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

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (10)

Alix Lee-Tigner

Nancy Davidson

Mina (Alexandra) Jun

Prajakta Ghatpande

Tom Anderson

Jamie Finch

Kiran Pan

Anne Newcomb, Alternate – excused absence

Keith Gonzalez

Jonathan Smith

Staff (5)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator

Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director

James Gray, Building Official

P.J. Tillman, Cascadia Consulting

Excused

Don McQuilliams

Dixie Bair

Recommendations & actions (4)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
FLETCHER noted that People for Climate Action have put together recommended actions for Cities to implement to address existing building decarbonization.
Board Member FINCH asked if there were any recommended additions to Title 18 to advance Sustainability.
Board Members DAVIDSON and Vice Chair LEE-TIGNER requested staff focus on existing processes such as the Capital Improvement Plan and support efforts to prioritize sustainability in Capital Project selection.