Park Board · Monday, October 23, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 26, 2023

packet pp.3–5

▶ Watch from 1:25 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 09-26-23 Park Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Park Board 7:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave September 26, 2023 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Urban Forest Management Plan

Information / Discussion · 20 min · Dan Hintz, Urban Forest Supervisor PlanIT Geo, Inc. Consultant · packet pp.7–20

Topics: Trees

▶ Watch from 2:11 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

II. Plan Approach III.

Heritage Tree Program Updates

Information / Discussion · 20 min · Dan Hintz, Urban Forest Supervisor · packet pp.21–46

Topics: Trees

▶ Watch from 39:54 Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

REGULAR BUSINESS b) OCTOBER 23, 2023 | PARK BOARD Dan Hintz, Urban Forest Supervisor

Park System Plan Goals & Policies

Director · 30 min · Robin Spear, Park Planning and Development Manager Jeff Watling, Parks & Community Services · packet pp.47–63

Topics: Parks

▶ Watch from 1:17:38 Open packet at p.47 ↗

Staff report:

Park System Plan Update Goals & Policies Review OCTOBER 23, 2023 | PARK BOARD

5. REPORTS

Chairperson's Report

Youth Representative's Report

packet pp.65–85

Open packet at p.65 ↗

Staff report:

REPORTS c) Ongoing Calendar – tentative and a working document Month Agenda Items Month Agenda Items January 23 • Title 18 Draft July 24- • TOUR and/or Board meeting at a • Recreation Update cancelled park? • 2023 Work Plan – Ad Hoc groups?

Director's Report

3319 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ okay it's 7 o'clock we'll call the

0:05 ↗ meeting to order and uh we'll start by

0:09 ↗ uhing roll call I'll just call your name

0:12 ↗ and if you're

0:13 ↗ here just let me know uh Katie

0:17 ↗ yeah and uh Andrew e is not here and I

0:24 ↗ don't know yet okay uh I'm here Nicholas

0:27 ↗ Lee not here D Lou not here Tim mle had

0:31 ↗ an called in excuse um excuse absence

0:35 ↗ Brenda here uh Zach is

0:40 ↗ online there

0:43 ↗ Marlene Brad online here I'm

0:48 ↗ here um Andrew

0:51 ↗ Myers and then Ryan Olsson

0:55 ↗ here so with the four we would need to

1:00 ↗ have we don't have any actions for

1:02 ↗ tonight

1:03 ↗ anyway there's no action tonight but if

1:06 ↗ we do I we would need both Brad and and

1:10 ↗ Ryan to okay step in um got someone else

1:13 ↗ joining us right now cool

1:16 ↗ David

1:19 ↗ David

1:21 ↗ perfect okay and then uh next thing is

1:25 ↗ approval of minutes did everybody get a

1:27 ↗ chance to review the minutes

1:30 ↗ uh any exceptions or corrections to be

1:36 ↗ noted I don't have check the screen and

1:40 ↗ um I don't have any myself so with that

1:43 ↗ I'll approve the

1:44 ↗ minutes um next item is public comments

1:49 ↗ I don't know that we have anybody here

1:51 ↗ but we did receive a comment via

1:53 ↗ email um and

1:58 ↗ I the record that that way is that how

2:00 ↗ how we handle that yeah it'll get added

2:02 ↗ into the minute and it was from Connie

2:05 ↗ about the Heritage Tre program

2:08 ↗ correct okay we're moving along nice and

2:11 ↗ quick uh quickly uh so regular business

2:14 ↗ items uh we'll start um Jeff will lead

2:18 ↗ us through there's three three um items

2:21 ↗ to discuss tonight and he'll you MC

2:25 ↗ those that's great thanks Chris uh good

2:27 ↗ evening everyone uh just a chance to to

2:30 ↗ introduce staff and the teams in these

2:32 ↗ three items um I thought it'd be really

2:35 ↗ easy to cover all three of these but

2:36 ↗ rather repeating it three times I guess

2:38 ↗ I'll just I'll just State at once um uh

2:41 ↗ tonight really represents a lot of broad

2:43 ↗ policy discussion with these three items

2:46 ↗ um really really important topics um all

2:49 ↗ will be coming back to you uh we're not

2:52 ↗ uh looking to take action tonight on

2:54 ↗ these uh so really want to um invite you

2:57 ↗ into this initial work uh that's been

2:59 ↗ been done by some of the ad hoc groups

3:02 ↗ um and invite your your thoughts your

3:05 ↗ questions your feedback tonight uh

3:07 ↗ there's no bad questions there's no bad

3:10 ↗ feedback um all of this feedback is

3:12 ↗ really going to help um um staff um

3:15 ↗ inform and really shape the work that's

3:17 ↗ going to be coming back to you uh from

3:19 ↗ goals and policies with the park plan

3:21 ↗ that that are um on schedule to come

3:23 ↗ back to you in November uh to Dan and

3:26 ↗ not only the urban Forest management

3:28 ↗ plan but also the the Heritage tree

3:31 ↗ program of coming back to you as that

3:33 ↗ work really starts to take shape so uh

3:36 ↗ really really invite and welcome and and

3:39 ↗ encourage your um your feedback tonight

3:42 ↗ so with that I will turn it over to Dan

3:45 ↗ who will um introduce the urban Forest

3:47 ↗ management plan thank you Jeff um once

3:51 ↗ again I'm I'm Dan hin the urban Forest

3:53 ↗ supervisor within parks and Community

3:54 ↗ Services I think I met most of you when

3:56 ↗ I started about six or seven months ago

3:58 ↗ I came here and did just kind of a a

3:59 ↗ brief introduction to a little bit of my

4:01 ↗ background and role and really excited

4:03 ↗ to be back here and actually having some

4:05 ↗ more tangible updates and as Jeff

4:08 ↗ mentioned you know these are both topics

4:10 ↗ that we will be uh bringing back to you

4:12 ↗ uh in 2024 as well so really excited to

4:15 ↗ get some kind of initial feedback

4:16 ↗ discussion going here tonight uh but

4:18 ↗ know that there'll be more uh touch

4:20 ↗ points on both the urban Forest

4:21 ↗ management plan and the Heritage tree

4:23 ↗ program so um we're going to start uh

4:26 ↗ with the with the urban Forest

4:28 ↗ management plan I think most of you know

4:30 ↗ this is going to be the city of isqua's

4:32 ↗ first comprehensive Forest management

4:34 ↗ plan we had it's worth a little clap

4:36 ↗ there um we had a urban Forest tree

4:39 ↗ canopy assessment done in in 2017 2018

4:43 ↗ and that really set the stage for

4:45 ↗ building out our Urban Forest program

4:47 ↗ and now looking at you know decade two

4:49 ↗ decades down the line how we can really

4:52 ↗ uh Set uh um ambitious goals and and and

4:54 ↗ strategies for the management and care

4:57 ↗ of our Urban trees and forests so so we

5:00 ↗ estimate we have about 200 or 250,000

5:03 ↗ trees which it within our 12 or 13

5:05 ↗ square miles so um you know it's a mix

5:07 ↗ of obviously private and public land 51%

5:10 ↗ tree canopy all things we're looking to

5:11 ↗ build on you know take care of the

5:13 ↗ existing trees we have and really find

5:15 ↗ strategic ways that we can meet our 55%

5:18 ↗ canopy goal uh set forth in our climate

5:20 ↗ action plan our isical climate action

5:22 ↗ plan so hopefully that just sets the

5:24 ↗ stage a little bit um and uh I'm excited

5:27 ↗ to introduce a couple of our uh

5:29 ↗ consultant from planet Geo so Andrea

5:31 ↗ will be leading most of this first

5:33 ↗ presentation I'll hand it off to her in

5:34 ↗ a second Andrea starbo I believe we do

5:36 ↗ have Chris Hyer hopefully have Chris's

5:38 ↗ last name right on on the teams as well

5:41 ↗ um

5:43 ↗ so Chris might be putting his camera on

5:45 ↗ to give us wave so hi hi Chris um so we

5:47 ↗ were really excited uh to work with

5:48 ↗ Planet du we had a request for

5:50 ↗ qualifications out this summer and

5:51 ↗ officially got them on board in August

5:53 ↗ so we're just a couple months into this

5:55 ↗ process we'll kind of talk about time L

5:58 ↗ time frame scope and hopefully get you

6:00 ↗ to learn a little bit more about planet

6:01 ↗ U and some of the kind of technical

6:03 ↗ expertise they bring to uh this work um

6:06 ↗ which we're really really excited about

6:08 ↗ so oh I guess I have the do this on my

6:12 ↗ own um so I'll just kind of go over the

6:14 ↗ quick quick agenda for this presentation

6:15 ↗ and then hand it off to Andrea here uh

6:18 ↗ so just be a little bit of a background

6:19 ↗ which I you know tried to tea up there a

6:20 ↗ little bit kind of the approach to the

6:22 ↗ plan here uh and then we want to leave

6:24 ↗ you know 10 minutes or so on this agenda

6:26 ↗ item for any uh questions comments you

6:28 ↗ all might have as we are really starting

6:29 ↗ to uh shape the uh kind of form and

6:32 ↗ content and you know kind of what to

6:34 ↗ really focus on and prioritize in this

6:35 ↗ plan so um yeah that's kind of what we

6:40 ↗ have going here um Andre you w to check

6:43 ↗ over yeah uh hi everyone my name is

6:46 ↗ Andrea starbard all right we're gonna

6:48 ↗ I'm gonna click through this a little

6:49 ↗ bit um I'm one of the urban forestry

6:52 ↗ Consultants with Planet Geo I am local

6:55 ↗ which is great I'm very excited to be

6:57 ↗ working on the ISA Urban Forest

6:59 ↗ management plan uh as Dan mentioned

7:01 ↗ we're hoping to kind of build on the

7:04 ↗ already pretty uh impressive Urban

7:06 ↗ Forest that isqua has and Planet gu has

7:09 ↗ already partnered with the city of isqua

7:11 ↗ on previous projects so we're excited to

7:13 ↗ be here again a little bit of background

7:16 ↗ about us is we are we like to call it

7:18 ↗ our urban forestry Hub we like to um

7:21 ↗ support municipalities that we work with

7:23 ↗ from start to finish whether that's

7:25 ↗ inventory using our uh tree plotter

7:28 ↗ software or writing Master plans test

7:31 ↗ and disease management plans Etc um part

7:35 ↗ of my background and the reason I join

7:37 ↗ Planet Geo is because I have worked with

7:40 ↗ 15 plus municipalities in the region so

7:43 ↗ I have a really strong understanding of

7:44 ↗ how the uh city code gets implemented on

7:47 ↗ the ground and how arborists and

7:50 ↗ Consultants interpret those things so

7:52 ↗ hoping to bring that experience uh to

7:54 ↗ the plan here um part of what we always

7:58 ↗ ask is why do we we want to have an

8:00 ↗ urban Forest management plan uh so we

8:02 ↗ always like to bring this quote at the

8:04 ↗ beginning of a

8:05 ↗ meeting I'll read it uh Urban trees and

8:09 ↗ forests are considered integral to the

8:11 ↗ sustainability of C cities as a whole

8:13 ↗ yet sustainable Urban forests are not

8:15 ↗ born they are made they do not Arise at

8:18 ↗ random but result from a CommunityWide

8:20 ↗ commitment to their creation and

8:21 ↗ management so that's part of what we're

8:23 ↗ doing here is hoping to get that

8:25 ↗ CommunityWide commitment uh set the city

8:27 ↗ of isqua up for us sustainable

8:30 ↗ actionable management plan for the city

8:33 ↗ of

8:34 ↗ trees

8:35 ↗ um many of you likely know being that

8:38 ↗ you're on the Parks Board here that

8:39 ↗ Urban forests provide many benefits to

8:41 ↗ our communities we need Trees close to

8:44 ↗ where we live not only in the Parks but

8:46 ↗ parks are usually one of the first

8:47 ↗ things that our community members think

8:49 ↗ of when they think of trees um so in

8:53 ↗ addition to clean air um cleaning the

8:56 ↗ air and reducing pollution um an really

8:59 ↗ important part of the city of isqua from

9:01 ↗ a local but not isqua resident is the

9:04 ↗ wildlife here uh so we're really excited

9:07 ↗ to kind of bring all of these benefits

9:10 ↗ to the master plan uh and tailor it to

9:13 ↗ the city of isqua in

9:16 ↗ particular um I'm sure some of you are

9:19 ↗ already dealing with a lot of the

9:21 ↗ impacts of climate change uh that we're

9:24 ↗ experiencing here already our Western

9:26 ↗ red cedar dieback is becoming uh really

9:28 ↗ noticeable around the region we know

9:30 ↗ that Emerald ashor was just identified

9:32 ↗ in Oregon not that long ago so what does

9:34 ↗ it look like for us planning

9:36 ↗ appropriately uh the salmon habitat here

9:40 ↗ I know is really important in our local

9:42 ↗ watersheds and how our Urban forests are

9:44 ↗ impacting those uh so here are just some

9:47 ↗ other potential risks and challenges

9:49 ↗ that we know are facing the city but are

9:51 ↗ also facing our region as a

9:56 ↗ whole a little bit background on the

9:58 ↗ project team Chris is here on teams um

10:03 ↗ he's our project manager he is the

10:04 ↗ director of our team he has a

10:08 ↗ unbelievable amount of experience he

10:10 ↗ just hit nine years with Planet Geo um

10:14 ↗ Alex is so he's he's our fearless leader

10:18 ↗ uh Alex is not able to be here tonight

10:20 ↗ but she's an urban planner also an Isa

10:23 ↗ certified Arborist she's going to be

10:25 ↗ leading a lot of the policy and

10:27 ↗ management recommendations as well as

10:29 ↗ the analysis of kind of what already

10:32 ↗ exists I'll be supporting in that and

10:34 ↗ then my role as it says there is

10:36 ↗ engagement at research uh part of the

10:40 ↗ local subject matter expert Falls in my

10:43 ↗ realm I understand the forests here the

10:45 ↗ tree species here the things that are

10:48 ↗ impacting us um and then we started

10:51 ↗ working together Dan and I already on

10:54 ↗ our internal staff engagement which is

10:57 ↗ part of our overall uh scope of

11:00 ↗ services you can see high level here

11:03 ↗ just what our management plan entails uh

11:06 ↗ these task categories are really just

11:09 ↗ again high level if anybody is

11:10 ↗ interested in seeing our full scope I'm

11:12 ↗ happy to share that after this meeting

11:15 ↗ um that goes through kind of what each

11:17 ↗ of these tasks

11:18 ↗ entails as far as our overall approach

11:23 ↗ the the main themes we're looking at

11:25 ↗ here is okay what do we have what do we

11:28 ↗ want how we get there and how are we

11:31 ↗ doing so we're looking through

11:33 ↗ everything that exists in isqua with the

11:35 ↗ city management of trees with how trees

11:38 ↗ are regulated on private property and

11:40 ↗ public property looking through codes

11:43 ↗ what the permit process is how many city

11:46 ↗ employees are touching trees from you

11:49 ↗ know point a to hopefully planting to

11:52 ↗ eventual removal but management the

11:53 ↗ entire time uh as I mentioned we're

11:56 ↗ already working on the staff

11:57 ↗ consultations um these are all kind of

12:01 ↗ concurrent efforts that occur they're

12:03 ↗ not necessarily linear this is an

12:05 ↗ iterative planning process so we will be

12:07 ↗ if we need to go back and look at

12:08 ↗ something else these are all informing

12:11 ↗ the next stages um we are working on our

12:14 ↗ community engagement plan which these

12:16 ↗ staff consultations will be

12:18 ↗ informing and then I think September

12:21 ↗ 2024 is when we're looking at final

12:24 ↗ delivery of the plan itself um this is a

12:28 ↗ little bit just a deeper look at what

12:30 ↗ our engagement process summary looks

12:32 ↗ like uh part of our scope of work is

12:34 ↗ going to include I think three public

12:37 ↗ meetings we are looking at integrating

12:39 ↗ those to other existing meetings so that

12:41 ↗ we're not dealing with engagement

12:44 ↗ fatigue we want people to be excited

12:46 ↗ about talking about trees not annoyed

12:48 ↗ that we keep asking them

12:49 ↗ questions um two public messaging

12:53 ↗ campaigns and support for a YouTube

12:55 ↗ video or otherwise to kind of raise

12:57 ↗ awareness about the project in general

13:00 ↗ um so our next steps like I mentioned

13:02 ↗ that internal staff survey is currently

13:04 ↗ underway it wraps up at the end of this

13:06 ↗ month um that will inform our Outreach

13:09 ↗ plan uh and we are working with the city

13:12 ↗ of isqua communication staff to kind of

13:14 ↗ finalize the timeline for

13:16 ↗ that brings me to any questions we'd

13:19 ↗ like to open it up and I don't know

13:21 ↗ where we're

13:23 ↗ at Head Start too

13:26 ↗ great I'm just curious what is causing

13:29 ↗ the problem with the red seed oh that's

13:31 ↗ such a good

13:32 ↗ question so I actually recently went to

13:34 ↗ a talk about this there are some

13:36 ↗ researchers and plant Pathologists who

13:38 ↗ are looking into it and we are not

13:41 ↗ positive we're still in a data

13:44 ↗ collection phase that we can't there are

13:47 ↗ some theories that say it's um possibly

13:49 ↗ based on soil type soil depth um and

13:53 ↗ whether or not the so Western red

13:55 ↗ seeders are very sensitive to hydrology

13:56 ↗ changes so any mo moisture change that's

13:59 ↗ dramatic um can cause decline but we're

14:03 ↗ also looking at things like uh is there

14:06 ↗ construction impacts has the humidity

14:09 ↗ level in the air changed enough that

14:11 ↗ it's actually impacting how the trees

14:13 ↗ are area interacting with their

14:16 ↗ environment um there's a wide range of

14:19 ↗ possibilities and I'm sad to say I don't

14:21 ↗ have a firm answer yet Brenda we are

14:24 ↗ working with a group called Forest

14:25 ↗ Health Network and right now they're

14:27 ↗ trying to really map the extent and kind

14:28 ↗ of location so they can kind of keep

14:30 ↗ diving into some of these hypotheses you

14:32 ↗ know too so that's been something that's

14:34 ↗ been kind of neat and we've actually

14:35 ↗ kind of done a couple hikes with this

14:36 ↗ Wells Trails Club on tradition Plateau

14:39 ↗ Cougar Mountain up in the highlands

14:40 ↗ where we are seeing that uh red seedar

14:42 ↗ die back and and at least trying to get

14:44 ↗ it documented and have kind of the scale

14:46 ↗ there here locally and then regionally

14:48 ↗ as well

14:57 ↗ so

15:07 ↗ for uh thanks for all

15:09 ↗ that you know I don't know regarding the

15:12 ↗ cedar dieback I've got some of it going

15:13 ↗ on in my property here so I'll be

15:15 ↗ curious to hear not only what it is but

15:17 ↗ if there's anything that can be done

15:19 ↗ about it I think it may be one of those

15:21 ↗ kind of things we might determine that

15:23 ↗ there's some ecological changes or

15:26 ↗ whatever but there may not be much that

15:27 ↗ we can do about it so it' be interesting

15:29 ↗ to hear on that you know I'm curious to

15:32 ↗ know um from Andrea perhaps I know

15:35 ↗ you're just kind of getting started on

15:36 ↗ it but what do you actually see as being

15:39 ↗ unique to issaqua compared to some of

15:41 ↗ the other cities that you work

15:44 ↗ with yeah I think uh that's a great

15:46 ↗ question thank you um well one of the

15:48 ↗ things that's really on my mind right

15:50 ↗ now is Washington State's new building

15:52 ↗ code isqua has a lot of what is mapped

15:55 ↗ as the Wildland Urban interface so how

15:57 ↗ the building code is going to interact

16:00 ↗ with tree preservation efforts and any

16:02 ↗ requirements that might be um required

16:06 ↗ as part of new development there's

16:08 ↗ usually uh distances required where

16:11 ↗ there can be no trees that is a

16:14 ↗ regulation that is based on usually like

16:18 ↗ large subdivision um developments

16:22 ↗ usually not so much in an urban area but

16:23 ↗ that's being applied really broadly

16:25 ↗ across the entire State and in many

16:27 ↗ other states so I think isqua is really

16:29 ↗ unique in that looking how to kind of

16:31 ↗ mesh those two sort of seemingly in

16:34 ↗ congruent policies together to make sure

16:36 ↗ that we still have a really livable

16:38 ↗ Community uh the other aspect that I'm

16:41 ↗ excited about is the CLA just a wildlife

16:43 ↗ component I think as a CLA very unique

16:46 ↗ in the uh extent of wildlife that is

16:49 ↗ here especially kind of right outside of

16:52 ↗ Seattle a lot of our cities are becoming

16:54 ↗ a lot more urbanized and it's really

16:56 ↗ pushing the wildlife out but I you know

16:58 ↗ in the process working with Dan we know

17:00 ↗ that that's a priority is looking at

17:01 ↗ these Wildlife corridors so I think

17:03 ↗ that's something else that Isa really

17:05 ↗ has an opportunity that we need in

17:07 ↗ especially in our region um and those

17:10 ↗ are the yeah those are the top two that

17:11 ↗ come to mind for me right now thank

17:15 ↗ you would add on the the wildlife front

17:18 ↗ something I'm really excited about with

17:19 ↗ this plan and I know Brad that question

17:22 ↗ was directed Andrea but I'll try in here

17:23 ↗ anyway um obviously being such a salmon

17:26 ↗ City uh we we are doing a specific

17:29 ↗ riparian canopy analysis uh as part of

17:32 ↗ this plan too so we'll have updated

17:34 ↗ canopy numbers to compare back to I

17:37 ↗ believe the 2017 data which we have been

17:40 ↗ using that 51% number for several years

17:42 ↗ now um but then we will have a specific

17:45 ↗ subset which we didn't have before

17:47 ↗ looking at raran cover which obviously

17:49 ↗ so much literature out there you know

17:51 ↗ connecting that to um salmon habitat and

17:54 ↗ and health of our streams um so that's

17:56 ↗ that's something I'm really excited

17:57 ↗ about too that's in this scope and

17:58 ↗ actually ties in uh some benefits with

18:01 ↗ with our Public Works storm water npds

18:04 ↗ permits um as they're going to start

18:06 ↗ requiring some tree retention tree

18:08 ↗ canopy goals and specifically around

18:10 ↗ riparian area so I think it sets us up

18:12 ↗ really well in a couple different

18:13 ↗ Avenues obviously with the you know goal

18:16 ↗ of of increasing you know ripar and

18:17 ↗ wildlife habitat for salmon and then

18:19 ↗ also some requirements that might be

18:21 ↗ coming from Department of ecology for

18:23 ↗ storm water permits so kind of kind of

18:25 ↗ neat uh uh kind of multiple benefits

18:29 ↗ there of that part of the scope

18:32 ↗ too just a

18:34 ↗ question that maybe it's like just when

18:38 ↗ you say 51% is the what we're at 55% is

18:41 ↗ the goal just for my understanding what

18:43 ↗ that means does that mean if you take a

18:45 ↗ snapshot of all this CL 51% is Curr

18:48 ↗ covered by leaves Tre covers tree canopy

18:53 ↗ and and Andrea or Chris could probably

18:55 ↗ speak a little bit better to how it's

18:56 ↗ calculated and they small discrepancy

18:58 ↗ you know Leaf off a tough time of year

19:00 ↗ to do it for our deciduous trees uh but

19:02 ↗ yeah essentially you're kind of looking

19:03 ↗ at that bird's eye view at our 12 or 13

19:06 ↗ square miles and you know pretty pretty

19:08 ↗ confidently say we're at 51% with you

19:10 ↗ know a small margin of error there but

19:12 ↗ know Andrea or Chris you want to add

19:14 ↗ anything to that yeah I know that Chris

19:16 ↗ was more involved with that project I am

19:18 ↗ fairly new to Planet Geo but that was

19:20 ↗ based on the 2017 data um Chris if you

19:24 ↗ want to add to how that's calculated

19:26 ↗ that is something that I actually don't

19:28 ↗ have experience in working with that

19:29 ↗ overall canopy assessment part that's

19:32 ↗ something that Chris and Alex would be

19:33 ↗ supporting this project

19:35 ↗ in sure yeah I try to keep it simple um

19:38 ↗ it's a 2d look top down at canopy cover

19:41 ↗ so canopy takes priority over other land

19:45 ↗ cover classes there are others like bare

19:48 ↗ soil grass uh impervious like your um

19:51 ↗ buildings or your paved areas um and

19:54 ↗ what you have then is the amount of

19:56 ↗ cover in terms of Acres in proportion to

19:59 ↗ the city total land area and we look at

