Environmental Board · Wednesday, March 8, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 1, 2023

packet pp.3–4

▶ Watch from 1:59 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 02-01-23 Environmental Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Feb 01, 2023 MINUTES

Minutes of February 16, 2023

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 2:26 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

- Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) feedback: o Identified resources should include long-term maintenance costs of the capital asset. o The board felt that the environmental criteria was not explicit enough and could include some contradictory grading as projects could have a negative

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Title 18 Process Debrief and Response to Letter (D)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.9–19

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 27:26 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

Capital Improvement Plan Criteria and Summit Debrief (D)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.21–31

Topics: Budget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 13, 2023

▶ Watch from 48:46 Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this memo is to summarize the changes made to the project selection criteria for the 2024-2029 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in response to feedback received by City advisory boards and the City Council.

Climate Vulnerability Assessment

Information · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.33–108

Topics: Climate

▶ Watch from 1:10:05 Open packet at p.33 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

5. REPORTS

Sustainable Purchasing Policy

packet pp.109–110

Topics: Climate

Open packet at p.109 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

Municipal Clean Buildings Resolution

packet pp.111–112

Open packet at p.111 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

Earth Month Activities

packet pp.113–114

Open packet at p.113 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Updated Environmental Board Schedule

packet pp.115–118

▶ Watch from 1:31:25 Open packet at p.115 ↗

Staff report:

additional offerings under the Community Energy Efficient Program grant;

2292 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ welcome to the March 8th meeting of the

0:09 ↗ Issaquah environmental board I'm Jamie

0:10 ↗ Lynch and I'll be here to share tonight

0:13 ↗ um due to the hybrid nature of this

0:15 ↗ meeting we will have some members

0:16 ↗ attending in person and some attending

0:18 ↗ uh by computer phone for those attending

0:22 ↗ remotely please

0:24 ↗ um mute and make sure to indicate your

0:27 ↗ desire to speak by race in your hand

0:28 ↗ we'll do our best to see that and and

0:31 ↗ we'll let you know when you're free to

0:33 ↗ speak

0:34 ↗ um for those in person as we usually do

0:37 ↗ please indicate the sovere speed by

0:39 ↗ tipping your name card over

0:41 ↗ um

0:42 ↗ and then we will summarize agreement

0:44 ↗ around any recommendation and set the

0:46 ↗ end of each topic and if there's any to

0:49 ↗ send please let me know

0:51 ↗ um I think with that we can take

0:52 ↗ attendance

0:54 ↗ thank you

0:56 ↗ uh Tommy Anderson here

0:59 ↗ Nancy Davidson

1:02 ↗ gaming Finch here

1:04 ↗ uh routine excuse absence

1:08 ↗ of excused absence Laura Lopez

1:13 ↗ whatever it is on and just connecting to

1:17 ↗ audio and timing Lara we're just doing

1:19 ↗ roll call

1:21 ↗ you want to test your mic

1:27 ↗ you should be able to unmute yourself

1:29 ↗ but let me know if you need help

1:34 ↗ we can come back to Laura

1:37 ↗ um Ashwin monavaran

1:39 ↗ Don McWilliams

1:42 ↗ and Newtown

1:44 ↗ here

1:45 ↗ Janet wall here

1:48 ↗ and Laura will if you want to test your

1:51 ↗ money sorry I can I am here now Wi-Fi

1:53 ↗ problems

1:55 ↗ thank you

1:57 ↗ all right thank you Stacy I think next

1:59 ↗ we have the approval of the minutes

2:02 ↗ um that we had several

2:05 ↗ different

2:07 ↗ um meetings that were included in that

2:09 ↗ including our

2:11 ↗ um

2:12 ↗ minutes from The Joint meeting that some

2:14 ↗ of us attended Stacey did you want to do

2:16 ↗ anything different for that portion or

2:18 ↗ should we handle it the same way no I I

2:23 ↗ got distracted with the tech stuff so I

2:24 ↗ didn't check in what Tisha about the

2:26 ↗ voting on that I think we can do a vote

2:27 ↗ and I'll just record how many

2:30 ↗ um approve those and I can follow with

2:32 ↗ her that council is approved or not

2:34 ↗ so I think now if there's any comments

2:37 ↗ or suggestions to the mix please let me

2:40 ↗ know

2:45 ↗ not seeing any of those minutes are

2:48 ↗ approved as presented

2:51 ↗ um and then with that we didn't move to

2:53 ↗ public comments Stacy do we have anyone

2:55 ↗ online or signed up to speak we do not

2:57 ↗ have any members of the public online or

3:00 ↗ in the room and we have not received any

3:02 ↗ comments in writing

3:04 ↗ well we can move on to our main agenda

3:08 ↗ items

3:09 ↗ um the first one being Title 18 process

3:12 ↗ debrief and response to letter

3:15 ↗ they said you have a super respond great

3:19 ↗ um

3:20 ↗ great well we wanted to take the

3:21 ↗ opportunity as a follow-up to our

3:23 ↗ February 1st meeting and provide back

3:26 ↗ the responses from the community uh

3:28 ↗ planning and development team

3:31 ↗ um and so this is an opportunity for the

3:35 ↗ board to ask a CPD staff if they have

3:38 ↗ any clarification or questions regarding

3:41 ↗ the responses to the American board

3:43 ↗ letter that was submitted to council so

3:46 ↗ we wanted to first start with that

3:48 ↗ um

3:49 ↗ and uh just to remind folks that the

3:52 ↗ environmental board letter was sent to

3:54 ↗ both PPC and the council Council

3:57 ↗ expressed a really great appreciation

4:00 ↗ for the environmental board letter

4:02 ↗ um and didn't request that CBD provide

4:04 ↗ responses to the environmental board so

4:06 ↗ council could review those

4:08 ↗ uh the responses were presented to the

4:11 ↗ council's Planning Development and

4:13 ↗ environmental committee I believe that

4:14 ↗ was that meeting took place last week

4:17 ↗ um so first we will just take some time

4:20 ↗ with a Christian tonight to discuss any

4:23 ↗ clarifications or questions or follow-up

4:25 ↗ that you had to the responses CPT

4:27 ↗ provided

4:29 ↗ um Kristen do you I can pull up the

4:31 ↗ response document as we have it for

4:33 ↗ reference is there anything you wanted

4:34 ↗ to

4:35 ↗ share to get started just about cpd's

4:38 ↗ approaches approach to the responses

4:42 ↗ uh no nothing really to add you know the

4:44 ↗ comments were great and they really did

4:46 ↗ help with the conversation with the pde

4:50 ↗ meeting

4:52 ↗ last week many of them changes have been

4:56 ↗ made they've been made into the most

4:57 ↗ recent draft

4:59 ↗ foreign

5:01 ↗ and so if there's any if there's any any

5:03 ↗ questions or any clarifications on the

5:05 ↗ on these you know let me know

5:08 ↗ um and we can

5:10 ↗ discuss them now so

5:18 ↗ we'll bring those up in case there's any

5:20 ↗ responses

5:24 ↗ Stacey did you wanna

5:26 ↗ how are you thinking about going through

5:27 ↗ this should we just shout out if we have

5:30 ↗ any comments or are we going to move

5:32 ↗ through it in order that was my thought

5:34 ↗ just to raise

5:35 ↗ um if there were particular ones that

5:37 ↗ the board wanted to discuss if the board

5:40 ↗ members haven't yet had a chance to

5:42 ↗ review I could put Krishna on the spot

5:45 ↗ of it see if he wants to talk through

5:46 ↗ them

5:48 ↗ um if he's comfortable doing that

5:51 ↗ foreign

5:56 ↗ [Music]

6:11 ↗ Christian I was looking at these by the

6:13 ↗ first page number so 151 and 152.

6:18 ↗ for the line numbers I guess it should

6:20 ↗ be um yes yes my numbers right

6:26 ↗ um and basically my comment was

6:29 ↗ the reading so

6:31 ↗ our comment was that we wanted to make

6:34 ↗ sure that the indemnification was

6:35 ↗ transferable to Future Property Owners

6:38 ↗ my reading of the response doesn't it

6:40 ↗ sounds like the producer Property Owners

6:42 ↗ would be informed but not necessarily

6:45 ↗ indemned by the city and I I don't know

6:48 ↗ if I'm mcnabis reading but was hoping

6:49 ↗ you could declare yeah so

6:53 ↗ if a new hold harmless is created the

6:55 ↗ city attorney's office would be

6:58 ↗ confirming that it will run with the

7:00 ↗ land

7:01 ↗ um so if there's a past hold harmless

7:04 ↗ that exists we'll we'll follow what that

7:06 ↗ says but any hold harmless moving

7:09 ↗ forward will be written such that it

7:12 ↗ will run with the land through any

7:14 ↗ future owner

7:16 ↗ so that's

7:18 ↗ that's a matter of getting those those

7:20 ↗ final sort of official City documents

7:24 ↗ um clarified and make sure the language

7:25 ↗ is all set and we just

7:27 ↗ carry that forward with you know whether

7:29 ↗ it's on a short plot whether it's on a

7:32 ↗ ngpe or it's a hold harmless for slopes

7:36 ↗ or wetlands

7:38 ↗ so it sounds like and I'm not totally

7:41 ↗ clear on where it does that in the

7:42 ↗ response but it sounds like the concern

7:45 ↗ of the board is being addressed yes

7:48 ↗ with this update or with the ongoing

7:50 ↗ process uh well that was

7:53 ↗ that's great but no um the next one I

7:56 ↗ had was 194 to 197.

8:04 ↗ yeah

8:06 ↗ so

8:07 ↗ I think unfortunately Dan isn't here

8:10 ↗ because I think he was the one that

8:11 ↗ flagged this I I thought that this was

8:13 ↗ flagged partially because there was just

8:15 ↗ sort of a logical issue with the way

8:18 ↗ that this part of the code worked

8:21 ↗ um

8:22 ↗ and I thought it had something to do

8:24 ↗ with there seemed to be some sections

8:26 ↗ that weren't addressed by

8:28 ↗ by the language

8:33 ↗ I know yeah like I said I wish Dan was

8:34 ↗ here because he was the one that raised

8:36 ↗ this

8:37 ↗ um so maybe

8:38 ↗ not remembering the exact comments from

8:42 ↗ Dan

8:43 ↗ might just ask that that uh CBD makes

8:47 ↗ sure that there's no kind of logical

8:49 ↗ holes in this portion of it okay

8:54 ↗ yeah

8:56 ↗ let me just make three through this one

8:57 ↗ again to

9:04 ↗ yeah I think I think that's what this

9:06 ↗ this comment was related to so that

9:08 ↗ might just be something to just check

9:10 ↗ because that's not really what the

9:11 ↗ response from the city from CBD seems to

9:15 ↗ address

9:16 ↗ just want to make sure that there's not

9:17 ↗ something that's being missed there I I

9:20 ↗ think the way that that code section is

9:22 ↗ written is a little clunky

9:25 ↗ um with the intent being the lower

9:28 ↗ functioning Wetlands we want to require

9:31 ↗ the mechanism to improve the water

9:33 ↗ quality whereas the higher functioning

9:35 ↗ Wetlands there is not that requirement

9:37 ↗ so these were added layers

9:39 ↗ on the lower functioning Wetlands not to

9:42 ↗ take away from

9:44 ↗ the value of those higher functioning

9:46 ↗ Wetlands the eights and nines but we can

9:49 ↗ make sure that if that needs some

9:51 ↗ clarification

9:53 ↗ um it's it wouldn't be a policy level

9:56 ↗ have

9:57 ↗ a tweak it would be just a clarifying

10:00 ↗ edit

10:04 ↗ in the code

10:05 ↗ okay

10:06 ↗ uh the next one was 212 to 213.

10:14 ↗ my recollection I think this might have

10:16 ↗ been mine

10:18 ↗ um originally was this

10:20 ↗ comment was it relationship ensuring

10:23 ↗ that the city was was

10:27 ↗ basically Staffing to ensure that we

10:29 ↗ could

10:30 ↗ um monitor like not just ensure that we

10:33 ↗ were getting the monitoring reports but

10:35 ↗ that we were

10:36 ↗ um proactively monitoring some of these

10:39 ↗ mitigation some of the mitigation work

10:41 ↗ which isn't really addressed by by the

10:45 ↗ response here so

10:47 ↗ again I don't think this is going to be

10:48 ↗ something that necessarily ends up in

10:50 ↗ Title 18

10:51 ↗ right

10:53 ↗ it's definitely a procedural uh Factor

10:56 ↗ so staff receives the annual reporting

11:01 ↗ from the peer reviewer and then it's the

11:03 ↗ the staff that has been assigned or new

11:07 ↗ staff assigned to review those

11:09 ↗ recommendations

11:12 ↗ um providing them to the applicant it's

11:14 ↗ in their best interest to to make

11:16 ↗ changes so that the the mitigation work

11:19 ↗ is successful in the long run and so

11:22 ↗ that is an internal mechanism within the

11:26 ↗ the process so that when we get to the

11:29 ↗ end end of the monitoring period we we

11:32 ↗ have a successful project and the bonds

11:34 ↗ can be released and everyone can go

11:37 ↗ about there uh their way so that is

11:41 ↗ definitely an internal procedural

11:42 ↗ practice within our tracking

11:46 ↗ um

11:47 ↗ steps

11:50 ↗ okay and that's something that is like

11:52 ↗ cities currently staff to be able to do

11:55 ↗ and correct

12:01 ↗ uh and I think the last one that I had

12:03 ↗ was 229 to 232.

12:07 ↗ I just read that I'm trying to remember

12:09 ↗ all these

12:27 ↗ yeah I just had a question because I I

12:30 ↗ my recollection was that

12:32 ↗ if you were paying like if he and Lou

12:34 ↗ was going to be the way that someone had

12:37 ↗ to mitigate

12:38 ↗ for a given issue I know that they were

12:41 ↗ probably going to repay for a

12:43 ↗ replacement ratio and I think there's

12:45 ↗ still some details on exactly how much

12:48 ↗ that would what that would be the cost

12:50 ↗ of that

12:51 ↗ I didn't remember that there was a

12:53 ↗ requirement of the city to then plant

12:55 ↗ because I think this budget would then

12:57 ↗ be in control of City staff correct

13:00 ↗ someone's paying into the city tree

13:02 ↗ account that's then in the control of

13:04 ↗ City staff to go and and deploy those

13:08 ↗ funds correct

13:10 ↗ and that that internal that internal

13:13 ↗ process is gonna kind of coordinate

13:17 ↗ primarily within CPD but it will stretch

13:20 ↗ into parks

13:24 ↗ and

13:26 ↗ the the the first and foremost is

13:28 ↗ replanting on site next is within the

13:31 ↗ sub-area

13:33 ↗ um and so that's where that that fee and

13:34 ↗ Lou

13:35 ↗ could uh could be utilized and then the

13:41 ↗ environmental I think if there's a

13:42 ↗ there's a

13:43 ↗ a new position in parks and that's who

13:45 ↗ we we look forward to partnering with to

13:48 ↗ have volunteer programs that can

13:51 ↗ plant these trees and that funding goes

13:53 ↗ towards trees

13:55 ↗ designated for that sub area so we're

13:57 ↗ focused on the the site the sub area and

14:01 ↗ then the city as a whole

14:03 ↗ um if if and focusing those city as a

14:07 ↗ whole into areas that have a lower

14:09 ↗ canopy and need to increase that goal to

14:12 ↗ reach their goal

14:15 ↗ um

14:15 ↗ yeah I guess and I don't know how else

14:18 ↗ the city Trail down is going to be

14:19 ↗ funded but I recall that there was more

14:22 ↗ uses of those funds than just tree one

14:24 ↗ thing there was the potential for

14:25 ↗ covering overhead and other costs

14:28 ↗ that that was really the heart of the

14:30 ↗ question is is there a requirement then

14:33 ↗ because at that point it's kind of out

14:34 ↗ of the hands of the individual if they

14:36 ↗ paid in for this city creek fund but

14:38 ↗ just confirming that the city then has

14:40 ↗ the responsibility to use those funds to

14:42 ↗ repent to that ratio is that correct so

14:46 ↗ the The Ledger that the the intent

14:49 ↗ behind this is that there's a ledger

14:51 ↗ that's tracking how much canopy in that

14:53 ↗ canopy will depend on how many trees so

14:57 ↗ the the the example I think of is

15:00 ↗ there's a a site that is heavily wooded

15:04 ↗ they remove a tree they they don't have

15:07 ↗ space on their site to replant it that

15:09 ↗ canopy that is lost uh needs to go

15:12 ↗ somewhere else

15:13 ↗ and that could be a number of trees so

15:15 ↗ that fee and Lou could be five trees so

15:19 ↗ that at their 20-year canopy growth they

15:23 ↗ provide what was lost

15:26 ↗ um

15:26 ↗ and those are either on one site or

15:29 ↗ they're spread around and so the

15:31 ↗ tracking of that is going to be

15:33 ↗ um the details that we have to work

15:36 ↗ through and coordinate with Parks as

15:38 ↗ they have the mechanism to

15:40 ↗ to get those installed

15:42 ↗ okay yeah that was really I mean that

15:44 ↗ all conceptually makes sense I don't

15:46 ↗ remember it being as clearly stated in

15:49 ↗ the code language but as long as that's

15:52 ↗ ultimately what will happen at the end

15:54 ↗ of the day that was really I was hoping

15:56 ↗ to get clarified so appreciate it

16:00 ↗ looks like Don

16:02 ↗ yeah I've got one for your question

16:04 ↗ even Jamie's numbering 223 to 28.

16:08 ↗ preservation of Street trees when you

16:11 ↗ guys are doing develop Redevelopment

16:12 ↗ projects I don't think that you've

16:15 ↗ accurately captured what the board was

16:17 ↗ trying to get at

16:18 ↗ um you you reference

16:21 ↗ 18.812 above saying it's a one to one

16:23 ↗ replacement ratio

16:25 ↗ which is great but I think what we're

16:27 ↗ trying to say is we want you to try to

16:30 ↗ preserve the existing trees where

16:31 ↗ possible I don't know how that language

16:34 ↗ would read in the code but

16:37 ↗ like here we consider that one

16:46 ↗ the way that the way that the the code

16:49 ↗ has been Rewritten you know those only

16:51 ↗ those unhealthy trees or nuisance trees

16:55 ↗ so they'd have to meet the criteria for

16:58 ↗ a hazard or a nuisance tree are allowed

17:02 ↗ to be removed we're not talking about

17:05 ↗ development

17:07 ↗ so it is a preservation it is a it's a

17:10 ↗ it's a retention-based code

17:13 ↗ um to retain

17:15 ↗ healthy

17:17 ↗ healthy trees that that exist on

17:21 ↗ private or public land

17:22 ↗ and so those that have

17:26 ↗ those that do meet those criteria

17:29 ↗ and our proposed for removal and can can

17:32 ↗ show that

17:34 ↗ they'll be

17:36 ↗ you know

17:37 ↗ they'll be allowed to be removed because

17:39 ↗ they they're meeting they're meeting a

17:42 ↗ a factor they're meeting either

17:45 ↗ um a hazard

17:47 ↗ a tree risk assessment a hazard tree or

17:50 ↗ their damaging property

17:52 ↗ um

17:53 ↗ and that goes for both public and

17:55 ↗ private

17:57 ↗ and that makes sense to me I don't have

17:59 ↗ a question with that my question is

18:01 ↗ around if you're going to rebuild a

18:03 ↗ street and you have an existing set of

18:05 ↗ Street trees out there rather than fall

18:08 ↗ down and replant them which is typical

18:10 ↗ I'd like to see the city tribe to

18:12 ↗ preserve the existing Street trees and

18:14 ↗ work around them

18:16 ↗ mm-hmm

18:17 ↗ I guess it's possible you're not

18:19 ↗ changing the roadway footprint if you're

18:21 ↗ just you know up doing the street right

18:26 ↗ okay

18:27 ↗ and that's my understanding as the

18:29 ↗ intent of of

18:31 ↗ uh public works as well maintaining and

18:35 ↗ and only those that are

18:37 ↗ you know

18:38 ↗ damaging infrastructure utilities below

18:41 ↗ grade

18:42 ↗ um

18:43 ↗ and there's no there's no plausible

18:45 ↗ means to mitigate

18:47 ↗ um whether it's root pruning or

18:51 ↗ um other mechanisms to to allow for them

18:53 ↗ to be

18:54 ↗ continued in their space

19:12 ↗ at the last moment

19:26 ↗ another items that the board has

19:31 ↗ online

19:37 ↗ um

19:45 ↗ you guys your voice is suddenly sound

19:47 ↗ muted is it just me or is it everybody

19:49 ↗ here that's online

19:53 ↗ they I can't hear or understand them

19:55 ↗ either Anne okay

19:58 ↗ we could before but all of a sudden now

20:00 ↗ we can't

20:02 ↗ okay

20:04 ↗ [Music]

20:06 ↗ okay stay tuned we're trying to figure

20:09 ↗ it out we're we have a makeshift set up

20:12 ↗ tonight we are having some difficulty

20:15 ↗ um I'm gonna take this down for right

20:18 ↗ now

20:27 ↗ um

20:32 ↗ let me try something well this is

20:35 ↗ plugged into that I can hear you now

20:36 ↗ Stacy

20:38 ↗ bizarre

20:42 ↗ okay we've got my computer plugged into

20:44 ↗ the owls in the wrap so let's see but

20:46 ↗ the sound should be coming out of the

20:48 ↗ Owl City it should be yeah okay but we

20:50 ↗ can control that okay foreign

20:54 ↗ sorry I don't know if you were able to

20:57 ↗ hear Nancy but we were

20:59 ↗ um were working through any

21:00 ↗ clarification or questions that folks

21:03 ↗ have for the CPD responses to the

21:05 ↗ environmental board letter this is just

21:07 ↗ a chance to talk with Christian from CPD

21:10 ↗ and getting clarification

21:12 ↗ too

21:22 ↗ all right well

21:23 ↗ I think then if you have no further

21:25 ↗ comments Maybe

21:28 ↗ you're ready to move on

21:31 ↗ thank you Kristen appreciate your time

21:34 ↗ thank you

21:36 ↗ yeah thank you Christian thank you

21:37 ↗ Christian have a good evening

21:40 ↗ two great job

21:43 ↗ all right

21:45 ↗ um

21:46 ↗ I think well maybe we should summarize

21:48 ↗ what we

21:49 ↗ sounded like

21:50 ↗ there were limited concerns raised and

21:52 ↗ the ones that were

21:54 ↗ um seemed to have been addressed one

21:56 ↗ upon further further uh reviewed by the

22:00 ↗ city and their cities that

22:04 ↗ um let's see the next

22:07 ↗ item that we have is a capital

22:09 ↗ Improvement plan criteria and Summit

22:11 ↗ debrief

22:13 ↗ sorry can I ask just so real quick we're

22:15 ↗ gonna do a letter process

22:17 ↗ feedback

22:19 ↗ um

22:22 ↗ under Title 18 we also just we had a

22:26 ↗ very long meeting on February 1st and

22:28 ↗ worked really hard to develop our letter

22:30 ↗ to council and a lot of you put in work

22:33 ↗ ahead of that letter

22:35 ↗ um it's a really cheap it for the

22:36 ↗ meeting so just want to take a couple

22:38 ↗ minutes to see feedback on that process

22:41 ↗ for the letter development

22:44 ↗ um I anticipate we will be doing

22:46 ↗ something similar

22:48 ↗ um over the next year or so especially

22:50 ↗ as we have the comprehensive plan coming

22:52 ↗ up and and other policies and plan

22:55 ↗ development so just if folks have any

22:58 ↗ feedback on how that process went of

23:00 ↗ both preparation for the letter and

23:02 ↗ reviewing it during the meeting and live

23:04 ↗ editing uh would welcome that we can

23:07 ↗ take a few minutes now or folks can send

23:10 ↗ me feedback over email too

23:15 ↗ I thought it went fairly well I thought

23:17 ↗ it was very helpful to have a staff in

23:19 ↗ the room to help us work through the

23:22 ↗ how the wording is going to work

23:24 ↗ so if we're going to do that in the

23:26 ↗ future recommend having a staff member

23:28 ↗ that's knowledgeable on it

23:36 ↗ yeah I would I would Echo that I also

23:39 ↗ think I mean I know it was a lot of work

23:41 ↗ for staff there was a lot of such points

23:43 ↗ but I think there's something as

23:45 ↗ important satellite team probably

23:46 ↗ warranted

23:48 ↗ um but yeah I think having many here

23:51 ↗ helping us go through it and also

23:53 ↗ checking off things that we didn't need

23:55 ↗ to and put in our letter so we could

23:57 ↗ focus it on the items that really were

23:59 ↗ outstanding or that the city was still

24:02 ↗ kind of thinking about I thought was

24:04 ↗ really helpful and I think just the

24:05 ↗ format

24:07 ↗ but I don't know but that's kind of

24:08 ↗ working through the document and being

24:10 ↗ able to discuss as we did uh that was

24:13 ↗ was helpful so overall I think while it

24:16 ↗ took a long time part of it was because

24:17 ↗ that document was really long

24:20 ↗ um so hopefully for shorter documents

24:23 ↗ this review time we'll be shorter but uh

24:26 ↗ thought it went uh as well as it could

24:28 ↗ have

24:29 ↗ sort of

24:33 ↗ um I thought it went yeah I thought it

24:34 ↗ was really smooth Stacy I was impressed

24:36 ↗ by your ability to juggle everyone's

24:38 ↗ feedback into a sentence

24:41 ↗ um

24:41 ↗ given how late we went it was a lot of

24:43 ↗ brain power but um I think the only

24:45 ↗ thing that I would

24:46 ↗ um

24:47 ↗ I don't know how you would do this but

24:49 ↗ it would be nice just to have some sort

24:50 ↗ of tech format like in my office right

24:52 ↗ we might have like a Word document

24:54 ↗ online where we can all go in and leave

24:55 ↗ comments just to simplify the comment

24:57 ↗ process so I don't know how you would

24:59 ↗ guarantee that the security of it if

25:01 ↗ that matters but um that for me would

25:03 ↗ have been easier to be able to just log

25:06 ↗ in as I was able to make time throughout

25:08 ↗ the week and leave comments rather than

25:09 ↗ having to send you a document

25:11 ↗ um just from a process standpoint

25:14 ↗ yeah that's a great suggestion

25:17 ↗ I could talk with the clerks about that

25:20 ↗ and just wonder if there's any kind of

25:21 ↗ Records issue

25:23 ↗ um but I think we could do that through

25:25 ↗ either SharePoint or a Google doc if

25:27 ↗ they don't have concerns about that

25:29 ↗ that's a great suggestion

25:40 ↗ any other feedback for Stacy

25:44 ↗ well I just have a quick question this

25:46 ↗ isn't feedback if we're almost done with

25:48 ↗ it and that is what is the status of

25:50 ↗ Title 18 where is it at

25:52 ↗ great thanks Nancy yeah it has gone

25:55 ↗ through a couple reviews with the um

25:58 ↗ Council committee

26:00 ↗ um of Planning Development in the

26:02 ↗ environment Christian might still be on

26:03 ↗ so he might be able to give a little

26:05 ↗ more update

26:06 ↗ um and then I believe it is going to a

26:08 ↗ council of the whole this month is my

26:11 ↗ understanding

26:13 ↗ um and I don't believe we have a final

26:15 ↗ date scheduled for Council approval but

26:18 ↗ it is moving through the process of

26:21 ↗ council review Christian please correct

26:23 ↗ add-on that's that's that's correct yes

26:26 ↗ and uh there will be a a final public

26:31 ↗ hearing before the whole city council at

26:33 ↗ a city council meeting likely in April

26:36 ↗ that's still to be determined

26:39 ↗ um to get final input from the community

26:42 ↗ with

26:45 ↗ tentative meetings in

26:47 ↗ meeting in May I believe the beacon must

26:50 ↗ be the first of May would be the

26:52 ↗ that'd be the first available council

26:55 ↗ meeting as a follow-up discussion to

26:57 ↗ that

26:59 ↗ public hearing

27:10 ↗ thanks Christian

27:15 ↗ anything else on that topic

27:17 ↗ great so I think now we can move on to

27:20 ↗ Capital Improvement plan criteria and

27:22 ↗ Summit degree

27:23 ↗ great thank you

27:25 ↗ um

27:26 ↗ so this agenda item is a chance for

27:28 ↗ members of the board that participated

27:30 ↗ in the summit to share their feedback on

27:33 ↗ the capital Improvement plan Summit

27:36 ↗ um and it's also a chance for uh all

27:38 ↗ board members to provide any additional

27:40 ↗ feedback they have on the revised

27:43 ↗ criteria as well as the red yellow green

27:46 ↗ scoring

27:49 ↗ um so just as a little background the

27:50 ↗ cities that they're taking development

27:52 ↗ of the capital Improvement plan this is

27:54 ↗ our two year update to the CIP

27:57 ↗ and for those that haven't participated

27:59 ↗ in that process in the past just a

28:01 ↗ reminder it is not a budget um it's

28:03 ↗ really a planning document it's intended

28:05 ↗ to pull from the city strategic plan as

28:08 ↗ well as other planning documents

28:10 ↗ we have engaged the boards and

28:13 ↗ commissions in developing reviewing

28:17 ↗ um criteria that the projects will be

28:19 ↗ vetted against

28:20 ↗ this first step took place on February

28:23 ↗ 16th where we brought four boards

28:25 ↗ together to review the criteria and

28:27 ↗ provide feedback for the environmental

28:30 ↗ board we really focused in on the

28:32 ↗ environment and climate criteria but did

28:34 ↗ provide feedback on some of the other

28:36 ↗ criteria during that session

28:38 ↗ uh our Deputy City deputy director

28:41 ↗ provided

28:42 ↗ um our Deputy Administrator provided the

28:45 ↗ meeting summary

28:46 ↗ um also provided to us updated criteria

28:48 ↗ and the red yellow green scorecard

28:50 ↗ guidance for our review they are seeking

28:54 ↗ any further feedback from the board on

28:57 ↗ whether the updated

28:59 ↗ criteria reflects the board's feedback

29:01 ↗ and if there are any additional

29:03 ↗ outstanding concerns to regarding the

29:06 ↗ criteria

29:08 ↗ um the next step for board engagement

29:10 ↗ will be to look at how the criteria is

29:13 ↗ applied across the projects that are

29:15 ↗ submitted and we'll probably be hearing

29:17 ↗ back from the administration to go

29:19 ↗ through that process potentially in our

29:21 ↗ April meeting but more likely at our

29:23 ↗ main meeting

29:24 ↗ so first just wanted to start with the

29:27 ↗ board members that were present at the

29:29 ↗ summit to provide a little bit of

29:31 ↗ feedback left on their experience of it

29:34 ↗ for the board members that weren't there

29:36 ↗ and then we can turn to any specific

29:39 ↗ feedback that board members have on the

29:42 ↗ revised criteria and the red yellow

29:45 ↗ green thresholds

29:54 ↗ folks that were there Rishi was also

29:56 ↗ present at that event

30:01 ↗ you're just looking for General feedback

30:02 ↗ on the format

30:04 ↗ and kind of the meeting yeah General

30:07 ↗ feedback that was kind of the first time

30:08 ↗ to my understanding that we've really

30:10 ↗ brought boards and commissions together

30:12 ↗ um to look at that criteria and

30:14 ↗ interested for any feedback on how you

30:16 ↗ all thought that went

30:18 ↗ um

30:19 ↗ evening session and it was very

30:22 ↗ interesting to hear the perspective of

30:23 ↗ the other boards that were there

30:26 ↗ um and kind of be able to digest that

30:27 ↗ into your thoughts not even enroll their

30:30 ↗ desires into ours I think that worked

30:33 ↗ pretty well there yeah

30:36 ↗ yeah I've taken that I thought it was

30:38 ↗ interesting to hear how those other

30:40 ↗ boards thought

30:41 ↗ about the format did provide us good

30:44 ↗ opportunity to kind of

30:46 ↗ go away and and as an environmental

30:49 ↗ Board Circle up and then come back with

30:54 ↗ with the perspective but all the other

30:57 ↗ boards being able to do that as well I

30:58 ↗ think you ended up with fairly concise

31:00 ↗ good summary of how a broad group of

31:04 ↗ people

31:05 ↗ talk about the issues so yeah I thought

31:08 ↗ it was

31:10 ↗ it was a good format

31:15 ↗ do you not talk any additional

31:17 ↗ reflections

31:22 ↗ great

31:24 ↗ uh well I I enjoyed the process I

31:27 ↗ thought it was a quite engaging to hear

31:31 ↗ what the perspective of these other

31:33 ↗ other groups and I think it was uh

31:36 ↗ encouraging that our voices were being

31:39 ↗ heard on somebody's points so I'm I mean

31:41 ↗ I'm just I'm you know I haven't spent as

31:44 ↗ much time as I should have in

31:46 ↗ preparation for the meeting here I'll

31:47 ↗ admit so I'm going over it now and I'm

31:49 ↗ seeing things that I remember we brought

31:51 ↗ up and they're they're being spoken to

31:53 ↗ here so that uh that I like is is the is

31:57 ↗ part of the question here well is the

32:00 ↗ response adequate to the issues we

32:04 ↗ raised you know I guess I'm I'm not

32:06 ↗ ready to make a determination of that

32:09 ↗ wow

32:11 ↗ I think just reflecting on what I'm

32:13 ↗ seeing here well the words are are too

32:17 ↗ aren't specific enough for me to tell

32:19 ↗ how that actually will get reflected in

32:21 ↗ the process

32:23 ↗ oh

32:25 ↗ I'm unsure okay

32:27 ↗ thing and that's yeah that's where we

32:29 ↗ were going to move the conversation next

32:31 ↗ just to see if you all felt like the

32:33 ↗ input you provided that um Summit was

32:36 ↗ heard is reflected in the revised

32:38 ↗ criteria I know a number of board

32:39 ↗ members weren't able to attend that

32:42 ↗ Summit and just to see any of your

32:45 ↗ reactions concerns uh questions that you

32:48 ↗ have about the criteria

32:50 ↗ um the Deputy Administrator did share

32:52 ↗ that she's really wanted to bring this

32:54 ↗ back to the boards to kind of close the

32:56 ↗ loop and show that where possible your

32:59 ↗ input was taken and Incorporated we

33:02 ↗ don't have time for a lot of multiple

33:04 ↗ iterations but they do want to open up

33:06 ↗ the opportunity that if there are any

33:09 ↗ concerns or feelings about the criteria

33:12 ↗ language that we really want to make

