Did I miss here?

You did not, I think um what was left out um from um the audience participation was that the time period for the increase of canopy cover predates the ones that um Ms.

Ashlin uh had researched.

Um when the tree code was adopted in 2001 in Kirkland, that's when PDUs and the missing middle um development types already were in place, um, as I mentioned last time.

And the next time that they did their canopy assessment, they had done a baseline um was at that time that's when canopy assessments were done eight to ten years apart from each other um just because of cost.

Uh what and I think it was done in 2011.

So there were three documents that um that published that were published that attributed an increase in canopy cover from the from when the tree was tree code was adopted to that first or the first not the baseline, but the first can the next canopy assessment 2011.

So it was in the urban forest management plan, Kirkland's urban forest management plan.

It was in the comp plan.

Um it actually shifted the policy goals and the comp plan from trying to enhance canopy to meet the uh canopy cover goal to um to uh some other priorities, and then in that canopy cover report, the 2011 um assessment, it it was documented that the increase that was attributed to the code.

So that was you know, if I had left out an era or a time that that increase occurred, uh you know, perfectly okay.

Thanks givings.

There's other cities that have had increases that are more recent as well.

Um, but there were other reasons that I mentioned that we're reusing Kirkland as a sample code um besides that increase.

So it sounds like maybe the can't be in Kirkland increased from 2001 to 2011.

And then maybe, and I haven't looked into this, it has decreased since 2011.

It has, and that there's currently doing um coincidentally um an analysis underway right now, and the raw data um should be out at the end of June.

And I'm collaborating with um Kirkland's urban forester to get that, you know, kind of like preliminary results to see, especially as I um discussed as well.

Um there is that that neighborhood that's in the north annexed area that was the Finhill neighborhood, but under um the King County urban growth um area, it was under King County Code that um it became the Holmes Point Overlay Code that had more restrictive um tree retention um under this overlay code than the rest of King County.

That was adopted when that um those areas annexed and became its own tree code chapter separate from the the tree code that applies to the rest of the city, and that's the Holmes Point Overlay Code, where 150 credits per acre is required there, and that's another area that the Kirkland's urban forester and I are looking at to see, even though there's uh you know different requirements for retention and set asides uh on the on each property in that neighborhood, we're looking at just to see how the credits, which are double practically than the rest of the city, more than double, um, have uh if there's any trends in gain or loss there.

So we're we're not saying at this point 50 credits per acre is the solution.

Um, and we're certainly open to fine-tuning that number, but we are, I think, all in agreement that tree density credits is the is a way to go.

So I'll probably clarify that.

I really appreciate your collaborating with them, gives us a chance to learn from their experience.

So that's that's really nice to hear.

So can I ask a boa question onto that?

Sure.

So if it went down between 2011 and 2021, did they know why?

I'd have to look at the report, um, the reports to see.

I don't know what hand um what it was attributed to.

I mean, you'd you'd want to look at all the different ways that the um city was sliced and diced up as far as land use to say there were probably gains and losses in different areas aside from the overall um loss citywide um average citywide.

So that would be that's important is to look at uh you know, where were those losses and can those losses be attributed to the code?

That I don't know offhand.

And and the annexation occurred between 2011 and 2020.

Did it occur before?

Um I would say I would say, let's see, that canopy assessment done in 2011.

I remember that we we had not annexed when that canopy assessment was done, but we knew that annexation was likely.

So I think it happened soon after 2011, because we made sure that we did a baseline including the annexed areas, even though technically they hadn't been annexed yet.

So it's about 2011, 2012.

And then you can put that.

Okay.

Any other clarifying comments, following audience comments before we jump into Debbie's presentation tonight?

2011.

June 1st, 2011 was that is serving me well tonight.

So if that's a I synced it to the desktop.

Oh, yeah.

Um, so just as a reminder, yes, this is a um continued discussion of we've been talking about the tree code update since January.

And uh probably the biggest heaviest lift we've already um I've already received direction from the planning board, and that's the part of the tree code that is not in the code.

Um, and that is regulating trees or limiting tree removal not associated with development, um, and uh new definition for landmark trees.

Um so to just just a blip of history um for our new member in 2021, here when the tree code as we know it was adopted, it only related to tree retention with development.

And during that whole process of adoption, city council and the planning board both um felt as though hey, there's the other side of the coin that we're not looking at, and that is how we're regulating trees that are you know, removals that are not associated with development.

So uh there's been some minor amendments in 2025.

This same tree code update was initiated in 2022, 23, and then it was unfinished, and is and now is just uh we're picking it up again this year for a couple different reasons.

One is well, it was uh the I left the position and it was not filled.

Um so when I came back in January, that's this is the number one project.

Um it's it's the same scope um either you know that it was for 2023, and that is looking at that other side of the coin of tree removals not associated with development.

But in the interim, there also had been a um uh a really um well, a couple of guns, but um a very large, very uh um prominent tree in the skyline was removed um and it was created uh quite there were there was a lot of um community sentiment around that removal because it was so large.

And as a result, city council um adopted an in-rome ordinance to prohibiting the removal of landmark trees, and they were defined as 30 inches trunk diameter um until the tree code updates could then adopt a definition for landmark tree and and then and look at you know permanent protections for them and then that entry removal not associated with development.

So here we are, and we're at uh meeting number eight, and um, and yeah, this is the second discussion with uh having to do with development and just to not repeat myself, but these these were the check marks are those were that's part of that's the scope of this project.

And these were the heavy lift was determining this a metric in our code intent and purpose, um, defining and determining um landmark tree protection, and um looking at how to limit tree removals that are not associated with development.