Environmental Board · Wednesday, May 14, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 2 (Special Meeting with Equity Board)

5 min · packet pp.3–4

Topics: Equity

Previously discussed: Environmental Board · Apr 9, 2025 Equity Board · May 7, 2025

▶ Watch from 1:26 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 04-02-25 Equity Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Equity Board 6:00 PM Steelhead Room, 235 1st Ave. April 2, 2025 MINUTES SE, Issaquah

Minutes of April 9

5 min · packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 1:33 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 04-09-25 Environmental Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. April 9, 2025 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Welcome New Members 2025-2026 Environmental Board (I)

15 min · Don McQuilliams and Alix Lee-Tiger (Board Chair and Vice Chair)

Chair and Vice Chair Elections

Action · 10 min · Don McQuilliams, Board Chair Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Staff Liaison · packet pp.9–49

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

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

Tree Code update

Discussion · 60 min · Doug Yormick, Environmental Planner Minnie Dhaliwal, Director of Community Planning and Development

Topics: Trees

5. REPORTS

Verbal Report on Discussion with PPC on Tree Code Update (Chair McQuilliams and Board Member Smith)

5 min

Topics: Trees

Verbal Report on 2025 Sustainability Fair

5 min

Topics: Climate

Verbal Update on Climate Action Plan Update and Committee Meetings

5 min

Topics: Climate

Verbal Update on Solar Projects

5 min

Topics: Climate

2660 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ Uh, good evening. Welcome to the July 14

0:10 ↗ environmental board meeting. I'm still

0:12 ↗ on the bill instead of chair

0:14 ↗ tonight.

0:16 ↗ Script. Um, this is a hybrid meeting.

0:19 ↗ So, we have half of us online and half

0:20 ↗ of us in the room. For those of you

0:22 ↗ online, if you could keep please keep

0:24 ↗ your mics muted when you're not talking.

0:27 ↗ And if you have a comment, just give us

0:29 ↗ a a hands up sign and I'll be watching

0:31 ↗ for it and we'll uh turn your mics off

0:34 ↗ and comment. Um for those in the room,

0:37 ↗ tip your sign up if you have a question

0:38 ↗ and I'll call them tip.

0:45 ↗ Stacy, can you roll?

0:48 ↗ Tommy Anderson here. Nancy Davidson has

0:51 ↗ an excused absent. Uh Tommy Deio here.

0:56 ↗ Pragundi

0:57 ↗ here. Kieran Pan here. Nina June here.

1:03 ↗ Mc Williams here. Dixie Bear has an

1:05 ↗ excused absence. Alex Lee Tigner here.

1:10 ↗ Ann Nukem has an excused absence. Keith

1:13 ↗ Gonzalez, right on time. Uh John Smith

1:16 ↗ here. Great. We have Corum and John

1:19 ↗ going to be sitting in as a regular

1:21 ↗ member tonight.

1:26 ↗ First up is approval of minutes tonight.

1:28 ↗ Is there any comments on the previous

1:29 ↗ minutes from the uh April 2nd the

1:32 ↗ special meeting that we have board April

1:38 ↗ 9th. Okay. None. We'll call those

1:40 ↗ approved.

1:41 ↗ Um, we're going to do public comments

1:43 ↗ twice tonight like we did last meeting

1:45 ↗ because we have the topic is our true

1:47 ↗ code and I'm sure some folks want to

1:49 ↗ comment before and after the

1:51 ↗ presentation. Um, so we'll do comments

1:53 ↗ here first. Um, remember public comments

1:56 ↗ is it three minutes Stacy? Public

1:58 ↗ comments are limited to three minutes.

2:00 ↗ Um, we have anybody that wants to

2:02 ↗ comment ahead of presentation.

2:09 ↗ When did they change the truth?

2:12 ↗ I'll check my script.

2:16 ↗ But that's okay. So, my name is Connie

2:19 ↗ Marsh. I live on Squawk and since the

2:21 ↗ last meeting at a PPC meeting on the

2:24 ↗ tree campaign topic, then I decided to

2:27 ↗ dive into it. Um, and I've spoken with

2:30 ↗ neighbors and uh friends with trees and

2:35 ↗ then I reread the comprehensive plan and

2:39 ↗ um I my my world has changed totally

2:45 ↗ against what you're doing. Okay. So, one

2:49 ↗ the neighbors find the current code

2:51 ↗ confusing as it is and that's using a

2:53 ↗ neighborhood. So when you start dividing

2:55 ↗ it into smaller parcels, it's even more

2:58 ↗ confusing. If you get confusion, they

3:00 ↗ just don't do it. They wait till Sunday,

3:02 ↗ they hire their friend, they take down a

3:04 ↗ tree, and they do nothing. And that's

3:06 ↗ not what we want. We want something

3:09 ↗ simple, fairly simple, and something

3:12 ↗ they can envision. And then we want them

3:15 ↗ to do the right thing because they want

3:18 ↗ to, not because they hate the city.

3:20 ↗ Because a lot of people now after having

3:22 ↗ do trees, they hate them. And so the

3:26 ↗ code new code as written does almost the

3:30 ↗ opposite of that. It makes it less

3:33 ↗ readable, less usable, and less likely

3:36 ↗ that people will do the right thing.

3:38 ↗ It's also super expensive because you

3:41 ↗ have to go through this whole process.

3:43 ↗ And so the the city process

3:47 ↗ adds what over a thousand per

3:51 ↗ tree including the permit but not the

3:54 ↗ tree guide with all the studies that you

3:56 ↗ have to do. I think the city needs to

3:58 ↗ share some of the burden of the cost of

4:00 ↗ us keeping our tree ordinance in place.

4:04 ↗ And really the discussion is at the

4:06 ↗ wrong level. We have a goal. I'm not

4:09 ↗ sure why we have the goal but we want 4%

4:12 ↗ more tree canopy. Well, let's start with

4:14 ↗ that. Where do we think that should come

4:16 ↗ from? Whose responsibility should it be?

4:18 ↗ And what neighborhoods should have to

4:22 ↗ have more canopy, are okay with the

4:25 ↗ canopy because it fits with their

4:27 ↗ character. And finally, in reading the

4:30 ↗ comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan

4:32 ↗ clearly sets out that we are organizing

4:34 ↗ our city by neighborhood. And so to fit

4:38 ↗ in with the rest of the city plotting,

4:41 ↗ we should be understanding the character

4:44 ↗ of each neighborhood and threading what

4:47 ↗ their tree canopy is supposed to be

4:49 ↗ within those conversations. So we sort

4:52 ↗ of need to just start over, put this on

4:55 ↗ hold and do it the right Thank you.

5:05 ↗ Yes. Susan Gber and I'll come up here.

5:11 ↗ Um I I live

5:14 ↗ on and in the Montro neighborhood and

5:17 ↗ we've been working on with the city on

5:20 ↗ trying to come up with something that is

5:22 ↗ agreeable. We have in Montro 67% tree

5:26 ↗ canopy and my understanding was it was

5:28 ↗ to maintain the tree canopy but you just

5:30 ↗ said increase it by 4%. So I I I need to

5:33 ↗ understand what that really what the

5:35 ↗ goal is. Um 67% one of the highest in

5:38 ↗ the cities. Um but we have I have

5:41 ↗ pictures we have um a lot of NGP area

5:46 ↗ that provides most of that tree canopy

5:48 ↗ and if you look at individual lots and

5:51 ↗ calculate the tree canopy it's far less.

5:54 ↗ My I have one example where it's 8%. And

5:57 ↗ we're being asked by this new code to

5:59 ↗ bring it up to, in her case,

6:02 ↗ 35%. And where do you put those trees

6:04 ↗ where it doesn't interfere with her

6:06 ↗ driveway, the foundation of her house,

6:09 ↗ um any other infrastructure? So, um I'm

6:13 ↗ here to learn tonight, but I do want to

6:15 ↗ say that I agree with your comments. Um,

6:19 ↗ if you did a test case in our area, I

6:22 ↗ think this person would have to plant a

6:24 ↗ large number of trees on her bot and she

6:27 ↗ doesn't have to work. So, thank you.

6:32 ↗ Anybody online?

6:34 ↗ Yes, Steve. Interest.

6:39 ↗ Go ahead, Steve. You should be able to

6:40 ↗ unmute.

6:43 ↗ All right. Can everybody hear me? Okay.

6:45 ↗ Yeah. Cool. Thank you. So, I sent in uh

6:50 ↗ input about a month ago during your last

6:52 ↗ meeting and you're now discussing the

6:53 ↗ topic. So, I'm just here to say in

6:55 ↗ person to reference that. And I'm also

6:58 ↗ what I'm looking to each of you to do is

7:01 ↗ this just seems like a rather large and

7:04 ↗ blatant change in city policy that was

7:09 ↗ presented and discussed citywide to

7:12 ↗ reduce the

7:14 ↗ uh tree canopy standards with major and

7:17 ↗ minor changes. And I'm looking to each

7:19 ↗ of you to kind of push back on that

7:22 ↗ change changing not just what's proposed

7:24 ↗ in the central is plan area but citywide

7:29 ↗ with things like

7:31 ↗ uh reducing the tree

7:34 ↗ canopy volume percentage. reducing the

7:39 ↗ uh sub area versus zone by reducing the

7:45 ↗ uh overhang ability of an of an area to

7:49 ↗ be included in the tree retention

7:51 ↗ policy. So, I'm guess I'm just

7:54 ↗ expressing strong frustration with the

7:57 ↗ administration for such a blatant change

7:59 ↗ after what was so

8:02 ↗ carefully worked and discussed citywide.

8:06 ↗ Uh, it makes me wonder what next

8:08 ↗ revision is going to be in policy as far

8:10 ↗ as changing things like

8:13 ↗ uh pvious versus improve service or uh

8:17 ↗ storm water standards. If all it takes

8:19 ↗ is somebody simply deciding to recommend

8:22 ↗ changes and grow go from such

8:25 ↗ a large reduction in that tree canopy

8:29 ↗ standard. So I'm not trying to speak to

8:32 ↗ spec specific items specific items but

8:35 ↗ to talk about

8:37 ↗ overall that those

8:40 ↗ changes should be largely rejected and

8:43 ↗ looking to you to

8:45 ↗ not take a soft pedaling approach to

8:48 ↗ that but to be firm in backing those

8:52 ↗ higher retention standards. With that,

8:54 ↗ I'll go ahead to uh remove myself

8:57 ↗ cameras and listen while you guys

8:59 ↗ discuss. Thank you.

9:03 ↗ Thanks Steve.

9:09 ↗ That's it for um the verbal public

9:11 ↗ comment. Just to note that we did

9:13 ↗ receive written public comment for this

9:15 ↗ meeting from Mark Clemens, uh Susan

9:18 ↗ Richard Scarce, uh Connie, and then

9:21 ↗ board member Davidson will uh read her

9:24 ↗ remarks later on in the agenda.

9:28 ↗ Um I want to switch gears for a second

9:30 ↗ before we get to you guys. And I want to

9:32 ↗ welcome our new board member, Tommy.

9:35 ↗ Thank you for being here. Welcome to the

9:37 ↗ group. Good to be here. I'm going to put

9:40 ↗ you on the spot, Tom. here. Tell us a

9:42 ↗ touch about yourself. Okay. Uh hello

9:44 ↗ everyone. Nice to be here. My name is

9:46 ↗ Tommy Dau. I lived all 25 years of my

9:50 ↗ life. Um based out of Kahani area. I

9:53 ↗ worked in

9:54 ↗ Isqua service. I commuted to the

9:57 ↗ University of Washington Seattle um out

10:00 ↗ of Kahani and um that's where I was an

10:02 ↗ undergraduate fellow at the center for

10:05 ↗ politics. Um, and after college, I um

10:09 ↗ worked uh in local politics. Uh, I was a

10:12 ↗ legislative intern um at at the uh state

10:16 ↗ senate a year ago. And after that, I was

10:19 ↗ a campaign manager to the late Senator

10:21 ↗ Bill Ramos. Uh, and um following that

10:25 ↗ campaign, I was also legislative uh in

10:28 ↗ Olympia and here we are now. So, uh, I

10:32 ↗ recognize some familiar faces and, uh,

10:36 ↗ great to be in community with you all

10:38 ↗ just public service. Thank you, Tommy. A

10:42 ↗ couple other changes we had on our board

10:44 ↗ members. Keith, um, has moved from an

10:47 ↗ alternate member to a regular member.

10:49 ↗ Congratulations, Keith. And then Dixie

10:51 ↗ elected to go from regular member back

10:53 ↗ down

10:53 ↗ to um, if I could have you guys give us

10:56 ↗ a very quick uh, one minute introduction

10:59 ↗ for Tommy.

11:02 ↗ I'm

11:09 ↗ Jonathan Smith. I joined this um

11:11 ↗ committee a year ago. I lived here

11:17 ↗ and a long

11:19 ↗ time six or

11:22 ↗ 27 longer than you.

11:30 ↗ Uh Tom Anderson. I'm charter member of

11:33 ↗ the

11:33 ↗ committee 2000 and on.

11:37 ↗ Uh I'm I've lived in this squad most of

11:41 ↗ my life. I'm retired now and so I have

11:44 ↗ time to uh spend on issues such as is

11:48 ↗ brought before the board here. That sort

11:50 ↗ of thing.

11:54 ↗ Um Keith I uh I work for Washington

11:56 ↗ conservation board out like Spanish

11:58 ↗ state park around a lot of different uh

12:00 ↗ environmental sort of focused partners

12:02 ↗ including parks. Uh so I see a lot of uh

12:06 ↗ a lot of cool things that u you know

12:09 ↗ kind of pe my interest about a year ago

12:12 ↗ uh when I joined.

12:14 ↗ Thank you. Uh Tom McMillian. I've been

12:17 ↗ on the board since the start of 2020.

12:19 ↗ You say started. Okay. Um, I've had the

12:23 ↗ last 25 years various environmental jobs

12:25 ↗ with local

12:28 ↗ municipalities. Alex,

12:33 ↗ hi Tommy, welcome. I'm Alex Lee Tigner.

12:35 ↗ I'm the vice chair of the board at the

12:37 ↗ moment, maybe to change tonight. Um, I

12:41 ↗ work for Trot Unlimited out of the Lake

12:43 ↗ Sam State Park office over there. Um,

12:46 ↗ doing community education and engagement

12:48 ↗ around environmental issues. and I've

12:51 ↗ been on the board for about two years

12:52 ↗ now.

12:54 ↗ Rash, see you next.

12:58 ↗ Hi. Uh, welcome. So, I joined the board

13:02 ↗ couple of years back. My name is Praj. I

13:04 ↗ joined the board couple of years back.

13:06 ↗ Um, I'm an environmental engineer. Did

13:07 ↗ environmental consulting for a long

13:09 ↗ time. Now, I do work as a business

13:12 ↗ manager for a startup and I do tons of

13:14 ↗ volunteering in Isaakqua school

13:16 ↗ district. um you know some environment

13:18 ↗ related some non-environment related and

13:21 ↗ I live very close to Kahani in Samish

13:24 ↗ welcome I think you will enjoy being on

13:26 ↗ this

13:27 ↗ board and Mina

13:32 ↗ hi I'm Mina um I'm a youth board member

13:34 ↗ I go to Gibson High School in Isiqua I'm

13:36 ↗ a senior so I'm graduating this year but

13:38 ↗ this will be my second year on the board

13:40 ↗ and I'm going to stay on um but I'm

13:42 ↗ planning to go to um New York and

13:45 ↗ hopefully study something related

13:46 ↗ related to environmental studies. Um I

13:49 ↗ have been involved with the city um

13:52 ↗ department of sustainability and urban

13:54 ↗ forest management team for internships

13:58 ↗ and worked on a lot of projects and I

13:59 ↗ really love Isiqua and all their

14:01 ↗ environmental initiatives. I'm currently

14:02 ↗ working on a project that is a junior

14:04 ↗ park ranger program also for the city.

14:07 ↗ Thank you Mina. Thank you everybody.

14:13 ↗ All right. Next up, we're going to have

14:14 ↗ chair and vice chair

14:24 ↗ elections. We're going to call for

14:26 ↗ nominations. When all the nominations

14:28 ↗ have been made, I will close the

14:30 ↗ nominations. Only one nomination is

14:32 ↗ made. Member is considered elected to

14:34 ↗ the position by unanimous

14:37 ↗ consent. Multiple nominations are made.

14:40 ↗ We will ask board members to provide the

14:41 ↗ opportunity to discuss the nominees.

14:44 ↗ We'll ask board members to cast votes on

14:46 ↗ the nominees in the order they were

14:47 ↗ nominated. And board members may vote

14:50 ↗ for only one nominee per office may vote

14:53 ↗ for themselves. Board member receiving

14:55 ↗ majority votes is declared double chair

14:57 ↗ and vice

14:59 ↗ chair. Any nominations for the chair?

15:08 ↗ I nominate Donna Mc Williams.

15:12 ↗ I second that.

15:30 ↗ Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you.

15:34 ↗ How about for our vice chair?

15:39 ↗ I nominate Alex Der second that

15:45 ↗ any

15:48 ↗ others back.

15:54 ↗ Good job both of you. Thank you.

15:57 ↗ Congratulations.

16:05 ↗ Okay, you have what you need there,

16:07 ↗ Stacey. All right, next

16:10 ↗ [Music]

16:11 ↗ up, you haven't done anything on me here

16:14 ↗ to bring back the tree code to us. They

16:16 ↗ came here a couple meetings back, talked

16:18 ↗ to us about it, and went through the

16:20 ↗ planning commission as well. So, they're

16:22 ↗ going to share what they've learned and

16:24 ↗ changes that they've made

16:30 ↗ since presentations coming up in a

16:32 ↗ moment.

16:35 ↗ I do have a question to get started.

16:39 ↗ What's the overall process for getting

16:41 ↗ this tree code? Just

16:45 ↗ we're just one committee that's

16:47 ↗ reviewed. Is it the planning the the

16:51 ↗ PPC or committee the planning policy

16:55 ↗ committee that ones that approves the

16:56 ↗ changes? Yes. So ultimately it'll be the

16:59 ↗ council. Yes. But the recommendation

17:02 ↗ formal recommendation has to come from

17:04 ↗ planning and policy commission. But we

17:07 ↗ you know when we did the overhaul of the

17:08 ↗ title 18 we did engage in all the other

17:11 ↗ boards and commission because we were

17:12 ↗ soliciting larger input

17:15 ↗ from variety of context. So you're

17:18 ↗ engaging all of all of the different we

17:21 ↗ are going just environmental board and

17:24 ↗ planning. Okay. All right. Thank you. uh

17:26 ↗ def then their recommendation will go to

17:29 ↗ the council committee who will then make

17:32 ↗ a recommendation to full council

17:34 ↗ then okay and often in the past with any

17:38 ↗ policy um discussions the board has

17:41 ↗ opted to prepare a letter that goes to

17:44 ↗ PPC and council with our recommendations

17:47 ↗ concerns any descent amongst board

17:50 ↗ members so that will definitely be an

17:51 ↗ option as we move down that path

18:02 ↗ So, uh, good evening everyone. I'm

18:04 ↗ Douglas Yormick, environmental planner

18:06 ↗ with community planning and development

18:08 ↗ with our department director, Minnie

18:10 ↗ Dalywall. Um, together we're going to

18:13 ↗ continue the discussion about the tree

18:15 ↗ code updates, uh, IMC1812.

18:20 ↗ um for the purpose

18:23 ↗ um we are you know like I said continue

18:26 ↗ with the the discussion we'll provide uh

18:30 ↗ responses to the feedback that we

18:32 ↗ received from last month's meeting as

18:34 ↗ well as some feedback that we've

18:36 ↗ received from planning policy commission

18:38 ↗ um and let you know where that is in the

18:40 ↗ process of of um updating the the tree

18:43 ↗ code based on that

18:47 ↗ feedback. Um, so some background. Um, in

18:51 ↗ May of 23, we had a major overhaul of

18:54 ↗ our land use code, title 18. A part of

18:57 ↗ that was the tree preservation code.

19:00 ↗ Um, starting about a year ago, just from

19:03 ↗ feedback from uh, tree permit applicants

19:07 ↗ and uh, discussions with the

19:09 ↗ administration and feedback from

19:11 ↗ council. um it was decided that maybe we

19:13 ↗ should be taking a different approach

19:15 ↗ with our tree code and how we are

19:18 ↗ measuring canopy on site. Um so we

19:21 ↗ started to look into that. We partnered

19:23 ↗ with um an environmental consulting

19:25 ↗ group to go over our tree canopy and

19:28 ↗ provide recommendations for us that were

19:31 ↗ um specific more for land use than than

19:34 ↗ looking at the sub area or neighborhood

19:37 ↗ of of Isiqua.

19:41 ↗ um came here last month in April, April

19:44 ↗ 9th um presented the or at least

19:47 ↗ provided an introduction. Uh we did the

19:50 ↗ same thing for planning policy

19:51 ↗ commission on April 24th and then we

19:55 ↗ will be going to planning policy

19:57 ↗ commission next week um with the same

20:01 ↗ code amendments that we're providing you

20:03 ↗ tonight.

20:06 ↗ So back in on April 9th, you can

20:09 ↗ remember we we identified um seven areas

20:12 ↗ of of feedback. Um this is the list that

20:16 ↗ this is the list that we provided. And

20:18 ↗ then in this presentation, I'm going to

20:20 ↗ go through each of these individually

20:22 ↗ and just let you know if they're

20:23 ↗ incorporated or not, why they're not

20:25 ↗ incorporated, if we didn't, or in in

20:28 ↗ just the status.

20:33 ↗ Um at our meeting with planning policy

20:35 ↗ commission really didn't get a whole lot

20:37 ↗ of feedback.

20:40 ↗ Um but one of the things that PBC

20:43 ↗ thought was that we are still placing

20:45 ↗ the burden of our of meeting our tree

20:48 ↗ canopy coverage on the the backs of

20:51 ↗ single family uh homeowners. So that

20:55 ↗ having us look at that a little bit

20:58 ↗ more.

21:01 ↗ So the first item for feedback is code

21:04 ↗ testing. Um so we have developed a plan

21:08 ↗ that's going to be similar in approach

21:09 ↗ to the code testing that was done for

21:12 ↗ the missing middle housing. Um we will

21:15 ↗ be evaluating multiple development

21:16 ↗ scenarios in different neighborhoods in

21:19 ↗ the city and then also bringing in other

21:21 ↗ development standards that we have um so

21:24 ↗ that we can see if there's any conflict

21:26 ↗ with between this code and and another

21:29 ↗ development standard. Um we'll be

21:33 ↗ continuing this work through our time

21:36 ↗ we're going to planning development

21:37 ↗ environmental or environment committee

21:39 ↗ council committee in June. So we will

21:42 ↗ present our code testing findings at

21:45 ↗ council committee

21:51 ↗ questions as we go or

21:54 ↗ um I'll do questions at the end for this

21:56 ↗ one. I know last time I was doing them.

22:00 ↗ So um and then for wanted a little bit

22:04 ↗ more clarity on on the process for the

22:07 ↗ tree fund. So kind of create a little

22:10 ↗ bit of a flowchart here. Um so how the

22:13 ↗ tree how we collect money for the tree

22:15 ↗ fund is when um a replacement tree is

22:19 ↗ let's say in this replacement tree is

22:22 ↗ necessary the applicant would pay um the

22:26 ↗ fee we that we have set at $1,000 which

22:29 ↗ is the cost of the tree and

22:31 ↗ approximately 3 years of maintenance of

22:33 ↗ that tree.

22:35 ↗ So CPD staff will collect that money. It

22:38 ↗ goes into a dedicated fund that's

22:40 ↗ managed by by finance and then it's

22:43 ↗ dispersed by the urban forest manager.

22:46 ↗ We have a code in uh 18812, the tree

22:50 ↗ preservation code that um kind of

22:53 ↗ dictates what the tree fund can be used

22:57 ↗ for. Um and I can get into that a little

23:00 ↗ bit more. I added a link to the

23:02 ↗ PowerPoint so I can just take you right

23:04 ↗ to the code. Um but it's you know for

23:07 ↗ tree planting for education

23:10 ↗ um you know there's there's one that

23:12 ↗ says you know what council wants to

23:15 ↗ direct it to but it has to be related to

23:18 ↗ um administering this chapter and uh

23:22 ↗ preserving or increasing tree canopy

23:25 ↗ shortly.

23:28 ↗ So another item of feedback was the

23:31 ↗ urban heat island effect. So I've been

23:34 ↗ in conversations

23:36 ↗ uh with Dan Hints about this and and

23:40 ↗ trying to develop strategies of what we

23:41 ↗ can do. So um centralistic law

23:45 ↗ definitely has a um key disparity when

23:49 ↗ compared to other areas of the city. Um

23:53 ↗ addressing this is is more discussed in

23:57 ↗ the urban forest management plan. Um and

24:00 ↗ the plan identifies um main points to

24:03 ↗ address heat island effect in Isiqua and

24:06 ↗ and like I said central Isiqua and and

24:08 ↗ even Oldtown too. Um they have the most

24:12 ↗ pronounced heat island effects. Um and

24:14 ↗ then the heavily forested areas kind of

24:16 ↗ in the mountains squawk and and Cougar

24:19 ↗ lower temperatures. Um so Dan's urban

24:22 ↗ forest program will focus um kind of

24:26 ↗ tree installation and tree giveaways in

24:28 ↗ in targeted neighborhoods that have the

24:31 ↗ highest heat disparity.

24:33 ↗ [Music]

24:35 ↗ Um, and so we feel that with utilizing

24:40 ↗ the urban forest management plan and the

24:42 ↗ and the tools that we have um with money

24:45 ↗ in the tree fund that we will be able to

24:48 ↗ provide more trees in areas that have a

24:51 ↗ higher disparity uh higher heat

24:53 ↗ disparities.

24:58 ↗ Multif family targets were also

25:00 ↗ discussed. Um at this time we don't

25:04 ↗ propose any changes to the current

25:07 ↗ canopy target. Um but we're going to

25:10 ↗ collect new data as part of the next

25:13 ↗ tree canopy assessment to kind of better

25:16 ↗ determine if they need to be adjusted.

25:20 ↗ Um, so Dan has been in communications

25:24 ↗ with King County um on a joint

25:26 ↗ opportunity to develop a new tree canopy

25:28 ↗ assessment for this year. So we should

25:31 ↗ be able to have newer data. This will be

25:34 ↗ 2023 from my conversations with Dan. Um,

25:38 ↗ so it's not going to be exactly current,

25:40 ↗ but it'll be more than or it'll be

25:43 ↗ better than the 2019 data that we

25:45 ↗ currently have. Um the reasons why we're

25:49 ↗ not really going to look at multif

25:51 ↗ family until we do an assessment is that

25:54 ↗ the multif family zone properties that

25:56 ↗ were looked at in um in that 2019 that

26:00 ↗ kind of developed our entire canopy

26:02 ↗ coverage um those those properties are

26:06 ↗ primarily in Oldtown along Newport East

26:08 ↗ Sunset Way and Front Street South. Um

26:12 ↗ many of these parcels are already

26:15 ↗ developed with multif family housing,

26:16 ↗ some of them for decades. Um so if we

26:20 ↗ were to see redevelopment at this site,

26:23 ↗ [Music]

26:26 ↗ they they would have additional

26:29 ↗ standards beyond just the tree canopy.

26:32 ↗ Um so we have pretty strict standards

26:35 ↗ even for the multif family zone

26:37 ↗ properties where total impervious

26:39 ↗ surface allowed is 50%. Um each of those

26:43 ↗ would require extensive landscape

26:45 ↗ requirements and then on top of that

26:48 ↗ there's a minimum of 35% tree retention

26:51 ↗ for the redevelopment and the 35% tree

26:54 ↗ retention is the total caliber inches

26:56 ↗ that are on site um not necessarily the

27:00 ↗ number of trees. So they would count up

27:02 ↗ the caliber inches of all of the trees

27:05 ↗ and 35% of that number would have to be

27:07 ↗ retained. And so we're we're looking at

27:10 ↗ as a whole picture um that there would

27:13 ↗ still be significant um retention and

27:16 ↗ also

27:17 ↗ canopy on these sites if they were to be

27:20 ↗ redeveloped. But we're going to look at

27:22 ↗ this. We're going to re-evaluate with

27:23 ↗ updated canopy numbers when we get those

27:26 ↗ later this year.

27:32 ↗ Wildfire mitigation was a topic that was

27:35 ↗ discussed extensively as well. Um

27:38 ↗ following our our last meeting, Stephen

27:40 ↗ Padua and I have been in in a lot of

27:43 ↗ we've had a lot of communication with

27:45 ↗ East Side Fire and Rescue. Um trying to

27:48 ↗ get a better understanding of the fire

27:50 ↗ mitigation assessments that that were

27:53 ↗ discussed. Um, we did add some language

27:56 ↗ to allow for the wildfire risk

27:59 ↗ assessment um to be used as a method for

28:03 ↗ for tree removal to stress that you

28:08 ↗ know these these are best practices from

28:12 ↗ the National Fire Protection

28:13 ↗ Association, the US Forest Service. And

28:16 ↗ these may differ from the WOOI code that

28:19 ↗ will that may come into play um when the

28:22 ↗ state adopts that. Um it will also could

28:26 ↗ result in in loss of canopy on on these

28:28 ↗ lots as well. But we feel like we can

28:31 ↗ kind of get ahead of the curve on on

28:33 ↗ this and at least have some sort of

28:34 ↗ standards so that property

28:37 ↗ owners can do what's necessary to

28:40 ↗ protect their property. So we we have

28:42 ↗ put in code for the wildfire risk

28:44 ↗ assessment to be used for tree removals

28:47 ↗ if for the purposes of addressing

28:50 ↗ wildfire

28:54 ↗ risk. the large project process. We also

28:58 ↗ discussed we

29:00 ↗ are when looking at this we were seeing

29:03 ↗ like what we could do um in partnering

29:05 ↗ with large land owners HOAs who have you

29:09 ↗ know maybe multiple parcels that they're

29:11 ↗ managing tree removals on. Um because

29:14 ↗ that was one of the the feedbacks that

29:15 ↗ we heard from the community is that it

29:18 ↗ was cumbersome if you have multiple open

29:20 ↗ space properties to have to apply for

29:23 ↗ individual permits for each of those

29:25 ↗ open spaces when they were trying to do

29:27 ↗ some tree management. Um we we've

29:31 ↗ decided that we would just make this an

29:33 ↗ internal process. So it would be one

29:35 ↗ tree permit associated with with what

29:38 ↗ work you were going to do and then

29:40 ↗ document where on the prop where on on

29:44 ↗ the specific open space tracks or

29:46 ↗ properties you were going to be removing

29:48 ↗ and we would have that categorized and

29:49 ↗ then we would be able to use that

29:51 ↗ information to um include in a

29:54 ↗ spreadsheet so we know um the number of

29:57 ↗ trees that are removed the species etc.

29:59 ↗ Um but at this time we're not going to

30:01 ↗ pursue any sort of additional uh or a

30:04 ↗ new permit um to work with you know say

30:08 ↗ Talis HOA for instance on on how they're

30:11 ↗ going to manage the trees. If they want

30:14 ↗ to look at tree removals, they would

30:16 ↗ come in with a tree permit just like

30:17 ↗ they would now, but instead of it being

30:19 ↗ multiple tree permits for each

30:21 ↗ individual property, we're just going

30:24 ↗ it's just going to be one for all of the

30:26 ↗ trees being removed.

30:35 ↗ Um, so community planning and park staff

30:40 ↗ have been coordinating to identify

30:42 ↗ suitable off-site planting areas within

30:44 ↗ each sub area um with an emphasis to

30:48 ↗ expand tree canopy in areas that have

30:50 ↗ the highest heat

30:52 ↗ disparities. So the sites on this slide

30:55 ↗ represent our preliminary discussions um

30:57 ↗ in central Isiqua. Um, more will be

31:01 ↗ identified as our discussions

31:05 ↗ progress. Um, we're also exploring

31:07 ↗ right-of-way locations to assist in

31:09 ↗ those disparities identified in the

31:11 ↗ urban forest management plan. Um,

31:13 ↗ right-of-way trees aren't regulated by

31:15 ↗ the standards of the tree code, but

31:17 ↗ instead um they're incorporated into the

31:20 ↗ street standards, which is uh what

31:23 ↗ public works uses. work. There'll have

31:25 ↗ to be some coordination between uh CPD

31:28 ↗ staff, parks, and then ultimately public

31:31 ↗ works or handling right ofway trees. Um

31:34 ↗ the conversations that CPD staff are

31:37 ↗ having with parks, those are going to

31:39 ↗ continue so that we can identify more

31:41 ↗ locations, not just in central Estqual,

31:44 ↗ but throughout uh the entire city.

31:52 ↗ And then with that,

31:54 ↗ um, these are the policy questions that

31:58 ↗ we would like to discuss with the board.

32:00 ↗ These were included in in your packet,

32:03 ↗ but I can leave this up to the next one.

32:06 ↗ Oh, I'll go I'll go back to this. So,

32:09 ↗ timing. Next week, we're meeting with

32:11 ↗ planning policy commission. June 10th,

32:14 ↗ we plan on going to uh PTE City Council

32:17 ↗ Committee. And then we have July 7th,

32:20 ↗ Pennsylvania's tentative adoption for

32:23 ↗ the tree code. And then with that,

32:26 ↗ there's questions, but I can leave the

32:28 ↗ policy questions up to you so you can

32:30 ↗ have them. And then I'm here to answer

32:33 ↗ any questions that the board has.

32:46 ↗ Nies. Okay, great. And I also neglected

32:49 ↗ to answer or to comment that um Ann

32:51 ↗ Newukem also sent an extensive comment.

32:54 ↗ She just let me know right before the

32:56 ↗ meeting. She can come. Great. So

32:59 ↗ Nancy messaged the board that the code

33:02 ↗ language for trees is not ready to move

33:04 ↗ forward. The conversation needs to be

33:05 ↗ raised up a higher level to better

33:07 ↗ understand what the city is trying to

33:09 ↗ achieve. The current draft code seems

33:11 ↗ more complicated than what currently

33:13 ↗ exists. I suggest sending it back to a

33:15 ↗ combined community and board

33:16 ↗ subcommittee for more thoughtful

33:18 ↗ overhaul. I cannot support this proposed

33:23 ↗ draft. And then Ann sent a very

33:26 ↗ extensive email um

33:31 ↗ uh really focused on

33:34 ↗ um looking at fire safety in mind and

33:37 ↗ sent an example of a visit to her

33:40 ↗ property. Um her key takeaways and I'll

33:44 ↗ just summarize those that's appropriate.

33:46 ↗ Uh the first five feet around the home

33:48 ↗ are most important for defending

33:50 ↗ non-planable materials. Um tree

33:53 ↗ placement should be planned to ensure

33:54 ↗ mature canopy is no closer than 10 ft to

33:57 ↗ the edge of the structure. Remove ladder

33:59 ↗ fuels like branches and brush. Prrees 8

34:03 ↗ to 12 feet from the ground. For shorter

34:05 ↗ trees, trim a third or less from bottom

34:08 ↗ up. large mature trees may only need

34:10 ↗ trimming to ensure spacing between

34:12 ↗ vegetation and structure. Noting her

34:15 ↗ property has a lot of work to do. Um so

34:17 ↗ really resourceful email that Ann

34:27 ↗ um thank you for taking our comments

34:29 ↗ from the previous meeting into

34:31 ↗ consideration plan.

34:38 ↗ All righty. Tom Anderson here. Uh last

34:42 ↗ year, King County did a study on

34:46 ↗ urban tree rules and they produced a

34:49 ↗ report entitled Analysis of Urban Tree

34:51 ↗ Protections in King County dated

34:54 ↗ February

34:55 ↗ 2024 and they stated that it was their

34:59 ↗ goal to produce a tree code toolkit for

35:02 ↗ use by local

35:04 ↗ jurisdictions. Was any input from King

35:06 ↗ County and this study part of the update

35:10 ↗ process?

35:11 ↗ that you're showing us now.

35:15 ↗ Um, somewhat I know it was looked at I

35:19 ↗ so for full disclosure I inherited this

35:22 ↗ project in March. So the work that was

35:25 ↗ done up until that point um I wasn't

35:29 ↗ fully involved in. I do know in my

35:32 ↗ conversations with Dan Hints, I'm I'm

35:34 ↗ familiar with the the report that you're

35:36 ↗ you're talking about and that was looked

35:39 ↗ at. To what extent I I don't know and

35:42 ↗ like how how that was incorporated into

35:44 ↗ the various code amendments.

35:48 ↗ So as far as you know the county hasn't

35:51 ↗ actually produced this goal that they

35:53 ↗ stated of the tree code toolkit. I

35:56 ↗ haven't seen anything about the tree

35:58 ↗ code toolkit. Um, what I've I've read

36:02 ↗ there, there was

36:04 ↗ information in there that discussed

36:07 ↗ various tree codes in jurisdictions in

36:10 ↗ King County and we were rated at one of

36:12 ↗ the highest levels.

36:15 ↗ Yes. Well, some of the the challenges

36:18 ↗ that they talked about in there had to

36:20 ↗ do with compliance and how you actually

36:23 ↗ achieve compliance and whether you have

36:25 ↗ the resources to help people comply. And

36:29 ↗ so I'd asked the question, well, does

36:31 ↗ the city actually have the staff and the

36:34 ↗ money to achieve anything resembling

36:38 ↗ compliance with these results?

36:44 ↗ For the

36:46 ↗ will ask, I mean, we have code

36:49 ↗ enforcement. We have planning staff that

36:51 ↗ are able to handle the the influx of

36:54 ↗ permitting. code enforcement would

36:56 ↗ obviously be involved in um in issues

37:00 ↗ where there was an unpermitted tree

37:01 ↗ removal, but I I do believe especially

37:04 ↗ partnering with Dan Henson's

37:07 ↗ um and if identifying areas where we can

37:11 ↗ plant trees, working with them on

37:14 ↗ various educational topics and

37:18 ↗ um finding finding ways to utilize the

37:21 ↗ tree

37:22 ↗ fund to ensure compliance. with this

37:26 ↗ code. I I do believe that we have we

37:29 ↗ have the staff and capabilities to do

37:30 ↗ that

37:33 ↗ and money with with what we have in the

37:36 ↗ tree code. I guess I I would suggest

37:39 ↗ that

37:41 ↗ um in order to achieve anything close to

37:45 ↗ majority of compliance, a lot of public

37:47 ↗ education is needed and the plan should

37:51 ↗ speak more I think to that element.

37:54 ↗ um that in order to accomplish these

37:57 ↗ goals, public education is going to be a

38:01 ↗ key tool to bring it about and

38:04 ↗ enforcement without that education will

38:06 ↗ just be kind of uh too have it won't you

38:10 ↗ won't get there. So that would be one

38:12 ↗ suggestion I would make. And I wish

38:16 ↗ sorry to interrupt you with that. wish

38:19 ↗ Dan was here to to speak on the urban

38:21 ↗ forest management plan and the ideas

38:23 ↗ that he has um for educational because

38:26 ↗ it's that would be better it's it's

38:29 ↗ better handled with his plan than it is

38:31 ↗ with development standards that are the

38:35 ↗ land use code. We can explore ways that

38:38 ↗ we can put that into code but that this

38:40 ↗ is more for the activities that are

38:43 ↗ going to be happening on the property.

38:45 ↗ Yeah, I I understand she Yeah. So, so

38:49 ↗ long as it's covered somewhere in the

38:50 ↗ process. Um that

38:56 ↗ um let's see, I have one more thing to

38:59 ↗ talk about

39:00 ↗ here.

39:02 ↗ Uh I think the the rules for the single

39:06 ↗ family residents, it's got to be

39:08 ↗ simplified.

39:10 ↗ And one suggestion from one of the

39:13 ↗ public comments was well hey maybe pull

39:15 ↗ that out separate document or at least

39:18 ↗ extracted in such a way that it can be

39:21 ↗ digestible to

39:23 ↗ people. It's just it's too too complex

39:26 ↗ to have to go through the whole document

39:29 ↗ to figure out well what applies to me.

39:32 ↗ Maybe that would be a helpful uh

39:35 ↗ organizational method. Or maybe maybe

39:37 ↗ this maybe that is a a supplementary

39:43 ↗ um quick start guide or something as a

39:46 ↗ supplementary document.

39:49 ↗ One thing that we I mean what we are

39:51 ↗ trying to do um with with this

39:55 ↗ particular code amendment is yes we have

39:58 ↗ we have these canopy targets for single

40:01 ↗ family for for various land uses and we

40:06 ↗ aren't and we we tried to put this in

40:08 ↗ code and maybe this is where we need to

40:10 ↗ emphasize it a little bit more. We're

40:11 ↗ not looking for full tree canopy uh

40:15 ↗ compliance with a tree removal permit.

40:18 ↗ It would be more of a tool used for new

40:20 ↗ or redevelopment. So, when you come in

40:24 ↗ with a tree removal permit um and your

40:27 ↗ site meets the tree canopy for that

40:31 ↗ particular land use, it's single family

40:33 ↗ with 15,000 square ft. There's a

40:36 ↗ percentage there. If you're meeting

40:38 ↗ that, um, no replacement tree would be

40:40 ↗ required. If you were below that, we're

40:43 ↗ only asking for a onetoone replacement.

40:46 ↗ So, we're not looking at having the site

40:48 ↗ come into full compliance when you are

40:50 ↗ just removing a a hazardous tree or a

40:53 ↗ nuisance tree that are on site. The the

40:55 ↗ canopy would be looked at when it's new

40:58 ↗ or redeveloping.

41:02 ↗ And if that's that's our intent with it.

41:04 ↗ And if that's not coming across, then we

41:07 ↗ have to do a better job at least making

41:09 ↗ sure that that code is in there so

41:11 ↗ people understand it's not

41:14 ↗ 65% when you're removing a tree. We're

41:17 ↗ looking at a onetoone replacement only

41:20 ↗ if your site is below the canopy for

41:24 ↗ that particular land use. And that's one

41:26 ↗ of the proposed changes. Yes. I think

41:28 ↗ based on public comments that you've

41:30 ↗ heard today too. Um so uh the way the

41:34 ↗ language was written but we don't think

41:36 ↗ that was the legislative intent at that

41:38 ↗ time but the the language itself was if

41:40 ↗ you remove one tree you have to bring

41:42 ↗ your entire lot up to the the canopy

41:46 ↗ coverage for that area uh even if you're

41:48 ↗ removing a hazardous tree. And I don't

41:50 ↗ think that was the intent. The intent

41:52 ↗ was if you remove one you better replace

41:54 ↗ that. Um so I think we've attempted to

41:58 ↗ fix that in the language but it seems

41:59 ↗ like if it's that's not really clear

42:01 ↗ that it can work on the language part

42:03 ↗ but for from this group do you agree

42:05 ↗ with the concept that if you're removing

42:08 ↗ one tree then you have to replace one

42:12 ↗ ratio but if you're removing a landmark

42:14 ↗ tree I think that's a little bit larger

42:16 ↗ ratio. So get to zero

42:21 ↗ landmark tree removal rate zero had

42:24 ↗ nuisance tree zero replacement can be I

42:28 ↗ don't think that was the right thing so

42:30 ↗ if the language isn't clear and people

42:32 ↗ are reading it differently then perhaps

42:34 ↗ you're hearing me language is unclear

42:37 ↗ yes the board and community so you're

42:40 ↗ going to go back revisit the language so

42:44 ↗ the language I'll I'll read for the

42:47 ↗ landmark tree replacement at a ratio not

42:50 ↗ less than two trees replaced for every

42:52 ↗ landmark tree removed that provides

42:54 ↗ canopy coverage equal to or greater than

42:56 ↗ the trees being removed. This

42:58 ↗ requirement may be waved if the permit

43:00 ↗ applicant can demonstrate that the site

43:02 ↗ meets or exceeds the canopy coverage

43:04 ↗ targets even after removal of the trees

43:06 ↗ at issue. That's the that's the code

43:09 ↗ that we have in there. Right. So the

43:10 ↗ last sentence can be struck out. The

43:12 ↗ policy decision here is no land park

43:14 ↗ tree should always be replaced. So

43:16 ↗ that's the question for the board to

43:18 ↗ tell us based on the public comments

43:21 ↗ we're receiving. Do we need to always

43:23 ↗ have a replacement ratio for larger land

43:26 ↗ which is about larger than 2 foot in

43:29 ↗ diameter 30 in 30 in. So the really

43:32 ↗ large ones we do want to always have

43:34 ↗ replacement for those is a sort of a

43:37 ↗ policy question in there.

43:39 ↗ It's a proper case by case basis. Yeah.

43:42 ↗ Well, it sounds like we were in the in

43:43 ↗ the proposed language. It says you have

43:45 ↗ to replace it unless you're you're on a

43:48 ↗ lot that already has 90% canopy

43:50 ↗ coverage. Then you don't need to

43:53 ↗ replace regardless of the canopy

43:55 ↗ coverage. there's a policy, you know,

43:58 ↗ direction to always have replacement for

44:00 ↗ larger trees. Then that we can fix the

44:02 ↗ language based on.

44:05 ↗ I think it's I appreciate you guys

44:07 ↗ making the changes for the HOA, the

44:09 ↗ larger picture uh permit, that's great.

44:12 ↗ Let them know an urban forest management

44:14 ↗ plan or something along those lines they

44:15 ↗ can implement year over year. I still

44:18 ↗ struggle with the small residential

44:19 ↗ home. Yes. Uh it seems overly burdensome

44:23 ↗ to some of the some of especially some

44:26 ↗ of the older homes. Let's take a

44:27 ↗ landmark tree for example or very large

44:29 ↗ tree growing close to your foundation

44:31 ↗ starting to cause damage to your home.

44:34 ↗ Um now you're going to tell me that I

44:35 ↗ have to pay a whole bunch of money to

44:37 ↗ get a permit to take that tree down and

44:39 ↗ now I have to replace it back on that

44:41 ↗ property where I have no room to place

44:43 ↗ it. I think that's where the confusion

44:45 ↗ is. You have to provide offramps and

44:48 ↗ alternate yes ways for people to meet

44:51 ↗ your requirements what you're looking

44:52 ↗ for but at the same time protective yeah

44:56 ↗ overarching goal is to get the right

44:58 ↗ tree in the right place so that we're

45:00 ↗ not creating this problem 20 years from

45:01 ↗ now that the tree they're trying to you

45:03 ↗ know has to be taken out. So the idea I

45:06 ↗ think the the concept is to to get the

45:09 ↗ right tree and have that balanced

45:10 ↗ approach so that you're not you know

45:13 ↗ anyone could want want trees out for

45:15 ↗ various reasons. Some some people don't

45:18 ↗ like the needles falling down and there

45:19 ↗ you know it's a maintenance headache or

45:21 ↗ whatever versus growing a foundation

45:24 ↗ thing growing into your windows and it

45:26 ↗ become a nuisance from that perspective.

45:28 ↗ So finding that balance of when it's a

45:30 ↗ nuisance versus when it's a desire to

45:32 ↗ take it out. um weighing that out and if

45:36 ↗ it's a nuisance or a hazard allowing it

45:39 ↗ expeditiously without too much hassles

45:43 ↗ and then the the replacement preferred

45:47 ↗ on site in the same sub area or payment

45:50 ↗ and fee fee in lia are the three

45:52 ↗ processes. But if if we can streamline

45:55 ↗ that to say ideally you should be on

45:58 ↗ your on your lot but what's the criteria

46:00 ↗ when we would say you you don't have

46:01 ↗ room or it would make a problem down the

46:04 ↗ road then we automatically jump to those

46:07 ↗ other two alternatives get get it

46:09 ↗ planted in the sub area which you know

46:12 ↗ we know that individual homeowners

46:15 ↗ aren't going to have the ability to go

46:17 ↗ find common land. So the the fact of

46:19 ↗ them would be imminent and annual and

46:22 ↗ that's why we're we're working with at

46:24 ↗ least parks to get some off-site

46:27 ↗ locations identified. So a a property

46:30 ↗ owner can just go and and already have a

46:35 ↗ site that's there for them to go and

46:38 ↗ plant the tree. Um or as as Minnie

46:42 ↗ mentioned the the fiend to put money

46:44 ↗ into the tree fund and then parks would

46:48 ↗ have money to use that for a tree to

46:51 ↗ plant that

46:52 ↗ um you know somewhere in the city in

46:55 ↗ that way. We're not getting a total

46:57 ↗ canopy loss out of it. The only argument

47:00 ↗ you would get from some property owner

47:02 ↗ perhaps would be I already have lots of

47:05 ↗ trees in my yard. You know I want to

47:07 ↗ take this one out because it's a hazard.

47:08 ↗ Why are you making me reflect or why are

47:10 ↗ you making me pay into this treatment?

47:14 ↗ And that's that's where the balance

47:16 ↗ comes in. You know, if your overarching

47:17 ↗ goal is to maybe increase the canopy by

47:20 ↗ 4% and then regardless of what your how

47:24 ↗ many trees you have on your property,

47:25 ↗ you're always subject to replacement. Or

47:28 ↗ do we care to do some, you know, give

47:31 ↗ some folks a break from replanting?

47:34 ↗ That's the policy question.

47:38 ↗ And it's case by case. So if you have a

47:40 ↗ few lot that has an enormous amount of

47:43 ↗ canopy, then yeah, you can let a few

47:45 ↗ trees over here and there, it's actually

47:48 ↗ probably good for the forest. And if you

47:51 ↗ have a tight lot and you really need to

47:53 ↗ preserve that tree somewhere else, maybe

47:56 ↗ was reasonable. I just want it to

47:59 ↗ be if you don't make it reasonable and

48:02 ↗ expeditious to the small homeowner. And

48:05 ↗ I think somebody mentioned it earlier.

48:06 ↗ You're gonna have your Sunday treats go

48:08 ↗ out there.

48:11 ↗ That's not what

48:13 ↗ um I'll start there.

48:18 ↗ Um yeah. So when you were talking about

48:21 ↗ the multif family, you said that the

48:24 ↗ issue is that the older

48:26 ↗ uh properties, they kind of already had

48:29 ↗ like planned out like the growth for the

48:32 ↗ next couple years. What about like newer

48:33 ↗ multi family properties like anthology

48:36 ↗ apartments I think like the last five

48:39 ↗ six years so is there any

48:43 ↗ in in which which apartments I'm sorry

48:45 ↗ anthology apartments yeah um Anthology

48:49 ↗ apartments

48:51 ↗ are they're multif family they're

48:53 ↗ apartments but they are not part of the

48:56 ↗ multif family zone that was looked at in

48:58 ↗ in that study so that would be looked at

49:01 ↗ in Um I think the like excuse or central

49:05 ↗ Isiqua. Um not exactly sure which where

49:10 ↗ where it fell in in that study.

49:14 ↗ Um so we weren't looking at that when we

49:16 ↗ were looking at the multif family

49:18 ↗ buildings. We were just looking at what

49:20 ↗ was the multif family residential land

49:23 ↗ use designation that was in the city. Um

49:26 ↗ and that's an old designation that just

49:29 ↗ is mostly centered around. So that's

49:31 ↗ that's where the those numbers came

49:34 ↗ from. So the numbers for the area that

49:36 ↗ was in like anthology is in from

49:40 ↗ a different set of numbers and I don't

49:42 ↗ know those off the top of my head. And I

49:44 ↗ had another question. So uh I'm not

49:47 ↗ entirely educated on this the human

49:49 ↗ effect thing. Is that the idea that we

49:51 ↗ put more trees down? Yeah. Um you know

49:55 ↗ kind of shading effects on on pavement.

49:58 ↗ Um, pavement is a big source of like

50:01 ↗ localized heat.

50:03 ↗ Um, radiates, you know, absorbs the heat

50:06 ↗ during the day, radiates it off at

50:08 ↗ night.

50:09 ↗ Um, the idea is having more vegetative

50:12 ↗ cover would prevent direct sunlight from

50:15 ↗ hitting it, therefore lowering the the

50:18 ↗ effects of of having that much pavement.

50:21 ↗ So, we're going off of that idea, that

50:23 ↗ would be move planting more trees away

50:24 ↗ from like lakes and like sources of

50:26 ↗ water. Is that at all concerned? So the

50:28 ↗ city's done a map. I think every city

50:30 ↗ had that here. So they looked at uh you

50:34 ↗ know the heat during the day and then

50:36 ↗ during at night. So the areas that have

50:39 ↗ completely shaded you know tradition

50:41 ↗ plateau and others at night time there's

50:43 ↗ a four degree drop in temperature. But

50:46 ↗ central Isiqua and Highlands the

50:48 ↗ developed portion of those that don't

50:50 ↗ have that cover remain hot even during

50:53 ↗ night. So at least four to five degrees

50:55 ↗ higher.

50:57 ↗ Um so so that's sort of you know it's it

51:01 ↗ doesn't get the cooling effect and shade

51:03 ↗ and so I think from a tree code

51:06 ↗ regulation standpoint of how to

51:07 ↗ establish these percentages the the

51:09 ↗ debate is should those areas that we

51:12 ↗ know are urban heat island effects get

51:14 ↗ more percentage coverage requirements.

51:17 ↗ So then I think that then the debate

51:19 ↗ shifts to what are the priorities

51:21 ↗ because some of those areas like central

51:23 ↗ are also designated for more dense

51:26 ↗ development and they have uh you know

51:28 ↗ higher improve surface um requirements.

51:32 ↗ Um so the the idea being that more

51:34 ↗ people would live closer together in

51:36 ↗ that area. Um, so that has other

51:39 ↗ environmental benefits because you're

51:40 ↗ not, you know, with the future light

51:42 ↗ transition, you can walk and take

51:43 ↗ transit, all that kind of stuff, but you

51:45 ↗ still be able to accommodate some

51:47 ↗ greenery because it would be more of a

51:50 ↗ concrete jungle. Um, so how do how do we

51:53 ↗ find that balance where the ideal state

51:56 ↗ but then also the practicality of what

51:59 ↗ what can be accommodated?

52:04 ↗ I think I have you fixed

52:10 ↗ Yeah. Hi. Um I'm Mina and um I just had

52:13 ↗ a question on whether or not this update

52:16 ↗ to the tree code requires like extensive

52:19 ↗ re-evaluation for any of the trees um on

52:23 ↗ any property, but specifically like

52:25 ↗ public property. And if so, like what

52:28 ↗ the focus is, whether that's on new tree

52:30 ↗ planting or new tree removal or

52:33 ↗ re-evaluating from the tree code.

52:37 ↗ um this code is not necessarily doing

52:42 ↗ like looking at the tree inventory that

52:45 ↗ like you're describing. What we would be

52:48 ↗ looking at is

52:51 ↗ periodically reviewing the data using

52:54 ↗ LAR to see how our code as implemented

52:59 ↗ is um affecting our overall canopy

53:03 ↗ target. So that will that's something

53:05 ↗ that we are incorporating and having

53:08 ↗ periodic look. Dan hints uh in his

53:11 ↗ conversations with King County saw a

53:14 ↗ partnership opportunity that we could

53:16 ↗ get some new data by the end of the year

53:19 ↗ which is it was much cheaper than the

53:23 ↗ last study that was done. So we can get

53:25 ↗ the same amount of data for a fraction

53:28 ↗ of the cost. We're looking at what

53:31 ↗ funding sources for that. that may even

53:33 ↗ include some money from tree funds. So,

53:35 ↗ we'll be looking at the data, but not

53:37 ↗ looking at it um on such a fine grade

53:40 ↗ level that you're talking about. I

53:42 ↗ believe Dan is looking at a a public

53:45 ↗ tree inventory as part of the urban

53:47 ↗ forest management

53:49 ↗ plan. So, not necessarily through title

53:52 ↗ 18, but that work will be that work will

53:55 ↗ be done just in in another way by

53:58 ↗ somebody else.

54:00 ↗ Yeah. So the health of the trees that

54:02 ↗ are street trees, publicly owned trees

54:05 ↗ will have completely forestry plan but

54:08 ↗ health of trees on private property and

54:11 ↗ the city sort of have the resources to

54:13 ↗ do assessment of

54:25 ↗ Alex. Thank you. This is Alex.

54:29 ↗ Um I'm going to try and address some of

54:32 ↗ the things that came up with public

54:33 ↗ comment. Um especi so for first for the

54:37 ↗ wildfire risk assessment. I think

54:40 ↗ that it's clear this is becoming more

54:44 ↗ and is is more and more on folks's radar

54:47 ↗ as we're seeing more increased

54:49 ↗ significant fires especially in urban

54:51 ↗ areas across the west. And I think it

54:55 ↗ the city of Isiqua needs to be in ahead

54:58 ↗ of this. Um and so I think it is

55:01 ↗ important to include a standard to allow

55:03 ↗ wildfire risk assessment. I'm curious

55:07 ↗ how the city is thinking about doing

55:10 ↗ this because it sounds like from like

55:12 ↗ what Ann had on her property is that

55:14 ↗ significant they need to do significant

55:17 ↗ removal of brush and trees. So how are

55:20 ↗ we going to allow that? but then also

55:24 ↗ try and maintain this. Are we going to

55:25 ↗ ask people that are having these fire

55:27 ↗ wildfire risk assessments to then pay

55:30 ↗ into the tree fund because they want to

55:33 ↗ keep their home safe, but also we want

55:35 ↗ to make sure we don't lose that canopy

55:37 ↗ coverage. It's a

55:39 ↗ really difficult, tricky thing um to do

55:44 ↗ and I'm curious if

55:46 ↗ um the East Side Fire Rescue had the

55:50 ↗ chance to look at what these standards

55:52 ↗ could be and apply them in a situation

55:54 ↗ where they're going to a home and

55:56 ↗ thinking that through and and then have

55:58 ↗ the city I don't know if there's a

56:00 ↗ possibility

56:01 ↗ for a pilot to program to go into a few

56:05 ↗ houses and look at this code

56:07 ↗ application.

56:08 ↗ in alongside this wildfire risk

56:11 ↗ assessment and see what's actually

56:13 ↗ feasible when we're trying to do

56:14 ↗ something. How much of a burden are we

56:16 ↗ going to put on land owners who want to

56:17 ↗ keep their home safe and address this

56:20 ↗ while also trying to meet this tree

56:21 ↗ code? Um,

56:24 ↗ yeah, I I want to add a little bit more

56:27 ↗ nuance to this whole wildfire discussion

56:29 ↗ because we had gone to council and

56:33 ↗ talked about there was a wildland urban

56:35 ↗ interface code that the state had come

56:38 ↗ up with and uh then it became an

56:41 ↗ optional thing for the city to to do.

56:44 ↗ But it it's a tricky thing because the

56:47 ↗ the mapping um isn't there yet. And so

56:52 ↗ that's the work that's underway with

56:54 ↗ King County and the state department of

56:56 ↗ natural resources where um you know

56:59 ↗ they're looking at uh mapping wildfire

57:02 ↗ risk areas uh and that will become the

57:04 ↗ basis of cities

57:07 ↗ wildlife base you know codes which which

57:11 ↗ could mean you know what type of roofs

57:12 ↗ you you you can have in those areas uh

57:15 ↗ because most of the embers fall on the

57:17 ↗ roof and that's what catches the fire.

57:19 ↗ we'll have vegetation management uh

57:22 ↗ pieces in there, but we're not eastern

57:25 ↗ Washington and you know we're western

57:27 ↗ Washington. So that's sort of the, you

57:29 ↗ know, jail or emergency manager should

57:31 ↗ really great examples of what that

57:34 ↗ wildfire mitigation risk means and it

57:36 ↗ depends on the location. And so I think

57:38 ↗ what was discussed with this board and I

57:40 ↗ think what what one of the commission

57:43 ↗ members was talking about individual

57:44 ↗ assessments on each lot um but they're

57:47 ↗ basing their assessments on, you know,

57:50 ↗ they're trying to be conscious and I

57:51 ↗ think they're not saying you clear

57:53 ↗ everything within 30 ft, but some of

57:55 ↗ that guidance doesn't quite exist yet.

57:57 ↗ So it could depend on who's doing the

57:59 ↗ assessment as to what that uh clearance

58:03 ↗ um circumference looks like. So it could

58:06 ↗ mean just you know very cautious

58:09 ↗ approach and not recommending too many

58:12 ↗ trees to people or it could mean a lot

58:14 ↗ of trees are going to be removed. So it

58:16 ↗ contradicts with the canopy coverage

58:18 ↗ objectives and all. So, but for the city

58:20 ↗ to really understand what the wildfire

58:23 ↗ risk really is, this work that King

58:25 ↗ County in particular natural resources

58:27 ↗ is doing to create those maps has to

58:29 ↗ occur for us to truly understand what

58:31 ↗ the risk is and what mitigation measures

58:33 ↗ make sense. So, that will occur in you

58:36 ↗ know is occurring is underway but it's

58:38 ↗ not done for us to use that as a basis.

58:41 ↗ So just wanted to throw that out that

58:43 ↗ there's individual assessments happening

58:45 ↗ but there's larger conversation about

58:47 ↗ what's the wildfire risk for places like

58:50 ↗ Isqua that at the fringe at the urban

58:52 ↗ fringe where you you do about some uh

58:56 ↗ you know large vacant spaces and what

58:58 ↗ does that difference look like but if

58:59 ↗ you look at our city a lot of

59:02 ↗ trees are surrounding and what those why

59:06 ↗ people choose to live too so there's

59:07 ↗ that balance of what what that risk is

59:11 ↗ what what we need to do. Um so just

59:15 ↗ wanted to kind of throw that out there

59:16 ↗ as well. Yeah. Is there a timeline on

59:19 ↗ those that mapping exercise and when

59:22 ↗ cities can expect to

59:24 ↗ have information on what they should be

59:26 ↗ going with? I asked our emergency

59:29 ↗ manager. He said that it has the work

59:30 ↗ has started but you know I imagine it's

59:33 ↗ going to be at least a year not more

59:34 ↗ out. Okay. And then do

59:38 ↗ we think that at that time we'd be then

59:41 ↗ needing to relook at this code again and

59:44 ↗ change it based on those assessments or

59:46 ↗ would a new code potentially be adopted

59:48 ↗ that specifically addressed wildfire

59:50 ↗ risk like you were saying there would be

59:52 ↗ other things

59:54 ↗ like Yeah. So we would have to revisit

59:57 ↗ this anyways at that time. Um, plus we

1:00:00 ↗ would have to revisit our building code

1:00:02 ↗ because some of the requirements for

1:00:03 ↗ what type of roof you can have and all

1:00:05 ↗ that is lives in our building code. So,

1:00:07 ↗ it just won't be precode that'll be

1:00:11 ↗ okay. Okay. Thank you for that

1:00:13 ↗ information.

1:00:16 ↗ Um,

1:00:19 ↗ the I find I I understand why there's so

1:00:22 ↗ much confusion um coming across public

1:00:25 ↗ comment and from board comments.

1:00:27 ↗ Um

1:00:29 ↗ it's I think it it definitely needs to

1:00:33 ↗ be readressed so that things are clear

1:00:36 ↗ when I'm not sure how to make that

1:00:39 ↗ happen so that you understand like the

1:00:40 ↗ onetoone replacement rather than

1:00:42 ↗ redevelopment. It feels like it's just

1:00:46 ↗ not called out on how these things are

1:00:49 ↗ being applied. And perhaps that's even

1:00:53 ↗ in the section that's that's titled tree

1:00:55 ↗ canopy coverage. And you have the actual

1:00:58 ↗ listings of what the zoning will be. It

1:01:02 ↗ seems I'm trying to look at it directly,

1:01:04 ↗ but it doesn't seem like it says this is

1:01:07 ↗ not applying to just tree removal. it's

1:01:11 ↗ applying specifically to redevelopment

1:01:13 ↗ and new development and maybe that's

1:01:15 ↗ where that needs to be called out. Yeah.

1:01:18 ↗ Um and I also wanted to just check so as

1:01:22 ↗ how these the

1:01:24 ↗ zoning most of our other

1:01:27 ↗ codes are by zone. Is that correct? Like

1:01:31 ↗ it's a lot of other codes apply by lot

1:01:34 ↗ size and commercial facilities. Is that

1:01:38 ↗ correct? rather than neighborhood, I

1:01:41 ↗ guess, is what I'm trying to say because

1:01:43 ↗ this Yeah. And so I think that that

1:01:46 ↗ makes sense to have it by the zoning,

1:01:51 ↗ but I understand where there's confusion

1:01:53 ↗ coming on how we're looking at the city

1:01:56 ↗ of Isiqua based on neighborhood and

1:01:58 ↗ keeping these neighborhood

1:02:01 ↗ um personalities um or characters. And

1:02:05 ↗ so I don't know how you address that. So

1:02:07 ↗ that this then kind of reflect that

1:02:09 ↗ reflects the comps plan's vision of it.

1:02:13 ↗ Um

1:02:14 ↗ and part of a thing I think is also the

1:02:18 ↗ the canopy study that we based this off

1:02:21 ↗ off in 2019 had these you know had it

1:02:25 ↗ split by neighborhoods.

1:02:27 ↗ Okay. And and so that identified areas

1:02:31 ↗ that are potential urban heat island and

1:02:33 ↗ and others are not others. So there

1:02:36 ↗ isn't one size fits all. Uh it's easier

1:02:38 ↗ to implement if people can look up their

1:02:40 ↗ zoning. But maybe there's a blend of the

1:02:43 ↗ two, you know, approach where you look

1:02:46 ↗ at

1:02:48 ↗ um an area, a neighborhood that then

1:02:50 ↗ establishes the lot sizes. Um this is a

1:02:55 ↗ bigger policy discussion I think for

1:02:58 ↗ this board is are the percentage and the

1:03:00 ↗ approach coverage. Yeah. compared to

1:03:03 ↗ some of the other elements. Yes. And

1:03:06 ↗ what we were what we're trying to do

1:03:09 ↗ with with the canopy coverage is in the

1:03:12 ↗ in the 2019 study that kind of

1:03:14 ↗ established the canopy coverage by sub

1:03:16 ↗ area is we were taking those sub area

1:03:19 ↗ canopy. So looking at the entire

1:03:21 ↗ neighborhood, establishing a target by

1:03:24 ↗ looking at what's existing in that

1:03:25 ↗ entire neighborhood and that's capturing

1:03:27 ↗ forested hillsides and open spaces and

1:03:31 ↗ and then applying that onto an

1:03:33 ↗ individual lot was just it was

1:03:36 ↗ problematic to do that. So that's why

1:03:39 ↗ we're looking at when we're doing

1:03:42 ↗ development permits, we're looking at

1:03:43 ↗ zoning. We're not looking at, you know,

1:03:46 ↗ Talis sub area or Squawk Mountain sub

1:03:49 ↗ area. we're looking at the specific zone

1:03:50 ↗ and applying standards to those specific

1:03:52 ↗ zones. So, we're trying to take the same

1:03:55 ↗ approach um while recognizing like each

1:03:58 ↗ of these sub areas does have a canopy

1:04:00 ↗ target that's identified and we still

1:04:03 ↗ want to meet that but not necessarily on

1:04:05 ↗ the backs of private property owners

1:04:09 ↗ because there are other areas within

1:04:10 ↗ that neighborhood that could use canopy

1:04:13 ↗ coverage as well, you know, such as

1:04:16 ↗ right away for instance. Yeah. And we

1:04:18 ↗ don't have data for you know in the sub

1:04:21 ↗ area how much of it is common protected

1:04:24 ↗ open space percentage and how much of it

1:04:27 ↗ is on these individual town homes for

1:04:29 ↗ instance right that that level of data

1:04:32 ↗ from the canopy study is not available

1:04:34 ↗ for us to to synthesize the information

1:04:37 ↗ to say okay in Talis overall canopy

1:04:40 ↗ coverage is 73%. But we know for those

1:04:42 ↗ individual town homes it's not that. But

1:04:46 ↗ what isn't is also the missing piece

1:04:48 ↗ from our um study. Okay. Yeah.

1:04:53 ↗ I

1:04:54 ↗ think so. My question for these these

1:04:57 ↗ percentages then is how realistic is it

1:05:01 ↗ for a new development of a single family

1:05:04 ↗ lot that's 15,000 ft to hit that 45%.

1:05:07 ↗ So, what we heard from

1:05:09 ↗ um one of the community members was that

1:05:11 ↗ their neighborhood, the houses that fit

1:05:14 ↗ within these lots come very far below

1:05:16 ↗ these. And I'm thinking about how that

1:05:19 ↗ then is applicable for new developments

1:05:21 ↗ if we want them to meet this. Are they

1:05:23 ↗ actually going to be able to meet these

1:05:26 ↗ canopy requirements? Is it going to

1:05:28 ↗ require them to build smaller homes and

1:05:30 ↗ have less um non non-p permeable

1:05:33 ↗ surfaces so that they can actually meet

1:05:35 ↗ it or

1:05:37 ↗ um is it realistic, I guess, is what I'm

1:05:40 ↗ just trying to to make sure.

1:05:43 ↗ Excuse me. Um yes, I I mean I I think

1:05:47 ↗ it's

1:05:48 ↗ achievable. We're going to have to

1:05:50 ↗ continually to monitor it. What wasn't

1:05:53 ↗ achievable were our canopy targets for

1:05:56 ↗ some of these areas that were

1:05:58 ↗ exceptionally high when placing them

1:06:01 ↗ onto an individual lot. So now this

1:06:03 ↗ adjusts them somewhat. We can look at

1:06:05 ↗ it, see if it works, and if it's working

1:06:08 ↗ great. If we can improve on it, we can

1:06:12 ↗ improve on it. Or if we have to come

1:06:14 ↗ back and and readjust and and try to

1:06:17 ↗ find a different approach, we can do

1:06:19 ↗ that. And that's where one of our

1:06:21 ↗ recommendations from from Fast Light was

1:06:24 ↗ was to continually monitor this. And

1:06:26 ↗ that's where Dan Hint and I have been

1:06:28 ↗ talking about like how frequently do we

1:06:30 ↗ want to look at these canopy these

1:06:33 ↗ canopy numbers and are are we

1:06:35 ↗ approaching are we hitting are there

1:06:36 ↗ adjustments that need to be made?

1:06:38 ↗ because I don't really think we know for

1:06:42 ↗ sure whether or not this is going to

1:06:45 ↗ work to meet the goals that we've

1:06:48 ↗ identified. Yeah. Or we're going to try

1:06:50 ↗ individual basis. You had some case

1:06:52 ↗ studies. We had our consultant do some

1:06:54 ↗ case studies to see can you fit in a

1:06:56 ↗ house can and still have how much room

1:06:58 ↗ and what is the like most likely

1:07:00 ↗ percentage you can actually fit in in

1:07:02 ↗ these properties. That that somewhat

1:07:04 ↗ informed some of these percentages. But

1:07:07 ↗ I think from a policy discussion with

1:07:09 ↗ this board today is we have these by

1:07:13 ↗ sublia we have proposed something by

1:07:16 ↗ zone with some targeted

1:07:19 ↗ percentages. Do we go with one or the

1:07:22 ↗ other approach? Do we wait for the

1:07:24 ↗ canopy study that Dan Hens is working on

1:07:28 ↗ with King

1:07:29 ↗ County and let it be let it be what it

1:07:33 ↗ is now. understanding that it could be

1:07:35 ↗ problematic for some homeowners to not

1:07:37 ↗ meet those percentages, but we would

1:07:39 ↗ just have them paid uh into the payment

1:07:41 ↗ and fee law that you know uh and but it

1:07:45 ↗ only gets triggered if you're building a

1:07:46 ↗ brand new home or you're expanding and

1:07:49 ↗ you're increasing the value of the

1:07:51 ↗ property by 50% or more. This isn't if

1:07:54 ↗ you're cutting down one tree. That's a

1:07:56 ↗ different thing. If you're cutting the

1:07:57 ↗ one tree, you got to replace a 1:1 ratio

1:08:00 ↗ or 1:2 ratio for annual trees.

1:08:03 ↗ But when do these these percentages come

1:08:07 ↗ into play would be for new development

1:08:10 ↗ and for redevelopment?

1:08:12 ↗ What is the timeline on the plan that or

1:08:15 ↗ the assessment that Dan is working on? I

1:08:17 ↗ know we've heard this before, but can

1:08:19 ↗ you remind me? Uh I just I spoke to him

1:08:22 ↗ last week about it. He brought it to my

1:08:24 ↗ attention. I don't have a timeline on

1:08:26 ↗ that, but I could uh reach out to him

1:08:29 ↗ and try to get you kind of an estimate

1:08:32 ↗ on on when that can occur. Uh he just

1:08:36 ↗ found out about it and was discussing

1:08:38 ↗ like what the cost would be last week to

1:08:41 ↗ my attention. Okay. So it it that that's

1:08:44 ↗ likely been at least a year out from

1:08:45 ↗ getting results. Yeah. Yeah. He was he

1:08:48 ↗ was looking at trying to get this done

1:08:50 ↗ by the end of the year. Okay. Okay.

1:08:55 ↗ Thank you.

1:08:57 ↗ I think that covers my questions. Thank

1:08:59 ↗ you. Sorry. Um I think you as a city

1:09:03 ↗ need to have that internal discussion of

1:09:04 ↗ what works the the best way to get your

1:09:07 ↗ tree plant goals. Um but I am continuing

1:09:11 ↗ to hear that there's kind of two sides

1:09:13 ↗ to this tree permit. I think that really

1:09:16 ↗ needs some clarification. There's a new

1:09:18 ↗ redevelopment side and then there's just

1:09:21 ↗ the homeowner that wants to do the right

1:09:22 ↗ thing. Yeah. the tree preservation

1:09:24 ↗ itself as a is a you know continuous

1:09:28 ↗ thing. So you have a whole you know

1:09:30 ↗ whatever you're doing even if they're

1:09:32 ↗ redeveloping you still have tree

1:09:34 ↗ preservation go that is 25% or whatever

1:09:37 ↗ percentage of your caliper inches not

1:09:39 ↗ canopy cover but the size of the tree

1:09:41 ↗ you add all of them up and they say 25%

1:09:44 ↗ of them you have to say you know in this

1:09:46 ↗ particular area so that tree

1:09:48 ↗ preservation plays into a role then

1:09:50 ↗ there is tree removal or hazardous tree

1:09:52 ↗ removal and then there is planting new

1:09:55 ↗ trees uh when you're doing new

1:09:57 ↗ development redevelopment to meet your

1:10:00 ↗ canopy coverage goals for that area

1:10:01 ↗ based on either zoning or the sub area

1:10:04 ↗ whatever that situation but there could

1:10:07 ↗ be different things going on suggest try

1:10:09 ↗ to clean that language up so it's easier

1:10:11 ↗ for folks I am curious what is the cost

1:10:14 ↗ of a fee in blue if I were a reminch

1:10:22 ↗ yeah it's a it's flat fee of $1,000 and

1:10:25 ↗ that that covers the cost of the tree

1:10:27 ↗ and then three years of maintenance. And

1:10:30 ↗ that was that was the cost that was

1:10:32 ↗ established with our department working

1:10:34 ↗ with parks department specifically Dan

1:10:37 ↗ on how much that would be because

1:10:39 ↗ they're the ones that would be planting

1:10:40 ↗ the tree and maintaining it. They came

1:10:43 ↗ to

1:10:47 ↗ $1,000 on that subject. I know that some

1:10:50 ↗ of this language talks about the

1:10:52 ↗ replacement tree needing to match canopy

1:10:54 ↗ requirements and stuff the old tree. Um,

1:10:57 ↗ so the flat fee confuses me. The next

1:11:00 ↗ the new tree replacing it needs to match

1:11:03 ↗ that. You need more for those instances

1:11:07 ↗ less. That was something that that we

1:11:10 ↗ were looking at like what you know it

1:11:13 ↗ got confusing at that point. So then we

1:11:15 ↗ were just like, okay, what can we do to

1:11:18 ↗ simplify it instead of like we know, you

1:11:21 ↗ know, a Doug fur is going to have a

1:11:23 ↗ certain canopy, it's going to have a

1:11:24 ↗ certain cost. So, kind of trying to find

1:11:26 ↗ that like middle ground to where, you

1:11:29 ↗ know, because Parks isn't going to know

1:11:32 ↗ that specific $1,000 is for a western

1:11:35 ↗ red cedar. They're going to take that

1:11:37 ↗ and and plant plant a tree somewhere.

1:11:40 ↗ Maybe it would exceed that canopy. Maybe

1:11:43 ↗ that particular tree won't, but overall,

1:11:46 ↗ we're hoping that it would kind of even

1:11:48 ↗ itself out depending on what tree was

1:11:51 ↗ removed. And then to simplify the cost,

1:11:53 ↗ just making it like what is the average

1:11:56 ↗ tree cost and then how much staff time

1:11:59 ↗ it how much staff time and effort is it

1:12:02 ↗ to maintain that tree like going out

1:12:05 ↗ there making like mulching it, watering

1:12:08 ↗ it, staking it, whatever they have to do

1:12:11 ↗ over that threeyear period.

1:12:17 ↗ comments from the board.

1:12:21 ↗ You guys get what you needed from us?

1:12:24 ↗ Uh, policy questions.

1:12:27 ↗ Um, oh yeah, policy questions. So, I

1:12:30 ↗ guess we'll we'll go through. So, I I've

1:12:32 ↗ got got some more feedback.

1:12:36 ↗ Um, take this back with uh myself and

1:12:40 ↗ Minnie and and Stephen can continue fine

1:12:43 ↗ grain. I mean, we're we've got plan

1:12:46 ↗ policy commission next week and we can

1:12:48 ↗ just continue to tweak and it's um you

1:12:52 ↗ know, it's still open for for changes.

1:12:54 ↗ So, um but in terms of the policy

1:12:57 ↗ questions for the board, we have these

1:13:00 ↗ five. a lot of it has to do with what

1:13:03 ↗ we've discussed at the last board

1:13:05 ↗ meeting and just seeing if if you know

1:13:09 ↗ you agree with it or if you have any

1:13:11 ↗ additional feedback on two of these

1:13:13 ↗ policy questions.

1:13:15 ↗ So I think what may be helpful is if we

1:13:17 ↗ read one out. So yeah, the first one is

1:13:20 ↗ does the board have feedback on

1:13:22 ↗ including a standard to allow a wildfire

1:13:24 ↗ risk assessment as a basis to allow tree

1:13:27 ↗ removal or do we wait until the whole

1:13:30 ↗ mapping is complete by King County and

1:13:32 ↗ we know what the wildfire risk is in the

1:13:35 ↗ port

1:13:37 ↗ city

1:13:40 ↗ county could be a very long time. Yeah,

1:13:44 ↗ I would second that. Okay. Does the

1:13:47 ↗ ruling code with the state play into

1:13:49 ↗ this at all? Yeah, that's what we would,

1:13:52 ↗ you know, we're waiting for all of that

1:13:54 ↗ information to be produced and then we

1:13:57 ↗ have to fix this. So if we don't wait,

1:14:01 ↗ is there a consensus to not

1:14:04 ↗ wait and just put some language in the

1:14:07 ↗ tree code to allow or remove the trees

1:14:09 ↗ or I guess my only concern was would we

1:14:12 ↗ have to revisit this soon anyway because

1:14:14 ↗ of that will code or we that's a

1:14:17 ↗ possibility depending on what comes out

1:14:19 ↗ of it. I'm more than likely yes. there's

1:14:23 ↗ going to be some changes to the tree

1:14:25 ↗ code when when the woolly code is

1:14:27 ↗ provided to us and we'll know what to

1:14:29 ↗ do. So my my my personal recommendation

1:14:32 ↗ would be great because putting card in

1:14:33 ↗ front of the work sometimes can be you

1:14:35 ↗ know good people will say yes this needs

1:14:38 ↗ to be preserved and redo it but the

1:14:40 ↗ wildfire risk assessments are other

1:14:42 ↗ things besides trees too you know it may

1:14:44 ↗ be just limiting of the trees it's not

1:14:46 ↗ removal of the trees but a tree removal

1:14:49 ↗ could you know if it the wildfire risk

1:14:51 ↗ it probably could qualify as a nuisance

1:14:53 ↗ or a hazard tree because it's too close

1:14:55 ↗ to your structure. So there are already

1:14:57 ↗ provisions in the code for removal of

1:14:59 ↗ those kind of trees um as a nuisance or

1:15:03 ↗ a hazard tree. I got something to add to

1:15:05 ↗ that too. I'm glad you mentioned that.

1:15:07 ↗ So one of the things that we did change

1:15:09 ↗ as a as a minor amendment in here is

1:15:12 ↗ changing the definition of new sickness

1:15:14 ↗ tree that

1:15:16 ↗ um currently it's it's causing obvious

1:15:19 ↗ physical damage and now it has the

1:15:22 ↗ potential to cause obvious physical

1:15:23 ↗ damage. So, a tree planted too close may

1:15:27 ↗ not be damaging your foundation now, but

1:15:29 ↗ you know those roots in the next several

1:15:31 ↗ years will probably grow into it and

1:15:33 ↗ cause problems. Um, so we've added that

1:15:37 ↗ language in there too. So, there are

1:15:39 ↗ provision that you know if you but the

1:15:41 ↗ wildfire risk assessment also looks at

1:15:43 ↗ you do you have dead dead wood stored

1:15:45 ↗ under your deck? Do you have some metal

1:15:47 ↗ grills that protected you from ambush?

1:15:50 ↗ other good things that come out of that

1:15:52 ↗ assessment and then living of the trees

1:15:54 ↗ is already permitted as long as you're

1:15:55 ↗ not removing you know 1/4 of a tree kind

1:15:58 ↗ of thing. Um so we feel it's that part

1:16:01 ↗ is addressed without calling it out as a

1:16:03 ↗ wildfire risk. Um but I think the

1:16:05 ↗ current proposed language as you asked

1:16:07 ↗ we have put that in. So that said we're

1:16:11 ↗ looking for direction there. Did we

1:16:12 ↗ leave that

1:16:15 ↗ in? Um, knowing that there aren't any

1:16:18 ↗ rooms specific for Western

1:16:20 ↗ Washington at this time. So, it depends

1:16:23 ↗ on the person doing the assessment to to

1:16:25 ↗ make the call and and we have a great

1:16:28 ↗ fire department and they're doing a

1:16:30 ↗ great job and they're taking a

1:16:32 ↗ conservative approach of what needs to

1:16:33 ↗ be proned and trimmed. Not saying

1:16:35 ↗ everything within 30 ft has to be

1:16:37 ↗ cleared out, but that's the standard

1:16:40 ↗ currently is 30 ft. on that's all

1:16:42 ↗ anywhere in the state.

1:16:48 ↗ Who reviews these street permits?

1:16:51 ↗ Department of Communication.

1:16:53 ↗ Yeah, you guys do.

1:17:00 ↗ I don't have an answer for you on that.

1:17:02 ↗ It would be up to the reviewer to say,

1:17:03 ↗ does this make sense or is this seem

1:17:06 ↗ shady? I think we would just take the

1:17:09 ↗ the fire department's assessment then

1:17:11 ↗ and approve it if it's done by the fire

1:17:14 ↗ department. Yeah. And how we have the

1:17:16 ↗ code written. I mean, we we had

1:17:19 ↗ extensive conversations with with Kath

1:17:22 ↗ from East Side Fire and she is the only

1:17:25 ↗ person that does them in Isiqua and then

1:17:27 ↗ King Conservation District or she does

1:17:29 ↗ them. She does all of them for the

1:17:32 ↗ municipalities that East Side Fire has

1:17:35 ↗ contracts with and then King

1:17:36 ↗ Conservation District does all of

1:17:39 ↗ Corporation County not covered by East

1:17:41 ↗ Side Fire. So, she's the only one doing

1:17:44 ↗ we have it. So, it's only wildfire risk

1:17:48 ↗ assessments from East Side Fire Rescue.

1:17:51 ↗ This isn't You can't just get anybody to

1:17:53 ↗ do it. Even if they have the

1:17:55 ↗ qualifications, she does them for the

1:17:57 ↗ city. Um, it's going to be through that.

1:18:01 ↗ Alex, do you have a comment?

1:18:05 ↗ Yeah. um rather than adding the language

1:18:08 ↗ in the code um where it's currently you

1:18:11 ↗ have it like um letter H or something

1:18:13 ↗ under that that number, would it be

1:18:16 ↗ possible to update the nuisance tree

1:18:20 ↗ language just a little bit more to

1:18:22 ↗ include potential wildfire risk as

1:18:25 ↗ identified

1:18:26 ↗ by this one of these assessments?

1:18:30 ↗ Sure. And that way it it includes it

1:18:33 ↗ within the nuisance tree. then it

1:18:35 ↗ becomes a nuisance tree. Um potentially

1:18:37 ↗ if the if the wildfire or sorry if the

1:18:40 ↗ fire department identifies it as such it

1:18:43 ↗ would allow land owners to take it out

1:18:46 ↗ um or give it more

1:18:50 ↗ and it's actually a nuisance. Yeah.

1:18:53 ↗ Not sure we can do that.

1:18:56 ↗ And Alex just to clarify then waiting

1:18:58 ↗ till the other assessments are done to

1:19:00 ↗ further update the code. Yeah. So just

1:19:02 ↗ moving the update or can another update

1:19:05 ↗ to the nuisance tree definition to make

1:19:07 ↗ sure it is clear that something that's

1:19:10 ↗ identified by the fire department as a

1:19:12 ↗ potential risk could be removed as a

1:19:15 ↗ nuisance tree rather than having it

1:19:17 ↗ specifically under the tree removal

1:19:20 ↗ section.

1:19:22 ↗ Um yeah right. Yeah.

1:19:29 ↗ You have any more feedback on the first

1:19:32 ↗ policy question? The second one says,

1:19:34 ↗ does the board have feedback on the new

1:19:36 ↗ methodology to calculate tree canopy

1:19:39 ↗ coverage requirements? So, this is the

1:19:40 ↗ percentage based on zoning and lot size

1:19:44 ↗ versus

1:19:45 ↗ neighboring. So, the options for looking

1:19:48 ↗ for guidance is leave as is, but let be

1:19:52 ↗ more flexible with letting people pay

1:19:55 ↗ into the tree fund, not hold them to

1:19:57 ↗ that. go with what's proposed, you know,

1:20:00 ↗ a different methodology, understanding

1:20:02 ↗ that some of those percentages are

1:20:04 ↗ reduced, but it's it's a perceived

1:20:06 ↗ reduction in percentages

1:20:08 ↗ because it's our best guess at what the

1:20:11 ↗ percentages are for those

1:20:14 ↗ lots because the neighborhood

1:20:16 ↗ percentages include protected tree

1:20:18 ↗ canopy areas. This is this is what we

1:20:20 ↗ think is closest to what the the lots

1:20:24 ↗ are. Uh but there's no this isn't in the

1:20:28 ↗ exact science. Uh

1:20:30 ↗ so do what we've proposed or wait for

1:20:34 ↗ the more nuanced tree canopy that Dan H

1:20:37 ↗ is working on. But in the meantime

1:20:40 ↗ clarify that these come into play when

1:20:42 ↗ you're building brand new buildings and

1:20:44 ↗ then when you're redeveloping the 50%

1:20:46 ↗ threshold because I think that that's

1:20:48 ↗ how these come into play. they don't

1:20:49 ↗ come into play. If you're doing interior

1:20:52 ↗ remodel and you're not doing anything to

1:20:53 ↗ the outside of your lot, it doesn't

1:20:56 ↗ doesn't trigger it or a tree removal

1:20:58 ↗ doesn't trigger these kind of things.

1:21:02 ↗ Thank you. I hear some head nods over

1:21:04 ↗ there that that's the intent previously,

1:21:06 ↗ but we're we're saying that's a problem

1:21:09 ↗ because it's not, you know, removing one

1:21:11 ↗ tree and suddenly having 67% street

1:21:14 ↗ coverage is what we're hearing from

1:21:16 ↗ community members that that's that's not

1:21:18 ↗ an impact what we're trying to do. Um,

1:21:23 ↗ what are you going to do with the

1:21:24 ↗ information that Dan provides you when

1:21:25 ↗ he's done with the study? you know, to

1:21:27 ↗ see if we can tease out uh what the what

1:21:30 ↗ the percentage is for these uh developed

1:21:34 ↗ lots and target more of a our goal of 4%

1:21:39 ↗ canopy in you know increase and what

1:21:42 ↗ does the percentage mean on those

1:21:44 ↗ developed

1:21:46 ↗ areas?

1:21:48 ↗ Am I correct in understanding that

1:21:51 ↗ future um information that we get along

1:21:54 ↗ those lines will cross reference that

1:21:56 ↗ with the data that you get from uh

1:21:58 ↗ applications for tree removal to see how

1:22:01 ↗ many trees might be being removed

1:22:03 ↗ without permits too? Sure. We we can

1:22:06 ↗ take feedback from you all to see what

1:22:08 ↗ what is a better way to do it. What data

1:22:10 ↗ do we need to establish these

1:22:12 ↗ percentages? if you have feedback for us

1:22:14 ↗ related to that, you know, that may be

1:22:16 ↗ useful too. I think I got the impression

1:22:18 ↗ that was something that you were hoping

1:22:20 ↗ to use to test the efficacy of the the

1:22:24 ↗ code. Yeah. Right. Got

1:22:30 ↗ just to see how we're progressing on

1:22:33 ↗ meeting our overall goal of 55%.

1:22:37 ↗ And we need to make tweaks and

1:22:39 ↗ adjustments. What do those look like?

1:22:41 ↗ Yeah. So this is the biggest policy

1:22:43 ↗ question. We can come back to it for

1:22:45 ↗ feedback. The third one is does the

1:22:47 ↗ board have feedback on which thresholds

1:22:49 ↗ require compl compliance with full tree

1:22:52 ↗ canopy coverage. So that is if you're

1:22:54 ↗ building new and redevelopment but not

1:22:57 ↗ for your if you're not making any

1:22:59 ↗ changes to the outside or if you're

1:23:01 ↗ removing a dead nuisance tree those get

1:23:04 ↗ triggered like for light replacement

1:23:06 ↗ gets triggered but not full. Yeah. not

1:23:10 ↗ having you remove one tree and have to

1:23:12 ↗ plant six in order to get to your 65%

1:23:16 ↗ canopy target. And that's the other

1:23:19 ↗ public comment you received tonight and

1:23:21 ↗ that we tried to fix it. If it didn't

1:23:22 ↗ come across the language, we can tweak

1:23:24 ↗ the language, but that's the policy

1:23:26 ↗ question. Yeah. So, is there consensus

1:23:30 ↗ among the board members or any feedback

1:23:32 ↗ related to that issue? My opinion, I

1:23:35 ↗ think your intent is honest there and

1:23:37 ↗ you're very

1:23:40 ↗ Any dissenting

1:23:42 ↗ opinions? Anyone? Okay. So, the fourth

1:23:47 ↗ one is does the board have feedback on

1:23:49 ↗ the proposed flexibility for central

1:23:52 ↗ sub? Now, we didn't talk about it at

1:23:54 ↗ this point and that's a new thing that

1:23:56 ↗ we put at this time. It was not

1:23:58 ↗ something that was shared with the board

1:23:59 ↗ last meeting. It was it was presented to

1:24:03 ↗ environmental board and to plan policy

1:24:04 ↗ commission. We didn't talk about it in

1:24:07 ↗ this presentation. um because that was

1:24:09 ↗ providing information on the feedback

1:24:10 ↗ that was received. I don't think we

1:24:12 ↗ received anything but I can I can go

1:24:14 ↗ back and to discuss that a little bit

1:24:16 ↗ more to to jog your memory. That is

1:24:19 ↗ where we've we've added criteria

1:24:22 ↗ um to allow for tree retention. So this

1:24:25 ↗ is separate from tree canopy. So when a

1:24:28 ↗ a site comes in for development, there's

1:24:31 ↗ tree retention that they have to retain

1:24:33 ↗ a certain percentage of caliber inches

1:24:35 ↗ on site. In central WA, it's mostly

1:24:39 ↗ developed. A lot of it is suburban style

1:24:41 ↗ development. And what what is targeted

1:24:44 ↗ for there is more urban style infill

1:24:47 ↗ development. So the trees that are

1:24:50 ↗ located there are a lot of them are just

1:24:54 ↗ landscape trees or parking lot trees.

1:24:56 ↗ And so having a a development have to

1:25:00 ↗ retain those trees which may not even

1:25:02 ↗ survive the the development that's going

1:25:05 ↗ to occur adjacent to them. Um this would

1:25:08 ↗ allow some flexibility to where they can

1:25:10 ↗ drop below that 25% but any amount below

1:25:14 ↗ that 25% would then be money they'd have

1:25:17 ↗ to pay into the tree fund or plant

1:25:20 ↗ additional trees on site as part of

1:25:23 ↗ their development or off-site too. Um

1:25:25 ↗ but our our guess is the mostly most

1:25:28 ↗ likely scenario would just be paid to

1:25:29 ↗ the tree funds. Yeah. And you know to

1:25:32 ↗ build on what was saying I think just to

1:25:35 ↗ make sure everyone's understanding how

1:25:37 ↗ tree preservation applies and then these

1:25:39 ↗ are new codes. So the tree preservation

1:25:41 ↗ has a percentage of the tree caliber

1:25:44 ↗ inches you have to say. So this would

1:25:46 ↗ provide a flexibility on that. But on

1:25:49 ↗ top of that, any new development or

1:25:51 ↗ redevelopment would still have to comply

1:25:53 ↗ with the canopy coverage codes for

1:25:55 ↗ central 28%. You when everything is said

1:25:59 ↗ and done, you would still have 28%

1:26:01 ↗ canopy coverage uh achieved by that

1:26:05 ↗ approval. It just won't be with your

1:26:07 ↗ existing trees. So potential loss

1:26:10 ↗ temporarily, you know, when larger trees

1:26:12 ↗ are taken down until the new ones kind

1:26:14 ↗ of take off. So there could be a a gap

1:26:17 ↗ of years when you would lose your canopy

1:26:20 ↗ but ultimately it would come up to 28%

1:26:23 ↗ or whatever percentage we we come up to.

1:26:26 ↗ So that's sort of you know the the

1:26:28 ↗ balancing act with central wise that's

1:26:30 ↗ where the designated growth is. Um but

1:26:34 ↗ you know more work could be done in

1:26:36 ↗ terms of putting some book ends around

1:26:39 ↗ that you still want to try and preserve.

1:26:42 ↗ this isn't your first thing, but the

1:26:44 ↗ likely chances, you know, when it's a

1:26:46 ↗ pain to have to work around when you're

1:26:49 ↗ ripping up all the asphalt from from

1:26:51 ↗ your location. So, we had three examples

1:26:53 ↗ in Central that were currently sort of

1:26:55 ↗ playing out. One is where there's an

1:26:58 ↗ existing building that they want to tear

1:27:00 ↗ down and build town homes. I think we

1:27:02 ↗ kind of shared that example in the last

1:27:04 ↗ presentation. There's a stream there.

1:27:06 ↗ It's paved area next to the stream.

1:27:09 ↗ There are some parking lot trees. some

1:27:10 ↗ of them are conifers and you know and so

1:27:12 ↗ on. Uh so so the nuance in the code is

1:27:17 ↗ you have to save 25% of the trees in the

1:27:20 ↗ developable portion of the lot. So at a

1:27:22 ↗ minimum we want to say you know it's a

1:27:24 ↗ good thing that they're going to take

1:27:25 ↗ out ascol from the stream. If they can't

1:27:28 ↗ save those trees we probably will try

1:27:30 ↗ and get those to be saved at least in

1:27:32 ↗ the stream buffer. uh but the chances of

1:27:34 ↗ big vehicles you know moving in and

1:27:37 ↗ taking the airport out they potentially

1:27:38 ↗ could die but we you know so that's sort

1:27:41 ↗ of the practical aspects of the

1:27:43 ↗ construction and preserving trees comes

1:27:46 ↗ into play. The other examples we have

1:27:49 ↗ are

1:27:50 ↗ um that's where the building's going to

1:27:52 ↗ go. It's a parking lot now. So all those

1:27:54 ↗ parking lots are going to redevelop into

1:27:57 ↗ built forms and buildings. How do we

1:27:59 ↗ save trees there? Uh the third example

1:28:02 ↗ is an undeveloped property that has

1:28:05 ↗ strand of trees. They may not be good

1:28:07 ↗ quality trees. They may be cottonwoods,

1:28:10 ↗ but do we let them take those out with

1:28:13 ↗ the hope that the new trees will grow

1:28:15 ↗ and they'll meet the

1:28:17 ↗ 28%. Um right now the way the code is

1:28:19 ↗ written, it's hard. you know, you you

1:28:22 ↗ have to meet

1:28:24 ↗ 25% of the scalp per regardless of

1:28:27 ↗ whether they are cottonwoods or they're

1:28:29 ↗ parking lot trees or they're in a

1:28:31 ↗ critical impact. It it has been

1:28:33 ↗ distinguished that uh in order to get

1:28:35 ↗ any flexibility, you have to go through

1:28:37 ↗ a variance process. So this was our

1:28:40 ↗ attempt at saying do we build some

1:28:42 ↗ flexibility for getting more growth in

1:28:46 ↗ our designated growth center but yet

1:28:48 ↗ still meet some of those objectives of

1:28:50 ↗ not losing the tree canopy and you know

1:28:54 ↗ um and all those other goals that we

1:28:56 ↗ have. How do we find that balance? So

1:28:58 ↗ we're soliciting feedback from you where

1:29:01 ↗ that that balance belongs in this

1:29:04 ↗ question.

1:29:06 ↗ A couple comments out there. Alex,

1:29:08 ↗ you're open.

1:29:10 ↗ Thanks, Don. Um, I think I support the

1:29:14 ↗ flexibility um for this area. I think it

1:29:17 ↗ makes sense to not be trying to preserve

1:29:19 ↗ some of those parking lot trees that

1:29:21 ↗ aren't providing shade in the first

1:29:22 ↗ place and some of those other ones. Um

1:29:25 ↗ especially with the further

1:29:26 ↗ redevelopment, I think where the nuance

1:29:28 ↗ is going to come in is is really pushing

1:29:31 ↗ for those trees to be new trees to be

1:29:34 ↗ planted on site and considered in the

1:29:37 ↗ development so that we don't amplify the

1:29:40 ↗ heat island effect because I think this

1:29:42 ↗ is the area where we're going to have

1:29:44 ↗ the most impact

1:29:46 ↗ um currently and potentially into the

1:29:48 ↗ future um from that loss of of any

1:29:53 ↗ canopy cover. Um, so I think if there's

1:29:56 ↗ a way

1:29:59 ↗ to make paying into the tree fund a last

1:30:02 ↗ resort in these developments, um, that

1:30:05 ↗ that would be the way to go and also to

1:30:08 ↗ potentially identify more areas that

1:30:12 ↗ within the central sub area that can be

1:30:15 ↗ the repository for these trees if

1:30:18 ↗ they're coming from the tree fund. um

1:30:21 ↗ looking at the map that you have of the

1:30:24 ↗ identified sites, it

1:30:26 ↗ it they don't match up with where we

1:30:29 ↗ have the worst heat island effects. Um

1:30:33 ↗ and so trying to figure out what the

1:30:35 ↗ city could potentially do in that

1:30:38 ↗ situation to add more tree canopy

1:30:41 ↗ coverage in this area to combat that is

1:30:43 ↗ is pretty essential.

1:30:47 ↗ to build off of that. You know, there

1:30:51 ↗ could be criteria like if you have

1:30:52 ↗ landmark trees, those should be

1:30:54 ↗ preserved. A strand of trees, you know,

1:30:56 ↗ you try and preserve those. So, at least

1:30:58 ↗ you keep some. Um, but understanding

1:31:02 ↗ that, you know, you'll probably get

1:31:03 ↗ requests that they can't because of

1:31:05 ↗ building there or whatever, you still

1:31:07 ↗ have to pay a fee in Lua, but you're

1:31:10 ↗ that that money could be then used in

1:31:12 ↗ that sub area for other plantings, but

1:31:14 ↗ you still meet your 28%

1:31:16 ↗ can't be coming. So these are larger

1:31:18 ↗ developments. You know, these will come

1:31:20 ↗ into play when you're getting a

1:31:21 ↗ redevelopment of a large urban building

1:31:23 ↗ or mixeduse building

1:31:25 ↗ etc. Um not your small addition or

1:31:30 ↗ anything.

1:31:32 ↗ All right.

1:31:36 ↗ Hi, I'm Praj. Um so I have couple of

1:31:39 ↗ questions and comments here. Um so first

1:31:43 ↗ is about uh the canopy percentage by

1:31:46 ↗ zoning. My question was um so how is the

1:31:50 ↗ percentage by zones calculated?

1:31:54 ↗ um you know is it based on realistically

1:31:57 ↗ what was maintained in city of Isakqua

1:32:00 ↗ or based off of some regulations or um

1:32:04 ↗ is it just um you know to maintain an

1:32:07 ↗ average of 50% canopy it was distributed

1:32:11 ↗ through different zones based on

1:32:13 ↗ realistically you know the retail will

1:32:15 ↗ be less the conservation will be more or

1:32:18 ↗ what was the basis for coming up with

1:32:20 ↗ the percentage for zoning? Um, that's a

1:32:24 ↗ great question.

1:32:26 ↗ So, each individual land use was was

1:32:30 ↗ identified, the zones that were

1:32:31 ↗ identified in there, and then the lot

1:32:33 ↗ size was was used. Um, they used or they

1:32:37 ↗ looked at with how the development

1:32:39 ↗ patterns are, what is the potential

1:32:42 ↗ planting area for each of those kinds of

1:32:45 ↗ land use. use that with the the lot size

1:32:49 ↗ to develop like okay this is the square

1:32:52 ↗ footage that theoretically could. Now

1:32:55 ↗ this data wasn't very fine grained so

1:32:58 ↗ it's it's a little rough so it kind it

1:33:01 ↗ gives us an idea of about where we

1:33:03 ↗ should be but it may not be exact. Um

1:33:07 ↗ the that's an incredible amount of data

1:33:10 ↗ that we would have to get for each

1:33:12 ↗ individual land use and zone. Um, but we

1:33:15 ↗ got a pretty we got a pretty good idea

1:33:18 ↗ of what each land use potential planting

1:33:22 ↗ area is based on the lot size, the

1:33:25 ↗ existing development types that are

1:33:26 ↗ there, the um canopy coverage that

1:33:30 ↗ exists. Um, is there potential to add

1:33:33 ↗ more? Um, and and we were just looking

1:33:36 ↗ at the lots. So, not even looking at

1:33:38 ↗ areas that are like, you know, right of

1:33:40 ↗ way. So, just just what's within the

1:33:42 ↗ property boundaries.

1:33:45 ↗ Right. That was the method methodology

1:33:48 ↗ that was used. Right. And so did did any

1:33:52 ↗ of the you know neighboring cities with

1:33:54 ↗ you know similar green areas um gone

1:33:57 ↗ into you know uh this thought process or

1:34:01 ↗ coming up with these calculations like

1:34:03 ↗ how does you know if another city I know

1:34:06 ↗ Belleview I don't know how much was the

1:34:08 ↗ Belleview um I had heard something in

1:34:10 ↗ news about the Belleview tree canopy and

1:34:13 ↗ u so similar cities who have similar you

1:34:15 ↗ know canopy uh coverage um goals How

1:34:20 ↗ does the zoning compare with their

1:34:22 ↗ zoning? Have you looked at it or was it

1:34:24 ↗ a part of you know your study?

1:34:28 ↗ Yes, it it was looked at not so much

1:34:32 ↗ Belleview specifically different land

1:34:35 ↗ patterns. Um but there were other

1:34:38 ↗ jurisdictions that were looked at in in

1:34:41 ↗ King County. One of them I believe was

1:34:43 ↗ Lake Forest Park. um comparing that was

1:34:47 ↗ actually comparing multif family and

1:34:49 ↗ their multif family canopy coverage

1:34:51 ↗ targets are 15% where ours are 40. So we

1:34:56 ↗ are exceeding what other jurisdictions

1:34:59 ↗ around us are doing when we were looking

1:35:01 ↗ at um their canopy coverage goals.

1:35:06 ↗ Right. Um and then I had another

1:35:08 ↗ question about the 20-year canopy

1:35:11 ↗ calculation. Um so and maybe this is I I

1:35:15 ↗ don't understand how it works but so

1:35:17 ↗ you're looking at the you know 20 year

1:35:21 ↗ um tree right those are the trees which

1:35:23 ↗ are considered for the canopy

1:35:25 ↗ calculation. Uh so is it basically

1:35:28 ↗ projected or estimated for each area

1:35:31 ↗ then because you will always have a

1:35:33 ↗ mixed um age trees right in any zoning

1:35:37 ↗ for the most part. Yeah. Um, so what we

1:35:40 ↗ what we do is we look at what the

1:35:42 ↗ existing canopy is for the site. So

1:35:44 ↗ those trees may already be mature, some

1:35:46 ↗ of them might not be, but look at that.

1:35:49 ↗ Then each tree that you plant, that

1:35:52 ↗ species has a kind of an average for

1:35:56 ↗ what their canopy spread will be after

1:35:58 ↗ 20 years. Um, there's some variability

1:36:00 ↗ to that, but we kind of just use it as

1:36:02 ↗ an average. And then you use those

1:36:04 ↗ numbers in addition to what's already

1:36:07 ↗ existing on site to come up with your

1:36:08 ↗ total canopy coverage.

1:36:11 ↗ Okay. Um and I think I think the tree

1:36:14 ↗ fund is a great idea, you know,

1:36:17 ↗ especially not putting uh the

1:36:20 ↗ responsibility or the burden on the

1:36:23 ↗ residents to do it themselves. Some of

1:36:25 ↗ them may not be wanting to do it or some

1:36:28 ↗ of them may not have the capacity to do

1:36:29 ↗ it. So I think that's a great idea. The

1:36:32 ↗ only concern I have is I can see like

1:36:35 ↗ for example you know when we had we have

1:36:37 ↗ these winter storms sometimes trees fall

1:36:40 ↗ down um and you know they will they will

1:36:43 ↗ fall on the you know roof or close to

1:36:46 ↗ the boundary or something. So does the

1:36:49 ↗ tree fund uh because especially if the

1:36:51 ↗ if the tree has already caused hazard to

1:36:54 ↗ the house and if the owners already have

1:36:57 ↗ to pay for that damage right or get it

1:37:01 ↗ covered by insurance and which may be

1:37:04 ↗ difficult anyways um they may have so

1:37:07 ↗ does the tree fund will they still need

1:37:10 ↗ to replace the tree and you know do they

1:37:13 ↗ still have to pay towards the tree fund

1:37:14 ↗ I can see the homeowners you know not

1:37:17 ↗ wanting to do to that in that situation.

1:37:19 ↗ I'm just wondering if this was

1:37:21 ↗ considered or addressed that would

1:37:23 ↗ probably come up.

1:37:26 ↗ Um for the tree fund there there are

1:37:30 ↗ um items identified in in code what the

1:37:33 ↗ money can be used for replacing trees

1:37:37 ↗ that were lost in the like the recent

1:37:40 ↗ bomb cyclone. Doesn't appear that it

1:37:43 ↗ could qualify for that. that would that

1:37:46 ↗ okay somewhere else. Okay. But part of

1:37:50 ↗ your question is whether you have to

1:37:52 ↗ replant if the if it's an act of mother

1:37:56 ↗ nature, a snowstorm or any other storm,

1:37:58 ↗ the tree comes down, is that exempt from

1:38:02 ↗ replacement because it was already a

1:38:04 ↗ problem,

1:38:05 ↗ right? And you know, especially if they

1:38:07 ↗ have to pay for it, right? means that is

1:38:09 ↗ going to be especially if the homeowner

1:38:11 ↗ has to pay already for the damage,

1:38:13 ↗ they're not going to be very thrilled

1:38:15 ↗ about, you know, paying $1,000 to the

1:38:17 ↗ tree fund again. Yeah. Um, no. I mean,

1:38:21 ↗ when we were going through all of the

1:38:23 ↗ work with the bomb cycle, no, we were

1:38:25 ↗ not making replacement trees from trees

1:38:29 ↗ lost in that storm as a

1:38:33 ↗ Okay. Yeah, that's all I That's all the

1:38:36 ↗ questions I had. Thank you.

1:38:43 ↗ Um I'll give my thoughts real quick. So

1:38:46 ↗ I do support the flexibility of the

1:38:47 ↗ central disc west sub

1:38:49 ↗ area have that for that place to

1:38:52 ↗ redevelop. Correct. Um I have a question

1:38:54 ↗ though. Is isn't there requirements for

1:38:57 ↗ all these these big multi-use buildings

1:38:59 ↗ going in where they have to put street

1:39:00 ↗ trees out along the ground to become

1:39:03 ↗ hopefully eventually public trees? Yeah,

1:39:06 ↗ there a you know sometimes those

1:39:08 ↗ frontage improvements trigger removal of

1:39:10 ↗ existing trees. Yeah. So that's that's

1:39:13 ↗ more re you know because the people have

1:39:16 ↗ previously planted now they have to put

1:39:17 ↗ a sidewalk curve gutter. Um our public

1:39:20 ↗ works department has taken forward some

1:39:23 ↗ u you know criteria for how put

1:39:27 ↗ landscaping along public rightway um

1:39:30 ↗ discussion with council. I don't know if

1:39:32 ↗ which board they're going through. maybe

1:39:34 ↗ mobility and structures, looking like

1:39:36 ↗ that, but that's part of the street

1:39:38 ↗ standards. But to answer your question,

1:39:41 ↗ does frontage improvements require new

1:39:43 ↗ trees? Yes,

1:39:46 ↗ trees are considered. Yeah. Um but

1:39:48 ↗ they're they're not captured in this

1:39:50 ↗ code because that that comes from street

1:39:52 ↗ standards. They're reviewed in during

1:39:54 ↗ the permit process. So that they are

1:39:56 ↗ looked at. Um but the specifications and

1:39:59 ↗ requirements come from from our city

1:40:02 ↗ engineers. And then there's factors that

1:40:04 ↗ they look into for like site distance

1:40:06 ↗ and safety um on whether those like

1:40:09 ↗ where those trees can be placed.

1:40:13 ↗ Maybe you should think about time too

1:40:14 ↗ because some in my experience is some

1:40:16 ↗ furnish requirements are not always done

1:40:18 ↗ in the right way. They're done and

1:40:20 ↗ they'll try to get onto the property and

1:40:22 ↗ then that piece of property is given

1:40:24 ↗ back to the city as us.

1:40:26 ↗ So something to think

1:40:30 ↗ and then I think you're fine with your

1:40:33 ↗ methodology. You can't you got to go one

1:40:36 ↗ way or the other.

1:40:39 ↗ Maybe it's something revisit. It's not

1:40:41 ↗ working.

1:40:43 ↗ That's my consensus around because

1:40:45 ↗ that's the biggest policy question. Do

1:40:48 ↗ we at this point?

1:40:52 ↗ Yeah.

1:41:01 ↗ Any any other thoughts on

1:41:06 ↗ consensus? Just going with like a I

1:41:09 ↗ don't know how you're going to get

1:41:10 ↗ consensus. Probably not.

1:41:16 ↗ We'll

1:41:17 ↗ capture the feedback in a memo.

1:41:22 ↗ and we'll just keep we'll continue to to

1:41:24 ↗ work at it and and make this based on

1:41:29 ↗ feedback and comments from you all the

1:41:31 ↗ best that we can we can make

1:41:33 ↗ it it's still open for discussion you

1:41:37 ↗ know going to PPC next week and

1:41:42 ↗ um council committee in June and

1:41:46 ↗ so we'll then we'll keep at it until

1:41:49 ↗ this thing is up for a vote. Yeah. But

1:41:52 ↗ do if I think there's one someone Alex

1:41:55 ↗ has a comment. Did you want to finish

1:41:57 ↗ your thought? No, I

1:42:00 ↗ Sorry. I have one last thing. Um I had a

1:42:03 ↗ question on this on the requirement for

1:42:05 ↗ of a track form or an arist report. Um I

1:42:09 ↗ don't I'm not familiar with a track

1:42:10 ↗ form, so I don't know what kind of

1:42:12 ↗ burden that is, but I understand that an

1:42:14 ↗ arburist report would be a cost to the

1:42:16 ↗ homeowner to have that. So I just want

1:42:19 ↗ to understand more so

1:42:22 ↗ how is this an overburden for land

1:42:25 ↗ owners to pursue this or is it um

1:42:30 ↗ standard procedure to have one of these

1:42:32 ↗ to one or the other of these things done

1:42:35 ↗ and is there any other means for it to

1:42:37 ↗ be an easier process for land owners?

1:42:40 ↗ Yeah. Um, so the track form, it's the

1:42:43 ↗ tree risk assessment qualification, I

1:42:45 ↗ believe is what it stands for. And

1:42:47 ↗ that's what we originally had in the

1:42:49 ↗ code, um, that, uh, you know, an

1:42:53 ↗ applicant had to provide one of these

1:42:55 ↗ track forms. It's a form that's filled

1:42:56 ↗ out by an arborist. I they have to be

1:42:59 ↗ certified in order to fill out a track

1:43:01 ↗ form. Not all arborists are. Um, they

1:43:04 ↗ haven't gone through the training. Maybe

1:43:05 ↗ they don't want to. I I don't have the

1:43:07 ↗ specifics on that. But what they were

1:43:08 ↗ doing was they were supplying us with

1:43:10 ↗ arburous reports from the arborist and

1:43:13 ↗ our code specifically says track form.

1:43:16 ↗ So that we were rejecting tree permits

1:43:20 ↗ because it didn't have the required

1:43:23 ↗ documentation. So we've added arborist

1:43:25 ↗ report as a way some arborist just

1:43:29 ↗ produced a report. As long as it has all

1:43:31 ↗ of the information that tells us that

1:43:33 ↗ it's deemed hazardous, um, it can come

1:43:36 ↗ to us how they see fit. It just needs

1:43:39 ↗ that information. And before it was

1:43:42 ↗ burdensome because we were saying we

1:43:44 ↗ require this form. They got a different

1:43:47 ↗ form from the arborist. Now they have to

1:43:49 ↗ go back, have the arburous fill out that

1:43:51 ↗ form, and if they aren't technically

1:43:53 ↗ qualified for it, might have to go get

1:43:55 ↗ another arborist to provide us with that

1:43:57 ↗ information. So, this was this was a way

1:43:59 ↗ to uh decrease the burden on a uh

1:44:04 ↗ applicant.

1:44:08 ↗ And then if we're adding the language

1:44:10 ↗ for a nuisance tree to be considered

1:44:13 ↗ something that's a wildfire risk, would

1:44:16 ↗ something filled out by East Side Fire

1:44:18 ↗ be equivalent to something like the

1:44:21 ↗ arburish report? Yeah, and that's what

1:44:24 ↗ we we had wrote into the code for the

1:44:27 ↗ the wildfire risk assessment. So, we

1:44:29 ↗ would keep that. It would it would have

1:44:30 ↗ to be from Eastside Fire. It would be

1:44:34 ↗ the wildfire risk assessment from East

1:44:36 ↗ Side Fire. Um, and you'd only be able to

1:44:39 ↗ do the work that was recommended in in

1:44:41 ↗ that be able to do anything any more

1:44:43 ↗ than that. So, we would have to add that

1:44:45 ↗ language in there or maybe revise it.

1:44:49 ↗ Yeah. In li of the track form. And I

1:44:52 ↗ think we kind of have that in the code,

1:44:54 ↗ but if we have to add that to the

1:44:55 ↗ definition too, um that we can easily do

1:44:59 ↗ that.

1:45:00 ↗ Okay. Thank you.

1:45:03 ↗ Have one recommendation to add there.

1:45:05 ↗ They can clearly prove that it's dead

1:45:08 ↗ without an

1:45:10 ↗ arburist picture of it. Yeah, we we

1:45:12 ↗ added that. We pulled that out. So yeah,

1:45:16 ↗ if it's obviously dead,

1:45:19 ↗ it's dead. It's dead.

1:45:22 ↗ Um, any further comments on number two

1:45:24 ↗ up there that they're looking

1:45:27 ↗ forward move this along a little bit

1:45:29 ↗ because we still

1:45:32 ↗ Okay, I'm going to close the board

1:45:34 ↗ discussion on this and reopen the public

1:45:37 ↗ comment. Start with the folks in the

1:45:40 ↗ room.

1:45:42 ↗ [Music]

1:45:45 ↗ Okay. Hey, Connie. You mind coming up

1:45:48 ↗ here? Just the mic is not picking up for

1:45:50 ↗ you. Yeah. And further recording. You

1:45:53 ↗ mean with my back to the with my back to

1:45:56 ↗ the camera? Yeah. Just to make sure the

1:45:59 ↗ audio is the most important.

1:46:02 ↗ Yeah. Thank you. Okay. You're good.

1:46:06 ↗ So in

1:46:07 ↗ essence, what the city is saying from

1:46:11 ↗ what I can understand

1:46:13 ↗ is normal land

1:46:16 ↗ owners just keep their tree canopy how

1:46:19 ↗ it is.

1:46:22 ↗ developments has to bring it up to

1:46:24 ↗ whatever the canopy

1:46:28 ↗ is and um then the city is supposed to

1:46:31 ↗ do so which means that new development

1:46:35 ↗ and the city are somehow going to get

1:46:38 ↗ that 4% at least from our last canopy

1:46:42 ↗ cover. They're going to make that

1:46:43 ↗ happen. New development in the city are

1:46:46 ↗ going to increase our tree canopy by 4%.

1:46:50 ↗ because nobody else has to do anything

1:46:52 ↗ to increase wear and tree can. So in

1:46:56 ↗ synopsis I think that's what you're

1:46:58 ↗ saying though you haven't proven how

1:47:01 ↗ you're going to do that how that equals

1:47:03 ↗ that 4%. So

1:47:08 ↗ um

1:47:10 ↗ interestingly you talk about what the

1:47:13 ↗ canopy is

1:47:15 ↗ per lot.

1:47:18 ↗ What should the canopy be per lot is a

1:47:21 ↗ crazy question. What should the canopy

1:47:24 ↗ be per neighborhood is a conversation

1:47:28 ↗ that can be had. Which is why I like

1:47:30 ↗ neighborhoods because each neighborhood

1:47:32 ↗ then could say, "Well, we think we could

1:47:35 ↗ take more and they might be able to have

1:47:38 ↗ a program to increase the canopy in

1:47:41 ↗ their neighborhood on private property."

1:47:44 ↗ And at this point in time, that isn't

1:47:46 ↗ being addressed. And then Dan Dan is a

1:47:49 ↗ force, right? But Dan is a position. Dan

1:47:53 ↗ is not forever. So what happens

1:47:57 ↗ if our urban tree plan languages because

1:48:02 ↗ we have a a not banan in that position?

1:48:06 ↗ What happens to our tree canopy at that

1:48:09 ↗ point in time? Because a lot of this is

1:48:11 ↗ dependent just on a person which I I

1:48:14 ↗ don't I don't like.

1:48:17 ↗ So the

1:48:20 ↗ uh comments that I got from people who

1:48:22 ↗ had to have trees removed is that it was

1:48:25 ↗ expensive because they had to prove that

1:48:28 ↗ their lot met the tree canopy even for

1:48:32 ↗ the neighborhood. And so again, the

1:48:35 ↗ reason I like the idea of neighborhoods

1:48:37 ↗ is because I think the city should just

1:48:39 ↗ say, "Okay, these neighborhoods meet the

1:48:42 ↗ tree canopy goals at this point in time

1:48:44 ↗ for what we know." So if you live in

1:48:47 ↗ those neighborhoods, you don't have to

1:48:48 ↗ replace your tree. You don't have to do

1:48:50 ↗ the study because it's, you know, to do

1:48:53 ↗ a study is another thing. But if it

1:48:56 ↗ doesn't, you have to replace your trees

1:48:58 ↗ one for one. And if it's a nuisance tree

1:49:02 ↗ and you're that is a landmark tree, even

1:49:06 ↗ if you have the tree canopy in place,

1:49:08 ↗ you have to go one for one as a special

1:49:11 ↗ case for landmark trees.

1:49:13 ↗ So uh the zero potential ret uh

1:49:18 ↗ retention of trees for a lot in central

1:49:21 ↗ Isiqua. Some of these lots actually have

1:49:24 ↗ small stands of very nice trees and

1:49:27 ↗ corners. And your current code rendition

1:49:30 ↗ does not give any criteria for uh trying

1:49:33 ↗ to get people to retain those nice

1:49:36 ↗ stands of trees. So you need some

1:49:38 ↗ language in there to actually get the

1:49:41 ↗ possibility of retaining real trees

1:49:43 ↗ because right now it just says you can

1:49:45 ↗ go down to zero and boy I just felt

1:49:47 ↗ people jumping on that for clear across

1:49:49 ↗ town. Um then there's the thing of in

1:49:53 ↗ our code plan we say we have a tree

1:49:55 ↗ canopy to serve certain purposes for our

1:50:00 ↗ town for um climate. So why not on small

1:50:05 ↗ lots that put in trees can we not allow

1:50:10 ↗ some things that they can do on their

1:50:12 ↗ lot instead that serve the same values

1:50:15 ↗ as our tree canopy serves. So that way

1:50:19 ↗ we can get green things on their lot or

1:50:22 ↗ we can get shading or we can get varying

1:50:24 ↗ things per lot but in a smaller form. Um

1:50:28 ↗ your change of community facilities

1:50:31 ↗ facilities

1:50:32 ↗ uh coverage that lot also is talking

1:50:35 ↗ about lots of the state park and so you

1:50:38 ↗ have a way too low canopy coverage for

1:50:41 ↗ community facilities facilities

1:50:43 ↗ proposed. Um and last tidbit, the city

1:50:48 ↗ does not pay for rightway tree

1:50:51 ↗ replacement. So the tree fund is paying

1:50:55 ↗ for the trees to go into the rightway

1:50:58 ↗ which we means we have a negative impact

1:51:01 ↗ of trees right away tree goes down boom

1:51:04 ↗ fine. We have a tree fun tree which

1:51:06 ↗ means another tree went down boom fine.

1:51:09 ↗ But we're only replacing one tree

1:51:11 ↗ because we're putting it in right away.

1:51:13 ↗ So we have a negative tree canopy

1:51:16 ↗ because of our rightway trees. And I

1:51:19 ↗ propose that both the parks

1:51:21 ↗ department so they have more space but

1:51:24 ↗ uh public works needs to actually pay

1:51:28 ↗ into the tree fund uh and then have Dan

1:51:31 ↗ because it's Dan replace the trees in

1:51:34 ↗ the rightway using public works money

1:51:36 ↗ instead of the tree fund. And there we

1:51:39 ↗ go. Thank you. Thank you.

1:51:55 ↗ Well, I'll start by saying this has been

1:51:57 ↗ very educational and I appreciate that.

1:52:00 ↗ Um, I don't know where the 4% comes

1:52:02 ↗ from, but I'm fine with that. Um, but,

1:52:06 ↗ um, I think you need to clarify this

1:52:09 ↗ because when I read this, it says not

1:52:11 ↗ less than laundry or laundry. So that

1:52:14 ↗ could be up to in infinity, right? So if

1:52:17 ↗ you can clarify it and if you can also

1:52:19 ↗ clarify that the table does not apply to

1:52:22 ↗ existing lots. However, we had two lots

1:52:25 ↗ in our neighborhood developed recently

1:52:27 ↗ and I'm betting that they're at the same

1:52:30 ↗ tree canopy as the existing lots because

1:52:32 ↗ that's the nature of neighborhood. So I

1:52:34 ↗ think you have to look at how

1:52:37 ↗ neighborhoods are laid out. So I would

1:52:40 ↗ say probably the average on our plots in

1:52:42 ↗ Montreal is 10 to 15 or 8 to 15% tree

1:52:46 ↗ canopy including the newly developed

1:52:48 ↗ one. So I don't know how they did it but

1:52:51 ↗ um anyway so if you can clarify that

1:52:53 ↗ that table does not apply to existing

1:52:55 ↗ lots that would be great.

1:52:58 ↗ Um and because it does add confusion I

1:53:01 ↗ would say just put a heading that says

1:53:03 ↗ new or 50% redevelopment. Okay. Um I

1:53:08 ↗ think and we didn't we talked a lot

1:53:10 ↗ about that but the process needs to be

1:53:13 ↗ less burdensome. Um the uh and less

1:53:17 ↗ costly. So you have to hire a qualified

1:53:22 ↗ arborist. You have to hire someone to

1:53:25 ↗ cut the tree. You have to pay for the

1:53:28 ↗ permit. You might not get the permit

1:53:30 ↗ accepted. We have one uh neighbor who

1:53:34 ↗ has he's not going to submit a permit or

1:53:37 ↗ a request for a permit because he's

1:53:38 ↗ pretty sure it's going to get rejected

1:53:40 ↗ and it's a tree that's under another

1:53:42 ↗ couple trees. So removing the tree is

1:53:45 ↗ probably going to have no impact

1:53:48 ↗ on the tree cover.

1:53:52 ↗ Um in our little area we have something

1:53:55 ↗ called view lots. They're a special

1:53:57 ↗ category and it does say that city that

1:54:00 ↗ they're allowed to trim for views. It's

1:54:03 ↗ taken over a year for one resident to

1:54:06 ↗ try and get that addressed. So, I don't

1:54:08 ↗ know if they will be addressed in

1:54:10 ↗ anywhere in here and I don't know what

1:54:12 ↗ their recourse is added for a year.

1:54:15 ↗ Okay.

1:54:17 ↗ Um

1:54:19 ↗ uh

1:54:20 ↗ since Montro is at 67% which is high um

1:54:26 ↗ it seems like one for one tree

1:54:28 ↗ replacement would

1:54:29 ↗ be equitable because we're taking a lot

1:54:32 ↗ of the burden of the rest of the city.

1:54:34 ↗ Plus, in the new development areas, why

1:54:37 ↗ would they be required to put 35% or 45%

1:54:41 ↗ or what? 60%

1:54:44 ↗ um tree cover and it just wouldn't be.

1:54:47 ↗ Okay.

1:54:48 ↗ Um sorry, I had

1:54:51 ↗ um think I made that one.

1:54:54 ↗ Um one Oh, emergency removal. So, in the

1:54:58 ↗ code it says you can remove a tree, but

1:55:01 ↗ you have to have an arborist, qualified

1:55:03 ↗ arborist come in and say, "Yep, this

1:55:06 ↗ tree needs to be removed." But what

1:55:07 ↗ about obvious cases like a tree on a

1:55:09 ↗ house or a tree across a road? And we

1:55:12 ↗ had all those in our neighborhood during

1:55:14 ↗ the bomb cycle. And I don't know what

1:55:16 ↗ was required because I'm not the person

1:55:18 ↗ who does it. But um it seems like that

1:55:21 ↗ expense to hire an arborist to sort

1:55:24 ↗ of say obviously this tree needed to be

1:55:27 ↗ removed because it's lying in a house.

1:55:29 ↗ So some relief on that would be great.

1:55:32 ↗ Um and I

1:55:34 ↗ think that's it. But the process really

1:55:38 ↗ doesn't need to

1:55:39 ↗ be simplified for us and the code

1:55:42 ↗ because I'll tell you I didn't get the

1:55:44 ↗ one to one and I read this thing three

1:55:48 ↗ hours. So any thank you I appreciate it.

1:55:52 ↗ Very educational. Thank you. Thank you

1:55:54 ↗ for your glance.

1:55:56 ↗ Uh so you see anybody

1:55:58 ↗ online? No

1:56:03 ↗ no I do not see any other hands raised.

1:56:08 ↗ I'm going to go ahead and uh end this

1:56:10 ↗ discussion.

1:56:12 ↗ So just to clarify and get clear

1:56:15 ↗ direction, do you want us to come back

1:56:17 ↗ to you

1:56:19 ↗ uh with a you know after the planning

1:56:21 ↗ policy

1:56:23 ↗ discussion? Do you want another touch

1:56:26 ↗ before we take it to council? We want

1:56:27 ↗ everyone to feel comfortable. You know,

1:56:29 ↗ we don't want to reach this. So we had

1:56:30 ↗ two pretty heated meetings on this. I

1:56:32 ↗ would recommend Yeah. bring it back one

1:56:34 ↗ more time if you can. That'd be great.

1:56:39 ↗ We have room on the June 11th meeting

1:56:41 ↗ agenda.

1:56:43 ↗ Yeah. And I think at that meeting we can

1:56:45 ↗ decide if the board feels like a letter

1:56:47 ↗ to council and PPC is needed. It may not

1:56:50 ↗ be needed if the comments are addressed

1:56:52 ↗ or just because of the level of the

1:56:54 ↗ topic we may choose to write one. Yes.

1:56:57 ↗ So my notes say we, you know, public

1:57:00 ↗ education piece, which necessarily isn't

1:57:02 ↗ a code thing, but you know, the

1:57:03 ↗ implementation of it. Um, the rules for

1:57:07 ↗ single family homes should be, you know,

1:57:09 ↗ the implementation for single family

1:57:11 ↗ home needs to be more streamlined, more

1:57:13 ↗ clear. The language needs to be more um

1:57:16 ↗ brought forward so that it it's obvious

1:57:18 ↗ for the average person to be reading it.

1:57:21 ↗ Uh, wildfire section, move to the

1:57:23 ↗ nuisance tree section. Um it sounds like

1:57:27 ↗ central IQA um uh flexibility is fine.

1:57:31 ↗ Work on you know uh the criteria to save

1:57:35 ↗ some strands of trees landmark trees and

1:57:39 ↗ have some bookends around that. Um some

1:57:43 ↗ language clarity for not less than one

1:57:45 ↗ tree to you know to implement that the

1:57:48 ↗ table having clear language that says

1:57:51 ↗ does not apply to existing development.

1:57:54 ↗ um view trees I think was one of the

1:57:57 ↗ public comments I know we'll have to

1:57:58 ↗ look at that um emergency removal storms

1:58:01 ↗ and so on so forth and we need to make

1:58:03 ↗ sure the language is here clear on that

1:58:06 ↗ uh and really the biggest policy

1:58:08 ↗ question about the percentages is there

1:58:11 ↗ anything we want to come back to you

1:58:13 ↗ with related to the what we proposed

1:58:16 ↗ here I heard a new approach by one of

1:58:19 ↗ our community members of looking at it

1:58:21 ↗ on a a neighborhoodwide basis is

1:58:25 ↗ which we had before and that was before

1:58:27 ↗ you looked at it on neighborhoodwide

1:58:29 ↗ basis but then when when the private

1:58:32 ↗ residence went to go remove a tree it

1:58:34 ↗ was it was replanting on with the whole

1:58:38 ↗ neighborhood in mind. So if the

1:58:39 ↗ neighborhood was a 60% then that res now

1:58:42 ↗ had to be a 60%. I think what I'm

1:58:43 ↗ hearing now is look at the overall

1:58:46 ↗ neighborhood as a whole and does the

1:58:49 ↗ impact of that one or two or 10 trees

1:58:52 ↗ bigger bring down the can

1:58:55 ↗ be at all something that overall can be

1:58:59 ↗ loss will still occur for the city. The

1:59:01 ↗ goal is about a 4% increase. So if

1:59:04 ↗ tradition plateau you're allowing

1:59:06 ↗ removal because if they've over exceeded

1:59:09 ↗ that there'll still be a canopy loss. I

1:59:12 ↗ I understand, but is is there additional

1:59:14 ↗ planting projects going on in that area

1:59:15 ↗ that are

1:59:17 ↗ bring it'd be really hard to release it

1:59:20 ↗ and keep tabs on it? So, I have a thing.

1:59:27 ↗ You get what we

1:59:30 ↗ a little confused what we're going to

1:59:32 ↗ come back with on the percent. I I don't

1:59:35 ↗ think we're asking

1:59:37 ↗ Yeah. Just asking you to consider

1:59:40 ↗ alternative concepts. Keep thinking

1:59:42 ↗ through it. Okay. I think I I think I

1:59:44 ↗ understand what you're what you're

1:59:46 ↗ saying.

1:59:50 ↗ And if not, I'll find out the next time

1:59:52 ↗ I'm here. You can tell me what's wrong.

1:59:57 ↗ Yeah. But it has research and there's

1:59:58 ↗ more information. You know, we're happy

2:00:00 ↗ to provide you so you can do your best

2:00:03 ↗ to advise city council on season.

2:00:07 ↗ Yeah.

2:00:13 ↗ All right.

2:00:19 ↗ Thank you.

2:00:21 ↗ Thank you. Appreciate that. Um Stacy, do

2:00:23 ↗ you want to go through the reports?

2:00:24 ↗ Sorry. I was just going to say, yeah,

2:00:27 ↗ interested of time, I'll just send out a

2:00:29 ↗ brief written um update on a few items

2:00:32 ↗ that we are going to report out tonight

2:00:33 ↗ as well as some reminders for upcoming

2:00:36 ↗ meetings. So, I'll just send that out

2:00:37 ↗ tomorrow morning. And then um Mina and

2:00:40 ↗ Karen, I forgot to check in with you

2:00:42 ↗ all. If you have any youth reports, just

2:00:44 ↗ feel free to send those to me and I can

2:00:46 ↗ put them out to the board.

2:00:51 ↗ With that, uh I'll end the meeting.

2:00:53 ↗ Thank you, everybody.

2:00:55 ↗ Thank you.

2:00:58 ↗ Thank you. Thank you.

2:01:00 ↗ Thank you.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (10)

Don McQuilliams

Alix Lee-Tigner

Tommy DuBeau

Mina (Alexandra) Jun

Prajakta Ghatpande

Tom Anderson

Kiran Pan

Jonathan Smith

Keith Gonzalez

Anne Newcomb, Alternate – excused absence

Staff (3)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director of Community Planning and Development

Doug Yormick, Environmental Planner

Excused

Nancy Davidson

Dixie Bair

Recommendations & actions (6)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
Board Chair MCQUILLIAMS noted that Board Member GONZALEZ moved from an alternate member to a regular board member while Board Member BAIR moved from a regular member to an alternate member.
Board Member GHATPANDE seconded the motion.
Board Chair MCQUILLIAMS seconded the motion.
Board Chair MCQUILLIAMS asked staff to revisit the percentages in a few years.
SUSAN GLICKSBERG asked staff to clarify language in the proposed changes in the Tree Code.