City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, March 17, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Planning, Development & Environment Committee Meeting, February 3, 2026

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 1:05 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 02-03-26 City Council Planning, Development & Page (01) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. February 3, 2026 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Issaquah Climate Action Plan Proposed Policies & Actions COM 0251

60 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.7–36

Topics: Climate

Previously discussed: Transportation Advisory Board · Feb 25, 2026 Planning Policy Commission · Feb 26, 2026

▶ Watch from 1:02 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Issaquah Climate Action Plan (ICAP) was adopted in December of 2021 following extensive community engagement to set priorities for bold and ambitious emissions reduction and to prepare the Issaquah community for the impacts of climate change. Since adoption, staff have implemented the ICAP through City initiatives, partnerships with neighboring cities, and engagement with businesses and the community. The ICAP is due for a five year update in 2026. To support refinement of actions, targets and implementation approach, staff worked through a series of committee meetings with subject matter experts, review of plans recently updated in neighboring communities, and board/commission review. Staff also engaged the community through a Town Hall event in October 2025 and a student-led, student-focused survey in January 2026.

Pathway and Timeline for Climate Action Plan Adoption COM 0257

15 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.37–50

Topics: Climate

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 6, 2021

▶ Watch from 1:05 Open packet at p.37 ↗

Staff report:

The City Council adopted the Climate Action Plan (ICAP) on December 6, 2021. The ICAP identifies ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing our community for the impacts of climate change. The ICAP was developed in partnership with the community to pursue actions to transition to clean energy sources, diversify transportation options, reduce waste, ensure our natural environment thrives, and build resilience to the impacts of climate change. The ICAP also centers equity, accessibility and affordability in ICAP actions. The development of the ICAP and targets were completed to align the City of Issaquah climate goals with the State, County, and regional partner jurisdictions.

2024 segments .txt ↗

0:09 ↗ Okay, welcome everyone. I, Council

0:12 ↗ Member Walsh, call the March 17, 2026

0:16 ↗ City Council Planning, Development, and

0:18 ↗ Environment Committee to order. I am

0:21 ↗ joined by Deputy Council President Jen

0:24 ↗ and Council Member Nichols. Uh, the

0:27 ↗ first item on our agenda is public

0:29 ↗ comment. Um, and I will note we have no

0:33 ↗ one in person. Um, clerk, do we have

0:36 ↗ anyone online?

0:43 ↗ Are we good on our video?

0:45 ↗ Yeah. Is there anybody online? No. Okay.

0:48 ↗ Well, um, I will always note you can

0:50 ↗ email city council isquawwah.gov

0:53 ↗ and reach us at any time. And if there

0:56 ↗ is anybody who shows up, please let me

0:58 ↗ know because there will be public

1:00 ↗ comment opportunities after each of our

1:02 ↗ agenda items. The next item of business

1:05 ↗ is approval of the minutes. Uh the

1:08 ↗ minutes were distributed to the

1:09 ↗ committee in advance. Are there any

1:10 ↗ corrections?

1:12 ↗ Seeing none, the minutes are approved as

1:16 ↗ pre um presented.

1:18 ↗ So we've got two agenda items tonight.

1:22 ↗ uh both done by Stacy Vin McKinstry

1:26 ↗ um our sustainability manager. The first

1:28 ↗ is COMM 0251, the Isqua climate action

1:31 ↗ plan proposed policies and updates

1:34 ↗ followed by COMM 0257

1:36 ↗ pathway and timeline for climate action

1:39 ↗ plan adoption. We'll get the staff

1:42 ↗ presentation, committee Q&A, if there's

1:45 ↗ anybody there for public comment after

1:47 ↗ that point, and then the committee

1:49 ↗ deliberation and recommendation.

1:52 ↗ Are we good on TV? All of that. Okay,

1:56 ↗ just making sure you know we weren't

1:58 ↗ going to have to go back and repeat

1:59 ↗ ourselves. Take it away, Stacy.

2:02 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh, good evening, Chair

2:05 ↗ Walsh, Deputy Council President Jen, and

2:07 ↗ Council Member Nichols. Uh, my name is

2:09 ↗ Stacy Vin McKinstry. I am the

2:11 ↗ sustainability manager with the city.

2:18 ↗ Right. So this evening um we are going

2:21 ↗ to be reviewing some proposed high

2:24 ↗ impact actions that were proposed for

2:26 ↗ the climate action plan and then we are

2:28 ↗ looking for direction from you all on

2:30 ↗ how to or whether or not to incorporate

2:33 ↗ the recommendations into the climate

2:35 ↗ action plan.

2:37 ↗ Um tonight uh that direction that we

2:39 ↗ seek is that uh whether or not uh

2:43 ↗ council directs us to incorporate high

2:44 ↗ impact actions in the 2026 isqua climate

2:48 ↗ action plan update.

2:51 ↗ We have previously shared with you the

2:53 ↗ background of how the 2021 climate

2:56 ↗ action plan was developed and adopted.

2:58 ↗ Um tonight I wanted to briefly summarize

3:01 ↗ for you all on how we are going through

3:04 ↗ the process of updating this plan for

3:06 ↗ 2026.

3:08 ↗ In the spring and summer of 2025, we

3:10 ↗ worked with a number of subject matter

3:12 ↗ experts to form committees and receive

3:15 ↗ early review on targets and actions for

3:18 ↗ the climate action plan.

3:20 ↗ staff have been going through a process

3:22 ↗ to review other relevant climate action

3:24 ↗ plans and identify uh opportunities to

3:28 ↗ incorporate sim similar actions into our

3:30 ↗ plan. For example, Belleview and Redmond

3:33 ↗ recently updated their plans. We have

3:36 ↗ held early meetings with the

3:37 ↗ transportation advisory board, park

3:39 ↗ board, planning policy commission to

3:41 ↗ review input from committees and our

3:43 ↗ approach to updating actions. We have

3:46 ↗ held multiple meetings with the

3:48 ↗ environmental board to review proposed

3:50 ↗ revisions section by section of the

3:52 ↗ plan.

3:53 ↗ And then we've held follow-up meetings

3:55 ↗ with TAB PPC and the park board uh this

3:58 ↗ winter uh to follow up on their

4:00 ↗ recommendations and additional revisions

4:02 ↗ to the actions.

4:04 ↗ In the fall, we held a community

4:06 ↗ engagement event uh to seek input from

4:09 ↗ our community members on the plan

4:10 ↗ update. And this winter we had a

4:14 ↗ student-led student focused survey uh to

4:17 ↗ receive input from youth on the plan

4:19 ↗ update.

4:21 ↗ Following input that we have from the

4:23 ↗ committee tonight, our next steps that

4:26 ↗ we are planning on is to take a full set

4:28 ↗ of revised targets and actions to the

4:30 ↗ environmental board later this month um

4:32 ↗ and continue reviewing those in April

4:34 ↗ unless we are directed otherwise.

4:39 ↗ To summarize uh the meeting that we held

4:42 ↗ with this committee last month on

4:44 ↗ February 3rd, we presented results from

4:47 ↗ our greenhouse gas emissions inventory

4:49 ↗ and a potential pathway for IAP

4:51 ↗ adoption.

4:53 ↗ This committee expressed concerns about

4:55 ↗ the ability for us to meet the targets

4:57 ↗ that are laid out in the climate action

4:59 ↗ plan, expressed interest in engaging

5:01 ↗ earlier in the review process, and

5:04 ↗ requested that staff return with a set

5:06 ↗ of actions and policies that would

5:08 ↗ significantly reduce emissions in our

5:10 ↗ community in line with our greenhouse

5:12 ↗ gas reduction goals. The committee

5:14 ↗ requested that staff focus on poly

5:17 ↗ policies that address transportation and

5:19 ↗ building energy use. These two areas

5:22 ↗ make up 86% of our communitywide

5:24 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions and they really

5:27 ↗ are the priority for focusing our

5:29 ↗ emissions reduction. The committee

5:31 ↗ requested that we return in March to

5:33 ↗ discuss the big policy ideas and input

5:36 ↗ from our city committees um commissions

5:38 ↗ and boards.

5:43 ↗ We approached the policy review by first

5:46 ↗ assessing climate pan plans and policies

5:48 ↗ of jurisdictions that are really known

5:51 ↗ to be leaders in climate space. Um, as

5:54 ↗ well as reaching out to climate advocacy

5:57 ↗ organizations

5:58 ↗ for their input on policies that would

6:01 ↗ have the highest impact on communitywide

6:03 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

6:06 ↗ Taking this feedback and research, we

6:09 ↗ then developed a list of potential

6:10 ↗ policies that were brought to the

6:13 ↗ transportation advisory board and

6:14 ↗ planning policy commission.

6:17 ↗ Both the commission and board reviewed

6:19 ↗ the policies and provided feedback which

6:22 ↗ we then took and developed into staff

6:24 ↗ recommendations.

6:27 ↗ Tonight I am going to go through the

6:29 ↗ policies that we presented to TAB and

6:31 ↗ PPC, share a bit of their feedback and

6:34 ↗ then following uh those policies I will

6:37 ↗ summarize the staff recommendations.

6:41 ↗ One note about the big policy ideas. We

6:45 ↗ let the board and commission know that

6:47 ↗ they were very conceptual. We pulled

6:49 ↗ these ideas from several uh cities uh at

6:53 ↗ a very conceptual level. We did not have

6:54 ↗ time to vet them thoroughly, assess how

6:57 ↗ they would be right sized for Isiqua. We

6:59 ↗ really wanted that early feedback on the

7:02 ↗ concept and if the concept was supported

7:05 ↗ and this uh policy was adopted into the

7:08 ↗ climate plan, the first step would be to

7:10 ↗ do a more thorough assessment and figure

7:12 ↗ out how we would rightsize this policy

7:15 ↗ for our city um and implement it.

7:20 ↗ So next um I can pause there see if

7:22 ↗ there's any questions on the process and

7:25 ↗ then I will move into the big policy

7:27 ↗ ideas and the feedback we received.

7:31 ↗ >> I'm not seeing any questions. So let's

7:34 ↗ go ahead.

7:37 ↗ >> I'll start with the transportation and

7:39 ↗ land use policies.

7:41 ↗ Um the first one that we brought to the

7:43 ↗ boards and commissioned was the concept

7:45 ↗ of removing parking minimums for new and

7:48 ↗ redeveloped multifamily buildings. Uh

7:51 ↗ looking at neighboring or uh

7:53 ↗ jurisdictions across the country, this

7:55 ↗ is really a major policy that's used to

7:57 ↗ reduce single occupancy vehicle use um

7:59 ↗ and allowing the developers um or

8:02 ↗ allowing the market to really drive the

8:04 ↗ parking needs. When we shared this uh

8:07 ↗ concept with TAB and PPC,

8:10 ↗ um TAB was generally very supportive. Um

8:13 ↗ they did have some concerns around

8:15 ↗ spillover parking and ensuring there'd

8:17 ↗ be access to transit. Uh PPC had quite a

8:20 ↗ few concerns around spillover parking.

8:23 ↗ Um I do want to acknowledge uh the

8:25 ↗ conversation that council had last week

8:27 ↗ um around parking minimums and I'll talk

8:29 ↗ a little bit more about that in the

8:31 ↗ staff recommendations.

8:35 ↗ The next policy we looked at was

8:37 ↗ increasing multifamily requirements for

8:39 ↗ installing electric vehicle ready

8:41 ↗ stalls. Uh this would include doing the

8:44 ↗ conduit and electrical work during a new

8:47 ↗ development or reconstruction. Um it is

8:50 ↗ much less expensive to do it at that

8:52 ↗ stage versus post construction.

8:55 ↗ Um this would be requiring uh the city

8:58 ↗ to go above and beyond state standards.

9:00 ↗ Redmond has recently passed a policy

9:02 ↗ where they require 100% EV ready stalls

9:05 ↗ in multifamily.

9:07 ↗ Um we brought this forward because

9:09 ↗ Redmond um shared with us that they did

9:11 ↗ not hear concerns from the development

9:13 ↗ community when this was passed. In

9:16 ↗ sharing with TAB and PPC, TAB was

9:19 ↗ generally supportive um based on the

9:21 ↗ experience that Redmond had had. They

9:24 ↗ had wanted to um have us do a little bit

9:26 ↗ more research and understand Redmond's

9:28 ↗ process to develop this policy. But in

9:30 ↗ general, we're supportive. Uh PPC

9:32 ↗ expressed concerns around grid capacity

9:35 ↗ as well as added cost uh for developers

9:38 ↗ to install the EV ready stalls um at the

9:40 ↗ time of development.

9:45 ↗ The third policy we looked at uh came

9:47 ↗ out of Vancouver uh BC. This was a

9:51 ↗ policy that would require electric

9:53 ↗ vehicle charging at fuel stations or

9:56 ↗ else the fuel stations would be charged

9:58 ↗ an additional um BNO tax. Vancouver

10:01 ↗ passed this. Uh they actually have not

10:03 ↗ implemented the policy. They pulled out

10:05 ↗ before the policy went or they pulled

10:08 ↗ the policy back before it went into

10:09 ↗ effect.

10:11 ↗ In discussions with TAB and PPC, they

10:14 ↗ didn't necessarily think it was um that

10:16 ↗ this would be needed, that fueling

10:18 ↗ stations, gas stations were probably not

10:20 ↗ the right location for our EV charging.

10:23 ↗ They were concerned about the costs um

10:25 ↗ from the additional BNO tax being passed

10:27 ↗ on to consumers and really encourage us

10:30 ↗ to look at other innovative um and

10:33 ↗ incentive based ways to install EV

10:36 ↗ charging throughout the city.

10:41 ↗ The next concept came out of Berkeley.

10:43 ↗ Um this is uh where they've passed what

10:46 ↗ they call a transit first policy. Uh it

10:50 ↗ is really putting transit at the front

10:52 ↗ of decision-making where leadership has

10:54 ↗ committed that transit will be

10:56 ↗ considered as a top priority when it

10:58 ↗ comes to budget projects. Um everything

11:02 ↗ really is centered around transit and

11:04 ↗ making access to transit more reliable

11:07 ↗ and accessible.

11:09 ↗ In discussing this concept with TAB and

11:12 ↗ PPC, they really felt that this was the

11:14 ↗ intent of the mobility action plan and

11:17 ↗ that uh it wasn't really needed in our

11:20 ↗ community.

11:25 ↗ Then moving into building and energy

11:27 ↗ policies or I can pause there if we want

11:30 ↗ to discuss.

11:32 ↗ >> No, I'd like to go through and hear the

11:34 ↗ staff recommendations and then we'll

11:35 ↗ take them in chunks.

11:37 ↗ >> Okay.

11:38 ↗ uh building and energy policies. Uh the

11:40 ↗ first concept we brought here was a

11:42 ↗ benchmarking program that would go um

11:45 ↗ beyond where our current Washington

11:47 ↗ state claim buildings performance

11:49 ↗ standard is. So this would reach

11:52 ↗ buildings that are under 20,000 square

11:54 ↗ feet or could even go above and beyond

11:57 ↗ the current standards that Washington

11:59 ↗ state has um for buildings to meet

12:01 ↗ energy performance standards. So this

12:03 ↗ would be in light of um Seattle has

12:06 ↗ passed their own program that goes above

12:08 ↗ and beyond state program uh excuse me

12:10 ↗ state requirements has higher energy

12:13 ↗ efficiency or emission standards for

12:15 ↗ their buildings.

12:17 ↗ Uh PPC expressed concern about the cost

12:19 ↗ of building owners and the capacity of

12:22 ↗ the city to manage a program like this.

12:25 ↗ Um, I did want to note here, and I

12:27 ↗ shared this with PPC, that the city does

12:30 ↗ run a voluntary program where we support

12:33 ↗ building owners in meeting compliance

12:35 ↗ with current state standards. Um, we

12:37 ↗ have difficulty even bringing uh

12:40 ↗ building owners into that program, which

12:41 ↗ is free and voluntary.

12:48 ↗ Um, and then the next policy is turning

12:50 ↗ to the residential side. Uh here we

12:54 ↗ shared the concept of implementing a

12:56 ↗ home energy score. This is a concept

12:58 ↗ that's been raised at the state

13:00 ↗ legislature several times. It is not

13:02 ↗ passed at the state level. Um but it is

13:04 ↗ implemented in Oregon and other

13:06 ↗ communities around the country uh where

13:10 ↗ a seller is required to have a home

13:12 ↗ inspection and publicize a home energy

13:14 ↗ score. Um in Oregon uh there are

13:17 ↗ incentives and rebates in order to make

13:19 ↗ upgrades to the home. Taking it a step

13:22 ↗ further, uh the city of Berkeley has a

13:25 ↗ program in place called the building

13:26 ↗ emission saving ordinance where they

13:28 ↗ require a home to meet a certain energy

13:32 ↗ efficiency

13:33 ↗ uh to score a number of points in terms

13:35 ↗ of energy efficiency at the time of

13:37 ↗ sale. Um or else those investments need

13:40 ↗ to be made in the home uh or uh it is

13:43 ↗ passed on to the seller to make those uh

13:45 ↗ upgrades to the home. There are

13:48 ↗ different uh points assigned to

13:49 ↗ different upgrades, whether it's

13:50 ↗ weatherization,

13:52 ↗ replacing a gas stove, um installing a

13:54 ↗ heat pump, you earn a certain number of

13:56 ↗ points that you have to make at the time

13:57 ↗ of sale.

14:00 ↗ Um in discussing this concept with PPC,

14:03 ↗ there were concerns around equity, the

14:05 ↗ cost for upgrades, um and really um just

14:09 ↗ making it more expensive to to buy homes

14:12 ↗ in our community.

14:17 ↗ two more to go through here. Um, and

14:20 ↗ then another policy we looked at for

14:22 ↗ building and energy uh was instead of

14:24 ↗ looking at the time of the home being

14:26 ↗ sold is a time of replacement. So if the

14:29 ↗ equipment fails or reaches the end of

14:31 ↗ life um this would be a requirement to

14:33 ↗ replace that equipment with a higher

14:35 ↗ energy efficiency equipment

14:38 ↗ um or uh electric equipment. Um there

14:41 ↗ are communities that have in place uh a

14:44 ↗ time of replacement requirement. for

14:46 ↗ example, for hot water heaters.

14:49 ↗ Uh there were concerns expressed by PPC

14:51 ↗ around this approach as well. Um the

14:54 ↗ higher potential higher costs for energy

14:56 ↗ efficiency equipment which would

14:59 ↗ decrease affordability and just the

15:00 ↗ ability to right size this kind of

15:03 ↗ program for every home. Uh the number of

15:05 ↗ exemptions that might be needed for a

15:07 ↗ home for example.

15:12 ↗ And then our final policy we looked at

15:14 ↗ this was a proposal from the

15:16 ↗ environmental board which was to look at

15:18 ↗ a dark sky ordinance that would be more

15:21 ↗ that would be focused really on our

15:22 ↗ commercial buildings. Uh this would be

15:25 ↗ in terms to reduce energy use um improve

15:28 ↗ nighttime ambience. Um the city did uh

15:32 ↗ does have in place a number of uh

15:35 ↗ requirements around lighting and title

15:37 ↗ 18. Um and our planning team did share

15:41 ↗ that uh it is still difficult at this

15:43 ↗ point for developers to meet some of

15:45 ↗ those requirements. What the

15:47 ↗ environmental board was looking at was

15:48 ↗ going above and beyond that for

15:50 ↗ commercial buildings um and reducing

15:53 ↗ their energy use in the evening.

15:56 ↗ Uh PPC did express some concerns around

15:58 ↗ requirements of specifically focusing on

16:01 ↗ commercial properties um and uh safety

16:04 ↗ associated with uh darker properties in

16:07 ↗ the evening um and really wanted us to

16:10 ↗ focus more on technical support and

16:11 ↗ incentives.

16:15 ↗ So that concludes the the policy ideas

16:18 ↗ that were brought to PPC.

16:21 ↗ Um, next what I was going to do is just

16:23 ↗ provide a really brief summary and then

16:25 ↗ move into the staff recommendations.

16:30 ↗ Right. So I'll say in general the

16:32 ↗ feedback we receive from TAB and PPC is

16:35 ↗ that these policies are not right sized

16:38 ↗ for isqua. There was a lot of concern

16:40 ↗ around affordability increased costs to

16:43 ↗ residents and developers for

16:45 ↗ implementing them. I will note there

16:47 ↗ were a few policies that were supported

16:50 ↗ uh reducing or putting restrictions on

16:52 ↗ parking um and uh TAB also generally

16:56 ↗ supported the increased EV ready stalls

16:59 ↗ in multifamily buildings.

17:02 ↗ What we did after receiving that

17:04 ↗ feedback was rework the policies um to

17:08 ↗ really focus in on technical support,

17:11 ↗ outreach and incentives, which is what

17:13 ↗ we heard from the board and committees.

17:17 ↗ Before moving into the staff

17:19 ↗ recommendations, um I wanted to share

17:22 ↗ that these are not big policies that

17:25 ↗ will really move the needle on

17:27 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions reduction. we

17:30 ↗ are trying to balance affordability,

17:32 ↗ partnerships with our community, um

17:35 ↗ improving a quality of life and really

17:37 ↗ access to the different programs.

17:39 ↗ So, we recognize that the city has a

17:41 ↗ number of priorities that we need to

17:43 ↗ balance um and so we have tried to uh

17:47 ↗ consider those priorities in these

17:49 ↗ recommendations.

17:51 ↗ We believe that these actions will make

17:53 ↗ big advancements in our climate work,

17:55 ↗ but also doing that while not ensuring

17:58 ↗ that we're not driving up costs or

18:00 ↗ making it more expensive to build or um

18:04 ↗ uh isolating ourselves from uh

18:06 ↗ partnerships with our business community

18:08 ↗ and our our community members.

18:12 ↗ Right? So, we have six recommendations

18:14 ↗ with a big caveat on that first one. Um

18:18 ↗ so I'll first start with the

18:20 ↗ transportation and land use

18:21 ↗ recommendations

18:23 ↗ based on um the research that we had

18:26 ↗ seen across the country and uh the

18:29 ↗ feedback that we received from TAB in

18:31 ↗ particular. Uh the first recommendation

18:33 ↗ we were proposing was looking at

18:36 ↗ opportunities to remove parking

18:38 ↗ minimums. I recognize this is evolving

18:41 ↗ conversation and that council

18:44 ↗ uh discussed this last Monday and so

18:46 ↗ this recommendation is a little out of

18:48 ↗ date even since then. Um but that staff

18:51 ↗ will continue to work with our planning

18:53 ↗ department um to uh move forward what we

18:57 ↗ think will be best both from a planning

19:00 ↗ and sustainability perspective in terms

19:02 ↗ of looking at whether it's parking

19:04 ↗ maximums or another approach. um as our

19:07 ↗ planning staff update code based on

19:10 ↗ state requirements.

19:13 ↗ Uh the second recommendation we have is

19:15 ↗ to look at the feasibility of developing

19:19 ↗ a program that offers technical support

19:22 ↗ and incentives to increase charging at

19:24 ↗ multifamily properties. Uh this is an

19:27 ↗ approach that Belleview is taking where

19:29 ↗ instead of increasing

19:32 ↗ requirements for EV ready or EV charging

19:34 ↗ at multifamily, they're running a

19:36 ↗ program that really supports and works

19:38 ↗ in partnership with their multifamily

19:40 ↗ buildings um and providing that

19:41 ↗ technical support.

19:44 ↗ Uh the third option is uh expanding

19:47 ↗ electric vehicle charging access in

19:50 ↗ Isiqua through incentives, looking at

19:53 ↗ creative solutions such as uh public

19:55 ↗ private partnerships or other ways um

19:58 ↗ instead of imposing requirements at

20:00 ↗ certain um like at gas stations for

20:02 ↗ example. Uh we heard a lot of input from

20:05 ↗ PPC and TAB that they wanted to make

20:07 ↗ sure that charging was going in the

20:09 ↗ right areas that would support um our

20:12 ↗ retailers in Isiqua and make sure that

20:15 ↗ it's located in an area that someone

20:16 ↗ will want to spend 20 to 40 minutes

20:19 ↗ while charging their car.

20:22 ↗ Uh the fourth recommendation under

20:24 ↗ transportation and land use is that we

20:27 ↗ would bring on a consultant and really

20:30 ↗ take a hard look at our city code and

20:33 ↗ identify where we can remove barriers to

20:36 ↗ um making sure our residents and

20:37 ↗ businesses can increase energy

20:39 ↗ efficiency and renewable energy. The

20:42 ↗ city's done a lot to remove barriers,

20:44 ↗ uh, reducing setbacks, noise

20:46 ↗ requirements, trying to streamline the

20:48 ↗ permitting process for solar. Uh, but we

20:51 ↗ think that there might be an opportunity

20:52 ↗ to take another look at that code and

20:54 ↗ see where we might um remove some of

20:56 ↗ those challenges.

21:01 ↗ And then the next two recommendations

21:03 ↗ are around building an energy.

21:06 ↗ Um, so our fifth recommendation is

21:08 ↗ evaluating the feasibility of running a

21:11 ↗ voluntary energy benchmarking program

21:14 ↗ that would capture the buildings that

21:16 ↗ are not currently covered under our

21:18 ↗ state clean buildings act. This program

21:21 ↗ could be run in partnership with PSSE um

21:24 ↗ or some of our neighboring cities that

21:26 ↗ are interested and provide technical

21:29 ↗ support, individual support in accessing

21:32 ↗ etc. Um we are currently in the process

21:36 ↗ of starting to look at what kind of

21:37 ↗ impact this type of program might have

21:39 ↗ in terms of reducing emissions in our

21:42 ↗ city given our building stock.

21:46 ↗ And then our last uh recommendation is

21:50 ↗ instead of looking at home energy score

21:53 ↗ or a time of sale requirement or a time

21:56 ↗ of replacement requirement, um really uh

21:59 ↗ enhancing our current energy smart east

22:02 ↗ side heat pump program where we would

22:05 ↗ look beyond um our current contractor

22:08 ↗ list to make sure that we're educating

22:11 ↗ other contractors in promoting heat

22:13 ↗ pumps, providing quotes for heat pumps.

22:16 ↗ Um looking at additional incentives we

22:18 ↗ might be able to offer to our entire

22:20 ↗ community. Um and really just expanding

22:23 ↗ that program both for electrification as

22:25 ↗ well as weatherization

22:28 ↗ of our um residents.

22:31 ↗ Um this one we are also starting to look

22:33 ↗ at uh the potential greenhouse gas

22:36 ↗ emission savings uh through an expanded

22:38 ↗ program especially with adding on that

22:40 ↗ weatherization component to a program.

22:46 ↗ Um, one additional thing I just want to

22:50 ↗ note is this is a very small subset of

22:52 ↗ the actions that we are advancing in the

22:55 ↗ climate action plan. We have a number of

22:58 ↗ other actions that we're refining and

23:00 ↗ updating around our programming,

23:03 ↗ expanding outreach and incentives, um,

23:06 ↗ engaging businesses through technical

23:08 ↗ support, etc. So that full list of

23:11 ↗ actions is what we'll be bringing to the

23:12 ↗ environmental board in a couple of

23:14 ↗ weeks. Um but these are the additional

23:17 ↗ um recommendations based out of that

23:20 ↗ policy analysis.

23:25 ↗ So that concludes the review of the

23:27 ↗ policies. Um the input that we're

23:30 ↗ looking for tonight from you all is

23:32 ↗ whether you support the staff

23:34 ↗ recommendations and request that we

23:36 ↗ continue working through um the process

23:39 ↗ to update actions in the IAP. Uh whether

23:42 ↗ you want us to revisit those bold policy

23:44 ↗ ideas um and continue to develop them

23:47 ↗ into the IAP update or do you want us to

23:50 ↗ come uh kind of start over look further

23:53 ↗ and bring back an updated list to PTE

23:56 ↗ for further discussion.

23:58 ↗ Okay. So, looking first for questions.

24:02 ↗ Um, if there are any questions about any

24:05 ↗ of these items and then we'll see if

24:08 ↗ there's any public comment.

24:11 ↗ So, Council Member Nichols,

24:13 ↗ >> questions. Do you want to divide this up

24:15 ↗ into any chunks or just All right. Um,

24:20 ↗ so

24:21 ↗ questions first. Um, first on the

24:23 ↗ parking minimums policy. Um looking back

24:27 ↗ just trying to compare what uh was in

24:29 ↗ this packet versus what PPC reviewed um

24:32 ↗ one of the differences there was that um

24:35 ↗ the recommendations were around um

24:38 ↗ frequent transit um as a as a term. What

24:41 ↗ is frequent transit or what did frequent

24:42 ↗ transit mean at least in that package?

24:44 ↗ >> Yeah, great question. Um that was a term

24:46 ↗ offered by one of our planners of

24:48 ↗ transit that is reliable and regular. I

24:51 ↗ believe it's used at the state level. So

24:53 ↗ it is a commonly used term throughout

24:55 ↗ the planning community. Um so I can I

24:58 ↗ can provide you with those details but

25:00 ↗ that was what how we shared it with TAB.

25:03 ↗ Um there was discussion at TAB whether

25:06 ↗ or not we needed to include the transit.

25:09 ↗ I think they were open to um not

25:12 ↗ necessarily having a transit requirement

25:14 ↗ around parking minimums. Um but it was a

25:17 ↗ concern they expressed and wanted to be

25:19 ↗ explored just how that might impact our

25:21 ↗ community.

25:23 ↗ Okay. Um,

25:25 ↗ yeah, I'll have some follow-ups on that

25:28 ↗ once you can that definition. Um,

25:31 ↗ another question. Um,

25:34 ↗ for the EV ready stall requirements,

25:36 ↗ what does technical support mean?

25:39 ↗ >> Um, in terms of what could be offered

25:41 ↗ through that program?

25:42 ↗ >> Yeah. Could you just clarify what the

25:43 ↗ recommendation really is?

25:45 ↗ >> Yeah. I think, um, again, these are very

25:47 ↗ conceptual. I think what we would be

25:49 ↗ doing through a program and again that

25:52 ↗ would be developed based on the need and

25:53 ↗ probably discussing with developers what

25:55 ↗ they actually need um would be uh

25:59 ↗ working with them to do either some

26:00 ↗ initial design look at electrical

26:03 ↗ capacity

26:04 ↗ um connect them with incentives so those

26:08 ↗ are the types of things that Belleview

26:09 ↗ is doing through their program which

26:11 ↗ they have just launched. So we're

26:13 ↗ looking a little bit to see how that

26:15 ↗ program evolves over time and if we

26:17 ↗ think it would be a good fit here. Get

26:20 ↗ very conceptual so that could be

26:22 ↗ developed to meet the need of our um our

26:24 ↗ community.

26:25 ↗ >> And then just to be to make sure I'm

26:27 ↗ clear too in that recommendation there

26:29 ↗ is the staff recommendation is not

26:31 ↗ currently to require EV ready

26:35 ↗ uh builds. Is that correct?

26:36 ↗ >> Not to acquire above um the state

26:39 ↗ requirement.

26:40 ↗ Yeah, based based on the feedback from

26:43 ↗ PPC um and comments we received from the

26:45 ↗ community. I will say TAB seemed a

26:48 ↗ little more open to that and exploring

26:50 ↗ as long as we looked further into the

26:52 ↗ research Redmond had done and any push

26:54 ↗ back that they're receiving now that

26:56 ↗ that is in place.

26:57 ↗ >> Okay. And then last question on policy

27:00 ↗ 8, the dark side ordinance, uh what

27:02 ↗ specifically were the uh difficulties

27:05 ↗ with meeting the current lighting

27:06 ↗ standards that were expressed?

27:07 ↗ >> Yeah, that's a great question. I'll have

27:09 ↗ to follow up with our planning team on

27:11 ↗ that. They um just noted that since

27:14 ↗ Title 18 has been updated with some

27:17 ↗ stronger requirements, they are hearing

27:19 ↗ a lot of challenges. So, I can follow up

27:21 ↗ with with them on that and provide you

27:24 ↗ more information.

27:25 ↗ >> Okay, that's it for questions for me.

27:28 ↗ >> Deputy Council President Shen.

27:30 ↗ >> Um yeah, thank you for putting this

27:31 ↗ together. Um so, I have a question on

27:33 ↗ the EV charging. So it looked like the

27:35 ↗ options were to basically you know just

27:37 ↗ provide support and then to do 100% EV

27:39 ↗ ready. Have we there's kind of a middle

27:42 ↗ ground I see there which is 100% EV

27:44 ↗ capable or even going one level below

27:46 ↗ that is basically just having the

27:48 ↗ conduit and the wires there not

27:49 ↗ necessarily providing the additional

27:50 ↗ electrical capacity. basically making it

27:52 ↗ so that if you're gonna, you know,

27:54 ↗ install EV chargers in the future, you

27:55 ↗ don't have to like drill open the wall

27:56 ↗ to put the wires in, which that seems to

27:59 ↗ be the big thing that if you don't do at

28:01 ↗ the time of construction is going to,

28:03 ↗ you know, bite you in the butt later.

28:05 ↗ And I think if we're talking about

28:06 ↗ affordability, I think

28:08 ↗ >> a key part of that is making sure we're

28:09 ↗ doing upfront investments to not have to

28:11 ↗ do, you know, have to tear things apart

28:13 ↗ and invest a bunch more money later. Um,

28:16 ↗ so I'm curious if that's something like

28:18 ↗ is that something that we have

28:20 ↗ considered as an option?

28:22 ↗ >> We didn't specifically raise that. I

28:24 ↗ know there are conversations at the

28:26 ↗ state level around increasing the EV

28:28 ↗ capable requirements. Um, and so that's

28:31 ↗ something we could definitely include in

28:34 ↗ the um, IAP that we would further

28:37 ↗ explore and determine if there's a a

28:41 ↗ right number to land above the state

28:42 ↗ requirements.

28:44 ↗ >> Great. Yeah. just cuz I mean I I'm

28:46 ↗ hesitant to do anything that requires

28:49 ↗ getting a bigger electrical service,

28:50 ↗ which if we're going on the definition

28:52 ↗ of EV cable, you have to get electrical

28:53 ↗ service to your property that's the full

28:55 ↗ size of if you had like 600 cars

28:57 ↗ charging there. Um, and at least I've

29:00 ↗ heard from our planning department that

29:01 ↗ this can actually be a major delay to

29:03 ↗ getting um development built. So, I'm

29:06 ↗ not for anything that does that. But I

29:09 ↗ think, you know, can we require people

29:10 ↗ to put the wires in their parking

29:12 ↗ garage? I think that's a totally

29:14 ↗ different thing that's actually not

29:15 ↗ going to be like prohibitively

29:17 ↗ expensive. So definitely something to

29:18 ↗ explore.

29:18 ↗ >> Okay.

29:23 ↗ >> Um and then on the dark sky piece,

29:27 ↗ um

29:28 ↗ I mean in terms of like light that goes

29:31 ↗ into the sky, to me it seems like street

29:35 ↗ lights are an issue there. Is that

29:37 ↗ something that would be included in this

29:38 ↗ dark sky ordinance or is it only

29:40 ↗ commercial properties? that's covered in

29:42 ↗ other components at title 18. Um, for

29:44 ↗ street lights, uh, there are a lot of

29:47 ↗ dimming capabilities that we're looking

29:49 ↗ at, especially as we transition to LEDs,

29:52 ↗ which are a lot brighter. We are looking

29:54 ↗ to pilot some dimming, um, to see if

29:56 ↗ that makes a big impact. Um, but that's

29:58 ↗ not something we specifically covered

30:00 ↗ here, but we could consider looking

30:03 ↗ again at our street standards for street

30:06 ↗ lighting, whether we want to.

30:08 ↗ >> Yeah, I guess I'm curious. I mean, in

30:09 ↗ terms of street lights, right, like the

30:13 ↗ the ones that look the most

30:15 ↗ aesthetically pleasing are often the

30:16 ↗ ones that are actually the worst in

30:18 ↗ terms of night sky things. So, the one,

30:20 ↗ you know, the ones with the little tent

30:21 ↗ cap things, they really don't send light

30:23 ↗ into the sky. Then the historic ones on

30:25 ↗ Front Street, you know, they're clear at

30:26 ↗ the top, they look nice, but they're not

30:28 ↗ great for dark sky. So, is is that

30:31 ↗ something we're looking into in terms of

30:32 ↗ like, you know, standards in terms of

30:34 ↗ where the light gets blocked and all

30:36 ↗ that stuff?

30:38 ↗ Yeah, absolutely. I can take a look back

30:40 ↗ at our title 18 code to see how that is

30:43 ↗ covered, but if there's other

30:44 ↗ opportunities we'd want to explore with

30:45 ↗ the planning team.

30:47 ↗ Great. Thank you.

30:51 ↗ >> Okay. I was trying to look it up myself,

30:53 ↗ but um did we not adopt code related to

30:58 ↗ EV capable? I believe there was an

31:00 ↗ ordinance in 2021. Can you remind me? We

31:04 ↗ did and at that time when we adopted

31:06 ↗ that code we were going above the state

31:08 ↗ standards. The state standards then

31:11 ↗ surpassed what we passed. Um and so we

31:14 ↗ are now in alignment with the state

31:16 ↗ standards. We updated our code to catch

31:19 ↗ up to the state.

31:21 ↗ Okay. Fantastic. Thank you for catching

31:24 ↗ me up while the state caught up. Um

31:27 ↗ okay. So, having had our questions

31:29 ↗ answered, I will just check in with

31:32 ↗ Amanda and see if Do we have anybody

31:35 ↗ online?

