Environmental Board · Wednesday, August 14, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of July 10, 2024

5 min · packet pp.3–4

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 07-10-24 Environmental Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. July 10, 2024 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Draft Urban Forest Management Plan

45 min · Dan Hintz, Urban Forest Supervisor Chris Peiffer, Consultant, PlanITGeo · packet pp.5–143

Topics: Trees

Previously discussed: Park Board · Jun 24, 2024

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Parks & Community Services P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

Draft Comprehensive Plan

Discussion · 60 min · Stephen Padua, Planning Manager · packet pp.145–177

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Environmental Board · Mar 29, 2024

Open packet at p.145 ↗

Staff report:

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

5. REPORTS

Natural Environment Checklist

packet pp.179–180

Open packet at p.179 ↗

Staff report:

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

Youth Report

5 min

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Environmental Board Workplan

packet pp.181–185

Open packet at p.181 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVED: 3/13/2024 REVISED: 8/7/2024

3153 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ right welcome uh this is the August 14th

0:10 ↗ that correct August 14th meeting of the

0:12 ↗ ISA environmental board I'm Don mcams

0:15 ↗ I'll be chairing tonight's meeting due

0:17 ↗ to the hybrid format of today's meeting

0:19 ↗ I'd like to start by providing some

0:20 ↗ guidelines we have participants in the

0:23 ↗ room as well as those attending

0:24 ↗ virtually for all meeting attendees

0:26 ↗ please speak clearly and pause

0:28 ↗ frequently state your name each time

0:30 ↗ before speaking for those in the room

0:32 ↗ please raise your name card to indicate

0:34 ↗ an interest to speak for those attending

0:36 ↗ virtually mute your microphone when not

0:38 ↗ speaking and we'll call on you when

0:40 ↗ you're ready to speak if you're having

0:42 ↗ technical issues try joining the meeting

0:43 ↗ using a different device smartphone or

0:45 ↗ tablet or use the Callin information to

0:48 ↗ meeting invite to call in board members

0:51 ↗ attending virtually please uh to

0:53 ↗ indicate your desire to speak send a

0:55 ↗ chat and type question or comment or you

0:57 ↗ can raise your hand virtually and

0:59 ↗ watching for it and wait to be

1:01 ↗ acknowledged um we will summarize

1:02 ↗ agreement around recommendations at the

1:04 ↗ end of each toet and note if there's

1:06 ↗ dissent Stacy can we go through

1:09 ↗ attendance H Tom Anderson here Davidson

1:14 ↗ here Jamie Finch here Raj Ki here K pan

1:19 ↗ here Nina June has an excused absence

1:22 ↗ Don McWilliams here dixy bear has an

1:25 ↗ excused absence Alex Lee tigner has an

1:28 ↗ excused absence and newon has an excused

1:31 ↗ absence

1:33 ↗ Gonzalez

1:35 ↗ here and John Smith here and Keith and

1:39 ↗ John will be sitting in his regular MERS

1:41 ↗ tonight

1:43 ↗ and I understand we have somebody that

1:46 ↗ would like to speak

1:49 ↗ online Hy you can unmute and go ahead

1:53 ↗ and make your

1:54 ↗ comments sorry do you have more public

1:58 ↗ comment okay

2:01 ↗ yeah go ahead

2:03 ↗ Connie

2:05 ↗ okay yes no yes no yes I am uh making

2:09 ↗ public comment and because I grind

2:13 ↗ through all of these reports in great

2:14 ↗ detail I went up level and I sent you

2:17 ↗ all the City Vision which I don't know

2:20 ↗ that you've actually seen the City

2:22 ↗ Vision much and what struck me at the

2:24 ↗ end of that Vision was passion for the

2:27 ↗ environment and as I read through the

2:30 ↗ uh Urban Forest management plan and then

2:33 ↗ yet again cruising through the

2:35 ↗ comprehensive plan uh you know I

2:39 ↗ actually didn't feel passion for the

2:41 ↗ environment there seems to be

2:44 ↗ instead a a

2:48 ↗ management of the

2:51 ↗ environment there's

2:54 ↗ no uh like vision and value statement at

2:59 ↗ the beginning of the comprehensive plan

3:01 ↗ that describes isqua and what it

3:06 ↗ envisions itself to

3:09 ↗ be and so it turns into a plan that just

3:16 ↗ says and we've have plans that support

3:18 ↗ our plans that support our plans but it

3:21 ↗ doesn't say who the town or what the

3:24 ↗ town is supposed to be for us who live

3:27 ↗ here and that's a big deficit I think

3:30 ↗ that it is it is these are simply pieces

3:33 ↗ of paper with no soul now what I found

3:38 ↗ encouraging is that the environmental

3:41 ↗ board has shown this passion for the

3:43 ↗ environment in

3:45 ↗ unrelentingly making comments and trying

3:48 ↗ to attempt changes and Infuse all of

3:51 ↗ these things with the spirit of the

3:54 ↗ vision and I don't want you to be

3:56 ↗ discouraged because it does not feel

3:59 ↗ like you're being being supported often

4:02 ↗ this is a core value of the community

4:05 ↗ and we appreciate your efforts to imbue

4:08 ↗ all of our plans with a passion for the

4:11 ↗ environment and and insist that that be

4:16 ↗ included in all of it thank

4:19 ↗ you thank you

4:23 ↗ G right first up on our agenda tonight

4:26 ↗ Dan hint the urban Force supervisor is

4:29 ↗ here to talk to us about the draft Urban

4:31 ↗ Force management plan do the minutes

4:34 ↗ first oh missed that thank

4:39 ↗ you uh on the minutes from last uh from

4:42 ↗ the last meeting are there any comments

4:44 ↗ questions clarifications that need to be

4:48 ↗ added hearing none the minutes are

4:51 ↗ accepted okay that's okay all right so

4:55 ↗ Dan's here to talk to us about the urban

4:56 ↗ Forest management plan uh Dan is joined

4:59 ↗ by Feer as I correct his consultant um

5:03 ↗ and Dan is looking for some discussion

5:05 ↗ around at the end thanks Don um yes once

5:09 ↗ again I think I've met most of you but

5:10 ↗ um Dan hint the city's uh Urban Forest

5:13 ↗ supervisor within our parks and

5:14 ↗ Community Services Department um I'll be

5:16 ↗ handing it off to Chris here in just a

5:18 ↗ minute to kind of take lead on the

5:19 ↗ presentation and then we'll both be here

5:21 ↗ for questions discussion as it relates

5:23 ↗ to the first draft of the city's first

5:26 ↗ uh Urban Forest management plan um and

5:29 ↗ just kind of you know this was in the

5:30 ↗ memo I sent but just a few reminders you

5:32 ↗ know this this plan is really meant to

5:33 ↗ serve as a road map and guiding document

5:36 ↗ for the next decade uh as we continue to

5:38 ↗ build our first urban forestry program

5:41 ↗ um we've been in development of this

5:42 ↗ since last fall we brought this to the

5:44 ↗ environmental board in November which is

5:46 ↗ really kind of early on um again in

5:49 ↗ February to uh discuss some of the uh

5:51 ↗ Community engagement steps we were

5:53 ↗ planning at the time and then some of

5:55 ↗ the internal staff and kind of internal

5:57 ↗ plans and City policy review that planet

5:59 ↗ G did um and then we have since you know

6:02 ↗ developed the uh vision statement uh

6:04 ↗ five guiding principles um and then goal

6:07 ↗ strategies and recommendations

6:08 ↗ associated with each of those principles

6:10 ↗ so I know it's a big document shared out

6:13 ↗ um I tried to kind of call out those

6:15 ↗ sections with the guiding principles and

6:17 ↗ those goals strategies and

6:18 ↗ recommendations U which is section two

6:21 ↗ of the draft report right now is an area

6:23 ↗ to focus uh because we really want to

6:25 ↗ make sure we feel good about what we

6:26 ↗ have in there if missing anything or if

6:28 ↗ there's stuff we need emphasize or

6:30 ↗ change a little bit before then the the

6:32 ↗ last section that has not been uh built

6:34 ↗ out is the implementation section so

6:36 ↗ really making sure we're feeling good

6:38 ↗ about the uh strategies and

6:39 ↗ recommendations before that gets

6:41 ↗ Incorporated in the second draft of the

6:43 ↗ Forex management plan so um that being

6:47 ↗ said we have a presentation that will

6:49 ↗ recap a little bit of the uh kind of

6:51 ↗ steps and process to date and then

6:53 ↗ really kind of focus in some of the uh

6:55 ↗ kind of key sections and as I mentioned

6:57 ↗ those goal strategies and

6:58 ↗ recommendations uh including the IAP 55%

7:01 ↗ goal and some of the scenarios to uh

7:04 ↗ potentially achieve that as well so um

7:06 ↗ want to reiterate to you know we're

7:08 ↗ bringing this to you tonight we really

7:09 ↗ excited to have conversation answers

7:11 ↗ questions if we don't get to comments or

7:13 ↗ you have other feedback I believe Stacy

7:15 ↗ has you know communicated with you all

7:17 ↗ that you know pretty much through the

7:18 ↗ end of the month we'll um accept

7:19 ↗ comments on this first draft before

7:21 ↗ updating that and having a second draft

7:23 ↗ ready in in September so uh hopefully

7:26 ↗ having this adopted by Council towards

7:28 ↗ the end of the fall and in November

7:29 ↗ numers is what we're what we're uing

7:31 ↗ stay on track for here so another

7:33 ↗ another couple months of you know

7:34 ↗ continuing to build out this first draft

7:37 ↗ and bring it to a final draft adopted by

7:39 ↗ the city um so on that note I'm gonna

7:42 ↗ hand it over to Chris Piper with Planet

7:44 ↗ gr consultant he'll kind of tee us up

7:46 ↗ here um and then I think I'll take one

7:47 ↗ of the slides kind emphasizing what

7:49 ↗ feedback we are looking for tonight and

7:51 ↗ uh let Chris run with it after that

7:54 ↗ great yeah thanks Dan and thanks

7:56 ↗ everyone for the opportunity to present

7:57 ↗ an update on the urban Forest man M plan

8:00 ↗ for isqua the first ever plan uh for the

8:03 ↗ urban forest and uh as Dan mentioned my

8:06 ↗ name is Chris Pier I'm the director of

8:08 ↗ urban forestry Consulting at Planet Geo

8:10 ↗ going on 10 years coming in October uh

8:13 ↗ as the Director and now the project

8:15 ↗ manager for this management planning

8:17 ↗ project and just want to recognize my

8:19 ↗ supporting staff Alex and Matt who um

8:21 ↗ are experienced in policy planning and

8:23 ↗ management of trees in the Pacific

8:25 ↗ Northwest and they're certified arborous

8:27 ↗ that bring insights and uh Tech

8:29 ↗ technical expertise to the plan uh so

8:32 ↗ what I'll do is I'll share an agenda

8:34 ↗ brief overview and then turn it over to

8:36 ↗ Dan on our request and before doing that

8:39 ↗ though I do want to recognize our time

8:41 ↗ together in February that uh had was a

8:43 ↗ joint meeting with the board there was

8:45 ↗ feedback that you all provided that I

8:47 ↗ hope you see in the plan that it's

8:49 ↗ captured and we will present on that to

8:51 ↗ a degree and in the open discussion you

8:53 ↗ know some of those feedback we received

8:55 ↗ in February was around interested

8:58 ↗ parties to engage with you youth schools

9:00 ↗ large uh land owners uh looking at the

9:03 ↗ holistic ecosystem approach with the

9:06 ↗ understory whether it's invasive or uh

9:09 ↗ desirable vegetation and that it's not

9:11 ↗ just the trees it's the entire uh Urban

9:14 ↗ environment ecosystem and then also uh

9:17 ↗ having information available uh you know

9:20 ↗ after this project on the city's website

9:22 ↗ so that the community can take part in

9:24 ↗ the shared vision for the urban Forest

9:27 ↗ uh we also looked at ways to achieve the

9:29 ↗ canopy goal with you know free tree

9:31 ↗ opportunities and what other cities are

9:33 ↗ doing like in Belleview uh a board

9:35 ↗ member shared an example there and um we

9:38 ↗ looked at how this plan aligns with

9:40 ↗ other plans uh looking at the clean

9:42 ↗ energy initiatives in the comp plan but

9:44 ↗ also of course the climate action plan

9:46 ↗ isqua IAP uh we looked at defining trees

9:50 ↗ versus the forest as a whole looking at

9:52 ↗ individual trees and urbanized areas

9:54 ↗ versus you know the valuable Forest that

9:57 ↗ you're fortunate to have in isqua um

9:59 ↗ also how this ties into storm water

10:01 ↗ management and green infrastructure and

10:03 ↗ other initiatives and uh priorities in

10:05 ↗ the city and of course the question that

10:07 ↗ comes up oftentimes is funding and how

10:10 ↗ to approach that with these new

10:11 ↗ initiatives or uh ramping up planting to

10:14 ↗ achieve a canopy goal and then aligning

10:17 ↗ um also with the park system plan that's

10:19 ↗ being updated um currently so that's

10:21 ↗ just a quick overview really appreciate

10:24 ↗ you weighing in and taking the time to

10:25 ↗ read these extensive documents and you

10:28 ↗ know separate from the management plan

10:30 ↗ itself is an 80 page tree data summary

10:33 ↗ document so some of the detail that may

10:35 ↗ not be seen in the body of the plan will

10:37 ↗ be in supporting studies and and

10:39 ↗ reference so just keeping that in mind

10:42 ↗ so that's an overview uh where we were

10:45 ↗ at how we incorporated some of um the

10:48 ↗ feedback you shared and what I'd like to

10:50 ↗ present this evening is just going

10:52 ↗ through uh an update getting into our

10:54 ↗ key findings how that informed the

10:56 ↗ long-term framework and then a deeper Di

10:59 ↗ into the canopy goal um the requirements

11:02 ↗ to achieve such an ambitious goal and

11:04 ↗ then we want to have a lot of time for

11:06 ↗ open discussion and then as um Dan

11:09 ↗ mentioned we'll um at the end of the

11:11 ↗ month um be collecting your feedback so

11:14 ↗ I'm going to pause there turn it over to

11:16 ↗ Dan for um the request that we'd like to

11:19 ↗ make of the board and then I'll get into

11:20 ↗ the

11:25 ↗ presentation yes so kind of touched on

11:27 ↗ this already and the memo but just to

11:29 ↗ kind of reiterate you know we're looking

11:31 ↗ for um feedback from the environmental

11:33 ↗ board on progress to date which will be

11:35 ↗ recapped a bit here um and Chris kind of

11:38 ↗ recapped a bunch of that already uh the

11:40 ↗ vision statement and five guiding

11:41 ↗ principles that really kind of structure

11:43 ↗ the framework of the forest management

11:44 ↗ plan um and can goal considerations uh

11:48 ↗ you know specifically around um the icat

11:50 ↗ 55% goal um so any additional feedback

11:53 ↗ in general of what to consider when you

11:55 ↗ know working towards a final version of

11:57 ↗ the usmp uh is that relates to the

11:59 ↗ vision statement and guiding principles

12:01 ↗ and then kind of the next tiar down the

12:02 ↗ goals strategies and

12:04 ↗ recommendations um as I mentioned kind

12:06 ↗ of feedback on canopy goal

12:07 ↗ implementation factors uh and then

12:10 ↗ certainly not less important but I you

12:13 ↗ know there's a lot of essentially a lot

12:14 ↗ of data is in the current conditions in

12:15 ↗ terms of the tree canopy uh assessment

12:18 ↗ updates the right perryan canopy study

12:20 ↗ some of the

12:21 ↗ vulnerability um uh you know kind of uh

12:25 ↗ discussion around our Urban Forest um

12:28 ↗ pref preferred tree list uh lot lots of

12:30 ↗ stuff that Chris will kind of touch on

12:31 ↗ briefly here um you know if there's any

12:33 ↗ feedback or kind of thoughts on that

12:35 ↗ section too we we happily cover that so

12:38 ↗ uh we'll have a recapping slide of this

12:39 ↗ at the end of the presentation too so

12:41 ↗ we'll come back to this before we uh

12:43 ↗ jump into discussion and Dan would you

12:46 ↗ like feedback as we go or would you like

12:49 ↗ to wait till the

12:53 ↗ end yeah thank you I appreciate the

12:55 ↗ question too um I think we'll keep the

12:58 ↗ presentation brief so that um your uh

13:01 ↗ questions and thoughts um won't get lost

13:03 ↗ and we'll make sure to spend enough time

13:04 ↗ on those at the end if that works for

13:06 ↗ the group but if there's something

13:07 ↗ pressing feel free to interrupt thank

13:10 ↗ you all right thank you so what I'll do

13:13 ↗ now is just provide a brief overview of

13:15 ↗ the timeline it was already discussed

13:17 ↗ but as a visual um just to show um the

13:20 ↗ the path that led us here to our

13:22 ↗ presentation this evening and so it

13:24 ↗ always starts with what do we have the

13:26 ↗ Baseline assessment um as D Dan

13:28 ↗ mentioned back in around November

13:30 ↗ October November of

13:32 ↗ 2023 but then we need to take what we're

13:34 ↗ finding from the assessment and educate

13:37 ↗ and then also gather feedback and uh

13:39 ↗ input in uh what the plan uh will entail

13:43 ↗ and what the current conditions mean to

13:45 ↗ the city staff as well as interested

13:48 ↗ parties and incorporating our planning

13:51 ↗ processes and those those findings along

13:53 ↗ with the engagement findings into the

13:55 ↗ long-term framework um that was held um

13:58 ↗ just before the this month where we

14:00 ↗ drafted those and you'll see that

14:01 ↗ incorporated in tonight's

14:03 ↗ presentation and then the plan

14:05 ↗ development process tying this all

14:07 ↗ together telling the story and providing

14:10 ↗ the road map on how to achieve a shared

14:12 ↗ vision for the urban forest and as we go

14:14 ↗ into this feedback period of the draft

14:17 ↗ we'll continue our presentations we have

14:19 ↗ a few more meetings with interested

14:21 ↗ parties and incorporating that into uh

14:25 ↗ draft number two in anticipation of the

14:28 ↗ park board making a recommendation to

14:30 ↗ city council to adopt the plan uh

14:32 ↗ towards November of this year and making

14:35 ↗ um wrapping up the project by the end of

14:36 ↗ the

14:39 ↗ year and so uh from our last discussion

14:42 ↗ we got feedback on how to engage the

14:45 ↗ public in a survey and other means and

14:47 ↗ this is just a highlevel summary that

14:49 ↗ we're providing of the public survey and

14:51 ↗ from the results you see that most

14:53 ↗ participants were from squawk Mountain

14:55 ↗ neighborhood and isqua Highlands and one

14:58 ↗ thing that's unique from my experience

14:59 ↗ of doing these is that most participants

15:02 ↗ for isqua were between the ages of 35 to

15:05 ↗ 55 with 40% and 38% uh were over 55

15:09 ↗ years old often times it's more of the

15:11 ↗ older demographics that participate in

15:13 ↗ these surveys so it's a interesting sign

15:17 ↗ and when we surveyed uh those

15:18 ↗ participants about their interest in

15:20 ↗ supporting a city-wide canopy cover goal

15:23 ↗ um by planting trees on their own

15:24 ↗ property not just the city-led public

15:27 ↗ plantings 26 percent Express strong

15:30 ↗ interest in doing so and that also tied

15:33 ↗ into the University of Washington Evans

15:35 ↗ School study um that they were doing as

15:37 ↗ part of concurrently with this planning

15:41 ↗ project and from the survey we also um

15:44 ↗ gathered uh feedback uh on the concerns

15:47 ↗ from the public and some of those relate

15:48 ↗ to invasive plant species um wildfires

15:52 ↗ harmful tree pests and diseases and tree

15:55 ↗ related issues like sidewalk damage and

15:57 ↗ potential limbs falling

15:59 ↗ as well as uh complications around tree

16:01 ↗ permitting

16:02 ↗ processes and to address these concerns

16:05 ↗ we found that 74% of the public support

16:08 ↗ management plan actions for green

16:10 ↗ infrastructure development uh 68% want

16:13 ↗ increased tree planting in underserved

16:15 ↗ areas and

16:17 ↗ 66% uh seek initiatives for Tree Care on

16:20 ↗ private

16:21 ↗ property and public engagement

16:23 ↗ initiatives that they'd like to see

16:24 ↗ include volunteer events Workforce

16:27 ↗ Development and uh citizen science with

16:30 ↗ 27% for that so looking

16:34 ↗ ahead we see that 86% Envision the urban

16:38 ↗ Forest as a refuge for wildlife 76% want

16:42 ↗ to enhance the environmental health 71%

16:46 ↗ desire uh an expanded Green Space uh

16:49 ↗ where it's a network of connected Green

16:51 ↗ Space for all communities so you can see

16:53 ↗ how that really ties into the canopy

16:54 ↗ goal and uh some of the strategies that

16:57 ↗ we'll discuss this evening

17:01 ↗ and as part of this planning process as

17:03 ↗ Dan mentioned there is an update to the

17:05 ↗ tree canopy assessment and we completed

17:07 ↗ that in 2023 it's an update to the 2019

17:11 ↗ assessment and this assessment informs

17:13 ↗ strategies to increase tree cover

17:15 ↗ prioritize specific areas uh supporting

17:19 ↗ what we've heard from the public and

17:21 ↗ from our last meeting in Fe in February

17:24 ↗ uh we discussed the repairi and canopy

17:26 ↗ assessment portion of the of the UTC the

17:29 ↗ Urban Tree canopy assessment now this

17:31 ↗ slide here summarizes what we found in

17:33 ↗ terms of canopy cover change over a

17:35 ↗ 10year period and from that time uh 479

17:39 ↗ Acres of canopy were gained which is

17:42 ↗ unique and U we can talk more about that

17:44 ↗ we have some potential causes for those

17:46 ↗ gains and the data summary report really

17:49 ↗ hones in on where those changes happened

17:51 ↗ at the neighborhood sub uh planning

17:53 ↗ planning sub area as well and also at

17:56 ↗ the reparan corridor level

17:59 ↗ and so um we also on this slide just

18:02 ↗ summarized some of the key factors and

18:04 ↗ considerations involved with these types

18:06 ↗ of Assessments because this can serve as

18:08 ↗ a baseline measurement going forward to

18:10 ↗ measure plan

18:13 ↗ progress and as part of our request um

18:16 ↗ we'd like to get your feedback on

18:18 ↗ sections of the plan that was shared um

18:20 ↗ in preparation for this meeting this

18:22 ↗ evening and so uh this slide just

18:24 ↗ provides an overview of some of the key

18:26 ↗ components within the current conditions

18:28 ↗ section of the plan and we start with

18:31 ↗ those tree related

18:33 ↗ assessments we then describe the

18:35 ↗ conditions of current management

18:37 ↗ programs and the feedback we heard from

18:39 ↗ City staff and interested parties as

18:41 ↗ well as the current and potential risks

18:43 ↗ uh and vulnerabilities facing isqua

18:46 ↗ trees lastly we tie this all together in

18:49 ↗ an evaluation of all urban forestry

18:52 ↗ components using uh industry standards

18:55 ↗ and uh Frameworks from the US Forest

18:57 ↗ Service to doent where is a quiz at now

19:00 ↗ with the new urban forestry program new

19:02 ↗ Staffing and this plan and where it will

19:05 ↗ be in the future by implementing the

19:09 ↗ plan so we dive a little deeper and this

19:12 ↗ slide uh will provide an example of tree

19:14 ↗ related Assessments in the plan's Uh

19:17 ↗ current condition section and one thing

19:19 ↗ to note here is we utilize the

19:21 ↗ assessment data from the green isqua

19:23 ↗ 20-year implementation guide where we

19:26 ↗ gained insights into the urban Forest

19:28 ↗ composition position now right now the

19:30 ↗ city does not have a comprehensive

19:32 ↗ inventory of public trees along streets

19:34 ↗ and in maintained areas of parks so this

19:37 ↗ data is really crucial for that first

19:39 ↗ step of understanding the composition of

19:41 ↗ trees across isqua and so um here we

19:44 ↗ just see we reworked some of the

19:47 ↗ analyses to look specifically at the top

19:49 ↗ five uh dominant overstory tree species

19:52 ↗ the dominant understory tree species and

19:54 ↗ the dominant invasive plant and tree

19:56 ↗ species and so that starts to pain a

19:58 ↗ picture but you know uh along streets

20:01 ↗ and in maintained areas of parks differ

20:04 ↗ from what grows naturally so we'll want

20:06 ↗ to look at um recommendations around an

20:09 ↗ inventory in the future to really

20:11 ↗ provide those uh insights into making

20:13 ↗ planting and management decisions and

20:16 ↗ one thing to note here is that um from

20:18 ↗ what we find with this data is that

20:20 ↗ generally the forests appear relatively

20:22 ↗ young given that Douglas furs are more

20:25 ↗ abundant compared to your Western red

20:27 ↗ seeders and hemlocks that typically you

20:29 ↗ know are um late succession and um

20:32 ↗ maturing trees for a maturing

20:36 ↗ Forest so now um in the current cond

20:40 ↗ conditions section we also provide an

20:42 ↗ example of how we evaluated current

20:45 ↗ conditions with management plans and uh

20:48 ↗ different programs and practices so on

20:50 ↗ the left we have this table that

20:52 ↗ summarizes key planning elements and

20:55 ↗ this includes a brief purpose statement

20:57 ↗ about that plan how the plan aligns or

21:00 ↗ doesn't align with Urban Forest

21:02 ↗ management uh key statements that we

21:04 ↗ found in those documents relating to

21:06 ↗ urban forestry and any areas where

21:08 ↗ potential conflicts exist or uh

21:12 ↗ conflicts that may arise if we do not

21:14 ↗ properly address it in the management

21:15 ↗ plan and this is just paraphrase for

21:18 ↗ presentation uh and so then also we

21:21 ↗ looked at um in the current conditions

21:23 ↗ section some of the existing and

21:25 ↗ potential treest and diseases of concern

21:28 ↗ and this may have certain management

21:30 ↗ implications and so this slide just

21:32 ↗ captures some of the concerns with

21:34 ↗ Mediterranean Oak and emerald ashore and

21:37 ↗ we can talk more about the host species

21:40 ↗ and uh potential risk relating to that

21:42 ↗ but it is a primary those are primary

21:44 ↗ Pest of concern

21:48 ↗ there and just as a brief overview this

21:51 ↗ slide provides an example of how we

21:53 ↗ examine vulnerability of trees in the

21:55 ↗ region com to uh in terms of climate

21:57 ↗ change and we utilize the climate change

22:00 ↗ response framework uh which has these

22:02 ↗ online tools to identify common Street

22:05 ↗ trees in the Pacific Northwest and these

22:08 ↗ are the trees that are least vulnerable

22:09 ↗ to increased heat projections so make

22:13 ↗ sure you read the disclaimer at the

22:14 ↗ bottom this is not intended to serve as

22:16 ↗ a tree planting list you'll notice

22:18 ↗ invasives on there but it can show you

22:20 ↗ what may you know proliferate with

22:23 ↗ changing conditions and also uh wanted

22:26 ↗ to recognize the city does emphasize

22:28 ↗ planting Natives and also to identify

22:30 ↗ locally Source seeds for you know

22:32 ↗ seedling plantings and and other

22:37 ↗ efforts and lastly for the highlights I

22:40 ↗ just wanted to discuss the findings from

22:42 ↗ the US Forest Services Urban Forest

22:45 ↗ audit uh and also the indicators of

22:47 ↗ sustainable Urban Forest management and

22:50 ↗ just as a um summary this is where we

22:52 ↗ document our findings we score it and

22:56 ↗ then we can utilize that to develop

22:58 ↗ Strate IES in the plan and also have

23:00 ↗ that to serve as a monitoring mechanism

23:03 ↗ and so this slide just summarizes uh the

23:06 ↗ various categories of those elements and

23:09 ↗ here's an example of the elements

23:10 ↗ pertaining to the trees then we also

23:13 ↗ have elements pertaining to management

23:15 ↗ and the people that are uh influencing

23:18 ↗ and benefiting from the urban

23:19 ↗ forest and those elements are ranked on

23:22 ↗ a low to moderate to good score and it's

23:25 ↗ based on our findings industry standards

23:28 ↗ local context and also input from the

23:31 ↗ city um staff and interested

23:35 ↗ parties and so as a result of this

23:38 ↗ process uh we find that each category um

23:42 ↗ is then scored and we're able to um

23:45 ↗ utilize this to develop strategies and I

23:48 ↗ just wanted to point out that this score

23:50 ↗ was expected for a new urban forestry

23:53 ↗ program with the first ever Urban Forest

23:55 ↗ management plan in development with new

23:57 ↗ Staffing so this is a starting point and

24:00 ↗ there's some Nuance to this but it's a

24:01 ↗ good starting point from which you can

24:03 ↗ measure

24:06 ↗ progress and so I covered this a little

24:08 ↗ bit on the previous slides but this

24:10 ↗ long-term framework was informed by by

24:13 ↗ our planning process and the audit is a

24:15 ↗ culmination of the findings from this

24:17 ↗ planning

24:20 ↗ process and just to really bring this

24:22 ↗ home and to illustrate how you know

24:25 ↗ we're not just pulling these goals and

24:27 ↗ strategies out of the air it's really an

24:29 ↗ iterative process informed by data and

24:31 ↗ interested parties and so we have um the

24:35 ↗ long-term framework cons consisting of

24:38 ↗ the vision principles goals strategies

24:41 ↗ and smart actions and um as I mentioned

24:45 ↗ earlier there's a monitoring and

24:47 ↗ implementation component to this plan

24:50 ↗ where the indicators and the audit serve

24:53 ↗ as a foundation for that monitoring and

24:55 ↗ we'll provide the guidance on how to do

24:57 ↗ that how to reev evaluate how to um

25:00 ↗ apply adaptive management to make sure

25:02 ↗ this is a living working document for

25:04 ↗ you all to utilize over the next 10

25:08 ↗ years and so uh what I'll do now is just

25:11 ↗ this is the only time I'll read off the

25:13 ↗ slide and I I think it's important to

25:14 ↗ read the vision and this was um

25:17 ↗ developed in part by City staff and

25:20 ↗ interested parties again you know

25:22 ↗ Gathering those Vision uh preferences

25:25 ↗ from the public survey and from other

25:27 ↗ engagement meetings

25:29 ↗ and so um this road map towards a

25:32 ↗ sustainable Urban Forest is led by this

25:35 ↗ vision and it reads isqua isqua

25:37 ↗ envisions A thriving Urban Forest where

25:39 ↗ a diverse and cared for tree canopy

25:41 ↗ strengthens our community for

25:43 ↗ generations to come this verdant

25:45 ↗ tapestry will enhance our livability

25:47 ↗ promote health and well-being support

25:49 ↗ wildlife and habitat and contribute to a

25:52 ↗ sustainable future for all and so that

25:55 ↗ to me starts to exemplify the passion

25:58 ↗ around urban forestry um it's a shared

26:01 ↗ Vision uh that is needed to achieve you

26:03 ↗ know canopy goals and the Ambi ambitious

26:05 ↗ goals in the plan but as I mentioned

26:09 ↗ this was supported from the engagement

26:11 ↗ with uh staff and the public and so we

26:14 ↗ just call to attention some of those uh

26:17 ↗ some of those related um feedback items

26:20 ↗ that were

26:22 ↗ shared and so I'll be wrapping up uh

26:25 ↗ here with the long-term framework this

26:27 ↗ was already provided in the plan and you

26:30 ↗ know as a PDF so I won't read these but

26:34 ↗ those five guiding principles serve as a

26:36 ↗ compus because trees are in an

26:37 ↗ everchanging environment there's going

26:39 ↗ to be new changes to resources

26:41 ↗ priorities you're going to adapt

26:44 ↗ strategies as things change but these

26:45 ↗ will be your beacon to stay um heading

26:48 ↗ towards the

26:50 ↗ vision and so those uh guiding

26:53 ↗ principles are then supported by the the

26:56 ↗ goals for each of those five categories

26:58 ↗ and so um they are numbered each

27:01 ↗ strategy within the goal are numbered so

27:03 ↗ they're easy to reference and circle

27:05 ↗ back to when making updates or creating

27:08 ↗ progress reports or or sharing with

27:10 ↗ interested parties um where you're at

27:12 ↗ with the plan and uh the um the action

27:16 ↗ tables in the plan will really get into

27:18 ↗ the detail around how to accomplish

27:20 ↗ those

27:22 ↗ goals and lastly for this presentation

27:25 ↗ we'd like to provide uh additional

27:27 ↗ details uh and considerations for the

27:30 ↗ canopy goal that as you all know was

27:32 ↗ established in the isqua climate action

27:35 ↗ plan the IAP and So based on industry

27:38 ↗ standards uh our local consider uh local

27:41 ↗ considerations the findings from the

27:43 ↗ management plan um uh we incorporated

27:47 ↗ and developed a series of scenarios uh

27:49 ↗ and targets that detail how the city

27:52 ↗ would achieve 55% canopy cover by

27:55 ↗ 2035 and those scenarios also looked at

27:58 ↗ different canopy goals different

28:01 ↗ timelines um different variations in the

28:03 ↗ large trees that are planted small trees

28:06 ↗ and so the next slide talks about some

28:08 ↗ of those inputs but here we see some of

28:11 ↗ the highlevel requirements and

28:13 ↗ milestones for achieving that goal so in

28:16 ↗ short approximately 16,000 trees are

28:18 ↗ needed over the next 10 years to

28:20 ↗ increase canopy cover by

28:23 ↗ 4% so we'll talk a little bit about

28:25 ↗ those inputs and then uh we'll wrap up

28:28 ↗ the presentation and get into discussion

28:30 ↗ so that 16,000 tree estimate is based on

28:33 ↗ uh factors and considerations that we

28:35 ↗ prepared uh with input from the city as

28:38 ↗ well as interested parties and as I

28:41 ↗ mentioned these Dynamic living organisms

28:43 ↗ are always changing and so there isn't a

28:46 ↗ one method approach to you know

28:48 ↗ calculate your canopy goal and what the

28:50 ↗ requirements are but we had these inputs

28:53 ↗ to help shape that realistic canopy goal

28:56 ↗ and the way to implement

28:58 ↗ it and so here we see um 51% canopy is

29:04 ↗ based on the the current canopy of 51%

29:07 ↗ is based on the 2023 assessment using

29:10 ↗ 2021

29:12 ↗ imagery 16,000 trees are needed but this

29:15 ↗ means that existing canopy is replaced

29:17 ↗ If

29:18 ↗ lost we incorporated tital 18's canopy

29:21 ↗ requirements which was co-developed by

29:23 ↗ Planet geo with the city in 2022 so

29:26 ↗ we're leveraging that work into the

29:28 ↗ canopy implementation

29:31 ↗ process we applied average canopy

29:33 ↗ diameters for small medium and large

29:35 ↗ trees according to US Forest Services ey

29:38 ↗ tree research and that uh we also

29:40 ↗ Incorporated there will be deciduous and

29:42 ↗ coniferous trees planted and that a

29:45 ↗ fairly even split of large medium and

29:48 ↗ small canopy trees at maturity will be

29:51 ↗ planted also as a shared commitment to

29:54 ↗ this Urban Forest Vision we we

29:57 ↗ envisioned 7 25% of plantings led by the

30:00 ↗ city and 25% through Partners Property

30:03 ↗ Owners Community associations and by

30:06 ↗ other interested

30:08 ↗ parties and other factors that go into

30:11 ↗ implementation uh were considered as

30:13 ↗ well you know of course the cost and

30:14 ↗ we'll get into more of that in the um

30:17 ↗ implementation uh and uh monitoring

30:20 ↗ section of the plan uh we also looked at

30:23 ↗ the data that's needed for evaluating

30:25 ↗ progress over time as well as uh what is

30:28 ↗ needed in the management plan itself to

30:31 ↗ guide this implementation towards that

30:33 ↗ canopy cover

30:37 ↗ goal so that's an overview of uh the

30:41 ↗ project to date I started off with uh

30:44 ↗ the timeline and key updates you know

30:46 ↗ looking at the public survey the canopy

30:48 ↗ assessment that was conducted in

30:50 ↗ 2023 some of the key sections of the

30:53 ↗ current conditions of the plan and these

30:56 ↗ inform the long-term framework that we

30:58 ↗ provided an overview of from the um

31:00 ↗ vision and guiding principles to the

31:02 ↗ goals and actions so in the coming weeks

31:05 ↗ we're going to meet again with this

31:07 ↗ sowal me tribe and that'll round out the

31:09 ↗ draft reviews and we'll use this

31:11 ↗ feedback to prepare draft number two

31:14 ↗ we'll then continue our presentations

31:15 ↗ with boards and committees in September

31:17 ↗ and October and again we're aiming for a

31:20 ↗ city council adoption no in November of

31:22 ↗ this year so with that I'd like to thank

31:25 ↗ you all again for your attention and uh

31:27 ↗ for the opportunity to present an update

31:30 ↗ it's been great working with Dan and the

31:32 ↗ city on this important effort a lot of

31:34 ↗ key uh interesting things that came out

31:36 ↗ of this that stand out with over 50

31:39 ↗ management planning projects that I've

31:40 ↗ worked on and so it's really been a

31:42 ↗ pleasure working with you all and I mean

31:44 ↗ that honestly and so before getting into

31:46 ↗ open discussion just going to recap our

31:49 ↗ request and maybe it doesn't need to be

31:51 ↗ read off and we can turn to open

31:53 ↗ discussion but Dan is there anything

31:55 ↗ else to cover before we we move to that

31:59 ↗ no I don't think so so obviously any any

32:01 ↗ kind of key questions

32:03 ↗ clarifications U obviously we'll receive

32:05 ↗ comments the time we have on the agenda

32:07 ↗ tonight but like I said any anything

32:08 ↗ that you can share electron

32:10 ↗ electronically with Stacy she will

32:11 ↗ summarize get to Chris and I here

32:13 ↗ towards the end of the month um or early

32:15 ↗ September I believe um and like I said

32:18 ↗ I'm happy to happy to chat more about

32:20 ↗ this you know one-onone always and you

32:22 ↗ know we can talk to is if this you know

32:24 ↗ something the board wants to see is a uh

32:27 ↗ uh second version of the draft coming

32:29 ↗ back too we can see if that we can fit

32:31 ↗ that intoo so just want to let you know

32:33 ↗ there's still a lot of kind of touch

32:35 ↗ points here over the next two months or

32:36 ↗ so before we do try to kind of finalize

32:38 ↗ move dist

32:40 ↗ Council you are our first public

32:42 ↗ Outreach onland draft here too good

32:46 ↗ thank you Dan thank you Chris um Nancy I

32:49 ↗ just have a couple of questions so you

32:51 ↗ had talked about not having um uh

32:55 ↗ numbers of Street teams trees you

32:57 ↗ haven't assess those or trees that are

32:59 ↗ in parts so if you don't have that

33:02 ↗ assessment how does that fit into the

33:03 ↗ canopy numbers that you were talking

33:06 ↗ about if you are you just doing it from

33:08 ↗ overhead from aial photographs is that

33:10 ↗ how you're doing it so you when you talk

33:12 ↗ about where we are with our current

33:14 ↗ canopy those trees are included in terms

33:16 ↗ of their coverage yes we don't know the

33:20 ↗ species of them and the of them and that

33:23 ↗ type of thing so that's just one

33:26 ↗ question and the second question I have

33:28 ↗ for you is I know at times we've talked

33:30 ↗ to you about how um psc's contractor

33:34 ↗ comes through and does their things did

33:36 ↗ you do any Outreach to PSC or get any

33:38 ↗ involvement from their contractor that

33:41 ↗ woulds trees in the city I didn't see it

33:43 ↗ in the plan no that's a really good

33:45 ↗ question Nancy and not not specifically

33:46 ↗ around the plan I've been working with

33:48 ↗ psse and BPA around some utility

33:50 ↗ clearing they have been doing and and

33:52 ↗ centrally tradition plateau and count up

33:54 ↗ by Central Park um so we are we are

33:57 ↗ tring that better now that information

33:59 ↗ is now coming through me it it is

34:01 ↗ interesting essentially they kind of

34:03 ↗ come to you telling you what is going to

34:04 ↗ be removed there is

34:07 ↗ a way to get compensated for some of

34:10 ↗ those tree removals which is interesting

34:12 ↗ and something we're looking at pursuing

34:13 ↗ to but you know in terms of the best

34:15 ↗ practices things like that I mean we are

34:17 ↗ like you know kind of trusting their

34:19 ↗ team their arborous but I you know I

34:20 ↗ have not seen the conditions that you

34:22 ↗ know maybe look like the bad outcomes

34:24 ↗ versus you know these are considered

34:26 ↗ high danger trees with the you know

34:28 ↗ utility line so that that information is

34:30 ↗ being shared for instance you know they

34:32 ↗ just I don't know if they've actually

34:33 ↗ done the work yet but we got

34:34 ↗ notification that you know between

34:35 ↗ Central Park and tradition Plateau

34:37 ↗ there's about 15 to 20 trees coming out

34:40 ↗ but two-thirds or so of those are dead

34:42 ↗ trees right now so that's you know at

34:44 ↗ least at least the tracking I would say

34:46 ↗ I feel like we've made a contact and

34:48 ↗ being clear that I'd like that to come

34:49 ↗ through me moving forward in terms of

34:51 ↗ anything that goes the management

34:53 ↗ recommendations they don't have to get a

34:54 ↗ tree

34:55 ↗ permit there's utility exemption

34:58 ↗ yeah yeah you're supposed to essentially

35:01 ↗ notif I mean that that that does relate

35:03 ↗ to our Public Works team too and that's

35:04 ↗ something I'm trying to better kind of

35:06 ↗ organize communicate around to so they

35:08 ↗ they don't need a permit they are still

35:10 ↗ expected to replace those trees and that

35:12 ↗ kind of gets into some of these goals

35:14 ↗ around needing to better identify

35:15 ↗ receiving sites it's done very ad HW

35:17 ↗ right now in terms of all right two

35:18 ↗ trees work can we put two trees in the

35:20 ↗ same sub area and it's be pretty tedious

35:23 ↗ to just kind of get those requests

35:24 ↗ especially if they're kind of short

35:25 ↗ notice we need to get the submitted we

35:26 ↗ need to have somewhere to put it in

35:27 ↗ those generally come through Parks even

35:29 ↗ though parks are often not the ones

35:30 ↗ leading those projects um so I say

35:33 ↗ that's been kind of tricky but yeah the

35:34 ↗ utility St for for psse my understanding

35:37 ↗ that hasn't been the requirement but um

35:39 ↗ for our Public Works team or the rarer

35:42 ↗ occasion the parks is moving right away

35:43 ↗ trees for safety or utility conflicts

35:46 ↗ that is expected be place thanks for the

35:49 ↗ answer the question when I just have one

35:50 ↗ General piece back on the plan I haven't

35:53 ↗ read it in detail one of the confusing

35:55 ↗ things to me when I read it is the

35:57 ↗ discuss of tree Equity because Equity is

36:00 ↗ such a buzzword in this town right now

36:02 ↗ in terms of what city's putting out a

36:04 ↗ lot of it's housing

36:06 ↗ Equity um other kinds of equity and

36:08 ↗ calling something tree

36:10 ↗ Equity is really starting to muddy the

36:13 ↗ water and I maybe it's a common term in

36:17 ↗ the tree world but you might want to

36:20 ↗ find something else so that you're

36:22 ↗ making you're not conflicting it with

36:24 ↗ housing equity and transportation equity

36:27 ↗ and food and all that other Equity

36:29 ↗ that's going on it just really when I

36:32 ↗ looked at says now how is equity work

36:34 ↗ with trees sure that's just a general

36:37 ↗ piece of feedback and it may be the

36:39 ↗ right way to go that's that's great

36:41 ↗ feedback in Chris may you can add to

36:42 ↗ this a little bit more but there is

36:44 ↗ American Forest is a National

36:45 ↗ Organization you're probably familiar um

36:48 ↗ and they they're the ones that created

36:50 ↗ this tool essentially the tree equ tool

36:52 ↗ which is what is uh cited in in the

36:54 ↗ forest management plan so it is it is

36:57 ↗ taking in some of those kind of

36:59 ↗ socioeconomic demographic factors for

37:01 ↗ sure um but more simply it is a tool to

37:05 ↗ sort of prioritize where to best um uh

37:09 ↗ plant trees based on some of those

37:11 ↗ potential shortcomings and it is

37:12 ↗ interesting I mean for isqu we have a

37:14 ↗ pretty high overall tree Equity score at

37:16 ↗ 93 but then there are certain

37:18 ↗ neighborhoods where that is

37:19 ↗ significantly lower in the low 80s 83 I

37:21 ↗ think for South Co um Central isqua

37:25 ↗ Highland I think Lakeside are the four

37:26 ↗ areas that have lower scores I think in

37:28 ↗ the 80s generally um so the way I've

37:31 ↗ seen it used and once again yeah how we

37:32 ↗ how we Define it how we talk about it

37:34 ↗ but in terms of a kind of functional use

37:35 ↗ of it is a lot of these cities David and

37:37 ↗ I have actually had some of these

37:38 ↗ conversations we use that tool as a

37:40 ↗ prioritization for tree giveaways and

37:42 ↗ applications so you know if they get

37:44 ↗ more applications than trees available

37:47 ↗ um L believe is one of those has been

37:49 ↗ using that tool to kind of prioritize

37:50 ↗ how they distribute their uh trees and

37:53 ↗ also just for our public tree plantings

37:54 ↗ too knowing that those are areas we

37:56 ↗ really should kind of emphasize

37:57 ↗ prioritize and and better plan for so

38:00 ↗ the acity conversation I hear but that

38:02 ↗ just hope that provides more context on

38:03 ↗ how the tool used and where it came from

38:06 ↗ that was just feedback because we're

38:07 ↗ reading the comp plan at the same time

38:09 ↗ and there's a lot of conversation now

38:10 ↗ about equity and so when you're reading

38:13 ↗ two documents in the same month in the

38:15 ↗ same weeks you really see some confusion

38:18 ↗ that Happ oh that's just might be

38:24 ↗ back um hi Dan hi Chris I'm proud and I

38:28 ↗ have a few questions and just some

38:31 ↗ feedback um so one of the things I

38:33 ↗ noticed and um I'm not sure if I missed

38:36 ↗ it but I looked at the draft plan and I

38:38 ↗ didn't see anywhere where tree canopy

38:41 ↗ was defined like with what exact

38:43 ↗ definition of tree canopy is I think the

38:46 ↗ introduction needs to have that I did

38:48 ↗ read somewhere it was 14 feet height or

38:51 ↗ some other stuff mean you can find the

38:53 ↗ bits and pieces but it needs to be

38:54 ↗ defined in the introduction the second

38:57 ↗ question question was um the 55% goal by

39:02 ↗ 2035 um is this just by on the city

39:06 ↗ property City roads it includes the

39:08 ↗ private proerties in the entire

39:11 ↗ city so that's good to know so that also

39:14 ↗ I think needs to be clearly stated

39:16 ↗ somewhere in the introduction part so

39:18 ↗ it's clear going forward what to expect

39:21 ↗ um and so that's good to know because I

39:24 ↗ looked at and I think cost somewhere on

39:27 ↗ the present ation slides I noticed that

39:29 ↗ there was a 490,000 per year cost of

39:33 ↗ Maintenance or or planting trees and you

39:37 ↗ mentioned that there are 16,000 trees to

39:39 ↗ be planted so my question was um you

39:42 ↗ know if it's also on Residential

39:44 ↗ Properties for the whole Community then

39:47 ↗ is there um first question is where does

39:50 ↗ the funding for this come from is it

39:52 ↗ just the city or is there some taxpayers

39:54 ↗ money or is there different tax or how

39:57 ↗ is it to yeah so to answer your question

40:00 ↗ yes it is it is a pretty high price tag

40:03 ↗ on that last slide but I guess the

40:05 ↗ caveat to that would be putting in

40:07 ↗ listed as caliper trees or or large

40:10 ↗ often ball and burlap you know they have

40:11 ↗ one to two inch diameter trees and those

40:14 ↗ those easily cost three to four to $500

40:16 ↗ a piece um and then you know some of the

40:18 ↗ installation costs associated with that

40:20 ↗ too so that that that I would say is a

40:22 ↗ high about as high end of an estimate

40:24 ↗ because we do plant a lot of trees there

40:26 ↗ are smaller containers or even be roots

40:28 ↗ or what we call Liv Stakes which are

40:29 ↗ cuting of trees especially in a lot of

40:31 ↗ our natural areas and that plant

40:32 ↗ material is a lot cheaper in the 5 to 10

40:35 ↗ to maybe $15 uh per per tree or per

40:38 ↗ plant there um so so just a little more

40:40 ↗ context on that kind of cost estimate

40:42 ↗ but yes that that is for essentially

40:44 ↗ installation and plant material there's

40:47 ↗ still a maintenance cost associated with

40:48 ↗ that as well that is not as directly

40:50 ↗ reflected in there whether that's you

40:51 ↗ know the watering pruning things that

40:53 ↗ trees need you know young young ages and

40:56 ↗ then certainly as mature to um to your

40:59 ↗ question on the funding sources yes and

41:01 ↗ that's that's a difficult one there's

41:03 ↗ certainly some really good urban

41:04 ↗ forestry programs there's a lot more

41:06 ↗ that state and the federal government

41:07 ↗ are are kind of pumping into those type

41:09 ↗ of programs so I do believe there are so

41:11 ↗ yes they're taxpayer but not necessarily

41:13 ↗ coming out of isqua's general fund or

41:15 ↗ isqua's tax base so um like for instance

41:19 ↗ our tree inventory is something we're

41:20 ↗ hoping to fund by the States dnrs

41:22 ↗ Department of Natural Resources urban

41:23 ↗ forestry program there's some programs

41:26 ↗ through as well and then stuff that's

41:28 ↗ kind of coming through EPA for urban

41:30 ↗ forry but that's that's stuff we do need

41:32 ↗ to strategize and kind of

41:35 ↗ Rel so I had a suggestion on that um you

41:39 ↗ know if there is a deficit to be matched

41:42 ↗ um and I don't know if that's

41:43 ↗ necessarily a question for that it could

41:45 ↗ be for Stacy or it may be a interde

41:48 ↗ departmental for the city but the new

41:51 ↗ developments and I don't know this the

41:52 ↗ new developments which are coming up um

41:55 ↗ because usually they will do they have a

41:57 ↗ requirement of you some green areas or

42:00 ↗ plantings or green belts maintenance

42:02 ↗ going forward because of the climate

42:04 ↗ initiatives and um so I'm wondering if

42:07 ↗ some part of that you know that planting

42:11 ↗ cost could be over especially over 10

42:13 ↗ years or long-term goals could be

42:16 ↗ transferred to the new D either as a

42:19 ↗ part of the investment in you know your

42:23 ↗ climate initiatives or or as a part of

42:26 ↗ incentive for um you know doing a green

42:30 ↗ development split City and they get some

42:32 ↗ perks because they're doing a green

42:34 ↗ development so that is something to

42:36 ↗ consider or look for because I know some

42:39 ↗ of the especially with the lead you know

42:42 ↗ um your lead certifications lot of

42:45 ↗ buildings want to do more of the green

42:48 ↗ planting areas and stuff like that so I

42:51 ↗ don't know that is something under

42:52 ↗ consideration but that could be

42:54 ↗ something which will be checked

42:58 ↗ thank you and Don Keith is not showing

43:01 ↗ up here but Keith does have his hand

43:03 ↗ raised okay I'll get to you after I get

43:07 ↗ to the table here Jamie thanks Don um

43:11 ↗ one question like it would be Chris

43:15 ↗ touched on that we've added I think like

43:17 ↗ 480 Acres or

43:19 ↗ some amount of tree canopy in the last

43:23 ↗ whatever the time period I think it was

43:25 ↗ 2011 years yeah it would be great one of

43:28 ↗ the things I didn't really get from

43:30 ↗ reading through was kind of one any

43:33 ↗ learnings from that that we would be

43:35 ↗ applying to what we're going to do going

43:36 ↗ forward because that seems like a fairly

43:38 ↗ good increase in canopy and two kind of

43:40 ↗ best practices are like and this might

43:43 ↗ not end up in the final plan but I just

43:44 ↗ don't remember having heard like what we

43:47 ↗ see from neighboring jurisdictions that

43:48 ↗ has really worked and I'm sure Don

43:50 ↗ probably has a bunch of ideas from from

43:52 ↗ Bell but like that's something that I'd

43:54 ↗ be curious like best practices around

43:57 ↗ Forest management that we've and I'm

43:59 ↗ sure Chris and I'm sure that's all

44:01 ↗ coming in but I'm curious on the like

44:03 ↗ where what's our kind of what are the

44:05 ↗ parallels what are the cities we're

44:06 ↗ looking at that are kind of our peer

44:08 ↗ group that we want to really aspire to

44:10 ↗ be like

44:12 ↗ so just something that uh that maybe is

44:15 ↗ context for the forest management plan

44:18 ↗ maybe it's not in the actual plan but

44:20 ↗ something that might be help fer one

44:22 ↗ question I had

44:24 ↗ was I noticed that the park board was

44:26 ↗ going to be one making the final

44:28 ↗ recommendation on this is is this going

44:31 ↗ to be a plan that they're most closely

44:33 ↗ tied to I guess I'm surprised that this

44:35 ↗ wouldn't be an environmental board like

44:37 ↗ topic area that's that's a good question

44:40 ↗ I mean I I I think it's somewhat based

44:42 ↗ on my position my role being based in

44:45 ↗ Parks the fact that you know over our

44:47 ↗ public land, 1500 plus acres as part of

44:50 ↗ parks and Open Spaces Parks does manage

44:53 ↗ not that the park board necessarily

44:54 ↗ touches on it much but parks manag is a

44:58 ↗ pretty good majority of rways and trees

45:00 ↗ in the built environment to I mean I

45:02 ↗ should say it's a pretty healthy mix

45:03 ↗ between parks and public works but it's

45:05 ↗ part of um part of parks responsibility

45:07 ↗ too so that's sort of what I've been

45:10 ↗ following by leadership but you know if

45:12 ↗ that's something that we can talk about

45:15 ↗ or I don't want to mess up schedules too

45:17 ↗ much but if that's something that

45:18 ↗ September we're able to bring both those

45:20 ↗ boards together again um for for

45:23 ↗ recommendations on the second draft I

45:24 ↗ mean that's something we're certainly

45:25 ↗ open to so yeah and I'm I think that

45:28 ↗ that's one topic I think the ongoing

45:30 ↗ piece because I think it sends a kind of

45:33 ↗ a strange me like Parks Board they like

45:36 ↗ their knowledge and what they focus on

45:38 ↗ most of parks and some of parks is green

45:41 ↗ space but they're not really they're

45:43 ↗ also talking about fields and things

45:45 ↗ that are explicitly not canopy so I just

45:48 ↗ think it's it would be kind of uh it

45:51 ↗ would be strange especially because so

45:52 ↗ much of this is tied to the the IAP and

45:54 ↗ the canopy goals as well as wild life it

45:57 ↗ just seems like a weird mix that uh and

46:01 ↗ I'm I think the short term is one thing

46:02 ↗ but the ongoing like this is just

46:05 ↗ something a topic that I feel like this

46:06 ↗ board should be really engaged upon and

46:08 ↗ so not plus we get to see Dan more so I

46:12 ↗ think I just think that's something that

46:15 ↗ Stacy and Dan I would just ask you guys

46:17 ↗ to go and ask that question is is it

46:19 ↗ really right that probably is based on

46:21 ↗ reporting is that the right is that the

46:24 ↗ right answer for how this should work um

46:26 ↗ and then I had a question similar to

46:28 ↗ prage which uh around like the

46:31 ↗ definition of canopy um because I think

46:34 ↗ it's one point it said that canopy

46:37 ↗ doesn't typically count until five to 10

46:39 ↗ years from planting is that yeah that's

46:42 ↗ 14 foot requirement yeah a lot of trains

46:44 ↗ we plant today and so is our 50 55% goal

46:49 ↗ everything needs to be above that height

46:50 ↗ because I guess I'm thinking back 10

46:52 ↗ years from 2035 is next year which

46:55 ↗ implies that we basically to have all

46:57 ↗ the trees in the ground that we would

46:58 ↗ need so that's why I'm trying to like I

47:00 ↗ understand we're getting the trees in

47:01 ↗ the ground with this plan but it doesn't

47:03 ↗ actually hit timeline to that I'm just

47:06 ↗ curious on yeah so Chris can clarify but

47:08 ↗ my understanding is part of the reason

47:09 ↗ we modeled that using caliper trees or

47:11 ↗ kind of larger what we kind of often

47:13 ↗ refer to as Street trees you know those

47:15 ↗ are often six seven even eight feet to

47:17 ↗ start so those can achieve that canopy

47:20 ↗ status a lot quicker than you know some

47:21 ↗ of the be rout or one or two gallon

47:23 ↗ trees that we plant you know on Creek in

47:25 ↗ places like this um so that five to 10

47:28 ↗ years is is is a rough estimate but yes

47:30 ↗ to your point I mean it does get to a

47:32 ↗ point you know trees are planting in

47:33 ↗ probably 20 31 2 3 four five are not

47:37 ↗ going to be contributing to that but a

47:39 ↗ lot of what I believe is modeled you

47:41 ↗ know based on the square footage of

47:43 ↗ large medium you know kind of these

47:44 ↗ General buckets of size of trees is with

47:47 ↗ the anticipation that those are growing

47:49 ↗ and and you know contributing to that

47:50 ↗ Target plus you know some of the stuff

47:52 ↗ that we've already obviously planted in

47:53 ↗ the last five or so years 10 years have

47:55 ↗ not yet

47:58 ↗ yeah I'm just curious yeah no and I'm

48:01 ↗ just curious if I think we're we're

48:03 ↗ saying in the plan that we have a plan

48:05 ↗ to get to the the 50F perc I'm not

48:08 ↗ actually and maybe someone's run the

48:09 ↗ numbers on this but it seems like we

48:11 ↗ might not actually be able to get there

48:13 ↗ even with that if we hit that plan we

48:15 ↗ might not it is ambitious I don't want I

48:18 ↗ don't want to say we we can't but I mean

48:20 ↗ there's considerations around cost

48:22 ↗ feasibility time frames um and then

48:24 ↗ certainly other other factors relates to

48:26 ↗ in which we touch on the plan Wildfire

48:28 ↗ preparedness you know defensible space

48:30 ↗ things that the State Bowling code is

48:31 ↗ working on and could have some big

48:33 ↗ implication implications on development

48:36 ↗ and Redevelopment as CL the near future

48:39 ↗ here

48:40 ↗ yeah okay and then I had just two other

48:44 ↗ points one um I I I know some of the

48:48 ↗ current conditions started to touch on

48:49 ↗ like what the planable area and just

48:53 ↗ kind of the what what within right

48:54 ↗ paring areas and other kind of high

48:57 ↗ important area like critical areas not

48:59 ↗ otherwise like that was a part of the

49:01 ↗ current conditions I didn't see that as

49:03 ↗ heavily and I know it's draft but a lot

49:05 ↗ of the goals and strategies that like we

49:06 ↗ have the 55% goal we don't and we talk

49:09 ↗ about priority areas priority areas is

49:11 ↗ never defined that's probably something

49:13 ↗ I'm assuming will happen at some point

49:16 ↗ but to me Priority areas are things like

49:18 ↗ riparian areas the the things that are

49:20 ↗ going to really critically like impact

49:23 ↗ areas that there's lots of wildlife

49:25 ↗ biodiversity that to me that that didn't

49:27 ↗ come through in the current goals and

49:30 ↗ and strategies so I that that's

49:31 ↗ something I think really needs to be and

49:34 ↗ I I do want to make sure like we talk a

49:37 ↗ lot about tree equity which I understand

49:39 ↗ but at the same time I think we need to

49:40 ↗ be thinking as well about where is it

49:42 ↗ going to have the most kind of habitat

49:45 ↗ value where where is canopy gonna like

49:48 ↗ around uh streams where it's going to be

49:50 ↗ reducing water temperatures those are

49:53 ↗ considerations that I feel like are

49:54 ↗ getting maybe shoved aside a little bit

49:57 ↗ I think should be a really important

49:59 ↗ consideration that we have to consider

50:01 ↗ all the other things but that just feels

50:02 ↗ like it's not as Central as as maybe it

50:04 ↗ should be within what is drafted within

50:07 ↗ what's there that's really good feedback

50:09 ↗ and I would say that was certainly the

50:10 ↗ impetus of why we wanted to include a

50:12 ↗ riparian subset to the tree canopy

50:14 ↗ analysis essentially establish a

50:16 ↗ baseline with most of these analysis you

50:18 ↗ know you are doing current data which

50:20 ↗ once again there's a lag of the lar

50:22 ↗ being available and the high resolution

50:24 ↗ to you know so essentially everything

50:25 ↗ we're talking about yes is 2,000 to

50:28 ↗ 2021 um for ripering we Ed 2017 as a

50:31 ↗ baseline year since we already had a lot

50:33 ↗ of the um that's you know what we use

50:35 ↗ for the original tree canopy assessment

50:38 ↗ um but yes I I I agree that I think

50:40 ↗ that's something Chris we we can and

50:41 ↗ should chat about you know are we

50:43 ↗ setting you know goals around riper and

50:46 ↗ canopy obviously we have recommendations

50:48 ↗ continue to track that but to to what

50:50 ↗ end I think yeah because what I would I

50:52 ↗ would hate to see happen if like it's

50:53 ↗ only looking at neighborhood level where

50:56 ↗ only trying to prioritize in the

50:57 ↗ neighborhoods but we're not looking at

50:59 ↗ where is there actually high value like

51:01 ↗ I think that's one of the things that um

51:04 ↗ I forget the the sewer M master plan or

51:07 ↗ where they were focusing on critical

51:09 ↗ areas where they were going to try to

51:10 ↗ get um septic migrated to sewer like

51:13 ↗ that I thought was a great way like a

51:15 ↗ great parallel here of like how do we

51:16 ↗ make sure that the highest value areas

51:18 ↗ that we can get canopy for the

51:21 ↗ environment for FL and Fa that that was

51:23 ↗ going to happen um and then

51:27 ↗ the oh one thing that Tom I think

51:29 ↗ brought up last meeting last time this

51:31 ↗ came through that I didn't see mentioned

51:33 ↗ was how to drisk planting trees for

51:37 ↗ developers and Commercial like people

51:39 ↗ that are are larger land owners um

51:42 ↗ because they might see it as a as a as

51:45 ↗ something they if they once they plant

51:46 ↗ it they could never develop that space

51:47 ↗ or they decreasing the value of their

51:49 ↗ land so that's something that um it

51:52 ↗ seems like there might be opportunity

51:54 ↗ there to to evaluate and talk to some

51:56 ↗ business owners talk to some large

51:58 ↗ landhold holders that are that have

52:00 ↗ commercial properties to see if that is

52:01 ↗ a a concern um because I think that that

52:04 ↗ would be a huge if there's something and

52:06 ↗ I don't know what the right mechanism is

52:08 ↗ but if there's a way to help drisk

52:10 ↗ planting trees if they're seeing that as

52:13 ↗ a as a barrier because they think it's a

52:15 ↗ potential something they can't come back

52:17 ↗ from and that they would devalue their

52:18 ↗ land that I think is is a a big

52:21 ↗ potential upside and then the last

52:23 ↗ thing is um I

52:27 ↗ I know we talk about tree selection one

52:29 ↗ of the things that Dan you will know

52:31 ↗ this a thousand times better than anyone

52:32 ↗ in this room but I think that there is a

52:35 ↗ correlation between conifers having

52:38 ↗ better whole better ability to keep out

52:41 ↗ invasives

52:42 ↗ especially than deciduous and so I I do

52:45 ↗ think that in some of our areas we may

52:47 ↗ that's something to consider is like

52:49 ↗ long-term habitat kind of sustainability

52:52 ↗ or ability to repel um invasives and and

52:57 ↗ you would know that better that's

52:58 ↗ something I think isn't mentioned that

52:59 ↗ maybe should be mentioned or considered

53:02 ↗ in the selection of

53:04 ↗ TRS Jamie we have about 10 minutes

53:07 ↗ discussion left so Jonathan just make

53:10 ↗ this quick I'm just kind of curious on

53:12 ↗ how this how this will works you're

53:14 ↗ going to take this plan to the council

53:15 ↗ this fall um are you requesting a budget

53:20 ↗ this fall no the the main budget item

53:22 ↗ that we have request that process is

53:24 ↗ already underway we did have the first

53:26 ↗ touch point with the the SSP we can just

53:28 ↗ spell that out the Safety Services and

53:30 ↗ park subcommittee of our Council um just

53:33 ↗ a few weeks ago uh is is for a train

53:35 ↗ inventory and we're hoping to be able to

53:38 ↗ fund most of that with Grant funds but

53:40 ↗ that that's the main item we're putting

53:42 ↗ in there will be need to be

53:43 ↗ conversations on um getting creative

53:47 ↗ around finances for some of these other

53:48 ↗ kind of short-term goals so will you

53:50 ↗ have a a commitment are you reaching

53:54 ↗ trying to get a commitment for a 10-year

53:55 ↗ plan or is it going to be something that

53:57 ↗ needs to be taken to the board the

54:00 ↗ council every every year for that's a

54:03 ↗ good question and I mean that's the type

54:04 ↗ of feedback that we'd love to hear I

54:05 ↗ mean I think we are looking at

54:07 ↗ commitment for a 10-year plan but is

54:08 ↗ there a you know kind of fiveyear audit

54:10 ↗ we want to look at or you know kind of

54:11 ↗ one of the intervals we talked about

54:12 ↗ intervals for some of the metric updates

54:15 ↗ like the Urban Tree canopy once we have

54:16 ↗ a tree inventory there's recommendations

54:18 ↗ around how often you're trying to update

54:20 ↗ some of that data as it relates to

54:21 ↗ individual trees but um that's a really

54:25 ↗ good question yeah

54:26 ↗ I was not the impression we' be taking

54:28 ↗ it for like re-approval every year or

54:30 ↗ two years but essentially trying to

54:32 ↗ revisit progress as Chris kind of talked

54:34 ↗ about adaptive management possibly you

54:36 ↗ know shifting goals and approaches as

54:38 ↗ needed based on you know current

54:39 ↗ conditions and then new data and stuff

54:41 ↗ like that but um you know I think it

54:43 ↗ would follow a little bit like IAP you

54:45 ↗ know there's you all just went through

54:46 ↗ kind of the mid mid fiveyear right um

54:48 ↗ kind of review so I could see there

54:50 ↗ being a similar process to that you you

54:52 ↗ do see a lot of cities that have been

54:53 ↗ developing these plans a little bit

54:54 ↗ longer you know doing their 10 updates

54:56 ↗ already so I mean I think that would be

54:58 ↗ the next major update so if this gets

55:01 ↗ approved will you have any budget to

55:04 ↗ start planting trees next year some but

55:07 ↗ maybe not as much as we um hope or need

55:11 ↗ to reach some of those G scenarios

55:14 ↗ around the 55% goal that's just kind of

55:16 ↗ the reality of what I've heard from some

55:17 ↗ of our leadership but without getting

55:19 ↗ too much into you'll have to work to get

55:22 ↗ some grants go into grant search mode

55:26 ↗ yeah and we already are kind of starting

55:27 ↗ that like said around the tree inventory

55:29 ↗ around plant material we do have our

55:31 ↗ tree fund which we're going to try to

55:32 ↗ better utilize which was essentially

55:34 ↗ developers paying into that when they

55:35 ↗ can't meet tree canopy retention or

55:37 ↗ planting requirements so but yeah it's

55:40 ↗ it's it's it's limited in terms of

55:42 ↗ meeting that that specific 55% goal with

55:45 ↗ the projection there but it's not to say

55:46 ↗ we don't have anything or there AR to

55:49 ↗ about

55:50 ↗ that it just seems like you need to

55:52 ↗ start planting trees today or as soon as

55:55 ↗ this gets appr to meet

55:59 ↗ 55% all

56:03 ↗ right uh so 16,000 trees planted and

56:08 ↗ 11,000 and something city Le planting do

56:12 ↗ you have the next next level of

56:14 ↗ breakdown of like where are you going to

56:15 ↗ squeeze all those in is that part of the

56:18 ↗ plan or is that left as an

56:19 ↗ implementation detail that's a bit more

56:22 ↗ of an implementation detail but Chris

56:24 ↗ anything you want to add on that

56:26 ↗ yeah thank you um and I did also want to

56:29 ↗ note that uh Keith Gonzalez had a

56:31 ↗ question so um but I I just want to

56:34 ↗ provide a visual this is um from an

56:36 ↗ earlier assessment through King County

56:38 ↗ but here we're looking at isqua and so

56:40 ↗ this just gives a visual of some of the

56:43 ↗ priorities um and what we're

56:45 ↗ incorporating in the implementation uh

56:47 ↗ section of the plan is a tiered approach

56:50 ↗ you have the Citywide possibly the

56:52 ↗ neighborhoods and planning sub areas

56:54 ↗ drilling down to different themes uh

56:57 ↗ like you know shade over reparan

56:59 ↗ corridors looking at connectivity that

57:01 ↗ we heard Wildlife biodiversity storm

57:05 ↗ water management and then um using these

57:08 ↗ data sets to look at more localized um

57:11 ↗ priority areas and these will be Maps as

57:14 ↗ well as uh GIS files to for the city to

57:17 ↗ utilize overlay with other um shape

57:21 ↗ files other layers to really see where

57:23 ↗ the conflicts are and where those

57:25 ↗ opportunities will be um so yeah there

57:28 ↗ is another step to this when we finalize

57:30 ↗ the long-term framework is those um

57:32 ↗ supporting studies and the

57:35 ↗ implementation aspect and on the side of

57:38 ↗ cost we will be providing an extensive

57:40 ↗ analysis and summary of funding

57:43 ↗ mechanisms um from the local level all

57:46 ↗ the way through to some of the examples

57:48 ↗ Dan shared at the state and federal

57:49 ↗ level um because that is going to be a

57:52 ↗ challenge and then lastly just wanted to

57:53 ↗ mention um it is a escaping me now the

57:57 ↗ planting per per year is an average we

58:00 ↗ know that cities need to scale up

58:02 ↗ efforts and then keeping in mind that

58:04 ↗ those lower cost items like the live

58:07 ↗ Stakes seedlings and and other uh means

58:10 ↗ not just large caliper trees so a lot

58:13 ↗ more that we can um share but hopefully

58:15 ↗ that helps with the implementation

58:18 ↗ question that was asked about like more

58:20 ↗ of a localized more granular level or a

58:23 ↗ granular level of priority area

58:27 ↗ um so I'll I'll get this um online GIS

58:30 ↗ GIS map off your screen but that was

58:33 ↗ hopefully to provide a visual that there

58:35 ↗ are a lot of factors that will go into

58:37 ↗ uh priority areas okay well I did I have

58:40 ↗ kind of a follow on that relates to that

58:42 ↗ now I know that detail we're not going

58:44 ↗ to get to but there's a particular

58:46 ↗ property that's close to where I live

58:48 ↗ that I'll just use as an example the

58:50 ↗ former hope property on Front Street

58:52 ↗ South uh you know the city is owned it

58:55 ↗ for like 10 years or so and and the city

58:57 ↗ is gradually turning it into a

58:59 ↗ Blackberry Farm well okay by default

59:03 ↗ because that's what happens all right so

59:04 ↗ there's a perfect example of a city city

59:07 ↗ held piece of property which could be

59:10 ↗ enhanced with some tree planting on it

59:12 ↗ so I would hope that that would be

59:14 ↗ silver on the list of of areas to plant

59:17 ↗ but it then leads me to another point

59:21 ↗ that okay maybe there needs to be a new

59:25 ↗ little step somewhere in the process of

59:27 ↗ City acquisition of land a tree canopy

59:32 ↗ evaluation when the property is

59:34 ↗ evaluated that would trigger a step of

59:38 ↗ well hey yeah we have an opportunity

59:40 ↗ here and we should uh do some planning

59:43 ↗ so that's kind of a separate process

59:45 ↗ from this overall Urban Forest

59:48 ↗ management plan but it would help

59:51 ↗ address situations like that where okay

59:53 ↗ we've acquired this parcel and rather

59:56 ↗ than just sitting there doing nothing

59:58 ↗ with it must take this opportunity to

1:00:00 ↗ trigger that step to cause a some tree

1:00:04 ↗ planting in the near term rather than

1:00:07 ↗ many years later so that's one

1:00:10 ↗ suggestion uh my next question is uh how

1:00:14 ↗ this is going to how ladder fuel

1:00:17 ↗ reduction will factor into uh this plant

1:00:21 ↗ or is that do you envision that as

1:00:23 ↗ something we're we're not mat sure

1:00:26 ↗ enough in our tree planning to start

1:00:28 ↗ talking about that and we'll we'll do

1:00:31 ↗ that as a as a subsequent step or I

1:00:34 ↗ think that's part of the Adaptive

1:00:35 ↗ management essentially we're referring

1:00:37 ↗ in here to this plan to some of the

1:00:39 ↗ State Building Code updates that have

1:00:41 ↗ been proposed and and and subsequently

1:00:43 ↗ delayed a bit in terms of defining that

1:00:45 ↗ Wildland Urban interface if you saw the

1:00:47 ↗ first map that came out for that that

1:00:48 ↗ DNR put together kind of for a different

1:00:51 ↗ intention but then got used for

1:00:52 ↗ defensible space it's it's essentially

1:00:54 ↗ all of as a so I mean it's theoretical

1:00:57 ↗ if that were to be followed that you

1:00:58 ↗ know 10 to 10 feet to 30 feet from

1:01:01 ↗ buildings we're just not going to have

1:01:02 ↗ tree branches or trees so that that

1:01:04 ↗ would be pretty Monumental if that sort

1:01:07 ↗ of happens but I think you know part of

1:01:09 ↗ the delay in my understanding we're

1:01:10 ↗ working a lot with Jared Schneider who's

1:01:11 ↗ the city's emergency response manager

1:01:13 ↗ he's really the one tracking a lot of

1:01:15 ↗ this um is is to just you know have a

1:01:17 ↗ have a better understanding of uh you

1:01:19 ↗ know when those things are phasing what

1:01:21 ↗ they look like but I think right now

1:01:22 ↗ they're really trying to better

1:01:23 ↗ fine-tune that map of Wildland Urban

1:01:25 ↗ base certainly a lot of parts of the

1:01:26 ↗ city that that should and will qualify

1:01:29 ↗ but then some of the cor spots whether

1:01:30 ↗ we need to have that stric of defensible

1:01:32 ↗ space standards a lot of that is at the

1:01:34 ↗ state level and not necessarily City

1:01:35 ↗ decisions we're really tracking that at

1:01:37 ↗ this point so you know I mean if we run

1:01:39 ↗ really gungho on the ladder fuel

1:01:41 ↗ reduction you completely erase whatever

1:01:44 ↗ gains no It's

1:01:47 ↗ Tricky um and as soon as we have a

1:01:51 ↗ wildfire somewhere on the slopes of

1:01:53 ↗ squawk or tiger it's going to be the

1:01:55 ↗ most important thing suddenly but um

1:01:59 ↗ it's it's a factor that I worry about

1:02:03 ↗ anyway and we're gonna have to find a

1:02:05 ↗ way to balance that

1:02:06 ↗ out uh that's all I got thank you Tom I

1:02:10 ↗ do want to recognize our last two

1:02:12 ↗ comments so Karan and then Keith and

1:02:14 ↗ then we're gonna end this okay hi so uh

1:02:17 ↗ during the survey uh very large

1:02:20 ↗ percentage of the survey respondents

1:02:21 ↗ were over the age of 35 so I was

1:02:23 ↗ wondering if there was any intention on

1:02:24 ↗ doing any altering the surveys to get

1:02:27 ↗ younger audiences opinions yeah that's a

1:02:31 ↗ good question we did try to meet with

1:02:33 ↗ some groups we you know we we brought

1:02:35 ↗ this to ISA garage and kind of got

1:02:37 ↗ feedback that way I'm not sure how many

1:02:38 ↗ of them actually submitted the survey

1:02:39 ↗ but we had a kind of focus group there

1:02:41 ↗ of about five to 10 um High School age

1:02:44 ↗ students as part of the the team garage

1:02:47 ↗ there we did a lot of work with Gibson

1:02:49 ↗ and actually one of your um current

1:02:51 ↗ members who's not here Min Jun was an

1:02:54 ↗ intern with the urban forestry program

1:02:55 ↗ with other gib's next students so we we

1:02:57 ↗ did try to bring this to them both in

1:03:00 ↗ kind of conversation presentations and

1:03:02 ↗ also tried to kind of share the survey I

1:03:03 ↗ don't know how successful like said it

1:03:04 ↗ was getting survey result we we did try

1:03:06 ↗ to kind of tap into a few kind of youth

1:03:09 ↗ group connections we had but I will

1:03:12 ↗ admit that was an area that was probably

1:03:13 ↗ a bit

1:03:15 ↗ lacking that's all thank

1:03:18 ↗ you all right

1:03:20 ↗ please yeah thanks um I just had a

1:03:23 ↗ question about the forest service

1:03:24 ↗ standards that you brought up as a kind

1:03:27 ↗ of a metric to grade the the program on

1:03:29 ↗ um I was sorry if I missed it is is that

1:03:33 ↗ um kind of a real Guiding Light for the

1:03:35 ↗ program or is it just a helpful

1:03:36 ↗ Benchmark I was wondering if there's any

1:03:38 ↗ mechanisms for accountability to

1:03:41 ↗ that yeah I'll take the question Dan if

1:03:43 ↗ that's all right that's great yeah so um

1:03:47 ↗ it more to the latter it's a um

1:03:50 ↗ supporting evaluation in what we're um

1:03:54 ↗ recommending in the plan

1:03:56 ↗ uh so we first go through all of the

1:03:58 ↗ other processes of developing the plan

1:04:01 ↗ the planning processes and Gathering

1:04:03 ↗ those inputs and then summarizing each

1:04:06 ↗ of those along the way and we start to

1:04:08 ↗ see these Trends and commonalities along

1:04:10 ↗ each planning element whether it be uh

1:04:13 ↗ more inclusive or uh more encompassing

1:04:16 ↗ engagement whether it be best practices

1:04:19 ↗ for maintenance and management um you

1:04:21 ↗ know better planting protocols and

1:04:23 ↗ post-planting Care those things start to

1:04:26 ↗ rise above to the surface um and then

1:04:29 ↗ when we do those audits those

1:04:30 ↗ evaluations that's kind of a gut check

1:04:33 ↗ to see did we miss anything and through

1:04:35 ↗ that qualitative assessment see like

1:04:38 ↗ whoa this this category is very low

1:04:40 ↗ where are we addressing that with what

1:04:42 ↗ we've heard and how the strategies are

1:04:44 ↗ being shaped so um that is yeah it's a

1:04:47 ↗ supporting tool it's uh based on

1:04:50 ↗ initially back in 1997 a model of urban

1:04:52 ↗ Forest sustainability where we have

1:04:55 ↗ those Cate ories of the trees the

1:04:57 ↗ management the people and then in 2011

1:05:00 ↗ it was adapted to the criteria and

1:05:03 ↗ indicators of sustainable urban forestry

1:05:06 ↗ and so now today 2024 we've modified and

1:05:11 ↗ adapted and updated those audits to be

1:05:14 ↗ more specific and relevant to urban

1:05:17 ↗ forestry today so it's um evolving and

1:05:21 ↗ the last thing I'll mention is that it

1:05:24 ↗ we are working it into the monitoring

1:05:26 ↗ aspect of the plan because you know if

1:05:29 ↗ you document your methodology for

1:05:31 ↗ scoring from low moderate to good on

1:05:34 ↗ that table that I shared then as a team

1:05:37 ↗ like the city which is really cool to

1:05:38 ↗ see has the tree team across multiple

1:05:41 ↗ departments as you all convene maybe

1:05:43 ↗ that's the group plus these boards and

1:05:45 ↗ say where are we at now and well this is

1:05:48 ↗ low but I think we're at moderate and

1:05:50 ↗ have that discussion it's a learning

1:05:53 ↗ opportunity update that score and now

1:05:55 ↗ that's a progress report that you can

1:05:57 ↗ share with the public and interested

1:05:59 ↗ parties so um a long-winded answer but

1:06:02 ↗ that really is a the heart of Planet

1:06:04 ↗ gu's planning process so I'm glad you

1:06:06 ↗ asked that

1:06:09 ↗ Keith thank you Chris um I have several

1:06:12 ↗ comments for you but for the sake of

1:06:13 ↗ time I will email you those although one

1:06:16 ↗ point um that we should mention is

1:06:19 ↗ there's been comment both by the public

1:06:21 ↗ and I think you heard it at our last

1:06:22 ↗ meeting here about the importance of the

1:06:24 ↗ under story and the next is the overall

1:06:26 ↗ Forest um I'd like to see more emphasis

1:06:29 ↗ on that along with the Forest Edge on

1:06:31 ↗ how that plays

1:06:34 ↗ in thank you and so next steps for the

1:06:37 ↗ board I will send out a reminder but

1:06:39 ↗ we're looking for any written feedback

1:06:41 ↗ by the evening of the 2 and then we'll

1:06:44 ↗ be compiling that into a letter to send

1:06:46 ↗ out for review and approval uh with

1:06:49 ↗ submission to Dan on

1:06:52 ↗ the is that same letter going to go to

1:06:54 ↗ council or is that that will go to the

1:06:56 ↗ park board and then will be included in

1:06:58 ↗ packet St Council or the council

1:07:04 ↗ committee thanks

1:07:08 ↗ everyone thank you all for your time

1:07:10 ↗ take

1:07:13 ↗ care with that we'll roll right into our

1:07:16 ↗ next topic and we're talking about the

1:07:18 ↗ the draft comprehensive plan uh

1:07:20 ↗ Stephen's here to talk to us about it

1:07:22 ↗ tonight there's a memo that you were

1:07:25 ↗ given in your

1:07:30 ↗ packet we're going to be reviewing the

1:07:32 ↗ memo just general memo and then there's

1:07:34 ↗ an attachment that Stephen created for

1:07:36 ↗ us that gets into more of the details

1:07:40 ↗ Stacy if you want to start stop yeah so

1:07:44 ↗ um the way we are planning to approach

1:07:47 ↗ this tonight is first um Don and I were

1:07:51 ↗ going to talk through some of the major

1:07:52 ↗ themes that we heard from the board on

1:07:56 ↗ the non- environment Element Section so

1:07:58 ↗ we're going to focus there first and we

1:08:01 ↗ want to make sure that we're accurately

1:08:03 ↗ capturing um high level summary and

1:08:06 ↗ those themes and then we were going to

1:08:08 ↗ move into the environment element and

1:08:10 ↗ walk through those comments one by one

1:08:13 ↗ first starting with those that David and

1:08:17 ↗ I thought might be best move to a um

1:08:21 ↗ conversation when we start updating the

1:08:23 ↗ IAP Al that's part disc s and then we

1:08:26 ↗ would move through the other ones to get

1:08:28 ↗ agreement from the board on what changes

1:08:31 ↗ you want to see now in the

1:08:33 ↗ environment so bit of a three-part

1:08:36 ↗ discussion first non- environment

1:08:38 ↗ element make sure we're summarizing

1:08:41 ↗ correctly and then move into the

1:08:43 ↗ environment element that we'll divide

1:08:45 ↗ into two two sections of

1:08:49 ↗ conversation that work for folks this is

1:08:52 ↗ a little complicated so we've been

1:08:54 ↗ trying to figure out the best way to

1:08:56 ↗ present all

1:08:59 ↗ this and this is blurry for the group

1:09:03 ↗ Stephen are you you're on with

1:09:09 ↗ us great all right so Stephen's here to

1:09:13 ↗ help answer

1:09:17 ↗ questions okay um well first I did want

1:09:20 ↗ to just say thank you very much I know

1:09:23 ↗ board memb spent a lot of time reviewing

1:09:25 ↗ the document provided some really great

1:09:27 ↗ feedback and staff have gone through all

1:09:29 ↗ that feedback we want to make sure we're

1:09:31 ↗ accurately

1:09:32 ↗ reflecting um that feedback as uh the

1:09:36 ↗ comprehensive plan is going to the

1:09:39 ↗ planning policy commission as well as to

1:09:41 ↗ the council later this

1:09:44 ↗ fall um so we'll just walk through maybe

1:09:49 ↗ a a summary of what we captured from the

1:09:51 ↗ board's feedback Don do you want me to

1:09:54 ↗ do that or do you want to you

1:09:56 ↗ can walk through it by element like we

1:09:59 ↗ discussed yeah can you put that document

1:10:04 ↗ screen

1:10:14 ↗ sure so the overall themes we heard um

1:10:17 ↗ from the board on the land use element

1:10:19 ↗ where sustainability Focus um having the

1:10:23 ↗ comp plan being truly sustainable

1:10:25 ↗ towards the natural environment CLE

1:10:28 ↗ defining productive capacity of high

1:10:30 ↗ quality natural areas and considering if

1:10:33 ↗ this should fully focus on land use or

1:10:36 ↗ integrated

1:10:38 ↗ elsewhere policy clar Clarity and

1:10:41 ↗ integration terminology and policy focus

1:10:44 ↗ with land use section need view to avoid

1:10:46 ↗ conflicts ensure alignment

1:10:48 ↗ sustainability goals language train

1:10:50 ↗ management Wildlife cohabitation and R

1:10:53 ↗ water capture development strategies

1:10:56 ↗ exploring diverse strategies for

1:10:58 ↗ increasing NE density Beyond cluster

1:11:00 ↗ housing assess policies on bability and

1:11:03 ↗ Equity to ensure they align with the

1:11:04 ↗ broader development gos neighborhood

1:11:08 ↗ standards updating the standards to

1:11:10 ↗ support effective density increases

1:11:12 ↗ neighborhoods while maintaining

1:11:13 ↗ environmental

1:11:15 ↗ considerations wildlife and habitat

1:11:17 ↗ inclusion ensuring wildli habitat

1:11:19 ↗ policies are integrated throughout the

1:11:21 ↗ relevant areas these are the The General

1:11:25 ↗ themes that we plan to include in the

1:11:27 ↗ letter that goes forward I read them

1:11:29 ↗ because it's very hard to read up there

1:11:32 ↗ so if they're these are

1:11:35 ↗ accurate I think we can agree that this

1:11:37 ↗ will be in our letter that's going to

1:11:39 ↗ our to the just going to the PPC and

1:11:45 ↗ subsequently to council committees now

1:11:48 ↗ grade Out Below that are details around

1:11:52 ↗ the land use element and those have been

1:11:54 ↗ provided to stepen and he's he's looking

1:11:56 ↗ at those in a much larger table with

1:11:58 ↗ some other comments but I don't know

1:12:02 ↗ that we want to put that in the letter

1:12:04 ↗ in this letter in this level of detail

1:12:07 ↗ we talked about last night Stephen and

1:12:10 ↗ Stacy and I met was to have the general

1:12:13 ↗ themes in our letter and then provide

1:12:16 ↗ Stephen with the details and he can put

1:12:17 ↗ them into his appendix it's a

1:12:20 ↗ spreadsheet we can look at that as well

1:12:22 ↗ if we like so have we captured your

1:12:25 ↗ general concerns on the land

1:12:28 ↗ use I'm GNA express my concerns about

1:12:31 ↗ that approach okay and the reason I do

1:12:33 ↗ that is most of the comments we provided

1:12:37 ↗ to um Stephen were no change we received

1:12:41 ↗ a response of no change and many of us

1:12:44 ↗ took the time to try and put those

1:12:46 ↗ comments down and it's important that

1:12:48 ↗ PPC sees those in their entirety from

1:12:51 ↗ this board because that's what we're

1:12:52 ↗ asked to do as say the council so

1:12:55 ↗ putting those into just the table that

1:12:57 ↗ Stephen responds to to me is not a

1:12:59 ↗ complete you can attach it as a separate

1:13:02 ↗ thing that's not as highlighted but I

1:13:05 ↗ would really um prefer propose that we

1:13:09 ↗ continue to provide

1:13:12 ↗ those Stephen would you like to speak to

1:13:17 ↗ that if the board would like to provide

1:13:19 ↗ the full table we can uh we just wanted

1:13:21 ↗ to make sure we had the full discussion

1:13:23 ↗ with the board on everything and

1:13:25 ↗ separate out what goes in the letter

1:13:27 ↗ from this more specific

1:13:32 ↗ comments how do you plan to present your

1:13:36 ↗ spreadsheet Stephen with all the

1:13:38 ↗ specific

1:13:39 ↗ comments the if the spreadsheet gets

1:13:42 ↗ added to get what gets sent to the

1:13:44 ↗ planning policy commission it would be

1:13:46 ↗ attachment to the

1:13:53 ↗ ladder what would the board like to

1:13:56 ↗ see for suggestions

1:13:59 ↗ for I would like to see them included in

1:14:02 ↗ the I think we did a lot of work on this

1:14:04 ↗ we spent a lot of time on this as a

1:14:07 ↗ board I think it's important that we

1:14:09 ↗ express

1:14:17 ↗ our well so maybe I just make sure I

1:14:21 ↗ understand what we're saying here like

1:14:23 ↗ item U talks about making sure we

1:14:27 ↗ maintain

1:14:29 ↗ walkability is that the entire Express

1:14:33 ↗ expressing what we captured in the more

1:14:35 ↗ detailed table including things about

1:14:38 ↗ improving multi botal Transportation

1:14:41 ↗ walkability isn't isn't that it's more

1:14:44 ↗ than that so if that is the distilling

1:14:47 ↗ of that I'd say we we've lost too much

1:14:49 ↗ information in that

1:14:53 ↗ transformation so it needs to be either

1:14:55 ↗ more detailed in that presentation or as

1:14:58 ↗ Nancy suggests well here let's let's

1:15:00 ↗ just keep capture all that we have here

1:15:03 ↗ and then uh that can be f for that

1:15:07 ↗ analysis by whoever but I I feel there

1:15:11 ↗ has been some loss of

1:15:17 ↗ information so Nancy in your proposal is

1:15:20 ↗ is that section on the bottom going to

1:15:23 ↗ be including in that way or is it in

1:15:26 ↗ line I would say it in that way was part

1:15:29 ↗ of you know our comments and feedback on

1:15:32 ↗ it it's another page and a half

1:15:43 ↗ materials oh

1:15:45 ↗ um so I was I was more question I was

1:15:49 ↗ just curious how I mean I think I I

1:15:51 ↗ would support including it as long I do

1:15:54 ↗ think that if

1:15:56 ↗ we should make clear like if they're

1:15:57 ↗ only going to read one part of it what

1:15:59 ↗ do we want to make sure that we get

1:16:00 ↗ across and so I do think alignment on

1:16:03 ↗ those top five is still important but um

1:16:07 ↗ but showing our work is is great as well

1:16:09 ↗ to detail

1:16:14 ↗ that um I'm going to propose we take a

1:16:17 ↗ quick

1:16:18 ↗ vote just so we have it

1:16:22 ↗ captured so

1:16:26 ↗ I'm going to make a motion we vote on

1:16:29 ↗ keeping it in the format as is or

1:16:32 ↗ reducing it down to just the general

1:16:36 ↗ themes

1:16:39 ↗ second I'll

1:16:41 ↗ second um so for all of those that would

1:16:44 ↗ like to see the letter kept with all the

1:16:46 ↗ details so pretty much as is as it reads

1:16:49 ↗ there

1:16:51 ↗ um please give me a

1:16:55 ↗ sign

1:17:00 ↗ up like we

1:17:01 ↗ have

1:17:03 ↗ St I think our desire is to keep the

1:17:06 ↗ letter as is with the details in it know

1:17:09 ↗ that's not quite what we discussed last

1:17:11 ↗ night but I do believe after hearing

1:17:13 ↗ mancy and other comments of the board

1:17:15 ↗ that's the intent that board is

1:17:21 ↗ looking Sten any um concerns with that

1:17:25 ↗ anything else we can do to package this

1:17:27 ↗ for PPC that would be helpful as staff

1:17:30 ↗ meet with

1:17:32 ↗ them I think what I might do is um if

1:17:36 ↗ the preference from the board is to keep

1:17:37 ↗ all the detail with the themes is is

1:17:39 ↗ that what's been was voted on is keep

1:17:42 ↗ the themes and the detail so keep the

1:17:46 ↗ lettered yeah then then to also provide

1:17:49 ↗ PPC with the same Matrix that we

1:17:51 ↗ provided the board as

1:17:53 ↗ well and that would be be the attachment

1:17:55 ↗ to the

1:17:59 ↗ letter so the letter would read as is

1:18:02 ↗ plus the

1:18:03 ↗ attachment

1:18:11 ↗ correct any other comments on

1:18:14 ↗ that I think we can drop down to the

1:18:16 ↗ environmental element or we're going

1:18:17 ↗ have the majority of our discussion

1:18:20 ↗ great yeah I think what we were going to

1:18:22 ↗ do um for the other conversation was

1:18:24 ↗ move through the themes the rest of the

1:18:26 ↗ themes in the document um I don't think

1:18:29 ↗ we need to do that now since we're going

1:18:31 ↗ to include the level of detail um what

1:18:35 ↗ we'd like to do is go through the

1:18:37 ↗ details of the environment element and

1:18:39 ↗ where there's things that we can address

1:18:41 ↗ and resolve in the environment element

1:18:43 ↗ our proposals we'd remove those from the

1:18:46 ↗ letter because they will be revised um

1:18:49 ↗ in the next

1:18:50 ↗ version um and then after we do that

1:18:53 ↗ just want to would like to get the okay

1:18:56 ↗ on this letter tonight if possible um

1:18:59 ↗ because I know Stephen uh would like to

1:19:01 ↗ try and get it to PPC

1:19:03 ↗ tomorrow faster than we had

1:19:07 ↗ originally um so with that what I will

1:19:10 ↗ do is move to a different

1:19:13 ↗ document

1:19:15 ↗ um and as mentioned we'd first like

1:19:21 ↗ to start with the recommendations from

1:19:25 ↗ the board um that staff felt after a

1:19:31 ↗ quick review that we could address as

1:19:33 ↗ part of the next uh update to the

1:19:37 ↗ IAP um and therefore uh not for

1:19:42 ↗ consideration within this version of the

1:19:44 ↗ comp plan but they would be flagged for

1:19:46 ↗ discussion with the board um next year

1:19:49 ↗ when we'd have more time to talk about

1:19:50 ↗ them and incorporating them into the IAB

1:19:53 ↗ and then next we'll move into those that

1:19:56 ↗ we felt like um we should bring for

1:19:58 ↗ discussion tonight for immediate edits

1:20:00 ↗ to the environment

1:20:03 ↗ element um so first to start with those

1:20:06 ↗ um we felt could uh or the staff

1:20:09 ↗ recommendation is to punt to the 2025

1:20:13 ↗ review of the IAP would be those um that

1:20:16 ↗ were proposed I think John brought some

1:20:18 ↗ really great suggestions for new

1:20:20 ↗ policies um we felt like at this stage

1:20:23 ↗ in the um comprehensive plan um given

1:20:27 ↗ that these wouldn't have a chance for

1:20:29 ↗ more public vetting or vetting by other

1:20:32 ↗ boards that we should take our time next

1:20:35 ↗ year to really review these and F tune

1:20:37 ↗ them um and do our due diligence to make

1:20:40 ↗ sure they the policies that we want to

1:20:43 ↗ advance so that is the majority of them

1:20:47 ↗ and then uh there was one around

1:20:49 ↗ strengthening a policy around energy use

1:20:53 ↗ patterns again we felt like that um

1:20:56 ↗ would and I can pull up the specific

1:20:58 ↗ policy but that it might be best to wait

1:21:00 ↗ for a more robust discussion on that and

1:21:03 ↗ include as part of the IAP update

1:21:05 ↗ instead of trying to expedite um that

1:21:09 ↗ consideration for this version of the

1:21:11 ↗ comprehensive plan um and I will just

1:21:15 ↗ remind folks if we make updates to the

1:21:17 ↗ IAP those would then be reflected in an

1:21:20 ↗ update to the comp plan following

1:21:22 ↗ adoption of the IAP so would eventually

1:21:26 ↗ be and then just the last one um for

1:21:30 ↗ consideration we thought possibly could

1:21:32 ↗ be punted to a IAB update was

1:21:35 ↗ specifically calling out c um under the

1:21:39 ↗ resilience and well-being

1:21:41 ↗ section um sir is uh one of our major

1:21:45 ↗ response mechanisms for emergencies um

1:21:48 ↗ but did feel like it was specific enough

1:21:50 ↗ it might best belong in the

1:21:52 ↗ IAP um so th those are the staff

1:21:54 ↗ responses to that group of um

1:21:58 ↗ recommendations that we move those to

1:22:01 ↗ the um consideration of the icap update

1:22:04 ↗ but we're looking for feedback on

1:22:07 ↗ whether you all are okay with that or if

1:22:08 ↗ we want to pull any out for further

1:22:10 ↗ discussion tonight immediate

1:22:12 ↗ consideration and

1:22:15 ↗ then based on what I hear tonight I

1:22:18 ↗ agree I understand where you're going

1:22:20 ↗ with the proposed new we're a little

1:22:22 ↗ late in the game for those to make it

1:22:24 ↗ into to the plan now although I still

1:22:28 ↗ think what I'm hearing from the previous

1:22:30 ↗ conversation I think those should be

1:22:32 ↗ mentioned in our letter so that it's

1:22:35 ↗ known that those are out there and that

1:22:37 ↗ we're thinking about them and we could

1:22:40 ↗ just flag that they'll be considered as

1:22:42 ↗ part of the IAP update that be

1:22:51 ↗ acceptable I just had a question so

1:22:53 ↗ Stacy you said

1:22:55 ↗ that once we ad adopted in IAP it's not

1:22:59 ↗ like it's automatically the next that's

1:23:01 ↗ basically the next time the comp plan

1:23:02 ↗ comes around it needs to be updated is

1:23:04 ↗ that is that correct yeah and Stephen

1:23:06 ↗ and I chat about that I think as we'

1:23:09 ↗ mentioned to the board our goal is to

1:23:11 ↗ update the IAP by Spring of 26 ahead of

1:23:14 ↗ our next budget cycle and then the comp

1:23:17 ↗ plan would be updated by the end of 2026

1:23:20 ↗ is that correct Stephen so there'd be

1:23:22 ↗ couple month like time between that

1:23:24 ↗ update because sorry did you say the

1:23:26 ↗ timing again the IAP would be updated by

1:23:29 ↗ Spring 2026 is our goal and then the

1:23:31 ↗ comp plan goes through

1:23:33 ↗ annual Refreshers um or minor updates

1:23:38 ↗ and so um we could include some

1:23:41 ↗ revisions into the comp plan by the end

1:23:43 ↗ of

1:23:44 ↗ 2026 is that Stephen jump in if I'm no

1:23:48 ↗ that's correct um for the comens plan we

1:23:51 ↗ basically have an annual review process

1:23:52 ↗ for if there's updates to other

1:23:55 ↗ functional plans so like the IAP going

1:23:57 ↗ through its update and planning to get

1:24:00 ↗ that done by early 2026 it'll

1:24:02 ↗ essentially just get rolled into the

1:24:04 ↗ 2026 comp plan updates which would

1:24:06 ↗ probably be done by the end of the

1:24:08 ↗ year Well I support the direction on

1:24:11 ↗ this the only thing I would say is if

1:24:13 ↗ there's anything that we feel like is

1:24:14 ↗ sending us in the wrong direction before

1:24:16 ↗ then which I'm I don't know all the

1:24:18 ↗ detail of these but that would be the

1:24:20 ↗ one thing that we should talk about but

1:24:22 ↗ I don't know that exists

1:24:25 ↗ sending in the wrong direction oh like

1:24:27 ↗ if what the current comp plan says is

1:24:29 ↗ sending us in the wrong direction

1:24:30 ↗ relative to what we think the next

1:24:32 ↗ update will be that would be something

1:24:34 ↗ that we should be talking about and I

1:24:35 ↗ didn't have time since this was sent out

1:24:38 ↗ so I'm not sure what's in this section

1:24:41 ↗ but that that if there's anything that

1:24:43 ↗ anyone feels like falls into that

1:24:45 ↗ category that is something I think we

1:24:47 ↗ should talk

1:24:52 ↗ about yeah so I think what we have

1:24:55 ↗ proposed on the table is all the new the

1:24:57 ↗ new proposed policies would remain in

1:25:01 ↗ the letter we will note for

1:25:04 ↗ PPC that those will be considered as

1:25:07 ↗ part of the next IAP update but we'll

1:25:09 ↗ retain them in the letter just to make

1:25:11 ↗ sure they're not

1:25:18 ↗ lost lost key

1:25:26 ↗ okay oh no we do still have Keith I

1:25:29 ↗ don't know why Keith we can't you're not

1:25:31 ↗ showing up on our screen I'm going try

1:25:32 ↗ spell at

1:25:33 ↗ you um Keith are you can you hear me yes

1:25:38 ↗ no we got you it's just our screen being

1:25:41 ↗ weird tonight um are you comfortable

1:25:43 ↗ with that if anything we're saying

1:25:46 ↗ you're not following because it's a

1:25:47 ↗ little complex just let us know but are

1:25:49 ↗ you comfortable with that

1:25:51 ↗ approach yes thank you sorry about that

1:25:54 ↗ de find our

1:25:57 ↗ screen

1:25:58 ↗ okay I just have one I do think one

1:26:02 ↗ thing we should think about in the

1:26:03 ↗ overall format is just making sure that

1:26:04 ↗ we have prioritized the things that we

1:26:06 ↗ need to get across like this is more of

1:26:08 ↗ an FYI this is not something that PBC

1:26:11 ↗ necessarily needs to know so that would

1:26:13 ↗ just like I would know I would

1:26:15 ↗ appreciate knowing what is really

1:26:17 ↗ critical to review and like is

1:26:19 ↗ applicable to the current update so that

1:26:22 ↗ would be to consider

1:26:28 ↗ there was a couple that you wanted to

1:26:30 ↗ yeah I just that was the new ones um and

1:26:33 ↗ then the other ones we were going to

1:26:35 ↗ flag for the IAP update uh was around

1:26:39 ↗ policy F3 this is more aggressive in

1:26:42 ↗ terms that requesting a more aggressive

1:26:44 ↗ approach for shifting energy

1:26:47 ↗ patterns and then um there was one on

1:26:49 ↗ mention of C uh the community Emergency

1:26:52 ↗ Response Team so our proposal is those

1:26:55 ↗ are considered as part of the IAP update

1:26:57 ↗ but I wanted to make sure the board was

1:27:00 ↗ comfortable with that or if we want to

1:27:01 ↗ pull them out for further discussion

1:27:04 ↗ tonight and if it's helpful I can pull

1:27:07 ↗ up what policy F3 is or dve yeah for for

1:27:12 ↗ context policy F3 is one of the Targets

1:27:15 ↗ in the climate action plan um related to

1:27:19 ↗ um reducing fossil fuel use in existing

1:27:22 ↗ buildings by uh 20% by 2030 and 80% by

1:27:28 ↗ 2050 is that consistent with what's in

1:27:31 ↗ the comp plan so that is that is the

1:27:35 ↗ that's what's in the comp plan right now

1:27:36 ↗ is reducing fossil Fu use in existing

1:27:38 ↗ buildings 20% by 2030 and that's

1:27:40 ↗ consistent with the climate action plan

1:27:42 ↗ as well and that's the again the same uh

1:27:47 ↗ existing buildings fossil field Target

1:27:48 ↗ from the King County climate

1:27:50 ↗ collaborative as well which is which is

1:27:52 ↗ really where that came from in the first

1:27:53 ↗ place

1:27:55 ↗ there was a Comm out here to strengthen

1:27:56 ↗ that policy to be

1:28:00 ↗ more that forward yeah I can just give

1:28:03 ↗ context that was my comment and that was

1:28:05 ↗ the reason I said that is there's a

1:28:07 ↗ another policy that is to reduce overall

1:28:09 ↗ energy use by 25% in buildings and so

1:28:12 ↗ it's to me weird that we would have if

1:28:14 ↗ we hit the 25% reduction we would have

1:28:17 ↗ already achieved more than we've said in

1:28:19 ↗ the fossil fuel reduction so and maybe

1:28:22 ↗ there's some math I'm not doing right

1:28:24 ↗ but but that seems to me like we should

1:28:26 ↗ have a more aggressive if we're trying

1:28:27 ↗ to reduce by 25% then the target for

1:28:30 ↗ fossil fuel production should be higher

1:28:32 ↗ than the target for overall energy

1:28:39 ↗ use our folks um can we punt that to the

1:28:44 ↗ IAP update for discussion on the target

1:28:47 ↗ since I think we want the comp plan to

1:28:50 ↗ reflect the IAP targets as written I'm

1:28:54 ↗ yeah I just think that's something we

1:28:56 ↗ need to update on the IP yeah that just

1:28:58 ↗ seems inconsistent to how what that

1:29:02 ↗ might require when we're doing the IAP

1:29:05 ↗ update process um we can probably try

1:29:07 ↗ and do some analysis there that that 25%

1:29:10 ↗ includes electricity use yeah right so

1:29:12 ↗ that's going to be why there is that

1:29:14 ↗ difference in percentage numbers um

1:29:18 ↗ because that's that's talking about

1:29:19 ↗ overall energy use so electricity and

1:29:21 ↗ fossil fuels right versus just the fuels

1:29:24 ↗ although um as we're thinking about

1:29:26 ↗ these overall greenhouse gas reductions

1:29:28 ↗ that you know we're also going to

1:29:29 ↗ Electrify some of that fossil fuel use

1:29:31 ↗ and so there's kind of all of these

1:29:33 ↗ pieces working working together and

1:29:36 ↗ um to hit all these different

1:29:42 ↗ goals a good thing to okay

1:29:47 ↗ okay

1:29:51 ↗ on and then just the last one was the

1:29:53 ↗ mention of c um the community emergency

1:29:56 ↗ response team as part of the resilience

1:29:59 ↗ and well-being

1:30:01 ↗ policies um okay I think staff would be

1:30:05 ↗ comfortable making that change we did

1:30:06 ↗ feel like that level of specificity in

1:30:09 ↗ terms of calling out a program could be

1:30:12 ↗ maybe best included in a functional plan

1:30:14 ↗ like the IAP um but defer to the board

1:30:18 ↗ on

1:30:20 ↗ your certain mentioned in your Emergency

1:30:23 ↗ Management plan documents as well yes

1:30:30 ↗ yeah comment there go ahead ke I was

1:30:35 ↗ just going to say that was my suggestion

1:30:37 ↗ um just seemed like there wasn't a lot

1:30:38 ↗ of specificity in mentioning um ways to

1:30:41 ↗ uh have that Readiness for climate

1:30:44 ↗ resilience um and and that's the program

1:30:47 ↗ that I'm familiar with that that would

1:30:48 ↗ seem best positioned for that but uh

1:30:51 ↗ like you say if it's already mentioned

1:30:52 ↗ an emergency uh uh plans and stuff maybe

1:30:55 ↗ not

1:30:56 ↗ necessary I don't know that sir from the

1:30:59 ↗ Emergency Management side takes into

1:31:02 ↗ account climate

1:31:06 ↗ resilience something we're working with

1:31:08 ↗ an emergency manage um management office

1:31:11 ↗ on um I don't I don't know if they are

1:31:13 ↗ called out specifically in the IAP but

1:31:16 ↗ as we work more with them and they

1:31:18 ↗ really are um kind of a Frontline

1:31:21 ↗ response team that's it will be

1:31:23 ↗ important that they are called out and

1:31:29 ↗ that any concerns If We Hold that one um

1:31:34 ↗ for the IAP update are you okay with

1:31:37 ↗ that Keith or it your preference to

1:31:40 ↗ do yeah if other folks agree that makes

1:31:43 ↗ sense to

1:31:47 ↗ me I would I would say talk with your

1:31:50 ↗ Emergency Management folks because Ser

1:31:52 ↗ is a very defined program

1:31:55 ↗ the two need to be in correlation with

1:31:57 ↗ each other if you're going to mention

1:31:59 ↗ the word c in here they have to be

1:32:01 ↗ teaching that in that

1:32:06 ↗ yeah all right I think David's then

1:32:08 ↗ gonna talk about um other

1:32:11 ↗ recommendations that we want to get some

1:32:14 ↗ agreement on the board uh whether or not

1:32:16 ↗ to make those immediate revisions to

1:32:20 ↗ envirment yeah so um I'm going to go

1:32:22 ↗ through each of these individually and

1:32:25 ↗ and provide just some context around uh

1:32:28 ↗ some of the staff response um and then

1:32:31 ↗ kind of open it up to to thoughts from

1:32:33 ↗ the board on inclusion in the letter so

1:32:36 ↗ for the first point um around the vision

1:32:39 ↗ so that piece of the vision that point U

1:32:41 ↗ relates to educating and engaging

1:32:44 ↗ residents and businesses to inspire

1:32:46 ↗ Behavior change uh in addressing climate

1:32:48 ↗ change and enhancing our natural

1:32:50 ↗ environment and the comment was uh to

1:32:53 ↗ update the vision to to specifically

1:32:56 ↗ call out um uh encompassing both adults

1:32:59 ↗ and schoolage children um and then also

1:33:02 ↗ uh to essentially expand um the

1:33:05 ↗ incorporation of Education throughout

1:33:07 ↗ the comp plan and and um the climate the

1:33:10 ↗ environmental and climate stewardship

1:33:12 ↗ element um as well um so the staff

1:33:17 ↗ response really is that um we have

1:33:21 ↗ Incorporated education into many of

1:33:23 ↗ policies although of course we're we're

1:33:25 ↗ open to exploring other spots where that

1:33:28 ↗ fits um the uh some of the uh specific

1:33:34 ↗ recommendations on kind of the pieces to

1:33:37 ↗ in uh include around education um sta

1:33:40 ↗ field might uh fall more under um School

1:33:44 ↗ District purview versus say the city

1:33:46 ↗ right especially as it relates to um

1:33:49 ↗ impacting School curriculum um and then

1:33:53 ↗ additionally as we get into more

1:33:54 ↗ specific um actions um that can be

1:33:57 ↗ something that we can uh talk about

1:33:59 ↗ during the IAP update process so that's

1:34:02 ↗ kind of some of our initial thought on

1:34:04 ↗ on this uh recommendation here but love

1:34:07 ↗ to hear any Bard thoughts on uh this

1:34:15 ↗ comment that was my comment basically

1:34:19 ↗ it's you know sustainability is a

1:34:21 ↗ difficult concept for people to

1:34:22 ↗ understand and I think it needs to start

1:34:27 ↗ early that's that's and

1:34:31 ↗ somehow um try to get it into freaking I

1:34:35 ↗ don't know how we would do that but

1:34:38 ↗ education when I read these plans it

1:34:40 ↗ sounds like education is everywhere

1:34:43 ↗ within the plans but it's kind of

1:34:45 ↗ focused towards adults and think we just

1:34:48 ↗ need to start early because

1:34:54 ↗ yeah I think it's a great and we do have

1:34:56 ↗ a partnership with a group that is

1:34:59 ↗ sustainability ambassadors that

1:35:00 ↗ presented in June that is actually

1:35:02 ↗ working on some curriculum but this may

1:35:05 ↗ be a gap in this section where we're not

1:35:07 ↗ calling

1:35:09 ↗ out high school and and AG group so we

1:35:13 ↗ could look at that vision and see if

1:35:15 ↗ there's any adjustments we could make

1:35:21 ↗ to so sty just one comment on that and

1:35:24 ↗ things may have changed but I had

1:35:26 ↗ actually requested like about seven or

1:35:29 ↗ eight years back that you know the

1:35:31 ↗ elementary schools should start doing

1:35:34 ↗ Environmental Education start as a part

1:35:37 ↗ of a separate class or at least as a

1:35:39 ↗ part of science class or if you can't do

1:35:41 ↗ it at least start as an extracurricular

1:35:45 ↗ class but it should be a class workor um

1:35:48 ↗ and I had gone to the principls and

1:35:50 ↗ talked to a couple of School principles

1:35:52 ↗ and I was told told that the school

1:35:55 ↗ curriculum needs to be approved by the

1:35:58 ↗ state and so you know it was a long

1:36:01 ↗ drawn procedure and it takes apparently

1:36:03 ↗ 10 years to change the curriculum and

1:36:05 ↗ stuff so I just wanted to and things may

1:36:07 ↗ have changed especially now you know

1:36:09 ↗ everybody is getting more of climate

1:36:12 ↗ action and other things so I hope the

1:36:15 ↗ change can be faster but I just wanted

1:36:17 ↗ to let you know that where it stood at

1:36:20 ↗ that point yeah and I think that's where

1:36:22 ↗ we're trying to be careful all that the

1:36:25 ↗ city isn't getting in the way of OSI or

1:36:31 ↗ is AA School District that is not our

1:36:34 ↗ role but where we can support programs

1:36:36 ↗ like sustainability ambassadors or the

1:36:39 ↗ students um working on the istd

1:36:41 ↗ sustainability policy which might bring

1:36:43 ↗ in some requirements for sustainable

1:36:46 ↗ curriculum players a role um and it

1:36:49 ↗ could be you know included as a part of

1:36:51 ↗ all these sustainability programs Green

1:36:54 ↗ Team

1:36:54 ↗ sustain everything done so but it needs

1:36:57 ↗ to be consistent to be to the point of

1:37:00 ↗ John it needs to be consistent and

1:37:03 ↗ actually an educational effort versus

1:37:06 ↗ you know just once in a month type of

1:37:08 ↗ extracurricular activity to really get

1:37:11 ↗ the you know to be

1:37:14 ↗ effective

1:37:16 ↗ okay yeah I think David and I can look

1:37:18 ↗ at the language tomorrow and and we can

1:37:21 ↗ incorporate

1:37:24 ↗ um Concepts around this to the vision

1:37:28 ↗ yeah I think the vision and then also

1:37:29 ↗ maybe some of that introduction language

1:37:31 ↗ as well where we might have a little bit

1:37:33 ↗ more space to extrapolate on on some

1:37:35 ↗ pieces right

1:37:38 ↗ okay great um moving right along um

1:37:43 ↗ streams wetlands and

1:37:46 ↗ Wildlife

1:37:47 ↗ um so this is uh goal area B and C

1:37:54 ↗ um and the comment from the board was to

1:37:58 ↗ incorporate um more of the the comments

1:38:01 ↗ specifically related to uh wildlife and

1:38:04 ↗ some of those policies that were

1:38:05 ↗ proposed back in January um emphasizing

1:38:09 ↗ the importance of wildlife protection um

1:38:12 ↗ and adoption adopting uh policies that

1:38:15 ↗ support neighborhood level education

1:38:18 ↗ around

1:38:19 ↗ Wildlife um so I think as staff are kind

1:38:22 ↗ of thinking about this and and exploring

1:38:25 ↗ this um some of the the questions that

1:38:29 ↗ came up really is where does this really

1:38:31 ↗ fall within the city um right now a lot

1:38:34 ↗ of the wildlife work

1:38:36 ↗ is spread out across different

1:38:39 ↗ departments um some of this is wildlife

1:38:42 ↗ work that um I don't believe that the

1:38:44 ↗ city is really doing yet um and so I

1:38:47 ↗ think there is some question on kind of

1:38:49 ↗ where does this really land in this uh

1:38:52 ↗ in the comp plan and then also kind of

1:38:54 ↗ integrated into City work

1:38:56 ↗ um yeah so I'll I'll leave it there but

1:38:59 ↗ I'd love to hear kind of uh forward

1:39:01 ↗ reactions to really what we should uh

1:39:04 ↗ continue to include in this letter as

1:39:06 ↗ the person that keeps pushing this FL if

1:39:09 ↗ you look at next door you look at any of

1:39:12 ↗ the neighborhood Facebook groups look at

1:39:15 ↗ anything else the most thing you most

1:39:17 ↗ likely see is there's a bear in my

1:39:19 ↗ neighborhood or did you see the you know

1:39:22 ↗ whatever it is that's walking down the

1:39:23 ↗ street these days the people in this

1:39:26 ↗ community have a unique coexistence with

1:39:29 ↗ Wildlife um it's a really important part

1:39:31 ↗ of the community that's why we all live

1:39:33 ↗ here they're not just in streams and

1:39:35 ↗ wetlands and I think we need to

1:39:37 ↗ acknowledge that boy I really like

1:39:39 ↗ living in in an area where we have big

1:39:42 ↗ cat total cats

1:39:44 ↗ Bears there's L many places you can say

1:39:47 ↗ that you've got that walking down your

1:39:48 ↗ street and so my comment to this is we

1:39:51 ↗ should acknowledge that because because

1:39:53 ↗ it is such a big part of this community

1:39:56 ↗ now maybe it does because it's with

1:39:57 ↗ streams wetlands and Wildlife well you

1:39:59 ↗ think streams and wetlands but wild life

1:40:01 ↗ is walking down the street it's walking

1:40:03 ↗ through the trees we see it all over the

1:40:05 ↗ place when you're hiking so what I'm

1:40:07 ↗ trying to do is acknowledge that part of

1:40:10 ↗ this community that makes is aaso

1:40:12 ↗ special and that's part of our

1:40:13 ↗ comprehensive plan we want to keep

1:40:15 ↗ seeing those down Wildlife walking down

1:40:16 ↗ our street that's and I'm kind of

1:40:19 ↗ passionate about it because I just think

1:40:21 ↗ I really love seeing those posts that

1:40:23 ↗ people people put and I think we should

1:40:24 ↗ continue to celebrate that that's what

1:40:26 ↗ we've managed to accomplish in this

1:40:28 ↗ community that's just my vision of this

1:40:32 ↗ okay so the part of this that comes to

1:40:34 ↗ mind for me which I've been a bit of a

1:40:36 ↗ broken record on is and it's just an

1:40:38 ↗ example um is is our trash management

1:40:43 ↗ and the education around trash

1:40:44 ↗ management and bears and so I feel like

1:40:47 ↗ there is opportunity and like I I don't

1:40:50 ↗ I'm not sure what all specifics of

1:40:52 ↗ nany's comments are but I I do think

1:40:54 ↗ that the coexisting with Wildlife is

1:40:57 ↗ something that our residents aren't

1:40:59 ↗ aware that the fact that they because

1:41:01 ↗ they're not protecting their trash a

1:41:03 ↗ mama bear and three Cubs had to be put

1:41:05 ↗ down like that's the unfortunate truth

1:41:08 ↗ of what these people putting out their

1:41:10 ↗ trash and leaving it out is and so I

1:41:12 ↗ think I don't think that's probably the

1:41:14 ↗ way that you say it to them but I I do

1:41:15 ↗ think that there's an education gap of

1:41:17 ↗ like what do you need to do to be a

1:41:20 ↗ responsible citizen around that wildlife

1:41:23 ↗ um because actually I don't want to see

1:41:25 ↗ that Mama Bear out on Thursdays around

1:41:27 ↗ track like so that like I think there's

1:41:29 ↗ there's there's like that's actually a

1:41:30 ↗ negative in some cases so I do think

1:41:32 ↗ that there is opportunity in that

1:41:34 ↗ something that is critical and I don't

1:41:37 ↗ know where it lives but but it is like

1:41:39 ↗ we still don't have it within our Waste

1:41:41 ↗ Management like contract or like it

1:41:44 ↗ still is a gap and I think it's how

1:41:46 ↗ we're protecting Wildlife throughout the

1:41:47 ↗ city and and this seems like the to to

1:41:51 ↗ nany's point this is the only point that

1:41:53 ↗ wild life or the only part of the comp

1:41:54 ↗ plan that says Wildlife so I do think

1:41:56 ↗ there's something there I don't know

1:41:58 ↗ what the specifics are but that it's a

1:42:00 ↗ core value should be a core value of

1:42:02 ↗ being in isqu that we're educating

1:42:05 ↗ ourselves to be responsible

1:42:08 ↗ citizens than you

1:42:10 ↗ Jamie thinking at from comp plan

1:42:13 ↗ perspective I don't know if the comp

1:42:14 ↗ plan can do anything to create education

1:42:17 ↗ program but it certainly can promote it

1:42:20 ↗ so just having language in there stating

1:42:22 ↗ that want to promote Wildlife education

1:42:25 ↗ program and kind of that last sentence

1:42:26 ↗ you have in the middle box there getting

1:42:29 ↗ that into the comp

1:42:31 ↗ plan that builds support for future

1:42:35 ↗ staff to develop that

1:42:38 ↗ program see maybe David we on the

1:42:41 ↗ policies around Wildlife could you just

1:42:43 ↗ quickly summarize what what they are

1:42:46 ↗ yeah because I don't I think they're

1:42:48 ↗ more more focused on corridors

1:42:50 ↗ connectivity Less on Ed

1:42:54 ↗ yeah so um the goal is to protect and

1:42:58 ↗ improve the environment functions of

1:43:00 ↗ conservation areas and corridors

1:43:03 ↗ corridors um to balance development with

1:43:06 ↗ the natural environment so people can

1:43:08 ↗ coexist with fish and wildlife

1:43:11 ↗ habitats the policies themselves so kind

1:43:14 ↗ of digging in that one one step further

1:43:17 ↗ um the first one is to create connected

1:43:19 ↗ Wildlife

1:43:21 ↗ corridors um the second is to coordinate

1:43:25 ↗ land use planning and

1:43:26 ↗ management

1:43:29 ↗ um related to Fish and Wildlife

1:43:32 ↗ Resources the third is to improve fish

1:43:34 ↗ habitat and remove barriers from natural

1:43:36 ↗ systems and the fourth is to integrate

1:43:39 ↗ Park system plans goals and policies

1:43:42 ↗ into raran riparian corridors for

1:43:45 ↗ multiple benefits including enhanced

1:43:47 ↗ wildlife habitat so it is very focused

1:43:50 ↗ on on that habitat uh

1:43:55 ↗ look at that language again and see if

1:43:57 ↗ you can

1:43:59 ↗ incorporate

1:44:01 ↗ education into some of that that's why

1:44:04 ↗ I'm wondering it doesn't quite fit

1:44:08 ↗ within the goal but I don't know where

1:44:10 ↗ else it would best live but we could

1:44:12 ↗ bring in this language out and and added

1:44:17 ↗ in as a policy under that section

1:44:20 ↗ Stephen would there be any major

1:44:22 ↗ concerns with

1:44:27 ↗ that just read it through the language

1:44:29 ↗ again uh we re uh add in the emphasize

1:44:33 ↗ importance of wildlife protection

1:44:34 ↗ education aiming for wildlife to thrive

1:44:36 ↗ even as the city grows denser and it's

1:44:39 ↗ um in the section policy C or goal C and

1:44:44 ↗ B which this does mention as the city

1:44:46 ↗ grows dener which fits into kind of what

1:44:49 ↗ that goal is getting at

1:44:51 ↗ also I have no concerns with u the

1:44:54 ↗ addition of the policy or the language

1:44:56 ↗ uh into the element it's just more of

1:44:58 ↗ the question of what does that mean for

1:45:00 ↗ the city is there specific actions or

1:45:02 ↗ metrics that are tied to the policy I

1:45:05 ↗ think we would want to have that

1:45:06 ↗ discussion with the next I

1:45:10 ↗ update well I know at one time we have

1:45:12 ↗ talked in this board about where does

1:45:14 ↗ the environment sit within the city

1:45:17 ↗ who's responsible for managing the

1:45:19 ↗ environment who's the environmental lead

1:45:21 ↗ in according to state I understand it's

1:45:23 ↗ a team approach and things like this

1:45:26 ↗ lead us to more do we need an

1:45:29 ↗ environmental Advocate leader in the

1:45:32 ↗ city and that conversation we haven't

1:45:34 ↗ had here but it's something that that

1:45:37 ↗ person would take on in this role so you

1:45:40 ↗ if that's important point that out we've

1:45:43 ↗ had that conversation haven't resolved

1:45:49 ↗ it great well we can make um an update

1:45:53 ↗ uh to that section that is a this

1:45:56 ↗ concept I know it is a new policy where

1:45:58 ↗ we talked about policies being fed to

1:46:00 ↗ the IAP but I think this concept has

1:46:02 ↗ been brought up multiple times and

1:46:04 ↗ discussed so um we can work on

1:46:07 ↗ integrating it into uh the

1:46:12 ↗ section um so the next comment um uh

1:46:16 ↗ still relates to this Wildlife goal goal

1:46:18 ↗ C that um I had mentioned before

1:46:21 ↗ relating to protecting protecting and

1:46:23 ↗ improving environmental functions uh for

1:46:26 ↗ wildlife uh and people

1:46:29 ↗ coexisting um and uh the comment was to

1:46:32 ↗ include considerations for minimizing

1:46:34 ↗ traffic noise and light pollution

1:46:36 ↗ impacts on Wildlife um in policies

1:46:40 ↗ regarding connected Wildlife

1:46:42 ↗ corridors um and one of the things that

1:46:45 ↗ that staff wanted to point out is that

1:46:47 ↗ um the way go C is written and some of

1:46:50 ↗ those policies are written are are

1:46:52 ↗ written to be

1:46:53 ↗ to

1:46:54 ↗ Encompass uh those pieces such as

1:46:56 ↗ minimizing traffic noise and light

1:46:58 ↗ pollution um and and so those specific

1:47:02 ↗ strategies aren't reflected into the uh

1:47:06 ↗ into the policies themselves

1:47:09 ↗ um but uh that can be something that we

1:47:13 ↗ open up for discussion if that's

1:47:14 ↗ something that the the board would like

1:47:15 ↗ to see reflected more and more that

1:47:18 ↗ specific uh strategy pieces or whether

1:47:21 ↗ that's something more for functional

1:47:23 ↗ plan updates ke had a

1:47:26 ↗ comment I just want to say this was my

1:47:29 ↗ suggestion and I'm noticing a trend

1:47:31 ↗ where I uh look for input to provide and

1:47:34 ↗ find it uh you know in real specific uh

1:47:37 ↗ kind of ideas so um still learning the

1:47:40 ↗ um what this board really needs for me

1:47:42 ↗ in terms of that input so please uh feel

1:47:44 ↗ free to disregard that if it if it be

1:47:46 ↗ more appropriate just to leave it at

1:47:47 ↗ those broader

1:47:49 ↗ goals it's really important input

1:47:52 ↗ because it might be lost even if it

1:47:54 ↗ doesn't get added into the comp plan I

1:47:56 ↗ think it's important that You' likeed it

1:47:58 ↗ so it's not lost as those plans

1:48:01 ↗ are absolutely but yeah we want I mean

1:48:03 ↗ we thought it was worth a conversation

1:48:05 ↗ with the board on whether they want to

1:48:07 ↗ see that level like

1:48:11 ↗ details

1:48:13 ↗ okay any thoughts any concerns if this

1:48:17 ↗ this level of detail um is held off for

1:48:20 ↗ other plans

1:48:23 ↗ want to see more in

1:48:29 ↗ the um moving along to uh a comment

1:48:33 ↗ relating to goal D which is uh our tree

1:48:37 ↗ goal area so right now it reads uh

1:48:41 ↗ maintain and enhance Citywide tree

1:48:43 ↗ canopy um and the comment is to revise

1:48:46 ↗ the go to read maintain and restore tree

1:48:49 ↗ tree wide Citywide tree canopy um

1:48:53 ↗ and we wanted to bring this back to the

1:48:54 ↗ board this was actually a change made by

1:48:57 ↗ the board at an earlier conversation um

1:48:59 ↗ thinking that uh enhance goes beyond

1:49:02 ↗ restoration and and kind of um is

1:49:05 ↗ speaking more to uh really improving our

1:49:09 ↗ tree canopy overall um and so I wanted

1:49:11 ↗ to bring it back to the board on whether

1:49:14 ↗ or not the board is still comfortable

1:49:15 ↗ with that enhanced language or whether

1:49:17 ↗ or not we should uh go back to uh the

1:49:20 ↗ language of ReStore in

1:49:27 ↗ instead I think that was my comment to

1:49:30 ↗ my first read through that's why I

1:49:32 ↗ picked it up it just seemed like it was

1:49:35 ↗ you know you weren't hitting the mark by

1:49:38 ↗ just

1:49:39 ↗ P

1:49:41 ↗ okay I remember that earlier

1:49:44 ↗ conversation I think we talked about the

1:49:46 ↗ difference between restore and enhance

1:49:48 ↗ and there was a lot of conversation

1:49:50 ↗ about what does restore really mean

1:49:52 ↗ restore to what level

1:49:55 ↗ when so H was think where we

1:50:02 ↗ landed we wanted to bring it

1:50:07 ↗ back okay make sure

1:50:11 ↗ that I do want to recognize the board

1:50:13 ↗ has been going through this comp plan

1:50:15 ↗ for over a year now I believe so um

1:50:18 ↗ there has been a lot of conversation

1:50:20 ↗ year and a half lot of conversations and

1:50:22 ↗ um happy to keep bringing bringing these

1:50:25 ↗ questions up and they're important to

1:50:26 ↗ continue to to uh keep

1:50:30 ↗ addressing so my my understanding is

1:50:33 ↗ that we're okay keeping enhanced

1:50:34 ↗ language there

1:50:37 ↗ yes um so the next question was related

1:50:39 ↗ to policy

1:50:41 ↗ D2 um which reads retain existing trees

1:50:45 ↗ in critical areas and their buffers long

1:50:47 ↗ designated walking and biking corridors

1:50:49 ↗ and other green spaces and the

1:50:51 ↗ recommendation was to expand that policy

1:50:54 ↗ to include uh retain an increase uh tree

1:50:58 ↗ canopy along these

1:50:59 ↗ corridors um I actually just chatted

1:51:02 ↗ with Dan as he was leaving right now um

1:51:06 ↗ staff don't uh I think have any issues

1:51:09 ↗ adding that increased language if that's

1:51:11 ↗ something that the board would like to

1:51:13 ↗ do um roughly there have been some

1:51:16 ↗ conversations around increasing that

1:51:18 ↗ tree canopy along some of those riparian

1:51:20 ↗ quarters and and um other

1:51:23 ↗ isn't always um necessarily the um

1:51:28 ↗ doesn't always necessarily enhance the

1:51:29 ↗ ecosystem Services however um it is

1:51:32 ↗ something that we absolutely do want to

1:51:34 ↗ do in some areas maybe not in others but

1:51:36 ↗ it uh can definitely be part of this

1:51:38 ↗ this policy if uh the board would like

1:51:41 ↗ to see

1:51:42 ↗ that J yeah that was my comment I mean I

1:51:45 ↗ do think especially after we just had

1:51:47 ↗ their reinforcement management plan I

1:51:48 ↗ think it is important that yeah it's not

1:51:50 ↗ everywhere like we ar planning tree is

1:51:53 ↗ where they're not meant to be but it

1:51:55 ↗ seems aligned with what we're talking

1:51:57 ↗ about for the urban Force management

1:51:58 ↗ plan to not just be talking about

1:51:59 ↗ retaining Trea that there are

1:52:01 ↗ opportunities to increase so that was

1:52:03 ↗ why I made the comment

1:52:04 ↗ so yeah I would I would support

1:52:07 ↗ obviously I

1:52:08 ↗ support I would I mean it's consistent

1:52:12 ↗ with the comment above of you know

1:52:14 ↗ maintain and enhance and it's also

1:52:16 ↗ consistent with the tree canopy goals

1:52:20 ↗ City okay

1:52:23 ↗ I think that is something that we can

1:52:26 ↗ easily

1:52:27 ↗ do any other questions or concerns on

1:52:31 ↗ that that one before I move

1:52:33 ↗ on okay so uh next we have uh we're

1:52:39 ↗ moving into our greenhouse gas policies

1:52:43 ↗ now so policy

1:52:46 ↗ E8 um so this is a actually a new policy

1:52:50 ↗ this year um

1:52:53 ↗ that was proposed earlier in the process

1:52:55 ↗ but it's um leveraging Regional

1:52:57 ↗ Partnerships and advocate for Statewide

1:52:59 ↗ policies to address upstream and

1:53:02 ↗ downstream green Downstream greenhouse

1:53:04 ↗ gas emissions from activities not

1:53:07 ↗ directly controlled by isqua community

1:53:09 ↗ members or the city of isqua such as

1:53:12 ↗ material consumption and

1:53:14 ↗ Aviation um and the comment was to um

1:53:19 ↗ focus on or have this policy address all

1:53:21 ↗ forms of trans portation um including

1:53:24 ↗ those through and above the community

1:53:26 ↗ and not just to focus on

1:53:28 ↗ Aviation um when we were writing this

1:53:31 ↗ policy uh for the first time this year

1:53:33 ↗ one of the ideas here was to kind of

1:53:35 ↗ call out two of the big ideas or big

1:53:38 ↗ areas where uh frankly the city doesn't

1:53:41 ↗ have a lot of control over reducing uh

1:53:44 ↗ emissions but where we can uh do our

1:53:47 ↗ best to advocate for and explore

1:53:50 ↗ opportunities to uh um support Statewide

1:53:54 ↗ policies that can address some of these

1:53:55 ↗ emission areas and so material

1:53:57 ↗ consumption and Aviation were called out

1:53:59 ↗ as examples but we're not meant to be an

1:54:01 ↗ exhausted list of of these uh areas

1:54:04 ↗ outside of or where we have less control

1:54:08 ↗ um so I would turn it over uh to the

1:54:10 ↗ board to see if there's any other

1:54:12 ↗ comments on um are we comfortable with

1:54:15 ↗ the level of detail that's in the policy

1:54:17 ↗ or do we uh would the board like to see

1:54:19 ↗ more specific uh examples uh more

1:54:22 ↗ Transportation examples included in that

1:54:24 ↗ or we could remove the examples yes we

1:54:27 ↗ could do that

1:54:31 ↗ yeah struck a nerve that felt like you

1:54:33 ↗ were singling out

1:54:35 ↗ Aviation and I see just as much

1:54:40 ↗ greenhouse gas being

1:54:42 ↗ emitted right on high 90 and state R 900

1:54:46 ↗ people pass through that was my thought

1:54:50 ↗ is U you know

1:54:57 ↗ [Laughter]

1:55:01 ↗ oh I'm rereading this policy and I don't

1:55:05 ↗ know what it means like it's that just

1:55:08 ↗ some I don't actually it's like a mental

1:55:11 ↗ pretzel that I get into when I try to

1:55:13 ↗ read this policiy that I don't know

1:55:15 ↗ could

1:55:16 ↗ you state what this what are we what are

1:55:20 ↗ we trying to say with this policy

1:55:23 ↗ yeah so this

1:55:26 ↗ policy uh is intended to give us a

1:55:29 ↗ little bit more

1:55:30 ↗ flexibility advocating for more policies

1:55:35 ↗ at the state level that can address um

1:55:39 ↗ sources of greenhouse gas

1:55:41 ↗ emissions that the city doesn't control

1:55:44 ↗ and and can't really pass policies to

1:55:47 ↗ impact right so when we think about our

1:55:51 ↗ uh CommunityWide greenhouse gas

1:55:54 ↗ emissions um some of those the way those

1:55:57 ↗ are calculated there's different um

1:56:00 ↗ options and some of that is right

1:56:02 ↗ thinking about um material consumption

1:56:05 ↗ from community members some of those

1:56:07 ↗ greenhouse gas inventories include

1:56:09 ↗ Aviation emissions right um

1:56:13 ↗ transportation Emissions on I90 are

1:56:15 ↗ included on our green cast gas emissions

1:56:17 ↗ right um and so this policy is is

1:56:21 ↗ intended to to say kind of well what can

1:56:24 ↗ we do to address those emissions that

1:56:27 ↗ the state that the city doesn't quite

1:56:29 ↗ control but instead how can we kind of

1:56:31 ↗ continue to push the state to to go

1:56:33 ↗ farther I do think that and I actually

1:56:36 ↗ think that more specific examples would

1:56:39 ↗ be helpful because I don't think the

1:56:41 ↗ average person I I I don't think the

1:56:43 ↗ average person is gonna understand what

1:56:45 ↗ goal this is like so I think I would I

1:56:49 ↗ don't know which examples those are but

1:56:51 ↗ it seems like examples would be helpful

1:56:54 ↗ and maybe more specific examples because

1:56:56 ↗ I think otherwise this point is going to

1:56:57 ↗ be

1:56:59 ↗ lost is that the role of the city to it

1:57:03 ↗ seems like it should be these kind of

1:57:05 ↗ things should dealt with at say the

1:57:06 ↗ state or

1:57:08 ↗ federal it should be but we can sign on

1:57:11 ↗ to letters um advocating for policy so

1:57:15 ↗ that would be our role or are you trying

1:57:17 ↗ to set policies for for the city itself

1:57:21 ↗ no that

1:57:22 ↗ Statewide or um uh for a particular

1:57:29 ↗ industry yeah but we yeah we could um if

1:57:33 ↗ generalizing it means it's not

1:57:35 ↗ understood we could look at more uh

1:57:39 ↗ examples of what those sources are so it

1:57:41 ↗ doesn't look like we're calling out

1:57:43 ↗ deviation specifically we could also

1:57:45 ↗ potentially maybe pull out some of the

1:57:48 ↗ more technical words yeah exactly maybe

1:57:51 ↗ it's pulling out of that piece to make

1:57:53 ↗ it a little

1:57:57 ↗ streamlined a little confus maybe

1:58:00 ↗ because I haven't read it in detail as

1:58:02 ↗ well but so what is the goal of the

1:58:05 ↗ policy is it because first when I was

1:58:08 ↗ listening to you I thought it was more

1:58:10 ↗ for and I totally get it mean you know

1:58:13 ↗ even though you the G emissions cutting

1:58:17 ↗ down goals are pretty ambitious as for

1:58:20 ↗ the city and it is way more complicated

1:58:23 ↗ actually you know and as you mentioned

1:58:25 ↗ there are a lot of things which

1:58:27 ↗ especially being a city are out of your

1:58:29 ↗ control because you know you don't have

1:58:32 ↗ the control over what everybody else

1:58:36 ↗ does or passes through his but at the

1:58:38 ↗ same time as a city those emissions will

1:58:41 ↗ contribute to your calculation correct

1:58:44 ↗ that that is where the problem is so

1:58:46 ↗ first I thought you were trying to give

1:58:48 ↗ the city a little bit of flexibility so

1:58:51 ↗ basically you were trying to spell it

1:58:52 ↗ out that there are a few emissions which

1:58:55 ↗ are out of control and these are some

1:58:58 ↗ examples which will be still contributed

1:59:00 ↗ to the city just as an FYI so the

1:59:03 ↗ ambitious goal may or may not include

1:59:07 ↗ you know the reduction in these

1:59:08 ↗ emissions is that the goal of this

1:59:10 ↗ policy or is it actually to spell it out

1:59:13 ↗ as an fi for the state that hey this is

1:59:16 ↗ what is happening and so we need the

1:59:18 ↗ flexibility but you guys need to do

1:59:20 ↗ something about it so

1:59:22 ↗ that is where I am kind of lost I'm not

1:59:25 ↗ sure sure yeah maybe flexibility was not

1:59:27 ↗ not the right word for me to use I I

1:59:31 ↗ think simply put the the policy is

1:59:33 ↗ intended to um encourage the city to

1:59:37 ↗ Advocate at the state level for some of

1:59:39 ↗ these uh to address greenhouse gas

1:59:42 ↗ emissions that should be um impacted at

1:59:45 ↗ the state level versus at the city level

1:59:47 ↗ so then I have another additional

1:59:49 ↗ question so is there a discussion in

1:59:53 ↗ your greenhouse gas emissions inventory

1:59:56 ↗ and reduction programs where you

1:59:58 ↗ actually spell out what are the factors

2:00:01 ↗ which are not controlled by the city and

2:00:03 ↗ how they add up to your greenhouse gas

2:00:06 ↗ emissions I think that would be a good

2:00:08 ↗ thing to add because you know that is

2:00:10 ↗ going to add to your gions no matter

2:00:13 ↗ what and you may not have enough control

2:00:15 ↗ over it yeah some of them are included

2:00:18 ↗ into our greenhouse gas inventory some

2:00:20 ↗ are not so for in Aviation is not

2:00:23 ↗ included in our current CommunityWide

2:00:25 ↗ numbers although we do have some of

2:00:28 ↗ those numbers based on um estimates of

2:00:32 ↗ population and income level that's kind

2:00:34 ↗ of disaggregated down to City levels

2:00:36 ↗ right so they're uh some of those

2:00:40 ↗ numbers uh we have some we don't have

2:00:44 ↗ and I think to some degree as greenhouse

2:00:46 ↗ gas inventory processes change um there

2:00:50 ↗ is going to be kind of a update and kind

2:00:52 ↗ of what is included into those

2:00:54 ↗ greenhouse gas inventories and so some

2:00:56 ↗ of these aspects in particular are kind

2:00:59 ↗ of on that that next edge of whether or

2:01:02 ↗ not they're included into greenhouse gas

2:01:04 ↗ inventories in the future as we're

2:01:05 ↗ thinking about a more comprehensive look

2:01:08 ↗ at really where do our greenhouse gas

2:01:09 ↗ inventory uh greenhouse gas emissions

2:01:11 ↗ come from and so just one thing I would

2:01:14 ↗ like to add so it is good to have these

2:01:16 ↗ assumptions or the discussions clearly

2:01:19 ↗ stated somewhere and I'm myself doing G

2:01:22 ↗ inventory for the company so I can tell

2:01:24 ↗ you very frankly as you said you know

2:01:26 ↗ the processes change and the criteria

2:01:29 ↗ change so I actually note down the

2:01:31 ↗ assumptions or whatever is what data is

2:01:35 ↗ available or what is not available I

2:01:37 ↗ have clear listings of all of it because

2:01:39 ↗ you know I assume over the next five to

2:01:42 ↗ 10 years there will be a lot of back and

2:01:44 ↗ forth

2:01:44 ↗ on that will be it thank

2:01:49 ↗ you what was it the intent of this

2:01:51 ↗ policy to talk only about things outside

2:01:54 ↗ of City's demand or is it also City's uh

2:01:57 ↗ decisions the city may make which would

2:01:59 ↗ affect expenditure of greenhouse gas in

2:02:02 ↗ the broader uh World for for example

2:02:06 ↗ policies about sending people to

2:02:08 ↗ conferences in an airplane versus

2:02:11 ↗ attending virtually or I mean even the

2:02:14 ↗ even this wonderful facility here is

2:02:17 ↗ reducing our greenhouse gas emissions

2:02:21 ↗ here on a local basis so is is that part

2:02:25 ↗ of the intent or is that covered

2:02:26 ↗ somewhere else so I would say those are

2:02:29 ↗ covered other points in in the C plan

2:02:31 ↗ and and the climate action plan around

2:02:34 ↗ specifically are um reducing say energy

2:02:37 ↗ use from our buildings right and from

2:02:40 ↗ our city operations things like that

2:02:42 ↗ this policy is really focused on the

2:02:44 ↗ things um outside of our control

2:02:48 ↗ directly outside of our control like an

2:02:50 ↗ example being like is it building code a

2:02:52 ↗ good example of this like trying to

2:02:54 ↗ advocate for I think that's what like

2:02:58 ↗ yeah yeah I don't think so we have

2:03:00 ↗ others around the building code I think

2:03:02 ↗ this is like operations at King counties

2:03:08 ↗ um um at the the dump essentially where

2:03:12 ↗ we get accounted for that even though

2:03:15 ↗ it's not within the city it's for

2:03:17 ↗ community members within isoa that are

2:03:20 ↗ flying we're getting we can account for

2:03:23 ↗ those emissions I don't know what other

2:03:26 ↗ good example yeah another good example

2:03:27 ↗ is like um you know for instance if our

2:03:31 ↗ community members are buying a lot of

2:03:34 ↗ tables and the taable you know the

2:03:36 ↗ manufacturing of those tables are

2:03:38 ↗ causing a lot of greenhouse gas

2:03:39 ↗ emissions right we as the city can't

2:03:43 ↗ really pass any policies or we can't

2:03:46 ↗ really pass too many policies that are

2:03:47 ↗ addressing the greenhouse gas emissions

2:03:49 ↗ and manufacturing of a table from some

2:03:52 ↗ else but this policy within our comp

2:03:56 ↗ plan is to say well where possible let's

2:04:00 ↗ work with the state or Advocate at the

2:04:02 ↗ state level to kind of put into place

2:04:04 ↗ those policies that could address kind

2:04:06 ↗ of that material consumption that that

2:04:09 ↗ is just not really accounted for in most

2:04:10 ↗ of our greenhouse gas

2:04:16 ↗ inventories well why don't we can try

2:04:18 ↗ and rework it like this one needs a

2:04:21 ↗ little yeah yeah well at least for this

2:04:24 ↗ version of a comp plan we can we'll

2:04:26 ↗ either simplify it so it's easier to

2:04:29 ↗ understand or add some more and or add

2:04:32 ↗ some more examples so fol have a better

2:04:35 ↗ understanding and then I think as we get

2:04:38 ↗ into the IAP kind of finessing I would

2:04:40 ↗ suggest to generalize it a little bit

2:04:42 ↗ and just speak

2:04:44 ↗ to being Advocates lobbyists with the

2:04:48 ↗ legislature to promote the reduction in

2:04:50 ↗ ght emission

2:04:53 ↗ all forms of transportation material

2:04:55 ↗ consumption

2:05:01 ↗ Etc excellent the last on then s of a

2:05:04 ↗ general

2:05:05 ↗ comment yeah so the last one is there's

2:05:08 ↗ a there's a section at the end of the

2:05:10 ↗ environmental uh and Community uh

2:05:13 ↗ stewardship uh element related to uh

2:05:16 ↗ results in

2:05:18 ↗ accountability um and uh

2:05:22 ↗ the comment was to incorporate this

2:05:23 ↗ throughout the C plan um and Stephen

2:05:27 ↗ actually might have a better response uh

2:05:29 ↗ to this than than I do but um my

2:05:31 ↗ understanding is that for the the most

2:05:33 ↗ part these are kind of standard uh

2:05:35 ↗ policies that are um incorporated into

2:05:38 ↗ all of the the subsections of the

2:05:40 ↗ comprehensive plan um uh and there're

2:05:44 ↗ also specific metrics for results and

2:05:46 ↗ accountability are recognized in each of

2:05:48 ↗ the the functional plans themselves

2:05:51 ↗ Stephen do you have anything to add on

2:05:53 ↗ the results and

2:05:55 ↗ accountability uh policy no I think you

2:05:57 ↗ covered it I mean it's it's the intent

2:06:01 ↗ with creating that section for all the

2:06:03 ↗ elements was to recognize that all the

2:06:04 ↗ functional plans already have identified

2:06:07 ↗ metrics aligned with all these policies

2:06:10 ↗ and we want to make sure that

2:06:11 ↗ flexibility on if we want to change

2:06:13 ↗ those metrics stay with the functional

2:06:16 ↗ plans because once you have it built

2:06:18 ↗ into the comprehensive plan you have to

2:06:21 ↗ go through the comprensive plan process

2:06:23 ↗ to make those changes which is a timely

2:06:26 ↗ process to do that which the functional

2:06:29 ↗ plans you can do that at pretty much any

2:06:31 ↗ time whenever you have these functional

2:06:34 ↗ plan discussions on making

2:06:38 ↗ updates well this was my comment and my

2:06:41 ↗ take on and dis was reading through all

2:06:43 ↗ these plans and all of a sudden the only

2:06:45 ↗ place I really saw this results and

2:06:47 ↗ accountability was in the environmental

2:06:50 ↗ section and I'm like well that's kind of

2:06:52 ↗ weird and that's why I brought up the

2:06:54 ↗ comment that may be a overall section

2:06:56 ↗ added to the whole comp plan which is

2:06:58 ↗ you need to you know build the programs

2:07:00 ↗ to make this to assess the results and

2:07:04 ↗ make some accountability but it really

2:07:06 ↗ didn't fit in just this section so

2:07:10 ↗ that's that's how I came up with

2:07:15 ↗ that I can I think we had this because

2:07:18 ↗ the comment was within the environment

2:07:21 ↗ element we had it in that section but I

2:07:23 ↗ can I'll include it as a general comment

2:07:25 ↗ in the letter yeah I think it's a

2:07:27 ↗ general comment more that should be a

2:07:30 ↗ section maybe in the comp plan for all

2:07:31 ↗ sections to follow not just for the

2:07:35 ↗ environmental

2:07:38 ↗ only we're already over time for

2:07:40 ↗ tonight's meeting so what those the

2:07:42 ↗ comments on that unless anybody has

2:07:45 ↗ strong I can just talk about next step

2:07:48 ↗ so um David and I are going to take all

2:07:50 ↗ the feedback on environment element and

2:07:53 ↗ make the changes as was discussed

2:07:55 ↗ tonight

2:07:56 ↗ um into the element and then any of

2:08:00 ↗ those that are not addressed or we've

2:08:02 ↗ decided to Funt towards um IAP update

2:08:05 ↗ we'll make sure those are captured in

2:08:07 ↗ the letter still and reflected there um

2:08:10 ↗ and then we'll be making a couple

2:08:11 ↗ revisions to the letter that will go to

2:08:14 ↗ PPC Don I'll probably we can talk after

2:08:17 ↗ the meeting and get that to you uh

2:08:19 ↗ tomorrow morning you

2:08:22 ↗ um if folks we did uh send out the link

2:08:25 ↗ to the letter last night um uh and it

2:08:29 ↗ was added to the meeting packet if there

2:08:31 ↗ were any other comments concerns that we

2:08:33 ↗ didn't address tonight um or that you

2:08:36 ↗ felt like your comments weren't

2:08:37 ↗ reflected please let us know tomorrow

2:08:39 ↗ morning if possible um but we really did

2:08:43 ↗ uh try to just take all that feedback

2:08:46 ↗ andate uh directly into that letter so

2:08:50 ↗ to send that letter by

2:08:52 ↗ yeah to that will go to Stephen to

2:08:54 ↗ include in the PPC

2:08:57 ↗ packet um and then just before we close

2:09:01 ↗ out I have three quick things I wanted

2:09:02 ↗ to do in the rest

2:09:04 ↗ of we can close this session unless

2:09:06 ↗ there's any other questions

2:09:10 ↗ feedback thank you Stephen for being

2:09:13 ↗ here thank you

2:09:15 ↗ Stephen thank you all

2:09:22 ↗ three um quick items before we close out

2:09:24 ↗ I wanted to see if any youth report I

2:09:27 ↗ know Mina is not here if there's

2:09:28 ↗ anything you wanted to share I just

2:09:30 ↗ wanted to ask does the environmental

2:09:31 ↗ board ever do anything for the salmon

2:09:32 ↗ Days

2:09:35 ↗ event we haven't so just considering

2:09:38 ↗ that it's like fair and by Nature it's

2:09:40 ↗ it's gonna be a lot of littering and

2:09:41 ↗ such it may be an idea to

2:09:45 ↗ consider yeah we could send out

2:09:47 ↗ volunteer opportunities the city is

2:09:49 ↗ doing a booth this year that all the

2:09:52 ↗ Departments share um we are not

2:09:55 ↗ sponsoring any boosts we did last year

2:09:57 ↗ uh but we are not doing that this years

2:10:00 ↗ but we can send out opportunities for to

2:10:02 ↗ get involved I know the Hatchery has

2:10:05 ↗ volunteer opportunities I think through

2:10:07 ↗ the chamber too um so I think it'd be

2:10:09 ↗ wonderful to be the board out there or

2:10:11 ↗ even out talking with members of the

2:10:13 ↗ community people wanted to now that you

2:10:14 ↗ have your nice name takes so yeah

2:10:17 ↗ definitely maybe

2:10:19 ↗ something why she did that

2:10:24 ↗ so that's a great maybe we could have a

2:10:25 ↗ conversation about that in September

2:10:27 ↗ ahead of am and day's session if you

2:10:30 ↗ have specific ideas for that yeah we

2:10:32 ↗ love to hear nothing in particular it's

2:10:34 ↗ just kind of flating right my

2:10:37 ↗ mind um great and then um what I do have

2:10:42 ↗ a number of updates and David and I

2:10:44 ↗ wanted to se some volunteers uh for

2:10:46 ↗ something and I have some reminders I

2:10:48 ↗ will send those all in an email because

2:10:50 ↗ I don't want to keep you all here here

2:10:52 ↗ um the last two things I wanted to

2:10:53 ↗ mention quickly are thank you you all

2:10:57 ↗ are reviewing three massive plans over

2:11:00 ↗ the last six weeks um the park plan H

2:11:05 ↗ comp plan and the urban for management

2:11:07 ↗ plan those are one brand new plan and

2:11:10 ↗ two major updates so just wanted to say

2:11:12 ↗ thank you I know it's a huge amount of

2:11:13 ↗ time especially during summer um so

2:11:16 ↗ really really appreciate all that

2:11:19 ↗ input um last thing I wanted to say is

2:11:21 ↗ thank you to Nick Nick is wrapping up

2:11:24 ↗ actually next week um he's done a ton of

2:11:26 ↗ work over the last few months on climate

2:11:29 ↗ vulnerability assessment resilience Hub

2:11:31 ↗ led a climate challenge uh team leader

2:11:34 ↗ training with members of the community

2:11:37 ↗ and help coordinate volunteers and ton

2:11:39 ↗ more so just huge thank you to Nick Nick

2:11:42 ↗ will be traveling uh for a bit and then

2:11:45 ↗ um maybe looking into some Park

2:11:47 ↗ interpretation and yeah so really

2:11:50 ↗ appreciate everything that Nick's done

2:11:52 ↗ for the city and please share your

2:11:55 ↗ appreciation on your way the

2:12:06 ↗ door all right with that thank you to an

2:12:21 ↗ and

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (8)

Don McQuilliams

Nancy Davidson

Prajakta Ghatpande

Tom Anderson

Jamie Finch

Kiran Pan

Keith Gonzalez

Jonathan Smith

Staff (6)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator

Nick Horn, Civic Spark Fellow

Dan Hintz, Urban Forest Supervisor

Stephen Padua, Planning Manager

Chris Peiffer, Consultant, PlanITGeo

Excused

Alix Lee-Tigner

Mina (Alexandra) Jun*

Dixie Bair

Anne Newcomb

Audience commenters (1)

CONNIE MARSH

Recommendations & actions (3)

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

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
CHAIR MCQUILLIAMS made a motion and FINCH seconded the motion for staff to include the specific recommendations within the memo because the summary of themes do not capture the detailed comments fully.
The Board approved the motion unanimously.