Environmental Board · Wednesday, February 12, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 8, 2025

packet pp.3–5

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 01-08-25 Environmental Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. January 8, 2025 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Sustainable Building and Infrastructure

90 min · Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director James Gray, Building Official David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator P.J. Tillman, Cascadia Consulting · packet pp.7–147

Topics: Climate

▶ Watch from 9:51 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

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

2026 ICAP Update & Committee Formation (D)

25 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.149–158

Topics: Climate

▶ Watch from 1:39:51 Open packet at p.149 ↗

Staff report:

and decision by the full Board. 5. The expected commitment is 7-10 hours over a ~6 month period. Meeting timing varies by committee.

5. REPORTS

Environmental Board Workplan

packet pp.159–162

Open packet at p.159 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVED: 12/11/2024 REVISED: 1/31/2025

2940 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ good evening everyone uh welcome to the

0:08 ↗ February meeting of the isqua

0:09 ↗ environmental board I am Alex Le tigna

0:11 ↗ and I'll be chairing tonight D is out of

0:14 ↗ town due to the hybrid format of today's

0:17 ↗ meeting I'd like to start by providing

0:19 ↗ some guidelines we have participants in

0:21 ↗ the room as well as those attending

0:23 ↗ virtually for all meeting attendees

0:25 ↗ please speak clearly and pause

0:27 ↗ frequently state your name each time

0:29 ↗ before speak

0:31 ↗ speaking for those in the room please

0:33 ↗ wait your name card to indicate an

0:35 ↗ interest to speak for those attending

0:38 ↗ virtually mute your microphone when not

0:40 ↗ speaking if you have technical dis

0:43 ↗ difficulties by joining the meeting

0:45 ↗ using a different device or use the

0:47 ↗ call-in information in the meeting

0:48 ↗ invite to call into the meeting board

0:51 ↗ members attending virtually please to

0:54 ↗ indicate a desire to speak send a chat

0:56 ↗ and type question or comment or you can

0:58 ↗ raise your hand virtually then wait to

0:59 ↗ be a knowledged by the chair we will

1:01 ↗ summarize agreement and recommendations

1:03 ↗ at the end of each topic and note if

1:05 ↗ there is descent sty do you want to

1:09 ↗ take uh Tom Anderson here David here

1:17 ↗ jie on his

1:24 ↗ way

1:26 ↗ J

1:28 ↗ here Don W Williams has an excuse dick

1:33 ↗ bear has excuse Alex Le tner here an nuk

1:38 ↗ exced Kei Gonzalez

1:42 ↗ here and John

1:44 ↗ Smith

1:55 ↗ here next on the agenda is um approval

1:59 ↗ of the minutes

2:00 ↗ I don't have words for those

2:02 ↗ so

2:04 ↗ the were included the minutes were

2:07 ↗ included in the pack does anyone have

2:08 ↗ any questions or

2:12 ↗ thoughts okay uh minutes have been

2:15 ↗ approved okay I do believe we have

2:18 ↗ public comments today um so I'm gonna

2:22 ↗ give some guidelines real

2:28 ↗ quick for the members of the public

2:30 ↗ joining us

2:32 ↗ welcome um Stacy did anyone submit

2:35 ↗ written um comments or indicate they'd

2:37 ↗ like to speak yes Ander submitted

2:39 ↗ written comments this afternoon and this

2:41 ↗ present the room would like to speak

2:43 ↗ wonderful um and was there anyone online

2:47 ↗ do not have any members of the public

2:49 ↗ online okay Ann you're

2:52 ↗ wel and feel free to come up

2:58 ↗ here tell me where is

3:00 ↗ don't you just stand right from okay I

3:04 ↗ won't have my back

3:06 ↗ to

3:08 ↗ people it might a little bit but I think

3:10 ↗ that way you're

3:13 ↗ Clos

3:15 ↗ right great well thanks for having the

3:18 ↗ public comment I'm Anne Fletcher I'm a

3:21 ↗ resident and a member of people for

3:23 ↗ climate action and um I wanted to speak

3:27 ↗ a little bit tonight I haven't been here

3:29 ↗ for a little while but i' like to check

3:31 ↗ in every once in a while with this great

3:32 ↗ board so happy we have it and um I think

3:36 ↗ tonight is real crucial um we're

3:38 ↗ starting some updates and work plans uh

3:42 ↗ and if they're done well I think they

3:44 ↗ could give us a real firm fitting uh

3:46 ↗ footing for significant long-term

3:49 ↗ improvements on in our resource and and

3:51 ↗ energy use and improvements that will be

3:54 ↗ regenerative and Earth

3:57 ↗ friendly so um the building code in the

4:00 ↗ title 18 land use codes a Sustainable

4:02 ↗ Building policy update all of those are

4:06 ↗ um helping us support us reaching our

4:08 ↗ greenhouse gas reduction um targets and

4:12 ↗ uh in new buildings they mostly focus on

4:15 ↗ new buildings and what I would like to

4:17 ↗ talk to you tonight is about existing

4:20 ↗ buildings um uh existing buildings are

4:23 ↗ great because they are the community

4:26 ↗ sources of greenhouse gas emissions and

4:29 ↗ they have have IAP emission reduction

4:31 ↗ targets and they are very challenging

4:34 ↗ you may saw

4:36 ↗ this I would like to see a strong

4:39 ↗ analysis of whether or not our IAP um

4:42 ↗ has the right or enough action in this

4:45 ↗ complex area or if the actions that we

4:47 ↗ do have are intensive and what needs to

4:49 ↗ be changed to make them follow the

4:53 ↗ estimate I've seen of what will be

4:54 ↗ required to transition to clean energy

4:58 ↗ give me a sense of pury that's Ure it

5:00 ↗ does you

5:01 ↗ to um that we can't afford to delay this

5:04 ↗ crucial iout area um given the short

5:07 ↗ timelines we have and challenging

5:09 ↗ barriers with limited staff and

5:11 ↗ Financial Resources the city should

5:13 ↗ prioritize areas which have the most

5:16 ↗ greenhouse gas emission mitigation

5:19 ↗ potential and the longest timelines to

5:22 ↗ accomplish that's why I'm concerned

5:25 ↗ about the continued focus on Municipal

5:27 ↗ actions not that they're bad they're

5:29 ↗ wonderful but they will affect 1% of our

5:31 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions while larger

5:34 ↗ emission areas such as buildings and

5:36 ↗ energy are not seeming to be called out

5:39 ↗ for greater scrutiny in the word plan

5:42 ↗ deep

5:43 ↗ dtes so comparatively the residential

5:46 ↗ and commercial building actions would

5:48 ↗ affect um a much higher percentage of

5:50 ↗ emissions up to 50% according to our

5:52 ↗ latest greenhous gas industry now not

5:55 ↗ all of those are existing buildings and

5:58 ↗ some of them will be taken care of by

5:59 ↗ the State legislation and other programs

6:01 ↗ but there'll still be a chunk left uh to

6:05 ↗ the actual transition from gas to

6:07 ↗ electric that going to be kind of left

6:09 ↗ up to the local

6:11 ↗ government um similarly um I'm hoping to

6:15 ↗ learn tonight how necessary is the

6:17 ↗ Sustainable Building policy update to a

6:20 ↗ robust implementation of critical parts

6:22 ↗ of the IAP the comp plan already

6:25 ↗ supports it so ideally the building

6:28 ↗ policy update should be done in a way

6:30 ↗ that further enhances and does not delay

6:33 ↗ a strong IAP

6:35 ↗ actions as an example I wanted to let

6:38 ↗ you know that over the last month the

6:39 ↗ people for climate action task force of

6:42 ↗ 17 representatives from area cities have

6:45 ↗ developed a list of 13 critical actions

6:49 ↗ necessary for all cities to launch in

6:52 ↗ the next two years in their climate

6:53 ↗ action plan updates in order to reach

6:56 ↗ the 2050 greenhouse gas emission CET

6:59 ↗ seems like a long ways off but it really

7:01 ↗ isn't we are currently asking other

7:03 ↗ community organizations to support these

7:05 ↗ actions and we will shortly be sharing

7:07 ↗ them with the um City sustainability

7:10 ↗ departments which just not PR ready yet

7:12 ↗ the first item on this um people per

7:16 ↗ climate action

7:17 ↗ list uh is to reduce greenhouse gas

7:21 ↗ emissions from existing buildings what

7:23 ↗ do you know um by greatly expanding the

7:26 ↗ East Side Energy Smart type programs to

7:29 ↗ replace

7:30 ↗ end of life gas technology in buildings

7:33 ↗ with Efficient Electric pumps and

7:35 ↗ appliances and needs to start soon

7:39 ↗ because it will take 20 to 25 years to

7:41 ↗ produce their full emission production

7:44 ↗ uh reduction

7:46 ↗ impact gradually it takes time so to

7:49 ↗ accommodate these cumulative actions

7:51 ↗ that span decades the updated cap um

7:55 ↗ should have a longer term lens than a

7:59 ↗ bunch of short ones built into it um can

8:02 ↗ also have short ones but for some of

8:04 ↗ these things it needs a longer term with

8:06 ↗ frequent updates based on reliable

8:08 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory

8:11 ↗ data um the typical length of plans may

8:15 ↗ not work for some of our most um some

8:18 ↗ some very important areas such as

8:19 ↗ transportation and

8:22 ↗ building so finally the Deep dives into

8:25 ↗ certain areas um that are going to be

8:27 ↗ coming up in the IAP um are a good

8:30 ↗ strategy uh I like that idea and um uh

8:34 ↗ it just seems to me that existing

8:35 ↗ building energy is also worthy of a deep

8:38 ↗ diet uh for the reasons I've mentioned

8:40 ↗ about um although it will be included in

8:43 ↗ the general review for sure um the

8:46 ↗ sufficiency and the timelines um are

8:49 ↗ unique and um and and they are as

8:52 ↗ important I believe is the other Deep

8:54 ↗ dive

8:55 ↗ areas uh perhaps the Sustainable

8:58 ↗ Building policy update might be used to

9:00 ↗ do this somehow but for that to work it

9:02 ↗ would need to be broadened out so much

9:04 ↗ to include strong um um existing

9:08 ↗ building de station so I appreciate

9:12 ↗ knowing there'll be numerous methods for

9:14 ↗ uh the community to give input I I

9:17 ↗ that's wonderful thing about the city of

9:19 ↗ Isa there's lots of opportunities for us

9:22 ↗ and we hope to come back and talk some

9:24 ↗ more as plans progress and um I just

9:27 ↗ think the continued opportunities for to

9:29 ↗ talk and learn uh all of us um uh it

9:33 ↗ just really brings me a lot of Hope for

9:35 ↗ climate action progress thank

9:46 ↗ you right I'm going to hand this over to

9:49 ↗ Stacy now for an overview of our first

9:51 ↗ agenda item it's a little more

9:53 ↗ compliation great thanks Alex um we have

9:55 ↗ a lot ped into our first item which is

9:58 ↗ looking at see

10:00 ↗ um building codes and policy um part of

10:03 ↗ this presentation was requested by board

10:06 ↗ members to understand how State full

10:09 ↗ building code works together um and that

10:12 ↗ also sets the stage for a future

10:14 ↗ conversation we may be having around

10:16 ↗ Title 18 the L news code updates not

10:21 ↗ sched yet but possibly in the future to

10:22 ↗ be withing at uh revisiting the Green

10:25 ↗ Building requirements for the community

10:27 ↗ and then this presentation also says the

10:29 ↗ stage for what David and um our

10:32 ↗ consultant will be presenting around the

10:34 ↗ internal Sustainable Building and

10:36 ↗ infrastructure policy we have a lot

10:39 ↗ packed in to this item but we're GNA

10:42 ↗ start at the state level go to our local

10:44 ↗ code and then talk about

10:47 ↗ the um so first we here are from James

10:51 ↗ our building inspector and our planning

10:54 ↗ director move

10:56 ↗ on David DJ

11:18 ↗ may we can

11:19 ↗ mil and back

11:44 ↗ James do you want to provide overview

11:46 ↗ trans head

11:48 ↗ up oh we can do that I could barely hear

11:50 ↗ you we're having data

11:52 ↗ problems okay

12:05 ↗ sorry I'm also Mas so that doesn't

12:08 ↗ really help with

12:10 ↗ myy okay here we

12:14 ↗ go okay so I'm James Gray I'm the

12:17 ↗ building official for the city of isua

12:19 ↗ and we're here tonight to prevent

12:21 ↗ present an overview of building

12:23 ↗ regulations that were recently adopted

12:25 ↗ in the city and the state

12:32 ↗ so our we have a uh if we could go

12:35 ↗ backwards we have a State Building Code

12:38 ↗ Council they're like a subcommittee of

12:41 ↗ the legislature who adopt the codes and

12:44 ↗ do all the Amendments for the entire

12:46 ↗ State and amendments are are Provisions

12:49 ↗ to the code that uh the the code gives

12:52 ↗ you flexibility for each state to have

12:54 ↗ its own particular processes and that

12:56 ↗ leads us to our local code where this

12:59 ↗ the state does the adoption through the

13:01 ↗ state Bill and code uh Council and then

13:04 ↗ our local Council we present every three

13:07 ↗ years the uh building code updates and

13:10 ↗ and that for their

13:17 ↗ approval and this is just the RCW that

13:20 ↗ covers the U Washington State Building

13:25 ↗ Code so the purpose of our codes

13:28 ↗ primarily are the health the safety and

13:29 ↗ Welfare of occupants and I I don't want

13:31 ↗ to read all the requirements on the

13:33 ↗ slide for you but the the building codes

13:36 ↗ provide so for the building the building

13:39 ↗ to not collapse in earthquakes and wind

13:41 ↗ and the safety and uh uh and the health

13:44 ↗ of the occupants of the building it

13:46 ↗ doesn't doesn't really deal with um

13:49 ↗ beauty or Aesthetics or opinions and we

13:52 ↗ have of course requirements for

13:53 ↗ maintenance and among amongst other

13:55 ↗ things um local amendments cannot be

13:58 ↗ less strict

13:59 ↗ than the than the the national code is

14:02 ↗ so we can make local amendments that uh

14:05 ↗ for instance have

14:07 ↗ have Provisions for for things that are

14:10 ↗ that are already in the code but we can

14:13 ↗ be more

14:14 ↗ restrictive and all of those have to be

14:16 ↗ approved by the State Building Code

14:18 ↗ Council after our local um Council

14:21 ↗ approves

14:23 ↗ it and jam do you want to describe or

14:26 ↗ explain what FF and MF are

14:31 ↗ uh State Fire Marshall and and MF

14:34 ↗ amendments uh pardon me

14:37 ↗ I

14:41 ↗ local could be a typo but the I think

14:45 ↗ the point is our our local members are

14:47 ↗ approved by our our city council but

14:49 ↗ that's only after the State Building

14:51 ↗ Code Council presents and gets approval

14:54 ↗ with the state legislature

15:00 ↗ okay so our our state code and the state

15:03 ↗ code covers pretty much what the

15:05 ↗ national codes are but the addition to

15:08 ↗ that is the energy code which this is

15:11 ↗ written uh uniquely within the state of

15:14 ↗ Washington adaa standards American

15:16 ↗ Disabilities Act uh is covered under

15:19 ↗ chapter 11 of the building code and this

15:21 ↗ is the national standards act that that

15:23 ↗ covers it so that's adopted separately

15:25 ↗ from the building

15:26 ↗ code and everything in the in the code

15:29 ↗ series is the international series with

15:32 ↗ the exception of the plumbing code uh

15:34 ↗ the uniform plumbing code is

15:41 ↗ UBC so we have a big red pending State

15:44 ↗ litigation but we do have um the the

15:46 ↗ energy code Updates this time gave us

15:49 ↗ much more efficient buildings and I

15:51 ↗ think the the uh increasing credits from

15:54 ↗ 6 to 7 uh really gives us a high it's

15:59 ↗ say gives us higher performing building

16:00 ↗ but um it six to

16:03 ↗ seven credits for what you have to

16:06 ↗ choose from is is pretty significant in

16:09 ↗ the um in in your energy analysis we've

16:13 ↗ got on-site Renewables uh electric

16:15 ↗ Outlets of gas

16:17 ↗ equipment and lighting control which is

16:20 ↗ of course occupancy

16:21 ↗ sensors and before um the state of

16:24 ↗ Washington had a had an amendment that

16:26 ↗ you don't have to insulate concrete

16:27 ↗ masonry units we eliminated that um the

16:32 ↗ same same issues for elevating

16:33 ↗ demolition construction Salvage for

16:35 ↗ material

16:37 ↗ recycling so in all in all this this

16:39 ↗ energy code update provided a lot a lot

16:44 ↗ more efficiency in terms of um what we

16:48 ↗ what we require for uh building owners

16:51 ↗ and and folks that

16:55 ↗ build we have a question here Nancy

16:57 ↗ would you like to go hi James Nancy

17:00 ↗ Davidson um I'm looking at this and

17:02 ↗ wondering about the enhanced digital

17:05 ↗ lighting control and I'm looking at the

17:07 ↗ REI building or the rented building by

17:09 ↗ REI and how the lights stay on also the

17:13 ↗ Costco building the lights stay on so

17:16 ↗ did they not comply with the 2021 energy

17:19 ↗ code update you know what it would be

17:21 ↗ nice if some of these buildings turn

17:23 ↗ their lights off at night just even to

17:24 ↗ send the signal that you know lighting

17:27 ↗ is important dark skies are important

17:28 ↗ important for Animals it reduces energy

17:31 ↗ use I know LED lights are different but

17:34 ↗ you know I just think that did that not

17:36 ↗ go far enough are they not complying

17:38 ↗ with the 2021 energy

17:40 ↗ code well there are lots of exceptions

17:43 ↗ for different types of spaces and at

17:45 ↗ night there's exceptions for obviously U

17:48 ↗ janitorial and and those kind of things

17:50 ↗ but we'd have to look at I'd have to

17:52 ↗ look at that entire building and see how

17:54 ↗ they how their application applied to

17:56 ↗ this section

18:00 ↗ and also the you're talking about the if

18:02 ↗ you're talking about the Costco building

18:04 ↗ th those were permitted under the 2015

18:06 ↗ code that was a long time ago REI is

18:09 ↗ probably 2018

18:12 ↗ code

18:15 ↗ bation and how much of the energy code

18:17 ↗ is pretty much

18:20 ↗ onf

18:22 ↗ well the

18:25 ↗ voters said what the voter said and then

18:27 ↗ it was up to folks to tell us kind of

18:31 ↗ did this does this apply locally or does

18:33 ↗ it apply Statewide and at this point is

18:37 ↗ just still pending everything is

18:42 ↗ pending

18:44 ↗ 66 so this doesn't apply currently what

18:47 ↗ you're saying

18:50 ↗ okay the other thing that no is the

18:52 ↗ 20121 energy Coda P even though it says

18:55 ↗ 2021 it didn't go and fact until 2024

18:58 ↗ and then the initiative now put State

19:01 ↗ litigation so it it hasn't been enacted

19:05 ↗ for a while thank you

19:15 ↗ yeah so this is just some examples of

19:18 ↗ local construction that uh we have here

19:20 ↗ that probably everybody recognizes in

19:23 ↗ all of the titles of of the city we get

19:25 ↗ the title 16 covers the different

19:27 ↗ building codes mechan Mechanical

19:29 ↗ plumbing electrical all of that is in

19:31 ↗ title

19:39 ↗ 16 so contractor code of conduct there

19:43 ↗ was a there was a desire years ago to

19:46 ↗ create a code of conduct that we apply

19:49 ↗ to commerci primarily commercial

19:51 ↗ contractors large residential Contra uh

19:55 ↗ uh contractors as well but uh so we put

19:58 ↗ that into place and for jobs of a

20:02 ↗ certain size they have to have a posting

20:04 ↗ at the job site that shows the code of

20:07 ↗ conduct and the where you go to if you

20:10 ↗ have questions about the

20:11 ↗ job um we were here tonight to give you

20:14 ↗ this this update about the 2021 code and

20:17 ↗ then uh

20:27 ↗ fees and I'll turn over to Stephen

20:30 ↗ thanks Jes so Stephen is the planning

20:32 ↗ director with Community Planning and

20:34 ↗ Development so I I work with all the

20:36 ↗ planners when it goes to the longrange

20:37 ↗ planning or development review so for

20:40 ↗ Title 18 as as Dave kind of alluded to

20:44 ↗ title 16 and the state building code is

20:46 ↗ pretty consistent across the board no

20:47 ↗ matter which cities you look at there's

20:48 ↗ might be some slight differences but the

20:51 ↗ building code is pretty much consistent

20:53 ↗ for most cities but when it comes to the

20:55 ↗ land use code tle 18 for the city isqua

20:58 ↗ it's fairly unique to is when you look

21:00 ↗ at other land SC for other cities it'll

21:02 ↗ look completely different even though a

21:04 ↗ lot of the same topics we covered

21:06 ↗ parking requirements would be different

21:08 ↗ for different types of buildings the

21:10 ↗ Landscaping requirements are going to be

21:11 ↗ different for different types of

21:12 ↗ developments and so a lot of the

21:15 ↗ regulations are going to be very unique

21:17 ↗ to our own City so for you know land use

21:22 ↗ go we cover a lot of the interactions

21:24 ↗ between land use and the development

21:27 ↗ regulations themselves and and that is

21:30 ↗ what the city wishes that interaction or

21:33 ↗ relationship to be and So within a l use

21:36 ↗ code it contains the procedures for how

21:39 ↗ people want to submit for permits or

21:41 ↗ land use it contains the information

21:43 ↗ about zoning and permitted uses the

21:46 ↗ things that you're allowed to do and how

21:47 ↗ you can do them on the properties the

21:50 ↗ building design now you start to look at

21:52 ↗ facade or the type of materials that

21:55 ↗ people are can use as part of the design

21:58 ↗ for any new structures and then parking

22:00 ↗ and subdivisions or parking um

22:04 ↗ is a little more self-explanatory of or

22:07 ↗ vehicle even bike par requirements for

22:09 ↗ any new developments subdivisions talks

22:11 ↗ about if you have a large lot you can

22:13 ↗ split it into multiple smaller Lots what

22:15 ↗ that process is and what's allowed what

22:17 ↗ you're allowed to do in your the

22:19 ↗ subdivision process and then critical

22:22 ↗ areas speaks to the more of the

22:24 ↗ environmental component of what we

22:25 ↗ require for any development that's

22:27 ↗ within um if you have some typee of

22:30 ↗ critical areas that

22:33 ↗ are within the property or even the

22:36 ↗ buffers of critical areas that are on

22:38 ↗ the properties there are certain

22:40 ↗ requirements or restrictions on

22:42 ↗ development um for that property because

22:44 ↗ of the critical areas and the same for

22:47 ↗ tree requirements are also located

22:49 ↗ within our critical area

22:51 ↗ code the what's in our land use code has

22:54 ↗ to be consistent with the policies that

22:56 ↗ are adoped confed plan policies which is

23:00 ↗ why we we talked a lot about the vision

23:03 ↗ and the goals and what we want to

23:05 ↗ achieve in a lot of the different topic

23:06 ↗ areas a lot of the regulations have to

23:09 ↗ align with that in addition to that they

23:11 ↗ also have to align with any state or

23:14 ↗ County or Regional requirements of the

23:16 ↗ city so um housing is I'll just bring

23:20 ↗ that up because that's an easy one right

23:22 ↗ now the state is requiring that all

23:25 ↗ cities have to allow certain housing

23:26 ↗ Types on set certain zones and so that's

23:30 ↗ the same requirement applied to all

23:32 ↗ cities within the state of Washington

23:34 ↗ and that is something that we have to

23:35 ↗ adopt for and so our land use

23:38 ↗ regulations reg uh recognize all those

23:41 ↗ types of state regulations of what what

23:43 ↗ is and what isn't allowed for

23:49 ↗ development when it comes to sustainable

23:52 ↗ design uh we made updates during the

23:54 ↗ 2023 overhaul of our land use code many

23:57 ↗ of you or some of you were involved in a

23:59 ↗ lot of those discussions of changing the

24:02 ↗ requirements around U structures that

24:06 ↗ were greater than 10,000 square ft now

24:08 ↗ have to be le Platinum designed uh for

24:12 ↗ any residential development that is 10

24:15 ↗ plus units has to be built green for

24:17 ↗ Star CER certified and that was adopted

24:20 ↗ in their ar2 grp so that is now being

24:23 ↗ applied to any new developments that are

24:24 ↗ coming

24:32 ↗ sorry to ask questions but um Nancy

24:35 ↗ Davidson again um it's my understanding

24:37 ↗ State Legislature passed um a law last

24:40 ↗ year where

24:42 ↗ any developments within a certain radius

24:45 ↗ of a bus stop or on a Transit line it

24:48 ↗ can go to six units per lot such as

24:52 ↗ Oldtown and squawk mountain or two that

24:54 ↗ I know are going to get hit pretty hard

24:56 ↗ if this as we do that are we going

24:58 ↗ update the land use code then to reflect

25:01 ↗ how to do that yes so um any any

25:05 ↗ requirements like that we are in the

25:08 ↗ process of having to update our land

25:10 ↗ code the bills you're talking about is

25:13 ↗ is for the record it's a house bill 11

25:16 ↗ House Bill 1337 that's the middle

25:18 ↗ housing and then Adu Bill and for our

25:21 ↗ city it's actually up to four units

25:23 ↗ within A4 mile for adus and within a

25:27 ↗ half mile for middle housing no parking

25:30 ↗ is required within but it's within major

25:32 ↗ Transit stops not just all transit

25:35 ↗ services and right now the guidance from

25:37 ↗ the state is that it's all sound transit

25:40 ↗ services stops so within half mile

25:43 ↗ quarter mile of those stops but right

25:45 ↗ now there is a debate with the state on

25:48 ↗ that type of guidance because that's not

25:49 ↗ exactly what was in the pin so more

25:52 ↗ guidance P will come out soon about that

25:54 ↗ during the current legislative session

25:56 ↗ But to answer your question yes we would

25:58 ↗ have to update the land cope to comply

26:00 ↗ with what that has to be done by when

26:03 ↗ would that go into effect I mean so is

26:05 ↗ that going to be effective this year yes

26:08 ↗ so it's it was required to have our land

26:10 ↗ use code updates adopted by end of June

26:14 ↗ 202 so we have ongoing projects right

26:17 ↗ now to see what that looks like and what

26:20 ↗ needs to change along with it and no par

26:25 ↗ yes yes

26:31 ↗ hi stepen this is BR uh so I have a

26:34 ↗ couple of questions so the sustainable

26:38 ↗ design you said uh 10,000 square ft or

26:42 ↗ more right that is that just City

26:44 ↗ buildings or is it private properties as

26:47 ↗ well or single family homes as well not

26:51 ↗ single family homes it for that

26:53 ↗ requirement it's primarily just

26:55 ↗ non-residential structures that's

26:57 ↗ anything that's 10,000 square feet okay

27:00 ↗ and for residentials it's it would be 10

27:03 ↗ plus okay and you said that land use

27:06 ↗ code is different from City to city and

27:08 ↗ Isa code is pretty unique so can you

27:11 ↗ elaborate a little on that like how is

27:13 ↗ it different from

27:15 ↗ theing what exact so um I'll thank you

27:19 ↗ for the question so when you look at the

27:21 ↗ land use code for City sanish or B or

27:24 ↗ redin they have parking requirements

27:26 ↗ they have critical area requirement

27:28 ↗ but what exactly they require is going

27:31 ↗ to be different from the city of this so

27:33 ↗ like for and I'm going to make up

27:35 ↗ numbers just because I I don't know what

27:37 ↗ it is in our club right now but for

27:40 ↗ parking requirements we might require

27:42 ↗ one unit for every single family

27:44 ↗ household for samamish they might

27:46 ↗ require two parking units for every

27:49 ↗ household and and Kirkland's going to be

27:52 ↗ slightly different and same with b or

27:54 ↗ they don't require any parking

27:55 ↗ requirements for a single family

27:56 ↗ household at all so that's what I mean

27:59 ↗ by this

28:00 ↗ to thank

28:05 ↗ you um I'm just curious so it seems like

28:08 ↗ the sustainability plan is something

28:11 ↗ that is it the office of sustainability

28:13 ↗ manages is that correct or how I'm just

28:16 ↗ curious how does this all fit together

28:19 ↗ is that something you're going into okay

28:22 ↗ the next so we could do questions

28:26 ↗ onod and then maybe if you could help

28:29 ↗ and this is sort of related to PR's

28:31 ↗ question um are there any things what

28:34 ↗ putting our lens of like knowing what

28:35 ↗ this General topic area is that you

28:37 ↗ think are there are whether it's on the

28:40 ↗ title 16 or Title 18 side anything that

28:42 ↗ you think we should be considering or

28:45 ↗ that are like in nearby cities if you

28:47 ↗ guys were to you probably have done kind

28:49 ↗ of a review of of where other kind of

28:51 ↗ pure cities are is there anything that

28:53 ↗ you think we would be helpful context in

28:55 ↗ addition to this on sort of more policy

28:58 ↗ level things yeah when you when we were

29:01 ↗ doing the the land use code overhaul we

29:03 ↗ we did look at all the surrounding

29:05 ↗ cities to see what other options there

29:06 ↗ were when it came to sustainable design

29:08 ↗ and and the biggest thing we've noticed

29:10 ↗ is that for things that cities offer

29:13 ↗ like I'll use red example because it was

29:15 ↗ a big discussion during the um what they

29:18 ↗ offer as as incentives for providing

29:20 ↗ sustainable design a lot of their

29:22 ↗ incentives we actually require in our

29:24 ↗ landage regulations and so that may not

29:27 ↗ be beneficial for developers to consider

29:30 ↗ incentive if we add something new

29:32 ↗ because what they the tradeoffs that red

29:34 ↗ offers we actually fire there's no

29:37 ↗ incentive because there's no tradeoff

29:39 ↗ and so that's part of the I would say

29:41 ↗ the consideration for stal design is

29:44 ↗ looking at the benefits for the

29:46 ↗ developers of whether or not it's even

29:47 ↗ peaceful for them to consider it might

29:49 ↗ be part of the

29:51 ↗ conversation and to be clear when you

29:53 ↗ say that do you mean that like we are re

29:56 ↗ like things that other cities would

29:58 ↗ incentivize you to do but not require

30:00 ↗ you to do we are requiring and how would

30:02 ↗ that it sounds like you're saying that's

30:05 ↗ impacting people's desire to build an

30:07 ↗ isqua or build sustainably I'm how are

30:10 ↗ you seeing that impact ultimately

30:11 ↗ decision makers by one example is um

30:14 ↗ some cities um offer if you put in solar

30:18 ↗ installations on the structure they

30:20 ↗ offer some type of um incentive saying

30:23 ↗ you don't have to provide we'll say key

30:26 ↗ pumps or or some some

30:28 ↗ design that's that's currently actually

30:31 ↗ required in the city of this and if that

30:34 ↗ was actually a policy discussion that's

30:36 ↗ with every one of those changes

30:37 ↗ consideration of do we want to require

30:39 ↗ it or consider as an action incentive or

30:41 ↗ a sustainable design and so that's some

30:44 ↗ of the trade-offs we have to consider we

30:46 ↗ have to if we change anything we require

30:48 ↗ a lot of what other cities use as

30:51 ↗ incentives interest

30:58 ↗ uh yes Tom Anderson here how are these

31:01 ↗ rules applied to remodels and additions

31:05 ↗ for residential

31:08 ↗ housing could you be more specific do

31:10 ↗ you mean like uh remodels single family

31:14 ↗ or larger residential well let's let's

31:16 ↗ say single family somebody wants to do a

31:18 ↗ remodel on an over house it doesn't me

31:21 ↗ their current codes uh how it'll have to

31:25 ↗ be brought up to code in some area how

31:28 ↗ is that balance St it depends on the

31:31 ↗ scope of the remodel or the re rehab of

31:35 ↗ the structure so right now we Define

31:38 ↗ that a a major remodel has to be over

31:42 ↗ 50% of the value of the Reconstruction

31:44 ↗ of the whole fielding and if so if they

31:47 ↗ exceed that threshold we consider that

31:50 ↗ basically having to meet the new uh the

31:53 ↗ the requirements for new construction so

31:56 ↗ then that's anything that would the new

31:58 ↗ construction would now be applied to

32:00 ↗ that reconstruction of that house

32:02 ↗ because they have now exceeded that per

32:04 ↗ just in the footprint of the remodel

32:07 ↗ even if it's in within the footprint but

32:09 ↗ if they're building up and the scope of

32:12 ↗ their re or their rehab is exceeding

32:15 ↗ that value then yeah we would then apply

32:18 ↗ uh the same requirements that we would

32:21 ↗ apply to a new

32:22 ↗ construction and then some of the

32:24 ↗ sustainable design um requirements uh

32:27 ↗ would came

32:29 ↗ but but that threshold none of those

32:32 ↗ requirements

32:33 ↗ apply is that pretty bment through

32:37 ↗ throughout other

32:39 ↗ municipalities

32:41 ↗ yes thresholds a little bit different

32:43 ↗ but yes a lot of M is been establish the

32:46 ↗ speci determining between a major rehab

32:49 ↗ to new construction I'm just wondering

32:51 ↗ if that's something if that's a strategy

32:54 ↗ that could be used to speak to the

32:56 ↗ concerns that uh and raise for people

32:59 ↗ for climate action okay if somebody

33:02 ↗ wants to build a new building well the

33:05 ↗ city has leverage with those people

33:07 ↗ because you want to permit well we're

33:09 ↗ you have to live by our rules if you

33:11 ↗ want to permit but uh there is no

33:14 ↗ leverage the city has over people who

33:16 ↗ aren't doing something to their existing

33:18 ↗ house to force them to improve the

33:21 ↗ efficiency of an existing house this

33:25 ↗ would be an incremental thing that okay

33:28 ↗ well you can you want to do a remodel

33:31 ↗ we're going to uh bring you along to

33:34 ↗ towards more efficiency in the course of

33:36 ↗ that remodel okay those rules kick in at

33:39 ↗ some level maybe we would adjust that

33:41 ↗ threshold to accomplish that goal would

33:45 ↗ there be

33:46 ↗ any um reason why we couldn't do that or

33:50 ↗ is that a bad idea or

33:53 ↗ we I I would say that would start to

33:56 ↗ make our land really complicated dat to

33:58 ↗ enforce because when you start to

34:00 ↗ establish different thresholds at

34:01 ↗ different areas of Redevelopment or

34:03 ↗ rehab of different

34:05 ↗ structures then you are now relying on

34:08 ↗ people to remember where in the code it

34:10 ↗ says

34:12 ↗ that which structure it applies to and

34:15 ↗ how much of it does it now apply to

34:18 ↗ whatever the fre model is and that can

34:21 ↗ get really complicated and increase the

34:23 ↗ cost because development review is now

34:25 ↗ more comp complicated

34:29 ↗ that that's part of the reason a huge

34:31 ↗ reason why we wanted to simplify our

34:33 ↗ land use H with the big overhaul is

34:35 ↗ because it was making our Lage

34:37 ↗ development process very complicated and

34:40 ↗ and a lot of people were turning away

34:42 ↗ development because it was hard to get

34:45 ↗ development

34:46 ↗ cons so that's part of the consideration

34:48 ↗ I'm not saying we don't want to consider

34:50 ↗ it but when we are looking at adding any

34:53 ↗ new requirements like that that's part

34:56 ↗ of the consideration that we're looking

34:58 ↗ at to because it does increase the cost

35:00 ↗ and you make it

35:02 ↗ more one more question uh the 10,000

35:05 ↗ square foot threshold how many

35:08 ↗ commercial buildings are

35:12 ↗ applied of that size or greater per year

35:15 ↗ I'd have to look through our project

35:17 ↗ list to see which ones have been applied

35:20 ↗ to

35:22 ↗ that presumably small number though I

35:25 ↗ mean one or two or something like that

35:28 ↗ he was just enacted a year and a half

35:30 ↗ ago so I would say a very small member

35:33 ↗ um I'll have to get back to you on the

35:36 ↗ EXA thank

35:39 ↗ you um I just kind of had a clarifying

35:42 ↗ question so Title 18 informed the

35:46 ↗ comprehensive development correct it was

35:49 ↗ kind of both ways was going to be my

35:52 ↗ question is now the PO plan influencing

35:54 ↗ Title 18 there's new stuff that came up

35:58 ↗ yes yes and no so we we had the the IAP

36:01 ↗ that was developed before we went

36:02 ↗ through the whole confine update the IAP

36:05 ↗ helped inform how we want to do the pump

36:07 ↗ out particularly for the new element but

36:09 ↗ also for existing elements and so

36:13 ↗ because we've used that as kind of a

36:15 ↗ template a lot of the regulations that

36:18 ↗ was updated during the overhaul are

36:20 ↗ consistent with dieap but also the comp

36:22 ↗ update that happened after we

36:25 ↗ did at the same time we still go back

36:28 ↗ into the L just bu make sure things are

36:32 ↗ consistent I guess I had one more

36:34 ↗ question that I was trying to find it I

36:36 ↗ thought I had it's the next presentation

36:39 ↗ but that there were other requirements

36:40 ↗ for like 5,000 Plus

36:44 ↗ or silver or gold Lead City

36:49 ↗ buildings so we don't have any

36:51 ↗ sustainable or less Li

36:59 ↗ else thank you Stephen and James yeah

37:02 ↗ thank you thank you James yeah sorry um

37:07 ↗ I I'm trying to think I mean we do have

37:09 ↗ more requirements but I'm not sure if

37:11 ↗ they if they are in that particular in

37:14 ↗ that particular section you know like um

37:17 ↗ uh small site recycling onsite and and

37:21 ↗ we we we have other we have other pieces

37:22 ↗ where we could go beyond where we

37:25 ↗ can thank you

37:29 ↗ um I probably leave and if there's any

37:32 ↗ other questions around till 1816 we

37:36 ↗ can I just have a quick followup

37:38 ↗ question are we going to see the update

37:40 ↗ to the landage bo or is that you know

37:43 ↗ Title 18 that's going on now or is it

37:45 ↗ just going to go through PPC or

37:46 ↗ someplace else most of it's going to go

37:48 ↗ through PPC uh we are planning to bring

37:50 ↗ the tree code updates to the

37:52 ↗ environmental board I think next month

37:55 ↗ either March or April yeah m going to be

37:57 ↗ adopted by Council by the end of June

38:00 ↗ roughly yes that's the goal yeah yes the

38:03 ↗ goal yeah that's the goal thank you

38:09 ↗ Jonathan yes as I sit here I wonder if

38:12 ↗ there are any um housing uh limits to

38:15 ↗ size for new construction of single

38:17 ↗ family homes considering the environment

38:20 ↗ and impact to uh greenhouse gas

38:22 ↗ emissions it seems like smaller houses

38:25 ↗ would emit a lot more sorry a lot less

38:27 ↗ greenhouse gases and if you limited the

38:31 ↗ size of these houses then you could U

38:34 ↗ limit the emissions can you have a

38:37 ↗ comment on

38:39 ↗ that yeah so um each of our single

38:42 ↗ family zones do have limits in the types

38:45 ↗ of size of they have height limits and

38:48 ↗ they have step backs which limits kind

38:50 ↗ of the horizontal and uh front to back

38:54 ↗ sizes of structures on any property is

38:57 ↗ that hope that's your

39:04 ↗ question don't you can't build over

39:08 ↗ 25 yeah what I'm seeing is very very

39:11 ↗ large single family homes you know where

39:14 ↗ there'll be maybe one or two people

39:15 ↗ living in a 5,000 or 6,000 square foot

39:18 ↗ home a brand new home and it seems like

39:21 ↗ we should limit the size of new new

39:25 ↗ construction that is a discussion we can

39:36 ↗ have thank you

39:39 ↗ in I'm sorry I'm real sorry I don't make

39:42 ↗ here too long I just sorry I had a quick

39:44 ↗ question if uh flood code plays into

39:47 ↗ this at all do does the city write its

39:48 ↗ own or have any of its own flood FL

39:50 ↗ flood code or is that all state it's a

39:54 ↗ balance of both we do have requirements

39:56 ↗ when it comes to s planes um most of is

39:59 ↗ enforcing what the state requires um but

40:02 ↗ when that's a lot of that is adopted in

40:04 ↗ our thir area

40:06 ↗ okay

40:08 ↗ thank we will there's a couple

40:14 ↗ conversations um so just to um follow up

40:17 ↗ on Title 18 we will be talking later

40:20 ↗ this spring about the tree code and then

40:22 ↗ at some point in the future we'll

40:24 ↗ probably be taking another as a

40:25 ↗ sustainable building um aspect of Title

40:28 ↗ 18 not scheduled

40:32 ↗ yet thanks again James thanks St thanks

40:36 ↗ for having me you're welcome good

40:41 ↗ night the will transition

40:44 ↗ [Music]

40:48 ↗ now yeah so thanks so much we're going

40:52 ↗ to transition shift a little bit towards

40:54 ↗ uh thinking about internal City uh City

40:57 ↗ policy for now um I'll be kind of

41:00 ↗ kicking us off with this conversation

41:03 ↗ and then most of the presentation will

41:05 ↗ be led by our wonderful consultant PJ

41:08 ↗ who is online today uh next

41:11 ↗ slide so uh today uh what we'll be

41:15 ↗ talking about is uh nille effort to

41:18 ↗ review potentially update and kind of

41:20 ↗ explore recommendations for how to um

41:23 ↗ refresh the city's existing uh

41:26 ↗ sustainable

41:28 ↗ building and infrastructure policy think

41:31 ↗ about uh how we can cover more building

41:34 ↗ types um as well as infrastructure a lot

41:37 ↗ of um policies like thinking about uh

41:41 ↗ the lead Platinum requirement in Title

41:43 ↗ 18 apply to buildings but that doesn't

41:46 ↗ necessarily apply to say a road project

41:48 ↗ and so this policy is kind of thinking

41:50 ↗ about what are the what are the ways

41:52 ↗ that we can um improve uh sustainability

41:56 ↗ Within uh uh those buildings and then

41:59 ↗ also those infrastructure projects

42:01 ↗ they're going to be um the ask today is

42:05 ↗ for feedback on uh draft recommendations

42:09 ↗ put together by Cascadia Consulting um

42:13 ↗ the recommendations were put together

42:15 ↗ based on uh review of comparable

42:18 ↗ policies from other jurisdictions uh

42:21 ↗ City staff

42:23 ↗ feedback uh and then also uh the

42:25 ↗ application of a case study to one of

42:27 ↗ our uh par

42:29 ↗ projects

42:31 ↗ SL so uh as and mentioned earlier

42:36 ↗ buildings are one of the bigger uh

42:39 ↗ bigger impacts uh bigger greenhouse gas

42:43 ↗ um emitters in uh in the city uh it

42:47 ↗ accounts for around 48% of our uh

42:51 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions from City

42:54 ↗ operations and we do have a uh

42:58 ↗ Sustainable Building and infrastructure

43:00 ↗ policy um it was actually adopted in

43:03 ↗ 2004 that's the one that was uh

43:05 ↗ referenced earlier um and it as it

43:08 ↗ requires lead silver certification for

43:10 ↗ all new buildings City buildings over uh

43:14 ↗ 5,000 square fet in addition to a couple

43:17 ↗ other sustainable practices um and in

43:21 ↗ Title 18 there was the new code update

43:23 ↗ to include Le Platinum for buildings

43:25 ↗ over 10,000 square feet

43:28 ↗ um the is policy currently applies to

43:30 ↗ both community and City owned buildings

43:33 ↗ um it does not cover retrofits um

43:36 ↗ building smaller than 5,000 square ft or

43:38 ↗ infrastructure

43:40 ↗ projects um the building uh updating

43:44 ↗ this policy uh has been actually called

43:47 ↗ out as priority action for the last

43:50 ↗ seven or eight years at least in the

43:52 ↗ city um the Sustainable Building action

43:55 ↗ strategy that Jamie mentioned earlier

43:56 ↗ the is number one action on that that

43:59 ↗ strategy um and it was never done um

44:04 ↗ this is also called out in the climate

44:06 ↗ action plan and so um we're trying to

44:09 ↗ take this opportunity at this point to

44:11 ↗ do that uh refresh of the 2004 uh policy

44:15 ↗ and think about how we can

44:18 ↗ uh apply it more rigorously to our our

44:21 ↗ own City

44:23 ↗ buildings and

44:25 ↗ infrastructure next slide

44:28 ↗ quick table yeah how many new buildings

44:30 ↗ in City are that are City built that are

44:33 ↗ over 5,000 square feet like kind of

44:36 ↗ plans for we do not have much new

44:40 ↗ buildings at the city so I think that

44:43 ↗ actually goes right really well into

44:45 ↗ this next slide um where we're thinking

44:48 ↗ this policy will make a difference is

44:50 ↗ thinking about the uh the gaps of what

44:53 ↗ the existing lead Platinum requirements

44:55 ↗ lead silver requirements don't cover so

44:59 ↗ again that's some of those

45:00 ↗ infrastructure projects Road Projects

45:02 ↗ Park projects things like that um as

45:05 ↗ well as retr retrofits of existing

45:09 ↗ buildings so thinking about um say the

45:12 ↗ heating you know we need to replace the

45:13 ↗ HVAC system at our Public Works facility

45:17 ↗ um this policy would in theory uh or the

45:21 ↗ recommendation from Cascadia and how we

45:24 ↗ uh apply the M Theory kind of uh

45:27 ↗ help us decide what we would want to put

45:30 ↗ in place of that failed pack

45:33 ↗ system so uh we do anticipate that

45:38 ↗ padia's uh implementing cascadia's

45:40 ↗ recommendations will help us fill gaps

45:42 ↗ in existing policies and codes um

45:45 ↗ supporting smaller buildings uh retrofit

45:48 ↗ projects and infrastructure projects an

45:51 ↗ updated policy could also fill some gaps

45:54 ↗ by having some minimum requirements uh

45:57 ↗ that are not currently covered by

45:58 ↗ current policy or other city codes or

46:00 ↗ policies and that could include a wide

46:03 ↗ range of different um elements so

46:06 ↗ thinking about Energy Efficiency water

46:10 ↗ efficiency uh social resilience thinking

46:13 ↗ about life cycle cost of

46:15 ↗ materials um and then also thinking

46:17 ↗ about equity in our uh projects as well

46:21 ↗ meeting minimum standards could be

46:23 ↗ achieved in a lot of different ways and

46:25 ↗ and this kind of goes into what PJ will

46:26 ↗ be talking about uh regarding kind of

46:29 ↗ what we've been considering through this

46:30 ↗ process but we can align uh City policy

46:33 ↗ with existing third party standards we

46:35 ↗ can introduce a custom policy um uh or

46:41 ↗ um look at other options as

46:44 ↗ well so we do hope that looking at this

46:48 ↗ policy refreshing this policy we

46:51 ↗ anticipates uh providing staff with a

46:53 ↗ little bit more resources and capacity

46:55 ↗ and support to apply

46:57 ↗ um more efficiency uh for our buildings

47:00 ↗ thinking about improving air quality in

47:02 ↗ our projects thinking about how we can

47:04 ↗ make our infrastructure projects more

47:06 ↗ resilient to uh withstand climate

47:09 ↗ disasters things like that and all of

47:12 ↗ this together hopefully will lead to

47:13 ↗ more modernized buildings and more

47:16 ↗ resilient infrastructure across the city

47:19 ↗ with that I'll turn it over to

47:23 ↗ PJ thanks David and good evening again

47:26 ↗ everyone

47:27 ↗ going to do a mic check do I can

47:29 ↗ everyone hear me

47:31 ↗ okay yes yes okay great well yeah I'm PJ

47:35 ↗ Tilman I'm a senior associate with

47:37 ↗ Cascadia Consulting Group I've been with

47:38 ↗ the company about seven years working on

47:40 ↗ a range of climate adaptation and

47:44 ↗ mitigation planning and implementation

47:46 ↗ processes as well as public and

47:47 ↗ stakeholder engagement and that has been

47:49 ↗ the focus of really my whole career in a

47:51 ↗ variety of

47:53 ↗ organizations uh so I'll continue with

47:55 ↗ the context setting here and then then

47:57 ↗ move into findings and recommendations I

47:59 ↗ will pause at a couple points for

48:01 ↗ questions like after finishing the

48:03 ↗ context setting and then uh after the

48:05 ↗ findings and

48:07 ↗ recommendations so to further that

48:09 ↗ context setting here's the goal that

48:10 ↗ guided our work in this process we

48:13 ↗ wanted to develop clear evidence-based

48:15 ↗ recommendations and implementation

48:17 ↗ guidance to align isqua's building and

48:19 ↗ infrastructure policy with

48:20 ↗ sustainability best practices and

48:22 ↗ current city goals practices and

48:24 ↗ priorities

48:28 ↗ uh next slide is our project objectives

48:30 ↗ to meet that goal we wanted to First

48:32 ↗ understand what other jurisdictions are

48:33 ↗ doing and learn from them specifically

48:36 ↗ we sought to evaluate and summarize the

48:38 ↗ policy approach other jurisdictions took

48:41 ↗ that might be whether they used a city

48:43 ↗ approved resolution a code update or

48:46 ↗ another means to update their their

48:48 ↗ policy we wanted to understand questions

48:51 ↗ like how are Sustainable Building and

48:52 ↗ infrastructure policies and tools

48:54 ↗ structured at other jurisdictions and

48:56 ↗ how rigorous are they we also wanted to

48:59 ↗ understand the specific policy

49:01 ↗ requirements and standards of the policy

49:03 ↗ are they aligning with lead are they

49:05 ↗ aligning with Invision which is looks at

49:07 ↗ sustainable infrastructure or they

49:09 ↗ aiming for certain percent Energy

49:11 ↗ Efficiency to achieve in a building and

49:14 ↗ lastly we wanted to understand how are

49:16 ↗ they implementing this policy what does

49:18 ↗ the administration and governance look

49:20 ↗ like uh how much staff time is dedicated

49:22 ↗ to to sustainability what are their

49:24 ↗ internal processes to Support Compliance

49:27 ↗ clients um what have they actually been

49:29 ↗ able to implement to date what are the

49:31 ↗ impacts on staff and what are the

49:33 ↗ associated costs and

49:35 ↗ benefits that last objective around

49:37 ↗ governance meant that we really needed

49:39 ↗ to talk to jurisdictions because that

49:41 ↗ kind of information is just not

49:43 ↗ typically available on a web page or

49:44 ↗ when you read through a policy uh so we

49:47 ↗ had we wanted to gather that information

49:49 ↗ and and talk to the folks who've been

49:51 ↗ implementing we also wanted to

49:53 ↗ understand isqua City staff perspectives

49:55 ↗ and input on these topics focusing

49:57 ↗ specifically on staff who would be asked

49:59 ↗ to implement the policy as part of their

50:01 ↗ jobs and then pulling all of this

50:03 ↗ information together through our

50:05 ↗ analysis is what leads to the

50:06 ↗ recommendations that I'll share at the

50:08 ↗ end of the

50:11 ↗ presentation next slide I'll go in

50:13 ↗ through in more detail through our

50:14 ↗ process there's a lot here so I'll just

50:16 ↗ walk through starting in the top left uh

50:19 ↗ anything that is a isqua city staff

50:21 ↗ activity is in a blue color anything

50:24 ↗ that is an activity with another

50:25 ↗ jurisdiction is in the green

50:28 ↗ color so we started last summer to with

50:31 ↗ identifying about a dozen potential

50:33 ↗ jurisdictions with similar Sustainable

50:35 ↗ Building or infrastructure policies we

50:38 ↗ did an initial evaluation of those

50:39 ↗ jurisdictions and narrowed it down to

50:41 ↗ Seattle King County San Diego and Pierce

50:44 ↗ County we chose these four jurisdictions

50:47 ↗ because they represented the range of

50:49 ↗ policies that we wanted to learn about

50:51 ↗ they included both local and non-local

50:53 ↗ jurisdictions and were varying sizes and

50:55 ↗ therefore implementation

50:57 ↗ context we then did a deep dive of these

51:00 ↗ four jurisdictions policies focusing on

51:02 ↗ the questions that I went over on the

51:04 ↗ previous

51:05 ↗ slide so we looked at specific technical

51:08 ↗ requirements uh and that actually

51:10 ↗ necessitated doing a bit of a re a

51:12 ↗ review of lead which as you I think all

51:14 ↗ probably know is a common and

51:15 ↗ well-regarded thirdparty certification

51:17 ↗ primarily used for buildings uh and of

51:20 ↗ Envision which is a similar

51:22 ↗ certification for sustainable

51:23 ↗ infrastructure that is also well

51:25 ↗ regarded

51:29 ↗ um I the last thing I want to note here

51:32 ↗ on this point is that these

51:33 ↗ jurisdictions are obviously much larger

51:35 ↗ than issaqua so we specifically asked

51:37 ↗ about scaling to cities issaqua size so

51:40 ↗ I want to emphasize we don't view these

51:42 ↗ jurisdictions as pure jurisdictions in

51:44 ↗ terms of size but actually in terms of

51:46 ↗ having similar policies uh of to isqua

51:51 ↗ and experience implementing them so that

51:53 ↗ we could learn from their experience and

51:55 ↗ we also specifically asked about scaling

51:57 ↗ daqua size um in our

52:01 ↗ research uh so after finishing the

52:03 ↗ policy review and talking with those

52:05 ↗ four cities we then interviewed isqua

52:07 ↗ City staff in the facilities Public

52:09 ↗ Works Solid Waste environmental

52:11 ↗ regulation parks and community services

52:13 ↗ and special projects departments in this

52:16 ↗ way we were able to bring forward

52:18 ↗ findings from the initial policy review

52:20 ↗ and gather staff feedback specifically

52:24 ↗ on them leading to a more tangible

52:26 ↗ convers ation with City staff about what

52:28 ↗ they thought and therefore more tangible

52:30 ↗ recommendations we are now in the review

52:33 ↗ stage of this process kind of in the in

52:34 ↗ the middle left of the slide speaking

52:37 ↗ with you all today and with the city

52:38 ↗ Senor senior leadership team tomorrow

52:41 ↗ after that later this spring we'll

52:43 ↗ prepare a final recommendations report

52:45 ↗ for City staff and then they'll take it

52:46 ↗ from there to develop the actual policy

52:48 ↗ and gather input on what that could look

52:52 ↗ like uh and so as in the brown box here

52:56 ↗ I wanted to just final process Point

52:58 ↗ preview the questions that we'll have

53:00 ↗ for you that we thought of and will have

53:02 ↗ for you at the end of course welcome

53:04 ↗ others which is asking you to have these

53:06 ↗ couple questions in mind as I go over

53:08 ↗ findings and

53:10 ↗ recommendations um before I do that are

53:13 ↗ there any uh questions on the uh context

53:17 ↗ and process that I've covered so

53:24 ↗ far curious in the policy review with

53:28 ↗ other jurisdictions and maybe this is

53:30 ↗ something you're going to get into but

53:32 ↗ um in terms of how people scop their

53:34 ↗ kind of Sustainable Building policies

53:38 ↗ was that was everyone consistent and it

53:39 ↗ was mostly focused on munal buildings or

53:42 ↗ how how did that fit into those work

53:45 ↗ that you guys were

53:46 ↗ doing yeah it's a good question and I

53:48 ↗ will cover it uh generally in the

53:55 ↗ findings so I I have a quick question a

53:58 ↗ lot of the report that you attach is

54:01 ↗ focused on buildings but we also need to

54:05 ↗ be looking at infrastructure as well and

54:08 ↗ did you give any consideration to

54:10 ↗ looking at like the um how

54:14 ↗ infrastructure projects are prioritized

54:17 ↗ like the CIP and the tip in the city

54:20 ↗ because if we're really trying to

54:22 ↗ sustainability it may result in less

54:25 ↗ cards on the road by changing the way we

54:27 ↗ score and rate the projects that get

54:29 ↗ funded by the city so that maybe more

54:32 ↗ walking projects get funded instead of

54:35 ↗ some of the bigger Capital facilities I

54:37 ↗ mean we've got pump stations and LT

54:39 ↗ stations that potentially could have

54:41 ↗ more efficient equipment

54:43 ↗ installed um so it seems to me by

54:46 ↗ focusing on buildings we're missing a

54:48 ↗ big this policy which is

54:51 ↗ infrastructure yeah that's a great Point

54:54 ↗ as well and we're going to cover that

54:55 ↗ actually in deta tell in the findings

54:57 ↗ that is definitely a part of what we

54:59 ↗ talked about and what we'll recommend it

55:01 ↗ might be um what was someone going to

55:03 ↗ say in the

55:04 ↗ room go ahead TJ okay okay um and I'm in

55:10 ↗ my office and like all the lights

55:12 ↗ speaking of the lighting that happened

55:13 ↗ lighting conversation happened earlier

55:14 ↗ they automatically turn off at a certain

55:16 ↗ point so I'm just going to go run and

55:18 ↗ turn them back on and I will be right

55:19 ↗ back and shift into the finding

55:23 ↗ slide um David I have a question that

55:25 ↗ maybe you can answer yeah is there a

55:28 ↗ reason you ORV a city of similar size do

55:31 ↗ they have policies or yeah it's a great

55:34 ↗ question um for the most part no um

55:39 ↗ especially internal policies are hard to

55:43 ↗ find for a lot of cities they don't post

55:46 ↗ them um so there could be a city that

55:50 ↗ has uh a similar style policy uh that

55:55 ↗ say King County has or Seattle has um

55:59 ↗ but for the most part it was not readily

56:02 ↗ available and when we asked and some of

56:04 ↗ our networks for that it nothing kind of

56:06 ↗ came back um so a big question was okay

56:10 ↗ how do we take what these bigger

56:12 ↗ jurisdictions are doing and and think

56:14 ↗ about how to apply them to the city B

56:22 ↗ Club more questions right

56:24 ↗ now ready to to the next part PJ

56:29 ↗ okay okay um so I'll now summarize what

56:32 ↗ we learned from the policy review and

56:33 ↗ interviews with isqua staff and staff

56:35 ↗ from other jurisdictions and thank you

56:37 ↗ for that moment to go turn on the lights

56:39 ↗ I appreciate it um the key message

56:41 ↗ overall I'll highlight kind of key

56:43 ↗ takeaways and then dig into these um in

56:45 ↗ particular um the key message from

56:47 ↗ reviewing what other jurisdictions are

56:49 ↗ doing is that aligning with a third

56:51 ↗ party certification like leader and

56:53 ↗ vision is most common as is focusing on

56:55 ↗ buildings versus sites and capital

56:57 ↗ projects an effective administrative

56:59 ↗ process and internal capacity and

57:01 ↗ support are also

57:03 ↗ necessary um you can State on this slide

57:05 ↗ for a moment uh the key message really

57:08 ↗ across most of the interviews with isqua

57:10 ↗ staff is that staff are supportive of

57:12 ↗ sustainability and in some cases

57:14 ↗ strongly so but administrative realities

57:16 ↗ cost concerns and uncertainty about

57:18 ↗ third party certifications mean that

57:20 ↗ staff generally but not always prefer to

57:22 ↗ focus on what they can do within

57:24 ↗ existing policy and process

57:27 ↗ so I'll dig into this slide first a bit

57:29 ↗ more um of the policies we review from

57:32 ↗ other jurisdictions they included

57:34 ↗ aligning with a thirdparty system like

57:36 ↗ leader and vision creating one's own

57:38 ↗ policy or scorecard or some combination

57:41 ↗ of of both of those consistent with

57:44 ↗ isqua and many other cities and counties

57:47 ↗ Seattle King County and San Diego align

57:49 ↗ with lead or a comparable thirdparty

57:51 ↗ rating system like living buildings for

57:53 ↗ their sustainable municipal building and

57:55 ↗ infrastructure

57:57 ↗ policies all three of those

57:58 ↗ jurisdictions also include specific

58:01 ↗ technical requirements some of which are

58:02 ↗ quantitative like a percent efficiency

58:05 ↗ for example to achieve in water or

58:07 ↗ energy that must be met for new

58:09 ↗ construction and for major

58:11 ↗ Renovations uniquely Pierce County has

58:14 ↗ adopted what they call an electric first

58:16 ↗ policy that directs individual

58:18 ↗ departments and staff to create a

58:19 ↗ building electrification strategy for

58:22 ↗ individual Municipal

58:24 ↗ facilities also uniquely King County

58:26 ↗ developed a homegrown sustainable

58:28 ↗ Municipal infrastructure scorecard this

58:31 ↗ was highlighted in the IAP as a way to

58:33 ↗ expand on the city's 2004 policy as one

58:36 ↗ of the options and that occurred prior

58:38 ↗ that actually occurred the King County

58:40 ↗ scorecard prior to the release of

58:42 ↗ Invision so Invision is a a rating

58:44 ↗ system that's getting traction as a

58:46 ↗ thirdparty approach for sustainable

58:47 ↗ infrastructure

58:50 ↗ specifically when we interviewed staff

58:52 ↗ from King County Seattle and Pierce

58:54 ↗ County we w't able to reach uh folks in

58:56 ↗ San Diego about the how they're

58:58 ↗ implementing these policies we heard

59:01 ↗ that based on their experience the

59:02 ↗ administrative burden is lower with

59:04 ↗ thirdparty certifications versus custom

59:07 ↗ policies and

59:08 ↗ scorecards the reason they cited is that

59:10 ↗ a thirdparty system already has a

59:11 ↗ built-in administrative structure it

59:13 ↗ enables you to essentially check their

59:15 ↗ boxes and follow their process instead

59:17 ↗ of creating updating and managing a

59:20 ↗ custom process internally we heard this

59:22 ↗ from King County for example which has

59:24 ↗ both a custom scorecard and a policy of

59:26 ↗ aligning to existing third party

59:30 ↗ systems both Seattle and King County

59:32 ↗ have internal teams to support policy

59:34 ↗ implementation compliance and Reporting

59:37 ↗ while Pierce County um takes a different

59:39 ↗ approach it's really just the staff and

59:41 ↗ departments who um act in kind of an ad

59:44 ↗ hoc way they meet quarterly um and

59:46 ↗ support and they're required to submit

59:48 ↗ reports to council twice yearly so they

59:49 ↗ have a more Grassroots approaching

59:51 ↗ Pierce County uh no matter the approach

59:54 ↗ taken by the jurisdiction the the

59:56 ↗ internal coordinating functions are seen

59:57 ↗ as essential for success as is

1:00:00 ↗ leadership

1:00:01 ↗ support on the topic of scaling to a

1:00:04 ↗ city isqua size King County staff

1:00:06 ↗ recommended scaling program management

1:00:08 ↗ by the number of capital Improvement

1:00:10 ↗ projects to give an example when we

1:00:12 ↗ spoke with them they had about 440

1:00:15 ↗ Capital Improvement projects and a

1:00:17 ↗ dedicated Green Building program

1:00:18 ↗ management role uh at about 1.4 FTE so

1:00:22 ↗ that gives you an idea of how they think

1:00:23 ↗ about scaling these things

1:00:27 ↗ next I want to cover the scope of the

1:00:29 ↗ policy and other jurisdictions this was

1:00:30 ↗ something that came up in terms of is it

1:00:32 ↗ newer existing buildings and how large

1:00:34 ↗ are

1:00:35 ↗ they of the policies we reviewed from

1:00:38 ↗ other jurisdictions the Scopes included

1:00:40 ↗ new and existing municipal buildings of

1:00:42 ↗ varying sizes building SES so the area

1:00:44 ↗ immediately surrounding a building

1:00:46 ↗ capital projects in infrastructure and

1:00:48 ↗ in some cases equipment and

1:00:51 ↗ vehicles like isqua many of these

1:00:53 ↗ policies also apply to non-government

1:00:55 ↗ buildings but we really focused on the

1:00:57 ↗ municipal scope of the policy since that

1:00:59 ↗ was the intent of this

1:01:01 ↗ work uh across the four jurisdictions

1:01:04 ↗ policies applying to the building itself

1:01:06 ↗ are most common followed by Municipal

1:01:09 ↗ sites so the area around the building

1:01:11 ↗ and um projects that are funded by the

1:01:13 ↗ city budget city or county

1:01:15 ↗ budget uh just as a reminder here isaas

1:01:18 ↗ policies currently only cover new

1:01:20 ↗ buildings uh larger than 5,000 square

1:01:23 ↗ ft however all four of the jurisdiction

1:01:26 ↗ that we review that besides aaqua have

1:01:28 ↗ policies applying not only to new

1:01:30 ↗ municipal building construction but

1:01:32 ↗ major and minor Renovations as well

1:01:34 ↗ Seattle K county and San Diego's

1:01:36 ↗ policies also extend to Municipal leas

1:01:39 ↗ spaces so those are buildings the city

1:01:42 ↗ doesn't own but they are leasing for

1:01:44 ↗ their City operations for sites and

1:01:46 ↗ infrastructure as you can see here on

1:01:48 ↗ the bottom that's less common with just

1:01:50 ↗ Seattle and or King County having that

1:01:51 ↗ covered in their

1:01:53 ↗ policy want to shift now to what we

1:01:55 ↗ heard from City staff and there's uh

1:01:57 ↗ four findings

1:01:59 ↗ here when you see on the these what you

1:02:01 ↗ see on the screen here are uh quotes

1:02:04 ↗ from the conversations we had with isqua

1:02:05 ↗ City staff lightly edited for

1:02:07 ↗ readability and they represent what we

1:02:09 ↗ heard across the Departments we spoke

1:02:11 ↗ with so it is a a representation of what

1:02:13 ↗ we heard from from all of the

1:02:15 ↗ Departments and staff the first finding

1:02:18 ↗ is that City staff are supportive of

1:02:20 ↗ sustainability uh you can see here for

1:02:22 ↗ example we're so supportive of

1:02:23 ↗ sustainability efforts at the city and

1:02:25 ↗ in the department

1:02:26 ↗ and we're interested in doing more on

1:02:28 ↗ sustainable

1:02:30 ↗ procurement the second finding is that

1:02:33 ↗ despite that interest in sustainability

1:02:35 ↗ there's a lack of Staff capacity to

1:02:37 ↗ research sustainable materials methods

1:02:40 ↗ Investments certifications and more and

1:02:43 ↗ a lack of capacity to track manage

1:02:45 ↗ comply with and report on another policy

1:02:49 ↗ that combined with the concern that s

1:02:51 ↗ that sustainability investment may add

1:02:53 ↗ cost to projects means that administ

1:02:55 ↗ ative concerns are strongly shaping

1:02:58 ↗ policy preferences among is acoss City

1:03:01 ↗ staff staff noted that the recent budget

1:03:03 ↗ and in some cases staff reductions have

1:03:05 ↗ only exacerbated these

1:03:07 ↗ concerns in one discussion we heard that

1:03:10 ↗ managing compliance with envisions 64

1:03:13 ↗ sustainable infrastructure credits would

1:03:15 ↗ be a significant administrative and

1:03:17 ↗ financial lift and another we heard that

1:03:19 ↗ currently affected departments comply

1:03:22 ↗ and support change management we just

1:03:24 ↗ don't see how we could do more than that

1:03:26 ↗ without dedicated staff and support this

1:03:29 ↗ was supported in another conversation

1:03:31 ↗ where they noted it is more expensive to

1:03:32 ↗ handle numerous compliance factors

1:03:35 ↗ because they often need to hire external

1:03:37 ↗ resources to monitor design and

1:03:41 ↗ Report the third finding we heard is

1:03:43 ↗ that uh specifically staff generally

1:03:45 ↗ expressed a strong preference for

1:03:48 ↗ relying on existing policies and

1:03:50 ↗ standards such as storm water

1:03:51 ↗ requirements sepa and the building code

1:03:54 ↗ they also preferred to Pro to ad hoc

1:03:56 ↗ sustainability that does not

1:03:57 ↗ significantly affect for example add

1:04:00 ↗ time or budget to their work they also

1:04:03 ↗ identified several existing policies or

1:04:05 ↗ processes that Sustainable Building and

1:04:07 ↗ infrastructure standards could be

1:04:08 ↗ integrated into versus adding a new

1:04:11 ↗ policy or checklist to manage I'll cover

1:04:13 ↗ all of that more in

1:04:15 ↗ recommendations um there a couple really

1:04:16 ↗ good quotes here I really like this one

1:04:18 ↗ on the top on the left side and

1:04:20 ↗ particular uh our priority should be

1:04:22 ↗ becoming more familiar with the current

1:04:24 ↗ policy which we have not yet fully

1:04:25 ↗ implemented before expanding it to

1:04:27 ↗ include other infrastructure staff are

1:04:29 ↗ not prepared to take on more

1:04:31 ↗ responsibilities even though we are

1:04:32 ↗ committed to sa

1:04:35 ↗ stability and the final finding uh from

1:04:38 ↗ City staff is that all of that being

1:04:40 ↗ said about the concerns um there was

1:04:42 ↗ support in some cases for a new and

1:04:45 ↗ perhaps a stricter policy for example

1:04:47 ↗ someone commented that they like the

1:04:49 ↗ idea of a sustainability scorecard

1:04:51 ↗ because they are easy to understand and

1:04:53 ↗ could help us get byy in and measure

1:04:54 ↗ success

1:04:56 ↗ when asked if there were particular

1:04:57 ↗ standards or requirements that staff

1:04:59 ↗ could support or already doing water

1:05:02 ↗ efficiency and quality storm water waste

1:05:04 ↗ diversion and waste diversion standards

1:05:06 ↗ Rose to the

1:05:07 ↗ top um you can see here the uh someone

1:05:10 ↗ said our waste diversion goals are

1:05:12 ↗ higher than our current performance but

1:05:13 ↗ they align with existing City goals we

1:05:15 ↗ would welcome an additional push to

1:05:17 ↗ achieve those targets another person

1:05:19 ↗ said I don't think we do storm water

1:05:21 ↗ reuse but that would be great and so

1:05:23 ↗ some other reasons they're here on the

1:05:25 ↗ screen the people cited for wanting to

1:05:27 ↗ do more they saw an opportunity for cost

1:05:29 ↗ savings or other environmental benefits

1:05:31 ↗ or an additional lover which with with

1:05:33 ↗ which they could help uh help them meet

1:05:35 ↗ the goals they have for their department

1:05:36 ↗ or their program amid the existing

1:05:39 ↗ administrative

1:05:41 ↗ realities I'll shift into

1:05:43 ↗ recommendations now we can just go to

1:05:45 ↗ the very first recommendation slide uh

1:05:48 ↗ there are three of these the first

1:05:50 ↗ recommendation is to pursue a phased

1:05:53 ↗ approach to an updated or expanded

1:05:55 ↗ policy

1:05:56 ↗ given the concerns that staff expressed

1:05:58 ↗ about capacity to comply we recommend

1:06:01 ↗ the expanded policy be optional and

1:06:03 ↗ encouraged in the near term then if the

1:06:05 ↗ optional policy is not leading to

1:06:07 ↗ desired emissions reductions or building

1:06:09 ↗ of resilience the city could then

1:06:12 ↗ consider shifting to a mandatory policy

1:06:14 ↗ at a later date that date would ideally

1:06:17 ↗ ideally be aligned with Municipal

1:06:18 ↗ emissions reduction and resilience

1:06:20 ↗ targets which are yet to be

1:06:22 ↗ determined and that's for government

1:06:24 ↗ operations not for the community

1:06:26 ↗ side um in lie of Municipal emissions

1:06:28 ↗ reduction goals and resilience targets

1:06:30 ↗ we would suggest aligning to Global and

1:06:32 ↗ County goals which are pretty similar um

1:06:34 ↗ Global goals are to cut emissions in

1:06:36 ↗ half by 2030 and reach Net Zero by

1:06:38 ↗ mid-century uh King County and

1:06:40 ↗ Associated cities have committed to 50%

1:06:43 ↗ below 2,000 Levels by 2030 and 95% below

1:06:47 ↗ 2000 levels and net carbon neutral by

1:06:49 ↗ 20150 at a minimum I we would recommend

1:06:52 ↗ shifting to a mandatory policy in 2030

1:06:55 ↗ if the city is not on track for Global

1:06:57 ↗ and County

1:06:59 ↗ goals the second piece of this first

1:07:03 ↗ recommendation is that there's a

1:07:04 ↗ question of how to determine what's

1:07:06 ↗ included in the updated or expanded

1:07:08 ↗ policy that wasn't quite the focus of

1:07:10 ↗ our effort we were really trying to

1:07:11 ↗ figure out the administrative and

1:07:13 ↗ governance piece of this but of course

1:07:14 ↗ to do that you need to know a bit about

1:07:17 ↗ what kind of policy you're going to

1:07:18 ↗ pursue and what's going to be in it so

1:07:20 ↗ we did hear a bit about that um given

1:07:23 ↗ the concerns that staff expressed about

1:07:25 ↗ cap capacity to comply and staff

1:07:27 ↗ commitment to an interest in supporting

1:07:29 ↗ sustainability we recommend determining

1:07:32 ↗ the scope and specific elements of the

1:07:34 ↗ policy in two ways first align to

1:07:37 ↗ existing policies as much as possible to

1:07:39 ↗ leverage existing policy

1:07:42 ↗ opportunities this I think will require

1:07:44 ↗ a policy inventory to determine the

1:07:45 ↗ degree of existing alignment with lead

1:07:47 ↗ or similar um rating systems like in

1:07:50 ↗ Vision or living buildings um we know

1:07:53 ↗ from the previous presentation and the

1:07:55 ↗ included today that uh that is includes

1:07:59 ↗ but is not limited to Municipal codes 12

1:08:01 ↗ 13 16 and 18 the State Building Code

1:08:04 ↗ storm water requirements um the

1:08:06 ↗ sustainable purchasing policy um so

1:08:09 ↗ there's all already know there's a

1:08:10 ↗ there's a lot there um but kind of

1:08:12 ↗ getting a sense of that and what is

1:08:14 ↗ already covered by those policies versus

1:08:15 ↗ what could go in this policy uh seems to

1:08:17 ↗ be a need second aligning the near-term

1:08:20 ↗ optional policy to areas where staff

1:08:22 ↗ were already meeting exceeding or

1:08:24 ↗ wanting to exceed St standards this

1:08:26 ↗ leverages staff interest and expertise

1:08:28 ↗ while allowing time to build capacity in

1:08:30 ↗ other

1:08:32 ↗ areas and that leads right into the

1:08:34 ↗ second recommendation which is to which

1:08:36 ↗ is to specifically look not just to

1:08:39 ↗ existing policies but also existing

1:08:41 ↗ processes to integrate sustainability

1:08:44 ↗ versus creating a separate and

1:08:45 ↗ additional sustainability checklist uh

1:08:47 ↗ or scorecard fore municipal buildings

1:08:50 ↗ staff identified the capital budgeting

1:08:52 ↗ process including the recent facilities

1:08:54 ↗ condition assessment

1:08:56 ↗ and the equity checklist specifically as

1:08:58 ↗ Avenues to do this and there may be

1:08:59 ↗ others as

1:09:01 ↗ well also building on staff interest is

1:09:03 ↗ the idea to identify pilot projects to

1:09:06 ↗ pursue greater

1:09:07 ↗ sustainability pilot projects can be a

1:09:09 ↗ testing ground for the policy and the

1:09:11 ↗ associated funding needs staffing needs

1:09:13 ↗ and other resource needs to be able to

1:09:15 ↗ comply and meet the city's um pretty

1:09:18 ↗ Progressive goals around sustainability

1:09:20 ↗ pilot efforts can also identify

1:09:22 ↗ efficiencies in existing sustainability

1:09:24 ↗ processes in terms of what those

1:09:26 ↗ projects could be under an expanded

1:09:28 ↗ policy uh or aligning to Envision or

1:09:31 ↗ lead some ideas provided were water

1:09:33 ↗ infrastructure Parks some rows and

1:09:36 ↗ buildings slated for Capital

1:09:39 ↗ Improvement and then the third

1:09:42 ↗ recommendation is that um it will be

1:09:45 ↗ essential to build staff and project

1:09:47 ↗ capacity for implementation especially

1:09:49 ↗ given the recent budget and staff

1:09:51 ↗ reductions specific ideas here include

1:09:53 ↗ but are not necessarily Limited to

1:09:55 ↗ establishing a reserve fund to support

1:09:57 ↗ projects where pursuing sustainability

1:09:59 ↗ adds a cost working with staff to

1:10:02 ↗ identify clear capacity requests from

1:10:04 ↗ affected departments uh I think this is

1:10:06 ↗ really a long-term and ongoing

1:10:08 ↗ conversation because overtime staff

1:10:11 ↗ staff needs will change as their initial

1:10:13 ↗ needs are met and then lastly it's a

1:10:16 ↗ this is more of an educational task it's

1:10:18 ↗ a kind of an example of the second item

1:10:20 ↗ on here is really is about communicating

1:10:23 ↗ around short-term costs long-term costs

1:10:25 ↗ life cycle assessment results or return

1:10:28 ↗ on investment of different

1:10:29 ↗ sustainability approaches and

1:10:31 ↗ Investments to City leadership and City

1:10:33 ↗ staff um this is a way to build a ready

1:10:36 ↗ understanding of where sustainability

1:10:38 ↗ adds benefit adds costs or introduces

1:10:40 ↗ cost savings to a project and it's

1:10:43 ↗ really about getting this kind of

1:10:44 ↗ Readiness in the sustainability area

1:10:47 ↗ that staff already have for other facets

1:10:49 ↗ of the work that they

1:10:51 ↗ lead uh so in conclusion

1:10:55 ↗ um we can shift to the to the next slide

1:10:57 ↗ as well thank you Stacy uh the draft

1:10:59 ↗ recommendation is to pursue a phased

1:11:02 ↗ approach to an updated policy beginning

1:11:04 ↗ with expanded elements being optional

1:11:06 ↗ and shifting to mandatory if the city is

1:11:08 ↗ not on track to meet climate goals what

1:11:10 ↗ exactly those elements are and what

1:11:12 ↗ building and infrastructure type should

1:11:13 ↗ be included is part of the city's work

1:11:15 ↗ once we submit our recommendations

1:11:17 ↗ report this spring importantly even for

1:11:20 ↗ an optional policy to be successful we

1:11:22 ↗ also recommend looking to integrate

1:11:23 ↗ standards into existing process

1:11:25 ↗ processes and policies as much as

1:11:26 ↗ possible and providing staff with the

1:11:29 ↗ time and resources they need to further

1:11:30 ↗ integrate sustainability into their work

1:11:33 ↗ it's something they're really supportive

1:11:34 ↗ of doing but are significantly

1:11:36 ↗ constrained to do especially with the um

1:11:39 ↗ recent changes I already mentioned um

1:11:41 ↗ with that I'd like to thank you so much

1:11:43 ↗ for the opportunity to share this

1:11:45 ↗ project with you and what we've learned

1:11:46 ↗ and I look forward to your questions and

1:11:52 ↗ discussion I think one other thing I'll

1:11:54 ↗ add real quick is that um feedback

1:11:56 ↗ tonight will get Incorporated for

1:11:58 ↗ conversation with City leadership

1:11:59 ↗ tomorrow so quick quick

1:12:04 ↗ turnaround

1:12:05 ↗ Tom uh it's Tom Anderson here so one of

1:12:09 ↗ your recommendations is to phase uh the

1:12:13 ↗ policies so that's in the time Dimension

1:12:16 ↗ but um I'm wondering about some of the

1:12:19 ↗ things that you uncovered in your your

1:12:21 ↗ study of other jurisdictions there were

1:12:23 ↗ like well let's apply it to new

1:12:25 ↗ buildings but let's apply to major and

1:12:28 ↗ minor

1:12:29 ↗ Renovations you're not speaking to that

1:12:33 ↗ a kind of policy directly are you

1:12:35 ↗ intentionally not stepping in there

1:12:37 ↗ because you don't want to talk about the

1:12:39 ↗ details of the policies that would be

1:12:41 ↗ phased or what what's your approach on

1:12:45 ↗ that yeah it's a really good question

1:12:48 ↗ it's largely because the focus of our

1:12:50 ↗ effort was really on understanding the

1:12:52 ↗ administrative and governance needs

1:12:54 ↗ associated with different policy options

1:12:57 ↗ so we really did not dig into the um

1:13:01 ↗ pros and cons of like the the policy

1:13:04 ↗ requirements themselves uh so I'm we're

1:13:07 ↗ really just reflecting what we heard

1:13:09 ↗ from staff in the process in terms of

1:13:12 ↗ their

1:13:13 ↗ preferences um I think you know

1:13:16 ↗ we can think about providing some

1:13:18 ↗ recommendations based on our expertise

1:13:20 ↗ as sustainability Consultants but that

1:13:22 ↗ wasn't a specific ask of this process so

1:13:25 ↗ not something that I prepared

1:13:27 ↗ recommendations around today so not

1:13:29 ↗ trying to avoid the question but just

1:13:31 ↗ was trying to stay focused on the the

1:13:34 ↗ request that we

1:13:37 ↗ had I think that I think David may have

1:13:39 ↗ more to say but I think that's part of

1:13:41 ↗ this the city's work is to take all of

1:13:43 ↗ this and think about what it

1:13:45 ↗ specifically applies

1:13:47 ↗ to yeah I think I think one of the next

1:13:50 ↗ steps with the final recommend once we

1:13:52 ↗ get final recommendations casc would be

1:13:54 ↗ thinking of about um to your point Tom

1:13:57 ↗ kind of what what gets phased when and

1:14:00 ↗ what do we focus on at various points um

1:14:03 ↗ thinking about infrastructure projects

1:14:05 ↗ for instance a lot of the uh third party

1:14:08 ↗ certifications have a lot of uh very

1:14:11 ↗ specific uh requirements around you know

1:14:14 ↗ water efficiency and low impact

1:14:17 ↗ development on sites and Energy

1:14:20 ↗ Efficiency and renewable energy

1:14:22 ↗ generation and all of these uh many

1:14:25 ↗ pieces that go into each project and so

1:14:28 ↗ I think one of the pieces of

1:14:29 ↗ consideration will be in conversation

1:14:31 ↗ with um staff who are working on capital

1:14:37 ↗ projects uh what we can do earlier and

1:14:40 ↗ what we uh what working towards does

1:14:45 ↗ that help answer the question a

1:14:47 ↗ bit well yes partly I guess I feel like

1:14:53 ↗ braap for if the

1:14:55 ↗ get forwarded from this effort is those

1:14:58 ↗ specific recommendations then we're

1:15:00 ↗ throwing away some information that was

1:15:03 ↗ glean in the process like oh some of

1:15:05 ↗ these other jurisdictions do it a little

1:15:07 ↗ bit differently they they do apply it to

1:15:10 ↗ both a major and minor Renovations and

1:15:12 ↗ we don't are we going to just now hide

1:15:15 ↗ that information in what way will that

1:15:18 ↗ be carried forward into the next stage

1:15:20 ↗ of the process maybe we're not ready to

1:15:23 ↗ make that as a recommendation

1:15:25 ↗ I don't know was there some other

1:15:26 ↗ category of uh of things to move forward

1:15:31 ↗ like the Lessons Learned or or things to

1:15:35 ↗ think about or something I I'm not sure

1:15:38 ↗ what that process is

1:15:40 ↗ for carrying that information which I

1:15:43 ↗ think is useful information forward into

1:15:46 ↗ the next

1:15:48 ↗ stage gotcha and I will say all of the

1:15:50 ↗ that information on uh other Juris will

1:15:55 ↗ be included in cascadia's report kind of

1:15:58 ↗ on who does what how their policies

1:16:01 ↗ apply to different projects um and then

1:16:03 ↗ that'll inform conversations here with

1:16:06 ↗ our leadership and staff on what types

1:16:09 ↗ of projects we want to be faing U

1:16:13 ↗ requirements and standards and ideas

1:16:17 ↗ into okay what more comment um I think

1:16:21 ↗ it would be it would be good to have new

1:16:24 ↗ kind kind of um project which is

1:16:27 ↗ specifically oriented on improving

1:16:30 ↗ efficiency I mean as is now it's usually

1:16:34 ↗ that is a byproduct and oh well we need

1:16:36 ↗ to remodel that building because it's

1:16:38 ↗ not meeting our administrative needs so

1:16:41 ↗ in the course of remodeling it oh I

1:16:43 ↗ guess we'll improve the insulation too

1:16:46 ↗ or improve improve the heating system

1:16:48 ↗ Etc as an ancillary aspect to something

1:16:52 ↗ that is driven by some other need

1:16:55 ↗ um there's low hanging fruit out there

1:16:59 ↗ um like Nancy mentioned the case of well

1:17:02 ↗ pumps maybe you can buy more efficient

1:17:04 ↗ pumps and maybe they'll pay for

1:17:06 ↗ themselves in three years or something

1:17:08 ↗ like

1:17:10 ↗ that evaluating opportunities to improve

1:17:16 ↗ efficiency um using

1:17:18 ↗ metrics uh of when the payback would be

1:17:22 ↗ like I noticed of some of the other

1:17:24 ↗ material we'll be looking at thatb

1:17:26 ↗ present value of an investment in an

1:17:29 ↗ infrastructure Improvement it pays back

1:17:31 ↗ quickly or not so quickly that can be

1:17:34 ↗ just a measure of well maybe we should

1:17:36 ↗ move forward with this even though we

1:17:38 ↗ don't have some other need to work on

1:17:42 ↗ that building uh we can greatly improve

1:17:44 ↗ the efficiency of it why don't we write

1:17:46 ↗ down all the things like that we to pick

1:17:49 ↗ up and then let's rank them and pick one

1:17:52 ↗ or two for for this year to do do and uh

1:17:56 ↗ put the others on the list for

1:17:58 ↗ later so an evaluation of opportunities

1:18:02 ↗ to harvest loow hanging fruit would be

1:18:05 ↗ one way to express

1:18:07 ↗ it thank you that's

1:18:11 ↗ all uh kind of a clarifying question

1:18:14 ↗ sorry if I missed the detail but um far

1:18:16 ↗ as that phased approach goes the

1:18:19 ↗ encouragement do we do we know what

1:18:22 ↗ that's intended to look like are we just

1:18:24 ↗ relying that support for uh

1:18:27 ↗ sustainability goals to drive that or is

1:18:29 ↗ there some kind of intentional incentive

1:18:32 ↗ uh that that you're trying

1:18:33 ↗ to I guess what was the intention behind

1:18:40 ↗ that I um PJ I don't know if you want to

1:18:43 ↗ jump in here but I would say kind of the

1:18:46 ↗ the details of um what encouraging staff

1:18:51 ↗ to uh do pilot projects and things has

1:18:54 ↗ not fully been um built out yet U and

1:18:59 ↗ that would be something that would kind

1:19:00 ↗ of come in that full final

1:19:01 ↗ recommendations from casc anything else

1:19:04 ↗ to add there

1:19:05 ↗ PJ yeah I think the um the idea of

1:19:10 ↗ encourage to answer your question about

1:19:11 ↗ like where kind of what that looks like

1:19:14 ↗ and whether it was intentional the the

1:19:16 ↗ reason behind that is that um staff just

1:19:18 ↗ feel so constrained by uh all of their

1:19:21 ↗ other responsibilities and the

1:19:25 ↗ uh idea of of like adding doing what

1:19:29 ↗ feels like adding something new with

1:19:33 ↗ more something else to comply with that

1:19:35 ↗ is mandatory at a time when they feel

1:19:37 ↗ like they're not they're losing capacity

1:19:40 ↗ it seemed to actually be

1:19:42 ↗ counterproductive to their interest in

1:19:44 ↗ supporting sustainability so the idea

1:19:46 ↗ here is to build from what staff already

1:19:49 ↗ want to do and give them some breathing

1:19:52 ↗ room while they build capacity and and

1:19:55 ↗ um in many ways to to do to do more um

1:20:01 ↗ yeah and I think it's an a conver the

1:20:03 ↗ conversation of what that encouragement

1:20:04 ↗ looks like certainly we can have that

1:20:06 ↗ and put some thoughts into the

1:20:08 ↗ recommendations report I also think it's

1:20:10 ↗ a conversation with staff in terms of of

1:20:12 ↗ what um what could help them do that

1:20:14 ↗ because encouragement could look like

1:20:16 ↗ more support from uh I'm these are I'm

1:20:20 ↗ not saying any of these are things that

1:20:21 ↗ should happen but just it could look

1:20:23 ↗ like support from the sustainab team it

1:20:25 ↗ could look like approval for a training

1:20:27 ↗ it could look like a little more funding

1:20:30 ↗ or a little more time for a project to

1:20:31 ↗ do some research it could look a lot of

1:20:33 ↗ different ways and that's where I think

1:20:34 ↗ that second um or the that

1:20:37 ↗ recommendation to to work with staff to

1:20:40 ↗ figure out what their capacity needs are

1:20:43 ↗ is important so that you're aligning um

1:20:46 ↗ the encouragement whatever that looks

1:20:48 ↗ like with what staff are trying to

1:20:51 ↗ do thank you

1:20:55 ↗ yes um for one one I had a couple

1:21:00 ↗ questions but the first thing that I was

1:21:01 ↗ it's it's kind of hard for me to

1:21:03 ↗ understand kind of what we're talking

1:21:05 ↗ about here a little bit

1:21:07 ↗ because I mean I

1:21:09 ↗ guess I I would expect if we were asking

1:21:12 ↗ for like organizational impact and we

1:21:15 ↗ kind of have to have an understanding of

1:21:17 ↗ what the scope of so I'm unclear if I

1:21:19 ↗ was a staff employee I was getting asked

1:21:22 ↗ what is the impact Your Role going to be

1:21:24 ↗ if we do and maybe we didn't see the

1:21:25 ↗ questions but it it seems like a really

1:21:28 ↗ hard question to answer well until we

1:21:30 ↗ have like this is the scope this is what

1:21:33 ↗ so this just seems like kind of out of

1:21:35 ↗ order a little bit for me if we haven't

1:21:37 ↗ and maybe maybe what we're trying to do

1:21:39 ↗ is identify hey this is how we could

1:21:41 ↗ expand scope or potentially move into

1:21:44 ↗ scope I think there's some of that but

1:21:45 ↗ the the recommendations are a

1:21:49 ↗ little that that's a little unclear to

1:21:52 ↗ me because it seems like it's more

1:21:53 ↗ focused on getting feedback on uh like

1:21:56 ↗ the staff feedback was mostly focused on

1:21:59 ↗ okay how how would it impact your

1:22:01 ↗ current role and without I don't think

1:22:04 ↗ telling them what could be changing what

1:22:06 ↗ the expanded scope is that's that's just

1:22:07 ↗ one observation um and then I had a

1:22:10 ↗ couple questions two and these are

1:22:13 ↗ probably maybe more uh David questions

1:22:15 ↗ so how does sustainable purchasing tie

1:22:19 ↗ into this is that something CU like I

1:22:21 ↗ think that we talked about that

1:22:23 ↗ potentially going Beyond on just like

1:22:25 ↗ nuts and B like buying little things and

1:22:27 ↗ like potentially going into materials

1:22:30 ↗ are we is that moved anywhere since we

1:22:33 ↗ last talked about it yeah so

1:22:36 ↗ um I will so on your first point I'll

1:22:38 ↗ just say that um when PJ was talking

1:22:40 ↗ with staff

1:22:42 ↗ um we were presenting kind of some of

1:22:46 ↗ those requirements that are in lead in

1:22:48 ↗ the Pierce County policy things like

1:22:50 ↗ that and trying to get a sense on okay

1:22:53 ↗ what you know if these were the

1:22:55 ↗ requirements really that you're having

1:22:57 ↗ to deal with what would that do to your

1:22:59 ↗ job right how would you be implementing

1:23:01 ↗ it um for the sustainable purchasing

1:23:04 ↗ policy the way I think about it is the

1:23:07 ↗ sustainable purchasing policy is the

1:23:08 ↗ much broader bigger policy that covers

1:23:11 ↗ everything from you know pencils to to

1:23:15 ↗ uh HVAC systems and and vehicles at the

1:23:18 ↗ city and so I see this policy is almost

1:23:21 ↗ going under the sustainable purchasing

1:23:24 ↗ policy and focusing with more detail on

1:23:28 ↗ um infrastructure projects and buildings

1:23:32 ↗ and thinking about not necess and and

1:23:35 ↗ thinking more around um kind of specific

1:23:39 ↗ recommendations and standards and ideas

1:23:41 ↗ for those projects whereas the

1:23:44 ↗ sustainable purchasing policy more

1:23:46 ↗ generally says think about environmental

1:23:50 ↗ considerations think about energy use

1:23:53 ↗ this policy is more around

1:23:55 ↗ what does it mean to have sustainable

1:23:57 ↗ energy use that might be you know a 20%

1:24:01 ↗ reduction over a base case or something

1:24:03 ↗ like that okay a related question can

1:24:06 ↗ you remind me the status of the building

1:24:08 ↗ decarbonization inventory that is

1:24:10 ↗ complete correct yes so this goes to to

1:24:13 ↗ Tom's earlier point we have completed

1:24:15 ↗ our city facility um decarbonization

1:24:19 ↗ fuel transition assessment we also have

1:24:22 ↗ a couple energy audits completed as well

1:24:26 ↗ um so we are uh working to identify kind

1:24:32 ↗ of those near-term project wins we can

1:24:35 ↗ have around best you know best

1:24:39 ↗ investment opportunities where our money

1:24:42 ↗ will have the biggest impact on natural

1:24:44 ↗ gas use for instance um thinking about

1:24:47 ↗ which projects which equipment is

1:24:50 ↗ failing um and can be replaced sooner um

1:24:53 ↗ and then even thinking about those

1:24:55 ↗ longer term projects so there are some

1:24:57 ↗ projects that uh you know don't need to

1:25:00 ↗ be changed out right now but are really

1:25:03 ↗ good uh will have really good impacts on

1:25:05 ↗ our natural gas use for instance um the

1:25:08 ↗ energy audits also look for kind of

1:25:10 ↗ those other opportunities that have

1:25:12 ↗ better payback periods um and then uh

1:25:16 ↗ don't necessarily remove natural gas

1:25:19 ↗ infrastructure but will actually just uh

1:25:21 ↗ improve the efficiency and operation of

1:25:23 ↗ a couple of our facilities okay and the

1:25:26 ↗ reason I asked that

1:25:28 ↗ is it's getting to Tom's point which is

1:25:31 ↗ it seems like a natural progression that

1:25:34 ↗ right now we're only focusing on new

1:25:35 ↗ buildings we have done a building

1:25:37 ↗ decarbonization inventory that the next

1:25:40 ↗ place that this would go is for major

1:25:42 ↗ retrofits or Key System upgrades that we

1:25:45 ↗ would be so and this is where like I

1:25:48 ↗ know that the scope of this was not to

1:25:49 ↗ get to policy recommendations but that's

1:25:52 ↗ just where my head goes so is that

1:25:54 ↗ something that that is that when you

1:25:56 ↗ guys are thinking about the first

1:25:59 ↗ recommendation doesn't seem to be

1:26:01 ↗ focused on that but you does that fit

1:26:04 ↗ into any of the existing recommendations

1:26:05 ↗ right now like something like that like

1:26:07 ↗ an

1:26:08 ↗ actual change in the the scope of what

1:26:11 ↗ this policy would address in that way

1:26:13 ↗ like a retrofits becoming part of what

1:26:15 ↗ the policy covers yeah and I I think an

1:26:18 ↗ updated policy could cover retrofits and

1:26:21 ↗ Equipment change out um I think um yeah

1:26:26 ↗ so that that is fully kind of on the

1:26:28 ↗ board with this idea of um and that is I

1:26:31 ↗ think reflected a bit in Pierce County's

1:26:33 ↗ electric first policy that was looked at

1:26:36 ↗ right um and uh I think when we think

1:26:41 ↗ about kind of a phased approach in

1:26:43 ↗ requirements we

1:26:45 ↗ are uh uh we are still

1:26:49 ↗ implementing uh equipment retrofit

1:26:52 ↗ projects that meet a lot of these

1:26:55 ↗ stricter standards but that don't

1:26:57 ↗ necessarily have to go through a

1:27:00 ↗ checklist or

1:27:03 ↗ um uh meeting kind of third party

1:27:05 ↗ standards and I think that's where some

1:27:08 ↗ of that staff concern comes up around

1:27:10 ↗ we're doing really good or we are we're

1:27:13 ↗ trying to do the most Energy Efficiency

1:27:16 ↗ products we're trying to incorporate

1:27:18 ↗ sustainable design already into some of

1:27:20 ↗ these retrofit projects or Parks

1:27:22 ↗ projects or things but uh we going to be

1:27:25 ↗ careful about adding administrative

1:27:27 ↗ burden onto that that can just add cost

1:27:30 ↗ and uh slow down some of those projects

1:27:33 ↗ okay yeah I mean I understand that like

1:27:36 ↗ something like a infrastructure project

1:27:38 ↗ that is completely in another realm and

1:27:40 ↗ there's probably different requirements

1:27:42 ↗ that you need to look at but this seems

1:27:44 ↗ like a much more natural progression

1:27:46 ↗ where it's thinking about the same

1:27:48 ↗ things just in a retrofit scenario

1:27:50 ↗ so I guess I know phasing

1:27:54 ↗ that seems prudent but uh it just seems

1:27:57 ↗ like if we could get some of these low

1:27:59 ↗ hanging fruit like that seems like

1:28:00 ↗ something that I I I wouldn't imagine

1:28:02 ↗ that's going to add like a huge amount

1:28:04 ↗ of Burden it's something that is already

1:28:06 ↗ staff times is going into that you can

1:28:08 ↗ provide recommendations you have a lot

1:28:09 ↗ of knowledge you you and Stacy so yeah

1:28:13 ↗ and I think setting aside the whole

1:28:15 ↗ question of like how I think an asked

1:28:17 ↗ some really good questions about how do

1:28:19 ↗ we think about this more broadly how do

1:28:21 ↗ we think about building decarbonization

1:28:22 ↗ what's the container for all the

1:28:24 ↗ policies but if we're just focusing on

1:28:26 ↗ municipal buildings it seems like

1:28:28 ↗ there's some quick wins that we could

1:28:29 ↗ potentially be looking at that that that

1:28:32 ↗ you're you guys already have a lot of

1:28:34 ↗ expertise on that could and there's

1:28:36 ↗ already Investments being made in

1:28:38 ↗ understanding what the options are so I

1:28:41 ↗ would just encourage that we we focus on

1:28:43 ↗ trying to drive home those ones that are

1:28:45 ↗ low hanging fruit while we work on the

1:28:47 ↗ so I think it's probably in line with

1:28:49 ↗ what what recommendation one is but

1:28:50 ↗ maybe more specifics on what which

1:28:53 ↗ project to or which parts of that to

1:28:57 ↗ expand so just to to reiterate I'm

1:29:00 ↗ hearing right maybe if we're thinking

1:29:02 ↗ about kind of a phase Approach at least

1:29:04 ↗ at the beginning focusing in on some of

1:29:06 ↗ those retrofit projects that we might

1:29:09 ↗ already know kind of uh what some of

1:29:12 ↗ those uh uh better efficiency standards

1:29:16 ↗ and things like that could be for our

1:29:18 ↗ own facilities yeah I guess it just

1:29:20 ↗ seems like that's low hanging fruit it

1:29:21 ↗ would involve the same teams that would

1:29:22 ↗ have to be involved on a new building

1:29:24 ↗ bre for fit I would a new building build

1:29:26 ↗ out like the same decision makers the

1:29:28 ↗ same systems ver it just seems like low

1:29:31 ↗ hanging fruit and so we would want to

1:29:32 ↗ focus on the low paying for so

1:29:36 ↗ great time on

1:29:40 ↗ this hi David hi PJ this is R so David

1:29:45 ↗ just to clarify this is just for the

1:29:48 ↗ municipal or the this is an internal

1:29:50 ↗ policy meant for City use right it

1:29:53 ↗ doesn't necessarily extend to the

1:29:55 ↗ resents of the city city city building

1:29:57 ↗ and infrastructure projects okay um so

1:30:00 ↗ then I wanted to ask this to PJ because

1:30:04 ↗ um um while while coming up with the

1:30:07 ↗ recommendations were there any tradeoffs

1:30:10 ↗ or carbon credits or anything like that

1:30:12 ↗ considered I you like the phased

1:30:14 ↗ approach because you know sometimes it's

1:30:17 ↗ better to progress at a slower pace and

1:30:20 ↗ actually reach somewhere than you know

1:30:22 ↗ just pause it or stop it because you

1:30:24 ↗ cannot do it and then you try to pick up

1:30:27 ↗ again after some time um so I do think

1:30:30 ↗ phase does work better if you're not

1:30:33 ↗ sure of it but at the same time I think

1:30:36 ↗ the tradeoffs will work better for

1:30:38 ↗ sustainability too like you know in

1:30:41 ↗ certain areas for example you may not be

1:30:43 ↗ able to show as much as um um like for

1:30:48 ↗ example I was talking about just

1:30:50 ↗ reductions you may not be able to show

1:30:52 ↗ as much reductions as you would like to

1:30:55 ↗ achieve but in another areas you might

1:30:57 ↗ be able to do that or you know you can

1:30:59 ↗ show carbon credits renewable energy

1:31:02 ↗ credits or things like that so was where

1:31:05 ↗ tradeoffs were

1:31:11 ↗ considered do you mean like what

1:31:13 ↗ tradeoffs were considered in

1:31:15 ↗ um in coming up with these

1:31:18 ↗ recommendations I'm interpreting your

1:31:20 ↗ question it's being more focused on like

1:31:22 ↗ the the specific policy requirements and

1:31:24 ↗ what's included in the policy or or do

1:31:26 ↗ you mean more broadly than that I I'm

1:31:30 ↗ meaning more broadly because the the

1:31:32 ↗ recommendations seem more focused on you

1:31:35 ↗ know what what the current um probably

1:31:40 ↗ you know issues are to achieve the goals

1:31:42 ↗ right so those were the main hurdles

1:31:44 ↗ were considered for coming up with the

1:31:46 ↗ recommendations is that right yeah and I

1:31:49 ↗ can speak I can share a little bit more

1:31:50 ↗ about um how we landed here um I think

1:31:55 ↗ that it was just so clear in every

1:31:57 ↗ single interview that staff were really

1:32:00 ↗ supportive of

1:32:01 ↗ sustainability and in some cases like

1:32:03 ↗ very very supportive but they just felt

1:32:06 ↗ like they couldn't do more than they're

1:32:07 ↗ already doing um so it really felt like

1:32:11 ↗ the staff needed support first and

1:32:13 ↗ foremost and needed to not have

1:32:15 ↗ something else that was that was

1:32:16 ↗ required of them uh so that was really

1:32:19 ↗ strongly influencing the

1:32:22 ↗ recommendations um I think another in

1:32:24 ↗ terms of tradeoffs like there was there

1:32:26 ↗ was a generally a as I mentioned like

1:32:29 ↗ folks were not keen on aligning to lead

1:32:31 ↗ or Invision just because they seemed

1:32:33 ↗ like big

1:32:34 ↗ systems um that have really specific

1:32:36 ↗ requirements and they didn't know how

1:32:38 ↗ they would comply the trade-off there

1:32:40 ↗ though is that we heard pretty clearly

1:32:42 ↗ from staff and other jurisdictions that

1:32:44 ↗ there that is actually a lower

1:32:45 ↗ administrative burden so I think one you

1:32:48 ↗ know I did consider suggesting aligning

1:32:51 ↗ to those existing certifications or

1:32:54 ↗ trying to move that forward at this time

1:32:57 ↗ but it just seems like it that staff

1:32:59 ↗ just need a little more time to adjust

1:33:01 ↗ that idea and um and learn what would be

1:33:04 ↗ entailed in aligning to leader and

1:33:06 ↗ vision versus coming up with their own

1:33:08 ↗ custom scorecard so I think there you

1:33:11 ↗ know there are trade-offs there because

1:33:12 ↗ it will take time to develop you know an

1:33:16 ↗ individual scorecard which I think staff

1:33:18 ↗ in general we leaning a bit more toward

1:33:20 ↗ that's going to take more time than just

1:33:22 ↗ um starting to use leader and vision uh

1:33:25 ↗ and the the like ample resources they

1:33:29 ↗ have to to certify and comply with with

1:33:32 ↗ that work um but staff just aren't you

1:33:36 ↗ know they're just doesn't it just

1:33:38 ↗ doesn't make didn't seem to make sense

1:33:40 ↗ to to push on leader and vision when um

1:33:44 ↗ when staff aren't that there are just so

1:33:47 ↗ many still questions about it um and

1:33:51 ↗ then I think the other piece there is

1:33:52 ↗ that like you can

1:33:54 ↗ you you can ask you can require or move

1:33:59 ↗ toward uh these third party systems and

1:34:03 ↗ aggressive

1:34:04 ↗ requirements um but if staff aren't able

1:34:07 ↗ to comply then you just have a a policy

1:34:10 ↗ that's that's not you know meeting

1:34:11 ↗ standards so I think that was the other

1:34:13 ↗ that was another trade-off too is just

1:34:16 ↗ trying to to match up really focus on

1:34:19 ↗ where staff were already meeting and and

1:34:22 ↗ trying to exceed standards

1:34:24 ↗ uh and then use some of the existing

1:34:26 ↗ processes that everybody's been

1:34:27 ↗ identifying so I think that Capital

1:34:30 ↗ Improvement project process the

1:34:32 ↗ decarbonization assessments and

1:34:34 ↗ prioritizing those and just getting

1:34:36 ↗ sustainability into City processes um is

1:34:41 ↗ just seemed of interest to staff and and

1:34:43 ↗ actually from a broader perspective is

1:34:45 ↗ consistent with current sustainability

1:34:47 ↗ best practices like trying the whole

1:34:50 ↗ movement in the sustainability field in

1:34:51 ↗ the past several years has been to try

1:34:54 ↗ and work sustainability into into

1:34:57 ↗ existing departments instead of you know

1:35:01 ↗ ultimately like you need to you need a

1:35:02 ↗ central coordinating function but

1:35:04 ↗ getting individual staff and individual

1:35:06 ↗ departments doing that work is where the

1:35:08 ↗ work is headed so trying to be

1:35:10 ↗ consistent with those broader um

1:35:12 ↗ recommendations and best practices as

1:35:14 ↗ well I don't know how much that speaks

1:35:16 ↗ to your question um on like carbon

1:35:19 ↗ credits an offset but right so P I just

1:35:22 ↗ have one quick question and this may be

1:35:24 ↗ for David actually so David um is the

1:35:27 ↗ means you know and this kind of Bo down

1:35:29 ↗ to what jie was saying as well the

1:35:31 ↗ recation seem to be based on you know

1:35:33 ↗ the staff ability to carry carry out

1:35:38 ↗ right is that actually or was that

1:35:41 ↗ actually the goal or is it the city

1:35:44 ↗ leadership putting out a policy and

1:35:47 ↗ feeling you know to some extent how the

1:35:50 ↗ staff can go about it because these are

1:35:52 ↗ two different things the recommendation

1:35:54 ↗ solely seem based on the staff's ability

1:35:57 ↗ to do it at the moment is that what your

1:36:00 ↗ goal was that's my question and I think

1:36:02 ↗ D was also kind of pointing to

1:36:05 ↗ that um and that is where I was talking

1:36:08 ↗ about the tradeoffs the trade-offs were

1:36:10 ↗ more based as a um overall you know um

1:36:15 ↗ goal by the city leadership or whatever

1:36:18 ↗ to see where we can cut down where we

1:36:20 ↗ cannot and what is realistically we can

1:36:23 ↗ achieve and where realistically we can

1:36:25 ↗ do sustainability tradeoff so still keep

1:36:28 ↗ pushing forward yeah I I think all of

1:36:31 ↗ that kind of came into these

1:36:33 ↗ recommendations so um staff feedback was

1:36:37 ↗ a big piece of this we are moving this

1:36:40 ↗ forward with s uh

1:36:42 ↗ leadership uh you know commitment to to

1:36:46 ↗ trying to incorporate sustainability

1:36:48 ↗ into the practices that we're doing at

1:36:50 ↗ the city um a lot of this came out of

1:36:53 ↗ those peer uh or other jurisdiction

1:36:56 ↗ conversations as well and their

1:36:58 ↗ experience uh running Sustainable

1:37:01 ↗ Building and infrastructure policies for

1:37:03 ↗ you know hundreds of capital projects at

1:37:05 ↗ a time and what that realistically takes

1:37:08 ↗ so all of that kind of came in together

1:37:10 ↗ to think about how can we at the city of

1:37:15 ↗ isqua move forward move towards our

1:37:18 ↗ climate action goals in a way that um

1:37:24 ↗ is is doable by our staff and that won't

1:37:27 ↗ necessarily just get

1:37:30 ↗ ignored if that makes sense right so uh

1:37:34 ↗ yeah trying trying to kind of fit within

1:37:36 ↗ what what we realistically can do at

1:37:38 ↗ this current time okay thank

1:37:42 ↗ you um uh so in the second

1:37:45 ↗ recommendation you refer to uh an equity

1:37:48 ↗ checklist so what kind of groups would

1:37:49 ↗ that include kind of groups are you

1:37:51 ↗ focusing on that

1:37:56 ↗ um I I can hop in here so we have uh the

1:38:00 ↗ equity checklist um I believe we're

1:38:04 ↗ talking about the right thing of there's

1:38:07 ↗ um some Equity criteria within the

1:38:09 ↗ climate uh in the capital Improvement

1:38:11 ↗ plan um and then the city internal

1:38:14 ↗ Equity team has been um putting together

1:38:17 ↗ um resources to support thinking about

1:38:21 ↗ um City projects as it relates to uh uh

1:38:24 ↗ addressing equity in the

1:38:29 ↗ city so I'm going to try and keep M

1:38:32 ↗ really short similar to what I said

1:38:35 ↗ earlier I'm concerned that we're not

1:38:37 ↗ really meeting our project goal so I

1:38:39 ↗ went back and carefully read the project

1:38:41 ↗ goal in terms of what we're looking for

1:38:44 ↗ and I'm not sure if we're putting

1:38:46 ↗ together a policy that gets out the best

1:38:49 ↗ sustainability best

1:38:50 ↗ practices um across the city and so what

1:38:54 ↗ we're doing is just trying to achieve

1:38:56 ↗ what staff can accomplish with the

1:38:58 ↗ within existing resources but it's not

1:39:00 ↗ meeting the project goal which is what

1:39:02 ↗ is how do we get about the best

1:39:05 ↗ sustainability practices and I think we

1:39:07 ↗ need to if you're talking to cedo

1:39:09 ↗ leadership City leadership they need to

1:39:11 ↗ set what they want do they want the best

1:39:13 ↗ sustainability practices and to set

1:39:15 ↗ policies along that which would be

1:39:18 ↗ things like I was talking about earlier

1:39:20 ↗ change the priorities on how you do the

1:39:22 ↗ capital program and the tip so that

1:39:25 ↗ sustainability comes out pretty high and

1:39:28 ↗ it's not there and so and that's why and

1:39:31 ↗ that would be the one example you could

1:39:32 ↗ say to them if we really wanted to do

1:39:34 ↗ best practices and we really wanted to

1:39:36 ↗ be a sustainable Community we would be

1:39:39 ↗ looking at how we spend our money which

1:39:40 ↗ is our Capital program and our

1:39:42 ↗ transportation program and if we want to

1:39:45 ↗ just do what we can within our existing

1:39:46 ↗ staff and resources and don't want to

1:39:48 ↗ take on that that's a different goal

1:39:50 ↗ than what you have here so that is my

1:39:53 ↗ concern we are not going for the goal

1:39:54 ↗ that we've set out in

1:39:58 ↗ this I'll also add I agree with what is

1:40:00 ↗ saying and it feels

1:40:02 ↗ like recommendation number one is where

1:40:05 ↗ we're currently at just without a formal

1:40:08 ↗ thing saying that's where we're you guys

1:40:09 ↗ are the city is working towards

1:40:11 ↗ sustainability practices doing all of

1:40:13 ↗ these reviews and incorporating this in

1:40:16 ↗ a phased approach we just don't have

1:40:17 ↗ something that says that's what we're

1:40:19 ↗ doing and we're using adap the conf plan

1:40:22 ↗ recommendations but this feels like we

1:40:24 ↗ should be going above and beyond that to

1:40:27 ↗ have something that says this is where

1:40:29 ↗ we want to be and this is how we're

1:40:30 ↗ going to get there um so I agree like

1:40:34 ↗ going further with the the

1:40:36 ↗ recommendations and really working

1:40:37 ↗ towards adopting policy that gets us

1:40:41 ↗ where we need to be in the next 24 years

1:40:44 ↗ great we can make sure that that's

1:40:45 ↗ communicated tomorrow

1:40:51 ↗ thanks anything else on this

1:40:56 ↗ topic thank you so much PJ for joining

1:40:58 ↗ us thank you thank you David thanks PJ

1:41:01 ↗ thanks for having me good

1:41:05 ↗ evening hey Stacy I update and

1:41:11 ↗ Confirmation um I realized it is

1:41:15 ↗ ag16 um this presentation was cut short

1:41:19 ↗ last meeting um because of our

1:41:22 ↗ conversation with the mayor so I hope

1:41:24 ↗ folks can bear with us who would like to

1:41:26 ↗ get through this there's a couple

1:41:27 ↗ specific questions and then I do have

1:41:29 ↗ some updates at the end I'd like to go

1:41:31 ↗ through ver so that's okay with our

1:41:34 ↗ chair tonight

1:41:36 ↗ um a little bit over I'm GNA try and

1:41:39 ↗ make it through the David will jump in

1:41:41 ↗ if I have to step outside again um

1:41:45 ↗ thanks for bearing with us

1:41:47 ↗ um so the IOP um as you all know um and

1:41:52 ↗ both of you are involved in was written

1:41:54 ↗ five years ago um or excuse me was

1:41:57 ↗ written four years ago with a 5year

1:41:59 ↗ timeline um we are starting the process

1:42:03 ↗ in 2025 to update um the IAP as it is

1:42:07 ↗ due next year um the reason we're

1:42:09 ↗ starting so early is we're really aiming

1:42:12 ↗ for the update adoption by June of

1:42:15 ↗ 2026 this gets up ahead of the next city

1:42:19 ↗ budget cycle um staff usually submit

1:42:21 ↗ their budget in July um but we would

1:42:24 ↗ have an updated iPath that's been

1:42:26 ↗ adopted to back up our budget request

1:42:29 ↗ for the next

1:42:31 ↗ dium um so I'm going to go through

1:42:33 ↗ tonight just to talk a little bit about

1:42:35 ↗ the purpose of the update where we are

1:42:38 ↗ planning to focus um talk in a little

1:42:40 ↗ bit more detail about our proposal to

1:42:43 ↗ have committees to do some deep dive and

1:42:45 ↗ then talk through our timeline and the

1:42:48 ↗ caral board will be

1:42:50 ↗ engaged um and John minina please raise

1:42:53 ↗ your hand if you can't hear me and talk

1:42:55 ↗ probably the furthest away and trying to

1:42:57 ↗ talk through a mask

1:43:00 ↗ so um so as mentioned uh we're really

1:43:03 ↗ starting this process now to get ahead

1:43:05 ↗ of that budget cycle um and then the

1:43:08 ↗ other thing I wanted to mention is that

1:43:11 ↗ we do feel like there was a really

1:43:13 ↗ extensive Community engagement process

1:43:15 ↗ as well as the environmental board

1:43:17 ↗ process in preparing the original I um

1:43:21 ↗ even though it was done during Co um

1:43:23 ↗ there were numerous focus groups and

1:43:25 ↗ open houses and set points with the

1:43:27 ↗ board um we really felt like it was a

1:43:30 ↗ pretty robust process and we don't want

1:43:33 ↗ to completely open up and rewrite the Ia

1:43:38 ↗ scratch this Goen we feel like there are

1:43:40 ↗ a lot of really good U components and

1:43:44 ↗ actions and uh goals and targets within

1:43:46 ↗ the plan so we are really looking at

1:43:49 ↗ approaching this as kind of a light

1:43:51 ↗ touch or a refresh um although

1:43:53 ↗ recognizing that there are some areas

1:43:56 ↗ that need um a little bit deeper

1:43:58 ↗ di so to highlight those areas

1:44:02 ↗ um uh where we are planning to put most

1:44:05 ↗ of our Focus um for certain areas such

1:44:08 ↗ as transportation and land use there

1:44:11 ↗ were a number of actions in the 21 2021

1:44:14 ↗ plan that are actually complete a lot of

1:44:17 ↗ them were identified as being um

1:44:19 ↗ completed through the title 18 update

1:44:21 ↗ and they were Incorporated

1:44:24 ↗ so we want to take a look at um in

1:44:27 ↗ particular that transportation and land

1:44:28 ↗ use section um identify which of those

1:44:32 ↗ actions truly are done and then identify

1:44:35 ↗ a new s of actions that we think should

1:44:37 ↗ be included um to help in that Focus

1:44:40 ↗ area and help us towards our

1:44:42 ↗ targets another example of a deep dive

1:44:45 ↗ area is around our natural systems Focus

1:44:47 ↗ area the target there is around tree

1:44:50 ↗ canopy but I think Euro actions actually

1:44:54 ↗ speak to enhancing our tree canopy

1:44:57 ↗ there's a lot of other great natural

1:44:59 ↗ systems actions but they're not related

1:45:01 ↗ to the Target so we want um to be able

1:45:04 ↗ to take a deep dive to that section um

1:45:06 ↗ at least bring in some actions that uh

1:45:09 ↗ relate to our Target um maybe revisit

1:45:12 ↗ the existing actions that are in there

1:45:14 ↗ and see if they we feel like they still

1:45:16 ↗ belong in

1:45:19 ↗ the um another area we really want to uh

1:45:23 ↗ make sure that we have measures

1:45:24 ↗ associated with our action that really

1:45:27 ↗ help us track our progress and best

1:45:30 ↗ align to our targets um and so looking

1:45:33 ↗ across our suite of actions and making

1:45:35 ↗ sure that we have the best

1:45:39 ↗ metem a third area of focus is um as you

1:45:43 ↗ all recall we spent a year and a half

1:45:45 ↗ plus uh talking about the comprehensive

1:45:47 ↗ Plan update throughout that process

1:45:50 ↗ there were a lot of recommendations from

1:45:52 ↗ the board

1:45:53 ↗ that we kind defer to the I day we

1:45:56 ↗ didn't feel like they belonged at the

1:45:58 ↗ level of the comp plan but more at the

1:46:00 ↗ functional level of the Ia so we want to

1:46:02 ↗ go back and revisit all those really

1:46:04 ↗ great recommendations from the board and

1:46:07 ↗ determine which of those we want to

1:46:09 ↗ incorporate into the

1:46:11 ↗ update um another area we plan to look

1:46:14 ↗ at is what is the plan going to cost to

1:46:17 ↗ implement in particular what is the

1:46:19 ↗ level of um Municipal investment that's

1:46:22 ↗ needed

1:46:23 ↗ and where might there be some gaps um

1:46:25 ↗ the original IAP had a very high Lev

1:46:29 ↗ economic assessment one to four doll

1:46:32 ↗ signs on um the the range of costs for

1:46:36 ↗ implementing the action we really want

1:46:38 ↗ to look at what does it cost the city to

1:46:41 ↗ implement so we can be best prepared for

1:46:43 ↗ our budget or what types of Grants we're

1:46:45 ↗ going

1:46:47 ↗ after um and then a fifth area is tribal

1:46:50 ↗ engagement um based on what we've been

1:46:53 ↗ to uh pull together from the original

1:46:55 ↗ development of the plan the tribe was

1:46:58 ↗ then consulted um one um they were

1:47:02 ↗ invited to some of the natural systems

1:47:04 ↗ discussions for example but we really

1:47:06 ↗ want to um thoughtfully engage with the

1:47:09 ↗ tribe understand their priorities and

1:47:11 ↗ needs and interests um and what we can

1:47:14 ↗ incorporate into the icft to make sure

1:47:16 ↗ uh those interests

1:47:18 ↗ are and then lastly um actually an

1:47:22 ↗ touched on this a little bit in her

1:47:23 ↗ public comment is we want to speak with

1:47:26 ↗ you all around timelines um first kind

1:47:29 ↗ of what is the timeline of the I look

1:47:32 ↗ like um do we want to continue this as a

1:47:35 ↗ Five-Year Plan do we think it actually

1:47:36 ↗ would be better as a 10-year plan um

1:47:39 ↗ with some more regular check-ins

1:47:41 ↗ throughout and then um also as we spoke

1:47:44 ↗ about last year when David presented on

1:47:46 ↗ the greenhouse gas inventory is we want

1:47:49 ↗ to uh revisit how frequently those gas

1:47:52 ↗ Greenhouse Gap

1:47:54 ↗ inventories um take place for our

1:47:56 ↗ jurisdiction and have that covered in

1:48:00 ↗ the um so I mentioned this is a a light

1:48:04 ↗ touch or a refresh I know this sounds

1:48:06 ↗ like a lot um but you do see it as a

1:48:09 ↗ pretty focused update and it touches on

1:48:12 ↗ the area that David and I have really

1:48:15 ↗ identified as needing some improvement

1:48:18 ↗ as we've gotten to know this plan over

1:48:19 ↗ the last few years um and we think these

1:48:22 ↗ areas will will help really help us be

1:48:24 ↗ strategic in um the actions that we

1:48:28 ↗ Implement our budget requests and really

1:48:30 ↗ making better progress towards our

1:48:34 ↗ targets so actually let me pause there

1:48:37 ↗ um I will say these are kind of the

1:48:39 ↗ focus areas we of course are going to

1:48:41 ↗ look across the whole plan so um just to

1:48:44 ↗ touch on again a uh one of the public

1:48:46 ↗ comment from an is that while we don't

1:48:49 ↗ call out the building Focus area um we

1:48:53 ↗ will be looking across those actions um

1:48:56 ↗ and as staff and making sure that we

1:48:58 ↗ feel like they are still the best

1:49:00 ↗ actions to put us on track for reducing

1:49:03 ↗ emissions in new and

1:49:08 ↗ existing my pause here before I move on

1:49:10 ↗ to one of our proposed um approaches for

1:49:15 ↗ the Plan update and see if there's any

1:49:17 ↗ questions of focus areas

1:49:26 ↗ um so as we were starting to think about

1:49:29 ↗ how to approach this update we felt like

1:49:33 ↗ um because we had some really specific

1:49:36 ↗ areas that we wanted to dive deep into

1:49:39 ↗ we felt like that would be best done

1:49:40 ↗ through a committee or work group or

1:49:42 ↗ small group structure um what we are

1:49:46 ↗ looking at is bringing together members

1:49:50 ↗ of this board and expertise in different

1:49:52 ↗ areas members of our other boards and

1:49:55 ↗ commissions um staff and then as needed

1:49:59 ↗ um additional members of the public that

1:50:01 ↗ maybe have expertise in a particular

1:50:04 ↗ topic um and that these groups of um uh

1:50:09 ↗ small groups would come together and

1:50:10 ↗ really deep dive into three specific

1:50:13 ↗ areas um those include natural systems

1:50:17 ↗ um and really looking hard at that

1:50:19 ↗ natural systems Focus area um looking at

1:50:23 ↗ what actions we want to keep in there

1:50:25 ↗ identifying new actions that align with

1:50:27 ↗ our

1:50:28 ↗ Target the transportation and land use

1:50:31 ↗ area um which I mentioned we want to

1:50:33 ↗ look across especially those actions

1:50:35 ↗ that related to title team um and also

1:50:38 ↗ see if we need to bring in some new

1:50:39 ↗ actions there and then a group that

1:50:42 ↗ would focused on metrics which would

1:50:44 ↗ probably um kind of follow these other

1:50:46 ↗ two committees and really look across Lo

1:50:48 ↗ whole plan and the actions that are

1:50:51 ↗ proposed and look how we can best

1:50:53 ↗ measure those in time to

1:50:56 ↗ our um we are looking at a pretty

1:51:00 ↗ minimal commitment for these committees

1:51:02 ↗ because we know um or commissions our

1:51:06 ↗ staff are all Pretty P so this would be

1:51:09 ↗ about a 7 to 10 hour act commitment

1:51:13 ↗ spread out over many months about six

1:51:17 ↗ months we're looking at two initial

1:51:19 ↗ meetings um to come up with

1:51:21 ↗ recommendations that would then be

1:51:23 ↗ brought to the relevant board or

1:51:25 ↗ commission um possibly a third meeting

1:51:28 ↗ if any recommendations coming back from

1:51:30 ↗ those boards or commissions needed to be

1:51:33 ↗ um further worked on by these

1:51:36 ↗ committees um all of this information

1:51:38 ↗ would be coming through the board um

1:51:41 ↗ either because it's the um subject

1:51:45 ↗ matter

1:51:46 ↗ expertise um but also through the IAP

1:51:49 ↗ update process we would be bring all the

1:51:51 ↗ recommendations back

1:51:53 ↗ through the board for discuss and

1:51:55 ↗ forther

1:52:00 ↗ recommendations I covered a lot of this

1:52:03 ↗ um the one thing I will mention is we

1:52:05 ↗ would be really interested in having one

1:52:07 ↗ to two members of the environmental

1:52:09 ↗ board that would serve on each of those

1:52:11 ↗ three committees um and we can talk

1:52:14 ↗ about that in a few

1:52:16 ↗ minutes um just to give you a quick

1:52:20 ↗ snapshot of our timeline

1:52:22 ↗ um we're looking at about March trying

1:52:24 ↗ to form those

1:52:26 ↗ committees and uh first meetings

1:52:28 ↗ happening spring early summer um we are

1:52:33 ↗ going through a staff and assessing

1:52:35 ↗ really the scope of revisions

1:52:37 ↗ for um the uh it update um we'd be

1:52:42 ↗ looking at uh late summer fall um

1:52:47 ↗ beginning to bring any recommendations

1:52:48 ↗ coming out of the committee specific to

1:52:51 ↗ um action Visions um those would be

1:52:54 ↗ going back to the relevant boards and

1:52:56 ↗ committees uh information coming through

1:52:58 ↗ the environmental board we'd also be

1:53:00 ↗ looking to uh work through that economic

1:53:05 ↗ analysis

1:53:06 ↗ to government around that same time and

1:53:10 ↗ then looking into early next year would

1:53:12 ↗ be uh incorporating any final

1:53:14 ↗ recommendations for the update a final

1:53:17 ↗ review by the board and then going

1:53:19 ↗ through the council process to aim

1:53:27 ↗ so what we're looking for tonight is

1:53:29 ↗ General feedback questions comments on

1:53:32 ↗ the approach and then also uh if anyone

1:53:37 ↗ is interested in volunteering tonight we

1:53:39 ↗ are looking for uh volunteers to

1:53:41 ↗ participate on those three committees uh

1:53:44 ↗ natural systems land use and

1:53:47 ↗ transportation and R the metrics

1:53:50 ↗ committee um we can also reach out to so

1:53:52 ↗ folks uh

1:53:54 ↗ individually are feeling a little shy

1:53:56 ↗ about volunteering tonight or want to

1:53:58 ↗ learn more about what thatment looks

1:54:02 ↗ like have to comments questions

1:54:13 ↗ and uh S I want to a little bit more

1:54:17 ↗ about the metrics you know

1:54:22 ↗ like so basically you're looking to see

1:54:26 ↗ the measurement of goals the metrics to

1:54:30 ↗ to uh basically measure each go is it

1:54:33 ↗ essentially for the entire IAP or how

1:54:35 ↗ does it work yeah I can start the

1:54:38 ↗ responsive and I'll hand it to David so

1:54:41 ↗ um when I was handed this plan when I

1:54:44 ↗ started there weren't necessarily

1:54:46 ↗ metrics associated with majority of the

1:54:48 ↗ actions in it so we've um in order how

1:54:51 ↗ we going track progress and success um

1:54:54 ↗ and completion of those actions so we

1:54:58 ↗ have created those throughout the last

1:55:00 ↗ year um we have ways for tracking most

1:55:03 ↗ of the action some of them we still

1:55:05 ↗ don't have um and actually even one of

1:55:08 ↗ our targets our community wellbeing and

1:55:11 ↗ resilience Target we can't track that

1:55:14 ↗ and so the idea with this metric

1:55:17 ↗ committee would be to work with staff

1:55:19 ↗ help us create better measures for

1:55:21 ↗ action or other components of the plan

1:55:24 ↗ where needed so that our wonderful

1:55:27 ↗ dashboard that David has created can

1:55:29 ↗ really tell a good story of where we are

1:55:32 ↗ as far as

1:55:34 ↗ of please I I think that that covers

1:55:37 ↗ most of it it's uh hard to know whether

1:55:42 ↗ we are

1:55:43 ↗ meeting uh what we need to for

1:55:46 ↗ actions um when there's no goals set for

1:55:50 ↗ each action or for for those actions

1:55:52 ↗ right so um some of them we do we know

1:55:57 ↗ if they're on track do we know if

1:55:58 ↗ they're in progress do we know if we're

1:56:01 ↗ um really far off track is that goal

1:56:04 ↗ here is is to set those standards so

1:56:08 ↗ that we can hold ourselves better

1:56:09 ↗ accountable to uh pleading those actions

1:56:13 ↗ and I'm guessing these are both

1:56:14 ↗ qualitative and quality they can be both

1:56:18 ↗ yeah

1:56:19 ↗ okay whatever works for the for each

1:56:22 ↗ action right some of them can't be

1:56:24 ↗ quantitative right uh so sty I would be

1:56:27 ↗ interested in volunteering on

1:56:36 ↗ that um so uh uh it sounds like the

1:56:41 ↗ while the board the Committees would be

1:56:43 ↗ formed in March the actual time

1:56:46 ↗ commitment would begin early summer most

1:56:48 ↗ likely or just trying to get a sense C I

1:56:51 ↗ think we're thinking probably a first

1:56:52 ↗ meeting in April because there's prep we

1:56:55 ↗ need to do to get ready for it there'll

1:56:57 ↗ be some staff work after the meeting

1:56:59 ↗ probably a second one in June and then

1:57:02 ↗ the hope is the Committees would would

1:57:05 ↗ not need to come back together um and

1:57:07 ↗ that any of the recommendations they

1:57:09 ↗ bring to relevant boards and commissions

1:57:12 ↗ staff can then address but in

1:57:15 ↗ case um those recommendations aren't

1:57:18 ↗ accepted or there's a a lot of feedback

1:57:21 ↗ that need some revision we might bring

1:57:22 ↗ them back together in the fall but yeah

1:57:25 ↗ so probably April June but we can be a

1:57:28 ↗ little posible okay and then metrics

1:57:30 ↗ would be a little delayed because we

1:57:31 ↗ don't want to set metrics for Nal

1:57:34 ↗ systems if we don't have updated policy

1:57:36 ↗ ideas there yet yeah so metrics probably

1:57:39 ↗ kicking off in the ball okay thank

1:57:42 ↗ you my comment goes to kind of clarify a

1:57:46 ↗ little bit more because I know there's

1:57:47 ↗ board members here who are their terms

1:57:49 ↗ are ending and so if you're like if be

1:57:52 ↗ recycling off the board can people still

1:57:55 ↗ volunteer now still be all the

1:57:57 ↗ Committees if they want to participate

1:58:00 ↗ but not as a participate as one of those

1:58:03 ↗ outside people has an interest in that

1:58:06 ↗ particular committee yeah that's a great

1:58:08 ↗ question we talked a little bit about

1:58:10 ↗ that um with Don and Alex recognizing

1:58:13 ↗ these kickoff when the turns are ending

1:58:16 ↗ so um yeah I think absolutely if folks

1:58:20 ↗ that have their term ending whether or

1:58:22 ↗ not they're planning to reapply and or

1:58:24 ↗ be

1:58:25 ↗ reappointed um we could work with you

1:58:27 ↗ all to continue because I think that's a

1:58:29 ↗ great point we are going to have kind of

1:58:31 ↗ a subject matter um uh spot on these

1:58:35 ↗ committees so if those folks do want to

1:58:37 ↗ continue after should they not continue

1:58:40 ↗ on the

1:58:41 ↗ board make that work or at least

1:58:43 ↗ participating in those first meetings

1:58:52 ↗ else have feedback for the approach or I

1:58:55 ↗ was just going to volunteer for the N

1:58:57 ↗ systems committee I got a weird work

1:58:59 ↗ schedule over that time frame so only if

1:59:02 ↗ other folks who are more freely

1:59:03 ↗ available aren't interested

1:59:09 ↗ but I also am interested in the natural

1:59:17 ↗ systems we'll reach out to the over

1:59:20 ↗ email yeah I'm happy to do

1:59:27 ↗ landship that's is actually who we

1:59:35 ↗ ID like natural system guys I can do

1:59:39 ↗ that and we'll we'll reach out um so

1:59:42 ↗ John wants to think about it Vina and um

1:59:45 ↗ those that aren't joining the meeting

1:59:47 ↗ tonight so definitely make space for

1:59:50 ↗ whoever wants

1:59:52 ↗ um one thing I didn't did not touch on I

1:59:56 ↗ just want to really quick um is

1:59:58 ↗ community engagement um Alex or someone

2:00:01 ↗ had asked a question maybe it was even

2:00:03 ↗ an about this originally we had thought

2:00:06 ↗ about having a community engagement

2:00:08 ↗ committee but um in so we felt like you

2:00:12 ↗ all are sort of the community engagement

2:00:14 ↗ committee where we'll be bringing um

2:00:18 ↗ approaches that we plan to have with

2:00:19 ↗ engaging the community to you all we are

2:00:22 ↗ going to make sure there's um plenty of

2:00:24 ↗ public engagement through the boards and

2:00:26 ↗ commission meetings um and then we've

2:00:29 ↗ talked about doing some open houses to

2:00:31 ↗ talk about progress on the IAP as well

2:00:34 ↗ as the IAP update so we'll be out in the

2:00:37 ↗ public in different venues um informing

2:00:40 ↗ them about this and um making sure there

2:00:44 ↗ are opportunities to engage even though

2:00:45 ↗ we won't be doing like a big Community

2:00:47 ↗ workshop for example that was done

2:00:50 ↗ through the first

2:00:52 ↗ I have a suggestion on you and that

2:00:54 ↗ would be um put something in like the

2:00:57 ↗ Weekly Newsletter like once a month if

2:00:59 ↗ you're concerned about climate change

2:01:01 ↗ don't start we're doing an IAP update

2:01:03 ↗ because no one will know what that means

2:01:05 ↗ but if you're concerned about climate

2:01:06 ↗ change we are having meetings so that it

2:01:11 ↗ sends a different

2:01:18 ↗ signal

2:01:20 ↗ else all right Stacy you have on updates

2:01:23 ↗ yeah I recognized it's 8:36 so I will be

2:01:25 ↗ quick um I know did not have a youth

2:01:28 ↗ update Nina I can't remember if you said

2:01:30 ↗ you how to do update or no I do not

2:01:34 ↗ thank you thank you um so just a couple

2:01:37 ↗ quick Council updates and then some

2:01:40 ↗ reminders um so if folks aren't aware uh

2:01:44 ↗ a new city council member was appointed

2:01:47 ↗ on Monday um to fill council member huny

2:01:51 ↗ or representative H SE um Kelly Jane

2:01:54 ↗ that I think probably several of you are

2:01:56 ↗ familiar with um president Trail club

2:01:59 ↗ and you're involved in the community um

2:02:02 ↗ so she was appointed on swor in on

2:02:06 ↗ Monday um Council also adopted the urban

2:02:10 ↗ Forest management plan um week um and

2:02:14 ↗ Dan will be providing update to the

2:02:18 ↗ board in the few months about on that

2:02:20 ↗ plan um other really quick updates uh on

2:02:25 ↗ Monday we launched our new uh home

2:02:28 ↗ equipment and appliance rebate program

2:02:30 ↗ as well as an induction cooktop giveaway

2:02:33 ↗ program we are taking applications and

2:02:36 ↗ we'll be running a lottery to select the

2:02:38 ↗ recipients of that um of those um

2:02:42 ↗ rebates uh will run the lottery at the

2:02:45 ↗ end of

2:02:46 ↗ March um next reminder is that board and

2:02:51 ↗ commission recuit rment is open um

2:02:53 ↗ applications are due at the end of the

2:02:57 ↗ month uh we will also be opening up uh

2:03:00 ↗ nominations for the rof keys and

2:03:02 ↗ Community environmental Awards those

2:03:04 ↗ will open up I believe next week we have

2:03:06 ↗ some former recipients um uh Ann and

2:03:10 ↗ John both received a community award uh

2:03:15 ↗ last two years ago believe it was um I

2:03:18 ↗ did send you all invitation optional

2:03:21 ↗ invitation to join Council for the

2:03:24 ↗ ceremony in April

2:03:25 ↗ 21st um but do be thinking about if

2:03:28 ↗ there's any um kind of Legacy impact

2:03:31 ↗ members of our community that you all

2:03:33 ↗ would want to nominate for the r ke

2:03:35 ↗ award um or um other community members

2:03:38 ↗ that have made a really big difference

2:03:40 ↗ maybe on a little bit smaller scale is

2:03:42 ↗ what the community envirment aard is

2:03:46 ↗ for um we have the sustainability Fair

2:03:50 ↗ coming up April 26

2:03:52 ↗ really great vendors and activity taking

2:03:55 ↗ up we had talked at one point about the

2:03:58 ↗ board possibly having a Bo there you all

2:04:01 ↗ mentioned you want to get out into the

2:04:03 ↗ community a little bit more I wanted to

2:04:05 ↗ see if that's something you all want to

2:04:08 ↗ do we would need board members to sta it

2:04:11 ↗ uh between 9 and two that Saturday um he

2:04:16 ↗ what the date so it's April 26th it's a

2:04:19 ↗ Saturday I can send out a note about

2:04:22 ↗ this but just wanted to get a

2:04:24 ↗ general feel if folks do a raise a hand

2:04:28 ↗ non if we want to have a booth

2:04:32 ↗ and look at your C see you can help St

2:04:38 ↗ it couple NOS couple hands we usually

2:04:41 ↗ have like s and coffee for both to so

2:04:44 ↗ yeah

2:04:47 ↗ or the sustainability office has been at

2:04:51 ↗ a table

2:04:52 ↗ there in the he's talking about some

2:04:54 ↗ separate table just for the

2:04:56 ↗ environmental board separate and then

2:04:59 ↗ you'll have your a separate table for

2:05:01 ↗ sustainability we will have tables for

2:05:03 ↗ our programs David and I are kind of

2:05:05 ↗ running around managing the whole dayve

2:05:07 ↗ this would be just for the board for you

2:05:09 ↗ all to engage with the community and

2:05:11 ↗ share what you're doing you know Al is

2:05:14 ↗ probably going to have her own there

2:05:16 ↗ food so some of you have commitment

2:05:18 ↗ through your other organization got John

2:05:21 ↗ andina

2:05:26 ↗ that interested or do you a

2:05:29 ↗ comment

2:05:32 ↗ John interested okay

2:05:36 ↗ great well I'm interested supporting it

2:05:39 ↗ if I don't have a schedule

2:05:45 ↗ conflict yeah so we'll count that as a

2:05:48 ↗ yes and then we can reach out to you all

2:05:51 ↗ and get confirmation on who Could That

2:05:53 ↗ when and or be the one it all through

2:05:56 ↗ not de we can be T so great I think that

2:05:59 ↗ will be really great and we can help

2:06:01 ↗ think about

2:06:03 ↗ what's um last couple of things um our

2:06:07 ↗ March meeting is going to be a little

2:06:10 ↗ unique the first 30 minutes of the

2:06:12 ↗ meeting will be a joint meeting with our

2:06:14 ↗ sister cities commission to discuss a

2:06:17 ↗ potential climate project that we would

2:06:19 ↗ be doing with our sister City in chaan

2:06:23 ↗ Morocco um the mayor's going to join to

2:06:25 ↗ talk about her expectations for a

2:06:28 ↗ project um this has been of interest for

2:06:31 ↗ the last couple of years for us to do a

2:06:33 ↗ joint project with them um related to

2:06:35 ↗ climate or

2:06:37 ↗ sustainability um so that'll be just

2:06:39 ↗ kind of a brief introduction from the

2:06:41 ↗ mayor we don't have a project to propose

2:06:44 ↗ yet um but have a few

2:06:49 ↗ ideas um and then we also have have

2:06:52 ↗ another special meeting on the calendar

2:06:54 ↗ this is with the equity board on April

2:06:57 ↗ 2nd this will probably be a short

2:07:00 ↗ meeting about 60 minutes or less to hear

2:07:03 ↗ from King County Flood Control District

2:07:06 ↗ um so that is different than our regular

2:07:09 ↗ Le schedule meeting but hope that at

2:07:11 ↗ least we get five members

2:07:16 ↗ there and the last thing I was just

2:07:18 ↗ going to mention is there's a a lot um

2:07:22 ↗ in the news uh a lot of concern around

2:07:25 ↗ Federal funding and uh freezes and

2:07:29 ↗ unfreezes and just to let folks know

2:07:31 ↗ that we are tracking that we have one

2:07:33 ↗ Grant directly um potentially impacted

2:07:36 ↗ by that we think we're going to be okay

2:07:38 ↗ it's actually helping with our Fleet

2:07:40 ↗ chargers at at this building and a

2:07:42 ↗ couple other buildings um but right now

2:07:45 ↗ we don't see any conflict with executive

2:07:49 ↗ orders and um that project is actually

2:07:52 ↗ just about wed up and ready to submit um

2:07:55 ↗ for reimbursement but um we are tracking

2:07:59 ↗ all that and to move forward

2:08:06 ↗ reimbursement all I have for updates any

2:08:15 ↗ questions thank you everyone for coming

2:08:17 ↗ and

2:08:18 ↗ your good

2:08:21 ↗ all

2:08:24 ↗ us we all

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