Environmental Board · Wednesday, October 11, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 13, 2023

packet pp.3–7

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 09-13-23 Environmental Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. September 13, 2023 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Comprehensive Plan Climate Goals and Policies - Other Elements (D) [75 mins]

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.9–18

Topics: Land UseClimate

▶ Watch from 4:24 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Community Planning and Development 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

Comprehensive Plan - Environmental Stewardship and Climate Resilience [30 mins] Element (D)

David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.19–34

Topics: Land UseClimate

▶ Watch from 9:24 Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

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

5. REPORTS

ICAP Implementation Update

packet pp.35–43

Topics: Climate

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

Open packet at p.35 ↗

Staff report:

Update the City Council on implementation of the Climate Action Plan. Staff last provided an implementation update to Council in May 2023.

Environmental Board Workplan

packet pp.45–48

Open packet at p.45 ↗

Staff report:

additional offerings under the Community Energy Efficient Program grant;

2809 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ welcome to the October 11th meeting of

0:10 ↗ the esqua environmental board I'm Jamie

0:11 ↗ fer I'll be your chair tonight um due to

0:14 ↗ the hybrid nature of this meeting we

0:15 ↗ will have some members attending in

0:17 ↗ person and others by computer or phone

0:19 ↗ for those attending remotely please mute

0:21 ↗ yourself while you're not talking and

0:23 ↗ raise your hand um when you would like

0:25 ↗ to speak we'll try to acknowledge you um

0:27 ↗ as we see them but if we don't just hop

0:30 ↗ in um those in person as we always do

0:33 ↗ please clip your name tag um for certain

0:35 ↗ topics I think we will have a couple

0:37 ↗ tonight we we haven't done a great job

0:39 ↗ of summarizing recommendations at the

0:41 ↗ past meetings but we probably should

0:42 ↗ tonight um for a couple of topics uh and

0:46 ↗ I think with that we can go into call to

0:49 ↗ order St to do

0:52 ↗ attendance uh Tom Anderson hassa excuse

0:55 ↗ absence Nancy Davidson here Jamie Finch

0:59 ↗ here gandi here Joy Lewis Here ashin

1:04 ↗ Canan

1:06 ↗ here ashin manah

1:09 ↗ haran Dominic Williams has an excused

1:12 ↗ absence and

1:14 ↗ nuk is planning to join

1:17 ↗ remotely Janet

1:20 ↗ wall H Dixie bear

1:23 ↗ here and Alex

1:26 ↗ Le

1:28 ↗ here want to introduce Kathleen yes

1:32 ↗ thank you um so just wanted to take a

1:34 ↗ moment to introduce Kathleen uh she

1:37 ↗ joined us almost a month ago um she's a

1:40 ↗ Civic spark fellow which is program

1:43 ↗ associated with

1:44 ↗ americore uh was intended to be an 11mon

1:47 ↗ term she can speak to that um but she is

1:51 ↗ working really on a package of climate

1:53 ↗ resilience uh project so she's been

1:55 ↗ helping with the comprehensive plan and

1:58 ↗ the resilience elements she's helping to

2:00 ↗ wrap up our climate vulnerability

2:02 ↗ assessment she's working with our

2:03 ↗ emergency management team um on a number

2:07 ↗ of

2:08 ↗ regional uh strategies around heat and

2:11 ↗ flooding and wildfire and she's working

2:13 ↗ with David on resilience hubs um number

2:16 ↗ of other things she'll be doing but I'll

2:18 ↗ give her just a minute to introduce

2:21 ↗ herself yes hello hi thank you so much

2:23 ↗ for having me tonight as Stacy said my

2:26 ↗ name is Kathleen I have a background as

2:29 ↗ a scientist and engineer I spent six

2:31 ↗ years active duty Navy I did nuclear

2:34 ↗ engineering um the reason why stac you

2:37 ↗ mentioned my term was supposed to be 11

2:39 ↗ months is because I maintain a reserve

2:41 ↗ commission and the Navy is sending me to

2:44 ↗ Djibouti starting in

2:46 ↗ February um to not do nuclear

2:49 ↗ engineering uh I just graduated in May

2:53 ↗ with a masters in global policy studies

2:55 ↗ specializing in climate security and

2:57 ↗ resilience policy and this uh service

3:01 ↗ term for me is supposed to be my

3:04 ↗ opportunity to get my hands on as much

3:07 ↗ as I possibly can to understand how

3:10 ↗ sustainability and climate resilience

3:12 ↗ works at the city level so I'm happy to

3:14 ↗ be here and learn from all of

3:22 ↗ you all right I think with that uh we'll

3:27 ↗ move on were there any comments on the

3:30 ↗ from previous

3:34 ↗ meeting right hearing none those are

3:36 ↗ approved by unanimous consent um next up

3:40 ↗ uh Stacy we have I know it looks like we

3:44 ↗ may have one member of the public

3:46 ↗ joining us yes um we received no written

3:50 ↗ public comments we do have one member of

3:52 ↗ the public sorry enough for not checking

3:54 ↗ in ahead of time would you like to make

3:57 ↗ a public comment this evening

4:03 ↗ and you if you would like to make public

4:04 ↗ comment you can unmute yourself or send

4:06 ↗ a

4:13 ↗ chat all right well if there is interest

4:16 ↗ in providing public comment later this

4:18 ↗ evening please go ahead and send a chat

4:20 ↗ and we'll make time for

4:22 ↗ you all right well with that we will

4:24 ↗ move on to our agenda items first up

4:28 ↗ comprehensive plan climate goals

4:30 ↗ and policies other

4:36 ↗ elements um this Stephen's going to do a

4:39 ↗ verbal overview we did not provide a

4:40 ↗ PowerPoint so we're just going to

4:42 ↗ provide a little bit of background and

4:43 ↗ then really launch into

4:45 ↗ review ahead

4:47 ↗ Stephen thanks Stacy good evening

4:50 ↗ everyone stepen bua long-range planning

4:52 ↗ manager with a community Planning

4:54 ↗ Development Department so tonight we're

4:57 ↗ going to go through all the list in

5:00 ↗ goals and policies that you would receed

5:01 ↗ that are located in the other elements

5:04 ↗ of the comprehensive plan and and just

5:06 ↗ really quick I just want to give you an

5:07 ↗ update on where those elements stand in

5:10 ↗ the process for this periodic update we

5:13 ↗ recently took the housing and land use

5:16 ↗ elements to the Planning Development

5:17 ↗ environment Council committee and so

5:20 ↗ we're just now starting to get started

5:22 ↗ on the initial drafts of those

5:26 ↗ elements um the economic fality Human

5:31 ↗ Services

5:32 ↗ environmental Capital facilities and

5:34 ↗ utilities are all going to be going to

5:37 ↗ be reviewed by the planning policy

5:39 ↗ commission soon and then once it's

5:40 ↗ reviewed by PPC it'll then uh be

5:43 ↗ reviewed by the council committee and

5:46 ↗ then uh for the remainder the

5:49 ↗ transation um the transation element

5:53 ↗ will be going to the transportation

5:54 ↗ Advisory Board the parks element will be

5:56 ↗ going to the Parks Board and the

5:58 ↗ cultural element will be going to the

5:59 ↗ arts and and culture commission um

6:03 ↗ before PPC and Council committee get

6:05 ↗ reviewed and so those those elements are

6:08 ↗ essentially just getting started for

6:10 ↗ policy review by the respective boards

6:13 ↗ commissions are there any questions on

6:16 ↗ where we're at with the periodic

6:22 ↗ update okay hearing none I I'll keep

6:25 ↗ going so for tonight we're just going to

6:27 ↗ go uh to the specially as Stacy said

6:32 ↗ we're and then Stacy are you able to

6:34 ↗ share

6:35 ↗ that yes we can do that

6:39 ↗ okay and what we'll do is we'll go

6:41 ↗ through the spreadsheet by

6:44 ↗ element um and I'll just generally ask

6:46 ↗ the question are there any specific

6:49 ↗ goals or policies that anybody has any

6:51 ↗ comments for us to take um one thing to

6:55 ↗ note is this spreadsheet is still in its

7:00 ↗ initial form most of the policies have

7:04 ↗ not been reviewed by their the other

7:06 ↗ board's commissions so we still need to

7:08 ↗ work through some of them with staff um

7:11 ↗ as well as those Boards of commissions

7:12 ↗ but we want to get feedback from the

7:15 ↗ envir environmental board to make sure

7:17 ↗ that we're capturing what we want out of

7:19 ↗ the policies before we start those

7:22 ↗ conversations so getting started with

7:25 ↗ the utilities element uh goals and

7:28 ↗ policies is there any feedback on that

7:33 ↗ element yes Stephen um before we launch

7:36 ↗ in um I don't know if David or I want to

7:39 ↗ provide a little background on how we

7:41 ↗ pull these together because there were

7:43 ↗ some questions on are there

7:45 ↗ other um are there any other uh goals or

7:50 ↗ policies related to a climate do you

7:53 ↗ mind if we just take a moment to do that

7:55 ↗ yeah please you yeah sure so um

7:59 ↗ this spreadsheet um is it was intended

8:04 ↗ to kind of pull together a few

8:07 ↗ recommendations about potential uh gaps

8:11 ↗ in the the existing comprehensive plan

8:13 ↗ so identify spots and policies

8:16 ↗ specifically related to resilience and

8:19 ↗ um greenhouse gas emission reduction

8:21 ↗ that uh we felt was uh not necessarily

8:24 ↗ covered by the environmental stewardship

8:27 ↗ and climate resilience element um so to

8:30 ↗ try and kind of work some of that into

8:32 ↗ the other elements um we were working

8:36 ↗ off of drafts of those elements so uh

8:39 ↗ this is in flux um many of the

8:42 ↗ suggestions uh which all the kind of

8:45 ↗ suggestions are in red um anything

8:48 ↗ that's black in the leftand column um is

8:53 ↗ already existing within the

8:54 ↗ comprehensive plan um and most of the

8:57 ↗ suggestions came from from uh

9:00 ↗ recommendations from the climate

9:01 ↗ vulnerability assessment the King County

9:05 ↗ um model of policies I forget the name

9:09 ↗ of that but a a set of policies

9:12 ↗ recommended by King County um and then

9:14 ↗ other jurisdictions as well there are a

9:17 ↗ few others that um we felt there were

9:19 ↗ some gaps so we put together um the

9:23 ↗ second column identifies kind of the um

9:26 ↗ the element that we are recommending the

9:29 ↗ policy go into so for instance in the

9:31 ↗ first one here uh it's a recommendation

9:34 ↗ that it would be included within the

9:35 ↗ utilities element under goal

9:39 ↗ H3 or goal H

9:43 ↗ um and then there's some information

9:46 ↗ about the reason for inclusion and then

9:48 ↗ again where the element is from um and

9:51 ↗ then happy to provide any additional

9:53 ↗ context around the policies if uh if

9:55 ↗ there are any questions or about that

9:58 ↗ any question question for you so taking

10:01 ↗ the example of

10:02 ↗ Transportation will the similar process

10:05 ↗ of like for example we have in the

10:07 ↗ environmental element things related to

10:09 ↗ reducing vehicle

10:11 ↗ miles will the transportation board see

10:14 ↗ that as part of their review or kind of

10:16 ↗ as part of their review of their element

10:18 ↗ or how how is the op like how is it

10:20 ↗ working in Reverse for some of the other

10:22 ↗ boards that is probably a good question

10:25 ↗ for

10:26 ↗ Stephen I think yeah thank you for the

10:29 ↗ question Jamie so the the other elements

10:32 ↗ the other boards will review all of the

10:34 ↗ proposed goal goals and policies for

10:36 ↗ their Elements which will for The

10:38 ↗ transation Advisory Board will include

10:40 ↗ some of those V VMT policies and

10:43 ↗ goals I guess the question being like we

10:45 ↗ have in the environmental element things

10:49 ↗ that are like I I think that's where the

10:51 ↗ the BMT stuff

10:53 ↗ is are they will they review those

10:56 ↗ things that aren't actually specifically

10:57 ↗ in their element but are like very

11:00 ↗ related to their

11:02 ↗ element well yes we'll include that some

11:05 ↗ of the other elements include specific

11:08 ↗ policies for

11:09 ↗ transportation um but it's going to be

11:11 ↗ the same presentation of just describing

11:14 ↗ what's what else is in the comprehensive

11:19 ↗ plan and just a little bit more context

11:22 ↗ on that I think most of the

11:23 ↗ transportation elements in the new

11:25 ↗ environment element used to exist in the

11:28 ↗ transportation element and were're

11:29 ↗ pulled over um I think not all of them

11:32 ↗ but um most of them okay yeah I'm

11:35 ↗ curious in particular about the ones

11:37 ↗ that were from IAP yeah um because like

11:40 ↗ I don't think those would have been in

11:42 ↗ the last they the last time we went

11:44 ↗ through this as like I think it has been

11:46 ↗ in the comprehensive plan but I don't

11:47 ↗ know if it would have been the last time

11:48 ↗ they reviewed it like when we the last

11:51 ↗ time we did a periodic

11:57 ↗ update any other overarching questions

12:01 ↗ before we launch into review and

12:03 ↗ comments answer either no I don't have a

12:08 ↗ [Music]

12:09 ↗ question all right Sten back to

12:13 ↗ you thank you so just going back to

12:17 ↗ where I was getting started with the

12:18 ↗ utilities element are there any uh

12:21 ↗ comments or questions about the policies

12:23 ↗ being

12:25 ↗ presented so I have an overarching

12:27 ↗ comment instead of a question so Stephen

12:30 ↗ I guess in looking at these I'm very

12:32 ↗ concerned about the verbage and the

12:35 ↗ verbs that are being used to describe

12:37 ↗ each of these and so some say shall some

12:41 ↗ say you know just the way it's term some

12:44 ↗ are very loose some are um so my request

12:50 ↗ to you is to go through each of these

12:53 ↗ and look at the verbs and if it's an

12:55 ↗ action item or something we can commit

12:57 ↗ to and I'm going to give you a very very

12:59 ↗ specific example okay just to make it

13:01 ↗ clear let me see if I can get it to

13:04 ↗ it and it is so that's why it's an

13:07 ↗ overarching comment instead of a

13:11 ↗ question so it's the third one down on

13:15 ↗ the first page commit to moving

13:17 ↗ away I don't know what that

13:21 ↗ means so and it's not a very action

13:24 ↗ oriented and it doesn't really mean a

13:26 ↗ lot to me um and it doesn't drive

13:30 ↗ anything so if what we're trying to do

13:32 ↗ is drive something or Institute

13:35 ↗ something for the city to do differently

13:38 ↗ we need to really think about the verbs

13:40 ↗ that we are using in the actions we're

13:42 ↗ asking from and so I don't want to do

13:44 ↗ that on each one of these For You

13:46 ↗ Stephen but that's the one that really

13:47 ↗ struck home which is and as I looked

13:50 ↗ through others of them I saw the same

13:52 ↗ thing the verbs are not really action

13:54 ↗ oriented so I don't know what you're

13:56 ↗ really looking for from each one of them

13:58 ↗ so that's my request to you is to look

14:00 ↗ at the verbs of what you're trying to

14:02 ↗ ask people to

14:03 ↗ do I can work with uh David and uh Stacy

14:08 ↗ looking through the language on that

14:13 ↗ okay um I actually had a question on the

14:17 ↗ one um Nancy referenced the I'm assuming

14:23 ↗ the the commit to moving away from

14:24 ↗ natural gases and energy source that one

14:27 ↗ we were just reviewing that's is that at

14:29 ↗ like a pump station that's using natural

14:31 ↗ gas as the energy source can you help me

14:34 ↗ understand like the application of

14:36 ↗ that that uh policy yeah I think well

14:42 ↗ go go or policy what is it sorry this

14:44 ↗ says it's it would be a policy within

14:48 ↗ go you want to speak to it first or

14:52 ↗ I yeah this is one um this is actually

14:55 ↗ something new that Redmond's proposing

14:58 ↗ that they saw an opportunity to kind of

15:00 ↗ be a leader and make a stance about this

15:02 ↗ move away from natural gas and the need

15:05 ↗ to of course protect the existing

15:08 ↗ facilities um so there are no issues

15:10 ↗ there but really to move towards

15:13 ↗ electrification um so I don't know if

15:15 ↗ they got as specific as examples but

15:18 ↗ it's that kind of move towards

15:21 ↗ decarbonization in

15:23 ↗ electrification so we borrowed that

15:25 ↗ language I think there's still some

15:27 ↗ fine-tuning of the language we can make

15:28 ↗ it a little bit more specific about

15:30 ↗ what's meant but that was the intent

15:32 ↗ okay CU part of it I was just curious

15:34 ↗ like because utility could be T like I

15:37 ↗ assume that we're not talking about like

15:39 ↗ the electric like hugen Sound Energy

15:41 ↗ utility because they're already doing

15:42 ↗ that so this would be specific to like

15:44 ↗ isly

15:46 ↗ utilities um so that that was why I was

15:48 ↗ curious just on on the application but

15:52 ↗ um sounds like that one yeah I think

15:54 ↗ this was speaking to PSC utilities oh it

15:57 ↗ is

15:59 ↗ natural I mean working with PSC to

16:01 ↗ ensure that the Natural Gas Utilities

16:03 ↗ they on are maintained I don't think

16:05 ↗ yeah so I I think it it falls under kind

16:08 ↗ of like what we can influence right so

16:10 ↗ that would be and I believe there's the

16:13 ↗ one above kind of advocating for good

16:15 ↗ reliability but I believe where we would

16:17 ↗ be able to influence with this policy

16:20 ↗ would more be in anything that the city

16:23 ↗ itself is

16:24 ↗ doing so is that committing so the city

16:28 ↗ probably uses natural gas to heat its

16:31 ↗ buildings and such I don't think it's

16:33 ↗ typically used in much utility

16:35 ↗ infrastructure except for for heating of

16:37 ↗ buildings and you know so this isn't

16:41 ↗ committing for the city facilities this

16:44 ↗ is really trying to get psse from

16:46 ↗ providing natural gas in the city of

16:48 ↗ isqua is that what you're trying to get

16:51 ↗ to I think this is overall that the city

16:54 ↗ as a whole wants to move away from a

16:57 ↗ Reliance on natural gas I think that's

16:59 ↗ what for all it citizens or for the

17:01 ↗ city's infrastructure I think it's

17:03 ↗ speaking to both so it's not specific to

17:05 ↗ City infrastructure we do have other

17:07 ↗ language around City facilities that

17:10 ↗ have move of the community away from

17:12 ↗ natural gas that needs clarification

17:16 ↗ then yeah I read that different I assume

17:18 ↗ this is more like an extension of the

17:20 ↗ building DEH hariz yeah I thought this

17:23 ↗ was for City infrastructure I didn't

17:24 ↗ know you were trying to

17:26 ↗ get natural gas out of the city

17:29 ↗ is it's to start moving in that

17:31 ↗ direction and without a

17:35 ↗ specific yeah I mean we do have um goals

17:39 ↗ within the IAP about reducing fossil

17:42 ↗ fuel use um and moving towards

17:45 ↗ electrification this is to support those

17:48 ↗ and David please jump in I speaking um

17:52 ↗ and I know Redman they're month or two

17:54 ↗ ahead of us they've already done some

17:56 ↗ fine tuning on this language um so it's

17:59 ↗ something we can continue to work Smith

18:01 ↗ and kind of see what our regional

18:02 ↗ partners are putting forward

18:09 ↗ to I guess one question sorry just back

18:13 ↗ to you all on this one what would you

18:15 ↗ like to see here is there would you

18:18 ↗ prefer it's just focused on City

18:19 ↗ facilities do you want us to clarify

18:22 ↗ what Redmond intended as kind of a

18:24 ↗ community movement away guess we'd look

18:26 ↗ to you all too to advise on that or is

18:30 ↗ it kind of going a step too far and

18:32 ↗ we're not ready to make this statement

18:36 ↗ yet I'm G to go ahead and jump in and uh

18:39 ↗ say that my comment on this has AOL at

18:42 ↗ least three times since we started this

18:43 ↗ conversation so I think it's fair to say

18:45 ↗ that I think there's a um a desire to

18:48 ↗ have the city

18:49 ↗ clarify what it is that you would like

18:51 ↗ to achieve with the policy um to be able

18:54 ↗ to come back and say whether or not we

18:55 ↗ sign off on it but I would strongly

18:57 ↗ recommend that we have a policy that

18:59 ↗ talks about moving away from natural gas

19:01 ↗ in a residential sense Citywide uh PPC

19:05 ↗ had several conversations on this from a

19:07 ↗ code perspective and we didn't feel like

19:09 ↗ we had a language that strengthen that

19:11 ↗ and policy to be able to support that

19:14 ↗ and the administration Stephen you can

19:16 ↗ correct me if your memory of these

19:17 ↗ conversations is wrong if my if my if my

19:20 ↗ analysis is wrong but there was also not

19:22 ↗ a movement within the administration to

19:24 ↗ move that way even though there are

19:26 ↗ several municipalities throughout the

19:27 ↗ country that have completely Bann

19:29 ↗ natural gas in new development and we

19:31 ↗ know that this is um where we're going

19:34 ↗ and so it's a matter of do we go there

19:35 ↗ now or do we go there in a decade and

19:37 ↗ the um the effects of having that

19:40 ↗ timeline be drastically shortened and so

19:43 ↗ if there is support within the

19:44 ↗ administration I would say I

19:46 ↗ wholeheartedly would like to see a

19:48 ↗ policy that commits utilities and new

19:51 ↗ residential developments to be moving

19:53 ↗ away from and banning the Youth of

19:57 ↗ naal

20:00 ↗ um

20:01 ↗ Stacey uh was there I thought there was

20:04 ↗ a policy within the environmental

20:06 ↗ section that was similar to this one

20:10 ↗ there are yeah I think um I'm trying to

20:12 ↗ find it right

20:14 ↗ now there's the one that's reduced

20:17 ↗ fossil fuel uh use in um new and

20:21 ↗ existing buildings by 20% is that the

20:24 ↗ one you're referencing I I'm just may

20:27 ↗ thinking

20:28 ↗ thank you yeah and I just would say this

20:31 ↗ language wouldn't necessarily mean

20:32 ↗ there's a ban I mean that's one level of

20:35 ↗ implementation right now our approach is

20:38 ↗ on incentives and Outreach in education

20:40 ↗ we may decide that is the way the path

20:42 ↗ forward the city wants to continue um

20:45 ↗ but it's stating that that is a goal of

20:49 ↗ the the city to start moving away n Go

20:53 ↗ ahead so Stacy you asked a question do

20:56 ↗ you want this just for City

21:00 ↗ or if if we wanted it to be kind of

21:02 ↗ Citywide and I think um I think they're

21:04 ↗ two different goals that we should have

21:07 ↗ one for what the city does and one for

21:10 ↗ what we are trying to do in the

21:11 ↗ community as a

21:12 ↗ whole um I fully believe the city if we

21:17 ↗ want to be successful in implementing

21:19 ↗ something like this the city needs to

21:20 ↗ lead by example they have done that with

21:24 ↗ it leads

21:25 ↗ buildings um with some of the work that

21:28 ↗ happened in the highlands early on and

21:31 ↗ trying to make airtight buildings to

21:33 ↗ reduce leakage of um so I think

21:38 ↗ um there needs to be a strong commitment

21:41 ↗ from the city itself if that's what

21:44 ↗ we're trying to do and ask the community

21:47 ↗ to go along with so I think it's kind of

21:49 ↗ two different ones but I always believe

21:52 ↗ that the city should always lead by

21:55 ↗ example thank you Nancy and go

22:00 ↗ ahead thanks Jamie um I'm wondering if

22:03 ↗ we should specify that this is natural

22:06 ↗ gas um pipelines as opposed to turbines

22:12 ↗ or power

22:15 ↗ plants

22:17 ↗ because psse will still continue to have

22:20 ↗ natural gas in its mix for quite a while

22:25 ↗ I

22:26 ↗ think

22:33 ↗ um one one comment from me on just like

22:37 ↗ what what I like to see here I mean I do

22:39 ↗ think in new

22:41 ↗ constructions especially with where heat

22:44 ↗ pumps are

22:45 ↗ today uh in new construction it's it's

22:48 ↗ cheaper to start with a natural gas

22:51 ↗ there's often not incentives for

22:52 ↗ Builders to put in Nal gas or to put in

22:55 ↗ heat pumps so I think the more we can do

22:58 ↗ to strengthen ensuring that not only the

23:02 ↗ right thing for the climate but actually

23:03 ↗ for the person that's going to be moving

23:05 ↗ into the home which is a heat pump that

23:07 ↗ has lower ongoing costs is being

23:09 ↗ installed not just the cheapest thing to

23:11 ↗ install up front by the Builder um so I

23:14 ↗ think the more the city can do to to to

23:16 ↗ push in that direction and this I don't

23:20 ↗ know it feels like this is a bit softer

23:23 ↗ than what was said in the climate action

23:25 ↗ plan I don't know if that's intended

23:28 ↗ but it it feels

23:31 ↗ like maybe there there's some

23:33 ↗ strengthening that needs to be done and

23:34 ↗ maybe some of that is just around the

23:36 ↗ specifics of where it makes sense to do

23:38 ↗ this and and I think the words that we

23:40 ↗ use in in IAP were and with exceptions

23:44 ↗ maybe we need to start like figuring out

23:46 ↗ what like more more detail on what that

23:49 ↗ should be but I do think that it's

23:52 ↗ important um and has a lot of benefits

23:54 ↗ for everyone involved um if there's a

23:57 ↗ policy um to help move in that direction

24:01 ↗ so

24:03 ↗ yeah

24:10 ↗ that's one other just note on the this

24:13 ↗ policy Jamie you mentioned there are a

24:15 ↗ few other kind of moving away from

24:17 ↗ fossil fuel type language policies in

24:20 ↗ the environmental element that um we can

24:22 ↗ take a more in-depth look at later

24:25 ↗ tonight oh yeah and that's actually one

24:28 ↗ is utility the right place for this what

24:31 ↗ what do we feel like is the right place

24:33 ↗ for this like this policy is that

24:36 ↗ something I don't know what the rest of

24:37 ↗ the utility element looks like I know we

24:40 ↗ have and it doesn't hurt to sprinkle it

24:42 ↗ a bit everywhere but um that would be

24:44 ↗ just one more question as staff look at

24:47 ↗ what is the

24:48 ↗ right white right place to put this in

24:51 ↗ because I think a lot of our other

24:52 ↗ utilities most likely not as specific to

24:55 ↗ this type of work Stephen is there an

24:58 ↗ overarching kind

25:00 ↗ of not specific to utility or

25:03 ↗ Transportation or Parks is there kind of

25:05 ↗ a

25:06 ↗ general non overarching goal somewhere

25:11 ↗ in the

25:13 ↗ plan or are you talking about this one

25:16 ↗ for eliminating natural gas use no I'm

25:20 ↗ just talking about I don't know your

25:21 ↗ structure of the comp plan and what

25:23 ↗ you're trying to accomplish so I know

25:25 ↗ you're going to have some specific to

25:27 ↗ climate res and things like that is

25:29 ↗ there kind of a general one General

25:31 ↗ category just like General goals and

25:33 ↗ policies that apply to all the elements

25:36 ↗ um comprehensive plans aren't really

25:38 ↗ structured that way where you have a

25:40 ↗ general goal or policy that goes over

25:42 ↗ all the elements you usually have it

25:44 ↗ built into one of the elements and then

25:47 ↗ maybe um similar policies or goals in

25:49 ↗ the other elements that kind of point to

25:52 ↗ an it's it's different enough that it

25:55 ↗ gives you a different direction in the

25:56 ↗ other element in terms of how it relates

25:58 ↗ to that topic but tancy your question no

26:00 ↗ there's no overarching goals or policies

26:03 ↗ can we add

26:04 ↗ them I mean could we do something

26:06 ↗ outside the box or does the state law

26:09 ↗ that requires the comp plans not allow

26:10 ↗ that we can but the the where it gets

26:14 ↗ complicated is in the other elements

26:16 ↗ where it doesn't really make sense but

26:17 ↗ then we're now applying these goals and

26:20 ↗ policies to those other topics where we

26:22 ↗ have no idea what to do with it that's

26:25 ↗ where it gets a little complicated and

26:26 ↗ why people have kind of kept it

26:28 ↗ separated and just had similar policies

26:30 ↗ and goals built into the other elements

26:33 ↗ get it okay just thought I'd ask yeah no

26:36 ↗ that was a great

26:40 ↗ question Stephen I don't see any

26:43 ↗ other comments or questions on this

26:47 ↗ section so I think we may able oh take

26:50 ↗ that back Nancy has one so I'd like to

26:52 ↗ see an addition and I don't know if this

26:54 ↗ is in here somewhere okay and so let me

26:57 ↗ explain to you what I'm trying to get to

26:59 ↗ and then I don't know how to write the

27:01 ↗ policy okay so when I just return from a

27:04 ↗ trip to the east coast and in

27:08 ↗ every um Loop that's on the freeways you

27:11 ↗ know the onramps the Clover Leafs they

27:13 ↗ have solar panels and there's solar

27:16 ↗ panels out in the public realm all over

27:19 ↗ the East Coast we don't have any in the

27:22 ↗ city of isqua that you drive by and say

27:25 ↗ wow we're making a difference male wow

27:28 ↗ look at what the community is stepping

27:30 ↗ up to

27:31 ↗ do and I know energy is more expensive

27:34 ↗ back there I get that but everywhere I

27:37 ↗ turned I saw solar panels and Fields fa

27:39 ↗ facing different directions so we're not

27:41 ↗ sending the message in our

27:44 ↗ community that we're trying to make a

27:46 ↗ difference in my opinion we don't have

27:48 ↗ solar panels anywhere that you can

27:50 ↗ visibly see sitting on the

27:52 ↗ ground and I thought the on-ramp to

27:55 ↗ freeways were really a cool idea

27:57 ↗ personally I thought what a great use of

28:00 ↗ space um so what my goal is to find

28:03 ↗ Partnerships with wash do or state parks

28:06 ↗ or somehow get solar panels in our

28:10 ↗ community on land that's readily

28:13 ↗ available and so that's a goal I don't

28:16 ↗ that's that's an outcome it's not a goal

28:19 ↗ does that make sense but it would be

28:21 ↗ great to find those Partnerships and

28:23 ↗ start to show the community we're doing

28:25 ↗ something because right now we can talk

28:27 ↗ about heat pumps all day long but it's

28:29 ↗ not a big visual sign and to me I don't

28:32 ↗ think we are sending to our community

28:34 ↗ anywhere that we're doing something

28:36 ↗ about climate personally but when I saw

28:38 ↗ that back there I said wow what a

28:43 ↗ difference you can take a look at what

28:45 ↗ goals and policies other cities and and

28:48 ↗ other regions are using to kind of

28:50 ↗ incorporate though I know on the East

28:52 ↗ Coast particularly around the

28:53 ↗ interchanges that you're talking about

28:54 ↗ where they built in the solar panels

28:57 ↗ kind of in that big open

28:58 ↗ spaces there was Federal funding that

29:01 ↗ went into those in Partnerships with the

29:03 ↗ states that had the local jurisdictions

29:06 ↗ really didn't have much to do with but

29:08 ↗ you're right you're seeing it in parking

29:10 ↗ lots you're seeing it in uh sometimes

29:13 ↗ parks on their buildings and some of

29:15 ↗ those are already incorporated into our

29:17 ↗ code when this last update we we

29:19 ↗ incorporated requirements for solar

29:22 ↗ installations and with private

29:24 ↗ development but on the public side

29:26 ↗ you're right we don't really have as

29:27 ↗ specific goar policy and so we'll take a

29:29 ↗ look at that I knew the outcome I was

29:32 ↗ getting to I didn't know how to write

29:33 ↗ the

29:34 ↗ policy that's that's why we're here to

29:36 ↗ help you with

29:45 ↗ that okay are there any other for

29:51 ↗ utilities okay we can move on to the

29:53 ↗ next section which

29:55 ↗ is I believe

29:59 ↗ Transportation oh

30:01 ↗ no it's is it

30:05 ↗ Transportation uh land use is the next

30:09 ↗ one okay thank you yeah the land

30:14 ↗ use go ahead thank you on page 14 I have

30:18 ↗ a comment um I'm going to refer to our

30:21 ↗ utility section uh I enjoyed uh and I

30:25 ↗ thought it was appropriate to use the

30:26 ↗ termin ology in areas that are

30:28 ↗ historically underserved and I think

30:31 ↗ that it would be appropriate in the

30:32 ↗ element talking about integrating

30:34 ↗ climate resilience to add that language

30:36 ↗ as

30:43 ↗ well okay we can think we at

30:48 ↗ that Stephen can you give us a and I

30:51 ↗ know you've told us this before

30:53 ↗ but the environmental element used to be

30:56 ↗ a part of it used to be a part of land

30:58 ↗ use correct yeah remains in land use

31:02 ↗ today just what's this what's kind of

31:04 ↗ the surface

31:06 ↗ areae so yeah to um to answer the first

31:11 ↗ question yeah the the what was the

31:14 ↗ majority of what's in the new element

31:15 ↗ was in the land use element so we just

31:17 ↗ kind of split it in half created two

31:19 ↗ elements with it the the way we were

31:22 ↗ able to split the two is first we

31:24 ↗ focused for the land use element in

31:26 ↗ particular

31:27 ↗ all the goals and policies that focused

31:29 ↗ on the built environment and then for

31:31 ↗ the new element we focused on all the

31:34 ↗ goals and policies that focused on the

31:36 ↗ natural environment and so there was

31:38 ↗ some in the gray area where we kind of

31:39 ↗ had to pick and choose go into the newer

31:42 ↗ element but we also had to look at the

31:43 ↗ new state legislation around what's now

31:46 ↗ required to go into that element which

31:48 ↗ also dictated a little more movement

31:50 ↗ into new uh environment element as

31:55 ↗ well thank you

31:57 ↗ um is this a section that would would

32:00 ↗ cover like anything related to

32:04 ↗ zoning yes yeah anything that's related

32:07 ↗ to zoning is goes into uh the land use

32:10 ↗ element or it's built into the code

32:12 ↗ itself okay yeah so I had a comment on

32:16 ↗ that I I do think in one of the one of

32:18 ↗ the items that was identified in the

32:20 ↗ climate action plan I believe was

32:22 ↗ missing midal housing and what we're

32:24 ↗ doing to increase density uh and in the

32:27 ↗ right ways and I don't believe that's

32:29 ↗ addressed anywhere in this update maybe

32:32 ↗ it's I would I would guess that that

32:34 ↗ would come into this element um or would

32:37 ↗ have been brought to us if that's

32:38 ↗ already in the land use and we haven't

32:40 ↗ covered it we just haven't covered it

32:42 ↗ here that seems like a an area that

32:46 ↗ isn't addressed as we at least from what

32:48 ↗ we've seen that seems like we should

32:51 ↗ have a a stance on or or have guidance

32:53 ↗ within comprehensive plan on so we do

32:56 ↗ have for for missing middle in

32:58 ↗ particular we do have one or two

33:01 ↗ policies in the land use element but we

33:02 ↗ have uh other policies actually in the

33:05 ↗ housing element as well for this

33:06 ↗ spreadsheet we focused on a lot of the

33:09 ↗ goals and policies that were more direct

33:11 ↗ to Natural preservation and climate

33:14 ↗ resilience and so you're not actually

33:17 ↗ seeing the entire land use element or

33:18 ↗ each of the other elements we we because

33:21 ↗ otherwise we would have gave you almost

33:23 ↗ the entire land use element and and

33:25 ↗ larger C of the other elements and U it

33:29 ↗ didn't seem to answer what you had asked

33:32 ↗ for for review um but you will get the

33:35 ↗ chance to look at all the other elements

33:37 ↗ once we have the drafts ready for public

33:39 ↗ review yeah I guess my and I know you

33:43 ↗ had to make a judgment call on what to

33:44 ↗ include and what not to include but the

33:47 ↗ where housing is able to be built seems

33:50 ↗ really

33:51 ↗ highly like connected to

33:54 ↗ Transportation not it not being built up

33:56 ↗ on on the hillside like there's a lot

33:58 ↗ that I think is very closely tied to a

34:01 ↗ lot of aspects here so I think that was

34:03 ↗ why maybe it didn't at first blush make

34:06 ↗ it in here but I do think it's an

34:08 ↗ important topic that cuts across a lot

34:10 ↗ of

34:11 ↗ environment topics and issues when um

34:15 ↗ House Bill 1110 was passed this year it

34:17 ↗ required the the allowance basically of

34:19 ↗ middle housing um into all the single

34:22 ↗ family zones uh for all planning

34:24 ↗ jurisdictions and so for the comence to

34:27 ↗ fully comply with that our comp plan

34:29 ↗ really only needed one policy specific

34:31 ↗ to that that talked about it the biggest

34:35 ↗ component of complying with the new

34:37 ↗ regulation is actually going to be

34:39 ↗ updating our land use code to now allow

34:42 ↗ those uses in those different zones and

34:44 ↗ so we'll have bigger conversations on

34:46 ↗ that and that's really where um we're

34:50 ↗ we're going to be complying with the new

34:51 ↗ state state legislation is with those uh

34:53 ↗ regulation

34:54 ↗ updates okay that's that's context thank

34:57 ↗ you Sten Jo go ahead um regarding uh

35:00 ↗ land use uh there's an update we have

35:04 ↗ right now for Designing create Trails

35:05 ↗ sidewalks bikeways and paths to increase

35:08 ↗ connectivity for people and there's an

35:09 ↗ addition of and natural systems by

35:12 ↗ providing comfortable and safe direct or

35:14 ↗ convenient links between dot dot dot dot

35:17 ↗ um so this is again policy

35:20 ↗ 05 I would like to see this kind of

35:22 ↗ similar to how we discussed the previous

35:24 ↗ one get flushed out a little bit more as

35:25 ↗ to the intent

35:27 ↗ and so what I see is that this actually

35:29 ↗ needs to be broken into two different

35:31 ↗ ones and uh to kind of focus on the idea

35:33 ↗ of creating connectivity for the better

35:35 ↗ health of natural systems and have

35:37 ↗ language about enhancements for those

35:39 ↗ natural systems because it's kind of

35:41 ↗ added in and alluded to um and I think

35:43 ↗ we do need to have a strong policy that

35:45 ↗ talks about about that but this is

35:48 ↗ actually a little bit more

35:49 ↗ Transportation related and then we have

35:51 ↗ a note here that it's about the

35:52 ↗ resilience in the face of an emergency I

35:55 ↗ mean that's kind of three different

35:56 ↗ policies one so um I I like the addition

36:00 ↗ of and natural systems but I'd like to

36:02 ↗ push you guys a little bit farther to

36:04 ↗ take this idea and kind of break it into

36:06 ↗ so we've got a connectivity Trail Mo you

36:09 ↗ know Mobility idea we have um a

36:13 ↗ connectivity for the better health of

36:14 ↗ natural systems you know and an

36:17 ↗ enhancing um language there and then we

36:19 ↗ also have something that deals with you

36:21 ↗ know emergency resilience and mobility

36:23 ↗ and so um I think this is another policy

36:26 ↗ that

36:30 ↗ actually think that's a a really great

36:31 ↗ point and and um we actually do have

36:34 ↗ separate policies on those three

36:36 ↗ different topics and so the I think the

36:38 ↗ intent of this update was to try to tie

36:40 ↗ them all together a little bit to kind

36:41 ↗ of tell that story of how they're

36:43 ↗ related um we still need to have this

36:47 ↗ reviewed by the planning policy

36:48 ↗ commission to kind of discuss some of

36:49 ↗ those relationships but we do have

36:51 ↗ separate policies particularly around

36:53 ↗ non-motorized connectivity one with uh

36:57 ↗ Trail systems and the natural systems

36:59 ↗ and as well as uh emergency resilience

37:01 ↗ which is also part of what's being

37:03 ↗ discussed with the environmental

37:06 ↗ element excellent I would love to see um

37:09 ↗ further dialoguing about how we actually

37:11 ↗ talk about the connectivity of our

37:13 ↗ systems I think it's something that's an

37:16 ↗ important Focus thank

37:22 ↗ you any other comments on the land use

37:36 ↗ okay we can move on to the culture

37:37 ↗ element

37:40 ↗ item so is there any there's only one so

37:43 ↗ is there any comment on this

37:48 ↗ one I'll just not this came from Comm

37:50 ↗ Mer's model elements um in response to

37:54 ↗ house 1181

38:06 ↗ so we can move on okay uh moving on to

38:10 ↗ the transportation

38:11 ↗ element is there any questions or

38:14 ↗ comments on the policies for this

38:19 ↗ element so I had a question well no it's

38:22 ↗ more of a comment so I know we have

38:25 ↗ Within the well we have within both IAP

38:28 ↗ and within the environmental element

38:30 ↗ there's some goals for BMT and I think

38:33 ↗ there's also non- Drive alone is another

38:36 ↗ are the two goals related to

38:38 ↗ this this is one of a couple examples

38:40 ↗ and I'll flag a few others as we go

38:42 ↗ through that I'm not sure where we've

38:44 ↗ really laid out the path to doing that

38:47 ↗ um there are certainly a couple policies

38:51 ↗ that touch on

38:53 ↗ how what what might possibly lead or

38:55 ↗ what might not what what might lead to

38:57 ↗ like not a major increase in those but I

39:00 ↗ I guess I don't see the policy that's

39:02 ↗ going to drive to a goal of I think it's

39:04 ↗ 15 or

39:05 ↗ 20%

39:07 ↗ so I think that would be in I I was

39:10 ↗ looking at the IAP I don't know that

39:12 ↗ it's there it might be a little better

39:14 ↗ defined there but it still seems like we

39:16 ↗ have a Target but not really clear

39:20 ↗ mechanism or kind of Guiding Light of

39:23 ↗ how we're going to get there I mean

39:25 ↗ saying that we're going to promote it

39:27 ↗ and that we're going to try to develop

39:29 ↗ infrastructure around or like basically

39:32 ↗ encourage development around those

39:34 ↗ neither of those seem like fast or

39:36 ↗ really majorly impactful

39:38 ↗ things um so there might be more things

39:41 ↗ in maybe the whole Transportation

39:42 ↗ element is about all of the reasons and

39:44 ↗ that's that's maybe the context it's not

39:47 ↗ there but um that from what I've looked

39:50 ↗ at feels kind of sparse right

39:53 ↗ now you actually just uh got at what I

39:58 ↗ was about to say was the trans station

39:59 ↗ element is really designed around that

40:01 ↗ of reducing the VMT of expanding the

40:04 ↗ multimodel building out complete streets

40:06 ↗ really trying to come up with more

40:09 ↗ connect uh connectivity and convenient

40:12 ↗ options Beyond just driving your car

40:14 ↗ alone and so uh we're beefing up the

40:18 ↗ language around uh chest station demand

40:20 ↗ management a little bit more but there's

40:22 ↗ going to be expanded policies related to

40:24 ↗ Transit we're going to be in ating um uh

40:28 ↗ some clarification for our non-motorized

40:30 ↗ goals and policies but it is all aimed

40:33 ↗ at and it's kind of explained in the

40:35 ↗ narrative for the transportation element

40:37 ↗ that it's really focused on reduction of

40:39 ↗ that

40:40 ↗ VMT okay that's helpful thank you n Go

40:43 ↗ ahead and in that same vein since we're

40:46 ↗ not seeing all the transportation

40:47 ↗ element I assume it talks about getting

40:50 ↗ people out of their cars on bikes safe

40:53 ↗ sidewalks things like that correct and

40:55 ↗ yes um and is there any in there related

41:00 ↗ to um like you know you see a lot of

41:02 ↗ places um the scooters that you can rent

41:06 ↗ or bikes that you can rent so you can

41:08 ↗ get around without having your own

41:10 ↗ vehicle not specifically I mean it talks

41:13 ↗ about uh Transit suppor of systems which

41:16 ↗ that's what kind of the scooter share

41:18 ↗ and Bike Share systems do um so if if

41:23 ↗ there's anything beyond that uh it it

41:26 ↗ does doesn't speak to it specifically

41:27 ↗ but there are policies that support

41:29 ↗ it thank

41:35 ↗ you any other comments or questions on

41:37 ↗ the transportation

41:41 ↗ element okay we can move on to economic

41:47 ↗ Vitality so just as a quick note on this

41:49 ↗ one um the uh the green is actually

41:55 ↗ because

41:56 ↗ uh the those are that's language

42:00 ↗ suggested for update to the um economic

42:05 ↗ Vitality element that was not proposed

42:07 ↗ by us uh in sustainability the red is

42:11 ↗ what we have suggested adding to uh

42:14 ↗ those new updates so sorry that's a

42:18 ↗ little confusing yeah just to give

42:20 ↗ context um we had worked with an

42:23 ↗ economic Vitality commission to actually

42:25 ↗ update these policies into the new

42:27 ↗ element so these are basically existing

42:29 ↗ in the the that commission's approved

42:32 ↗ draft so

42:41 ↗ far hearing any questions or

42:47 ↗ comments good okay we can move on to the

42:50 ↗ parks

42:52 ↗ element any questions or comments for

42:54 ↗ these goals and policies

42:56 ↗ go ahead thank you chair uh I'm looking

42:59 ↗ at policy G2 for parts um I am sounding

43:03 ↗ a little bit like a broken record

43:04 ↗ tonight I'm realizing um but my note

43:06 ↗ here is that I'd actually to see this

43:08 ↗ broken into two different things right

43:10 ↗ now I feel like we're combining the

43:11 ↗ concept of both um the separate as a

43:14 ↗ Trails initiative and then a managed

43:16 ↗ green spaces initiative um and so right

43:19 ↗ now they're it kind of we start off and

43:21 ↗ then we kind of finish somewhere else

43:22 ↗ and I would appreciate um both of the

43:25 ↗ points that are being made right now um

43:27 ↗ and think that they would be stronger if

43:29 ↗ we focused on a trail connectivity and a

43:32 ↗ managing open um green spaces within our

43:35 ↗ Park system and have that separate

43:39 ↗ however that makes most

43:40 ↗ sense yeah we can take a look at that

43:42 ↗ and work with the park

43:51 ↗ staff any other comments or

43:55 ↗ questions

44:00 ↗ okay here

44:01 ↗ none we can move on to what is it

44:05 ↗ capital

44:09 ↗ facilities I I don't know if this is the

44:11 ↗ right place for this because it comes

44:13 ↗ across a lot of elements I think but one

44:15 ↗ thing I haven't seen anywhere is a

44:18 ↗ commitment to evaluate lower carbon

44:22 ↗ approaches to constructing Capital

44:24 ↗ facilities infrastructure ET um we have

44:27 ↗ it sort of indirectly in a sustainable

44:29 ↗ purchasing policy I think we should be

44:31 ↗ coming out

44:33 ↗ and not that we're going to commit to do

44:35 ↗ anything but I think we should be at

44:36 ↗ least evaluating the options and that

44:38 ↗ should be a consideration for any major

44:42 ↗ project um and then related to that and

44:46 ↗ like again don't know where the right

44:47 ↗ place for this

44:49 ↗ is we have a lot of Partners like um

44:52 ↗ Sound Transit we have uh School District

44:56 ↗ that have that operate large fleets

44:58 ↗ within our city and I don't know if

45:01 ↗ we're doing enough to encourage the

45:02 ↗ right options there thinking

45:05 ↗ particularly about the school district

45:06 ↗ that just purchased a bunch of gas

45:08 ↗ school buses um so I just wonder is

45:12 ↗ there anything that we can put around

45:13 ↗ partnership to

45:15 ↗ encourage um if the city's going to be

45:17 ↗ investing in Fleet what what can we be

45:18 ↗ doing to encourage that with people that

45:21 ↗ are operating a lot of vehicles it could

45:22 ↗ also be employers that are operating

45:24 ↗ their uh pick for their employ I don't

45:27 ↗ know what other options there are but it

45:28 ↗ seems like there's an opportunity there

45:30 ↗ to um partner with with some related

45:35 ↗ organizations NY go ahead and um both of

45:39 ↗ these that are in the capital facilities

45:41 ↗ have the word should in it and it would

45:43 ↗ really be great if it could be shell

45:46 ↗ make it more um of a

45:50 ↗ requirement you know if you need an

45:52 ↗ exception to get out of it one thing but

45:55 ↗ should is so loose that people just can

45:57 ↗ walk away from

46:06 ↗ it uh and just while I'm on things I'm

46:09 ↗ not sure where they fit in um it's

46:12 ↗ probably definitely not where right now

46:15 ↗ but I'll just say it um the other thing

46:17 ↗ that we haven't really done is talk

46:21 ↗ about City working to decarbonize their

46:24 ↗ operations just like ongoing I mean I

46:27 ↗ think that's partially to do with Fleet

46:29 ↗ there's probably a lot of things that go

46:30 ↗ in there but we haven't made a statement

46:32 ↗ that we're looking to to reduce the

46:34 ↗ carbon intensity of our

46:36 ↗ operations um which I think is important

46:38 ↗ and again this is probably mostly

46:40 ↗ applied to long-term planning so but but

46:42 ↗ still seems like an important important

46:44 ↗ statement um for all the other decisions

46:47 ↗ that the city might

46:52 ↗ make okay we can take a look at that

47:00 ↗ there there is an a policy about that in

47:03 ↗ the environment element that we can see

47:05 ↗ if it works and if not okay update it or

47:09 ↗ expand

47:12 ↗ it right uh so there had one question on

47:15 ↗ that and I know I did see some language

47:17 ↗ on decrease by 20% or something the

47:19 ↗ greenhouse gas reduction emissions but I

47:22 ↗ just wanted to check if it was if there

47:25 ↗ was definite language on that or you

47:28 ↗ know how much reduction by which year or

47:32 ↗ was there a definitive goal for that or

47:35 ↗ was it you know kind of loose goal where

47:38 ↗ we will move in that direction and we

47:40 ↗ are working on it kind

47:42 ↗ of um yeah so the the language we

47:46 ↗ currently have is based off

47:48 ↗ of um the King County climate

47:52 ↗ collaborative uh goals so they're shared

47:55 ↗ goals across King County climate cities

47:58 ↗ okay um and there's both kind of the

48:01 ↗ overarching goals of

48:03 ↗ reducing um emissions generally

48:06 ↗ throughout the community and then

48:08 ↗ there's more specific goals about

48:11 ↗ reducing um emissions from a certain set

48:15 ↗ of uh sources so for instance there's

48:18 ↗ the one that's reducing fossil fuels

48:21 ↗ from existing buildings and there's a

48:23 ↗ both a gold date and a uh um Baseline

48:27 ↗ date for for making that

48:30 ↗ uh comparison okay so it's supp specific

48:34 ↗ types of emissions we talking about

48:36 ↗ right yeah it's both overarching and

48:39 ↗ then when you drill down with and this

48:41 ↗ is within the comp plan that there's and

48:44 ↗ the IAP there's kind of those goals for

48:46 ↗ specific sectors as well and this is

48:49 ↗ again only for the city facilities I

48:51 ↗ believe right or the so this is not

48:54 ↗ extending to the communities in the city

48:57 ↗ this is specifically for the city

49:00 ↗ facilities or city usage yeah so I think

49:03 ↗ the ones on the screen right now the

49:06 ↗ capital facilities ones are specifically

49:08 ↗ for City operations right so City

49:11 ↗ buildings things like that um the

49:14 ↗ policies that are within the IAP and

49:17 ↗ then also the environment element right

49:20 ↗ um it's actually a mix some of them uh

49:23 ↗ apply to the broader community and then

49:26 ↗ some of them uh generally where it uh

49:29 ↗ specifically said so it'll apply uh

49:31 ↗ specific to City

49:34 ↗ operations okay thank

49:37 ↗ you yeah the ones um that we have up

49:41 ↗ here those were intended to be

49:43 ↗ CommunityWide those are pulled directly

49:45 ↗ from the IAP also David and I were not

49:48 ↗ here when the IAP was developed but

49:49 ↗ that's our interpretation so that's a

49:51 ↗ good conversation to have um so yes

49:55 ↗ these are pulled from the IAP if we

49:58 ↗ think we need to revisit those that can

50:00 ↗ either be done through this process or

50:02 ↗ we are going to take a look at the IAP

50:04 ↗ next year see where we are where we're

50:07 ↗ falling short and and we can revisit

50:09 ↗ them during that process

50:19 ↗ too okay moving on to the housing

50:24 ↗ policies

50:33 ↗ one thing I think it's particularly apt

50:35 ↗ for

50:36 ↗ housing um and again I don't know if we

50:40 ↗ want to say this in the in the comp plan

50:43 ↗ but uh we talk a lot about what we want

50:46 ↗ to do to restrict or putting code is

50:49 ↗ there anything that we should be saying

50:51 ↗ related to incentivizing the right

50:54 ↗ actions um

50:56 ↗ I

50:57 ↗ think there's probably going to be a

50:59 ↗ time and place for both um I I don't

51:01 ↗ think there's anywhere that I can

51:03 ↗ remember that we've talked about in what

51:05 ↗ we want to

51:06 ↗ incentivize um but we're always going to

51:07 ↗ be limited in what we'll mandate and so

51:11 ↗ um I do think that housing is among many

51:14 ↗ other things um evaluate places that we

51:17 ↗ can talk about and and put goals towards

51:20 ↗ trying to incentivize the right

51:22 ↗ behaviors not just require right

51:24 ↗ Behavior

51:26 ↗ mandate anything that we want to see

51:30 ↗ done oh

51:32 ↗ and go

51:33 ↗ ahead oh thanks Jamie um were you

51:36 ↗ referring to housing policy

51:40 ↗ A8 just m was not very specific mine was

51:44 ↗ kind of

51:45 ↗ broad yeah I totally agree um with

51:49 ↗ incentivizing and then for this one

51:51 ↗ policy A8 I was wondering if maybe we

51:53 ↗ could have stronger verbiage there

51:56 ↗ especially for the new

51:59 ↗ housing um will that be in

52:05 ↗ codes both the state and the city codes

52:08 ↗ will

52:08 ↗ they require energy

52:15 ↗ efficiency for new

52:17 ↗ housing or

52:22 ↗ not there is a the code is

52:26 ↗ yes um I can I can speak a little to it

52:29 ↗ Stephen might have more information

52:31 ↗ there's so there's going to be uh there

52:35 ↗ is a more strict energy

52:38 ↗ code what municip or um sorry building

52:42 ↗ energy code that uh keeps getting pushed

52:45 ↗ back in its adoption um right now it's

52:48 ↗ got pushed back to March um and if so it

52:52 ↗ would if it is adopted it would require

52:55 ↗ more strict Energy Efficiency and

52:58 ↗ electrification is that a state state

53:01 ↗ code be state code that would then be

53:03 ↗ adopted into our code so I guess that's

53:06 ↗ a question if um that would be a

53:09 ↗ requirement at the state level if for

53:10 ↗ some reason that continues to get pushed

53:12 ↗ back or doesn't pass the stronger

53:16 ↗ requirements is there something at the

53:17 ↗ city level we want to

53:22 ↗ do and we could say something I don't

53:24 ↗ know what would be stronger than

53:26 ↗ encourag but like implement or we can

53:29 ↗ play around with some language that's

53:31 ↗ stronger than encourag but maybe doesn't

53:33 ↗ put us

53:35 ↗ into um restrict us so much that we have

53:38 ↗ to pass some kind of code or get a ahead

53:41 ↗ of where the community is

53:45 ↗ comfortable thank

53:47 ↗ you Ahad thank you so um I want to

53:52 ↗ really support um the new um housing c

53:56 ↗ um about retrofitting um and it reminded

53:59 ↗ me of conversations that have been had

54:02 ↗ regarding code and needing to have

54:04 ↗ policy um to support them and it kind of

54:07 ↗ goes back to our discussion about

54:08 ↗ utilities and being able to actually

54:10 ↗ have a consensus from the administration

54:12 ↗ about new residential development having

54:15 ↗ a different standard um than it has in

54:19 ↗ the past and being able to have that

54:21 ↗ policy predate necessarily even what we

54:24 ↗ would be able to do legally um we've

54:26 ↗ talked about having the administration

54:28 ↗ Advocate to Olympia for our desires but

54:31 ↗ they be able to strongly say in our comp

54:34 ↗ plan that this is what we believe right

54:36 ↗ and then being able to implement that in

54:39 ↗ a code um sense when we're able to um

54:42 ↗ legally I think it would be this is a

54:44 ↗ good spot to be able to to build on this

54:47 ↗ fantastic

54:54 ↗ event

55:12 ↗ El on

55:17 ↗ housing okay going to Human Services and

55:21 ↗ just the one for Human

55:24 ↗ Services

55:26 ↗ go ahead thank you chair um I am curious

55:29 ↗ so on obviously human services will be

55:33 ↗ um I'd like to include a policy that

55:34 ↗ supports a focus on eliminating food

55:36 ↗ deserts in our community um for instance

55:38 ↗ the creation of policies to help us to

55:40 ↗ protect against and repair constraints

55:42 ↗ on our food system um for those of us um

55:45 ↗ that were around when we had um old cby

55:48 ↗ H Food desert um there was very little

55:52 ↗ that could be done without some pretty

55:54 ↗ drastic um moves from Council that they

55:57 ↗ weren't able and willing to make at that

55:59 ↗ time and it's important I think that we

56:02 ↗ have policies to be able to support that

56:05 ↗ there are a lot of options to be able to

56:07 ↗ do that and right now we don't have a

56:08 ↗ comp plan that supports us being able to

56:10 ↗ move into dire to address food deserts

56:13 ↗ um and it's um would be nice to add this

56:16 ↗ into again this momentum that we have

56:18 ↗ going into Services

56:23 ↗ element

56:28 ↗ yeah we can discuss with the human

56:29 ↗ services staff and Human Services

56:33 ↗ Commission um and this might actually go

56:36 ↗ back to housing I think there's a human

56:38 ↗ services element to it but just looking

56:41 ↗ back at goal C and and just more

56:44 ↗ broadly one thing that I think we're

56:48 ↗ already seeing in our community is the

56:50 ↗ need for air conditioning becoming more

56:52 ↗ common and

56:55 ↗ I think especially in affordable housing

56:58 ↗ but um I think across all of our housing

57:01 ↗ stock that's another benefit that I

57:04 ↗ think we should speak to so even within

57:05 ↗ housing C housing goal C mentioning that

57:09 ↗ that that's an aspect that adding that

57:12 ↗ service to affordable housing seems like

57:16 ↗ it shouldn't just be about Energy

57:17 ↗ Efficiency this is like the heat pump

57:19 ↗ argument it's not just about Energy

57:21 ↗ Efficiency it's actually the addition of

57:23 ↗ air conditioning that is it's got like

57:27 ↗ so many extra benefits that uh that

57:30 ↗ should be kind of aware of and I hope

57:31 ↗ that like people that are either in

57:34 ↗ human services or whoever might be

57:35 ↗ discussing this are also considering

57:37 ↗ that benefit uh when they're thinking

57:39 ↗ about what to

57:46 ↗ implement we can take a look at

57:51 ↗ that Alex go ahead

57:55 ↗ yes thank you um maybe this is somewhere

57:58 ↗ else and I'm just not remembering where

58:00 ↗ it was placed but if and I don't know if

58:03 ↗ it would go into Human Services but if

58:05 ↗ that would include like Heating and

58:07 ↗ Cooling centers for people during

58:10 ↗ weather related events I thought I

58:12 ↗ remembered seeing it in the

58:13 ↗ environmental plan but then I'm not

58:15 ↗ remembering reading it again here so um

58:19 ↗ I don't

58:20 ↗ remember where it was or if it should be

58:24 ↗ included in this Human Services

58:30 ↗ section I kind of I kind of recall

58:34 ↗ something oh I was gonna say I recall

58:37 ↗ something I can't I'm on the same boat I

58:41 ↗ don't recall where it's at exactly I

58:44 ↗ remember seeing providing shelters or

58:48 ↗ something but then when I reread it I

58:51 ↗ didn't remember remember where I saw it

58:53 ↗ so um might be in there and I just

58:55 ↗ missed it there are policies

58:57 ↗ specifically related to that in the the

59:00 ↗ environment element there's a section

59:01 ↗ called resilience and wellbeing um and

59:05 ↗ yeah sorry yeah happy to discuss if it's

59:09 ↗ adequate or needs to be expanded or or

59:12 ↗ what

59:14 ↗ okay when we get down there I'll double

59:17 ↗ check again thank

59:23 ↗ you hey

59:26 ↗ uh now we're moving on to the land use

59:32 ↗ element is there any goals or policies

59:35 ↗ you'd like to take a look

59:43 ↗ at we kind of already reviewed some of

59:46 ↗ the planned use but for the at least the

59:48 ↗ remainder of of the spreadsheet is there

59:50 ↗ any uh comments on these goals and

59:53 ↗ policies

59:55 ↗ and Stephen or David just to confirm

59:57 ↗ these are existing ones that are not

59:59 ↗ changing or not new is that correct but

1:00:03 ↗ we just included them for

1:00:06 ↗ reference yeah yeah correct these are

1:00:09 ↗ all the goals policies that have been

1:00:11 ↗ reviewed by the planning policy

1:00:13 ↗ commission and the council committee so

1:00:15 ↗ we're just showing um as a separate just

1:00:18 ↗ because it was a lot of the land use

1:00:23 ↗ element

1:00:43 ↗ doesn't seem have

1:00:47 ↗ any

1:00:49 ↗ okay and again this isn't going to be

1:00:53 ↗ the last time you're going to see

1:00:55 ↗ comp plan language so if you can think

1:00:58 ↗ of anything else or you or something

1:01:00 ↗ else comes up later on we can always uh

1:01:02 ↗ continue

1:01:06 ↗ discussing is that everything on the

1:01:09 ↗ other elements that we were going to

1:01:12 ↗ discuss yeah the last question um for

1:01:15 ↗ the board I think is just how do we want

1:01:18 ↗ to convey our feedback to other boards

1:01:21 ↗ commissions Council committees is is it

1:01:25 ↗ adequate enough for staff to take the

1:01:27 ↗ feedback make revisions present these in

1:01:30 ↗ the next um draft of the elements does

1:01:34 ↗ the board want to prepare a letter

1:01:37 ↗ summarizing comments um or support for

1:01:42 ↗ the draft goals and policies as revised

1:01:44 ↗ or another option to

1:01:49 ↗ convey Stacy uh would in what you just

1:01:54 ↗ said would they be seeing our actual

1:01:57 ↗ comments or is it just the results of

1:01:59 ↗ the

1:02:00 ↗ comments probably the results of the

1:02:03 ↗ comments would be cleaner just because

1:02:05 ↗ there are going to be still a lot of new

1:02:07 ↗ versions moving around because staff are

1:02:09 ↗ still working on these

1:02:12 ↗ two in the in the context of how we've

1:02:15 ↗ been kind of showing the other boards

1:02:17 ↗ commission simar to the discussions that

1:02:18 ↗ we've had with you all we show you know

1:02:21 ↗ the result of an edit but also explain

1:02:23 ↗ where the edit came from to it won't

1:02:25 ↗ give them your exact comments but it'll

1:02:28 ↗ summarize much of why that edit kind of

1:02:31 ↗ came to

1:02:35 ↗ play are you still planing on to any

1:02:37 ↗ comments on attachment a we are going to

1:02:39 ↗ move into the environment element next

1:02:42 ↗ yes yeah and justce it we do plan to

1:02:44 ↗ come back to you all in 2024 with the

1:02:48 ↗ full comp plan to review elements and

1:02:51 ↗ goals and policies of interest um so we

1:02:54 ↗ could write a letter at that time

1:02:56 ↗ similar to how we did it with Title

1:02:58 ↗ 18 um kind of our comprehensive letter

1:03:02 ↗ on the comp plan um so that's one option

1:03:05 ↗ to is to wait until that

1:03:09 ↗ review my feedback on this is this is

1:03:12 ↗ still a rough draft it's still going

1:03:14 ↗ through a lot of edits and it will look

1:03:18 ↗ different by the time we see it again

1:03:19 ↗ anyway so I just assume wait

1:03:22 ↗ until uh we see it in 202 before and are

1:03:25 ↗ ready to kind of make a recommendation

1:03:27 ↗ to other boards and the council that you

1:03:30 ↗ this is kind of where we've come and we

1:03:32 ↗ can reference that we have seen it

1:03:33 ↗ numerous times and provided feedback

1:03:36 ↗ along the way but I appreciate that you

1:03:39 ↗ know you guys are still trying to work

1:03:40 ↗ it and it's a tough thing my

1:03:44 ↗ feedback um I I would agree with Nancy

1:03:47 ↗ on that I think the one thing that comes

1:03:49 ↗ to mind for me though I keep asking

1:03:52 ↗ about this what I do think is important

1:03:55 ↗ that the boards and commissions that are

1:03:57 ↗ ring other sections and anyone else

1:03:58 ↗ ising this has while they're doing that

1:04:01 ↗ for the elements of the the

1:04:03 ↗ environmental element that that they

1:04:06 ↗ would need as context to evaluate

1:04:07 ↗ whether what's in the transportation

1:04:09 ↗ plan is going to be sufficient to meet

1:04:11 ↗ the VMT and drive Al loan for example

1:04:13 ↗ those goals do we have what is needed

1:04:15 ↗ there so I think those that context as

1:04:18 ↗ well as any I I don't know if every

1:04:21 ↗ board will have read through the IAP

1:04:22 ↗ they probably haven't they might not

1:04:24 ↗ also have seen what may have been added

1:04:27 ↗ in between these periodic updates so

1:04:30 ↗ that's the part that I would encourage

1:04:32 ↗ staff to um communicate is is what's

1:04:35 ↗ already in IAP what's already in the

1:04:37 ↗ environmental element um so that those

1:04:41 ↗ boards and commissions have that context

1:04:43 ↗ as they're reviewing their

1:04:45 ↗ elements you

1:04:47 ↗ know the one of the outcomes from the

1:04:49 ↗ IAP is is incorporating a lot of the

1:04:52 ↗ actions into the city's work plan and

1:04:53 ↗ first a lot of those items that are

1:04:56 ↗ specific to another border commission

1:04:58 ↗ they're typically given that context of

1:05:00 ↗ what's in the IAP what was discussed why

1:05:02 ↗ this why we're even discussing the

1:05:04 ↗ implementation of an action and so they

1:05:06 ↗ get a lot that context you're right

1:05:08 ↗ you're probably right that they didn't

1:05:09 ↗ read the whole IAP but as part of Staff

1:05:12 ↗ efforts we do incorporate background

1:05:14 ↗ information IAP contained this

1:05:16 ↗ information this is what discuss and

1:05:18 ↗ here's the reason why we're here today

1:05:20 ↗ talking about the evitation

1:05:22 ↗ component yeah no that makes sense and I

1:05:25 ↗ would expect that to happen when there's

1:05:26 ↗ more tactical policy making for the comp

1:05:29 ↗ plan where it's like we're not talking

1:05:32 ↗ about specific policies it's everything

1:05:34 ↗ all at once that's where they may not

1:05:37 ↗ have discussed every part of their kind

1:05:40 ↗ of breadth of their what their they

1:05:42 ↗ focus on um so they may not have had

1:05:44 ↗ that come up in in previous

1:05:46 ↗ conversations so that hopefully they

1:05:49 ↗ already have all that context but that

1:05:51 ↗ would just be something a check that

1:05:53 ↗ staff hopefully it does and I think one

1:05:56 ↗ of the challenge you're going to have

1:05:57 ↗ Stephen is next year um there's four of

1:05:59 ↗ us on this board that our terms are

1:06:03 ↗ up and so in May so you know you bring

1:06:07 ↗ four new people to the table let's just

1:06:10 ↗ assume that happens um it's going to be

1:06:12 ↗ a bigger challenge just giving your head

1:06:14 ↗ up appreciate

1:06:20 ↗ that okay so I think for this we will

1:06:22 ↗ plan to take all the feed back today

1:06:24 ↗ work on revisions to the goals and

1:06:27 ↗ policies and the other elements um you

1:06:30 ↗ all will see another draft in early 2024

1:06:34 ↗ as more of a complete uh comp plan so

1:06:37 ↗ you can reference those other rules and

1:06:39 ↗ policies within the elements as well

1:06:41 ↗ great thank you thanks for your feedb

1:06:44 ↗ listening to

1:06:45 ↗ us yeah thank you

1:06:49 ↗ all all right and with that we will move

1:06:52 ↗ to our next agenda item

1:06:54 ↗ the comp plan environmental stewardship

1:06:56 ↗ and climate resilience

1:06:59 ↗ element yeah um a full full night of

1:07:02 ↗ comp plan

1:07:04 ↗ um so uh I think similar to what Stephen

1:07:10 ↗ did earlier there's no presentation for

1:07:13 ↗ this you've gotten the presentation

1:07:14 ↗ around the environment element a number

1:07:17 ↗ of times now and so I think the goal

1:07:20 ↗ tonight was

1:07:22 ↗ to uh

1:07:24 ↗ once again kind of more closely walk

1:07:27 ↗ down through the environment element um

1:07:30 ↗ we can go Section by section kind of the

1:07:33 ↗ goals by goals um it's been noted in the

1:07:37 ↗ final column goal four if it was

1:07:39 ↗ reviewed in August reviewed in September

1:07:42 ↗ um anything that is in Black has been

1:07:45 ↗ reviewed before or is uh unchanged from

1:07:49 ↗ the existing comp plan and anything is

1:07:52 ↗ read is something that's new from

1:07:55 ↗ between last meeting and this

1:08:00 ↗ meeting so um I think our plan was to

1:08:04 ↗ just start at the top and scroll down

1:08:08 ↗ through this one as well and uh take any

1:08:11 ↗ comments that you all might

1:08:14 ↗ have um should we start at the top sorry

1:08:20 ↗ down yeah start with greenhouse gas

1:08:23 ↗ introduction and go Section by section

1:08:26 ↗ again um and just to note because I

1:08:29 ↗ think it's very important um there was

1:08:32 ↗ language brought in from the IAP that we

1:08:34 ↗ are recommending some changes so that

1:08:37 ↗ will require kind of a formal update to

1:08:39 ↗ the IAP likely next year while we're

1:08:42 ↗ doing the midpoint review so we tried to

1:08:44 ↗ note that so we don't lose um sight of

1:08:50 ↗ it so maybe start with kind of goal

1:08:54 ↗ what was land use policy goal F there

1:08:56 ↗ aren't um there aren't

1:09:00 ↗ um uh letters associated with the

1:09:02 ↗ policies the new policies in the new

1:09:04 ↗ environment element yet so um starting

1:09:07 ↗ with what was land use goal F and the

1:09:09 ↗ associated policies maybe we can look at

1:09:12 ↗ those first and then just go goal by

1:09:16 ↗ goal um one and this is maybe semantics

1:09:21 ↗ maybe it's not but um

1:09:24 ↗ the policy F1 being quoted in terms of

1:09:28 ↗ the overall goal versus what's what isqu

1:09:31 ↗ and directly impact so like looking at

1:09:34 ↗ the the the wedge analysis where like

1:09:37 ↗ state and federal actions are going to

1:09:39 ↗ take out x amount a large portion

1:09:42 ↗ especially for

1:09:43 ↗ 2030 I do think in it's it's hard for

1:09:47 ↗ anyone to look at that

1:09:49 ↗ and like it seems really

1:09:52 ↗ insurmountable and and it it's actually

1:09:55 ↗ a lot of it's not actionable for Isa so

1:09:58 ↗ I do wonder if maybe it's and having the

1:10:03 ↗ specific targets related to what isqua

1:10:05 ↗ addressable portion of of that should be

1:10:08 ↗ like I'm always asking the question okay

1:10:11 ↗ we need like okay 50% how much of that's

1:10:13 ↗ already knocked out what do what does

1:10:14 ↗ isqua actually need to do and so I just

1:10:18 ↗ think that that that would be helpful

1:10:19 ↗ for some people that might not be

1:10:21 ↗ looking at the wedge analysis and might

1:10:22 ↗ say oh these goals are like impossible

1:10:25 ↗ well a lot of it's actually taken apart

1:10:27 ↗ and so if we it might actually help

1:10:29 ↗ people not feel like this is not

1:10:35 ↗ possible yeah we can definitely look at

1:10:37 ↗ that I think what we're typically

1:10:40 ↗ advised on the wedge analysis is to use

1:10:43 ↗ it as a guide um just recognizing things

1:10:46 ↗ can happen with the

1:10:48 ↗ implementation

1:10:49 ↗ um uh and so I think that's how we've

1:10:52 ↗ looked at us kind of guide that we know

1:10:54 ↗ buildings and transportation are our

1:10:56 ↗ biggest impact and where we can make the

1:10:58 ↗ biggest difference um I don't

1:11:02 ↗ know we'll work on some language I think

1:11:04 ↗ we want to be careful about being too

1:11:06 ↗ specific about what the local or

1:11:08 ↗ Regional um impact can be here just

1:11:12 ↗ recognizing the wedge analysis is kind

1:11:14 ↗ of a guide and not not prescriptive but

1:11:17 ↗ yeah but I think on some level we have

1:11:18 ↗ to decide okay we have to make an

1:11:20 ↗ assumption about what state and federal

1:11:22 ↗ policies are going to do and then what

1:11:24 ↗ would we need to do to meet our goals

1:11:26 ↗ and so I think we have we are not very

1:11:28 ↗ clear about drawing a line in the S what

1:11:30 ↗ we like yes it may change yes other

1:11:32 ↗ things may change but I still think that

1:11:36 ↗ I this is a gray area so I don't I agree

1:11:39 ↗ that it's not this is not easy which

1:11:41 ↗ one's right there there's not really a

1:11:42 ↗ right answer but I do think the clearer

1:11:45 ↗ we can be about what we want to do as

1:11:48 ↗ isqua not like what are we going to be

1:11:50 ↗ the recipient of and then do some of the

1:11:53 ↗ the better it could be um in in planning

1:11:56 ↗ what what we do against in a comp

1:12:02 ↗ plan I just want to voice support for

1:12:05 ↗ that I think that's one of the beautiful

1:12:07 ↗ things about a comp plan right is it's

1:12:08 ↗ our place to be a little bit of our

1:12:11 ↗ leadership our

1:12:13 ↗ aspirations um there's a a real need to

1:12:15 ↗ be able to set up in our comp plan um

1:12:19 ↗ because it enables us to be able to

1:12:22 ↗ really reach when we have available

1:12:25 ↗ options

1:12:28 ↗ sorry go

1:12:29 ↗ ahead so I just have a question on this

1:12:33 ↗ language for example for goal G where we

1:12:37 ↗ talk about you know G1 says decrease

1:12:40 ↗ energy use in new and existing buildings

1:12:43 ↗ by 25% so I do see some numbers like or

1:12:46 ↗ achieve 100% renewable electricity by

1:12:49 ↗ 2030 or something like that I'm just

1:12:51 ↗ curious to know um um where these

1:12:54 ↗ numbers you know what was the reference

1:12:56 ↗ for these numbers was it any kind of

1:12:58 ↗ city or King County Guidance or you know

1:13:01 ↗ similar cities are achieving these goals

1:13:03 ↗ I'm just wondering how realistic versus

1:13:06 ↗ you know goal driven like getting to Net

1:13:09 ↗ Zero at some point they are and you know

1:13:12 ↗ how realistic they are basically that's

1:13:15 ↗ what I was getting at yeah so many of

1:13:18 ↗ the numbers most of the numbers I think

1:13:20 ↗ uh come from the King County climate

1:13:22 ↗ collaborative

1:13:23 ↗ shared goals across the county there are

1:13:26 ↗ some numbers I believe that are a little

1:13:29 ↗ stricter for us so such as the uh

1:13:33 ↗ 95% emissions reduction in Net Zero by

1:13:36 ↗ 2050 that's kind of the goal

1:13:38 ↗ F1 um I believe that's um a little bit

1:13:42 ↗ more stringent than the King County um

1:13:45 ↗ climate collaborative goals

1:13:47 ↗ um but yeah Mo so most of those those

1:13:51 ↗ number targets are from there um and

1:13:53 ↗ were adopted as part of the IAP and

1:13:57 ↗ unfortunately as Stacy mentions neither

1:13:59 ↗ of us were here at the time for those

1:14:02 ↗ conversations um so we can have further

1:14:06 ↗ conversations about updating those

1:14:08 ↗ numbers uh as necessary so again The Net

1:14:12 ↗ Zero goals these are City goals right

1:14:15 ↗ means I know there will be a little bit

1:14:17 ↗ of overlap with the community but

1:14:19 ↗ basically the focus is specifically the

1:14:22 ↗ city facility these in gos or no no no

1:14:26 ↗ yeah these goals are CommunityWide okay

1:14:29 ↗ yeah except for the ones that are

1:14:31 ↗ specific Municipal operations yeah okay

1:14:34 ↗ so like um yeah go G3 achieve 100%

1:14:37 ↗ renewable electricity um in municipal

1:14:40 ↗ buildings so that's Community or that's

1:14:42 ↗ Municipal specific um the other ones

1:14:45 ↗ around uh General uh reduce emissions by

1:14:49 ↗ uh 50% in isqua by 20 30 that's

1:14:58 ↗ CommunityWide

1:15:09 ↗ thanks other comments under goal

1:15:22 ↗ f

1:15:30 ↗ okay so um goal G the next set is

1:15:37 ↗ specific to um or are the policies

1:15:40 ↗ related to greenhouse gas emissions from

1:15:42 ↗ buildings

1:15:50 ↗ specifically I think the only big change

1:15:52 ↗ here from September was an had flagged

1:15:55 ↗ um that we were missing the uh go or the

1:16:00 ↗ policy that was added to the IAP on the

1:16:02 ↗ night of adoption the fossil fuel

1:16:04 ↗ reduction one um so we've added that in

1:16:07 ↗ but I think that's the only yeah that's

1:16:09 ↗ the only change for the go under go

1:16:14 ↗ g um I had a comment on

1:16:20 ↗ G1 the G G1 and the new policy that was

1:16:24 ↗ added related to Fossil F fuel

1:16:27 ↗ use and I said this to you D and St I

1:16:31 ↗ feel like those are they're not

1:16:32 ↗ contradictory but they're not

1:16:34 ↗ necessarily structured in the way that I

1:16:36 ↗ would hope is like if we were to do 25%

1:16:39 ↗ production in energy use overall I would

1:16:41 ↗ hope that fossil fuel use would make up

1:16:43 ↗ an outsized portion of that and that

1:16:46 ↗ there might actually be a net slight

1:16:49 ↗ increase in electri like in electricity

1:16:51 ↗ use if we're electrifying and so the it

1:16:53 ↗ feels like there's something that

1:16:55 ↗ doesn't make quite sense between those

1:16:58 ↗ two

1:17:00 ↗ um so yeah that that just seems like

1:17:04 ↗ maybe we should be more we either need

1:17:06 ↗ to be

1:17:07 ↗ more um specific and more aggressive

1:17:11 ↗ with that fossil fuel use goal um or

1:17:14 ↗ just think about how the that those

1:17:16 ↗ those play together um I guess the other

1:17:20 ↗ and this more of a question similar to

1:17:23 ↗ the transportation BMT stuff are there a

1:17:26 ↗ lot of policies related to how this is

1:17:28 ↗ going to happen that live outside of

1:17:30 ↗ what we're reviewing this feels like

1:17:32 ↗ from what we have relatively light and

1:17:34 ↗ how we're going to get

1:17:36 ↗ 25% of reductions and so I'm just

1:17:39 ↗ curious if there's there's other

1:17:41 ↗ policies that might be in I don't know

1:17:43 ↗ what it might be but those would fall

1:17:47 ↗ within the IAP then kind of the

1:17:49 ↗ implementation plan of how we're going

1:17:50 ↗ to get there that's the intent and yeah

1:17:53 ↗ I agree this the numbers and language I

1:17:56 ↗ think do and that can work to maybe see

1:17:58 ↗ if we can create something new here that

1:18:01 ↗ would then result in an update in the

1:18:03 ↗ IAP policies but um yeah for those

1:18:07 ↗ numbers too I might want to reach what

1:18:10 ↗ we can do is look into kind of the

1:18:11 ↗ development of those numbers with King

1:18:13 ↗ County climate collaborative um since I

1:18:17 ↗ think both of those numbers came

1:18:18 ↗ directly from that so kind of see how

1:18:20 ↗ they were developed and then uh we can

1:18:22 ↗ figure out uh how to update them yeah

1:18:24 ↗ and it might be I mean one Nuance

1:18:27 ↗ between the two is new and existing

1:18:28 ↗ buildings is the first one existing

1:18:30 ↗ buildings is the second one so that

1:18:32 ↗ might be where there's they're not

1:18:34 ↗ inconsistent they actually it's just

1:18:36 ↗ much harder to get fossil fuels out of

1:18:38 ↗ existing Bild which I think is the case

1:18:40 ↗ so yeah maybe there's nothing actually

1:18:44 ↗ wrong there but just maybe taking

1:18:46 ↗ another look so

1:18:48 ↗ absolutely um and go ahead and I'll come

1:18:51 ↗ back to Joy and page

1:18:53 ↗ thanks

1:18:55 ↗ so I'm just curious does this match up

1:18:58 ↗ with the clean energy transformation act

1:19:01 ↗ CA because

1:19:03 ↗ [Music]

1:19:05 ↗ um that law says that we need to be um

1:19:10 ↗ have no carbon in our electrical grid

1:19:14 ↗ and no natural gas being used by

1:19:16 ↗ 2050 and by 2030 we have to reduce by

1:19:21 ↗ 80%

1:19:24 ↗ um and and then by offsets for the rest

1:19:29 ↗ of our fossil fuel

1:19:31 ↗ use in our electric

1:19:35 ↗ grid yeah I'm just wondering I'm not

1:19:38 ↗ sure if they were the numbers were

1:19:40 ↗ updated after Ceda was passed at King

1:19:42 ↗ County Stacy you might actually have

1:19:44 ↗ more context on no yeah that's a good

1:19:46 ↗ question we'll look at that plus the k4c

1:19:50 ↗ goals and policies are looking across

1:19:52 ↗ all the communities that not all of

1:19:57 ↗ um uh yeah we'll look at that further

1:20:00 ↗ it's a great great Point um yeah and

1:20:02 ↗ they are older than I mean I think this

1:20:05 ↗ is saying a different thing though like

1:20:07 ↗ that takes care of how electricity is

1:20:09 ↗ generated this is talking about reducing

1:20:11 ↗ energy use so I don't think that they're

1:20:13 ↗ necessarily the same measuring the same

1:20:15 ↗ thing yeah maybe getting to the fossil

1:20:17 ↗ fuel one is there there might be a

1:20:19 ↗ question there or the

1:20:21 ↗ overarch yeah it still seems like it

1:20:25 ↗ anyways I thought that the state stuff

1:20:27 ↗ was related directly just to how

1:20:28 ↗ electricity is generated which like how

1:20:31 ↗ whether a building is using natural gas

1:20:33 ↗ in an existing building

1:20:35 ↗ seems not necessar directly related but

1:20:38 ↗ okay I don't think we're going to be

1:20:40 ↗ able to use natural gas by 2050 either

1:20:43 ↗ there's another law around

1:20:46 ↗ that and

1:20:49 ↗ um and I think it'll be reduced

1:20:53 ↗ more than 20% by 2030 as

1:20:56 ↗ well it's the climate

1:20:59 ↗ commitment is it the climate commitment

1:21:03 ↗ act

1:21:05 ↗ um I don't know if that will speak to

1:21:08 ↗ the F field it's good question yeah

1:21:11 ↗ we'll let us dig in a little bit

1:21:14 ↗ further make sure there's no conflex

1:21:18 ↗ okay cool

1:21:19 ↗ thanks thanks and um Joy go ahead this

1:21:23 ↗ is a side question Stacy you used some

1:21:25 ↗ language that I did kind of H my ears of

1:21:27 ↗ when you said oh we make a policy that

1:21:30 ↗ then with Flyers updating for the IAP um

1:21:33 ↗ and so can you remind me I I thought

1:21:36 ↗ that the IAP needed to be updated next

1:21:39 ↗ year in 2024 as part of a a review

1:21:41 ↗ that's baked in um but if it's not set

1:21:46 ↗ within these particular times is a go

1:21:49 ↗ around to be able to be able to update I

1:21:52 ↗ to be able to then add to our comp plan

1:21:55 ↗ every year to I'm thinking of this

1:21:57 ↗ triggering system yeah so within the IAP

1:22:01 ↗ um it says there's a midpoint check-in

1:22:03 ↗ with Council and I'll double check this

1:22:06 ↗ it doesn't necessarily say we're doing a

1:22:08 ↗ full update to it um with the language

1:22:12 ↗ that I'm that I remember looking back at

1:22:16 ↗ um what David and I have talked about

1:22:18 ↗ we're going to start some planning for

1:22:19 ↗ this soon and engage you all in the

1:22:21 ↗ conversations is is I think we want to

1:22:23 ↗ do more of a community engagement around

1:22:26 ↗ that IAP check-in that could result in

1:22:29 ↗ some updates if we see we're not making

1:22:31 ↗ progress in are areas we've hit some

1:22:33 ↗ barriers in areas maybe there's some

1:22:36 ↗ goals or targets we want to update so we

1:22:38 ↗ are thinking of it as an update next

1:22:41 ↗ year which could be a result of some

1:22:44 ↗ language we're proposing to change in

1:22:45 ↗ the comp plan that we would then want to

1:22:47 ↗ update in the IAP or updates in the IAP

1:22:50 ↗ could then result in a interim update to

1:22:53 ↗ the comp in the future too it just led

1:22:55 ↗ me to the question of being like um when

1:22:58 ↗ this board was formed we wanted to

1:23:01 ↗ empower um EV to be able to request and

1:23:05 ↗ guide their involvement in a way that

1:23:08 ↗ was um unique from other boards and

1:23:11 ↗ commissions um and we wanted to allow um

1:23:14 ↗ a freedom for Ev to be able to go to

1:23:17 ↗ council and say we want to do this um

1:23:19 ↗ and then there was also supposed to be

1:23:21 ↗ built-in measures

1:23:23 ↗ um for Council to be readdressing the

1:23:25 ↗ issues that EV deals with so um I think

1:23:28 ↗ what's interesting is that there's a

1:23:30 ↗ consensus on in the environmental board

1:23:32 ↗ to be able to say hey we want to do a

1:23:34 ↗ review how does that happen right and it

1:23:37 ↗ kind of puts an interesting light on

1:23:39 ↗ these policies and it may then mean that

1:23:41 ↗ we might want to change policy even

1:23:45 ↗ further to then be able to trigger so we

1:23:48 ↗ don't have maybe a narrow scope I don't

1:23:50 ↗ know if that is an issue to then be a to

1:23:52 ↗ say hey we want to be able to readdress

1:23:54 ↗ these things because some of the things

1:23:56 ↗ as I've been trying to think about how

1:23:57 ↗ to add to this element um some of them

1:24:01 ↗ are probably more detailed and

1:24:03 ↗ appropriate in the IAP right um and then

1:24:06 ↗ necessarily for here and kind of how do

1:24:08 ↗ we as a board be able to put um real

1:24:10 ↗ time policy

1:24:12 ↗ suggestions um and then be able to have

1:24:14 ↗ this trickle down um and you know kind

1:24:18 ↗ that all that web inter connect I think

1:24:20 ↗ it's something that's an interesting

1:24:21 ↗ idea of how the board people more

1:24:24 ↗ involved in those specifics yeah and

1:24:27 ↗ right now my thinking is to bring a

1:24:29 ↗ proposed plan for that IAP checkin I

1:24:31 ↗ think in December we do that before the

1:24:33 ↗ end of the year and definitely want the

1:24:35 ↗ board's feedback on what kind of

1:24:37 ↗ Engagement that looks like so um does

1:24:42 ↗ that okay yeah but yeah I think it is

1:24:45 ↗ and we can talk more with us about with

1:24:48 ↗ Stephen but it is going to be circular

1:24:49 ↗ so if we do updates in the IAP that

1:24:52 ↗ weren't reflected this round in the comp

1:24:53 ↗ plan we could then update do those minor

1:24:56 ↗ changes in the comp plan Ming forward

1:24:58 ↗ just going to grab my

1:25:04 ↗ ch

1:25:09 ↗ um so Stacy and David this is a question

1:25:12 ↗ and a comment and you know I'm not sure

1:25:15 ↗ if you know the answer to that but I

1:25:17 ↗ just wanted to bring it out because this

1:25:20 ↗ is something I think somebody should

1:25:22 ↗ look into and you know these 20%

1:25:25 ↗ reductions 75% reductions they look

1:25:27 ↗ great to be on paper on policy and you

1:25:30 ↗ know great strong language I just wanted

1:25:34 ↗ to know if and it may not be you guys

1:25:37 ↗ but has a city looked at or has a good

1:25:40 ↗ Baseline for Greenhouse Greenhouse

1:25:42 ↗ emissions you know especially if you're

1:25:44 ↗ considering these goals to be involving

1:25:47 ↗ communities that could be a mountainous

1:25:50 ↗ task you know to achieve so

1:25:53 ↗ um I mean somebody needs to have a

1:25:54 ↗ realistic Baseline as well as actual

1:25:58 ↗ real data um using correct greenhouse

1:26:02 ↗ gas emissions calculation spreadsheets

1:26:04 ↗ or models or whatever because a lot of

1:26:06 ↗ things can go wrong and um you know I

1:26:10 ↗ just wanted to make sure somebody's

1:26:11 ↗ looking at the calculation the Baseline

1:26:13 ↗ as well as how really it's going to work

1:26:16 ↗ out yeah so there's generally two

1:26:18 ↗ baselines that are used um I'm not sure

1:26:22 ↗ why there were two different baselines

1:26:24 ↗ used but um there's a 20 uh 2007

1:26:28 ↗ Baseline um for some of the targets and

1:26:31 ↗ then a 2017 Baseline for some of the

1:26:33 ↗ targets so there were greenhouse gas

1:26:36 ↗ emissions uh inventories done at those

1:26:38 ↗ times most recent one that's been

1:26:40 ↗ completed for the city was in 2019 there

1:26:43 ↗ was a regional effort and then we are

1:26:46 ↗ hopefully wrapping up soon a uh

1:26:50 ↗ Municipal and CommunityWide greenhouse

1:26:52 ↗ gas inventory for the year

1:26:54 ↗ 2022 um this fall so that'll be kind of

1:26:58 ↗ those Baseline data numbers that we can

1:27:01 ↗ compare across um or uh to help inform

1:27:06 ↗ these

1:27:06 ↗ targets that's good to and we'll have a

1:27:10 ↗ presentation on that

1:27:14 ↗ yes and is your hand just raised from

1:27:18 ↗ the last one or did you have another

1:27:21 ↗ comment

1:27:23 ↗ oh sorry that was an

1:27:25 ↗ accident

1:27:32 ↗ okay any other comments on buildings and

1:27:42 ↗ energy we can move to goal H which is um

1:27:47 ↗ the next one right below gold be uh yeah

1:27:52 ↗ so go go B is it's actually something

1:27:55 ↗ you have reviewed before um I just

1:27:57 ↗ didn't know how to kind of remove it

1:27:59 ↗ from this uh document so it's it's still

1:28:04 ↗ there in red but go H um with kind of

1:28:08 ↗ the policies under it uh Transportation

1:28:10 ↗ B and then land use policies H um are

1:28:15 ↗ all related to transportation and

1:28:17 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions reduction from

1:28:19 ↗ Transportation projects or

1:28:20 ↗ Transportation efforts

1:28:23 ↗ any comments questions uh or thoughts on

1:28:30 ↗ these um I love the sentiment of policy

1:28:34 ↗ V2 I have no idea how we are going to

1:28:37 ↗ get there 50% reduction

1:28:40 ↗ per that feels really great if it

1:28:44 ↗ happened unclear how it will um so

1:28:49 ↗ unless there's some M I hope the

1:28:51 ↗ transport elements

1:28:54 ↗ amazing CU that seems yeah this one just

1:28:59 ↗ feels like there's not enough meat on

1:29:00 ↗ the bone on how that's going to happen

1:29:03 ↗ um I 2050 is far off but it still feels

1:29:06 ↗ like that is a really Hefty

1:29:10 ↗ go joy go ahead thank you chair I'm

1:29:13 ↗ gonna pick you back on that a bit

1:29:14 ↗ because when I read um this for those

1:29:17 ↗ following along calls E2 um it reminded

1:29:20 ↗ me that we need to be um Forward

1:29:23 ↗ Thinking in how Isa will be the last

1:29:25 ↗ stop on um on Metro and so when we think

1:29:30 ↗ about transportation we have been

1:29:32 ↗ designated to be the Hub and when we

1:29:35 ↗ think about our surrounding communities

1:29:37 ↗ in Maple Valley and stalia and North

1:29:39 ↗ Bend um and so the way to get people out

1:29:42 ↗ of their cars is effectively to allow

1:29:44 ↗ them to bring their cars to isqua and

1:29:47 ↗ leave them and I felt that for us to be

1:29:50 ↗ able to say we have these goals of

1:29:51 ↗ getting people out out of their cars we

1:29:53 ↗ need to address where they're putting

1:29:54 ↗ their cars because it's not realistic to

1:29:56 ↗ say they're leaving their cars at home

1:29:57 ↗ and being able to travel without a

1:29:59 ↗ vehicle and I just didn't feel like

1:30:02 ↗ policies encapsulated a way to move

1:30:03 ↗ forward I don't know that it really

1:30:05 ↗ needs to but there is really this idea

1:30:08 ↗ of thinking about our transportation

1:30:09 ↗ policies of saying um we need to be

1:30:12 ↗ supplying a part of that equation in a

1:30:15 ↗ way that we don't right we do parking

1:30:17 ↗ studies regularly that say we're good we

1:30:19 ↗ have plenty of parking to serve us what

1:30:20 ↗ we need but we're not actually looking

1:30:22 ↗ at the role that we've decided to take

1:30:24 ↗ on of saying how do we get people out of

1:30:25 ↗ their cars and that we need them to come

1:30:27 ↗ and stash their car somewhere um so uh I

1:30:31 ↗ don't know if it's appropriate but as I

1:30:32 ↗ read this policy I just to me cars is

1:30:35 ↗ the dirty word we're not talking about

1:30:36 ↗ and so we need to figure out how are we

1:30:38 ↗ getting them where are we putting

1:30:43 ↗ them I had a question on this one

1:30:45 ↗ actually um

1:30:47 ↗ is with the update are we were moving to

1:30:49 ↗ 20% by 2030 or are we just adding the

1:30:53 ↗ 50% by

1:30:55 ↗ 2050 we had we had a conversation so

1:30:58 ↗ both of these are in the IAB we had a

1:31:01 ↗ conversation with Stephen I think the

1:31:02 ↗ preference is to include the later goal

1:31:06 ↗ in the comp plan since it's a 20-year

1:31:08 ↗ plan um but just know they both exist in

1:31:11 ↗ the IAP and we're working towards both

1:31:15 ↗ um

1:31:18 ↗ houses is that correct Sten think the

1:31:20 ↗ preference was to include 2050 if it

1:31:23 ↗ exists yeah that's correct because for

1:31:25 ↗ the C plan the next update will be

1:31:30 ↗ 2034 the next major update to be more

1:31:36 ↗ exact but I just want to comment really

1:31:39 ↗ quick on on Joy's points on the

1:31:41 ↗ transation system because it's

1:31:43 ↗ particularly for well it is going to be

1:31:44 ↗ very difficult to kind of get to these

1:31:45 ↗ goals particularly because you know

1:31:47 ↗ Transit is going to be a huge component

1:31:49 ↗ to get to that huge reduction to V M and

1:31:52 ↗ we don't have control over that but the

1:31:54 ↗ other side of a lot of this is also on

1:31:56 ↗ the land use side um it's not just the

1:32:01 ↗ use of cars that people are it's it's

1:32:03 ↗ the reason they're using their cars and

1:32:05 ↗ if we can incorporate in our land use

1:32:07 ↗ and and build out more amenities closer

1:32:11 ↗ to the neighborhoods you reduce the need

1:32:13 ↗ for people to use their cars in the

1:32:15 ↗ first place or any other transit or

1:32:17 ↗ major vehicle to get access to uh local

1:32:21 ↗ amenities and so that that's another

1:32:22 ↗ component as part of being able to

1:32:24 ↗ achieve it we're not going to achieve it

1:32:25 ↗ with transit or non motorized alone it's

1:32:27 ↗ it's going to be kind of a more

1:32:28 ↗ comprehensive approach of land use

1:32:32 ↗ transportation and everything all the

1:32:35 ↗ and everything in between here here

1:32:37 ↗ Stephen I'm very encouraged by the

1:32:39 ↗ discussions that PBC has been having

1:32:41 ↗ about um inclusive communities and how

1:32:43 ↗ we um allow neighborhoods to be able to

1:32:45 ↗ have some flexibility to have Services

1:32:47 ↗ all around so keep up the good work one

1:32:50 ↗ question on this and and will come I'll

1:32:51 ↗ come back to you but just while we're on

1:32:53 ↗ this

1:32:54 ↗ one I noticed one other change in this

1:32:57 ↗ that we're now talking in terms of in

1:33:00 ↗ per capita vehicle miles travel before

1:33:02 ↗ it was reduction in vehicle miles travel

1:33:06 ↗ um could you share a little bit about

1:33:07 ↗ that change and one thing I'm

1:33:09 ↗ particularly curious about are we

1:33:10 ↗ talking about and I don't think we can

1:33:12 ↗ actually calculate are we talking about

1:33:14 ↗ isqua mile like citizen driving miles or

1:33:17 ↗ we is this the total miles driven in

1:33:20 ↗ isquad divided by the residents of this

1:33:22 ↗ Aqua um it just seems like we might I'm

1:33:25 ↗ curious which we're trying to

1:33:30 ↗ measure great question uh Stephen I

1:33:33 ↗ don't know if you have a quick answer to

1:33:34 ↗ that um I need to look for that real

1:33:38 ↗ quick we might need to look to the k4c

1:33:42 ↗ Orin so so typically VMT is measured by

1:33:45 ↗ per capita so even though it didn't say

1:33:47 ↗ it in the policy before that's how we

1:33:49 ↗ would have measured

1:33:50 ↗ it okay but but like isqua grows we're

1:33:54 ↗ no longer saying we're going to reduce

1:33:56 ↗ BMT by 50% we're saying

1:33:59 ↗ 50% per capita and we might have 25%

1:34:02 ↗ growth in Capas so just Cur like Curious

1:34:07 ↗ on the change in language there and um I

1:34:10 ↗ I think part of this probably comes from

1:34:11 ↗ what we've seen over the last few years

1:34:13 ↗ or 20 years or whatever in isqua we've

1:34:15 ↗ seen huge population growth but just

1:34:18 ↗ want to make sure that we're that this

1:34:20 ↗ is the goal we want to Comm because it

1:34:22 ↗ does meaningfully change what the metric

1:34:27 ↗ is and I don't understand that and I

1:34:29 ↗ guess my comment is is isqua is a

1:34:32 ↗ shopping Hub a lot of people come here

1:34:34 ↗ to shop and to do things like that they

1:34:36 ↗ don't live here but they come here to

1:34:38 ↗ shop and so how do we do that if we're

1:34:40 ↗ using per capita because you can't do

1:34:43 ↗ that division in that math when you're

1:34:46 ↗ one of the things we have centralized is

1:34:49 ↗ Costco you know big Central hubs I don't

1:34:54 ↗ understand typically cities kind of

1:34:57 ↗ measured in in different areas so it's

1:34:59 ↗ not just overall per capita you're

1:35:02 ↗ looking at different like say U well

1:35:05 ↗ just say North isqua as an example like

1:35:07 ↗ East East Lake s mamish we would look at

1:35:09 ↗ a lot of the major corridors over there

1:35:12 ↗ and look at the per capita um for that

1:35:14 ↗ and then for the east side of isqua you

1:35:18 ↗ would look at the per capita for that

1:35:19 ↗ and then you look at either the the

1:35:21 ↗ overall average or kind of the

1:35:23 ↗ collective reductions to get to that 50%

1:35:26 ↗ overall or um for those areas I mean so

1:35:29 ↗ how do you take into account you know I

1:35:31 ↗ don't know if s transit's ever going to

1:35:33 ↗ get the light rail here but it says it's

1:35:35 ↗ supposed to um and bring it into town

1:35:39 ↗ and so we're going to become another Hub

1:35:41 ↗ of bringing in people into town to drop

1:35:43 ↗ their cars and catch the Light Rail

1:35:47 ↗ um I don't think this goal makes sense

1:35:51 ↗ how's that Mak does that make it's not

1:35:54 ↗ something we can measure because of the

1:35:56 ↗ way we have tried to make this community

1:36:00 ↗ the way we've done our land use so we've

1:36:02 ↗ got to make it so that it's a relatable

1:36:04 ↗ goal and this is not a relatable goal

1:36:07 ↗ because you know our future includes

1:36:09 ↗ Sound Transit somehow our future will

1:36:12 ↗ include you know continued development

1:36:14 ↗ of Costco and the big in Regional so I

1:36:18 ↗ don't think this goal makes

1:36:20 ↗ sense

1:36:22 ↗ this is pulled the IAP so that might be

1:36:26 ↗ and it's directly I think also from one

1:36:27 ↗ of the the K4 seals so I think that's

1:36:30 ↗ definitely something we should revisit I

1:36:32 ↗ think we should fix it in the comp plan

1:36:34 ↗ and fix the IAP later

1:36:37 ↗ okay well I think David and I can do

1:36:41 ↗ some digging maybe get some more

1:36:42 ↗ information around this and then also

1:36:45 ↗ see if we can work on some new

1:36:48 ↗ language um yeah I think this gets back

1:36:50 ↗ to

1:36:52 ↗ I I would love if we could do this I

1:36:53 ↗ think we need it would be great to have

1:36:56 ↗ more beat mind how we're going to do it

1:36:59 ↗ it doesn't feel like there's enough

1:37:00 ↗ there right now sorry an please go

1:37:06 ↗ ahead just a quick comment um I I think

1:37:10 ↗ telecommuting is going to help get us

1:37:15 ↗ there we have

1:37:19 ↗ some and another

1:37:21 ↗ of course you can't telecommute Costco

1:37:25 ↗ groceries just one quick note on that um

1:37:28 ↗ I believe T telecommuting was

1:37:31 ↗ incorporated into one of the goals um

1:37:33 ↗ you won't see it in red because I think

1:37:35 ↗ it was incorporated last time um so it

1:37:39 ↗ is it is there we can I don't remember

1:37:41 ↗ which goal it is exactly but I saw that

1:37:45 ↗ and I appreciate it thank you so much of

1:37:50 ↗ course Andy go ahead so perhaps this

1:37:53 ↗ goal needs to be split into two and the

1:37:56 ↗ reason I say that one would be for per

1:37:58 ↗ capita which is people that are

1:38:00 ↗ residents that are in here that are

1:38:01 ↗ driving to do their things and another

1:38:04 ↗ one for people that are coming to the

1:38:06 ↗ community to shop or to park to go

1:38:08 ↗ somewhere else so that we can actually

1:38:11 ↗ measure and know if we've achieve

1:38:12 ↗ success I don't know how to do this but

1:38:15 ↗ they two totally different things just a

1:38:20 ↗ thought

1:38:24 ↗ yeah we'll talk more I don't know much

1:38:26 ↗ about how this is measured there are

1:38:27 ↗ people that do this for a living so we

1:38:29 ↗ can talk with them I know also and

1:38:31 ↗ Stephen can probably talk to it more

1:38:33 ↗ fuget sound Regional Council has a

1:38:35 ↗ number of um goals and strategies that

1:38:39 ↗ they're looking at um as well for BMT

1:38:43 ↗ reduction so we can look at those two

1:38:45 ↗ see if there's some language maybe that

1:38:46 ↗ works better for us and I would assume

1:38:49 ↗ B's working on this too because they're

1:38:51 ↗ big Hub too

1:38:53 ↗ yes they have their own yeah model I

1:38:57 ↗ think too yeah they have their own um

1:39:00 ↗ vehicle miles travels model that we are

1:39:02 ↗ not a

1:39:05 ↗ part if there are no other comments on

1:39:08 ↗ transportation we can move on to the

1:39:10 ↗ next one which

1:39:12 ↗ is keep scrolling

1:39:16 ↗ down um greenhouse gas associated with

1:39:20 ↗ waste um so these

1:39:23 ↗ are

1:39:25 ↗ um policies the first few are pulled

1:39:28 ↗ directly from the IAP um and then some

1:39:31 ↗ additional policies at the end of this

1:39:33 ↗ um developed as part of this

1:39:45 ↗ process I had had a comment in a

1:39:48 ↗ previous meeting and I was trying to

1:39:50 ↗ find a good way to add it um and I

1:39:53 ↗ wasn't quite sure where and I kind of

1:39:56 ↗ landed on um on accountability but it

1:40:01 ↗ might actually be better here and it was

1:40:02 ↗ the notion of um sustainable systems to

1:40:05 ↗ support conservation um the need for

1:40:08 ↗ analysis retooling of our existing use

1:40:10 ↗ to help guide conservation of resources

1:40:13 ↗ and use the example of an open water tap

1:40:16 ↗ at like mamish state park being able to

1:40:18 ↗ be left on for an excess of 30 minutes

1:40:21 ↗ right um when we can walk up to a water

1:40:24 ↗ fountain the water isn't pry flowing

1:40:25 ↗ right press a button we have our use we

1:40:27 ↗ move on there's so many systems that we

1:40:30 ↗ we like to talk about how do we

1:40:32 ↗ communicate to the public how do we

1:40:33 ↗ re-educate how do we help make more

1:40:35 ↗ information available um but there also

1:40:37 ↗ needs to be a reing of how we use our

1:40:39 ↗ resources to to bend towards

1:40:42 ↗ conservation right a simple foot tap on

1:40:45 ↗ on a water spigot allows you to be able

1:40:47 ↗ to use only what you need um and I think

1:40:50 ↗ that there's right now a missing policy

1:40:52 ↗ that talks about this need for us to

1:40:55 ↗ relook at and to retool even on a very

1:40:58 ↗ micro scale how we're using our

1:41:00 ↗ resources to be conserving um and so

1:41:04 ↗ this might be a better place for it but

1:41:05 ↗ I do think there's

1:41:08 ↗ policy yeah what I one of the things I

1:41:10 ↗ can look at too is I know within the

1:41:13 ↗ utilities element there's it's been

1:41:15 ↗ rearranged a little bit and there's

1:41:17 ↗ going to be a specific resource

1:41:18 ↗ conservation section there that's

1:41:20 ↗ specifically talks about um water

1:41:23 ↗ conservation energy conservation and

1:41:26 ↗ things like that generally the

1:41:28 ↗ policies uh in this kind of piece of the

1:41:32 ↗ environment element are specific to

1:41:35 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions reduction

1:41:37 ↗ associated with transportation land use

1:41:40 ↗ and then um waste it reminds me of the

1:41:43 ↗ conversation that was being had around

1:41:45 ↗ Title 18 when we were talking about our

1:41:46 ↗ lighting phone and there was this

1:41:49 ↗ outdated notion um and kind of a fear

1:41:52 ↗ mongering that comes from saying a

1:41:53 ↗ wellit community is a saber community

1:41:56 ↗ and studies show that that's not the

1:41:57 ↗ case and that actually has roots and

1:41:59 ↗ raal Prejudice as well um and with an

1:42:01 ↗ open window with a Broken Window Theory

1:42:03 ↗ and things like that and so we'd

1:42:05 ↗ actually even asked for comments from

1:42:06 ↗ our Police Commissioner who said that

1:42:08 ↗ isn't the case we have no issues right

1:42:10 ↗ now and the idea of this kind of how we

1:42:12 ↗ come in and what what is waste I think

1:42:15 ↗ is kind of maybe a bigger conversation

1:42:16 ↗ for staff to be kind of pulling apart um

1:42:19 ↗ and right now I just

1:42:21 ↗ I feel like these policies could

1:42:24 ↗ use more heft right when we think about

1:42:26 ↗ it and maybe this isn't the right place

1:42:28 ↗ for it but there's certainly something

1:42:30 ↗ to think about how we're how what what

1:42:32 ↗ time was generating yep I can look into

1:42:37 ↗ working with the other other folks

1:42:40 ↗ updating the policies and take a look at

1:42:43 ↗ that and so David I have just one

1:42:46 ↗ comment on what Joy said so a part of it

1:42:49 ↗ seems like Outreach as well you know not

1:42:52 ↗ just looking at resources and so I just

1:42:54 ↗ wanted to check if and I don't remember

1:42:57 ↗ is there a part of Outreach somewhere in

1:43:01 ↗ the spelled out a policy spelled out for

1:43:04 ↗ outreach specifically because a lot of

1:43:06 ↗ it especially if you have these heavy

1:43:09 ↗ goals involving the communities you do

1:43:12 ↗ need good Outreach actually to you know

1:43:14 ↗ reach those goals as

1:43:17 ↗ well yeah so um

1:43:21 ↗ sorry I'm looking back at some of the

1:43:23 ↗ policies I haven't memorized everything

1:43:25 ↗ yet um I think more of the Outreach

1:43:28 ↗ specific pieces have landed or live in

1:43:33 ↗ the IAP itself and those functional

1:43:35 ↗ plans of Howard doing these things um I

1:43:39 ↗ know we incorporated some Outreach

1:43:41 ↗ pieces into the resilience uh section of

1:43:44 ↗ this that we're going to get

1:43:45 ↗ to thank

1:43:49 ↗ you

1:43:53 ↗ oh sorry I didn't see an go

1:43:56 ↗ ahead oh you might be

1:44:01 ↗ muted

1:44:05 ↗ no no we can't hear

1:44:14 ↗ you no

1:44:19 ↗ no you get that do you want to try

1:44:21 ↗ taking your headphones off I don't know

1:44:22 ↗ if that help or you could send something

1:44:24 ↗ in the chat

1:44:29 ↗ too okay well while uh Jo do you wan to

1:44:32 ↗ I had a question about policy on I2

1:44:35 ↗ which talks about improving Community

1:44:37 ↗ waste collection we've had conversations

1:44:38 ↗ um in this board before about City

1:44:41 ↗ efforts of how the city could um be

1:44:43 ↗ coordinating um efforts for waste

1:44:45 ↗ collection umly around like compost for

1:44:48 ↗ instance um and I'm curious ious is this

1:44:51 ↗ a good example of where we put a pin

1:44:54 ↗ into it and then there's a trickle down

1:44:55 ↗ and IAP right where do we have like a

1:44:57 ↗ direct responsibility that says the

1:45:00 ↗ community has these increased needs we

1:45:03 ↗ need to be doing more and does this like

1:45:06 ↗ oh we need to put a this and then

1:45:07 ↗ further reverberate down that would be

1:45:10 ↗ my interpretation too yeah that'd be the

1:45:13 ↗ implementation that get of

1:45:17 ↗ this I do want to just check in um it is

1:45:21 ↗ we have about 10 minutes left um and

1:45:25 ↗ we're a little a third of the way maybe

1:45:29 ↗ through the environment element so Stacy

1:45:32 ↗ and Jamie I'm not uh we can keep going

1:45:35 ↗ as we're going um we can adjust as

1:45:37 ↗ necessary

1:45:41 ↗ so I think part of this is it's sort of

1:45:44 ↗ the choice between trying to finish

1:45:46 ↗ tonight or the November 1 meeting um so

1:45:50 ↗ I don't know if board members have any

1:45:53 ↗ preference one way or the other I have

1:45:56 ↗ four or five written notes that if you

1:45:58 ↗ want to switch over rather than going

1:45:59 ↗ down and you want to to say give us your

1:46:01 ↗ general feedbacks and comments to for to

1:46:04 ↗ be concise for time or if you're

1:46:06 ↗ preferring to go through and get this

1:46:08 ↗ more depth analysis kind of what you

1:46:10 ↗ guys are wanting to get out this I think

1:46:12 ↗ I am fine with switching to more General

1:46:15 ↗ I think before it was to try and

1:46:17 ↗ accommodate making sure we hit every

1:46:19 ↗ element uh or every policy for um

1:46:22 ↗ y'all's benefit as well so yeah the one

1:46:25 ↗ thing I'll just note is um and stepen

1:46:28 ↗ correct me here but the draft enironment

1:46:31 ↗ element will go to a um Council

1:46:35 ↗ committee November 8 and so we want to

1:46:37 ↗ make sure it's at least the board's

1:46:40 ↗ comfortable where where it is

1:46:42 ↗ recognizing it's a working document um

1:46:44 ↗ so we want to make sure that we're

1:46:46 ↗ capturing your comments and we have

1:46:48 ↗ sufficient time and you sufficient time

1:46:51 ↗ before that

1:46:53 ↗ meeting it is draft it will be reviewed

1:46:56 ↗ again I think Council cany understands

1:46:58 ↗ that but just Stephen that's correct

1:47:01 ↗ yeah you're correct on uh it going to

1:47:03 ↗ the council Committee in early November

1:47:04 ↗ but we're also planning to bring the

1:47:06 ↗ draft language to planning policy

1:47:08 ↗ commission later this month as

1:47:11 ↗ well so just recognizing that and we

1:47:14 ↗ will convey this is draft the board's

1:47:16 ↗ still working on it

1:47:18 ↗ but using that information to assess how

1:47:22 ↗ much time you want to to continue to

1:47:25 ↗ review and I do see your comment in the

1:47:28 ↗ chat and I'll take a look at

1:47:31 ↗ that um maybe do you want to read it I'm

1:47:34 ↗ not sure if the chat shows up on the

1:47:37 ↗ recording great yeah um increased

1:47:40 ↗ percentage of waste diverted from

1:47:42 ↗ landfills to 70% by 2030 and 90% by 2050

1:47:46 ↗ do we have a baseline date um and I will

1:47:50 ↗ take a look back at that

1:47:53 ↗ um I don't see one in the IAP um but I

1:47:58 ↗ we'll do some

1:48:02 ↗ diing um and actually I don't think

1:48:04 ↗ there is a baseline Recology reports to

1:48:06 ↗ us

1:48:07 ↗ [Applause]

1:48:09 ↗ on just the total amount diverted I

1:48:12 ↗ think that's what it's intended to

1:48:14 ↗ mean so there may not be a baseline but

1:48:17 ↗ that it as increased percentage which is

1:48:19 ↗ kind of confus us but I think it's meant

1:48:21 ↗ to be the total amount diverted so but

1:48:24 ↗ we can check on that in word

1:48:31 ↗ Smith okay so it sounds like we uh there

1:48:35 ↗ weren't any objections to Joy's

1:48:36 ↗ suggestion that we start moving to

1:48:38 ↗ General comments if someone we might end

1:48:41 ↗ up going a little bit over so hopefully

1:48:42 ↗ that's fine but uh so yeah if people

1:48:45 ↗ have General comments on any of the

1:48:48 ↗ element uh

1:48:51 ↗ and make

1:48:53 ↗ now Joy you lead us off I'll start us

1:48:56 ↗ off and I'm gonna um jump around a

1:48:58 ↗ little bit um right now um on page 33 Lu

1:49:01 ↗ policy B1 um tree policy I think this is

1:49:04 ↗ something that uh this board should

1:49:06 ↗ spend a lot more time on um as a

1:49:09 ↗ background planning policy commission uh

1:49:11 ↗ spends a lot of time talking about trees

1:49:13 ↗ and wondering what environmental board

1:49:15 ↗ thinks and as the federal government um

1:49:18 ↗ has said we need to reclassify what

1:49:19 ↗ trees are and put out this mandate um

1:49:22 ↗ for us to re defining what are old grow

1:49:24 ↗ trees and um there's a there's a big

1:49:26 ↗ movement I think that we need to be as a

1:49:29 ↗ board discussing trees at length we have

1:49:31 ↗ yet to discuss this element in any kind

1:49:33 ↗ of detail so um I'd like to wave that

1:49:35 ↗ flag a bit and my suggestion is that we

1:49:37 ↗ call out adequate root zones um right

1:49:40 ↗ now there is not um um an ability to

1:49:44 ↗ support it codewise and it's a vital

1:49:47 ↗ part of why we don't have um healthy

1:49:50 ↗ trees right now in our community um is

1:49:52 ↗ taking into account a healthy root Zone

1:49:54 ↗ um further on that I think we need to

1:49:56 ↗ have policy that talks about trees

1:49:58 ↗ naturally aging um right now there's

1:50:01 ↗ this concept that says well eventually

1:50:03 ↗ it might come down and so let's just

1:50:05 ↗ take the whole tree out and instead we

1:50:07 ↗ need to have policies that support

1:50:08 ↗ liming to reduce stress on trees um to

1:50:11 ↗ be able to have trees uh to borrow our

1:50:14 ↗ housing term age in place in our

1:50:16 ↗ community um and I think that ties a t

1:50:18 ↗ goals to of wanting to in inrease um our

1:50:21 ↗ tree canopy so I would like to see um

1:50:24 ↗ some emphasis there uh I going to jump

1:50:26 ↗ to page 32 which is Lu policy E5 um one

1:50:31 ↗ thing that I think that uh for those of

1:50:33 ↗ us living in the community a couple

1:50:34 ↗ weeks ago we had like three inches of

1:50:36 ↗ rain I think in about 24 hours and then

1:50:39 ↗ a couple days later it was we still had

1:50:41 ↗ a drought um declared and conservation

1:50:43 ↗ was requested by the state it's an

1:50:45 ↗ important reminder um about sediment

1:50:47 ↗ being trapped in tributaries um due to

1:50:50 ↗ flooding so um right now this board has

1:50:52 ↗ talked a lot about chemical runoff and

1:50:55 ↗ how that will hinder salmon egg's

1:50:56 ↗ ability to survive but we also need to

1:50:58 ↗ talk about sediment trapping um because

1:51:01 ↗ that is a very harmful environment um

1:51:03 ↗ for our spawning salmon um and would

1:51:06 ↗ like to see that further supported in

1:51:07 ↗ policy um I'm going to move to policy Lu

1:51:12 ↗ um j3 which is I think probably a good

1:51:15 ↗ place for this and it talks about you

1:51:17 ↗ know the fact that um in the water

1:51:19 ↗ supply in our region is tapped we're

1:51:22 ↗ we're reliant on a reduced snow pack

1:51:24 ↗ which we know is problematic for a lot

1:51:25 ↗ of reasons I think that we need to have

1:51:27 ↗ some policies that address um the

1:51:30 ↗ serious water issues that our region has

1:51:32 ↗ I think that there's been kind of a a

1:51:34 ↗ desire to say that because we buy in our

1:51:37 ↗ water from the casky water lines we

1:51:38 ↗ don't have an issue and I think that

1:51:40 ↗ actually changing our perspective on

1:51:42 ↗ this policy would be a good idea and my

1:51:45 ↗ tangible suggestion to this is that um

1:51:47 ↗ having more policies regarding roof

1:51:49 ↗ collection and storage um are vital for

1:51:52 ↗ not only um our long-term sustainability

1:51:55 ↗ but also for emergency usage um when we

1:51:58 ↗ have some sort of

1:51:59 ↗ disaster um my uh my next one is on page

1:52:03 ↗ 31 Lu policy e um or maybe J2 um and

1:52:09 ↗ talking about um policies for Wetlands

1:52:10 ↗ as a point of entry for aqua and one way

1:52:14 ↗ we can do that by um having policies

1:52:16 ↗ that promote a forest floor in your

1:52:18 ↗ garden um multi-layer

1:52:20 ↗ um mulch or a Duff layer um for lims and

1:52:24 ↗ leaves being able to be left in place I

1:52:26 ↗ think is very important when we think

1:52:28 ↗ about how uh trees collect water and

1:52:30 ↗ then drop that water being able to have

1:52:32 ↗ pine needles are actually a really good

1:52:34 ↗ source of water in our community and

1:52:36 ↗ talking about how we'd be able to have

1:52:37 ↗ that dff layer help support drought

1:52:40 ↗ times is very important and I not seen

1:52:42 ↗ policies that help to address that um I

1:52:46 ↗ was curious um for kind of on page 30

1:52:49 ↗ one goal e can Wildlife get its own

1:52:52 ↗ section like trees um I had talked to

1:52:55 ↗ staff a bit about

1:52:56 ↗ biodiversity um and being able to talk

1:52:58 ↗ about policy creation to support um

1:53:00 ↗ rebuilding fractured um and fractured

1:53:04 ↗ biological diversity um in our community

1:53:06 ↗ and I'm curious if maybe bringing out a

1:53:08 ↗ SE a separate element from natural

1:53:11 ↗ systems and giving Wildlife its own

1:53:12 ↗ thing as possible um or helpful and

1:53:17 ↗ um I got

1:53:20 ↗ great I was able to collect that and we

1:53:23 ↗ have a recording so I will also look

1:53:25 ↗ back at that um so I can I'm happy to

1:53:28 ↗ talk with you offline but those were

1:53:29 ↗ just iy think of concrete policy things

1:53:32 ↗ to add to what we already have built

1:53:34 ↗ which is so fantastic um and conf how we

1:53:37 ↗ kind of think about in policy how we can

1:53:39 ↗ Implement right it's easy to say we care

1:53:41 ↗ about water but how is that oh

1:53:45 ↗ collection yep and I'll I'll check in

1:53:47 ↗ with Steph's team about um splitting up

1:53:49 ↗ Wildlife from streams and wetlands see

1:53:52 ↗ if it gets its own section and then um

1:53:55 ↗ there was language we included around

1:53:58 ↗ biodiversity into some existing policies

1:54:00 ↗ I think they're mainly in the natural

1:54:03 ↗ systems section um and I'm what I'm

1:54:07 ↗ hearing is that you'd

1:54:09 ↗ like specific policies related to

1:54:11 ↗ biodiversity not kind of incorporated

1:54:13 ↗ into other system I think that it would

1:54:15 ↗ be I think I appreciated you adding the

1:54:17 ↗ word I think that when we think about

1:54:19 ↗ what we what we need to do to address

1:54:21 ↗ the biodiversity crisis um it's to say

1:54:23 ↗ that we need to have talk about what

1:54:25 ↗ those protections look like um there was

1:54:27 ↗ recently some interesting analysis on

1:54:29 ↗ amphibians and how a Waring climate

1:54:31 ↗ amphibians are um kind of a bell weather

1:54:34 ↗ gauge for us right now and being able to

1:54:36 ↗ see what's happening in more harsh

1:54:37 ↗ environments like in Costa Rica for

1:54:39 ↗ instance and seeing how they're

1:54:40 ↗ migrating North like North up into the

1:54:43 ↗ mountains to find pool and temperatures

1:54:44 ↗ and how the ecosystem that that web I

1:54:47 ↗ should say that food web starts to

1:54:48 ↗ collapse right have this vital part of

1:54:50 ↗ it um missing right and I can tell you

1:54:53 ↗ as a resident over the last decade po

1:54:55 ↗ pollinators amphibians right we're

1:54:57 ↗ seeing drastic changes in their behavior

1:54:59 ↗ in our own environment and being able to

1:55:01 ↗ call out and policy protections whether

1:55:04 ↗ that being fogs wet lens and things like

1:55:06 ↗ that for um for this other you know for

1:55:10 ↗ the the more sensitive members of our

1:55:12 ↗ community I

1:55:14 ↗ think

1:55:18 ↗ you sorry that was

1:55:21 ↗ okay um one section and and joy touched

1:55:24 ↗ on this a little bit but um another goal

1:55:28 ↗ and I've said this every time this has

1:55:30 ↗ come in the 55% tree canopy I don't

1:55:34 ↗ understand how we get to 55% tree canopy

1:55:36 ↗ by just better retaining of trees in

1:55:39 ↗ situations of development um I've never

1:55:42 ↗ understood how what the plan was on how

1:55:44 ↗ we were going to increase tree canopy um

1:55:49 ↗ meaningfully like 4% in 12 years is

1:55:52 ↗ really significant um so I think we need

1:55:56 ↗ to figure out is that the right goal um

1:55:59 ↗ or we need to put in place more

1:56:01 ↗ meaningful langu language and then this

1:56:04 ↗ was like something I commented on in

1:56:06 ↗ Title 18 repeatedly that I felt like we

1:56:08 ↗ didn't actually have a strategy to get

1:56:10 ↗ to where we needed to be or that we were

1:56:12 ↗ saying we were going to be um and I I

1:56:15 ↗ think that exists within this comp plan

1:56:17 ↗ as

1:56:18 ↗ well

1:56:20 ↗ and go

1:56:23 ↗ ahead um there's still a lot of space in

1:56:26 ↗ the Parks and um through green isqua

1:56:29 ↗ we're actively planting trees and I know

1:56:32 ↗ you're a part of that

1:56:34 ↗ too so um there is quite a bit of space

1:56:40 ↗ so I think it is achievable

1:56:42 ↗ actually and I'm wondering some

1:56:44 ↗ reference to the plans that will then

1:56:48 ↗ identify how we're going to get there

1:56:50 ↗ the urban forestry management plan Parks

1:56:52 ↗ plan is being updated so maybe we just

1:56:54 ↗ need some more ties there that show that

1:56:57 ↗ implementation but we can at the fall

1:56:59 ↗ see if there's something we can call out

1:57:00 ↗ about how we're gonna be getting there

1:57:02 ↗ and whether it's through zoning or

1:57:05 ↗ whatever 4% of this cla a lot to ad

1:57:09 ↗ trees so it's great goal

1:57:13 ↗ but yeah maybe we need to figure out how

1:57:16 ↗ many acres that

1:57:18 ↗ is it's a

1:57:21 ↗ lot that's a very good

1:57:37 ↗ point

1:57:38 ↗ other

1:57:48 ↗ coms

1:57:50 ↗ we welcome written comments we think of

1:57:53 ↗ any in or have any in the next couple

1:57:55 ↗ weeks or if we've already written them

1:57:57 ↗ down please send to us

1:58:03 ↗ um all right well I think unless any

1:58:05 ↗ other comments do you is there anything

1:58:07 ↗ else we needed on this topic it was just

1:58:09 ↗ again how we want to convey the board's

1:58:12 ↗ feedback to date um based off our last

1:58:16 ↗ discussion recognizing this is working

1:58:18 ↗ draft will uh be working to incorporate

1:58:21 ↗ the feedback we got today be conveying

1:58:24 ↗ that um to the other commissions and

1:58:28 ↗ Council sharing that the board is still

1:58:31 ↗ working on this but um I think right now

1:58:35 ↗ that would be our plan unless the board

1:58:36 ↗ would like to provide more of a formal

1:58:46 ↗ recommendation we'll pass along the the

1:58:49 ↗ the working draft with additional

1:58:51 ↗ comments uh or feedback Incorporated and

1:58:54 ↗ then just emphasize that the board is

1:58:56 ↗ still tring to continue work

1:58:59 ↗ on um sorry David anything else no yeah

1:59:05 ↗ um thank you all yeah I guess on that do

1:59:08 ↗ does the board feel like they want to

1:59:10 ↗ review this element again in person on

1:59:13 ↗ November 1st we had a hold for a special

1:59:16 ↗ meeting um for you at this time it's

1:59:20 ↗ sufficient with the comments provided

1:59:21 ↗ and we'll revisit in

1:59:27 ↗ 2024 and remind us the next steps for

1:59:30 ↗ this would be like the environmental

1:59:33 ↗ element from here if we weren't review

1:59:36 ↗ it again who will have it next and what

1:59:39 ↗ will be the next

1:59:41 ↗ steps yeah I think PPC is receiving this

1:59:44 ↗ Stephen in the next couple weeks and

1:59:45 ↗ then a council committee will see it

1:59:47 ↗ November 88th

1:59:49 ↗ correct and then we'll start actually

1:59:51 ↗ form formulating the actual draft itself

1:59:54 ↗ right now you're just seeing the goals

1:59:55 ↗ and policies so we'll start putting

1:59:57 ↗ together the draft itself and you'll see

1:59:59 ↗ that again and be able to comment on

2:00:01 ↗ that okay so that'll be will will that

2:00:03 ↗ be the final step would be that review

2:00:06 ↗ of that draft most likely before the

2:00:09 ↗ final version gets put in front of

2:00:11 ↗ council thank

2:00:16 ↗ you any concerns with cancelling the

2:00:18 ↗ November first meeting again we'll

2:00:21 ↗ convey uh clearly in our staff memos

2:00:23 ↗ that these are draft and the board's

2:00:25 ↗ continue to work on

2:00:29 ↗ them I have the night held so if anyone

2:00:32 ↗ really wants to make sure they see

2:00:34 ↗ another version of this and that that

2:00:36 ↗ could be something we do we can send out

2:00:38 ↗ the next version and take any written

2:00:40 ↗ comments directly to us to fine tune

2:00:42 ↗ before it goes to the council committee

2:00:45 ↗ too that's kind of a in between op

2:00:52 ↗ option okay great well how about David

2:00:55 ↗ now we'll get this out in the next

2:00:56 ↗ couple weeks uh with say a week

2:00:59 ↗ turnaround for any additional comments

2:01:02 ↗ that you want conveyed uh before it goes

2:01:04 ↗ to the council Committee in early

2:01:08 ↗ November with that we uh include our

2:01:11 ↗ main agenda items and then move on to

2:01:13 ↗ reports the first being I the IAP

2:01:15 ↗ implementation update all right thanks

2:01:18 ↗ Stephen

2:01:20 ↗ Stephen um great so just to flag that we

2:01:24 ↗ did um add to the board packet yesterday

2:01:28 ↗ I believe um and sent out to the board

2:01:30 ↗ the IAP update this is a draft we're

2:01:32 ↗ still uh finalizing before it's

2:01:35 ↗ submitted um for review tomorrow um but

2:01:38 ↗ David and I tried to provide a pretty

2:01:40 ↗ comprehensive uh update on where we are

2:01:43 ↗ with up IAP implementation um that

2:01:46 ↗ report will be going to council October

2:01:48 ↗ 23rd

2:01:49 ↗ um please give us a call send us any

2:01:52 ↗ comments you have on it just wanted to

2:01:54 ↗ include in the packet as a a written

2:01:56 ↗ update um and then again we'll be

2:01:58 ↗ talking more the next two months about

2:02:01 ↗ um that IAP check-in as well as kind of

2:02:05 ↗ a Board review so uh feedback of where

2:02:07 ↗ we are with any of the project programs

2:02:09 ↗ can also be incorporated in some of

2:02:11 ↗ those conversations we'll have time set

2:02:13 ↗ aside to discuss

2:02:16 ↗ them um one thing as I mentioned last

2:02:19 ↗ meeting I'm trying to to do with the

2:02:20 ↗ board is just provide a brief summary of

2:02:23 ↗ conversations council's had and like

2:02:25 ↗ some upcoming discussions um just a few

2:02:28 ↗ things to highlight um there was getting

2:02:31 ↗ into a lot of or following up on a lot

2:02:33 ↗ of our conversation around

2:02:34 ↗ Transportation um this evening the

2:02:37 ↗ council did approve a a commute trip

2:02:40 ↗ reduction Grant agreement in early

2:02:42 ↗ October um that's to support a mandated

2:02:45 ↗ a state mandated program that now the

2:02:46 ↗ city will be running again um previously

2:02:49 ↗ it had been run by wash do due to

2:02:51 ↗ limited staff

2:02:52 ↗ capacity um we have a staff person that

2:02:55 ↗ will be working on Education and

2:02:57 ↗ Training of commute reduction um commute

2:03:00 ↗ trip reduction coordinators across major

2:03:02 ↗ businesses in the city um be working to

2:03:05 ↗ promote Transit Alternatives such as

2:03:07 ↗ Metroflex um it this program also

2:03:10 ↗ provides Orca cards to staff um and then

2:03:14 ↗ we'll also help with non Drive alone

2:03:17 ↗ promo events um that work is happening

2:03:20 ↗ under our public work staff um and we

2:03:23 ↗ can have some more updates on that work

2:03:26 ↗ in the

2:03:27 ↗ future um upcoming Council highlights

2:03:30 ↗ October 23rd is the Metro Flex launch

2:03:33 ↗ this is the Metro uh shuttle that we

2:03:35 ↗ heard about in July um they'll be

2:03:37 ↗ receiving the IAP report and then

2:03:39 ↗ there's also a p report that is going to

2:03:42 ↗ councel on the

2:03:43 ↗ 23rd um in November they'll be uh

2:03:46 ↗ reviewing the mid by Anan budget

2:03:49 ↗ adjustments and then there's also a

2:03:51 ↗ light rail uh plan that is going to be

2:03:54 ↗ provided to council so I'll have more

2:03:56 ↗ about that it's sitting on their

2:03:58 ↗ planning calendar I'll provide more um

2:04:00 ↗ information to you once we see staff

2:04:02 ↗ reports that's scheduled for when that

2:04:05 ↗ is flight for November I'll I can

2:04:08 ↗ provide you updates

2:04:12 ↗ um and then upcoming topics for the

2:04:15 ↗ environment board um we've been talking

2:04:17 ↗ a lot about complain we heard tonight

2:04:20 ↗ there's interest in trees and the need

2:04:22 ↗ for the board to discuss more so Dan

2:04:24 ↗ will be back in November to talk about

2:04:26 ↗ the urban forestry management plan and

2:04:28 ↗ then also to provide a program update um

2:04:31 ↗ on the work that he and his team are

2:04:33 ↗ doing um we'll be discussing with you

2:04:36 ↗ all uh probably December our greenhouse

2:04:38 ↗ gas inventory this David will talk to

2:04:41 ↗ you about the results um for both the

2:04:43 ↗ municipal operations and

2:04:46 ↗ Community um emissions and then the next

2:04:49 ↗ two meetings will also be uh talking

2:04:52 ↗ about our board self kind of the end of

2:04:54 ↗ year cleanup our board self-

2:04:56 ↗ evaluation um our annual report and then

2:04:59 ↗ also beginning to have conversations

2:05:01 ↗ around our 2024 work plan that's kind of

2:05:04 ↗ what's on the horizon uh over the next

2:05:07 ↗ two months give you a break from the

2:05:11 ↗ com any

2:05:14 ↗ questions and is your end up

2:05:20 ↗ oh you're still

2:05:23 ↗ muted just want to say way to go on

2:05:25 ↗ everything I think um we're moving

2:05:28 ↗ forward thanks to you guys um pretty

2:05:32 ↗ quickly with the implementing the IAP

2:05:36 ↗ and um so I looked it up and isqua is

2:05:39 ↗ 2,200 acres and if I did my math right

2:05:43 ↗ 4% of that is 88

2:05:46 ↗ acres which is a lot let's do it we can

2:05:50 ↗ ask Dan what his plan

2:05:52 ↗ is better come with a plan for 88

2:05:56 ↗ ACR it's a lot

2:06:00 ↗ of

2:06:01 ↗ up great thanks great that's all I had

2:06:06 ↗ so yeah definitely reach out to Dave and

2:06:08 ↗ I with any questions on that IAP uh

2:06:10 ↗ report and again please send any any

2:06:12 ↗ other feedback you have on the on plan

2:06:15 ↗ policies and and goals over the next

2:06:17 ↗ couple weeks

2:06:26 ↗ all your words thank

2:06:34 ↗ you thanks everyone

2:06:37 ↗ thanks thank

2:06:47 ↗ you

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 (11)

Jamie Finch

Nancy Davidson

Anne Newcomb

Prajakta Ghatpande

Alix Lee-Tigner

Ashwin Kannan

Dixie Bair

Janet Wall

Joy Lewis

Don McQuilliams, Vice Chair (excused absence)

Ashwin Manoharan* (unexcused absence)

Staff (3)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator

Kathleen Hillery, Civic Spark

Excused

Tom Anderson

Recommendations & actions (5)

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.
Board Member DAVIDSON and NEWCOMB asked staff to review all of the policies and strengthen verbiage used.
Board Members DAVIDSON and LEWIS recommended splitting policies throughout the Comprehensive Plan that seemed to address multiple topics within one policy.
After reviewing all of the draft goals and policies, the Environmental Board recommended that staff make updates to the relevant Elements based on the discussion.
Board Members FINCH and LEWIS requested a more in-depth discussion around trees and tree policy and provided specific recommendations on how some of the tree policies could be strengthened.