Environmental Board · Wednesday, October 8, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 10, 2025

5 min · packet pp.3–5

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 09-10-25 Environmental Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. September 10, 2025 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Sustainable Building and Infrastructure Policy (A)

20 min · David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.7–28

Topics: Climate

Previously discussed: Environmental Board · Sep 10, 2025

▶ Watch from 2:34 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

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

Climate Action Plan Update - Initial Input on Overarching Items (D)

60 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.29–42

Topics: Climate

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 6, 2021

▶ Watch from 22:34 Open packet at p.29 ↗

Staff report:

Staff seek input on the following items that will have an overarching

Annual Report and Self Assessment

Discussion · 15 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.43–62

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 31, 2021

▶ Watch from 1:22:34 Open packet at p.43 ↗

Staff report:

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

5. REPORTS

PFAS Update (Written Memo) n/a

packet pp.63–65

Topics: Water

Open packet at p.63 ↗

Staff report:

Public Works 670 – 1st Ave. NE | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3470 issaquahwa.gov

2172 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ U welcome to the October 8th meeting of

0:04 ↗ the environmental board. I'm Alison

0:07 ↗ Taylor and I'll be chairing tonight's

0:08 ↗ meeting. Uh due to the hybrid nature of

0:12 ↗ tonight's meeting, I'd like to start by

0:13 ↗ providing some guidelines. We'll have

0:16 ↗ participants in the room as well as

0:18 ↗ those attending virtually. For all

0:20 ↗ meeting attendees, please speak clearly

0:21 ↗ and pause frequently. State your name

0:24 ↗ each time before speaking. Um most of us

0:26 ↗ in the room if you'd like to raise your

0:28 ↗ hand your name up

0:32 ↗ um goes online you can hit the raise

0:34 ↗ your hand button and you'd like to be um

0:38 ↗ acknowledge for safety.

0:40 ↗ Um if you have technical issues try to

0:42 ↗ enter the meeting device or use the

0:44 ↗ calling information.

0:50 ↗ We'll summarize agreement around

0:51 ↗ recommendations at the end of each topic

0:53 ↗ and note if there is any descent. Stacy,

0:56 ↗ can you take attendance? Uh Tom Anderson

1:00 ↗ is here stepped out of the room. Uh

1:03 ↗ Nancy Davidson

1:04 ↗ >> here.

1:05 ↗ >> Tommy Dvau

1:07 ↗ >> here.

1:09 ↗ >> Uh Pra Gandi

1:10 ↗ >> here. Pan has a excused absence. Vina

1:15 ↗ Ton has an excused absence. Dominic

1:18 ↗ Williams hasn't excused the absence.

1:20 ↗ Dixie Bear.

1:24 ↗ Um, Alex Lee Tickner here. Ann New

1:28 ↗ >> here.

1:30 ↗ Keith Gonzalez

1:31 ↗ >> here.

1:33 ↗ >> John Smith

1:34 ↗ >> here.

1:35 ↗ >> And John and Ann will be sitting as

1:37 ↗ regular members tonight. And we have

1:39 ↗ four.

1:42 ↗ >> Did I miss out?

1:44 ↗ >> You're number one on my list. So we did

1:46 ↗ but we noted you were here.

1:48 ↗ >> Great. Thank you much for your

1:51 ↗ forbearance.

1:52 ↗ >> You can stay here like

1:55 ↗ we never went

1:58 ↗ al.

2:02 ↗ >> Um so moving on to approval of the

2:05 ↗ minutes September 10th meeting. Any

2:08 ↗ comments?

2:12 ↗ Move to approve those.

2:15 ↗ And then do we have any public comments

2:17 ↗ tonight?

2:18 ↗ >> No, we did not have any written public

2:20 ↗ comment on tonight's topics and we do

2:22 ↗ not have anyone.

2:23 ↗ >> I thought there was somebody signed up.

2:26 ↗ >> That was from a old meeting. So, but

2:29 ↗ yes, thank you.

2:32 ↗ >> All right. We'll move straight into our

2:34 ↗ agenda items then. We have three agenda

2:36 ↗ items tonight plus a report. Um the

2:40 ↗ first one David's going to present on

2:42 ↗ the sustainable building and

2:43 ↗ infrastructure policy. Um this was

2:46 ↗ sented on last month. This is a recap of

2:49 ↗ any changes that were made and we'll

2:50 ↗ have a discussion and vote for either

2:54 ↗ approval approving sentiment to council

2:58 ↗ committee or not. We'll go over the

3:01 ↗ climate action plan update, some initial

3:02 ↗ input and overarching items, and then

3:05 ↗ we'll run through the annual report and

3:08 ↗ self assessment with some discussion

3:10 ↗ before it is sent out. So, David, I will

3:13 ↗ pass it to you for the first time.

3:15 ↗ >> All right. Well, thank you all very much

3:17 ↗ uh for for having me back today to chat

3:19 ↗ about this. Um, I'm going to do uh a

3:23 ↗ shorter summary version of the

3:26 ↗ presentation I gave last month. um note

3:30 ↗ uh the the few changes that were made

3:32 ↗ based on uh board feedback in September

3:35 ↗ uh and then we can open the floor for

3:37 ↗ for comments and questions.

3:41 ↗ So just as a reminder, uh staff were

3:44 ↗ proposing changes to the sustainable

3:45 ↗ building and infrastructure policy. Um

3:48 ↗ and this is uh based on actions uh

3:52 ↗ listed in the climate action plan as

3:54 ↗ well as the sustainable building uh

3:57 ↗ action strategy. Um the environmental

4:00 ↗ bowl environmental board role tonight is

4:03 ↗ to um uh ask questions about the policy

4:06 ↗ and then uh decide on on whether or not

4:09 ↗ to recommend moving forward

4:12 ↗ uh with a recommendation to council. Uh

4:15 ↗ as a recap of the context, uh the

4:17 ↗ current sustainable building and

4:18 ↗ infrastructure policy is from 2004. Um

4:22 ↗ it's a bit outdated

4:24 ↗ at this point. um and it was listed as a

4:27 ↗ priority action in the 2018 sustainable

4:30 ↗ building action strategy as well as the

4:32 ↗ 2021 climate action plan. Buildings are

4:37 ↗ uh one of the primary sources of

4:38 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions in government

4:41 ↗ operations about 48% in 2022.

4:44 ↗ And then um just as more context on

4:47 ↗ this, right, infrastructure projects go

4:49 ↗ beyond buildings themselves. Thinks

4:51 ↗ about much wider um array of projects

4:54 ↗ that the city works on. And so, uh, when

4:58 ↗ we think about, uh, incorporating

5:00 ↗ sustainable principles into those

5:02 ↗ infrastructure projects, um, there are

5:04 ↗ likely going to be greenhouse gas saving

5:06 ↗ emissions savings associated with those,

5:09 ↗ but there's also many other uh

5:11 ↗ environmental benefits of of

5:14 ↗ incorporating sustainability principles

5:15 ↗ into those infrastructure projects.

5:18 ↗ In fall and of 2024 and spring in 20 of

5:22 ↗ 2025, uh Cascadia Consulting uh

5:25 ↗ developed recommendations and a report

5:28 ↗ on how uh staff could update the

5:31 ↗ sustainable building and infrastructure

5:33 ↗ policy. Those recommendations came uh

5:36 ↗ based on uh interviews with staff uh

5:39 ↗ discussions with senior leadership uh

5:41 ↗ team at the city. Uh they came to the

5:43 ↗ environmental board for input as well.

5:46 ↗ Um and much of the proposed changes um

5:50 ↗ came out of the the holistic process of

5:53 ↗ discussion um of this assessment

5:58 ↗ back in LA in September when we

6:02 ↗ previously brought this to the

6:03 ↗ environmental board. Um there were a

6:05 ↗ number of different comments, questions

6:07 ↗ and feedback um that I just wanted to

6:09 ↗ touch on as we think about updating it

6:12 ↗ uh uh the updated version for today. So

6:15 ↗ one um there was some questions related

6:18 ↗ to clarifications on the phased approach

6:20 ↗ of the policy. Um the phase approach

6:23 ↗ really came from the evaluation and and

6:26 ↗ analysis of policies in other

6:28 ↗ jurisdictions

6:30 ↗ um conversations with staff and

6:31 ↗ leadership teams um the environmental

6:34 ↗ board and others. And the idea with this

6:37 ↗ phased approach is that it allows for an

6:39 ↗ initial phase uh that leans more on

6:42 ↗ staff training uh trial of tools such as

6:46 ↗ um a more uh significant use of the lead

6:51 ↗ tool um as well as the envision tool for

6:54 ↗ infrastructure projects. Um and also uh

6:57 ↗ some formal formalization of

6:59 ↗ sustainability support for other

7:01 ↗ departments to work budget uh work um

7:05 ↗ sustainability principles into budgets

7:07 ↗ for infrastructure projects and building

7:09 ↗ projects.

7:11 ↗ And this goes to the the second point uh

7:13 ↗ brought up by the board uh at the

7:16 ↗ September meeting. Um we have the board

7:19 ↗ asked for clearly stated action steps

7:21 ↗ for staff to implement in 2030 or 2031.

7:25 ↗ Um and so what we've done is we have uh

7:29 ↗ two phases of review of the policy. One

7:32 ↗ is uh a review of the policy in 2028 and

7:36 ↗ then a review of the policy in 2031

7:39 ↗ again. And at each of those points, the

7:41 ↗ idea is to evaluate how the phased

7:44 ↗ approach is working, how the

7:45 ↗ implementation of um projects, toolkits,

7:51 ↗ uh is is working for different projects

7:54 ↗ um and deciding whether or not we need

7:56 ↗ to make changes to this policy at

7:58 ↗ another point. And so thinking about at

8:00 ↗ those points, do we need to make the

8:02 ↗ policy more stringent? do we need to

8:04 ↗ make it more clear for staff um what has

8:07 ↗ worked and what has not worked in the

8:08 ↗ pilot projects uh things like that and

8:11 ↗ so there's there's the two steps uh

8:13 ↗ included for evaluation of the policy uh

8:17 ↗ so that we don't have another situation

8:19 ↗ like the 2004 policy where we're now two

8:22 ↗ decades later updating it uh now

8:27 ↗ and then I do want to also just mention

8:28 ↗ that the environmental board uh that

8:31 ↗ board members asked for clarification on

8:33 ↗ why the policy was focused on municipal

8:35 ↗ buildings and infrastructure projects

8:37 ↗ instead of communitywide projects. And

8:40 ↗ um that discussion really focuses on um

8:43 ↗ using uh the municipal code to

8:47 ↗ incorporate um uh updates specifically

8:51 ↗ in that code for communitywide projects

8:53 ↗ and using this policy as a means to

8:56 ↗ provide more guidance to city staff and

8:58 ↗ to uh explore opportunities to go beyond

9:01 ↗ uh code. Um and then uh related to waste

9:06 ↗ diversion, u board members asked for

9:09 ↗ some clarification on what the goals

9:10 ↗ were in uh related to waste diversion uh

9:14 ↗ within the policy. And so um last time

9:17 ↗ we provided a little bit of

9:18 ↗ clarification on that and I can go into

9:20 ↗ more details around that today if we'd

9:22 ↗ like.

9:25 ↗ Um so just thinking about next steps of

9:29 ↗ the the policy. Um this winter we uh

9:33 ↗ would be updating the sustainable

9:35 ↗ building and infrastructure policy if um

9:37 ↗ we can move it to council for approval

9:40 ↗ and if council decides to approve it um

9:43 ↗ then then the policy would be updated

9:45 ↗ this winter and we would be focus on

9:47 ↗ updating guidance and identifying pilot

9:49 ↗ projects in 2026 to 2027. would be

9:53 ↗ implementing the policy um working on

9:56 ↗ pilot projects and really seeing how we

9:58 ↗ can incorporate these sustainability

9:59 ↗ principles into projects across the

10:01 ↗ city. And then the other two uh next

10:04 ↗ steps here are those review steps or

10:07 ↗ evaluation time. So in 2028 would be

10:09 ↗ reviewing the policy and in 2031 would

10:12 ↗ be reviewing the policy and deciding

10:14 ↗ whether or not it's really meeting our

10:16 ↗ goals if it is uh helping us uh with

10:21 ↗ incorporating sustainability principles

10:23 ↗ into these building projects into these

10:24 ↗ infrastructure projects or if we need to

10:27 ↗ be rethinking uh this policy and um

10:30 ↗ making some adjustments at that point.

10:35 ↗ as a brief summary of the proposed

10:38 ↗ policy changes. I went through them much

10:39 ↗ more in depth last time, but so the the

10:42 ↗ first item is that it uh formalizes

10:45 ↗ sustainability team support and that

10:47 ↗ means uh supporting departments across

10:50 ↗ the city with staff training, working uh

10:52 ↗ s uh working with departments across the

10:55 ↗ city on budgets to make sure that we are

10:58 ↗ budgeting correctly to incorporate

11:00 ↗ sustainability principles into these

11:02 ↗ building and these infrastructure

11:03 ↗ projects.

11:05 ↗ Um the second area is to provide much

11:07 ↗ more robust guidance related to new

11:10 ↗ buildings and major retrofits. So

11:12 ↗ updating some of those definitions,

11:14 ↗ providing clarity around what is

11:16 ↗ expected when a major retrofit or

11:18 ↗ renovation occurs uh or a new building.

11:21 ↗ Um and then also thinking about the

11:23 ↗ different size of the building. So um

11:26 ↗ providing uh different guidance based on

11:28 ↗ the size of that building.

11:31 ↗ It provides much more clear uh or it

11:34 ↗ provides updated uh guidance related to

11:37 ↗ infrastructure projects at the city. Um

11:39 ↗ it introduces the envision toolkit which

11:41 ↗ is one of the national uh standards is

11:44 ↗ is the main national standard for

11:47 ↗ infrastructure or sustainable

11:48 ↗ infrastructure

11:50 ↗ um evaluation and certification. Um so

11:53 ↗ it in introduces that envision toolkit

11:55 ↗ as the means to evaluate um whether or

11:58 ↗ not our polic uh infrastructure projects

12:01 ↗ are um more or less sustainable and

12:04 ↗ thinking about ways that we can

12:05 ↗ incorporate more sustainability

12:06 ↗ principles into those projects. Um and

12:09 ↗ it requires that we identify a pilot

12:12 ↗ project to test the envision toolkit

12:14 ↗ with in the next uh couple years. And

12:17 ↗ then finally, it updates some waste

12:19 ↗ diversion practices and asks for, uh,

12:22 ↗ sets some goals around waste diversion

12:24 ↗ at city facilities, um, existing city

12:27 ↗ facilities as well as waste diversion

12:29 ↗ for, um, all city projects, including

12:32 ↗ those that require demolition as well as

12:34 ↗ infrastructure projects that might not

12:36 ↗ require any demolition. So, it sets some

12:39 ↗ goals there that we'd be working

12:40 ↗ towards.

12:43 ↗ And with that, that is my summary of uh

12:48 ↗ of the policy. Again, um we can go into

12:51 ↗ more depth on any of the items, but I'd

12:53 ↗ uh at this point welcome any questions

12:56 ↗ or comments?

12:58 ↗ >> David,

13:01 ↗ questions or comments

13:03 ↗ on the policy as it presented?

13:06 ↗ David knows I'm coming

13:09 ↗ and I had a conversation today and I

13:12 ↗ apologize for not being here last month

13:14 ↗ and I really did not have an opportunity

13:16 ↗ at this until I got back from being out

13:19 ↗ of the country. So I apologize. Um but I

13:22 ↗ feel like we can do more and I think

13:25 ↗ David and I had question but before I

13:28 ↗ get into get doing more I recommend a

13:30 ↗ little bit of a structural change to the

13:32 ↗ document. Okay.

13:33 ↗ >> And um we talk about goals and goals are

13:36 ↗ kind of incorporated in definitions and

13:39 ↗ different places and you have a purpose

13:42 ↗ but it would be great if we put the

13:43 ↗ goals what are we trying to achieve with

13:45 ↗ this policy because you kind of have to

13:47 ↗ search. Okay. So if you put that as a

13:49 ↗ section before you get to definitions

13:51 ↗ and underneath purpose I think it would

13:53 ↗ be clear and if we're measuring that in

13:56 ↗ what you said 2030 and 2031 or your time

13:59 ↗ frames. I'm sorry I didn't hit it right,

14:00 ↗ >> but at least then we know that's what

14:02 ↗ we're targeting for and we're all going

14:04 ↗ for whatever the goals are that we're

14:06 ↗ trying to achieve. So that's kind of a

14:08 ↗ structural one of the structural changes

14:10 ↗ I recommend to the document. But that

14:12 ↗ one was pretty simple, so I didn't bring

14:13 ↗ it up when we were talking today, but I

14:15 ↗ think finding the goals right up front

14:16 ↗ would really be helpful. The second

14:18 ↗ piece of this is that this works really

14:22 ↗ well in general for buildings, but it

14:25 ↗ doesn't work so well for infrastructure.

14:27 ↗ And infrastructure includes roads,

14:29 ↗ parks,

14:30 ↗ pipelines, all kinds of stuff. And it

14:34 ↗ feels very when you put infrastructure

14:36 ↗ in the words with all the buildings, it

14:39 ↗ doesn't always work. And in some ways,

14:41 ↗ we can do more in infrastructure and

14:42 ↗ those aren't even brought up. And I'm

14:44 ↗ going to give you a couple of examples,

14:45 ↗ okay, for consideration. One of them is

14:48 ↗ the park that just went in into downtown

14:50 ↗ Esau, the one right on Front Street and

14:52 ↗ Sunset. It's got a little water feature

14:55 ↗ that has energy consumption. It's got

14:58 ↗ water, so we're using a resource. It's

15:01 ↗ got a very linear project. It's got a

15:04 ↗ park and sidewalks. And that would be a

15:07 ↗ great pro opportunity to see recycled

15:12 ↗ concrete, demonstrate what we're talking

15:15 ↗ about right in the heart of downtown

15:17 ↗ Isa, outside the senior center and

15:20 ↗ everything else. if we had something we

15:22 ↗ were trying to achieve with this

15:24 ↗ >> and that was an infrastructure project.

15:26 ↗ It really was not a facilities project.

15:28 ↗ You couldn't get solar on it or anything

15:30 ↗ like that. But I question if we were

15:33 ↗ really trying to be sustainable

15:36 ↗ and reduce water use if that project

15:39 ↗ would have gone forward with fountain

15:41 ↗ because we're using energy all the time

15:43 ↗ for that little fountain.

15:46 ↗ Um so I think we could do more. So, I

15:49 ↗ think the infrastructure I look at the

15:51 ↗ roadways and the sidewalks we tear up.

15:53 ↗ Um, do we use green vehicles or any

15:57 ↗ green equipment or any else? We don't

16:00 ↗ even assess that. How much of the

16:03 ↗ material that's removed from a sidewalk

16:05 ↗ when it's demoed gets recycled? The

16:07 ↗ rebar that comes out, anything like

16:09 ↗ that. So, what I'm suggesting is that

16:13 ↗ perhaps we have one section that's

16:14 ↗ dedicated to buildings and perhaps a

16:17 ↗ section to the more linear projects and

16:20 ↗ what we're trying to achieve with each

16:22 ↗ of them. Um, I just think that there's a

16:26 ↗ different way of thinking. And while I

16:29 ↗ appreciate the um checklist that's

16:31 ↗ there, the checklist doesn't force

16:33 ↗ anything. And if we're trying to change

16:35 ↗ people's habits and trying to be more

16:39 ↗ climate friendly and environmentally

16:41 ↗ friendly, I think this is an opportunity

16:43 ↗ to do something. And I don't think we're

16:45 ↗ doing a lot, particularly on

16:46 ↗ infrastructure projects. We we really

16:49 ↗ are doing a great job. Well, not a great

16:51 ↗ job, but we're doing a better job on

16:53 ↗ buildings. Do you see what I'm saying?

16:54 ↗ They're really easy to capture and to

16:56 ↗ see how they're doing. What we're not

16:58 ↗ doing as good a job in my opinion, this

17:00 ↗ is just me, is on the roadway,

17:02 ↗ sidewalks, and the and and those are the

17:04 ↗ guys we now start need to start working

17:07 ↗ towards getting attention on instead of

17:09 ↗ waiting until 2030 to kind of get that

17:12 ↗ second look at it. So, that's my

17:14 ↗ suggestion at this point. And I'm sorry

17:16 ↗ to dump all that right now. You can

17:18 ↗ respond if you want, but I think those

17:20 ↗ are the things that I think we really

17:22 ↗ should be trying to get some additional

17:24 ↗ stuff out of as we move forward. if we

17:27 ↗ really want to do something about

17:28 ↗ climate change. My two sentence.

17:32 ↗ >> Yeah. Um so that I think that is all

17:35 ↗ great points and I think um where we are

17:39 ↗ trying to go with how the policy is

17:41 ↗ written is um to identify the training

17:46 ↗ opportunities for public works staff or

17:49 ↗ park staffs to really think about um

17:52 ↗ upskilling those staff members

17:55 ↗ specifically related to sustainability

17:58 ↗ um skills in their in their design

18:01 ↗ processes and their uh RFQS and the you

18:06 ↗ know the actual um construction where we

18:08 ↗ can. And then um the other goal with

18:13 ↗ identifying a pilot project right off

18:15 ↗ the bat in 2026 and 2027 for use of the

18:18 ↗ Envision certification

18:21 ↗ is for

18:22 ↗ testing out what does a holistic

18:27 ↗ um

18:28 ↗ tool like Envision, how does that

18:31 ↗ actually impact what does uh the

18:34 ↗ sustainability practices of an

18:36 ↗ infrastructure project and The Envision

18:40 ↗ toolkit uh was specifically developed as

18:44 ↗ the way I'll describe it is kind of the

18:46 ↗ the it's the equivalent of lead but for

18:48 ↗ projects that don't allow that don't

18:50 ↗ have buildings. Right? So the positive

18:54 ↗ the the reason we are recommending using

18:58 ↗ the Envision toolkit is it can because

19:00 ↗ it can be used for parks and roadways

19:03 ↗ and sidewalks and all sorts of different

19:06 ↗ infrastructure projects. And the way it

19:09 ↗ works is you kind of dig into what parts

19:12 ↗ of the Envision toolkit would apply to

19:17 ↗ any given project. Um, and then

19:20 ↗ determine whether or not the project can

19:22 ↗ be certified based on the amount of

19:24 ↗ sustainable um, practices incorporated

19:27 ↗ into that project. So the idea there is

19:32 ↗ that by leveraging this tool, it could

19:34 ↗ be kind of a standard tool for our

19:37 ↗ infrastructure projects at the city and

19:39 ↗ then applied to multiple different types

19:41 ↗ of uh infrastructure projects. Um

19:46 ↗ that that was some of the theory around

19:48 ↗ the where we we went there.

19:54 ↗ >> Should I go over to John? Um, just a

19:59 ↗ question about policy. It looks like

20:01 ↗ it's for buildings. It's broken down

20:03 ↗ into three different groups. One for

20:07 ↗ buildings less than 5,000 square feet.

20:10 ↗ And I think that is there's just sort of

20:12 ↗ like that's a policy. It's not

20:14 ↗ necessarily firm guidelines,

20:18 ↗ >> but for 10 for 10 to sorry 5 to 10,000

20:23 ↗ square foot, then their

20:26 ↗ regulations are they're more you have to

20:29 ↗ abide by those, right? So the way the

20:32 ↗ buildings are broken up um is based on

20:36 ↗ the size of the building u as you

20:38 ↗ mentioned and kind of uh and so it would

20:41 ↗ apply to a building depending on if it's

20:44 ↗ a completely new building or if it is

20:46 ↗ having a major renovation and we have

20:48 ↗ some definitions around that. Um, so for

20:52 ↗ buildings that are up to 5,000 square

20:54 ↗ feet, um, we essentially, uh, the policy

20:59 ↗ recommends just using, uh, the best

21:01 ↗ sustainability principles that we can

21:03 ↗ for those small buildings.

21:06 ↗ um for 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. Um

21:10 ↗ the uh policy requires staff to align

21:15 ↗ with lead platinum. So a a high standard

21:18 ↗ of certification for buildings, but it

21:21 ↗ doesn't require uh the city to get those

21:24 ↗ buildings certified as lead platinum as

21:27 ↗ a means just because that certification

21:30 ↗ costs a lot of money. And so this is a

21:32 ↗ means to uh have those building those

21:36 ↗ projects align with lead platinum but

21:38 ↗ save some money in in the process. And

21:41 ↗ then anything beyond 10,000 square feet

21:43 ↗ based on current um city code would have

21:47 ↗ to become a lead platinum understand.

21:50 ↗ >> Okay.

21:52 ↗ >> Okay. And do you have a pilot project in

21:55 ↗ mind?

21:58 ↗ Um,

21:59 ↗ we don't have a pilot project in mind. I

22:03 ↗ think over the next five years, there

22:07 ↗ would be some projects that would fall

22:09 ↗ into probably the 5,000 to 10,000 square

22:13 ↗ foot bucket and then the 10,000 square

22:15 ↗ foot bucket. So, one of the ones that's

22:18 ↗ being discussed is future city hall

22:20 ↗ space needs um and potentially a um

22:24 ↗ reworking of the current city hall to

22:26 ↗ turn it all into a police station. And

22:28 ↗ so depending on kind of how some of

22:30 ↗ those projects shake out over the next

22:34 ↗ 5, 10 years, whatever it might be, um uh

22:38 ↗ this policy would apply to those.

22:40 ↗ >> Okay. All right. Thank you.

22:41 ↗ >> Were you asking also about an

22:43 ↗ infrastructure pilot project? Oh, I was

22:45 ↗ really just asking about the building

22:49 ↗ >> building renovations.

22:52 ↗ >> Yeah, there's some other new buildings

22:55 ↗ >> uh which is done.

22:58 ↗ >> Oh, the Gibson. Sorry. Yes. Yeah.

23:00 ↗ Anyways,

23:03 ↗ >> okay. Thank you.

23:09 ↗ >> Super quick. Um I think so and come

23:12 ↗ here. Um, so with the Envision tool, do

23:16 ↗ you So I know it has a lot of like

23:19 ↗ probably has a lot of ideas um and tools

23:21 ↗ for people and does it get specific to

23:25 ↗ um the area say King County or

23:28 ↗ Washington or is it just um generic for

23:33 ↗ the whole United States?

23:35 ↗ >> So the Envision toolkit is um more

23:39 ↗ generic for the entire United States. So

23:42 ↗ it sets um defend depending on what part

23:46 ↗ of the toolkit you're looking at, right?

23:48 ↗ You can get points or or that you know

23:50 ↗ it encourages you to um uh have certain

23:56 ↗ types of leadership meetings and things

23:57 ↗ like that, but then it also can get as

23:59 ↗ specific as looking at certain percents

24:02 ↗ of recycled material in construction

24:05 ↗ material, right? And so, um, all of that

24:08 ↗ is not specific to Washington, um, but

24:12 ↗ is is a national, it's a it's a national

24:15 ↗ tool kind of like lead. Um, with our

24:18 ↗ consultants, we did look at the King

24:20 ↗ County, um, green infrastructure, green

24:24 ↗ building scorecard, green infrastructure

24:25 ↗ scorecard.

24:26 ↗ >> Might be a good one.

24:28 ↗ >> Yeah. And and it is, it was actually

24:30 ↗ developed before Envision existed. And

24:32 ↗ so King County kind of was setting the

24:34 ↗ stage of green infrastructure with that

24:37 ↗ scorecard.

24:38 ↗ >> Um but one of the reasons we did not it

24:42 ↗ was not recommended we move forward with

24:44 ↗ that is because King County has multiple

24:46 ↗ staff members dedicated to

24:49 ↗ >> incorporating that. And so the benefit

24:52 ↗ with Envision is since it's this

24:53 ↗ national tool, we can, you know, work

24:56 ↗ with the national uh network to actually

24:59 ↗ get project certified, get training,

25:01 ↗ things like that. And it um uh is a

25:04 ↗ little bit easier with our more limited

25:06 ↗ staff capacity,

25:08 ↗ >> but maybe King County could be a

25:09 ↗ resource for you.

25:10 ↗ >> Absolutely. Yes.

25:12 ↗ >> Yeah. So, um just as an aside, Nancy

25:14 ↗ reminded me of this. Um so when we were

25:17 ↗ first um coming up with the um IAB

25:23 ↗ >> uh we were talking about different

25:24 ↗ things and um I'd heard of concrete cure

25:28 ↗ you know where uh CO2 that's sequestered

25:32 ↗ from the atmosphere is injected into the

25:34 ↗ concrete and it makes it stronger. So,

25:38 ↗ um, then I went ahead and researched

25:40 ↗ around and Stoneway actually has at that

25:43 ↗ time, this was a few years ago now, had

25:45 ↗ the the, um, the bricks. They make them

25:48 ↗ into bricks so you can buy the bricks.

25:50 ↗ Um, not necessarily concrete that you

25:52 ↗ would lay down, but things have changed.

25:55 ↗ So, who knows what they have now. Um

26:00 ↗ but that's probably not something that

26:03 ↗ maybe the national tool wouldn't say

26:06 ↗ that because they it's probably not all

26:08 ↗ it's not in all the states.

26:09 ↗ >> Yeah. So the the envision tool won't

26:12 ↗ necessarily

26:13 ↗ go to that level of depth of you know

26:15 ↗ use this specific concrete or anything

26:17 ↗ but it will have um

26:21 ↗ criteria related to identifying

26:24 ↗ lowcarbon concrete or um really digging

26:28 ↗ into the materials used in an

26:30 ↗ infrastructure project. Um, and so the

26:32 ↗ idea with the toolkit generally is that

26:34 ↗ by starting with those conversations,

26:37 ↗ we're getting to incorporate those

26:39 ↗ sustainable principles of lowcarbon

26:41 ↗ concrete or or concrete that sequesters

26:44 ↗ carbon into the design of whatever

26:46 ↗ project we are piloting with it with or

26:49 ↗ or using the toolkit.

26:52 ↗ >> Yeah. And I I'm pretty sure that

26:54 ↗ Washington state uses recycled concrete.

26:57 ↗ So hopefully is there any way that we

27:00 ↗ can write that in that and I trust you

27:03 ↗ guys you know you stay on top of all

27:05 ↗ this but like getting down to that

27:07 ↗ detail I think is really important

27:09 ↗ because if we're if we're going to be

27:10 ↗ leaders we have to be you know listening

27:14 ↗ to all the podcasts and and learning

27:15 ↗ about all of the um you know the things

27:18 ↗ that are just coming out the cutting

27:20 ↗ edge stuff and then taking the time to

27:22 ↗ research to to find it or asking a

27:25 ↗ volunteer to do it. So, um, it'd be

27:29 ↗ great if that was like if we could do

27:31 ↗ that.

27:33 ↗ Is there any way that could be written

27:34 ↗ in somehow

27:36 ↗ >> using recycled concrete?

27:39 ↗ >> Getting down to that kind of detail

27:41 ↗ where you're using um bricks that are

27:46 ↗ sequestering carbon. you know, trying to

27:48 ↗ be on the cutting edge of how we can

27:51 ↗ build things sustainably and be um, you

27:54 ↗ know, sequestering carbon in our

27:57 ↗ products or using less carbon or, you

28:00 ↗ know, using the recycled stuff.

28:03 ↗ >> Yeah, I would say getting to that level

28:06 ↗ of detail in the policy would require

28:10 ↗ probably a fair amount of staff

28:12 ↗ evaluation and assessment. um we would

28:16 ↗ start to get into and and part of the

28:18 ↗ way the policy is written is is with

28:21 ↗ these evaluation points and trying out

28:23 ↗ projects. We get to see whether or not

28:26 ↗ um some of these different methods such

28:30 ↗ as as you know concrete or or you know

28:33 ↗ whatever trying it works um for us at

28:37 ↗ the city. Um, as we start to get really

28:40 ↗ specific like that, right off the bat,

28:42 ↗ we'd have to do a fair amount of

28:44 ↗ analysis to determine, you know, what is

28:46 ↗ possible for different projects as well

28:48 ↗ as what the cost implication would be on

28:51 ↗ on projects. Um, uh, and and so I would

28:56 ↗ say um, writing them in writing that

28:59 ↗ level of detail right off the bat would

29:01 ↗ be difficult. Um and I think

29:05 ↗ uh probably more the best example

29:09 ↗ possible and using um cutting edge

29:13 ↗ materials to either sequester or lower

29:17 ↗ our carbon

29:18 ↗ >> maybe verbish like that.

29:19 ↗ >> So something that kind of uh some

29:22 ↗ language around

29:24 ↗ stepping out and leading and kind of

29:26 ↗ using the uh best best available.

29:30 ↗ >> Yeah. because it's hard to know stuff

29:31 ↗ out there unless you're like really

29:34 ↗ listening to just

29:37 ↗ >> Yeah, I was just gonna I think getting

29:38 ↗ to NY's point around the restructuring,

29:40 ↗ but probably I would recommend staying

29:44 ↗ away from that level of detail in the

29:45 ↗ actual policy because we want to be

29:47 ↗ flexible. We want to stay up with the

29:49 ↗ cutting edge technology and resources

29:51 ↗ and products, but capturing some of

29:54 ↗ those concepts in the goals and purpose.

29:56 ↗ So that that's then directing us towards

30:00 ↗ um what products um what materials that

30:03 ↗ we're using. And then as we go through

30:05 ↗ some of the pilot projects, we can

30:07 ↗ identify kind of best resources, best

30:09 ↗ practices for different types of

30:12 ↗ infrastructure projects and we can share

30:15 ↗ make sure staff are sharing that out.

30:16 ↗ that um that we're finding as best

30:19 ↗ products there.

30:25 ↗ >> Yes, I I continue to be troubled by

30:27 ↗ using Envision as just a checklist

30:29 ↗ without any

30:32 ↗ checklists

30:33 ↗ are a nice thing to do, but it doesn't

30:35 ↗ mean it will change what you do change

30:38 ↗ how you talk contractor or how they'll

30:40 ↗ do their work unless there's a little

30:42 ↗ more tea to the goals or how we do this.

30:44 ↗ And so I think we need to do more. I

30:47 ↗ think waiting until 2030 to get to a

30:50 ↗ point where we're talking about

30:52 ↗ recycling,

30:54 ↗ materials, um, better practices in our

30:57 ↗ construction industry. And when we hire

30:59 ↗ contractors, it's just we're just

31:01 ↗ waiting too long. And I know it's hard,

31:05 ↗ but I think we really should be trying

31:06 ↗ to do it now and assessing how we do.

31:09 ↗ And if it's not right, we can come back

31:11 ↗ next year and we can reevaluate because

31:13 ↗ we missed it. But I think by putting it

31:15 ↗ off to a pilot project in 2027 and then

31:19 ↗ evaluating that project, we won't do

31:21 ↗ anything on this until 2030. And if

31:24 ↗ that's what the council wants to do,

31:26 ↗ that's one thing. But it I think we've

31:28 ↗ really missed what we're trying to

31:30 ↗ achieve with this. That's just

31:36 ↗ >> the first evaluation is in 2028, which

31:39 ↗ is not much in two years.

31:44 ↗ And that was to align with the budget so

31:46 ↗ that we could put a pilot project in the

31:48 ↗ 27 budget and then evaluate in 28 or

31:52 ↗ evaluate that project in 27 and evaluate

31:54 ↗ the

31:55 ↗ >> but couldn't you use one of the projects

31:56 ↗ that are in the capital program right

31:58 ↗ now that the council's voting on and you

32:00 ↗ run it through this envision process and

32:03 ↗ I mean it's in design and planning so

32:05 ↗ you can start to do something and see

32:07 ↗ how it works but if you wait and don't

32:10 ↗ start anything till 2028 and pay for a

32:12 ↗ budget cycle. I mean, you've missed a

32:14 ↗ real big opportunity.

32:16 ↗ >> Yeah, understood. I think concerns are

32:18 ↗ around the cost implications of those

32:20 ↗ projects and needing to add in the

32:21 ↗ additional cost for meeting the envision

32:24 ↗ criteria.

32:26 ↗ >> I think uh we to to some extent we can

32:31 ↗ start using Envision earlier as well.

32:35 ↗ And I think um part of if we go back one

32:40 ↗ two slides on the uh yeah so on the

32:43 ↗ timeline right so

32:46 ↗ after policy adoption we would start

32:49 ↗ working with our mainly public works and

32:51 ↗ parks team to identify

32:54 ↗ upcoming projects and new budget cycles

32:56 ↗ but also envision is really great at uh

33:00 ↗ incorporating it as early as you can and

33:03 ↗ so we could try and incorporate it in

33:06 ↗ projects

33:08 ↗ uh if possible as early as as early as

33:12 ↗ 2026.

33:13 ↗ Um and you know the envision process is

33:15 ↗ a long process that goes through the

33:17 ↗ entire project implementation. So uh a

33:20 ↗ project that you know you start using it

33:22 ↗ in 2026 um that could be a project that

33:25 ↗ stretches into

33:27 ↗ as well. And so the idea is to give us

33:30 ↗ about two full years of evaluation about

33:34 ↗ how um using Envision as a as a toolkit

33:38 ↗ uh to uh incorporate sustainability into

33:42 ↗ these products, this uh infrastructure

33:44 ↗ projects.

33:48 ↗ >> Just a quick question. This is all about

33:52 ↗ city-owned properties and municipal

33:54 ↗ buildings.

33:55 ↗ And is there a vision of somehow

33:59 ↗ developing this and then moving it into

34:02 ↗ the private sector? I mean is it is I

34:06 ↗ mean it seems like the municipal aspect

34:08 ↗ of this is tiny in comparison to what's

34:11 ↗ going to happen to the Isiqua area in

34:14 ↗ the next 30 years.

34:17 ↗ >> I think so. any plans to put this kind

34:19 ↗ of these kind of policies in place for

34:21 ↗ the builders who are putting up new

34:23 ↗ apartment buildings and things like

34:25 ↗ that.

34:26 ↗ >> So there uh there were sustainable

34:29 ↗ building principles incorporated into

34:31 ↗ title 18. So the any building in the

34:34 ↗ city over 10,000 square feet has to

34:36 ↗ become lead platinum. Right? So that is

34:39 ↗ already a community both a municipal and

34:42 ↗ community requirement. Um, and one of

34:44 ↗ the things we've discussed in the past

34:46 ↗ is um, uh, seeking to go back to what

34:51 ↗ some of those sustainable building

34:53 ↗ requirements are in city code that would

34:55 ↗ apply again to community buildings as

34:57 ↗ well as city buildings uh, or or

35:00 ↗ projects generally. Um, so uh, to your

35:04 ↗ point, right, this policy is focused on

35:07 ↗ municipal projects. Um, and we would

35:10 ↗ anticipate using the ISO municipal code

35:13 ↗ as our means to incorporate regulations

35:16 ↗ and and requirements for communitywide

35:19 ↗ projects as well. And then the other

35:22 ↗ thing I would note, right, we have some

35:24 ↗ buildings at the city and um some bigger

35:27 ↗ buildings. Um, but those infrastructure

35:29 ↗ projects are are where we're going to

35:31 ↗ maybe see even bigger impact or the

35:33 ↗ community might see bigger impacts just

35:35 ↗ as we update our parks system and work

35:39 ↗ on road projects and um, you know, as

35:42 ↗ you think about the infrastructure that

35:43 ↗ the city maintains at the city the city.

35:47 ↗ As you think about the infrastructure

35:48 ↗ projects across the city, it is a much

35:50 ↗ larger footprint. But you said that the

35:54 ↗ disqualif municipal code already covers

35:58 ↗ the 10,000 square foot. They have to be

36:00 ↗ lead certified buildings.

36:02 ↗ >> Any building above 10,000 square feet

36:05 ↗ has to be lead plat certified.

36:08 ↗ >> Okay.

36:10 ↗ >> So we we that's on the what was called

36:13 ↗ the white

36:14 ↗ uh white list or whiteboard for title

36:18 ↗ 18. So that is something that we'll be

36:20 ↗ revisiting and see if we want to

36:21 ↗ integrate other sustainable building

36:23 ↗ principles into city code.

36:25 ↗ >> City code also covers um demolition and

36:29 ↗ construction waste. That's something I

36:32 ↗ know our solid waste analyst wants to

36:34 ↗ kind of talk with the board about at

36:36 ↗ some point um seeing how we can

36:37 ↗ strengthen especially enforcement around

36:39 ↗ that. So, the code does also get into

36:42 ↗ some of the infrastructure waste aspects

36:45 ↗ associated

36:46 ↗ um with other projects, but it's

36:48 ↗ something that will be next year.

36:55 ↗ >> That's good. When we were doing re our

36:58 ↗ bathroom remodels, I had to go through

36:59 ↗ the garbage and sort everything out.

37:06 ↗ >> Did you come with your Uh well my

37:10 ↗ question was very similar to Jonathan's

37:13 ↗ just to how we we applied the lessons

37:16 ↗ learn to uh to the title 18 and all that

37:20 ↗ as is there a a timeline laid out that

37:24 ↗ shows how that process would work. Well

37:27 ↗ I think that's I'm I'm envisioning

37:30 ↗ something more complex than is necessary

37:33 ↗ at this stage I guess is how I went

37:35 ↗ through talking about it. But okay, so

37:38 ↗ yeah, we're going to do this pilot

37:40 ↗ project and then we're going to take the

37:41 ↗ lessons learned from that and improve

37:43 ↗ for municipal buildings and then we're

37:45 ↗ going to also then feed it into the next

37:47 ↗ phase of title uh 18. So um anyway,

37:52 ↗ that's where I was going, but I think I

37:54 ↗ think we've got spoken that whole

37:57 ↗ process

37:58 ↗ >> and I will say I think this policy works

38:01 ↗ with title 18. So any updates that we're

38:04 ↗ making with title 18 will raise up this

38:06 ↗ policy. Any, you know, as we raise up

38:08 ↗ this policy, it'll inform what we can do

38:10 ↗ to raise up title 18.

38:14 ↗ >> Um, my questions go back to the envision

38:17 ↗ checklist there. So I just briefly

38:20 ↗ looked for information about it and

38:22 ↗ there's different levels just like

38:23 ↗ there's different levels on lead. Is

38:25 ↗ there one that we're working towards or

38:26 ↗ is it the verified lowest

38:29 ↗ one with the checklist or are we going

38:31 ↗ for gold or silver with it as well?

38:35 ↗ >> Um, we haven't listed out a specific

38:38 ↗ grade we're aiming for as part of this

38:41 ↗ policy update. Would

38:45 ↗ that get to more of what Nancy is asking

38:47 ↗ or with more definition around what

38:49 ↗ we're requiring our projects,

38:51 ↗ infrastructure projects to meet if if we

38:54 ↗ know what level since we're going to the

38:56 ↗ platinum with our buildings and things

38:58 ↗ like that or as high as we can with the

39:01 ↗ less.

39:04 ↗ I feel like this board and potentially

39:06 ↗ for the council presenting whereision

39:11 ↗ closer to having identified

39:14 ↗ the teeth behind

39:17 ↗ that

39:22 ↗ I think it would help. I mean, I think

39:24 ↗ telling people, you know, what you're

39:26 ↗ trying to achieve and what your goal is

39:28 ↗ instead of

39:30 ↗ >> to do a checklist

39:33 ↗ better.

39:34 ↗ >> I don't know. Not I feel like one of the

39:37 ↗ things we're graphing at is I think

39:39 ↗ people are really familiar with lead

39:41 ↗ certifications and we're not familiar

39:43 ↗ with what a vision actually is looking

39:45 ↗ at and what it's the checklist is saying

39:47 ↗ as we're going through it. So that way

39:50 ↗ struggling to understand like actually

39:53 ↗ saying to do as part of project

39:58 ↗ working towards the minimum is it the

40:00 ↗ minimum

40:02 ↗ certification on envision or is it the

40:04 ↗ higher certification on envision which

40:06 ↗ require a lot more reasonable things

40:09 ↗ going into it.

40:12 ↗ I think we can certainly explore whether

40:14 ↗ or not uh or or kind of how we could

40:16 ↗ incorporate a specific envision goal

40:19 ↗ within it of of certification level

40:21 ↗ there. Um, and I think to your point,

40:24 ↗ Envision is new to the city generally.

40:26 ↗ And so, um, that kind of goes a little

40:30 ↗ bit towards why we're starting with

40:31 ↗ training and everything else. As

40:35 ↗ folks are familiar with LEAD and and you

40:37 ↗ mentioned LEAD and many folks uh working

40:40 ↗ in building spaces know what that means.

40:42 ↗ Um and so starting with the the

40:46 ↗ training, the incorporation of budget

40:48 ↗ and testing out how Envision would work,

40:51 ↗ the idea is that it will give our

40:54 ↗ sustainability staff as well as parks

40:56 ↗ and public works and other staff an

40:58 ↗ understanding around what does it really

41:01 ↗ mean to achieve

41:03 ↗ uh envision certification of of any

41:06 ↗ level and and what can we uh what can we

41:10 ↗ strive for as best we can.

41:13 ↗ I appreciate that you've incorporated

41:14 ↗ that working across um the different

41:18 ↗ departments and training and things like

41:20 ↗ that. That's great to have included in

41:21 ↗ this. Just want to make sure our

41:25 ↗ sustainability team for that as well

41:27 ↗ because it seems like that could entail

41:29 ↗ a lot of extra work to throw that out

41:32 ↗ there.

41:38 ↗ Any other comments or feedback on the

41:41 ↗ policy as

41:47 ↗ so it's in front of the board to approve

41:50 ↗ it as is for so to make a motion to

41:55 ↗ approve it um with the and it's sorry

41:59 ↗ I'm screwing this up

42:03 ↗ so um staff would like to get a motion

42:06 ↗ to approve this to send to council

42:08 ↗ committee for review as it's written Our

42:12 ↗ options are to have a motion to send it

42:16 ↗ forward. Um or we can have a motion to

42:19 ↗ send it comments. Um

42:22 ↗ anyone like to make a motion to

42:25 ↗ move the policy to

42:30 ↗ >> we want to have further discussion. You

42:32 ↗ were kind of

42:34 ↗ >> I think we need to bring this back.

42:36 ↗ That's my take on I think without

42:39 ↗ bringing the goals into something

42:41 ↗ concrete where you see the goals having

42:43 ↗ a little more look at this envision

42:45 ↗ piece. I think that's where I'm at. I

42:49 ↗ don't think we're there yet.

42:50 ↗ >> I'm ready to go ahead and make a motion.

42:53 ↗ I mean, if you want to move to approve,

42:55 ↗ I'll probably no. If you want to make a

42:57 ↗ move to, you know, I'd like to I would

43:00 ↗ move I'll make a motion to bring this

43:02 ↗ back next month for further discussion

43:04 ↗ with the edits that have been requested

43:05 ↗ by this committee. There's a motion on

43:07 ↗ the table.

43:08 ↗ >> There's a motion. Um, is there a second?

43:13 ↗ >> Sorry, John. I'm I'll take I'll take one

43:16 ↗ first.

43:19 ↗ I guess I'll second it because I would

43:21 ↗ either like to do that or um have it

43:24 ↗ with the changes that we were talking

43:25 ↗ about. So like I don't know what kind of

43:28 ↗ problems it makes for you to extend it

43:31 ↗ out another month. You know is that uh

43:36 ↗ does that

43:37 ↗ >> we will not be able to get in front of

43:41 ↗ so we have to go to council committee

43:42 ↗ first and then council. We will not be

43:45 ↗ able to get to council the end of the

43:47 ↗ year. So we will have a new council.

43:49 ↗ >> So what we can do is not

43:53 ↗ approve it and that can go to council.

43:56 ↗ They can still present it to council is

43:58 ↗ as is with us noting that we don't

44:00 ↗ approve in our recommendations for

44:02 ↗ changing it.

44:03 ↗ >> We can approve it and also include

44:06 ↗ descent discussion within it. Um or we

44:10 ↗ can ask say we don't approve it, we

44:12 ↗ don't want it to move forward. So that

44:14 ↗ would stall it.

44:15 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. So our meeting next week is

44:18 ↗ with council committee. I think we are

44:22 ↗ interested in probably still going

44:24 ↗ before council committee to get input

44:26 ↗ and direction based on the input that we

44:30 ↗ hear from tonight that will be shared

44:31 ↗ with them. But if the board wants

44:34 ↗ significant changes, I think that will

44:37 ↗ be a conversation with council committee

44:39 ↗ because right now the proposed policy

44:44 ↗ meets the needs and comfort level of

44:46 ↗ staff. Um because David, our consultants

44:49 ↗ worked across all the department

44:51 ↗ directors to come to some agreement. And

44:53 ↗ so we will want some input from council

44:56 ↗ committee on what they would like us to

44:58 ↗ do.

45:00 ↗ Some of them may want us to go further

45:02 ↗ and work with the board over the next

45:03 ↗ several months to shape this policy

45:05 ↗ further. We probably need more

45:07 ↗ resources. We'll need additional time.

45:09 ↗ Um, so we'll probably have a

45:11 ↗ conversation with council committee next

45:13 ↗ week either way and we can present the

45:16 ↗ board feedback recommendation, but we'll

45:18 ↗ probably need some direction from them.

45:24 ↗ >> Should we just talk?

45:25 ↗ >> Yeah.

45:28 ↗ Can we go over like the bullet points of

45:32 ↗ what like I know that we wanted to put

45:34 ↗ the goal first.

45:36 ↗ >> Yes,

45:36 ↗ >> I think that would be good.

45:38 ↗ >> Some innovation, you know, going with

45:41 ↗ innovative products or innovative u you

45:44 ↗ know with the intent of top cutting edge

45:48 ↗ innovation.

45:49 ↗ >> Um

45:51 ↗ and then what were the other bullet

45:54 ↗ points?

45:56 ↗ So,

45:58 ↗ I think what I heard as edits that we

46:03 ↗ could likely incorporate

46:06 ↗ um without

46:10 ↗ um going back and and requesting more

46:14 ↗ time and resources to to update the

46:16 ↗ policy would be pulling out more of the

46:19 ↗ goals and being clear around our goals

46:22 ↗ at the in the purpose uh aspect of the

46:25 ↗ of the policy update. Um making more

46:29 ↗ clear um that this policy is intended to

46:32 ↗ set the city as a leader using um best

46:37 ↗ available materials and equipment

46:40 ↗ um

46:42 ↗ when feasible. And then the third piece

46:46 ↗ was incorporating

46:50 ↗ uh specific uh envision certification

46:54 ↗ level uh goal level that we are aiming

46:57 ↗ towards in incorporating it for um

47:01 ↗ infrastructure projects over the next uh

47:04 ↗ two years before the first evaluation

47:07 ↗ period.

47:08 ↗ I think those were the three that I

47:10 ↗ heard that

47:13 ↗ >> and what was the other one? I'm sorry.

47:14 ↗ >> Separating out more building related.

47:17 ↗ >> Ah, separating it between

47:20 ↗ >> because they're so different.

47:22 ↗ >> Can or can't do.

47:23 ↗ >> And so what we do with that based on how

47:24 ↗ it's written would probably be a

47:26 ↗ building section and infrastructure

47:27 ↗ section and then a combined section that

47:30 ↗ applies to both.

47:31 ↗ I think one other thing that I heard was

47:35 ↗ um let's just do it like why are we

47:38 ↗ doing these little tiny pilot projects

47:40 ↗ or maybe they'll be big pilot projects

47:42 ↗ um this is something that is wants to do

47:46 ↗ um so

47:48 ↗ like

47:49 ↗ my way of doing it would just be okay

47:52 ↗ we're going to do it you know rather

47:53 ↗ than oh we're going to have these little

47:55 ↗ pilot projects doing these things that

47:57 ↗ we know we want to work toward but we

48:00 ↗ know that's our goal. goal. Our higher

48:02 ↗ goal is a city and a county and a state

48:05 ↗ and um and then in a few years then

48:11 ↗ we'll put it across everything. Why not

48:15 ↗ just do it now?

48:17 ↗ >> So just adding to an's point, you know,

48:20 ↗ and also what Nancy was saying that if

48:23 ↗ you want to do the pilot project, why

48:25 ↗ not do it now? Why not pull out that and

48:28 ↗ look at it right now? But so just to add

48:31 ↗ to that, I feel like then they should be

48:33 ↗ able to present it to the current city

48:36 ↗ council this year as opposed to again

48:38 ↗ wait till next year to review. So I

48:41 ↗ don't know if there's an option to send

48:44 ↗ send it with the comments and you know

48:47 ↗ again ask for us to review in a month

48:50 ↗ but still let it you know let the

48:53 ↗ progress begin on it because I I'm

48:55 ↗ worried that if we again ask if we do

48:58 ↗ not approve and just ask it to be for us

49:01 ↗ to review again in a month then again it

49:04 ↗ goes to the next city council and I I

49:07 ↗ don't know what the consequences of that

49:09 ↗ is but I'm guessing it's still ho the

49:11 ↗ process and make it worse for that's

49:13 ↗ that's just what I think.

49:16 ↗ >> So is there an my my point was is there

49:19 ↗ an option for us to approve with the

49:22 ↗ comments and still ask us to review that

49:24 ↗ in a month to what Nancy

49:30 ↗ >> um I think to NY's point please correct

49:34 ↗ me if I'm I'm wrong. So the kind of the

49:37 ↗ four items that we mentioned, we could

49:39 ↗ make changes into the policy and bring

49:41 ↗ those changes to the mobility and

49:43 ↗ infrastructure committee. Um the

49:47 ↗ suggestion to

49:49 ↗ not to to start applying Envision

49:52 ↗ essentially to all infrastructure

49:54 ↗ projects

49:56 ↗ um would probably be we could bring that

49:59 ↗ as a comment on the policy to the

50:02 ↗ committee um just because that would

50:05 ↗ have pretty significant budget

50:08 ↗ implications.

50:09 ↗ um

50:11 ↗ one certification with Envision costs

50:13 ↗ around $17,000

50:15 ↗ um for an infrastructure project. Um and

50:18 ↗ that's setting aside any of kind of the

50:20 ↗ changes you have to make in the project

50:22 ↗ because of Envision. So um I I think I

50:26 ↗ probably wouldn't feel like we could um

50:30 ↗ make that change without getting council

50:34 ↗ input on on it.

50:36 ↗ Also I we would probably want to talk

50:38 ↗ about the level of envision that we're

50:41 ↗ recommending too that might be

50:44 ↗ >> but yeah abs I think absolutely we could

50:46 ↗ make the changes around the

50:48 ↗ restructuring much more clarity around

50:51 ↗ goals the innovation cutting edge

50:53 ↗ leadership um the pulling out of the

50:56 ↗ building's infrastructure and then it's

50:58 ↗ that envision level and faster stronger

51:02 ↗ requirements I think is what would need

51:04 ↗ discussion.

51:04 ↗ >> Yeah. Um,

51:08 ↗ >> and I can see why you would want to do

51:10 ↗ pilot projects around using the envision

51:12 ↗ tool, but um, as far as the the intent

51:17 ↗ and the goals,

51:19 ↗ I think we just need to just move

51:21 ↗ forward with that.

51:23 ↗ >> And I will with all of our updates,

51:26 ↗ everything. Sorry.

51:26 ↗ >> Yeah. And I was going to say, you know,

51:28 ↗ just if we're we're piloting in vision

51:30 ↗ with a project, that doesn't mean we

51:32 ↗ won't be trying to use best practices

51:36 ↗ uh in in other projects. And as we focus

51:39 ↗ on training for staff, hopefully we'll

51:42 ↗ we'll be able to incorporate uh lessons

51:45 ↗ learned into projects even if it is not

51:48 ↗ uh not necessarily the pilot project,

51:51 ↗ right? And so um I wouldn't necessarily

51:55 ↗ take it as the the pilot project is the

51:57 ↗ only one that will think about

51:58 ↗ sustainability. The idea that we'd be

52:00 ↗ incorporating sustainability into other

52:02 ↗ projects um and we be learning from

52:04 ↗ those as well as the pilot project where

52:07 ↗ we're we're really digging in.

52:16 ↗ So, we got a motion on the table.

52:21 ↗ Okay.

52:22 ↗ >> I think you can second it.

52:23 ↗ >> Well, but I don't I also don't want to

52:26 ↗ slow this process down.

52:28 ↗ >> Alex, I have a question. Can I still

52:30 ↗ make a motion, a different motion on

52:32 ↗ them?

52:33 ↗ >> Figuring that out right now.

52:38 ↗ I am. I take that my second. Okay.

52:42 ↗ Um, so then no second on the NY's first

52:48 ↗ motion. Is that correct?

52:50 ↗ Would anyone like to make a new motion?

52:52 ↗ >> Yes. Let me

52:57 ↗ take a minute for that. Um so I would

53:00 ↗ like to motion for the

53:04 ↗ um building sustainability building and

53:07 ↗ infrastructure policy to go ahead in

53:10 ↗ front of the council with comments from

53:12 ↗ the board specifying the areas we need

53:16 ↗ to be reworked and possibly we would

53:19 ↗ like to see it back in a month

53:22 ↗ um in front of the environmental board

53:24 ↗ to revisit.

53:27 ↗ like to second.

53:34 ↗ >> I'll second the motion.

53:37 ↗ >> All those in favor?

53:38 ↗ >> I

53:40 ↗ >> I

53:45 ↗ Keith Thomas.

53:51 ↗ >> I

53:55 ↗ opposed.

53:58 ↗ So the motion moves forward. Um we will

54:01 ↗ present staff will present the policy um

54:04 ↗ to council with the recommended changes

54:07 ↗ or to council committee the recommended

54:09 ↗ changes and also please know the descent

54:11 ↗ comments and those um anything we'd like

54:15 ↗ to

54:18 ↗ and then um

54:20 ↗ yeah there is potential then it may not

54:23 ↗ move to council if the committee doesn't

54:26 ↗ recommend that. But either way, we will

54:28 ↗ be sure to bring it back to the board in

54:30 ↗ a month, incorporating input from the

54:33 ↗ board as well as from the council

54:34 ↗ committee.

54:39 ↗ Can you make the changes that we've

54:41 ↗ discussed and then um send out an email

54:44 ↗ and we vote electronically? That's

54:46 ↗ something we used to do with IATC.

54:49 ↗ >> Yes. Um I think they there is strong um

54:53 ↗ they really like us for these items to

54:55 ↗ be voting in a public meeting versus

54:57 ↗ electronically. So if it's a response to

55:00 ↗ like a letter that's been acceptable but

55:02 ↗ on something like this

55:06 ↗ so at least this gives it the

55:07 ↗ possibility of moving forward rather

55:09 ↗ than and and then getting the changes we

55:12 ↗ want rather than blocking it now and um

55:16 ↗ and then just moving it forward. We

55:18 ↗ could call a special meeting um or there

55:21 ↗ we may be able to work through a

55:25 ↗ schedule that would work with council

55:27 ↗ but um we could call a special meeting

55:28 ↗ just to go through revisions based on

55:31 ↗ this

55:34 ↗ our suggestions and the policy and then

55:37 ↗ maybe decide after that how we'd like to

55:40 ↗ move forward if they can back to us or

55:43 ↗ we need to call session.

55:44 ↗ >> Okay, that sounds great. We'll plan to

55:46 ↗ send out a summary and we can set out

55:48 ↗ the video from the meeting and then I'll

55:50 ↗ connect with Alex and Don. Next steps.

55:58 ↗ Um the next agenda item is the update.

56:02 ↗ Um Stacy's going to walk us through

56:04 ↗ where we currently are and we're going

56:06 ↗ to do some breakout groups to discuss

56:08 ↗ the topics.

56:13 ↗ Right.

56:22 ↗ Um,

56:27 ↗ Alex. Um, all right. We have over the

56:30 ↗ last several months been pro providing a

56:32 ↗ lot of updates on where we are in the

56:34 ↗ IAP process. Several of you have um been

56:39 ↗ part of our committee meetings to

56:41 ↗ provide more specific input. Um and what

56:43 ↗ we wanted to do tonight is actually

56:45 ↗ start jumping into some of the IAP

56:48 ↗ updates and getting some initial

56:49 ↗ feedback from the board. Um before

56:54 ↗ um jumping into those questions, I will

56:56 ↗ provide just a brief update on where we

56:58 ↗ are the process.

57:01 ↗ Um the four questions we will be coming

57:03 ↗ to you about tonight is around um your

57:07 ↗ thoughts around the length of the plan

57:10 ↗ um how long of a plan it should be uh

57:12 ↗ our approach to redundant actions

57:15 ↗ whether we want to expand what we mean

57:17 ↗ by community and whether we should see

57:21 ↗ the frequency of greenhouse gas

57:23 ↗ emissions inventory within.

57:27 ↗ Um before jumping into those four

57:29 ↗ questions, um just wanted to provide the

57:32 ↗ brief update as well as let you know

57:34 ↗ about some of the other work that we're

57:36 ↗ doing on the plan. Um over this summer,

57:39 ↗ we have been reviewing all of the

57:42 ↗ feedback that we received from the

57:43 ↗ committees back in the spring and early

57:45 ↗ summer. Um as a reminder, those

57:48 ↗ committees were formed around specific

57:50 ↗ focus areas. So natural systems and

57:52 ↗ water resources, transportation, and

57:54 ↗ land use. Um, we are beginning to meet

57:59 ↗ with boards and commissions starting at

58:02 ↗ the end of this month where we'll

58:03 ↗ present the proposed changes to the

58:05 ↗ transportation actions to the

58:07 ↗ transportation advisory board. There'll

58:09 ↗ be a number of other meetings with parks

58:11 ↗ PPC equity

58:16 ↗ other board. Um, and then with that

58:19 ↗ >> TAB, yes, TAB is the one at the end of

58:21 ↗ this month. Um and then we'll be

58:23 ↗ bringing all of their input back to you

58:25 ↗ all um for additional review and input.

58:29 ↗ Um also we have been looking at other

58:33 ↗ plans to see if they have come up with

58:36 ↗ any good policy action uh policy options

58:39 ↗ that we want to include in our actions.

58:41 ↗ Redmond and Belleview are in the process

58:43 ↗ of finalizing their plans right now. So

58:46 ↗ where we might be able to bring in some

58:47 ↗ good ideas from them. Um we are scouring

58:50 ↗ those plans. Um we have also been going

58:55 ↗ through the plan looking at different

58:56 ↗ ways to reorganize. We're starting to

58:59 ↗ think about um right now we have

59:02 ↗ municipal operations spread throughout

59:04 ↗ the plan. Do we want to group them in

59:06 ↗ one area or do we want them more aligned

59:09 ↗ with the specific focus areas that they

59:12 ↗ those actions represent? but just going

59:14 ↗ through some other plan cleanup that

59:16 ↗ we'll be bringing to you. Um and then we

59:19 ↗ are

59:21 ↗ starting to have conversations around um

59:24 ↗ some target areas. Um there is no

59:27 ↗ currently no target for municipal

59:29 ↗ operations.

59:31 ↗ The community resil well-being and

59:33 ↗ resilience target we can't measure. Um

59:36 ↗ and so we'll be meeting with our

59:38 ↗ emergency manager when he's back um to

59:41 ↗ talk through a measurable target there

59:44 ↗ and then um with the park board be

59:47 ↗ starting to have some conversations

59:48 ↗ around what tree can it be target and

59:50 ↗ whether there's um interest in adjusting

59:52 ↗ that. That was conversations that

59:54 ↗ started with the committee last. So, a

59:57 ↗ lot of work happening um uh behind the

1:00:00 ↗ scenes uh as we prepare to bring

1:00:02 ↗ materials to you all and um the other

1:00:06 ↗ boards and commissions.

1:00:08 ↗ So, that is a very quick summary of

1:00:10 ↗ where we are. There's a lot more notes

1:00:12 ↗ um in the memo tonight, but before we

1:00:14 ↗ move into the questions for tonight, I

1:00:18 ↗ wanted to see if you all have any

1:00:19 ↗ questions about just where we are with

1:00:21 ↗ the plan.

1:00:27 ↗ Great. Um, so tonight we're going to

1:00:30 ↗ just dive into the four questions and

1:00:34 ↗ then I'll provide a brief summary of um,

1:00:37 ↗ those questions, our thoughts around

1:00:39 ↗ them and then we wanted to try something

1:00:42 ↗ new and have you all move into just a

1:00:44 ↗ couple of small groups. So, all the

1:00:46 ↗ couple people over here, couple people

1:00:48 ↗ here, Keith and Tommy can chat um online

1:00:53 ↗ and just wanted to try something new. Um

1:00:56 ↗ and that's a chance for you all to um

1:01:00 ↗ kind of think think through things as a

1:01:02 ↗ group, talk through your ideas, talk

1:01:04 ↗ through the staff recommendations, and

1:01:06 ↗ then we'll come back, share out from the

1:01:08 ↗ groups, and then move into a discussion.

1:01:10 ↗ So, just a different way to to organize.

1:01:14 ↗ Um so I'll go through those four

1:01:16 ↗ questions and then we'll um move to our

1:01:19 ↗ groups to talk through our thoughts. Um

1:01:22 ↗ so the first question is around plan

1:01:25 ↗ length. Um we currently have a five-year

1:01:27 ↗ plan. Um we have been talking about

1:01:30 ↗ whether there would be benefit to moving

1:01:32 ↗ to a longer plan. So some communities

1:01:35 ↗ have done that in my list of the

1:01:38 ↗ communities I talked about. Um I believe

1:01:40 ↗ Tacoma has done that. um and some other

1:01:43 ↗ neighboring jurisdictions. Um the urban

1:01:46 ↗ forest management plan is a 10-year um

1:01:49 ↗ plan. And so we see some benefits in

1:01:53 ↗ moving to a longer plan. Um as you can

1:01:56 ↗ see, it is a lot of work to update these

1:01:58 ↗ plans. It is expensive. It is a lot of

1:02:01 ↗ staff time. Um having a longer plan

1:02:04 ↗ would allow us to focus more on

1:02:05 ↗ implementation.

1:02:07 ↗ We also believe that we know the biggest

1:02:10 ↗ areas that we need to be working on

1:02:12 ↗ buildings and transportation. We don't

1:02:14 ↗ anticipate anticipate that changing over

1:02:17 ↗ the next 10 years. Um obviously there

1:02:20 ↗ are trade-offs with that. Um

1:02:22 ↗ circumstances can change a lot in 10

1:02:24 ↗ years. Um and so that could be

1:02:26 ↗ challenging if we had a plan that was

1:02:28 ↗ looking out um a long ways. That would

1:02:31 ↗ also take us many years past some of our

1:02:33 ↗ initial targets in the plan. Um we did

1:02:36 ↗ hear when we met with the snowcoming

1:02:38 ↗ tribe in early September um they

1:02:41 ↗ expressed some concerns around longer

1:02:43 ↗ plans and just the changing

1:02:45 ↗ circumstances.

1:02:46 ↗ Um if we did decide to move move to a

1:02:49 ↗ longer plan, we would ensure we were

1:02:52 ↗ developing very detailed work plans on a

1:02:54 ↗ regular basis and then also include some

1:02:59 ↗ checkpoints within the plan that maybe

1:03:01 ↗ could lead to us updating it more

1:03:03 ↗ frequently than on that 10 year period.

1:03:05 ↗ >> Are you talking about five years versus

1:03:07 ↗ 10 years or 5 years versus 20 years?

1:03:09 ↗ >> Fiveyear plan, 10ear plan or something

1:03:12 ↗ in between.

1:03:14 ↗ We had not anticipated a longer plan. I

1:03:16 ↗ think that would probably take us too

1:03:18 ↗ close to some of the further out

1:03:21 ↗ targets. I'd be a little nervous about

1:03:22 ↗ that, but we're open to that.

1:03:24 ↗ >> Asking what you're thinking.

1:03:25 ↗ >> Okay.

1:03:27 ↗ >> Um the next one is around redundant

1:03:31 ↗ actions. Um so within the climate action

1:03:36 ↗ plan, we have many actions that also

1:03:40 ↗ exist in other city plans. um most

1:03:43 ↗ commonly in the mobility action plan and

1:03:47 ↗ our new urban forest management plan.

1:03:50 ↗ They are either word for word or similar

1:03:52 ↗ concept but with different wording. um

1:03:55 ↗ that can make things very challenging if

1:03:57 ↗ we are going to report on those actions

1:04:00 ↗ or not having exactly consistent

1:04:03 ↗ language um can be complicated because

1:04:05 ↗ we don't know kind of which action wins

1:04:08 ↗ out if um looking across those two

1:04:11 ↗ plans. If one of the plans is updated,

1:04:14 ↗ it may leave the action language in the

1:04:16 ↗ other plan out of date. Um and so we

1:04:20 ↗ have been looking at possibly removing

1:04:23 ↗ redundant actions. Um that would

1:04:26 ↗ streamline reporting. It would ensure

1:04:29 ↗ there's not that consistency

1:04:30 ↗ inconsistency across the plans if action

1:04:33 ↗ language changes. Um one of the

1:04:36 ↗ challenges by doing that is the

1:04:39 ↗ potential to lose the importance of what

1:04:42 ↗ that action means for climate mitigation

1:04:44 ↗ or resilience. Um, I think there's ways

1:04:47 ↗ that we could probably mitigate that by

1:04:49 ↗ ensuring we're speaking to the absolute

1:04:53 ↗ importance of those plans and actions

1:04:56 ↗ working in tandem with the IAP. Um, but

1:04:59 ↗ then maybe David and I aren't reporting

1:05:01 ↗ out on them through the IAP.

1:05:04 ↗ Um, so that's kind of our second

1:05:06 ↗ question to the group is what do we do

1:05:09 ↗ with these actions that are redundant

1:05:11 ↗ with other things? Yeah, I'm all about

1:05:14 ↗ efficiencies, but um I just had a

1:05:17 ↗ question which is

1:05:19 ↗ do we have the urban forest plan

1:05:22 ↗ happening because of the IAP goal?

1:05:26 ↗ >> I I think the mobility master plan was

1:05:29 ↗ already

1:05:31 ↗ started before the IAP,

1:05:33 ↗ >> but are we getting some of these other

1:05:38 ↗ plans because

1:05:40 ↗ of IAP?

1:05:42 ↗ Yeah, that's just a question.

1:05:43 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:05:47 ↗ >> Um, great. And then our third area is

1:05:51 ↗ expanding what we mean by community and

1:05:54 ↗ the community and resil community

1:05:56 ↗ resilience and well-being focus area.

1:06:00 ↗ Um, this focus area uh very much is

1:06:04 ↗ about people being prepared for climate

1:06:07 ↗ change. Um we were having conversations

1:06:11 ↗ with our committees and with the

1:06:13 ↗ snowcoming tribe around several of the

1:06:16 ↗ actions that are proposed for the IAP

1:06:18 ↗ update. Um for instance uh dark skies

1:06:22 ↗ ordinance and ones that improve the

1:06:25 ↗ resilience and well-being of our

1:06:26 ↗ wildlife. Um the actions around salmon

1:06:29 ↗ recovery and they didn't really fit in

1:06:33 ↗ the area in the natural systems area.

1:06:35 ↗ they don't align with the goal for that

1:06:37 ↗ focus area. We thought that those types

1:06:42 ↗ of actions may actually fit better

1:06:44 ↗ within a community resilience and

1:06:47 ↗ well-being focus area if we expand what

1:06:49 ↗ we mean by community. We also feel like

1:06:52 ↗ that aligns with a lot of the input from

1:06:55 ↗ the environmental board that was

1:06:57 ↗ incorporated into the comprehensive

1:06:59 ↗ plan. Um, and it would allow for this

1:07:02 ↗ section of the IAP to really bring in

1:07:06 ↗ wildlife and the environment and what

1:07:08 ↗ that means for in it their own

1:07:10 ↗ resilience but also in supporting our

1:07:13 ↗ our broader community's resilience.

1:07:16 ↗ Um

1:07:18 ↗ this could make the one challenge with

1:07:20 ↗ this is it could make the focus area um

1:07:24 ↗ we may end up with a lot of actions in

1:07:25 ↗ there and kind of lose some of the

1:07:27 ↗ intent around um human uh resilience

1:07:30 ↗ especially our disadvantaged uh

1:07:32 ↗ communities. Um it may just kind of

1:07:36 ↗ complicate the meaning of this focus

1:07:38 ↗ area. Um so just some things to consider

1:07:41 ↗ if we look at expanding that

1:07:45 ↗ Um, and then the last one is around the

1:07:47 ↗ frequency of our greenhouse gas

1:07:49 ↗ emissions inventory. Um, I would say if

1:07:52 ↗ tonight we're running short on time,

1:07:54 ↗ this is probably the the less of a

1:07:57 ↗ priority because this one we can

1:07:58 ↗ continue to talk about over the coming

1:08:01 ↗ months. Um, we are currently doing our

1:08:03 ↗ inventories every two years. Um, it is

1:08:07 ↗ David can speak to the time intensity of

1:08:10 ↗ it. um it they are expensive to do. We

1:08:14 ↗ work with a consultant um spend a lot of

1:08:16 ↗ stack time gathering data as well. Um

1:08:19 ↗ we've been trying to be as efficient as

1:08:21 ↗ possible either working through our

1:08:23 ↗ regional collaborations at K4C or with

1:08:27 ↗ our eite collaboration um to uh work

1:08:30 ↗ together on inventories and with this

1:08:33 ↗ the same consultant save on costs and

1:08:35 ↗ build efficiencies.

1:08:37 ↗ Um we are committed to doing regular

1:08:40 ↗ inventories. It is our what um helps us

1:08:43 ↗ check in on how we're making progress

1:08:46 ↗ both at the community level as well as

1:08:48 ↗ our city operations. But we're

1:08:50 ↗ interested in having the conversation of

1:08:52 ↗ allowing for some flexibility of the

1:08:54 ↗ regulator regulatory

1:08:57 ↗ of the um inventories and whether

1:09:01 ↗ um we can leave the uh IAP a little bit

1:09:06 ↗ more vague and allow the staff to choose

1:09:09 ↗ the most efficient timing for those

1:09:11 ↗ inventories so that we can partner with

1:09:13 ↗ King County or the east side cities um

1:09:16 ↗ or run our own inventory um in the most

1:09:19 ↗ acostic effective way. Um, if we do want

1:09:22 ↗ to leave the language a little bit more

1:09:24 ↗ vague, um, we thought we could say kind

1:09:27 ↗ of a maximum time allowance between the

1:09:30 ↗ inventories like four years or five

1:09:32 ↗ years, um, if there was concern about

1:09:34 ↗ staff just dropping the ball and not

1:09:37 ↗ doing it.

1:09:41 ↗ So, those are the four questions. um

1:09:46 ↗ they are detailed out quite a bit more

1:09:48 ↗ in the memo if folks have access to that

1:09:51 ↗ during um our breakout groups. Uh but

1:09:55 ↗ with that we were hoping just to move

1:09:57 ↗ into maybe three three and then Tommy

1:10:01 ↗ and Keith we could have you all talk um

1:10:05 ↗ online and we would mute the room and um

1:10:09 ↗ reduce your volume and then um we would

1:10:13 ↗ spend about maybe 15 20 minutes come

1:10:16 ↗ back a little bit after 8 and just have

1:10:19 ↗ folks share out from the group and then

1:10:22 ↗ move into a discussion maybe question by

1:10:24 ↗ question, but just as a way to help us

1:10:26 ↗ organize our thoughts

1:10:30 ↗ up for for trying this. All right.

1:10:33 ↗ >> Yeah. Great. And David and I can pull it

1:10:35 ↗ around with you, too. And then Keith and

1:10:37 ↗ Tommy, if you guys have questions, just

1:10:39 ↗ send the chat. Um, we'll keep an eye on

1:10:42 ↗ the chat.

1:10:44 ↗ I will keep this screen up so folks have

1:10:47 ↗ those.

1:10:49 ↗ Um, I will actually stop sharing this

1:10:52 ↗ for a moment. I'm gonna pause the

1:10:54 ↗ recording. We will come back and um

1:11:03 ↗ >> All right. Um we are starting the report

1:11:07 ↗ recording again. We're coming back from

1:11:09 ↗ our breakout groups and we'll do a quick

1:11:13 ↗ record out. Um if each group can just

1:11:16 ↗ summarize their thoughts on the four

1:11:18 ↗ questions and then we'll just move to

1:11:20 ↗ open discussion. We don't need any

1:11:22 ↗ decisions tonight. We're really just

1:11:24 ↗ looking for input and we'll flag other

1:11:26 ↗ items that we need to bring back from

1:11:29 ↗ this discussion to the group. Um, so

1:11:32 ↗ maybe Keith, Tommy, can we start with

1:11:35 ↗ you all online? Hope that works okay for

1:11:38 ↗ you.

1:11:40 ↗ >> Yeah, Tommy, do you mind if I share out

1:11:43 ↗ since I like I said, I was taking a few

1:11:45 ↗ notes.

1:11:45 ↗ >> Yeah, absolutely.

1:11:47 ↗ >> Cool. Um yeah, we uh we started with one

1:11:52 ↗ uh I think we talked about it a little

1:11:54 ↗ bit and you shared some ideas and kind

1:11:56 ↗ of um came up with uh I don't know if

1:11:59 ↗ it's been brought up you know you know

1:12:02 ↗ we we thought about is it possible to

1:12:04 ↗ kind of split the difference between

1:12:05 ↗ five and 10 years and we were wondering

1:12:07 ↗ if there was some kind of trigger uh

1:12:09 ↗ that you could kind of um you know have

1:12:12 ↗ a longer uh uh you know um timeline for

1:12:17 ↗ for actually updating, but but maybe

1:12:19 ↗ something triggers a shorter uh you know

1:12:22 ↗ timeline and and we were wondering if

1:12:24 ↗ there's any possibility of a regular

1:12:26 ↗ review of the the climate plan um that

1:12:31 ↗ you know uh maybe the environmental

1:12:34 ↗ board or or someone like us weighs in

1:12:36 ↗ and says, "Oh, it actually things have

1:12:38 ↗ changed a lot and we ought to do the

1:12:40 ↗ update sooner." Um, and that seems like

1:12:42 ↗ it'd be a lot less expensive than a

1:12:44 ↗ regular refresh, uh, if we just had it

1:12:47 ↗ on our agenda to do so every couple of

1:12:48 ↗ years or something. But, um, wanted to

1:12:51 ↗ throw that out there. And then, uh,

1:12:55 ↗ number two, representing redundant

1:12:57 ↗ actions.

1:12:59 ↗ um that that sounded pretty good to both

1:13:01 ↗ of us as long as there's um uh you know

1:13:04 ↗ strong cross references that that we'll

1:13:06 ↗ be sure to uh you know catch and and you

1:13:10 ↗ know make sure we're um we're discussing

1:13:12 ↗ as as it's pertinent. Um it'd be nice to

1:13:15 ↗ know uh a few specific examples of those

1:13:18 ↗ redundancies just to better understand

1:13:21 ↗ um you know what's at stake by removing

1:13:23 ↗ them. But um yeah, we couldn't couldn't

1:13:26 ↗ really think of any reason why we'd be

1:13:27 ↗ too concerned as long as there was

1:13:29 ↗ something in there that made us

1:13:31 ↗ definitely uh you know understand where

1:13:33 ↗ to look and and what to consider if uh

1:13:36 ↗ if it is removed and uh we still need to

1:13:38 ↗ reference that. And then um I think we

1:13:42 ↗ we didn't get quite get to four, but we

1:13:43 ↗ talked about three for a while. I think

1:13:45 ↗ we were both just kind of sharing a lot

1:13:48 ↗ of ideas and kind of split on just

1:13:50 ↗ thinking about um yeah, the definition

1:13:53 ↗ of uh of of community and expanding that

1:13:56 ↗ into uh uh environmental um you know

1:14:01 ↗ neighbors I guess and uh kind of the

1:14:03 ↗ philosophy behind that. I was think I

1:14:05 ↗ was starting to get into a little bit.

1:14:06 ↗ But then, you know, taking a kind of

1:14:08 ↗ took a step back and thought maybe maybe

1:14:10 ↗ this is just more of a categorical uh

1:14:13 ↗ concern right now. We're we're we're

1:14:15 ↗ taking things that don't quite fit under

1:14:17 ↗ natural systems right now and just

1:14:19 ↗ bringing them under um community uh

1:14:22 ↗ resilience. Um, and so I just wanted I

1:14:25 ↗ guess we just wanted to make sure we

1:14:27 ↗ understood correctly that this is uh

1:14:29 ↗ just taking items like that dark skies

1:14:31 ↗ initiative and and items related to

1:14:33 ↗ salmon resilience and um that don't fit

1:14:36 ↗ so well under natural systems, putting

1:14:38 ↗ those under community resilience and and

1:14:41 ↗ that's kind of the extent of the

1:14:43 ↗ expansion of of defining community. Um

1:14:47 ↗ >> so yeah, just wanted to make sure we

1:14:49 ↗ were talking about that correctly. Um

1:14:52 ↗ but yeah, I think that's about as far as

1:14:54 ↗ we got. Didn't really delve into four.

1:14:57 ↗ >> Great. Fantastic. Thank you. Um which

1:15:02 ↗ group Alex want to have your go?

1:15:08 ↗ >> Um so preferred length of the plan. We

1:15:11 ↗ thought similarly um that

1:15:14 ↗ we would only go to a longer plan if

1:15:16 ↗ there was a way to trigger something in

1:15:19 ↗ order to review it or to revise it. So

1:15:22 ↗ with climate action climate things

1:15:25 ↗ moving at such a rapid pace, there could

1:15:27 ↗ be some stuff that needs to be released

1:15:29 ↗ more regularly than a 10year basis.

1:15:32 ↗ Um, as far as redundant actions go, uh,

1:15:36 ↗ we thought like they needed to be called

1:15:38 ↗ out in some way so that they're not

1:15:40 ↗ lost. um whether or not that's putting

1:15:42 ↗ them into something like an appendix and

1:15:45 ↗ referencing them or highlighting them

1:15:48 ↗ within the section or using very

1:15:50 ↗ specific language um to call them out,

1:15:53 ↗ but making sure the IAP it was known

1:15:55 ↗ that that was the minimum and other

1:15:58 ↗ plans needed to either meet that or go

1:15:59 ↗ above if you want. Okay.

1:16:03 ↗ >> Um as far as expanding community to

1:16:05 ↗ encompass wildlife, we kind of briefly

1:16:09 ↗ touched on

1:16:11 ↗ just the rabbit hole that that could

1:16:12 ↗ kind of open up potentially

1:16:15 ↗ um and that actually pro you had really

1:16:17 ↗ good language around it.

1:16:19 ↗ >> So, so yeah means we we all agreed you

1:16:22 ↗ know expanding the definition of

1:16:24 ↗ community but I do see the cons of you

1:16:26 ↗ know like once you expand the definition

1:16:28 ↗ and you can have a long list of actions

1:16:32 ↗ which might fall into it and really lose

1:16:34 ↗ the focus of the work. Um, so I was

1:16:37 ↗ wondering if you can use some specific

1:16:39 ↗ language something like this section

1:16:42 ↗ outlines focus areas and proposed

1:16:44 ↗ abstence that closely align with and are

1:16:47 ↗ priority um are closely aligned with the

1:16:50 ↗ broader definition of community and are

1:16:52 ↗ a priority. So basically, you know, you

1:16:56 ↗ you expand the definition, but also you

1:16:58 ↗ still limit it only to the specific

1:17:01 ↗ actions or areas you want as opposed to

1:17:05 ↗ just opening the door to anything.

1:17:09 ↗ >> And then as far as specifying the

1:17:11 ↗ frequency of greenhouse gas emission

1:17:13 ↗ inventories,

1:17:14 ↗ um we I think thought along the lines of

1:17:17 ↗ putting the maximum on there that staff

1:17:20 ↗ should be able to be flexible with it.

1:17:23 ↗ the surrounding areas to take advantage

1:17:25 ↗ of that, but that it should go beyond a

1:17:28 ↗ certain amount of time. But there also

1:17:29 ↗ was questions as far as like what is

1:17:32 ↗ with cities but um David mentioned that

1:17:36 ↗ some CI were doing the annual ones um

1:17:40 ↗ which is probably too excessive for ISA

1:17:42 ↗ but what are we doing with the other

1:17:44 ↗ ones and is there potential just to get

1:17:45 ↗ on a schedule with the other east side

1:17:47 ↗ cities maybe um to make it more regular

1:17:51 ↗ and leave it like that but

1:17:54 ↗ >> I can just add one thing. So yeah, I

1:17:57 ↗ mean the my first thought was it should

1:18:00 ↗ be annual because all industries,

1:18:03 ↗ businesses, everybody does it annually

1:18:05 ↗ but city is a different thing. So you

1:18:07 ↗ know I would like to be still reasonable

1:18:10 ↗ to the extent where um see the changes

1:18:13 ↗ on a regular basis on an extended

1:18:16 ↗ timeline and I'm not entirely sure what

1:18:18 ↗ that is for cities. So that's why I was

1:18:21 ↗ asking David that question like how much

1:18:24 ↗ difference do you see every two years

1:18:26 ↗ but again there will be a trigger um EV

1:18:29 ↗ surges regulation changes these things

1:18:32 ↗ will matter for the change inventories

1:18:34 ↗ also so there should be some language on

1:18:36 ↗ the trigger as well as the maximum gap

1:18:39 ↗ what you have to see the change

1:18:41 ↗ inventory

1:18:43 ↗ >> I do want to clarify I was wrong Seattle

1:18:45 ↗ does it every two years does it every

1:18:47 ↗ year

1:18:48 ↗ >> currently

1:18:50 ↗ Uh I just you know something I thought

1:18:52 ↗ of that we didn't talk about truth but

1:18:54 ↗ anyway we should be working towards

1:18:57 ↗ having a list of things which are easy

1:19:00 ↗ to measure because somebody measures it

1:19:03 ↗ already like power use. Okay. Well, all

1:19:06 ↗ right. That's that's already so let's

1:19:09 ↗ let's get that uh pipeline of things

1:19:12 ↗ that are easily measured um already. And

1:19:16 ↗ so we have a at least a benchmark that

1:19:19 ↗ is can be reported on a yearly basis.

1:19:23 ↗ It's not the whole story, but it's part

1:19:24 ↗ of the story and it can at least give us

1:19:27 ↗ a clue as to what direction we're going

1:19:30 ↗ in some some segments of of the tally.

1:19:35 ↗ Right.

1:19:38 ↗ And the last group.

1:19:41 ↗ >> All right. So for number one, we all

1:19:43 ↗ agree 10 years. 9 or 10 years is great.

1:19:46 ↗ If we did nine years, it put a set 2035,

1:19:48 ↗ which might be interesting. We also

1:19:50 ↗ agreed that 10 years is good because we

1:19:53 ↗ like um efficiencies. We want um the

1:19:57 ↗ city to be able to put all of their

1:19:59 ↗ money and all of their time and focus

1:20:02 ↗ into doing um measurable things, you

1:20:06 ↗ know, actually um reaching our goals to

1:20:09 ↗ reduce um greenhouse gases. And then um

1:20:13 ↗ also John thought that the Jonathan

1:20:17 ↗ thought he thought that the data was

1:20:19 ↗ just there was just too much data to he

1:20:23 ↗ said something about the data.

1:20:26 ↗ I didn't think it would change

1:20:28 ↗ significantly,

1:20:28 ↗ >> right?

1:20:29 ↗ >> Yeah, it we need more time, but um we

1:20:33 ↗ would like to be written in um that

1:20:35 ↗ there's a possibility of an amendment if

1:20:39 ↗ um if something changes, you know, if we

1:20:41 ↗ see there's a big change, then we can

1:20:44 ↗ just go in and make an amendment

1:20:47 ↗ or just, you know, have a check in every

1:20:50 ↗ couple years

1:20:52 ↗ >> and then a major revision. Yeah, major

1:20:54 ↗ revision every 10 years. Yeah, maybe a

1:20:56 ↗ 10 year plan. And then number two, um

1:21:01 ↗ so how should we address redundant

1:21:05 ↗ actions?

1:21:06 ↗ um collaborate on language is what we

1:21:10 ↗ said first and then we also thought um

1:21:14 ↗ uh have like where you see there's going

1:21:18 ↗ to be there could be redundancies

1:21:21 ↗ um have the IAP give um higher level

1:21:26 ↗ language as the goal of what they want

1:21:28 ↗ and then in in the plan assign

1:21:33 ↗ the um the implementation

1:21:37 ↗ to whatever agency

1:21:40 ↗ would do it best. Um, so there's not a

1:21:44 ↗ lot of overlap.

1:21:46 ↗ And it by the way, um, Ann Fletcher is

1:21:48 ↗ going to love this.

1:21:53 ↗ And, uh, number three, should we expand

1:21:56 ↗ community to encompass wildlife? Yes, we

1:21:59 ↗ think so. Yes.

1:22:01 ↗ And number four, um should we specify

1:22:04 ↗ the frequency of greenhouse gas emission

1:22:06 ↗ inventories? Um

1:22:09 ↗ yeah, it should be longer from our

1:22:11 ↗ perspective and um

1:22:15 ↗ I think that's where the data came in.

1:22:17 ↗ Sorry, I got those mixed up. Um,

1:22:20 ↗ yeah, maybe every

1:22:23 ↗ every

1:22:26 ↗ it could be every five years or 10

1:22:29 ↗ years, but it could also um four years,

1:22:33 ↗ something longer than two years for sure

1:22:35 ↗ to save money and time. And then um

1:22:38 ↗ there could be the potentiality of um

1:22:42 ↗ working with the other King County

1:22:44 ↗ cities and um working out a plan where

1:22:47 ↗ it's more staggered. Um especially the

1:22:51 ↗ ones where we're all kind of doing the

1:22:52 ↗ same thing.

1:22:54 ↗ um just see so we can so we've got an

1:22:57 ↗ idea of what's working and what's not

1:22:59 ↗ working because we're working with the

1:23:01 ↗ other cities to see um how their

1:23:05 ↗ greenhouse gases are going down or going

1:23:06 ↗ up.

1:23:08 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think you all maybe the

1:23:10 ↗ other group talked about too but

1:23:12 ↗ discussed the idea of triggers for

1:23:14 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions inventory. So

1:23:15 ↗ if there was a major development or I

1:23:17 ↗ think you mentioned a forest fire 50% of

1:23:21 ↗ the central isqua plan was implemented

1:23:24 ↗ that that might trigger a greenhouse gas

1:23:26 ↗ inventory

1:23:28 ↗ sound like you all talked about

1:23:30 ↗ >> yeah or maybe something happens where we

1:23:33 ↗ reduce emissions

1:23:34 ↗ >> yes or some new state or federal

1:23:38 ↗ policies come into play or something. So

1:23:40 ↗ yeah.

1:23:42 ↗ >> Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Could be that. Um yeah.

1:23:45 ↗ So, we're open to

1:23:48 ↗ uh the amount of years, you know, the

1:23:50 ↗ schedule, but um definitely want you to

1:23:56 ↗ your time and is it money to go towards

1:24:00 ↗ um reducing greenhouse gases

1:24:04 ↗ and working with other King County

1:24:07 ↗ cities, which you already do.

1:24:12 ↗ >> Um fantastic. that those breakout groups

1:24:16 ↗ work better than I would have thought.

1:24:18 ↗ So that was really really helpful

1:24:19 ↗ feedback. We are getting short on time

1:24:22 ↗ so we could do a really quick

1:24:24 ↗ discussion. I can just kind of summarize

1:24:26 ↗ what I heard and that will obviously be

1:24:28 ↗ coming back to you many time heard was

1:24:31 ↗ similar

1:24:35 ↗ escape on to the next agenda item.

1:24:39 ↗ >> I just had one question. What is we

1:24:41 ↗ report annually still right? That's not

1:24:44 ↗ changing.

1:24:44 ↗ >> Correct.

1:24:45 ↗ >> Yep. Yeah. And then I think part of what

1:24:48 ↗ we'll build in is that more detailed

1:24:50 ↗ reporting along with the budget cycle

1:24:52 ↗ because when the original IAP was passed

1:24:55 ↗ passed, we were in the bianual budget.

1:24:57 ↗ Um so we'll be building

1:25:00 ↗ but yeah, I think as a quick summary, we

1:25:02 ↗ heard there's potential comfort going to

1:25:05 ↗ a longer plan as long as we have some

1:25:08 ↗ really good check-ins and triggers on a

1:25:11 ↗ shorter timeline.

1:25:13 ↗ um generally speaking um comfort in that

1:25:16 ↗ redundant actions a little bit of um I

1:25:19 ↗ think some folks were comfortable maybe

1:25:21 ↗ removing those as long as there's strong

1:25:23 ↗ reference I think some of the other

1:25:25 ↗ groups wanted to still see them embedded

1:25:27 ↗ but better coordination so I think

1:25:29 ↗ that's something we can continue to talk

1:25:30 ↗ about one thing I mentioned to the group

1:25:32 ↗ is we can even look at those as a board

1:25:36 ↗ action by action and say which really

1:25:38 ↗ don't need to be in here which do we

1:25:40 ↗ need that coordination with um so there

1:25:42 ↗ may be a balanced approach there.

1:25:46 ↗ Folks seemed in general comfortable

1:25:48 ↗ expanding the definition of what we mean

1:25:50 ↗ by community um but being very specific

1:25:53 ↗ in the definition of that focus area to

1:25:56 ↗ ensure we aren't just opening it up for

1:25:59 ↗ kinds of actions. And then there seemed

1:26:01 ↗ to be strong support for allowing

1:26:03 ↗ flexibility for the frequency of

1:26:06 ↗ emissions inventories as long as we have

1:26:08 ↗ some triggers, strong coordination um

1:26:11 ↗ and that we have kind of a maximum time

1:26:14 ↗ between them.

1:26:16 ↗ Great. Fantastic. Thank you. Um folks

1:26:21 ↗ have energy to move last nine minutes

1:26:23 ↗ into our last topic. It will be quick.

1:26:26 ↗ Okay. Uh,

1:26:29 ↗ let's see if I can bring it up because

1:26:31 ↗ my

1:26:33 ↗ computer is still sharing that. Share.

1:26:38 ↗ Okay. I don't know where that's

1:27:01 ↗ okay. Um I'm not sure

1:27:08 ↗ So that is not pulled up on my screen.

1:27:11 ↗ So I am

1:27:15 ↗ see David can

1:27:18 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:27:19 ↗ >> If you in the Let me see. Actually

1:27:24 ↗ one second.

1:27:27 ↗ >> Um so I will just talk while we're

1:27:30 ↗ trying to pull this up. Um

1:27:35 ↗ So, I don't know how to This is There's

1:27:38 ↗ something weird going on. Um,

1:27:43 ↗ >> you have it.

1:27:45 ↗ >> The

1:27:48 ↗ Do we have it? Do we have it?

1:27:49 ↗ >> You have it. So, I'll just start

1:27:51 ↗ talking.

1:27:53 ↗ >> You got eight minutes. Seven minutes.

1:27:55 ↗ Okay. So, what we want to talk tonight

1:27:57 ↗ about is the annual report selfanalysis.

1:28:00 ↗ Um I do not have the memo in front of me

1:28:03 ↗ but as a reminder

1:28:05 ↗ >> this

1:28:06 ↗ >> um

1:28:08 ↗ that's just the questions. Yeah, as a

1:28:10 ↗ reminder we are required to report every

1:28:12 ↗ year to council both a summary of the

1:28:15 ↗ work that we've been doing and then we

1:28:17 ↗ are also required to do a self analysis

1:28:19 ↗ kind of a um exam of how well we think

1:28:22 ↗ we've been doing. Um so we have followed

1:28:26 ↗ the same basic structure since um 2022

1:28:30 ↗ both for the report as well as for that

1:28:33 ↗ self analysis. We've made some updates

1:28:35 ↗ over the years. Um so we the board has

1:28:39 ↗ asked us to bring that back uh in

1:28:41 ↗ October in terms of the outline that we

1:28:44 ↗ want to present to council as well as

1:28:47 ↗ the questions for the analysis so that

1:28:49 ↗ you all can review the draft results in

1:28:52 ↗ November and then finalize in December.

1:28:55 ↗ Um so that is what was included in your

1:28:56 ↗ packet tonight. Um we are recommending

1:29:00 ↗ the same outline structure for the

1:29:02 ↗ report. Uh there were two questions we

1:29:05 ↗ wanted to ask the board. Um one was

1:29:09 ↗ around last year the board asked to

1:29:13 ↗ present some of the concerns and

1:29:16 ↗ recommendations going forward around

1:29:19 ↗ board engagement I think particularly in

1:29:21 ↗ the urban forest management plan. Um and

1:29:25 ↗ then there was also interest in sharing

1:29:28 ↗ with council at the end of the year what

1:29:30 ↗ our proposed

1:29:32 ↗ um priority uh work was for 2026. I will

1:29:37 ↗ say the one caveat around that is we

1:29:39 ↗ will have a new mayor. Um and so the new

1:29:42 ↗ mayor will probably be looking at the

1:29:43 ↗ board's proposed work plan and weighing

1:29:45 ↗ into that finalized but the board can

1:29:48 ↗ absolutely express here is what we would

1:29:50 ↗ like to be working on.

1:29:54 ↗ Um,

1:29:55 ↗ so those were

1:29:58 ↗ uh I think it was mostly a question for

1:30:00 ↗ the report on whether we want to

1:30:02 ↗ incorporate those same two sections that

1:30:05 ↗ we included at the end of last year's

1:30:07 ↗ report. Um, and this is something you

1:30:10 ↗ all can provide feedback on later. And

1:30:13 ↗ then the other uh real priority was for

1:30:15 ↗ our self analysis if there's any

1:30:17 ↗ proposed revisions to the questions um

1:30:21 ↗ or additional questions we'd like to ask

1:30:24 ↗ this year. Otherwise, we'll stay with

1:30:26 ↗ the same survey we did last year.

1:30:31 ↗ >> So, we're going to all fill out that

1:30:33 ↗ survey.

1:30:33 ↗ >> We will all do a survey again.

1:30:35 ↗ >> Might we do that? We will actually send

1:30:36 ↗ that out to you probably next week.

1:30:38 ↗ Okay? Because we would like to get the

1:30:40 ↗ results back in time to include them in

1:30:43 ↗ our next packet. So it'll be about a two

1:30:46 ↗ week turnaround to have you all

1:30:47 ↗ complete. That should take 10 15

1:30:50 ↗ minutes.

1:30:51 ↗ >> Y

1:30:54 ↗ folks have we can start maybe with the

1:30:56 ↗ self analysis first. Did folks um have

1:30:59 ↗ any requested changes to the survey

1:31:02 ↗ questions? anything.

1:31:05 ↗ If there is anything you'd like to add,

1:31:08 ↗ please feel free to send that to David

1:31:10 ↗ and I over the next few days. We can run

1:31:13 ↗ those by Don and Alex.

1:31:17 ↗ >> And then for the report structure, um

1:31:22 ↗ just as a comment,

1:31:23 ↗ >> yes,

1:31:24 ↗ >> on those things.

1:31:24 ↗ >> Yeah, I'm sure you're talking about

1:31:26 ↗ 2026.

1:31:27 ↗ You got a couple of dates that you can

1:31:29 ↗ look at.

1:31:30 ↗ >> Okay. in your questionnaire to us.

1:31:33 ↗ >> Oh yes, we just updated. I think we

1:31:35 ↗ included last year's

1:31:41 ↗ >> 26. Okay.

1:31:42 ↗ >> Yeah, I think we sent you last year.

1:31:44 ↗ >> Yes, we will double check that.

1:31:46 ↗ >> Um yeah, and then for the report

1:31:48 ↗ structure, uh if there are any

1:31:50 ↗ recommended changes for that, please let

1:31:53 ↗ us know. It does really follow uh what's

1:31:56 ↗ in our rules of responsibilities in the

1:31:58 ↗ city code. Um, but there were those two

1:32:00 ↗ final sections that were of a board's

1:32:03 ↗ the board's message to council. Um, we

1:32:06 ↗ can also discuss that at our November

1:32:08 ↗ meeting if we language there and what we

1:32:11 ↗ want to say. It's kind of a statement to

1:32:14 ↗ council.

1:32:16 ↗ But if folks did have a chance to look

1:32:18 ↗ at the board outline, any proposed

1:32:20 ↗ changes

1:32:22 ↗ that

1:32:27 ↗ Great. Well, in terms of next steps

1:32:28 ↗ there, you will see a selfanalysis come

1:32:32 ↗ out from us probably next week. We have

1:32:35 ↗ to work with our communications team on

1:32:37 ↗ that. So, maybe a little bit after that.

1:32:39 ↗ And then we'll be looking for you to

1:32:41 ↗ complete that um by early November so we

1:32:44 ↗ can run the report and present it to you

1:32:47 ↗ all at the next meeting. And then um for

1:32:51 ↗ the board report, we will prepare a

1:32:53 ↗ draft for you all to review and provide

1:32:55 ↗ feedback on in November. enough point to

1:32:58 ↗ approve that at our December meeting.

1:33:09 ↗ >> Yep. Other real quick updates. Um we

1:33:12 ↗ don't have either of our youth members

1:33:14 ↗ here for updates. Um Julie provided a

1:33:17 ↗ update on the PAS work that's underway

1:33:20 ↗ at the city. Um you may have noticed

1:33:23 ↗ some work happening at IBE and Doddfield

1:33:25 ↗ this summer where they were taking some

1:33:27 ↗ samples. Um they'll be taking uh this is

1:33:30 ↗ department of ecology. They'll be taking

1:33:31 ↗ samples at Memorial Field this fall. Um

1:33:35 ↗ likely won't have any results of that

1:33:37 ↗ work until late spring sometime next

1:33:40 ↗ year. Um Julie is very open to coming

1:33:42 ↗ back and talking with the board um once

1:33:45 ↗ there's information to present. Um there

1:33:47 ↗ the college will be holding some more

1:33:50 ↗ community meetings um later this fall.

1:33:53 ↗ We'll be share those out there.

1:33:57 ↗ Um other real quick updates is Monday

1:34:01 ↗ city council did approve

1:34:04 ↗ somewhat reluctantly the tree code. Um

1:34:07 ↗ they have requested it to come back um

1:34:11 ↗ next year with additional updates. We

1:34:13 ↗ talked about this at the last meeting.

1:34:15 ↗ Um, I anticipate Minnie and her team

1:34:17 ↗ will be working further with this board

1:34:20 ↗ on proper additions to the tree code.

1:34:24 ↗ Um, next week, uh, we will be planning

1:34:27 ↗ to go to council committee to share the

1:34:29 ↗ board's input on the sustainable

1:34:31 ↗ building infrastructure policy. And as

1:34:33 ↗ we talked tonight, we'll share the

1:34:35 ↗ results of that meeting and next steps.

1:34:37 ↗ Um, on Wednesday next week, I hope

1:34:41 ↗ everyone can attend. We are doing a town

1:34:43 ↗ hall with the mayor on climate action.

1:34:46 ↗ We will also have the executive director

1:34:48 ↗ of King County Library Systems

1:34:50 ↗ presenting on their climate action plan

1:34:52 ↗ and the work they're doing. Um, you

1:34:54 ↗ should all have a hold on your calendar

1:34:56 ↗ for that. If can I get a quick show of

1:34:59 ↗ hands of who is planning to attend?

1:35:03 ↗ We will probably send it out as a

1:35:05 ↗ special meeting. Yes.

1:35:09 ↗ So, it looks like at least um or we may

1:35:11 ↗ send it out as a special meeting just in

1:35:13 ↗ case.

1:35:14 ↗ >> I could be in two places.

1:35:15 ↗ >> I know. Tommy can say

1:35:19 ↗ um and then last two items is we have

1:35:23 ↗ our tree giveaway happening. If you're

1:35:25 ↗ an Isiqua resident, you can get free

1:35:27 ↗ trees. I don't remember if we've sent

1:35:29 ↗ out that link before, but I'll make sure

1:35:32 ↗ you all have

1:35:32 ↗ >> share it out. Even if you don't live in

1:35:35 ↗ Isiqua, but if you know somebody who

1:35:37 ↗ does, uh, share out the tree giveaway.

1:35:39 ↗ We're about almost twothirds of the way

1:35:42 ↗ through. So, please send that out. Um,

1:35:46 ↗ and then, um, as discussed earlier, we

1:35:49 ↗ will be having our first meeting with

1:35:51 ↗ one of the other boards and commissions

1:35:53 ↗ to vet climate action plan actions at

1:35:56 ↗ the end of this month. that will be the

1:35:57 ↗ transportation advisory board for so

1:36:00 ↗ we'll be bringing the results of that

1:36:01 ↗ discussion to you um later this fall or

1:36:05 ↗ early 26 we dig into action

1:36:10 ↗ >> just one question did you send the

1:36:12 ↗ invite for next week's meeting I don't

1:36:15 ↗ have it on my calendar

1:36:16 ↗ >> yeah I'll send that back out yeah

1:36:18 ↗ >> can you yes absolutely I will send that

1:36:21 ↗ tomorrow with our new we have a new

1:36:24 ↗ flyer sitting out there and the tree

1:36:27 ↗ giveaway.

1:36:30 ↗ >> What do you have any um toyas?

1:36:35 ↗ >> Um I don't think so, but let me just

1:36:39 ↗ pull up our list again. I get it right.

1:36:43 ↗ Um, with that we will adjourn.

1:36:45 ↗ >> Thank you guys.

1:36:46 ↗ >> Thank you everyone.

1:36:48 ↗ >> Thanks you keep running.

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF