Environmental Board · Wednesday, January 31, 2024 · City Council Digest

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Review of the Environmental Stewardship and Climate Resilience [1 hour 45 Element of the Comprehensive Plan (D) mins]

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.3–22

Topics: Land UseClimate

▶ Watch from 5:39 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

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

3097 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ we got lot to cover so want to make use

0:05 ↗ of our uh our

0:07 ↗ time all right welcome to the January

0:11 ↗ 31st meeting of GIB environmental board

0:13 ↗ I'm Jamie bch I'll be your chair tonight

0:16 ↗ um due to the virtual or the hybrid

0:19 ↗ nature of this meeting we'll have some

0:21 ↗ of attendees in person some at home or

0:24 ↗ virtually uh if you are attending

0:27 ↗ virtually please make sure to stay muted

0:29 ↗ other than one you have comments um

0:31 ↗ raise your hand and then we will get to

0:33 ↗ you um as soon as we're able to and in

0:37 ↗ person we we have our tags back like our

0:39 ↗ last meeting flew back to using our

0:42 ↗ sideways tags for uh indicating desire

0:45 ↗ to speak um we'll give a little bit more

0:47 ↗ guidance we have a lot to cover tonight

0:48 ↗ so we'll cover a little bit more once we

0:50 ↗ get into some of the topics um some

0:53 ↗ other guidelines just kind of General

0:55 ↗ thoughts for how to make sure that we

0:57 ↗ can get through as much as possible

0:58 ↗ tonight um think with that we will get

1:03 ↗ into um call to order Stacy if you could

1:06 ↗ take us through attendance that would be

1:08 ↗ great Tommy Anderson here Nancy Davidson

1:12 ↗ here Jamie Finch

1:18 ↗ herei Ashan

1:20 ↗ Canan do not see Ash L

1:24 ↗ Haron Don MC Williams here an newom

1:35 ↗ here thanks uh Janet wall here H Dixie

1:40 ↗ bear

1:42 ↗ here and Alex Alex Lee tigner has an

1:46 ↗ excused absence um we do have couple

1:50 ↗ members

1:53 ↗ missing um so if our three alternates

1:56 ↗ could step in as regular members that

1:58 ↗ would be great we're not voting on

1:59 ↗ anything tonight but just in case um so

2:01 ↗ we do have a a

2:03 ↗ quorum thank you Stacy um we don't have

2:06 ↗ any minutes uh to cover this meeting so

2:10 ↗ we'll move to the Public Public comment

2:12 ↗ section

2:13 ↗ um we value public comments as part of

2:16 ↗ the public process um please um for

2:19 ↗ tonight we are pressed on time please do

2:21 ↗ try to limit your comments to um to five

2:24 ↗ minutes uh we'll I think we have at

2:27 ↗ least one member of the public that's

2:29 ↗ going to be joining virtually and then

2:30 ↗ may have some iners so um whoever raises

2:33 ↗ their hand or virtual hand or inperson

2:36 ↗ hand first go uh first but I think with

2:40 ↗ without further Ado we can get the

2:42 ↗ public comments so I think I saw an

2:44 ↗ Fletcher do we want to jump to her

2:47 ↗ first go ahead

2:51 ↗ an okay great can you hear me yes okay

2:55 ↗ this is Anne Fletcher I'm a resident of

2:58 ↗ esqua and a member of people for climate

3:01 ↗ action thank you for this opportunity

3:03 ↗ for public comments I wanted to comment

3:06 ↗ on the proposed new element of the comp

3:08 ↗ plan and say that I appreciate how well

3:12 ↗ it aligns with isqua's climate action

3:15 ↗ plan and especially with the inclusion

3:17 ↗ of the

3:18 ↗ iaps measurable targets and some of the

3:22 ↗ other information in the plan I think

3:24 ↗ this strengthens both the comp plann and

3:26 ↗ the IAP and it gives cohesive guidance

3:29 ↗ to the city council about the resources

3:32 ↗ that were are going to be needed to

3:34 ↗ reach these targets and to the

3:36 ↗ administration about the city's

3:38 ↗ commitment to the collaboration that's

3:41 ↗ going to be necessary among all the

3:44 ↗ Departments for this to be successfully

3:48 ↗ implemented I wanted to just make one

3:50 ↗ comment about the

3:52 ↗ title um and it seems like a lot to just

3:55 ↗ be talking about the title but I think

3:58 ↗ it's important to get some of our terms

4:01 ↗ um clear so I think environmental

4:04 ↗ stewardship is a a good and Broad and

4:07 ↗ accurate uh first part um I looked up

4:10 ↗ stewardship and it means responsible

4:12 ↗ caretaking and management of something

4:15 ↗ valuable that's been entrusted to us and

4:17 ↗ I think that fits really well um it

4:19 ↗ includes not only protection but also

4:22 ↗ enhancement or even expansion of the

4:26 ↗ asset so um the other part of it um even

4:30 ↗ though that environment includes climate

4:33 ↗ um we are calling climate out and I

4:36 ↗ think that's really good uh of course we

4:38 ↗ have to meet state law and but I think

4:40 ↗ it's good for showing our dedication to

4:43 ↗ resolving this

4:50 ↗ crisis and you

4:52 ↗ froze uh Dave kapler I don't know if

4:56 ↗ she's next to you if um able to get her

4:59 ↗ on your

5:11 ↗ computer you want to come back to yeah

5:14 ↗ we can come back to do we have any other

5:17 ↗ members of the public that would like to

5:19 ↗ make comment

5:24 ↗ tonight well I think we can uh let and

5:28 ↗ hops on really soon you can temporarily

5:31 ↗ close public comment and then come back

5:33 ↗ to her once she

5:35 ↗ regains um so I think that will move on

5:39 ↗ to our agenda items um first being

5:44 ↗ review of the environmental element of

5:48 ↗ the and climate resilient element of the

5:50 ↗ comprehensive

5:56 ↗ plan all right well thank you very much

5:58 ↗ I'm gonna kick us off tonight um we do

6:01 ↗ have Stephen and Minnie here from our um

6:04 ↗ Community planning and development team

6:06 ↗ to help our department to help answer

6:08 ↗ questions um provide clarification

6:11 ↗ around comprehensive plan um I'll do

6:14 ↗ some of the initial um discussion around

6:18 ↗ overarching comments and then I'll be

6:19 ↗ handing over to David to help us walk

6:21 ↗ through policies um so just as few a few

6:25 ↗ introductory comments um we really

6:27 ↗ appreciate the board's engagement on

6:29 ↗ this topic we have been working on this

6:31 ↗ element for almost a year I think

6:34 ↗ Stephen first presented to us on the

6:36 ↗ comprehensive plan process back in April

6:38 ↗ of last year um and the board has really

6:41 ↗ weighed heavily to help shape the

6:43 ↗ policies of this brand new element um it

6:47 ↗ is a brand new element the environment

6:48 ↗ element um we're preparing it ahead of

6:51 ↗ the state's requirement for our

6:53 ↗ jurisdiction but we really Embrace and

6:56 ↗ recognize how

6:58 ↗ important um the these policies are and

7:01 ↗ how they um we really want to help set

7:03 ↗ the city's vision and long-term plan um

7:07 ↗ shaping or developing a new element

7:09 ↗ within the comprehensive plan does

7:11 ↗ require some restructuring of the entire

7:13 ↗ comprehensive plan um so we've been

7:15 ↗ having to move existing policies around

7:18 ↗ develop new ones um and really

7:20 ↗ appreciate all of your input on that um

7:23 ↗ so over the last several months the

7:24 ↗ board has weighed in pretty heavily uh

7:27 ↗ with the title of the element proposing

7:29 ↗ new policies uh helping provide

7:32 ↗ revisions to ones that were drafted by

7:34 ↗ staff or pulled in from other elements

7:36 ↗ of the comprehensive plan um staff have

7:39 ↗ also been looking to State Regional and

7:42 ↗ other cities for recommendations um or

7:45 ↗ ideas that might uh spur relevant

7:48 ↗ policies for isqua um just one example

7:52 ↗ of work I wanted to highlight was

7:54 ↗ Kathleen um and another Civic spark

7:56 ↗ fellow did a crosswalk across five

7:58 ↗ cities looking at all of our draft

8:00 ↗ environment elements comparing policies

8:03 ↗ um providing some suggested revisions to

8:05 ↗ our language or even new policies we

8:07 ↗ might consider u based on ideas in other

8:10 ↗ cities um so the document we provided to

8:13 ↗ you last week is the first time you've

8:14 ↗ seen kind of the full package for this

8:16 ↗ element um with the narrative

8:19 ↗ introduction as well as the policies

8:21 ↗ we've been discussing for several months

8:24 ↗ um it is a lot and the way we are

8:26 ↗ planning to structure the conversation

8:28 ↗ tonight is first

8:30 ↗ speak to the overarching comments we

8:32 ↗ received on the document um we'll share

8:35 ↗ some of the highlights of the board

8:37 ↗ recommendations for revisions um and

8:40 ↗ then we will check in with the board to

8:43 ↗ see if um they are comfortable uh with

8:46 ↗ staff uh advancing these revisions um

8:50 ↗ and then we will speak to the policies

8:53 ↗ that the board had previously reviewed

8:55 ↗ in the plan um and any revisions that

8:57 ↗ were proposed by board members members

8:59 ↗ to those

9:01 ↗ policies um and then the third item will

9:04 ↗ speak to our new policies that were Pro

9:06 ↗ proposed by board members that you all

9:08 ↗ haven't this will be the first time that

9:09 ↗ you're seeing them um for those areas

9:13 ↗ these were or excuse me for those

9:15 ↗ policies they were ones proposed by one

9:17 ↗ or two board members so we want to check

9:19 ↗ in with the rest of the board see if

9:20 ↗ it's something you all are in agreement

9:23 ↗ or at least a majority of you are in the

9:25 ↗ agreement that we continue to

9:27 ↗ advance um for any minor editorial

9:31 ↗ revisions to the draft element staff are

9:34 ↗ going to be reviewing those and

9:36 ↗ considering for Corporation in the next

9:38 ↗ draft um there are going to be areas

9:41 ↗ within here where staff are going to

9:43 ↗ need to make decisions but we will make

9:45 ↗ sure to document those and provide um

9:47 ↗ that documentation or response P to you

9:49 ↗ all so you understand where decision was

9:51 ↗ made and

9:53 ↗ why um and then the last thing I wanted

9:55 ↗ to know if there's conflicting opinions

9:58 ↗ tonight between board members um we'll

10:01 ↗ make sure to capture those staff can

10:03 ↗ weigh those different considerations

10:05 ↗ we'll make sure that any conflicting um

10:08 ↗ opinions are presented um within future

10:11 ↗ versions of the document or when this

10:13 ↗ does go to to

10:15 ↗ council um so tonight our outcome is

10:19 ↗ really to get your all feedback so we

10:21 ↗ can work on a next uh revision of this

10:25 ↗ element um we're not seeking any formal

10:27 ↗ approval or recomend ation at this point

10:30 ↗ um but uh just an opportunity to review

10:33 ↗ the comments that have been received by

10:34 ↗ the board so far and make those

10:38 ↗ revisions um we are going to meet again

10:40 ↗ in the spring to review another version

10:42 ↗ of this element as well as you'll have a

10:44 ↗ chance to see other elements of the

10:46 ↗ comprehensive plan so I'll pause there

10:48 ↗ and take any questions um and then also

10:51 ↗ just want to see if Minnie or Stephen

10:53 ↗ have anything to else to add before we

10:55 ↗ jump

10:57 ↗ in ncy

10:59 ↗ so I was going to put either Minnie or

11:01 ↗ Stephen on the spot and talking with a

11:03 ↗ new board member it might be helpful to

11:06 ↗ understand how this fits into what the

11:07 ↗ city does where it fits in our hierarchy

11:10 ↗ because there's a couple of new board

11:11 ↗ members that don't understand what this

11:14 ↗ how we use this so could someone explain

11:16 ↗ that maybe in two or three minutes for

11:19 ↗ her and for the board members sure so I

11:22 ↗ can start then many if I miss anything

11:24 ↗ please jump in So the comence plan is

11:28 ↗ essentially City's long range planning

11:30 ↗ document for the next 20 years it's a

11:32 ↗ document that's actually required by the

11:34 ↗ state to have um but only certain topics

11:37 ↗ are actually required by the state so

11:39 ↗ topics being the different elements in

11:41 ↗ the conference plan so in addition to

11:43 ↗ the environment and climate um element

11:45 ↗ that we're introducing to the conference

11:47 ↗ plan we have transportation we have

11:49 ↗ housing landing and several other topics

11:52 ↗ uh to identify Vision goals and policies

11:56 ↗ for those topics for the next 20 years

11:58 ↗ and so so uh what we identify in the

12:01 ↗ goals and and policies is what direction

12:04 ↗ do we want to go on this topic as it

12:05 ↗ relates to population growth for the

12:08 ↗ community and policies in terms of

12:11 ↗ guidance of how do we think we want to

12:12 ↗ get and then that is really the

12:15 ↗ separating line between the

12:17 ↗ comprehensive plan being the long range

12:19 ↗ planning document and our functional

12:21 ↗ plans that being for this board the IAB

12:24 ↗ so implementation of those goals and

12:26 ↗ policies how do we now put those

12:29 ↗ policies in action what kind of

12:31 ↗ resources do we have or limitations that

12:33 ↗ we need to consider and timeline we need

12:35 ↗ to look at in terms of

12:37 ↗ implementation is that do you have any

12:39 ↗ questions okay many did I no I think you

12:42 ↗ did a great job U like um stepen said

12:46 ↗ climate element for our city at this

12:48 ↗ time is not um one of the required

12:51 ↗ elements but given all the work that

12:53 ↗ this community and you all have done

12:55 ↗ with the climate action plan um you know

12:58 ↗ felt like it it needed a place in our 20

13:01 ↗ years next 20 years that's an important

13:04 ↗ uh aspect and so we've made a commitment

13:06 ↗ to put it in front of you all to kind of

13:08 ↗ v it out and then also um you know

13:11 ↗ before we had this in the element so the

13:13 ↗ last update of the comp plan was 2015

13:17 ↗ the periodic update so we can change it

13:18 ↗ every one no more than once a year you

13:21 ↗ can make edits but this periodic update

13:23 ↗ is every 10 years now H it used to be

13:27 ↗ eight years uh or it's the other way

13:29 ↗ around now but every so often you're

13:32 ↗ supposed to look at it more in that time

13:35 ↗ frame of 20 years and do a more

13:37 ↗ comprehensive look at all the elements

13:39 ↗ and how they kind of interplay so in the

13:41 ↗ last update we didn't have a climate

13:43 ↗ element or environment stewardship in

13:46 ↗ climate element and um and a lot of

13:50 ↗ these policies were put into the land

13:52 ↗ use as a holding spot it didn't really

13:54 ↗ fit in there because I'm was talking

13:56 ↗ about the natives and these are more

13:57 ↗ Global so that's why I think it makes it

14:00 ↗ made sense the time was right there was

14:02 ↗ also the house bill that you don't it

14:04 ↗ doesn't really apply to ISA at this

14:06 ↗ point this time but we

14:08 ↗ are the

14:10 ↗ interest board and the

14:15 ↗ community I one question related

14:17 ↗ question can you talk a little bit about

14:19 ↗ like the dividing line between land use

14:21 ↗ and this new

14:23 ↗ element uh the the general sensus for

14:27 ↗ the land use element we Incorporated a

14:29 ↗ lot of the policies that really dealt

14:31 ↗ with the build out of the urban

14:33 ↗ environment and then for this element

14:35 ↗ it's more about the national just

14:38 ↗ there's some gray policies that could go

14:40 ↗ at the direction that we were trying to

14:42 ↗ comply with a new house bill that sway

14:45 ↗ the direction for the policies go in

14:47 ↗ this element but that is kind of the

14:49 ↗ general sense of how we separated the

14:52 ↗ policies really quick clarification on

14:55 ↗ the life of this um you mention we're

14:56 ↗ going to see it in the spring I'd love

14:58 ↗ to know the administration's ideal would

15:00 ↗ be about when we're going to see it when

15:01 ↗ it's going to go to PBC When

15:04 ↗ It's So the plan is to in about April

15:08 ↗ release all the draft elements to all

15:10 ↗ the boards of commissions to review as

15:11 ↗ well as the general public and then when

15:15 ↗ are you hoping

15:16 ↗ to for adop after after April how long

15:19 ↗ are you hoping to have public board

15:21 ↗ commission uh for the probably the next

15:24 ↗ month or two depending on the level of

15:26 ↗ public comment we receive and then go

15:28 ↗ into the lative process with

15:31 ↗ Council uh so with switch over you're

15:34 ↗ hoping to basically conclude this in May

15:36 ↗ when boards the commission get new

15:38 ↗ members in that time frame yes prior to

15:41 ↗ yeah yeah prior

15:43 ↗ to all right and do we wanna I saw an

15:47 ↗ your hop back on so an we can reopen

15:50 ↗ public comments if you want to hop back

15:52 ↗ hop back

15:54 ↗ in is this a good

15:56 ↗ time yes go ahead oh great I don't

15:59 ↗ really know where I left off my husband

16:01 ↗ told me that I was frozen so I have no

16:03 ↗ idea where I froze but I'll I think

16:06 ↗ maybe I was talking about mitigation

16:08 ↗ adaptation and resilience and when I got

16:11 ↗ back on I saw that resilience had been

16:13 ↗ crossed out already so my remarks might

16:17 ↗ might be you know kind of after the fact

16:20 ↗ but I do think the concepts are really

16:22 ↗ important um uh for us to not get all

16:25 ↗ muddied up and um so I was just saying

16:28 ↗ mitigation means reducing the causes of

16:30 ↗ the problem uh such as um significantly

16:34 ↗ lowering our greenhouse gas emissions

16:37 ↗ and um adaptation uh the second one

16:41 ↗ means preparing for the unavoidable

16:43 ↗ impacts uh that we weren't able to

16:46 ↗ prevent such as extreme weather that

16:48 ↗ harms life on earth and the last one

16:51 ↗ resilience means using creative ways to

16:54 ↗ bounce back quickly and easily from the

16:58 ↗ impacts of extreme mother um there are

17:02 ↗ also uh very General Uses of resilient

17:06 ↗ um and it's used in our IAP occasionally

17:09 ↗ along with sustainable in our pered

17:11 ↗ vision as being resilient and

17:14 ↗ sustainable um but the word resilience

17:17 ↗ is used in our community resilience and

17:19 ↗ wellness section of the IAP and um it is

17:24 ↗ uh according to what I could find more

17:27 ↗ closely Rel at ated to adaptation than

17:29 ↗ to

17:31 ↗ mitigation um so uh but all three are

17:35 ↗ really important and um they're in our

17:38 ↗ plan and they're very um inter

17:40 ↗ interdependent so it just seemed like

17:43 ↗ resilience and looks like maybe that's

17:45 ↗ been crossed off uh is is not not

17:49 ↗ adequate really and um uh this climate

17:53 ↗ jargon is difficult anyway and can be

17:55 ↗ confusing so maybe we just want to avoid

17:56 ↗ it all together and not I didn't use any

17:58 ↗ of those words um but um I do do like

18:02 ↗ the stewardship word and I'm interested

18:06 ↗ in you know maybe simplifying that a

18:08 ↗ little bit I had suggested environment

18:10 ↗ and climate stewardship because we do

18:13 ↗ Steward both they both need stewardship

18:15 ↗ they are uh inter interdependent

18:18 ↗ interrelated and stewardship does

18:20 ↗ include all of those things mitigation

18:22 ↗ adaptation and resilience but I see that

18:25 ↗ another word been put in which is

18:27 ↗ climate action which also go along with

18:29 ↗ the the uh IAP and um I I think that um

18:34 ↗ that that I think that would be fine too

18:36 ↗ I mean I like that word action so anyway

18:40 ↗ uh that those are my comments I did send

18:42 ↗ a written comment with some um

18:44 ↗ references as well there's a really

18:46 ↗ really Nifty YouTube if anybody if you

18:49 ↗ know anybody that wants to understand

18:50 ↗ the difference in those terms there's a

18:52 ↗ really great YouTube it's only five five

18:54 ↗ five minutes long so um that's all my

18:57 ↗ comments tonight thank you all and I'll

18:59 ↗ be interested to hear what comments

19:00 ↗ other people have thank

19:04 ↗ you thank you and back to

19:11 ↗ stac

19:12 ↗ um so we won't actually be diving into

19:15 ↗ the document quite yet I'm just going to

19:17 ↗ speak to some of the overarching

19:19 ↗ comments but I'm happy to scroll down to

19:21 ↗ them we'll be doing quite a bit of

19:23 ↗ scrolling um tonight to get to the

19:25 ↗ appropriate place um so just to start

19:28 ↗ off first with the overarching comments

19:30 ↗ we have about 30 minutes for this

19:32 ↗ discussion um first just really wanted

19:34 ↗ to thank the board members that were

19:36 ↗ able to provide feedback either written

19:38 ↗ feedback or um those that will provide

19:40 ↗ feedback tonight for written feedback we

19:42 ↗ did receive um from the following board

19:44 ↗ members Jamie Nancy Alex praj and joy um

19:48 ↗ those were all all of their edits were

19:50 ↗ incorporated into the document that was

19:51 ↗ sent out last night um so first just as

19:55 ↗ a summary of the feedback we received

19:58 ↗ and then I'll provide a few staff

19:59 ↗ responses and then we'll open it up to

20:01 ↗ discussion um so from a couple of board

20:04 ↗ members uh spoke really strongly to how

20:07 ↗ the introduction and the vision are not

20:08 ↗ speaking to environmental stewardship it

20:10 ↗ was very focused on climate um some

20:13 ↗ members would like to see an overview of

20:16 ↗ environmental stewardship included up

20:17 ↗ front in the document that is separate

20:20 ↗ from the climate overview but with

20:22 ↗ connections made between the two um

20:24 ↗ there were also suggestions for

20:26 ↗ reordering the element better aligned

20:28 ↗ with the title um so starting first with

20:31 ↗ natural environment goals and policies

20:34 ↗ and then moving into climate there were

20:36 ↗ suggestions for strengthening the vision

20:39 ↗ statement um with some specific language

20:42 ↗ revisions um we did have a proposal from

20:44 ↗ one board member to change the title um

20:47 ↗ to what you see on the screen and then

20:49 ↗ we also just heard um another suggestion

20:52 ↗ from a member of the

20:53 ↗ public um and then there was also uh

20:56 ↗ comments just to ensure that we are

20:58 ↗ reviewing these policies against those

21:00 ↗ particularly in the land use element um

21:02 ↗ for consistency to make sure we um

21:05 ↗ aren't being redundant um so just a few

21:09 ↗ staff responses and then we'll open it

21:11 ↗ up for

21:12 ↗ discussion um in terms of splitting the

21:15 ↗ vision and goals into natural

21:17 ↗ environment and climate um staff we

21:19 ↗ going to take a look at all those

21:20 ↗ comments as well as some suggested

21:22 ↗ language to ensure alignment with the

21:25 ↗ flow of the comprehensive plan and other

21:27 ↗ elements within it in terms of

21:30 ↗ strengthening language around natural

21:32 ↗ environment um some really great

21:34 ↗ suggestions around that draft language

21:36 ↗ we're going to take a look at that and

21:38 ↗ better build out um that section to

21:41 ↗ highlight um the natural

21:43 ↗ environment um for re proposed revisions

21:47 ↗ to the vision statement uh as I

21:50 ↗ mentioned there were some suggestions

21:52 ↗ for strengthening the vision um we will

21:54 ↗ also be reviewing those suggestions and

21:56 ↗ making revisions

21:58 ↗ um for uh looking at the land use

22:01 ↗ element and sure there isn't duplication

22:04 ↗ um we will staff are doing that uh

22:07 ↗ particularly step's team um and just

22:09 ↗ wanted to remind members of the board

22:10 ↗ that many of the environment policies

22:13 ↗ within this element did come directly

22:15 ↗ from the land use element um and they

22:17 ↗ won't be uh duplicative but we will be

22:20 ↗ reviewing that to make sure we didn't

22:21 ↗ miss

22:22 ↗ any um and then there was also a comment

22:26 ↗ around defining terms um um I can see if

22:28 ↗ Stephen wants to speak to this further

22:31 ↗ but we will work with the CBD team to

22:34 ↗ make sure we're providing more clarity

22:36 ↗ on in terms of what um uh the terms that

22:40 ↗ we are using in the document mean uh my

22:43 ↗ understand is there isn't usually a

22:44 ↗ definition sheet since those definitions

22:46 ↗ can change over time but I think we can

22:48 ↗ do a better job of explaining in the

22:50 ↗ text what we mean by the

22:52 ↗ term um and then the last thing I'll

22:54 ↗ mention and then we'll open it up for

22:57 ↗ discussion is is the title change um

22:59 ↗ what was originally included in here was

23:01 ↗ what the board had discussed last summer

23:03 ↗ you're now seeing kind of the full

23:04 ↗ package so we're definitely open to

23:06 ↗ suggestions um for how to revise that

23:10 ↗ title so it better aligns with what's

23:12 ↗ included in the element so I will pause

23:15 ↗ there uh we would love to take other

23:18 ↗ overarching feedback from board members

23:20 ↗ or any follow-up discussion on um the

23:24 ↗ suggestions that I uh summarized that

23:26 ↗ were provided by the board members in

23:29 ↗ this

23:31 ↗ document and sorry I should let Stephen

23:34 ↗ if he has any other overarching comments

23:36 ↗ we covered most of what I think Minnie

23:39 ↗ and I would say the only thing I would

23:41 ↗ add is for the Visions you know our

23:42 ↗ preference is to have one Vision per

23:45 ↗ document so staff will definitely take

23:46 ↗ your comments and try to revise what's

23:48 ↗ in there and and have the vision

23:51 ↗ encompassing what you were looking for

23:53 ↗ for both the environment as well as

23:54 ↗ climate um but having in one location

23:57 ↗ makes it l confusing in terms of

23:59 ↗ identifying what the vision is for that

24:00 ↗ element in itself and it's consistent

24:02 ↗ with how we're kind of approaching the

24:04 ↗ structure for most of the elements at

24:05 ↗ the I just ask to follow on is there a

24:08 ↗ vision for the whole document in the

24:10 ↗ city and then each subelement will have

24:13 ↗ a vision kind like like you were talking

24:16 ↗ about typically the the Visions are

24:19 ↗ specific to each of the elements um we

24:22 ↗ try to have an introduction to kind of

24:24 ↗ talk about how everything fits together

24:26 ↗ for the entire conference a plan but the

24:28 ↗ Visions themselves are specific to each

24:30 ↗ of element so there is an overall vision

24:33 ↗ is there one in the Strategic plan is

24:35 ↗ there I know it is strategic

24:38 ↗ plan yeah is there

24:43 ↗ any

24:44 ↗ thanks thanks for

24:47 ↗ following and then the other one was

24:50 ↗ definitions so that the other thing with

24:52 ↗ definitions is um typically you want to

24:55 ↗ have the definitions for your implement

24:58 ↗ to the with the plan for the comence of

24:59 ↗ them being long range you don't want to

25:01 ↗ be operating out of multiple planning

25:03 ↗ documents that's something a practice

25:05 ↗ we're trying to move away from so that

25:08 ↗ implementation or definitions are either

25:10 ↗ applied in the code or in in your

25:12 ↗ functional plans that being the IAP that

25:14 ↗ way we're not having to look at both the

25:16 ↗ conference plan and the IAP and any

25:18 ↗ other functional plans that this board

25:20 ↗ is kind of helping the see Implement um

25:23 ↗ because and and the other thing with

25:25 ↗ that is consistency when you update one

25:27 ↗ document you now have to go across the

25:28 ↗ board and make sure the definitions are

25:30 ↗ consistent so it's more of the use of

25:32 ↗ the terminology that we want to make

25:34 ↗ consistent rather than the specific

25:35 ↗ definition so that's something we'll

25:37 ↗ we'll take a look at a lot of your

25:38 ↗ suggestions on definitions and see what

25:40 ↗ how best to kind of

25:43 ↗ make so maybe first open it up to anyone

25:46 ↗ that um had provided comments on the

25:49 ↗ document if there's any other

25:50 ↗ overarching comments you want to

25:52 ↗ highlight that I didn't touch on and

25:54 ↗ then we can open up for um those that

25:56 ↗ didn't provide written comments if they

25:59 ↗ have any feedback that they'd like to

26:01 ↗ just on

26:07 ↗ overarching I Tred to focus my comments

26:10 ↗ more directly but since you're asking I

26:12 ↗ would say that I was wishing especially

26:14 ↗ that kind of the first three pages felt

26:17 ↗ a little more tangible right now it's

26:19 ↗ it's a little abstract some of the

26:20 ↗ language I don't care for as far as like

26:23 ↗ um we all know it's become clear it's no

26:26 ↗ surprise right I don't favor that kind

26:28 ↗ of language I like a stronger um

26:31 ↗ starting point where we say what is and

26:34 ↗ what isn't um rather than currently how

26:37 ↗ it is I could I would appreciate

26:38 ↗ something that felt more tangible a

26:41 ↗ little more actionable um since that's

26:43 ↗ kind of over kind of setting um setting

26:45 ↗ the plate so to speak right setting our

26:47 ↗ our table setting for it when you think

26:49 ↗ about the document so I think it has

26:51 ↗ Room to

26:56 ↗ Grow I think um hop in I first of all I

26:59 ↗ think on the name I prefer the updated

27:01 ↗ one I think action is a I think there

27:03 ↗ well there's only one suggestion of that

27:05 ↗ there's a lot of comments around what

27:06 ↗ does resilience mean and so I I think

27:09 ↗ that action is a clear word is the word

27:11 ↗ we use in our climate action plan seems

27:13 ↗ like a better a better word where it is

27:16 ↗ and then most of my comments were

27:19 ↗ around um yeah one making sure that we

27:23 ↗ had it sort of felt like we took the IAP

27:26 ↗ introduction and then

27:28 ↗ put a couple natural environment topics

27:30 ↗ and and and try to shoehorn a few things

27:32 ↗ in but it doesn't feel like it's really

27:34 ↗ covering both of these topics right now

27:36 ↗ and I know the policies do and that's

27:38 ↗ probably the most important thing but it

27:40 ↗ still feels like if you read this it

27:42 ↗ doesn't set you up for the rest of the

27:44 ↗ document so I think the more we can do

27:46 ↗ to make sure that we're setting vision

27:49 ↗ and context for both of those things and

27:50 ↗ how they fit together because I think

27:51 ↗ that's the other thing is we don't

27:53 ↗ really we have these two things in the

27:54 ↗ same place and I think there's a good

27:56 ↗ reason for it but we don't talk

27:58 ↗ so I think there's some interrelation

27:59 ↗ between those that we could touch on the

28:01 ↗ other thing which I don't know how many

28:04 ↗ public members of the public will be

28:05 ↗ here but one other topic that I think

28:07 ↗ might be helpful

28:09 ↗ is within climate between mitigation and

28:12 ↗ adaptation they almost seem

28:14 ↗ contradictory but I so I think some

28:16 ↗ context around the fact that like we're

28:19 ↗ it's already warming like there's

28:21 ↗ already going to be impact and so we

28:23 ↗ don't ever we I kind of say that we have

28:26 ↗ that in the IAP but I we be more

28:28 ↗ explicit about why are we thinking about

28:29 ↗ both these two things because otherwise

28:32 ↗ it almost sounds like we're like hedging

28:33 ↗ our bets in a which to a certain extent

28:35 ↗ we are but I think it could be clear

28:38 ↗ more clearly stated like why you need

28:40 ↗ both of those things within a

28:42 ↗ plan so I think otherwise um all the

28:46 ↗ other comments are

28:53 ↗ captured any other feedback on the title

28:57 ↗ do we want to go with the the working

29:00 ↗ title sorry I pulled the document down

29:03 ↗ since we were just talking overarching

29:04 ↗ comments

29:05 ↗ but the working title or the proposed

29:08 ↗ revision is environmental stewardship

29:10 ↗ and climate action and and

29:13 ↗ proposed environmental or sorry

29:15 ↗ environment and climate stewardship was

29:18 ↗ another suggestion any feedback on what

29:21 ↗ title you want to see in the next

29:25 ↗ version way if you want me to please so

29:29 ↗ I I really like the stewardship word

29:31 ↗ that is great and I think the

29:32 ↗ environmental stewardship is is a very

29:36 ↗ forceful part of the title I I like the

29:39 ↗ action word too I mean partly because of

29:41 ↗ the alignment with the climate action

29:43 ↗ plan and we do want talk about action so

29:47 ↗ I I like to propos a title as

29:53 ↗ shown go

29:56 ↗ ahead

30:03 ↗ okay just one second can you hear me

30:06 ↗ sorry yeah okay um so Stacy I had a

30:10 ↗ question here and I know there is um we

30:12 ↗ do have the document climate action plan

30:15 ↗ I was just wondering if we have more

30:17 ↗ documents which include the climate word

30:19 ↗ in it so just from a public point of

30:22 ↗ view you know like if you have more

30:24 ↗ documents with climate word in it I'm

30:27 ↗ Wonder wondering if it gets more

30:28 ↗ confusing and that's why I was asking

30:31 ↗ that yeah as of now we have the climate

30:34 ↗ action plan and then very soon we'll be

30:36 ↗ putting the climate vulnerability

30:38 ↗ assessment on the web page with some

30:41 ↗ accessible materials as Kathleen was

30:44 ↗ speaking with you all earlier this month

30:46 ↗ but those are the two main documents

30:50 ↗ Publications we

30:51 ↗ have so although I really like the word

30:54 ↗ action here instead of resilience you

30:56 ↗ know my worry is if we have a lot of

31:00 ↗ documents listed with climate word on it

31:02 ↗ I'm I'm wondering if people know where

31:05 ↗ to go or not there could be confusion

31:07 ↗ that's all I think might

31:11 ↗ happen do you mind if I turn um so one

31:14 ↗ of the considerations for the title is

31:16 ↗ is for someone from the general public

31:18 ↗ adding to what baj is saying if they're

31:21 ↗ Googling what the city of isapa is doing

31:23 ↗ on a climate and you have two doc

31:26 ↗ documents that say climate action

31:28 ↗ they're not going to really know the

31:29 ↗ difference between the comprehensive

31:31 ↗ plan and the climate action plan so both

31:33 ↗ documents say climate action they won't

31:35 ↗ really know where to look for the

31:37 ↗ actions and the comprehensive plan isn't

31:39 ↗ necessarily a document with action in

31:40 ↗ either and so that's something to

31:42 ↗ consider for just someone of the general

31:43 ↗ public who has never been involved in

31:45 ↗ these conversations they're trying to

31:47 ↗ find you know a planning document and

31:50 ↗ the action document you don't want to

31:52 ↗ have a a little any of that confusion in

31:54 ↗ the titles just to add for consideration

32:01 ↗ right do you have anything else uh that

32:03 ↗ would be all thank you Don go

32:07 ↗ ahead yeah I would Echo the comments um

32:10 ↗ that were just noted there about the

32:12 ↗ word action I found the the word climate

32:14 ↗ action to be somewhat confusing thinking

32:16 ↗ that I'm I'm it's a Nexus to The Climate

32:19 ↗ action plan I like the enironmental and

32:21 ↗ climate

32:23 ↗ stewardship uh title because this is a

32:25 ↗ policy document and that speaks more to

32:27 ↗ policy policy is not necessarily

32:34 ↗ action Nancy go ahead as for the title

32:38 ↗ I'm good with the stewardship changing

32:40 ↗ that way as well I don't have an issue

32:44 ↗ that I did have comments about more

32:46 ↗ General comments but when we're done

32:48 ↗ talking about the title we'll go back to

32:54 ↗ that great input yeah we'll take all

32:56 ↗ that into consideration um and come back

33:00 ↗ with a proposed new title next

33:03 ↗ time

33:05 ↗ yeah so I noted a couple other um things

33:11 ↗ and that is I thought the idea of

33:13 ↗ mitigation and adaption section is a

33:15 ↗ good idea it just needs to cover both

33:18 ↗ and be worded in a way that it kind of

33:20 ↗ fits for both um and it really is

33:22 ↗ focused on climate but I do agree that

33:25 ↗ in 20 years we need to be flexible

33:27 ↗ enough to be able to move where we need

33:30 ↗ to move both in both Arenas so I just

33:34 ↗ wanted to make that comment it probably

33:35 ↗ needs to sit above specific sections of

33:38 ↗ each one so that it flows through I

33:40 ↗ think the other thing that I kind of

33:42 ↗ tried to point out is education and

33:44 ↗ Outreach or Regional leadership is

33:47 ↗ something that kind of we don't do these

33:49 ↗ in the vacuum the environment doesn't

33:50 ↗ stop at the city limits you the just

33:53 ↗ climate action so a general section up

33:56 ↗ front about that and instead of having

33:57 ↗ to have it in every specific section I

33:59 ↗ think it really benefit the document in

34:02 ↗ terms of these overarching things we

34:04 ↗ need to accomplish with this document

34:06 ↗ before we get into specific elements I

34:08 ↗ tried to note that but I'm not sure if

34:10 ↗ it came across but I think moving those

34:12 ↗ up underneath the vision for the section

34:15 ↗ will really help strengthen why we might

34:17 ↗ the things we think we're doing today we

34:19 ↗ may have to change in 15

34:23 ↗ years five

34:25 ↗ minutes and go ahead

34:31 ↗ thanks um I love what everybody's saying

34:33 ↗ and I I think this looks

34:35 ↗ great

34:37 ↗ um I think what we've come to is

34:40 ↗ environmental Steward and climate

34:42 ↗ stewardship

34:43 ↗ which be I like the action but it sounds

34:46 ↗ like it's not good for this document so

34:49 ↗ um that is very short and concise

34:51 ↗ environmental and climate

34:53 ↗ stewardship so I I did know that

34:57 ↗ and also um I would like to know if

35:02 ↗ we're going to create another document

35:04 ↗ or put more um environmental stewardship

35:08 ↗ like Jamie I would like to know like

35:10 ↗ what um what more you think needs to be

35:13 ↗ in here um I do think there's a lot of

35:15 ↗ good stuff with environmental

35:17 ↗ stewardship um

35:20 ↗ and I personally right now think that

35:22 ↗ we're in a in a place where we need to

35:25 ↗ put all of our energy in Into Climate

35:28 ↗ action and um we're actually

35:32 ↗ stewarding our planet as we're doing

35:36 ↗ everything that it takes to you know

35:39 ↗ almost everything um that it takes to um

35:42 ↗ create this climate

35:45 ↗ action it's my own personal view you

35:48 ↗ know reducing you know the mitigation

35:51 ↗ um

35:53 ↗ and the care for the land carbon

35:56 ↗ sequestration taking care of our

35:57 ↗ wetlands and everything to me is all

36:00 ↗ part of

36:01 ↗ it so thank

36:05 ↗ you that's all for

36:07 ↗ me um and I I just I think that was a

36:10 ↗ sort of a question to me I I was just I

36:12 ↗ would just say that I don't think it has

36:14 ↗ to be either or like I think isqua has a

36:16 ↗ long history of wanting to protect

36:18 ↗ natural environment and so I just think

36:20 ↗ that there's more and I think we've done

36:22 ↗ a pretty good job in the land use

36:24 ↗ element painting a picture of what we

36:25 ↗ want to be as a city I think

36:27 ↗ getting back to something Joy said of

36:29 ↗ making this a tangible Vision how do we

36:30 ↗ make sure that both for climate and for

36:33 ↗ natural environment we have a Clear

36:35 ↗ Vision I'm just not sure that that's

36:38 ↗ really coming through so I don't and I

36:40 ↗ totally agree that that climate is is an

36:42 ↗ incredibly important urgent thing and

36:44 ↗ something that's new but I I want to

36:46 ↗ make sure that we don't lose sight of

36:47 ↗ what's always been or at least for a

36:49 ↗ long time has been important all or not

36:52 ↗ all the residents is sad so that

37:00 ↗ thanks

37:04 ↗ Jamie any final overarching comments

37:08 ↗ that folks wanted to share

37:13 ↗ tonight now we will dig into the fun

37:16 ↗ stuff with the policies um so I'll be

37:19 ↗ handing it over to David um one thing

37:21 ↗ though I did forget to mention the

37:24 ↗ introduction I believe is that we will

37:26 ↗ be taking all the feedback tonight and

37:29 ↗ providing a staff response on terms of

37:33 ↗ justification and why a change was made

37:35 ↗ or recommendation was incorporated or

37:37 ↗ why not um in some format so you will

37:40 ↗ receive something to understand kind of

37:42 ↗ what edits we took or um adjustments we

37:45 ↗ made and and why or why not we can

37:47 ↗ accept those so um just wanted to make

37:49 ↗ sure you understand that all that will

37:51 ↗ be captured and reflected back to you so

37:53 ↗ with that David I will hand it off to

37:55 ↗ you to talk about the existing

37:59 ↗ policies excellent and and before I

38:01 ↗ begin and I see you still have the your

38:03 ↗ hand raised so I just want to confirm um

38:06 ↗ if there's anything else you want to

38:08 ↗ stay say before we jump into the

38:09 ↗ policies themselves and your hand might

38:12 ↗ still be up from okay just just

38:16 ↗ confirming um so there uh were a number

38:19 ↗ of different edits on uh the policies

38:22 ↗ themselves um and as a reminder these

38:24 ↗ were the policies that have come to the

38:25 ↗ board over last fall and summer um there

38:29 ↗ were a mix of of kind of what we're

38:32 ↗ thinking about as more major revisions

38:34 ↗ to those policies or suggestions and

38:36 ↗ then um there was also a number of

38:38 ↗ different questions about the policies

38:41 ↗ or um uh wording or framing edits that

38:45 ↗ don't really change the the intent or

38:48 ↗ meaning and so what we thought we could

38:50 ↗ do recognizing our limited time is that

38:53 ↗ staff will be uh able to review kind of

38:55 ↗ those minor edits those Framing and and

38:58 ↗ um uh improving kind of language edits

39:01 ↗ uh uh and then get back to the board on

39:03 ↗ those and then also within this document

39:06 ↗ that was shared um I believe Stacy

39:08 ↗ provided comments on um more of just the

39:11 ↗ questions about the policies themselves

39:14 ↗ um and so we felt like we could uh

39:16 ↗ really focus our time for the next uh

39:18 ↗ 30ish minutes uh chatting about um what

39:22 ↗ we think as as uh edits or questions

39:25 ↗ related to policies that are really um

39:28 ↗ more based around editing um impacting

39:31 ↗ the meaning or intent of that policy and

39:33 ↗ and trying to make sure that we have U

39:36 ↗ robust board discussion on

39:39 ↗ those um we do have I think it's five or

39:44 ↗ six of these policies that we identified

39:46 ↗ and so to get through all of that in the

39:48 ↗ 30 minutes um that means roughly five

39:51 ↗ minutes per policy but of course some of

39:53 ↗ those might go a little quicker some

39:54 ↗ might go a little longer

39:59 ↗ um and so just again checking really

40:03 ↗ quickly before we launch in

40:05 ↗ um uh I just wanted to kind of confirm

40:08 ↗ with the board um that the environmental

40:10 ↗ board is comfortable kind of jumping

40:12 ↗ into the to the to revisions to policies

40:15 ↗ that have been discussed um back in in

40:18 ↗ fall and summer so I want to just check

40:21 ↗ in with the board knowing that these

40:23 ↗ policies have been reviewed a few times

40:25 ↗ by the board

40:27 ↗ uh

40:30 ↗ before and I

40:33 ↗ will no okay I think just because

40:37 ↗ comments came in from one or two board

40:39 ↗ members so we just want to get kind of a

40:41 ↗ general feel of the group that you're

40:43 ↗ okay going back and reing things

40:48 ↗ so okay great we're here we're ready

40:51 ↗ great excellent and I'm going to I'm

40:53 ↗ going to rely a little bit on Stacy to

40:55 ↗ to guide me here since I can't actually

40:57 ↗ see who's got thumbs up and things like

41:00 ↗ that in the room with the the small

41:01 ↗ camera so we're going to start off with

41:03 ↗ policy A1 um so there was a comment on

41:06 ↗ this policy um asking for

41:12 ↗ um focusing asking for uh staff to

41:15 ↗ consider focusing these policies on uh

41:18 ↗ local reductions in greenhouse gas

41:21 ↗ emissions um instead of kind of the

41:23 ↗ broader CommunityWide emissions goals

41:25 ↗ that are um going to be achieved through

41:29 ↗ a mix of both utility state federal

41:33 ↗ local Etc incentives right um and policy

41:39 ↗ A1 sorry I missed that comment in the

41:41 ↗ chat but um is it a policy or a goal

41:45 ↗ statement so this is a policy um it was

41:47 ↗ a decision that the the targets within

41:49 ↗ the IAP are going to live as as policies

41:51 ↗ within this document instead of um at

41:54 ↗ that goal level and before we open this

41:57 ↗ up to convers uh to discussion uh the

41:59 ↗ staff response really to that to that

42:01 ↗ question is that this target um is

42:05 ↗ specifically called out within the

42:06 ↗ climate action plan and is consistent

42:08 ↗ with the uh k4c targets that uh the city

42:11 ↗ of Isa committed to additionally

42:14 ↗ unfortunately we don't have specific

42:17 ↗ targets um related to the the the

42:20 ↗ proportion of these emission reductions

42:23 ↗ that should be attributed to City

42:25 ↗ speciic specific action um and so

42:28 ↗ without those specific targets right

42:31 ↗ that you know 5% of our emissions

42:33 ↗ reduction will come from specifically

42:35 ↗ City action um we feel like it's uh

42:38 ↗ really valuable to kind of keep in these

42:39 ↗ these CommunityWide emission reduction

42:42 ↗ um targets as well one of the other

42:44 ↗ things I'd point out is it is from some

42:47 ↗ of the actions that we're likely to take

42:48 ↗ it's a little difficult to attribute um

42:51 ↗ emissions reduction specifically to City

42:54 ↗ action versus some other entities so for

42:57 ↗ instance if we were to put in an EV

42:58 ↗ charging station um the you know is uh

43:02 ↗ how would you attribute it's difficult

43:04 ↗ to attribute um specific greenhouse gas

43:07 ↗ emissions savings from that to say the

43:10 ↗ City versus the utility versus the state

43:12 ↗ and that's not to say that we shouldn't

43:14 ↗ we won't be evaluating our programs and

43:16 ↗ everything but um more just that uh for

43:20 ↗ now we feel like these broader

43:22 ↗ CommunityWide um targets are are cons

43:26 ↗ consistent regionally um they set these

43:29 ↗ ambitious goals um and then finally i'

43:32 ↗ note that um if we want to consider a

43:34 ↗ little bit more those specific local

43:37 ↗ emission reduction uh or specific

43:40 ↗ amounts of reduction emissions reduction

43:42 ↗ that we can achieve at the local level

43:44 ↗ um we might recommend that more for the

43:46 ↗ IAP update process when that comes

43:48 ↗ around in 2025 and

43:51 ↗ 20126 questions or comments on

43:54 ↗ that policy

44:01 ↗ I I do um this was my comment so maybe

44:04 ↗ I'll address it um so the the reason I

44:07 ↗ think that there's not a like I think

44:09 ↗ there's pros and cons to focusing on

44:11 ↗ overall targets they're big they sound

44:14 ↗ big um I think the issue is that we

44:16 ↗ control the actual part that Isa

44:19 ↗ controls is not clear out of that and

44:21 ↗ our goal as a city we are relying like

44:24 ↗ the reason I'm pulling something

44:27 ↗ is

44:28 ↗ the

44:30 ↗ that we have the wedge this and people

44:34 ↗ probably won't all be able to see this

44:35 ↗ but like this thing this to me the green

44:38 ↗ section of this graph is what I think

44:40 ↗ our climate action plan is focused on

44:42 ↗ like all of the gray areas due to state

44:46 ↗ federal actions like whatever happens

44:49 ↗ with those we're sort of relying on them

44:51 ↗ but we don't have direct control and

44:53 ↗ those are all assumptions that are baked

44:54 ↗ in so I'm concerned that that by only

44:56 ↗ putting it in terms of overall goals we

44:58 ↗ always give ourselves the way to back

45:00 ↗ out of okay it's because of State action

45:02 ↗ it's because of federal action we

45:04 ↗ haven't actually defined as a city what

45:06 ↗ do we want to do and I I I hear David

45:09 ↗ saying that there's some things that are

45:11 ↗ hard to pull apart so I think there's

45:12 ↗ actually in this document a really clear

45:15 ↗ way that we could pull out maybe it's

45:16 ↗ not specific to ISA actions but we have

45:19 ↗ the things that we know are like big

45:21 ↗ large assumptions that are baked into

45:24 ↗ these numbers and if you have it already

45:26 ↗ on this document what the remaining

45:29 ↗ green are is that we need to make up

45:31 ↗ with actions that are happening not from

45:34 ↗ these specific area items that are

45:36 ↗ identified in the clate action plan so I

45:38 ↗ I agree it's it's there's not maybe one

45:41 ↗ right answer but that's my concern with

45:44 ↗ the overarching targets both here and in

45:46 ↗ in IAP is that we it it's tough for us

45:50 ↗ to know how we're doing like I don't

45:52 ↗ think we have a really great way there's

45:53 ↗ all these other inputs that are going

45:55 ↗ into

45:56 ↗ measuring the Target and we don't have

45:58 ↗ direct control over a large portion

46:10 ↗ so there other thoughts Reflections from

46:13 ↗ the board feedback on this

46:17 ↗ one uh I would just like to uh say that

46:20 ↗ I think that Jamie brings up some really

46:22 ↗ interesting points that I'd like to

46:23 ↗ Second the staff looking into and see

46:25 ↗ how we can ous some of those more

46:28 ↗ specifics to our community um it's

46:30 ↗ something we've seen time and time again

46:31 ↗ Community does expect more than maybe

46:34 ↗ being mentioned right so take another

46:37 ↗ look I actually wanted to ask you about

46:39 ↗ something um David the in the background

46:41 ↗ I have a comment where we we as a board

46:43 ↗ we've started the discussion and we it's

46:45 ↗ brought up between whether we're having

46:47 ↗ a two or fouryear cycle um and what my

46:50 ↗ comment was is that I think it would be

46:51 ↗ relevant to have a board um discuss the

46:54 ↗ Merit of one or the other and make a

46:56 ↗ recommendation to the administration

46:58 ↗ while that doesn't need to happen

46:59 ↗ tonight I did want bring that up um

47:01 ↗ since it's at the the background of this

47:02 ↗ section I think it's something it's

47:06 ↗ relevant great thank you for that

47:08 ↗ comment

47:11 ↗ joy and I would third Jamie's

47:22 ↗ comment any other comments

47:29 ↗ well we can take a look the wedge

47:31 ↗ Jamie's bringing up is from the 2019

47:34 ↗ Community inventory that King County um

47:36 ↗ ran we can take a look at that and see

47:39 ↗ we don't have any of those Targets in

47:40 ↗ the IAP right now um but we can take a

47:43 ↗ look and see if there's anything that

47:44 ↗ would make sense to have in here um but

47:47 ↗ I do think that will also be a focus of

47:49 ↗ our discussions as we look at updating

47:51 ↗ the IAP um but David and I can talk and

47:55 ↗ and meet with stepen might be most

47:57 ↗ appropriate for um the comprehensive

48:01 ↗ plan uh I think the concern of trying to

48:04 ↗ get something in here yet that hasn't

48:06 ↗ gone through extensive vetting with the

48:08 ↗ community through an IAP update process

48:12 ↗ um or multiple discussions with the

48:13 ↗ board would be why one concern but let

48:16 ↗ we'll try and put our heads together and

48:17 ↗ see if there's something that would make

48:19 ↗ sense yeah no um I think I just want to

48:22 ↗ ask a clarifying question so and then me

48:26 ↗ if I am not fully understanding the

48:28 ↗ issue um it seems to me that these

48:31 ↗ Target you you don't have a problem with

48:33 ↗ having these targets because the final

48:34 ↗ outcome we want we not reduced by this

48:37 ↗ much percentage you just want more

48:40 ↗ information about what do the city do

48:42 ↗ what is our yeah you know our part in

48:44 ↗ bringing these down and that's going to

48:47 ↗ be difficult and then the percentage

48:50 ↗ that the city controls you know what if

48:51 ↗ there's a better technology in the next

48:53 ↗ 20 years that reduces emissions for

48:55 ↗ vehicles significantly that's a good

48:58 ↗ thing it helps us meet our targets so I

49:01 ↗ think setting the targets overall how no

49:04 ↗ matter how you get there is a good thing

49:06 ↗ you don't want to lose

49:08 ↗ that okay yeah I think I think the Fe

49:11 ↗ that it's maybe an addition not a

49:13 ↗ replacement that I do think that we have

49:17 ↗ to plan for the future with what we have

49:19 ↗ today which is these are the impacts

49:20 ↗ that we have we expect and so if we're

49:23 ↗ not planning and know what that kind of

49:26 ↗ what we need to make up that seems like

49:28 ↗ a problem and obviously that'll adjust

49:29 ↗ over time um so that I think that is a

49:32 ↗ challenge for the comprehensive plan I

49:34 ↗ don't know the way to solve it it might

49:37 ↗ this might be something that it might be

49:38 ↗ more of an IAP thing um for us to look

49:41 ↗ at it seems more like an action uh the

49:44 ↗ city's actions need to be you know

49:47 ↗ reported in certain ways which I think

49:49 ↗ you you guys do that you

49:53 ↗ know having some Metric ass to this yeah

49:57 ↗ no and I definitely hear that I'm

49:59 ↗ concerned about us trying to kind of

50:02 ↗ Rush something through um that won't be

50:05 ↗ quite right yet but we'll talk about it

50:08 ↗ see what we can do but I think we'll

50:09 ↗ definitely commit to having more

50:11 ↗ conversations about that in the future

50:13 ↗ for IAP update which could then um be

50:16 ↗ updated within the comprehensive plan um

50:19 ↗ but let us see if there's something we

50:21 ↗ can develop over the next couple months

50:23 ↗ come back that way and I does look aage

50:27 ↗ do you have something to

50:37 ↗ add sorry um so yeah just to add you

50:41 ↗ know um I agree with what everybody said

50:44 ↗ especially what Jamie said you know the

50:46 ↗ numbers do make me a little bit nervous

50:49 ↗ the you know the high goals it's great

50:51 ↗ to set those goals but I really don't

50:54 ↗ know you know how much is the realistic

50:57 ↗ portion of it and there is a confusion

50:59 ↗ of what is what what percent will belong

51:02 ↗ to City of isqua versus other you know

51:06 ↗ factors in it but that's not just here

51:09 ↗ uh that those numbers make me nervous

51:11 ↗ everywhere I had a comment in I think EC

51:14 ↗ policy B4 where it says achieve 100%

51:17 ↗ renewable electricity by 202 and I just

51:20 ↗ wanted to make sure you know when we

51:22 ↗ State these things it's actually

51:24 ↗ accurate or we can back up those numbers

51:28 ↗ um and that may be the case because it

51:30 ↗ just I think we are talking about

51:31 ↗ Municipal City buildings so that should

51:33 ↗ be okay but I just want to verify that

51:36 ↗ we are actually looking at the numbers

51:39 ↗ and we are putting the numbers which we

51:41 ↗ completely believe in in these reports

51:44 ↗ that's

51:46 ↗ all yeah thank you for for all of those

51:48 ↗ comments and I would say um you know for

51:51 ↗ for the 100% renewable energy and

51:53 ↗ municipal buildings um we do expect to

51:56 ↗ be able to reach that hopefully fairly

51:59 ↗ soon um we are uh between kind of the um

52:04 ↗ they're called renewable energy

52:06 ↗ certificate programs that we are

52:08 ↗ currently a part of and then um we're in

52:10 ↗ talks with psse to get the rest of our

52:11 ↗ electric accounts onto the the

52:13 ↗ commercial program there so we're we're

52:15 ↗ optimistic about that um uh the other

52:19 ↗ point I'd have is all of the numbers

52:22 ↗ really align with that King County

52:24 ↗ collabor

52:25 ↗ effort so these are numbers consistent

52:28 ↗ across uh cities regionally and um they

52:31 ↗ were developed through a pretty robust

52:34 ↗ process and so um we do feel like they

52:38 ↗ are um I think achievable and also

52:42 ↗ ambitious enough to to Really push us as

52:44 ↗ as the city to um uh try and and um be

52:49 ↗ on the the Leading Edge of of getting to

52:51 ↗ those numbers so both achievable and uh

52:54 ↗ ambitious

52:57 ↗ all right um so definitely heard that we

53:00 ↗ need to look into that one further see

53:02 ↗ if we can Divine the local contribution

53:05 ↗ um if not maybe we can work on some

53:07 ↗ language committing ourselves to

53:08 ↗ defining that um so yeah I said David

53:13 ↗ and Steve and I can put our heads

53:14 ↗ together and try and work through some

53:16 ↗ language for that or what we might be

53:17 ↗ comfortable including um I am G to move

53:20 ↗ it on because we have a few more of

53:22 ↗ these to cover in the next 20 minutes um

53:27 ↗ let's move on to

53:28 ↗ A7 yes thank you Stacy so A7 um there

53:32 ↗ were comments around um both fine-tuning

53:35 ↗ the language a little bit and then also

53:38 ↗ potentially uh shifting uh questioning

53:40 ↗ whether or not uh that kind of the last

53:43 ↗ piece of that policy the focus on

53:44 ↗ overburdened and vulnerable communities

53:47 ↗ um was was really appropriate for this

53:49 ↗ policy I think the staff perspective is

53:53 ↗ that we do feel like it's important

53:55 ↗ important to um to focus to highlight

53:59 ↗ and um ensure that that Equity is really

54:02 ↗ interwoven into our policies consistent

54:05 ↗ with our um Equity framework um both uh

54:10 ↗ this is what that that's what the city

54:12 ↗ believes but then also uh that's fairly

54:15 ↗ consistent with um you know state state

54:18 ↗ um um regulation or State uh advice I I

54:24 ↗ guess and um

54:25 ↗ guidance on the the adoption of the uh

54:28 ↗ environment element as well as some

54:30 ↗ other state laws that were passed so we

54:32 ↗ are trying to infuse Equity into our

54:35 ↗ policies as much as we can but um we are

54:38 ↗ um with that I'll I'll kind of turn it

54:40 ↗ over to the board on um discussing kind

54:44 ↗ of uh your thoughts on on um this policy

54:50 ↗ A7 and that specifically that focus on

54:53 ↗ uh overburdened and vulnerable

54:55 ↗ communities Don go

54:59 ↗ ahead so David I would pull that term

55:02 ↗ overburn and vulnerable communities out

55:04 ↗ of a particular policy and put it up

55:07 ↗ higher up in the document and so it

55:09 ↗ applies to all the policies um make it a

55:11 ↗ generalized statement and then just a

55:14 ↗ comment on all these policies as I read

55:16 ↗ through them um to me they seem too long

55:19 ↗ and too detailed um you can a policy

55:24 ↗ should be like a one sentence statement

55:26 ↗ and it shouldn't get into

55:28 ↗ details um of how you're going to do it

55:30 ↗ so some of these are talking about how

55:32 ↗ you're going to achieve your goals

55:34 ↗ rather than just what you want to do so

55:36 ↗ just something to think about if you

55:37 ↗ want to get to that level of detail it's

55:39 ↗ fine but it might box you in as you use

55:42 ↗ these policies to support future

55:45 ↗ documentation when you're putting

55:46 ↗ together projects and

55:48 ↗ plans great thank you for

55:53 ↗ that um Nancy go ahead

55:55 ↗ I guess my concern with this is the word

55:57 ↗ focus and what it says is that by using

56:01 ↗ that you're going to pick projects that

56:03 ↗ primarily benefit these populations

56:05 ↗ rather than thinking about what is the

56:07 ↗ best to reduce the amount of greenhouse

56:09 ↗ gas emissions or the best thing for the

56:11 ↗ whole city so while I appreciate that we

56:14 ↗ should be thinking about them and

56:16 ↗ spending some energy on them I don't

56:18 ↗ think it should be our Focus as we move

56:20 ↗ forward in greenhouse gas emission

56:22 ↗ reduction I think we should be thinking

56:25 ↗ trying to do the right thing for the

56:26 ↗ overall community and while

56:29 ↗ considering programs or projects or

56:31 ↗ something like that that address these

56:34 ↗ populations but I don't think that's the

56:36 ↗ purpose of this is to focus on that and

56:38 ↗ with that word Focus you're really

56:40 ↗ focusing on projects or programs that

56:42 ↗ deal with those populations instead of

56:45 ↗ what deals with the whole need that's

56:46 ↗ how I

56:50 ↗ read thank you um I I would Echo Don's

56:54 ↗ comment that it seems like more

56:56 ↗ appropriate for that to sit across

56:58 ↗ everything within this section versus it

57:02 ↗ being specific to that that section that

57:05 ↗ seems like a better solution to kind of

57:08 ↗ capture that like Equity is going to be

57:09 ↗ a consideration for every every single

57:12 ↗ one of these policies um that so yeah I

57:16 ↗ I would echo on um and go

57:21 ↗ ahead uh thanks so I was just looking at

57:24 ↗ the isqua climate action plan and on

57:26 ↗ page 20 there is a nice graph and it has

57:31 ↗ the targets our targets of 50% uh

57:35 ↗ reduction by 2030

57:37 ↗ 75% by 2040 and 95 by

57:40 ↗ 2050 so is that the community support

57:44 ↗ that we're looking for or you looking

57:47 ↗ for something different and that was

57:50 ↗ what I was actually showing you probably

57:52 ↗ to see it but it okay green part is the

57:55 ↗ section I was talking about because the

57:56 ↗ the gray sections are things like Nitsa

57:59 ↗ standards and things that are federal or

58:01 ↗ state and so the green section like you

58:04 ↗ could roughly do the math of like within

58:06 ↗ that green section well actually I don't

58:08 ↗ know I don't know what the math is on

58:11 ↗ what is the istic or what's the green

58:12 ↗ portion need to be to get down to the

58:14 ↗ overall targets but that was that was

58:16 ↗ what we we were looking at in here as

58:20 ↗ well okay cool and you just think it's

58:22 ↗ overly aggressive potentially

58:25 ↗ no that's no I'm just the the green is

58:28 ↗ to an I think is accurately described as

58:31 ↗ what we're trying to impact or the

58:33 ↗ portion that is locally um outside of

58:37 ↗ these major state and federal things and

58:39 ↗ so what I was making a comment about was

58:42 ↗ that I would love to see more focus on

58:44 ↗ figuring out what the green section and

58:46 ↗ the reductions associated with that need

58:47 ↗ to be for us to hit these

58:49 ↗ targets cool not to change the overall

58:52 ↗ targets but just to to have more

58:55 ↗ definition on what we think the local

58:56 ↗ chames and we have an updated version of

58:59 ↗ that from the 2019

59:02 ↗ inventory awesome sorry to go

59:08 ↗ backwards okay we have one more here

59:12 ↗ David Dixie just

59:13 ↗ hopped please I think I would like to

59:17 ↗ Echo what what I read with with what

59:19 ↗ Nancy is saying in addition to what you

59:21 ↗ guys are saying about policy and how and

59:23 ↗ again forgive me I'm am trying to catch

59:26 ↗ it but um if the policy is to be should

59:29 ↗ be shorter which that makes sense to me

59:31 ↗ and if you're thinking about wanting to

59:33 ↗ have options down the road then being

59:36 ↗ too specific is maybe a problem so I I

59:39 ↗ mean I think you could just put a period

59:40 ↗ after climate change and call it

59:42 ↗ good because you know the rest of it um

59:46 ↗ I

59:47 ↗ think that works itself

59:51 ↗ out

59:53 ↗ okay

59:56 ↗ well if there's no other comments on

59:58 ↗ policy A7 I'll keep us rolling um so

1:00:02 ↗ we're going to jump to

1:00:05 ↗ policy that comment yeah in terms of how

1:00:09 ↗ we think about this policy I think yeah

1:00:11 ↗ moving it up to the higher level all of

1:00:12 ↗ that makes sense um in terms of the

1:00:15 ↗ environmental justice you know what does

1:00:17 ↗ it mean in this suppose context um so we

1:00:20 ↗ know I mean I know city of Bel is done

1:00:22 ↗ the air quality where you had a lot of

1:00:25 ↗ people living along the freeways they

1:00:27 ↗ the health impacts that come from

1:00:28 ↗ breathing in that air have an impact and

1:00:31 ↗ what happened to the policies is the

1:00:33 ↗ people that live near the freeways were

1:00:35 ↗ the people that couldn't afford to live

1:00:36 ↗ further away so I think thinking that's

1:00:39 ↗ I think what this policy is really

1:00:41 ↗ getting at if you put all your

1:00:43 ↗ affordable housing next to you going to

1:00:45 ↗ put all your you know that and and how

1:00:47 ↗ do we undo the harm that has happened to

1:00:50 ↗ some of those decisions that have

1:00:51 ↗ happened the freeways went through the

1:00:53 ↗ neighborhood that

1:00:55 ↗ had major impacts like that so I think

1:00:57 ↗ that's sort of the context or the

1:00:59 ↗ flooding in South Park happened all the

1:01:01 ↗ toxins from the river are coming to the

1:01:03 ↗ people that are being fed in there but

1:01:06 ↗ what does that mean Ina context is some

1:01:08 ↗ of the

1:01:12 ↗ discussion experience here one one

1:01:16 ↗ possible option there is it sounds like

1:01:18 ↗ you're talking mostly about adaptation

1:01:20 ↗ being the area that Equity is going to

1:01:21 ↗ like I think we talked about in the

1:01:22 ↗ climate or the uh

1:01:25 ↗ um vulnerability assessment that like

1:01:28 ↗ adaptation was going to be a major area

1:01:29 ↗ where Equity might need to have even

1:01:30 ↗ more Focus so that that is another

1:01:33 ↗ consideration is right now we're talking

1:01:35 ↗ about both mitigation and adaptation in

1:01:37 ↗ the same policy and maybe the place that

1:01:40 ↗ Equity comes into places we might

1:01:42 ↗ consider something around that as it

1:01:44 ↗ relates to adaptation yeah and I think

1:01:47 ↗ it's thinking I was gonna say oh go

1:01:50 ↗ ahead Stacy sorry like our home

1:01:52 ↗ electrification program our heat pump

1:01:54 ↗ program we're trying to offer added

1:01:56 ↗ incentives for loow income households

1:01:58 ↗ affordable housing um as well as if we

1:02:01 ↗ launch other programs so that's which he

1:02:04 ↗ pumps in particular both the mitigation

1:02:06 ↗ and resilience but I think that's where

1:02:09 ↗ we're thinking of this in terms of as

1:02:11 ↗ David are developing programs are there

1:02:14 ↗ added incentives or rebates um for those

1:02:17 ↗ community members um that maybe can't

1:02:19 ↗ afford to make that change or are the

1:02:22 ↗ ones most likely to be um hit the

1:02:24 ↗ hardest by climate impact that was kind

1:02:26 ↗ of the thinking around this to

1:02:28 ↗ generalize our programs sorry David go

1:02:31 ↗ well and I was just going to say when we

1:02:33 ↗ think about kind of infusing equity into

1:02:35 ↗ to mitigation efforts um we you know I

1:02:40 ↗ think we want to make sure and and

1:02:41 ↗ through our Pol programs and and

1:02:43 ↗ policies Etc we want to make sure that

1:02:46 ↗ our by by considering Equity by

1:02:50 ↗ considering um communities that have

1:02:52 ↗ been harmed by previous

1:02:54 ↗ um policies or who might not have been

1:02:56 ↗ able to benefit from other policies were

1:02:58 ↗ not kind of increasing the gap of access

1:03:02 ↗ to um to uh climate Solutions between

1:03:06 ↗ those who um already have um kind of

1:03:10 ↗ faced those harms or th that that

1:03:12 ↗ historic inequalities in the past and

1:03:14 ↗ those who have benefited from um various

1:03:18 ↗ uh um harmful systems in in the past as

1:03:22 ↗ well so right making sure that we're not

1:03:25 ↗ furthering the the split of um kind of

1:03:29 ↗ who has access and who does not have

1:03:31 ↗ access to these climate

1:03:34 ↗ Solutions good go ahead well said David

1:03:37 ↗ and I just wanted to point out that I

1:03:38 ↗ think that by pulling some of this

1:03:40 ↗ language from where we're looking at

1:03:41 ↗ policy a I think we're able to put some

1:03:43 ↗ of this into policy e as we go along and

1:03:46 ↗ the resilience and wellbeing um and so I

1:03:48 ↗ think that maybe what it really is that

1:03:49 ↗ maybe it's not belonging here but

1:03:51 ↗ there's plenty of places to u to put

1:03:54 ↗ that in later on in the

1:03:59 ↗ do right thank you back David we've got

1:04:03 ↗ about 10 to 15 minutes great easy um

1:04:10 ↗ jumping to policy

1:04:13 ↗ B1 um so this policy is around

1:04:16 ↗ decreasing energy use um in new and

1:04:20 ↗ existing buildings uh by 25% by 2030 and

1:04:25 ↗ uh from 2017 levels um and the the

1:04:29 ↗ question here really was that this is um

1:04:31 ↗ kind of an unclear policy uh it and it's

1:04:34 ↗ just a little bit difficult to to read

1:04:36 ↗ and understand and really I think just

1:04:38 ↗ kind of the short answer here is that

1:04:40 ↗ this policy um is still consistent with

1:04:43 ↗ our climate action plan and the k4c and

1:04:46 ↗ this policy really boils down to this

1:04:49 ↗ this discussion of Energy Efficiency

1:04:51 ↗ right policy B3 is talking about um

1:04:54 ↗ reducing fossil fuel use which is around

1:04:56 ↗ um electrification and removing that F

1:04:59 ↗ fossil fuel infrastructure or or

1:05:01 ↗ supporting our residents and um

1:05:04 ↗ supporting our businesses for

1:05:06 ↗ transitioning off of fossil fuel

1:05:08 ↗ infrastructure but policy B1 is kind of

1:05:10 ↗ taking that other piece of the the

1:05:12 ↗ puzzle and making sure that in even as

1:05:15 ↗ we uh remove fossil fuel infrastructure

1:05:17 ↗ we're also still thinking about that

1:05:19 ↗ Energy Efficiency um side of things so

1:05:22 ↗ you know weatherization efficient

1:05:24 ↗ equipment things like that and so that's

1:05:27 ↗ that's really what that policy is uh is

1:05:30 ↗ um focused

1:05:34 ↗ on other questions on that policy I know

1:05:37 ↗ it's a little bit funky yeah part of

1:05:41 ↗ that was one of my comments uh and I

1:05:42 ↗ think part of this is like realistically

1:05:45 ↗ if we're successful with electrification

1:05:47 ↗ electricity is is going to

1:05:50 ↗ increase levels and that might we still

1:05:52 ↗ might have done a bunch of efficiency

1:05:54 ↗ work and so I think we just need to make

1:05:55 ↗ sure that we clearly state that this is

1:05:57 ↗ talking about I don't know how we're

1:05:58 ↗ going to I don't know if it's like

1:06:00 ↗ kilowatt hour and equivalent so like we

1:06:02 ↗ need to figure out how to translate

1:06:04 ↗ units between natural gas and

1:06:05 ↗ electricity to make sure that this is

1:06:07 ↗ talking about the total and not

1:06:09 ↗ construed as like we need to reduce

1:06:11 ↗ electricity use in the city which I I

1:06:13 ↗ think making this clearly about

1:06:16 ↗ efficiency um I think will help do that

1:06:18 ↗ but I still think that it's it's sort of

1:06:20 ↗ confusing there might be some word

1:06:22 ↗ smithing opportunities to just make sure

1:06:24 ↗ that it's clearly specific to that um

1:06:27 ↗ because I think it's almost a

1:06:30 ↗ restatement I I don't know yeah it might

1:06:33 ↗ almost be more powerful to restate this

1:06:35 ↗ as like um yeah specifically about

1:06:40 ↗ efficiency

1:06:47 ↗ and great

1:06:49 ↗ Don I would Echo Jim's comments i' Chang

1:06:52 ↗ the language to read something along the

1:06:53 ↗ Lin of increase Energy Efficiency in new

1:06:57 ↗ and existing buildings and I think that

1:06:59 ↗ would get you where you're going

1:07:01 ↗ there okay so um we can definitely look

1:07:06 ↗ into that I you know I think one

1:07:08 ↗ challenge that we might face

1:07:14 ↗ here David we lost your

1:07:17 ↗ audio can you hear me now

1:07:20 ↗ no yes oh you can okay sorry about that

1:07:24 ↗ um so that'll um that uh we can look

1:07:27 ↗ into that um this is language that we

1:07:30 ↗ committed to as part of the um k4c

1:07:34 ↗ climate uh collaborative right and that

1:07:37 ↗ and this language is specifically

1:07:39 ↗ included in the the climate action plan

1:07:42 ↗ um and so I think we can look into it

1:07:44 ↗ for this um I might propose and and I

1:07:48 ↗ think as we look at it it might uh make

1:07:50 ↗ sense to revisit it as part of the IAP

1:07:52 ↗ update process but um we can definitely

1:07:54 ↗ consider it for

1:08:01 ↗ sure all

1:08:03 ↗ right um and unless I'm stopped because

1:08:06 ↗ I cannot the the room very well we'll

1:08:08 ↗ move on to the next policy which is

1:08:11 ↗ policy

1:08:14 ↗ C6

1:08:17 ↗ two yeah two more and an um I see you

1:08:22 ↗ have your hand raised did you have a

1:08:23 ↗ question question on policy C6 or on a

1:08:25 ↗ previous um item I just wanted to tell

1:08:28 ↗ something on there out there about um I

1:08:32 ↗ think it's

1:08:34 ↗ B3 I just have an

1:08:37 ↗ idea it says reduce

1:08:40 ↗ fil it says reduce fossil fuel use in

1:08:43 ↗ existing buildings by uh in buildings by

1:08:46 ↗ 20% by 20130 and 80% by

1:08:50 ↗ 2050 and I'm proposing we say reduce

1:08:53 ↗ reduce fossil

1:08:55 ↗ fuel use not related to electricity in

1:08:59 ↗ existing buildings by

1:09:02 ↗ 20% and

1:09:05 ↗ 30% you know keep it the same after that

1:09:09 ↗ um

1:09:14 ↗ because when I read um the full

1:09:16 ↗ statement in the k4c I

1:09:19 ↗ think I totally understand what they're

1:09:22 ↗ getting at

1:09:26 ↗ anyway it's just a suggestion for me it

1:09:28 ↗ was confusing because we still are going

1:09:31 ↗ to have some fossil fuel coming in from

1:09:35 ↗ electricity yes I I hear that and I

1:09:38 ↗ think uh you know this policy is meant

1:09:40 ↗ to be specifically focused on um fossil

1:09:43 ↗ fuel use within the the home versus in

1:09:46 ↗ the generation of

1:09:48 ↗ electricity

1:09:50 ↗ um for you see Paul y can I ask a quick

1:09:54 ↗ question to Stephen and Minnie do we

1:09:57 ↗ need to have these and maybe this is a

1:09:59 ↗ question for the board too there I'm

1:10:01 ↗ hearing a lot of concerns around the

1:10:03 ↗ targets that were pulled in directly

1:10:05 ↗ from the IAP we need to rework those

1:10:07 ↗ with the IAP update can we remove

1:10:10 ↗ specific targets and just general

1:10:13 ↗ generalize some of these policies too or

1:10:16 ↗ do you all really want to see specific

1:10:18 ↗ targets here it's going be at a higher

1:10:20 ↗ level than the action plan I mean as

1:10:22 ↗ long as they know conflicting with them

1:10:24 ↗ and you want to pull them up that's not

1:10:26 ↗ fair okay that could be something we

1:10:29 ↗ consider too just because I don't want

1:10:31 ↗ to rush through kind of new targets

1:10:37 ↗ um when we're having only one or two

1:10:39 ↗ more conversations about this um policy

1:10:43 ↗ and then the

1:10:44 ↗ action okay so that's something we'll

1:10:46 ↗ think about and bring back

1:10:49 ↗ recommendations

1:10:51 ↗ okay yep that sounds good we can jump to

1:10:54 ↗ C6 but I do want to just acknowledge

1:10:56 ↗ that at the beginning of the

1:10:57 ↗ conversation there was the the public

1:10:58 ↗ comment um that um was positive to

1:11:03 ↗ including the the targets within the the

1:11:05 ↗ climate uh within the comprehensive plan

1:11:07 ↗ so just noting that as

1:11:10 ↗ well um policy C6 there was

1:11:13 ↗ recommendations on um kind of adjusting

1:11:15 ↗ that policy to to be more focused on

1:11:18 ↗ city capital projects and operating

1:11:21 ↗ budgets um and uh think the staff

1:11:25 ↗ response to this is that uh the previous

1:11:27 ↗ policies C4 and

1:11:29 ↗ C5 um are more specific to that

1:11:33 ↗ infrastructure um improvements around

1:11:36 ↗ multimodal use and sustainable land use

1:11:39 ↗ planning um and so that's uh more of the

1:11:42 ↗ the infrastructure side of things

1:11:45 ↗ whereas uh policy C6 is more about kind

1:11:48 ↗ of those

1:11:49 ↗ programmatic uh efforts that could be do

1:11:51 ↗ done to um improve improve uh multimodal

1:11:56 ↗ um use of our of our city as well as uh

1:11:59 ↗ reduce uh single occupancy vehicle

1:12:04 ↗ use questions and thoughts on policy

1:12:08 ↗ C6 and go ahead well it's probably the

1:12:11 ↗ person that authored this the challenge

1:12:13 ↗ what I was trying to reflect in this is

1:12:15 ↗ came out of the board with and that was

1:12:18 ↗ when we heard from the council president

1:12:20 ↗ that if we wanted to make a difference

1:12:21 ↗ in the budget we needed to put it

1:12:23 ↗ somewhere so that we actually got got

1:12:26 ↗ their attention and so right now there

1:12:29 ↗ is nothing in here to prioritize some of

1:12:32 ↗ these things that are better for climate

1:12:34 ↗ instead of always working on projects

1:12:36 ↗ related to cars and so what I was trying

1:12:39 ↗ to do is to say we really want to change

1:12:41 ↗ our priorities and actually get some

1:12:43 ↗ funding into projects that allow people

1:12:45 ↗ to walk and bike and if it needs to go

1:12:48 ↗ somewhere else but by calling out budget

1:12:50 ↗ it actually gets it a place to flag back

1:12:52 ↗ when we say we need need to have

1:12:53 ↗ projects in the city that are reflective

1:12:56 ↗ of trying to do something to get people

1:12:58 ↗ out of cars and so I was La the council

1:13:01 ↗ president One op Stacy could you could

1:13:04 ↗ you scroll Jamie real quick um Stacy

1:13:07 ↗ could you scroll up to policy A6 there

1:13:09 ↗ is a specific policy around

1:13:10 ↗ incorporating sustainable uh

1:13:13 ↗ considerations into budget and

1:13:14 ↗ procurement

1:13:16 ↗ decisions um really like see

1:13:19 ↗ Transportation along the way because

1:13:21 ↗ really that is one of the things we're

1:13:22 ↗ trying to Target

1:13:24 ↗ and transportation often gets thought of

1:13:27 ↗ as primarily roads most of the time

1:13:29 ↗ that's where most of our money goes and

1:13:31 ↗ that's okay but if we could get a

1:13:33 ↗ walking future in this community

1:13:34 ↗ particularly in various areas it would

1:13:36 ↗ be helpful I'm not sold on this is the

1:13:39 ↗ right policy to put it in but what I'm

1:13:41 ↗ asking is somewhere in the

1:13:42 ↗ transportation Arena we need to start

1:13:44 ↗ thinking about people getting around in

1:13:47 ↗ a more Greenhouse gr gas no emissions

1:13:51 ↗ way then always

1:13:55 ↗ cars if I can respond to that so we in

1:13:58 ↗ the transportation element we do have

1:14:00 ↗ policies saying prioritizing multimodal

1:14:03 ↗ prioritizing walking prioritizing biking

1:14:05 ↗ and riding Transit so there are specific

1:14:07 ↗ policies around that to for the city

1:14:09 ↗ programming is that what you're looking

1:14:11 ↗ for in this element or just in the

1:14:14 ↗ comprehensive plan well to me the way

1:14:19 ↗ you get reduce Greenhouse you know one

1:14:20 ↗ of the big sources of greenhouse gas is

1:14:24 ↗ transportation is Vehicles so we should

1:14:27 ↗ Target that and one of the ways to

1:14:28 ↗ Target it is is to make it more walkable

1:14:31 ↗ so I don't know which way is the best

1:14:33 ↗ way to do it I mean this is talking

1:14:35 ↗ about greenhouse gas emissions and we're

1:14:37 ↗ trying to make the Nexus to get people

1:14:39 ↗ to be aware that you drive your car you

1:14:41 ↗ got or get to an electric car that type

1:14:44 ↗ of thing thank

1:14:47 ↗ you under the umbrella of greenhouse gas

1:14:50 ↗ you know for the buildings it's this for

1:14:52 ↗ the transportation

1:15:00 ↗ okay other comments or thoughts on

1:15:02 ↗ policy

1:15:03 ↗ C6 the only thing David I think you

1:15:06 ↗ bring up a good point around A6 the one

1:15:09 ↗ question I would have on that one no one

1:15:11 ↗ made this but is a line a clear enough

1:15:13 ↗ word like that to me sort of is

1:15:16 ↗ meaningless like is there something we

1:15:18 ↗ should strengthen there to make sure

1:15:19 ↗ that we're prioritizing or some other

1:15:22 ↗ Lang

1:15:23 ↗ that ensures that whatever the line

1:15:27 ↗ means there we we're not

1:15:30 ↗ um leaving people unclear that that's a

1:15:32 ↗ priority for us to invest in budget and

1:15:35 ↗ capital

1:15:38 ↗ expenditure and and we might want to the

1:15:41 ↗ other thing that's not there maybe I

1:15:44 ↗ don't know if capital projects are

1:15:46 ↗ included in that statement it's budget

1:15:49 ↗ and procurement decisions I don't know

1:15:52 ↗ would that be included there that's the

1:15:53 ↗ other thing that I'm not sure is covered

1:15:55 ↗ that's

1:15:56 ↗ that kath's adding that into the

1:16:03 ↗ document thank

1:16:07 ↗ you and I don't know how much time we

1:16:10 ↗ have left but we're we have one other

1:16:12 ↗ policy to talk about which is

1:16:14 ↗ D4 um

1:16:17 ↗ minutes excellent so um this policy

1:16:21 ↗ reduce embodied carbon emissions in

1:16:23 ↗ construction through Recycling and

1:16:24 ↗ deconstruction policies and

1:16:26 ↗ programs um the comment here was on um

1:16:31 ↗ adding language uh about reducing carbon

1:16:34 ↗ intensity of the life cycle of products

1:16:36 ↗ um and also kind of thinking a little

1:16:38 ↗ bit about um you know how uh the the

1:16:41 ↗ upstream and downstream um uh

1:16:44 ↗ consumption of products uh impacts our

1:16:47 ↗ emissions that that might not be

1:16:49 ↗ captured within our our current

1:16:51 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions uh methodology

1:16:53 ↗ so um I think the staff response that we

1:16:57 ↗ we talked about a little bit was that

1:16:59 ↗ policy

1:17:00 ↗ D3 does talk about promoting sustain

1:17:03 ↗ sustainably produced materials and

1:17:06 ↗ products and so um we felt like that

1:17:10 ↗ that kind of gets at the the spirit of

1:17:13 ↗ that that question around policy D4 um

1:17:17 ↗ but I'll turn it over to the the board

1:17:20 ↗ for other comments on that

1:17:29 ↗ specifically on D4 sorry policy D4

1:17:35 ↗ yes um I guess one comment there I think

1:17:41 ↗ what we don't say in D3 is incentivizing

1:17:44 ↗ promoting is one thing like arguably

1:17:48 ↗ like presumably there would need to be

1:17:50 ↗ some sort of either incentive or or just

1:17:53 ↗ like looking ahead to how D4 might be

1:17:55 ↗ implemented you would need to have some

1:17:57 ↗ sort of incentive or policy like a code

1:18:01 ↗ that would require them to do that um

1:18:04 ↗ like to to recycle or whatever it might

1:18:08 ↗ be as part of reducing the waste stream

1:18:11 ↗ I think what we're not doing is clearly

1:18:13 ↗ stating that we want to

1:18:14 ↗ incentivize like low carbon concrete or

1:18:17 ↗ something to that effect like obviously

1:18:19 ↗ we won't mention that here but we

1:18:20 ↗ haven't really said other than promoting

1:18:23 ↗ like basically making people aware of

1:18:24 ↗ sustainably produced um products or one

1:18:28 ↗ of the

1:18:29 ↗ major sources of pro large

1:18:32 ↗ infrastructure projects in the city is

1:18:34 ↗ the city so we haven't said anything

1:18:36 ↗ about our commitment to reduce carbon in

1:18:39 ↗ our capital projects so those both seem

1:18:43 ↗ like carries that aren't captured within

1:18:46 ↗ D3

1:18:51 ↗ okay I make a comment on

1:18:53 ↗ 6 yes um I I think we should um not talk

1:18:59 ↗ about um see uh when you just focus on

1:19:04 ↗ compostable materials um I think there

1:19:07 ↗ are a lot of there you know there's

1:19:09 ↗ companies like ridwell doing really

1:19:10 ↗ interesting things with plastic

1:19:12 ↗ recycling and so it seems to me that we

1:19:16 ↗ that's actually probably a bigger

1:19:18 ↗ problem than even composting um in our

1:19:20 ↗ city and making it more accessible so

1:19:24 ↗ um I think we should be broader about

1:19:27 ↗ materials that we want to talk for the

1:19:30 ↗ waste like waste div verion and how we

1:19:31 ↗ can be um you know uh we can be

1:19:35 ↗ thoughtful about that in other ways than

1:19:37 ↗ just compost because there are a lot of

1:19:39 ↗ different things recycle batteries and

1:19:42 ↗ Plastics and um and so I think I don't

1:19:44 ↗ think we want to pigeon pigeon ourselves

1:19:46 ↗ into just that one

1:19:48 ↗ material Stacey quick question for you

1:19:50 ↗ it seems like it this is in section next

1:19:53 ↗ section do we want to take this one now

1:19:56 ↗ or Circle back to this one um I will

1:19:59 ↗ defer to David I think we're going to

1:20:02 ↗ close the policies that um existing

1:20:06 ↗ policies that need discussion or we

1:20:08 ↗ revised in a way we thought um change

1:20:11 ↗ them we're going to now move into

1:20:13 ↗ reviewing the new proposed policies

1:20:16 ↗ maybe David you could provide an

1:20:17 ↗ introduction to the section and then

1:20:19 ↗ happy just to jump in here and then we

1:20:21 ↗ can go back up um and maybe just David

1:20:24 ↗ if you could just mention how we're

1:20:25 ↗ going to structure this conversation

1:20:26 ↗ since we only have a little bit of

1:20:30 ↗ time yeah

1:20:32 ↗ so go ahead sorry no yeah that sounds

1:20:36 ↗ good um so I would say thank you for all

1:20:39 ↗ of your input on um those those uh

1:20:43 ↗ revisions to policies and kind of pieces

1:20:45 ↗ that that might be missing to those

1:20:47 ↗ we'll definitely um based on this

1:20:49 ↗ conversation we'll be able to go back

1:20:51 ↗ and take a look at them and um when we

1:20:54 ↗ provide additional uh materials related

1:20:57 ↗ to the the comp plan we can include kind

1:20:59 ↗ of decisions um and in response to the

1:21:03 ↗ uh the board discussion in that so

1:21:06 ↗ moving into the next section we have

1:21:09 ↗ quite a few proposed

1:21:11 ↗ policies um and so

1:21:15 ↗ the strategy to make sure that we could

1:21:18 ↗ talk we could get through uh those

1:21:21 ↗ proposed policies for today

1:21:23 ↗ um was to present the policy as proposed

1:21:28 ↗ um provide a little bit of Staff

1:21:29 ↗ response to uh that proposed policy and

1:21:33 ↗ then um ask the board for um kind of a

1:21:37 ↗ thumbs up or a thumbs down decision on

1:21:40 ↗ whether or not uh staff should continue

1:21:44 ↗ um exploring those policies um as

1:21:46 ↗ potential new

1:21:49 ↗ policies

1:21:51 ↗ um are there questions kind of on that

1:21:56 ↗ process um the other thing I'd mention

1:21:58 ↗ just real quick is that we do have staff

1:22:01 ↗ responses for most of the the climate

1:22:02 ↗ related policies um the natural systems

1:22:06 ↗ policies um we will be bringing to um

1:22:10 ↗ our parks and Community Services team um

1:22:14 ↗ and Public Works to be to to look at

1:22:17 ↗ more clear closely um as well questions

1:22:21 ↗ on process before

1:22:23 ↗ um I jump into kind of the first few

1:22:25 ↗ proposed new

1:22:28 ↗ policies here

1:22:30 ↗ David wonderful great we're just Rolling

1:22:33 ↗ Along here um all right so let's scroll

1:22:38 ↗ to the uh let's uh do you want to start

1:22:40 ↗ with this one Stacy or scroll to the top

1:22:42 ↗ yeah let's start here yeah great so

1:22:46 ↗ policy

1:22:48 ↗ D6

1:22:51 ↗ okay uh

1:22:54 ↗ um so um this policy uh was to create a

1:22:58 ↗ community collection and transfer of

1:23:00 ↗ compostable materials to further support

1:23:02 ↗ Community Access to participating in

1:23:04 ↗ waste diversion creating Community

1:23:06 ↗ programs to incentivize composting and

1:23:09 ↗ support increases to the uh number of

1:23:11 ↗ dwellings in isqua that partake in waste

1:23:13 ↗ collection offerings um the first uh

1:23:16 ↗ staff response to this is that um we

1:23:20 ↗ felt like we need a a little bit more

1:23:23 ↗ context on kind of what this would uh

1:23:25 ↗ specifically look like um as well as um

1:23:29 ↗ thought that this this might live more

1:23:32 ↗ in uh this type of detailed um

1:23:35 ↗ suggestion might live more in a

1:23:37 ↗ functional plan versus within the um the

1:23:40 ↗ broad comp comprehensive

1:23:43 ↗ plan um so that we we felt like it might

1:23:46 ↗ fit more in in those functional plans so

1:23:50 ↗ with that uh

1:23:53 ↗ um Stacy do you want to do a call for

1:23:56 ↗ thumbs up or down we could take one or

1:23:58 ↗ two quick comments on each we'll just

1:24:01 ↗ try and move along pretty quickly then

1:24:03 ↗ and then we'll kind of just get a

1:24:04 ↗ temperature read at rest of thank you uh

1:24:08 ↗ so as author of this what I will tell

1:24:10 ↗ you is that I'm not extremely attached

1:24:12 ↗ to this what I do think is that we're

1:24:14 ↗ missing a significant conversation from

1:24:16 ↗ this question and what I aim to do is

1:24:18 ↗ what exactly what Dixie said was to talk

1:24:20 ↗ about some larger issues with was in our

1:24:22 ↗ community um I think that one issue we

1:24:25 ↗ have about waste disposal in our

1:24:26 ↗ community is equity right right now to

1:24:28 ↗ be able to have access you need to pay

1:24:31 ↗ right you need to be able to have access

1:24:33 ↗ to sign up for ridwell which means you

1:24:35 ↗ need to have active internet you need to

1:24:37 ↗ be you know there's so many levels of

1:24:39 ↗ access that we take for granted and when

1:24:41 ↗ we think about whole community and the

1:24:44 ↗ availability to it you should not have

1:24:45 ↗ to pay to be able to get rid of your

1:24:48 ↗ corrugated cardboard for instance right

1:24:50 ↗ um losing the atwork in our community

1:24:52 ↗ many years ago people who may remember

1:24:54 ↗ was um something that the city has never

1:24:56 ↗ stepped up to replace and as a board I

1:24:59 ↗ believe that we should be advocating for

1:25:01 ↗ better access to disposable easy

1:25:04 ↗ disposable right of our waste and so I

1:25:06 ↗ think there's something that's missing

1:25:07 ↗ right now for our policies um I'm not

1:25:09 ↗ saying that I wrote the right one for it

1:25:11 ↗ but I do think it's something that we

1:25:12 ↗ need to be discussing of saying hey

1:25:14 ↗ thumbs up or thumbs down do we think the

1:25:15 ↗ city needs to be addressing this more

1:25:17 ↗ thoroughly in policy as more I meant to

1:25:19 ↗ do when I brought this up so thank you

1:25:25 ↗ change uh a thought would be um to go

1:25:29 ↗ STI stick with where we're going is that

1:25:31 ↗ um we were just actually talking the

1:25:32 ↗ sideo is probably one of the biggest

1:25:34 ↗ waste to actually producers start

1:25:36 ↗ businesses say B I would imagine because

1:25:38 ↗ I know um we don't really produce a lot

1:25:40 ↗ of waste in our business but uh I we do

1:25:42 ↗ still produce a lot of waste so I could

1:25:44 ↗ only imagine it's like in our food

1:25:46 ↗ places and all those other things so

1:25:47 ↗ maybe the policy needs to be more about

1:25:50 ↗ um and I don't know how to word it but

1:25:52 ↗ some thing around like um which would be

1:25:55 ↗ good I think overarching anyway for our

1:25:57 ↗ city creating opportunities or creating

1:25:59 ↗ a program or whatever this whatever the

1:26:01 ↗ wording is to get businesses to be able

1:26:03 ↗ to do more of this which um I always

1:26:07 ↗ thought it would be so great if every

1:26:09 ↗ business could be a collection center as

1:26:10 ↗ well so if you have batter batteries to

1:26:12 ↗ recycle drop them off here there's drop

1:26:14 ↗ offs at the grocery store or whatever so

1:26:16 ↗ that it could be Equitable but it's

1:26:17 ↗ focused on the businesses um not the

1:26:20 ↗ businesses having to burden the cost of

1:26:22 ↗ it but the business has become a partner

1:26:25 ↗ with the city in collecting waste or you

1:26:28 ↗ know even if it's just another can

1:26:29 ↗ outside of the recycling and garbage so

1:26:32 ↗ does that make sense um it might be an

1:26:35 ↗ easier policy to like trying to deal

1:26:37 ↗ with the entire that's a that's a pretty

1:26:40 ↗ big undertaking but to you know focus on

1:26:42 ↗ businesses it might be a way to move the

1:26:44 ↗ needle faster and then include um

1:26:47 ↗ community and other people in

1:26:51 ↗ both

1:26:53 ↗ all right we have da and Nancy I Think

1:26:55 ↗ We're not gonna have enough time to talk

1:26:57 ↗ this much about everyone but maybe this

1:26:59 ↗ will be our get it get it out of our

1:27:01 ↗ system so try to be with with comments

1:27:04 ↗ on this one if

1:27:06 ↗ possible I like the concept but this

1:27:08 ↗ seems It's not cooked yet and you know

1:27:11 ↗ we have a garbage collection service

1:27:13 ↗ that does this so I think it's more of a

1:27:15 ↗ conversation of talking with Recology

1:27:17 ↗ and expanding their services to try to

1:27:20 ↗ address this rather than the committing

1:27:22 ↗ to a policy the garbage question is

1:27:25 ↗ expensive um and this could commit the

1:27:27 ↗ city to quite a bit of money um to move

1:27:30 ↗ down this

1:27:33 ↗ path Nancy go ahead well I kinda I

1:27:37 ↗ understand what Don's saying but I agree

1:27:38 ↗ with Dix I think we need to find a

1:27:40 ↗ better way to um do more with composting

1:27:43 ↗ there are restaurants in town that do

1:27:45 ↗ none of it um there are restaurants in

1:27:47 ↗ town that do no recycling um we clearly

1:27:50 ↗ can do more in our West on our way

1:27:52 ↗ stream um to deal with that as and

1:27:56 ↗ that's true of all businesses grocery

1:27:58 ↗ stores the whole thing so I think that's

1:28:00 ↗ it needs some attention we have a

1:28:01 ↗ contract in chology we can change that

1:28:04 ↗ contract we can go into it we also have

1:28:06 ↗ people that oversee that contract so we

1:28:07 ↗ need to if if we want to change we need

1:28:10 ↗ to set it about in

1:28:12 ↗ this some broad policy and waste

1:28:15 ↗ reduction you know not getting specifics

1:28:17 ↗ of how to do it it could be to fun the

1:28:21 ↗ the program the city

1:28:23 ↗ or incentive whatever maybe particular

1:28:28 ↗ call out around businesses yeah really I

1:28:30 ↗ you could start focusing on

1:28:32 ↗ business talking about access

1:28:35 ↗ availability Equity is a huge part right

1:28:38 ↗ now we're missing right now and how we

1:28:41 ↗ address our waste

1:28:43 ↗ generation okay so with that um does

1:28:49 ↗ with a a quick thumbs up or thumbs down

1:28:52 ↗ does the board think the city should um

1:28:56 ↗ move forward kind of considering a a

1:28:58 ↗ policy in line with the discussion not

1:29:00 ↗ necessarily the exact wording of a

1:29:03 ↗ proposed policy D6 but kind of in line

1:29:06 ↗ with um encouraging and supporting um

1:29:10 ↗ more of that um recycling composting

1:29:13 ↗ waste

1:29:20 ↗ reduction and you can and uh you can use

1:29:23 ↗ the thumbs up feature on teams if you

1:29:25 ↗ want so yep we're getting thumbs up

1:29:28 ↗ David excellent thank you um moving us

1:29:33 ↗ right along um we are jumping up to uh

1:29:37 ↗ proposed goal a um which is to inspire

1:29:41 ↗ climate action through Outreach advocacy

1:29:43 ↗ partnership building engagement and

1:29:45 ↗ incentives um so the initial staff uh

1:29:49 ↗ the initial thought we had on this was

1:29:51 ↗ that uh um we did try and incorporate

1:29:54 ↗ language related to um Outreach advocacy

1:29:59 ↗ partnership building engagement and

1:30:00 ↗ incentives uh throughout the different

1:30:02 ↗ pieces right within each of the the

1:30:05 ↗ different sections um instead of

1:30:08 ↗ necessarily having a a separate goal

1:30:11 ↗ related to it um my my thought would be

1:30:14 ↗ if we were to create a different goal we

1:30:17 ↗ we might want to pull some of those

1:30:19 ↗ policies out from those those other

1:30:21 ↗ sections so that they kind of live under

1:30:22 ↗ one goal and not um under um the

1:30:25 ↗ separate those separate goals Min or

1:30:27 ↗ Stephen I'm not sure if you have other

1:30:29 ↗ thoughts kind of on the creation of this

1:30:31 ↗ new goal area specifically around um

1:30:34 ↗ education and um

1:30:40 ↗ engagement seems to me um if I in um

1:30:44 ↗ it's not just for greenhous gas

1:30:46 ↗ production it's just an overall goal I

1:30:49 ↗ think the a lot of comments were on

1:30:51 ↗ education Outreach and all of that so

1:30:54 ↗ overall for the environment and climate

1:30:58 ↗ stewardship what kind of outre and

1:31:00 ↗ education all

1:31:01 ↗ that

1:31:03 ↗ topics as a simpal but TI to just one

1:31:11 ↗ thing as the author as a person who

1:31:14 ↗ worked on that goal it was really

1:31:16 ↗ intended to go above the greenhouse gas

1:31:19 ↗ emission I think when it got merged it

1:31:20 ↗ didn't necessarily get in the right

1:31:22 ↗ place happens at times but really to be

1:31:24 ↗ under climate action which is really

1:31:26 ↗ like the word inspired I think it's a

1:31:28 ↗ word that it's kind of a vision so I was

1:31:30 ↗ trying to get it so that we get people

1:31:33 ↗ to think about it differ and do some

1:31:34 ↗ Outreach but it really isn't just under

1:31:37 ↗ greenhouse gas it's about the whole

1:31:40 ↗ climate we're a we am I looking at the

1:31:44 ↗ right one yeah it was a um I think

1:31:48 ↗ that's that's s about chemical discharge

1:31:50 ↗ right

1:31:55 ↗ it's a proposed um new goal sorry the

1:31:59 ↗ green language up

1:32:01 ↗ here so so to just to clarify ncer is

1:32:05 ↗ the suggestion if it goes above that

1:32:06 ↗ kind of working it into the the um

1:32:10 ↗ initial narrative kind of um so that

1:32:12 ↗ it's applying to kind of all of the

1:32:15 ↗ different um goal areas within the

1:32:18 ↗ section well you know you're G to have a

1:32:19 ↗ description of climate action then you

1:32:22 ↗ have a an overall goal for all of the

1:32:25 ↗ greenhouse gas emission the whole thing

1:32:27 ↗ you have initial thing about natural

1:32:29 ↗ environment you have an overall goal of

1:32:31 ↗ what we're trying to achieve with the

1:32:32 ↗ natural environment whatever that is

1:32:34 ↗ that it overarches Wetlands Water

1:32:37 ↗ Resources trees everything else what are

1:32:39 ↗ we trying to do with the natural

1:32:40 ↗ environment and what are we trying to do

1:32:41 ↗ with cap climate action and kind of

1:32:43 ↗ everything kind of feeds into that does

1:32:46 ↗ that make sense

1:32:47 ↗ David I I think so yeah um I think I'm a

1:32:51 ↗ little clear on

1:32:53 ↗ that

1:32:56 ↗ PR um hi David um so yeah I means I

1:33:00 ↗ totally agree with this I do think this

1:33:02 ↗ needs to be you know the community

1:33:04 ↗ outreach and education needs to be a big

1:33:07 ↗ component a big policy I just had

1:33:10 ↗ something to add here where it says the

1:33:12 ↗ goal a Inspire climate action throughout

1:33:15 ↗ reach and you know further I don't think

1:33:18 ↗ it's just climate action you know I just

1:33:20 ↗ would like to add to what Nancy said and

1:33:22 ↗ I think it has to say Inspire climate

1:33:25 ↗ action and sustainable development

1:33:27 ↗ because everything else gets included

1:33:29 ↗ you know all the things we talk about

1:33:31 ↗ the environmental stewardship and you

1:33:33 ↗ know reducing Greenhouse G so these

1:33:35 ↗ climate action and sustainable

1:33:37 ↗ development are going to go hand in

1:33:40 ↗ together probably for climate action we

1:33:42 ↗ need to be a little bit more aggressive

1:33:44 ↗ sustainable development might be a few

1:33:46 ↗ steps behind it but still it goes

1:33:49 ↗ together so I do think somewhere that

1:33:51 ↗ that sustainable development need those

1:33:54 ↗ that wording needs to be added in the

1:33:58 ↗ policy okay that's it thank

1:34:02 ↗ you great I appreciate it and I I will

1:34:05 ↗ note um there is a section of

1:34:07 ↗ sustainable development within the land

1:34:09 ↗ use policy as well um so in the interest

1:34:13 ↗ of moving forward um can I do thumbs up

1:34:17 ↗ or thumbs down on on kind of the spirit

1:34:19 ↗ of this convers I'm sorry I miss Joy do

1:34:23 ↗ you mind if I change your thumbs up

1:34:24 ↗ thumbs down because I what I would say

1:34:25 ↗ is that I support this language and I

1:34:27 ↗ don't believe that we may be adequately

1:34:29 ↗ addressed it so far it might not belong

1:34:32 ↗ right here as a policy but similar to

1:34:34 ↗ what we just did I think can we give a

1:34:35 ↗ thumbs up or thumbs down on our

1:34:36 ↗ appreciation of wanting staff to put

1:34:39 ↗ this um intention in and better better

1:34:42 ↗ cover it it could we reframe that thumbs

1:34:45 ↗ up thumbs down for that yes that's

1:34:47 ↗ that's exactly how I was planning on

1:34:49 ↗ phras uh uh on framing it but I think

1:34:51 ↗ you did a a better job probably there so

1:34:53 ↗ kind of um thinking about uh in the

1:34:56 ↗ spirit of this conversation

1:34:58 ↗ incorporating kind of this this type of

1:34:59 ↗ language around um advocacy Outreach

1:35:02 ↗ engagement all of that kind of within uh

1:35:05 ↗ the framing of all the climate portion

1:35:08 ↗ and the environmental stewardship

1:35:09 ↗ portion so thumbs up thumbs down and

1:35:14 ↗ Stacy I'm relying on you got thumbs up

1:35:17 ↗ in the room and thumbs up on teams

1:35:22 ↗ excellent all right David just a time

1:35:26 ↗ check and so the board's aware we've got

1:35:28 ↗ about 15 minutes left for this section

1:35:30 ↗ um if it's okay with folks we're

1:35:32 ↗ planning to go about 10 minutes over so

1:35:35 ↗ we can do a brief debrief on the retreat

1:35:38 ↗ um if everyone's comfortable with that

1:35:40 ↗ going till about

1:35:42 ↗ 8:40 you're welcome to drop off early

1:35:45 ↗ too all right sorry David go ahead we

1:35:47 ↗ got about 15 minutes left no problem

1:35:50 ↗ let's scroll down to policy

1:35:53 ↗ a3a um which is to develop greenhouse

1:35:55 ↗ gas emissions reduction projects and

1:35:57 ↗ actions to inspire educate and

1:35:59 ↗ demonstrate action to the

1:36:01 ↗ community um I think the the thought we

1:36:05 ↗ had um internally was that this uh is

1:36:09 ↗ roughly covered by the existing policy

1:36:11 ↗ A3 which is uh to lead by um lead by

1:36:15 ↗ example to implement actions um to track

1:36:18 ↗ and um incorporate climate action within

1:36:22 ↗ our our Municipal efforts so um one or

1:36:26 ↗ two quick comments on that and then

1:36:28 ↗ we'll do our thumbs up and

1:36:32 ↗ down well if we take out Municipal

1:36:35 ↗ operations out of A3 I would agree with

1:36:37 ↗ that but right now you've got Municipal

1:36:38 ↗ operations so you've limited um where

1:36:42 ↗ you're trying to do it and so my thought

1:36:44 ↗ is that um if we want to focus on

1:36:47 ↗ Municipal operations that's a great

1:36:49 ↗ statement but if we want to talk about

1:36:50 ↗ something broader for the community

1:36:52 ↗ that's what the other

1:36:58 ↗ say okay so so projects that are not

1:37:02 ↗ that wouldn't then affect Municipal

1:37:04 ↗ operations but are

1:37:07 ↗ otherwise um supportive of

1:37:11 ↗ community greenhouse gas emissions

1:37:13 ↗ reductions yes and the thought I have is

1:37:17 ↗ we've got 20 years I don't know what's

1:37:20 ↗ going to happen in the next 20 years but

1:37:21 ↗ we don't want to just fix Municipal

1:37:23 ↗ operations we want to think broader and

1:37:25 ↗ if you look at the salmon hatchery

1:37:26 ↗ they've done a great job of moving their

1:37:28 ↗ things through through education adding

1:37:30 ↗ more and more and more what my thought

1:37:33 ↗ was this is if we're trying to do

1:37:35 ↗ climate change we need to do projects

1:37:36 ↗ and things that are not just Municipal

1:37:38 ↗ operations but are bigger bigger bigger

1:37:40 ↗ I don't know what that means right now

1:37:42 ↗ but I don't I think just focusing on mun

1:37:44 ↗ Municipal operations is too

1:37:47 ↗ small okay and with oh Don

1:37:51 ↗ as it's written I have a hard time with

1:37:53 ↗ it Nancy if it if it said you know

1:37:56 ↗ Inspire greenhouse gas emissions

1:37:58 ↗ reductions then I could agree with it

1:37:59 ↗ but the word develop screams to me that

1:38:02 ↗ the city's going to be spending Capital

1:38:04 ↗ funding or whatnot to build these things

1:38:07 ↗ and I'm not sure what these things

1:38:12 ↗ are we can take those comments into

1:38:14 ↗ consideration and see if we can come up

1:38:16 ↗ with some combined language yeah and

1:38:19 ↗ that's for all of this even if we decide

1:38:22 ↗ not to move forward a policy it doesn't

1:38:23 ↗ necessarily mean we're not going to

1:38:25 ↗ consider revisions to other policies

1:38:27 ↗ that capture the

1:38:28 ↗ intent okay

1:38:32 ↗ yeah I just wanted to ask what you had

1:38:34 ↗ in mind here oh sorry I just wanted to

1:38:38 ↗ ask what you had in mind here are you

1:38:40 ↗ talking about creating building out more

1:38:43 ↗ um solar projects all over town

1:38:47 ↗ or what what were your thoughts on this

1:38:51 ↗ what were the projects in someplace

1:38:54 ↗ where people can see them would be a

1:38:55 ↗ really cool idea it's not on top of the

1:38:57 ↗ building I think it would show people

1:38:59 ↗ that were actually doing some I think an

1:39:02 ↗ opportunity be more trucks that are um

1:39:05 ↗ are electric you know focusing on that

1:39:08 ↗ continuing to push um rology and those

1:39:11 ↗ to do more of that I mean it's just a

1:39:13 ↗ different way because those are not

1:39:15 ↗ necessarily Municipal

1:39:17 ↗ operations I um I agree with this

1:39:21 ↗ statement and um think that it's okay if

1:39:26 ↗ the city focuses more money in this area

1:39:31 ↗ I think is a good thing actually and

1:39:33 ↗ we're going to need

1:39:36 ↗ it in 20 years

1:39:39 ↗ um I think things might look a lot

1:39:41 ↗ different than they do now and so we're

1:39:43 ↗ going to want to be preparing as much as

1:39:46 ↗ possible it's a good good way for the

1:39:49 ↗ city to spend their money

1:39:52 ↗ okay um so thumbs up or thumbs down on

1:39:56 ↗ on uh continuing to explore kind of the

1:39:58 ↗ spirit of this

1:39:59 ↗ conversation um around inspiring and and

1:40:02 ↗ kind of exploring what other projects

1:40:04 ↗ outside of Municipal operations we can

1:40:07 ↗ uh would would include it

1:40:10 ↗ here thumbs up thumbs up in the room

1:40:12 ↗ thumbs up yeah

1:40:14 ↗ excellent um if you scroll down a little

1:40:17 ↗ bit there's policy

1:40:19 ↗ a uh no number um uh a policy adding a

1:40:24 ↗ policy related to incentives and other

1:40:27 ↗ benefits to encourage positive climate

1:40:30 ↗ actions um we felt uh staff thought uh

1:40:34 ↗ that this would fall within Pol existing

1:40:38 ↗ policy A7 related to advancing programs

1:40:40 ↗ and policies that achieve greenhouse gas

1:40:43 ↗ reduction

1:40:44 ↗ targets um and there is another handup

1:40:47 ↗ in the room I can't see actually who it

1:40:49 ↗ is but oh and sand I think that's up

1:40:52 ↗ from last time

1:40:55 ↗ um question um thoughts on this or any

1:40:59 ↗ one or two um responses to this policy

1:41:04 ↗ um before we do an a thumbs up or down

1:41:06 ↗ on whether or not we should uh pursue or

1:41:09 ↗ consider adding additional policies

1:41:11 ↗ related to incentives and other

1:41:14 ↗ benefits and which one are we looking at

1:41:17 ↗ David it it's that highlighted yellow

1:41:19 ↗ one add related

1:41:25 ↗ yeah yeah

1:41:27 ↗ um I think yeah like Nancy saying I

1:41:30 ↗ think that was my comment I mean and I

1:41:32 ↗ think part of the reason I said it was

1:41:34 ↗ that the word incentives I don't think

1:41:35 ↗ shows up anywhere within this section

1:41:38 ↗ and so that just seems like an important

1:41:42 ↗ commitment that um not just policy like

1:41:47 ↗ we talk about programs and policies but

1:41:48 ↗ we don't specifically call out the type

1:41:51 ↗ that we think will be necessary maybe

1:41:53 ↗ that is beyond the scope of what we want

1:41:54 ↗ to include here personally think that

1:41:57 ↗ incentives are going to be necessary

1:41:58 ↗ we're already doing it to an extent um

1:42:00 ↗ and it might be better to incorporate

1:42:02 ↗ that into A7 or something to that effect

1:42:05 ↗ but okay and and ra your hand I agree

1:42:10 ↗ with Jamie that we should use incentives

1:42:12 ↗ as much as possible all over the

1:42:16 ↗ place

1:42:19 ↗ okay it might work and the languaging of

1:42:22 ↗ A3 to develop incentivize greenhouse gas

1:42:25 ↗ emission reduction projects and actions

1:42:27 ↗ to inspire education

1:42:29 ↗ demonstr and then it could go on to talk

1:42:31 ↗ about residents or businesses maybe

1:42:34 ↗ maybe it works in another place with

1:42:36 ↗ some with extra with the right

1:42:39 ↗ words all right so thumbs up or down on

1:42:42 ↗ staff um exploring how to incorporate

1:42:45 ↗ more incentive language into existing

1:42:48 ↗ policies or into into this um SE

1:42:52 ↗ section thumbs up I'm seeing great

1:42:56 ↗ thumbs

1:42:57 ↗ up apologies for moving us along um and

1:43:02 ↗ being quick here but um let's move to EC

1:43:06 ↗ policy A8 which is right here still on

1:43:08 ↗ the

1:43:09 ↗ screen um so beginning to inventory and

1:43:12 ↗ assess opportunities for reducing

1:43:14 ↗ purposeful chemical discharge for the

1:43:16 ↗ purposes of our Watershed and Civic

1:43:19 ↗ Health um

1:43:21 ↗ so our staff response on this is that um

1:43:25 ↗ we might defer to and and pull in um

1:43:28 ↗ Public Works and some others to explore

1:43:30 ↗ this this policy probably does not

1:43:32 ↗ belong in this section of the um

1:43:35 ↗ environment element since this section

1:43:37 ↗ is specifically related to the

1:43:39 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions reductions um

1:43:42 ↗ and it as this policy proposed policy is

1:43:44 ↗ written um it's it's more around kind of

1:43:47 ↗ that protection of watershed so it might

1:43:49 ↗ belong more in that natural system

1:43:50 ↗ section or something along those lines

1:43:53 ↗ um and just for kind of that context

1:43:55 ↗ setting right we're focusing this

1:43:57 ↗ section on the greenhouse gas emissions

1:43:59 ↗ reduction um specifically in compliance

1:44:02 ↗ with HB 1181 which is um in uh is asking

1:44:06 ↗ um cities to build um those subelements

1:44:10 ↗ specifically about greenhouse gas

1:44:12 ↗ emissions

1:44:13 ↗ reduction so um we'll Loop in with

1:44:17 ↗ public works on that uh don do you have

1:44:19 ↗ a quick thought on this

1:44:21 ↗ uh just looking for a clarification from

1:44:23 ↗ the author Joy I think you proposed this

1:44:25 ↗ what do you mean by here as well

1:44:28 ↗ so

1:44:32 ↗ yeah what do we mean by purposeful

1:44:35 ↗ chemical

1:44:37 ↗ discharge thank you Don thank you

1:44:39 ↗ everybody uh what I wanted to do about

1:44:41 ↗ this is to kind of call into effect

1:44:42 ↗ about um the emissions that our city

1:44:45 ↗ does so right now we have a relative

1:44:48 ↗ black hole happening where we don't have

1:44:50 ↗ adequate reporting dating measurement of

1:44:53 ↗ the amount of chemicals that we're

1:44:54 ↗ actually dumping in our community right

1:44:57 ↗ Roundup is a great example of it so when

1:44:59 ↗ I say purposeful chemical discharge it's

1:45:01 ↗ hard to say chemicals because everything

1:45:03 ↗ a chemical um and it's to say what we're

1:45:05 ↗ intentionally dumping things that we

1:45:07 ↗ know to be for instance illegal to even

1:45:10 ↗ purchase in California things that we

1:45:12 ↗ know um we we put all this effort into

1:45:15 ↗ saying what is um naturalized plants

1:45:17 ↗ we're going to put in and then we're

1:45:18 ↗ going to put a perimeter of chemicals or

1:45:20 ↗ that um I think it's interesting to talk

1:45:23 ↗ about which department it's easy to call

1:45:24 ↗ it the parks department right because we

1:45:26 ↗ know that they're um huge contributors

1:45:29 ↗ because they're actually required by law

1:45:30 ↗ to put signs up around our community

1:45:32 ↗ that say hey you're at a park where

1:45:33 ↗ children are playing and we've recently

1:45:35 ↗ treated this with right uh so we uh it's

1:45:39 ↗ easy to call it the parks department but

1:45:40 ↗ we don't actually have visibility into

1:45:42 ↗ what other chemical discharge is

1:45:44 ↗ happening um within our within our other

1:45:47 ↗ departments and so being able to

1:45:49 ↗ actually um have an understanding and

1:45:52 ↗ visibility into that I think is what's

1:45:53 ↗ important so I put it here because I

1:45:55 ↗ think it's an admission um I don't mind

1:45:57 ↗ it moving out of this section but I

1:45:59 ↗ think that right now our chemical

1:46:00 ↗ discharge is something um Again by

1:46:02 ↗ purposeful it means that we're actively

1:46:04 ↗ choosing to put a harmful chemical into

1:46:06 ↗ our environment because it's easier for

1:46:09 ↗ us to do um than it is for instance like

1:46:11 ↗ the labor to process it in a more

1:46:14 ↗ environmental

1:46:17 ↗ way I would suggest the city look at

1:46:20 ↗ this in more detail and revisit in the

1:46:22 ↗ future and if it does go in it would go

1:46:24 ↗ in the Water Resources section um there

1:46:28 ↗ is a source control element in the storm

1:46:31 ↗ water permit currently that somewhat

1:46:33 ↗ addresses this but it's more on a

1:46:35 ↗ business siiz scale it's not the

1:46:37 ↗ residential scale of your Home Depot

1:46:39 ↗ Roundup user but I see where you're

1:46:41 ↗ going with it yeah it has Merit but I

1:46:43 ↗ just don't know how to cook this one

1:46:46 ↗ yet great um so thumbs up or down on the

1:46:51 ↗ city exploring this more likely

1:46:53 ↗ recognizing that it probably won't sit

1:46:55 ↗ in this piece but Pro if we were to

1:46:57 ↗ explore it more might sit in one more of

1:46:59 ↗ the natural environment

1:47:01 ↗ sections what's the just to make like

1:47:04 ↗ the what's

1:47:05 ↗ the what's the thing you're gonna could

1:47:07 ↗ you restate for us the sorry

1:47:10 ↗ yes more specific yes sorry uh looking

1:47:16 ↗ into um policy or into kind of wording

1:47:20 ↗ of a policy relating to um the steady

1:47:25 ↗ use of

1:47:26 ↗ chemicals um relating to our our

1:47:28 ↗ Watershed and Civic Health that capture

1:47:31 ↗ it a little

1:47:32 ↗ bit we'd share with the parks department

1:47:35 ↗ for their

1:47:38 ↗ yeah just for the city's use of

1:47:41 ↗ chemicals or is this Joy where you

1:47:43 ↗ trying to get more you know residential

1:47:45 ↗ use I think right now uh to begin we

1:47:48 ↗ need to have a full and accurate

1:47:50 ↗ accounting of what our city um

1:47:52 ↗ Administration is doing to be able to

1:47:54 ↗ then teach by example right we've seen

1:47:57 ↗ large scale um communities actually

1:47:59 ↗ Banning the sale of Roundup I think we's

1:48:01 ↗ so many steps from being able to even do

1:48:03 ↗ that in our community um that we need to

1:48:05 ↗ actually start with you know at home and

1:48:07 ↗ being able to say how do we in a more um

1:48:10 ↗ in a in in a more uh green and blue

1:48:14 ↗ friendly way are we actually um treating

1:48:16 ↗ and using our

1:48:18 ↗ spaces than really really fast uh I'm

1:48:22 ↗ just looking at Gold D and it seems like

1:48:24 ↗ this would actually belong there it's

1:48:26 ↗ consumption and disposal of goods and

1:48:29 ↗ materials F4 seems the post okay I think

1:48:33 ↗ I think Don might had

1:48:44 ↗ it David I'll just jump in here so we're

1:48:47 ↗ um just about out of time I think

1:48:49 ↗ there's one additional one we want to

1:48:51 ↗ just raise with the board um for an

1:48:53 ↗ understanding of why it may not be able

1:48:56 ↗ to move forward but want to have a brief

1:48:58 ↗ discussion and then the rest of these

1:49:00 ↗ items um I'll just mention quickly David

1:49:03 ↗ can follow up on this is we'll continue

1:49:05 ↗ reviewing the additional policies that

1:49:07 ↗ were proposed and sharing them with in

1:49:09 ↗ some cases other um departments that

1:49:12 ↗ would more be the lead for further

1:49:14 ↗ discussion um as mentioned earlier

1:49:16 ↗ there's a lot we didn't get through so

1:49:18 ↗ we'll be providing some responses um and

1:49:22 ↗ justification for why things did or did

1:49:25 ↗ not advance so that the board sees that

1:49:27 ↗ and can bring back for discussion in the

1:49:28 ↗ future as needed um David can follow up

1:49:32 ↗ on that or correct any of that in a

1:49:34 ↗ minute but David do you want to move to

1:49:35 ↗ be8 I think that'd be a good one to

1:49:39 ↗ yes yeah so just touching uh for the

1:49:42 ↗ last one on on uh policy B8 um so update

1:49:46 ↗ building codes to disallow the use of

1:49:48 ↗ natural gas in all new residential and

1:49:50 ↗ commercial

1:49:51 ↗ construction um and we wanted to note

1:49:54 ↗ that um uh we would need to discuss this

1:49:58 ↗ with um our legal team uh especially in

1:50:02 ↗ light of the Berkeley decision um out of

1:50:05 ↗ California which um called into question

1:50:07 ↗ the ability of State uh of of City uh

1:50:10 ↗ governments to be able to to do things

1:50:12 ↗ like this um and so we are open or we

1:50:17 ↗ can have a conversation around it um but

1:50:20 ↗ there is right now a lot of these

1:50:22 ↗ ongoing legal discussions on whether or

1:50:25 ↗ not um cities can have pieces like this

1:50:30 ↗ in here I think the other thing that um

1:50:32 ↗ we would mention is that um you know

1:50:35 ↗ there are the new state building codes

1:50:37 ↗ that are being adopted so that's um and

1:50:40 ↗ that um for the most part removes

1:50:43 ↗ natural gas from new construction

1:50:45 ↗ although there are definitely still

1:50:47 ↗ exemptions within there so that's kind

1:50:49 ↗ of noting that there's there's stuff

1:50:50 ↗ happening at the state level and also

1:50:53 ↗ there's um kind of the legal questions

1:50:55 ↗ uh on on whether or not we can proceed

1:50:57 ↗ at the city

1:51:00 ↗ level thoughts from uh any board members

1:51:03 ↗ on

1:51:05 ↗ that uh the Berkeley decision is very

1:51:07 ↗ interesting because it conflicts with um

1:51:09 ↗ current law that's come out of Colorado

1:51:11 ↗ where they've actually supported this

1:51:12 ↗ there's several communities that have

1:51:13 ↗ done this um when we were having

1:51:16 ↗ discussions uh in PPC over the years

1:51:18 ↗ about this um the Administration was

1:51:20 ↗ very clear that we did not have policies

1:51:22 ↗ that supported this and it wasn't going

1:51:24 ↗ to be pursued uh because of a lack of

1:51:27 ↗ support within our policy so I think

1:51:29 ↗ it's an interesting point for us to talk

1:51:31 ↗ about and it's something that we believe

1:51:33 ↗ that should be supported so that the

1:51:34 ↗ code can then reflect that um as

1:51:38 ↗ residents have really said that they'd

1:51:39 ↗ like to lead on this issue and when we

1:51:40 ↗ look at for instance policy B3 about you

1:51:43 ↗ know reducing Foss use in in existing

1:51:46 ↗ buildings the best way to do it is to

1:51:47 ↗ not build them into our to our new

1:51:50 ↗ construction uh so it's uh it's an idea

1:51:54 ↗ that has been very successful in other

1:51:56 ↗ places around the country that's I

1:51:58 ↗ think yeah you know it's an involving

1:52:02 ↗ thing in terms of legal concerns um

1:52:05 ↗ there's the dust hasn't settled them

1:52:07 ↗ back the building code update that's

1:52:10 ↗ upcoming uh some of the outcomes from

1:52:13 ↗ those energy the new energy code are the

1:52:16 ↗ same it doesn't come out and say this is

1:52:19 ↗ bad by the way you have to get your

1:52:21 ↗ credits and all that it's the market is

1:52:23 ↗ going to deliver some

1:52:25 ↗ things na doesn't make sense you can't

1:52:29 ↗ you know so so I think that the

1:52:30 ↗ technology is changing this is looking

1:52:32 ↗ 20 years ahead with with the legal

1:52:35 ↗ landscape still out there it makes sense

1:52:38 ↗ to not focus our energy when the you

1:52:41 ↗ know if if you put the Hat on like

1:52:43 ↗ what's the outcome of this for the

1:52:45 ↗ environment perhaps this let let the

1:52:47 ↗ building could handle um the new

1:52:49 ↗ construction side of it um and then on

1:52:53 ↗ the sustainable development I think on

1:52:56 ↗ the landing section you already have

1:52:57 ↗ some of those things in in terms of

1:53:00 ↗ incentivizing and there too I think what

1:53:02 ↗ the developers tell us is they can get

1:53:04 ↗ better funding if it is sustainable they

1:53:07 ↗ get two basis points lower if they are

1:53:10 ↗ doing sustainable development so some of

1:53:12 ↗ that is already

1:53:15 ↗ incentivized as well

1:53:17 ↗ so that's why I think the discussion was

1:53:19 ↗ to given all the other things that

1:53:22 ↗ perhaps not take this disc yeah we did

1:53:26 ↗ talk with the board about a policy

1:53:28 ↗ that's in the landu section um that we

1:53:31 ↗ pulled from Redmond we don't have it in

1:53:34 ↗ front of us tonight because it does it

1:53:35 ↗ in that section we'll see it again in

1:53:37 ↗ April I can't remember the exact wording

1:53:40 ↗ of it David but it's

1:53:42 ↗ definitely a discouragement or around

1:53:45 ↗ new natural gas connection something

1:53:47 ↗ like that but I think we'll look at that

1:53:50 ↗ language we can also see if there's a

1:53:52 ↗ way to strengthen it knowing that this

1:53:55 ↗ is the direction we want to head and I'm

1:53:57 ↗ assuming many board members feel

1:53:59 ↗ strongly about this um definitely let us

1:54:01 ↗ know if not but we can see um what that

1:54:04 ↗ language looks like in the land use

1:54:06 ↗ element and where there might be

1:54:08 ↗ opportunities to strengthen it it might

1:54:10 ↗ be in utilities I can't quite remember

1:54:12 ↗ where it yeah I think you're correct I

1:54:13 ↗ think that's

1:54:15 ↗ right find it though one comment on that

1:54:18 ↗ we could look at B6 strengthening

1:54:21 ↗ B6 if this if we can't say what this one

1:54:25 ↗ says which I I understand B6 is not very

1:54:28 ↗ strong right now it's basically we're on

1:54:30 ↗ track to meet State goals it's not

1:54:32 ↗ saying we're doing anything to try to go

1:54:33 ↗ beyond or really lead on this so I think

1:54:36 ↗ there's opportunity there to look at

1:54:38 ↗ strengthening that to whatever we feel

1:54:40 ↗ comfortable doing if if that addition

1:54:43 ↗ isn't is it possible okay that's a good

1:54:47 ↗ suggestion yeah we'll look at all those

1:54:49 ↗ ideas and come back with some

1:54:53 ↗ proposals all right David do you want to

1:54:55 ↗ close us out of this SE so last comment

1:54:57 ↗ last word from an and then we'll have

1:54:59 ↗ David close us out of the

1:55:01 ↗ second thank you Stacy so uh I've got a

1:55:05 ↗ question in transportation in um EC

1:55:08 ↗ policy C1 says achieve 50% single

1:55:12 ↗ occupancy vehicle mode share by

1:55:15 ↗ 2030 is that for isqua residents or

1:55:20 ↗ um what who is that for what is

1:55:25 ↗ the yeah so that um that's essentially

1:55:29 ↗ actually just a a slight rewarding of

1:55:32 ↗ the one of the IAP policies based on um

1:55:36 ↗ conversations with our transportation

1:55:38 ↗ planning team

1:55:40 ↗ um since uh I think it was a little bit

1:55:43 ↗ confusing the way it had been originally

1:55:45 ↗ written and um uh the suggestion was to

1:55:48 ↗ kind of choose as as as far out goals as

1:55:50 ↗ we could um so I believe that's

1:55:56 ↗ Community um single occupancy vehicle

1:55:59 ↗ mode share so that would be um Stephen

1:56:04 ↗ as correct me if I'm wrong but I think

1:56:06 ↗ that would probably be um more

1:56:09 ↗ Geographic based than just Community

1:56:11 ↗ just

1:56:12 ↗ residents correct yeah it's it's to the

1:56:15 ↗ ISA Community but it it uses metrics

1:56:18 ↗ from businesses as as well as uh travel

1:56:21 ↗ behavior that we're able to track okay

1:56:24 ↗ but it's not for just people driving

1:56:26 ↗ through a

1:56:27 ↗ squa it's for businesses and

1:56:31 ↗ residents corre right do you think there

1:56:35 ↗ should be some wording in there to

1:56:38 ↗ clarify

1:56:42 ↗ that um we can look into that and

1:56:47 ↗ awesome uh uh consider that and that I

1:56:50 ↗ might turn that over to that question

1:56:52 ↗ over to um some of the transportation

1:56:54 ↗ planners so just like we'll pull in

1:56:56 ↗ public works folks and Parks folks to

1:56:58 ↗ kind of review some more of the

1:56:59 ↗ suggestions we'll um bring that up with

1:57:01 ↗ the transportation planners as well

1:57:04 ↗ great

1:57:10 ↗ thanks okay um with that we're we're

1:57:13 ↗ about out of time thank you all for your

1:57:15 ↗ comments and feedback here I think we

1:57:17 ↗ have a lot to to run with here and and

1:57:19 ↗ move forward with um we will be diving

1:57:24 ↗ back into the comp plan and making edits

1:57:26 ↗ and updates um based on the feedback

1:57:28 ↗ today so we definitely appreciate it and

1:57:30 ↗ um we'll make sure that we are uh

1:57:33 ↗ reporting out and making uh ensuring

1:57:35 ↗ that uh board members can see where

1:57:39 ↗ y'all's input is is really um uh seen in

1:57:44 ↗ the in the updates to the the

1:57:45 ↗ comprehensive plan so with that I think

1:57:48 ↗ um

1:57:50 ↗ we'll we'll close out this portion of

1:57:52 ↗ the the meeting

1:57:55 ↗ tonight thank you David Denny and

1:57:58 ↗ Stephen as well for being here for this

1:58:00 ↗ topic um I think with that we can move

1:58:02 ↗ on to reports great um so next items we

1:58:07 ↗ wanted to cover and I promised you 10

1:58:08 ↗ minutes over you may go a few minutes

1:58:11 ↗ over that um we wanted to do just a real

1:58:14 ↗ quick debrief on the retreat and then I

1:58:15 ↗ just have a couple very brief updates um

1:58:20 ↗ so in terms of the retreat I just really

1:58:23 ↗ wanted to thank you all for your

1:58:25 ↗ participation I think our original

1:58:27 ↗ intent of the retreat was to have a lot

1:58:29 ↗ more time for the board to speak um we

1:58:32 ↗ had a lot of time set aside for breakout

1:58:34 ↗ groups um but we did feel it was very

1:58:37 ↗ important to do the context setting that

1:58:39 ↗ the and talk about the foundational

1:58:41 ↗ documents so folks had an understanding

1:58:43 ↗ of kind of what the board is working

1:58:46 ↗ within um the priorities that the

1:58:48 ↗ community has set and within which

1:58:50 ↗ documents those sit um but do

1:58:53 ↗ acknowledge that we didn't have as much

1:58:55 ↗ time as anticipated for board members um

1:58:58 ↗ to talk to one another in the breakout

1:59:00 ↗ group so um Jamie and Don and I met last

1:59:04 ↗ night talked a little bit about kind of

1:59:06 ↗ our next steps ensure we can continue

1:59:08 ↗ that conversation so I'll hand it over

1:59:10 ↗ to them maybe just to highlight a few of

1:59:12 ↗ the major takeaways that we had from The

1:59:15 ↗ Retreat and then wanted to open up for

1:59:17 ↗ folks to um share Reflections um on the

1:59:21 ↗ retreat really quickly and then we'll

1:59:22 ↗ talk about next steps So Jamie Don you

1:59:25 ↗ want to share anything yeah thanks

1:59:26 ↗ Stacey um I would just Echo some of

1:59:28 ↗ what's I mean I think we all know that

1:59:30 ↗ we felt we didn't have enough time that

1:59:32 ↗ we wish we could have had more time to

1:59:34 ↗ to speak about this I think from my

1:59:37 ↗ perspective it's one thing to have a

1:59:39 ↗ list of priorities it's another to know

1:59:41 ↗ where you need to make sure you get

1:59:43 ↗ those priorities having a process and a

1:59:44 ↗ system to ensure that happens all the

1:59:46 ↗ time so um I think we started a lot of

1:59:51 ↗ that context that we got helped us start

1:59:53 ↗ to understand at least me to understand

1:59:55 ↗ where we might need to inject those

1:59:58 ↗ priorities once we have them and I think

1:59:59 ↗ there's no doubt that we we want to get

2:00:02 ↗ to that point um of of also having the

2:00:04 ↗ conversation about about priorities um

2:00:07 ↗ but yeah so that I think yeah we we

2:00:09 ↗ would have loved to have more time to

2:00:10 ↗ speak but really we'll have more time

2:00:13 ↗ we're going to make sure that that

2:00:14 ↗ happens so that we can have those

2:00:16 ↗ conversations um but also would just

2:00:19 ↗ encourage everyone to think back on that

2:00:21 ↗ the context setting and some of what was

2:00:24 ↗ not just from staff but also from from

2:00:27 ↗ council members and from other comments

2:00:29 ↗ that were made about where okay we have

2:00:32 ↗ a list of priorities or whatever it

2:00:34 ↗ might be how do we make sure that that

2:00:36 ↗ gets communicated out how do we ensure

2:00:37 ↗ that council members and whoever else we

2:00:39 ↗ might want to on the CP that they are

2:00:42 ↗ aware and clear on what our priorities

2:00:44 ↗ are so I think that's that's likely at

2:00:48 ↗ least part of the agenda for what we'll

2:00:50 ↗ cover during this next section um Don

2:00:53 ↗ anything to add on to that or different

2:00:56 ↗ than

2:01:03 ↗ that sorry button wasn't working um no I

2:01:07 ↗ think you pretty much caught it I mean

2:01:09 ↗ at a high level I think everybody felt a

2:01:10 ↗ little bit short changed during that um

2:01:14 ↗ in in having an opportunity to speak

2:01:16 ↗ about the priorities I know that you

2:01:18 ↗ know we only had what half hour of the

2:01:19 ↗ discussion there I would have liked to

2:01:20 ↗ see more like an hour um we did have to

2:01:23 ↗ do some prefacing up front and I thought

2:01:25 ↗ that was good thinking back on it it was

2:01:27 ↗ good to hear from Council Members good

2:01:28 ↗ to hear from the mayor get their

2:01:30 ↗ perspectives on on how we're how our

2:01:33 ↗ board aligns with theirs um we probably

2:01:36 ↗ could have made it another hour longer

2:01:39 ↗ and got more out of it um so I think it

2:01:42 ↗ it's worthy of some greater discussion

2:01:45 ↗ um we don't know exactly how we want to

2:01:47 ↗ do that yet but start thinking through

2:01:52 ↗ that and we have talked about there's a

2:01:55 ↗ few options that we're considering for

2:01:58 ↗ um when we're actually going to follow

2:02:00 ↗ up on this and obviously we want to do

2:02:01 ↗ it soon and make sure that that's

2:02:03 ↗ getting incorporated into it's a work

2:02:05 ↗ plan and everything else that we're

2:02:06 ↗ doing this year so we're still working

2:02:09 ↗ there's a lot of moving pieces we've had

2:02:11 ↗ a lot of meetings that you all uh stuck

2:02:15 ↗ with us through so um we're working on

2:02:18 ↗ finding schedule

2:02:19 ↗ a time a spot in the schedule to do that

2:02:22 ↗ um and making sure that we can finish

2:02:24 ↗ that conversation so

2:02:27 ↗ still we we'll come back to you with

2:02:29 ↗ more of those details I think part of

2:02:31 ↗ the feedback that would be really

2:02:32 ↗ helpful is if there's anything um

2:02:35 ↗ obviously observations or other things

2:02:37 ↗ that um that you all had from the from

2:02:41 ↗ the retreat try to limit the we didn't

2:02:43 ↗ have enough time I think we all know

2:02:44 ↗ that so don't need to be a dead horse

2:02:46 ↗ but I think if there's anything during

2:02:48 ↗ that next agenda that we should be

2:02:50 ↗ thinking about you feel like would be

2:02:52 ↗ valuable that's that would be super

2:02:53 ↗ helpful feedback for us to make sure we

2:02:55 ↗ incorporate back on what what we want to

2:02:58 ↗ cover how we want to cover

2:03:01 ↗ that's yeah I think that's all we had so

2:03:05 ↗ would love any CS or questions or

2:03:07 ↗ whatever from the board um I felt I

2:03:12 ↗ think going into it uh I thought we were

2:03:14 ↗ going to talk about priorities and

2:03:16 ↗ actually what we talked about was I

2:03:19 ↗ think also very important because um we

2:03:22 ↗ we in order to be effective we needed to

2:03:24 ↗ understand their the budget process and

2:03:26 ↗ when they talk about that how we make

2:03:28 ↗ sure they hear what we have to say

2:03:29 ↗ because this is really something we need

2:03:31 ↗ to do every year sounds like based on

2:03:33 ↗ what we heard from them so I thought you

2:03:35 ↗ know it was helpful that a priority

2:03:38 ↗ meeting would take us way longer than

2:03:42 ↗ even what we would have had at The

2:03:43 ↗ Retreat so I feel like um getting to a

2:03:46 ↗ place where we can talk about how to be

2:03:47 ↗ effective when we have conversations

2:03:48 ↗ about a prior which is I think where

2:03:49 ↗ we're going is is actually really

2:03:51 ↗ helpful even though it feels like a much

2:03:53 ↗ more longer drawn out process so and I

2:03:56 ↗ it connected a lot of dots for me just

2:03:58 ↗ even understanding who gets what

2:04:01 ↗ information and where it goes and it was

2:04:03 ↗ nice to have of that visual I'm glad

2:04:05 ↗ there were people that came that um you

2:04:08 ↗ know that see the stuff that we said

2:04:10 ↗ that was helpful so I mean I found it to

2:04:12 ↗ be helpful and I feel like going forward

2:04:16 ↗ it will make us more effective

2:04:22 ↗ the

2:04:25 ↗ other uh I was impressed uh that the

2:04:29 ↗ city uh wanted to allocate the time for

2:04:32 ↗ the board to have a retreat I would

2:04:34 ↗ encourage that not only to continue from

2:04:37 ↗ the environmental board but from all of

2:04:39 ↗ our boards and commissions uh and I

2:04:41 ↗ would say that we didn't actually

2:04:44 ↗ achieve the objectives that were set for

2:04:46 ↗ it um and so being able ble to have an

2:04:49 ↗ opportunity to better understand uh

2:04:51 ↗ board members U perspectives um was was

2:04:55 ↗ a missed opportunity um I think still

2:04:58 ↗ needs to be addressed and I'm not sure

2:04:59 ↗ how the city wants to do that but I

2:05:00 ↗ would say that a discussion like we had

2:05:02 ↗ tonight when we're trying to introduce

2:05:04 ↗ something into the comp plan and talk

2:05:06 ↗ about policies overarch policies for the

2:05:09 ↗ cities would have actually been gone

2:05:11 ↗ much better if we had had the

2:05:13 ↗ opportunity to be discussing with each

2:05:14 ↗ other where we want to see and where

2:05:17 ↗ we're missing those opportunities

2:05:19 ↗ currently and where the board should be

2:05:20 ↗ advocating for other things and that was

2:05:22 ↗ just totally missed and I think still is

2:05:25 ↗ needing to be

2:05:28 ↗ addressed

2:05:31 ↗ Nancy so I'm not really gonna talk about

2:05:34 ↗ specifics but I think there were some

2:05:36 ↗ interesting takeaways that this Bo

2:05:39 ↗ meaning and that is hearing council's

2:05:41 ↗ perspectives on what they want to hear

2:05:43 ↗ from us and how they want to hear it

2:05:46 ↗ from us in timing want so it came across

2:05:49 ↗ to me that if we want to influence

2:05:51 ↗ budgets such as trying to get another

2:05:53 ↗ staff person to work on sustainability

2:05:55 ↗ if that's our goal or someone who work

2:05:57 ↗ on natural environment or whatever um we

2:06:01 ↗ need to do it not just in our board

2:06:03 ↗ reports but we need to find a better way

2:06:04 ↗ to communicate that to council and so

2:06:07 ↗ that would be kind of identifying our

2:06:08 ↗ priorities and putting that in front of

2:06:10 ↗ Council in time for a budget cycle so

2:06:12 ↗ that we can actually influence the

2:06:14 ↗ budget the capital program to make a

2:06:16 ↗ difference and that message I guess I

2:06:20 ↗ though I probably knew it I never had

2:06:21 ↗ thought it through and so hearing that

2:06:23 ↗ from Council really meant that we needed

2:06:25 ↗ time and Rie our board report or our

2:06:29 ↗ reports to the board in a way that

2:06:31 ↗ communicates that kind of

2:06:33 ↗ information and I think that was a

2:06:35 ↗ takeaway I didn't expect to get but I

2:06:43 ↗ got I agree with

2:06:47 ↗ Nancy

2:06:52 ↗ any other

2:06:56 ↗ comments I'll just add on to ny's so if

2:06:59 ↗ we want to influence the budget for the

2:07:00 ↗ next budget cycle which is 2526 we have

2:07:03 ↗ to do it now um because it's going

2:07:06 ↗ through the process now and they have to

2:07:09 ↗ adopt it by the end of this year I think

2:07:12 ↗ it's middle of December um and typically

2:07:16 ↗ at least where I work um it's all pretty

2:07:19 ↗ much finalized by come fall and it's

2:07:22 ↗ just waiting to go to council so and

2:07:25 ↗ it's a two-year budget process yeah

2:07:30 ↗ changing that's true yeah B is a little

2:07:32 ↗ ahead um our budget staff are still

2:07:35 ↗ doing forecasting so we'll really start

2:07:38 ↗ um David and I'll be meeting in a few

2:07:40 ↗ weeks to start drafting out kind of our

2:07:43 ↗ budget needs um but that'll definitely

2:07:45 ↗ pick up this spring and we'll be that

2:07:48 ↗ was one of my major takeaways was making

2:07:50 ↗ sure we're really engaging the board in

2:07:52 ↗ that process and getting your input so

2:07:56 ↗ because there's a lot of commonality

2:07:57 ↗ that came out of the survey and so as we

2:08:00 ↗ redirected our time we found that and at

2:08:02 ↗ least in our work group we're talking

2:08:04 ↗ there was a way to really say okay how

2:08:06 ↗ do we take this consensus that we're

2:08:08 ↗ kind of seeing about how we want to make

2:08:09 ↗ an impact and be able to shift that so

2:08:12 ↗ that we're not Gathering that during a

2:08:13 ↗ holiday cycle we're not Gathering that

2:08:15 ↗ after budgeting cycle how do we maybe

2:08:18 ↗ realign we take that there's been a

2:08:20 ↗ positive from having there be a

2:08:22 ↗ requirement of this board be doing a

2:08:24 ↗ self assessment how do we take that and

2:08:26 ↗ be able to actually do something

2:08:28 ↗ measurable with

2:08:33 ↗ it great well appreciate all the

2:08:36 ↗ feedback um and like I said we'll follow

2:08:39 ↗ up with more

2:08:41 ↗ details shortly we have that so um I

2:08:47 ↗ think uh Stacey you might have had a a

2:08:48 ↗ couple other Qui items yes that's okay

2:08:51 ↗ all right um great just a couple

2:08:53 ↗ highlights I wanted to mention um uh

2:08:57 ↗ David's going to be sending you all the

2:08:58 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory rout data by

2:09:01 ↗ the end of the week um there were some

2:09:03 ↗ updates that were just made to it

2:09:05 ↗ because of new data coming in um so

2:09:07 ↗ you'll be getting a SharePoint link I

2:09:10 ↗ believe um before the end of the week to

2:09:12 ↗ the

2:09:13 ↗ files um and then just a few other

2:09:16 ↗ programmatic updates um we are

2:09:19 ↗ restarting the Energy Smart Eastside

2:09:21 ↗ heat pump webinars promoting new re

2:09:23 ↗ rebates and incentives from psse and the

2:09:26 ↗ federal government there was actually a

2:09:27 ↗ webinar um tonight on that so we'll

2:09:30 ↗ you'll start to see more communication

2:09:32 ↗ out to the public around those

2:09:34 ↗ webinars um our clean buildings program

2:09:37 ↗ we've been doing a lot of focused

2:09:39 ↗ Outreach to uh building owners this

2:09:42 ↗ month um including um some affordable

2:09:45 ↗ housing providers um ywc

2:09:49 ↗ um and some big property managers um so

2:09:52 ↗ hoping to uh build in some more Partners

2:09:55 ↗ within that program this spring um we're

2:09:58 ↗ also starting to work really closely

2:09:59 ↗ with Belle who have a program as well to

2:10:02 ↗ coordinate make the most of the webinars

2:10:04 ↗ that we're offering um through that

2:10:06 ↗ program sustainable purchasing policy it

2:10:09 ↗ is currently under senior leadership

2:10:11 ↗ review um we'll be meeting Tuesday I

2:10:15 ↗ think is that right David to see if they

2:10:17 ↗ have any final concerns but we're

2:10:20 ↗ expecting that will um move through for

2:10:24 ↗ um internal um implementation uh in

2:10:28 ↗ early February following the mayor

2:10:31 ↗ signature um David and I uh we're just

2:10:35 ↗ at an all day Fleet

2:10:36 ↗ decarbonization um training uh David and

2:10:40 ↗ our fleet manager are going to be

2:10:41 ↗ participating in a 12we um cohort uh to

2:10:44 ↗ really accelerate our Fleet transition

2:10:47 ↗ um and David and I were just talking

2:10:49 ↗ about today at the end of that process

2:10:51 ↗ providing a report out to the board so

2:10:53 ↗ you can understand what we um go through

2:10:56 ↗ in terms of that process with the cohort

2:10:58 ↗ and what our next steps will be for

2:11:01 ↗ implementation um Community solar

2:11:03 ↗ project at the community center is

2:11:05 ↗ moving along uh we are in the process of

2:11:09 ↗ finalizing lease negotiations with Puget

2:11:12 ↗ Sound Energy um as well as the final

2:11:16 ↗ design um we'll provide more information

2:11:18 ↗ on that project to the board in the

2:11:20 ↗ coming months um as that project gets

2:11:23 ↗ ready to move

2:11:24 ↗ forward um and then just wanted to

2:11:26 ↗ highlight to a lot of work David's been

2:11:28 ↗ doing with psse on um in moving forward

2:11:32 ↗ with installing EV chargers at our

2:11:34 ↗ Public Works building um we're starting

2:11:37 ↗ to explore opportunities for other

2:11:39 ↗ facilities and then we were also just

2:11:41 ↗ invited in as a partner um for their

2:11:45 ↗ pilot program for curbside charging this

2:11:48 ↗ is is something that's been um Seattle

2:11:50 ↗ City Lights been um uh implementing

2:11:54 ↗ throughout Seattle but these are

2:11:55 ↗ essentially Chargers that are on light

2:11:58 ↗ poles or utility poles um more

2:12:00 ↗ accessible for those that maybe can't

2:12:02 ↗ plug into a garage at at night or live

2:12:04 ↗ in a multif family um building and need

2:12:07 ↗ charging access so PSC is just piloting

2:12:09 ↗ a program on that this year and um to be

2:12:13 ↗ one of the first partners with them um

2:12:16 ↗ and then also hoping that in the next

2:12:18 ↗ few weeks we'll have some good news on

2:12:20 ↗ grants um we've been waiting to hear on

2:12:22 ↗ a large Commerce evb charging Grant um

2:12:25 ↗ for some new infrastructure as well as a

2:12:27 ↗ large climate planning Grant to help

2:12:30 ↗ move a lot of our projects along so a

2:12:32 ↗ lot happening on multiple fronts um we

2:12:36 ↗ hope to keep you better updated on all

2:12:38 ↗ those projects and programs um at the

2:12:40 ↗ coming meetings last thing I wanted to

2:12:42 ↗ acknowledge is Kathleen's last day with

2:12:44 ↗ us is Friday so please uh thank her for

2:12:48 ↗ her time with us and all that she's done

2:12:50 ↗ um on your way out

2:12:53 ↗ tonight thank you Stacy and thank you

2:12:56 ↗ kathle um I think with that um we are AJ

2:13:00 ↗ thanks

2:13:03 ↗ everyone thanks

2:13:05 ↗ Don David thank you

2:13:09 ↗ everyone thanks everyone thank you

2:13:11 ↗ kathin good luck yes

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF