Environmental Board · Wednesday, June 11, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 14, 2025

packet pp.3–6

▶ Watch from 2:00 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-14-25 Environmental Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. May 14, 2025 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Student Presentations

Information · 20 min · David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.7

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

Natural Systems Checklist

Discussion · 30 min · Doug Yormick, Environmental Planner · packet pp.9–39

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 Community Planning and Development · packet pp.41–145

Topics: Trees

Open packet at p.41 ↗

Staff report:

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

5. REPORTS

Board Workplan n/a

packet pp.147–150

Open packet at p.147 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVED: 12/11/2024 REVISED: 6/3/2025

3200 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ Okay, recording has started.

0:07 ↗ Okay, good evening everyone. We're going

0:09 ↗ to go ahead and call this meeting to

0:11 ↗ order. Uh, welcome to the June 11th,

0:14 ↗ 2025 meeting of the East Environmental

0:18 ↗ Board. I'm Alex Tickner and I'll be

0:20 ↗ chairing tonight's meeting. Um, due to

0:22 ↗ the hybrid format of today's meeting,

0:24 ↗ I'd like to start by providing some

0:26 ↗ guidelines. We have participants in the

0:28 ↗ room as well as those attending

0:30 ↗ virtually. For all meeting attendees,

0:32 ↗ please speak speak clearly and pause

0:34 ↗ frequently. State your name each time

0:36 ↗ before speaking. For those in the room,

0:39 ↗ please raise your name card to indicate

0:41 ↗ an interest to speak. For those

0:43 ↗ attending virtually, mute the microphone

0:45 ↗ when not speaking. If you have

0:47 ↗ technically technical issues, please try

0:49 ↗ during the meeting using different

0:50 ↗ device or use the call in information in

0:52 ↗ the meeting invite to call into the

0:54 ↗ meeting. Board members attending

0:57 ↗ virtually, please indicate a desire to

0:59 ↗ speak using uh raising your hand or

1:02 ↗ typing a question or comment

1:06 ↗ and we will summarize agreement around

1:07 ↗ recommendations at the end of each topic

1:09 ↗ and note if there is any descent.

1:12 ↗ Will you take attendance? Absolutely.

1:15 ↗ Tom Anderson here. Nancy Davidson here.

1:19 ↗ Tommy Dau has an excused absence. Rajot

1:23 ↗ Pond here. Kieran Pan here. Wina Jun

1:27 ↗ here. Don Mc Williams has an excused

1:29 ↗ absence. Dixie Bear

1:32 ↗ here.

1:34 ↗ Alex Lee Tner here. And Nukem,

1:39 ↗ Keith Gonzalez.

1:41 ↗ And John Smith here.

1:45 ↗ Oh, I didn't even see you jump on, John.

1:48 ↗ Surprised me. Great.

1:50 ↗ Back to you, Alex.

1:54 ↗ We do have quorum.

1:57 ↗ All right. We will accordingly move up

2:00 ↗ to approval of the minutes. Does anyone

2:02 ↗ have any comments on the minutes of the

2:03 ↗ May 14th meeting?

2:09 ↗ Uh if not then they are approved by

2:15 ↗ Thank you. Um okay we are going to move

2:18 ↗ on to a couple comments. I think we have

2:20 ↗ one person in the room.

2:22 ↗ online.

2:24 ↗ Nobody online has indicated that I' like

2:27 ↗ to do public public comment. So just

2:30 ↗ have one in the room.

2:34 ↗ Um would you like to come up front?

2:42 ↗ Yes, that's Chris. Please state your

2:45 ↗ name. I know you know the um speak

2:48 ↗ clearly and frequently limited five

2:50 ↗ minutes.

2:54 ↗ Con Marsh I live on squawk. Uh one is

2:58 ↗ the capital new capital improvement plan

3:01 ↗ which for some reason didn't come to you

3:02 ↗ all this year I don't think. Anyway, um

3:06 ↗ they want to repave the parking lot. And

3:09 ↗ I know you all look at the wetland that

3:11 ↗ the parking lot is in over here and say,

3:14 ↗ "Why in the world do we have a parking

3:16 ↗ lot in a wetland?" But they want to

3:19 ↗ repave it instead of fixing it and

3:21 ↗ getting out of the wetland. So, I

3:24 ↗ object. If the city is going to be

3:25 ↗ green, it should be green itself, not

3:29 ↗ conveniently green. So, that's just

3:33 ↗ number one. I looked at the checklist

3:36 ↗ thingy that y'all are supposed to be

3:38 ↗ using to judge whether the city is doing

3:40 ↗ the right thing. And I find myself

3:44 ↗ again, you know, if we're green, then we

3:48 ↗ should be talking about really how we're

3:50 ↗ doing. And so I can talk about the

3:53 ↗ mitigation efforts that the city is

3:55 ↗ doing for development just right off my

3:59 ↗ fingertips. We have a Costco gas station

4:02 ↗ wetland that the beavers have taken over

4:04 ↗ and it's turned into a lake. Right. And

4:06 ↗ then we have the what? Widening of No,

4:10 ↗ it's the roundabout that's in the same

4:12 ↗ place that the beavers have taken over

4:15 ↗ and it's turned into a lake. They've

4:17 ↗ given up on the mitigation efforts

4:19 ↗ because they weren't working. And Fish

4:21 ↗ and Wildlife have said, "Well, okay,

4:23 ↗ let's see what happens." Is that a

4:25 ↗ successful mitigation? Are we getting

4:27 ↗ what we expected or do we have leftover

4:30 ↗ impacts that we are not talking about

4:32 ↗ because we are not being told about

4:34 ↗ them? You have the whole slew of

4:37 ↗ development along Newport Way that was

4:40 ↗ supposed to be being monitored for their

4:43 ↗ environmental reparations that they had

4:45 ↗ to do for their harm. So far, they're on

4:48 ↗ year seven, maybe eight, and they are

4:51 ↗ nowhere near close to getting where they

4:53 ↗ were supposed to be. Uh the creek

4:58 ↗ Schneider Creek was supposed to be being

5:00 ↗ sineuous and now instead it's just

5:03 ↗ grooving into the ground even further in

5:05 ↗ a very straight line which is not what

5:09 ↗ was supposed to happen. So I want those

5:12 ↗ conversations and I want to be able to

5:15 ↗ discuss how we're going to make our code

5:17 ↗ better so that we never do that again.

5:20 ↗ So the chart fails as far as I'm

5:24 ↗ concerned and I'm wondering where these

5:25 ↗ things that I am talking about are on

5:27 ↗ that chart or why more so why they are

5:30 ↗ not on that chart. Senate a creek all

5:32 ↗ the trees going down um all of those

5:35 ↗ things. Okay. And last I want to talk

5:37 ↗ about the tree code. And I've been

5:39 ↗ jibber jabbering with everybody around

5:42 ↗ and there's not really anybody who likes

5:44 ↗ the tree code but they all dislike it

5:46 ↗ for such a variety of reasons. is very

5:48 ↗ complicated. It's the small lot thing.

5:52 ↗ It's the we have too much acreage thing

5:54 ↗ and we can't handle it. It's too

5:56 ↗ complicated. It's too expensive. And

5:59 ↗ then the most recent one I have is well,

6:02 ↗ you know what? When we say people have

6:04 ↗ to landscape, there's nobody reviewing

6:06 ↗ the landscape plan so that they don't

6:08 ↗ plant their darn evergreen trees three

6:10 ↗ feet from the foundation of the house

6:12 ↗ knowing that in five years you're going

6:14 ↗ to have to go through the process of

6:16 ↗ taking down these trees. So, we also

6:18 ↗ need a preventive component in there

6:21 ↗ within our landscaping that includes

6:25 ↗ don't be stupid and future fire hazard

6:29 ↗ areas. So, if we want to actually keep

6:31 ↗ five feet from around everybody's

6:33 ↗ buildings, then we should not allow

6:35 ↗ people to plant within those five feet.

6:39 ↗ Conclusion for all of this is I think we

6:42 ↗ should go with some simplification. Take

6:44 ↗ a tree out, plant a tree. Take a land

6:46 ↗ land uh mark tree out, plant two.

6:49 ↗ Special attention for small lots.

6:52 ↗ Special attention for really big areas

6:55 ↗ to make it easy. And then I think we

6:57 ↗ need some judgment on how much does a

7:00 ↗ tree permit cost? Why does it cost so

7:04 ↗ much?

7:05 ↗ And the goal is for people to get a

7:08 ↗ permit to take down a tree because the

7:11 ↗ system is easy and makes sense to them.

7:14 ↗ I think we are nowhere near that. And so

7:17 ↗ with those very simple fixes, forget the

7:21 ↗ zoning changes, forget all of that. Have

7:23 ↗ those discussions a little later. Ex

7:26 ↗ three things and move on because we

7:29 ↗ spent enough money working on this

7:31 ↗ stuff. Hey, thanks. I sound sort of

7:34 ↗ invigorated. I need a nap.

7:45 ↗ Presentation.

7:47 ↗ Wonderful. Well, so we're joined today

7:49 ↗ with some fabulous student presenters

7:52 ↗ who are going to be uh sharing with

7:55 ↗ y'all about all of the really wonderful

7:58 ↗ work that they've done this last year.

8:00 ↗ So, uh, we have three different student

8:02 ↗ pres presentations. Um, so each of them

8:06 ↗ will get a chance to present and then,

8:08 ↗ uh, we'll have time for folks to ask any

8:12 ↗ questions if you'd like to. So, without

8:15 ↗ further ado, I'm going to hand it over

8:16 ↗ to Ava and Bridget to first talk about

8:19 ↗ uh, geocaching and is quest. You

8:24 ↗ do you want us to go? You're fine

8:26 ↗ sharing from there. That's good.

8:39 ↗ Okay. Thank you. My name is Bridget

8:41 ↗ Vesley. I'm a junior at Gibson High

8:44 ↗ School. Uh my name is Ava Magnus and I

8:46 ↗ am a sophomore at Gibson High School.

8:48 ↗ And this year our internship was with

8:51 ↗ Stacy at the City Visical

8:52 ↗ Sustainability. Um, and yeah,

8:57 ↗ so our main project this year has been

9:00 ↗ the is a quest geo tour. And a lot of

9:03 ↗ you may be wondering, what is

9:04 ↗ geocaching? Yeah, so geocaching is kind

9:08 ↗ of like treasure hunting. You go onto

9:11 ↗ the app, you sign up, there's a little

9:13 ↗ map, you get to see geocaches near your

9:16 ↗ location. Uh, you get to solve

9:18 ↗ questions, go to the geocache, solve the

9:21 ↗ geocaching questions, log in your name,

9:25 ↗ and it's just a fun way to get outside

9:27 ↗ and have fun and test your brain. Yeah.

9:30 ↗ So, if you can see the screen, um, we

9:33 ↗ put some small snippets of what some of

9:37 ↗ our site descriptions are, which

9:39 ↗ encapsulates, um, our theme, which is

9:42 ↗ supposed to be about sustainability and

9:43 ↗ also connecting with our ESPA community.

9:46 ↗ Um, we also got to help design a

9:48 ↗ Geoquest Geocoin, which has been so

9:52 ↗ cool. Um, we started out with about a

9:54 ↗ hundred and about a month in we had to

9:56 ↗ reorder because so many people were

9:58 ↗ actually completing the geo tour and

10:01 ↗ like more people were completing it than

10:04 ↗ like at a really fast pace. Um, we also

10:07 ↗ have more than about 600 people who have

10:10 ↗ at least visited one of our sites, which

10:13 ↗ is so cool to think about. Um, and the

10:17 ↗ QR code. If you want to learn more about

10:18 ↗ the geo tour and is aqua geoquest

10:22 ↗ whole activity, you can scan it. Um,

10:25 ↗ yeah. Ava, do you have anything else you

10:27 ↗ want to add?

10:28 ↗ Okay.

10:30 ↗ And then this was one of our main

10:32 ↗ projects this year. We also um helped

10:35 ↗ out on making some flyers and for the

10:39 ↗ sustainability fair and also presenting

10:42 ↗ at um the geo tour um

10:47 ↗ launch party. Um and we got to meet a

10:51 ↗ whole bunch of cool geocachers and talk

10:53 ↗ to them about what they love about

10:55 ↗ geocaching and how we could incorporate

10:58 ↗ sustainability into it. And yeah,

11:02 ↗ anything else? Um, we can touch on what

11:05 ↗ what we learned from this whole really

11:08 ↗ cool experience that we got to do. Um,

11:10 ↗ we learned more about the community and

11:12 ↗ sustainability impact.

11:14 ↗ Um, but with skills like interviewing,

11:16 ↗ communicating through emails and all

11:18 ↗ that fun stuff and keeping to a tight

11:21 ↗ schedule.

11:23 ↗ Yeah. Thank you.

11:27 ↗ Has

11:29 ↗ any environmental board minor done the

11:31 ↗ geo tour yet? Some of it. I haven't Some

11:34 ↗ of it. Okay.

11:36 ↗ I tried looking around the Harry Manning

11:38 ↗ statue for something, but I I didn't I

11:40 ↗ should have gone on the map and

11:41 ↗ everything but

11:43 ↗ any questions for Bridget and Ava?

11:50 ↗ Yeah. So, as uh David asked, you know, I

11:53 ↗ haven't done this before. So, how does

11:55 ↗ it connect to sustainability? Is it with

11:57 ↗ the questions on the app or Yeah, all of

11:59 ↗ the sites somehow connect with

12:01 ↗ sustainability like the one at Conquest

12:03 ↗ Park. We highlighted how they're um the

12:07 ↗ bomb cyclone knocked down so many trees

12:10 ↗ and how you know that is impacting our

12:13 ↗ environment and

12:15 ↗ like forest restoration in the area as

12:17 ↗ well. So, and so the uh the QR code is

12:21 ↗ also in the on the city of the website

12:23 ↗ is it? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

12:30 ↗ Um, yeah. So, beyond like the website,

12:32 ↗ do you have any other plans in making

12:34 ↗ this mobile known like spreading this uh

12:36 ↗ geo

12:38 ↗ geo tour? The geo tour like rank and all

12:40 ↗ that. Um, so we did have a launch party

12:43 ↗ for more of um our geocaching community

12:46 ↗ members. Uh, but I believe we're also

12:48 ↗ going to do some more promotion on it

12:50 ↗ more next year, I believe. Um, yeah.

12:58 ↗ Uh, is this kind of available to do uh

13:00 ↗ indefinitely year round? Yes, for the

13:04 ↗ most part I believe. So,

13:09 ↗ um, how long is this going to be

13:10 ↗ maintained like in the is it a one year

13:14 ↗ thing? Is it for multiple years? Um, I

13:18 ↗ believe they want to do it for at least

13:20 ↗ two years. So this year and next year

13:22 ↗ and then looking back and seeing what

13:25 ↗ worked, what didn't work, and how we

13:27 ↗ could possibly improve it. And then

13:29 ↗ based on those improvements, maybe

13:32 ↗ continuing it or still keeping the sites

13:35 ↗ but closing the geo tour down.

13:41 ↗ I just have a follow up on Terren's

13:44 ↗ question. So have you guys um reached

13:47 ↗ out to ISD school district or schools

13:50 ↗ you know this may be a good opportunity

13:52 ↗ for the field trips right they do these

13:55 ↗ will be a good opportunity the local

13:57 ↗ field trips so you haven't done any

14:00 ↗ promotions in the school district or

14:01 ↗ schools right we have not done that but

14:04 ↗ we think that could be a possibly good

14:06 ↗ idea yeah I think especially for you

14:09 ↗ know and I don't know what the questions

14:10 ↗ are I haven't seen it but especially for

14:12 ↗ elementary they like to do the local

14:14 ↗ field trips because it's much more

14:16 ↗ manageable, right? So, um this would be

14:19 ↗ a great opportunity for I think uh

14:21 ↗ elementary and middle school field

14:23 ↗ trips. You might want to look into that.

14:25 ↗ Great suggestion for next year. So, you

14:27 ↗ think back into it?

14:31 ↗ Uh yeah. So, are you using physical

14:33 ↗ caches at the geo site or is this all

14:36 ↗ online? So, we do have some virtual

14:39 ↗ caches that people can access through

14:41 ↗ the app, but we also have physical

14:42 ↗ caches that people can um write their

14:45 ↗ usernames on or their names on to like

14:48 ↗ log and say, "Hey, I was here."

14:51 ↗ Are you encouraging the typical geo

14:54 ↗ caching behavior of leaving things or

14:58 ↗ taking something or is that um we did

15:00 ↗ put some like swag in some of the larger

15:03 ↗ caches, but not all the caches um have

15:07 ↗ as much space to put those things in

15:09 ↗ there. So, it's usually just people

15:11 ↗ writing their name and then if they want

15:12 ↗ to leave something, they can or they can

15:15 ↗ take something.

15:16 ↗ And are these all on city property or I

15:21 ↗ believe they are all on city property

15:23 ↗ and they're they're okay with continuing

15:26 ↗ to maintain the presence of those

15:28 ↗ physical catchments.

15:30 ↗ So, okay, very good. Thank you.

15:37 ↗ I just kind of compliment you guys on

15:39 ↗ your presentation and your um very

15:42 ↗ thoughtful um look at our community.

15:46 ↗ It's really inspiring to see young

15:48 ↗ people take on sustainability and caring

15:51 ↗ about this community. So, thank you very

15:52 ↗ much. Thank you. I just have one last

15:55 ↗ question. Is this something you were

15:57 ↗ interested in prior to working with

15:58 ↗ Stacy or is that kind of developed as

16:00 ↗ part of your internship or or like have

16:03 ↗ you been into geocaching for a little

16:04 ↗ bit? Um, this kind of something new to

16:08 ↗ try out kind of excited to try out. Uh I

16:12 ↗ believe you have

16:14 ↗ this was completely new to me.

16:18 ↗ Thank you so much.

16:22 ↗ Awesome. Um before we move it on, I do

16:25 ↗ want to just say also we got an email

16:27 ↗ the other day from um somebody from

16:30 ↗ Germany who was going to come to visit

16:31 ↗ Seattle and wanted to come to do the geo

16:34 ↗ tour. So I mean it's awesome. here we're

16:38 ↗ getting uh people from all over the

16:40 ↗ world now doing the geo tour. So that's

16:42 ↗ very exciting.

16:44 ↗ I will now turn it over to Zoe and

16:47 ↗ Matthew to talk about um the

16:49 ↗ sustainability policy with Isqua School

16:52 ↗ District and other work with Isqua

16:54 ↗ School District. Can I ask you all to

16:56 ↗ actually just come up to here at least

16:57 ↗ so it's the sound picks you up a little

16:59 ↗ bit better and uh folks can see you a

17:02 ↗ little better.

17:13 ↗ Oh,

17:22 ↗ get this out of the way.

17:32 ↗ Okay. Um,

17:34 ↗ we'll get to this real quick, but this

17:37 ↗ is just the little

17:41 ↗ of what's next. Um, but well, let's

17:45 ↗ introduce ourselves first. Not everyone

17:48 ↗ knows that. Um, I'm Zoe. I'm from

17:51 ↗ Gibson. I am graduating in two days. Um

17:57 ↗ and I have been working with

17:59 ↗ sustainability ambassadors for about

18:03 ↗ two and a half three years. I started my

18:06 ↗ sop towards the end of my sophomore

18:08 ↗ year. Um and I joined the SNAP program

18:13 ↗ which is the sustainabil sustainable

18:17 ↗ neighborhood ambassador program with an

18:19 ↗ exclamation

18:21 ↗ mark. um that is a contract between the

18:25 ↗ city of Isiqua and sustainability

18:27 ↗ ambassadors

18:29 ↗ um basically so that way we can all be

18:31 ↗ on the same page and all have the same

18:34 ↗ goals in mind. So we really focus on um

18:38 ↗ trying to align with those goals and um

18:41 ↗ working to advance the climate action

18:44 ↗ plan. Um so

18:49 ↗ Oh yeah. Hi, my name is Matthew. Um I'm

18:51 ↗ a senior at Escoll High School and um

18:53 ↗ I've had the privilege of working

18:55 ↗ ambassadors for just under two years. Um

18:58 ↗ and I also have the privilege of serving

18:59 ↗ as the student body president at school

19:01 ↗ high school.

19:03 ↗ Yeah. So um I'm a representative from

19:06 ↗ Gibson Act tonight. Um so some of the

19:09 ↗ things that we have I say we there was a

19:13 ↗ few people that kind of came in and out

19:15 ↗ and helped me on some things. Um but

19:20 ↗ Gibson uh has been a pretty successful

19:23 ↗ year for outreach um sustainability

19:26 ↗ wise. Um we got 200 orca cards to hand

19:30 ↗ out. Unfortunately, we didn't hand out

19:32 ↗ all of them. So if you guys know anybody

19:34 ↗ who needs orcha cards, we would love to

19:36 ↗ give those out. Um but we handed out

19:39 ↗ about 80 orca cards um to students. So,

19:43 ↗ these are all free or cars that anyone

19:46 ↗ under the age of 18 can can get. Um, and

19:51 ↗ it really encouraged a lot more students

19:53 ↗ to start taking the bus and start

19:55 ↗ thinking a little bit more of how can I

19:57 ↗ use transit in a different lens in a

20:01 ↗ more sustainable lens and maybe take the

20:04 ↗ bus more than driving myself every

20:07 ↗ single day. Um and that kind of also

20:11 ↗ ties into purple to school which was

20:13 ↗ another um kind of highlight that um

20:19 ↗ Gibson was able to pick up on um was

20:24 ↗ there were a few carpools I started some

20:26 ↗ carpools inspired other carpools um and

20:29 ↗ it's just kind of a ripple effect of how

20:31 ↗ can we inspire more people to take on

20:34 ↗ car pooling when it's convenient

20:37 ↗ obviously.

20:38 ↗ want to be part from Samish to Brenton

20:40 ↗ to guess. No. Um

20:44 ↗ and also I led a like town hall um town

20:50 ↗ hall at school event. Um which is

20:53 ↗ basically it well I held the like

20:56 ↗ precursor event at Gibson.

20:59 ↗ um whole school attended, had a bunch of

21:02 ↗ people come up, talk about the projects

21:04 ↗ that they done sustainability related.

21:07 ↗ Yeah, super fun. Um, and then also just

21:11 ↗ working with other younger students in

21:14 ↗ sustainability ambassadors to help kind

21:16 ↗ of uplift them and find, you know, the

21:19 ↗ best ways for them to work in their

21:21 ↗ interest areas while still supporting um

21:24 ↗ the climate action plans of cities all

21:27 ↗ over Washington state.

21:30 ↗ Matthew. Oh, yeah. Okay. Um, I'll I'll

21:34 ↗ stay seated. Um, yeah. Um I think one of

21:37 ↗ the really cool things that happened

21:38 ↗ this year and it's been a a long time in

21:40 ↗ the works is um the passage of an

21:42 ↗ official sustainability policy in the

21:44 ↗ expos school district. Um there's been a

21:46 ↗ lot of research probably for three years

21:49 ↗ uh and like working with um the school

21:51 ↗ district to kind of like start planting

21:52 ↗ the seeds um to make this happen. Um and

21:54 ↗ it was actually um in large part um by

21:57 ↗ actually the city of ESCO being a leader

21:58 ↗ of u writing like a letter of like

22:00 ↗ encouragement essentially uh school

22:02 ↗ district that we were able to also get

22:03 ↗ letters from the city of Mammish um city

22:06 ↗ of Breton, Newcastle and Belleview I

22:08 ↗ believe. Not not

22:10 ↗ okay not written but um we were able to

22:12 ↗ bring support letters to the district to

22:14 ↗ strengthen our case um and work with

22:16 ↗ them basically throughout this whole

22:17 ↗ school year on refining the language um

22:20 ↗ what it actually looks like in terms of

22:21 ↗ implementation. Um, so this is

22:23 ↗ operational expectation 17, uh,

22:25 ↗ sustainability. And this is more of kind

22:27 ↗ of like taking from your like 10,000

22:29 ↗ foot view of what that looks like within

22:31 ↗ the district operations. And basically

22:33 ↗ what's the great thing about it is it

22:35 ↗ has a built-in monitoring monitoring

22:37 ↗ report function. So each year the

22:40 ↗ district has to report to the school

22:41 ↗ board and the superintendent to prove

22:43 ↗ that they are in compliance with this.

22:45 ↗ Um, so there's a lot of um really kind

22:47 ↗ of built-in accountability um to be able

22:50 ↗ to be in compliance with this and

22:51 ↗ continue to uh work towards these goals.

22:54 ↗ Um, and so yeah, it's um I believe it

22:57 ↗ will be officially published on the

22:58 ↗ website um before the end of the school

23:00 ↗ year. Um they're have they had a school

23:02 ↗ board meeting last night actually um

23:04 ↗ which is their last one of the year um

23:06 ↗ where they kind of did all the

23:07 ↗ housekeeping um which is great. Um, so

23:14 ↗ yeah. Um, so as you as some of you guys

23:19 ↗ know, you guys helped um with that

23:22 ↗ letter of recommendation that the city

23:23 ↗ of Bunis sent. You guys, at least you

23:25 ↗ guys had your name on it. Um, but I I

23:28 ↗ remember a lot of support coming from

23:31 ↗ here and a lot of um people just wanting

23:34 ↗ to see that connection between the city

23:38 ↗ uh and the school district at large. Um

23:42 ↗ so while I wish I had the final copy

23:45 ↗ that they're supposed to be publishing,

23:47 ↗ I don't. They haven't sent it to me,

23:49 ↗ unfortunate. But once they have it

23:51 ↗ published, you can review it on your own

23:53 ↗ time in the website. Um, and

23:57 ↗ be honest and give us feedback. If

24:00 ↗ there's something on there that you feel

24:02 ↗ is not enough for the school district,

24:06 ↗ we can we can more likely assign younger

24:09 ↗ people to kind of help

24:12 ↗ um push that because we really were

24:15 ↗ trying to find the best way to

24:17 ↗ encapsulate everything.

24:20 ↗ um and also find things that can build

24:23 ↗ up and support all of the city's climate

24:26 ↗ action events. Um so yeah,

24:31 ↗ um and so I just similar to Zoe sharing

24:33 ↗ with some of the Gibson act like

24:35 ↗ initiatives program this year. I want to

24:37 ↗ share just a couple um really quickly

24:38 ↗ about that happened at school high

24:40 ↗ school this year. Um kind of before we

24:42 ↗ start

24:44 ↗ Oh, it didn't go to the next slide. Oh,

24:46 ↗ there it is. Great. That's okay. Um but

24:49 ↗ I wanted to center us um basically our

24:51 ↗ the whole intention of our project is

24:53 ↗ really centralized around uh greenhouse

24:55 ↗ gas emissions um in Isquam and so we can

24:59 ↗ see like this is a chart from the

25:00 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory in 2022 and so

25:03 ↗ energy use is a big portion of that and

25:05 ↗ transportation um is another big part of

25:07 ↗ that and there's a smaller portion of

25:09 ↗ various things that make up the other 6%

25:11 ↗ but these are our two main focuses um

25:13 ↗ energy and transportation um in terms of

25:15 ↗ reducing the greenhouse gas emissions.

25:18 ↗ So, I'm going to jump into the first

25:19 ↗ thing. So, one of the the cool things

25:20 ↗ that we did this year at school high

25:22 ↗ school and has happened actually at

25:23 ↗ several other high schools across the

25:25 ↗ area is a turn off the lights day where

25:27 ↗ basically um teachers will either um dim

25:29 ↗ their lights or turn their lights off

25:30 ↗ completely. Um and the nice thing about

25:32 ↗ SY school is there's as you can see in

25:34 ↗ the photo there's a lot of windows. So

25:36 ↗ when the lights are off um like this um

25:40 ↗ there actually is a lot of natural light

25:41 ↗ that comes in that um actually in

25:44 ↗ conversation with some of the teachers

25:45 ↗ they were like I didn't even realize

25:47 ↗ like the classroom's got that much

25:48 ↗ natural lighting. I might do this more

25:50 ↗ often. And that was kind of like really

25:51 ↗ the intention of it to like kind of

25:52 ↗ plant the seed of like it's possible to

25:54 ↗ continue to have the lights off and um

25:57 ↗ save energy in this. So um kind of doing

26:00 ↗ a little bit of like the calculation of

26:01 ↗ impact um we take the baseline

26:04 ↗ electricity data. We um take the number

26:07 ↗ of classrooms as well as um some of the

26:08 ↗ more bigger common lights that we had

26:10 ↗ off for safety reasons. Not all the the

26:12 ↗ lights were um be able to turn off but

26:15 ↗ all the basically non-m mission critical

26:17 ↗ ones we were able to turn off um on

26:18 ↗ October 31st which also was Halloween.

26:21 ↗ So it's kind of it sort of added to the

26:22 ↗ spooky vibe too which is kind of cool.

26:25 ↗ Um but so we took the average classroom

26:27 ↗ daily use multiplied that out and we can

26:29 ↗ see our total impact was we saved 64

26:31 ↗ kilwatt hours of energy um which is um

26:34 ↗ is significant in terms of its carbon

26:36 ↗ impact but what's more significant is

26:38 ↗ the habits that hopefully that builds

26:40 ↗ for teachers and different classrooms.

26:42 ↗ Yeah. And this aligns with um the city

26:45 ↗ goals um the climate action plan and be

26:48 ↗ 1.1 to develop energy efficiency

26:50 ↗ outreach and incentive.

26:53 ↗ And the really cool thing about this is

26:55 ↗ um kind of the school vy school nature

26:56 ↗ of it. Um where like school v school

27:00 ↗ like there's a lot of school spirit of

27:01 ↗ like competition like you know like ice

27:02 ↗ bicycle school like where like cross

27:04 ↗ town rivals in the skyline and things

27:05 ↗ like that where it's kind of cool to

27:07 ↗ like see how we can compete to see which

27:09 ↗ school is the most um like can reduce

27:11 ↗ their electric electricity usage the

27:13 ↗ most. Um so we can see these are um high

27:17 ↗ schools from all across the area and

27:19 ↗ this was different amounts of energy

27:20 ↗ they were able to reduce um per capita.

27:23 ↗ um which is really cool. And so these

27:24 ↗ are all sailing ambassadors from these

27:26 ↗ high schools and um then we were able to

27:29 ↗ kind of compare the data um across the

27:31 ↗ area. It's really cool. Um so one of the

27:34 ↗ um yeah things um one of the new things

27:36 ↗ that we tried this year um is we moved

27:38 ↗ away from doing a tool dance to

27:40 ↗ something called a spring fling. Um

27:43 ↗ spring fling um and J knows about this

27:46 ↗ because also this is classical. Um so

27:48 ↗ but kind of the whole intention was it

27:50 ↗ was kind of a new ASD responsibility. So

27:53 ↗ instead of like having just a bunch of

27:54 ↗ plastic water bottles and one use like

27:56 ↗ plastic um cuzlery we were able to um

27:59 ↗ have more things that were reusables

28:00 ↗ like cups that students can actually put

28:02 ↗ their names on. We had a lot of the

28:04 ↗ lights off kind of to inspire more of a

28:06 ↗ natural feel um serving energy with just

28:08 ↗ using candle light. Um, and again, yeah,

28:10 ↗ the no single-use items and more

28:12 ↗ focusing on um just doing things that

28:14 ↗ are actually more permanent and more

28:16 ↗ natural um instead of just getting a

28:18 ↗ bunch of things and then just throwing

28:19 ↗ it out um and more kind of stable in

28:21 ↗ nature. So, yeah. So, we also did some

28:23 ↗ worker card registration. We were able

28:25 ↗ to register 28 worker cards uh when uh

28:28 ↗ we passed them out at lunch during kind

28:29 ↗ of our Earth week on April 24th. Uh this

28:32 ↗ aligns with TL 2.2 to to promote commute

28:35 ↗ trip reduction and telework um to

28:38 ↗ encourage people to use their order

28:39 ↗ cards more. Um and we actually are

28:41 ↗ planting the seed uh for next year to be

28:43 ↗ able to be in freshman home room to

28:44 ↗ actually pass this out as an activity um

28:46 ↗ similar to like Jared actually knows

28:48 ↗ this but eagle crew um which is

28:49 ↗ basically juniors and seniors will be in

28:52 ↗ the freshman classrooms um for home room

28:54 ↗ to help them kind of do activities and

28:56 ↗ kind of get settled for the year. And so

28:58 ↗ this would uh we were talking with the

29:00 ↗ principal um principal Connelly to have

29:03 ↗ this be kind of an official activity and

29:04 ↗ everyone would have the opportunity to

29:06 ↗ opt in to get to work car which would be

29:08 ↗ really cool.

29:10 ↗ Um so kind of on the related lens of

29:11 ↗ this carbon commute count and this is

29:14 ↗ basically just all about how are

29:15 ↗ students getting to school. So we did

29:17 ↗ this back in the fall of 2024 um and so

29:19 ↗ we and we also did one in the spring of

29:21 ↗ 2024 as we were able to kind of compare

29:23 ↗ across that and this relates to TL 2.2

29:25 ↗ to to promote that commute trip

29:27 ↗ reduction and telework. Um, similarly,

29:30 ↗ so there's a couple assumptions of like

29:32 ↗ what that carbon footprint of each mode

29:34 ↗ of transportation is. Um, and this one

29:37 ↗ also is really cool um because it still

29:39 ↗ has that school nature to it. Um, so for

29:44 ↗ example, here were some of the middle

29:45 ↗ schools across um all of kind of King

29:48 ↗ County. Um, just some obser some survey

29:51 ↗ data um and some observational data. Um,

29:54 ↗ and these were the high schools. And so,

29:57 ↗ um, a lot of the the students here, they

29:59 ↗ would send out, um, specific surveys.

30:01 ↗ Um, what we did, we did a survey and an

30:03 ↗ observational count, um, because, um, it

30:06 ↗ was it was easier to be able to count

30:07 ↗ the bikes and the number of people

30:08 ↗ walking or dropped off um, instead of

30:10 ↗ doing a survey because, um, it is easier

30:13 ↗ in some ways to see it on just like an

30:15 ↗ average day like basically go for a week

30:16 ↗ and you kind of get the averages of what

30:18 ↗ happened each day. And so we actually

30:20 ↗ won um in a sense won like the school v

30:23 ↗ school competition of um being uh the

30:26 ↗ most efficient of traveling to school. I

30:29 ↗ think a large part of that is is so many

30:30 ↗ of our students come on the buses um

30:32 ↗ which is kind of a big portion in like

30:34 ↗ for a given school bus you know if you

30:36 ↗ have 60 students on the bus um it's the

30:38 ↗ same amount as if you have like two on

30:40 ↗ the bus and so that's um you know and

30:41 ↗ that's one of the things why we promote

30:43 ↗ orchard so much. Um so kind of going

30:45 ↗ through a little bit of like how we kind

30:47 ↗ of do it. I don't want to bore you with

30:48 ↗ the actual data. Um, but kind of

30:50 ↗ basically what we just zoom in our drop

30:52 ↗ off emissions. Um, we'll take like the

30:54 ↗ amount of carbon per mile um times the

30:57 ↗ amount of cars that we observed on

30:58 ↗ average times the average commute trip

31:00 ↗ um with four trips because it's a drop

31:02 ↗ off. And so that was actually a really

31:04 ↗ big portion of our um emissions. And

31:07 ↗ that's why um you know just oneoff

31:10 ↗ parent drop offs and things like running

31:11 ↗ start just coming for like two periods

31:13 ↗ um or things like that. Um there's

31:15 ↗ benefits um to that obviously like

31:17 ↗ academically like there's things that

31:18 ↗ happen in the background. I know there's

31:20 ↗ you know we don't want to like make make

31:22 ↗ people do things that they're not

31:23 ↗ because obviously people have to get to

31:25 ↗ school um but that is a big portion

31:27 ↗ especially because it is four trips um

31:29 ↗ to school. Um yeah, so one of the other

31:32 ↗ things was um parking lot reform. And so

31:35 ↗ we would basically um this is all about

31:38 ↗ like encouraging carpooling at the

31:39 ↗ school. And so this is kind of a

31:41 ↗ comparison of the costs of different um

31:44 ↗ tickets at different high schools. Uh

31:45 ↗ but one of the really cool things that

31:47 ↗ high school actually really leads on is

31:49 ↗ we give carpoolers first priority in

31:50 ↗ receiving parking permits before single

31:52 ↗ occupancy drivers. So really only um and

31:55 ↗ they're really highly coveted passes

31:57 ↗ because it is very limited parking at a

31:59 ↗ school. Um so basically only carpals and

32:02 ↗ some seniors, not even all seniors,

32:04 ↗ actually get um parking permits um at

32:06 ↗ the high school. And so these are some

32:08 ↗ of the suggestions for other schools

32:10 ↗ that are actually able to drive from our

32:12 ↗ program um to encourage other schools to

32:14 ↗ um give carpullers priority um and be

32:17 ↗ able to um have like a system in place

32:19 ↗ to verify carpullers. So you have driver

32:22 ↗ both driver licenses there to be able to

32:24 ↗ prove it to them and you have like the

32:25 ↗ license plate numbers on file, things

32:27 ↗ like that. Um, and we were able to share

32:28 ↗ that with a lot of other schools um,

32:30 ↗ across King County um, in kind of like

32:32 ↗ that school vismat. Um, thank you.

32:36 ↗ Awesome. Sorry. Okay. Um, maybe in the

32:40 ↗ interest of time we can jump to Mina's

32:43 ↗ presentation and then we can do just a

32:45 ↗ couple questions at the end. That

32:48 ↗ question sounds great. Okay. Um, can I

32:53 ↗ Yeah, you're good there. ending. Um, hi,

32:56 ↗ I'm Mina, as you all know, and um, I am

33:00 ↗ I brought to the board a few months ago

33:03 ↗ the junior park ranger program that I

33:05 ↗ was working on and it was in development

33:07 ↗ then. And so an update is that it is

33:10 ↗ officially launched from the coexisting

33:14 ↗ uh, wildlife coexistence day that we did

33:16 ↗ this past Saturday at Picker and Barn.

33:18 ↗ So 25 around 25 have been out there, but

33:21 ↗ it was kind of last minute. So, we are

33:24 ↗ still in the process of continuing to

33:26 ↗ push it out, but I have pamphlets here

33:28 ↗ for the finished ones that are printed

33:30 ↗ if you want to look at them. Um, and I

33:32 ↗ can also email one to Stacy so she can

33:34 ↗ send it the finished um PDF out to the

33:37 ↗ board. But, um, yeah, so we have

33:41 ↗ community partners and we are currently

33:44 ↗ trying to figure out funding for

33:47 ↗ printing them because they are on the

33:48 ↗ pricey side. So, we're figuring out ways

33:51 ↗ to print them that cost less and also

33:55 ↗ get potentially a grant to print um bulk

33:57 ↗ of them. But other than that, I've sent

34:00 ↗ it out to all the community partners for

34:01 ↗ feedback and I've gotten some. So, we're

34:04 ↗ going to make a few edits before round

34:06 ↗ two of printing. But then other than

34:08 ↗ that, I'm getting um copies to each of

34:11 ↗ the community partners. So, we have the

34:12 ↗ Salmon Hatchery, Esquils Club, Mountain

34:15 ↗ to Sound Heatingway, TRA Unlimited, and

34:17 ↗ Isqua History Museum. And then I'm also

34:20 ↗ going to get the stamps that each of

34:21 ↗ them use to like check off activities on

34:24 ↗ the booklet. Um, and then the last thing

34:27 ↗ is there's a couple of other like

34:29 ↗ promotional events that um I'm going to

34:32 ↗ be putting the books out at. And one is

34:35 ↗ the Harvey Manning 100th birthday

34:36 ↗ celebration that is Als Trails Club is

34:38 ↗ putting on. I am making a modified

34:40 ↗ scavenger hunt that is promoting the

34:43 ↗ junior park ranger program and also

34:45 ↗ their longer online virtual scavenger

34:47 ↗ hunt. Um and I am also like promoting

34:51 ↗ the actual program there and bringing

34:52 ↗ booklets there. And so that is going to

34:54 ↗ happen July 9th. And then after that I'm

34:56 ↗ going to be in contact with um the just

34:59 ↗ all the community partners about

35:00 ↗ upcoming like volunteer events that we

35:02 ↗ could potentially like promote it out

35:04 ↗ and push it out. And then I'm also going

35:06 ↗ to try to contact the library system to

35:08 ↗ see if we can keep it there every summer

35:11 ↗ annually with their summer reading

35:12 ↗ program. That is currently the state of

35:14 ↗ the program. Um if you have any feedback

35:16 ↗ or questions, suggestions, all welcome.

