Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. All right, officially, call this meeting to order. Real quick, are the mics on? Yes. Commissioner Strader, would you lead us in the flag salute?

Oh, yes. I pledge allegiance to the flag.

Now we have the roll call. Commissioner Gertz?

Present.

Commissioner Strader?

Here.

Commissioner Ternes? Not present. Commissioner Whalen? Here. Commissioner Zaro? Not present. Vice Chair Johnson?

Here.

And Chair Oller here.

Commissioner Zaro did email that she was unable to leave work today, so she was gonna miss. I did not hear from Ternus. I did not specifically reach out to him about the change. I planned on it, it just didn't happen. But I haven't heard from him for missing the last meeting either. At that point, I guess he's unexcused, but I did wanna point out that I don't know that he's aware that we had a meeting tonight.

Let's note that and then see what happens

Yes. Madam Chair, I move to excuse Commissioner Zaro because she had called in early to alert us that she couldn't be here.

Second. All right. All in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Unanimously, we have excused Commissioner Zaro. Are there addition, deletions, or corrections to the agenda? Hearing none. Do I have a motion to approve the notes from, I'm sorry. Moving on, is there any public participation? Seeing nobody here, there will be no public participation. And now we move on to approval of the minutes for August 12th. Are there any edits to the minutes from our last meeting?

Yes, just a quick question how other Commissioners may feel under staff report first bullet point. Staff report first bullet point at the end of the sentence. It just says and the washer and dryer program. Could we expand that? I think it's a rebate program through Public Works. It depends on how other peoples feel. I just. Thought it might need a little more description.

Not opposed.

Makes sense. I couldn't hear it, I'm sorry.

The, go ahead.

Oh, she's not hearing through the earphone. I'm not hearing.

Can you hear me? Okay, yeah. Go ahead, say it again.

Okay, so the suggestion was, for the minutes, staff report, first bullet point, to further define what's meant by the program and to add words, the washer and dryer rebate program in the Public Works Department.

Wait, I don't see those in the minutes.

It's in my comment.

Oh, it's in your, oh, okay. Staff report. Page three. Staff report, page four of 72. Aren't we approving the minutes right now?

Oh, yeah, it's at the bottom.

Minutes for Wednesday, October, aren't I? Where am I? Wednesday, August 12th.

Oh, I'm looking at the old version. Pardon me. All right.

All right. Now I'm with you.

Gosh. I've got two different versions here. Okay. Well, I'm not opposed to that.

OK. So, Madam Chair, I move to approve the minutes for Wednesday, August 12, 2026, as amended.

Do I have a second? Second. All right, all in favour? Aye. Any opposed? All right, we've approved the minutes as corrected. Now we can move on to our regular Agenda A, Urban Forest Revised Proposal.

So in your spot should be an updated staff report for item one, 6A. It's based on some conversations I had that I think would address some of the comments and concerns that came back to me over the last couple days. So I'll just sort of go through, starting with the second page of the updated Clarifications are the same as what was sent out. There was a comment about the definition for constructible building coverage. I'm still comfortable with that because it is referenced. There was a question about using the term right tree, right place, if there was sort of someone to accredit that to. When I went looking, it sounds like it's sort of across the board, multiple agencies, companies, nonprofits popped up, so I think we're okay just using that. There was a question about using the term director. That's what's used in Title 17. We have some protect, I know it keeps coming up, sort of like city property. So there are some tree protection standards in the public works standards. I do think additional work needs to be done. I do also later, I did make a change that I hopefully is in the making sure people are okay with it to, clarifying language that the intent is, like, if we have an existing, like, right-of-way trees, parks, we're managing those for the health of those trees. And we have planting requirements, and we have different things of protection when projects are going. I don't think it was, I think it's okay not to exclude an actual development project. Like, if we decide, if we ever actually, like, tear down part of City Hall and replace it, I don't see why you couldn't follow all of the same rules as a commercial for tree replacement. So I did put some language that I think I addressed later and we can see it when we go through that addresses that. Again, for how do we enforce and how do we track, some of that's we're hoping with the permits and with the notices and with a lot of everything else we do a lot of hearing people calling, cutting trees. I am starting, I started working on some public notices, handout stuff that we would send out. And like I said, we have gotten a lot more calls from tree contractors that know that cities are regulating this a little bit more, so we will send those out. And then formatting, there was various, you know, sessions, suggestions, corrections, I appreciate all of those. And if I didn't take yours, it was because I was probably trying, I was making it try to be consistent with how we do it in the MMC. But I do appreciate them because there are times when I have two different formats or two different types of going on, and that way I went through and tried to make sure we were being consistent. Some of the changes, again, added, corrected a couple of definitions. We had talked previously that we sort of reduced subsection B to just say that kind of just to the exceptions. Subsection C, so basically I just sort of did a highlight of what each subsection is, and then we'll go through it. The next thing is the more kind of like the stuff I think you need to make decisions on. So again, subsection C is identifying what is regulated. Subsection D is... identifies the tree credits and how we calculate it he is true removal on undeveloped lots. And then, which is prohibited unless dead dying and hazardous trees are there, to which they would require a minor permit and that we aren't requiring replacements for. dead-dying hazardous trees. Subsection F is removal on developed lots. I got a good catch from Council or Commission Member Whalen, the idea that we were dealing with developed lots for one and two dwelling units, but we didn't actually deal with developed lots for other zones, so I did create a new section for that. Subsection G goes through associated with development which again has a minor permit for one and two dwelling units, major for the rest. Then obviously we do retention. There was a request to say that the map should include trees. So right now the original just said for retention plan, it just shows the trees on the property. There was a request that it should include trees within 30 feet of the property, so that way if they're affecting other trees or if we need to protect those that are trees on the next property, which made sense. Those changes to tree protection. A little bit of changes to tree replacement. Replace cannot be achieved with determined to not meet landscaping best practices. Felt like that was a little bit more of a specific, not just, oh, I don't think we can achieve it. No, you have to show me how in best practices. I removed language, reruns had language for lots less than 3,000. We really don't have lots less than 3,000 that are truly lots, so it didn't feel like that needed to be an exception. It was pointed out that most of it we were talking about five years, except the in lieu of maintenance timeline was three, so I changed that to five. And then a little bit of more specifics for bond and security. The rest of that, no changes, except for obviously the current draft has removed of the penalties and added VCA, but we'll discuss that later. As we go through the next page, which I hopefully we can kind of use my thinking was we would use that side by side as we sort of just scroll through. And and where I feel like there's some real decisions that need to be made so that everyone's comfortable. I would love to have some. direction. And then the very last page of the supplemental that I gave you, I sort of rewrote, because really subsection D, I think is the heart of the issue. And so I wrote out a sort of revised version with some of the suggestions that have been made that I think. So I had a, like I said, a conversation with Again, trying to reach out to council members, trying to get a feel. There's a couple additions that I am suggesting that I think will make it more, on one hand, more palatable for some in the middle. It also, though, was offset with, I think, a little bit more requirements I didn't think we could get. So we'll kind of go through that. So that's just like a brief hi, and then we'll kind of get into the details. But I think there's some really good stuff here. So just real quick, let's just go ahead and start with page 10. And then if you just want to have beside you my direction from planning commission, those are things I think we need to highlight. And then if you come up with other things you want to highlight, please feel free. Does that sound acceptable? For definitions, it was requested that we add a definition, and I'm gonna call it a nuisance tree. I found that in somebody's code. I think it might have been Vancouver's code. Yeah, I think it was Vancouver's. The idea that a nuisance tree means a tree causing obvious physical damage to private or public property, included but not limited to sidewalk, curb, road, parking lot, building foundation, or roof, unless it can be corrected by reasonable practices. And so the... I think if we add that definition and then allow removal of a nuisance tree similar to dead and dying, that was something I think that would help get more support. And I didn't think that sounded, that seemed very reasonable.

Would we let, should we go through these one, two, three each separately rather than as a tent? All right. Any discussion on adding definition of a nuisance tree and go around the horn? No problem for me. Okay.

I'm fine with that. Okay.

I thought we had that in Burien's Code under risky tree, but is that gone now?

I think it may have, I didn't find anything, we have hazardous tree, but I'm not seeing something that's quite like this.

Okay, sure.

So I can double check, but I didn't find any, it didn't jump out at me when I was looking through it.

Yeah, nuisance and risky do seem a little different.

Oh, I'm fine with it, makes sense.

Yeah, me too. All right, nuisance tree, we all agree.

And then another request, was that, for consideration, is to either put it in the exemptions, or I could add it in the individual sections, is to basically allow tree removal to accommodate an ADA need. The example was, let's say they needed to put a ramp in the front yard, and there's a tree in the way. Again, I don't know how often that would occur, but that was, you know, was a request that seemed to be, make it a little bit more, again, accommodating for people's individual needs.

All right. Okay, so you're saying, are you gonna define it has to be right around the house? In other words, we know there's a place where they built the four ADUs and there were trees that were gone at that time when they added the extra ADU. What would protect that?

So this would be for an ADA, so disability.

Oh, ADA.

Sorry, no. That's why I can't hear this. Too many acronyms. So basically, it would accommodate, so like elderly needs a ramp is usually the case. I don't know what else there would be, but if.

Disabilities.

Yeah, so if in order to put in a ramp, they would need to take down a tree, are we willing to put that accommodation in there?

Yeah. I mean, I'm willing to have an exemption for ADA. That seems reasonable.

No, I'm not saying for ADA, but again, if it's not really defined on the scope of where things can go around for the ADA, that's the only thing I'm talking about, because a ramp is different, but say they want to add a big porch on the back with a ramp in the back, and there is a tree there that's a bigger tree, But I'm not against ADA, don't get me wrong. It's just I'm thinking.

Put some parameters around it.

Yeah, I think not because people already abuse ADA sometimes. You know, they get their parking permits, but they're not really ADA. And so it's how do we keep it all up and up. And we've seen some stuff. That's the only reason. But, I mean, I'll support whatever the rest support.

You support it. You just like to see more guardrails. Yeah. All right. Commissioner Gertz?

I support it.

Commissioner Whalen? I support it, but I do want to just go to a higher level for a moment. We still have a basic structure in this proposal that exempts lots, existing lots, with one or two family dwellings on it, correct? Correct.

So these.

And I don't mean to go too far, I feel to just say.

If you wanna pull this out, so it should be on the supplemental that was at your desk, the very last page of it. Sort of the trade off for some of this is that if you look at one A and B, So basically the idea would be to pitch to them, we're increasing some, I guess, exemptions at the same time, restricting it to one healthy, because yeah, if we didn't, it wouldn't matter. But one healthy regulated tree may be removed per year, up to two years of tree removal or three, we can figure out that number, maybe removed, maybe banked, meaning you can take two trees at once with no additional trees allowed to be cut until the third year. And then also if you look down on G, so it would require, and then I've added require a tree removal notification instead of requested, make it required. And then G is that, and this I guess, it's supposedly based on Vancouver, I couldn't find it, but it's just another way of saying it, is instead of saying that you can't do anything for two years, Basically, it says healthy regulated trees removed within two years of a building or land use permit submission shall be subject to tree requirements. So basically, if you take down trees and then within two years you come in and apply, we're going to then retroactively make you replant trees and do stuff like that. So those would be sort of the trade-offs for some of these things that we are... reducing. So again, we could start with this section since I know this is the heart of everything. So it's kind of like, which is kind of what the first couple are, so.

Well, I'm okay. I apologize, Madam Chair, for going off to a different realm of the document. I just wanted to understand what this is talking about commercial development. This is talking about everything. The ADA...

So the ADA would be for anything? Yes. And again, I can... That's fine.

The trouble for me is that then there's the two system where it's not going to make a difference for more than half of the city. And then if it's a civic use or a business or a multifamily...

I mean, disabilities can be temporary, and many of us will find that we need that within our lifetime. I think it will apply to more people than you might think.

I could put it as that they are required to at least apply for a minor permit, because they're going to have to apply for a permit. They should be applying for a permit anyway if they're putting in a ramp. So we could do it as a minor tree removal permit to make sure they really have to take out the tree.

Okay.

If that language sounds just, again, using it as a little bit of hoop, but not too bad. A little bit of a guardrail. Okay. Commissioner Strader, your thoughts?

So about the guardrails, are we only talking about an ADA ramp? Because it's like if D, your suggested language on the last page, if that doesn't, if that gets removed when this goes back, or it doesn't get included with what goes on and become part of our code, then, I don't know. If someone said, hey, I'd like to wheelchair my or whatever around my entire yard, which means, and I'm on a path everywhere, and I'm going to need to remove all my trees. See, I always look at how can this be used to the extreme for someone who's just trying to get around the rules.

That's the minor permit. So I think, yeah, so I could add some language that sort of, put some parameters around it?

Yeah, I have no problem with a ramp. I have no problem with modified, you know, mobility. You know, I mean, my mom's in a wheelchair, so I understand how it is.

Yeah, and it could be to accommodate ADA access to the, you know, into the primary residence or into the residence or something.

Right, if it's a reasonable thing and then it's how do you regulate reasonable, like if it's left to somebody's discretion, that's It becomes more tricky, I guess, or could be. I don't know.

True removal to accommodate an ADA need may be exempt.

Oh, there you go. Yeah, if it's a may. Yeah, that it has to be, yeah.

I mean, may, and it has to be reviewed, and it has to have a permit, and something about the... May be exempt upon successful completion of a minor permit.

Something like that. Something like that.

Okay. Yeah, removing trees for a real need, removing trees naming it that just as a way to get rid of trees. If there's a way to not have that happen.

Mm-hmm. No, and I get that.

Councillor Osanic OK.

So let's go ahead and just do this because I think this is the big thing and then the rest is just ticky-tack stuff.

And you already know that D is blank under what?

Yes, D was where I started to put it in, then I didn't put it in because then I was like, should it just be a general because it's for everybody? So I will fix that. So this is, like I said, this was sort of maybe a closer compromise than what I brought to you last time. So basically it does say one healthy, instead of just saying you can cut whatever you want, one healthy regulated tree may be removed per year. with up to, we could do two or three years of tree removal, maybe banked, meaning you could cut two or three trees at once, but then no additional tree would be allowed until those years pass. I had three, I went to two, it could be, you know, I've gone back and forth. I will say the attorneys did not, he was uncomfortable with my, you can't, for every tree you cut, you can't build for a year. He felt like the, The fact that it could be really a long time, he was very uncomfortable with some of the application with that. He was much more comfortable if it was something like two years, that that seemed more defensible and stuff. So there is that. And then, so again, up to, you know, like I said, we could either bank two or three years, and then basically... That any dead dying hazardous or nuisance tree could be moved, in addition to the healthy trees, they are required to do a notification instead of requested. My thinking in obviously that form would and would. they'd have to mark what type of tree, why they removed it, that kind of stuff. And then added a little bit stronger that the applicant is strongly encouraged to plant replacement trees to reflect the minimum tree credit goals and assist in the rebuilding of the lost urban forest. Again, trying to put that, that there's a reason why we are asking you to put stuff. And then the final one is that if they, basically, if they come in for a permit within two years of when they took out a healthy tree, we would kick in at least the replanting that they would have been required to do. Again, trying to use that is saying, just come into a talk, if you're gonna build, come in and talk to us, don't try to do a loophole. And then I added the bottom section, which is for everything else. That if you're a developed lot, you'd have to do a, so if you're commercial, if you're a triplex, if you're a apartment complex, you would need a minor permit, We're still allowing you to remove dead, dying trees. You cannot remove exceptional trees. You could possibly remove significant trees if you're still meeting tree credit requirements.

So that's my current draft that I think is a... And the nuisance trees doesn't apply because there's no development?

We would add the nuisance to that one as well.

OK. OK. All right, any discussion? Let's go around. Commissioner Johnson.

Okay, one question I'm asking, excuse me, this is going to be paragraph D. Where, when we look at page 15, we have a D there called minimum tree credits. That's going to be gone and replaced with this? Is that what I'm under? I'm on 15.

Why is it D? It should be F.

Okay. And so F is okay. Okay. I was like, whoa, I didn't focus on that.

And no, that's fine. So it's F. All right. Thanks.

All right. I just saw it.

That's the question. Or did you have more to? I'm fine. You're good. Commissioner Gertz.

Um, I'm concerned that with the change of one healthy tree cut per year, it may not fly with some of the council members with their concerns of it being a financial burden to residents because it's cheaper to get more cut at once than like once a year and have to get maybe potentially an assessment done again, a new permit pulled.

So... I think, so two things. One, that's why there's a little bit of discussion of banking. So like you could say, you could either say, the idea of banking is that, yes, you can cut, since it is a little bit, if you're like, hey, I've got three trees I want to remove, or two trees, depending on what number we put, you could do those now. Basically, you can't then do it for the next three, you know, if we decide it's three trees, then for three years, they can't cut any more trees. That they can get it done now, but it's the equivalent of one per year for three years. Like I said, it could be two or three is the range I was tossing back and forth. I think by the discussions I've had, I think we would have five votes with this version. I can't guarantee that, but that's the feeling I was getting, is we would have at least five votes for this.

Okay.

With the idea that it is... So, not as much as we started with, but at least it's a little bit in that direction. And then again, as we do more studies, it could. And again, it's taken out. If it's dead, dying, you know, if there's a reason for it, that's unlimited. But you'd have to show us that it, you know. But I appreciate your thinking of that, your thought process.

Commissioner Whalen. Thank you, Madam Chair. A question about what's labeled G, healthy regulated trees removed within two years of a building or land use permit submission shall be subject to the tree requirements in G. So we don't define what the building permit is. So if it's the 500 square feet, that trips it into a different, because what I understood was if an existing lot with an existing two family home, as an example, wanted to do a 500 square foot addition, they would have to get a minor tree permit, tree removal permit. They'd have to meet the minimum tree credits. and all the tree retention, protection, and so forth. So when I read G, I don't see anything in here about D, maintaining minimum credits. I just see, am I missing something?

So my intent is, and I can double check that the wording conveys that, is that basically you would have to go to subsection, you're subject to subsection G. And when you go in through subsection G, it says... all lots associated with development must meet the required minimum credits per subsection D. So basically when you go there, it goes through, you have to have tree credits. If you're doing this size, it sort of works you through that. So that's my thing is it takes you to this section, not this section.

Okay. With the revision, I don't... Head is, well, it's a lot to keep track of. Thank you for all your effort to try to get this to work. I sent a suggestion noting the difference between a permit is issued waiting a certain time period or the city says we're not going to accept any permit for a moratorium time. But that concept is all gone now, correct?

Yeah, so we could go with that. But this was one that was suggested that in some ways, so the attorneys were a little nervous with the moratorium. They were a little more comfortable with something like a two-year moratorium. But they did say, you know, because you're always having to try to build why you're making them, you know, what is the, you can't just randomly say these things. You have to show what the connection is, the nexus between what you're asking and what they're doing. So the moratorium, they were a little nervous on. This language, I think, is a little less, it's more like, hey, it kind of addresses like, hey, you were going to build this so you're, you know, I think this has the same effect, but it's not stopping them from building. It's just saying, because you're building and you're building really close to when you took down the trees, we're going to still address the trees. So I think it's a little easier to enforce than telling people they can't build at all.

Councillor Osanic OK. And as you know, I was basing my suggestion on what Kirkland, which I thought, OK, so. So the question then is the newly on page, well, not numbered, but the piece, no, that's fine. Suggested language, newly labeled paragraph F for fun. The, I lost my question after all that. I'll come back. Go ahead, Commissioner Strader.

Well then, Commissioner Straeter.

Okay, thank you. I know, I would have liked to have gotten this out earlier, but it just didn't happen.

So first, I like this better than what we had in the packet, definitely. It seems like G in Section F would be easier to, maintain than a moratorium? Is that, I mean, just trying to keep track of it and then people coming in saying, oh, I bought it and I didn't know and all of that, when all you're really asking for is, okay, the trees were taken down, it's been less than two years, now even though we didn't require you to do these things, now you're, it's a way to not get around the take doing things in a particular order. Is that right? Is that?

Yeah, it's trying to, again, it's trying to say you're not gonna gain anything by just cutting them down because we're gonna make you do the steps anyway.

Okay, and then I like that it's required, that the notification's required, because my concern was if it wasn't, how would you know? And then my big question is, And I'm sure it's just, I just don't understand it. Why doesn't it say one, two, and three? Because can't you have a house and two ADUs? And would that then not be, like if someone had a house and two ADUs, could they say then, this part doesn't apply to me because I have three dwelling units?

So ADUs are considered accessories. So when I say one, it's single family. If I say two, it's a duplex.

Okay.

So theoretically, you could have one family dwelling and two ADUs.

And it's still a one family dwelling. Because you can't have an ADU without the, okay, got it. Okay, now. And those lines are getting very thin, I realize.

It doesn't mean households.

It means something else. I'm making myself a note.

If you're 1,000, you're an ADU. If you're 1,001, it's got to be a duplex.

Got it. Okay. And that is, for that section, that is, I'm good.

All right.

Yes, you may. I fell back in my head with that break. Thank you. I still have a general policy question of a lot going through the process of being built on. And then, and it's a duplex that goes on. And then two years, and they've had to meet the minimum tree density credits. I've already asked this question of you in print, so you know where I'm going. But they've done, they've planted the required trees, they retained what they could, and they come in two years after they've moved in. You've got a maintenance agreement in the code for five years. And within, let's just say after five years to make it easier, they want to come in and say, hey, I'm an existing house. Now I want to be exempt from having to maintain the tree credits. I want to clear my lot. Is that still possible with the rewrite?

I would say after the five years, then F applies. And if this passes, they could do the one tree a year with the banking.

Okay.

Now, again, it gets a little bit, depends on the size of the trees and all that stuff. But I think five years lets a tree get pretty established.

But once a house is built, it's existing. So I just saw that you have some challenges with having made a developer do all of this.

I guess you're partially relying on that I think the general resident is not out to clear all their trees. I think you're more likely to get, I mean, you're more likely.

That happens with developers.

Most people who buy a house with trees, especially new growing trees are probably happy to have the trees.

They want them.

So I think some of that's what we're, you're trusting that historic and historically people have not taken down a ton of trees because they've been able to for years. It's sort of the developers that are now allowed to put ADUs in different densities and stuff that we're trying to just slow down.

Right. So really what's happening and what I've witnessed in recent years is just It's not people buying, you know, some depressed homes, they get bought, refurbished, and the lot is clear cut. And it's, that's what I wanna see stopped because that's what's really precipitating a lot of the outcry.

And if we're diligent on getting them to at least do the tree notifications of what's being cut, and we start getting data, we can start showing how much of an issue it is. And what's it tied to? Is it new people coming in? Is it trees that are just getting old and dying? Is it developers? We'll be able to get a lot more data than maybe in a couple years if we're like, hey, it really is people are just taking down trees at a higher capacity, then maybe we have the leverage to come back and make a better argument for stuff.

But I think we're making a start. Yes. And the perfect is the enemy of the good. So is this gonna be good?

Yeah. Another question's floating around, but let's just keep it going.

Is there anything else with this section? Are we thinking this, again, if you think of something, because again, you just got it thrown at you. If not, I'll go back to the numbered list, and we can always come back to this.

I would like to say that I would like to stay as close and balanced with what the attorneys have.

Yeah, that too.

have recommended because if it's indefensible, it will be challenged. So why not do what they advise and keep it as close to their exact recommendations? Yes, Commissioner Whalen.

A quick question on the concepts contained in suggested language for tree removal on developed lots. Is anything there transferable to tree removal on undeveloped lots? So just, I don't know that there is. I know we have to change nuisance.

I don't think it needs to be a nuisance, I don't think, because there's no structures, and that's sort of what we're trying to get after.

Oh, right, okay.

So I think that one's okay.

And that's because healthy trees, you just can't cut them? Yeah. Okay.

We're trying.

And is there a penalty for an existing one or two family dwelling and they've cut five trees all at once and you're only, I mean, there's no penalty, correct?

I think under this there would be, which is why when, so when we get, that's, I think there would be, under this, there would be a penalty if they cut more than what they're allowed. And that's why I'm trying to balance the fee schedule or the, sorry, the penalty schedule with this idea of also doing what we're calling the, putting in the language for the voluntary compliance is that idea that I could offer some alternative consequences to simply beyond just monetary. So, because I think that was some of it is, some of the hesitation with the high monetary was, could we have some other options? What if they can't afford it? Because, you know, and so under this, if they cut more, then yes, it would kick into the enforcement. So, which again, kicks back to us making sure that we are notifying people. Again, I will see.

But they don't need a permit? The new language doesn't say.

It doesn't, they have to notify us that they are cutting money. Technically, they don't necessarily have to do it beforehand, but they would have to notify us that they're cutting down.

The F that was in our packet, 1A, said no tree removal permit or replacement trees are required for the removal of regulated trees. So that's gone.

That's going away. It doesn't specifically say no replacement trees. I probably should put that in there. So no replacement trees are being required, but they are but we are saying that they're limited to one a year with the banking option of either, again, we could do two, we could do three. I don't know that we want to get much farther than that and see if it.

Didn't the attorney say two was the limit they were comfortable with?

That was for like our not letting you build. So this would be, Basically, so the banking would be, okay, you get one a year, but you really want to cut down three, so fine, we'll let you cut down three, but you can't cut anything else for three more years.

Sure.

So I think that's okay because that's not tied to development. That's just simply you're cutting your trees early. So you could do two at a time. So basically it'd be like, you could cut, or if you did two, it's like, you can cut two this year. You don't get to cut a tree next year. If you really want to, you could the year after that. So part of that is making people, one is just trying to slow people down. What do they really want to cut? And again, I think most residents, Homeowners, usually it's only one or two. It's because a tree is just really nervous, it's near my house. It's the developers that are coming in and wanting to like, I want every tree out because it'll just make my life easier. This would make it very difficult for them to do that. And I think by having exceptions for if it's dead, dying, and disease, those don't count. So if you really have like, hey, it got hit by lightning and it's falling down, we're fine.

So is the question for 1D, 1B, do we want to have two years of trees, or do we want to have three years of trees?

And that's where I'm sort of leaving it. I originally was kind of thinking three, and then I went back to two, and again, this is where I'm wanting a little bit of consensus, because in the end it's...

I was fine with two.

I'm fine with two. Okay. Yeah, we'll see with two and see what council, they could always make it three if they really wanted to.

We have a divergent opinion.

You can say you want three.

We're talking about 1B still, right?

What?

We're talking about 1B still, right?

In the suggested language.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm okay with two years, but I can see situations where that may not work, and we could run the same situation where the attorneys didn't like the postponing the permits, because what if they have a valid reason they need to move five trees? Are we gonna make them wait five years? Can we hold them to that? And then plus, on Section G, I assume remain two years, so they can cut down five trees. Two years later, they can do the rebuilding, but sure, they have to then abide by the replanting, right?

Yes, Commissioner Johnson.

I was thinking our goal was to really, we've had so much backsplashing because we were too strict. And we don't want to become too lenient. We've got to come to the middle of the road. And if we feel that there's five Council members that would approve this at this time so we can get it done now, instead of later. I think they would accept two because it's less forceful. And we got to look at that right now in that some of them are self-interest in their own properties, that the more we win those over, the better off. And again, we have come a long way on this. And I'd like it to be 10 years, but two is good. Right now, we got it. We got to be decisive and move. We got to get it moving.

You're talking about the two years? Yep.

Commissioner Whalen. Just a question.

Originally, we had a schedule that was based on the size of the lot. And I'm okay with things as they are written, but I'm just throwing out there the next nuance, which is, well, how come that person who has a 4,000 square foot lot, whereas I have a 16,000 square foot lot, I only get to cut one tree? Wait a minute.

You could also, though, a small lock could have ten trees and a large lock could have three trees. This is true.

This is simple, and because of the simplicity, it's easier to... That's true. You don't have people arguing. And that's the thing about, you know, do we do size by species? Then people will argue with you all night about what species it is. It's just the simplicity might help.

So Commissioner Gertz was just asking, his was more on, I think, the banking, right? Should it be a slightly higher banking, but?

Well, you mentioned three. We were actually discussing it, but it's written as two, and so is that, is it up in the air?

You would support three for the three?

I would support two, but I'm just kind of concerned of other people accepting it.

So we're okay with? Yeah. Okay, so I think. So I'm confused. We're talking 1B?

Yeah, D1B. Tree removal on developed lots 1B.

Basically, you could do two years of banking at a time.

Because I felt that it tied in with G because that was two years, right? Yeah, that would be the same. Yeah, so we need to keep it similar.

Oh, gotcha.

More understandable.

All right, so I think.

So is, Commissioner Gertz, are you saying that suggested language subparagraph A, one healthy regulated tree may be removed per year? You're suggesting two?

No, sorry, I meant for the banking, sorry. Just for the banking? Yeah.

Okay.

You're saying that B matches G, so then that makes sense.

Okay. Yeah. All right. I got it. I'm with you now. Thank you.

The intent of them, if they change their mind, I'm going to build now, well, then now you've got to abide by the other rules. And it's the two years goes along with their, they're waiting two years to cut down another tree, you know, so it's less of a loophole. Yeah.

All right. So that's, yeah, so if you think, if anyone thinks of something at the end, we can always come back to that. But let's zip back to the other. So if we go to subsection C, which is on page? 15. So this is what we're kind of just talking about. So one, we can stick with what we've got in here, which is the flat rate amount. I've seen anywhere from 24 inch, 20 inch, 30 inch of diameter of what would be the exceptional tree. We did Burien, which should be option two. Burien had, like I said, sort of the table of depending on the species of tree, the size. I mean, Commissioner Whelan, she had pointed out that that could benefit both ways. Like, if you're keeping one of a tree that its maturity is a smaller, you're actually getting nine credits for it, even though it's not 30. But for cutting down, if you had the flat rate, you could cut it down. But it's more complicated if you start getting into a table.

So generally speaking, it's so much easier, even though it would probably be more accurate to do the table, that becomes a quagmire, I think, like the 28 inch is simpler for people to understand and simpler for us to enforce, is my opinion.

So yeah, my first is just consensus for flat rate versus the table, and then within the flat rate, which diameter standard height?

Okay, let's go around. Vice Chair Johnson, your feelings on that, flat rate versus table?

That's fine.

Which one? The flat rate, just 28 inches or 30? Okay. All right, and I feel the same way. Commissioner Gertz?

I'm fine with the flat.

Flat rate? Commissioner Whalen.

I'm okay as a huge compromise to a flat rate, but I would lobby for or just put out the reason why reducing the size of what it takes to be an exceptional tree might be worthy of consideration. And that is, if you have your old documents and you looked at that table, you would see that things like Douglas fir, redwood cedar, I mean, just really what we've got here in great quantity is considered a mature tree by 24 inches. And diameter at standard height. So by going at a flat rate of 28, those trees are not getting exceptional tree protection. So I guess the question is, is there a division in this rewrite that protects exceptional trees more? And I didn't really catch that.

There is. Other than single family duplex, the heart of what we had before that exceptional trees cannot be cut down or you would have to demonstrate that they need to be cut down if you're developing something and then you have to do more work. So those are all... Section G on page 17, when you start talking about major tree removal permits. So on page 18 at the top it says five. Exceptional trees, it keeps the language. Exceptional trees shall not be removed unless it's hazardous, it's unhealthy, or it reduces that constructible building coverage. And then it has the exception that you can reduce the front yard setback to protect an exceptional tree and the language for that.

So my comment is that because there's more protection afforded an exceptional tree, I I would suggest going down to a 24 inch diameter as being the threshold because that's when the majority of the conifer trees in the city are considered mature.

Would you be comfortable with saying 24 inches for conifers and 28 inches for all other trees?

I guess so, yeah. I'm just, it was just what was that table really trying to tell us? And I grant that's, for some people that may have been confusing. Wait a minute, a Madrona, for example, is an exceptional, it's reached its maturity at a much smaller diameter. So the idea was a flat rate. I was just talking about nudging it down a bit. But it's not a hard, fast rule. Just a point of... conversation.

Or 24 inches flat rate. All right, Commissioner Strater, your thoughts?

I could go either way with the, I don't like the 30. I can go with the 28. I like the 24, the 24 for dug firs and 28 for like the big leaf maples, or if that's a way to

Yeah, let's get it done.

I mean, I'm thinking of my Doug firs and some of them are, you know, they're, I was, and they're about 20, 25 years old, the ones that started when we moved in. So, and it's, seems reasonable.

Okay. All right, how about 24 inches for Kona fir? Native conifer. 28 inches for all other. Are we good with that?

Sure. Native conifer and 28 for all others.

28 for.

Okay. Yep. All right.

We have consensus. Okay. So then subsection D. Is that B as in boy? D as in dog.

Dog.

On page 15. Okay. So one, I had moved the NC and the CF up a higher requirement of tree credits. I guess is there, are we okay with that? Any objections to that? Like I said, it does, they do have, they do require additional setbacks, so there should be room to put trees, I think was one of the arguments, or things to discuss or think about. And then the second part was, again, I had one council member that actually wanted both categories to be one, which would mean you're requiring more trees on lots. There was a question of well, why are we requiring residential to have more than commercial, but I think some of the argument is residential has a lot more space. I mean, the idea is that you are supposed to be natural and you don't have as much pavement and we only allow 50% impervious, so why wouldn't you? So are we good with what it is, which is 1.5 and then .15, or was there any strong interest in changing those at all.

Nope, nothing for, yeah, I don't really feel strongly. How about you, Commissioner Gertz?

Nothing.

Same? Yeah.

I love the idea of requiring more trees for the mixed-use districts, town center and uptown, but I don't know if it's feasible. So because we're not talking uses, we're talking about an overall zone, I tend to stay with what's in the table, but I think about the fire station. That's community facility. Okay. School. That's community facility. So it's really just the business area.

Which we kind of let them cover like 80, 90%.

Yeah. So they'd have to have tree islands throughout.

Okay.

So, I mean, put it up to 75 instead of .5.

Oh, don't do that to us.

So there's, it doesn't sound like there's a strong consensus.

I just don't, if there was something in the code that said, if it split it out in uses within that zone and said a residential use, but even that residential use would have the same setback as what's in the overall zone and the same building coverage. So there's no need to do that. But yeah, I welcome it, but I don't know if it's feasible and maybe council will change it.

Okay, all right. So then E. Oh, I had another question about D. Sorry, didn't mean to cut you off.

That's okay. If we're moving past D. Yes. So my question with D is when it says under 1, Item 1 , tree credits may consist of existing significant or exceptional trees, replacement trees, or a combination. What about trees that are less than six inches because the table on 16 that says existing trees to be retained acknowledges less than six inch trees? And it gives them .75 credits.

So we could just say the tree credits may consist of existing trees. Do we just take out the significant or exceptional since it can include?

Yeah, unless there's a reason why we wouldn't include existing trees. I mean, because I thought, okay, if there's a development, the trees have been there for a couple of years, they may be under a, you know, that they can't have anything happen to them anyway, but they still count for something according to our own table where it says retained, but.

So if it were to say the tree credits may consist of existing trees, replacement trees, or a combination, would that?

Yes, except, okay, so then, I always look for the loopholes. So, I have a maple tree that has seedlings growing all over, and some of them are a couple feet high. Would that count as a tree? Like if I had 10 of them, could I say, well, I have 0.75, I have seven and a half credits right there. Even though are they, do we really intend for those to count? Would we intend a seedling that's this big to count?

So do we wanna do one inch to six inch or two inch to six inch?

Yeah, it seems like there should be, it should be at least the minimum that we're requiring for, yeah, it should be from two inches to, because that's a minimum that we require to even count as a replacement tree, right?

That makes sense, that totally makes sense.

I'm down with that. Okay, so it's two inches to six inches, okay.

And that's in the table, tree credits will be applied as follows.

It does say above that in C that they basically have to start with significant or exceptional trees, but then if they can't, they can count the others. Right, okay. That makes sense, but yes.

I started looking around my lot and I saw.

And I will say, as much as I hate to, there are, I do have a few developers every once in a while that are trying to.

Yeah, they push them. Well, it doesn't say it. Yeah. Okay. We're changing it to two inches to six inches on page 16? Yep. Okay. All right.

Yes.

Before going away, there's been a change to the way minimum tree credits are calculated. And it didn't jump out at me until reading things through again. But the change was, it used to be that 50% of your, when you were counting up for your tree credits, I thought we had a rule, I know Burien did, about 50% of those points have to come from existing trees as it was a way, instead of someone says, well, I'm just going to knock it all down and plant new.

Top of page 16I. It says that in I.

16I. Okay. Okay, thank you. It's all of the rearranging that I'm not tracking, and I apologize.

But I didn't, I was like, I didn't think I messed with it, other than grouping things differently. I didn't think I had changed anything, so that's good.

Okay, thank you for finding that, and then the impervious surface. which is different than lot coverage. It's not structure coverage, impervious surfaces like driveways and such, okay. Okay, thank you for.

So six and seven we already dealt with. I don't think I want to touch five, so just ignore that I wrote it on there. I don't know. So five was thinking, do we, but then I have to define, we kind of have defined.

Let's not define underdeveloped. Let's just not.

We have a definition, but I'm happy to just ignore that I even said it. for now. We can always come back. I don't know if it applies to anything.

That's an interesting concept that deserves more time than we can give it.

I think, yeah, I started doing some calculations, like on my lot, it would be a footprint that's less than 2,835, which would be my footprint, would be twice what it is. So, I mean, I thought, oh, this is just, on an 8,000-square-foot lot, it would be anything under 1,200 square feet. And I thought of all the little two-bed, one-baths that are, and I just went, oh, this is.

Yeah, just ignore it.

All right, moving on.

Okay, so G2. Which page is that on?

Subsection G2.

So 17, page 17, G2. There was questions on, I had on, so 2A, I had, if three or fewer significant trees are required to be removed, the tree retention and replacement plan do not have to be prepared by a professional for a mandatory removal permit. All the requirements apply. Again, it's just a number. My thinking being if trying to lower the cost of someone who is maybe doing an addition, maybe building a house, we could make it two trees because we're doing two everywhere else. But my thinking was if they're just taking down a couple of trees, it probably doesn't need to be professionally done. We don't require A lot of professional stuff for single-family houses that we do for other things. So that was, but again, whether that is two or three trees, I...

Wait, so the professional would prepare plans for removal of the tree or have to remove the tree?

So for a major tree removal, you have to hire a professional who comes in gives me a report that says where the trees are, what we're replacing it with. They have to do all these fancy drawings. My thinking was that if it's, Well, I guess actually we need to, I say significant, but I don't address exceptional. So I would like to probably say if you're just taking down a tree or two, and so maybe it's two trees, that they don't have to hire a professional to come in and do a full, that we don't require full civil plans, we don't require those kind of things. So that was my thinking, that they could just submit a drawing to us that shows this is where the trees are, we would say, okay, you need to make sure the other ones are protected, however they want to take the trees down.

Like if I drew it myself, that would be sufficient?

Yeah, which happens a lot with site plans right now for this kind of level. Looking at this really quick, I say significant trees, so should that be regulated trees. Or should that, or are we?

In two, you do say significant or exceptional tree, but by the time you get to A, it just says significant.

I know, so I think it's supposed to be both.

Okay. Well, that's just a minor copy edit then.

But is it when we have something that says later on on page? 18 that's talking about you can't remove exceptional trees and these are the conditions. Was that why they were separate?

Yeah.

All exceptional trees do you require a qualified professional, you're right.

So if we're wanting exceptional trees and when you're building something to be at a different level, I can add a

Or just like the exceptional trees are already covered by exceptional trees and they don't also need to be discussed in that context of minor tree removal permits. And that remains just significant trees. And then once we're talking about an exceptional tree, then that's when 5, Subsection 5 starts to

Yeah, but then there's no stipulation about an exceptional tree if it's one or two, so minor tree removal. So I would think you'd have to say both. For the minor tree, tree removal permit, it would be significant and exceptional.

I may sound dense when I say this, but like isn't a minor tree removal permit that, like an exceptional tree isn't going to fall under that?

So what I'm trying, yeah, I'm trying to be, so the idea was that a minor tree removal permit was required for if you're doing single family, duplex, ADU, something in that low resident, you know, homeowner type level, you only have to do a minor tree removal permit. So there's less requirements, it's gonna be cheaper. And then if you're doing anything more than that, you have to do a major tree removal permit, which has a lot more, re-qualification, though I do agree the exceptional kind of applies to both, so I just need to put a line in there that says exceptional trees are.

Are managed under subsection five.

Subsection five, something like that. Yeah. So you're adding that to the G-tree requirements.

So there'll be a G-2B, you having fun yet? Yeah, wee. G-2B will say something about exceptional trees cannot be removed unless they meet the requirements of number five or something.

Yeah, subsection five, exceptional trees.

Which does have allowances and exceptions and all that stuff.

Okay.

Is that more comfortable?

I'm good with that.

And then, so for significant trees, are we okay with the three or fewer, doesn't need a professional plans?

Three or fewer, yeah, don't need a professional to come in and charge you $500 to draw a pretty picture. I'm good with that.

Yes, Commissioner Whalen. So we have something in H that talks about protecting a true, so a plan is being drawn and say it's not just what's on your lot, you've got to look at what's around 30 feet from your property line. I think that was H. It was in H. Is that the sort of thing that would show up on a retention or a replacement plan?

It would for if they were taking out more than three trees or if they were doing a major, they would have to do all those steps. Because that, I mean, I guess I'm looking at like right now, that falls under sort of what we do for civil plans and we don't currently require civil plans for single family duplex.

Well, I'll just share my experience of just knowing, you know, seeing big trees just completely removed and looking at the adjoining property and thinking, I wonder how that neighboring tree is going to survive. So to say if you have an existing one or two family home lot, And you don't have to have a professional to prepare plans that say, here's what's on site. You just get out there with your yellow pad and do some rough estimates. But you don't have to take into account what's going on on a neighboring property. I mean, it just seems to me setting up a problem.

explain more what that problem is you're worried about if they take down if we allow them to take down a tree that so they need to take that they want to expand by 500 feet and add this extension on the back they have to take down a tree to do it what i've

What I've seen, literally watched happen, is a developer just out there with the excavator just going right to the property lines in this one case. And I was just thinking, you're damaging the roots of the neighbor's 40 inch diameter conifer there.

So yours isn't so much them taking down the tree, it's them making sure that they mark where other trees

Isn't that under H, retention plan one, a tree map identifies within 30 feet?

Which I'm not, okay. So the idea is that the minor permit doesn't necessarily require all of that, but I see what you, okay, so it really isn't whether or not they take down a tree, it's that they need to, when they do the building construction, they need to be aware of protecting all the other existing trees. whether that's on their property or on the neighboring property, be aware of that.

There's, there's a critical root zone and, uh, yeah, the whole tree trunk might be 10 feet onto the neighbor's property, but some of these big trees have some, uh, major root systems in it. So it may be, it has to be something considered next time, but it just seems to me it's a, Whether or not a professionals involved is there something that's just you got to draw in trees that are 30 feet from your property line Since I think there's sort of some standard language that can be I Mean we provide people like here.

This is what it means when you do erosion control and This is what it means when you do basic storm. We give them sort of like, if you follow these, you don't have to necessarily hire a professional as long as you do this certain things. I think we could very easily add a section that says, also, you know, demonstrate how you will, because they have to provide us something that says, this is where I'm putting my erosion control. Well, we could include and how you're protecting any existing trees on your property or the neighboring 30 yards in that way. And we could then provide them, like, here, this is what it looks like.

Okay. Did you have a comment?

When we look at page 19 under, let's see, EF, oh, number 2A on 19, what is under story plants? Is that a root system? What is an understory plant? Under the tree canopy.

Like if you have rhododendrons or bushes.

So you've got the tall trees and then understory would be underneath the tree canopy. Shrubbery.

Okay, so the question I'm having, is that where you could put your concern about roots?

So it is in the retention plan section.

That's what I thought.

I just, the... I'm sort of, because the minor permit, I'm trying to make it less requirements. It kind of makes you not have to do that. So I think if we just add a line that says, as part of your site plan, you're gonna identify existing trees and how you're gonna protect them, I think that's a very easy thing to add to this. Let's do it.

So I read 2A as, It doesn't have to be prepared by a professional, but it does have to be prepared. Because I know when we did some development on our lot, when we put in a garage, we had somebody build it. And we just came in on a paper, drew out what was going on, where we did our measurement. We did it. We didn't have our site plan. And that's what I assume to amen is somebody has to do it, you just don't have to spend the money to have a professional do it.

And I think it would be, I think if we then clarify that it's identifying existing and removal trees and how you're protecting them, somehow add that language that yes, again, you could do it or your contractor could do it who knows enough about it.

As long as it's complete and shows everything that we need to see.

Yeah, I think that would be a good, clarification and I think that still keeps what we're trying to get, so.

I'm good with that, I'm good with that.

Quick question, does a grading permit trigger looking at things like that?

If they were just doing a grading permit, yes. And I very seldom give them a grading permit unless they can show me they're tied to something else. I mean, it depends on what they're doing, but yes. And yes, it would, that falls under any, going forward, yes, it will, all of that will do it.

Let's drive forward.

And in some ways we would use, I mean we're not, I guess right now I'd be sort of using the grading permit for some of that, but now we will actually have a tree removal So then that, unless there's something else somebody else wants to point out that sort of leads to the fines discussion, which I know, and I will make sure, I know some of the numbers in the tables because we keep changing them are a little off, everything matches up to what we've decided is exceptional and significant. But so there was definitely a lot of, it felt like a lot of the council, might would be more comfortable if the fines were in the fee schedule i know there's a lot of the fines are in the code there's a few spattering fees that are in the fee schedule so the fee schedule for those who may not follow all of council's stuff um is basically they it's a long it has everything it's supposed to have mostly where and we are trying to put um not so much penalties but we are trying to move all of the fees that have been in the code into the fee schedule So that's all in one place. It can get adopted by resolution at any time by council. So I've pulled it and just put in language that says it will be put in the fee schedule. What page?

I'm not seeing it on page 22 or 23.

So if you're looking under 25, Let's see. 25.

Oh, there we go. Enforcement and penalties.

Okay. It's P. So P3D, so about halfway down. Obviously I didn't, I tried to subset, I've been trying to like subset, but I didn't for this one. So about halfway down, it's a little D and it says civil penalty fines are as assessed in accordance with the fee schedule based on the diameter at standard height of the unlawfully removed or damaged tree. So just consensus if you're okay with that or if you strongly want to put it back in. And then again, I did add on G, that's towards the bottom, this idea that giving a little bit of flexibility for the voluntary compliance agreement, which gives us, if we feel like, again, it was, The intent is if it's a resident, they took down, maybe they took down three trees, didn't realize they couldn't. It gives us a way to sort of work up something that's a little less just not dollar amounts. I just put at the end of that, a VCA should not be granted if the tree was removed for development reasons. To try to, again, get out what I think we're trying to get at. So those are, I guess, so the question that I have is, Is there consensus to have the fees in the code, or is it OK to reference the fee schedule?

Ms. Fee schedule. Ms. Schedule sounds easier to manage. Ms.

I think it should stay in the code. Fees are cost recovery, fines are penalties, and I just don't think it belongs in a fee schedule. But that's my thought.

Commissioner Strater.

I like it in the code because it's, it's, you only have to look in one spot. Right.

Knowing that it might be a moving target, it might be easier for Council to manage if it's separate.

Yeah, that I don't know, but my preference would be in here, but.

Yeah, me too, but yeah, I'm fine with it being

So what are they doing?

So we're going to keep, it sounds like by consensus we're fine with keeping it separate.

Keep it separate.

Keep it as a fee schedule that can be managed separately but still mention it, just mention it in the code.

Maybe we need to change our fee schedule to say fee and penalty schedule.

I mean, what happens, the reason I say the fee schedule rather, for me, rather than the code is it costs more to change something in the code than the fee schedule. And so we don't know if things happen. We go, no, we have to increase this. And we do say it's in the fee schedule, and it is by ordinance in the fee schedule because they approve the fee schedule by vote by the council. And it makes it, and I don't know the legality on the thing with bonds and stuff, but I think the B schedule is the place people can say, oh, how much is it gonna cost for me to do this? It's everything.

And then the Council also has more control over it over time. It's easier for them to work on. I think they might find that more palatable.

Yep. Oh, sorry, when we're done with this topic, I have one more thing. Okay.

Okay, so if it's just going to, the consensus says that it stays in the fee, it's moved to the fee schedule from the original draft proposal. I do hope that you will present that fee schedule at the same time as the ordinance, only because it's sort of easy for that to not happen. Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm. Good point.

All right, and then one last, backing up on page 18. Basically, right before H is the little normal, normal four. This was the other thing that we asked the attorneys on. He was not comfortable with the sort of indefinite, if you do a deviation, it has to be recorded on the deed. And so I changed that to, again, put in that five-year performance bond. Again, they have to ensure that it survives for the five years. And, again, I think if they've done it and they've made sure it survives for five years, I don't think they're not going to. The likelihood of anyone just cutting it on the sixth year. Which line? Sorry, so right above the H on page 18. Yeah. It's the Roman numeral four. If a deviation, previously we were, I think Burien's was that it would be recorded on the deed kind of indefinitely and the attorneys were like, yeah, we're not real comfortable with that. So instead I've put in that five year performance bond or security. So the idea being that it makes sure that they have to protect it and it has to continue to survive. And then we assume,

But it will. Yes. I think it's better not to have it in the deed or any cover like that. But I will ask this question. So they do it. They have a five-year performance bond. The bond goes with the property. So what if they sell it in two years? I mean, the bond would go with the property, I assume.

Yeah, they'd have to do something like that. OK. Yes.

Who decides what the cost of repayment placement, planting, and maintenance for five years is? Or is there a schedule somewhere that says it?

Yeah, there's things out there.

Because you know you're going to be asked.

Let's see. Yeah. I mean, that's sort of the language we have elsewhere. We've done that for street issues, and we've done performance bonds for other things. with the market rate.

There must be a standard somewhere. Okay.

So on that note. All right.

I have a little typo to point out. I know I should have told you already.

There may be more.

It's in the title on page nine of the ordinance. So all of them are like amending, adopting, providing, providing, and then the last one says and provide. That should probably be a providing a summary publication as well. That's my typo. Shut up.

That's like boilerplate language. Really? Yes. You let me double check if that's the way it's supposed to be from the attorneys.

Goodness. All right. Well, then, as long as you know.

I will not insist. I found something once that was like boilerplate, and it was just spelled wrong, and we had to fix it. All right. So I... to re-recommend the way we've- Are we ready to make the motion as revised as we've discussed tonight?

Yes, Commissioner Whalen.

Just a question. My recollection, and you all can correct me if I'm wrong, on page 18, in the middle of the page, small letter B, so it would be 5B, and the, let's see, this little letter I. So page 18, five, B, I. For development of the zones, in those zones. My recollection was it was a reduction to the front yard setback of up to 50%. What we see here in print is it's just 50%.

So that's just a minor, that's a request for a minor wordsmith there, so that it says?

Yeah, I will add that. It does, it is reinforced on C2 where it says it can be no greater than the development potential lost in tree protection zone, but yes, I will add that. The development up to K, yes.

Any last? The I, little I, right? Yeah.

Thank you. Roman numeral one. Lowercase. Yeah. Anyway. Any other last things before we? Yes.

Just a comment about definitions. I did send some suggestions in, but they weren't by the deadline. So perhaps when we do table of uses, I just want to put a word out that I think some of our definitions for things like tree protection zone and critical root zone get a little more enhanced Kirkland's was had much more math in the definition and based it on the size of the tree etc so rather than slowing down the decision tonight I just want to put that as a placeholder because we can come back and amend definitions at that time something to think about yeah all right do we have a motion

I'm doing page five, the motion on page five. Is that the one we're doing? I just want to make sure. Thumbs up. All right. I move to recommend the revised urban forest proposal as discussed and corrected. Is there a second? Which is labeled, shall we say it's ordinance 2140 point 26 slash dash. I'm gonna reread it again.

Okay, that's fine.

I move to recommend the revised urban forest proposal ordinance 2140-26 as discussed and corrected by the Planning Commission tonight.

Thank you, Vice Chair Johnson. And I believe. I second the motion. Commissioner Kurtz has seconded. All in favour, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? There is one opposed. Would you please say nay. Nay. We have one nay and we have four ayes. The ayes carry it. On it goes. Thank you very much for your hard work.

I don't want to see it again.

I don't know if anyone has any energy left. This was carryover from, again, the last meeting that we briefly touched on. I don't remember. It seems like there was not. My main, so obviously this will, if there's discussion tonight or thoughts, that's great. It will come back in October with a public hearing to be either, again, it could be October or November that we actually make it, take action on it. So if there's a little bit of discussion tonight, but there will opportunity for October discussion. I did wanna double check. I couldn't remember if I got confirmation if I should go ahead and try to pull definitions out of all the other zoning sections. Like there's definitions just in the electric vehicle section, in the science section, in the wireless communication, in the concurrency. It seems like it might be good to have them all in the same spot. Chair.

Yes.

I think it's like a dictionary having definitions on everything that's in our ordinances would be helpful alphabetically, unlike the way this alphabetical definition list is.

Like a glossary?

Like a glossary. It's called a definition for all ordinances.

Well, at least in that title. It feels like it might be nice to have all of them in one shop stop.

I would support that, but. Okay, any other?

Is there any reason not to have that?

Other thoughts?

I agree with them being in one place. I think you have to do it because the code reviser has rules that you have to abide by and I don't think they let you do various chapters or titles. but if everything within title 17 zoning was in one place as you've presented it where it was 1708 uh you know 020 definitions for a i think that's much more manageable for the future so the formatting i think is great and moving everything there might help avoid yeah i just found that i all of a sudden was like where are these and then i realized they were in one of those chapters and i was like

Why would I live there?

Yeah, I love Consolidated. I mean, we do have some time left, so if there were any burning thoughts that we wanted to get out right now. Yes.

So would there be any reason to separate educational facilities into two different kind of like two different definitions. Because I noticed other cities do the educational part in one definition and the administrative transportation facilities, the infrastructure, the stuff that's non-educational. Yeah, right. Because to me, I totally support schools and school-type facilities in residential single-family, but not a big warehouse of stuff or a bus barn or whatever that, so to have them in two different, to say they're two different things rather than say they're all the same. And I don't know if that's, I'm just throwing it out there.

that is perfectly legal and doable.

I would say right now that I think that the Fife School District has their transit area in the best possible area in between I-5 and all the industrial things down there. Yes. I don't know why they would move it to Milton so they could fire up a bunch of buses at 5 a.m. and wake me up, right?

Right. So, right. I wouldn't, right. But it's just having it in one's, it's just... Yeah.

I see the difference.

Yeah.

That they should be, I agree. I think they would be better separated out.

Maintenance facilities versus school and administrative. Right, that could work. Like if they decide, oh, we're going to have a night shift or something, and then now they've already been allowed to, you know, I know there'd be parameters typically, but to say they're not the same.

So it feels like there's consensus to make two separate definitions. Yep. And then for the use table, for the new definition that's sort of non-instructional, would it only be allowed in the community facility zone then, or where would we allow it? The second definition? That is sort of non-instructional. Right.

Well, yeah, but that wouldn't count as administrative. The administrative would be with the educational, right?

Well, currently we have administration with the educational, but it is all in community facility zone. Okay, never mind.

I mean, we're talking where you keep all of the maintenance vehicles, all of the maintenance equipment, lawn, mowers, giant, you know, all of their equipment like that, I think is what we're really worried about.

I think more industrial or commercial or something like that makes sense, because it's where if it was a private we wouldn't allow it there. Like if somebody wanted to open up their own independent bus business or their own auto repair shop, we wouldn't say, oh, you can go into a residential community. So to me it should be cited in the same, because it's not educational. the children aren't using it.

I'm okay with administrative offices and educational facilities, but if it becomes like a giant, yeah.

Right, something that's, yeah, that the children wouldn't be going to.

Yeah.

So.

Yes. So the idea of industrial sort of stuff, it only goes in an M1 zone, makes sense. Fife's example is their south central business or city center kind of a thing. But if it's an administrative office standalone, would that be like a medical building in terms of intensity of use and...

No, I think the idea is that we would do educational, we would clarify that there's the educational definition, instructional, and administration, which is allowed where it's currently allowed. And then we would do an educational facilities that include maintenance, bus, barns, and stuff, and it would be allowed, potentially could be a different use category and then we would need to select what those, what it would belong into.

Okay. I like that option. Let's select what it belongs into. Yeah.

The question I have in, I'm looking at my old packet because I marked it up, but maybe my eyes are wrong.

I don't think I changed anything, so that's good.

I looked at educational facilities. And I ran across the line. It says educational facilities, vocation, and college. Conditional use in the uptown mixed-use district, conditional use in commercial, but they're not allowed in the community facility zone. So what kind of educational facilities are those if they're not?

The vocational college? I guess I was thinking, I was probably thinking more, because a lot of them are private. I mean, theoretically, we can't differentiate between private or public. Oh. But I was thinking the likelihood is we'd probably end up more with a private... a lot of the vocational ones, and so, but again, that might have been some, I don't know if that was.

Could it have been, when you think about vocational things that are with equipment, you know, welding.

It's that too, sometimes it's truck driving, tractor school, sometimes it's, I mean, it could be nursing school, it could be, you know.

Well, when you think of Bates Community College, again, it's, Where those are makes sense, but is that something different than a public school district educational facility?

I mean, so again, the vocational in college was the idea that it's not, it's above 12th grade.

Okay, so it's above 12 and it's private?

It doesn't have to be because we can't differentiate. That's where we got into... stuff with the attorneys. So like the educational facilities up to 12th grade could be private or public. And it should be, I think it actually, again, I think educational facilities right now is a C in the CF and it should be highlighted because it was my suggestion that we make it an A in the CF for educational, what we're talking about for actual instruction.

Could the difference between educational facilities up to 12th grade and then the one down below it, that the one below, there's gonna be a lot more cars, because they're all typically adults, right? That would be driving or transit or whatever.

And again, I think in my brain, it's not like, yeah, it's a very different animal.

Yeah, okay.

So maybe we need to look at that definition so that animal comes into sharper focus.

The last one I remember like that around here was in Fife, and it was in a storefront, and it didn't last that long. I think it was like licensed massage therapy college. It was one of those pay, like, and it really didn't last. It was kind of in a strip mall in Fife, and I really think that's the last one that we had in the Fife Milton Edgewood community, recent memory. Do you remember the one?

It was there where you could run to your tabs, right, down in Fife. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Yep. Yep.

All right, so I will fine-tune the educational, institutional definition, the vocational, and a non-instructional education definition.

Is something troubling you?

Well, I do in the sense of, so we have educational facilities up to 12th grade, educational facilities over 12th grade.

Mm-hmm.

So it's up to 12th that is authorized in the community facility zone.

And that should be highlighted as a potential change. Okay. But I think right now it's a conditional use. The thinking being that we allow, if you look under public facilities, utilities on that next page, we allow government facilities as just an allowed use. and the argument could be made that a school is a government facility, and if we're willing to allow a government facility, like a fire department, or actually a fire department isn't because it's up here, a city offices or something, or a public works yard as just an allowed use because we've, again, the thinking being that we have designated it to be that. If it's zoned that, it's designated to be some sort of government community facility The idea being that would it make sense to have the education be then an allowed use and not have to go through a conditional permit? That was the pitch that I made I think at the last meeting.

Well I support conditional use permit because there's more public process and there can be some very significant impacts with school development and enlarging and so forth. So if public educational facilities are the upper one, educational facilities up to 12th grade, we're thinking about the Fife Milton School Campus, I would vote for the conditional use permit.

to keep it, I think that's what it currently is.

I see that government facilities are authorized, but again, where does the public get to step in and say, hey, wait a minute, what about setback? What about landscaping? What about noise? What about, you know, it doesn't seem to, when something's authorized, it's pretty much

Well, it's authorized, but it's authorized within the requirements that are there. There are setback requirements, landscaping requirements for government facilities or anything in a community development zone. They have to meet those. So, but yes.

So can we just go around the group for clarity on whether educational facilities up to 12th grade are authorized or conditionally used? That's your question, right? Director Stallnecker?

We'll get there.

Is that the question?

Yeah, so that's, I mean, that was one of the things, like I said, it should have been one of the yellow, it should have been yellow highlighted with red that says that's a potential change is how are people feeling on that? And like I said, we will do a public hearing. the next meeting. But yes, if there's thoughts on that, that would be helpful.

Can I start?

Yes. I would like to see them stay as conditional use permit because of the size of the buildings, the number of cars coming, how traffic may change. So conditional use, not an A. Yeah, same conditional use.

I think it should stay.

Yep.

I agree with those sentiments.

I agree.

All right.

And the last thing from the meeting was on the last, the very end of the chart, other uses not authorized by 1744-013, which is our code on similar use determination criteria.

What page are you in? So on page 35, we did...

Oh, that just says that other uses not authorized are still not authorized. They are indeed not authorized, so don't bug me. Just because it's not listed doesn't mean that you can do it. If it's not listed, it is not authorized. I support that. That, uh, removes all ambiguity. So I like it.

And it is repeated also in 1744-016, which says, any use not specifically authorized, which that might be the better one to reference, but it says, any use not specifically authorized by this chapter or allowed by conditional use is prohibited except for uses set forth in 1742 or uses determined by the land use manner to be similar. So Basically, that might be the better one to reference, but it's – and maybe – and I think we were going to – yeah. We were going to say, like – but this says other use is not authorized by 17. I guess that makes sense, too. But anyway, it's doubled in here that people can't just say, oh, well, it's not on the use table. I can use it. Or it's not on the prohibited table. I can do it.

Love it. Let's do it. No. No. Yeah.

Well, and the whole thing is the intensity of use can increase. And I think we have something in our code that says, you know, just because you had a business you know, it was a beauty salon in your house and you had one chair and now you want to have eight. Well, that's not a... Yeah, so both under the... There's parameters about...

Non... Nonconforming? Our nonconforming section basically says you can kind of continue a nonconforming at its use. You can't intensify it. And then what this references is similar use, is the idea that, you know, I can say, you know... A, you know, like we didn't really have coffee shops, but coffee shops are a lot, you know, historic, you know, you start having a new technology or a new business. You can say, yeah, that's really similar to a drive-thru restaurant. So yes, we can do that versus something that's, you know, you in here, it's like, well, you don't, you know, you don't list. I mean, it lists junkyard, but think of something, a pig farm doesn't list pig farm. So I can have a pig farm. No, you can't have a pig farm.

No pig farms. Hey. I think that one is like, we agree with that one and we don't really need to discuss it further.

We're all supporting that.

I wonder about remove family definition. Didn't you say that's no longer relevant and that's why we would, yeah. I support that one as well.

State just kind of checks that.

Same? Yeah, no.

Do you have any feelings on that one? Which one? To remove family definition because that's become an outdated... So basically the state has said cities can't define what a family is, so... Oh, yeah, I agree.

I remember that from last week.

It gets complicated. You're good? Yeah. You too, Commissioner Strayer, Commissioner Lill? Okay, that's good. Okay. How about this transit thing? So again, just a refresher. What I've done is, so before we just had a transit facility, public transit facilities that sort of covered everything that was allowed in multiple zones. It accidentally got removed. So originally I was just gonna put it back and then I went, eh, these are different animals. So the idea is that we are recommending a high capacity transit which has a corresponding definition, that basically will just apply to Sound Transit, something that is on a guideway. And it's only being allowed in the zones that are along 99. Like Meridian, 99. Yeah, because that's where it's going. And the suggestion is to make it a conditional use permit because it is a beast all unto its own, and thankfully we don't have a station. And then revise the public transit facility definition so that it addresses things more like Pearson Metro, that it's a facility that is for bus service that goes on routes or into neighborhoods on city streets. basically just split and create a new definition and make their use availabilities are different. So for, yeah. So this isn't definitions under page, ugh. Yeah, so the definitions are under transit.

Page 60.

Thank you.

Fantastic. Yeah.

And both of them are there? Transit facilities public and transit facilities high capacity. That's good. Oh, okay.

Yeah, I don't know why I did that. But yeah, so transit facility public, transit facility high capacity, and then transit stop major reflects something that the state requires us to have with some of their stuff. So that's it.

So you're referring about like the parking rules regarding accessory dwelling units legislation that came along and said you don't have to require the additional parking or the off-site.

We don't actually have transit stop majors right now, but it was required to deal with the ADU stuff, yes.

Okay, so is this sufficient? Is this the right definition for that use?

And then transitional housing got... Oh. Just formatting. Whoopsie doodles. Silly, silly formatting. I'm going to run everything through my assistant from now on. Put it up on her then. She didn't catch it.

I'm good with the transit facilities public and transit facilities high capacity as they stand. They seem to make sense to me. I don't have further concerns. Anybody?

Good? We're good? Say that again.

The transit facilities public and transit facilities high capacity, I have no problem with adding them as is. Do you feel, have any thoughts on the transit facilities definitions on page 60?

Nope.

All right. That's all.

Nope. Public transit facilities on page 33 under uses. Mm. It is under an allowed use under community facility, which means it could be like a major bus in and out. I should know the terms. My husband does for a living. Like a big, you know, actual like transit facility is currently allowed. Does it fall under the same thinking we were with education and should it be a conditional use permit for community facilities?

Oh, you mean, yeah, yeah, yeah. Why not make it align at all?

Because I guess I'm like, if you're...

So under special where it says allowed, that should be conditional for public transit facilities?

Under CF, should it be conditional? Yeah, under CF.

Should it be conditional too?

That should be conditional too, yes.

Yeah? If we're, if we're, again.

Align them perfectly, yes, I agree.

All right, I will bring this all back. Do we have any other little things here?

Animal services to M1.

Yes, that was all, everyone seemed comfortable with that last meeting.

Okay, we're good. I think that's everything. Are we literally done early? I can't move.

Quick comment.

Yes.

And that is when this comes back next meeting that we include our zoning map because I think it's very helpful to be able to cross-reference.

And my wish, and I know there's different programs printing these things out,

It would be nice if the colors on our zoning map, not the future use map, but the zoning map mapped the colors that were in the table.

I think it's supposed to, but sometimes it's the program and when you print them, they... All right, well, let's move on then.

I think it's time for staff report.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, Vice Chair Johnson. So this is gonna come back in October? Yes.

For a public hearing. Just the trees is moving on.

Okay, that's what I'm asking, just the definitions.

The uses and the definitions.

Yeah, because we will not be meeting in September.

Correct, this was our September meeting. Because we don't have a meeting next month, but we do have one in October.

In October.

Yes. I have nothing to comment. So this is the September meeting right now in August.

Okay, I'm fine. All right, so as... Mr. Whalen hinted at, you are now looking at the community development director. I got my title reclassified and had to be voted on by council. So it's, you know.

Are congratulations in order?

Sure.

Congratulations.

Thank you. My department is having fun teasing me about it, which is good. And then the October meeting. So in the past, we've had to move the October meeting because of the craft bazaar. But this... because of the way the calendar adjusts, we don't actually have to. So we can have it on the second Wednesday of October. The Craft Bazaar is the weekend before, so we are not inconvenienced, which is very nice.

The 14th?

Yes. And I think... Community event. That's all you got? You got more? I think that's all I got.

All right. The picnic parade, Milton Days.

What about it? Did we talk about that last time? No. Oh, oh. So our table, there was some issues with the location of our table. There was a couple reasons for that. I don't want to throw certain vendors under the bus. But we got bumped where we were next to the stage and we weren't where we normally were. We got moved over here and then we were long ways and we were next to the stage, next to the fish truck. So we did not have the public engagement that we normally have, which is a little bit disappointing. It will not happen again. We have been told that we will get priority in the future. So it was like I said, we did framework was there. They had great information. They did try and they did. We did grab a lot of people who were in the fish truck line as best we could. But it was a little disappointing of where we were. located, so that is a bummer. That being said, overall it was a great event. Like I said, we did talk to some people, and they did get some information. They were trying real hard. They had some big boards, so they were trying to be as interactive as possible, and especially when the music wasn't super loud. But, and then we are, for the, so for the climate stuff we're working on, the greenhouse gas emissions, the resiliency and the overall, we're looking at a kind of a workshop this winter that we will make sure we are advertising in various ways to try to get a lot of people in, working on a interest, task force, so we're trying to get like someone from the tribe, someone from Tacoma Pierce County Health Department, some residents, trying to pick from people that, because you guys will be involved in that, so I'm trying to find some outside people so we get some community backing on this a little bit more. So we're working on that right now. So yes, and then the other project we're working on, like I said, we have the grant money for a subarea plan. I'm kind of taking lead on that, and I'm working right now with, I've met with our, we have a contract with Greddy and Associates, who are the biologists, and to try to do a pretty, I'm hoping, I think we have the funds to do a pretty thorough critical areas, wetlands, and the branch of the High Lake Bush Creek along 99 to get some real more detailed information of what, you know, possibly even delineation, depending on what private property owners will let us do. So I'm excited about that. And then I'm working with, meeting with Grant Osborne, our contact with them, Ryan, tomorrow, to again, we're going to contract with them. to get an in-depth existing conditions for things like, you know, because the idea is that that area is supposed to be more business and industrial, and do we need improvements to the roads? Do we need improvements? Sounds like there's some water issues. Power, you know, what are those things that infrastructure that needs to be improved? So I'm working on that for the existing conditions. Permit tech, Emily says, ROAR is working on getting all the names for both property owners and businesses because we're going to try to do some outreach and get them involved and hopefully just get a real good and then again that will eventually come once we start getting some of that basic information that will come through planning commission as hopefully some visions and direction and maybe some fine tuning of what that zoning for that whole area could be so. Those are those.

Thank you. Commissioner reports. Vice Chair Johnson.

Not much to report except Milton Days for me on the Parks Board. Our pickleball scramble went great. Teenagers playing against adults and then weeding down to just the two teenagers against two adults. It was wonderful. But I am glad we can get this moving on. It's been a long road on this document, and I'm hoping Council will recognize the work we've put into it and say we gotta get it stamped now before anything happens. And the other thing I love is seeing no data centers allowed in Milton.

Yeah! Commissioner Goertz.

No report from me.

Commissioner Whalen.

I did visit the Milton Days, made an effort to engage with people about planning commissioner topics, and it just was too loud to really have conversations. The people who were available to talk really had a curiosity about the tree regulation ordinance. They liked the idea. Some got into the weeds a little bit about it, and it was... But it was just one of those days where it was just not an easy thing to get into a complex topic. But it was lovely to see the Friday night. That was a really sweet, peaceful, people running around in costumes and the kids playing on the upper field. So Friday was a much more mellow time than Saturday was. I hope they can work on their control better. Is it possible for the Planning Commission to get a copy of anything that Framework was handing out at the booth just for our education?

It was more, obtaining information, but yes, it was a lot of, here's a board that had like, I don't know, 16 or 20 different climaty kind of things. Here's some chips. What would you put three chips on that are important to you? So I'm assuming she is, she took pictures, so I'm sure she's consolidated that information. So I can see if we can provide that. So it was try to, it was focused more on getting information than giving information. Okay.

So, yeah, if we could see that summary. And the other thing was the sub-area plan, 99. There's all the critical areas and shorelines of the state. Is what you're looking at, because we've got all the restoration work a little further south with the 167 Connection project, is that

So our focus is the actual, everything that's, is to try to get the areas between I-5 and 99, where the branch of the High List goes, that what is there, what, I believe, again, I think it looks like I have enough money that I can fund them to literally, if the private property owners let us, get in and kind of determine kind of delineate where those wetlands are, get what type are they, in essence, do a decent critical errors report for it. So then that would enable us to know if somebody does want to develop, because like right now, there's a couple of pieces where I say, well, someone's got to pay for it because I don't know if you can build on it or not. Well, if we can do that work ahead of time, then everybody knows that, One, yes, they can or can't build. Where is that line or what they need to do? And two, we would know better what needs to be protected or improved or whatever. So we're looking at the areas that are kind of north of what the state's doing to try to get a real feel and better understanding of what are those there. And then, again, this is at the same time that Sound Transit is looking at they're going to need to do similar to what 167 did in that they're going to, because they're going to have to encroach on some wetlands, they're going to have to look at improving wetlands and other areas. So they may be buying, you know, lots of moving pieces, but yeah.

All right, part report, part QA. Thank you, sorry.

It was based on an earlier comment. It's good.

Do you have a commissioner report, Commissioner Strater?

I don't, other than to say I've really enjoyed tonight's meeting. I really feel like we, I walked into the meeting thinking about the tree ordinance, and I'm leaving feeling way more hopeful that I hope Council recognizes the work that you all did before I got on, that we've done since I've been on, and it moves forward. That's what I hope. Councillor Osanic Yeah, my report too is I'm just so glad