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

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF