Environmental Board · Wednesday, April 9, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 12, 2025

5 min · packet pp.3–5

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 03-12-25 Environmental Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. March 12, 2025 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Brief Verbal Update Urban Forest Management Plan Implementation (I)

10 min · Dan Hintz, Urban Forest Supervisor · packet pp.7–55

Topics: Trees

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Community Planning & Development 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

Title 18 Tree Code Update

Discussion · 60 min · Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Manager Doug Yormick, Environmental Planner

Topics: Land UseTrees

5. REPORTS

Energy Smart Eastside Annual Report

5 min · packet pp.57–64

Topics: ClimateArts & Culture

Open packet at p.57 ↗

Staff report:

2025 Staff, Advisory Committee & Program Partners Energy Smart Eastside has a full-time program manager at the City of Bellevue, funding to add two part time staﬀ in 2025, and an AmericaCorps CivicSpark Fellow that supports the program manager.

ICAP Update Progress

5 min

Topics: Climate

Capital Improvement Plan Update

5 min

Topics: Budget

Sustainability Fair Planning

5 min

Topics: Climate

Environmental Board Recruitment Update and Transition

5 min

2308 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ All right, welcome to the April 9th

0:08 ↗ meeting of this one board of Don

0:10 ↗ Williams chair tonight. The hybrid

0:12 ↗ nature of the meeting will have some

0:14 ↗ members attending in person and others

0:15 ↗ on computer or the phone. For all

0:18 ↗ attending remotely, please state your

0:19 ↗ name before speaking. Um if your

0:21 ↗ microphone you're not speaking please

0:24 ↗ everybody in the room your tag question

0:27 ↗ and then we'll call I see up um we'll

0:31 ↗ summarize

0:32 ↗ any agreements that we need to make it

0:35 ↗ correct at the end of each topic I don't

0:37 ↗ think we're voting on

0:43 ↗ anything that is there any changes to

0:46 ↗ the meeting minutes from

0:51 ↗ minutes are

0:54 ↗ passed and then um we're going to do two

0:56 ↗ public comment sessions tonight. So, one

0:58 ↗ up front here and then one after the

1:03 ↗ presentation so people can hear that

1:06 ↗ way. Um, for those making public comment

1:11 ↗ tonight, you'd like to make public

1:13 ↗ comment remote, just raise your hand

1:15 ↗ virtually, you'd like public comment in

1:17 ↗ the room. Just let Stacy know

1:20 ↗ or please keep your comments to five

1:23 ↗ minutes. Ask could do a quick roll call.

1:27 ↗ Yes,

1:30 ↗ we jumped right in. All right, quick

1:32 ↗ roll call. Uh, Tom Anderson has an

1:34 ↗ excused absence. Nancy Davidson here.

1:37 ↗ Jamie Finch

1:41 ↗ here. Proco Pondi has an excused

1:44 ↗ absence. Karen P here. Mina June

1:48 ↗ here.

1:50 ↗ Dominic Williams here. Dixie Bear

1:54 ↗ here. Alex Lee Ter and Nukem here. Keith

1:59 ↗ Gonzalez

2:01 ↗ here. Uh John Smith here. Great. Um, Ann

2:05 ↗ will be saying as a regular member and

2:07 ↗ we have

2:10 ↗ forum go ahead.

2:14 ↗ And I believe

2:18 ↗ Mary here. Yeah. Yeah.

2:22 ↗ Okay. My name is Mary Lynch and I reside

2:25 ↗ uh at 2690 Northwest Oakrest Drive here

2:27 ↗ in Isiqua. I actually actually

2:30 ↗ participated in

2:31 ↗ 2005 6 and 7 when they started to

2:34 ↗ actually develop the codes in Isiqua and

2:37 ↗ spent a lot of time and has continued to

2:39 ↗ try and work with and update those. So I

2:42 ↗ want to thank you all for working on

2:43 ↗ these and helping to update these. Also

2:46 ↗ want to um I sent a letter and I it was

2:49 ↗ kind of late. may not have had chance to

2:50 ↗ read it, but if you'll go through that

2:52 ↗ and have any questions, I'd be glad to

2:54 ↗ expound on that. I also sent pictures uh

2:57 ↗ cuz what I found since the cyclone bomb,

2:59 ↗ it's really been hard to figure out how

3:01 ↗ to apply the codes. We have about 13

3:05 ↗ acres of common area that are supposed

3:07 ↗ to be protected open space that were

3:09 ↗ planted as part of our development,

3:10 ↗ Summer Hill. And unfortunately, they

3:13 ↗ were not the trees were not planted

3:15 ↗ correctly. They were planted on uh

3:17 ↗ glacial till uh with no dirt. So, we had

3:21 ↗ a large majority of our dug fur that are

3:25 ↗ in the common area close to our houses

3:27 ↗ all blow over uh with the storm. The

3:31 ↗ established cedar that were back in the

3:33 ↗ area, some did survive, but uh they lost

3:38 ↗ a lot of their needles. We lost a lot of

3:41 ↗ branches and big stems out of our big

3:43 ↗ leaf maple trees. That is also now are

3:47 ↗ presenting dangers to several of our

3:48 ↗ houses. And again, how do we apply the

3:50 ↗ code? We've got one tree that we applied

3:53 ↗ for the city to try and get a permit for

3:55 ↗ and they're telling us it's going to be

3:57 ↗ one to five months before we can get it

3:59 ↗ cut or get it resolved and what we can

4:01 ↗ do with it. And it is that one is it

4:05 ↗ above my house and if it falls my new

4:08 ↗ roof in my house will be crushed. And

4:11 ↗ I'm proponented of saving trees but we

4:13 ↗ need to get regulations that allow us to

4:16 ↗ maintain the trees properly especially

4:18 ↗ the big leaf uh maple because those can

4:21 ↗ be cut down to a height that can still

4:25 ↗ allow them to regrow without totally

4:27 ↗ destroying them. But our codes don't do

4:29 ↗ that yet. Also, I've been trying to work

4:31 ↗ with the city for years trying to get a

4:33 ↗ forest management plan for our area. Uh,

4:36 ↗ but the city has not been at all

4:38 ↗ helpful. We're small homeowners, so we

4:40 ↗ don't have a lot of money. Um, so I

4:43 ↗ would really like to see in these new

4:44 ↗ codes that when you're looking at

4:46 ↗ acorage that you're tying into with the

4:49 ↗ Northwest for Stewardship Plans to allow

4:53 ↗ those HOAs that have uh those to work

4:55 ↗ with a forward stewardship plan that the

4:58 ↗ developer has to put together with the

5:00 ↗ city and then turn that over to an HOA

5:03 ↗ that we can manage. So every time that

5:05 ↗ we have to trim a tree, remove a tree,

5:09 ↗ plant trees, we don't have to come back

5:11 ↗ continually for permits with the city,

5:13 ↗ but we have to maintain and report that

5:15 ↗ tree code. That would really help us as

5:17 ↗ an HOA and would save us money in the

5:20 ↗ long run and make sure from the

5:22 ↗ beginning that the trees are planted

5:23 ↗ properly because it was really heart

5:25 ↗ disheartening to see those 40year-old

5:27 ↗ trees and I I sent you a picture, but

5:30 ↗ now what do we do with them? They're

5:32 ↗ like eight to 10 feet deep on an area

5:34 ↗ that didn't have any trees except the

5:36 ↗ little ones that I had planted last

5:38 ↗ year. How do we get rid of those? We

5:40 ↗ can't with the city codes from what I

5:43 ↗ can read. Um, but with the fires and

5:45 ↗ that kind of stuff, what are we going to

5:47 ↗ do? I also had my insurance uh basically

5:51 ↗ threatened to be cancelled because I

5:52 ↗ didn't have the trees in the common area

5:55 ↗ trimmed back. So, I did a little bit of

5:58 ↗ trimming, but some of these big leaf

6:00 ↗ maples really need to be cut back um so

6:04 ↗ that they won't fall in the houses or

6:06 ↗ else there's going to be more in our

6:07 ↗ neighborhood of people that are going to

6:09 ↗ lose their insurance because the

6:10 ↗ insurers will not insurance. So, we also

6:13 ↗ need to start working with the state on

6:16 ↗ fire safety and safety wise around our

6:18 ↗ houses. That needs to be written into

6:20 ↗ the code to protect us.

6:22 ↗ The other problem, I was on the HOA a

6:25 ↗ board and we had difficulty in even

6:28 ↗ going through the new permit process. I

6:30 ↗ don't know if any of you have logged on

6:32 ↗ and tried to get on or do it. It's not

6:34 ↗ straightforward. It's not easy.

6:37 ↗ Um, and when we did have a violation,

6:41 ↗ how do you report it? How do you follow

6:43 ↗ up with the city? That doesn't work. Um,

6:46 ↗ we don't know what's happening where we

6:48 ↗ had the violations. uh we couldn't a

6:51 ↗ actively and quickly get the permits

6:53 ↗ that were granted and we were the HOA

6:56 ↗ owners and the tree was being cut on the

6:58 ↗ HOA land, but the city doesn't check on

7:00 ↗ that. They ask the whoever's responsible

7:03 ↗ for the permit to fill it out correctly.

7:07 ↗ And if it's filled out wrong, the city

7:10 ↗ doesn't

7:11 ↗ care. So that needs to be written into

7:13 ↗ the process as far as who's the

7:15 ↗ ownership of making sure that the tree

7:17 ↗ really is on the property that it's on

7:20 ↗ because that's not clear and we

7:21 ↗ basically were told we as an HOA would

7:24 ↗ have to sue the HOA or the person the

7:26 ↗ property but we couldn't because the

7:28 ↗ city wouldn't confirm that it was

7:31 ↗ violated. So, you know, there were two

7:34 ↗ more Doug furs that got cut that

7:36 ↗ shouldn't have got cut. And to my

7:38 ↗ knowledge, no penalty has been followed

7:40 ↗ because the city doesn't have that

7:41 ↗ process. And if you're going to enforce

7:43 ↗ or make rules, you need to make sure the

7:45 ↗ city has the staffing and the money to

7:47 ↗ enforce them or they're worthless. So

7:50 ↗ hopefully when you're looking through

7:52 ↗ some of these, you'll take some of those

7:53 ↗ points in mind and open up the code to

7:56 ↗ cover some of these issues because it

7:58 ↗ doesn't right now. So thank you. Thank

8:01 ↗ you.

8:07 ↗ Do you want to comment at this?

8:11 ↗ Yeah, I'm going to wait.

8:15 ↗ Yeah, I did just want to acknowledge the

8:17 ↗ written comments we received from Ken

8:19 ↗ Eastman, Steve Pereira, um Connie Marsh,

8:22 ↗ and then Mary Lynch sent comments for

8:25 ↗ the last few days.

8:33 ↗ Stacy, you want to give us a quick

8:34 ↗ update on?

8:37 ↗ Yep. We're gonna shift one of our uh

8:39 ↗ reports or updates just to the

8:41 ↗ beginning. Um since Jen is going to be

8:43 ↗ leaving here in a few minutes. Um so

8:45 ↗ just a quick update on our environmental

8:46 ↗ board recruitment and transition. Um

8:50 ↗ Alex, Don, and I participated in

8:52 ↗ interviews for new members. Uh we

8:55 ↗ provided our recommendations to the

8:56 ↗ mayor and those will go to council on

8:58 ↗ the 21st of April. Um Jamie's decided

9:02 ↗ not to reapply as you know lot a lot lot

9:04 ↗ of things going on. Um so we do

9:06 ↗ anticipate at least one new member to

9:08 ↗ the board. Um just wanted to spend a

9:11 ↗ couple minutes thanking Jamie for all of

9:13 ↗ his work and contributions to the board.

9:16 ↗ um he was involved in leadership of the

9:17 ↗ board when I first started and just have

9:19 ↗ always appreciated his thoughtfulness um

9:22 ↗ and all of the input that he's given to

9:24 ↗ the city and staff um and this board.

9:27 ↗ So, just want to take a minute to

9:29 ↗ recognize Jamie and hopefully we'll see

9:31 ↗ you pretty regularly whether public

9:33 ↗ comment or back on the board in the next

9:35 ↗ couple years. Jamie is

9:40 ↗ What was that Don to be on the other

9:43 ↗ side? Yeah.

9:45 ↗ Thank you. All your years on this board

9:48 ↗ are duly out of your time as chair and

9:51 ↗ vice chair. Done a lot here. So, we

9:53 ↗ appreciate it. And hopefully you'll

9:55 ↗ reconsider coming back sometime.

9:57 ↗ Everything's mellow. Yeah, thank you,

10:00 ↗ Don. No, I appreciate it. And I I wish I

10:02 ↗ was planning on being there today, but

10:04 ↗ uh having a newborn, things come up. So,

10:07 ↗ uh, and that's kind of my I would love

10:09 ↗ to I mean I I love this group and and

10:11 ↗ I'm I'm sad to not be able to continue

10:13 ↗ participating, but uh have between being

10:15 ↗ the founder of a startup and uh having a

10:18 ↗ new board, there's kind of a lot on on

10:20 ↗ the old plate right now. But but thank

10:22 ↗ you so much Stacy for all the support,

10:24 ↗ David um and and all board members. It's

10:27 ↗ been great getting to know all of you.

10:29 ↗ some for what four or five years now,

10:31 ↗ others more recent. But uh yeah, it's

10:34 ↗ been a great first civic engagement for

10:36 ↗ me. So I've really enjoyed my experience

10:38 ↗ and it's been great to be a part of this

10:39 ↗ group and see um what uh what sort of

10:42 ↗ impact and just being a part of a really

10:44 ↗ passionate group of people. So um I wish

10:46 ↗ I could stick around, but u I'm going to

10:48 ↗ sign off now, but and thank you Stacy

10:51 ↗ for kind of moving this up and

10:52 ↗ appreciate that. But uh um yeah, looking

10:55 ↗ forward to following along and then

10:56 ↗ maybe maybe as as Don said, maybe as

10:59 ↗ life settles down a bit. Um I I I don't

11:01 ↗ think this will be my last involvement.

11:03 ↗ Just uh need to take a little take a

11:05 ↗ little breather and focus on focus on

11:07 ↗ family for a little while. So yeah,

11:08 ↗ thank thank you so much and hope I get a

11:10 ↗ chance. I know I see a lot of you around

11:12 ↗ town, but uh hope uh I was hoping to see

11:15 ↗ everyone in person, but uh that I'll

11:16 ↗ have to wait for maybe a a farmers

11:19 ↗ market or wherever else I might run into

11:21 ↗ into y'all. But uh and thanks Don.

11:23 ↗ Thanks for um it was great working with

11:25 ↗ you for for several years and and uh

11:27 ↗ appreciate your leadership this year. So

11:31 ↗ awesome. Thanks Jamie. Thanks Jamie.

11:34 ↗ Yeah, sounds great.

11:37 ↗ All right. Bye. See you.

11:42 ↗ Our first topic tonight is a update um

11:44 ↗ from Dan forest and the plan. Yeah. So

11:49 ↗ um this is going to be really quick. I

11:51 ↗ don't have any slides prepared for this.

11:53 ↗ Um we'll be coming back later in the

11:54 ↗ year for more of a formal update on the

11:57 ↗ urban forest management plan, but um

11:59 ↗ hopefully most of you know um that that

12:01 ↗ uh ended up getting adopted by council

12:03 ↗ in February of uh 2025, so just a couple

12:06 ↗ months ago. Um we had the I guess

12:09 ↗ unfortunate or slightly ironic timing of

12:11 ↗ trying to take that to council or

12:13 ↗ council committee the night of the bomb

12:14 ↗ cyclone. So that ended up delaying it a

12:16 ↗ bit during the uh fall winter there. But

12:19 ↗ um has it had it adopted and are looking

12:22 ↗ at moving forward to implementation. So,

12:23 ↗ I would like to be coming to this board

12:25 ↗ at least once or twice a year to kind of

12:26 ↗ provide updates on where we're at.

12:28 ↗ Obviously, we're only about two months

12:30 ↗ since then and there hasn't been a ton

12:32 ↗ to update on, but I guess I can just

12:34 ↗ give a quick rundown of what the

12:36 ↗ priority uh implementation items are.

12:39 ↗ And for folks, I think everyone here has

12:41 ↗ been a part of at least some of those

12:43 ↗ meetings last year, the development.

12:44 ↗ Just as a reminder, um, this is a plan

12:46 ↗ we worked on with the consultant planet

12:48 ↗ Geo. They're urban forestry uh, uh,

12:51 ↗ consultants organization. Um, and you

12:54 ↗ know, a lot of these plans, you know,

12:55 ↗ you kind of have three main sections. We

12:57 ↗ have our current conditions essentially.

12:58 ↗ What do we have? There's a lot of data

13:00 ↗ in there that will talk or kind of

13:01 ↗ inform some of the tree code

13:03 ↗ conversations we'll be having tonight.

13:05 ↗ Um, there is the, you know, kind of what

13:06 ↗ do we want to have or where do you want

13:08 ↗ to get? That's the visions and

13:09 ↗ recommendations. So there's a

13:10 ↗ overarching vision for the plan along

13:12 ↗ with um five guiding principles with a

13:15 ↗ big series of you know goals strategies

13:17 ↗ uh and recommendations associated with

13:18 ↗ each of those guiding principles. Um and

13:21 ↗ then there's the actual implementation

13:23 ↗ process. Uh you know some of the costs

13:25 ↗ some of the different departments that

13:26 ↗ need to partner on this. Those are

13:27 ↗ mostly in tables. Um and looking at some

13:30 ↗ of the priority option or uh uh action

13:32 ↗ items um for implementation. So um as

13:36 ↗ most of you probably know we're in a

13:37 ↗ two-year bianium in the city. So, we're

13:38 ↗ at the start of that and 25 26 year. Uh,

13:41 ↗ so these are items that we're looking at

13:43 ↗ um trying to get uh accomplished in this

13:46 ↗ 2-year period. Uh, you know, a few of

13:48 ↗ these are certainly a bit funding

13:49 ↗ dependent and and maybe needing to get a

13:51 ↗ little bit creative there. Uh, but one

13:53 ↗ of the big ones you've probably heard me

13:54 ↗ talk about plenty before is a public

13:56 ↗ tree inventory. So, you know, really

13:58 ↗ kind of the two foundational pieces of

13:59 ↗ an urban forestry program or having the

14:01 ↗ plan, having kind of the road map of

14:03 ↗ where we're trying to go with what we

14:04 ↗ have already. uh you know one thing

14:06 ↗ we're kind of missing in that process is

14:08 ↗ uh a better understanding of the

14:09 ↗ composition of especially our street

14:11 ↗ trees our maintained areas apart of the

14:13 ↗ trees there our green is aqua plan has

14:16 ↗ decent information which is in the urban

14:18 ↗ forest management plan about composition

14:20 ↗ of some of our larger uh native growth

14:22 ↗ areas or you know traditional plateau

14:24 ↗ NRCA um but we really don't have a great

14:27 ↗ understanding of you know maybe what our

14:29 ↗ species compositions where those

14:31 ↗ vulnerabilities are for um you know

14:33 ↗ different species we have as like said

14:35 ↗ tree trees, park trees, um, and really,

14:37 ↗ you know, trying to make some, uh, you

14:39 ↗ know, more informed management decisions

14:41 ↗ with that public trade information. It's

14:43 ↗ also a great education tool if you've

14:45 ↗ never looked before. You know, City of

14:46 ↗ Seamanics just uh, published theirs in

14:47 ↗ the last couple years. City of Seattle

14:49 ↗ has a great public tree inventory. So,

14:50 ↗ if you're ever walking around these

14:52 ↗ cities, you know, you can pull us up on

14:53 ↗ your phone and a great way to kind of

14:55 ↗ learn about the different different tree

14:57 ↗ species we have planted in our uh, built

14:59 ↗ environment. So, and then I would say

15:01 ↗ from a cross departmental kind of city

15:04 ↗ uh wide management need um having

15:07 ↗ something that parks can use that public

15:09 ↗ works can use that community planning

15:11 ↗ can can see and do as well. Having

15:13 ↗ public facing will be a lot more

15:15 ↗ effective of tracking essentially

15:17 ↗ pruning, removal, planting all you know

15:19 ↗ essentially kind of the the tasks that

15:21 ↗ go with uh maintenance and tree care. Um

15:24 ↗ so that is something as the uh our city

15:27 ↗ is just implementing our first asset

15:28 ↗ management system and we are hoping to

15:30 ↗ then incorporate this tree inventory in

15:31 ↗ that. So we can go back and like oh we

15:33 ↗ had this tree assessed for uh you know

15:36 ↗ risk assessment or we pruned this at

15:37 ↗ this year and it's kind of on these

15:39 ↗ intervals. So a lot a lot of essentially

15:40 ↗ data that would be associated with those

15:43 ↗ uh uh individual trees and we're

15:44 ↗ estimating that that's starting at you

15:46 ↗ know publicly maintained rightaways and

15:48 ↗ maintained areas of park. So not

15:50 ↗ obviously every tree in in large open

15:53 ↗ spaces, but trees that uh more interact

15:55 ↗ with the built environment and people,

15:56 ↗ we're probably looking at at least

15:58 ↗ 30,000 trees. So it's it's a fairly good

16:00 ↗ size inventory. Um so that is something

16:02 ↗ that we will be, you know, going out to

16:04 ↗ bid and working with with a with a

16:06 ↗ consultant on that, too. So that's

16:07 ↗ that's the biggest item. I've been

16:09 ↗ working with um David and sustainability

16:11 ↗ on our first public tree or so say

16:13 ↗ public giveaway for trees on private

16:15 ↗ property. You all heard a little bit

16:16 ↗ about that kind of going back to the

16:18 ↗ Evans School uh word. was that was that

16:20 ↗ just last year

16:22 ↗ uh uh on kind of recommendations for um

16:26 ↗ uh uh you know incentivizing uh canopy

16:29 ↗ on private property. So that is

16:30 ↗ something we're doing with a community

16:31 ↗ partner called 300 trees. You've

16:33 ↗ possibly seen some of the yard signs

16:35 ↗ around. They've been working with

16:36 ↗ Belleview on their private tree

16:38 ↗ distribution events and they also do

16:39 ↗ their own regional regional tree

16:41 ↗ distribution uh in the spring. So, they

16:43 ↗ had some signs around Isiziqua here just

16:45 ↗ a few weeks ago, but we'll be doing ours

16:47 ↗ uh November 15th and about 300 trees

16:51 ↗ will be giving away, hopefully

16:52 ↗ continuing to scale that up in future

16:54 ↗ years. Um, one other item is, you know,

16:57 ↗ the urban forest management plan is is

16:59 ↗ citywide. It it does focus a bit more on

17:01 ↗ trees and in the built environment.

17:03 ↗ You're hear me say that a lot tonight.

17:05 ↗ Um but one of the recommendations and

17:06 ↗ things we want to do is where we have

17:07 ↗ these larger uh you know whether they're

17:09 ↗ native growth protection areas or for

17:11 ↗ this you know uh instance the tradition

17:13 ↗ plateau is part of the natural resource

17:15 ↗ conservation area the NRCA which is you

17:17 ↗ know co-managed between the city and

17:19 ↗ department of natural resources. Um

17:22 ↗ we're looking at doing a a forest

17:24 ↗ management plan for the about 400 or 450

17:27 ↗ acres of city-owned land on Tradition

17:29 ↗ Plateau. So some of that might be things

17:32 ↗ that we talked about a little bit in the

17:33 ↗ forest management plan where there could

17:35 ↗ be short-term canopy losses for

17:37 ↗ long-term forest health. You know,

17:39 ↗ you'll hear about ecological thinning

17:40 ↗ where we have really really dense

17:42 ↗ monoculture stands. Usually the after

17:44 ↗ effect of of timber cutting or timber

17:46 ↗ harvest um and and really trying to kind

17:48 ↗ of prioritize where um some of that

17:51 ↗ could be beneficial. Obviously where we

17:53 ↗ planting, what type of species

17:54 ↗ especially appropriate for climate

17:56 ↗ change. Um, so we're working uh uh we

17:59 ↗ have some grant funding for that and are

18:01 ↗ uh scoping that with Northwest Natural

18:03 ↗ Resource Group, NRG, which is a great uh

18:06 ↗ nonprofit forestry uh group based in

18:08 ↗ Olympia and Seattle. Um, and they do a

18:11 ↗ ton of work with King County on their

18:12 ↗ projects. Um, and some of the some of

18:14 ↗ the the tribes in Western Washington,

18:16 ↗ too. So, um, another one that I've just

18:19 ↗ kind of started talking with our

18:20 ↗ community planning department and and

18:22 ↗ some of that might be related to kind of

18:23 ↗ how the tree code updates go is some

18:25 ↗ updates to our preferred tree list. Um,

18:27 ↗ trying to look at that through the lens

18:29 ↗ of climate change and vulnerability with

18:31 ↗ certain tree species and and and where

18:33 ↗ our climate's going um or we anticipate

18:36 ↗ it to go. Um, and then just, you know,

18:38 ↗ there there's some stuff missing from

18:39 ↗ there. We emphasize a lot on native tree

18:41 ↗ species and it's actually not a real

18:42 ↗ comprehensive native tree species list

18:44 ↗ in that uh plan as it is. So, that's

18:46 ↗ something that um I want to work on with

18:48 ↗ our community planning department to to

18:50 ↗ to get some updates and have that be a

18:52 ↗ little bit more uh you know

18:53 ↗ comprehensive and cleaned up and include

18:55 ↗ a little bit more information on um uh

18:57 ↗ climate and adaptation. Uh and then the

19:00 ↗ last one is really broad but uh really

19:02 ↗ continuing to build and expand community

19:04 ↗ education and engagement as it relates

19:05 ↗ to urban forest. So, um you all have

19:07 ↗ heard me talk about green. We have a few

19:09 ↗ folks Jamie I think just left the call

19:12 ↗ an um that have been forest stewards so

19:14 ↗ really dedicated ongoing volunteers that

19:17 ↗ adopt areas lead their own volunteer

19:19 ↗ groups that has been awesome to get

19:20 ↗ people out pull invasive weeds get trees

19:22 ↗ in the ground we're looking how do we do

19:25 ↗ that more on some of the stuff even Mary

19:27 ↗ was talking about how how do we do that

19:28 ↗ more education around um you know tree

19:31 ↗ care tree planting maintenance on on

19:33 ↗ private property as well especially with

19:35 ↗ some of our larger uh land managers with

19:38 ↗ some of the big HOAs, we have sequa

19:40 ↗ here, too. So, looking at seeing how we

19:42 ↗ can partner with Department of Natural

19:43 ↗ Resources, which offers some really good

19:44 ↗ community education programs and

19:46 ↗ resources to to try to start doing some

19:49 ↗ whether they're workup workshops or some

19:50 ↗ maybe hands-on uh work too around um

19:53 ↗ yeah, more specifically tree planting

19:55 ↗ and tree care. Uh while we'll still

19:57 ↗ continue to build greenqua for for the

19:59 ↗ you know, maintenance and restoration of

20:01 ↗ our more kind of natural areas of the

20:02 ↗ city. So, um, those are kind of five

20:05 ↗ items I just wanted to highlight that

20:07 ↗ we're hoping to get through in these

20:08 ↗ next two years. Some of them are a

20:10 ↗ little bit more tangible versus

20:11 ↗ community education, but we do have some

20:12 ↗ goals around frequency of events and

20:14 ↗ topics, um, which I, you know, just

20:16 ↗ talked about very briefly, but I I think

20:17 ↗ I'll pause there and see if there's any

20:19 ↗ questions and and also just reiterate

20:21 ↗ that plan on coming back and and

20:23 ↗ coordinating with Stacy for a little bit

20:24 ↗ more of a I guess formal update uh here

20:27 ↗ later as we make a little more progress

20:30 ↗ on these efforts.

20:34 ↗ Bon, how much damage did it actually do

20:37 ↗ to the two campaigns? So, got asked that

20:40 ↗ a lot, Nancy, and I can't give you I

20:42 ↗ can't give you a definite answer. Um,

20:45 ↗ and that's that's tough. And I think

20:47 ↗ that goes to something that we'll want

20:48 ↗ to want to reme-measure. It'll still be

20:50 ↗ hard to tell how much was a cyclone

20:51 ↗ versus other, you know, land use

20:53 ↗ precision things we're talking about

20:54 ↗ tonight, you know, over especially since

20:56 ↗ we have the most recent tree data for

20:58 ↗ the cities from 2021.

21:01 ↗ Um, you know, in open spaces we lost

21:04 ↗ thousands of trees, but a lot of those

21:06 ↗ were underexisting canopy. So, it

21:08 ↗ doesn't necessarily mean we lost canopy

21:10 ↗ cover, but we certainly lost forest

21:11 ↗ density and, you know, some trees that

21:13 ↗ might have been, you know, kind of the

21:14 ↗ next cohort uh to to be the, you know,

21:17 ↗ kind of mature canopy. You know, we

21:19 ↗ estimated 300 plus trees uh kind of, you

21:22 ↗ know, street rideways, maintained areas

21:24 ↗ of parks. Those are usually more

21:25 ↗ standalone trees that do provide canopy

21:28 ↗ cover of several hundred to even, you

21:30 ↗ know, upwards of a thousand plus square

21:32 ↗ feet. I still think in the grand scheme

21:34 ↗ of things, my best educated guess, it's

21:36 ↗ it's it's not multiple percentage

21:38 ↗ points. It's it's it's it's tenths,

21:40 ↗ maybe pushing a percentage, which is

21:42 ↗ still pretty significant. Um, but I I

21:45 ↗ don't think it's anything 51% down to

21:47 ↗ like 25 or anything dramatic like that.

21:50 ↗ I I the by best education the best kind

21:52 ↗ of as we've done uh a tree extraction

21:55 ↗ layer for the whole city we estimate

21:57 ↗ there's about 225,000 trees across Azua

22:00 ↗ obviously with quite varying canopy um

22:03 ↗ but you know if you kind of add up you

22:05 ↗ know what's on public land and roll it

22:08 ↗ up for you know the amount of private

22:09 ↗ land in the

22:10 ↗ city proportionally uh I still think

22:13 ↗ it's it's it's kind of sitting in that

22:14 ↗ 1% range maybe that's an educated guess

22:18 ↗ but still a

22:20 ↗ Great. Thank you.

22:22 ↗ Just a quick question. There's a recent

22:25 ↗ we took a hike trail head very

22:27 ↗ near Port Ways.

22:30 ↗ Yes. Just kind of trail. I noticed

22:34 ↗ there's some sort of seems like there's

22:36 ↗ some sort of forest management going on

22:37 ↗ there. Can you just explain what So,

22:39 ↗ yes, that is a King County's um um

22:42 ↗ regional forest up there. So that that

22:44 ↗ new trail head is is is within city

22:45 ↗ limits but uh is a King County trail

22:47 ↗ head for the Big Tree Ridge Trail there.

22:49 ↗ And King County has really been I would

22:51 ↗ say locally leading the way on some of

22:54 ↗ that um essentially thinning forest

22:56 ↗ management practices. So they have been

22:58 ↗ thinning out a lot of red alder to try

23:00 ↗ to promote conifer growth um spots in

23:02 ↗ Cougar Mountain. So yes, in the in the

23:04 ↗ short term, you are losing trees, losing

23:06 ↗ canopy, removing native trees, but

23:08 ↗ you're trying to a little bit more

23:10 ↗ quickly, efficiently get to kind of

23:12 ↗ later stage mature forest growth. Um,

23:15 ↗ and that's just the nature of a lot of

23:16 ↗ these disturbed areas where whether it

23:18 ↗ was logging or some sort of other

23:19 ↗ development where all the trees came

23:20 ↗ down at once and they're all coming back

23:22 ↗ up at the same time, which is often, you

23:23 ↗ know, red alder in certain areas,

23:25 ↗ Douglas fur and others. And that's where

23:26 ↗ you can have these monocultures. same

23:29 ↗ species, same age, same size, often too

23:32 ↗ dense for their own good. Um, and that's

23:34 ↗ where King County and then the Forest

23:36 ↗ Service is starting to do some of this

23:37 ↗ too in the Stonewalling Corridor uh is

23:39 ↗ is is thinning out trees to promote um

23:42 ↗ uh kind of more efficient and and kind

23:44 ↗ of long-term forest conditions in a kind

23:47 ↗ of quicker manner. Are they replanting

23:48 ↗ anything after they? So, so conifers

23:50 ↗ often um is is my understanding with a

23:53 ↗ lot of the alder forest, but in a lot of

23:54 ↗ the conifer forest that you're thinning,

23:56 ↗ no, you're leaving those

23:58 ↗ gaps and and those trees then will have

24:01 ↗ more sunlight or more resources and grow

24:03 ↗ to, you know, old growth for maturity.

24:06 ↗ Okay. Thanks. Yeah, one question for

24:09 ↗ you. the private public interface to

24:12 ↗ these properties where you have a lot of

24:13 ↗ potential for hazard trees. Has that

24:15 ↗ been looked at or is there a way that

24:17 ↗ residents can hold you to Yeah. Um I

24:21 ↗ wouldn't say we've certainly scoured

24:22 ↗ every, you know, foot of city forest

24:25 ↗ perimeter than a bus private

24:26 ↗ development. But I mean I Don have

24:29 ↗ probably had 50 to 100 calls and

24:31 ↗ conversations with residents, you know,

24:32 ↗ in the last it's it's it's very much

24:34 ↗ calmed down. I think also it's the

24:35 ↗ nature of getting the better better

24:37 ↗ weather season here. I would say it's a

24:39 ↗ lot of all over the spectrum of you know

24:41 ↗ working with people who yes that's

24:43 ↗ legitimate it's actually you know sorry

24:44 ↗ keep going back to Mary but a lot of

24:46 ↗ partial failures that they leave maple

24:48 ↗ trees where the rest of it needed to

24:49 ↗ come out because it was so close to

24:51 ↗ building. So there was a lot of you know

24:52 ↗ the stuff that we just had to clean up

24:54 ↗ hall debris that was you know a couple

24:55 ↗ months that it was assessing this tree

24:57 ↗ is still technically standing but so

24:59 ↗ damaged that you know it likely needs to

25:01 ↗ come down assuming there's you know high

25:02 ↗ value targets nearby. Um and then kind

25:04 ↗ of the next year of like well there was

25:06 ↗ some damage or some maybe broken like

25:08 ↗ but can't be safely retained and that's

25:10 ↗ where I have been working more with our

25:11 ↗ consulting arborist on on some of those

25:13 ↗ and we we have made decisions to retain

25:14 ↗ a lot of trees. So a lot of people are

25:17 ↗ obviously rightfully so very spooked

25:19 ↗ from the storm. Um, I would say

25:20 ↗ sometimes it's talking people through

25:22 ↗ just because one tree came down. If some

25:24 ↗ of these other trees aren't showing

25:26 ↗ defects to the roots or cracks or breaks

25:28 ↗ in the canopy, like that's actually a

25:30 ↗ reassuring sign. Even I know for some

25:31 ↗ people they saw those trees moving and

25:33 ↗ saw the one come down. That's very

25:34 ↗ natural place for the brain to go. Um,

25:37 ↗ so trying to kind of talk through people

25:38 ↗ that too is like, you know, that's

25:39 ↗ actually a reassuring sign wind events

25:41 ↗ on record. You know, these trees made it

25:43 ↗ through it apparently unscathed. But

25:46 ↗ then there were a lot of course didn't

25:48 ↗ and we've got to work through. So most

25:49 ↗ of those have come through calls,

25:51 ↗ emails, secret fix, um, you know, all

25:53 ↗ our systems there. But we're trying to,

25:55 ↗ you know, as things calm down here a

25:56 ↗ little bit, yeah, probably start

25:58 ↗ surveying a little bit more of our, um,

26:00 ↗ you know, forest perimeters in areas

26:01 ↗ where maybe calls yet. So yeah, there's

26:04 ↗ been a lot of that.

26:08 ↗ Was the city able to sell any of the

26:12 ↗ trees for lumber? That conversation came

26:14 ↗ up a little bit, but just accessibility

26:16 ↗ to get trucks in. um the type of trees,

26:19 ↗ you know, some of the furs might be

26:21 ↗ beneficial, but but timber companies

26:23 ↗ really aren't trying to come out and get

26:24 ↗ cottonwood or parts of big leaf maple

26:26 ↗ tree necessarily. So, the answer is no,

26:29 ↗ but we did we did think about it and

26:31 ↗ just from an efficiency point of view

26:33 ↗ and talking to one of the companies that

26:35 ↗ does also do some traditional logging

26:37 ↗ that that we contract with, they were

26:40 ↗ saying the scale and just the

26:41 ↗ accessibility. Sometimes if they're

26:43 ↗ hauling logs out, they have some value.

26:44 ↗ You're supposedly getting a break on

26:46 ↗ those. But um but yeah, I mean sort of

26:49 ↗ like

26:52 ↗ that as much sense once we kind of got

26:54 ↗ into the middle. So what were they doing

26:56 ↗ with the hold out? So

27:00 ↗ um I'm not 100% sure. Okay. They were

27:03 ↗ charging the city to help them

27:05 ↗ sometimes. Yeah, that's what we tell.

27:07 ↗ Well, all these are free and then yeah,

27:08 ↗ they might be selling some of those. I

27:10 ↗ mean, some of them may you give to creek

27:11 ↗ projects is what we were telling you

27:13 ↗ because they're also working on some of

27:14 ↗ the stuff that we needed to cut

27:15 ↗ reposition in creeks. So, you're out

27:17 ↗ there a lot of that. We're talking about

27:18 ↗ some of it to use for habitat. Some of

27:20 ↗ it's for just firewood is ultimately

27:22 ↗ what they end up using it for.

27:25 ↗ But for sure exactly what

27:30 ↗ they have final comment. Well, I have

27:33 ↗ just two quick questions for you. The

27:35 ↗ first one is who does the endorsement of

27:37 ↗ the tree code? Is it you or is it these

27:39 ↗ guys? It's it's CPD. I mean I will

27:42 ↗ consult with you all occasionally if I

27:44 ↗ can provide yeah some sort of

27:47 ↗ but the other question we have is how

27:50 ↗ you using the tree fund. Yeah. So um the

27:54 ↗ tree fund yeah wasn't being super well

27:57 ↗ utilized for a little while and it took

27:59 ↗ me a little time to kind of just to work

28:01 ↗ and uh you know first of all figure out

28:02 ↗ how much is in there. um you know make

28:05 ↗ sure we we do have in our code you know

28:06 ↗ kind of what it's uh used for. Um so yes

28:09 ↗ I was able to

28:11 ↗ uh unfortunately this is before the bomb

28:13 ↗ cyclone and then that's maybe another

28:15 ↗ conversation about let everyone else

28:17 ↗ hear what I yeah so um we have been

28:20 ↗ using it for uh tree planting material

28:22 ↗ here over the last couple months. So, I

28:24 ↗ was um able to work with our finance

28:26 ↗ team uh to get some of that money into

28:29 ↗ our parks operations budget for this

28:31 ↗ year and next year. Um and it's been a

28:33 ↗ mix of uh you know smaller plant

28:35 ↗ material uh in kind of forested open

28:38 ↗ space or riparian areas. So, we actually

28:40 ↗ had a great project we did with um uh

28:43 ↗ with Kestimon and uh save Cooper

28:46 ↗ Mountain actually for the Bersma

28:47 ↗ property that the city acquired a few

28:49 ↗ years ago. They actually had a little

28:50 ↗ bit of money left uh as they were kind

28:52 ↗ of sunsiding sunsetting that nonprofit.

28:54 ↗ And then we used a match a couple

28:55 ↗ thousand dollars from the tree fund to

28:58 ↗ buy uh I think we end up putting you

28:59 ↗ know almost 2,000 bare root trees and

29:01 ↗ shrubs uh on that 30-ish acre parcel and

29:04 ↗ there's still a lot more potential um

29:06 ↗ and a fair amount of you know tree

29:08 ↗ failure out there too from the bomb

29:10 ↗ cyclone. Uh and then for instance too we

29:12 ↗ just use it for Confluence Park. We did

29:13 ↗ our annual Arbor Day celebration uh this

29:16 ↗ past Saturday. Had about 50 people out.

29:18 ↗ Some of them were one to one

29:20 ↗ replacements of trees lost in the bomb

29:21 ↗ cyclone. People love the weeping willow

29:23 ↗ and unfortunately lost in that park. So

29:25 ↗ that was planted same species, same

29:26 ↗ location. Um and then a lot of them were

29:29 ↗ tweaks, you know, based on and I think a

29:31 ↗ lot of people for trees, it is really

29:33 ↗ hard to literally plant a tree back in

29:34 ↗ the same spot. Even if you grind the

29:36 ↗ stump, there's still just big roots,

29:37 ↗ things like that. So things do need to

29:38 ↗ be offset to an extent. Uh and then we

29:40 ↗ did consider some some different species

29:42 ↗ and kind of aesthetics through the park.

29:44 ↗ So yeah, to say if it was truly one for

29:46 ↗ one or you know kind of how it was.

29:48 ↗ Yeah, it was kind of a mix of Yeah,

29:50 ↗ literally on the same side species and

29:53 ↗ also we lost a lot here in November and

29:55 ↗ want to uh you know try to catch up with

29:57 ↗ that as best we can. We hope to do more

29:59 ↗ of that in the fall too. We are kind of

30:01 ↗ putting the pin in our planting season

30:03 ↗ that's starting to warm up and dry out.

30:04 ↗ Um but we'll pick that up again in

30:06 ↗ October. Thank you.

30:09 ↗ Thanks Dan. Appreciate it. All right. um

30:12 ↗ close that topic. Up next, we got Doug

30:14 ↗ Dormack and Steven Padua here joining us

30:17 ↗ going to talk to us tonight about the

30:18 ↗ 108.

30:37 ↗ Good evening. Uh my name is is Douglas

30:40 ↗ Yormack, environmental planner with

30:42 ↗ community planning and developments and

30:44 ↗ with me is Steven Padulla, our assistant

30:47 ↗ planning director. Um together we're

30:49 ↗ here to discuss the proposed amendments

30:51 ↗ to chapter 18812

30:54 ↗ uh tree

31:01 ↗ preservation. Um this meeting will

31:03 ↗ introduce the amendments to the tree

31:05 ↗ code. uh our staff has been working on

31:08 ↗ with our environmental

31:12 ↗ consultants. So for a little background,

31:15 ↗ in May of 2023, council approved um our

31:20 ↗ major update to title 18, the city's

31:22 ↗ land use code. This included an overhaul

31:24 ↗ of the tree preservation code. Um

31:27 ↗ several changes were adopted as part of

31:29 ↗ that overhaul. Uh one such change was

31:31 ↗ replacing tree density with on

31:33 ↗ individual lots with a standard for tree

31:36 ↗ canopy coverage uh to help implement the

31:39 ↗ climate actual 55% canopy coverage

31:42 ↗ citywide. Um since adoption, staff has

31:46 ↗ identified several areas for improvement

31:48 ↗ for better clarity to interpret and

31:49 ↗ apply the standards equitably equitably

31:52 ↗ and consistently. Uh, council 2 has

31:55 ↗ heard concerns from residents and have

31:57 ↗ asked staff to prepare amendments to the

31:59 ↗ tree preservation

32:04 ↗ code. So, we've grouped our amendments

32:07 ↗ into three categories based on the type

32:09 ↗ of change for the code. Um, we created a

32:12 ↗ change matrix identifying the three

32:14 ↗ categories and that was included in your

32:15 ↗ packet.

32:17 ↗ Um both clarifying and uh minor were

32:21 ↗ gathered from the 100 plus tree permits

32:24 ↗ that that we've administered since

32:26 ↗ adopting this new code um from

32:28 ↗ development activity um and feedback

32:31 ↗ from residents. Additionally, um some

32:34 ↗ came from other sources such as case law

32:36 ↗ and Washington state. Um major

32:39 ↗ represents significant departure from

32:41 ↗ our current code and or policy questions

32:44 ↗ brought up during review. And so this

32:46 ↗ category required more in-depth analysis

32:49 ↗ to develop the

32:54 ↗ amendments. Um so here is a a list of

32:58 ↗ the clarifying amendments that we've

33:01 ↗ identified. Um we said these don't

33:03 ↗ introduce significant changes to the

33:05 ↗ existing regulations or standards but

33:07 ↗ instead seek to rem remove ambiguities

33:10 ↗ and make the rules easier to understand

33:12 ↗ and apply. Um, these changes do not have

33:16 ↗ any policy questions to

33:20 ↗ discuss. And then this is the list for

33:23 ↗ minor amendments. Um, these amendments

33:26 ↗ are intended to address specific issues

33:29 ↗ or correct minor deficiencies in the

33:31 ↗ code without making large-scale changes

33:33 ↗ to the overall land use framework.

33:39 ↗ and we've identified three major

33:42 ↗ amendments. Um these do introduce policy

33:46 ↗ level changes with the intent of still

33:48 ↗ achieving the desired outcome of what um

33:52 ↗ of our train preservation code. Um it's

33:54 ↗ these amendments that we're going to

33:56 ↗ discuss in more detail um during this

33:58 ↗ presentation.

34:04 ↗ So this these are um our current canopy

34:09 ↗ targets developed in 2023. Our current

34:12 ↗ PLA practice places the burden of

34:14 ↗ meeting our tree target or tree canopy

34:16 ↗ target goals on individual property

34:18 ↗ owners without consideration of lot size

34:21 ↗ or the existing

34:22 ↗ improvements. Um instead it generalized

34:26 ↗ using sub areas

34:29 ↗ um capturing forested hillsides and open

34:32 ↗ spaces within each of those sub areas.

34:35 ↗ While this approach created meaningful

34:37 ↗ targets to achieve, it's difficult to

34:39 ↗ administer on a lot bylaw basis.

34:43 ↗ Um, so we've heard from community

34:45 ↗ stakeholders and the administration

34:47 ↗ about pursuing another strategy without

34:49 ↗ compromising our overall goal of

34:51 ↗ increasing our citywide canopy to 55% by

34:59 ↗ 2035. Here is a chart of our proposed

35:04 ↗ um

35:05 ↗ canopy. And so we partnered with our

35:08 ↗ environmental consultants facet to

35:10 ↗ develop this new strategy taken into

35:12 ↗ consideration of all of the feedback

35:14 ↗ that that we received. Um utilizing this

35:18 ↗ approach we evaluated the existing

35:20 ↗ canopy with land uses potential planting

35:23 ↗ area lot size and zoning.

35:28 ↗ So instead of a strategy of applying

35:30 ↗ canopy targets of an entire sub area

35:32 ↗ onto the individual property, um we

35:36 ↗ propose creating a specific canopy

35:38 ↗ target based on the intensity of of the

35:41 ↗ land use of that property. Um and for

35:44 ↗ single family, we even go a step further

35:46 ↗ and utilize lot size as another factor

35:49 ↗ to consider.

35:52 ↗ Um these new targets are just one tool

35:54 ↗ to achieve our goal of 55% canopy

35:58 ↗ coverage. Um another tool is what Dan

36:01 ↗ had um just presented to you about the

36:03 ↗ urban forest management plan developed

36:05 ↗ by parks. So, um, which looks at city-

36:08 ↗ owned properties, facilities in

36:10 ↗ right-of-way and and we should be

36:12 ↗ looking at this together with this code

36:14 ↗ and and his plan, um, as a comprehensive

36:17 ↗ approach to allow us to achieve success

36:20 ↗ in in reaching our target goals and, um,

36:23 ↗ and to reduce all of the the impacts of

36:26 ↗ of urban development.

36:33 ↗ Um, I wanted to present a couple of of

36:36 ↗ case studies just to kind of highlight

36:38 ↗ some of the issues that we saw or or how

36:41 ↗ utilizing the the new coverage could be

36:45 ↗ applied. So, this is an example of a lot

36:49 ↗ in Talis. Um, many of the lots in Talis

36:53 ↗ are small when compared to other

36:54 ↗ neighborhoods. Um this was purposeful to

36:57 ↗ cluster development and maintain

36:59 ↗ abundant open space. Um what this image

37:02 ↗ doesn't show is the additional

37:03 ↗ improvements such as driveways and

37:05 ↗ walkways which take up additional

37:06 ↗ potential planting

37:09 ↗ area. Um in this example there is little

37:12 ↗ tree canopy on on the individual lots.

37:15 ↗ Um so

37:16 ↗ currently it's a 73% canopy coverage

37:20 ↗ goal for uh the Talis sub area.

37:26 ↗ Um there isn't much potential planting

37:28 ↗ area within this sub area outside of

37:30 ↗ rightway since um a lot of the area is

37:34 ↗ forested open

37:36 ↗ space. So utilizing the our new approach

37:41 ↗ the individual lot would have to meet

37:42 ↗ 25% canopy coverage where we find this

37:45 ↗ to be more feasible versus the

37:48 ↗ 73% on such a small lot that might have

37:51 ↗ you know maximum amount of impervious

37:53 ↗ surface. Um and we also find this to be

37:56 ↗ proportionate and equitable for the

37:59 ↗ individual property

38:03 ↗ owners. So this is uh another case study

38:07 ↗ and this is Oldtown and this was a a

38:09 ↗ single family edition. Um there was no

38:12 ↗ proposed tree removal and in this sub

38:16 ↗ area the existing canopy or the in this

38:18 ↗ sub area the canopy coverage is uh

38:22 ↗ supposed to be 33% or in the case of

38:24 ↗ this lot it would be

38:27 ↗ 3,197 square ft.

38:30 ↗ Um so in or and the existing canopy

38:33 ↗ coverage of the the lot itself with the

38:36 ↗ trees that exist there is

38:39 ↗ 1,922.

38:40 ↗ Um so under our current

38:45 ↗ um canopy rule, the applicant must um

38:50 ↗ plant

38:53 ↗ 1,275 square ft of canopy coverage. Um

38:58 ↗ and I should mention the Oldtown sub

39:00 ↗ area is 33%. under the new or proposed

39:04 ↗ um for this lot, the required canopy

39:06 ↗ would be 35% and the applicant would

39:09 ↗ have to plant more trees um on this lot.

39:15 ↗ Just for clarification, this is trees at

39:17 ↗ maturity and 20 years.

39:23 ↗ Yeah. Is there a standard for like type

39:26 ↗ of

39:30 ↗ tree

39:32 ↗ plant if he's done for it's got a

39:35 ↗ certain can?

39:39 ↗ Yeah. So each each tree will have a

39:41 ↗ different 20-year canopy rule. And then

39:44 ↗ we have standards for when you plant a

39:47 ↗ tree um you know for a deciduous tree

39:50 ↗ it's got to be 2 in caliber for conifer

39:54 ↗ it's 7 feet in height when you initially

39:57 ↗ plant it and then yeah we would

39:58 ↗ calculate out or the applicant would

40:00 ↗ calculate out what that canopy coverage

40:02 ↗ is for that specific species in 20

40:05 ↗ years.

40:07 ↗ since I opened the door. Do you want

40:08 ↗ questions as we go or would you like to

40:10 ↗ switch?

40:12 ↗ Um, yeah, I can take questions as as we

40:15 ↗ go. This has been fun. So, yeah.

40:19 ↗ So, I'm just wondering on these smaller

40:21 ↗ lots.

40:23 ↗ Um, so my husband and I just had Cat

40:26 ↗ Robinson from East Side Fire come out

40:28 ↗ and give us a an assessment on our

40:31 ↗ property. And so, you know, there's the

40:34 ↗ fine quote radius around the house that

40:36 ↗ is totally no flammable things um like

40:40 ↗ gravel or, you know, concrete. And then

40:44 ↗ 30 ft out, you want um nothing that can

40:48 ↗ be a ladder, fuel. So, if you have um

40:52 ↗ trees, you're going to want to be liming

40:53 ↗ them up high. Um we haven't got that the

40:56 ↗ assessment back, so I don't know

40:57 ↗ everything that she's going to say. and

40:58 ↗ there's something out to a 100. So, I'm

41:01 ↗ wondering

41:02 ↗ um are we if we're asking people to put

41:06 ↗ requiring people to put trees or 25 to

41:09 ↗ 35% tree canopy on their property? um

41:13 ↗ are we aligning with ASAP fire rescue to

41:16 ↗ make sure that um all of this lines up

41:19 ↗ and will the city be liable if um

41:23 ↗ they're requiring somebody to do

41:24 ↗ something they don't give any proper

41:25 ↗ instructions and then their house burns

41:27 ↗ down or burns down. So this is what I

41:31 ↗ think about a lot. Okay. My dad was a

41:35 ↗ firefighter smoke jumper. So I guess I

41:38 ↗ think about fire. Yeah. Um my

41:42 ↗ handwriting down

41:50 ↗ I have not been consulting with Eastside

41:53 ↗ or I should say staff has not with like

41:56 ↗ you know kind of balancing um kind of

42:00 ↗ the urban wildland interface and what

42:04 ↗ what that would mean for um

42:07 ↗ trees. Um, I don't know. Does your does

42:10 ↗ the urban forest management plan address

42:13 ↗ that in some way? I can speak to where

42:15 ↗ it kind of left off and and maybe

42:17 ↗ Stephen could provide a little bit more

42:18 ↗ here, but but Jared Schneider, our

42:21 ↗ emergency um response manager, has been

42:23 ↗ the main person tracking this, my

42:24 ↗ understanding at the city, but there is

42:26 ↗ a lot being proposed at the state level

42:28 ↗ through state building code. Um there

42:30 ↗ was some stuff that was put out there

42:32 ↗ was a year and a half ago or so now that

42:34 ↗ was uh actually published a map that DNR

42:38 ↗ did for kind of wildland urban interface

42:41 ↗ and where um they might start defining

42:44 ↗ the festival space which is a lot of

42:45 ↗ that 30 ft from I think it would apply

42:48 ↗ to new and redevelopment so it wouldn't

42:49 ↗ necessarily be everything but obviously

42:52 ↗ that's kind of what we're talking about

42:53 ↗ today the tree code that map had

42:56 ↗ literally the entire city of Aqua marked

42:59 ↗ ads, you know, essentially wild urban

43:01 ↗ interface. Um, DNR was pretty clear that

43:04 ↗ that was never the intention of that map

43:05 ↗ to be that fine grain. And there was a

43:07 ↗ lot of people, community groups, cities,

43:10 ↗ counties, and Wakom County was a big one

43:12 ↗ that wrote a bunch of letters, had a

43:13 ↗ letterw writing campaign to essentially

43:14 ↗ say we need to we need to better publish

43:16 ↗ this map and reassess this map. And I

43:18 ↗ think that's kind of been a holding

43:19 ↗ pattern since then, right? And we are

43:21 ↗ kind of waiting to follow that state

43:23 ↗ guidance. Yeah. So the guidance from the

43:24 ↗ state is that they're going to allow

43:26 ↗ more detailed maps to come out so we can

43:28 ↗ better define where that applies to

43:31 ↗ specifically each of the counties but

43:32 ↗ also each of the cities because like Dan

43:34 ↗ said it basically cover the entire city

43:36 ↗ and not not really put at the peripheral

43:38 ↗ which is where we want them to get the

43:42 ↗ space. So I don't want to speak for

43:44 ↗ these guys but I mean I think we'd

43:46 ↗ absolutely have to reassess some of

43:47 ↗ these candy targets and calls if and

43:49 ↗ when that gets adopted. Yeah. And when

43:52 ↗ that when those conversations were being

43:54 ↗ had with the state, we were uh

43:56 ↗ consulting the east side about how they

44:00 ↗ might want to best approach what kind of

44:02 ↗ comments we should be providing so that

44:04 ↗ we can coordinate on all but right now

44:06 ↗ with things kind of been liable in

44:08 ↗ defining what those maps look like.

44:10 ↗ We're just kind of in a waiting pattern

44:12 ↗ uh so that we can react and then I'll

44:14 ↗ consult with them. Cool. Thank you. I

44:17 ↗ think we all love our treaties. Yeah.

44:19 ↗ And in Washington we're not used to

44:21 ↗ this. I'm a native. I I realize we're

44:22 ↗ not used to thinking about fire. We're

44:24 ↗ used to thinking about water, but um

44:27 ↗ things are changing. So, I'm glad

44:30 ↗ that planning on being aligned even

44:32 ↗ though we aren't right now.

44:34 ↗ Um hopefully we will be by the time this

44:42 ↗ and I would like to second Ann's point

44:44 ↗ on that. I think you know you gave those

44:46 ↗ examples and then if you put in a

44:47 ↗ standard house or housing like the

44:50 ↗ council's considering the middle housing

44:52 ↗ get these extra lots and stuff and

44:54 ↗ basically the house takes up like an old

44:57 ↗ town all the impervious you know you

44:59 ↗ basically build as much as you can to

45:01 ↗ still meet the criteria of the

45:02 ↗ impervious area and then you look at it

45:05 ↗ you say you're still going to have the

45:07 ↗ bumpers to put in fire protection so

45:10 ↗ that the house comes down Tiger Mountain

45:12 ↗ and it doesn't necessarily get

45:14 ↗ and then still plant the trees canopy.

45:17 ↗ And I think if you did a couple of three

45:18 ↗ examples, you know, Talis is one because

45:21 ↗ you just showed that Oldtown's another

45:23 ↗ one. I just think we may not have the

45:26 ↗ right canopy coverage there and we don't

45:28 ↗ know that because we really don't know

45:30 ↗ how to do the fire protection at the

45:31 ↗ same time. And I know we've talked about

45:33 ↗ it with climate change and seeing what

45:35 ↗ happened in California. It could happen

45:37 ↗ here too. So I think reassessing your

45:40 ↗ numbers for the canopy coverage really

45:42 ↗ samples needs to be considered.

45:46 ↗ Does that all start with the climate

45:48 ↗ action plan? Are you guys using the tree

45:51 ↗ canopy increase numbers from the climate

45:54 ↗ action plan? So does it have to change

45:56 ↗ at that level before it

45:58 ↗ changes what you guys are? That'd be

46:01 ↗ terrible to plant a bunch of trees,

46:02 ↗ force people to plant trees. You know,

46:04 ↗ fire protection, we tell them all we

46:06 ↗ take it out. I know. And that's a lot of

46:08 ↗ energy and time. So I think, you know,

46:10 ↗ setting the right goals the first time

46:12 ↗ is probably the appropriate thing to the

46:14 ↗ best of our ability. Yeah. I mean to the

46:17 ↗ best of our Yeah. And then giving people

46:19 ↗ the right instructions as they're

46:21 ↗ planning. We're planning. Yeah. Fires

46:25 ↗ and stuff like that. I think we need to

46:27 ↗ think that that's something we've talked

46:28 ↗ about a lot.

46:31 ↗ So there were a couple questions there.

46:37 ↗ Yeah, I'll respond to to and your your

46:41 ↗ comment on

46:43 ↗ um whether or not we need to change the

46:45 ↗ target. Um yes and no because we're

46:48 ↗ we're trying to base a lot of this

46:50 ↗ methodology to achieve that target. And

46:53 ↗ once we get better data with the next

46:55 ↗ inventory, we'll have a better idea of

46:57 ↗ how close we are and then we can

46:58 ↗ readjust a lot of those targets. And

47:00 ↗ then to your point about coordination

47:03 ↗ and making sure the safety factors are

47:05 ↗ being incorporated that's another

47:07 ↗ consideration why we wanted this CU as

47:10 ↗ part of the flexibility in terms of

47:12 ↗ being allow people to give flexibility

47:15 ↗ so that they can meet those safety

47:17 ↗ standards or meet any of the setbacks or

47:19 ↗ any development regular needs that apply

47:21 ↗ to their site um while meeting the

47:24 ↗ canopy goals. And so in coordination

47:26 ↗ with a lot of the urban forestry plan,

47:29 ↗ um being able to utilize a lot of the

47:32 ↗ public spaces to increase tree canopy is

47:34 ↗ going to help with a lot of that as

47:36 ↗ well. So I think it's kind of a balanced

47:38 ↗ approach and yes, we want to achieve the

47:41 ↗ target. We need better data to really

47:43 ↗ say yes, this is actually getting us

47:45 ↗ closer to that. The intention of this

47:47 ↗ exercise was to come up with a different

47:49 ↗ methodology so we could be more

47:51 ↗ equitable in how we're applying a lot of

47:53 ↗ these treatment plants at the law level.

47:57 ↗ I think I got all the questions there.

47:59 ↗ Sorry. I guess my comment is that I was

48:02 ↗ recently in the meeting that you were at

48:04 ↗ where we were talking about um the

48:06 ↗ council was considering things regarding

48:08 ↗ middle housing. We had an example and I

48:11 ↗ suspect that council will ask several

48:12 ↗ questions as this moves forward um about

48:15 ↗ what's happening with these and can you

48:17 ↗ plant a house or plant a tree with the

48:19 ↗ house sorry so I'm just trying to think

48:23 ↗ ahead the

48:26 ↗ house

48:27 ↗ you anyway so just something to think

48:30 ↗ about in terms of how you move forward

48:32 ↗ and show some of those examples and as

48:34 ↗ we get into comments I'm going to other

48:37 ↗ suggestions okay thanks

48:39 ↗ And typically when we're doing uh major

48:41 ↗ codical updates similar to this, we are

48:43 ↗ trying to test it as we go along. We

48:45 ↗ just didn't want to do too much too

48:47 ↗ early until at least we had initial

48:49 ↗ conversation with you all to make sure

48:51 ↗ that we're at least going in the right

48:52 ↗ direction first. Thank you. Try not to.

49:02 ↗ So our our next um major update are the

49:06 ↗ thresholds to comply with canopy

49:08 ↗ coverage. Um so under both the the

49:11 ↗ current and proposed all new and

49:13 ↗ redevelopment must comply.

49:17 ↗ Um however the current method can be

49:20 ↗ problematic especially for small sites.

49:23 ↗ So going back to that Talis example,

49:26 ↗ each of those town home lots would be

49:28 ↗ required to to have achieve 73% canopy

49:32 ↗ coverage. Um for such a small site with

49:35 ↗ almost maximum impervious surface, this

49:37 ↗ this can be impossible to achieve. So

49:40 ↗ under the revised method, the lot must

49:42 ↗ comply with the new canopy targets. Um

49:45 ↗ and in Talis that in in that Talis

49:48 ↗ instance, that would be 25% of the lot.

49:52 ↗ Um and then additionally, the site abuds

49:55 ↗ green space with the potential for

49:57 ↗ overhanging canopy. So when reviewing um

50:00 ↗ a tree removal permit um or new

50:03 ↗ development, this overhanging canopy

50:06 ↗ could could be captured.

50:08 ↗ um staff belts. Um overhanging canopy

50:12 ↗ should be considered since the canopy

50:14 ↗ theoretically should remain since we

50:16 ↗ only allow tree removals um or a

50:20 ↗ qualifying tree. So whether that's

50:22 ↗ hazardous, a nuisance causing obvious

50:25 ↗ physical damage or the potential to

50:27 ↗ cause physical damage or it's dead

50:28 ↗ dying diseased.

50:31 ↗ Um, another change is if the individual

50:34 ↗ lot is meeting the tree canopy target,

50:38 ↗ um, replacement trees aren't necessary.

50:40 ↗ Um, our current method forces property

50:43 ↗ owners with a qualifying tree removal,

50:45 ↗ full canopy coverage requirements. Um,

50:48 ↗ often this results in a single tree

50:50 ↗ being removed, but having the property

50:52 ↗ owner plant several trees, adding costs

50:55 ↗ without considering the land use um or

50:59 ↗ the property size. And this results in a

51:03 ↗ property owner having to pay um, you

51:06 ↗ know, in some cases it could be

51:07 ↗ thousands of dollars in additional cost

51:09 ↗ just to remove a a single tree. Um we

51:14 ↗ felt that this method was in

51:15 ↗ proportionate to the action being taken

51:18 ↗ and it can be uh punitive to the

51:21 ↗ property

51:24 ↗ owner. And then our last major change is

51:28 ↗ um reintroducing some flexibility within

51:32 ↗ the central isiqua sub area.

51:36 ↗ Um this this area is targeted for growth

51:39 ↗ with uh urban densities and intensities

51:42 ↗ and in most locations this will be

51:44 ↗ infill development. Um currently the

51:48 ↗ tree retention requirements for

51:51 ↗ centralistic quad is 25% of the total

51:54 ↗ caliber inches of trees within the

51:56 ↗ developable site area. And the

51:58 ↗ developable site area is all of the

52:01 ↗ areas that are outside of critical areas

52:04 ↗ and their buffers, any exclusively used

52:08 ↗ um easements. So it's essentially where

52:11 ↗ you can develop on the

52:14 ↗ property. There is no remedy to reduce

52:17 ↗ this 25% without going through um the

52:20 ↗ variance process. But when you look at

52:22 ↗ the approval criteria for a variance, a

52:25 ↗ reduction in tree retention would not be

52:28 ↗ supported. Um since most of the projects

52:32 ↗ in this neighborhood will be infill of

52:34 ↗ existing suburban style development,

52:36 ↗ many of the existing trees may be

52:38 ↗ unsuitable for retention. Um, these

52:40 ↗ include parking lot trees, perimeter

52:43 ↗ landscaping trees, and in a lot of

52:45 ↗ cases, these these are poorly maintained

52:47 ↗ and just really aren't the the right

52:50 ↗ tree that we should really be saving and

52:53 ↗ may not be the right tree for that

52:55 ↗ location anyways.

52:57 ↗ Um, so by reintroducing flexibility, we

53:01 ↗ can continue to target growth into this

53:04 ↗ sub area.

53:06 ↗ Um reviewing of this flexibility would

53:08 ↗ occur with the land use permit and we

53:10 ↗ have a a deviation process um land use

53:14 ↗ permit that would be reviewed

53:15 ↗ concurrently with the underlying land

53:18 ↗ use permit. Um and also would have to

53:22 ↗ provide us with with an arborous report

53:24 ↗ for review as well. And to qualify for

53:27 ↗ the deviation, the applicant must meet

53:29 ↗ um the criteria for retention. And

53:32 ↗ anything that is below that 25% caliber

53:36 ↗ range that um that's established in code

53:39 ↗ um you would have to pay the equivalent

53:42 ↗ into the tree fund and then in all cases

53:46 ↗ that that new development that infill

53:48 ↗ development would have to meet uh the

53:50 ↗ proposed canopy targets.

53:54 ↗ So this I just wanted to provide an

53:58 ↗ example of what we're looking at in

54:01 ↗ central Isiqua. So this is a office

54:03 ↗ building that this is also proposed for

54:06 ↗ redevelopment. Um there is a critical

54:09 ↗ area that's kind of along the

54:12 ↗ um the right hand like right hand side

54:15 ↗ like up in that corner. Um, so a lot of

54:18 ↗ that

54:22 ↗ area, so like a lot of this area is

54:26 ↗ critical area buffer. So any of the

54:28 ↗ trees that are located in there couldn't

54:29 ↗ be counted for that 25% retention. And

54:34 ↗ most of the trees that are within here,

54:36 ↗ as you can see, are just they're trees

54:37 ↗ within the parking lot. Um, and this

54:41 ↗ development would have to

54:44 ↗ um protect or retain 25% of the total

54:48 ↗ caliber inches that are um on that site.

54:52 ↗ And by having some flexibility, we could

54:55 ↗ be looking at um allowing the

54:59 ↗ development to occur there, still

55:01 ↗ getting our canopy through the canopy

55:04 ↗ targets for this type of development

55:07 ↗ and not retaining trees that may not be

55:10 ↗ suitable for that location.

55:18 ↗ So these are the four questions that we

55:21 ↗ have provided in the staff memo for for

55:26 ↗ you to consider for meeting on on May

55:34 ↗ 14th. And speaking of May 14th, these

55:38 ↗ are our timing and next step. So we are

55:41 ↗ coming back here in May. Um, it's also

55:44 ↗ my birthday, so go easy.

55:51 ↗ First meeting of the new board.

55:55 ↗ Um, and I'll actually be providing two

55:57 ↗ things for that meeting. So, it'll be

56:00 ↗ this discussion and then um a natural

56:04 ↗ environment checklist. So, you have to

56:07 ↗ hear me twice. Um but on in April on

56:10 ↗ April we're going to planning policy

56:13 ↗ commission and then again in May to

56:15 ↗ planning policy commission. Um June will

56:18 ↗ be council committee and then we have

56:21 ↗ tentatively scheduled um July 7th as uh

56:26 ↗ city council and adoption.

56:29 ↗ And then for the April 24th pling policy

56:33 ↗ commission, I think we've coordinated

56:34 ↗ potentially having a few envir

56:36 ↗ environmental board members to come kind

56:38 ↗ of talk and give some feedback to

56:41 ↗ planning policy as they're kind of

56:42 ↗ getting introduced to the topic.

56:49 ↗ I've talked a little bit to you Doug,

56:50 ↗ but I kind of want some of these been

56:53 ↗ public since we went outside. So I've

56:56 ↗ got I think five points to make. First

56:59 ↗ one is I'm concerned about the

57:02 ↗ neighborhood targets that are set for

57:04 ↗ the multifamily. So what I see is in the

57:08 ↗ 2019 report that multifamily was

57:11 ↗ identified to have a pre-cannopy cover

57:14 ↗ of 48%.

57:16 ↗ Um but we are reducing that on a lot by

57:19 ↗ lot basis which means if every multif

57:22 ↗ family redevelops we will only have 30%

57:25 ↗ um canopy coverage and I guess I'm

57:27 ↗ troubled that we are now but that's

57:31 ↗ that's the wrong direction and that's a

57:33 ↗ big step in the wrong direction and so

57:36 ↗ I'm really questioning that decision. Do

57:38 ↗ you want me to ask you these each one or

57:40 ↗ development points? Um let's go we'll go

57:43 ↗ through all of them real quick. Yeah.

57:45 ↗ So, when we talked about that, I told

57:47 ↗ you was coming. So, that's my first

57:49 ↗ concern. The second thing that I'm

57:52 ↗ concerned about is these large property

57:54 ↗ owners, HOA association, similar to what

57:57 ↗ Mary was talking about that have, but

57:59 ↗ hers probably isn't as large. I'm

58:01 ↗ thinking of talis for them to come in

58:03 ↗ for a permit for every single tree they

58:05 ↗ need to take down. Hazard, you know,

58:07 ↗ whatever. They have to hire an arborist

58:08 ↗ for it. They have to come in and spend

58:11 ↗ whatever the fee. I've heard it's $250,

58:13 ↗ which is a lot for every tree of the

58:14 ↗ talis that has to come down because

58:16 ↗ they're a hazard or something. Is there

58:19 ↗ some mechanism and can we put into

58:21 ↗ potential code some way of large

58:25 ↗ property owners that have trees, state

58:26 ↗ park, palace, you know, King County,

58:30 ↗ they all have lots of trees that we

58:32 ↗ could have some better way of doing this

58:34 ↗ instead of having them do it on a tree

58:36 ↗ by tree basis. And I don't know what

58:38 ↗ those steps are. There's experts out

58:39 ↗ there, but I just think that might be

58:42 ↗ more might be more like the right thing

58:45 ↗ to do.

58:46 ↗ The third thing I'd like to talk about

58:48 ↗ is um the future urban villages. You

58:53 ↗ know, I talked I did not realize that

58:54 ↗ both of those development agreements are

58:57 ↗ done, but I'm concerned about doing the

58:59 ↗ right thing in those as they build out.

59:00 ↗ And I'm talking about rally. They're not

59:02 ↗ fully built out. They're they're going

59:04 ↗ to do things. And I'm talking about

59:05 ↗ Lakeside. And so thinking through now as

59:09 ↗ we write our tree code and making sure

59:11 ↗ that those are included in those in the

59:14 ↗ development of those urban villages. Um

59:17 ↗ and sorry I have all these points. The

59:20 ↗ fourth point I'm concerned about is

59:23 ↗ center and I totally support getting

59:27 ↗ some of those trees out of the parking

59:28 ↗ lot. They were a great idea but if you

59:30 ↗ really want to urbanize that area make

59:32 ↗ it look urban. That's where our growth

59:33 ↗ is supposed to go. That's what the

59:35 ↗ council decided. So we need to figure

59:36 ↗ out a way to accomplish that. But

59:39 ↗ another alternative would be that

59:41 ↗ instead of having all those trees to

59:42 ↗ find an identified area to potentially

59:44 ↗ put those and to really have a plan to

59:48 ↗ build that someplace along the creek,

59:49 ↗ something like that would be really

59:51 ↗ beneficial and it would help build

59:54 ↗ instead of like doing that development

59:56 ↗ that commercial property might make it a

59:57 ↗ better situation for all of that kind of

59:59 ↗ development are better.

1:00:03 ↗ And then the last piece that I have with

1:00:05 ↗ this whole thing is I think we need to

1:00:06 ↗ talk through how the tree funds used and

1:00:08 ↗ what it should be used for. And after

1:00:11 ↗ typing it down, I'm a little troubled

1:00:13 ↗ that we're using it for what happened

1:00:15 ↗ after the bomb flight. And I know that

1:00:16 ↗ that was kind of an exception, but it's

1:00:19 ↗ my understanding it's to build trees in

1:00:22 ↗ areas that we don't have trees now. And

1:00:24 ↗ I know this is code, but it helps define

1:00:28 ↗ where Dan Dan uses those funds or

1:00:30 ↗ anybody else. And I think we need to

1:00:32 ↗ think through and identify the place and

1:00:34 ↗ what we want that used for so that we

1:00:36 ↗ meet our goals putting in trees not just

1:00:39 ↗ replacing the trees.

1:00:41 ↗ Sorry. Well, my phone's dead. I know

1:00:44 ↗ that you saw it earlier. Okay. So, for

1:00:48 ↗ the for the first one, um for the multif

1:00:50 ↗ family, so when when we were looking at

1:00:54 ↗ um going on an individual lot by lot

1:00:57 ↗ basis, your consultants were looking at

1:01:00 ↗ also like potential plant planting areas

1:01:02 ↗ as well. And so that's where the that

1:01:05 ↗ number had had come from. But I I see

1:01:08 ↗ your concern where you know in 2019 it's

1:01:11 ↗ as it's it's currently at yeah it's

1:01:14 ↗ where where it's currently at and just

1:01:16 ↗ and if everything redeveloped then it

1:01:19 ↗ would be down we would we would have

1:01:21 ↗ lost significant coverage in that. So um

1:01:25 ↗ it's just something for you to think

1:01:26 ↗ about before it comes back. I just I

1:01:28 ↗ think that's a troubling trend. We can

1:01:30 ↗ we can consider that and and look into

1:01:33 ↗ that even further before we come back

1:01:34 ↗ here. Um and then um for the like larger

1:01:40 ↗ property owners or

1:01:42 ↗ um HOAs, things like that. I don't know

1:01:46 ↗ if our code would be the right place to

1:01:50 ↗ have something like that. Um but again I

1:01:54 ↗ think that that can that is an internal

1:01:56 ↗ discussion amongst us and and maybe

1:01:58 ↗ consulting with Dan too about how we can

1:02:02 ↗ um implement or or allow a neighborhood

1:02:05 ↗ association to um come up with some sort

1:02:08 ↗ of management plan where um there's

1:02:11 ↗ tracking and discussion with uh between

1:02:14 ↗ the HOA and and our staff.

1:02:18 ↗ Well, it seems to me you want to put a

1:02:20 ↗ provision in the code that allows that

1:02:22 ↗ to happen and what the criteria is for

1:02:25 ↗ that to happen so that not

1:02:28 ↗ every small homeowners association

1:02:30 ↗ constitute that so that it is something

1:02:33 ↗ that's worthwhile but it just lets the

1:02:35 ↗ door open and then you guys can you know

1:02:38 ↗ at the time they propose something but

1:02:40 ↗ at least you don't have to go to council

1:02:42 ↗ and you don't have the community coming

1:02:43 ↗ out and saying why are you doing this

1:02:46 ↗ you know and it's debate at the

1:02:49 ↗ council proceeds.

1:02:51 ↗ That's a really great point. So, we'll

1:02:53 ↗ take a look at it, see what Yeah. I

1:02:54 ↗ don't know how you do it, but at least

1:02:55 ↗ if you put a provision in the code, it

1:02:57 ↗ helps you. Yeah.

1:03:00 ↗ But I think you kind of hit on just my

1:03:01 ↗ initial thought of how do we distribute

1:03:04 ↗ that same services equitably to all

1:03:06 ↗ those HOAs. So, that's that was those

1:03:09 ↗ those will be some of the questions

1:03:10 ↗ we'll need to try to attack.

1:03:15 ↗ Sure. Urban villages. So for the future

1:03:17 ↗ urban villages comment on incorporating

1:03:20 ↗ the DAS a lot of development agreements

1:03:22 ↗ have standards already applied to them

1:03:24 ↗ that won't necessarily be looking at

1:03:26 ↗ what's in this tree code that will be if

1:03:28 ↗ it's tree code isn't addressed then it

1:03:30 ↗ will be looking at but most of the

1:03:32 ↗ developments have their own standard

1:03:34 ↗ within development in terms of like what

1:03:36 ↗ they need to be so if if I asked a

1:03:40 ↗ followup to that Stephen yes so you

1:03:42 ↗ would probably have a canopy coverage

1:03:44 ↗ requirement for lakeside that you're

1:03:45 ↗ telling me in that development agreement

1:03:47 ↗ or is it just a standard of where the

1:03:49 ↗ street trees go and how the street trees

1:03:51 ↗ look in the It would be a standard of

1:03:52 ↗ street trees but also any tree retention

1:03:54 ↗ on the site that they would need to have

1:03:57 ↗ to be required to to keep. That's

1:04:01 ↗ usually what's in the

1:04:02 ↗ development. It wouldn't be a canopy

1:04:05 ↗ because a lot of these were established

1:04:06 ↗ long before we were talking about

1:04:08 ↗ canopy. It wouldn't be a canopy coverage

1:04:10 ↗ requirement, but there would be some

1:04:11 ↗ tree retention. Yeah. We need to to

1:04:14 ↗ comply with and tree density like a

1:04:17 ↗ number of trees per 5,000 square feet of

1:04:22 ↗ lot size or it would be something like

1:04:26 ↗ which is what we used to have in our old

1:04:28 ↗ code. So, a lot of it would still follow

1:04:30 ↗ that. So, let me ask you a follow-up

1:04:33 ↗ question on just this. Sorry, am I

1:04:35 ↗ taking too much time? Don. So if someone

1:04:39 ↗ in central is like target buildings and

1:04:42 ↗ say I'm going to take those all down

1:04:44 ↗ we're going to build the

1:04:45 ↗ whatever and we're going to do it under

1:04:47 ↗ development agreement because we think

1:04:48 ↗ that would work better use that would

1:04:52 ↗ they have to meet the the urban village

1:04:55 ↗ development or the commercial

1:04:57 ↗ development requirements in these a new

1:05:00 ↗ development agreement they whatever was

1:05:02 ↗ negotiated in that development agreement

1:05:04 ↗ is what that would that would

1:05:06 ↗ essentially be their their new code and

1:05:08 ↗ that it could be they have to follow

1:05:11 ↗ 18812 or they could come up with um a

1:05:16 ↗ different

1:05:17 ↗ but that goes with TR the usual Yeah.

1:05:21 ↗ Thanks.

1:05:26 ↗ The next one was central. You had

1:05:28 ↗ concerns about supporting getting

1:05:30 ↗ parking lot trees out and alternative

1:05:32 ↗ find alternative areas to put those.

1:05:34 ↗ That's exactly a lot of the

1:05:35 ↗ collaboration we're trying to work out

1:05:36 ↗ with them and trying to identify these

1:05:38 ↗ areas. We're building the flexibility

1:05:40 ↗ for development in the city having a lot

1:05:42 ↗ of these pre-identified areas uh picked

1:05:46 ↗ out so that we can put the tree fund

1:05:48 ↗ towards it and uh make sure that we are

1:05:51 ↗ meeting a lot of the tree canopy

1:05:53 ↗ requirements even if the trees aren't

1:05:55 ↗ being retained often.

1:05:57 ↗ And um to go a little bit further in and

1:06:02 ↗ with what Stephen was saying in

1:06:03 ↗ coordinating with with Dan or or even

1:06:06 ↗ with um public works, we have um kind of

1:06:10 ↗ a

1:06:12 ↗ a inventory and

1:06:14 ↗ characterization, a recent inventory and

1:06:17 ↗ characterization of our fish bearing

1:06:19 ↗ streams where we identified that like

1:06:22 ↗ specific reaches of streams where um

1:06:25 ↗ planting trees could be beneficial. and

1:06:27 ↗ kind of cross referencing that with, you

1:06:29 ↗ know, whether it's

1:06:31 ↗ um it's public land or if it's being

1:06:34 ↗ redeveloped and there's something going

1:06:35 ↗ through that site and vegetative cover

1:06:38 ↗ would would be beneficial for this

1:06:42 ↗ stream segment. We can also

1:06:44 ↗ tailor replanting efforts into those

1:06:47 ↗ areas as well. So, we're we're starting

1:06:50 ↗ to get this information um along our

1:06:54 ↗ like stream corridors of where

1:06:56 ↗ additional tree plantings that show that

1:06:59 ↗ there real quick. That's kind of the

1:07:00 ↗ micro analysis for a lot of riparian

1:07:02 ↗ stuff and then the forest management

1:07:03 ↗ plan. You all heard me talk about that

1:07:04 ↗ we were doing just a citywide riparian

1:07:07 ↗ can analysis and we have that comparison

1:07:09 ↗ from the 2019 report to this quote

1:07:13 ↗ report and we would like to include that

1:07:16 ↗ in future canopy updates too.

1:07:19 ↗ That's kind of more macro.

1:07:21 ↗ Um, Nancy actually asked two questions.

1:07:24 ↗ I had two issues, but I'll echo just so

1:07:26 ↗ you guys hear me. My first one was

1:07:28 ↗ around the permitting. I didn't realize

1:07:31 ↗ it was a tree per tree permit process

1:07:34 ↗ and yeah, there should be a simplified

1:07:35 ↗ version for budget land owners and and

1:07:38 ↗ Mary's too. If you have hazardous debris

1:07:41 ↗ laying around property expedite out of

1:07:44 ↗ the process where they can get in there,

1:07:45 ↗ clean that up and make an agreement with

1:07:47 ↗ you that will come back in the future

1:07:49 ↗ course management plan or something

1:07:50 ↗ along those lines. My other concern was

1:07:53 ↗ about creating a heat island effect in

1:07:55 ↗ the downtown area and I think you've

1:07:57 ↗ addressed that um with your development

1:08:00 ↗ agreement how those work out.

1:08:05 ↗ Thanks.

1:08:07 ↗ So hazard trees the way I'm

1:08:10 ↗ understanding it is an arborist has to

1:08:13 ↗ be hired and define a tree as a hazard

1:08:16 ↗ tree.

1:08:17 ↗ I would like that to be expanded upon

1:08:21 ↗ and also a uh wildfire mitigation

1:08:27 ↗ assessor be able to do that as well. So,

1:08:31 ↗ and if so, there's a lot of people

1:08:34 ↗ getting um plans for their wildfire

1:08:37 ↗ assessments.

1:08:39 ↗ Um, I'd like to see people be able to

1:08:42 ↗ land owners be able to submit that plan

1:08:46 ↗ and um have

1:08:48 ↗ that be recognized if there's hazard

1:08:51 ↗ trees there.

1:08:53 ↗ Um, have that be part of the plan as

1:08:55 ↗ well.

1:09:01 ↗ Um, yeah, thanks. So I'm looking at the

1:09:04 ↗ new method for the canopy and with a lot

1:09:07 ↗ of the previous currently there's no uh

1:09:11 ↗ target for some a lot of facilities and

1:09:13 ↗ then we're basically to 25% or 40%. Is

1:09:17 ↗ there any concern for us pointing a

1:09:19 ↗ bunch of truth at the same time to like

1:09:21 ↗ reach

1:09:32 ↗ um didn't

1:09:34 ↗ necessarily have concern with that

1:09:37 ↗ because we were looking at I mean I

1:09:39 ↗ guess in some instances you might be

1:09:41 ↗ planting like a lot of trees but we're

1:09:45 ↗ most of the time when we're dealing with

1:09:47 ↗ replacement trees, we're we're dealing

1:09:49 ↗ with, you know, a handful of trees. Um,

1:09:53 ↗ not necessarily like 20 plus trees where

1:09:57 ↗ everything would be growing at at one

1:09:59 ↗ time. Um, in a lot of instances too, it

1:10:02 ↗ might be or like a a if it's a within a

1:10:06 ↗ development, it would be in already like

1:10:09 ↗ landscaping, which all of the plant

1:10:12 ↗ material in there theoretically be about

1:10:14 ↗ the same age, too. So, um, and then for

1:10:17 ↗ individual single family homes, we don't

1:10:19 ↗ have landscape

1:10:21 ↗ requirements. Um, so there could be

1:10:24 ↗ different ages of of trees, but in in

1:10:26 ↗ those instances, we're not talking about

1:10:29 ↗ planting a ton of trees at once. Um, it

1:10:32 ↗ would the replacement would be, you

1:10:35 ↗ know, um, like a one:1 ratio for what

1:10:38 ↗ you

1:10:44 ↗ removed. Any other questions from the

1:10:46 ↗ board before I

1:10:51 ↗ for our second public comment to see if

1:10:55 ↗ Mary want to speak again?

1:11:02 ↗ Hi, I'm down here in San Francisco.

1:11:05 ↗ Otherwise, I'd be up there with you. Uh

1:11:08 ↗ so a lot of the things that they are

1:11:10 ↗ addressing for the tree code change are

1:11:14 ↗ not what I hear people complain about. I

1:11:18 ↗ hear people complain that uh it's a

1:11:22 ↗ difficult process to get through. The

1:11:25 ↗ definitions are hard. The initial

1:11:27 ↗ paperwork is unclear. And so there's a

1:11:30 ↗ lot of back and forth um that seems to

1:11:33 ↗ happen with taking out a tree uh

1:11:37 ↗ especially on a a

1:11:39 ↗ small lot or a single family house where

1:11:42 ↗ it's not a professional. And so I don't

1:11:46 ↗ see that

1:11:48 ↗ addressed here. It isn't a major change.

1:11:51 ↗ It's just one of the necessary cleanups

1:11:53 ↗ that hasn't happened yet. then

1:11:57 ↗ uh you don't know what lot sizes you

1:12:00 ↗ actually have and what those changes in

1:12:03 ↗ the canopy coverage of those lot sizes

1:12:06 ↗ would portend. So I can't support this

1:12:09 ↗ unless you have some idea of actually

1:12:12 ↗ what it means. But you don't.

1:12:17 ↗ So,

1:12:19 ↗ um I don't see from looking at what

1:12:24 ↗ you're what you're trying to do that you

1:12:28 ↗ can actually say that you are

1:12:30 ↗ maintaining the canopy that the climate

1:12:34 ↗ action plan said. I don't see data. I

1:12:38 ↗ don't I don't see a tabulation for how

1:12:41 ↗ you say it's going to work. Um, and that

1:12:44 ↗ would be convincing if you would do such

1:12:46 ↗ a thing. The next thing is I'm curious

1:12:49 ↗ as to whether these lowering of the

1:12:52 ↗ canopy uh percentages would simply

1:12:56 ↗ reduce the amount of mo money going into

1:12:58 ↗ the fee and loo program or the number of

1:13:01 ↗ trees that would be being planted

1:13:04 ↗ offsite which would then be again

1:13:06 ↗ defeating the purpose of the canopy

1:13:08 ↗ cover.

1:13:10 ↗ So

1:13:12 ↗ um it's unclear how many places you can

1:13:15 ↗ do fee and loo anyway. Uh I don't have a

1:13:19 ↗ problem if the canopy is already there.

1:13:20 ↗ You should not necessarily have to

1:13:22 ↗ replant with the exception of landmark

1:13:25 ↗ trees which you are not talking about

1:13:27 ↗ like it's a major policy change but for

1:13:29 ↗ me it is a major policy change. If you

1:13:32 ↗ have a landmark tree that is a uh

1:13:35 ↗ nuisance tree is what I think it is,

1:13:39 ↗ then

1:13:41 ↗ um you actually should have to replant

1:13:45 ↗ something if you take down a big old

1:13:48 ↗ landmark tree. And and so I totally

1:13:52 ↗ resist that you should be able to take

1:13:54 ↗ down a 85 foot Doug fur and not have to

1:13:57 ↗ do a darn thing. That's unreasonable. So

1:14:01 ↗ when I look at the whole concept it is

1:14:04 ↗ we have said we wanted the canopy for a

1:14:07 ↗ uh for climate reasons and that is

1:14:10 ↗ shading right that is storm water that

1:14:14 ↗ is

1:14:15 ↗ um carbon sequestration. So there's a

1:14:19 ↗ variety of reasons that we want this

1:14:22 ↗ tree canopy. Yet your explanation for

1:14:24 ↗ your changes in code have only been for

1:14:27 ↗ the convenience of humans, which I see.

1:14:30 ↗ Isn't that nice? However, if indeed we

1:14:35 ↗ want trees for reasons, then we should

1:14:38 ↗ make sure that we are putting these

1:14:39 ↗ trees back to accommodate those reasons

1:14:44 ↗ in similar ways. So if you reduce the

1:14:47 ↗ number of trees, what is the impact on

1:14:49 ↗ storm water? What is the impact on

1:14:51 ↗ shading? And therefore, you know, how

1:14:54 ↗ much more electricity are we going to

1:14:56 ↗ use? Because now we all need air

1:14:58 ↗ conditioning.

1:15:00 ↗ Um, everybody else has had great

1:15:03 ↗ comments. Um, I will emphasize that for

1:15:07 ↗ years and years it's been very difficult

1:15:09 ↗ for those homeowners associations who

1:15:11 ↗ have large numbers of trees and the city

1:15:15 ↗ parks department too that has large

1:15:17 ↗ number of trees. Um, it's a complicated

1:15:20 ↗ process to go through largecale tree

1:15:23 ↗ removal especially when things were not

1:15:26 ↗ planted or thinned appropriately. So

1:15:28 ↗ more consideration to the continued

1:15:31 ↗ maintenance of trees on all new

1:15:34 ↗ development properties including

1:15:37 ↗ thinning of the generally overly dense

1:15:40 ↗ plantings that are required for

1:15:42 ↗ landscaping I think are

1:15:44 ↗ necessary. So thanks for listening.

1:15:47 ↗ Please consider Bye.

1:15:51 ↗ Thank you

1:15:56 ↗ Connie. just getting your questions

1:15:58 ↗ asked.

1:16:03 ↗ Did you get your questions? I think so.

1:16:05 ↗ Okay. So, I think we'll have a lot of

1:16:07 ↗ questions for you next time as well.

1:16:08 ↗ Okay. Yeah. The main thing for tonight,

1:16:10 ↗ we just want to get any uh clarifying

1:16:12 ↗ questions out of the way, any feedback

1:16:14 ↗ just to help us prepare for the next

1:16:16 ↗ discussion if we need to make any

1:16:17 ↗ tweaks. Thank you very much.

1:16:20 ↗ Thank you.

1:16:23 ↗ All right. So, I see you have a few uh

1:16:25 ↗ reports for us. Great. Yeah. Um, I'll

1:16:27 ↗ turn and see if Nina and Karen have

1:16:30 ↗ anything to report and then, uh, we do

1:16:32 ↗ have a series about 10 minutes or so of

1:16:34 ↗ just some quick verbal updates and then

1:16:36 ↗ a couple board member updates as well.

1:16:39 ↗ Um, Mina and Karen, anything all that

1:16:42 ↗ you want to share? No. Okay. Nina, sorry

1:16:45 ↗ I didn't check in with you guys before.

1:16:47 ↗ Anything you wanted to

1:16:54 ↗ share?

1:16:56 ↗ Um, all right.

1:16:58 ↗ Um, so just a few items, some that were

1:17:02 ↗ attached to the packet and then just

1:17:04 ↗ some verbal updates. Um, so we shared

1:17:06 ↗ with you all the Energy Smart East Side

1:17:08 ↗ 2024 report. Um, it also presents a look

1:17:12 ↗ forward of what's happening in 2025 in

1:17:14 ↗ terms of budget, staffing, um,

1:17:17 ↗ programming, and funding.

1:17:19 ↗ The report covers data on installations

1:17:23 ↗ uh incentives that have been utilized

1:17:25 ↗ overall shift in the market and results

1:17:28 ↗ by our different funding tracks for low

1:17:30 ↗ income moderate income and market base

1:17:33 ↗ rebate. Um so just wanted to highlight a

1:17:35 ↗ couple of the big takeaways. We've had

1:17:38 ↗ 983 heat pump installations on the east

1:17:41 ↗ side between 23 and 24. Those were all

1:17:44 ↗ went to households with low income and

1:17:47 ↗ then have had 89 affordable housing

1:17:50 ↗ installations across the east side

1:17:52 ↗ partners during that same time frame as

1:17:54 ↗ well. Um the program starting to see a

1:17:57 ↗ lot of growth and is uh meeting with

1:18:01 ↗ leadership from across all six cities to

1:18:04 ↗ start talking about kind of where next.

1:18:06 ↗ We always envisioned energy smart doing

1:18:09 ↗ work beyond heat pump. So we're starting

1:18:11 ↗ to

1:18:16 ↗ Any questions on that

1:18:18 ↗ report? Right. Uh, next item. Wanted

1:18:21 ↗ just to provide a quick update on the

1:18:23 ↗ IAP update process. Um, we are in the

1:18:28 ↗ process of forming the committees and

1:18:30 ↗ then we'll be scheduling meetings with

1:18:32 ↗ those committees at the end of the

1:18:35 ↗ month. Um, so just as a reminder, we're

1:18:37 ↗ going to have a transportation and land

1:18:38 ↗ use committee. We'll have a natural

1:18:40 ↗ systems committee. Those groups will

1:18:43 ↗ meet in the spring and early summer. In

1:18:45 ↗ the fall, we'll convene a metric um

1:18:48 ↗ committee. Um, so at the end of the

1:18:51 ↗ month, those groups are going to come

1:18:52 ↗ together to hear background on the IAP,

1:18:56 ↗ talk about what their task is going to

1:18:58 ↗ be, and really get them ready to come to

1:19:00 ↗ our June meeting where they can be

1:19:02 ↗ providing specific recommendations on

1:19:05 ↗ revisions to actions or new actions to

1:19:07 ↗ consider under those focus areas. We

1:19:10 ↗ have great representation from this

1:19:12 ↗ board on the committees and then also

1:19:15 ↗ from park board uh PPC and our

1:19:18 ↗ transportation board will be represented

1:19:21 ↗ as

1:19:23 ↗ well. Um next wanted just to touch base

1:19:26 ↗ on the um the CIP the capital

1:19:29 ↗ improvement plan. Um, we had anticipated

1:19:34 ↗ coming to you all this year to revisit

1:19:37 ↗ the criteria that we worked on as a

1:19:39 ↗ group two years ago. That was the brand

1:19:42 ↗ new departmental criteria. Um, the

1:19:46 ↗ process was shifted this year a lot

1:19:49 ↗ because of our staffing and funding um,

1:19:52 ↗ situation and so it was scaled back

1:19:55 ↗ pretty significantly and um, in terms of

1:19:58 ↗ time and effort. So this year there is

1:20:02 ↗ no change happening in the criteria. Um

1:20:05 ↗ David and I were tasked a couple weeks

1:20:06 ↗ ago with going through and updating our

1:20:09 ↗ projects and working across our

1:20:11 ↗ departments to update projects um that

1:20:13 ↗ we partner on. Um so that process right

1:20:16 ↗ now is complete and those projects are

1:20:18 ↗ undergoing review by our budget team and

1:20:20 ↗ then will go to council in the coming

1:20:23 ↗ months. Um we have submitted a number of

1:20:27 ↗ or updated a number of projects um

1:20:30 ↗ primarily we didn't have any new ones

1:20:32 ↗ this year um but around solar

1:20:35 ↗ installations energy efficiency EV

1:20:37 ↗ charging those were some of our major

1:20:40 ↗ projects that will be moving forward in

1:20:42 ↗ the CIP. So any questions on that? That

1:20:46 ↗ I had originally in our work plan uh

1:20:49 ↗ held many months worth of meetings to

1:20:51 ↗ talk about the CIP. Um that was a a kind

1:20:55 ↗ of last minute shift. So any questions

1:20:57 ↗ around

1:20:58 ↗ that? I'm hoping in two years or next

1:21:01 ↗ year we'll come back and have a chance

1:21:03 ↗ to look at that criteria again. You'd

1:21:05 ↗ like to build on it. Um I'll hand over

1:21:08 ↗ to David to talk about some great

1:21:10 ↗ success with EV charging. Yeah. So, uh,

1:21:13 ↗ over the last three months, uh, we just

1:21:16 ↗ completed, uh, the installation of 17

1:21:19 ↗ new level two electric vehicle chargers

1:21:22 ↗ at four sites, city sites across, uh,

1:21:25 ↗ city facilities across the city. Um,

1:21:28 ↗ there are four here at Tibbitz Manor, if

1:21:30 ↗ you feel so inclined, after the meeting,

1:21:32 ↗ you can walk around to the garage and

1:21:33 ↗ actually check them out. Um, we have

1:21:36 ↗ four additional ones at the city hall um

1:21:39 ↗ that will be used to support uh police

1:21:43 ↗ uh transition to electric vehicles down

1:21:45 ↗ the line. Um, and then we have eight of

1:21:47 ↗ them at our public works facility uh

1:21:51 ↗ which is where the bulk of our uh city

1:21:53 ↗ fleet uh actually lives. And then um we

1:21:57 ↗ actually replaced one up at uh fire

1:21:59 ↗ station 72 because they had an old uh

1:22:02 ↗ defunct one there. So, um, that's really

1:22:05 ↗ exciting. It gives us enough capacity to

1:22:07 ↗ support our existing electric vehicle

1:22:09 ↗ fleet. You can see some of those

1:22:11 ↗ vehicles actually just in the parking

1:22:12 ↗ lot here. Um, and it gives us plenty of

1:22:14 ↗ space to support additional vehicles as

1:22:17 ↗ we add them to our fleet um, over the

1:22:20 ↗ next couple years. So, um, that's been a

1:22:23 ↗ big project over the last um, two years

1:22:26 ↗ to get them designed uh, get align you

1:22:29 ↗ know, three or four different funding

1:22:31 ↗ sources for this project. do some

1:22:33 ↗ electrical upgrades. Um, this site had

1:22:36 ↗ actually a really large electrical

1:22:37 ↗ upgrade over the last couple uh weeks.

1:22:41 ↗ So, we are um very pleased to be done

1:22:43 ↗ with that project and we're really

1:22:45 ↗ excited about what that allows us to do

1:22:47 ↗ uh to continue our electric vehicle

1:22:49 ↗ transition in the city.

1:22:52 ↗ Yeah. Hopefully, you'll see more

1:22:54 ↗ vehicles out on the street soon. And

1:22:57 ↗ those are just for city vehicles, right?

1:22:59 ↗ Yes, those are just for city. Yes, these

1:23:01 ↗ are all uh city fleet vehicles with some

1:23:04 ↗ staff charging capabilities as well.

1:23:06 ↗ Kind of an off hours. The staff charging

1:23:09 ↗ could they get charged? Yes, we have a

1:23:12 ↗ reduced rate policy right now.

1:23:16 ↗ Fleet fleet vehicles take precedence,

1:23:18 ↗ but the idea is that mostly pe uh the

1:23:21 ↗ fleet should be charging their vehicles

1:23:22 ↗ at night when they're not actually in

1:23:24 ↗ use. So during the day when a staff

1:23:26 ↗ member arrives,

1:23:28 ↗ uh occasionally if there's an open

1:23:31 ↗ charger, they'll be able to um at the

1:23:33 ↗ discounted rate charge up their vehicle.

1:23:37 ↗ And just a huge kudos to David. It was

1:23:40 ↗ very complex funding and partnerships

1:23:42 ↗ that went into that. So we used the PSE

1:23:44 ↗ up and program at one site. We had uh

1:23:47 ↗ state commerce funding. We had our

1:23:49 ↗ federal block grant. And so David's been

1:23:51 ↗ kind of we have city funds. So, moving

1:23:54 ↗ and mixing and now we get to do all the

1:23:55 ↗ reporting and fingers crossed we get

1:23:58 ↗ reimbursed on those.

1:24:02 ↗ Um, and then just uh regarding public

1:24:05 ↗ charging, um, we do still have a grant

1:24:08 ↗ out through a partner for some public

1:24:10 ↗ charging at

1:24:11 ↗ Tibbitz. Don't know if that will come

1:24:14 ↗ through. Um, what is in the works though

1:24:16 ↗ is the pole charging with PSSE. So, we

1:24:18 ↗ should see that first installation in

1:24:20 ↗ June. That one's going to be across from

1:24:22 ↗ the East Sunset trail head. And then we

1:24:24 ↗ have three other sites identified that

1:24:27 ↗ they'll be working on. It's um kind of

1:24:29 ↗ the open, it's a rightway open lot

1:24:31 ↗ across from the trail head. There'll

1:24:33 ↗ actually be a new crosswalk put in

1:24:34 ↗ there. Um later this year, the city has

1:24:37 ↗ a grant to work on that.

1:24:40 ↗ Yes.

1:24:42 ↗ Yes. Yep.

1:24:45 ↗ Great. Um all right, next topic. Uh just

1:24:49 ↗ a quick update on the sustainability

1:24:51 ↗ fair environmental board booth. Um Ann,

1:24:55 ↗ can I put you on the spot? Do you want

1:24:56 ↗ to share a little bit about what we

1:24:58 ↗ talked about with Brash and um Keith or

1:25:01 ↗ I'm happy to cover it too? I think Keith

1:25:04 ↗ is still online. Keith wants to jump in

1:25:07 ↗ as well. Yeah, Keith, if you want to say

1:25:09 ↗ anything, please do. Um so we're gonna

1:25:13 ↗ have a booth and hopefully if you have

1:25:15 ↗ time, we could take a a slot. um

1:25:20 ↗ volunteer. Uh so it's good it'll be good

1:25:23 ↗ to get the word out about the

1:25:24 ↗ environmental board. Um we're creating

1:25:27 ↗ uh like a triple board. So if anybody

1:25:30 ↗ has anything they think would be great

1:25:31 ↗ to put on it, let us know. Um I'm So

1:25:35 ↗ there's some trees that we're rescuing

1:25:39 ↗ um under some power lines. Uh, so I

1:25:43 ↗ created an event with IATC and we're

1:25:46 ↗ going to go rescue like 60 to 200 duck

1:25:49 ↗ furs and um we'll we'll have one potted

1:25:53 ↗ when at the booth and um then we'll tell

1:25:55 ↗ people where to go to get either potted

1:25:57 ↗ or bare roots. Um dad and I were just

1:26:00 ↗ working that out. Um so they'll be

1:26:03 ↗ outside at the barn. We've got the

1:26:05 ↗ spinning wheel that

1:26:08 ↗ um I used. Yeah, I got to experiment

1:26:12 ↗ with David and we might use some new

1:26:14 ↗ questions, but um probably use a lot of

1:26:16 ↗ old questions as well. Um, we're going

1:26:19 ↗ to,

1:26:21 ↗ um, have, you know, a little cheat sheet

1:26:25 ↗ so that if somebody asks what the

1:26:26 ↗ environmental work does, we can, you

1:26:28 ↗ know, go down and, um,, you know, tell

1:26:32 ↗ people all of the great things we've

1:26:33 ↗ done, all the great topics we've

1:26:35 ↗ addressed, and how we, um, you know, the

1:26:38 ↗ city council listens to what we say,

1:26:41 ↗ and, um, we get to really influence a

1:26:44 ↗ lot.

1:26:46 ↗ Um, and then pri has this really cool

1:26:50 ↗ footprint that goes out and um, she's

1:26:53 ↗ putting something together with that uh,

1:26:55 ↗ so that people can get an idea of what

1:26:57 ↗ their footprint is.

1:26:59 ↗ [Music]

1:27:00 ↗ Um, and Stacy got some seeds that we can

1:27:04 ↗ give away as prizes with the spinning

1:27:07 ↗ wheel. So when people kids and even

1:27:12 ↗ adults can get

1:27:15 ↗ across, can you think of anything

1:27:20 ↗ else? I think you just about covered

1:27:23 ↗ everything, Ann. Um I know that we were

1:27:24 ↗ talking about just some uh you know

1:27:26 ↗ links like QR codes or something so

1:27:28 ↗ folks can engage with the board's

1:27:30 ↗ website uh you know engage that way and

1:27:34 ↗ maybe the QR codes will be to the like

1:27:36 ↗ you said the urban forest plan which I

1:27:38 ↗ know a lot of people are interested in

1:27:40 ↗ and um thection climate action plan and

1:27:44 ↗ so the climate action plan will have

1:27:45 ↗ like um Stacy's I think going to put

1:27:48 ↗ something together like from the

1:27:49 ↗ dashboard maybe so that people can see

1:27:52 ↗ what the you an action plan is and then

1:27:55 ↗ have a be able to go there.

1:27:59 ↗ You think Do you guys think that sounds

1:28:02 ↗ good? Can you think of anything else,

1:28:03 ↗ Keith? Or can you guys think of anything

1:28:05 ↗ else that we should be doing?

1:28:09 ↗ Are you going to have a laptop or

1:28:11 ↗ something that look at the dashboard

1:28:14 ↗ maybe running on it? We don't have any

1:28:17 ↗ extra. Yeah, unfortunately. Um we do if

1:28:20 ↗ anyone wants to bring um an iPad or a

1:28:24 ↗ computer we'll have access to outlets.

1:28:26 ↗ We can make sure that tables by an

1:28:28 ↗ outlet but we don't have any city ones.

1:28:30 ↗ I don't think that we maybe we could

1:28:33 ↗ each individually look for our ships

1:28:34 ↗ bring our our pads that we have. Yeah,

1:28:38 ↗ if you're comfortable with

1:28:41 ↗ that internet we can plug into.

1:28:45 ↗ We don't currently have anyone signed

1:28:48 ↗ up. So I can resend the I just put a

1:28:50 ↗ little sign up if folks are able to sign

1:28:53 ↗ up for an hour and a half or so shift.

1:28:55 ↗ It's just 9 to 2. So it's not like we

1:28:58 ↗ have a few people scattered over that

1:29:00 ↗ time. I know like Alex you probably have

1:29:02 ↗ a booth. A lot of people have their own

1:29:04 ↗ booth but yeah that

1:29:08 ↗ there you go. We can do that.

1:29:16 ↗ the travel limited um online.

1:29:23 ↗ Great. All right. And then I just have

1:29:25 ↗ one other update and then um I'll hand

1:29:28 ↗ it off to John and Alex to share some of

1:29:30 ↗ their updates. Um so every two years we

1:29:33 ↗ award the Ruth Keys and Community

1:29:35 ↗ Environmental Award. I just sent out a

1:29:37 ↗ invitation this afternoon to join us for

1:29:40 ↗ the reception with council. Um we have

1:29:43 ↗ many past recipients on this board as

1:29:46 ↗ well as one of our new recipients. Um

1:29:48 ↗ Mina actually is receiving the community

1:29:50 ↗ environmental award and then Steve

1:29:53 ↗ Miller um will receive the re roof keys

1:29:56 ↗ award. Um folks Steve Williams excuse

1:29:59 ↗ me. Yeah. Steve Williams. So if folks

1:30:01 ↗ aren't familiar, Steve's been really

1:30:03 ↗ active um on Cougar Mountains Trail

1:30:06 ↗ Club, managed Cougar Mountain, I think

1:30:09 ↗ for 20 years. So um

1:30:12 ↗ really exciting. So definitely encourage

1:30:14 ↗ board members to attend that meeting on

1:30:16 ↗ the 21st if you can. Um that would be

1:30:19 ↗ great just to um recognize our past and

1:30:23 ↗ current

1:30:25 ↗ recipients. Um is it and then I'll hand

1:30:27 ↗ it off. John, do you want to talk about

1:30:29 ↗ the posters? Sure. This is just a walk

1:30:32 ↗ on. Um uh I run monthly litter cleanup

1:30:36 ↗ program in squ the first Saturday at the

1:30:39 ↗ post office. As part of doing that

1:30:42 ↗ project, I decided that I need to start

1:30:44 ↗ reaching out to educate people about

1:30:46 ↗ literary. And a couple years ago, I have

1:30:49 ↗ a project with school high school where

1:30:51 ↗ I had them design some posters for we

1:30:54 ↗ repeated that again this year. And we've

1:30:57 ↗ got posters designed for um the high

1:31:01 ↗ school students designed posters for the

1:31:04 ↗ elementary school, middle school, and

1:31:05 ↗ high school. And um additionally this

1:31:08 ↗ year we had uh designed a couple smaller

1:31:12 ↗ posters that we could put in public

1:31:15 ↗ places

1:31:16 ↗ around businesses, coffee shops, fast

1:31:19 ↗ food restaurants um to pretty much put

1:31:24 ↗ the word out that please don't wait. And

1:31:27 ↗ I've got the posters just came in today

1:31:29 ↗ and I have samples on the back table

1:31:31 ↗ there just to have a look at.

1:31:34 ↗ Oh, you made those posters. The middle

1:31:36 ↗ school high school students did.

1:31:39 ↗ Very cool. The idea is to try to get

1:31:42 ↗ students to to educate other younger

1:31:48 ↗ students. There's one in particular, one

1:31:50 ↗ in JC because one of the students came

1:31:53 ↗ up

1:31:59 ↗ see a young guy

1:32:03 ↗ pullover hat.

1:32:07 ↗ So, have a look at it. And I want to

1:32:09 ↗ talk to you about where I could at the

1:32:12 ↗ fair. Put this up. Yeah, we're gonna

1:32:14 ↗ talk about that.

1:32:16 ↗ Great. Cool. So, you're going to have

1:32:17 ↗ some Yes.

1:32:20 ↗ Awesome. You have some at the

1:32:21 ↗ environmental.

1:32:24 ↗ We could. Yeah. or if there's a way to

1:32:26 ↗ display when you walk into the bar, we

1:32:28 ↗ can

1:32:33 ↗ Great. And then Alex, I was hoping could

1:32:35 ↗ talk about a great event they have last

1:32:36 ↗ week and some work happening at the

1:32:38 ↗ state park. Yeah. So, we co-hosted an

1:32:41 ↗ event state park and a number of other

1:32:43 ↗ partners within the urban wildlife

1:32:44 ↗ refuge partnership. Um that was a

1:32:47 ↗ restoration house at

1:32:49 ↗ least. So it featured community groups

1:32:52 ↗ that do work in and around restoration

1:32:55 ↗ um at the state park. So um there as

1:32:58 ↗ well as dam

1:33:00 ↗ um trails clubs there greenway the state

1:33:04 ↗ park um limited great number of folks

1:33:07 ↗ that we work with and then sound gave a

1:33:09 ↗ presentation at tours on work that

1:33:11 ↗ they'll be doing at the park this

1:33:13 ↗ summer. They'll be doing stream

1:33:14 ↗ restoration along a like basically all

1:33:17 ↗ of this creek that flows through the

1:33:18 ↗ state park this summer. is going to be

1:33:20 ↗ having major restoration work done,

1:33:23 ↗ including I can't remember how many

1:33:25 ↗ trees. If Dan were here, he could tell

1:33:27 ↗ still, but a significant number of trees

1:33:29 ↗ that they're going to be putting in the

1:33:31 ↗ stream there. Some of which are going to

1:33:32 ↗ be helicoptered in, which will be really

1:33:34 ↗ cool and get a lot of publicity probably

1:33:37 ↗ as they're flying military helicopters

1:33:40 ↗ out to drop trees. Um they're also it's

1:33:44 ↗ they're also going to be brief cutting

1:33:46 ↗ um expo into the stream there to

1:33:49 ↗ reconnect the flood plane. It's a really

1:33:51 ↗ amazing project. Um Design is going to

1:33:54 ↗ be doing a lot more outreach about the

1:33:56 ↗ project over the next few months. It's I

1:33:59 ↗ think they probably started staging now.

1:34:03 ↗ Um and I

1:34:05 ↗ believe on the ground work will start in

1:34:08 ↗ May and will end in August. Does that

1:34:10 ↗ have to do? No, I had to leave before.

1:34:12 ↗ Okay. Yeah, I can't remember the exact

1:34:14 ↗ dates. There's a specific in water work.

1:34:16 ↗ No. Um, but different parts of the park

1:34:18 ↗ will be closed off for public access to

1:34:21 ↗ that area different times. They may have

1:34:23 ↗ to close stuff down. There will be

1:34:25 ↗ machinery

1:34:27 ↗ helop. Um, so really cool event. We had

1:34:30 ↗ over 50 people attend

1:34:35 ↗ and you can do a field trip in the fall.

1:34:37 ↗ Yeah, that would be a great field trip.

1:34:40 ↗ Dan ended up Dan used to like manage

1:34:44 ↗ that contributing significantly and the

1:34:47 ↗ tour.

1:34:49 ↗ So they're helicoptering in like stuff

1:34:52 ↗ like full logs trees. No full logs with

1:34:56 ↗ roots attached.

1:35:00 ↗ Okay.

1:35:02 ↗ All right. Very last thing, just a

1:35:03 ↗ couple date reminders. Um, tomorrow 5:00

1:35:08 ↗ in front of the community center, we're

1:35:09 ↗ launching our geo tour for those that

1:35:12 ↗ might be geocachers

1:35:14 ↗ um called Isaquest. This was actually a

1:35:16 ↗ brainchild of Nick Horn, our previous

1:35:19 ↗ civic spark fellow. Um, Wley graciously

1:35:22 ↗ took it on. It has been quite an

1:35:25 ↗ adventure developing it, but it's

1:35:26 ↗ geocaching sites across the city that

1:35:29 ↗ are focused on climate and

1:35:30 ↗ sustainability.

1:35:32 ↗ Um, we're going to have a little lunch

1:35:34 ↗ party and then go out and visit a couple

1:35:36 ↗ of the sites tomorrow at 5:00 if anybody

1:35:38 ↗ is free and wants to join. Um, and then

1:35:42 ↗ April 21st again will be the Ruth Keys

1:35:45 ↗ and Community Environmental Awards, 6 PM

1:35:47 ↗ and council chambers. Um, April 24th is

1:35:51 ↗ the PPC meeting where staff will be

1:35:54 ↗ sharing some of the initial feedback

1:35:56 ↗ from our board um, on the tree code.

1:35:59 ↗ would be great to get a couple reps from

1:36:01 ↗ the board there. Um, and I can reach out

1:36:04 ↗ to you all about that again and see

1:36:05 ↗ who's able to join. It's a Thursday

1:36:08 ↗ night, I believe. Um, and then April 26,

1:36:11 ↗ just as another reminder, uh,

1:36:13 ↗ sustainability fair. So, look forward to

1:36:14 ↗ seeing you all there as visitors and

1:36:16 ↗ hopefully some of you uh will be able to

1:36:18 ↗ work at the

1:36:20 ↗ board. That was all I had. Thank you.

1:36:27 ↗ Thank you.

1:36:30 ↗ [Music]

1:36:32 ↗ Okay.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.