33:14 ↗ clear to the administration and have

33:16 ↗ them reconsider there are some

33:19 ↗ opportunities to provide that feedback

33:20 ↗ if we get to that point tonight I can

33:23 ↗ um share those different Pathways that

33:26 ↗ we could take so did one in turn just to

33:29 ↗ see kind of for those of you that

33:31 ↗ weren't at the summit any Reflections

33:33 ↗ that you have on that criteria and the

33:36 ↗ red yellow green thresholds any concerns

33:38 ↗ you want to raise

33:40 ↗ um and then also for those of you that

33:42 ↗ were there do you feel like the feedback

33:44 ↗ you provided there was incorporated and

33:46 ↗ are you fairly comfortable with working

33:48 ↗ to sit down

33:51 ↗ I think our comments were addressed I

33:53 ↗ don't know that everything was

33:55 ↗ incorporated the way that we had

33:57 ↗ requested

33:58 ↗ I wouldn't expect it to be some as long

34:00 ↗ as they're looking at it

34:03 ↗ that's good

34:06 ↗ liveing is concerned with and this is I

34:09 ↗ mean I think it's particularly

34:12 ↗ an issue with the with the climate

34:14 ↗ resiliency for environmental benefit

34:17 ↗ is the way that the red yellow green

34:20 ↗ breaks down is that no impact and

34:23 ↗ negative impact show up as the same

34:25 ↗ thing so I think we need to be

34:27 ↗ consistent I'm not looking through and

34:29 ↗ I'm not sure that it truly is consistent

34:31 ↗ but

34:33 ↗ well it should either be yellow is no

34:35 ↗ impact

34:36 ↗ and red is negative impact for all these

34:39 ↗ criteria or advice or we need to figure

34:41 ↗ out I think it gets confusing if you

34:43 ↗ have no impact negative impacts showing

34:45 ↗ up in the same color which is probably

34:48 ↗ the case for hours and some of the other

34:49 ↗ ones I think it's maybe that's not the

34:52 ↗ case so

34:53 ↗ I would just ask that that they really

34:56 ↗ look hard at being consistent with

34:59 ↗ how those different colors are scored

35:02 ↗ um because I think the current one is

35:04 ↗ problematic for our criteria in

35:06 ↗ particular

35:09 ↗ thank you

35:14 ↗ any other feedback on the document

35:25 ↗ for the benefit of Nancy and Laura and

35:27 ↗ and weren't there um what James quack

35:30 ↗ talked about on the climate story

35:31 ↗ resiliency and environmental benefit we

35:33 ↗ had recommended that those get broken

35:35 ↗ into separate categories

35:37 ↗ to better Define them

35:40 ↗ and doesn't look like stuff went down

35:42 ↗ that path

35:45 ↗ it'll be interesting to see how they

35:47 ↗ weigh out when they're put against an

35:49 ↗ actual project yeah that's great Don I'm

35:51 ↗ going to bring that up I do still think

35:52 ↗ that there's a bit of a conflict there

35:54 ↗ if you're building a road project

35:56 ↗ involving a bunch of concrete that's

35:58 ↗ going to improve transportation and

35:59 ↗ access to not like

36:02 ↗ other forms of transportation but then

36:04 ↗ you have a huge climate footprint of the

36:06 ↗ actual construction of all that

36:08 ↗ I don't know if I'll be counting on that

36:11 ↗ works but uh will be interesting to see

36:14 ↗ how how they determine what it's truly

36:17 ↗ positive and how they when something has

36:20 ↗ some positive some negatives how it gets

36:22 ↗ scored because they hadn't split those

36:24 ↗ up

36:27 ↗ yeah that's I'll provide the feedback

36:30 ↗ that Andrea and uh Robert

36:33 ↗ um for them to take if they they can and

36:35 ↗ incorporate a step or submitting their

36:37 ↗ projects I mean I think that's where

36:40 ↗ yellow may be I think they need to think

36:42 ↗ part about how they use those colors for

36:45 ↗ for our criteria because it

36:47 ↗ it's there may be some ones that they

36:50 ↗ need to have like if this if there's

36:53 ↗ positives and negative what does that

36:55 ↗ equal

36:56 ↗ because that's not currently in the

36:58 ↗ criteria so I think they should be clear

36:59 ↗ about where something like that would

37:01 ↗ land

37:08 ↗ okay great

37:11 ↗ thank you well if folks have time more

37:14 ↗ time after the meeting in the next week

37:16 ↗ or so to digest those documents and

37:18 ↗ habitat uh thoughts just go ahead and

37:21 ↗ send those to me and I'll pass them on

37:22 ↗ to the administration

37:26 ↗ anything else on that topic

37:28 ↗ yeah I had sorry I just I'm just looking

37:31 ↗ through this now but um

37:34 ↗ I don't have feedback on everything but

37:37 ↗ um

37:39 ↗ the climate resiliency and environmental

37:42 ↗ benefit can be awfully can tend to be

37:45 ↗ awfully narrow focused and so it doesn't

37:47 ↗ always look towards like the longer term

37:49 ↗ like a stewardship so rather than

37:52 ↗ looking at an impact because how do you

37:54 ↗ measure impact

37:55 ↗ um in my experience just projects I've

37:58 ↗ worked on

37:59 ↗ um in landscape that's often helpful to

38:01 ↗ think about maybe not to phrase towards

38:03 ↗ like does this impact positively or

38:05 ↗ negatively but over time does this have

38:07 ↗ a beneficial

38:08 ↗ um I guess like stepping back a little

38:10 ↗ from the temporal so if that makes sense

38:13 ↗ I can send you feedback to Stacy's

38:14 ↗ specific

38:15 ↗ um for words but also I have a hesitancy

38:18 ↗ towards um

38:21 ↗ splitting environment out from benefit

38:24 ↗ from the quality of life again it's just

38:26 ↗ something I've seen where people can

38:29 ↗ sort of objectify their environment and

38:32 ↗ look at it as something separate from

38:33 ↗ their own quality of life and I

38:35 ↗ recognize this isn't where they're going

38:36 ↗ it's just sort of a concern I have so I

38:39 ↗ guess this is probably not helpful for

38:40 ↗ me to think out loud but those are just

38:42 ↗ two Impressions I have of um

38:44 ↗ things that I've seen people like trip

38:46 ↗ up over

38:47 ↗ but I still the idea overall seems

38:50 ↗ really helpful so I'll stop talking and

38:51 ↗ send an email

38:53 ↗ so I'm really glad I'm glad you brought

38:55 ↗ that up so that's actually something

38:56 ↗ that Rishi had flagged that I think one

38:59 ↗ of the things that isn't Incorporated

39:02 ↗ from our discussion was yeah

39:04 ↗ consideration for the full life cycle of

39:06 ↗ a project on impacting a project or

39:09 ↗ impact for these criteria and so I do

39:12 ↗ think

39:13 ↗ that's maybe almost like

39:15 ↗ a statement of how they plan to use this

39:17 ↗ around yeah how will they factor in

39:20 ↗ what's the time frame what are how are

39:22 ↗ they thinking about the the scoring of

39:25 ↗ this is it the moment in time is it

39:27 ↗ something that they're there they have a

39:29 ↗ 30-year attack rise atom somewhere in

39:30 ↗ between but anything that's one aspect

39:33 ↗ that I don't think was really completely

39:35 ↗ addressed that I think Rishi had a

39:37 ↗ really good point

39:38 ↗ um

39:39 ↗ Laura has as well yeah like an

39:41 ↗ indigenous work you know they'll often

39:43 ↗ say like what is the benefit to me now

39:45 ↗ what is the benefit to my children what

39:47 ↗ is the benefit to my grandchildren and

39:48 ↗ it does sort of remind you that like

39:50 ↗ what you're taking from and giving to

39:52 ↗ um

39:53 ↗ it takes you out of that one-time

39:55 ↗ mindset

40:01 ↗ great thank you very much

40:04 ↗ well said Laura thank you

40:09 ↗ all right last call it sounds like we're

40:11 ↗ all set on this one so I think

40:14 ↗ we will move on to kind of vulnerability

40:18 ↗ assessment which basically also

40:21 ↗ all right well thank you

40:24 ↗ um so it has been a long time since the

40:26 ↗ board has talked about the time of

40:28 ↗ vulnerability as that's meant I think we

40:29 ↗ came in August or September and talked

40:32 ↗ about sectors over the last several

40:35 ↗ months our Consultants have been working

40:37 ↗ on a draft assessment report

40:40 ↗ um that was the goal was to have that

40:42 ↗ done by the end of the year we've

40:43 ↗ actually extended the development of

40:45 ↗ that quite a bit because of all the

40:47 ↗ staff input

40:49 ↗ um the document I provided to you is

40:52 ↗ still in draft form I was not I was

40:54 ↗ hoping you wouldn't read the whole thing

40:55 ↗ but at least wanted to give you a glance

40:57 ↗ of what the Consultants have been

40:58 ↗ working on

41:00 ↗ um it's still undergoing final

41:02 ↗ staff review as well as an editorial

41:04 ↗ review but I did want to walk through an

41:07 ↗ update of where that report is and then

41:10 ↗ also talk to this board about the next

41:12 ↗ steps for engagement which will be

41:14 ↗ coming up very shortly

41:17 ↗ um just bear with me a moment by

41:22 ↗ e

41:32 ↗ okay

41:36 ↗ bear with me I'm on my hair oh that's

41:38 ↗ our next meeting sorry we're as I

41:41 ↗ mentioned before we're kind of uh

41:44 ↗ hooked in with a lot of cords here for

41:46 ↗ my computer so sorry if you're with my

41:48 ↗ hair

41:49 ↗ okay

41:50 ↗ great

41:52 ↗ um so tonight we're just gonna go

41:53 ↗ through a quick overview of the findings

41:56 ↗ in the report

41:58 ↗ um again just noting it is still dropped

42:00 ↗ we're working on finalization and then

42:02 ↗ wanted to focus in on the next steps of

42:04 ↗ this project and talk with you all about

42:07 ↗ the board's engagement going forward as

42:11 ↗ we start to move into policies and

42:13 ↗ strategies

42:15 ↗ um so the

42:17 ↗ um

42:22 ↗ um so the this project is really working

42:25 ↗ to understand how climate change is

42:27 ↗ impacting our community by providing a

42:30 ↗ climate vulnerability report

42:32 ↗ um also as part of this project we're

42:34 ↗ looking at raising awareness among City

42:36 ↗ staff and community members on the

42:38 ↗ impacts of climate change we're doing

42:41 ↗ this through generation of the report

42:42 ↗ but also developing communication tools

42:45 ↗ that really speak to members of the

42:47 ↗ community

42:48 ↗ we're also looking through this project

42:50 ↗ to align with other planning processes

42:54 ↗ um and doing that by developing

42:57 ↗ strategies for preparing a support for

42:59 ↗ climate impacts identifying policies and

43:03 ↗ strategies and actions that can be

43:04 ↗ incorporated into the comprehensive plan

43:06 ↗ and then we're also working to lay a

43:09 ↗ foundation for implementing climate

43:11 ↗ resiliency throughout all of the city's

43:13 ↗ work through generation of both the

43:16 ↗ report and then that will come up as

43:18 ↗ well as we work to integrate policies

43:21 ↗ and strategies into the comprehensive

43:23 ↗ plan

43:26 ↗ over the last nine months or so we have

43:29 ↗ been doing a lot of community and

43:31 ↗ stakeholder engagement we have been

43:33 ↗ meeting with staff I had a virtual

43:36 ↗ community workshops we've had an online

43:38 ↗ open house and a survey that went out

43:41 ↗ without a couple of focus groups most

43:44 ↗ recently at the garage the team Cafe we

43:47 ↗ had some students that actually ran a

43:49 ↗ focus group there

43:50 ↗ um and then coming up we are going to

43:53 ↗ have

43:54 ↗ um another workshop with staff as well

43:57 ↗ as with community-based organizations

44:00 ↗ you get their input on the next phase of

44:02 ↗ this project and now we will be working

44:05 ↗ closely with you all

44:07 ↗ um and then with other boards and

44:10 ↗ commissions and Council on policies and

44:13 ↗ strategies as part of the comprehensive

44:15 ↗ plan process

44:19 ↗ so this project is um directly comes out

44:23 ↗ of the icap there was a action within

44:28 ↗ the icap for developing a vulnerability

44:29 ↗ assessment but I also just wanted it

44:32 ↗ it's really intended to dive deeper than

44:34 ↗ the icap went in terms of understanding

44:37 ↗ the potential impacts to the City of

44:39 ↗ Issaquah it also touches upon a number

44:42 ↗ of other actions that were in the icap

44:45 ↗ particularly under Community resiliency

44:47 ↗ and well-being actions

44:51 ↗ I'd say another

44:53 ↗ um goal of this project that's not

44:55 ↗ specifically called out in the icap is

44:58 ↗ by thinking about climate vulnerability

45:02 ↗ and impacts to areas and members of our

45:04 ↗ community we really wanted to draw in

45:07 ↗ members of the community that may not

45:09 ↗ have engaged in I have conversations or

45:12 ↗ be involved in other sustainability

45:13 ↗ initiatives so we have really been

45:15 ↗ working

45:17 ↗ um just to not a great deal of success

45:19 ↗ but we're trying to continually improve

45:21 ↗ and expand that Outreach to reaching our

45:25 ↗ members of our community that are

45:26 ↗ typically engaged in these conversations

45:33 ↗ so first we're going to look at the

45:35 ↗ vulnerability assessment and just talk

45:37 ↗ through some of the findings that are in

45:40 ↗ that draft report

45:42 ↗ um

45:43 ↗ we know that well I'll first say the the

45:48 ↗ work from this report is really intended

45:50 ↗ to inform future planning that the city

45:52 ↗ does as well as projects and then as

45:55 ↗ I've already mentioned a number of times

45:57 ↗ we also are using it to inform policies

46:00 ↗ and strategies as they go into our

46:02 ↗ comprehensive planning process

46:05 ↗ so we know that our region will and see

46:09 ↗ increased temperatures we've already

46:11 ↗ seen that especially in the summer we

46:14 ↗ know that we'll have wildfire that we

46:16 ↗ have wildfire and smoke becoming more

46:18 ↗ frequent and severe we're also seeing

46:21 ↗ reduced snow packs we're seeing more

46:23 ↗ intense storms extreme flooding

46:25 ↗ Landslide hazards and overall seeing

46:28 ↗ more extreme weather conditions

46:30 ↗ some of the impacts from these changes

46:33 ↗ will be higher rates of heat-borne

46:35 ↗ illness hospitalization

46:37 ↗ um even death from heat in populations

46:41 ↗ that are more vulnerable such as

46:42 ↗ children older adults and outdoor

46:44 ↗ laborers we're seeing we'll see

46:47 ↗ infrastructure damage more frequently

46:49 ↗ severe wildfires

46:51 ↗ as well as flood events

46:54 ↗ Stacy yeah one question of clarification

46:57 ↗ yeah

47:01 ↗ I've read through the whole document

47:03 ↗ with maybe I shouldn't have

47:04 ↗ um

47:06 ↗ one thing I was interested in was how

47:08 ↗ Wildfire like the specific software I

47:10 ↗ know it's crap still but I know this

47:12 ↗ that's something that the board has been

47:14 ↗ really interested in

47:16 ↗ um my reading was that

47:18 ↗ the a consultant was saying that

47:21 ↗ Wildfire was more likely generally in

47:23 ↗ the area where smoke would be a big

47:25 ↗ impact but that locally

47:27 ↗ there wasn't expected to be a major

47:29 ↗ increase in fire risk due to wildfires

47:32 ↗ and so is that one is that like

47:36 ↗ how far along is that am I what am I

47:39 ↗ interpreting that correctly and then two

47:40 ↗ is that where we think that's going to

47:43 ↗ end up yeah I think smoke is where we've

47:45 ↗ mostly used in the risk I think there's

47:47 ↗ a lot of concern about Wildfire coming

47:50 ↗ we just don't know yet if that is going

47:53 ↗ to be the case but we're because what a

47:56 ↗ lot of what they've been talking about

47:57 ↗ in the report and based on Canadian

47:59 ↗ staff and what is

48:01 ↗ um even if our Wildfire risk is in is

48:05 ↗ really high we have some neighborhoods

48:07 ↗ that have fairly limited access and in

48:10 ↗ and out points and so we need to

48:12 ↗ strategize to make sure that those

48:14 ↗ committees can be or members of the

48:15 ↗ community can be saved during those

48:17 ↗ events

48:18 ↗ um we did just get some additional

48:20 ↗ information from our interim emergency

48:22 ↗ manager too that we're working to

48:24 ↗ incorporate in around Wildfire for us

48:30 ↗ go ahead Nancy

48:32 ↗ sorry it's hard to but did you

48:35 ↗ coordinate that with he said fire and

48:36 ↗ rescue in terms of you know what they're

48:39 ↗ seeing not only for this community since

48:41 ↗ they serve not only us but North Bend

48:43 ↗ and Snoqualmie and other areas that are

48:46 ↗ also even a little further out but you

48:49 ↗ know it's clear that their resources if

48:51 ↗ there is a wildfire in eastern King

48:53 ↗ County their resources are going to be

48:56 ↗ really tax and stuff and I think that's

48:58 ↗ something that people are trying to

48:59 ↗ raise is how are we going to address

49:00 ↗ that

49:02 ↗ yeah that's a great point we have had

49:05 ↗ members that you said fire and rescue

49:07 ↗ participating in the staff discussions

49:09 ↗ but um those conversations especially

49:11 ↗ around strategies

49:14 ↗ um policies so is a good thing to

49:16 ↗ highlight I'll make sure we're reaching

49:17 ↗ out to them

49:20 ↗ yeah I think just one piece of feedback

49:22 ↗ from this General topic I think would be

49:24 ↗ really helpful as we have more meetings

49:27 ↗ on this to be really clear about

49:29 ↗ so the location of where we think the

49:31 ↗ wildfires are like where the majority of

49:33 ↗ that risk is going to be in the in the

49:35 ↗ local impacts versus the general area or

49:39 ↗ the state level impacts

49:42 ↗ I think like if you were to just look at

49:44 ↗ this slide that would be really

49:46 ↗ concerning yeah more frequent intense

49:49 ↗ wildglers

49:50 ↗ not knowing that most of what they were

49:53 ↗ talking about was in the Cascade like in

49:55 ↗ other areas not necessarily here right

49:57 ↗ you just think that that would be

49:59 ↗ helpful to provide people I know this is

50:01 ↗ just at a very high level but uh excuse

50:04 ↗ me that's the one that's uh

50:06 ↗ a lot of people are going to be paying

50:08 ↗ attention to it yeah no that's a good

50:10 ↗ point and I think one of the challenges

50:11 ↗ the modeling only goes down to certain

50:13 ↗ scales and we've been working a lot with

50:16 ↗ climate impacts group to use some of

50:18 ↗ their most recent modeling but it's

50:20 ↗ still at a pretty hard level

50:22 ↗ um and so trying to learn as much as we

50:24 ↗ can from that but also knowing

50:27 ↗ um if we can't if we don't know the

50:29 ↗ exact magnitude of the risk for our

50:33 ↗ community we do know that if that kind

50:34 ↗ of event was to happen we have some

50:37 ↗ major challenges here and so being

50:39 ↗ prepared for that yeah it looks like if

50:41 ↗ you raise your hand yeah and please

50:44 ↗ um folks on the phone because I am on

50:46 ↗ one screen here please do just jump in

50:48 ↗ because it's hard for me to see some of

50:50 ↗ the hand races that's how I have in

50:53 ↗ yeah so um

50:56 ↗ if we do continue to get these you know

50:59 ↗ intense heat domes of you know

51:02 ↗ 105 plus degrees

51:05 ↗ I think there's a good chance that sadly

51:09 ↗ we will have wildfires I know there was

51:12 ↗ a fire up the power lines from where I

51:15 ↗ live

51:16 ↗ um it wasn't a forest fire but it was

51:18 ↗ just from a spark and it lit the grass

51:21 ↗ on fire

51:23 ↗ um so

51:25 ↗ sadly I think we might be dealing with

51:28 ↗ forest fires Even in our neighborhoods

51:29 ↗ and we're going to have to be really

51:30 ↗ careful

51:31 ↗ and try to make our forests as healthy

51:34 ↗ and resilient as possible

51:40 ↗ if you're done and I

51:43 ↗ did my thesis my research thesis

51:46 ↗ um in grad school on wildfire and I

51:48 ↗ studied in California so

51:51 ↗ um we're on the front lines of studying

51:52 ↗ the front lines and um

51:54 ↗ we are absolutely at risk for Wildfire

51:58 ↗ um it's just gonna happen and an

52:00 ↗ interesting thing that I studied was I

52:02 ↗ won't get into the details but

52:04 ↗ um was the idea of having a fire ethic

52:06 ↗ of introducing a fire ethics so I think

52:08 ↗ it's important

52:09 ↗ um this kind of work that we're doing

52:11 ↗ and and looking at

52:13 ↗ um when you introduce the fire ethic as

52:16 ↗ well as an environmental ethic you start

52:18 ↗ to help like empowering the community to

52:21 ↗ recognize fire risks and manage their

52:23 ↗ own land and help their neighbors manage

52:25 ↗ their land is super important um

52:28 ↗ so I think we should just assume it's

52:30 ↗ going to happen rather than saying it's

52:31 ↗ a low risk um it's it's rather

52:33 ↗ inevitable but I'm happy to share any

52:36 ↗ research I had but I do

52:38 ↗ um

52:39 ↗ I have the research that I saw was

52:40 ↗ interesting that you know there's some

52:42 ↗ communities that were especially at risk

52:43 ↗ that had um sort of their own makeshift

52:46 ↗ fire crew to jump in so that no one was

52:48 ↗ at risk but um so yeah Jamie I agree

52:51 ↗ with you I'm glad you brought it up

52:54 ↗ thanks Laura yeah we will be working on

52:56 ↗ a number of communication tools as part

52:58 ↗ of this project so learn more about that

53:00 ↗ fire ethic any resources you can share

53:03 ↗ would be great

53:05 ↗ thanks Laura

53:07 ↗ um Janet go ahead yes I think we are

53:10 ↗ going to see some more increase in the

53:14 ↗ entire

53:16 ↗ um dangers because uh they're certainly

53:18 ↗ seen

53:20 ↗ uh in my neighborhood

53:23 ↗ the effect of the drought

53:26 ↗ on trees so we're losing a lot of our

53:30 ↗ Western red Cedars

53:32 ↗ and I have a hillside with I've lost

53:35 ↗ quite a few

53:37 ↗ um big leaf names

53:39 ↗ and when I tried to figure out find out

53:41 ↗ you know research why it'll be dying

53:45 ↗ um they say climate change

53:51 ↗ yeah I lost just three big leaf maples

53:55 ↗ from last year

53:58 ↗ yeah same here Janet

54:01 ↗ um

54:03 ↗ I was when I first got involved with

54:05 ↗ Joey Holbert from um

54:07 ↗ he has a forest Health watch

54:10 ↗ I we were organizing hikes and things

54:14 ↗ um

54:15 ↗ he I was I wanted to have him out to my

54:19 ↗ place because I was so proud of how

54:21 ↗ healthy all the Cedars were

54:24 ↗ um and how resilient they all were and

54:25 ↗ not a problem here and then after the

54:28 ↗ heat Dome

54:30 ↗ um we lost three on our property our

54:32 ↗ neighbors lost a couple and then we live

54:34 ↗ up from power lines and there's a whole

54:36 ↗ bunch of

54:37 ↗ dead ones that ones that the tops are

54:40 ↗ brown and usually once the tops are

54:42 ↗ brown the rest of the tree is going to

54:44 ↗ die it means the water wasn't able to

54:45 ↗ get up

54:47 ↗ so we'll watch them maybe it won't

54:49 ↗ happen but most likely even in my

54:52 ↗ neighborhood on the

54:54 ↗ north east side of the Hill which is

54:56 ↗ shadier

54:58 ↗ The Cedars are dying

55:04 ↗ Sam uh

55:07 ↗ good

55:08 ↗ uh yeah I just wanted to reflect a

55:10 ↗ little uh my family likes to vacation in

55:13 ↗ Bend Oregon area and a little Resort

55:16 ↗ Town that's amongst the trees and the

55:19 ↗ the fire risk areas is very

55:23 ↗ um well recognized and fire fires in

55:26 ↗ that area are apparently regular the

55:28 ↗ community has never been threatened by

55:30 ↗ fire real close to yet but it's expected

55:34 ↗ someday that will happen uh the

55:36 ↗ community has engaged in a ladder fuel

55:39 ↗ Reduction Program

55:41 ↗ now for 30 years and it's been

55:44 ↗ impressive to watch because I've been

55:46 ↗ going there for over 20 years and seeing

55:49 ↗ the progress made in the the forests

55:51 ↗ surrounding the community is uh going

55:55 ↗ from a jumbled mess of stuff that would

55:58 ↗ laying around on the ground and now it's

56:00 ↗ much more clean more like it you would

56:03 ↗ have been in the olden days when fire

56:06 ↗ was allowed so we're kind of really

56:08 ↗ restoring the forest to uh what it was

56:11 ↗ before fire suppression became the thing

56:16 ↗ um so maybe it's time for the City of

56:19 ↗ Issaquah to engage in in programs like

56:23 ↗ that it's it's not a quick fix at all I

56:25 ↗ mean like I mentioned this community has

56:27 ↗ been working at it for 30 years and then

56:30 ↗ so an ongoing uh the battle and the the

56:33 ↗ bars raised a little bit each year but

56:36 ↗ it's a lot about just maintaining the

56:38 ↗ progress you've already made and then

56:40 ↗ pushing a little bit further it's kind

56:43 ↗ of in the agenda and

56:45 ↗ that's how they've approached it also in

56:48 ↗ terms of community outreach and

56:51 ↗ education making sure everybody gets the

56:54 ↗ message over and over and in various

56:57 ↗ Community Publications or wherever they

57:00 ↗ can present on defensible space and

57:05 ↗ what you should be doing around your

57:08 ↗ house to make sure that it might survive

57:11 ↗ it also not meet a part of the change of

57:15 ↗ propagation of fire and it's not just

57:17 ↗ about your house it's about well what

57:20 ↗ happens when your house goes to blaze

57:21 ↗ and then you know change to the next

57:23 ↗ house Etc so um Community Education

57:28 ↗ public education about the risks you

57:31 ↗ know it would be I think valuable for

57:34 ↗ the city of the squad to engage in and

57:37 ↗ also to think about

57:39 ↗ um

57:39 ↗ bladder fuel reduction

57:42 ↗ on the periphery at least you know and

57:45 ↗ had kind of work out but uh

57:47 ↗ a human caused fire in somewhere in in

57:52 ↗ our footprint the city of this club

57:54 ↗ footprint then spreading up the slopes

57:56 ↗ of squawk mountain and affecting

57:59 ↗ trapping and affecting the residents who

58:01 ↗ live halfway up the mountain

58:04 ↗ that's that's definitely a possibility

58:07 ↗ in my mind on squat particularly a tiger

58:10 ↗ there's fewer people who live high but

58:12 ↗ uh squawka the community goes up halfway

58:16 ↗ to the top but they are at risk I think

58:21 ↗ that's all

58:22 ↗ yeah thank you you all are just starting

58:25 ↗ to generate lots of ideas and strategies

58:28 ↗ and we'll be having a lot more

58:30 ↗ conversations about those so

58:34 ↗ great

58:36 ↗ um so I'll just move through a few more

58:38 ↗ slides I feel like you all are ready to

58:41 ↗ move to that next step on strategies and

58:43 ↗ policies which will come in a month or

58:45 ↗ two but just to highlight a few other

58:48 ↗ findings

58:49 ↗ um of the report

58:51 ↗ um so we highlighted just some of the

58:54 ↗ community members that are higher at

58:56 ↗ risk this was based on research on the

58:59 ↗ consultant's input from staff input from

59:01 ↗ the community

59:05 ↗ um and then uh moved into the the actual

59:07 ↗ vulnerability assessment so to assess

59:10 ↗ vulnerability they were looking at three

59:12 ↗ things how much the community is exposed

59:15 ↗ or In Harm's Way the climate impacts the

59:17 ↗ degree to which we are anticipated to be

59:19 ↗ affected by those impacts and then some

59:22 ↗ indication of adaptive capacity or the

59:25 ↗ actions and conditions that help the

59:27 ↗ community prepare for climate impacts

59:29 ↗ which would decrease our government

59:30 ↗ quality

59:34 ↗ um you all saw this slide back last

59:36 ↗ summer but this just kind of breaks down

59:37 ↗ the steps of compiling the vulnerability

59:39 ↗ assessment they characterized

59:42 ↗ anticipated climate impacts to the

59:44 ↗ community looked at current science

59:47 ↗ knowledge of existing conditions

59:49 ↗ understanding of community perspectives

59:51 ↗ they looked at the sectors that they

59:54 ↗ wanted to identify climate

59:55 ↗ vulnerabilities for which you all

59:58 ↗ provided some feedback last time we met

1:00:00 ↗ on this topic once they have those

1:00:03 ↗ sectors identified they gather as much

1:00:05 ↗ information they could about existing

1:00:07 ↗ and proposed plans and projects work in

1:00:10 ↗ the city Knowledge from community and

1:00:12 ↗ staff experts reports and research

1:00:15 ↗ so they could then assess the exposure

1:00:18 ↗ sensitivity and adaptive capacity of

1:00:21 ↗ those various sectors

1:00:22 ↗ they assigned a scale to the gathered

1:00:25 ↗ information looking at typically high

1:00:27 ↗ medium low so that they could identify

1:00:30 ↗ what places sectors or community members

1:00:33 ↗ might be have a higher level of

1:00:36 ↗ vulnerability that we could then address

1:00:39 ↗ with resilient strategies in our next

1:00:41 ↗ phase of the project

1:00:42 ↗ so I'll just go through some of those

1:00:44 ↗ initial results that were in the report

1:00:48 ↗ and then as mentioned we'll be coming

1:00:50 ↗ back in the future events to talk about

1:00:52 ↗ both communication strategies and

1:00:54 ↗ policies

1:00:56 ↗ so this is just a snapshot of the

1:01:00 ↗ sectors that were identified and then

1:01:02 ↗ where they are mostly like at risk for

1:01:05 ↗ various climate impacts so just as a

1:01:09 ↗ reminder our sectors and these were

1:01:11 ↗ revised based on board input but we had

1:01:14 ↗ the built environment and then we had

1:01:15 ↗ sub-sectors under there around building

1:01:17 ↗ housing and transportation we had our

1:01:20 ↗ natural systems this included open space

1:01:23 ↗ Parts Urban canopy Urban Tree canopy

1:01:26 ↗ sensitive or critical ecosystems

1:01:29 ↗ we had water resources and storm water

1:01:31 ↗ this looked at Water Supply Waterway

1:01:34 ↗ Health flood zones low-lying areas

1:01:36 ↗ stormwater infrastructure

1:01:38 ↗ and then community and economic

1:01:40 ↗ well-being and public health and safety

1:01:42 ↗ we're actually looking at possibly

1:01:45 ↗ confining or kind of reorganizing these

1:01:48 ↗ we got a lot of feedback from our Human

1:01:49 ↗ Services team about overlap but these

1:01:53 ↗ will cover item sub-sectors such as

1:01:55 ↗ Social Services

1:01:57 ↗ businesses regional growth

1:02:00 ↗ um economic growth air quality physical

1:02:03 ↗ health Mental Health Emergency Services

1:02:08 ↗ so here are again draft but

1:02:12 ↗ initialifying beings

1:02:14 ↗ um

1:02:14 ↗ go ahead please hi it's Nancy sorry to

1:02:17 ↗ bug you can you go back to your last

1:02:19 ↗ slide I'm sorry I couldn't get my thing

1:02:21 ↗ so where are you covering things like

1:02:24 ↗ Supply chains similar to what we saw in

1:02:26 ↗ covid because if there's a major fire on

1:02:28 ↗ 90 it's going to impact our ability to

1:02:30 ↗ get materials

1:02:32 ↗ food particularly into the area

1:02:36 ↗ yes thank you that I kind of doubled the

1:02:38 ↗ words on that it's under community and

1:02:40 ↗ economic well-being which covers local

1:02:42 ↗ and Regional economy and growth which

1:02:45 ↗ looks at those Food Systems and

1:02:47 ↗ transportation of food and supplies as

1:02:50 ↗ well

1:02:51 ↗ that's a great question yeah

1:02:56 ↗ um so this is a snapshot of what they

1:02:58 ↗ are finding based on the research staff

1:03:02 ↗ input Community input are higher levels

1:03:06 ↗ of vulnerability around those

1:03:08 ↗ sub-sectors of sensitive ecosystems and

1:03:11 ↗ physical Mental Health

1:03:13 ↗ moderate vulnerabilities

1:03:16 ↗ buildings housing energy Transportation

1:03:19 ↗ stormwater infrastructure superseptic

1:03:22 ↗ Social Services Emergency Services local

1:03:25 ↗ Regional economy and growth and then

1:03:27 ↗ lower levels of vulnerability Green

1:03:29 ↗ Space tree canopy and water supply food

1:03:32 ↗ supply and security

1:03:38 ↗ the next several slides walk through a

1:03:41 ↗ little bit more of an explanation of the

1:03:43 ↗ impacts and then break out those

1:03:45 ↗ vulnerabilities by sub-sector I

1:03:49 ↗ don't need to take the time to go

1:03:52 ↗ through it folks can look through that

1:03:53 ↗ presentation and look at the report

1:03:56 ↗ um and then we're also working on some

1:03:58 ↗ two painters that will be sharing in

1:04:02 ↗ different ways with the community that

1:04:03 ↗ will also summarize

1:04:05 ↗ um this information in a way that's very

1:04:08 ↗ um outward facing and friendly for the

1:04:10 ↗ community to review

1:04:13 ↗ um

1:04:13 ↗ but did want to just look through these

1:04:15 ↗ so folks could have a little bit more uh

1:04:18 ↗ understanding or see some more detail

1:04:21 ↗ um than what was shown on the previous

1:04:22 ↗ slide but

1:04:25 ↗ so we have our natural system storm

1:04:27 ↗ water we could see the various

1:04:29 ↗ sub-sectors within that kind of rank

1:04:31 ↗ differently in terms of their

1:04:33 ↗ vulnerability as mentioned before that

1:04:36 ↗ sensitive ecosystems was rigged as one

1:04:38 ↗ of the highest were Urban Green Space

1:04:40 ↗ true canopy was ranked lower

1:04:45 ↗ water resources and Sewer load of

1:04:48 ↗ moderate here depending on the various

1:04:50 ↗ systems water supply I think really

1:04:53 ↗ ranks low because of the range of

1:04:55 ↗ different water sources that we have in

1:04:57 ↗ the city

1:04:59 ↗ um where sewer in septic a little bit

1:05:01 ↗ more susceptible to different major

1:05:03 ↗ weather events

1:05:07 ↗ um Public Health also kind of a range

1:05:10 ↗ here we saw on that earlier scale

1:05:12 ↗ physical mental health we're making kind

1:05:14 ↗ of highest in terms of vulnerability

1:05:17 ↗ um and I think a lot of cases if you dig

1:05:20 ↗ into the report well we may have a

1:05:21 ↗ number of services available for

1:05:23 ↗ community members

1:05:25 ↗ um for physical and mental health uh

1:05:28 ↗ during a time of the major climate

1:05:31 ↗ events or weather events those Services

1:05:33 ↗ may not be able to provide those

1:05:36 ↗ services to community members that need

1:05:38 ↗ them so that was one of the reasons I

1:05:41 ↗ think that this sub-sector scored higher

1:05:44 ↗ on vulnerability

1:05:47 ↗ and then Community economic well-being

1:05:49 ↗ has mentioned that goes into kind of

1:05:51 ↗ supply chain regional growth Social

1:05:54 ↗ Services

1:05:58 ↗ so again this was just a very quick

1:06:01 ↗ snapshot just wanted to

1:06:03 ↗ provide you all with kind of an update

1:06:06 ↗ on where we are let you get a sense of

1:06:09 ↗ what the draft report looks like and the

1:06:12 ↗ information that it's providing

1:06:15 ↗ um

1:06:16 ↗ the one question that I did have for the

1:06:19 ↗ board tonight uh and this is not a very

1:06:22 ↗ well afraid question but we do want to

1:06:25 ↗ come to you all with

1:06:27 ↗ uh policies and strategies that would be

1:06:30 ↗ incorporated into the comprehensive plan

1:06:34 ↗ um that's going to be the next major

1:06:36 ↗ step where you all will provide feedback

1:06:38 ↗ and recommendations and

1:06:42 ↗ um one of the input from you all on

1:06:44 ↗ whether we should have conversations

1:06:46 ↗ about

1:06:48 ↗ strategies and actions related to

1:06:50 ↗ climate vulnerability

1:06:52 ↗ um as their own discussion or if you all

1:06:55 ↗ want to have that as part of our

1:06:57 ↗ comprehensive plan discussion

1:07:01 ↗ um any input on the climate

1:07:03 ↗ vulnerability policy and actions would

1:07:05 ↗ be incorporated into the comprehensive

1:07:07 ↗ plan

1:07:08 ↗ um

1:07:09 ↗ but out I wasn't sure if it's something

1:07:12 ↗ you all would want to see kind of a

1:07:13 ↗ separate focused discussion on or just

1:07:15 ↗ have it embedded as part of the

1:07:17 ↗ comprehensive plan discussion

1:07:19 ↗ um that's something we can also think

1:07:21 ↗ about especially as Steven's going to be

1:07:24 ↗ coming to us in the next few meetings to

1:07:25 ↗ start talking about the comprehensive

1:07:27 ↗ plan so you all can get a sense of the

1:07:31 ↗ level of work that's going to be in the

1:07:33 ↗ amount of feedback the board is going to

1:07:35 ↗ be providing on that and decide how much

1:07:39 ↗ we want to just embed the climate

1:07:41 ↗ vulnerability policies and strategies as

1:07:43 ↗ part of that discussion versus just

1:07:45 ↗ having them as their own unique

1:07:46 ↗ discussion

1:07:48 ↗ so not very well praying question

1:07:50 ↗ hopefully that somewhat makes sense but

1:07:52 ↗ any initial input or something we can

1:07:54 ↗ think about and talk about as we get

1:07:57 ↗ into the conference of plan discussions

1:08:00 ↗ basically you know the target date for

1:08:01 ↗ one common you know they're starting the

1:08:03 ↗ process now one will

1:08:05 ↗ a new comprehensive plan ultimately be

1:08:08 ↗ there are they targeting

1:08:10 ↗ um so leave it is towards the end of the

1:08:12 ↗ year this year it is a fast process

1:08:16 ↗ um yes and Stephen actually has sent me

1:08:19 ↗ a draft vision for the board to start

1:08:21 ↗ providing some of them put on that he'll

1:08:23 ↗ be coming to us leaving April May and

1:08:26 ↗ then again in

1:08:29 ↗ um August September to have

1:08:30 ↗ conversations about the sections we're

1:08:32 ↗ reviewing and he'll be giving us an

1:08:35 ↗ overview of the comprehensive plan and

1:08:36 ↗ timeline

1:08:38 ↗ but we'll be quickly and then another

1:08:41 ↗ timeline question when do we expect to

1:08:43 ↗ have

1:08:44 ↗ the finalized version of this climate

1:08:46 ↗ assessment

1:08:47 ↗ we are um it's undergoing editorial

1:08:50 ↗ review and I have a couple staff that

1:08:52 ↗ need to get some final eyes on it so

1:08:54 ↗ probably within the next month

1:08:56 ↗ um and at the same time the Consultants

1:08:57 ↗ are drafting up strategies and policies

1:09:01 ↗ for review and consideration those will

1:09:03 ↗ be going to staff we'll have a stack

1:09:06 ↗ workshop on those in April and then we

1:09:08 ↗ plan to bring them to the board right

1:09:09 ↗ after that right because that was the

1:09:10 ↗ part that I was curious about is to have

1:09:12 ↗ a complete

1:09:13 ↗ so that'll be some time like April okay

1:09:16 ↗ yeah oh sorry for the policies and

1:09:19 ↗ strategies the policies yeah of this at

1:09:21 ↗ least the initial look would be yeah

1:09:28 ↗ well we can think on that question maybe

1:09:30 ↗ when Stephen comes to talk to us

1:09:32 ↗ throughout the comprehensive plan

1:09:34 ↗ um so books have a better idea of what

1:09:36 ↗ that's going to look like in our role

1:09:37 ↗ then we can talk about how much do we

1:09:40 ↗ just integrate the conversation versus

1:09:42 ↗ kind of having a separate climate

1:09:45 ↗ vulnerability bucket I'm not sure what's

1:09:47 ↗ the best approach this was responded

1:09:49 ↗ some feedback on the board

1:09:51 ↗ you have a quick question

1:09:52 ↗ okay sorry quick question are they

1:09:56 ↗ planning on doing a wholehearted redo of

1:09:58 ↗ the comp plan or is this just a minor

1:10:00 ↗ update

1:10:03 ↗ um this is the major update that's due

1:10:06 ↗ for 2024. they'll be there's a new I I

1:10:10 ↗ don't want to misspeak because Steven

1:10:12 ↗ Steven lives and breezes every day but

1:10:14 ↗ uh my understanding is

1:10:17 ↗ um we will have a new section on the

1:10:20 ↗ environment we will we will be working

1:10:22 ↗ to still integrate and find the

1:10:24 ↗ sustainability throughout but there will

1:10:25 ↗ be a new section and they're going to be

1:10:27 ↗ going through and doing a cleanup across

1:10:30 ↗ the comma plan but they do updates to

1:10:33 ↗ the content every year so

1:10:36 ↗ um in terms of brand new content for it

1:10:39 ↗ Beyond vulnerability assessment

1:10:41 ↗ um there may not be any major New pieces

1:10:45 ↗ of information but they are doing a

1:10:46 ↗ pretty big cleanup of it is my

1:10:48 ↗ understanding

1:10:53 ↗ um one quick reaction I mean I do think

1:10:56 ↗ we're gonna have a lot to talk about

1:10:57 ↗ upon just this topic to get it to the

1:11:00 ↗ point that we've talked about a lot I

1:11:02 ↗ would guess a lot of the other topics

1:11:04 ↗ that are going to be in the

1:11:05 ↗ comprehensive plan

1:11:07 ↗ so I do wonder if it's going to be

1:11:09 ↗ difficult to try to combine okay

1:11:12 ↗ I'm as part of an overall discussion

1:11:14 ↗ versus having a separate conversation

1:11:16 ↗ once this document is complete

1:11:19 ↗ and with all the strategies and actions

1:11:21 ↗ or policies

1:11:23 ↗ um so

1:11:26 ↗ yeah we can see as we get further into

1:11:28 ↗ the column

1:11:33 ↗ I also want to say great great job with

1:11:35 ↗ all of it

1:11:36 ↗ I read through it too and um you did a

1:11:39 ↗ lot of really good work oh it has been

1:11:42 ↗ 99 of the consultants and then staff

1:11:45 ↗ from other departments I think you know

1:11:48 ↗ um I will pass that along the other

1:11:50 ↗ component major component of this

1:11:52 ↗ project

1:11:53 ↗ um are communication tools so the

1:11:56 ↗ Consultants are working to develop

1:11:59 ↗ concepts of our communication tools they

1:12:01 ↗ may not actually have time and budget to

1:12:04 ↗ develop them but we'll be looking at

1:12:06 ↗ things that might best resonate with

1:12:08 ↗ various members of the community and

1:12:10 ↗ that's something we'll also be looking

1:12:12 ↗ to get some input on we might have a

1:12:14 ↗ booth at the sustainability fair to get

1:12:16 ↗ some input on kind of prototypes or

1:12:18 ↗ ideas

1:12:20 ↗ um but really want to generate some

1:12:22 ↗ tools that will speak to those

1:12:24 ↗ communities most at risk in this

1:12:27 ↗ apartment

1:12:30 ↗ right can I throw in one piece of

1:12:33 ↗ feedback um I know you don't want

1:12:34 ↗ comments but I feel like it's something

1:12:36 ↗ that they might want to address sooner

1:12:37 ↗ is that it didn't seem like there's a

1:12:39 ↗ lot about climate migration which I feel

1:12:41 ↗ like is going to be an issue in the same

1:12:42 ↗ way like to what Nancy said that covid

1:12:44 ↗ things we experienced at covid so

1:12:46 ↗ there'll be more climate refugees

1:12:47 ↗ there'll be more climate supply chain

1:12:49 ↗ issues

1:12:50 ↗ um so just remembering to think like we

1:12:53 ↗ don't live in a bubble we get our food

1:12:54 ↗ from outside the bubbles so all these

1:12:55 ↗ impacts are sort of internally focused

1:12:58 ↗ um so it'd be nice to find ways to weave

1:13:01 ↗ in some of those threads

1:13:03 ↗ um and probably sooner rather than later

1:13:05 ↗ like we're gonna you know homelessness

1:13:07 ↗ and some complicated issues that maybe

1:13:10 ↗ we don't plan for as our formal

1:13:12 ↗ community

1:13:13 ↗ no that's a great point I think you

1:13:15 ↗ raised um probably a gap in there

1:13:18 ↗ wherever we can incorporate that into

1:13:19 ↗ some of the existing sub-sectors I think

1:13:22 ↗ that's a great great addition

1:13:29 ↗ all right we'll expect more

1:13:31 ↗ conversations coming in the next few

1:13:33 ↗ months

1:13:34 ↗ um around communication and policies and

1:13:36 ↗ strategies and if you do have time to

1:13:39 ↗ read the report and see anything that

1:13:43 ↗ might be missing or

1:13:45 ↗ um any uh Corrections you'd want to see

1:13:48 ↗ mate just go ahead and send those send

1:13:50 ↗ those to me

1:13:51 ↗ okay

1:13:52 ↗ great thank you

1:13:55 ↗ all right well I think with that we

1:13:57 ↗ finished up our main agenda items and

1:13:59 ↗ move into reports for the first being

1:14:02 ↗ the sustainable purchasing policy I'm

1:14:05 ↗ gonna hand it over to David for the

1:14:07 ↗ first two reports yeah so I'll I have uh

1:14:10 ↗ the first two reports

1:14:12 ↗ um and I will note both of them are at a

1:14:15 ↗ pretty early stage

1:14:17 ↗ um so starting off with the sustainable

1:14:20 ↗ purchasing policy

1:14:23 ↗ um we will be coming to the

1:14:26 ↗ environmental board for input on this uh

1:14:29 ↗ for all the we're intending to do that

1:14:32 ↗ twice over the next

1:14:35 ↗ um year right now uh the the idea with

1:14:38 ↗ this is to

1:14:40 ↗ develop uh some sort of policy that is

1:14:44 ↗ not going to be a standalone policy uh

1:14:47 ↗ most likely but rather integrated into

1:14:50 ↗ existing financial management policies

1:14:54 ↗ um but this this uh policy will support

1:14:57 ↗ the city and City staff in

1:15:02 ↗ um making more sustainable uh purchasing

1:15:07 ↗ decisions that are based on social

1:15:09 ↗ environmental and economic

1:15:11 ↗ criteria and guidelines

1:15:15 ↗ um and the the whole idea around this is

1:15:17 ↗ that the the purchasing of the city will

1:15:20 ↗ have impacts on uh people and on the

1:15:24 ↗ environment and so anything that we can

1:15:27 ↗ do to set up our policies so that

1:15:30 ↗ um we harness our purchasing at the city

1:15:33 ↗ level for good uh is is something that

1:15:37 ↗ we want to pursue so where we are in

1:15:40 ↗ this right now is we're in a very early

1:15:43 ↗ stage of

1:15:45 ↗ um Outreach and um information gathering

1:15:48 ↗ around the sustainable purchasing policy

1:15:52 ↗ um no draft of the policy has been

1:15:55 ↗ written or anything yet

1:15:57 ↗ um and right now we're reaching out to

1:15:59 ↗ peer cities that have uh sustainable

1:16:02 ↗ purchasing policies which for the most

1:16:05 ↗ part are larger cities there are some

1:16:09 ↗ smaller cities that have uh

1:16:11 ↗ environmentally preferable purchasing or

1:16:13 ↗ sustainable purchasing policies on the

1:16:15 ↗ books but for the most part it is these

1:16:18 ↗ larger jurisdictions so we're Gathering

1:16:20 ↗ input from them we are working with uh

1:16:23 ↗ City staff across all departments to get

1:16:26 ↗ a get their input into what this policy

1:16:29 ↗ can look like and make sure making sure

1:16:31 ↗ that we are right-sizing the policy for

1:16:34 ↗ the city and then we will be coming to

1:16:36 ↗ you on the environmental board as well

1:16:39 ↗ as a few other boards including the

1:16:42 ↗ equity board

1:16:44 ↗ um and I'm blanking on the other one but

1:16:47 ↗ um transportation board transportation I

1:16:49 ↗ think it was Transportation board as

1:16:51 ↗ well

1:16:52 ↗ um to try and help fine-tune what this

1:16:55 ↗ policy is going to look like then we

1:16:59 ↗ will draft the policy over the summer

1:17:03 ↗ um and that again might be in multiple

1:17:07 ↗ pieces it might be all at once that is

1:17:09 ↗ still kind of

1:17:10 ↗ being figured out

1:17:13 ↗ um with our financial uh our finance

1:17:16 ↗ team and Department about and then the

1:17:18 ↗ rest of the city departments around

1:17:19 ↗ really how this is going to be drafted

1:17:23 ↗ and and adopted and um the most

1:17:26 ↗ effective way so then once it's drafted

1:17:28 ↗ we'll come back to the different boards

1:17:30 ↗ and City staff to fine-tune that as well

1:17:32 ↗ and then

1:17:34 ↗ um hopefully uh really get it integrated

1:17:37 ↗ and and become a part of the financial

1:17:40 ↗ management policy so that we can uh

1:17:44 ↗ continue to to make the right choices

1:17:46 ↗ with our city purchasing

1:17:50 ↗ yes and for you um can we and I know

1:17:53 ↗ you're still early in the in the process

1:17:55 ↗ but do we have

1:17:58 ↗ kind of maybe Role Models the wrong word

1:18:01 ↗ but we know who are the ones pushing the

1:18:03 ↗ envelope and do we have a sense for

1:18:05 ↗ where we want to be on the spectrum of

1:18:06 ↗ pushing the envelope versus

1:18:09 ↗ having a policy but basically continuing

1:18:11 ↗ the status quo like

1:18:13 ↗ do we have a sense for that because I

1:18:16 ↗ think that's where I mean I will want us

1:18:18 ↗ to engage as we get further along so

1:18:20 ↗ just curious if we have had any of those

1:18:22 ↗ conversations yet yeah that's a that's a

1:18:25 ↗ great point I think

1:18:26 ↗ um in terms of role models we there are

1:18:29 ↗ quite a few role models and I think one

1:18:31 ↗ of the biggest ones is King County

1:18:33 ↗ um they have a much a very robust

1:18:35 ↗ program that have a quite a few

1:18:38 ↗ um resources for staff

1:18:41 ↗ um I think our goal and this is

1:18:44 ↗ something that we want y'all's input on

1:18:47 ↗ in this process as well as City staff I

1:18:50 ↗ think our goal is to be

1:18:52 ↗ as ambitious as we can

1:18:55 ↗ um recognizing the limitations that we

1:18:57 ↗ have within our city around

1:18:59 ↗ um for instance

1:19:01 ↗ um

1:19:01 ↗ limited uh purchasing staff

1:19:05 ↗ um who can help oversee and manage a

1:19:08 ↗ program I think one of the things that

1:19:11 ↗ we've learned pretty early from peer

1:19:14 ↗ jurisdiction Outreach and then from

1:19:16 ↗ reviewing

1:19:18 ↗ um you know the policies across the

1:19:21 ↗ region and Country

1:19:23 ↗ is that a lot of these are based more

1:19:25 ↗ along guidance versus

1:19:28 ↗ um hard and fast rules around what

1:19:31 ↗ pattern cannot be purchased and part of

1:19:33 ↗ that really is based on the difficulty

1:19:36 ↗ of monitoring and then more specifically

1:19:40 ↗ um the challenge of changing technology

1:19:43 ↗ and materials and goods so uh

1:19:46 ↗ recognizing that by the time we

1:19:48 ↗ Implement something that might require

1:19:51 ↗ some purchasing it might not be the best

1:19:53 ↗ uh and most environmentally or socially

1:19:56 ↗ uh or Equitable

1:19:59 ↗ um guidelines to follow that that

1:20:01 ↗ purchasing requirements so really trying

1:20:04 ↗ to think around how can we

1:20:06 ↗ set these guidelines in place to help

1:20:09 ↗ staff really push the envelope about

1:20:12 ↗ what we're doing with purchasing without

1:20:14 ↗ necessarily putting in requirements that

1:20:15 ↗ will need to get updated on a very

1:20:18 ↗ regular basis as things change

1:20:21 ↗ don't support

1:20:26 ↗ any other questions or reactions we do

1:20:29 ↗ intend to come back with more details on

1:20:32 ↗ this uh later this spring

1:20:37 ↗ looking forward to it this will be a fun

1:20:40 ↗ one it will be I'm excited about it

1:20:44 ↗ uh the next uh item is

1:20:49 ↗ um a municipal clean buildings

1:20:51 ↗ resolution we are also working on

1:20:54 ↗ um and this will again also come back

1:20:56 ↗ before uh the environmental board later

1:21:00 ↗ this spring

1:21:01 ↗ um and this

1:21:03 ↗ uh resolution will work with other

1:21:06 ↗ programs we have such as the clean

1:21:08 ↗ buildings program

1:21:10 ↗ um and is intended to

1:21:13 ↗ um support Municipal the decarbonization

1:21:16 ↗ of Municipal operations and will direct

1:21:19 ↗ City staff to uh conduct an analysis of

1:21:23 ↗ feasibility of retrofitting existing

1:21:26 ↗ municipal buildings uh to become

1:21:29 ↗ all-electric by 2030. and so

1:21:32 ↗ um like the clean buildings incentive

1:21:35 ↗ program which is looking at benchmarking

1:21:37 ↗ and Energy Efficiency this uh resolution

1:21:40 ↗ will go a step further and

1:21:43 ↗ um help the city look at our existing

1:21:45 ↗ buildings and and consider

1:21:48 ↗ um how and whether it is feasible to

1:21:52 ↗ really Electrify uh the the city

1:21:56 ↗ buildings

1:21:57 ↗ at the conclusion of this we do also

1:22:00 ↗ hope to

1:22:02 ↗ um kind of Leverage The findings of that

1:22:04 ↗ study to make further recommendations on

1:22:06 ↗ uh implementation actions based on what

1:22:10 ↗ comes out of the study

1:22:14 ↗ any initial thoughts or feedback on that

1:22:17 ↗ one as well

1:22:19 ↗ I just have a quick question for you are

1:22:22 ↗ you doing the study are you doing that

1:22:24 ↗ externally with the consultant

1:22:27 ↗ I believe that would be a consultant

1:22:30 ↗ the the

1:22:32 ↗ resolution that we would hope to get a

1:22:35 ↗ board recommendation on with

1:22:37 ↗ um

1:22:38 ↗ would advise or direct the city to

1:22:41 ↗ complete this study and by the end of

1:22:43 ↗ that we would then have the pathway

1:22:46 ↗ um and hopefully the the financial I

1:22:48 ↗ don't care Financial

1:22:50 ↗ assessment of what it would cost them to

1:22:52 ↗ move through those actions but we would

1:22:54 ↗ yes we would be hiring consultant to

1:22:55 ↗ support that work

1:23:01 ↗ yeah

1:23:02 ↗ so

1:23:04 ↗ um and I I know you probably said this

1:23:06 ↗ this is just for City buildings

1:23:10 ↗ yes this is uh for right now this is

1:23:14 ↗ intended specifically for City buildings

1:23:17 ↗ okay thanks

1:23:26 ↗ and does does the city have any

1:23:29 ↗ um thoughts about are there any extra

1:23:32 ↗ buildings that they could let go before

1:23:35 ↗ they have to spend a lot of money

1:23:38 ↗ retrofitting

1:23:40 ↗ that is a good question I think

1:23:43 ↗ um I don't have any specific answer to

1:23:46 ↗ that right now although I do know we did

1:23:47 ↗ just hire a facilities uh manager or

1:23:52 ↗ actual title is Administrative

1:23:54 ↗ department manager

1:23:57 ↗ um yeah yes but we are planning on doing

1:24:01 ↗ a facilities assessment this year and so

1:24:03 ↗ um I believe thinking around what

1:24:07 ↗ um buildings or

1:24:09 ↗ um we let go would come out of that

1:24:11 ↗ um assessment

1:24:14 ↗ awesome thank you

1:24:16 ↗ just a thought then you could use the

1:24:18 ↗ money from the sale of whatever those

1:24:20 ↗ buildings were to do all the

1:24:21 ↗ retrofitting and

1:24:23 ↗ yeah great might not even need to study

1:24:29 ↗ uh I know the last thing I would note on

1:24:31 ↗ this similar to

1:24:33 ↗ um sustainable purchasing where we have

1:24:35 ↗ um model uh program uh this uh is other

1:24:40 ↗ cities regionally have adopted

1:24:43 ↗ um resolutions that we are facing the

1:24:45 ↗ one that we are writing

1:24:47 ↗ on such a Tacoma and

1:24:53 ↗ it's clearly the path forward so

1:24:57 ↗ I'm just curious as to so

1:25:01 ↗ when you hire a consultant to figure out

1:25:05 ↗ um do a study around this is that how

1:25:08 ↗ expensive is that

1:25:11 ↗ to hire the Consultants

1:25:14 ↗ um we had but so we'll be coming to the

1:25:18 ↗ board to provide a recommendation on

1:25:19 ↗ whether to bring this resolution forward

1:25:23 ↗ um to be approved but we did budget for

1:25:26 ↗ the study we budgeted around sixty

1:25:28 ↗ thousand

1:25:29 ↗ um in this I believe in this year's

1:25:31 ↗ budget should this resolution be

1:25:33 ↗ approved

1:25:35 ↗ we have some initial studies done of our

1:25:39 ↗ facilities from 27 2017 7 2019 that

1:25:43 ↗ we'll be building on

1:25:46 ↗ so then the study would show you what

1:25:50 ↗ you'd need to do specifically to each

1:25:52 ↗ building

1:25:53 ↗ yes that would be that is I think what

1:25:56 ↗ the resolution would call for and then I

1:25:59 ↗ think we would also want some kind of

1:26:01 ↗ financial pathway or recommendations on

1:26:04 ↗ how we might fund that work

1:26:06 ↗ thank you

1:26:10 ↗ okay so that is Esco the funding path no

1:26:16 ↗ I'm asking is

1:26:20 ↗ as part of the feasibility assessment

1:26:22 ↗ proposing funding mechanisms is that

1:26:26 ↗ expected to be in scope or out of scope

1:26:29 ↗ for this project

1:26:30 ↗ as it is currently written

1:26:33 ↗ um that is not within the resolution

1:26:35 ↗ itself

1:26:36 ↗ um I think the idea is to take the study

1:26:39 ↗ that comes out of the resolution and

1:26:41 ↗ then think about what the platform would

1:26:44 ↗ be

1:26:45 ↗ yeah

1:26:47 ↗ direct the city to undertake this study

1:26:50 ↗ so we haven't developed a scope of work

1:26:52 ↗ for you now let's just I'm saying

1:26:54 ↗ assuming that we take yes we move

1:26:57 ↗ forward with the study

1:26:59 ↗ that's what I was asking whether within

1:27:01 ↗ the study there would be

1:27:03 ↗ that would be scope it sounds like no

1:27:07 ↗ is that oh if there will be financing

1:27:10 ↗ mechanisms as part of the scope yeah

1:27:12 ↗ let's suppose a recommendation of the

1:27:14 ↗ city on how not only visible this is the

1:27:17 ↗ situation this is the dollar figures for

1:27:19 ↗ these buildings but however that part of

1:27:22 ↗ it and then this is how we would propose

1:27:24 ↗ funding it is it just that first part or

1:27:26 ↗ is it the first part yeah David and I

1:27:28 ↗ haven't talked that much about this but

1:27:30 ↗ I'm hoping I wouldn't want it to also be

1:27:32 ↗ the second part if we can fit that

1:27:34 ↗ within the budget because we will be

1:27:36 ↗ coming up on a new budget being we will

1:27:39 ↗ be

1:27:40 ↗ there's a budget or the study goes

1:27:42 ↗ through 2023 beginning and 24 will be

1:27:44 ↗ coming into a new budget season so would

1:27:47 ↗ want to know what are some of the

1:27:48 ↗ recommendations there's a lot of funding

1:27:50 ↗ through the state and then obviously all

1:27:52 ↗ the grant programs so that would be

1:27:55 ↗ something I'd be interested in including

1:27:57 ↗ within that scope of work we we haven't

1:27:59 ↗ talked about that much yet but we could

1:28:02 ↗ we could have some more conversations

1:28:04 ↗ about that when David brings the

1:28:07 ↗ resolution for feedback we could also

1:28:09 ↗ have some conversations about what you

1:28:11 ↗ all would want to see in that scope of

1:28:13 ↗ work assuming Council approves this uh

1:28:16 ↗ that might be that isn't something we

1:28:18 ↗ had talked about doing but I think

1:28:19 ↗ that'd be a great conversation to have

1:28:21 ↗ with you all and there's nothing in the

1:28:23 ↗ current resolution that would exclude

1:28:25 ↗ that so

1:28:26 ↗ wouldn't this have to go through the

1:28:28 ↗ same Capital programming mean any of

1:28:30 ↗ these improvements are going to be

1:28:31 ↗ capitalized they're going to be

1:28:32 ↗ considered Capital Improvements and thus

1:28:34 ↗ will be subject to the criteria that we

1:28:36 ↗ talked about earlier if that gets

1:28:38 ↗ approved by Council so no matter how we

1:28:41 ↗ talk about it it's going to compete

1:28:44 ↗ um in the same way those are isn't that

1:28:46 ↗ am I accurate on that

1:28:48 ↗ yeah that might be one Avenue that it

1:28:51 ↗ goes through the CIP and where David are

1:28:54 ↗ having conversations with facilities

1:28:56 ↗ about putting in some general kind of

1:28:59 ↗ placeholders within the CIP

1:29:01 ↗ um this may be some other

1:29:03 ↗ recommendations that come out of this

1:29:05 ↗ study might be things that facilities

1:29:08 ↗ already was planning to do because they

1:29:10 ↗ need to do some Replacements or upgrades

1:29:12 ↗ so

1:29:13 ↗ um I think the different avenues for

1:29:15 ↗ funding and how the work is implemented

1:29:18 ↗ might vary depending on the the findings

1:29:24 ↗ cool and then I'm just going to say my

1:29:27 ↗ two cents um

1:29:31 ↗ I like the idea so there's a lot of

1:29:34 ↗ blueprints out there and we know the

1:29:36 ↗ path forward

1:29:38 ↗ um

1:29:40 ↗ so I would like to say wherever we can

1:29:43 ↗ save money on hiring people to create

1:29:48 ↗ plans that are already there

1:29:51 ↗ um and using that money to actually

1:29:55 ↗ retrofit or buy a heat pump you know

1:29:59 ↗ something substantial something that is

1:30:02 ↗ going to really move us forward

1:30:05 ↗ um I'd like to support that

1:30:11 ↗ thank you yeah this will be a good

1:30:14 ↗ discussion

1:30:18 ↗ okay

1:30:20 ↗ well thank you and we'll come back to

1:30:22 ↗ you on both of those items later this

1:30:25 ↗ spring

1:30:28 ↗ thank you

1:30:30 ↗ next we have Earth month activities yeah

1:30:33 ↗ um

1:30:34 ↗ thanks I included just a memo in the

1:30:36 ↗ packet um for updating folks on things

1:30:38 ↗ happening in April uh as we did last

1:30:42 ↗ year we'll be updating between the earth

1:30:44 ↗ month webpage that will be updated with

1:30:47 ↗ all partner activities happening around

1:30:49 ↗ the city

1:30:50 ↗ um as well as just information about

1:30:52 ↗ Earth month we should have that updated

1:30:54 ↗ next week

1:30:56 ↗ um and then also there's a brief update

1:30:58 ↗ on the sustainability Fair planning

1:31:00 ↗ within that memo things are coming

1:31:03 ↗ together pretty well we think we have a

1:31:05 ↗ really great list of vendors and are

1:31:08 ↗ just starting to work on widespread

1:31:10 ↗ marketing and volunteer recruitment for

1:31:12 ↗ that event so hope that you all will

1:31:15 ↗ make it April 16th I'm over 90 multiple

1:31:17 ↗ times please spread the word widely

1:31:23 ↗ okay I think with that we're through our

1:31:25 ↗ reports and move on to other business

1:31:27 ↗ announcements

1:31:29 ↗ uh you know one is the updated

1:31:31 ↗ environmental board schedule great

1:31:34 ↗ um yep I can go through that and then I

1:31:36 ↗ have a couple other uh just updates

1:31:38 ↗ um so I apologize we have a number of

1:31:41 ↗ special meetings coming up this spring

1:31:43 ↗ we just ended up with a really heavy

1:31:45 ↗ schedule and a couple special topics

1:31:48 ↗ um I really am going to do my best to

1:31:50 ↗ avoid special meetings throughout the

1:31:51 ↗ year because you all are putting a lot

1:31:53 ↗ of time this spring

1:31:55 ↗ um so coming up next week March 16th we

1:31:58 ↗ will be joined by King County

1:32:00 ↗ and the park board and we'll be hearing

1:32:04 ↗ about King County flood programs and

1:32:07 ↗ then I'm also seeing if uh Jeff Watling

1:32:10 ↗ Parks director can just give us that

1:32:11 ↗ overview of parks programs and the

1:32:13 ↗ things happening this year because we

1:32:15 ↗ missed being able to have that

1:32:17 ↗ conversation back in January

1:32:20 ↗ um so that will be a great meeting with

1:32:21 ↗ Park and hopefully also provide you with

1:32:24 ↗ your Park update

1:32:26 ↗ um April 3rd is our next special meeting

1:32:28 ↗ this is to discuss the king County's

1:32:30 ↗ read plus program that they presented to

1:32:34 ↗ us back in September I believe September

1:32:37 ↗ October this is to discuss a pledge

1:32:40 ↗ that they are asking jurisdictions to

1:32:43 ↗ sign

1:32:44 ↗ um as part of that conversation we're

1:32:46 ↗ going to be talking more generally about

1:32:48 ↗ the city and their colleges efforts on

1:32:50 ↗ waste reduction Recology will be there

1:32:52 ↗ so talk about some of their programs and

1:32:54 ↗ we'll talk about some of the other items

1:32:56 ↗ underway the city

1:32:58 ↗ um so those are our two upcoming special

1:33:00 ↗ meetings and then we will also have our

1:33:02 ↗ regular meeting in April

1:33:07 ↗ few other updates I had

1:33:10 ↗ um a reminder that the city is looking

1:33:12 ↗ for nominations for the environmental

1:33:14 ↗ Awards this is for the Reuben Dan Keys

1:33:17 ↗ Award and then also for the community

1:33:19 ↗ environment award those are due March

1:33:21 ↗ 13th

1:33:24 ↗ um next update is board applications

1:33:26 ↗ we're due

1:33:28 ↗ um we'll start reviewing those and

1:33:30 ↗ interviewing for board members noon soon

1:33:33 ↗ I believe we have three

1:33:35 ↗ three

1:33:36 ↗ um positions that are up one as a youth

1:33:39 ↗ position and then two one regular and

1:33:42 ↗ one

1:33:43 ↗ um alternate I believe without looking

1:33:46 ↗ at my PC right now so we will have a few

1:33:48 ↗ expect on a few new board members

1:33:50 ↗ joining us in Maine

1:33:53 ↗ um also maybe we'll be doing the chair

1:33:55 ↗ and vice chair election so if you are

1:33:57 ↗ interested in that please let me know I

1:34:00 ↗ have not yet had conversations with

1:34:01 ↗ Jamie and tell them about their interest

1:34:03 ↗ in continuing

1:34:05 ↗ um but if anyone else is interested

1:34:07 ↗ um and those Physicians please let me

1:34:08 ↗ know

1:34:10 ↗ um and then just one follow-up item to

1:34:12 ↗ our February 1st meeting

1:34:14 ↗ um

1:34:15 ↗ I believe Connie during public comment

1:34:17 ↗ mentioned the public engagement toolkit

1:34:20 ↗ and there was some interest from board

1:34:21 ↗ members and hearing more about this I

1:34:24 ↗ did reach out to the communications team

1:34:26 ↗ and they shared that the equity board

1:34:28 ↗ reviewed that toolkit specifically to

1:34:32 ↗ get input from an equity lens and they

1:34:36 ↗ were not planning to talk to other

1:34:37 ↗ boards before finalizing the toolkit

1:34:40 ↗ however they are available and

1:34:43 ↗ interested in coming and just talking

1:34:44 ↗ generally about the board about the

1:34:46 ↗ toolkit and our public engagement

1:34:48 ↗ strategy if that is something that the

1:34:51 ↗ board is interested in so just wanted to

1:34:53 ↗ Circle back on that item and that

1:34:55 ↗ request so please let me know if you do

1:34:58 ↗ want me to follow up with Communications

1:35:00 ↗ and schedule some time for them to talk

1:35:02 ↗ about public engagement

1:35:06 ↗ that is all that I am

1:35:09 ↗ I think it would be interesting to hear

1:35:11 ↗ the public engagement

1:35:13 ↗ um I don't know where you can put it in

1:35:14 ↗ but

1:35:15 ↗ this summer I think we'll have time and

1:35:17 ↗ after the spring

1:35:20 ↗ any other business or announcements from

1:35:22 ↗ the rest of the board

1:35:28 ↗ all right well I think uh thanks

1:35:31 ↗ everyone thank you thank you

1:35:36 ↗ good night

1:35:39 ↗ everybody

1:35:40 ↗ thanks

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF