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

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (10)

Don McQuilliams

Alix Lee-Tigner

Nancy Davidson

Mina (Alexandra) Jun

Prajakta Ghatpande

Tom Anderson

Keith Gonzales

Tommy DuBeau

Anne Newcomb

Jonathan Smith

Staff (3)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator

Dan Hintz, Urban Forest Supervisor

Excused

Kiran Pan*

Audience commenters (1)

CONNIE MARSH

Recommendations & actions (6)

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

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
Board Member ANDERSON asked staff to consider ladder fuel management to reduce fire risk based on examples in the Bend area.
Board Member ANDERSON asked staff to develop a more robust education program to support resident tree planting.
Board Member SMITH asked staff to consider regulations or programs to limit artificial turf installation.
Additionally, Board Chair MCQUILLIAMS recommended that redundant actions kept are not exactly the same across plans but have different angles on similar topics to ensure that there is a lead agency on any individual…
No changes were recommended and Board members supported the proposed additional components to the report.