Helen Leak. I am a realtor here in Lake Asiggo and I've been where you are because I was chair of the uh planning commission for a while and then somehow got kicked upstairs or sideways, I don't know what which to the DRC which has been really fun and um glad to be here and I'm very interested in seeing how this all shakes up. Uh so as far as the project team goes um my name is Jessica Newman. I'm uh the uh project manager for this uh update to our city's tree regulations and I'll introduce our project consultant from Cascadia, Sarah Goldstein. Hi everyone.

Hi everyone. My name is Sarah Goldstein and I'm a consultant with Cascadia Partners supporting this uh project. We are a city-based planning firm. Uh we do a wide range of planning projects mainly land use, housing, environmental planning and tree and urban forestry related projects. Uh so we've worked in Lake Oiggo before on the state of the urban forest report. Um and before we jump to Morgan, I do want to call out our uh tree task force chair Brandon Nam in the back if he gives us a wave. Hi Brandon. uh he is available to ask to answer any um tree task force related questions and uh off to Morgan.

Good evening. I'm Morgan Holland. Um I'm a private consulting arborist on contract with the city's planning department. So excited to be here with you all tonight. Thank you.

Yeah. And I do want to acknowledge that we do have a couple of other project team members, although they're not presenting tonight. Uh we have Daffhne Sisle um and she is our associate planner. She basically administers basically our entire uh tree program and then also Christine Johnson um who is one of the uh subconsulting arborists for this uh project. Right. So here's today's agenda. Um most of the session today will be spent digging into some key policy questions that we've prepared. Um, these were included in your meeting packets and the the state uh the staff report. Um, but I'll give some project background and context first. Uh, just since we haven't met with the development review commission yet. Um, and the last time we met with the planning commission, we were on code concepts. So, that seems very long ago, we now have draft code. Uh, so I do want to kind of uh lay the groundwork for these uh code amendments first. So, oh, this looks small up here, but uh hopefully it's bigger for those with screens. Um, our objectives for the meeting today are to focus on important policy discussions again outlined in your meeting packet, but there's kind of four groupings, but six questions. Uh, there's two questions that we have around the clear and objective track and what it applies to. Should it apply to only new residential units and new lots? and should it uh apply to applications for additions and remodels. For the specifics of the clear and objective track, we also want to discuss tree retention percentages first. What should the minimum tree retention percentage be and what should we set as an incentive tree retention percentage? Uh we also want to talk about today some of the changes to the significant tree definition and the applicability of forest management permits. We're going to discuss these policy options al

together and uh this will directly inform how the project team brings these topics to the council work session which is upcoming in May. So to back up a bit, we've been to the planning commission once about this project, but it's the first time. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry to interrupt, sir. Um, there was a great deal of material distributed. The six questions you've outlined were pretty clearly documented. What about all of the other proposed changes in there? Some of them on your significant list.

Yeah. Do you want to take this one? So at after we get through these, so these six policy questions are really ones that we wanted to focus on, but there if there are other things that the commission would like uh or either commission would like to talk about afterwards, then we can we can uh we can discuss those as well. So it we were just it's overwhelming because this is there's you know 84 pages long. So we really were trying to tailor the the policy issues around issues that this these commissions would um have some expertise or background on. um when we go talk speak to the sustainability advisory board and the parks board on uh Wednesday we have a little bit different set of questions more focused on their expertise but again welcome to discuss other topics um after we get through those.

Great. Thank you.

So uh to back up a bit just to the overarching project objective and project outcome uh for this tree regulation for the set of tree regulation amendments. The objective of this project is to amend Lake Asiggo's tree code and tree related provisions in the community development code um as specifically recommended by the urban community forestry plan which is shown up here. Uh and the key findings that were part of the urban community forestry plan which as I understand many of you were part of uh and the outcome is to preserve the city's wooded character overall. The city has an immense tree canopy and uh we would like to promote a sustainable urban forest and kind of maintaining that canopy while supporting responsible development um and complying with state law. And this is specifically around housing, state law um around clear and objective standards with housing. And this project aims to integrate best practices in urban forestry uh enhance both the clarity and efficiency of tree regulations and ensure meaningful community involvement throughout the process. So complying with state law is a very important piece of this uh this revamp and this uh these updates to the to the code. And it's also really important to understand since this is directly in response to the Oregon state statute requiring cities to adopt clear and objective standards and procedures that regulate residential housing development um to ensure that the city does not use discretionary or subjective criteria to deny residential housing projects or discourage housing production through unreasonable cost and delay. The term needed housing here is defined in a separate part of the code, but essentially it covers missing middle housing types, multif family, duplex, triplex. Um, and it's all housing, but

it's uh it's to address the state of emergency of housing in Oregon. So, it does go back to all housing production. like OS Wego is required by state law to make these clear and objective changes um to reduce expensive process time for developers and to make the code more clear so that there's not a lot of back and forth um and uh procedural procedural costs for developers. So this means uh changes to a subset of type 2 tree removal applications, not all tree removal. And so just to show how this plays out in the code, the the current code uh for Lake Asiggo is discretionary. It's subjective. It's up to interpretation. Right now, it it reads that the removal of a tree should not have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood. And there's some more criteria involved, but it's it's very up to interpretation. And a clear and objective alternative is something that's measurable and you can say yes or no, it does or does not qualify. Uh and here I have uh the draft code requiring a minimum percentage of total quantity of healthy non-invasive trees over 15-in trunk diameter to be retained or require a minimum percentage of the total diameter of healthy non-invasive trees over 6 in DBH that's diameter at breast height to be retained and applicants can choose which retention percentage to apply. So we are required to offer this clear and objective track and although there can still be discretionary tracks as an option um we have to offer this for needed housing and you'll see with the the draft that you received we did keep a discretionary track and just added a clear and objective track as well. So, does anyone have any questions about

kind of the mechanics of clear and objective versus discretionary or any of the state law that's uh requiring these changes? Okay, great. So, just a bit of background on this project since we are kind of in like the last 25% of the project timeline here. At the beginning of the project, the team started by creating a key list of issues that were important to uh a variety of different stakeholders and members of the public around uh these tree code changes. The team bought the team brought this list of key issues to city council to the tree task force which is an advisory body of 14 professionals that interact with the code in and around Lake Oiggo. We brought this list to city staff through three group interviews. We did seven stakeholder focus groups. Uh and we also engaged the public with this list of issues um through an online open house. Uh we tabled at the urban forest summit and we went to the lake as we go emergency preparedness fair. So there were a lot of eyes on the initial list which was shorter than this one. Um you have that list separately. So this is just you don't need to read this tiny text up here. Um but there uh was a result of 12 substantive key issues and 25 technical key issues. And kind of how we uh have been describing them is the substantive ones are going to be really big kind of policy shifts while the technical issues are just slightly smaller tweaks or surgical changes to the code. So, a lot of the conversations we've had have focused on those substantive issues on the left, but we are addressing all of these issues in that draft three that you received. And so, here is the project timeline.

Um, we are here at the bottom on the third draft of the code amendments. Um, and the last time we saw the members of the planning commission, uh, it was in December. And so we had done a we had developed the list of key issues. We did a best practice research by looking at peer jurisdictions and we developed alternative approaches. And after all of this, we still needed more direction. So we came to the planning commission and council with some code concepts and uh and then we moved into draft code when we got their feedback on four key code concepts. So we're in the final stages of drafting code. The first draft uh was reviewed by the city staff and city attorney um for compliance with law and the second draft was reviewed by the tree task force at their fifth meeting. Uh so we have made changes after both of those drafts and you're seeing the the product of that. So coming up we have a couple more work sessions and hearings and um I'll outline all of those at the end because we'll forget about them if I do them now. but we're meeting with the uh council and then doing a couple hearings as well. So, in just to give an overview of kind of all of the changes that were made in the draft, uh there were 33 primary amendments and this consisted of 12 substantive changes and 21 technical updates across these four sections of the code. And key changes proposed in the draft are this twotrack type two tree removal process. Like I was mentioning the existence of the a new clear and objective track and a discretionary track. But uh before we jump into the rest of the changes, I'm going to hand it off to Jessica to give a little more context about type two tree removal applications. Right. I know that the development review commission is

probably pretty familiar with this, but just as a refresher, our type we have nine different types of tree cutting permits in the city. Um, and I'm not going to go through all of them. Um, but you know, we have like invasive, we have what's called a type one, we have dead, we have hazard, etc. Type two is one of those nine permit types. And the type two is basically a type of permit where if you don't qualify for any of the other type of permits, then you would apply under a type two. But primarily, it's going to be the removal is either for landscaping or development purposes. And it requires public notice as well uh which is a two-eek uh appeal uh public notice appear per period and then also a two-eek appeal period after the decision is issued. Then that permit or that um application is then eligible to be appealed to the development review commission and then could be further appealed to the city council and then after that the the appeals uh have have been exhausted. Um, and so these are typically going to be for trees that are over 15 inches in diameter and again being removed for landscaping or development purposes. So I just wanted to provide that quick context just as a refresher of what a type two permit is. Thank you, Jessica. Um, and so this this new type this new type two twotrack tree removal process will include uh the clear and objective track that's specifically for new residential housing development. uh and this is based on retention percentages um ensuring that uh a minimum tree retention standard is met. Uh and then there's still the discretionary track. So this is applicable to non-residential development. Uh and residential developers can decide to opt in. Um so it generally retains existing criteria with updates to clarify the definition of significant tree and a couple other uh kind of smaller general tweaks.

Um, okay. Notably, there's also a couple other changes. There are now uh uh draft amendments for a program specific permit for use in sensitive lands uh for simplified permits to allow for the proactive removal of trees that are uniquely susceptible to emerald ash burer. So this includes ash white fringe um and uh expanded mitigation requirements as well as street planting requirements. And again there's a lot of changes. Hopefully if you have any kind of questions that fall outside of what we are discussing in these topics, we can reach we can um revisit them afterwards. um but maybe we'll end up talking about them uh tangentially or related to our discussion and and we'll get some some clarity for everybody. So moving in to the main topics um we'd like to first get your feedback on them um before we we open up the discussion. Uh so we're going to present we're going to give some context similarly for each of these topics. Uh I'm going to show the current code and how the proposed amendment differs from the existing code and then we'll cover a couple key considerations and policy alternatives uh and then open it up for discussion. We also brought uh many of these questions to the tree task force as well. So we will report back on what they said um so you can have that uh for context. Okay. So, our first topic is clear and objective track as a whole and what it applies to. So, uh, first we're going to discuss should the cleared objective track apply to additions to dwellings or, uh, just new dwelling units? And

then as a second part of the conversation, uh, if so, should an applicant be able to consolidate tree removal for site improvements um, with new dwellings under the clear and objective track? Okay. So, feeling feeling good. Anyone have any questions before I jump into the topics? The current code permits the removal of a tree if it has outgrown its landscape area or is part of a landscape plan um to construct development that's already approved um and allowed by the Lake Oiggo code. And the removal can't have a significant negative impact on uh erosion, soil stability, the flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks, or a significant negative impact on the character of a neighborhood. And this includes uh a significant tree, alterations to the distinctive features or continuity of the neighborhood skyline, a visual screen, a street tree, or greater than 50% of a stand of trees. So, this proposed amendment um on the right here would add a new clear and objective track, but specifically for residential development. This track is outlined in the code changes. Um, but high level like I mentioned before it uh it means that uh there's a minimum retention percentage in the draft. It's 45% of all the trees on the lot or 45% of the total DBH on a lot. And there's there's some more specifications beyond that. Um, but that's the clear and objective track we're talking about. Um and what we want to know from you all is what types of development count for this clear and objective track where there's a little bit of uncertainty right now around

what is uh required by law. Um and they all have very important implications to um the way things work and and what trees are and are not approved for removal. So currently uh there is uncertainty about whether they apply to only new dwelling units or new residential lots or to all housing related development. And the scope of this uh namely how housing and development of housing are defined is currently before the Oregon Supreme Court in Roberts versus City of Canon Beach. Uh and the court's decision may clarify or further complicate this issue. a ruling could might not occur before the adoption of these proposed code amendments which are rapidly um coming up. Uh so there's a couple different ways that we could go a couple policy alternatives. Uh we could take a broader approach and include everything. So, new housing alterations, um, remodels to reduce the risk of future code amendments in case law expands the scope of how they're defining these these terms, housing and development of housing. Um, so this could simplify administration in the future. It could avoid having to do uh an update really soon after this update, but it also um could increase potential tree removal um compared to the discretionary track. So uh additionally applying uh to applying the clear and objective track to new dwelling units, lots and new alterations could simplify um the administration process for the city and the permit process for applicants which we can dig into a little bit more question.

Right. So here's the discussion question for you. We want to know if we should apply these clear and objective standards to only new dwelling units or should we also apply them to additions and alterations. We pulled the tree task force on the same question. Um and there's no clear consensus. Uh consensus for the tree task force is over 2/3 majority. It's not just over 50%. Um but there also wasn't um a 50-50 majority um between the between these two options. uh it was split half and half, 44% and 44%. Um so we discussed this as a team and we believe that there could have been some confusion about what the permitting process would look like um in the event that one or the other was true. Um, but let's let's get your opinions and your feedback on on this first question here about um whether you think we should apply it to only new units, dwelling units or um additions as well. And yeah,

I guess I have a question to kick it off. I mean, the it comes from the new OS statute that's to promote development of new housing. Does the city see um additions to existing dwelling units as a source of new housing for new housing units in any way? Well, I think what the statute says is it's to the development of housing. So, it's just broad. The question is, is it is it just new housing where it's new?

Yeah, I understand that. Does the city see ex additions to existing dwelling units as a source of new housing for the city or is that just somebody renovating their house and it doesn't really lead to like new additional units? So to me that would seem like additions to existing dwelling units don't relate directly back to the statute the the state statute that we're trying to address here.

Well that that yeah that is that is one way to look at it and that's initially what my thoughts were. Um because you're right, if someone just simply adds on to an existing dwelling and they're just adding a new another bedroom or a bathroom or whatever, um that's not new housing. However, someone could put an addition on existing house and make it an a new ADU that's that's contained within the existing dwelling that would be captured under the the new unit. Um so I think we would be okay there. But I think the issue is, and I'm I'm glad we have our um um contract attorney here, uh Attorney Miller. Um I don't know if she can shed more light on this, but the there is this issue of potentially the state um defining it more broadly as any type of housing, which would include additions. I don't know if you have anything else to add to that.

Well, I I think that pretty much covers it. So the the risk here is that it's it's a developing area of the law. The middle housing rules are new. The legislature keeps making these adjustments and so we don't really know what it means yet. And there is a current case um the Roberts versus Canon Beach case that's up at the Supreme Court right now which may or may not um address this issue. So it's that one's um related to a narrower issue uh with respect to I think a public road and basically whether the development that could lead to the development of housing counts. So they may or may not get into this question in that decision, but um there will most likely be a case that addresses this issue and it's just um so that is one consideration for the city

and I think that we would still have to consider it new housing if someone tore down a small house and and put in a a new house to replace it. I still think that would qualify as new housing under the statute. Do you believe do you agree?

Um I I think so. Well, and and certainly I would recommend that even if it didn't that that's where we draw a line in the code because that would be I think fairly unclear for staff. So that's slightly different than an addition or um an ADU. But it's that seems more clearly to me to be the development of housing. And I think ultimately it's there is a lot unclear right and how we define it and and the intent and the outcomes and we we need to know if we should kind of have that broader scope or the narrower scope and it's I don't think there's going to be anyone who knows exactly how it's going to turn out but we're looking to you all and your expertise to maybe shed some light on what would be a better a better option at this point in time knowing that you know things could change, definitions could be clarified. Um,

I have a question on that and maybe council can help me. It seems to me what we are trying to do is mitigate a risk and do a overcorrection for something that has not occurred yet. Given that OS 197A says something and there's a case pending in court, it seems to me there are only likely three outcomes. It can either go with a narrow interpretation, it can go with a broader interpretation, or it can throw a zinger and come up with something else. All of them right now, it seems to me, are equally indicated. 33% 33% 33%. And yet, we are trying to make a policy decision based on a legal strategy for mitigating just one possible decision. Why are we not considering the other two? If we consider that if we go along with that the likely outcome is a broader decision right now and we amend the code uh based on that if the court goes with a narrow decision does it not mean that we have to anyways do amendment again from broader to narrower. So it seems to me that we are trying to mitigate something that is not indicated and when three likely outcomes are possible and all three are equally indicated then I'm not sure what we are achieving by either discussing or focusing this because it's unknown given that the in basic intent of the tree code is tree preservation and tree retention and tree canomy I think I would be prudent in moving forward and adop adopting a broader uh interpretation because that's going to be in conflict with the intent of the code.

If all three possibilities are equally indicated, then I think it's prudent I would think to go with an interpretation that most helps the tree code intention.

Yeah, I reached the same conclusion through a different argument. It seems to me that there has been no discussion so far and I didn't see very much in my review of your draft of a fundamental and very objective um characteristic which is what modification of the existing footprint of a home has been involved. And if you have a 5% modification versus a 105% modification, the impact again on trees and the tree cover is very different versus the housing issue. I think the housing issue we all appreciate is very important, but this is fundamentally a tree code relating to canopy. And so I reached the same conclusion broad broader. Okay. I would be also curious to know that I mean we are weighing whether the broader or narrower um approach makes sense and if you're thinking in terms of tree canopy and again basic development or addition I would be curious to know why or if there has been any discussion um why we can't just specify how much do we need. So for example, let me give let me flesh that out a little. If you have one acre of plot and a person's uh owner is building a house that's a new house. Assume that one acre of plot has 100 trees 40 uh 15 in they are allowed to remove 55. They have to retain 45 trees. They do that 5 years, 7 years or 10 years later they want to add an addition. Now the question is, do we hold them to the original 100 trees or do we hold them to

the new one? They could keep making additions there.

So it seems to me that that discussion would be tweaked if we can also specify just like Vancouver does. I'm sure you're aware of that. How much tree canopy is actually desired and required. So Vancouver for example says for X amount of site disturbance we need so many units of tree canopy. So they don't really care whether you know you're doing a big development, a large de a small development, new development or old development. We want 30 units per acre of site disturbance. And that I think kind of helps reduce a little bit of confusion in terms of tying ourselves in like okay are additions included or are not included because now you're telling somebody that it doesn't the nature of the development doesn't matter because what we are focused on how much of tree canopy we want per unit of land and I think that would be helpful. Would that include um mitigation trees or just existing trees?

They uh no they uh that is beyond ex proposed trees. So mitigation is separate. Okay.

I have a I have a a thought too. It it seems patently obvious to me that new construction a new dwelling it is in Lake Asiggo means it's a tear down. So, if it's a tear down of an existing home, that's new. That's a new home that they should be getting no hall pass because there, you know, we can't leave one wall anymore. It's, you know, take it down and take it down. So, that's new construction. That's a new dwelling. Well, maybe we'll move on to the second part of the question since it kind of has to do with the the application process and how this is seen um kind of with boots on the ground with with an applicant in an actual project. Um we uh here uh currently the applicant applies for this discretionary type 2 permit um for all removals. Once they demonstrate that the criteria satisfied um then they can they can go ahead and begin construction. Um but the clear and objective track is happening. Um and needed housing has not been defined yet or uh what what counts as housing development has not been defined yet. Um other site improvements are pretty common with new dwellings as well and require multiple different permits. Requiring multiple different permits could be confusing and create some administrative complexity. So we have these two we have these two uh concepts here for the application process. If somebody for instance was doing uh adding an ADU and also doing a remodel of uh a pool or uh a patio um would they need to submit two different types of applications? one for the clear and objective track um for the ADU and then separately if we were talking about a pool or a patio then a different application for the removal of those trees um and have to you know

prove different things for these different purposes and the different um the different permits or if because they're adding an ADU um and they're adding a unit of of housing can they combine all of these changes under one application um that's all reviewed under the clear and objective process. Yes.

So essentially what we're trying to do is avoid the confusion of somebody coming in who because I'm telling you when people come in and they have a new dwelling, it's never just the tree removal for the dwelling, right? I mean the what we consider to be part of the dwelling would be obviously the footprint of the dwelling, the driveway and the utilities to the dwelling, but they may also do landscaping improvements. They may also put a detached garage and perhaps a sport court or a pool. And so we need tree removal for that as well. And so the question is can we apply and we can is that we can make a policy choice to to apply the clear and objective track to all of that if it's applied for at the same time. The confusion would be is if we parsed out that dwelling part of it and said, "Here's your clear and objective track and then you parsed out all the rest of it under the discretionary track." And that way, so then you have staff having to administer two different types of permits, you have the public not necessarily understanding even though you don't need that true removal for the pool for the housing development, it's all part of one development. So what staff the really the staff recommendation is that we believe that the administrative burden of trying to separate those out would just be too high. Um and so our recommendation would be to allow them to be combined if they're all com if they're all applied for at once. But this does have policy implications which is why we brought it to this group and we wanted to make sure that it's something that um was in the legislative history that we discussed and made a policy choice so that later on we don't have appeals saying well this should have been a processed under a different kind of permit. We would like this to be a deliberate policy choice. So um there's just a little bit more uh

I assume you mean when they are combined combined as under clear and object correct? Yeah.

Yeah. Um, so this question does change whether depending on what we end up on for the the original first part of the question, you know, what qualifies for clear and objective track. If we're going with the broader approach and it all qualifies, this question isn't as serious. We yes, we can combine these applications very easily because they already um are under both under clear and objective tracks, both the alterations um and it would impact things like landscaping permits and and other types of permits. But um but if if we go for the narrower approach and we're saying let's not for now include additions um as development uh then can we say are we saying now you have to do two permits or are we saying because you are building a dwelling unit you can now uh qualify for the clear and objective track for these additions but otherwise you would not qualify for the clear and objective track and you'd have to go discretionary. I have a question. Um I want to take a step back and if you can help me understand the focus is tree retention. Is that focus for day one or does staff have any recommendations or suggestions to look at it differently in the sense for example if if we combine it and now we are having more tree removal in any given situation possibly than just a footprint and having two separate permits. If we say, "Okay, the owner can remove five extra trees to make this happen, and this makes administrative sense." And the owner says, "Okay, I'm going to plant five more trees on my site." Is

that is that an acceptable outcome or that is not how you think what the code is targeting? Like what I'm saying is we are we are focusing on how much can be retained or how much can be removed. But it seems to me that it is unclear how much do we want if somebody by by including additions or landscaping or whatn not whether they meet the 45% cut off or not if the if the case is made that okay I'm cutting more than 45% but I'm planting trees so that in 10 years I'm going to have a 45% canopy or whatever is the desired number. Is that an acceptable solution or is that not the in is that not the intent that we are hoping to achieve? because they are two different things because now you're telling them that yes something is there's a flexibility here and it is possible plant more trees right by not not specifying a specific how much density do you need on a on an acre because we are not specifying that I think removal is becoming very critical and there's different ways to achieve that so I'm just trying to understand is is that not a possibility or is that not something we hope we are trying to target for for some reason.

So I would tell you our existing tree code does not have any sort of target for any canopy. Um citywide we have a canopy cover of

53% approximately. And so when we were trying to come up with the percentages what we're trying to do is maintain our tree canopy cover. We can't keep growing it forever. We have a very very high tree canopy cover. We want to maintain that but it isn't our purpose to set a lower standard or set a higher standard. We're really looking at trying to maintain that. So when we came up with that 45% which I believe is one of the items we're going to be discussing next. We actually did look at our existing tree code and did a study of um it was very labor intensive. So we only did it over the last year of uh what are the percentages that were resulting from our existing code versus what would happen if we um applied this new code and that's what where we came up with that 45%. And again I don't want to get ahead of it because that is something we're going to be covering next. So it's not necessarily an arbitrary number but because we don't have an existing target we're establishing a target now to try to maintain our existing cover to the extent possible. Yeah, well said. And I think ultimately we're trying to pick something that won't create waves of significant change. So if you as developers and as members of the planning commission see something and it it has a there's a red flag and you're like, "Wow, this is going to result in a lot of people taking advantage of a loophole where every year they apply for they do one more addition to their house and they can cut down 55% of the trees on their lot." like that sounds like maybe an issue. Uh we're kind of looking for those those that expertise from you all to know like is that some is that something that is that a part of the code the draft code that's going too far? Is that going to kind of initiate a whole a whole bunch of changes? Because what we want is to keep it keep it steady. Keep the lakego code hovering around that 53% and not spiking up or spiking down because of any of these code changes. But we have to make the code changes

because of the law. So yeah, it's it's it's a tricky it's a tricky situation. It's like it's working as it is right now, but we have to make this change, right? So how do we do that?

Well, I'm I'm interested in knowing because I don't I don't know the tree code all that well, but I do know that within it there are some real problems with the trees period and that of these huge trees. I live in a forest of trees and in the summer there are friends but in the wintertime there are enemies and uh I'm always perplexed by the thought that uh have homes that have these huge fur trees looming over them and at some point in time if they fall over they're going to just really cause a lot of damage as we saw here a couple of years ago when we had an ice storm that was accompanied by wind and you had a huge tree fall in the city here. Is there any any thought about this?

Yes, there is whole issue of safety and and so forth like that. You want to talk about that Morgan or do you want me

Yes. So under the discretionary track type two applications uh one of the code proposed code amendments has to do with the removal of trees rated as moderate risk for a landscape improvement. So the intent really is to help address some of those concerns about trees that aren't necessarily high risk. So, they don't qualify for hazard permits, but after these ice storm events, people are really afraid of their trees and they want um a permit type that allows them to manage them. So, um by adding um moderate risk trees as a landscape reason for removal, it allows people to manage them in that way. Um that's really the the big change that gets at that particular issue.

Yeah. Because we didn't want to you don't want to just open the floodgates because everybody will decide, oh, I don't want these big furs. Um so they'll take them down, but it that has impacts to your neighbors trees and it can have this domino effect. So, we want to reasonably allow people who have moderate risk trees as um determined by a qualified arborist. Um to give them more options than they have today. Um but also not just open it up to where it's just like if you just you just take any tree down you want just because it might be a big fur. Well, it doesn't just because it's a big fur doesn't mean it's dangerous. There are certain aspects of the tree that can make it more hazardous than others. Yeah, there is a real issue of responsibility involved in this though. If it comes down to a tree fall, it it is I think most people don't understand that uh you can have a tree on your property fall on somebody else's property and that person is responsible for that and and that's just the unusual nature of the law with regard to tree fall. And so when your when your house is located in a forest of these things, you're you're continually concerned about what your neighbor is doing there because you cannot do anything. You you are really at in aance as to what you can do. But if you actually are thinking that this tree might fall, you have to contact your neighbor and see what your neighbor is going to do. Well, if his his or her interest is I like that tree and then a storm comes up and it falls over, you're going to end up with a responsibility of taking care of that. And and this is something that is uh especially on the east side of Lake Oiggo here. Uh pretty

prominent and it it it is especially prominent along the street lines as well. And you could you could drive through there and see any number of oak trees leaning out clear over the street. And you wonder who is going to be responsible for this if there is a tree fall here because these these are trees that are very to me if you had another storm like we had a couple of years ago, there's going to be a lot more tree fall than there was then. But then when that happened two years ago, this whole town was completely obstructed by fallen trees and there's still a forest of them u near I5 that are still not attended to and they've all fallen over. I mean it was in the entire forest of them. So have you have you given thought to that? You know how to how to deal with this problem?

Yeah. So, that's a topic that comes up a lot when you talk to anybody and homeowners especially, but especially with Lake Oasiggo's history of of storms. This is something that the the public brought up, the stakeholders brought up in the engagement phase of this project. And I think it's important to remember that like there are some things that we can do in the code like um allowing moderate risk trees uh to be removed now. Um, but there's also going to be a lot of other strategies that we have to utilize to address this. And a lot of it's going to be education. The urban community forestry plan as a whole um sets forth a bunch of goals and strategies for the city. Um and the the team is going to the um the city is planning on doing a lot more education and outreach um as well um as part of these efforts to uh to educate neighbors on tree care maintenance and things that will prevent trees from going into uh to becoming more dangerous for falling. Um and we also heard from the public and stakeholders about how um they might need more resources about how to deal with neighbors and and talk with neighbors about this as well. And that's something that we've heard um and are are thinking about in terms of education and outreach as well. But in the code, it's hard because the second you start permitting removal um based on what what could happen for healthy trees, then we lose a lot of the canopy. And I think that's kind of what Jessica was saying. Um

yeah, we need to strike a balance. And so, but you're right, it is it is an issue and we hear about it every time we have uh any sort of like community or public engagement or outreach a lot of people talk about. So, it's it's top of mind. Uh we do have options. We have hazard tree, we have emergency tree, and now we're adding this extra um step into type two where it doesn't quite fall into either of those, but with if they can show with documentation that it's at a moderate risk and potentially that you know your my neighbor's tree fell last year in the storm, then that will give them a basis to get the potentially get those trees removed. So, we definitely have some options. Um, but I do want to um just check in with um I know we've heard from some folks and just if anybody else had anything um as far as just going back to should this apply to just new dwellings or additions. What I'm hearing from folks is let's take the narrower approach um let's just apply it only to new units. Does anybody else have is is that is there general agreement? Is anybody else have anything they want to add to that or um

that's my position for sure. Okay. Yeah, I heard a couple people say broader, but I think that they were talking about the what we are calling the narrow approach. So, I wanted to clarify that next. Yeah, broader, but the narrow I want Yeah, I wanted just to to triple check that, but that is what I'm also hearing. Yep. But yeah,

that's what I'm also hearing. And then what I was hearing too um was that potentially people are I I heard maybe one or two comments potentially leaning towards this this second um the second option to allow alterations and modifications to be combined under the clear and objective track if there's new dwellings. But um I I think I I saw a lot of uh head shakes and nods um agreeing that having two separate application processes and permits are is just is is a lot and and more confusing than um

it comes down to me again the the overall objective from the state is to give clear and objective standards for development of new housing. And so if you're involved your project involves adding a new dwelling unit, I think you fall under that clear and objective standard. If not, then it still stays under discretionary. Great. Thank you. Okay. But let me clarify. So, so, but so you're saying if it's a new dwelling unit and they're putting in, say, a shed and they need to take out a tree for that shed, it should all be combined because they're proposing that new dwelling unit. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. It seems like I'm getting a lot of nods. So, if anybody Nobody has any additional comments or Yeah. Go ahead.

Yeah. I guess I just would have one thing. If um somebody mentioned tearowns earlier, a tear down and a replacement of a dwelling isn't adding a new dwelling. It's keeping the housing stock the same. So, should that be treated the same because or is that considered by the state as adding a new dwelling? Well,

and and then I guess the bigger question of this is um that I have is like which one protects more trees? The clear and objective standard that we're going to have for new development or the arbitrary standard? Maybe we'll have attorney um Miller answer the first question and then I think we can answer the second question. So, I think you could get into a legal risk area if you don't apply clear and objective standards to the replacement, the 1:1 um replacement because the statute says um the statute says that the clear and objective standards need to apply to the tree codes that are related to or I'll get you the exact language tree removal codes related to the develop velment of housing. And so, you know, there's one way to read that where this isn't the development of new housing, but it is the development of housing. And so, I think there's a distinction there to be drawn between a replacement that's creating that's allowing a house to continue to be there and an addition that just adds maybe another room, but not another unit.

And it it you know, we we can't get super into the so whats of it. like yes, it's not increasing housing stock, but some could argue it's increasing housing quality. If they're replacing like an older home, they're making a more livable one. Um, but yeah, I I it just it kind of gets down to the semantics at that point. But but our attorney is is uh yeah, giving us the advice that we can't really uh make that distinction. Um, and then the second question was about which protects more trees. Um, and Jessica, did you have something that you sounded like you had a

I would say it's equal because even if someone parsed them out, it doesn't mean that they're not going to get approval of that second permit, but they have to go through this whole different process because the way that our code is written up is you're allowed development that's allowed by the code. If if the removal will have a significant negative impact, then they have to look at alternatives. But if it doesn't, then then they can get approval for that removal. And in many cases, there probably isn't a lot of alternatives, especially if you're redeveloping a whole site. Um, we can't tell someone that they can't have an accessory structure or they can't have a a pool, but we may be able to say, well, you need you need to kind of move it around here and save more trees. So, I would say it probably isn't going to be that big of of a difference, if at all, if they combine them versus separate them. All right. Um, I will move on to the next topic here. If I can interrupt for a minute with a point of order. Uh, Iris, thank you for pointing out to me that I missed the, uh, public comment that we have some folks signed up to testify in person. If it is all right if we pause the presentation here and hear their testimony. Yes. Thank you. All right, we have uh first name Nolan, last name Wanker signed up for public testimony as well as Jeff Sheerer. If you would like to come forward, please. And Iris, how many minutes do they get? Five minutes. Okay.

Okay. Uh, and if you can state your name as well for the record.

Okay. Um, can everybody hear me? Okay. Uh, planning commission. My name is Nolan Winker. Uh while I am not a resident of the city of Lake Owiggo, I am a long-standing contributor to this community as the head golf course superintendent at Oswiggo Lake Country Club uh where I have served for the past nine years. I have worked as a golf course superintendent for nearly 20 years and have participated in stakeholder focus groups regarding changes to the Lake Oiggo City Tree Code. Asiggo Lake Country Club has been a pillar of this community and an environmental steward for 102 years. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment regarding uh proposed changes to Lake Owiggo code 5502072 specifically the amendment that would prohibit the use of forest management permit for private and municipal golf courses. I would like to ground this discussion uh in data and stated purpose of the forest management purpose itself. From 2021 to 2025, approximately 13,075 trees have been removed across the city. Of those, only 63 trees have been removed by Oswigle Lake Country Club, uh, which accounts for less than 1/ half of 1% of total tree removals. This is a very small fraction of total tree removals and does not suggest a disproportionate use or abuse of the permit by the golf course. Similarly, the entire city encompasses approximately 6,912 acres, while Lasigal Lake Country Club occupies uh roughly 129 acres of that. Um, percentage- wise, roughly 2% of the city's land area. Again, this is a limited footprint, not one that justifies a categorical exclusion from this permit. It is also important to note that mitigation and replanting have been required for our removals. Um, these are not unregulated activities. They're part of a structured and uh um accountable process.

The stated purpose of the forest management permit is to sustain forest cover and health and assist property owners in managed forest properties while minimizing risks such as wildfire, drought, pest, disease, storms, and landslides. These goals apply equally to golf courses, which often contains significant tree canopy and large contiguous green spaces. Beyond risk reduction, the code recognizes that forested tracks provide important community benefits, including thermal comfort, water quality through reduced runoff and erosion, air quality, noise reduction, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, and overall community character and well-being. Excluding golf courses from the forest management permit does not advance these goals. Instead, it removes a key tool for managing large landscapes that contribute to the city's environmental system. When tree removal is necessary, these areas are often replaced with turf grass. While different from forest cover, turf grass still plays a role in reducing runoff and carbon sequestration. More importantly, these landscapes remain permeable, maintained, and environmentally functional compared to hardscape alternatives. A blanket prohibition fails to account for the scale, the data, and the actual environmental outcomes. It is a blunt policy response to what appears to be a very limited issue. A more balanced approach would be to retain the eligibility for golf courses while ensuring strong oversight, which we have through mitigation requirements and replanting standards. The forest management permit is is designed to promote responsible stewardship of land and trees across the city. That purpose does not change based on land use designation. Excluding golf courses risks undermining the very goals the permit was created to achieve. I want to thank all of you for

your time here this evening. Thank you very much. Next we have Jeff Sheer.

Good evening chairs, commissioners. I'm speaking tonight on 55.02.072 forest management permit. My name is Jeff Sheer. I've lived in Lake Asiggo since 1968. I graduated from Lake Asiggo High School. learned to golf at Lake Asiggo Municipal Golf Course. I served on the DRC for eight years, two years as chair, and currently sit on the tree committee. I'm a member of Lake Asiggo Country Club. One of the things I like most about our city are the opportunities that Lake Asiggo provides recreationally. The diversity of the outdoor opportunities make this community a great place to live. Whether it's soccer fields, dog parks, skate parks, playgrounds, the new aquatic center, tennis clubs, or golf courses, they're all within our city code and our approved uses. If the code applying to these activities are working, why do we need to change the purpose noted in code 55.02.072, forest management. The criteria for approval of forest management permits are intended to sustain forest cover health and assist property owners in managing forest properties. This goes on for another paragraph and a half which Nolan touched on. After you re this, Augle Lake Country Club is already complying with this criteria by providing s fire brakes, controlling pests and disease. Our landscapecaping provides runoff control. We have biodiversity and wildlife. We help maintain real estate values, provide commerce and recreation as noted in the PR criteria. All of these items are directly listed for the forest manage forest management permit. It seems odd to me that the forest

management permit is under consideration to change. The change has not been discussed by the tree committee, making this provision a one-off out of our normal process that we are following. Further, the country club has had no violations as it pertains to the forest management permit ever to our knowledge in 102 years. Although the we were there before the code so not all 102. This coupled with the less than one half of 1% of the total trees removed over the reviewed period in the city of Lake Asuego that were removed by Lake Asiggo Country Club definitely seems like a targeted code change for no real reason. I really do not understand this change. I urge you dis to dismiss this change to the tree amendments that you are considering. Um I that's it. Thank you.

Thank you very much everyone and my apologies again for the oversight in the public testimony on this topic. Jessica, could you elaborate on why this been added to the tree code? Yeah, I'd love some context on this.

Yeah. Well, this is one of the items for discussion, so it'd be I think better if we could reserve that for when we get to that item if that's okay. Um, and we did receive a number of um comments. I think about 26 in total and hopefully you had a chance to look over those. So, if if you don't mind if we could cover that when we get to that item. So, so next we're going to discuss some of the really important criteria that this clear and objective track hinges on, which is the minimum tree retention percentage and if any, what should the uh incentive be? What should an incentivizing tree retention percentage be? So current code does not allow the removal of a tree if there's significant negative impact to the following which we covered earlier. Um and the proposed amendment adds a clear and objective track specifically for residential development. Um, and it means that the applicant can get a permit for removal if they retain 45% or more of the trees on the lot that are larger than 15% diameter at breast height or if they retain at least 45% of the total DBH that exists currently on the lot. And this is calculated by taking the sum of the DBH of each tree um that are that are greater or equal to six inches. Um and if they fall short of re reaching this percentage um they can pay per inch um of retention if the minimum standards are not met. Having multiple options instead of just say one saying oh you have to keep 50% of the trees on the lot. Um having multiple options allows flexibility for developers. Um, and this helps with the needed housing um, goal as well um, within the clear and objective structure since we wanted a

little bit of flexibility and leeway um, instead of just saying you have to there's one there's one thing you have to do and there's only one way you can do it. So if they cannot meet these requirements for some reason, they still are able to go to the discretionary track in the way that it exists now with the with the tweaks that are in the code. Um, but this could take them extra time and money. So, um they're they're still open for them. Um but we're trying to make the clear and objective track doable, feasible, um and also promote sustainable um preserving the sustainable amount of canopy that we have. Now, could you elaborate? Go back to that slide, please.

Oh, that was the forward button. Yes. Pay a per inch fee of retention if the minimum standards are not met. Could could you elaborate on that?

Yes. So, uh, if for instance the developer could not figure out a way to retain 45% of either total trees or total DBH, um, but they could retain 42%, they would have to pay a fee for those three inches that they the 3% that they could not um, meet. And that fee is is currently still being discussed and right sized I believe um because it can't be super punitive but it needs to be high enough um there's currently a fee in lie that the city has right now and it goes into the tree fund which um created the position for um the city arborist um and created some new work um for urban forestry and they're going to be doing a tree inventory of of public trees and trees in the rightway coming up. Um, so the the fee inloo does contribute to other urban forestry goals for the city now and it would continue to do that.

The 45% on either of those bullet points is separate from the mitigation trees. Correct? Yes. Okay.

Um, a quick question. The fee per inch of retention, is there a a floor to that? So, can someone pay for 3 in of fee or 10 in of fee or all 45 in to cut down all of the trees? Is there a spot where we say you can't pay fee in L anymore? This is just like you have to keep this many trees on the lot. Right now, we don't have a floor. And I think that's going to be, you know, a big a big point when they're setting the fee. it it can't be it can't be too low because then many people would just say great I'll just clear cut the whole the whole lot and and pay. Um but it also can't be prohibitively high where every single person or every single applicant that wants to develop residential housing has to go to the discretionary track and then it's like why did we why does the clear and objective track exist if nobody can use it?

Um it could be contrary to state law. That's the trick is that we can't because because it would be totally clear and objective for us to say you have to save 90% of all the trees on the site. That's clear and objective,

but I think that that could be found to be run a foul for state law because very few applicants could comply with that. And so, um, we need to be able to strike that balance. But to answer your question, no, there is not currently a floor. So, if someone if we set the fee high enough where it's it's it's a diversion from just paying to play, then um then they would they would probably bump into themselves into the discretionary track. So, we we need to find what that balance is. And we aren't here today to talk about what that fee should be. It's just assuming we pick that right right size fee. What should the percentage be for um for the minimum for

could it involve a fee gets larger the further that you deviate from that target number as well. Yeah, that's commonly done in some of my engineering practice have an exponential fee that one inch costs you $100. Two inches cost you $1,000. Three inches cost you $10,000. That's if the fee is a way I think of taking care of this uncertainty. You're if your objective is 45% but the butt needs to really have some teeth in it and an exponential fee is the way to do that.

Thank you. Yeah. So to give you some background on how we got to the 45% that's written right now in the code um but is up for discussion. I'm just going to give you some some background on uh the studies that we did and the and the analysis that was done. Uh first in the best practices part of this project we looked at some pure jurisdictions and what they are currently doing in their tree code for preservation. Um, and you know, there's a lot of information here, but it ranges somewhere between 25% to 45%. Um, and which trees count kind of varies between the jurisdictions, but that's the general ball ballpark of where other jurisdictions um are with their code. And at the request of a counselor and the tree task force, city staff did pull permit data. Um, and for the past uh, you said year. I had two years down, but it's a year. Um, and each permit has unique considerations. So, it it isn't every single permit, but it's the ones that we could kind of look next to each other, and they weren't completely, you know, broccoli to oranges. Um, so there are 20 that we looked here um for these for these um for this analysis here so that we could look at trends. And these permits showed that in the past year under the existing code uh where there was no minimum percentage requirement where it's it's all with the discretionary code as it is today there was an average of 49% retention of total trees on the lot and a median of 45%. Um but the range as you can see here is is quite wide. It it was from 11% to 91%. Um, but again, it's it's kind of almost evenly spread out. There isn't a ton that there isn't you can't look at this and say like, I see, you know, the the golden the silver bullet here. Um,

but the median and the average both fall around that 45 40 uh 50%. And so we looked at these permits and we said, okay, well, this is what did happen. Now, what would happen if we applied these this nuclear and objective track? what would the uh what would the percentage of retention look like? So here this graph is showing um Daphne Sisle calculated um out of all of these 20 case studies how what percentage of trees were retained that were over 15 in in DBH. And so uh it's all graphed here from 0% to 100% on the right. And you can see that the median percent is that yellow uh dash at 48% and the average is 49 but the range all over the place. And then when looking at the total percentage of diameter at breast height inches retained for trees over 6 in um we saw a slightly higher median and a slightly higher average at 52 and 53% respectively. um and a slightly smaller range but again six to 97%. So as a reminder the draft code also includes an option to pay into the tree fund. This is the um the pay per inch uh fee in loo um in order to meet the minimum percentage when the retention falls short. Um but also to incentivize their preservation there's a bonus credit for native species. Um and uh this makes it easier to meet the requirements if native species are being preserved. So it's also important uh to consider that the higher retention percentage could result in more projects paying mitigation fees and this could impact affordability and this would butt

heads with the um compliance with state law. uh and higher percentages could also be seen as as too stringent and uh deny or discourage needed housing. Um and so when we bring these uh code changes to the LD um they could send us back to the drawing board. But setting retention percentages too low could go against the overarching goal of sustaining like Oiggo's current canopy. So we need to set a retention percentage that's high enough to maintain the robust canopy. um but also um comply with this the state uh legislative goals and the state uh the state law. So 45% seemed feasible for the team based on the data we just showed um but we'd we'd love to hear more from you um about how you feel about the standard. Should it be, you know, less than 45 40%, should it be 40? Should it be, you know, 45% like we suggested or or more? Um the tree task force was pulled on this exact same question with the same information. Um and respectively it was 10% 20% 20% 30% 20%. So there was no consensus. Um there was barely even a trend. Uh they kind of leaned slightly more towards the higher percentages. Um but we're we're looking to you for uh your thoughts on this. Could you go back two slides to the one with the bell graphs on it?

What do you get out of this slide? I don't It's hard for me just to take it all in. Yeah, absolutely.

So, I mean, just I'm I I know that you know how to read graphs, but the f the first thing is because it's a lot that you're looking at, um the number of projects on the y-axis on the left, um it's showing that you know across the board you're getting about two projects hitting almost every every bin. It's pretty it's pretty well distributed. across projects um with this new code. And we're seeing that, you know, some of a lot of there's a there's a lot of projects that are retaining a significant amount of tree canopy on the lot between 70 and 80% um if you're looking at total trees and um 80 to 90% if you're looking at DBH.

Uh and then I just mostly we're comparing it to the current code, right? And it's looking pretty similar. Mhm. And I think that's just kind of where we went with the 45% where we're saying we're not seeing anything dramatically different with this code. That means that this code seems like it's in a good place right now because what we want is not to uh create a lot of change. Dramatic shift. Yeah,

a dramatic shift. We want to we want to keep things kind of in the same place. Uh so that's what the data told us. Um again, we you know we we didn't go that far back, but the it ranges so so much. It it's it's it's it's not easy data to to look at. It's all very sight specific as as Daffhany and Morgan who who both dug into the permits could tell you. They're all very unique. But the fear is that if we offer these two choices and one could lead to people cherrypicking, you know, better option that's not borne out by the data that we've seen here. Right. Correct. Yeah. I would like Sorry. Go ahead. That's it. Thank you.

I would like a clarification. Um I'm confused between 45% for 15in trees and 45% retention for say 6 in and above because it seems to me they are not apples to apples they're apples to oranges. If if we say if there are equal quantities of 15 in or greater trees on one plot and if there are same amount of trees of 6 in and over in an equivalent area of plot. If 45% of 15in and larger trees are retained, you're getting more tree canopy retention. If you're retaining 6 in and above and 45% of those because those trees are smaller, you're getting less tree canopy retention. So when we are when we are saying that it's this or this, how are we bridging that gap? Because now we have a gap between how much tree canopy you're actually seeing and what are the incentives for that. I mean, it's un it seems unfair that if you have a plot of land that has mature trees, well, too bad because you're, you know, you can still do 45%. Do I get do I make myself clear?

Well, I should make um a couple of clarifications. So, the first one is that it this isn't where someone can just come in and let's say they have a hu a huge lot with tons of trees on it and they're building a new home. They can't just go out and take out everything but 45% of the trees. They have to they have to show that the trees are actually um I think the criteria say that the tree trunk has to be within the area of development. Okay? So if there's a tree that's way in the back of the lot, they can't just go and remove that for no reason. That just doesn't count towards the 45%. So they they have to retain overall on the entire lot, but it doesn't open every single tree on the lot open for development. Does am I am I making myself clear? Do you understand? No.

Yes, I I understand what you're saying, but I think that is not my question because my question is that we are talking about what is the optimal level of retention and then we are discussing 45% more or less and how what's allowed by code. It seems to me that what is allowed by code 45% of 15 in or higher or 45% of a cumulative DBH of 6 in or higher essentially when you distill it down the outcome is different. A 15-in tree is much larger than a 6-in tree. So essentially the canopy is different. what we are saying through the code. I think my interpretation is that both outcomes are equal or both outcomes are desirable and I'm what I'm trying to assertain is is that a gray area or is that the intent that we are okay with apples and oranges different outcomes. So I I do want to pass this off to Morgan maybe to explain a little bit more about where the you know the 15inch and the the 6 in um why those are different for the DBH and the trees um and the total trees. But ultimately like what we're seeing with this data here is that there isn't a ton of difference in what's retained if you're looking at them from these two different perspectives. They're they're pretty close. And and that aside, the purpose of having these two the two different the the apples and the oranges as as you say is to allow for flexibility for developers because if we just give them the apple if we just say you have to preserve 45% of the trees on the lot, a lot of them are are going to struggle with that. And um there's not going to be a ton of flexibility about weird shaped lots or really sight specific things. Um, and you know, if they want to, and it also it also allows

for flexibility when there is, you know, a significant um, a native tree on the lot, like a very large native tree. Um, it might it might mean that they can't preserve that one if they and instead they have to preserve every single other one. And so, this is giving just some options. You know, we've we've played around with a couple different like couple different sites, but it it's not necessarily supposed to be the same. They're supposed to be a little different. because we're offering we're offering to the developer, you know, which is the way forward that you want. These are both giving us a good amount of retention as we can see here on average around 50% either way. Um, plus or minus 5%. Um, but this is allowing them to have a little more flexibility. But, um, Morgan, did you have anything to add kind of about, you know, those those differences? because I I I hear what you're saying and yeah, it's they're different on purpose, but they're also

I agree with that that they are different on purpose because we want to offer people like these options to choose from so that there are multiple avenues to meet these clear and objective standards and and you know the the consultants team their arborists that they're have on their team selected those thresholds the 15-in in for the quantity and the 6 in for the diameter. Um, after running the case studies, I didn't question it because there wasn't a lot of difference. And the way the code amendments are written, uh, native species trees, not all natives, but it's spelled out like organ white oaks, high value native species, um, get bonus credit, but only in terms of that diameter category. Uh so that's why I think that the average and the mean was slightly higher in the case studies that we ran because of the diameters. Um but there just wasn't a lot of difference between the two and I think they were intentionally chosen that way. And you have to keep in mind that there are other types of permits, right? So any trees 6 in and larger require some type of permit. In the count of trees, there are non-exempt there are exempt trees like dead trees, invasive trees. those don't count towards your percentages because you you can get this other type of permit. Um and with the residential properties are also eligible for type one permits which is um two trees per calendar year that are between 6 and 15 in. And I think that's why that 15inch threshold was chosen because people could come in and get type one trees after the fact um for those smaller size trees. So I hope that adds some context, but it is it's supposed to be different. There are two options. Um but they are they're not apples to apples, but

they're still comparable when we when we did the case study analysis. And there's also value in trees that are smaller, too. um and they're smaller in in diameter a lot of times because they haven't grown up yet. And we need trees that are both large and medium um uh age and small and young. We need all of these different age classes. So, we don't want to skew only for the older trees. We want to make sure that we retain a wide variety of age classes for our canopy.

Thank you. I understand. My my thought is I wonder if that retention criteria would be served better if it is tied to a certain percentage of land that needs to be covered by canopy and not with a specific focus on tree number and tree size. Well, what's a desired canopy? How much ground do we want shaded and not just 45% of this or 45% of that? Because it seems to me that if we say 45% six or or are larger and we get a lesser tree canopy for the current time then it it would be better fortified if we say okay but your x percentage of land still needs to be shaded or covered by tree canopy. Just a thought. Yeah, and I I appreciate you valuing the the canopy here because ultimately that's how we measure where Lake Ogo is right now compared to peer regions. We're at 53% in Lake Oiggo and you know Milwaukee is 17. Like you know it's like Oiggo is significant and it's it's it's a really important thing but also it's really hard to to measure sight by sight like we do they do LAR they send out remote sensing uh LAR planes to take that data. Um and so with the clear and objective standards it has to be easily measurable by somebody walking through the site. And that's, you know, that's why we picked the um the the number and DBH. Um but I yeah, I hear that and I yeah, I appreciate you bringing that up because we are trying to maintain that 53% canopy. Um we're just trying to do it through some some smaller kind of more on the ground uh some on the ground code. We're trying not to affect that that greater canopy um through this. Any other thoughts about uh the retention the minimum retention

percentage and do people feel like 45% is is right? Um I'm seeing some nods. Anybody feel like it should be higher or lower? Would you like to say something?

I I would love it to be higher, but yeah, I I understand the concerns. Yeah. And I will say and this is always an option this code can be changed at any time. So if we are as we are applying this and we need to retain you know um collect data and and see how this is working out and if we see it's not getting the result we want to that can always be changed later. And then I would also point out that while this is a consequential decision um as far as type two trees for development purposes it represents about 17% of all tree removals. So a lot of people think the number one reason for removal for trees in the city is for development and that's not the case. It's dead hazard invasive type ones. Those are by far the bulk of the trees that are removed in the city

for that Jessica. Um and then moving on to this this next question that we have about retention percentages. We were just discussing the minimum retention percentage but you know if if we want more trees we can we can do that through incentives. And this is a really big thing that we heard from the community, from our stakeholder focused groups and the public that they want, you know, just they they don't necessarily want us to be more punitive or more strict, but they want to see more incentives uh so that, you know, developers can can want to preserve more trees or get, you know, financially rewarded for uh or financial benefits from preserving more trees. So the the current code doesn't allow removal if there is significant negative impact on the things that you know I've already gone over twice now. Um but the proposed amendment um is to incentivize greater tree retention um with a with a percentage. Um and this if this percentage is met they could skip public comment and opportunities for appeal um for projects meeting in these enhanced retention thresholds. So projects like minor and major and minor developments that are already subject to public notice and opportunity for appeal would not count under this. Um we wouldn't be just allowing people to skip this if if there's other due process that needs to happen. Um but this could incentivize um applicants and potential developers with a little bit more flexibility on their site to to choose preservation um and preserving a higher higher amount. And so, you know, back to back to these slides again, um, kind of showing the the spread here. Uh, we are seeing, you know, that there were several projects, it looks like four, um, that retained between 70 and 80% of the total trees on the lot. And there were also four projects that retained between 80 and 90%. So, those are pretty high retention

percentages, but they were achieved by four of the 20. Um, so just, you know, I'm put putting it in your head that, you know, that's doable. That's like a doable percentage. Some some projects did it. Um, and I I took all that information and put it on the left here. So, if the incentive was Okay, I can't see that. Um, if the incentive was 45% um 55% or 11 of the the case studies would qualify. um under total trees and 12 would qualify under DBH. If it was set at 70%, seven of the uh projects would qualify under total trees and also seven would qualify under under trees retained. So that just kind of shows the breakdown there. um up to 70% there's a good amount um of of those of those case studies that could uh choose that incentive and then skip public notice and appeals.

Quick question, how would the separate criteria or criterion relating to significant trees apply to this? If somebody had a significant tree, chose to go to 80% retention, can he cut down the significant tree? There's no notice or appeal indicated here. Yeah. Um, if they were to cut down a significant tree, they would have to go to the discretionary track, right? No. The way it says, no. Um,

no. The definition of significant tree is only really um uh relevant if you are going through the discretionary track because that's a one of the criteria or if we change the definition of significant tree which is one of the proposals

then it would require higher um mitigation rates under the clear and objective track but that's the only way it would apply under the clear and objective track. This is um trying to um because it was one of the um it was one of the um the suggestions in the uh the actions um in the urban and community forestry plan to look for more ways that we can incentivize um builders and developers to retain more trees. Um and so this we thought you know builders and developers what what they want is less time more certainty let and that reduces their costs. So if we take away the public notice and appeal period that's a real incentive to developers to potentially save more trees.

Um but we want to make sure it's meaningful. We don't want to just give it away. So, um, we were just having a hard time saying, well, what what are different ways that we could do this and and what is a reasonable percentage to, um, set that at. Um, and so that's what we're seeking the seed back uh, feedback, excuse me, from you all on. Yeah, I didn't quite understand how significant trees fit in there, but what you're saying is you could say if you achieve 60% and no significant trees, then you can get an no public notice. one of the incentives too. Yeah.

Yeah. We we laid out these these three potential policy alternatives to, you know, not add an increase incentive. But if if we if we if the person meets 45% um as a retention percentage and there's no significant trees involved, then they don't have to participate in public notice and appeals. Um we could also set a a higher retention percentage for the incentive. Um or we could allow both. We can we can do both of those things. Uh so that's that's kind of where we're landing in terms of like asking asking for your feedback here. Um we didn't ask the tree task force uh this question. Uh so I just included the information here on the right. I think we were toying around with 55% as as a project team as maybe what we would uh suggest, but I don't think that we we landed anywhere. So that's that's not our official recommendation, but it's why it's highlighted.

Would it be correct to understand that projects tied to major and minor permits are the ones that have the most impact on tree canopies and this incentive structure is exempt from major and minor permits. So who is actually benefiting from these incentives and what is the percentage of that kind of development? Uh Daphne, do you have the percentage for the um the development uh handy? Morgan actually has it. Oh, you do it. Okay. So, it would be the uh verification versus the um Yeah.

Sorry. the 5-year average from 2021 to 2025 um verification permits made up just 6% of all tree removal types. So those would be the minor and major developments. Correct. And then the other is 11% is that um for type two for development was at 8% over the fiveyear period. Okay. And so that means that there's a slightly higher percentage of applications where they're just coming in for a building permit so they don't have to go through the minor major development process.

I would just say that um I think it's it's the right thing to do, but you're kicking a hornets's nest because there's a lot of neighbors and neighborhoods that will take umbrage with this. I think it's I think it's a smart thing to do because as you said, it incentivizes the builder to retain as many trees as possible, move the project forward because time is money. And as the DRC has seen, many times when a developer comes in and wants to do a project, the neighbors are are specifically just trying to hold it up, thinking he'll go away, and that's not the case. And so this supersedes that happening.

Yeah. I' I'd like to say that the public notice and appeal I think is is a crucial um idea of our city. Yeah. Well, not just our city but everywhere. And if you are going to get rid of that, then I think the incentive would have to be higher than 55%. I I really think it if you want to incentivize and take away that right from the other citizens, then I'd say something closer to 70% would be would be appropriate. I agree with that 100%. Yeah,

I Yeah, I was going to say I was even going to say like 75% or something. They have to be above and beyond the minimum requirement. Um and I think once we hit that like 70 75% range then we will see um more tree retention for sure. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So it sounds like I'm hearing most people um not agreeing with a um that if there's no significant trees involved and they're meeting minimum thresholds that they can skip appeals. Um, I'm hearing that people are are more leaning towards the 70 to 75% only incentive. I am not.

You're not. Are you Are you feeling more I think the 45% re retention and no significant trees. They're doing their job. They're doing what everyone else has to do. Give them the give them the bonus. Anyone else agree with that sentiment or have anything else that they want to add to this to this topic?

All right. Well, I've I've heard both both sides. So, thank you so much both of you. Um we'll keep this moving since I know that we have we have two more um topics to get through. Um, this next one is going to be about significant trees and how they are defined in the discretionary type two track. So, we're moving away from the clear and objective track and into the discretionary track. Uh the the current code defines significant trees as trees that are healthy, non-invasive, over 15 in in DBH, and considered significant to the neighborhood due to the size, species, or distinctive character, or are the only remaining tree on the property. And these trees require 2 to1 mitigation. So if you're removing the tree, you have to plant two. Uh the proposed amendment keeps the definition mainly the same but the last tree cannot otherwise be eligible for uh a different permit type. So it can't be eligible for a dead hazard invasive permit. So I'm actually going to start first here on the right side with the policy alternative which is to revise the significant tree definition to add this table of specific species and sizes. Um as oop as you see here right in that fourth bullet down on the left um it just says considered significant due to species. And that's that's just confusing whether or not you're you know no matter who you are that's that's not very clear. So this table uh you know writes out exactly what trees would be considered significant and at what sizes.

Uh and this was this was looked over by by Morgan and the the team of arborists. Uh and you know we're we're open to feedback on this as well. Um but a clear and objective definition of any type with a table like this uh would be more predictable um and it would be more equitable. would be easier for applicants to understand and by having uh a clear and objective definition of sign significant trees in the discretionary tract. Um this could also require uh applicants to address exceptions criteria uh to demonstrate no reasonable alternatives to removal which is an added burden on the applicant um and potentially an added cost if they need to hire an arborist to do an assessment. Uh so it it could be it could be clearer but you know now anything that isn't part of this list um they might need to do perform an assessment to prove that it's significant in other ways. Uh but the clear and objective definition here would be easy to apply um and the 2:1 mitigation could continue to be applicable to all type 2 applications for the purposes of development whether whether whether the discretionary or the clear and objective track is used. Uh so if if made objective staff has less discretion also to determine whether a tree is significant um regardless of these which you know could reduce staff time and capacity but it you know it gives a little bit more power to the to the applicant and the code itself um than any kind of subjective perspective of the applicant or the city. Uh so we wanted to ask you uh what you think about this. Um should we include the last tree on a lot as a significant tree if it's not uh otherwise eligible for type 2 dead declining EAB sus um

susceptible hazard emergency or invasive species removal permit um or revise the significant tree um to include this table that I had on the previous slide. Um, this slide says policy alternative, but the tree task force uh was in favor of this. So, um, we did add it to the draft that you saw. Um, we pulled them on this and it doesn't it didn't have an official consensus, but 33% voted for B to add the table and 44% voted for A and B. So assuming that you can add those together for for for um adding the table that is 66 that's oh nope that's 77%. So you know it's not an official consensus but that's how I'm interpreting it. Um and so that was added to to draft 3. Uh so yeah I'd I'd like to hear your thoughts on this and um if you have any questions as well. What's the justification for the last tree on the lot as a significant tree? I've always heard like if you take out a bunch of trees and leave one, it's less, you know, strong because it's been protected by other trees. So leaving one tree can often leave a potentially dangerous tree. So I guess what's the significance or the justification between just making just because it's the last tree, it becomes significant. Yeah, I think your example is certainly true in a stand of trees and it would be easy to meet the exceptions criteria even if it were deemed significant because it would be unstable if exposed and left all alone. So it's um but the last so the way it's currently written includes that the last remaining tree. The problem that we run into is that the last remaining tree is often

a 6-in apple which is elig eligible for a type one permit anyway. Um, so we could call it significant, but they could turn around and and remove it under a simple over-the-counter permit anyway. So our thought was that by um modifying the definition to say as long it could be still be the last remaining tree, but as long as it's not eligible for any other type of permit, uh, we would call it significant. So does that make sense? We don't want you to remove the last 20-in Douglas fur if the only other tree on your property is a 6-in apple tree that you can get a type one permit for without addressing the exceptions criteria. It doesn't mean you can't remove it if it's significant. It just holds you to a higher burden by demonstrating that there are no reasonable alternatives to removal. It's another question on the on the application checklist. Morgan, when you when there is a significant tree, request to be taken down or back up. It says staff decides whether it's a significant tree. Correct.

It's discretionary. So, okay. I mean, applicants often describe it that way as well. Staff staff staff or do you also get a say in this?

Oh, I I review all type two applications and I make recommendations to city staff. So I I draft findings and then if they have questions we can talk about them. Thank you. And oh what else did I want to say? Oh I also wanted to say um so the definition of significant tree it falls under criterion three of the type 2 discretionary code and and that criterion three has many different things under it. Right? So significant tree is just one reason removal could have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood. It's just one reason. It could also be because it's a street tree in the right of way or it's providing a visual screen between different zoning districts. Um it's just one step. So it's a small piece of that total criterion.

A plus B makes sense to me. Yes, thank you very much for explaining the the significance of the last tree to us. So I would also go for uh adopting both. Any other thoughts or any thoughts uh against A and B? All right. Well, moving on to just one more question related to this one. Um, I will pass it off to Morgan to just talk a little bit about the the mitigation of significant trees.

So, under the discretionary code today, if a tree is determined to be a significant tree and it's permitted for removal for the purposes of development, the code requires 2:1 mitigation trees. So you remove one significant tree for development, you're required to replant two under the clear and objective standards. Um by recommending the proposed amendment to include that tree table to define significant tree. Uh applicants under the clear and objective track could include can use that table to identify trees that are significant because it's clear and objective. By doing that, we could permit removal if they meet all the clearing objective standards, but we have a way to uh also require the 2:1 mitigation and keep it consistent between the two tracks. So um with your previous recommendation to include that table in the definition of significant now to make it clear and objective even under the discretionary track we have this option to require 2 to1 mitigation under the clear and objective standards.

Would they have to mitigate with a the a similar tree from that significant tree list? So it would be the mitigation as it's written in the proposed amendments is is similar like if you remove a native species tree you have to replant with a native species. Yeah. But we don't need to how many dog woods do we need?

No. But if there's also requirements for um plant largeger tree where where space can accommodate it. So if it makes sense to plant a Douglas fur instead of a dogwood great. But it doesn't always make sense. Thank you. And um just for the record as well, the tree task force was pulled on the same question and they were 89% in favor of uh the first option here that it should be extended.

Yeah, I think that that table with the specific trees and their size certainly clarifies a lot of confusion that we've dealt with in the last five years at DRC. So, I'm seeing a lot of nods. It helps us, right? Keep us moving since we're it's getting it's getting late. Uh so this is the last issue for the evening and one that we heard about with a public comment. Um we received uh how many public comments now? It was you said about 20ome, but I don't want to about 26ish. Yes,

about 26 public comments um on this topic here. So, it's an important one to to think through thoroughly and get your expertise on. Um, and before we jump into the question of should private and municipal golf courses qualify for the forest management permit, Jessica is going to give a little bit of context about the forest management permit itself.

So, there we have two different types of forest management permits. One is called a minor forest management and the other is called a major forest management permit. And they were added to the code in about 2015. And the whole purpose of it was when you have u kind of larger land owners who own uh at least an acre of land with at least one acre of tree canopy on that land that they were having a hard time, you know, having to come in apply for 10 different tree cutting permits or or nine different tree cutting permits for all the different ways that they needed to manage the trees on the property because one acre of tree canopy, that's a lot of trees to manage. And so we came up with this um uh permit process to allow them to sort of consolidate it. So essentially it allows them to consolidate dead hazard um invasive all on one tree permit. Plus they're allowed to remove um up to I think it's six trees or what they're called four square feet of basil area which we can get into if you want to but um it's a forestry term. um uh in each calendar year for every one acre of forest canopy. So if you have two acres of forest canopy, you could remove potentially up to 12 trees per year. Of course, once you go below that one acre of forest can uh tree canopy, you're no longer qualified for the uh minor or major forest management permit. I would say 99.9% of all the tree permits we've ever gotten under these have been under minor. And um uh I don't know if Morgan if you recall getting even a major of forest management permit ever. Uh so that those are the most common and we find that most of those larger uh landowner applicants it works just fine for them to use the minor. Um it's not subject to public notice or appeal. So they just come in and they meet these clear and objective criteria and then it's essentially an over-the-counter permit except for we do do a little bit of

verification before we issue them. Um, of course we have um our contract arborist re review it. I will say there's just a couple of other caveats I would put in there in that it does not the areas that do not qualify for this permit are areas in sensitive lands. So if they have mapped tree groves or mapped um stream corridors that does not count. You can't do a minor forest management permit um if you have that. It also does not count if you're in the 25 foot oiggo lake special setback or if you're within the Wamtt uh greenway management overlay which is along the Wamtt River or if it's a heritage tree which we have uh designated heritage tree in the trees in the city or if it is a noteworthy landscaping feature or tree on a historic property. So, those are the those don't qualify, but uh for example, as you heard tonight, um the golf course does qualify for that and they have applied for um those types of permits in the past. So, with that, I'll pass it over to you.

Yeah, you just covered all of the things um about the current codes. So, we're just Yeah, we're just bringing the the issue of the proposed amendment to discuss today. Um the draft code adds to this list of of areas that don't qualify for the forest management permit. um those that are located within the property th those trees located within the property managed by a municipal or private golf course and these uh this addition I we heard today that there was you know there's some concern about how this was added to the draft and nothing was added without uh a good amount of feedback from the stakeholders and the community and you know there there's gonna

to that I can speak and and yeah, Jessica.

Yeah, I'm sorry to interrupt, but yeah, the big question is where did this come from? So, it didn't come out of nowhere as um as Sarah alluded to. Uh so, it started back with the urban and community forestry plan and at that time we were uh did a lot of public outreach um as part of that plan to identify the different issues with the urban forest and there was a lot of concern and it could have been around activity that was happening at the golf course at that time. That may or may not be fair, but but for whatever reason, it was brought up during that time as an issue um that people felt that that type of forest management permit shouldn't be applied to a golf course because it's this highly manicured, highly managed um property type. Um and again, I'm not this isn't my own personal views of this. I'm just telling you what what we heard during that public uh comment. And so, uh, one of the recommendations that came out of that plan was to address this as part of the tree code update. Um, we also took it to the city council. We had some counselors who expressed similar concerns about it. And so, that's why it made it into this draft. But I do want to point out that this is a draft. This is not this does not mean that this is what's going to be adopted. this is why we have this process and why people can come in and give us feedback so that we can consider all policy options and make a recommendation to the council. So I just want to be very clear this is not set in stone but that is where it came from was the concerns of um what people perceived as a lot of tree removal happening on uh the the uh um on the excuse me the the Asiggo Lake uh country club golf course and um and that's why it was made in in here. But it's certainly something that if you recommend we we could remove that if you feel that that's not uh the right policy direction.

Yeah. from from looking at permits uh there were 122 trees removed under the forest all forest management permits between 2021 and 2025. So that averages about 25 trees per year. Uh and the intent of the forest management permit is to uh sustain forest cover for for property owners that have large lots with a lot of canopy cover. Um and uh so disqualifying the golf course from this permit would treat them differently from other large properties uh housing complexes and open spaces that don't contain designated sensitive lands. So there's there's a couple options here um to to remove this provision um that as it's drafted currently um and continue to allow golf courses to be eligible for this management permit. Um we met with Nolan um in one of our stakeholder interviews and and we heard today that you know that the golf courses are actively managing their land um with kind of with greater environmental goals in mind and so it's it's it's not to you know demonize anybody. We we you know we respect that you came to the stakeholder group and you provided a lot of really great feedback and and so I hope that this doesn't uh read read in that way. there's a lot of different um interests in Lake Oiggo and and this one cropped up. Um so there's also, you know, the option to just to not add it. We can we can take that draft out. Um but we could also keep it in um for the reasons uh that Jessica that Jessica mentioned um and the concerns that the community has.

Could you answer a question? The um municipal golf course was redone recently. How many trees of that 125 that were taken out in the last 5 years are accountable to the redo of the municipal golf course? Zero. And the reason why it's zero is because they did it under a minor and major development permit. They didn't do a for for minor forest management permit because they were they were doing other development on it. So they just lumped it all together. So none of that 122 is attributable attributed to the municipal golf course. I will tell you that in the last 5 years the um uh Aiggo Lake Country Club did apply for two tree permits under the minor for minor forest management and they removed a total of 63 trees under those permits.

How many? 63. 63.

Yeah. And um and again it's the total is less than 1% of all trees removed. So when you look at overall it's a it's a very small percentage but um yeah it is it is a large you know they have 123 acres I believe. So they've got a lot of land. I mean they can never go below one acre of canopy um per acre of land. So if that happened they would no longer be eligible for it. But yeah I think adding that excluding them from the tree code is is ridiculous. I mean, they they have a ve big vested interest in keeping their trees healthy, which they do if you've ever been on their golf course. Um, it it just seems one-sided to make them fall under that purview.

And I just I'm sorry and I this last thing I'll say is that um they would be eligible for other permit types. So if they weren't eligible for this one, they could apply for type two hazard dead whatnot. But it means they have to apply for those all separately and it is quite a large lot. So um I just want to point that out. It doesn't leave them no options but it it definitely is not as um I guess easy for them to manage their trees.

Yeah. What was the rationale for identifying as a an exception golf courses rather than common properties that are managed by homeowners associations and parks and those other large pieces of uh property with trees on them are were not exempted. I I'm very familiar, I think, with the emotion that went along with the timing of this decision to add this. And do you think that that was the major reason it was added? Because it doesn't seem to me to be fundamentally different from other large pieces of property that, you know, are eligible for forest management permits.

I would say that in general, we don't see many from the city because so many of the city's parks and natural areas have sensitive lands on them. And then the ones that don't are like um they tend to not have an acre of tree canopy because they've got ball fields and um other things on there that they just don't have enough acreage. So we don't I don't know that we've seen them. Um Morgan, I don't know if you've seen any from uh from the the city, but I I don't recall any. Most of them are going to be like apartment complexes like Asiggo Point or one Jefferson Parkway are some examples. Um, homeowners, uh, common areas would also be eligible only if they don't have sensitive lands. And there are some of those out there as well.

There are. Yeah. I know we're always supposed to disclose a conflict of interest. And I am not a golfer. I'm a fisherman. But, uh, you know, anytime you walk on a golf course, you are struck, especially the two that are in question here, with how carefully they maintain the the property and the careful stewardship of the land that was alluded to by the um, public testimony that we received tonight. and also the the public comments. And so I think I would be in favor of keeping the golf courses eligible under the current forest management permits, you know, based on those those factors.

Yeah. As as the weekend golf hacker and a bad one. Um I would, you know, for my game it would be better if all the trees were gone.

Yeah. However, um yeah, having read through the 26 or 27 um notice that we've received and and the public testimony tonight, the fact that we're basically talking about one golf course within the city, you know, that's again one one and a half% of the city overall. Um, I just don't see how that that has any it really contributes anything to to um putting that or taking that away from them. I I think yeah, they should continue to to be a part of that system. I have to agree with Commissioner Bruce, Commissioner Duce, Commissioner Leak on that one. It's almost seems like that came up out of some kind of bias. That's just my own personal opinion here with thinking of this just because there's there's some people that aren't a part of the club so they hate the club. You know, it's just kind of that in my opinion, I'm thinking the unpopular people against the popular people type of a thing. So, there's that deeprooted mentality there that that deep bias that's bred into people's past traumas that comes out in the future. you know, looking at bullies and other nonsense that happens. So, I just want to put my two cents in on that one.

I I will say just to be fair, we did have people who were opposed to that were actually members of the country. I I can't tell you how many, but there were some of those folks. So, I don't I just want to point that out. But, uh but yeah,

um I have a question. Is forest defined in our code or is this being loosely used? Is this just a question of semantics? What is a forest? What is a golf course? So forest itself is not, but large forested tract is. And that's the only thing that's eligible for a minor forest management permit. And so it's really broadly defined. And it's basically a lot, parcel, or tract that is 1 acre or larger in area containing not less than 1 acre of tree canopy. Um, it goes on, but I I'll stop there. So, it is it's pretty broad. So, as long as you meet the minimum size in terms of the lot and size in terms of the tree canopy, you qualify. But we do not have a definition of forest.

Okay. Thank you. In that case, I'd say there is no obvious reason in our code that there's a conflict here. So, I would support keeping the management of the golf course as is. Yeah, that seems to be the the general sentiment here tonight. I'm getting nods from some of those who haven't spoken. Um, so yeah, thank you for discussing that and thank you to the members of the public that came here today and and gave your testimony. um we you know we've talked with some of you in and stakeholder engagement and um we've also talked with some other people on the other side and so this is kind of where those decisions are are made and now we know what to pass forward uh to council. So we are concluding these these topics here and I just wanted to cover a couple of the next steps um for the draft code. Um we'll be incorporating some of these some of these changes along with uh some of the um feedback that we get from both the parks board and sustainability boards um this Wednesday. Um we'll be incorporating feedback from this session and that session into draft 4 um that we'll bring to city council. Um and we're having a work session with them um in May. Uh we'll meet with the tree task force. Um many members are here today, Yuko, Brandon, and and Jeff. Um, we'll be meeting with the tree task force for a last meeting and review of the code also sometime in in late May and then uh the the code will go back to the planning commission for a hearing and the city council for hearing in June and July. But I did want to give um an opportunity now for for folks that have other questions or other things they wanted to discuss about uh the draft code um beyond those those focus those focus items. Um

quick question. I am I've heard it rumored that these kind of tree disputes will not come up in front of the DRC that there will be a tree code person arbiter panel something.

Yeah. So the proposed code um eliminates review of the DRC um from from tree disputes and the the current proposal um with this draft is a hearings officer who will be it's a hired position by the city. other cities do this as well. Um they will give a a final decision on these these um these issues. Um we've heard, you know, from many members of the planning commission and the council that these these disputes tend to uh be take a lot of staff time, take a lot of staff energy, a lot of staff money. And we are seeing um we are seeing that there there's only been one uh one issue that was overturned in the past five years out of nine different cases that were escalated to um to the DRC. So because of all of this um the hearings officer would would just be one person um who could make a final decision um based on this new clear and objective code. So it would no longer um yeah the clear and objective track and the discretionary track.

Thank you. A new occupation for somebody graduating in landscape architecture. I they would most they would likely be more um I think have a background in as an attorney. I think um for this it would be I think I think uh that hiring a recent grad could be uh dramatic but I the position would most likely be filled by somebody who has experience as an attorney.

Yeah, we currently have a contract with a hearings officer for expedited um land divisions. So we could potentially utilize that same hearings officer for appeals which we get maybe four a year. So the other thing that maybe I don't know how you put it in the code, but when people want to appeal something, tell them the things they can't appeal that they don't read the code and they want to come and tell us that these trees need to be saved because I had a tree fort in there once or carbon cus whatever that term is that I can't even remember tonight. um that those are not part of the code and if it's spelled out in the very first paragraph, please do not try to appeal on based upon these items. Might save everybody a lot of time. Any other questions or comments about the draft before I hand it back over? I have um I just wanted to before I have my um express my comments, I just wanted to thank staff and everybody involved in this process. It's been comprehensive, long, and I appreciate the effort that's gone into it to get the draft to the point it is.

And there's lots of things that are uh very commendable and good about it. And in the interest of times, let me just stick to two things or a few things that I think um may be better addressed. One of the basic takeaways from reading the draft was the number of times there's a loop back to arborous services may be required. This is something I feel that we should look at a bit more prudently and judiciously because now we are creating loop backs. uh we are creating ambiguity because we are not clarifying when or how but we are just saying may we are increasing loop backs to uh for services that would increase time and cost for project uh projects and that would be in conflict of basically what we are trying to do. So if there is a bit more clarity in exactly when arborous services would be required and what is the nature of that services or if they can be codified you know do you really need a arborous service uh report to advise how planting should be done in a critical root zone or can we say 4in pots and hand you know hand digging only or something that if we can reduce loop backs extra loop backs in the process I think it would make it more efficient and um help save costs and time. The other um concern I have is that we are changing we are either changing or modifying how people understand tree street trees especially when we are now putting the owners of maintaining um and all the costs associated with street trees on home owners. My thought on that is street trees are a

community resource. Not all home owners have street trees in front of their homes or even if their properties are adjacent to uh streets that could be construed as extra owners on few and not on the others. Anytime I feel that policy the outcome is unfair, it also creates a possibility of liability because you are asking some people to take more um responsibility for cost and maintenance and not others. So I think that's something that we should look at a bit more prudently and I know that we have given comparative um we compare with other jurisdictions but uh I do feel that that that opens the city up for more uh liability claims and the last one is I think uh emer uh emergency tree removal. It seems to me that uh we are creating a pathway for emergency tree removal but we are not telling them exactly what the criteria is besides a few basic things because at the end of the emergency tree removal we are saying that if um post tree removal if an arborist finds that you know um the reasons for the tree removal um can be contested then the owner is going to be penalized. Right? So I feel that that's creating again another ambiguity and risk for the city because now people have to weigh in possibility of penalties for something that they are not qualified to evaluate. If there's a snowstorm and as a homeowner I feel that the tree is leaning and the city manager is not available and I make a decision that the tree needs to be removed because I'm

scared of um loss of life or loss of property. Well, if I give photographic evidence and somebody's going to come and say, "Well, I don't think it was leaning that much." That's a subjective opinion. So when we are when we are pegging uh penalties to the owner for that how do we expect residents to you use that clause when there is no clarity what are what is the definition that they have to meet to assertain that you know okay I need to remove the stream. So I think there are a few loop backs that create more ambiguity when we use more words like may, may require, may require and those I feel can be sharpened uh and that can help communicate uh better what is it that you know we are expecting folks to do. That's all. Thank you.

Well, thank you so much. um your your comments are we've we've taken a lot of notes and you're all welcome to email any of us directly um with your comments and we can pass them along and discuss them as as a project team. Um so we we welcome that. I I know that you have Jessica's email. Um and yeah, thank you so much for your time and your your thoughtful consideration on all of this. Uh we appreciate you all coming in for for public comment as well. Um, and hope that uh you you found a you got a resolution that that you're you're happy with this evening. Um, so I'll pass it back to Yes. Thank you so much for coming and presenting to us tonight and all of your collective efforts on on this and we're excited to see these changes come in in a few weeks in final form. Thank you very much. Moving on to item number seven, other business. Seeing no other business, uh item number eight, schedule review, Iris,

I can I can take that over. Okay.

Uh just a couple of updates for you. Um well, one update and then the then we'll go over the schedule. Uh the first is that the search committee for the boards and commissions um is currently reviewing applications for new planning commissioners and um there is there are two vacancies on the planning commission. And so we uh it looks like they'll be scheduling interviews in late April, so a little bit later this month. Um and so in addition to filling two vacancies, we'll also be rec recruiting for two alternates, which is what we have every year. So, just wanted to give you an update on that. I'm sure Eric uh or um uh planning manager Olsen will provide more updates um when he is at your next meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for April 27th and at that meeting you will have a work session on foothills and this is going over the vision and goals and objectives for the district. And then on May 11th, your meeting will be a work session on the resoning project. So, this is where things are going to start to kick in kick in now. Um, we're also going to be finalizing the selection of the consultant for the code audit as well. So, you'll be start you'll be seeing a lot more of of us uh uh and you're going to have a lot more meetings uh coming up really soon on both of those. Um on the 28th, it looks like Eric um excuse me, planning manager Olsen is still trying to determine um what will be scheduled for that evening, but on June 8th, we will have a public hearing on these very tree code amendments that you talked about tonight. So, we look forward to seeing you there uh uh on the 8th. And that will be kind of a long night because you also have another work session on foothills and looking at the uh conceptual alternatives for the district. So that's everything that I have for the schedule and management update. Great. Thank you so much. And

with that, we are adjourned. All right. Thank you everybody. You sound like a developer.