31:37 ↗ Any public comments?

31:39 ↗ >> One second, please.

31:40 ↗ >> Yeah, no problem.

31:44 ↗ >> Currently, we do not have anyone for a

31:46 ↗ comment.

31:47 ↗ >> Okay, great. And we don't have anybody

31:49 ↗ in the audience physically with us, so

31:52 ↗ we'll skip over the public comment. So

31:54 ↗ toward feedback, I would love to start

31:57 ↗ with and maybe you can kind of go back

32:00 ↗ to the um transportation and land use

32:05 ↗ and then we'll do a second segment on

32:08 ↗ buildings and energy code. Uh council

32:11 ↗ member Nichols.

32:13 ↗ >> Okay. As far as comments on So let me

32:16 ↗ just make sure I got the order you want

32:17 ↗ these to go. So transport and

32:20 ↗ >> yeah the transportation and land use was

32:22 ↗ kind of how they grouped them together.

32:24 ↗ So I think that's

32:25 ↗ >> one through

32:27 ↗ >> Yep. I was just looking

32:33 ↗ >> Yes. One through four.

32:34 ↗ >> Okay. One through four. Got it.

32:36 ↗ >> Um

32:39 ↗ okay. So I I'd like us to discuss and

32:43 ↗ possibly recommend going back to a ver

32:46 ↗ to the version that was closer to what

32:48 ↗ PPC saw. Um, and then with a few

32:51 ↗ additions to that as well. So, um, and

32:53 ↗ to be clear, so, um, so everyone else is

32:56 ↗ aware, uh, the the PPC version of this

32:58 ↗ had a slightly different recommendation

33:00 ↗ or series of recommendations, um,

33:02 ↗ starting from the initial, please

33:03 ↗ correct me if I get this wrong, but, uh,

33:05 ↗ my my my read on that meeting and

33:07 ↗ reading that packet was the original,

33:09 ↗ uh, version included.5 miles around

33:11 ↗ frequent transit. Um, and then that was

33:14 ↗ the staff recommendation was to reduce

33:15 ↗ to 0.25 25 miles around frequent

33:17 ↗ transit. Um I'd like us to discuss

33:22 ↗ going back to that uh also with some

33:24 ↗ definitions of what frequent transit is

33:26 ↗ because we need to be precise about

33:28 ↗ that. I think it's a sort of situation

33:29 ↗ where a map could really help um once

33:32 ↗ those points are defined because it'll

33:33 ↗ make a big difference I think if it's

33:35 ↗ >> every single bus stop versus our our to

33:38 ↗ etc. Um, I'd also like to propose that

33:41 ↗ we add specifically add in um the

33:45 ↗ regional growth center boundaries as an

33:48 ↗ area to adopt this policy in. Um, I

33:51 ↗ think that's the area where

33:53 ↗ it best aligns with the other goals

33:56 ↗ we've been discussing recently on

33:58 ↗ affordability um as well as our our

34:01 ↗ climate desires and our transit needs as

34:04 ↗ well. Um

34:06 ↗ it also helpfully help will be another

34:08 ↗ forcing function that if we if we go

34:10 ↗ above state uh uh minimums there it will

34:13 ↗ incentivize growth in that area as

34:15 ↗ opposed to other areas in the city. So I

34:16 ↗ think that's a potentially good reason

34:17 ↗ to do it as well. Um so that's my my my

34:20 ↗ main thought on

34:22 ↗ policy one. Do we want to discuss

34:25 ↗ anything now or just keep going?

34:27 ↗ >> Okay. on policy 2 EV ready charging. Um

34:33 ↗ I I'd like to see that brought back to

34:35 ↗ also something a little closer to where

34:37 ↗ that was before. I think this is a good

34:39 ↗ this so I

34:42 ↗ getting ready for a an EV future I think

34:44 ↗ is something we have to do at some

34:45 ↗ point. I think this is a good thing that

34:46 ↗ we'll that we should we we should be

34:49 ↗ fine being leaders in um and even a bit

34:52 ↗ ahead of the state at some time. Um and

34:53 ↗ then they can catch up again. Um,

34:56 ↗ I agree with council member Jang's

34:59 ↗ comment that uh it would it it doesn't

35:02 ↗ seem sensible necessarily to require EV

35:04 ↗ service at every station. We don't have

35:06 ↗ 100% EVs. We won't for a while. Um, so I

35:09 ↗ I think that's something the the the

35:11 ↗ market should easily be able to decide

35:12 ↗ on its own, but to make that quick and

35:14 ↗ efficient when it does happen. um

35:16 ↗ preparing for that uh in the more

35:20 ↗ nuanced ways that council member Jang

35:22 ↗ described which were uh in a way that

35:26 ↗ won't require

35:27 ↗ as much as possible won't require

35:29 ↗ electrical permitting and stuff like

35:30 ↗ that. So not having to connect it to the

35:31 ↗ actual grid, not having to connect the

35:33 ↗ service lines into it. Get get the

35:35 ↗ plumbing in place to the extent the

35:36 ↗ plumbing um exists and sometimes that is

35:39 ↗ actual tubes um and the wires. See if we

35:41 ↗ can get that in place um and have that

35:43 ↗ part. And I think that's a I think

35:44 ↗ that's a useful trade-off when we're

35:46 ↗ talking about costs of these things

35:47 ↗ because they do all have costs. I don't

35:48 ↗ want to forget that. Um we if we are if

35:52 ↗ we're looking at reducing parking

35:54 ↗ minimums in areas like central Isiqua

35:56 ↗ that will reduce the cost of

35:57 ↗ development. Um incre if we're looking

35:59 ↗ at increasing EV ready stall

36:01 ↗ requirements that will increase it but

36:02 ↗ it's by a far far lower amount. So I

36:04 ↗ think it's a perfectly reasonable

36:05 ↗ trade-off to be making. Um,

36:08 ↗ and then finally on the transit first

36:11 ↗ policy, um, I read through the Berkeley

36:14 ↗ transit first, at least I skimmed

36:15 ↗ through it. I honestly didn't read the

36:17 ↗ whole thing, but um, there was one part

36:19 ↗ in there that I really liked that I

36:20 ↗ think our current mobility action plan

36:22 ↗ is actually missing. Um and that's uh so

36:25 ↗ this is specifically um

36:28 ↗ and just if we want to go back to it

36:30 ↗ later, it's general plan policy T4 that

36:33 ↗ states that they it will give priority

36:35 ↗ to alternative transportation and

36:36 ↗ transit over single occupant vehicles on

36:39 ↗ transit routes identified on the transit

36:40 ↗ network map. Um so to me in an Isukqua

36:44 ↗ context that would mean priority to

36:46 ↗ transit in central Isqua around areas

36:49 ↗ where we plan to b build out central

36:51 ↗ transit in much uh greater degrees. This

36:54 ↗ and the difference here to me is that

36:56 ↗ this is this is kind of an affirmative

36:58 ↗ statement. We will do this versus in our

37:01 ↗ current mobility action plan the closest

37:04 ↗ analog is uh mat7.2 two where it says

37:08 ↗ greater level levels of auto delay may

37:11 ↗ be permissible where mitigations to

37:12 ↗ improve intersection level of service

37:14 ↗ would degrade conditions and it goes on

37:16 ↗ from there which is much much more of a

37:17 ↗ defensive posture. Um basically it

37:20 ↗ tolerates some worse performance as

37:22 ↗ opposed to taking it from the lens of

37:26 ↗ prioritizing transit. Um, I think that

37:30 ↗ distinction could matter in practice and

37:32 ↗ I would recommend that we consider

37:35 ↗ adding language like that into our uh,

37:40 ↗ climate related plans as well on which

37:42 ↗ is on top of what is already in the um,

37:46 ↗ mobility action plan which is quite good

37:47 ↗ and comprehensive. But uh, I think this

37:50 ↗ is through through the exercise that you

37:51 ↗ guys went through of looking what other

37:52 ↗ cities have done. This is an interesting

37:54 ↗ example of somebody taking a slightly

37:56 ↗ different lens on things that I think

37:57 ↗ could help us. So those that's my

37:59 ↗ comments on one through four.

38:02 ↗ >> Thank you, Deputy Council President.

38:05 ↗ >> Great. Um okay, lots of comments um on

38:09 ↗ policy number one about removing parking

38:10 ↗ minimums. I think with frequent transit,

38:14 ↗ there was some like beef about this in

38:16 ↗ the legislature last year because of how

38:18 ↗ it related to middle housing and then

38:19 ↗ what came out in the transit oriented

38:20 ↗ development bill was because Originally,

38:23 ↗ frequent transit was any sound transit

38:25 ↗ stop and sound transit can change the

38:26 ↗ routes. I mean, they're literally going

38:28 ↗ to change the 554 route imminently. So,

38:31 ↗ I think there was some concern about

38:32 ↗ using that to make land use decisions

38:34 ↗ because, you know, then things could get

38:36 ↗ out of compliance. So I think in terms

38:39 ↗ of reducing our uh parking minimums, I

38:42 ↗ think either doing something with the

38:43 ↗ major transit stop which is like fixed

38:45 ↗ infrastructure like a light rail station

38:47 ↗ or a park and ride um or you know

38:50 ↗ potentially just doing the regional

38:51 ↗ growth center boundaries because that's

38:52 ↗ something where we have you know many

38:56 ↗ many documents and the whole regional

38:58 ↗ planning agency has decided that's where

38:59 ↗ I want to focus their growth. I think

39:00 ↗ that makes a lot of sense and then we're

39:02 ↗ not coming up with a different

39:03 ↗ definition that's you know different. Um

39:08 ↗ I think on I already talked about my

39:11 ↗ preference on um EV uh ready stalls. I

39:15 ↗ think potentially one level below EV

39:17 ↗ capable where you don't need to have an

39:18 ↗ oversized, you know, electrical service

39:20 ↗ at the capacity to charge the entire

39:23 ↗ garage full of cars could be some, you

39:25 ↗ know, I I don't know what this would

39:27 ↗ necessarily be called, but I do think

39:28 ↗ that's probably the least cost way to go

39:30 ↗ about it. That would also reduce future

39:32 ↗ costs. Um, I agree with TAB and PPC that

39:36 ↗ requiring EV charging at gas stations

39:39 ↗ seems not really like something we need

39:42 ↗ to be doing. Um, in terms of the transit

39:44 ↗ first policy, I think it's an

39:47 ↗ interesting concept. I also think

39:49 ↗ Berkeley is a very different city from

39:52 ↗ Isqua. I mean, I went to school there.

39:54 ↗ You know, there's like a population of

39:56 ↗ 40,000 college students, most of whom do

39:58 ↗ not drive. There's tons of busings

40:00 ↗ running around everywhere. It's very

40:01 ↗ dense. I, you know, they're building

40:03 ↗ like 30story buildings for college

40:05 ↗ students. So, it is kind of a different

40:07 ↗ situation where they have tons of buses

40:08 ↗ whereas we like don't. Um, but I do

40:11 ↗ think just kind of taking more of this

40:13 ↗ approach of like how do we prioritize

40:16 ↗ non-drive alone people in our mobility

40:20 ↗ action plan. So, one of the things

40:22 ↗ that's always been very interesting to

40:23 ↗ me is that level of service for cars is

40:26 ↗ basically determined by how long you

40:27 ↗ have to wait at a traffic light. And we

40:29 ↗ don't define level of service for

40:31 ↗ pedestrians or bikes in the same way.

40:33 ↗ Right? There's some of these like

40:34 ↗ crosswalks where you have to sit there

40:36 ↗ for like five minutes while the car even

40:38 ↗ if the there's not that many cars going

40:40 ↗ by as I'm thinking especially Highlands

40:42 ↗ Drive those crosswalks are terrible. Um

40:45 ↗ and instead we instead base it on safety

40:48 ↗ which is important don't get me wrong

40:49 ↗ but I think it's you know we value the

40:53 ↗ time of motorists a lot more than the

40:54 ↗ time of pedestrians. And I think that's

40:56 ↗ something that, you know, and maybe it's

40:58 ↗ not necessarily like the climate action

41:01 ↗ plan isn't necessarily the right place

41:02 ↗ to put that, but it's something that I

41:03 ↗ think we should take into, you know, our

41:05 ↗ transportation policies, especially

41:07 ↗ because one of our main climate action

41:09 ↗ goals is to reduce vehicle miles

41:10 ↗ traveled. Um, so I think, you know, in

41:13 ↗ the vein of reducing vehicle miles

41:14 ↗ traveled, I don't re like a lot of these

41:17 ↗ land use changes kind of get at it

41:19 ↗ obliquely. I think if we're really, you

41:22 ↗ know, trying to figure out, okay, how do

41:23 ↗ we reduce vehicle miles traveled? I

41:25 ↗ think part of it has to be having more

41:27 ↗ better options to get around town

41:29 ↗ without your car, having more, you know,

41:32 ↗ locations or destinations close to where

41:34 ↗ people live, like neighborhood cafes or

41:35 ↗ amenities. Um, and I think, you know,

41:39 ↗ even if it's slightly outside of the

41:40 ↗ scope of what can be done by the

41:42 ↗ sustainability team, I do think those

41:43 ↗ are important to note as actions that

41:46 ↗ will have an impact on the climate as

41:47 ↗ well.

41:50 ↗ >> Thank you. Um, I will give my feedback

41:53 ↗ on this and I think I'm going to start

41:54 ↗ with an overarching

41:57 ↗ idea which is I appreciate that we came

42:00 ↗ back at this and came at it and said

42:06 ↗ first of all we're great for having this

42:08 ↗ climate action plan IAP and I'm glad

42:12 ↗ that we are reviewing it and refreshing

42:15 ↗ it. um but also whether or not we are

42:18 ↗ achieving our goals and whether or not

42:20 ↗ there are things that we can move the

42:21 ↗ needle forward and asking our expert

42:23 ↗ team to go out and talk to other experts

42:26 ↗ I think is a great way to do it. So when

42:29 ↗ we're looking at these areas that are

42:30 ↗ the most impactful for greenhouse gas

42:33 ↗ emissions, this is really us saying,

42:36 ↗ okay, is there a way that we can move

42:38 ↗ the needle forward that's something that

42:40 ↗ is right sized for isiqua. So I think um

42:44 ↗ the parking one um and reducing parking

42:48 ↗ minimums to me is the most interesting.

42:51 ↗ Um, I think this builds in with a lot of

42:54 ↗ the other conversations we've been

42:55 ↗ having about creating a more walkable

42:59 ↗ um, central Isqua area. Um, improving

43:02 ↗ and decreasing the cost of building and

43:05 ↗ finding a way to incentivize development

43:08 ↗ in that area that will achieve all of

43:11 ↗ those things as well as support future

43:13 ↗ transit. So, I think there's a lot of

43:15 ↗ things that come together there. Um, I

43:18 ↗ agree with council member Nichols about

43:20 ↗ the, you know, 0.5 miles and regional

43:23 ↗ growth center. I think the idea of

43:26 ↗ creating a definition around fixed or

43:28 ↗ permanent transit locations is a really

43:31 ↗ good way for us to achieve that without

43:34 ↗ as much uncertainty on things like sound

43:37 ↗ transit routes that we don't have any

43:39 ↗ control over. Um, so I I really think

43:42 ↗ this is one that we should look into.

43:46 ↗ Maybe that happens through a few tweaks

43:49 ↗ in the IAAP language, but is ultimately

43:53 ↗ achieved through this council um

43:56 ↗ conversation about building. And I think

43:58 ↗ that could be a good way um to do that

44:02 ↗ with um EV capable. I well, first of

44:07 ↗ all, I agree EV capable over EV ready is

44:09 ↗ probably the way to go so that we are

44:11 ↗ not disincentivizing or causing problems

44:14 ↗ um with building new homes for people.

44:17 ↗ But I think this also ties into some of

44:19 ↗ the council conversation about building

44:23 ↗ um because we have our sustainable

44:24 ↗ development standards and one of the

44:26 ↗ things we talked about was are there

44:28 ↗ ways that we can provide options and so

44:31 ↗ that would be one thing that I would

44:33 ↗ think about but I'm also pretty darn

44:35 ↗ comfortable just creating that as a

44:39 ↗ requirement because these are buildings

44:41 ↗ that are going to be here for 50 plus

44:45 ↗ years And um I think there is a way that

44:49 ↗ we can work with our relationship with

44:53 ↗ builders to figure out a way that

44:56 ↗ doesn't run into some of these issues,

44:58 ↗ but still sets those buildings and those

45:01 ↗ future residents up for success,

45:03 ↗ particularly if we're pairing it with a

45:06 ↗ lower um parking requirement. And so I

45:09 ↗ think that type of trade-off working

45:11 ↗ together is a really good way of doing

45:13 ↗ it. um EV charging. As an EV owner, I

45:17 ↗ don't want to be at a fuel station.

45:19 ↗ That's one of the benefits of having an

45:22 ↗ EV is I don't have to do that. So, I

45:24 ↗ agree with staff and TAB and PPC. Um and

45:27 ↗ then transit first policy. This is a

45:30 ↗ really interesting one. Um

45:33 ↗ I appreciate that both PPC and TAB say

45:36 ↗ that that was the intent of the mobility

45:40 ↗ action plan.

45:42 ↗ I haven't seen that from a council

45:44 ↗ standpoint. I haven't seen things that

45:47 ↗ then came forward to us that said

45:50 ↗ we're doing this transit oriented

45:53 ↗ project instead of a car oriented

45:58 ↗ project because the mobility action plan

46:00 ↗ said so. So I think this is one again

46:04 ↗ could probably live within the IAP

46:07 ↗ saying this is a policy we want to

46:09 ↗ achieve, but I think it really needs to

46:11 ↗ be a good conversation with the

46:14 ↗ transportation advisory board tab

46:17 ↗ um on ways that we can truly achieve

46:21 ↗ this. I think there were some good ideas

46:24 ↗ brought up here. Um, but I think to me

46:27 ↗ this really calls out just because it

46:30 ↗ says so in a plan doesn't mean that it

46:34 ↗ did so enough at a code or ordinance or

46:39 ↗ even

46:42 ↗ uh feeling of government um idea that we

46:45 ↗ really saw any um significant changes on

46:48 ↗ that. And I think this is a good way for

46:51 ↗ us to start thinking about things though

46:54 ↗ I do agree we are nowhere near where

46:56 ↗ Berkeley is with a college with um some

47:00 ↗ of that density but I do think it gives

47:02 ↗ us an idea of how do we change some of

47:04 ↗ our mindset so that we are thinking in

47:05 ↗ that way. Great. Okay. Moving on to the

47:10 ↗ second. Oh yes, Deputy Council

47:12 ↗ President. Um yeah, I realized I had a

47:15 ↗ couple other um kind of like

47:17 ↗ transportation related ideas for us to

47:19 ↗ consider beyond these four. Um so, you

47:22 ↗ know, just basic things like could we

47:26 ↗ potentially offer incentives for doing

47:28 ↗ bike rack installations at places that

47:30 ↗ don't have them. For example, Meadow

47:32 ↗ Shopping Center. I go there. I lock my

47:34 ↗ bike to these weird gutter thingies

47:35 ↗ because that's the only thing that's

47:36 ↗ there. This is not an expensive thing to

47:39 ↗ do. Um that could, you know, help

47:41 ↗ encourage more cycling. Um I know uh

47:43 ↗ Stacy I think you have gotten some

47:45 ↗ funding to do an ebike uh rebate

47:48 ↗ program. So it would be great to

47:50 ↗ actually include that as a climate

47:52 ↗ policy. Um I know also wash in the past

47:55 ↗ had funding to do ebike lend ebike

47:57 ↗ lending library but also you know if we

47:59 ↗ want people to bike more we do need to

48:00 ↗ have safe infrastructure. And one of the

48:03 ↗ things that I'm particularly interested

48:05 ↗ in is seeing if we can work with the

48:06 ↗ school district on like safe routes to

48:08 ↗ school. Um especially you know just if

48:11 ↗ you've ever driven past Isakiqua High

48:14 ↗ School or Isqua Middle School around the

48:16 ↗ time that school gets in or out there is

48:18 ↗ I mean it's like clearly one of the

48:20 ↗ biggest drivers of traffic in the city

48:22 ↗ um other than you know is qual road

48:24 ↗ itself but that's a whole other issue.

48:25 ↗ Um, so I think, you know, to the extent

48:28 ↗ that we can partner with ISD to even

48:31 ↗ have like signage and, you know, figure

48:33 ↗ out where the infrastructure gaps are so

48:35 ↗ that students can get to school, reduces

48:37 ↗ traffic for everyone. Um, and also a lot

48:40 ↗ of these kids can't drive because

48:41 ↗ they're under 16. So, um, that's some

48:44 ↗ that would be something I'd be

48:45 ↗ interested in. Um, on the topic of EVs,

48:49 ↗ I think, you know, in PBC, there was a

48:51 ↗ comment from someone about how like

48:53 ↗ there's a condo complex near them where

48:55 ↗ to put in like two or three EV chargers

48:57 ↗ is going to cost $100,000. I've heard

48:59 ↗ this from some of my other friends. You

49:00 ↗ know, my friend had a neighbor who

49:02 ↗ wanted to put an EV charger. this person

49:05 ↗ like there were other people on their

49:07 ↗ street that had EV chargers but this

49:08 ↗ person just happened to be the unlucky

49:10 ↗ one where this one EV charger was going

49:12 ↗ to tip them over the line to requiring a

49:13 ↗ bigger transformer and then this one

49:15 ↗ person was going to have to eat the

49:16 ↗ entire cost which is tens of thousands

49:17 ↗ of dollars. So there's got to be some

49:19 ↗ better way to do this and this is like a

49:21 ↗ PSSE issue that you know there's other

49:24 ↗ communities around the state facing

49:25 ↗ issues like this and I think this is

49:28 ↗ something where you know if it is a

49:30 ↗ concern for us then I think we should

49:32 ↗ consider you know advocating for changes

49:34 ↗ and being part of those conversations

49:36 ↗ because it doesn't like I don't know you

49:39 ↗ know uh Stacy we've had all these

49:41 ↗ conversations about what you know what

49:42 ↗ can K4C do to be actually influential

49:46 ↗ and useful and I think those are exactly

49:48 ↗ the types of conversations we should be

49:49 ↗ engaging in at a regional level with our

49:51 ↗ utilities, with the state legislature to

49:53 ↗ be like, okay, clearly what we're doing

49:54 ↗ now isn't working. Like, let's figure

49:55 ↗ out a better way and get it so that we

49:58 ↗ can, you know, build our infrastructure

50:01 ↗ in a way that is not unduly impacting

50:04 ↗ whoever just happens to be unlucky.

50:08 ↗ Great, great feedback. More there. Um,

50:11 ↗ okay. And then uh looking for feedback

50:14 ↗ on the next section which I believe is

50:17 ↗ buildings and energy. Anyone want to

50:20 ↗ start there?

50:22 ↗ Deputy council president. Okay. This is

50:24 ↗ exciting for me because this is my uh

50:26 ↗ professional area of expertise. Um I

50:30 ↗ think both of these actions are fine,

50:32 ↗ but they're also like very unlikely to

50:35 ↗ result in meaningful change at the scale

50:37 ↗ that we need. Um, also to go back to one

50:40 ↗ of the other items which was like the

50:42 ↗ home energy score thing. So I did look

50:44 ↗ up there's it's like a uh pro program of

50:48 ↗ the department of energy to do this home

50:49 ↗ energy score thing and there's no like

50:52 ↗ assessors that can do the home energy

50:54 ↗ score assessment in the entire state of

50:56 ↗ Washington. They only have them in

50:58 ↗ Oregon because Portland did their

50:59 ↗ program. So you know there's some level

51:00 ↗ of like we would have to train people to

51:02 ↗ do this home energy score verification.

51:04 ↗ So that's also a potential barrier to

51:06 ↗ doing that. Also, just in general, I'm

51:08 ↗ very skeptical about how much just

51:10 ↗ benchmarking and reporting on emissions

51:12 ↗ actually moves the needle. So, my

51:14 ↗ company does a lot of work in New York.

51:16 ↗ In New York, every single building over

51:18 ↗ 25,000 square feet has to tape a sign in

51:20 ↗ their window saying what their energy

51:21 ↗ rating is. So, you can see if buildings

51:23 ↗ are A through D. And this is like a

51:25 ↗ topic of conversation amongst normal

51:27 ↗ people. They're like, "Oh, I this

51:29 ↗ building that I live that I work in or

51:31 ↗ whatever has a score of a D. This

51:32 ↗ restaurant has a score of whatever." So,

51:34 ↗ it's like very top of mind for people.

51:36 ↗ And yet people are not actually

51:38 ↗ decarbonizing their buildings. I think

51:40 ↗ the research shows, you know,

51:41 ↗ benchmarking reduces energy use by like

51:44 ↗ 2% overall. That's not that much. So I

51:48 ↗ think kind of the ROI is not really

51:50 ↗ there. Um I think in general we know

51:54 ↗ what we need to do, right? Like we need

51:55 ↗ to reduce fossil fuel use in buildings.

51:58 ↗ I did find it interesting. I I think

52:01 ↗ like in our strategic plan dashboard,

52:03 ↗ we're tracking electricity use in the

52:05 ↗ city. We're not tracking gas use. And at

52:08 ↗ least from my perspective, as we

52:10 ↗ decarbonize, we get more heat pumps, we

52:12 ↗ get more EVs, electricity use is

52:14 ↗ probably going to go up. That's actually

52:16 ↗ fine, especially if you know with the

52:19 ↗ Clean Energy Transformation Act, PSSE

52:21 ↗ actually builds out all the clean

52:23 ↗ electricity infrastructure that they

52:24 ↗ need to. Um, so I do think we really

52:27 ↗ need to be laser focused on reducing the

52:29 ↗ amount of natural gas that is burned in

52:32 ↗ our buildings. And

52:34 ↗ um, I think part of that is like

52:38 ↗ incentivizing heat pumps, but also like

52:40 ↗ we really shouldn't be putting in new

52:43 ↗ gas equipment unless we really really

52:46 ↗ need to. And so, you know, one of the

52:49 ↗ potential options is like if you're

52:50 ↗ going to put in a new, you know, like

52:52 ↗ central AC, you your AC must have a

52:55 ↗ reversing valve so that it can also

52:57 ↗ operate as a heat pump. And we already

52:59 ↗ have a heat pump incentive, that

53:01 ↗ probably should cover that cost

53:02 ↗ differential for households under 150%

53:05 ↗ of AMI, which is something like $200,000

53:07 ↗ a year. So, I think, you know, if you're

53:10 ↗ above that level,

53:13 ↗ hopefully you're in a financial

53:15 ↗ situation where the extra cost of a heat

53:16 ↗ pump is um acceptable. But I think like

53:21 ↗ we we do need to actually take seriously

53:23 ↗ this idea that like if we put in a new

53:25 ↗ gas furnace now, it's going you're going

53:27 ↗ to be using it for like 15 or 20 years.

53:29 ↗ You know, it's going to be here until

53:30 ↗ 2041 at least. And so like we also I'm

53:36 ↗ we also don't want to make people rip

53:37 ↗ out equipment that already exists. So I

53:39 ↗ think anything related to you know

53:40 ↗ having to update your property at time

53:42 ↗ of sale. Like what if you had just

53:44 ↗ installed a new you know gas water

53:46 ↗ heater in 2020? Are you going to have to

53:49 ↗ rip that out and put in an electric one?

53:50 ↗ That doesn't really make sense. And

53:52 ↗ that's the type of thing that causes

53:53 ↗ people to get grumpy. So I think you

53:55 ↗ know to the extent that like if people

53:59 ↗ have to replace their equipment because

54:00 ↗ it's old and failing then we should do

54:03 ↗ everything we can to make sure that it

54:05 ↗ is not fossil fuel. I also think my

54:08 ↗ honest opinion is even if you know

54:11 ↗ someone installs a heat pump it's

54:12 ↗ probably okay to still have like a gas

54:14 ↗ furnace for backup if it gets really

54:16 ↗ cold. Like I'm not super like dogmatic

54:19 ↗ about that. I think is like if we're

54:20 ↗ getting rid of 90% of the gas use that's

54:23 ↗ great. Um I think

54:26 ↗ >> can I ask a question about it? So I

54:29 ↗ didn't hear whether you were saying from

54:31 ↗ that you really want it to be a

54:35 ↗ requirement like you think this is

54:37 ↗ something that should be a policy in IAP

54:39 ↗ or whether you weren't sure. Can you

54:42 ↗ clarify?

54:42 ↗ >> Yes. So, I think we should have a

54:43 ↗ requirement that says if you're going to

54:45 ↗ put in a new AC, it has to be a heat

54:48 ↗ pump. Um, but I don't think we should

54:51 ↗ say if you have an existing gas furnace,

54:54 ↗ you need to rip it out.

54:58 ↗ So, more on the any time there is a

55:02 ↗ replacement, you shouldn't put a new one

55:03 ↗ in, but not um upgrades at the time of

55:06 ↗ sale.

55:07 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Um and then the

55:10 ↗ other thing is so on green one of the

55:12 ↗ items that we had discussed in some

55:14 ↗ other conversations was you know up

55:16 ↗ creating more optionality for new

55:18 ↗ construction in terms of green building

55:19 ↗ standards. So I'm wondering and maybe

55:22 ↗ this would be too big of a lift but like

55:24 ↗ there's a lot of things in the green

55:26 ↗ building standards that have absolutely

55:27 ↗ nothing to do with climate like the you

55:29 ↗ know build green emerald star you get

55:31 ↗ points for like using local timber like

55:33 ↗ that's great and all but you know is

55:35 ↗ that necessarily gerine to climate

55:38 ↗ action and a lot of them like especially

55:40 ↗ with like lead their requirements for

55:43 ↗ energy efficiency are like honestly less

55:45 ↗ stringent than the Washington state

55:47 ↗ energy code. So, this is actually true,

55:50 ↗ by the way. Um, and so I think, you

55:53 ↗ know, and it takes a lot of effort for

55:55 ↗ these builders to go through the energy

55:57 ↗ certification process. So, I'm wondering

55:59 ↗ if we could consider saying like, okay,

56:01 ↗ if you don't want to go through the

56:02 ↗ whole certification process, if you're

56:03 ↗ like all electric and have like the most

56:05 ↗ efficient heat pump, then that satisfies

56:08 ↗ a sustainability requirement. That makes

56:10 ↗ it simpler and also gets us closer to

56:12 ↗ our goal of, you know, decarbonization.

56:14 ↗ Um, yeah. Oh, and also in the lead one,

56:17 ↗ uh you'll love this. There's you get

56:19 ↗ points if you have um open uh open space

56:21 ↗ amenities on site. Um water efficiency,

56:25 ↗ water efficiency is actually important,

56:26 ↗ but there's there's all sorts of random

56:27 ↗ things in there which like don't

56:29 ↗ necessarily have anything to do with

56:31 ↗ climate action. And so I think we should

56:34 ↗ consider whether we can have an

56:35 ↗ alternative pathway that's very focused

56:37 ↗ on, you know, having the lowest

56:39 ↗ emissions building possible.

56:42 ↗ Um and okay, I think that was it for me.

56:47 ↗ Council member Nichols.

56:51 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you. Um,

56:55 ↗ I think I am generally aligned with the

56:58 ↗ staff recommendations here. Um,

57:03 ↗ I will say on the the dark sky

57:05 ↗ ordinance, I would like to have that

57:07 ↗ brought back to us with whatever the

57:09 ↗ specific concerns are at the moment. And

57:11 ↗ I would otherwise I I would otherwise

57:14 ↗ support this as a policy. Um I think

57:17 ↗ what's what's not really taken into

57:19 ↗ account here is on the on the climate

57:21 ↗ side of things um

57:26 ↗ ecological

57:27 ↗ effects from climate change causing

57:29 ↗ particularly migratory bird uh patterns

57:31 ↗ to change etc that um dark sky

57:33 ↗ ordinances can help with. We are on all

57:35 ↗ sorts of flyaways. We have a giant lake,

57:37 ↗ lots of parks, lots of good places to

57:39 ↗ land if you are a bird. Um, this this

57:42 ↗ feeds into that and I think the

57:43 ↗ appropriate place for that kind of thing

57:44 ↗ to live is probably in our climate

57:45 ↗ policy. Um, because it's an impact in

57:48 ↗ many ways. Um otherwise

57:55 ↗ I

57:57 ↗ I will defer to deputy council

58:00 ↗ president's um

58:02 ↗ statements on most of the building the

58:05 ↗ the home energy and building benchmarks

58:07 ↗ um as well as the time of replacement

58:09 ↗ stuff. I think um this points they all

58:11 ↗ make sense and I think they're I'm I'm

58:12 ↗ mostly aligned with that. Um, and I I

58:15 ↗ think if I'm reading this correctly,

58:16 ↗ that's also mostly what the city is

58:18 ↗ saying, but maybe correct me if I'm

58:20 ↗ misreading that. Um,

58:30 ↗ yeah. So, I I don't have as many strong

58:32 ↗ opinions on this side of the of these

58:35 ↗ policies. Um, and I appreciate all the

58:37 ↗ thought and work that went into crafting

58:39 ↗ these and trying to get to some

58:41 ↗ consensus on it.

58:44 ↗ Thanks. And I will just add in so from

58:47 ↗ my perspective the building energy

58:50 ↗ benchmarking and the home energy score

58:53 ↗ are really state level policies and so I

58:56 ↗ would be happy to advocate for them. Um

58:59 ↗ but I don't necessarily see how a city

59:02 ↗ of our size um really moves the needle

59:05 ↗ in that direction. Um, time of

59:08 ↗ replacement I was also going to say

59:11 ↗ would be best at a state level. Um, just

59:16 ↗ for the idea that then everybody hears

59:21 ↗ about it. Um, but I thought back to it

59:25 ↗ and I said, "Well, we're the ones that

59:27 ↗ give out the permit for whether or not

59:29 ↗ you can do an install." And so I think

59:32 ↗ it may make sense from a city

59:35 ↗ standpoint. I am interested

59:39 ↗ to have a conversation about what the

59:42 ↗ discounts are compared to the costs um

59:45 ↗ as somebody who when we put something in

59:49 ↗ 10 years ago couldn't fit what was on

59:52 ↗ the market at the time um within the

59:54 ↗ scope of our property. Um I'm also

59:58 ↗ understanding of some of those ideas. So

1:00:02 ↗ I think this is one I would be

1:00:04 ↗ comfortable keeping or putting in the

1:00:07 ↗ IAP and then having further discussions

1:00:09 ↗ over how do we make that happen? Um

1:00:12 ↗ because ultimately what we are looking

1:00:14 ↗ at here is a plan for

1:00:19 ↗ addressing our impacts on climate. And

1:00:23 ↗ this is not necessarily saying we have

1:00:26 ↗ to do these things right now in a

1:00:29 ↗ certain way, but it does incentivize us

1:00:31 ↗ to have a conversation

1:00:34 ↗ um around them. And then dark sky, I

1:00:38 ↗ don't have an opinion on it. Um I think

1:00:40 ↗ there's the you know kind of bird and

1:00:45 ↗ animal side of things. There's also the

1:00:47 ↗ energy use. And so if we felt like the

1:00:51 ↗ energy use of having big buildings have

1:00:55 ↗ their lights on overnight, um

1:00:58 ↗ particularly ones that can be seen from

1:00:59 ↗ the freeway as you were driving past, um

1:01:03 ↗ is something that is impactful, then

1:01:07 ↗ maybe we can have a conversation. But I

1:01:09 ↗ don't feel strongly that that would move

1:01:10 ↗ the needle on our overall climate. Uh

1:01:13 ↗ Council Member Nichols. Yeah, thank you.

1:01:16 ↗ You reminded me of one point that I

1:01:17 ↗ missed. So, um, related to some of these

1:01:20 ↗ policies in terms of what's appropriate

1:01:23 ↗ more at the local versus the state

1:01:24 ↗ level, I think a lot of these could make

1:01:26 ↗ more could make a lot of sense at the

1:01:28 ↗ state level. And I think one thing to

1:01:29 ↗ consider would be I'm not sure exactly

1:01:32 ↗ how we would work this but um adop

1:01:37 ↗ trying to util if we can put these as

1:01:39 ↗ directional goals for the city that

1:01:40 ↗ don't have specific city policy

1:01:43 ↗ requirements but things that we would

1:01:45 ↗ like to see pushed on at the state

1:01:46 ↗ level. uh that might be a better way to

1:01:49 ↗ drive towards some things that we want

1:01:51 ↗ but that we don't think that would be

1:01:53 ↗ feasible from a staff or scale

1:01:56 ↗ perspective to be done at the city level

1:01:58 ↗ because they would you know just I could

1:02:00 ↗ imagine some of these scores for example

1:02:02 ↗ could require a halfime if not more than

1:02:05 ↗ that employee to manage something like

1:02:07 ↗ that. Um and uh if we instead had that

1:02:10 ↗ le uh done at the state level, it could

1:02:12 ↗ be much more efficient. Which is not to

1:02:14 ↗ say I don't support it. It's just that

1:02:16 ↗ um maybe we can try to find a way to

1:02:17 ↗ support that that sort of thing through

1:02:19 ↗ our legislative agenda instead of

1:02:21 ↗ directly

1:02:23 ↗ uh implementing it within Isqua itself.

1:02:28 ↗ >> More go ahead. Um, okay. This one is a

1:02:30 ↗ little bit unrelated to climate, but as

1:02:32 ↗ I was reading through, you know, the

1:02:34 ↗ climate action plan, one thing that came

1:02:36 ↗ to mind was, I mean, with composting, so

1:02:39 ↗ when I first moved to Isqua, like five

1:02:41 ↗ and a half years ago, I had to request a

1:02:43 ↗ compost bin. Almost none of my neighbors

1:02:46 ↗ have it. It's not necessarily the

1:02:48 ↗ biggest climate action, but you know,

1:02:49 ↗ food waste and landfills emits methane,

1:02:51 ↗ which has 100 times potency as carbon

1:02:53 ↗ dioxide on a 25-y year time frame. And

1:02:55 ↗ like, literally, all you have to do is

1:02:56 ↗ just request the bin from ecology. So,

1:02:58 ↗ I'm wondering if this is something where

1:03:00 ↗ we could do like a marketing campaign of

1:03:02 ↗ be like, "Hey, you know, you can do

1:03:04 ↗ compost." Um, and you know, even if it's

1:03:07 ↗ not like the biggest needle mover on uh

1:03:10 ↗ climate, it's still a good

1:03:11 ↗ sustainability action that we should be

1:03:13 ↗ encouraging our residents to take.

1:03:16 ↗ >> Yeah, absolutely. And we have a section

1:03:18 ↗ in the plan around materials and

1:03:19 ↗ consumption that talks a lot about that

1:03:21 ↗ outreach and education. So, we just

1:03:23 ↗ didn't bring all of those actions to you

1:03:25 ↗ tonight. So,

1:03:27 ↗ >> great. Thank you. Great. Um, can you go

1:03:29 ↗ to slide 19, which is really the option

1:03:33 ↗ one, two, and three idea. One more.

1:03:36 ↗ Yeah. So, um, I guess the next question

1:03:41 ↗ for us and maybe I'll ask you Stacy, as

1:03:45 ↗ you've heard what we have said, we've

1:03:47 ↗ obviously advocated for certain areas.

1:03:51 ↗ do when you're talking about the

1:03:53 ↗ timeline of this ISQA climate action

1:03:55 ↗ plan,

1:03:57 ↗ how do you feel this either coming back

1:04:01 ↗ between these options would work out?

1:04:04 ↗ What are the impacts? Um, and do you

1:04:07 ↗ feel anything is necessary to work

1:04:09 ↗ through

1:04:10 ↗ >> work through this evening?

1:04:12 ↗ >> Well, I I think this was either

1:04:15 ↗ return to full counsel or PTE for

1:04:19 ↗ further direction. Do you feel like we

1:04:21 ↗ fell into any of these buckets?

1:04:24 ↗ >> Um, I think we got great feedback

1:04:27 ↗ tonight. I do have a couple questions I

1:04:29 ↗ wanted to just follow up on to make sure

1:04:31 ↗ I had clarity, but um, what our plan was

1:04:35 ↗ coming out of this discussion is we

1:04:37 ↗ would incorporate your feedback into a

1:04:39 ↗ full set of actions that will go to the

1:04:41 ↗ environmental board next week. I think I

1:04:43 ↗ have enough direction tonight. Um, as

1:04:46 ↗ you said, these would be framed as kind

1:04:49 ↗ of assessing the feasibility of

1:04:51 ↗ implementing this type of policy. So,

1:04:53 ↗ it's not committing the city to do it.

1:04:55 ↗ It's digging in deeper, whether it's

1:04:57 ↗ around um what percent of EV capable

1:05:01 ↗ would we want to require EV ready or um

1:05:05 ↗ what would a timer replacement

1:05:06 ↗ requirement look like for our city. So

1:05:08 ↗ there'd be a lot more investigation into

1:05:11 ↗ these policies. Um, and it's not

1:05:14 ↗ committing the city to implement the

1:05:15 ↗ policy, but committing us to further

1:05:18 ↗ evaluate and come to council for

1:05:20 ↗ discussion. Um, so that being said, I

1:05:24 ↗ think I have received uh great feedback

1:05:26 ↗ tonight on the policies that were

1:05:29 ↗ brought to TAB and PPC and revised with

1:05:32 ↗ a staff recommendation um that I feel

1:05:35 ↗ comfortable moving those to the board

1:05:36 ↗ next week for early input.

1:05:38 ↗ >> Great. And you said you had some

1:05:40 ↗ questions. Anything that we can clear

1:05:42 ↗ up?

1:05:42 ↗ >> Um, one was around the percent EV

1:05:45 ↗ capable or ready. Um based on your

1:05:48 ↗ feedback, what I would do is we would

1:05:50 ↗ frame the action in the plan around um

1:05:54 ↗ looking in further into that and doing a

1:05:57 ↗ study to come back and propose a

1:05:59 ↗ percentage of capable and ready parking

1:06:02 ↗ that we would recommend. We'd have

1:06:04 ↗ discussions with developers, understand

1:06:06 ↗ costs and benefits. I wanted to make

1:06:08 ↗ sure that you all didn't have in mind a

1:06:11 ↗ requirement you wanted to put into the

1:06:13 ↗ plan uh that we work to move through a a

1:06:16 ↗ policy a percentage requirement in mind

1:06:19 ↗ or if that should be part of the

1:06:20 ↗ evaluation.

1:06:22 ↗ >> Deputy council president,

1:06:24 ↗ >> I guess my preference would be 100% but

1:06:29 ↗ at a level that's lower than EV capable.

1:06:31 ↗ Mhm.

1:06:31 ↗ >> Um, which is basically, you know, just

1:06:33 ↗ the plumbing tubes and wires but without

1:06:35 ↗ the oversized electrical service.

1:06:40 ↗ >> And I would say I'm kind of of the same

1:06:43 ↗ thing if we're talking about what should

1:06:45 ↗ we be planning toward. Uh, yes, let's go

1:06:50 ↗ toward that. And if through

1:06:53 ↗ conversations we find that it's better

1:06:55 ↗ as a tradeoff between one element and

1:06:58 ↗ another, then we can have that

1:07:00 ↗ conversation later down the line. But

1:07:01 ↗ let's not cut ourselves off too early.

1:07:03 ↗ Okay.

1:07:06 ↗ Um, great. And then just a couple

1:07:08 ↗ comments. I appreciate I recognize it's

1:07:10 ↗ a we're not presenting the full set of

1:07:13 ↗ actions so a bit um hard for you all to

1:07:16 ↗ provide uh that feedback but there were

1:07:18 ↗ some ideas that came out of the

1:07:19 ↗ discussion that we did not currently

1:07:21 ↗ have in the IAP like incentives for bike

1:07:24 ↗ racks um items like that that we'll make

1:07:26 ↗ sure to incorporate. We do have a action

1:07:29 ↗ around state advocacy and so I think

1:07:31 ↗ there are some good suggestions here

1:07:32 ↗ that we might be able to specify some of

1:07:34 ↗ those particular programs that we feel

1:07:36 ↗ like would be good but maybe aren't

1:07:38 ↗ right sized at a city level to

1:07:40 ↗ implement.

1:07:42 ↗ >> Great. Do you need anything else from us

1:07:44 ↗ on that? Oh, Council Member Nichols.

1:07:47 ↗ >> Yeah, just a line to make sure that

1:07:50 ↗ we're clear on kind of direct the

1:07:52 ↗ direction side of this. So, um, on the

1:07:56 ↗ EV side of things, it sounded like there

1:07:58 ↗ you might when you initially responding,

1:08:01 ↗ you were looking more towards going um,

1:08:05 ↗ and trying to have more of a discussion.

1:08:07 ↗ I think I I I do think the the

1:08:09 ↗ discussion up here was pretty clear. So,

1:08:11 ↗ I I think we we don't need as much back

1:08:13 ↗ and forth there. I would say the same

1:08:14 ↗ thing was true from the parking minimums

1:08:16 ↗ perspective.

1:08:17 ↗ >> Um,

1:08:19 ↗ >> see alignment on that. I think there is

1:08:21 ↗ for including in IAP. I think it's going

1:08:24 ↗ to be an further conversation on

1:08:27 ↗ council.

1:08:28 ↗ >> Um but as far as what needs to be

1:08:30 ↗ included in IAP, the idea of creating uh

1:08:35 ↗ fewer parking minimums um particularly

1:08:39 ↗ in those areas I think was pretty clear

1:08:41 ↗ on that. So that's ready to go back to

1:08:45 ↗ PPC then, right? Um, I think our next

1:08:47 ↗ step would be through the environmental

1:08:49 ↗ board and then I can talk with the team

1:08:51 ↗ if we need to do another review through

1:08:53 ↗ PPC.

1:08:54 ↗ >> Okay, great. Anything else there? No.

1:08:57 ↗ Okay. Okay,

1:08:59 ↗ >> great.

1:08:59 ↗ >> So, yes, our next steps will be to

1:09:01 ↗ incorporate any of that feedback. Um,

1:09:03 ↗ we'll follow up with any questions and

1:09:05 ↗ then um next week we are meeting with

1:09:08 ↗ the environmental board for that full

1:09:11 ↗ initial full review of the revised

1:09:13 ↗ targets and actions. And so we'll share

1:09:15 ↗ this feedback with the environmental

1:09:16 ↗ board and return to them again in April

1:09:18 ↗ for the conversation.

1:09:23 ↗ >> Great on this one.

1:09:25 ↗ >> And madam chair, members of the

1:09:26 ↗ committee. So

1:09:28 ↗ >> this will then come back to this

1:09:30 ↗ committee. We'll go to a committee the

1:09:31 ↗ whole

1:09:32 ↗ >> what's the next step?

1:09:34 ↗ >> That's the other presentation.

1:09:35 ↗ >> That's the other presentation.

1:09:37 ↗ >> We tried to separate it out.

1:09:39 ↗ >> We're going there next. Just didn't want

1:09:42 ↗ us to leave the room tonight. Oh, we are

1:09:44 ↗ not. We have a whole other topic

1:09:47 ↗ tonight, which is uh column 0257,

1:09:51 ↗ the pathway and timeline for climate

1:09:53 ↗ action plan adoption. And Stacy, as you

1:09:56 ↗ said, a lot of this is kind of duplicate

1:09:59 ↗ stuff, so I think we can uh jump through

1:10:02 ↗ as much as necessary. Um, but I'll let

1:10:05 ↗ you get that presentation up. And

1:10:10 ↗ the big idea at the end is does this go

1:10:14 ↗ to committee of the whole or does this

1:10:16 ↗ go to PTE after several other touches in

1:10:20 ↗ the meantime. So I'll let you take it

1:10:21 ↗ away.

1:10:22 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. I will move through

1:10:26 ↗ very quickly since we have discussed a

1:10:28 ↗ lot of this. Um again tonight we're

1:10:31 ↗ really looking for your feedback on the

1:10:33 ↗ process to move forward the IAP for

1:10:36 ↗ council review and adoption.

1:10:40 ↗ Um and we've proposed a couple of

1:10:42 ↗ options. Um these are similar to what we

1:10:44 ↗ discussed back at the February meeting

1:10:47 ↗ um that we could we proposed the option

1:10:50 ↗ to go through council the whole or

1:10:52 ↗ return back to this committee for

1:10:54 ↗ further review.

1:10:56 ↗ Um just as a very very brief review um

1:11:01 ↗ the plan uh again was adopted in

1:11:03 ↗ December 2021. We're working through um

1:11:07 ↗ this five-year

1:11:09 ↗ uh update through the process that I

1:11:11 ↗ described in the earlier presentation.

1:11:14 ↗ Um again, taking uh the components of

1:11:16 ↗ this plan through committees, boards,

1:11:18 ↗ commissions, community outreach um and

1:11:21 ↗ then bringing forward to PTE committee.

1:11:25 ↗ Um I reviewed these in February, but um

1:11:28 ↗ wanted to just speak briefly to them uh

1:11:31 ↗ with the the reorganization of our

1:11:33 ↗ committees. Um on this the screen are

1:11:37 ↗ some of the major revisions that we are

1:11:40 ↗ working on for this plan update. We're

1:11:43 ↗ really working to better connect the

1:11:44 ↗ targets and actions in the plan. Um

1:11:47 ↗ we've had some targets that were

1:11:49 ↗ disconnected from the actions. Uh for

1:11:51 ↗ instance, in our natural systems focus

1:11:54 ↗ area, we have a tree canopy target, but

1:11:56 ↗ very few actions in that section that

1:11:58 ↗ focused on enhancing tree canopy.

1:12:01 ↗ uh with um another connection that we're

1:12:03 ↗ working on making is with the update of

1:12:05 ↗ the comprehensive plan, making sure that

1:12:07 ↗ we're bringing in those updated

1:12:09 ↗ components into the IAAP for better

1:12:11 ↗ alignment.

1:12:13 ↗ Um we did not have a municipal target in

1:12:15 ↗ the plan. So we've been working uh

1:12:17 ↗ internally and with the environmental

1:12:19 ↗ board to develop those targets.

1:12:22 ↗ The current plan has some very specific

1:12:25 ↗ actions around particular campaigns that

1:12:28 ↗ were important to the community at the

1:12:29 ↗ time uh the 2021 plan plan was passed.

1:12:33 ↗ Um we're looking to broaden those out

1:12:35 ↗ just to allow for more flexibility, make

1:12:37 ↗ sure that we're um responding to the

1:12:39 ↗ most important priorities at the time.

1:12:43 ↗ Um and we're doing a pretty significant

1:12:45 ↗ review of how we are measuring progress

1:12:47 ↗ and reporting on that. We've been

1:12:49 ↗ working with a metrics committee um and

1:12:51 ↗ we'll be proposing those recommendations

1:12:53 ↗ to the environmental board next week um

1:12:55 ↗ to make sure that we're really reporting

1:12:57 ↗ out to the community uh meaningful uh

1:13:00 ↗ metrics from uh that demonstrate

1:13:02 ↗ progress or lack thereof. Um and then

1:13:05 ↗ one of the big changes is that that

1:13:07 ↗ we'll be discussing more with you all as

1:13:09 ↗ we continue this review is we're looking

1:13:11 ↗ at a 10-year plan. This is really um to

1:13:16 ↗ uh demonstrate that we have a general

1:13:18 ↗ sense of the work that needs to be done

1:13:20 ↗ in those biggest areas of impact. Um and

1:13:24 ↗ this will uh reduce capacity needs for

1:13:28 ↗ updating a plan every five years. Um but

1:13:31 ↗ we are building in some checkpoints

1:13:32 ↗ where the environmental board could

1:13:34 ↗ request a review or an update if needed

1:13:37 ↗ at a mid-year point.

1:13:41 ↗ Um and again reviewed this uh process uh

1:13:45 ↗ back in February. Wanted to um just

1:13:48 ↗ reiterate the process we're going

1:13:49 ↗ through. We started this plan update

1:13:52 ↗ about a year ago uh working with those

1:13:54 ↗ committees and beginning to look at

1:13:56 ↗ revisions that were occurring in our

1:13:57 ↗ neighboring jurisdictions plans. Um

1:14:00 ↗ we've been going through a public

1:14:01 ↗ engagement event uh most heavily focused

1:14:04 ↗ on board commission review uh starting

1:14:07 ↗ back in the fall and through this

1:14:09 ↗ winter. Um and then uh currently are

1:14:12 ↗ completing up that uh board to

1:14:14 ↗ commission review as well as working

1:14:16 ↗ with that metrics committee.

1:14:19 ↗ Um as I just shared uh we are planning

1:14:21 ↗ to meet with our environmental board

1:14:22 ↗ over the next two months um to do a full

1:14:25 ↗ review of the plan and bring forward

1:14:27 ↗ their recommendation to council.

1:14:32 ↗ Um so in speaking with our clerk's

1:14:35 ↗ office uh we are proposing um two

1:14:39 ↗ options before you all tonight on how we

1:14:41 ↗ want to continue moving forward review

1:14:43 ↗ of the plan. Uh the first option would

1:14:46 ↗ be

1:14:48 ↗ uh to work through um a council of the

1:14:52 ↗ whole um and meet with um them the full

1:14:55 ↗ council in May and then to bring the

1:14:58 ↗ plan for council review and approval in

1:15:00 ↗ either uh June or July. The other option

1:15:04 ↗ would be to work through this committee

1:15:07 ↗ um return to you all in May uh to

1:15:09 ↗ continue the discussion on the IAP and

1:15:11 ↗ bring um the the the feedback from the

1:15:14 ↗ environmental board and then move to

1:15:16 ↗ council in June or July depending on

1:15:18 ↗ whether the committee felt we were

1:15:20 ↗ ready.

1:15:22 ↗ Um a couple notes I just wanted to touch

1:15:24 ↗ on is uh one of the reason we proposed

1:15:27 ↗ meeting with the council of the whole is

1:15:29 ↗ we felt that the IAP touches multiple uh

1:15:34 ↗ committees of the council and so this

1:15:37 ↗ would be an opportunity to to be in

1:15:39 ↗ front of essentially all the committees

1:15:40 ↗ at once. Um, and then the other note

1:15:44 ↗ I'll just make is this summer deadline.

1:15:46 ↗ That's our own internal deadline. We've

1:15:50 ↗ set we do not have to complete climate

1:15:52 ↗ plan adoption this summer. Um, however,

1:15:56 ↗ we feel that it is important to complete

1:15:59 ↗ this process ahead of the budget

1:16:01 ↗ requests. the updates to this plan are

1:16:03 ↗ really going to inform um the budget

1:16:05 ↗ requests that we have uh coming forward

1:16:08 ↗ um to administration and council uh this

1:16:11 ↗ fall and winter. So that is one reason

1:16:13 ↗ we wanted to wrap this process up um

1:16:16 ↗ early in the summer.

1:16:18 ↗ Um the other piece is it's it's a heavy

1:16:21 ↗ workload to update a plan. We have

1:16:24 ↗ really appreciated going through this

1:16:25 ↗ process um being able to review the

1:16:28 ↗ progress we've made and make sure that

1:16:30 ↗ we're updating this plan. So it's the

1:16:32 ↗ most solid foundation for our work going

1:16:34 ↗ forward. Um but we really love the

1:16:36 ↗ implementation work and we want to be uh

1:16:39 ↗ focusing as much of our time of moving

1:16:41 ↗ uh projects and programs forward as

1:16:43 ↗ well.

1:16:47 ↗ So uh again tonight we're looking for

1:16:49 ↗ your feedback on whether we want to move

1:16:52 ↗ this process now to the um committee of

1:16:55 ↗ the whole or uh continue working through

1:16:58 ↗ uh the PTE committee.

1:17:03 ↗ Great. Um, question, and maybe this is

1:17:05 ↗ more of a question for city

1:17:07 ↗ administrator Bob Quitz. Uh,

1:17:10 ↗ we just gave PTE a lot of work with the

1:17:15 ↗ um building incentives plan. So,

1:17:20 ↗ do do we feel like we have room more

1:17:23 ↗ room on the committee of the whole

1:17:27 ↗ schedule versus the planning development

1:17:30 ↗ environment schedule in that May time

1:17:34 ↗ period?

1:17:37 ↗ Madam chair, members of the committee,

1:17:39 ↗ uh PD may likely then need an additional

1:17:43 ↗ meeting in May because as we've talked

1:17:46 ↗ to the community planning and

1:17:47 ↗ development staff today, uh they are

1:17:50 ↗ planning on using your May meeting for

1:17:52 ↗ other matters. So, um one way or

1:17:55 ↗ another, I think there may be another

1:17:57 ↗ meeting in the mix either for PTE or

1:18:00 ↗ having a cow because I think we're also

1:18:01 ↗ weighing what items are coming before

1:18:04 ↗ the full council. We have the uh retreat

1:18:07 ↗ um coming up on uh the 9th. Um I think

1:18:10 ↗ the following Monday.

1:18:15 ↗ Pull up my planning calendar.

1:18:21 ↗ Things are getting busy.

1:18:25 ↗ >> You don't say. Huh?

1:18:31 ↗ >> Okay.

1:18:36 ↗ Because typically I would say, hey, if

1:18:40 ↗ staff and the administration thinks that

1:18:43 ↗ our workload is better balanced in one

1:18:45 ↗ way or the other, that would be an

1:18:46 ↗ important piece um for me. But there's

1:18:51 ↗ nobody around, so I'm not going to go

1:18:53 ↗ for public comment. We're not going to

1:18:55 ↗ separate out questions versus comments.

1:18:58 ↗ Any feedback?

1:19:00 ↗ So, um, based based on the conversation

1:19:04 ↗ we have with the city clerk, uh, she's

1:19:06 ↗ already pitched a sequence of events

1:19:08 ↗ here on the latest edition of the

1:19:10 ↗ planning calendar. Um, she has the, uh,

1:19:13 ↗ the council meeting on the Saturday, the

1:19:16 ↗ 9th of May. She then has a committee,

1:19:19 ↗ the whole on the 11th doing the climate

1:19:22 ↗ action plan, uh, mobility and

1:19:24 ↗ infrastructure on the 12th, but PTE, I'm

1:19:27 ↗ sorry, I should have gone back. PTE on

1:19:29 ↗ the 5th, the Saturday meeting on the

1:19:31 ↗ 9th, committee the whole on the 11th.

1:19:35 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:19:36 ↗ >> So if if you would like to keep it here,

1:19:39 ↗ then I think that would mean a second

1:19:40 ↗ PTE meeting on consecutive weeks.

1:19:44 ↗ >> Otherwise, we would flip it out for the

1:19:46 ↗ council on the same day. So um

1:19:51 ↗ I think there are pros and cons. I think

1:19:52 ↗ as as Stacy's mentioned, this is

1:19:53 ↗ something that crosses multiple

1:19:55 ↗ disciplines. Uh, and I'm sure your

1:19:57 ↗ colleagues would be interested. Um,

1:19:59 ↗ it'll mean a Saturday, Monday,

1:20:02 ↗ um, sequence for them.

1:20:05 ↗ >> Yeah. Well, the committee of the whole

1:20:07 ↗ was already scheduled, so I'm not going

1:20:09 ↗ to

1:20:10 ↗ >> Well, no, no, this is this is

1:20:13 ↗ the train keeps moving. This is for

1:20:15 ↗ tomorrow morning's 8:00 Yes. um, uh,

1:20:18 ↗ leadership meeting. Fantastic. So, we've

1:20:20 ↗ not shared the sequences. We just had

1:20:22 ↗ the discussion this morning. So you're

1:20:24 ↗ actually hearing about it prior to us

1:20:26 ↗ discussing it tomorrow morning at

1:20:27 ↗ leadership.

1:20:28 ↗ >> Uh deputy council president.

1:20:30 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean it is on the most recent

1:20:31 ↗ planning calendar and I think when we

1:20:33 ↗ talked about this last month I mean you

1:20:35 ↗ know given I feel like we've had a lot

1:20:38 ↗ of committee of the whole meetings about

1:20:39 ↗ kind of a broad topic right like

1:20:40 ↗ housing, transportation

1:20:43 ↗ um you know parks. And I do think

1:20:46 ↗ climate action in terms of being that

1:20:49 ↗ big of enough of an area that should be

1:20:51 ↗ brought up to the whole council is like

1:20:53 ↗ a strategic thing. Um I do think it

1:20:55 ↗ deserves that level of, you know, review

1:20:57 ↗ and a committee of the whole. So I'm in

1:20:59 ↗ favor of uh reviewing through the

1:21:01 ↗ committee of the whole.

1:21:05 ↗ >> I I honestly don't have a strong

1:21:07 ↗ opinion. Um I I could see it fitting

1:21:10 ↗ well with either. I'm happy to defer to

1:21:12 ↗ staff with what makes the most sense.

1:21:16 ↗ Yeah, I I'm perfectly fine with it going

1:21:18 ↗ to committee of the whole I don't I feel

1:21:21 ↗ like we as PD have had touch points and

1:21:24 ↗ so it's not like you are skipping over

1:21:26 ↗ the planning development and environment

1:21:29 ↗ board and so taking that um further step

1:21:33 ↗ at committee of the whole which also

1:21:35 ↗ frees up some time on our PD calendar

1:21:38 ↗ makes perfect sense. So I think no

1:21:41 ↗ problems with it going to committee of

1:21:43 ↗ the whole then.

1:21:44 ↗ >> Very good. We'll share that with council

1:21:46 ↗ leadership tomorrow morning.

1:21:48 ↗ >> Okay. Fantastic. Well um with that I

1:21:53 ↗ think our last um piece is just

1:21:57 ↗ announcements. Do any committee members

1:21:59 ↗ have any announcements to make?

1:22:02 ↗ Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. I guess minor

1:22:06 ↗ announcement um is that our meeting in

1:22:09 ↗ April is canled because of Oh, that was

1:22:12 ↗ the next piece which is next committee

1:22:15 ↗ committee meeting date is May 5th. April

1:22:17 ↗ 7th meeting was cancelled um because of

1:22:20 ↗ a special city council member or city

1:22:22 ↗ council meeting that night um to look at

1:22:26 ↗ potential uh vacancy applicants um for

1:22:29 ↗ city council. So, yeah.

1:22:31 ↗ >> Great.

1:22:32 ↗ >> Okay. And with that, we are adjourned at

1:22:36 ↗ 7:54 p.m. Thank you.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF