Environmental Board · Wednesday, March 10, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Board Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Staff Liaison Megan Curtis-Murphy, Senior About Sustainability Coordinator Created in 2020, the objective of the Email Environmental Board is to protect, preserve and enhance the natural environment and take Regular Members action on climate change to reduce its impacts 2021 - Jamie Finch by advising the Mayor, City Council and City 2022 - Dani Madden* departments on the City’s plans, policies, 2022 - Don McQuilliams regulations and programs related to 2023 - Rishi Hazra* environmental stewardship. 2023 - Cameron Fisher 2023 - Lara Lebeiko Membership 2024 - Nancy Davidson 2024 - Dan Hintz The Environmental Board is comprised of nine 2024 - Anne Newcomb regular members, and up to three alternates. All members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Alternate Members Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2021 - Janet Wall…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of Feb. 10, 2021

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 2:08 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 02-10-21 Environmental Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting February 10, 2021 MINUTES

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Electric Vehicle Ordinance Recommendation, (A) [60 mins]

Megan Curtis-Murphy, Senior Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.7–42

Topics: Land UseClimate

▶ Watch from 2:04 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Increasing EV infrastructure was identified as a priority at the Community Convening on Climate held in July of 2020. It was also identified in previous city plans and policies. At the Oct. 19, 2020 Council Meeting, the City Council requested an EV charging ordinance proposal to come to them in January 2021. Increasing EV charging infrastructure in new buildings and substantial retrofits will help encourage the growth in EV usage among residents, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental Sustainability and Climate Background, (D) [45 mins]

Megan Curtis-Murphy, Senior Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.43–107

Topics: Climate

▶ Watch from 2:06 Open packet at p.43 ↗

Staff report:

DATE: March 10, 2021

3194 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ hi my name is nancy davidson and i'm the

0:02 ↗ chair of the environmental board

0:04 ↗ and i'm going to call the meeting to

0:05 ↗ order at this point hopefully everybody

0:07 ↗ can hear me

0:09 ↗ welcome to the march 10 2021

0:12 ↗ environmental board meeting

0:14 ↗ due to the virtual format of today's

0:16 ↗ meeting i'd like to start by providing

0:18 ↗ some guidelines

0:19 ↗ we have participants attending by phone

0:22 ↗ and video

0:22 ↗ for all meeting attendees please stay

0:25 ↗ clearly and pause

0:26 ↗ or speak clearly and pause frequently

0:29 ↗ state your

0:30 ↗ name each time before speaking

0:33 ↗ mute your microphone when not speaking

0:37 ↗ use the call-in information in the

0:39 ↗ meeting

0:41 ↗ if you're having technical issues and

0:44 ↗ with that i'm going to turn it over to

0:47 ↗ megan to start the agenda

0:49 ↗ which i need to find real quick and

0:52 ↗ to start with the call to order and roll

0:55 ↗ call please

0:59 ↗ great so i'll go through the names and

1:01 ↗ when i call your name just state that

1:02 ↗ you're here

1:03 ↗ uh nancy davidson

1:08 ↗ here jamie finch

1:12 ↗ here cameron fisher

1:16 ↗ yeah rishi hasra

1:23 ↗ dan hintz here

1:27 ↗ laura labico i do not see on the call

1:30 ↗ yet but i think she'll probably be

1:31 ↗ joining us

1:32 ↗ soon uh danny madden

1:36 ↗ here don mcwilliams

1:40 ↗ yep here and new comb

1:44 ↗ here tom anderson here

1:48 ↗ saria bola pragata here

1:52 ↗ and janet wahl here

1:57 ↗ great

2:03 ↗ and nancy if you'd like to go through

2:04 ↗ the minutes right our next agenda item

2:08 ↗ is approval of the minutes for february

2:10 ↗ 10 2021.

2:12 ↗ is there any discussions or comments on

2:14 ↗ them from the board

2:19 ↗ seeing none we will assume that these

2:22 ↗ are now

2:22 ↗ approved as they were in the last

2:24 ↗ meeting just

2:26 ↗ since there are no comments with that

2:29 ↗ we'll move on to number three

2:30 ↗ in the um agenda and that

2:34 ↗ is the public comments and prior to

2:36 ↗ starting on public comments

2:38 ↗ i'd like to point out a few items with

2:40 ↗ it

2:42 ↗ public comments are important part of

2:44 ↗ the public process

2:45 ↗ we take them seriously and factor them

2:48 ↗ into the decisions that we as a board

2:49 ↗ make

2:50 ↗ for members of the public joining us

2:52 ↗ you're please you're welcome we're very

2:54 ↗ happy you're here

2:55 ↗ if you'd like to make comments please

2:57 ↗ press star

2:58 ↗ three on your phone we will then call

3:01 ↗ the last

3:02 ↗ through the last two digits of your

3:04 ↗ phone number when it is your turn to

3:06 ↗ make comments

3:07 ↗ or in some cases since we know who you

3:09 ↗ are we might actually call you by name

3:11 ↗ when recognized please unmute your

3:14 ↗ microphone

3:15 ↗ star 6 may be the option on your phone

3:17 ↗ state your name

3:19 ↗ address in relationship to the city if

3:21 ↗ you're a resident property owner

3:23 ↗ business owner

3:25 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently

3:29 ↗ limit your comments please to five

3:31 ↗ minutes

3:32 ↗ and mute your microphone when done if

3:35 ↗ you do not respond after your name or

3:37 ↗ phone number is called or if you have

3:39 ↗ a connection that is lost unexpectedly

3:41 ↗ the meeting will need to proceed

3:43 ↗ you are encouraged to rejoin the meeting

3:45 ↗ if able

3:46 ↗ and at this point um megan i'll let turn

3:49 ↗ this back to you to see if there's

3:50 ↗ anybody that has

3:51 ↗ public comments yes great we had a

3:54 ↗ couple people sign up in advance and we

3:56 ↗ have a few more people on the phones i

3:58 ↗ will just go through

3:59 ↗ in that order um so first up is leah

4:02 ↗ misik

4:06 ↗ hey there good evening making sure

4:07 ↗ everybody can hear me

4:09 ↗ yes awesome thank you everybody

4:12 ↗ for the opportunity to comment today um

4:14 ↗ as megan said my name is lea misik i

4:16 ↗ work for climate solutions which is a

4:18 ↗ regional clean energy non-profit with

4:20 ↗ the mission of accelerating clean energy

4:22 ↗ solutions to the climate crisis

4:24 ↗ and i do a lot of work with the city of

4:25 ↗ issaquah and i participated in the

4:28 ↗ community convening on climate

4:29 ↗ and i'm here to talk about the proposed

4:31 ↗ electric vehicle readiness ordinance

4:34 ↗ first i want to say we're really excited

4:36 ↗ to see this type of ordinance being

4:37 ↗ considered and i really want to thank

4:39 ↗ staff

4:40 ↗ and all the committees and the councils

4:42 ↗ for their work to bring this forward

4:44 ↗ we need to electrify our vehicles in

4:46 ↗ order to meet as well as climate goals

4:48 ↗ um sorry there's a bit of noise can

4:50 ↗ everybody hear me

4:52 ↗ yes i think i just took care of that

4:53 ↗ okay cool thank you megan

4:55 ↗ um as i said we need to electrify our

4:56 ↗ vehicles in order to meet it to cause

4:58 ↗ climate goals and happily there's a lot

5:00 ↗ of momentum on this front um

5:02 ↗ so last year washington state adopted

5:04 ↗ the zero emission vehicles mandate which

5:06 ↗ requires an increasing amount of sales

5:09 ↗ with evs

5:10 ↗ um the state is also promoting vehicle

5:12 ↗ electrification in other ways and so is

5:14 ↗ speeches on energy which is working on a

5:15 ↗ transportation electrification plan

5:18 ↗ major automakers including gm recently

5:21 ↗ have announced that they'll exclusively

5:22 ↗ produce ev so

5:24 ↗ gm says this will happen by 2035 again

5:26 ↗ exclusively producing evs

5:28 ↗ furthermore evs will achieve upfront

5:30 ↗ cost parity in a few years and they are

5:32 ↗ much cheaper to operate so given all of

5:34 ↗ this we really need to ensure that we

5:36 ↗ are taking

5:36 ↗ simple but important actions to ensure

5:38 ↗ this transition is not hindered

5:40 ↗ and that people don't miss out on this

5:42 ↗ opportunity when it's time for them to

5:43 ↗ purchase a vehicle

5:45 ↗ not having a place to charge at home is

5:47 ↗ consistently cited as one of the main

5:48 ↗ barriers to purchasing an ev

5:50 ↗ so we strongly support the evie

5:51 ↗ readiness ordinance um but we have some

5:53 ↗ comments on details

5:54 ↗ um the interview are critical to

5:56 ↗ ensuring this ordinance is adequate and

5:58 ↗ equitable

5:59 ↗ um and there are some of the things that

6:00 ↗ were outlined in the memo

6:02 ↗ so as i mentioned um i was a participant

6:04 ↗ in the spindy convening on climate and

6:07 ↗ what i heard there was a strong desire

6:08 ↗ for issaquah to lead and act quickly

6:11 ↗ we only have about a decade to have our

6:13 ↗ mission so we have to do quite a lot and

6:14 ↗ this eb readiness ordinance is an

6:16 ↗ important step

6:17 ↗ that really needs to be taken now

6:18 ↗ without delay in each year we wait

6:20 ↗ the more people will be in buildings

6:22 ↗ that will potentially require expensive

6:24 ↗ retrofits to allow for adequate ev

6:26 ↗ charging

6:26 ↗ the buildings we build now will last for

6:28 ↗ decades and they need to be future proof

6:30 ↗ so

6:30 ↗ we would just like to see this be passed

6:32 ↗ as soon as possible so we can consider

6:34 ↗ other important climate actions

6:36 ↗ we also believe that single family homes

6:38 ↗ and townhomes can and should be included

6:40 ↗ in this ordinance

6:41 ↗ i understand that there are different

6:43 ↗ interpretations as to what may or may

6:45 ↗ not align with the state law

6:46 ↗ i actually worked on the clean buildings

6:48 ↗ act along with the city of seattle who

6:50 ↗ simultaneously were crafting their own

6:52 ↗ ev readiness ordinance which does

6:54 ↗ require

6:55 ↗ uv readiness for single family and

6:56 ↗ townhomes and it is also placed under

6:58 ↗ their land use code

7:00 ↗ and given that legal opinions are not

7:01 ↗ consistent i urge you to simply take the

7:04 ↗ lead and suggest the best possible

7:06 ↗ policy

7:07 ↗ and require uv rightness and single

7:09 ↗ family homes and townhomes

7:10 ↗ you know and i was excited to hear

7:12 ↗ comments from some council members in

7:13 ↗ the last meeting when they considered

7:15 ↗ this and

7:16 ↗ they emphasized their desire to include

7:17 ↗ single-family homes and townhomes

7:19 ↗ under the eevee brightness requirement

7:22 ↗ for example council member march spoke

7:23 ↗ to other times the city has taken

7:25 ↗ leadership

7:25 ↗ including the plastic bag ban and

7:27 ↗ sometimes it's worthwhile to take a

7:29 ↗ legal risk

7:30 ↗ to be a leader and to test whether a

7:32 ↗ policy can be fully enacted

7:34 ↗ since it may not even be challenged and

7:35 ↗ it could be upheld too it's

7:37 ↗ it's worth setting the right example and

7:39 ↗ you know again as i mentioned earlier

7:40 ↗ seattle has this and this has not been

7:42 ↗ challenged

7:43 ↗ um there was discussion about working

7:45 ↗ with the state building council on an

7:46 ↗ amendment but as i said earlier time is

7:48 ↗ really of the essence

7:49 ↗ that process is long and far from a

7:52 ↗ guarantee and we think that this step

7:53 ↗ should only be taken if it has to be

7:55 ↗ again seattle requires this they have

7:57 ↗ not been challenged and we should take

7:59 ↗ advantage of the opportunity before us

8:01 ↗ now to really be bold and lead

8:03 ↗ we do concur with the administration

8:05 ↗ recommendations that single-family homes

8:07 ↗ and townhomes should not be incentivized

8:09 ↗ to be easy writing

8:10 ↗ however in our view such funds could be

8:12 ↗ better directed to places that would

8:13 ↗ make more of a difference so

8:15 ↗ we would rather see dollars being

8:16 ↗ targeted toward charging access for

8:18 ↗ um public charging that could be

8:20 ↗ accessed by all community members for

8:22 ↗ example so

8:23 ↗ again we don't believe that ev readiness

8:25 ↗ should be incentivized but rather

8:27 ↗ required

8:28 ↗ we appreciate the work the staff has

8:29 ↗ done on the affordable housing language

8:31 ↗ and support the current draft again new

8:33 ↗ buildings will be in place for decades

8:35 ↗ and in that time frame evs will become

8:37 ↗ the predominant new vehicle and they're

8:38 ↗ cheaper to operate and it's unfair for

8:40 ↗ those living in affordable housing

8:42 ↗ to be excluded from that opportunity so

8:44 ↗ we really appreciate the work that has

8:46 ↗ been done

8:47 ↗ on this front and that the requirement

8:49 ↗ will be cost neutral

8:50 ↗ by allowing a series of methods to

8:52 ↗ reduce cost in other ways

8:53 ↗ rather than waiving ev readiness and

8:55 ↗ setting up those equity issues so

8:57 ↗ we'll still get the end result of having

8:59 ↗ um ebay readiness

9:00 ↗ for for the residents of these buildings

9:02 ↗ but it's not going to

9:03 ↗ cost affordable housing anymore

9:06 ↗ so really excited about that um there

9:09 ↗ were questions about whether even if ev

9:10 ↗ readiness should be included in transit

9:12 ↗ oriented development

9:13 ↗ we agree with the administration

9:15 ↗ recommendation there as well any

9:16 ↗ building that's already

9:18 ↗ including parking needs to future-proof

9:19 ↗ that parking so we agree with the

9:21 ↗ recommendation of no change

9:23 ↗ um to reiterate we think this is an

9:25 ↗ important policy that's a step along the

9:26 ↗ way if it's a call meeting it's gold

9:28 ↗ it's a smart policy

9:29 ↗ um evs might be a small percentage of

9:31 ↗ vehicles in this very moment but that's

9:33 ↗ about to change

9:34 ↗ drastically and well within the early

9:36 ↗ lifetime of new buildings so

9:38 ↗ we want to see this get past as soon as

9:39 ↗ possible and to make it strong by

9:41 ↗ requiring easy readiness for all

9:43 ↗ building types so

9:44 ↗ thank you all for your consideration of

9:46 ↗ this important matter and looking

9:48 ↗ forward to referring it

9:49 ↗ on to other committees into the council

9:51 ↗ and looking forward to improving and

9:53 ↗ implementing it

9:54 ↗ so it can be a great example for other

9:56 ↗ cities throughout washington

9:57 ↗ thanks

10:00 ↗ thank you leah next up is ann fletcher

10:11 ↗ and anne i believe you're still on mute

10:14 ↗ let me try

10:15 ↗ unmuting you from my end here okay i've

10:18 ↗ unmuted you

10:20 ↗ thank you can you hear me now yes

10:23 ↗ oh perfect okay my name is ann fletcher

10:27 ↗ i'm a resident of issaquah and a people

10:29 ↗ for climate action member

10:33 ↗ uh trying to get things in perspective

10:35 ↗ here

10:37 ↗ we i need to keep reminding myself that

10:40 ↗ climate change

10:41 ↗ is a huge critical problem that needs

10:43 ↗ solving within the next decade

10:47 ↗ and we have a lot of work to do as a

10:49 ↗ city over the next few years

10:53 ↗ electric vehicle charging is one of over

10:55 ↗ a hundred actions recommended by people

10:57 ↗ for climate action to have

11:00 ↗ the impact that's needed to actually

11:02 ↗ lower carbon emissions

11:04 ↗ to meet our goals so dialogue on this

11:08 ↗ ordinance

11:10 ↗ can inform the larger plans that we're

11:12 ↗ working on like title 18 land use

11:14 ↗ overhaul

11:15 ↗ and a complete climate action plan

11:19 ↗ while they're being developed so what

11:22 ↗ can we do to move this one along

11:24 ↗ the two issues that are outstanding that

11:27 ↗ i see

11:28 ↗ are number one affordable housing

11:30 ↗ construction

11:31 ↗ and mo remodels

11:35 ↗ they should require ev charging

11:39 ↗ equitable to other multi-family

11:41 ↗ buildings and the administration's

11:43 ↗ proposal to make the requirement cost

11:45 ↗ neutral to encourage affordable building

11:48 ↗ in issaquah and at the same time

11:52 ↗ have ev charging is so much better than

11:55 ↗ the

11:56 ↗ original uh suggestion of a waiver

12:00 ↗ number two single-family unit

12:02 ↗ construction and remodels

12:05 ↗ should require tv charging

12:08 ↗ for the clean energy impact that we need

12:11 ↗ but we do have a significant city

12:14 ↗ attorney's opinion

12:16 ↗ that the state building restrictions on

12:19 ↗ cities and land use codes

12:21 ↗ should complement each other and since

12:23 ↗ the proposed

12:24 ↗ electric vehicle ready and evse

12:28 ↗ require electrical construction elements

12:31 ↗ the land use parking requirements for ev

12:33 ↗ appears to overlap

12:35 ↗ into the building construction codes in

12:37 ↗ this opinion

12:39 ↗ so this potential contract conflict

12:43 ↗ uh was brought to the attention of the

12:46 ↗ city by the attorney

12:49 ↗ some remedies to consider for the

12:52 ↗ administration's

12:53 ↗ exclusion of the single-family units

12:56 ↗ first you could require ev

13:00 ↗ charging for single-family units in the

13:02 ↗ ordinance that's still a possibility

13:06 ↗ and you could recommend that to the

13:08 ↗ council

13:09 ↗ and the council still has the final say

13:11 ↗ on that

13:13 ↗ number two if single family

13:17 ↗ is not required in the ordinance

13:20 ↗ then add language to the ordinance that

13:23 ↗ automatically requires it as soon as the

13:27 ↗ building code

13:28 ↗ allows it or we can get this legal

13:30 ↗ question straightened out

13:33 ↗ number two between now and the april

13:35 ↗ city council meeting request

13:37 ↗ that the washington building code

13:39 ↗ council approve

13:41 ↗ a single family ev charging proposal or

13:44 ↗ at least agree that it doesn't

13:45 ↗ amend the state building code

13:49 ↗ and number three lobby our state

13:51 ↗ legislature to change the state building

13:54 ↗ code

13:54 ↗ for single-family housing so in summary

13:58 ↗ i urge you to recommend to the council

14:00 ↗ approval of this ordinance

14:02 ↗ with affordable housing requirement

14:05 ↗ no less than in than the

14:07 ↗ administration's recommendation

14:10 ↗ and number two a remedy in the ordinance

14:13 ↗ for a future single-family requirement

14:16 ↗ inclusion

14:17 ↗ once the state allows if if you don't

14:20 ↗ require single-family and

14:24 ↗ a direction to the administration to

14:26 ↗ request single-family eb charging

14:28 ↗ approval

14:29 ↗ from the washington building code

14:31 ↗ council

14:32 ↗ perhaps in league with other cities

14:35 ↗ and to lobby the state legislature to

14:39 ↗ correct

14:39 ↗ the system problem that we have here

14:42 ↗ thank you

14:47 ↗ thank you ann next is connie marsh

14:57 ↗ up connie i'm sorry i think i have to

14:59 ↗ unmute you on my end here

15:03 ↗ okay go ahead okay great i was yelling

15:06 ↗ you have to unmute me but you couldn't

15:08 ↗ hear me

15:08 ↗ my name is connie marsha i live up on

15:10 ↗ squawk mountain

15:12 ↗ and i've been i guess

15:20 ↗ can you hear me can you hear me

15:28 ↗ yes now we can hear you okay okay

15:31 ↗ she started talking to me um my name is

15:34 ↗ connie marsh

15:35 ↗ and i've been i go i guess colloquially

15:38 ↗ an environmental activist for about 20

15:41 ↗ years in issaquah

15:43 ↗ so when i read the review

15:46 ↗ of environmental sustainability and

15:48 ↗ climate background

15:50 ↗ it was very foreign to my world of

15:54 ↗ the environment in issaquah because

15:57 ↗ [Music]

15:59 ↗ i've i've been walking the properties

16:02 ↗ and trying to

16:04 ↗ save the trees and the fish and protect

16:06 ↗ the

16:07 ↗ quality of water and preserve the green

16:10 ↗ for people for

16:11 ↗ a vast amount of time and get land

16:14 ↗ preserved

16:15 ↗ and that's all about the actions it's

16:18 ↗ not about sort of the the

16:22 ↗ language so i sent to you a little chart

16:26 ↗ that showed how i think about

16:29 ↗ the environment in issaquah and how it

16:32 ↗ is supposed to flow

16:33 ↗ through the system and so

16:37 ↗ uh every time issaquah is surveyed

16:40 ↗ the environment and the greenness of

16:42 ↗ issaquah comes out as either number one

16:45 ↗ or number two depending on how

16:47 ↗ bad traffic has been and so this led to

16:50 ↗ a very

16:51 ↗ a vision for the city of issaquah that

16:54 ↗ included

16:54 ↗ an environmental component

16:58 ↗ so unfortunately as time has passed

17:03 ↗ it has been very hard to watch the trees

17:06 ↗ come down

17:07 ↗ and you know we had one run of kokanee

17:09 ↗ become

17:10 ↗ extinct and the other one is near

17:12 ↗ extinct in

17:13 ↗ in issaquah yet our code

17:16 ↗ language has not changed and while we

17:19 ↗ have a lot of language in theory

17:21 ↗ protecting the environment

17:23 ↗ it just has not been working very well

17:28 ↗ and so the city council decided we

17:32 ↗ needed an environmental board that was

17:35 ↗ higher level

17:36 ↗ and would actually address the policy

17:39 ↗ language

17:40 ↗ in the city rather than going project by

17:42 ↗ project to try to solve

17:44 ↗ the problem of why our environment was

17:47 ↗ sort of decaying in front of our eyes

17:49 ↗ because what we're doing is not working

17:52 ↗ and

17:52 ↗ so what i'm hoping is that this

17:56 ↗ group is going to show the passion

17:58 ↗ necessary

18:00 ↗ to to learn

18:04 ↗ um all of the things that you have to

18:07 ↗ learn in all of the language in order

18:09 ↗ to become the heroes of the environment

18:12 ↗ in this town and that is

18:14 ↗ for the that's that's for the critters

18:17 ↗ and that's for the humans in climate

18:20 ↗ action

18:21 ↗ um but but i don't know that

18:25 ↗ so far this passion and the need to

18:28 ↗ protect what is so valuable to the city

18:30 ↗ has been portrayed

18:34 ↗ because what we need are a bunch of

18:35 ↗ environmental heroes that are willing to

18:37 ↗ do the work and

18:41 ↗ i'm hoping that this is all you

18:45 ↗ because you signed up to be on the board

18:47 ↗ so

18:48 ↗ the first thing that we need to do is

18:51 ↗ get our rules and regulations put into

18:53 ↗ place

18:54 ↗ and that is the update of title 18

18:58 ↗ and while it is interesting to have

19:01 ↗ different things that need to be changed

19:03 ↗ in title 18

19:04 ↗ popped out as one off we need to do it

19:08 ↗ all

19:08 ↗ as a whole so i am resistant to pulling

19:12 ↗ any more items like the ev charging

19:14 ↗ station out of title 18

19:16 ↗ and taking our time up we need to dive

19:19 ↗ in and look holistically

19:21 ↗ at how to to bring our city

19:25 ↗ environment back so thank you for

19:28 ↗ volunteering

19:29 ↗ and i hope you find this informative

19:33 ↗ thanks

19:37 ↗ thank you connie and i see one other

19:39 ↗ caller on the line with the last two

19:41 ↗ numbers six four if you're interested in

19:44 ↗ making

19:45 ↗ public comment um i will go ahead and

19:48 ↗ unmute you

19:49 ↗ now if not that is also fine

19:52 ↗ i have unmuted

19:58 ↗ okay all right we will go ahead

20:01 ↗ and move on with the agenda

20:10 ↗ have to remember to unmute this is nancy

20:12 ↗ davidson again and at this point we'll

20:14 ↗ move on to our

20:15 ↗ more media agenda topics the first

20:19 ↗ agenda item we have is the

20:21 ↗ electrical electric vehicle ordinance

20:23 ↗ recommendation

20:25 ↗ and i know there's a presentation being

20:26 ↗ made by megan so

20:28 ↗ i'm going to turn it over to megan

20:33 ↗ thank you i will go ahead and share my

20:46 ↗ screen

20:51 ↗ all right uh good evening

20:54 ↗ so tonight we'll be talking about the

20:56 ↗ electric vehicle proposal which i last

20:58 ↗ presented on to the board

21:00 ↗ uh in at our january meeting so the

21:03 ↗ purpose of the meeting this evening

21:05 ↗ is to discuss the options and the

21:07 ↗ administration's recommended changes to

21:09 ↗ the proposed

21:10 ↗ ordinance i will also share feedback

21:12 ↗ we've received on the proposal so far

21:17 ↗ this evening we're looking for feedback

21:19 ↗ from the board on the overall proposal

21:21 ↗ but especially on the two recommended

21:23 ↗ options proposed by the administration

21:26 ↗ the first is on affordable housing to

21:28 ↗ meet ev requirements

21:29 ↗ but through a cost neutral approach and

21:31 ↗ the second is to have

21:33 ↗ no requirements for single family and

21:35 ↗ town homes

21:36 ↗ and we'll go into more depth on both of

21:38 ↗ these throughout the presentation

21:41 ↗ so here's just a quick reminder about

21:42 ↗ some of the reasons why we're proposing

21:44 ↗ this ev

21:45 ↗ ordinance the city is committed to

21:47 ↗ reduce greenhouse gas emissions through

21:49 ↗ our

21:50 ↗ ghg targets and the city also has two

21:53 ↗ plans the sustainable building action

21:54 ↗ strategy and the mobility master plan

21:57 ↗ that include policies and strategies

21:59 ↗ around expanding the use of electric

22:01 ↗ vehicles through code updates

22:04 ↗ ev codes and requirements were also

22:06 ↗ identified by the community as a

22:08 ↗ priority at the community convening on

22:10 ↗ climate last year and

22:12 ↗ last and relatively new in the media is

22:14 ↗ that there's been a lot of talk at the

22:16 ↗ federal level and also in the business

22:17 ↗ world about electric vehicles

22:19 ↗ which we heard about in the public

22:21 ↗ comments a few car manufacturers have

22:23 ↗ recently committed to increasing ev

22:25 ↗ production

22:26 ↗ and the biden administration plans to

22:28 ↗ invest heavily in electric vehicles

22:30 ↗ so by acting on this ordinance now we'll

22:33 ↗ be preparing our buildings and our

22:34 ↗ residents for this increase in evs that

22:36 ↗ are coming to market

22:40 ↗ the table on this slide is an overview

22:42 ↗ of the percentages of ev

22:43 ↗ infrastructure that are in the proposal

22:46 ↗ so just a reminder that ev

22:47 ↗ ready means there's a 240 volt circuit

22:49 ↗ that would allow for a charger to be

22:51 ↗ hooked up

22:52 ↗ an evse or electric vehicle supply

22:55 ↗ equipment

22:56 ↗ includes the charging equipment itself

22:58 ↗ so that would allow someone to plug

22:59 ↗ right in

23:01 ↗ overall the percentages are higher in

23:03 ↗ multifamily than commercial

23:04 ↗ since the majority of people charge at

23:06 ↗ home however commercial charging is also

23:09 ↗ important piece of the puzzle

23:11 ↗ and last these are requirements for both

23:13 ↗ new construction

23:14 ↗ as well as existing buildings that go

23:16 ↗ through a substantial improvement

23:18 ↗ as well as for parking lots and parking

23:20 ↗ garages

23:23 ↗ so now i'll talk about some of the

23:24 ↗ feedback that we received

23:27 ↗ a summary matrix of the main points was

23:29 ↗ included in the materials which i'm

23:31 ↗ happy to

23:32 ↗ answer any questions about but to talk

23:34 ↗ about the main points uh

23:36 ↗ overall most people believe the ev

23:38 ↗ requirement

23:39 ↗ percentages for multi-family and

23:41 ↗ commercial buildings are a good starting

23:42 ↗ point

23:43 ↗ but there were a few that asked for

23:45 ↗ increased requirements

23:47 ↗ next the city had proposed incentive for

23:49 ↗ single-family and townhomes

23:51 ↗ since the majority of people charge at

23:52 ↗ home however there was very little

23:54 ↗ support for this

23:55 ↗ and most comments urged the city to

23:57 ↗ require ev readiness in single families

24:00 ↗ if legally feasible

24:02 ↗ one reason against the incentive program

24:04 ↗ was that builders should already be

24:05 ↗ including ev infrastructure and projects

24:08 ↗ another thing that we heard was that

24:10 ↗ incentives should be considered more

24:11 ↗ holistically through the larger update

24:13 ↗ to the title 18

24:14 ↗ land use code for affordable housing

24:18 ↗ the majority of the feedback was that

24:19 ↗ the city should not waive the ev

24:21 ↗ requirements as discussed last time evs

24:23 ↗ are getting cheaper to buy and own

24:25 ↗ and could be a good way for people to

24:27 ↗ get around

24:29 ↗ instead most people supported either

24:31 ↗ full or reduced requirements for

24:33 ↗ affordable housing

24:34 ↗ to ensure equitable access to evs and

24:38 ↗ last there was little support for

24:39 ↗ exempting tods from the

24:41 ↗ requirements

24:44 ↗ the council reviewed the proposal again

24:46 ↗ at their february

24:48 ↗ ninth study session and most council

24:50 ↗ members were still in favor of removing

24:52 ↗ the single family incentive

24:54 ↗ the council members then discussed the

24:56 ↗ attorney's memo that recommended against

24:58 ↗ imposing single-family requirements

25:00 ↗ and most but not all council members

25:02 ↗ were supportive of the recommendation

25:05 ↗ several council members also supported

25:07 ↗ collaborating with regional cities

25:09 ↗ and working the state building code

25:11 ↗ council to work towards a statewide

25:13 ↗ change

25:14 ↗ that would allow cities to establish

25:16 ↗ these requirements for single-family

25:17 ↗ homes

25:20 ↗ for affordable housing there are some

25:21 ↗ council members in favor of removing the

25:23 ↗ waiver for affordable housing

25:25 ↗ and others for reducing the requirements

25:28 ↗ or

25:28 ↗ getting more flexibility and last in

25:32 ↗ terms of tods

25:33 ↗ most council members were in favor of

25:35 ↗ not making any changes to the

25:36 ↗ requirements

25:40 ↗ so here's a summary of the changes that

25:42 ↗ we've made to the ordinance following

25:43 ↗ the study session

25:45 ↗ the first change is the removal of the

25:47 ↗ single family and town home incentive

25:49 ↗ next no changes for tods were made so

25:52 ↗ the ev requirements will continue to

25:54 ↗ apply to them

25:56 ↗ third due to equity concerns the

25:58 ↗ administration retracted the waiver for

26:00 ↗ affordable housing units

26:01 ↗ and instead the ordinance now includes a

26:03 ↗ new proposal

26:04 ↗ that provides for more flexibility to

26:06 ↗ keep the euv infrastructure cost neutral

26:09 ↗ and last there is no change to the

26:11 ↗ single family requirements

26:15 ↗ so now we'll start delving into the

26:16 ↗ options the first topic is on affordable

26:19 ↗ housing

26:20 ↗ so as mentioned in the previous slide

26:22 ↗ the administration has removed the

26:23 ↗ waiver

26:24 ↗ and we're now proposing that affordable

26:26 ↗ housing meet evie infrastructure

26:28 ↗ requirements

26:29 ↗ but allow the buildings to take cost

26:31 ↗ neutral measures such as reducing

26:33 ↗ parking spots

26:34 ↗ and structured parking that would help

26:36 ↗ make it cost neutral

26:38 ↗ if these are not feasible then there are

26:40 ↗ allowances for reducing parking

26:42 ↗ landscaping

26:43 ↗ or providing a portion of the stalls to

26:45 ↗ be eb capable instead

26:48 ↗ this option is now the administration's

26:50 ↗ recommendation and is currently included

26:52 ↗ in the proposal

26:54 ↗ another option is to not have a waiver

26:56 ↗ for affordable housing which would then

26:58 ↗ meet 100 of the ev requirements

27:01 ↗ the third option is to have a waiver for

27:03 ↗ affordable housing

27:05 ↗ fourth option is to have a 50 reduction

27:07 ↗ in ev ready and evsc requirements

27:10 ↗ and the fifth fifth option is to remove

27:12 ↗ the evsc requirement and keep the ev

27:15 ↗ ready requirement

27:18 ↗ so city staff has reached out to

27:20 ↗ affordable housing groups to ask for

27:21 ↗ their perspective on the proposals

27:24 ↗ uh both imagine housing and arch which

27:27 ↗ is a regional coalition for housing

27:30 ↗ we're supportive of the cost neutral

27:32 ↗ approach

27:33 ↗ to reduce costs and still have the

27:35 ↗ infrastructure in

27:36 ↗ affordable housing units however king

27:39 ↗ county housing authority

27:40 ↗ and a developer working on a tod project

27:43 ↗ were concerned that the ev

27:44 ↗ charging spaces wouldn't be utilized in

27:46 ↗ affordable housing

27:48 ↗ due to lack of ev ownership here

27:51 ↗ we're also still waiting on feedback

27:53 ↗ from puget sound energy on the ordinance

27:55 ↗ as a whole

27:56 ↗ they had expressed overall support for

27:58 ↗ ev charging infrastructure

28:00 ↗ but they are still reviewing the

28:02 ↗ proposed language and will be providing

28:04 ↗ comments prior to the

28:05 ↗ april council meeting

28:10 ↗ the next topic is single family townhome

28:13 ↗ requirements

28:14 ↗ it's the original proposal single family

28:16 ↗ and town homes are exempt from the eevee

28:18 ↗ ordinance

28:19 ↗ and the city administration recommends

28:21 ↗ that they continue to be exempt for the

28:23 ↗ advice of the city attorney

28:25 ↗ which was detailed in the memo the other

28:28 ↗ option is to require ev-ready

28:29 ↗ infrastructure in single-family and

28:31 ↗ townhomes

28:35 ↗ so here's a timeline showing the next

28:37 ↗ steps for the ev proposal

28:39 ↗ the next meeting on the ordinance will

28:41 ↗ be tomorrow at the planning policy

28:43 ↗ commission where they'll be holding a

28:44 ↗ public hearing

28:45 ↗ and they also will provide a formal

28:47 ↗ recommendation on the ordinance

28:49 ↗ then it will go back to city council on

28:51 ↗ april 5th where they're expected to take

28:53 ↗ final action

28:57 ↗ so as a reminder the administration's

28:59 ↗ looking uh for a final recommendation

29:01 ↗ from the board on the proposal as a

29:03 ↗ whole

29:03 ↗ as well as the two recommended options

29:06 ↗ are listed here

29:07 ↗ so thank you and i'm happy to answer any

29:10 ↗ questions

29:13 ↗ hi this is nancy davidson again so the

29:16 ↗ way

29:16 ↗ i'd like to move forward with this after

29:18 ↗ talking with megan and also the city

29:20 ↗ clerk's office is

29:22 ↗ um at this point we'd like to have any

29:25 ↗ questions that

29:26 ↗ might be on what megan has presented

29:29 ↗ um so that we can address those and do

29:31 ↗ those kind of in a timely manner

29:33 ↗ and then after we respond to those

29:36 ↗ questions and get those on the table the

29:38 ↗ plan would be to move forward

29:40 ↗ with motions and to consider taking some

29:43 ↗ kind of action

29:44 ↗ on our recommendations so if you have a

29:46 ↗ question at this point

29:48 ↗ please just say question in the chat

29:51 ↗ and um we'll call on you and see if we

29:54 ↗ can get them addressed

29:56 ↗ and i am going to cut this off because

29:57 ↗ we only have an hour for this and i know

29:59 ↗ that we have a fairly packed discussion

30:01 ↗ based on the motions we've seen

30:03 ↗ so um just wanted to give folks a heads

30:06 ↗ up that

30:07 ↗ try and limit yourself to one question

30:09 ↗ and if we get back to you we might be

30:11 ↗ able to come up with a second so

30:12 ↗ be thoughtful about your questions and

30:15 ↗ with that uh the first question is

30:16 ↗ coming in from cameron

30:18 ↗ cameron hi thank you hi megan um

30:21 ↗ cameron fisher uh just a quick question

30:23 ↗ on

30:24 ↗ why did uh the uh the incentive

30:28 ↗ advising of this single-family residence

30:30 ↗ uh why was that removed

30:32 ↗ was it just on the recommendations of

30:33 ↗ the eb uh the board or

30:36 ↗ what were other factors involved with

30:39 ↗ that

30:41 ↗ um yes this is megan curtis murphy there

30:43 ↗ are a few factors

30:44 ↗ we did hear from the board ppc and

30:47 ↗ council that there was

30:48 ↗ fairly little interest in that program

30:50 ↗ there was more

30:52 ↗ interest in in the requirements earlier

30:55 ↗ on

30:56 ↗ but overall it was thought that

30:59 ↗ this incentive money could possibly be

31:01 ↗ used in other places so

31:03 ↗ we wanted to take away the incentives

31:05 ↗ now but consider

31:06 ↗ the option of having incentives later

31:09 ↗ for other items as we go through the

31:10 ↗ title 18 update so

31:12 ↗ i think we heard a comment um or two

31:15 ↗ from this group about wanting to

31:17 ↗ think about some of the um some of the

31:20 ↗ things that will have the highest

31:21 ↗ impact and we're talking about the ev

31:23 ↗ ordinance now and

31:25 ↗ but we might want to wait to incentivize

31:27 ↗ things until later

31:28 ↗ when we go through the full process with

31:30 ↗ title 18.

31:34 ↗ great the next question is from ann

31:36 ↗ newcomb

31:40 ↗ hi this is ann newcomb um i probably

31:43 ↗ should have asked this earlier so as far

31:46 ↗ as the commercial

31:47 ↗ use in the parking lots

31:51 ↗ i know that for some of it it'll be

31:54 ↗ employees that will be using it and then

31:57 ↗ in parking lots what is the thought as

32:00 ↗ to who's going to be

32:01 ↗ using those chargers

32:06 ↗ this is megan again the city is not

32:10 ↗ offering any mandates or guidance about

32:13 ↗ how the parking should be used where

32:15 ↗ we're requiring the number but would

32:16 ↗ leave it up to the property owners the

32:18 ↗ building owners to decide

32:20 ↗ so for example some commercial lots

32:23 ↗ might be private spaces and that might

32:25 ↗ just be reserved for

32:27 ↗ employees other other spaces might be

32:30 ↗ a more open parking lot and be welcome

32:32 ↗ to anyone to use

32:34 ↗ but the proposal itself doesn't require

32:36 ↗ either way

32:38 ↗ but they but it would be requiring

32:42 ↗ that the ev chargers are installed five

32:45 ↗ percent of eb

32:46 ↗ chargers are installed and then another

32:48 ↗ 10

32:49 ↗ are um ready

32:52 ↗ is that right correct

32:56 ↗ so is there studies i'm sure that

32:59 ↗ are there studies that show that people

33:01 ↗ that are out and about

33:03 ↗ um shopping and stuff will be using

33:08 ↗ these

33:10 ↗ uh yes i think that overall um what we

33:13 ↗ heard is that the majority of people

33:15 ↗ do charge at home um but then other

33:18 ↗ people who drive farther distances might

33:20 ↗ be charging at their workplace

33:22 ↗ or or shopping so they might

33:25 ↗ choose to use those chargers as well

33:29 ↗ it's also thought that the some of these

33:31 ↗ chargers might help fill in

33:32 ↗ for people that don't have access to the

33:34 ↗ infrastructure so

33:36 ↗ existing buildings that don't already

33:37 ↗ have ev chargers they may be able to

33:39 ↗ still have the option to charge at

33:42 ↗ charges that are open to the public

33:43 ↗ elsewhere

33:47 ↗ okay um and then my other question is

33:51 ↗ i sent an email with a motion about the

33:53 ↗ single family

33:56 ↗ uh and if we can get another lawyer's

34:00 ↗ opinion

34:01 ↗ i would move that we get a second

34:03 ↗ opinion on

34:04 ↗ whether it would be legal or not to

34:07 ↗ require single-family

34:09 ↗ homes um a new construction to

34:14 ↗ be ready for a charger or have chargers

34:16 ↗ in them

34:17 ↗ i think that would be way more powerful

34:20 ↗ than

34:22 ↗ the parking lots so if we can

34:25 ↗ do that that'd be great i just assumed

34:27 ↗ that um

34:30 ↗ that the lawyer would know more than me

34:32 ↗ about it so thank you

34:35 ↗ so ann i just have a question for you

34:37 ↗ did you just make a motion that we now

34:39 ↗ need to consider

34:40 ↗ since this is a i know we haven't gotten

34:42 ↗ to taking motions but we haven't

34:45 ↗ at this point even considered the

34:48 ↗ overall proposal

34:49 ↗ um this was more of a question piece so

34:52 ↗ my request to you

34:54 ↗ and i'm going to ask kind of hold off on

34:56 ↗ seconding that

34:57 ↗ is that you please bring that up when

35:00 ↗ we've

35:00 ↗ had our first motion to start to take

35:02 ↗ action on this

35:04 ↗ um since that's where we're going is

35:06 ↗ that acceptable to you

35:08 ↗ oh yeah part of my question was is it

35:09 ↗ okay if i change that because i already

35:11 ↗ sent an email so thank you yes you can

35:13 ↗ change that i'd ask that you type it up

35:14 ↗ for us so that i can read it and make it

35:16 ↗ as it is as its notes

35:18 ↗ um you may want to type that somewhere

35:20 ↗ else so you can

35:22 ↗ load it into the comments because i have

35:24 ↗ to repeat that

35:26 ↗ motion out and megan has to take notes

35:29 ↗ of it because it's got to go to the

35:30 ↗ council on the ppc that way so

35:32 ↗ that's why we kind of asked for it but

35:34 ↗ please feel free to make whatever motion

35:36 ↗ you think is appropriate when we have

35:38 ↗ started to um consider the proposal

35:42 ↗ okay sounds great thanks all right

35:45 ↗ jamie you have a question jamie finch

35:49 ↗ thank you nancy jamie finch here um

35:51 ↗ megan i was hoping you could expand a

35:54 ↗ bit

35:54 ↗ on um looking at the actual the

35:57 ↗ specific language around how cost

35:59 ↗ neutrality would be achieved

36:01 ↗ um it does mention the structured

36:03 ↗ parking and minimum required parking

36:06 ↗ i was just wondering first of all uh

36:08 ↗ would

36:09 ↗ like the likelihood of that being able

36:10 ↗ to achieve cost neutrality just through

36:12 ↗ those items and then

36:14 ↗ i for clarity whether there were

36:17 ↗ specific other items we felt would be

36:19 ↗ likely to be included as as ways to

36:21 ↗ achieve that or if the next

36:23 ↗ likely step is that that would result in

36:25 ↗ c d

36:26 ↗ or e being implemented

36:30 ↗ sure this is megan um so we got a few

36:33 ↗ estimates on cost

36:35 ↗ on parking costs from the affordable

36:38 ↗ housing developers i don't have in front

36:39 ↗ of me now but

36:40 ↗ they range between 30 and 50 000 i think

36:43 ↗ depending

36:44 ↗ per parking space depending on what that

36:46 ↗ would be

36:48 ↗ the eevee infrastructure

36:51 ↗ elements also range in price but around

36:53 ↗ a couple

36:54 ↗ thousand or a thousand per per space

36:57 ↗ um so it's thought that we would be able

36:59 ↗ to

37:00 ↗ reach that cost neutrality by doing uh

37:03 ↗ reducing some of that minimum parking

37:06 ↗ that is also the approach that city of

37:08 ↗ seattle has taken

37:09 ↗ um they require less parking overall for

37:12 ↗ affordable housing units um recognizing

37:16 ↗ that they're often

37:17 ↗ closer to transit and planned that way

37:19 ↗ or people might have less cars so they

37:21 ↗ do already offer

37:22 ↗ less parking for that whereas in

37:24 ↗ issaquah we don't already do that

37:27 ↗ so there's been different approaches to

37:29 ↗ that but i think

37:31 ↗ i think it's likely that those a and b

37:34 ↗ would

37:34 ↗ would be able to reach cost neutrality

37:36 ↗ but there might be limitations on the

37:38 ↗ site itself

37:40 ↗ um where you know structured past

37:42 ↗ parking might not have been possible or

37:44 ↗ there might be other elements

37:45 ↗ um which is why we wanted to have those

37:48 ↗ other secondary options

37:50 ↗ but we would explore the first ones

37:52 ↗ first

37:55 ↗ thank you megan

38:00 ↗ so at this point is anybody else have

38:01 ↗ any questions before we move forward

38:06 ↗ seeing none from the board the next

38:08 ↗ thing we need to do

38:10 ↗ is to move forward with the various

38:13 ↗ emotions and

38:14 ↗ actually consider and debate motions and

38:16 ↗ potential amendments to it

38:18 ↗ um the first thing i'm going to need and

38:21 ↗ it

38:22 ↗ just as a reminder this is now where the

38:24 ↗ board's actually taking an action this

38:26 ↗ is kind of our first big action that we

38:28 ↗ did adopt the rules of the board

38:30 ↗ um i'm gonna try and put some structure

38:33 ↗ to this because i very much appreciate

38:34 ↗ it as did megan and jamie um

38:37 ↗ the emails we received with various

38:39 ↗ motions it helped us to try and organize

38:42 ↗ this meeting and this discussion a

38:43 ↗ little bit um

38:45 ↗ but the first thing i need is a motion

38:48 ↗ to approve the recommendation report on

38:50 ↗ the ev

38:50 ↗ charging ordinance as presented so does

38:53 ↗ anybody willing to make such a motion

38:58 ↗ nancy this is dawn um yeah i would

39:00 ↗ motion to approve the recommendation

39:02 ↗ report

39:03 ↗ on the electric vehicle charging thank

39:06 ↗ you i need a second please

39:09 ↗ yeah nancy this is cameron fisher i

39:11 ↗ second that

39:13 ↗ okay we have a motion on the table

39:16 ↗ and a second at this point we can debate

39:19 ↗ that motion

39:20 ↗ and um as the chair i'm open to

39:23 ↗ amendments

39:24 ↗ um i know there are several that have

39:25 ↗ been proposed as in other motions that

39:28 ↗ people would like considered

39:29 ↗ and for people's understanding um

39:33 ↗ each of those potential amendments to

39:36 ↗ the motions that were made by

39:38 ↗ it was cameron and don um

39:43 ↗ don made the motion and cameron was the

39:45 ↗ second and i have to make notes of that

39:46 ↗ so that they can if there's any friendly

39:48 ↗ amendments we can get those taken care

39:50 ↗ of

39:50 ↗ um and we debate them one by one my

39:54 ↗ proposal to all of you which i'd like

39:56 ↗ for consideration at least on this is

39:58 ↗ there's several

39:59 ↗ sections of this that they're looking

40:00 ↗ for feedback

40:02 ↗ and the motions i've seen give feedback

40:04 ↗ on each of those sections so

40:06 ↗ i propose that we move forward with this

40:08 ↗ kind of taking the various

40:10 ↗ portions of this ordinance and kind of

40:12 ↗ working that direction

40:13 ↗ because there's a lot here that were

40:15 ↗ being considered

40:17 ↗ so if someone if that is acceptable

40:19 ↗ people i'll try to lead us that

40:21 ↗ direction

40:22 ↗ but if people have other motions they'd

40:24 ↗ like to make

40:25 ↗ i know the first thing that we need to

40:27 ↗ consider is the single family

40:29 ↗ and town home incentive ordinance

40:30 ↗ changes that's one of the first things

40:32 ↗ that came up in megan

40:34 ↗ uh as you as megan described they did

40:36 ↗ remove the incentives

40:38 ↗ and there's really not a lot in here in

40:40 ↗ this ordinance that describes what's

40:42 ↗ happening with single family and

40:43 ↗ townhomes

40:44 ↗ is there any motions to do anything

40:47 ↗ differently than what's in the proposed

40:49 ↗ ordinance from the administration

40:53 ↗ and please put it in the chat and i'll

40:55 ↗ call on you

41:00 ↗ seeing nothing i'm going to move on to

41:02 ↗ next

41:04 ↗ which is um the next piece of it is

41:07 ↗ that they removed the single fam their

41:11 ↗ the options for the ordinance were

41:13 ↗ changed so that there no longer were

41:14 ↗ incentives

41:15 ↗ and that basically were not requiring ev

41:19 ↗ ready infrastructure for single family

41:21 ↗ and townhomes

41:22 ↗ there was an option that megan presented

41:24 ↗ that we could still require it

41:27 ↗ but the motion that's still being

41:29 ↗ considered

41:30 ↗ by this board has it removed from the

41:33 ↗ ordinance is there anybody that wants to

41:35 ↗ make a motion to change that

41:40 ↗ saying no one saying a chat okay let's

41:43 ↗ move on to the affordable housing

41:45 ↗ options

41:46 ↗ portions of the ordinance and i know

41:48 ↗ that some people did send in some

41:50 ↗ motions

41:51 ↗ associated with that and if you would

41:52 ↗ like to make a motion regarding the

41:54 ↗ affordable housing

41:56 ↗ portion of that please signify and i'll

41:58 ↗ call on you

41:59 ↗ in the chat section

42:05 ↗ i think jamie you had some

42:08 ↗ and you had some and rishi had some and

42:10 ↗ go ahead please

42:21 ↗ listen i didn't

42:24 ↗ get to the chat mine was back for the

42:27 ↗ single

42:28 ↗ family homes i mean if there is a way i

42:31 ↗ don't want to slow the process down

42:33 ↗ but um i would say

42:37 ↗ if there if there is a possibility that

42:40 ↗ we could require it

42:41 ↗ i think for single family and town homes

42:45 ↗ i would say

42:48 ↗ that would be a really good thing do you

42:50 ↗ want to make a motion to

42:52 ↗ make it a requirement for single family

42:54 ↗ homes and townhomes

42:56 ↗ well what does everybody think um

42:57 ↗ because i don't want

42:59 ↗ to slow this down and

43:02 ↗ i have a feeling that maybe um

43:07 ↗ the builders are going to be doing it

43:10 ↗ anyway whether they're required to or

43:11 ↗ not

43:13 ↗ uh but maybe i'm thinking wrongly

43:18 ↗ well and the best way to figure out what

43:20 ↗ all of this

43:21 ↗ board is thinking at this time is to put

43:23 ↗ a motion to the table

43:25 ↗ it'll get seconded and considered

43:28 ↗ and we'll take a vote and um likely it

43:31 ↗ will end up being a roll call

43:33 ↗ vote since it's not the administration's

43:35 ↗ proposal

43:36 ↗ just offering suggestions but that's the

43:39 ↗ best way

43:40 ↗ especially given that we're all doing

43:42 ↗ this virtually it's kind of a challenge

43:44 ↗ um but i think it would be helpful if um

43:47 ↗ you made your motion on that

43:49 ↗ if you if that's what you'd like to do

43:51 ↗ and

43:52 ↗ state it and then um we can see if

43:55 ↗ there's a second and if we want to

43:56 ↗ consider it

43:58 ↗ well i didn't write it down like you

44:00 ↗ asked me to so maybe i should just say

44:02 ↗ it so i move

44:04 ↗ uh to

44:07 ↗ give get a second opinion from a lawyer

44:10 ↗ and um

44:14 ↗ if that if the lawyer says i

44:17 ↗ i move to uh require it uh

44:20 ↗ ev charging in single family homes and

44:24 ↗ townhomes

44:26 ↗ so is that two motions is there a first

44:28 ↗ motion to get a second opinion

44:30 ↗ and a second motion to require it

44:32 ↗ correct

44:33 ↗ yes i would say my motion would be

44:37 ↗ yes the first motion would be to get a

44:39 ↗ second opinion from a lawyer

44:40 ↗ and the second motion would be if that

44:43 ↗ lawyer

44:44 ↗ says that um it would be legal

44:47 ↗ then i would say

44:51 ↗ to require ev charging in single and

44:54 ↗ townhomes

44:56 ↗ all right we're going to consider them

44:58 ↗ one by one so the first motion i heard

45:00 ↗ from ann

45:00 ↗ is to get a second opinion from a lawyer

45:03 ↗ required

45:04 ↗ regarding requiring um

45:08 ↗ ev ready infrastructure be installed

45:11 ↗ on single family homes and townhomes is

45:13 ↗ that accurate anne

45:17 ↗ great so do i have a second and someone

45:20 ↗ please raise your hand if i have a sec

45:21 ↗ or

45:22 ↗ put something in the chat

45:28 ↗ any seconds can you clarify it i can't

45:31 ↗ hear you or i can't hear you

45:40 ↗ okay uh

45:54 ↗ laura i'll be honest i couldn't

45:56 ↗ understand you i don't know if other

45:57 ↗ people could

45:58 ↗ you might have to try it one more time

46:00 ↗ i'm really sorry

46:02 ↗ i think she wants clarification

46:06 ↗ so we let's see

46:09 ↗ at this point we have emotion on the

46:11 ↗ table and that motion is to recommend

46:14 ↗ that we that the city get a second

46:16 ↗ opinion

46:17 ↗ from another lawyer regarding um

46:22 ↗ including evie ready for single-family

46:25 ↗ homes and townhomes

46:27 ↗ in the ordinance and

46:30 ↗ to move that forward and to make that

46:32 ↗ recommendation

46:33 ↗ to the planning policy commission and

46:36 ↗ and the

46:37 ↗ city council i need a second and then we

46:40 ↗ can discuss it

46:41 ↗ but if there's not a second then it's

46:43 ↗ just dead

46:44 ↗ so does anybody want to second it

46:50 ↗ at this point i don't see a second so

46:53 ↗ that i'm sorry i see

46:55 ↗ i do see a question in the

46:58 ↗ um comment box from

47:01 ↗ rishi

47:04 ↗ i'm not sure do you have a question that

47:06 ↗ applies to this motion

47:08 ↗ yeah i had a question whether we could

47:10 ↗ get a um the motion typed up

47:12 ↗ so we can refer to it

47:18 ↗ yes i can type it up and put it in the

47:21 ↗ chat box

47:34 ↗ so at this point i'm not really seeing a

47:36 ↗ second though i did see that

47:38 ↗ laura was asking if this delays things

47:40 ↗ and likely it will since they have to

47:42 ↗ bring on another attorney

47:45 ↗ i would guess

47:52 ↗ this is megan um my thought on on

47:55 ↗ laura's question

47:56 ↗ would be that this would be a

47:59 ↗ recommendation to the planning policy

48:00 ↗ commission and the city council so when

48:02 ↗ we brought this to the city council and

48:05 ↗ shared all of the

48:07 ↗ recommendations from the environmental

48:08 ↗ board they would then

48:10 ↗ consider that there so if they wanted to

48:12 ↗ take action they could still take action

48:14 ↗ that night if they wanted to

48:16 ↗ wait and try to get a second opinion

48:18 ↗ they could do that so it'd be up to them

48:20 ↗ at that meeting

48:28 ↗ at this point i'm not seeing a second on

48:30 ↗ that motion

48:31 ↗ so i am going to state that that motion

48:34 ↗ is

48:36 ↗ does not apply um is not moving forward

48:41 ↗ and did you have another motion you

48:42 ↗ wanted to make to require

48:44 ↗ ev ready infrastructure be installed as

48:47 ↗ part in single family homes and

48:49 ↗ townhomes is that

48:56 ↗ i'm just going to type it up okay

49:33 ↗ okay from what i see from ann she's

49:34 ↗ moving that the ev ready that evie ready

49:36 ↗ is required for single

49:39 ↗ family and town homes with new

49:41 ↗ construction is that accurate

49:45 ↗ so um i need a second on that does

49:47 ↗ anybody

49:48 ↗ please enter into the chat if you're

49:50 ↗ willing to second that

49:54 ↗ okay rishi second that now this is open

49:57 ↗ for discussion if anybody would like to

49:59 ↗ discuss

50:00 ↗ this before taking a vote um please

50:04 ↗ indicate in the chat box and i'll call

50:10 ↗ on

50:13 ↗ um rishi go ahead yeah i was thinking uh

50:17 ↗ perhaps we should include

50:18 ↗ some language in that motion or um

50:21 ↗ to add to the recommendation report um

50:24 ↗ that

50:24 ↗ if if it is not determined legally

50:27 ↗ feasible that

50:28 ↗ if it does in the future become feasible

50:30 ↗ as per the building code to modify

50:32 ↗ requirements to the single family or

50:34 ↗ town home requirements for ev

50:35 ↗ readiness then ev readiness and evse

50:40 ↗ should be required as per multi-family

50:41 ↗ households

50:43 ↗ as currently under the ordinance

50:55 ↗ boy you guys are testing my robert's

50:57 ↗ rules of order now okay

50:59 ↗ as a comment so rishi is that a friendly

51:01 ↗ amendment to

51:02 ↗ um the motion that was made by anne um

51:05 ↗ is that something you

51:06 ↗ could type up force to add to it or is

51:09 ↗ that

51:10 ↗ another motion to be considered i can

51:13 ↗ type that

51:13 ↗ as as a friendly amendment and

51:17 ↗ as you type it up and you might want to

51:19 ↗ consider if you consider that a family

51:21 ↗ amendment because you have to agree to

51:22 ↗ it

51:25 ↗ it makes a lot of sense it's very

51:26 ↗ friendly thank you

51:29 ↗ so rishi if you could type that friendly

51:31 ↗ amendment then we will have it on the

51:34 ↗ floor to consider

51:49 ↗ and don i'll be calling on you next as

51:51 ↗ soon as this gets typed up

52:34 ↗ done just to keep things moving do you

52:36 ↗ want to go ahead and start making your

52:38 ↗ feedback on it

52:39 ↗ and then we'll i'll read this um

52:42 ↗ this motion again

52:45 ↗ yeah so mine is not to change the

52:48 ↗ existing motion i agree with rishi

52:50 ↗ i like that idea um mine is much more

52:53 ↗ common for the board i don't want to do

52:55 ↗ anything that's going to delay

52:59 ↗ this being passed in short order

53:02 ↗ um so the idea of sending this back for

53:04 ↗ another attorney to review

53:06 ↗ or challenging the the building code

53:09 ↗ um i think would delay this for quite

53:11 ↗ some time and be costly to the city

53:18 ↗ any other comments from anyone

53:22 ↗ okay we have a motion on the table that

53:24 ↗ evie ready

53:25 ↗ that let me make sure evie ready

53:30 ↗ should be required for single and

53:33 ↗ single-family and town homes with new

53:34 ↗ construction

53:36 ↗ um if this is not legally feasible in

53:39 ↗ the future

53:40 ↗ should the building code allow for

53:41 ↗ modifications to single family

53:43 ↗ requirements

53:44 ↗ eb readiness and evse should be

53:47 ↗ required and at that point um

53:50 ↗ we have a question from jamie go ahead

53:52 ↗ jamie

53:54 ↗ thank you nancy uh jamie finch here i'm

53:58 ↗ i guess it's a question question such a

53:59 ↗ comment i just wanted to make sure

54:02 ↗ are we like currently it reads that it

54:04 ↗ it's required for single family and

54:06 ↗ townhome

54:07 ↗ it doesn't state that it's new

54:08 ↗ construction is that intended

54:13 ↗ um

54:16 ↗ rishi can you respond to that is it

54:18 ↗ intended for

54:19 ↗ new construction um it is intended for

54:22 ↗ new construction

54:23 ↗ um not for all single family and tunnels

54:26 ↗ just for new construction

54:27 ↗ so can we add that as a friendly

54:29 ↗ amendment rishi

54:32 ↗ how about you anne yes appreciate you is

54:35 ↗ that acceptable

54:36 ↗ and

54:40 ↗ okay great yeah i think rishi were you

54:43 ↗ just adding on sorry

54:44 ↗ were you just adding on to the one that

54:46 ↗ i was it a continuation

54:48 ↗ of the first one the first one yeah

54:52 ↗ yeah so it already said it

54:57 ↗ that's true all right so at this point

55:00 ↗ we have this with

55:01 ↗ any other questions or comments

55:05 ↗ sing none megan do you want to do a roll

55:07 ↗ call vote

55:09 ↗ so does anybody uh do i need to restate

55:11 ↗ the the motion that we're voting on

55:13 ↗ is everybody okay just thumbs up i think

55:17 ↗ let's

55:17 ↗ i'm going to restate it just to make

55:19 ↗ sure i have it i have it down

55:22 ↗ right before doing the roll call here so

55:25 ↗ i have a motion to require

55:26 ↗ ev-ready infrastructure in single-family

55:29 ↗ and town-home new construction

55:32 ↗ if this is not legally feasible in the

55:34 ↗ future should the building code allow

55:36 ↗ for modifications to single-family

55:38 ↗ requirements

55:39 ↗ ev readiness and evse should be required

55:45 ↗ and if i'm hearing no objections and

55:47 ↗ that is the motion on the table

55:50 ↗ um actually i did want to check one

55:53 ↗ clarifying thing

55:55 ↗ it said if if allowed ev readiness and

55:59 ↗ evse

55:59 ↗ should be required did we mean to

56:01 ↗ include the evsc should be required or

56:04 ↗ are we just talking about the single

56:05 ↗ family and townhome where we want the

56:07 ↗ evie

56:08 ↗ readiness to be required

56:11 ↗ that might be a clarification for rishi

56:14 ↗ who

56:14 ↗ had that friendly amendment i intended

56:18 ↗ to include both

56:20 ↗ okay

56:24 ↗ so at this point you want to go forward

56:26 ↗ with the

56:27 ↗ roll call vote megan yes okay

56:30 ↗ um so we're going in alphabetical order

56:33 ↗ with

56:33 ↗ the um chair being last though so first

56:36 ↗ uh

56:37 ↗ jamie if when i call your name please

56:38 ↗ say yay or nay

56:40 ↗ uh jamie finch today

56:45 ↗ cameron fisher

56:49 ↗ uh rishi hazra

56:54 ↗ aye dan hintz

56:59 ↗ yay laura labiko

57:06 ↗ sorry say that one more time

57:14 ↗ i heard yay can you please confirm that

57:17 ↗ in the chat okay

57:18 ↗ i see that as a confirmation for yay uh

57:21 ↗ danny madden yay don mcwilliams

57:31 ↗ yay and newcomb

57:37 ↗ yay and nancy davidson

57:41 ↗ yay so that motion passes with seven

57:45 ↗ yays and

57:46 ↗ two nays

57:50 ↗ great yeah let's see someone else had a

57:53 ↗ motion

57:54 ↗ um and that was let me go back and look

57:58 ↗ up a little bit hold on

58:03 ↗ so uh rishi did you have another emotion

58:05 ↗ that you'd like to move forward

58:10 ↗ yes i did um should i

58:13 ↗ paste it in the chat or should i speak

58:14 ↗ it out

58:18 ↗ i'm sorry i can't hear you

58:22 ↗ rishi if you could please um paste it

58:24 ↗ into the chat and read it to us that

58:26 ↗ would be helpful

58:34 ↗ i moved that to include in the

58:36 ↗ recommendation report that the board is

58:38 ↗ concerned that low-income individuals

58:39 ↗ who work across several job sites over

58:41 ↗ the course of the day will be

58:42 ↗ disproportionately affected by lower

58:44 ↗ percentages of epsc parking spaces

58:46 ↗ available in non-residential areas

58:48 ↗ to ensure equity we urge consideration

58:50 ↗ of increased requirements of ebsc and

58:52 ↗ ev-ready parking spaces for

58:54 ↗ non-residential buildings

58:55 ↗ new surface parking lots and parking

58:57 ↗ garages we suggest a requirement of ten

58:59 ↗ percent evsc parking spaces and twenty

59:01 ↗ percent ev reading parts

59:02 ↗ ev ready parking spaces

59:08 ↗ okay we have a motion on the table as

59:10 ↗ identified by rishi

59:12 ↗ is there a second

59:18 ↗ please signify in the chat session so i

59:20 ↗ can call on you

59:29 ↗ i'm sorry i appreciate it appears that

59:31 ↗ there's no second to that one so that

59:33 ↗ motion is considered um

59:36 ↗ no longer applying um i believe jamie at

59:38 ↗ this point you had

59:40 ↗ a motion that you wanted to move forward

59:41 ↗ or two

59:44 ↗ could you please enter it into the chat

59:46 ↗ for

59:48 ↗ thanks nancy

59:56 ↗ i move that we clarify that eve and

59:59 ↗ nancy and megan this is slightly

1:00:00 ↗ different than the

1:00:01 ↗ motion that i sent over just just as a

1:00:03 ↗ heads up

1:00:04 ↗ um i move that we clarify that ev

1:00:07 ↗ infrastructure substitution would be the

1:00:09 ↗ last resort for achieving cost

1:00:10 ↗ neutrality

1:00:11 ↗ and remove the reference to reduce the

1:00:13 ↗ ev requirement through substitution

1:00:15 ↗ alternatively to other method methods so

1:00:18 ↗ that these evian structure substitutions

1:00:20 ↗ would only be done in addition to other

1:00:22 ↗ methods to close a cost gap left not

1:00:24 ↗ covered

1:00:24 ↗ by those methods

1:00:34 ↗ um at this point we have a motion on the

1:00:35 ↗ table i would a

1:00:37 ↗ the chair's looking for a second does

1:00:39 ↗ anybody want to second it

1:00:44 ↗ i would like to second it so nancy

1:00:46 ↗ davidson will second it and i'm gonna

1:00:47 ↗ ask jamie to explain his rationale

1:00:49 ↗ behind this one for saw

1:00:53 ↗ thanks nancy jamie fincher um i'm just

1:00:56 ↗ worried the current language

1:00:58 ↗ leaves a little bit too much uncertainty

1:01:01 ↗ around

1:01:01 ↗ exactly how this ev

1:01:05 ↗ infrastructure could be impacted if the

1:01:08 ↗ initial a and b of structured parking

1:01:11 ↗ and parking requirements isn't

1:01:12 ↗ sufficient

1:01:13 ↗ uh the addition of alternatively in my

1:01:16 ↗ mind states that

1:01:17 ↗ if the parking isn't enough they could

1:01:19 ↗ move all of the cost savings

1:01:21 ↗ or at least they could they could not do

1:01:24 ↗ any

1:01:24 ↗ parking reductions and then achieve much

1:01:27 ↗ more of their cost savings through

1:01:28 ↗ reductions in eb

1:01:30 ↗ infrastructure so i just worry that this

1:01:31 ↗ could really severely impact

1:01:34 ↗ ev instruct infrastructure in the case

1:01:36 ↗ that that would happen so

1:01:37 ↗ my goal with this motion was to just

1:01:40 ↗ clarify that that's a last resort

1:01:42 ↗ um and that that

1:01:45 ↗ substitution would only be done in

1:01:46 ↗ addition to those

1:01:48 ↗ initial parking structure parking and

1:01:50 ↗ other cost

1:01:51 ↗ reduction methods that they were able to

1:01:55 ↗ put into place

1:02:05 ↗ nancy you're on mute

1:02:18 ↗ oh

1:02:20 ↗ it just went to mute again

1:02:24 ↗ am i muted again you're good now okay

1:02:28 ↗ jamie is this for all is this just for

1:02:30 ↗ affordable housing because it's not

1:02:32 ↗ specific to that

1:02:34 ↗ so i'm a little confused about where

1:02:36 ↗ this would apply

1:02:39 ↗ yeah so this is for this section within

1:02:42 ↗ the ordinance that

1:02:43 ↗ that speaks to substitution as a as a

1:02:46 ↗ means of achieving

1:02:47 ↗ cost neutrality on affordable housing

1:02:50 ↗ projects so as a friendly amendment can

1:02:54 ↗ i

1:02:55 ↗ suggest that we make sure that we have

1:02:57 ↗ in this language somewhere for

1:02:58 ↗ affordable housing just so that it's

1:03:00 ↗ much clearer at least for people that

1:03:02 ↗ might read it

1:03:06 ↗ heavy infrastructure substitution

1:03:09 ↗ okay so what i'm proposing is that his

1:03:12 ↗ motion be

1:03:13 ↗ changed to clarify that ev

1:03:15 ↗ infrastructure substitution for

1:03:17 ↗ affordable housing

1:03:18 ↗ just add those three words in there

1:03:20 ↗ would be the last resort just so that

1:03:22 ↗ it's clear that that's really what we're

1:03:24 ↗ talking

1:03:25 ↗ to so there's a motion on the table and

1:03:27 ↗ we're now open for questions or

1:03:29 ↗ discussion anybody

1:03:31 ↗ have questions and i see megan has one

1:03:34 ↗ yes jamie i had a question um when

1:03:37 ↗ you're talking about

1:03:38 ↗ substitution do you mean the

1:03:40 ↗ substituting with evie

1:03:41 ↗ capable infrastructure

1:03:46 ↗ correct yeah the it's uh it's

1:03:50 ↗ well i guess it's it's d and e

1:03:54 ↗ so i guess it's substitution it maybe

1:03:56 ↗ it's easier to call out by d and e

1:03:58 ↗ within the current ordinance but

1:04:00 ↗ um the the methods that are specific to

1:04:04 ↗ reducing requirements uh related to

1:04:07 ↗ um ebsc and ev ready solves

1:04:11 ↗ okay so you're not talking about c

1:04:13 ↗ though the reduction in the amount of

1:04:15 ↗ required

1:04:16 ↗ parking lot landscaping you just mean

1:04:18 ↗ the

1:04:19 ↗ no i think an amendment to make it clear

1:04:21 ↗ on those two things might be

1:04:23 ↗ uh might be a good idea just to clarify

1:04:26 ↗ that i mean d

1:04:27 ↗ and e uh in

1:04:31 ↗ that in that portion of the ordinance

1:04:42 ↗ jamie is there something you want

1:04:43 ↗ changed in your motion besides the

1:04:44 ↗ friendly amendment

1:04:47 ↗ yeah i'm gonna quickly let me just

1:04:48 ↗ quickly add that in

1:04:50 ↗ uh and i'll put it in the chat

1:04:53 ↗ and if you could please add mine as well

1:04:55 ↗ that would be helpful

1:06:09 ↗ jamie venture i i did it it actually is

1:06:12 ↗ specific to d

1:06:13 ↗ within that i did take a quick look as i

1:06:15 ↗ was reading through this and it's

1:06:16 ↗ specific to

1:06:17 ↗ what is referenced in d so that's what i

1:06:19 ↗ clarified in this update

1:06:25 ↗ okay and i will accept that i will

1:06:27 ↗ second it at this point again since

1:06:29 ↗ um there was some amendments made it to

1:06:32 ↗ it at this point

1:06:33 ↗ is there any other discussion or

1:06:35 ↗ comments on this

1:06:36 ↗ questions on this motion

1:06:43 ↗ seeing none at this point we're going to

1:06:45 ↗ take a vote a roll call vote on

1:06:47 ↗ a move that we move to clarify the ev

1:06:49 ↗ infrastructure substitution for

1:06:51 ↗ affordable housing projects

1:06:53 ↗ contained in section d of the current

1:06:55 ↗ proposed ordinance would be the last

1:06:57 ↗ resort for achieving cost mortality and

1:06:59 ↗ remove the reference to

1:07:01 ↗ reduce the ev requirements through

1:07:02 ↗ substitution alternatively to other

1:07:04 ↗ methods

1:07:05 ↗ so that these ev infrastructure

1:07:07 ↗ substitutions would only be done

1:07:09 ↗ in addition to and with that point with

1:07:13 ↗ that i'm going to ask megan to take a

1:07:15 ↗ roll 12 vote

1:07:19 ↗ okay we will start uh with jamie finch

1:07:22 ↗ yay or nay

1:07:25 ↗ let's notice that the last bit of the of

1:07:28 ↗ the motion got cut off

1:07:29 ↗ can i update that and my copy and paste

1:07:32 ↗ was unsuccessful

1:07:35 ↗ is that do you accept that nancy

1:07:42 ↗ on mute but i think she did

1:07:45 ↗ i did sorry i keep trying to

1:07:56 ↗ and i think the in addition to other

1:07:58 ↗ methods to get a close

1:07:59 ↗ cost gap left not covered

1:08:04 ↗ i'm i think i might be reaching a

1:08:06 ↗ character limit because it's not letting

1:08:08 ↗ me

1:08:08 ↗ have that so i think i have it so i'll

1:08:10 ↗ go ahead and read it out one more time

1:08:13 ↗ before taking the vote so i moved to

1:08:15 ↗ clarify that the ev

1:08:17 ↗ infrastructure substitution for

1:08:18 ↗ affordable housing projects contained in

1:08:20 ↗ section d

1:08:21 ↗ of the current proposed ordinance would

1:08:23 ↗ be the last resort for achieving cost

1:08:26 ↗ neutrality

1:08:27 ↗ and remove the reference to reduce the

1:08:29 ↗ ev requirements through substitution

1:08:31 ↗ alternatively to other methods so that

1:08:34 ↗ these ev

1:08:34 ↗ infrastructure substitutions would only

1:08:37 ↗ be done in

1:08:37 ↗ addition to other methods to close a

1:08:40 ↗ cost gap left

1:08:42 ↗ not covered is that the full motion

1:08:48 ↗ yes and i just figured out my copy and

1:08:50 ↗ paste issues so

1:08:51 ↗ but yes that is that is correct okay

1:08:54 ↗ i will go ahead and go with the roll

1:08:56 ↗ call vote so

1:08:57 ↗ yay or nay uh jamie finch

1:09:01 ↗ yay cameron fisher

1:09:06 ↗ can you say that one more time

1:09:15 ↗ yay dan hintz

1:09:24 ↗ yes danny madden

1:09:28 ↗ yay don mcwilliams

1:09:31 ↗ yay and newcomb

1:09:35 ↗ yay nancy davidson

1:09:39 ↗ yay and that passes with nine yays and

1:09:43 ↗ zero nays

1:09:47 ↗ are there any other motions to be

1:09:49 ↗ considered as part as we move forward

1:10:17 ↗ stood here

1:10:29 ↗ nancy it looks like we have something in

1:10:31 ↗ the chat

1:10:33 ↗ i if you could call on them megan i

1:10:35 ↗ somehow lost you something yeah so i'm

1:10:36 ↗ gonna find you

1:10:37 ↗ there it is yes uh rishi has a motion

1:10:44 ↗ yes i move uh that the board recommends

1:10:46 ↗ the city um

1:10:48 ↗ the city that the city plans to revisit

1:10:50 ↗ the electric vehicle charging ordinance

1:10:52 ↗ every other gear as the industry is

1:10:53 ↗ rapidly advancing and we need to be

1:10:54 ↗ prepared to keep up with it

1:10:58 ↗ great so we have a motion on the table

1:11:00 ↗ is there a second

1:11:03 ↗ second thank you ann we have a motion in

1:11:07 ↗ a second

1:11:07 ↗ um is there any discussion or questions

1:11:09 ↗ rishi if you want to speak to it or

1:11:12 ↗ do you think it stands on its own

1:11:15 ↗ i think it stands on its own okay

1:11:18 ↗ um danny you have a question or oh you

1:11:21 ↗ seconded i see that never mind

1:11:23 ↗ there were two seconds on that um laura

1:11:26 ↗ did you have a comment

1:11:29 ↗ um yeah i had some similar stuff that

1:11:31 ↗ i'd emailed you

1:11:32 ↗ a few hours ago so i don't know if you

1:11:34 ↗ saw but basically saying

1:11:35 ↗ some other design considerations that

1:11:37 ↗ should go into being revisited um i can

1:11:40 ↗ hold those or just

1:11:42 ↗ now whichever is easier um if it applies

1:11:46 ↗ to this motion that would be great

1:11:47 ↗ otherwise we'll move forward with

1:11:48 ↗ another motion next

1:11:51 ↗ sure uh basically there will be other

1:11:53 ↗ considerations such as

1:11:55 ↗ material use and lighting

1:11:58 ↗ impacts like design standards that i

1:12:00 ↗ think need to be revisited some of those

1:12:02 ↗ won't be

1:12:02 ↗ realized until we get further along so i

1:12:04 ↗ agree that

1:12:06 ↗ because this is all new i think there'll

1:12:07 ↗ be a lot of things that we'll have

1:12:08 ↗ missed and they'll want to go back and

1:12:09 ↗ revisit so we don't have other

1:12:11 ↗ you know emissions being caused because

1:12:13 ↗ we're trying to push this particular

1:12:15 ↗ policy

1:12:16 ↗ great thank you laura i think that goes

1:12:19 ↗ well with it um there's a question from

1:12:20 ↗ jamie jamie go ahead

1:12:23 ↗ thanks nancy uh this is a question from

1:12:25 ↗ megan

1:12:26 ↗ um megan how would what would be the

1:12:29 ↗ general process if we weren't to

1:12:31 ↗ uh have this motioning or this sort of

1:12:34 ↗ language included

1:12:35 ↗ what what sort of cadence or how would

1:12:38 ↗ these types of ordinances

1:12:39 ↗ typically be reviewed

1:12:43 ↗ this is megan um i think there's a few

1:12:45 ↗ ways

1:12:46 ↗ this this will be reviewed as part of

1:12:48 ↗ the larger title 18

1:12:50 ↗ update as well as we're looking at title

1:12:52 ↗ 18.

1:12:54 ↗ there could always be a recommendation

1:12:57 ↗ from this board

1:12:58 ↗ to revisit it so if the new information

1:13:01 ↗ came or or there was a desire to change

1:13:04 ↗ something this board could

1:13:06 ↗ recommend that the council take that up

1:13:09 ↗ that would have to go through a little

1:13:10 ↗ bit of a process

1:13:11 ↗ you'd want to bring it to the staff

1:13:13 ↗ liaison and then i would work with the

1:13:15 ↗ city administration to see the process

1:13:17 ↗ for that

1:13:19 ↗ city council could also they could

1:13:22 ↗ decide that they want to bring it up

1:13:23 ↗ again and make changes to it so i think

1:13:26 ↗ there are a couple ways

1:13:31 ↗ great thanks megan

1:13:36 ↗ uh question or comment from cameron go

1:13:38 ↗ ahead cameron

1:13:39 ↗ yeah cameron fisher here um it was a

1:13:42 ↗ commenting question and it was

1:13:44 ↗ essentially jamie

1:13:46 ↗ had asked that question on the process

1:13:49 ↗ my comment though was

1:13:50 ↗ uh i agree with rishi's

1:13:53 ↗ strategy of revisiting this i would

1:13:57 ↗ suggest maybe expanding it out to maybe

1:13:59 ↗ every three five years three to five

1:14:01 ↗ years thereabouts i think for every

1:14:03 ↗ other year is a little

1:14:04 ↗ uh too too rapid to to review but uh

1:14:07 ↗ uh other comment question was answered

1:14:10 ↗ already thank you

1:14:14 ↗ great any other questions or comments

1:14:19 ↗ seeing then um we have a motion on the

1:14:22 ↗ on the table right now for um do you

1:14:25 ↗ want to read it megan or should i go

1:14:26 ↗ ahead

1:14:27 ↗ and this is megan i just wanted to um

1:14:29 ↗ clarify if there was a friendly

1:14:31 ↗ amendment to that

1:14:32 ↗ that cameron was trying to make or or

1:14:34 ↗ not

1:14:37 ↗ no friendly amendment thank you

1:14:40 ↗ okay yes i can go ahead and read that

1:14:42 ↗ out

1:14:44 ↗ the board recommends the city plan to

1:14:46 ↗ revisit the electric vehicle charging

1:14:48 ↗ ordinance

1:14:49 ↗ every other year as the industry is

1:14:51 ↗ rapidly advancing and we need to be

1:14:53 ↗ prepared to keep up with it

1:14:57 ↗ and at this point megan do you want to

1:14:58 ↗ move forward with the roll call vote

1:15:01 ↗ yes uh so yay or nay uh first up gene

1:15:05 ↗ finch yay

1:15:08 ↗ cameron fisher yike

1:15:12 ↗ rishi hazra yay

1:15:16 ↗ dan hintz yay

1:15:20 ↗ laura labiko yay

1:15:24 ↗ danny madden yay

1:15:27 ↗ don mcwilliams yay

1:15:31 ↗ and newcomb yay

1:15:35 ↗ and nancy davidson yay

1:15:39 ↗ and that motion passes with nine yays

1:15:41 ↗ and zero nays

1:15:46 ↗ okay

1:15:49 ↗ i have just um entered a motion and so

1:15:53 ↗ um i'm making motion for the city just

1:15:56 ↗ to work with the state building called

1:15:57 ↗ council to seek approval of an amendment

1:15:59 ↗ to the state building code

1:16:00 ↗ that allows the city of issaquad to

1:16:02 ↗ establish eb requirements for new single

1:16:04 ↗ family homes

1:16:06 ↗ and i know um that's the motion and i

1:16:09 ↗ know that this is

1:16:10 ↗ a little different than the one that was

1:16:12 ↗ passed earlier so i need a second if

1:16:13 ↗ anybody's interested uh got a second

1:16:20 ↗ from jamie thank you

1:16:22 ↗ and now we're open for discussion and um

1:16:26 ↗ i think um getting us so that even it's

1:16:29 ↗ just the city that can

1:16:30 ↗ actually do this if they um if we

1:16:34 ↗ to protect this and we actually get this

1:16:36 ↗ in single family homes that's why i

1:16:37 ↗ moved it forward so is there any

1:16:39 ↗ discussion of this

1:16:42 ↗ uh question go ahead jamie thanks nanny

1:16:46 ↗ nancy jamie pinch here um do you mind

1:16:48 ↗ i'm not seeing the text of the motion

1:16:50 ↗ in the chat oh really

1:16:55 ↗ could you try and make sure it's going

1:16:56 ↗ to everyone i'm just not seeing it right

1:16:58 ↗ now

1:16:58 ↗ it may have just gone to megan by

1:17:00 ↗ accident

1:17:02 ↗ yes i do see i will go ahead and send it

1:17:04 ↗ to everyone

1:17:05 ↗ thank you i don't know how i just oh

1:17:08 ↗ which

1:17:09 ↗ you're just showing up as everyone i

1:17:10 ↗ need to get

1:17:14 ↗ okay

1:17:18 ↗ any discussion

1:17:23 ↗ at this point instead of doing a total

1:17:25 ↗ roll call vote is anyone opposed to this

1:17:27 ↗ put please put it in the

1:17:29 ↗ chat and then we'll do a roll call vote

1:17:32 ↗ if there's one person otherwise i will

1:17:33 ↗ just assume that it's approved

1:17:39 ↗ do you guys want a roll call vote

1:17:46 ↗ since we've had a couple of these okay

1:17:50 ↗ it's probably better to do a roll call

1:17:52 ↗ vote megan go ahead and do that just to

1:17:54 ↗ make it official

1:17:56 ↗ sure yes so the motion on the table is a

1:17:58 ↗ motion for the city to work with the

1:18:00 ↗ state building code council

1:18:02 ↗ to seek approval of an amendment to the

1:18:04 ↗ state building code

1:18:06 ↗ that a allows that allows the city of

1:18:10 ↗ issaquah to establish eevee requirements

1:18:12 ↗ for new single family homes

1:18:15 ↗ i will now take the roll call yay or nay

1:18:18 ↗ starring jamie finch

1:18:20 ↗ yay cameron fisher yes

1:18:24 ↗ rishi hasra yay dan hintz

1:18:27 ↗ yay laura labiko

1:18:30 ↗ yes danny madden okay

1:18:35 ↗ don mcwilliams yay and newcomb

1:18:40 ↗ yay and nancy davidson yay

1:18:44 ↗ the motion passes with nine yays and

1:18:47 ↗ zero nays

1:18:51 ↗ so i know other motions were sent in to

1:18:53 ↗ me and over the course of the meeting

1:18:55 ↗ some of this has changed does anybody

1:18:57 ↗ have any other motions that they'd

1:18:58 ↗ like to move forward at this time

1:19:07 ↗ and go ahead i have a similar one i can

1:19:10 ↗ go find it and copy and paste it over

1:19:12 ↗ um it was i think it was another one

1:19:15 ↗ that you had also had about

1:19:17 ↗ um yeah i have it here you want me to

1:19:21 ↗ cut and paste it in for you hang on

1:19:23 ↗ yeah and then um i think it's okay to

1:19:26 ↗ make a few

1:19:28 ↗ motions i'm going to cut some pieces in

1:19:30 ↗ because she sent it over earlier

1:19:37 ↗ hey ann i think this is it so you can

1:19:38 ↗ change it as you see it

1:19:51 ↗ is that the accurate one that you were

1:19:52 ↗ talking about that you sent earlier

1:19:58 ↗ yeah yeah i think

1:20:02 ↗ from my experience the more

1:20:05 ↗ the state wants to do this kind of stuff

1:20:08 ↗ and the more support

1:20:10 ↗ they get from cities the better

1:20:13 ↗ and so supporting the state

1:20:16 ↗ on making these changes will be very

1:20:18 ↗ powerful as well and then it would be

1:20:20 ↗ the whole state and so

1:20:21 ↗ it'd be even bigger because everybody

1:20:23 ↗ would have to do it not just

1:20:25 ↗ it's a claw so we have a motion on the

1:20:28 ↗ table

1:20:28 ↗ and i will second it since we started

1:20:31 ↗ our discussion

1:20:32 ↗ so this is megan have we read it out

1:20:35 ↗ loud yet

1:20:36 ↗ okay i will read it out loud there is a

1:20:38 ↗ motion from ann and second that

1:20:40 ↗ a motion to encourage and support the

1:20:42 ↗ city collaborating with regional cities

1:20:45 ↗ and the state building code council to

1:20:47 ↗ work towards a

1:20:48 ↗ statewide change that would allow cities

1:20:51 ↗ to establish

1:20:52 ↗ ev requirements for new single-family

1:20:54 ↗ homes

1:20:57 ↗ is there any discussions or questions or

1:20:59 ↗ comments on this

1:21:03 ↗ uh go ahead cameron

1:21:06 ↗ yeah hi this is uh cameron fisher and

1:21:09 ↗ could you just kind of elaborate

1:21:10 ↗ a little bit more about this versus the

1:21:12 ↗ the previous motion

1:21:14 ↗ that we uh approved just kind of

1:21:17 ↗ describe the diversity between the two i

1:21:20 ↗ think

1:21:20 ↗ the prior one was focusing more

1:21:24 ↗ on issaquah and getting

1:21:27 ↗ the state to allow issaquah to

1:21:30 ↗ change the code and this one

1:21:34 ↗ from my perspective would be working

1:21:37 ↗ with the state

1:21:38 ↗ and um and i know the state wants to do

1:21:42 ↗ this uh and encourage

1:21:46 ↗ lobbying really and and letting them

1:21:48 ↗ know

1:21:49 ↗ that um this is what isaqah wants but we

1:21:52 ↗ want to

1:21:53 ↗ try to make it happen for the whole

1:21:54 ↗ state

1:21:59 ↗ okay appreciate did you have a rishi did

1:22:01 ↗ you have a question

1:22:03 ↗ yeah i was wondering if this is going

1:22:04 ↗ through as an amendment to the previous

1:22:06 ↗ motion or

1:22:08 ↗ as a new motion it is a separate motion

1:22:12 ↗ we've already voted on the previous

1:22:13 ↗ motion

1:22:19 ↗ any other discussion questions

1:22:22 ↗ all right we have a motion on the table

1:22:24 ↗ at this point megan do you want to read

1:22:26 ↗ it again and we'll do a roll call vote

1:22:29 ↗ yes the motion is to encourage and

1:22:32 ↗ support the city collaborating with

1:22:34 ↗ regional cities and the state building

1:22:36 ↗ code council

1:22:37 ↗ to work towards a statewide change that

1:22:39 ↗ would allow

1:22:40 ↗ cities to establish ev requirements for

1:22:43 ↗ new single-family homes

1:22:44 ↗ so we will go through the roll call yay

1:22:47 ↗ or nay

1:22:48 ↗ uh jamie finch

1:22:51 ↗ cameron fisher good night

1:22:54 ↗ so that was yay no

1:22:57 ↗ sorry thank you uh rishi hasra

1:23:01 ↗ nay dan hints

1:23:05 ↗ yay laura labiko

1:23:09 ↗ yes danny madden

1:23:13 ↗ hey can you say that one again

1:23:17 ↗ uh yay yes thank you don mcwilliams

1:23:21 ↗ yay and newcomb

1:23:25 ↗ yay nancy davidson yes

1:23:30 ↗ this motion passes with seven yays and

1:23:33 ↗ two knees

1:23:37 ↗ okay um i know don you also had

1:23:40 ↗ submitted

1:23:41 ↗ a motion that you want considered

1:23:44 ↗ do you still want to move that forward

1:23:47 ↗ no i'm gonna recall it at this time

1:23:50 ↗ okay um

1:23:53 ↗ and you had one other do you want to

1:23:55 ↗ move that forward

1:23:57 ↗ that you had submitted no thank you

1:24:02 ↗ are there any other motions that um

1:24:04 ↗ people would like considered before we

1:24:06 ↗ go back and consider the original motion

1:24:09 ↗ oh wait anyway sorry

1:24:13 ↗ do you mind reading that one was that

1:24:15 ↗ about the single family

1:24:17 ↗ or is that about the multi-family

1:24:20 ↗ the original motion would be the motion

1:24:22 ↗ to approve the recommendations with the

1:24:24 ↗ changes we approved

1:24:26 ↗ so we're not at that point i'm just

1:24:29 ↗ seeing if there's any other motions

1:24:31 ↗ to change the proposal that megan

1:24:35 ↗ presented

1:24:40 ↗ okay um jamie you had another motion

1:24:47 ↗ thanks nancy jamie finch here um yes

1:24:50 ↗ this motion

1:24:51 ↗ um just reading it motion to encourage

1:24:53 ↗ the city to explore the option of

1:24:54 ↗ providing subsidies as one of the

1:24:56 ↗ methods to achieve cost neutrality to

1:24:58 ↗ offset the cost of euv ready

1:25:00 ↗ and evsc infrastructure and new

1:25:02 ↗ construction affordable housing projects

1:25:05 ↗ as part of the title 18 review

1:25:12 ↗ we have a motion on the table do we have

1:25:14 ↗ a second

1:25:16 ↗ anybody want a second this

1:25:20 ↗ uh rishi second it you might want to

1:25:21 ↗ turn your microphone on and save that

1:25:23 ↗ rishi force this is richie ii

1:25:27 ↗ uh jamie do you want to just

1:25:31 ↗ discuss this

1:25:34 ↗ thanks nancy jamie fincher yes i do

1:25:37 ↗ think that as we

1:25:39 ↗ get to the stage that we're doing a

1:25:40 ↗ title 18 review and have a full picture

1:25:42 ↗ of

1:25:43 ↗ the ways that we can help incentivize

1:25:45 ↗ affordable housing projects in the

1:25:46 ↗ community

1:25:48 ↗ this just seems like a very uh high

1:25:51 ↗ value option

1:25:52 ↗ to provide subsidies for partially given

1:25:55 ↗ that

1:25:56 ↗ it seems like there was some uh some

1:25:58 ↗ initial interest from the city and being

1:26:00 ↗ able to do that for single family i

1:26:01 ↗ feel like this might be the right uh way

1:26:04 ↗ to

1:26:04 ↗ to use those funds i do think that title

1:26:06 ↗ 18 review is probably the right time to

1:26:08 ↗ do that

1:26:08 ↗ as part of an overall review of uh

1:26:11 ↗ affordable housing and the rest of

1:26:12 ↗ of title 18 but do think that uh it's

1:26:15 ↗ something that

1:26:16 ↗ uh that we should be encouraging the

1:26:18 ↗ city to explore

1:26:20 ↗ as part of that

1:26:37 ↗ nancy you're on mute

1:26:41 ↗ okay i'm seeing no other is there any

1:26:44 ↗ other questions or comments on that

1:26:49 ↗ seeing none at this point megan would

1:26:51 ↗ you please move forward and read the

1:26:52 ↗ motion to us

1:26:53 ↗ and take a world club up yes the motion

1:26:57 ↗ on the table is to encourage the city to

1:26:59 ↗ explore the option of providing

1:27:01 ↗ subsidies as one of the methods to

1:27:03 ↗ achieve cost neutrality

1:27:05 ↗ to offset the cost of ev ready and evse

1:27:08 ↗ infrastructure in new construction

1:27:10 ↗ affordable housing projects as part of

1:27:12 ↗ the title 18 review

1:27:15 ↗ i'll now do the roll call uh yay or nay

1:27:18 ↗ jamie finch

1:27:19 ↗ yay cameron fisher yes

1:27:23 ↗ rishi hazra yay dan hints

1:27:28 ↗ nay laura labiko

1:27:32 ↗ yes danny madden

1:27:36 ↗ yay don mcwilliams

1:27:42 ↗ dan or sorry ann newcombe

1:27:52 ↗ nancy davidson

1:27:56 ↗ the motion passes with five yays and

1:27:59 ↗ four nays

1:28:03 ↗ great are there any other motions to

1:28:05 ↗ consider before we go back to the

1:28:07 ↗ original motion

1:28:14 ↗ okay seeing then i'm going to go back to

1:28:16 ↗ the original motion

1:28:17 ↗ which i actually have here

1:28:21 ↗ so the motion that was originally made

1:28:24 ↗ by

1:28:25 ↗ don was to approve the recommendation

1:28:27 ↗ report on the electrical

1:28:29 ↗ vehicle charging ordinance and um

1:28:33 ↗ add we'll vote on to approve it

1:28:36 ↗ as amended so we have amended it through

1:28:38 ↗ all the motions that we've approved

1:28:40 ↗ tonight and so what we're looking for

1:28:42 ↗ is to approve the recommendation report

1:28:44 ↗ on the electrical vehicle

1:28:46 ↗ charging ordinance as amended

1:28:49 ↗ any questions before we take a roll call

1:28:51 ↗ vote

1:28:54 ↗ okay megan

1:29:00 ↗ okay the motion on the table is to

1:29:01 ↗ approve the recommendation report

1:29:03 ↗ on the electric vehicle charging

1:29:05 ↗ ordinance as amended

1:29:08 ↗ yeas or nays uh jamie finch

1:29:13 ↗ yay cameron fisher yes

1:29:17 ↗ rishi hazra yay dan hintz

1:29:21 ↗ yay laura labico yes

1:29:25 ↗ danny madden

1:29:28 ↗ don mcwilliams yay

1:29:32 ↗ and newcomb yay nancy davidson

1:29:36 ↗ yes the motion passes with nine yays and

1:29:40 ↗ zero nays

1:29:43 ↗ well i just want to thank you all for

1:29:44 ↗ all your hard work it's very much

1:29:46 ↗ appreciated this was a little more

1:29:48 ↗ challenging for all of us

1:29:50 ↗ to keep up with with everything in the

1:29:52 ↗ chats

1:29:53 ↗ um thank you very much to those of you

1:29:55 ↗ that managed to get

1:29:57 ↗ um to share with us your planned motions

1:30:00 ↗ for this evening it

1:30:02 ↗ definitely made it a little easier for

1:30:04 ↗ um megan and i at least

1:30:06 ↗ to plan for this meeting and to think

1:30:08 ↗ through how

1:30:09 ↗ to get through this tough material so

1:30:11 ↗ thank you very much

1:30:13 ↗ and with that we'll move on to our next

1:30:14 ↗ agenda item we still have enough time

1:30:16 ↗ and i think megan

1:30:18 ↗ megan you had a comment go ahead thank

1:30:20 ↗ you yes this is megan

1:30:22 ↗ um i just wanted to let everyone know

1:30:23 ↗ thank you for that um so i have been

1:30:25 ↗ recording all of those motions

1:30:27 ↗ in the recommendation report so this was

1:30:30 ↗ an attachment that we had

1:30:32 ↗ so this will be going forward to the

1:30:34 ↗ planning policy commission tomorrow

1:30:37 ↗ i'll be sharing all the recommendations

1:30:39 ↗ that came out of that

1:30:40 ↗ and to the um city council on april 5th

1:30:44 ↗ i did want to note that we had two

1:30:46 ↗ sections in this recommendation report

1:30:48 ↗ there was the recommended changes

1:30:51 ↗ and then there was the other feedback

1:30:54 ↗ rationale

1:30:55 ↗ so i have split um the emotions i heard

1:30:59 ↗ this evening into whether it was a

1:31:01 ↗ specific change to the

1:31:02 ↗ ordinance that was being recommended or

1:31:04 ↗ an overall change for the other feedback

1:31:06 ↗ rationale

1:31:07 ↗ so i just wanted to let everyone know

1:31:09 ↗ that and i'll be sending this around to

1:31:11 ↗ the board as well

1:31:15 ↗ thank you with that i'm going to move on

1:31:18 ↗ to our next agenda item

1:31:20 ↗ which is the environmental

1:31:22 ↗ sustainability and climate background

1:31:24 ↗ and i'd like the board's permission to

1:31:26 ↗ go a little bit longer on this meeting

1:31:28 ↗ we are supposed to go to 8 40

1:31:30 ↗ if megan can get through this a little

1:31:32 ↗ quicker we might

1:31:34 ↗ make it but um it's very helpful to try

1:31:36 ↗ and get there so with this

1:31:39 ↗ megan you want to go ahead with your

1:31:42 ↗ presentation

1:31:45 ↗ yes i will go ahead and share my screen

1:31:47 ↗ here

1:31:55 ↗ okay so we are moving on to the the

1:31:57 ↗ second presentation here

1:31:59 ↗ um so this is to talk about the various

1:32:02 ↗ um actions and policies that the city

1:32:04 ↗ has done around environmental

1:32:05 ↗ stewardship and climate

1:32:08 ↗ um so i'm gonna break the presentation

1:32:10 ↗ into two parts this evening

1:32:11 ↗ the first part will be talking more

1:32:13 ↗ about these actions and the categories

1:32:15 ↗ that are

1:32:16 ↗ mentioned on the slide and then the

1:32:17 ↗ second part will be a deeper dive into

1:32:19 ↗ our greenhouse gas emissions inventory

1:32:24 ↗ so the first set of actions i want to

1:32:26 ↗ talk about are about

1:32:27 ↗ energy and green building so these

1:32:29 ↗ involve both things that the city does

1:32:31 ↗ to reduce our community-wide emissions

1:32:33 ↗ as well as our operational emissions

1:32:36 ↗ the first two are demonstration projects

1:32:39 ↗ z-home is a project that the city took

1:32:41 ↗ on

1:32:41 ↗ it was the country's first zero net

1:32:43 ↗ energy multi-family townhome project

1:32:47 ↗ and we found that this project is now

1:32:49 ↗ actually producing more energy than it's

1:32:51 ↗ consuming

1:32:52 ↗ this project was done through a lot of

1:32:54 ↗ partnerships in the region

1:32:56 ↗ uh with puget sound energy built green

1:32:59 ↗ king county master builders association

1:33:03 ↗ and um as well as the builder ichijo so

1:33:06 ↗ it was a great collaborative process

1:33:08 ↗ and that builder went on to build some

1:33:09 ↗ single family homes up in the highlands

1:33:11 ↗ as well that were highly energy

1:33:13 ↗ efficient

1:33:14 ↗ another demonstration project is the

1:33:17 ↗ fire station 72

1:33:18 ↗ this was certified leed platinum and

1:33:21 ↗ that's located on the valley floor

1:33:23 ↗ green direct is a program that the city

1:33:27 ↗ has partnered on with puget sound energy

1:33:29 ↗ to procure renewable

1:33:30 ↗ electricity for the city's operations

1:33:33 ↗ and that comes locally from a wind farm

1:33:35 ↗ and a solar farm both located in

1:33:38 ↗ washington the soul smart gold

1:33:41 ↗ designation

1:33:42 ↗ is something that the city went through

1:33:43 ↗ a process to make it faster and easier

1:33:45 ↗ to go

1:33:46 ↗ solar and as a part of this we are able

1:33:49 ↗ to make it so

1:33:50 ↗ if you're just installing a regular

1:33:52 ↗ install solar installation on your home

1:33:54 ↗ you don't even need a building permit

1:33:55 ↗ for that

1:33:56 ↗ we followed this with the solarize

1:33:58 ↗ campaign where we brought together

1:34:00 ↗ neighbors

1:34:01 ↗ and community members to do a group

1:34:03 ↗ purchase of solar so that reduced the

1:34:05 ↗ overall cost

1:34:06 ↗ and we were able to educate about 130

1:34:08 ↗ people in that process

1:34:10 ↗ and we also got a system donated to a

1:34:12 ↗ non-profit

1:34:15 ↗ friends of youth down in the valley

1:34:17 ↗ floor

1:34:19 ↗ the green power challenge is another

1:34:21 ↗ program we worked with pse on

1:34:23 ↗ residents are able to spend a little bit

1:34:25 ↗ more money on their bills to get

1:34:26 ↗ renewable energy

1:34:27 ↗ so we did a big program around that in

1:34:30 ↗ 2014 but residents are able to sign up

1:34:32 ↗ for that

1:34:33 ↗ at any time and the city did a street

1:34:36 ↗ light retrofit in 2019

1:34:38 ↗ and a sustainable building action

1:34:40 ↗ strategy which had a lot of the

1:34:41 ↗ foundation for some of this work that

1:34:43 ↗ we've done

1:34:45 ↗ transportation land use um the city's

1:34:48 ↗ done several transportation demand

1:34:49 ↗ management programs

1:34:51 ↗ um providing incentives both for

1:34:52 ↗ residents and multi-family

1:34:55 ↗ and then also we've done some programs

1:34:57 ↗ with city employees as well

1:34:59 ↗ so overall we try to reduce the

1:35:02 ↗ people driving along their vehicles and

1:35:04 ↗ promote alternate modes of

1:35:06 ↗ transportation through that

1:35:08 ↗ the city has done transit-oriented

1:35:11 ↗ development projects

1:35:12 ↗ so one is the ywca project up in the

1:35:16 ↗ highlands which is located near

1:35:17 ↗ the highlands park and ride and then

1:35:19 ↗ we're also working on one down on the

1:35:21 ↗ valley floor

1:35:22 ↗ near the transit center i think we're

1:35:24 ↗ all pretty familiar with the ev charging

1:35:26 ↗ ordinance so i won't get into that

1:35:29 ↗ and the city also owns two ev charging

1:35:32 ↗ stations that are open to the public

1:35:34 ↗ again we have policies around promoting

1:35:37 ↗ alternative modes in our mobility master

1:35:39 ↗ plan and this is something that the

1:35:40 ↗ board will look at a little bit more

1:35:42 ↗ later in the year

1:35:43 ↗ as we do our clan our climate planning

1:35:45 ↗ efforts

1:35:47 ↗ um we have the central issaquah plan

1:35:49 ↗ where we focus a lot of the development

1:35:51 ↗ in the valley floor

1:35:52 ↗ um and preserve the the hillsides around

1:35:54 ↗ the city and the transit plan will be

1:35:57 ↗ promoting

1:35:59 ↗ transit throughout the city and we

1:36:00 ↗ haven't started those efforts yet

1:36:04 ↗ for waste and consumption the city's

1:36:06 ↗ done a lot of outreach and education

1:36:08 ↗ with

1:36:09 ↗ multi-family commercial and then also

1:36:11 ↗ working really closely with the

1:36:12 ↗ issaquah school district on this we also

1:36:16 ↗ have some policies in place

1:36:18 ↗ we have the food service packaging

1:36:19 ↗ ordinance which requires

1:36:22 ↗ compostable or recyclable food service

1:36:24 ↗ packaging

1:36:25 ↗ and it also um bans styrofoam in the

1:36:28 ↗ city

1:36:29 ↗ we have our bag ban which went into

1:36:31 ↗ effect in 2014

1:36:34 ↗ the state has since passed a bag ban

1:36:36 ↗ that was supposed to go into effect

1:36:37 ↗ early this year

1:36:38 ↗ but that has actually been delayed due

1:36:40 ↗ to covid but during that time we still

1:36:42 ↗ have our bag ban

1:36:43 ↗ in effect we also had a residential

1:36:47 ↗ program focused on food waste reduction

1:36:50 ↗ this is something we did a lot of

1:36:51 ↗ outreach on to

1:36:53 ↗ residents at farmer's markets and in

1:36:55 ↗ grocery stores and there's been

1:36:57 ↗ a student group that's used the toolkit

1:36:59 ↗ more recently so that's been great to

1:37:01 ↗ see

1:37:03 ↗ through our contracting process for

1:37:06 ↗ solid waste services we are able to

1:37:08 ↗ require that be carbon neutral so rather

1:37:11 ↗ than using cng

1:37:12 ↗ the um ecology trucks that you see

1:37:14 ↗ around are using rng

1:37:16 ↗ and they also have their zero waste

1:37:19 ↗ store

1:37:20 ↗ at gilman village

1:37:23 ↗ for parks and open spaces we did a tree

1:37:26 ↗ canopy assessment in 2009

1:37:29 ↗ and we have a tree canopy of 51 percent

1:37:31 ↗ in the city

1:37:32 ↗ and the green issaquah partnership is a

1:37:35 ↗ collaborative effort between the city

1:37:36 ↗ fortera and community groups to have

1:37:39 ↗ volunteers help restore and maintain our

1:37:41 ↗ forested parks and open spaces

1:37:44 ↗ and as a part of that we are able to

1:37:46 ↗ plant ten thousand trees last year

1:37:48 ↗ and the city will be working with a

1:37:50 ↗ non-profit city forest credits

1:37:52 ↗ to sell these credits on the open market

1:37:56 ↗ the park strategic plan and green

1:37:58 ↗ necklace are both efforts

1:38:00 ↗ which help connect the community to the

1:38:02 ↗ streams and

1:38:03 ↗ parks and open spaces around town and

1:38:06 ↗ the city's also done several

1:38:07 ↗ acquisitions

1:38:09 ↗ along the creek side or other open

1:38:11 ↗ spaces

1:38:12 ↗ in 2019 we acquired the harvey manning

1:38:16 ↗ park expansion which was a 40-acre

1:38:18 ↗ property located in issaquah alps along

1:38:20 ↗ newport way

1:38:23 ↗ we've also done some work with wildfire

1:38:26 ↗ preparedness

1:38:27 ↗ so we worked with our east side fire and

1:38:29 ↗ rescue had a fire rise program

1:38:32 ↗ working to reduce the threat of

1:38:33 ↗ wildfires and we have also been working

1:38:36 ↗ with king county

1:38:37 ↗ on on their wildfire preparedness plan

1:38:44 ↗ the storm and surface water master plan

1:38:46 ↗ is something that we're going to be

1:38:47 ↗ talking about at our

1:38:48 ↗ next meeting on the 24th so have an

1:38:51 ↗ opportunity to learn more about that

1:38:53 ↗ there

1:38:54 ↗ we've referred to the title 18 land use

1:38:56 ↗ code several times

1:38:58 ↗ the board will have an opportunity to

1:38:59 ↗ look at critical area code

1:39:01 ↗ and tree code through these efforts

1:39:04 ↗ the pollution prevention assistance

1:39:06 ↗ program is a partnership program

1:39:09 ↗ with local governments that's funded by

1:39:11 ↗ department of ecology

1:39:13 ↗ to do business visits to check up on

1:39:15 ↗ hazardous waste disposal

1:39:17 ↗ and storm water protection methods this

1:39:19 ↗ is a voluntary program but we also have

1:39:21 ↗ our regulatory compliance programs as

1:39:23 ↗ well

1:39:25 ↗ the city has done many restoration

1:39:27 ↗ projects um

1:39:28 ↗ to restore riparian habitat along the

1:39:31 ↗ creeks

1:39:32 ↗ since 2010 we've done a lot of projects

1:39:35 ↗ in squawk valley park north

1:39:37 ↗ confluence park the salmon run park and

1:39:40 ↗ lower lewis creek restoration projects

1:39:44 ↗ neighborhood meetings is something that

1:39:45 ↗ actually came out of the development of

1:39:47 ↗ this board

1:39:48 ↗ so previously we had the rivers and

1:39:50 ↗ streams board that provided more

1:39:53 ↗ technical oversight over some

1:39:54 ↗ development projects and when we were

1:39:56 ↗ forming this board we wanted the scope

1:39:58 ↗ of work to be a little bit more broad in

1:40:00 ↗ nature

1:40:01 ↗ but we also heard from the community

1:40:03 ↗ that we didn't want to lose that

1:40:04 ↗ opportunity for the public to

1:40:07 ↗ provide comment on these types of

1:40:08 ↗ projects so we have neighborhood

1:40:10 ↗ meetings for projects with critical

1:40:12 ↗ areas

1:40:13 ↗ where the public can do this and last

1:40:16 ↗ the integrated pest management policy

1:40:18 ↗ helps guide the use of pesticides in the

1:40:20 ↗ city

1:40:22 ↗ for climate collaboration the city was a

1:40:25 ↗ founding member of the king county

1:40:27 ↗ city's climate collaboration back in

1:40:29 ↗ 2012.

1:40:31 ↗ this is a partnership of local

1:40:32 ↗ governments that take action to address

1:40:34 ↗ climate change

1:40:36 ↗ the collaborative work to develop the

1:40:39 ↗ k4c climate action toolkit which we'll

1:40:41 ↗ be using this year as we go through our

1:40:43 ↗ climate planning efforts

1:40:46 ↗ the community convening on climate is

1:40:48 ↗ something that we worked closely with a

1:40:50 ↗ few groups on last year

1:40:52 ↗ we partnered with people for climate

1:40:54 ↗ action

1:40:56 ↗ issaquah alps trails clubs fish and

1:40:59 ↗ the issaquah chamber of commerce on this

1:41:01 ↗ event

1:41:02 ↗ and the number one recommendation coming

1:41:03 ↗ out of that was to work on a climate

1:41:05 ↗ action plan so we'll be getting that

1:41:06 ↗ work

1:41:07 ↗ this year uh we're also a member of the

1:41:10 ↗ regional code collaboration which works

1:41:12 ↗ on green code development and that's

1:41:13 ↗ where the ev

1:41:14 ↗ ordnance originally came out of and

1:41:18 ↗ we're also members of the puget sound

1:41:19 ↗ climate

1:41:20 ↗ preparedness collaborative working on

1:41:21 ↗ resiliency measures

1:41:26 ↗ so also to talk about a little bit state

1:41:28 ↗ of state legislation just to provide an

1:41:30 ↗ overall context because i think this

1:41:32 ↗ will relate in some of our

1:41:34 ↗ our work coming up specifically around

1:41:35 ↗ climate planning as well

1:41:38 ↗ um so first um one of the most

1:41:40 ↗ monumental

1:41:41 ↗ pieces of legislation related to climate

1:41:43 ↗ was the passage of the clean energy

1:41:45 ↗ transformation

1:41:46 ↗ act in 2019 and this commits the state

1:41:50 ↗ to transition to 100

1:41:51 ↗ clean energy or clean electricity

1:41:54 ↗ specifically by 2045

1:41:56 ↗ and it also requires that all coal-fired

1:41:59 ↗ resources

1:42:00 ↗ would be eliminated from utilities by

1:42:02 ↗ 2025 so this will be really helpful in

1:42:04 ↗ helping to reduce our emissions

1:42:06 ↗ going forward

1:42:11 ↗ also as part of the 2019 legislative

1:42:13 ↗ session there was the clean buildings

1:42:14 ↗ act

1:42:15 ↗ and this targets the the state's

1:42:18 ↗ existing building stock and larger

1:42:19 ↗ buildings requiring them to benchmark

1:42:21 ↗ their energy

1:42:24 ↗ the state and national energy codes

1:42:26 ↗ these are regularly updated every three

1:42:28 ↗ years

1:42:29 ↗ moving buildings closer to getting to

1:42:31 ↗ carbon neutral in 2030

1:42:33 ↗ so the latest energy code was just

1:42:36 ↗ passed on went into effect february

1:42:38 ↗ first

1:42:39 ↗ and last is the clean fuel standard

1:42:43 ↗ so this has been in front of the

1:42:44 ↗ legislature a few times and is back

1:42:46 ↗ again this year

1:42:47 ↗ and still being discussed there and it

1:42:50 ↗ would require a gradual transition from

1:42:52 ↗ conventional fuels such as gas and

1:42:55 ↗ diesel to clean our transportation fuels

1:43:01 ↗ so that was part one and i've been

1:43:03 ↗ trying to go a little bit faster

1:43:05 ↗ so i will just go ahead and carry on to

1:43:07 ↗ part two

1:43:08 ↗ so a bit of a deeper dive into our our

1:43:10 ↗ ghg

1:43:11 ↗ inventory so this is important in the

1:43:14 ↗ city because we have our climate goals

1:43:16 ↗ um and so we want to be tracking

1:43:18 ↗ progress towards that we want to use the

1:43:20 ↗ data to inform our climate planning

1:43:22 ↗ and in the city um we want to be a

1:43:24 ↗ leader and really be accountable to

1:43:26 ↗ these actions as well

1:43:29 ↗ so here's a snapshot of our 2017

1:43:32 ↗ emissions inventory um the city updates

1:43:35 ↗ it every five years so this is our most

1:43:37 ↗ recent one

1:43:38 ↗ it shows that about 60 percent of

1:43:40 ↗ building emissions are

1:43:41 ↗ um are from our emissions are from

1:43:44 ↗ buildings and then 38 percent are from

1:43:46 ↗ transportation

1:43:49 ↗ we receive the data for building energy

1:43:52 ↗ from

1:43:52 ↗ puget sound energy they supply

1:43:54 ↗ community-wide data on electricity and

1:43:56 ↗ natural gas

1:43:57 ↗ we measure transportation emissions

1:44:00 ↗ through vehicle miles traveled and we

1:44:02 ↗ get this data from puget sound regional

1:44:04 ↗ council

1:44:05 ↗ and then we measure waste emissions from

1:44:07 ↗ tons landfilled recycled and composting

1:44:10 ↗ which we get through our hauler at

1:44:11 ↗ recology

1:44:13 ↗ the images here are just to show that

1:44:15 ↗ models do change over time so we need to

1:44:17 ↗ take these into account and

1:44:19 ↗ make sure we're tracking any of those

1:44:21 ↗ changes so for example the map above

1:44:24 ↗ is from psrc showing their travel

1:44:26 ↗ modeling

1:44:28 ↗ so the data didn't as closely align with

1:44:30 ↗ our jurisdictional boundaries but they

1:44:32 ↗ through advancements in their technology

1:44:34 ↗ they've been able to

1:44:35 ↗ better match that in the most recent

1:44:37 ↗ inventory

1:44:40 ↗ so just talking about overall trends our

1:44:43 ↗ total carbon emissions have increased

1:44:45 ↗ five percent

1:44:46 ↗ from 2007 to 2017.

1:44:49 ↗ at the same time building emissions have

1:44:51 ↗ increased by 13

1:44:53 ↗ but transportation emissions have

1:44:55 ↗ actually decreased by six percent

1:44:58 ↗ uh you can also see that um we've been

1:45:01 ↗ maintaining about

1:45:02 ↗ 60 of our emissions coming from

1:45:04 ↗ buildings and then the remaining

1:45:05 ↗ uh 40 coming from transportation and

1:45:08 ↗ this is fairly standard in the region

1:45:10 ↗ and

1:45:10 ↗ is what king county is seeing as well

1:45:14 ↗ our per capita emissions have actually

1:45:17 ↗ decreased over this time so from 2007 to

1:45:20 ↗ 2017

1:45:21 ↗ um our per capita emissions decreased 30

1:45:24 ↗ and this is while at the same time our

1:45:26 ↗ population has

1:45:27 ↗ increased 45 percent so that's a good

1:45:30 ↗ story overall

1:45:31 ↗ but as we know the climate change

1:45:34 ↗ doesn't care how many people are it just

1:45:36 ↗ um cares about total emissions so

1:45:38 ↗ there's still work to be done but it's

1:45:40 ↗ still great we've been able to reduce

1:45:41 ↗ our

1:45:41 ↗ emissions per person

1:45:45 ↗ and just some comparisons here so city

1:45:48 ↗ of issaquah

1:45:48 ↗ is pretty much right on track with king

1:45:50 ↗ county for per capita emissions

1:45:53 ↗ slightly more than city of seattle which

1:45:55 ↗ has a carbon neutral utility

1:45:58 ↗ we are less than both washington state

1:46:00 ↗ and the us as a whole

1:46:01 ↗ but about double worldwide emissions

1:46:06 ↗ so getting into the sectors uh the first

1:46:09 ↗ is for

1:46:10 ↗ building emissions on the left we have

1:46:12 ↗ our electricity

1:46:13 ↗ and on the right is the natural gas as

1:46:16 ↗ you can see

1:46:17 ↗ through the blue bars here the usage for

1:46:21 ↗ both electricity and natural gas

1:46:23 ↗ has been going up during each period

1:46:25 ↗ each of the three inventory years that

1:46:27 ↗ we've done

1:46:28 ↗ but the emissions for electricity

1:46:31 ↗ actually had a dip

1:46:32 ↗ in 2012. so the emissions really

1:46:35 ↗ closely align with what the fuel mix is

1:46:39 ↗ so on this slide we show puget sound

1:46:41 ↗ energy's fuel mix over that same period

1:46:44 ↗ on the bottom you can see the different

1:46:45 ↗ fuel types

1:46:47 ↗ coal natural gas hydro wind cogeneration

1:46:51 ↗ and what their percentages are so you

1:46:54 ↗ can notice with the blue bars for coal

1:46:57 ↗ in 2012

1:46:59 ↗ coal was only about 30 percent of the

1:47:00 ↗ mix there and in the other two years was

1:47:02 ↗ 37 percent

1:47:04 ↗ um so it's thought that some of the

1:47:05 ↗ emission decrease was for that reason

1:47:10 ↗ there's a couple ways we can reduce our

1:47:12 ↗ emissions from buildings overall

1:47:14 ↗ we can reduce the overall energy use by

1:47:17 ↗ doing energy efficiency or having

1:47:19 ↗ stronger codes

1:47:20 ↗ or we can reduce the carbon intensity of

1:47:22 ↗ the fuel sources

1:47:24 ↗ so for example with the clean energy

1:47:27 ↗ transformation act that i was talking

1:47:29 ↗ about earlier that will

1:47:31 ↗ get carbon get whole out of the mix by

1:47:33 ↗ 2025 so that's another way that will

1:47:35 ↗ help

1:47:36 ↗ reduce our emissions

1:47:40 ↗ for transportation our vehicle miles

1:47:43 ↗ traveled via t

1:47:44 ↗ vmt has increased by 29

1:47:47 ↗ from 2007 to 2017

1:47:51 ↗ but you can see with the green bar which

1:47:53 ↗ shows our emissions they have actually

1:47:55 ↗ decreased over that same time

1:47:56 ↗ even though bmt was going with

1:47:58 ↗ increasing

1:48:00 ↗ um so the reason for that overall is

1:48:02 ↗ that over time there's

1:48:04 ↗ federal fuel efficiency standards which

1:48:06 ↗ have made vehicles more

1:48:07 ↗ efficient so even though our vmt was

1:48:10 ↗ going up the

1:48:11 ↗ fuel efficiency has has improved

1:48:14 ↗ over time

1:48:17 ↗ so again there's two ways that we can

1:48:19 ↗ work to reduce our

1:48:21 ↗ transportation emissions the first is

1:48:23 ↗ reducing the overall vmt

1:48:25 ↗ so for example with covet 19 we're

1:48:28 ↗ seeing a lot more teleworking

1:48:29 ↗ if that's able to continue over time

1:48:32 ↗ then that could be one way to reduce the

1:48:33 ↗ overall vmt

1:48:35 ↗ we can also be reducing the carbon

1:48:37 ↗ intensity of the fuel sources

1:48:39 ↗ so that gets into that clean fuels

1:48:41 ↗ legislation if we're able to have

1:48:42 ↗ cleaner fuel sources than

1:48:44 ↗ the emissions associated with the vmt

1:48:46 ↗ will be lower

1:48:51 ↗ here talking about waste emissions so

1:48:54 ↗ emissions from waste are actually

1:48:55 ↗ negative due to the benefits of

1:48:57 ↗ composting and recycling

1:49:00 ↗ you can see here in the chart with the

1:49:02 ↗ green shows that if

1:49:03 ↗ we were not doing composting recycling

1:49:05 ↗ that our emissions would be much higher

1:49:07 ↗ but through the management practices

1:49:10 ↗ which is

1:49:10 ↗ composting and recycling it is

1:49:14 ↗ much lower in fact negative

1:49:19 ↗ i also want to touch on how there's

1:49:20 ↗ different types of inventory

1:49:23 ↗ so in issaquah and most of the cities

1:49:25 ↗ around do a typical

1:49:27 ↗ geographic inventory which measures the

1:49:29 ↗ emissions within our

1:49:30 ↗ geographical boundaries

1:49:34 ↗ but king county has also done a

1:49:35 ↗ consumption-based emissions which is

1:49:37 ↗ takes a different lens of looking at

1:49:39 ↗ overall emissions

1:49:40 ↗ so even though we saw on the previous

1:49:42 ↗ slide the emissions from waste were

1:49:44 ↗ negative

1:49:44 ↗ that's not really the whole story the

1:49:47 ↗ products are made elsewhere and have

1:49:49 ↗ emissions associated them

1:49:50 ↗ that just aren't a calculated for in a

1:49:53 ↗ geographic inventory

1:49:55 ↗ so for example food and goods is makes

1:49:57 ↗ up about 40 percent

1:49:59 ↗ of um consumption-based emissions

1:50:01 ↗ inventory

1:50:03 ↗ and this is important to note just

1:50:04 ↗ because there's a whole suite of options

1:50:06 ↗ associated with this so

1:50:08 ↗ looking at food waste reduction can

1:50:09 ↗ reduce emissions

1:50:11 ↗ encouraging reuse and repair of items

1:50:13 ↗ are other policy options there

1:50:18 ↗ and then why are we doing this um there

1:50:20 ↗ are a lot of

1:50:21 ↗ impacts that we are already starting to

1:50:23 ↗ see in the northwest

1:50:25 ↗ so we're seeing increased heat and

1:50:28 ↗ that's leading to

1:50:30 ↗ some heat waves and effects that can

1:50:33 ↗ impact health

1:50:34 ↗ we also have increased risk of wildfire

1:50:36 ↗ we we all know what the

1:50:38 ↗ summers have looked like the past

1:50:39 ↗ several years

1:50:42 ↗ we also are expecting to see heavier

1:50:43 ↗ rain and are already seeing that

1:50:45 ↗ particularly in the winter time and the

1:50:47 ↗ flooding that is associated with that

1:50:50 ↗ with lower snowpack um our rivers and

1:50:53 ↗ streams our salmon are

1:50:55 ↗ are warmer and lower flows in the summer

1:50:57 ↗ so we're seeing a lot of this now and

1:51:00 ↗ with climate change there'll be

1:51:01 ↗ increases as well

1:51:05 ↗ so the good news is we are working on a

1:51:08 ↗ climate action plan so we can start to

1:51:10 ↗ um do more of these things so as you saw

1:51:12 ↗ the city has done a lot already

1:51:14 ↗ but we're really looking to have this

1:51:16 ↗ plan that will be the cohesive framework

1:51:18 ↗ for

1:51:19 ↗ how to take on these actions including

1:51:21 ↗ the um the goals that we want to have

1:51:23 ↗ and the strategies to get there so the

1:51:27 ↗ number one recommendation from the

1:51:28 ↗ community convening on climate was to

1:51:30 ↗ have this plan

1:51:32 ↗ we currently have a request for proposal

1:51:34 ↗ out

1:51:35 ↗ um to seek a consultant to work on this

1:51:37 ↗ so that is open to all consultants to

1:51:39 ↗ to submit um and we'll be

1:51:43 ↗ reviewing those and picking a consultant

1:51:45 ↗ to move forward with and then

1:51:46 ↗ i expect um to come back to the board at

1:51:49 ↗ our may 12th

1:51:50 ↗ meeting to talk about this a little bit

1:51:52 ↗ more

1:51:53 ↗ and provide the overall scope and

1:51:55 ↗ timeline so the board will have an

1:51:57 ↗ opportunity to get involved in this a

1:52:00 ↗ lot we'll be touching this

1:52:02 ↗ from the goals strategies actions so

1:52:04 ↗ there'll be a lot of opportunities to

1:52:06 ↗ engage here

1:52:09 ↗ and with that i will see if there's any

1:52:14 ↗ questions

1:52:19 ↗ jamie do you have a question thanks

1:52:22 ↗ nancy jamie finch here

1:52:24 ↗ um yes megan i was curious are most like

1:52:26 ↗ cities and other jurisdictions that you

1:52:28 ↗ see

1:52:29 ↗ providing like greenhouse gas targets so

1:52:32 ↗ those usually

1:52:32 ↗ done based on geography versus

1:52:34 ↗ consumption

1:52:38 ↗ yes this is megan in general most

1:52:42 ↗ most smaller jurisdictions will do it

1:52:44 ↗ geographic based

1:52:45 ↗ um there's been a bunch of research and

1:52:47 ↗ reports that consumption doesn't really

1:52:49 ↗ the way the inventory is done it doesn't

1:52:51 ↗ really work as well on a smaller level

1:52:53 ↗ so county is really the recommended

1:52:55 ↗ smallest level for that

1:52:57 ↗ estate is even more accurate so that's

1:53:00 ↗ why we've we've

1:53:01 ↗ often referenced king county's data for

1:53:04 ↗ that

1:53:04 ↗ and they're actually going to be

1:53:05 ↗ updating that this year so it'll be

1:53:07 ↗ great to

1:53:08 ↗ to be able to incorporate that into our

1:53:10 ↗ climate planning efforts

1:53:13 ↗ great thank you megan

1:53:16 ↗ are there any other questions

1:53:22 ↗ so i have a general question and i guess

1:53:24 ↗ megan i'm trying to figure out how this

1:53:26 ↗ all fits into the overall

1:53:28 ↗ vision and values of the city that were

1:53:31 ↗ identified by the council

1:53:32 ↗ i mean this is a small snapshot but we

1:53:35 ↗ have this in our comprehensive plan and

1:53:37 ↗ where we're trying to all go

1:53:39 ↗ and i'm trying to figure out how these

1:53:41 ↗ little pieces all fit together

1:53:43 ↗ to fulfill the direction that the

1:53:46 ↗ leaders are trying to take this

1:53:47 ↗ community and so

1:53:50 ↗ i guess i'm kind of missing that piece

1:53:52 ↗ and it kind of goes along with the

1:53:53 ↗ comments connie made earlier tonight

1:53:56 ↗ about how we're tying into the

1:53:58 ↗ environmental values

1:53:59 ↗ of the community and i'm hoping that we

1:54:02 ↗ can somehow get our arms around that a

1:54:04 ↗ little more than

1:54:05 ↗ just the climate change piece of this

1:54:09 ↗ sure this is megan um so overall the

1:54:13 ↗ kind of the way it's been explains the

1:54:15 ↗ comprehensive plan is kind of that top

1:54:17 ↗ guiding

1:54:18 ↗ document it has some specific policies

1:54:21 ↗ in it includes

1:54:22 ↗ our climate targets and so other

1:54:26 ↗ goals that we would have would be going

1:54:27 ↗ into that below that we have our

1:54:30 ↗ strategic plan

1:54:32 ↗ where the community identified six

1:54:34 ↗ priorities with environmental

1:54:36 ↗ stewardship being

1:54:37 ↗ one of those and then throughout

1:54:40 ↗ the city there's various other plans in

1:54:42 ↗ meeting that

1:54:43 ↗ so there's a parks plan related

1:54:46 ↗ that you know takes into account

1:54:48 ↗ acquisitions which is under

1:54:49 ↗ environmental stewardship there's a

1:54:51 ↗ mobility plan

1:54:52 ↗ and that includes climate policies so at

1:54:55 ↗ the staff level we do

1:54:57 ↗ a lot of work to make sure we're merging

1:55:00 ↗ ideas

1:55:00 ↗ and policies in that level um and then

1:55:04 ↗ all of it

1:55:04 ↗ rolls up to the the comprehensive plan

1:55:07 ↗ um

1:55:08 ↗ so this will be a very interdepartmental

1:55:11 ↗ effort

1:55:11 ↗ um i've been talking with um the team

1:55:14 ↗ that's working on the storm and surface

1:55:15 ↗ water master plan

1:55:17 ↗ they'll be talking at the next meeting

1:55:19 ↗ and we plan to be

1:55:21 ↗ discussing our our goals at the same

1:55:24 ↗ time and want to be cross-referencing

1:55:26 ↗ one another

1:55:26 ↗ in that so it will be including some of

1:55:28 ↗ those other

1:55:30 ↗ environmental aspects as well but the

1:55:32 ↗ primary focus will be on climate and

1:55:35 ↗ ghg reductions

1:55:40 ↗ um and you had a question

1:55:44 ↗ you're milking yeah so um

1:55:47 ↗ you had mentioned getting a consultant

1:55:52 ↗ and um would that be in addition to also

1:55:55 ↗ using

1:55:56 ↗ the uh king county and people for

1:56:00 ↗ climate action

1:56:01 ↗ tool kits that have been recently made

1:56:05 ↗ to help cities with plants

1:56:09 ↗ yes this is bacon so we had funding set

1:56:12 ↗ aside to have a consultant help with

1:56:14 ↗ this work

1:56:14 ↗ but we've done a lot of great

1:56:16 ↗ foundational work and there's a lot of

1:56:18 ↗ resources out there so we're going to be

1:56:19 ↗ using that

1:56:21 ↗ we'll be using the recommendations that

1:56:23 ↗ came out of the climate convening as a

1:56:25 ↗ direct input into this

1:56:28 ↗ and then we've also been supplied

1:56:30 ↗ brainstorm list of actions from

1:56:33 ↗ various other groups as well as the king

1:56:35 ↗ county toolkit

1:56:36 ↗ so we'll be bringing all of that

1:56:38 ↗ together and the consultant

1:56:40 ↗ will be able to help guide some of that

1:56:42 ↗ work but i think we've done

1:56:43 ↗ a lot a lot already and have the

1:56:45 ↗ resources to put the plan together with

1:56:47 ↗ all of that

1:56:49 ↗ great because clarify one more thing

1:56:52 ↗ jamie's question so i was shami's

1:56:56 ↗ question about

1:56:57 ↗ um how we're recording as a city our

1:57:00 ↗ emissions

1:57:01 ↗ and did you say that it would need to be

1:57:04 ↗ larger like king county

1:57:06 ↗ so um this is megan i think

1:57:10 ↗ what i understood jamie's question to be

1:57:12 ↗ was asking about the consumption-based

1:57:15 ↗ emissions inventory

1:57:16 ↗ versus the geographic based inventory um

1:57:20 ↗ so the geographic based one

1:57:21 ↗ is the one that is typically done um by

1:57:24 ↗ most of the cities and that can be done

1:57:26 ↗ at a city level

1:57:27 ↗ the consumption-based inventory is

1:57:30 ↗ usually done at a higher level just

1:57:32 ↗ because the accuracy of the data

1:57:34 ↗ is better at that level and is there

1:57:38 ↗ um a county-wide um

1:57:41 ↗ agreement on a way to for the cities

1:57:45 ↗ to measure emissions

1:57:49 ↗ i know before there is a question about

1:57:51 ↗ which to which

1:57:52 ↗ tool to use for that is there an

1:57:55 ↗ agreement on that now

1:57:57 ↗ and if so are we going to do that for

1:57:59 ↗ 2021

1:58:01 ↗ this is megan um so we there's not one

1:58:04 ↗ tool that's being used by

1:58:06 ↗ all cities there's been efforts before

1:58:08 ↗ to try to get cities to use some tools

1:58:11 ↗ there was one that a couple cities were

1:58:13 ↗ using but then

1:58:15 ↗ there's changes in that and now none of

1:58:17 ↗ the cities are using that

1:58:18 ↗ so they're def that is definitely a

1:58:20 ↗ regional conversation to see what the

1:58:22 ↗ best use of that is

1:58:24 ↗ um but at this time cities are doing

1:58:26 ↗ different items

1:58:28 ↗ it's also recommended that some smaller

1:58:29 ↗ cities can look at the green

1:58:31 ↗ it can look at king county a city

1:58:34 ↗ doesn't have to spend

1:58:35 ↗ as much resources on doing an inventory

1:58:39 ↗ if those resources would be better

1:58:41 ↗ used doing climate action so it's really

1:58:43 ↗ up to individual cities

1:58:45 ↗ but the king county inventory is a great

1:58:48 ↗ place to look at for

1:58:49 ↗ cities that haven't done inventories

1:58:54 ↗ thank you are there any other questions

1:59:01 ↗ thing then thank you megan i think there

1:59:03 ↗ will be more questions

1:59:04 ↗ as we move along as a board on other

1:59:07 ↗ items and with that

1:59:10 ↗ um we'll move on to the next agenda

1:59:12 ↗ topic which is reports

1:59:15 ↗ and i'm aware of one report which is on

1:59:17 ↗ the uh recent webinars and i think

1:59:19 ↗ jamie's going to

1:59:20 ↗ provide some information on that came

1:59:22 ↗ out of that so jamie

1:59:26 ↗ thanks nancy jamie here um yeah and

1:59:28 ↗ these are the the people for climate

1:59:30 ↗ action webinars there was two of them

1:59:33 ↗ um on uh kind of saturdays at the end of

1:59:35 ↗ february

1:59:36 ↗ um and overall i personally found them i

1:59:39 ↗ know there was a couple

1:59:40 ↗ others that uh they were able to watch

1:59:43 ↗ them i found them super

1:59:44 ↗ super insightful and i think some of the

1:59:47 ↗ things that stood out to me

1:59:48 ↗ there was a bunch of different speakers

1:59:50 ↗ throughout the the different sessions

1:59:51 ↗ but

1:59:52 ↗ the ones that really stood out to me was

1:59:54 ↗ there was a university of toronto

1:59:56 ↗ professor

1:59:57 ↗ who in the first session went through

2:00:00 ↗ a really detailed look at trying to

2:00:03 ↗ understand the differences between using

2:00:06 ↗ an electric vehicle using

2:00:07 ↗ a internal combustion vehicle and

2:00:10 ↗ reducing your mileage and

2:00:11 ↗ talking about how in the end we can move

2:00:14 ↗ towards better fuel sources but there

2:00:15 ↗ has to be

2:00:16 ↗ uh reductions in the overall usage along

2:00:19 ↗ with that to hit our climate goals and

2:00:21 ↗ uh there was a lot of other very

2:00:23 ↗ detailed analysis that he he did

2:00:24 ↗ i think it was i would highly recommend

2:00:27 ↗ anyone that has the chance that's at the

2:00:28 ↗ end of the

2:00:29 ↗ session on the 20th um that part was

2:00:32 ↗ particularly insightful for me

2:00:34 ↗ um there was also an interest it's a

2:00:37 ↗ little

2:00:38 ↗ kind of inefficient i think in the video

2:00:40 ↗ but the first section goes through a

2:00:41 ↗ retrofit of a building in new york which

2:00:43 ↗ i think was interesting but less maybe

2:00:45 ↗ less applicable

2:00:46 ↗ um for us and then the second session um

2:00:49 ↗ i found really valuable um actually

2:00:52 ↗ probably even more so than the first one

2:00:55 ↗ um it was the city of new york and the

2:00:57 ↗ city of berkeley where the two sections

2:00:59 ↗ that stood out to me

2:01:00 ↗ and and they went into details on what

2:01:03 ↗ their city is doing their cities are

2:01:05 ↗ doing in regards to

2:01:06 ↗ primarily around building code and

2:01:09 ↗ building

2:01:10 ↗ um requirements um but i thought that

2:01:13 ↗ berkeley in particular was

2:01:15 ↗ a little especially because berkeley

2:01:17 ↗ highly residential suburban was

2:01:19 ↗ a little more applicable to issaquah but

2:01:22 ↗ a lot of the

2:01:23 ↗ the things that they were doing as well

2:01:25 ↗ as the learnings i think one of the key

2:01:27 ↗ takeaways i had from that was

2:01:29 ↗ they had rolled out their very early and

2:01:31 ↗ certain um

2:01:33 ↗ certain types of legislation

2:01:36 ↗ and their learnings as to what works and

2:01:38 ↗ what didn't and and how they were

2:01:39 ↗ adjusting

2:01:40 ↗ as they learned more and saw the

2:01:42 ↗ outcomes was

2:01:43 ↗ was really refreshing so um that is also

2:01:46 ↗ at the end of that

2:01:47 ↗ uh the 20th session on the 27th um and i

2:01:50 ↗ found that

2:01:52 ↗ if i was to watch one section of it that

2:01:53 ↗ was the the section that i found most

2:01:56 ↗ interesting just because it was

2:01:57 ↗ i think the most applicable to issaquah

2:02:08 ↗ i'm sorry is there any other feedback

2:02:10 ↗ from anybody else

2:02:13 ↗ anybody have anything else to report

2:02:17 ↗ uh and go ahead i also thought

2:02:21 ↗ i liked new york was doing um they have

2:02:24 ↗ sustainable

2:02:24 ↗ roof laws

2:02:28 ↗ i hadn't heard of that before and i

2:02:29 ↗ thought well maybe we can do that here

2:02:31 ↗ too

2:02:36 ↗ i also i also thought it was interesting

2:02:39 ↗ that

2:02:39 ↗ um in berkeley um

2:02:42 ↗ pg and e uh because

2:02:47 ↗ they they aren't fighting the transition

2:02:50 ↗ away from gas to electric

2:02:52 ↗ uh because they own both companies and

2:02:56 ↗ um they're going to get the uh

2:03:00 ↗ business either way so i just thought

2:03:03 ↗ that was interesting to notate

2:03:08 ↗ okay any other reports

2:03:14 ↗ okay we'll move on to the next agenda

2:03:16 ↗ topic which is other

2:03:18 ↗ business announcement announcements and

2:03:20 ↗ um

2:03:21 ↗ megan do you want to talk about the 2021

2:03:23 ↗ environmental board

2:03:24 ↗ schedule i do yes this is megan

2:03:28 ↗ thank you um so this was an attachment

2:03:31 ↗ in the board

2:03:32 ↗ so i just wanted to take a quick look at

2:03:34 ↗ the upcoming meetings that we have

2:03:36 ↗ this group is scheduled to meet the

2:03:38 ↗ second wednesdays of the month

2:03:40 ↗ but on occasion we need to change those

2:03:42 ↗ schedules or add

2:03:44 ↗ more meetings due to items coming up

2:03:47 ↗ so we thank you for your flexibility on

2:03:49 ↗ that

2:03:50 ↗ the next the next month has a couple of

2:03:52 ↗ those so our next meeting

2:03:54 ↗ will be on wednesday march 24th where

2:03:58 ↗ we'll be looking at the storm and

2:03:59 ↗ surface water master plan

2:04:01 ↗ and the npds report of activities

2:04:04 ↗ and then we are supposed to have a

2:04:06 ↗ meeting the first when

2:04:08 ↗ or sorry the second wednesday in april

2:04:10 ↗ um

2:04:11 ↗ but we are proposing that we change that

2:04:13 ↗ to have

2:04:14 ↗ two meetings in april a little bit later

2:04:16 ↗ in the month um so

2:04:18 ↗ the first meeting would be on april 19th

2:04:21 ↗ and this is actually a regular council

2:04:23 ↗ meeting

2:04:25 ↗ but the reason we're proposing this is

2:04:26 ↗ that as part of the

2:04:28 ↗ ordinance for the board this board will

2:04:31 ↗ be providing comment

2:04:32 ↗ on the capital improvement plan and the

2:04:34 ↗ transportation

2:04:35 ↗ improvement plan so that is going to be

2:04:38 ↗ transmitted to council

2:04:39 ↗ and presented at the april 19th meeting

2:04:43 ↗ um so we're recommending having the

2:04:45 ↗ board meeting then

2:04:46 ↗ so all the board members would attend um

2:04:48 ↗ there also be members from the parks

2:04:50 ↗ board

2:04:51 ↗ and the slip in my mind right now one a

2:04:55 ↗ transportation advisory board

2:04:57 ↗ that will be attending that meeting and

2:04:58 ↗ listening to the presentation

2:05:00 ↗ um we will then have a meeting on april

2:05:04 ↗ 28th

2:05:04 ↗ where we would then be talking about the

2:05:07 ↗ cip

2:05:08 ↗ and the tip capital improvement plan and

2:05:10 ↗ transportation improvement program

2:05:12 ↗ so that would be the opportunity to then

2:05:14 ↗ provide input

2:05:15 ↗ and ask questions rather than at that

2:05:17 ↗ council meeting

2:05:18 ↗ and we'll have the staff available for

2:05:20 ↗ that we would also be doing the

2:05:22 ↗ environmental awards at that meeting

2:05:24 ↗ on april 28th um and then going into may

2:05:28 ↗ is when we will come up with the

2:05:30 ↗ um the chair elect the new chair

2:05:32 ↗ election because that's something that

2:05:33 ↗ goes

2:05:34 ↗ um on that calendar schedule terms

2:05:36 ↗ expire on

2:05:37 ↗ april 30th and new ones will start may

2:05:39 ↗ 1st

2:05:41 ↗ and we'll look at the climate action

2:05:42 ↗ plan then so i just wanted to make sure

2:05:44 ↗ that that

2:05:45 ↗ schedule is okay for people um

2:05:48 ↗ i apologize for the the change in dates

2:05:50 ↗ there but we are trying to

2:05:52 ↗ be on the council schedule for the the

2:05:54 ↗ cip and tip in order to get them

2:05:56 ↗ feedback before they make their decision

2:05:58 ↗ in early may

2:06:08 ↗ great thank you very much megan um at

2:06:11 ↗ this point i don't see any other action

2:06:14 ↗ that's on the agenda anybody have

2:06:15 ↗ anything else for the good of the order

2:06:19 ↗ seeing nothing it was a very interesting

2:06:22 ↗ meeting

2:06:22 ↗ and i appreciate all your time and

2:06:24 ↗ efforts on it and

2:06:26 ↗ with this uh the meeting is adjourned

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (12)

Nancy Davidson

Jamie Finch

Dani Madan

Don McQuilliams

Rishi Hazra

Cameron Fisher

Lara Lebeiko

Dan Hintz

Anne Newcomb

Janet Wall

Tom Anderson

Surya Bollapragada*

Staff (2)

Megan Curtis Murphy, Senior Sustainability Coordinator

Liepa Braciulyte, Sustainability Intern

Recommendations & actions (3)

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

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
EV charging is one of over 100 actions recommended by PCA to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals.
a) Electric Vehicle Ordinance Recommendation, (A) Presented by: Megan Curtis-Murphy, Senior Sustainability Coordinator CURTIS-MURPHY presented the Administration’s recommended changes to the proposed EV Ordinance.