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

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (8)

Chris Kovac, Chair Director

Zach Szablewski (Virtual) Manager

Andrew Eliquen Hasanthi Piyasena, Department Operations

David Liu Specialist

Brenda Spears

Chris Peiffer, PlanIT Geo Consultant

Bradley Book, Alternate (Virtual) (Virtual)

Ryan Olson (Alternate)

Excused

Marlene Waxse, Vice Chair Robin Separ, Park Planning & Development

Nicholas Lee Dan Hintz, Urban Forest Supervisor

Tim Motely Andrea Starbird, PlanIT Geo Consultant

Andrew Myers, Alternate Steve Pereira, Community Member

Recommendations & actions (1)

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

a) Minutes of September 26, 2023 There being no corrections, the minutes were approved as presented.