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

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 8, 2025

packet pp.3–5

▶ Watch from 1:16 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-08-25 Environmental Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. October 8, 2025 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Urban Forest Program Update

Information · 15 min · Dan Hintz, Urban Forest Supervisor · packet pp.7–19

Topics: Trees

▶ Watch from 26:00 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Urban Forestry Program Updates NOVEMBER 12, 2025 | ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Dan Hintz, Urban Forest Supervisor

Considerations for ICAP Update

Discussion · 60 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager/Board Liaison · packet pp.21–34

Topics: Climate

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

▶ Watch from 40:13 Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

below. The full

Annual Report and Self Analysis Draft

25 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager/Board Liaison David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.35–57

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

▶ Watch from 1:37:04 Open packet at p.35 ↗

Staff report:

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

5. REPORTS

Sustainable Building and Infrastructure Policy: Feedback from Mobility and Infrastructure Committee

5 min · packet pp.59–69

Topics: TransportationClimate

Open packet at p.59 ↗

Staff report:

TO: Environmental Board FROM: David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator RE: Sustainable Building and Infrastructure Policy DATE: 11/12/2025

3133 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ body. This is the November 12th

0:04 ↗ environmental board meeting. My name is

0:05 ↗ Don McWills. I'll be chairing the

0:07 ↗ meeting tonight. We'll be starting the

0:09 ↗ meeting off. Um just some uh things to

0:12 ↗ go over. If you're joining by computer,

0:14 ↗ please leave your sound off and if you

0:16 ↗ have a question on the computer, either

0:18 ↗ just raise your hand and we'll keep an

0:19 ↗ eye out for you and watch for you. If

0:21 ↗ the board members have questions, the

0:23 ↗ typical tip sign up and I'll call you

0:25 ↗ out in the order that I see them.

0:31 ↗ You want to call us to order?

0:34 ↗ >> All right, roll call. Uh, Tommy Anderson

0:36 ↗ >> here.

0:37 ↗ >> Nancy Davidson

0:38 ↗ >> here. Tommy Dvau

0:40 ↗ >> here.

0:40 ↗ >> Rajandi

0:43 ↗ >> here.

0:44 ↗ >> Uh, Kieran Penn.

0:47 ↗ Uh, Mina June.

0:51 ↗ Don Mc Williams

0:52 ↗ >> here.

0:53 ↗ >> Alex Tbury

0:54 ↗ >> here.

0:56 ↗ >> And Nickham here. Keith Gonzalez

0:58 ↗ >> here

1:00 ↗ >> and John Smith

1:01 ↗ >> here.

1:16 ↗ Next up we have the approval of minutes.

1:18 ↗ Is there any changes to the minutes that

1:20 ↗ we want to see?

1:23 ↗ Hearing none. The minutes are approved.

1:26 ↗ And next we have public comment. So I

1:28 ↗ understand we have three members here of

1:31 ↗ public comment tonight. So it'll be five

1:33 ↗ minutes each. Please if we could have

1:35 ↗ you come up, introduce yourself, where

1:37 ↗ you're from. Um and then we'll we'll

1:38 ↗ keep a drop off. [clears throat]

1:51 ↗ >> Where's the best place to stand?

1:53 ↗ >> Right here.

1:54 ↗ >> Sure.

1:55 ↗ >> Great. Good. It's great to be here. Um

1:58 ↗ I'm Anne Fletcher. I'm a resident and a

2:01 ↗ member of People for Climate Action is

2:03 ↗ the Qua chapter. Um and PCA is the

2:07 ↗ acronym. So you'll hear that throughout.

2:09 ↗ And our mission is to help our local

2:11 ↗ cities to reach their greenhouse

2:13 ↗ reduction goals.

2:15 ↗ And so, first of all, we want to bring

2:18 ↗ appreciation to all of you on the

2:19 ↗ environmental board for your service and

2:21 ↗ to the city staff and to the other

2:24 ↗ consulting boards and commissions

2:26 ↗ because climate is a big thing. It

2:28 ↗ infiltrates many departments. Um, and

2:31 ↗ everyone has made tremendous efforts to

2:32 ↗ implement the climate action plan and um

2:36 ↗ and now they update. So, thank you. Uh

2:39 ↗ in September I commented briefly about a

2:41 ↗ tool that PCA developed this past year

2:44 ↗ to assist cities uh in their climate

2:47 ↗ plans and their updates and it's called

2:50 ↗ 12 critical city actions to reduce

2:52 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions and earlier we

2:55 ↗ shared this with sustainability folks

2:58 ↗ and today I'd like to just share a

3:00 ↗ little bit more about the actions and

3:02 ↗ how their use could be a roadmap uh for

3:04 ↗ making the IAP update be impactful and

3:08 ↗ get results.

3:10 ↗ Uh slowing climate change and global

3:12 ↗ warming requires government action at

3:14 ↗ every level and the state legislation

3:17 ↗ and the recent King County climate

3:19 ↗ update that was just approved if fully

3:22 ↗ implemented big um provides 85% of what

3:26 ↗ is needed to reach our goals and cities

3:29 ↗ have a unique opportunity and obligation

3:31 ↗ to do our share in this collective

3:34 ↗ effort. So while continuing to lead uh

3:37 ↗ by enhancing natural systems

3:41 ↗ [laughter]

3:41 ↗ and our land use efforts which is been

3:45 ↗ working on for a long time and is noted

3:47 ↗ for um in in besides continuing that

3:52 ↗ isqua needs to do more to make our

3:55 ↗ already built environment compatible

3:58 ↗ with our natural systems. That's a tough

4:01 ↗ one. So special efforts to overcome our

4:04 ↗ own structural and resource barriers are

4:06 ↗ needed.

4:08 ↗ According to our greenhouse gas

4:10 ↗ inventories, you all know we must cut

4:12 ↗ emissions in transportation and existing

4:14 ↗ buildings. Consequently, you'll see that

4:17 ↗ 10 of the actions uh in this uh uh

4:22 ↗ document that was sent to you um address

4:26 ↗ those two categories. The other two

4:28 ↗ actions I am going to share with you

4:30 ↗ right now and they're equally important

4:32 ↗ because they support the other ones. So

4:35 ↗ number one is resources. [clears throat]

4:38 ↗ A dedicated steady and sufficient

4:40 ↗ funding stream is needed to support the

4:42 ↗ long-term efforts necessary for

4:44 ↗ greenhouse gas emission reduction.

4:46 ↗ Currently, Esiqua is fortunate to have a

4:49 ↗ recology fee that provides a substantial

4:51 ↗ fund for sustainability, but it is not

4:53 ↗ an ordinance and it could be taken away

4:56 ↗ when budgets are tight. So, we recommend

4:59 ↗ protecting sustainability and with a

5:02 ↗ permanent necessary funding to implement

5:04 ↗ the IAP.

5:06 ↗ So, questions to guide the the uh

5:09 ↗ resource question for for IAP. How can

5:12 ↗ our current staff, hired consultants,

5:15 ↗ and interns have enough time and funding

5:18 ↗ to successfully manage these challenging

5:22 ↗ crucial priorities?

5:24 ↗ Where might new ordinances and policies

5:27 ↗ from the council be necessary for

5:29 ↗ success?

5:31 ↗ What structures would strengthen our

5:34 ↗ interdep departmental and uh uh our

5:37 ↗ interdep departmental collaboration and

5:40 ↗ our regional work? And when do we need

5:43 ↗ to start these cumulative efforts that

5:46 ↗ will help us reach decades away goals?

5:51 ↗ When critical actions require more

5:53 ↗ resources than we think we have or will

5:56 ↗ have,

5:57 ↗ our updated plan should make that clear.

6:01 ↗ just as the King County uh strategic

6:04 ↗ climate update does,

6:06 ↗ we need to go beyond the current, you

6:08 ↗ know, $1 sign, $2 signs, $3 signs, um

6:13 ↗ the symbols that are used in the plan,

6:16 ↗ um to be more realistic and accountable.

6:20 ↗ So, that's number one, resources. Number

6:22 ↗ two is community engagement. People

6:24 ↗ respond well to offerings of

6:26 ↗ interesting, fun, useful,

6:27 ↗ cost-effective, and creative actions

6:29 ↗ that they can take. There's no doubt

6:31 ↗ about it. This school's responded so

6:32 ↗ well to the sustainability fair, the

6:35 ↗ mayor's climate uh action town halls, um

6:38 ↗ energy smart outreach workshops, and of

6:40 ↗ course, these should be continued. What

6:42 ↗ else can we do? Um there are ideas in

6:46 ↗ the plan that you can look at and um uh

6:49 ↗ I am also aware that there is a a

6:52 ↗ community newspaper that is in the works

6:55 ↗ really excited about we need a climate

6:57 ↗ corner in that newspaper. We need a

7:00 ↗ environmental corner to help us get

7:03 ↗ critical mass and communications out. So

7:05 ↗ finally in my conclusion, Esiqua is uh

7:09 ↗ PCA Esiqua is committed to in energizing

7:13 ↗ our involvement in these actions and

7:16 ↗ other strong climate actions. [snorts]

7:18 ↗ >> Thank you.

7:20 ↗ >> Thank you.

7:21 ↗ >> Thanks Aaron.

7:29 ↗ [laughter]

7:32 ↗ >> So nice takes charge.

7:36 ↗ I'm Julie Carr. I hope you're in this.

7:38 ↗ I've met some of you. I hope to get to

7:39 ↗ know more of you. Um so I wanted to talk

7:44 ↗ about uh from the critical actions

7:47 ↗ report for cities the 12 actions I have

7:51 ↗ um just five

7:54 ↗ around um existing building reducing

7:58 ↗ emissions in existing buildings. So the

8:00 ↗ large majority of urban emissions come

8:02 ↗ from the two sectors of transportation

8:04 ↗ and existing buildings. So this report

8:07 ↗ uh focuses on what cities can do to

8:09 ↗ undertake cutting those emissions in

8:11 ↗ those two sectors. So critical actions

8:13 ↗ regarding existing buildings. Number one

8:16 ↗ is expand the energy smart east side

8:19 ↗ program. I hope we're all super fans of

8:22 ↗ that. What a success. really a dynamic

8:26 ↗ um program that's just really blossomed

8:28 ↗ in our community and it just uh

8:30 ↗ showcases the regional collaboration

8:33 ↗ that can happen and the success that

8:35 ↗ that can yield. So building on that

8:37 ↗ expanding that program it's really only

8:39 ↗ reaching a small percentage of our

8:42 ↗ homeowners and our buildings. So what

8:45 ↗ can we do to do um expansion in that?

8:48 ↗ And one of the ideas in the report which

8:50 ↗ I hope you'll read is um a regional

8:53 ↗ lending arm, a green bank. So looking at

8:56 ↗ that might be exciting. Number two um of

9:00 ↗ the critical actions for existing

9:02 ↗ buildings is to create a multifamily

9:05 ↗ buildings decarbonization program. Um

9:08 ↗ the report talks a little bit about

9:10 ↗ Tacoma because Tacoma has somewhat of a

9:13 ↗ correlation to a lot of east side

9:15 ↗ cities. doesn't have ton of highrises

9:18 ↗ like Belleview or Seattle, more

9:20 ↗ analogous to what we see in our area.

9:23 ↗ And so there are mid to low lowrise

9:25 ↗ multif family buildings in Tacoma. And a

9:28 ↗ study of those showed that they're

9:29 ↗ responsible for a quarter of the total

9:32 ↗ Tacoma residential sector sector

9:34 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions. So maybe we

9:36 ↗ have something like that going on here

9:38 ↗ in Isiqua. Maybe we need to find out.

9:41 ↗ Maybe some of you already know. So, how

9:43 ↗ do we navigate energy transition with

9:46 ↗ owners of small to midsize multifamily

9:50 ↗ apartment building types of things,

9:51 ↗ renters, too, pooling resources across

9:54 ↗ jurisdictions, again, it's going to be

9:56 ↗ really critical with that, mirroring the

9:58 ↗ energy smart east side program. The

10:01 ↗ report outlines an interesting

10:03 ↗ initiative that several cities have

10:04 ↗ undertaken called building

10:06 ↗ decarbonization in a box. Sounds easy,

10:09 ↗ probably isn't, but it's an interesting

10:11 ↗ idea. you'll read up on that. [snorts]

10:13 ↗ Number three is to create a small

10:15 ↗ commercial buildings decarbonization

10:17 ↗ program. So we have small apartment

10:21 ↗ buildings, we have small commercial

10:22 ↗ buildings. Again, looking at Tacoma, the

10:25 ↗ study, a study showed that over 50% of

10:28 ↗ all the emissions in the Tacoma

10:30 ↗ commercial sector come from buildings up

10:32 ↗ to 20,000 square feet.

10:35 ↗ So, um, that could be a space, uh, here

10:38 ↗ in Esqua that's, uh, maybe a bigger

10:41 ↗ slice of the pie around our emissions

10:43 ↗ than we're actually recognizing. Maybe

10:45 ↗ we have recognized it. I'm sorry, I'm

10:47 ↗ not an expert, but I would love to know

10:49 ↗ more about that. So, um, in Bellingham,

10:52 ↗ there's a partnership there with

10:54 ↗ sustainable connections nonprofit

10:56 ↗ [clears throat] for a program called

10:57 ↗ Community Energy Challenge. Interesting

10:59 ↗ to read about that program. So, I note

11:03 ↗ that for you all. Number four, adopt um

11:07 ↗ not only a small commercial buildings

11:09 ↗ decarbonization program, but adopt a

11:11 ↗ large buildings electrification

11:13 ↗ ordinance.

11:15 ↗ So um we know about the clean buildings

11:18 ↗ performance standards from Washington

11:20 ↗ state um [clears throat]

11:22 ↗ for Washington state which is for

11:24 ↗ buildings over 20,000 square feet. And

11:27 ↗ so this advocates for cities adopting

11:30 ↗ tougher building performances standards

11:33 ↗ requiring um more than just the small

11:36 ↗ percentage of buildings that are in the

11:37 ↗ 20,000 K feet. So improving the energy

11:40 ↗ efficiency. Um the report outlines some

11:43 ↗ of the ordinance um modeled in Denver.

11:46 ↗ Could be interesting to look at that.

11:50 ↗ [clears throat] And number five is the

11:51 ↗ adopt a home energy score posting

11:54 ↗ ordinance. Perhaps you're familiar with

11:56 ↗ this. this. I know it's been percolating

11:57 ↗ in our area for a while. Similar to an

12:00 ↗ energy star rating sticker you have on

12:02 ↗ an appliance, this would be a profile of

12:05 ↗ the energy efficiency for homes or

12:07 ↗ apartments. Um, and it can really

12:09 ↗ motivate individual homeowners as well

12:11 ↗ as uh renters uh in their decision-

12:14 ↗ making for homeowners that making for

12:16 ↗ home performance enhancements to their

12:18 ↗ home for cost savings for um especially

12:22 ↗ when they're about to sell their home

12:24 ↗ can uh can be a really attractive piece.

12:27 ↗ So, I understand three thirsten county

12:30 ↗ cities have created a model home energy

12:34 ↗ store ordinance uh and are on the cusp

12:38 ↗ of rolling that out. Might be worth

12:39 ↗ looking at that. It's happening in

12:41 ↗ Thirstston County. And the past three

12:43 ↗ legislative sessions, a bill to create a

12:47 ↗ statewide home energy uh standard report

12:51 ↗ form has passed the House but not the

12:54 ↗ Senate. wondering perhaps if that is

12:57 ↗ something that ISPOT could put on their

12:59 ↗ advocacy

13:00 ↗ um priority list. So, thanks so much.

13:03 ↗ Those are the five actions for existing

13:05 ↗ buildings.

13:05 ↗ >> Thank you.

13:06 ↗ >> Great work. Julie

13:25 ↗ Good evening, David Kappler, 255

13:28 ↗ Southeast Andrew Street. Um, I'm here uh

13:32 ↗ as a I'm a resident and a member of um

13:36 ↗ the PCA, but um I cannot claim most of

13:40 ↗ the work that's been happening uh there.

13:43 ↗ Certainly been supporting it. Um just

13:47 ↗ like to make my comments to the

13:49 ↗ transportation advisory board. Um the

13:52 ↗ target we're after develop additional

13:54 ↗ metrics that can capture changes in the

13:56 ↗ system such as no parking minimums,

13:58 ↗ increased bike networks, data to

14:01 ↗ evaluate relevant transportation changes

14:04 ↗ will make for more effective

14:06 ↗ implementation to reach our targets. Um,

14:10 ↗ new action consider requirements for

14:12 ↗ biking multimodal networks with new

14:15 ↗ developments that prioritize safety. An

14:17 ↗ example of this is the recent

14:19 ↗ proliferation of electric motorcycles in

14:22 ↗ areas meant for walking and biking. If

14:25 ↗ we want to encourage people to use clean

14:27 ↗ multimodal travel, uh, these uh,

14:31 ↗ networks need to be safe.

14:33 ↗ Mr. Anderson here is very good good

14:36 ↗ example of riding a bike appropriately.

14:38 ↗ Thank you. So um an electric bike too.

14:43 ↗ Okay. New action require new multifamily

14:46 ↗ developments to install resident ebike

14:49 ↗ and scooter charging access and secure

14:52 ↗ storage.

14:54 ↗ uh develop incentives for existing

14:56 ↗ multifamily properties fully so that

15:00 ↗ they can be do good job of providing

15:05 ↗ those amenities that we would expect in

15:07 ↗ in our newer newer buildings.

15:10 ↗ A new action evaluate the feasibility

15:13 ↗ and impacts of removing parking minimums

15:16 ↗ to encourage multimold transportation.

15:19 ↗ Parking minimums should be evaluated for

15:21 ↗ various neighborhoods. For example, PCA

15:24 ↗ recommends parking minimums for new

15:26 ↗ buildings in more density closer to

15:29 ↗ public transit centers.

15:32 ↗ Um, new action, build a bike culture in

15:35 ↗ Isiqua that has a focus on safety and

15:38 ↗ education. BCA fields support this. See

15:41 ↗ if it's good way to approach building

15:43 ↗ that culture.

15:45 ↗ New actions consider requirements for EV

15:47 ↗ charging readiness in new multifamily

15:50 ↗ buildings that exceed the state

15:52 ↗ requirements. Critical action recommend

15:55 ↗ 100% EV capable in new buildings.

16:00 ↗ Advocate for statewide requirements, but

16:02 ↗ don't wait for it. Isa was one of the

16:06 ↗ first cities to require any EV charging

16:09 ↗ infrastructure and new construction

16:11 ↗ before the state did. This encouraged

16:13 ↗ other cities in the state to make this a

16:16 ↗ requirement. Isiziqua should continue

16:18 ↗ its leadership on these kinds of

16:20 ↗ environment and quality of life issues.

16:24 ↗ Along those same lines, some cities have

16:26 ↗ program helped existing multif family

16:29 ↗ buildings install EV charging. The PCA

16:32 ↗ report has several examples that is

16:35 ↗ could look at. Additional critical

16:37 ↗ transportation actions recommended by

16:39 ↗ PCA include promoting public transit

16:42 ↗ before we get light rail, encourage

16:45 ↗ increased writership on current bus

16:47 ↗ routes through community education,

16:49 ↗ promote additional routes of metro,

16:52 ↗ especially kind of the north north south

16:55 ↗ routing. We're good east west but uh

16:58 ↗ north south. I encourage high school

17:01 ↗ students to use metro to get to and from

17:04 ↗ school. Assist with orchid cards,

17:06 ↗ financially support local alternatives

17:08 ↗ for surrounding neighborhoods to transit

17:10 ↗ options. For example, is aqua

17:12 ↗ continuation of financial support for

17:15 ↗ Metrolex

17:17 ↗ employer programs that encourage driving

17:19 ↗ to work alternatives. Currently, the

17:21 ↗ city follows state law to require

17:23 ↗ companies with 100 employees to have

17:25 ↗ those programs. How about looking at say

17:27 ↗ 50 instead of a 100. Conclusion. I hope

17:31 ↗ that we PCA members have shared will

17:34 ↗ stim what shared with you will stimulate

17:37 ↗ curiosity. The use of this document as

17:39 ↗ you assess IAP updates. The table of

17:42 ↗ contents layout examples will help you

17:44 ↗ compare and identify crucial initiatives

17:47 ↗ that would add value to ISUA's efforts.

17:50 ↗ Please keep in mind ways to collaborate,

17:53 ↗ work regionally, and directly

17:56 ↗ prioritize.

17:58 ↗ scale up and accelerate action that will

18:01 ↗ get results. Thank you. You got a big

18:04 ↗ job, but you can do it.

18:08 ↗ >> Thanks, David.

18:13 ↗ >> But really, nobody in the room is

18:15 ↗ probably gonna like me after this. So,

18:17 ↗ all good.

18:18 ↗ >> Well, still like you, maybe just not

18:20 ↗ what you're saying. [laughter]

18:22 ↗ Well, you march I live on Squad and what

18:27 ↗ I try to say is what I perceive to be as

18:31 ↗ true and I have gone to city meetings

18:35 ↗ for n on 30 years now. I am not stuck in

18:38 ↗ one department. I see all departments. I

18:41 ↗ see how they interface with each other

18:43 ↗ and they don't or do sometimes and I

18:47 ↗ talk to people and most people have no

18:51 ↗ idea what anybody in the city is talking

18:54 ↗ about. So

18:58 ↗ you in order to have success in any of

19:01 ↗ these environmental things that we want

19:04 ↗ to do,

19:06 ↗ people have to want to. and they have to

19:09 ↗ want it from here. And that is your city

19:14 ↗ staff. Beyond [clears throat] that, your

19:17 ↗ city leadership. Wall-ally said the

19:20 ↗ other day at a meeting, you know, this

19:21 ↗ city, they they value trees more than

19:24 ↗ people. And he said this in front of

19:26 ↗ everyone in the camp. And that to me is

19:31 ↗ an example of what not to say because

19:34 ↗ what we want is people to want. We want

19:39 ↗ them to like the trees. We have people

19:42 ↗ in this very room who don't want trees

19:45 ↗ and they're very green. Okay. Why? And

19:49 ↗ what do we do about that? Well, nobody

19:51 ↗ wants to create a system in town where

19:54 ↗ we actually have a place for the trees

19:58 ↗ and we know where to put them and some

20:00 ↗ people can live one way and some people

20:02 ↗ can live in the in the sun. Not

20:04 ↗ everybody has to be moldy, but the city

20:07 ↗ does not want to create a system to make

20:10 ↗ that effective. They just there is not

20:14 ↗ the wana. So when you talk about want to

20:18 ↗ reduce greenhouse gases, well

20:22 ↗ I want people to even know what you're

20:23 ↗ saying and they don't. Greenhouse gases

20:26 ↗ is like I have a dog, you know. Um, so

20:31 ↗ you have to use language that people

20:33 ↗ even know what you're talking about

20:35 ↗ because I'm getting a resiliency swear

20:38 ↗ jar for the entire city because every

20:41 ↗ time I hear the word resilience and

20:43 ↗ resiliency,

20:44 ↗ it's got to go in the jar for most of

20:46 ↗ your world has no idea what you're

20:48 ↗ talking about. Yet, you depend upon this

20:51 ↗ concept like it means something.

20:54 ↗ So make it understandable and give

20:58 ↗ people actions that are easy and

21:02 ↗ everybody says this is the right thing

21:04 ↗ to do and this is our isiqua to protect

21:07 ↗ and to hold in their hearts is this

21:09 ↗ special place that I sort of feel like

21:12 ↗ most people used to think it is and

21:14 ↗ that's been diluted. It's been diluted

21:17 ↗ by, wow, now we need affordable housing.

21:20 ↗ Now we have all these other needs and we

21:22 ↗ don't feel the need to fund the

21:24 ↗ environment as much because, you know,

21:25 ↗ we're valuing trees more than people.

21:28 ↗ And so we cannot expect to make progress

21:31 ↗ unless we start talking to the people

21:35 ↗ who live in the houses, the big houses

21:38 ↗ who have the money to change the things,

21:40 ↗ who can make their bills cheaper because

21:43 ↗ they're using solar panels and they can

21:45 ↗ afford to buy their own, right? Why are

21:48 ↗ we paying people to want it? That means

21:51 ↗ they don't want it. We're bribing them

21:53 ↗ and that is the wrong way to go. You

21:55 ↗ cannot embribe an entire state to wana.

22:00 ↗ So I think we're doing it the wrong way.

22:02 ↗ I think you have to work on the wana

22:04 ↗ part and that's for climate action. That

22:07 ↗ is again for natural environment

22:10 ↗ protection. that is for wanting to keep

22:13 ↗ our tree canopy at 55 because that is

22:16 ↗ the right freaking thing to do for this

22:19 ↗ town and not everybody nodding like a

22:21 ↗ bobblehead doll saying

22:23 ↗ that that doesn't really make sense. How

22:25 ↗ can we reduce that? How can we make it

22:27 ↗ so people don't have to have the trees

22:29 ↗ because they don't want to? Right? And

22:32 ↗ this is what I see to be the core

22:34 ↗ problem with how we are looking at isqua

22:36 ↗ at this point in time. Now, wanna and

22:39 ↗ whining are sounding oddly similar in my

22:42 ↗ tone of voice right now, and I'm feeling

22:44 ↗ a little awkward with that. But, um,

22:46 ↗ this is what I see as true in all of the

22:49 ↗ meetings that I go to. Now, we are we

22:54 ↗ are not engaging

22:56 ↗ people to be the solution.

23:00 ↗ I would love conversation on how to do

23:03 ↗ that instead of how to bribe them to do

23:06 ↗ the right. And that means that that

23:08 ↗ means our mayor that means our city

23:10 ↗ administrator, you know, John Mortonson

23:12 ↗ though is doing a hell of a job, I got

23:14 ↗ to tell you. Anyway, he is in public

23:16 ↗ works for goodness sake. He's a bright

23:19 ↗ star and he's in public works because he

23:21 ↗ wants to. He really does. How do we get

23:24 ↗ more John? Thanks,

23:27 ↗ >> Connie.

23:27 ↗ >> Thanks, Donnie.

23:34 ↗ have anybody online, Stacy?

23:37 ↗ >> No members of the public. Just

23:38 ↗ acknowledge me and join as well.

23:42 ↗ [snorts]

23:44 ↗ >> Okay. Um, not hearing any other public

23:46 ↗ comments, we'll move on to our agenda

23:47 ↗ items tonight. So, we're going to hear

23:49 ↗ three things tonight. L's going to give

23:51 ↗ us an update on the urban forestry

23:53 ↗ program. Um, Stacy's going to talk to us

23:55 ↗ about some considerations for the IAP

23:57 ↗ update. And we're also going to hear

23:59 ↗ about our annual report self analysis

24:01 ↗ that I surveyed the recent

24:07 ↗ and there's a card coming around folks.

24:09 ↗ Um this is for Dixie. Dixie's has to

24:12 ↗ resign from the board. So it's a thank

24:14 ↗ you card if you could stand as it comes.

24:16 ↗ >> Hey Dan, it's all yours.

24:18 ↗ >> Thanks Don.

24:21 ↗ Thanks Stacy. Well, I think I know

24:23 ↗ everyone in here, but I guess uh just

24:26 ↗ for uh due diligence here, uh Dan Hints,

24:29 ↗ I'm the urban forest supervisor within

24:30 ↗ our parks and community services

24:32 ↗ department at the city. Um

24:35 ↗ most folks, at least this first few

24:37 ↗ slides is going to be review since you

24:38 ↗ all were involved in the development of

24:40 ↗ the city's first forest urban forest

24:42 ↗ management plan over the course of late

24:45 ↗ 2023, 2024 and adopted in February of

24:48 ↗ 2025. So, we're about nine or 10 months

24:51 ↗ into having this uh plan adopted by

24:54 ↗ council and starting to implement. Um,

24:56 ↗ so I'll give just really quick review of

24:58 ↗ kind of what the structure of that plan

24:59 ↗ looks like, go into a few implementation

25:01 ↗ items, and then as as Don said, you

25:03 ↗ know, this is kind of a look at the

25:05 ↗ urban forestry program, not specifically

25:07 ↗ just the plan. So, I want to kind of

25:08 ↗ touch on uh our green physical program

25:10 ↗ and park ranger programs and obviously

25:13 ↗ tree work kind of ties more into the

25:15 ↗ UFMP as well. So, those are kind of the

25:17 ↗ three topic areas. Have about 10 slides

25:19 ↗ for you all. So, I'll try to move

25:21 ↗ through this pretty quick, but if you

25:22 ↗ have questions during or at the end,

25:24 ↗ please just go ahead and raise your hand

25:25 ↗ or or flip your sign, whatever works

25:27 ↗ best. I'm happy to pause during the

25:29 ↗ presentation. Um, so there you go.

25:31 ↗ That's the cover of our plan. Uh,

25:33 ↗ adopted February 2025.

25:38 ↗ And just going to quickly go through the

25:40 ↗ three sections. We have the current

25:41 ↗ conditions essentially. What do we have?

25:43 ↗ So, that's looking at our urban forest

25:44 ↗ composition. uh this plan succeeded our

25:47 ↗ green is aqua implementation plan. So

25:49 ↗ that is a little bit more of an open

25:51 ↗ space uh management plan that we've had

25:53 ↗ since 2020. Um so looking at those

25:56 ↗ existing management programs alignment

25:58 ↗ with like IAP which I'll stick around

26:00 ↗ for that next agenda item too if there's

26:02 ↗ anything that might potentially overlap

26:04 ↗ natural systems and urban forestry which

26:05 ↗ I know there's definitely items there.

26:07 ↗ um you know how we engage the community

26:09 ↗ around these conversations uh

26:11 ↗ vulnerabilities you know obviously

26:12 ↗ climate's a big one of those pests um

26:16 ↗ and then you know coming around to these

26:17 ↗ evaluations of the plan which we're

26:19 ↗ hoping to do every two years with some

26:20 ↗ of the um audit systems that were uh put

26:23 ↗ in the forest management plan using a

26:25 ↗ forest service protocol. So, that's

26:27 ↗ really kind of like the what we have,

26:29 ↗ which includes the updated tree canopy

26:31 ↗ assessment, uh, which, you know, Connie

26:34 ↗ talked about briefly, but, you know,

26:35 ↗ currently being at 51% with the 55%

26:37 ↗ goal, and I'll talk about that in a

26:39 ↗ little bit more detail on a on a future

26:40 ↗ slide.

26:42 ↗ Um, Stacey, thank you. Um, and so then

26:45 ↗ getting into visit and recommendations

26:47 ↗ essentially, what do we want? Um, so we

26:50 ↗ have our kind of overarching vision

26:51 ↗ statement that's on there. I won't read

26:53 ↗ it out loud, but you all can read it if

26:55 ↗ you'd like to. Um and having these kind

26:57 ↗ of five uh main areas that we're

26:59 ↗ focusing on for implementation. There's

27:01 ↗ you know the the canopy cover and the

27:02 ↗ trees themselves and looking at that

27:04 ↗ distribution. We have a high tree canopy

27:06 ↗ cover in Isiqua. That doesn't mean that

27:08 ↗ the distribution throughout the city is

27:10 ↗ as um effective as we'd like it to be.

27:13 ↗ Uh you know so that's talking about

27:15 ↗ things like heat islands and uh you know

27:17 ↗ storm water management issues and things

27:19 ↗ like that. Uh obviously getting to the

27:21 ↗ operations I'm in our parks operations

27:22 ↗ team. So we are probably you know one of

27:25 ↗ the two teams that are touching trees

27:27 ↗ the most day-to-day and a lot of that is

27:29 ↗ often dealing with conflicts too with uh

27:31 ↗ you know the built environment. So you

27:33 ↗ know that's parks operations and then

27:34 ↗ public works operations as well. So

27:36 ↗ really trying to figure out how we can

27:37 ↗ strengthen those uh programs and in

27:40 ↗ coordination there tree preservation and

27:42 ↗ protections kind of getting to tree code

27:43 ↗ which you all are pretty familiar with

27:45 ↗ um but you know how do we actually set

27:47 ↗ policies and and goals around uh tree

27:50 ↗ preservation in Isiqua. uh funding as

27:52 ↗ levels of service. That's certainly a

27:54 ↗ challenge area in terms of how we

27:55 ↗ actually build and expand to, you know,

27:57 ↗ kind of get to where we want. Uh and

27:59 ↗ then that community education,

28:01 ↗ engagement, stewardship. How do we how

28:02 ↗ do we really involve the community both

28:04 ↗ both in these conversations and in this

28:06 ↗ kind of hands-on uh stewardship of our

28:09 ↗ um public trees and public lands in

28:10 ↗ Isiqua. Uh so then lastly is getting

28:13 ↗ into implementation and monitoring. So,

28:15 ↗ you know, this is the section that has,

28:17 ↗ you know, kind of a lot of those uh five

28:20 ↗ areas. summarized with you know uh

28:22 ↗ strategies, action items and you know

28:25 ↗ some cost evaluations as well. You know

28:28 ↗ who what departments or what

28:29 ↗ collaboration between departments is uh

28:31 ↗ you know most likely responsible for

28:33 ↗ implementing that and then you know some

28:35 ↗ tracking worksheets as well. So, um, you

28:37 ↗ know, really looking at that, you know,

28:38 ↗ evaluation, monitoring, and revising.

28:41 ↗ You know, we're we're probably not

28:42 ↗ looking at doing an update to this, um,

28:44 ↗ you know, as early as would be five

28:46 ↗ years, more likely. A lot of urban

28:47 ↗ forest management plans are updated

28:49 ↗ every 10 years, but still making sure

28:50 ↗ we're kind of evaluating every two years

28:53 ↗ and tracking progress and making uh, you

28:55 ↗ know, essentially revisions to the

28:57 ↗ priority actions kind of throughout the

28:58 ↗ throughout the life of the plan.

29:01 ↗ So that is the real quick uh overview of

29:04 ↗ urban forest management plan. Um Stacy

29:07 ↗ if you wanted to go to the next one. Um

29:09 ↗ so the next couple slides will be a few

29:11 ↗ items that were identified in the plan

29:13 ↗ that we are working on this year. Uh

29:15 ↗ this one's actually been a really great

29:17 ↗ partnership with David and

29:18 ↗ sustainability on our first uh tree

29:20 ↗ giveaway to residents and and small

29:23 ↗ organizations within Isukatu. So it's

29:25 ↗ not purely residential. We've actually

29:27 ↗ had some condo associations and and

29:29 ↗ groups reach out. I guess that's

29:30 ↗ residential, but some some uh you know

29:32 ↗ just not purely single family I should

29:34 ↗ say. Um so trying to you know really try

29:37 ↗ to incentivize uh tree canopy

29:39 ↗ enhancements on private property because

29:40 ↗ we have I mean we're fortunate to have

29:43 ↗ about 20% public land city managed lands

29:45 ↗ in the city of Isqua but that's still

29:46 ↗ 80% where we don't maybe have as much um

29:50 ↗ direct ability to to do canopy work you

29:52 ↗ know whether that's maintaining existing

29:53 ↗ canopy or growing new canopies. So

29:55 ↗ that's where this program is really

29:57 ↗ trying to at least start one uh

29:59 ↗ opportunity to to do that within city

30:01 ↗ limits here. So it's been a great

30:02 ↗ partnership like I said with

30:03 ↗ sustainability team here. 300 trees is a

30:06 ↗ regional partner that has been working

30:08 ↗ to develop tree giveaways. They started

30:10 ↗ in Belleview. They've been working with

30:11 ↗ Redmond and now with Isiqua and they

30:13 ↗ really handle a lot of the back end. And

30:15 ↗ then it's been really neat to have a

30:16 ↗ partnership with friends of physical

30:17 ↗ salmon hatchery fish there. Um they've

30:19 ↗ kind of coined it canopy to curb. So

30:21 ↗ they're helping promote this. They're

30:23 ↗ also supporting public works with

30:25 ↗ adopted drain programs and kind of

30:26 ↗ education around storm water. Uh and you

30:29 ↗ know obviously the ways that trees in

30:31 ↗ our urban canopy uh provides or in areas

30:33 ↗ is lacking in terms of the the benefits

30:35 ↗ around storm water management and and

30:37 ↗ rainfall interception from our tree

30:39 ↗ canopy. So this year we have 275 trees

30:42 ↗ that we're giving away. We sold out on

30:44 ↗ those within about three weeks uh after

30:46 ↗ the program launched. Uh we really

30:48 ↗ focused on priority neighborhoods. Some

30:50 ↗ of you have probably heard me talk about

30:51 ↗ this before. It's part of the uh urban

30:53 ↗ forest management plan, but there is a

30:55 ↗ tree equity score and a tree equity

30:57 ↗ evaluation tool by American Forest,

30:59 ↗ which is a national nonprofit for urban

31:01 ↗ forestry, urban and community forestry.

31:03 ↗ Um, so we did try to identify about

31:05 ↗ eight census blocks. They use census

31:07 ↗ blocks for all this stuff. So, not

31:08 ↗ neighborhoods or anything like that, but

31:10 ↗ essentially it's a lot of areas in the

31:11 ↗ highlands, areas in Oldtown, areas in

31:14 ↗ central Isiqua, um, where they have

31:16 ↗ lower canopy and probably more negative

31:18 ↗ impacts as a result of that lower

31:20 ↗ canopy. And the one metric David and I

31:22 ↗ kind of picked up for this is the heat

31:23 ↗ urban heat island effect. So, they

31:25 ↗ actually have measurements that are

31:26 ↗ pretty cool that will show discrepancies

31:28 ↗ in temperatures on a, you know, kind of

31:30 ↗ hotter summer day. So the eight census

31:32 ↗ blocks we selected all had plus4 degree

31:35 ↗ or more Fahrenheit difference from Urban

31:37 ↗ Heat Island. And our goal was pretty

31:40 ↗ modest to have 20% of our trees going to

31:42 ↗ those census blocks. And David, we ended

31:44 ↗ up with about Thank you. 20 I was going

31:46 ↗ to say 30%. David wrote down 29.2% for

31:48 ↗ me. Um so that that's something that

31:51 ↗ we'll really try to kind of grow. So,

31:52 ↗ Friends Vis salmon hatchery really

31:54 ↗ focused on yard signs and targeted

31:56 ↗ outreach in those neighborhoods first

31:57 ↗ before we did kind of more citywide

31:59 ↗ promotion for the program. Um, and then

32:01 ↗ this Saturday actually is our pickup

32:03 ↗ event where we'll have fish 300 trees.

32:05 ↗ David and I, uh, Recology is going to be

32:07 ↗ there. So, we'll have some tableabling

32:08 ↗ and outreach, some education around, uh,

32:11 ↗ urban forestry and other city

32:12 ↗ initiatives around sustainability. Um,

32:15 ↗ and then have people grabbing their

32:16 ↗ trees, too. So, um, yeah, that is our

32:18 ↗ tree giveaway, which we're hoping to

32:20 ↗ host annually in the fall.

32:22 ↗ is the plan to keep this going. Um, we

32:24 ↗ just started working with a great um,

32:27 ↗ uh, community forestry group called

32:29 ↗ Northwest Natural Resource Group, NRG.