20:02 ↗ land area not total area because land

20:05 ↗ area excludes water and then that gives

20:07 ↗ us what's really potentially feasible

20:10 ↗ for canopy so so again top down view

20:14 ↗ acreage and then percentage is how much

20:16 ↗ of that acreage is canopy in comparison

20:19 ↗ to the city's land

20:21 ↗ area Okay follow questions sorry this is

20:25 ↗ all kind of new to me so to get from 51

20:29 ↗ to

20:30 ↗ 55 at a very like 30,000 level is it

20:34 ↗ just plant more trees and have less

20:37 ↗ things planting planting TRS is a big

20:40 ↗ component but also maintaining and you

20:42 ↗ know doing our best to extend a lifetime

20:44 ↗ of our existing trees and you know a big

20:46 ↗ strategy that we'll be looking to extent

20:48 ↗ is you know tree succession succession

20:50 ↗ planting that that um tree canopy

20:52 ↗ assessment already looked at potential

20:54 ↗ planting area PPA I believe is the

20:56 ↗ aconine that we use in that report

20:58 ↗ um to to try to identify areas where

21:00 ↗ there is that potential public land um

21:03 ↗ you know there's you know kind of the

21:04 ↗ conditions that wouldn't be conflicting

21:06 ↗ with a lot of other development

21:07 ↗ infrastructures Andrew is kind of

21:09 ↗ mentioning there so obviously to

21:11 ↗ increase um we need to plant more trees

21:13 ↗ but also we don't want to go backwards I

21:15 ↗ mean I think city of Seattle just saw

21:16 ↗ that their canopy actually decreased a

21:18 ↗ percent or two recently when they were

21:20 ↗ trying to move to 30% from I think 23 or

21:23 ↗ 24 so I mean there there's kind of both

21:25 ↗ sides of it it's both the kind of

21:26 ↗ management conservation existing trees

21:29 ↗ and finding where we can establish new

21:31 ↗ canopy I ask one weird followup so let's

21:34 ↗ say I have 100 foot by 100 square foot

21:37 ↗ Park so we have a playground and a ball

21:40 ↗ field if I put up a tree that goes 10 by

21:45 ↗ 10 have I now covered 10% of the

21:49 ↗ area that literally how the math works

21:51 ↗ on that yeah 100 sare feet out of a

21:54 ↗ th000 square feet okay I believe so yes

21:57 ↗ yes

21:59 ↗ building stuff is if you have something

22:00 ↗ that's not covered you're plopping a

22:02 ↗ tree here tree there and you're reducing

22:05 ↗ the footprint of the actual thing being

22:07 ↗ built with more like you're you're

22:10 ↗ squeezing the canopy number maybe not

22:13 ↗ it's not at the 55 you're building

22:14 ↗ something but by adding something I got

22:17 ↗ okay that's you know that's where we're

22:18 ↗ trying to figure out where appropriate

22:19 ↗ to you know plant trees you know and

22:21 ↗ we're seeing a lot of these issues and

22:22 ↗ I've been working with public works and

22:23 ↗ Andrew has a really strong background

22:25 ↗ with this where we're having a lot of

22:26 ↗ you know sidewalk infrastru Str issues

22:28 ↗ because of tree roots and obviously we

22:29 ↗ want to keep trees in our rideways for

22:31 ↗ both aesthetic storm water benefits they

22:33 ↗ provide and how we kind of balance as as

22:36 ↗ you have those kind of inous or kind of

22:38 ↗ competing uh needs there at times yeah

22:41 ↗ you can certainly have canopy and other

22:43 ↗ functioning elements underneath too and

22:45 ↗ then obviously we have some of our

22:46 ↗ bigger more continuous forested areas

22:48 ↗ too so we're definitely looking at all

22:49 ↗ these different you know micro forests

22:51 ↗ or even individual trees to tradition

22:53 ↗ Plateau where we have 400 Acres of of of

22:55 ↗ forest or so but and if I can just add

22:59 ↗ something really fast having having been

23:01 ↗ here when we did that tree canopy so

23:03 ↗ really good questions Ryan and and um I

23:06 ↗ think just to reiterate the

23:10 ↗ um in fact we should get copies of that

23:12 ↗ tree canopy study so you all sort of

23:14 ↗ have that as well it's really good

23:17 ↗ information um the recommendations

23:20 ↗ really try and get strategic right and

23:22 ↗ understanding to find that 4% and

23:25 ↗ knowing that the force is not static

23:28 ↗ it's a living breathing

23:30 ↗ literally entity right we have dieback

23:33 ↗ that's happening right I mean it's why

23:34 ↗ this Urban Forest management plan so

23:36 ↗ important is the 51% is not guaranteed

23:39 ↗ right so how are we best stewarding that

23:42 ↗ and then strategically where are we

23:43 ↗ finding those areas where we can do

23:46 ↗ planting in a way that isn't where we

23:49 ↗ have to take something away it's hey

23:52 ↗ there are there are areas within our

23:54 ↗ land mass that um in fact for example

23:57 ↗ centralistic

23:58 ↗ where we're

23:59 ↗ planning a big amount of of future

24:02 ↗ density is probably the least treed area

24:05 ↗ so even as that development is happening

24:07 ↗ how do we encourage how do we encourage

24:10 ↗ additional trees planted um right tree

24:13 ↗ right place uh to to try and find those

24:17 ↗ uh those additional percentages so um

24:20 ↗ even in the conversations we were having

24:22 ↗ back then it's we are a deficit in a

24:25 ↗ number of things even within our Park

24:27 ↗ system deficit of active Recreation

24:29 ↗ spaces this conversation of trees and

24:32 ↗ the importance of preserving our forest

24:34 ↗ is not a discussion of one or the other

24:37 ↗ it really is a discussion of both we've

24:40 ↗ got a community that's that's wanting

24:41 ↗ both and so um all all of this all this

24:46 ↗ important strategic work really plays

24:48 ↗ plays really well together and and um

24:51 ↗ you know to to know that we're do not

24:53 ↗ only doing our first urban Forest

24:54 ↗ management plan but updating our Park

24:56 ↗ system plan at the same same time I

24:58 ↗ think there's some real um real

25:01 ↗ advantages uh that that we're trying to

25:03 ↗ think strategically on both both of

25:05 ↗ those Community needs and

25:09 ↗ desires I know you kind of said this on

25:11 ↗ your intro um that you thought you know

25:14 ↗ it's CA is unique in that we are so

25:16 ↗ close to a very dense Zone like Seattle

25:19 ↗ and you know you're a 15minute drive out

25:20 ↗ and we got 51% coverage how does that

25:23 ↗ goal of 55 in the current 51 compared to

25:26 ↗ some of the other areas around here I

25:27 ↗ saw you in your presentation you had

25:29 ↗ Renton and place but like is 51 like

25:33 ↗ already a lot for an

25:37 ↗ area I would say is okay compared to

25:41 ↗ Seattle absolutely part of our canopy

25:44 ↗ goal setting is looking at what's

25:46 ↗ appropriate for the city itself and part

25:48 ↗ of that process is benchmarking so we're

25:51 ↗ looking at how is compares to other

25:54 ↗ Regional cities and gr if you want to sh

25:57 ↗ in feel free um but when we're looking

26:00 ↗ at that we're looking at okay what can

26:02 ↗ what does the city have how does it

26:04 ↗ align with the city's goals with

26:06 ↗ maintaining or expanding sort of the the

26:09 ↗ sense of place that isqua has so for a

26:11 ↗ city like isqua 51 to 55% is a really

26:15 ↗ reasonable goal it was you know

26:17 ↗ determined that that was a attainable

26:19 ↗ based on the available planting space

26:21 ↗ which I think the only thing I would add

26:22 ↗ to that conversation is that we we do

26:25 ↗ take into consideration current land use

26:27 ↗ and and land use in terms of like we are

26:29 ↗ not looking at fall fields for example

26:31 ↗ or Recreation play Fields as suitable

26:34 ↗ planting space we're not looking at um

26:37 ↗ you know impervious surface as suable

26:39 ↗ planting space we really want trees that

26:41 ↗ are installed in the ground to actually

26:43 ↗ make it and then not take away from

26:45 ↗ other services that parks and public

26:48 ↗ places are providing um 55 is probably

26:52 ↗ on the high side for the pound region in

26:56 ↗ general um but given that isqua has so

26:59 ↗ many parks and such a large amount of

27:01 ↗ forested area it does seem appropriate

27:04 ↗ for the

27:06 ↗ city awesome strive for and that number

27:09 ↗ wasn't necessarily a number created by

27:12 ↗ the consultant team that was a number

27:14 ↗ that the development commission and the

27:16 ↗ city council adopted as the of the

27:20 ↗ aspirational Target and

27:24 ↗ goal K Katie has one and Brad has a

27:27 ↗ question

27:28 ↗ oh okay so um can I just ask a question

27:30 ↗ so in terms of this um strategic plan

27:33 ↗ that we have here well then the city um

27:37 ↗ take a look at that and then base their

27:39 ↗ decision on granting like permits for

27:42 ↗ buildings and and you know you know

27:45 ↗ private developers um because my

27:48 ↗ question is is that you know that if

27:49 ↗ that's the case that would be great

27:51 ↗ because about a few years ago in Talis

27:53 ↗ there was a a massive um tree you know

27:58 ↗ destruction on just like one November

28:01 ↗ evening and then in the landslide and

28:04 ↗ and as of right now it is still sitting

28:06 ↗ there with nothing so my my question is

28:08 ↗ is that will with this strategic plan

28:11 ↗ that the city will be looking at that

28:13 ↗ and and take into

28:15 ↗ consideration providing permit to say no

28:18 ↗ you're not going to you know destroy

28:19 ↗ hundreds of trees you know on a rainy

28:22 ↗ season well that yeah um I will say one

28:26 ↗ of my introductions to Urban Forest

28:28 ↗ Management in the city of ball was the

28:29 ↗ Talis project see kind of what was

28:32 ↗ happening there um part of our approach

28:34 ↗ is that we are making recommendations so

28:37 ↗ we we can't guarantee that they'll be

28:38 ↗ implemented but part of the plan is is

28:40 ↗ that we do make recommendations for how

28:42 ↗ development should be managed in

28:44 ↗ particular and how that gets balanced

28:46 ↗ with the development needs of the city

28:48 ↗ so my background is actually Tree

28:49 ↗ Management during development so looking

28:51 ↗ at industry best practices um how are we

28:54 ↗ encouraging developers to to actually

28:56 ↗ retain trees where possible what does

28:58 ↗ that kind of process look like how are

29:00 ↗ we determining what is a um a tree

29:04 ↗ that's going to make it through

29:05 ↗ development where is it more appropriate

29:07 ↗ to remove and replace trees and how does

29:09 ↗ that balance with density requirements

29:11 ↗ and that can change based on different

29:13 ↗ parts of the city but that will be part

29:15 ↗ of our overall

29:17 ↗ recommendations um and then as part of

29:19 ↗ the planning process we will develop

29:20 ↗ draft recommendations and then those get

29:22 ↗ reviewed with the with the project team

29:24 ↗ and any stakeholders that Dan helps

29:26 ↗ identify

29:27 ↗ so we'll be looking for feedback on

29:30 ↗ those so that would be a touch point we

29:33 ↗ would come back to the board and kind of

29:34 ↗ that draft stage which would likely

29:37 ↗ be springish think spring yeah I want to

29:40 ↗ say our first draft is targeted for

29:44 ↗ March I believe it might be so the city

29:46 ↗ be like they they were retroactive like

29:49 ↗ looking at your recommendations and then

29:51 ↗ go back to like all the existing permits

29:55 ↗ that they have provided or would they

29:57 ↗ just kind of like that would be

29:59 ↗ grandfather in so typically projects

30:01 ↗ that are already existing will be

30:02 ↗ grandfathered um that's not true

30:04 ↗ everywhere but it is for many

30:07 ↗ municipalities I guess I can't speak for

30:09 ↗ how that works here but usually I

30:11 ↗ pending permits are reviewed under the

30:14 ↗ code that they were submitted yeah one

30:16 ↗ one thing Also to clarify Katie really

30:18 ↗ fast great questions so a an urban Force

30:21 ↗ management plan you know a strategic

30:24 ↗ plan like that does not change city code

30:26 ↗ it for it makes recommendations to say

30:29 ↗ hey the city should

30:31 ↗ consider right reviewing its city code

30:33 ↗ to better protect this and it would take

30:36 ↗ it would take a a separate action by a

30:41 ↗ number of other right by you know

30:43 ↗ Community planning and development

30:44 ↗ department and um sort of you know those

30:48 ↗ other perspectives uh to then take the

30:51 ↗ city council to modify the development

30:54 ↗ code and that's that's how

30:57 ↗ a pering process would be changed the

30:59 ↗ tricky part is that because is a you

31:01 ↗ know we we have private land but we also

31:04 ↗ you know we're like integrated with each

31:07 ↗ other you know like like it's it's it's

31:09 ↗ Talis is within koua mountain and so the

31:12 ↗ boundaries and the the trees and you

31:14 ↗ know the the the wildlife yes you know

31:16 ↗ it's it's private land but we're all

31:18 ↗ connected does that make sense they get

31:20 ↗ rid of those trees yes it's it's private

31:24 ↗ land but it's all part of C Mountain so

31:28 ↗ you're right yeah there isting so so

31:30 ↗ when a landslide you know it's not just

31:32 ↗ affecting that land that trying to

31:36 ↗ figure

31:37 ↗ out yeah absolutely I think uh something

31:40 ↗ that's important for municipalities that

31:42 ↗ we work with is talking about how

31:44 ↗ private land and trees growing on

31:46 ↗ private land really is often times the

31:48 ↗ largest percentage of a urban canopy

31:50 ↗ covered to begin what and all of that is

31:52 ↗ really intertwined so part of our

31:54 ↗ process is talking is engaging the

31:56 ↗ community and looking at like okay what

31:58 ↗ what are your feelings and opinions on

32:01 ↗ managing trees differently on private

32:03 ↗ property and what does it look like when

32:04 ↗ there is development and what does it

32:06 ↗ look like when there isn't development

32:07 ↗ proposed um because those small parcel

32:12 ↗ level decisions definitely impact the

32:14 ↗ urban Force as a whole and that has kind

32:16 ↗ of sweeping possibly very very broad

32:19 ↗ impacts um so that is something that you

32:22 ↗ know we we always like to bring up and

32:24 ↗ then it does depend on the municipality

32:26 ↗ and you know as come up is that the city

32:29 ↗ then has to take actions to implement

32:32 ↗ any

32:33 ↗ recommendations and another really

32:35 ↗ important when we think about the urban

32:37 ↗ Forest is is really

32:39 ↗ recognizing there's Forest on public

32:41 ↗ land and there's Forest on private land

32:45 ↗ we think of it in terms of um

32:49 ↗ controlling the

32:50 ↗ controllables forest on public land we

32:53 ↗ have we have far more ability to manage

32:57 ↗ and maintain um trees or Urban for part

33:02 ↗ of our Urban Forest that's on private

33:03 ↗ property we can influence but our degree

33:06 ↗ of of control or decision- making is is

33:10 ↗ vastly

33:13 ↗ different Brad has it yeah Brad you've

33:16 ↗ been patiently

33:17 ↗ waiting hey no problem I'm taking it all

33:19 ↗ in um so my question now is kind of

33:23 ↗ two-prong and it all relates to

33:25 ↗ sustainability uh which is key for the

33:28 ↗ future here and and my first question is

33:31 ↗ when you refer to the tree canopy back

33:34 ↗ in 2017 I assume that you're talking

33:37 ↗ about the work that Fortera did back at

33:39 ↗ that

33:40 ↗ point I think I know the answer to this

33:42 ↗ but I'll just put this out there you

33:44 ↗ know when tree canopy is assessed at 51%

33:47 ↗ or whatever is there ever any um

33:51 ↗ distinction as to as to the percentage

33:54 ↗ of different species of trees that is

33:57 ↗ that is actually within that canopy and

34:00 ↗ if there is I don't think there is but

34:02 ↗ if there is you know can cons some more

34:05 ↗ current comparisons be made to actually

34:07 ↗ see if if certain trees are sustained or

34:10 ↗ not and I guess my last question related

34:13 ↗ to that is as a part of this

34:16 ↗ recommendation given in light of climate

34:18 ↗ change and all of that are there going

34:21 ↗ to be some potential recommendations

34:23 ↗ made as to the type of species that

34:25 ↗ actually should be planted in the future

34:29 ↗ for instance Cedar D dieback might be

34:31 ↗ related to climate change we don't know

34:33 ↗ just yet but if it is that's going to be

34:36 ↗ a rather substantial loss uh in our

34:39 ↗ forest and if and if Cedars are no

34:42 ↗ longer uh something that are sustainable

34:45 ↗ are there going to be some

34:46 ↗ recommendations as to some other

34:48 ↗ potential species that could be more

34:50 ↗ sustainable in the

34:52 ↗ future so I I hope that that is makes

34:55 ↗ sense thanks take the first part maybe

34:58 ↗ then sure at least the for ter question

35:00 ↗ absolutely um so Brad very good question

35:03 ↗ two different approaches actually so the

35:06 ↗ um Urban Tree canopy uh assessment that

35:09 ↗ planet Geo LED um really did just look

35:12 ↗ at overall canopy and and Chris correct

35:14 ↗ me if I'm wrong was not really looking

35:16 ↗ at species

35:17 ↗ composition um for Chris just gave us a

35:20 ↗ thumbs up for Tera um worked on our

35:24 ↗ green isqua implementation plan in 2019

35:28 ↗ 2020 is yeah about that

35:32 ↗ time and that plan so that the tree

35:34 ↗ canopies looking across our like I said

35:36 ↗ 12 or 13 square miles of Incorporated

35:38 ↗ isiga and the uh Fortera green Isa

35:41 ↗ implementation plan is specifically

35:43 ↗ looking at forested parks and Open

35:45 ↗ Spaces on public land so kind of getting

35:47 ↗ back to our last

35:49 ↗ conversation um so that actually did not

35:51 ↗ look at canopy cover they use a kind of

35:54 ↗ Matrix looking at um

35:57 ↗ you know threats to the forest which

35:58 ↗ generally they're looking at as invasive

36:00 ↗ species invasive plant species primarily

36:03 ↗ and then you know kind of quality of the

36:05 ↗ forest so intact canopy mature canopy

36:08 ↗ and you know kind of finding that middle

36:09 ↗ spot where we going to preserve the

36:10 ↗ really healthy forest and you know maybe

36:12 ↗ it's not worth the bang for your buck to

36:14 ↗ try to restore the really really

36:15 ↗ degraded kind of lacking areas uh so

36:18 ↗ we're kind of often working in that

36:19 ↗ sweet spot and they really did that on a

36:21 ↗ management unit across about 1500 Acres

36:24 ↗ of our Park system and there's some

36:25 ↗ really neat research there on or not

36:27 ↗ research or data there on on on tree

36:29 ↗ composition species composition as it

36:32 ↗ relates to trees not as much on the

36:33 ↗ understory species but that report so

36:36 ↗ those are two of our really great

36:38 ↗ existing reports is planet Geo's Urban

36:41 ↗ Tree canopy assessment and for tera's

36:43 ↗ green isqua 20-year implementation plan

36:45 ↗ and that plan sets a lot of goals for

36:47 ↗ our you know volunteerism developing

36:49 ↗ Forest stewards and you know other kind

36:50 ↗ of Maintenance targets of our of our

36:53 ↗ forested areas so hopefully that

36:55 ↗ clarifies that part of your question

36:56 ↗ question and then in terms of you know

36:59 ↗ kind of species selection climate you

37:01 ↗ know kind of the moving Target there um

37:05 ↗ I'd be happy to speak to that a little

37:05 ↗ bit too but maybe I'll hand it off to

37:07 ↗ Andrea for now or yeah I'm happy to take

37:09 ↗ it um BR I think that's a really

37:10 ↗ important question so part of our

37:13 ↗ overall analysis is looking at you know

37:16 ↗ what are the native species here how are

37:17 ↗ they holding up to climate change that's

37:20 ↗ you know something that I would like to

37:21 ↗ think that I can uh influence in this

37:25 ↗ plan in particular um kind of regarding

37:28 ↗ the Western red cedar dieback in

37:30 ↗ particular as part of so we do an

37:32 ↗ analysis called the G sister city

37:34 ↗ analysis where we start to identify

37:36 ↗ different pre species that might be

37:38 ↗ suitable for what we expect the changes

37:40 ↗ to look like here in a set period of

37:42 ↗ time um out into the future kind of

37:45 ↗ forecasting what that might look like uh

37:48 ↗ Western red cedar is such an important

37:50 ↗ tree here culturally um but I know that

37:53 ↗ some of the local researchers are

37:54 ↗ looking at using different seat banks

37:56 ↗ for Western red Cedars so using plant

38:00 ↗ stock from areas that are further south

38:02 ↗ so we're just moving the range up rather

38:04 ↗ trying to replace the tree as a species

38:08 ↗ oh um or stop planting it because it

38:11 ↗ doesn't necessarily feel like a totally

38:13 ↗ feasible approach given the significance

38:15 ↗ of Western red seeders here um and we

38:18 ↗ are hopeful that you know those studies

38:20 ↗ kind of moving some of the the lower

38:22 ↗ More Southern range up to isqua and kind

38:25 ↗ of just the northern

38:27 ↗ huge of sound region in general will be

38:29 ↗ successful but then also looking at

38:31 ↗ other trees so you know not recommending

38:33 ↗ that we're planting ash trees anymore

38:35 ↗ given Emerald Ash looking at other

38:38 ↗ Mediterranean oak or something else

38:39 ↗ that's probably not long um until it

38:43 ↗ gets here that is starting to impact the

38:45 ↗ Portland area um Oregon White Oak is

38:48 ↗ something that you know I as a local

38:51 ↗ consultant had been recommending

38:52 ↗ planting here because it is a more

38:54 ↗ climate resilient species but now that

38:55 ↗ we have another invasive pest that

38:58 ↗ doesn't necessarily set that tree

38:59 ↗ species up for a good long-term survival

39:02 ↗ rate here um so we are kind of looking

39:05 ↗ through all of those different aspects

39:07 ↗ we will provide recommended species and

39:10 ↗ then kind of caveats that might apply to

39:13 ↗ each of them um and again that's

39:15 ↗ something that we would bring as part of

39:18 ↗ the draft recommendations and then get

39:20 ↗ some feedback on and go from

39:23 ↗ there I can add that was awesome thank

39:25 ↗ you Andrea if I can add one more thing

39:27 ↗ to that Brad to mention you know one

39:28 ↗ thing we are missing as a city that I

39:30 ↗ think is a you know a goal that we will

39:32 ↗ you know put as a recommendation in this

39:34 ↗ plan for sure too is is a tree inventory

39:36 ↗ and that's not going to be all 200 or so

39:38 ↗ thousand trees on both public and

39:40 ↗ private you know for Tera has some nice

39:42 ↗ composition mixes where you might be

39:43 ↗ able to look at you know a bigger

39:45 ↗ attractive land light tradition plateau

39:47 ↗ and see what a species composition but

39:48 ↗ maybe not be you know identifying

39:50 ↗ measuring mapping every single tree but

39:52 ↗ as we talk about Street trees maintain

39:54 ↗ Park areas uh that that is a goal you

39:57 ↗ know essentially kind of know like what

39:59 ↗ percentage of our canopy is oak or Ash

40:01 ↗ or Elm um you know we're still dealing

40:04 ↗ with Little Dutch elm disease in isqua

40:05 ↗ as well um so that that is something

40:08 ↗ that this plan will hopefully set you

40:10 ↗ know really good kind of justification

40:11 ↗ rationale for that need and I would say

40:13 ↗ that would be kind of the next big push

40:15 ↗ probably a few years down the line to to

40:17 ↗ Really collect that data too and have

40:19 ↗ that publicly available there's some

40:20 ↗ great examples for a city of Seattle and

40:22 ↗ and some of the other big cities in our

40:24 ↗ region where you can actually look and

40:25 ↗ walk around and you know see every

40:27 ↗ different species uh uh you know when

40:29 ↗ thend public rideways and Parks which is

40:30 ↗ really cool so that's probably the next

40:33 ↗ big big kind of need for our Urban

40:34 ↗ Forest program after this plan you thank

40:38 ↗ you both for all

40:40 ↗ that um so you're Gathering a lot of

40:43 ↗ data and mapping data and so forth um

40:46 ↗ how are you or are you going to present

40:48 ↗ it somewhere that successible by the

40:51 ↗ public you know will it be like

40:52 ↗ incorporated into the C City GIS viewer

40:55 ↗ or something like that

40:58 ↗ that's a really good question I mean

40:59 ↗ ultimately a tree inventory yes we would

41:01 ↗ love to have that publicly accessible um

41:05 ↗ that is a much smaller subset ties in a

41:06 ↗ little bit to our next topic on Heritage

41:08 ↗ tree programs and kind of some needs and

41:10 ↗ maybe kind of more realistic short-term

41:12 ↗ U possibilities to have that publicly a

41:14 ↗ little bit more publicly accessible in

41:15 ↗ terms of mapping

41:17 ↗ um but yeah Andrew do you have any kind

41:20 ↗ of or or Chris any kind of thoughts on

41:21 ↗ how you know these plans you know other

41:23 ↗ than people reading through the whole

41:25 ↗ you know kind just knowing that you know

41:27 ↗ some folks might need you know and we

41:29 ↗ talked about YouTube promotional video

41:30 ↗ you know kind of all their thoughts on

41:32 ↗ how making this more digestible the

41:34 ↗ general public and people that might not

41:35 ↗ read every single section of a plan like

41:38 ↗ this or yeah I think uh so right now

41:41 ↗ part of the overall scope is you know

41:43 ↗ looking at the community engagement but

41:44 ↗ that's more on the earlier phasis so

41:46 ↗ when we're actually developing the plan

41:48 ↗ the draft itself before final delivery

41:50 ↗ we do have um a few social media

41:53 ↗ campaigns that we are planning um a few

41:56 ↗ inperson meetings there will be

41:58 ↗ presentations to uh city council and you

42:01 ↗ more presentations here if you'll have

42:03 ↗ us back um going through that so

42:06 ↗ presenting things that are hopefully

42:08 ↗ accessible that way but then also part

42:09 ↗ of our management plan will have

42:11 ↗ recommendations on how to continue

42:13 ↗ engaging in the future so what might be

42:16 ↗ appropriate what that looks like um

42:18 ↗ other you know it's not part of our

42:19 ↗ scope for this plan but other cities um

42:23 ↗ so we help the city of Tacoma put

42:25 ↗ together a really robust website um that

42:28 ↗ was something that you know was a kind

42:30 ↗ of central touch point for residents

42:33 ↗ there kind of looking at like okay

42:34 ↗ where's the plan um years down the line

42:37 ↗ what is that you know have we hit these

42:39 ↗ benchmarks are we kind of off track here

42:42 ↗ um so that can be one tool I'm Chris is

42:45 ↗ more familiar with kind of other

42:48 ↗ recommendations that have been put

42:49 ↗ forward for other municipalities we've

42:51 ↗ worked with but Dan is there something

42:52 ↗ you want to add no that's great I say

42:54 ↗ city of samamish is a few years ahead I

42:56 ↗ was just talking to some of their staff

42:57 ↗ they actually are working on essentially

42:59 ↗ an implementation audit now that they're

43:00 ↗ two to three years in Andrew is kind of

43:02 ↗ mentioning so there are examples of that

43:03 ↗ too and then that's not something we

43:05 ↗ have said part of this scope with Planet

43:07 ↗ Geo but that could be a possible way to

43:08 ↗ make sure we are actually using this

43:11 ↗ plan as a tool to to move forward the

43:13 ↗ manage of our forest in a more

43:14 ↗ sustainable way but we have a I mean

43:17 ↗ you're you have a map at least

43:19 ↗ internally to your work of you know all

43:22 ↗ the city areas and then all the canopy

43:24 ↗ areas right you will have that there'll

43:27 ↗ be a lot of mapping within this document

43:29 ↗ most most of that exists in the in the

43:32 ↗ Urban Tree canopy assessment and that's

43:34 ↗ broken down by you know certain areas of

43:35 ↗ isqua as Jeff mentioned you know kind of

43:37 ↗ downtown Oldtown some of those areas

43:39 ↗ where it's a little bit lacking and I

43:41 ↗ would say yes tree distributions a big

43:43 ↗ thing too a lot of our denses canopy is

43:45 ↗ on the perimeters of the Cities as you

43:46 ↗ know kind of Katie was hinting at there

43:49 ↗ um so yes a lot of that does does exist

43:52 ↗ um some of the mapping that's something

43:54 ↗ we're kind of discussing you know what

43:55 ↗ that looks like like in this update or

43:57 ↗ we're doing more of a comprehensive kind

43:58 ↗ of mapping update on some of the tree

44:00 ↗ canopy assessment potentially kind of

44:01 ↗ after this effort too so we'll have

44:03 ↗ we'll have the numbers for sure and then

44:05 ↗ you know there's still some kind of work

44:06 ↗ we're going through on the you kind of

44:08 ↗ mapping visual side specifically of the

44:10 ↗ of the tree canopy assessment in this

44:11 ↗ round that exists in the

44:14 ↗ 2017 I think it was technically 2018

44:16 ↗ tree canopy assessment with 2017 data

44:20 ↗ um so yes that that uh and that is

44:23 ↗ something we've talked about with with

44:24 ↗ our GIS coordinator to is you know what

44:26 ↗ that could look like as a publicly

44:28 ↗ available layer to you so that's

44:30 ↗ something we're CH chatting through with

44:32 ↗ him so that's exactly where I was going

44:34 ↗ it seems like if we want to show this

44:37 ↗ put it you know a layer on the gis and

44:40 ↗ show the 2017 canopy the 23 or 24 canopy

44:46 ↗ and then when we audit ourselves you

44:48 ↗ know five years from now the next one

44:51 ↗ and can compare is it you know what's

44:54 ↗ changing yeah

44:57 ↗ just one quick comment before we move on

45:00 ↗ so kind of going back to what Ryan was

45:01 ↗ saying and and has the 55% Target I

45:05 ↗ think what would be good as you're

45:06 ↗ formulating the strategy and the

45:07 ↗ recommendations is don't try to fixate

45:10 ↗ on the 55 like if it takes I don't know

45:13 ↗ 54% if it takes a million a half to get

45:15 ↗ to 54% but another 3 million to get to

45:17 ↗ 55% we wouldn't want to do that right or

45:20 ↗ don't be afraid to recommend hey if we

45:22 ↗ spend a little extra money we can get to

45:23 ↗ 60% if we do this right so I think being

45:26 ↗ able to make that sort of a fungible

45:28 ↗ Target as opposed to planning everything

45:30 ↗ 255 um that's something I would like to

45:32 ↗ see so in terms of like low hanging fuit

45:35 ↗ and dollars all that because there is

45:37 ↗ money involved

45:39 ↗ right that reminded me of another

45:41 ↗ question um so how many treats did you

45:44 ↗ say we have 200 something SGS

45:46 ↗ coordinator has done like a liar data

45:49 ↗ extraction yeah 220 225,000 maybe and

45:52 ↗ did what was the number that came up as

45:53 ↗ anybody recall from our planting last

45:56 ↗ year that we did

45:58 ↗ like this year to date 20,000 plus and

46:03 ↗ yeah a big part of it was

46:06 ↗ the would even probably come up

46:10 ↗ inalis I mean so one of the things I

46:13 ↗ think with Title 18 the title 18 rewrite

46:16 ↗ they were looking at tree canopy

46:18 ↗ projection so you know a developer is

46:20 ↗ required to plant this type of tree

46:23 ↗ because in 20 years or whatever the

46:25 ↗ window is that's the canopy it will have

46:28 ↗ so are you in this study are you also

46:30 ↗ looking at what those 20,000 trees which

46:33 ↗ is sort of like 10% of all our trees or

46:38 ↗ another 10% what does it mean in 20

46:40 ↗ years or something like that um I I

46:43 ↗ don't believe so I think that's where

46:45 ↗ the intervals of updated tree canopy

46:47 ↗ assessments are important and I love to

46:49 ↗ ask that Andrew if you know or Chris you

46:50 ↗ know kind of what minimum canopy height

46:52 ↗ we were looking at um and and in

46:55 ↗ generally tree canopy assessments you

46:56 ↗ know like a three-foot sapling is not

46:58 ↗ going to show up as part of a part of

47:01 ↗ our Urban Tree canopy but is is there

47:02 ↗ sort of a minimum height that's the

47:04 ↗ filter for for canopy as we do other

47:08 ↗ studies there is yes with our Earth

47:10 ↗ defined partnership which is a newer

47:12 ↗ partnership I don't know those numbers

47:14 ↗ off hand but there's a threshold that's

47:17 ↗ um classified for low-lying shrub or um

47:20 ↗ tree canopy depending on height using uh

47:23 ↗ the liar or um digital elevation models

47:26 ↗ of data that we're able to um Gather in

47:29 ↗ addition to the aerial imagery for

47:31 ↗ assessments um so just not sure on that

47:34 ↗ that um what the exact criteria is

47:37 ↗ though yeah uh I can add to that a

47:40 ↗ little bit so the lowest that I'm seen

47:42 ↗ is 8 feet that's what the city of

47:43 ↗ Seattle did theirs on and that was one

47:46 ↗ of the big critiques of that assessment

47:47 ↗ was that 8 feet is is very low because

47:50 ↗ it catches a lot of Shrubbery um so

47:51 ↗ something that maybe isn't necessarily

47:53 ↗ considered tree canopy um so I've also

47:55 ↗ seen 15 to 20 ft and we'd have to double

47:59 ↗ check to see what our Earth Define

48:00 ↗ partners are looking at I don't believe

48:02 ↗ it's as low as 8 ft it's probably closer

48:04 ↗ to that 12 and above um but yeah we are

48:09 ↗ not catching those little saplings

48:10 ↗ necessarily um when we're looking at at

48:13 ↗ the canopy data it's a really good

48:15 ↗ question though and and yeah I think

48:17 ↗ ultimately that is the justification of

48:20 ↗ doing periodic uh you know updates of

48:22 ↗ the tree canopy data every five years or

48:24 ↗ so or something like that that but Chris

48:26 ↗ you're kind of getting me thinking is

48:27 ↗ you know I can in my head tell you where

48:29 ↗ it's like oh there's about an acre of

48:31 ↗ recent restoration plantings that in 10

48:33 ↗ years we could project to be in that 10

48:34 ↗ to 15 to 20 foot height um so that'd be

48:37 ↗ really interesting and was just kind of

48:38 ↗ doing some of the calculations um you

48:40 ↗ know we have about 8,000 Acres if you're

48:42 ↗ talking about 12 square miles and to get

48:44 ↗ another 4% we're talking about another

48:46 ↗ 300 or so Acres of planted area then

48:49 ↗ once again that takes probably 10 years

48:51 ↗ or so to meet that meet that sort of

48:53 ↗ minimum requirement for canopy height

48:55 ↗ and you know kind of young canopy but we

48:57 ↗ could probably do some interesting kind

48:59 ↗ of calculations on sites that are on

49:01 ↗ track for that um with an our Park

49:03 ↗ system and it's certainly not 300 but

49:05 ↗ it's not insignificant either um in

49:07 ↗ terms of some of these planting areas so

49:08 ↗ these recent plantings that we start

49:10 ↗ projecting or we have plan to the next

49:12 ↗ couple years so yeah thank

49:18 ↗ you great

49:20 ↗ discussion yeah thank you for everyone's

49:22 ↗ questions I really appreciate

49:24 ↗ it

49:26 ↗ yeah so next

49:27 ↗ steps yeah um my

49:31 ↗ contact

49:34 ↗ oop um I also have some business cards

49:36 ↗ but if anybody has any questions Dan is

49:39 ↗ the primary contact UM and he can kind

49:42 ↗ of move any questions to the Consulting

49:44 ↗ team as needed

49:46 ↗ um anything more to say about that yeah

49:49 ↗ we will be planning to share essentially

49:50 ↗ an external stakeholder survey that we

49:52 ↗ certainly going to the park board the

49:53 ↗ environmental board and you know trying

49:55 ↗ to figure out out other you know public

49:56 ↗ meetings or ways we can get that out

49:58 ↗ we're kind of working right now with our

49:59 ↗ Communications team to find what might

50:01 ↗ be a good window so that likely is going

50:03 ↗ to be early in the new year so be

50:04 ↗ another opportunity solicit information

50:06 ↗ once we've kind of been able to filter

50:07 ↗ through the internal staff survey work

50:09 ↗ we're doing right now we've already had

50:11 ↗ 20 to 25 responses and have that open

50:13 ↗ for another week from staff I think we

50:15 ↗ invited about 50 people to participate

50:17 ↗ in that survey um so there'll be a touch

50:19 ↗ point there which we' love to share

50:20 ↗ through the board and then probably come

50:21 ↗ back and kind of review some of that and

50:23 ↗ have some of the draft stat strategies

50:25 ↗ recommend ation and I'm guessing we

50:26 ↗ don't have them on the calendar yet but

50:28 ↗ that would be within the first few

50:29 ↗ months of the New Year too

50:34 ↗ so thank

50:42 ↗ you and transitioning

50:46 ↗ to

50:49 ↗ again great well

50:52 ↗ um kind of zooming in

50:56 ↗ um to a specific program hopefully most

51:00 ↗ everyone on the Park Board knows that we

51:02 ↗ have a Heritage tree program here in the

51:04 ↗ city of

51:05 ↗ isqua um that has been a bit dormant

51:08 ↗ though for a little while we we'll kind

51:10 ↗ of get into that here in a second um

51:12 ↗ since sy's getting the slides up there

51:15 ↗ so um

51:17 ↗ really plan on spending the next uh 10

51:20 ↗ minutes or so kind of going

51:22 ↗ over like this is here

51:28 ↗ um uh you know what is a Heritage tree

51:31 ↗ program and specifically how has that

51:32 ↗ looked in isqua um very quickly we can

51:35 ↗ look at a couple of our heritage trees I

51:37 ↗ I love to kind of call it we've been

51:39 ↗ working with two interns from gibs and E

51:41 ↗ who have been amazing actually going out

51:42 ↗ taking photos documenting we really

51:44 ↗ don't have a lot of information on these

51:46 ↗ trees and as you'll see here in a slide

51:47 ↗ in a second it's been since 2012 that

51:49 ↗ we've nominated a new tree as the

51:51 ↗ Heritage tree uh so we can talk briefly

51:53 ↗ about our current tree uh inventory

51:56 ↗ uh process as currently set around how

51:58 ↗ Heritage trees are nominated and

52:00 ↗ selected which this board is

52:01 ↗ instrumental in um potential updated

52:05 ↗ goals for the programs and a few

52:06 ↗ questions for you all to think about um

52:09 ↗ are really kind of the last two parts

52:10 ↗ and right right now this is a certainly

52:12 ↗ a discussion or questions we can help

52:14 ↗ clarify with a thought that based on

52:16 ↗ your feedback based on feedback from a

52:17 ↗ little bit already from Brad and Andrew

52:20 ↗ um Connie just sent a comment about this

52:22 ↗ too that you know we'll work internally

52:24 ↗ as a team and A provide some

52:26 ↗ recommendations to update this plan and

52:28 ↗ that I believe would be an actual item

52:30 ↗ for the park board as in our code the

52:32 ↗ park board is the um organization or

52:35 ↗ entity that administers this program so

52:38 ↗ can I add one quick background piece to

52:40 ↗ Dan thank you so much for just as a

52:42 ↗ reminder and some context and I believe

52:45 ↗ it was well late last year and into of

52:47 ↗ this year uh we brought back the her's

52:49 ↗ tree program and said you know what it

52:51 ↗ really is time that this this needs a a

52:54 ↗ deeper dive and an update um and a

52:57 ↗ refresh and if you recall at that time

53:00 ↗ uh we realized you know what we're about

53:02 ↗ to bring on board an urban Forest

53:03 ↗ supervisor about to kick off an urban

53:05 ↗ Forest management plan um let's get that

53:08 ↗ position um let's get that um person on

53:11 ↗ board and and going and um really really

53:15 ↗ get to work on this so um I think the

53:18 ↗ timing is um again very very spoton and

53:21 ↗ very right uh for this work yeah so the

53:24 ↗ goal kind of gather some feedback make

53:27 ↗ some recommendations this will probably

53:28 ↗ come back to the board early in the new

53:30 ↗ year really really with a goal of trying

53:31 ↗ to have some dreams nominated in 20124

53:33 ↗ with h you know an updated process there

53:36 ↗ so um for people that maybe aren't as

53:38 ↗ familiar I can go pretty quickly and

53:39 ↗ once again I give our interns a ton of

53:41 ↗ credits for all the photos that's our um

53:43 ↗ uh coastal redwood I believe in Gilman

53:45 ↗ Village there one of our heritage trees

53:47 ↗ uh near isaco coffee company but many

53:50 ↗ many cities around the around the nation

53:51 ↗ and I'm sure internationally too have

53:53 ↗ similar programs really recognizing

53:55 ↗ the significance of some individual

53:57 ↗ trees or occasionally Groves of trees

53:59 ↗ we'll talk about that in a second here

54:00 ↗ too in the community uh really meant to

54:04 ↗ and I think these are kind of our goals

54:05 ↗ to to recognize celebrate and educate

54:07 ↗ about uh these unique trees we'll talk

54:09 ↗ about our existing criteria uh that you

54:12 ↗ know uh uh makes trees unique here in

54:15 ↗ isqua um this was developed in 2005 by

54:18 ↗ the park board to promote as kind of

54:20 ↗ mention identification uh kind of the

54:22 ↗ education component there recognition of

54:24 ↗ tre Tre that reflect the unique

54:26 ↗ character of isqua uh and as I kind of

54:28 ↗ mentioned our last tree was nominated in

54:30 ↗ 2012 so we had a pretty steady uh stream

54:33 ↗ of trees being nominated within those

54:34 ↗ seven years and then have um uh haven't

54:38 ↗ haded since then so and one thing we

54:40 ↗ learned in that seven years all those

54:43 ↗ pretty much every nomination was done by

54:44 ↗ one staff person so again this didn't

54:47 ↗ feel like it was really it didn't feel

54:49 ↗ like it was resonating with the the

54:51 ↗ community so again great opportunity to

54:54 ↗ Let's

54:55 ↗ uh again look at this we'll have some

54:57 ↗ kind of questions on maybe why that

54:59 ↗ could be and you know maybe some better

55:00 ↗ kind of Outreach opportunities and Brad

55:02 ↗ gave a little feedback on that already

55:03 ↗ in terms of the public vers private uh

55:06 ↗ property locations and nomination

55:08 ↗ process of Heritage trees so uh current

55:10 ↗ inventory this does live on our website

55:13 ↗ um it's a pretty simple page it

55:15 ↗ essentially looks kind of just like a

55:18 ↗ chronological list of um species and

55:22 ↗ years and

55:23 ↗ locations um we Chris definitely want to

55:26 ↗ get that publicly available on maps and

55:27 ↗ this is kind of the first step to have

55:29 ↗ an updated inventory with photos our

55:31 ↗ interns were out taking diameter of

55:32 ↗ breast height uh so you know measuring

55:35 ↗ uh you know the circumference of trees

55:36 ↗ and calculating that into the diameter

55:38 ↗ at about four feet above uh ground level

55:41 ↗ and then some new photos um so we have

55:44 ↗ 24 recorded Heritage trees in isqua

55:46 ↗ there's a few more that were originally

55:48 ↗ on our list that have either fallen over

55:50 ↗ died needed to be removed but uh 24 uh

55:54 ↗ living trees uh that are scattered

55:56 ↗ around mostly public property but a few

55:59 ↗ on private uh property here as well so

56:01 ↗ just to get kind of an idea of what that

56:03 ↗ looks like I just have two slides and at

56:05 ↗ the end of this presentation we have

56:06 ↗ almost the rest of them document

56:08 ↗ documented our interns have a few more

56:09 ↗ to get put in there but this is the uh

56:11 ↗ Geno tree uh downtown isqua um just off

56:15 ↗ of Front Street and I just learned about

56:18 ↗ this that it's uh near coffee sutri

56:20 ↗ people know where that is this was

56:21 ↗ originally planted by isqua's first

56:23 ↗ mayor doc Gibson so you pretty uh um uh

56:27 ↗ legitimately identify as tree is

56:28 ↗ probably at least 100 to 120 years old I

56:30 ↗ believe he was mayor just around the

56:32 ↗ turn of the century in the early 1900s

56:34 ↗ uh goo trees are very ancient trees and

56:37 ↗ they can live for a really really long

