* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] ALL RIGHT. LET'S CALL [CALL TO ORDER] THIS MEETING TO ORDER OUR TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28TH, 2025. PLANNING, COMMISSION MEETING, STARTING A COUPLE MINUTES LATE HERE AT 6 0 2. UM, IF WE COULD PLEASE GET A ROLL. COMMISSIONER EBNER HERE. COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN. HERE. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER NEWELL. HERE. COMMISSIONER KUSON. HERE. COMMISSIONER HILT HERE VIA ZOOM. COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BARNELL. ABSENT. CHAIR MOSES. HERE WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH THAT, [GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT] WE'LL HEAD INTO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. DURING GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO MAKE COMMENTS ON ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THAT ARE WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, AND THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON THE CURRENT AGENDA. PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO UP TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON, AND DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TIME WILL BE ALLOCATED IN EQUAL SHARES TOTALING NO MORE THAN 15 MINUTES. SO WE'LL OPEN. UH, GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. I HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD HERE. ANY OTHERS THAT I SHOULD BE AWARE OF? NONE. AND WE RECEIVED NONE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. NONE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. OKAY. IN THAT CASE, UH, NINA ZITO IS WELCOME TO COME ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, COUNCIL, STAFF. UH, JUST GIMME A SEC TO GATHER MYSELF, IF YOU DON'T MIND, BECAUSE, UH, UM, SO I'M, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AS WE CONSIDER ISSUES OF LIKE LIVABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THAT WE CONSIDER WHAT SOME OF THE OBSTACLES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE. AND THIS WAS WHAT I WAS GREETED WITH THIS MORNING, AND I APPLAUD MY NEIGHBOR'S ATTENTION TO FIRE SAFETY, BUT I REALLY WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT THIS WORK WAS GOING TO TAKE PLACE. AND THIS IS PERMITTED WORK. AND, UH, WE SEEM IN OUR PRESS TO CREATE A VIBRANT, LIVABLE COMMUNITY HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT IT MEANS TO BE LIVABLE. AND NOISE, AMBIENT NOISE IS PART OF WHAT MAKES THINGS UNLIVABLE, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE OF US AT HOME WHO ARE TRYING TO WORK, WHO ARE TRYING TO NAP, WHO MIGHT BE ILL, WHO MIGHT HAVE CHILDREN. SO I'M JUST INVITING A REEXAMINATION OF HOW WE MIGHT NOTIFY OUR NEIGHBORS THAT, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS WORK IS GONNA HAPPEN. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S GONNA BE NOISY AND JUST FYI, IT'S HAPPENING TWO HOUSES AWAY, THREE HOUSES AWAY WITHIN YOUR DISTRICT. BUT TO BE JUST JOLTED OUT OF BED WITH THIS DOESN'T FEEL LIKE COMMUNITY, DOESN'T FEEL NEIGHBORLY, DOESN'T FEEL, UH, IT'S CERTAINLY VIBRATING. I'M VIBRATING. I'M LIKE TWEAKING EVEN STILL. AND IT'S HOURS LATER. SO I THINK IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE PETALUMA EVEN MORE OF A PLACE THAT WE'RE PROUD TO CALL HOME. IT JUST TAKES A SIMPLE NOTIFICATION, HEY, THIS IS GONNA GO ON FYI, YOU CAN LEAVE, BUT JUST FYI. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, ANY COMMENTARY FROM DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT OUR NOISE HOURS AND NOTICING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD WORK? YEAH, SO WE DO HAVE A NOISE ORDINANCE, AND TYPICALLY OUR PERMITS ARE CONDITIONED. UH, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND I DON'T HAVE THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION. I THINK IT'S JUST CODE ENFORCEMENT@CITYOFPETALUMA.ORG. JUST LET THEM KNOW AND TOTALLY, YEAH. YEAH. SEVEN 30 IN THE MORNING. YEAH. THAT'S A WHOLE LOT OF NOISE. AND MY POINT IS, SOMEONE'S PULLING A PERMIT TO DOING SOME WORK. IT'S GONNA INVOLVE, LET'S JUST BE CLEAR. WE, I, I, SORRY, I, I WE CAN'T QUITE HAVE A BACK AND FORTH IN THIS FORUM, BUT I THINK CODE ENFORCEMENT IS A, IS A GOOD PLACE TO START. AND I JUST WANTED TO, UM, I APPRECIATE THE, UH, ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME NEXT STEPS WITH POTENTIALLY CODE ENFORCEMENT. NOT REALLY A PURVIEW HERE, SINCE WE'RE TELLING THAT. YEAH. OKAY. IT'S LIKE, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE WITH YOU GUYS. I'LL, I'LL MAKE THIS A PRIORITY. THANK YOU. UM, [00:05:01] APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. UH, WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONTINUE ON TO OUR PRESENTATIONS, WHICH WE HAVE NONE. SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO OUR [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] APPROVAL OF MINUTES, WHICH IS OUR MEETING ITEM ONE, THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2025, LOOKING DOWN AROUND AND ON ZOOM FOR ANY NOTES, AMENDMENTS, COMMENTS, NONE. UH, THEN WE WILL APPROVE THOSE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 23RD AND MOVE ON TO MEETING ITEM TWO, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OUR MEETING ON OCTOBER 14TH, 2025. ANY AMENDMENTS? LOOKING AROUND ON ZOOM, SEEING? NO. OKAY. THEN WE'LL APPROVE THOSE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 14TH AND CLOSE MEETING ITEM TWO. THAT TAKES US [3. Study Session – Recommendation to the Planning Commission to Receive a Staff Presentation, Conduct a Study Session, and Provide Feedback on the Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance (Implementing Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17) to Inform Development of the Final Draft to be Brought Before the Planning Commission at a Subsequent Meeting for Recommendation to the City Council for Adoption. MATERIALS FOR THIS MEETING ITEM WERE PUBLISHED ON 10-24-2025.] TO OUR MAIN EVENT TONIGHT. OUR PUBLIC HEARING AND MATTERS OF FOR CONSIDERATION ARE OUR STUDY SESSION MEETING ITEM THREE, WHICH IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECEIVE A STAFF PRESENTATION, CONDUCT A STUDY SESSION, AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, IMPLEMENTING ZONE, OR ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 17, TO INFORM DEVELOPMENT OF THE FINAL DRAFT, WHICH WILL BE BROUGHT FOR FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEREFORE DOES NOT REQUIRE DISCLOSING ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF TO PRESENT, WE'VE GOT HEATHER HINES. GOOD EVENING WITH A QUICK INTRO FROM, UH, EXCUSE ME. YEAH, CHAIR. I WAS, I DON'T WANNA PUT COMMISSIONER SCHUTT ON THE SPOT, AND I WAS THINKING MAYBE WHEN HE COMMENTS, HE COULD JUST LET US KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY IN THE ROOM WITH HIM ABOVE THE AGE OF 18 IN RELATIONS. AH, YEAH. GREAT. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . GOOD EVENING CHAIR. UH, COMMISSIONERS. PLEASED TO BE HERE THIS EVENING, UM, TO CHAT ABOUT, UH, PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. SO, UM, I HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION KIND OF HIGHLIGHTING SOME OF, UM, THE CONTEXT AND SECTIONS, UM, VERY MUCH TRACKS WITH THE STAFF REPORT, UM, AND THEN, UM, BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND TO, UM, ASSIST WITH DISCUSSION AS, AS MAY BE HELPFUL TO THE COMMISSION. HMM. UNLESS I'M NOT, THERE WE GO. SO, UM, THIS EFFORT, UH, REALLY COMES OUT OF MANY OF THE CITY'S EXISTING, UM, EFFORTS INITIATIVE, UM, POLICY PROGRAM. SO IT WAS, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR CITYWIDE GOALS. UM, OUR CLIMATE EMERGENCY FRAMEWORK, WHICH FEELS LIKE, UM, SO LONG AGO, BUT WAS SUCH A CRITICAL MOMENT IN, IN, UM, PETALUMA'S, UM, POLICY HISTORY, UM, WHICH CALLED FOR EXPANDING THE URBAN FOREST. IT'S THIS ISSUE OF TREE PRESERVATION AND PRESERVING THE TREE CANOPY, UM, HAS CONTINUED THROUGH, UM, REFERENCES IN THE BLUEPRINT FOR CLIMATE ACTION, WHICH WAS ADOPTED, UM, BY THE COUNCIL. UM, IT IS A TOPIC IN OUR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, UM, THAT WE ARE UNDERGOING. UM, AND ALSO, UM, CALLS FOR CHANGES IN OUR IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE HERE THIS EVENING. UM, I ALSO WANNA MENTION, UM, THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN. THAT IS, UM, A DOCUMENT THAT IS BEING PREPARED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS ORDINANCE UPDATE AND, UM, IS DEALING WITH DIFFERENT THINGS, UM, REGARDING OUR URBAN FOREST TREE CANOPY, BUT WHICH WE SEE AS, UM, MESHING WITH AND POSSIBLY, UM, INFORMING ADDITIONAL THINGS ABOUT, UM, THE ORDINANCE OR CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE OR, UM, ITEMS THAT WILL SUPPLEMENT THE ORDINANCE THROUGH INCENTIVIZING, UM, PLANTING EFFORTS, PARTNERSHIPS, THOSE KIND OF THINGS. SO, UM, SPECIFIC TO OUR CITYWIDE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, UM, THERE IS WORDING ABOUT THE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF TREES, UM, FROM WILDLIFE HABITAT TO HELPING TO MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE, REDUCING HEAT ISLAND, UM, EFFECT, AS WELL AS BEAUTIFICATION AND SLOWING DOWN TRAFFIC SUPPORTING ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION. UM, SO THOSE ARE ALL RECOGNIZED COMMUNITY BENEFITS. UM, OUR CITYWIDE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES [00:10:01] INCLUDED, UM, AN EXPLICIT, UM, CALL TO UPDATE OUR TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE TO RECOGNIZE THOSE BENEFITS AND TO UPDATE OUR ORDINANCE TO REALLY REPRESENT THOSE COMMUNITY VALUES. UM, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY UPDATING OUR INTERNAL PROCESSING AND PERMITTING PROCESSES. UM, SO THAT IS REALLY, ONCE WE HAVE THIS NEW ORDINANCE, UH, YOU KNOW, NEW PROCESSES FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMITS, UM, ENFORCEMENT, UM, RE REPLANTING, UM, THOSE KIND OF THINGS, AS WELL AS PROVISIONS FOR ALL ENTITLEMENTS AND LAND USE PERMITTING. SO WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT MORE THIS EVENING. UM, BUT THESE ARE ALL, UM, THESE ARE ALL, UM, INDICATED IN OUR CITYWIDE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND HAVE BEEN KEY AT THIS EFFORT TO UPDATE THE ORDINANCE. SO OUR DISCUSSION TODAY IS REALLY TO, UM, REVIEW THE CURRENT DRAFT OF THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER. UM, IT'S REALLY AN UPDATE TO THE REGULATORY APPROACH TO PRESERVE TREE CANOPY IN PETALUMA. IT, UM, SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDS THE, UM, CITY'S PURVIEW TO REQUIRE TREE REMOVAL PERMITS FOR REMOVING OF A, A, A MUCH GREATER, A WIDER, UM, DEFINITION OF TREE THAN OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE DOES, AND INCLUDES INCORPORATING IN THE STREET TREES, UM, INTO, UM, THIS ORDINANCE IN A MORE EXPLICIT WAY. UM, THE DRAFT THAT IS BEFORE YOU DOES INCORPORATE FEEDBACK FROM, UM, STUDY SESSIONS WITH THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS INPUT FROM KEI STAKEHOLDERS AND STAFF. SO TONIGHT WE'RE SEEKING PLANNING COMMISSIONS, UM, INPUT ON THIS UPDATED DRAFT, UH, THAT THERE'S A SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT WE ASKED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND WE'LL GO OVER AGAIN TONIGHT. THIS IS TO GUIDE DISCUSSION, BUT IN NO MEANS LIMITS DISCUSSION, UM, FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HAVE THIS EVENING. UM, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY TONIGHT WE ARE ALSO HERE TO RECEIVE ANY, UM, UM, INPUT FROM COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS. UM, AND I WILL BE TALKING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT ADDITIONAL OUTREACH THAT IS PLANNED AS WE MOVE INTO, UM, ADOPTION HEARINGS ON THE ORDINANCE. SO, TO, TO TAKE A MOMENT TO REFLECT BACK ON TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS REALLY, UM, KEY IN SPEARHEADING THIS EFFORT TO BEGIN WITH. UM, THERE WAS A LOT OF ADVOCACY, UM, AND POLICY RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO, YOU KNOW, BRING THE ISSUE UP, UM, PUT A, UH, AN AWARENESS OUT THERE OF THE LOSS OF TREE CANOPY THAT WE HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING AND ASKING FOR, UM, COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY TO REALLY PRIORITIZE LOOKING AT TREES DIFFERENTLY, UM, AS PART OF OUR REGULATORY APPROACH, AS WELL AS JUST, UM, OUR, OUR COMMUNITY VISION. SO THE, THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, UH, GENERALLY HAS BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE UPDATES AS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. UM, AND WENT THROUGH SEVERAL ROUNDS TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK AND INCORPORATE IT INTO THE DRAFT. UM, KIND OF HIGHLIGHTING A FEW THINGS. THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE LIKED HOW WE WERE MOVING TO A SINGLE PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF TREE REMOVALS THAT INCLUDED BOTH TREES ON PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTIES SO THAT THAT COULD BE REALLY CONSISTENT AND CLEAR SO THAT THERE WASN'T ONE STANDARD FOR THIS SITUATION AND A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR, YOU KNOW, A STREET TREE. SO THAT IT WAS ALL, UM, THE SAME PROCESS, UM, FOR CONSISTENCY AND CLARITY. THEY EMPHASIZE THE NEED FOR EDUCATION AND INCENTIVES AS PART OF A ROBUST TREE PRESERVATION PROGRAM. SO, WHILE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY IN THE ORDINANCE AND IS NOT REALLY APPROPRIATE FOR BEING IN THE ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE IS THE REGULATORY APPROACH. THERE WAS A AWARENESS AND DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE HAVE TO COME AT TREE PRESERVATION MORE THAN JUST REGULATORY APPROACH. WE ALSO NEED THE INCENTIVES AND THE SUPPORT AND THE CELEBRATION. UM, SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT IS ANOTHER PART OF, UM, A ROBUST TREE PRESERVATION PROGRAM. UH, RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO FOCUS ON REPLANTING STREET TREES. UM, THERE REALLY, THERE HAS BEEN A LOSS OF STREET TREES. YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF EMPTY, UH, TREE GRATES, UM, PLANTER STRIPS ALONG STREETS WHERE THERE ARE NO STREET TREES ANYMORE. SO RECOGNIZING THAT WE HAVE LOST A LOT OF STREET TREES AND CONTINUING TO WORK TO REPLANTING THEM, AS WELL AS, UM, [00:15:01] MINIMIZING THE LOSS OF ADDITIONAL STREET TREES MOVING FORWARD. UM, ALSO WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE DESIRE TO SEE TREES INCORPORATED INTO A BROAD RANGE OF CITY PROJECTS. SO MAKING SURE STREET STANDARDS BEING UPDATED SO THAT, UM, STREET TREES ARE A PART OF THAT. SO ANYTIME WE'RE DOING SOMETHING ON CITY PROPERTY OR ALONG, UM, CITY STREETS THAT WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT STREET TREES ARE PART OF THAT OVERALL VISION. UM, THERE WAS ALSO, WE DISCUSSED THE IMPORTANCE OF UPDATING CITY PERMITTING PROCESSES. UM, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE HAS A LOT OF AMBIGUITY IN THEIR SECTIONS IN THE MUNI CODE, THEIR SECTION IN THE ZONING CODE. AND SO SOMETIMES THOSE DON'T EXACTLY LINE UP, OR DEPENDING ON WHICH SECTION YOU'RE LOOKING AT, YOU MIGHT INTERPRET IT DIFFERENTLY. SO THIS ORDINANCE IS DEFINITELY TAKING THAT AND TRYING TO MAKE, AS I MENTIONED, ONE STANDARD, ONE PROCESS, UM, FOR THAT CLARITY. UM, AND THEN ANOTHER BIG ISSUE THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT WITH THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS THE IMPORTANCE OF AUGMENTING STAFF RESOURCES. UM, SO WE MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS QUALIFIED REVIEW AS PART OF THE PERMITTING, UM, THROUGH A CONSULTING ARBORIST AT THE MOMENT, INTEL IN-HOUSE EXPERTISE MIGHT BE AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE. SO THAT'S KIND OF SOME OF THE OVERARCHING FEEDBACK, UM, FROM THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND AGAIN, JUST REALLY WANTING TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE IS ONE COMPONENT OF A TREE PRESERVATION APPROACH, UM, AND PROGRAM FOR THE CITY. SO, UM, IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE, UM, BUT IT IS ONE PIECE AND THERE WILL BE OTHER THINGS THAT THE CITY IS OR WILL BE WORKING ON RELATED TO THAT. UM, WE HAVE RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS, UM, DURING THE DIFFERENT TREE ADVISORY STUDY SESSIONS. UM, GENERALLY THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS, UM, SUGGEST SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE ORDINANCE, UM, SUCH AS, UM, EXPANDING THE NUISANCE SPECIES UNDER THE EXEMPTIONS, UM, THE ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION FOR TREES THAT MAY BE IMPACTING, UM, FOUNDATIONS. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP THROUGH PUBLIC COMMENT AND WAS INCORPORATED IN, OR, UM, SOME OF THE, UM, CONCERN ABOUT REPLACEMENT RATIOS BEING RESTRICTIVE, ESPECIALLY FOR HOMEOWNERS. UM, SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP DURING PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION AT THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S IN THE ORDINANCES WHERE THAT CONVERSATION LANDED. BUT, UM, AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING, UM, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY WANT TO, UM, DISCUSS. UM, ALSO THE ADDED LANGUAGE ABOUT MAINTAINING REPLACEMENT TREES THAT CAME OUT OF PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL. SO THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS, UM, HAVE HAD SOME GREAT SUGGESTIONS, SOME THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT STRONGER. SO THE REST OF THE PRESENTATION THAT'S KIND OF SETTING THE STAGE, HOW WE GOT HERE. UM, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS WALK THROUGH THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS, A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXPLANATION AND HIGHLIGHTING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS. THEY'RE NOT IN EVERY SECTION, UM, BUT SOME OF THE SECTIONS HIGHLIGHTING SOME QUESTIONS, UM, THAT WE POSES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GUIDE THEIR DISCUSSION. THESE ARE ALSO IN THE HARD COPY MEMO THAT'S ON, UM, THE DAIS. AND I DO HAVE SOME SLIDES THAT WE CAN COME BACK TO AT THE END, IF HELPFUL FOR THAT COMMISSION DISCUSSION. SO, UM, THE BEGINNING OF THE ORDINANCE AS IS STANDARD, UM, STARTS OUT WITH THE PURPOSE. UM, AND THIS IS REALLY A MORE ROBUST PURPOSE STATEMENT IN THE DRAFT T-P-O-T-P-O BEING, UH, TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. UM, THEN WHAT IS IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, IT'S, UM, AN EFFORT TO REALLY RECOGNIZE THE WIDE RANGE OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF TREE PRESERVATION. AND THIS PURPOSE IS REFERENCED IN MULTIPLE SUBSECTIONS TO KIND OF KEEP BRINGING THE READER, WHETHER THAT BE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A MEMBER OF STAFF, OR, UM, AN APPLICANT, A DEVELOPER LOOKING AT WHAT OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE TO UNDERSTAND WE'RE GONNA KEEP GOING BACK TO THE PURPOSE. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? SO IF THERE'S AMBIGUITY, IF THERE'S A QUESTION, GOING BACK TO THAT PURPOSE IS A REALLY IMPORTANT, UM, THING TO RECOGNIZE WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE. SO QUESTIONS POSED OF WHETHER THAT DRAFT LANGUAGE CAPTURES AN APPROPRIATE RANGE OF BENEFITS TO GUIDE THIS ORDINANCE AS WE MOVE FORWARD. AND ARE THERE ANY KEY BENEFITS THAT SHOULD BE ADDED OR THAT WE OVERLOOKED? [00:20:02] UM, NEXT SECTION IS DEFINITIONS. AND THIS DID GET RELOCATED TO THE TOP OF THE ORDINANCE FROM THE DRAFT THAT THE, UM, THAT THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, UM, LOOKED AT. THIS WAS A REALLY IMPORTANT SECTION TO THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS, UH, UH, ENOUGH AND, YOU KNOW, GOOD EXPLANATIONS OF TERMS USED THAT WE COULD KEEP GOING BACK TO. UM, ONE OF THE KEY THINGS ABOUT THIS TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE REALLY KIND OF STEMS FROM DEFINITIONS, AND THAT IS THAT WE ELIMINATED THE TERM PROTECTED TREE. SO OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE HAS A TERM FOR PROTECTED TREES, AND IT'S A LIST OF VERY SPECIFIC OF SPECIES AND A FEW SITUATIONS. UM, AND THAT'S REALLY ALL OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE APPLIES TO. UM, SO IN AN EFFORT TO HAVE A, UH, A WIDER REACH OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND UNDER THE KIND OF OVERARCHING OBJECTIVE TO PROTECT OUR EXISTING TREE CANOPY, THE DEFINITION OF TREE, UM, IS ANY NATIVE OR NON-NATIVE WOODY PLANT WITH A TRUNK DIAMETER OF SIX INCHES OR GREATER. SO, WELL, OFTENTIMES YOU'D THINK, OH, THE DEFINITIONS IS KIND OF THE ADD-ON OF AN ORDINANCE. THAT'S A REAL KEY COMPONENT HERE, BECAUSE THAT IN OTHER SECTION IT REFERS TO THIS ORDINANCE, APPLIES TO ANY TREE WITH A TRUCK DIAMETER OF SIX INCHES OR GREATER. UM, AND I INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT, UM, A LITTLE TABLE THAT SHOWS SOME OF WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS USE. SOME OF THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS DO TAKE A MORE NUANCED APPROACH, LIKE THEY MIGHT HAVE ONE TRUNK DIAMETER FOR VACANT PROPERTY, OR, UM, A NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES EXEMPT SINGLE FAMILY ZONES OR SINGLE FAMILY PARCELS, UM, FROM THE REQUIREMENT OR DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN STREET TREES VERSUS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO THERE ARE OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT DO TAKE A MORE NUANCED APPROACH. THIS IS VERY MUCH WRITTEN WITH A SINGLE DEFINITION APPLIES ACROSS THE BOARD OF THAT SIX INCHES OR GREATER. SO, UM, QUESTIONS THAT MAY WANT TO GUIDE THE DISCUSSION. ARE THERE ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS THAT ARE USED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT REALLY AREN'T IN HERE THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDINANCE? AND IS THE DEFINITION OF TREE FOR PURPOSES OF APPLYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS TOO RESTRICTIVE? SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT A MORE NUANCED APPROACH, UM, ON DIFFERENT FACTORS OR, UM, DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORT THIS APPROACH TO LOOK AT TREES OF A CERTAIN SIZE ACROSS THE BOARD? UM, APPLICABILITY, NO QUESTION SPECIFICALLY JUST HIGHLIGHTS THAT THE ORDINANCE APPLIES TO ALL ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY, AND IT APPLIES TO STREET TREES AND TREES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. UM, SO THIS WAS A MODIFICATION THAT IS MADE IN THIS ORDINANCE. UM, AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, CONFUSION ABOUT, UM, SEPARATE PROCESSES FOR THE, UM, STREET TREES VERSUS PRIVATE TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND IN AN EFFORT TO HAVE ONE PROCESS AND BE CLEAR AND, UM, CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE, UM, CRITERIA, THE FINDINGS, UM, WE'VE MOVED THEM INTO THIS ORDINANCE THAT WOULD APPLY TO ALL TREES. 1704 OH OUTLINES, EXEMPTIONS FROM THE ORDINANCE. AND THERE IS REALLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF EXEMPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE. AND THIS WAS VERY PURPOSEFULLY DONE. UM, AGAIN, OVERARCHING OBJECTIVE IS TO PROTECT OUR TREE CANOPY TO NO NUT LOSS IN TREE CANOPY. AND SO WHAT WE WANNA DO IS LIMIT THE WORKAROUNDS OR, UM, THE EXEMPTIONS FROM THE REGULATIONS. SO WE DID ADD, AS I MENTIONED, IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BOTH THE PUBLIC AND THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AN EXEMPTION FOR EXISTING TREES. IT MIGHT BE IN PROXIMITY TO A FOUNDATION OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. UM, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT PEOPLE ALSO TO BE PROTECTING THEIR HOMES AND, UM, THAT, THAT, UM, THE SAFETY OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. SO EXEMPTION THERE AND EXEMPTION ALSO WHEN A TREE, UM, MIGHT BE LOCATED CLOSE, TOO CLOSE TO A LARGER TREE. AND SO THINNING OUT MIGHT BE ACTUALLY THE BEST OPTION FOR, UM, THE, THE LARGER SPECIMEN. UM, SO IT ALLOWS, UM, FOR ENSURING THE VIABILITY OF EXISTING TREES. AND THERE'S ALSO AN EXEMPTION FOR [00:25:01] NUISANCE SPECIES WITH A LIST OF NUISANCE SPECIES. UM, IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS ON THIS SECTION, UM, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS THAT WE SHOULD BE ADDING TO THIS SECTION TO PROVIDE THE CITY WITH GREATER FLEXIBILITY? UM, SOME OF THEM THAT COME UP, UM, COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR HOMEOWNER INSURANCE CARRIERS, UM, OR FOR FINANCIAL OR PHYSICAL HARDSHIPS RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF TREES. UM, AND THAT'S WHEN WE DID TALK ABOUT IN INTERNALLY AS STAFF, THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD PLACE FOR PARTNERSHIP WITH COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS OR, UM, THE TREE FUND TO MAYBE HELP IN THOSE SITUATIONS AS OPPOSED TO, UM, EXEMPTING AND SEEING THE REMOVAL OF TREES. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE OFTEN SEE IS A REDUCED TREE CANOPY IN AREAS, UM, IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES OR AREAS OF, UM, A LOWER ECONOMIC, UM, UM, SITUATION. UM, SO NOT WANTING TO CONTINUE THAT, BUT RATHER FIND WAYS TO SUPPORT MORE TREES IN THOSE AREAS, EVEN IF, UM, THERE ARE, UM, HARDSHIPS AND HOW CAN WE WORK WITH THEM AS OPPOSED TO JUST ALLOWING THE TREES TO BE REMOVED. UH, RELATED, SHOULD NUISANCE TREES BE CONSIDERED EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, OR SHOULD THE CITY CONSIDER THESE TREES LIKE OTHER SPECIES, BECAUSE THEY ALSO ARE EXISTING TREE CANOPY? SO THERE'S ONE THING TO NOT REPLANT OR PLANT MORE OF NUISANCE SPECIES, BUT SHOULD WE THINK ABOUT NUISANCE SPECIES DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE CREATING, UM, EXISTING TREE CANOPY. UM, AND SO IF THEY'RE EXEMPT FROM THE ORDINANCE, THERE IS NOT A REPLACEMENT REQUIRED WHEN YOU REMOVE A NUISANCE SPECIES. SO, UM, ANOTHER QUESTION, UM, POSED ON THAT ONE. UH, SO THEN WE MOVE INTO TREE REMOVAL PERMITS. SO AS MENTIONED, THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDS THE CITY'S CURRENT SCOPE OF REVIEW IN THAT IT APPLIES TO ALL TREES, SIX INCHES OR GREATER IN DIAMETER, NOT JUST PROTECTED TREES, TREE REMOVAL PERMITS. THE REVIEW AUTHORITY IS THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, UNLESS IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH A DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, REVIEW OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. AND THEN IT'S THE REVIEW AUTHORITY FOR THE ASSOCIATED ENTITLEMENTS. SO IF IT IS NEW CONSTRUCTION, THAT WOULD COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND IT INVOLVES TREE REMOVALS, THAT TREE REMOVAL WOULD BE PART OF THAT ENTITLEMENT, THAT TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. AND THE, AND THE LOOKING AT THE FINDINGS AND, AND, UM, CONDITIONS, IF IT WAS JUST A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT OR LET'S SAY ASSOCIATED WITH AN A DUA MINISTERIAL, UM, IT WOULD BE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THAT WOULD HAVE THE REVIEW AUTHORITY ON THAT. THIS SECTION OF THE CODE HAS CLEAR FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL AND FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMITS. AND IT SPECIFIES THAT A TREE, UM, THIS SAYS TREE REPLACEMENT PERMIT, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY TRUE REMOVAL PERMIT, UM, MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR REMOVAL OF ANY STREET TREE. SO INSTEAD OF THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PROCESS BEING, WHEN YOU EVALUATED WHETHER A TREE SHOULD BE REMOVED, A SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT OF YOUR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO REMOVE A STREET TREE WOULD BE THAT YOU HAD OBTAINED A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. UM, SO IN AN EFFORT TO ALIGN, UM, A SINGLE PROJECT, UH, PROCESS AGAIN, UM, SPECIFIC TO TREE REPLACEMENT, THIS SECTION OF THE CODE SIGNIFICANTLY, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ROBUST THAN THE CURRENT CODE. IT COVERS REPLACEMENT RATIOS, LOCATION AND TIMING. UH, IT INCLUDES TALKING ABOUT TREE REMOVAL NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, REMOVAL OF HERITAGE AND LANDMARK TREES, WHICH ARE, UM, OVERSEEN BY A SEPARATE SECTION OF THE CODE. TREE REMOVAL IS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OR REMOVAL OF THE STREET TREE. SO IT KIND OF COVERS ALL OF THOSE, UM, WITH SOME NUANCE TO THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS. IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT TREE REPLACEMENT SHOULD BE PLANTED ON SITE IF POSSIBLE. UM, BUT IT DOES PROVIDE PAYMENT OF AN IN LIE FEE IF IT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED ON SITE. UM, RECOGNIZING, ESPECIALLY WITH, UM, DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, A LOT OF TIMES WHEN TREE REMOVALS ARE HAPPEN AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, IT'S PERHAPS MAKING, UM, ROOM FOR A A, A NEW MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECT OR SOMETHING, AND YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO REPLACE ALL THE TREES TAKEN OUT ON THE SAME SITE. OR, UM, A, [00:30:01] A HOMEOWNER WHO MIGHT REMOVE A TREE TO PUT IN AN A DU AND CAN'T ACCOMMODATE THE FULL REPLACEMENT ON SITE. SO IT WOULD HAVE AN OPTION. UH, IT DOES HAVE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR REPLACEMENT TREES, AND IT DOES HAVE A TIMING THAT, UM, REPLACEMENT TREES SHOULD BE PLANTED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF REMOVAL. UH, 1709 OH IS REALLY, UM, WILL BE THE SECTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE DEALING WITH A LOT, UM, AFTER ADOPTION. IT RELATES TO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. UM, SO IT CREATES SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED, UM, RELATED TO TREE REMOVAL AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. IT REQUIRES THAT SITE DESIGN PRINCIPLES, UM, ARE DEMONSTRATED SO THAT, UM, DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ARE DESIGNED TO MAXIMIZE TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION. UM, REALLY TRYING TO GET APPLICANTS TO BE THINKING ABOUT THE EXISTING TREES ON SITE. UH, NOT THAT NO TREE REMOVAL CAN OCCUR FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, BUT TO GET AWAY FROM THAT KIND OF THE MENTALITY OF I'LL JUST GO CLEAR ALL THE TREES OFF THE SITE AND THEN I CAN DO PUT MY BUILDING ANY ANYWAY I WANT, TRYING TO GET THAT THOUGHT PROCESS HAPPENING AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. UM, AND THE DEVICE, THE DESIGNING OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. SO THIS WILL REQUIRE THAT SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS BE MADE, UM, AS A, A COMPONENT OF THE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF A PROJECT THAT WOULD BE COMING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, TO BE LOOKING AT THAT CONCURRENTLY. AND THERE'S STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, UM, THAT ARE BASED THAT WOULD BE APPLIED BASED ON THE PROJECT AND THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT OF THE SITE. UM, SO THINKING ABOUT THIS SECTION SPECIFICALLY, UM, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL SITE DESIGN PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED? ARE THERE ADDITIONAL STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO ENSURE SUCCESSFUL TREE PRESERVATION? OR ARE THERE SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, TO ENSURE THAT TREE PRESERVATION IS PRIORITIZED AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS? UM, THIS NEXT SECTION SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO MINISTERIAL PROJECTS. SO CURRENTLY THERE'S NO EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT FOR TREE PRESERVATION AS PART OF A BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH IS WHAT WE, UM, ONE TYPE OF MINISTERIAL PROJECT. SO THAT BEING A PROJECT WHERE THERE'S A CRITERIA AND IF YOU MEET THE CRITERIA, WE ISSUE THE PERMIT. UM, AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE HAD UNINTENDED TREE REMOVALS, BECAUSE THERE'S NO REQUIREMENTS THAT ON A BUILDING PERMIT YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY TREES ON THE SITE AND YOU HAVE TO, UM, IDENTIFY, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU HAVE UTILITY TRENCHING COMING THROUGH, IF THEY'RE GOING TO GO WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF AN EXISTING TREE, THAT SHOULD BE ON THE, ON THE PLANS. WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT THAT. AND AS A RESULT, WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF, UM, EXAMPLES OF THE TRENCHING COMING IN AND THEY'RE NOT SHOWING THE TREE ON THE PLAN AND THE TRENCHING COMES THROUGH AND DAMAGES AN EXISTING TREE, AND WE'VE LOST TREES, UM, BASED ON THOSE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS. SO THIS SETS SOME REQUIREMENTS, UM, SOME STANDARDS FOR INFORMATION THAT HAVE TO BE PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL WHEN THE SCOPE OF CONSTRUCTION, SCOPE OF CONSTRUCTION IS WITHIN 30 FEET OF AN EXISTING TREE. UM, AND THIS IS, THIS IS IN ADDITION TO WHAT MIGHT BE PART OF, UM, DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, BUT FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. SO AN ADDITION ON THE BACK OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, LET'S SAY, UM, OR AN A DU. UM, SO THAT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. THE ENFORCEMENT SECTION LARGELY TRACKS WITH THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. IT DOES ADD SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ABOUT REPLACEMENT FEE FOR ILLEGALLY REMOVED OR DAMAGED TREE. AND WE DO ANTICIPATE SOME REFINEMENTS TO THIS SECTION IN COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PRIOR TO COMING BACK WITH THE FINAL VERSION. UM, WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT TRACKS WITH OTHER CODE SECTIONS PROVIDES THE GREATEST CLARITY TO, UM, THE APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS AND PROVIDES NUANCE AS APPROPRIATE. SO IF, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS A, A FEEDBACK FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE, WE'RE, UM, WE'RE MODIFYING OUR REFINING ENFORCEMENT SECTION TO, TO WORK ALONG WITH THAT. SO JUST WANNA POINT THAT OUT THAT THIS IS A SECTION WE WOULD ANTICIPATE SEEING SOME REFINEMENTS TO, UM, TO COME ALONG WITH THE FINAL VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION. UH, I'VE PROBABLY MENTIONED THIS ENOUGH, UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO STA [00:35:01] TOUCH ON STREET TREES SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN SUCH A CENTRAL CONCERN BOTH BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW, POINTING OUT THAT WE NEED GREATER CLARITY AND EFFICIENCY IN THE REMOVE REVIEW OF TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS AND THE ENFORCEMENT TO REQUIRE REPLACEMENT AND TO MAKE SURE IT'S DONE. UM, SO THAT'S WHY THIS ORDINANCE IS, UM, DEVELOP THE WAY IT IS. UM, AS I MENTIONED, THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT WOULD BE A SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, UM, AND ENSURING THAT THOSE PROCESSES AND STANDARDS ARE REALLY, UM, IN PLACE TO PROTECT OUR URBAN CANOPY. UM, ALSO AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS TO SUPPORT TREE PLANTING EFFORTS TO REPLACE LOSS OF STREET TREE CANOPY AND TO ENSURE ROBUST TREE CANOPY ALONG OUR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS. UM, GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT THIS, UM, DRAFT, UM, PRESENTS IN TERMS OF THE REGULATORY APPROACH TO TREE PRESERVATION, UM, WE POSED A COUPLE JUST OVERARCHING CONSIDERATIONS, UM, IN TERMS OF, IS THIS REGULATORY APPROACH BALANCED WITH CITY'S GOALS FOR TREE PRESERVATION AND OFFERING REASONABLE AND ENFORCEABLE RULES FOR HOMEOWNERS? UM, THAT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE CONCERN THAT THAT HAS COME UP IS THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENTIATE THE REGULATORY APPROACH BASED ON THAT, BASED ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, UM, AND WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY VERSUS DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS VERSUS TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO JUST WANNA KIND OF REEMPHASIZE, AGAIN, THIS IS A, A DEPARTURE FROM BUSINESS AS USUAL, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE, UM, TO CHANGE THE BUSINESS AS USUAL WHEN IT COMES TO OUR TREE ORDINANCE. BUT, UM, WANTED TO KIND OF POSE THOSE OVERARCHING CONSIDERATIONS. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, WE HAVE DONE SOME PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTS WITH STAKEHOLDERS AS PART OF OUR TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE STUDY SESSIONS AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT TREES AS PART OF THE BLUEPRINT. TREES WERE DISCUSSED. SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, UM, ASSOCIATED EFFORTS THAT TREE, WE'VE GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT TREES. UM, OUR COMMS DEPARTMENT HAS PUT TOGETHER, UM, THE START OF A TREE, UM, UM, PAGE ON OUR WEBSITE THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BE, UM, UM, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WILL CONTINUE TO BE POSTED ON THAT WHEN WE DO HAVE, UM, A VERSION FOR ADOPTION, POSTING IT THERE AND HAVING AN OPTION FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT. WE ALSO SEE AFTER ADOPTION, UM, THE NEED FOR DIRECT OUTREACH AND EDUCATION TO LET PEOPLE LET TREE UM, TREE UH, REMOVAL BUSINESSES KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD SOME MODIFICATIONS DOING SOME OF THAT OUTREACH AS WELL. SO NEXT STEPS WE WILL INCORPORATE PLANNING COMMISSION FEEDBACK PLAN TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE TO THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, UM, WITH ANY CHANGES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, AS WE GO INTO ADOPTION HEARING, CONTINUE WITH THAT, UH, COMMUNITY OUTREACH. WE ALSO, THERE IS A SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WE KNOW WE NEED TO UPDATE ALSO, UM, JUST IN PARALLEL AND TO CORRESPOND WITH THIS ORDINANCE BEFORE COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE FINAL, UM, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, AND THEN LOTS TO DO TO IMPLEMENT. SO I JUST WANNA END WITH, UM, REINFORCING THE CITY'S COMMITMENT. UM, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT TREE PRESERVATION CROSSES MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS. UM, THIS EFFORT IS TO IMPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION AND COMMUNITY VISION TO INCREASE THE AWARENESS AND COMMIT TO TREE PRESERVATION AND CONTINUE TO REFLECT BACK TO OUR OBJECTIVES WHENEVER ISSUES, PROCESSES, PERMITS THAT INVOLVE TREES COMES UP, UM, AND THOSE OBJECTIVES WHENEVER THERE IS AN INTERPRETATION MADE BY STAFF. SO, UM, WITH THAT, I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT STAFF PRESENTATION. WE'LL NOW MOVE IN TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, UM, WHICH AS WE'VE DONE RECENTLY, UH, WE SHOULD KEEP SORT OF SPECIFIC AND ENDING IN A QUESTION MARK. AND THEN AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WE'LL HAVE EXTENSIVE TIME FOR DISCUSSION. UM, AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH THESE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FROM STAFF AT SORT OF TOWARDS THE END OF THE DISCUSSION PERIOD, JUST TO GIVE EVERYONE THE LAY OF THE LAND. SO DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? [00:40:04] PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY. COMMISSIONER NOELL. THANK YOU HEATHER, FOR THE PRESENTATION AND, AND ALL THE HARD WORK FROM STAFF AND, AND THE, THE THE TREE COMMITTEE. DARREN, THANKS FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THERE FOR YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEE, FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS. UM, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT VARIOUS POINTS, BUT I GUESS I'LL JUST START GOING THROUGH THEM. UM, SO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, ONE OF THE NEEDS FOR THIS UPDATE IS THE LOSS OF CANOPY. IS, IS THERE ANY INFORMATION ON WHERE THE LOSS OF CANOPY IS OCCURRING? IS IT MOSTLY WITH STREET TREES OR IS IT MOSTLY WITH TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY? WHERE IS, WHERE IS THAT LOSS AND CANOPY BEING, BEING EXPERIENCED? DARREN ACTUALLY MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME OF THIS IN GREATER NUANCE. 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT AS PART OF THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN EFFORT, UM, THERE WAS A RECENT STUDY, UM, THAT USED LIGHT LIDAR, UM, THAT LOOKED AT, WE HAD A PREVIOUS STUDY THAT WAS DONE, I BELIEVE IN 2016, BUT I MIGHT, OH, LOOK, I'M DOING OKAY. DOING OKAY. UM, AND SO WE WERE LOOKING AT IT TO LOOK AT WHERE'S THE DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? WHAT'S, WHAT WAS THE LOSS? AND WE HAVE HAD LOSS, WE HAVE, I BELIEVE IT'S SOMETHING LIKE A 13 OR 15, 13%, 13%, UM, CANOPY COVERAGE RIGHT NOW CITYWIDE, WHICH IS, I DON'T THINK IT'S WHERE WE WANNA BE. UM, WHAT I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT DARREN MIGHT KNOW, COMMISSIONER KUSON, UM, MIGHT KNOW FROM THE RECENT PRESENTATION AT TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS IF THEY DID DIFFERENTIATE WHERE THAT LOSS WAS COMING FROM STREET TREES VERSUS PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO IT'S INTERESTING, CANOPY PERCENTAGE IS ACTUALLY HARDER TO LAND ON THAN YOU MIGHT EXPECT. UH, WE HAVE AN ANALYSIS THAT'S DONE. PRIVATE PROPERTY KIND OF APPEARS TO BE THE MAIN AREA. HOWEVER, THERE ARE LIMITATIONS WHEN YOU LOOK AT LIDAR OF WHAT AREAS YOU'RE CONSIDERING. UH, SO WHEN WE LOOK AT CANOPY PERCENTAGE OVER THE ENTIRE CITY, WE KIND OF EXCLUDE PAVED AREAS. UH, IT'S NOT CLEAR WHETHER WE'RE EXCLUDING PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AT THE MOMENT WITH OUR 13% ANALYSIS, WHICH WOULD BE ALL STREET TREES. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A MOVING TARGET. I THINK, UH, THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD SPECIFY CANOPY PERCENTAGE METRICS. UM, IN OUR LAST DISCUSSION AT TREE COMMITTEE ON THE KIND OF WHOLE URBAN FORESTRY PLAN IS HOW MUCH OF A MOVING TARGET IS THAT? HOW ACCURATELY CAN WE ASSESS THAT? SO IT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION. IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE LOSING MOST ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AN ANSWER AS I THINK A LOT OF US ARE HOPING FOR INDUSTRY STANDARD. WHAT EVERYONE CLAMS FOR IS LIKE A 30%, WE WANT 30% CANOPY COVERAGE. BUT AGAIN, CAN IT, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU, WHAT IS THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OR SQUARE MILEAGE YOU'RE BASING THAT ON? UH, SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S TOUGH. SO IT'S, IT'S NOT CLEAR REALLY WHERE THE MOST LOSS IS COMING FROM. CORRECT. CORRECT. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE OUR, OUR COUNTING IS IN, IN THE WORKS , WE'RE STILL, WE DON'T HAVE A SUPER FIRM GRASP ON OUR EXACTLY. THERE'S LIMITATIONS WITH HOW YOU COUNT IT. AND I, I WILL SAY THAT PERHAPS IN AN, IN I, IN AN IDEAL ORDER OF OPERATIONS, YOU WOULD DO YOUR, YOUR URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN, SET METRICS FOR THE CANOPY YOU MIGHT LIKE TO PUT AS YOUR GOAL, AND THEN YOU WORK THAT INTO YOUR ORDINANCE. MM-HMM . ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PETALUMA REALIZED IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO SLOW DOWN THE LOSS OF TREE CANOPY. AND BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE REGULATORY TEETH IN PLACE MM-HMM . THAT KIND OF PUSHED FORWARD THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AHEAD OF THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN. MM-HMM . MM-HMM . SO THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT COME OUT OF THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEN IT'S ADOPTED THAT WE THINK, AH, OKAY, WE SHOULD GO BACK AND TWEAK SOME THINGS WITH THE ORDINANCE MM-HMM . AND THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT LOST ON STAFF, THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO DO THAT DEPENDING ON WHERE THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN IN, YOU KNOW, KNOW THE END RESULT IS WITH ESTABLISHING METRICS OR NOT, OR, UM, THE, THE MORE HOLISTIC LOOK. AND IN, IN TERMS OF LOSS OF STREET TREES, DO WE HAVE ANY DATA ON THE, THE LACK OF REPLACING TREES WHEN THERE'S A, A REMOVAL PERMIT TAKEN FOR A STREET TREE? DO WE, DO WE HAVE SOME, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR FINGERS ON THE PULSE OF THAT? [00:45:01] I THINK IT'S ANECDOTAL. YEAH. UM, ONE OF THE THINGS WE, WE SEE THAT HAPPENS IS TREES ARE TAKEN OUT ON THE WEEKENDS MM-HMM . UM, AND BECAUSE OF, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE STAFF RESOURCES WITH OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT, IT'S REALLY THE ONLY TIME WE HEAR ABOUT IT NECESSARILY IS WHEN SOMEBODY CALLS IN, CALLS IN AND, AND SO IT'S, IT'S HARD TO BE TRACKING THAT MM-HMM . UM, OR WHEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A REAL OBVIOUS, YOU KNOW, HALF OF A TREE IS GONE ON PETALUMA BOULEVARD AND THERE'S LITERALLY HALF A TREE LEFT. YOU KNOW, THOSE KIND OF THINGS WE'LL HEAR ABOUT. BUT I IT'S MORE ANECDOTAL THAN A, THAN A FIRM NUMBER OR PERCENTAGE OR IN, IN THE, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE PLACES RESPONSIBILITY OF MAINTENANCE OF THE TREE, THE STREET TREE ON THE PROPERTY OWNER. CORRECT. RIGHT. SO, OKAY. YEAH. UM, IS THERE A, A, A, AN AN ESTIMATE ON SORT OF THE COST OF IMPLEMENTING THIS, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, THIS NEW VISION? UM, IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE WORKING ON. SO THE LAST TIME THE, UM, THE CITY DOES THEIR ANNUAL FEE SCHEDULE UPDATES, UM, AND THE LAST TIME THAT CAME UP, THE REQUEST WAS TO WAIT UNTIL WE HAD AN ORDINANCE AND WE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT, AND THEN, AND THEN COME BACK WITH THE APPROPRIATE FEE. MM-HMM . SO WE ALSO ARE LOOKING FOR SOME WAYS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CUT COST DOWN. MM-HMM . UH, LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, SELF CERTIFYING THAT REPLACEMENT HAS HAPPENED, RIGHT? YEAH. SO YOU CAN NOT DO IT AND WE CAN HAVE TO GO OUT AND CHECK AND SAY, OH, YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR TREE. OR WE COULD SET UP A PROCESS WHERE, HEY, GO OUT AND TAKE A PICTURE OF YOUR TREE AND, YOU KNOW, SUBMIT IT AS LIKE, HEY, I DID THIS MM-HMM . YOU KNOW, TRYING TO LOOK FOR CREATIVE WAYS TO KEEP THE COST DOWN, BUT ALSO HAVE THAT FOLLOW THROUGH AND ENFORCEMENT. MY, MY INITIAL REACTION ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE INDICATES A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF IMPLEMENTATION COST FOR REVIEWING THE PERMITS. AND, UM, AND THEN ON THE OWN PROPERTY OWNER SIDE, A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT COST OF COMPLYING WITH SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS. IN TERMS OF, UH, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA SPIN YOUR COMMENT INTO A QUESTION IF YOU DON'T MIND. YES, YES. UH, DO WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE ON WHAT AN ARBORIST WOULD COST FOR A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO VENTURE DOWN A TREE REMOVAL PATH? I DO NOT HAVE THAT. I COULD COME BACK WITH THAT. AND HOW ABOUT THE PERMIT ITSELF? NO. BALLPARK. I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE A BALLPARK THAT I CAN GIVE YOU. I WANTED TO ADD ON, DO WE ENVISION, UH, ENVISION IT AS THE FULL COST OF THE ENTIRE PERMIT PROCESS UPFRONT BY THE APPLICANT? IS THERE KIND OF A TIERED SYSTEM WHERE THERE WOULD BE A PERMIT COST FOR AN INITIAL SITE VISIT BY STAFF AND THEN MORE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY DEPENDING ON THAT INITIAL VISIT AND WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO HELP THE PROPERTY OWNER DECIDE IN TERMS OF REMOVAL OR NOT, THAT COULD DICTATE FUTURE COSTS. DO WE, DO WE HAVE ANY SENSE OF THAT? SORRY, JUST TO PIGGYBACK THOSE ONE. YES. AND WE COULD DO, THAT'S, THAT'S SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BE CREATIVE ABOUT. YOU KNOW, IF, IF SOMEBODY, UH, AN INITIAL DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, WHICH IS WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH A CONSULTING ARBORIST, URBAN FORESTRY, UM, ASSOCIATES. UM, AND ONE OF THE THING WE'VE LEARNED FROM TALKING WITH THEM IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS IS THAT OFTEN SOMEBODY WILL COME IN ASKING ABOUT A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND WITH A CONSULTATION WITH TALKING IT THROUGH, THEY REALIZE THEY DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO REMOVE THE TREE. THEY DIDN'T WANNA REMOVE THE TREE, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO REMOVE THE TREE. SO OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A, A SMALLER TIME COMMITMENT, A SMALLER AMOUNT, UM, VERSUS, UM, SUBMITTING FOR A PERMIT, UH, REVIEWING, UM, UH, A REPORT. IT KIND OF, THERE'S, THERE'S DIFFERENT TIERS OF, UM, OF HOW MUCH TIME AND INVOLVEMENT. ALSO THINGS LIKE IF WE DID HAVE A SELF CERTIFY, LIKE A SELF CERTIFY, YOUR, THAT YOUR REPLACEMENT TREE HAS BEEN, UM, PLANTED, THAT'S GONNA REDUCE COST OF STAFF NOT HAVING TO GO OUT THERE. ANY PREDICTIONS? I I HEAR YOU THAT WE DON'T HAVE PREDICTIONS ON THE COST MONETARILY. HOW ABOUT TIME IN TERMS OF THE REVIEW PROCESS? UM, I BELIEVE [00:50:02] THAT THE, UM, CONSULTING ARBORIST INDICATED OFTEN LIKE AN HOUR, UM, FOR MANY OF THEM, MANY OF 'EM ARE CLEAR THEY'RE, THE TREE IS CAUSING AN ISSUE, THE TREE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A CONVERSATION. IT'S, UH, THEY, UM, COME UP WITH A WAY TO WORK AROUND THE ISSUE THAT THE TREE MIGHT BE CAUSING OR THE PERCEIVED ISSUE THAT THE TREE MIGHT BE CAUSING. UM, SO OFTENTIMES IT CAN BE AN HOUR OF TIME. UM, IT'S GONNA BE DIFFERENT IF SOMEBODY, UM, COMES IN WITH MORE DETAIL OR, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S TAKING OUT FIVE MATURE OAK TREES VERSUS, YOU KNOW, ONE, UM, UNHEALTHY PRITT. THERE'S GONNA BE A REAL DIFFERENCE THERE. WELL, UN UNHEALTHY PRITT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TALK TO ANYBODY 'CAUSE IT'S A NUISANCE TREE. RIGHT. IF YES, IF IT'S ON, ON THERE AS A NUISANCE TREE. OKAY. YES. , UM, O ONLY IF IT'S IMMINENT DANGER, NO NUISANCE. WELL, NO, IF IT'S A, IF IT'S ON AS A NUISANCE, THEN IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY PERMIT. OKAY. IF IT'S A NUISANCE LIST IS FULLY EXEMPT. YEAH. RIGHT. OKAY. UM, I THINK WE'RE BOTH GONNA HAVE A LOT MORE TO DISCUSS AROUND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPLICIT QUESTIONS? I DO, I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. MM-HMM . WHICH, UM, HAS, HAS THERE BEEN A CONVERSATION EITHER AT THE, THE TREE COMMITTEE OR AMONG STAFF ON, UM, AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY, UH, OWNERS? LIKE AN INCENTIVE BASED APPROACH? UM, WE'VE LOOKED, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS. I MEAN, INCENTIVE BASED APPROACH FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD BE LIKE, CITY GIVES AWAY FREE TREES. OH. YOU KNOW, TO GET PEOPLE TO PLANT TREES. TO GET PEOPLE TO PLANT TREES. YES. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT. UM, I THOUGHT YOU MEANT INSTEAD OF REMOVING YES. TO PLANT TREES, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S A FINANCIAL, UM, YOU KNOW, OBLIGATION TO DO THOSE KIND OF THINGS. THAT'S NOT IN THE ORDINANCE. MM-HMM . BUT IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WITH, UM, THE TREE FUND MM-HMM . THAT IS, IS, UM, CREATED IS, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE ENFORCEMENT FEES, THEY GO INTO THE TREE FUND OR IF, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A SITUATION WHERE, UM, , UH, I THINK, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS CALLED, THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOOKED AT IT AT PERRY AND I THINK IT'S CALLED ALTER, UM, PERRY AND BAYWOOD. AND THERE WAS, UM, SOME OAK TREES ALONG THE BACK PROPERTY THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO STAY, LIKE THE PLANS HAD BEEN APPROVED WITH THEM TO STAY. AND OVER THE WEEKEND THEY ALL GOT CUT DOWN. WELL, THAT, THAT WAS AN ENFORCEMENT AND THERE WAS, AND THERE WAS A CHUNK OF MONEY AS ENFORCEMENT THAT THEY HAD TO PAY. UM, SO THAT WOULD THEN GO INTO A TREE FUND AND THEN THE CITY COULD DO SOME OF THOSE PROGRAMS, SOME OF THOSE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. SO, YOU KNOW, COME, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'LL BUY YOU A TREE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT X NUMBER OF TREES AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, TO PROPERTY OWNERS OR THOSE KIND OF THINGS. OR WORKING WITH COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS LIKE RELIEF TO PLANT, PLANT STREET TREES OR THOSE KIND OF THINGS. SO YES, SEEING IT AS THAT'S THE OTHER COMPONENT, THAT'S THE NON-REGULATORY APPROACH TO TRY TO, UM, HAVE A ROBUST TREE PRESERVATION PROGRAM. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. THAT'S IT FOR MY QUESTIONS. OKAY. IF WE CAN TURN OVER TO COMMISSIONER SCHUTT OVER ON ZOOM, GO FOR IT. GREAT. THANK YOU. AND, UM, LIKE COUNCIL SAID, THERE'S, I'M HERE BY MYSELF. THERE'S NO ONE ELSE IN THIS ROOM ABOVE 18 YEARS OF AGE, AND I WILL BE JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. JUST A COUPLE THINGS MAYBE TO CLARIFY. UM, DOES THIS NEW CHANGE MAKE EVERY TREE A PROTECTED TREE EXCEPT FOR A NUANCED TREE? A NU NUISANCE TREE? SORRY. IT IT, YES. KI YES. AND, UM, TREES UNDER SIX INCH DIAMETER WOULD NOT, WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A TREE UNDER THIS ORDINANCE. BUT YES, IN ESSENCE, WHERE NOW OUR ORDINANCE SAYS YOU, YOU KNOW, OUR TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE APPLIES TO PROTECTED TREES, WHICH IS THAT LIST. CERTAIN SPECIES. YEAH. LIST OF SPECIES, CERTAIN SPECIES. THIS SAYS, THIS ORDINANCE APPLIES TO ALL TREES AND DEFINES TREES AS SIX INCH DIAMETER OR ABOVE THE QUE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, 'CAUSE I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THERE THAT [00:55:01] TALKS ABOUT TREES AND THAT FROM JUST, UH, AND THIS IS MAYBE MORE FOR COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, THE, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAKING SURE WE'RE STAYING WITHIN OUR POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT NOT BEING ARBITRARY AND PUTTING, YOU KNOW, TAXES ON PEOPLE FOR THEIR TREES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. RIGHT, DYLAN? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. ANY ORDINANCE WE HAVE NEEDS TO WITHSTAND RATIONAL BASIS. SO I THINK WE'RE THERE. UM, THE CITY, WE HAVE A LOT OF POLICE POWERS, BUT GOOD TO POINT OUT AND DEFINITELY SOMETHING NOT COGNIZANT OF. I JUST, AND AND SO IT DEALS WITH THAT DEFINITION OF A TREE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE TIME FOR THAT, BUT DOES THAT DEFINITION OF A TREE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TREE'S AGE AT THE TIME OF REMOVAL OR ACTION? OR IS IT THE TREE'S POTENTIAL FOR DIAMETER? I, I, I, I DON'T, I, I'M JUST WONDERING HOW WE IMPLEMENT SUCH A THING AND MAYBE IT'S NOT TIME FOR NOW. AND I THINK DARREN MAY HAVE BETTER EXPERTISE ON ME THAN I DO ON THIS. SO DO YOU MEAN, UM, IN TERMS OF WHAT THE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT IS OR IN TERMS OF NO, JUST IS IF, IF WE CAN, CAN THEY JUST CUT DOWN A, A TREE QUOTE UNQUOTE THAT'S LESS THAN SIX INCHES IN DIAMETER? THEY DO NOT NEED A REMOVAL PERMIT THEN, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. IF IT'S UNDER SIX INCHES IN DIAMETER. OKAY. SO THEY, EVEN IF THAT TREE HAS POTENTIAL TO BE GREATER THAN SIX INCHES IN 12 MONTHS A YEAR, WE'RE JUST USING THAT AS OUR REFERENCE POINT ON THE DEFINITION THEN. THAT'S TRUE. COULD THAT POSE ANY ISSUES OF PEOPLE JUST WILLY-NILLY CUTTING DOWN AND REMOVING A BUNCH OF TREES ON THEIR PROPERTY AND THEN THEREFORE MINIMIZING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE OUT OF THE TREE ORDINANCE? WELL, I MEAN, NOT, NOT ANYMORE THAN IS CURRENTLY POSSIBLE, I GUESS. CORRECT. AND THE SIX INCH DBH UH, AT BREAST HEIGHT IS KIND OF THE INDUSTRY STANDARD RIGHT. FOR A LOT OF ORDINANCES. UM, SO I'LL JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE. THIS IS REALLY COMMONLY USED METRIC. YEAH, I, I SAW THAT TOO. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF IT'S POSES SOME ISSUES IN THE GOALS WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE, BUT IT MAY NOT BE FEASIBLE TO DO ANYTHING. BUT THAT, I GET THAT. MY LAST QUESTION IS, I THINK I'LL TRY TO FRAME IT AS A QUESTION. UM, IN THE, IN, IN THIS PROCESS OF DEVELOPING AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS, AND I KNOW STAFF HAS REVIEW SESSIONS WITH ALL THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES AND EVERYTHING. WHEN DOES LIKE STAFF IN TERMS OF LIKE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BECOME INVOLVED IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS? THEY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED. UM, OKAY. SO WE HAVE TALKED WITH THEM. WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING, UM, AS AN INTERNAL, UM, AND YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THERE IS, UM, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S ONE OF THE FINDINGS, UM, FOR A TREE REMOVAL, A GROUNDS FOR APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL IS IF, UM, FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS, IS A SPECIES OR A SITUATION THAT IS CONSIDERED A A, A FIRE HAZARD. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER NER, DO YOU WANNA GO? I'LL LET SARAH GO FIRST. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, ONE QUESTION IS, I SAW IN THE DEFINITIONS DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN HERITAGE TREES, LANDMARK TREES, NATIVE TREES. UM, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S I GUESS THE CARRYING WEIGHT OF THOSE DEFINITIONS NOW THAT KIND OF ALL TREES ARE CONSIDERED PROTECTED OR EQUAL AND WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHERE DO THOSE DEFINITIONS, I GUESS, LIKE LEAD? SO, UM, HERITAGE AND LANDMARK TREES ARE ACTUALLY A PROCESS THAT IS DEFINED IN OUR MUNI CODE. UM, AND IT IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE. SO THIS ORDINANCE WAS TRYING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND NOT CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT PROCESS. UM, BUT ACKNOWLEDGING AND CARRYING THOSE FORWARD, AND IF I'M RIGHT AT, AT CURRENT, IT IMPACTS THE REPLACEMENT YEAH. ROUTING, IF YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE YEAH. THE IN LIE FEES, IS THERE, ARE THERE STATISTICS AROUND LIKE HOW OFTEN THOSE ARE IMPLEMENTED IN LIEU OF PLANTING REPLACEMENTS AND WHAT YEAH, JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE HISTORY AND CONTEXT ON THAT. SO, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU DON'T HAVE TO, SO MUCH CAN BE REMOVED WITHOUT ANY PERMIT OR ANY REQUIREMENT. WHERE WE SEE THAT MOST OFTEN IS PART OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. UM, SO WE DO SEE THAT IN, IN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WHERE YOU MIGHT THEN HAVE A CONDITION THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE REMOVING 10 TREES OF THESE [01:00:01] SIZES, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO THIS REPLACEMENT VALUE. UM, AND THERE WILL BE AN IN LIEU FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. SO THAT'S WHERE WE SEE IT NOW, MOSTLY, UM, NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T REQUIRE FOUR LIKE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE SAME WAY. GOTCHA. WHAT WAS IT REV, WAS THE IN LIE FEE REVIEWED OR RE-REVIEWED AS PART OF THE IZO UPDATE THAT'S PROPOSED HERE? OR CHANGES TO THAT, LIKE MAKING IT MORE RESTRICTIVE? UM, WHERE IT IS NOW IN THE, IN THE DRAFT IS BASICALLY IF YOU CAN'T ACCOMMODATE YOUR REPLACEMENT ON SITE MM-HMM . UM, IT GIVES YOU THAT OPTION BECAUSE THAT WE, WE, UM, IDENTIFIED THAT AS IT COULD BE A REAL MM-HMM. A REAL CHALLENGE ESPECIALLY FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS. THERE MIGHT BE REMOVING THE TREE TO, FOR INSTANCE, BUILD AN A DU, UM, AND THEY MIGHT NOT WANT TO OR HAVE THE ROOM TO THEN PLANT ANOTHER TREE. RIGHT. UM, AND SO WANTING TO HAVE ALLOWANCE FOR THAT AND THEN THAT MONEY GOES INTO A FUND THAT THEORETICALLY CAN HELP FUND PLANTING EFFORTS ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY, WHETHER IT BE IN PARKS OR ON ON STREETS OR SO THAT WE'RE STILL GETTING THAT CANOPY. GREAT. THANKS. OH, LAST QUESTION. UH, RELATED TO VACANT LOTS, I THINK I SAW SOMETHING IN THE EASY ICO ABOUT VACANT LOTS. IS THERE ANY SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR, LIKE, IF WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP A MISSING MIDDLE OR AN INFILL LOT, UM, AND THERE'S, YOU KNOW, FIVE TREES POORLY PLACED MAKING IT UNDEVELOPABLE, LIKE WHAT WOULD THE PROCESS BE FOR THAT? UM, SO THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE, IN THE ORDINANCE ABOUT NOT WANTING PEOPLE TO CUT DOWN TREES ON VACANT LOTS JUST TO CUT DOWN TREES ON VACANT LOTS. THERE'S ALSO AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT WE DO WANT INFILL HOUSING. WE DO WANT INFILL DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, UM, LA LAND USE, UM, THAT, THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ARE BANKING ON. YOU KNOW, THEY BUY A PROPERTY, IT'S GOT A LAND USE, IT HAS SOME DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL. SO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE NEED TO WORK WITH THAT. SO THE WAY THAT, UM, THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IS TRYING TO ENSURE THAT WHERE THOSE TREES CAN BE PRESERVED, THEY ARE. UM, WHETHER THAT'S THINGS THINKING ABOUT LIKE, OKAY, WE'LL PUT OUR, OUR COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE IN THIS PROJECT HERE WHERE THERE'S ALREADY SOME NICE TREE CANOPY, FOR INSTANCE. UM, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT YOU CAN'T REMOVE TREES. IT JUST THAT YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU THOUGHT ABOUT IT. AND IF A TREE, IF A, IF A LOT IS DESIGNATED FOR INFILL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND IT'S COVERED WITH TREES, YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE, YOU CAN'T BUILD INFILL HOUSING AND NOT REMOVE TREES IF THE LOT IS COVERED WITH TREES. SO IT'S TRYING TO ELEVATE THE CONSIDERATION OF THAT AS PART OF THE DESIGNING THE PROJECT, BUT NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T DO IT. THANKS. I'M GONNA PIGGYBACK OFF OF THAT QUESTION REALLY QUICK IF I COULD. SO UNDERSTOOD THAT THE, UH, VACANT LOTS THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE APPROPRIATE FOR INFILL HOUSING HAVE METHODS TO GAIN APPROVAL FOR REMOVING TREES TO ACCOMMODATE THAT INFILL HOUSING. HOW DOES THAT PROCESS AS THE REGULATION AS PROPOSED SETS UP, INTERACT WITH HOUSING STREAMLINING REFORMS? SO, UM, IF IT'S A MINISTERIAL PROJECT, UM, WE WOULD LOOK AT THE CRITERIA AT THE, THE DISCRETION WOULD BE WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO LOOK AT THE CRITERIA AND WE WOULD GET REPLACEMENT. THAT'S A OBJECTIVE STANDARD IN HERE TO GET THE REPLACEMENT VALUE. UM, IF TREES NEED TO BE REMOVED, ARE WE ABLE TO ENFORCE THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO LAY OUT HERE IN WHICH AN ARBORIST HAS TO BE CONSULTED AND THERE'S LIKE ALL OF THIS, UH, SHOWING OF YOUR WORK BEFORE GETTING THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. DOES THAT COME UP AGAINST ANY OF THE STREAMLINING STATE LAWS? WELL, THE STREAMLINING STATE LAWS, UM, REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE AN OBJECTIVE THAT THE, THAT THE PROJECTS COMPLY WITH YOUR OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. UM, AND WE DO HAVE TO TURN AROUND THOSE APPLICATIONS PRETTY QUICKLY. RIGHT. SO WE MIGHT NEED TO UPDATE OUR APPLICATIONS TO INCLUDE, AND I'M SURE WE ALREADY HAVE IT, BUT TREES, WHETHER OR NOT YOU'VE OBTAINED A TREE PERMIT, THAT KIND INFORMATION JUST TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE CHECKING THE BOXES APPROPRIATELY AND WE CAN REVIEW QUICKLY. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE QUA [01:05:01] ASPECT OF IT TOO. UM, SOME OF THEM ARE EXEMPT FROM C QA, SOME OF THEM AREN'T EXEMPT FROM QUA TREES ARE A, A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE. SO THERE WOULD BE SOME LOOKING AT IT THROUGH THAT AS WELL. ARE TREE PROTECTION PLANTS REQUIRED ON ALL MINISTERIAL SUBMITTALS OR NOT? SO I'M GONNA PULL IT OUT 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE IT COMMITTED TO MEMORY 17, 17.1 HUNDRED PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES IN MINISTERIAL PAGE 11 IN THE DRAFT. YEP. SO IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT A SITE PLAN IDENTIFYING ALL THE EXISTING TREES, UM, AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, THAT TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND TREE PRESERVATION MEASURES, UM, ARE IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THE WORK DOES NOT IMPACT EXISTING TREES ON SITE. UM, IDENTIFYING TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVALS, EXISTING TREES TO BE PRESERVED IN A NEW TREE PLANTING AND NEW TREE PLANTING PROPOSED. SO THERE'S, THERE IS SOME PROTECTIONS IN THERE FOR MINISTERIAL PROJECTS LIKE THAT TO ACKNOWLEDGE, IDENTIFY, UM, AND PROTECT DURING CONSTRUCTION. AND THIS JUST, I'M GONNA BLAME MOM BRAIN ON THIS, BUT, UH, MINISTERIAL REVIEW IN THIS INSTANCE OBVIOUSLY CAPTURES A WIDE VARIETY OF STREAMLINING FOR BIGGER PROJECTS, BUT MINISTERIAL REVIEW IS ALSO ANYTHING THAT COMES TO THE COUNTER, RIGHT? YES. I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS FROM MM-HMM . I WANNA, YOU KNOW, MOVE MY TUB TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BATHROOM TO, I WANNA BUILD DOZENS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS UNDER STATE LAW. THAT'S ALL CONSIDERED MINISTERIAL REVIEW THAT'S CAUGHT UP IN 17.1 HUNDRED. YEAH. OKAY. I'LL BE COMING BACK TO THAT FOR SURE. OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? YEP. UM, I'LL JUST TRY TO MAKE THESE AS SUCCINCT AS POSSIBLE. UH, SO WE TALK ABOUT OBVIOUSLY THE DIFFERENT CONTEXT BY WHICH THESE APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED. ONE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DURING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, ONE WITH, UM, PUBLIC WORKS FOR PRIVATE REMOVALS, UH, OR INDIVIDUAL TREE REMOVALS. IS THAT CORRECT? WAS I READING THAT OR WHO WOULD BE, WHO WOULD BE OVERSEEING OR WOULD THAT ALL BE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT? UH, FOR, IT WOULD ALL BE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WOULD BE THE REVIEW AUTHORITY. UM, DO YOU MEAN FOR STREET TREES? UM, YEAH, I GUESS FOR THOSE ARE THE THREE CONTEXTS I THINK OF. OR LIKE STREET TREES DEVELOPMENT AND THEN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER KIND OF ONE OFF TREE REMOVALS. YEAH, IT WOULD ALL BE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR PLANNING COMMISSION IF PLANNING COMMISSION OR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DEPENDING ON WHO THE REVIEW AUTHORITY WOULD BE. OKAY, THANK YOU. OR COUNCIL IF IT'S, OR COUNCIL, YEAH. UH, FAIRGROUNDS, LIKE THEY'RE GONNA DO TREE REMOVAL FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, RIGHT? YEAH. SO WHOEVER THE DEC DECISION MAKER IS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD BE, WOULD BE THE LOOKING AT THE TREE REMOVALS. OKAY. GOT IT. AND SO WHOEVER, WHETHER WE HAVE A CONSULTING OR EVENTUALLY FULL-TIME PERSON, THEY'RE HAVING TO SPLIT THEIR TIME BETWEEN PERMITS IN THOSE DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. RIGHT. SO I, I WOULD ASSUME WE'RE INTERJECTING, LIKE WHETHER IT'S CURRENTLY, I THINK IT'S STILL BEN INVOLVED IN THOSE DECISIONS, HE'S KIND OF SPLITTING TIME BETWEEN THOSE DIFFERENT PERMIT CONTEXTS TO BE INVOLVED IN OR, OR ARE WE ALWAYS KIND OF INJECTING THAT EITHER STAFF OR CONTRACTED EXPERTISE? YEAH. STAFF ARE CONTRACTED. I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE PERMIT THAT COMES IN. UM, RIGHT. BUT PART OF THE IDEA IS TO HAVE A CONSULTING ARBORIST ON UNDER CONTRACT AS WE HAVE HAD AND AS WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO USE BEN OR URBAN FORESTRY TO LOOK AT THINGS THAT COME IN THAT AREN'T CLEAR NEED, YOU KNOW, NEED A CERTIFIED ART OF ARBORIST TO WEIGH IN ON. UM, WE WOULD SEE CONTINUING TO USE THAT, UM, IN ABSENCE OF A CITY ARBORIST OR FORESTRY DEPARTMENT OR OKAY. WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE IN THE FUTURE. PERFECT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT PROCESS. UH, AND THEN HAVE WE GIVEN ANY MORE THOUGHT, AND I THINK IT'S EVEN MENTIONED IN THERE ABOUT ACCREDITATION PROGRAMS FOR ARBORISTS AND THAT IS MAKING SURE THAT IT'S EASY WHEN THINKING, ESPECIALLY A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT REALLY FOR ANYONE TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE SELECTING SOMEONE WHO WILL BE COMPLYING WITH THIS ORDINANCE. I BELIEVE WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE, HAVING SOME KIND OF LIKE CHECK MARK OR LIST THAT WE SEND OUT WITH THE PERMIT SAYING THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WE KNOW WILL ADHERE TO OUR CODE AND THAT WE CAN RECOMMEND. SO THEY DON'T, WHICH WE'VE HAD BEFORE. THEY DON'T SAY, WELL, MY ARBOR SAID THIS WAS OKAY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE THIS, THIS PERMIT CONTEXT. SO I DON'T THINK WE'VE LANDED [01:10:01] ON EXACTLY THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THAT. UM, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT SENDING, UM, ONCE WE DO HAVE A NEW ORDINANCE SENDING LIKE A A ONE PAGE, HEY, OUR ORDINANCE HAS CHANGED, YOU KNOW, TO ALL THE, UM, TREE SERVICES, UM, WITH BUSINESS LICENSES IN PETALUMA, THAT, THAT KIND OF THING TO TRY TO GET SOME OF THAT OUT. UM, WE HAVE HAD A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE NOT, UM, WE HAVE, WE CAN'T RECOMMEND, UM, PROFESSIONALS. UM, SO TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THAT AND HOW DO WE NOT RUN A FOUL OF THAT? WHETHER WE COULD SET UP A, LIKE SELF CERTIFYING, HEY, IF YOU WANNA BE, IF YOU WANNA SELF-CERTIFY THAT YOU'LL, THAT YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH OUR ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THAT. I DON'T, OKAY. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE DECIDED ON A LITTLE BIT OF THIS BOILER WHAT WE CAN, I DID A SEARCH FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBOR CULTURE THAT IS REQUIRED IN THE ARBOR'S DEFINITION AND THERE ARE EIGHT IN PETALUMA. SO SMALL POPULATION THAT WE NEED TO EDUCATE. YEAH. YEAH. NO, I THINK IT'S MANAGEABLE AND I KNOW OTHER CITIES HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR. ANYWAY, I, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND THAT ONE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OVER, OVER THE REACH OF THIS, UH, PROCESS. BUT, UM, THEN MOVING ON TO 17.040 EXEMPTIONS, SECTION C ABOUT PUBLIC UTILITIES. DOES PG E FALL UNDER HERE RIGHT NOW? WE DO REQUIRE THEM TO FILE AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. I WOULD ASSUME THEY WOULD HAVE TO, THEY HAVE TO GET SOME KIND OF PROOF OF EXEMPTION OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE FOR THE REMOVAL UNDER A PUBLIC UTILITY EXEMPTION. AND I GUESS YOU COULD EXPAND THAT QUESTION TO ANYONE WHO HAS AN EXEMPTION. DO THEY NEED TO LIKE FILE A PROOF OF EXEMPTION? I KNOW, I THINK IT'S SAN JOSE DOES THAT. THERE'S A BOX ON THE PERMIT THAT'S JUST LIKE MY REMOVAL'S EXEMPT, BUT I'M REPORTING THAT IT'S HAPPENING. DO WE ENVISAGE ANYTHING LIKE THAT? UH, GOOD QUESTION. UM, I'LL, I'LL TAKE A NOTE DOWN TO THAT. I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT. UM, WE DO, MY UNDERSTANDING IS PUBLIC WORKS HAS WORKED WITH PG AND E TO KIND OF HAVE A, UM, WRITTEN STANDARD OPERATING AGREEMENT. YEAH. A PROBLEM. I THINK A COUPLE YEARS AGO, PG D WAS JUST COMING ON TO OUR PROPERTY AND JUST CUTTING IT DOWN. AND I THINK NOW WE'VE REACHED SORT OF AN UNDERSTANDING IS YES, IT'S ALLOWED, BUT AT LEAST GIVE US A HEADS UP SO WE CAN, YOU KNOW, DISPUTE HOW MUCH YOU'RE CUTTING DOWN OR JUST, SORRY, JUST A HEADS UP FROM PG E AND I THINK WE HAVE, OR WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT RELATIONSHIP, OR AT LEAST I HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANY PROBLEMS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS OR SO. I, I I THINK IT'S, UM, AN ONGOING, UM, STRENGTHENING OF THAT RELATIONSHIP. OKAY. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE MADE PROGRESS, BUT WE GOTTA KEEP MAKING PROGRESS AS, AS THEIR TEAM HAS MADE CLEAR. THEY HAVE ALL THE AUTHORITY THERE, BUT IT JUST, THAT MADE ME THINK OF THAT, BUT A HEADS THAT, 'CAUSE IT'S A CO YEAH. AND IT'S A COMPLAINT WE GET FREQUENTLY FROM THE PUBLIC. SO, UM, AND THEN FOR 17.09, OH, UH, THINKING OF SOME OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THINGS LIKE THAT, IS IT ALREADY, AND THIS MIGHT BE, IS IT ALREADY IMPLICIT EXPECTED OR JUST THE COURSE OF BUSINESS THAT WE GET SOME KIND OF INSPECTION OR REVIEW OF THE KIND OF TREE TREES ON SITE WHEN AN APPLICATION IS BROUGHT FORWARD? AND THE REASON I THINK OF THIS IS WE'RE OFTEN SEEING OR WISHING THAT WE HAD TREE PLANS SOONER BEFORE GRADING AND MASSING HAS TAKEN PLACE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE'VE GOTTEN SOME STEPS ALONG IN THE PROCESS. SO RIGHT NOW, IS THAT NOT AN ISSUE FOR THIS REMOVAL? ARE WE KIND OF GETTING ALL THIS MATERIALS AT THE SAME TIME? SO WE'RE SEEING THAT REALLY EARLY IN THE PROJECT DESIGN? SURE. UM, SO CURRENTLY FOR DISCRETIONARY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECTS, WE DO REQUIRE THAT THEY SUBMIT A CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN INDICATING ALL TREES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, THOSE THAT THEY WOULD BE PROPOSING FOR REMOVAL. UM, AND WE WORK THROUGH THE E EVALUATION OF THOSE THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL. UH, WE DETERMINE IF WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND REMOVAL TO THE REVIEW AUTHORITY. UM, AND THEN ALSO WE ESTABLISH MITIGATION FOR ANY TREES THAT ARE RECOMMENDED OR APPROVED OF REMO FOR REMOVAL. THEN ALL OF THAT INFORMATION THEN TRANSLATES INTO, OR, OR IS BROUGHT OVER THEN TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT IS ACTUALLY PREPARED AND SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT. SO, UH, WE DO CURRENTLY DO THAT. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, AND THEN THAT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION. I DON'T THINK EVEN I CAN SHOVE IT INTO A QUESTION, SO I'LL JUST MOVE ON TO 17.140. UM, ENFORCEMENT, I THINK YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT IT. UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THIS I READ IS LIKE POLICE, I KNOW THAT WAS A STRUGGLE BEFORE ENFORCEMENT'S. NOW MOVING, CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THE ENFORCEMENT PERMIT THAT THE ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR THE PERMITS AS BEST WE KNOW NOW. IS [01:15:01] IT SOMEONE FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SENDING A LETTER OR, OR IS IT DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON ADMINISTRATIVE, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL? IS THAT, I CAN TAKE A STAB AT THAT. YEAH, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE USED CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. IT SAID THAT IN THERE AND SO YEAH, BUT I, ANYWAY, IT DOES SAY THAT IN THERE THAT, YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S AN OPTION FOR US. THE GOVERNMENT CODE ALLOWS US, UM, IT, SOME CITIES SPECIALIZE, I THINK IN CRIMINAL, BUT THOSE ARE LIKE BIGGER CITIES. UH, WE'RE LUCKY ENOUGH ON OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S TEAM TO HAVE A FORMER DA BOTH IN MARIN AND UH, SONOMA COUNTY. SO THAT'S AN OPTION, BUT IT'S WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO BE PRETTY EGREGIOUS. UM, I THINK MOSTLY IT'D BE ADMINISTRATIVE. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, I JUST DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE TOO HEAVY HANDED, SO THANKS FOR SPEAKING TO THAT. UH, AND THEN THE LAST ONE, FEEDBACK LOOP AND UPDATE PROCESS. WHAT DO WE ENVISION, ESPECIALLY FOR THE FIRST COUPLE YEARS AS LIKE OUR INTERNAL REVIEW PROCESS TO MAKE SURE IT'S WORKING? I'M GUESSING OBVIOUSLY PERMITS ARE GONNA BE TRACKED. IS THE INTERNAL TEAM GONNA MEET? IS IT GONNA COME BACK MAYBE TO ANY RELEVANT COMMITTEES TO REPORT OUT? UM, JUST ANYTHING LIKE THAT AS WE FIRST TROT THIS OUT THERE, ASSUMING IT GETS TROT OUT AT ITS CURRENT FORM, HOW ARE WE MAKING SURE IT'S WORKING AND WE'RE IMPROVING? UM, SO I MEAN, ANYTIME WE HAVE OUR INTERNAL, UM, REVIEW COMMITTEE, UM, THAT WE OFTEN USE TO MEET AS, AS A TEAM, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING, UM, REPRESENTATIVES FROM FIRE, FROM PUBLIC WORKS, FROM PARKS FROM, UM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CODE ENFORCEMENT, THAT KIND OF THING. SO, UM, DEFINITELY WE HAVE THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK TO, AND WE'VE USED, UM, THAT GROUP TO TALK SOME ABOUT IT SO FAR, YOU KNOW, OR MEET WITH A SMALLER GROUP SUBSET OF THAT ABOUT EXISTING PERMIT AND PERMIT CHALLENGES. UM, SO I WOULD ASSUME WE WILL USE THAT, UM, AS NEEDED TO REFLECT BACK TO WHEN WE START, YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE NEW PERMIT FORM, ARE WE ASKING FOR ALL THE RIGHT STUFF, YOU KNOW, WORKING ON THAT TOGETHER. UM, ANOTHER THING I, I HAD TALKED WITH, UM, THE PREVIOUS LIAISON TO THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS EVEN JUST LIKE A QUARTERLY UPDATE OR SOMETHING EVEN, YOU KNOW, IN, IN WRITING. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A FULL STAFF REPORT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, A PRESENTATION, BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, SO BECAUSE JUST TO KEEP THAT COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THE INVESTMENT IN TIME. SO, UM, I HAVEN'T, I HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT AGAIN WITH THE NEW LIAISON, BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ALSO KIND OF RE REIGNITE TO SEE SOME SORT OF INFORMATION SHARING. OKAY. QUARTERLY FEELS LIKE A LOT, BUT, UM, BUT THAT'S GREAT. SO THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. OKAY. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? GREAT. THEN LET'S MOVE ON INTO PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, WHICH I DO HAVE TWO CARDS AND I'LL ASK THE CLERK, DID WE RECEIVE ANY, UH, COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING? WE RECEIVED ONE PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO THE MEETING THAT'S BEEN POSTED ONLINE FOR VIEWING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THEN FIRST UP WE'VE GOT CHARLES LITTLE FOLLOWED BY LUCINDA RAY, UH, COMMISSIONERS. UH, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. MY NAME IS CHARLES LITTLE AND UM, I'M REPRESENTING RELIEF PETALUMA TODAY. AND OUR PERSPECTIVE IS, UM, I DID SEND YOU A LETTER, UH, LAYING OUT OUR THOUGHTS OR SOME OF THEM MORE GENERALLY, UM, AS AN EX TEACHER. I'M NOT SURE YOU ALL DID YOUR HOMEWORK, BUT, UH, I'LL ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE AND, UH, JUST SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS. HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE PUT IN THAT LETTER THAT I THINK ARE, ARE IMPORTANT. UH, I WILL ALSO ALSO FIRST OF ALL SAY THAT, UM, TALKING ABOUT, UH, PEOPLE PLANTING TREES ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY, UH, YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE OF THIS, BUT APPARENTLY, UH, MAYBE SOMEBODY WASN'T, UH, RELIEF IS PLANT IS PLANTING TREES AND GIVING AWAY TREES ON PEOPLE'S PROPERTY AS WE SPEAK. WE HAVE A NEARLY 200 PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO HAVE TREES PLANTED ON THEIR, ON THEIR, ON THEIR PROPERTIES ALREADY. SO WE'RE TRYING TO DO OUR JOB, BUT THE BASIC MESSAGE FROM RELIEF IS WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TREES. THAT'S, THAT'S THE MAIN THING. AND WE WANT TO KEEP THE TREES THAT WE HAVE AS MUCH AS THAT'S POSSIBLE. AND DARREN, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS AS SOME OTHER TIME, BUT ALSO LOOKING AT THAT LIDAR, UH, LOOK AT THE CANOPY HERE, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT, UM, IT STAYED ABOUT THE SAME FROM 2016. THE, THE AMOUNT OF CANOPY 13% FROM ABOUT 2016, I THINK IT WAS 2023, RIGHT? YEAH. UM, AND THAT WAS PARTLY [01:20:01] DUE TO THE FACT ACTUALLY IT INCREASED A TINY BIT, A TINY, TINY BIT. AND THAT WAS BECAUSE TREES GROW AND THEY GROW MORE FOLIAGE. AND THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT INCREASED THE RELIEF TREES HASN'T, ISN'T, IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS. THE TREES THAT WE'VE BEEN PLANTING THE LAST THREE YEARS. YEAH, THEY'RE JUST TOO SMALL TO TAKE. THEY'RE NOT IN THE STUDY. UM, BUT THE MAJORITY OF WHAT WAS LOST AS MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT, AND WE COULD STRAIGHTEN THIS OUT SOME OTHER TIME, BUT IT WAS DEVELOPMENT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THAT'S WHERE THE TREE CANOPY WAS, HAD BEEN DELETED, HAD BEEN GOING AWAY. SO JUST THAT POINT, YOU, YOU MAY WANT, YOU COULD, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER, BUT I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT. UM, THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT, JUST GOING BACK TO UM, MY LETTER HERE, I'M GONNA READ A COUPLE OF PARTS OF THE LETTER THAT, UH, ARE MOST IMPORTANT AND, UH, AND AGAIN, AS A RETIRED TEACHER, YOU THAT YOU CAN'T SAY SOMETHING TOO MANY TIMES TO, UH, PEOPLE WHO MAY WANNA HAVE SOME LEARN SOMETHING. SO, UM, HERE'S, HERE'S ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS. HERE'S THE MAIN IDEA. WE ARE FACING A FUTURE OF MORE EXTREME HEAT WAVES AND GREATER STORMWATER VOLUME. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR CITY IS NOT DESIGNED TO PROVIDE THE COOLING SHADE FROM LARGE TREES THAT MAKE THE HEAT MORE BEARABLE. AND I WILL SAY, SAY ABOUT THAT, UM, MANY OF YOU PERHAPS LIKE ME, LIKE TO WALK AROUND PETALUMA AND YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE IN THE SUMMERTIME, AT LEAST ON THIS SIDE OF TIME, YOU COULD SIDE OF TOWN. I'M SORRY. YOU'RE AT TIME'S UP, SIR. OH MY GOD. THAT'S WHY LUCINDA IS HERE. IT GOES FAST AND WE DO APPRECIATE YOU SUBMITTING THE LETTER AHEAD OF TIME. THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. GOOD. IT'S IN THE RECORD FOR SURE. I THINK, UH, MY WIFE WILL GIVE HER TIME TO ME IF YOU WILL ALLOW THAT I, TIME WISE MYSELF, WE CAN ALLOW THAT. SURE. OKAY, I WILL GO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEP. YEP. THANK YOU VICENTA. UM, ANYWAY, WHEN YOU WALK AROUND TOWN, YOU WANNA FIND THE, THE TREES, YOU, YOU GO ACROSS THE STREET BECAUSE THERE'S SHADE OVER THERE AND SO FORTH. AND OF COURSE IN PARTS OF TOWN THAT'S NOT EVEN POSSIBLE. THERE JUST ISN'T ANY SHADE AT ALL. I MEAN, I JUST WANNA PUT, BRING THAT POINT OUT. UM, CONTINUING MORE TREES MAKE FLOODING LESS EXTENSIVE. THEY MAKE REAL ESTATE MORE VALUABLE. RELIEF IS WORKING HARD TO INCREASE THE INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT IT'S GONNA TAKE A LONG TIME FOR OUR LITTLE TREES TO GROW. THAT'S, SO WE WANT TO KEEP WHAT WE HAVE. THAT'S THE POINT. SO THE EXISTING TREE CANOPY, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, WILL HAVE TO GET US THROUGH THE PUBLIC CANOPY ALONE CANNOT HANDLE THIS LOAD. THE PRIVATELY OWNED CANOPY, CANOPY IS AN INDISPENSABLE PUBLIC ASSET FOR A VERY TOUGH TRANSITION PERIOD TO NEW CLIMATE REALITIES. AND THEN LASTLY, NATIONAL STUDIES, YOU MENTIONED THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORISTS REVEAL THAT NEW HOMEOWNERS HAVE EXCESSIVE RATES OF TREE REMOVAL. WELL, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO DO IS LOOK AT A PLACE THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED AND WHAT HAPPENS THERE. BUT THIS PROBLEM CAN BE MITIGATED AND SLOWED DOWN. IF YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE, IT MAKES PEOPLE LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND MAYBE ADJUST IT. AND EVENTUALLY MAYBE YOU HAVE, THERE HAS TO BE A PENALTY IF THEY REMOVE THE TREES. LASTLY, UH, I PERSONALLY HAVE PARTICIPATED FOR THE PAST YEAR IN THE WORKING GROUP ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY'S URBAN MANAGEMENT PLAN, EXCUSE ME, URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN. I AM SORRY TO SHARE THAT, THAT THE CANOPY ASSESSMENT NOW BEING COMPLETED BY THE CITY REVEALS VERY HIGH LOSS OF PRIVATE TREES OVER THE RECENT FIVE YEAR PERIOD WHILE I'M REPEATING WHAT I ALREADY TOLD YOU. SO I WILL FINISH WITH THAT. THANK YOU FOR READING THE LETTER. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND HEATHER, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS URIAL, COUNSELOR, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. YOU GOT A MINUTE LEFT IF YOU . THANK YOU FOR THE WHILE. THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT. WE APPRECIATE IT. ALRIGHT, LET'S BRING IT BACK FOR COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION. UM, WE'LL SORT OF START OUT HERE WITH A BIT MORE FREE FLOWING OPEN DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GET DOWN INTO THE WEEDS ON THESE SPECIFIC, UH, DIRECTIONS AND QUESTIONS FROM STAFF IN THE DRAFT. UM, SO WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY SORT OF GENERAL COMMENTS, DISCUSSION ITEMS TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR? COMMISSIONER HILT? JUST A QUICK ONE HERE. IS THERE, WHAT'S THE, AND I THINK I KNOW THE RATIONALE, BUT I'M, I'M WONDERING ABOUT SEASONALITY AND IF IT COULD BE EFFECTIVE IF A TREE THAT'S BEEN REMOVED NEEDS TO BE REPLACED IN 60 DAYS, IS THAT THE BEST TIME TO BE PLANTING TREES? IS 60 DAYS AFTER IT'S REMOVED, IS THERE A MORE SEASONAL TIME THAT WE SHOULD BE PLANTING TREES? MY RECOLLECTION IS THERE'S SOMETHING IN THERE [01:25:01] THAT DOES SAY, YEAH, THE DIRECTOR CAN, UH, ALLOW FOR. I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST LOOKING AT. UM, IT DOES SAY, UH, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR DUE TO SEASONAL PLANTING REQUIREMENTS CONSISTENT WITH GOOD FORESTRY PRACTICES. SO WE DO HAVE A OPTION TO POSTPONE THAT 60 DAYS IF, IF NEEDED. THAT. THAT MAKES SENSE. AND THE ONLY OTHER PART THEN TOO IS I JUST WANNA IDENTIFY THAT WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY SPOKEN ABOUT A LOT IS THAT EDUCATION IS GONNA BE KIND OF CRITICAL HERE, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT WE'RE MOVING INTO PRIVATE PROPERTY TYPE OF ARRANGEMENTS AND, AND ASSOCIATED FEES WITH THAT. UM, AND SOME REALLY GOOD EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION EFFORTS. MAYBE IT BILINGUAL COMMUNICATION ALSO, JUST SO EVERYONE HAS THIS KNOWLEDGE, UH, AND, AND THE REASON WHY WE'RE LOSING OUR CANOPY LOSS AND WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THAT. THANK YOU. ON THAT 60 DAY I HAD A, A QUESTION AS WELL. UM, AND MAYBE THE OR BEFORE FINAL INSPECTION PURSUANT TO VALID BUILDING PERMIT GETS US THERE, BUT, UH, 60 DAYS TAKES A LOT LONGER TO BUILD A, A DEVELOPMENT THAN 60 DAYS . SO, UM, HOW ARE WE MAKING SURE THAT FOLKS AREN'T BEING FORCED TO REPLACE TREES WHILE THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BIG CONSTRUCTION PROJECT? RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE PUT THAT IN THERE ABOUT THE FINAL INSPECTION. OBVIOUSLY TREES ARE USUALLY THE LAST THING TO BE PLANTED YEAH. AS PART OF A, A BUILDING PERMIT. OKAY. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT, WE DON'T WANT YOU PLANTING YOUR TREE RIGHT. WHEN YOU STILL HAVE WORK TO DO. YEAH. FAIR. OKAY. UM, BROAD DISCUSSION ITEMS. I'M HAPPY TO THROW SOME IN THE MIX IF WE'VE GOT OH, YEP. UM, I GUESS AS ONE BIG DISCUSSION ITEM, I MEAN, JUST TO FRAME THIS, LIKE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS REALLY MATTERS A LOT. THE TENOR OF BOTH THE APPLICATION PROCESS ENFORCEMENT KINDA ALL THE WAY THROUGH REALLY MAKES A TREE PROGRAM SUCCESSFUL. SO A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES AROUND US HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR OR EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE AND NOT IMMEDIATELY AROUND US, BUT ONES I'M FAMILIAR WITH, LIKE SAUSALITO MILL VALLEY TAHOE, UM, SONOMA COUNTY NOW HAS AN ORDINANCE VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH THIS. AND, YOU KNOW, IN HEARING PEOPLE WHO ARE CONTRACTED TO HELP IMPLEMENT, YOU KNOW, A BIG PART OF THIS IS REDUCING THE BARRIER TO ACTUALLY SUBMIT THE PERMIT. MM-HMM . SO THAT'S A HUGE ONE. MAKING AN EASY PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED LIKE AI EXPLAINERS ON HOW TO, I WOULD LOVE THAT FOR ALL PERMITS. UM, BUT SOMETHING THAT HELPS PEOPLE FILL OUT THE, FILL IT OUT. BUT ALSO WHEN PEOPLE REACH OUT TO DO A TREE REMOVAL, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY TO PREEMPTIVELY HAVE LIKE A PACKET WE SEND MM-HMM . THAT'S A BARRIER I'VE SEEN WITH A COUPLE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO DIDN'T KNOW WHAT STEPS THEY COULD TAKE OTHER THAN REMOVAL. UM, AND SO, AND, AND OUR PUBLIC WORK STAFF WHO THIS, THIS WILL ALL CHANGE, BUT RIGHT NOW IT WAS PUBLIC WORKS DOMAIN AND THEY SAID, WELL, WE DON'T SEND OUT THE INFORMATION UNTIL YOU APPLY FOR A PERMIT. IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WELL LET'S GIVE IT OUT BEFORE. SO LIKE, HAVING SOME PRE PERMIT INFORMATION AND AGAIN, AS MAKING THAT AS LOW COST TO THE CITY AND TO STAFF AS POSSIBLE SO PEOPLE CAN DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH BEFOREHAND. I THINK SOME OF THIS FALLS IN LINE WITH LIKE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATING OR AT LEAST, UM, CONSOLIDATING THE CITY'S INFORMATION ON TREES ALREADY INCLUDING LIKE THE TREE TECHNICAL MANUAL. RIGHT. LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW IT EXISTS. RIGHT. IT'S KIND OF HARD TO FIND. UM, SO MAKING SURE WE HAVE THAT READILY AVAILABLE SO MAYBE PEOPLE DON'T EVEN NEED TO GO THROUGH WITH A PERMIT, THEY CAN FIGURE OUT THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO ADDRESS THEIR TREE ISSUE. AND THEN WHEN THE, THAT APPLICATION COMES IN, AGAIN, MAKING THE PERMIT FEES, I REALLY ADVOCATE FOR A TIERED PERMIT COST SYSTEM WHERE THERE'S LIKE AN INITIAL COST JUST TO GET SOMEONE OUT THERE FOR AN HOUR TO LOOK AT THE SITE. AND IN HEARING BEN TALK ABOUT THIS, LIKE IN HIS WORK IN MILL VALLEY MM-HMM . THERE'S SO MUCH THAT HAPPENS IN THAT FIRST CONVERSATION WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT HELPS THEM IDEALLY PRESERVE THAT TREE. RIGHT. ESPECIALLY IN THAT CASE, THERE'S A LOT WITH SIGHT LINES AND THINGS LIKE, HEY, I WANT THIS TREE GONE SO I CAN SEE BETTER. BUT THERE'S WAYS TO LIKE PRUNE AROUND THAT. THERE'S WAYS TO GET THE OUTCOME THE APPLICANT WANTS WITHOUT HAVING TO REMOVE THE TREE, UM, WHICH SAVES THEM MONEY GETS OUR TREE GOALS. SO I THINK RIGHT NOW IT LISTS DIRECTOR AS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR A LOT OF THAT INTERFACE, MAKING SURE THAT THE DIRECTOR OR THEIR ASSIGNEE HAS PROBABLY MORE DISCRETION. I DON'T, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE REQUIRED FINDINGS WITH THE KIND OF PRIVATE PROPERTY INDIVIDUAL PERMIT, INDIVIDUAL TREE REMOVAL, BUT MAKING THOSE REQUIRED FINDINGS, AGAIN, KIND OF AT THE DISCRETION OF STAFF, UM, JUST BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THAT INITIAL PROCESS CAN REALLY HELP DICTATE WHETHER SOMEONE HAS A GOOD EXPERIENCE OR IT'S TOO HEAVY HANDED AND THEN THAT FLOWS RIGHT ON THROUGH TO LIKE ENFORCEMENT, MAKING SURE THAT ENFORCEMENT ISN'T THE POLICE WHEN I ASSAULT. CRIMINAL I'S LIKE UHOH, LET'S NOT DO THAT . UM, SO YEAH, I'LL JUST SAY THAT LIKE, I THINK A LOT [01:30:01] OF THIS REALLY GETS INTO HAVING THE RIGHT PERSONNEL WHO HELP FACILITATE THE WHOLE PROCESS AND FRONT LOADING A LOT OF INFORMATION TO PEOPLE BEFORE THEY EVEN APPLY, REALLY DETERMINES IF THIS IS SUCCESSFUL OR NOT. SO MAKING COMPLIANCE EASY ON AS LOW COST AS POSSIBLE. AND THAT DOESN'T, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PUT THAT INTO AN ORDINANCE, RIGHT? BUT IT'S, UM, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO KNOW AS A, AS A STAFF TEAM THAT THAT'S KIND OF THE TENOR THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. UM, AS WELL AS A LOT OF EDUCATION ON THIS. I THINK FOR ANY PRESENTATIONS, AND I KNOW WE HAD EXAMPLES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, THINGS LIKE THAT HELP A LOT TO WRAP PEOPLE'S HEAD AROUND IT. YEAH. BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE A MASSIVE CHANGE FOR PETALUMA, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY THAT OVER AND ABOVE ANY OTHER MUNICIPALITY. AND IT HELPS PEOPLE KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE'RE NOT GETTING SUBJECTED TO, OH MY GOD, THE TYRANNY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS IS HERE. IT'S LIKE, NO, THIS REALLY FALLS IN LINE AND THERE AND THERE IS A LOT OF LENIENCY BAKED INTO IT. IDEALLY TO ALLOW FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, BRANCHING SCENARIOS THAT COME WHEN YOU HAVE A TREE REMOVAL POTENTIAL. UM, I WILL SAY, UM, COMMISSIONER IRAQIS AND, UH, LOOKING AT, UM, OTHER JURISDICTIONS ORDINANCES, ALMOST ALWAYS, I FOUND THAT THERE WAS TWO WAYS TO GO IN, RIGHT? YOU'D START A, A SEARCH ABOUT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, NOVATO TREE PRESERVATION AND YOU WOULD HAVE TWO OPTIONS. YOU COULD GO INTO THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS THE MOST ACCESSIBLE VERSION OF, OF IT. OR YOU'D GO INTO A WEBSITE THAT HAD LIKE A DO I NEED A PERMIT? WHY DO I NEED A PERMIT? HOW DO I GET A PERMIT? WHAT DO I, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AND HAVE THAT KIND OF LIKE THAT, THAT MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLE INTERFACE, UM, AS, AS THE FIRST THING. SO TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. AND I MADE A NOTE, UM, IN TO MYSELF TO TRY TO HAVE MORE OF THAT FLESHED OUT WHEN WE BRING BACK, UM, THE THE FINAL ORDINANCE, UM, FOR YOUR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE MORE DETAILED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE PLANNING WITH SOME OF THAT STUFF. YEAH. AND I THINK THE, AS A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS ALSO ASKED ABOUT THOSE PERMIT FEES. FEES, YEAH. HAVING A REALLY A LITTLE MORE DETAIL THERE HELPS REALLY CHANGE HOW THIS LOOKS. YEP. THANK YOU. SO I WAS READING THIS, UM, SELFISHLY AS A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER WITH A LOT OF TREES, UM, SOME OF WHICH HAVE BEEN UNHEALTHY, SOME OF WHICH MIGHT BE IMPACTING MY FOUNDATION, ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. SO WHAT I FIND CONCERNING AND WHAT NEEDS MORE WORK HERE IS THE CERTAINTY FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS. BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE THERE IS A LOT OF DISCRETION IF, IF, IF I AM, YOU KNOW, FEELING LIKE THE FIG IN MY BACKYARD IS OVERWHELMING MY BACKYARD OR IT'S, YOU KNOW, DOING, DOING SOMETHING THAT I DON'T LIKE, WHETHER IT'S A A STRUCTURAL ISSUE OR OTHERWISE, TO THEN VENTURE DOWN THE PATH OF A REMOVAL PERMIT IS FULL OF POTENTIAL NOS BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH, UH, UH, SORT OF SUBJECTIVITY FROM THE ARBORIST AND THEN A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO WEIGH IN ACROSS THIS ORDINANCE. AND I THINK THAT AMOUNT OF UNCERTAINTY IS POTENTIALLY BOTH VERY TIME CONSUMING, UM, AND, AND COSTLY FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS. SO I'M INTERESTED IN HOW WE CAN GET A LITTLE BIT MORE OBJECTIVITY FOR FOLKS WHO ARE TRYING TO WRAP THEIR HEADS AROUND THIS AND HOW IT IMPACTS THEIR ACTUAL YARDS. AND JUST AS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION MM-HMM . WITHOUT, WITHOUT GOING SO FAR AS TO SAY EXEMPTING SINGLE FAMILY PARCELS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS. I, SO THAT IS ONE NUANCE THAT SOME JURISDICTIONS HAVE DONE IS SAID, OKAY, THIS IS THE REQUIREMENT AND THE ONE THING WE, ONE OF THEIR EXEMPTIONS IS SINGLE FAMILY. YEAH. SO THAT'S CERTAINLY A THING I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS. UM, I ALSO HAD, UH, TAKING NOTES ON THIS IN APRIL OF 2024 FOR SOME REASON, I THINK, 'CAUSE WE'VE GOTTEN SO MANY PREVIEWS OF IT COMING THAT I WAS LIKE, WHAT IS, WHERE ARE WE AT? UM, AND ONE OF MY NOTES WAS MAYBE WE HAVE AN EXEMPTION BASED ON LOT SIZE BECAUSE IF IT'S A QUARTER OF AN ACRE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL WITH A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. THOSE TREES ARE LANDSCAPING. NOT, I MEAN, YES, THAT'S TECHNICALLY URBAN FOREST. UM, BUT, BUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, IT'S LANDSCAPING. AND I THINK MOST PROPERTY OWNERS FEEL THAT THEY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THEIR OWN LANDSCAPING. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS SOME CONSTRAINT, MAYBE IT'S NOT ALL SINGLE FAMILY, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SOME BIGGER PARCELS AROUND TOWN WHERE I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE CLEAR CUT FOR NO REASON. UM, SO THAT, THAT'S WHERE I SORT OF STARTED WAS PARCEL SIZE. UM, BUT MAYBE THAT'S NOT [01:35:01] INDUSTRY STANDARD AND WE SHOULD MORE LOOK AT ZONING TYPE, BUT I DEFINITELY HAVE CONCERNS OVER THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS THOUGHTS DISCUSSION. YES. YEAH. UM, THAT KIND OF BRINGS UP A LOT OF BOTH OBSERVATIONS AND, YOU KNOW, EXPERIENCES THAT I'VE HAD SIMILARLY. UM, AND I'M WONDERING IF THAT THERE CAN ALSO BE SOME POTENTIAL NUANCE HERE. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE SEEN SPECIFICALLY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS KIND OF MAKING THE DECISION ON THEIR OWN TO REMOVE THE TREES THAT DO COVER ESPECIALLY PUBLIC SPACES LIKE THE ONES IN THEIR FRONT, IN EITHER IN THE FRONT YARDS OR IN, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNERS ALONG THE SIDEWALK AND BEING LIKE, I HATE RAKING LEAVES. I FIND THAT TO BE A NUISANCE AND THEREFORE THAT TREE IS GOING AWAY. AND THERE ARE, THAT HAS MEANT THAT EVEN ON MY STREET THERE ARE MULTIPLE EMPTY NOW, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, THE, THE TREE PLANTER AREAS THAT ARE EMPTY OR SEVERELY CUT BACK TO THE POINT WHERE THEY DON'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO THEIR INTENDED JOB ANYMORE, WHICH IS PROVIDE SHADE AND COVERAGE FOR BOTH HOUSING AND PEDESTRIANS. UM, AND SO MY FEAR IS, IS THAT WITH AN EXEMPTION JUST ACROSS THE BOARD THAT YOU DO THE INCENTIVIZATION FOR MULTIPLE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AT THE SAME TIME. AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE IS, UM, BECAUSE WE'VE EXPERIENCED THIS BEFORE, IS, UM, BROADLY IN THIS AREA IS EXEMPTIONS FOR THINGS LIKE TRANSFORMING A PARCEL INTO MORE DROUGHT RESISTANT SORT OF OPPORTUNITY. WHERE UNFORTUNATELY THAT ALSO SEEMS TO BE FOR REMOVAL OF MORE TREES IN AN EFFORT TO ALLOW FOR MORE WATER TO BE AVAILABLE FOR BOTH USAGE, ESPECIALLY IN AREAS IN TIMES WHEN THAT IS POTENTIALLY LIKELY TO BE MORE PREVALENT GOING FORWARD. UM, SO THERE'S JUST KIND OF A LOT, I I'M GOING IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS RIGHT NOW WITH ALL OF THIS. UM, AND YOU KNOW, AS A, AS A FIRST INITIATION FOR AT LEAST ME BEING INVOLVED WITH THIS, THIS IS A VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT, YOU KNOW, PLAN AND ATTEMPT. UM, I AM CONCERNED THOUGH THAT BECAUSE OF BOTH O OVER SPECIFIC SORT OF SITUATIONS AND UNDER SPECIFIC SITUATIONS, AT THE SAME TIME, WE CAN CREATE A WHOLE BUNCH OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES GOING IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S KIND OF MEANS THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE WORK AHEAD FOR THIS, BUT I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ABSOLUTELY GET IT RIGHT. AND THAT JUST MEANS SPENDING MORE TIME ON IT THAN I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE, EVEN MORE THAN HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT ON IT, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A TON. UM, YEAH, THAT'S MY OVERALL COMMENT FOR NOW. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER NOTE. FIRST THING I WANNA SAY IN, IN MY COMMENTS IS THAT, THAT THIS IS MY FIRST EXPOSURE TO THIS ISSUE AND I'M, I'M LEARNING, UM, UH, I, I ALSO HAVE A, A CERTAIN LENS THAT I, I SEE THIS THROUGH. ONE IS FOR MY OWN EXPERIENCE AS A LAWYER ENFORCING STATUTORY SCHEMES AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE AND WHAT DOES THE IMPLEMENTATION LOOK LIKE? UM, AND I'M REMINDED, YOU KNOW, JUSTICE BRENNAN SAID ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IS WHAT REALLY COUNTS IN ONE OF HIS FAMOUS DECISIONS. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M THINKING ABOUT HOW DOES THIS ACTUALLY PLAY OUT ONCE WE DO IT? AND I ALSO HAVE THE LENS OF, YOU KNOW, LIKE JESSICA BEING A HOMEOWNER MM-HMM . UM, I ALSO, I I'M ON, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF MY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION BOARD AS WELL, AND THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION HAS TO MAINTAIN A LOT OF TREES AND HAS REMOVED TREES IN THE PAST, HAS REMOVED OR REPLACED STREET TREES IN THE PAST. SO I'VE EXPERIENCED THAT FROM THE REGULATED PARTY SIZE PARTY SIDE OF THIS SCENARIO. AND I JUST HAVE SOME, I, I, I SHARE THE GOALS THAT THE, THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THAT WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH. I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS LOOKS LIKE, LOOKS LIKE, UH, [01:40:01] FROM THE CITY SIDE, INCLUDING CITY STAFF TIME AND, UH, CONS, UH, HIRING THE CONSULTANT TO, TO MANAGE THAT. IT SEEMS THAT ALREADY WE HAVEN'T, THE CITY HASN'T HAD THE STAFF TO ENFORCE THE STREET TREE ASPECT OF THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. THIS NEW ITERATION IS GONNA ADD SORT OF MORE IN ENFORCEMENT LOAD ON THE CITY TO ENFORCE PRIVATE PROPERTY, UM, APPLICATION. UH, SO I'M, MY, MY, MY BIG CONCERN IS HOW DO, HOW DOES THE CITY ENFORCE AND IMPLEMENT THIS AND, AND WHAT DOES IT COST? UM, I FIND THE, THE REPLACEMENT RATIO FOR TREES ON PRIVATE PROP ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT THAN THE REPLACEMENT RATIO FOR, FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND FOR STREET TREES. AND THAT RATIO IS FOR EVERY THREE INCHES OF TRUNK DIAMETER, ONE REPLACEMENT TREE. SO IF I'M A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER AND I'M REMOVING A PRETTY LARGE TREE, I COULD BE LOOKING AT THREE OR FOUR TREES THAT I NEED TO PLANT AS A REPLACEMENT. UM, SO THERE'S, IF I'M REMOVING THAT TREE ON MY PROPERTY, I'M LOOKING AT THE ARBORIST COST, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIAL. UM, THE PERMIT COST, MY REPLACEMENT TREE COST, PROBABLY MY IRRIGATION COST FOR THOSE NEW TREES, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. THE, THAT THOSE COSTS. SO THE COSTS KIND OF START TO PILE UP ON, ON THE PRIVATE COMPLIANCE END. AND I LOOK AT THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISION AND I START THINKING, GOSH, IT'S ALMOST CHEAPER TO CHEAT HERE THAN IT IS TO COMPLY ON THE PRIVATE SIDE. 'CAUSE IF AS WRITTEN, I UNDERSTAND THE ENFORCEMENT PIECE IS BEING WRITTEN, BUT IF, IF I CHEAT AND I CUT DOWN THAT TREE MM-HMM . MY PENALTY IS THE FULL REPLACEMENT VALUE OF THE TREE, WHICH IS NOT DEFINED HERE, BY THE WAY. UM, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS. IS IT $10,000 FOR A 100-YEAR-OLD OAK TREE? OR IS IT $150 FOR A OAK SAPLING? UM, I, I CAN TRY TO ANSWER THAT AND HEATHER LET ME KNOW. OR DARREN, I WOULD IMAGINE WE WOULD NEED AN ARBORIST TO SAY, YOU KNOW, A TREE THAT SIZE, THAT TR TRUNK LENGTH, THAT TYPE OF TREE, THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD NORMALLY COST TO REPLACE. BUT, AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHY WE DIDN'T DEFINE IT, JUST BECAUSE THE FORMULA'S NOTED IN THE BE DIFFERENT. YEAH. DON'T, DON'T WE, YEAH. WE REFERENCE THE GUIDE FOR PLANT APPRAISAL PUBLISHED BY THE COUNCIL TREE AND LANDSCAPE APPRAISERS. SO THAT'S LIKE A STANDARD, BUT IT'S NOT LISTED. OKAY. SO, SO, SO THERE IS A PRETTY HEFTY PENALTY IF YOU CHEAT. UM, I'M, I WOULD URGE US TO CONSIDER WHETHER AN ALTERNATIVE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY APPLICATION IS OUT THERE AND WHETHER THAT ALTERNATIVE IS FREE TREES OR SOME OTHER INCENTIVE BASED STRUCTURE THAT THAT GIVES A, A PROPERTY OWNER THE INCENTIVE TO PLANT TREES AND TO MAINTAIN THEM FOR THEIR OWN REASONS. I ALMOST FEEL LIKE AS I READ THIS, THAT IF I'M A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER OR, OR I'M ON, YOU KNOW, MY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, IT'S ALMOST LIKE THERE'S AN INCENTIVE NOT TO PLANT ANY MORE TREES BECAUSE I HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDINANCE DOWN THE ROAD. SO THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I'M VIEWING THIS AND READING IT AS, AS SOMEONE WHO'S LIKE, OKAY, I GOTTA COMPLY WITH THIS THING. I'M THINKING TO MYSELF, I'VE GOT THIS APPLE TREE IN MY BACKYARD. WHAT IF I EVER WANT TO REMOVE THIS APPLE TREE? AM I, I'M GONNA HAVE TO PLANT LIKE TWO TREES IF I REMOVE THIS APPLE TREE AND I'M GONNA HAVE TO PAY TO REMOVE IT REALLY QUICK. NO, I THINK THOSE ARE ALL REALLY GOOD POINTS AND WE'VE, WE'VE KIND OF HEARD A LOT OF THIS, SO IT'S REALLY GOOD TO HEAR THE, THE DISCUSSION. SO REALLY QUICK, THE MOST COMMON SCENARIOS ARE PEOPLE REMOVING FOR LISTS, UM, OR REASONS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE EXEMPTED. THAT'S LIKE THE MOST COMMON TREE REMOVAL SCENARIOS IN ANY MUNICIPALITY. THE TREE IS DEAD, IT'S A THREAT TO MY FOUNDATION, IT'S DEFENSIBLE SPACE. I THINK THERE COULD BE DISCUSSION OF REALLY MAKING SURE THOSE EXEMPTIONS ARE REALLY ALL THE DIFFERENT PATHWAYS OR ALL THE DIFFERENT USE CASES THAT MIGHT HAPPEN FOR A HOMEOWNER. SO ALL THOSE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE PROBLEMS LIKE IMMINENT THREAT TO HEALTH AND PROPERTY AS EXPANDED AS POSSIBLE ARE INCLUDED. UM, [01:45:01] AND THEN I THINK THERE'S ALSO SOMETHING THERE ABOUT DISCRETION, AGAIN, ON THE POINT OF THE DIRECTOR OR THEIR ASSIGNEE WHEN IT COMES TO MEETING OUT REPLACEMENT RATIOS WHEN IT COMES TO REALLY IMPLEMENTING SOME OF THESE BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS. UM, THE OTHER THING I'LL SAY IS, I KNOW YOU SAID THE APPLE TREE, YOU'D HAVE TO PLANT TWO TREES, THAT WOULD MEAN IT'S SIX INCHES, SO WE CAN REMOVE IT LIKE SIX INCH. DBH IS LIKE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. SO A LOT OF TIMES FOR PEOPLE THINKING, OH, I HAVE A SMALL TREE, LIKE SIX INCH DBH COVERS A LOT OF TREES. UM, I THINK WE HAD A DISCUSSION ON WHETHER THAT WAS TOO RESTRICTIVE, WHETHER YOU GO FOR JUST A BIGGER MEASUREMENT. UM, BUT REALLY I THINK A LOT OF TIMES WHAT THIS IS CATCHING IS IN LIKE THE HARMS WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT, ESPECIALLY ARE LIKE RIGHT NOW THE STREET TREE DESTRUCTION THAT HAPPENS, RIGHT? LIKE THAT'S THE BIG ONE THAT THIS NEEDS TO CATCH. UM, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE WHERE PEOPLE ARE CUTTING DOWN FULL GROWN SYCAMORES. WE'RE LOSING SOMETHING THAT'S A PUBLIC BENEFIT, UH, AND THEN PEOPLE AREN'T REPLANTING THEM WITHOUT THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE ALREADY THERE'S A BARRIER TO PEOPLE WANTING TO PLANT TREES. THEY HAVE TO MANAGE A TREE, RIGHT? YOU HAVE TO DO PRUNING AND MAINTENANCE. I WOULD SAY THERE'S ALREADY, WITH OR WITHOUT THIS REGULATION, SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS TO WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE'S GONNA PLANT A TREE, THAT'S WHAT RELIEF ALREADY RUNS INTO. I MEAN, THEY'RE GIVING OUT AND PLANTING FREE TREES FOR PEOPLE AND PEOPLE ARE SAYING NO BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO MANAGE IT. UM, SO I THINK IN KIND OF THE RESPONSE TO THAT, I THINK RIGHT NOW THIS REALLY NEEDS TO STRIKE AGAIN THAT BALANCE OF EASE TO COMPLY. I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS HONESTLY LIKE CATCH REVENUES FROM THOSE SCENARIOS WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY REMOVING A TREE. AND IN SOME CITIES THAT THAT PROCESS CAN EVEN LOOK AS LOW AS LIKE 35 TO $50 FOR A REMOVAL PERMIT. UM, OR YOU JUST HAVE AN EXEMPTION AND YOU LIKE HAVE AN EXEMPTION WHERE YOU SELF-CERTIFY, WHERE YOU TAKE A PICTURE, PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE, IT'S UPLOADED, AND YOU, YOU HAVE A CERTAINTY THAT IT'S EXEMPTED THAT ENFORCEMENT WON'T COME DOWN ON YOU. IF YOUR NEIGHBOR CALLS AND SAYS, WELL, THEY'RE CUTTING DOWN THE TREE NEXT DOOR. YOU NEED TO HAVE SOME MECHANISM BY WHICH YOU'RE REPORTING YOUR EXEMPTION AND MAKING THAT RELATIVELY EASY. LIKE NOT THE BURDEN OF NECESSARILY AN ARBORIST REPORT, BUT LEAVING THE DOOR OPEN TO REQUIRE ONE IF ENFORCEMENT LATER ASKED FOR IT. AND AGAIN, THESE, THESE, THAT'S A REALLY, LIKE, I'M A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TOO, WHO JUST PLANTED TONS OF TREES AND LIKE, I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS AS WELL. BUT I THINK THEN A LOT OF IT COMES DOWN TO, YOU KNOW, DO WE WANT TO PREVENT THE HARMS WE'RE SEEING WITH STREET TREES? THE ISSUES WE'RE SEEING WITH PEOPLE CUTTING DOWN TREES WITH ZERO RECOURSE, ESPECIALLY PROTECTED TREES. LIKE RIGHT NOW OUTSIDE OF DEVELOPMENT, NO TREES ARE PROTECTED. UM, I MEAN THERE ARE PROTECTED OUR REDWOODS AND OAKS CURRENTLY PROTECTED OUTSIDE OF DEVELOPMENT. NO, NO. SO ANY TREE IS KIND OF FAIR GAME. SO, YOU KNOW, I, I UNDERSTAND THE QUALMS ABOUT LIKE BRINGING THIS INTO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY WORLD. I THINK THERE IS A FLAVOR OF THIS THAT'S REALLY EASY TO COMPLY. AND I THINK PART OF THAT GOES INTO FUNDING. LIKE HOW DOES, HOW DO WE FIND FUNDING MECHANISMS THAT MAKE IT SO IT ISN'T A HUGE UPFRONT FEE. ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS GONNA RECOMMEND IS, I THINK YOU'VE HEARD IT A MILLION TIMES ALREADY, SAN LUIS OBISPO KEYS FOR TREES. IT'S LIKE A TINY HOTEL PERCENTAGE FEE ON ALL HOTEL STAYS THAT GOES TO FUNDING THEIR TREE PROGRAMS. UH, I KNOW MUNICIPALITIES HAVE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT SCHEMES TO FUND IT. UM, BUT YEAH, I, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF MERIT HERE TO PREVENT THE HARMS THAT WE'RE CONSTANTLY GETTING COMPLAINTS ABOUT AND TO MEET GOALS WHILE NOT MAKING IT SO HEAVY HANDED THAT YOU AS A PROPERTY OWNER CAN'T ENJOY USE OF YOUR PROPERTY. I THINK A LOT OF THAT FALLS INTO EXEMPTIONS. ONE EXEMPTION ACTUALLY THAT I DIDN'T SEE IN HERE IS LIKE COMMERCIAL EXEMPTION. IF YOU'RE A FARM OR AN ORCHARD BEING ABLE TO OBVIOUSLY BE EXEMPT. IS THAT IN THERE AND I JUST MISSED IT? I DON'T THINK SO. LIKE A TREE FARM OR, YEAH. SO OBVIOUSLY LIKE WE NEED TO BUILD THAT AND SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF WORK ON EXEMPTIONS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN. UM, I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I, I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR THE TAKE ON IS, IS THE MEANS OF GETTING THOSE EXEMPTIONS BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE A PRETTY HIGH BARRIER TO HAVE TO ENLIST AN ARBORIST YEAH. GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE EXEMPT EXEMPT. WELL, SO, AND, AND IF I HAVE GOOD REASON TO THINK THAT MY, UH, FOUNDATION IS BEING THREATENED, YOU KNOW, MY, MY, MY PLUMBER, MY, MY FOUNDATION GUY SAID THE FOUNDATION IS BEING THREATENED. NOW I HAVE TO GET AN ARBORIST TO TELL ME THAT MY FOUNDATION'S BEING THREATENED AND PAY FOR THAT TOO. THAT FEELS BURDENSOME. ACTUALLY, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION HOW STAFF ENVISIONS IT. BUT I KNOW IN OTHER CITIES IT'S LITERALLY A SELF-REPORT. SO YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF THE TREE NEXT TO THE FOUNDATION, YOU SUBMIT YOUR EXEMPTION, THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF STAFF REVIEW EVEN OF EXEMPTIONS. AND SO IF THEY FOR SOME REASON AREN'T MAKING THOSE FINDINGS, THEN IT MOVES A STEP FURTHER. AND AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S DESIGNED NOT TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM REMOVING TREES THAT HURT THEIR FOUNDATIONS. IT'S DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE THAT SAY, WELL, I HAVE THIS GIANT OAK OUT FRONT, I JUST DON'T REALLY WANT IT ANYMORE. CAN [01:50:01] WE GET RID OF IT? SURE. I, I GUESS I'M, I'M IN, IN MY READ OF IT, IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF THE EXEMPTIONS REQUIRE AN ARBOROUS REPORT REQUIRE DIRECTOR REVIEW, WHICH ESPECIALLY IN INSTANCES WHERE I'VE GOT GOOD REASON TO THINK MY PROPERTY THREATENED TO BE AT THE FOUNDATION OR THIS, THIS SORT OF IMMINENT SITUATION, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE HAVE A BIG WINDSTORM AND DOZENS OF HOMES HAVE BIG BRANCHES OF TREES THAT ARE THREATENING THEM AND NOW EVERYONE HAS TO FIND AN ARBORIST AND THERE'S EIGHT ARBORISTS THAT FIT THE CRITERIA IN TOWN TO, TO GET THEIR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. THAT JUST SEEMS UNTENABLE. WELL, WE COULD DEFINITELY LOOK BACK AT THE EXEMPTIONS AND, UM, LOOK AT WHEN DO WE NEED AN ARBORIST REPORT AND WHEN, WHEN CAN WE LOWER THAT, THAT BARRIER, UM, FOR THOSE EXEMPTIONS TO BE MORE OF A SELF-CERTIFICATION. UM, CAN I ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION JUST ABOUT, WE'RE TALKING A LOT ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS AND SOMEBODY, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO BROUGHT IT UP ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR FRONT YARD TREES OR YOUR, YOUR, UM, YOU KNOW, TREES, YOUR SERVICING THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OF STREET TREES. I THINK THOSE, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE DIFFERENT SEPARATE. SO, BUT EVEN YOUR FRONT YARD TREES HAVE A DIFFERENT IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC REALM ON YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAN THE TREE IN YOUR BACKYARD MIGHT, UM, AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THIS, BUT A, A LARGER, UM, A LARGER SIZE, A LARGER THRESHOLD THEORETICALLY FOR LIKE REAR YARD TREES FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT BIG BEAUTIFUL OAK TREE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT REALLY IS AN ENHANCEMENT TO ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS, EVEN IF IT'S IN THE BACKYARD VERSUS AN APPLE TREE. UM, THAT, SO THAT, THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT TO A NEW, UM, A NUANCED APPROACH THAT, UM, CHANGES THE REQUIREMENT OF THE BACKYARD VERSUS THE FRONT YARD FOR SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY. COULD IT, I, UH, I THINK SAN FRANCISCO INTRODUCED THAT INTO THEIR ORDINANCE OR THEY'VE KIND OF REMOVED CONTROLS ON THAT. I'D BE CURIOUS TO HEAR HOW THAT'S GOING OR HOW LONG THAT'S BEEN IN EFFECT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST PLANNING OR IF IT'S TREE REMOVAL PERMITS TOO. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW, AND CONTINUING THIS LINE OF, OF CONVERSATION, UM, DARREN, I APPRECIATE YOU EXPLAINING THIS 'CAUSE YOUR DEPTH OF EXPERIENCE IS VERY VALUABLE AND, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE. YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT A LOT OF THE, A LOT OF THE PRIVATE TREE REMOVALS WILL, WILL MOST LIKELY BE EXEMPT ANYWAY. UM, AND, AND ONE OF THE, THE BIG PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS HERE IS THE STREET TREE REMOVAL REPLACEMENT PROBLEM. UM, AND WE WANT TO PREVENT SOMEONE TAKING OUT A BEAUTIFUL OAK TREE OR, YOU KNOW, A BEAUTIFUL REDWOOD TREE LIKE, YOU KNOW, NOT, NOT MY APPLE TREE, LIKE MY APPLE TREE IS NOT HIGH ON THE LIST OF TREE PRESERVATION PRIORITIES. UM, SO I I APPRECIATE ALL THAT. I THINK MAYBE THIS ORDINANCE COULD BE, LIKE HEATHER WAS SAYING, MADE MORE NUANCED SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE EXPENSE OF PROVING AN EXEMPTION. BUT WE JUST ASSUME THAT MOST OF WHAT'S BEING REMOVED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IS EXEMPT. THE ORDINANCE COULD CREATE PROTECTIONS FOR HERITAGE LIKE OAK TREES AND YOU KNOW, CERTAIN SPECIES OF TREES THAT YOU NEED A PERMIT FOR THAT FEELS MORE LIKE TARGETED WITH LESS OF A ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON THE CITY TO, TO PROCESS THOSE PERMITS. UM, BUT LIKE YOU, I SHARED THIS, THIS VISION JUST IN MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD OF SEEING STREET TREES NOT BEING REPLACED. LIKE THIS GUY UP THE STREET RIGHT NOW IS GRADUALLY LOPPING OFF BRANCHES RIGHT NOW THERE IS A TRUNK STANDING IN THE STREET, IT'S A STREET TREE, IT'S JUST A BIG TRUNK GOING UP WITH NO BRANCHES. , YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT STUFF LIKE THAT. BUT ALSO LIKE IF THERE'S A MISSING STREET TREE IN FRONT OF A HOUSE, THAT HOMEOWNER IS SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN CARE OF, WHATEVER WAS THERE, COULD THIS ORDINANCE ACTUALLY SAY, HEY, YOU NEED TO PLANT SOMETHING NOW [01:55:01] WE WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION AND HERE'S A FREE TREE. YEAH, BUT YOU HAVE TO PLANT IT, RIGHT? SO WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION, UM, WHETHER WE COULD MANDATE IT, UM, THAT IF YOU'VE GOT A, IF YOU HAVE NO TREES IN YOUR PLANTER STRIP OR AN EMPTY TREE, WELL OBVIOUSLY WHERE A TREE WAS TAKEN OUT AT ONE POINT, CAN WE REQUIRE, CAN WE MANDATE THAT YOU PLANT A TREE? UM, WE CAN CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION. BUT THERE WERE SOME, THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT APPROACH. WE HAVE ALSO IN ONE OF THE THINGS RELIEF HAS DONE IS THEY'VE GONE THROUGH CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY AND SAID, OKAY, WE'VE IDENTIFIED, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MISSING STREET TREES HERE AND HERE AND HERE THERE'S THIS MUCH SPACE. THESE ARE THE TREES THAT WOULD WORK THERE. THERE'S OVERHEAD LINES, THERE'S NOT OVERHEAD LINES AND APPROACHED PROPERTY OWNERS AND SAID, HEY, WE'LL, WE'LL WE'LL PLANT THE TREE IT TO REPLACE YOUR TREE. AND UH, I MEAN LIKE, LIKE CHARLIE SAID, I THINK THEY'VE PLANTED A COUPLE HUNDRED TREES, UM, WITH, WITH THAT APPROACH. UM, SO THAT'S THE INCENTIVE, RIGHT? THAT'S THE INCENTIVE APPROACH AS WELL AS HAVING ENOUGH REGULATORY APPROACHES TO KIND OF STOP THE BLEEDING IN TERMS OF REMOVAL AND NOT REPLACEMENT. SO ENSURE MOVING FORWARD, ANYONE WHO REMOVES A STREET TREE IS REPLACING A STREET TREE WITH AN APPROPRIATE STREET TREE. AND THEN ALSO COMING AT IT FROM THE INCENTIVE TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS, YOU KNOW, ALLOCATE RESOURCES, CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR GRANTS. YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THAT KIND OF STUFF HAS COME FROM GRANTS TO PAY FOR THE TREES AND OF VOLUNTEER FORCE. I THINK IT WAS A, WASN'T IT AMERICORPS? THEY HAD SOME AMERICORPS VOLUNTEERS. UM, WHETHER THAT WORKED WELL OR NOT, BUT WELL AND THE IDEA WHETHER THE FUNDING STAYED AND I THINK THEY HAD TO LEAVE, BUT I THINK THEY MIGHT BE COMING BACK. SO SOME ISSUES THERE. SO YOU KNOW, GETTING CREATIVE WITH THE INCENTIVE SIDE OF THINGS TOO. CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT LED TO THE DECISION TO HAVE AN ALL-INCLUSIVE SIX INCH QUALIFICATION? I KNOW A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS I WORK IN INVOLVE LIKE THE PRESERVATION LIST AND DIFFERENT SIZES FOR DIFFERENT SPECIES AND IT'S ONE TABLE AND IT'S MAYBE A LOT TO KIND OF GO THROUGH. BUT IT IS A WAY I THINK FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, UNDESIRABLE TREES INTO THEIR OWN HANDS AND MAKE IT VERY CLEAR WHAT THE, WHAT THE LIMIT IS. I THINK ON, I THINK ON TREE COMMITTEE'S END, IT WAS KIND OF A MORE, WE'RE GONNA DEFINITELY GO IN THIS DIRECTION OF AIRING ON THE SIDE OF PROTECTING MORE. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE IS A DEFINITELY A FLAVOR OF THIS TO KIND OF GO IN THE MIDDLE AND START GETTING SPECIES SPECIFIC, UM, AND THEN START DOING SOME DIFFERENT DBH HEIGHTS AGAIN TO FALL IN LINE WITH LIKE THE NEWEST ORDINANCES THAT ARE COMING OUT. THIS IS KIND OF BECOMING THE STANDARD. UM, BUT I THINK, I THINK THERE IS MERIT TO THAT. UM, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER OVERARCHING KIND OF POINT OF THIS IS TO ALSO NOT NECESSARILY LIKE GO IN WITH THE INTENTION OF MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, EVEN IF IT IS A BIG TREE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF. BUT REALLY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE INTERJECTING EXPERTISE BOTH ON LIKE CAN WE SAVE THE TREE ALSO PUBLIC SAFETY, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE PEOPLE ARE DOING IT THEMSELVES OR HIRING PEOPLE THAT'S HAPPENING IN MUNICIPALITIES TO LIKE DAMAGE NOT ONLY THEIR OWN PROPERTIES AND RISKS THEMSELVES, BUT ALSO NEIGHBORS. SO IT KIND OF IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A CITY TO INTERJECT TO JUST, AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE THIS TIERED SYSTEM OF LIKE, HEY, SOMEONE REVIEWED THIS FOR AN HOUR, YOU'RE TRYING TO REMOVE A BIG TREE, HERE ARE SOME OTHER OPTIONS YOU SHOULD LOOK AT. AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, WHO'S DOING THIS WORK? LET'S MAKE SURE YOU'VE GOT SOMEONE WHO'S CAN DO THE JOB ADEQUATELY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, BUT I THINK THERE IS A FLAVOR OF THIS WHERE YOU CAN KIND OF GO AWAY FROM THE SIX INCH AT BREAST HEIGHT, WHICH AGAIN, THAT MEANS THE BASE OF THE TRUNK COULD BE BIGGER AND THEN AT BREAST HEIGHT IT'S AT SIX INCHES. SO A LOT OF LIKE SMALL FRUIT TREES AND ORNAMENTALS ARE KIND OF EXEMPT FROM THIS. UM, BUT I THINK THERE IS MERIT TO THAT IF, IF STAFF THINKS THAT THEY HAVE USING EXAMPLES COULD LOOK AT LIKE COMPARABLE LISTS OF WHAT DIFFERENT SPECIES ARE AND, AND DBH MEASUREMENTS. I THINK WITH THAT THE CHALLENGE BECOMES DOCUMENTATION. IS IT A CIVIL SURVEY YOU'RE PAYING FOR IT? IS IT AN ARBORIST ASSESSMENT OR REPORT ARBOR? AND WE'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, FOLKS ENGAGE WITH ARBORISTS FOR LIKE $150 FOR ONE TREE. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY BE A HUGE BARRIER IF IT'S A SINGLE TREE ASSESSMENT AND NOT LIKE A WHOLE LOT ASSESSMENT OF PROTECTED TREES. BUT I THINK MAKING THAT EASY FOR PEOPLE, IF YOU'RE GONNA KIND OF ADD TECHNICALITIES TO IT FEELS LIKE THE RIGHT PATH. I THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT BREAST HEIGHT BEING THE FORMER STANDARD AND NOW IT'S FOUR AND A HALF FEET UP OR SOMETHING. I, I'M REALIZING HERE THAT [02:00:01] THE DEFINITION AS WRITTEN IN THE ACTUAL DRAFT, LIKE L TREE DOES NOT SAY WHERE THE TRUNK DIAMETER IS TAKEN. YEAH. SO THAT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED. UM, YEAH, THE, THE COMMENTS I THINK ACTUALLY STATE THAT THE DVH SIGNIFIER IT, IT DOES SAY IT STATES THAT THE COMMENT OR THE COMMENT STATE THAT THE SIGN THE DVH SIGNIFIER WAS REMOVED ON PURPOSE IN ORDER TO BE MORE ENCOMPASSING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UH, THERE IS A DEFINITION OF TRUNK DIAMETER AND THE IN THE TRUNK DIAMETER IT DOES SAY THE DIAMETER OF THE TRUNK OF AN EXISTING TREE AS MEASURED AT FOUR AND A HALF FEET UP THE TRUNK FROM THE HIGHEST POINT OF GRADE AROUND THE BASE. THE MEASUREMENT OFF THE GROUND IS TAKEN AT THE SAME ANGLE AS ANY LEAN TO THE TRUNK. IF THE TRUNK FORKS BETWEEN THREE FEET ABOVE GRADE ADD THE DIAMETER OF THE TWO LARGEST TRUNKS. SO THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF DETAIL HERE ON OKAY. HOW YOU MEASURE. THANK YOU. I DID IQ GREAT. YOU GOT IT. LL REFERENCES Q . GOOD. UM, I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M ACKNOWLEDGING COMMISSIONER HILT, IF YOU'VE GOT ANYTHING, PLEASE FEEL FREE. NO, I DON'T, NOT AT THIS JUNCTURE. GREAT. UM, ADDITIONAL, I GUESS I'LL JUST ASK REALLY QUICK, DO WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S A PATH TO PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH JUST FROM THIS COMMITTEE? 'CAUSE I KNOW KIND OF WHERE I'VE GROWN INTO THIS OVER TIME AND I DON'T WANNA BE, BE SHORTSIGHTED IN KIND OF MY OWN PERSPECTIVE. IS THERE A FLAVOR OF THIS THAT WE THINK THIS COMMISSION COULD SUPPORT LATER ON AND YOU THINK, YOU KNOW, EVENTUALLY COUNCIL COULD HAVE APPETITE FOR THAT DOES INCLUDE PRIVATE PROPERTY, EVEN OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TREES. IF EXEMPTIONS ARE KIND OF REALLY SPECIFIED, IF THAT PROCESS IS MADE LESS ONEROUS TO WHERE YOU CAN DO SOME SELF-REPORTING. MAYBE IF WE LOOK AT THE SIX INCH AT FOUR AND A HALF FEET, I'M CALLING IT BREAST SITE, WHATEVER AT THE FOUR AND A HALF FEET, UM, IS MAYBE ADDED MORE SPECIFICITY WITH SPECIES. LIKE, DO DO YOU GUYS THINK WE COULD GET THERE WITH ADDING THIS IN AND NOT JUST SAYING, HEY, SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL, PRIVATE PROPERTY TREES ARE OFF LIMITS. I THINK WE COULD GET THERE IF IT'S VERY CLEAR IN SELF-SERVICE. WHAT I AM KEENLY AWARE OF IS THE POINT THAT COMMISSIONER NEWELL MADE, WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, IF, IF UH, A PARKING METER COSTS $1,200 AND THE PARKING TICKET COSTS $75, YOU JUST TAKE THE PARKING TICKET . SO IF WE HAVE A REALLY ONEROUS PROCESS THAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE A PROPERTY OWNER TO JUMP THROUGH BRU A BUNCH OF HOOPS, THEN THEY'LL JUST, THEY ROGUE AND DO WHAT THEY DO NOW AND RIGHT. SO I THINK IT WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE REALLY EASY AND YOU KNOW, I, WE CAN SORT OF GET INTO THE MINISTERIAL REVIEWS REVIEW STUFF NOW OR LATER, BUT LIKE, I GOT A BUILDING PERMIT LAST YEAR FOR A PROJECT THAT EVERYONE TOLD ME I SHOULDN'T BOTHER GETTING A PERMIT FOR. AND I WAS LIKE, WELL, I KIND OF HAVE SOME, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA BE IN THE PAPER. SO , I GOT MYSELF A BUILDING PERMIT TO PUT IN MY 12 CAN LIGHTS IN MY KITCHEN AND IT WAS BURDENSOME AND IT TOOK TIME AND IT TOOK MONEY AND IT TOOK ALL OF THESE, YOU KNOW, PLANS THAT I ALSO HAD TO PAY FOR. SO IT, IT MAKES SENSE TO ME THAT PEOPLE SKIP, SORRY, COVER YOURS. UM, SKIP, SKIP THE, SKIP THE COUNTER. AND YOU KNOW, WHEN WE COME TO THIS TYPE OF PERMIT REQUIREMENT WHERE A LOT OF FOLKS DO ASSUME THAT THEY HAVE CARTE BLANCHE FOR THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY, IT JUST, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE REALLY CLEAR AND, AND SELF-SERVICING SO THAT IT DOESN'T BECOME A, A ANOTHER JUST, WELL I'LL JUST DO IT ON SNEAK THROUGH AND TAKE, TAKE THE HIT IF I NEED TO PAY A FINE LATER. YEAH. AND THE OTHER THING THAT IT DOES, IF IT ISN'T DONE IN THE WAY THAT YOU DESCRIBED WHERE IT'S VERY CAREFUL AND PLANNED OUT AND VERY EDUCATION FORWARD, PEOPLE GET MAD, UM, AND THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE BEING TOLD THAT THEY CAN'T DO SOMETHING, WHICH THEY HAVE, AS YOU MENTIONED, THE KIND OF GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT BECAUSE IT'S THEIR PROPERTY. UM, AND BECAUSE THE WHOLE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO IMPROVE PETALUMA BROADLY, THOSE TWO THINGS, IF THEY RUN INTO EACH OTHER, IS JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAS, UM, FROM BOTH EXPERIENCE AND JUST UNDERSTANDING HOW THE, THE WORLD WORKS. ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT REALLY PREVENTS A LOT OF GOOD FROM HAPPENING BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T, UM, SEE, I WANNA SAY THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES, BUT I UH, UH, COMMON GOOD. THE COMMON GOOD. YEAH. A POINT OF, UM, CLARIFICATION. WE'RE USING THE TERM PRIVATE PROPERTY. UM, WHEN WERE SAYING THAT, ARE WE REFERRING TO [02:05:01] LIKE SINGLE FAMILY, LIKE IN INDIVIDUAL CURRENT PROPERTY? INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. UM, YEAH, INDIVIDUAL UNITS LIKE AND, AND SMALL MULTIFAMILY, I MEAN, YEAH, I THINK IT'S RESIDENTIAL ZONING. I'M ALSO THINKING HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS. YEAH. BECAUSE THOSE ARE A COLLECTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OF SINGLE FAMILY. YEAH. UM, BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING, WE'RE NOT SPECIFYING, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE, UH, DEER CREEK? THE, THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT DEER THE HAVEN. WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A LARGER MULTI-FAMILY. I, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR LIKE WHEN WE'RE PROBLEM SOLVING LIKE A MANAGED PROPERTY SORT OF DIFFERENCE WHERE THERE'S PROBABLY WOULD BE VERSUS A DUPLEX WHERE SOMEBODY OWNS A DUPLEX AND YOU KNOW, OR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE GO BACK AND THINK ABOUT THIS AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADDRESS THIS, I'M CLEAR ON WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY ANYTHING OTHER THAN CITY PROPERTY IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. RIGHT. UM, SO THE NUANCE THERE, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE, I THINK WE'RE USING IT AS SHORTHAND FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. OKAY. OKAY. IN MOST CASES. YEAH, FOR MOST CASES. OKAY. YEAH, I KNOW THERE WAS ONE JURISDICTION I LOOKED AT THAT THEY EXEMPTED SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX. UM, SO I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT JURISDICTION IT WAS. ROSA. I THINK SO THERE ARE THOSE, UM, THERE ARE THOSE EXAMPLES. UM, I DON'T RECALL SEEING A LOT OF EXAMPLES DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN FRONT YARD AND REAR YARD. YEAH, I'D BE INTERESTED IN FRONT YARD AND REAR AND REAR YARD AND LOT SIZE BECAUSE I THINK A LARGE SINGLE FAMILY LOT OF WHICH WE DO HAVE SOME IN THE WWE COULD POTENTIALLY BE APPROPRIATELY REGULATED HERE. UM, BUT IF SOMEONE'S LIKE ME ON THE EAST SIDE WHERE, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT A SMALL TO MEDIUM SIZED HOUSE ON A SMALL PARCEL WHERE YES, THERE ARE TREES, BUT UM, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF IT COMES UP AGAINST THAT FIRE SAFETY SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE GETTING CONFLICTING INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DEFENSIBLE SPACE, AND, AND TREE PRESERVATION. SO I THINK THAT LOT SIZE COULD BE ANOTHER INTERESTING INFLECTION POINT TO FOCUS ON. AND THE ONE THING THING I WOULD SAY, KIND OF PLAYING THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ON THAT IS SO MUCH OF PETALUMA ARE SINGLE FAMILY STANDARD, YOU KNOW, MAYBE FIVE TO 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO WHEN WE GO BACK TO THE OBJECTIVE OF TREE CANOPY COVERAGE, THAT'S, SO THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHERE THE CHALLENGE IS A LITTLE BIT. WELL, AND I THINK THERE'S SOME OF THIS, WHICH IS TO EXEMPT THE COMMON PAIN POINTS THAT PEOPLE ARE GONNA RUN INTO, ESPECIALLY SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS. SO YOU KIND OF MAKE THIS LIKE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK THAT ONLY HAS REALLY COMPLIANCE GAPS WHEN PEOPLE ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT IS OBVIOUSLY THE HARM WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT. RIGHT? SO LIKE IF IT'S INDEFENSIBLE SPACE, YES, THERE NEEDS TO BE AN EASY WAY TO SELF-REPORT THAT, TO LIKE HAVE THE, THE CERTAINTY THAT, LOOK, I'VE SELF-REPORTED THIS. I'M NOT GONNA HAVE THIS COME BACK TO HAUNT ME AS A NIGHTMARE. BUT AGAIN, THAT PERSON WHO I WOULD SAY, WHETHER IT'S FRONT YARD OR BACKYARD, IS REMOVING A FULL GROWN TREE THAT PROVIDES CANOPY. LIKE, HEY, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO PAY A FEE TO HAVE SOMEONE COME OUT AND HELP YOU IDENTIFY IF THERE'S A WAY TO SAVE IT. AND THEN, AND AGAIN, YOU DON'T WANT IT TO LIKE, YOU DON'T WANNA SIGNAL THAT IT HAS NO TEETH, BUT BASICALLY SAY THAT HEY, THE STAFF, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF HAS DISCRETION TO WORK WITH YOU. SO THIS ISN'T LIKE A HUGE PENALTY. LIKE IF YOU CAN'T FIT THREE MORE TREES ON YOUR PROPERTY, BUT YOUR TREE IS BIG ENOUGH IN OUR REPLACEMENT RATE, WE'LL JUST GET RID OF THAT. THAT'S HOW I'VE SEEN THIS DONE MOST SUCCESSFULLY. AND SO YOU'RE PICKING UP THE VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE, WHICH LIKE NOT ONLY GIVES US SOME DATA, BUT PREVENTS SOME HARMS. AND YOU'RE ALSO REALLY, I DON'T WANNA SAY IT TURNS INTO LIKE IT'S ONLY REALLY EGREGIOUS THINGS BECAUSE SOMEONE REPORTS IT AND THEN WE HAVE THIS FRAMEWORK TO FALL BACK ON. 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW, WHEN SOMEONE BUTCHERS THAT HUGE TREE IN SOMEONE'S FRONT YARD, THE WHOLE COMMUNITY LIKES YOU CAN CALL SOMEONE AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING. SO IT'S LIKE COMBINING REALLY GOOD EXEMPTION SCENARIOS, REALLY CLEAR ENFORCEMENT PATHWAYS. AND I THINK ENFORCEMENT HAS TO LOOK DIFFERENT FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY. MM-HMM . YEAH. LIKE WAY DIFFERENT. AGREED. LIKE CRIMINAL, NOT ON SINGLE FAMILY . AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE MEANT BY, DEPENDING ON HOW THIS CONVERSATION GOES, GOING BACK INTO THE EXEMPTIONS AND KIND OF CREATING THOSE NUANCES TO GO WITH THIS FEEDBACK BETTER TOO. UM, IF WE'RE GONNA, IF WE'RE GONNA, IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE THINGS ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, LET'S SAY AS AN EXAMPLE, THEN THE ENFORCEMENT ALSO SHOULD KIND OF FOLLOW SOME OF THAT. SO THAT'S THE NUANCE WE MEANT WITH ENFORCEMENT. YEAH. AND, AND IF THERE'S AN EXEMPTION, [02:10:02] I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO A PERMIT AND HIRE AN ARBORIST TO PROVE UP AN EXEMPTION. RIGHT. YEAH. I HAVE THAT NOTED TO LOOK AT. THAT'S A LOOK AT THE ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS FOR EXEMPTIONS. LIKE, I THINK I DID THIS RIGHT. I, I SHOULDN'T, MAYBE THIS ISN'T A GOOD EXAMPLE, BUT LIKE, IF THERE'S AN EXEMPTION FOR GETTING A BUILDING PERMIT AND YOU THINK YOU'RE, YOU MEET THAT EXEMPTION, YOU DON'T GO AND APPLY FOR IT TO SAY, HEY, I'M EXEMPT. UM, THAT'S SORT OF YEAH. YEAH. THE, THE, THE EXEMPTION SHOULD REQUIRE LESS OF YOU . YEAH. YEAH. UM, AND, AND YOU SHOULD BE OFF THE HOOK NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT QUITE SO RIGOROUSLY. BUT NOW IT JUST, JUST AS FOR THE SAKE OF THIS CONVERSATION, COMMISSIONER KUSON IS SAYING WE SHOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF PROOF OF EXEMPTION THAT YOU NEED TO, TO SUBMIT. WELL, THE ONLY, THE ONLY REASON I THINK OF IT IN THIS CONTEXT IS WE'VE SEEN BEFORE WHERE PEOPLE LITERALLY JUST THEIR NEIGHBORS IMMEDIATELY CALL. AND IT WOULD BE NICE, AND MAYBE IT CAN BE LIKE, GOD, I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WHERE, WHERE THIS IS MEANINGLESS, BUT WHERE IT'S LIKE AN OPTIONAL SELF-REPORT OF EXEMPTION IF YOU WANT. JUST SO THAT, HEY, MY NEIGHBORS WON'T IMMEDIATELY CALL PLANNING OR BUILDING OR ENFORCEMENT ON ME, AND I CAN JUST REPORT THAT THIS IS HAPPENING. AND AGAIN, THERE'S ALSO THIS LIKE SLIGHTLY ADDED BENEFIT OF LIKE, SOME DATA FOR THE URBAN FORESTRY PLAN WHERE WE KNOW HOW MANY REMOVALS ARE HAPPENING AND LIKE IT COULD POTENTIALLY FEED INTO THAT. UM, SO YEAH, AGAIN, YOU CAN'T LIKE DEFANG IT TOO MUCH, BUT YOU WANT IT TO BE REALLY, AND THIS IS, I I'VE BEEN INVOKING BEN A LOT. BEN ANDERSON, WHO'S THE CONSULTANT WE WORK WITH, LIKE, THIS IS HOW HE DESCRIBED IT TO ME WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT LIKE, GOING ON SITE MEETING WITH SOMEONE. AND REALLY HE HAS A LOT OF LENIENCY ON HOW HE ENFORCES IT. AND REALLY HIS GOAL IS TO ALWAYS HELP THE PERSON SAVE THE TREE AND LIKE SELL THEM ON SAVING THE TREE. UM, SO THAT FLAVOR OF IT MM-HMM . I REALLY SUPPORT. MM-HMM . KIND OF THE MUCH MORE TONED DOWN. IT'S NOT ABOUT ENFORCEMENT. AND YEAH, THERE ARE GONNA BE PEOPLE THAT GET AWAY WITHOUT COMPLYING. THEY ALREADY ARE. RIGHT. AND THAT ALREADY HAPPENS WITH EVERY PERMIT BUILDING, WHATEVER. AND IT'S LIKE, YEAH, WE'RE NOT GONNA FLY DRONES AROUND TRYING TO PROSECUTE PEOPLE, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO KNOW THAT THAT HAPPENS. BUT FOR THOSE VOLUNTARY INSTANCES, HEY, IF WE CATCH A COUPLE OF INSTANCES OF PEOPLE APPLYING FOR A PERMIT WHEN THERE WAS A CHANCE TO SAVE IT, OR THAT'S KIND OF A VICTORY. UM, AND, AND, AND I THINK THIS ALSO HAS A LOT STRONGER PROTECTIONS THAN FOR STREET TREES, WHICH RIGHT NOW MM-HMM . ARE A HUGE GRAY AREA. RIGHT. UM, YEAH. SO, SO ON STREET TREES, OF WHICH I AM A FAN, I'M A FAN OF STREET TREES, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THIS CONVERSATION, I WILL SAY THAT THEY ARE NOT UNIVERSALLY VIRTUOUS. SOMETIMES STREET TREES CAN CAUSE DROP, CAN, CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS, UH, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, CRACKS IN THE, IN THE SIDEWALK AND TRIP HAZARDS. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE GOT STREET TREES THAT SORT OF OUTGROW THEIR SPACE, UM, WHETHER IT WAS A, A POOR CHOICE OF SPECIES TO BEGIN WITH OR WHATEVER. SO I'M CURIOUS WHAT HAPPENS THERE WHEN WE HAVE A STREET TREE THAT IS MATURE AND IS PROVIDING PUBLIC GOOD, BUT IS ALSO POTENTIALLY CAUSING SOME PUBLIC HARM. . SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED, UH, THROUGH THIS PROCESS, UM, IS THERE'S, THE TREE IS ALWAYS THE FIRST THING TO GO. UM, SO IT'S A, IT'S MUCH OF THIS IS JUST TRYING TO PAUSE AND IS THERE ANOTHER OPTION? IS IT, AND WE ALSO SEE PEOPLE COME IN AND SAY, I WANNA REMOVE MY STREET TREE. AND THEY'LL SAY SOMETHING LIKE, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S RUINING THE SIDEWALK. AND YOU'LL, YOU'LL LOOK AT IT AND YOU'RE LIKE, I, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE IT. LIKE, THERE'S NO CRACK, THERE'S NO UPLIFTING, THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW. SO WE ALSO WANT THE ABILITY TO SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T REMOVE YOUR STREET TREE. THERE'S NO REASON TO REMOVE YOUR STREET TREE. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE A STREET TREE AND IT IS MATURE AND, YOU KNOW, CREATES SHADE AND ALL THOSE BENEFITS. AND THERE'S A WAY THAT YOU CAN SHAVE DOWN THE SIDEWALK AS OPPOSED TO RIPPING THE TREE OUT. SO IT'S TRYING TO PAUSE AND THINK ABOUT ARE THERE OTHER OPTIONS BEFORE THE TREE JUST COMES OUT? AND SOMETIMES THE TREE NEEDS TO COME OUT. IT, SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T FIT ANYMORE. UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THIS, I THINK THERE WAS A GREAT INTENTION OF, IN PETALUMA, OF THOSE FOUR BY FOUR, YOU KNOW, UM, TREE WELLS, THERE'S NOT A LOT THAT FITS IN A FOUR BY FOUR TREE. WELL, AND, AND FLOURISHES AND, AND DOES, WELL, I THINK, WAS IT, I THINK IT WAS WITH THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN, THERE [02:15:01] WAS A DIAGRAM OF HOW MUCH SPACE A TREE ACTUALLY NEEDS. AND NOWHERE IN THERE IS IT FOUR BY FOUR. UM, SO IT'S, SO THERE ARE, THERE, THIS IS NOT A ABSOLUTELY A UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. DO YOU EVER REMOVE A STREET TREE? IT'S DO WE REALLY NEED TO, IS THERE ANOTHER OPTION? LET'S EXPLORE THOSE OPTIONS. AND IF, YEAH, THIS NEEDS TO BE REMOVED, LET'S REMOVE IT AND LET'S PLANT SOMETHING THAT IS A BETTER FIT HERE. COULD I MAYBE CHIME IN ON THAT? I APPRECIATE THAT THIS IS ASPIRATIONAL AND I, I FEEL LIKE IT FALLS DOWN TO THE PROCEDURAL AND THE ENFORCEMENT AND THE DETAILS AND IT FOR THAT REASON IN, IN FULL SUPPORT OF ALL OF THESE CHANGES. UH, I DO WONDER IF LIKE, WE COULD REVISIT SIZING CANOPY PRIORITIES TOO. SO LIKE, IF THE PRIORITY IS TO MAINTAIN OR ENCOURAGE CANOPY, THERE ARE CERTAIN SPECIES THAT DO THAT BETTER THAN OTHERS. AND I THINK RESOURCES AND SHARING WHAT THOSE SPECIES ARE AND ALSO APPLYING THAT TO A MORE RESTRICTIVE PROTECTED LIST MIGHT BE A HEALTHY MIDDLE GROUND FOR, FOR SOME FOLKS. UM, YEAH. I, I DEFINITELY THINK SO. AND I THINK, UM, WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD SENSE OF THAT, RIGHT? WE HAVE OUR APPROVED STREET TREE LIST MM-HMM . UM, WE ALSO HAVE A PRETTY GOOD SENSE OF LIKE NATIVES AND PROTECTED TREES. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THAT'S NOT TOO, I, IT MIGHT HELP TO LIKE, SEE THAT IN COMPARISON WITH THE, YOU KNOW, FOUR, FOUR AND A HALF FOOT WIDTH KIND OF FLAVOR AND SEE HOW THAT FEELS TO PEOPLE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE EXPERIENCE IS GONNA BE FOR. AND I'M ALWAYS NOW THINKING OF LIKE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNER. 'CAUSE I THINK FOR DEVELOPMENT WE KIND OF KNOW THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE READY TO, TO DO THIS. THEY'RE EXPECTING THIS. UM, YEAH, I'VE, I DEFINITELY WOULD SUPPORT THAT. IS THERE ROOM TO QUALIFY NOT BY ZONE OR ZONING, UM, BUT BY LOCATION. SO I'M NOT NECESSARILY PERSONALLY A FAN OF JUST CARTE BLANCHE FOR BACKYARDS. 'CAUSE I THINK THERE'S A HUGE IMPACT ON THE CANOPY ON YOUR NEIGHBORS, AND THAT SHOULD BE PART OF A REVIEW PERHAPS. BUT FOR STREET TREE VERSUS YOUR OWN PROPER SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, MORE RESTRICTIONS VERSUS LESS ALSO FEELS LIKE A DISTINCTION WE COULD MAKE MM-HMM . YEP. AND THAT'S, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE DONE, OR, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, EITHER, UM, EITHER THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, LIKE THAT KIND OF, OR THERE'S A HIGHER, UM, THERE'S A LARGER SIZE. UM, SO SOME WILL BE LIKE, AND I'M KIND OF MAKING THIS UP, BUT SOME WILL BE LIKE SIX INCHES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL AND, AND YOU KNOW, RIGHT. THE SIZE. AND THEN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, A 12 INCH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM, TO CHANGE TO CHA JUST BE A LITTLE MORE, UM, HAVE A LITTLE MORE LENIENCY. UM, SO THAT, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR APPLE TREE OR WHATEVER, UM, ISN'T RIGHT BECAUSE THE, THE, THE SORT OF EXPLICIT ENTRY POINT IS DIAMETER MM-HMM . MM-HMM . SO IF SINGLE FAMILY ZONING PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHEREVER WE SORT OF DRAW THE LINE, HAVE A LARGER DIAMETER, THEN THAT INHERENTLY RE YOU KNOW, KICKS A LOT OF PEOPLE INTO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS. MM-HMM . UM, IF YOU'RE MEASURING YOUR TREE, AND, AND PROBABLY BY THE TIME A TREE IS OF THAT SIZE, IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE, IF WE CREATED A LIT, I MEAN, I'M ALSO TRYING TO THINK OF THIS FOR EASE. ONCE YOU START GETTING INTO SPECIFIC SPECIES AND STUFF, THAT DOES TAKE SOMEBODY SAYING, OH, THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, COAST LIVE OAK VERSUS A BLACK OAK VERSUS, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING. WHEREAS IF IT'S BASED ON SIZE, IT IS AN EASIER, UH, QUALIFIER. RIGHT. IF YOU WILL. AND PROBABLY BY THE TIME A TREE IS LET'S SAY 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER AT FOUR AND A HALF FEET ABOVE, THAT'S PROBABLY BECOMING A, YOU KNOW, A A PER A YEAH. A NEIGHBORHOOD TREE D NOT A STREET TREE, A NEIGHBORHOOD TREE. AND THAT HOMEOWNER IS PROBABLY INVESTED. LIKE IT'S NOT A MYSTERY TO THEM THAT THAT TREE'S THERE. RIGHT. THEY'RE ONLY LIKE, IT GONNA BE TAKING IT OUT IF IT IS IN POOR HEALTH OR, YOU KNOW, I CURIOUS, WHERE DO PALM TREES FIT INTO ALL THIS? YEAH. IT HASN'T BEEN TREES. YEAH. BUT THEY DON'T PROVIDE SHADE. WELL, YEAH. IT WASN'T PULLED OUT IN THE DISCUSSION AS LIKE A, UM, AS A NUISANCE OR A, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE TECHNICALLY NOT TREES. THERE [02:20:01] WE GO. OH, THERE YOU GO. BUT WOULD THEY UNDER GRASS, UNDER WOODY, WOODY, JUST WOODY SOMETHING, SOMETHING, WHATEVER OUR TREE DEFINITION IS. YEAH. YEAH. UH, TREE NATIVE OR NON-NATIVE WOODY PLANT WITH A TRUNK DIAMETER OF SIX INCHES OR GREATER. IS IT A, IS IT A WOODY PLANT? A PALM TREE? IT'S ICE. IT'S NOT HERBACEOUS. YEAH. YEAH. I WOULD THINK OF IT AS A WOODY PLANT. WELL, FROM A BOTANICAL STANDPOINT THERE, IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE GRASS FAMILY AND NOT RELATED TO TREES. MAYBE SOME EXPLORATION NEEDED TO SEE IF THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT POND TREES IN THE NUISANCE CATEGORY. UH, WE GOT A LOT OF 'EM ON EACH SIDE, AND THEY'RE NOT DOING MUCH GOOD , BUT THE CITY'S PLANTING FRESH PALM TREES IN, UH, HENRY PARK. WELL, HENRY PARK IS, AND WE HAVE PALM TREES IN FRONT OF THE HANSEN HOUSE THAT ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE LANDMARK, THEY HERITAGE STATUS. SURE. YEAH. WERE, WERE THERE PRIORITIES, AND MAYBE I MISSED THIS, BUT BEYOND SHADE, LIKE WHAT ARE THE OTHER PRIORITIES WE'RE WE'RE DRIVING FOR LIKE CHARACTER LIKE LA PALMS, YOU KNOW, LIKE, I, I'M WONDERING JUST WHAT THE OTHER PRIORITIES MIGHT BE AND HOW, HOW DO ALL THE SPECIES, THE SIZES FIT INTO IT? I MEAN, THE POLICY, THE, THE BENEFITS WERE PRETTY, A PRETTY LONG LIST. YOU KNOW, REDUCING HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, UM, YOU KNOW, CARBON SEQUESTRATION, UH, SLOWING DOWN TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, THOSE BIG SHADE TREES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD IS GONNA MAKE, YOU KNOW, BE A TRAFFIC COMING. UM, AND I MEAN, THE BIODIVERSITY THAT TREES OFFER TO NOT ONLY THE ABOVE GROUND, BUT THE BELOW GROUND ENVIRONMENT IS LIKE INNUMERABLE, THEY'RE LIKE, THE FRAMEWORK BY WHICH OUR SOIL IS IS HEALTHY, BASICALLY. UM, SO I THINK, YEAH, THAT WAS A BIG PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD INITIALLY IS LIKE WE WERE MAKING THESE LISTS OF WHY ARE TREES VALUABLE MM-HMM . AND THEY GOT LIKE INCREDIBLY LONG AND EVERYONE'S LIKE, YEAH, THEY'RE JUST INHERENTLY VALUABLE. WE WANT THEM MM-HMM . YOU KNOW MM-HMM . BUT I, OH, BUT I, I THINK FROM THIS, I MEAN, I WOULD DEFINITELY SUPPORT LOOKING AT, JUST SAW HIGHER DIAMETER WHEN IT COMES TO THE SINGLE FAMILY USE CASE. A LITTLE MORE RESTRICTIVE WITH STREET TREES AND THEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT, EITHER MATCHING STREET TREES OR SOMETHING PRETTY SIMILAR. UM, BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALREADY USED TO THAT. UM, I WOULD, I WOULD DEFINITELY SUPPORT THAT. I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT WE'RE PROVIDING NUANCE ON DIAMETER FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY CONTEXT, WE ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES MINISTERIAL PERMIT SITUATION. I PUT A NOTE THERE TO, TO RE-LOOK AT THAT, TO MAKE SURE IT WOULD, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TYPES OF PERMITS, BUT LIKE I GOT A RESIDENTIAL ALTERATION AND REMODEL REPAIR BUILDING PERMIT AND WAS DOING NOTHING OUTSIDE OF THE WALLS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST. SO IF I HAD BEEN BURDENED WITH CREATING A, I, I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD BE, BECAUSE I A READ THAT SAYS ALL, OKAY, WE'LL LOOK AT THAT. OKAY. YEAH. WE DO QUALIFY LIKE TREES ARE INVOLVED. RIGHT. OR THE, OR THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE IS INVOLVED, INVOLVED OUTSIDE THE FOOTPRINT'S CHANGING. YEAH. SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE DEFINITELY WANNA CAPTURE THOUGH, WHICH HASN'T BEEN CAPTURED AND HAS BEEN A REAL WORLD, YOU KNOW, ISSUE FOR US IS TRENCHING FOR UTILITIES. MM. SO THE PERMIT WA THEY WEREN'T, THEY WEREN'T CHANGING ANYTHING ON THE OUTSIDE, BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE REDOING SOMETHING ON THE INSIDE, THEY NEEDED TO UPGRADE UTILITIES AND SO THEY HAD TO TRENCH NEW UTILITY SOMETHING OR AN UPGRADED UTILITY FROM THE STREET AND IT, THEY TRENCHED IT RIGHT OVER THE ROOTS YEAH. OF A TREE. AND, YOU KNOW, SO I, I HAVE A NOTE TO LOOK, LOOK BACK AT THAT SECTION AND KIND OF TIGHTEN IT UP. YEAH. UM, AND I THINK THE, THIS SORT OF GETS BACK INTO THE, LIKE, AM I HAVING TO SUBMIT A LOT OF PAPERWORK TO PROVE THAT I'M NOT DOING ANY HARM? RIGHT. UM, YEAH. COULD WE QUALIFY WITHIN A CERTAIN RADIUS OF A TREE? I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SAID. I THOUGHT WE, WE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT 30 FEET FEET FOR THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE. WAS THAT, OR THAT WAS WORK IN GENERAL? THAT'S DIFFERENT. YEAH. THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE IS, YEAH. BUT FOR THE MINISTERIAL REVIEW IN 17.1 HUNDRED ON PAGE I 30 11 IS PRETTY BROAD. THAT'S A LOT. LIKE, I FEEL LIKE IT MIGHT WANNA GET MORE SPECIFIC FOR, FOR SINGLE FAMILY. YEAH. MM-HMM . A SITE PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN 30 FEET OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, INCLUDING TRENCHING, UTILITIES, AND GRADING. SO YEAH, TH THIS WOULD CAPTURE SOMEONE WHO'S DOING A BATHROOM REMODEL ABOVE BOARD MM-HMM . AND THEY NOW HAVE TO DO AN ENTIRE SITE PLAN OF THEIR LANDSCAPING IN A, IN A WAY THAT I THINK IS OVERLY BURDENSOME. OKAY. I'LL, I'LL LOOK AT THAT. [02:25:01] ALRIGHT. WE'VE STARTED DIPPING OUR TOE INTO SOME OF THE MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT STAFF HAD. UM, SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSITION INTO THIS MEMO, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HITTING THIS, THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION. DO WE NEED A BIO BREAK HERE? TWO AND A HALF HOURS INTO OUR MEETING? I'LL TAKE THEM. LET'S DO A QUICK FIVE MINUTE BREAK. WE'LL COME BACK AT ABOUT 8 33 ISH. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE'VE GOT OUR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, A LOT OF WHICH WE'VE ALREADY PROVIDED A FAIR BIT OF, UH, CONTEXT AND FEEDBACK. SO IF WE WANNA JUST GET OURSELVES HERE, DO, AND WE'RE NOT JUST THE QUESTIONS, BUT YOU, WE SHOULD ALSO COMMENT ON THE ONES THAT DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS. LIKE OUR FIRST ONE HERE, PURPOSE, IF THERE'S ANY. YEP. YEAH. OKAY. SO WE'LL TAKE IT FROM THE TOP, UH, 17.010. ANY, UH, SPECIFICS, UM, THAT FOLKS WANNA COMMENT ON THE PURPOSE OF THIS? IEO CHAPTER 17. COMMISSIONER KUZEN. JUST A QUICK THOUGHT OF LIKE FRAMING THIS WHOLE THING WHILE WE WERE AT BREAK, MAKING SURE THIS IS LIKE A, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EDUCATION AND THE CITY TO ASSIST PROPERTY OWNERS WITH THEIR TREE REMOVALS. IT'S NOT JUST PUNITIVE, BUT IT'S US LIKE TRYING TO, TRYING TO HELP, UH, AS WELL. YES. BUT MAKE SURE WE AREN'T GETTING OURSELVES INTO HOT WATER WITH PUTTING TOO MUCH INTO AN IZO THAT WE THEN GET OURSELVES INTO THE REVISION. YEAH. CRAZINESS. YEAH. . YEAH. AND MAYBE IT DOESN'T GO IN THERE, BUT JUST YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. WHEN WE FRAME IT TO THE PUBLIC, LIKE YEAH. 'CAUSE A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE ARE BRINGING DOWN A TREE AND THEY JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. RIGHT. SO THIS IS LIKE, YEAH. YOU APPLY WITH THE CITY SOMEONE. SO ANYWAY, YEAH, THAT'S A FRAMING NOTE. IF IT DOESN'T GO IN THERE, THAT'S FINE. OKAY. ON DEFINITIONS. SO WE'VE GOT TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS HERE. UM, AND HEATHER, IF YOU WANNA DRIVE THIS CONVERSATION AND LET US KNOW WHERE YOU ALREADY FEEL LIKE YOU'VE GOT ADEQUATE THOUGHTS, PLEASE DO. YEAH, I, I FEEL LIKE THE SECOND QUESTION ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF TREE, UM, FOR PURPOSES APPLYING THE ORDINANCE TO RESTRICTIVE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT LOOKING FOR, YOU KNOW, WAYS TO BALANCE THAT SPECIFICALLY FOR, UM, SINGLE FAMILIES, PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL, PRIVATE PROPERTY. UM, WHETHER THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A NUANCE IN TERMS OF A LARGER, UM, TREE SIZE FOR PRIVATE PRIVATE PROPERTY VERSUS STREET TREES OR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. RIGHT. UM, SO I THINK THAT'S BEEN THE KIND OF CONSENSUS OF, OF THE COMMISSION AND THE, IN TERMS OF THE COMMENTS I'VE HEARD SO FAR. GREAT. SO THEN ON NUMBER ONE, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT LIST THAT WE THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL? UH, I MEAN, I LIKE TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIKE MORE DEFINITIONS, BUT HEATHER, CAN YOU SPEAK BRIEFLY TO, UM, WHERE YOU LANDED, WHERE YOU DID, IF YOU FEEL LIKE WE DO NEED LIKE SOME OTHER, UM, SOME OTHER ORDINANCES DEFINE WHAT, LIKE A CERTIFIED ARBORIST IS WHAT THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE IS LIKE, THEY REALLY DEFINE SOME OF THIS STUFF. DID YOU GUYS JUST DECIDE THAT WASN'T REALLY NECESSARY? HOW, HOW DID YOU LAND ON THE DEFINITIONS YOU DID? SO WE LANDED ON THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE DID OF TERMS USED IN THE ORDINANCE. SO WE USED ARBORIST ALL OVER IN THE ORDINANCE. AND SO INSTEAD OF EVERY TIME SAYING CERTIFIED ARBORIST BY ISA, WE JUST SAY THE ARBORIST. AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION, IT REQUIRES THAT IT BE CERTIFIED THROUGH ISA, THAT, THAT KIND OF THING. SO, UM, IN RESPONSE, AND WITH SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THERE WAS A LOT MORE TERMS, LIKE, AND WE SHOULD DEFINE THIS AND WE SHOULD DEFINE THAT. AND I ACTUALLY STARTED TO LOOK FOR THOSE DEFINITIONS, BUT IN THE INTERNAL REVIEW AS, WE DON'T NEED TO DEFINE IT IF WE DON'T USE IT IN THE ORDINANCE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. I DO WANNA CALL ATTENTION TO SOME PUBLIC COMMENT WE GOT ABOUT TOPPING AND ITS USAGE. UM, RELIEF COMMENTED ON THAT, AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN A PREVIOUS DRAFT. SO WE DO SAY, AND WE DO SAY IT'S PROHIBITED. THEY, NO, I HAVE TO PULL UP THE COMMENT. IT WAS SAYING THAT, UM, USING TOPPING LIKE, UH, REPLACE TOPPING WITH HEADING BACK TOPPING IS CONSIDERED AN IMPROPER PRUNING PRACTICE. BUT WE USE TOPPING SPECIFICALLY TO SAY YOU CAN'T DO THIS. OKAY. SO WE ARE SAYING IT IS AN IMPROPER PRUNING TECHNIQUE, UM, WHERE WE, WHERE I BELIEVE WE USE THE TERM TOPPING. GOTCHA. IT'S TO SAY YOU, [02:30:01] YOU CAN'T TOP, OR IS THE COMMENT TRYING TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD, I MEAN, BECAUSE TOPPING IS INHERENTLY ALREADY NOT GOING TO BE DONE, THAT IT ALSO DOES NOT WANT TO ALLOW FOR THE PR, WHAT IS THE OTHER TERM? PRUNING BACK, HEADING BACK, HEADING BACK IT. OR ARE WE NOT TRYING TO MAKE THAT? LET'S GO TO 17.050. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE REFERENCING. AND I FEEL LIKE I LOOKED FOR THIS, I DIDN'T FIND IT GUIDANCE. HMM. I I CAN LOOK BACK AT THAT COMMENT. YEAH. I WONDER IF IT'S A DIFFERENT VERSION THAN OUR CURRENT DRAFT IN ATTACHMENT ONE. YEAH, I CAN LOOK BACK AT THAT. GREAT, THANK YOU. MAYBE ONE COMMENT, UH, ON THE DEFINITION OF TPZ AND ANY OTHER DEFINITIONS THERE MIGHT BE FOR TREE CLEARANCE DIAMETERS. I KNOW LIKE WHEN WE WORK WITH ARBORISTS, THERE IS MULTIPLE CLEARANCES INSIDE THE TPZ, LIKE A NO BUILD ZONE. UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE AN INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR THOSE WITH ARBORISTS, BUT I'D BE CURIOUS. AND AS A PROFESSIONAL, I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO HAVE THOSE ZONES DEFINED IN THE CODE. AND, UM, THAT'S JUST LIKE A GOOD INSTRUCTION, I THINK TO INCLUDE IN THE TREE PROTECTION PLANS. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THERE'S ALWAYS DRIP LINE AND THEN, UH, WE CALL IT TPZ AND THEN SOME ORDINANCES, CALL IT CRZ CRITICAL ROOT ZONE. YEAH. UM, BUT THAT'S AN INTERESTING ONE TO LOOK INTO. I DON'T KNOW, LIKE EXACTLY HOW MANY I LAYERS. I KNOW LIKE YOU CAN BUILD, IF YOU, WE'VE BEEN TAUGHT TO THINK OF IT LIKE A PIE, LIKE YOU CAN ENCROACH WITHIN A TPZ ZONE UP TO LIKE 25% IN A QUADRANT AND LIKE, BUT NEVER WITHIN THE ROOT CLEAR ZONE OR WHATEVER THAT RADIUS MIGHT BE. SO I, I, AGAIN, I'M NOT THE BEST PERSON TO DEFINE THOSE, BUT I THINK MORE DEFINITIONS AROUND THOSE, UH, WOULD BE GREAT. OKAY. OKAY. GOOD ON THE DEFINITIONS. OKAY. ONTO 17.030 ARE APPLICABILITY, WHICH AGAIN, I THINK WE'VE DONE QUITE A LOT ON IN THE DISCUSSION SO FAR ENOUGH TO CONTINUE. OH, JUST ONE MORE POINT ON THE DEFINITIONS. I LOOKED IT UP. AND PALMS ARE DEFINITIVELY EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERED WOODY. OH, OKAY. THEY'RE FIBROUS. THEY'RE FIBROUS. SO I JUST MADE A NOTE TO LOOK AT PALMS AS PART OF DEFINITION. SO, SO I GUESS THAT WARRANTS THE DISCUSSION. ARE PALMS PART OF THIS CONVERSATION? YEAH. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY'RE EXCLUDED AND IF THAT'S OKAY, I'M, I'M PERSONALLY FINE WITH THAT. JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. GOOD POINT THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS TOO, BECAUSE WE CURRENTLY VERSUS WOODY. OKAY. . AND IT LOOKED LIKE COMMISSIONER HIL HAD HIS HAND RAISED SIDE. OR MAYBE IT'S NOT, IT JUST REALLY QUICK. I I THINK THAT BEARS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION. 'CAUSE YEAH, PALMS ARE NOT TREES, BUT THEY BEHAVE LIKE THEM IN MANY WAYS AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THEY'RE NOT TREES. SO, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE FOR THE, THE FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS OF THIS ORDINANCE, IT WOULD BE A REALLY GOOD IDEA TO INCLUDE PALMS IN THIS. BUT I'M NOT, I'M NOT POSITIVE HOW WE DO THAT AT THIS JUNCTURE. I, I JUST THINK THE SPIRIT OF OUR DEFINITION INCLUDES PALMS, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THEY DON'T. SO I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO APPROACH THAT, BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD BE PART OF AN ORDINANCE THAT DEALS WITH THESE, AND OUR DEFINITION CURRENTLY EXCLUDES THEM BASED OFF OF THE WORDS USED. AND DO WE ADD AND PALM TREES ON THE END, OR WOODY OR FIBROUS? I, I, I WOULD BE CURIOUS, WOODY AND FIBROUS, I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT TREE COMMITTEE AND THEIR ASSOCIATED EXPERTS AND THE STAKEHOLDERS OF RELIEF AND OTHERS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT PALMS. JUST, I'M SURE THERE'S PLENTY OF INDUSTRY CONVERSATION ABOUT IT FROM A NATIVE NON-NATIVE STANDPOINT. FROM A, HOW, HOW MANY OF THOSE TREE BENEFITS ARE THEY ACTUALLY MAKING GOOD ON ? UM, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, THEIR, THEIR BELOW GROUND INFLUENCE OR, YOU KNOW, THEIR, THEIR, UM, YEAH. SO I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT SOME INDUSTRY EXPERTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT PALMS. I KNOW THERE'S SOME HERITAGE ONES AROUND TOWN, UM, THAT I THINK WOULD BE SORT OF SUPERSEDED BY THE DEFINITION. IF IT'S A HERITAGE TREE, IT'S A HERITAGE TREE. YES. YEAH. UM, BUT I COULD SEE ALSO A PUBLIC OUTRAGE IF ALL OF A SUDDEN, LIKE IN HENRY PARK, ALL THE TREES WERE REMOVED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND IT WAS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT WOODY. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THOSE AREN'T HERITAGE OR LANDMARK THOUGH. [02:35:01] ANYWAY. I, I, I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T THINK SO. IT MIGHT BE A GOOD CHECK IN WITH RELIEF. YEAH. I KNOW THAT THEIR TEAM'S GONNA HAVE SOME, I'LL LOOK JUST, IT'S THE NUANCE, LIKE TOTALLY, IT'S THE ASSOCIATION, RIGHT. IT, IT MIGHT BE FIBROUS, NOT WOODY. SURE. SO THEREFORE IT WOULDN'T FALL INTO THE DEFINITION, BUT PEOPLE MIGHT IDENTIFY WITH A PALM AS A TREE. MM. SO I'LL, I'LL, I'LL DIG INTO THAT ONE A LITTLE BIT. THANK YOU. SO THEN OUR APPLICABILITY, ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT NUISANCE TREES. SHOULD NUISANCE TREES BE CONSIDERED EXEMPT FROM THIS, FROM THE PROVISION OF THE ORDINANCE? OR SHOULD THE CITY CONSIDER THESE TREES LIKE OTHER SPECIES IN THAT THEY'RE PART OF THE EXISTING TREE CANOPY WITHIN THE CITY? A GOOD QUESTION. IT, IT SOUNDED LIKE, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE GOTTEN FROM OUR CONVERSATION, UM, ON, UH, EXEMPTIONS IS, UM, TO LOOK AT MAKING EXEMPTIONS EASIER FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, SELF CERTIFYING, YOU KNOW, SOME OF, SOME OF THOSE THINGS. UM, WE TALKED ABOUT DEFENSIBLE SPACE EXPLICITLY, UM, UPDATING, UM, SOME THINGS ABOUT THE NEW, OBVIOUSLY UPDATING WITH THE NUANCED TREES, UM, ALSO LOOKING AT THE CITY'S AGREEMENT WITH PG AND E IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY PROTECTION. SO JUST KIND OF GOING BACK OVER HERE AND OVER THIS SECTION AND KIND OF CLEANING SOME OF THOSE THINGS UP, UM, I DIDN'T HEAR ANY, ANY OPPOSITION TO NU NUISANCE SPECIES BEING EXEMPT TREES. MM-HMM . I AM INTERESTED IN TALKING THOUGH ABOUT THE NUISANCE TREE REMOVAL TRIGGERING REPLACEMENT. I THINK WE'RE AN AGREEMENT THAT A NUISANCE TREE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH THE HOOPS TO PROVE ITS EXEMPTION IF IT IS INDEED A NUISANCE, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY SAID A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THE EXEMPTIONS NEED TO BE EASIER TO SELF-SERVE. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS QUESTION IS, IF A NUISANCE TREE IS REMOVED, THAT'S PART OF THE CANOPY. DO WE WANT TO BE, UH, INSISTING ON REPLACEMENT? AND RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE BASICALLY ALL OF THE EXEMPTIONS, IT SAYS THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T APPLY TO THE EXEMPTIONS AND THE ORDINANCE IS WHAT'S REQUIRING THE REPLACEMENT. SO TO, WOULD NEED TO DO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A SEPARATE CARVE OUT FOR THAT, THAT MAYBE, HMM. I THINK YOU LEAVE, UH, THIS IS JUST MY, LIKE, INTUITIVE, BUT I THINK YOU LEAVE NUISANCE TREES OFF JUST BECAUSE THERE'S KIND OF A BENEFIT, ESPECIALLY LIKE TREE OF HEAVEN FROM JUST REMOVING THEM. UH, AND THEN IF PEOPLE WANNA REPLACE IT, FALL BACK INTO ALL THE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, LOCAL GROUPS TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO REPLACE IT. BUT I THINK THE POINT OF NUISANCE TREES WAS LIKE, YEAH, THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING TO CANOPY, BUT THE LOSS OF THEM, WE'RE NOT GONNA MISS, LIKE THERE'S OTHER REASONS TO, THE PRIORITY IS REMOVAL. NOT IN, IN A SENSE. LIKE, I, I HATE TO SAY THAT, BUT YEAH. IN A SENSE, LIKE WE'RE NOT, YEAH. THEY, THEY COULD BE TRULY EXEMPT. I, I THINK I'D SUPPORT THAT. OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE. ALL RIGHT. SO WE WERE ACTUALLY, I SEE THESE QUESTION THREE AND FOUR ARE LABELED AS, UH, APPLICABILITY, BUT THEY WERE ACTUALLY THE EXEMPTION QUESTIONS. MM-HMM . SO MOVING ON TO 17.050, THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS, THIS FELT LIKE AN EASY YES TO ME JUST TO KEEP, KEEP THE, THE ORDINANCE CLEAN IS TO MOVE THOSE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ELSEWHERE SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO CRACK IT OPEN AGAIN. CAN WE ALSO MAKE A NOTE TO MAKE THE TECHNICAL MANUAL MORE AVAILABLE? YEAH. I, I THINK THAT NOTE'S BEEN MADE, BUT YEAH. SAY IT AGAIN. OKAY. I GOT NODS THAT WE SAY YES TO MOVE. OKAY. 17.060 TREE REMOVAL PERMITS ADEQUATELY LIMIT. AND ON THIS, THE COMMENT I HAVE DOWN TO MYSELF ON THIS IS THAT TO REMOVE SOME OF THE UNCERTAINTY THAT, UM, THE PROCESS SEEMS TO HAVE SOME INHERENT UNCERTAINTY SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER. SO TO TIGHTEN THAT UP TO BE, UM, A LITTLE MORE, UM, YEAH. UN UNCERTAINTY AND, UM, BURDEN YEAH. TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE EXEMPT. AND I THI I THINK EVEN THOUGH NUMBER SEVEN I IS NOT READING TO ME AS CLEARLY AS I'M SURE IT DID WHEN I WROTE IT. UM, BUT I THINK THIS WAS JUST THAT, UM, SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPROACH TO CREATE ONE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT THAT APPLIES WHETHER IT'S PRIVATE OR PUBLIC. WELL, AND IN THE STAFF REPORT AND IN [02:40:01] SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM STAKEHOLDERS, IT WAS THAT THERE WAS A, A VERSION OF THIS FROM THE TREE COMMITTEE THAT SAID, LET'S SORT OF LEAD WITH THE POSITIVE AND INSTEAD OF CALLING IT A TREE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, CALL IT A TREE REPLACEMENT, PERMIT REPLACEMENT, EVEN THOUGH THE ACTUAL SORT OF REGULATION IS THE REMOVAL. SO I THINK FOR CLARITY AND FOR PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS THE WAY, MAKE RIGHT. MAKE SENSE. AND THEN WE GET GOT A COUPLE PUBLIC COMMENTS SAYING IT'S REALLY CONFUSING TO CALL IT A TREE REPLACEMENT PERMIT BECAUSE YEAH. LIKE REMOVAL, I DON'T, I'M, MOST PEOPLE AREN'T GONNA COME IN AND SAY, I WANT A TREE REPLACEMENT PERMIT. THEY'RE GONNA SAY, I WANNA REMOVE MY TREE. YEAH. NOT I WANNA REPLACE MY TREE. SO YEAH. OKAY. MAYBE ONE DETAILED QUESTION, COMMENT IN, UH, C ONE IS JUST THE DIRECTOR MAY REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS BY AN ARBORIST TO SUPPORT THAT PARTICULAR DETERMINATION THAT THE TREE IS DEAD OR DISEASED. I DON'T KNOW. MAY JUST LEAVES A LOT OF DISCRETION THERE. THAT GOES BACK TO THE DISCRETION AND ALSO UNCERTAINTY WHERE IT'S LIKE WHAT IS THE PARAMETERS FOR THAT MAY THEN TRIGGERING OTHER OPTIONS WHERE YOU HAVE A TREE THAT IS LIKE HALF OVER AND YET YOU STILL WOULD THEN HAVE TO COME BACK BECAUSE THEY FOUND, OH NO, IT'S NOT DEAD, IT'S JUST RESTING. UM, YEAH. SO IS THERE A POTENTIAL FOR CLARITY THERE AS WELL? MM-HMM . YEP. EITHER FROM THE, WAS THE PERMIT SEQUENCING FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PRECEDING THAT IN THIS SECTION. I CAN'T REMEMBER. AND IF IT WAS, I GUESS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS, CAN THEY BE CONCURRENT? WE ARE GONNA TRY TO MAKE THEM CONCURRENT A WAY TO MAKE THEM CONCURRENT. SO YOU'RE PAYING ONE FEE. MM-HMM . YOU'RE COMING IN ONE TIME. YEAH. MM-HMM . AND YOU CAN KIND OF PRIOR. YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. I THINK THAT'S MAYBE ONE THING I WOULD TRY AND STREAMLINE FOREVER. OKAY. JUST MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT MISSING ANYTHING IN THESE ONES THAT DON'T HAVE EXPLICIT QUESTIONS. SO FOR TREE REPLACEMENT, 17.070, ANY THOUGHTS HERE? COMMENTS? OKAY. I GUESS LIKE SPECIES WISE, I DON'T, AGAIN, MAYBE IT'S A TREE MANUAL. I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE ORDINANCE OR THE IZO, BUT LIKE RESOURCES ON WHAT YOU CAN DO TO REPLACE IT. MOST RESPONSIBLY, I THINK THERE'S FIRE RESILIENCY, LIKE, AND THERE'S SHADE AND A FEW OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO TIE IN WITH PRIORITIES ALONG, YEAH. ALONG WITH THE STREET TREE LIST, THAT IS SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT IS LIKE AN IMPROVED TREE LIST OR LIKE A MATRICES OF LIKE, HERE ARE THE GOOD TREES FOR DIFFERENT USE CASES, HERE'S WHAT WE RECOMMEND KIND OF THING. OR, OR EXPLICITLY PERMIT. YEAH. AND THOSE WOULD BE THOSE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS TOO, RIGHT? THAT SUPPLEMENT AREN'T NECESSARILY THE REGULATION, BUT THE, BUT THE HELPFUL THINGS THAT WE CAN HAVE ON A TREE WEBSITE, TREE PRESERVATION WEBSITE. AND MAYBE, AND MAYBE IN LIEU OF LISTING THE GUIDING DOCUMENTS HERE, WOULD IT BE KIND OF IRREGULAR TO JUST HAVE A LINK TO SOME PART OF THE WEBSITE WITH THE GUIDING DOCUMENTS? SO IF SOMEONE'S READING THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE FIRST TIME, THEY CAN JUST BOUNCE OVER INSTEAD OF LISTING EACH DOCUMENT JUST LIKE, HERE'S WHERE ALL THE DOCUMENTS LIVE. SO, SO WE TALK, WE ACTUALLY, DYLAN AND I TALKED ABOUT THAT, UM, PUTTING LINKS IN THE ORDINANCE AND THERE'S ALWAYS A CONCERN ABOUT DOING THAT BECAUSE THEN SOMETHING CHANGES AND YOU NO LONGER HAVE THE LINK. I WOULD ADVISE AGAINST THAT HAVING WORKED AT OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WHERE THEY TRY TO DO THAT AND THEN IT LEADS TO DEAD ENDS, WHERE YOU DEFINITELY, THEN YOU ARE BREAKING THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION THAT YOU'VE CREATED. AND THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CHANGE THAT THEN IS TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN TO THE, UM, BUT I THINK THERE ARE OTHER THINGS WE CAN DO. AND EVEN LIKE AS I REFERENCED LIKE THAT ONE PAGE, LIKE DO YOU NEED A TREE PERMIT? DO YOU NEED, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WHERE WE CAN LINK TO THEM IN DIFFERENT WAYS THAT IT, WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE FLUIDITY. WELL, HOPEFULLY PEOPLE WOULD SEE THAT MAYBE EVEN BEFORE THIS, BEFORE THEY, YEAH. YEAH. SO ON 17.070 TREE REPLACEMENT, I DO WANNA ELEVATE SOME OF THE STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS WE GOT THAT IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A MIXED BAG ON SORT OF LIKE THE, THE HERITAGE AND LANDMARK TREES HAD A SORT OF SOFTER, UH, REPLACEMENT NEED COMPARED TO ELSEWHERE. SO JUST, I, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT WHAT IT SHOULD BE , BUT I JUST WANT IT TO BE CONSIDERED THAT THE TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONS ARE FAIR AND DOING WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO, UM, ACROSS [02:45:01] EACH CATEGORY. RIGHT. AND THAT THE LANDMARK AND HERITAGE, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN ANOTHER SECTION. UM, SO THAT'S WHY THOSE ARE, BUT ONE THING I DID WANNA KIND OF REVISIT TO THAT POINT IS, ARE THE REPLACEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, NOT A, NOT A DISCRETIONARY PERMIT, ARE THOSE TWO ONEROUS? UM, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. IT WAS TALKED ABOUT WITH THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER NEWELL BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN TONIGHT. UM, SO THIS IS A GOOD, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WOULD BE GOOD FEEDBACK IF WE SHOULD GO BACK AND, AND LOOK AT THOSE AGAIN TO KIND OF RIGHTSIZE THOSE, IF, IF THERE'S A FEELING THAT THEY'RE NOT, I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER SORT OF DIRECTOR DISCRETION MOMENT HERE. UM, YEAH. WHERE IF THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT THE SITE CONSTRAINTS CANNOT SUPPORT THE MINIMUM REPLACEMENT, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE'S PROPERTY OWNER CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT THEY ENVISION FOR THEIR PROPERTY OR THEIR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THESE TREES, UM, IT JUST LEAVES A BIG, A BIG QUESTION ON WHAT WILL ACTUALLY BE REQUIRED OF THEM. I, I WOULD PREFER THE ORDINANCE TO BE VERY CLEAR AND JUST PERHAPS A ONE-TO-ONE RATIO LIKE THE STREET TREE PORTION, BECAUSE IT, IT DOES PUT A BURDEN ON THE HOMEOWNER TO A FINANCIAL BURDEN TO GO TO THE DIRECTOR AND SAY, I WANT YOU TO EXERCISE YOUR DISCRETION TO DOWNSIZE MY REPLACEMENT BURDEN BECAUSE OF THESE FACTORS. SO THERE'S, THERE'S A FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE HOMEOWNER TO GET THAT DIRECTOR DISCRETION. WHY DON'T WE JUST SPELL OUT IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT IT'S A SPECIFIC RATIO SO THAT THE HOMEOWNER DOESN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT. AND I THINK SOME OF THAT IS PROBABLY THINKING THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REMOVING AN APPLE TREE AND REMOVING A, A OLDER OAK TREE. UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S MORE MATURE IS A LOT BIGGER VERSUS SOMETHING THAT IS SIX INCHES IN DIAMETER VERSUS SOMETHING THAT'S 40 INCHES IN DIAMETER OR WHATEVER. UM, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT THIS IS COMING FROM AND I'M TRYING TO LOOK, UM, AT WHAT WE USE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. UM, YEAH, THAT'S A PRETTY COMPLICATED CALCULATION. IS THERE ANY APPETITE HERE OR WAS IT DISCUSSED IN REMOVING THE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES EXCEPT FOR STREET TREES? WELL, I THINK WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT HOW WE POSITION MORE OF THE TREE REMOVALS AS EXEMPT MM-HMM . SO THEN THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE, FROM THE REPLACEMENT AS WELL. YEAH. BUT I THINK THE USE CASE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ESTABLISHED OTHERWISE HEALTHY, NOT THREATENING THE FOUNDATION, NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, GONNA FALL ON YOUR GARAGE BIG TREE. MM-HMM . THAT'S THE USE CASE WHERE I THINK WE'RE HOPING THAT THE ARBORIST CAN SWAY , UH, AND, AND CONVINCE THE HOMEOWNER THAT IN FACT THIS IS A, A TREE WORTH SAVING. UM, AND I GUESS THERE'S A POTENTIAL SCENARIO IN THAT USE CASE WHERE THEY GET DENIED AND YOU SAY YOU WANT TO TAKE DOWN THIS TREE, BUT THE ARBORIST DOESN'T THINK IT NEEDS TO COME DOWN AND YOU'RE NOT EXEMPT. SO WE'RE NOT GIVING YOU A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. THAT'S A POTENTIAL OUTCOME. YEAH. AND FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS, THERE IS A FINDING THAT IT'S FOR THE USE AND REMOVAL IS FOR USE AND ENJOY, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE USE. RIGHT. I WANNA TAKE IT DOWN 'CAUSE I WANNA PUT UP SOLAR PANELS. RIGHT. OR I WANNA PUT A POOL IN. YEAH. YOU KNOW, AND HEY, WHAT, WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IDEALLY IS THE PAUSE. COULD YOU MOVE, COULD YOU DO YOUR POOL HERE TO SAVE THIS OLD OAK TREE? YOU KNOW, JUST THAT KIND OF, BUT ULTIMATELY IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO REMOVE THE OAK TREE BECAUSE THEY WANNA PUT A POOL IN IN THE BACKYARD, THAT'S COULD BE THOUGHT OF AS REASONABLE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT THEN WE WOULD BE REQUIRING YOU A REPLACEMENT. AND I THINK THE THING ABOUT THE JUST ONE-TO-ONE IS, IS IT EQUITABLE TO TAKE OUT, I DON'T KNOW, A 25-YEAR-OLD OAK TREE AND DO A 15 GALLON PRIVOT? NOT PRI NOBODY'S WELL, YOU CAN PLAN A PRITT. OH YOU CAN? YEAH. MM-HMM. WHAT THE, WHAT? WE DON'T SAY YOU CAN'T PLAN IT. THE NUISANCE TREES SHOULD NOT BE ON THE LIST. WELL, WE DON'T TELL PEOPLE EVERY SPECIES THEY CAN PLANT ON THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY, [02:50:01] YOU CAN REMOVE IT, BUT WE DON'T SAY YOU CAN'T PLANT IT, WE DON'T PROHIBIT PLANTING IT. BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE HAVING A LIST OF APPROVED OR RECOMMENDED, I THINK IT'D BE GREAT TO HAVE A LIST OF RECOMMENDED, RECOMMENDED TREES. YEAH. UM, AND I WAS GONNA SAY, IS THERE AN ADJUSTING JUST THE INCH REQUIREMENT OR LIKE, SO YOU DON'T GET TRAPPED IN A ONE-TO-ONE WHERE SOMEONE REMOVES A 36 INCH AND YOU HAVE ONE TREE. COULD WE MAKE IT LIKE A 12 INCH, ONE TREE PER 12 INCHES? AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE A DRASTIC REDUCTION. BUT THEN IF YOU'RE REMOVING ONE BIG OAK TREE THAT'S 36 INCHES, YOU PLANT THREE OTHER TREES. AND I, AND I GET A LOT OF TIMES THIS REQUIREMENT'S MADE TO TRY TO MORE QUICKLY REPLACE THAT CANOPY. I, I DON'T WANT ANY TREE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO HEAR THIS. NO. BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT ABOUT TREE CANOPY THAT WE'RE REALIZING IS LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A LIMITATION THAT WE SHOULDN'T OVERBURDEN REGULATION WITH STRICT CANOPY REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE LIKE, MAKE IT TOO BURDENSOME. AND I THINK IT'D BE BETTER TO TRY TO JUST GET THE REPLACEMENT DONE WITHOUT, LIKE, 'CAUSE OTHERWISE IF YOU REMOVE A 36 INCH TREE, YOU GOTTA PLANT 12 TREES. YEAH. YOU KNOW, I THINK, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT HERE IS THAT SOMETIMES THE, THE TREE REMOVAL IS TO REMOVE CANOPY AND THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. THAT'S OR THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO HAPPEN. RIGHT? SO TO THEN SAY, OKAY, YOU WANTED TO SLASH NEEDED TO REMOVE THE CANOPY, NOW YOU MUST REPLACE THE CANOPY IS SORT OF LIKE, WE JUST GET STUCK IN THE CYCLE THAT THE TREE'S GONNA GET BIG ENOUGH AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA WANNA CUT THAT ONE DOWN AND IT'S LIKE, OKAY, MAYBE THIS, THIS PIECE OF LAND JUST DOES NOT SUPPORT A, A TREE OF THAT SIZE. AND, AND MAYBE IT, THIS SECTION KIND OF TO YOUR POINT OF CLARIFYING THE GOAL, THE GOALPOSTS FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, MAYBE, UH, I MEAN WE COULD THINK ABOUT CHANGING THIS WHERE, OKAY, SO MAYBE 12 INCH OF DIAMETER OF THE TREE TO BE REMOVED EQUALS ONE 15 GALLON TREE REPLACEMENT. AND THEN WE COULD ALSO, MAYBE THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN DECIDE TO EITHER PUT IT ON THEIR PROPERTY OR PAY THE IN LOUIE MM-HMM . SO THERE'S NOT A, A DIRECTOR SAYING, WELL YOU COULD FIT A TREE RIGHT THERE. YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING. OR EVEN BE IN THAT SITUATION. AND IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T WANNA PLANT A TREE IN THEIR BACKYARD WHEN THEY'RE TAKING IT OUT, THEY'RE NOT DOING IT, BUT THEY'RE PROVIDING THE FUNDS WHERE WE CAN GO PLANT A TREE ELSEWHERE. I WAS GONNA SAY, IF THOSE IN LIE FEES, PLANT IT ON A WILLING PERSON'S YARD, THAT'S I THINK A BETTER OUTCOME. YEAH. 'CAUSE THEN THAT PERSON'S GONNA BE MORE COMMITTED AND MORE CARING FOR IT. SO WE COULD, THAT THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER WAY IT REDUCES THE UNCERTAINTY FOR A PROPERTY OWNER. IT'S EITHER YOUR OPTION IS YOU PLANT THE REPLACEMENT TREES ON YOUR PROPERTY, OR YOU PAY THE ENLO FEE SO THE CITY CAN SPONSOR PLANTING IN ANOTHER WAY. I MEAN, YOU JUST SORT OF THINKING THROUGH IT, YOU MAY EVENTUALLY GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MONEY FOR TREES AND NO PLACES TO PUT 'EM. IF A BUNCH OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID, I DON'T WANT, WELL, WE CAN KEEP OUR EYE ON IT. YEAH. AND I MEAN, THAT'S NOT THE SITUATION NOW. SURE. YEAH. I MEAN I'M LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S SORT OF THE SAME ISSUE WITH LIKE CARBON OFFSET. YOU KNOW, YOU EVENTUALLY SORT OF GET TO A POINT THAT YEAH. IS THE IN LIE FEE IN THAT CASE FOR EVEN IF YOUR PROPERTY CAN'T ACCOMMODATE OR HAVE THE SPACE, LIKE I'M THINKING OF THE A DU HYPOTHETICAL WHERE PEOPLE ARE PACKING THEIR PROPERTIES MM-HMM . HOUSING DENSITY BONUSES, AND SUDDENLY THERE'S NO ROOM FOR A TREE AND THEY'RE FORCED TO PAY AN IN LIE FEE. OR LIKE WHAT HAPPENS IF IT'S LIKE REALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE TO PUT LIKE, YOU KNOW, A PERSSON TREE IN A THREE SQUARE FOOT AREA OR SOMETHING AND PEOPLE ARE TRYING, BUT IT'S NOT CONTRIBUTING TO ANY OR MUCH OF, OR IN THAT CASE, WOULD IT STILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THE ECOLOGY? AND WE STILL WANNA ENCOURAGE THAT , I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE DIRECTOR'S DISCRETION ESCAPE HATCH COMES IN. RIGHT? LIKE, THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT'S SO IMPORTANT IS NOT TO MAKE OUTCOMES MORE UNPREDICTABLE, BUT TO ALWAYS GIVE ROOM FOR LIKE, BECAUSE TREES SITES ARE SO DIFFERENT. TREES ARE SO DIFFERENT. LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME DISCRETION THERE. BUT THAT REALLY ASSUMES THAT THERE DIRECTOR OR ITS ASSIGNEE REALLY HAS THE EXPERTISE TO LIKE INFORM THOSE DECISIONS IN A GOOD WAY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. I JUST WORRY ABOUT WHAT, UM, COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN BROUGHT UP ABOUT LIKE, THEN YOU SORT OF GET INTO THIS TYRANNY THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I, I DON'T WANT A TREE AND YOU'RE TELLING ME I COULD HAVE A TREE, BUT I DON'T WANT A TREE . UM, AND THE, THE TENSION THAT THAT COULD CREATE WELL, BUT, BUT THE DISCRETION MORE WORKING. IT'S LIKE IF YOU HAVE A SUPER UNWILLING APPLICANT AND THEY CAN MAKE SOME KIND OF ARGUMENT THAT THE CITY CAN JUST SAY, LOOK, WE'RE NOT GONNA ENFORCE. LIKE IT'S MORE OF A, LIKE I SAID, AN ESCAPE HATCH FOR SITUATIONS THAT ARE JUST UNTENABLE TO ENFORCE IT. UM, AND IDEALLY THAT PERSON WOULD WANT TO LIKE, COULD BE, UM, COULD [02:55:01] DO AN, UH, ILO. WELL THAT BRINGS US BACK TO THE, TO THE POTENTIAL THAT HEATHER POSED OF HAVING THE IN LIEY BE A CHOICE THAT YOU CAN MAKE NOT, UH, A, A TRADE WHEN YOU ARE DEEMED TO BE CONSTRAINED ENOUGH. SO THAT, THAT IF WE COULD JUST CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO, UH, THAT YOU EITHER PLANT THE APPROPRIATE, THE REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TREES ON THE PROPERTY, OR YOU PAY THE APPLICABLE IN LIE FEE OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO TO GET TO THE WHOLE RIGHT. I MEAN TBD ON WHAT THE IN LIE FEE IS. BUT THAT DOES FEEL LIKE ENOUGH INCENTIVE FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES WANT TREES, JUST NOT THE ONE THEY HAVE TO REPLACE IT. AND IF THEY ARE OF THE MIND THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TREES ON THEIR PROPERTY, THEY'VE GOT AN EASY PATHWAY TO, TO MAKE GOOD ON THE REQUIREMENT. WHAT I'M THINKING OF SARAH'S SCENARIO WHERE LIKE IF TREES WEREN'T POSSIBLE ANYWAY, LIKE, HEY, I, I WOULD TAKE A REPLACEMENT TREE BUT I CAN'T DO I REALLY HAVE TO PAY AN ENLO FEE? YEAH. YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONE WHERE I THINK YOU BUILD IN THAT ESCAPE HATCH FOR LIKE THOSE ONE IN A HUNDRED SCENARIOS TO WHERE THEY CAN WORK THAT OUT WITH THE DIRECTOR. UM, SO THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN IN LIEU WAIVER. YEAH. I GUESS IT WOULD BE WAVING AN IN FEE. YEAH. I MEAN WE'RE GOING, I MAYBE WE CAN RESEARCH IT FORWARD IN ONE WAY TO CREATE SOME CERTAINTY AND CLARIFICATION AND THEN WE'RE, UM, CREATING, MAYBE MAYBE KEEP IT AS THE, EITHER OR EITHER REPLACE HER IN LOUIE AND THEN WE KIND OF ASSESS. YEAH. 'CAUSE I THINK, I THINK JUST AGAIN, TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THE INCENTIVES AND THE PATHWAY THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE YOU ARE AN EASY YES TOWARDS REPLACEMENT IF YOU OUGHT TO BE REPLACING, BUT YOU DON'T WANNA, YOU'VE GOT THE OPTION TO DO IN LIEU. AND IF YOU HAVE A GOOD REASON TO NOT HAVE ROOM TO REPLACE AND YOU DON'T THINK THAT IN LIE FEE IS FAIR BECAUSE YOU WOULD REPLACE, BUT YOU CAN'T, THEN THERE'S A WAY TO GET THAT WAIVED. IS THIS, HAVE WE GONE TOO FAR? , THAT FEELS SO SUBJECTIVE. MM-HMM . LIKE, OH MAN, I REALLY WANNA PLANT THAT TREE, BUT I CAN'T 'CAUSE I DON'T WANNA WRITE THE CHECK. REALLY. IT'S VERY, AND AND AGAIN THAT THAT DEPENDS ON A CITY STAFF MEMBER WHO'S MAKING THAT DETERMINATION. WE'RE PUTTING ALL OUR FAITH IN THEM TO NOT JUST SAY, LOOK, I DON'T WANNA ARGUE WITH GEORGE ANYMORE. I JUST AM GONNA WAVE IT. YOU KNOW, I WOULD IF I COULD. I LOVE TREES. I'M A BRENT WOULD ARGUE HIS WAY OUT OF IT. YEAH. I'M, ARE THERE, IS EVERY TREE A GOOD TREE? LIKE ARE THERE RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE WE SHOULD, LIKE I'M JUST THINKING YOU'VE GOT A FOUR FOOT SIDE SETBACK WITH AN A DU. ARE YOU GONNA PLANT YOUR TREE THERE AND BOTHER YOUR NEIGHBOR'S FENCE LINE? LIKE I I NOW WE'RE IN DEFENSIBLE SPACE ISSUES. YEAH. I, I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING LIKE HOW YOU REALLY ENFORCE THIS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE KIND OF, AND MAYBE THESE ARE FRINGE SCENARIOS THAT WE DON'T NEED TO CONCERN OURSELVES WITH, BUT, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY JUST LEAVE, LIKE TAKING AWAY THE, UH, REASONABLY SUPPORTED ON THE SITE IS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR. JUST SAY, YOU EITHER PLANT ON YOUR SITE OR YOU PAY YOUR IN LIEU. AND WE'VE JUST ALSO SAID THAT WE'RE GONNA SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE REPLACEMENT VALUE BY SAYING 12 INCH DIAMETER EACH 12 INCHES OF DIAMETER OF TREE BEING REMOVED AS ONE 15 GALLON REPLACEMENT. SO WE'VE JUST MADE, I MEAN, I I, THAT FEELS SIMPLE AND FAIR COMPARED TO THE WHAT IF SCENARIO. AND AGAIN, MORE CERTAINTY IS JUST GENERALLY EASIER FOR EVERYONE TO DEAL WITH BECAUSE THAT'S THE RULES. AND WE'RE NOT, THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. THIS IS, I'M BUILDING AN A DU IN MY BACKYARD OR I'M PUTTING IN A POOL OR, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THOSE KIND OF SITUATIONS AND YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THE EXEMPTIONS. SO I THINK WE'RE, I THINK WE'RE GETTING DOWN TO A MUCH SMALLER NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE CAUGHT IN A, IN A PROBLEM WITH THAT, WITH THOSE CHANGES. OKAY. SHALL WE GO AHEAD. I HAVE ONE COMMENT ON THE STREET TREES IN THE LOCATION. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT SECTION OR NOT. UM, YES, BUT WE JUST, WERE TALKING THROUGH TREE REPLACEMENT, WHICH IS 17.070. SO I WANNA STICK TO OUR ORDER HERE OF THE DRAFT OR OH NO, YOU WANNA TALK? THAT'S THE NEXT SECTION. YEAH, GO AHEAD. YEAH. UM, I GUESS, UH, TWO QUESTIONS. ONE ON STREET TREE, ONE-TO-ONE [03:00:01] REPLACEMENT, LIKE DO WE WHERE, AND IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO POINT TO THE PUBLIC WORKS WHEREVER IT IS IN, IN THE CODE, LIKE SETBACKS FROM METERING, DO WE REGULATE THAT? I KNOW SOMETIMES LIKE A STREET TREE WILL BE REMOVED, IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO A WATER METER. THERE'S ROOT ISSUES WITH IT OR SOMETHING. AND TO REPLACE IT ONE-TO-ONE IF IT'S IN A CONTAINED BOX MIGHT BE AN ISSUE. SAN FRANCISCO HAS REALLY STRICT, I KNOW LIKE TREE REPLACE STREET TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS WHERE EVEN IF YOU END UP REMOVING ONE IN AN ENCROACHMENT, LIKE IT'S, IT'S NOT REPLACEABLE BASED ON THEIR NEW CODES. OKAY, I'LL LOOK AT THAT. I'M WONDERING IF IT'S DEEMED SUITABLE IN THE AVAILABLE PLANTER, STRIPPER TREE. WELL MIGHT CAPTURE THAT BIT IF THE PLANTER STRIPPER TREE WELL ISN'T SUITABLE BECAUSE LIKE I KNOW WE ALSO HAVE THAT WITH, THERE ARE CERTAIN STREETS, I THINK D STREET HAS A HIGH POWERED, UM, UNDER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WHERE YOU CAN'T PLANT STREET TREES IN THE GROUND. UM, SO I MEAN THIS SORT OF GETS TO THAT WHAT IS OUR USE CASE HERE? IF THERE'S A HEALTHY ENOUGH STREET TREE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRING OF A PERMIT. SO THIS, IT'S NOT AN ISSUE OF HEALTH. IT, I THINK IT'S MORE IT QUESTION FOR PUBLIC WORKS. LIKE YEAH. IF, IF YOU HAVE A SEWER LATERAL WITHIN A FOOT OF A STREET TREE AND YOU'RE REPLANTING A STREET TREE, DOES PUBLIC WORKS HAVE A AN OPINION ON THAT? I, YEAH. WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER THAT PROVIDES ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT REQUIRING A TREE TO BE PLANTED IN AN AREA THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE PLANTED FOR UTILITIES OR OTHER, AND I THINK THE GOAL OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO PREVENT STREET, LIKE WE DON'T HAVE TO EXERCISE THE REPLACEMENT 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT CUTTING 'EM DOWN IN MOST CASES UNLESS IT'S RIGHT. I MEAN THAT'S SORT OF THE INTENT. AND, AND IF IT COULDN'T BE REPLACED BECAUSE OF THE UTILITY, THAT WOULD PROBABLY FALL IN THE UTILITY EXEMPTION. RIGHT. YEAH. AND AGAIN, I'M THINKING DEEM SUITABLE IN THE AVAILABLE PLANTER STRIP OR TREE. WELL I THINK THAT IF IF IT'S, IF WE DE IF DEEM IT NOT SUITABLE TO PLANT, IT COULD COVER IT. I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ABOUT THE STREET TREE SCENARIO. IF THE STREET TREE IS DISEASED AND NEEDS TO COME DOWN, IT HAS TO BE REPLACED, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS THAT'S A GOOD POINT. EXEMPTED STREET TREES BASICALLY EXEMPTED STREET TREES AREN'T EXEMPT FROM REPLACEMENT. OR WE MIGHT WANNA SAY NO STREET TREE IS EXEMPT. I MEAN, AND IT DOESN'T SAY THEY ARE, BUT UH, BASICALLY WHAT WE WOULD WANNA SAY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, IMMINENT SITUATION ON A STREET TREE. YEAH, OKAY. TAKE IT OUT. BUT IT STILL NEEDS REPLACED. RIGHT. EVERY, EVERY STREET TREE NEEDS A PERMIT. YEAH. AND, AND OUR HOPE IS THAT MOST WILL GET CONVINCED TO STAY AND IF THEY HAVE A REASON TO ACTUALLY BE BROUGHT DOWN, LET'S PLAN A NEW ONE. IT'S FOR SURE. YEAH. GONNA BE REPLACED. YEAH. OKAY. I GUESS THEN THIS IS JUST SORT OF LIKE GETTING INTO THE REGULATION MUMBO JUMBO OF LIKE A STREET TREE WOULD BE APPROVED FOR REMOVAL BASED ON WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE AN EXEMPTION. RIGHT? IT ALMOST LIKE KICKS YOU OUT OF THE EXEMPTION IN A WAY. RIGHT? YEAH. SO AS, AS LONG AS WE LIKE HAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT MAKES THE APPROVAL OF STREET TREE REMOVAL ENCOMPASS DISEASE, WHEREAS OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN'T NEED APPROVAL BECAUSE DISEASE IS EXEMPT. MM-HMM . YEAH. I'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT. COOL. HAVE FUN. . YEAH. IT HURTS MY HEAD, RIGHT? YEAH. . WE'RE DOING GOOD GUYS. WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE GONNA CLOSE, BUT BASICALLY WE'RE SAYING NO STREET TREE IS EXEMPT FROM REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS. YEAH. YEAH. YES. OKAY. BUT I THINK WE'RE ALSO SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO GET THE PERMIT NO MATTER WHAT AND YOU 'CAUSE YOU WANT THE DOCUMENTATION. YEAH. YEAH. AND YOU, YEAH, I THINK FOR SHOE TREES YOU DO HAVE TO GET AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. YOU HAVE TO GET AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ANYWAY. ANYWAY. OKAY. YEAH. SO YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE TO GET AND THAT'S WHERE YEAH, LIKE THE ONE PERMIT SOLUTION. I DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD HAVE MULTIPLE PERMIT FOR, ANYWAY. I'LL LEAVE THAT FOR DISCUSSION LATER. MAYBE SEEING WHAT OTHER CITIES DO. I KNOW SOME CITIES DO IT SEPARATE. SOME CITIES DO IT. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. ONWARD TO 17.080 TREE TRIMMING AND PRUNING, WHICH DID NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION, BUT I DO WANT TO FLAG THAT. THERE'S OTHER INSTANCES WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, LIKE PRUNING A THIRD, AND HERE WE'RE SAYING NO MORE THAN 25%. THERE'S OTHER PLACES IN [03:05:01] THE ORDINANCE WHERE WE SAY A THIRD. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN REALLY COMMENTS IF I'M BEING HONEST OR MY OWN I'LL, I'LL DOUBLE CHECK THAT. OKAY. THAT WE DON'T WANT THAT CONFLICT, BUT I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ANYWHERE THAT WE SAID A THIRD. AND THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO DOUBLE CHECK WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS WHO WOULD BE DOING SUCH WORK, UM, TO CONFIRM THAT WE'RE WERE IN LINE WITH THEIR INDUSTRY NEEDS AND STANDARDS REGARDING TOPPING, WHAT DO YOU MEAN REGARDING PRUNING AND THAT PERCENTAGE? UM, YEAH, THAT CAME FROM THE CONSULTING MEMBERS AND OR THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. LIKE THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS, I THINK YEAH, I, I FORGET WHERE THAT CAME FROM, BUT I'M JUST READING IT LIKE THAT'S SO SUBJECTIVE. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'D EVER ENFORCE THAT, BUT I THINK IN LESS, IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE LIKE BRENT TALKED ABOUT SOMEONE'S JUST CUTTING EVERY BRANCH OFF. YEAH, YEAH. THEN SOMEONE COULD REPORT THAT AND WE'D HAVE THIS TO FALL BACK ON US. LIKE, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. BUT WE'RE NOT, I MEAN WE'RE NOT, THE ENFORCEMENT IS NOT GONNA BE OH, YOU DID 27%. YEAH. FAIR. OKAY. ONWARD TO OUR 17.090 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, WHICH WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT. UM, DO YOU HAVE SPECIFICS FOR US, HEATHER, THAT YOU'D LIKE MORE CONTEXT ON? UH, NO, JUST, I MEAN THIS IS, THIS IS THE SECTION YOU GUYS WILL STAFF WILL BE INCLUDING IN THE, YOU KNOW, IN THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS. UM, BUT IT, YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE MISSED IN TERMS OF LIKE WANTING TO ENSURE THAT PROJECTS ARE THINKING ABOUT TREE PRESERVATION DURING, YOU KNOW, THE DESIGN OF THEIR PROJECT? SO THAT'S WHAT THE SITE DESIGN PRINCIPLES ARE TRYING TO SAY. UM, YOU KNOW, REALLY, REALLY LOOKING AT WHAT'S THERE OR, UM, THE SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS THAT YOU'LL BE MAKING IN ORDER TO APPROVE TREE REMOVAL AS PART OF, UM, OR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THESE WOULD BE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD BE, UM, INCLUDED IN RESOS. UM, SO JUST KIND OF JUST A GENERAL QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WAS GLARING OR, UM, CONFUSING ON THIS. I THINK THE BIG ONE I REALLY LIKED WAS THAT WE, UH, RETAINED THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE APPLICANT AT THEIR EXPENSE HAVE TO PAY FOR A, ANOTHER ARBORIST TO COME IN IF THE CITY DECIDED THAT THEIR REPORT ON TREE HEALTH OR THEIR ARBORIST REPORT WASN'T SUFFICIENT. SO I REALLY LIKED THAT PIECE. I THINK THAT CAUGHT A LOT OF ISSUES WHERE LIKE THE CITY, THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AT THEIR DISCRETION CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT PAY FOR ANOTHER STUDY BY A DIFFERENT ARBORIST IF FOR WHATEVER REASON WE DOUBT THEIR INITIAL PLAN. I THINK THAT CATCHES A LOT. YEAH. AND THAT, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CURRENTLY CAN DO, REQUIRE A PEER REVIEW OF ANY TECHNICAL IF IT, UH, ANALYSIS. UM, BUT IT'S NICE TO HAVE IT IN WRITING TO SUPPORT STAFF IF SAY, NO, WE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, WE CLEARLY CAN AND IT WAS INCLUDED, BUT, UM, WE HEARD FROM MR. LITTLE THAT A A LOT OF THE, UM, SORT OF MOTIVE HERE IS, IS TO HAVE FOLKS PAUSE AND CONSIDER HOW CAN WE, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF JUST CHOPPING ALL THE TREES DOWN AND PUTTING YOUR BUILDING HOWEVER YOU WANT IT, UM, YOU KNOW, PAUSING AND THINKING HOW THEY CAN PRESERVE EXISTING TREES. WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS HOW THAT INTERPLAYS WITH THE BUILDING ORIENTATION PREFERENCES WE'VE HAD AS IT RE AS IT RELATES TO LIKE CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND COOLING PATTERNS. YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE HAD SOME OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AROUND THAT. UM, SO JUST THE, THE SORT OF INTERPLAY OF BUILDING ORIENTATION AND TREE PRESERVATION FOR THESE, YOU KNOW, BIGGER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. YEAH, I MEAN, SO THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS AND I DO THINK THERE PROBABLY WILL BE ONE OF THE THINGS TO REMEMBER IN PETALUMA IS A LOT OF THE INFILL THAT'S LEFT ARE TRICKY. UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE ISSUES FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, WHETHER THAT'S ACCESS ISSUES OR, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAD A PROJECT, UH, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT EVER CAME TO PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT WE HAD A PROJECT WHERE THERE WAS A REAL TENSION BETWEEN WHERE THEY WANTED TO PLACE BUILDINGS AND TREE PRESERVATION. UM, AND WHAT'S THE RIGHT BALANCE TO THAT. SO I COULD SEE THINGS COME UP WHERE WE'VE GOT MULTIPLE PRIORITIES, UM, AND THEY, THERE'S TIMES WHEN THEY CAN'T ALL COME OUT ON TOP [03:10:01] AND SO IT'S GONNA NEED TO BE, BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME THINGS IN HERE, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, MAXIMIZES ON THE SITE BALANCE WHILE BALANCING REASONABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATION. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT GIVE IT THAT WIGGLE ROOM WHERE YOU MIGHT SAY, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER TO ALSO MAXIMIZE PASSIVE, YOU KNOW, HEATING AND COOLING AND, YOU KNOW, UH, LIGHT AND AIR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, UH, THESE ADDITIONAL TREES ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL WHEN IT COMES TO A SITE AND A PROJECT THAT REQUIRES A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT AND THEREFORE CUTTING DOWN THE TREES TO MAKE A PENCIL, WHAT HAPPENS? UH, UM, WELL, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, ENOUGH, WE'LL GO ROOM. LET ME SEE. UM, I'D MAYBE ADD TO THAT LIKE WHEN IT'S INCONVENIENT , BUT KIND OF SOMETHING WE MIGHT WANNA CREATE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD AROUND, OR SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ENFORCE, EVEN IF IT'S ONE TREE. WE'VE SEEN INSTANCES WE DON'T, DURING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS, WE DON'T TYPICALLY LOOK AT PROFORMAS. AND, AND SO IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, OFTENTIMES, YOU KNOW, AN APPLICANT MAY SAY THAT SOMETHING DOESN'T PENCIL OR THAT IT WOULD BREAK THE PROFORMA. AND, UM, WE MAY PRESENT THAT TO THE REVIEW AUTHORITY AND, AND LET THE REVIEW AUTHORITY MAKE THE DECISION. UM, BUT WE WOULD NOT TYPICALLY ASK FOR THEM TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD NOT, UH, BE FINANCIALLY THE BEST APPROACH FOR THE PROJECT. SO IT'S, IT IS VERY SUBJECTIVE AND I MEAN, SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE SAYING, LIKE, THINK ABOUT THE WAY YOU ROUTE YOUR UTILITIES. YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE THE, THE, THE SHORTEST DISTANCE MIGHT BE THROUGH THE ROOT, YOU KNOW, ON, IN, WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF THIS TREE. YOU KNOW, THINK, THINK THAT THROUGH. SO SOME OF THESE ARE VERY, I MEAN, IT SAYS RIGHT HERE IT IS RECOGNIZE THAT THE PRESERVATION OF ALL EXISTING TREES ON A DEVELOPMENT SITE MAY CONFLICT WITH REASONABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS. HOWEVER, THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SHALL ADDRESS PRESERVATION THE MOST DESIRABLE AND SIGNIFICANT, UM, OF THE EXISTING HEALTHY TREES. SO IT'S TRYING TO SAY, GIVE IT SOME THOUGHT AND THINK ABOUT WHICH ONES COME OUT VERSUS WHICH ONES STAY. I THINK IT, I THINK IT'S GOT ENOUGH THAT THE INTENT WAS NOT TO MAKE IT SO ONEROUS THAT NOBODY CAN DEVELOP ANYTHING. IT WAS THE INTENT WAS TO PAUSE AND THINK AND, AND THINK OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE TREES ON THE SITE SIMILAR TO YOU THINK, WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO GET ACCESS FROM THE ROADWAYS OR, UH, WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A ASSET ON THE SITE. SO THINK OF IT AS AN ASSET BEFORE YOU JUST PLAN YOUR DEVELOPMENT OVER IT. THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE INTENT. WERE STRICTER GUARDRAILS LIKE EVER DISCUSSED, OR IS THERE A WAY TO ENFORCE LIKE A REQUIREMENT OR A MANDATORY, LIKE SAY YOU CAN'T REPLACE A TREE OF THIS SIZE WITH PARKING, LIKE NO MATTER WHERE INCONVENIENT IT IS, OR IS THAT JUST TOO DIFFICULT TO REALLY KIND OF PUT INTO ACTION? WE'RE TRENCHING, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE IT'S UNDERGROUND, THERE'S AN EXPENSIVE WAY AND THERE'S A CHEAPER WAY. AND ASKING FOLKS OUT OF GOOD GRACE TO JUST MAKE IT RESPONSIBLE ECOLOGICAL DECISION MAY NOT ALWAYS YIELD OPTIMAL RESULTS. LIKE, I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE ARE PRESCRIPTIVE MEASURES WE CAN ENFORCE OR IF THAT WAS LOOKED AT. I DON'T THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER KUSON, I DON'T RECALL THAT US EVER KIND OF DELVING INTO THAT. NO. AND I THINK THE EXISTING ORDINANCE, DON'T WE KIND OF HANDLE THAT THROUGH PROTECTED TREES AS REGULATING THAT MORE ON A DEVELOPMENT SITE OR, 'CAUSE WE DON'T REALLY GET INTO, UH, HERE I JUST KEEP THINKING ABOUT TREE 44 . YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. WELL, AND, AND IT TURNS INTO A FIGHT AT PLANNING COMMISSION OVER PLACEMENT. BUT WE DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT. TYPICALLY YOU WOULD LOOK AT THAT ARBORIST REPORT AND SAY, OKAY, WAIT, HERE'S, YOU KNOW, FIVE COAST LIVE OAKS THAT ARE BIG AND, AND GREAT HEALTH AND HERE'S, OH, YOU KNOW, IN THIS AREA YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, EUCALYPTUS AND, YOU KNOW, AND, AND IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE'VE BEEN PRETTY SUCCESSFUL IN TRYING TO GUIDE, GUIDE THAT, RIGHT? AND SAY, YOU KNOW, INCORPORATE THIS TREE INTO [03:15:01] YOUR, THIS SHOULD BE YOUR COMMON AREA OR SOMETHING. AND I THINK STAFF DOES A LOT OF THAT UPFRONT LOOKING, YOU KNOW, BEFORE IT EVEN GETS TO THE COMMISSION TALKING THROUGH THAT KIND OF STUFF. UM, YOU KNOW, DON'T, DON'T TAKE THE TREES OUT ALONG THE CREEK THAT'S ON THAT BACK PORTION. UM, THAT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE A LOT OF THAT IS HAPPENING CURRENTLY AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND WE'RE GETTING ALL THE INFORMATION TO DO THAT TOO. YOU DO HAVE THE ARBORIST REPORT WHERE ALL THE EXISTING TREES AND YOU KNOW WHAT KIND THEY ARE AND YOU KNOW, UM, AND YOU KNOW WHAT, UM, HEALTH THEY'RE IN AND, AND THERE'S KIND OF AN IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION, RIGHT? THAT THE SITE PLAN IS ALREADY INFORMED BY THE ARBORIST REPORT, RIGHT? YES. SO THE SITE PLAN THAT SAYS WHAT WE'RE GONNA REMOVE HAS THE UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE ARBORIST REPORT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY IS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SHALL INCORPORATE THIS STUFF IN THE PLANNING PHASE. NOT, NOT JUST FOR CQA, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING. YES. WE WANNA SEE. YEAH. OKAY. I THINK IF THAT ARBORIST REPORT IS EARLY ON AND THE SITE DESIGN IS BASED WITH THAT IN MIND, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD, CAN YOU SPEAK MORE TO, AND WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT NUANCE AROUND, UM, PRIVATE PROPERTY. WHAT ABOUT VACANT LOT? 'CAUSE SOME MUNICIPALITIES DO HAVE DIFFERENCES MM-HMM . THERE, RIGHT? SOME HAVE, AND WE, I FELT LIKE WE HAD SOMETHING ABOUT VACANT LOTS. UM, I DON'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARILY A DIFFERENT SIZE, UH, PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES ON VACANT LOTS. NO TREE LOCATED IN A VACANT LOT SHALL BE CUT OTHERWISE DAMAGES TO SOY WITHOUT APPROVED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. SO WE DO SAY, YOU KNOW, EVEN ON A VACANT LOT, YOU HAVE TO GET A TREE PERMIT. AND PART OF THAT IS WHAT IF IT'S JUST A VACANT LOT, LET THERE BE TREE CANOPY ON IT. UM, BUT ALSO, I THOUGHT WE SAID SOMETHING AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT THAT AT WHAT POINT DOES A VACANT LOT BECOME A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 24 MONTHS BEFORE THE ? YEAH. WE DO HAVE THAT ON RECENT TREE REMOVAL. MM-HMM . UM, TRYING TO, WHEN YOU PROJECT COMES IN, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS SAY, YEAH, YOU CAN'T GO CUT THE PROPERTY OWNER SHOULDN'T PREEMPTIVELY CLEAR CUT, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY'RE ABOUT TO MOVE FORWARD ON A DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT. COME DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. AND THEN THEY CAN HAVE A SITE, UH, SITE PLAN THAT SAYS, OH, THERE'S NO EXISTING TREES ON THE SITE. SO WE DID WORK THAT IN FOR A PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS, UM, BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS SUBMITTED. WHAT'S THE ENFORCEMENT ON THAT? OR LIKE, IF YOU'RE PAYING A SURVEY OR TO COME IN AFTER YOU'VE REMOVED SOME STUMPS 23 MONTHS INTO A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LIKE WHO'S, WHO'S LIABLE FOR THAT? OR IS THAT DICTATED ANYWHERE? IS THAT OUR BUSINESS IS THE CITY OR NOT? WELL, WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS THAT THE CITY COULD DENY AN APPLICATION IF THERE'S BEEN ILLEGAL TREE REMOVALS ON THE VACANT LOT LEADING UP TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY BIG DETERRENT, UM, TO SAY, HEY, HEY, DON'T CLEAR CUT YOUR LOT AND THEN COME IN AND EXPECT US ALL TO BE LIKE, OH, OKAY, YOU DON'T HAVE THESE TREES ON YOUR LOT. DOES THAT HAVE THE EFFECT OF FREEZING VACANT LOTS FOR TWO YEARS WHEN WE WOULD VERY MUCH RATHER HAVE THEM BUILD HOUSING ON IT? LIKE COULD IF THEY, IF THEY CLEAR CUT THEIR LOT AND NOW, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T THE DEVELOPER WHO ASKED THEM TO DO THAT, BUT NOW IT'S GOT THIS, THIS BLEMISH THAT WOULD IMPACT THEIR ABILITY TO GET APPROVALS. WELL, WE COULD SAY CAN BE DENIED INSTEAD OF SHALL BE DENIED. WELL, SHALL BE DENIED WOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT WE CAN THAT'S TRUE. YEAH. ENFORCE OVER SB AT ALL. AT ALL. . YEAH. UM, BUT, BUT I THINK YOUR POINT IS THAT I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. ONE IS IF THEY GET A PERMIT TO REMOVE THE TREES, THEY'RE OKAY. YES. UHHUH , RIGHT? THEY CAN DEVELOP IF THEY DON'T GET A PERMIT AND CUT THAT IT'S A 24 MONTH. RIGHT. SO MY POINT IS, IF IF A LANDOWNER ILLEGALLY CUTS DOWN TREES, THAT PLOT IS NOW RED LISTED, YOU KNOW, BLACKLISTED FOR TWO YEARS. YES. UNLESS IT'S ONLY FOR THAT DEVELOPER SO THAT YOU PUNISH THEM FOR HAVING DONE IT. BUT THAT'S ASSUMING YEAH. I MEAN, WE DO HAVE LONG LEAD TIMES, BUT IT'S GUARANTEEING LONG LEAD TIMES THAT [03:20:01] IF THE DEVELOPER WASN'T THE ONE WHO SAID, GO AHEAD AND CUT THOSE DOWN, AND THEY'VE BEEN ILLEGALLY CUT DOWN, NOW NO ONE CAN TOUCH IT FOR TWO YEARS. I, I, I APPRECIATE THIS CONVERSATION IN THIS REGULATION, BUT I HAVE TO SAY I DON'T RECALL EVER YEAH. WHERE A PROJECT HAS EVER CLEAR CUT A LOT PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. FIRSTLY, SECONDLY, WE HAVE TWO ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THIS CITY. AND, AND SO I THINK THAT TO, TO LOOK FORWARD AND SAY, OH, THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM. MAYBE THE PROBLEM IS WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INTEREST IN DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW AND, AND THAT'S A BIGGER, THAT'S PERHAPS MORE TIME SHOULD BE SPENT DISCUSSING THAT. FAIR POINT. YEAH. TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU FEEL LIKE THIS REGULATION WILL THROW FURTHER COLD WATER ? WELL, I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT'S A, I DON'T THINK THE CLEAR CUTTING PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION IS A BIG ISSUE. YEAH. SO I THINK I WOULD JUST LEAVE IT. OKAY. I THINK, YEAH. AND I WOULD IMAGINE THEY CAN GO GET LIKE RETROACTIVELY PERMIT THE TREES THEY ALREADY CUT DOWN. RIGHT. AND THEN PAY THE IN LIEU FEES OR WHATEVER IT IS TO THAT THE PERMIT WOULD REQUIRE THEM AND THEN THEY'D BE OKAY. BUT TO, BUT TO ANDREW'S POINT, I, I CAN'T, IN THE 15 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE, THINK OF A EXAMPLE OF WHERE SOMEBODY'S GONE IN AND CUT EVERYTHING DOWN FOR PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THEIR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. YEAH, GOOD POINT. WE'RE STILL ON 17.090 FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS, OH NO, EXCUSE ME. WE WERE IN 0.080, WHICH I THINK WE CAN, I'VE LOST MY PLACE. NO, WE'RE MOVING ON TO 17 100 I THINK. OKAY. AND THIS WAS ABOUT MINISTERIAL AND OUR DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT KIND OF TIGHTENING THIS UP. YEAH. UM, IN TERMS OF IT'S NOT MEANT TO REQUIRE YOU TO DO A FULL SITE PLAN IF YOU ARE CHANGING OUT YOUR LIGHTING. YEAH. UM, SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S REALLY CLEAR. BUT IT IS TRYING TO, IF YOU ARE NEEDING TO DO THINGS LIKE TRENCHING OR SOMETHING WITH YOUR UTILITIES TO KNOW WHERE THE TREES ARE AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS SHOWN TO NOT, TO NOT HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS. HOW, HOW DOES THIS AFFECT NEIGHBOR TREES? SO TREES NOT ON YOUR PROPERTY, BUT FALL WITHIN A 30 FOOT FOOT WHERE YOUR ACTION WOULD POTENTIALLY THAT'S A GOOD POINT. SOMETHING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS A TREE THAT THEY'RE PART OF, THE DRIP LINE ROOT SYSTEM IS ON YOUR PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH THE TREE IS ON THEIR PROPERTY. UM, WASN'T THERE A SECTION HERE THAT SAID IT NEEDED TO BE DOCUMENTED OR YEAH. YEAH. IT DOES SAY ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN 30 FEET. IT DOESN'T SAY TREES ON YOUR PROPERTY WITHIN 30 FEET. THAT FEELS REALLY ONEROUS. , MAYBE JUST DYLAN WOULD STATE LAW INFORM THIS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT STATE LAW DOESN'T, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU HAVE A TREE AND IT'S OVERHANGING YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, YOUR NEIGHBOR COULD, THE LIMB DOWN, IT COULD CUT DOWN ON YOUR PROPERTY TO MAKE SURE IT'SS NOT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULDN'T, UH, WE IT WOULDN'T BE ENFORCEABLE. YEAH. UH, LET'S LOOK AT THAT. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. AND YEAH, WE'LL COME BACK WITH SOME CLARITY. HOPEFULLY WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE TREES, RIGHT? YEAH. BUT I THINK THAT THE LEGAL QUESTION WOULD STILL BE SIMILAR MM-HMM . RIGHT? BECAUSE REGARDLESS IF YOU'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE SOMETHING OR WELL, I GUESS HOW YOU WOULD DO IT. YEAH. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO TELL SOMEONE THEY CAN'T CUT DOWN THE BRANCH. THAT'S OVERHANGING. WE'RE TRYING TO, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU AREN'T, UM, INADVERTENTLY DAMAGING A TREE THAT MIGHT TECHNICALLY BE ON YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. OKAY. BY, YEAH, TRENCHING. I KEEP USING TRENCHING OF UTILITIES, BUT IT'S JUST THE EASIEST ONE I CAN THINK OF. TRENCHING, UTILITIES THROUGH THE ROOT STRUCTURE. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER WHO'S TRYING TO DO A RENOVATION. LET'S SAY THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T HAVE TREES IN THEIR BACKYARD. THEY'RE [03:25:01] PUSHING OUT AN A, A, A ADDITION ON THEIR HOME, AND NOW YOU'VE GOT TO DO A WHOLE SURVEY OF EVERY TREE NEARBY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO, TO, TO IMPACT. WELL, AND THIS IS SAYING A SITE PLAN, NOT A SURVEY, RIGHT. THAT IDENTIFIES TREES. SO A SITE PLAN, IDENTIFYING THAT TREE IS LIKE DROPPING IT ON THE SITE PLAN. THAT'S NOT, THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE OR ANYTHING. WELL, I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE THOUGH BETWEEN THE PREPARATION OF THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION PLAN BECAUSE THIS IS JUST THE PREPARATION OF IT. THEN WE HAVE OTHER REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ENFORCE OR PROHIBIT TRENCHING WITHIN 30 FEET OF THAT TREE. SO I MEAN, I, I THINK THERE CAN STILL BE, UM, IMPACT TO THE, TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AS A RESULT OF A TREE THAT'S NOT LOCATED OR THAT THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER BECAUSE IT'S LOCATED ON AN A DIFFERENT PROPERTY. OKAY. THAT'S A GOOD, WELL, WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK AT THIS. YEAH. AND I, AND I, I JUST WANNA BE SURE THAT A MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROJECT THAT IS LIKE OTHERWISE FORMS THAT I CAN FILL OUT WITH LIKE MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF HELP FROM MY CONTRACTOR AND MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF HELP FROM, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I GOT LIKE A 3D UH, FLOOR PLAN OF MY HOUSE AND THAT'S LIKE HOW I, HOW I SERVED THEM THE SITE PLAN. LIKE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO HIRE SOMEONE ELSE TO DO ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK FOR WHAT IS OTHERWISE A MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROJECT. THAT'S WHERE I'M, I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN KEEP IT A LOW ENOUGH BURDEN THAT THE HOMEOWNER CAN STILL FULFILL ALL OF THE NEEDS OF GETTING THEIR PERMIT WHEN IT'S, AND IT MIGHT ALSO BE ADDING SOME QUESTIONS. DO YOU HAVE TREES ON YOUR PROPERTY? RIGHT? ARE THERE TREE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE IT CAN START AT A PRETTY LOW. ARE YOU DOING ANY WORK EXTERIOR TO THE HOUSE? YOU KNOW, THERE'S, I THINK I'M READING PAST IT, BUT DO WE HAVE IT CLEAR WHAT INVOKES THE TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION PLAN? SO 17, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THAT TWO 17.120. IT'S NOT CLEAR WHEN IT'S NEEDED, WHEN IT'S, WHEN IT, I DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY IS KICKED IN FOR EVERYTHING IN 17 100. YEAH. I DON'T THINK IT IS NECESSARILY KICKED IN IF IT'S WITHIN 30 FEET. THE WAY I'M READING THIS, 17 100 IS LIKE ON A SITE PLAN SHOW THE LITTLE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER YOUR GRAPHIC IS OF A TREE, IF IT'S WITHIN 30 FEET, WELL, YEAH, YEAH. BUT I, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WE HAVE A MINISTERIAL PERMIT. WE'RE ASKING YOU TO IDENTIFY ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN 30 FEET OF A PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. BUT SO WHAT THEN TO WHAT END? SO THEN YOU DO TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND OTHER TREE PRESERVATION MEASURES. WELL, BUT THAT SHOULDN'T BE ON 30 FEET THOUGH. THAT SHOULD BE 10 FEET OUTSIDE THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE THAT YOU'RE PROTECTING, WHICH MIGHT NOT BE 30 FEET. SO I'M NOT SURE IT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS 17.1 HUNDRED MAY LACK FOLLOW THROUGH THAT IS OBJECTIVE AND IS IS CLEAR. WOULD IT BE, WOULD IT BE BETTER THAN TO SAY THAT IDENTIFIES ALL EXISTING TREES WHOSE TREE PROTECTION ZONE FALLS OR, OR THAT ARE WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE RADIUS OF THE SITE? I THINK 30, 30 FEET MIGHT BE TRYING TO GET THERE WITHOUT LIKE A TPZ MEASUREMENT. AND THEN YEAH, IF IT DOESN'T FALL, IF YOU JUST PUT IT ON A MAP AND IT DOESN'T INTERFERE IN ANY WAY TO REQUIRE FENCING, THEN YEAH, IT'S ON THE MAP AND WE DON'T EVEN NEED IT. UM, YEAH, I'LL LOOK AT THIS. THIS WAS NOT MM-HMM . MEANT TO BE SUPER ONEROUS. IT WAS MEANT TO RAISE AWARENESS. YEAH. WHEN YOU'RE DOING WORK ON YOUR PROPERTY, UH, THE, OF THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT TREES, EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT COMING IN SAYING, I'M GONNA REMOVE A TREE. RIGHT. THAT THINKING ABOUT THE, THE EXTENT AND THE IMPACT OF YOUR, OF YOUR WORK AND WHETHER IT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON AN EXISTING TREE. SO WE CAN, WE CAN NUANCE THAT. I BELIEVE I GOT THE 30 FEET FROM DISCUSSION WITH, UM, THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL IN TALKING ABOUT THIS IN TERMS OF LIKE A GOOD AMOUNT TO SAY THERE'S ACTIVITY THIS CLOSE. WE SHOULD REALLY GET SOME OF THAT. JUST RAISE THAT AWARENESS SO THAT THE, THE WORKERS ON SITE ARE LIKE, OH, THERE'S THAT YELLOW FENCING THERE. UM, SO WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL NUANCE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE. RIGHT. AND AND THE THAT WAS THE, THAT WAS THE ON, ON YOUR PROPERTY VERSUS NOT. YEAH. YEAH. I KNOW OTHER JURISDICTIONS REQUIRE SURVEYING OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. LIKE I'VE WORKED IN A FEW AND THEY WERE LIKE, IT DOESN'T MATTER. GO SURVEY. AND ONE QUESTION ON THE SITE PLAN, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S PRETTY VAGUE. LIKE YOU'RE BRINGING IT UP, LIKE YOU CAN MOVE A TREE TWO FEET ON A SITE PLAN AND AT SCALE LIKE THAT, JUST TO GET IT OUT OF A 30 FOOT PLAN, SITE PLAN IS [03:30:01] NOT IN DEFINITIONS. IT MAYBE SHOULD GET ADDED. YEAH. I MEAN, ORDINARILY I WOULD PROBABLY PICK TO HAVE MUSTER HERE. YOU'D NEED A CIVIL SURVEY, BUT THAT'S THEN AGAIN, ONEROUS. AND WE MIGHT WANNA GET INTO THE LIST OF, YEAH, WHAT IS IT THAT TRIGGERS A CIVIL SURVEY? LIKE WHAT EXACT SCOPE OF WORK IN A MIS MINISTERIAL PERMIT. OKAY. UM, AND THEN WE DID TALK ABOUT ENFORCEMENT AND FINES, UM, THAT THIS WILL BE UPDATED AND NUANCED WITH SOME OF THE NUANCE THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS. AND THEN THE OVERARCHING QUESTIONS, I THINK WE, UM, REALLY ALREADY TOUCHED ON THAT WE DO NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A, A BALANCE ON CITY'S GOALS FOR TREE PRESERVATION AND REASONABLE AND ENFORCEABLE RULES FOR HOMEOWNERS. UM, AND SO THAT WE SHOULD DO SOME DIFFERENTIATION IN THE REGULATORY APPROACH FOR THAT. SO I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND HAD SOME AGREEMENT ON THOSE OVERARCHING QUESTIONS THAT WERE POSED AS WELL. GREAT. ANY CLOSING COMMENTS ON OUR TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE CONVERSATION? OKAY. THEN I THINK WE CAN CLOSE MEETING ITEM THREE. THANK YOU HEATHER. AND FOR EVERYONE'S VARIOUS RABBIT HOLES, THAT WAS, LIKE I SAID, A LONG TIME COMING. DARREN, CONGRATS TO YOU IN THE TREE COMMITTEE FOR, FOR GETTING THIS, UM, ONTO THE, ONTO THE NEXT PHASE. UM, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN, BEFORE WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IN COUNCIL. OKAY. SO WE'LL CLOSE MEETING ITEM THREE AND HEAD INTO COMMISSION [COMMITTEE COMMENT] COMMENT. UM, I'LL GO FIRST TO YOU, COMMISSIONER HILT ON ZOOM IF YOU'VE GOT A COMMISSION COMMENT. JUST THAT BEING THE LIAISON TO TIMELY ENOUGH THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, UM, THAT WE HAD TWO MEETINGS, UH, ONE I FAILED TO REPORT ON THE LAST TIME, BUT BOTH THE LAST TWO MEETINGS WERE DONE BY RELIEF ON THEIR TREE PLANTING EFFORTS. THANK YOU. HEADING DOWN THIS WAY TO COMMISSIONER, GOVERNOR, NOTHING. NO REPORT. NONE FROM ME. NO REPORT FOR ME AND NO REPORT FROM ME. OKAY. THEN WE'LL CLOSE COMMISSION COMMENT AND HEAD TO STAFF [STAFF COMMENT] COMMENT. GREAT. THANK YOU. CHAIR. UM, THE, UH, PETALUMA NORTH SMART STATION SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT TEAM HAS KICKED OFF, UH, THAT SPECIFIC PLANNING EFFORT FOR THE, UH, NORTH STATION PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREA, WHICH IS, UH, CONSISTS OF ABOUT HALF A MILE AROUND THE, UM, THE SMART SUB PETALUMA NORTH STATION AND IN THEN EXTENDS DOWN MCDOWELL BOULEVARD ON EITHER SIDE TO EAST WASHINGTON. AND, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S GOING WELL. THEY'RE WORKING ON EXISTING CONDITIONS. RESEARCH ALSO, UH, COORDINATING FOR COMMUNITY OUTREACH. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF FOCUS GROUPS WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS AND SUCH THAT ARE TAKING PLACE THIS WEEK. ALL OF THAT TO SAY ON NOVEMBER 3RD WE'LL BE GOING TO, UH, CITY COUNCIL TO, UH, DISCUSS A COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERS WORKING GROUP. AND PART OF THAT WORKING GROUP IS A PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE REPRESENTATIVES FROM, UH, THE CCBS, INCLUDING PLANNING COMMISSION, PBAC AND TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PERHAPS ONE OR TWO OTHERS. UM, SO JUST KNOW THAT THAT OPPORTUNITY IS COMING FORWARD AND MORE INFORMATION WILL BE AVAILABLE, UH, IF YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THAT. UH, COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERS WORKING GROUP. UM, ALSO THERE WILL BE A, A COMMUNITY MEETING OPEN HOUSE TO TALK ABOUT THE PLAN, UM, IN, UH, THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 10TH IS WHAT WE'RE TARGETING. AND THEN THERE'S A COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SCHEDULED FOR EARLY DECEMBER, SO MORE INFORMATION WILL BE COMING FORWARD ON THOSE AS WELL. UM, THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION NORTHERN SECTION IS DEVELOPING A PLANNING COMMISSIONER TRAINING, UH, THAT IS SCHEDULED FOR, UH, LATE NOVEMBER. UM, AND THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE AN IN-PERSON TRAINING HELD HELD IN MARTINEZ. SO AS SOON AS THAT FLYER BECOMES AVAILABLE, I'LL C CIRCULATE IT TO YOU. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A REALLY GREAT EXPERIENCE AND PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, A BIT MORE INTIMATE AND, AND, UH, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE DISCUSSION WITH, UM, YOUR, UH, COMMISSIONER COLLEAGUES FROM THROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA. SO, UM, SHARE THAT TO YOU WHEN THAT COMES FORWARD. AND THEN IN TERMS OF UPCOMING MEETINGS, UH, I THINK AS YOU KNOW, THE, UH, NOVEMBER CALENDAR HAS CHANGED A BIT. WE ARE, [03:35:01] UM, CAN'T, WELL, THE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 11TH WILL NOT BE HELD BECAUSE THAT'S VETERANS DAY AND CITY HALL IS CLOSED FOR THAT FEDERAL HOLIDAY, SO IT HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED TO NOVEMBER 20TH. HEATHER WILL BE PRESENTING AGAIN ON THE GENERAL PLAN, UPDATE THE LAND USE FRAMEWORK, UM, THAT IS, IS BEING WRAPPED UP. AND THEN, UH, WE, YOU CAN PLAN ON A MEETING ON DECEMBER 9TH. WE'LL HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THAT MEETING. ONE WILL BE A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE GALLAGHER, UH, SENIOR LIVING PROJECT. AND THEN THE OTHER WOULD BE A, UM, PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO, UM, SORT OF TO, TO REGULATE DIFFERENTLY RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES. AND, UH, SO THAT WILL BE ON, ON DECEMBER 9TH. WE WILL BE CANCELING THEN, UH, THE NOVEMBER 25TH MEETING DURING THE WEEK OF THANKSGIVING AS WELL AS, UM, LET'S SEE, THAT WOULD BE THE, WE WOULD, WE'RE PLANNING TO CANCEL THE DECEMBER 23RD MEETING AS WELL. SO A LITTLE BIT A, A SNAPSHOT OF WHAT WILL BE HAPPENING THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR. SO THEN JUST NOVEMBER 20TH, RIGHT. ONE MEETING IN NOVEMBER AND THEN AT PRESENT, ONE MEETING IN DECEMBER. RIGHT. AND THAT'S A THURSDAY THE 20TH? CORRECT. OKAY. CORRECT. MM-HMM . GOOD TO KNOW. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANY CLOSING THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? LOOKING AROUND? SEEING NONE, LET'S ADJOURN HERE AT 9 43. THANK YOU. . * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.