[0:57] Good evening. I'd like to call to order
[0:59] the June 18th meeting of the Bellingham
[1:02] Planning Commission. Um, would you
[1:04] please call the role?
[1:06] » My cast
[1:07] » Here.
[1:08] » Jed Blue
[1:09] » Here. Jerry Richmond
[1:10] » Here.
[1:10] » Lisa Marks
[1:11] » Here.
[1:11] » Claire Swingle
[1:12] » Here. Rose Leip
[1:14] » Here.
[1:17] [snorts]
[1:18] » Okay. Tonight we have no um minutes to
[1:22] approve and we have two items on the
[1:25] agenda. We have uh we're going to
[1:28] discuss and vote to approve the home
[1:30] occupation code um as well as we're
[1:34] going to discuss and provide direction
[1:36] related to the landmark tree ordinance
[1:40] and um creating a chapter of that in the
[1:42] code. [snorts]
[1:45] Starting out we since this is a public
[1:47] hearing we will open to public
[1:50] testimony. uh you can talk about
[1:52] whatever uh you'd like that's not
[1:53] related to the issues at hand. Three
[1:56] minutes, please. And please uh
[2:12] » Thank you.
[2:14] » Good afternoon, commissioners and staff.
[2:16] My name is Miles Silverman and I'm from
[2:18] the Cordata neighborhood. I would like
[2:20] to comment on the proposed future
[2:21] residential zoning map that staff showed
[2:23] at a recent commission meeting which
[2:25] although it was thankfully less
[2:27] Byzantine than the existing map was
[2:29] quite similar in its distribution of
[2:31] allowed development intensity. This
[2:34] would make sense if that current
[2:35] distribution aligned with the sort of
[2:37] vibrant equitable sustainable city we
[2:39] want to build and I am not convinced it
[2:42] does. At the meeting where the map was
[2:44] shown, a commissioner suggested
[2:46] determining intensity based on proximity
[2:49] to interesting things which I think is
[2:51] an excellent approach. When I look at
[2:53] the existing map, however, it appears to
[2:54] have been drawn with other priorities in
[2:56] mind and changes in transportation land
[2:59] use since many of its boundaries were
[3:00] drawn exacerbate these issues. Consider
[3:03] the Sunnyland and Roosevelt zoning maps
[3:05] where the zoning south of Alabama is
[3:06] strictly higher density than it is north
[3:08] of Alabama. in Sunnyland. Perhaps this
[3:10] could make some sense based on proximity
[3:12] to downtown, but the abruptness of the
[3:14] decrease in density doesn't fit this.
[3:16] And with the gold line in operation now,
[3:18] ending higher density at Alabama doesn't
[3:20] make sense anymore. I will [snorts] note
[3:22] if the base zoning is different on each
[3:24] side of Alabama, a TOD overlay like
[3:26] those planned would probably not erase
[3:29] this imbalance. In addition, the blocks
[3:31] north of Alabama are lower density in
[3:33] Sunnyland than in Roosevelt. This
[3:35] probably aligns more with who went to
[3:37] neighborhood meetings 50 years ago than
[3:38] anything else and certainly doesn't gel
[3:40] with proximity to interesting things.
[3:42] Furthermore, some parts of Roosevelt
[3:44] near Barkley Village are lower density
[3:46] than than those farther away. Perhaps
[3:48] this made sense at one point, but now
[3:49] that these areas are close to the
[3:51] increasingly most interesting place in
[3:53] that part of town, enforcing a sleepy
[3:56] streetscape is difficult to justified.
[3:59] Finally, consider the narrow borders of
[4:00] multif family housing around inner urban
[4:02] villages like the Fountain District,
[4:04] while Birwood Center has a wider area
[4:06] where apartments are allowed. This makes
[4:08] sense only if we are trying to limit how
[4:10] much of the inner neighborhoods have to
[4:11] allow apartments, which once again does
[4:14] not support proximity to interesting
[4:16] things. If Birwood Center can have some
[4:18] small apartment throughout its entire
[4:20] walkshed, so can Fair Haven in the
[4:22] Fountain District. In conclusion, let's
[4:24] be ambitious and creative with our
[4:27] residential zoning boundaries so they
[4:28] match the sort of city we want to build.
[4:30] Thank you.
[4:33] » Thank you.
[4:41] » Anyone else for the public comment?
[4:46] Is there anybody online?
[4:49] Okay, I guess we'll get into the heart
[4:51] of it. we have the two topics to discuss
[4:54] and so not sure which of you is gonna
[4:56] jump in but
[4:59] thanks
[5:10] will come up soon.
[5:23] Thank you for your patience.
[5:30] All right. Well, hello everybody. Thank
[5:33] you for being here tonight. Um, my name
[5:35] is Sydney Prusac for those of you that
[5:38] don't know me and I'm back with my
[5:39] colleague Sarah Omen to discuss the
[5:42] proposed updates to our home occupation
[5:44] code.
[5:46] Here is the outline for tonight. Um,
[5:48] I'll give a quick refresher on the topic
[5:51] background and existing regulations and
[5:54] then Sarah will discuss our proposed
[5:56] updates. Then we'll ask you all for an
[5:59] official recommendation to city council.
[6:02] As I mentioned at our previous work
[6:04] session, and it's explained further in
[6:07] the meeting materials, during our public
[6:10] engagement for the Bellingham plan, we
[6:12] heard a lot of community feedback and
[6:15] support for more services and amenities
[6:18] that people could walk to from their
[6:20] home regardless of where they lived in
[6:22] town. This led to several comp plan
[6:26] policies uh encouraging what we refer to
[6:29] as a complete neighborhood, complete
[6:31] neighborhoods um separately but also
[6:34] connected. There is a community need for
[6:37] smaller and more affordable business
[6:39] incubator space for entrepreneurs just
[6:42] starting out or wanting to grow their
[6:44] business. So, with these two needs in
[6:46] mind, it seemed like the right time to
[6:48] update our home occupation code,
[6:51] especially following the adoption of the
[6:52] Bellingham plan last December. Um, like
[6:55] I alluded to on April 2nd, we presented
[6:59] an overview of our proposed code updates
[7:01] with you at a work session, and we
[7:03] received general support from you all on
[7:06] the proposed updates, got some feedback,
[7:08] and then went and drafted an ordinance
[7:11] based on that meeting and our research.
[7:14] Um, and finally, just breaking news.
[7:18] Just of this week, on Monday, June 15th,
[7:21] Mayor Kim Lond issued an executive order
[7:24] directing city action to expand economic
[7:28] opportunity, strengthen the city center,
[7:31] support businesses and entrepreneurs,
[7:33] and build the partnerships needed to
[7:35] make Bellingham more prosperous and
[7:37] affordable for all. So, that is word for
[7:40] word from the executive order. And um
[7:44] again, it's just really amazing timing.
[7:47] One of the actions in that order
[7:48] specifically states advanced policies
[7:51] that support small-scale commercial
[7:53] activity in residential neighborhoods,
[7:56] enabling homebased businesses,
[7:58] neighborhood serving retail, and corner
[8:00] store uses that encourage
[8:02] entrepreneurship, walkability, and
[8:04] economic life close to home. So, the
[8:07] timing of this order and this code
[8:10] update is very fertuitous and staff
[8:13] believes that the proposal before you
[8:16] tonight advances the mayor's directive.
[8:20] Um, I don't want to repeat too much from
[8:23] our work session presentation, but I do
[8:26] want to reiterate this graphic to better
[8:28] explain why we're updating our home
[8:30] occupation code now. And as a refresher,
[8:33] we use this graphic throughout the
[8:35] Bellingham plan engagement process to
[8:38] frame conversations around allowing
[8:40] commercial small-cale commercial uses in
[8:42] residential neighborhoods. Um, currently
[8:45] we are at level one that allows inhome
[8:49] businesses. Under specific conditions,
[8:52] home occupations are allowed within
[8:54] residences. We what we're proposing with
[8:57] this code update is to move to level two
[9:00] of the continuum and allow separated inh
[9:02] home businesses like an accessory
[9:05] building or above a garage.
[9:08] As we update our resident residential
[9:10] code to be in compliance with the new
[9:12] comprehensive plan and state law, we
[9:14] plan to incorporate small-cale
[9:16] commercial uses at a certain scale in
[9:19] residential neighborhoods which would
[9:20] get us to level three of the continuum.
[9:23] And while that residential that greater
[9:25] residential code update will take some
[9:27] time to come into fruition, we want to
[9:29] expand the home occupation code now, so
[9:33] they're in scale with the future
[9:34] updates. And I alluded to this and
[9:37] mentioned it at our past work session,
[9:39] but it doesn't really make sense if
[9:41] we're going to allow standalone
[9:43] commercial uses like restaurants or bars
[9:46] or cafes and then continue to prohibit a
[9:49] homebased business from selling goods in
[9:52] conjunction with the service they
[9:53] provide um or prohibit them from um
[9:57] operating within an accessory building.
[9:59] So, we just wanted to all be at scale
[10:01] when those updates come forward. And so
[10:05] just for some more context before Sarah
[10:07] gets into the proposed updates, I want
[10:10] to go over the existing regulations of
[10:12] home occupations in Bellingham. And
[10:14] first of all, home occupations exists
[10:16] all throughout Bellingham already. Pull
[10:18] up Google Maps and you'll see a variety
[10:20] of homebased businesses scattered
[10:23] throughout town. Our current home
[10:26] occupation regulations require
[10:28] businesses to operate within the home.
[10:31] um they prohibit any exterior
[10:33] modification of the home for the
[10:35] business. They limit the number of
[10:37] employees um to one in addition of the
[10:41] um occupant and then they also prohibit
[10:43] retail sales. So these restrictions are
[10:47] quite limiting for homebased businesses
[10:49] and we want to expand these allowances.
[10:52] However, we still need some regulations
[10:54] to ensure that residential structures
[10:56] retain their primary use as residential
[10:59] uses to um retain our existing housing
[11:01] stock and also to minimize impacts on
[11:04] neighbors. And we know the community
[11:06] wants more services and businesses close
[11:08] to home and expanding home occupations
[11:11] is a great way to get that started at a
[11:13] smaller scale. Um so now we're going to
[11:16] get more into the proposed updates. I'm
[11:17] going to turn it over to Sarah and then
[11:19] we'll open it up for discussion and a
[11:21] vote. Thank you.
[11:27] Thanks, Sydney.
[11:29] Um, so the draft ordinance is included
[11:31] in your packet for tonight's meeting and
[11:33] I'll be going over the main changes that
[11:35] we are considering. Um, so when we
[11:38] started researching best practices, we
[11:40] came upon a journal article published by
[11:43] the American Planning Association that
[11:46] recommended a tiered approach to home
[11:48] occupations. Um, where that first tier
[11:51] establishes uses that are permitexempt
[11:53] and then it goes on to the next tier
[11:56] where there are administrative permit
[11:58] reviews for non-controversial uses. Then
[12:01] that third tier is a discretionary
[12:04] permit um for uses that may have impacts
[12:07] that require mitigation.
[12:09] Um so the proposed code update that we
[12:12] have before you implements these
[12:14] objectives. Um, permitexempt uses are
[12:17] maintained and the ordinance proposes an
[12:20] administrative permit pathway for most
[12:22] [snorts] all home occupations
[12:25] um while requiring a discretionary
[12:27] permit process for uses that could
[12:29] create more impacts such as woodworking.
[12:32] the discretionary permit process. It
[12:34] works really similar to like an
[12:36] administrative conditional use permit
[12:39] where there is uh public notice and
[12:42] staff review for a for compliance with
[12:44] approval criteria.
[12:47] The proposed ordinance also allows home
[12:49] occupations to be operated within either
[12:51] a dwelling or an accessory building like
[12:55] a garage on the same property as the
[12:57] dwelling. For years, we've had to turn
[13:00] away home businesses that wanted to
[13:02] operate within a garage or a workshop on
[13:05] their property. And now we're reducing
[13:07] that barrier.
[13:09] Home occupations are proposed to be
[13:11] limited to 500 square ft unless approved
[13:14] through a discretionary permit. And in
[13:17] no case can a home occupation exceed 50%
[13:20] of the gross floor area of the residence
[13:22] to ensure that the business is never the
[13:25] predominant use of the property.
[13:28] This threshold was specifically chosen
[13:30] because the building code actually
[13:32] exempts home occupations that are 500
[13:34] square feet or less in size from having
[13:37] to comply with all of the commercial
[13:39] building code requirements.
[13:42] Structural enlargements will be allowed
[13:44] to the residence or accessory building
[13:46] for the purpose of conducting the home
[13:47] occupation. So this could mean a home
[13:50] baker could expand their kitchen for
[13:51] their business. And the ordinance seeks
[13:54] to balance the increased flexibility for
[13:57] the business owners and mitigate impacts
[13:59] of the business. An effective way to
[14:02] manage impacts is to contain that
[14:04] business. Uh outdoor storage will be
[14:07] prohibited and all operations of a home
[14:10] occupation must take place within a
[14:12] building.
[14:14] The ordinance proposes to increase the
[14:17] number of employees allowed from one to
[14:20] three per home occupation to help
[14:22] businesses grow and evolve.
[14:25] Retail sales of products made on site
[14:28] under certain terms and conditions will
[14:30] be allowed. We want to provide an
[14:32] opportunity for artisans to sell
[14:34] products from their home studios. And
[14:37] retail sales will also be allowed when
[14:39] in conjunction with a personal service
[14:41] or other use. for example, allowing a
[14:43] hairdresser to sell shampoo.
[14:46] And the draft ordinance will limit hours
[14:48] of operation for those discretionary
[14:50] home occupations to traditional working
[14:53] hours of Monday through Friday, 8:00
[14:55] a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
[14:57] Fleet dispatch centers for landscaping,
[15:00] contracting, or similar will be
[15:02] prohibited. This use has been
[15:04] problematic in the past, and we did a
[15:06] lot of research and other jurisdictions
[15:09] expressly prohibit them. So, we are
[15:11] following suit and an operations plan
[15:14] will be required for discretionary home
[15:16] occupations, which can really help staff
[15:19] and the community understand how the
[15:21] operator intends to mitigate potential
[15:23] impacts.
[15:25] And the proposed update will require all
[15:28] home occupations comply with local,
[15:30] state, and federal regulations.
[15:33] Finally, the city's transportation group
[15:36] has determined that home occupations
[15:38] less than 500 square feet are accessory
[15:41] to a dwelling unit and the traffic
[15:43] impact fee paid with the dwelling unit
[15:45] mitigates any transportation impacts
[15:48] related to its accessory uses. So, the
[15:51] proposed ordinance is going to exempt
[15:53] home occupations that are 500 square
[15:55] feet or less from transportation
[15:57] concurrency requirements, which reduces
[16:00] financial barriers to small businesses
[16:02] that are just trying to get up and
[16:04] running. This concludes our summary of
[16:07] the proposed code update. We think that
[16:09] this restructuring of the home
[16:10] occupation permitting requirements and
[16:13] regulations will effectively balance
[16:15] business opportunities and mitigate
[16:17] business impacts in a manner that
[16:20] implements the community's goals and is
[16:22] consistent with the mayor's economic
[16:24] development executive order. And this
[16:27] concludes our presentation and we're
[16:29] available for any questions.
[16:33] » Okay, we'd open it up to public comment
[16:36] at this time.
[16:38] If anyone's here wants to comment on
[16:40] this.
[16:44] Okay.
[16:47] Anybody want to kick it off?
[16:57] » I uh I like all the new language. I like
[17:00] what you did with it. I love the tiered
[17:02] approach and the uh the administrative
[17:04] permit. I think that's kind of what we
[17:07] were touching on the last meeting and
[17:08] that's a a great way to solve it. Nice
[17:11] work.
[17:13] » Thank you.
[17:17] I
[17:17] » I had a question about the um hours of
[17:20] operation. Uh what was the thought
[17:23] process in particular for weekend hours?
[17:26] Um what was the reasoning for um not
[17:28] allowing that to be part of the
[17:31] operating hours of the home business?
[17:34] Um, so when we were looking at the types
[17:37] of uses that are in that class C
[17:39] category, they can be noisy. So it's
[17:42] woodworking, welding, machining. Um, so
[17:45] we were trying to strike that balance
[17:47] of, you know, what allows somebody to
[17:49] effectively operate a full-time business
[17:52] while still allowing neighbors to like
[17:54] have quiet enjoyment of their
[17:56] properties. So we went with traditional
[17:59] working hours. At first, we looked at
[18:01] the construction hours that are already
[18:03] codified in the municipal code, but
[18:06] those are from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
[18:08] which felt like a lot and could affect
[18:11] people's sleep schedules, etc. So, we
[18:14] kind of went with a conservative
[18:16] traditional approach that isn't codified
[18:18] elsewhere, but we thought it struck the
[18:20] best balance.
[18:23] I think the only thing that I'd like to
[18:25] add to that is that the um the code
[18:26] actually allows for the director to
[18:29] restrict or expand those hours as well.
[18:31] So take for example, you've got um
[18:34] someone that wants to do something on
[18:36] the on the weekends. If we notice that
[18:39] and say they wanted to operate Tuesday
[18:41] through Saturday um at those same time
[18:44] periods, then we can notice that, take
[18:46] public comment on it. If we don't have
[18:47] any concerns, we've got the flexibility
[18:49] to expand those hours as well.
[19:00] Um, I guess I I agree. I feel like a lot
[19:02] of our concerns last time were around
[19:03] the like class C ones and how do we get
[19:06] one rule that covers everything. So, I
[19:08] think the tears do a really nice job
[19:10] with that. So, the great thought. Um, I
[19:13] guess my question um I feel like I'm in
[19:16] agreement with with all the changes we
[19:18] discussed a lot of a lot of this last
[19:19] time. So just thankful for you guys and
[19:22] your work for putting that language in.
[19:24] I guess my thought is just around the
[19:27] your question is just around the future
[19:28] process because I know Nelson's market
[19:31] came up a billion times and that's the
[19:33] the example I hear from everyone all the
[19:35] time you know um and per I hadn't heard
[19:38] of the executive order so I may have the
[19:40] language wrong but the referencing the
[19:42] corner stores and that kind of thing. So
[19:44] just wondering what the process is for
[19:46] then um getting to those lower stages in
[19:50] your in your image after this is done.
[19:53] Thanks.
[19:54] » Yeah, that's a great question. So right
[19:56] now um we're in the process of just
[19:59] cracking open our entire code. So while
[20:02] we work on our residential code, the
[20:04] main priority right now is coming into
[20:06] compliance with state law, House Bill
[20:08] 1110, and other regulations that have to
[20:12] be met to make sure that we're um
[20:15] following through on our comp plan goals
[20:17] and policies. So that's the first step.
[20:19] But in our work plan for next year, um I
[20:22] know it is a lot to commit to something
[20:25] on record right now at the meeting, but
[20:28] we are scheduled to set that process
[20:30] next year or the in the next few years
[20:32] for the small scale commercials. So that
[20:34] will be implemented with the residential
[20:36] code, figuring out setbacks, delivery
[20:39] schedules, if it's going to be only
[20:41] allowed on corners, only allowed on
[20:43] arterials, allowed everywhere. And then
[20:46] in the mix too, we brought this up at
[20:48] the last meeting, but for the past three
[20:50] years, I think there's been a bill at
[20:52] the state level that has been trying to
[20:54] allow commercial uses by right in all
[20:57] residential areas. And that would
[20:59] include cafes and bars as long as it was
[21:02] written this past year, they would be
[21:03] allowed to operate for 12 hours at any
[21:05] given time and could serve alcohol if
[21:08] they also serve food. So at the same
[21:10] time when there's the um the legislature
[21:13] meets next spring that could be required
[21:17] outright and then that would just be
[21:18] incorporated in our code too.
[21:20] » If I may also add to that the other part
[21:23] just for your consideration is that the
[21:26] inverse is also true. state uh
[21:28] legislature this past um spring adopted
[21:32] Senate Bill 6026
[21:34] which the governor signed in March which
[21:37] allows for um ground basically cities
[21:42] cannot restrict the amount of uh or
[21:45] cannot require ground floor commercial
[21:47] or mixed use in more than 40% of the
[21:51] area zone. So it allows residential to
[21:53] go into what was otherwise commercial
[21:55] areas. So, we're we're seeing the
[21:57] traffic kind of go both directions.
[21:59] Tonight, you're talking about commercial
[22:01] going into residential zones and then
[22:03] that state law, which we have 18 months
[22:06] from the signing to to put into effect,
[22:09] allows for residential to go into what
[22:11] was pre previously thought to be
[22:14] commercial or mixed use areas. So, it's
[22:16] kind of blending the lines in both
[22:18] directions.
[22:25] Um clarification on the fleet dispatch
[22:28] center. I assume that means like with
[22:31] trucks coming and going, which is what
[22:32] we want to prevent. Like I I you could
[22:35] also read that as like someone sitting
[22:36] there at a computer with a headset like
[22:38] directing remote activities out. Does
[22:40] that need like a definition about trucks
[22:42] being housed on site?
[22:45] » Um it was more to avoid Yeah. trucks
[22:48] being housed on site and like the
[22:49] traditional morning meeting of everybody
[22:51] congregating there, parking their
[22:53] personal vehicle and then picking up
[22:54] their work truck and going to their
[22:57] site.
[22:58] » I could I could picture a dispatcher who
[23:00] who doesn't have people coming and going
[23:02] just quietly in their office doing
[23:03] things and that that seems fine.
[23:05] » Yeah.
[23:05] » Yeah. If it's a home B, if it truly is
[23:08] just the dispatcher themselves where
[23:10] they're just, you know, taking calls and
[23:13] responding to things online, that kind
[23:15] of stuff. Yes, that would be it's the
[23:17] fleet component. So, if I'm a if I have
[23:20] a dozen tow trucks, I don't want to have
[23:22] them all parked in my backyard and then
[23:24] send them out for my house kind of.
[23:25] » I think that makes sense. Yeah, I think
[23:27] we're on the same page.
[23:37] Do you see any risk of people who are
[23:40] wanting to have more than the number of
[23:41] employees that are allowed uh having
[23:44] people move in as residents just to add
[23:46] employees?
[23:49] » Uh we hadn't considered that risk. Um
[23:52] but I suppose that it is there. Um yeah,
[23:56] I don't think that it's a a huge concern
[23:58] right now that people would game the
[24:00] system. I think um we're writing this
[24:04] code and we want to see we specifically
[24:06] chose this as phase one for the
[24:08] smallcale commercial because we wanted
[24:10] to study it. So I think that we will be
[24:12] studying it and we will be identifying
[24:14] any problems that we that occur with the
[24:18] code and we are open to modifying it in
[24:21] the future. Um, but I don't think that
[24:24] we've seen that in the past of people
[24:27] gaming the system to have more employees
[24:29] under the old code. So, I'm I'm I don't
[24:32] know. I'm doubtful that it would happen
[24:34] in the future, but we can remain agile
[24:36] and change things as we need to as we go
[24:38] into this second phase of small-cale
[24:40] commercial.
[24:42] And
[24:42] » I didn't see it listed, but may have
[24:44] just missed it, but like things like
[24:45] marijuana related industries, are those
[24:48] prohibited?
[24:50] » Yes. Um the state regulates those um
[24:53] there there are very strict buffers that
[24:56] the state requires from schools and
[25:00] parks. So there are very few areas
[25:02] within the city that even allow that. Um
[25:06] but yeah, I don't think that that would
[25:08] be an issue. We can evaluate it more to
[25:11] make sure that there's no gaps in our
[25:13] rules.
[25:21] And yeah, so we retail sales are only
[25:24] allowed with um goods produced on site
[25:27] too. So I feel like that is limiting for
[25:30] I think that would require more a bigger
[25:31] operation and space too. So
[25:52] further comments, anybody thinking of
[25:54] any modifications?
[25:57] Okay.
[26:00] Anybody have a motion?
[26:10] better at it.
[26:12] » Um,
[26:14] you would say that you want to move to
[26:17] accept staff's recommendation for
[26:20] approval to forward to the city council
[26:21] and accept the findings and facts and
[26:24] recommendations as written in the staff
[26:27] memo from today.
[26:28] » Yeah, post that. I I'll move to do what
[26:30] Mike just said to do. [laughter]
[26:32] » A second.
[26:35] » All in favor say I.
[26:37] » I.
[26:38] » I.
[26:38] » Anyone opposed?
[26:41] » All right, motion passes.
[26:43] » Thank you. Thank you.
[26:45] » Thank you.
[26:46] » Um, so I guess we'll go to round two.
[27:18] Are we ready?
[27:20] » Yep, we're ready. Is uh Are you guys uh
[27:22] going to have a presentation on the tree
[27:24] ordinance or are they going to get a
[27:25] tree and bring it in here?
[27:26] » No, I [laughter]
[27:28] I'll give I'll give some uh comments.
[27:30] Yeah, we wouldn't want to bring a
[27:32] landmark tree in here necessarily. Um
[27:34] there's enough wood in this room.
[27:39] » Yeah. Um thank you Blake Lion, director
[27:42] of planning and community development.
[27:43] Uh we were here in front of you in
[27:45] February to kind of introduce this topic
[27:47] and and mention the fact that we were
[27:49] going to come back and look at the
[27:50] ordinance um in greater level of detail.
[27:53] As you may recall through that process,
[27:56] um we went through initially uh in 2024
[28:02] and the council did an emergency
[28:04] ordinance because as we were working our
[28:07] way through the um urban forestry plan,
[28:10] we realized there was some concerns
[28:12] about losing some of these um larger,
[28:15] more significant trees throughout our
[28:17] city. And so we did that uh effort to
[28:20] adopt the emergency ordinance. And then
[28:22] we've been doing several iterations of
[28:24] interim ordinances and we continue to
[28:27] refine. I'm thoroughly convinced in this
[28:30] process that uh and you heard a little
[28:32] bit about it in the first item. There's
[28:36] for those of us who are in this
[28:37] profession and trying to write code,
[28:39] there's never a perfect code. You know,
[28:41] you go through you do your best to to
[28:44] write something based on the
[28:45] circumstances and the issues that are
[28:47] brought up at the time. Um but there are
[28:49] always competing influences. there are
[28:51] always competing opinions and
[28:53] preferences um and directions. And so
[28:55] one of the things that we've
[28:58] um debated about with this particular
[29:00] ordinance in partic in in specifics is
[29:04] do we keep tweaking tweak keep refining?
[29:06] It absolutely can benefit from that over
[29:09] time. Uh but perfection can be the enemy
[29:12] of good at times. And so we're in front
[29:14] of you this evening to kind of see what
[29:17] your pleasure is. if you feel like you
[29:20] um are comfortable with the revisions
[29:23] that we'll talk about this evening. Um I
[29:25] know you've received several public
[29:27] comments that call for more and you're
[29:29] going to see some of those on um
[29:31] different sides of the issue and so
[29:33] again we can continue to refine. There's
[29:35] an opportunity for you to have um two
[29:39] more work sessions if you would like.
[29:42] one would be next Thursday on the 25th
[29:45] or we can look to uh the the 9th. Um
[29:49] given the way that we have updated and
[29:52] changed the council lead times for
[29:55] packets and for public noticing uh we
[29:58] are scheduled to go to city council on
[30:00] July 13th for a public hearing uh in
[30:03] this ordinance with any recommendations
[30:06] if you were to get to the point for
[30:08] making a recommendation to the council.
[30:10] If that cannot happen, if you're not
[30:12] comfortable with that, if we need to go
[30:14] through that, we have the option of
[30:16] pulling that item uh and pushing back.
[30:18] But just to give you some context, the
[30:21] interim ordinance as it sits now runs
[30:24] through September. If we feel like we
[30:26] want more time and we want to do all of
[30:28] that kind of stuff, that's fine. We can
[30:30] go back to city council and ask to
[30:32] extend it yet again. We were just trying
[30:34] to do our part to get to a point where
[30:37] we just have a an ordinance in place and
[30:39] give some degree of specificity and not
[30:42] continue to live by by interim
[30:44] ordinance. But I don't want you any of
[30:46] you to feel like we're painting you into
[30:48] a corner with any of this. So if you if
[30:51] you want andor need the time, we're
[30:53] certainly able to take it. we just were
[30:55] trying to kind of stack things up and
[30:58] abide by the time frames by which we
[31:01] have to send out notices and get it on
[31:03] council agendas and so on and so forth.
[31:05] So, um, with that said, um, I want to
[31:10] hone in a little bit on the fact that
[31:13] again the intent of this ordinance as
[31:16] it's currently drafted, and I'm going to
[31:19] oversimplify it, but it really is to try
[31:21] to find kind of two components to this.
[31:24] one is to preserve the most significant
[31:26] trees that are in our community. Um, and
[31:29] so the ordinance is really set up with
[31:32] that framework in mind, but we also know
[31:35] that that priority can come at the um
[31:40] risk of making it more challenging, more
[31:42] difficult, more costly, more timely uh
[31:45] time, you know, for the development
[31:48] needs that we know we have in this
[31:50] community as well. So trying to find
[31:52] that balance uh is really um you know
[31:56] kind of the the thing that we're trying
[31:58] to thread in this context. Um there are
[32:02] several pieces of existing code and I
[32:04] won't go through all the details of
[32:06] those but the gentleman sitting to my
[32:08] left uh deals with this on a day-to-day
[32:12] basis and can and can go through this at
[32:14] nauseium. But you will see uh in the
[32:17] staff report there's conversations about
[32:20] uh chapter 13 of the Bellingham
[32:22] Municipal Code that deals with street
[32:23] trees. Chapter 16 deals with critical
[32:26] areas and land clearing and grading. Um
[32:29] chapter 20 deals with development
[32:31] regulations. Uh chapter 22 deals with
[32:34] shoreline regulations. So all of those
[32:36] have components that are dealing with
[32:38] trees. This in particular is focusing in
[32:41] on landmark trees. By definition, those
[32:45] are trees that are greater than 36 in at
[32:49] breast height. So approximately 4 and
[32:51] 1/2 ft above grade. Now we've talked
[32:54] through various different iterations. I
[32:56] was back in front of you in February and
[32:57] we talked about whether 36 was the right
[33:00] uh number to be looking at as we started
[33:03] to look into that further. And there are
[33:07] a variety of different opinions. Some
[33:09] think it should be smaller, some think
[33:11] it should be larger. Uh, you know, and
[33:13] so part of our kind of ultimate
[33:16] consideration was just better to stay
[33:18] with what we have, what at least our
[33:21] development community and community at
[33:23] large is uh comfortable and used to
[33:26] dealing with and not keep moving the,
[33:28] you know, the goalposts and trying to um
[33:31] adjust things. If you feel differently,
[33:33] if you feel like there should be
[33:34] something, that's certainly your
[33:36] prerogative to provide that input and
[33:37] we'll certainly work towards towards
[33:39] doing that. This new ordinance that you
[33:42] saw in the packet, again, there's two
[33:43] versions of predominantly the same
[33:45] thing. One is the red line strikethrough
[33:48] version that shows you some of the
[33:49] changes and edits. A number of those
[33:51] that you'll see in there, puts it into
[33:53] kind of more ordinance format where it
[33:55] talks about chapter 1600
[33:58] uh of the Bellingham Municipal Code. So,
[34:00] it takes the section numbers out and
[34:02] does a lot of changes in that regard.
[34:04] And then the latter portion of it that's
[34:06] um closer to later in your packet is the
[34:10] clean version. So, if you're just
[34:11] looking to read it kind of without all
[34:13] the interruptions, that's certainly um
[34:15] there. You'll see some additional
[34:17] discussion. Oh, and I should also
[34:18] mention, and I won't try to uh reiterate
[34:22] their comments entirely, but we did have
[34:24] one uh public comment that came through
[34:26] that also had some suggested edits that
[34:29] were from members of the community. Um,
[34:32] so there's there's that kind of third
[34:34] option out there, I guess, or a second
[34:36] option. Um,
[34:39] we did add Lombardi Popppler. Uh in
[34:42] discussion with our arborists, in
[34:44] discussion with that, we talked about um
[34:47] black cottonwoods were were trees that
[34:49] we said, you know, because of their uh
[34:52] growth patterns and characteristics that
[34:54] we didn't feel like those were
[34:55] necessarily appropriate to maintain as
[34:58] landmark trees. Um and Bombardi popppler
[35:01] is another one that we felt like should
[35:03] be added to that for the the reasons
[35:04] that are listed in your staff report.
[35:06] So, that's certainly one of the
[35:08] considerations that we'd like to think
[35:10] about moving forward. Um, we also added
[35:14] some language in there that allows
[35:16] landmark trees uh as a criteria for
[35:19] removal to um if they are creating a
[35:23] hazard, if they are resulting in a
[35:24] hazard. The example that I used with you
[35:26] previously was we've had actually more
[35:28] than one incident um but one comes to
[35:31] mind where a property owner had a
[35:33] landmark tree immediately adjacent to
[35:35] their structure and um it was lifting
[35:39] and shifting the framing of the home to
[35:41] the point where they couldn't close the
[35:42] windows any longer. And so um we've had
[35:46] others that are you know attacking
[35:47] infrastructure. Um there's a few that
[35:50] have come up that that come to mind, but
[35:51] it when it's damaging real property, um
[35:54] the thought was okay, in order to
[35:56] protect that investment, uh the tree has
[35:59] an opportunity to be removed and look at
[36:02] um alternative replacement opportunities
[36:05] uh when that situation presents itself.
[36:08] We're also going through, and I know
[36:09] this is not entirely your purview, but
[36:11] it is something that's very present on
[36:13] our minds, is the um resource staffing
[36:18] and and um budget challenges that we're
[36:21] dealing with. And so, as we begin to
[36:23] think through what our current
[36:25] circumstances are and how do we manage
[36:27] and maintain and functionally implement
[36:29] this kind of stuff, um we made some
[36:32] modifications to the landmark tree
[36:34] committee structure. uh instead of
[36:37] having three staff go out to every
[36:39] single request that comes in uh when we
[36:42] go through and we receive the
[36:45] professional uh arborist submitt to this
[36:48] certified arborist submitt then we'll
[36:50] have staff review that if we're
[36:52] generally in agreement with the
[36:54] direction that's been recommended in
[36:56] there we have one member of the um staff
[36:59] go out and field verify and make sure
[37:02] that we again that that what's been
[37:05] written in the report is consistent with
[37:07] what we see in the field. And if that
[37:08] all lines up, then we have that single
[37:12] uh staff member attributed to that. If
[37:14] there are differences of opinion, if
[37:16] there is something that's a little more
[37:17] technical, there's still some ability to
[37:20] consult with other staff members and to
[37:22] try to address those things in a
[37:24] committee format. But that's really the
[37:27] intent was to be a little bit more um
[37:31] you know just responsible with the
[37:32] amount of resources that we're
[37:34] committing. And as this whole process
[37:37] played out, we found that we were
[37:39] spending an inordinate amount of time
[37:41] staff time trying to work through that.
[37:43] That has mellowed out substantially over
[37:45] the last uh several months in terms of
[37:48] people just understanding the ordinance
[37:50] better uh and continue to figure out how
[37:52] to work and navigate through that. So
[37:54] that also contributed to how much did we
[37:58] want to shift and change this. If if you
[38:00] always feel like rules and codes are
[38:02] changing, that could be uh adding a
[38:04] level of frustration and and concern
[38:06] there as well. Um
[38:10] I won't go through all of the uh public
[38:13] comments. Um I know the folks that
[38:16] submitted them are here today and I'll
[38:17] let them speak for themselves. Um, I do
[38:20] think that there is an opportunity and
[38:23] I'm happy to share with you. Um, you saw
[38:27] in one of the public comments and I was
[38:29] here in February and told you a little
[38:30] bit more about the reasonleness memo and
[38:33] that's a distinction
[38:35] um, that we at the staff level use. It
[38:39] wasn't intended to be and I'm sorry if I
[38:41] misspoke previously, but it wasn't
[38:43] intended to be incorporated into the
[38:44] ordinance. That's some of the
[38:46] flexibility that we try to maintain at
[38:49] that SLA level to provide that uh degree
[38:52] of interpretation. But as written right
[38:54] now, the ordinance says that um you are
[38:58] allowed to remove a landmark tree uh in
[39:02] order to have a reasonable use of the
[39:04] property if you can demonstrate that
[39:06] you've looked at reasonable alternatives
[39:09] uh to that development. And so the
[39:12] question has come up as to what is that?
[39:14] How do you define that term reasonable?
[39:17] And so the guidance memo that we worked
[39:20] on drafting was really to provide that
[39:23] context and provide a little bit, but um
[39:26] to try to codify that in our opinion was
[39:29] narrowing the focus so much and would
[39:32] require an ordinance change or you know
[39:34] code change if we wanted to deviate from
[39:37] that. So having it in a uh memo format
[39:40] gives us the ability to make sure that
[39:42] we can adjust if we need to. Um there
[39:46] are other a couple other things that I
[39:48] spoke to you all about in February that
[39:51] um
[39:53] certainly are of interest to us and
[39:55] certainly are things that we are
[39:58] continuing to evaluate and think that
[40:00] might come through especially now we've
[40:02] gotten direction since I was in front of
[40:04] you last uh from the mayor to reinitiate
[40:09] the urban forestry plan. So, we're going
[40:11] to be evaluating the tree bank and the
[40:14] inloo uh fee options as you know kind of
[40:17] part of that effort. Um I want to
[40:19] provide a little bit of a distinction at
[40:20] least in our mind in terms of what those
[40:22] terms mean. So, when we talk about a
[40:25] tree bank, um, and we'll use it in
[40:29] context with like wetland mitigation
[40:31] banks, which we have a little bit more
[40:32] experience, but it's a it's a basically
[40:34] where the city goes out and establishes
[40:37] um a wetland
[40:39] and then has credits to be able to sell
[40:43] to developers or other agencies uh for
[40:47] the to mitigate the impacts of that. And
[40:49] so in this example, when we talk about a
[40:52] tree bank, if somebody's removing a um a
[40:56] tree off of their property, do we have a
[41:00] another area where we can um call out or
[41:03] a credit for that and do, you know, some
[41:06] ability to that? There's also an ability
[41:08] to look at whether or not we want to
[41:10] have offsite receiving parcels, and that
[41:13] may be uh a little different than a
[41:15] treebank dynamic. The third thing that
[41:18] was brought up in that was the inloo fee
[41:21] payment. And so again, something that we
[41:23] need to go through, make sure our
[41:25] finance department is um equipped and
[41:28] ready to do that from a payment
[41:30] perspective and and begin to identify
[41:32] what that dollar amount is and how that
[41:35] tree bank is structured. And so it takes
[41:37] a a bigger effort to do that. and we
[41:39] weren't prepared to to bring that
[41:41] forward to you um at this time, but we
[41:44] are working through through those
[41:46] efforts. So, um I will conclude my
[41:49] comments here. Again, I have some uh if
[41:51] you want to see the reasonleness memo,
[41:53] we can certainly walk you through some
[41:54] of that, but it might be prudent to just
[41:56] hear some of the public comment first
[41:58] and then be able to respond to any
[41:59] questions that you might have. So, I'll
[42:02] stop there.
[42:05] » Thanks, Blake. Uh, I guess it's the time
[42:07] for public comment related to this
[42:09] topic. So, if you have anything to
[42:11] share, come on down and share with the
[42:14] group. Three minutes, please.
[42:33] Can turn your mic on.
[42:40] Okay, great. Thank you. Um, thank you
[42:43] planning commission and thank you staff
[42:45] for the opportunity to comment on the
[42:47] landmark tree ordinance that you're
[42:49] reviewing tonight and for the work that
[42:52] you and staff have invested in it. Um, I
[42:54] know that what is before us right now is
[42:57] a result of a lot of hard work and
[42:58] thinking and planning and I want to
[43:00] acknowledge all of that effort. Um, in
[43:02] addition to the comments that I'd like
[43:04] to relay, um, as executive director of
[43:07] Watka Million Trees Project, I'm here
[43:09] tonight to advocate for an ordinance
[43:11] that provides effective protection for
[43:13] Bellingham's most significant trees
[43:16] without creating opaque requirements
[43:18] that require that uh, staff consultation
[43:22] uh, at every turn and unnecessarily
[43:24] hamper a project that we desperately
[43:27] need, such as affordable housing. At the
[43:29] February planning commission meeting,
[43:31] staff identified several aspects of the
[43:33] interim ordinance ordinance that needed
[43:35] to be improved before your next review.
[43:38] These are enumerated in my submitted
[43:40] comments uh but include a clearer
[43:43] definition of reasonable which rec which
[43:45] appears in the ordinance five times an
[43:48] improved application process. How the
[43:51] landmark tree ordinance relates to
[43:53] existing clearing and grading ordinances
[43:55] and how to enforce the ordinance because
[43:57] the city's enforcement resources are
[43:59] stretched so thin. This draft ordinance
[44:03] has not been improved since you saw it,
[44:05] and it also fails to comply with the
[44:07] city council's clear direction to
[44:09] Director Lion at its February 24th, 2025
[44:13] meeting to improve the city's
[44:15] transparency in this process.
[44:18] In the last few years, we have seen
[44:20] poorly designed projects move forward to
[44:23] the terrible detriment of our natural
[44:25] areas because the rules that should have
[44:27] stopped them were not strong enough.
[44:29] That does not need to happen tonight.
[44:32] There is no time limit imposed by the
[44:34] type six process. I respectfully request
[44:37] you return this ordinance to the
[44:39] planning and community development
[44:40] department to do what they said they
[44:42] would do and create an ordinance that
[44:44] allows Bellingham to live up to its
[44:46] values and serve its residents needs. I
[44:50] and many other members of the community
[44:52] would be very glad to help. Uh thank you
[44:55] again for your time, your service, and
[44:57] for your thoughtful consideration of
[44:59] these community goals.
[45:08] Good evening, commission members. Um my
[45:10] name is Perry Escridge. I represent the
[45:12] Walom County Realtors and the Building
[45:14] Industry Association of Walcomm County.
[45:16] I submitted a written comment yesterday
[45:17] regarding the fee and loo. I just want
[45:20] to emphasize that that is probably the
[45:22] number one priority of the BIAWC with
[45:25] respect to this ordinance and
[45:26] unfortunately as you as you heard
[45:28] Director Lion say it hasn't made it in
[45:31] and that is imperative
[45:34] for our our builders and it's their like
[45:36] I said it's their number one priority
[45:38] here. The other comments I have are
[45:40] included in a memo that I
[45:43] I hate to say this. I'm embarrassed that
[45:46] I missed this, but um it's nonetheless I
[45:49] think it needs to be brought up. Both in
[45:51] the letter yesterday and in my written
[45:53] memo that I submitted just before this
[45:55] meeting, I talk about the um removal of
[45:58] the committee aspect of the Bellingham
[46:01] Landmark Tree Committee. One of the
[46:03] reasons that we think that committee
[46:04] aspect is so important is because one of
[46:07] the concerns is arbitrary um random
[46:10] decisions by a certain individual who's
[46:12] yet to be identified. um making a
[46:15] decision on somebody's mitigation plan
[46:17] for a development. And the idea was that
[46:20] having a committee do that, you've got
[46:22] the benefit of collegial review, you've
[46:24] got um you know some accountability in
[46:27] there and probably a better chance of
[46:29] consistent decisions that can be you
[46:32] know measured. The bigger issue though
[46:34] that I want to draw your attention to
[46:37] is what happens with a mitigation plan
[46:42] when you go through and this is why I'm
[46:44] embarrassed that I missed this you know
[46:47] because it's only been what two years
[46:48] right if you look at 050
[46:52] and [sighs and gasps]
[46:54] um z yeah 050
[46:57] you see the word mitigation showing up
[46:59] time and time again but then when you
[47:01] actually go to consideration of the
[47:03] review process of a mitigation plan.
[47:06] First of all, only a single member of
[47:08] the committee reviews that mitigation
[47:09] plan.
[47:11] Then when you go over to the next
[47:13] another section in instances of removal
[47:17] of a landmark tree the language is the
[47:20] director
[47:22] has to adopt the conditions of the
[47:25] mitigation plan and it doesn't show in
[47:28] there or reveal that the director has
[47:30] any discretion to make any changes to
[47:33] that plan. If the member of the
[47:35] commission or the committee adopts it,
[47:37] the director shall include those as the
[47:40] conditions.
[47:42] The other reason this is really
[47:44] significant is we use the phrase
[47:47] removal, damage or harm interchangeably
[47:51] with removal.
[47:53] And so if you're just damaging or
[47:55] harming a landmark tree, is that subject
[47:58] to the same requirements as removal or
[48:01] isn't it? And I think we really need
[48:03] some clarity on what is intended there
[48:07] because I'll tell you after 30 years of
[48:08] administrative law practice, all I have
[48:11] to do is walk into a judge and say
[48:14] different language, different result.
[48:17] And that's just that's just
[48:19] administrative law 101. So if we're not
[48:22] consistent in the language, then we're
[48:25] not going to be consistent in the
[48:26] results. So mark this day. I agree with
[48:30] the million trees project that this
[48:32] needs to go back for a little bit more
[48:34] work [laughter]
[48:35] and uh yeah, I'm glad I could finally
[48:37] agree on this this big element of it.
[48:40] Okay, thanks so much.
[48:42] » Thank you.
[48:45] » Any more public comment? Anyone on the
[48:47] web?
[48:51] Okay, it's a smaller group than I
[48:54] expected.
[49:00] Who wants to kick it off this time?
[49:02] Minnie.
[49:08] » Okay. Um
[49:12] yeah, reading through everything uh the
[49:14] ordinance and the letters uh from the
[49:17] public, I would tend to agree that uh
[49:21] although significant work has been done,
[49:23] I mean we're we're getting close, but
[49:25] there's uh there's things to put in. So
[49:28] I guess I'll just start with a question
[49:30] and that is about the fee and llu and
[49:32] you you mentioned it. Um, and before you
[49:35] mentioned it, my my question was going
[49:36] to be, has staff talked about it and why
[49:39] hasn't it made it in there? Uh, if
[49:41] there's a reason for that.
[49:45] » Yeah, I think um probably the best
[49:47] answer is um more sequencing and timing
[49:51] of working with our finance department
[49:54] and trying to get make sure we get the
[49:56] pay structure identified. And so if if
[49:59] we feel that's imperative and as you
[50:00] heard in public comment tonight there's
[50:02] a strong feeling that that is needed
[50:05] that would require additional time. So
[50:07] if as I spoke earlier if if the uh
[50:11] commission is in agreement with that and
[50:13] that's something that we want to you
[50:15] know take into consideration then the
[50:18] ramifications of that decision would be
[50:20] simply to go back to the council and say
[50:22] okay we're not prepared for a public
[50:24] hearing on this for a final ordinance.
[50:27] we need to extend it yet again. Uh allow
[50:31] us the time to build that in and do the
[50:33] work that's necessary to coordinate that
[50:35] with our finance. So again, perfectly
[50:38] viable option. Just wanted to make sure
[50:39] you're clear on what that would entail.
[50:42] » Right. And the other um kind of
[50:46] uh concern from from multiple and myself
[50:50] is the language of the director and um
[50:53] whether he has ultimate authority. Um,
[50:57] so if we go back and we work on it, is
[51:00] this something where we could improve
[51:01] this language as well? And I'm also uh
[51:05] in line with the BIAWC about the
[51:08] language of removal, harm, and damage.
[51:13] » Well, I think um let's let's take both
[51:16] of those independent. So um as far as
[51:19] the director's authority, it
[51:23] the and I we can go back in and look at
[51:25] it. If the goal is to allow the um staff
[51:29] members to make a recommendation to the
[51:31] director, I think that's the intent of
[51:33] the ordinance. If we need to clean
[51:34] something up, we'll do that. But it's to
[51:36] have a decision making authority.
[51:39] Ultimately,
[51:41] um that lies with the director as the
[51:43] responsible entity and those decisions
[51:45] are then appealable to if there is a
[51:48] discretionary appeal uh process in there
[51:50] would be appealable to the hearing
[51:52] examiner. So that's kind of the order of
[51:54] hierarchy. If there's something that we
[51:56] need to adjust or tweak to make sure
[51:58] that's clear, that we're not bound by
[52:00] what the recommendation of the committee
[52:02] is, but that there is some consideration
[52:04] and discretion there, then that's
[52:06] ultimately uh the way it's intended to
[52:09] be structured. I know that there was
[52:10] other public comment that you received
[52:12] in all this that was concerned about the
[52:14] director having too much authority. So
[52:16] we've got to figure out where we want
[52:18] that line to be uh associated with that.
[52:22] The second question if you'll remind me
[52:23] again
[52:25] » Uh the language about remove damage or
[52:28] harm.
[52:29] » Yeah. And so generally the way and I
[52:31] agree with Mr. Esridge that uh I'm not
[52:34] an attorney. he can speak better than I
[52:36] can to that effect. But um oftent times
[52:39] when we talk about um
[52:43] damage or harm or removal
[52:46] um it's when those when that damage or
[52:49] harm effectively is degradating that
[52:53] tree so much that it is you know a
[52:55] removal. So, for example, and this just
[52:57] came up uh within a month or so, where
[53:01] we had a construction site, they removed
[53:04] two trees. We had others that were being
[53:06] protected and preserved. In the process
[53:08] of those two tree removals, they they
[53:12] basically dropped one tree and it
[53:14] delimmed half of the tree. And so, it's
[53:16] completely unbalanced. It's damaged.
[53:18] It's harmed so much that effectively
[53:20] that results in the removal. it's a
[53:23] you're creating a situation where that
[53:26] tree now needs, you know, effectively
[53:28] needs to be removed or doesn't have the
[53:30] same value it once had. Or if somebody's
[53:33] doing something like construction
[53:34] staging and stocking up all their uh
[53:37] construction materials and effectively
[53:39] damaging or harming that to the point
[53:41] where that tree cannot live a fruitful
[53:44] life if as if it were entirely
[53:46] protected, then you've done irreparable
[53:48] damage or harm. Uh and so that's
[53:51] generally is is you know it we don't
[53:54] want to have the ability to we don't
[53:56] want to limit ourselves to just saying
[53:58] oh you you removed it and they can say
[54:01] no we it's still there but you've
[54:02] damaged it to the point where it can't
[54:04] survive and it can't return to a healthy
[54:06] lifestyle. So, we we feel like now if we
[54:09] need to refine that and kind of work
[54:10] through that, um you know, our attorneys
[54:13] did review it. Do feel like that's uh
[54:15] defensible language, but if there's some
[54:17] direction that you'd like to to provide
[54:19] or if we need to take a closer look at
[54:21] that, we're happy to do that as well.
[54:24] » On the uh ordinance, we talk about um
[54:28] offsite areas for mitigation. Um it's
[54:33] not really in the ordinance that I saw.
[54:35] If you take if you're allowed to take a
[54:37] tree and you have to mitigate and plant
[54:39] the five additional trees, is it on-site
[54:42] or are we working to provide off-site
[54:45] areas? Well, when we're talking about
[54:46] the tree bank, that's one option that
[54:48] we're considering is is how do you
[54:51] address that? So, you have to have a
[54:53] receiving parcel, you know, so another
[54:56] piece of private property that's able to
[54:58] do that. We've got to then think through
[55:00] how do we track that for mitigation
[55:03] monitoring and other things like that
[55:04] because it's no longer on the site. It's
[55:07] uh we're not set up currently. It's
[55:09] something we'd have to expand if we're
[55:11] going to talk about taking some of those
[55:13] in public rights of way because then the
[55:15] liability shifts from a private property
[55:17] into maintaining it on public property.
[55:19] So there's a dynamic that goes along
[55:21] there.
[55:23] um we have a lot of properties that
[55:25] we're acquiring through the um watershed
[55:29] acquisition that then bring now
[55:32] technically most of those are out you
[55:34] know around Lake Watkin wershed but
[55:35] they're outside of city proper so are
[55:37] there ways to kind of think through and
[55:39] track you know goals part of what we're
[55:42] trying to understand is um do we have
[55:46] particular goals as a city in terms of
[55:49] what those target uh retention or
[55:52] replacement are right now. Um, and Kirk
[55:56] may have to correct me if I get this
[55:57] incorrect, but on a on a significant
[56:00] tree, which is a tree that's 6 in or
[56:02] greater, it's a one for one replacement.
[56:04] Generally speaking, when you talk about
[56:06] landmark trees, it's a 3:1 replacement.
[56:09] Now, there are opportunities to think
[56:11] through and look at and say, "Okay,
[56:12] well, if I'm taking down a significant
[56:15] number of trees, significant trees and
[56:18] some landmark trees that the replacement
[56:20] value is so great that you can't
[56:23] accommodate the development and the
[56:25] replacement value." And so, that's the
[56:27] part that we're trying to address. So,
[56:29] can we do other things like upsizing
[56:32] some of the replacement trees or looking
[56:34] for different ways to get net ecological
[56:37] benefit so we're not deteriorating but
[56:40] we can look through opportunities to to
[56:42] do a range of different things is it uh
[56:45] and where how do you create value some
[56:48] of that maybe and this is part goes into
[56:50] the um inlue discussion is what are our
[56:56] values as a community Do we want to say
[57:00] okay for example if you're at a 3:1
[57:02] replacement do you want to set up a
[57:04] ratio that says okay at least a third of
[57:08] the replacement trees need to be
[57:09] provided on that property where they can
[57:12] be accommodated maybe a third can be
[57:14] offsite at a receiving parcel somewhere
[57:17] and you can maximize your inlue payment
[57:19] of a third or some I doesn't have to be
[57:22] those numbers I'm just kind of giving
[57:24] you some context so that somebody can't
[57:27] just offer a check and and and raise an
[57:31] entire property that may not align with
[57:33] our direction. So part of why we were
[57:35] trying to work through the urban
[57:37] forestry is because that's where a lot
[57:39] of the policy direction and a lot of
[57:41] that dynamic is going to be um you know
[57:44] brought to the forefront. But again we
[57:46] can we can work through some of those
[57:48] details.
[57:51] » Yeah. I just want to add a maybe a
[57:53] little insider insight into how we
[57:55] actually do this and the the discussion
[57:57] and the comments that we've had about a
[57:59] member or members. So, currently when we
[58:01] get a a request in, whether it's with a
[58:03] development proposal or um whether it's
[58:06] just a standalone tree on a on a piece
[58:09] of property, um there's an email that
[58:11] goes out to the the committee, the
[58:13] designated committee, and that includes
[58:15] an arborist from the public works
[58:17] department, an arborist from the parks
[58:18] department, someone from the
[58:20] environmental planner from the
[58:24] uh planning and community development
[58:25] department, and then the three directors
[58:27] of those departments. And what we were
[58:30] having what we were seeing is we'd have
[58:32] two arborists go out and review and an
[58:35] environmental planner. And having two
[58:37] arborists go out we didn't feel was an
[58:40] efficient use of staff time. And so the
[58:42] thought process is you have one arborist
[58:44] go out evaluate it bring that report
[58:47] back to the three other the the two
[58:50] other the two others go back in and
[58:52] review that report and if they agree
[58:54] then they sign off on it. If they do not
[58:56] agree, that's when additional discussion
[58:58] would happen and occur and occur. So,
[59:00] it's not one individual making a
[59:03] decision. It's one individual that's
[59:05] going out and actually doing a site
[59:07] inspection and evaluating the situation,
[59:09] coming back in with that recommendation
[59:11] for the rest of the committee to
[59:13] actually go over and review. So, maybe
[59:15] that helps clarify um actually how we we
[59:19] do it.
[59:30] In terms of the critical root zone,
[59:32] that's a pretty large dimension for a
[59:36] landmark tree just based on the size of
[59:38] the trunk. Um, that would there would be
[59:42] situations, I'm sure, where the tree
[59:44] happens on a property that is not owned
[59:47] by the developer. It's on an adjacent
[59:49] property. And h how would that fly? I I
[59:52] guess it would probably be applicable
[59:54] for trees that aren't landmark trees as
[59:56] well, and there's probably precedent for
[59:58] that, but I'm not very sure or clear on
[1:00:01] what the current laws are on that type
[1:00:03] of development and how this landmark
[1:00:06] tree ordinance might affect people who
[1:00:08] don't own the land with the tree.
[1:00:11] » So, you bring up a very challenging uh
[1:00:15] portion of the topic. So, let me see if
[1:00:17] I can walk through and Curt will jump in
[1:00:19] too as well. Let's for sake of
[1:00:22] conversation, we're going to say that he
[1:00:24] and I are neighbors. I have a landmark
[1:00:26] tree on my property. The dimension is
[1:00:31] one inch. For every inch of the tree,
[1:00:33] it's one foot. So, if I have a 40inch
[1:00:36] tree, that's 40 feet of critical root
[1:00:39] zone. If that 40t extends onto his
[1:00:42] property and now impedes his ability to
[1:00:45] exercise development capacity on his
[1:00:48] property, the way it's set up right now
[1:00:50] is that he has the ability to
[1:00:54] prune, limb, you know, root prune,
[1:00:58] branch prune, do all the things that you
[1:01:00] know that up to his property line. But
[1:01:03] if he's causing detrimental impacts to
[1:01:06] that tree, that's where it's
[1:01:08] problematic. So there is a there is a
[1:01:12] scenario whereby my tree impacts his
[1:01:16] ability to to build on his property uh
[1:01:20] or to do certain things on his property.
[1:01:22] So that absolutely is a component of
[1:01:25] what we're dealing with and what we're
[1:01:26] talking about. But as long as as long as
[1:01:29] the um pruning or um you know tree
[1:01:34] maintenance that he's doing does not
[1:01:36] impact the overall health and quality of
[1:01:38] the tree, then he has every right to you
[1:01:41] know to to manage it from from his side
[1:01:44] of the property line, if you will.
[1:01:45] » Is that rule applicable for any tree or
[1:01:48] is it just for landmark trees?
[1:01:50] » I believe that's any tree.
[1:01:52] » Yeah, pretty much any any significant
[1:01:54] tree. But from the um for the
[1:01:56] significant trees, like Blake said, we
[1:01:58] have run into a couple of these
[1:01:59] situations. And what we really do is we
[1:02:01] rely a lot on our arborist. We rely on
[1:02:03] the arborists that the property owner um
[1:02:06] hires. So they're hiring someone to go
[1:02:08] out and evaluate the impact of their
[1:02:10] development. And then our arborists and
[1:02:13] the committee review that report. And
[1:02:15] what we've seen in these cases where
[1:02:18] Blake's tree is impacting my right to do
[1:02:21] my my project, um the arborists have
[1:02:25] been able to work together to say,
[1:02:27] "Well, if you move it a little bit over
[1:02:29] here or if you do hand digging here for
[1:02:32] these utilities that it's not going to
[1:02:34] cause significant damage." So, most
[1:02:37] trees can withstand a bit of um uh I
[1:02:41] guess impact, if you will. And I think
[1:02:43] again we're going back to those
[1:02:45] arborists who are those specialists when
[1:02:46] it comes to tree um care as well. And so
[1:02:50] really relying on their expertise in
[1:02:52] that area to look for alternatives. Um
[1:02:55] and in every case that I can think of,
[1:02:58] we've been able to come up with some
[1:02:59] alternative that um that works. the if I
[1:03:03] may um the ordinance also has in there
[1:03:06] some degree of flexibility to
[1:03:09] accommodate if there's a intention to
[1:03:11] retain the landmark tree. So reducing
[1:03:15] setbacks, increasing lot coverage. Uh we
[1:03:18] we've already eliminated parking
[1:03:19] citywide. There's so there's some
[1:03:22] dynamics that are there. Also what gets
[1:03:24] into that reasonleness is we talk a
[1:03:26] little bit about okay different types
[1:03:28] and again there's costs and implications
[1:03:30] to all these things. So, I don't want to
[1:03:31] imply that that it's just easy to do
[1:03:33] some of these, but looking at a
[1:03:36] different type of footer instead of
[1:03:37] doing a, you know, a trench uh uh
[1:03:40] foundation for a particular home where
[1:03:42] you're having to, you know, prune off
[1:03:44] significant portion of the roots for a
[1:03:46] landmark tree. Can you do post and beam?
[1:03:49] Can you do other things that allow you
[1:03:52] to, you know, to minimize the impact to
[1:03:55] some of those critical root zone areas
[1:03:57] and stuff?
[1:03:58] I do see this being challenging for, you
[1:04:01] know, if you have an area that's
[1:04:03] undeveloped where you have wooded
[1:04:04] acreage and these lots are being created
[1:04:07] that are smaller, people are going to
[1:04:09] want to develop as, you know,
[1:04:11] substantial amounts of the width of that
[1:04:13] lot in a lot of cases. and seems like
[1:04:15] there would be some circumstances where
[1:04:17] it's very difficult to avoid affecting
[1:04:21] um you know the critical root structure
[1:04:24] and um but I guess that's been a
[1:04:26] condition that's been ongoing for
[1:04:29] doesn't necessarily have to do with the
[1:04:30] landmark tree ordinance. It's just that
[1:04:32] probably has some more teeth to it. Um,
[1:04:35] other question I had is I the fee that
[1:04:38] we discussed, there's also a fine um as
[1:04:41] well that is tied to if you do remove a
[1:04:45] landmark tree. Um, have we thought about
[1:04:48] just, you know, it's like I mean is the
[1:04:51] fee going to be, you know, more than the
[1:04:53] fine, less than the fine? How how does
[1:04:55] that work with those two things? Because
[1:04:57] it's like you could see scenarios where
[1:04:58] people would just cut down the tree and
[1:05:01] and and get the fine. the the fine is
[1:05:04] based off of the maximum amount we can
[1:05:08] charge and it's still being considered a
[1:05:11] gross misdemeanor. So, this is a civil
[1:05:14] violation, not a criminal violation. And
[1:05:17] so, the courts set some of those uh
[1:05:21] monetary amounts. So, when we go through
[1:05:23] and if we are administering those fines
[1:05:26] and penalties um then that's where that
[1:05:29] dollar amount comes from. We have not
[1:05:31] set the inloo payment so I can't say
[1:05:34] entirely what that is but um that's
[1:05:36] certainly something that we can consider
[1:05:37] to make sure uh it's commensurate but
[1:05:40] the goal I think the goal at least uh
[1:05:43] initially from our thought process with
[1:05:46] the inloo payment is um thinking about
[1:05:51] the dynamic of um where you're you know
[1:05:55] so one purchasing the tree uh two
[1:05:58] planting it and then having as the
[1:06:01] ordinance calls out for a five-year
[1:06:03] monitoring plan. So, there has to be
[1:06:06] enough in there to accommodate that, you
[1:06:09] know, that effort to say, okay, you're
[1:06:12] planting it here and you're and you
[1:06:13] know, whose responsibility is it to
[1:06:15] monitor and and to go through that is
[1:06:17] that fall back then onto city staff to
[1:06:19] do that work? Um, you know, where that's
[1:06:22] where that's occurring. So, we'll we'll
[1:06:24] we'll need to do that work. We have not
[1:06:34] um the section on removal I'm generally
[1:06:38] just concerned there's a lot of
[1:06:39] subjectivity to
[1:06:42] um you know if reasonable efforts if if
[1:06:45] it impacts the reasonable use of the
[1:06:46] property one
[1:06:49] uh if reasonable efforts have been made
[1:06:51] to avoid and minimize the impact um and
[1:06:54] then there's a priority order sequential
[1:06:57] order of preference avoiding the impact,
[1:07:00] minimizing the impact, compensation for
[1:07:03] removal
[1:07:05] at a ratio determined by the director.
[1:07:07] So there is sort of a facility for a
[1:07:09] calculation of an in I guess that's kind
[1:07:12] of a unspecified inluff fee. Um and then
[1:07:15] lastly the the the reductions you
[1:07:18] mentioned setbacks lot coverage um upon
[1:07:21] the finding that the reduction will not
[1:07:23] create significant impacts.
[1:07:25] That last phrase there is is that trying
[1:07:29] to reference impacts to the tree
[1:07:31] situation or just that the setback
[1:07:33] reduction or any of these other
[1:07:35] reductions won't
[1:07:37] impact the neighborhood character or the
[1:07:40] neighbor or like what is the impact what
[1:07:41] we're referring to there.
[1:07:46] » It's often referring to um
[1:07:50] let me make sure I want
[1:07:52] » To item four. I'm Yeah. Roman number
[1:07:55] four.
[1:07:57] Yes. So, when you're when you're
[1:08:00] altering that development component, so
[1:08:04] let's say you're building an ADU in a
[1:08:06] rear yard or you're making an extension
[1:08:07] on that home that that
[1:08:11] uh reduction does not create another
[1:08:14] impact that's greater on the you know
[1:08:17] within the development proposal. So um
[1:08:21] you could argue uh loss of you know
[1:08:25] privacy or you could argue um you know
[1:08:28] some other component that is is it
[1:08:30] creating is it is it a fire concern is a
[1:08:33] building code concern you know what are
[1:08:35] the other things that go into that as
[1:08:37] you're beginning to evaluate and look at
[1:08:40] those different things. So we want to
[1:08:41] make sure we're not trading one thing
[1:08:44] and making something else worse. Yeah,
[1:08:50] some of those are more serious like a
[1:08:53] fire code thing than others. There could
[1:08:55] be, you know, view or there could be a
[1:08:56] lot more subject subjective concerns
[1:08:58] there.
[1:08:59] » Yeah. And we we I I don't want to imply
[1:09:01] that you can just circumvent building
[1:09:04] code or fire code. That's not that's not
[1:09:06] what I was trying to imply with that
[1:09:08] statement. But just looking at um the
[1:09:11] impacts of that alternative scenario and
[1:09:14] trying to determine are we are we having
[1:09:18] good intentions but creating some other
[1:09:20] circumstance that we need to you know
[1:09:23] » Evaluate further.
[1:09:24] » So what does this priority order section
[1:09:26] look like when when you're you know
[1:09:28] you've tried to reasonably work around
[1:09:30] this tree there's a conversation about a
[1:09:32] fee. There's a conversation about
[1:09:34] setbacks. Like how how would you balance
[1:09:36] that out? Well, you know, this takes a
[1:09:38] lot of um direction from how we do
[1:09:42] wetland mitigation sequencing and and
[1:09:45] impacts to that. So, it kind of follows
[1:09:46] a similar rhythm and pattern in that
[1:09:48] respect. So, again, the goal is always
[1:09:51] to start with avoidance uh and not uh
[1:09:55] you know, not impact it. So, if there's
[1:09:56] an alternative design scenario where we
[1:09:59] can say, hey, we're not going to impact
[1:10:00] it at all, then that's kind of where you
[1:10:03] start. And if there are no reasonable
[1:10:05] options that you can do, then you can
[1:10:08] say, okay, well, well, what can we do to
[1:10:10] minimize the impact to the greatest
[1:10:12] extent possible? So that's when you get
[1:10:14] into Roman numeral number two there. Is
[1:10:16] there a way to do certain things that
[1:10:19] help benefit it? May not eliminate the
[1:10:22] impact entirely, but we're going to
[1:10:25] significantly take it down to just the
[1:10:27] minimal amount that's that's still allow
[1:10:29] reasonable. The compensating piece is
[1:10:31] really talking about if there's
[1:10:33] tradeoffs for certain things, you know,
[1:10:35] where you can say, okay, um, and it's
[1:10:39] probably a little easier to to
[1:10:41] contemplate when you're talking about
[1:10:43] uh, wetlands because you can think about
[1:10:45] it from the context of saying, okay,
[1:10:46] well, if I if I have a buffer averaging
[1:10:50] and I say, okay, I'm going to reduce the
[1:10:52] buffer here and extend it there, you can
[1:10:54] do some u compensating and and so maybe
[1:10:58] on the um landmark tree dynamic where
[1:11:02] you say, "Okay, I've got a 40 foot uh
[1:11:04] root zone. I'm going to impact it a
[1:11:07] little bit over here, but I'm going to
[1:11:09] leave a little bit more space uh in this
[1:11:12] area to support it." So you can offset
[1:11:14] it by kind of going through the intent
[1:11:16] of all of this is to go through those
[1:11:20] different design iterations and really
[1:11:22] contemplate how you can try to
[1:11:27] balance out those competing priorities
[1:11:29] and those competing objectives. And so
[1:11:31] no two projects are the same. You're
[1:11:34] looking at all of those kind of things
[1:11:35] and trying to figure out okay how do we
[1:11:37] re and again with the goal of protection
[1:11:39] and preservation. But this is one of the
[1:11:42] things that I think to some degree
[1:11:44] frustrates the building community is how
[1:11:48] do I know if this project's going to
[1:11:49] work until I sit down and kind of design
[1:11:51] all this stuff up front? And so there
[1:11:54] is, you've heard me talk a little bit
[1:11:56] about kind of the upfront work that now
[1:11:59] needs to be done. I'm doing tree surveys
[1:12:00] and I'm getting a civil engineer to do
[1:12:02] some preliminary utility work and trying
[1:12:05] to figure out all these things and going
[1:12:07] through a couple different design
[1:12:08] iterations of how to place things on the
[1:12:11] property because I don't know what's you
[1:12:15] know what the sequencing is. I don't
[1:12:16] know what's considered reasonable and so
[1:12:18] we're going through those variables. Uh
[1:12:21] and so there's a commitment both from
[1:12:23] our development community side and from
[1:12:25] our staff side. And I think that speaks
[1:12:27] a little bit to the some of the comments
[1:12:29] you heard from from both our public
[1:12:31] commenters tonight where they want some
[1:12:33] of that predictability. Um, but it's a
[1:12:36] it's a challenging situation where you
[1:12:38] want a certain degree of predictability,
[1:12:40] but then you also want to maintain some
[1:12:42] flexibility to to be able to look for
[1:12:46] design considerations that weren't um
[1:12:48] codified in some of this. And so that's
[1:12:50] the intent behind of this is to give
[1:12:52] some direction but not be so narrow, so
[1:12:55] tight that you can't consider the
[1:12:57] one-offs and the variables.
[1:12:59] » Have we gone through this process during
[1:13:00] the interim?
[1:13:01] » Yes.
[1:13:03] » Extensively
[1:13:04] » For months.
[1:13:06] » It years.
[1:13:07] » Years.
[1:13:08] » Yeah.
[1:13:11] » And
[1:13:11] » What what types of outcomes have you
[1:13:14] seen from this mitigation? We've seen uh
[1:13:18] we've seen a a probably a full range of
[1:13:21] them. Some that go to Yep, that makes
[1:13:24] sense where that tree is located on the
[1:13:27] property. There's no way of you know
[1:13:30] reasonably using that property. So the
[1:13:32] tree uh warrants removal. We've some
[1:13:35] we've seen some where you are placing
[1:13:39] the you know the home for example
[1:13:41] somewhere else like sliding it further
[1:13:44] forward. um you know, reconfiguring
[1:13:47] where they sit on the lot, thinking
[1:13:49] through the shape of that home. Instead
[1:13:52] of just being a rectangular home, maybe
[1:13:54] it's now an L-shape and it, you know,
[1:13:56] and there's some accommodations there.
[1:13:58] We've even gone so far in our thought
[1:14:00] process and we're working with one of
[1:14:02] the council members on thinking about
[1:14:04] different uh home types. So, uh one's
[1:14:08] called a a mobile dwelling unit and so
[1:14:11] it's like a park model where it sits on
[1:14:13] a chassis. Well, that may not require a
[1:14:16] permanent foundation that then impacts
[1:14:18] the root, you know. So, there's
[1:14:19] different dynamics and things like that
[1:14:21] that we're trying to kind of think
[1:14:23] through and work through to say um
[1:14:26] driveway design is another example.
[1:14:29] Okay. Instead of doing an impervious
[1:14:31] driveway, can you think about other
[1:14:33] materials or other design components
[1:14:35] that do that kind of stuff? So, um I
[1:14:38] don't know if you want to elaborate, but
[1:14:40] » No, I think um it really comes down to
[1:14:43] making sure that all alter alternatives
[1:14:45] are being addressed, right? The the um
[1:14:48] the days of saying this is the the plan
[1:14:52] that I want and I'm going to put it on
[1:14:53] any lot anywhere, those are gone. Um
[1:14:57] we're trying to balance too many things.
[1:14:59] And so I think what we look at is have
[1:15:01] you really explored alternatives? Um and
[1:15:03] that's really important. Um, and I think
[1:15:07] I'd be willing to bet that Mr. Estridge
[1:15:09] and other people that have been in um,
[1:15:12] in the development world, they go
[1:15:14] through these alternatives already,
[1:15:16] right? They're trying to see if they're
[1:15:17] proform work. They they they take our
[1:15:19] existing rules and regulations. They
[1:15:21] throw out a design out there. They work
[1:15:23] with their designers to put something
[1:15:24] down on the table and then they go back
[1:15:26] in and they go tweak it. Well, this rule
[1:15:28] doesn't allow this or maybe that rule
[1:15:29] doesn't allow that. So, they they end up
[1:15:31] tweaking it. And we see this a lot in
[1:15:33] design review. um we will see a project
[1:15:36] that comes in for an application and we
[1:15:39] we look at it and go well have you
[1:15:40] thought about this and the designer says
[1:15:42] yeah that was plan number 32 right we've
[1:15:45] already gone through all of these and
[1:15:46] and in them doing their work to ensure
[1:15:50] that um the project can move forward um
[1:15:54] they go through these alternatives and
[1:15:55] so it's really to I don't think it's
[1:15:58] asking more than um much more of what
[1:16:02] they're doing already um it does cost
[1:16:04] more. Um that there's the reality of
[1:16:06] that and and that's we're trying to
[1:16:08] balance these two, you know, the
[1:16:10] preservation and and development and um
[1:16:14] those upfront costs are real. Can't you
[1:16:17] can't hide that.
[1:16:18] » I thought of another example that might
[1:16:20] help. So, uh we were working on a
[1:16:22] project a couple months back. Uh three
[1:16:24] lots side by side. Builder wants to come
[1:16:28] in. There's four landmark trees on the
[1:16:30] property and a variety of significant
[1:16:32] trees. So when you talk about that
[1:16:34] compensation piece, we said, "Okay, as
[1:16:37] we start to do the tree um survey and
[1:16:41] look at the health and the quality and
[1:16:42] the size of those trees, um we started
[1:16:45] working with uh the project planner,
[1:16:47] with the applicant about where they were
[1:16:50] placed on the site, how they were
[1:16:51] arranged on the site, what we could do.
[1:16:53] We we moved things forward a little bit
[1:16:56] more to give more preservation uh space
[1:16:58] for the landmark trees. it became very
[1:17:01] clear that one of the landmark trees,
[1:17:04] for example, was um in declining and
[1:17:07] poor health as it existed on the
[1:17:09] property already. So, it didn't make
[1:17:11] sense to retain that particular landmark
[1:17:14] tree, but you had one, you know, over
[1:17:17] here on the site that's, you know, 32 in
[1:17:20] and in great health. So, it's like,
[1:17:22] okay, well, we'll we'll allow for you to
[1:17:24] remove this landmark tree that's in
[1:17:27] declining and poor health, but you need
[1:17:29] to protect and preserve that one because
[1:17:31] that has the potential to become a
[1:17:33] landmark tree and we don't want to lose
[1:17:34] out on that. So that's kind of that
[1:17:36] compensatory thing where we're saying,
[1:17:38] okay, we had another one another example
[1:17:40] where again they removed um multiple
[1:17:43] trees on the site, but we wanted to
[1:17:45] protect and preserve others and think
[1:17:47] through utility placements and driveway
[1:17:49] locations and construction staging areas
[1:17:52] and placement on the lot. So it's a it's
[1:17:54] a bigger effort.
[1:17:56] » I think I was reading that compensating
[1:17:58] as monetary, but the way you explained
[1:18:00] it, it's more about balancing or
[1:18:01] averaging.
[1:18:02] » Yeah. Okay.
[1:18:05] That's all.
[1:18:10] I guess I feel um convinced after all
[1:18:14] this discussion and and public comment
[1:18:18] and the language set forth overlaps to a
[1:18:22] degree with what would need to be
[1:18:26] fleshed out more in the tree bank or you
[1:18:29] know fee in lie of you know the proposed
[1:18:32] mitigation plan says you know
[1:18:34] replacement of 3 to one or is required
[1:18:36] by the director. And then we're just
[1:18:38] discussing how the fee in lie of would
[1:18:40] need to determine those things. So it
[1:18:42] does seem like there's enough um
[1:18:46] reason to to pause and to further
[1:18:50] develop this from a variety of fronts I
[1:18:53] think um of what does the fee in lie of
[1:18:56] mean the tree bank reasonable use um
[1:19:00] role of the director of a few different
[1:19:02] areas. So, I think I've I feel confident
[1:19:05] that that's where I've I've landed. Um,
[1:19:09] and I don't know if I I don't think I
[1:19:11] would feel comfortable recommending this
[1:19:13] move forward at this moment. I don't
[1:19:14] know if anybody else
[1:19:18] » Thoughts on that.
[1:19:18] » What would extending the emergency and
[1:19:21] and doing this more in tandem with the
[1:19:24] urban tree plan look like? Is that
[1:19:26] feasible?
[1:19:27] » Oh, absolutely. Yeah. And that's
[1:19:29] perfectly within your discretion to to
[1:19:31] take that position. So um my
[1:19:34] understanding of Washington state law is
[1:19:36] that there is no limitation on uh how
[1:19:40] long an interim can stay interim. They
[1:19:43] don't predefine that. It's only that it
[1:19:46] h it can only be done in sixmonth
[1:19:48] increments. So essentially what we would
[1:19:51] have to do is prior to the expiration of
[1:19:55] the current interim ordinance which is
[1:19:56] September of this year we would have to
[1:19:59] go back to the city council hold another
[1:20:01] public hearing with them saying we'd
[1:20:03] like to extend it an additional 6
[1:20:05] months. So basically it would go from
[1:20:07] September of 26 to March of 27 and then
[1:20:11] that would give us the additional time.
[1:20:13] And again that's a perfectly viable
[1:20:16] option. We would basically go back to
[1:20:18] the city council and say we got some
[1:20:21] clear direction from the planning
[1:20:22] commission and from our public comment
[1:20:24] that they would like these components in
[1:20:26] the ordinance. We need additional time
[1:20:29] to make those adjustments and
[1:20:31] refinements and then we would you know
[1:20:34] if they agree then they would extend the
[1:20:36] interim ordinance. We would then come
[1:20:38] back do the work that you've requested
[1:20:40] of us come back to you in the future
[1:20:43] time frame to say did we get this right?
[1:20:45] you can give us additional direction if
[1:20:47] you need to and then we would go forward
[1:20:50] and we would just keep going in six
[1:20:52] month increments for until we till you
[1:20:55] felt like there was something you could
[1:20:56] support.
[1:20:57] » Is does some of those pieces need the
[1:21:01] urban tree urban forestry plan
[1:21:04] work to be finished? Like are we tying
[1:21:06] oursel to that project as well?
[1:21:08] » Um go that way.
[1:21:10] » It certainly helps inform the process.
[1:21:13] It's not mandatory. I mean, we have,
[1:21:15] like I said earlier, we have other codes
[1:21:18] that are in place that begin to inform
[1:21:20] all of this, but it's a it's a little
[1:21:23] bit of cart before the horse in terms of
[1:21:26] typically those the comp plan is our
[1:21:28] overarching document. Then you have the
[1:21:30] functional plans like the bike master
[1:21:32] plan, PE. So, the urban forestry plan
[1:21:34] sets that kind of next tier of policy,
[1:21:38] if you will, and then usually you
[1:21:40] implement codes. there's there's not an
[1:21:43] obligation to do it that way. It just
[1:21:45] helps to kind of again inform and set
[1:21:47] especially when you have competing
[1:21:49] priorities. But if we agree collectively
[1:21:53] that the goal is still to start with a
[1:21:56] preservation mindset to then um allow
[1:22:00] for housing development to occur and
[1:22:03] some you know limited loss and removal
[1:22:07] of those trees and that we want to
[1:22:10] provide a range of options in your
[1:22:13] sequencing conversation. Essentially
[1:22:15] what you what you would anticipate is if
[1:22:18] you look at that section of the code you
[1:22:20] know whe and I'm I don't want to commit
[1:22:23] to this entirely but if you're talking
[1:22:24] about removal then one of those
[1:22:27] sequencing is paying an inlue fee
[1:22:31] instead of a replant requirement and
[1:22:33] again part of the direction and you can
[1:22:36] provide at least you can provide
[1:22:38] direction or you can provide thoughts if
[1:22:39] you like about do you like the idea of
[1:22:42] having some on-site requirement, some
[1:22:46] potential off-site accommodation and in
[1:22:49] loo and we can figure out the ratios or
[1:22:53] are you comfortable just allowing in loo
[1:22:55] entirely? I mean that's kind of those
[1:22:57] are some of the pieces that we would
[1:22:59] have to um identify as we begin to do
[1:23:03] that and we can do that work and bring
[1:23:04] back a recommendation or if you have
[1:23:06] thoughts on it I'm happy to you know
[1:23:08] take those comments tonight. If you get
[1:23:11] to the point where you want to give us
[1:23:12] direction, then we can take that too.
[1:23:14] But don't feel obligated like you have
[1:23:16] to give us direction. We we can we can
[1:23:18] craft it further.
[1:23:20] » My biggest concern has been that I could
[1:23:22] see that this ordinance would really
[1:23:23] affect people financially. Um that it
[1:23:26] could really have a big impact on
[1:23:28] someone. And so I'm wondering if
[1:23:32] there's, you know, has there been
[1:23:34] thought put into maybe giving benefit to
[1:23:39] people who retain landmark trees or or
[1:23:42] you know, somehow
[1:23:44] » In what format in terms of like a
[1:23:46] financial break?
[1:23:49] » Maybe. So yeah, because I feel like that
[1:23:52] that's a I mean it's a benefit to the
[1:23:56] community, but a lot of people, you
[1:23:58] know, that this ordinance happened
[1:24:00] suddenly, so people didn't necessarily
[1:24:04] know that it was going to happen and it
[1:24:05] happened. And
[1:24:06] » I think most people like trees. I mean
[1:24:09] most people like the idea of having a a
[1:24:11] forested
[1:24:13] um city but if then the fee in lie of or
[1:24:16] the fine or these other things become
[1:24:18] such that it's just like well it's just
[1:24:20] a a hit that you have to take in order
[1:24:22] to do this kind of wonder if that we've
[1:24:24] talked about the
[1:24:25] » Well and and keep in mind the at least
[1:24:27] the way I'm thinking about it and I can
[1:24:30] adjust if necessary but the fee in lie
[1:24:33] is to give somebody an option right um
[1:24:37] and So, it's never a requirement that
[1:24:40] you must pay this. It's not an
[1:24:42] application or a permit fee. It's, hey,
[1:24:45] I don't physically have the space or I
[1:24:48] don't want to replant. I want an
[1:24:51] alternative. So, it's a it's a choice.
[1:24:54] Now, they wouldn't necessarily it's up
[1:24:56] to us to decide what that fee amount
[1:24:58] would be. And so that may not feel like
[1:25:01] a choice, but
[1:25:02] » Yeah, I just feel like there's a lot of
[1:25:04] lots that if you draw a diameter of 70
[1:25:07] feet circle on a lot, it's going to have
[1:25:10] a big impact. And I know that there's
[1:25:12] flexibility within like, you know, get
[1:25:14] an arborist and research what you can do
[1:25:16] and look at all the, you know, things
[1:25:18] that are possible. But I just see that
[1:25:20] as being, you know, it's going to be a
[1:25:21] challenge. It has been a challenge for
[1:25:23] people. And so um
[1:25:25] » Well and I think part of where the um
[1:25:28] urban forestry plan helps to inform that
[1:25:32] but again uh are not obligated to do
[1:25:36] that is when we talked about it in 2024
[1:25:41] the council was talking about a target
[1:25:44] canopy for the entire city. Um, if you
[1:25:49] go back to that draft plan, the draft
[1:25:51] plan looked at what our current
[1:25:53] conditions are and we have about 40%
[1:25:56] canopy coverage for the city. To get to
[1:25:59] some of the development goals, the
[1:26:01] housing goals in particular that we
[1:26:03] have, it's going to be hard to maintain
[1:26:06] 40%.
[1:26:08] So, the question becomes,
[1:26:11] what level are we at? Uh, or where do we
[1:26:15] want to be? What is it? Is there an
[1:26:17] aspirational target? Are we comfortable
[1:26:19] dropping below 40 and doing that? And I
[1:26:21] will say, but for maybe one other city
[1:26:24] in the state of Washington, 40% is very
[1:26:29] um
[1:26:31] aggressive is not the right word. It's a
[1:26:32] high it's a high high standard. There's
[1:26:34] not many if any at all that are above
[1:26:37] 40%. So if we're comfortable scaling
[1:26:41] back on that then you can talk about
[1:26:45] different replant ratios. You can talk
[1:26:47] about different in you can talk about
[1:26:49] different kind of compensation if but if
[1:26:52] we truly are trying to stay at 40 or get
[1:26:56] higher than 40 then we've got to factor
[1:26:59] that in because we're we're not going to
[1:27:01] get there without those replant values.
[1:27:04] And so that's where some of the policy
[1:27:06] discussions. Now could we do something
[1:27:09] ahead of time and then if the policy
[1:27:11] discussion is more ambitious then we
[1:27:14] come back and change the code we could
[1:27:16] do it that way too I mean none of these
[1:27:18] codes are
[1:27:20] you know etched in stone there is a
[1:27:22] process to amend them so it's just a
[1:27:24] it's a cart and horse kind of scenario
[1:27:32] » Just on that comment I feel like that's
[1:27:35] a classic problem of the commons where
[1:27:38] the benefits are diffused and the risks
[1:27:40] are concentrated and the tree is chopped
[1:27:41] down. And I think that's one of the
[1:27:44] reasons why there's value in a policy
[1:27:47] like this to set that preservation
[1:27:49] mindset to have a government policy step
[1:27:52] in place where the private incentive is
[1:27:54] not aligned with a community incentive.
[1:27:57] Um so I just to re reiterate the value
[1:28:00] in having this uh mindset and structure
[1:28:03] in place for that very reason. Um, you
[1:28:06] know, nobody's talking about
[1:28:07] compensating cyclists because they're
[1:28:09] not polluting like the cars are, though.
[1:28:11] I would love that. Um, a similar a
[1:28:14] similar thing,
[1:28:20] » Rose.
[1:28:22] » Yeah, thank you. Um, yeah, I I echo a
[1:28:26] lot of the comments. I think there's the
[1:28:27] tension between like predictability and
[1:28:30] clarity and having the ability to uh
[1:28:34] make decisions based on the uh on
[1:28:38] specific projects and specific things.
[1:28:41] Um, one of the things I mentioned uh,
[1:28:45] last time we met is is there a way that
[1:28:48] we can create a trigger or some way of
[1:28:52] um, monitoring the sort of the
[1:28:55] challenges, the struggles, the
[1:28:57] opportunities and like
[1:28:59] I I guess what I'm looking at is could
[1:29:02] we create a policy today that said in
[1:29:04] two years we're going to look back and
[1:29:06] we're going to have an analysis of how
[1:29:09] this policy either
[1:29:11] helped tree protection and what the
[1:29:13] impacts were to housing so that we can
[1:29:15] really like hone in on what it what it
[1:29:18] is and I know that you all have been
[1:29:20] working with it for a couple of years
[1:29:22] already so that you you have some of
[1:29:24] that intrinsic knowledge but I think
[1:29:26] just getting it really clear and having
[1:29:29] a report out to say you know and then
[1:29:31] maybe at that time we're also aligning
[1:29:34] any revisions to uh the urban tree
[1:29:36] canopy plan.
[1:29:38] So the short answer is yes, but I think
[1:29:41] the longer answer is
[1:29:44] understanding what those measurables are
[1:29:47] that you all would want to see or that
[1:29:49] we would need to see as a community um
[1:29:51] are really where the details would lie.
[1:29:55] Um, you may recall we had the um, I
[1:30:00] think it was the 2018 ADU regulations
[1:30:03] where it said, "Hey, if you get to more
[1:30:05] than 50 in any particular neighborhood
[1:30:07] or if you get more than 200 citywide or
[1:30:10] and there was a couple triggers in that
[1:30:13] code that required us to kind of
[1:30:15] re-evaluate
[1:30:16] um, our rules and regulations. So, we
[1:30:19] could certainly build in something like
[1:30:22] that, but we would have to figure out
[1:30:23] what those,
[1:30:26] you know, what those milestones, what
[1:30:27] those trigger points are for that piece.
[1:30:30] [snorts] Um, you also heard some public
[1:30:32] comment tonight about um, you know, that
[1:30:35] wanting that additional clarity um, and
[1:30:39] transparency on certain things. We
[1:30:41] certainly set out to do that with the
[1:30:45] inventory. Uh I will be very frank and
[1:30:48] somewhat blunt. Um that was a much
[1:30:52] bigger staff lift than we ever
[1:30:53] anticipated. Uh and and so it we have
[1:30:58] not maintained that the way it was
[1:31:00] intended. So that is something we would
[1:31:01] need to double down on uh and do if
[1:31:04] that's if that's the broader
[1:31:06] expectation. But um you know that was
[1:31:09] just that was one of the things in our
[1:31:11] existing workload and our resource
[1:31:12] availability where we just couldn't keep
[1:31:14] pace with it as as was initially
[1:31:17] intended. Um now can we can we refine
[1:31:20] that? Can we get better at that? Sure we
[1:31:22] can certainly work towards that but we
[1:31:24] are in a constrained environment. U and
[1:31:26] so that's a it's one of those things
[1:31:28] that just didn't we didn't quite frankly
[1:31:31] get done.
[1:31:35] Um, if we're not moving,
[1:31:38] » I think
[1:31:39] » Oh, go ahead. Sorry.
[1:31:41] » Sorry.
[1:31:43] One of the things that I appreciated
[1:31:44] about that uh trigger in the ADU code
[1:31:48] was that it did come up like it forced
[1:31:51] it to come up again. And I feel like
[1:31:53] often we say, "Oh, well, you know,
[1:31:56] code's not etched in stone." And then 20
[1:31:59] years later we're like, "Well, this is
[1:32:01] the way it's always been, you know." Um,
[1:32:03] so just wanting to think if there was a
[1:32:05] way that um makes us think critically
[1:32:09] again in the future and not just let
[1:32:11] this get stale.
[1:32:13] » Yeah. And certainly open to um I mean we
[1:32:16] could we could absolutely give that some
[1:32:18] more thought. It sounds like if we're
[1:32:19] going to take a little time, we can come
[1:32:21] back with some you know considerations
[1:32:23] and options uh you know to help kind of
[1:32:26] guide that conversation. or if there's
[1:32:28] things that you all think tonight make
[1:32:30] sense, we're happy to take that that
[1:32:32] direction.
[1:32:39] Oh, I was just going to say
[1:32:40] process-wise, if we're not moving
[1:32:41] towards like clean adop approval, um do
[1:32:46] you feel like we've kind of popcorned
[1:32:47] some comments to you, would would it be
[1:32:49] helpful if we packaged some thoughts
[1:32:51] into a a motion on some key key elements
[1:32:55] that were are important to
[1:32:57] » Well, let me reiterate what I think I've
[1:33:00] heard and if you feel like we need to
[1:33:03] » Tighten that up a little bit, then I'm
[1:33:06] happy to take that. Um, it sounds to me
[1:33:09] like we're not at a point where we're
[1:33:10] comfortable recommending as presented to
[1:33:13] you tonight and that there is additional
[1:33:15] direction and more work that needs to be
[1:33:17] done. And the things that I heard u in
[1:33:20] particular were looking at the uh inloo
[1:33:25] fee and inloo program and what that
[1:33:27] might look like in a in a more defined
[1:33:29] manner but we haven't defined what that
[1:33:32] looks like yet. So, if I'm operating on
[1:33:35] just that, then I'm looking at it from
[1:33:37] the standpoint where we're going to
[1:33:38] craft something and present it to you
[1:33:40] all and let you react and respond to it.
[1:33:43] But if you have thoughts on what you'd
[1:33:44] like to see, I encourage those to come
[1:33:47] out. Um, there was concern about the
[1:33:50] director's authority uh with regard to
[1:33:54] in particular with regard to the
[1:33:56] landmark tree committee and the
[1:33:58] recommendation that they're going to
[1:33:59] provide back. Um there was additional
[1:34:03] interest in looking at the kind of
[1:34:05] damage, harm, removal trilogy of terms
[1:34:10] and and where we can go there. Um
[1:34:14] so those are the three most prominent
[1:34:16] ones. Um I didn't we talked about the
[1:34:19] fine amount but I I think I responded
[1:34:22] and so I'm not sure if there's more work
[1:34:23] you feel like needs to be done there but
[1:34:26] um
[1:34:26] » I think that'd be more tied to the fee
[1:34:28] in lie of because
[1:34:29] » So we can consider that as part of the
[1:34:31] fee in lie and try to evaluate that a
[1:34:34] little bit further. Um,
[1:34:38] is there anything? And then the
[1:34:40] triggers, the thing that Rose just
[1:34:42] brought up is what what would be
[1:34:44] something that we would want to use as a
[1:34:46] threshold or a milestone to say, "Hey,
[1:34:48] if we hit this, then we need to look
[1:34:50] closer." Um, right now what we don't
[1:34:54] have
[1:34:56] identified, and this is something that
[1:34:58] we've talked about with the urban
[1:35:00] forestry plan, is that the LAR data that
[1:35:04] set our tree canopy number, the 40% that
[1:35:07] I referenced was done in 2018. What we
[1:35:10] don't have is how frequently the city is
[1:35:14] doing that. So that may be one of those
[1:35:16] triggers is to say, you know, where are
[1:35:19] we comfortable if we see the other thing
[1:35:22] that's probably worth mentioning just in
[1:35:24] the overall context because it can
[1:35:25] really impact those numbers is
[1:35:30] private property owners have the ability
[1:35:32] to go to the state and get a forest
[1:35:36] practices permit. um which is something
[1:35:39] that the state can issue that can allow
[1:35:41] for you to uh basically deforest a piece
[1:35:46] of property. So it's not uncommon in
[1:35:49] this town that you'll get a 20 acre
[1:35:53] parcel, a 30 acre parcel, a 70 acre
[1:35:56] parcel that gets logged and forested.
[1:35:59] That could impact our tree canopy
[1:36:02] numbers,
[1:36:03] you know, uh s significantly. And we
[1:36:06] don't have any any authority on some of
[1:36:10] those things. We we have the ability
[1:36:12] with the Department of Natural Resources
[1:36:14] to provide comment, but they are the
[1:36:16] decision-making authority when it comes
[1:36:18] to whether or not that forest practices
[1:36:21] permit gets issued. Now I will tell you
[1:36:23] there's different categories in
[1:36:25] different levels and so if for example
[1:36:28] in some of those categories u you're not
[1:36:30] allowed to build you can forest it you
[1:36:32] can do you know the forest practice
[1:36:34] permit you're not allowed to build it's
[1:36:36] a there's a 10-year moratorum for
[1:36:38] construction on that site and there and
[1:36:40] it requires a replant so there are
[1:36:41] things like that but when you look at
[1:36:43] overall canopy you know that could be
[1:36:46] significant loss in canopy that will
[1:36:48] take decades and generations to replace
[1:36:52] And so just saying canopy percentage
[1:36:55] alone is probably not in and of itself
[1:36:59] enough of a a a threshold or a trigger.
[1:37:01] We would have to look at something a
[1:37:03] little more refined than that.
[1:37:05] » So getting back to your summary, I think
[1:37:08] you nailed it.
[1:37:09] » Okay.
[1:37:14] I think there was also a discussion of
[1:37:16] what reasonable use means, but I think
[1:37:18] that might fall into the needing
[1:37:21] flexibility um you know as you go
[1:37:24] through those permit processes and you
[1:37:27] you know described several examples of
[1:37:29] » And I think
[1:37:30] » Looking at 80 different things. So
[1:37:32] » What I would love to hear your thoughts
[1:37:33] and comments on is
[1:37:36] how much of that do you want to build
[1:37:39] into code or how much of that do you
[1:37:41] want I mean again that predictability
[1:37:43] versus flexibility. How much of that do
[1:37:45] you want to leave in a staff
[1:37:49] discretionary process and how much do
[1:37:51] you want it to be you know the shalls
[1:37:53] and the musts. Uh and so there's there's
[1:37:57] room for discussion on that topic.
[1:38:01] If it was just this ordinance that was
[1:38:04] causing
[1:38:05] development proponents to have to do 42
[1:38:09] iterations of the plan before they get
[1:38:10] started, I would say like max
[1:38:14] predictability up front would would be
[1:38:16] would be key. If it is really the case
[1:38:18] that storm water and and open space and
[1:38:22] and all these other things are leading
[1:38:23] to people needing to do those multiple
[1:38:25] configurations, like like Kurt said,
[1:38:28] the days of cheap development are gone.
[1:38:31] So therefore, the days of housing that's
[1:38:33] affordable are are gone. And I don't
[1:38:35] think it's just this that is is causing
[1:38:38] that. But this is a pillar of a package
[1:38:41] of things that is causing housing to be
[1:38:43] more expensive. So, can this part of its
[1:38:47] package do its job at making
[1:38:49] predictability
[1:38:52] come back or or not get significantly
[1:38:55] worse?
[1:38:56] That's not an easy thing to accomplish
[1:38:58] within the framework of this, but it is
[1:39:00] a worthy goal.
[1:39:01] » And we do have and I I don't want to be
[1:39:03] remiss. I mean, you guys did a lot of
[1:39:05] work on the Bellingham plan. And there
[1:39:07] are uh and thanks to Elizabeth, she
[1:39:10] reminded us there's a few policies that
[1:39:12] are in there that are already starting
[1:39:14] to inform this. You had one in uh the
[1:39:17] environmental chapter uh you know that
[1:39:19] talks about integrating city tree canopy
[1:39:21] and green infrastructure
[1:39:24] um you know considering different
[1:39:26] mechanisms that support active
[1:39:27] management and increasing tree
[1:39:29] preservation. So there's some direction
[1:39:31] in there. There's another one in the
[1:39:33] community design chapter, you know, and
[1:39:35] so there's there is some policy
[1:39:37] direction in there, but I think when we
[1:39:39] talk about it's the trigger points that
[1:39:41] we want to try to figure out if we can
[1:39:43] define how do how do we go back and Rose
[1:39:46] mentioned, you know, I mean, we could
[1:39:48] set it just based on a year, you know, a
[1:39:51] certain number of years. Hey, in five
[1:39:52] years, we'll come back and re-evaluate
[1:39:54] this. I I think her comment about you
[1:39:57] know um
[1:40:00] you know forgetting it and and it I mean
[1:40:02] we parking is a perfect example of that
[1:40:05] what 55 years before it changed you know
[1:40:07] I mean so uh yeah we would we would like
[1:40:11] to set some of those um if that's the
[1:40:14] interest and desire I know that one of
[1:40:16] the things that's going to be I don't
[1:40:19] want to set it so short like within a
[1:40:21] year or two because there's a lot of
[1:40:24] work you heard a little a little bit.
[1:40:25] City made the comment earlier tonight
[1:40:27] about the a number of different uh
[1:40:30] residential resoning efforts. We're
[1:40:32] restructuring and rewriting, you know,
[1:40:34] the whole code. There's a there's a a
[1:40:36] mountain of work that's happening in the
[1:40:38] next couple years around a variety of
[1:40:41] things. I would love to be able to set
[1:40:43] it out like five years as an example to
[1:40:47] say let's get that body of work and then
[1:40:50] re-evaluate how this uh intertwines with
[1:40:53] that. So, we now have a clear
[1:40:55] distinction because if we're chasing it
[1:40:58] every couple years, we're we're gonna
[1:41:01] just I'm concerned that we're we're not
[1:41:03] going to have that that full body of
[1:41:05] work and be able to do it. So, I would
[1:41:07] love to set it out a little bit. That
[1:41:09] would give us as an example, we know
[1:41:12] we're going to be back in front of you.
[1:41:13] If you think about just the Bellingham
[1:41:15] plan, the comp plan cycle, that took us
[1:41:18] as a city two two and a half years to go
[1:41:22] through. So we basically have about an
[1:41:23] eight-year window to do a bunch of the
[1:41:26] implementation before we start that
[1:41:28] process in earnest again. And so you
[1:41:32] know getting kind of within that year
[1:41:35] kind of five to eight is probably that
[1:41:37] that sweet spot where we can okay we've
[1:41:40] done all the implementation we can use
[1:41:42] the development code to do some of these
[1:41:44] things. I would not want to do uh
[1:41:48] interim ordinances for the next five
[1:41:50] years, but um but if that's the trigger
[1:41:54] point where we say, "Hey, when we get to
[1:41:56] the point where we're adopting this,
[1:41:57] we'll re-evaluate it within a fiveyear
[1:41:59] period." I mean, that that could be
[1:42:01] something we could do or we can again,
[1:42:03] we'll come up with we'll work through
[1:42:05] and see if we can come up with different
[1:42:06] suggestions and ideas. And I don't know
[1:42:08] if this how hard this is or not, but
[1:42:11] it's good to hear the examples of
[1:42:13] projects that have come up already and
[1:42:15] just kind of getting an idea of like
[1:42:17] this is the scenario that happened and
[1:42:19] this is how we uh treated that those
[1:42:22] conditions because I think that's the
[1:42:24] thing where I feel like the least um
[1:42:26] knowledgeable is just like yeah, we've
[1:42:28] been doing this for a little bit. So we
[1:42:30] do see circumstances and we have seen
[1:42:32] what works and what might not work um to
[1:42:35] kind of understand it better and and
[1:42:37] maybe form the the long-term rules for
[1:42:41] it.
[1:42:42] » Yeah. And we do that pretty regularly.
[1:42:45] Kurt uh and the development review team
[1:42:48] have weekly meetings and I would say
[1:42:50] probably for the first eight to 10
[1:42:53] months we were talking almost
[1:42:55] exclusively
[1:42:57] this interim ordinance and treat I mean
[1:42:59] every week we were talking about
[1:43:00] different scenarios different projects
[1:43:02] that were influencing it. So, we've
[1:43:05] really been working through a range of
[1:43:07] those things trying to advise um current
[1:43:11] property owners, prospective property
[1:43:13] owners, uh community members that are
[1:43:16] concerned about the loss of some of
[1:43:18] these resources, uh designers,
[1:43:20] developers. So, we we've been living it
[1:43:22] the last couple years pretty more
[1:43:25] intensely at the front end of that curve
[1:43:27] than than recently. Um, but if it's
[1:43:30] helpful, we can bring different examples
[1:43:32] and show you different scenarios. Part
[1:43:34] of the reasonist memo, and I'm happy to
[1:43:36] put it up on the screen and uh and show
[1:43:38] you, but um it was based on kind of
[1:43:42] those range of different scenarios that
[1:43:44] we kind of were trying to think through.
[1:43:46] And anytime you get into writing code,
[1:43:50] you I would say that you write it often
[1:43:53] times with a particular issue that
[1:43:56] you're trying to solve or or address and
[1:43:58] then we go through that process of
[1:44:00] trying to think through how broadly can
[1:44:03] you cast it so it's not just based on
[1:44:05] one thing.
[1:44:07] But you can never consider every
[1:44:08] scenario. So you try to build in again
[1:44:10] some degree of flexibility or
[1:44:13] administrative review to to deal with
[1:44:15] the oneoffs. And so the goal is you know
[1:44:17] how do we how do we structure it to meet
[1:44:20] 80% of the topics that come up and have
[1:44:23] enough flexibility to deal with the you
[1:44:25] know the other 20%.
[1:44:27] And there may be some things we just
[1:44:29] can't you know.
[1:44:30] » Yeah. Yeah. And just to add on to that,
[1:44:32] I think vegetation and trees, I mean,
[1:44:34] just go out and look around, right? No
[1:44:36] site is exactly the same. And so, trying
[1:44:38] to create predictability on a on a
[1:44:41] canvas that is completely different
[1:44:43] everywhere you go is very challenging.
[1:44:46] Um, I
[1:44:46] » Agree. the o the only other way um I was
[1:44:49] just sitting here kind of spinning
[1:44:51] trying to think about other ways and I
[1:44:54] think if if you wanted to be more
[1:44:57] certain and give that predictability
[1:44:59] then you may need to look at a code
[1:45:02] that's more um quantitative. So if a
[1:45:06] property has five or more trees on it,
[1:45:09] then this plays into it, you know. So
[1:45:11] you you you have to have some some
[1:45:14] standard number um it it's just like a
[1:45:18] setback. A setback is five feet or is 10
[1:45:21] feet, right? You need that definitive
[1:45:22] number. And how you would apply that on
[1:45:27] a vegetation or a tree scenario
[1:45:31] is one. Is it one? Is it two? Is it 22?
[1:45:34] like that that's very hard to come up
[1:45:36] with that number. But the only to to
[1:45:41] ensure our flexibility and
[1:45:43] predictability I think this code does
[1:45:44] that. Um and I saying that based on how
[1:45:49] we have been working through this for
[1:45:51] the last few years. Um getting any more
[1:45:55] predictable is going to be hard I think
[1:45:57] without maybe throwing in some numbers.
[1:46:03] Um I guess related to that and to the um
[1:46:08] query for what kinds of metrics or
[1:46:10] information would want to be seen in
[1:46:13] some reporting in the next few years.
[1:46:15] I'd be curious just off the top of my
[1:46:17] head um you know the number of landmark
[1:46:19] trees that are cut down um which I'm
[1:46:24] sure you have available. I just don't
[1:46:26] know it. um whether how many people just
[1:46:30] take the fine like is that 2400
[1:46:33] violation are people just taking that
[1:46:35] you know where does that sit or is that
[1:46:37] high enough is that too low I'd like to
[1:46:40] know which is probably very difficult
[1:46:42] data to get but um you know when a
[1:46:45] landmark tree is cut to enable um
[1:46:49] development you know what kind of costs
[1:46:51] were saved 10,000 50,000 100,000 by
[1:46:55] being able to remove that and do one
[1:46:57] site plan versus another, you know, like
[1:46:59] how how much are we saving by making
[1:47:02] those trade-offs? And I'd also like to
[1:47:04] know the um development type of
[1:47:09] properties going in like was it
[1:47:11] affordable housing? Was it super
[1:47:13] unaffordable housing? Um you know what,
[1:47:17] you know, price per unit kind of
[1:47:19] information. What are we when we're
[1:47:21] looking at balancing the priorities of
[1:47:26] ecology and well-being and canopy cover
[1:47:29] and affordable housing? Is it really
[1:47:30] affordable housing being developed when
[1:47:33] these go down? Um, so those are some
[1:47:36] things in the last two minutes I'd be
[1:47:38] curious about, but I'm sure more some of
[1:47:41] that exists and some of that would never
[1:47:43] be practical for, you know, a number of
[1:47:45] reasons. But
[1:47:49] » I will just um I can't give you specific
[1:47:51] numbers, but I can tell you that the
[1:47:54] majority of applications that we've
[1:47:57] processed for removal have been because
[1:48:00] of diseased or hazard. Um we do
[1:48:03] definitely see them in development. Um
[1:48:06] but the majority of those that have been
[1:48:09] removed have been because they're not
[1:48:11] healthy.
[1:48:12] And as far as affordability is
[1:48:14] concerned, um I just want to make sure I
[1:48:17] get a little finer point on that because
[1:48:23] very So when we talk about
[1:48:25] affordability, I think it's really
[1:48:26] important to make a distinction between
[1:48:28] capital A affordable, which is what I'm
[1:48:30] referring to as subsidized um or
[1:48:34] naturally occurring affordable. And uh
[1:48:37] if if part of your definition is the
[1:48:40] latter where it's naturally occurring,
[1:48:42] new construction is always going to come
[1:48:44] in higher. But the reality is is that
[1:48:48] the more the more supply we can create
[1:48:52] if we're talking about ADUs and other
[1:48:54] things like that, that's a more
[1:48:55] attainable price point to a lot more
[1:48:58] people. And so I would just are we
[1:49:00] talking specifically like below 80% AMI
[1:49:04] kind of affordable subsidized or
[1:49:07] naturally occurring or maybe a little
[1:49:09] bit of both.
[1:49:12] » Probably a little bit of both. I'd
[1:49:13] probably defer to Rose on that and need
[1:49:15] a second to to think on it more. But um
[1:49:19] I think naturally it should be cheaper
[1:49:22] to do infill and build where that's
[1:49:25] already disrupted and for to the extent
[1:49:27] possible that we have incentives to do
[1:49:29] that that should be aligned in that way.
[1:49:32] And then as far as affordability, I
[1:49:36] mean, I think it has to be somewhere
[1:49:37] below market rate because obviously it's
[1:49:40] market rate that's being developed at
[1:49:42] that moment. But
[1:49:43] » Well, what we're seeing just anecdotally
[1:49:45] is when somebody's coming in and
[1:49:48] building an ADU or two ADUs on a lot,
[1:49:52] they are um saving because they're not
[1:49:56] having to do the frontage improvements
[1:49:58] the same way. they're paying 50% of the
[1:50:02] uh impact fees and other things like
[1:50:04] that. So, there's there's some um
[1:50:07] measures that are incentivizing those
[1:50:09] already. Um but again, new construction,
[1:50:12] what we're seeing in the market, things
[1:50:15] are still coming in, just just
[1:50:17] construction in general, and there's
[1:50:18] others on the commission that can speak
[1:50:21] um more to this, but um you're still
[1:50:24] seeing it come at a fairly high price
[1:50:26] point for that.
[1:50:28] As that asset starts to depreciate, then
[1:50:32] then you're starting to see those rent
[1:50:34] structures change a little bit. Um, but
[1:50:37] when we look at multifamily,
[1:50:40] when we look at some of the stuff that's
[1:50:41] kind of out there, we also see a higher
[1:50:44] degree of affordability when it's um
[1:50:48] somebody who has ownership and then
[1:50:50] they're renting out the unit on their
[1:50:52] lot. They're not necessarily
[1:50:54] chasing the market in terms of what they
[1:50:56] can get. So, there's a natural
[1:50:58] affordability that kind of gets built
[1:51:00] into that. So, all of it helps. Um, but
[1:51:03] if you want specific numbers on, excuse
[1:51:06] me, on rent structure and stuff like
[1:51:07] that, that would take a little more
[1:51:09] effort.
[1:51:14] » So, do we need a formal motion for any
[1:51:16] of this uh to move forward or are we
[1:51:19] just
[1:51:20] Yes, that would be helpful. Um, just in
[1:51:23] terms of
[1:51:25] u not moving it forward and directing
[1:51:28] staff to address the things that I
[1:51:30] brought up. And if you need me to kind
[1:51:31] of walk through that again, I'm happy to
[1:51:33] do that, but I would be helpful in the
[1:51:35] motion.
[1:51:36] » And process-wise, we had a public
[1:51:38] hearing tonight. We heard some
[1:51:40] testimony.
[1:51:41] Do we want we we have the option of
[1:51:43] continuing either written or
[1:51:46] in person testimony? If there's going to
[1:51:49] be significant revisions, do we want an
[1:51:51] opportunity to get that feedback and
[1:51:53] leave the record open for now?
[1:51:55] » You certainly can. And the also the
[1:51:57] expectation that I would have is that we
[1:52:00] would from this point forward we would
[1:52:02] then go back to city council to ask for
[1:52:05] an extension of the interim ordinance
[1:52:07] and then when we refine this we would be
[1:52:10] do basically renoticing a public hearing
[1:52:12] because we're not doing it to date
[1:52:15] certain. Um, so we would probably just
[1:52:17] go through a
[1:52:18] » So we're clo we could close out this
[1:52:20] process and it's a new new
[1:52:21] » Or you could leave the written open if
[1:52:23] that's if that's the preference, but our
[1:52:25] practice has been we we'll take those
[1:52:27] written comments
[1:52:29] at any time.
[1:52:31] » So what kind of motion are you looking
[1:52:32] for then?
[1:52:34] » Um to to not move this ordinance forward
[1:52:37] to city council and to go work on the
[1:52:39] refinements that we discussed earlier.
[1:52:42] And so that way I can and in full full
[1:52:45] disclosure I can go back to city council
[1:52:47] and say we received a recommendation
[1:52:49] from the planning commission to refine
[1:52:51] these. We're going to need additional
[1:52:53] time to do that and that's why we're
[1:52:55] asking for the extension of the current
[1:52:57] interim.
[1:53:01] Did anyone in here have anything on the
[1:53:03] commission to add to that list or we all
[1:53:05] feel good about where we're at?
[1:53:08] Okay.
[1:53:10] Um, anyone in here want to make a
[1:53:12] motion?
[1:53:17] » Sure. I don't care.
[1:53:18] » You're getting good at it, Jerry.
[1:53:20] [laughter]
[1:53:21] » Uh, move to not move forward and to
[1:53:24] allow you extra time and extension uh to
[1:53:27] work on what we discussed here tonight.
[1:53:31] That too broad. Good.
[1:53:33] » Sounds good.
[1:53:34] » All right. [snorts]
[1:53:35] » You have a second.
[1:53:37] » Second.
[1:53:38] » All right. All in favor?
[1:53:40] » I
[1:53:40] » I. Any opposed?
[1:53:44] » All right.
[1:53:47] » Thank you very much.
[1:53:48] » We are at the director's report.
[1:53:51] » I'm trying to think if we have anything.
[1:53:53] » We continue to work on um
[1:53:57] just a wide range of the land
[1:54:00] development code updates. um Elizabeth's
[1:54:04] heading up a full team of uh staff that
[1:54:07] are continuing to work on various
[1:54:09] different components of that. So as
[1:54:11] those uh get further on and their
[1:54:14] maturation process will certainly be
[1:54:15] coming forward to you. Um
[1:54:19] the other thing I'll I don't know if
[1:54:20] there's other stuff you want to
[1:54:22] » Yeah, coming up at one of your next I
[1:54:24] think it's July 9th is the what we're
[1:54:27] shooting for. Is that correct, Heather?
[1:54:29] » Yeah. um at July 9th, we're looking
[1:54:31] forward to um start the discussion of
[1:54:36] we're calling it an a lowincome housing
[1:54:41] incentive. Um and it's really geared
[1:54:44] towards the as Blake mentioned the big A
[1:54:46] affordable um providers um doing those
[1:54:49] largecale affordable housing um projects
[1:54:53] and looking at reducing and kind of
[1:54:55] streamlining the process. So reducing
[1:54:57] any sort of regulatory barriers and
[1:54:59] streamlining kind of the review process.
[1:55:01] So allowing um more opportunity for that
[1:55:05] true affordable housing, those projects
[1:55:07] to move forward quicker and without um
[1:55:10] as much regulatory oversight as before.
[1:55:13] So
[1:55:14] » Rose, you better be here for that one.
[1:55:18] » I hope so.
[1:55:22] » Okay. Well, I guess if we don't have
[1:55:23] anything else, uh we can adjourn. I'll
[1:55:25] see you all next time.
[1:55:27] » Thank you very much.