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

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (9)

Alix Lee-Tigner

Nancy Davidson

Prajakta Ghatpande

Tom Anderson

Keith Gonzales

Tommy DuBeau

Anne Newcomb

Jonathan Smith

Dixie Bair, Alternate – absent

Staff (2)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator

Excused

Don McQuilliams

Mina (Alexandra) Jun*

Kiran Pan*

Recommendations & actions (6)

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

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
Specific questions for the Council Committee included: - Should the policy specify a certification level required for any project that uses Envision? - Should the policy require the use of the Envision toolkit for all…
Additionally the motion requested that staff update the Environmental Board in November on the outcome of the Committee discussion.
Board member ANDERSON seconded the motion.
b) Climate Action Plan Update - Initial Input on Overarching Items (D) Presented by: Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager VYNNE MCKINSTRY presented staff progress on recommended updates to the ICAP.
VYNNE MCKINSTRY also noted that updates to the Tree Code were adopted by Council but would likely come back to the Environmental Board in 2026 for additional updates.