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

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Jamie Finch

Don McQuilliams

Nancy Davidson

Lara Lebeiko

Anne Newcomb

Janet Wall

Tom Anderson

Staff (3)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator

Billy Almanza, Sustainability Intern

Excused

Rishi Hazra*

Ashwin Manoharan*

Dan Hintz

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
b) Capital Improvement Plan Criteria and Summit Debrief (D) Presented by: Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager VYNNE MCKINSTRY requested feedback from the Board on the draft Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)…