35:19 ↗ Um but yeah, the hope is that this will

35:22 ↗ be a self-sustaining thing for like a

35:24 ↗ little while at least until we get rid

35:26 ↗ of the copious amounts of badges that we

35:28 ↗ had printed um before there was even a

35:30 ↗ program. And then um maybe we and I'm

35:34 ↗ leaving for college, but I'm still going

35:35 ↗ to be on the environmental board and

35:37 ↗ checking in with program, but I'm hoping

35:39 ↗ that it's not that much work, but Alex

35:41 ↗ will be able to maintain it.

35:49 ↗ I'm a class for both both presentations.

35:53 ↗ We have to make it live.

36:02 ↗ Oh, yeah. I was just wondering that if

36:04 ↗ anywhere in the sustainability policy uh

36:06 ↗ for the school district if there's

36:08 ↗ anything about looking into the school

36:10 ↗ routes because you were saying

36:11 ↗ transportation is one of the biggest um

36:14 ↗ greenhouse gases emissions and one of

36:16 ↗ the biggest things that the school

36:18 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions are impacted

36:20 ↗ by. as opposed to making it like looking

36:22 ↗ at how to alter them so that they're

36:24 ↗ more efficient or how to get it so that

36:27 ↗ more people are encouraged to take a

36:29 ↗ bus. Yeah. So, um the reason why we

36:31 ↗ don't have anything specific on there is

36:33 ↗ because there was just too many things

36:36 ↗ and also that's not how district

36:40 ↗ policies. So um we have it formatted as

36:46 ↗ they will create and implement a

36:49 ↗ transportation plan and because that is

36:52 ↗ under sustainability that transportation

36:54 ↗ plan is supposed to be falling under

36:57 ↗ those guidelines.

36:59 ↗ Um

37:01 ↗ and basically they decide okay we're

37:05 ↗ going to do these things to become more

37:07 ↗ sustainable

37:09 ↗ for this large sector. So no but yes

37:15 ↗ they should because like they kind of

37:18 ↗ signed up for it. But will they do it

37:22 ↗ immediately? Probably not.

37:24 ↗ They're probably going to focus on

37:26 ↗ electric.

37:28 ↗ I I will say one of the the kind of

37:30 ↗ breakdown clauses of the policy itself

37:33 ↗ that the district will develop a

37:34 ↗ sustainable transportation plan. Um

37:36 ↗ that's kind of a continually evolving

37:38 ↗ thing. Um we intentionally in general

37:40 ↗ because state will change like school

37:42 ↗ buses which is which have been delayed.

37:44 ↗ We've received a couple grants from like

37:46 ↗ the state and actually federalally for

37:48 ↗ that. So but yeah that language is in

37:49 ↗ there um a little bit. atmosphere.

37:55 ↗ Um yeah. So in that the pit you had

37:57 ↗ before 61% of energy use. Um what I know

38:02 ↗ you're paring lights but the blackout

38:04 ↗ date. What other main things kind of

38:06 ↗ make up that 61% of energy use? Yes. So

38:09 ↗ um that energy use chart that is for the

38:12 ↗ whole city in the spot. Um so that's

38:13 ↗ kind of more like generally energy use.

38:15 ↗ Um it is it is a very general thing but

38:18 ↗ like things like um basically

38:19 ↗ electricity um natural gas things like

38:22 ↗ that um of that nature and that will

38:24 ↗ that makes it a big part national gas

38:26 ↗ emission actually is really a big part

38:28 ↗ of this we actually have just at that

38:30 ↗ general section we have like a zoomed in

38:32 ↗ one of like what specifically what

38:35 ↗ energies make up that and natural gas

38:36 ↗ mass is a big part of that so that's why

38:38 ↗ we have a lot of electrification

38:39 ↗ programs um that we've been able to

38:41 ↗ encourage others of and transportation

38:43 ↗ is just plant you driving and things

38:47 ↗ like that. The city's been doing a great

38:48 ↗ job of reducing their fleet um

38:51 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions. So that's that

38:53 ↗ has been great to see.

38:59 ↗ Yeah. So first of all, I wanted to tell

39:02 ↗ you guys that you guys did a fantastic

39:04 ↗ job. uh personally I feel this is one of

39:06 ↗ the biggest win wins for the

39:08 ↗ sustainability team because you know as

39:11 ↗ Matthew rightly pointed out it's not

39:13 ↗ about how much exact reduction you are

39:15 ↗ achieving at this stage it's about

39:17 ↗ building the habits which is you know um

39:19 ↗ sustainability is basically the

39:20 ↗ lifestyle change for community I think

39:22 ↗ and I think schools or school district

39:25 ↗ is the best venue to achieve that so

39:28 ↗ getting there is the first important

39:30 ↗ step and you guys have achieved that so

39:32 ↗ that is great so congratulations on that

39:34 ↗ um and then I wanted to see I know uh

39:37 ↗ Matthew tal you guys talked a lot about

39:39 ↗ what is done at isqua high school

39:41 ↗ specifically but I wanted to check how

39:44 ↗ much of that you know those or relative

39:46 ↗ efforts actually translate into other

39:49 ↗ schools in the school district because

39:51 ↗ the sustainability policy is uh being

39:54 ↗ adopted by the school district. Yes.

39:56 ↗ Yeah, that's a great question. Um we do

39:58 ↗ have a seamage team. We're both members

40:00 ↗ of the ES squad team um based here based

40:03 ↗ here in Esqua. So we have members of the

40:04 ↗ Samish team who are at Skyland who run a

40:07 ↗ lot of parallel campaigns to us um at

40:09 ↗ their at Skyland. Um and we have a few

40:12 ↗ members um sometimes they're in the

40:14 ↗ Squad team, sometimes they're in the

40:15 ↗ Belleview team um at Liberty High School

40:17 ↗ um that will run similar campaigns. It

40:19 ↗ is a smaller team there, so they don't

40:21 ↗ do like nearly to the extent of some of

40:23 ↗ the things that we do at school high

40:24 ↗ school in Skyline. Um but yeah,

40:26 ↗ hopefully that will be start be able to

40:28 ↗ branch out especially with the the

40:29 ↗ passage of the policy but it still

40:32 ↗ depends from school to school how they

40:34 ↗ want to how much effort they want to put

40:36 ↗ it. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah. At this

40:38 ↗ stage at least. Yeah. But hopefully with

40:40 ↗ with it'll it'll come down really from

40:42 ↗ like the superintendent school board.

40:43 ↗ That'll kind of come down through the

40:44 ↗ district operations as like you know

40:46 ↗ build habits for schools and procedural

40:48 ↗ things that can kind of tie the state.

40:51 ↗ Okay. Thank you.

40:54 ↗ Any questions?

40:57 ↗ Um yeah,

41:00 ↗ Samina, I wanted to know um you know

41:03 ↗ just out of curiosity and I don't know

41:05 ↗ if it is okay to ask but since you said

41:07 ↗ it's pricey to print this you know how

41:09 ↗ much cost ballpark you were looking at.

41:12 ↗ Yeah. So to print these ones

41:15 ↗ specifically, it was $600 for 25, which

41:17 ↗ is very expensive, but we got like

41:20 ↗ really shiny covers and like nice paper,

41:23 ↗ which we don't actually need. So we are

41:25 ↗ looking into like getting a grant for

41:27 ↗ them and then getting like thinner paper

41:28 ↗ that is not that doesn't have any

41:30 ↗ finishes on it. And what's the how much

41:33 ↗ are you planning to print? Like do you

41:35 ↗ have a number right now or not? Really?

41:37 ↗ Not necessarily.

41:39 ↗ I was just curious to see if you can,

41:41 ↗ you know, since you're looking at

41:42 ↗ grants, if you can reach out to any

41:45 ↗ small businesses or local businesses in,

41:48 ↗ you know, or businesses basically

41:50 ↗ instead of and ask for, you know,

41:52 ↗ sponsorship because a lot of them are

41:55 ↗ um, you know, as a part of their

41:57 ↗ sustainability plan or sustainability

41:59 ↗ policy, they want to actually uh put

42:03 ↗ efforts in, you know, involved in green

42:05 ↗ efforts around the city and especially

42:07 ↗ local efforts. they would be interested

42:09 ↗ in. So, um I will also check you know if

42:12 ↗ anybody would be interested but I

42:14 ↗ thought I'll just let you know

42:19 ↗ um just kind of adding off that you

42:20 ↗ should reach out to REI. you should

42:22 ↗ reach out to the corporate because they

42:25 ↗ will probably be a little

42:28 ↗ would give you lots of

42:32 ↗ I think to a reasonable past partners

42:35 ↗ out they would contribute to those

42:37 ↗ printing costs to pay for the giving. So

42:40 ↗ that's

42:44 ↗ I would suggest also looking at online

42:48 ↗ print ondemand services like KDP,

42:51 ↗ Kindle, Direct Publishing through Amazon

42:53 ↗ or or there's other similar sort of

42:56 ↗ things. But I I would guess this book

42:58 ↗ would probably be uh printable for like

43:01 ↗ $3 or so on online and people could then

43:05 ↗ just order it through Amazon or or

43:08 ↗ whatever service you set it up on. And

43:10 ↗ they don't print a box of them. They

43:12 ↗ print on demand one by one and they have

43:15 ↗ a machine that does the printing and

43:18 ↗ spits out a bound little book. Um and

43:21 ↗ it's it's magic. So, and they've really

43:24 ↗ got a a pretty good price point for uh

43:27 ↗ when you're not talking about houses

43:29 ↗ anyway.

43:31 ↗ It's it would be another avenue consider

43:34 ↗ maybe you could do both. So, people who

43:36 ↗ wanted to acquire something online could

43:38 ↗ have that option or if you you want to

43:41 ↗ deliver something in person, well,

43:43 ↗ that's a that's another option. Another

43:49 ↗ place to consider for printing would be

43:52 ↗ talking to the chamber because they

43:54 ↗ would have connections to like the

43:55 ↗ Costco and the rallies and some of the

43:58 ↗ other big property owners that you know

44:00 ↗ contribute to the community and you know

44:03 ↗ I know small amounts are not as big but

44:07 ↗ it's a donation so they get a tax write

44:09 ↗ off the city gets the benefit and they

44:12 ↗ actually have benefits from you. So go

44:14 ↗ to the chamber and see and I'm sure some

44:17 ↗ of these big corporations in town be

44:21 ↗ happy.

44:32 ↗ That's it. One more clause.

44:40 ↗ And we'll have more commuted uh students

44:42 ↗ working with us next year as well. So um

44:45 ↗ we'll have more great work in that area

44:47 ↗ coming up.

44:59 ↗ have died and back with the

45:52 ↗ We have a scient

46:02 ↗ that that wasn't an official.

46:10 ↗ Well, good evening everyone. Um, I'm

46:13 ↗ Douglas Yormik, environmental planner

46:15 ↗ for until tomorrow with the city of

46:18 ↗ Bisqua. So, I'm presenting the tracking

46:21 ↗ and monitoring of critical area code,

46:23 ↗ which is the natural environment

46:24 ↗ checklist

46:26 ↗ and our tracking spreadsheet. What does

46:29 ↗ the till tomorrow mean? I'm leaving the

46:31 ↗ city. I'm Tomorrow is your last day.

46:34 ↗ Tomorrow. Well, technically it's Friday,

46:36 ↗ but I do I have equipment turned in at

46:38 ↗ 9:00 am. So, tomorrow is technically my

46:42 ↗ I guess my last day. Questions? Thanks.

46:52 ↗ So the the purpose of this is to provide

46:57 ↗ the en environmental board with an

46:59 ↗ update of our environmental neighborhood

47:01 ↗ checklist and our tracking spreadsheet

47:03 ↗ which is required by the ISPA municipal

47:06 ↗ code.

47:15 ↗ Um so for the agenda uh kind of go into

47:18 ↗ just a a brief background of the

47:21 ↗ checklist, how it was developed, um the

47:24 ↗ tracking and monitoring that we use with

47:26 ↗ this um checklist like what us planners

47:30 ↗ will do with it. Um how we enter the

47:32 ↗ information, what information we're

47:34 ↗ entering. Um,

47:37 ↗ and then this is an old one that should

47:40 ↗ not say title 18 at the bottom. We've

47:42 ↗ already done those amendments. Um,

47:53 ↗ so for the the natural environment

47:55 ↗ checklist, this was created between the

47:58 ↗ environmental board and our former

48:00 ↗ planning manager. Um, we still utilize

48:04 ↗ this checklist with uh preliminary

48:07 ↗ information known at the beginning

48:08 ↗ stages of a project. Um, this usually

48:12 ↗ comes in either right before and we hold

48:15 ↗ a pre-application community meeting or

48:17 ↗ right after permit submitt which we will

48:20 ↗ then schedule one of those community

48:22 ↗ meetings if necessary within um the

48:25 ↗ first 30 days of permit submitt.

48:31 ↗ So the information that's within this

48:33 ↗ checklist helps us planners identify um

48:37 ↗ the scope and scale of any potential

48:39 ↗ impacts at the beginning of the project.

48:41 ↗ And then using that while we go through

48:45 ↗ permit review, we can then analyze

48:48 ↗ the what was what were the potential

48:51 ↗ impacts at the beginning versus what

48:54 ↗ they are once you have permit approval.

49:02 ↗ So, as as a planner, we will take the

49:04 ↗ information that is filled out in the

49:06 ↗ natural environment checklist um and

49:09 ↗ enter it into our spreadsheet. Our

49:11 ↗ spreadsheet has three different tabs. Um

49:14 ↗ the first tab is for the preapp

49:17 ↗ community meeting information. Um and

49:20 ↗ this is what I was say this is all the

49:21 ↗ preliminary information um that we

49:25 ↗ gather for the community meeting or

49:26 ↗ during the community meeting. Um once a

49:30 ↗ project has gone through land use permit

49:32 ↗ approval um that project will then move

49:35 ↗ to the approved projects. Um this pulls

49:38 ↗ information following uh environmental

49:42 ↗ peer review if that had occurred. Um and

49:45 ↗ then we have a comparison between

49:47 ↗ preliminary and the approved

49:49 ↗ information. And then we have a final

49:52 ↗ summary tab which is once a project goes

49:56 ↗ through construction permit approval.

49:59 ↗ Now we have all of the impacts um

50:02 ↗ identified and are able to put that in

50:04 ↗ into that final tab where we have

50:07 ↗ ongoing tracking and then identify post

50:10 ↗ construction conditions and issues.

50:17 ↗ So during our meeting in October, I

50:21 ↗ identified that the spreadsheet is is a

50:24 ↗ work in progress. Since that meeting,

50:26 ↗ I've made two changes to vernal app

50:29 ↗ further analyze um a project's impacts

50:32 ↗ to the environment and and how we can

50:34 ↗ analyze that following construction. Um

50:38 ↗ because tree code has been on my mind

50:40 ↗ for the past several months. Um we've

50:43 ↗ added sub area canopy targets to the

50:46 ↗ approved projects page. Um the original

50:49 ↗ information only looked at retention and

50:51 ↗ removals, the number of trees that were

50:53 ↗ removed, how many trees were saved. Um

50:56 ↗ but we never captured fully what the

50:58 ↗ canopy is for that site in the

51:00 ↗ spreadsheet.

51:02 ↗ So now we can use this information to

51:05 ↗ see how a project is meeting or

51:07 ↗ exceeding the the sub area canopy

51:09 ↗ targets that are in um our tree code.

51:13 ↗ And then second

51:15 ↗ um I added a mitigation summary on the

51:20 ↗ final tab. So many of our projects will

51:23 ↗ have to do uh critical area mitigation

51:26 ↗ and that includes ongoing maintenance

51:28 ↗ and monitoring for five years. Um so

51:32 ↗ throughout this monitoring period

51:35 ↗ the applicant has to provide us with u

51:38 ↗ monitoring reports on how that site how

51:41 ↗ that mitigation site is meeting the

51:43 ↗ performance standards that were put in

51:46 ↗ place with their approved u mitigation

51:49 ↗ plan. So now we have a method where we

51:53 ↗ can present to to you as as the board

51:56 ↗ each year how a site is meeting, if it's

51:59 ↗ not meeting, why it's not meeting, and

52:03 ↗ ways that we have discussed with the

52:06 ↗ applicant to get that site into

52:08 ↗ compliance so that they can continue to

52:10 ↗ move through their monitoring period.

52:14 ↗ And then lastly, this this is a

52:17 ↗ discussion that we were having um

52:20 ↗ amongst ourselves is

52:23 ↗ um and this was brought up during that

52:25 ↗ October meeting. Um two board members

52:29 ↗ had brought this up. Um so we've been

52:32 ↗ discussing ways to relay information on

52:35 ↗ impacts to our natural environment. One

52:37 ↗ method that we discussed was having some

52:39 ↗ sort of web dashboard to summarize the

52:41 ↗ impacts that are that are in the

52:44 ↗ spreadsheet.

52:46 ↗ Um, these discussions will have to

52:49 ↗ continue when my replacement is hired

52:52 ↗ and then this can be reported back to

52:53 ↗ you when the natural environment

52:55 ↗ checklist comes to you where you

52:57 ↗ actually look at the individual projects

53:00 ↗ that were that had community meetings

53:02 ↗ that year.

53:07 ↗ So, I wanted to at least provide an

53:10 ↗ update um on projects that have gone

53:15 ↗ through and and where we're at with some

53:17 ↗ projects. Um

53:21 ↗ so, so far for since our last meeting in

53:23 ↗ October, we've only had one community

53:26 ↗ meeting. Um this was for the Newport Way

53:28 ↗ Town Home Project in Oldtown near Isiqua

53:32 ↗ Creek. um four previous projects

53:36 ↗ um were approved. So they moved from

53:40 ↗ that preliminary stage to the approved

53:42 ↗ tab on the spreadsheet.

53:45 ↗ Um these projects are now in the

53:47 ↗ construction permitting phase. So they

53:49 ↗ haven't begun construction, but they

53:50 ↗ have either a site permit or a building

53:52 ↗ permit that's been submitted. Um and

53:55 ↗ those are indicated on the spreadsheet

53:57 ↗ um in the agenda in blue. And then we

54:00 ↗ had one project that was cancelled that

54:02 ↗ will no longer go into construction. Um

54:05 ↗ this was the high storm water pump

54:07 ↗ station project and um I indicated that

54:11 ↗ it was canceled with just a strike

54:13 ↗ through on the spreadsheet. Quick

54:15 ↗ question. What was the blue? Tell me

54:17 ↗ that I missed that. Oh, projects that

54:19 ↗ went from approved that that are now in

54:22 ↗ the construction permit phase. So they

54:24 ↗ moved to phase two. Yep.

54:28 ↗ And then no previous projects that we've

54:31 ↗ reported on have been completed. Um so

54:35 ↗ they haven't gone all the way through

54:36 ↗ the construction permit phase. Um but

54:41 ↗ there are several that are really close

54:42 ↗ to completion and I would anticipate

54:44 ↗ there will be several of them um at the

54:48 ↗ discussed at the meeting in October.

54:54 ↗ And then with that, does the board have

54:57 ↗ any questions? Um,

55:03 ↗ hi Doug. Hi. So, I think you did a

55:06 ↗ really good job. I mean, I know you've

55:07 ↗ gotten a lot of feedback from this. Just

55:09 ↗ want to compliment you on the

55:10 ↗ spreadsheet.

55:13 ↗ Um, and I think it has some really

55:15 ↗ valuable information and I really

55:17 ↗ appreciate the different tabs seeing it

55:19 ↗ as it's used from, you know, initial

55:22 ↗ community meeting and then moving away

55:25 ↗ project. But the thing that troubles me

55:28 ↗ is the comments that we received Ponyie

55:30 ↗ today about projects like that are in um

55:34 ↗ master plants like Costco

55:37 ↗ um you know the ones along Newport Way.

55:39 ↗ I know those aren't usually in a

55:41 ↗ community meeting because they have a

55:42 ↗ development agreement, but how do we

55:45 ↗ track those along the way? Because we

55:47 ↗ clearly are getting impact from really

55:50 ↗ large projects and we're not able to

55:52 ↗ track them in the same manner.

55:55 ↗ I know for for some of them um

55:59 ↗ on some of the projects that Connie had

56:01 ↗ mentioned, those were before we used the

56:03 ↗ environmental checklist. So this was

56:07 ↗ developed kind of in conjunction when we

56:10 ↗ updated title 18. Um so this was always

56:13 ↗ going to be looked at as uh projects

56:16 ↗ going forward. We weren't going to I

56:18 ↗ mean those those impacts are still

56:20 ↗ occurring. Um but we weren't going to go

56:22 ↗ back and plug in old projects into the

56:27 ↗ spreadsheet because we were just using

56:29 ↗ it as like forward looking. We've got

56:31 ↗ this new code, we've got this new

56:33 ↗ process. this is, you know, um we're

56:36 ↗ going to look at it going forward. Um if

56:40 ↗ if going back to old stuff, if you

56:43 ↗ wanted that into the spreadsheet, that

56:47 ↗ that would be a a further discussion

56:50 ↗ with, you know, between the board and

56:52 ↗ staff on how we would want to do that.

56:55 ↗ But I guess the question I have is if

56:58 ↗ you have a project that has a fiveyear

57:02 ↗ monitoring period. So that's still an

57:04 ↗ ongoing project in my because it's even

57:07 ↗ though it may not be in here. So we

57:09 ↗ started this in gosh I don't remember

57:11 ↗ what year it is. on the board when you

57:13 ↗ start talking about this. But let's just

57:15 ↗ call it um 2000 just or 2020 just to

57:20 ↗ pick a number for that maybe. Um but if

57:24 ↗ there was a project in 2020 that was

57:26 ↗ still that got built, it's got its

57:28 ↗ mitigation in place, wouldn't we want to

57:30 ↗ be tracking what how effective that

57:33 ↗ mitigation is in terms of that impact

57:35 ↗ even though the project was already

57:37 ↗ approved? because what we're trying to

57:39 ↗ do is track how are we doing

57:41 ↗ environmentally as a community. Yeah.

57:43 ↗ And um I'm concerned that we have some

57:47 ↗ of these big projects that we're not

57:49 ↗ track and we and I'm not even sure the

57:52 ↗ environmental checklist would have um

57:57 ↗ impact even shown up with a Costco.

57:59 ↗ Would it show up with Lakeside? Would we

58:02 ↗ see that project the redevelopment of

58:04 ↗ Lakeside because they have a development

58:05 ↗ agreement? Would that show up in this

58:07 ↗ thing at all? Is this not built yet?

58:11 ↗ I'm just asking the question. Yeah. And

58:14 ↗ I think it should. I mean, if we issue a

58:16 ↗ permit, yeah, we would put it in here.

58:18 ↗ But with it being a development

58:19 ↗ agreement, do they have to follow the

58:21 ↗ community meeting? I mean, Lakeside that

58:23 ↗ that would be different because that's a

58:25 ↗ newer one that may have to follow our

58:28 ↗ processing procedures, but there's older

58:30 ↗ development agreements that aren't tied

58:32 ↗ to our new code at all. And so this this

58:36 ↗ checklist includes everything that has a

58:38 ↗ community meeting. Yes. And I think what

58:40 ↗ you're asking is development agreements

58:44 ↗ that may not have a community. But I

58:46 ↗ think right most development agreements

58:48 ↗ I pursue don't have community meetings.

58:49 ↗ They go through a whole community

58:50 ↗ process to get approved. Right. So but

58:55 ↗ they still have huge impacts.

58:58 ↗ So they should be tracked. And I'm

59:00 ↗ asking how they do that.

59:07 ↗ Right now not much is happening in those

59:10 ↗ questions. So sorry I was saying right

59:13 ↗ now last year there was wasn't a project

59:16 ↗ except for Costco was many years ago.

59:19 ↗ So is the question whether whatever is

59:22 ↗ under monitoring time period should be

59:24 ↗ included. Anything and everything that

59:26 ↗ has a bond for monitoring should be

59:28 ↗ included. We're still we're spending

59:30 ↗ staff time on it. We're still still

59:32 ↗ assessing to see if it's meeting the

59:34 ↗ obligations and it it should be showing

59:36 ↗ up here. Even though maybe Costco was

59:39 ↗ built out, you know, four years ago,

59:41 ↗ they still have what a five or sevenyear

59:43 ↗ time frame to continue to monitor that.

59:46 ↗ And if it if that is not meeting the

59:50 ↗ objective of the critical areas work you

59:53 ↗ required from it, we need to know that

59:55 ↗ and we need to figure out how to deal

59:57 ↗ with it. Yeah. I mean I I think the we

59:59 ↗ should we should discuss what the

1:00:00 ↗ purpose of this checklist is is to in

1:00:04 ↗ you know for the environmental board to

1:00:05 ↗ advise city council on what changes need

1:00:07 ↗ to be made to to address these impacts.

1:00:10 ↗ So if you already have a development

1:00:12 ↗ agreement that's under contract then the

1:00:16 ↗ council at the time has already entered

1:00:18 ↗ into the contract and said obligated to

1:00:20 ↗ meet the contract. So there's not much

1:00:22 ↗ we can do about the that from a policy

1:00:26 ↗ standpoint. Um the monitoring that has

1:00:30 ↗ to meet the development standards or the

1:00:32 ↗ performance standards that's job to make

1:00:35 ↗ sure that whatever was agreed to in the

1:00:39 ↗ mitigation plan is complied with before

1:00:41 ↗ the bond is released to them. So back in

1:00:45 ↗ the day land and shoreline board used to

1:00:47 ↗ approve individual projects. That's not

1:00:50 ↗ what environmental board there is. And

1:00:52 ↗ so I think there may be some some middle

1:00:54 ↗ ground there to to see to in you know is

1:00:58 ↗ this capturing what can be useful

1:01:01 ↗ information for the board to recommend

1:01:03 ↗ some policy discussion at the council

1:01:06 ↗ level. And I think my understanding over

1:01:08 ↗ this purposes and I agree to you but I

1:01:11 ↗ would say to you that sorry we're having

1:01:14 ↗ this conversation but I think that if we

1:01:18 ↗ have a development agreement and in that

1:01:20 ↗ they are generally complying with our

1:01:22 ↗ codes generally. I'm just, you know,

1:01:24 ↗ because they have to meet all the

1:01:25 ↗ wetlands and all those other things. But

1:01:27 ↗ if like the Cosmo property is not coming

1:01:30 ↗ up, if the wetlands are not meeting the

1:01:32 ↗ functions and perhaps we need something

1:01:35 ↗ fixed in our code so that the next

1:01:38 ↗ project that's maybe the target

1:01:40 ↗ redevelopment, whatever it is, you know,

1:01:42 ↗ or something down here in central

1:01:44 ↗ Isiqua, we need to know that so that we

1:01:47 ↗ can change the codes to inform it. And

1:01:49 ↗ so what I'm saying to you is unless

1:01:52 ↗ someone points out we don't see because

1:01:54 ↗ they're just policy levels and if we're

1:01:57 ↗ looking to inform the council, we want

1:01:59 ↗ to inform them based on what we're

1:02:01 ↗ learning. And what I'm saying to you is

1:02:03 ↗ I don't think we've learned we haven't

1:02:05 ↗ figured out how to deal with the cost

1:02:07 ↗ and the other projects that aren't quite

1:02:08 ↗ complying with their the

1:02:11 ↗ responsibilities

1:02:12 ↗ for critical under critical areas. and

1:02:15 ↗ you weren't here for Conniey's

1:02:17 ↗ conversation, but it's primarily dealing

1:02:19 ↗ with the wetlands and the paper dams

1:02:21 ↗ that are basically overrunning them over

1:02:23 ↗ there in the Costco. And then for the

1:02:25 ↗ Costco gas station,

1:02:28 ↗ believe that is out of its maintenance

1:02:32 ↗ monitoring period. 62nd Street

1:02:35 ↗ roundabout may or may not be. don't know

1:02:38 ↗ the specifics on that, but I mean the

1:02:40 ↗ daver the the beavers did work there and

1:02:45 ↗ a lot of the reasons yeah on why it may

1:02:49 ↗ or may not be or why it's not performing

1:02:51 ↗ the way that it should is we had beavers

1:02:55 ↗ come in and kind of re-engineer the

1:02:56 ↗ site. Um but that's something to note.

1:03:00 ↗ Yeah, I mean it's it's something it's

1:03:03 ↗ something that we should put in the

1:03:04 ↗ table. Yeah, that's what the the last

1:03:06 ↗ thing that I was discussing that's on

1:03:08 ↗ the the last tab of the spreadsheet

1:03:10 ↗ where I have like notes for um let's see

1:03:16 ↗ if I got this share this.

1:03:22 ↗ Oh, this is going to look terrible.

1:03:24 ↗ Sorry.

1:03:25 ↗ Yeah, we're aware of the beaver problem

1:03:27 ↗ and public works department is aware of

1:03:29 ↗ the be problem. they work with fish and

1:03:31 ↗ wildlife, you know, and there's no easy

1:03:33 ↗ solution some of those things. But but I

1:03:36 ↗ think during the critical area code

1:03:38 ↗ update, we did include some language

1:03:40 ↗ because the state law about what can be

1:03:42 ↗ done as maintenance

1:03:54 ↗ a little bit more. So this was the last

1:03:58 ↗ tab.

1:04:00 ↗ um the summary of mitigation during

1:04:03 ↗ monitoring period. This is where I

1:04:05 ↗ wanted to have some information when we

1:04:08 ↗ receive these monitoring reports. I can

1:04:11 ↗ put in or

1:04:13 ↗ another planner can put in um whether or

1:04:17 ↗ not it's meeting, why it wouldn't be

1:04:19 ↗ meeting. So for this particular project,

1:04:21 ↗ we've gotten two monitoring reports now

1:04:24 ↗ and the site is performing exactly how

1:04:26 ↗ it should based on the performance

1:04:29 ↗ standards for that were in the

1:04:31 ↗ mitigation plan. Um so if we get into a

1:04:34 ↗ situation where year four there is

1:04:37 ↗ issues because you know it could have

1:04:40 ↗ beavers or just massive die off because

1:04:42 ↗ of a heat wave. um we could plug in that

1:04:46 ↗ information and then discuss how it's

1:04:49 ↗ how we rectified that situation. Um I

1:04:53 ↗ worked on a project this would have been

1:04:55 ↗ I think just before the pandemic where I

1:04:58 ↗ mean it was just a massive die off in

1:05:00 ↗ this wildland buffer and they

1:05:02 ↗ essentially had to start all over again.

1:05:04 ↗ um you know some of those things

1:05:06 ↗ informed the policy because now under

1:05:08 ↗ the new code you don't get buffer

1:05:10 ↗ reductions so you don't you know you

1:05:12 ↗ maintain your existing buffer widths and

1:05:14 ↗ stuff like that a lot of that mitigation

1:05:15 ↗ happened because you were given reduced

1:05:18 ↗ buffer but you were planting more but

1:05:21 ↗ you know department of ecology and all

1:05:22 ↗ the research shows that these

1:05:24 ↗ mitigations didn't work as intended and

1:05:27 ↗ so I think that informed some of the

1:05:29 ↗ policy to say we shouldn't be granting

1:05:31 ↗ government reductions because the mit

1:05:33 ↗ delegation doesn't quite end up being

1:05:35 ↗ the one intended. So I think that policy

1:05:38 ↗ discussion happened around that but we

1:05:40 ↗ still have projects that are that are in

1:05:43 ↗ the hopper either for monitoring period

1:05:46 ↗ or mitigation. No. Yeah. But point

1:05:49 ↗ taken. I mean, you know, we can keep

1:05:51 ↗ refining the spreadsheet and I think uh

1:05:54 ↗ and for this for you all to reflect is

1:05:57 ↗ it giving you the information you need

1:05:59 ↗ at a level that you know isn't too much

1:06:03 ↗ in the weeds but informs you to have

1:06:05 ↗ some policy debate about the issue.

1:06:09 ↗ Well, I I guess my last piece to this is

1:06:12 ↗ I would hope since we don't see these

1:06:16 ↗ applications come in, but as late site

1:06:17 ↗ comes in, it should be in the

1:06:19 ↗ spreadsheet somehow. That would just be

1:06:21 ↗ my request because it's one of the

1:06:22 ↗ development agreements to keep track of

1:06:25 ↗ how they're dealing with um you know,

1:06:28 ↗ and if Rally does I think they have a

1:06:30 ↗ development agreement, so they're

1:06:32 ↗ already in code and stuff, right?

1:06:36 ↗ I don't know if there's any others

1:06:37 ↗ coming up like that, but I suppos

1:06:41 ↗ some some form at some point. Yeah.

1:06:54 ↗ Uh yeah, I I like the spreadsheet and

1:06:57 ↗ there's a lot of information. it it, you

1:06:59 ↗ know, doesn't eliminate the need for a

1:07:02 ↗ human to engage their brain to to

1:07:05 ↗ assimilate that information and all

1:07:08 ↗ that. One thing I'm I'm wondering about

1:07:10 ↗ is on the monitoring aspect and a

1:07:13 ↗ question that I would raise is um okay,

1:07:16 ↗ here's all this information. Now, I'd

1:07:18 ↗ like to see well, what's working well

1:07:20 ↗ and what's not working well? Can I tell

1:07:23 ↗ that from the spreadsheet? And there are

1:07:25 ↗ clues about that in there. Uh it does

1:07:28 ↗ the monitoring that the city performs on

1:07:30 ↗ these projects, is there a written

1:07:32 ↗ report that calls out um these uh wins

1:07:37 ↗ and and losses? And could that be

1:07:39 ↗ reported on here in a way to help us um

1:07:44 ↗ kind of

1:07:45 ↗ give us some clues as to as to what's

1:07:48 ↗ working, what's not working.

1:07:54 ↗ Yes and no.

1:07:56 ↗ the monitoring report. So there are

1:07:58 ↗ reports that are submitted to us

1:08:00 ↗ throughout the monitoring period whether

1:08:03 ↗ that's five years or 10 years um in

1:08:07 ↗ cases where there's extensive

1:08:09 ↗ mitigation. Um so we receive those

1:08:12 ↗ yearly. We have

1:08:15 ↗ someone on staff who actually reaches

1:08:16 ↗ out to all of these people starting in

1:08:19 ↗ late summer and we receive them in the

1:08:21 ↗ fall.

1:08:22 ↗ um we will review those to see if the

1:08:25 ↗ site is meeting the performance

1:08:26 ↗ standards that are listed in there. So

1:08:28 ↗ if there was they did wetland buffer

1:08:31 ↗ enhancement, are they meeting the

1:08:34 ↗ percent woody coverage um species

1:08:36 ↗ survival? They have um the right number

1:08:40 ↗ of species in there because usually

1:08:42 ↗ there's um a performance standard for

1:08:45 ↗ species diversity. Um, so we go through

1:08:48 ↗ that. We'll verify in the field if

1:08:51 ↗ they're actually meeting that. So, you

1:08:53 ↗ know, Jason and I will go to the site,

1:08:55 ↗ look at it. Um, for very large sites, we

1:08:58 ↗ will contract out with a third party

1:09:00 ↗ reviewer who will then go out and verify

1:09:02 ↗ the site themselves. Um, and if it's

1:09:05 ↗ meeting, good. We write them a letter.

1:09:08 ↗ If it's not meeting, then we start to

1:09:11 ↗ have more discussions with the

1:09:14 ↗ ecologist, the applicants, and staff on

1:09:18 ↗ how we're going to get this site back

1:09:21 ↗ into compliance. Um, and if it's not

1:09:24 ↗ meeting the standards by the end of the

1:09:26 ↗ time frame established, um, then we will

1:09:29 ↗ extend their monitoring period an

1:09:32 ↗ additional year and have a list of steps

1:09:34 ↗ that they have to do in order to get the

1:09:36 ↗ site into compliance. Um, some of that

1:09:38 ↗ information I think can be captured into

1:09:41 ↗ the spreadsheet. Um, but it would be

1:09:44 ↗ mostly on the mitigation plantings

1:09:47 ↗ themselves because that's what the

1:09:49 ↗ monitoring report would be focused on.

1:09:51 ↗ Um, so if they're doing any uh

1:09:54 ↗ vegetative enhancements along streams or

1:09:56 ↗ in wetland buffers, that would be

1:09:58 ↗ captured.

1:10:00 ↗ We can probably get numbers of like the

1:10:02 ↗ number of trees and shrubs that were

1:10:04 ↗ planted as part of that. I think that

1:10:07 ↗ would be something. And then we could

1:10:09 ↗ also look at at the end how many plants,

1:10:12 ↗ trees, and shrubs are there. Um, it's

1:10:15 ↗ usually more since you you tend to you

1:10:18 ↗ tend to get native volunteers that pop

1:10:20 ↗ up into those sites as well. Um, but

1:10:22 ↗ that that is something that I think we

1:10:24 ↗ could put into the spreadsheet as well,

1:10:27 ↗ but it would be like the number of

1:10:28 ↗ plants. Um I don't know what else you

1:10:32 ↗ could be well like tree canopy

1:10:34 ↗ objectives

1:10:36 ↗ that would be something that would be

1:10:38 ↗ measurable in some way think one of one

1:10:42 ↗ of the syndromes that I I think I

1:10:45 ↗ observe is that okay we're going to make

1:10:48 ↗ you this is actually happening with a

1:10:50 ↗ parcel near to where I live that's being

1:10:53 ↗ built out right now. So the back end of

1:10:55 ↗ the lot is is

1:10:57 ↗ the trees are being left there. Couple

1:10:59 ↗ of the trees are semi dead alters.

1:11:02 ↗ Uh but the city requires them to retain

1:11:06 ↗ them because well, hey, they're trees

1:11:08 ↗ and they're completely dead. But they

1:11:11 ↗ are going to completely die and fall

1:11:14 ↗ over in one to three years. So say

1:11:17 ↗ that's their life cycle a little bit. It

1:11:20 ↗ would be better for those trees to be

1:11:22 ↗ removed now and then get replanted with

1:11:25 ↗ something else right now. Well, so I'm

1:11:28 ↗ digressing a bit. Maybe a segway into

1:11:30 ↗ the tree code which we have. Yeah, tree

1:11:32 ↗ code, right? But uh so those trees if

1:11:37 ↗ the fact if the calculation for canopy

1:11:40 ↗ coverage and all that um was

1:11:44 ↗ reme-measured three years from now and

1:11:46 ↗ oh yeah, those trees which we thought

1:11:48 ↗ were going to contribute to the canopy

1:11:49 ↗ are now lying in the ground and we

1:11:52 ↗ didn't have to replant

1:11:54 ↗ anything for them. Oh, hey, we're not

1:11:56 ↗ meeting uh we're not meeting our our

1:11:59 ↗ canopy coverage goal and uh that we

1:12:04 ↗ reflect on that and we think about our

1:12:06 ↗ lessons learned. Oh, well, maybe alers

1:12:09 ↗ should be considered uh very heavily in

1:12:13 ↗ canopy calculations because they're so

1:12:15 ↗ unreliable. They just die and fall.

1:12:20 ↗ Well, so that that's an example of the

1:12:22 ↗ kind of scenario that I think could be

1:12:24 ↗ uh gleaned from

1:12:27 ↗ the monitoring period after completion

1:12:30 ↗ of the the one thing that I think we

1:12:34 ↗ could do thinking of your specific

1:12:36 ↗ scenario. Um you have a project that

1:12:40 ↗ comes in,

1:12:42 ↗ we're not looking at it for very long

1:12:44 ↗ after the project has been completed.

1:12:47 ↗ there is a or or a landscape permit. Um

1:12:51 ↗ this is for the site landscaping which

1:12:53 ↗ the tree canopy would be covered under

1:12:55 ↗ that. Um

1:12:58 ↗ we could look at to see if the trees

1:13:02 ↗ surviving. Um but after that three years

1:13:06 ↗ like we're not really looking at that

1:13:08 ↗ project anymore. we will release the

1:13:10 ↗ bond if they're meeting their landscape

1:13:13 ↗ requirements for that project and then

1:13:15 ↗ we're not looking at it anymore.

1:13:18 ↗ Um so we could look at something at the

1:13:20 ↗ end of the three years for a landscape

1:13:24 ↗ permit. Um the monitoring reports would

1:13:27 ↗ just be spec like tailored to a specific

1:13:30 ↗ area of the site and not looking at the

1:13:32 ↗ entire site. It would just be the the

1:13:34 ↗ wetlander stream buffer that was

1:13:37 ↗ reveated as part of that project.

1:13:42 ↗ Okay, thank you.

1:13:52 ↗ Time to move forward. Um,

1:13:56 ↗ basically what we're hearing is just

1:13:58 ↗ more information we can gather into this

1:14:00 ↗ about more projects.

1:14:04 ↗ that I'm hearing from just as much as

1:14:07 ↗ possible.

1:14:13 ↗ But I think you did a great job.

1:14:15 ↗ Appreciate the work. I'll I'll add that

1:14:17 ↗ to my handoff notes.

1:14:25 ↗ Okay. And then

1:14:27 ↗ you're presenting

1:14:38 ↗ I can pull it up for you if you've got

1:14:40 ↗ it.

1:14:48 ↗ So, while while Doug is pulling that up,

1:14:51 ↗ um I think what we what we really um we

1:14:54 ↗ came last time um and uh we heard some

1:14:58 ↗ feedback. Um so we summarized some of

1:15:01 ↗ that in our presentation of what we

1:15:02 ↗ heard from you all. We asked what you

1:15:05 ↗ know do you want another touch uh with

1:15:08 ↗ the code and you preferred another

1:15:10 ↗ touch. So we've kind of are coming back

1:15:12 ↗ and we have a set of policy questions

1:15:14 ↗ that we really today's our term time to

1:15:17 ↗ listen to you all not so much to share

1:15:19 ↗ but we're happy to u kind of quickly

1:15:24 ↗ summarize where we left it where we left

1:15:26 ↗ the conversation and where um you all

1:15:29 ↗ think

1:15:31 ↗ we still have some work to do or um or

1:15:34 ↗ hold the public hearing with the

1:15:36 ↗ planning and policy commission in July.

1:15:39 ↗ uh employment council's on recess in

1:15:42 ↗ August and uh our goal is to get it in

1:15:45 ↗ front of council in September uh with

1:15:47 ↗ planning policies recommendation and

1:15:50 ↗ your feedback.

1:15:55 ↗ Um do you need help for No, I'm pulling

1:15:57 ↗ it up.

1:15:59 ↗ I think I can get it from another to

1:16:01 ↗ find it in SharePoint, but I got it.

1:16:04 ↗ Are we going to be sending a a comment

1:16:08 ↗ letter to uh the council on this one

1:16:11 ↗ since we're taking

1:16:13 ↗ on this one? Well, on the end of this

1:16:15 ↗ conversation,

1:16:19 ↗ so

1:16:22 ↗ next slide is just the purpose the

1:16:25 ↗ followup from our last check-in with you

1:16:27 ↗ all. there. We just kind of talked

1:16:29 ↗ about, you know, we've been we came

1:16:32 ↗ first in uh April, then we came in May,

1:16:36 ↗ and we're here again. Um,

1:16:40 ↗ and this is the April 9th feedback. Uh,

1:16:44 ↗ you asked us to do some more testing.

1:16:47 ↗ Uh, clarify how the preund is used. Uh,

1:16:50 ↗ address some concern with retail effect.

1:16:53 ↗ Uh, there were some questions about

1:16:54 ↗ multif family target.

1:16:57 ↗ uh coordination with wildfire

1:16:58 ↗ mitigation. Um there was a ask for a new

1:17:02 ↗ approach with homeowner association

1:17:05 ↗ um and to identify planting areas with

1:17:07 ↗ flexibility. And then in May we heard

1:17:10 ↗ the feedback from you saying uh maybe

1:17:13 ↗ there's need for more public education

1:17:15 ↗ for all owners to get tree permits. Uh

1:17:17 ↗ we need to clarify replacement

1:17:19 ↗ requirements. You know it's a hazardous

1:17:21 ↗ nuisance tree one. ments or land markets

1:17:24 ↗ one to two, but be explicitly clear in

1:17:26 ↗ your language. Um, you also ask simplify

1:17:30 ↗ single family requirements because the

1:17:31 ↗ homeowner is trying to, you know, deal

1:17:33 ↗ with uh nuisance trees. Um,

1:17:37 ↗ and then uh move the tree removal

1:17:39 ↗ section. I'm not sure what that um was.

1:17:45 ↗ Um relief for emergency events. Um so a

1:17:48 ↗ storm you know we there was a concern

1:17:50 ↗ about are we really making people come

1:17:52 ↗ back and get permits and things like

1:17:54 ↗ that and so that's not the case. Um we

1:17:57 ↗ updated the flexibility criteria to make

1:17:59 ↗ it more explicitly clear. We heard uh

1:18:03 ↗ you know an ask to save strands of trees

1:18:06 ↗ or you know an attempt to so you don't

1:18:08 ↗ have like one single tree standing in

1:18:10 ↗ the middle of nowhere and try to attempt

1:18:11 ↗ to save that before you are allowed to

1:18:13 ↗ take everything out. uh and then we

1:18:16 ↗ requested another meeting to review. So

1:18:18 ↗ in new uh next slide

1:18:22 ↗ uh then we went after your attacks we

1:18:25 ↗ went to planning and policy commission

1:18:26 ↗ uh the feedback they provided was uh we

1:18:29 ↗ had a category saying any lot um 10,000

1:18:33 ↗ square ft or less and they said well

1:18:35 ↗ Isqua has a lot of really small lots

1:18:38 ↗ home lots and other things so maybe

1:18:40 ↗ create a category for 5,000t lot less um

1:18:45 ↗ and have a percentage for that Um they

1:18:49 ↗ also said that perhaps the city should

1:18:51 ↗ focus on their own properties for heat

1:18:53 ↗ disparity. So that comes through the

1:18:55 ↗ forestry plan because you know 30% of

1:18:57 ↗ the land areas roads you're not going to

1:19:00 ↗ be able to you know that's going to

1:19:01 ↗ remain impervious but can you plan

1:19:03 ↗ additional landscaping uh around those

1:19:06 ↗ to um reduce the heat uh effect and

1:19:09 ↗ neighborhoods that have that heat

1:19:11 ↗ disparity. Um they also said um

1:19:15 ↗ deciduous versus evergreen replacements.

1:19:18 ↗ uh why do we prefer one or the other and

1:19:20 ↗ being more clear in the code. Um you

1:19:23 ↗ know the code currently gives people

1:19:24 ↗ option uh from a preferred tree list you

1:19:27 ↗ can pick any one of those. Um but right

1:19:30 ↗ tree right place what does that mean? Um

1:19:34 ↗ and then uh they also said adjust the

1:19:37 ↗ hazardous tree exemption.

1:19:39 ↗ um more focus on tree giveaway program

1:19:42 ↗ for some property owner that wants to

1:19:44 ↗ take uh the hazardous tree out but

1:19:47 ↗ doesn't want to then pay a fee in lie of

1:19:50 ↗ maybe we could you know work towards

1:19:52 ↗ some sort of a program that helps more

1:19:54 ↗ plantings um and continue to review for

1:19:58 ↗ wild fire codes. Uh they also asked for

1:20:02 ↗ some example site plans.

1:20:04 ↗ So, uh, we took that feedback and, uh,

1:20:08 ↗ put it into, um, the draft that was in

1:20:11 ↗ your packet. Uh, next slide.

1:20:15 ↗ Uh, tree exemp replacement exemption.

1:20:19 ↗ Uh, proposed amendments contain

1:20:21 ↗ exemption from tree replacement property

1:20:23 ↗ meets or exceeds canopy coverage target.

1:20:25 ↗ So, this is a policy question that we're

1:20:27 ↗ going to ask you again, but let me

1:20:28 ↗ explain what this is. So currently if

1:20:33 ↗ your property

1:20:35 ↗ is in a you know has a lot of trees and

1:20:38 ↗ your percentage is only 35%. And you're

1:20:42 ↗ a very tree blot and you're at 60% and

1:20:45 ↗ you have a hazardous tree. Do you want

1:20:47 ↗ to let that property owner take the

1:20:49 ↗ hazardous tree and not have to do any

1:20:52 ↗ replacement because they meet that

1:20:54 ↗ threshold for percentage or do you want

1:20:57 ↗ to have one for one replacement

1:21:00 ↗ regardless of whatever um the percentage

1:21:03 ↗ canopy is? So, they're pros and cons.

1:21:05 ↗ One is easy. You know, you just have one

1:21:08 ↗ to one replacement. You'll you you're

1:21:10 ↗ good. You you had a problem tree that

1:21:12 ↗ was getting into your foundation, but

1:21:14 ↗ you have room and you can plant it.

1:21:15 ↗ Otherwise, you can also pay fee in less

1:21:17 ↗ if you don't have room to plant it. Uh

1:21:20 ↗ if you if you want to go down the path

1:21:23 ↗ of calculating the canopy coverage and

1:21:27 ↗ saying well you meet this then

1:21:30 ↗ understand that the proposal is also

1:21:32 ↗ lowering some of the percentages based

1:21:33 ↗ on the neighborhood to the other. So

1:21:35 ↗ there's there's that to keep in mind

1:21:37 ↗ because in Talis neighbor for instance

1:21:39 ↗ we have 73% coverage which we know

1:21:42 ↗ there's no way any of those 2500 foot

1:21:44 ↗ lots is ever going to meet but it's all

1:21:47 ↗ developed. So someone has a problem tree

1:21:50 ↗ they want to take out do you want one

1:21:52 ↗ for one replacement if they can't plant

1:21:53 ↗ it on their property they can pay feed

1:21:55 ↗ off. Um but if it was very well treed we

1:22:01 ↗ give them a pass on replacement. That's

1:22:03 ↗ basically this this uh policy question

1:22:05 ↗ is getting at. Uh next slide.

1:22:10 ↗ Um so obviously this is the biggest uh

1:22:13 ↗ change which is the um average lot size

1:22:19 ↗ zoning types uh and the 20-year county

1:22:23 ↗ coverage requirements with the new. So,

1:22:25 ↗ we had a neighborhood based percentage

1:22:28 ↗ uh requirement and now we're going down

1:22:30 ↗ this um land use lot size uh uh

1:22:36 ↗ methodology. Um so that leads to the

1:22:40 ↗ policy question too. We can bring this

1:22:42 ↗ slide back up when you want to discuss

1:22:44 ↗ that. Why did we change to this? Um, we

1:22:48 ↗ changed to this because the the original

1:22:52 ↗ methodology was based off of the canopy

1:22:57 ↗ coverage for each neighborhood, but it's

1:22:59 ↗ a neighborhood as a whole. So the data

1:23:02 ↗ the city has is based on this canopy

1:23:05 ↗ study that looks at the entire

1:23:07 ↗ neighborhood which has maybe majority of

1:23:10 ↗ the trees exist in HOA tracks that a

1:23:13 ↗ stream is running through or wetlands

1:23:16 ↗ but the individual we didn't have data

1:23:18 ↗ for what is the percentage for

1:23:19 ↗ individual lots. So you apply that

1:23:22 ↗ percentage on a lot by lot basis is

1:23:25 ↗ problematic because overall in the area

1:23:27 ↗ you may have 73% in talis but each town

1:23:31 ↗ home isn't 73% tree lot.

1:23:35 ↗ So that that that became obvious with

1:23:37 ↗ this methodology that taking a s

1:23:40 ↗ areawide percentage and applying on a

1:23:42 ↗ parcel by parcel wasn't practical or you

1:23:45 ↗ know it didn't make sense. Thank you for

1:23:47 ↗ explaining that. I just didn't

1:23:48 ↗ understand why the change. Yeah. And so

1:23:52 ↗ so then then was this um thing about the

1:23:55 ↗ land use whether it's a residential,

1:23:57 ↗ multifamily or commercial and then

1:24:00 ↗ what's the average lot size and what's

1:24:02 ↗ the canopy target. So there's the that's

1:24:04 ↗ in the proposed um target.

1:24:09 ↗ Can I ask something quickly? Okay. So

1:24:13 ↗ the going back to your policy question

1:24:15 ↗ one you know my simple answer would be

1:24:18 ↗ if the property meets that you know if

1:24:22 ↗ they have to remove one hazardous tree

1:24:24 ↗ and if it meets the requirement for

1:24:26 ↗ canopy we should give them a pass that's

1:24:28 ↗ my simple answer but I don't know what

1:24:31 ↗ you know as you said what it changes for

1:24:35 ↗ the city or what are the you know the

1:24:37 ↗ bigger picture consequences like um and

1:24:41 ↗ the simple answer comes from the thought

1:24:43 ↗ that you know I know personally that

1:24:46 ↗ removing some of the trees you know

1:24:48 ↗ taking them down and then you without

1:24:51 ↗ even adding the cost of the permit or

1:24:54 ↗ you know the adding a new tree just

1:24:57 ↗ taking some of these trees cost like

1:24:59 ↗ $1,000

1:25:00 ↗ per tree which is crazy means if you

1:25:03 ↗ have three trees you know you have to

1:25:04 ↗ remove so that itself is a lot for a lot

1:25:07 ↗ of house owners so you know when you add

1:25:09 ↗ these other cost and that's why I feel

1:25:11 ↗ like maybe if they meet the canopy

1:25:13 ↗ criteria, we should give them a pass.

1:25:15 ↗ But as I said, I don't know what the

1:25:17 ↗ bigger consequence or the bigger picture

1:25:19 ↗ consequence are. So I was just wondering

1:25:21 ↗ if you can if there are any and what

1:25:23 ↗ does it entail for the city or you know

1:25:26 ↗ Yeah. the other requirements per

1:25:29 ↗ question because I think that's the pros

1:25:31 ↗ and cons, right? And so so the the the

1:25:34 ↗ con the con of that could be that um say

1:25:38 ↗ you're on squ mountain you have a lot of

1:25:40 ↗ trees and you have maybe 50% of your um

1:25:45 ↗ coverage and I don't know what I

1:25:47 ↗ proposed in the small lot is now um or

1:25:51 ↗ before maybe an example where we say

1:25:55 ↗ that single family small lots up there

1:25:58 ↗ you know

1:26:00 ↗ um So for what what size lot are you

1:26:03 ↗ looking for or any neighborhood thing we

1:26:05 ↗ could pick Dallas or as well um um I

1:26:08 ↗ think Thomas 33%

1:26:13 ↗ it's a single family small lot okay that

1:26:16 ↗ lot size is less than 10,000 square ft

1:26:20 ↗ that's the most common scenario even in

1:26:23 ↗ you know south of Samish or uh whatever

1:26:27 ↗ and so right now it would be 35%

1:26:30 ↗ uh coverage So you only have to make 35%

1:26:33 ↗ coverage. The remainder can be taken

1:26:35 ↗ out, right? So but it has to be a

1:26:38 ↗ hazardous tree. So you can't take a

1:26:40 ↗ healthy tree out anyway. Um so it it's

1:26:43 ↗ not terrible. Um but

1:26:46 ↗ the other bigger picture objective the

1:26:49 ↗ city has the climate action plan to

1:26:51 ↗ increase the canopy coverage. So the the

1:26:54 ↗ overall canopy there would be a loss

1:26:57 ↗ long term because you've taken one tree

1:26:59 ↗ down but you haven't replaced it. But

1:27:02 ↗ should that burden be on that property

1:27:04 ↗ owner that has plenty of trees or that

1:27:06 ↗ should be absorbed somewhere else by

1:27:08 ↗ city's programs funds or anything else?

1:27:10 ↗ I think that's sort of the policy

1:27:12 ↗ choice. So I'm wondering if there is you

1:27:14 ↗ know any leeway here where you can look

1:27:16 ↗ at how much is the canopy coverage for

1:27:19 ↗ that particular property and how it

1:27:21 ↗ meets with the average you know the

1:27:24 ↗ required average for the you know canopy

1:27:26 ↗ coverage. Yeah we don't have that data

1:27:28 ↗ at this point. So we have it for the

1:27:30 ↗ whole neighborhood at a neighborhood

1:27:32 ↗ scale but we don't have it for

1:27:34 ↗ individual block. So we would have to do

1:27:36 ↗ the calculation. So that's another cost.

1:27:38 ↗ It's another added cost for the city has

1:27:41 ↗ to do an inventory and show us how many

1:27:43 ↗ trees they have, what species they are,

1:27:46 ↗ what's the average, you know, uh area

1:27:49 ↗ that we calculate their canopy coverage.

1:27:50 ↗ So there's it makes the the permit

1:27:52 ↗ process a little bit more complicated

1:27:54 ↗ complex because we have to do that

1:27:56 ↗ calculation to say yes, you don't have

1:27:58 ↗ to do the replacement and you do, right?

1:28:00 ↗ So we have to do that in canopy. The

1:28:03 ↗ other one, it's more simple and easy.

1:28:05 ↗ one for one replacement. It's it's

1:28:07 ↗ there. You get your permit the other

1:28:08 ↗ day, the next day because you know this

1:28:10 ↗ is what so there's the streamlined easy.

1:28:14 ↗ Yes, it could be a burden on some

1:28:15 ↗ property owners that have a lot of trees

1:28:17 ↗ and they still would have to either pay

1:28:20 ↗ a fee in Lua or replant on their

1:28:22 ↗ property. But, you know, we heard some

1:28:24 ↗ public testimony at the last time the

1:28:26 ↗ community members from Montro uh and

1:28:29 ↗ they were fine with onetoone placement.

1:28:31 ↗ I thought that was um so that that's

1:28:34 ↗ what we've heard from the people that

1:28:36 ↗ have focus radio.

1:28:38 ↗ So just quick thing I had here on this

1:28:42 ↗ um was um I was wondering if you can go

1:28:46 ↗ with onetoone approach but add a clause

1:28:48 ↗ that you know in some cases where if any

1:28:51 ↗ property owner feels like they have

1:28:53 ↗ enough canopy coverage and they don't

1:28:54 ↗ want to take down the tree then they can

1:28:57 ↗ request you know to be to have that

1:29:00 ↗ additional permitting check done but

1:29:02 ↗ that would cost additional to the permit

1:29:05 ↗ I don't know how the permitting two two

1:29:07 ↗ types for materials to make. Yeah. So

1:29:10 ↗ one's an easy path and one means one has

1:29:13 ↗ to one because in in half the cases it

1:29:16 ↗ will be just one has to one replacement

1:29:17 ↗ needed anyways right there will be but

1:29:21 ↗ see for example if I have to remove

1:29:22 ↗ three trees it's going to cost me $3,000

1:29:25 ↗ just for the removal then you know the

1:29:27 ↗ permitting process and whatn not so in

1:29:30 ↗ that case I would consider if I want to

1:29:32 ↗ put more money to give to the tree fund

1:29:34 ↗ or not. So if the permitting cost beats

1:29:38 ↗ that, I might just choose the permitting

1:29:40 ↗ way.

1:29:42 ↗ I don't know the logistics how it would

1:29:44 ↗ work out. Just a thought to consider.

1:29:49 ↗ Is it easiest when we take more

1:29:51 ↗ questions to work these one by one so

1:29:54 ↗ you get the I think that for us it's

1:29:56 ↗ easier to to do these one by one. So can

1:29:59 ↗ we go back to the first policy question?

1:30:01 ↗ Um I think we were we we have policy

1:30:05 ↗ questions towards the end again. So do

1:30:09 ↗ we do we want to just pause and then

1:30:11 ↗ just go to the first and go to the

1:30:13 ↗ actual policy question and then come

1:30:15 ↗ back. So the first policy question was

1:30:17 ↗ should the city wave the the onetoone

1:30:20 ↗ tree replacement requirements if the

1:30:22 ↗ site meets or exceeds the canopy

1:30:25 ↗ coverage target after removal of the

1:30:27 ↗ tree initi.

1:30:29 ↗ So that's on slide number 14 of this is

1:30:33 ↗ the actual

1:30:34 ↗ question that's uh written. Um but I

1:30:39 ↗ don't know if you wanted easier to see

1:30:42 ↗ those other slides with all the

1:30:44 ↗ information to discuss than the

1:30:46 ↗ questions here. We can do them one by

1:30:48 ↗ one. I think that will Would you want

1:30:51 ↗ this slide or do you want these slides?

1:30:53 ↗ These slides. Okay. I think we can hold

1:30:56 ↗ the policy question.

1:31:00 ↗ Um, okay. Keith, you had any questions?

1:31:02 ↗ Yeah, thanks. Um, I like Roger's idea of

1:31:05 ↗ giving choice to to homeowners, but I

1:31:07 ↗ also, you know, I know we've been

1:31:08 ↗ talking about concern that homeowners

1:31:11 ↗ aren't just cutting trees illegally and,

1:31:13 ↗ you know, avoiding this whole process if

1:31:15 ↗ it's too complicated. So, um, and if

1:31:19 ↗ you've heard from folks that one:1 is is

1:31:21 ↗ acceptable. I also wonder if um you know

1:31:24 ↗ it saves money for the city and um you

1:31:26 ↗ know means maybe more fees are being

1:31:28 ↗ paid in the first place if we're not

1:31:31 ↗ having folks doing it illegally. If

1:31:33 ↗ there's any kind of way to analyze um

1:31:35 ↗ the uh whether it would generate more

1:31:38 ↗ revenue or you know satisfactory amount

1:31:41 ↗ of revenue to just keep it simple as one

1:31:43 ↗ to one um as opposed to trying to you

1:31:47 ↗ know make simple. Yeah, the pros and

1:31:50 ↗ cons of one is simple. It's easy. People

1:31:53 ↗ can just, you know, apply and it's easy

1:31:56 ↗ for the city. It's easy for the

1:31:58 ↗ homeowners. Uh it's clear. Uh the other

1:32:02 ↗ one is a little bit more complex. But if

1:32:04 ↗ you give people a choice, you can go the

1:32:05 ↗ easy path or the complex path,

1:32:09 ↗ you know, it adds more complexity, but

1:32:10 ↗ it can be done. Yeah, I guess. And and

1:32:13 ↗ without I know I think Dan is working

1:32:14 ↗ out tree inventory, but but without that

1:32:16 ↗ we're not really sure how bad the

1:32:19 ↗ problem would be of people avoiding this

1:32:21 ↗ feed and just trying to blingly cut

1:32:24 ↗ trees, right? Yeah. Most people want to,

1:32:27 ↗ you know, if it's if the process isn't

1:32:29 ↗ too ownorous or too lengthy, people will

1:32:31 ↗ want to comply. if it becomes like you

1:32:34 ↗ know a lot of back and forth and we

1:32:37 ↗ don't need this and we don't they

1:32:38 ↗ frustrates people and then and you know

1:32:41 ↗ and then they see their neighbor cut

1:32:42 ↗ them down and they didn't have to do

1:32:43 ↗ anything and I tried to follow the rules

1:32:45 ↗ and I came in and did this so I think

1:32:47 ↗ that that's that balance that can

1:32:49 ↗ sometimes play out no easy answer for

1:32:52 ↗ you

1:32:56 ↗ well I support staying with the one one

1:32:58 ↗ replacement just think it um that the

1:33:01 ↗ city at least I mean we can always

1:33:03 ↗ update the code again. I mean, this is

1:33:05 ↗ never, you know, forever. And I think

1:33:08 ↗ that ease up to the property owner and

1:33:10 ↗ the ease to the city and us getting

1:33:13 ↗ trees in areas where we need them is

1:33:15 ↗ really important. So, I support staying

1:33:17 ↗ with you oneonone. I understand where

1:33:20 ↗ you're going totally, but I just think

1:33:22 ↗ we need to try and keep these. We're

1:33:24 ↗ trying to take on big chunk here and

1:33:26 ↗ let's see how we're doing and if we have

1:33:28 ↗ to reevaluate that's just like where we

1:33:30 ↗ was just adopted a year ago. Let's

1:33:33 ↗ reevaluate again. That's where I'm at.

1:33:38 ↗ Um yeah, I had a question in the comment

1:33:39 ↗ for clarification. The 33% or the 35%

1:33:42 ↗ for each of the lots and the lot

1:33:43 ↗ percentage was calculated based off of

1:33:46 ↗ neighborhood percentage. No, that's the

1:33:49 ↗ new proposed um so there are two tables.

1:33:52 ↗ the the currently the one in the code is

1:33:54 ↗ based on enablement. Okay. Uh we're

1:33:56 ↗ going to you know the proposed draft

1:33:58 ↗ replaces it with this sec the next slide

1:34:01 ↗ uh this uh percentage which is based on

1:34:04 ↗ the zone and the lot size. Got it. And

1:34:07 ↗ the use. So if it's retail versus single

1:34:09 ↗ family or multif family. Okay. So these

1:34:12 ↗ percentages are lower than the

1:34:14 ↗ neighborhood. But these are more based

1:34:16 ↗ on what you can actually plant on on

1:34:19 ↗ your property versus,

1:34:21 ↗ you know, this neighborhood has 73%

1:34:23 ↗ organic. Okay. Yeah. Got it. Got it. Um

1:34:25 ↗ and then yeah for comment I would say

1:34:27 ↗ that I like agree with the keeping it

1:34:29 ↗ one to one just because I think that

1:34:30 ↗ this has been in development for um a

1:34:33 ↗ really long time and like I think that

1:34:34 ↗ we should also encourage

1:34:37 ↗ or like keeping our tree canopy as high

1:34:39 ↗ as possible with like community members

1:34:41 ↗ and just inqu

1:34:46 ↗ that that would be like ideal if we had

1:34:48 ↗ a bunch of staff and unlimited amount of

1:34:50 ↗ funding but I think that also um like

1:34:52 ↗ encouraging community members if they

1:34:54 ↗ can to keep their tree canopy even if

1:34:57 ↗ it's way higher than um that their

1:35:00 ↗ target um just up. Okay. So,

1:35:05 ↗ you know, good good conversation, but I

1:35:08 ↗ think in terms of what we present to

1:35:10 ↗ PPC, um is there a sort of cons majority

1:35:15 ↗ for keeping it simple and one to one for

1:35:18 ↗ now?

1:35:19 ↗ I have I have one more question before I

1:35:21 ↗ could decide and that I'm I'm worried

1:35:23 ↗ about the costs associated with making

1:35:26 ↗ that assessment of the coverage for

1:35:28 ↗ individual lot. How how would that be

1:35:30 ↗ done and what would the costs

1:35:33 ↗ associated?

1:35:35 ↗ They have to hire an arborist to make

1:35:37 ↗ that determination.

1:35:39 ↗ You know, we've lessened some of the

1:35:41 ↗ things. If it's an obviously dead tree,

1:35:43 ↗ you don't need an arist. You know, if

1:35:45 ↗ you tell us their carpenter ants on this

1:35:47 ↗ thing and it's dead the tree in

1:35:50 ↗ question, but the coverage the coverage

1:35:53 ↗ the coverage I think I don't think we

1:35:55 ↗ require an arborist to give us we ask

1:35:58 ↗ you to give us the species of the tree

1:36:03 ↗ and and then we determine the canopy

1:36:05 ↗ coverage based. Is there a methodology?

1:36:07 ↗ Do you know that? There is a

1:36:09 ↗ methodology, but it does say that a

1:36:12 ↗ qualified professional has to prepare

1:36:14 ↗ it. So, it's probably going to cost

1:36:17 ↗ several hundred to have the assessment

1:36:21 ↗ made. So, I I mean, I'd like to give

1:36:24 ↗ them a pass. I'm kind of with on that,

1:36:27 ↗ but I think that it's impractical

1:36:29 ↗ because of the cost associated with it.

1:36:31 ↗ We will not get compliance. Yeah, that's

1:36:33 ↗ the problem we were also trying to

1:36:35 ↗ solve, right? Make it easy. Don't make

1:36:37 ↗ it complicated when it becomes too old.

1:36:40 ↗ You could I mean I'm just thinking out

1:36:42 ↗ loud here because it does say that but

1:36:44 ↗ the when you look at the measuring tree

1:36:47 ↗ canopy like there is a method for option

1:36:51 ↗ two aerial estimation where you obtain

1:36:53 ↗ aerial imagery measure the site

1:36:55 ↗ boundaries measure the can canopies

1:36:57 ↗ within the that site boundary and then

1:37:00 ↗ divide by the total earth site area to

1:37:02 ↗ obtain. I think you need a qualified

1:37:04 ↗ professional to do that. But in the code

1:37:07 ↗ it says a qualified landscape designer

1:37:09 ↗ or landscape architect or licensed land

1:37:12 ↗ surveyor. Oh and a sorry skipped over

1:37:14 ↗ that. Um so calculating existing and new

1:37:19 ↗ should be prepared by and I think you

1:37:22 ↗ know the smart motor could do it by

1:37:25 ↗ Google maps and calculating and

1:37:27 ↗ calibrating but it you know average

1:37:29 ↗ homeowner do they have the time to kind

1:37:31 ↗ of create it on a scale kind of figure

1:37:34 ↗ that out but but I think they we won't

1:37:36 ↗ accept that unless because unless we

1:37:38 ↗ change the code to say we can accept the

1:37:40 ↗ homeowners aerial coverage calculation

1:37:44 ↗ then is it accurate? Is it correct? You

1:37:46 ↗ know, that'll be an assessment that we

1:37:48 ↗ would have to do it again. The

1:37:50 ↗ calculation just to confirm we could get

1:37:54 ↗ well lack lacking the tools to make all

1:37:57 ↗ that happen. I would say stay with the

1:37:59 ↗ one to one. Okay. What I'm hearing is

1:38:01 ↗ that the exemption would actually add

1:38:04 ↗ cost and work for the city in order for

1:38:08 ↗ them to get coverage calculated if they

1:38:12 ↗ can get the exemption. Yes. And the way

1:38:14 ↗ we wrote the

1:38:16 ↗ sure

1:38:20 ↗ I think it sent that we're hearing those

1:38:23 ↗ keep it one to one. Okay.

1:38:26 ↗ Thank you.

1:38:28 ↗ So next question was um the actual

1:38:32 ↗ question let me read it out is does the

1:38:35 ↗ board agree with the new tree canopy

1:38:37 ↗ coverage percentages based on zoning and

1:38:40 ↗ lot size or should they remain based on

1:38:43 ↗ neighborhood that's part one and part

1:38:46 ↗ two feedback is is there any additional

1:38:49 ↗ feedback on the methodology or the

1:38:51 ↗ proposed percentages so the first is

1:38:55 ↗ very simple in my mind at least

1:38:58 ↗ We know the tree canopy coverage uh

1:39:01 ↗ based on neighborhood are impractical.

1:39:04 ↗ Um so going down this zoning and lot

1:39:06 ↗ size and agree that that method you know

1:39:10 ↗ that methodology is

1:39:13 ↗ sound.

1:39:15 ↗ Okay.

1:39:18 ↗ Sorry just a quick question. just the

1:39:20 ↗ only value I could see in the the

1:39:22 ↗ neighborhood stuff is is some

1:39:23 ↗ neighborhoods have more proximity to

1:39:25 ↗ like you know riparian corridors and

1:39:27 ↗ things like that. Um is there any

1:39:29 ↗ connection to um you know weighted

1:39:33 ↗ values for uh for for canopy coverage in

1:39:37 ↗ certain neighborhoods or anything like

1:39:38 ↗ that tied to these percentages? Yeah.

1:39:41 ↗ Anything in the critical area is going

1:39:42 ↗ to be protected anyway. Um, so you know,

1:39:45 ↗ if you're in the buffer of a stream or

1:39:47 ↗ wetland, you the critical area could

1:39:50 ↗ protect that.

1:40:00 ↗ Oh, hi. Did you call on me? Oops. Sorry.

1:40:05 ↗ Did I hear you call on me? Uh, so sorry.

1:40:08 ↗ I can't see um for some reason I can't

1:40:10 ↗ see your presentation, but I'm looking

1:40:12 ↗ at um what was in the agenda. So um

1:40:17 ↗ I'm just curious like I'm glad that

1:40:19 ↗ we're reducing the canopy target.

1:40:23 ↗ Um and I'm looking at the 7,540

1:40:27 ↗ square ft there. It's 35% and 45% for

1:40:30 ↗ the 11 or 12,000. So,

1:40:34 ↗ considering houses can be pretty large,

1:40:37 ↗ um, and then there's the garage and the

1:40:39 ↗ driveway and sometimes people like to

1:40:41 ↗ have some grass. Um, how is that

1:40:44 ↗ looking? What is the normal percentage

1:40:46 ↗ when we look around right now? Have we

1:40:48 ↗ figured that out

1:40:52 ↗ on a parcel by parcel basis? What's the

1:40:56 ↗ Yeah, we didn't have the the data for

1:40:58 ↗ that based on our Okay. Uh but we did do

1:41:02 ↗ some sample site plans to say okay if

1:41:04 ↗ you have a 10,000 square foot lot then

1:41:08 ↗ and this is the setbacks that the zoning

1:41:11 ↗ code has and this is uh you know

1:41:14 ↗ impervious surface requirements and this

1:41:16 ↗ is you know average sized home that

1:41:19 ↗ people will choose to build and how much

1:41:22 ↗ is then left for the the trees to be

1:41:25 ↗ planted and that's somewhat that informs

1:41:28 ↗ some of these percentages bas is going

1:41:30 ↗ to those sort of assessments.

1:41:33 ↗ Okay. Um good. Yeah, cuz when I was

1:41:35 ↗ looking at like the 7,500 number, I was

1:41:38 ↗ thinking, well, half of that could be

1:41:40 ↗ house and then um so that's 50%

1:41:45 ↗ and then to put trees on 35%.

1:41:48 ↗ I guess what I usually am looking at now

1:41:50 ↗ is um now that we've had a fire

1:41:53 ↗ assessment at our house and we're going

1:41:55 ↗ around and uh removing all of the plants

1:41:58 ↗ that we had within you know 5 ft of the

1:42:01 ↗ house and you know looking at limming a

1:42:03 ↗ lot of trees and things. So um and I

1:42:07 ↗ know you're thinking of this like what

1:42:08 ↗ what is going to be safe? Um, you know,

1:42:11 ↗ are we asking people,

1:42:14 ↗ for instance, if they're going to plant

1:42:16 ↗ a tree, look at it like, what size is it

1:42:18 ↗ going to be 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years

1:42:21 ↗ from now? And will the branches still be

1:42:24 ↗ 10 ft away from the house? Um, things

1:42:28 ↗ like that, cuz that is one of the

1:42:30 ↗ qualifications, the, you know, what's

1:42:33 ↗ the tree going to look like when it's

1:42:35 ↗ older? Will the branches be 10 ft away

1:42:38 ↗ from the house? Yeah, that's a common

1:42:41 ↗ mistake that happens. You know, you buy

1:42:42 ↗ a small little tree from the nursery and

1:42:45 ↗ then 20 years later if you've lived in

1:42:47 ↗ the house that's grown um over your

1:42:50 ↗ roof. Yeah. And it's really common. I

1:42:52 ↗ I'm driving around now and I'm looking

1:42:54 ↗ and I'm seeing, wow, there are a lot of

1:42:56 ↗ houses that have tree limbs over their

1:42:59 ↗ roof. Um other things, you know, besides

1:43:04 ↗ um fire, there's rodent issues. I mean

1:43:07 ↗ there are other things that can you know

1:43:09 ↗ there some clearance from your roof and

1:43:12 ↗ eaves and all that is is a good best

1:43:14 ↗ practice. Um absolutely.

1:43:18 ↗ Um

1:43:19 ↗ so so I think what we've proposed here

1:43:22 ↗ are percentages are significantly lower

1:43:24 ↗ than what uh they are at the

1:43:25 ↗ neighborhood level but they're

1:43:27 ↗ manageable

1:43:29 ↗ at at an lot scale. Uh and then these

1:43:33 ↗ would only come into play, you know, if

1:43:35 ↗ we make the one to one for hazardous

1:43:37 ↗ tree removal. So anything any existing

1:43:39 ↗ home, uh these percentages would only

1:43:42 ↗ come into play if you were doing a major

1:43:43 ↗ remodel. You know, it's either a tear

1:43:45 ↗ down and rebuilding or you're improving

1:43:47 ↗ the value of 50% or more of your

1:43:50 ↗ structure. Um that that's when these

1:43:54 ↗ percentages uh will be calculated and

1:43:56 ↗ you determine that you need to meet

1:43:58 ↗ these standards, these percentages. So

1:44:00 ↗ new and redevelopment you would go to

1:44:03 ↗ this table. Removal of hazardous and

1:44:05 ↗ nuisance trees is just simple one to one

1:44:07 ↗ replacement. If it's a larger tree I

1:44:09 ↗ think there's a section about landmark

1:44:11 ↗ trees I mentioned I think uh the

1:44:14 ↗ replacement for that is one to two. So

1:44:16 ↗ landmark trees is 28 in or greater 30 in

1:44:19 ↗ or greater. Um so really large tree. So

1:44:22 ↗ that's an incentive for you to keep

1:44:24 ↗ that. Um, and so the way the code is all

1:44:28 ↗ written, you know, there's the tree

1:44:30 ↗ preservation piece and then there's the

1:44:32 ↗ tree replacement and then there's these

1:44:35 ↗ canopy coverage objectives. So yeah, we

1:44:38 ↗ tried to put that at the beginning of

1:44:39 ↗ the the code of how those interplay with

1:44:43 ↗ each other. But yeah, there's a lot. I

1:44:46 ↗ appreciate what you're doing. Um, I'm

1:44:47 ↗ glad the percentages are coming down so

1:44:49 ↗ it's more realistic. Um,

1:44:53 ↗ and I can't see what the questions are

1:44:55 ↗ right now, so I'll I'll search around,

1:44:57 ↗ see if I can find them. Thank you.

1:44:59 ↗ Question number two was really, did

1:45:01 ↗ everyone agree with going to the lot

1:45:03 ↗ size and the the zing methodology? I

1:45:05 ↗ think there's consensus around that. Uh,

1:45:07 ↗ the second part was any other feedback,

1:45:09 ↗ you know, specifically you want uh us to

1:45:12 ↗ further look into with these proposed

1:45:15 ↗ percentages. Uh I think we heard about

1:45:17 ↗ multif family but uh I think a lot of

1:45:19 ↗ that area is already developed and so

1:45:22 ↗ again it would only come into play when

1:45:24 ↗ someone is tear down or rebuilding or

1:45:27 ↗ doing a major redevelopment. So the less

1:45:30 ↗ than 5,000 square feet is not on here.

1:45:33 ↗ Is that going to be added in the

1:45:35 ↗ proposed draft? I think we added it's

1:45:37 ↗ probably not on the um on this slide but

1:45:41 ↗ that's 25%.

1:45:45 ↗ We're open to whether that should be

1:45:47 ↗ lower

1:45:49 ↗ included. Planning a policy commission

1:45:51 ↗ will definitely debate that.

1:45:54 ↗ You can see it in attachment. C.

1:45:58 ↗ Hi. So, this is something I was my

1:46:00 ↗ mother about this uh last month. She

1:46:02 ↗ kind of asked me about I'm thinking

1:46:04 ↗ about it is could we think about like

1:46:06 ↗ the income of the areas before

1:46:08 ↗ considering the tree because I know

1:46:10 ↗ certain areas afford to plant others. my

1:46:14 ↗ mother equity board. So, she kind of

1:46:16 ↗ does always think about that kind of

1:46:17 ↗ thing. So, I'm kind of curious about how

1:46:19 ↗ to find

1:46:22 ↗ Yeah. So, um

1:46:26 ↗ good question, but I do not believe we

1:46:28 ↗ have uh data uh to to say in this area

1:46:34 ↗ you you have a different percentage

1:46:36 ↗ because of that. But it could be based

1:46:38 ↗ on, you know, um, if a homeowner

1:46:42 ↗ qualifies for certain discounts or rates

1:46:45 ↗ or or participates in the free giveaway

1:46:48 ↗ program or something like that. So, more

1:46:50 ↗ on the program managed side than on the

1:46:52 ↗ regulations side. So, you know, there

1:46:55 ↗ could be programs set up by the city

1:46:57 ↗ that help people with limited resources

1:46:59 ↗ to be able to to do this uh, you know,

1:47:02 ↗ helping them in certain way.

1:47:10 ↗ All right. So that was second question.

1:47:13 ↗ And so the third question is, does the

1:47:17 ↗ board agree that full tree canopy

1:47:19 ↗ coverage requirements should only be

1:47:20 ↗ required for new development or major

1:47:22 ↗ redevelopment? So this table only

1:47:24 ↗ applies to new development and

1:47:26 ↗ redevelopment.

1:47:31 ↗ So right now the way the code is written

1:47:33 ↗ you know we apply to all situations

1:47:35 ↗ including three to be a change like

1:47:37 ↗ we've talked about that before um and

1:47:40 ↗ redevelopment is defined as 50% of the

1:47:43 ↗ building value. So, what are they paying

1:47:46 ↗ taxes on? Not a land value, but just the

1:47:48 ↗ building.

1:47:51 ↗ I guess my response to your question is

1:47:54 ↗ that um you know, the city battles

1:47:57 ↗ trees. So, if you're taking a tree down,

1:47:59 ↗ it's a onetoone placement, not just if

1:48:01 ↗ you're doing a redevelopment of your

1:48:03 ↗ property. So, my take on it is that we

1:48:05 ↗ should stay in the burn code just

1:48:07 ↗ applies to all situations.

1:48:10 ↗ Um, let me make sure I'm explaining it

1:48:12 ↗ properly. So

1:48:15 ↗ uh so one we we have uh the hazardous

1:48:20 ↗ tree and nuisance studies that we

1:48:21 ↗ already talked about. This particular

1:48:24 ↗ table that we were looking at with the

1:48:26 ↗ percentages was being applied to if you

1:48:30 ↗ in the past if you if you took down a

1:48:32 ↗ tree you had to bring your and your lot

1:48:35 ↗ was not meeting the percentage you had

1:48:38 ↗ to upgrade the percentage regardless of

1:48:41 ↗ the one tree that you took out. you

1:48:42 ↗ actually need to bring your whole

1:48:44 ↗ property up to the these five instead.

1:48:47 ↗ Correct. And so um what I think we heard

1:48:51 ↗ that the last feedback from community

1:48:53 ↗ members and others was this table only

1:48:56 ↗ applies to

1:48:58 ↗ large we would do this canopy coverage

1:49:00 ↗ calculation only when you're it's a you

1:49:02 ↗ know vacant lot being redeveloped or

1:49:04 ↗ you're adding square footage to your

1:49:07 ↗ property or whatever you know anything

1:49:09 ↗ you're doing on the outside that impacts

1:49:10 ↗ the trees. There is a separate tree

1:49:13 ↗ preservation chap section that that

1:49:16 ↗ applies to redevelopment also. And so

1:49:20 ↗ let me kind of break that down. So if

1:49:22 ↗ you have an existing property that has

1:49:25 ↗ you know

1:49:28 ↗ I want to do a calculation easily that

1:49:30 ↗ has 10 existing trees

1:49:32 ↗ um and it's in say central you know

1:49:35 ↗ somewhere on the valley floor. It has 10

1:49:37 ↗ existing trees and you want to come and

1:49:38 ↗ redevelop the property. you would go

1:49:40 ↗ into this table, you would find out what

1:49:42 ↗ your percentage is. Um so in my example,

1:49:46 ↗ it would be um

1:49:50 ↗ someone's doing

1:49:53 ↗ uh mixed use in the urban core. Uh it's

1:49:56 ↗ a 25% can be coverage. Um but in

1:50:00 ↗ addition to that, you you have to look

1:50:02 ↗ at you've got 10 old existing trees. You

1:50:06 ↗ have to preserve at least 25% of them.

1:50:10 ↗ um as as step one. So if you can save

1:50:14 ↗ four you know whatever two and a half

1:50:16 ↗ out of those 10 25%

1:50:20 ↗ three trees

1:50:22 ↗ the big trees that you were able to save

1:50:25 ↗ overall you need to meet 25%. So you

1:50:28 ↗ would add some new trees and you would

1:50:29 ↗ keep the existing but your calculation

1:50:32 ↗ would be 25% of that lot. That's what

1:50:35 ↗ you need to to comply with. If we'll

1:50:40 ↗ talk later about if you have if you

1:50:42 ↗ can't save those three trees then it's

1:50:44 ↗ above and beyond but that's a separate

1:50:45 ↗ question I won't compute that but so to

1:50:48 ↗ answer your question this table

1:50:51 ↗ is in addition to tree preservation

1:50:53 ↗ which is keeping and saving the existing

1:50:56 ↗ trees there's a separate section this is

1:50:58 ↗ calculation of said everything said and

1:51:01 ↗ done what do you end up with in if

1:51:04 ↗ you're developing or redeveloping your

1:51:06 ↗ property these percentages

1:51:09 ↗ question. So you saved three trees which

1:51:12 ↗ you've cut down seven. Yes. Do you have

1:51:14 ↗ to replace seven somewhere else?

1:51:17 ↗ In that situation, you you'd have to

1:51:19 ↗ bring the site to the canopy target.

1:51:23 ↗ We're talking about new development. New

1:51:26 ↗ development has certain percentage of

1:51:28 ↗ trees that they have to save as part of

1:51:30 ↗ the development and then once that's

1:51:32 ↗ developed, they have to meet the canopy

1:51:34 ↗ coverage goals. If those trees that they

1:51:36 ↗ saved

1:51:38 ↗ um

1:51:40 ↗ allow that project to hit the target,

1:51:42 ↗ then no additional trees would have to

1:51:44 ↗ be planted. If it doesn't, then

1:51:46 ↗ additional trees would be planted. But

1:51:47 ↗ generally the 25% you would have and

1:51:51 ↗ then for a lot of our developments, you

1:51:54 ↗ still have landscape requirements that

1:51:56 ↗ you would have to so trees would have to

1:51:58 ↗ be planted anyways. Didn't we just say

1:52:00 ↗ that if we wanted to take a tree down,

1:52:02 ↗ we would place it? That's with a tree

1:52:04 ↗ removal permit. So, we're we're talking

1:52:06 ↗ about two different

1:52:08 ↗ and then one is like if a if you wanted

1:52:11 ↗ to remove a tree on your property. Um

1:52:13 ↗ but why would we do it different?

1:52:16 ↗ Why why didn't anywhere if you take a

1:52:18 ↗ tree down, even if you're redeveloping

1:52:20 ↗ your property, shouldn't they pay into

1:52:22 ↗ the tree fund? We should have funds to

1:52:24 ↗ put tree somewhere else.

1:52:26 ↗ So, so that's why the tree the the only

1:52:29 ↗ way you can remove the tree on anywhere

1:52:31 ↗ in the city is if it's a hazardous or a

1:52:33 ↗ nuisance tree. Any healthy tree you

1:52:35 ↗ can't take down without replacement.

1:52:37 ↗ Mhm.

1:52:39 ↗ But the tree preservation section is

1:52:42 ↗ when you're redeveloping or developing

1:52:44 ↗ anticipates that some tree removal has

1:52:46 ↗ to happen. And so that establishes

1:52:49 ↗ percentages of what how much is saved.

1:52:52 ↗ So you're saying that tree preservation

1:52:54 ↗ should be 100%. No, I'm not saying they

1:52:56 ↗ preserve them. What I'm saying is they

1:52:58 ↗ preserve community county retirement.

1:53:00 ↗ They've already taken six seven trees

1:53:02 ↗ out of the city's inventory of trees. So

1:53:05 ↗ they should replace those. They may end

1:53:07 ↗ up having to replace them because they

1:53:09 ↗ have to still meet the 25% overall

1:53:11 ↗ canopy standard. But I guess what I'm

1:53:14 ↗ proposing is a policy that says if you

1:53:17 ↗ take a tree down, you replace it.

1:53:20 ↗ I think in addition to those canopy

1:53:22 ↗ poles, right? So, you have the canopy

1:53:24 ↗ bowls and it probably won't be on the

1:53:26 ↗ property or they may put it somewhere

1:53:28 ↗ else. You know, they've taken them down.

1:53:30 ↗ But, you know, I'm just trying to be

1:53:32 ↗ consistent.

1:53:34 ↗ That is just And maybe I'm making this

1:53:36 ↗ too complicated for you guys, but I'm

1:53:38 ↗ going to steer it, right?

1:53:41 ↗ But I just think that if you got 10 on

1:53:43 ↗ your property and you're taking seven

1:53:45 ↗ down to redevelopment, right? But let's

1:53:49 ↗ put those seven trees somewhere. Even if

1:53:51 ↗ that plot still meets those

1:53:55 ↗ part of the redevelopment cost. Yeah.

1:53:57 ↗ The the most more practically if in that

1:54:01 ↗ example the seven trees will end up

1:54:03 ↗ probably being you know at least 10

1:54:05 ↗ trees new trees are going to be planted

1:54:07 ↗ in on that property in order to meet

1:54:09 ↗ that 25%. So if if you look at that way,

1:54:13 ↗ you're going to get the replacement on

1:54:15 ↗ site because those that 25% canopy

1:54:17 ↗ coverage has to be met. But there are

1:54:20 ↗ really huge trees that are, you know,

1:54:22 ↗ covering 25% of the site. And those

1:54:25 ↗ things really come into play with

1:54:27 ↗ commercial development. Um and uh there

1:54:31 ↗ isn't much, you know, in terms of good

1:54:32 ↗ quality trees. Those are usually parklot

1:54:35 ↗ trees and things like that that have

1:54:36 ↗ been either topped or you know they're

1:54:39 ↗ not the healthiest and the good good

1:54:41 ↗ trees but you will get replacement

1:54:43 ↗ because they still have to meet the

1:54:44 ↗ percentage canopy coverage.

1:54:48 ↗ Well, I guess my

1:54:51 ↗ I'm sorry I'm saying so much but if

1:54:53 ↗ you're taking a tree down you should

1:54:56 ↗ that's just my take on it and if it's on

1:54:58 ↗ site or not still make the canopy

1:55:00 ↗ targets but I don't know what the exact

1:55:04 ↗ Okay.

1:55:06 ↗ Which order you all have in

1:55:09 ↗ I think Tom. Go ahead.

1:55:14 ↗ [Laughter]

1:55:17 ↗ Sorry.

1:55:20 ↗ Oh, it had to do with

1:55:23 ↗ public education. So, I this is a

1:55:26 ↗ comment that I had made last time around

1:55:28 ↗ and it tied in with this question. this

1:55:30 ↗ this code we're talking about only kicks

1:55:33 ↗ in when we're talking about development.

1:55:36 ↗ Okay. My my comment was

1:55:39 ↗ more about well yeah so but there are

1:55:43 ↗ these other scenarios that trees are

1:55:47 ↗ removed or taken out for various

1:55:49 ↗ reasons. Um and why I want to talk about

1:55:53 ↗ education is most trees my experience

1:55:56 ↗ that most trees in that are taken down

1:55:59 ↗ in the city of Isiqua are taken down

1:56:01 ↗ without a permit. That's my observation

1:56:06 ↗ from what I have seen around me anyway.

1:56:10 ↗ Um, so I believe a program to educate

1:56:14 ↗ the public about trees being good uh for

1:56:18 ↗ the community is important. Um, because

1:56:22 ↗ we're not going to achieve our end goal

1:56:25 ↗ of certain canopy coverage without

1:56:28 ↗ getting the public behind the program.

1:56:32 ↗ Um,

1:56:33 ↗ the

1:56:36 ↗ that was what public education was all

1:56:38 ↗ about. that we're not going to achieve

1:56:40 ↗ our end goals. I'm not saying it's it

1:56:42 ↗ should be part of this code because this

1:56:44 ↗ code is specific about kicking it when

1:56:47 ↗ development occurs. So that's not the

1:56:49 ↗ time the education needs to happen.

1:56:51 ↗ That's that's a different thing and I

1:56:54 ↗ maybe wasn't clear in my comments last

1:56:56 ↗ time. No, I think that that those are

1:56:59 ↗ good comments. I think you're absolutely

1:57:01 ↗ right. There's the regulation piece,

1:57:03 ↗ then there's the city programs, and then

1:57:06 ↗ there's the city funds, right? So

1:57:09 ↗ capital improvement the city actually

1:57:11 ↗ undertakes and does this maybe a program

1:57:14 ↗ that we run with a city homeowner. So

1:57:15 ↗ it's sort of like this three-legged

1:57:17 ↗ stool. We've got to approach trees from

1:57:19 ↗ all three angles uh to make make a

1:57:22 ↗ difference. Uh most people in you know

1:57:24 ↗ who live here because they value the

1:57:26 ↗ trees. They like the greenery. And so I

1:57:27 ↗ think there's general community

1:57:29 ↗ sentiment to to keep the canopy coverage

1:57:33 ↗ uh healthy. Uh but there's also

1:57:35 ↗ practicality when it doesn't make sense.

1:57:38 ↗ the trees really are in the wrong place

1:57:40 ↗ in the wrong type and they need to come

1:57:42 ↗ out. So there that there's that balance

1:57:44 ↗ but get your point about public

1:57:46 ↗ education. I think this is the

1:57:47 ↗ regulations piece we need to get.

1:57:49 ↗ There's a public outreach programs the

1:57:52 ↗ sustainability runs about free giveaway

1:57:54 ↗ working with Dan H's group with the

1:57:57 ↗ urban forestry. So it's going to take

1:57:59 ↗ all approaches to to make a difference.

1:58:02 ↗ Yes. Thank you.

1:58:06 ↗ Yeah. Um, in regards to that specific

1:58:09 ↗ question, I think that I and

1:58:12 ↗ specifically when it comes to like tree

1:58:14 ↗ preservation and whatnot, I think that

1:58:16 ↗ um, especially when it comes to

1:58:18 ↗ commercial um, development, I think and

1:58:21 ↗ like commercial buildings in general, I

1:58:23 ↗ think that all of them should be held to

1:58:24 ↗ the same standards even if they're not

1:58:27 ↗ redeveloping or new developments. Um,

1:58:29 ↗ and I also think that adding mental,

1:58:32 ↗ um, I think that I agree that we should

1:58:37 ↗ be aiming for replacing or preserving

1:58:42 ↗ 100% of tree canopy when it's big

1:58:44 ↗ commercial developments, especially

1:58:46 ↗ because I think that they have sort of

1:58:48 ↗ an obligation to be um, replacing it

1:58:50 ↗ even if them removing like a 100 trees

1:58:53 ↗ still meets the 25% tree canopy just

1:58:57 ↗ because I think that like taking them

1:58:58 ↗ out for a parking lot is not a valid

1:59:00 ↗ reason to not replace the trees

1:59:02 ↗ elsewhere.

1:59:04 ↗ But

1:59:05 ↗ yeah, and you know, I'll ask a

1:59:07 ↗ clarifying question for Doug. I'm

1:59:09 ↗ reading through the tree can um

1:59:14 ↗ preservation section. So there is

1:59:17 ↗ exemptions here and then we have three

1:59:20 ↗ criteria. It has to be it's a nuisance u

1:59:24 ↗ the purpose of placing dead dying. So

1:59:27 ↗ where is that we say we need to save 25%

1:59:30 ↗ of the team. So that's down.

1:59:42 ↗ Yes.

1:59:46 ↗ Right here.

1:59:47 ↗ So minimum tree retention requirements

1:59:50 ↗ for lots proposed for developments.

1:59:54 ↗ But those are only in these zones.

1:59:57 ↗ Residential zones except the urban

1:59:58 ↗ village is 35% and then all of the urban

2:00:02 ↗ village mixed zones, commercial zones

2:00:05 ↗ and community and resource zones. Yeah,

2:00:08 ↗ we should look at because the other the

2:00:10 ↗ tree, you know, the other section should

2:00:12 ↗ reference this too because if we just

2:00:15 ↗ leave that by itself, it seems like the

2:00:18 ↗ same 100% retention

2:00:21 ↗ of treating, you know, truth

2:00:23 ↗ preservation

2:00:26 ↗ is tree permits as a tree permit is

2:00:28 ↗ required for all actions

2:00:31 ↗ unless explicitly exempted these

2:00:34 ↗ exemptions.

2:00:36 ↗ But then we go in and say yeah. Yeah. So

2:00:38 ↗ we have a little bit of a disconnect in

2:00:40 ↗ code right now I think. Uh just a

2:00:42 ↗ reference thing. So we like what you all

2:00:44 ↗ are saying free removal one for one is

2:00:48 ↗ handled in this 188.250

2:00:52 ↗ that's um you know explicitly talking

2:00:55 ↗ about what you can hazardous trees and

2:00:58 ↗ all that kind of stuff you need to

2:00:59 ↗ remove. And then 18812070

2:01:02 ↗ as minimum tree retention requirements.

2:01:05 ↗ And so that's uh 35% of all diameter. In

2:01:10 ↗ that case, we're measuring the diameter

2:01:12 ↗ of all the trees and you're saving 35%

2:01:14 ↗ of those. Um and in commercial zones,

2:01:17 ↗ it's 25%.

2:01:19 ↗ But that's uh when a development occurs.

2:01:23 ↗ So

2:01:26 ↗ that's pretty standard for most cities

2:01:29 ↗ to have that sort of thing. So because

2:01:33 ↗ those tree you know usually it'll be the

2:01:35 ↗ trees where the building is going to go

2:01:37 ↗ or the trees where the or the parking

2:01:39 ↗ lot trees. So as redevelopment occur

2:01:42 ↗ occurs those those will get taken out

2:01:44 ↗ but 35% preservation has to be attempted

2:01:48 ↗ and if they can't do that they can pay

2:01:50 ↗ fee in the law but they still have to

2:01:52 ↗ meet the the overall law area

2:01:55 ↗ percentage. So, new trees will go on

2:01:57 ↗ that property regardless. Uh, it's

2:02:00 ↗ whether they end up being one to one,

2:02:03 ↗ but my feeling is it's probably going to

2:02:05 ↗ be at least one if not to meet 25%

2:02:09 ↗ canopy coverage objectives. But couldn't

2:02:11 ↗ you change the language say at a minimum

2:02:13 ↗ of one?

2:02:17 ↗ Okay. You see what I'm saying? It's just

2:02:19 ↗ so if it's more than that, great. But if

2:02:21 ↗ it's at a minimum, then then they have

2:02:24 ↗ to Okay.

2:02:27 ↗ Look at that. So I just had a quick

2:02:29 ↗ follow up with what Nancy and what this

2:02:32 ↗ whole onetoone development thing and

2:02:35 ↗ based on NY's. So what I was wondering

2:02:37 ↗ was you know I I can see based on the

2:02:40 ↗ landscaping requirements you're saying

2:02:41 ↗ you will make in most of the cases you

2:02:44 ↗ will meet although not guaranteed in

2:02:47 ↗ most of the cases you will meet one to

2:02:48 ↗ one is what is the general criteria. So

2:02:52 ↗ my my question was I can see in some

2:02:55 ↗ cases the zoning will change right when

2:02:58 ↗ you do new developments. Um so in that

2:03:01 ↗ case I do see the possibility where what

2:03:04 ↗ Nancy is saying it may not meet the one

2:03:06 ↗ to one criteria because the zoning will

2:03:08 ↗ change and that is where it could be you

2:03:11 ↗ know important to have that one to one

2:03:14 ↗ criteria as we connect these two.

2:03:17 ↗ I think there is some if you can look at

2:03:19 ↗ what you say at a minimum one to one you

2:03:22 ↗ you know you you have to preserve 35%

2:03:25 ↗ and then replacement of the ones that

2:03:28 ↗ are taken out you have to meet the

2:03:30 ↗ canopy coverage objectives with a

2:03:32 ↗ minimum of one to one counted for

2:03:35 ↗ something okay

2:03:41 ↗ yes

2:03:42 ↗ so it is past 8:30 now we'll keep

2:03:45 ↗ comments as brief as possible to

2:03:47 ↗ continue.

2:03:56 ↗ So we are on question number 44.

2:04:00 ↗ So this is I think we've kind of talked

2:04:02 ↗ about 1 one for hazardous nuisance and 1

2:04:05 ↗ to 12 for landmark trees. That ratio

2:04:07 ↗ good one to 12.

2:04:19 ↗ I'm supportive. Yeah. Okay. Consensus

2:04:22 ↗ around that. Great. Um

2:04:25 ↗ so the number five is a more a little

2:04:28 ↗ bit more complicated, but um the

2:04:30 ↗ question is does the board agree to

2:04:32 ↗ allow flexibility from tree preservation

2:04:35 ↗ requirements for central ISU sub area?

2:04:38 ↗ If so, does the board have any feedback

2:04:40 ↗ on the proposed approval criteria for

2:04:43 ↗ such flexibility?

2:04:45 ↗ So right now s you know city has this

2:04:47 ↗ plan outside of the tree code to to have

2:04:51 ↗ lot of their growth on the valley floor

2:04:53 ↗ future light rail station that's where

2:04:56 ↗ the designated you know taller buildings

2:04:58 ↗ are allowed more density is allowed to

2:05:00 ↗ create a more walkable uh and as that

2:05:04 ↗ area currently is developed you have a

2:05:06 ↗ lot of surface parking lots with scrappy

2:05:09 ↗ trees um some perimeter trees and so on.

2:05:12 ↗ Um so but but the way the code is

2:05:15 ↗ written right now they have to save 25%

2:05:18 ↗ of those trees um even though they are

2:05:22 ↗ low quality or they have to go because

2:05:25 ↗ that's where the building's going to get

2:05:27 ↗ rebuilt. Um so this is our attempt and I

2:05:31 ↗ think we've um gone back and forth taken

2:05:33 ↗ some of your feedback to come up with a

2:05:34 ↗ criteria for such flexibility. Um and it

2:05:38 ↗ reads uh to say tree retention may be

2:05:41 ↗ reduced from your 25%

2:05:44 ↗ uh when you it's a nuisance tree or a

2:05:46 ↗ hazardous tree or it's needed for site

2:05:49 ↗ access or it's needed for frontage

2:05:51 ↗ improvements or there's some utility

2:05:53 ↗ conflict. Um

2:05:56 ↗ and then I think this is numbered wrong.

2:05:58 ↗ It says or the last the first sentence

2:06:01 ↗ of B is part of the F which is the tree

2:06:04 ↗ conflict with building placement perform

2:06:06 ↗ and intensity standards and cannot be

2:06:08 ↗ reasonably redesigned. So if you have a

2:06:11 ↗ if you have a tree in the middle of the

2:06:12 ↗ site you know they can't have a Dal hole

2:06:15 ↗ and work around it kind of thing. So

2:06:18 ↗ that's the criteria and then number B

2:06:20 ↗ starts after that first sentence to say

2:06:24 ↗ if the deviation from tree preservation

2:06:26 ↗ requirements is approved replacement

2:06:29 ↗ trees shall be required and such

2:06:32 ↗ replacement may be on-site offsite or

2:06:34 ↗ payment of fee in lie of uh replacement

2:06:38 ↗ tree shall be determined based on one

2:06:39 ↗ tree for 6 in diameter

2:06:42 ↗ total you count the total diameter and

2:06:44 ↗ for the total you know for each 6 in you

2:06:47 ↗ need one tree uh these and then this is

2:06:50 ↗ where we go above and beyond. So if you

2:06:52 ↗ save those trees, you get to count them

2:06:55 ↗ towards your canopy coverage. If you

2:06:58 ↗ take them down because you have to,

2:07:00 ↗ that's where the building is, you don't

2:07:02 ↗ get to count your replacement trees. You

2:07:04 ↗ pay a fee in lie of in addition for the

2:07:06 ↗ city to plant them somewhere else, but

2:07:09 ↗ you still need your 35%.

2:07:11 ↗ So there's a little bit of give and take

2:07:13 ↗ for the flexibility with the intended

2:07:15 ↗ goal that the city still ends up being

2:07:17 ↗ on the positive side of tree canopy.

2:07:21 ↗ So that's a question I'm supportive of

2:07:24 ↗ your proposal with one exception,

2:07:27 ↗ landmark trees. I think that there

2:07:29 ↗ should be special consideration for

2:07:31 ↗ landmark trees that they don't affect

2:07:34 ↗ them. I mean, they need to do more when

2:07:36 ↗ it's I don't know what more is, but

2:07:38 ↗ trying to put a building where a

2:07:40 ↗ landmark tree is not probably approp and

2:07:42 ↗ there are some of those in that area.

2:07:44 ↗ So, I think we need to add a little more

2:07:45 ↗ to this and protect those areas or if

2:07:49 ↗ they take one of those down, they do

2:07:51 ↗ even more than the sixth inch because,

2:07:53 ↗ you know, it's their site design. It's

2:07:56 ↗ really affecting it. So, I would ask you

2:07:58 ↗ to add more to that for landmark trees.

2:08:05 ↗ Sorry, just really quickly, who decides

2:08:07 ↗ uh whether it's reasonably redesigned or

2:08:09 ↗ that subjective measure? It would be

2:08:12 ↗ part of uh our evaluation, you know, the

2:08:15 ↗ applicant would make the case um for it.

2:08:24 ↗ Other feedback from this generally

2:08:26 ↗ supportive of the flexibility

2:08:28 ↗ and uh add the landmark piece to the

2:08:30 ↗ criteria.

2:08:33 ↗ Okay.

2:08:34 ↗ Uh the next question is wildfire

2:08:37 ↗ mitigation. So last time we talked about

2:08:39 ↗ it um the and then I you know we went

2:08:43 ↗ over uh there's also this regional

2:08:45 ↗ effort department of natural resources

2:08:48 ↗ is coming up with um wildfire urban

2:08:51 ↗ interface codes um and then coming up

2:08:53 ↗ with maps where the hazards are. Uh then

2:08:57 ↗ that'll go to state building code

2:08:58 ↗ council that then will adopt those

2:09:00 ↗ through the building code and then the

2:09:02 ↗ city will take action and adopt those.

2:09:04 ↗ So because right now the wildfires in

2:09:06 ↗ eastern Washington aren't the same as

2:09:08 ↗ western Washington. You know the way the

2:09:10 ↗ trees work, the way the the all of that

2:09:13 ↗ is is very different and so the DNR maps

2:09:15 ↗ that were currently produced aren't

2:09:18 ↗ accurate. So they're tasked with doing

2:09:20 ↗ that. We don't know the time frame and

2:09:22 ↗ my suspicion is at least a year if not

2:09:23 ↗ more. Uh but there's work ongoing and

2:09:27 ↗ and once that's done that'll establish

2:09:30 ↗ the framework of what these wildfire

2:09:32 ↗ regulation city can be. In the meantime,

2:09:36 ↗ I think you all discussed and you wanted

2:09:38 ↗ to kind of have the ability for

2:09:40 ↗ homeowner that does this assessment on

2:09:42 ↗ lot by lot basis to be able to do some

2:09:44 ↗ clearing around the property. There's a

2:09:47 ↗ little bit of risk. I mean right now

2:09:48 ↗ they the fire department uses very

2:09:50 ↗ conservative methodology but they're

2:09:53 ↗ based the the guidance that's provided

2:09:55 ↗ by the state is 30 feet clear around the

2:09:58 ↗ structures and things like that. It's

2:09:59 ↗ very you know written one sizefits-all

2:10:01 ↗ for very larger um hazardous areas. Um

2:10:06 ↗ but that's not practically how they're

2:10:08 ↗ doing it. They're not telling people to

2:10:10 ↗ go clearcut and all that kind of stuff.

2:10:11 ↗ They're being very reasonable. They give

2:10:13 ↗ more good feedback. I think one of you

2:10:15 ↗ guys discussed that before where they

2:10:17 ↗ look at your hardening, you know, are

2:10:19 ↗ you storing dead wood next to your

2:10:22 ↗ um deck. Do you have uh what kind of

2:10:25 ↗ unders siding do you have? Those kind of

2:10:26 ↗ things are helpful. Uh but as far as

2:10:29 ↗ tree mitigation uh so we discussed

2:10:31 ↗ whether we allow nuisance trees to be

2:10:33 ↗ removed that we would move this section

2:10:35 ↗ under the nuisance tree to say if you

2:10:38 ↗ get a lot by lot assessment from the

2:10:40 ↗ fire department you can and it's

2:10:41 ↗ determined to be a nuisance that you can

2:10:45 ↗ um so I think that question just is any

2:10:49 ↗ feedback

2:10:52 ↗ should be

2:10:56 ↗ uh go ahead

2:10:58 ↗ Yeah, I think it's a good idea to

2:11:01 ↗ include this because we don't know what

2:11:03 ↗ the timing will be um for the um the new

2:11:09 ↗ codes about the wildfire mitigation,

2:11:12 ↗ urban interface mitigation.

2:11:14 ↗ Um, and I think realistically

2:11:19 ↗ from what I've learned through my

2:11:21 ↗ assessment is they'll probably just be

2:11:22 ↗ asking people to limb things.

2:11:26 ↗ Uh so

2:11:29 ↗ there might not be a lot of activity

2:11:31 ↗ there, but I think it's a good idea to

2:11:32 ↗ put it in.

2:11:38 ↗ Consensus around that. All right, that

2:11:39 ↗ concludes the questions and the last one

2:11:41 ↗ is really, is there anything else that's

2:11:43 ↗ missing from the code that you'd like us

2:11:45 ↗ to consider?

2:11:53 ↗ I'm I am concerned about the cost of all

2:11:55 ↗ the tree stuff. I did look at other

2:11:59 ↗ cities in the area to see what the costs

2:12:01 ↗ are, tree permits,

2:12:03 ↗ things like that. I would ask you to

2:12:05 ↗ reconsider the cost on the tree permits.

2:12:07 ↗ I don't know how you came up with dollar

2:12:09 ↗ amount for them. Um, and you know how to

2:12:12 ↗ best assess. I looked at Smamish and

2:12:15 ↗ just to kind of get a feel because I

2:12:17 ↗ have done three packages and smash and I

2:12:20 ↗ would just ask you to reconsider the

2:12:22 ↗ cost.

2:12:24 ↗ So we look at uh our fee and annually

2:12:27 ↗ you know we do a cost of living expenses

2:12:29 ↗ and adjustments on an annual basis. So

2:12:32 ↗ during that time, that's a different

2:12:34 ↗ title like title three that has it. Um

2:12:38 ↗ but I'll be curious to see what you

2:12:39 ↗ found in your research. Yeah, I think I

2:12:42 ↗ believe our free permits are $300

2:12:45 ↗ roughly. Yes. Um

2:12:47 ↗ six something if it's in critical area,

2:12:49 ↗ but if it's a hazard tree, it's free. So

2:12:52 ↗ there is no cost when it's a hazardous

2:12:54 ↗ tree. And a hazard tree has to be

2:12:56 ↗ determined by an artist by an artist.

2:12:57 ↗ Correct.

2:13:11 ↗ Yeah, I mean, you know, it does take

2:13:12 ↗ staff time and the cities, you know,

2:13:16 ↗ costs and all that kind of stuff, but

2:13:18 ↗ and other cities may not have done an

2:13:20 ↗ update on the trees for a while.

2:13:23 ↗ Sometimes cities look that languish, so

2:13:25 ↗ I don't know, but we can look at that

2:13:27 ↗ for sure. Yeah. Yeah. Just really

2:13:29 ↗ quickly, um I think that uh one of the

2:13:32 ↗ biggest things that I think is important

2:13:33 ↗ is focusing on like not like education

2:13:36 ↗ efforts like Tom was saying, especially

2:13:38 ↗ for the community because I think that

2:13:40 ↗ even though most of our like illegal

2:13:42 ↗ treats, well, I don't actually know most

2:13:44 ↗ of the illegal treating rules come by

2:13:46 ↗ single family homes or like developers,

2:13:50 ↗ you know, a lot people I've talked to

2:13:54 ↗ that had issues were single family home

2:13:56 ↗ single. But even though I think that

2:13:57 ↗ most of the illegal removals are from

2:13:59 ↗ single mill animals, I also think that

2:14:01 ↗ the approach to the solution to that

2:14:03 ↗ problem would be more community

2:14:04 ↗ education because we don't want to turn

2:14:06 ↗ the community like against us, you know,

2:14:08 ↗ but then for develop like commercial um

2:14:12 ↗ bigger development projects, I think

2:14:13 ↗ they emphasize that like that they have

2:14:15 ↗ responsibility to the community to

2:14:16 ↗ replace the trees and preserve the

2:14:18 ↗ trees. Yeah.

2:14:20 ↗ building partnerships with folks, you

2:14:23 ↗ know, I mean, this city is fortunate to

2:14:24 ↗ have a board like you all. We have

2:14:26 ↗ mountains to sound greenway trust that

2:14:29 ↗ and you know, the city's green

2:14:31 ↗ partnership that really cares about some

2:14:33 ↗ of these efforts and and it does that

2:14:35 ↗ but to build on that for sure.

2:14:41 ↗ All right.

2:14:44 ↗ Does the board feel like Sorry, was Oh,

2:14:47 ↗ sorry. You

2:14:50 ↗ Oh, no worries. Thank you. Um, so I

2:14:52 ↗ think Connie did have a good point um,

2:14:55 ↗ in her comment earlier about the five-

2:14:57 ↗ foot rule. So, is there any code um,

2:15:02 ↗ requiring that there are no plants

2:15:04 ↗ planted within 5T of a dwelling

2:15:08 ↗ or garage or structure of any kind?

2:15:13 ↗ Uh we currently do not have any

2:15:17 ↗ prohibition against planting them. I

2:15:20 ↗ think it's just best practice folks, but

2:15:22 ↗ there could be some topical outreach and

2:15:23 ↗ education around that part.

2:15:28 ↗ Okay. Yeah. Um

2:15:31 ↗ it'll it would just help with fire

2:15:34 ↗ mitigation.

2:15:38 ↗ So it might help people in the long run.

2:15:42 ↗ Do you think that's too strict?

2:15:52 ↗ Okay. It's also very strict having

2:15:54 ↗ people requiring that people have such

2:15:57 ↗ high tree canopy

2:16:00 ↗ because they might want to do something

2:16:01 ↗ else on their property. So

2:16:05 ↗ those are my thoughts.

2:16:07 ↗ Thank you.

2:16:10 ↗ Should

2:16:14 ↗ we ask about a letter

2:16:17 ↗ to have staff write a letter summarizing

2:16:20 ↗ our feedback to all to the

2:16:24 ↗ top?

2:16:26 ↗ Yeah. So, if if the board would like to

2:16:29 ↗ write that slide. Ah, there we go. Uh if

2:16:34 ↗ the board would like votes uh to write a

2:16:36 ↗ letter, then um Stacy will prepare the

2:16:39 ↗ letter and uh send it out out for board

2:16:42 ↗ review um and send it to our board chair

2:16:45 ↗ and vice chair for approval. Um and then

2:16:49 ↗ uh we would uh pass it along to uh uh

2:16:53 ↗ PPC and council um and we would work

2:16:56 ↗ with committee on um the timeline that

2:16:59 ↗ we'll need to do for getting this letter

2:17:01 ↗ together.

2:17:04 ↗ like some feedback to go into that

2:17:06 ↗ letter and then we if if Yes. Yeah, that

2:17:09 ↗ sounds great. Okay. Um specifically

2:17:12 ↗ addressing the policy questions that was

2:17:14 ↗ presented today, we uh the board felt

2:17:18 ↗ that the city should keep the one tree

2:17:22 ↗ replacement requirement um regardless of

2:17:24 ↗ if the site meets the coverage target or

2:17:27 ↗ not. um and that we should be able to

2:17:30 ↗ keep as many trees as possible and

2:17:32 ↗ continue to keep to planted offsite if

2:17:36 ↗ needed. Um

2:17:39 ↗ we agreed with the campus coverage

2:17:42 ↗ percentages based on zoning and lot size

2:17:45 ↗ for redevelopment and new development.

2:17:50 ↗ um

2:17:52 ↗ with the inclusion of the $5,000

2:17:56 ↗ lot.

2:18:03 ↗ I think we did

2:18:05 ↗ a uh we did agree that the W tree can

2:18:09 ↗ coverage requirement should be required

2:18:11 ↗ for new development or major development

2:18:12 ↗ and we would like to see one replacement

2:18:16 ↗ as the objective there if trees are

2:18:18 ↗ being removed. So at least one to one

2:18:20 ↗ with this new development

2:18:25 ↗ and we agreed that um hazardous nuisance

2:18:29 ↗ trees should be replaced at a 1:1 ratio

2:18:31 ↗ and landmark trees should be replaced at

2:18:34 ↗ a 1:2 ratio.

2:18:38 ↗ Um we agreed that the

2:18:41 ↗ um city of the central sub area should

2:18:44 ↗ have some flexibility but with the goal

2:18:47 ↗ of keeping as many trees as possible or

2:18:49 ↗ replacing them um if they are needing to

2:18:52 ↗ be cut down and to add a provision of

2:18:54 ↗ landmark trees needing to be evaluated

2:18:57 ↗ and um kept.

2:19:00 ↗ We agreed that we would like to keep um

2:19:04 ↗ a standard on wildfire risk assessment

2:19:07 ↗ to allow lot by lot analysis um that

2:19:11 ↗ wildfire risk trees could be included

2:19:14 ↗ under that stream and evaluated

2:19:17 ↗ there and

2:19:20 ↗ really encourage consideration cost

2:19:23 ↗ review of those.

2:19:27 ↗ Awesome.

2:19:32 ↗ So, um if folks agree on that, give a

2:19:35 ↗ thumbs up if you'd like Stacy to file a

2:19:37 ↗ letter and submit that to the planning

2:19:40 ↗ commission.

2:19:43 ↗ Okay.

2:19:45 ↗ Um wonderful. Thank you all very much

2:19:48 ↗ for coming today. Uh definitely

2:19:51 ↗ appreciate you coming back uh many times

2:19:54 ↗ to to talk about this issue. and we will

2:19:57 ↗ meet Jack. I don't know if he made his

2:19:59 ↗ announcement.

2:20:03 ↗ He's going on to do more good

2:20:05 ↗ environmental work with a consultant,

2:20:07 ↗ environmental consultant that we work

2:20:09 ↗ with here at city. So the good work will

2:20:12 ↗ continue maybe not inqua but somewhere

2:20:14 ↗ else. We do work inqua.

2:20:18 ↗ You might see another presentation then

2:20:20 ↗ from Doug at another point. Just not as

2:20:23 ↗ a city employee. Yeah.

2:20:26 ↗ Um I will wrap up quickly. Um I will not

2:20:30 ↗ I'll we'll provide written reports um uh

2:20:34 ↗ uh about written updates and then

2:20:36 ↗ council updates as well. Um but Mina or

2:20:39 ↗ Kieran, do you have any um youth reports

2:20:41 ↗ today?

2:20:45 ↗ Okay. Um so the last things I'll do

2:20:48 ↗ really quick are um can I have a show of

2:20:51 ↗ hands? There is a

2:20:54 ↗ uh urban forestry event at Confluence

2:20:56 ↗ Park on uh July 1st. Um and if we have

2:21:02 ↗ five board members attend, we do have to

2:21:04 ↗ make that a a special meeting. So I did

2:21:06 ↗ want to see um by hands if there are uh

2:21:10 ↗ any folks who are planning to attend

2:21:12 ↗ that July 1st event.

2:21:15 ↗ Get back to you. So I don't need

2:21:18 ↗ Yes, we can get back. Yes, you can get

2:21:20 ↗ back to us.

2:21:23 ↗ I likely will not attend. That does not

2:21:25 ↗ Okay, I can uh also include that in the

2:21:28 ↗ email.

2:21:29 ↗ Uh and then the other one was the uh our

2:21:33 ↗ next board meeting is on uh right now

2:21:36 ↗ scheduled for July 9th. The intention

2:21:38 ↗ was to make that into a field trip. Um

2:21:40 ↗ that is also the uh Harvey Manning 100th

2:21:43 ↗ birthday celebration. Um, so we wanted

2:21:46 ↗ to check to see uh by show of hands how

2:21:49 ↗ many folks were planning to attend the

2:21:50 ↗ Harvey Manning 100th birthday

2:21:52 ↗ celebration in case we needed to shift

2:21:54 ↗ the date of the environmental board.

2:21:59 ↗ So, okay, I'm seeing

2:22:03 ↗ five board members planning to go to the

2:22:05 ↗ Harvey Manning 100th birthday

2:22:06 ↗ celebration. Um, so then we will, uh,

2:22:09 ↗ Stacy and I will work to reschedule the

2:22:11 ↗ July meeting most likely, uh, to a time

2:22:14 ↗ when more folks can attend. Okay.

2:22:21 ↗ And

2:22:23 ↗ I think that's it.

2:22:29 ↗ Thank you all for those online.

2:22:36 ↗ Thank

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF