No Bookmarks Exist.
4:00 PM on Tuesday, April 16th, 2024. We're going to call this meeting to order. 00:00:00
Approval of the agenda. 00:00:07
I move to approve the approve the agenda. 00:00:14
Excuse me, chair walking stick, Would you mind doing a roll call? Of course. 00:00:17
I can celebrate the Commissioner Gorman. 00:00:21
Present Commissioner person. 00:00:23
President Chair walking stick present. 00:00:26
Vice Chair Lee. 00:00:30
Here, Commissioner Myers. 00:00:31
Commissioner Wooden here. 00:00:33
And Secretary Marie Dunn is not going to be in attendance tonight, we're sorry to say. 00:00:36
OK, let's move to the approval of the agenda. 00:00:44
Now I move to approve the agenda. 00:00:50
2nd. 00:00:53
Agenda approved. 00:00:56
Commissioner Sub. 00:00:58
Oh, sorry. 00:01:00
Yes, we need to vote. 00:01:01
Correct. All in favor, aye. 00:01:03
No, all opposed. 00:01:07
None. 00:01:09
Next commissioner, subcommittee and staff announcements. 00:01:14
I have an announcement, OK. 00:01:19
Commissioner Wooden, I just wanted to remind people that has updated their plant selection. 00:01:21
Tool under Advanced Search, and it's an excellent source resource for selecting native plants for your landscaping. That's 00:01:32 00:01:39
Under the Advanced Search tool. 00:01:46
Thank you. 00:01:51
Commissioner representative. 00:01:53
I'd like to thank the city for a really great and well attended Arbor Day event at George Washington Park. 00:01:55
I believe 50 Monterey Plains were planted and it just was a really great event and I know a lot of the NRC was there as well. So 00:02:05
thank you so much. 00:02:09
Any other commissioner announcements or subcommittee announcements? 00:02:17
OK, on to staff announcements. 00:02:24
Just a couple, a few quick things. Arbor Day was a big success. The tree planning event at George Washington Park. Like 00:02:28
Commissioner Person said, 50 plus trees planted over 40 people in attendance. A lot of youth involvement and really just a good 00:02:33
vibe all around. So great event. Thanks everybody that participated. 00:02:39
And then just want to give a quick update that a another set of seal signs has been installed on a temporary A-frame. 00:02:46
At just off of 5th Street near the Rookery. 00:02:55
Or the the property. 00:02:58
And also the. 00:03:01
Lattice Fencing is installed and we've got some positive reviews with the seal signs, so I want to thank everybody for their work 00:03:04
towards making those happen. And thanks to all the volunteers out there helping to enforce the quiet please message. 00:03:11
And then to the BRC website, we had some requests to add links to the kind of relatively new wildlife page that the PNRC worked to 00:03:19
put together a bunch of really important links towards. 00:03:25
Other groups and different information resources and now that link is available both on the Leisure tab and the Resident tab for 00:03:33
the website. 00:03:37
So there have been questions at previous meetings. I just wanted everyone to know that. 00:03:42
And that's all I've got. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you. 00:03:47
Let's go to council liaison announcements, Council member Colletti. 00:03:52
Good afternoon, Chair Commissioners. 00:03:57
I don't have much, but there is one. Uh. 00:04:00
Quite substantial. 00:04:03
Announcement and I'm happy to share it. 00:04:05
And that is the exciting news about the city intending to approve an employment agreement. 00:04:07
Between the City and Matthew Morgenson as our next city manager. 00:04:14
We will take that item up tomorrow at City Council at 6:00 PM. 00:04:19
Have a good meeting. Thank you. 00:04:24
Thank you, Councilmember Coletti. 00:04:28
Let's go to general public comment. 00:04:31
Hi there I'm Paul Walking Stick. At the risk of believering the point, I just wanted to extend my my thanks and appreciation to 00:04:43
city staff for putting on such a great Arbor Day event over George Washington Park. 00:04:48
It was phenomenal, spectacular. I'm really excited to see what you guys do next year, but seriously, that was a really good job 00:04:55
and the turn out was amazing. Having the kids there was exciting and I saw a lot of families so. 00:05:01
Again, amazing job and looking forward to next year. Thank you. 00:05:08
Thank you. 00:05:14
Good evening, Sally Moore. I have just a couple random thoughts and I wanted to say that I saw our helper with his Falcon on his 00:05:17
arm. 00:05:21
Successfully keeping the seagulls from downtown and I have a few tree things not related to the ordinance. So I just wanted to 00:05:26
share that I have noted that the job description under human resources for the job description of arborist has been removed and 00:05:34
has been for some time and I think that should be there whether we have a contract arborist or a city employee. 00:05:42
I have noticed that the. 00:05:51
Grass has been trimmed around the youth center and I'm happy to see that. I did point out a month ago to the City Council that 00:05:53
there had been 2 Monterey Pine and another tree there that all had been removed. 1 pine came down in December of 2022 and another 00:06:00
tree came down in May of this of 2023. Both of those permits said that they were going to put in a low canopy tree. Now why they 00:06:06
aren't putting in Monterey pine I don't know, but regardless no trees have been planted there. 00:06:13
And it's my understanding that the BNRC had inquired of the city about the trees at 675 Pine, the Pine and Congress redo, I was in 00:06:20
that building. 00:06:25
When they first got there and the city required certain trees to be put in, and it's in the property file where they had to agree 00:06:31
to the city choices of the trees. If you look at those permits, there's no indication that trees will be replaced in those 00:06:37
positions. So I just thought maybe you'd like to know those things. Thank you. 00:06:43
Thank you. 00:06:50
Welcome, Chair Commissioners Mary Dayton. I wasn't planning on saying anything until Mr. First mentioned the harbor seals and the 00:06:54
quiet signs. 00:06:59
Excuse me? I was along the trail looking at the black oyster catches on Monday and a couple of the volunteers that aren't bayonet 00:07:05
volunteers but they monitor the seals for Kim. They were down there and they were really upset because a neighbor right across the 00:07:12
street was power washing the house. 00:07:19
And it was quite noisy, 80 hundred 110 decibels. And so I was just wondering, you know, we contact the neighbors around the 00:07:27
monarch sanctuary not to trim trees and do that. And are the neighbors by the harbour seals contacted not to do loud stuff like 00:07:34
that during the puppet season? There's just a thought. 00:07:42
Thank you. Thank you. 00:07:50
We do have one hand raised in the virtual audience. I'll open the floor to Connolly de Garcia. 00:08:03
Good evening and thank you for your service. I would be there in person, but I'm a little under the weather. I'd like to give you 00:08:12
an update regarding the deer April, the week of April 8th, there were two fawns born in the beach track area and as of today we 00:08:20
are waiting for confirmation of two more bonds perhaps they were born last night elsewhere in civic row. And so we're our we're in 00:08:28
active fighting season now so for folks who walk their dogs. 00:08:35
Or dog if you come upon a dough that is challenging you, perhaps at an intersection or corner, please be mindful that most likely 00:08:44
they have a fine nearby and they are protecting it. 00:08:50
And realize that you will not get past the dough. So what does this mean? 00:08:57
It means that we have to respect the deer by changing direction, crossing the street, picking up your dog if you can, and move out 00:09:02
of harm's way. 00:09:06
We we really need to be respectful of our deer during this very sensitive time. 00:09:11
Since January there have been a reported 6 deaths of deer and the most recent April 9th. 00:09:17
The deaths are scattered throughout Pacific Grove, so there is no one specific area where it's occurring. 00:09:25
And between yesterday and today, I screened 2 calls regarding sick and injured deer in Pacific Grove. Since March, PG Deer 00:09:32
Awareness Resource has provided services for removal of two deceased deer from private property in Pacific Grove at no charge to 00:09:38
the property owner. 00:09:44
So please be mindful of our local deer during this sensitive time. Drive slowly, especially at night. If you see one deer, there 00:09:51
are others to follow. And thank you very much for the update Regarding the cowscape information. This is information that PG Deer 00:09:58
awareness resource distributes during the farmers market when we are sitting at our table. 00:10:06
And we are at the farmers market every Monday from 3:00 to 5:30. So if you have time, please stop by and visit us. We get a lot of 00:10:14
interaction from individuals, local and our tourist, which is very exciting. So thank you very much. 00:10:21
Don't put their hands raised. 00:10:31
OK. Is there any written, general public comment that we need to be aware of? 00:10:36
Or anything from you, Amy. 00:10:42
There is some written general comment that has been included in the agenda. Thank you. 00:10:46
Hey, let's move on to the approval of the Minutes. 00:10:54
I move to approve the. 00:11:01
I second. 00:11:04
All in favour. 00:11:06
Aye, aye. All opposed. 00:11:08
OK. 00:11:12
Regular agenda. 00:11:14
Today we have 7A Title 12 Trees and the Urban Forest proposed amended revisions with a presentation from Joyce Hobby, Deputy 00:11:16
Public Director, Works Director. 00:11:22
In future Walking stick, Good afternoon members of the BRC. I'm just going to quickly. 00:11:34
Try and share my screen appropriately here. 00:11:39
OK, so before you are the proposed amended revisions, we came back with the original. 00:11:50
Revisions are kind of initial set in January and we are back with an amended version. So I'm going to quickly walk you through our 00:11:55
proposed amended revisions to Title 12. 00:12:00
So the recommendation associated with this item is that you review the proposed amended changes and provide staff with feedback. 00:12:06
I'm going to go into some of the items we covered on the original presentation just to kind of remind you of some of the changes 00:12:15
that will remain. I'm going to go through some of the background and the reason, the impetus for change, what we've changed 00:12:20
between the version that you saw in January and the version that's before you tonight and then what the next steps are moving 00:12:25
forward after tonight's meeting. 00:12:30
And I do just want to quickly note the revisions both in clean format and in track changes are attached to the agenda report if 00:12:37
anybody's interested in kind of looking that in greater detail. 00:12:41
So I'm not going to believe we're at this point too much, but Title 12 is essentially all of the rules governing trees within the 00:12:46
city bounds. 00:12:49
Everything from tree appeals, contractor requirements and so much more. You guys are familiar with that at this point. 00:12:53
So why are we changing Title 12? 00:13:00
Again, I quickly just want to reiterate that the impetus was not that we just wanted to make a bunch of revisions to Title 12. 00:13:02
The last set of revisions that were pretty comprehensive were made in 20/12/2013. So it's been about 10 plus years that we've been 00:13:09
implementing this code. We've noticed some challenges, some areas for improvement. In addition to that, this was really a response 00:13:14
to community demands. 00:13:20
For improved tree regulations and as a result of that, the City Council added to their current year work plan a goal to do 00:13:26
comprehensive changes to Title 12. 00:13:30
So that's really the impetus for why we're looking at this item tonight and why we keep bringing this before you. 00:13:35
Again, a lot of research went into the changes that we've proposed. These weren't just done in a vacuum. We looked at other 00:13:42
neighboring cities. 00:13:46
Other industry best practices leaders in the field as it relates to municipalities and how they handle their tree permit 00:13:52
processing. We really wanted to take a comprehensive approach so that we are addressing both local needs but also meeting again 00:13:57
industry best practices. 00:14:02
To really create a robust regulatory framework that we could use moving forward. 00:14:08
I'm not sure what's going on here. 00:14:16
OK, there was also a collaborative effort, so the technical difficulties trying to advance the slides. So again, I didn't just 00:14:24
write these changes on my own. I worked with Albert Wisp, our city arborist. We worked extensively on making these changes. We. 00:14:32
Consulted with our City Attorney's Office, who played a pivotal role in reviewing and ensuring you know we meet any legal 00:14:40
requirements. We consulted with the various different departments that play a role in implementing Title 12. 00:14:45
That's fire code enforcement, community development. 00:14:51
And I want to note that the public and the BNRC have played a crucial role in the amended changes that are before you tonight. So 00:14:54
you will see as I kind of go through this presentation that we have taken the feedback from both the public and from that January 00:14:59
30th meeting. 00:15:03
And those are directly reflected in the amended revisions that are before you tonight. So you guys have played a very important 00:15:09
role here. 00:15:12
And again, I just want to reiterate that I think we all have a shared goal. We want to protect and preserve the urban forest the 00:15:16
best we possibly can. So we're all working towards a shared vision here. 00:15:20
Last kind of point in terms of background, Title 12 is just one of the pieces of the puzzles. It relates to dealing with trees in 00:15:27
the urban forest. The code serves as the backbone for protecting and preserving the trees. And that is what's before you tonight 00:15:34
with our additional documents that help us implement and enforce the code. That is the fee schedule and fee structure. 00:15:40
We'll talk a little bit about that tonight. The tree permit application process, the permit that's actually issued to the 00:15:48
applicant when they get approval and the Urban Forestry standards, which is really the technical specifications for implementing 00:15:54
the code and the laws that are in the code. So these documents will also be updated. 00:16:00
Those are not up for consideration tonight. 00:16:07
But they will play a crucial role in implementing and improving compliance with things like replants and just making the process. 00:16:10
Better and stronger in the future, and future updates on those will be presented. 00:16:17
So after January 30th meeting, you reviewed the original proposed changes. We heard the extensive public comment both at the Dyess 00:16:24
virtually and through e-mail. 00:16:29
And the commissioner comments that night, the comments really centered around like 3 topics modifying the appeal process. 00:16:36
Replacing arbors with public works director or designee throughout the code and removing the urban canopy coverage goals. Those 00:16:43
are the kinds of three large topics that most of the comments centered on during that first review. Ultimately, at the end of that 00:16:49
meeting, the BNRC recommended that we return. 00:16:54
To have continued conversations. 00:17:00
So between January 30th and now, we've considered that feedback that you all have given us as well as the public and we've. 00:17:04
Consequently amended the proposed titles well provisions. So the largest amendments and essentially the only things that we've 00:17:11
changed between the first iteration and the iteration that's before you tonight is that we have walked back. 00:17:17
The changes relating to the appeal process, so we are leaving the appeal process as proposed as in the current code, so we'll go 00:17:23
to the BNRC and then upwards if appealed towards the City Council. 00:17:28
So that would remain as it is today. 00:17:34
We are retaining the term arborist and they're eliminating any of the references to public works director or designee. So again, 00:17:37
as the code. 00:17:41
Reads today essentially on that front. 00:17:45
And then sorry. 00:17:48
We added some language relating to the importance of the urban canopy coverage to the finding section of the code. 00:17:50
I'm going to quickly walk through some of the changes that were proposed in the initial iteration and remain today. So as I've 00:18:01
noted in in the previous presentations and in the prior staff report, some of the challenges associated with the code are that 00:18:07
there's existing gaps, so there's absence of review standards for removal and substantial trimming permits. There's no agreed upon 00:18:13
criteria by which those things would be either approved or denied. And so we want to make that more clear. 00:18:19
There's no process outlined for emergency tree removal requests, which is a pretty big gap, and there's an absence of timelines 00:18:26
for appealing the arborist decision for denial. 00:18:31
The timelines in the code are only provided. 00:18:37
If somebody is appealing an approved tree permit removal. 00:18:40
So again, we want to address those gaps in the proposed code revisions Do that. 00:18:43
The next challenge is outdated information and we just want to make some updates to reflect best practices. So as written, there 00:18:49
are several outdated references. There's a bunch of dead links that are referenced in the code which is not helpful to anybody. 00:18:56
The code is a resource for both staff as well as the public, so all that information should be up to date and accurate. 00:19:02
There's also reference to older ISA. 00:19:10
Hazard Tree Evaluation System, which is an outdated practice in form that's no longer used. 00:19:13
So we're planning to update all that information. On that note, there's a proposed change to remove critical root zone and replace 00:19:18
it with tree protection zone. And I've seen some questions around that. The tree protection zone is actually a more protective. 00:19:25
Phrase are often used interchangeably, but the tree protection zone at a minimum includes the critical root zone and often more 00:19:32
for a larger more mature tree. So that is sort of the industry best practice and the more protective measure. So that's why we're 00:19:37
updating that code language there. 00:19:42
There's several redundancies that are in the code. Again, the code is really a resource for everybody. It should be easy to 00:19:49
navigate, and when there's redundancies essentially the same topics addressed in various different places of the code, it's really 00:19:53
hard to get. 00:19:57
An idea of what you're supposed to do. The great example of that in the current way the code is written is related to nuisance 00:20:02
trees. There's regulations related to nuisance trees in two different sections. 00:20:07
Again, that makes it very confusing, very difficult to navigate, so we want to remove the redundancies. 00:20:12
That are there in our proposed revisions aim to really streamline the code and address those issues. 00:20:18
There are some structure shortcomings in terms of how the code is actually structured. As written, the code organization is very 00:20:27
difficult to navigate and it makes information very difficult to retrieve. 00:20:33
A great example of this is there are wildlife protection measures that are sort of nestled in. 00:20:39
A section of the code specifically under the protected tree requirements, when it really should be its own section of code. That 00:20:44
way it's very clear to everybody what the wildlife protection measures are, not just when you're looking at a protected tree. 00:20:50
Type. 00:20:57
Extensive sections on weed abatement and rubbish abatement regulations create clutter and they're better and more appropriately 00:21:00
placed in other sections of our code, so we are proposing to remove that. 00:21:04
So again, the reorganization and some of the changes that we're proposing are in an effort to streamline. 00:21:09
And really facilitate easier access of information and more clarity for anybody looking at the code. 00:21:15
Another challenge that we've discussed here is replant compliance. So replants are, we all know, essential for the preservation of 00:21:22
our urban forests and urban canopy coverage and unfortunately the replant compliance rate is not great. 00:21:29
In 2023 it was 22%, the prior year 41%. We've done several attempts to retroactively enforce compliance. 00:21:36
At the direction of the BRC specifically in 2018, we reached out to all permit holders that hadn't provided proof of a replant and 00:21:46
the compliance with that was again really low, only 22% of the folks that received. 00:21:53
A request for compliance actually complied. So our proposed revisions aim to enhance replant compliance. We are strengthening the 00:22:00
requirements. 00:22:04
Including a mandate for a one to two replant ratio where trees are larger in size, so greater than 24 inches. 00:22:09
In diameter that are removed. 00:22:16
We're including language that failure to comply with the replant requirement will result in in lieu fees. The in lieu fees will be 00:22:18
retained by the city in a community tree fund. 00:22:23
And the Community Tree Fund would be limited to replanting trees in public spaces. So again, really trying to. 00:22:29
Enhance and preserve the urban forest and enhance the urban canopy coverage. 00:22:36
Another piece to the replant compliance is. 00:22:42
Enforcement of regulations. 00:22:47
Which can be strengthened through the city's fee schedule and permit process. So again, enhancing our forms and our fee structure 00:22:50
to encourage compliance. Those aren't items that are within Title 12, but those will strengthen the code revisions once they're 00:22:54
approved. 00:22:59
So we are working with Matrix Consulting Group, which is an external consulting for them to update the city's fee schedule. That's 00:23:04
currently underway and I believe it's planned to go to City Council in the near future here. 00:23:10
May June time frame and with that there will be. 00:23:16
A proposal to collect a deposit fee at the time that somebody goes to apply for a tree permit application. 00:23:20
And that way they're refunded the deposit if they comply with the replant requirement within the given time frame, otherwise if 00:23:27
you would be retained in the community tree fund and be used for planting in public spaces. 00:23:32
Whereas now we don't have that deposit fee and we're having to chase people around after the fact to comply. 00:23:39
Which the data shows is is not great in terms of its percentage of compliance. 00:23:45
So we're hoping that financial incentives too, will help incentivize compliance. 00:23:50
From a code enforcement perspective. 00:23:56
There are really low fine limitations as it relates to non compliance. The code as it currently reads allows non compliance fines 00:23:58
to be from 200 to $1000 maximum. 00:24:04
So if you were to really take a deep dive at the fee structure as it is today. 00:24:11
Circumventing the tree process. So removing a tree without permits and neglecting A replant actually ends up being the lower cost. 00:24:15
To an individual than adhering to the permit process and choosing not to replant a tree. 00:24:21
So if you paid the application fee to remove one tree, that's $176, and you opted to pay the in lieu fee, that's $901. 00:24:26
And that doesn't include additional expenses like. 00:24:35
Paying an arborist to do an arborist report. 00:24:38
So again, the fee structure doesn't quite make sense. So that is something that we're proposing to change as well. Not before you 00:24:40
tonight, but important note to mate. 00:24:44
Note to make. 00:24:48
All right, so on that note, we are planning to change some of the enforcement fine limitation language in the code to allow. 00:24:54
For us to charge a fee that would be approved in that city's fee schedule. So again, right now the code reads 200 to $1000. 00:25:03
But our proposed revisions allow us to reference the master fee schedule that would have a different range of fees. 00:25:10
Again, fee structure that makes much more sense. To incentivize compliance. I do want to note citation rates for 22/23/12 00:25:16
citations were issued and this fiscal year at the time that I pulled this data for citations had been issued. 00:25:22
So again, our code revisions aim to. 00:25:31
Really allow us to go beyond that $1000 range and and more appropriately I. 00:25:35
Fine. If somebody is non compliant. Does not get a tree permit, Cuts down a tree. Unauthorized. 00:25:42
I'm gonna ask breeze through some of these slides here because you have seen these before, so we did. 00:25:55
Remove the citywide canopy coverage goals that were included in. 00:26:02
They're included in the urban forestry standards, in the very front of the urban forestry standards really at the forefront. 00:26:06
And those metrics currently aren't tracked, which is why we were proposed to remove them. I did hear your feedback at the January 00:26:13
meeting, and so we did incorporate a finding. 00:26:17
In the initial sections of the code to reiterate the importance of urban canopy coverage and wanting to protect that. 00:26:22
We removed tree canopy coverage goals for individual properties. 00:26:29
You'll see that there was previously a chart that we've kind of striked through in the track through changes version. Historically 00:26:33
this has actually been used to get out of replanting trees. 00:26:38
And that's the only time we've really seen that use in actual practice. 00:26:44
So we can put these goals and recommendations into the Urban Forestry Standards, which has a lot more of that. 00:26:48
Technical detail and the actual specifics in terms of implementing the law and regulations that is Title 12. 00:26:52
And I'm just going through quickly some high level changes we as it relates to high risk trees we've removed. 00:27:00
The nuisance tree information that was redundant and consolidated it to one section. 00:27:06
We updated the section on the Regulations for High Trees to reference the new Emergency Action Regulations and to reference the 00:27:12
most updated version of the ISA tree Risk assessment form. 00:27:17
So again, the issue with the old form, which is the hazard evaluation form that's currently referenced in the code, is that it 00:27:25
provides A numerical rating. 00:27:29
It's very easy for a healthy tree to get a high rating score. It's almost always at 7:00 or greater. Even if the tree is in good 00:27:34
condition just by nature that we are built out. If it's a large tree that. 00:27:40
That actual metric is based on diameter, failure potential and target rating. 00:27:47
So again, it's not the best assessment of whether or not a tree should be. 00:27:51
Considered high risk? 00:27:55
The new form which is the industry best practice, is the tree risk assessment form. This has an entirely different approach to 00:27:57
addressing the risk of a tree. It looks at the likelihood of impact, the likelihood of failure. From there we look at the 00:28:03
consequences of failure. It's a much more thorough analysis. 00:28:09
A better overall assessment of the tree, and again an industry best practice now. This is the form that's now used. 00:28:15
I do want to note that there was two public outreach periods now, so the first go around in the original revisions we made 00:28:24
available for public review in December. 00:28:28
We encourage interested parties to submit comments through the middle of January. During that time we received 11 emails and many 00:28:32
more before the actual January 30th meeting. 00:28:37
The second public outreach period for the amended revisions were made available for public review on the 27th of March. 00:28:43
Through April 10th, we didn't receive any formal emails during that period, but public input opportunity was announced through 00:28:50
social media, the website and the city manager's newsletter. 00:28:56
So again, in closing, today's feedback process. We are seeking the feedback from the BNRC. I'm not looking to rewrite the code if 00:29:03
the day is here tonight, but I do want your feedback and what you would like to see changed. 00:29:09
In terms of next steps, we will review the feedback that you provide us here. Tonight we will circle back. I'll circle back with 00:29:16
the Arborist and our city attorneys office just to make sure I. 00:29:21
But we can incorporate and then those items will be taken forth to the City Council for review and consideration. 00:29:26
So we'll have a full account of the two meetings that we can come before the BNRC of what you guys recommended, what you proposed 00:29:32
and what the staff recommendation will be. 00:29:36
So with that, that concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time. 00:29:41
Thank you, miss. 00:29:47
Let's go to public comment. 00:29:49
Sally Moore again. I would like to comment about the two. For one, especially with trees at large, most of our lots here in 00:30:01
Pacific Grove are quite small and to have two high canopy trees or two trees in that planted area around homes really is not a 00:30:09
good idea in my opinion. I lost a roof because of a tree that was so close and I had to fill in. But anyway, I think it would be a 00:30:16
good idea if you gave people a choice to put in more trees. 00:30:23
And perhaps with the note, notion and approval of the city, that if it gets too close and too full. 00:30:32
That they would be allowed to take out one of those trees. I just think that would be maybe an incentive, an opportunity and a 00:30:40
solution to that. 00:30:44
I had of course I left my notes at home but I think the non compliance as far as posting. 00:30:50
Umm. 00:30:58
Sorry, going back to the deposit and the refunds, deposits and refunds, the deposit would be OK. I know that you're considering 00:31:02
not having these trees be investigated and checked on every. 00:31:08
Two year up to two years. I'm, I'm sorry I'm not getting this across very well, but I think that the report that we got from 00:31:15
Davies when we did the tree. 00:31:20
Inventory back in 2015 recommended that the city arborist check on these trees. I think every few weeks for the first six months 00:31:26
and then annually to five years. 00:31:31
And if they would do that, that would. 00:31:37
Eliminate some of the need on these deposits and refunds. 00:31:39
It's it's the city's responsibility to follow up on that since it's one of their requirements. I have more notes, but I'm not 00:31:44
doing a very good job on this, so I will let you take it from there. Thank you. 00:31:48
Thank you, Miss Moore. 00:31:54
Thank you. 00:31:56
Hi there, I'm Paul walking Stick. 00:32:07
Relationships take a lot of work. 00:32:11
And I need to be careful with this. 00:32:14
Relationships require trust and respect honest communication. 00:32:16
And being able to trust and communicate honestly takes a great deal of courage, especially if there's been acrimony in the past. 00:32:22
I wanted to recognize the cooperation that I've seen between the city staff and the BNRC on the Title 12 revisions. 00:32:28
Read the revisions by Joyce Halaby and the suggested modifications by the BNRC Tree Subcommittee, and I'm impressed with the 00:32:34
progress so far. 00:32:37
More so, I'm impressed by the courage shown by the parties involved to engage in sincere cooperation. 00:32:42
I hope this is just the beginning of a healthy relationship and that this cooperation can continue through the development of 00:32:49
Title 12 and future projects. 00:32:53
Thank you very much. 00:32:57
Thank you. 00:33:01
We do have some virtual participants with their hands raised. I'll start with. 00:33:11
Lisa Cioni. 00:33:17
Thank you. 00:33:21
First, I just wonder if perhaps public works outreach method should be upgraded since they elicited no written public comment on a 00:33:24
hot topic within. 00:33:29
Within their deadline. 00:33:34
But I agree with the tree subcommittee's comments and many of the amendments. I have several others. In addition, the approved 00:33:37
removal of the entire tree canopy of the ATC site for a hotel is appalling. 79 mature trees, including 52 Monterey Cypress, some 00:33:45
of them public St. trees, and a species to be preserved according to PG's LCP Policy Bio 7 as character defining for PG and Policy 00:33:53
BIO 18 calls for maintaining. 00:34:01
And enhancing Monterey Cyprus stands among other species. 00:34:09
Implementing Ordinance 2391. Sixty B3C specifies trees that contribute to the scenic coastal character are retained as a minimum 00:34:13
requirement for a landscape plan for coastal zone projects. Yet that ordinance was disregarded in the permit for the ATC hotel 00:34:19
project with no explanation. 00:34:26
I believe the LCP ordinances pertaining to trees should be included by reference and policies to in Title 12 and protections for 00:34:33
native and character defining trees should be strengthened in the revisions. If the developers only preserved half or even a third 00:34:41
of the 52 Monterey, Cyprus on the ATC site, it would be a significant improvement. Please address this concern in the revisions. 00:34:49
Also, BNRC should be consulted regarding tree removal during construction and I don't believe that's addressed. 00:34:58
Regarding 1203010, the term critical root zone, generally described as one foot beyond the drip line of trees, should be retained. 00:35:07
PG Urban Forestry Standards use a different definition, but Tree Protection zone in that document refers the reader, the reader to 00:35:16
critical root zone. The idea is to protect the critical root zone, the trunk and the canopy of trees during construction. 00:35:26
I address these concerns in my written comments for your January meeting 23/03/06 needs. 00:35:37
I don't know 23030306 needs to use urban forestry standards to address resolution of conflicts between trees and sidewalks, and in 00:35:45
12O7O1A visual bird nesting survey should be performed by a qualified biologist during an accurately defined nesting season. 00:35:56
Thank you for your close attention to this matter. I could not do the thorough review I would have liked and hope further changes 00:36:08
will be made. And just before the meeting I sent you my comments so you could see the ordinance section numbers. Thank you. 00:36:15
Thank you. 00:36:25
And now we have Carmelita Garcia. 00:36:29
Thank you very much. 00:36:34
So in reviewing the clean copy, page 13. 00:36:36
Regarding the permit requirement for substantial pruning of more than 25% of a protected tree. 00:36:41
I believe a permit should be required for any pruning, any amount of pruning of a protected tree. 00:36:48
This would allow an opportunity for staff to educate the public about pruning. 00:36:54
And also perhaps to review a list of appropriate tree replacement. 00:37:01
Page 1312 dot O3 dot O4-O. 00:37:08
Standards for review criteria for substantial pruning of protected trees. There's no mention of adhering to 12.07 wildlife 00:37:12
protection, specifically 12.07 point 018, and I feel strongly that that should be included in that particular section. 00:37:20
OK. And then so going to page 16. 00:37:37
Where states the arborist discretion or has a discretionary right to approve or amend A hazardous rating. 00:37:41
What is not clear is, is the arborist challenging? 00:37:47
A report done by by an independent arborist. 00:37:51
And would the arborist be required to note findings as to why they are amending the report or Green or disagreeing? 00:37:56
And then finally this this last add-on with regards to emergency. 00:38:04
My dog's barking. 00:38:12
The 12.10. 00:38:15
I'm sorry, hold on. 00:38:23
Well, anyway, it's it's that new section they add about emergencies that. 00:38:25
Yeah, 12.10 point 010 emergency action. OK, so I'm not sure where this came from, but I feel it's pretty drastic and. 00:38:30
Quite frankly, it's opening a Pandora's box, historically speaking. It'd be nice to have the data that. 00:38:41
This is being based on as to how many of these types of situations all-encompassing have there been to warrant such a drastic and 00:38:48
potentially devastating section to Title 12? 00:38:54
So I would ask that. 00:39:00
That be discussed, rewritten, and my preference would be just to eliminate it. I think these protections could be incorporated 00:39:02
into what's being presented. 00:39:07
Anyway, thank you. 00:39:13
And now we have Ingo Lawrence and. 00:39:23
Chair and members of the committee, I certainly would never ever. 00:39:29
Question your sincerity in all of this. 00:39:34
But I do question. 00:39:38
The City of Pacific Grove. 00:39:40
And their motivation? 00:39:43
Which just seems to be greed in allowing, in spite of our protections, the clear cutting of two blocks of 79 trees, 52 protected. 00:39:46
At the ATC site. 00:40:02
Which just devastates my neighborhood. These trees are the character of the entrance to Pacific Grove and any city that allows 00:40:04
this to happen. I do question what good. 00:40:12
Are all these revisions really going to be? 00:40:20
Thank you very much. 00:40:25
Thank you. 00:40:29
Now we have Amanda Briefs. 00:40:31
Yeah. Hi there. This is Amanda Priest from the Monterey Audubon Society. Thanks so much for all the work that's been done on this 00:40:37
document, working with Title 12. I really like those ideas for the replant compliance and how to get folks to follow up with that. 00:40:45
I appreciate the reinserting. Having the arborist being the main decision maker for tree related activities, that just feels 00:40:54
really straightforward and like we're relying on a an expert to make some of these decisions. I was also going to point out that I 00:41:01
do also agree with the the B&R CS Tree committee updates here in the Wildlife protection section, especially related to the bird 00:41:09
nesting season. The note about. 00:41:16
Including all North American bird species, not just Raptor or migratory bird nest, I think is really helpful and also that the 00:41:24
survey should be conducted no more than 10 days prior to tree removal. Little songbirds can make nest super fast and it's good to 00:41:30
do it as soon as possible before any of that vegetation or tree removal is occurring. So just I support all of your edits that you 00:41:37
made to this. 00:41:43
This document and thanks so much for continuing to work on this. 00:41:51
Thank you. 00:41:57
No further hands raised. 00:42:00
Great. Thank you everybody for your comments. 00:42:04
The tree subcommittee has a. 00:42:07
A slide show presentation I. 00:42:11
I'm imagining this as kind of an interactive slideshow, so we have put together several revisions and want to talk about them 00:42:15
within kind of a bullet point. 00:42:20
Slideshow but. 00:42:26
If you have anything that you'd like to add, or a comment about it or disagreement or. 00:42:28
Just anything, please. This is interactive, OK? 00:42:35
Commissioner Gorman. 00:42:39
I will try and go through it relatively quickly. 00:43:15
And just kind of hit some of the highlights, if you will. Again, we do appreciate. Oh, next slide please. 00:43:19
We do appreciate the positive changes and amendments that were made based on our last January's feedback that meant a lot. We'd 00:43:25
love seeing of course, as we've heard again just from Miss Amanda about the return of arbors is the qualified professional 00:43:32
throughout the document and that the appeals process remained with the BNRC. 00:43:38
Also, we do appreciate the organization, the reorganization that's been done to streamline and clean up and reduce redundancies. 00:43:46
That's very helpful for sure. Although I think we've heard a little bit sometimes every mention of something can be helpful as 00:43:51
well, just maybe more concisely. 00:43:56
Next slide please. 00:44:03
These were some of the highlights or some of the things that we discussed. We'll hit a few specifics this evening, but again, 00:44:05
please, if you want to interject anything, please do so and stop me at any time. The canopy coverage was a big revision that I 00:44:12
know that you guys did incorporate some good language. 00:44:19
That was added. We do think it's still equally important though to restore the original cities target goal of 33%. 00:44:28
Of coverage. 00:44:35
Simply because it supports the city's environmental stewardship goal, it helps keep us on track. I understand data or we haven't 00:44:38
really been successful in assessing where we're at with that, but that is something that we can address. We can do a tree survey. 00:44:44
We can see, we can begin to collect data and see where we can move forward. And so I think we had shown it. It could be placed 00:44:50
back in the findings section. 00:44:56
As well, I think it may be helpful to be placed there. 00:45:03
We'll touch on protected trees, the replanting requirements as we've heard, and some wildlife protection add-ons. 00:45:07
Next slide please. 00:45:18
Again with the canopy coverage, I think one of the things basically either the same language that was in it that's in the current 00:45:21
ordinance would be helpful or some sort of combination thereof that's been provided that you see on the screen before you with the 00:45:28
addition of when that 25 year citywide canopy covered target was established which was 2012. You know we're not halfway through. 00:45:35
So I think it's important that we leave it in place as a reminder. 00:45:43
And just help us to continue to develop and implement those programs to maximize the opportunities for the planting of public 00:45:51
trees and then hopefully we can track the changes. 00:45:55
For assisting our whole accomplishing the long term forestry goal, and it is long term. 00:46:01
Clearly it's not going to happen overnight. 00:46:07
So. 00:46:10
I have been thinking also that. 00:46:13
Everything you just said is dependent upon. 00:46:15
Our creating. 00:46:19
A timeline for a census. First the tree census to be done, so maybe that could bear some thought also like, do we want to write 00:46:22
that a tree census will be done every year, every five years, every 10 years and put that into this? 00:46:31
Think that there's some discussion because otherwise. 00:46:40
We're going to languish without knowing. 00:46:44
OK, is there a discussion that wants to? 00:46:48
Is there discussion on a tree census? 00:46:52
It's like a survey. A survey. 00:46:56
Possible. It's. 00:46:59
That is something that. 00:47:05
Would need to be funded annually or at whatever interval, and so, depending on the Council's priorities and the available funding 00:47:07
at that time, the language. 00:47:11
Could in theory be added to the code, but the implementation piece is really the difficult piece. Again, that's something that 00:47:15
could be inserted in the Urban Forestry Standards, which provides much more of the technical specifications for implementing Title 00:47:21
12, and personally I feel like it would be better placed in the Urban Forestry Standards. 00:47:26
And then it's something that we could. 00:47:32
Remind our councils at whatever interval is determined, that that's a goal that's included in the urban forestry standards. 00:47:35
Makes sense. I think that's good advice. 00:47:43
Thank you. 00:47:46
OK. Any other thoughts on canopy cover, you know about how much that would cost? 00:47:48
I don't. It would obviously fluctuate and go up each year. We do have competitive. 00:47:54
Good processes that we have to follow. So there's a time element in that and then just as things as inflation rises and things 00:48:00
become more costly, it would be thousands of dollars. 00:48:05
I don't know how much specifically though. When was the last time we had one? 00:48:10
Oh, I believe it was 2015. Yeah, 2015 around then. Yeah, 2015. I don't know what the cost of that one was. 00:48:15
That would be helpful for a variety of of things. 00:48:25
I think annually might, you know, would maybe be a little much too much, but you know, maybe once every three to five years. 00:48:32
Would be appropriate, and I do think that would be beneficial for. 00:48:40
Not only this particular. 00:48:44
Purpose but. 00:48:46
OK, Commissioner Breslin, I have a question actually about the canopy. Are we striving towards kind of a multi story? 00:48:58
Native, biodiverse. 00:49:06
Canopy and. 00:49:09
What are we actually planting at this point? So it's kind of a a broader definition of canopy. 00:49:11
Are we looking at? 00:49:20
You know, I middle low. 00:49:21
Trees and replanting. 00:49:25
I think as it relates to the goal that was included, it was just overall canopy coverage as a percentage. When we go to do and we 00:49:28
require replants and we replant trees as the city, we are planting upper or lower canopy depending on what was removed. 00:49:35
So we do encourage both. Again, it's dependent on the type of tree that was removed in terms of what we're looking for is 00:49:43
replacement. But I think the goal speaks to the overall percentage. 00:49:48
Thank you. If there are no other comments on Canopy coverage, I'll move to the next slide. 00:49:57
OK, protected trees will be a few slides on this. One of the things that we noticed was the removal and I don't know if I'm 00:50:04
pronouncing it correctly, the Gowan Cypress. 00:50:09
I know one of the track changes we had suggested was that it be actually placed. 00:50:15
Back in the ordinance, because it exists now, I understand it's not probably a prevalent tree in Pacific Grove, but because it is 00:50:21
a federally threatened species, I think it's important that it remain. It's been, you know, in the ordinance. 00:50:27
So I'm not sure quite the point of removal. Even if we don't have that many, we'd want to protect whatever we did have left. 00:50:35
I know one of the other discussion points we have was the trunk diameter 6 inches versus 12 inches for protected trees. I know the 00:50:44
current ordinance protects all public trees at six inches. 00:50:50
In diameter and all public St. trees, regardless of size. However, that's been eliminated in the rewrite. I think it should be 00:50:56
restored whether that's gelled with the mention of the private trees. 00:51:04
But then the private trees are only being protected at. 00:51:13
Is it 12 inches? 00:51:17
I know some Sydney city ordinances I think protect all protected trees at six inches, so I don't know what the compromise should 00:51:21
be, but I do think we're moving. 00:51:25
The public trees at six inches. 00:51:29
I think we should be looking to restore that reinsert. 00:51:32
Then and I'll finish all the the other ones and then you guys we can open this up for discussion. For George Washington Park, it's 00:51:37
currently delegated to just the monarch sanctuary the known the historic site if you will. 00:51:43
We believe the entire park should be protected and considered a monarch overwintering site. It's only one of two remnant pine 00:51:51
forests and Pacific Grove. It's the original monarch overwintering site that's not man made. 00:51:58
So our goal should be to protect the entire site. I know neighbors kind of like that was mentioned before with the pupping season, 00:52:06
neighbors needing to be notified of noise restrictions and things like that. I know neighbors of George Washington Park and the 00:52:11
Sanctuary are also asked. 00:52:16
To probably refrain from trimming trees and things like that, so to me, the entire park should be protected. 00:52:22
And then lastly, the tree protection zone and who we talked about that a little bit, I am glad to hear Miss Halibut, you kind of 00:52:29
answered it that it is more protective to refer to it as the tree protection zone. I still think it would be helpful to have maybe 00:52:35
a definition written into the ordinance assuming that's the ISA standard or the more. 00:52:41
Widely accepted right now term. I think the definition would be very helpful. And then two I don't know and we didn't put this in 00:52:48
our tract changes or suggestions, but if conditions or specific mitigation strategies or measures can be listed when it comes to 00:52:53
development or. 00:52:59
Construction. 00:53:06
You know what specific measures individuals should be taking? You know, I've seen it in other codes as well where it is. Or maybe 00:53:07
it's their supplemental documents, but that might be helpful too. 00:53:12
Food for thought. 00:53:19
Oh, we don't have to move on yet. We can see if anybody. 00:53:21
What is the definition of tree protection zone? Is that in in the? 00:53:25
Forestry standard. 00:53:31
Where is that, Commissioner Myers? All of the definitions are in the Urban Forestry Standards. 00:53:33
The presentation sort of mentioned we will have to go back and update that. So right now it mentions tree protection zone and 00:53:38
critical root zone. 00:53:41
And it kind of uses the same definition for both uses them interchangeably. So we would need to update that to reflect the 00:53:45
industry best practices and provide. 00:53:49
A formal definition for tree protection. Given that that's the case, I think it's. 00:53:54
It's usually better to just have a definition in one document rather than having because if there's a change to it, then you know 00:54:00
where to change it, you know where to look to see what the definition is. So if it's going to be in the urban forestry standards, 00:54:05
that's I think that's the place for it. That'd be sufficient. 00:54:11
Just a note though that critical root zone and tree protection zone their industries industry standards so that you can Google the 00:54:21
definition. It's not like. 00:54:26
It's not like Pacific Grove made it up for our document, OK? 00:54:32
Yeah, I agree. If if if the definition is accurate in the urban forestry standards, then just one place and then these things are 00:54:39
interchangeable. I agree with that. Yeah, for consistency. That makes sense. I'm just going to say I like the critical root zone 00:54:46
because it's super simple to calculate. You measure the diameter that in inches translates to feet. You don't have to multiply by 00:54:53
anything. And what I like about it even more is that you become aware. Oh. 00:55:00
Oh, it's a critical root zone. I'm protecting these roots. That means I shouldn't put anything heavy on them. That means like. 00:55:07
It tells me what I'm trying to do, whereas tree protection zone, you kind of look up at the canopy and think what am I trying to 00:55:16
protect here? So to me it doesn't communicate as well as the critical root zone. 00:55:22
But I would support either. I'm not exactly sure why it was changed. They're both very similar in. 00:55:27
In translation, I think if you had a 12 inch. 00:55:36
In diameter tree, the critical root zone would protect 12 feet out, The tree protection zone would protect 15 feet out. But The 00:55:39
thing is, is that when you're on a construction site. 00:55:46
How does that translate? Like, have you ever in your whole life seeing the orange finching 12 to 15 out from a tree? 00:55:53
In the construction zone, so I don't know that. 00:56:03
Changing it. 00:56:08
Is going to translate to actual action of a more protected tree, so that's why I'd be good with. 00:56:09
Either I guess my understanding of it from my. 00:56:18
Translation. Is that a tree protection zone? In my head seems like the more protected, but I think a definition with. 00:56:23
Umm. Within the Urban forestry standard is sufficient and. 00:56:31
Maybe if there's like a subsection of that that talks about critical root zone, Even if I mean just as an idea, I'm just throwing 00:56:37
this out here. 00:56:41
And when you bring up like construction and or development? 00:56:46
We're talking more about enforcement than. 00:56:53
Like what's happening versus which I think is a whole nother topic, so we can move on those sides. Sorry. 00:56:56
Any thoughts on either the trunk diameter? 00:57:02
Or anything else or GWP. 00:57:06
Or the gallon Cypress. 00:57:10
I thought all those were great. Me too. 00:57:12
The why, the next one? We were looking about reinserting or really clarification under the criteria for removal of protected 00:57:54
trees. 00:57:59
Again, just more of an explanation that should be preserved if feasible, because again, they can serve as windbreak, wildlife 00:58:05
habitat, etcetera. So again, it's just putting back in something that already exists in the ordinance. Now I know the 2 add-ons, 00:58:10
6:00 and 7:00. 00:58:15
Also on page 30. Sorry this is page 13 if anyone was looking it was regarding trees. 00:58:21
That might be affecting public hardscape. 00:58:27
And also then it suggested the potential to remove any tree species. I think those additions just pose too much risk and made it 00:58:30
too easy to have a tree removed if it upset a sidewalk. If I look around Pacific Grove, I think most trees bother a sidewalk. Yes, 00:58:36
it's umm on. 00:58:41
The city version it's page 12. 00:58:48
On the BNRC clean copy it's been OK yeah, so I can track copy. I think for both would be 12 or 13. Sorry tracked. 00:58:50
Yeah, yeah. 00:58:59
And then with the calf fire fuel management zone, I think we were just looking for parameters or clarification. I don't know what 00:59:01
that involves. That's also concerned that it could just be too massive of an area, just knowing the close proximity of homes and 00:59:08
things like that. So I don't, I don't know what our thoughts are in the Cal Fire or what, how that could be specified or if that's 00:59:14
actually explained thoroughly in the urban forestry standards. 00:59:21
But Even so, I think we'd be worried about. 00:59:28
Too many trees potentially being at risk. 00:59:32
Miss Halvey, do you have any comments on the Cal Fire fuel management zone? 00:59:35
From now on there is reference to the. 00:59:42
Fuel management zone, specifically an urban forestry standards in greater detail and it is like defined by Cal Fire as an agency, 00:59:47
I believe it's 100 feet, but there is specific like a specific section for fuel management in the open forestry standards. Yeah, I 00:59:53
think the 100 feet was what was concerning. 00:59:58
In certain areas, right, of just being proximity? 01:00:05
To structures things right. 01:00:10
So I looked up that section of the Urban Forestry Standards and it actually refers to Van Winkle. I don't even think George 01:00:15
Washington Park is. 01:00:19
Mentioned and then. 01:00:23
I put in a call to our Fire Chief who's our Fire Chief now So we're there's an interim one and who ended up speaking with was. 01:00:25
Jennifer Valdez, who I think is the assistant, and she was. 01:00:35
Good to talk with because she actually spent 20 years with Cal Fire and retired and now she's working for the city of Monterey in 01:00:41
that position in her retirement. So she's very knowledgeable and I explained the situation to her at George Washington Park about 01:00:48
how you have the 25 feet of the front yards of the home and then you have the road and then you have the MO zone and and wood with 01:00:54
a new fire. Chief, would we be held to the 100 foot standard? 01:01:01
Because that's a. 01:01:08
Standard, but it was. 01:01:09
Created for a rural community and she offered to come do a walkthrough with us and was very reassuring that they leave one dead 01:01:12
snag per acre and seemed very sensitive to. 01:01:19
To working with parks and and all viewpoints and wanted to come essentially participate in in educating us and was. 01:01:27
It was like reassuring that no, you're 30. 01:01:40
Foot MO zone is plenty. You don't need more, so it would be. 01:01:45
Good to. 01:01:51
See her in person I think and and figure out because it is. It's a weird thing where you've got this 100 foot that everybody's 01:01:53
stating but is no one enforcing it or like what's going on and why not So to get that why not really clear. 01:02:00
I think would be good for us to organize a walkthrough, so maybe that would be revisited then in the urban forestry standards 01:02:08
perhaps? 01:02:11
I have a question about that. Does Public Works have a relationship with Cal Fire? I'm not sure who it is that does the. 01:02:16
Determination of the management zone. 01:02:25
I assume there's somebody that we've been using. 01:02:29
So we would typically consult with our fire department. 01:02:32
In our fire. 01:02:35
Folks on staff, in terms of fuel management zone, again, it's clearly defined in the Urban forestry standards. There's a section 01:02:37
of fuel management and a subsection specific to trees. 01:02:41
Because fuel management is a broader topic and it does say 100 feet. 01:02:45
And it's more providing guidance in terms. 01:02:51
Trimming branches and live branches and what the clearances should be, what their prune height should be. 01:02:55
Stuff like that to prevent a. 01:03:01
If there was a fire again that fuel. 01:03:04
Management remediation activities. So it's pretty clear in the in the Urban Forestry standards. We can make a stronger reference 01:03:08
in the code to the Urban Forestry Standards, maybe in that section to make it more clear to reference. 01:03:14
Urban Forestry Standards section. 01:03:20
Yeah. And we can more clearly call it out and I think that might. 01:03:23
Alleviate some of the concerns here. I do also want to note that. 01:03:26
10 Standards and criteria for removal of protected trees are what will need to be reviewed by AL. So anyone could say you know I 01:03:30
have a tree that meets parameters 2-3 and four. But I would verify that because we often do get applicants where applications or 01:03:37
somebody really does want to trim above that 25% threshold or a significant amount and now reviews the application or whoever the 01:03:45
city arborist is at the time and can say you know there are other remediation activities that you can take. 01:03:53
And you don't need to do this. 01:04:01
This specific action and they oftentimes will work with an applicant to figure out what those remediation tactics could be. 01:04:03
So that we're protecting the trees in the best way possible. So I just want to call that out specifically as it relates to six and 01:04:11
seven that you mentioned because yes, we know the hard skates are impacted and we do often work with the applicants too. 01:04:17
Remediate in other ways, but again, we do want to make a code that's implementable that works with our residents here, so we're 01:04:24
not entirely tying their hands. So again, these are just criteria for review by the city arborist to determine if. 01:04:30
If there are not other ways, other avenues that can be taken. 01:04:37
Thank you. Any other comments? 01:04:43
OK, we can go on to the oh wait, wait wait. 01:04:47
So. 01:04:51
Hang on, so we in the. 01:04:54
In the tree subcommittee recommendations, we eliminated 6, right? 01:04:58
6 seconds. 01:05:03
Yes, six and seven. 01:05:05
Which was the public regarding public hardscape? 01:05:07
All right, I guess I'm in the wrong. 01:05:14
Hard speeds and species size. 01:05:18
So it's referring to hard hardscapes in section 6 and seven is the tree or theories is of a specific size and or character such 01:05:23
that removal and replacement with a more appropriate tree species will enhance the city's urban forest. OK, so I would support 01:05:30
that because I think what it does is say. 01:05:38
Hey, we are entering into a new era where we want to reduce hardscape. There are. 01:05:46
Other ways to do it out there? There are other materials for. 01:05:54
Hardscape that is a. 01:05:59
What just needs to be minorly repaired and then what's been left is the. 01:06:03
When the hardscape has been, how did they say when infrastructure has been like, mutually like it was a? 01:06:10
A big problem, Well number six specifically actually really is referring to public though property I believe, not private or it 01:06:18
does say the trees. The tree is interfering with the use and function of public sidewalks, curb gutter pavement, or other public 01:06:24
improvements and cannot be retained through root pruning or reasonable modifications of the affected public improvements. So I 01:06:31
think this one is just to clarify, this one is more about public trees not. 01:06:37
Private, I think. 01:06:44
And that was our concern, just because I know we have so many. 01:06:46
Paved and. 01:06:50
Hardscape services through the town that it just makes it. 01:06:51
I don't know. Too easy to remove a tree. 01:06:55
Rather than work around it. 01:06:58
And how do you see? 01:07:05
Public safety. 01:07:08
Fitting in that there are mitigation strategies without necessarily removal, right? I know you've come up with the OR I've seen 01:07:09
the different sidewalk where you can grade them differently or put different surfaces with metal and other things 'cause that's 01:07:14
important as well. 01:07:20
Yeah. So I think that was that. 01:07:26
Purpose of changing that section? 01:07:30
Yeah. So this section was actually newly added. We didn't have criteria for substantially pruning. 01:07:35
Umm, trees in that way. So we did add that in terms of public safety to your point, I think in large part you know public access 01:07:43
ADA requirements. 01:07:47
Things like that are essential that we comply with and this sort of helps us again if we can't take any other remedial action and 01:07:52
ensure you would need to be removed, that's when that. 01:07:57
That would apply. 01:08:02
I would just as always, like to see. 01:08:05
Remedial actions that are broader in scope that are ADA compliant, that have been used in other places, at least be tried. And I 01:08:08
think it's challenging for public works because you're doing something you haven't done before and maybe you're dealing with 01:08:16
additional cost. And so it's just a work in progress. 01:08:24
I guess, but I I didn't wanna see something written in such a way. 01:08:32
That denied the opportunity. 01:08:36
To broaden our scope. 01:08:41
I have a question too about the. 01:08:48
Tree species to be replaced. 01:08:52
By more appropriate. 01:08:55
Tree. Would that be just? 01:08:58
Your recommendation was to. 01:09:01
I don't think just randomly replace a tree. 01:09:05
So the point of that was. Could you explain that? 01:09:09
And this is in reference, Commissioner Luton 10 #7. 01:09:13
Yes, I'm sorry, 7. 01:09:16
So I think the intention here was that. 01:09:18
Someone had requested a tree removal because of the species or character. 01:09:21
Is inappropriate. So sometimes you know a non-native tree or something that needs the protective requirements because of its size. 01:09:26
Has been determined to be. 01:09:33
Inappropriate for that specific location. 01:09:35
And they want to make a request to remove it and replace it with a more appropriate tree. That's when that would factor in. 01:09:38
Again, it's not for us to single out and say, you know, we don't like that tree. We want to remove that and replace it with 01:09:43
something that we think is more appropriate or native, but it would be a resource in the instance that. 01:09:48
That request was. 01:09:54
And the arborist agreed and said, yeah, maybe a more appropriate tree would do better, would have greater survivability, would be 01:09:56
more appropriate for our canopy coverage, would provide. 01:10:01
Habitat for native birds, you know, there's a variety of reasons that that. 01:10:06
Determination could be made, but it's a resource and a tool. 01:10:10
For the arborist to review the applications as they come in. 01:10:14
Thank you. 01:10:19
We can move on then to the next slide. 01:10:26
Protected trees. Once again, this is about the replacement, of course, of protected trees. 01:10:29
We although we do love the concept of replacing a 2 to one for the larger diameter trees of 24 inches. I know we heard some public 01:10:36
comment and that was also in our track changes that it might not be realistic for private properties just because of parcel sizes 01:10:43
being what they are, other trees and things on their property. It's a great goal to shoot for, but it might be very restrictive. 01:10:51
Unless some other you know. 01:10:59
Caveat was mentioned in that I think it's very realistic though of course for the public trees to be replaced at 2:00 to 1:00 01:11:02
regardless really of size. 01:11:07
I think it would be. 01:11:14
But we have a long way to go to get to the 300 plus in addition to. So maybe there could be some caveat where it's private versus 01:11:46
public, where the public makes the effort to do that on public property. 01:11:52
I don't know what your thoughts are on that, but I do know for private properties that could be tricky to have to replace a large 01:11:59
tree with two. 01:12:03
Other trees, even though it's a great. 01:12:07
A great concept. And then again just the canopy coral coverage coverage that we've already mentioned, it's kind of again explains 01:12:10
the why in this section in the 12 point, it's on page 16 of the track copy. I think it's just helpful to kind of reinsert what was 01:12:16
already there. I don't think it's always redundant. 01:12:23
To have such goals. 01:12:31
In there any comments or insights? 01:12:33
Oh, I agree that. 01:12:37
Considering the property sizes here, it's really difficult, even if you're replacing a large tree, to put two trees. 01:12:39
I mean, there are many instances where. 01:12:47
You look at in the retreat for example, the lot sizes are so small, well, especially if we're trying to encourage a like 01:12:49
replacement, right, something that would have eventually have a 24 inch diameter or greater. So that's where I could see the 01:12:56
concern rather than two smaller trees, you know, but we're also trying to maintain a canopy. 01:13:02
Let's say you have a. You have a permit. 01:13:12
And there's a removal of a large tree. 01:13:15
And this would require a replanting of two. 01:13:19
Is there a situation where if it's just not feasible on a lot? 01:13:23
That's the second tree. 01:13:28
Could be. 01:13:30
Requirement could be satisfied by a donation to the public fund. 01:13:33
So the little code reads now is if you cannot comply with the replant requirement on your permit that you would be required to pay 01:13:40
the and low fee. That's the proposed language. So in theory, yes, if the. 01:13:44
Size parameters if the lot only allowed for one. 01:13:50
Then it theoretically. 01:13:54
They would be required to pay the and Luffy for the 2nd. But we do have some language in there because we did think about the fact 01:13:55
that maybe not every lot. 01:14:00
Would allow for a 2 to one. We do have some language in there that says the appropriate configuration. 01:14:04
In size would depend on a series of interrelated. 01:14:09
Factors which ultimately are determined by the city arborist. So if the city arborist was on site and said, you know, that's not 01:14:12
feasible, then the tree permit, you know these are the goals, but the site parameters are going to specify what can actually 01:14:19
happen there. And so what's on the permit could end up being a 1:00 to 1:00 because the size doesn't allow for it and that would 01:14:25
be noted on the permit at that time. I did see that language. Yeah, I saw the language too. I just didn't know if that took. 01:14:31
If if, that basically took away the requirement for the two. 01:14:39
You know what I mean like. 01:14:44
Would like I think that's why I think I think by seeing the chart first do you think this is the mandate but then there's that you 01:14:45
know but if so I just don't know if it was just a rewarding or something where the two for one could still be left in as long as 01:14:52
and we can make that more clear with some language that if the site does not allow for it then it could be 1 to one or if the BNRC 01:14:59
wishes the language could be that the secondary is. 01:15:05
And in Luffy, I'll be that obtained to come to consensus. I like the end of food because then that goes further towards our canopy 01:15:12
goals. 01:15:17
Yeah, yeah. I could see it either way, honestly, because they're either going to plant two or then the city plants the other one. 01:15:24
Either way. 01:15:31
Yeah. Then leaving, yeah. Then actually leaving the two for one could work if it was just cleaned up the language, I think, yeah. 01:15:33
Yeah, because we're all about planting as many trees as possible, but recognizing the size of lots of. 01:15:39
Not always feasible, especially if they already have you know, significant other canopy coverage. OK. 01:15:45
That takes us to the next slide, please. 01:15:54
On wildlife protections. 01:15:57
OK. So there was the one that was on page eight of the tract. 01:16:03
Copy where there's discussion of the the addition of invasive species or how it was added, I just wondered. We thought it would 01:16:09
best to include additional language I. 01:16:15
That said, basically yes, they can be removed unless they're providing habitat and or food for native wildlife species or 01:16:22
significant windbreak or erosion control. Just kind of a. 01:16:28
You know a reason to hold on to a tree if we can, um. 01:16:35
You know again that biodiversity adding trees, even though it may not be. 01:16:39
What we want? 01:16:46
And then further wildlife protection. 01:16:48
As we had, Amanda Priest mentioned changing the language. It was more just a language change rather than Raptor or migratory. I 01:16:52
think it was the terminology of the native North American bird species offers greater protections I think to more bird species. 01:16:59
And then again moving from a 10 day birdness or to survey rather than a 30 because as was mentioned, birds can build nests very 01:17:06
quickly and I think 30 days is just far too. 01:17:12
Lengthy a time period where if a survey was done and then construction. 01:17:20
It would be too late. Why did your slide say 10 day or 30 day because it's basically it's versus versus it currently says 30. 01:17:26
So we would want to change it to 10. 01:17:34
So it's kind of the OR language. So it's there versus what? 01:17:39
What we had recommended. 01:17:44
Any thoughts, comments, questions? 01:17:48
We just have a general thought. There are a couple times where you suggested keeping in kind of more the descriptive language of 01:17:52
why something's important, and that's where I think. 01:17:57
The changes that they've made here to tighten this. 01:18:04
Are kind of better. 01:18:07
Like it could some of that language that doesn't really require you to do anything, it's just kind of descriptive. 01:18:09
Could go in findings. 01:18:16
But it's in many cases, a couple of the cases I was looking at, it's already there. So I don't think it adds anything. I think it 01:18:19
just to me it kind of. 01:18:23
Makes things harder to navigate. 01:18:29
That's my opinion. 01:18:33
Any other thoughts? Maybe a specific example might help. 01:18:36
Street. Street trees. 01:18:41
OK, and St. Trees under findings, you have the language. 01:18:43
Of the advantage of enhance the visual appeal of the business community creating and and I think you wanted to have St. tree, the 01:18:48
advantages of St. trees to be put back into the street tree. 01:18:54
Which I just don't think it really adds anything. 01:19:02
Other comments. 01:19:11
Yes. 01:19:13
I would like to see under that 12.07 point 010 the wildlife protection. 01:19:15
That the. 01:19:22
After it says it says. 01:19:25
The inspection of the nest, the inspection to be performed and then insert by a wildlife biologist, preferably an Audubon 01:19:33
biologist, so. 01:19:38
I felt it was unclear not having it delineated. 01:19:46
Who would be performing the bird nest inspection? 01:19:52
And I felt uncomfortable leaving it with. 01:19:57
The tree service. 01:20:01
Provider. 01:20:02
And just FYI, any native North American bird species is federally protected. 01:20:07
Page 13. 01:20:30
Subtract not clean tracked. 01:20:33
I'm going to apologize, I don't know what page this is on. 01:20:38
But Oh yes, OK. 01:20:41
Yeah, page 23 of the tracking copy. 01:20:48
Although it does state if nests or nesting birds are found on the project site, an appropriate buffer plan shall be established by 01:20:53
a biologist and approved by the city arborist prior to work being performed OK. 01:20:59
She just read it. She just was reading. 01:21:14
What it was? 01:21:18
The last sentence. 01:21:19
Seems reasonable. 01:21:22
To have a wildlife biologist I. 01:21:23
Added in Or is that what we're talking about as a who the the the inspection will be performed by? 01:21:27
So add Buy wildlife biologists. 01:21:35
And preferably an Audubon one, because I'm sure I'm not a wildlife biologist, but I bet there's lots of different kinds, so. 01:21:38
I think that's getting very specific. OK, you're not think it might be difficult to? 01:21:47
Enforce or to find somebody. So a wildlife biologist is OK, but not Audubon. Is that what you mean? Yeah. OK, Lisa, it reads 01:21:53
biologists. Now is that sufficient? 01:21:58
Reads biologist if the person doing the original. 01:22:04
Survey. 01:22:09
Says that they find something, but it doesn't require that any specific person be there to conduct the initial survey. 01:22:10
I still, I still tend to agree with Kathy that. 01:22:21
You're creating a really cumbersome process that may not be followed. 01:22:25
So I mean I think having the requirement in here. 01:22:30
Is is good. What do we think of the 10 day versus the 30 day? OK, sure. So consensus there, I think that that's what Amanda. 01:22:34
Recommended. Correct. And I think Amanda recommended a week. 01:22:45
Well, 10 days will offer, yeah. 01:22:50
10 days? Yes. I would recommend what, Amanda? 01:22:53
Proposed. Mm-hmm. Amanda recommended the wildlife technologies, too. 01:22:59
Yeah, so I don't know if that's too specific, but or too hard to track down for a wildlife biologist would be different than an 01:23:06
Audubon wildlife biologist. I mean, I don't even know if there is such a thing. I mean, you'd have to bring them in from. 01:23:12
Washington, DC or slide them in. 01:23:18
Commissioner, OK, so we have consensus on the 10 day rather than 30. 01:23:24
Yeah, I would just recommend on the dates the February 22nd to August 1st. I believe Audubon on their website has. 01:23:30
March 1st. 01:23:39
To end August, so it's slightly different. 01:23:41
It's a little extended. 01:23:45
Is Amanda Breeze still online to? 01:23:48
Comment on that or can we do that? No. We can verify with our contacts that U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife where industry 01:23:52
standard for the nesting survey. So we'll confirm Mr. Hand. 01:23:58
She's here. 01:24:05
I don't know that we can. I don't know if we can't even. Sorry I made the recommendation. 01:24:13
OK. Well, we will go with industry standard. 01:24:20
For the for the timeline and then maybe we can reach out, do some outreach and find out and then. 01:24:23
Consult with Amanda on that one. 01:24:30
OK. That would be helpful. OK. And then our last slide before allowing just open discussion or continued discussion unless you 01:24:34
have anything right now, no okay. Next slide please. Yeah, you're already there. Sorry, permits and time frames. These were just a 01:24:40
couple of. 01:24:46
I guess logistics if you will, but on page 24 of the tract copy, if anybody is looking at it where we were hoping to reinsert 01:24:54
what's already in the current ordinance about the BNRC instead of the hearing officer panel to review potentially review appeals 01:25:02
regarding development. I do think in light of the recently approved development project that will permit the removal of 79 trees, 01:25:10
52 of which as we know are protected Monterey Cypress, it's more important I think than ever for the BNRC to review. 01:25:18
Development applications requesting removal of protected trees. 01:25:27
I know that I think had been asked by the Pope before, I think. 01:25:31
Things certain development doesn't come through us. I don't know when all of that should, but perhaps in cases like these. 01:25:35
So I think it would be helpful to have that language added. 01:25:43
And and to return or restore the BNRC as a potential review. 01:25:46
Rather than the hearing officer panel and then in terms of public noticing requirements and appeals, both on page 25 and 27 K. 01:25:52
I know that it says 30 days were marked. I think it's just to allow the public out of adequate time for appeal because I think it 01:26:02
was 10 days and so 30 we just felt gave the public more time to respond. 01:26:08
Should they have a reason to appeal? 01:26:16
So I do have a question about that. 01:26:20
I I don't know that 10 days is certain. It's certainly not excessive, but 30 days it seems to me. 01:26:24
If you're if you have a project like if you're a homeowner and you have a project going on, a 30 day requirement before you can do 01:26:31
anything, I think is. 01:26:36
Could be a real issue be accessible for a homeowner? 01:26:41
And I do have also a question about the posting requirements. Can I ask that now go ahead so when a treaty? 01:26:45
Permit is issued, there's a posting requirement. 01:26:57
That involves tagging the tree that's being requested to, being takedown taken down if that's in somebody's backyard. 01:27:01
It's not publicly. 01:27:10
Viewed and. 01:27:12
There has to be a posting on public property somewhere nearby, but where is that? 01:27:14
I mean, is it a telephone pole? Is it? 01:27:21
You know, how do people get notified in the neighborhood for example? Specifically is what I'm thinking. 01:27:24
Because it doesn't seem like. 01:27:33
So I have friends for example. 01:27:36
Who have had neighbors take trees down in their backyard and there was no. 01:27:40
Noticeable posting anywhere. 01:27:45
And so they were rather shocked when the trees were taken down. 01:27:48
Yes, So Commissioner Wooten, the code reads currently and we're not proposing any changes to this section that. 01:27:52
The notice should be posted. 01:28:00
2 identical notices 1 on the tree, the other on public property within 200 feet of the property on which the subject, tree or 01:28:02
trees is located in positions clearly visible to the public and on the city's website. 01:28:09
So those are the requirements in addition to on the trade has to be. 01:28:16
Publicly visible and then we also post information on our website through that tree permit portal. 01:28:20
So just to comment on that, I remember trees were taken down at the golf course at some point in the last five years and the 01:28:26
notice? 01:28:30
That was posted on. 01:28:35
A telephone pole in the area was like this little teeny notice, and it wasn't in front of anybody's house or anything like that. 01:28:37
But it was not publicly. 01:28:42
It wasn't apparent to people. 01:28:47
And I'm just wondering if there's a way that we could. 01:28:50
Consider doing something more prominent. 01:28:54
So that people are aware. 01:28:57
That doesn't have to be a discussion tonight, because probably it would be a long discussion, but. 01:28:59
All right. I feel like people in the community are concerned about trees and somehow it would be a great thing to be able to. 01:29:06
Notify more people of when a tree permit is being issued are being requested. 01:29:17
Before it's issued. 01:29:23
And that's exactly why I was supporting the 30 days noticing of a tree coming down. It's saying the same thing if someone walks a 01:29:25
certain route every day or if they're out of town and then they come back in town and see a notice up about a tree. It's like, Oh 01:29:32
my gosh, I've only got 2 days to. 01:29:39
Write an appeal, right? So maybe 30 days because of what you said about a project is too long, but I would like to see it be 01:29:46
expanded to maybe 20 days. 01:29:51
And then I'm just looking at the length of this room. I always thought 200 feet was kind of excessive and I suspect the leak 01:29:56
length of this room was probably 40 or 50 feet. 01:30:00
And if that's the case, if 100 feet, like to me, 100 feet from a tree that's gonna be cut down is reasonable. But 200 feet you're 01:30:06
kinda like where's the tree? And you have to walk a few houses to get there. So I would support a change to decrease that. 01:30:14
Posting of 200 feet in each direction and maybe that would help. 01:30:24
I may comment on that chair rocking stick. It says within 200 feet. So I think it's depending on the site and the specific 01:30:28
parameters where you know where the tree removal request is occurring. We obviously do our best to make sure that it is prominent 01:30:34
and visible because we know that there's a heavy interest in trees and tree removals and we want to provide folks that opportunity 01:30:40
to see that you know, work is going to be happening and if they so choose to appeal. 01:30:46
So you can say no more than 200 feet maybe. 01:30:53
I think the 200 feet is a fair distance and I if we're going to. 01:30:57
If 30 days is too long, but ten days isn't enough, I think somewhere you know the 20 day mark is a more fair. 01:31:05
Time frame, just so people can who? 01:31:11
Walking by and hadn't seen it, but then they do see it. Like your examples of somebody coming back into town. Those are my my 01:31:15
thoughts and feels on it. 01:31:19
I could see a compromise as well. 10 days maybe too little, 30 days maybe too long. 01:31:25
OK. 01:31:34
OK. And final slide please. Oh, sorry, you had a comment. 01:31:38
Yeah, I'd like to comment. I agree with you, Commissioner Berman, on the hearing officer. 01:31:45
Panel regarding development. 01:31:51
I do have concerns, especially when we have protected treaties or we have multiple trees with development and construction, so I 01:31:55
really think. 01:32:00
Given that, we are to advise on natural resources that BNRC should be reviewing. 01:32:06
These development construction concerns. 01:32:14
I don't understand what is being done now. 01:32:22
In that regard. 01:32:25
Right, Miss Hobby, can you speak on that? Yeah, there was a section in the in the code as currently written that speaks to tree 01:32:26
removal requests associated with development. So essentially when they apply for their planning. 01:32:33
Architectural review both permits, whatever permit that they're applying for up at the Community Development department. The tree 01:32:40
removal request is an element of that permit, so AL gets brought in. 01:32:45
As a part of their planning permit. So they don't get a standalone tree permit, but the tree permit is an element of the planning 01:32:50
permit that they're applying for. 01:32:54
So Al gets taken in. He provides his feedback on that individual permit. The language that's being referenced here is if. 01:32:59
Wants to bring forward a permit because he feels it's contentious or something like that. Then he has the power to bring that to 01:33:05
the BNRC for consideration and for feedback. 01:33:10
OK. And the? 01:33:15
Community development. 01:33:17
Also watch us over that. 01:33:19
I'm not sure I understand in other words, when somebody applies for a development permit, correct? 01:33:23
These trees that are coming down. 01:33:30
Have to be permitted. 01:33:35
Correct. And so in their conditions of approval for their permit would be the replant requirements. They would also be subject to 01:33:37
going before any boards associated with that specific development project, so Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, 01:33:42
whatever the case may be depending on the permit. 01:33:47
So there's an entirely kind of separate process if it's associated with a community development permit, OK. 01:33:52
So would it be redundant for the BNRC to also look at that? 01:34:00
I'm just asking. 01:34:04
You know, because that that means there's so many levels. 01:34:06
City involvement. 01:34:10
And it's interesting if it's currently written that could the contention's contentious ones would come before the BNRC, and I 01:34:12
don't know in the history of any recently that have. 01:34:17
Been brought forth. Maybe that's something to that's one of the reasons that I think it should be left in, but then. 01:34:24
You know, actually. 01:34:30
Utilized Uh. 01:34:32
If there is cause for concern like the big project. 01:34:35
For example, yeah, I think there's cause for concern when we are looking at. 01:34:39
Protected trees and multiple trees with construction, so it seems to me. 01:34:44
And again, I don't quite know how this is working at this point. 01:34:50
But seems to me it should be coming to through BNRC. 01:34:54
Earlier than later, and I'm not sure I agree with the. 01:34:59
Unilateral decision maker of of one person, even if it is an arborist. 01:35:05
Would be my thought on that. 01:35:11
OK, so I had this question, so I made a meeting with Karen Vaughn at the Community Development Department and and George was there 01:35:18
too and it's. 01:35:25
It's a little confusing actually. And what it really. So it's supposed to work in a certain way where the city arbors goes out and 01:35:32
then they hire a project arborist and then they confer. And then the city arborist is supposed to evaluate the construction impact 01:35:38
analysis plan on the trees. And this is all put into a tree report. And the problem we're having now is that our city arborist is 01:35:45
available less than five hours a week. So it's kind of like the project is going to keep going whether our city arborist is able 01:35:51
to get there or not. 01:35:58
And so how? I'm reading under and so it speaks to the need of a full time forester 100%. But how? I'm then looking at Andre's. 01:36:05
Comment and proposal is. 01:36:16
Could the BNRC in any way help help that process and and I don't really know the answer. 01:36:20
To that, but what I do know is that the most descriptive. 01:36:27
City document I've read on the. 01:36:35
On that process is called the three Guidelines during Development document. 01:36:37
Information Bulletin #29. 01:36:45
And I don't know if it's part of Title 23, but undoubtedly it's linked to Title 23 and I think it should be linked to this section 01:36:48
of Title 12 because I think it would really clarify. 01:36:56
The steps of the process. 01:37:06
Regarding trees. 01:37:08
As mentioned on page 25, we do make reference to a Title 23 for zoning at one point. Is there something that we could put in as a 01:37:20
link to into Title 12 in A? 01:37:27
An idea like this where it is relevant? 01:37:36
Yes, yes. 01:37:41
So I have. 01:37:43
Let's see. I know that I have the last sentence of 12.03, point 03. 01:37:47
That it would be good to link it there. 01:37:53
There is a section 12 point O, 4 treason development. Sorry, that's exactly it. So 12 point O, 4 point O1 O. And I said and I said 01:38:02
and I really appreciated how you streamline that language and I recognize a lot of that language as coming straight from that tree 01:38:08
guidelines. It was really similar. And so I I said, you know I don't care where you throw in the link, throw it into 12.0 four 01:38:15
.010 or 12 point 04.020, but I think it would be really good to have. 01:38:21
That link in there for. 01:38:28
And then just to kind of restate the the other. 01:38:37
Piece of it, which was the BNRC leaving that one in place on the 12.08 which is page 24 in the tract. Simply because I guess if 01:38:42
there was a reason by a special circumstances that it could come before the BNRC where I don't know that it has, we know the last 01:38:49
time that's even ever happened. 01:38:55
I don't know. I don't. But this does allow the arborist an opportunity. 01:39:03
So right. 01:39:08
OK. 01:39:10
Any other thoughts on that? 01:39:15
OK. Final slide please. 01:39:19
Which is really just our discussion at this point. We get to continue the discussion whether it's talking about anything that 01:39:22
we've already addressed here this evening or if you have other insights or thoughts throughout the ordinance, It is complex. 01:39:29
Or this is also an opportunity to ask questions? 01:39:36
To staff who may have the answer for us. 01:39:40
So yeah. 01:39:43
I'd like to thank the tree committee for doing such a great job, terrific job analyzing the. 01:39:46
Complicated code. And also to Joyce and other city staff for all the work that they've put in on it, yes, I mean, it's really, I'd 01:39:53
like to reiterate that I appreciate all the modifications that you made, incorporating all the requests that we had made earlier. 01:40:01
Umm, to me this goes a very long way in in getting. 01:40:10
This amendment updated and you're cheerful. 01:40:16
And listening to us again. So thank you. 01:40:22
I have a couple more things I tried to look at this as how does this align with the City Council goals of? 01:40:27
Creating Sustainable Tree maintenance and then how does it? 01:40:39
Keep everything along that streamlined path and So what I noticed is that the. 01:40:47
All the recommendations for how to maintain a tree are in the Urban Forestry standards and so I would really like to see a link to 01:40:54
the Urban Forestry standards in the title 12 and I. 01:41:03
Thought it would be best put in. 01:41:12
On page four of your clean copy, the 12 point 01.010 where. 01:41:16
Here let me get to that point also. 01:41:23
That second paragraph B, where it says accordingly, this title provides regulations relating to the removal and cleaning, and 01:41:32
right there, do you see where I am? 01:41:38
I do then right there, add and general maintenance. 01:41:45
Per the Urban Forestry Standards. 01:41:50
Because throughout this document they talk about. 01:41:57
Appropriate techniques or other maintenance techniques, and it's never defined. And so at least in one place I felt it was 01:42:02
important to cite the. 01:42:07
Document that defines it. 01:42:14
For our city. 01:42:16
And so you're under 12 point O1. 01:42:17
.10 paragraph. 01:42:20
The first sentence, yeah. So it's referenced in the in the sentence here. 01:42:23
Pursuant to the regulations and the Urban Forestry Standards. 01:42:27
OK, but not general maintenance. You talk about removal and pruning and you don't see general maintenance, but the urban forestry 01:42:30
standards is encouraging us to use other methods besides just pruning. 01:42:36
So adding in general maintenance. 01:42:45
I think encourages people to do better by trees and that's all-purpose of this. 01:42:48
And also then aligns us with that City Council goal of sustainable tree maintenance. 01:42:57
So just so I can clarify, you're asking for the addition of the words general maintenance in that? OK. OK. 01:43:06
Get it? 01:43:15
Sorry, so this is in addition to the removal and pruning. So can you give an example of what is already included in the general 01:43:24
maintenance? 01:43:28
That would be included, yeah. Just so one of the things around the critical root zone is to make sure the tree has adequate water. 01:43:32
So is there, you know, runoff from the house that has adequate water? If not, they'll dig a gravel pit and. 01:43:39
So that water can be maintained there. And actually I don't know necessarily, but I know that there's a lot of other things that 01:43:47
can be done for trees in terms of getting them nutrition and water. 01:43:52
And then on page 6. 01:44:01
In the first paragraph. 01:44:14
They're talking. They say such maintenance shall be in full conformance with the Urban Forestry standard and shall be approved by 01:44:19
the city arborist or designee. And I feel it's really important to say only the City arborist, period. And the reason I feel 01:44:26
that's important is that when I went and read Title 23, Title 23 only refers to the City arborist. It doesn't refer to the City 01:44:33
arborist or someone else. So to allow us to actually. 01:44:40
Not contradict our own city code. It's important to keep that. I understand that in in reading title 23 it would say things like 01:44:49
the head planner or or the planning director or designee. And I get that that makes sense because then you have an associate 01:44:56
planner who can do it. They're trained in the same way, but in this way there's no way. 01:45:02
That anyone else in the city has those specific. 01:45:10
Training and characteristics. 01:45:13
OK. And then. 01:45:21
This I had a question about the ANSI 300. 01:45:23
And it's a 12.03 point 030. 01:45:33
Sorry, it's page 13 at the. 01:45:57
At the top so. 01:46:00
It's so it's the very last sentence and. 01:46:06
12 point. 01:46:09
03.030 It's a very last sentence right before it goes into 040 and it says also torque shall be done in accordance to the with the 01:46:11
latest ISA. 01:46:16
And ANSI a 300 standards. So I wanted to know what that was and when I googled it, it says that the Tree Care Industry association 01:46:21
will. 01:46:27
Sell you access to that, Like you have to buy it, you have to purchase it, and so I'm wondering. 01:46:33
If that's true, or if there's a way that the general public can access it and if the city can provide that for them, because I 01:46:40
think that. 01:46:44
Maybe contractors might have access to it, I don't know, but to require someone to purchase something? 01:46:49
It just seemed odd. 01:46:56
I don't believe you have to purchase Commissioner Lee the ANSI 300. I think that's if you want to purchase the book from the 01:46:59
ISA's. 01:47:03
This was the integration that can be linked. 01:47:07
OK. On the website and it is typically something that tree service contractors who are properly permitted and have business 01:47:10
licenses with the city are familiar with those industry best practice standards and they would be the one doing the work and 01:47:15
required to do the work. 01:47:20
OK, so in the development situation you would expect the project arborist then to already have this? 01:47:26
I believe the Project arbors would have access to and be very familiar with the NC standards. 01:47:33
OK. OK. And then the last? 01:47:38
Well, not last, but I noticed that the replant monitoring had been skipped and that's really sad because I think we all know and 01:47:47
we talked about at the Arbor Day event how important the. 01:47:53
Care of the little trees is to their survival and umm. 01:48:01
Have you given any more consideration or could you give some more consideration to? 01:48:07
The requirement that when you issue the permit. 01:48:13
And when you charge your fee, that would become an in lieu fee in case they fail to replant. 01:48:19
That also included in there would be your standard that they are required to send you. 01:48:25
Photographs at. 01:48:33
One month, at three months, at six months. 01:48:35
At a year to track that tree and all the onus is on. 01:48:38
The applicant. And then if they don't do it, what's the consequence? Maybe your only fee could be a little bit more and they don't 01:48:43
get that money back either. Or I, you know, I don't know, but. 01:48:49
But I understand that we're trying to make this work for everyone and we don't want the city arborist overworked, we don't want 01:48:55
public. 01:48:59
Having to deal with all this paperwork, but I thought that was such a good idea to put the onus on the applicant not. 01:49:04
The city staff. 01:49:10
So is that a possibility? 01:49:12
So the reason we took out the two year survivability clause initially was because it's not being implemented and again with 01:49:16
staffing challenges and we are very minimal in terms of staff especially dedicated to forestry that we don't have the staff to 01:49:21
actually do that. 01:49:26
And so it's not helpful to have the information in the code if we're not actually following up with it looking to put the onus on 01:49:33
the applicant. 01:49:36
At the start to do the replant is kind of already leaps and bounds in front of what we're currently doing. And I think there are 01:49:40
implementation challenges as it relates to spanning multiple fiscal years of taking in money, retaining money, issuing refunds, 01:49:45
not only is that. 01:49:50
The admin staff that are taking in the applications and being forced to record and document and save those files and photos, but 01:49:56
then again that's. 01:50:00
A request warrant for a check to refund somebody that then goes down to our finance department. There's so many layers to it. And 01:50:04
what we want to do is make a code that's implementable, that's fair to the residents that we can actually stick behind. You know, 01:50:11
if we put the law on paper, we want to be able to actually implement it. 01:50:17
And we want it to be a realistic thing that given our staff level, so we can actually do. 01:50:23
So do you think those challenges, significant challenges with that I would agree I think the long term would be hard especially 01:50:29
with property ownership changes and things like that. I just think it's I think it would become too cumbersome. So I like the idea 01:50:34
of the deposit and that initial stages to to ensure it and the photographers that they're already being asked to provide in the 01:50:39
beginning. 01:50:44
OK, fine. 01:50:52
So Speaking of having one, that's. 01:50:55
Doable. Could we talk about the tree service contractors? Because right now it says. 01:50:59
Possibly, and realistically that they're going to meet annually with the city arborist, so. 01:51:07
I'd like to see a sentence inserted at the beginning of that paragraph. 01:51:14
Where it says upon obtaining A Renewing a Business License, the tree service contractor will be sent an e-mail with links to title 01:51:21
12, The Landscape Trees of Pacific Grove. 01:51:27
The United, the Urban Forestry Standards and the tree guidelines during development. Those four documents for their review. 01:51:33
So, Commissioner Lee, item B on that section. 01:51:43
States that as a condition of obtaining or renewing their business license, they must meet with the city arborist once a year. 01:51:47
And in and review or written standards for tree pruning and removal services in the city of Pacific Grove and agreeing abide by 01:51:53
such standards and writing. So I think that covers it. 01:51:59
If you're looking for inclusion of. 01:52:05
I'm not additional to be emailed the documents to be familiar that they need to be familiar with because chances are they may not 01:52:11
be meeting with the city arborist. So they are meeting with the city I've finished and we do send them links as a part of that 01:52:16
meeting to say hey, here's title 12, here's a new application forms we do notify them of any changes, we have their emails and all 01:52:22
those things. 01:52:28
And that's how we invite them to this annual meeting. 01:52:34
And I do want to say that they're agreeing in writing to abide by the standards for the city. OK, OK, great. OK, And then? 01:52:37
Under the 12.08 the treatment quote. 01:52:45
So it's 12.08 point 030. 01:52:53
The last sentence there it says dead trees do not require a tree report. 01:52:58
If dead trees are habitat then they need to be retained and. 01:53:03
I don't know if you try to try. 01:53:10
The tree will pour it in or not, but the gist of it is that we need. 01:53:12
To retain dead trees unless they're dangerous or. 01:53:17
Because they are habit. 01:53:22
So if I may, this is just a stipulation that they may not require a tree report. If somebody submits an application and says that 01:53:23
the tree is dead and al goes on site and it's not, then the tree report would be required. There's also language in another 01:53:28
section of the code relating to leaving snags. 01:53:33
If they're for habitats, a different section, but it is in there. 01:53:38
I guess it would be kind of rude to require someone to keep a dead tree. 01:53:42
On their property that be kind of gross? 01:53:46
All right. 01:53:50
OK. And then. 01:53:57
The 12.08 point 060 dead trees and high risk trees. I don't see why. 01:54:01
That is. 01:54:09
It seems that. 01:54:17
It's a loophole that would allow a tree to be taken down. 01:54:20
Where it may not need to be taken down so. 01:54:25
Umm. 01:54:30
So what you're allowing here in this? 01:54:35
Section is. 01:54:39
For the processes that we just spent so much time in, you know. 01:54:42
Creating, backing, supporting to be eliminated if it's a high risk tree or a dead tree. 01:54:49
In the sense that. 01:54:58
All public noticing, et cetera, shall be adjusted accordingly. That's just a loophole. High risk trees have already been covered 01:55:00
in the document. Why do we need this? I don't understand. I'd like to see this eliminated. 01:55:07
And I'm thinking about. 01:55:16
Do we ever really know? 01:55:20
That a hybrid treaty is is going to fail because I'm assuming that someone is coming in and very upset, kind of like with the 01:55:23
emergency tree situation and there. 01:55:28
Really wanting to take this tree down now. 01:55:34
And until a tree is actually. 01:55:38
You know, at the stage where you're yelling timber, you don't really know. 01:55:40
That is going to be falling, so I can't see the need for this. 01:55:46
I'll go ahead and I feel like this is in because it's under Permit application and Processing I. 01:55:51
It's the way that I'm reading the code. Dead trees and high risk trees all permit applications for dead trees and high risk trees 01:56:01
with likelihood of failure as high or extreme. 01:56:07
Shall be processed in a timely manner. 01:56:13
Requirements for a tree report, public noticing, etcetera, shall be adjusted accordingly. 01:56:16
I'm I'm confused of what the argument. 01:56:22
To is to take it out. It seems like you've got the Beaumont Street tree that they said was high risk and was going to come down 01:56:24
because it had a Co dominant trunk. You've got the Crocker St. trees. Those were high risk because they had decay up in the top 01:56:30
and they were going to come down. They had the Elm tree that was high risk. It had decay in the bottom of the trunk. It was going 01:56:36
to come down. All three of those situations survived, winds, multiple winter storms of 75 miles an hour. None of them came down or 01:56:42
have come down. 01:56:47
And yet according to this off, all of those trees would have been removed because they would have been high risk. I am seeing that 01:56:54
it's for a permit which all of those, well, a good majority of those trees came to the BNRC. 01:57:01
As an appeal, and they except for the Beaumont tree, which we agreed to cut down. 01:57:09
OK, so so so I'm not, I'm, I'm sorry, I'm just brain fogging here. So explain to me why. So this is for permits. OK, so all permit 01:57:14
applications for dead trees and high risk trees with a likelihood of failure. They still should be processed in a timely manner. 01:57:22
So they're still requiring a permit. 01:57:30
And require a tree report, public noticing and. 01:57:32
I mean, is the argument about Shelby adjusted accordingly? Yes, yes, that's it. Because I'm I'm envisioning that if it's 01:57:37
considered a super dangerous situation, then the requirement for the tree report, the arborist report and all that will be 01:57:43
negated. 01:57:48
So the arborist, the way that I'm looking at it is that the arborist does all of these checkbox requirements for it goes through 01:57:55
the tree permit process and please correct me if I'm wrong. Please correct me if I'm wrong on all of this goes through the permit 01:58:02
process and then if the applicant is denied and they. 01:58:08
A permit to cut their trees and they argue that they come to the BNRC and we go through an appeals process. 01:58:17
That's correct. Thank you. So this is just relating to them. 01:58:24
Applying for a tree permanent still reviewed by Al. 01:58:28
This is just specific to. If you're applying for a tree permit and your arborist report says it's a high or extreme risk, we're 01:58:31
just providing an added layer of. 01:58:35
Your permits going to get reviewed. If we need to adjust timelines to accommodate for that review, this allows us to do that, but 01:58:39
it's still going through the same process. 01:58:43
OK. OK. I didn't understand that. OK, thank you. 01:58:48
OK and then the the I have the same. 01:58:52
I have the same concerns of the emergency action. 01:58:56
Again, I've never known a tree to be able to pretty deep addicted to come down. 01:59:00
Because of anyone's prediction, it's like sometimes they most of the time I think they defy prediction and so why is this needed? 01:59:07
It's it's redundant. 01:59:13
You notify Public Works. 01:59:20
During business hours already right now. 01:59:22
I don't understand why this is needed. I don't think it's needed. I'd like to see 12.10. 01:59:27
Axed. 01:59:33
OK, as far as the Commission is concerned, how do others feel about the emergency action? 01:59:37
Remaining in the code. Well, so just let me say one more thing. It creates a huge loophole. So I I say to you, I want to take this 01:59:43
tree down. It's a nuisance I'm afraid. You say no. And then two weeks later, A month later. 01:59:51
I called the Police Department after hours do it and then maybe I get fined or something. I don't know if if you know so it just 02:00:00
seems to me like it creates this big loophole and. 02:00:05
Subverts the appeals process. 02:00:12
OK, so for an example, just a quick one. There's a big storm and there's a tree that is obviously showing that it is. The roots 02:00:16
are. 02:00:21
Pulling up and it's a danger to my property, the utility, the lines right outside my property and it's falling in the direction of 02:00:29
my house. 02:00:34
So this this is how I'm reading that that protection level with that's the extreme. 02:00:40
This is like the emergency action. It's not just, you know, hey, I'm afraid of my tree. I want to cut it down. 02:00:46
That's it's this is the extreme exactly so in that situation. 02:00:52
I would trust that you would have the common sense to just like be calling every arborist that you could find until you could find 02:00:57
one to come out there right now and not worry about the rules. 02:01:00
But what this does is for the other situation creates a huge loophole for the person who isn't in that kind of a. 02:01:06
Dire situation and that's my concern. 02:01:12
Well, I think that. 02:01:16
The emergency situation is unique and doesn't occur very often and. 02:01:18
If somebody is. 02:01:23
Sincerely and truly concerned about it, they're going to call somebody. 02:01:25
And an emergency arborist or whatever tree service is going to come out and look at it and. 02:01:29
Al is going to go out and look at it. 02:01:36
And they're they're going to, yeah. 02:01:38
And I don't think it happens often enough to. 02:01:41
Be really concerned about, frankly. 02:01:45
OK, I mean. 02:01:47
I I don't like taking out trees, but. 02:01:49
I think there are emergencies. 02:01:53
Meaning keep it in. 02:01:56
No. Take it down. Take it out. Take. No, I'm sorry. Leave. 02:01:58
Take the tree out, leave the emergency action. 02:02:04
And there's safeguards in here. I mean, I think this is, I think it's important to have and I think too our licensed contractors, 02:02:09
I don't think most people are, Terry. 02:02:13
Cutting down their own trees, they would know. 02:02:18
What's What's qualifies as an emergency situation? 02:02:21
So I'm hearing a general consensus to keep in the emergency action. 02:02:26
Yes, OK. 02:02:30
OK then last two things. I'd like to see. The Urban Forestry Standards have it put in that it will be revised only by a qualified 02:02:33
professional. 02:02:39
I don't know if that needs to go in the tree ordinance. I don't know if that's already said somewhere, but. 02:02:45
I think that's important. And to the group I wanted to ask if they also thought the Memorial Giving program should be given its 02:02:50
own section and put into the title 12. 02:02:57
That's in the urban forestry standards, is the no. 02:03:05
Chair Walking sick. I don't believe it's referenced in the Urban Forestry Standards, but it's on the city's website. It's. 02:03:10
A memorial program similar to a memorial bench program. 02:03:15
I personally wouldn't recommend incorporating it into the code here, just from a staff perspective. I think that as far as a law 02:03:19
is concerned, I don't think that we should be I I don't see a place for it, but I. 02:03:25
I don't see a place for it either. And the other thing about the the qualified professional in that particular. 02:03:33
Section. Actually, it would be. It wouldn't be a qualified professional that would make. 02:03:40
Amendments to the urban forestry plan it would be. 02:03:46
US or a city staff? 02:03:51
Maybe in consultation with a professional but. 02:03:55
So I don't see a need to put that in there. 02:04:00
I think I'm done. 02:04:07
I'm going to be really quick as far as I have one last revision that we didn't bring up during our tree subcommittee meeting. It's 02:04:09
on page 25. 02:04:12
Could you give us the? 02:04:17
Oh, yeah. I'm sorry, it's. 02:04:20
Under Permit and Application Processing 12.08, point 050, paragraph 2. 02:04:23
It's about the ribbon color. I know this sounds really silly but I would like it to reflect forestry standards and or arborist 02:04:33
standards. If Chartreuse is it then fantastic check that off the list, but if it it is to. 02:04:42
Subject tree to be marked I. 02:04:50
For removal there, I know that there are different ribbon colors for different things. Like I think it's bright pink means do not 02:04:53
remove. I believe blue is remove but. 02:04:59
Anyway, that was my thought and comment on ribbon color. 02:05:07
I'm not even sure I know what Chartreuse is. I think we should put the primary color in there, like a yellowy green. 02:05:13
Neon green. 02:05:20
Of course. 02:05:24
Yeah, I that was my only. 02:05:25
Edition. OK, so I would like to circle back to Treason Development. 02:05:27
And I would like to request or recommend an insertion for City Council consideration. 02:05:33
Inserting BNRC along with the arborist for initial review. 02:05:41
Of development and construction projects. 02:05:46
That involve protected trees, especially that involve protected trees and multiple trees. 02:05:50
I'm not sure that that would be really workable. 02:06:00
I think it would be really cumbersome. Can you say it again? Just I'm so sorry. 02:06:03
It's OK, we're all I think I'm tired. 02:06:08
It's good. I wrote this down. I'd like to request recommend an insertion for City Council consideration. This is in the. 02:06:12
Treason Development Section inserting the University along with the arborist for initial review. 02:06:20
Of development and construction projects. And this is. 02:06:27
Really a concern I think when we're looking at protected trees and. 02:06:32
Certainly multiple protected trees. 02:06:39
OK. 02:06:44
Commissioner Meyer, I think you're you would be expanding the BNRC was role well beyond what it traditionally has done, which was 02:06:47
just act as hearing appeals. 02:06:53
You're inserting it up front in a development project, and I just don't know that that's workable for the city. 02:07:00
Seems to me that the arborist is is the one who works in conjunction with the development process. 02:07:08
And and Joyce, correct me if I'm wrong. 02:07:17
And and and they agree what is required for a new development. 02:07:21
In terms of tree removal and permitting. 02:07:28
It's if they can't come to an agreement. 02:07:32
Then it comes to BNRC, but it's it's like an appeal process. Is that the way it works? 02:07:36
It's like elected like. 02:07:42
Optional or tangent. 02:07:45
The language of SO as it relates to trees and development, it would go through what? 02:07:48
Hearing board would require approval for that specific development program. So the Planning Commission, if there is an appeal, 02:07:53
that would go up to the City Council. So the Planning Commission has their own appeal structure. The ARB has their own appeal 02:07:58
structure, so it would follow that structure of the permit that they're attempting to obtain. 02:08:04
I do want to note for larger scale projects, there's often an environmental review, a mitigated negative declaration and EIR there 02:08:10
are different Commission. 02:08:14
Different, very different reviews, especially as it relates to instances where it is a very large development and multiple trees 02:08:19
are being impacted. 02:08:23
And so there are. 02:08:28
Adequate reviews and I think it would very much complicate the process to insert that language just from a staff perspective. I. 02:08:30
And if that was. 02:08:39
The consensus of the BNRC tonight, we would need to consult with our city attorney to see what that looks like. Again, because 02:08:41
they're going to other bodies for their approval as a result of the fact that the tree is being removed associated with the 02:08:47
development project, not just independently. 02:08:52
You know what? Would it help me with that? 02:08:59
Is I think I had asked George if he would update us at every meeting about the tree permit applications that had been filed, just 02:09:03
the addresses, because we were having problems with the website where. 02:09:10
Only the ones for the last. 02:09:18
30 days or less were being listed and so if you would do that and then in addition bring to our attention a list of the trees 02:09:21
that. 02:09:26
Were permitted associated with development, this would give us a. 02:09:32
Opportunity to review it on our own and perhaps being bring it forward in some way without necessarily being an institutionalized 02:09:37
part of the process. 02:09:42
It would help us keep an eye on things. So am I correct in the assumption that I? 02:09:48
When development occurs, construction and development it goes through architectural review board and no. 02:09:56
It depends. It the the the staff reviews it to see what's needed. If there's a tree, the city arborist goes out and then they 02:10:03
determine if a project arborist is needed and then based on what? 02:10:10
The staff regulatory review looking at all the rules, then they determine if it should go through the planning, the ARB or the HRC 02:10:18
and that's why it's so hard to understand because it's not like a 1234 steps. 02:10:25
Does that help? Yeah. 02:10:33
So I agree with Susan. 02:10:37
That the BNRC isn't in it. 02:10:40
In this. 02:10:43
At the permit level. 02:10:45
We're in the process at the appeals level. 02:10:47
And I think asking city staff to supply us with information on every tree permit is too big of an ask. 02:10:50
I think if we want to know what's going on with the tree permits, then we can as an individual. 02:11:00
Go down to City Hall and ask to see the list of permits that were applied for. 02:11:07
Because, you know, we're just adding layers to the workload. 02:11:12
And I don't think it's our place to do that. 02:11:18
We have to come at it from some other angle. 02:11:23
I would say I would. 02:11:28
Leave that to City Council to determine. I think that with construction. 02:11:30
Where multiple protected trees are involved, I think that is worthy of coming to us. 02:11:38
It goes to the City Council. 02:11:45
Right. It depends on the scope and the size of the project, yeah. 02:11:48
I mean, there are layers already. 02:11:56
Do we want to add another? 02:11:59
Well, ultimately it goes to City Council as my understanding after it's gone through these other. 02:12:05
What architectural board review this that I just think that BNRC should be part of that? 02:12:11
System as well. I don't know why it would go to architectural and planning and not being RC. 02:12:18
I think we're well apart in the room here is ATC and we're talking about the 79 trees in particular and to come backwards in time 02:12:27
a little bit I. 02:12:32
I know that Architectural review board denied a. 02:12:39
The permits and there were a lot of questions surrounding those trees and concerns. 02:12:43
So what you're what is being suggested is is that that it comes to us. 02:12:50
Uh, as BNRC alongside a large project as such alongside those other boards because it is Title 12 related in protected trees. Am I 02:12:58
understanding that correctly? OK. 02:13:05
My take on it is the lack of the full time Forester plays a big role because. 02:13:15
The beautiful amazing. 02:13:23
Double Cypress. 02:13:26
111 tenth. 02:13:28
Was not protected because. 02:13:33
The city arborist didn't go back and do the inspection. 02:13:37
And ascertain that a project arborist was hired and ascertained that a construction impact analysis was completed. And so when you 02:13:41
don't have a full time forester, small projects, big projects are all going to be. 02:13:49
Impacted if that helps. 02:13:57
OK. Well, I am seeing that there's still lots of things to kind of discuss even what in and amongst exact development pertaining 02:14:00
to the development and. 02:14:05
Protected trees, were there other something else that were there other comments that you had? 02:14:14
Get anybody to kind of wrap it up. So you know I just think it it should be considered added in there alongside those other 02:14:21
commissions and City Council can make that ultimate decision. I just think again I will restate. 02:14:28
Multiple trees, protected trees, I think it is within our. 02:14:36
Advisory protection of natural resources to do so. OK. 02:14:42
Should we try to like take a straw poll on how we feel about that as a Commission or I think I think it's actually it's it's such 02:14:51
a good issue and I and I think what it's. 02:14:56
About for me is that this linkage between the groups so, so, so. 02:15:02
Planning, Planning Commission references says hey, follow all of the stuff in Title 12 and be an RC in our Title 12. It links to 02:15:08
Title 23 but nobody really understands and. 02:15:15
Works with all the different documents and so I know one thing on the books is when we finish these revisions to for BNRC webs to 02:15:22
go to the Planning Commission in ARB and present what the changes. 02:15:30
Were and that helps us all work together. But to me this is a bigger issue of how can we work together and. 02:15:38
And support each other as commissions. And maybe that could be a different topic for a different meeting. I agree. I think that is 02:15:44
a. 02:15:48
A great idea that we can talk about at another time is collaborating with. 02:15:53
Other boards and commissions, but for today. 02:15:59
I'm gonna. 02:16:05
Throw it out there to the Commission to as what we what we want to move forward with with Title 12. At this point, it still feels 02:16:07
to me like there's a lot more to discuss. 02:16:13
Coming from the person that wanted to kill the entire project in January, I have to say that this has been a very productive. 02:16:20
Experience over the last couple months with Public Works and I feel that I'd like to respectfully request to continue 02:16:29
collaboration. 02:16:34
But that is dependent on what the board, what our Commission here thinks today. I do believe that Title 12 success depends on 02:16:39
doing it correctly, not quickly. 02:16:44
And I feel like there's still some iterations that we want to kind of talk out, but that's where I'm sitting with it at this 02:16:50
point. How does everybody else feel? 02:16:55
Yeah, I think the progress we've made has been astronomical. So thanks to all for that. And it does feel like we're so close. 02:17:01
We're almost there. And I would like a chance to review what the final doc is. 02:17:08
Before it goes to council. 02:17:18
Because I can't. Like right now, we've requested a lot of changes and without seeing that, I can't. 02:17:20
Say, Oh yes, we're recommending that this go to council right now. 02:17:26
Thank you, Commissioner Lee. 02:17:31
Well, I think. 02:17:38
Pretty much. I think we're there, OK. 02:17:42
I think we definitely have included. 02:17:46
Just about everything that the tree committee made comments on and I know you worked really hard on it and I really appreciate it. 02:17:49
I think it was a great job. 02:17:53
I mean, I'm ready to go with it. 02:17:59
Thank you, Commissioner. 02:18:00
Could we consider recommending that the City Council just consider the BNRC's proposed changes, you know? 02:18:04
Yeah, alongside. 02:18:12
I'd like to see it. 02:18:16
Come back? 02:18:17
For more discussion, because I don't feel we've discussed what I'm concerned with enough myself. 02:18:20
Are you talking about the? 02:18:27
Right. But is that going to be part of this of of Title 12 or is that a second discussion for insertion in there for City Council 02:18:31
to consider? I'm sorry, I'm asking for insertion in there of being RC for City Council to consider And again, we work alongside 02:18:38
with these other commissions. 02:18:46
When a big project comes through, again concerning. 02:18:54
Protected species, Multiple trees. 02:18:58
Could that feedback be included then? If I may, I'm happy to include that comment and if that's the. 02:19:03
Consensus of the DNRC to want to have council explore that we could say that the BNRC is requested. 02:19:11
And then obviously in addition to that in advance of going to council, consulting with the city's attorney's office to see one, if 02:19:17
that's even feasible and two, what that actually looks like because again, there is a much broader impact. 02:19:23
Than just inserting that language and we don't want to insert language that we can't. 02:19:29
Therefore, implement. So my plan of action was to take your comments here tonight, incorporate the ones that there is consensus 02:19:33
on, but also include. 02:19:37
Kind of a not a transcript, but almost like a listing of the other items that were discussed and then go to City Council and. 02:19:43
Essentially bring that forward as the B nurses comments. 02:19:50
And then they could opt to. 02:19:54
I believe them with those incorporated changes, they could make their own requested changes. They could have us come back and work 02:19:56
more with you. But the next step for us is going to City Council choice. I agree with that. I think that's wonderful and I really 02:20:01
appreciate again all that you've done so far. 02:20:06
I don't want to be in the position of standing there in front of City Council and saying. 02:20:13
Well, but I have this one comment or or you know, I want to see us agreed. I want to see this document come back to us just like 02:20:19
we'll spend half hour or less, 15 minutes, you know, just reading it, just saying yes, we we agree. So we can go in for once in 02:20:26
our lives, go in as a united front. Public Works and BNRC both recommend this document to you. I mean and they're going to pass it 02:20:34
in a heartbeat. 02:20:41
So that would be my preference. 02:20:49
And I don't see what the hurry is. 02:20:51
Again, I'm. 02:20:56
I'd like to either go forward, carry it. 02:20:58
Forward or discuss consensus or not on this. 02:21:01
Trees and development piece. 02:21:05
Because I'd like to see that included and City Council can. 02:21:07
Decide how they wish to go forward with that. 02:21:13
OK. Are you asking the Commission right now how we feel about moving? 02:21:17
That forward to City Council? I think so because I. 02:21:21
Really feel it is important to include that in there. I don't want it just to comment. I'd like it as a recommendation in our 02:21:25
revisions. OK, so let's take a quick straw poll on how we feel about. 02:21:32
Inserting umm. 02:21:40
Trees and development. BNRC and arborist for review. I you said it so eloquently, so please. 02:21:43
If you'd like to repeat it. Oh, you want me to repeat it? Thank you. 02:21:51
OK, I'd like to request recommend an insertion for City Council consideration, inserting the BNRC along with the arborist. 02:21:56
For initial review of development and construction products projects. 02:22:05
This especially concerns protected trees and multiple. 02:22:12
Protected trees. So this again would be alongside. 02:22:17
Alongside the. 02:22:21
Planning Commission Architectural Review. 02:22:24
And being our city, So all those in favor. 02:22:28
I guess I'd like a clarification. We've seen multiple trees I'll be talking to. We'll be talking three or are we talking more? 02:22:32
I think a large construction project again, any protected trees, let's say let's say two or more, Well, we can go higher, but. 02:22:40
I don't know that we have to be that specific. 02:22:51
Or we can discuss that. 02:22:56
What everyone's comfortable with. 02:22:59
OK, let's say. 02:23:05
I think 2:00 or more is too small. I think that. 02:23:12
Maybe 10 or more. 02:23:17
So let's get a consensus on 10 or more. 02:23:19
For this particular insertion or request. 02:23:22
Insertion umm. 02:23:26
Who's in favor of aye? 02:23:29
I do. I'd like it included. 02:23:33
OK, I as well. 02:23:38
No, no. OK. 02:23:40
Or yes. 02:23:44
OK. 02:23:48
So we would like to include. 02:23:50
What she so eloquently said, Commissioner Person so eloquently put. 02:23:55
To. 02:24:01
Consider insertion for the trees and development with the BNRC for review on large projects 10 or more. 02:24:03
OK, um. 02:24:17
So as we move forward. 02:24:22
This. Umm. 02:24:25
Appears that it is going to be going to City Council next. 02:24:28
So I would just I'd like to make a. 02:24:33
A motion to recommend that City Council continue development on Title 12 revisions to include BNRC edits, comments and thematic 02:24:37
matters. 02:24:42
And to seek further input from a. 02:24:47
Qualified forest management professionals. 02:24:50
OK, so a question. Will we see this then, these revisions before they go to City Council? 02:24:59
No. Do we want to see these revisions before they go? I'm. I have where it's almost like reviewing minutes. OK, that we have it 02:25:06
all in there. Well, I have a motion on the floor. You can you can deny it if you want. That's totally fine. No insult taken. 02:25:14
Or we can. 02:25:24
I move forward in a different direction. 02:25:26
Also thank you. 02:25:30
All in favor, Aye, say aye. 02:25:33