We're gonna get started.
>> I don't think so.
>> Exactly.
>> All right. Thank you folks. Um let's go
ahead and get started.
>> So my name is Don Mcwills. This is the
325
2026 special meeting of the
environmental board. We're be talking
about the ICAP targets and action
reviews in depth for a couple of hours.
Um, first of I don't think we have
anybody hybrid is what I'm hearing. So,
it's just us today. If you want to make
comment, we don't have our little signs.
Just raise your hand. Clearly informal
today or just speak up. Um, we do have a
couple of folks that want to speak. Um,
but before we do that, can you call us
for our sh uh Tommy Anderson
>> here?
>> Nancy Davidson
>> here.
>> Tommy Dvau has an excused absence. Praka
Pandi has excused absence. Karan P has
an excused absence. Mina Jun,
Don Mc Williams,
Alex Tickner has an excused absence
and Nukem has an excused absence. Keith
Gonzalez
>> here.
>> John Smith
>> here.
>> We do have quorum. Five folks and John,
you'll be sitting in as a regular
member.
>> Um, see, we have three people back here.
All three.
you. I do.
>> Sure.
>> I'll go you first.
>> I'm a whole different style.
>> Well, everybody has some style.
>> So, some of you have heard this before
and this is about climate and um I heard
Nancy Oh, I'm Connie Marsh. I live on
the squad. Um, I heard Nancy say
something about uh individuals and
impacts on the environment and climate.
And to me, that is what your climate
action plan is missing is the idea that
Isqua is a place where people care about
the environment and what are is each
individual doing to enhance our city.
And so right now it feels like a chore.
It feels like something that people want
to try to get you to do. So I'm going to
use my phrase, how do you make helping
the climate and the environment be sexy?
Right? It's not rules. It's not
regulations. It's a cooperative
community effort to do things better and
make a great place to live. And we don't
have that. We don't have a social media
campaign. We don't have sharable
postcards that I can pop on Instagram
and create a discussion. We don't have
an educational program that is using our
new age communications to suck in
everybody under the age of I say 45. You
guys are already sucked in. Sorry.
Because it is cool. It is hip. It is the
way to live for the future. And without
that you are struggling to get somebody
to do a thing like get a heat pump. Oh,
but we are having electrical problems.
So, okay, what's the grid gonna look
like? You're asking people to spend
money without telling them about either
the financial return that they could get
from this and the coolness factor. And I
talked about my brother who owns lots of
things and he doesn't really care that
much about the environment except for
fish. He does all this stuff because
it's cool. And when he talks to his
fishy friends, he can talk about his
solar panels and his heat pumps and all
the good things he's doing for the
world. Even though he doesn't really
care that much, he cares about being
that cool, right? And he's going to live
forever, clearly. Um, so
with without that with something to
measure at the end of it to see if
you're succeeding in getting out to
people to start creating a society
within our town who wants to do this,
not who you're bribing to do it. You are
endlessly going to have a really hard
time and you guys are going to work like
dogs and you're going to say, "Oh man,
but we made this incremental change." I
think you're just trying to change a
whole different thing and that would be
more successful than this rather dry
pathway that doesn't feel fun or
inspirational and to to me it makes me
yawn and you know you know that I really
want it to be good. So there's my
speech. I only use sexy once. Oh, twice.
Next. Okay.
Well, good evening, Ann Fletcher, uh,
president and, uh, people for climate
action. That's a car chapter.
Um, I really don't know where to start
because I sent you this really long
thing and I don't know if any of you
even wed your way through it, but I hope
you will. maybe just take it a little
bit chucks because it wasn't real fun or
sexy, but it was me. Um, and um, so I
just want to hit some highlights of of
that for for this meeting and and hope
that you will read it because there's a
lot of stuff in there that's more
general about sort of maybe in a way
like what Conniey's saying, it's how we
are approaching this as a city and how
we are organized and maybe we don't have
to be the same as every other city. um
maybe we can do things differently that
will help us um get to the future better
than some places. So think outside the
box kind of thing. So, um what I wanted
to talk about were some of the actions
uh specifically and uh one of them that
I wanted to talk about was um the in
buildings especially I feel like we're
short somehow there's gaps in our
building actions and I know we tried to
put in a lot of things if PCA had five
critical actions that um that they put
out in a paper that is referenced in
here with lots of examples and um So, I
was feeling pretty good because um a lot
of these actions, at least the start of
them, were getting into the proposal for
the update. Um uh I I was um wanted to
express a concern about um the removal
of two important proposed actions.
Number 22, which is small commercial
buildings, and number 24, home energy
score. Um uh this one that both of those
um were in were there two of the 12
critical actions. Um the reasons that
were stated was that from the PBE
committee, which is the one that um did
not think they were good, um was that
they were not beneficial or impactful
and too hard for the city to set it up
without state support. So um but I
didn't know of any concrete evidence.
So, I sent my thing to you to the city
council, too, so that I could find out a
little bit more about the evidence on
that because the PCA has a lot of
evidence the other way, too. So, want to
bring that up. Um, the PBE did offer an
alternative to the home energy score uh
with a clean energy requirements for end
of life equipment, which is good. I
mean, that's good for heating and
cooling equipment. Doesn't cover the
other appliances. um doesn't help people
understand what they're doing uh what
their whole home energy store is. Um and
it doesn't um do the weatherization. I
know those are included in some of the
other ones. I just they're not as
specific and um they're just more
general and harder to measure than
having a specific.
Okay. And then um I just wanted to
mention the tree canopy um the no net
loss thing. I know you're going to
discuss that and you discussed it last
time is a big deal. Um and uh since the
environmental board was split on it, it
just seems like more discussions is
needed on that and that um if if that
percent is just too way out there that
well maybe a smaller percentage or
something uh a little bit more
realistic, some kind of compromise that
would give us a a target a target to to
try for even though it's tough. uh and
um uh and so I would say, you know,
let's do that and let's do it early on
because we got to get them planted so
that by 2050 we can meet our goal. They
won't be mature till then. Um so I think
I've pretty much used up my my n my
minute. So I did want to say
that's
uh oh number nine having the
sustainability funding be action um is
great. That's another one of the
critical actions. Uh and so number nine,
I was really happy, very happy to see
that. Um and the multif family um
charging capability for new and
eventually how are you going to get me
assisting too, but you know, step by
step. Um so I'm done. Thank you very
much.
>> Oh goodness.
I just thought, you know, Connie, you
mentioned making it sexy. You could this
group potentially put some work your way
into this
>> somehow.
Um, goss.
>> Okay, great. Um, so I'll just walk
through our plan for the evening. Um I
think everyone's gotten a copy if they
want one. There are copies on the back.
Uh what we are planning to do is provide
a brief summary of the discussion that
we had from the council committee um the
planning development and improvement
committee a week week and a half ago. Um
to summarize that briefly, their input
is incorporated into the document. So
we'll talk more about that as we uh get
to those specific actions. Um David's
going to provide a little bit more
in-depth overview of the recommendations
from the metrics committee which he
summarized at a couple meetings but we
wanted to provide some visuals and talk
through a little bit more and then we
will walk through the targets and
actions. We are planning to discuss the
ones that are highlighted. There's about
10. Those are changes to targets or um
moving around or proposed revision or
brand new. Um and then there's some
actions in there that hit more of the
policy level um or maybe have gone
through a big change since we last
touched base with you all. Um so we're
we are going to talk through the yellow
ones and then we will open it up to the
board members for any of the other
targets and actions that they want to
discuss. Um there is some
uh uh red uh actions that are
highlighted in red. Those are ones um or
maybe in strikeout that is just
reflecting some changes since our last
meeting with you um our last discussion
of that action with you. So we're happy
to touch base on those but we've tried
to provide a little explanation um of
what the the change was. Um I'll also
note that Sam Tarvin our solid waste
analyst is planned to join around 7. So
if anyone wants to raise questions
around the materials and consumption
targets um we could look to move to
those uh when she is able to join. Um
and then tonight we're really planning
to capture your comments, your feedback
on the targets and actions. If the board
has differing opinions, we will capture
those. We'll be taking all that input
and then coming back to you in April
with a full draft plan um to walk
through.
So that is the plan for tonight. Any
questions or
feedback on alternative approaches for
the discussion this evening?
>> Um I will note Ann Newm uh sent a few
comments on one of the targets. So I'll
share those when we get to that one.
I've invited the folks um from the board
that that just today let us know they
can come to send another comments. So um
we will summarize all of their feedback
uh if they provide comments. So
great. Okay. Well, just a quick summary
of the um PTE the council PTE committee.
Um so we went through a series of
meetings with you all with our boards
and commissions. Um, we presented to to
the transportation advisory board and
PPC some kind of big ideas for policies
that would have direct impact on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They
provided feedback on those policies and
then we came up with a staff
recommendation. Um, based on that
feedback um those staff recommendations
were presented to the council committee
about a week and a half ago. um and they
provided uh input on and what they
wanted to see move forward. Um in
general, they supported the staff
recommendations, but there were a few
areas where they want us wanted to
really um push us to continue to look at
some bigger policy changes. Um some of
those were highlighted in the public
comments. We'll discuss them tonight.
There were areas around parking, uh,
multifamily charging, um, dark sky, and
then the this idea of a time of
replacement requirement, a replacement
for energy, more energy efficient
heating and cooling equipment. So, we'll
talk on touch on base on all of those
um, later tonight. Um and then PTE also
recommended that we come back to a
committee of the whole and bring the
we'll be bringing the policies and the
major changes to the plan to the
committee of the whole which is the
entire council uh for discussion in May.
So that will be their next touch point.
That was a quick summary. So we have
tonight and then our April meeting um to
work through the plan before back to
council.
Great. Um, well, with that, I'll hand it
off to David.
I'm gonna close the door. If it gets
stuffy, we can open it.
>> Okay. So, um, I am prepared some slides
um that I'm going to share in just a
minute. I do want to note that they are
uh a little technical slides, so please
bear with me. I'm going to do my best to
explain them and kind of demonstrate how
we're we're thinking about kind of
applying these concepts to the climate
action plan. And I wrote out my notes so
that I could try to could try and
explain some of these um in a way that
that hopefully makes a a little sense.
So um as a quick summary, um the metrics
committee recommendations did include
elevating the greenhouse gas uh
reduction target to the plan level. So
overarching the entire climate action
plan allowing both quantitative number
based and qualitative metrics which are
um more descriptive based metrics for uh
the evaluation of action within the
climate action plan. Um identifying some
high priority quantitative metrics the
city has more control over influencing
and uh looking at um publicly reporting
on those metrics and then reporting on
the greenhouse gas targets. the focus
area targets and these high priority
metrics publicly while quant uh
qualitatively and internally um uh
measuring other targets through a work
plan. So
what that looks like or what I'm sharing
this to look like
is here. So,
okay.
Well,
>> brownie, please.
>> There we go. Try one more time.
>> Nope. Okay. Doesn't want to share. We'll
do this. So, um, what this is intending
to highlight is how we're thinking about
connecting these metrics with each
other. So at the top you have your plan
level target on greenhouse uh gas
reduction that's laid out over the
entire climate action plan. The focus
area targets would feed into the
greenhouse gas reduction measuring
specific changes to our uh isquest
system that will reduce greenhouse gas
redu emissions.
Then the high priority metrics are each
associated with multiple actions within
the climate action plan
and feed into the focus area targets and
sometimes directly to the plan level
target um overarching the entire plan.
the high priority uh metrics do
represent some areas and efforts within
the city that we'd have a little bit
more control over actually influencing
um uh through our regulations, actions,
um programs we can implement, things
like that.
So what that looks like in practice and
apologies for some complex mapping here,
but essentially at the top you have the
plan level target on reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and this is the same
framework as the previous slide but just
with actions and focus areas applied to
it.
So at the top you have greenhouse gas
emissions reductions. Then each of the
focus areas and right now I just have
three on here. Each of these focus area
targets feed into the plan level target
by measuring specific sectors uh of
emission reduction efforts. So an
example are reducing emissions um from
city operations or reducing the use of
natural gas in existing buildings will
in turn reduce greenhouse gas emissions
at the communitywide level.
Underneath the focus areas we have high
priority metrics. These metrics are each
associated with multiple actions in the
climate action plan and feed into the
focus area targets or sometimes directly
to the plan level target. So in this
example um we would measure the number
of uh the kilowatts of installed
renewable energy uh capacity at city
facilities which will help us reduce
city operations greenhouse gas emissions
which in turn reduces communitywide
greenhouse gas emissions. So part of
this is just mapping through the logic
of how uh the actions that we have in
the climate action plan are connected to
the focus areas which are connected to
overall what we're trying to achieve at
the city.
Um measuring the high priority metrics
is valuable since again these represent
what we really have influence over. So
if we are not seeing an increase or a a
decrease in say city emissions or in uh
the uh generation of renewable capacity
in city uh facilities, we can take
action to change that and put that into
our budget and really work to um update
that down the line. Community engagement
uh is something identified that goes uh
directly up to uh the plan level target.
Um we have a community engagement action
under every single focus area and
although that community engagement does
impact the focus area targets. Um it
also generally uh would help drive
overall climate uh action and greenhouse
gas reduction as folks get um uh
educated and inspired to take climate
action in their own lives.
Now, uh, greenhouse gas emissions
reduction is one thing, but the plan
does talk about more than that. And so,
we wanted to also think about how does
this relate to climate resilience and
thinking about how uh metrics apply to
uh this adaptation consideration.
So based on committee recommendations,
we identified that uh climate resilience
work overall would be measured mostly
via uh qualitative narrative based
measurements. Although there are some
quantitative measurements included in
the focus areas as well.
Um what this looks like in practice is
identifying at the plan level the
adaptation and climate resilience goals
we're having and then again showing how
the focus areas feed into that goal. And
then uh on the plan level uh we or on
the action level how the qualitatively
measured actions feed into those focus
areas. And again back up to the um
overall plan goal.
Again what this looks like in practice
is we have plan level goal at the top um
all around supporting uh our community
members to thrive uh in the community
even with uh current and future impacts
of climate change. Um feeding into this
goal we have example targets. So in this
case um one from climate resilience and
well-being target related to the percent
of community members that feel uh
prepared for uh emergencies and then
natural systems targets. So uh this is
one related to uh tree equity scores
which we've discussed. And so both of
those focus area targets, although
quantitatively uh measured, are all
intended to then make sure that our
community members can thrive in our
community given climate change impacts
such as hotter summers um or increased
climate emergency events. Underneath
focus area targets, we have individual
actions. And most of these again would
be internally tracked through our work
plan and qualitatively assessed on
whether or not we're really implementing
them based on uh the work plan
developed. By implementing these
actions, we would anticipate that that
work would feed into whether or not
folks are feeling prepared for
emergencies or uh making sure that we
are achieving these tree equity scores.
So some of those interup uh focus area
targets. And then in some cases they
would go directly back up to the plan
level goals of um trying to make sure
that our community members can thrive
during climate change. Um so an example
here is working with PSSE on grid
resilience upgrades. So um that one we
can measure whether or not we are or we
can qualitatively assess whether or not
we are doing that and implementing it
based on our work plan. But rather than
trying to put a number to kind of how
much risk grid resilience there really
is, we we can say um we are doing this
because we're trying to achieve this
vision for our community.
So this is has been my attempt to map
out what the metrics committee
recommendations look like in practice
and how this would then be applied to
the climate action plan update. Um, if
folks have any questions at this time,
um, I'm happy to answer them, but I'm my
hope is that for the April 25th, uh,
meeting, we'll have a little bit more
details on kind of like what this looks
like in the plan itself um, for us to
um, react to and really see if this is
the appropriate method to uh, uh,
measure plan implementation.
you expect to have all your metrics
pretty close to worked out by then?
>> For the most part, I think some of the
implementation of
uh I think some of the details of what
um
some uh actions will look like might
come as time goes on, right? like what
does it really mean to assess the
feasibility of XYZ in year four or
something. Um but for the most part I
think as we develop our implementation
plan um we will have most of the at
least beginnings of those metrics and
then the quantitative metrics we will
have by then.
We wanted folks to have a general idea
of this approach as we go into our next
discussion looking at targets and
actions and then just so you all
understand how this uh will be mapped
out as we get to showing you the whole
>> I guess I do also have a question about
the qualitative metrics are cool and and
if is has there been any discussion
about u kind of novel quantitative
metrics that you can look at for
environment like natural systems and
things like that that we're not
currently looking at. Um numbers of
species or things like that. I don't
know.
>> Yeah. So um for now what we currently
have is the the focus area target. So
tree canopy cover which we'll be
discussing tonight and then tree equity.
Um we've discussed uh on our team a
couple other things that we can try and
start measuring um such as um portable
or water use things like that. Um I know
there's been discussion on riparian
um corridors. So I think uh as we do not
have those currently in the IAP and part
of this is to try and find that balance
of reporting versus implementing the
climate action plan. Um but we've been
trying to talk about what some of those
other ones could look like. And then one
other thing that I want to note um that
Raj brought up during the metrics
committee is building in there will be
language around flexibility of metrics
and and kind of how we're thinking about
measurement. So um as we are
implementing this next climate action
plan if there's kind of those innovative
ideas or things that we can um that if
we think would be valuable to build out
I think that's something that we can
follow by
questions, feedback on that.
>> No, thank you.
>> I just have one piece of feedback.
>> Yeah.
>> And that is, can you bring up that last
slide by any chance again?
>> Absolutely.
>> It's specific. So, the work with PC on
grid resilience upgrades, and you said
you really didn't want to put a metric
around that, but
that's very open-ended. Mhm.
>> And we don't know if we're doing
anything if they put in one battery
somewhere. That's it. They've done
something. So, I'm concerned if we're
that loose in our metrics, we're not
going to achieve anything. So I would
encourage us to track it and to put
maybe not set a goal for it but to track
it and to monitor it and do more than
work with
make it more actionoriented is my
suggestion. I looked for it in here and
didn't see it. But I just would request
that we don't move with it without loose
because we won't have achieved anything
by the time we look at this five in five
years if we don't do more than
>> Yeah.
76
on that. So PSC has some programs for
voluntarily
um using a thermostat. they can say okay
you can't have heat right now during
peak periods etc and uh in theory they
should be able to share with us numbers
of how many people in your jurisdiction
are participating in that program and
that might be a certain objective
measure of how much public support there
is that ties into this resilience thing
the resilience of the grid is going to
be
affected by our ability to not derive
the system to the peaks. This is going
to be more and more a thing
find various ways to even out our energy
consumption and that's one thing that's
going on right now and there's much room
for improvement.
>> Um the one you brought up Nancy it's row
76. So I'll flag that. We can talk about
that as we get into the discussion and
um see if there's any more specificity
you want to add.
Okay.
All ready to jump in. Okay. Um so
because this was in a table I couldn't
do um label the lines. So I included
these row numbers just so it's easy to
reference especially when you print out
from my office doesn't print the same
page numbers you would have. So feel
free as we get into you all raising
action for discussion just to flag those
rows so we can all get on the same page.
Um scroll back up. So we'll just start
at the beginning and what I'm going to
do is so let me um just capture track
changes in the document because then
we'll be taking the edits here the
discussion here and moving that directly
into the draft plan. Um so I'm just
going to start working through the
yellow highlighted targets and actions.
>> There are others that are not yellow. Do
you want us to touch on those when
you're
>> Let's come back to those. Yeah, I think
we'll go through the yellow ones. Um,
and then we'll open it up for members to
raise other ones and either can do that.
Just whoever raises their hand first or
happy to go around with ones that folks
want to play.
>> Okay, great. Um the first one is this uh
what David was just speaking to is
moving our overall plan target to um
represent it that way in the plan. Right
now it is included in one of the focus
areas, our overarching focus area and we
want to highlight it um more broadly in
the plan. So this is not a change in the
language um it is just elevating it to
be an overall plan target. So, wanted to
play that just make sure folks
understood that if there was any
concerns, it'll just show up differently
in the plan. Um, so that was the first
one. That's just kind of a big shift in
how it's presented.
>> You want some thumbs up from the green?
>> Um, yeah, just comments or nods. Yeah.
>> Okay.
Yeah, that works great. We've done it
before.
>> Next one is on row nine.
bottom of the page.
>> Great. Um, so this one, you have seen
this before. Um, whether or not you
remember, um, it was in quite a few
months ago when we talked about the
overarching actions. This is a new
action around looking at and exploring
pathways for dedicated funding. We
wanted I wanted to flag this one just to
see if there's any additional ideas or
language that you want added here since
it is a new action. Um our thought is
there's been a number
>> take an extra one.
>> Um
sorry I think Ann just grabbed one.
>> Sorry.
>> I'll share with you.
>> Sorry.
>> I just wanted to make sure I could
reference the right
I'll say the lines again.
>> Perfect. Thanks.
>> Um and I'm going to capture it in the
document. Um so there's been a number of
cities around our region nationally that
have uh undergone studies to look at
different funding streams for their
climate and sustainability work. So we
would probably heavily reference those,
but there may be something specific we
need to look at for the city. Um, this
could be opportunities such as a bond or
a climate tax or um a green revolving
fund where we kind of take the the
energy savings um and invest those in
future projects for example. So there
could be some pathways or there will be
there would be a lot of pathways that
we'd explore um to kind of assess which
is the right avenue for
so just wanted to highlight this one
since it's new. see if there's any other
ideas we should include in this action.
I would just say explore doc explore
opportunities and document
implementation pathways so that next
time we come back to this in five years
we know what
>> okay yeah
>> any other thoughts on this one
>> was this uh I I remember Mayor Paulie
coming to one of our meetings and
talking about some kind of forest trust
or something that was
>> y
>> an idea at that time and I don't know if
this um came out of anything like that
>> there. Yeah, that is a Yeah, that um was
something that the parks department was
looking at for a lot of the greenqua
work. Um but having some kind of
nonprofit spin out that could raise
additional funding. So that could be
another avenue that's looked at here.
We've talked about with our energy
smarties
partnership, the heat pump program.
Would there be a benefit in the future
of that spinning off as a nonprofit? So
that could definitely be something that
would be looked at. I know the Greenway
and Eskabs are really good at
fundraising. So, I guess just leveraging
community partners and
>> Yeah, it's a good idea. I'll just add
that note.
>> Any other thoughts? Yeah.
>> Second column for the target action.
>> Yeah.
>> Secure sustainable. The I don't know
when I read sustainable I kind of get
mixed up there.
>> Oh, yeah. That's Yuri.
>> Yeah. Yeah. uh
>> recurring funding or
>> yeah more sustainable
>> yeah thank you that's a good that's good
yeah we'll play with that great
okay
all right any other comments on that one
okay um number 10 row 10 uh this was an
action that was proposed by the
environmental board um many months ago
So this was the uh idea of looking at
localized pollutants such as those from
uh from traffic from landscaping
equipment and exploring different
pathways for reducing those pollutants.
Um
so wanted to see if the board had
additional thoughts on this one since
it's been a while that we've discussed
it. Um if you have any more specificity
you want to add to it. And then I just
wanted to uh share a little bit of
feedback from one of our council
members. Um
well, Kirkland and Seattle do have
landscaping bans. It has been
complicated to implement because a lot
of private landscaping companies that
come in come from all over. So they
don't necessarily know that a particular
city has that ban. Um, I think there's
some concern around the political
capital that would have to be spent for
implementing, especially if we went for
a a landscaping a gas powered
landscaping ban. Um, there's some
concern around the political capital
that would have to be spent to move
something like that forward. Um,
and other feedback I heard from some of
our council members is that really the
biggest area for that we could focus on
for reducing localized pollution would
be around traffic. So, just wanted to
share some of those thoughts and get the
board's input on whether we want to
retain this, revise it, add more
specificity.
So, I'll have
>> I like it. One of the things that I
think about all the time that the city
does and bugs me is a lot of is plastic
signage.
>> You know, it's just not sustainable.
You'll see all the elections, they're
all plastic signs. All the announcements
for the Isqua Downtown Association or
Friends of Lake Seamish or whatever the
plastic signs. If we could just ban
those within the city
or make them require that they use a
biodegradable sign be great. I'm going
to flag that we have row 58 um is a
single use plastic band. So we have that
addressed more in the graph material. So
let's let me flag that one.
>> Um this one I think and maybe this
probably needs to be clarified. It was
really looking at localized air
pollutants. So I'll make that more
specific. I believe that was the intent
but again this came um as a concept from
the board. So happy to revise. So it's
not like looking at the stuff that's
coming off um tires that we're talking
about
>> and POS. I think those are some of the
topics raised but then
>> trying to link to the climate
um
what is the role of climate action
around those? I guess that's versus like
a general environmental plan where you
could say with increased runoff or more
concentration of those pollutants. So
>> um we could focus in on that.
>> Yeah,
>> that'd be a way to put that in the
natural areas
section.
I would leave this one more general
>> and not just focus on landscape
equipment.
It gives you more room to work inside of
it.
>> Maybe remove kind of remove the details
and leave it a little bit more.
>> I leave that pizza. That's fine.
>> Okay.
>> To to answer your question on the right.
>> Oh, okay. You you mentioned air
pollution, but there's other places like
I I notice just people putting down
businesses throwing down salt all over
the place
>> like
Costco. They cover the whole area in the
winter time with salt.
>> I don't know if that's bad for the
environment or not, but it seems like it
would be.
>> Yeah.
spraying things on the liquids on the
roads for deicing and things maybe
they're not
>> doesn't help
>> right
>> depends how much rain you get afterwards
it's diluted all the way
>> but maybe not limit it to strictly air
>> pollution
>> okay that's good because that could then
get at the 6 PBDQ and other pollutants
and um the idea of either heavier this
might be a stretch but if we're having
more frequent heavier rain precipitation
events if we have that could be helping
to concentrate some of those pollutants
in the streams or if we have drier
streams in the summer pollutants might
be more concentrated. It's a little bit
of a stretch but trying to find kind of
a climate tie if you all think it's
appropriate.
>> We looked at the city's what they use
for the icing. Is it is it um good for
the environment or
>> I don't remember what they
>> said actually for the environment.
>> There's none that's good for the
>> filling ham. Belling dam uses like a
beet juice or something.
>> So a lot of the cities have gone away
from sand and they're just using kind of
a pure salt brine mixture and then
sometimes some hard salt gets coated red
so you can see it. So they can see where
they drop it.
um that doesn't leave the sand behind
because the sand gets into the streams,
clogs up all the sand spawning beds. You
have to clean it all up. So that's the
theory behind
>> well I don't know the science but is it
possible that as temperatures get hotter
there's more leeching off or off maybe
off gasing but like specifically the
more runoff of chemicals and bad stuff
into the
>> possibility. Yeah. Yeah.
>> The other thing we can do is, you know,
the stuff we put on our yards and sprays
we use in our to manage our weeds.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. Climate brings different, you
know, weeds and kills lawns that people
try to
>> use chemicals to
water. Yeah.
>> Okay. And this could um
possibly a number of the campaigns the
Cascade Water Alliance runs for using
more natural fertilizers and that type
of stuff this um
>> I was really glad to hear that last time
and I tried looking on their website
about it. It seems to be kind of buried.
So yeah, boosting the background kind of
>> those alternatives is a good idea.
>> All right. So, it sounds like keeping it
general, keeping it in the plan, general
support, um, making sure we're not just
looking at air, but also water stream
pollutes.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay, great.
All right. Uh,
okay. Next one is a little ways down.
>> Talking about the red ones.
>> Um, I was not going to. those were
displayed because they're a bit of a
change. Um, happy to I can mention them
briefly as we go back.
>> It looks like 18 also has
>> Yeah, that's more a note for myself. I
need to talk with our um emergency
manager just to clarify that that's the
language we want because I think this
board actually flagged the very specific
meaning that it has.
>> I'm okay with not talking about the red.
>> Okay. Yeah, red ones are either David
and I are proposing moving those to the
implementation plan and action or a
change from the committee.
Okay. So,
um I will touch briefly on 22
more just on the notes there. Um this
one was also brought up during public
comment. So um we do have in our current
plan assessing the potential for energy
benchmarking program. We were looking at
the possibility of either um running a
ben a required benchmarking program for
buildings that are under 20,000 square
feet that do not currently have to
comply with state standards or a a
voluntary program where they could
self-report. and we provide technical
support
um for them. Um we discussed this with
the ED committee um based on some of
their some of the members professional
experience. They don't necessarily see
benefit of just benchmarking buildings.
They haven't seen um buildings improve
their energy efficiency by just
reporting on their energy. So they
didn't feel um that this was a high
priority to move forward. Um, what I
will say though is that we do
have
um cross references, but we do have an
action later on in our buildings and
energy that does speak to programs for
commercial buildings to help them with
energy efficiency electrification. So if
some point in the future we do feel like
it's important to run a voluntary or
even a mandatory benchmarking program
because we think that's how we're really
going to move the needle. There is room
within the existing language to do that.
I just would not be calling it out
specifically.
So
next one is row 25.
Um this also came out of the
um council committee meeting.
Um we had talked to them about
um a couple the big policy ideas. The
home energy score we heard about during
public comment. Um there city of
Berkeley has a requirement when a house
is sold it has to score a certain number
of points for energy efficiency or
electrification or else upgrades have to
be made. Um those felt that second
option felt um like too big of a program
for our city and there's a lot of
concerns about running a program like
that. the home energy score uh PTE did
not feel like um would really have an
impact and there were some current
concerns around equity. Um a home energy
score is basically where a home would
report on its energy efficiency at time
of sale. Um and there are a lot of
concerns just that if folks cannot
afford upgrades to their homes, they
make it um a lower selling price for the
house and just the all that the
affordability concerns. So um so what
the PTE committee did support was
exploring an opportunity or exploring
some type of policy where
um either at the time of replacement. So
if a gas furnace fails or air
conditioner fails or a new air
conditioner is being purchased that
there would be some kind of requirement
for an energy efficiency standard um for
that new equipment coming in with the
hope that folks aren't putting in new um
gas or very low efficient equipment
that's going to be in a home for the
next 15 20 years. Um
this would be we would first do a pretty
extensive assessment around the costs
and how a program like that could
operate. Um but there was interest from
at least that uh council committee of
exploring what a program like this might
look like.
>> Is that just for the city buildings or
is that for
>> No, this would be a community. That
second example would be if my furnace
blows up and I would have to put in a
more efficient furnace or more efficient
heat source
>> and you're talking about almost double
the cost at times.
>> No, it's just explore the feasibility.
>> Yeah. So, this would just be to evaluate
what the look,
>> right? So, we would be going out and
assessing what that would look like.
>> That's my concern too is I don't I don't
want you to force this down on people.
So,
>> right. that would
>> make sure that's very clear.
>> Yeah, that would it would need to go
through extensive council community
input before a program is implemented. I
mean, if we were ever to do something
like this, I would assume it would have
to be implemented with a very hefty
rebate program that the city is also
investing in to make the cost
>> equity. You're talking about people that
can barely afford to live here. If their
furnace goes out, they all have all of a
sudden.
>> I mean, it's the right thing to do, but
wow.
>> It's a lot of money.
>> Yeah.
Um, and we could put a note in here like
a assessment or study would need to help
look at what kind of complimentary
program to ensure there's not a cost
burden or something like that.
that needs to be included. Okay.
So people are fully aware of what you
simply do
the other thing in mind.
>> Yeah.
>> I I wonder if part of that um helping
people alongside the requirements could
be uh kind of helping people with their
envelope of their house. making sure
that
>> it's as insulated and everything and as
>> efficient as possible so that
>> if we are going to make people
maybe they don't need quite as much to
they don't need to purchase quite as
heavy a you know system.
>> Yep. And hopefully help reduce their
energy bills by weatherizing. Yeah.
Actually yeah that would be that's a
great suggestion to compliment.
>> Okay. Again, the wording seems kind of
squirly on the action. Yeah.
>> I would say something like explore the
feasibility
of a requirement for upgrading heating
and cooling equipment to have
replacement.
>> Yeah.
>> Just it's just that
when I read it first, it's like
it's more like you're you're trying to
implement some sort of timing for
>> Yeah. places.
>> Okay, great. I will work on the
language.
>> Okay.
So, some concerns around this just the
equity piece costs, but it has the
potential to have a pretty direct
emissions reduction.
>> I wonder if there are exemptions for low
income.
>> Yeah.
>> Or certain like um Yeah. Benefit the
most. So they can't afford the electric
bill.
>> Yeah.
>> Or the gas field deliveries.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. If we undertake a study to see
what a program would look like, this
board would have many many touches on
that. So
all right. Um okay. Next one is row 26.
Um actually let me just double check.
some notes from a council member on the
last one. Um,
okay. Uh, number 26 is this idea of dark
sky requirements. So, the board has
touched on this one. We had language
around commercial buildings. In
discussing this um with the council
committee, they were actually interested
in looking more broadly, interested in
looking at street lights, commercial
buildings, um other parts of the code
that could be improved to reduce um
light pollution. Uh I believe I had
shared with you all, we've heard some
concerns from the park board just around
impacts to recreation. PPC was concerned
about costs. Um there's been I have
heard from our planning department. I
need to learn more that there are
challenges even with our current code in
meeting it in the lighting requirements.
Um but there was support from advancing
this from council that we could at least
look across our code and see where we
might be able to um expand requirements.
>> I love this one. you know,
has there been any safety concerns with
this or is this just talking about
turning the lights down so they're not
shooting them?
>> Yeah, it could be that safety has
definitely been brought up by planning
team that came up at the PPC meeting. Um
so, but it could be shielding. It could
be um dimming at certain times,
especially the LED lights which are much
brighter. Um
>> like people walking through parks at
night, right?
>> Yes. Absolutely. Yeah, I think that
would all need to be balanced out. Yeah.
Again, if this is taken up um or
supported and moving forward in the
plan, it's something I'm sure we'd be
talking with this board
about,
right?
Um
uh I'll just flag there's a couple in
the buildings and energy section that we
highlighted in red. There was a lot of
actions around solar. So we tried to
condense them into
of a um offsite solar and uh solar on
physical buildings in our community. Is
that
>> Yeah.
>> in general. So that's we've tried to
just condense four or five actions into
two. We're really trying to accelerate
um adoption of solar and battery storage
I should note um on our buildings in the
city and then one that's also uh looking
at investing in renewable energy where
there aren't opportunities in the
community for solar. And the the
off-site one is is general to renewable
energy recognizing yes
>> wind resource uh regionally
potential other renewable energies as we
discuss
>> just to flag those. We welcome to come
back to those if folks think we missed
anything and trying to reduce them.
Right. Next is 39.
39 uh reduce parking requirements.
Um
this one's had a lot of back and forth.
Um so in part of our kind of big policy,
big impact review,
one of the policies that came up time
and time again across the country is
reducing parking minimums. Um this would
be in multifamily developments with the
idea of build less parking, folks will
use transit. We've discussed this with
TAB, with you all, um, with PPC.
There are some concerns that even if we
reduce parking minimums, developers are
still building plenty of parking because
they need it to feel like they can rent
out um, the spaces. Um, there's some
concern around spillover parking into
neighborhoods, businesses. There's
concern about access to transit. Um so
in discussing this with the council
committee, they were
supportive of us still looking at are
there additional opportunities for us to
either remove parking minimums,
create more parking maximums so
developers can't just build more parking
because they think they need it. and
looking in particular areas of the city
more kind of concentrated in our our
growth centers.
Um so in general the council committee
was interested in pursuing this one and
studying it further to see where there's
opportunities.
Um let me just see any other notes.
Oh, the other thing I'll just note
because our planning department's been
discussing this one with council as
well. There are some state code
requirements that we are around parking
that we're also working to come into
compliance with. So, that would be
considered as we are looking at these
reductions
um in parking requirements. So,
>> those state requirements kind of like a
lower limit on how much we can reduce
parking
>> parking. Yeah. had maximums as well.
Yeah. So, I think states are really
looking at kind of getting rid of a lot
of parking minimums is my understanding
questions here.
Great.
And Sam is on. Oh, and Emma. Great. Um,
Emma is one of our interns from Gibson
X. So, she's been helping us a lot track
all of the comments and incorporate them
into a comment tracker that you'll have
a chance to see.
>> Great. Um, our next one is row 46.
Uh,
this one, um, was another one of the big
policy ideas we brought forward.
um TAB in general uh supported this one.
Uh PPC had a lot of concerns around
costs and then in discussing it with the
council committee, they were supportive
of moving forward. So this one is around
um expanding our requirements for how
much electric charging needs to go into
new multifamily buildings. Um Redmond
uh passed and I believe it started in
July uh implementation is 100% of
parking stalls have to be EV ready. So
everything is set up. You basically just
have to drop a charger in. Um what the
council committee suggested is we look
at
um EV capable or lower. Um, so that
basically there's some wiring, some
conduit put in. Um, but we don't have to
do any kind of electrical panel updates.
There's no charger in place, but the
more expensive work is done while the
building is being built. Um, because it
is a lot cheaper to do it then instead
of after the fact. Um, so they wanted EV
capable or they were saying kind of EV
capable less if there's something kind
of lower than EV capable that we could
require. Um, and then they were
interested in looking at up to 100% of
parking stalls or some of the members
were interested in 100% of um, parking
stalls. So what the language we've tried
to include here, it allows us that
flexibility to look at what's the right
level we would want to require and how
much. I think right now the state
requires 10% of stalls are EV ready. Um
so we'd be looking at something probably
above that but maybe at a less capacity.
>> We talked about this before.
>> We did. Yeah.
I would support the EV capable having
them put the conduit in the ground while
they're pouring the concrete makes
sense. Um, and then they could expand
their EV slots as demand comes around. I
think it's an undue burden on the
developer to have them make everything
EV ready. Those things are expensive.
>> Yeah.
>> So, this would be almost revisiting the
ordinance for those of you that have
been on the board for a long time. I
think it was one of the first things you
all did um
>> where this board kind of approved the
ordinance that would go above the state
requirements. The state jumped ahead of
us and now this would be maybe looking
to go above where the state is now. So
>> has it already been suggested to exempt
uh EV ready parking spots from parking
maximums? Mhm.
>> Oh,
>> I don't know if the if that pencil's
out.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, that was um one
thought one of the council members had
was if we're reducing the amount of
parking, it will be less expensive for
them to be build the EV capable.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I guess parking maximums probably
aren't so low that you didn't matter,
but
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um or yeah, any other kind
of
Okay. Any questions on this one? I'd
just be concerned about safety, you
know, with multif family units with
children around and high power charging
everywhere. Just pretty scary,
>> especially as it wears out.
>> It is a fire hazard.
>> That that just has nothing to do with
this. Just
>> Okay. But yeah, that
>> Yeah, just to consider.
>> It's great when it's brand new, but it's
10 years old. the virus start
deteriorating.
>> Yeah.
>> I did have a friend whose his house
caught on fire with
>> charge it.
>> Yeah.
>> Really? How old was she?
>> It was new.
>> All right. Um Sam, give us a little bit
of time and if we don't move on to your
section, then we'll take a break of
where we are and come back. We're just
trying to get
>> All right. And our next one is our
really fun exciting one. Um
okay. Well, let me talk a little bit
about this one. So this is as you all
are very well aware at this point um our
current target under natural systems and
water resources is around 55% tree
canopy by 2035.
Um we've discussed at a couple meetings
uh that one and I'll talk a little bit
in a minute about one of the that
proposed change. The other ones that we
discussed at the last meeting was adding
in an additional target that's looking
at a tree equity score to really look at
that tree distribution across the city.
Um and then a third target that would
look at water um water use reduction.
Our water manager is on uh leave right
now, so we'll be talking with her as
soon as she's back to come up with a
right um percentage that would make
sense there. What's the nexus between
the water reduction and the trees?
>> Good question. So, we have when this uh
focus area was built in 2021,
um the only target was around the tree
canopy, but there are this area or this
focus area touches way more than trees.
Um there's a lot on water conservation
um le other so we are trying to bring in
a target that really looks at um
uh a lot of those other actions
recognizing the benefit from um reduced
energy use by reducing our water use and
then also just as a resilience standard
as we look at drier warmer summers. So,
all right, let's talk about tree canopy.
Um, so staff have gone back and forth on
this one a lot and unfortunately Dan um
is traveling tonight or else he would be
here to join us. Um, we landed on a
proposal of moving to a no net loss. Um,
and what we put in here was 2023
um, a baseline of 2023. But what we want
to caveat that with is
a a moving baseline. So for example, if
next year Green Isakqua goes out and
plants 50 acres, our baseline would
increase. So it wouldn't mean if the
city went out and acquired land or did a
major planting in one area that we would
reduce canopy in another area. So we'd
have this kind of known net loss target
with a shifting baseline that's only
increasing. That makes sense. Um, part
of the reason for this proposal that
we've discussed with you all is that um
the 20 the current target of 55% tree
canopy um we know we can't meet. There
is not enough land in the city um that
can be planted today and have that
canopy mature in the next nine years.
Um,
we Dan has a lot of information on what
is plantable. Um, how long it will take
for some of that material to happen. Um,
we think maybe 50 acres is plantable
over the next 9 years. Um, but again,
it'll take some time for those trees to
come to maturity.
Um, there's been interest from
the park board. Um, and I think we've
heard from you all as well about looking
at more the health of trees. That's
something we could capture, but we felt
like having a target um that's much more
quantitative might be better for this
focus area.
Um,
I did want to share Ann Newcome sent a
few thoughts since she couldn't be here
tonight. Um, one of her suggestions was
maybe just reducing the percent. So
instead of having 55% maybe put it at
something that we think uh is still a
stretch but we could achieve like a 53%
um by 2035
um and then maybe a higher percentage by
2050.
Um
the other thing I wanted to share
is that there's a lot of work that um
Dan is doing on kind of creative
solutions particularly working with the
state park on where we might be able to
get some really big benefit um in a
short amount of time um in terms of
putting new trees in but again it's
going to take many years for those trees
to mature and and develop the canopy.
Um so that is kind of a quick summary.
Anything else you want to share from our
conversations?
And I I think the only other thing that
I'd add is right no net loss part of the
of the theory of the work there is as
development continues in Isiqua as you
know for any bomb cyclone type events
that cause trees to come down right we
the the goal as set would be to make
sure that we're um maintaining the tree
level we have despite kind of that
development as it's occurring instead of
necessarily just letting that tree loss
occur without action from the city
>> planting trees to hedge our bets and
make sure we've got that buffer that
>> so when trees fall down you'd replace
them
>> replacing them before they fall down
right
>> I think right I think it would you know
there'd be multiple ways that the city
would do this but it would be working to
plant trees now in anticipation of
future trees down and storms and other
things um but then also working with the
tree code to make sure that you know as
tree trees come out planting news trees
also occurs um to try and maintain that
tree canopy cover based on the 2023
baseline.
>> Yes. Great.
I think it's important to me to just um
make sure that we all uh keep in mind
that no net loss should mean that we're
being proactive about
>> u about any potential loss including you
know one in a 100redyear storms that
come every five years.
>> Well, I guess that's the problem I have
with that. No net loss language. It it
implies the status quo is good enough.
Um, and so I'm not comfortable with that
language.
It's got to it's got to uh so an
suggestion of well let's let's go to a
different target that at least there's a
big philosophical difference between
saying no that loss and say well yes we
recognize we want to get better
incrementally better that will drive
then policy to try to get us to a better
uh state whereas if we just say no at
loss well hooray we don't have to do
anything the hooray we don't have to do
anything is not the Right. Conclusion.
So some wording that that doesn't allow
us to say we don't have to do anything.
>> I agree with that because in the city no
net loss is really
>> ended up in single losses historically
and so I'm really uncomfortable with
that terminology. I think as a property
wants to develop it means something to
them as well.
>> So I think if we set a goal of something
to achieve more than what we have today.
>> At least we have something to measure.
Instead, we're just saying we're good.
We're all good on trees, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Everything's good.
>> Yeah. I'm in the same camp.
I wanted that 55% before, but
>> yeah.
>> Happy to let that go down to 53, 52,
wherever that right number is. Just have
something to strive for.
>> Sure. Yeah. And Dan shared between
Samish Cove where there's some open
space like Sam State Park, there's
probably 125 acres of plantable space
that could don't currently have tree
canopy. Um, so that would be around
1.7%, but he said he doesn't think that
could be achieved by 2035, but that's
kind of in the horizon. So,
>> did he ever look at I suggested at one
meeting that he looked at properties
that are about to be robbed by various
property? That is an action I want to
discuss.
>> I think that's a huge opportunity that
you know you have trees that are about
to be cut and if we somehow acquire
those trees and don't get them to get
cut, that's a huge gain. And if you say
no net loss, there's no reason to try
and partner with people that are going
to go into a logging operation. It may
not be in the city specifically, but if
we can just like we've done with land,
if we can achieve that in some other
way, that creativity is all gone down if
no net loss is what we're trying to look
at. That's why
>> we'll talk about DNR
whatever
>> not much private timber left,
>> right?
>> I'm not saying just in I mean you could
look within
basin or something like that outside of
the city. I agree with you on that one.
But, you know, there are people that are
wanting develop their land.
>> Yeah.
>> And if you can get them to even say 50%
of their trees, maybe they'll take some
of them down, but you can acquire some
of those trees and use those as some of
the benefits to this community with some
asurances. It's it's moving the target
and thinking creativity. That's where
I'm at.
>> Yeah,
>> I have that one to talk about because
that was an action you all recommended.
Um, so that'll be great.
>> And and I I I really agree with, you
know, trying to mitigate timber
extraction, stuff like that, too. And I
I
>> want trees in the city. I just I worry
that if we uh kind of fixate on no net
loss or a certain number um too much. I
just worry that we that trees aren't the
only kind of habitat, you know, and um
meadows, wetlands, uh flood plains often
can't have trees or or have a lot less
trees than a
>> densely planted forest. So, I just would
want to make sure that if the if there
was a need for that kind of habitat for
existing habitat like that that we don't
say, oh, you know, I think Samish Cove
is all re canary grass right now, so
maybe that could just get planted. But
if that, you know, maybe that could also
be a functional wetland. Um, I'd hate
to, you know, just try to turn it into
more trees for or a figure that the city
needs to hit for this.
>> Where do you want to go with this one?
Um, do you want to recommend a
percentage and we could capture that
concern and comment that would that
would need to be considered that some of
these places that might be prime for
tree canopy should also be considered
for other habitat benefits.
>> Nuance there would be good.
>> I have three of us that want at least
some sort of percentage.
>> And we were pretty divided last time.
Um, park board didn't necessarily weigh
on heavy. they kind of wanted to go more
of the qualitative route, tree health.
So, I didn't get a lot of specific
feedback on this one, but
>> yeah,
>> just
compensated. If I look at that then from
a community perspective, that means to
me we've already got there and we're
good to go,
>> right?
>> I don't think people think about, oh,
well, the trees are going to fall. We
got to think about replacing them. And I
think like Stacy said, as long as that
nuance is captured in a meaningful way
that guy's policy and implementation, um
I think and the number is honestly more
of a public facing kind of figure. Um I
don't I don't
>> Yeah, if you have a target, which is a
stress stretch goal, then you can have
programs for the community, true
giveaway programs, that will be you'll
have a reason to do them. If you have a
no net boss and you don't need to give
away trees.
>> I think we can capture that comment in
kind of a description of the section.
>> Do you all do you want to stay at 55%.
Do you want to
>> we're at around 51% although we haven't
had a tree canopy analysis since before
the bomb site bomb. Um and the current
target is 55%. And the the most recent
um evaluation was just completed. So
2023 just was done. So there is a a
pretty hefty lag between when we get
this
>> about every three years.
I
>> think we should go with Ann's
recommendation which was 53%. I mean
it's halfway between where we are today
and what we propose. I mean that's just
I'm open by the way.
She said some kind I think she said the
>> some kind of percent like a 1% or 2%. So
whatever you will
>> we're completely open. I think we'll
provide your feedback to council. This
is when they can
>> 53 52 54
>> 53
>> Okay.
>> Okay. So, we're gonna go with
>> um
53%
canopy by 20% coverage. We could get rid
of our air conditioners.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Again.
>> That's true. Yes.
>> Okay. Excellent.
Okay. Um, let me see.
One second. Let me see how many I have
to go through. I think it's just two or
three. And then I'll turn to
you all. Yes. Bam. Can you bear with us?
Couple more minutes.
>> Okay.
>> Yes. Sorry, I'm in the background
hammering. So, I'm here on the spot. Um,
yeah. Let us just go through three more
and then um we will open it up and maybe
first start with materials. Any
materials um question.
All right. So, row 63
um this is one we've uh shared with you
all before. It originally was going to
be in a resilience section. We decided
to pull it back into natural systems
because it was it the only one. Um, so I
wanted to raise this one with you all
cuz when I talked with the park board,
they weren't sure really what the call
to action or the type of programming
that would come out of this. So this one
is around trying um to bring in more
actions and language around habitat and
wildlife to better connect the IAP to
the comprehensive plan. Um, so here we
talk about programs that enhance our
different habitats.
um outreach and education that support
wildlife and really help wildlife and
habitats um prepare for a changing
climate. So these could be everything
from our um uh coexisting with
carnivores programs. It might be
different habitat acquisitions
um even some of the greenest programs or
invasive species removal
um or things that we haven't developed
yet that come up. So, wanted to see if
there was any feedback from you all on
how to uh to add any more specificity in
here or if there's specific programming
that you would want to see called out in
this action
or if you like it kind of general
63.
>> I like it general.
This is right down here.
>> Yeah. No, I mean I think we're doing a
good job. Like they, you know, John
mentioned partnering with Green Isiqua
is big in this and um feel like seen a
little bit around like ecoourism in
Isiqua too that I think
I feel like we could do more with. I
don't know.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. partnerships with wildlife camera.
There's been a lot of that happening.
>> Okay, great. We will leave it general.
Um, next one I wanted to flag because
this was proposed by you all last time
we talked. It's the one um Nancy just
brought up. Um, this is pursu we worded
it in a way of pursuing kind of
innovative land acquisitions that would
increase tree canopy. um the idea that
was brought up by maybe reaching out to
DNR or if there's other potential timber
sales that the city might be able to
acquire to improve our tree canopy. Um
the one thing I just wanted to note that
a council member shared with is the city
would need to be very careful about this
especially uh if working with a state
agency that may have their own mandates
for timber sales. Um,
uh, council member felt like it might be
better for some of our nonprofits to
pursue this like trust for public land,
escal club, or even the county because a
lot of these properties u may be
neighboring on county. Um, there could
be time limitations for a purchase like
this. If there's an easement attached to
it, some may not be a long-term strategy
for increasing our tree canopy. Um, and
there may be some discomfort from
councils including this. That doesn't
mean we couldn't. I just wanted to share
that feedback in case we want to revise
or adjust this one. Um, but if the board
wants to see this one move forward,
happy to advocate for that.
>> I think it's an opportunity. I mean, I
think it's a way to get there. I don't
know if we need to always It could be
easements. It doesn't have to be
acquisition. It could be an easement, a
tree protection, something maybe not the
full parcel of land, but you know,
selective thinning or selective
harvesting. Um, you know, that's why I
wouldn't necessarily call it just an
acquisition, but some kind of easement
or protection of trees on a parcel of
property that's planned for development
or harvest. You know, the thought is go
talk to them and see if there's any
opportunity to do something,
>> get some trees saved. That's my thoughts
on it.
>> Oh, sorry. Go ahead.
>> Well, so for example, um, adjacent to my
property, there's a 5 acre parcel that
used to be owned by the Whiters, the
former owners of the nursing home.
and um they had some notions about maybe
building a little some retirement
cottages in there or something someday,
but then they got over and and decided
uh they didn't want to act on that and
their kids didn't want to do it. So,
they deeded that property to the city
under terms of a conservation
um thing. So it's it's it's not a
publicly accessible park, but it is a
natural space and it will continue in
that role. So that's
not a common story, but I think maybe
the city could make that sort of
opportunity or possibility more known to
the population.
It might it might you know occasionally
get
someone thinking about that who
otherwise would not be thinking about
these kinds of things do happen. Other
organizations nature conservancy etc
does this sort of thing on a national
scale. uh the city doesn't think in
those terms and maybe they need to think
like a nonprofit uh
a conservation man
could result in something. But if you
think about it, if these people he was
referring to chose to develop their
property, a lot of trees could have come
down.
>> And so they have now put those into
long-term canopy. And that's kind of
what this is trying to do
>> five acres.
>> Yeah.
So, in con uh conversation between Isqua
and uh
the folks that do the I90 land,
>> the Mountain Sound Greenway to Sound.
>> Uh Dan used to work for Mountains to
Sound, but I don't know. Yeah, I'm not
sure kind of what those conversations
are around land acquisitions. Are you
thinking specifically along?
>> Yeah, I'm not sure.
I personally think this is maybe a
little rewarding of this would be a
great opportunity to help us meet our
can of people. I understand countless
concerns, but I think we're trying to
get some creativity.
>> Yeah.
>> Here. Okay. I also like what you said
about the selective harvesting, you
know, whether it's development or timber
sales. If there's a way we can get into
those talks about uh what's the upper
limited diameter for leading trees or or
you know, development say just having
our you know having Dan go look and see
if there's any trees that um we want to
save or something like that. I don't
know.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. If you all have specific wording
suggestions, please feel free to send
those to us. Otherwise, we'll come back
with something on April 22nd.
>> Just add one quick thing.
>> Yeah, please.
>> Pursue integrative land acquisitions and
agreements.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Agreements are better. Yeah.
>> Great. And we'll add in some language
here around those different opt
opportunities.
All right. Uh, one more I wanted to flag
and then we'll open it up for um board
members and maybe start a new thing
while we have Sam her expertise. Um,
this one uh is row 69. It is our new
targets for community resilience and
well-being. We have touched on these um
when Jared came to the board meeting. We
reworked them a little bit. I know there
wasn't um full satisfaction by the board
around these, but what we're trying to
get at is um quantitative targets where
we know we have opportunities to get
input from the community both on how
they think the city is doing in terms of
um emergency response. And then what we
did add in after our last conversation
was how community members personally
feel um around their ability to prepare
for an emergency. Um and that would be
most likely measured through our um city
survey that we do. We can add in a
question around that. Um
uh so these would be new targets that we
do feel like are measurable. We don't
feel like the current target um that we
have in the climate plan is measurable.
Um
and at our last meeting when we
discussed these the board wanted
something around personal
responsibility. um uh around emergency
preparedness. So that's why we added in
that second target.
>> You done any surveys to see where you
currently sit?
>> Yes. So the first one is in our bianial
um survey and I think you're at 78%
or something um for how the city is
responding. Um but we have not this
would the second one around how folks
personally feel would be a new question
we'd be asking the community.
I
>> think the goal was to try and select at
least for 85 select a number that was
ambitious but achievable. Um just
recognizing especially for that one it's
going to be very difficult to get to%.
>> Yes.
>> I don't think you're going to get 100%.
Yeah,
>> but that would be a really important
goal to meet that everyone in the
community feels like they have the
resources they need. So,
>> and not to throw more unnecessary
metrics, too, but I'm sure it'd be easy
enough to pull how many community
members have been through music
training.
>> Yep.
>> Um or even how many members of the
community have ham radio licens.
>> Absolutely. Yeah, we discussed the cert
numbers. Um, we have all that
information. I think that would be
reported out um in some ways here, but
we didn't feel like that really captured
in general, but I I think it's really
it's great information to have um
um so I think we'd be reporting out on
that in some ways or in some other
areas. So,
um Okay, great. We wanted to just
deflate that because we revised that
since the last meeting. Um, I was not
planning to discuss any of the actions
because we talked through them with
Jared. Um, basically we're in this
section trying to get a flow of prepare,
respond, recover. Um, so that's kind of
the flow of the actions here, but happy
to discuss any of those um in a few
minutes.
So, thank you for all the feedback. We
will incorporate that um into the plan.
And what we want to do now is just open
it up for you all to flag any actions
with targets. Um we have Sam here. So I
wanted to maybe talk first about if
there's any materials in consumption um
either the target or any of the actions
that folks would like to flag for
discussion.
starts.
>> Sorry. It starts at row 49.
>> Sam, just making sure you're on.
>> Are you available?
>> Yay. Thank you.
>> All right, we'll see if there are any
questions.
Been I think since December maybe we
talked about these. So, it's been a
little little while.
Uh, I have a question on construction
debris, construction waste. What is the
current requirement for recycling of
construction waste?
Bill 52
bill.
>> Um, can someone repeat that? It was kind
of hard to hear. Yeah. Could you speak
to um we have the action up on the
screen if you can see that but any
current requirements around construction
waste and how that is managed and kind
of what's envisioned for what we would
do under this action.
>> Yeah. So right now um and I could pull
up the ordinance but I'll try to do it
from memory. Um it's a certain size of
projects are required to divert a
certain percentage of waste. I think
that is 70%.
Um, and this has been in code for a
while, but it's not something that's
actively tracked or truly enforced. And
so our goal with this is to figure out
how the process is currently working to
figure out how do we create mechanisms
and processes for the planning
department and for our building
inspectors to make sure that we're
actually validating this data,
collecting this data, reporting this
data. Um and then thinking about are
there
specific software systems that would be
useful to then um sort of report on
this. Our current vision is to probably
replicate to a certain degree the
ordinance that Redmond put into place
last year and has been implemented I
think since July. and they have this
really great website that I can send out
um where they're tracking that data to
understand how much is being diverted.
Um
and so this workstream is actually
probably getting kicked off this week.
We have a consultant in place that
helped work on that Redmond ordinance
and is really familiar with all of like
the stakeholder engagement that went
into that. And then as well, King County
has been doing a lot more work on making
sure that the firms that are supposed to
recycle construction um and demolition
materials are actually recycling that.
And so that will be a really big uh win
as well. Um and then we're also thinking
about
deconstruction. And so instead of just
sending it this to the landfill or to be
recycled, how do we reuse um the
materials that are being like that are
coming from uh demolition, but that is
more deconstruction? But it's very early
days. And so this is mostly about
expanding this ordinance and then making
sure that we're actually enforcing it
and we're gathering that data.
I don't understand why it would be
difficult to enforce it for a new
construction of a house for example
because that's something that's being
monitored on a regular basis for all
kinds of code enforcement issues. That
seems like the easiest case of
monitoring and verifying
and enforcing.
So, the reason why this comes to mind is
on my lane, the house is under
construction at the present time. And
they have a a 20 yard dumpster out front
that they filled up and hauled away four
or five times during the course of
building. And okay, some of the stuff is
legitimately suited for landfill, but a
lot of it was very recyclable. I asked
the contractor about it. He said uh as
far as he knew that none of it was
recycled because it cost too much to
separate it out. Uh but he wasn't 100%
sure, but that was his opinion it wasn't
being recycled. That just seemed like uh
I I was just surprised that we don't
have some rules about that. Sounds like
we do have rules, but it's not enforced.
I'd say we ought to enforce them.
>> Yep, that is the goal to start enforcing
them. um it's just a code that was in
place and now that we actually have
staff we can make sure that the
processes are in place and then that
again we're capturing that data. We're
enforcing it. We have people that
understand what's expected of them. So
yeah, that's what this is about is
making sure that this is enforced and
more institutionalized.
>> This is Jonathan. I'd like to um see
some sort of ordinance that would um
eliminate or um plastic signage that's
used for um elections and and uh u
advertising for businesses and such that
are placed around town. um even by u you
know what I'm talking about are the
plastic signs with the metal
>> if they could be replaced with cardboard
signs with wooden stakes um that's what
it was how they were done in in the
olden days and those are much more
biodegradable
>> I would love to see that that these
plastic election signs just go away they
they're used for a very short period of
time and Um, we need to find a better
way to do it. And it'd be really cool to
see a squab take a stand on that in in
the future and it might get some good PR
for the rest of the region.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Stacy has brought this up to
me and I think we're trying to bucket
under this single-use plastic ban. Um,
it's not the alternative is not
something I'm super familiar with, but I
think that we could definitely assess
what that would look like and what the
alternatives are. I'm with you. I think
that they are very wasteful.
>> So, there might actually be code now
related to signage. I I remember talking
to the mayor one time about putting up
some no litter signs and um they do have
quite a bit of regulation around signage
and um get added to that to that area of
the code.
Um looking the current action we have is
row 58 and like Sam said we we are
already looking at a single used plastic
ban. That's something she's exploring
with businesses. Um right now this
action calls out businesses and I noted
in our comments that this could also
look at the signage but that doesn't
really fit in with the
>> now that I have the businesses language
there. So, I'm wondering if we want to
reduce or excuse me, remove
um businesses and make this a little
more general. So,
>> I mean, we can have a general and
related directly to, you know, the work
that the city does. You know, we elect
people. We have these these com boards
of commissions and we have, you know,
the school districts trying to get funds
and, you know, but they're all using
these plastic signs that are just going
in the dump. You know, it's kind of
gross. kind of association.
>> Yeah. Friends of Lake Samish. Um
>> the uh
um
>> Yeah.
>> Is that because they're cheaper to
produce?
>> I've already I've already tracked this
down. The companies that make signs
don't even offer offer an alternative
anymore.
But we um it's it's pretty lowhanging
fruit in my opinion.
>> Still get the card for sites.
>> No, that's my point. You can't
>> can't
>> you It's hard to get them. You have to
>> business.
>> Yeah.
>> Yep.
Um
so let's see. So we have this action. We
could broaden it. Um I'm hearing also
>> we can make a specific one related to
elections, you know. Okay.
Uh, that would be
>> or anything.
>> You probably purchased a bunch of these.
>> I did.
>> Do you still have them?
>> Okay.
>> Trash.
>> Base in point.
>> Some of them you can recycle. They're
made out of like the um milk carton.
Same thing that milk cartons are made
out of. So, um, so I'll just add a note
here. Looking at
>> that's making recyclable. Yeah,
>> you need to go down to the
ecology.
>> Take the tour.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Plastics.
The things that we think are recyclable
are most often
>> they can't can't give it away.
>> We'll look at that one. Other um Oh,
sorry. Go ahead, Sam. Yeah, before I
move on, um
sort of advocate against removing this
for ISTAqua businesses just because it
would be very hard to that's just very
large um is businesses. That's probably
the easiest sector for us to
not attack is a really aggressive word,
but like that is a little bit more
systemically feasible to do versus like
private citizens. Um, I do think
something about the city code and
littering, like sort of bucketing the
yard sides with that, I think that makes
more sense. But I do think having
businesses not provide single-use
plastics would be an easier and more
attainable way to reduce plastic
pollution and it would be a lot easier
to track that data.
>> Okay, that's great. I mean, we can add
multiple components to the action. So
maybe we come up with a second aspect of
it that um looks at those other
classics.
>> Yeah, thanks Sam for jumping in on that.
>> Yeah.
>> Any other actions around materials and
consumption? Um, we do have a lot of new
ones in here, but um, again, we did
touch base on these back in December,
but while Pam was gracious to give us
part of our suggest, there any others we
wanted to discuss. That's good.
Okay, we're good. Sam, I think we'll
follow up with any questions. Thanks for
joining us tonight.
>> Thank you for having me.
>> Yeah.
>> Have a good night, you guys. Bye.
>> All right. Um we'll uh feel free to
stand up and stretch, too. We didn't
really take a break. Um it's 7:45
and we'll
plan to spend another 45 minutes if
needed, but um that's to stretch or grab
a cookie too if you need to while we're
talking. Um are there other actions or
targets that folks want to raise for
discussion?
Um, number three, speaking to Clan's
comment,
um, add something that speaks to
emphasis on social media campaigns from
time to time.
>> Uh, so this is row three, conduct public
engagement activities. Um,
great. Yeah, this one we were leaving
kind of broad to allow us to be flexible
over time, kind of implement best
practices.
Um,
>> if you call it straight out, then your
PIO's on click to help you with it.
>> Okay. So, um,
>> we should also add to that individual
action which they can do themselves.
>> Then connection with the community,
increased opportunities for involvement
and
>> individual action. identifying
individual
>> um as a clarification. So this that's
the action in the overarching section.
There is an education action in every
single focus area related to that
focus area. Would that be something
you'd specifically like to see in this
action or something could be
incorporated within those education
actions throughout the focus areas? I
leave that up to you.
>> I do I think calling out some of that in
the overarching one that
>> yeah out. But yeah, we'll take a look at
those other actions if we want to
specify.
Um okay, I captured some of that
language there. We will smmith it.
Great. Thank you for that.
Other feel free to jump in other targets
or actions to discuss.
>> Any others? I think they look pretty
good. Done a good job with it.
>> Anything anything missing? I mean, this
it's a lot. Our original goal was to cut
back on the number of actions and kind
of focus a little bit more. That's not
the case. I think we're going to end up
with the same or maybe even more
actions. Um, but do you all feel like
anything's
missing?
>> I think you guys really constantly I
think you did it in the first one which
was
>> Who was here when we did the first one?
Me.
>> Tom,
>> I come a long way. I think we've learned
a lot along the way and I think I
applaud you guys for your efforts. You
guys have done a good job. I propose we
have a sustainability fair.
>> Yes.
>> Well, let me tell you.
>> Yeah. I think you volunteered to work at
the booth, right?
>> Yes, I did.
>> Yeah. And
>> I was excited to see on one of your
slides,
David, the miles of bicycle lights.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes.
>> Right. Yes. I think that's a I think
that's a key a very measurable thing and
um
>> and it's something that we could do.
>> Yes.
>> We had the will to do it, we could do it
>> and we need to do better.
>> I uh I wanted to ask about row five
>> uh just about regional partnerships
here. I'm wondering
if if it isn't captured elsewhere, does
do we want that to also mention uh that
national partnerships or or think a
little bigger in terms of uh I think
there's been like climate marches and
things that
>> I don't know if there's kind of green
city uh associations or things like that
that we plug into or want to, but um
>> yeah,
>> wonder if we could broaden that a little
bit to include stuff we don't want to
miss out on on the bigger scale.
>> Yeah. No, that's true. We are part of
some national networks. So um
yeah
and networks will wordsmith that um yes
I think that's a great thing. Those are
that's who we turn to when we have a lot
of questions and do advocacy and learn
about what's happening around the
country. So that's great.
Great.
>> Sorry to jump back. I agree with
everything else.
>> No no no. Yeah. No, I want to give some
time for folks to to
>> digest.
Very like an end of meeting kind of
vibes. I didn't want
>> We have a few more things to discuss.
So, yeah, please any
>> we have any other comments? We don't
>> feel free to send them to us and we'll
um Emma's been really helping us with a
comment tracker. It was not ready to
bring today. We have a little work to
clean it up, but um we are capturing all
the public input, all of your input, all
the other boards and commission input in
that. Um so if there are other comments
that come in from board members before
our April meeting, that'll show up in
the comment tracker and we'll share that
as part of the meeting packet.
Well, great. So our next steps are to
take all the great feedback tonight. We
will be incorporating that into the
draft plan. We have a lot of sections of
the plan to still build, including the
whole implementation section, but we
wanted to make sure we knew had a good
sense of the targets and actions moving
forward. We will be building all of that
out before our meeting on April 22nd and
then sharing a draft plan with you all
at that meeting. Um we will also as part
of that you'll see a implementation plan
um a comment tracker and there's one
other oh the metrics component will be
built into it
>> uh and
we just discussed have an updated action
sheet.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
Right.
Thank you. Um I had a few other items.
Um so one item is just around
scheduling. We do have that special
meeting at the end of April to go
through the full plan. Um we learned
that
>> um that one is the 22nd I think our
regular meeting 6:30.
Um and we might actually be back in this
room. I'll double check. um for our
regular April meeting. Several of the
items that were teed up for that meeting
are not yet ready. Um there is one
urgent item that needs to come to the
board before the end of April. That's
the transportation um the tip the
transportation
um and so staff are proposing April 15th
to have that discussion. That's a
Wednesday. It is during spring break.
Um, I am here. I think Pra would maybe
be the only one with a conflict. So, I
could check with her.
>> Um, I can send out a note to the board
and see who would be available and then
we could get you materials early to send
in your comments on that. Um, so I'll
check and see if we can get forum.
Um,
>> then would you cancel the first meeting?
>> Then we would cancel the Yeah. So the
eighth was going to be tip and then some
waste topics. Um Sam needs some more
time for those topics, some of the
ordinances she was talking about
tonight. So those will come probably
later in the summer.
>> You're still going to keep that 22nd.
>> We Yes, that's our plan is to go through
the whole IAP. That would be your look.
>> Two weeks in a row.
>> So it would be two weeks in a row, but
we wouldn't have the meeting on the 8th
>> birthday. It is Earth. We can celebrate,
too. Um Okay. I'll check with the board
and just see who's available on the
15th. Um I'm guessing that'll be a short
meeting because it would just be tip.
Um and then the other logistic, we sent
out an invitation for a ribbon cutting
ceremony for the Pickory Barn Solar. If
you have not driven by the barn lately,
go drive by. It looks amazing. Um I
wanted to see if folks are planning to
attend that. So, we need to know if we
should post it in the special meeting.
It's in the middle of the workday.
Recognize not convenient for a lot of
folks, but if the clerk suggested if we
do think we'll have quum, probably post
it. It's 2 o'clock on Tuesday, April
7th.
>> I'm going to be out of town.
>> Okay. All right. I'm guessing
>> I hope to come.
>> Okay.
>> But I'm having a colonoscopy in the
morning.
>> Okay. Hopefully you'll be on your couch.
>> There's another solar project coming up
if you need to get a different ribbon
cutting.
>> Yeah, we'll have many more this year
hopefully. So hopefully you can be
resting on your couch. Um but we would
love to have folks there recognize it is
the middle of the day. Um so we will
probably not end up posting as a special
meeting. So, um, and I think that was
the only logistics and then I wanted to
hand it over to Nancy and Don if you're
interested to just share briefly. Um, we
had a meeting with our parks director
and planning director um, and Connie
joined as well before the meeting
tonight to talk about um, the situation
that evolved with the dog park and how
the city addresses streams and ditches.
And Nancy, if you want to share a little
bit of the conversation.
>> Well, I'm the one that's kind of pursued
this besides Connie because it's clear
to me that I'll just give a little
background for those of you that don't
recall. Um,
apparently
at one time over here at the dog park
right next to community center, that
little water course that goes down
through there that comes from wetland
was identified by the scolded stream.
And in the course of looking at
permitting for the dog park, it was
identified as a ditch. And the way it
came to about to be a ditch was by
looking at maps from when the railroad
went through here back in the 1800s,
which I thought was kind of strange that
we had to go back to those kind of maps
to figure out if it was a stream or a
ditch. So we the primary conversation
focused on what is our definitions in
the title 18 which is land use code of
what is a stream and what is a ditch and
so um we had a
interesting conversation looking at
Bely's code the states code you know
kind of looking at other things and it's
not clear how that means but it appears
that Um
the planning
department has a specific agenda. So
they're not really don't have the
capacity to take this on in a large way
in 2026, but have said that they
recognize that there might be a
challenge in the future and are
considering teing it up for 27. There
are a couple of tweaks to the code that
we suggested which are kind of word
smithing and adding a column comma
referring ditches to streams and streams
to ditches so that you look at both of
them when you're deciding if it's a
stream or a ditch. You make sure you're
looking at both sides of it which I
think will improve things may not solve
all the problems. Um, the other thing
that came out of the meeting was a
conversation about it really would be
helpful if we had our GIS maps identify
our water courses as what they are.
someone makes a determination if it's a
stream or a ditch or what it is so that
everybody's on the same song sheet
particularly since a lot of that's
identified like when the bypass was in
the conversation that EIS identified
streams and other things that haven't
all been captured on the maps that we
have today. So I think there's a
conversation happening publicly as well.
So personally it was an interesting
conversation but I think it was an
informative conversation and I think um
there hopefully things will get improved
as a result of having that meeting. So
thank you very much for setting that up
and I'd asked Don if he had anything
more to add to that.
>> Um I thought it was a great conversation
and it was interesting to get the city's
perspective on how they classify streams
versus ditches and I thought it was
fairly accurate. Um afterwards Nancy
went shook to I hadn't seen it yet and
my my first thought was well why is this
not a stream close you're round it's as
a designated channel what am I missing
but I didn't have that
>> that's how we all feel about it by the
way
>> so I think they have some work to do I
understand why they did what they did
>> and so my our goal is so that this
may
the opportunities for this happening in
the future will be reduced. How's that?
It may happen again, but the
opportunities for this
will be.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah.
>> So, maybe we'll see it again.
>> Yeah. Thanks for sharing. We wanted to
um just circle back on that since
there's been several comments that
Connie in particular has forwarded on to
the board about the situation. So, just
to know those conversations are going
great. Think anything else? Okay,
>> great. Well, thank you. We will possibly
see you all on the 5th 7th or the 15th.
Um, we will definitely see you on the
22nd.
>> Let us know what the 22nd is.
>> And the sustainability
didn't work out for us. my daughter
>> which we did have board members
interested.