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

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (10)

Alix Lee-Tigner

Nancy Davidson

Mina (Alexandra) Jun

Prajakta Ghatpande

Dixie Bair

Tom Anderson

Kiran Pan

Anne Newcomb

Keith Gonzalez

Jonathan Smith

Staff (7)

David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator

Doug Yormick, Environmental Planner

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director Community Planning and Development

Bridget Vesely, Gibson Ek High School

Ava Magnusson, Gibson Ek High School

Zoe Dearing, Gibson Ek High School

Matthew Fischer, Issaquah High School

Excused

Don McQuilliams

Tommy DuBeau

Recommendations & actions (5)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
Board Member DAVIDSON seconded concerns brought up during public comments on projects that should get tracked but aren’t.
Board Member PAN asked staff to consider equity in implementing tree programs to achieve tree canopy goals.
Board Members DAVIDSON, GHATPANDE, and JUN asked staff to have a minimum of 1:1 replacement language for development and redevelopments in addition to the tree canopy targets.
Board Member DAVIDSON expressed concern for the cost of the tree permits and asked staff to reconsider costs.