Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. You got to change her diaper. I'm recording now, sir. Uh, she's the first thing said after we started recording, she still loves her contacts coming out. So, okay. Do you want me to Yeah. I mean, yeah, because the next thing up is roll call. So, she's here. Okay. We can just call her here. Okay. Well, it is 601. I call this meeting to order. Start with the flag salute.

To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. And roll call. Uh, Commissioner Bole here. Commissioner Oler present. Commissioner Johnson present. I had to get my contact out. Sorry. You're all good. Commissioner Zaro here. Vice Chair Whan called in absent. And Chair Elliott present. Um so that takes us into additions, solutions, and corrections to tonight's agenda.

I'd like to make a motion to excuse uh Commissioner Whan. Yes, of course. Second. All right. A motion has been made and second. All those in favor? I I

All those opposed. All right. Vice Chair Wher Way Whan has been excused. Additions, deletions, or corrections to tonight's agenda. Uh public participation. Hello public. No one here present in the audience. Um which takes us to review and approval of minutes from September 10th, 2025. Any comments or motions? [Applause] May I have a uh if there's no comments, may I have a motion?

I move to approve the minutes from September 10th, 2025. No. Is that what we're doing? I'm sorry. Yeah. So, we are looking at the minutes from September 10th, 2025. A motion has been made to approve the minutes. Second. All right. Motion has been seconded by Vice Chair Oler. There's any discussion. Going once. Going twice. All right. All those in favor of approving the minutes from September 10th, 2025. I. All those opposed?

All right. Uh motion passes unanimous. That takes us to our public hearing. Um, so I don't know if you want to introduce agenda item 6A and then we can have our hearing and open and close it since we've got no people.

Uh, thank you. Um, yes. So this is we talked about this at the last meeting. This is the required periodic update to the critical areas ordinance. Um, so the update includes the chapter 18.06 06 which is the definition section and 18.16 which is the critical areas section. Um based on the discussion from last month I did um add some of the wax citations and I reviewed why they I had removed some. It's because a lot of them had changed um and weren't in the location they were. So I've tried to update those. I did add a definition for no net loss. Um, I went ahead and just used Pierce County had one um because there was no specific state definition. So, I used Pierce counties. Verified that the city can require a pre-application meeting. So, I took out the change. I originally proposed changing it to should and left it as has to. Um, and I did change there was a question about department um for some of the approvals and I changed it to city which fit better with the rest of the section. I did get some comments back from the department of natural resources. So based on those comments, um I amended the mineral resource lands definition as well as added a table to section 1816 52A which basically just summarizes the different types of reports that required in a graph format. Um so that it would be real easy for someone to see um in the chart they could see what they needed. And then down below we had all of the details of what that meant. So those were the things I added. Um it is um the comment period is open till October 28th. So if I do receive any more comments from other agencies, I can incorporate that before it goes to

council.

Okay, great. Um so it is 606. The agenda item is 6A regarding PLN 202500007 critical areas ordinance update unit 606. I call this public hearing open. Can no one in the audience? All right. It is 6:06. We call this uh public hearing closed. Uh with that, uh public hearing is complete. Um we can refer to agenda 6A when we're going into agenda item 7A, if I remember correctly. Correct. Okay. So, um we've officially had our public hearing. Uh there was some revisions made by staff. So, with agenda item 7A, we'll just start with opening up for discussion, comments, questions. Um, if anyone has anything to add.

Yes, Vice or uh Commissioner Oer. I I have a question about best available science. In the red line I'm looking at, that's page nine of our packet. Best available science. It says it means the current scientific information used in the process to designate, protect, or restore critical areas derived from a valid scientific process as defined by the WAC. Um, I'm just curious and maybe this is just something that we're defining and there's no other thing too. This is more of a question. How often is how does that flow? How do we get the best available science and what triggers like

Yeah. And I should have probably added that um this is a very highly technical and prescriptive section of the code. It's very controlled by um what the state wants um both in the RCW and in the wax. Um I think it's there it's the term that they use um because each one it's always changing to some extent as they learn new things. Um the idea being that we may have a map today but they may discover something a year from now. And so the idea is that you're supposed to figure out what is the most relevant, what's the most current, what's the best available science. So um in the in the different fields and it's kind of what's used and so we do we when we do a when we have a project um I'll back up a little bit. So, um when like any big any big project, um if it looks at all like there is wetlands, steep slopes, there's a creek, um anything like that, we require the applicant to provide a critical areas report, which is outlined in here what that means. And then depending on which subcategory, so there's like this is your general information you need in a critical areas report. If there's wetlands, this is what you need to do. if there is steep slopes, this is what you need to do. Um, if there's, you know, it goes through all the different categories and then so they have to prepare that by an expert in those fields and then we have experts in those fields that look at those to see if they agree. Um and then depending on what they find and what they want to do with the property um there's different you know ideally the that's where that no net loss comes

in is that that's in in the end that's our ultimate goal that in the end we are not losing anything that we have. Um sometimes that means they don't touch it at all which is the number one choice. Sometimes it means okay you can basically maybe it's jagged and we're going to let you straighten it and you're going to increase in the areas that it's not there and to balance the areas we're shrinking it. Um the biggest mitigation which you have to go through lots and lots and lots of steps is what like 167 is doing where they because the new highway is going to go through a bunch of wetlands. They are having to create wetlands where there weren't wetlands before to balance out all the ones that they took out. So the best available science is in the part of the study of what are the most recent maps, what are the most recent studies in these areas and those are every time someone does a report that gives us more information and then the flip side is the no net loss is sort of what we do at the end. So hopefully that helps and like I said a lot most of the changes that are in here have come straight from the state saying these are the current ones please make sure your definitions are current and you have these certain things in it. So

is an example of the best available science would it be on that 167 those logs and stumps they have laying all over. Is that best available science? So the I had to ask when they were doing I know what they are on the port side. They're for wildlife. I was like why are they leaving all these? But it has to do with um wildlife loves them. Yeah. So I was like oh okay. Yeah. Exactly. So I was joking. Of course. Of course.

Any other comments or questions? We can kind of start with potentially like the definition section if that kind of helps people stay organized or flag anything. I was looking at uh page 25 and all the regulatory wetlands are all crossed out. So when I look at something like this, the big thing I look for is not really what's added because it usually balances out. But when I see something that's totally been removed, I just have a red flag and a question. So I don't know why regulatory wetlands is that covered somewhere else and it's redundant or

Yeah, it's somewhat um so there is definitions for wetland. Some of it was sort of redundant. Um, some of it is um in the um not sure why it ended halfway there, but it's Oh, no. It goes on the next section. That's why um it's in the actual wetlands section. So, it kind sometimes they this one kind of got Yeah, the that definition sort of went away as the main wetland definition came back in. Yeah, I see it. I see what you're talking about now. It's covered in the wetland definition.

Yeah. And I think wetland there used to be there's less exceptions now. Any other questions as far as in definitions up through pages 25? Yes. Sure. Um, and this is justformational. I'm not asking for any changes necessarily. I'm just trying to understand. Um, page 20 near the top under definitions, reasonable alternative is reasonable is such a loaded word, right? Because for one person, reasonable is totally not for another. How do they determine that?

I totally agree. Um yeah, there's there's in the code there's this idea of reasonable use, reasonable alternative. Um and I normally don't like those types of words, but again, this is sort of the industry standard of how they say it. Um and so it's a based on what you know our experts would say, what staff says, what they've done in other places. So you try to put all that in together. Um yeah, so like reasonable use does at least say we result in the minimum feasible alternative or impairment. Um and so basically you're you have to look at what's what gives them some you usually it has to do with the fact like if there's a property that is 100% wetlands what do you let them you can't say they can't do anything because then it becomes a taking but it doesn't say you also have can let them clear it all out. So you find okay what's something depending on the jurisdiction some jurisdictions have been well you can build a little you know park area for yourself. Um if it's in a residential zone usually there's rules and like our code has like you can put a single family house. Um but it it's limited on size. It has to be it's basically have to be it has to be really small. um it does give encouragement like you know it kind of gives that encouragement to have variances to to to minimize. So it's taking in that best available science. It's taking in the experts trying to come up with and the to some extent probably the culture of the community of what they're comfortable with.

So these are just things that we're going to adopt and we don't necessarily have any impact on it. It's not red is already in the code. So the red's the stuff that we're adding or changing. Um, but yes, it is. We're not gonna touch it. I'd rather not. Uh, Commissioner Johnson,

also when you Excuse me. When you think about reasonable, alternative, and reasonable use, Washington state has its own definition of it as well in their own code in this RCW. And you know it's like have they completed all the necessary things to show that what they're doing is reasonable use. So it by definition means they're not looking at what they're allowed to do. They have to prove what that reasonable use is by the code of the state. Am I correct on that?

Yeah. So you have you can't just say well I want this so that's reasonable. I tripped over more reasonable alternative. Reasonable use for whatever reason seemed more reasonable to me than reasonable alternative. But it's a moot point. We don't need to and probably what we would need to you look at is where are those terms used in the actual text because where they're used in the text would help probably make them make more sense.

I'm sorry. Um, any other comments or questions as far as definitions? And we can always go back to it. It's just a way for me to kind of organ stay organized. If we make a motion tonight to uh recommend it to city council and then you get new comments, will you just incorporate those? And yes. And I'll just let the council know that this was a recommendation by this department and this is um what I'm what we're why I'm recommending addition adding it and they have the they have the council can add or subtract as they want to as well. So

and technically this is due by the end of the year. So I am trying to technically was due at the end of last year but because we got the comp plan done they gave you an ex an extension for this part. I know when we looked at this before I did it by articles instead. I'm just kind of peeking ahead to see which articles have changes. It looks like article one has a couple. The only like I said the only thing I think um I think the only major change um I should have probably put the page numbers that would have helped everybody. So within article one it was no net loss and um yeah so I added the definition and then page 61

um the Washington state it has the Washington state department of natural resources suggestions

um all it what it's doing is if you look below it it has um like B is landside hazard area C or Um, where am I doing this? Me back up. Um, terms. Oh, it it did some weird things with the pages. So, B is landside, C is erosion hazards. You have to go a page. D is seismic. and E is other geological hazardous areas. Those were already in our code. They just recommend adding that little table so that someone could quickly go, "Oh, these are the reports that I have to provide for this." And then um I had put just like um natural resources off of general information. They really wanted us to put that they it's called the Washington Geologic Information Portal. So I put that in. I think that was the only I think other than I think I had suggested changing the should to to could but then I took it back. Anyway, I think everything else I don't think I changed anything else in that section.

So again, kind of flipping through the articles, was there any questions or comments about the articles and those sections? Going once, going twice. Okay. So, we have went through this two or three times now. We've made revisions. We've had our public hearing. Um, if anyone is comfortable on page five, 77. Yes. On page 77, there is a recommended action if we would like to proceed with that. I'll move. Yes.

I move to recommend amendments to the city council. The proposed amendments to MMC chapter 18.06 chapter 18.16 related to critical areas. Second. All right. Motion has been made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Bole. Um any discussion?

All right. I I decided to move it because we've spent time reading everything. We've added input. Uh it's very neat and uh we've talked about how if other things come into the planning director that you will add those to the council because they're the ultimate decision maker. Perfect. Um I did want to say I do also appreciate that you broke out the definitions by letters again making future revisions a little bit easier to go through. Yeah. I know. Uh no major changes in this just cleaning up and uh you know uh strengthening it a little bit with the no net loss. Uh so good document. Well done.

All right. So with that I'll take it to vote. Um all those in favor of moving to recommend amendments to the city council the proposed amendments to MMC chapter 1806 and chapter 1816 related to critical areas. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed. All right. Motion passes unanimous. That takes us. You're like, "Yay, something had to be done by end of year." All right, that's been great work. All right, so um next up is agenda item 7B that came at request of the planning commission to start reviewing to this. Uh we'll turn it over to staff again. So, just um for those who may not have been here at the last meeting, um the we've had a couple meetings on the Zion stuff. At this point, I feel like it's going to take some time for staff to sort of take all that information and come up with sort of maybe a central document. Um we're getting close to the end of the year. We've got some members going off, new members coming on. So, I've sort of set that aside for now as until um because it'll take me a little while. um feeling like I should at least bring something. Um we've talked one of the things that planning commission talked about was um landscaping and within that also significant tree codes um at the um at the uh sorry um Milton days. Um I started that sort of conversation with the public. Um you know and I had really good everyone was very you know positive and excited about trees and see the value of trees and understand how good they are. Um obviously when developments take down a whole bunch of trees we hear about it. Um some of so within the landscaping is

the section that is significant tree and tree grove protection. Um it my feeling is that in itself is very is its own little piece separate from all the rest of the landscaping. The rest of landscaping almost goes with design. It's like how many trees should we put in the parking lot and how big should the parking lot landscaping places be and stuff. So this is kind of an isolated piece that was a nice small chunk that I thought would be something to get um planning commissions feedback from. Um, we do have, which I didn't realize and I did include, there was a community force plan adopted way back when seen it. Um, I just happened to randomly find it on the drive when I was searching for stuff. So, that was interesting. Um so long-term um I would like to continue to move forward with some sort of urban forestry plan um for the entire city. But as sort of that stop gap measure, I do think there are some things that we could address on a shorter time span within the significant trees that I feel like makes it difficult for staff to um when we talk about reasonable, there's some very unreasonable stuff in that section that make it sort of hard to maybe have the the ability to um to do what I think we'd like to do. So, I sort of tried to put in some thoughts and put in some things to look at. Um, one of them is there's a couple different definitions. So, we'll get to I'll wait on that. Um, different definitions of what a significant tree is. So, I do have a section that talks about how different um and the replacement of that. Several different cities do that differently. Um the state defines it as um anything that is 10 in and it's um

oh shoot it's what's the DVH diameter at breast height at breast height which now means um four and a half feet depending on how tall the term breast height I know breast height this might be a little lower. Oh, so um got to love I've been waiting for that one. Sorry.

So again, so there's that um cities um various cities like we start um with anything that is 6 in or greater. we we for deciduous trees or 10 um feet height for evergreen we say are significant. Um other cities have different ways of categorizing it. Some cities count all the trees. Some only if it's over a certain size. So there's that. Um I've had um an arborist, ours does not specifically say what that there's any trees that you don't count. Um, I have arborists, I had a arborist argue with me that cottonwoods shouldn't count. I talked to another arborist who said, "Of course they count. They're natural trees in the area." So, that's something to think about is if there's, you know, um, and so I I starting on page 81. Um, this is my kind of first run through. Um, as you can tell, there's a lot of red. So there's a lot of things I wouldn't mind adding to this um for now. Um one of them is is like um so we'll go through that which basically um allow Okay. So if you want to go to 81 um I will sort of kind of zip through what I've got here and then some of the things that I kind of am hoping the planning commission can um have some direction on or think about over the next month or two. Um the first part is sort of just correcting the way it was written. Um number two, so this is in our existing code. It says trees on existing single family and two family lots are exempt from the significant tree and tree topping provisions of this section. So

if there is a house on a lot, they can cut down all the trees unless they're like wetlands or critical areas. Maybe we're fine with that. Maybe we want some sort of if it's over a certain height or width or Commissioner Johnson, one thing at a time, can we do it? I This is kind of commission generated, so I'm okay with being a little bit more informal because this is really just tossing some thoughts out. So, go for it.

All right. I like Cingtons. I read read their tree policy and the significant trees there's there are significant trees still have to have permits even on it seems private property because MR the municipal research group had an article and part of it had to deal with uh heat storm water runoff and uh filtration uh pollutants. So, it's still important on private property, and I understand property rights. I'm not saying that, but that if they are taken down, they have to in um Covington be replaced by one or more trees that are either decidious, conivorous, or sign, another significant tree. And we're not seeing that. And I think that's a responsibility of any citizen because we need that cover of forestry for reduction of heat in the city and in areas. So when one person takes down all the trees, every home around is impacted. So it's a question. It's difficult because we want property rights, but you live in a city as a community, you have to be fair somehow to all. So that part I think that they either we have to say you have to replace you know we can understand because our significant trees the roots aren't deep but you should be able to top you should be able to trim when you need to like I can trim if your limbs come over on my side of the property I have every right to cut those limbs on

my side of the property. So, it's a fine line, but that's my opinion that no one should have the right to automatically take down any significant tree without a permit or review from the city. Understanding property rights, but also storm water. You're on a hill and water runs and you don't have any root base to try to keep the mud and everything running down. How do you do it? Just on that part. That's me. Have we ever considered anything like the Tree City USA designation?

Um I don't know for sure. Maybe in the past. Um there are certain criteria um that has to be met. Um when I was in Ferrris actually they became a tree city I think the year before I left. Some of it has to do with budgeting a certain amount, celebrating certain things, that kind of stuff. So, um part of um as I go through this, one of the things that I would like that I think is a that take the property up that just got cut down. Um I mean, you take a property that is the maj that has a ton of trees and if you look at our replacement, you're like, "Okay, you choke down 30 trees and now you have to replace 140." they're not going to be able to do that. Um the whole point of taking down the trees is you're trying to build something. And so there's not what one of the things I would like to do is um allow and I've talked to the attorney and he said through our our deviation we might be able to kind of unofficially do that but I would like to create a make it an option that they can pay an inlue of which um and so basically what I when we get to the council part is is have them create a tree fund. So which would if they are interested that could basically fund the money that we need to be something like that. So the idea is create a tree fund that if somebody is going to cut a whole bunch of trees, yes, they have to reason, you know, we have to go through and say, okay, where you're not doing a building, you know, you have to put as many trees as is, um, which is, you know, best practice for the arborist to say, yes, you know, our thing says they have to be 30 feet apart and they have to be this size and everything. But my guess is, you know, they're going to be able to maybe they put back 30 trees, but they're, you know, they were supposed to put back 80. Yeah.

So then maybe we have an inlue of like fine because we do that for certain frontages, certain other things and then that difference of that and again we'd have to figure out how that is calculated would go into a tree fund that either the city could use well we need trees or different events throughout the year. Um if let's say people want trees that don't have trees they maybe we you know Tacoma gives vouchers I think it's Tacoma and I think Pierce County maybe too. I know that they give vouchers for people to go to the nursery and get a tree and plant a tree. So, um that's kind of what what I'd like to have as an option. I love that.

How do they determine a tree calc a tree calculator? That's what some cities are using. And the forest service has techniques so of saying and I understand if if that property took down all those trees those are more trees than that are in any other neighborhood. And so to have a hundred more trees there that's too much for the trees they took down because of the need of the state saying you have to have a multifamily zone. And so maybe there's a way that you're looking at the type of zoning for the property, but I like the fund idea. I think that is an important element of having everybody want to buy into keeping the city. It's where the Miltown and uh bringing the green back and especially in new developments, undeveloped land. So um if we hold that thought um that's one of the big questions that um I have some different examples um that to help us start thinking of how we are currently calculating a replacement and what some of the other jurisdictions are doing

um and seeing if we're more comfortable with one or the other. I'm also happy to if we feel like you know I we do have a um biologist that's on contract if we wanted any discussions um we don't have an arborist at the moment but um so tide a good one sorry what is I know a good arborist for that does a lot of school districts and municipalities so if we decide yeah

um again one thing that I'd like to make clear that isn't in here um is that trees areh prohibited from being removed from undeveloped property. Um, so we've had properties where they just want to take all the trees down or they start to and I was like, well, what's your development? I don't have a development. And so we've been able to sort of force them to not I mean we've we've been able to most cases stop them, but I would like it to be clearly in here that you can't just

take clearcut a piece of property. Um it does say if a property owner wishes to remove hazardous or dead trees they shall pro provide provide not approved provide a tree survey as part of the clearing grading and fill permit. So it gives us the process for that question on that if I may. I understand the trees but what about ground coverage because of a homeless situation that's everywhere in our state that a person has. We have one in a nearby area and it's overgrown, has trees, but it has the um small blackberries and the blackberries and everything. You're not talking about that. You're talking about the clear cutting of really we're talking trees.

Yeah. So, if if it's not a wetland or some sort of protected area, right? You can clear basically the idea is you can clear ground cover. Okay. Um you can't as long as you're not um disturbing the soil. Yeah. So once you start disturbing the soil, you need a clear g and clear grading permit. Um, and if you're going to take down trees, we say they have to have a that's sort of the process we've been using. Thank you. I'm kind of confused why someone would just take out all the trees in a property and not do anything with it because trees are a crop. For some, it's money.

Okay. Okay. For some, it's their way to say, "Oh, I'm just taking down the trees." And then they start parking vehicles on it without going through the official process. I have one of those we've been working on for many, many, many years, which is getting resolved sort of. Um, and then there's some people who just they they get fearful of, well, all the trees are going to fall down. Yeah. you know, a storm's going to come and all the trees are going to fall down, which really doesn't happen very of, you know, branches do and stuff. So, yeah. So, is this like a property like next to their home that they already own and they're worried that

we like we have a property a lot of times, this probably happens more in commercial areas, um like along 99 or something. someone will basically they'll buy it and in most cases they've been like oh if I cut all the trees down then I can make it as a parking lot and it's like no you can't. Um that's usually the issue. There's that big stand of trees at the end of 19th on the north side of 19th to kind of like you know the one I'm talking about maybe you don't. Mhm. That's really the only stand of trees left that I can think of that doesn't hasn't been developed already.

And those are permitted to develop, but that's a whole another issue. And they're probably cottonwoods or alders, which is basically a weed. No, that's those are evergreens. You know, the ones you know you know the forest I'm talking about. Oh, they're they're they're good trees. Evergreens. The 19th. Yeah, they're good trees. The end of 19th. Um so then tied to that is do we say anything about so we have undeveloped is again the there's a balance here because if we it's easy to enforce the tree significant trees when someone comes in and says I'm going to build something

it's harder if it is private property and there's already a house on it and they're taking trees in the backyard it becomes an enforcement issue um it also becomes My other thought is there's properties that are sort of underdeveloped. Like you've got this tiny little house, but you've got four acres. Does that give them the right to clearcut all of it because there's a house on that? But then again, the enforcement issue goes there. So that's another thing to consider is do we want to look at underdeveloped as well as undeveloped or but if we're doing one and two family houses then that sort of covers it as well or you know

we could deal with some of that. If we're saying everybody who takes down a significant tree by this definition has to have a permit then that isn't as big of a deal. Um, and like I said, more and more cities I think do have tree permits because I do get calls. Yeah. I pretty frequently and I never used to people saying, "Hey, we're going to take this down this big tree. Do I need a permit?" So, yes, you do. I think most people kind of assume that they need to. So, I think the enforcement issue will get easier. And again, I I don't think it's any every tree, but I think there's a mark that we may really And there's also a term out there which I don't know if we have at some point. Um, some communities have heritage trees, like really significant community trees,

like the one that was down in Puallup, that huge chestnut tree. Yeah. So, I don't know if there's anything here that would that we would fall in that or if we use that term for really really large trees. I don't know. Things to think about.

Um, so looking at So then starting with I have no idea. Section subsection four. Um, one of the the cities said that any significant tree within the 15t of the perimeter shall be preserved. I don't know if that's stretching it too much. Um, think something to consider. We require depending on where it is. There is a buffer that we require landscape buffer of anywhere from I think 8 to 10 feet. So, I don't know. Um, that's one to think about. Um, they're supposed to, like I said, any significant tree that's located in proposed landscaping areas um are supposed to be kept um at under our current code. I probably need to be do a better job of making sure that happens. Um, but again, that's something to think about. I I kind of the idea of the 15 foot perimeter jumped out at me so I tossed that in there. Um so then number five is basically we already we require we we sort of say they have to have a tree survey but there and it does say currently that it has to be you know we sort of need something from a licensed arborist. But this just outlines yes you have to do a if you're going to be cutting trees you have to have a tree survey. This is what we want. this is what it has to assess so that as staff we can really look at and make sure that what they're doing makes sense. Um and then on page 82 um again what we're going to look at quite a bit is what I've I've got some other things is the number six is what makes sense for replacement. Um so like um right now if for every 6 to9

in DBH deciduous trees you have to replace them with three. So for every one tree you've got to replace them with three. Once you go to 9 to 12 you're replacing them with five. If it's over 12 in you're replacing with seven. That is a lot of trees that in most cases is really difficult to do. So is there like I said there's some real some other cities have come up with some different options so we can look through that. So I'll jump I'll finish my section and then we can kind of like maybe do what I've done here and then jump into the tree replacement examples. Um I do want some language that says that arborite junipers similar hedge trees are not actual like replacement trees. Yeah.

That's not what we're going for. Yeah. And then um and then seven is what I'm hoping to is this idea of if the replacement requirements would exceed best landscaping practices for the development development may request to pay an inlua fee for the remaining trees through the landscaping deviation process. We already have a deviation process that has certain criteria. So the idea is um and I've had the one that's up there said, "Hey, there's no way we're going to be able to do this. Is there a way to do an inloo of?" And I and so that's why I was checking and the attorney said, "Yeah, the deviation process you could do that." So it would be nice to put it in writing that yes, we're allowing that.

Um and then hopefully council if they support that would create a fund and it would all go through there. So any questions so far or thoughts of just the general outside of the replacement options? Yes, Mr. Johnson.

I'm sorry. I had um forgot to bring copies. I was running late and I'll send this via email to Angelie Hass on to y'all. I did go on to MRSC and looked at some of the stuff. Um, and after the packet and um I like that we're doing this now and the work you've done and what you've provided and finding the 2003 I found really interesting. Um I think the question I'm having and I can't recall when we define an arbitus or some of the researchers do we say you have to be licensed in Washington state? I just want to verify that. And also um the uh there are li for instance people like butterfly plants that grow into a tree. They're invasive. They're kind of a bush,

but they grow tall and they do grow into a tree. I know exactly what you're talking about. Yeah. And so the question is this there if we Coington says if it's invasive or not native to our area, it's not allowed and they have a complete list and I think it's okay. What if it's like a Japanese maple that's gorgeous? That's not that's not invasive. Okay. It has to be both. Yeah. So we do deal with that in the landscaping section. We talk about specific trees you can't have invasive things. Um so we may need to

blend that. Yeah. Blend those together. So I I would ask that um okay if you go on to MRSC there was I couldn't find any current information since 23 and there was an article in March of 23 about the livable cities and then they used sort of Covington as one of the examples but on also on the page they also give other municipal codes as they're written now and I like the ones you gave but some of the cities are bigger than you know and that's why I went to Covington to look sort of and to see really uh we don't face right now the dilemma that big cities have where all trees are all gone. We're trying to uh like when we make fix Milton Way. It's beautiful with the trees, you know, and so how do we save the uh median strips uh sidewalks along that line? So, I think I I just think this is a great start and uh but I'd encourage everybody to go look I'll when I send this to you, you'll see my notes and um I think we're on for a good thing to remember what we are as a city or where we came from.

Miltown. Yeah. Not me. I I came from somewhere else here. Yeah. In a city that was based in murdering trees. Yeah. And selling them off finally 110 years later. Yeah. We'll get it. I thought I saw somewhere. I'm not seeing it now, but um was there somewhere maybe a different city that had an option that said you could replace X with three six foot tall trees or five four foot tall trees?

Yes. If there's no more comments on just the red stuff, then yes. So I I think that's kind of the biggest thing to start looking at is starting on 83 through 88. I was going to make a comment for you. Go. Sorry. Go for it. Uh significant trees within 15 ft of the perimeter should be preserved.

Now you're we're finding that trees are getting older. Yes. and talk about being invasive getting into the uh utilities and things like that with the root structure. And I know there's a caveat in here about uh oh something about u utilities. I think it's at on uh number eight utilities. They can top them, you know, or do what they need to to stuff. But just something to think about that when you're leaving a tree that's a significant tree

that may be a little bit overbearing um that it could become a nuisance where it starts uh getting into storm drain pipes and infiltrating uh around water meters and things like that. I mean that's something everybody's cool with. I mean, it's just something to think about that um you know, they start buckling the concrete on the sidewalks and it's why I always wonder when they do those projects like on Milton Way. Yeah, it's great to have those ornamental trees, but what are they going to do to the roadway and the sidewalks in 20 years? That's probably why they choose things like dogwoods that aren't going to do the same kind of thing. Yeah. Um

Stilicum's had a issue. All the neighbors are DuPont. Dup. Yeah, DuPont, they they planted the wrong tree. We're learning because yes, there are cities that 20, 30 years ago planted really the wrong tree. So, you have to think about that. There's also a lot of I've been to a couple classes where um they have some really cool innovative ways to sort of build these sort of boxes under the sidewalks that, you know, it's it's more than you know, the traditional was like you kind of like fenced it in, but there's some other new ways that they're creating things. go down

that allow the roots to do other things. So yes, it definitely what type of trees makes a huge difference. Um, and just one other note, you were talking about invasive we have to be careful of, but there is something to be said for um, non-native in the fact that I mean here we could probably get away with pretty natives, but when you you talk about you're planting a tree um, what is native to the Olympic Peninsula and that environment is not going to thrive in a downtown cement, whatever. So sometimes you have to have a non-native tree because that environment

is very different than what you know it's like you can't plant ferns in most places unless you're real careful. So it is we're learning and we didn't know that you know how many years ago it was like you have to have all native well then they were dying because it was we learn. So yeah so if we start on 83 Milton's is kind of at the top. Um, Camas is kind of they just basically any tree you cut down, this is what you have to replace. Um, Seattle was kind of interesting. They had like different tiers and so depending on what tier is what you had to do. Um, Edgewood see Seattle is using DSH instead of DBH. Dron standard. Yeah, there you go.

Um, let's see. Bonnie Lake has credits. You get certain tree credits. Um, and let's see. De Moines. Some of the I don't know if I grabbed any of them. Some of them had like it was more like trees per acreage. There was like a percentage that you had to have or something. Oh, here it goes. Um, so yeah, so it looks like De Moines's was more like you only have to keep certain trees and there maybe was no but then you would have to replace somewhere else. So, um just trying to think through it seems like ours might be I mean if we're going to have an in lie of we get money from that but it seems like the deciduous um might be a little high for our replacement value. Um, and again, is there is could there be something where you say like you were saying and maybe it's in here somewhere that, you know, maybe you only have to you don't have to do three trees if you do one tree that's of a bigger

Yeah. I like that. size. Yeah. Um, that will actually survive better cuz sometimes when they're 2 in really small trees, they don't have the best people. Just, you know, whoever they hire to do landscaping just chops at them and ms at them and they never really grow. So that's an option. I kind of see that going through five that they replaced a bunch of the trees, but then they got struck by cars because they're Yeah, they just can't withstand. I like how simple and straightforward our table is compared to units and points and yeah,

um tiers and all this other stuff, credits. I think that's all a bit much if we can keep it as uh close to straightforward as we have it with still adding a couple options and in in lie of I strongly support the in of

especially if it leads to designation like Tree City USA or something that will Let me clear our commitment. So the table we have here on page 83 that's the existing correct. That is the existing. Okay. So like if we compared it to Camas, we're requiring three trees where they would only require two two to two to five because there's a 6 to 12 and our 6 to 12 is 6 to9 is 38 and our 9 to 12 is five.

Okay. So we are requiring a considerable higher than them. Um, Bonnie Lake has a fiveyear monitoring period. If they die, you got to replace them. Like that

single residential areas, business areas. So would it be helpful? Would it be um is there interest by planning commission to take our table but um maybe like I said line it up with a few other cities of what the number is other cities are requiring to see if we're in the ballpark or we're way out of ballpark. Okay. And then here's a thing that seems to be implied by our current table that you can only replace deciduous with deciduous and evergreen with evergreen. Is that implied? That's the way it's implied. I get Yeah. But that doesn't necessarily that isn't that isn't happening in practice either. Okay.

I mean, I don't I don't see that there's a need to say, "Oh, you got to put in more deciduous because you took down a deciduous." They could choose to put in an evergreen or vice versa. Especially because our code actually requires more deciduous than evergreen. Yeah. So then you're sort of Yeah. Okay. So maybe maybe not have that difference. Why do you know why deciduous trees are measured in diameter and then evergreen trees are measured in because it's harder to get to the the the evergreen are a lot denser. It's a lot harder to measure sometimes. Is that why? Maybe. I don't know. I don't know. I do like how Camas just says this diameter and doesn't clarify. Yeah. Just place a tree.

More straight forward. Yeah. Yeah. And I also like DSH instead of DBH. Just seems so old-fashioned. Oh yeah, we could do D. We could switch it. Yeah. Okay. It'll keep certain people from giggling. Am I having deja vu or something? No. Didn't we have this conversation at some other somebody said that the arborist went by the eye level, but then she was only five feet tall or something. Is this a joke? Is this a setup for a joke? No. Did do we not have this conversation? I I've had that conversation with someone I didn't think it was here because I've had our breast come out and they've started using I think eye level or certain standing height instead of

use eye level and I'd be just about right. But okay so what I'm kind of gathering for oh excuse me yeah but regardless of your but it's four and a half. So four and a half is the standard standard. saying I could probably use my eyesight and I would be right about there. Um so so far kind of the comments we've heard is that we like the idea of a tree fund, a fee in L.

Um we like the the idea of a 5-year monitoring period. um providing a comparable table or something kind of more like Camas where it we're not breaking up deciduous and evergreen and we're just saying if you've got a tree this diameter replace it with something kind of equivalent of these diameters as long as it doesn't make it seem restrictive for evergreens. Anything else that we're finding that we like or don't like?

I have another thing and it's just a minor like copy edity thing. anytime that we're mentioning arborist or forester or landscape developer like just standardize that because I think we have it three different ways but that's minor that's minor copy edits that's good it's more of a create a definition and say that and then stick with okay I also have a reference to CMC 1803 so I'm guessing maybe that's CAS might have stolen it from Everybody use sorry what was the acronym for Seattle again instead of DBH was DSH

DSH okay all right I'm good I'll take all this back clean it oh you know when we looked at the 2003 is the community forestry board now maybe that they asked for 101 in 2003 to Oh, on the the actual forestry community. Yeah. I don't know. City USA. I love it. Yeah. They had goals. What's the benefits of being a tree city? Bragging rights. That's it. Well, we get more birds. Why can't we get bragging rights and we look cooler? Why can't we be the beer city?

Little signs. Can we be the beer city? I mean, if we don't get anything out, you need more breweries. We're not even close. Come on. Yeah, we've only got what? Acorn. Be good. I have one more. That's not even ours. It's Edgewood. Yeah.

I have one more thing. The Yeah. Tacoma Tree Foundation. Um I don't know if you're familiar, but they do a lot of uh what it sounds like we're we're trying to do. I'm not sure where the funds come from, but I've volunteered for them once, and they um they gift trees to people, but they also hold volunteer um events. So, people Tacoma plant trees in their neighbor's yard um for free. So I think on top of just giving trees away for free, I think that could be a good there's a community outreach. Community Yeah. Yeah. Nice. Yeah. I have a few friends that every year the parks board does their um during uh what's

Yeah. Uh they they do their event during Arbor Day. Uh it always every time I went, we got stuck ripping out blackberry bushes. We never got in. We did plant We did plant some. We did actually. We planted one tree one year. Uh it was from the big burn and warehouser and everybody that attended the uh event where the author Burns came. They gave him a tree and my tree was this big and we planted it behind public works. Didn't survive. That was Was it right off the trail? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It was a pretty tree. It just didn't survive. Yeah. And Tommy came home and said they didn't dig it right.

Yeah. When I had to go home to get a bar. Yes. Yes. You know that's not a good spot for a tree. I'm I'm not an arborist. There's a lot of debris and stuff off the trail that you don't realize until you start digging. Yeah. When we tried it before, they were like, "Okay, good effort, guys. We'll have our maintenance crews come out with some real equipment." Thank you for the effort. We used to have the rangers used to come out. Yeah. For the because they always do park cleanup on harvest day. Yeah. This is great. I think everything that's we're talking about is great. Yeah. Excited about this.

Um Yeah. And then as far as goals and ex existing tree canopy, I think it'd be nice to add something as far as just like the health benefits or something like that. As far as um yeah, just so everyone's aware, there's been on the school district side a lot of studies and stuff as far as tree canopy and how it helps health of students. Um they're setting their biometrics or whatever and um healthier, happier kids. So, it's always good to see um I think also that we as we're saving trees and protecting trees that also we need a strong hazardous tree uh definitions in our code because uh

we don't want to be liable for somebody saying well this tree I'm telling you this thing needs to go and uh the city wouldn't let me say no. Yeah. city said, you know, so uh I think having the arborist on board and stuff and takes care of that a hazardous tree element in there and dead trees because my place I bought it and within six months I had three cottonwoods taken down immediately. I only got evergreens now, but they're good. They're good. But yeah, there's when you've got a tree like an alder or a cottonwood that uh is so brittle

that you know any windstorm and if that thing's too close to your house, it's coming through. Uh so I had to take mine down and grind the stumps. But your cottonwood Mhm. didn't get the snow anymore, huh? It took forever. It'll come from the neighbors. Don't worry. And you know what? Those things love it. Like as Soon as I took the tree down that next spring, all the cottonwood were popping up in my grass. It just the roots come alive cuz the roots go forever. And it was just popping up everywhere and good times. It wanted to live. It wanted to continue one way or the other. All right. Anything else as far as trees go?

Yeah, I agree with the preserve the overall canopy. It's less about let's save like a tree that might be rotting or or that kind of thing. It's an overall vision for how Milton should be managed. That's how I look at it. And I love having a fund. I think that is fantastic. So that's I will not keep reiterating that, but I'm good.

All right. Great. So I think that takes care of our standard agenda. So that takes us to staff reports. Um, my only thing that I have listed is, um, we do have the trunk or treat event coming up October 30th. If there's anyone on the planning commission who would like to have a spot to sort of decorate and and hand out candy, we provide the candy. I think um, we could do that. Just let us know. Um I know everyone a lot of you guys have actual day jobs but you know hey um we will have one for um the planning and building department. Other than that I'm good.

Uh commissioner reports. We'll start with just pointing at you I guess. All right. Um, I've just been observing this delightful small safety cone, miniature sized, and I'm like how it shows that we're committed to safety inside. It's my report. Uh, Commissioner Zaro, I've got nothing. Commissioner Bole. Uh, I was just gonna ask Commissioner Johnson about her the suicide walk if you could talk about that during your sadly it was on a Saturday which I had done before and people did not appear and um

so it's passed. It is passed. Sorry. No, thank you. No, I I just thought you could talk about it if No, I get to my turn. No, when I get to No, I meant uh let us know when it was, but if it's already passed, they'll uh No, I uh also attended the vigil in the park and uh it was really nice and uh nobody caused any problems. It was very peaceful and it was very nice. So, uh that was nice little get together. So,

thank you. Thank you for the mention about the walk. Um, but I did receive a lot of stuff. People did uh write and say why because it was during it was on a Saturday which was beautiful and but it was very interesting sitting there and um I call it gloiating you know and thinking about how uh you know we think about how bad it is today and what tomorrow will be like but then if you think about it you'll have a tomorrow. That's the goal is to always have a tomorrow. And uh we've had um a lot of suicides in the military area lately. Heavy and normally it's 22 was 23 a month die. It's uh starting to get really rough. I'd like to say everything we did tonight, the conversation and plus I'm not sick. It's my esophagus. So, I just want y'all to know that um everything we've done, I think we've worked I love our conversations and today was especially special and I want to thank uh our staff for coming up with ideas and uh but I do encourage you to go to the MRSC site and just put tree codes and it gives you a whole list. But I will send this and we can can I send it directly to everybody rather than you have to do it?

Send it to me. Okay, we'll do. Thank you. All right. And then it's on to my report. Um I am actually moving. What? Yeah. The area. Yeah. Um an opportunity came up. I couldn't pass. Um we just fell in love with the property. It's all moving really, really fast. So I will officially not be living in the area as of next meeting. If it's easier for the group and the commission just to keep continuity, I can stay on through the end of the year just to as a non- voting. Technically, the code does not say you have to live.

Yeah. It's just one of those things that um and then I also need to just talk to whoever ends up winning our upcoming election about just best ways to step down and step out of that. But um yeah, it it all happened very very sudden. Um but it's but we're on your new house though. Out of how far out of the area? Out of city? Oh, what state? No, no, out of city. Still in state. Oh, nice. Okay.

It's um kind of the off Victory, kind of the Waller area. But um so yeah, as I said, I'll I'll work with staff as far as the best way of kind of transitioning that because I know that's kind of sudden. Um but um I'm really excited and this has been such a great opportunity to be it's such a passion of mine to be involved in my community whatever way I can. Um so I'm just very thankful for the time I've had to contribute and work with everyone and varying voices and um I think everyone's really always come with like best intentions ready to collaborate do what's best for the community listen to each other respect each other. This has been a great introduction for me of actually sitting in on one of these boards rather than just sitting in an office and hearing the griping about who who's making these decisions and how did this come about. So, um, thank you. It's been a wonderful five plus years. So, um, but as I said, I'll talk to staff about what transitioning looks like with that because it is a little sudden. Um, status commissioner reports. And next meeting is November 12th, 2025.