Lake Forest Park staff propose narrower 'exceptional tree' code, add permit flexibilities and risk criteria

Lake Forest Park planning staff presented a focused update to the city’s exceptional tree code during the Tree Board meeting, proposing changes to which trees qualify as “exceptional,” how arborists evaluate risk, and what relief the city may grant to allow development while protecting trees.

The proposed changes narrow the code update’s scope to the exceptional tree rules and the formal tree list, and are intended to make arborist reports easier to apply and speed permit review, the presenter said. Staff also plans to file a non‑project SEPA checklist as the next procedural step before bringing the ordinance to council.

Why it matters: The revision would change size thresholds used to label a tree “exceptional” for several species (for example, a proposal discussed would lower the bigleaf maple threshold from 42 inches to 30 inches DBH in the draft table staff circulated). Staff said the change is meant to increase the number of trees that receive protection and to align thresholds with local tree-size distributions, species characteristics and evolving climate conditions.

Key elements of the draft - Definitions and thresholds: The update revises the exceptional‑tree definition and the city’s species list; staff proposes the tree list be reviewed periodically (staff used “annually” in draft language) rather than fixed indefinitely. Draft thresholds were presented for each species; staff said the thresholds were informed by city survey samples and by comparison with other Puget Sound jurisdictions. - Risk and viability language: The draft replaces subjective wording such as “healthful” with more technical terms (for example, “average” or “average vigor/condition for the tree’s age and species”) to guide arborist assessments. The update also clarifies that mitigation options may include pruning, cabling and bracing in addition to pruning alone. - Invasive pests and minor permits: The draft introduces or tightens definitions for “invasive pest” and for removal-streamlining when trees are affected by pests; staff said the intent is to allow faster removal for trees that are clearly diseased or infested under minor permit authority instead of requiring a major permit. - Replacement and development limits: The code would keep a 3:1 canopy replacement ratio for removed exceptional trees (three times the canopy replaced for canopy removed) and preserve the department’s current practice of allowing removal for urgent high‑risk trees regardless of a five‑year development restriction. That five‑year restriction remains in place for non‑urgent removals following major development, but staff would codify the existing department practice that truly hazardous trees can be removed sooner. - Reasonable Use Exception (RUE): The draft retains the RUE pathway for property owners who cannot reasonably develop a parcel without tree removal. Staff and the board discussed that RUE remains a public, often expensive process (public notice, hearing examiner review) intended to avoid a regulatory‑taking claim when a tree renders a parcel effectively undevelopable. - Planning concessions: To encourage retention of exceptional trees, staff proposed allowing the planning director limited discretion to reduce front or rear setback requirements on a case‑by‑case basis so structures can be sited around protected trees without trigger­ing a full RUE process.

Board and staff discussion Staff emphasized the objective is to provide clearer, more legally durable criteria for arborists and applicants so fewer info requests and clarifications will be needed during permitting. “So many of my info requests right now . . . draw out permit time,” staff said, adding that clearer language about mitigation and targets helps reviewers and arborists apply the risk matrices consistently.

Board members asked about the legal risk of appearing to prohibit development; staff replied that the RUE and existing discretionary tools are intended to avoid an effective regulatory taking. The board also pressed staff to be ready to show rationales for particular numeric thresholds at council — for example, why bigleaf maple would be protected at 30 inches rather than 42 inches — and staff said they would present supporting data and comparisons with other cities when the ordinance is introduced.

Next steps and public process Staff said it will finalize the non‑project SEPA checklist, circulate the draft to the city attorney and planning director for review, and then schedule the council introduction. Staff expects additional public comment once the SEPA notice posts and said they will circulate any comments back to the Tree Board. The draft code update also remains likely to be followed later this year by a broader set of housekeeping code changes tied to the state’s middle‑housing implementation.

Discussion-only versus formal action The Tree Board reviewed and commented on the draft language but did not take a formal vote to adopt code changes; staff framed the meeting as a check and a step toward the public hearing and council process.

Ending note Staff urged the board to be prepared to respond to council questions about the data behind the proposed thresholds and to weigh in on wording related to viability, mitigation options and the planning‑director concessions when staff brings the ordinance forward.