56:39 ↗ time so it's really neat that we have

56:41 ↗ this uh this is a female specimen Geno

56:44 ↗ trees are uh either male or female um

56:48 ↗ we've sort of learned that the the

56:49 ↗ female seeds can have a bit of an odor

56:51 ↗ that's not always desirable uh so maybe

56:53 ↗ at the time that wasn't known but um

56:55 ↗ I've actually never experienced that

56:56 ↗ from this tree but this was the

56:58 ↗ description that was sent in for this

56:59 ↗ when it was nominated is I believe our

57:01 ↗ first two trees in 2005 so there

57:04 ↗ generally have been forms of you know

57:06 ↗ essentially why the tree uh fits this

57:09 ↗ criteria we'll get to that in a second

57:10 ↗ but actually couldn't find a lot of that

57:12 ↗ data except for a couple of these but

57:13 ↗ the the doc Gibson thing there is really

57:15 ↗ interesting to me um and then I think

57:18 ↗ most people are familiar with our our

57:20 ↗ Douglas fur probably our biggest tree

57:22 ↗ within City Limits at least in isqua uh

57:24 ↗ the rof keys uh Trail on tradition

57:27 ↗ plateau of Tiger Mountain um if you look

57:29 ↗ at the old interpretive sign that's a

57:31 ↗ little bit out of date it says it's

57:32 ↗ about 7 feet 9 in diameter we just

57:35 ↗ updated that it actually looks more

57:36 ↗ like8 and 1 half feet um once again this

57:39 ↗ is assumed to be the largest tree within

57:41 ↗ City Limits we don't know that as 100%

57:42 ↗ accuracy but that's that's to our best

57:44 ↗ understanding and you know estimated to

57:46 ↗ be uh probably about half a century old

57:48 ↗ so this was also uh one of the first

57:50 ↗ trees identified and nominated and and

57:53 ↗ accepted in the herriage tree program in

57:55 ↗ 2005 so um really trying to capture some

57:58 ↗ just kind of fun facts you know both to

58:00 ↗ the species we're talking about and to

58:02 ↗ the individual trees and a little bit of

58:03 ↗ the history you might be able to uncover

58:05 ↗ there uh so like said we have a lot more

58:07 ↗ slides that look like this but um those

58:09 ↗ are at the end and if people are

58:10 ↗ interested uh they're in your packet too

58:13 ↗ so um I did send this out or I believe

58:15 ↗ we talked about sending this out as a

58:17 ↗ PDF it's just a little two page

58:18 ↗ essentially what our form is we don't

58:20 ↗ have an electronic version of this which

58:22 ↗ that would be a very simple thing that

58:23 ↗ we want to update in this essentially

58:25 ↗ have a form that people can submit so

58:26 ↗ right now it is printing this out

58:28 ↗ filling out the descriptions I know it's

58:29 ↗ a little hard to read on the screen but

58:31 ↗ essentially um looking at the first page

58:34 ↗ is kind of the form you submit which is

58:36 ↗ the name of the property owner person

58:38 ↗ nominating the tree if different from

58:39 ↗ the property owner you know the address

58:41 ↗ and contact information there's not even

58:43 ↗ an option to put email in here which I

58:45 ↗ found a little funny but um description

58:47 ↗ and location of tree nominated uh

58:49 ↗ photograph characteristics of tree

58:51 ↗ nominated that Merit consideration and

58:53 ↗ then we do have to have a signature from

58:55 ↗ the uh property owner you know

58:58 ↗ essentially giving permission to submit

59:00 ↗ this um and that was you know one of

59:02 ↗ Connie's questions in her comment too is

59:04 ↗ you know who who who is that person with

59:07 ↗ with Parks or the city potentially on

59:08 ↗ public land too in the past I believe

59:10 ↗ that was Alan Haywood the city's

59:12 ↗ arborist for a long time he was he was

59:14 ↗ at least nominating them he wasn't

59:15 ↗ necessarily deciding whether they would

59:17 ↗ be nominated or not but he was the one

59:19 ↗ operationally leading that so kind of

59:21 ↗ kind of talk about those stages there on

59:23 ↗ the right side there little kind of

59:25 ↗ summarizing uh approach to our current

59:28 ↗ setup uh and then on the other side of

59:30 ↗ this forum actually gets into a little

59:31 ↗ bit of the characteristics we have for

59:33 ↗ our Isa Heritage tree program so we

59:35 ↗ essentially have three characteristics

59:37 ↗ and this is in our our city code and our

59:39 ↗ Title 18 tree preservation and as I

59:41 ↗ mentioned it you know has the park board

59:43 ↗ as administering uh this program based

59:46 ↗ on these characteristics and ultimately

59:48 ↗ voting on uh acceptance or or

59:50 ↗ potentially rejecting Heritage tree

59:52 ↗ nominations uh but really looking at a

59:55 ↗ size or age not normally seen for that

59:57 ↗ species in the Pacific Northwest so

59:59 ↗ obviously Douglas furs are Big Trees

1:00:00 ↗ we're not going to nominate every

1:00:01 ↗ Douglas fur that's two feet diameter

1:00:03 ↗ even though it's bigger than most other

1:00:05 ↗ trees of that age um you know oldest or

1:00:09 ↗ most outstanding specimen a historic

1:00:11 ↗ significance we'll get more into this

1:00:13 ↗ one but that's really looking at

1:00:14 ↗ association with early set settlers or

1:00:16 ↗ region of a historic event something I

1:00:18 ↗ have actually had some great

1:00:19 ↗ conversations with the snowy tribe that

1:00:20 ↗ we'll get into around culturally

1:00:22 ↗ modified trees I think we are really

1:00:23 ↗ missing that kind of uh indigenous

1:00:26 ↗ perspective in terms of the historic

1:00:28 ↗ category so I think that would be pretty

1:00:30 ↗ easy one to update and include without

1:00:31 ↗ having to maybe create a brand new

1:00:33 ↗ category um but certainly uh was not

1:00:36 ↗ included when this was created 20 or so

1:00:38 ↗ years ago and then ecological value a

1:00:40 ↗ tree that provides special benefit uh

1:00:42 ↗ ecologically uh you know maybe not seen

1:00:44 ↗ elsewhere in the in the community here

1:00:45 ↗ in isqua so there's kind of a

1:00:47 ↗ description you know one thing we'll

1:00:48 ↗ call it in a few um slides too uh it's

1:00:52 ↗ kind of hard to see but the third column

1:00:54 ↗ over from the left the second paragraph

1:00:56 ↗ from the bottom it says in order to keep

1:00:57 ↗ the process competitive there will be no

1:00:59 ↗ limitation on the number of trees

1:01:01 ↗ nominated however the maximum number of

1:01:03 ↗ trees selected will be limited to three

1:01:05 ↗ so that's something to think about too

1:01:06 ↗ if that's something that seems

1:01:07 ↗ appropriate uh to keep uh and then this

1:01:10 ↗ was a pretty standard time frames it

1:01:11 ↗ sounds like where trees were nominated

1:01:14 ↗ reviewed and approved or denied in

1:01:16 ↗ September by the park board so that's

1:01:17 ↗ something that Brad talked about having

1:01:19 ↗ some more lead time potentially being

1:01:20 ↗ really valuable for that possibly having

1:01:22 ↗ some assessments of the trees we don't

1:01:23 ↗ want to nominate a tree if it's in

1:01:25 ↗ severe Decline and you we want to

1:01:27 ↗ approve a tree if no one knows that so

1:01:28 ↗ maybe some steps uh to to give the park

1:01:30 ↗ board a little more lead time to kind of

1:01:32 ↗ review and understand the nomination it

1:01:34 ↗ sounds like in the past these kind of

1:01:35 ↗ came in at the wire and and you know you

1:01:37 ↗ kind of had to decide on the Fly there

1:01:39 ↗ and whether we need a set time frame or

1:01:41 ↗ if it could be rolling nominations these

1:01:42 ↗ are these are the things we're trying to

1:01:44 ↗ kind of

1:01:45 ↗ consider um so kind of getting into the

1:01:48 ↗ categories kind of reviewed these

1:01:49 ↗ already but this is a nice graphic our

1:01:51 ↗ interns Mina and Leilani put together so

1:01:53 ↗ I think I can kind of jump over these

1:01:55 ↗ but this is you know I guess could of

1:01:56 ↗ used this slide a little bit more

1:01:57 ↗ readable version of the of the Forum we

1:01:59 ↗ had um copied on the last slide so our

1:02:02 ↗ existing categories uh I mean

1:02:04 ↗ theoretically we could add to that I

1:02:06 ↗ don't know if that' be something that

1:02:07 ↗ would need to be that updated in our

1:02:08 ↗ code Jeff because right now these are

1:02:10 ↗ the three categories identified I think

1:02:11 ↗ we could do our best to modify or

1:02:13 ↗ include sort of new approaches or

1:02:16 ↗ interpretations of these categories as I

1:02:17 ↗ kind of already mentioned around the

1:02:18 ↗ historic category but um right now this

1:02:21 ↗ is what we have um it really kind of

1:02:24 ↗ kind of get into goals I mean very

1:02:25 ↗ simply we'd like to start adding new

1:02:27 ↗ trees and really celebrating recognizing

1:02:29 ↗ educating about our unique trees and

1:02:31 ↗ there's already several more that I have

1:02:32 ↗ in my head uh that I think would be

1:02:34 ↗ really cool for this program uh so I

1:02:36 ↗ think that's certainly the goal to have

1:02:37 ↗ this updated have a new process and then

1:02:40 ↗ really look at getting trees nominated

1:02:41 ↗ in 2024 there's definitely a lot of

1:02:44 ↗ questions around tree protection what

1:02:45 ↗ does it mean to have Heritage tree

1:02:47 ↗ nomination uh or or Heritage tree

1:02:50 ↗ selection status uh in our tree code and

1:02:53 ↗ then there is you know essentially

1:02:54 ↗ prohibited to remove Heritage trees with

1:02:56 ↗ some exceptions around Hazard nuisance

1:02:58 ↗ trees installing solar there's a few

1:03:01 ↗ interesting things in our city code that

1:03:02 ↗ do allow for the removal of Heritage

1:03:05 ↗ trees but it does add a little bit extra

1:03:06 ↗ layer protection and there's some

1:03:07 ↗ questions on is that uniformally

1:03:10 ↗ enforced on public and private does that

1:03:12 ↗ discourage private residents from

1:03:13 ↗ submitting a tree like this um so that's

1:03:15 ↗ stuff that Brad and Andrew and I talked

1:03:17 ↗ about a little bit too in a meeting a

1:03:18 ↗ couple weeks ago uh process of

1:03:21 ↗ nomination we've already kind of talked

1:03:22 ↗ about but really trying to update that

1:03:23 ↗ from BAS B things like having electronic

1:03:25 ↗ submitt to you know timing number of

1:03:28 ↗ trees uh things like that um and we'll

1:03:31 ↗ get into the next slide here on on some

1:03:32 ↗ of the uh possible modifications to the

1:03:36 ↗ categories to walking tours I think that

1:03:38 ↗ could be more broadly education but this

1:03:39 ↗ is something I know our interns is

1:03:41 ↗ really interesting and having having

1:03:42 ↗ essentially a guided and you know a

1:03:44 ↗ self-guided uh walking tour of our

1:03:46 ↗ heritage trees which Chris would tie

1:03:47 ↗ into some of the mapping public you know

1:03:49 ↗ available mapping needs so we do have

1:03:51 ↗ these mapped internally right now

1:03:52 ↗ they're not available to public that's

1:03:53 ↗ definitely goal as we uh refresh and

1:03:56 ↗ kind of restart this

1:03:59 ↗ program uh so a few things to just kind

1:04:01 ↗ of think about a few questions at the

1:04:02 ↗ bottom of each of these is Grove

1:04:04 ↗ nominations our our our interns did

1:04:06 ↗ great work um kind of working with them

1:04:08 ↗ looking at uh neighboring cities and

1:04:09 ↗ some of the other categories they might

1:04:11 ↗ have that were missing and if you look

1:04:13 ↗ at Seattle Pala there's I'm sure a

1:04:16 ↗ couple other cities uh they have they

1:04:18 ↗ have Groves where um they're looking at

1:04:21 ↗ um you know kind of patches a tree some

1:04:23 ↗ of you might remember we had this really

1:04:25 ↗ cool uh Redwood planting project that

1:04:28 ↗ was clones of some of the biggest oldest

1:04:30 ↗ redwoods in California and that's

1:04:31 ↗ actually planted at the park Point grow

1:04:34 ↗ so right now those trees aren't huge but

1:04:35 ↗ as a collection and that historic

1:04:37 ↗ significance seems like a really neat

1:04:39 ↗ opportunity to nominate as as a grow

1:04:41 ↗ versus you know eight individual trees

1:04:44 ↗ um so that's something you know that we

1:04:45 ↗ are you know kind of asking whether

1:04:47 ↗ whether Groves of trees should be

1:04:48 ↗ considered um and you know how that

1:04:51 ↗ process would work compared to

1:04:52 ↗ individual trees uh you know obviously

1:04:55 ↗ some website updates you know to make

1:04:57 ↗ that more accessible and engaging and

1:04:58 ↗ for opportunities for people to actually

1:05:00 ↗ go out there we talked with Brad briefly

1:05:02 ↗ about signage without having sign

1:05:04 ↗ Overkill but you know what maybe small

1:05:06 ↗ little signs with just a species

1:05:07 ↗ identification and a QR code that would

1:05:09 ↗ lead to the website where you can look

1:05:10 ↗ at the broader map of trees uh so so

1:05:13 ↗ things like that that are are definitely

1:05:15 ↗ improvements we we can make uh to to

1:05:17 ↗ make this program hopefully a little bit

1:05:18 ↗ more engaging and and people maybe

1:05:20 ↗ wanting to participate a bit more uh and

1:05:22 ↗ then we'll have one more slide on this

1:05:24 ↗ but if people aren't familiar culturally

1:05:25 ↗ modified trees cmts is the acronym there

1:05:28 ↗ uh we have a slide getting into this a

1:05:30 ↗ little bit more here but you know just

1:05:31 ↗ just asking if this is something that we

1:05:33 ↗ should include uh in the historic

1:05:35 ↗ category for Heritage tree

1:05:38 ↗ nominations um so uh cmts culturally

1:05:42 ↗ modified trees are trees Modified by

1:05:44 ↗ indigenous people as part of their

1:05:45 ↗ Traditions they are often sacred

1:05:47 ↗ memorials uh living archaeology um and

1:05:50 ↗ this could be added Under the Umbrella

1:05:51 ↗ of Heritage trees you can see some

1:05:53 ↗ Western red sen you're there where

1:05:54 ↗ actually bark was stripped can't tell

1:05:56 ↗ you what that was used for but that's

1:05:58 ↗ used for um almost you know just a huge

1:06:01 ↗ amount of of of pro products and you

1:06:03 ↗ know our cultural um including our even

1:06:07 ↗ our troll that was cedar cedar bark that

1:06:09 ↗ was woven by a Noami tribe member and

1:06:11 ↗ artist uh the hair tie and on the wrists

1:06:14 ↗ uh so really really uh you see stuff

1:06:16 ↗ like this and and actually it's really

1:06:17 ↗ neat this Noami tribe actually has a

1:06:19 ↗ grant that I think would train Municipal

1:06:22 ↗ Foresters like myself to better identify

1:06:24 ↗ these I think the big question with cmts

1:06:26 ↗ I don't want to speak for everyone here

1:06:27 ↗ I think there's a lot of interest to

1:06:28 ↗ include them but how does that look in

1:06:30 ↗ terms of publicizing or advertising them

1:06:32 ↗ when these are sacred and we don't

1:06:34 ↗ necessarily want to love them to death

1:06:36 ↗ or come out and trample the root zones

1:06:38 ↗ you know so I think there's questions on

1:06:39 ↗ you know what this actually looks like

1:06:41 ↗ in terms of

1:06:42 ↗ documentation um and that's a

1:06:44 ↗ conversation we're going to continue

1:06:45 ↗ with some of the soami tribe uh members

1:06:47 ↗ and staff um so that is kind of

1:06:51 ↗ a um quick overview hopefully

1:06:54 ↗ and you know as mentioned next steps is

1:06:55 ↗ really to solicit feedback from you all

1:06:57 ↗ uh we present you this to the

1:06:58 ↗ environmental board as well and uh you

1:07:01 ↗ know really kind of make some

1:07:02 ↗ recommendations based on that feedback

1:07:03 ↗ and I think ultimately that would be

1:07:05 ↗ voted on by this board to approve and

1:07:07 ↗ move forward with those or or modify

1:07:09 ↗ those recommendations

1:07:11 ↗ so as you can see we have a lot that's

1:07:14 ↗ the cemetery at Hillside anyway we can

1:07:17 ↗ click for these but weing Willows at

1:07:19 ↗ Pickering big leaf maple at Pickering so

1:07:21 ↗ yeah a lot of these uh different

1:07:24 ↗ Heritage trees across our City Oregon

1:07:26 ↗ White Oak at the kind of the fish

1:07:27 ↗ hatchery there so I will spare you about

1:07:31 ↗ 10 more slides but they're there in your

1:07:33 ↗ P or we can share them if people want to

1:07:34 ↗ see the photos

1:07:37 ↗ too so yeah I can you know if would be

1:07:39 ↗ helpful to go back to the slide that had

1:07:41 ↗ some specific questions or any just

1:07:42 ↗ general feedback or

1:07:45 ↗ thoughts the one where we had a few

1:07:47 ↗ questions at the bottom of each of those

1:07:49 ↗ sections I I have some thoughts I love

1:07:53 ↗ this idea in this program program and

1:07:55 ↗ it's kind of hard for me to say the

1:07:56 ↗ things I'm going to say right now but I

1:07:58 ↗ think we need to do a really deep dive

1:08:00 ↗ in the

1:08:01 ↗ criteria uh that we apply to this and

1:08:05 ↗ how Park Board would then use those

1:08:09 ↗ criteria to make a

1:08:12 ↗ recommendation um I don't know that Park

1:08:15 ↗ Board should really have the final

1:08:16 ↗ approval of this um there's some bigger

1:08:20 ↗ implications I mean I think it's great

1:08:21 ↗ to have these trees but

1:08:25 ↗ an Heritage tree could at some point be

1:08:28 ↗ viewed as an encumbrance on a property

1:08:31 ↗ public or private and um I think that

1:08:35 ↗ has to be taken into consideration just

1:08:38 ↗ um out of respect for the people that

1:08:39 ↗ own the property whether it's an

1:08:41 ↗ individual or city um and I think that

1:08:46 ↗ ties into you know one of the comments

1:08:48 ↗ that we received like how do you do this

1:08:49 ↗ what if it's on public property um

1:08:54 ↗ and then how do we how would we or the

1:08:57 ↗ the Park Board of the future decide you

1:08:59 ↗ know wow that's a really cool cool tree

1:09:01 ↗ everybody votes yes or is there really

1:09:03 ↗ defined criteria to help make that

1:09:06 ↗ decision and then the

1:09:07 ↗ recommendation um

1:09:10 ↗ because we really got to think about I

1:09:13 ↗ mean for example

1:09:16 ↗ tibits all those trees they're beautiful

1:09:19 ↗ could be a perfect example of a Grove

1:09:22 ↗ but there's a lot of

1:09:24 ↗ um competing needs there and I I think

1:09:29 ↗ we're going to need some

1:09:31 ↗ real well um filtered uh criteria to

1:09:36 ↗ apply to

1:09:37 ↗ this this is referring to a gr London PL

1:09:40 ↗ trees that kind of the pr okay arear can

1:09:43 ↗ I can I add to that too so let's say you

1:09:45 ↗ know Chris own a home and his tree we

1:09:48 ↗ voted as a Heritage tree Chris then

1:09:51 ↗ wants to move out of state so his house

1:09:53 ↗ to Haiti now I'm now a new owner of this

1:09:56 ↗ house and I want to get rid of this

1:09:58 ↗ Heritage tree because I have other needs

1:10:02 ↗ for my home but now it's been labeled as

1:10:05 ↗ Heritage tree but it's on my private

1:10:07 ↗ land what what can I do I mean am I

1:10:11 ↗ going to be able just to cut it down

1:10:12 ↗ because it's on my land or will the city

1:10:14 ↗ come in and say no no no it's on your

1:10:17 ↗ private land but it's a Heritage tree so

1:10:21 ↗ those are the and people's needs change

1:10:24 ↗ sometimes in ways that they don't

1:10:28 ↗ anticipate all really really both are

1:10:31 ↗ are great comments and ones that we want

1:10:33 ↗ to to Really take a deep dive into and

1:10:36 ↗ and again

1:10:38 ↗ realize um and and again other cities

1:10:41 ↗ wrestle with this right so as as Dan

1:10:44 ↗ said there are other Heritage Street

1:10:46 ↗ programs throughout and let's let's

1:10:48 ↗ learn from them and let's understand I

1:10:51 ↗ think the intent and goal of the

1:10:52 ↗ Heritage tree program is to celebrate

1:10:54 ↗ the tree and celebrate the history of

1:10:56 ↗ the tree the intent of the Heritage tree

1:10:58 ↗ program is not to become a incumbrance

1:11:03 ↗ to

1:11:04 ↗ development or or or change or

1:11:08 ↗ unknown um so yeah how do we how do we

1:11:12 ↗ inform and really create a meaningful

1:11:14 ↗ program that feels like it's um inviting

1:11:18 ↗ nominations more than just a staff

1:11:20 ↗ person but also giving

1:11:22 ↗ us really good

1:11:24 ↗ criteria one in just an initial

1:11:26 ↗ evaluation that's bringing forward to

1:11:28 ↗ the board and then you're absolutely

1:11:30 ↗ right criteria that the board can

1:11:32 ↗ help really decide um um Dan and I have

1:11:38 ↗ talked about you know are there examples

1:11:39 ↗ out there that um are there are there

1:11:43 ↗ are there teers of Heritage trees um um

1:11:47 ↗ that um Can can be considered and again

1:11:50 ↗ understand so many of the um the

1:11:53 ↗ Dynamics often at play and I'm just

1:11:55 ↗ thinking of of public property right

1:11:58 ↗ those London plain trees are a great

1:11:59 ↗ example one one of the probably the

1:12:02 ↗ best th though perfectly planted on both

1:12:06 ↗ the park property and in the rideway it

1:12:09 ↗ really represents a wonderful Street

1:12:11 ↗ tree canopy one of our best street tree

1:12:14 ↗ canopies but there are some really

1:12:16 ↗ really important hard decisions that are

1:12:19 ↗ going to need to be made about that in

1:12:20 ↗ terms of what's what are the plans and

1:12:23 ↗ and needs and goals that this community

1:12:24 ↗ has for the park what are the plans and

1:12:26 ↗ needs this go this community has for

1:12:29 ↗ that rideway um we as the parks

1:12:32 ↗ department are probably not the sole

1:12:33 ↗ decision makers in that the park board

1:12:36 ↗ is not the sole decision maker in that

1:12:38 ↗ um we want to create a Heritage tree

1:12:40 ↗ program that allows us to be really

1:12:42 ↗ transparent and honest about those kind

1:12:44 ↗ of conversations and not feel like we

1:12:47 ↗ have to sneak around that that really

1:12:50 ↗ important but but hard work and do we

1:12:53 ↗ know when those discussions will be in

1:12:55 ↗ place for those London trees when when

1:12:59 ↗ will the decision be made

1:13:02 ↗ to uh no date has been set that you know

1:13:05 ↗ I I think that the conversation about

1:13:08 ↗ those trees is conversation when we're

1:13:10 ↗ talking about uh future Master planning

1:13:13 ↗ for the park when there's conversation

1:13:16 ↗ about that Public Works is having about

1:13:19 ↗ Newport um and and what to do so um

1:13:23 ↗ sometime in the future sometime in the

1:13:25 ↗ future yeah no no date set but uh I

1:13:29 ↗ think it's clearly recognized and

1:13:30 ↗ clearly

1:13:31 ↗ understood uh by many I can speak for

1:13:34 ↗ myself and the parks department that um

1:13:38 ↗ how we work with those London Plane

1:13:40 ↗ trees um needs to be part of and

1:13:43 ↗ factored into any and all decisions

1:13:45 ↗ about the park and about the the right

1:13:49 ↗ away but I think Chris correct me if I'm

1:13:54 ↗ wrong but I think the question you're

1:13:55 ↗ posing is I I'll I'll pose it in my

1:14:01 ↗ words there are so many factors and that

1:14:03 ↗ that is a great example those London

1:14:05 ↗ Plane trees should those London Plane

1:14:08 ↗ trees be The Driver of a lot of really

1:14:12 ↗ important public decisions about both

1:14:15 ↗ the rideway and the park or should they

1:14:17 ↗ be a they should be a key factor but

1:14:19 ↗ should they be the sole should they be

1:14:22 ↗ the sole decision

1:14:24 ↗ maker I pose it as a question and

1:14:29 ↗ and iort personally as one member of

1:14:33 ↗ PArk Port I support the Heritage free

1:14:34 ↗ program and I think it's important to

1:14:36 ↗ have it um I think we we're it's going

1:14:40 ↗ to require um pretty deliberate process

1:14:45 ↗ to come up with the

1:14:47 ↗ criteria I think for public

1:14:50 ↗ property I can't see the that it would

1:14:53 ↗ make sense that the park board would

1:14:56 ↗ actually make a determination I think

1:14:57 ↗ the park board might make a

1:14:59 ↗ recommendation um you know we'll see but

1:15:02 ↗ you know that would be us an Advisory

1:15:05 ↗ Board saying these trees are now this

1:15:10 ↗ and that has some impact on the value of

1:15:13 ↗ taxpayer land owned land or something

1:15:15 ↗ like that and um and then I think for

1:15:19 ↗ the private one you know it's a little

1:15:22 ↗ simpler because

1:15:23 ↗ at least the signature is required at

1:15:25 ↗ first proper the property owner needs to

1:15:28 ↗ even say yes this is okay this is okay

1:15:30 ↗ to even

1:15:31 ↗ consider but as needs

1:15:34 ↗ change um you know as people age and

1:15:39 ↗ uh I'm just make using an example here

1:15:43 ↗ making it up based on some someone I

1:15:45 ↗ know that someone becomes elderly their

1:15:49 ↗ need for care increases their need for

1:15:52 ↗ more money increases uh suddenly they're

1:15:55 ↗ going to look at their property and that

1:15:56 ↗ tree maybe differently

1:15:59 ↗ so I'm going to put out on the table we

1:16:02 ↗ need we would a Park Board not just we

1:16:04 ↗ but would need good clear criteria for

1:16:08 ↗ decision-

1:16:10 ↗ making all of this is such good

1:16:12 ↗ discussion and I think really emphasizes

1:16:15 ↗ the need and the opportunity we have to

1:16:17 ↗ take this deep let's you know the need

1:16:19 ↗ to update this program and really try

1:16:22 ↗ and and look at all of these factors um

1:16:27 ↗ yes you know the new um the development

1:16:32 ↗ code has informed this work and and what

1:16:35 ↗ the Heritage Street program is right now

1:16:37 ↗ but I I

1:16:39 ↗ think the work of what we want this

1:16:42 ↗ Heritage Street program to be

1:16:45 ↗ um I guess Cuts both ways right that if

1:16:49 ↗ there is if there are recommendations

1:16:51 ↗ and discussions not only by this board

1:16:53 ↗ but by the environmental board uh that

1:16:56 ↗ um will um need to require um you know

1:17:01 ↗ consideration of of of um that

1:17:04 ↗ development code to make sure it um it

1:17:08 ↗ aligns with whatever this new Heritage

1:17:10 ↗ tree or updated revised Heritage tree

1:17:13 ↗ program is um that'll be an an important

1:17:16 ↗ step in this in this future

1:17:22 ↗ process

1:17:26 ↗ thoughts comments others I know Brad

1:17:29 ↗ Andrew you guys did a lot of really good

1:17:31 ↗ work with

1:17:32 ↗ Dan beginning to to look at this

1:17:36 ↗ certainly more work to happen and

1:17:41 ↗ Ur yeah keep in mind that uh Park Board

1:17:45 ↗ isn't making the final determination the

1:17:47 ↗ the park board is just making a

1:17:48 ↗ recommendation I mean it's really the

1:17:50 ↗ mayor that makes the final commitment to

1:17:52 ↗ this and so I think as Jeff pointed out

1:17:55 ↗ there's going to be maybe the

1:17:57 ↗ environmental board should play a role

1:17:58 ↗ at this point I totally agree with Chris

1:18:01 ↗ about having maybe some more um

1:18:05 ↗ established criteria that maybe hasn't

1:18:07 ↗ been used in the in this program in the

1:18:08 ↗ past um I was only involved in this for

1:18:11 ↗ a couple years before it kind of faded

1:18:12 ↗ out in my early involvement with the

1:18:15 ↗ board and it was pretty fast and furious

1:18:18 ↗ you know here's a couple trees looks

1:18:20 ↗ good okay we recommend it I mean that's

1:18:23 ↗ really that's really what happened and

1:18:25 ↗ so you know I'm glad we're actually

1:18:27 ↗ getting down to a little more

1:18:28 ↗ nitty-gritty here moving

1:18:30 ↗ forward really being intentional

1:18:40 ↗ y go ahead Z okay um I'm not sure if

1:18:44 ↗ we're kind of throwing out ideas at all

1:18:47 ↗ for like the nomination process but I

1:18:49 ↗ think in terms of what should be

1:18:51 ↗ weighted most heavily I suppose would be

1:18:53 ↗ be uh trees that kind of uh seem to be

1:18:57 ↗ sequestering most carbon or are native

1:18:59 ↗ or perhaps like most like zeric species

1:19:02 ↗ in terms of like um greater chance of

1:19:05 ↗ survival I did notice a lot of the trees

1:19:08 ↗ that are currently on there seem to be

1:19:11 ↗ um not necessarily invasive but exotic

1:19:14 ↗ species um but in any that's just uh my

1:19:19 ↗ thought great point no thank you Zach

1:19:21 ↗ and that's something we talked about

1:19:23 ↗ briefly it it's it's a mix we have a lot

1:19:25 ↗ of dongles fur in there so there's

1:19:26 ↗ certainly other native species that

1:19:28 ↗ maybe don't grow as big but still what

1:19:30 ↗ the unique specimens in in is a here um

1:19:33 ↗ but then yeah we do have I you certainly

1:19:35 ↗ don't have any invasive species or

1:19:36 ↗ noxious Weeds on there but you know

1:19:38 ↗ non-native species that are appropriate

1:19:40 ↗ for this climate so you know I think

1:19:41 ↗ that's generally a kind of mix in these

1:19:43 ↗ Heritage tree programs but definitely

1:19:45 ↗ appreciate that feedback and uh

1:19:47 ↗ something what kind of weigh there is

1:19:49 ↗ you know are we are we targeting more

1:19:50 ↗ species diversity or this become just

1:19:52 ↗ purely kind of a big tree program which

1:19:54 ↗ you know kind of would correlate a

1:19:55 ↗ little bit more with the carbon

1:19:55 ↗ sequestration but I think those are

1:19:57 ↗ things we're certainly trying to trying

1:19:59 ↗ to weigh so appreciate your your your

1:20:01 ↗ feedback

1:20:09 ↗ there well not the end of the

1:20:11 ↗ conversation definitely still at the

1:20:13 ↗ beginning and we'll have another um ad

1:20:15 ↗ hoc committee meeting between now and

1:20:18 ↗ the next time this comes back to the

1:20:20 ↗ boards yeah yeah thoughts on timing Dan

1:20:24 ↗ on this one is it kind of works in

1:20:27 ↗ parallel with the urban Forest

1:20:28 ↗ management plan I mean the these two

1:20:30 ↗ kind of help one another a little bit I

1:20:34 ↗ think so and I think getting the ad hoc

1:20:36 ↗ team together and I think it's maybe on

1:20:37 ↗ me and work with our interns a little

1:20:39 ↗ bit on on what maybe more specific

1:20:41 ↗ criteria that we could actually propose

1:20:43 ↗ um kind of Bring It at the ad hoc team

1:20:45 ↗ and then the broader board so maybe

1:20:46 ↗ something we can try to do something

1:20:47 ↗ like that here in the next month or so

1:20:50 ↗ and then look at um you know January

1:20:52 ↗ February meeting to kind of bring it

1:20:54 ↗ back to the the broader board here with

1:20:56 ↗ maybe some actual a little bit more

1:20:57 ↗ concrete

1:20:58 ↗ recommendations on on the criteria that

1:21:00 ↗ some of the maybe more simple steps

1:21:01 ↗ around adding you know a few things to

1:21:03 ↗ these categories and just kind of how

1:21:05 ↗ we're actually going to publicize and

1:21:06 ↗ document this program publicly so I

1:21:10 ↗ really thank you for jumping in kicking

1:21:13 ↗ this off sort of starting this first

1:21:15 ↗ conversation with not only adog group at

1:21:17 ↗ Park Board um it's I think like many

1:21:21 ↗ have said this is this has been over do

1:21:23 ↗ to to Really look at this and have this

1:21:26 ↗ more than just be a check the

1:21:28 ↗ box um staff-driven

1:21:31 ↗ kind of kind of process let's really

1:21:33 ↗ make this feel like it's something that

1:21:35 ↗ is understood that's relevant that's

1:21:38 ↗ intentional with both staff on public

1:21:41 ↗ property but even a little bit more

1:21:43 ↗ privately informed and and um really

1:21:46 ↗ educating about

1:21:49 ↗ trees more time is your hand up again

1:21:52 ↗ Zach or is that um it's the old tired

1:21:58 ↗ hand I'm not the only one who does that

1:22:00 ↗ that's that's

1:22:02 ↗ good so thank you yeah yes we see any

1:22:06 ↗ more in the new year but thank you

1:22:11 ↗ all our next item Dan doesn't have to

1:22:21 ↗ present

1:22:34 ↗ you thanks

1:22:38 ↗ all all right next topic we're continue

1:22:42 ↗ with plan update is the park system Plan

1:22:46 ↗ update uh we did go over classifications

1:22:49 ↗ during our last meeting and since then

1:22:52 ↗ um we kind of put those to the test as

1:22:54 ↗ we've gone through our existing Park

1:22:56 ↗ system and reclassified kind of

1:22:58 ↗ reorganized and took a look at those um

1:23:00 ↗ very

1:23:01 ↗ valid feedback and input uh made us

1:23:05 ↗ really think about how we want to define

1:23:06 ↗ those classifications even more and lead

1:23:09 ↗ more flexibility in them um and really

1:23:11 ↗ see what what the function of that the

1:23:15 ↗ primary function of that classification

1:23:17 ↗ is and I'll kind of give a little bit of

1:23:19 ↗ a recap coming up but on a

1:23:25 ↗ okay so really tonight we want to look

1:23:27 ↗ at our goals and priorities we know this

1:23:30 ↗ is coming up with a comprehensive plan

1:23:32 ↗ also so we want to make sure that we're

1:23:34 ↗ aligning with those and that uh we get

1:23:36 ↗ our suggestions and recommendations in

1:23:38 ↗ there sooner than later uh the good news

1:23:40 ↗ is is the the survey is open and out in

1:23:44 ↗ the public now so please take a look at

1:23:46 ↗ that we have the link right there um and

1:23:50 ↗ we're starting to get that on social

1:23:52 ↗ media

1:23:53 ↗ and get that out um we've had 86 replies

1:23:56 ↗ so far we're we're shooting for 4 to 500

1:23:59 ↗ is our goal right now so please get the

1:24:02 ↗ word out take the take the survey

1:24:05 ↗ yourself um but tonight we really want

1:24:07 ↗ to focus on goals and priorities and in

1:24:10 ↗ my mind goals are the most important

1:24:12 ↗ thing we'll come back again and look at

1:24:13 ↗ priorities once we've established and

1:24:16 ↗ kind of reset those goals um so yeah

1:24:19 ↗ we'll look at the recap of the park

1:24:21 ↗ classifications um we'll review the 2018

1:24:23 ↗ 2019 goals to see what's still relevant

1:24:27 ↗ where do we succeed and I think Jeff has

1:24:29 ↗ a little input on that for tonight uh

1:24:31 ↗ what shift in the goals need to happen

1:24:34 ↗ uh what goals do we really need to

1:24:36 ↗ prioritize I think that's really

1:24:37 ↗ important too um for the next two

1:24:40 ↗ discussions um and then for the policies

1:24:43 ↗ which we can highlight tonight but

1:24:45 ↗ probably dig into maybe in the next

1:24:47 ↗ meeting uh again what policies are still

1:24:50 ↗ relevant in 2024 um you know we just

1:24:53 ↗ heard about the urban Forest management

1:24:55 ↗ plan is that going to start adjusting

1:24:57 ↗ some of our priorities and how do we

1:24:58 ↗ incorporate these new plans into them

1:25:01 ↗ and then what policies really need to be

1:25:04 ↗ updated based on the current trends and

1:25:07 ↗ communities that we have right now again

1:25:09 ↗ I think once we get results back in from

1:25:11 ↗ the survey that may tweak a few

1:25:14 ↗ priorities as well and we'll see what

1:25:16 ↗ the community's needs are

1:25:21 ↗ lately

1:25:23 ↗ all

1:25:23 ↗ right here not there

1:25:26 ↗ okay so again just kind of a recap on

1:25:29 ↗ part part classifications the criteria

1:25:32 ↗ we are assessing you know acreage we

1:25:34 ↗ talked about acreage and trying not to

1:25:36 ↗ bind us into real specific acreages but

1:25:38 ↗ leaving that a little more flexible uh

1:25:41 ↗ is a primary use active or passive use

1:25:43 ↗ what

1:25:44 ↗ amenities uh access into the park is it

1:25:47 ↗ neighborhood or Comm Community more

1:25:49 ↗ Community involved um definitely

1:25:52 ↗ landscap and environment is a big

1:25:54 ↗ consideration stewardship of our natural

1:25:56 ↗ open space and how does that

1:25:58 ↗ classification really fit within the

1:26:00 ↗ green necklace Network as we start

1:26:02 ↗ redefining and start tightening what is

1:26:05 ↗ that green

1:26:06 ↗ necklace um so the park classifications

1:26:09 ↗ we have right now uh the new ones are we

1:26:12 ↗ still have Community Parks we still have

1:26:14 ↗ neighborhood parks resource Parks we

1:26:16 ↗ switch to nature parks because the

1:26:18 ↗ primary focus is more ecological uh we

1:26:21 ↗ still have our open space undeveloped

1:26:23 ↗ parks and two new ones were the

1:26:26 ↗ Greenways and the linear Parks which we

1:26:29 ↗ realized from feedback we still need to

1:26:31 ↗ tighten those that description up and

1:26:33 ↗ that definition up a little bit more so

1:26:35 ↗ kind of the general feedback and

1:26:36 ↗ overarching feedback um was really great

1:26:40 ↗ we love the input uh will park naming

1:26:42 ↗ conventions include the classification

1:26:45 ↗ and this is something Jeff and I have

1:26:46 ↗ been talking about I think it's really

1:26:48 ↗ really important really critical to

1:26:51 ↗ start including those in

1:26:52 ↗ so people can recognize the different

1:26:54 ↗ types of parks that we have um how

1:26:57 ↗ strict are the percentage of active

1:26:58 ↗ recreation in each classification and

1:27:01 ↗ that again goes along with even acreage

1:27:04 ↗ how strict are we going to be how fluid

1:27:06 ↗ can we be how fluid should we be on both

1:27:08 ↗ of those and I think that that needs to

1:27:11 ↗ be more flexible um considering just

1:27:13 ↗ when we're taking into topography

1:27:16 ↗ amenities uh site characteristics it

1:27:18 ↗ does need to be more

1:27:20 ↗ flexible uh look at the again look at

1:27:22 ↗ the gaps of bages and classifications

1:27:24 ↗ we'll review those and allow allow for

1:27:28 ↗ the flexibility in classifications to

1:27:30 ↗ better align with the park function so

1:27:32 ↗ great feedback we're putting those into

1:27:34 ↗ play right now and really testing those

1:27:39 ↗ out okay so trying something new with

1:27:43 ↗ gold so I really want to make a

1:27:45 ↗ distinction between what goals are and

1:27:48 ↗ what policies are they are two different

1:27:50 ↗ things so our goals are more higher

1:27:54 ↗ overarching ideas they provide a basis

1:27:57 ↗ for a community to make decisions about

1:27:59 ↗ implementation preservation funding and

1:28:03 ↗ management and there are really General

1:28:05 ↗ statements of desired outcomes of the

1:28:07 ↗ park system plan very high level where

1:28:10 ↗ policies kind of dig into those goals a

1:28:13 ↗ little bit more they general rules for

1:28:15 ↗ Action focused on a specific issue in a

1:28:18 ↗ park system plan goal and there they can

1:28:21 ↗ be oper ational actions that a community

1:28:23 ↗ will undertake to meet the goals so

1:28:27 ↗ really combining the two of those really

1:28:29 ↗ equals our community values and what we

1:28:32 ↗ want out of the park

1:28:36 ↗ system so looking at the 2018 2019 goals

1:28:40 ↗ and policies we really had six s eight

1:28:43 ↗ eight goals established that I I want to

1:28:45 ↗ review tonight with you see what's still

1:28:47 ↗ applicable see what we need to

1:28:51 ↗ change

1:28:52 ↗ and I did shift one of the slides up as

1:28:55 ↗ we're we're talking through we're going

1:28:57 ↗ to go through each goal uh in a little

1:28:59 ↗ more detail but uh what out of the

1:29:02 ↗ 201819 goals are still pertinent now in

1:29:05 ↗ 2024 what shifts are we seeing in the

1:29:08 ↗ community that may cause us to

1:29:09 ↗ restructure or identify new goals and

1:29:12 ↗ policies uh what are the priority goals

1:29:15 ↗ and policies in the next six years again

1:29:17 ↗ this is a six-year plan so what are what

1:29:19 ↗ do we want to really focus on in the

1:29:21 ↗ next six years years what are we doing

1:29:23 ↗ well you know we've had a lot of

1:29:26 ↗ little upsets I I guess you could say or

1:29:29 ↗ challenges that have come up in the past

1:29:31 ↗ since the 2018 plan um but it feels like

1:29:35 ↗ we did we were able to accomplish quite

1:29:37 ↗ a few things under those challenges um

1:29:40 ↗ what do we need to improve on and again

1:29:43 ↗ that kind of goes back into the policies

1:29:44 ↗ what do we need to tweak that we need to

1:29:46 ↗ improve uh do the new partk

1:29:49 ↗ classifications impact the goals and

1:29:51 ↗ policies again now we have Greenways and

1:29:53 ↗ we have linear Parks how does that get

1:29:55 ↗ integrated back in and what policies may

1:29:58 ↗ do we need to look at and tweak based on

1:30:02 ↗ those um so kind of the the line items

1:30:06 ↗ on the right are from the 2018 2019 that

1:30:10 ↗ we'll just start with those as a basis

1:30:13 ↗ um and and go through those in in more

1:30:16 ↗ detail one by

1:30:18 ↗ one so goal a was parks for today and

1:30:22 ↗ future generations to build on the

1:30:24 ↗ legacy of Isa CLA existing Park

1:30:27 ↗ recreation Trail and open space system

1:30:28 ↗ for the community for today and future

1:30:31 ↗ generations and I kind of simplified

1:30:33 ↗ each policy on the right hand side but I

1:30:36 ↗ figure as as we go through each one we

1:30:38 ↗ can just discuss that goal see if it's

1:30:40 ↗ still relevant see if it's still

1:30:42 ↗ applicable see what what we potentially

1:30:45 ↗ want to tweak in that

1:30:47 ↗ policy so policy A1 was anticipate

1:30:50 ↗ growth and opportunity reinvest in our

1:30:53 ↗ current Parks trails and Open Spaces uh

1:30:56 ↗ respond to Recreation needs and Trends

1:30:59 ↗ acquire suitable Park Trail open space

1:31:01 ↗ natural resource lands uh identify

1:31:04 ↗ potential Park expansion opportunities

1:31:06 ↗ and maximize Athletic Field

1:31:10 ↗ capacity so kind of based on what we're

1:31:12 ↗ seeing and what trends we're seeing and

1:31:15 ↗ feedback we're getting from the

1:31:16 ↗ community and again once the survey

1:31:18 ↗ comes in we'll we'll reassess that and

1:31:20 ↗ look at this again but do you feel that

1:31:23 ↗ this goal is still pertinent for the new

1:31:29 ↗ plan yeah good one

1:31:32 ↗ okay like a good start this one's

1:31:36 ↗ foundational is let's let's think about

1:31:39 ↗ today and and um in the

1:31:43 ↗ future now if you want to dig into each

1:31:45 ↗ policy and kind of review it um and I

1:31:49 ↗ think you sent out some more detailed

1:31:51 ↗ description so we can kind of just do a

1:31:55 ↗ a higher look at the policies and dig

1:31:56 ↗ into them next time if you want or do

1:31:59 ↗ you want to open up discussion on this

1:32:01 ↗ one right

1:32:03 ↗ now or we're all thumbs

1:32:07 ↗ up up

1:32:10 ↗ okay we'll this goal a

1:32:13 ↗ stay okay goal b a balance Park system

1:32:17 ↗ to provide a balance Park system by

1:32:19 ↗ blending active and passive experience

1:32:21 ↗ and providing Equitable opportunities

1:32:24 ↗ for the diverse needs and interests of

1:32:26 ↗ isqua

1:32:28 ↗ residents so we're striving this in the

1:32:32 ↗ policies we strive to balance passive

1:32:34 ↗ and active recreational opportunities

1:32:36 ↗ and I know you know just based on land

1:32:38 ↗ constraints that can get a little bit

1:32:39 ↗ more difficult but that I think that's a

1:32:42 ↗ really uh necessary need that we have

1:32:44 ↗ right now uh provide multi-use active

1:32:47 ↗ recreational

1:32:49 ↗ opportunities uh meet the community's

1:32:51 ↗ diverse needs and encourage Healthy

1:32:53 ↗ Living you know quality of life is a big

1:32:56 ↗ attraction for the city and for the

1:32:58 ↗ residents and um pulling new people

1:33:02 ↗ in uh providing universal access and I

1:33:05 ↗ know this comes up more and more often I

1:33:07 ↗ know we're revamping the ada8 ramps

1:33:09 ↗ right now um and then how does that

1:33:12 ↗ really that really kind of does tie in

1:33:14 ↗ disembark Park updates as well um and

1:33:18 ↗ provide a wide variety of recreational

1:33:20 ↗ and Park

1:33:22 ↗ experiences so do you feel that this is

1:33:25 ↗ this is a goal that we want to continue

1:33:27 ↗ on with and and emphasize and really dig

1:33:31 ↗ into a question on this one and U what

1:33:36 ↗ are the answers great but I think I it's

1:33:39 ↗ not addressed in any of the slides but

1:33:41 ↗ is there any part of I'm just going to

1:33:43 ↗ call it Plan B balance Park system or

1:33:46 ↗ specifically the equable opportunities

1:33:47 ↗ for the diverse needs interests of isol

1:33:49 ↗ residents is there's any interest desire

1:33:52 ↗ concern hope that not only it's just

1:33:55 ↗ iscore residents but it's to provide

1:33:58 ↗ opportunity for uh growth of our Park

1:34:02 ↗ system by making things uh that people

1:34:05 ↗ from other cities would want to come and

1:34:06 ↗ participate in I do I think that's

1:34:10 ↗ important I I think when we're looking

1:34:11 ↗ at Partnerships as well you know what

1:34:15 ↗ are we going to offer and what do we

1:34:17 ↗ need that that balances between the city

1:34:20 ↗ or state parks

1:34:23 ↗ um great question yeah I I think you

1:34:26 ↗ know the intent of this goal was um

1:34:29 ↗ again I know show of hands I I know some

1:34:31 ↗ of the park board members who are here

1:34:33 ↗ that helped us sort of reframe these

1:34:34 ↗ goals I I think this wasn't meant to be

1:34:37 ↗ an exclusive statement meaning it's only

1:34:40 ↗ a cal residence but it's really more of

1:34:42 ↗ a focused goal of hey where we're really

1:34:46 ↗ tasked with creating a system that

1:34:47 ↗ supports the residents clearly we invite

1:34:51 ↗ and want visitors right and we know

1:34:53 ↗ there'll be other users of our Park

1:34:55 ↗ system but maybe again good open

1:34:58 ↗ discussion and say do we want to we want

1:35:00 ↗ to add something about you know and

1:35:02 ↗ visitors um to to this

1:35:06 ↗ goal yeah I mean my only followup would

1:35:08 ↗ be just that I fully understand that

1:35:11 ↗ it's the city of isqua residents that

1:35:13 ↗ pay the taxes that are like supporting a

1:35:15 ↗ lot of this so I'm not saying otherwise

1:35:17 ↗ I just I was thinking about experiences

1:35:20 ↗ of other Park systems

1:35:21 ↗ that specifically create for example

1:35:25 ↗ turf fields so they can play sports year

1:35:29 ↗ round and generate the city more Revenue

1:35:31 ↗ because for example like tibits right

1:35:33 ↗ now all the fields are blocked off

1:35:34 ↗ because they're Doo money and all the

1:35:36 ↗ soccer is compressed into one field so

1:35:38 ↗ all the rest don't get damaged so it's

1:35:39 ↗ like as we're looking at our goals and

1:35:42 ↗ plans you know it that the only thing I

1:35:46 ↗ don't I don't think it needs to be at I

1:35:47 ↗ just was in the general I think you men

1:35:50 ↗ have said when to get to the partners

1:35:52 ↗ like

1:35:53 ↗ that considering I mean you know you

1:35:55 ↗ talking about visitors and it maybe

1:35:57 ↗ economic Vitality or something like that

1:35:59 ↗ and you know not just Fields but look at

1:36:03 ↗ the control yeah and the impact that has

1:36:07 ↗ had how we of Trail heads and how many

1:36:10 ↗ visitors come and and sort of use

1:36:13 ↗ downtown as its Gateway up and yeah it's

1:36:16 ↗ and I'll make a push for the isn't bones

1:36:19 ↗ pool if you get that touch had in other

1:36:22 ↗ cities you know can come and do

1:36:25 ↗ competition the city can make

1:36:28 ↗ money yeah re really really good great I

1:36:32 ↗ love the discussion and I think um a

1:36:36 ↗ plug and maybe a little bit of question

1:36:37 ↗ as we're continuing to go through these

1:36:39 ↗ goals um you know the classifications

1:36:43 ↗ are going to a shed I think a realistic

1:36:47 ↗ light on on something we've talked about

1:36:50 ↗ as a group and I think is staff we

1:36:51 ↗ really want this 24 plan to take that

1:36:55 ↗ honest look in the mirror we are a land

1:36:58 ↗ constrained Town we're a very land

1:37:01 ↗ constrained Park system right now um

1:37:05 ↗ these goals about multi-use right that's

1:37:08 ↗ really really important um we're going

1:37:10 ↗ to have to maximize the land we have

1:37:13 ↗ right things like Synthetic Turf Fields

1:37:15 ↗ right that's not just a boy those are

1:37:18 ↗ nice to have it's like those those

1:37:20 ↗ create more capacity on top of one

1:37:23 ↗ another right that that multiuse is so

1:37:25 ↗ so important and

1:37:27 ↗ so I I think that you know as we're

1:37:31 ↗ thinking through and talking through

1:37:32 ↗ these goals we're just

1:37:34 ↗ recognizing that reality of who we are

1:37:38 ↗ right and

1:37:39 ↗ and yes let's we realize we're going to

1:37:42 ↗ be serving not only residents and

1:37:44 ↗ visitors but we're all probably also not

1:37:47 ↗ a city park system that's going to

1:37:49 ↗ create a um eight Plex tournament

1:37:54 ↗ grade um baseball right we're just we're

1:37:57 ↗ just not right though no matter how much

1:38:00 ↗ we'd love to um but man we can create a

1:38:03 ↗ great series and system of athletic

1:38:06 ↗ fields that serve our residents needs

1:38:09 ↗ and also can be creatively used for

1:38:12 ↗ tournaments if we're really really smart

1:38:14 ↗ right so it's sort of that aspirational

1:38:16 ↗ goals and policies but man we we we need

1:38:18 ↗ to be really pragmatic to the very thing

1:38:22 ↗ we love about this town and all the

1:38:23 ↗ trees and all the hills make

1:38:26 ↗ us pretty land constraint

1:38:30 ↗ yeah just for the record I I want to

1:38:33 ↗ make sure it's understood I'm not

1:38:34 ↗ pushing for synthetic

1:38:38 ↗ field you I I I added that all

1:38:45 ↗ right all right so I I think that's a

1:38:47 ↗ really good addition to the policies to

1:38:49 ↗ look at next time and really inor at the

1:38:52 ↗ idea and the flexibility and and

1:38:54 ↗ bringing in Economic Development into

1:38:56 ↗ this into this

1:39:01 ↗ goal okay maybe I know I don't need to

1:39:06 ↗ go as far I'm just I want to make sure

1:39:08 ↗ kind of what I was thinking about more

1:39:09 ↗ of is

1:39:10 ↗ like people go to a disc golf course and

1:39:13 ↗ after they're done they go have a beer

1:39:14 ↗ to brewery and then they pay to park CU

1:39:16 ↗ that's kind of more like the economic

1:39:18 ↗ like side of it like as thinking about

1:39:21 ↗ creating our new parks or you know

1:39:23 ↗ reevaluating our goals as it is as long

1:39:26 ↗ as just understood somewhere it doesn't

1:39:28 ↗ need to be inviting go but just

1:39:31 ↗ that

1:39:33 ↗ that's it helps Drive economic it's an

1:39:36 ↗ economic tool Park system is y for

1:39:40 ↗ sure okay goal C

1:39:43 ↗ connectivity uh connect Parks

1:39:45 ↗ neighborhoods business district schools

1:39:47 ↗ and other activity areas together

1:39:49 ↗ through an integrated system of trails

1:39:51 ↗ in open spaces and again quite a few

1:39:54 ↗ policies related to this um you know

1:39:57 ↗ just a real focus on on trail access

1:40:00 ↗ connectivity between the trails between

1:40:02 ↗ the parks uh again that partnership and

1:40:05 ↗ working locally with regional Partners

1:40:07 ↗ to complete the system where feasible um

1:40:10 ↗ provide secondary

1:40:12 ↗ connections uh compelling north south

1:40:14 ↗ Offroad Valley Trail Network and I think

1:40:17 ↗ all of these kind of really tie back

1:40:18 ↗ into the green necklace idea and how is

1:40:22 ↗ this connectivity pulling together how

1:40:24 ↗ are we developing this what does that

1:40:26 ↗ green necklace really look like and how

1:40:28 ↗ are we defining

1:40:32 ↗ that seems really relevant

1:40:36 ↗ still a hunch our survey responses are

1:40:39 ↗ yeah Trail interest and Trail

1:40:41 ↗ connectivity will probably be a very

1:40:43 ↗ much so

1:40:45 ↗ big and back to the classifications well

1:40:48 ↗ I I you know we really as Rob and I the

1:40:51 ↗ the staff team have talked about it and

1:40:53 ↗ your feedback you know having a couple

1:40:55 ↗ of more linear Trail or linear Park

1:40:58 ↗ classifications and recognizing linear

1:41:00 ↗ Parks recognizing Greenways for what

1:41:03 ↗ they are and the role they're going to

1:41:05 ↗ really need to play and will play in

1:41:07 ↗ connectivity um is a way that

1:41:09 ↗ classifications can really better align

1:41:11 ↗ with our goals and

1:41:13 ↗ policies is the

1:41:16 ↗ intent and how yeah how do we start

1:41:19 ↗ integrating into more urb areas and

1:41:21 ↗ that's where that the linear Park

1:41:23 ↗ concept really can come into

1:41:27 ↗ play I think everyone feel pretty good

1:41:30 ↗ about connectivity so okay great that's

1:41:34 ↗ a keeper okay so planning and design

1:41:37 ↗ considerations uh master plan major

1:41:39 ↗ Parks trails open space and facilities

1:41:42 ↗ and engage the community in designing

1:41:44 ↗ them which I think is a really important

1:41:47 ↗ facet to that one um ensure that parks

1:41:50 ↗ are designed utilizing a thoughtful

1:41:52 ↗ planning process a preserve and Orient

1:41:55 ↗ recreational facilities amenities

1:41:57 ↗ designed to serve the local neighborhood

1:42:00 ↗ I think not only local neighborhood but

1:42:02 ↗ when we're looking at Community Park

1:42:03 ↗ serving it

1:42:05 ↗ CommunityWide um and again very good

1:42:08 ↗ ameni is expected to draw users from

1:42:10 ↗ multi multiple neighborhoods or

1:42:13 ↗ CommunityWide or does that expand again

1:42:15 ↗ if we're looking at economical

1:42:17 ↗ development does it go even further it's

1:42:19 ↗ going be another place

1:42:21 ↗ not exactly so I think that's a really

1:42:23 ↗ good point um and proposed amenities not

1:42:27 ↗ already identified I think a lot of that

1:42:28 ↗ might come out of the survey what are we

1:42:31 ↗ missing what are we ride on spot on what

1:42:33 ↗ do we need more of and to monitor

1:42:36 ↗ potential amenity improvements and I

1:42:38 ↗ think that goes back to master planning

1:42:41 ↗ and starting to set these Parks up for

1:42:44 ↗ future Master planning based on the

1:42:47 ↗ needs we see coming

1:42:49 ↗ up good question on

1:42:52 ↗ D6 can you give me an example of what an

1:42:54 ↗ asset is I know in amenities I assume a

1:42:57 ↗ bathroom a restroom yeah Trails you know

1:43:01 ↗ benches um is it going to have maybe a

1:43:04 ↗ pavilion or a gazebo there um that's

1:43:08 ↗ what I'm thinking of as far as assets

1:43:11 ↗ go yeah the way I read that again that's

1:43:14 ↗ maybe me is just like oh we have this

1:43:15 ↗ natural space we're going to plunk some

1:43:17 ↗ things down into it right right so it's

1:43:19 ↗ like and

1:43:21 ↗ that's no and the policy itself you know

1:43:24 ↗ the policy language gives a little bit

1:43:26 ↗ more of

1:43:27 ↗ ation just this is sort of the The

1:43:32 ↗ Heading yeah it's not a forced it's not

1:43:34 ↗ a forced plopping it's a r and I think

1:43:37 ↗ the intent of this goal is to really say

1:43:39 ↗ let's be thoughtful and let's engage the

1:43:41 ↗ community it this is this is you all as

1:43:46 ↗ res this is your Park system and we're

1:43:48 ↗ just trying to Let's commit to is

1:43:50 ↗ stewarding this along with you MH and

1:43:53 ↗ that kind of ties again it all ties back

1:43:55 ↗ into the classifications and how we're

1:43:58 ↗ really defining that and maybe that

1:44:00 ↗ specific asset pushes it up into another

1:44:04 ↗ classification so again I think being

1:44:06 ↗ flexible or tying those down a little

1:44:08 ↗ bit more will help us Define

1:44:14 ↗ those all right everyone feel pretty

1:44:17 ↗ comfortable leaving this one in okay

1:44:22 ↗ okay and then there yeah there are a lot

1:44:24 ↗ of policies related to this one so um

1:44:28 ↗ you know planning and design

1:44:29 ↗ considerations kind of is a a

1:44:31 ↗ overarching umbrella for quite a few

1:44:33 ↗ things but again policies uh design

1:44:36 ↗ natural and creative play in signage and

1:44:39 ↗ wayf finding is a big part of it um

1:44:42 ↗ strategically locating those signs uh

1:44:45 ↗ signage to be consistent which I know

1:44:47 ↗ we're working on that right now um and

1:44:50 ↗ then Trails within the creek Corridor

1:44:52 ↗ and mountains to sound

1:44:54 ↗ Trail again what those planning and

1:44:56 ↗ design considerations are for those Park

1:44:58 ↗ board members that were here when we

1:45:00 ↗ updated the goals and policies last time

1:45:02 ↗ you might remember the goals and

1:45:04 ↗ policies had ideas of community

1:45:06 ↗ engagement sort of plopped all over them

1:45:09 ↗ um and Chris I think you were involved

1:45:10 ↗ in the subcommittee and we said let's

1:45:12 ↗ consolidate all these engagement goals

1:45:15 ↗ into one

1:45:18 ↗ goal yeah was kind of a big

1:45:21 ↗ before we yeah did a pretty good re

1:45:27 ↗ y oh

1:45:29 ↗ back so this we had actually talked

1:45:32 ↗ about this a little bit in the last

1:45:33 ↗ meeting this might actually be the the

1:45:35 ↗ proper goal to maybe add

1:45:38 ↗ in um public art as a policy uh to

1:45:44 ↗ consider no great

1:45:46 ↗ idea that art right art art and culture

1:45:50 ↗ is is is a is a should be an element of

1:45:52 ↗ our planning and design considerations

1:45:55 ↗ right right

1:45:57 ↗ Y and that can be brought in at the

1:46:00 ↗ design level having artists involved in

1:46:02 ↗ the park design itself or it could be an

1:46:05 ↗ additional component or asset so to

1:46:08 ↗ speak um of the park so I think there's

1:46:12 ↗ multiple ways we can we can do that and

1:46:14 ↗ start incorporating more and more of it

1:46:16 ↗ and I like the idea someone brought up

1:46:17 ↗ that that that artc can be flexible

1:46:20 ↗ enough to be moved around to different

1:46:22 ↗ Parks as well so everybody gets a chance

1:46:25 ↗ to see those pieces they're not just

1:46:26 ↗ dedicated to One Park and one Park

1:46:30 ↗ only it's a great thought Brad thoughts

1:46:33 ↗ from the group would you agree placing

1:46:36 ↗ you know art and storytelling art and

1:46:39 ↗ culture is a cultural significance

1:46:42 ↗ exactly right art and education yeah all

1:46:46 ↗ of that yeah very much placemaking

1:46:49 ↗ components there

1:46:52 ↗ specifically calling out that right yeah

1:46:55 ↗ great well and working with this artist

1:46:57 ↗ that I have over the few years in doing

1:46:59 ↗ some of this um he has mentioned

1:47:01 ↗ frequently in some of his projects that

1:47:04 ↗ it really makes a huge difference to

1:47:06 ↗ actually get that involved in the early

1:47:09 ↗ planning and design phase rather than to

1:47:11 ↗ bring it in later not only not only for

1:47:15 ↗ cost reasons but just also that you know

1:47:18 ↗ it it incorporates uh that into the

1:47:21 ↗ project uh better uh when it's working

1:47:24 ↗ in conjunction with the other phases of

1:47:26 ↗ planning and design uh you know rather

1:47:28 ↗ than to just a lot of times what happens

1:47:31 ↗ you get a park done and it's all done

1:47:32 ↗ and then all of a sudden you you plop in

1:47:34 ↗ something later on and it doesn't

1:47:36 ↗ necessarily fit as well so right right

1:47:39 ↗ really it can integrate with the theme

1:47:40 ↗ of the park itself enhance it or yeah

1:47:44 ↗ right Brad you're referring to Don Fels

1:47:47 ↗ I am yes right yeah so just so everyone

1:47:49 ↗ knows Don Fels um was hired by the Arts

1:47:52 ↗ commission uh to do as we were doing

1:47:55 ↗ sort of art the anchor Park work so

1:47:57 ↗ really looking at the isqua creek

1:47:59 ↗ Corridor looking at Tietz Valley Park

1:48:01 ↗ looking at that sort of Consolidated uh

1:48:04 ↗ Veterans Memorial Park that we're now

1:48:05 ↗ doing the arpa project on that early

1:48:08 ↗ work we brought in Don to help tell the

1:48:10 ↗ story and incorporate need this a great

1:48:12 ↗ example of this Brad because I think as

1:48:14 ↗ you've all seen design of pedestrian

1:48:18 ↗ Park and the senior center PL Plaza they

1:48:21 ↗ storytelling that we're trying to weave

1:48:22 ↗ into the entirety of the design not just

1:48:26 ↗ plopping up a piece of art at the tail

1:48:28 ↗ end of it so um yeah really really good

1:48:35 ↗ example so it sounds like this is a

1:48:37 ↗ another goal we want to continue on with

1:48:39 ↗ and probably enhance them with the arst

1:48:42 ↗ art and culture yeah

1:48:45 ↗ okay so goal e is kind of near and dear

1:48:49 ↗ to everybody's Hearts I think of is the

1:48:51 ↗ Environmental preservation which kind of

1:48:53 ↗ ties back into the urban Forest

1:48:54 ↗ management as well uh to preserve and

1:48:57 ↗ enhance and protect a coordinated system

1:48:59 ↗ of parks and public open spaces to

1:49:01 ↗ preserve the city's natural character

1:49:03 ↗ sustain its Urban Forest resources and

1:49:06 ↗ enhance its natural systems wildlife

1:49:08 ↗ habitat and corridors as a legacy for

1:49:11 ↗ future generations and I think that's

1:49:13 ↗ something we've really established and

1:49:16 ↗ started on and really want to continue

1:49:18 ↗ on and enhance

1:49:21 ↗ um so policies preserve and protect

1:49:23 ↗ management and implementation

1:49:25 ↗ balance uh bring visual relief and

1:49:28 ↗ Tranquility promote retention and

1:49:30 ↗ replication and preserve the quality of

1:49:32 ↗ surrounding Scenic and visual resources

1:49:35 ↗ and like Jeff said I think coming up

1:49:37 ↗ because we are land constrained this is

1:49:39 ↗ going to become a critical critical

1:49:41 ↗ pathway and and a good discussion point

1:49:45 ↗ in Future Park

1:49:48 ↗ planning a general thought and AD Robin

1:49:51 ↗ this might be an opportunity within

1:49:53 ↗ either one of the current policies or a

1:49:54 ↗ new policy to make reference now that

1:49:56 ↗ we'll have an urban Forest management

1:49:58 ↗ plan now that you're right will update a

1:50:00 ↗ Heritage Street program or whatever that

1:50:02 ↗ looks like this could be a a nice

1:50:05 ↗ intersection point to have roles and

1:50:07 ↗ policies of this plan sort of speak um

1:50:10 ↗ to to some of that work especially the

1:50:13 ↗ idea of the grow which is going to take

1:50:15 ↗ up maybe something about the wildlife

1:50:19 ↗ yes

1:50:20 ↗ a lot of

1:50:21 ↗ trees not not

1:50:31 ↗ mention goal worth keeping goal worth

1:50:33 ↗ keeping pretty

1:50:36 ↗ obvious all right maintenance and

1:50:38 ↗ stewardship to ensure system stewardship

1:50:40 ↗ and sustainability through effective

1:50:42 ↗ maintenance and resource management

1:50:45 ↗ practices so effectively manage open

1:50:47 ↗ space and natural resource lands utilize

1:50:50 ↗ bmp's best management practices protect

1:50:53 ↗ our Parkland stewardship uh Implement

1:50:56 ↗ and uphold existing open space

1:50:58 ↗ stewardship plans ensure facilities are

1:51:01 ↗ safe and well managed and proactively

1:51:04 ↗ address user security and safety and

1:51:06 ↗ perform routine

1:51:11 ↗ inspections taking care of what we got

1:51:15 ↗ take good care of it keep it can I make

1:51:17 ↗ a little bit of a brag and even a brag

1:51:19 ↗ to you well as the park board

1:51:22 ↗ um this 2018 plan has done a lot um I

1:51:27 ↗ know we had a we had a global pandemic I

1:51:30 ↗ know we have Park capital projects that

1:51:33 ↗ are clearly because of Engagement and

1:51:36 ↗ permitting take a little bit longer but

1:51:39 ↗ this plan really set into motion so much

1:51:42 ↗ of what we've done um The increased

1:51:46 ↗ level of service standards um a park

1:51:49 ↗ operations and park maintenance team

1:51:50 ↗ that is so better equipped and is I

1:51:54 ↗ think showing terrific work um this plan

1:51:58 ↗ um had an operational goal for a crazy

1:52:00 ↗ thing like green isqua and urban Forest

1:52:02 ↗ management right it's set into motion so

1:52:06 ↗ much that we're now seeing uh the fruits

1:52:09 ↗ of and so um just you know this idea of

1:52:13 ↗ Maintenance and stewardship being such a

1:52:14 ↗ good goal all these goals really help to

1:52:17 ↗ create um a some actions and a vision

1:52:23 ↗ that have really directed um and and

1:52:27 ↗ resulted in a lot of a lot of really

1:52:29 ↗ really good work some key Acquisitions

1:52:31 ↗ that have happened um the Bergs property

1:52:34 ↗ uh the squawk Mountain Estates property

1:52:37 ↗ a property that we partnered with DNR to

1:52:39 ↗ better improved tiger Mount really all

1:52:41 ↗ three of our our Alps now have better

1:52:43 ↗ connections because of um again

1:52:45 ↗ thoughtful goals and policies thoughtful

1:52:47 ↗ adoption of the the 2018 plan plan so um

1:52:52 ↗ I hope as we unveil the 2024 Park Plan

1:52:55 ↗ update we'll we'll spend some time and

1:52:57 ↗ really dive in and show how this 2018

1:53:01 ↗ plan really informed um and and produced

1:53:04 ↗ some results uh these last these last

1:53:07 ↗ six years so I'll get up my soap box

1:53:11 ↗ now it's kudos to to again your your

1:53:14 ↗ great work as a board as well

1:53:16 ↗ right so I think this is one we also

1:53:19 ↗ want to keep an

1:53:21 ↗ enhance

1:53:24 ↗ right okay Partnerships Foster

1:53:26 ↗ Partnerships with local regional state

1:53:28 ↗ and federal agencies to support isas

1:53:31 ↗ Park system Embrace local Partnerships

1:53:34 ↗ with the public sector nonprofits

1:53:36 ↗ businesses developers and various user

1:53:38 ↗ groups and interdepartmental

1:53:40 ↗ Partnerships to provide an assist in the

1:53:43 ↗ management and maintenance of a complex

1:53:46 ↗ Park

1:53:47 ↗ system so some of those call policies

1:53:50 ↗ are partner with the issaqua school

1:53:52 ↗ districts um we've heard this from the

1:53:54 ↗ ad hoc group too you know again it goes

1:53:57 ↗ back to fields and do we have enough

1:53:59 ↗ Fields where can we partner with other

1:54:01 ↗ people or other cities um where can we

1:54:04 ↗ enhance and increase our own uh

1:54:07 ↗ coordinate and cooperate with and

1:54:08 ↗ partner with local state and federal

1:54:10 ↗ agencies we do see that a lot with DNR

1:54:14 ↗ um again in in some of the state Open

1:54:17 ↗ Spaces uh participate in in The

1:54:20 ↗ Cooperative Regional planning efforts um

1:54:23 ↗ again we're we're really involved with

1:54:25 ↗ other municipalities other agencies to

1:54:28 ↗ see how we can collaborate and come

1:54:30 ↗ together and enhance everybody's system

1:54:32 ↗ again that goes back to connectivity

1:54:34 ↗ throughout the

1:54:36 ↗ city um encourage Partnerships with

1:54:39 ↗ neighborhoods and existing businesses

1:54:42 ↗ promote Partnerships with nonprofits

1:54:43 ↗ special interest in service

1:54:45 ↗ organizations contined coordination

1:54:47 ↗ participation with with specific

1:54:49 ↗ interest groups uh developers are

1:54:52 ↗ constantly coming up how can we

1:54:54 ↗ coordinate with them on enhancing the

1:54:57 ↗ system um developers may be required to

1:55:00 ↗ provide public spaces and Facilities

1:55:02 ↗ more and more they're seeing the

1:55:04 ↗ benefits of the assets and the return of

1:55:06 ↗ investment in um creating more more Park

1:55:10 ↗ spaces in their developments um and

1:55:14 ↗ developers shall mitigate to offset

1:55:15 ↗ impacts of their new development which

1:55:18 ↗ again they're seeing the value of that

1:55:20 ↗ so we're having more and more

1:55:22 ↗ discussions with developers as as uh new

1:55:25 ↗ subdivisions come up you remember this

1:55:29 ↗ for again those of you that are there we

1:55:30 ↗ added that last policy to really speak

1:55:32 ↗ to park impact fees and the absolute

1:55:34 ↗ important role that Park impact fees

1:55:36 ↗ play in new

1:55:39 ↗ development and there's a few more

1:55:41 ↗ policies continued um encouraging an

1:55:43 ↗ interdepartmental planning communication

1:55:46 ↗ information I have to say this is one

1:55:48 ↗ city where never seen so much

1:55:50 ↗ communication between the Departments

1:55:53 ↗ and integration and collaboration and

1:55:56 ↗ that's pretty spectacularly pretty

1:55:57 ↗ special and it's it gets everybody

1:55:59 ↗ excited about the project so kudos to

1:56:02 ↗ the city for that um coordinate

1:56:04 ↗ Collective planning efforts again you

1:56:06 ↗ know going back and coordinating with

1:56:07 ↗ the comprehensive plan and making sure

1:56:09 ↗ we're integrated nicely with the plan

1:56:11 ↗ and we're not letting heads or having

1:56:14 ↗ conflicts um and policy no no change of

1:56:17 ↗ use for the last policy

1:56:20 ↗ so and I know with the ad hoc group we

1:56:23 ↗ did talk about Partnerships um

1:56:26 ↗ again you know trying to work with other

1:56:28 ↗ municipalities and sharing some of that

1:56:31 ↗ uh Athletic Field space if one goes down

1:56:34 ↗ you know seeing who else is available in

1:56:36 ↗ vice versa or partnering with the

1:56:38 ↗ schools the school districts a little

1:56:40 ↗ bit more and seeing where where we can

1:56:43 ↗ mutually benefit in the

1:56:45 ↗ field

1:56:47 ↗ Brad oh Brad well a little surprised I

1:56:50 ↗ don't see it but I'm surprised we didn't

1:56:52 ↗ put that in there but I this would be

1:56:55 ↗ the something to also include um native

1:56:59 ↗ tribes as a partner I just don't know

1:57:01 ↗ why it's not there you could maybe

1:57:04 ↗ interpret Federal well I don't even

1:57:05 ↗ federal agencies wouldn't really even

1:57:07 ↗ include it right very good point Y

1:57:11 ↗ really good

1:57:16 ↗ yep great

1:57:18 ↗ point any other Partnerships that you

1:57:21 ↗ think we should be focusing on or part

1:57:23 ↗ of the policies that we're we're not

1:57:25 ↗ listing or not looking at

1:57:30 ↗ yet we don't do much by

1:57:38 ↗ ourselves

1:57:41 ↗ okay the

1:57:43 ↗ implementation we really don't have a

1:57:46 ↗ system Plan update without tangible

1:57:48 ↗ goals that can be can be implemented so

1:57:52 ↗ to execute the vision and plans in

1:57:54 ↗ accordance with the park strategic plan

1:57:57 ↗ and measure the effectiveness and

1:57:58 ↗ success of the comprehensive plan in

1:58:00 ↗ achieving Community Visions goals and

1:58:03 ↗ policies

1:58:05 ↗ so first policy to ensure the

1:58:07 ↗ comprehensive plan goals and policies

1:58:09 ↗ are accompanied by actions and

1:58:12 ↗ resources uh implementable actionable

1:58:15 ↗ projects identified in the Strategic

1:58:17 ↗ plan so again setting our priorities for

1:58:20 ↗ the next six years uh create and

1:58:22 ↗ Implement a performance-based level of

1:58:24 ↗ service policy employ sound fiscal

1:58:28 ↗ management uh seek funding sources and

1:58:31 ↗ again you know that could be widely

1:58:33 ↗ interpreted um several types of funding

1:58:36 ↗ sources available it's just a matter of

1:58:38 ↗ going after them and seeing what aligns

1:58:40 ↗ well with the project uh use impact fees

1:58:43 ↗ to address the impact of development and

1:58:46 ↗ encourage citizen participation in the

1:58:49 ↗ implementation and again that goes back

1:58:51 ↗ to the park system when we're designing

1:58:53 ↗ the parks and uh

1:58:56 ↗ incorporating public and neighborhood

1:58:58 ↗ feedback so as we look at this goal and

1:59:00 ↗ finalize this goal this is this is

1:59:02 ↗ really the goal to say you know what

1:59:04 ↗ let's not create something that sits on

1:59:05 ↗ the shelf right let's create something

1:59:07 ↗ that ends up pretty dogeared and informs

1:59:11 ↗ the six-year Capital Improvement plan

1:59:12 ↗ and informs you know budget requests

1:59:15 ↗ that we asked for it's something that

1:59:17 ↗ we're really doing everything we can to

1:59:20 ↗ put into put into

1:59:24 ↗ use it really strengthens our chances of

1:59:27 ↗ going after grants and seeking extra

1:59:29 ↗ funding

1:59:33 ↗ available

1:59:40 ↗ think

1:59:43 ↗ okay how do we feel about

1:59:47 ↗ implementation we need to have for sure

1:59:50 ↗ this is the rubber me yeah just talk

1:59:52 ↗ about it this is it so I do have a a

1:59:56 ↗ thought that I want to throw out here of

2:00:00 ↗ in here we're talking about measuring

2:00:02 ↗ and and I'm wondering if there's

2:00:04 ↗ something that we might want to start

2:00:07 ↗ thinking about of how we're actually

2:00:09 ↗ doing that measurement and how we're

2:00:11 ↗ evaluating and and adding in some sort

2:00:13 ↗ of evaluation within this as as one of

2:00:17 ↗ our goals um or or within within this

2:00:21 ↗ goal and and policies of how are we then

2:00:24 ↗ showing what we've really

2:00:27 ↗ implemented and implemented in terms of

2:00:30 ↗ projects or programs

2:00:34 ↗ or quality quity control quity control

2:00:38 ↗ yeah but also maybe looking back just

2:00:42 ↗ like in the current survey what do you

2:00:44 ↗ use what do you like what do you where

2:00:46 ↗ do you think we've done good where do

2:00:47 ↗ you think we to improve or something

2:00:50 ↗ like

2:00:52 ↗ that very much and and I think Jeff and

2:00:54 ↗ I talk a lot about just the process and

2:00:57 ↗ how that's

2:00:58 ↗ changing um and with the code update you

2:01:01 ↗ know and the permits that we need to go

2:01:03 ↗ through um knowing that with the land

2:01:06 ↗ constraint a lot of it could potentially

2:01:08 ↗ be in critical areas so how does that

2:01:11 ↗ process look now um realistic time

2:01:14 ↗ frames for that implementation I think

2:01:16 ↗ need to be discussed and integrated in

2:01:19 ↗ with that as well I think it's a great

2:01:22 ↗ add to something yeah how are we how are

2:01:24 ↗ we adding a metric to so what what is

2:01:26 ↗ the rate of capital project completion

2:01:28 ↗ that we should

2:01:29 ↗ be seeking to achieve

2:01:33 ↗ um where are we demonstrating this plan

2:01:35 ↗ is informing our

2:01:37 ↗ programmatic um or service level asks uh

2:01:40 ↗ when it comes to maintaining and

2:01:43 ↗ stewarding the park system

2:01:48 ↗ y

2:01:49 ↗ so sounds like yeah thumbs up we want to

2:01:51 ↗ keep keep that and really expand and

2:01:53 ↗ kind of maybe next time hone in on that

2:01:55 ↗ policy a little bit more measurement

2:01:58 ↗ yeah I measur my goal on

2:02:02 ↗ that it feels like the eight goals

2:02:04 ↗ really still resonate right foundational

2:02:08 ↗ H some ads in terms

2:02:10 ↗ of arts and you know really including

2:02:13 ↗ native the native

2:02:16 ↗ tribal aspect to it is that is that

2:02:19 ↗ something where you want to pull those

2:02:20 ↗ two out as specific goals or make sure

2:02:24 ↗ we're implementing those in the

2:02:28 ↗ policies well I think they fit well in

2:02:31 ↗ the design categories already they just

2:02:33 ↗ need to be added okay addtive policies

2:02:37 ↗ right think also the economic

2:02:38 ↗ development you know how is how is our

2:02:40 ↗ Park system serving as that sort of

2:02:42 ↗ economic

2:02:44 ↗ um engine or you know

2:02:47 ↗ incubator

2:02:49 ↗ how many cups of coffee has Jacob two

2:02:51 ↗ trees help to

2:02:54 ↗ S do we want to hit that ecotourism

2:02:57 ↗ aspect where you know we want to make

2:02:58 ↗ sure it's sustainable tourism as well

2:03:02 ↗ coming and so we're not really

2:03:03 ↗ destroying the the ecological benefit

2:03:06 ↗ that we have here how do we balance

2:03:11 ↗ that we are going to be meeting with uh

2:03:14 ↗ as uh you've heard a couple times s and

2:03:16 ↗ Dan have had a chance to meet with the

2:03:18 ↗ tribe I've had chance to meet with the

2:03:19 ↗ drive we're going to be engaging with

2:03:21 ↗ them uh multiple times but pretty early

2:03:24 ↗ on in this the park system Plan update

2:03:27 ↗ getting their thoughts and perspective

2:03:29 ↗ on our goals and policies and then later

2:03:32 ↗ you know as we head into next year and

2:03:34 ↗ have drafts um as well so um I think it

2:03:39 ↗ was a great a great Point uh Brad in

2:03:41 ↗ terms of you know the partnership

2:03:43 ↗ section making sure we're speaking to um

2:03:47 ↗ um speaking to those local Partners as

2:03:48 ↗ well well at the

2:03:49 ↗ tribes intergovernmental right the

2:03:52 ↗ intergovernmental piece Def and putting

2:03:55 ↗ that back into the planning and design

2:03:58 ↗ of the parks as well that that's

2:03:59 ↗ probably a policy that we make sure we

2:04:01 ↗ we do that every single

2:04:04 ↗ time well and I might you know I might

2:04:07 ↗ extend that that might be interested

2:04:09 ↗ tribes because there's actually four

2:04:11 ↗ tribes that have interest in isqua area

2:04:14 ↗ primarily there's no qualy but they're

2:04:16 ↗ not the only ones right knuckle shoot is

2:04:19 ↗ pretty close behind yeah right that's a

2:04:22 ↗ good point and again maybe that goes

2:04:24 ↗ back into a metric

2:04:28 ↗ too oh great so it really looks like the

2:04:31 ↗ goals are still pretty applicable I

2:04:34 ↗ think very

2:04:36 ↗ much following implementation is

2:04:38 ↗ evaluation is that

2:04:41 ↗ ever that's a really good

2:04:45 ↗ point a great Point yeah Within

2:04:48 ↗ implementation sort of I think what H

2:04:50 ↗ was saying how are we

2:04:52 ↗ measuring we've got wonderful goals and

2:04:54 ↗ we're striving but in five years are you

2:04:57 ↗ g to hold them up and say boy we did

2:04:58 ↗ great how do we know yeah how did this

2:05:00 ↗ inform we left and you said we were

2:05:03 ↗ going here right right and kind of go

2:05:05 ↗ back to those survey results you know

2:05:08 ↗ was that was that a true need you know

2:05:11 ↗ did that really did that part did that

2:05:13 ↗ project work again back to the success

2:05:17 ↗ of that and set establishing those

2:05:19 ↗ metric too very

2:05:20 ↗ good um I

2:05:23 ↗ think I think the the

2:05:28 ↗ implementation goal as well may also

2:05:30 ↗ need to I didn't see a particular

2:05:33 ↗ mention about investing and the

2:05:35 ↗ technology right that we talked

2:05:37 ↗ about in

2:05:39 ↗ the uh the urban Forest plan about

2:05:43 ↗ having GIS software um pre inventory and

2:05:49 ↗ like how can you support those metric

2:05:51 ↗ tracking without

2:05:54 ↗ investment technology and data analytic

2:05:59 ↗ Services right so I think that policy

2:06:02 ↗ that can also be

2:06:08 ↗ considered that's a great ad right

2:06:11 ↗ you're right and just even you know as

2:06:13 ↗ in places we speak to best management

2:06:15 ↗ practices or best standards you know you

2:06:18 ↗ you know making sure we have language

2:06:20 ↗ that's talking about how we utilizing

2:06:25 ↗ technology great

2:06:27 ↗ point I seeing yeah and seeing all those

2:06:29 ↗ GIS overlays and looking at different

2:06:32 ↗ lenses I think it's going to really

2:06:34 ↗ inform Acquisitions form you know Master

2:06:38 ↗ planning next

2:06:39 ↗ steps um inform quite a bit so I think

2:06:42 ↗ that's a really important goal to

2:06:44 ↗ include I'm also curious about uh I

2:06:47 ↗ think there's one about

2:06:49 ↗ preservation um why we didn't mention

2:06:53 ↗ the Heritage tree program as as a policy

2:06:55 ↗ like we we had varying levels of

2:06:58 ↗ specificity in policies right so um if

2:07:02 ↗ we really want to commit to implenting

2:07:05 ↗ program

2:07:10 ↗ thaty

2:07:12 ↗ right yeah

2:07:15 ↗ definitely environmental that

2:07:16 ↗ environmental piece is the opportunity

2:07:18 ↗ to yeah both reference the Heritage

2:07:20 ↗ Street program and the urban

2:07:22 ↗ Forest planning effort going on now yeah

2:07:25 ↗ right yeah and establish a policy that

2:07:28 ↗ that we hit maybe a certain goal of that

2:07:31 ↗ Urban Forest management plan where

2:07:33 ↗ feasable and enhance

2:07:38 ↗ that no that's great that's a really

2:07:40 ↗ good point we're looking at time um I if

2:07:45 ↗ you want to hit on next I know we have a

2:07:48 ↗ you to hit our comprehensive Plan update

2:07:51 ↗ as well right of a relatively quick

2:07:54 ↗ turnaround right right so to align with

2:07:57 ↗ a comprehensive plan they they'd like

2:07:59 ↗ recommendations um they wanted a final

2:08:01 ↗ set of goals and policies but I think we

2:08:04 ↗ can have a pretty solid drop to them so

2:08:06 ↗ coming up in November we'll really dig

2:08:09 ↗ into those policies I'll add in this

2:08:11 ↗ information we'll review that one more

2:08:13 ↗ time and

2:08:15 ↗ then and make a decision on that Rec

2:08:18 ↗ ation on that for November's meeting so

2:08:21 ↗ the thought is to have goals and

2:08:22 ↗ policies back to you all to look at as

2:08:25 ↗ in a draft form in November

2:08:28 ↗ um those goals and policies if you

2:08:30 ↗ remember our timeline would then inform

2:08:33 ↗ our Park system Plan update process but

2:08:35 ↗ then

2:08:36 ↗ also Branch off into another tree and

2:08:40 ↗ and go into the comprehensive Plan

2:08:41 ↗ update so our goals and policies are one

2:08:44 ↗ and the same in both the comp plan and

2:08:46 ↗ our and our Park plan so back to you all

2:08:49 ↗ in November to to achieve that thank

2:08:53 ↗ you all right thank you good discussion

2:08:57 ↗ yeah

2:09:04 ↗ thanks that's everything for regular

2:09:07 ↗ business right it is reports um

2:09:14 ↗ reports Jeff do you want to fire away

2:09:18 ↗ you sure you want me to go

2:09:19 ↗ first yep

2:09:22 ↗ okay okay happy to um couple really

2:09:26 ↗ quick updates um next Sunday October

2:09:29 ↗ 29th um we have a newly sort of shaped

2:09:34 ↗ Community event happening it's called

2:09:35 ↗ Boo at the barn so at the Pickering Barn

2:09:38 ↗ from 5:00 P p.m. to 900 P p.m actually

2:09:40 ↗ from 400 P.M to 900 P p.m uh we'll be

2:09:43 ↗ inviting the community to come do a

2:09:45 ↗ variety of of fun activities at the barn

2:09:48 ↗ from kids activities to a haunted Trail

2:09:51 ↗ um for those that like to be um scared

2:09:54 ↗ out of their wits a little bit um You

2:09:57 ↗ Might Recall at the community center

2:09:59 ↗ before the pandemic we had a uh fall

2:10:01 ↗ Harvest Festival uh this is sort of

2:10:04 ↗ bringing that event back in a in a newly

2:10:06 ↗ formed way utilizing the barn uh for

2:10:09 ↗ what it really is as a a fun place for

2:10:11 ↗ Community event so look forward to

2:10:13 ↗ seeing how that happens um hats off to

2:10:16 ↗ our Recreation Team hats off to our new

2:10:18 ↗ adaptive Recreation team uh the first

2:10:20 ↗ hour of this event from 4: to 5: is

2:10:22 ↗ going to be um I going to say this right

2:10:25 ↗ sort of a low

2:10:27 ↗ sensory low low sensory hour uh for

2:10:30 ↗ those that want to come and experience

2:10:32 ↗ the event um um in that way so um great

2:10:37 ↗ great work by our our Recreation Team

2:10:39 ↗ Planning that um couple of signs that

2:10:43 ↗ you're going to see out on the street we

2:10:44 ↗ talked a little bit about working with

2:10:46 ↗ our our partners at supposed to call me

2:10:48 ↗ tribe uh they have had an ancestrial

2:10:51 ↗ lands movement you may have seen these

2:10:53 ↗ signs at our our Trail heads in places

2:10:56 ↗ uh we're going to be putting a a new set

2:10:58 ↗ of these out um Alex Anderson our park

2:11:01 ↗ ranger uh works with the tribe in

2:11:03 ↗ getting these out but it's just a great

2:11:05 ↗ way of us on at our Trail heads

2:11:07 ↗ reminding all of our Park users to

2:11:10 ↗ respect the land uh restore the land and

2:11:13 ↗ and recognize um really the these public

2:11:16 ↗ lands are not just

2:11:19 ↗ um um not just ours to utilize now in

2:11:22 ↗ the in the present but these have a

2:11:24 ↗ really really rich uh rich rich history

2:11:27 ↗ um another sign you're going to be

2:11:29 ↗ seeing out in our trail system in Parks

2:11:31 ↗ is um inviting residents to take part in

2:11:34 ↗ our Park system plan survey uh you might

2:11:37 ↗ recall we had focus group discussions

2:11:39 ↗ this summer um sort of our next wave of

2:11:41 ↗ Engagement is the survey which is out

2:11:44 ↗ now uh we'll be going on through the

2:11:46 ↗ middle of November um QR code directs

2:11:50 ↗ individuals straight to the survey you

2:11:53 ↗ may recall as we've done engagement

2:11:55 ↗ efforts through the pandemic we utilized

2:11:58 ↗ um QR codes and signs along our trails

2:12:00 ↗ and parks to huge success um we had

2:12:04 ↗ better response than we'd ever had

2:12:06 ↗ before and so we look forward to getting

2:12:08 ↗ Community response uh to that public

2:12:11 ↗ survey we're also sending um out the the

2:12:14 ↗ survey news to U many of our user groups

2:12:17 ↗ um recreational de uh user databases or

2:12:20 ↗ Athletic Field databases so um by mid

2:12:25 ↗ November uh we should have uh some

2:12:27 ↗ really really good survey response

2:12:28 ↗ that's going to really inform sort of

2:12:30 ↗ our our next uh set of that Park system

2:12:34 ↗ update in given time that's enough from

2:12:37 ↗ me you have anything to to add uh yeah

2:12:41 ↗ just a couple things so you can go to

2:12:43 ↗ Boo at the barn and in the same evening

2:12:46 ↗ go to the historic isqua Historical

2:12:50 ↗ Museum is putting on some Cemetery tours

2:12:53 ↗ Saturday the 28th and Sunday the 29th in

2:12:56 ↗ the evening those will be guided um

2:12:59 ↗ there's a link on their website and then

2:13:02 ↗ I won't go into them all but I I did

2:13:04 ↗ finally get my um stuff my back together

2:13:07 ↗ and there are a number of uh partner

2:13:10 ↗ events uh like trail head Improvement

2:13:12 ↗ planting events and such uh isquat Al

2:13:15 ↗ and trails clubh has on their website uh

2:13:18 ↗ encourage you to go look at

2:13:19 ↗ those uh and then greenis also has some

2:13:23 ↗ on their calendar so a little bit more

2:13:25 ↗ and then last I guess State uh State

2:13:27 ↗ Park free day is November

2:13:30 ↗ 11th take advantage of that um there are

2:13:34 ↗ two other items on um that we want to

2:13:39 ↗ check on I think next time we can touch

2:13:42 ↗ on it but the quarterly or sorry the

2:13:43 ↗ work plan and how we're really we really

2:13:48 ↗ to be checking in on it maybe a little

2:13:49 ↗ more frequently as a as an entity and so

2:13:53 ↗ maybe we talk about that so next time

2:13:55 ↗ that that'll be a topic uh traditionally

2:13:58 ↗ or historically we have not had a

2:14:01 ↗ December meeting it's a little hard to

2:14:03 ↗ get one in on the fourth THS day of

2:14:06 ↗ December that day so that will probably

2:14:09 ↗ not happen um and that's everything I

2:14:13 ↗ have um any other business anyone have I

2:14:17 ↗ have item to that Chris thank you you're

2:14:19 ↗ absolutely right the 2024 work plan we

2:14:21 ↗ as uh Department begin working on our

2:14:25 ↗ now that we're in the the fourth quarter

2:14:27 ↗ uh really starting to map out

2:14:28 ↗ specifically our 2024 work plan so thank

2:14:30 ↗ you Chris we'll be working with

2:14:32 ↗ certainly Chris's chair and beginning to

2:14:34 ↗ look at uh Department work plan really

2:14:37 ↗ helps to inform Park Board work plan uh

2:14:41 ↗ would love that discussion in in

2:14:43 ↗ November um in terms of um beginning to

2:14:46 ↗ really map out um

2:14:48 ↗ topics um and information here um next

2:14:55 ↗ year anyone have any other business I

2:14:59 ↗ want to bring up our next meeting sorry

2:15:03 ↗ November 27 it's the Monday after

2:15:05 ↗ Thanksgiving break so I will try and

2:15:09 ↗ remember to send lots and lots of

2:15:11 ↗ reminders and up for myself as

2:15:16 ↗ well here and sleepy

2:15:18 ↗ exactly exactly turkey and gravy

2:15:20 ↗ leftovers will be in the

2:15:22 ↗ kitchen I think with that meeting isur

2:15:26 ↗ thank

2:15:28 ↗ you yeah thanks everyone lots of lots of

2:15:31 ↗ topics tonight thanks

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF