Lake Forest Park Tree Board approves housekeeping changes and asks planner to send tree-protection package to council

The Lake Forest Park Tree Board voted to approve a set of housekeeping amendments to the city tree code and requested that the Urban Forest Planner present those changes together with previously approved exceptional-tree-diameter recommendations to City Council.

The board first moved to endorse the housekeeping edits — the procedural wording and clarifications intended to make the code easier to update as the city’s qualified arborist and the tree board identify new science or pest threats. After a brief discussion about whether the diameter thresholds for "exceptional trees" are substantive or housekeeping, the board approved the housekeeping items by voice vote.

Board members then moved that the Urban Forest Planner bring the housekeeping changes and the exceptional-tree-diameter recommendation to City Council as a single package for consideration. The motion passed on a voice vote. The meeting record does not include a roll-call tally; the outcome was recorded as approved by board voice vote.

Members discussed one substantive policy change included in the package: an explicit code provision allowing the Planning Director to permit setback deviations when the presence of a viable exceptional tree makes siting a building pad impracticable (referenced in code section 16.14.030 as read aloud during the meeting). Supporters framed it as a tool to protect large trees while preserving reasonable development rights; one member described it as "a middle ground to strike" between tree conservation and property development.

Several board members emphasized process: the housekeeping language includes a clarification that the general tree list is amended periodically by the city’s qualified arborist in partnership with the tree board so Council need not review every list update. Members also discussed minor edits (removing height limits for right-of-way plantings from earlier drafts) to give the planner and arborist flexibility in species selection.

Next steps: staff said the new Urban Forest Planner (Christy Bishop, starting next week) will be asked to shepherd the packet to Council for formal consideration and any additional Council amendments. No Council hearing date was set at the meeting.

A voice vote was used for both board motions; the transcript records “All in favor? Aye,” but does not supply individual vote names or a numerical tally.

Authorities and code references discussed by the board were read from the draft code packet and included language quoted from 16.14.030 and cross-references to 16.16.240 (as read aloud in the meeting).