Environmental Board · Wednesday, November 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 2022 - Dani Madan* by advising the Mayor, City Council and City 2022 - Don McQuilliams departments on the City’s plans, policies, 2023 - Rishi Hazra* regulations and programs related to 2023 - Cameron Fisher environmental stewardship. 2023 - Lara Lebeiko 2024 - Nancy Davidson 2024 - Dan Hintz Membership 2024 - Anne Newcomb The Environmental Board is comprised of nine 2025 - Jamie Finch 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 2022 - Tom Anderson…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of Oct. 13

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 1:59 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-13-21 Environmental Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting October 13, 2021 MINUTES

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Climate Action Plan

Action · 75 min · Megan Curtis Murphy Sustainability Consultant · packet pp.9–107

Topics: Climate

▶ Watch from 18:59 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this meeting is for the Environmental Board to review the Issaquah Climate Action Plan (ICAP) and vote on a

Storm and Surface Water Master Plan

45 min · Gary Schimek, Utilities Engineering Manager · packet pp.109–154

Topics: Water

▶ Watch from 1:25:56 Open packet at p.109 ↗

Staff report:

Section 2 – Background Section 3 - Analysis Section 4 – Results Section 5 – Next Steps

2900 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ um welcome thanks everyone for being

0:05 ↗ here um due to the virtual format for

0:07 ↗ today's meeting i'd like to start by

0:08 ↗ providing some guidelines uh we have

0:10 ↗ some participants attending by computer

0:12 ↗ and others who may be attending by phone

0:14 ↗ for all meeting attendees please speak

0:16 ↗ clearly and pause frequently state your

0:18 ↗ name each time before speaking mute your

0:21 ↗ microphone when not speaking if you have

0:23 ↗ technical issues try joining the meeting

0:25 ↗ using a different device

0:26 ↗ i'll use the call information in the

0:29 ↗ meeting if i to fall into the meeting

0:32 ↗ because we will be taking action today

0:34 ↗ i'll be providing some additional

0:35 ↗ guidance prior to the relevant portions

0:37 ↗ of the agenda

0:39 ↗ but first wanted to start off with

0:42 ↗ attendance which i believe we have two

0:43 ↗ excused absences is that right gene

0:47 ↗ that's correct

0:48 ↗ and i believe um tom anderson will be

0:51 ↗ serving as a regular member

0:53 ↗ um because nancy davidson won't be able

0:55 ↗ to attend great uh why don't you take us

0:57 ↗ through attendance

0:59 ↗ sure

1:00 ↗ uh danny madden

1:04 ↗ don mcwilliams

1:09 ↗ rishi hasra

1:11 ↗ i don't see it join the meeting yet

1:13 ↗ uh cameron fisher yeah

1:17 ↗ laura labico

1:19 ↗ here

1:22 ↗ dan hintz here

1:26 ↗ newcomb

1:29 ↗ here

1:32 ↗ jamie finch

1:36 ↗ tom anderson here

1:39 ↗ and i haven't seen janet wall join the

1:41 ↗ meeting yet let me just verify

1:44 ↗ she's not the attendee list

1:47 ↗ and then nancy davidson and syria bala

1:49 ↗ pragata are

1:52 ↗ excused great thanks gene um

1:56 ↗ and then the next item on our agenda is

1:59 ↗ approval of the minutes um

2:01 ↗ do i have any objections to proving them

2:04 ↗ as stated

2:08 ↗ hearing none the minutes from the last

2:10 ↗ meeting are approved um which brings us

2:13 ↗ to

2:14 ↗ public comment gene do we have anyone

2:17 ↗ signed up to it

2:19 ↗ to speak

2:21 ↗ yes

2:22 ↗ all right well

2:24 ↗ quick guidelines on public comment um

2:28 ↗ see public comments are an important

2:29 ↗ part of the public process

2:31 ↗ um we take them seriously in fact for

2:33 ↗ them into decisions we make for the

2:35 ↗ members of the public joining us welcome

2:36 ↗ if there is anyone in the meeting that

2:38 ↗ would like to make public comments

2:39 ↗ please raise your virtual hand to do

2:42 ↗ this if you're on the phone press star

2:44 ↗ three if you've joined my computer or

2:46 ↗ smartphone look for the hand icon this

2:49 ↗ varies by device one option may be to go

2:51 ↗ to the participant panel and select your

2:53 ↗ name then choose raise hand it may also

2:55 ↗ be located under the reactions menu or

2:57 ↗ more menu

2:59 ↗ when recognized please unmute your

3:00 ↗ microphone

3:02 ↗ state your name address relation and

3:03 ↗ relationship to the city

3:05 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently and

3:07 ↗ then meet your microphone when done

3:09 ↗ um

3:11 ↗ and we'd ask that you please keep your

3:13 ↗ comments to five minutes as we do have a

3:15 ↗ substantial agenda today

3:18 ↗ and gene if you want to pull in the

3:20 ↗ first person

3:22 ↗ sure

3:24 ↗ and fletcher i'm going to make you a

3:26 ↗ panelist

3:29 ↗ and you should be able to unmute and

3:32 ↗ use video if you would choose to do so

3:41 ↗ can you hear me

3:44 ↗ great thank you i'm ann fletcher i live

3:48 ↗ at 255 southeast andrews street in

3:50 ↗ issaquah and

3:53 ↗ i'm a facilitator for the people for

3:55 ↗ climate action group

3:57 ↗ happy to be here tonight again with

4:00 ↗ environmental board members

4:03 ↗ i've followed the development of the

4:04 ↗ climate action plan through its many

4:07 ↗ iterations and it is continually gets

4:10 ↗ better and better

4:12 ↗ we're now at a point to determine if

4:13 ↗ it's good enough for approval

4:15 ↗ uh so we can get started on its

4:17 ↗ implementation

4:19 ↗ for the most part i think it is ready

4:22 ↗ i i so appreciate the responsiveness um

4:26 ↗ that to the community input that has

4:28 ↗ been coming from various sources and

4:31 ↗ it's evident in each new draft of the

4:33 ↗ plan

4:34 ↗ the executive summary which was lately

4:37 ↗ added with the revised graphical version

4:40 ↗ as well as the icons and other graphics

4:43 ↗ make this plan much more user-friendly

4:45 ↗ than it originally was

4:47 ↗ and the implementation section is very

4:50 ↗ thorough with many progress checks to

4:52 ↗ adjust actions to keep us on course

4:56 ↗ so these and many other revisions make

4:59 ↗ it a strong plan with a good chance for

5:01 ↗ success

5:02 ↗ i have four

5:04 ↗ improvements that are significant enough

5:06 ↗ to consider and would be easy to include

5:10 ↗ in the final plan

5:12 ↗ the first one of these is the in the

5:14 ↗ building and energy goal there is a

5:16 ↗ target and a metric for clean energy

5:18 ↗ transition for new buildings

5:22 ↗ but not for existing buildings

5:25 ↗ and i was wondering do we have an aim

5:28 ↗ there for the existing buildings

5:31 ↗ uh there is an energy efficiency goal

5:34 ↗ for existing buildings but not

5:36 ↗ clean energy transition

5:38 ↗ strategies two and three have many

5:41 ↗ strong actions that would promote this

5:43 ↗ transition in existing buildings

5:46 ↗ and it seems there should be a target or

5:48 ↗ a way to measure how we're doing

5:50 ↗ otherwise we won't know

5:52 ↗ um how we're doing on this transition to

5:55 ↗ clean energy in existing buildings

5:58 ↗ my second

5:59 ↗ item is strengthening some of the

6:01 ↗ wording of some of the actions

6:04 ↗ i 1.2

6:06 ↗ um about benchmarking it talks about

6:09 ↗ above a prescribed threshold and that is

6:12 ↗ a

6:14 ↗ makes a person wonder

6:16 ↗ is the door being left open for what

6:18 ↗ buildings

6:21 ↗ many buildings could be eliminated from

6:22 ↗ that or

6:25 ↗ is there some better way to define that

6:28 ↗ and then uh the

6:30 ↗ 1.3 and 3.1 use the words word evaluate

6:36 ↗ that does not seem to be a sufficient

6:38 ↗ verb for an action plan

6:40 ↗ in 1.3 evaluating building codes

6:44 ↗ that might occur as an initial step in a

6:46 ↗ process but actually strengthening them

6:50 ↗ is the required action to get the

6:52 ↗ desired impact

6:54 ↗ and similarly in 3.1

6:57 ↗ what would be the result if we just

6:59 ↗ evaluated community solar projects

7:02 ↗ the required action is to promote the

7:05 ↗ best solar programs we can find

7:08 ↗ and the final wording is in 2.5

7:12 ↗ enact code to phase out fossil fuel

7:15 ↗ infrastructure in new construction

7:17 ↗ and then here's the phrase

7:19 ↗ while considering possible exceptions

7:23 ↗ the final phrase is troubling

7:26 ↗ if exceptions have to be made later in

7:28 ↗ the process for good reasons

7:31 ↗ it could be done at that time

7:33 ↗ why are we predicting that happening now

7:38 ↗ on to number three

7:41 ↗ uh i question the inclusion of the

7:43 ↗ extensive emergency preparedness in this

7:46 ↗ plan

7:47 ↗ without a reference to how it is related

7:49 ↗ to the rest of issaquah's emergency

7:51 ↗ plans and maybe it is in there somewhere

7:54 ↗ i i just couldn't find it i think it's

7:57 ↗ important to prepare

7:59 ↗ for climate imp change impact packs

8:03 ↗ and it should be part of a larger plan

8:05 ↗ that might include other natural

8:06 ↗ disasters such as earthquakes and etc

8:10 ↗ and the expense of providing for 100 of

8:12 ↗ the residents

8:14 ↗ should not be attributed to a climate

8:16 ↗ plan alone it should be shared across

8:19 ↗ other departments such that it does not

8:22 ↗ take resources away from the climate

8:24 ↗ mitigation goals and my last real simple

8:28 ↗ uh suggestion is to put a clear divider

8:32 ↗ between the sections of the plan

8:34 ↗ with a space and a large title

8:37 ↗ and it would just need to align with the

8:39 ↗ table of contents it would help the

8:41 ↗ reader know they're moving into the next

8:43 ↗ section

8:45 ↗ thank you so much for this opportunity

8:47 ↗ and good luck on your discussion tonight

8:57 ↗ all right and jean has anyone else

8:59 ↗ indicated their desire

9:01 ↗ to make comment

9:03 ↗ yes uh one more attendee

9:07 ↗ looks like connie marsh so i'll be

9:10 ↗ uh moving her up so she can make her

9:12 ↗ comments

9:16 ↗ are you

9:18 ↗ you're getting good at guessing cm

9:20 ↗ he's going i know who that is

9:23 ↗ okay

9:24 ↗ my name's connie marsh i live on squawk

9:27 ↗ and i um i actually want to talk about

9:30 ↗ the s stormwater structure that you were

9:33 ↗ provided with so if you want to skip

9:37 ↗ climate action in your brain for a

9:38 ↗ moment

9:40 ↗ um

9:42 ↗ my comments for storm water

9:44 ↗ are concerns with how they have created

9:48 ↗ their prioritization structure for the

9:52 ↗ most part um i

9:55 ↗ i

9:57 ↗ mainly agree

10:00 ↗ with

10:01 ↗ um

10:03 ↗ they're

10:04 ↗ they're underpinnings but

10:07 ↗ some things

10:08 ↗ i don't so for example

10:11 ↗ it says they want to use only existing

10:13 ↗ policies

10:15 ↗ as a

10:16 ↗ base so we are in this awkward position

10:21 ↗ of we are updating our title 18 we're

10:24 ↗ going through climate

10:25 ↗ action

10:27 ↗ um

10:28 ↗ and our

10:29 ↗ policies

10:31 ↗ are lagging behind

10:33 ↗ so we are creating all of these plans

10:38 ↗ without updating the policies so our new

10:42 ↗ plans

10:43 ↗ are immediately

10:45 ↗ going to

10:46 ↗ either be ahead or behind and so in this

10:49 ↗ situation

10:50 ↗ uh i didn't really see the gaps analysis

10:53 ↗ but for example

10:56 ↗ uh climate action does not have policies

11:00 ↗ yet so if you read the language in this

11:02 ↗ stormwater manual it would not be

11:06 ↗ advancing all of those utilities

11:09 ↗ to the climate action policies that you

11:12 ↗ are working on creating and that we

11:14 ↗ anticipate will be necessary to

11:17 ↗ successfully negotiate our

11:20 ↗ storm sewer etc so

11:23 ↗ to me that's an enormous miss for that

11:27 ↗ uh the

11:29 ↗ the

11:30 ↗ [Music]

11:33 ↗ prioritization seems to set up a

11:35 ↗ conflict between efficiencies for

11:38 ↗ utilities

11:39 ↗ and natural area protection

11:43 ↗ for example

11:44 ↗ uh it says that

11:48 ↗ that

11:48 ↗ we want to enhance from degraded areas

11:53 ↗ and we want to protect

11:55 ↗ but

11:57 ↗ it also says we want to be efficient so

12:00 ↗ for example if you have a wetland that

12:01 ↗ hadn't been maintained it could

12:03 ↗ potentially be a class one or category

12:07 ↗ one wetland that would disallow a

12:10 ↗ utility in its buffer

12:13 ↗ and so when you have to go making a

12:15 ↗ decision as to whether you want to put a

12:18 ↗ utility in the buffer of a critical area

12:21 ↗ and you're looking at these other

12:24 ↗ things saying well we want to enhance

12:26 ↗ and we want to protect where do you

12:28 ↗ actually fall on that do you fall on the

12:30 ↗ side of efficiency for utilities or do

12:33 ↗ you fall on the side of the natural

12:36 ↗ environment and i actually don't see

12:38 ↗ that they're providing themselves with

12:40 ↗ any method of negotiating these

12:44 ↗ questions and then they talk about

12:46 ↗ transparency to the public well

12:50 ↗ currently the public has no transparency

12:53 ↗ into you utility projects

12:56 ↗ um

12:58 ↗ you might have a neighborhood meeting

12:59 ↗ now if it's impacting a critical area

13:02 ↗ and so when they talk about

13:07 ↗ public

13:08 ↗ transparency

13:10 ↗ i i get no sense of what that could

13:13 ↗ actually mean

13:15 ↗ um

13:16 ↗ and then

13:18 ↗ the the last thing that i think is

13:20 ↗ missing is

13:22 ↗ in our

13:24 ↗ in our policies right now we are

13:27 ↗ actually not adhering to state law in

13:29 ↗ several areas and so they are not in our

13:32 ↗ policies for example habitat protection

13:35 ↗ and so to set priorities that fly in the

13:38 ↗ face of state law because our code does

13:40 ↗ not adhere to state law is seems to me

13:44 ↗ a set up for failure and for a large

13:47 ↗ large part of that that's

13:49 ↗ habitat protection we basically have

13:51 ↗ very little to protect our habitat and

13:55 ↗ things like wildlife corridors

13:57 ↗ so

13:58 ↗ um

14:00 ↗ i guess i guess i feel like their

14:02 ↗ prioritization needs a rework and a

14:05 ↗ rethink thank you very much

14:12 ↗ connie jane are we do we have anyone

14:14 ↗ else signed up

14:18 ↗ or a reason no one else has signed up or

14:20 ↗ raised their hand but there are a couple

14:21 ↗ more members of the public who uh

14:24 ↗ joined the call so i guess this is a

14:26 ↗ chance actually looks like a

14:28 ↗ call-in user has raised their hand so

14:31 ↗ i will

14:33 ↗ unmute the call-in user and they can

14:36 ↗ make their comments

14:43 ↗ so the colon user you should be able to

14:45 ↗ speak now i can't see anything other

14:46 ↗ than just your

14:48 ↗ first three numbers or three zero zero

15:03 ↗ we cannot hear you if you're speaking

15:06 ↗ let me unmute myself that might help can

15:08 ↗ you hear me now

15:09 ↗ yep

15:10 ↗ okay

15:11 ↗ uh this is steve pereira an old town

15:13 ↗ resident for about 14 years

15:15 ↗ uh

15:16 ↗ first of all thank you all for serving

15:18 ↗ on the environment board and trying to

15:19 ↗ make it squat a better place i

15:21 ↗ appreciate your service

15:23 ↗ secondly i previously sent in some

15:26 ↗ comments and i stand by those comments

15:28 ↗ don't want to address that

15:29 ↗ though i'll

15:31 ↗ hope those get considered and the third

15:33 ↗ one was

15:34 ↗ uh

15:35 ↗ two pieces of information i thought

15:36 ↗ about more and i wanted to provide some

15:38 ↗ additional input or reflection

15:41 ↗ the first and i don't have the direct

15:44 ↗ sections in front of me as far as the

15:46 ↗ policies

15:48 ↗ the first was i think on icap and it had

15:51 ↗ to do with

15:53 ↗ the sections regarding incentives and my

15:56 ↗ two concerns i guess are both

15:58 ↗ that i think we might need to be more

16:00 ↗ selective in targeting what it is we're

16:01 ↗ going to

16:03 ↗ try to incentivize to get the results

16:05 ↗ one of the things that i know i saw

16:06 ↗ talked about

16:08 ↗ incentivizing for example

16:11 ↗ uh

16:12 ↗ people getting a gas stove instead of a

16:17 ↗ electric stove and

16:20 ↗ i don't know how much environmental

16:22 ↗ improvement we get by having a gas stove

16:26 ↗ instead of an electric but the point is

16:28 ↗ that we need to select something that

16:30 ↗ gets a bigger bang for the

16:32 ↗ environmental return from a limited

16:34 ↗ number of tax dollars i would just this

16:36 ↗ and see

16:37 ↗ is going to spend those limited tax

16:39 ↗ incentive dollars for things that have a

16:41 ↗ better return

16:42 ↗ i also want to see a way of better

16:44 ↗ understanding what the

16:49 ↗ impact of and whether incentives

16:52 ↗ actually end up getting some results

16:54 ↗ that result in some environmental

16:56 ↗ standback

16:57 ↗ or feedback um i think the same thing

16:59 ↗ though could be applied to electrical

17:02 ↗ vehicles incentives i think you need to

17:05 ↗ look at more

17:06 ↗ some

17:07 ↗ market returns that

17:10 ↗ look at

17:14 ↗ things of standard or increasing the

17:16 ↗ mileage for electrical vehicles and kind

17:18 ↗ of standardization of the plug-in

17:20 ↗ between the different models like for

17:22 ↗ example you can't use a

17:24 ↗ tesla charger for a

17:27 ↗ uh

17:28 ↗ let's say a

17:30 ↗ maple or a leaf

17:33 ↗ vehicle they're not interchangeable so

17:34 ↗ those need looked at first

17:37 ↗ my second issue had to do with

17:41 ↗ i think it has to do with stormwater

17:43 ↗ issues and it was just verbage in the

17:45 ↗ text that talked about

17:47 ↗ is what i was going to start looking at

17:48 ↗ doing more of the

17:51 ↗ lowest cost

17:53 ↗ improvements just some texture verbs

17:55 ↗ that talked about using the lowest cost

17:57 ↗ method

17:58 ↗ and

18:00 ↗ i understand i want to do the

18:01 ↗ environment

18:02 ↗ or the lowest cost perspective but i

18:05 ↗ think

18:06 ↗ you need to look at having policies to

18:08 ↗ say these are the things we're going to

18:10 ↗ try to do

18:11 ↗ i've heard or seen of places that do

18:14 ↗ manufacturing that necessarily don't for

18:16 ↗ example do as good of a job as recycling

18:19 ↗ of the materials carbon boxes and

18:22 ↗ styrofoam as they could because it's

18:25 ↗ economically cheaper just to throw it

18:27 ↗ away rather than to recycle the material

18:30 ↗ so

18:31 ↗ i just kind of removed some of that

18:33 ↗ verbiage

18:35 ↗ that's my input i appreciate your time

18:37 ↗ and again appreciate your efforts and

18:39 ↗ thank you

18:43 ↗ thanks steve

18:45 ↗ anyone else indicated a deserve to speak

18:47 ↗ gene

18:49 ↗ no that's everyone who's raised their

18:51 ↗ hands

18:53 ↗ thank

18:54 ↗ you then next up we'll be moving on to

18:57 ↗ our first um

18:59 ↗ first agenda item discussion topic um

19:02 ↗ where i believe megan will be taking the

19:04 ↗ wheel um but before we do that megan i

19:06 ↗ just wanted to

19:07 ↗ as you go through the presentation how

19:09 ↗ would you like to handle questions

19:14 ↗ um i think if it's a burning question on

19:17 ↗ it feel free to

19:19 ↗ ask it during and i can answer otherwise

19:21 ↗ we can do questions at the end before we

19:23 ↗ go into the discussion

19:25 ↗ great

19:26 ↗ um well while megan why don't you pull

19:28 ↗ up materials while she does that um i

19:31 ↗ just wanted to provide some reminders on

19:34 ↗ process she even provided a little bit

19:36 ↗ of reminder in the email but

19:37 ↗ since it's been since the ev ordinance

19:39 ↗ that we actually took action um just

19:41 ↗ wanted to remind us all on on how this

19:43 ↗ process will work so

19:45 ↗ after

19:46 ↗ as megan has taken us through the

19:47 ↗ presentation and any questions either

19:50 ↗ during or after the presentation

19:51 ↗ materials are done um the floor will be

19:54 ↗ open for any motions

19:56 ↗ relative to

19:58 ↗ the plan that and what megan has

20:00 ↗ presented

20:01 ↗ if you have a motion please indicate

20:02 ↗ that in the chat

20:04 ↗ in addition to speaking them please be

20:06 ↗ prepared to provide any motions in

20:08 ↗ writing that just makes sure that it

20:10 ↗ helps gene know he's capturing exactly

20:12 ↗ what you wanted but also other board

20:14 ↗ members

20:15 ↗ be able to kind of

20:17 ↗ take it um before moving on i just want

20:20 ↗ to make sure were there any questions on

20:22 ↗ process

20:23 ↗ that any board members have

20:28 ↗ all right well uh

20:30 ↗ i think without further ado megan you

20:31 ↗ can take this away

20:36 ↗ great thank you

20:37 ↗ well good evening board members i'm

20:39 ↗ megan curtis murphy and i'm now serving

20:41 ↗ as a consultant to the city on

20:43 ↗ issaquah's climate action plan it's nice

20:46 ↗ to be back with you all and i would also

20:49 ↗ like to thank this board and many others

20:50 ↗ in the community

20:52 ↗ we now have a final version of the icap

20:54 ↗ for your review and discussion this

20:55 ↗ evening we've had a lot of meetings to

20:57 ↗ get us here and we're excited to be here

21:02 ↗ so our goals this evening are to provide

21:04 ↗ an update on where we are in the icap

21:06 ↗ process quick hint we're near the end

21:08 ↗ now

21:09 ↗ i'll present our feedback we've received

21:12 ↗ on the plan since the last environmental

21:14 ↗ board meeting

21:15 ↗ we'll review some of the high level

21:16 ↗ updates and changes made to the icap

21:19 ↗ and then the board will have an

21:20 ↗ opportunity to discuss the plan and vote

21:22 ↗ on a recommendation for city council on

21:24 ↗ the icap adoption

21:29 ↗ we started this process back in the

21:31 ↗ spring with a baseline analysis of where

21:33 ↗ we were with existing plans in our ghg

21:36 ↗ inventory and identifying regional

21:38 ↗ efforts

21:39 ↗ we use this information to develop the

21:41 ↗ framework of the plan including the

21:43 ↗ overall emissions reduction targets we

21:45 ↗ want to reach and the strategies we want

21:47 ↗ to use to get there

21:49 ↗ from there we incorporate this framework

21:51 ↗ into the draft plan that we're

21:52 ↗ discussing tonight

21:54 ↗ throughout this entire process we've

21:56 ↗ been engaging both city staff and

21:58 ↗ community members through meetings and

22:00 ↗ workshops

22:01 ↗ a survey that had nearly 300 responses

22:04 ↗ targeted focus groups and other

22:06 ↗ engagement efforts

22:08 ↗ the goals of this engagement is to

22:10 ↗ ensure that we develop a plan that fits

22:12 ↗ issaquah specifically

22:13 ↗ that aligns with our community's

22:15 ↗ priorities and has the best chance of

22:17 ↗ being supported by our community

22:23 ↗ we're all familiar with this slide but

22:25 ↗ here's a visual of the engagement done

22:26 ↗ to date and where we are now with this

22:29 ↗ being the third meeting of the

22:30 ↗ environmental board

22:32 ↗ so the next and final step will be the

22:34 ↗ presentation for adoption of the plan to

22:36 ↗ city council in december

22:40 ↗ so we'll now spend a little bit of time

22:42 ↗ discussing what we've heard from our

22:43 ↗ most in re our most recent engagement

22:46 ↗ efforts

22:47 ↗ so at the end of september we discussed

22:49 ↗ the plan with city council and they

22:51 ↗ brought up several the same points made

22:53 ↗ at the environmental board meeting

22:55 ↗ earlier that month

22:57 ↗ similar to the board they highlight the

22:59 ↗ need for a clearer vision and tie

23:01 ↗ between the icap components

23:03 ↗ they asked to clarify or revise some

23:05 ↗ specific actions targets and focus area

23:07 ↗ language

23:09 ↗ they wanted to highlight high priority

23:11 ↗ actions for ghg reduction and to ensure

23:14 ↗ frequent monitoring and evaluation of

23:15 ↗ progress again something that the board

23:18 ↗ also discussed

23:19 ↗ they asked for some clarification around

23:21 ↗ incentives and the city's role in that

23:24 ↗ their eager see a robust implementation

23:26 ↗ plan with clear timelines and they

23:29 ↗ expressed some concern over

23:30 ↗ implementation costs

23:32 ↗ in response to that feedback we included

23:35 ↗ a new icap vision page as well as new

23:37 ↗ graphics and restructuring of the plan

23:39 ↗ to enhance the connections

23:41 ↗ we changed the term cross cutting to

23:43 ↗ overarching at the community's request

23:45 ↗ and refined the resiliency target

23:48 ↗ we clarified some

23:50 ↗ action language and highlighted top ghg

23:52 ↗ reduction actions

23:55 ↗ we now have a robust implementation plan

23:57 ↗ that includes a plan for monitoring and

23:59 ↗ evaluation

24:00 ↗ it also includes subsections on

24:02 ↗ incentives and action-specific

24:04 ↗ implementation considerations as well as

24:07 ↗ timing and funding

24:11 ↗ we then held our second community

24:13 ↗ convening on climate to review the draft

24:15 ↗ plan in october

24:17 ↗ at that meeting we had a full group

24:18 ↗ presentation on the draft plan and then

24:20 ↗ went into breakout groups to discuss the

24:22 ↗ different focus areas

24:25 ↗ at that meeting the community asked for

24:26 ↗ an approachable relatable plan with

24:29 ↗ strong graphics

24:30 ↗ they requested an executive summary to

24:32 ↗ make it more digestible if a community

24:35 ↗ member just wants a high level overview

24:37 ↗ they wanted us to show urgency for

24:39 ↗ acting on climate

24:41 ↗ they asked to have the role of the

24:43 ↗ community clarified for implementing the

24:45 ↗ plan and to ensure that targeted and

24:47 ↗ accessible engagement continued

24:49 ↗ following adoption of the plan

24:53 ↗ they helped identify stakeholders across

24:55 ↗ focus areas and asked to prioritize

24:57 ↗ collaboration

24:59 ↗ and we also heard some concerns over

25:00 ↗ costs and feasibility for actions

25:04 ↗ so again this engagement effort was very

25:06 ↗ helpful in informing the final plan

25:08 ↗ we've now include new and more uh

25:11 ↗ friendly graphics and remove more jargon

25:13 ↗ based on the community feedback

25:15 ↗ we reformat the icap intro pages with

25:17 ↗ executive summary and easy reference

25:19 ↗ report findings

25:21 ↗ we rename the climate impacts page to

25:23 ↗ clarify consequences of inaction to

25:25 ↗ address the need for urgency

25:28 ↗ we developed a new section on resident

25:30 ↗ driven actions for each focus area as a

25:32 ↗ way to guide resonance on how they can

25:34 ↗ help implement the plan

25:36 ↗ and we provided a lot more detail in the

25:38 ↗ implementation considerations based off

25:41 ↗ of what we heard in the meeting

25:45 ↗ along with some of the updates we heard

25:47 ↗ i just want to share a bit more about

25:48 ↗ the changes that we made to the plan

25:52 ↗ so by now you've had a chance to dive

25:54 ↗ into it

25:55 ↗ this slide provides just a general

25:56 ↗ overview of the new structure of the

25:58 ↗ plan and how some of the pieces work

25:59 ↗ together

26:01 ↗ we've already talked through the slide

26:02 ↗ in earlier meetings but i just wanted to

26:04 ↗ provide the visual of how some of the

26:06 ↗ new components work in the plan

26:08 ↗ so the first is the executive summary

26:11 ↗ and this includes the new icap vision

26:13 ↗ which was requested through the

26:14 ↗ community engagement process

26:17 ↗ we then have some background on the plan

26:19 ↗ information specific to issaquah on the

26:21 ↗ climate imp tax and ghg reductions

26:24 ↗ and then it shows how the various

26:26 ↗ components of the plan work together to

26:28 ↗ reach our overarching emissions

26:29 ↗ reduction goal

26:31 ↗ and the last section is also new and

26:33 ↗ outlines the plan for implementing all

26:35 ↗ these initiatives which we'll discuss a

26:37 ↗ bit more in a minute

26:41 ↗ here's just a quick slide of the new

26:42 ↗ vision graphic that's embedded within

26:44 ↗ the executive summary it pulls the

26:47 ↗ targets directly from the plan and it's

26:49 ↗ meant to visually depict depict where

26:51 ↗ we're headed and the type of community

26:53 ↗ we want to live in

26:55 ↗ it's also a good example of some of the

26:56 ↗ graphic enhancements made to the plan

26:58 ↗ since the last meeting

27:02 ↗ so we reviewed several of the updates to

27:04 ↗ the plan that were a direct response to

27:06 ↗ previous engagement meetings i also

27:08 ↗ sponsored by a quick overview of what

27:10 ↗ some of those biggest changes are

27:12 ↗ so one new item is a letter from the

27:14 ↗ mayor with her reflection on the plan

27:16 ↗ and vision for continuing to work

27:18 ↗ together with the community on the

27:20 ↗ implementation of the plan

27:22 ↗ we added the executive summary and also

27:24 ↗ the various graphics and photos to help

27:28 ↗ lead the community through the plan

27:30 ↗ we update some of the language including

27:32 ↗ changing the wording on how we would

27:34 ↗ work with the school district to support

27:36 ↗ their climate and sustainability

27:37 ↗ education

27:38 ↗ and we also strengthen language on some

27:40 ↗ of the other actions

27:42 ↗ we update the climate resilience and

27:44 ↗ well-being target

27:46 ↗ we rearrange sections of the plan to

27:48 ↗ make it more reader friendly including a

27:50 ↗ summary table of how the goals

27:51 ↗ strategies and actions work together

27:55 ↗ one addition that came directly from the

27:57 ↗ community was adding a section on what

27:59 ↗ the public can do in each focus area and

28:01 ↗ we also want to show how the engagement

28:03 ↗ directly showed up in the plan

28:06 ↗ and lastly we now have the full

28:07 ↗ implementation plan which i'll turn to

28:11 ↗ so this provides

28:13 ↗ the implementation plan provides a

28:15 ↗ detailed roadmap that will help staff

28:17 ↗ and the environmental board ensure the

28:18 ↗ plan is successfully implemented

28:21 ↗ include sections on oversight and

28:23 ↗ accountability including a detailed role

28:25 ↗ for the environmental board

28:27 ↗ ongoing monetary evaluation

28:30 ↗ equity considerations for implementing

28:32 ↗ the actions

28:33 ↗ key considerations on actions that have

28:36 ↗ incentive programs and then detailed

28:38 ↗ implementation matrix

28:41 ↗ the chart on this page shows the item

28:42 ↗ and description for what's included in

28:44 ↗ the matrix

28:46 ↗ the implementation considerations on the

28:48 ↗ left and the partners on the right were

28:50 ↗ deeply informed by the community

28:52 ↗ convening that we had in october

28:55 ↗ some other elements of implementation

28:57 ↗ the icap include are the emissions

28:59 ↗ reduction potential

29:01 ↗ the affordability and this is the

29:03 ↗ estimated affordability of each action

29:05 ↗ with high being a positive indicator of

29:07 ↗ an action being more affordable

29:09 ↗ includes the implementation timeline for

29:11 ↗ when we'll start implementing the action

29:14 ↗ and it includes a known funding sources

29:16 ↗ including city budgets and grants

29:20 ↗ we also have the lead department for who

29:23 ↗ will be responsible for each given

29:24 ↗ action

29:26 ↗ and just quickly to wrap up

29:29 ↗ um

29:30 ↗ as we all know the next meeting will be

29:33 ↗ uh with city council on december 6.

29:37 ↗ similar to when we work through the

29:38 ↗ electric vehicle policy the board will

29:40 ↗ be voting on a recommendation to council

29:42 ↗ and that will be

29:44 ↗ provided with all the

29:46 ↗ materials for the council meeting

29:53 ↗ and then before we move into

29:56 ↗ questions the options before the board

29:59 ↗ for this evening are to recommend the

30:01 ↗ icap as presented

30:03 ↗ do not recommend the icap or recommend

30:06 ↗ the icap with changes which would be

30:08 ↗ discussed and voted on as amendments

30:10 ↗ that jamie was describing this evening

30:14 ↗ so again i just want to thank the board

30:15 ↗ for your input engagement on the plan

30:17 ↗ thus far and i'm excited for the next

30:19 ↗ steps for issaquah and taking as we

30:22 ↗ start to implement this plan

30:24 ↗ thank you

30:25 ↗ [Music]

30:28 ↗ thank you

30:29 ↗ take it this time if you have any

30:30 ↗ questions please indicate in the chat

30:43 ↗ dawn uh feel free to go ahead

30:45 ↗ hey megan i was just looking through the

30:47 ↗ plan here and i don't see where it talks

30:49 ↗ about updates to the plan is there a

30:51 ↗ recommendation in it of how often it

30:53 ↗ gets updated or re-evaluated maybe i

30:56 ↗ missed it

30:58 ↗ i believe we have that in the

30:59 ↗ implementation section somewhere but

31:02 ↗ it's a five-year plan so we have that it

31:05 ↗ would be updated in in 2026 um however

31:08 ↗ we also

31:09 ↗ have the environmental board doing

31:11 ↗ annual check-ins on it so you know

31:13 ↗ policies change things come down the

31:15 ↗ pipeline from the state so there's

31:17 ↗ definitely opportunities to you know

31:19 ↗ review the actions recommend some go

31:21 ↗ sooner or later based on that

31:24 ↗ so the board will really have a big role

31:26 ↗ in this each year looking at it but

31:28 ↗ overall it's meant to be a five-year

31:30 ↗ plan thank you

31:38 ↗ hi megan this is jamie um i had a

31:40 ↗ question the use of the term incentives

31:43 ↗ is that all

31:44 ↗ whenever wherever it's used in this

31:46 ↗ uh in the

31:48 ↗ icap is that

31:49 ↗ intended to be a financial economic

31:53 ↗ benefit

31:54 ↗ um of some sort just wanted to

31:57 ↗ clarify because there are other forms of

31:58 ↗ incentives is that assumed that that's

32:00 ↗ what that term is used to mean

32:03 ↗ right um this is megan so

32:06 ↗ we we have a small section on incentives

32:10 ↗ in the implementation plan to kind of

32:12 ↗ clarify that a little bit because i

32:14 ↗ think this is something that came up

32:15 ↗ with council as well so incentives can

32:18 ↗ be several different things um so it

32:19 ↗ could be direct financial incentives

32:22 ↗ from the city um

32:24 ↗ it could also be

32:26 ↗ which would be monetary it could also be

32:28 ↗ in the form of fee reductions um

32:31 ↗ for things or or reduced parking

32:33 ↗ requirements um so those are all

32:35 ↗ different ways to save money but not

32:37 ↗ exactly um you know handing out money

32:41 ↗ there's also a lot of grants available

32:43 ↗ that could

32:44 ↗ the city could apply for and that could

32:46 ↗ be a way to provide financial incentives

32:49 ↗ and then lastly there's various partner

32:50 ↗ incentives so for example puget sound

32:53 ↗ energy has some energy efficiency

32:55 ↗ incentives so some of them could be the

32:57 ↗ city promoting um partner incentives so

33:00 ↗ i would say there's a good variety it

33:02 ↗ could be the city doing money but

33:03 ↗ there's a lot of other options there too

33:08 ↗ thank you megan one other question i

33:10 ↗ know there's mention of

33:12 ↗ um

33:13 ↗ there being budget set aside for icap

33:15 ↗ implementation in

33:17 ↗ the 2022 city budget is that

33:20 ↗ is everything that's being proposed in

33:21 ↗ the implementation plan

33:24 ↗ by and large covered with

33:26 ↗ is that is believed that they'll be

33:27 ↗ covered by what's being set aside in the

33:29 ↗ budget or would it require additional

33:32 ↗ funding

33:33 ↗ for the city's portion of the the

33:35 ↗ actions that are in the implementation

33:37 ↗ plan

33:39 ↗ so this is megan um most the year one

33:42 ↗ actions there's a good variety with some

33:44 ↗ just being

33:46 ↗ staff working on it in other departments

33:49 ↗ or staff working on it um you know just

33:52 ↗ overall staff capacity to do the work

33:54 ↗ there are some that do require

33:57 ↗ money such as the community climate

33:59 ↗ challenge to run that program

34:02 ↗ another one is the

34:04 ↗ the electric heat pump campaign

34:06 ↗ and the funds that the city setting

34:08 ↗ aside does cover those actions um that

34:11 ↗ do require investment in 2022

34:17 ↗ thank you

34:24 ↗ all right i am not seeing any other

34:26 ↗ questions in the chat

34:29 ↗ um

34:31 ↗ so i think at this point now we can open

34:35 ↗ the floor to any um

34:38 ↗ any motions and remember those are

34:40 ↗ relative to the

34:41 ↗ options that megan provided um

34:46 ↗ on one of her last slides there

35:05 ↗ i will start us off then um and let me

35:08 ↗ just paste

35:11 ↗ this into the chat

35:21 ↗ um

35:22 ↗ i just put this into the chat but uh the

35:25 ↗ motion that i'm proposing is that we

35:27 ↗ create a highly visible portion of the

35:29 ↗ city's website dedicated to climate

35:31 ↗ action to have the public access

35:32 ↗ information on the plan how they can get

35:35 ↗ involved and other recommended resources

35:38 ↗ and these materials are to be updated on

35:40 ↗ a regular basis

35:54 ↗ all right i don't have a second at this

35:56 ↗ point so if okay i appreciate it do you

35:59 ↗ have a second

36:00 ↗ and this is megan um i think before we

36:03 ↗ start with the

36:04 ↗ um

36:06 ↗ the specific motions i think we need to

36:07 ↗ have one motion on the overall

36:10 ↗ recommendation

36:12 ↗ to start the discussion on it

36:14 ↗ and then we go into each of the

36:17 ↗ various amendments that would be

36:19 ↗ proposed

36:20 ↗ it's my understanding of it

36:23 ↗ thank you megan

36:24 ↗ so i believe that motion would need to

36:26 ↗ be relative to those options that you

36:28 ↗ presented on that last slide

36:30 ↗ correct

36:32 ↗ um

36:35 ↗ let me i can

36:38 ↗ craft something

37:13 ↗ tom

37:14 ↗ you had a question

37:18 ↗ oh well it kind of ties in

37:20 ↗ with um

37:23 ↗ does that relate to my motion or

37:25 ↗ comments about your your uh motion maybe

37:28 ↗ being out of order

37:29 ↗ okay this is this is an action separate

37:32 ↗ from

37:33 ↗ the main thing on the table which is um

37:36 ↗ what do we do with the climate action

37:38 ↗ plan

37:42 ↗ same same issue i guess i have a

37:45 ↗ related question though about

37:48 ↗ just the overall timing and we talked

37:51 ↗ before about well when when will this

37:53 ↗ plan be updated five years is a long

37:55 ↗ time that that is somewhat concerning to

37:57 ↗ me like uh i'm i think there's a uh

38:01 ↗ merit in uh well some of the things that

38:03 ↗ the commenters

38:05 ↗ provided the public commenters so like

38:08 ↗ just comment about

38:11 ↗ uh well what about existing buildings uh

38:12 ↗ what are we gonna do about that how to

38:15 ↗ get them on online here i'm i'm

38:18 ↗ comfortable with moving forward with

38:20 ↗ this plan

38:21 ↗ uh with it in mind that uh okay well

38:24 ↗ we'll well this is a good place to start

38:27 ↗ and uh well the

38:29 ↗ process improvement

38:31 ↗ mantra of

38:33 ↗ a plan do check and replan sort of thing

38:38 ↗ cycle time for that replan and update

38:41 ↗ this plan

38:43 ↗ it's got to be it's got to be quicker

38:44 ↗ than five years

38:46 ↗ so that's a little bit concerning but

38:49 ↗ i think that

38:50 ↗ we we should work towards

38:52 ↗ um

38:53 ↗ a plan for

38:55 ↗ existing buildings

38:57 ↗ but maybe we're not smart enough to uh

39:00 ↗ to do that right now let's get started

39:02 ↗ with something that we can do

39:04 ↗ um and we do know enough to move forward

39:07 ↗ on and then work on that next year or

39:10 ↗ something but i don't

39:12 ↗ know express that

39:16 ↗ it's all

39:34 ↗ all right and i

39:36 ↗ i see your comment and make sure i do

39:39 ↗ want to make sure we do keep any

39:41 ↗ discussion

39:42 ↗ uh so if you have a question or comment

39:45 ↗ or emotion

39:46 ↗ um

39:48 ↗ which one did you have one of those

39:51 ↗ and

39:52 ↗ i agree it'd be good to get going on the

39:53 ↗ discussion

39:55 ↗ because i bet we have some amendments

39:57 ↗ okay

39:57 ↗ don you have a motion i believe do you

40:00 ↗ you stated in chat do you want to

40:04 ↗ go ahead

40:06 ↗ well i think the plan is is great

40:08 ↗ overall but what i'm hearing from the

40:10 ↗ group is there's some minor changes that

40:12 ↗ folks would like to make so i'm making a

40:14 ↗ motion that we recommend to move forward

40:16 ↗ with the plan with some

40:18 ↗ changes or minor changes to open the

40:20 ↗ discussion so we can hear those

40:27 ↗ all right that motion has been seconded

40:30 ↗ um

40:32 ↗ and

40:34 ↗ at risk do we have unanimous does anyone

40:37 ↗ have any objections to this motion like

40:40 ↗ megan do you want a formal vote on this

40:42 ↗ motion

40:47 ↗ or okay maybe we should do one um

40:50 ↗ first though any comments that anyone

40:52 ↗ would like to make on on um this motion

41:00 ↗ i don't understand what's happening are

41:02 ↗ we voting to talk about it are we voting

41:04 ↗ it seems like we should talk about it

41:06 ↗ before we recommend anything

41:08 ↗ yeah so that's

41:10 ↗ sorry for the confusion um

41:12 ↗ at this point yeah if there's any

41:13 ↗ comments on

41:15 ↗ dawn's motion this would be the right

41:17 ↗ time to to make those comments

41:26 ↗ so lori you look confused my motion is

41:29 ↗ simply to move forward

41:32 ↗ with recommending the plan with the

41:34 ↗ changes that we hear to here today so we

41:37 ↗ can start that discussion

41:45 ↗ well since no one else is piping up i'm

41:47 ↗ guessing i'm not the only one wondering

41:48 ↗ why we can't just start

41:50 ↗ can we just recommend to discuss it

41:52 ↗ first

41:54 ↗ if it's been seconded i just i will go

41:56 ↗ along

41:58 ↗ well so what we have to do to open up

42:00 ↗ like more specific

42:02 ↗ recommended changes we would need to

42:04 ↗ approve this motion

42:06 ↗ so

42:07 ↗ i'm not hearing any oh do you see a

42:09 ↗ question from ann

42:11 ↗ and

42:12 ↗ that's for once we start the discussion

42:14 ↗ sorry

42:18 ↗ okay well then gene do you mind taking

42:20 ↗ us through a vote on dawn's motion

42:26 ↗ sure i'll call the role and basically if

42:28 ↗ you could just confirm

42:30 ↗ uh yeah when your name is called so uh

42:34 ↗ danny madden

42:35 ↗ okay

42:38 ↗ john nick williams

42:40 ↗ yay

42:41 ↗ rishi hazrat

42:56 ↗ yay

42:58 ↗ and newcomb

42:59 ↗ [Music]

43:01 ↗ yay

43:03 ↗ jamie finch

43:07 ↗ tom anderson

43:12 ↗ so the motion passes eight one

43:16 ↗ thank you gene and sorry everyone for

43:18 ↗ the confusion at this point now

43:21 ↗ that uh don's motion has been um

43:24 ↗ accepted uh if there's any further

43:26 ↗ motions

43:27 ↗ related to recommended changes

43:30 ↗ please indicate that in the chat and

43:32 ↗ then and did you have a question before

43:34 ↗ we

43:35 ↗ we went any further

43:38 ↗ yeah i remember last time we did this we

43:40 ↗ we had questions first and um my

43:44 ↗ question would be to megan

43:47 ↗ and ann

43:48 ↗ um fletcher brought it up as well so

43:50 ↗ buildings and energy

43:52 ↗ 2.5

43:54 ↗ it says enact code to phase out fossil

43:56 ↗ fuel infrastructure in new construction

43:58 ↗ while considering possible

44:01 ↗ ex exceptions

44:03 ↗ do you know what those can you define

44:05 ↗ some of those possible exceptions

44:07 ↗ what are you guys thinking about there

44:10 ↗ this is megan um i think at this time

44:13 ↗ there's no specific exceptions that

44:16 ↗ um that would be on the table or not on

44:18 ↗ the table um this is an action that we

44:20 ↗ heard a lot about in the community

44:22 ↗ engagement process we heard a lot of

44:24 ↗ support for it

44:25 ↗ we also heard some concerns from it as

44:27 ↗ well

44:28 ↗ there's been other jurisdictions that

44:31 ↗ have passed

44:33 ↗ all electric type of codes with some

44:36 ↗ exceptions for example there's

44:39 ↗ there's been exceptions for cooking

44:41 ↗ stoves or gas fireplaces

44:44 ↗ so that's not to say any of those are

44:46 ↗ specifically on the table or not on the

44:48 ↗ table it would be this action is to

44:51 ↗ bring this policy forward and then go

44:53 ↗ through

44:54 ↗ the engagement process and

44:56 ↗ um

44:57 ↗ you know with the the community and

44:59 ↗ council again to see what the right

45:00 ↗ policy is

45:02 ↗ so that's why we have the word possible

45:04 ↗ exceptions in in that um

45:08 ↗ yes

45:11 ↗ can i give a thought on that

45:14 ↗ i did attend a commerce meeting where

45:16 ↗ this was discussed and

45:19 ↗ it was

45:21 ↗ the reason

45:22 ↗ everybody loves their gas stoves and so

45:26 ↗ taking those away

45:28 ↗ wouldn't make sense it would make a lot

45:30 ↗ of people really upset um so they're

45:33 ↗ going for the easier things like water

45:35 ↗ heaters and heaters

45:38 ↗ but in new construction

45:41 ↗ you'd have to

45:44 ↗ add the pipes in

45:46 ↗ and um

45:48 ↗ there are less incentives to um

45:51 ↗ they're reducing the incentives right

45:53 ↗ now to get to put those pipes in

45:55 ↗ so

45:58 ↗ maybe it would be less desirable because

46:00 ↗ people are having to pay more for them

46:01 ↗ now um

46:05 ↗ but i i i guess i'm just confused on how

46:08 ↗ it would work if you have to put the

46:11 ↗ infrastructure in for just as just a

46:13 ↗ stove

46:16 ↗ i guess we're still working that out as

46:18 ↗ a state

46:23 ↗ yeah i think that that's something that

46:24 ↗ would be discussed as we bring that

46:26 ↗ policy forward and start to hash out the

46:28 ↗ details of it

46:34 ↗ thank you uh cameron you have a question

46:38 ↗ yeah hi this is cameron fisher a

46:40 ↗ question for megan

46:41 ↗ going to tom's comment there earlier

46:43 ↗ about the five-year review process

46:46 ↗ and how the environmental board

46:50 ↗ allows to comment

46:52 ↗ on an annual basis can you kind of talk

46:54 ↗ about

46:55 ↗ how you came to that that

46:57 ↗ road map of review timeline and uh and

47:01 ↗ what the annual review from

47:03 ↗ environmental board standpoint would

47:05 ↗ entail

47:08 ↗ sure this is megan um so overall we want

47:11 ↗ it to be five

47:13 ↗ five years um we wanted the it to be

47:15 ↗ actionable and make sure we um you know

47:18 ↗ can can do all those things in the

47:20 ↗ timeline set for the plan

47:22 ↗ um you know 10 years thing could start

47:24 ↗ to to change a bit more so

47:26 ↗ we land on five years for that

47:28 ↗ but um things also can change every year

47:31 ↗ um or budgets can change

47:35 ↗ various policies can change so we wanted

47:38 ↗ the environmental board to have that

47:39 ↗ opportunity to be looking at it more

47:41 ↗ often and

47:42 ↗ overall talking and prioritizing actions

47:46 ↗ that's something that's actually in the

47:47 ↗ duties and responsibilities of the

47:50 ↗ of the environmental board overall to be

47:53 ↗ providing input to the city on

47:55 ↗ climate programs policies so

47:58 ↗ um it's kind of taken from that and

48:00 ↗ embedded into this process um one way i

48:04 ↗ think it could go forward is that each

48:06 ↗ year also

48:07 ↗ from the environmental board ordinance

48:09 ↗ um there'll be an annual report that

48:11 ↗ goes to city council from the board and

48:13 ↗ that will report on some of the metrics

48:15 ↗ and the work that the board has done so

48:17 ↗ i think that might be one way

48:19 ↗ that there could be a discussion prior

48:21 ↗ to that and that could be one way to

48:23 ↗ start to talk about how to change those

48:24 ↗ pieces and maybe present those

48:27 ↗ options for changes in the annual report

48:30 ↗ but i think that that will also have to

48:31 ↗ be something that's

48:32 ↗ hashed out a little bit in that first

48:34 ↗ year with the new sustainability manager

48:36 ↗ to kind of see what that best process is

48:38 ↗ um to bring to to do it but there will

48:41 ↗ be that annual check-in um just to go

48:44 ↗ through the implementation plan make

48:45 ↗ sure we're on the right track

48:48 ↗ and figure out

48:49 ↗ if there's any changes needed

48:55 ↗ all right don get a question

48:58 ↗ yeah question for you megan

49:00 ↗ hearing the comments earlier about the

49:02 ↗ nexus of the emergency management side

49:04 ↗ of this to the city's comprehensive

49:06 ↗ emergency management plan does that

49:08 ↗ already exist or

49:10 ↗ is this standalone

49:13 ↗ to that plan

49:14 ↗ if so let's consider com putting them

49:18 ↗ combining them a bit

49:20 ↗ yes this is megan so the city does have

49:23 ↗ an emergency management plan we also

49:25 ↗ have a new emergency

49:28 ↗ manager on board so they are looking at

49:30 ↗ updating um all the various plans that

49:33 ↗ the city has and so i was able to

49:37 ↗ meet with that person and start to talk

49:39 ↗ about what some of the the goals for the

49:42 ↗ city would be in terms of emergency

49:44 ↗ management and they're starting to

49:45 ↗ develop that so this is one that has

49:47 ↗ come out of those conversations and is

49:49 ↗ something he wants to work towards for

49:51 ↗ the city

49:52 ↗ so it's it's not just a goal for the

49:54 ↗ climate action plan but it's really one

49:56 ↗ of those more city-wide ones but it

49:58 ↗ really relates to a lot of the

50:00 ↗ um the adaptation pieces that that we're

50:03 ↗ looking at and how to be more resilient

50:05 ↗ and the need for that with

50:08 ↗ various climate impacts coming coming

50:10 ↗ down the pipeline so it is kind of an

50:12 ↗ overarching city-wide piece but there

50:14 ↗ are climate pieces to it and it will

50:16 ↗ start to be embedded in other city plans

50:18 ↗ and documents going forward

50:24 ↗ thank you megan rishi

50:27 ↗ this is rishi speaking um i had a

50:29 ↗ question about uh it says in the plan

50:31 ↗ that the next review is scheduled for uh

50:33 ↗ 2026

50:35 ↗ and um i was wondering like

50:37 ↗ whether it's possible that when we give

50:39 ↗ our like annual reports

50:41 ↗ to city council is it possible for them

50:43 ↗ to change the plan or does it need to be

50:45 ↗ 2026 for them to start amending it

50:50 ↗ this is megan um i think it's a living

50:53 ↗ document um

50:55 ↗ especially the the implementation plan

50:57 ↗ so we decided to put that in an in the

51:00 ↗ appendix as i think that's the piece

51:02 ↗ that would probably be the most likely

51:03 ↗ to change so for example in that we have

51:07 ↗ when actions would start if it's kind of

51:10 ↗ a short medium or longer term there

51:12 ↗ might be some longer term actions

51:15 ↗ that a very

51:16 ↗ an opportunity a funding opportunity a

51:18 ↗ policy opportunity could open up and so

51:21 ↗ we want to move those forward or vice

51:23 ↗ versa there might be something that ends

51:25 ↗ up being um

51:27 ↗ you know more more burdensome or

51:29 ↗ not as much emission potential as we

51:32 ↗ thought and we want to push that later

51:33 ↗ in the plan

51:34 ↗ so i think that that implementation plan

51:36 ↗ is really the piece that is the most

51:38 ↗ living document

51:39 ↗ um and i think with the new

51:40 ↗ sustainability manager and the

51:42 ↗ environmental board they can talk about

51:44 ↗ the best way if you want to you know

51:46 ↗ edit that document annually since it is

51:48 ↗ an appendix or um or just recommend

51:51 ↗ changes on it i think that there's

51:53 ↗ various ways that can be done

51:58 ↗ thank you megan laurie you had a

52:00 ↗ question

52:03 ↗ yeah this is lara so megan i think you

52:05 ↗ kind of touched on it but can you

52:06 ↗ clarify um and then i have a follow-up

52:08 ↗ can you clarify for implementation so it

52:11 ↗ looks like is the sustainability manager

52:13 ↗ sort of

52:14 ↗ handling how it's going to implement and

52:16 ↗ like what the actual next steps are

52:18 ↗ specifically or is that also in the

52:19 ↗ mayor and city council

52:22 ↗ so the climate action plan is a

52:24 ↗ city-wide plan

52:25 ↗ so there's

52:27 ↗ as you'll see in the implementation plan

52:29 ↗ there's a lot of different departments

52:30 ↗ involved parks department public works

52:33 ↗ the office of sustainability is the

52:36 ↗ project manager on it is making sure

52:38 ↗ that each of those pieces get done and

52:40 ↗ kind of being the overall coordinator

52:42 ↗ for the work

52:43 ↗ but that works across with the the mayor

52:46 ↗ and the mayor's priorities the city

52:48 ↗ administration

52:50 ↗ budget so it really is a city-wide piece

52:53 ↗ and then some of the pieces that we

52:54 ↗ brought into it

52:56 ↗ most recently with some tips for for

52:59 ↗ what residents can do is we also wanted

53:01 ↗ it to be a plan for the community as

53:03 ↗ well so

53:04 ↗ they're able to look through it

53:06 ↗ and and find ways that they can take

53:08 ↗ action as well

53:12 ↗ so i guess my follow-up comment um as an

53:14 ↗ aside i think it's amazing like it's

53:17 ↗ really exciting to see this being

53:18 ↗ fleshed out

53:20 ↗ um going back to feedback i offered

53:23 ↗ earlier in the year i still think um

53:26 ↗ i know we're getting there but the

53:27 ↗ dashboard i think it's still very

53:28 ↗ abstract and it has this risk of being

53:31 ↗ punitive and not visionary um

53:34 ↗ so i i would like

53:36 ↗ i'm excited to see that build out but i

53:38 ↗ think it's important because it's so

53:40 ↗ abstract that there's a risk that

53:42 ↗ um of like who owns everything like

53:44 ↗ literally putting faces and names to

53:46 ↗ ownership and then a dashboard way so

53:49 ↗ people can actually see is this a

53:50 ↗ residential thing is this a commercial

53:52 ↗ property owner thing or who different

53:55 ↗ you know different initiatives fall

53:57 ↗ under and what

53:59 ↗ um the responsibility is but also giving

54:01 ↗ a vision like it's all words

54:03 ↗ so when you read it there's not much

54:05 ↗ that

54:06 ↗ grounds you in that this is important

54:08 ↗ for the future in a way that's maybe um

54:11 ↗ it feels like belt tightening without

54:12 ↗ any sort of like this is going to be

54:14 ↗ great for every one thing and i don't

54:16 ↗ i'm not saying make a positive spin but

54:17 ↗ i think it's important for us to like

54:20 ↗ have an actual literal vision of what

54:22 ↗ some of those things would look like so

54:23 ↗ what will it look like when emissions go

54:25 ↗ down like what would the streets look

54:27 ↗ like when there are no streets so

54:29 ↗ as we move forward and implementation i

54:31 ↗ think that would be really helpful for

54:32 ↗ you know because there's such a diverse

54:34 ↗ community of people involved but

54:36 ↗ um that's helpful for knowing who's

54:38 ↗ going to be managing it so thank you

54:46 ↗ any other questions from the board

54:56 ↗ all right well now

54:58 ↗ for the second time we'll open up for

55:00 ↗ any

55:00 ↗ motions related to recommended changes

55:03 ↗ um

55:17 ↗ we should go ahead

55:21 ↗ speaking um i motioned to recommend the

55:23 ↗ review of the climate action plan to be

55:25 ↗ every three years with the next first

55:27 ↗ review scheduled for 2024

55:46 ↗ so right now it's 20

55:48 ↗ 25 is it

55:51 ↗ when is the next review is that every

55:52 ↗ two years every year

55:55 ↗ but dawn

55:57 ↗ okay

55:58 ↗ or is it a question

56:00 ↗ or comment to rishi's motion um

56:06 ↗ well to have discussion of the motion we

56:08 ↗ would need to have a second

56:12 ↗ that's that's i think the process

56:14 ↗ okay well i second reishi's motion then

56:20 ↗ is that how that works

56:21 ↗ yeah i think so and now you can comment

56:24 ↗ okay

56:26 ↗ my concern is um while i understand the

56:29 ↗ the need for the anticipated schedule at

56:31 ↗ 2024 and in a

56:34 ↗ world with a ton of resources that would

56:35 ↗ be great but

56:37 ↗ i question whether or not that's a

56:40 ↗ realistic goal

56:42 ↗ to

56:43 ↗ revise this every three years in a city

56:46 ↗ like issaquah

56:47 ↗ so i i look to city staff to kind of

56:50 ↗ let us know if that's

56:52 ↗ doable

57:02 ↗ yeah i think i agree in part with that

57:04 ↗ um perhaps it's not necessary to review

57:06 ↗ it every three years but i think our

57:08 ↗ first scheduled review should be 2024 i

57:11 ↗ think especially upon implementing a new

57:13 ↗ plan it's important to check in on it

57:15 ↗ fairly quickly otherwise it's easy to

57:18 ↗ see that kind of dissolve and not really

57:21 ↗ come into implementation so i think 2024

57:24 ↗ sets a nice starting point so

57:27 ↗ i don't know if that would

57:29 ↗ alleviate your concern don

57:38 ↗ my concern is towards towards the

57:39 ↗ issaquah staff so looking to them to

57:42 ↗ answer that question

57:45 ↗ we have a few more comments richard do

57:47 ↗ you think if that was to be what you

57:49 ↗ would

57:50 ↗ want to

57:51 ↗ update your motion you would need to

57:53 ↗ propose an amendment to your motion

57:55 ↗ um

57:56 ↗ so it looks like we have a couple other

57:58 ↗ comments but i think that would be in

57:59 ↗ terms of process what would need to

58:01 ↗ happen if you wanted to update so not

58:03 ↗ every three years but the review

58:05 ↗ scheduled for 2024

58:07 ↗ so should i send in a message with

58:09 ↗ an updated motion

58:12 ↗ or another would need to be an amendment

58:14 ↗ um so yeah you would

58:16 ↗ you have to like propose an amendment

58:19 ↗ and then we would need to discuss that

58:20 ↗ amendment and vote on that amendment and

58:23 ↗ then would come back to comments on

58:26 ↗ your original okay

58:29 ↗ okay well i moved to amend it to

58:31 ↗ say that the review of the climate

58:32 ↗ action plan will occur in 2024

58:36 ↗ could you put that into the chat while

58:38 ↗ you're doing that if anyone has any

58:41 ↗ um

58:42 ↗ questions or comments related to that

58:44 ↗ amendment we'll we can then come back to

58:47 ↗ there's

58:48 ↗ tom laura and annas you have comments um

58:51 ↗ if you have

58:53 ↗ comments relative to the amendment

58:55 ↗ please

58:56 ↗ put in a new comment just to make sure

58:58 ↗ that that wasn't related to the original

58:59 ↗ one

59:04 ↗ and then and i think you have a question

59:08 ↗ if that was that for the original one

59:09 ↗ sorry i mean it might just be

59:11 ↗ yeah it might be just be part of the

59:12 ↗ discussion actually so

59:16 ↗ tom i think looks like you have a

59:18 ↗ question for a comment

59:20 ↗ oh well yeah

59:23 ↗ i'm not sure what i'm

59:25 ↗ um so yeah i want to speak in favor of

59:27 ↗ uh rishi's motion uh 2024 this is this

59:31 ↗ is a plan like uh like nothing uh we

59:34 ↗ planned before so um waiting five years

59:37 ↗ to to

59:38 ↗ revise and update a plan

59:40 ↗ that's kind of groundbreaking it just

59:42 ↗ seems way too long three years even

59:44 ↗ seems too long but i think three three

59:47 ↗ years is reasonable and i'm i'm in

59:50 ↗ support of that i mean this isn't this

59:52 ↗ isn't a plan for how we're gonna pave

59:54 ↗ the streets or something you know a

59:56 ↗ process that has been done for decade

59:58 ↗ after decade after decade this is

1:00:00 ↗ something new

1:00:01 ↗ and

1:00:02 ↗ you've got to iterate on new things

1:00:04 ↗ because we won't get it all right and

1:00:06 ↗ then we'll find more things that need to

1:00:07 ↗ be

1:00:08 ↗ tweaked in it and

1:00:10 ↗ uh yeah no more than three years for

1:00:12 ↗ sure is my my feeling on thank you

1:00:23 ↗ any other comments um gene i might just

1:00:26 ↗ ask if you have the necessary clarity on

1:00:29 ↗ the amendment that you need

1:00:31 ↗ from rishi

1:00:38 ↗ from his uh his comment he just made

1:00:41 ↗ yes my understanding is essentially

1:00:43 ↗ review the plan in 2024.

1:00:46 ↗ okay

1:00:47 ↗ any other

1:00:49 ↗ comments specific to rishi's amendment

1:00:52 ↗ to review in 2024 not every three years

1:00:59 ↗ and you had a question

1:01:02 ↗ yeah so would it be um just the

1:01:04 ↗ environmental board that is reviewing it

1:01:07 ↗ rishi or would it be um the whole city

1:01:09 ↗ again

1:01:10 ↗ i was just thinking that because a lot

1:01:12 ↗ of us won't be on the environmental

1:01:13 ↗ board

1:01:14 ↗ anymore yeah i believe the 2024 review

1:01:16 ↗ date would be for city council

1:01:19 ↗ just for city council

1:01:21 ↗ okay and then we could comment to the

1:01:22 ↗ city council that makes sense

1:01:26 ↗ should it also be for the environmental

1:01:28 ↗ board and potentially the entire public

1:01:31 ↗ well um megan correct me if i'm wrong

1:01:32 ↗ but i was under the impression that the

1:01:34 ↗ environmental board would be reviewing

1:01:35 ↗ it every year uh but like

1:01:38 ↗ it would officially be reviewed by city

1:01:40 ↗ council in 2024 i'm not sure if that's

1:01:43 ↗ exactly correct though this is megan um

1:01:46 ↗ that that is the way we were intending

1:01:47 ↗ it so it would be reviewed you know the

1:01:50 ↗ public process city council um in 2026

1:01:54 ↗ but the environmental board would have

1:01:56 ↗ the opportunity to review it annually um

1:01:59 ↗ the board is open to the the public so

1:02:01 ↗ there's always opportunity for public

1:02:02 ↗ comment and public to get involved in

1:02:04 ↗ that way as well

1:02:12 ↗ that's right i forgot we were gonna i

1:02:14 ↗ knew we were overseeing it but yeah

1:02:16 ↗ every year

1:02:20 ↗ do you still think in light of us

1:02:22 ↗ reviewing it with the environmental

1:02:24 ↗ board every year

1:02:27 ↗ that

1:02:28 ↗ the city council needs to review it into

1:02:30 ↗ 2024

1:02:37 ↗ is that directed to me

1:02:40 ↗ yeah um i do think it's important to

1:02:42 ↗ bring it up to city council um

1:02:44 ↗ at least in 2024 in through official

1:02:47 ↗ public process

1:02:54 ↗ all right you had a question or a

1:02:56 ↗ comment sir

1:02:58 ↗ yeah

1:02:59 ↗ i think maybe we should just scale it

1:03:00 ↗ back to say option to review um because

1:03:03 ↗ if it's a living breathing document it

1:03:05 ↗ will constantly be updated and it could

1:03:07 ↗ just be this big bureaucratic headache i

1:03:09 ↗ just i don't like the idea of like

1:03:12 ↗ putting um

1:03:14 ↗ any consultant costs or other you know

1:03:16 ↗ bureaucratic updates on a living

1:03:17 ↗ document anyway i agree we need to be

1:03:19 ↗ reviewing it every year but um putting

1:03:21 ↗ it out to city council and everything in

1:03:23 ↗ addition to other recommendations could

1:03:24 ↗ just become a big nightmare so

1:03:26 ↗ um having done these types of things

1:03:28 ↗ before

1:03:29 ↗ it could explode into being like a lot

1:03:31 ↗ of paperwork which would be the opposite

1:03:33 ↗ of progress

1:03:37 ↗ thank you laura i do want to make sure

1:03:39 ↗ is that a comment

1:03:41 ↗ or are you do you are you proposing an

1:03:44 ↗ amendment to rishi's amendment that it

1:03:45 ↗ would

1:03:46 ↗ be a

1:03:48 ↗ suggested review in 2024

1:03:52 ↗ um i guess i would propose it but i'd

1:03:54 ↗ rather hear from megan or jean first

1:03:56 ↗ before

1:03:59 ↗ on their thoughts

1:04:06 ↗ this is megan um sorry can you clarify

1:04:08 ↗ the

1:04:09 ↗ question there

1:04:11 ↗ what are your thoughts on the process of

1:04:13 ↗ reviewing three years versus five years

1:04:15 ↗ from a

1:04:16 ↗ administrative standpoint

1:04:19 ↗ this is megan um the overall

1:04:22 ↗ administration recommendation is the the

1:04:24 ↗ five years so that's the way we we wrote

1:04:26 ↗ the plan um thinking that you know

1:04:29 ↗ developing it does take a lot of staff

1:04:31 ↗ capacity and time um in order to do that

1:04:34 ↗ and so but understanding that things

1:04:36 ↗ change that's why we built in that

1:04:38 ↗ annual review by the environmental board

1:04:40 ↗ um so so overall the recommendation is

1:04:43 ↗ to keep it at that five years um but you

1:04:46 ↗ know if the board wants

1:04:48 ↗ it to be 2024 then we can also look at

1:04:51 ↗ that as well

1:05:01 ↗ tommy had a question

1:05:03 ↗ yeah i guess i don't know this is tom

1:05:05 ↗ anderson speaking

1:05:07 ↗ i don't understand what sort of change

1:05:10 ↗ would be allowed on the yearly review

1:05:13 ↗ that wouldn't require

1:05:15 ↗ a review by the council

1:05:18 ↗ how does that work

1:05:21 ↗ this is megan i i think um the way i was

1:05:24 ↗ envisioning that annual review is kind

1:05:26 ↗ of more looking at the action level um

1:05:29 ↗ so the the goals targets and strategies

1:05:32 ↗ are being

1:05:34 ↗ updated with the comprehensive plan this

1:05:36 ↗ year

1:05:37 ↗ so those are going to be going into that

1:05:39 ↗ comprehensive plan so i wouldn't

1:05:41 ↗ recommend

1:05:42 ↗ annual reviews of those that would take

1:05:45 ↗ um going through the whole comprehensive

1:05:46 ↗ plan process as well

1:05:48 ↗ so i do see it more in that action

1:05:51 ↗ implementation phase

1:05:53 ↗ i think that there's also going to be

1:05:54 ↗ opportunities for the board to weigh in

1:05:56 ↗ on on programs and policies along the

1:05:59 ↗ way so

1:06:01 ↗ the board will be able to kind of

1:06:02 ↗ prioritize what should go forward and

1:06:04 ↗ not but also be able to talk about the

1:06:06 ↗ actions themselves

1:06:07 ↗ so i think there is a lot of opportunity

1:06:09 ↗ for for input there

1:06:17 ↗ any other comments or questions on the

1:06:19 ↗ amendment

1:06:24 ↗ all right i do want to just make sure

1:06:26 ↗ everyone a reminder that um

1:06:30 ↗ supporting an amendment doesn't

1:06:32 ↗ necessarily mean you support the

1:06:34 ↗ end result of the amended original

1:06:36 ↗ motion so just keep that in mind

1:06:39 ↗ um

1:06:40 ↗ so

1:06:41 ↗ gene can you i'm not seeing any other

1:06:43 ↗ comments or questions um could you take

1:06:45 ↗ us through a vote on the amendment to

1:06:48 ↗ uh

1:06:49 ↗ recommend only a next review in 2024

1:06:54 ↗ sure

1:06:56 ↗ so on the amendment that

1:06:58 ↗ jamie just stated i'll take the roll

1:06:59 ↗ call boat

1:07:00 ↗ danny madden

1:07:02 ↗ hey

1:07:04 ↗ i'm sorry could you just say that again

1:07:07 ↗ uh nay

1:07:08 ↗ thank you dominic williams

1:07:12 ↗ yay yes

1:07:15 ↗ rishi hazra

1:07:18 ↗ yes

1:07:19 ↗ cameron fisher

1:07:21 ↗ nay

1:07:23 ↗ bara labiko

1:07:26 ↗ no dan hintz

1:07:29 ↗ nay

1:07:32 ↗ and nukem

1:07:36 ↗ yay

1:07:38 ↗ jamie finch

1:07:41 ↗ yay

1:07:43 ↗ tom anderson

1:07:44 ↗ yay

1:07:47 ↗ and the amendment passes 5'4

1:07:52 ↗ thank you gene and so i believe now

1:07:55 ↗ we're back to

1:07:56 ↗ discussing this as an overall motion

1:08:00 ↗ where the motion is to

1:08:02 ↗ uh recommend only and recommend a review

1:08:05 ↗ in 2024 is that correct

1:08:11 ↗ any further comments now that that

1:08:13 ↗ amendment has been added to the overall

1:08:15 ↗ motion

1:08:20 ↗ so just so i'm straight on this the

1:08:22 ↗ motion is that we will do a first review

1:08:24 ↗ in 2024 and then it's a five-year period

1:08:27 ↗ after that

1:08:33 ↗ i believe so but

1:08:35 ↗ yeah

1:08:36 ↗ okay thank you

1:08:45 ↗ all right well i'm not seeing any

1:08:46 ↗ comments or questions so gene could you

1:08:47 ↗ take us through a vote on the emotion

1:08:52 ↗ yes

1:08:53 ↗ danny madden

1:08:56 ↗ yay

1:08:58 ↗ dominick williams

1:09:00 ↗ yay

1:09:02 ↗ rishi hazra

1:09:04 ↗ gay

1:09:06 ↗ cameron fisher

1:09:08 ↗ nay

1:09:10 ↗ lara labiko

1:09:12 ↗ nay

1:09:14 ↗ dan hints

1:09:16 ↗ nay

1:09:18 ↗ and newcomb

1:09:23 ↗ yay

1:09:24 ↗ jamie finch

1:09:30 ↗ tom anderson

1:09:32 ↗ yay

1:09:36 ↗ motion passes

1:09:42 ↗ thank you gene um

1:09:45 ↗ now we are back to having the floor open

1:09:47 ↗ for any other motions

1:09:49 ↗ for recommended changes

1:10:15 ↗ so now is when we um give you our

1:10:18 ↗ amendments

1:10:21 ↗ yes this would be a motion you would

1:10:23 ↗ make a motion

1:10:25 ↗ for a recommended change to the climate

1:10:28 ↗ action plan and if we have a list of

1:10:31 ↗ tiny little things should we do it all

1:10:33 ↗ at once or just um one thing at a time

1:10:38 ↗ just like word changes

1:10:43 ↗ well

1:10:44 ↗ that's to a certain extent up to you

1:10:47 ↗ um

1:10:48 ↗ i don't know if megan or gene have any

1:10:50 ↗ comments on that but i think it's

1:10:52 ↗ probably best done as individual

1:10:55 ↗ if they're distinct individual

1:11:05 ↗ this is meg and i think that that's

1:11:06 ↗ probably

1:11:08 ↗ how it would need to be on each word

1:11:29 ↗ i will um i have a motion

1:11:32 ↗ the one that i uh jumped the starting

1:11:34 ↗ gun on a little bit earlier um

1:11:36 ↗ my emotion is that i move that an action

1:11:39 ↗ is added that we create a highly visible

1:11:41 ↗ portion of the city's website dedicated

1:11:43 ↗ to climate action to help the public

1:11:44 ↗ access information in the plan how they

1:11:46 ↗ can get involved and other recommended

1:11:48 ↗ resources these materials are to be

1:11:51 ↗ updated on a regular basis i have a

1:11:52 ↗ second from laura so now

1:11:55 ↗ comments related to this motion

1:11:58 ↗ can be made

1:12:12 ↗ yes this is rishi speaking um i like the

1:12:14 ↗ idea and i think we should be doing this

1:12:16 ↗ but i think we should place like a date

1:12:18 ↗ um on which the city should have it done

1:12:20 ↗ by or at least you know like publicly

1:12:23 ↗ accessible when it's actually like you

1:12:25 ↗ know published on the website

1:12:36 ↗ this is jamie speaking

1:12:38 ↗ just to add a little bit of color on why

1:12:40 ↗ i made this motion i feel like it's that

1:12:42 ↗ is really important that the public

1:12:44 ↗ doesn't have to search across different

1:12:46 ↗ parts of the city's website to find

1:12:49 ↗ resources and information on how they

1:12:52 ↗ can get involved and how to learn about

1:12:53 ↗ the action plan so i have a feeling this

1:12:55 ↗ might be something that the city would

1:12:57 ↗ do anyways but i do think it's really

1:12:58 ↗ important that we dictate that there's

1:13:00 ↗ going to be a section that's very

1:13:02 ↗ visible and easy for the public to

1:13:03 ↗ access

1:13:04 ↗ related to resources

1:13:06 ↗ on the climate action plan and how they

1:13:08 ↗ can get involved

1:13:20 ↗ any other comments or questions on

1:13:23 ↗ the motion

1:13:28 ↗ um gene could you take us through a vote

1:13:30 ↗ on this motion

1:13:33 ↗ annie madden

1:13:35 ↗ yay

1:13:37 ↗ dominic williams

1:13:38 ↗ yay

1:13:40 ↗ rishi hazra

1:13:42 ↗ yay

1:13:44 ↗ cameron fisher

1:13:45 ↗ yay

1:13:47 ↗ lara labico

1:13:49 ↗ yay

1:13:50 ↗ dan hintz

1:13:53 ↗ and nickim

1:13:55 ↗ yay

1:13:57 ↗ jamie finch

1:14:05 ↗ motion passes nine zero

1:14:15 ↗ thank you gene um

1:14:17 ↗ and i see that you

1:14:20 ↗ move to make an amendment i just want to

1:14:22 ↗ make sure that is that are you making

1:14:25 ↗ an amendment like a motion to amend the

1:14:28 ↗ climate action plan

1:14:32 ↗ is that correct or are you moving to

1:14:34 ↗ make an amendment so the motion that

1:14:36 ↗ just passed

1:14:38 ↗ oh sorry the climate action plan okay

1:14:41 ↗ great go ahead

1:14:44 ↗ i move um that on page 52 partnerships

1:14:49 ↗ we add king county forestry program and

1:14:51 ↗ water and land resources division

1:14:57 ↗ and

1:14:58 ↗ if you want to know some of my reasoning

1:14:59 ↗ is because

1:15:02 ↗ it's my experience that the king county

1:15:05 ↗ forestry program

1:15:08 ↗ is the most knowledgeable at this

1:15:10 ↗ present time about how to create healthy

1:15:12 ↗ forests how to how to um

1:15:16 ↗ and they've got pilot projects on

1:15:18 ↗ climate resistant forests they've got a

1:15:20 ↗ lot of science-based stuff that they're

1:15:21 ↗ working on they have scientists on their

1:15:23 ↗ team

1:15:25 ↗ and i think they would be

1:15:27 ↗ a really

1:15:28 ↗ good resource that the city-based squad

1:15:32 ↗ would benefit from collaborating with

1:15:36 ↗ and they weren't on the

1:15:38 ↗ any of the partnerships

1:15:45 ↗ and then as far as the um land and

1:15:48 ↗ resource divisions

1:15:50 ↗ the way i saw it the forestry program is

1:15:53 ↗ part of the land and resource divisions

1:15:54 ↗ and it looked like the land and resource

1:15:56 ↗ divisions had a lot of um

1:15:58 ↗ good resources as well that

1:16:00 ↗ the city of issaquah could partner up

1:16:02 ↗ with

1:16:03 ↗ and it's also my experience the king

1:16:05 ↗ county

1:16:06 ↗ loves to partner and they're really um

1:16:09 ↗ accessible

1:16:10 ↗ so we

1:16:12 ↗ could take advantage of that

1:16:15 ↗ free resource

1:16:20 ↗ thank you and i'm not seeing a second

1:16:25 ↗ rishi has requested a written motion

1:17:04 ↗ do we have any one to second anne's

1:17:06 ↗ motion

1:17:07 ↗ if not

1:17:08 ↗ we'll need to move on to the next or

1:17:10 ↗ reopen the floor

1:17:14 ↗ not seeing a second i think we will need

1:17:17 ↗ to move on and open open the floor for

1:17:19 ↗ any additional motions

1:18:07 ↗ this is jamie um

1:18:10 ↗ i move that we add to the other feedback

1:18:12 ↗ so just be clear there's a there's

1:18:14 ↗ recommended action and then there's

1:18:15 ↗ other feedback that's not specific to

1:18:17 ↗ recommended changes and

1:18:19 ↗ i would move that in that other feedback

1:18:21 ↗ section

1:18:22 ↗ um

1:18:24 ↗ that actions specific to increasing tree

1:18:26 ↗ canopy and the icap and the draft title

1:18:29 ↗ 18 updates seem insufficient to achieve

1:18:31 ↗ the desired 55 tree canopy goal

1:18:43 ↗ is there a specific page you're

1:18:45 ↗ referencing jamie

1:18:48 ↗ this would this is

1:18:50 ↗ overarching but this would be added to

1:18:53 ↗ the when we provide

1:18:56 ↗ our recommendation to

1:18:58 ↗ the council there's

1:19:00 ↗ the recommended changes as well as other

1:19:02 ↗ feedback that the board is providing

1:19:05 ↗ um

1:19:06 ↗ so i can provide more comment but i

1:19:08 ↗ don't want to to go too far on

1:19:11 ↗ why i think that's necessary but

1:19:24 ↗ all right well i'm not seeing a second

1:19:26 ↗ on that so i think we can reopen the

1:19:28 ↗ floor to any other motions

1:20:00 ↗ and you had a motion

1:20:07 ↗ go ahead and make your motion

1:20:10 ↗ okay

1:20:11 ↗ i move to amend in the buildings and

1:20:14 ↗ energy section page 31 1.3 change the

1:20:18 ↗ word evaluate to strengthen

1:20:21 ↗ so it would read

1:20:24 ↗ partner with regional collaborations

1:20:27 ↗ to evaluate

1:20:30 ↗ rather than that evaluate we would put

1:20:31 ↗ strength in

1:20:32 ↗ to strengthen

1:20:37 ↗ evaluate strengthening city energy

1:20:40 ↗ wait a minute is i might have put the

1:20:41 ↗ wrong one in there

1:20:45 ↗ evaluate strengthening

1:20:50 ↗ to promote that would be promote

1:20:53 ↗ partner with regional collaboration

1:20:57 ↗ collaborations to promote strengthening

1:21:00 ↗ city

1:21:00 ↗ energy efficiency codes to reflect best

1:21:03 ↗ practices

1:21:04 ↗ and meet established targets

1:21:14 ↗ it might be helpful to see that in

1:21:16 ↗ context

1:21:18 ↗ okay let me see if i can copy it

1:21:26 ↗ you look again let's see

1:21:29 ↗ one point one

1:22:02 ↗ okay so this is

1:22:23 ↗ there you go so um where it says promote

1:22:26 ↗ that is currently evaluated

1:22:39 ↗ this is megan i was trying to help by

1:22:41 ↗ putting up on the screen did you say it

1:22:43 ↗ was page 31

1:22:46 ↗ yep page 31 1.3

1:22:52 ↗ it's something that ann fletcher

1:22:54 ↗ suggested too so partner with regional

1:22:56 ↗ collaborations to promote strengthening

1:22:58 ↗ city

1:22:59 ↗ energy efficiency

1:23:00 ↗ codes to reflect best practices and meet

1:23:03 ↗ established targets

1:23:13 ↗ megan i don't know if it's appropriate

1:23:14 ↗ for you to say why evaluate was the word

1:23:17 ↗ chosen maybe you know

1:23:24 ↗ this is megan are we into the discussion

1:23:27 ↗ for it

1:23:28 ↗ i'm not sure

1:23:32 ↗ we do have a second from dan so

1:23:34 ↗ yes we are

1:23:37 ↗ great

1:23:41 ↗ um one second here

1:23:55 ↗ uh this is megan

1:23:56 ↗ looking at it now

1:23:58 ↗ i think it's just that

1:24:00 ↗ um

1:24:01 ↗ the overall energy codes out there i

1:24:03 ↗ think we've heard that washington has

1:24:06 ↗ strong very strong energy codes um so i

1:24:09 ↗ think the overall thought was that we

1:24:10 ↗ would evaluate what those are

1:24:13 ↗ um

1:24:15 ↗ in order to

1:24:17 ↗ decide whether or not to

1:24:20 ↗ to add them in

1:24:28 ↗ thank you megan any com other comments

1:24:30 ↗ or questions related to anne's motion

1:24:37 ↗ don you have a question

1:24:40 ↗ yeah i i just question the overall

1:24:43 ↗ strategy of this group word smithing a

1:24:45 ↗ document like this

1:24:47 ↗ these are strategies these are not

1:24:49 ↗ policies they're not ordinances they're

1:24:51 ↗ not things that are going to go into law

1:24:53 ↗ or

1:24:56 ↗ they're just they're concepts so

1:24:59 ↗ i mean we can go through this in

1:25:00 ↗ wordsmith all we want but in my

1:25:01 ↗ understanding is this is a dynamic

1:25:03 ↗ document we'll get a chance to critique

1:25:06 ↗ it annually

1:25:08 ↗ um so i don't know if

1:25:10 ↗ i guess the question more for

1:25:12 ↗ process is this the right

1:25:14 ↗ way to do this

1:25:15 ↗ or is it just simply providing megan

1:25:18 ↗ with comments saying i recommend you

1:25:21 ↗ change this word to that word and

1:25:23 ↗ whatnot

1:25:33 ↗ it's a good question it'd be easier just

1:25:35 ↗ to send it to megan

1:25:41 ↗ megan or jean do you

1:25:44 ↗ have any input on that

1:25:47 ↗ this is megan um

1:25:53 ↗ i think that

1:25:55 ↗ i think we wouldn't want to go through

1:25:57 ↗ and

1:25:58 ↗ um

1:26:00 ↗ and wordsmith the entire thing um i

1:26:03 ↗ think if there are kind of key word

1:26:06 ↗ changes i i might call this a keyword

1:26:08 ↗ change

1:26:10 ↗ and i think we did hear

1:26:13 ↗ in some of the previous meetings there

1:26:14 ↗ was a desire to strengthen some of the

1:26:16 ↗ language in this i see this as being an

1:26:19 ↗ example of that

1:26:22 ↗ i don't think we'd want to go through

1:26:24 ↗ for tons of actions to to do it but

1:26:26 ↗ there might be a couple key actions

1:26:28 ↗ where the board feels really strongly

1:26:30 ↗ about something

1:26:31 ↗ and this could be one of those examples

1:26:35 ↗ that's my overall thought so again this

1:26:37 ↗ is this would be what is going to

1:26:38 ↗ counsel for their um for their

1:26:41 ↗ consideration as well as what the city

1:26:43 ↗ may or may not change kind of in that

1:26:45 ↗ time so based off of what we're hearing

1:26:47 ↗ today we might go ahead and make some

1:26:49 ↗ changes

1:26:51 ↗ and then let council know we made them

1:26:52 ↗ based on the environmental board input

1:26:54 ↗ so

1:26:55 ↗ i would leave it up to you guys i think

1:26:57 ↗ to balance the exact level of detail

1:27:00 ↗ but there might be a few keyword changes

1:27:02 ↗ that the board would want

1:27:12 ↗ thank you

1:27:13 ↗ megan um i

1:27:15 ↗ do think gene may be having some

1:27:17 ↗ connection issues

1:27:19 ↗ so

1:27:21 ↗ um

1:27:23 ↗ like you can't join as a panelist from

1:27:25 ↗ the phone um

1:27:26 ↗ i am not seeing any other questions or

1:27:31 ↗ comments

1:27:32 ↗ gene

1:27:33 ↗ are you able to

1:27:35 ↗ take a vote from

1:27:37 ↗ the phone or or is that something we

1:27:39 ↗ should have megan do

1:27:41 ↗ i don't think he is gonna be well i saw

1:27:44 ↗ him on mute

1:27:46 ↗ let's see

1:27:48 ↗ gene can we hear you

1:27:50 ↗ i'm trying to talk can you hear me no we

1:27:52 ↗ can

1:27:54 ↗ so

1:27:55 ↗ yes i can take a vote unfortunately i

1:27:56 ↗ wasn't uh

1:27:58 ↗ able to actually hear the uh the

1:28:01 ↗ conversation about the motion so i might

1:28:03 ↗ just need somebody to point me towards

1:28:05 ↗ the uh the current motion being

1:28:07 ↗ considered

1:28:10 ↗ the current motion being considered is

1:28:14 ↗ well

1:28:14 ↗ and they

1:28:16 ↗ partner with it's it's amending a

1:28:18 ↗ certain section

1:28:20 ↗ of the

1:28:21 ↗ um

1:28:23 ↗ building and energy um do you want to

1:28:28 ↗ back to your original motion where it

1:28:29 ↗ was

1:28:30 ↗ just trying to figure out the easiest

1:28:32 ↗ way to get this into a motion form um

1:28:43 ↗ oh i believe it's to update the

1:28:46 ↗ sentence that she's indicated um and and

1:28:49 ↗ correct me if i'm wrong but it's to

1:28:51 ↗ change the word promote

1:28:52 ↗ or evaluate to promote is that the

1:28:54 ↗ change

1:29:02 ↗ so

1:29:04 ↗ i think

1:29:05 ↗ what is better than that is what i just

1:29:08 ↗ put in the chat chat just take out

1:29:10 ↗ promote and evaluate and just have the

1:29:12 ↗ word strengthen strength and

1:29:14 ↗ strengthening was already there so we

1:29:16 ↗ partner with regional collaborations

1:29:20 ↗ to strengthen city energy efficiency

1:29:22 ↗ codes to reflect best practices and meet

1:29:24 ↗ established targets

1:29:28 ↗ okay so this would be an amendment to

1:29:30 ↗ your original motion so i do think we

1:29:32 ↗ would need to go through that process

1:29:34 ↗ again and see if anyone seconded that

1:29:38 ↗ um

1:29:39 ↗ that motion when we have a second from

1:29:41 ↗ donald mcwilliams so

1:29:43 ↗ comments and questions related to anne's

1:29:46 ↗ amendment

1:29:47 ↗ to her motion

1:30:04 ↗ not seeing any so uh gene or can you

1:30:07 ↗ take us through a vote on

1:30:09 ↗ this on this amendment to anne's motion

1:30:14 ↗ yes so roll call vote for this amendment

1:30:17 ↗ starting with danny madden

1:30:19 ↗ yay

1:30:21 ↗ dominic williams

1:30:23 ↗ yay

1:30:25 ↗ rishi hazra

1:30:27 ↗ jay

1:30:29 ↗ cameron fisher yay

1:30:33 ↗ laura labico

1:30:35 ↗ yay

1:30:37 ↗ dan hintz

1:30:39 ↗ yay

1:30:41 ↗ and newcomb

1:30:43 ↗ yay

1:30:46 ↗ jamie finch

1:30:48 ↗ yay

1:30:50 ↗ and tom anderson

1:30:52 ↗ yay

1:30:54 ↗ the amendment passes 9-0

1:30:59 ↗ thank you gene and so now we're back to

1:31:01 ↗ the original motion which has now been

1:31:03 ↗ amended with anne's language

1:31:06 ↗ here um that that was just passed in the

1:31:08 ↗ amendment

1:31:09 ↗ any additional discussion comments or

1:31:12 ↗ questions related to that

1:31:14 ↗ notice the motion

1:31:26 ↗ not seeing any

1:31:29 ↗ gene could you take us through a vote on

1:31:31 ↗ this motion

1:31:33 ↗ sure

1:31:34 ↗ starting with danny madden

1:31:37 ↗ yay

1:31:39 ↗ dominic williams

1:31:42 ↗ what is the motion are we motioning to

1:31:45 ↗ recommend moving forward with this with

1:31:47 ↗ the amended changes

1:31:51 ↗ then yay

1:31:56 ↗ and yes don so basically it was the

1:31:58 ↗ amended language that was just agreed

1:31:59 ↗ upon would be kind of substituted in to

1:32:02 ↗ the the original motion

1:32:07 ↗ uh so next up will be rishi hasbro

1:32:24 ↗ and newcomb

1:32:26 ↗ yay

1:32:28 ↗ jamie finch

1:32:30 ↗ yeah

1:32:32 ↗ tom anderson

1:32:34 ↗ jay

1:32:36 ↗ motion passes nine zero

1:32:40 ↗ thank you gene and the floor is back

1:32:42 ↗ open for any other

1:32:44 ↗ motions

1:33:21 ↗ jamie it looks like laura put something

1:33:23 ↗ in there

1:33:30 ↗ thank you don sorry to see that um

1:33:34 ↗ laura you have a motion

1:33:36 ↗ yeah i just want to make a motion for

1:33:38 ↗ other feedback because i think it's

1:33:40 ↗ important um

1:33:42 ↗ to make this actionable and so i just

1:33:45 ↗ want to motion that we recommend

1:33:47 ↗ prioritizing creating with the website a

1:33:49 ↗ simple climate dashboard

1:33:51 ↗ to clearly express current um climate

1:33:54 ↗ status and our targets so just something

1:33:56 ↗ to express where we are against our

1:33:58 ↗ major targets

1:34:02 ↗ i think it's important to make it

1:34:03 ↗ quantifiable otherwise the website could

1:34:05 ↗ go on and just be too much information

1:34:09 ↗ you are and we do have a second so if

1:34:11 ↗ there's comments or questions related to

1:34:13 ↗ the um

1:34:14 ↗ the motion um

1:34:24 ↗ danny you have a comment

1:34:26 ↗ um yeah like i i think like having a

1:34:29 ↗ place um on the website where all of

1:34:31 ↗ this information is accessible is super

1:34:33 ↗ important i know we agreed on that

1:34:34 ↗ earlier um i was just wondering from

1:34:36 ↗ like a staff level um as far as like

1:34:40 ↗ developing this web page and like

1:34:42 ↗ figuring out what kind of content and

1:34:44 ↗ resources would be on it specifically

1:34:46 ↗ like

1:34:47 ↗ what the process would kind of look for

1:34:49 ↗ that or if the environmental board would

1:34:51 ↗ be able to

1:34:52 ↗ give um some guidance or recommendations

1:34:55 ↗ as far as like what resources are

1:34:58 ↗ um put on that

1:35:00 ↗ dashboard or like how we would um like

1:35:03 ↗ decide what to put on there basically

1:35:10 ↗ this is megan is that a question for me

1:35:12 ↗ uh yeah yeah sorry yes

1:35:15 ↗ um

1:35:16 ↗ yeah so i think this sounds um a little

1:35:19 ↗ similar to

1:35:20 ↗ what jamie was recommending i think and

1:35:23 ↗ having kind of a place where it's

1:35:25 ↗ publicly accessible information this is

1:35:28 ↗ specifically asking for kind of the

1:35:30 ↗ updates on status and targets

1:35:34 ↗ i guess i see this happening maybe in in

1:35:37 ↗ two ways so we have that annual report

1:35:39 ↗ that would be going to city council and

1:35:41 ↗ that would be

1:35:42 ↗ providing an update on the the plan and

1:35:45 ↗ the status of where we are so i could

1:35:47 ↗ see that being rolled into an update

1:35:49 ↗ that then could live on that website

1:35:51 ↗ or having that that report live there

1:35:54 ↗ um

1:35:55 ↗ i think that that's one that's one way i

1:35:57 ↗ think if the board was interested in

1:35:59 ↗ having a

1:36:01 ↗ kind of a more dynamic graphic visual

1:36:04 ↗ type of dashboard um you know i think

1:36:06 ↗ that there's a lot of services out there

1:36:08 ↗ um i've seen some companies that offer

1:36:10 ↗ that sort of

1:36:12 ↗ thing so that might be more of a budget

1:36:14 ↗ request piece

1:36:16 ↗ so that could be something that's

1:36:17 ↗ discussed with the new sustainability

1:36:18 ↗ manager and um and could be put into

1:36:22 ↗ you know has to be put into a budget so

1:36:24 ↗ i think there's kind of different levels

1:36:26 ↗ of effort there so

1:36:28 ↗ i think that could be a future

1:36:29 ↗ conversation of exactly which which way

1:36:32 ↗ to go

1:36:40 ↗ don you had a comment

1:36:42 ↗ i guess it's more of a clarification

1:36:43 ↗ from laura you mentioned the term

1:36:45 ↗ dashboard when i hear dashboard that

1:36:48 ↗ means to me that it's a uh

1:36:50 ↗ something like a power bi program where

1:36:52 ↗ it's collecting data and pushing it up

1:36:54 ↗ on a real-time basis are you looking for

1:36:56 ↗ just more of like an annual update

1:37:01 ↗ i would say something in between i don't

1:37:02 ↗ i don't think it's necessary to have

1:37:04 ↗ live data i mean that's kind of

1:37:06 ↗ ridiculous because we all know like you

1:37:07 ↗ can't quantify all of that so quickly

1:37:09 ↗ but it needs to be um

1:37:12 ↗ dynamic so yeah i don't think it has it

1:37:14 ↗ can be updated as

1:37:17 ↗ it goes but at least something

1:37:19 ↗ that's um

1:37:20 ↗ i'm more interested in yeah just saying

1:37:22 ↗ like because you know if you look right

1:37:23 ↗ now we have data from a long time ago

1:37:25 ↗ and it's very deep in the website and

1:37:27 ↗ if the world is literally burning i

1:37:29 ↗ think it's important that it's easy to

1:37:30 ↗ see this on the front page if we're

1:37:32 ↗ serious about it we need to make it on

1:37:34 ↗ you know an easy little dashboard that

1:37:36 ↗ says like

1:37:37 ↗ our goals are

1:37:38 ↗ you know these 10 things here's what

1:37:40 ↗ they are just something simple

1:37:42 ↗ yeah i mean we can get into it later but

1:37:43 ↗ yeah not not like a super dynamic fancy

1:37:46 ↗ thing at this point just something that

1:37:48 ↗ communicates our goals

1:37:50 ↗ all right thank you

1:37:52 ↗ please give you a comment

1:37:59 ↗ sorry this is rishi speaking i was

1:38:01 ↗ wondering whether

1:38:02 ↗ we could um and i'm asking laura if you

1:38:05 ↗ could make like a friendly amendment to

1:38:06 ↗ the motion so that it includes what you

1:38:08 ↗ just said which is like

1:38:09 ↗ uh in part of the other feedback to say

1:38:12 ↗ like okay these are our goals

1:38:14 ↗ and then

1:38:14 ↗ we want to show where we're at right now

1:38:17 ↗ maybe just to clarify that in the motion

1:38:18 ↗ itself

1:38:24 ↗ yeah and to be clear we would need to do

1:38:26 ↗ go through an amendment process

1:38:29 ↗ if i appreciate you proposing an

1:38:31 ↗ amendment to

1:38:33 ↗ lara's

1:38:34 ↗ um

1:38:35 ↗ i could but i'm wondering whether we

1:38:36 ↗ could do it through a friendly amendment

1:38:38 ↗ instead

1:38:39 ↗ unfortunately we can't

1:38:40 ↗ it has to go through the

1:38:42 ↗ the same process that we've been using

1:38:46 ↗ okay

1:38:47 ↗ okay yeah i'll make an

1:38:49 ↗ amendment to the motion

1:38:59 ↗ and it could we either you or laura

1:39:03 ↗ provide the specific

1:39:05 ↗ language that you would you would like

1:39:07 ↗ with this amendment

1:39:14 ↗ um actually then uh laura if you'd like

1:39:16 ↗ to take that amendment and you can make

1:39:17 ↗ that amendment i think that'd be best uh

1:39:19 ↗ otherwise

1:39:20 ↗ um

1:39:21 ↗ i don't think i'll make the amendment

1:39:26 ↗ yeah i'm looking at the words and um

1:39:28 ↗ i'm not sure what i would change enough

1:39:30 ↗ to express it um i can look at it for a

1:39:32 ↗ second but

1:39:38 ↗ any other comments or questions

1:39:41 ↗ on lara's

1:39:42 ↗ motion

1:39:46 ↗ all right gene could you take us through

1:39:48 ↗ a vote

1:39:53 ↗ yes uh starting with danny madden

1:39:56 ↗ hey

1:39:59 ↗ don mcwilliams

1:40:01 ↗ yay

1:40:03 ↗ rishi hazrat

1:40:06 ↗ yay cameron fisher

1:40:09 ↗ yay

1:40:11 ↗ lara lepico

1:40:13 ↗ yay

1:40:15 ↗ dan hintz

1:40:17 ↗ yay

1:40:19 ↗ and newcomb

1:40:21 ↗ yay

1:40:23 ↗ jamie finch

1:40:25 ↗ yay

1:40:26 ↗ tom anderson

1:40:28 ↗ jay

1:40:30 ↗ motion passes 9-0

1:40:35 ↗ thank you jean the floor is back open

1:40:37 ↗ for any additional motions

1:40:55 ↗ and you have a motion

1:40:59 ↗ yeah so it's another changing the word

1:41:03 ↗ evaluate so

1:41:05 ↗ right now it reads evaluate community

1:41:07 ↗ solar projects and i would like to

1:41:08 ↗ change it to promote community solar

1:41:11 ↗ projects including partnership

1:41:13 ↗ opportunities such as the puget sound

1:41:15 ↗ energy

1:41:19 ↗ we have a second for that motion

1:41:27 ↗ and it is under buildings and energy

1:41:30 ↗ under on page 32.

1:41:34 ↗ all right i am not seeing a second so

1:41:39 ↗ i think we may need to move

1:41:41 ↗ on and reopen the floor

1:41:46 ↗ yeah we'll uh

1:41:47 ↗ move on if

1:41:49 ↗ any additional motions

1:42:15 ↗ this is jamie um i move that we

1:42:18 ↗ recommend the icap the maybe i should

1:42:20 ↗ spell that out

1:42:22 ↗ but i move that we recommend the icap

1:42:24 ↗ plan with the recommended changes

1:42:32 ↗ it looks like we have a second so if

1:42:33 ↗ there's comments or questions related to

1:42:36 ↗ this motion

1:42:38 ↗ please indicate in the chat

1:42:43 ↗ can we

1:42:44 ↗ add

1:42:45 ↗ i mean i have one more thing i wanted to

1:42:47 ↗ add

1:42:48 ↗ but um

1:42:50 ↗ if we're out of time

1:42:53 ↗ i was going to add another amendment

1:42:59 ↗ yeah and if you would like to make an

1:43:01 ↗ amendment

1:43:02 ↗ you can

1:43:04 ↗ please indicate that

1:43:06 ↗ please uh

1:43:07 ↗ including the trap

1:44:12 ↗ for the exact wording

1:44:13 ↗ but in natural

1:44:15 ↗ systems and water resources 1.1 to 1.3 i

1:44:20 ↗ would like to

1:44:21 ↗ suggest that we add king county forest

1:44:24 ↗ so there's partners at the end people

1:44:26 ↗ who we would collaborate with

1:44:28 ↗ and i would like to add king county

1:44:30 ↗ forestry program collaboration on forest

1:44:33 ↗ health climate change resilience and

1:44:35 ↗ carbon sequestration

1:44:39 ↗ thank you anne is there a second for

1:44:42 ↗ anne's amendment

1:44:54 ↗ or if there's no seconds on that um i

1:44:56 ↗ could take out all the verbiage there

1:45:00 ↗ and just have um

1:45:03 ↗ add king county forest

1:45:05 ↗ forestry program

1:45:09 ↗ hang on

1:45:16 ↗ so 1.1 to 1.3 in the partners section

1:45:20 ↗ um

1:45:23 ↗ it would be more powerful if we had

1:45:26 ↗ more partners

1:45:28 ↗ and especially partners that are so wise

1:45:30 ↗ and full of information

1:45:32 ↗ and have done a lot of studying and that

1:45:35 ↗ are easy to collaborate with

1:45:37 ↗ and um so

1:45:39 ↗ another really good partner would be the

1:45:41 ↗ king county forestry program

1:45:44 ↗ when we're

1:45:45 ↗ [Music]

1:45:47 ↗ when um because

1:45:49 ↗ it's the natural systems and water

1:45:52 ↗ resources

1:45:53 ↗ so what we're talking about in there is

1:45:56 ↗ um

1:45:57 ↗ forests um forest health and forest um

1:46:02 ↗ tree canopy

1:46:04 ↗ and carbon sequestration

1:46:07 ↗ so

1:46:09 ↗ so it makes a lot of sense

1:46:14 ↗ thank you ann do we have any seconds for

1:46:17 ↗ this updated amendment

1:46:29 ↗ can we have a discussion on it i'm just

1:46:31 ↗ curious as to why people are hesitant to

1:46:33 ↗ add um the king county forest program

1:46:37 ↗ because we do have a

1:46:38 ↗ second um

1:46:40 ↗ so

1:46:42 ↗ uh it looks like we have um don do you

1:46:45 ↗ wanna

1:46:47 ↗ you have you had a clarification that

1:46:49 ↗ you're broken to me

1:46:50 ↗ yeah i think

1:46:52 ↗ yeah i think ann i think the group

1:46:53 ↗ you're talking about is the water land

1:46:55 ↗ and resource division of king county is

1:46:57 ↗ that correct if we're going to add this

1:46:59 ↗ we need to get the name correct well

1:47:01 ↗ they are under

1:47:02 ↗ the forest the king county forestry

1:47:04 ↗ program is under

1:47:06 ↗ the the water

1:47:09 ↗ the land and water program

1:47:11 ↗ it's the water land and resource

1:47:13 ↗ division

1:47:14 ↗ yeah and under that there's the um the

1:47:17 ↗ forestry program to be specific

1:47:20 ↗ um

1:47:21 ↗ they are the ones that we we collaborate

1:47:23 ↗ with now through the isquad straws club

1:47:26 ↗ and um

1:47:27 ↗ it would be really easy for us to

1:47:29 ↗ collaborate with

1:47:31 ↗ but if you want to use the larger one

1:47:33 ↗ that works great too because there's a

1:47:35 ↗ lot of people to collaborate with if we

1:47:37 ↗ use the

1:47:38 ↗ larger one

1:47:40 ↗ i would rather see it read the water

1:47:42 ↗ land and resource division because they

1:47:44 ↗ deal with more than forestry they deal

1:47:46 ↗ with storm water and flooding and all

1:47:48 ↗ sorts of other stuff okay sounds good

1:47:52 ↗ so don would you like to make an

1:47:54 ↗ amendment to

1:47:56 ↗ anne's amendment

1:47:59 ↗ if so could you

1:48:01 ↗ well first of all say yes and then

1:48:02 ↗ provide that in the

1:48:04 ↗ updated comment

1:48:06 ↗ yeah let me copy and paste it and change

1:48:08 ↗ the language

1:48:37 ↗ oh this is tom anderson while he's doing

1:48:39 ↗ that i'll just comment on

1:48:41 ↗ finance question about well why why why

1:48:44 ↗ aren't you people talk it out uh it's

1:48:46 ↗ you know i think we actually shouldn't

1:48:48 ↗ really wait until we

1:48:50 ↗ okay i'm sorry we should you should wait

1:48:52 ↗ until we get this in there sorry

1:48:55 ↗ you can definitely indicate in the chat

1:48:57 ↗ once that is but just want to get don's

1:49:00 ↗ john's uh updated amendment in first

1:49:05 ↗ thank you don

1:49:07 ↗ um anything to add beyond just what

1:49:09 ↗ you've written there

1:49:12 ↗ no okay do we have a second for dawn's

1:49:16 ↗ uh amendment

1:49:17 ↗ to anne's amendment

1:49:21 ↗ we have a second from rishi so any

1:49:23 ↗ comments or questions

1:49:25 ↗ i'm happy tom if you want to well it

1:49:27 ↗ looks like

1:49:29 ↗ i want to first go up

1:49:32 ↗ to danny

1:49:33 ↗ you had

1:49:35 ↗ a question a

1:49:37 ↗ question right sorry rishi you were

1:49:38 ↗ actually the first to have a question

1:49:39 ↗ about the original amendment is that

1:49:42 ↗ still a

1:49:43 ↗ active question

1:49:45 ↗ yeah my question was um we're saying

1:49:48 ↗ that we're going to amend it to include

1:49:49 ↗ this as a partner case uh the king

1:49:52 ↗ county forestry program but i'm

1:49:53 ↗ wondering like does that not require

1:49:55 ↗ previous communication with that

1:49:57 ↗ department

1:49:59 ↗ or is this like a recommendation that

1:50:01 ↗ the city

1:50:02 ↗ partners with that forestry program i'm

1:50:04 ↗ a little confused

1:50:12 ↗ this is megan

1:50:14 ↗ i can try to answer that um so overall

1:50:17 ↗ the the partner section in the

1:50:19 ↗ implementation plan

1:50:21 ↗ is various groups that we could partner

1:50:23 ↗ with when we implement the action so

1:50:26 ↗ some we may have talked to already

1:50:29 ↗ some it might be as we're starting to

1:50:31 ↗ develop what that program or policy is

1:50:33 ↗ going to look like we'll start to talk

1:50:35 ↗ to them then

1:50:36 ↗ i think we're really open to

1:50:39 ↗ lots of partnerships um

1:50:42 ↗ and maybe not always the more the

1:50:44 ↗ merrier but

1:50:45 ↗ you know i think

1:50:46 ↗ when when there's resources out there we

1:50:48 ↗ like to use them we like to talk with

1:50:50 ↗ different organizations and we do that

1:50:52 ↗ the partners that are in there now

1:50:53 ↗ aren't going to be the only ones that

1:50:55 ↗ we're going to talk to there might be

1:50:56 ↗ new ones that come down the line so it's

1:50:58 ↗ more of

1:50:59 ↗ i think a guideline to help as we start

1:51:01 ↗ to implement um so i think having one or

1:51:05 ↗ they're not there doesn't say that we

1:51:08 ↗ you know we're definitely going to work

1:51:09 ↗ with them or not work with them i think

1:51:10 ↗ it's really kind of start to be that

1:51:12 ↗ guideline and this is one of those

1:51:13 ↗ places where as we start to look at the

1:51:16 ↗ plan annually and look at the

1:51:17 ↗ implementation plan i think this would

1:51:19 ↗ be a great

1:51:20 ↗ um place where uh board members can

1:51:22 ↗ bring in resources and say we're gonna

1:51:25 ↗ look at this action to do next year i

1:51:27 ↗ think we should start i see a couple

1:51:28 ↗ partners there i think we can start to

1:51:30 ↗ partner with others

1:51:31 ↗ sorry that's kind of a long-winded

1:51:32 ↗ response but um

1:51:34 ↗ we're definitely open to various

1:51:36 ↗ partnerships

1:51:42 ↗ thank you megan um danny did you have a

1:51:44 ↗ question

1:51:46 ↗ my question was super similar to rishi's

1:51:48 ↗ i think it was already answered i was

1:51:49 ↗ just wondering like what adding this

1:51:51 ↗ partnership would entail but thank you

1:51:52 ↗ megan

1:51:55 ↗ cameron

1:51:59 ↗ cameron fisher yeah i

1:52:01 ↗ think thank you i can't like with danny

1:52:03 ↗ and rachel i'm confused as to why

1:52:06 ↗ we call out one specific group when uh

1:52:08 ↗ megan's just explained that there is

1:52:10 ↗ there's an open door to

1:52:13 ↗ multiple partners throughout the region

1:52:15 ↗ um so

1:52:17 ↗ i suppose it's to ann and don with

1:52:19 ↗ promotion

1:52:20 ↗ why one particular group

1:52:22 ↗ well they have 52 on page 52 there's a

1:52:24 ↗ long list of partners and

1:52:29 ↗ those partners do include k4c and one

1:52:31 ↗ other department from king county but

1:52:33 ↗ didn't have

1:52:35 ↗ this department and this is a really

1:52:36 ↗ good resource as well so i thought it

1:52:38 ↗ would be good to

1:52:40 ↗ add that but that amendment

1:52:43 ↗ got voted down or didn't get seconded

1:52:45 ↗ so this was another amendment that i had

1:52:47 ↗ is very specific and at the end of the

1:52:49 ↗ lines

1:52:50 ↗ on the 1.3 to 1.3

1:52:53 ↗ there's a category for partners

1:52:56 ↗ and i just thought in this area this is

1:52:58 ↗ a specific place where

1:53:01 ↗ those cart partners could be added

1:53:03 ↗ and then if they want to add it to page

1:53:05 ↗ 52 they can

1:53:07 ↗ or i could redo that one

1:53:12 ↗ yeah you bet

1:53:15 ↗ tom i'm sorry i've missed you before

1:53:17 ↗ you're coming

1:53:19 ↗ uh yeah this is time anderson uh yeah i

1:53:21 ↗ didn't read these lists as being this is

1:53:23 ↗ the exclusive list that we're going to

1:53:25 ↗ partner with and no one else so i i mean

1:53:29 ↗ i like i like your idea and conceptually

1:53:32 ↗ sure

1:53:34 ↗ that's a good organization to add but i

1:53:36 ↗ don't feel it's necessary to add

1:53:39 ↗ that it will happen if it's a good thing

1:53:41 ↗ it'll happen anyway but

1:53:44 ↗ that's that's why i wasn't piping up on

1:53:46 ↗ this before it didn't seem necessary to

1:53:49 ↗ add

1:53:50 ↗ uh yet another one in there it's just a

1:53:52 ↗ it's an example the list is a

1:53:55 ↗ starting point just a starting point

1:53:57 ↗ okay thank you

1:53:58 ↗ the reason i would say added in is

1:54:00 ↗ because um

1:54:03 ↗ it helps people it helps guide people so

1:54:06 ↗ this is a guide for people and

1:54:09 ↗ that helps people remember

1:54:11 ↗ oh yeah there's that great resource that

1:54:13 ↗ we can use and that they might not think

1:54:15 ↗ about

1:54:16 ↗ and so that and before i i have

1:54:19 ↗ mentioned to this before like with a

1:54:23 ↗ king county 30-year forest plan and

1:54:27 ↗ that didn't get added so i just thought

1:54:29 ↗ i would try to make the amendment

1:54:36 ↗ all right any it doesn't look like we

1:54:38 ↗ have any other questions or comments

1:54:40 ↗ give that one more second

1:54:43 ↗ um

1:54:45 ↗ all right gene could you take us through

1:54:48 ↗ um a vote on dawn's amendment

1:54:52 ↗ to anne's amendment

1:54:56 ↗ sure

1:54:57 ↗ so starting with danny madden

1:55:00 ↗ yay

1:55:02 ↗ dominic williams

1:55:07 ↗ yay

1:55:09 ↗ rishi hazra

1:55:11 ↗ day

1:55:14 ↗ cameron fisher

1:55:15 ↗ yay

1:55:31 ↗ i'm sorry laura casey again

1:55:34 ↗ uh nay

1:55:36 ↗ thank you

1:55:37 ↗ dan hintz

1:55:39 ↗ yay

1:55:42 ↗ ken nukem

1:55:44 ↗ yay

1:55:46 ↗ jamie finch

1:55:49 ↗ yay

1:55:51 ↗ tom anderson

1:55:52 ↗ yay

1:55:55 ↗ the amendment passes eight one

1:55:59 ↗ thank you gene and so now we are back to

1:56:02 ↗ anne's amendment to which has now been

1:56:05 ↗ amended

1:56:06 ↗ uh with the language that don

1:56:08 ↗ uh provided in his amendment so any

1:56:10 ↗ comments or questions on

1:56:13 ↗ that

1:56:15 ↗ that amendment

1:56:26 ↗ seeing none gene could you take us

1:56:29 ↗ through a vote on um the amendment

1:56:32 ↗ yes

1:56:33 ↗ danny man excuse me danny madden

1:56:36 ↗ yay

1:56:38 ↗ dominic williams

1:56:40 ↗ yay

1:56:42 ↗ appreciate hazrat

1:56:44 ↗ yay

1:56:46 ↗ cameron fisher

1:56:47 ↗ yay

1:56:49 ↗ laura labiko

1:56:52 ↗ nay

1:56:54 ↗ dan hintz yay

1:56:57 ↗ and newcomb

1:56:59 ↗ yay

1:57:02 ↗ jamie finch

1:57:04 ↗ yay

1:57:06 ↗ tom anderson

1:57:08 ↗ yay motion passes hate one

1:57:13 ↗ thank you gene and so now we are back to

1:57:16 ↗ the motion that i made prior to manzan's

1:57:19 ↗ amendment which would uh just as a

1:57:22 ↗ reminder uh was the motion to

1:57:25 ↗ recommend the icap

1:57:28 ↗ with the recommended changes

1:57:31 ↗ any comments

1:57:33 ↗ on that motion comments or questions

1:57:50 ↗ right i think then

1:57:53 ↗ um

1:57:55 ↗ gene can you take us through a vote on

1:57:57 ↗ that motion

1:57:59 ↗ yes starting with danny madden

1:58:01 ↗ okay

1:58:03 ↗ thomas williams

1:58:05 ↗ yay

1:58:07 ↗ rishi hazra

1:58:09 ↗ yay

1:58:11 ↗ cameron fisher yay

1:58:14 ↗ lara lepico

1:58:16 ↗ yay

1:58:18 ↗ dan hintz yay

1:58:21 ↗ and newcomb

1:58:23 ↗ yay

1:58:25 ↗ jamie finch

1:58:27 ↗ yay

1:58:29 ↗ tom anderson

1:58:30 ↗ yay

1:58:33 ↗ motion passes 9-0

1:58:38 ↗ thank you gene and thank you megan for

1:58:41 ↗ all the work that went into this

1:58:43 ↗ um

1:58:44 ↗ i think with that

1:58:45 ↗ uh we should probably do a time check as

1:58:48 ↗ we are at time

1:58:50 ↗ and we have a whole another agenda item

1:58:52 ↗ of the stormwater master plan so

1:58:55 ↗ um

1:58:56 ↗ wanted to get a sense for first of all

1:58:58 ↗ uh maybe it would be helpful from um

1:59:02 ↗ are they still on the call

1:59:08 ↗ i'm not seeing

1:59:09 ↗ this is megan um so they are all still

1:59:12 ↗ on the call

1:59:15 ↗ gene would have the capability to bring

1:59:17 ↗ them up to be panelists

1:59:21 ↗ okay

1:59:22 ↗ oh there we go

1:59:24 ↗ commentary from gary and i think it was

1:59:26 ↗ matt on

1:59:27 ↗ what time extension would be required

1:59:30 ↗ and then

1:59:31 ↗ what whether they're able to do that and

1:59:33 ↗ then secondarily i'll ask the board if

1:59:35 ↗ there's anyone that

1:59:36 ↗ has objections to

1:59:38 ↗ based on what they say

1:59:41 ↗ so gary or matt what's uh

1:59:46 ↗ hi everybody uh

1:59:48 ↗ this is gary uh we we can make anything

1:59:51 ↗ work here for you really very flexible

1:59:53 ↗ uh i could move through this since you

1:59:55 ↗ had the staff report

1:59:57 ↗ rather quickly

1:59:59 ↗ and attempt to get it done within a half

2:00:01 ↗ an hour including questions

2:00:03 ↗ i can move very fast

2:00:05 ↗ but if you really feel you want more

2:00:07 ↗ time to hear this and have a longer

2:00:09 ↗ discussion

2:00:11 ↗ we could bump into next month and we

2:00:13 ↗ would just go to council before uh

2:00:16 ↗ before coming to you which isn't the

2:00:18 ↗ best but i could totally live with that

2:00:20 ↗ so whatever whatever you guys want i'm

2:00:22 ↗ willing to do

2:00:27 ↗ thank you gary um

2:00:31 ↗ i think it might be

2:00:33 ↗ i don't know the exact mechanics of this

2:00:35 ↗ but

2:00:36 ↗ it might be good to do a poll of which

2:00:39 ↗ we would prefer and and actually now

2:00:41 ↗ first before i do that are there any

2:00:44 ↗ i think if there's any objections to us

2:00:45 ↗ continuing that would be a non-starter

2:00:47 ↗ and we need to push out so does anyone

2:00:50 ↗ have on the board have any

2:00:52 ↗ um

2:00:54 ↗ any objection

2:00:58 ↗ dawn get a question

2:01:01 ↗ yeah gary i want to give you guys your

2:01:02 ↗ due credit on this so i want you guys to

2:01:04 ↗ have time to walk us through this and

2:01:06 ↗ answer your questions and hear comments

2:01:09 ↗ when does it go to council is it before

2:01:11 ↗ or after our next board meeting

2:01:13 ↗ it good question don yeah we we go to

2:01:15 ↗ council on uh

2:01:18 ↗ this month on the 20 right before

2:01:20 ↗ thanksgiving uh tuesday for a study

2:01:22 ↗ session

2:01:23 ↗ uh we're going to parks board of next

2:01:26 ↗ week uh evc uh i'm sending a staff

2:01:29 ↗ report next week and then

2:01:31 ↗ planning a policy in december

2:01:34 ↗ so it

2:01:35 ↗ again if uh

2:01:37 ↗ it's fine by me because we'll we'll

2:01:40 ↗ we'll have a few uh board comments

2:01:42 ↗ before the

2:01:44 ↗ city council so it's not life or death

2:01:46 ↗ um

2:01:51 ↗ and this is informational only council's

2:01:53 ↗ not making any decisions on the master

2:01:55 ↗ plan at this point that's correct on it

2:01:57 ↗ seeking exactly what from you folks here

2:02:00 ↗ uh we're just really wanting feedback

2:02:02 ↗ actually on some of the things that uh

2:02:05 ↗ connie talked about today uh early on

2:02:08 ↗ and uh

2:02:09 ↗ we'll be coming back again in february

2:02:11 ↗ or march with some more details on our

2:02:13 ↗ actions so this is going to be around a

2:02:15 ↗ while yet

2:02:18 ↗ okay

2:02:20 ↗ thank you for that question

2:02:24 ↗ thank you gary and don

2:02:26 ↗ um

2:02:28 ↗ okay so we have a comment from laura

2:02:31 ↗ that she needs to sign off i think

2:02:33 ↗ given all of that information and i

2:02:34 ↗ think we actually have a pretty like

2:02:36 ↗ agenda for our december meeting we might

2:02:39 ↗ need to just

2:02:40 ↗ um

2:02:42 ↗ push this off appreciate your

2:02:44 ↗ flexibility gary matt um

2:02:46 ↗ to a meeting in december

2:02:48 ↗ so appreciate the flexibility certainly

2:02:52 ↗ i just would add that jamie that if

2:02:54 ↗ anybody uh you know if they read through

2:02:56 ↗ the staff report and have questions now

2:02:58 ↗ in preparation for next meeting please

2:03:00 ↗ feel free to send those along um again

2:03:03 ↗ don't don't feel obliged but you're more

2:03:05 ↗ than welcome to and i can respond back

2:03:07 ↗ to jamie for you

2:03:11 ↗ great thanks gary matt and appreciate

2:03:13 ↗ you sticking around

2:03:16 ↗ so next i believe

2:03:20 ↗ the next agenda item

2:03:22 ↗ is

2:03:23 ↗ reports

2:03:27 ↗ which i don't know gene do we have any

2:03:29 ↗ do you have any reports

2:03:34 ↗ hi this is gene again uh just a quick

2:03:36 ↗ update on uh the sustainability manager

2:03:39 ↗ hiring

2:03:40 ↗ so an offer was made to a candidate and

2:03:43 ↗ i believe that the uh the canada will be

2:03:46 ↗ starting in the beginning of december uh

2:03:48 ↗ so looking forward to that

2:03:50 ↗ and then in terms of the next board

2:03:52 ↗ meeting

2:03:53 ↗ it was tentatively

2:03:55 ↗ agenda-wise going to be

2:03:57 ↗ just the

2:03:59 ↗ annual report to the city council in

2:04:01 ↗ terms of the the board kind of working

2:04:03 ↗ through that and drafting a report but

2:04:06 ↗ now it looks like we'll be adding a

2:04:07 ↗ storm and surface water master plan to

2:04:10 ↗ the agenda so that will be the december

2:04:12 ↗ 8th meeting

2:04:14 ↗ we should

2:04:15 ↗ have two items on the intent now but

2:04:17 ↗ that concludes the reports

2:04:24 ↗ i didn't just have one additional item

2:04:26 ↗ um related to the community task force

2:04:29 ↗ um just to provide an update on on that

2:04:31 ↗ project which

2:04:32 ↗ our primary focus is on one

2:04:35 ↗ identifying the buckets of projects or

2:04:38 ↗ looking at transportation

2:04:40 ↗ parks

2:04:41 ↗ and facilities and utilities looking at

2:04:43 ↗ those buckets for priorities

2:04:45 ↗ and then

2:04:46 ↗ evaluating other revenue sources that

2:04:48 ↗ might help us fund

2:04:50 ↗ we we

2:04:51 ↗ that's that uh capital improvement plan

2:04:53 ↗ the cip a lot of those needs were not

2:04:56 ↗ funded and so one of the things that

2:04:58 ↗ this task force is also looking at is

2:05:00 ↗ looking at a recommendation on should we

2:05:02 ↗ be evaluating another revenue source

2:05:05 ↗ and that recommendation will go to the

2:05:06 ↗ mayor so just a quick update on where

2:05:09 ↗ that stands um we we've done some

2:05:11 ↗ initial prioritization of buckets and

2:05:15 ↗ there's a little bit of differences

2:05:16 ↗ between some different groups within the

2:05:19 ↗ task force but by far the number one

2:05:22 ↗ priority of buckets was the

2:05:23 ↗ transportation bucket that's not a set

2:05:25 ↗ in stone

2:05:26 ↗ thing by any means but that was just

2:05:28 ↗ what came out of our most recent meeting

2:05:30 ↗ so we'll have more information in the

2:05:32 ↗ coming weeks and months but um that was

2:05:35 ↗ the

2:05:36 ↗ based on a bunch of criteria that we set

2:05:38 ↗ for what we thought the most important

2:05:40 ↗ bucket to focus on would be or the most

2:05:41 ↗ timely bucket to focus on to be um that

2:05:45 ↗ was the bucket that was identified um

2:05:47 ↗ and happy if anyone has questions i can

2:05:49 ↗ provide a lot more detail don't want to

2:05:52 ↗ keep everyone longer than we need to but

2:05:54 ↗ i'll have more information as we get a

2:05:56 ↗ little further through the process uh

2:05:58 ↗ but that was a quick update on that

2:06:01 ↗ and then i think unless anyone else has

2:06:04 ↗ any

2:06:04 ↗ um

2:06:06 ↗ any other business

2:06:08 ↗ um

2:06:09 ↗ which

2:06:10 ↗ this is your chance

2:06:15 ↗ not hearing any then i move that we

2:06:18 ↗ adjourn the meeting thank you everyone

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Motions and votes (7)

Recommend to move forward with the Climate Action Plan with minor changes [to be proposed].

Moved by MCQUILLIAMS · seconded by FINCH

Recommend review of the climate action plan to be every 3 years with the next review scheduled in 2024.

Moved by HAZRA · seconded by MCQUILLAIMS

Recommend an action is added to create a highly visible portion of the City’s website dedicated to Climate Action to help the public access information on the plan, how they can get involved and other recommended resources. These materials are to be updated on a regular basis. .

Moved by FINCH · seconded by LEBEIKO

Carried 9-0

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-13-21 Environmental Board Minutes Page [0000] Amend the wording on Buildings and Energy Action 1.3 to read, “Partner with regional collaborations to evaluate promote strengthening City energy efficiency codes to reflect best practices and meet established targets.”

Moved by NEWCOMB · seconded by HINTZ

Amend the amendment by: Striking “promote strengthening” Inserting “strengthen” AMENDMENT TO THE . The motion before the Board was: Amend the wording under Buildings and Energy, Action 1.3, to read, “Partner with regional collaborations to evaluate promote strengthening strengthen City energy effici…

Moved by NEWCOMB · seconded by HINTZ

Carried 9-0

Add to the “Other Feedback” [section of the Recommendation Report], “Recommend prioritizing creating a simple climate dashboard for the website, in order to clearly express current CAP status and our targets.” .

Moved by LEBEIKO · seconded by FINCH

Carried 9-0

Amend 1.1-1.3, Partners section, to add “King County Forestry Program”.

Moved by NEWCOMB · seconded by MCQUILLIAMS

Carried 9-0