Planning Commission

Thu, June 18, 2026

Agenda PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

Planning Commission — June 18, 2026

This was a regular Planning Commission meeting with all members present. The commission took up two public hearings — one on home occupation code updates and one on the landmark tree ordinance — and received a brief director's report. The commission voted to recommend the home occupation changes to City Council, but declined to advance the landmark tree ordinance in its current form, directing staff to refine several key elements before returning.

General Public Comment

Before the main agenda items, Miles Silverman of the Cordata neighborhood spoke about the city's draft residential zoning map, arguing it does not reflect current transportation realities or the community's stated goals around walkability and equitable development. He pointed out that density boundaries in neighborhoods like Sunnyland and Roosevelt appear to reflect historical planning priorities rather than proximity to transit or amenities. With the Gold Line now operational, he argued that treating Alabama Street as a density boundary no longer makes sense. He also noted inconsistencies in how urban villages like the Fountain District are zoned compared to areas like Birchwood, and urged the commission to be "ambitious and creative" in setting residential zoning boundaries. No commission action was taken; this was informational comment.

Home Occupation Code Update (Public Hearing)

What it is: Staff presented a proposed ordinance updating Bellingham's rules for home-based businesses, the first significant revision in many years. The update was framed as "Phase 1" of a broader effort to allow small-scale commercial activity in residential neighborhoods, consistent with the newly adopted Bellingham Plan and Mayor Kim Lund's June 15th executive order directing the city to support small-scale commercial activity in residential areas.

Current rules: Home occupations are currently limited to operations inside the home, with no exterior modifications, no retail sales, and no more than one employee beyond the resident.

What the ordinance proposes:

A tiered permit structure: permit-exempt uses, administrative permits for most home occupations, and a discretionary (conditional use-style) permit for higher-impact uses like woodworking, welding, or machining.

Allows home businesses to operate in accessory buildings (e.g., garages, workshops) on the same property — closing a longstanding gap that forced staff to turn away legitimate applicants.

Maximum size of 500 square feet, or up to 50% of the home's gross floor area (whichever is less), with larger operations requiring a discretionary permit.

Allows structural expansions (e.g., a baker expanding their kitchen) for business purposes.

Increases the employee limit from one to three per home occupation.

Permits retail sales of goods produced on-site, and allows incidental retail tied to a service (e.g., a hair stylist selling shampoo).

Prohibits outdoor storage and fleet dispatch centers (e.g., landscaping or contracting companies staging trucks and crew from a residence).

Limits discretionary (Class C) operations to Monday–Friday, 8 a.m.–5 p.m., with flexibility for the director to adjust hours based on public input.

Exempts home occupations under 500 square feet from transportation concurrency fees, reducing startup costs for small businesses.

Discussion: Commissioners were broadly supportive, praising the tiered approach as a solution to the challenge of writing one rule that covers vastly different use types. Questions were raised about weekend hours for discretionary uses (staff explained the conservative hours were chosen to balance business viability with neighbor quiet enjoyment, while retaining director flexibility to expand them), the future pathway toward allowing corner stores and neighborhood-serving retail (staff noted this is planned as part of a broader residential code rewrite), the definition of "fleet dispatch" (clarified as about trucks and workers staging from the property, not a remote dispatcher working from home), whether marijuana-related businesses are prohibited (yes, due to state-mandated buffers), and whether residents could game the employee limit by housing employees (staff considered it unlikely and noted the code will be monitored and refined as a pilot).

No public comment was received on this item during the hearing.

Vote: Moved and seconded (exact movers not formally named in transcript). Motion carried unanimously to forward the home occupation ordinance to City Council with a recommendation for approval.

Landmark Tree Ordinance (Public Hearing)

What it is: Staff presented a revised draft of the Landmark Tree Ordinance, which aims to protect trees 36 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (approximately 4.5 feet above ground). The city has been operating under an emergency ordinance since 2024, followed by successive interim ordinances, while working toward a permanent code. The current interim ordinance expires in September 2026.

What's in the draft: Planning Director Blake Lion summarized key elements, including:

Adding Lombardy poplar to the list of excluded species (joining black cottonwood) due to growth patterns that make them inappropriate as landmark trees.

A new criterion allowing landmark tree removal when a tree is actively damaging structures or infrastructure (e.g., root systems shifting a home's framing).

A streamlined review process: instead of three staff members conducting site visits, one designated arborist goes to the field, with the broader committee reviewing findings internally and convening only if there is disagreement.

Language allowing flexibility in development standards (reduced setbacks, increased lot coverage) to encourage tree retention.

A sequential mitigation framework (avoid, minimize, compensate) modeled on wetland mitigation sequencing.

Provisions for a future in-lieu fee program and tree bank, though neither is yet defined or included in the current draft.

Public Comment:

*Executive Director of Whatcom Million Trees Project* (name not captured on transcript) acknowledged the staff's hard work but argued the draft ordinance has not meaningfully improved since the February commission review. She said it still lacks a clear definition of "reasonable use" (a term appearing five times in the document), an improved application process, clarity on how the landmark tree ordinance relates to existing clearing and grading codes, and an enforcement mechanism. She noted that City Council explicitly directed the director in February 2025 to improve transparency, and she argued that direction has not been fulfilled. She urged the commission to send the ordinance back for further work, noting there is no deadline imposed by the Type 6 process.

*Perry Eskridge, representing Whatcom County Realtors and the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County,* said the in-lieu fee program is the building industry's top priority and its absence from the draft is a serious problem. He also raised a legal concern: the revised ordinance removes the full committee review of mitigation plans and replaces it with a single staff member, while simultaneously stating that the director "shall" adopt the committee's conditions with no apparent discretion to modify them. He argued this creates both accountability problems and potential legal vulnerabilities. He also flagged inconsistent use of "removal," "damage," and "harm" throughout the document, warning that inconsistent language leads to inconsistent legal outcomes. In a notable moment, he agreed with the Million Trees Project that the ordinance needs more work before moving forward.

Commission Discussion: Commissioners raised a wide range of concerns, including:

The absence of the in-lieu fee program, which staff acknowledged is a sequencing and resource issue requiring coordination with the finance department.

The director's authority relative to the committee — staff clarified the intent is that the director retains final decision-making authority, with the committee providing a recommendation.

The "remove, damage, or harm" language — staff explained it is intended to cover situations where construction activities so severely damage a tree that it effectively constitutes removal, but acknowledged it may need tightening.

Where mitigation replanting happens — currently on-site at a 3:1 ratio for landmark trees; off-site receiving parcels and a tree bank are under consideration but not yet designed.

Whether there are financial incentives for property owners who voluntarily retain landmark trees.

The unpredictability imposed on developers who must do multiple design iterations before knowing whether a project is feasible — staff acknowledged this is a genuine challenge inherent to site-by-site variation.

Whether to build in a formal review trigger, similar to a provision in the city's 2018 ADU rules that required re-evaluation at set thresholds. Director Lion expressed support for a five-year review horizon to allow the broader residential code rewrite to mature first.

The commission reached consensus that the ordinance is not ready to advance. Commissioners indicated they want staff to return with: (1) a defined in-lieu fee program, (2) clearer language on director authority and the committee's role, (3) consistent use of "removal/damage/harm," and (4) a built-in review trigger tied to measurable outcomes. Staff will seek a six-month extension of the current interim ordinance from City Council (extending it from September 2026 to approximately March 2027) to allow time for these refinements.

Vote: Moved and seconded (Jerry Richmond moved; second not formally named). Motion to not forward the ordinance to City Council and to direct staff to refine the identified elements carried unanimously.

Director's Report

Planning Director Lion and staff briefly noted that the broad land development code rewrite is ongoing. The commission's next meeting (July 9th) is expected to include an initial discussion of a proposed low-income housing incentive program aimed at reducing regulatory barriers and streamlining review for subsidized affordable housing projects.

Key Takeaways

Home occupation code advances to City Council. The commission unanimously recommended approval of an updated ordinance that expands where and how home-based businesses can operate — including in garages and accessory buildings — and allows limited retail sales. This is a meaningful step toward the city's "complete neighborhoods" vision and aligns with a new mayoral executive order on economic opportunity.

Landmark tree ordinance sent back for more work. The commission declined to advance the current draft, citing the missing in-lieu fee program, ambiguous director authority, inconsistent use of legal terms, and the lack of a built-in policy review trigger. Staff will seek another six-month interim ordinance extension from City Council.

In-lieu fee program is the critical missing piece. Both the building industry and tree preservation advocates pointed to the absence of a defined fee-in-lieu and tree bank structure as a major gap. Staff acknowledged this requires additional coordination with the city's finance department.

Residential rezoning and code rewrite are on the horizon. Multiple agenda items touched on the broader residential code update underway to comply with state law (HB 1110 and others). Small-scale commercial uses in residential zones — the "corner store" question — are planned as part of that effort, likely within the next few years.

Low-income housing incentives coming July 9th. The commission's next meeting will begin a discussion on streamlining permitting and reducing regulatory barriers for large-scale affordable housing projects.

AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.

What happened at this meeting

Director's Report

# Home Occupation Code Public Hearing Summary

Staff, led by Sydney Prusac and Sarah Omen, presented proposed updates to the Home Occupation Code designed to support the mayor's June 15th executive order expanding economic opportunity and community feedback from the Bellingham Plan emphasizing walkable access to services and affordable business incubator space. The proposal implements a tiered approach: permit-exempt uses, administrative permits for most home occupations, and discretionary permits for higher-impact uses, with regulations including a 500 square foot limit, allowance for up to three employees, permission for retail sales of on-site products, and Monday-Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. hours for discretionary uses (expandable at director discretion). Key clarifications emerged during discussion, including a definition of fleet dispatch centers limited to remote office work without on-site vehicle storage, and acknowledgment of potential employee loopholes to monitor during implementation. The commission voted unanimously to approve staff's recommendation and forward the updated code to city council, with implementation of lower-tier uses like corner stores to be addressed in future residential code updates scheduled for the coming years.

A Public Hearing regarding the Ordinance for the Preservation and Management of

# Summary: Public Hearing on the Ordinance for the Preservation and Management of Trees

Director Blake Lion presented an interim Tree Ordinance focusing on landmark trees over 36 inches in diameter, which the city adopted in 2024 following concerns about tree loss during the urban forestry planning process. The ordinance integrates existing code chapters and establishes a preservation-focused framework requiring 3:1 replacement ratios for landmark trees and 1:1 ratios for significant trees, with alternatives including offsite planting and in-lieu fees. Public commenters from the Wallowa County Realtors and Building Industry Association and the Watka Million Trees Project raised concerns about transparency, arbitrary decision-making, fee structures, and impacts on affordable housing and development feasibility, requesting that staff revise the ordinance before approval. Key outstanding issues identified by the Planning Commission include clarifying the in-lieu fee program, refining director authority over the landmark tree committee, establishing clearer definitions for "removal," "damage," and "harm," and setting review triggers to evaluate policy impacts on both tree protection and housing goals. Staff confirmed extending the interim ordinance was feasible and noted that the framework allows flexibility through design alternatives such as home repositioning, alternative construction methods, and modified driveway designs to balance tree preservation with development needs.

Agenda items (2)

General Business

1General BusinessDirector's Report

The city's director will provide an update on current projects, operations, and activities across their department.

What happened

Public Hearing

2Public HearingA Public Hearing regarding the Ordinance for the Preservation and Management of

Residents are invited to comment on a proposed city ordinance that would establish rules for protecting and managing something (the full title appears cut off), likely related to historic sites, natural areas, or other community resources.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Approve home occupation code update and forward to city council

aye 1

voice voteaye

Do not forward landmark tree ordinance to city council; direct staff to refine ordinance

aye 1

voice voteaye

Verbatim transcript available

323 transcript segments indexed

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the June 18th meeting of the Bellingham Planning Commission. Um, would you please call the role? >> My cast >> here. >> Jed Blue >> here. Jerry Richmond >> here.

>> Lisa Marks >> here. >> Claire Swingle >> here. Rose Leip >> here. [snorts] >> Okay. Tonight we have no um minutes to approve and we have two items on the agenda. We have uh we're going to discuss and vote to approve the home occupation code um as well as we're going to discuss and provide direction related to the landmark tree ordinance and um creating a chapter of that in the code.

[snorts] Starting out we since this is a public hearing we will open to public testimony. uh you can talk about whatever uh you'd like that's not related to the issues at hand. Three minutes, please. And please uh >> thank you.

>> Good afternoon, commissioners and staff. My name is Miles Silverman and I'm from the Cordata neighborhood. I would like to comment on the proposed future residential zoning map that staff showed at a recent commission meeting which although it was thankfully less Byzantine than the existing map was quite similar in its distribution of allowed development intensity.

This would make sense if that current distribution aligned with the sort of vibrant equitable sustainable city we want to build and I am not convinced it does. At the meeting where the map was shown, a commissioner suggested determining intensity based on proximity to interesting things which I think is an excellent approach.

When I look at the existing map, however, it appears to have been drawn with other priorities in mind and changes in transportation land use since many of its boundaries were drawn exacerbate these issues.

Consider the Sunnyland and Roosevelt zoning maps where the zoning south of Alabama is strictly higher density than it is north of Alabama. in Sunnyland. Perhaps this could make some sense based on proximity to downtown, but the abruptness of the decrease in density doesn't fit this.

And with the gold line in operation now, ending higher density at Alabama doesn't make sense anymore. I will [snorts] note if the base zoning is different on each side of Alabama, a TOD overlay like those planned would probably not erase this imbalance.

In addition, the blocks north of Alabama are lower density in Sunnyland than in Roosevelt. This probably aligns more with who went to neighborhood meetings 50 years ago than anything else and certainly doesn't gel with proximity to interesting things.

Furthermore, some parts of Roosevelt near Barkley Village are lower density than than those farther away. Perhaps this made sense at one point, but now that these areas are close to the increasingly most interesting place in that part of town, enforcing a sleepy streetscape is difficult to justified.

Finally, consider the narrow borders of multif family housing around inner urban villages like the Fountain District, while Birwood Center has a wider area where apartments are allowed. This makes sense only if we are trying to limit how much of the inner neighborhoods have to allow apartments, which once again does not support proximity to interesting things.

If Birwood Center can have some small apartment throughout its entire walkshed, so can Fair Haven in the Fountain District. In conclusion, let's be ambitious and creative with our residential zoning boundaries so they match the sort of city we want to build.

Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else for the public comment? Is there anybody online? Okay, I guess we'll get into the heart of it. we have the two topics to discuss and so not sure which of you is gonna jump in but thanks will come up soon.

Thank you for your patience. All right. Well, hello everybody. Thank you for being here tonight. Um, my name is Sydney Prusac for those of you that don't know me and I'm back with my colleague Sarah Omen to discuss the proposed updates to our home occupation code.

Here is the outline for tonight. Um, I'll give a quick refresher on the topic background and existing regulations and then Sarah will discuss our proposed updates. Then we'll ask you all for an official recommendation to city council.

As I mentioned at our previous work session, and it's explained further in the meeting materials, during our public engagement for the Bellingham plan, we heard a lot of community feedback and support for more services and amenities that people could walk to from their home regardless of where they lived in town.

This led to several comp plan policies uh encouraging what we refer to as a complete neighborhood, complete neighborhoods um separately but also connected. There is a community need for smaller and more affordable business incubator space for entrepreneurs just starting out or wanting to grow their business.

So, with these two needs in mind, it seemed like the right time to update our home occupation code, especially following the adoption of the Bellingham plan last December. Um, like I alluded to on April 2nd, we presented an overview of our proposed code updates with you at a work session, and we received general support from you all on the proposed updates, got some feedback, and then went and drafted an ordinance based on that meeting and our research.

Um, and finally, just breaking news. Just of this week, on Monday, June 15th, Mayor Kim Lond issued an executive order directing city action to expand economic opportunity, strengthen the city center, support businesses and entrepreneurs, and build the partnerships needed to make Bellingham more prosperous and affordable for all.

So, that is word for word from the executive order. And um again, it's just really amazing timing. One of the actions in that order specifically states advanced policies that support small-scale commercial activity in residential neighborhoods, enabling homebased businesses, neighborhood serving retail, and corner store uses that encourage entrepreneurship, walkability, and economic life close to home.

So, the timing of this order and this code update is very fertuitous and staff believes that the proposal before you tonight advances the mayor's directive. Um, I don't want to repeat too much from our work session presentation, but I do want to reiterate this graphic to better explain why we're updating our home occupation code now.

And as a refresher, we use this graphic throughout the Bellingham plan engagement process to frame conversations around allowing commercial small-cale commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. Um, currently we are at level one that allows inhome businesses.

Under specific conditions, home occupations are allowed within residences. We what we're proposing with this code update is to move to level two of the continuum and allow separated inh home businesses like an accessory building or above a garage.

As we update our resident residential code to be in compliance with the new comprehensive plan and state law, we plan to incorporate small-cale commercial uses at a certain scale in residential neighborhoods which would get us to level three of the continuum.

And while that residential that greater residential code update will take some time to come into fruition, we want to expand the home occupation code now, so they're in scale with the future updates. And I alluded to this and mentioned it at our past work session, but it doesn't really make sense if we're going to allow standalone commercial uses like restaurants or bars or cafes and then continue to prohibit a homebased business from selling goods in conjunction with the service they provide um or prohibit them from um operating within an accessory building.

So, we just wanted to all be at scale when those updates come forward. And so just for some more context before Sarah gets into the proposed updates, I want to go over the existing regulations of home occupations in Bellingham.

And first of all, home occupations exists all throughout Bellingham already. Pull up Google Maps and you'll see a variety of homebased businesses scattered throughout town. Our current home occupation regulations require businesses to operate within the home.

um they prohibit any exterior modification of the home for the business. They limit the number of employees um to one in addition of the um occupant and then they also prohibit retail sales. So these restrictions are quite limiting for homebased businesses and we want to expand these allowances.

However, we still need some regulations to ensure that residential structures retain their primary use as residential uses to um retain our existing housing stock and also to minimize impacts on neighbors.

And we know the community wants more services and businesses close to home and expanding home occupations is a great way to get that started at a smaller scale. Um so now we're going to get more into the proposed updates.

I'm going to turn it over to Sarah and then we'll open it up for discussion and a vote. Thank you. Thanks, Sydney. Um, so the draft ordinance is included in your packet for tonight's meeting and I'll be going over the main changes that we are considering.

Um, so when we started researching best practices, we came upon a journal article published by the American Planning Association that recommended a tiered approach to home occupations. Um, where that first tier establishes uses that are permitexempt and then it goes on to the next tier where there are administrative permit reviews for non-controversial uses.

Then that third tier is a discretionary permit um for uses that may have impacts that require mitigation. Um so the proposed code update that we have before you implements these objectives. Um, permitexempt uses are maintained and the ordinance proposes an administrative permit pathway for most [snorts] all home occupations um while requiring a discretionary permit process for uses that could create more impacts such as woodworking.

the discretionary permit process. It works really similar to like an administrative conditional use permit where there is uh public notice and staff review for a for compliance with approval criteria.

The proposed ordinance also allows home occupations to be operated within either a dwelling or an accessory building like a garage on the same property as the dwelling. For years, we've had to turn away home businesses that wanted to operate within a garage or a workshop on their property.

And now we're reducing that barrier. Home occupations are proposed to be limited to 500 square ft unless approved through a discretionary permit. And in no case can a home occupation exceed 50% of the gross floor area of the residence to ensure that the business is never the predominant use of the property.

This threshold was specifically chosen because the building code actually exempts home occupations that are 500 square feet or less in size from having to comply with all of the commercial building code requirements.

Structural enlargements will be allowed to the residence or accessory building for the purpose of conducting the home occupation. So this could mean a home baker could expand their kitchen for their business.

And the ordinance seeks to balance the increased flexibility for the business owners and mitigate impacts of the business. An effective way to manage impacts is to contain that business. Uh outdoor storage will be prohibited and all operations of a home occupation must take place within a building.

The ordinance proposes to increase the number of employees allowed from one to three per home occupation to help businesses grow and evolve. Retail sales of products made on site under certain terms and conditions will be allowed.

We want to provide an opportunity for artisans to sell products from their home studios. And retail sales will also be allowed when in conjunction with a personal service or other use. for example, allowing a hairdresser to sell shampoo.

And the draft ordinance will limit hours of operation for those discretionary home occupations to traditional working hours of Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Fleet dispatch centers for landscaping, contracting, or similar will be prohibited.

This use has been problematic in the past, and we did a lot of research and other jurisdictions expressly prohibit them. So, we are following suit and an operations plan will be required for discretionary home occupations, which can really help staff and the community understand how the operator intends to mitigate potential impacts.

And the proposed update will require all home occupations comply with local, state, and federal regulations. Finally, the city's transportation group has determined that home occupations less than 500 square feet are accessory to a dwelling unit and the traffic impact fee paid with the dwelling unit mitigates any transportation impacts related to its accessory uses.

So, the proposed ordinance is going to exempt home occupations that are 500 square feet or less from transportation concurrency requirements, which reduces financial barriers to small businesses that are just trying to get up and running.

This concludes our summary of the proposed code update. We think that this restructuring of the home occupation permitting requirements and regulations will effectively balance business opportunities and mitigate business impacts in a manner that implements the community's goals and is consistent with the mayor's economic development executive order.

And this concludes our presentation and we're available for any questions. >> Okay, we'd open it up to public comment at this time. If anyone's here wants to comment on this. Okay. Anybody want to kick it off?

>> I uh I like all the new language. I like what you did with it. I love the tiered approach and the uh the administrative permit. I think that's kind of what we were touching on the last meeting and that's a a great way to solve it.

Nice work. >> Thank you. I >> I had a question about the um hours of operation. Uh what was the thought process in particular for weekend hours? Um what was the reasoning for um not allowing that to be part of the operating hours of the home business?

Um, so when we were looking at the types of uses that are in that class C category, they can be noisy. So it's woodworking, welding, machining. Um, so we were trying to strike that balance of, you know, what allows somebody to effectively operate a full-time business while still allowing neighbors to like have quiet enjoyment of their properties.

So we went with traditional working hours. At first, we looked at the construction hours that are already codified in the municipal code, but those are from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., which felt like a lot and could affect people's sleep schedules, etc.

So, we kind of went with a conservative traditional approach that isn't codified elsewhere, but we thought it struck the best balance. I think the only thing that I'd like to add to that is that the um the code actually allows for the director to restrict or expand those hours as well.

So take for example, you've got um someone that wants to do something on the on the weekends. If we notice that and say they wanted to operate Tuesday through Saturday um at those same time periods, then we can notice that, take public comment on it.

If we don't have any concerns, we've got the flexibility to expand those hours as well. Um, I guess I I agree. I feel like a lot of our concerns last time were around the like class C ones and how do we get one rule that covers everything.

So, I think the tears do a really nice job with that. So, the great thought. Um, I guess my question um I feel like I'm in agreement with with all the changes we discussed a lot of a lot of this last time.

So just thankful for you guys and your work for putting that language in. I guess my thought is just around the your question is just around the future process because I know Nelson's market came up a billion times and that's the the example I hear from everyone all the time you know um and per I hadn't heard of the executive order so I may have the language wrong but the referencing the corner stores and that kind of thing.

So just wondering what the process is for then um getting to those lower stages in your in your image after this is done. Thanks. >> Yeah, that's a great question. So right now um we're in the process of just cracking open our entire code.

So while we work on our residential code, the main priority right now is coming into compliance with state law, House Bill 1110, and other regulations that have to be met to make sure that we're um following through on our comp plan goals and policies.

So that's the first step. But in our work plan for next year, um I know it is a lot to commit to something on record right now at the meeting, but we are scheduled to set that process next year or the in the next few years for the small scale commercials.

So that will be implemented with the residential code, figuring out setbacks, delivery schedules, if it's going to be only allowed on corners, only allowed on arterials, allowed everywhere. And then in the mix too, we brought this up at the last meeting, but for the past three years, I think there's been a bill at the state level that has been trying to allow commercial uses by right in all residential areas.

And that would include cafes and bars as long as it was written this past year, they would be allowed to operate for 12 hours at any given time and could serve alcohol if they also serve food. So at the same time when there's the um the legislature meets next spring that could be required outright and then that would just be incorporated in our code too.

>> If I may also add to that the other part just for your consideration is that the inverse is also true. state uh legislature this past um spring adopted Senate Bill 6026 which the governor signed in March which allows for um ground basically cities cannot restrict the amount of uh or cannot require ground floor commercial or mixed use in more than 40% of the area zone.

So it allows residential to go into what was otherwise commercial areas. So, we're we're seeing the traffic kind of go both directions. Tonight, you're talking about commercial going into residential zones and then that state law, which we have 18 months from the signing to to put into effect, allows for residential to go into what was pre previously thought to be commercial or mixed use areas.

So, it's kind of blending the lines in both directions. Um clarification on the fleet dispatch center. I assume that means like with trucks coming and going, which is what we want to prevent. Like I I you could also read that as like someone sitting there at a computer with a headset like directing remote activities out.

Does that need like a definition about trucks being housed on site? >> Um it was more to avoid Yeah. trucks being housed on site and like the traditional morning meeting of everybody congregating there, parking their personal vehicle and then picking up their work truck and going to their site.

>> I could I could picture a dispatcher who who doesn't have people coming and going just quietly in their office doing things and that that seems fine. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. If it's a home B, if it truly is just the dispatcher themselves where they're just, you know, taking calls and responding to things online, that kind of stuff.

Yes, that would be it's the fleet component. So, if I'm a if I have a dozen tow trucks, I don't want to have them all parked in my backyard and then send them out for my house kind of. >> I think that makes sense.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page. Do you see any risk of people who are wanting to have more than the number of employees that are allowed uh having people move in as residents just to add employees?

>> Uh we hadn't considered that risk. Um but I suppose that it is there. Um yeah, I don't think that it's a a huge concern right now that people would game the system. I think um we're writing this code and we want to see we specifically chose this as phase one for the smallcale commercial because we wanted to study it.

So I think that we will be studying it and we will be identifying any problems that we that occur with the code and we are open to modifying it in the future. Um, but I don't think that we've seen that in the past of people gaming the system to have more employees under the old code.

So, I'm I'm I don't know. I'm doubtful that it would happen in the future, but we can remain agile and change things as we need to as we go into this second phase of small-cale commercial. And >> I didn't see it listed, but may have just missed it, but like things like marijuana related industries, are those prohibited?

>> Yes. Um the state regulates those um there there are very strict buffers that the state requires from schools and parks. So there are very few areas within the city that even allow that. Um but yeah, I don't think that that would be an issue.

We can evaluate it more to make sure that there's no gaps in our rules. And yeah, so we retail sales are only allowed with um goods produced on site too. So I feel like that is limiting for I think that would require more a bigger operation and space too.

So further comments, anybody thinking of any modifications? Okay. Anybody have a motion? better at it. >> Um, you would say that you want to move to accept staff's recommendation for approval to forward to the city council and accept the findings and facts and recommendations as written in the staff memo from today.

>> Yeah, post that. I I'll move to do what Mike just said to do. [laughter] >> A second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? >> All right, motion passes. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you.

>> Um, so I guess we'll go to round two. Are we ready? >> Yep, we're ready. Is uh Are you guys uh going to have a presentation on the tree ordinance or are they going to get a tree and bring it in here?

>> No, I [laughter] I'll give I'll give some uh comments. Yeah, we wouldn't want to bring a landmark tree in here necessarily. Um there's enough wood in this room. >> Yeah. Um thank you Blake Lion, director of planning and community development.

Uh we were here in front of you in February to kind of introduce this topic and and mention the fact that we were going to come back and look at the ordinance um in greater level of detail. As you may recall through that process, um we went through initially uh in 2024 and the council did an emergency ordinance because as we were working our way through the um urban forestry plan, we realized there was some concerns about losing some of these um larger, more significant trees throughout our city.

And so we did that uh effort to adopt the emergency ordinance. And then we've been doing several iterations of interim ordinances and we continue to refine. I'm thoroughly convinced in this process that uh and you heard a little bit about it in the first item.

There's for those of us who are in this profession and trying to write code, there's never a perfect code. You know, you go through you do your best to to write something based on the circumstances and the issues that are brought up at the time.

Um but there are always competing influences. there are always competing opinions and preferences um and directions. And so one of the things that we've um debated about with this particular ordinance in partic in in specifics is do we keep tweaking tweak keep refining?

It absolutely can benefit from that over time. Uh but perfection can be the enemy of good at times. And so we're in front of you this evening to kind of see what your pleasure is. if you feel like you um are comfortable with the revisions that we'll talk about this evening.

Um I know you've received several public comments that call for more and you're going to see some of those on um different sides of the issue and so again we can continue to refine. There's an opportunity for you to have um two more work sessions if you would like.

one would be next Thursday on the 25th or we can look to uh the the 9th. Um given the way that we have updated and changed the council lead times for packets and for public noticing uh we are scheduled to go to city council on July 13th for a public hearing uh in this ordinance with any recommendations if you were to get to the point for making a recommendation to the council.

If that cannot happen, if you're not comfortable with that, if we need to go through that, we have the option of pulling that item uh and pushing back. But just to give you some context, the interim ordinance as it sits now runs through September.

If we feel like we want more time and we want to do all of that kind of stuff, that's fine. We can go back to city council and ask to extend it yet again. We were just trying to do our part to get to a point where we just have a an ordinance in place and give some degree of specificity and not continue to live by by interim ordinance.

But I don't want you any of you to feel like we're painting you into a corner with any of this. So if you if you want andor need the time, we're certainly able to take it. we just were trying to kind of stack things up and abide by the time frames by which we have to send out notices and get it on council agendas and so on and so forth.

So, um, with that said, um, I want to hone in a little bit on the fact that again the intent of this ordinance as it's currently drafted, and I'm going to oversimplify it, but it really is to try to find kind of two components to this.

one is to preserve the most significant trees that are in our community. Um, and so the ordinance is really set up with that framework in mind, but we also know that that priority can come at the um risk of making it more challenging, more difficult, more costly, more timely uh time, you know, for the development needs that we know we have in this community as well.

So trying to find that balance uh is really um you know kind of the the thing that we're trying to thread in this context. Um there are several pieces of existing code and I won't go through all the details of those but the gentleman sitting to my left uh deals with this on a day-to-day basis and can and can go through this at nauseium.

But you will see uh in the staff report there's conversations about uh chapter 13 of the Bellingham Municipal Code that deals with street trees. Chapter 16 deals with critical areas and land clearing and grading.

Um chapter 20 deals with development regulations. Uh chapter 22 deals with shoreline regulations. So all of those have components that are dealing with trees. This in particular is focusing in on landmark trees.

By definition, those are trees that are greater than 36 in at breast height. So approximately 4 and 1/2 ft above grade. Now we've talked through various different iterations. I was back in front of you in February and we talked about whether 36 was the right uh number to be looking at as we started to look into that further.

And there are a variety of different opinions. Some think it should be smaller, some think it should be larger. Uh, you know, and so part of our kind of ultimate consideration was just better to stay with what we have, what at least our development community and community at large is uh comfortable and used to dealing with and not keep moving the, you know, the goalposts and trying to um adjust things.

If you feel differently, if you feel like there should be something, that's certainly your prerogative to provide that input and we'll certainly work towards towards doing that. This new ordinance that you saw in the packet, again, there's two versions of predominantly the same thing.

One is the red line strikethrough version that shows you some of the changes and edits. A number of those that you'll see in there, puts it into kind of more ordinance format where it talks about chapter 1600 uh of the Bellingham Municipal Code.

So, it takes the section numbers out and does a lot of changes in that regard. And then the latter portion of it that's um closer to later in your packet is the clean version. So, if you're just looking to read it kind of without all the interruptions, that's certainly um there.

You'll see some additional discussion. Oh, and I should also mention, and I won't try to uh reiterate their comments entirely, but we did have one uh public comment that came through that also had some suggested edits that were from members of the community.

Um, so there's there's that kind of third option out there, I guess, or a second option. Um, we did add Lombardi Popppler. Uh in discussion with our arborists, in discussion with that, we talked about um black cottonwoods were were trees that we said, you know, because of their uh growth patterns and characteristics that we didn't feel like those were necessarily appropriate to maintain as landmark trees.

Um and Bombardi popppler is another one that we felt like should be added to that for the the reasons that are listed in your staff report. So, that's certainly one of the considerations that we'd like to think about moving forward.

Um, we also added some language in there that allows landmark trees uh as a criteria for removal to um if they are creating a hazard, if they are resulting in a hazard. The example that I used with you previously was we've had actually more than one incident um but one comes to mind where a property owner had a landmark tree immediately adjacent to their structure and um it was lifting and shifting the framing of the home to the point where they couldn't close the windows any longer.

And so um we've had others that are you know attacking infrastructure. Um there's a few that have come up that that come to mind, but it when it's damaging real property, um the thought was okay, in order to protect that investment, uh the tree has an opportunity to be removed and look at um alternative replacement opportunities uh when that situation presents itself.

We're also going through, and I know this is not entirely your purview, but it is something that's very present on our minds, is the um resource staffing and and um budget challenges that we're dealing with.

And so, as we begin to think through what our current circumstances are and how do we manage and maintain and functionally implement this kind of stuff, um we made some modifications to the landmark tree committee structure.

uh instead of having three staff go out to every single request that comes in uh when we go through and we receive the professional uh arborist submitt to this certified arborist submitt then we'll have staff review that if we're generally in agreement with the direction that's been recommended in there we have one member of the um staff go out and field verify and make sure that we again that that what's been written in the report is consistent with what we see in the field.

And if that all lines up, then we have that single uh staff member attributed to that. If there are differences of opinion, if there is something that's a little more technical, there's still some ability to consult with other staff members and to try to address those things in a committee format.

But that's really the intent was to be a little bit more um you know just responsible with the amount of resources that we're committing. And as this whole process played out, we found that we were spending an inordinate amount of time staff time trying to work through that.

That has mellowed out substantially over the last uh several months in terms of people just understanding the ordinance better uh and continue to figure out how to work and navigate through that. So that also contributed to how much did we want to shift and change this.

If if you always feel like rules and codes are changing, that could be uh adding a level of frustration and and concern there as well. Um I won't go through all of the uh public comments. Um I know the folks that submitted them are here today and I'll let them speak for themselves.

Um, I do think that there is an opportunity and I'm happy to share with you. Um, you saw in one of the public comments and I was here in February and told you a little bit more about the reasonleness memo and that's a distinction um, that we at the staff level use.

It wasn't intended to be and I'm sorry if I misspoke previously, but it wasn't intended to be incorporated into the ordinance. That's some of the flexibility that we try to maintain at that SLA level to provide that uh degree of interpretation.

But as written right now, the ordinance says that um you are allowed to remove a landmark tree uh in order to have a reasonable use of the property if you can demonstrate that you've looked at reasonable alternatives uh to that development.

And so the question has come up as to what is that? How do you define that term reasonable? And so the guidance memo that we worked on drafting was really to provide that context and provide a little bit, but um to try to codify that in our opinion was narrowing the focus so much and would require an ordinance change or you know code change if we wanted to deviate from that.

So having it in a uh memo format gives us the ability to make sure that we can adjust if we need to. Um there are other a couple other things that I spoke to you all about in February that um certainly are of interest to us and certainly are things that we are continuing to evaluate and think that might come through especially now we've gotten direction since I was in front of you last uh from the mayor to reinitiate the urban forestry plan.

So, we're going to be evaluating the tree bank and the inloo uh fee options as you know kind of part of that effort. Um I want to provide a little bit of a distinction at least in our mind in terms of what those terms mean.

So, when we talk about a tree bank, um, and we'll use it in context with like wetland mitigation banks, which we have a little bit more experience, but it's a it's a basically where the city goes out and establishes um a wetland and then has credits to be able to sell to developers or other agencies uh for the to mitigate the impacts of that.

And so in this example, when we talk about a tree bank, if somebody's removing a um a tree off of their property, do we have a another area where we can um call out or a credit for that and do, you know, some ability to that?

There's also an ability to look at whether or not we want to have offsite receiving parcels, and that may be uh a little different than a treebank dynamic. The third thing that was brought up in that was the inloo fee payment.

And so again, something that we need to go through, make sure our finance department is um equipped and ready to do that from a payment perspective and and begin to identify what that dollar amount is and how that tree bank is structured.

And so it takes a a bigger effort to do that. and we weren't prepared to to bring that forward to you um at this time, but we are working through through those efforts. So, um I will conclude my comments here.

Again, I have some uh if you want to see the reasonleness memo, we can certainly walk you through some of that, but it might be prudent to just hear some of the public comment first and then be able to respond to any questions that you might have.

So, I'll stop there. >> Thanks, Blake. Uh, I guess it's the time for public comment related to this topic. So, if you have anything to share, come on down and share with the group. Three minutes, please.

Can turn your mic on. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, thank you planning commission and thank you staff for the opportunity to comment on the landmark tree ordinance that you're reviewing tonight and for the work that you and staff have invested in it.

Um, I know that what is before us right now is a result of a lot of hard work and thinking and planning and I want to acknowledge all of that effort. Um, in addition to the comments that I'd like to relay, um, as executive director of Watka Million Trees Project, I'm here tonight to advocate for an ordinance that provides effective protection for Bellingham's most significant trees without creating opaque requirements that require that uh, staff consultation uh, at every turn and unnecessarily hamper a project that we desperately need, such as affordable housing.

At the February planning commission meeting, staff identified several aspects of the interim ordinance ordinance that needed to be improved before your next review. These are enumerated in my submitted comments uh but include a clearer definition of reasonable which rec which appears in the ordinance five times an improved application process.

How the landmark tree ordinance relates to existing clearing and grading ordinances and how to enforce the ordinance because the city's enforcement resources are stretched so thin. This draft ordinance has not been improved since you saw it, and it also fails to comply with the city council's clear direction to Director Lion at its February 24th, 2025 meeting to improve the city's transparency in this process.

In the last few years, we have seen poorly designed projects move forward to the terrible detriment of our natural areas because the rules that should have stopped them were not strong enough. That does not need to happen tonight.

There is no time limit imposed by the type six process. I respectfully request you return this ordinance to the planning and community development department to do what they said they would do and create an ordinance that allows Bellingham to live up to its values and serve its residents needs.

I and many other members of the community would be very glad to help. Uh thank you again for your time, your service, and for your thoughtful consideration of these community goals. Good evening, commission members.

Um my name is Perry Escridge. I represent the Walom County Realtors and the Building Industry Association of Walcomm County. I submitted a written comment yesterday regarding the fee and loo. I just want to emphasize that that is probably the number one priority of the BIAWC with respect to this ordinance and unfortunately as you as you heard Director Lion say it hasn't made it in and that is imperative for our our builders and it's their like I said it's their number one priority here.

The other comments I have are included in a memo that I I hate to say this. I'm embarrassed that I missed this, but um it's nonetheless I think it needs to be brought up. Both in the letter yesterday and in my written memo that I submitted just before this meeting, I talk about the um removal of the committee aspect of the Bellingham Landmark Tree Committee.

One of the reasons that we think that committee aspect is so important is because one of the concerns is arbitrary um random decisions by a certain individual who's yet to be identified. um making a decision on somebody's mitigation plan for a development.

And the idea was that having a committee do that, you've got the benefit of collegial review, you've got um you know some accountability in there and probably a better chance of consistent decisions that can be you know measured.

The bigger issue though that I want to draw your attention to is what happens with a mitigation plan when you go through and this is why I'm embarrassed that I missed this you know because it's only been what two years right if you look at 050 and [sighs and gasps] um z yeah 050 you see the word mitigation showing up time and time again but then when you actually go to consideration of the review process of a mitigation plan.

First of all, only a single member of the committee reviews that mitigation plan. Then when you go over to the next another section in instances of removal of a landmark tree the language is the director has to adopt the conditions of the mitigation plan and it doesn't show in there or reveal that the director has any discretion to make any changes to that plan.

If the member of the commission or the committee adopts it, the director shall include those as the conditions. The other reason this is really significant is we use the phrase removal, damage or harm interchangeably with removal.

And so if you're just damaging or harming a landmark tree, is that subject to the same requirements as removal or isn't it? And I think we really need some clarity on what is intended there because I'll tell you after 30 years of administrative law practice, all I have to do is walk into a judge and say different language, different result.

And that's just that's just administrative law 101. So if we're not consistent in the language, then we're not going to be consistent in the results. So mark this day. I agree with the million trees project that this needs to go back for a little bit more work [laughter] and uh yeah, I'm glad I could finally agree on this this big element of it.

Okay, thanks so much. >> Thank you. >> Any more public comment? Anyone on the web? Okay, it's a smaller group than I expected. Who wants to kick it off this time? Minnie. >> Okay. Um yeah, reading through everything uh the ordinance and the letters uh from the public, I would tend to agree that uh although significant work has been done, I mean we're we're getting close, but there's uh there's things to put in.

So I guess I'll just start with a question and that is about the fee and llu and you you mentioned it. Um, and before you mentioned it, my my question was going to be, has staff talked about it and why hasn't it made it in there?

Uh, if there's a reason for that. >> Yeah, I think um probably the best answer is um more sequencing and timing of working with our finance department and trying to get make sure we get the pay structure identified.

And so if if we feel that's imperative and as you heard in public comment tonight there's a strong feeling that that is needed that would require additional time. So if as I spoke earlier if if the uh commission is in agreement with that and that's something that we want to you know take into consideration then the ramifications of that decision would be simply to go back to the council and say okay we're not prepared for a public hearing on this for a final ordinance.

we need to extend it yet again. Uh allow us the time to build that in and do the work that's necessary to coordinate that with our finance. So again, perfectly viable option. Just wanted to make sure you're clear on what that would entail.

>> Right. And the other um kind of uh concern from from multiple and myself is the language of the director and um whether he has ultimate authority. Um, so if we go back and we work on it, is this something where we could improve this language as well?

And I'm also uh in line with the BIAWC about the language of removal, harm, and damage. >> Well, I think um let's let's take both of those independent. So um as far as the director's authority, it the and I we can go back in and look at it.

If the goal is to allow the um staff members to make a recommendation to the director, I think that's the intent of the ordinance. If we need to clean something up, we'll do that. But it's to have a decision making authority.

Ultimately, um that lies with the director as the responsible entity and those decisions are then appealable to if there is a discretionary appeal uh process in there would be appealable to the hearing examiner.

So that's kind of the order of hierarchy. If there's something that we need to adjust or tweak to make sure that's clear, that we're not bound by what the recommendation of the committee is, but that there is some consideration and discretion there, then that's ultimately uh the way it's intended to be structured.

I know that there was other public comment that you received in all this that was concerned about the director having too much authority. So we've got to figure out where we want that line to be uh associated with that.

The second question if you'll remind me again >> uh the language about remove damage or harm. >> Yeah. And so generally the way and I agree with Mr. Esridge that uh I'm not an attorney. he can speak better than I can to that effect.

But um oftent times when we talk about um damage or harm or removal um it's when those when that damage or harm effectively is degradating that tree so much that it is you know a removal. So, for example, and this just came up uh within a month or so, where we had a construction site, they removed two trees.

We had others that were being protected and preserved. In the process of those two tree removals, they they basically dropped one tree and it delimmed half of the tree. And so, it's completely unbalanced.

It's damaged. It's harmed so much that effectively that results in the removal. it's a you're creating a situation where that tree now needs, you know, effectively needs to be removed or doesn't have the same value it once had.

Or if somebody's doing something like construction staging and stocking up all their uh construction materials and effectively damaging or harming that to the point where that tree cannot live a fruitful life if as if it were entirely protected, then you've done irreparable damage or harm.

Uh and so that's generally is is you know it we don't want to have the ability to we don't want to limit ourselves to just saying oh you you removed it and they can say no we it's still there but you've damaged it to the point where it can't survive and it can't return to a healthy lifestyle.

So, we we feel like now if we need to refine that and kind of work through that, um you know, our attorneys did review it. Do feel like that's uh defensible language, but if there's some direction that you'd like to to provide or if we need to take a closer look at that, we're happy to do that as well.

>> On the uh ordinance, we talk about um offsite areas for mitigation. Um it's not really in the ordinance that I saw. If you take if you're allowed to take a tree and you have to mitigate and plant the five additional trees, is it on-site or are we working to provide off-site areas?

Well, when we're talking about the tree bank, that's one option that we're considering is is how do you address that? So, you have to have a receiving parcel, you know, so another piece of private property that's able to do that.

We've got to then think through how do we track that for mitigation monitoring and other things like that because it's no longer on the site. It's uh we're not set up currently. It's something we'd have to expand if we're going to talk about taking some of those in public rights of way because then the liability shifts from a private property into maintaining it on public property.

So there's a dynamic that goes along there. um we have a lot of properties that we're acquiring through the um watershed acquisition that then bring now technically most of those are out you know around Lake Watkin wershed but they're outside of city proper so are there ways to kind of think through and track you know goals part of what we're trying to understand is um do we have particular goals as a city in terms of what those target uh retention or replacement are right now.

Um, and Kirk may have to correct me if I get this incorrect, but on a on a significant tree, which is a tree that's 6 in or greater, it's a one for one replacement. Generally speaking, when you talk about landmark trees, it's a 3:1 replacement.

Now, there are opportunities to think through and look at and say, "Okay, well, if I'm taking down a significant number of trees, significant trees and some landmark trees that the replacement value is so great that you can't accommodate the development and the replacement value." And so, that's the part that we're trying to address.

So, can we do other things like upsizing some of the replacement trees or looking for different ways to get net ecological benefit so we're not deteriorating but we can look through opportunities to to do a range of different things is it uh and where how do you create value some of that maybe and this is part goes into the um inlue discussion is what are our values as a community Do we want to say okay for example if you're at a 3:1 replacement do you want to set up a ratio that says okay at least a third of the replacement trees need to be provided on that property where they can be accommodated maybe a third can be offsite at a receiving parcel somewhere and you can maximize your inlue payment of a third or some I doesn't have to be those numbers I'm just kind of giving you some context so that somebody can't just offer a check and and and raise an entire property that may not align with our direction.

So part of why we were trying to work through the urban forestry is because that's where a lot of the policy direction and a lot of that dynamic is going to be um you know brought to the forefront. But again we can we can work through some of those details.

>> Yeah. I just want to add a maybe a little insider insight into how we actually do this and the the discussion and the comments that we've had about a member or members. So, currently when we get a a request in, whether it's with a development proposal or um whether it's just a standalone tree on a on a piece of property, um there's an email that goes out to the the committee, the designated committee, and that includes an arborist from the public works department, an arborist from the parks department, someone from the environmental planner from the uh planning and community development department, and then the three directors of those departments.

And what we were having what we were seeing is we'd have two arborists go out and review and an environmental planner. And having two arborists go out we didn't feel was an efficient use of staff time.

And so the thought process is you have one arborist go out evaluate it bring that report back to the three other the the two other the two others go back in and review that report and if they agree then they sign off on it.

If they do not agree, that's when additional discussion would happen and occur and occur. So, it's not one individual making a decision. It's one individual that's going out and actually doing a site inspection and evaluating the situation, coming back in with that recommendation for the rest of the committee to actually go over and review.

So, maybe that helps clarify um actually how we we do it. In terms of the critical root zone, that's a pretty large dimension for a landmark tree just based on the size of the trunk. Um, that would there would be situations, I'm sure, where the tree happens on a property that is not owned by the developer.

It's on an adjacent property. And h how would that fly? I I guess it would probably be applicable for trees that aren't landmark trees as well, and there's probably precedent for that, but I'm not very sure or clear on what the current laws are on that type of development and how this landmark tree ordinance might affect people who don't own the land with the tree.

>> So, you bring up a very challenging uh portion of the topic. So, let me see if I can walk through and Curt will jump in too as well. Let's for sake of conversation, we're going to say that he and I are neighbors.

I have a landmark tree on my property. The dimension is one inch. For every inch of the tree, it's one foot. So, if I have a 40inch tree, that's 40 feet of critical root zone. If that 40t extends onto his property and now impedes his ability to exercise development capacity on his property, the way it's set up right now is that he has the ability to prune, limb, you know, root prune, branch prune, do all the things that you know that up to his property line.

But if he's causing detrimental impacts to that tree, that's where it's problematic. So there is a there is a scenario whereby my tree impacts his ability to to build on his property uh or to do certain things on his property.

So that absolutely is a component of what we're dealing with and what we're talking about. But as long as as long as the um pruning or um you know tree maintenance that he's doing does not impact the overall health and quality of the tree, then he has every right to you know to to manage it from from his side of the property line, if you will.

>> Is that rule applicable for any tree or is it just for landmark trees? >> I believe that's any tree. >> Yeah, pretty much any any significant tree. But from the um for the significant trees, like Blake said, we have run into a couple of these situations.

And what we really do is we rely a lot on our arborist. We rely on the arborists that the property owner um hires. So they're hiring someone to go out and evaluate the impact of their development. And then our arborists and the committee review that report.

And what we've seen in these cases where Blake's tree is impacting my right to do my my project, um the arborists have been able to work together to say, "Well, if you move it a little bit over here or if you do hand digging here for these utilities that it's not going to cause significant damage." So, most trees can withstand a bit of um uh I guess impact, if you will.

And I think again we're going back to those arborists who are those specialists when it comes to tree um care as well. And so really relying on their expertise in that area to look for alternatives. Um and in every case that I can think of, we've been able to come up with some alternative that um that works.

the if I may um the ordinance also has in there some degree of flexibility to accommodate if there's a intention to retain the landmark tree. So reducing setbacks, increasing lot coverage. Uh we we've already eliminated parking citywide.

There's so there's some dynamics that are there. Also what gets into that reasonleness is we talk a little bit about okay different types and again there's costs and implications to all these things. So, I don't want to imply that that it's just easy to do some of these, but looking at a different type of footer instead of doing a, you know, a trench uh uh foundation for a particular home where you're having to, you know, prune off significant portion of the roots for a landmark tree.

Can you do post and beam? Can you do other things that allow you to, you know, to minimize the impact to some of those critical root zone areas and stuff? I do see this being challenging for, you know, if you have an area that's undeveloped where you have wooded acreage and these lots are being created that are smaller, people are going to want to develop as, you know, substantial amounts of the width of that lot in a lot of cases.

and seems like there would be some circumstances where it's very difficult to avoid affecting um you know the critical root structure and um but I guess that's been a condition that's been ongoing for doesn't necessarily have to do with the landmark tree ordinance.

It's just that probably has some more teeth to it. Um, other question I had is I the fee that we discussed, there's also a fine um as well that is tied to if you do remove a landmark tree. Um, have we thought about just, you know, it's like I mean is the fee going to be, you know, more than the fine, less than the fine?

How how does that work with those two things? Because it's like you could see scenarios where people would just cut down the tree and and and get the fine. the the fine is based off of the maximum amount we can charge and it's still being considered a gross misdemeanor.

So, this is a civil violation, not a criminal violation. And so, the courts set some of those uh monetary amounts. So, when we go through and if we are administering those fines and penalties um then that's where that dollar amount comes from.

We have not set the inloo payment so I can't say entirely what that is but um that's certainly something that we can consider to make sure uh it's commensurate but the goal I think the goal at least uh initially from our thought process with the inloo payment is um thinking about the dynamic of um where you're you know so one purchasing the tree uh two planting it and then having as the ordinance calls out for a five-year monitoring plan.

So, there has to be enough in there to accommodate that, you know, that effort to say, okay, you're planting it here and you're and you know, whose responsibility is it to monitor and and to go through that is that fall back then onto city staff to do that work?

Um, you know, where that's where that's occurring. So, we'll we'll we'll need to do that work. We have not um the section on removal I'm generally just concerned there's a lot of subjectivity to um you know if reasonable efforts if if it impacts the reasonable use of the property one uh if reasonable efforts have been made to avoid and minimize the impact um and then there's a priority order sequential order of preference avoiding the impact, minimizing the impact, compensation for removal at a ratio determined by the director.

So there is sort of a facility for a calculation of an in I guess that's kind of a unspecified inluff fee. Um and then lastly the the the reductions you mentioned setbacks lot coverage um upon the finding that the reduction will not create significant impacts.

That last phrase there is is that trying to reference impacts to the tree situation or just that the setback reduction or any of these other reductions won't impact the neighborhood character or the neighbor or like what is the impact what we're referring to there.

>> It's often referring to um let me make sure I want >> to item four. I'm Yeah. Roman number four. Yes. So, when you're when you're altering that development component, so let's say you're building an ADU in a rear yard or you're making an extension on that home that that uh reduction does not create another impact that's greater on the you know within the development proposal.

So um you could argue uh loss of you know privacy or you could argue um you know some other component that is is it creating is it is it a fire concern is a building code concern you know what are the other things that go into that as you're beginning to evaluate and look at those different things.

So we want to make sure we're not trading one thing and making something else worse. Yeah, some of those are more serious like a fire code thing than others. There could be, you know, view or there could be a lot more subject subjective concerns there.

>> Yeah. And we we I I don't want to imply that you can just circumvent building code or fire code. That's not that's not what I was trying to imply with that statement. But just looking at um the impacts of that alternative scenario and trying to determine are we are we having good intentions but creating some other circumstance that we need to you know >> evaluate further.

>> So what does this priority order section look like when when you're you know you've tried to reasonably work around this tree there's a conversation about a fee. There's a conversation about setbacks.

Like how how would you balance that out? Well, you know, this takes a lot of um direction from how we do wetland mitigation sequencing and and impacts to that. So, it kind of follows a similar rhythm and pattern in that respect.

So, again, the goal is always to start with avoidance uh and not uh you know, not impact it. So, if there's an alternative design scenario where we can say, hey, we're not going to impact it at all, then that's kind of where you start.

And if there are no reasonable options that you can do, then you can say, okay, well, well, what can we do to minimize the impact to the greatest extent possible? So that's when you get into Roman numeral number two there.

Is there a way to do certain things that help benefit it? May not eliminate the impact entirely, but we're going to significantly take it down to just the minimal amount that's that's still allow reasonable.

The compensating piece is really talking about if there's tradeoffs for certain things, you know, where you can say, okay, um, and it's probably a little easier to to contemplate when you're talking about uh, wetlands because you can think about it from the context of saying, okay, well, if I if I have a buffer averaging and I say, okay, I'm going to reduce the buffer here and extend it there, you can do some u compensating and and so maybe on the um landmark tree dynamic where you say, "Okay, I've got a 40 foot uh root zone.

I'm going to impact it a little bit over here, but I'm going to leave a little bit more space uh in this area to support it." So you can offset it by kind of going through the intent of all of this is to go through those different design iterations and really contemplate how you can try to balance out those competing priorities and those competing objectives.

And so no two projects are the same. You're looking at all of those kind of things and trying to figure out okay how do we re and again with the goal of protection and preservation. But this is one of the things that I think to some degree frustrates the building community is how do I know if this project's going to work until I sit down and kind of design all this stuff up front?

And so there is, you've heard me talk a little bit about kind of the upfront work that now needs to be done. I'm doing tree surveys and I'm getting a civil engineer to do some preliminary utility work and trying to figure out all these things and going through a couple different design iterations of how to place things on the property because I don't know what's you know what the sequencing is.

I don't know what's considered reasonable and so we're going through those variables. Uh and so there's a commitment both from our development community side and from our staff side. And I think that speaks a little bit to the some of the comments you heard from from both our public commenters tonight where they want some of that predictability.

Um, but it's a it's a challenging situation where you want a certain degree of predictability, but then you also want to maintain some flexibility to to be able to look for design considerations that weren't um codified in some of this.

And so that's the intent behind of this is to give some direction but not be so narrow, so tight that you can't consider the one-offs and the variables. >> Have we gone through this process during the interim?

>> Yes. >> Extensively >> for months. >> It years. >> Years. >> Yeah. >> And >> what what types of outcomes have you seen from this mitigation? We've seen uh we've seen a a probably a full range of them.

Some that go to Yep, that makes sense where that tree is located on the property. There's no way of you know reasonably using that property. So the tree uh warrants removal. We've some we've seen some where you are placing the you know the home for example somewhere else like sliding it further forward.

um you know, reconfiguring where they sit on the lot, thinking through the shape of that home. Instead of just being a rectangular home, maybe it's now an L-shape and it, you know, and there's some accommodations there.

We've even gone so far in our thought process and we're working with one of the council members on thinking about different uh home types. So, uh one's called a a mobile dwelling unit and so it's like a park model where it sits on a chassis.

Well, that may not require a permanent foundation that then impacts the root, you know. So, there's different dynamics and things like that that we're trying to kind of think through and work through to say um driveway design is another example.

Okay. Instead of doing an impervious driveway, can you think about other materials or other design components that do that kind of stuff? So, um I don't know if you want to elaborate, but >> No, I think um it really comes down to making sure that all alter alternatives are being addressed, right?

The the um the days of saying this is the the plan that I want and I'm going to put it on any lot anywhere, those are gone. Um we're trying to balance too many things. And so I think what we look at is have you really explored alternatives?

Um and that's really important. Um, and I think I'd be willing to bet that Mr. Estridge and other people that have been in um, in the development world, they go through these alternatives already, right?

They're trying to see if they're proform work. They they they take our existing rules and regulations. They throw out a design out there. They work with their designers to put something down on the table and then they go back in and they go tweak it.

Well, this rule doesn't allow this or maybe that rule doesn't allow that. So, they they end up tweaking it. And we see this a lot in design review. um we will see a project that comes in for an application and we we look at it and go well have you thought about this and the designer says yeah that was plan number 32 right we've already gone through all of these and and in them doing their work to ensure that um the project can move forward um they go through these alternatives and so it's really to I don't think it's asking more than um much more of what they're doing already um it does cost more.

Um that there's the reality of that and and that's we're trying to balance these two, you know, the preservation and and development and um those upfront costs are real. Can't you can't hide that. >> I thought of another example that might help.

So, uh we were working on a project a couple months back. Uh three lots side by side. Builder wants to come in. There's four landmark trees on the property and a variety of significant trees. So when you talk about that compensation piece, we said, "Okay, as we start to do the tree um survey and look at the health and the quality and the size of those trees, um we started working with uh the project planner, with the applicant about where they were placed on the site, how they were arranged on the site, what we could do.

We we moved things forward a little bit more to give more preservation uh space for the landmark trees. it became very clear that one of the landmark trees, for example, was um in declining and poor health as it existed on the property already.

So, it didn't make sense to retain that particular landmark tree, but you had one, you know, over here on the site that's, you know, 32 in and in great health. So, it's like, okay, well, we'll we'll allow for you to remove this landmark tree that's in declining and poor health, but you need to protect and preserve that one because that has the potential to become a landmark tree and we don't want to lose out on that.

So that's kind of that compensatory thing where we're saying, okay, we had another one another example where again they removed um multiple trees on the site, but we wanted to protect and preserve others and think through utility placements and driveway locations and construction staging areas and placement on the lot.

So it's a it's a bigger effort. >> I think I was reading that compensating as monetary, but the way you explained it, it's more about balancing or averaging. >> Yeah. Okay. That's all. I guess I feel um convinced after all this discussion and and public comment and the language set forth overlaps to a degree with what would need to be fleshed out more in the tree bank or you know fee in lie of you know the proposed mitigation plan says you know replacement of 3 to one or is required by the director.

And then we're just discussing how the fee in lie of would need to determine those things. So it does seem like there's enough um reason to to pause and to further develop this from a variety of fronts I think um of what does the fee in lie of mean the tree bank reasonable use um role of the director of a few different areas.

So, I think I've I feel confident that that's where I've I've landed. Um, and I don't know if I I don't think I would feel comfortable recommending this move forward at this moment. I don't know if anybody else >> thoughts on that.

>> What would extending the emergency and and doing this more in tandem with the urban tree plan look like? Is that feasible? >> Oh, absolutely. Yeah. And that's perfectly within your discretion to to take that position.

So um my understanding of Washington state law is that there is no limitation on uh how long an interim can stay interim. They don't predefine that. It's only that it h it can only be done in sixmonth increments.

So essentially what we would have to do is prior to the expiration of the current interim ordinance which is September of this year we would have to go back to the city council hold another public hearing with them saying we'd like to extend it an additional 6 months.

So basically it would go from September of 26 to March of 27 and then that would give us the additional time. And again that's a perfectly viable option. We would basically go back to the city council and say we got some clear direction from the planning commission and from our public comment that they would like these components in the ordinance.

We need additional time to make those adjustments and refinements and then we would you know if they agree then they would extend the interim ordinance. We would then come back do the work that you've requested of us come back to you in the future time frame to say did we get this right?

you can give us additional direction if you need to and then we would go forward and we would just keep going in six month increments for until we till you felt like there was something you could support.

>> Is does some of those pieces need the urban tree urban forestry plan work to be finished? Like are we tying oursel to that project as well? >> Um go that way. >> It certainly helps inform the process.

It's not mandatory. I mean, we have, like I said earlier, we have other codes that are in place that begin to inform all of this, but it's a it's a little bit of cart before the horse in terms of typically those the comp plan is our overarching document.

Then you have the functional plans like the bike master plan, PE. So, the urban forestry plan sets that kind of next tier of policy, if you will, and then usually you implement codes. there's there's not an obligation to do it that way.

It just helps to kind of again inform and set especially when you have competing priorities. But if we agree collectively that the goal is still to start with a preservation mindset to then um allow for housing development to occur and some you know limited loss and removal of those trees and that we want to provide a range of options in your sequencing conversation.

Essentially what you what you would anticipate is if you look at that section of the code you know whe and I'm I don't want to commit to this entirely but if you're talking about removal then one of those sequencing is paying an inlue fee instead of a replant requirement and again part of the direction and you can provide at least you can provide direction or you can provide thoughts if you like about do you like the idea of having some on-site requirement, some potential off-site accommodation and in loo and we can figure out the ratios or are you comfortable just allowing in loo entirely?

I mean that's kind of those are some of the pieces that we would have to um identify as we begin to do that and we can do that work and bring back a recommendation or if you have thoughts on it I'm happy to you know take those comments tonight.

If you get to the point where you want to give us direction, then we can take that too. But don't feel obligated like you have to give us direction. We we can we can craft it further. >> My biggest concern has been that I could see that this ordinance would really affect people financially.

Um that it could really have a big impact on someone. And so I'm wondering if there's, you know, has there been thought put into maybe giving benefit to people who retain landmark trees or or you know, somehow >> in what format in terms of like a financial break?

>> Maybe. So yeah, because I feel like that that's a I mean it's a benefit to the community, but a lot of people, you know, that this ordinance happened suddenly, so people didn't necessarily know that it was going to happen and it happened.

And >> I think most people like trees. I mean most people like the idea of having a a forested um city but if then the fee in lie of or the fine or these other things become such that it's just like well it's just a a hit that you have to take in order to do this kind of wonder if that we've talked about the >> well and and keep in mind the at least the way I'm thinking about it and I can adjust if necessary but the fee in lie is to give somebody an option right um and So, it's never a requirement that you must pay this.

It's not an application or a permit fee. It's, hey, I don't physically have the space or I don't want to replant. I want an alternative. So, it's a it's a choice. Now, they wouldn't necessarily it's up to us to decide what that fee amount would be.

And so that may not feel like a choice, but >> yeah, I just feel like there's a lot of lots that if you draw a diameter of 70 feet circle on a lot, it's going to have a big impact. And I know that there's flexibility within like, you know, get an arborist and research what you can do and look at all the, you know, things that are possible.

But I just see that as being, you know, it's going to be a challenge. It has been a challenge for people. And so um >> well and I think part of where the um urban forestry plan helps to inform that but again uh are not obligated to do that is when we talked about it in 2024 the council was talking about a target canopy for the entire city.

Um, if you go back to that draft plan, the draft plan looked at what our current conditions are and we have about 40% canopy coverage for the city. To get to some of the development goals, the housing goals in particular that we have, it's going to be hard to maintain 40%.

So, the question becomes, what level are we at? Uh, or where do we want to be? What is it? Is there an aspirational target? Are we comfortable dropping below 40 and doing that? And I will say, but for maybe one other city in the state of Washington, 40% is very um aggressive is not the right word.

It's a high it's a high high standard. There's not many if any at all that are above 40%. So if we're comfortable scaling back on that then you can talk about different replant ratios. You can talk about different in you can talk about different kind of compensation if but if we truly are trying to stay at 40 or get higher than 40 then we've got to factor that in because we're we're not going to get there without those replant values.

And so that's where some of the policy discussions. Now could we do something ahead of time and then if the policy discussion is more ambitious then we come back and change the code we could do it that way too I mean none of these codes are you know etched in stone there is a process to amend them so it's just a it's a cart and horse kind of scenario >> just on that comment I feel like that's a classic problem of the commons where the benefits are diffused and the risks are concentrated and the tree is chopped down.

And I think that's one of the reasons why there's value in a policy like this to set that preservation mindset to have a government policy step in place where the private incentive is not aligned with a community incentive.

Um so I just to re reiterate the value in having this uh mindset and structure in place for that very reason. Um, you know, nobody's talking about compensating cyclists because they're not polluting like the cars are, though.

I would love that. Um, a similar a similar thing, >> Rose. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, yeah, I I echo a lot of the comments. I think there's the tension between like predictability and clarity and having the ability to uh make decisions based on the uh on specific projects and specific things.

Um, one of the things I mentioned uh, last time we met is is there a way that we can create a trigger or some way of um, monitoring the sort of the challenges, the struggles, the opportunities and like I I guess what I'm looking at is could we create a policy today that said in two years we're going to look back and we're going to have an analysis of how this policy either helped tree protection and what the impacts were to housing so that we can really like hone in on what it what it is and I know that you all have been working with it for a couple of years already so that you you have some of that intrinsic knowledge but I think just getting it really clear and having a report out to say you know and then maybe at that time we're also aligning any revisions to uh the urban tree canopy plan.

So the short answer is yes, but I think the longer answer is understanding what those measurables are that you all would want to see or that we would need to see as a community um are really where the details would lie.

Um, you may recall we had the um, I think it was the 2018 ADU regulations where it said, "Hey, if you get to more than 50 in any particular neighborhood or if you get more than 200 citywide or and there was a couple triggers in that code that required us to kind of re-evaluate um, our rules and regulations.

So, we could certainly build in something like that, but we would have to figure out what those, you know, what those milestones, what those trigger points are for that piece. [snorts] Um, you also heard some public comment tonight about um, you know, that wanting that additional clarity um, and transparency on certain things.

We certainly set out to do that with the inventory. Uh I will be very frank and somewhat blunt. Um that was a much bigger staff lift than we ever anticipated. Uh and and so it we have not maintained that the way it was intended.

So that is something we would need to double down on uh and do if that's if that's the broader expectation. But um you know that was just that was one of the things in our existing workload and our resource availability where we just couldn't keep pace with it as as was initially intended.

Um now can we can we refine that? Can we get better at that? Sure we can certainly work towards that but we are in a constrained environment. U and so that's a it's one of those things that just didn't we didn't quite frankly get done.

Um, if we're not moving, >> I think >> Oh, go ahead. Sorry. >> Sorry. One of the things that I appreciated about that uh trigger in the ADU code was that it did come up like it forced it to come up again.

And I feel like often we say, "Oh, well, you know, code's not etched in stone." And then 20 years later we're like, "Well, this is the way it's always been, you know." Um, so just wanting to think if there was a way that um makes us think critically again in the future and not just let this get stale.

>> Yeah. And certainly open to um I mean we could we could absolutely give that some more thought. It sounds like if we're going to take a little time, we can come back with some you know considerations and options uh you know to help kind of guide that conversation.

or if there's things that you all think tonight make sense, we're happy to take that that direction. Oh, I was just going to say process-wise, if we're not moving towards like clean adop approval, um do you feel like we've kind of popcorned some comments to you, would would it be helpful if we packaged some thoughts into a a motion on some key key elements that were are important to >> Well, let me reiterate what I think I've heard and if you feel like we need to >> tighten that up a little bit, then I'm happy to take that.

Um, it sounds to me like we're not at a point where we're comfortable recommending as presented to you tonight and that there is additional direction and more work that needs to be done. And the things that I heard u in particular were looking at the uh inloo fee and inloo program and what that might look like in a in a more defined manner but we haven't defined what that looks like yet.

So, if I'm operating on just that, then I'm looking at it from the standpoint where we're going to craft something and present it to you all and let you react and respond to it. But if you have thoughts on what you'd like to see, I encourage those to come out.

Um, there was concern about the director's authority uh with regard to in particular with regard to the landmark tree committee and the recommendation that they're going to provide back. Um there was additional interest in looking at the kind of damage, harm, removal trilogy of terms and and where we can go there.

Um so those are the three most prominent ones. Um I didn't we talked about the fine amount but I I think I responded and so I'm not sure if there's more work you feel like needs to be done there but um >> I think that'd be more tied to the fee in lie of because >> so we can consider that as part of the fee in lie and try to evaluate that a little bit further.

Um, is there anything? And then the triggers, the thing that Rose just brought up is what what would be something that we would want to use as a threshold or a milestone to say, "Hey, if we hit this, then we need to look closer." Um, right now what we don't have identified, and this is something that we've talked about with the urban forestry plan, is that the LAR data that set our tree canopy number, the 40% that I referenced was done in 2018.

What we don't have is how frequently the city is doing that. So that may be one of those triggers is to say, you know, where are we comfortable if we see the other thing that's probably worth mentioning just in the overall context because it can really impact those numbers is private property owners have the ability to go to the state and get a forest practices permit.

um which is something that the state can issue that can allow for you to uh basically deforest a piece of property. So it's not uncommon in this town that you'll get a 20 acre parcel, a 30 acre parcel, a 70 acre parcel that gets logged and forested.

That could impact our tree canopy numbers, you know, uh s significantly. And we don't have any any authority on some of those things. We we have the ability with the Department of Natural Resources to provide comment, but they are the decision-making authority when it comes to whether or not that forest practices permit gets issued.

Now I will tell you there's different categories in different levels and so if for example in some of those categories u you're not allowed to build you can forest it you can do you know the forest practice permit you're not allowed to build it's a there's a 10-year moratorum for construction on that site and there and it requires a replant so there are things like that but when you look at overall canopy you know that could be significant loss in canopy that will take decades and generations to replace And so just saying canopy percentage alone is probably not in and of itself enough of a a a threshold or a trigger.

We would have to look at something a little more refined than that. >> So getting back to your summary, I think you nailed it. >> Okay. I think there was also a discussion of what reasonable use means, but I think that might fall into the needing flexibility um you know as you go through those permit processes and you you know described several examples of >> and I think >> looking at 80 different things.

So >> what I would love to hear your thoughts and comments on is how much of that do you want to build into code or how much of that do you want I mean again that predictability versus flexibility. How much of that do you want to leave in a staff discretionary process and how much do you want it to be you know the shalls and the musts.

Uh and so there's there's room for discussion on that topic. If it was just this ordinance that was causing development proponents to have to do 42 iterations of the plan before they get started, I would say like max predictability up front would would be would be key.

If it is really the case that storm water and and open space and and all these other things are leading to people needing to do those multiple configurations, like like Kurt said, the days of cheap development are gone.

So therefore, the days of housing that's affordable are are gone. And I don't think it's just this that is is causing that. But this is a pillar of a package of things that is causing housing to be more expensive.

So, can this part of its package do its job at making predictability come back or or not get significantly worse? That's not an easy thing to accomplish within the framework of this, but it is a worthy goal.

>> And we do have and I I don't want to be remiss. I mean, you guys did a lot of work on the Bellingham plan. And there are uh and thanks to Elizabeth, she reminded us there's a few policies that are in there that are already starting to inform this.

You had one in uh the environmental chapter uh you know that talks about integrating city tree canopy and green infrastructure um you know considering different mechanisms that support active management and increasing tree preservation.

So there's some direction in there. There's another one in the community design chapter, you know, and so there's there is some policy direction in there, but I think when we talk about it's the trigger points that we want to try to figure out if we can define how do how do we go back and Rose mentioned, you know, I mean, we could set it just based on a year, you know, a certain number of years.

Hey, in five years, we'll come back and re-evaluate this. I I think her comment about you know um you know forgetting it and and it I mean we parking is a perfect example of that what 55 years before it changed you know I mean so uh yeah we would we would like to set some of those um if that's the interest and desire I know that one of the things that's going to be I don't want to set it so short like within a year or two because there's a lot of work you heard a little a little bit.

City made the comment earlier tonight about the a number of different uh residential resoning efforts. We're restructuring and rewriting, you know, the whole code. There's a there's a a mountain of work that's happening in the next couple years around a variety of things.

I would love to be able to set it out like five years as an example to say let's get that body of work and then re-evaluate how this uh intertwines with that. So, we now have a clear distinction because if we're chasing it every couple years, we're we're gonna just I'm concerned that we're we're not going to have that that full body of work and be able to do it.

So, I would love to set it out a little bit. That would give us as an example, we know we're going to be back in front of you. If you think about just the Bellingham plan, the comp plan cycle, that took us as a city two two and a half years to go through.

So we basically have about an eight-year window to do a bunch of the implementation before we start that process in earnest again. And so you know getting kind of within that year kind of five to eight is probably that that sweet spot where we can okay we've done all the implementation we can use the development code to do some of these things.

I would not want to do uh interim ordinances for the next five years, but um but if that's the trigger point where we say, "Hey, when we get to the point where we're adopting this, we'll re-evaluate it within a fiveyear period." I mean, that that could be something we could do or we can again, we'll come up with we'll work through and see if we can come up with different suggestions and ideas.

And I don't know if this how hard this is or not, but it's good to hear the examples of projects that have come up already and just kind of getting an idea of like this is the scenario that happened and this is how we uh treated that those conditions because I think that's the thing where I feel like the least um knowledgeable is just like yeah, we've been doing this for a little bit.

So we do see circumstances and we have seen what works and what might not work um to kind of understand it better and and maybe form the the long-term rules for it. >> Yeah. And we do that pretty regularly.

Kurt uh and the development review team have weekly meetings and I would say probably for the first eight to 10 months we were talking almost exclusively this interim ordinance and treat I mean every week we were talking about different scenarios different projects that were influencing it.

So, we've really been working through a range of those things trying to advise um current property owners, prospective property owners, uh community members that are concerned about the loss of some of these resources, uh designers, developers.

So, we we've been living it the last couple years pretty more intensely at the front end of that curve than than recently. Um, but if it's helpful, we can bring different examples and show you different scenarios.

Part of the reasonist memo, and I'm happy to put it up on the screen and uh and show you, but um it was based on kind of those range of different scenarios that we kind of were trying to think through.

And anytime you get into writing code, you I would say that you write it often times with a particular issue that you're trying to solve or or address and then we go through that process of trying to think through how broadly can you cast it so it's not just based on one thing.

But you can never consider every scenario. So you try to build in again some degree of flexibility or administrative review to to deal with the oneoffs. And so the goal is you know how do we how do we structure it to meet 80% of the topics that come up and have enough flexibility to deal with the you know the other 20%.

And there may be some things we just can't you know. >> Yeah. Yeah. And just to add on to that, I think vegetation and trees, I mean, just go out and look around, right? No site is exactly the same. And so, trying to create predictability on a on a canvas that is completely different everywhere you go is very challenging.

Um, I >> agree. the o the only other way um I was just sitting here kind of spinning trying to think about other ways and I think if if you wanted to be more certain and give that predictability then you may need to look at a code that's more um quantitative.

So if a property has five or more trees on it, then this plays into it, you know. So you you you have to have some some standard number um it it's just like a setback. A setback is five feet or is 10 feet, right?

You need that definitive number. And how you would apply that on a vegetation or a tree scenario is one. Is it one? Is it two? Is it 22? like that that's very hard to come up with that number. But the only to to ensure our flexibility and predictability I think this code does that.

Um and I saying that based on how we have been working through this for the last few years. Um getting any more predictable is going to be hard I think without maybe throwing in some numbers. Um I guess related to that and to the um query for what kinds of metrics or information would want to be seen in some reporting in the next few years.

I'd be curious just off the top of my head um you know the number of landmark trees that are cut down um which I'm sure you have available. I just don't know it. um whether how many people just take the fine like is that 2400 violation are people just taking that you know where does that sit or is that high enough is that too low I'd like to know which is probably very difficult data to get but um you know when a landmark tree is cut to enable um development you know what kind of costs were saved 10,000 50,000 100,000 by being able to remove that and do one site plan versus another, you know, like how how much are we saving by making those trade-offs?

And I'd also like to know the um development type of properties going in like was it affordable housing? Was it super unaffordable housing? Um you know what, you know, price per unit kind of information.

What are we when we're looking at balancing the priorities of ecology and well-being and canopy cover and affordable housing? Is it really affordable housing being developed when these go down? Um, so those are some things in the last two minutes I'd be curious about, but I'm sure more some of that exists and some of that would never be practical for, you know, a number of reasons.

But >> I will just um I can't give you specific numbers, but I can tell you that the majority of applications that we've processed for removal have been because of diseased or hazard. Um we do definitely see them in development.

Um but the majority of those that have been removed have been because they're not healthy. And as far as affordability is concerned, um I just want to make sure I get a little finer point on that because very So when we talk about affordability, I think it's really important to make a distinction between capital A affordable, which is what I'm referring to as subsidized um or naturally occurring affordable.

And uh if if part of your definition is the latter where it's naturally occurring, new construction is always going to come in higher. But the reality is is that the more the more supply we can create if we're talking about ADUs and other things like that, that's a more attainable price point to a lot more people.

And so I would just are we talking specifically like below 80% AMI kind of affordable subsidized or naturally occurring or maybe a little bit of both. >> Probably a little bit of both. I'd probably defer to Rose on that and need a second to to think on it more.

But um I think naturally it should be cheaper to do infill and build where that's already disrupted and for to the extent possible that we have incentives to do that that should be aligned in that way.

And then as far as affordability, I mean, I think it has to be somewhere below market rate because obviously it's market rate that's being developed at that moment. But >> well, what we're seeing just anecdotally is when somebody's coming in and building an ADU or two ADUs on a lot, they are um saving because they're not having to do the frontage improvements the same way.

they're paying 50% of the uh impact fees and other things like that. So, there's there's some um measures that are incentivizing those already. Um but again, new construction, what we're seeing in the market, things are still coming in, just just construction in general, and there's others on the commission that can speak um more to this, but um you're still seeing it come at a fairly high price point for that.

As that asset starts to depreciate, then then you're starting to see those rent structures change a little bit. Um, but when we look at multifamily, when we look at some of the stuff that's kind of out there, we also see a higher degree of affordability when it's um somebody who has ownership and then they're renting out the unit on their lot.

They're not necessarily chasing the market in terms of what they can get. So, there's a natural affordability that kind of gets built into that. So, all of it helps. Um, but if you want specific numbers on, excuse me, on rent structure and stuff like that, that would take a little more effort.

>> So, do we need a formal motion for any of this uh to move forward or are we just Yes, that would be helpful. Um, just in terms of u not moving it forward and directing staff to address the things that I brought up.

And if you need me to kind of walk through that again, I'm happy to do that, but I would be helpful in the motion. >> And process-wise, we had a public hearing tonight. We heard some testimony. Do we want we we have the option of continuing either written or in person testimony?

If there's going to be significant revisions, do we want an opportunity to get that feedback and leave the record open for now? >> You certainly can. And the also the expectation that I would have is that we would from this point forward we would then go back to city council to ask for an extension of the interim ordinance and then when we refine this we would be do basically renoticing a public hearing because we're not doing it to date certain.

Um, so we would probably just go through a >> So we're clo we could close out this process and it's a new new >> or you could leave the written open if that's if that's the preference, but our practice has been we we'll take those written comments at any time.

>> So what kind of motion are you looking for then? >> Um to to not move this ordinance forward to city council and to go work on the refinements that we discussed earlier. And so that way I can and in full full disclosure I can go back to city council and say we received a recommendation from the planning commission to refine these.

We're going to need additional time to do that and that's why we're asking for the extension of the current interim. Did anyone in here have anything on the commission to add to that list or we all feel good about where we're at?

Okay. Um, anyone in here want to make a motion? >> Sure. I don't care. >> You're getting good at it, Jerry. [laughter] >> Uh, move to not move forward and to allow you extra time and extension uh to work on what we discussed here tonight.

That too broad. Good. >> Sounds good. >> All right. [snorts] >> You have a second. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? >> All right. >> Thank you very much. >> We are at the director's report.

>> I'm trying to think if we have anything. >> We continue to work on um just a wide range of the land development code updates. um Elizabeth's heading up a full team of uh staff that are continuing to work on various different components of that.

So as those uh get further on and their maturation process will certainly be coming forward to you. Um the other thing I'll I don't know if there's other stuff you want to >> Yeah, coming up at one of your next I think it's July 9th is the what we're shooting for.

Is that correct, Heather? >> Yeah. um at July 9th, we're looking forward to um start the discussion of we're calling it an a lowincome housing incentive. Um and it's really geared towards the as Blake mentioned the big A affordable um providers um doing those largecale affordable housing um projects and looking at reducing and kind of streamlining the process.

So reducing any sort of regulatory barriers and streamlining kind of the review process. So allowing um more opportunity for that true affordable housing, those projects to move forward quicker and without um as much regulatory oversight as before.