32:32 ↗ They do forestry kind of throughout the

32:34 ↗ Northwest. They're based in Olympia and

32:35 ↗ Seattle. Um, but hopefully a lot of you

32:38 ↗ know I I mentioned about 20% of our city

32:40 ↗ land in uh public land ownership and

32:43 ↗ about probably about a third or maybe a

32:46 ↗ little closer to a quarter of that is

32:47 ↗ within the Tradition Plateau um natural

32:51 ↗ resource conservation area, the NRCA. So

32:53 ↗ all those areas you see kind of

32:55 ↗ highlighted in light green up on

32:56 ↗ Tradition Plateau are city managed. And

32:59 ↗ really quick aside, I actually learned a

33:00 ↗ lot of this from David, but you know, a

33:01 ↗ lot of the David Kappler, a lot of the

33:03 ↗ early acquisitions the city had in the

33:05 ↗ 20s30s was to secure some of the initial

33:08 ↗ water rights and uh water down to the

33:10 ↗ valley from the springs that feed from

33:12 ↗ Tradition Lakes. So, a lot of that stuff

33:14 ↗ on the north side kind of along I90

33:16 ↗ there is was Isiqua's early waterworks

33:19 ↗ in the early 1900s. So, uh but now a lot

33:21 ↗ of people don't know that the city is

33:22 ↗ responsible for managing a lot of this

33:24 ↗ land. It has a 91% tree canopy which

33:27 ↗ yeah that sounds awesome right and a lot

33:28 ↗ of the places the forest is in really

33:30 ↗ really healthy shape but then there's a

33:31 ↗ lot of third even fourth growth

33:34 ↗ monocultures of Douglas fur where you

33:35 ↗ don't have the structural complexity or

33:39 ↗ um you know essentially the you know the

33:41 ↗ holistic ecological health I've heard a

33:42 ↗ lot from the environmental board

33:44 ↗ understory invasive species those are

33:46 ↗ the type of things we're trying to look

33:47 ↗ at and focus on how wildlife interacts

33:49 ↗ with the forest uh and not just purely

33:51 ↗ you know essentially the tree canopy

33:53 ↗ measurement as metric of success. Um, so

33:56 ↗ we just started working on this

33:57 ↗ consulting effort with NNRG. We should

33:59 ↗ have some recommendations. I will say

34:01 ↗ this for this item and other ones. I'm

34:02 ↗ planning to come back to the

34:03 ↗ environmental board in May, but if

34:05 ↗ there's items that people want to see

34:07 ↗ between them,

34:10 ↗ >> we talk to Stacy or or something I can

34:12 ↗ focus on more at the May meeting as

34:14 ↗ well. So, we're hoping to have this

34:15 ↗ wrapped up within the first couple

34:17 ↗ months of the new year. So, if the

34:18 ↗ environmental board did want to weigh

34:19 ↗ in, u you know, it would probably be a

34:21 ↗ little sooner than the May meeting. But,

34:23 ↗ um, so yeah, just saying high tree

34:24 ↗ canopy, not necessarily high quality due

34:26 ↗ to logging history, um, and focusing on,

34:29 ↗ uh, forest health recommendations over a

34:30 ↗ 30-year timeline is is the goal for this

34:32 ↗ plan. And that's our Douglas fur old

34:35 ↗ growth big tree, uh, photo on the bottom

34:37 ↗ there.

34:39 ↗ I think this next slide is the last one

34:41 ↗ I have that's kind of specific to uh,

34:43 ↗ implementation items identified in the

34:45 ↗ forest management plan. And this is

34:47 ↗ where hopefully most of you are familiar

34:48 ↗ with this but want to kind of

34:49 ↗ distinguish between tree canopy

34:51 ↗ assessments which we have our goals in

34:53 ↗ IAP uh at 55% by 2035 um and then tree

34:57 ↗ inventories. Both of these are

34:59 ↗ considered pretty foundational pieces of

35:01 ↗ any urban forest management plan. Uh of

35:04 ↗ course with a forest management plan I

35:06 ↗ should say they're foundational pieces

35:07 ↗ of a forest pro urban forestry program.

35:10 ↗ Um, so we have tree canopy assessments

35:12 ↗ done and and we are actually updating

35:14 ↗ that um with King Conservation District.

35:17 ↗ They are offering to do that with all of

35:18 ↗ their member jurisdictions, essentially

35:20 ↗ the cities within King County. So, we're

35:22 ↗ getting a pretty good deal to get this

35:25 ↗ done um with 2023 data. So, it's going

35:28 ↗ to be two years more recent than what

35:30 ↗ was in the forest management plan that

35:31 ↗ had 2021 data still measured at 51%. Um

35:35 ↗ this is also going to complement some of

35:37 ↗ the efforts with the tree code where we

35:39 ↗ really just didn't have apples to apples

35:42 ↗ data on land use um across the city. So

35:45 ↗ we are paying a little bit for what they

35:47 ↗ consider custom geographies and that's

35:49 ↗ going to include tree cover by uh land

35:51 ↗ use to match as close as possible with

35:54 ↗ the different categories that were um

35:57 ↗ included in the tree code updates. I'll

35:58 ↗ say the one caveat is that teasing out

36:00 ↗ the different square footage of single

36:02 ↗ family is a little difficult. So single

36:04 ↗ family will be lumped together. But this

36:06 ↗ is something that King Conservation

36:07 ↗ District plans to measure every 3 to 5

36:09 ↗ years. That's also what we have

36:11 ↗ identified in our forest management

36:12 ↗ plan. So this is something that we want

36:14 ↗ to keep measuring to make sure that

36:15 ↗ we're not going too far backwards and

36:17 ↗ hopefully are still uh incrementally

36:20 ↗ gaining tree canopy and we can start to

36:22 ↗ judge that based on the different kind

36:24 ↗ of land uses we have throughout the

36:25 ↗ city. Um we're also going to get some

36:27 ↗ measurements for neighborhoods and for

36:29 ↗ uh some storm water requirements that's

36:31 ↗ coming from Department of Ecology. So

36:33 ↗ looking at storm basins across the city

36:35 ↗ um which is something that our public

36:37 ↗ works team will be responsible for in

36:38 ↗ the next couple years here. So updating

36:40 ↗ at least every five years. We're hoping

36:42 ↗ to do a little more frequently. Uh

36:43 ↗ versus a public tree inventory is really

36:45 ↗ getting a lot more data information down

36:47 ↗ to individual trees. Um that is

36:49 ↗ something that we do not have but it's a

36:51 ↗ great educational tool. It's a great

36:53 ↗ data management tool and it's a great

36:54 ↗ kind of um operational tool in terms of

36:58 ↗ you know pruning cycles and tree health

37:01 ↗ and putting together planting plans. Uh

37:03 ↗ we probably have pushing

37:06 ↗ 75,000 trees on public land. Obviously a

37:09 ↗ lot of those we wouldn't inventory

37:10 ↗ because they're part of open spaces

37:12 ↗ where maybe there isn't as much concern

37:13 ↗ around hazards conflicts and there's

37:16 ↗ kind of just more natural forest

37:18 ↗ succession going on there. But we really

37:19 ↗ want to develop this inventory as much

37:21 ↗ as we can uh in maintain park areas,

37:23 ↗ rightways, edges of open spaces so we

37:26 ↗ can really track uh the work we're doing

37:28 ↗ on trees and you know there could be

37:30 ↗ other things tracked in there like

37:32 ↗ off-site tree requirements or trees that

37:34 ↗ are tied to permits or you know whether

37:36 ↗ they're voluntary planting. So really

37:37 ↗ having it as a data management tool and

37:39 ↗ asset management tool uh and really help

37:41 ↗ inform some of the operational work

37:43 ↗ around tree care and tree planting. So,

37:46 ↗ I am hopeful to be picking this up next

37:48 ↗ year, and that's something I might talk

37:49 ↗ to you all about more. Um, but, you

37:51 ↗ know, really trying to figure out the

37:52 ↗ the funding gap for this. The the state

37:54 ↗ uh grants that generally support this

37:56 ↗ type of work have been have been put on

37:57 ↗ hold for a couple years now. Um, so

38:00 ↗ we're trying to get kind of creative how

38:01 ↗ we could possibly phase this, too. So,

38:04 ↗ um,

38:07 ↗ uh, so the last couple slides are just

38:09 ↗ going to talk real quick about green

38:10 ↗ isqua, uh, tree work more broadly, and

38:13 ↗ then our park ranger program. But if you

38:15 ↗ haven't met, that's Taylor Nichols, our

38:16 ↗ green volunteer coordinator, uh, pouring

38:19 ↗ the bucket of wood chips and our park

38:20 ↗ ranger, Alex Anderson. This was a

38:22 ↗ volunteer group with Costco along the

38:24 ↗ Pickering Reach of Visical Creek. Um, so

38:27 ↗ just want to kind of give you a real

38:28 ↗ quick kind of idea on the scope of the

38:29 ↗ greenle program. We've had 67 volunteer

38:31 ↗ events to date. Uh, over 2200 volunteer

38:34 ↗ hours and a third of that is youth,

38:36 ↗ which has been really, I think, an

38:37 ↗ improvement for our program over the

38:39 ↗ almost three years that the three of us

38:41 ↗ have been running this together. Uh, 15

38:43 ↗ forest stewards. So we have Ann here

38:45 ↗ who's one of them, but these are

38:46 ↗ dedicated forest stewards that are kind

38:48 ↗ of adopting sites and really donating a

38:50 ↗ lot of their time to care for and

38:52 ↗ restore uh you know forest health across

38:54 ↗ our city system. Uh we've really focused

38:56 ↗ on educational events too. So some of

38:58 ↗ these are guided hikes. We just did a

39:00 ↗ workshop on tree planting and pruning

39:02 ↗ 101. Uh so we've engaged 438 people

39:05 ↗ there. Uh some of our signature events

39:07 ↗ we had green day at three sites on

39:09 ↗ October 18th. We'll celebrate Arbor Day

39:11 ↗ again in April. Um and we really hope to

39:13 ↗ make this tree giveaway a big kind of

39:14 ↗ annual event loosely tied to greenqua as

39:17 ↗ well. So just some of the big partners,

39:18 ↗ Mountain Sound Greenway as well, Strat

39:20 ↗ Unlimited, Gibson, Costco, REI, Semens

39:22 ↗ have been three businesses that have

39:24 ↗ been pretty invested with us in the last

39:25 ↗ couple years.

39:30 ↗ >> Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah, my bad. I was

39:33 ↗ >> in

39:35 ↗ a couple more slides.

39:36 ↗ >> So, should we go ahead and just Yeah, it

39:37 ↗ should hopefully just be it's really

39:38 ↗ just two more. Um, this is kind of just

39:40 ↗ more broadly tree work that we planted

39:42 ↗ 2,900 trees. I I want to kind of call

39:45 ↗ out though, you know, only 61 of those

39:47 ↗ are caliper. We're talking about two to

39:49 ↗ three inch diameter larger trees. Often

39:52 ↗ those would be the type of trees that be

39:53 ↗ planted in rightways or maintained areas

39:55 ↗ of parks. Um, our forest management plan

39:58 ↗ gave a rough estimate to get to our 55%

40:01 ↗ goal of planting 1600 trees a year for

40:03 ↗ the next 10 years. So, we exceeded that,

40:05 ↗ but I I I want to make a really clear

40:07 ↗ caveat that a large number of those are

40:09 ↗ bare root trees. So small trees we plant

40:12 ↗ as kind of forest succession in open

40:13 ↗ spaces. One or two gallon potted trees.

40:16 ↗ This is our Miwoki forest on northwest

40:18 ↗ dogwood near is a creek there which

40:20 ↗ probably had 100 125 trees, but they're

40:22 ↗ smaller trees. Um there's higher

40:25 ↗ mortality rate with that. That that's

40:26 ↗ just inherently part of it. They're

40:28 ↗ they're cheaper to plant. They're

40:29 ↗ cheaper to purchase. They go in the

40:30 ↗ ground faster, but they're likely not

40:32 ↗ going to be maintained as much in open

40:34 ↗ spaces. Uh and you're going to see

40:36 ↗ higher mortality. So it's not out of the

40:37 ↗ question for bare root trees to have you

40:39 ↗ know 40 50% mortality there too. So not

40:43 ↗ something that we really have the

40:44 ↗ mechanisms to track accurately but I do

40:46 ↗ think it's important to call out versus

40:47 ↗ the larger caliber trees are the ones

40:49 ↗ that uh take more maintenance too but

40:51 ↗ are likely going to you know they're

40:52 ↗ bigger so they're establishing faster.

40:54 ↗ Uh but to scale up to get to several

40:56 ↗ hundred of the larger caliber trees a

40:58 ↗ year would take a lot of watering, take

41:00 ↗ a lot of you know just just you know

41:02 ↗ maintenance, pruning stuff that we we

41:04 ↗ just be quite honest don't have fully

41:06 ↗ systemized yet at this point. So it's

41:07 ↗ you know how do we both get the trees in

41:09 ↗ the ground and and care for them for

41:11 ↗ those first five or 10 years when

41:12 ↗ they're most uh likely to to to die. Um

41:16 ↗ >> which is what's happening here

41:18 ↗ >> which walking forest that's getting

41:21 ↗ >> Oh thank you Ann. Yes. Yes. Anna is

41:23 ↗ making a good example of where we've had

41:24 ↗ a lot of investment in maintenance on

41:26 ↗ this little site and have had probably

41:27 ↗ 90% survival versus some other areas of

41:30 ↗ the city where maybe we can't for one

41:31 ↗ reason or another provide quite as much

41:33 ↗ there. So, um so that's really kind of

41:35 ↗ getting at tree planting to date. Um and

41:38 ↗ I'll say those caliper trees, a good

41:40 ↗ portion of that voluntary stuff that

41:42 ↗ we've done out of the tree fund. Some of

41:43 ↗ them are off-site trees for other

41:44 ↗ projects where require trees to be

41:46 ↗ planted. So, it's kind of a combination

41:48 ↗ of of stuff there. Um we've pruned 233

41:51 ↗ trees. That's mainly been in-house, but

41:53 ↗ some of that's with contractors. 40

41:55 ↗ trees removed. That is uh I would say

41:58 ↗ about half of those were lingering

42:00 ↗ hazard trees from the bomb cyclone, and

42:02 ↗ that is certainly not counting the trees

42:04 ↗ that just straight up came down from the

42:05 ↗ bomb cyclone. And obviously that number

42:07 ↗ is much higher, probably in several

42:08 ↗ hundred in the in the built environment

42:10 ↗ and quite a bit more in open spaces. Um

42:12 ↗ but that's, you know, what we're

42:13 ↗ tracking in terms of removals in our

42:16 ↗ kind of maintained areas of parks, uh

42:18 ↗ rideaways, and edges of open spaces. And

42:20 ↗ then I made a quick call out to this

42:21 ↗ too, but we're really trying to do two

42:23 ↗ annual tree care 101 events where we're

42:25 ↗ really talking about basic tree care,

42:27 ↗ pruning, watering. So hopefully people

42:29 ↗ can take some of those uh some of that

42:31 ↗ information uh to to their properties

42:33 ↗ and and you know, make sure that their

42:34 ↗ canopy is being cared for as well. So um

42:38 ↗ stuff we had identified in the forest

42:39 ↗ management plan, but we're really trying

42:40 ↗ to systemize that. I'm working with my

42:41 ↗ colleague Christy Bishop, who was our

42:43 ↗ other arborist on our parks operations

42:45 ↗ team. And then lastly, to just touch on

42:48 ↗ the park ranger program. Hopefully most

42:50 ↗ of you familiar. We have a city park

42:51 ↗ ranger, Alex Anderson there. Um really

42:54 ↗ focuses on enforcement through

42:55 ↗ education. So he's not a commissioned

42:57 ↗ officer, meaning he can't write tickets.

42:59 ↗ Uh doesn't carry a weapon. Um but he's

43:02 ↗ go out there to really reinforce um you

43:04 ↗ know why it's important to be good

43:06 ↗ stewards and good users of our of our

43:08 ↗ park system. Um and we have a seasonal

43:10 ↗ ranger during the spring and summer

43:12 ↗ months, too. So we have coverage seven

43:14 ↗ days a week. Uh he really supports human

43:16 ↗ services on homeless outreach and

43:18 ↗ especially folks that are, you know,

43:19 ↗ living unhoused in our parks at times.

43:21 ↗ Uh so that has a lot of clean up around

43:23 ↗ camps and illegal dumping. Um this one's

43:26 ↗ a little out of date, but that's 230

43:28 ↗ contacts around camps, illegal dumping,

43:30 ↗ off leash dogs, graffiti. I mean, these

43:33 ↗ are the type of things that he's often

43:34 ↗ out there kind of being the first person

43:36 ↗ to document and then making sure we're

43:38 ↗ kind of doing the necessary steps to

43:39 ↗ address those issues. Uh, one of the big

43:41 ↗ things I've been really proud working

43:42 ↗ with Alex and our team is around

43:44 ↗ wildlife coexistence education. So, we

43:46 ↗ had our first annual wildlife

43:47 ↗ coexistence day, which we're going to do

43:49 ↗ again in June and had about 15 partners

43:51 ↗ out uh in partnership with farmers

43:53 ↗ market and really talking about how, you

43:55 ↗ know, kind of started with carnivore

43:56 ↗ specifically, but we're looking at this

43:58 ↗ much more broadly across all sorts of

44:00 ↗ wildlife in Isiqua. Um, so yeah,

44:02 ↗ supporting that type of work, supporting

44:03 ↗ green is aqua. And then something that

44:05 ↗ he just got his pesticide applicator

44:06 ↗ license and has been really honestly the

44:08 ↗ last three months. Um, stuff that does a

44:11 ↗ lot here too is doing holly mapping and

44:13 ↗ control and our forest and open spaces

44:15 ↗ too. So um, something that he's really

44:17 ↗ jumping into as part of his role. So um,

44:20 ↗ I think that is it.

44:22 ↗ Have a little questions page here. This

44:24 ↗ is an REI group we had to do some work

44:27 ↗ around our tree wells uh, for some tree

44:29 ↗ replacements at Confluence Park this

44:30 ↗ summer.

44:32 ↗ Thank you. Um, first up I believe I had

44:34 ↗ Tom.

44:36 ↗ >> Uh, so I wanted to go back to the forest

44:38 ↗ health initiative for the tradition

44:41 ↗ plateau

44:42 ↗ and uh, you're stand you're looking

44:45 ↗ forward 30 years on that. Will any of

44:48 ↗ the uh, principles used for achieving

44:51 ↗ that forest health be directed towards

44:53 ↗ reducing fire risk? That is that is one

44:56 ↗ thing they they're addressing to an

44:58 ↗ extent in there but a lot of that is

44:59 ↗ kind of talking forest perimeter

45:01 ↗ management which obviously some of

45:03 ↗ tradition plateau actually not much

45:05 ↗ that's more part point so we don't have

45:07 ↗ as much of the interface directly with

45:09 ↗ you know buildings and structures on

45:11 ↗ tradition plateau so I guess I guess the

45:13 ↗ answer is they're talking about at a

45:15 ↗ high level but not like specific

45:17 ↗ prescriptions I wouldn't anticipate um I

45:20 ↗ think a lot of that more we are working

45:21 ↗ with King County on their community

45:24 ↗ wildfire preparedness plan um and east

45:26 ↗ side fire with some of their um I guess

45:30 ↗ firewise type work that they're doing

45:32 ↗ for property owners.

45:33 ↗ >> Yeah. But they're they're focusing on

45:35 ↗ private property. That is what do what

45:37 ↗ do homeowners do to make their place

45:40 ↗ more fire resistant? I'm talking about

45:43 ↗ our public lands. Are we going to do

45:45 ↗ anything analogous to in some

45:48 ↗ communities they have a ladder fuel

45:50 ↗ reduction plans for example? I I like to

45:52 ↗ vacation in Bend, Oregon area. It's a

45:55 ↗ big thing there. Of course, the fire

45:56 ↗ risk is much greater there.

45:58 ↗ >> Yeah,

45:58 ↗ >> the ladder fuel reduction in in

46:01 ↗ communities is a serious thing and if

46:03 ↗ you don't take care of it, you can be

46:05 ↗ fined. I mean, this is this is a

46:08 ↗ requirement for the land owners, both

46:11 ↗ public and private in some communities.

46:14 ↗ Um, do you do you see us getting to that

46:17 ↗ point? You know, the one thing I hear in

46:19 ↗ kind of these larger contiguous open

46:22 ↗ spaces, you know, there there's a lot of

46:23 ↗ talk about ecological thinning. So, I

46:25 ↗ kind of mentioned these really dent

46:26 ↗ stands, the Douglas fur, red alder. So,

46:29 ↗ often that is looked at as a fire

46:31 ↗ mitigation approach to where essentially

46:33 ↗ you're thinning out the canopy. And

46:34 ↗ you'll see some of these firewise

46:35 ↗ recommendations. This is more for areas

46:37 ↗ around structures, but not having trees

46:39 ↗ touching within 10 feet of each other.

46:43 ↗ And I want to say I hear you Tom, but I

46:45 ↗ also something that's really tricky and

46:46 ↗ I think a lot of people don't

46:47 ↗ necessarily understand or think about is

46:50 ↗ a lot of the work you're doing on the

46:51 ↗ east side of the Cascades or Colorado

46:53 ↗ and California, the fire risk mitigation

46:55 ↗ is also forest restoration. you're

46:58 ↗ essentially, you know, trying to um get

47:01 ↗ get forest back to conditions that

47:03 ↗ probably existed when fires more

47:04 ↗ routinely burned through there on, you

47:06 ↗ know, multiple decade returns versus our

47:08 ↗ westside forest that have fire return

47:09 ↗ intervals of 100 to 500 to a thousand

47:12 ↗ years. There's not necessarily a

47:14 ↗ comparison of, you know, fire

47:16 ↗ mitigation, fuel reduction, and how the

47:18 ↗ impacts that has on the ecology of our

47:20 ↗ forest. So, that's something where I

47:22 ↗ just want to kind of like caution people

47:23 ↗ a little bit. And I'm not the most

47:26 ↗ intelligent speaking onto this, but

47:27 ↗ there's some great resources with DNR

47:29 ↗ that I've been trying to kind of read

47:30 ↗ that have some great interviews with

47:31 ↗ some of their foresters talking about

47:33 ↗ this and how whether that is truly the

47:35 ↗ right approach and how effective an

47:37 ↗ approach that is too. So I I I guess

47:40 ↗ yeah, I'm saying I I don't anticipate

47:42 ↗ there being a ton of us going and

47:44 ↗ limming up mature I mean Douglas for

47:45 ↗ trees kind of limb up themselves already

47:47 ↗ or you know removing a lot of understory

47:49 ↗ vegetation. I I I just don't know if

47:51 ↗ that's

47:53 ↗ my personal opinion worth the resources

47:55 ↗ all the time either, but I'd be happy to

47:57 ↗ share you kind of where I'm getting some

47:59 ↗ of my opinions from from some DNR

48:01 ↗ resources here who are managing

48:02 ↗ obviously much more large scale forest

48:04 ↗ but also along the WOI. Um yeah, but if

48:07 ↗ that's something we want to see or hear

48:08 ↗ more of, I mean, I think that's

48:09 ↗ something we can work with at NRG on.

48:12 ↗ >> Well, I hear you. as a practicality

48:15 ↗ certainly couldn't go and clean up all

48:18 ↗ of Tiger Mountain or or just the city

48:21 ↗ portion of it tradition plateau that

48:23 ↗ would be huge but uh I have seen this uh

48:26 ↗ being put into practice in uh the

48:29 ↗ Bandair organ well Sun River is

48:31 ↗ specifically the community that I go to

48:33 ↗ regularly the last 20 years and the

48:36 ↗ change in forest areas that have been

48:39 ↗ cleaned versus the the

48:43 ↗ the preceding state of that force is

48:45 ↗ remarkable and for sure is going to

48:48 ↗ reduce the risk but at great cost over a

48:51 ↗ long period of time and it employed

48:54 ↗ prison labor and various things like

48:57 ↗ that to accomplish it as well. So um

49:00 ↗ >> I yeah

49:02 ↗ >> up on that let's see there was another

49:04 ↗ fire related thing. So, I'm I'm

49:06 ↗ wondering uh there will be times when

49:09 ↗ our canopy goals will butt against uh

49:13 ↗ the fire risk mitigation practices

49:16 ↗ recommended for uh fire risk mitigation

49:20 ↗ in our private areas. I have a big case

49:23 ↗ study of this going on in my little

49:25 ↗ neighborhood right now where 20 years

49:28 ↗ ago some cypress trees are planted as a

49:31 ↗ row between two two houses and and there

49:33 ↗ are great trees, beautiful trees, but

49:35 ↗ they are now reaching out and touching

49:37 ↗ the houses and it's not a very fire

49:40 ↗ tolerant tree and it is in the wrong

49:44 ↗ place. It's it's too big for the

49:46 ↗ students that it's in and it's not a

49:48 ↗ very fire tolerant tree. they need to be

49:51 ↗ removed and replaced with something that

49:54 ↗ is more fire tolerant and more

49:56 ↗ appropriate for the space, but that's

49:58 ↗ going to result in a reduction in

49:59 ↗ canopy. Uh so how will that balancing

50:02 ↗ act be performed?

50:04 ↗ >> Yeah, that's a good I don't have a great

50:06 ↗ answer for you there other than I guess

50:08 ↗ a little bit of a

50:10 ↗ slight work around that but still

50:11 ↗ something that I think is important

50:12 ↗ develing. A lot of people don't know

50:13 ↗ that when you talk about arborites or

50:15 ↗ you talk about you know plants that are

50:16 ↗ more resonous or going to have more

50:18 ↗ flammability essentially. So, we don't

50:20 ↗ have a resource that, you know,

50:22 ↗ recommends plants that are going to be

50:24 ↗ more, like I said, wildfire resistance

50:25 ↗ versus ones that might be more high

50:27 ↗ risk. You're starting to see them come

50:29 ↗ out at the state level at the county.

50:30 ↗ Bainbridge Island just published a

50:32 ↗ really good one. So, one of my goals,

50:34 ↗ speaking of working across departments

50:36 ↗ with community planning and in 2026, is

50:38 ↗ we we have a lot of work to do on our

50:40 ↗ preferred tree list and really talking

50:42 ↗ about vegetation. That that list really

50:44 ↗ focuses on trees and the space they need

50:47 ↗ and a little bit of the growing

50:48 ↗ conditions they need. It doesn't really

50:49 ↗ look at climate adaptability. It doesn't

50:51 ↗ really look at fire risk. I think

50:53 ↗ there's things that we can be viewing

50:55 ↗ through different kind of prisms to try

50:57 ↗ to educate people about the right

51:00 ↗ vegetation and the right spaces, the

51:01 ↗ right distances from structures and

51:03 ↗ stuff like that. To that point, I don't

51:05 ↗ know. I mean, I think ultimately that's

51:06 ↗ a a tree code thing that needs to be

51:09 ↗ pushed or see if there's community

51:10 ↗ consensus around, you know, allowing for

51:12 ↗ the removals based on certain

51:14 ↗ recommendations. But we've had some

51:15 ↗ tricky ones where we had a retirement

51:17 ↗ home up on Providence Point that wanted

51:18 ↗ to clear 150 ft, which goes into

51:20 ↗ critical area buffers, goes into stream

51:22 ↗ buffers, and this is kind of talking

51:24 ↗ about trade-offs. And a lot of what I've

51:26 ↗ heard, you know, coming from planners

51:28 ↗ is, you know, this conflict of fire risk

51:30 ↗ reduction and then, you know, impacts

51:32 ↗ that has on critical areas where you,

51:35 ↗ for good reason, have stronger

51:36 ↗ protections for trees. So, I don't think

51:38 ↗ those answers anywhere, Isqua or in our

51:41 ↗ region, have really been figured out

51:42 ↗ yet.

51:43 ↗ Well, um, kind of in keeping with

51:47 ↗ Conniey's comments about education of,

51:50 ↗ uh, people people need to be educated

51:54 ↗ about things. This is one of them that,

51:57 ↗ uh, many want to be educated or or maybe

52:00 ↗ some don't know that they want to be

52:01 ↗ educated yet, but uh, they could be. So,

52:04 ↗ East Side Fire and Rescue has this

52:06 ↗ program where they do a fire wildfire

52:09 ↗ risk assessment that you're you're aware

52:11 ↗ of and we've had that done recently in

52:14 ↗ our place.

52:15 ↗ >> Um the um tying that in with this little

52:20 ↗ case study I'm I'm talking about. What

52:22 ↗ what is needed as the next step is well,

52:25 ↗ okay, now I need a recommendation for

52:28 ↗ what to put here. Um maybe uh maybe the

52:32 ↗ city could have a program to help guide

52:35 ↗ people and more than just handing a

52:39 ↗ piece of paper that says here's a

52:40 ↗ recommended plant list.

52:41 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean, my neighbor came to me uh

52:45 ↗ asking my recommendation because he

52:48 ↗ thought I might know everything, I

52:50 ↗ guess. But uh uh and I will give him a

52:53 ↗ recommendation, but um it would be

52:56 ↗ helpful, I think, for the city to have

52:59 ↗ more guidance.

53:00 ↗ >> Yeah.

53:01 ↗ >> Uh to people than here's a plant list.

53:04 ↗ >> I think that's a great when we're

53:06 ↗ talking about these education events or

53:07 ↗ talking about Yeah. tree care, tree

53:09 ↗ canopy. You know, I think that's a

53:11 ↗ perfect topic that likely would need to

53:13 ↗ lean on a partner like Cat Robinson with

53:15 ↗ East Side Fire who's leading that

53:16 ↗ program. Um, King Conservation District

53:18 ↗ also has some staff that's dedicated to

53:20 ↗ that type of work. Um, yeah, I think

53:23 ↗ that's a great great suggestion for

53:25 ↗ something that we could work on. I I I

53:26 ↗ know King County is really close to

53:29 ↗ publishing their community wildfire

53:31 ↗ preparedness plan and a lot of that

53:32 ↗ stuff we'll look at adopting it is aqua

53:35 ↗ but um yeah there just there aren't

53:38 ↗ quite BMPPS you know firewise is a

53:40 ↗ national program but it's not exactly

53:42 ↗ one sizefit all and I mean that's even

53:44 ↗ something that you know I've literally

53:45 ↗ heard cat say that or heard Mike Laki

53:47 ↗ who's you know king county forester

53:49 ↗ working on the fire mitigation stuff so

53:51 ↗ I think we're still kind of learning

53:52 ↗ what are the appropriate

53:55 ↗ uh yeah best management practices for

53:57 ↗ fire risk mitigation and what cost that

53:59 ↗ comes at both financially and then also

54:01 ↗ other ecological trade-offs or losses

54:03 ↗ that might come with that. So it's

54:05 ↗ complex.

54:06 ↗ >> Thank you.

54:09 ↗ >> Yeah.

54:12 ↗ [clears throat]

54:12 ↗ >> And you come here. Um great conversation

54:14 ↗ with you guys.

54:16 ↗ Um and so it kind of answers some of my

54:21 ↗ questions. And I also still have some

54:24 ↗ more questions about like with all of

54:26 ↗ the trees and plants that you've been

54:28 ↗ handing out, do you have the um King

54:31 ↗ Conservation District and do you have

54:33 ↗ the um the instructions about like where

54:35 ↗ to plant and when where not to plant as

54:37 ↗ far as firewise?

54:38 ↗ >> Cat's provided some resources that we'll

54:39 ↗ have as handouts and then it's in the

54:41 ↗ FAQ. Obviously, not everyone's going to

54:43 ↗ look at that, but we do have the links

54:45 ↗ in in the FAQ for the program, too.

54:47 ↗ >> Okay, good job. Thank you.

54:49 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, it was great to

54:50 ↗ connect with Kat on that. Awesome.

54:52 ↗ [snorts]

54:53 ↗ >> Yeah. And we're just finishing up our

54:56 ↗ cost share and so we got rid of within

54:58 ↗ five feet. We got rid of everything

55:00 ↗ that's flammable and putting, you know,

55:02 ↗ gravel.

55:02 ↗ >> Yeah. It seems like there's Yeah. more

55:04 ↗ of the zone definitions. Yeah.

55:06 ↗ >> Just had to focus on that.

55:07 ↗ >> Yeah.

55:09 ↗ >> Um but so so that's good that you're

55:12 ↗ doing the education. Um,

55:15 ↗ so you I think you had figured out going

55:20 ↗ from 51 to 55% tree canopy in the city

55:25 ↗ of Isipa. Um, and I think it's so cool

55:27 ↗ that this tree giveaway is hopefully

55:29 ↗ it'll help eventually.

55:31 ↗ >> Um, with that, um, do you remember how

55:35 ↗ many acres that is?

55:37 ↗ >> Oh, it's Yeah, I know. We've done these

55:40 ↗ calculations before. I mean, it's it's a

55:42 ↗ couple hundred acres.

55:42 ↗ >> Couple hundred. Yeah. Yeah. I want to

55:44 ↗ say I I would have to do it again, but I

55:46 ↗ want to say it's in the neighborhood of

55:46 ↗ like 200 acres.

55:49 ↗ >> And you've planted almost 3,000 trees

55:51 ↗ just this year.

55:53 ↗ >> But that's what's tricky. A lot of those

55:54 ↗ are, you know, kind of successional tree

55:55 ↗ planting, so they are underexisting

55:57 ↗ canopy, so they won't necessarily

55:58 ↗ contribute new canopy, but they will

56:01 ↗ hopefully be gaining canopy as some of

56:03 ↗ those older maple trees and stuff like

56:05 ↗ that in our forest open space die back.

56:07 ↗ And then obviously, yes, like so the

56:08 ↗ caveat with mortality rate too there. So

56:11 ↗ >> yeah,

56:11 ↗ >> but yeah, we don't necessarily have a

56:12 ↗ projected acreage of what those trees

56:14 ↗ even at say a 40% or whatever mortality

56:17 ↗ rate would achieve. And then also like I

56:18 ↗ said, yeah, a lot of them are

56:19 ↗ technically understory plantings.

56:22 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. So we move we're moving

56:25 ↗ forward and then with the bomb cycle

56:27 ↗ move backwards. So

56:29 ↗ >> balancing out.

56:30 ↗ >> Yeah.

56:31 ↗ >> Cool. Um I think those were my main

56:34 ↗ questions. So maybe if we could so if we

56:36 ↗ could get that firm number how many

56:40 ↗ because I think I know we don't want to

56:43 ↗ reduce I know this is going to make

56:44 ↗ Connie upset reduce our goal but Jamie's

56:48 ↗ been talking about this and I was saying

56:50 ↗ oh no we got to reach the 55% but if it

56:53 ↗ doesn't turn out to be safe um and then

56:57 ↗ maybe

57:00 ↗ we do think about as we're redoing the

57:04 ↗ more reasonable. Do you think it's Do

57:06 ↗ you think it's a possible to go for for

57:08 ↗ more percent like a couple hundred acres

57:10 ↗ by that?

57:11 ↗ >> I think it's possible like that's some

57:12 ↗ of the trade-offs and yeah, I mean to me

57:14 ↗ I think I don't think it's been

57:15 ↗ discussed as much but is does the does

57:16 ↗ the target need to change or is possibly

57:19 ↗ change of the time frame slightly

57:21 ↗ change? You know, I think there's a few

57:22 ↗ different ways to look at it too that

57:23 ↗ can continue to be discussed too. Yes. I

57:25 ↗ mean it's a pretty aggressive time frame

57:27 ↗ quite honestly you know 9 10 years.

57:29 ↗ Yeah. I think most people know tree

57:30 ↗ canopies measured pretty standardly at

57:33 ↗ 14 feet. So the little trees we're

57:35 ↗ planting are counting towards that for

57:36 ↗ often five or 10 years at least.

57:40 ↗ >> So yeah, I yeah, it's tricky.

57:44 ↗ >> And will you be helping us with those

57:46 ↗ numbers as we're going over?

57:49 ↗ >> Yes. And I've been with the kind of

57:50 ↗ working group. I haven't been as

57:51 ↗ involved on this since summer as a lot

57:53 ↗ of the initial recommendations came

57:54 ↗ together, but I know we're grouping up

57:55 ↗ with Stacy again in January, February.

57:57 ↗ Um and then like I said hanging around

57:59 ↗ for the conversation tonight. So yes,

58:00 ↗ one of many things that you know

58:01 ↗ overlaps with the forest management

58:03 ↗ plan, urban forester to stay involved

58:05 ↗ with as it relates to ICAP. So

58:07 ↗ >> nice and I think it's really cool

58:10 ↗ acres.

58:11 ↗ >> It's about 300 acres is 4% of our

58:14 ↗ >> So 300 309 acres to go 4%.

58:17 ↗ >> Thanks David.

58:19 ↗ >> Um yeah and

58:22 ↗ I think it's really cool that we're

58:24 ↗ really looking at the firewise stuff. um

58:27 ↗ and working together. Um

58:31 ↗ and I I know I've said this before, but

58:33 ↗ my I have relatives in Paradise whose

58:36 ↗ place they've grown down had been down

58:38 ↗ there and um they were very aggressive

58:42 ↗ with their uh tree canopy rules and um

58:46 ↗ they weren't able to cut tree stand. You

58:50 ↗ know, it was just very similar to Isqua.

58:54 ↗ They love their trees and so do we. And

58:57 ↗ so like how do we live together? Like

58:59 ↗ paradise is a very different place

59:01 ↗ because you know because of it location

59:04 ↗ but um

59:08 ↗ um

59:10 ↗ [snorts] the our goals our mission goals

59:14 ↗ are really good here but worldwide right

59:18 ↗ now it's not looking very good. And so I

59:20 ↗ just I'm glad we're thinking about being

59:22 ↗ confident.

59:23 ↗ >> Yeah.

59:24 ↗ >> Awesome. Thanks.

59:25 ↗ >> Yeah. Thank you, Nancy. And then we're

59:28 ↗ gonna call this topic back. We got a

59:30 ↗ little bit.

59:31 ↗ >> So I have two general comments for you.

59:33 ↗ The first one is you talked about the

59:35 ↗ tree inventory and how important that is

59:38 ↗ to manage these trees. And you handed

59:40 ↗ out about 3,000 trees roughly this year.

59:43 ↗ And you have an inventory, particularly

59:45 ↗ with the ones you're giving to

59:46 ↗ homeowners of where they're going and

59:47 ↗ what size they are. Are you starting

59:49 ↗ your inventory based on what you've

59:50 ↗ planted this year and what you're

59:52 ↗ handing out this year so that you don't

59:53 ↗ start from scratch or you got data. I

59:56 ↗ >> I think you bring up a really good point

59:57 ↗ that we we could there's there's no

59:59 ↗ legitimate excuse not to be building out

1:00:01 ↗ a little bit. um

1:00:02 ↗ >> start

1:00:03 ↗ >> yes the the the benefit of being a

1:00:05 ↗ consultant is getting tree conditions

1:00:07 ↗ kind of tree needs ages stuff like that

1:00:09 ↗ that volunteers or honestly even to some

1:00:11 ↗ extent myself hasn't quite experience or

1:00:13 ↗ certainly there's time capacity issues

1:00:14 ↗ there but but but yes and it wouldn't be

1:00:16 ↗ probably thousands of those but of that

1:00:18 ↗ certainly those 61 larger trees and

1:00:20 ↗ things like that so yes

1:00:21 ↗ >> you're planting 3,000 trees this year

1:00:23 ↗ you have homeowners that are taking down

1:00:25 ↗ trees less than any kind of

1:00:28 ↗ >> I mean you have an opportunity to get

1:00:30 ↗ that data from community planning to

1:00:32 ↗ build that into a spreadsheet or

1:00:34 ↗ something. you know those you know what

1:00:37 ↗ types they are often you know what size

1:00:39 ↗ they are particularly if the hormones

1:00:40 ↗ you're replacing I'm just offering a

1:00:42 ↗ suggestion that you can do what you want

1:00:44 ↗ with it but it's just a way to start

1:00:46 ↗ >> the tree giveaway we do have mapped we

1:00:47 ↗ have all the addresses we have that on a

1:00:49 ↗ map but obviously there's not much more

1:00:51 ↗ information than that but David and I

1:00:52 ↗ plan on trying to follow up annually to

1:00:54 ↗ get at least some representative kind of

1:00:55 ↗ samples of

1:00:56 ↗ >> yeah you can just send an email

1:00:57 ↗ >> survival that's not how you communicate

1:00:59 ↗ with them say

1:01:00 ↗ >> that's exactly that's exact and we'll

1:01:01 ↗ see how many responses we get but at

1:01:02 ↗ least if we get you know 10 20% % that

1:01:04 ↗ will give us obviously probably people

1:01:06 ↗ who respond are a little more skewed to

1:01:07 ↗ the people who are going to care more

1:01:08 ↗ but um but yes yes yes

1:01:10 ↗ >> right you talked a little bit about your

1:01:12 ↗ tree 101

1:01:14 ↗ and as I look around this room and I

1:01:16 ↗ think in my my own volunteering efforts

1:01:18 ↗ many of us are leaders in organizations

1:01:23 ↗ and I think putting the responsibility

1:01:25 ↗ for telling people how to or informing

1:01:28 ↗ people how to take care of their trees

1:01:30 ↗ and to plant them falling just on city

1:01:32 ↗ stat is really are and many of us serve

1:01:35 ↗ in other areas and train people like how

1:01:38 ↗ to take care of trees or whatever it is.

1:01:40 ↗ My suggestion to you is to build an army

1:01:43 ↗ of people to do this. So it's not always

1:01:46 ↗ following on city staff and those of us

1:01:49 ↗ that care about trees like you know

1:01:51 ↗ these Alps trails club fish others of us

1:01:56 ↗ know John here does a lot of trash I

1:01:58 ↗ mean there's all of us that do it and I

1:02:00 ↗ think you would have an army that

1:02:01 ↗ doesn't that reduces so if you can train

1:02:03 ↗ some trainers you might save yourself

1:02:06 ↗ some headaches and there's opportunities

1:02:08 ↗ in my opinion to go further than what

1:02:10 ↗ you're talking about which is twice a

1:02:12 ↗ year which is REI has got things if you

1:02:15 ↗ have 10 minutes at the start of their

1:02:16 ↗ class to talk about trees because

1:02:18 ↗ everybody at REI loves trees. If you go

1:02:21 ↗ to some place like Squawk, they bring in

1:02:23 ↗ an arborist, which I've gone to their

1:02:24 ↗ classes. They're incredible. Good lawn

1:02:26 ↗ care, how to take care of trees. Squawk

1:02:29 ↗ is a great resource in town. Let's bring

1:02:32 ↗ one of these trainers and I'm suggesting

1:02:34 ↗ to you, I'm trying to help you get the

1:02:36 ↗ job and lit up because Tanya mentioned

1:02:39 ↗ we need to get more of us talking and we

1:02:40 ↗ talk. If we don't get more of his talk

1:02:42 ↗ of the talk and ju not just having Dan

1:02:44 ↗ trying to say all the words that get

1:02:47 ↗ this is just a suggestion. I think you

1:02:49 ↗ look in this room we're passionate about

1:02:51 ↗ this.

1:02:51 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:02:52 ↗ >> And I think you could look at both these

1:02:54 ↗ folks back here and all of us we would

1:02:56 ↗ all be willing to step up and go to an

1:02:58 ↗ event and I think them same thing could

1:03:00 ↗ be true about sustainability and other I

1:03:02 ↗ know you have time. None of us want to

1:03:05 ↗ sit at a table, but if you take us to an

1:03:06 ↗ REI event and you get to talk about it

1:03:08 ↗ for 10 minutes about trees and

1:03:09 ↗ sustainability, it's a different message

1:03:11 ↗ than saying, "Come sit at a table for

1:03:13 ↗ four hours and talk to them."

1:03:14 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:03:15 ↗ >> And you generally got the people that

1:03:16 ↗ are

1:03:18 ↗ somewhat interested in that topic at the

1:03:20 ↗ meeting at the at the summit.

1:03:23 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:03:23 ↗ >> So that's just a suggestion for

1:03:25 ↗ consideration.

1:03:26 ↗ >> Great. And I would say the one thing

1:03:27 ↗ that we've had, you know, success with

1:03:28 ↗ is the Forest Stewart model with Green

1:03:30 ↗ Aqua. That's people who are training on

1:03:32 ↗ plant identification, some basic

1:03:34 ↗ planting invasive species removal and

1:03:36 ↗ that's something we would love to keep

1:03:37 ↗ growing too. That's an example I think

1:03:39 ↗ that yeah certainly can translate to

1:03:40 ↗ more traditional tree

1:03:41 ↗ >> care one take care of the trees in your

1:03:43 ↗ own yard.

1:03:44 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:03:47 ↗ >> Like it

1:03:49 ↗ >> take it.

1:03:51 ↗ >> Thank you. Appreciate you coming. Thanks

1:03:53 ↗ to us that update today. All right.

1:03:55 ↗ We're going to move right into our

1:03:56 ↗ considerations for the IAP update.

1:04:07 ↗ All right. Well, I know anytime Dan is

1:04:10 ↗ here, we probably NEED A FULL OUT

1:04:13 ↗ passionate about it. So, [laughter]

1:04:15 ↗ we will make sure to do that going

1:04:17 ↗ forward. All right.

1:04:21 ↗ Okay. So, tonight we are picking up a

1:04:24 ↗ bit of a conversation that we had at the

1:04:26 ↗ last meeting. Um but also digging in a

1:04:29 ↗ bit deeper into a couple sections of the

1:04:31 ↗ climate action plan. Um we are each

1:04:35 ↗ meeting going forward over the next

1:04:36 ↗ several months really going to be

1:04:38 ↗ digging into aspects of the climate

1:04:41 ↗ action plan update. So this is a bit of

1:04:43 ↗ a a warmup um for that process going

1:04:46 ↗ forward. Um today we have four topics.

1:04:50 ↗ Um we're going to uh try and get through

1:04:52 ↗ them in about 45 minutes. we can always

1:04:55 ↗ come back to them if we run short on

1:04:56 ↗ time. Um, but two of those topics is

1:05:00 ↗ discussing feedback from other boards

1:05:02 ↗ where we presented some preliminary

1:05:04 ↗ recommendations.

1:05:06 ↗ And then the other two topics are

1:05:08 ↗ revisiting those that we discussed in

1:05:10 ↗ October that we wanted to dig in a

1:05:12 ↗ little bit deeper and um I'll call get a

1:05:14 ↗ little a little D decision. So not a

1:05:17 ↗ final decision but at least get

1:05:18 ↗ direction for us to move forward with um

1:05:22 ↗ as we are working through updates to the

1:05:24 ↗ IAP. Um so the first topic we'll talk

1:05:26 ↗ about is the feedback we got from the

1:05:29 ↗ transportation advisory board on

1:05:30 ↗ transportation related actions. Um

1:05:33 ↗ second one is the park board feedback.

1:05:36 ↗ Um then we'll revisit that discussion on

1:05:39 ↗ redundancy or actions that exist in

1:05:42 ↗ multiple city plans and revisit that

1:05:45 ↗ discussion on a proposed

1:05:48 ↗ um length of the plan. Um, one thing I

1:05:52 ↗ realized I don't have in this slide deck

1:05:54 ↗ that I presented to TAB and part board

1:05:56 ↗ is the members of the committees uh that

1:06:00 ↗ u engaged over April and June to provide

1:06:04 ↗ feedback on aspects of the plan. Um,

1:06:07 ↗ Tom, John, Nancy, Keith, I think I got

1:06:12 ↗ everyone. We had staff there too, but I

1:06:14 ↗ believe those were the four uh board

1:06:16 ↗ members that engaged um in the

1:06:19 ↗ discussion. And so you'll hear some of

1:06:20 ↗ that uh conversation reflected back here

1:06:23 ↗ tonight as we go through the board back.

1:06:28 ↗ Um before we dig into the summary of the

1:06:31 ↗ transportation advisory board meeting,

1:06:32 ↗ just wanted to provide another reminder

1:06:34 ↗ on our process. Um, we are taking input

1:06:39 ↗ that we heard from those committees back

1:06:41 ↗ in April and June, sharing that with the

1:06:43 ↗ relevant boards and commissions,

1:06:46 ↗ taking their feedback and presenting

1:06:48 ↗ that to you. Um, also in the background,

1:06:51 ↗ David and I are reviewing other plans,

1:06:53 ↗ getting ideas for potential policies to

1:06:56 ↗ incorporate into the IAP.

1:06:59 ↗ We are looking at a few opportunities to

1:07:02 ↗ reorganize the IAP so the actions really

1:07:05 ↗ align in the the right focus area.

1:07:08 ↗ Um and then there will be a couple

1:07:10 ↗ bigger decisions or revisions around

1:07:13 ↗ targets that we'll have conversations

1:07:14 ↗ with you all about. Um particularly

1:07:17 ↗ around a target for municipal operations

1:07:20 ↗ which we don't currently have. um kind

1:07:23 ↗ of a reddraft of the community

1:07:26 ↗ resilience [laughter]

1:07:28 ↗ section and then um as Dan and others

1:07:32 ↗ have mentioned tonight potentially uh

1:07:34 ↗ revisiting that tree canopy target. So

1:07:36 ↗ those will be deeper dive conversations

1:07:38 ↗ coming in the next few months.

1:07:41 ↗ Um so the next topic I'm going to dig

1:07:43 ↗ into is uh talk through specific

1:07:47 ↗ feedback we got from the transportation

1:07:49 ↗ advisory board. Um actually Dave Kepler

1:07:52 ↗ gave a really nice summary of that

1:07:54 ↗ earlier. We're going to pause, reflect

1:07:57 ↗ on that um feedback and the priorities

1:08:00 ↗ we heard from TAB and get your all's

1:08:03 ↗ feedback and then we'll move into the

1:08:05 ↗ next topic. So we're going to go kind of

1:08:06 ↗ subject by subject over the next few

1:08:08 ↗ weeks.

1:08:11 ↗ Um so back in October we met with the

1:08:15 ↗ transportation advisory board. We shared

1:08:17 ↗ with them a summary of the committee

1:08:21 ↗ meetings that we had back in the spring

1:08:23 ↗ and then we heard from them their

1:08:26 ↗ priorities um specific recommendations

1:08:29 ↗ around actions and um other input that

1:08:34 ↗ they wanted to provide for the

1:08:35 ↗ transportation related actions in the

1:08:38 ↗ climate action plan update.

1:08:40 ↗ Um this is this slide presents a summary

1:08:44 ↗ of their feedback. There's a bit more

1:08:46 ↗ detail in the memo and really tonight we

1:08:50 ↗ want to hear the environmental board's

1:08:52 ↗ reflection on um the input we got from

1:08:56 ↗ from TAB. Um so the main priorities and

1:09:00 ↗ input that uh really resonated

1:09:02 ↗ throughout that meeting uh was reducing

1:09:04 ↗ parking minimums to really encourage

1:09:07 ↗ multimodal transportation. Um so

1:09:10 ↗ multimodal being uh nonpar

1:09:13 ↗ uh transportation biking um

1:09:16 ↗ [clears throat]

1:09:16 ↗ scooters etc. Um expanding our biking

1:09:20 ↗ and multimodel networks um as you heard

1:09:24 ↗ uh from public comment to do. They also

1:09:26 ↗ talked around safety associated with

1:09:28 ↗ those networks. Um and then new

1:09:31 ↗ requirements for multifamily that would

1:09:35 ↗ uh require up to 100% of um EV

1:09:40 ↗ infrastructure making sure that all the

1:09:42 ↗ parking spaces are ready for electric

1:09:44 ↗ vehicle infrastructure as well as there

1:09:47 ↗ is interest in um charging access and

1:09:50 ↗ storage for um electric bikes and

1:09:53 ↗ scooters for instance. Um so those are

1:09:56 ↗ some of the big takeaways from the TAB

1:09:58 ↗ meeting. A little bit more detail is

1:10:00 ↗ available in the memo. Um, but just want

1:10:03 ↗ to pause there and hear comments from

1:10:05 ↗ the board if if this resonates with you

1:10:08 ↗ all on some of the priorities for the

1:10:10 ↗ transportation section update of the IA.

1:10:20 ↗ >> So, I guess I'm trying to understand the

1:10:24 ↗ no parking minimums. Were they talking

1:10:26 ↗ about like for single family houses or

1:10:28 ↗ for apartment building you know the

1:10:31 ↗ redevelopment areas like the central is

1:10:34 ↗ for do you know what

1:10:36 ↗ >> yeah mostly focus on multif family

1:10:38 ↗ >> multif family so trying to reduce the

1:10:40 ↗ amount of parking that's required at

1:10:42 ↗ multifamily essentially to

1:10:44 ↗ >> they specifically look at different

1:10:46 ↗ areas are they talking about I mean so

1:10:49 ↗ people that if there's a development

1:10:50 ↗ going in where lakeside is where there's

1:10:52 ↗ no real bus service currently and may

1:10:56 ↗ not be with funding from the county. Um,

1:10:59 ↗ are we still talking about reducing

1:11:02 ↗ parking? So, it' be broad across the

1:11:04 ↗ cities what they're looking at.

1:11:05 ↗ >> They did not get into that level of

1:11:07 ↗ detail. So, I think that's something we

1:11:10 ↗ could raise to make sure it was included

1:11:11 ↗ in the action.

1:11:13 ↗ >> We'll look at on more specific or case

1:11:16 ↗ by case basis within my concern

1:11:18 ↗ >> because there's some places that still

1:11:20 ↗ have development in the city that may

1:11:22 ↗ not have it. Um, the other thing is I

1:11:24 ↗ really I would just generally comment

1:11:26 ↗ and say that the

1:11:29 ↗ details they have in your presentation.

1:11:32 ↗ Um, I appreciate it more than your

1:11:34 ↗ summary. Just to be honest, I like the

1:11:36 ↗ details and the direction they went with

1:11:38 ↗ all of that. So, I'm very supportive of

1:11:40 ↗ that. But the last piece I had on this

1:11:43 ↗ is did you I know you had a couple of

1:11:45 ↗ community meetings on the climate action

1:11:47 ↗ plan and did you hear anything on

1:11:50 ↗ transportation at any of those comp and

1:11:52 ↗ I'll ask this about the other part if

1:11:53 ↗ you would present what the public had to

1:11:55 ↗ say and the community had to say about

1:11:57 ↗ transportation as well because I didn't

1:11:59 ↗ see that anywhere.

1:12:00 ↗ >> Yeah. So our community meetings so far

1:12:03 ↗ have been um the mayor's event um and we

1:12:06 ↗ had students that collected data or

1:12:09 ↗ input during that event. We did hear

1:12:11 ↗ about um ebikes and improved access to

1:12:15 ↗ transit. So, we're still writing up some

1:12:17 ↗ of those results from that that I was a

1:12:21 ↗ fairly small um attendance due to the

1:12:24 ↗ Mariners playoff game happening that

1:12:26 ↗ night, but we did get some very engaged

1:12:28 ↗ community members. Um and so, yes, we'll

1:12:31 ↗ include that in in some of the next

1:12:33 ↗ updates. And then we are working with

1:12:34 ↗ the students to do um surveys uh a youth

1:12:38 ↗ survey that'll be going out this winter

1:12:40 ↗ too. But yeah, transit um improved uh uh

1:12:45 ↗ networks kind of really echoing

1:12:56 ↗ >> question. So, [snorts] um, when you're

1:12:58 ↗ looking at building these multip

1:13:03 ↗ folks taking into consideration

1:13:05 ↗ distance from

1:13:07 ↗ grocery stores, shopping centers, places

1:13:10 ↗ where you have to go get your day-to-day

1:13:11 ↗ stuff.

1:13:13 ↗ [snorts and clears throat]

1:13:13 ↗ It's great to do it on a bike when it's

1:13:15 ↗ a nice day

1:13:17 ↗ >> and you got the room in your backpack

1:13:18 ↗ and stuff, but days walking over to get

1:13:22 ↗ your groceries, it's kind of lousy.

1:13:26 ↗ Maybe one idea to think of is and I

1:13:28 ↗ don't know if it already exists having

1:13:30 ↗ just a local buser that runs the city.

1:13:38 ↗ >> So uh for the multimotal you talking

1:13:40 ↗ about ensuring that the network is

1:13:43 ↗ providing access to amenities that

1:13:45 ↗ >> yeah access to year round access to

1:13:47 ↗ amenities.

1:13:49 ↗ >> Great. And then um a local

1:13:54 ↗ shuttle

1:13:55 ↗ or like a like Bel has the Bellhawk or

1:13:58 ↗ something.

1:13:58 ↗ >> I think it's more touristy. But

1:14:00 ↗ >> yeah. Okay.

1:14:03 ↗ >> But something different than a metro

1:14:05 ↗ flex like an on demand maybe. That's

1:14:06 ↗ >> I mean it could be a metro just most

1:14:08 ↗ metros are going from Isiqua to

1:14:10 ↗ somewhere else. They're not

1:14:12 ↗ >> to

1:14:19 ↗ [laughter]

1:14:20 ↗ cargo bike.

1:14:23 ↗ Um, I see Keith has a question.

1:14:25 ↗ >> Keith,

1:14:27 ↗ >> yeah, I just wanted to clarify the the

1:14:28 ↗ Metro Flex seems like a pretty good

1:14:31 ↗ option for just getting around Diqua and

1:14:33 ↗ I think uh and Ive I've I've heard talk

1:14:36 ↗ of that potentially getting pulled and

1:14:38 ↗ uh I think it serves a really important

1:14:40 ↗ u you know function along the lines of

1:14:43 ↗ what we're talking about you know people

1:14:44 ↗ getting groceries and whatnot getting

1:14:46 ↗ around town. So I'd love to see you know

1:14:48 ↗ if even if Metroflex has to go away

1:14:50 ↗ something something like that. Yeah,

1:14:52 ↗ like a like an Isqua uh centric but bus

1:14:55 ↗ router or whatever that would be.

1:14:59 ↗ >> Great. Um, great. So, this sounds like a

1:15:02 ↗ new priority. I mean, with some kind of

1:15:06 ↗ local shuttle service or at least

1:15:09 ↗ retaining something in the

1:15:11 ↗ [clears throat]

1:15:12 ↗ that provides the same service as

1:15:14 ↗ Metroflelex, but also maybe kind of a

1:15:15 ↗ circulation.

1:15:16 ↗ >> No, not the same as Metrlex. So there

1:15:19 ↗ used to be a shuttle that went around

1:15:20 ↗ town and it was terminated and Metroflex

1:15:25 ↗ is specifically trying to serve people

1:15:27 ↗ who are too far away from a metro stop.

1:15:31 ↗ So for example, I looked into it and I

1:15:33 ↗ don't qualify because I can I'm within

1:15:35 ↗ walking distance of a regular bus stop.

1:15:40 ↗ It it's not going where I want to go

1:15:42 ↗ maybe to go get my groceries and take

1:15:45 ↗ anyway. Metroflex is not at all

1:15:50 ↗ a solution for all the problems. It's We

1:15:53 ↗ need something else.

1:15:56 ↗ A regular [clears throat] shuttle that

1:15:57 ↗ loops around through town sort of thing,

1:15:59 ↗ which we used to have.

1:16:01 ↗ >> Yeah. Do you know why they took it away?

1:16:03 ↗ >> Oh, I don't I'm sure it was a budget

1:16:05 ↗ issue, but I do not recall.

1:16:08 ↗ >> Yeah, that was nice.

1:16:09 ↗ >> Was it is it funded?

1:16:11 ↗ >> No, it was Metro

1:16:14 ↗ contributed to it as well.

1:16:17 ↗ I mean,

1:16:20 ↗ >> I personally think that this is

1:16:22 ↗ something that would be a good um CCA

1:16:25 ↗ grant application

1:16:29 ↗ that and um

1:16:32 ↗ maybe a certain amount of free rides for

1:16:35 ↗ everybody. Like I think that one was

1:16:38 ↗ free, but just in general, it'd be nice

1:16:41 ↗ that if people could ride the bus for

1:16:44 ↗ free and this has been talked a lot

1:16:46 ↗ about and going out camping for

1:16:48 ↗ Victoria, people were thinking about it

1:16:51 ↗ out in Maple Valley. So I know that that

1:16:54 ↗ this is very Isiqua specific and that

1:16:55 ↗ goes beyond that. But um maybe we could

1:16:58 ↗ have it for just Isiqua and it could

1:17:00 ↗ spread out.

1:17:04 ↗ Maybe every I mean it'd be neat if

1:17:06 ↗ everybody could just get an Orca pass,

1:17:07 ↗ but maybe that is too much. Maybe

1:17:10 ↗ everybody just gets maybe 10 rides a

1:17:12 ↗ year or something like that for free.

1:17:20 ↗ >> And your reflections on um requirements

1:17:24 ↗ for multifamily charging. Um this came

1:17:28 ↗ up. So Redmond's passed 100%

1:17:31 ↗ uh of stalls in new multifamily have to

1:17:36 ↗ be EV ready. Um [clears throat]

1:17:39 ↗ they that went into effect in July

1:17:42 ↗ believe so they did not have much push

1:17:45 ↗ back from development. We discussed it

1:17:47 ↗ with TAB. There was some interest from

1:17:50 ↗ members but also a concern about going

1:17:52 ↗ above city or state code and whether

1:17:55 ↗ we'd get push back from developers. So

1:17:58 ↗ that's something we'd want to look into.

1:18:00 ↗ Curious if there's thoughts, reactions

1:18:03 ↗ that are doing.

1:18:05 ↗ >> When you say EV ready, that is me having

1:18:07 ↗ the conduit in place to pull the cable

1:18:09 ↗ through, not actually building the

1:18:11 ↗ correct,

1:18:12 ↗ >> but yeah, it's ready to put the charger

1:18:14 ↗ there.

1:18:15 ↗ >> Actually scares me more about that quote

1:18:17 ↗ is having a storage area for electric

1:18:20 ↗ vehicles, i.e. bikes. One lights on

1:18:23 ↗ fire, the whole place lights on fire.

1:18:25 ↗ And good luck getting it.

1:18:29 ↗ for the electric bike.

1:18:30 ↗ >> They're electric electric batteries.

1:18:32 ↗ They're near impossible to put out once

1:18:34 ↗ they start burning.

1:18:36 ↗ >> Really?

1:18:37 ↗ >> You can dump water on it all you want.

1:18:40 ↗ >> And [clears throat]

1:18:42 ↗ you lithium ion.

1:18:44 ↗ >> The fire departments, is the one I work

1:18:47 ↗ with, um, we [clears throat] don't try

1:18:49 ↗ to put them out. We try to

1:18:52 ↗ snuff them, put a big blanket over them,

1:18:55 ↗ and then haul them off and let them

1:18:57 ↗ burn.

1:18:58 ↗ >> So, you've experienced it before?

1:19:01 ↗ >> We we had a few of them, not a lot.

1:19:04 ↗ >> And were they bikes or cars?

1:19:09 ↗ >> I mean, just a concept. [laughter] It's

1:19:11 ↗ not something to take by any means, but

1:19:13 ↗ I'm just picturing this concept of a

1:19:15 ↗ room full of electric bikes. Yeah. One

1:19:16 ↗ like

1:19:17 ↗ >> that. That'll be your experate

1:19:21 ↗ [clears throat]

1:19:22 ↗ batteries very soon.

1:19:26 ↗ >> I see you got a hand up there.

1:19:29 ↗ >> Yeah. Hi. Um, hi Stacy. So, I had a

1:19:34 ↗ comment or a question on the EV

1:19:36 ↗ infrastructure.

1:19:38 ↗ Um if I understand correctly what you're

1:19:40 ↗ saying is um they want all parking spots

1:19:44 ↗ for the multi-family

1:19:47 ↗ mult um basically any new developments

1:19:51 ↗ to be ready all parking spots to be

1:19:53 ↗ ready for the EVs. Is that correct?

1:19:57 ↗ >> That yeah that wasn't necessarily 100%

1:20:00 ↗ agreement amongst TAB. That was a

1:20:02 ↗ suggestion that came out of the

1:20:04 ↗ transportation committee last spring.

1:20:06 ↗ tab discussed it in October. There was a

1:20:10 ↗ lot of interest. There was some concern

1:20:12 ↗ about going above the state code but

1:20:15 ↗ something to explore.

1:20:17 ↗ >> Right. So, so I I agree with the idea of

1:20:22 ↗ increasing the EV infrastructure but you

1:20:25 ↗ know having all spots um I think that

1:20:29 ↗ may that could be a problem because that

1:20:31 ↗ will exaggerate the electricity

1:20:33 ↗ requirements and as you mentioned you

1:20:35 ↗ know I think that may be a problem for

1:20:38 ↗ the code

1:20:39 ↗ >> [snorts]

1:20:40 ↗ >> um I don't know the details on that but

1:20:42 ↗ I'm not sure how you can do all of them

1:20:44 ↗ but I do certainly agree with increasing

1:20:47 ↗ the EV infrastructure. I just wanted to

1:20:50 ↗ add that comment.

1:20:53 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:20:56 ↗ [snorts]

1:20:57 ↗ >> Other comments?

1:20:59 ↗ >> No,

1:21:03 ↗ >> sorry, that's it.

1:21:05 ↗ >> No problem.

1:21:08 ↗ >> And this is just um getting those

1:21:10 ↗ initial reactions to the feedback we

1:21:12 ↗ heard from TAB. We will go out and we

1:21:15 ↗ will go and build out the transportation

1:21:17 ↗ action section and bring those to you.

1:21:20 ↗ This is helpful. Early feedback makes

1:21:22 ↗ really good sense that people living in

1:21:25 ↗ apartments and are able and condos are

1:21:28 ↗ able to plug their babies at home.

1:21:33 ↗ All right, I will move on to the

1:21:36 ↗ parkboard discussion.

1:21:37 ↗ >> Okay.

1:21:41 ↗ All right. Um so very similar uh we met

1:21:44 ↗ with the park board in October. We

1:21:46 ↗ shared a summary of the committee

1:21:48 ↗ discussion on natural system the

1:21:50 ↗ priorities that came out of that

1:21:52 ↗ discussion and some proposed actions. Um

1:21:55 ↗ again this is a highle summary of the

1:21:58 ↗ feedback received from the park board.

1:22:00 ↗ More details in the memo. Um there was

1:22:04 ↗ there was some potential interest in

1:22:06 ↗ revising the tree canopy target. We do

1:22:08 ↗ not need to discuss that tonight. That's

1:22:10 ↗ something we need to go back and

1:22:11 ↗ workshop as staff. Um, and we'll be

1:22:13 ↗ bringing back proposals and likely

1:22:15 ↗ having a joint meeting with the park

1:22:17 ↗ board to discuss that. There's a lot of

1:22:19 ↗ interest in invasive species management,

1:22:22 ↗ water conservation. Um, looking to

1:22:24 ↗ expand community gardens and native

1:22:27 ↗ plant gardens, all with a resilience

1:22:30 ↗ angle to those. They would be written in

1:22:32 ↗ the way that they support our climate

1:22:34 ↗ resilience. Um and then one topic that

1:22:38 ↗ did come up was just the need

1:22:43 ↗ um to consider any impacts to recreation

1:22:47 ↗ um when advancing envir uh climate

1:22:51 ↗ actions um or any environmental

1:22:54 ↗ considerations. So for example, we

1:22:56 ↗ talked a bit about the dark sky

1:22:58 ↗ initiative. Um there was some current

1:23:01 ↗ concerns about that limiting ball field

1:23:03 ↗ use of the lights where right now our

1:23:07 ↗ ball field lights stay on till say 11 so

1:23:10 ↗ we can really maximize use of those ball

1:23:12 ↗ fields. There's concern that if we had

1:23:15 ↗ to shut lights off at some of our fields

1:23:17 ↗ at say 8:00 9:00 that would um lead to

1:23:22 ↗ the need to build more fields um to meet

1:23:25 ↗ the demand of the community. Um, and

1:23:28 ↗ that would have a greater impact than

1:23:30 ↗ leaving the lights on longer, for

1:23:32 ↗ example. So, I think the park board was

1:23:34 ↗ just interested in as we think about the

1:23:37 ↗ actions um under our natural system

1:23:40 ↗ section of the plan that we think about

1:23:43 ↗ the other needs of our community and

1:23:45 ↗ maybe there's a a good opportunity for

1:23:47 ↗ discussion between the two boards

1:23:49 ↗ together.

1:23:50 ↗ Um so wanted to uh primarily that middle

1:23:54 ↗ section see um if these items resonate

1:23:58 ↗ with the board. Again these would all

1:24:00 ↗ have be written in a way where the

1:24:01 ↗ actions really focused on the climate

1:24:03 ↗ resilience aspect um of that topic.

1:24:09 ↗ 18.

1:24:10 ↗ >> I guess my general comments are that I

1:24:13 ↗ support all of these things at the park

1:24:15 ↗ board except for the conversation about

1:24:17 ↗ the dark sky ordinance. And I think when

1:24:19 ↗ we had our conversation, we were

1:24:21 ↗ focusing on um commercial and business

1:24:25 ↗ type building more than the public

1:24:27 ↗ fields. Um particularly thinking about

1:24:30 ↗ the Costco campus and all the lights

1:24:32 ↗ they leave on every night and was a

1:24:35 ↗ thought reduce energy use. I know LED

1:24:39 ↗ lights don't use that much energy. I get

1:24:41 ↗ it. But it's still the right concept.

1:24:43 ↗ And I think when we were talking about

1:24:45 ↗ dying ordinance, we were focusing on the

1:24:47 ↗ REI and the Costco and the other.

1:24:55 ↗ >> Yeah, I'm definitely in agreement with

1:24:58 ↗ it. And um and as far as invasives go,

1:25:02 ↗ like I see a lot of um ivy, you know,

1:25:07 ↗ growing up the trees. And then from my

1:25:10 ↗ understanding, and dad, maybe you could

1:25:12 ↗ check me on this. I I've heard that that

1:25:14 ↗ makes it the trees more vulnerable to

1:25:16 ↗ blowing over in a windstorm because it

1:25:18 ↗ makes them heavier. And so that's a lot

1:25:21 ↗ of carbon to get lost, you know, and

1:25:25 ↗ maybe a car crash or somebody's house.

1:25:27 ↗ Um so yeah the so that I think that

1:25:29 ↗ would be a really great place to start

1:25:34 ↗ just

1:25:36 ↗ >> yeah and that was what we talked about

1:25:37 ↗ there is a lot around invasives in the

1:25:40 ↗ urban forest management plan but what

1:25:42 ↗ the climate action plan could talk about

1:25:44 ↗ was management of those invasive

1:25:47 ↗ invasive species to support both the

1:25:50 ↗ resilience of um trees as well as

1:25:53 ↗ progress towards our tree canopy targets

1:25:56 ↗ for example. So we would have more of

1:25:57 ↗ that climate lens on the actions in

1:25:59 ↗ mind.

1:26:00 ↗ >> Do you mind if I add? I mean we don't

1:26:01 ↗ have a lot of specific strategies on how

1:26:03 ↗ to do that on private property too. Like

1:26:05 ↗ Black Mountain has some really bad ivy

1:26:07 ↗ infestations and certainly we could do

1:26:10 ↗ more education but we can't tangibly go

1:26:11 ↗ touch that without permission and

1:26:13 ↗ obviously

1:26:14 ↗ >> funding too. So how do we work on

1:26:17 ↗ campaigns like that? I think would be be

1:26:18 ↗ great.

1:26:20 ↗ >> I love the garden ideas. [clears throat]

1:26:23 ↗ >> Yeah, that's cool.

1:26:24 ↗ >> Gardens are great. Was there a on the

1:26:27 ↗ predators around the invasives, was this

1:26:29 ↗ focused on any type of land area? So,

1:26:31 ↗ was this developed park? Was this open

1:26:33 ↗ spaces? Was it streetscapes? Was it all

1:26:36 ↗ the above

1:26:36 ↗ >> there? Yeah, there was um kind of

1:26:38 ↗ general comment, but as Dan was saying,

1:26:40 ↗ there was a lot of interest from the

1:26:42 ↗ park board about the um public or excuse

1:26:45 ↗ me, the private property and a lot of

1:26:47 ↗ outreach and education needed to ensure

1:26:49 ↗ that we're protecting our tree canopy on

1:26:51 ↗ private property. But in general, I

1:26:53 ↗ think there was a need or interest in um

1:26:56 ↗ tackling invasives for the Brazilian.

1:27:01 ↗ >> Rush, I see your hand.

1:27:04 ↗ >> Oh yeah. Hi. Uh thanks Dan. Um, so Stacy

1:27:08 ↗ or Dan, I just was looking to see um,

1:27:12 ↗ you know, and I apologize if this was

1:27:15 ↗ discussed at some point and I just

1:27:16 ↗ missed it, but um, does the city or the

1:27:20 ↗ parks department or county has any

1:27:24 ↗ programs which you know do any um,

1:27:27 ↗ community education or outreach

1:27:30 ↗ regarding the invasive species or native

1:27:33 ↗ plant gardens? um because these are

1:27:36 ↗ great ideas and I think that community

1:27:38 ↗ outreach or education will definitely

1:27:41 ↗ help take it further. So I was just

1:27:44 ↗ curious.

1:27:48 ↗ >> Yeah, there there's lots more

1:27:50 ↗ opportunities. I think this I'm

1:27:51 ↗ immediately thinking of NY's feedback.

1:27:53 ↗ How do we better engage people versus

1:27:55 ↗ just hearing staff come talk about these

1:27:57 ↗ things which is still part of the

1:27:58 ↗ equation but certainly can't be the only

1:28:00 ↗ part. Um so yeah, things that

1:28:02 ↗ immediately come to mind. I mean, King

1:28:03 ↗ County Noxious Weeds, but that is a very

1:28:05 ↗ technical program that really goes to

1:28:07 ↗ government employees, but it's open to

1:28:09 ↗ the public and there could be

1:28:10 ↗ opportunities to attend more of their

1:28:12 ↗ trainings and workshops. Master

1:28:14 ↗ Gardeners is at every Isqua Farmers

1:28:16 ↗ Market. They often talk about native

1:28:17 ↗ plants, pollinator habitat, uh,

1:28:19 ↗ Washington Native Plant Society would be

1:28:21 ↗ another really good resource. So, yeah,

1:28:23 ↗ there are there are groups out there.

1:28:24 ↗ It's, you know, how do we more connect

1:28:26 ↗ them directly here in Isiqua and and get

1:28:29 ↗ people involved? Um,

1:28:32 ↗ so yeah, hopefully that answers your

1:28:33 ↗ question a little bit, but yeah, there

1:28:34 ↗ there there's certainly a lot more

1:28:35 ↗ opportunities there that we could be

1:28:37 ↗ leveraging with community partners.

1:28:40 ↗ >> Okay. And so, um, here, can you

1:28:44 ↗ elaborate? I didn't get quite the what

1:28:46 ↗ was the what was the last point where

1:28:48 ↗ you say consider recreational impacts

1:28:50 ↗ with environmental consideration. What

1:28:52 ↗ was the uh what was the exact point

1:28:55 ↗ here?

1:28:56 ↗ Yeah, the example there was if we're

1:28:58 ↗ looking at um a dark sky, expanding our

1:29:02 ↗ dark sky. Yeah.

1:29:05 ↗ >> Okay. But I think from the board there

1:29:07 ↗ was a stronger the real interest was

1:29:10 ↗ around the commercial requirements

1:29:12 ↗ versus um recreational.

1:29:15 ↗ >> Right.

1:29:18 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay. Thanks, DC.

1:29:22 ↗ >> And did you have another? Thank you. Um

1:29:24 ↗ Jonathan,

1:29:26 ↗ >> um I've just seen um recently a lot of

1:29:29 ↗ artificial turf being introduced in

1:29:32 ↗ public spaces and in private

1:29:36 ↗ properties. I'm wondering if we should

1:29:40 ↗ provide some guidance or regulations on

1:29:47 ↗ I tend to think that's bad for our

1:29:49 ↗ environment and I don't know if it is

1:29:51 ↗ but um you know we you know for ball

1:29:55 ↗ fields

1:29:57 ↗ like to try to prevent our ball fields

1:30:01 ↗ from getting converted to artificial

1:30:04 ↗ turf and I'd like to prevent

1:30:06 ↗ um I public spaces and parks be using um

1:30:12 ↗ art mission to so some sort of

1:30:14 ↗ regulation on that

1:30:18 ↗ strong guidance against it

1:30:20 ↗ >> that yeah I think that'd be a great

1:30:21 ↗ conversation to have with park board and

1:30:24 ↗ Jeff Watling I think I believe they've

1:30:26 ↗ been testing out some cork

1:30:30 ↗ maybe up in the highlands

1:30:31 ↗ >> yeah central park is obviously our

1:30:33 ↗ biggest area for artificial and looking

1:30:35 ↗ at some alternativeities I think I think

1:30:37 ↗ Julie Wortis is doing some water quality

1:30:40 ↗ kind of testing around there too. OB

1:30:41 ↗ there's a lot of stuff with POS but

1:30:43 ↗ there's some you know stuff around yeah

1:30:45 ↗ turf and the chrome rubber and impacts

1:30:47 ↗ that has too. So

1:30:49 ↗ >> I think that'd be a good one to explore

1:30:51 ↗ and discuss here, understand what the

1:30:53 ↗ alternatives are and the tradeoffs with

1:30:54 ↗ any of those alternatives, how it might

1:30:56 ↗ align with the city sustainable

1:30:57 ↗ purchasing guidance, things like that.

1:31:01 ↗ But yeah,

1:31:01 ↗ >> in order of the cork artificial turf

1:31:04 ↗ yet, but the the the crumb rubber

1:31:06 ↗ official turf, there's a lot of studies

1:31:07 ↗ going on around the 6 PPD quino effect

1:31:10 ↗ that's getting into the stream and

1:31:12 ↗ killing the salmon. So, there's a lot of

1:31:15 ↗ concerns there, but they're doing

1:31:16 ↗ there's a lot of testing going on right

1:31:17 ↗ now. See if that's true or not true.

1:31:20 ↗ >> Oh, are they are they rubber rather than

1:31:22 ↗ plastic that

1:31:23 ↗ >> the rubber the rubber on your tire just

1:31:25 ↗ breaks down,

1:31:26 ↗ >> right? Yeah. Yeah.

1:31:26 ↗ >> And it becomes a poison to the salmon as

1:31:29 ↗ it enters into the waterways, but they

1:31:31 ↗ don't know if that's the that if the

1:31:34 ↗ same thing happens on like a crown

1:31:35 ↗ rubber artificial.

1:31:39 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah. Maybe it's the same

1:31:40 ↗ preservative that they're using on the

1:31:42 ↗ turf. It's the same preservative, but

1:31:44 ↗ how it how it breaks down

1:31:46 ↗ >> is the question.

1:31:47 ↗ >> It would be logical that it would have

1:31:49 ↗ the same effect.

1:31:50 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:31:51 ↗ >> Cool. That's good. They're researching

1:31:52 ↗ it. Um, so I just had an idea. So, would

1:31:57 ↗ it be appropriate for the city to write

1:32:01 ↗ a like if they see somebody who has a

1:32:04 ↗ private property with a bunch of ivy

1:32:06 ↗ growing up their trees, could the city

1:32:08 ↗ um write a letter to them and ask them,

1:32:11 ↗ you know, and even ask if they could

1:32:13 ↗ come help them? Would you come help

1:32:15 ↗ them?

1:32:16 ↗ >> I would love that. [laughter]

1:32:22 ↗ >> And yeah, how do I be thoughtful about

1:32:23 ↗ this? excited. Yeah. I mean,

1:32:25 ↗ >> they don't want their trees to fall

1:32:26 ↗ down.

1:32:27 ↗ >> No, no. I I I think the want going back

1:32:29 ↗ to Connie here for a lot of people would

1:32:31 ↗ be there. It's just Yeah. That's the

1:32:32 ↗ resources.

1:32:34 ↗ I hate always making this excuse, but

1:32:36 ↗ some of the liability issues of having

1:32:38 ↗ public staff or even contracted public

1:32:40 ↗ staff working at there's waiverss.

1:32:42 ↗ There's things to work around that, but

1:32:43 ↗ I mean that there are some

1:32:45 ↗ insurmountable hoops, but things to kind

1:32:47 ↗ of jump through. And then there's also

1:32:48 ↗ the how do we do it in a, you know,

1:32:50 ↗ positive, engaging, educational way

1:32:52 ↗ versus a, you know, kind of wagging

1:32:54 ↗ finger at people. Um, so there'll be

1:32:56 ↗ people that jump on that program right

1:32:58 ↗ away and then there'd be people that

1:32:59 ↗ might be a little more resistant to the

1:33:00 ↗ >> absolutely

1:33:01 ↗ >> city sort of getting involved on that

1:33:03 ↗ sort of stuff. But yeah, I mean I I I

1:33:05 ↗ yeah, I would dream of having a

1:33:06 ↗ Washington Conservation Corps crew for a

1:33:08 ↗ couple weeks a year that we could

1:33:09 ↗ dedicate towards private property

1:33:11 ↗ restoration like that. That would be a

1:33:13 ↗ really cool resource.

1:33:16 ↗ And we could include language that's

1:33:18 ↗ around education outreach and technical

1:33:20 ↗ support maybe so that we can explore

1:33:22 ↗ those ideas action.

1:33:28 ↗ All right. Um I will move on. We have

1:33:31 ↗ two other topics we want to try and

1:33:33 ↗ touch base on tonight. Um so one we had

1:33:37 ↗ a great discussion at the last meeting

1:33:39 ↗ about uh what we're referring to

1:33:41 ↗ redundancy. This is essentially an

1:33:44 ↗ action exists in the IAP. it also exists

1:33:46 ↗ in another city plan maybe with slightly

1:33:48 ↗ different wording. Um so how do we want

1:33:51 ↗ to address that? And so we um have that

1:33:55 ↗ conversation also with TAB and the park

1:33:57 ↗ board because we have a lot of overlap

1:34:00 ↗ with actions between the mobility action

1:34:03 ↗ plan um the park strategic plan and

1:34:06 ↗ urban forest management plan. Um and so

1:34:09 ↗ wanted to share the feedback we got from

1:34:11 ↗ them with you all and then uh just

1:34:14 ↗ reflect on that a little bit and

1:34:15 ↗ [clears throat] uh so that we know how

1:34:18 ↗ to approach those actions as we're

1:34:19 ↗ working through the plan. Um in general

1:34:22 ↗ we ended up actually hearing back from

1:34:25 ↗ them that they really want to see

1:34:27 ↗ redundancy in the plans. They thought

1:34:29 ↗ that's really essential for um city

1:34:31 ↗ service and planning processes.

1:34:34 ↗ um they um thought we as we talked

1:34:38 ↗ through the topic with them that the

1:34:40 ↗ actions in the climate action plan could

1:34:42 ↗ really take on that climate mitigation

1:34:45 ↗ or resilience aspect of the action. or

1:34:49 ↗ um example, as we talked tonight, if we

1:34:52 ↗ um have actions around invasive species

1:34:54 ↗ removal or education or outreach in the

1:34:57 ↗ climate action plan, that would speak to

1:34:59 ↗ the climate resilience component of that

1:35:03 ↗ action where it might have a different

1:35:04 ↗ lens in the urban forest management

1:35:06 ↗ plan, for example.

1:35:08 ↗ Um the boards also felt that they wanted

1:35:12 ↗ to make sure there were actions in the

1:35:14 ↗ IAP that spoke to implementing the other

1:35:17 ↗ plans. So having a motion that talks

1:35:20 ↗ about implementing the mobility action

1:35:22 ↗ plan and the important climate elements

1:35:24 ↗ of that um plan um and ensuring that

1:35:28 ↗ climate remains a um lens and integrated

1:35:32 ↗ throughout that plan. Um they thought

1:35:35 ↗ there could potentially be some actions

1:35:37 ↗ that that redundancy isn't necessary.

1:35:40 ↗ So, they really recommended that we do

1:35:42 ↗ kind of a action byaction review um and

1:35:45 ↗ that it would be okay to remove them if

1:35:46 ↗ there [clears throat] really was not any

1:35:48 ↗ kind of climate connection.

1:35:51 ↗ Um so, that was the general feedback we

1:35:54 ↗ got on um redundancy of actions. wanted

1:35:58 ↗ to see if there further reflection from

1:36:00 ↗ this board following our October

1:36:02 ↗ discussion

1:36:04 ↗ um or if this based on this feedback if

1:36:07 ↗ that feels like a good approach for us

1:36:09 ↗ as we start to work through the actions.

1:36:13 ↗ And I believe

1:36:15 ↗ >> they

1:36:17 ↗ did they like the idea of having like

1:36:21 ↗ the higher level

1:36:24 ↗ idea and then or whichever category is

1:36:28 ↗ like for this transportation or

1:36:32 ↗ you know urban forest then um like then

1:36:35 ↗ dad would go come up with the details

1:36:37 ↗ like the IAP would have the higher level

1:36:40 ↗ of the goal and then um you know river

1:36:44 ↗ forest would come with the details or

1:36:46 ↗ transportation would come up with the

1:36:47 ↗ details or parks would come up with the

1:36:49 ↗ details. Is that is that what is that

1:36:52 ↗ okay?

1:36:53 ↗ >> I think they wanted more of the IAP to

1:36:55 ↗ have that climate lens on the action. Um

1:36:58 ↗ so we may have sort of similar

1:37:00 ↗ [clears throat] actions in the different

1:37:02 ↗ plans but the IAP is really speaking to

1:37:05 ↗ the importance of that action for its

1:37:07 ↗ mitigation or resilience benefit

1:37:10 ↗ [clears throat]

1:37:11 ↗ and we'll we can come back with some

1:37:13 ↗ more examples besid the basic one but

1:37:16 ↗ we'll come back with some more examples

1:37:18 ↗ um especially around transportation for

1:37:21 ↗ example we would speak to why expanding

1:37:24 ↗ a multimodal network is beneficial for

1:37:27 ↗ the climate um

1:37:32 ↗ and then would also come up with the um

1:37:36 ↗ how to implement it and or would we look

1:37:40 ↗ to them for implementation?

1:37:42 ↗ >> Yeah. So, I think um we will probably

1:37:45 ↗ end up with a mix of actions where some

1:37:49 ↗ of ours are very specific and there's a

1:37:53 ↗ specific program or project in mind. Um

1:37:56 ↗ where others might be a little more

1:37:58 ↗ general like outreach, education,

1:38:00 ↗ technical support so that we can then go

1:38:03 ↗ over the years as we implement the plan

1:38:06 ↗ figure out really what is the best way

1:38:08 ↗ to do that. What specific project or

1:38:10 ↗ program do we launch? Do we want to

1:38:12 ↗ knock on every single door and offer to

1:38:15 ↗ [laughter] pull out their Ivy and Holly

1:38:17 ↗ or um is there another program is best?

1:38:21 ↗ So, I think that's something the board

1:38:22 ↗ can look at as we um develop out these

1:38:26 ↗ actions where is that specifically

1:38:29 ↗ needed versus kind of a more general

1:38:31 ↗ action to allow staff then to be a

1:38:33 ↗ little more flexible.

1:38:38 ↗ um if we're going to allow um redundant

1:38:40 ↗ actions in the different plans, we

1:38:43 ↗ really need to have a review of the of

1:38:47 ↗ the wording. Make sure we have

1:38:48 ↗ consistent wording cross actions and

1:38:51 ↗ then we need to make sure that they're

1:38:52 ↗ not the actions are not conflicting each

1:38:55 ↗ other, that they support each other

1:38:58 ↗ rather than just we just have to have

1:39:00 ↗ that review.

1:39:01 ↗ >> Yeah, that's great. And what we could

1:39:04 ↗ maybe do is we propose bring those

1:39:06 ↗ actions to you all is we'll um include

1:39:10 ↗ the action from the other the language

1:39:12 ↗ from the other plan um so you can see

1:39:16 ↗ how those two would intended to be

1:39:18 ↗ complimentary of each other.

1:39:25 ↗ Um Stacy, so just um I wonder I I'm just

1:39:29 ↗ a little bit curious to see why they

1:39:32 ↗ felt that the redency is good. Um is it

1:39:36 ↗ because you know so that as long as it's

1:39:39 ↗ listed in that report or the plan um the

1:39:42 ↗ site is not lost that this area is still

1:39:46 ↗ a part of that plan or what was you know

1:39:49 ↗ uh the reason that they felt it was

1:39:52 ↗ important to still include it. Um, and

1:39:55 ↗ the other question I had was, are they

1:39:58 ↗ not worried that redundancy takes more

1:40:00 ↗ time and effort, you know, or the budget

1:40:03 ↗ on part of the city staff when they're

1:40:05 ↗ writing and rewriting these reports?

1:40:09 ↗ >> Yeah, great. The second piece we didn't

1:40:11 ↗ really get to, but I think two takeaways

1:40:15 ↗ I heard from the group was one um having

1:40:19 ↗ the redundancy shows the value that

1:40:21 ↗ those actions really help the city

1:40:25 ↗ achieve um multiple purposes. So one

1:40:29 ↗ action is helping us achieve our climate

1:40:32 ↗ mitigation goals as well as our park

1:40:34 ↗ goals as well as our forestry goals. And

1:40:37 ↗ so they like being able to show these

1:40:39 ↗ kind of multibenefit actions.

1:40:42 ↗ >> Um I think the other pieces we shared as

1:40:46 ↗ um with the boards as we shared with you

1:40:48 ↗ all is that the Snowqualami tribe had

1:40:51 ↗ expressed some concern about not having

1:40:54 ↗ redundancy because they were worried

1:40:56 ↗ that um if that action was removed from

1:40:59 ↗ one plan, its intent, its value might be

1:41:03 ↗ lost in other plans if they're updated.

1:41:06 ↗ Um and so I think some of those boards

1:41:08 ↗ really heard that and wanted to honor

1:41:10 ↗ the feedback we heard from the tribe,

1:41:14 ↗ >> right? Um but there was no discussion

1:41:17 ↗ you said on the you know the budget

1:41:20 ↗ implications or the time implications of

1:41:23 ↗ redundancy and I could be wrong here it

1:41:25 ↗ may not be much but seems to me that

1:41:27 ↗ since we review and update especially

1:41:30 ↗ IAP so many times um I don't know after

1:41:34 ↗ every IAP update if the um redundancy

1:41:38 ↗ part needs to be updated in other

1:41:40 ↗ reports as well. No, I think that's a

1:41:42 ↗ good question on that administrative

1:41:44 ↗ piece and it'd probably be a little bit

1:41:47 ↗ more of a lift this first time as we

1:41:49 ↗ were doing it for the IAP, but hopefully

1:41:51 ↗ then we could cite the actions in the

1:41:54 ↗ other plans and ensure that the folks

1:41:56 ↗ responsible for those plans knew how to

1:41:58 ↗ refer back to the the IAP. But yeah,

1:42:01 ↗ it's a good question. It's definitely

1:42:02 ↗ not nothing. I appreciate you thinking

1:42:05 ↗ about that piece.

1:42:06 ↗ >> Okay,

1:42:08 ↗ that would be all. Thank you.

1:42:12 ↗ to your comment, Praj, I think if you do

1:42:14 ↗ it correctly and you have good

1:42:15 ↗ communication across the plans, you can

1:42:17 ↗ get a stronger case for a budget request

1:42:20 ↗ um because you have multiple

1:42:22 ↗ departments, multiple

1:42:23 ↗ >> right

1:42:24 ↗ >> folks going after the same budget

1:42:26 ↗ request to support it. Um to Jonathan's

1:42:29 ↗ comment, um I I would be careful that

1:42:32 ↗ you don't have the same actions in two

1:42:35 ↗ different plans with them both working

1:42:36 ↗ on the same thing. Somebody has to own

1:42:38 ↗ it,

1:42:39 ↗ >> right? Otherwise, if it changes in one,

1:42:42 ↗ you can get

1:42:43 ↗ >> cross

1:42:45 ↗ done,

1:42:46 ↗ >> right? [clears throat]

1:42:49 ↗ >> Yeah, I think we'll continue looking at

1:42:51 ↗ those. Um, and we'll definitely need to

1:42:53 ↗ be looking at each action. So there

1:42:56 ↗ could be some where it makes sense to

1:42:57 ↗ remove but we'll as we bring back um the

1:43:01 ↗ sections of the plan going forward we

1:43:03 ↗ can identify where a complimentary

1:43:05 ↗ action lives in another plan and how

1:43:08 ↗ ours will work with it and as well as

1:43:12 ↗ [clears throat]

1:43:14 ↗ all right

1:43:18 ↗ why don't I introduce this because we do

1:43:22 ↗ want to get to the report really quickly

1:43:24 ↗ um for the last probably 10 minutes of

1:43:26 ↗ tonight. Um so I will introduce this and

1:43:30 ↗ then uh we can revisit it in December.

1:43:33 ↗ Um so at our last meeting we proposed

1:43:37 ↗ the idea of extending this plan to a

1:43:40 ↗ longer longer than five years. Um, we

1:43:44 ↗ heard from the board that there was a

1:43:46 ↗ general sense that that might be okay as

1:43:49 ↗ long as we had some good check-in points

1:43:52 ↗ as well as um, and for lack of a better

1:43:55 ↗ word, like a trigger if uh, something

1:43:58 ↗ massive changed where we might want to

1:44:00 ↗ update it more regularly. Um there's a

1:44:03 ↗ lot of text on this slide, but David and

1:44:05 ↗ I have been talking about this a little

1:44:06 ↗ bit more and put it together um a

1:44:10 ↗ proposal back to the board that we are

1:44:13 ↗ considering a 10-year plan that would

1:44:16 ↗ have a pretty in-depth check-in at year

1:44:19 ↗ five where we could remove or add

1:44:21 ↗ actions and that would be something we

1:44:24 ↗ do in partnership with the environmental

1:44:25 ↗ board and then to council for approval.

1:44:30 ↗ Um, this would line up well with uh

1:44:33 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory.

1:44:35 ↗ Um, we would actually be past one of our

1:44:38 ↗ major uh targets or uh years in the plan

1:44:42 ↗ for which we have targets, the 2030

1:44:43 ↗ target. So, we would know whether or not

1:44:45 ↗ we've met those. Um, and then we would

1:44:48 ↗ also present detailed implementation

1:44:50 ↗ work plans coinciding with the budget

1:44:53 ↗ which is on a two-year cycle.

1:44:55 ↗ Um, so why don't we consider this for a

1:44:58 ↗ proposal tonight? Um, and then if folks

1:45:01 ↗ want to think on that, we can uh get

1:45:03 ↗ some uh input before the next meeting

1:45:05 ↗ and and revisit it next meeting, but I'm

1:45:08 ↗ short on time.

1:45:12 ↗ >> I like it.

1:45:16 ↗ >> So, you're saying you're not going to

1:45:18 ↗ comment on that?

1:45:19 ↗ >> Let's not comment because we have 12

1:45:21 ↗ minutes left and we need to quickly go

1:45:23 ↗ through the report. So, if that's okay

1:45:26 ↗ with you, folks can think about it. I

1:45:27 ↗ mean, if we could provide a comment in a

1:45:29 ↗ couple of minutes, then we'll ask

1:45:31 ↗ everybody to stick around for a few

1:45:32 ↗ minutes later.

1:45:33 ↗ >> Okay. All right. Just didn't want to

1:45:34 ↗ keep people too late.

1:45:36 ↗ >> Do you have a comment? [laughter]

1:45:38 ↗ >> Well, I guess I would I would say that I

1:45:41 ↗ I kind of had an ascending view on this

1:45:43 ↗ 10-year thing. This this is a field that

1:45:46 ↗ is is still very new and we're learning

1:45:49 ↗ so much and five years from now that

1:45:52 ↗ things will have changed

1:45:55 ↗ measurably. So, uh, so I, okay, we'll

1:45:58 ↗ have a check in in five years. Uh, I for

1:46:01 ↗ sure there will be things we all need to

1:46:03 ↗ tune. Uh, so I I think it's it's a

1:46:06 ↗ pretend game to say that we're going to

1:46:09 ↗ pretend it's a 10-year plan, [snorts]

1:46:11 ↗ but sure, we can give it a try.

1:46:15 ↗ >> Sure.

1:46:17 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:46:18 ↗ >> Would there be an opportunity for

1:46:21 ↗ substantial revision five years if it's

1:46:23 ↗ not going correctly?

1:46:25 ↗ Yeah,

1:46:26 ↗ >> and we have a lot. So, yeah,

1:46:28 ↗ >> there's a lot of accompl accomplishments

1:46:31 ↗ and um success stories along the way

1:46:34 ↗ hopefully

1:46:36 ↗ >> and celebrations.

1:46:41 ↗ >> I wouldn't have any heartbrain on a

1:46:42 ↗ 10ear plan if we had opportunities to

1:46:46 ↗ self adjust as we do.

1:46:49 ↗ >> I don't want to get 10 years down the

1:46:52 ↗ road and have you guys come. Oh boy,

1:46:54 ↗ what happened?

1:46:59 ↗ >> But there's targets along the way.

1:47:02 ↗ Correct. So,

1:47:03 ↗ >> um, yeah, there's a lot of accomplished

1:47:06 ↗ targets along the way. So, it's not like

1:47:10 ↗ there'd be any chance everything would

1:47:12 ↗ get left until the last the 10th year.

1:47:16 ↗ >> Yeah, we'd be continue to do our

1:47:18 ↗ greenhouse [laughter] gas inventories

1:47:19 ↗ and seeing progress. We'd be reporting

1:47:21 ↗ out on progress as we do now. that

1:47:24 ↗ worked on.

1:47:26 ↗ >> Think we do

1:47:29 ↗ >> uh I I believe we have the will to make

1:47:32 ↗ adjustments when needed regardless of

1:47:36 ↗ whether we claim it's a 10ear plan or

1:47:38 ↗ not. So again, it's a pretend 10-year

1:47:43 ↗ plan and we will adjust as needed.

1:47:46 ↗ [snorts]

1:47:46 ↗ >> I have confidence in that. So yeah,

1:47:49 ↗ sure.

1:47:49 ↗ >> Okay.

1:47:50 ↗ >> I think that'd be good. we can include

1:47:52 ↗ in the implementation plan that we do

1:47:55 ↗ kind of maybe it's um the adding

1:47:59 ↗ removing or adding actions unless the

1:48:02 ↗ board calls for like a review and

1:48:05 ↗ revision

1:48:05 ↗ >> or could you add the words to preamp

1:48:07 ↗ could you put there we need to pretend

1:48:12 ↗ you're glad

1:48:14 ↗ >> I require that 2030

1:48:19 ↗ [laughter]

1:48:20 ↗ all Okay, thank you. Um, great. So, uh,

1:48:24 ↗ next steps, um, we are

1:48:29 ↗ we will take the feedback we got

1:48:31 ↗ tonight, we're going to be, um,

1:48:33 ↗ continuing to work on reshaping those

1:48:35 ↗ focus areas and the actions associated

1:48:38 ↗ with that. And then each of our

1:48:40 ↗ subsequent meetings, the thought is

1:48:42 ↗ we'll bring one or two focus areas to

1:48:45 ↗ you all for review. um probably a

1:48:47 ↗ heavier focus on any of the actions that

1:48:49 ↗ are policy related, but we will be open

1:48:52 ↗ to discuss any that folks want to bring

1:48:55 ↗ up. Um we will also be going back to

1:48:59 ↗ park board, transportation board and um

1:49:03 ↗ PPC with any policy related actions to

1:49:07 ↗ make sure that those boards and

1:49:08 ↗ commissions can get one more touch if

1:49:10 ↗ especially around the action. So, um

1:49:14 ↗ much much more to come, but the feedback

1:49:16 ↗ tonight I think just gives us that next

1:49:18 ↗ step so that we can uh continue moving

1:49:20 ↗ forward with that dates.

1:49:22 ↗ >> What's your target date for adoption?

1:49:25 ↗ >> June 26 to get ahead of the budget.

1:49:29 ↗ >> Yes.

1:49:31 ↗ Um and we are meeting with the clerks in

1:49:35 ↗ December to talk through schedule and

1:49:37 ↗ then of course with the new leadership

1:49:40 ↗ um be meeting with them early in 26 to

1:49:42 ↗ make sure that the path we are on meets

1:49:44 ↗ their expectations.

1:49:51 ↗ Thank you for getting through that.

1:49:54 ↗ Sorry that was fast.

1:49:57 ↗ Um,

1:50:00 ↗ one more

1:50:02 ↗ main topic.

1:50:13 ↗ >> Okay, great. Um next topic we move into

1:50:19 ↗ um is

1:50:22 ↗ [snorts]

1:50:25 ↗ um next topic we wanted to move into for

1:50:28 ↗ the last couple of minutes is just

1:50:29 ↗ presenting on the draft report um annual

1:50:34 ↗ report that we're required to submit to

1:50:36 ↗ council as well as the results of the

1:50:38 ↗ self analysis. Um we shared with you all

1:50:44 ↗ um last month

1:50:47 ↗ the um outline for the report

1:50:51 ↗ as well as the questions for the

1:50:54 ↗ selfanalysis.

1:50:55 ↗ Um thank you all that maybe one took the

1:51:01 ↗ um the self analysis. So we'll share

1:51:04 ↗ those results. Um, first one note, we

1:51:08 ↗ wanted to get any feedback that folks

1:51:10 ↗ had on the draft report. There was um

1:51:13 ↗ that was included in your packet.

1:51:14 ↗ Basically, I've just filled in the

1:51:16 ↗ sections of the report with the work

1:51:18 ↗ that the board um completed it this

1:51:22 ↗ year. I can pull that up if we need to

1:51:25 ↗ scroll through it. Um, tonight is just

1:51:27 ↗ the draft. We will do a formal vote to

1:51:30 ↗ approve it in December.

1:51:32 ↗ any other

1:51:35 ↗ there are two sections at the end that

1:51:37 ↗ we added in last year. One is around um

1:51:42 ↗ kind of what we want to work on and

1:51:45 ↗ engagement with council in 26 and then

1:51:47 ↗ there was another section really

1:51:49 ↗ encouraging

1:51:50 ↗ the city to work more with the school

1:51:53 ↗ district and um on environmental

1:51:56 ↗ considerations. Those were big concerns

1:51:58 ↗ at the end of last year we wanted to

1:52:00 ↗ highlight for council. So, I've left

1:52:01 ↗ those in. I've priced them slightly for

1:52:04 ↗ this year. Um, we can take those out or

1:52:07 ↗ folks want to continue to convey that

1:52:09 ↗ message to council.

1:52:15 ↗ Great. Yeah. If you have any feedback,

1:52:17 ↗ revisions you'd like to the draft

1:52:19 ↗ report, please send those to me ahead of

1:52:21 ↗ meeting and then we will do a vote to

1:52:23 ↗ approve the report.

1:52:28 ↗ Any other comments on the report?

1:52:32 ↗ Okay.

1:52:33 ↗ And then David's gonna do a quick report

1:52:35 ↗ out on the self analysis.

1:52:37 ↗ >> Yeah. And if it's um okay with folks,

1:52:39 ↗ I'll I'll try and fly through this. So

1:52:41 ↗ uh there's uh very detailed um comments

1:52:45 ↗ in the draft report that included all

1:52:48 ↗ comments submitted through this self

1:52:49 ↗ assessment. Um so for a real complete uh

1:52:53 ↗ look at what the environmental board

1:52:56 ↗ what you all said about uh this year's

1:52:58 ↗ work uh definitely check out that

1:53:00 ↗ report. But we had 92% uh% uh

1:53:03 ↗ participation rate all but one

1:53:05 ↗ environmental board member. Overall the

1:53:08 ↗ board felt uh good about your

1:53:10 ↗ contributions. You appreciated the the

1:53:12 ↗ topics that came to the board. Um and

1:53:14 ↗ there were definitely some suggestions

1:53:16 ↗ that we'll go into in a minute. Five.

1:53:19 ↗ Um, overall, uh, most of the topics

1:53:22 ↗ brought to the board were valuable and

1:53:24 ↗ relevant to, uh, the work of, uh, the

1:53:27 ↗ environmental board and what y'all, uh,

1:53:29 ↗ thought is the focus. Um, overall, the

1:53:33 ↗ environmental board was happy with

1:53:34 ↗ staff, um, uh, staff management of the

1:53:37 ↗ board as well as staff presentations uh

1:53:40 ↗ to the environmental board. Um and

1:53:42 ↗ environmental board members generally

1:53:44 ↗ have expressed uh uh that they've

1:53:47 ↗ enjoyed their time on the board. Um, one

1:53:49 ↗ note uh that was really interesting is

1:53:52 ↗ that uh uh or members have expressed

1:53:55 ↗ that the longer you're on the board uh

1:53:57 ↗ the more comfortable you can get with

1:53:59 ↗ actually participating in the advisory

1:54:01 ↗ process and that staff should consider

1:54:03 ↗ continue to think about ways to onboard

1:54:05 ↗ new members and uh make sure that those

1:54:08 ↗ board members feel comfortable uh

1:54:10 ↗ participating in uh advising the city.

1:54:15 ↗ So, some opportunities for improvement.

1:54:17 ↗ Um, the big one is to continue to

1:54:19 ↗ improve feedback loops between the

1:54:21 ↗ environmental board uh and city

1:54:23 ↗ leadership, specifically uh

1:54:25 ↗ administrative leadership as well as uh

1:54:28 ↗ city council. Um, additionally, there

1:54:30 ↗ are a lot of topics we cover as the

1:54:32 ↗ environmental board. Um, and so, uh,

1:54:35 ↗ some board members expressed

1:54:37 ↗ appreciation for the breadth of the work

1:54:38 ↗ that we cover, but also, um, wanted to

1:54:41 ↗ think about ways that we can continue to

1:54:43 ↗ prioritize topics and make sure that

1:54:45 ↗ meetings don't run too long. Um, next

1:54:49 ↗ slide.

1:54:52 ↗ Uh, one thing that was uh, actually

1:54:53 ↗ quite different from last year are the

1:54:55 ↗ top priorities that the board uh,

1:54:57 ↗ expressed an interest in uh, thinking

1:55:00 ↗ about for this coming year. So, uh,

1:55:02 ↗ roughly the top five topics that the

1:55:04 ↗ board, uh, expressed interest in working

1:55:07 ↗ on are sustainable building requirements

1:55:09 ↗ specifically within title 18,

1:55:11 ↗ sustainable transportation policies and

1:55:13 ↗ projects, um, urban forest management

1:55:17 ↗ plan implementation and oversight,

1:55:19 ↗ communitywide policies and efforts to

1:55:21 ↗ decarbonize, and then the IAP update

1:55:23 ↗ process. So these were the top five

1:55:25 ↗ priorities um that the board identified.

1:55:28 ↗ Um sustainable building requirements and

1:55:30 ↗ sustainable transportation were the uh

1:55:33 ↗ top two

1:55:37 ↗ and that's it.

1:55:40 ↗ >> What were the top five? Do you remember

1:55:42 ↗ the top two?

1:55:44 ↗ >> I have to look back. Um there was more

1:55:47 ↗ focus on wildlife and coexisting with

1:55:50 ↗ wildlife was a big and some other

1:55:52 ↗ natural system once uh or last year.

1:56:01 ↗ >> Oh, one thing I was outraged by was when

1:56:04 ↗ I started into it, it said that it would

1:56:06 ↗ only take seven minutes to do.

1:56:09 ↗ [laughter]

1:56:12 ↗ >> Wanted more. make a note that it uh

1:56:14 ↗ never will increase the suggested

1:56:16 ↗ timeline.

1:56:17 ↗ >> Well, I'm I am slow. I am slow.

1:56:19 ↗ [laughter]

1:56:23 ↗ >> It took me way more than seven minutes.

1:56:26 ↗ [laughter]

1:56:26 ↗ >> Well, thank you.

1:56:28 ↗ >> I'm always slow to

1:56:30 ↗ >> after seven minutes. You're already into

1:56:32 ↗ it. So, you can't

1:56:34 ↗ >> you can put that in your comment next

1:56:36 ↗ self assessment.

1:56:39 ↗ >> Thomas.

1:56:40 ↗ >> Yeah. I have to um I want to comment

1:56:42 ↗ that I'm the one person who didn't do

1:56:44 ↗ that

1:56:46 ↗ >> but but well a little busy but it is

1:56:48 ↗ recognized that board members get more

1:56:50 ↗ confident participating in the advisory

1:56:52 ↗ process no longer so it's a bit of a

1:56:54 ↗ catch22 um you know you said that

1:56:56 ↗ there's opportunity for revisions to the

1:56:58 ↗ report before it's submitted. Does that

1:56:59 ↗ mean I could still do it or is it

1:57:01 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

1:57:02 ↗ >> Yeah. I can send it to you.

1:57:04 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:57:04 ↗ >> If it's not if it's no trouble because

1:57:06 ↗ >> it's totally fine. Bluntly, I do agree

1:57:08 ↗ with the feedback in general. So, I

1:57:11 ↗ still have, you know, not much to

1:57:12 ↗ >> I'm trying to get us to 100%.

1:57:14 ↗ >> Exactly.

1:57:15 ↗ >> I mean, that's right.

1:57:17 ↗ >> I will explicitly say once we've hit

1:57:19 ↗ 100%, we can never go below 100%.

1:57:22 ↗ [laughter]

1:57:23 ↗ >> So, you're setting a bar.

1:57:24 ↗ >> I will get it to you.

1:57:26 ↗ >> Okay.

1:57:28 ↗ >> I thought it was going to be Dixie.

1:57:31 ↗ [laughter]

1:57:31 ↗ >> Oh, she did. She did take it.

1:57:35 ↗ You need to set aside a whole day.

1:57:37 ↗ [laughter]

1:57:40 ↗ >> Okay, that's all.

1:57:42 ↗ [clears throat]

1:57:45 ↗ >> I just have real quick updates already.

1:57:47 ↗ Um actually, I will hand it back over to

1:57:50 ↗ David really quick um for a report out

1:57:53 ↗ on the the written report that you all

1:57:55 ↗ saw.

1:57:56 ↗ >> Yes. So, um you'll have seen kind of a a

1:57:59 ↗ reworked uh sustainable building and

1:58:01 ↗ infrastructure

1:58:02 ↗ um policy memo that um includes some

1:58:06 ↗ information about the mobility and

1:58:08 ↗ infrastructure committee presentation

1:58:10 ↗ that we did uh earlier in uh October. Um

1:58:15 ↗ and uh Deputy Council President uh DM

1:58:18 ↗ Michelle specifically wanted to make

1:58:20 ↗ sure that before uh that policy goes to

1:58:22 ↗ council next Monday on uh November 17th

1:58:26 ↗ that we loop back in with the

1:58:28 ↗ environmental board. Um

1:58:30 ↗ uh explicitly uh expressed council's

1:58:34 ↗ appreciation for the environmental

1:58:35 ↗ board's participation in that process

1:58:37 ↗ and feedback um on that policy.

1:58:40 ↗ uh board um committee members

1:58:42 ↗ specifically uh were looking for that

1:58:45 ↗ environmental board feedback on the

1:58:46 ↗ sustainable building and infrastructure

1:58:48 ↗ policy. Um through that committee uh

1:58:52 ↗ presentation and feedback session, a

1:58:54 ↗ couple of changes were made um

1:58:56 ↗ specifically related to um how staff

1:59:01 ↗ would implement the envision framework

1:59:03 ↗ for infrastructure projects. Um

1:59:06 ↗ specifically uh committee members asked

1:59:08 ↗ that um we uh seek to do more than one

1:59:14 ↗ um pilot project with the envision

1:59:16 ↗ framework and um trial that framework

1:59:19 ↗ with multiple types of infrastructure

1:59:22 ↗ projects. So for instance a park project

1:59:25 ↗ and a transportation project or

1:59:26 ↗ different types of transportation

1:59:28 ↗ projects so that we can see how that

1:59:30 ↗ framework would be applied in different

1:59:32 ↗ infrastructure uh project scenarios. So

1:59:36 ↗ we are going to uh following if if

1:59:39 ↗ adopted we would look to um do more than

1:59:42 ↗ one in the range of probably two to

1:59:46 ↗ three up to five pilot projects

1:59:48 ↗ depending on um on capacity. Um and then

1:59:53 ↗ the other uh big focus of the uh

1:59:57 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee

1:59:58 ↗ was to ensure that staff um develop the

2:00:01 ↗ pilot project in a way that sets goals

2:00:04 ↗ uh for those projects. Um sets a target

2:00:07 ↗ and vision framework uh certification

2:00:10 ↗ level that we are working towards um so

2:00:12 ↗ that we can um really see what it would

2:00:15 ↗ take uh to really incorporate the

2:00:17 ↗ sustainability principles into all

2:00:19 ↗ aspects of an infrastructure project. um

2:00:22 ↗ and understand what those budgetary

2:00:25 ↗ implications would be, understand uh

2:00:27 ↗ what those management practice

2:00:28 ↗ implications would be. And so um we will

2:00:31 ↗ be working to incorporate that into the

2:00:34 ↗ design of pilot projects uh with the

2:00:36 ↗ envision framework. Um the sustainable

2:00:40 ↗ building and infrastructure policy

2:00:42 ↗ update is on the uh next council agenda

2:00:45 ↗ next Monday uh on the consent agenda at

2:00:50 ↗ this point.

2:00:52 ↗ any update anything else? Okay, that's

2:00:55 ↗ that. Thank you all very much for your

2:00:57 ↗ feedback on that. [snorts]

2:01:00 ↗ >> Um, other uh quick updates. I did want

2:01:03 ↗ to just uh acknowledge Dixie service to

2:01:07 ↗ the environmental board. Um, as many of

2:01:09 ↗ you know Dixie is a very very very busy

2:01:12 ↗ small business owner. Um, it was just

2:01:15 ↗ hard to balance uh the board. So, really

2:01:17 ↗ appreciate the service she's given over

2:01:19 ↗ the last couple of years. she will be

2:01:21 ↗ missed. Um she's interested in engaging

2:01:24 ↗ any way possible advisory role or um

2:01:28 ↗ another way that we can engage with her

2:01:30 ↗ when she has capacity. So I think we'll

2:01:31 ↗ talk a little bit more about that in

2:01:33 ↗ December and how we can work with some

2:01:34 ↗ of our real committed community members

2:01:37 ↗ um outside of a formal board position.

2:01:40 ↗ Um and then just a couple other

2:01:43 ↗ acknowledgements. Uh we have a mayor

2:01:46 ↗ elect. Um there is already work underway

2:01:49 ↗ at city hall on that transition. They'll

2:01:51 ↗ that will be picking up quite a bit more

2:01:54 ↗ um in uh mid December um to talk through

2:01:58 ↗ kind of priorities uh for that next for

2:02:02 ↗ our next mayor and our city council

2:02:04 ↗ leadership. Um we have a very busy week

2:02:08 ↗ coming up. Uh tomorrow we'll be

2:02:09 ↗ presenting to um PPC on the climate

2:02:14 ↗ action plan. Kind of similar discussion

2:02:15 ↗ that we've done with the other boards

2:02:17 ↗ sharing the feedback we heard on land

2:02:19 ↗ use actions and receiving their initial

2:02:21 ↗ feedback. Um we heard about the tree

2:02:23 ↗ giveaways happening this Saturday. Um

2:02:26 ↗ next week with the sustainable business

2:02:28 ↗ infrastructure policy going to council.

2:02:31 ↗ Next Tuesday we have a heat pump

2:02:33 ↗ workshop at Gibson Hall which is right

2:02:35 ↗ across from the fish hatchery. Wednesday

2:02:38 ↗ there is a student event at the high

2:02:40 ↗ school at Isakqua High School. Um a town

2:02:43 ↗ hall on climate really being led by the

2:02:45 ↗ students there. There'll be city

2:02:47 ↗ leadership there. We'll be there um and

2:02:49 ↗ school district leadership to talk

2:02:51 ↗ through um youth priorities and actions.

2:02:54 ↗ Um and then something else we haven't

2:02:56 ↗ mentioned previously is we are working

2:02:58 ↗ on an endofear report on the IAP. We've

2:03:02 ↗ provided pretty plain kind of boring

2:03:06 ↗ reports to council that's kind of runs

2:03:09 ↗ through all of our actions and where

2:03:10 ↗ they are. We are making a much more

2:03:12 ↗ communityf facing report, more pictures,

2:03:15 ↗ storytelling. Um so that is fingers

2:03:19 ↗ crossed going to make it into the

2:03:20 ↗ council packet for their December 1st

2:03:22 ↗ meeting, but we will send it to you all

2:03:24 ↗ um as soon as it is ready. So you can

2:03:27 ↗ see that great council. Um and then

2:03:32 ↗ December meeting will be a packed one.

2:03:34 ↗ Um we will have a report from Sam on

2:03:39 ↗ updates for um the waste initiatives

2:03:42 ↗ underway as well. She has some great

2:03:43 ↗ data on the wildlife coexistence and the

2:03:46 ↗ outreach we did through bear takes or

2:03:48 ↗ excuse me through the um cantes around

2:03:51 ↗ wildlife. Um, we'll be diving into a

2:03:54 ↗ section of the climate action plan. Um,

2:03:57 ↗ and then report approval. And I'm sure

2:04:00 ↗ there's a couple other things on the

2:04:02 ↗ agenda I forgetting, but it will be a

2:04:04 ↗ full December meeting. Um, I think we'll

2:04:06 ↗ touch base more if we want to consider

2:04:08 ↗ doing a a short potluck uh like we did

2:04:11 ↗ last year, but also recognizing

2:04:16 ↗ more to come on that meeting.

2:04:20 ↗ Okay.

2:04:23 ↗ >> Yeah. Thank you everybody and thank you

2:04:25 ↗ for sticking around a few minutes late

2:04:26 ↗ to get through six.

2:04:29 ↗ >> Maybe there's no other lights outside.

2:04:32 ↗ I get blocked by the clouds and walking

2:04:35 ↗ down the neighborhood

2:04:37 ↗ >> place I thought I might be able to see

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF