[0:15] Ready? Right. All right, welcome everybody. We have an audience tonight. That's kind of refreshing.

[0:22] I'm gonna call the 20 August 26, 2026

[0:28] Meeting of the Lacy Planning Commission order

[0:32] We have roll call. The only member we have missing is we have Tonya and Jennifer missing.

[0:39] Otherwise, everybody's here.

[0:41] I'm going to ask Aaron to please read the land acknowledgement.

[0:47] We, the City of Lacey, are on the ancestral land of the tribal people of the Tree of Medicine Creek, including the Nisqually Indian Tribe and Squaxin Island Tribe.

[0:56] We acknowledge and remember those tribal people not recognized today who were absorbed or relocated into other tribes for survival.

[1:04] We recognize the ancestors and their descendants who are still here. We recognize and respect the tribal people of the Treaty of Medicine Creek as the traditional stewards of this land since time immemorial and their role today in taking care of these lands in perpetuity.

[1:19] We recognize and have the responsibility to call attention to the histories of dispossession, force removal, and abridge treaty rights that allowed our nation, state, and city to develop as they have today. We recommend the community members read the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854

[1:36] Thank you very much.

[1:39] So first action item is approval of tonight's agenda. I would look for a motion and second. So moved. Second.

[1:49] Okay, all those in favor. Aye.

[1:53] Perfect. And then the next action item is approval of the August 12 minutes.

[2:00] I move to approve the August 12 minutes as written. Second. Spencer and then Judy.

[2:05] Okay, all those in favor. Aye. Awesome.

[2:10] Okay, next item is public comment. I know we have a lot of members of the public here. If you're intending your public comment to be testimony for one of the public hearings

[2:21] then please don't speak now. Is there anybody here to make a comment

[2:26] That is not one of the public hearings.

[2:30] So right now is the general public comment, we are going to have a public hearing for the items that are on the agenda.

[2:40] If you want your statements to be part of the testimony for that public hearing, please hold your comments until the public hearing is open.

[2:50] It feels redundant, because typically if we don't have a public hearing, this is the time that you'd be able to speak. Yes.

[2:58] All right.

[3:00] Any commission member reports tonight.

[3:07] Okay, department report

[3:10] I do have one item, that I wanted to highlight, which is there is currently a vacancy on the Lacy City Council. So I don't know if you all have heard, but Nick Dunning, former council member has resigned, and would just highlight that right now there is an open application process for council members. So

[3:30] The way it works when a council member resigns is that the existing council nominates and seats a council member to sit in their place for a certain amount of time until the next election. And so at this point, those that there is a vacancy, the way to be able to apply for that is through the city's website. So we do have a web page

[3:51] associated with that, you can submit through there. And I'll just say that many of our council members, current and former, have come through the Planning Commission in one way or the other, including I went the other way. Yeah

[4:07] Including Councilmember Cox and green signs. They both were former planning commission members before they were city council members. So if you do have any interest in that

[4:19] You can take a look at the website and what, you know, welcome your application through that process. So

[4:28] With that, that's the end of my report. And Lacy City Council members serve at large

[4:34] So they do not have to live in any specific area of the city, they just need to live within the city boundaries.

[4:44] Okay, so before I open the public hearing, I want to talk about how we're going to do this.

[4:51] So the public, we have two public hearings tonight, one for the tree regulation amendments. The other one for the potential rezone

[5:01] I'm going to open them one at a time

[5:04] Staff presentation will be on the one that's open at that moment.

[5:08] At the end of staff presentation

[5:12] Any members of the public that wish to make comment on that particular public hearing will be invited up to make their comment

[5:20] Commission members will have the opportunity to ask questions.

[5:24] I'm going to close that public hearing

[5:27] Open the next one.

[5:29] Same thing

[5:31] And then at the end of the second public hearing

[5:35] Is when the commission will debate

[5:39] Each one separately. We're looking for action recommendations tonight to the Council.

[5:45] And so the final action will be a motion to

[5:50] either approve

[5:53] That particular item as presented

[5:56] To ask if you want future study on that, to ask staff to go back.

[6:03] or a rejection

[6:06] So we will do it that way. I think that's going to be the smoothest way to do it.

[6:13] So right now, I'm going to close the regular meeting. I'm going to open the public hearing

[6:19] For the trade regulation amendments

[6:22] Once we get to the public comment. You will have 3 minutes to speak.

[6:27] Please, no vulgarity, no personal attacks.

[6:31] you know, no offensive language. and we will hold you to the 3 min. What I will ask, because we do have several people speaking tonight

[6:42] is if somebody before you says statements that are essentially what you wanted to say

[6:47] Just say, I agree with that person, and your comments will be registered officially into the record and given the same weight.

[6:56] Yes, ma'am.

[6:58] Is it too late for her to sign up? No, you don't need to be signed in to speak, so we'll make sure to get to everybody. Yeah, but when you speak, please remember to identify yourself, where you live

[7:12] And then make your comments.

[7:15] All right

[7:16] So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Hans, the tree regulation amendments is first.

[7:22] All right. Is it 13 or 11?

[7:39] Steal this

[7:52] A little bit smaller.

[8:00] We'll see how that goes, only planning on using most of the screen. Although my name is Hansen. I'm a senior long range planner here at the city of Lacey. The presentation I'm going to be giving here is covering docket number 11 for

[8:20] community and economic development work plan for this year, which relates to tree code consistency review. There's a couple different areas that I'm going to cover, and these are all been things that we've generally discussed in the past, but for the sake of the public hearing, we do want to run through kind of everything

[8:36] Make sure that everybody's up to date and current on what we're talking about.

[8:41] needs not click that mouse is what has control.

[8:46] Let's see

[8:51] Okay, so this is where we're going to start to get crowded here. But yeah, so this is a 2026 community planning docket. This was largely

[9:03] As a result of the city council's direction in recognition that actually starting later this year, 2026, and then moving on into 2027 and potentially 2028, we're going to be doing a larger update of our Lacy Urban Forestry Management Plan

[9:20] But in the meantime, Council has asked us to take more of a targeted look at a couple different areas of our existing tree code as it relates to a few different topics. So one being residential lot tree retention standards, and then some unpermitted clearing that we are. We've been experiencing lately

[9:37] Tree tract requirements within commercial areas, and then class 4 forest practices definitions. So really kind of again, I want to reiterate a targeted review. There will likely be an additional cycle of review that comes out of our Lacy Urban Forest Management Plan and the update of that.

[9:54] But these are areas that Council thought deserves some attention before waiting until that cycle has been completed. But with that in mind, and I'm doing it again right

[10:07] That's where things are going to get crowded. I don't expect you to see all of this right away, and I am going to get more in detail with it. And this is also in everybody's packet and also attached to the staff report packet and the packet that's on the city website. So anybody that

[10:23] wishes to look at this more in detail. There are a couple different places that you can find it. But with that, I do want to run through kind of at a high level, what our residential tree removal flowchart looks like. So this is really kind of the decision tree

[10:39] That when somebody comes into the planning counter or calls one of the planning staff and is looking to remove trees on their site, this is generally the process that we go through to determine what that permitting process looks like, what's needed for us as far as information

[10:56] To be able to determine what type of permit might be needed if we need to bring the arborist in, things like that. But the first part of this decision tree

[11:06] I can as ants. Here we go. Oh, one other thing I did want to highlight. There are 2 different types of decisions that are generally taking place within this flowchart. One, they're of an administrative or kind of more systems oriented approach

[11:21] So it's kind of a… something that we can navigate over the counter, an either-or kind of situation. Pretty clear-cut as far as what the definitions are. And then there's decisions that are more of a technical or scientific nature, and those are typically ones that are made by one of the city arborists

[11:36] that has that expertise and professional background in those areas. But with that

[11:44] Really, when somebody comes in, and I apologize for all the overlap here again, the 1st question that we want to figure out is how many trees are being proposed for removal on a residential lot right now the way the code is written, it's either

[12:00] or fewer or four or more. And the distinction there is that 3 or fewer falls into that three trees within a five-year period, which we're also going to be looking at later on as part of this presentation, or four or more, which pushes you into a different category. So anything that isn't within that 3 trees or fewer

[12:18] would actually be an exemption if that's something that we'd be able to navigate right there at the counter. And some people on their way, it's actually a free permit exemption process that we can navigate there. When people come in and are looking to remove four or more

[12:33] trees from a residential lot. So that's typically when we recommend bringing an arborist in. Reason being is that hazard trees do not qualify as a tree being removed as part of that 4 or more. So if an arborist designates one of those trees as a hazard tree or a few of those trees

[12:50] Then there's a scenario where that could get bumped back down to those 3 or fewer within residential law. Yeah, does the city have an internal arborist? Yeah, so we have 2 hired sub consultants, arborists, and then, you know, one of them would go out to a site and do that tree assessment at that time

[13:11] Yep.

[13:13] keep wanting to click other areas. Let's see. One area that I did want to bring attention to is our hazard tree definition, because that is actually where a lot of this hinges is what is a hazard tree and what is not a hazard tree. And our definition is actually pretty broad in its range as far as what qualifies with a hazard tree

[13:34] So this first gray box on the left here is actually pulled directly from our Lacey Municipal Code, and it covers things like dead, dying, damaged, diseased, structurally defective, recently exposed to adjacent clearings, or some other factor that will be subject or subject the tree to failure

[13:51] And while the first few definitions or inclusions that are pretty specific, they do get a little bit more generalized as we get more into our code. But what our code does do is it references the International Society of Arborists guide for Plant Appraisal

[14:08] Which is how what the guide that an arborist uses to assess what that tree looks like and the condition of that tree, the health of that tree. And that plant guide actually has a much more robust definition for each one of these instances. So specifically for the

[14:26] failure-prone category of trees, there's even more of an expanded definition than what is in our specific code, but it goes on to say, mechanical weaknesses such as decay, cracks, included bark, cavity, or root zone issues, any of which that reduce the tree's strength

[14:43] To the point where common loads such as wind, weight, or impact may cause trunk, limb, or root failure. So

[14:52] The reason I'm bringing a lot of this up is that right now our hazard tree language within our code as it's currently written or referenced is pretty broad as far as what it encompasses as far as a tree that might be causing some problems on site. That said, we did have a range of

[15:09] Community comments and also discussion at our last planning commission meeting that asked to look at ways to expand that further. So really scenarios where it is not a hazard tree, but it is still causing some kind of site issues

[15:26] By dropping limbs that wouldn't meet that definition. So we will get back around to that on some of our future slides here.

[15:36] Let's see if this works. Okay, so moving down. So once we kind of understand what a hazard tree is, the next definition of when people are coming in and are looking to remove 4 or more non-hazard trees, distinction there being non-hazard trees

[15:51] The next question that we ask is, will this removal lead to the removal of 5,000 or more board feet of timber being removed? The distinction there is that typically when you're above that number, what you're typically looking at is a class 4 forest practices permit, and that's

[16:08] Typically more in line with something like logging or timber harvest of that nature. So pretty large scale kind of operations is what typically you would see that type of permit being applied for.

[16:20] If the answer to that question is no, that's more commonly that other category, so something more on a traditional residential lot, where somebody's just looking to remove four or more trees at a time. So the next question, or that would

[16:36] funnel people into what we call a land clearing permit. And a land clearing permit does come with a replanting plan requirement requiring that once those trees are cleared, that that site is brought back up to that

[16:51] Right now, 4 trees within 500 square feet total lots, so that minimum lot requirement. And then we do also have another option, so if that lot, for whatever reason, doesn't have capacity to bring the number of trees back up to that minimum requirement, we do have what's called a city tree account

[17:11] where people can pay into that as an alternative to meeting that minimum individual lot requirement, and then those funds will go towards the planting and maintenance of trees within other areas of the community.

[17:24] So

[17:25] That is the upper part of the see if I can move back out. So that is really everything that's 4 or more trees as far as removal on a residential lot. The other scenario is 3 or fewer non-hazard trees

[17:40] being removed on a residential lot, so that bottom kind of pathway, if you will, there and this includes trees

[17:48] Again, that are non-hazardous. And at any point in time during either of these processes, while we do recommend it at the beginning, an arborist is definitely an available option to anybody that's coming in looking for permits to get a more thorough site assessment to really figure out what's going on and just really provide both the city and the applicant more information about what's going on on their site, the health of the trees

[18:09] Where they're located. But again, so the next step there is that it's three or fewer trees within a five year period. So the next step is that we actually check to see based on other permits that have been issued, if additional trees in the past or in the past five years have been removed from that site that would then push those

[18:28] However many trees are currently being requested over that allotment within that 5-year period. If the answer to that is still no, the next question is, would the removal of those trees drop, that site below the 4 trees per 5,000 square feet

[18:45] requirement. If the answer to that question is yes, then a planting plan would be required to bring that threshold back up to that minimum carrying capacity. And again, at that point, a tree account payment into the tree account is another option if, for whatever reason, there isn't capacity on that site

[19:02] For additional trees. And I'm going to move this out of the way momentarily. If the removal of those 3 trees does not bring that site below

[19:15] for trees per 5,000 square feet, then it would actually just be issued a land clearing permit right there, and that process is over. So many different avenues. But really, the one of the things that I would did want to highlight and drive home based on showing us is that we do have a pretty responsive code as currently written

[19:35] To a lot of different situations that could potentially come up as part of a tree application.

[19:40] With that, I do want to get into the topics that we are covering as part of this potential code review.

[19:51] Nope, that's not what I wanted to do. Were you able to hit the arrow, the down arrow or next on your computer?

[20:00] One more time. There we go. All right.

[20:03] I know we're jumping around, just regular slides now.

[20:06] So one of the areas that we're taking a look at as part of tonight's review is the three versus five trees in a five year period on residential lots. So this is something that was asked as a result of both code enforcement and council and community coming to Council identifying challenges that they're having with the three trees within a five year period

[20:27] So right now, as our code is written, it is 3 trees in a five-year period. What is being proposed is to expand this option to 5 trees in a 5-year period, so essentially a one tree per year situation.

[20:41] Additionally.

[20:44] There has been some unpermitted clearing that's been taking place or trees been cutting down so people have not been coming in to check with the city. They haven't been getting our burst review, and they've been sidestepping a lot of the permits that are in place

[21:01] Help facilitate this process. So there is some additional language as part of this that's added to, more on the code enforcement sides to give them more of a systematic response to those situations. So that's area one that we're going to talk about

[21:17] Keep trying to hit my keyboard embedded as the second area has to do with land clearing.

[21:27] Exemptions for residential lots. So this is a highlight of kind of that big flow chart that we just looked at. But as far as existing pathways today. Or arborist designated non-hazard trees, we have the removal consistent with the previous slide. So the three or five trees within a 5 year period, depending on what's recommended

[21:45] The land clearing permit for class 4 forest practice permit, and then also the city tree account. So those are all things that are in place today. What staff is proposing as part of an expansion to this and also consistent with one of our conversations from our last planning commission meeting

[22:02] was creating another pathway that would be contingent on notice from an insurance carrier, identifying a tree as affecting their insurance coverage or policy renewal. So essentially what that would be is a tree that wouldn't fit the formal definition of a hazard tree, but is still dropping limbs or posing some type of risk to a home or property

[22:22] in a way that wouldn't trigger that arborist definition, but would give a homeowner a pathway to still have the ability to remove that tree. We have an example of that, because I was present at the City Council meeting, and I heard stories of

[22:38] writer and several of the other council people talking about limbs falling on their house, and how difficult it was to get the trees removed.

[22:45] Wouldn't that meet the definition of a hazardous tree if it is dropping 40 foot limbs and it's penetrating through your roof, that not according to the arborist definition, right? It's still a healthy tree in the sense of versus it's not it's not a dying tree. It's specified explicitly within the fall path of it if things were in that, and so that seemingly meets that requirement in my mind. Is there some technicality I'm missing or something else

[23:10] So while that hazard tree definition is very broad and does capture a lot of examples, we have had some folks come to City Council in the last six months or so that have been identifying trees that they did have arborists out to take a look at that were not designated as hazard trees, but we're still

[23:29] And this is where we get into the technical review of trees, which I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on. But we're still dropping limbs on their homes and causing damage. So based on that testimony, it sounds like there is still a gap

[23:45] Within our code that doesn't fully address those situations. And that's going to be left up to staff for the arborist review to make that call. So currently it's up to the arborist to make that distinction of whether it's a hazard tree. This

[24:01] new code addition would actually be dependent on the carrier, the insurance carrier identifying that as some kind of problematic tree for typically it would be multiple instances of

[24:14] damage from Saza and Barbara comes out, says it's healthy, insurance company says this is damaging this house, and it's an issue, then there's a path for them. So, personal experience here

[24:25] Neighbor behind me

[24:28] Completely separate issue got pissed at me.

[24:33] And there was a tree that was right kind of on the fence line between me and him

[24:40] And he wrote me a letter and said, I'm really concerned about that tree falling on my house. Nothing wrong with the tree. It was perfectly.

[24:48] In fact, it was the tallest tree in the neighborhood.

[24:51] call my insurance carrier. They said, Hey, I got this letter

[24:57] I said

[24:59] What do you want me to do? My insurance carrier advised me get that tree taken out.

[25:05] Because now you have that letter, that neighbor has expressed a formal concern

[25:12] There could be a problem with you being liable for that if it ever went to court.

[25:18] And I think it would be a relatively rare scenario as well, because, you know, there's always the pathway to remove any three, at this point, three trees in a five-year period, regardless of their health. So it would be in maybe an instance where somebody has already removed their allotted 3 trees where they needed to permit to remove this fourth one that they just so happen to have a letter from the insurance company that said, you know, we're not going to maybe give you. We're not going to renew your homeowners

[25:42] policy or something like that. So it would be a rare instance, but it does provide an avenue if you do have… if you're put on notice, likely what would happen is, you know, somebody made a claim about a tree, and then the insurance company said, well, you know, we're not going to keep paying out these claims anymore, we're going to put you on notice to take that tree down, or we're going to not renew your policy. So it does provide that as an option in those instances.

[26:07] Any other comments on that?

[26:12] Hans, if I recall, it's trees of a certain diameter as well, right? It's not all trees. So if it's

[26:19] It doesn't count towards your count if they're… have a smaller diameter trunk, right? So we do have language within our code that the diameter of trees, and depending on the size of tree being removed, there is language that is not necessarily a one-to-one replacement. So if you're

[26:38] removing a relatively large tree that might actually translate to a few trees being planted to replace kind of the value of that larger tree. Depending on the situation. And then also it needs to also meet the definition of a tree, which is a single stem, and

[26:54] What is it, 4 inches or more in caliper, four and a half feet above the ground.

[27:01] So I'm going to ask Commission members to please hold your questions until after the presentation.

[27:07] Thank you.

[27:08] All right, and then another area that we're taking a look at as part of this more targeted review tree track requirements within our commercial zones. So right now, within our urban forest management plan, it actually calls out this specific instance that this

[27:23] is the requirement of tree tracks in these specific commercial zones is contrary to Lacy's goals to establish the core area as a more urban center. One thing that I do want to point out really quickly here is that while tree tracks are a dedication of space, they're not necessarily a dedication of trees.

[27:44] I do want to make the point that this is separate from the required number of trees that you're required to have on a site. It's just where those trees are required to be placed on that site. Does that make sense? So it's location based, not number of trees based that we're talking about with tree tracks

[28:00] That we're getting some kind of questions. So commercial property is over an acre are currently required to provide a 5% tree tract or create one within 15 years. Largely within our woodland district and our general commercial district, these areas were developed

[28:20] Long before a lot of our treaty code that is currently written today was actually ever in place. And as a result, there was a significant amount of clearing that took place in these areas prior to any of this being adopted. As our code is currently written, there would be some requirements to start actively trying to find ways to inject

[28:39] 5% tree tracks back into these pretty heavily developed urban centers. So this language would loosen the requirement as far as it being a 5% dedicated tree tract. Again, you would still be required to hit whatever that

[28:56] tree coverage allotment is for that site. It just wouldn't have to all be in one location in the form of a tree tract, is what we're talking about here. So the intent here is to give commercial properties a little bit more flexibility on how they meet those minimum tree requirements on a site

[29:14] All right

[29:18] And then the last one here, this is really just a definition-based one. So in our code, we reference class four forest practices activities and we define them

[29:30] And we also referenced the Washington code on this subject. Unfortunately, there is a specific line of 500 or 5,000 feet or more board feet are removed from a site which does exist at the Washington level, but doesn't exist in the at the Lacy level within our code

[29:51] So we're just recommending adjusting the Lacy code to better mirror that Washington level language.

[29:58] So I think with that that brings us to kind of where we're at tonight and next steps. So that 1st bullet here is where we're at currently. So we have the opportunity to hear from the Lacy community on these proposed amendments

[30:15] You guys will have an opportunity to discuss them, and then following that, you'll have the opportunity to make a recommendation to Planning Committee or Council, I should say, for additional review and consideration. But yeah, that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions as we move on

[30:30] Thank you much. Robert, what do you got?

[30:33] Do any other cities use canopy coverage instead of the amount of trees? Because in my brain, I keep thinking like we have these requirements of X amount of trees, but the difference between a tree coverage that has a crown of like 40 feet versus 10 feet is drastic when you're talking about 5, 10, 15 trees. And so I was just curious

[30:53] If there's any other organizations that are using

[30:57] canopy coverage, because I think that's what we really think of when we think of a tree city. But it's maybe harder to have a metric for just kind of curious. Yeah, so the short answer is yes, other communities do use that

[31:12] how they approach that definition, how they implement it is really different, and it really does run the gamut as far as different approaches. If you can think of approach, there's probably a city out there that's implemented it to varying degrees of success. I believe that that is actually one of the areas that, while I don't think is a good

[31:34] fit for this cycle, I think it is definitely something that's going to be addressed and is going to deserve a lot more discussion as part of our urban forestry management plan update that's starting here. And I think that is going to be a

[31:47] The focal area of that update process, and I think it'll get a lot more attention as part of that, because I think it is an important question, but I think it's it's more nuanced than probably what we have an opportunity to tackle as part of this one at a time.

[32:03] Yeah, please. Spencer. Yes, building on that

[32:09] Could somebody remove five hazardous trees as an example or non-hazardous trees, excuse me, in that five year period, and then continue to whittle down the number of trees in the property until there are none remaining

[32:21] So they would have to wait five years at a time, but hypothetically, that would be something that would be possible. Okay, except for the four trees per 5,000 square feet of glass. You could significantly diminish.

[32:37] Ellen.

[32:38] Oh, actually, I like all the ideas because it affected my home. So arborist did go out. I had a tree. It brought it from the inside out, split and half the tree landed in the roadway. Arbors came out. Only thing

[32:56] I was not happy with is the way that you guys cut and then the other one was the insurance issues with some of the widow makers that I have how these trees grow and how they lose their limbs, and especially

[33:13] The outer portion of the lens become flex wings. So they don't fall sideways, they fall as darts. And so I've already, the third time that happened, the insurance was basically said, no, we're not going to give you the full, it just gave me a certain segment and didn't replace

[33:31] Only the section that was visibly damaged, not the whole core. So

[33:38] I'm glad that these are being implemented, or being recommended at this time.

[33:44] I don't have any more questions. Thank you. Just a quick clarification on the tree track requirements. So is that something that like when they develop the commercial area, they say like, hey, we're going to put it here. And then like the city says, no, no, you put it here or how

[34:03] How, yeah, how's that designation work of like where the tract goes exactly? Yeah, so as part of commercial development, say you're starting with somewhat of a forested or a lot that has trees on it.

[34:18] One of the very first things that happens as part of that process is that the arborist would actually go out and do an entire assessment of the entirety of that property, and look at all the trees on it, and then, based on that assessment, they would actually identify where there are groupings of trees that are healthier, that might be more of kind of

[34:36] specimen species, if you will, are kind of unique in character, provide additional value or interest of some kind in addition to just kind of fulfilling that tree requirement. And then the forest or the arborist, sorry, will give a recommendation on actually where that tree track should go based on where the highest

[34:54] Quality, healthiest trees are on a site. And then as part of that development plan, that site, that zone will be kind of the protected spot, if you

[35:09] Yeah, I had just a couple of questions. One was a clarification when you said that if a tree was illicitly removed, that it would have to be replaced

[35:20] I was looking at that flowchart or into the lot. It said

[35:26] 5,000, or I'm sorry, it looked like it said 500 per tree, but over a 3-year period was that 500 in all for

[35:35] having to replace that tree that was cut down or is that 1500 like 500 per year for for three years

[35:43] Oh, you're talking about the monetary values that were kind of assigned to each one of those permits.

[35:49] Yes, sir.

[35:50] Yeah, so those and I will be some of those are clear permits. So they do have specific dollar values attached to them. And then the arborist is $150 per hour for a site visit. So depending on the size of the site

[36:08] That could take more or less time. That said, if while the arborist is out there, one of the trees that they identify is a hazard tree, the city would actually cover that cost at that point. The other one, the

[36:22] City

[36:24] What's it called? Tree account. Sorry, the city tree account. That is based on the market kind of cost of a tree plus 3 years of maintenance and kind of support of that tree to ensure that it actually succeeds and is viable after those 3 years

[36:42] So that's how those different prices are identified. So the the city tree account, that number that's provided in the flowchart that would be on a per tree basis.

[36:53] And then the other ones are either a flat permit or based on the amount of time that the arborist spends actually on site, depending on the size of the property being surveyed.

[37:04] I appreciate that. And then I was hoping for a clarification about the dedicated tree track, because I believe

[37:13] Because we did a large study of trees, I think it was about five years ago, and we were told that trees in a tract actually are healthier and or survive better, and I don't know if that's just evergreens or specific trees

[37:27] I do see some deciduous trees out here, like in parking lots kind of spread out through commercial zones. But if there is a way to preserve tree tracks, is that a pathway that could really be supported or is

[37:42] It now just up to the will of the developer whether to preserve like those old growth or older growth tree tracks.

[37:52] For the 5% retention

[37:57] Yeah, so there's so I guess there's a couple different answers to that. So in all of these scenarios, whether or not the tree tract remains a requirement for the woodland and commercial district or general commercial district, an arborist would still be involved in that process

[38:12] from the very early onset of the review of that site, the arborist would still go out and survey that site, still identify where the trees are on site, and provide recommendations on specific trees that they would recommend protecting and preserving over others.

[38:30] That information would factor into the site plan review and still be a consideration as part of the kind of arrangement of that site

[38:40] That said, it wouldn't be a requirement that they would have to put a specific 5% tree tract on the site, but they could still have a little bit more flexibility and identify where those maybe pockets of trees are that are really worth preserving and have a little bit more of a nuanced or responsive approach based on the site characteristics.

[39:02] Does that answer your question?

[39:05] Okay. So now I am going to Robert has more. That's okay. Okay, okay. Yeah. So what I'm going to do is get into public comment, and then we'll come back around for more questions.

[39:17] So thank you for being patient with this process.

[39:22] So I only have two members signed up to talk about this, but I'm sure there may be more.

[39:29] So I'm going to call David Brodebaugh first

[39:34] Please come up, identify yourself where you live. I might ask for your indulgence on this. I'm speaking to the tree ordinance, but not specifically to one of the items on the docket number 11. If you'd like me to speak last relating to the tree ordinance, because

[39:50] We've got three minutes. Got it.

[39:56] I live on 40th Court in the city of Lacey. I'm also president of the Brattle Heights Community Association, which is an HOA that we have 15 lots and two drainage tracks and filtration tracks

[40:11] Most of those tracks are taken up by infiltration ponds. My main point here tonight is that the tree code tree mitigation requirements for removing trees in Hoa tracks

[40:25] doesn't work. And the problem is that we have one of our drainage tracks. These are basically the size of residential lots. 84,000 square feet in one case with 25 trees, large trees around the perimeter, because most of the tract is a drainage infiltration facility, we cannot have

[40:46] treaties in that training infiltration facility. So we're out of room. In fact, the trees are so densely packed that younger Doug Fur, Douglas fir trees get shaded out and die. We have, I don't know if it's 100% canopy cover, but close enough to it on that tract

[41:05] The other track has 7 existing trees. Again, most of the track is infiltration pond. And so if we do have a situation where we are looking to manage risk, we have, as we did last year, one tree

[41:20] That was very unhealthy and the city's urban forester recommended that it be removed. Now, it wasn't classified hazardous, and it wasn't as the code requires, that be a hazard tree that was an eminent danger to life or property

[41:35] So it didn't quite meet that standard, there were arguably mitigation requirements with that. Fortunately, in that case, we had room. Ultimately, after some back and forth, the city required to plant three additional trees

[41:52] I managed to fit him in, but we're about done with room to plant trees if we have mitigation. So if we have another tree, especially in the tractor with 25 trees, that becomes a risk management problem, whether it truly is a hazardous tree

[42:10] That is an imminent danger to play for property. We're stuck.

[42:17] We don't really have a way out, and with the the in lieu fee payment system, we have no idea what it would cost. I don't know if we could do that. Is that 30? 30 seconds. Okay. So

[42:30] You need to come back. Ash, you please come back and visit this issue. What I would hope for is some minimum tree standards for HOA tracks somewhat analogous to the residential tracks or commercial tracks might be a different number, but something that we can actually accomplish, because right now we're stuck. I have to wait for a tree to become an eminent danger

[42:51] a hazard, and hope I catch it before it falls. That's really my management alternative right now, and that makes me uncomfortable. Thank you. Thank you.

[43:02] I can't tell if it's Lynn Fitzhugh. Is it Lynn? Could Charlotte go before me? Absolutely. Love to go before

[43:12] Okay, so I'm Charlotte Persons, and I live in Olympia.

[43:20] I'm here today to remind you of the benefits that trees provide us, especially mature trees. You may be most aware of the climate benefits. A major reason that why tree protection is part of Lacey's comprehensive plan.

[43:35] As they grow, trees absorb more and more carbon up until they're about 40 years old.

[43:41] However, because of their larger canopies, mature trees continue to absorb and capture more carbon dioxide than smaller trees.

[43:51] Similarly, mature trees provide more benefits than small trees in stormwater management.

[43:57] Larger tree roots absorb and sequester more surface water.

[44:02] Because they have more leave, mature trees are more effective at removing from the air the particulate pollution that causes asthma, heart conditions, and cancer. If the trees are planted within 100 feet of the residence

[44:17] One of the easiest benefits of mature trees to demonstrate is urban cooling in summer and heating in winter. On July 28th, I was able to go on Tumwater's tree tour

[44:31] A bus ride through different subdivisions to learn the effects of past regulations and have proposed new ones.

[44:38] One of our last stops was Brondington Drive subdivision, built in early 2000 under Thurston County codes.

[44:46] Tumwater's urban forester, Brian Coughlin, told us that this was the coolest area of the city because of 20 years of tree growth and a high amount of vegetation. His heat index survey of Tumwater showed that in summer

[45:02] This area is 12 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the city average.

[45:08] In winter, because mature trees protect against wind, Ronington drive subdivision is 6 degrees warmer.

[45:17] Trees clean the air, control sub stormwater and increase summer cooling and winter heating most directly in the areas nearby. This is why it is not effective to cut down trees and new subdivisions and create tree preserves

[45:33] far from the residents who will live there. Trees need to live among us, not in tree zoos.

[45:41] Because of the benefits of retaining older, more mature trees, I urge you to include in Lacey's incentives

[45:51] And regulations that will preserve existing trees and current housing areas, and especially in new subdivisions. You can look for ideas in the proposed changes

[46:03] that are in… that are being proposed for the Tumwater Tree Code and have already been implemented in Thurston County

[46:11] This is your opportunity to provide health and economic benefits for residents for decades to come.

[46:19] Thank you. I got to say you nailed that that was awesome.

[46:25] Okay, now let's

[46:27] The people online want reassurance, you're going to call them after. Oh, yes, absolutely. I give deference to the people that made the effort to show up. I appreciate it.

[46:38] Lynn Fitzhugh, Director of Thurston & Friends of Trees. Five years ago, Lacey citizens and members of our group testified repeatedly before both the Planning Commission and City Council asking for better protection for trees. At that time, staff was actually proposing to reduce existing protections

[46:56] This was particularly troubling because the city's own data showed that Lacey had lost 15% of its tree cover in 15 years, was below its canopy goals, and that a staff conducted public survey showed citizens wanted stronger tree protections

[47:12] After months of discussion at the final hearing, a council member proposed changing the cutting limit from 5 healthy trees in three years to 3 healthy trees in 5 years, a modest increase in protection. He explained that he was making the proposal because

[47:30] We have heard nothing but requests from the public for tree protection. I was therefore surprised and disappointed to see agenda notes suggesting that the city is now being asked to adopt what staff recommended five years ago, but did not receive because of the democratic process

[47:48] I'm also concerned that the fact that some citizens illegally cut more trees because they do not like the policy is being cited as a reason to change the rules. If I start driving 75 miles per hour down Main Street, I suspect you will not change the speed limit

[48:06] The fact that a policy does not work for one or two squeaky wheels does not mean that the many benefits of preserving trees, as Charlotte described, no longer matter.

[48:16] Five years ago, our group also asked for modifications to the tree ordinance to better reflect the intentions of the Thurston Climate Mitigation Plan. We were told this issue could not be taken up again until 2026.

[48:30] More recently, I was approached by the climate coordinator and asked to identify someone to serve on a stakeholder group as part of what appeared to be a longer process. I am therefore not understanding why we suddenly have three proposed rule changes rather than considering them as part of a carefully framed and comprehensive update to the tree ordinance

[48:51] Because the benefits Charlotte described are experienced where trees actually grow, not somewhere else, we oppose the idea of tree tracks with limited exceptions. I sometimes refer to them as tree zoos because you have to go visit the trees

[49:06] Our group strongly supports urban density as a climate solution. But up, not out should apply to individual building sites as well as the city as a whole.

[49:19] Appropriate setbacks can provide space for trees while allowing narrower and thus more affordable buildings. See Rhonda Kramer's comments

[49:30] I do not have time today to address how a good tree code can provide flexibility to the city with having one standard for homeowners and another for development, or how it can incentivize retention of older trees during development, but both are possible.

[49:47] Please do not issue votes. Yes, last sentence. Please do not green light the current proposal until we have the opportunity for a broader big picture thinking and meaningful city citizen input. Thank you. Thank you.

[50:01] Okay, is there anybody else in the room that wants to talk to the tree ordinance?

[50:07] I just want to say that I agree with both of these speakers. Would you like to register your name so you're official? My name is Maureen Bannon, and I live in Lacey. Okay.

[50:18] And I am Diane Chamusko, and I also agree with Charlotte and Lynn

[50:23] Okay. And I feel like Lacy wants to have the moniker of Tree City. Then we need to really do things to preserve our trees and not just make it

[50:36] words, we really need to do something

[50:40] Thank you all. Anybody else?

[50:43] Thank you very much. Okay, is there anybody online? So if we can go to the attendees.

[50:49] There were two people that registered to provide comment. One is, Nicole Martell, so just allowed to talk. Yeah.

[50:59] Hey, Nicole, please identify yourself. I don't know if you heard earlier.

[51:05] You got 3 min. Please, no vulgar, no offensive language and no personal attacks

[51:12] So if you could identify yourself and where you live, and you've got 3 min.

[51:17] Of course. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Nicole Martel, and I currently live in Yelm and I work part-time in Lacey. And I'm here. I was sorry I can't be there in person, but because of work, I'm glad I'm at least be able to hop on online. I appreciate that.

[51:33] I'm here because I believe Lacey has an important opportunity to rethink how we approach trees as our city continues to grow. I don't understand why the management of trees and development situations is being handled by a separate item rather than in what the

[51:49] Public has been promised would be a comprehensive rewrite of Lacey's tree code. I understand that Lacey needs housing, density, and thoughtful development, but I would encourage the Commission not to treat those goals as inherently incompatible with protecting existing trees

[52:05] In fact, I believe we need to ask a different question. How can we achieve responsible growth while designing around and retaining the trees we already have?

[52:15] Too often, our development processes allow an entire site to be cleared, sometimes including mature and healthy trees, and then considers planning a small number of replacement trees to be an adequate solution.

[52:28] But a mature tree is not interchangeable with a newly planted tree. An established tree is already providing significant benefits to the city, cooling our neighborhoods, storing carbon, filtering air, managing stormwater, reducing flooding and erosion

[52:43] noise abatement, providing wildlife habitat, protecting soil, and helping our communities be more resilient to increasing heat and climate extremes. And those benefits occur where the tree actually stands. So putting replacement trees somewhere else does not provide the same benefits to the neighborhood where the mature trees were removed

[53:03] Nor can a young tree replace decades of ecological function. So I encourage Lacey to prioritize changing the development process itself. I am curious how Lacy is measuring tree protection. Is it primarily by the number of trees

[53:18] When ecological function is more closely related to canopy, size, age, biomass, location, and continuity, we must be responsible and consider the health of our community over development.

[53:33] I'm asking if you can begin to explore how developments can be designed around significant existing trees. Can road alignments, building footprints, parking areas, and infrastructure be adjusted when feasible to preserve mature canopy?

[53:47] 30 seconds

[53:48] This is not

[53:49] This is not about stopping development, it's about developing more intelligently and with the times. I would respectfully caution against creating incentives where removing trees becomes easier simply because a developer can pay a fee or plant elsewhere. If trees are valuable public infrastructure and science increasingly tells us that they are

[54:09] Then we should be protecting that infrastructure where they already exist. We are experiencing hotter summers, increasing stormwater challenges, air pollution, habitat loss, and rapid development. So this is exactly when we should be strengthening our urban forest protections, not weakening them

[54:26] Please finish your thought.

[54:27] Lacey has an opportunity. Lacey has an opportunity that growth and environmental stewardship can work together. So let's stop thinking of mature trees as something development replaces and start treating them as something development is designed to preserve

[54:41] Thank you so much.

[54:43] Thank you very much. Okay. Okay, Rhonda

[54:50] The other one that signed up was Natasha Hayes.

[54:57] So

[54:58] All right, ready for me?

[55:00] So Sintash has signed up. Let's go to her first and then we'll get to you, Rhonda.

[55:08] Hello, I am very oddly listed on my thing as Catherine Bisser, which is not correct, but this is Natasha Hayes, and I live in Olympia, and I

[55:24] have worked in Lacey. I agree very much with those people who have spoken, Lynn and Charlotte and Nicole. I did want to add, however, two things. The first is that

[55:39] I see nothing, and Nicole did allude to this. I see nothing that specifies very carefully the 2% of the largest trees be preserved

[55:53] Because as many people have discussed, it is those very, very large trees that are by far the most important. And of course, we all know about all the horrible

[56:05] fires that are occurring all over the world that are destroying those large trees, so they are of extreme importance. The other thing I did want to say is that I thought it was quite a… I think it's quite a shame that all this information about and, you know, plans about trees, and hopefully it will be in the tree code does not include any planting of trees. And we all know that when you plant a small tree

[56:27] In exchange for one of these large trees, it's the differences is absurd, you know? I mean, the large tree does so much more to protect the environment. So both of those 2 things I did want to add. Otherwise, yes, I

[56:43] I fully agree with what has been said.

[56:47] Thank you.

[56:49] Rhonda

[56:51] Thank you. My name is Rhonda Larson-Kramer and I live at 1814 Eastside street southeast in Olympia. I want to start with a question a commissioner asked earlier, and that was, is there a jurisdiction that regulates canopy coverage rather than simply tree numbers

[57:07] Canberra, Australia does this. For example, multi-unit development in Canberra's higher density residential zones must provide at least 20% tree canopy coverage, while its lower density residential zones have required a 15

[57:25] In other words, rather than assuming the increased density requires reduced tree canopy, Canberra has required higher canopy coverage in its denser areas.

[57:35] Canberra also requires minimum soil volumes based on mature size of the type of tree. And this is important because 10 small ornamental trees and 10 large shade trees may both count as 10 trees while producing dramatically different amounts of canopy

[57:52] Stockholm demonstrates what is possible at even greater densities. It has developed a system that provides large trees with substantial rooting volumes beneath paved areas, allowing large trees to coexist with sidewalks, streets, and even high-rise development.

[58:10] I emailed the commissioners earlier today with links to information about both Canberra and Stockholm.

[58:16] I'm concerned about the tree bank approach discussed in the staff report. If developers can pay into a tree fund instead of providing required trees on site, the result could be fewer trees and less canopy where the development actually occurs. A tree planted elsewhere in Lacey cannot provide shade

[58:34] cooling or stormwater benefits at the development site. But before using offsite mitigation to accommodate greater density, I encourage Lacey to examine how other cities are accommodating both density and substantial mature canopy on site

[58:50] Density and trees are not necessarily in conflict. Density changes how we have to design for trees. It doesn't mean we have to give them up.

[59:02] Finally, trees and the soil they need should be treated as infrastructure. Instead of designing the buildings, streets, sidewalks, and utilities first, and then asking what tree will fit in the space left over

[59:18] Space for mature trees should be incorporated into the development from the beginning.

[59:24] Thank you.

[59:25] 32nd

[59:26] Thank you very much.

[59:29] Okay

[59:31] So now I'm going to go back to Commission member questions. Let's close the public hearing. Okay.

[59:38] So I will close this public hearing. I did want to also mention that planning commissioners have been emailed all of the written comments that we did receive as well. And then those are also in on the city's website on the public meeting section under the agenda. They're listed there as well

[59:55] So you all should have the written public comments in your email box. Looks like I'm seeing nods around the table. So you all did good. Thank you. Okay, Robert, you have been so patient. Thank you. No worries. I was curious where the three and five to five and five kind of came from, and if it was based in data in the sense of

[1:00:15] If we if we were to accept this recommendation to increase it to 5, does that cover 90% of use cases that you're receiving? Like, what is what actually happens when we increase it? Has there been a demand past the 3 and 5 and basically

[1:00:31] If we were to think about increasing that, would that cover all requests that are coming in? Just I'm kind of under trying to understand the why behind it.

[1:00:40] I can provide a little bit of history on this one. Brian was actually part of the initial round of this. Yeah. So prior to about 2022, for as long as I've worked here, our threshold was always 5 trees in a three year period

[1:00:56] We did an urban forest management plan update in about 2020 or 2021, and as a part of that, we adjusted some of our regulations, and at that point there was a tree committee that was established and and provided some recommendations to Council on

[1:01:12] Doing some adjustments to our residential tree requirements. One of those has been mentioned, was some relaxation of some of the regulations. When I took the recommendation of the tree committee and the Planning Commission at the time to the Council, the Council actually

[1:01:28] took a look at it and said, no, you know, we've heard we want to make, you know these residential tree requirements more restrictive. And so that's when they went to the 3 trees in a 5-year period. And so now, here we are, you know, fast forward another kind of 5 years or so, and we're back with another recommendation for

[1:01:46] essentially kind of a middle ground of five trees in a five-year period. So we went from 3 trees and a 5 to 5 trees and a 3, and now we're back with 5 trees in a 5-year period. And where this comes from, this was initiated and put on this year's docket by the council, who wanted us to take a look at these requirements, because

[1:02:03] They've gotten a number of complaints from homeowners and others around the community that they're not able to take down as many trees as they need to under our exemption criteria. And so therefore it's creating issues with, you know, maintenance and other concerns. And so

[1:02:20] Staff's recommendation at this point is to find that middle ground at 5 trees in a 5-year period in attempts to try to

[1:02:28] Retain as many trees as we can while also addressing some of the concerns of the folks that have been coming to council.

[1:02:36] Spencer. Yeah, at this point, I'm going to recommend to the Commission is my opinion that we

[1:02:42] punt on this one and that we send it back for the comprehensive update when it's done in a more thoughtful and large scale manner. There's a lot of elements in the tree code that I disagree with, and I don't think that putting a couple of these changes in here now is going to be effective both either to the citizens, the developers, to to anybody involved in this process

[1:03:02] I don't think we're making meaningful changes that are

[1:03:05] thoughtful of the second and third order consequences that could come with it. Some of the testimony tonight, I think, agrees with that. I think all of it agrees with it. And one of the questions I had written here that I didn't get to ask was, we explicitly in the slide called out that

[1:03:21] Upping this limit is contrary to Lacy's goals of retaining more trees.

[1:03:28] So why then, knowing that we are supposed to be retaining more trees, we heard it 30, 40% of the responses we got from people in the comprehensive plan update. We're talking about trees. We want more trees

[1:03:40] So then, I ask us, why are we here upping the limit? Because we've had a couple vocal upset people. I don't think that there's anything wrong, necessarily, but I want to see more information. I want to see case studies, if possible, I want to see examples of successes and failures where we can look at that

[1:04:00] And say, does this align with the vision of the city that we received from the public last year during the comp plan? And if the answer is no, I can't confidently recommend that we move forward with that. And at this moment, I feel the answer is no. And so I'd like to send it back for further review and a more comprehensive analysis

[1:04:17] Thank you. So

[1:04:20] Can we

[1:04:22] Move to put it back to staff, or do we have to recommend to the Council that they reject this? You could do either one. Okay, so is that a motion to put it back to staff?

[1:04:34] I think my motion would be that we delay or cancel this process entirely tonight.

[1:04:40] And have staff do a further review. Yeah, as part of a bigger, more well-fleshed-out initiative to update the tree codes.

[1:04:49] Is that a second? No, I. Oh, go ahead. Yeah, actually, I agree. Okay, so that's a second by Ellen.

[1:04:56] So now it's been moved and seconded that we punt this back to staff

[1:05:01] To make it part of the larger urban tree comprehensive

[1:05:08] Study

[1:05:09] And so any further discussion among Commission members period

[1:05:15] Yeah, my concern is that there are a lot of things in here that are really beneficial. When I look at part F, what's been added about

[1:05:25] Making it, you know, against regulation to build if someone illicitly clears a part of a lot. So there's that protection for the trees there that wasn't

[1:05:37] In the code previously, so that's something that would really encourage

[1:05:42] Developers to think before they cut. And I think there's some other protections in here that are of good value to look at

[1:05:53] You know, there's a lot right next to me that was developed, and they planted four trees on half of the lot. They split the lot, and then as soon as they were cleared with the city two years later, they cut them all down

[1:06:05] said, well, they're too close to the foundation and underneath the power lines. And so I've been seeing that a lot, that new development has trees planted, and then a couple years later, they're being removed. So I think that having those protections against illicitly cutting trees is really an imperative thing

[1:06:21] maybe there's a part that's not ideal that might be reconsidered, but I think to scrap this whole process and all the work that's been done might be

[1:06:32] undermining the benefit that's with these, these positive… the positive changes that are in this plan.

[1:06:39] So the motion isn't to scrap what's been done. Motion is to put it back into the larger study.

[1:06:47] All right, thank you.

[1:06:49] Any other discussions? Yes, I wanted to add to this discussion. So this is my second term serving on the commission. And of all the variety of topics and things that we've discussed in my time serving, one consistent theme has come through is community feedback

[1:07:06] formal and informal with all the channels, open houses or the online things, or people showing up and using their voices, has been about preserving our trees. I happen to live on the north side of Lacey, north of I-5,

[1:07:21] We're a tremendous, widespread tree cutting has taken place in the last five years, completely changed the community that I moved into. The appearance, all of the environmental benefits, and I understand the need for commercial development and all those things that the city is responsible for.

[1:07:39] But I do support the motion that's been made and the second and just wanted to add from you know what I've observed in these 5 years. Okay, Robert. I would just, I also agree living near what happened to Bradley

[1:07:55] where the Bladderley Park development was, like, watching hundreds and hundreds of trees be replaced by, like, dinky little 2 foot wide trees in front of condos was disheartening and not necessarily what we're aiming for as a city. I would say

[1:08:10] What I hear is some people have had some unique experiences and the real cushion part was that Part E, the insurance carrier where like I have now heard four people, two people in city in these kind of meetings and two people that I've chatted with that have basically said, yeah, the arborist said it was healthy and then another limb fell on my house. And so

[1:08:31] My only reservation of completely rejecting it, which I don't think there's a middle ground right now, but I would maybe encourage us to consider having them come back with some of these

[1:08:43] Some of these things, like Kyrian was saying with the the part F in this in the

[1:08:50] I'm sorry, the tree act requirements and Part E and the exemptions. I think it can provide temporary relief while we actually deep dive into some of the larger issues like the tree canopy versus number of trees and some of the things that have been brought up today that I

[1:09:07] I think are more in line with the goals, especially after listening for a year and a half during the comprehensive plan. We know that it's a priority for our citizens. And so I think that's my my main reservation of making this vote is that it does not address some of the issues that have been brought to us

[1:09:25] That seemed to be real issues, and so I would just

[1:09:29] I guess, make it known that, you know, that maybe there's a path forward where we don't change the number, but we do find some alternative paths for individuals that have tried to take care of their homestead, which they should be able to do as well.

[1:09:43] And I agree with that. My concern here

[1:09:49] Is

[1:09:51] taking this small piece of the larger picture and making changes here right now without knowing what the larger picture piece is going to look like

[1:10:00] I can see stumbling, and I don't think that's a good idea. And to Judy's point

[1:10:09] Every time the opportunity comes up to talk about trees, people talk about trees. And that is something that Lacey has always prided itself on is trees, right? It's part of what makes this community so much

[1:10:23] Better than other communities to live in. And so I'm going to vote in favor of this motion because

[1:10:30] I want to see the big picture. I don't want to see small scale changes when we don't know what the big picture actually looks like.

[1:10:40] So just to clarify the motion, so it sounds like we've kind of discussed around the table and I get sensing that the Planning Commission is wanting to tie this to the bigger effort, which will be coming up, you know in the next year or so is, you know, when I was 1st asked the question about sending this back to staff or to the Council

[1:10:57] If you were to send it back to staff, then this needs to go to the Council. So if you send it back to staff, it would be to either provide you with more information or make some amendments at your direction, and then come back to you with that information.

[1:11:12] What I'm understanding, based on the motion, sending this back to staff is the intent really is at this point, you're recommending denying this language so that we take this then to Council and say, hey, the planning commission looked at it, heard testimony, understands that there's a larger update to the urban forest management plan that's upcoming, and at this point the planning commission's recommendation is actually denial

[1:11:37] Because this being on the docket, the council actually needs to take action on this. So it's not like we can just punt and then keep it in our office and not take it for staff ever or announce it. We can't do that right? We can. You can punt it back to staff for us to do additional work, additional research, additional, you know, whatever amendments, draft amendments, those kinds of things

[1:11:57] But we can't just take it back and hide it from the council. So I'm understanding the motion is actually a motion to recommend denial of the amendments in favor of a future update to the regulations at a time to come in the next year or so. So I would need

[1:12:13] And either Spencer with dry original. I will withdraw and make a new motion that we deny the amendments as written currently.

[1:12:23] Under the presumption that this will be revisited within the next work plan as the work plan allows for more comprehensive evaluation of the entire practice

[1:12:34] You second again. Allen seconds again. Okay. So the motion on the table, the original motion withdrawn by the motioner

[1:12:44] And so the current motion on the table is to recommend to City Council that this current

[1:12:52] Proposal be denied

[1:12:54] And that these kinds of changes be worked into the larger urban

[1:12:59] tree plant

[1:13:01] So all those in favor?

[1:13:03] Aye.

[1:13:05] Carrying up or down.

[1:13:09] I think I'll abstain from this vote.

[1:13:12] Okay, so the motion passes. So we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ayes and one abstention

[1:13:22] All right, thank you.

[1:13:24] Okay.

[1:13:26] Next

[1:13:28] We're going to go into a rezone request, and I'm going to open that public hearing

[1:13:35] So, Hans, you're up. One more.

[1:13:39] We let you off easy last meeting. Thank you all very much for being here. Appreciate it.

[1:13:47] Serving science. You brought the science, not just emotion about it. We all love trees. We all brought the science.

[1:13:57] Thank you for saying that.

[1:14:00] Dr. Jackson. You're not going to say anything?

[1:14:04] Thank you for being here.

[1:14:18] Okay, good. So now we're going to be moving into CED work plan docket item 13. Again, this is largely going to be review presentation, but we did want to cover the entirety of the topic that we've previously reviewed

[1:14:35] For the public record. So this is captured along with the public hearing.

[1:14:39] So this item relates to a private comprehensive plan amendment and rezone request more specifically known as Tilden Commercial Llc, and then that's the actual permit number there.

[1:14:55] Let's see, here we go. Okay, yeah, so moving into kind of just a general aerial to figure out what we're talking about here. This site is on the corner of Willamette Drive and 31st Avenue. It's, highlighted by the two kind of pink or magenta

[1:15:10] rectangles there.

[1:15:15] As a bit of background, site details. So those 2 parcels are 3202 and 3220 Willamette Drive northeast. They're located at the corner of Willamette Drive and 31st Avenue. Their parcel numbers are included here, and then also they in total combined

[1:15:34] For about 1.8 total acres. And then the site condition is undeveloped, cleared at this time.

[1:15:41] As far as current site designation. So the current zoning designation of this site is neighborhood commercial district. This permits a range of different uses, including horizontal and mixed use, so combinations of residential and commercial

[1:15:57] It elevates corner lots as far as their kind of activity centers and high visibility centers recommends them for more commercial oriented, more public facing uses

[1:16:12] It comes with some form-based approaches for variable building scale and massing, depending on what's being proposed. And then it also comes with a maximum height of four floors when mixed use. There's an additional bonus height, actually, when you're

[1:16:30] the top two floors of a mixed-use building are residential. And then, moving over into the comprehensive plan, future land use side of things. This site has a transitional mixed use designation. And again, it promotes mixed-use style developments

[1:16:47] This transitional mixed use is intended to be located more on the periphery, kind of as a transition zone between more residential leaning and more commercial leaning areas of the community. And also offer kind of really pedestrian-oriented scale

[1:17:03] support local smaller scale development retail services

[1:17:09] and kind of working to reduce conflicts with more lower intensity and higher intensity uses.

[1:17:19] And then so as far as what the request is before us tonight. So the requested zoning designation would be high density residential. The primary uses that we permitted under a high density residential would be residential

[1:17:34] Minimum density requirement with a high density residential designation would be 12 units per acre, and then maximum height would be 80 feet. As far as the required future requested future land use. This would also require a change, because high density rental residential is not currently a permitted

[1:17:52] Zoning designation within the future land use designation. So there was a request there for a residential designation which would then permit a high density residential zoning designation as well. And then, as far as residential uses, their residential in nature and really cover the gamut of kind of individual

[1:18:11] structures all the way up to larger multifamily

[1:18:17] As part of the review process, we actually have a specific section of code that dictates how we review these requests when they're in alignment with the future land use code and when they are not within alignment with the future land use code. So in this situation, the request would require a future land use code change as well

[1:18:36] And then there's actually 4 different criteria that are identified within this section of code that any proposal would be required to meet all of those criteria in order to be recommended. And those criteria, and this is summary language. They are longer

[1:18:52] within our specific code, but at a high level, number one, they have merit and value for the community, so they will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. Number two, they will not negatively impact adjacent uses

[1:19:06] Number three, since the last rezone, conditions have substantially changed that would warrant a redesignation as a result of significant changes in the area. And then number 4, consistent with the comprehensive plan goals and policies. So

[1:19:21] What's being proposed is an alignment with the comprehensive plan and the goals and policies that have been identified within that plan. So those are the 4 criteria that we're essentially evaluating any rezone that comes in against

[1:19:35] Where's my cursor? There we go. As far as a bit of site history, and this is really only covering the last six years of this site, but looking back to pre-2020, this site actually used to be a single parcel. It was 11.5 acres at that time, and it had a community commercial designation

[1:19:55] Community commercial kind of fell between what is now our neighborhood commercial district and our general commercial. So it was that kind of middle scale commercial development

[1:20:06] provided a range of different opportunities for commercial facilities

[1:20:11] Really providing for kind of the day-to-day operational uses of the community versus the neighborhood is kind of one of the distinctions there. And it really kind of balances the catering to both automobile traffic, but then also local foot traffic. So again, it's kind of that middle between general commercial and neighborhood commercial

[1:20:30] Since this time we've actually eliminated the zoning designation and we've consolidated majority of those sites into neighbor commercial, because it actually, when looking at the code at that time as part of the comprehensive plan update

[1:20:44] I'm pretty closely mirrored what was our then neighborhood commercial district. So

[1:20:50] Yeah. Moving into 2020, this site actually came in for a rezone application, splitting it into two different zoning designations. One of which would be 9.51 acres being rezoned to high density residential

[1:21:07] and then preserving the southeast southwestern corner 2 acres for a neighborhood commercial district designation. Part of the findings, and why this was actually recommended at that time was because the inclusion of the commercial component, so that neighborhood commercial component in the corner

[1:21:27] Really aligned with the policies of the comprehensive plan of that time, given we have updated it, but it really met the policies of the comprehensive plan as far as meeting that neighborhood scale commercial nodes that was really highlighted

[1:21:42] As part of that update, and then it also really highlighted the ability of that site to meet the strategically located

[1:21:51] Commercial locations within neighborhood zones to meet kind of those economic goals that we had also set out as part of the comprehensive plan at that time. So that proposal was carried forward and approved. It was recommended by both Planning Commission and Council at that time

[1:22:08] But really a large part of why that recommendation came about was because it was holding on to that commercial component of the rezone at that time.

[1:22:18] Moving into 2022 all the way through 2024, the then rezone 9.5 acres high density residential portion of the site got redeveloped or not redeveloped, but developed into what is now

[1:22:35] Tilden Apartments. So it is a higher density residential style development. And then immediately across the way, and again, the City of

[1:22:42] The text here is covering up those graphics and they are admittedly small to begin with, but immediately across the way, another 8.5 acres was also developed with multifamily. In total, between those 2 developments, there was an additional 400 residential multifamily units that were brought within

[1:23:00] 200 or so feet of the subject site over this timeline. So between 22 2022 to 2024 is kind of when all that development took place.

[1:23:13] Moving into 2024 and actually starting similarly back in 2022 is really when we started looking at this, but the process took about two years. It was the update to our neighborhood commercial districts. This is something that a lot of you actually on the planning commission participated in

[1:23:29] But this was prompted in large part by the existing neighbor commercial districts that were north of high five, largely located within this Hawkesbury area. And the community feedback that we were receiving at that time is that the districts, as they were zoned at that time and the code associated with that zoning designation really wasn't meeting the intent of the community

[1:23:51] So it was a large overhaul of the neighborhood Commercial Code at that time to the point where we actually did a full repeal and replace of that code with the code that we now have adopted today. And a lot of you, again, participated in that. But as a result of that code update, there was actually an increase, significant increase of the amount of residential uses that are actually permitted in these zones

[1:24:13] Both vertically and horizontally.

[1:24:15] removal of gas stations as a permitted use within these zones, and then expanded allowances for things like grocery stores and daycares and other community oriented uses as part of this outreach, we also reached out specifically to all the owners and commercial and residential operators

[1:24:34] that existed within these zones and encourage them and solicited feedback directly from them as part of this update process. So we did definitely balance the feedback of the community with what we're hearing from the owners of these sites

[1:24:50] And then commercial developers at that time.

[1:24:55] And then moving into 2025 is when we updated and then adopted our comprehensive plan, which again, a lot of you were a part of that process. But that was a larger, more community-wide engagement process where we heard from the community at large about a range of different topics

[1:25:14] Some of which speak to and were directly related to either this process or neighbor commercial districts in general. So we did actually get between the neighborhood commercial update and the comprehensive plan update, a wealth of feedback from the community that

[1:25:29] feels relevant to the subject at hand. Things that got carried forward and has actually been persistent parts of our comprehensive plans for years and our climate sustainability goals is a thirst, and it's actually originated in a sustainable Thurston from, I think, 201

[1:25:46] That has been echoed and carried forward and some of you were a part of that as well. But that goal really highlighted a priority for the community that's been carried forward. And with a stated target of by 203

[1:26:04] for 72% of all households to be within a half mile or 15-minute walking radius of an urban or neighborhood center, which these commercial nodes would fall into.

[1:26:15] We also heard further just generalized feedback on desires for walkability and community gathering places and shopping options closer to where people live.

[1:26:27] And then

[1:26:31] Okay, so yeah, that was just general kind of feedback. And then also as part of this comprehensive plan update process. We did also ask the community for rezone submittals.

[1:26:44] Reason we did this is that we had some opportunity there to take a look at our different zoning designations and see if there were some that would be better adjusted to align with the community feedback that we were hearing at that time. In total, we received 50 different unique submittals as part of that process

[1:27:01] We took those 50 sites to you guys and actually identified and developed a rezone prioritization rubric, really kind of creating 2 categories. Category one being those zones that really were simple enough and in alignment enough with the community feedback that we're hearing at that time to carry forward as part of the comprehensive plan

[1:27:22] And then category two is those sites that deserved more targeted focus review outside of what the comprehensive plan could offer at that time. This site was submitted as part of those 50, but ultimately, after this process was recommended for more of a targeted review, which we are now engaging with here tonight.

[1:27:40] And the last meeting and into the future. And then

[1:27:46] as recently as actually this year, we actually just completed our 2026 economic development strategic plan within that plan. It covers a range of different topics, but I did pull out a couple that felt relevant to the topic at hand

[1:28:01] One, the vision statement a thriving small businesses, a supportive business culture and local commercial hubs integrated into surrounding neighborhoods that will create spaces for gatherings, daily needs, and bold placemaking. That's the vision statement of the economic development plan that was

[1:28:19] adopted this year, and then it does have sections that speak directly to kind of the Hawks Prairie area, including findings that the Hawkes Prairie area

[1:28:29] commands higher commercial rents than other areas of the community. And then with all the industrial growth that's really kind of taking place in the Hawkes Berry District, north of I-5, with all that development, there's a heightened need for additional retail and professional services spaces being provided in conjunction with those types of uses.

[1:28:49] And then there are also developers that were interviewed as part of that process as well. And there's a quote from one of those developers included here on this slide. But really what it says is evidence of sustained market interest in creative mixed use development, emphasizing

[1:29:04] That project offering food projects offering food, recreation, and gathering spaces are outperforming single use models. So all things that felt progressively relevant the closer we get to today, as far as what recent findings and studies have produced

[1:29:20] This is just a graphic to kind of show the last six year timeline of all the different projects and updates and work that has gone on either specifically to this site or immediately surrounding it or relevant to it in some way. So really starting with that community commercial designation pre-202

[1:29:37] Moving into the first rezone that split the site into a high-density residential portion and a neighborhood commercial district portion in 2020. And then the multi-unit developments that took place immediately around the site from 2020 to 2024

[1:29:54] And then the update to the neighborhood commercial districts that we did in 2024 account plan update in 2025, and then the economic development strategy in 2026. So the reason I throw this graphic up here is that it's rare that we have so much

[1:30:10] work and kind of studies and information from the community. This recently completed this relevant to a proposal. A lot of times we're, you know, looking back 10, 15 years to find these types of documents to

[1:30:25] Find out what the community said at that time, and then we're trying to extrapolate that forward with what we hear at a public hearing and kind of combining all that feedback into one. But with this site, and specifically and rezones that we probably will experience the next few years, we do have a wealth of information from the community as far as what they're looking for

[1:30:45] And then at our last meeting, when we took a look at this site, one of the requests from you guys of the Planning Commission was actually to take a look at the other neighborhood commercial designated sites within the Hawkes Prairie area north of I-5.

[1:31:02] to see kind of when they were initially designated as commercial sites, and then how long after that designation did take for them to actually to develop into commercial uses. This graphic is actually pulled from the 2024 review of neighbor commercial districts, but it's a helpful graphic to kind of show you, get a little bit oriented with the north side of I 5

[1:31:21] As far as where these districts are located.

[1:31:25] But the 1st one is located at the corner of 41st and Marvin represents 6.4 total acres. It was 1st received a commercial designation in 2,002, but actually received

[1:31:40] A portion of the site actually had one prior, but it wasn't until 2002 that the entirety of that site received a commercial designation. And

[1:31:49] the owners of the site were participants in the neighborhood commercial district update as far as that code they provided feedback in there, and then actually immediately thereafter came in for design review in 2024 after that update process

[1:32:05] And then they have an anticipated site development of 2027. And this is a kind of early site plan graphic and rendering that they've provided as part of the initial packet. So this one here is

[1:32:20] Just about 25 years between its initial complete commercial designation when they actually came in for permitting and design review.

[1:32:31] The next one is located at Willamette and Campus Glen. It is 1.5 total acres. It was first received a commercial designation in 2003. Many of you might recognize this as Meridian Market

[1:32:46] This is actually one of the sites that prompted a lot of the review of the neighborhood commercial districts.

[1:32:54] A lot of the discussion around it started here. But it came in for design review in 2022, and then is currently actually I took this photo last week, so it's actually currently under development with a commercial use on that site

[1:33:10] So again, that's about 20 or so years between initial commercial designation and development.

[1:33:16] And then the last one that exists within Hux, this kind of area is at the corner of Hawks Prairie and Marvin. This actually is one of those examples of what this used to actually have a community commercial designation to it, but was rezoned as part of a comprehensive plan to neighbor commercial district because the build out of it

[1:33:35] really kind of mostly aligned with the characteristics of neighborhood commercial district. So it's not a clean one to one, but it is still an example of a neighbor commercial district within the Hawkesbury area, north of I-5. This site represents 9.4 total acres

[1:33:54] I'm just around half of that currently has a commercial style development on it. The other half has a residential one on it. But this first actually had a commercial designation, so not necessarily nearby commercial, but a commercial designation

[1:34:10] As far as backness that we could find was 1997, and it didn't come in for design review until 2016, and is currently still mostly built out, but there is still a commercial pad there that's available. So it really developed largely between 2017 and 2025.

[1:34:26] So again, that's 20 plus years between its initial commercial designation and when development took place. So those are the sites that really kind of met the criteria that are in the vicinity that were asked about as part of our last meeting. So I did want to give some background history there.

[1:34:45] And then kind of circling back to the criteria that we have to balance recommendations based on when rezone applications come in. The criteria that we're looking at whether or not an application meets this

[1:35:00] These conditions in order to recommend it.

[1:35:03] So at least municipal Code 1113050 states city may deny rezone request if it fails to meet all criteria within this section. And then so this is kind of criteria one and then staff findings related to each one of these criteria. And I'll run through a couple of them here.

[1:35:20] That criteria one was proposal has merit and value for the community and will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. And staff findings related to this criteria specifically. So the existing proposed zone does allow for high density residential uses, given there is a commercial component attached to it as well

[1:35:40] But that does not expressly prohibit residential uses also taking place on site in a mixed use form

[1:35:48] Neighbor commercial district also has a height density bonus for resident when residential uses are proposed in conjunction with commercial up to floor floors. Floor floors is actually the height of the Carlo apartments, which

[1:36:04] southwest of this location where about 200 or so units went in

[1:36:09] the tilde departments, by comparison, actually only went up 3 floors. So hypothetically, with the 4 floor allowances, you still could accomplish ground floor, commercial and meet the same level of density that the adjacent uses has been built out by

[1:36:25] And then under high density residential zone

[1:36:29] So really this last bullet is getting at, so if residential is still an allowed use on the site under both the existing and proposed designation, what then would we potentially be losing out on by changing this designation from the neighbor commercial to a strictly residential use

[1:36:45] And really, some of the things that are within the neighborhood commercial district that we would like to highlight is the affordable housing criteria that's a requirement of the neighborhood commercial district community oriented public gathering spaces

[1:37:00] And then commercial retail spaces in support of our vehicle miles traveled and other comprehensive plan goals and targets that we identified.

[1:37:09] So that's criteria one. Criteria 3 relies on how conditions that have, yeah, so basically points to conditions have substantially changed or impacted the subject properties since the last time it was rezoned

[1:37:24] So last time it was rezoned was in 2020. And I do want to get right out and say that there was definitely 400 new multifamily units that were placed within a very short proximity of this location. That said, those

[1:37:39] new units were placed on parcels with a designation that accommodated that type of use. So while that is new development, it's not unanticipated development based on what our comprehensive plan and zoning had projected at that time

[1:37:57] The caveat there is that both of those sites previously before they had residential uses placed on them had a pathway for both residential and commercial uses to go in those locations. So the biggest

[1:38:11] change over what was kind of anticipated and what was built is actually a loss in commercial uses on both those sites that had potential to go in there, but they weren't developed that way.

[1:38:23] That's criteria 3.

[1:38:26] And then criteria 4 rezones must be in alignment with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. This one was largely covered in the staff report. There were 7 goals and policies that were identified that were largely in alignment with what's being proposed on site

[1:38:43] That said, there were another 16 goals or policies that were identified as counter or not directly in alignment with what's being proposed on site. While those are listed in the staff report and available both to you guys and online through the city website. I'm not going to run through all of those right now. Thank you. But they are there in a bill. We've been at this a while. Yeah, the basically the takeaway of this slide is that while there are goals and policies that are both for and

[1:39:10] Or in alignment and not in alignment with what's being proposed. There are a larger number that would appear to be not in alignment with what's being proposed.

[1:39:20] So with all of that, there is both a staff recommendation and then also a planning commission recommendation. But based on these findings

[1:39:31] Staff is not recommending the adoption of this proposal proposed rezone or comprehensive plan amendment at this time.

[1:39:39] And with that, it brings us to tonight's meeting. So where we are here, we have an opportunity to hear from the community. We have an opportunity to hear from the applicant. You guys have an opportunity to discuss it and then following that, you have an opportunity to make a recommendation

[1:39:54] to Council, where then they would potentially do further review, and then make a final determination. Thank you. So I'm going to start. I think we have a representative from the owner

[1:40:06] So let me give you

[1:40:10] 5 minutes

[1:40:13] I trust

[1:40:16] I don't have to say this, but nothing vulgar, offensive, or… Okay.

[1:40:24] I was the developer of Children Apartments project, which sorry that all our tree people left. We worked really hard to preserve mature tree canopy at Tilden Apartments.

[1:40:38] We acquired the property in 2021 after the previous rezone had occurred.

[1:40:44] And last time you met to discuss this project. My colleague Deanna shared our site's history with you. which we don't need to go over again.

[1:40:55] We knew right away that this corn would be very difficult for us to develop as retail. And so for the past five years, we've tried to work with the city to adjust the zoning designation to allow us to put this land to good use.

[1:41:08] And time and time again, we've been turned away.

[1:41:12] I am not naive. I know based on your comments at the last meeting

[1:41:17] And my subsequent discussions with planning staff, I believe a recommendation to approve this request tonight is highly unlikely.

[1:41:25] That said, I'm here because I have a responsibility to my partners to do everything I can to make this site a success.

[1:41:32] Tarragon is not a merchant developer. We build and hold for the long term and we have no plans to sell the Tilden Apartments project.

[1:41:40] Tilden commercial is our front door, and we are committed to making it the best we can.

[1:41:45] If we're unsuccessful here tonight.

[1:41:48] You can bet that we'll be back.

[1:41:51] At the last planning commission meeting, you raised several questions about this rezone, and I would like to share our perspective on these issues tonight here before you deliberate.

[1:42:00] The question was raised, how would this rezone impact traffic in the area?

[1:42:04] Our team engaged a traffic engineer during the development of Tilden Apartments. Within that study, which was provided to the city back in 2022

[1:42:13] It states clearly that a retail use on this corner will result in higher traffic counts during PM peak hours. Than a residential use.

[1:42:22] To restate that in different words, if this site could ever be developed as retail, evening traffic in the area would be noticeably worse than if the site were developed as residential.

[1:42:32] I know you're pushing for walking communities.

[1:42:35] But please note that a retail use in this location will increase vehicle traffic, including trucks and semis.

[1:42:43] Another question was raised about the economic impacts of this freezone.

[1:42:47] Our team used city data to prepare an analysis of tax revenue generated by this property.

[1:42:53] Currently, we pay $4,000 a year in property taxes. About 15% of that goes to the state of Washington and 85% of it stays here locally.

[1:43:02] And goes to the city, the county, and to local schools.

[1:43:05] Over a 10-year period, vacant site would contribute roughly $37,000 to the local economy.

[1:43:12] In contrast, we examined the tax revenue that would be generated if the site were rezoned and developed as multifamily.

[1:43:19] We use data from the city of Lacey's 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report to estimate per capita sales tax revenue.

[1:43:27] And we combine that with increased property taxes over a 10-year period

[1:43:32] That number is north of $2 million.

[1:43:34] To be clear, that is $2 million in tax revenue that the city is leaving on the table. If the land remains undeveloped.

[1:43:42] We did not analyze the tax revenue of a retail use on the site because as we've shared multiple times in the past, we can't develop the site as retail if there's no demand for it.

[1:43:54] Several of you asked for more information on the neighborhood commercial nodes north of I-5. And Hans did a good job of summarizing these to you.

[1:44:02] But I want to point out a few

[1:44:04] points about them

[1:44:06] The node at the intersection of Marvin and 41st is 6.4 acres, more than 3 times the size of our site.

[1:44:13] They have far more space to work with. And this gives them greater flexibility than we have.

[1:44:19] Second, the node at the intersection of Hawkes Prairie and Marvin Road contains a gas station and a daycare.

[1:44:26] Gas stations are no longer allowed. What's that?

[1:44:30] Gas stations are no longer allowed in the neighborhood commercial zone. And we already have a daycare directly across the street from us at Tilden.

[1:44:38] The third and final note is just north of us at the intersection of Willamette and Campus Clinton.

[1:44:43] This site is under development as a gas station.

[1:44:46] Again, this use is no longer allowed per your city's code.

[1:44:51] These other three retail nodes have very different circumstances dictating their uses. And some are even playing by different rules.

[1:44:58] Saying that we can develop our site as retail because these other sites are able to do so is not a fair statement.

[1:45:05] In closing

[1:45:07] My job as a developer is to take vacant land and put it to good use. In its current state, the vacant tilden commercial land is not serving us. It's not serving the neighborhood, and it's not serving the city of Lacy.

[1:45:19] We have a plan to put this land to work to make it a meaningful and valuable part of the community.

[1:45:25] But we can't do that without your help

[1:45:28] Please consider everything I've shared with you here tonight, and let's work together to do something rather than continuing to do nothing. Thank you.

[1:45:36] Thank you very much.

[1:45:39] Okay, Maureen.

[1:45:41] Please state your name and where you live in 3 minutes. Hey, I get my legs moving. You all should stand up and do the same thing. When I stand up and I can try to get everything moving the same direction, right? My name is Maureen Bard and I'm a resident of the Meridian campus neighborhood

[1:46:01] Our neighborhood already is experiencing significant congestion because 3 exits all funnel onto one single roadway. And this occurs now before the Hogan Bay Town Center has had any residents move into their

[1:46:16] And into those apartments. We are already facing gridlock under the current conditions, adding more density will only intensify the problem. Before approving additional land use changes, we need clarity on

[1:46:31] When the last traffic study was conducted and whether it really is reflecting our present day realities.

[1:46:38] I guess I'm asking if gridlock adversely affects public health, safety, and welfare. I think that more and more we're getting concerned, how are we going to get out of our neighborhood

[1:46:49] if there's a fire, and if there's some kind of an emergency, because we're trying to evacuate when we've got cars, we've got semi-trucks, we have all sorts of interesting mixes of vehicles

[1:47:05] And so I'm not quite sure how this is all relating to what this is before you today, but I do want you to consider

[1:47:14] That with increased density, we're getting into increased concerns about our safety and our evacuation. There are a lot of neighborhoods in Spokane that I'm sure could be asking these

[1:47:27] Thank you.

[1:47:30] Okay, online, Nicole, are you wanting to comment on this issue?

[1:47:37] Yes.

[1:47:40] Nicole?

[1:47:41] Hi, no, actually, I just was appreciating the and learning more about this rezoning issue. And so, no, I'm just observing. Thank you for checking in with me, though.

[1:47:52] All right, thank you for being here.

[1:47:55] All right, with that

[1:47:56] Thank you for all you do.

[1:47:57] I'm going to close the public hearing and open up discussion.

[1:48:02] the end of the… I'll just start interrupting again, Jeff. I apologize, but just also, we did receive some written public comment on this issue as well, and those are in your email inbox as well. So, thank you. Yep.

[1:48:15] So at the end of this, what we're looking, what I'm looking for is a motion in a second to make a recommendation to the city council

[1:48:24] to either doc or reject this zoning request

[1:48:29] Before I go to all you, I do want to make some comments that are based on my 40 years experience working in land use.

[1:48:38] And especially with commercial development since 1997.

[1:48:44] My first observation here, if I was looking at this

[1:48:48] Is that the current owner bought this with the current zoning in place

[1:48:55] I'm sure they bought it with the idea that and the hope that, well, we can probably make something work here.

[1:49:03] And now they have determined they cannot. But what I will say to that is we don't know their business model.

[1:49:10] Is it that tilding cannot make it work, but another developer can?

[1:49:17] I also want to make a comment here that if we do accept this rezone

[1:49:22] That neighborhood commercial has never come back

[1:49:25] And when we were going through the comprehensive plan review the last 2 years, which you all worked very hard on

[1:49:33] Most of you work very hard on some of you weren't here.

[1:49:39] What we heard from residents was that that neighborhood commercial is very, very important.

[1:49:45] And

[1:49:48] You know, one of the comments

[1:49:51] From the developer here was you

[1:49:55] There's already a daycare center across the street, yet the type of development they're proposing with the rezone is going to increase the demand for daycare. So it's kind of

[1:50:04] You know.

[1:50:07] What do you live with here, right?

[1:50:10] So

[1:50:12] In my experience, especially in city council, was every developer has an idea how to maximize their return.

[1:50:19] On any given site.

[1:50:21] And it may or may not fit with the current vision of the city.

[1:50:28] So is it that they can't make money on this site, or is it that they want to make more money?

[1:50:33] So it's definitely something to consider here.

[1:50:36] And as far as the timeline for development on these sites and what we saw in the examples that Hans gave

[1:50:43] Anywhere from 10 to 25 years for development to take place after a zoning change

[1:50:52] That's common.

[1:50:53] I mean, honestly, I've seen sites where it's 40 years from the time a zoning change happens until economic conditions catch up

[1:51:02] to where that site becomes profitable for a particular zoning.

[1:51:06] So I'd like you all to keep that in mind.

[1:51:11] Because I think it's valuable to learn from what

[1:51:15] I've learned in my life. So, with that, I'm going to start with Carrie and

[1:51:21] Any questions?

[1:51:24] Well, you know, I was just recently at Point Reston, and I don't know if you've been to that neighborhood in Tacoma, but it's basically all neighborhood commercial. All the lower all the first floors are businesses with housing built on top of it

[1:51:40] And granted, this particular parcel is not on the the sound. But I've also seen other

[1:51:47] instances of this neighborhood commercial model being used, and it really builds a thriving community, and you see that the people from those buildings are actually coming, people from around are walking or riding their bikes, and even people from outside are coming, which might increase car traffic

[1:52:02] But it seems like

[1:52:04] This is something that really is different than the rest of that area. And it's something that's really fulfilling a need. So

[1:52:15] I do believe that

[1:52:18] If you find the right model and you put the right energy into it, you create a thriving community that would actually make the, you know, the surrounding apartments even that much more desirable.

[1:52:28] But

[1:52:29] The question I had was that I believe Ryan

[1:52:35] or I don't know if I heard you right, I'm sorry.

[1:52:41] Was it Hans that was saying that it could go up to 80 feet, which I believe is 8 to 10 stories in the

[1:52:48] If it's high density at the state's definition of high density

[1:52:54] Yeah, that's correct. So under our zoning regulations, under high density, which is the proposal, it can go up to 80 feet in height.

[1:53:03] So

[1:53:04] And their high density has no maximum density associated with it either. It's essentially 12 plus units per acre.

[1:53:13] So in this case, you know, what you would see is probably

[1:53:19] You know, more market rate garden style apartments be there. So I would say that the likelihood of a essentially 80 feet means an 8 story tower. There would need to be parking and other things associated with that. So, you know, highly, highly unlikely, but you know likely to see more, you know, market rate garden style apartments on that corner under the

[1:53:41] Proposed zoning.

[1:53:44] Thank you.

[1:53:46] Okay, Eric.

[1:53:49] Yeah, I mean, I don't have any questions. I mean, I think, yeah, with the current use of Helsing in the community still, there's the opportunity for housing as well as mixed use. And

[1:54:01] Yeah, no other questions, comments. So is that a motion to recommend redemption? No. Like, I'd like to hear from everyone. Yeah, so, I am a resident of Meridian Campus, and I have served as a board member and a community leader

[1:54:18] In this area for 6 years. And there is a demand and a need for commercial opportunities. That has been expressed to the board to our team

[1:54:33] for many years. The convenience, the walkability, we echo the preferences of the city in wanting walkability to these situations, and not more residential, not more density. And I don't know if we're allowed to ask the

[1:54:49] petitioner questions, but I will just say my question out loud.

[1:54:53] is what efforts have been undertaken

[1:54:56] to determine the opportunity, the business opportunity for making it commercial. Has there been a partnership with the, you know, various city services or groups, economic development and things? Has there been a survey done of the 2,100 homeowners

[1:55:15] in Meridian campus residential of what they're looking for. What efforts have they made to find this available opportunity other than just a plug and play. We know how to build apartments. We want to build more apartments.

[1:55:28] Would you like to answer that? Yeah. Since the day we acquired the property, we have been the microphone is right up here in the ceiling. So yeah, perfect

[1:55:40] So

[1:55:42] I forget who said it, but we acquired the property with the intent to do something there retail. But we have been trying for 5 years. We've been marketing it actively with all of the retail brokers we know in the city of Lacey, including our internal team

[1:55:58] And in 5 years, we have received 0 interest

[1:56:03] And that's the reason why we want to do something different. Because what we've been trying to do, what the code has mandated and we just haven't been able to make anything happen

[1:56:14] And so part of that time frame encompasses COVID, which was not typical times to solicit interest for anybody. And then, you know, you're looking at interest rates and the economy at a certain stage. But I think there'd be so much value to asking the 2,100 homeowners

[1:56:30] that could walk or ride their bikes or their e-bikes and things that everyone do now that would give you a sense of what would be successful there as a business.

[1:56:41] So I think there's some creative ways to explore that to make it profitable rather than the what you know is building apartments, and let's do more. There's a demand. I know there's a demand, having served as a community leader there for 6 years.

[1:56:58] I also live in that neighborhood and I've complained about the traffic since all the warehouses have been going up. Majority of my fight, you guys have heard, is the trucks

[1:57:12] going down the neighborhood ways and smashing

[1:57:16] The center blocks and all that stuff.

[1:57:22] I dread going out of my neighborhood just because if I go out, I'm stuck in traffic in the main city.

[1:57:30] I'd rather have stuff in my neighborhood have to leave. I'm now getting scared going out just because of the density of the traffic. But

[1:57:44] like my mother-in-law, she uses a PT. She, you know, it helps her walk over there while she gets ex… I mean medical clinics, smaller type medical clinics. There's a high density of soldiers that are running in there, especially probably near apartments as well

[1:58:03] Just have access. Some of the availabilities of not only just child care, but child

[1:58:11] entertainment of various ages. I work also with the Nisqually Reach Nature Center, so they' been increased. There's a lot of density of

[1:58:24] fishing access, and I know the boat ramps there has increased as well. So there's a lot of things that you can explore in there. Yeah, just going outside that neighborhood. It scares me because it going on traffic

[1:58:39] you know, takes me just to move my car a mile. It's it's 15, 20 minutes

[1:58:48] So, as a retiree, I'm like, it's not even worth it until I wish a lot of the stores in the city were

[1:58:55] up to 2 Am. Because then that's probably when I'll probably go. You know not a lot of people are out and about, but that's what it's come to.

[1:59:06] But if you're asking me to work, I'd rather stop and spend money in my in my own neighborhood, but my trucks, the trucks are the big thing for me

[1:59:17] Kills me.

[1:59:18] I'm in favor of retaining it as neighborhood commercial, and I do have the broad question of why wasn't it developed whenever the parcels were zoned, rezoned, and split?

[1:59:28] Why was it broken in the 3 separate parcels and created with it a right away through the middle of it that makes that southeast parcel effectively small and limited in scope. It seems like this is a design choice that you're asking for the city to let you out of

[1:59:47] Versus we had a fully developed vision. Also, those lots are completely cleared. That was a forested area. So under what permit were those lots cleared? I have to ask that question to myself, especially once we've seen how much testimony there is towards

[2:00:02] trees and retention of that. It looks like that was used as a staging area for construction, which is a fine use.

[2:00:08] But you left a lot on the table. You left almost 2 acres, almost 20% of your total land area on the table with no plan to develop it, and you're saying it can't be rented out, it can't be developed to someone else, because we haven't been able to find anyone. And you've heard several creative solutions. I'm not going to offer any. I don't work in that field

[2:00:27] But this feels like a self-inflicted choice from my perspective, and I see no reason why the city should change that designation after having gone through a full multi-year long process reaffirming that designation with

[2:00:43] So much input from the people in Hawks Prairie stating they want these retail opportunities close by.

[2:00:49] You also have the opportunity to have that retail on the ground level and supplement that with residential above. Yes, it's more expensive. Yes, it comes with a few extra hurdles, none that I don't think are substantial in preventing your organization from developing that land in a meaningful way that will benefit the community

[2:01:06] I recommend that we vote no and deny this. The staff has listed numerous reasons. I've read multiple public comments. I've received testimony. I would make the motion, but I want everybody to have their chance to speak.

[2:01:19] Robert

[2:01:20] I think my comments are

[2:01:24] turn and look at me. Nice. Okay, I also, you know, just kind of took in all the the notes, and I think you know there has been a lot of movement on this parcel in a short period of time, but there's a consistency, and and I think that the fact that there was

[2:01:42] You know, an 83% reduction in commercial use and an 11 and a half acre parcel. And yes, it's been a few years, but there's still only so much left. And my reservation mainly stands with the fact that once we move it that way, there is no going back, right? There are only so many limited spaces that we've designated

[2:02:02] in a very high density area, in a very large area that is continuing to grow from a residential standpoint. So I would be very cautious about making a change that's

[2:02:15] irreversible, and so I would like to motion to not recommend the proposed rezone request to the Lacey City Council for specific review. Second Spencer entity

[2:02:27] Okay, there's a motion on the table.

[2:02:30] To send the recommendation to the City Council to reject this proposed rezone.

[2:02:36] Any further discussion?

[2:02:40] All those in favor? Aye.

[2:02:44] It's unanimous

[2:02:47] All right.

[2:02:50] We reached the end of our business. We're only 2 min over our scheduled time, three minutes, sorry. And I want to thank you all. I want to thank you all. I want to thank all the members of the public that managed to stick with us.

[2:03:03] And

[2:03:06] You got one more? One quick thing, because we got through all of the business tonight. You're rewarded with not having to come in two weeks, so our September 9th meeting is canceled. We'll regather, next meeting is September 23rd. That will be a rather full agenda that night.

[2:03:20] Okay. All right. All right, thank you all very much.

[2:03:26] Meaning

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript