Environmental Board · Wednesday, March 25, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. AGENDA ITEMS

ICAP Targets and Actions Review (D) 2 hrs

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.3–24

Topics: Climate

Previously discussed: Park Board · Feb 24, 2026 Transportation Advisory Board · Feb 25, 2026 Planning Policy Commission · Feb 26, 2026

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Attachment A includes the full set of draft targets and actions for the 2026 ICAP update. Staff have worked to incorporate feedback from the Environmental Board as well as from Park Board, Planning Policy Commission, Transportation Advisory Board and the Council PDE Committee.

2689 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ We're gonna get started.

0:11 ↗ >> I don't think so.

0:13 ↗ >> Exactly.

0:13 ↗ >> All right. Thank you folks. Um let's go

0:15 ↗ ahead and get started.

0:16 ↗ >> So my name is Don Mcwills. This is the

0:18 ↗ 325

0:20 ↗ 2026 special meeting of the

0:22 ↗ environmental board. We're be talking

0:23 ↗ about the ICAP targets and action

0:26 ↗ reviews in depth for a couple of hours.

0:29 ↗ Um, first of I don't think we have

0:31 ↗ anybody hybrid is what I'm hearing. So,

0:32 ↗ it's just us today. If you want to make

0:34 ↗ comment, we don't have our little signs.

0:36 ↗ Just raise your hand. Clearly informal

0:38 ↗ today or just speak up. Um, we do have a

0:40 ↗ couple of folks that want to speak. Um,

0:42 ↗ but before we do that, can you call us

0:44 ↗ for our sh uh Tommy Anderson

0:46 ↗ >> here?

0:47 ↗ >> Nancy Davidson

0:48 ↗ >> here.

0:49 ↗ >> Tommy Dvau has an excused absence. Praka

0:52 ↗ Pandi has excused absence. Karan P has

0:54 ↗ an excused absence. Mina Jun,

0:58 ↗ Don Mc Williams,

1:00 ↗ Alex Tickner has an excused absence

1:04 ↗ and Nukem has an excused absence. Keith

1:07 ↗ Gonzalez

1:07 ↗ >> here.

1:08 ↗ >> John Smith

1:09 ↗ >> here.

1:10 ↗ >> We do have quorum. Five folks and John,

1:13 ↗ you'll be sitting in as a regular

1:14 ↗ member.

1:17 ↗ >> Um, see, we have three people back here.

1:20 ↗ All three.

1:23 ↗ you. I do.

1:26 ↗ >> Sure.

1:30 ↗ >> I'll go you first.

1:32 ↗ >> I'm a whole different style.

1:34 ↗ >> Well, everybody has some style.

1:36 ↗ >> So, some of you have heard this before

1:38 ↗ and this is about climate and um I heard

1:42 ↗ Nancy Oh, I'm Connie Marsh. I live on

1:44 ↗ the squad. Um, I heard Nancy say

1:47 ↗ something about uh individuals and

1:50 ↗ impacts on the environment and climate.

1:53 ↗ And to me, that is what your climate

1:56 ↗ action plan is missing is the idea that

1:59 ↗ Isqua is a place where people care about

2:04 ↗ the environment and what are is each

2:07 ↗ individual doing to enhance our city.

2:12 ↗ And so right now it feels like a chore.

2:16 ↗ It feels like something that people want

2:18 ↗ to try to get you to do. So I'm going to

2:20 ↗ use my phrase, how do you make helping

2:23 ↗ the climate and the environment be sexy?

2:26 ↗ Right? It's not rules. It's not

2:28 ↗ regulations. It's a cooperative

2:31 ↗ community effort to do things better and

2:33 ↗ make a great place to live. And we don't

2:36 ↗ have that. We don't have a social media

2:38 ↗ campaign. We don't have sharable

2:40 ↗ postcards that I can pop on Instagram

2:42 ↗ and create a discussion. We don't have

2:45 ↗ an educational program that is using our

2:48 ↗ new age communications to suck in

2:51 ↗ everybody under the age of I say 45. You

2:55 ↗ guys are already sucked in. Sorry.

2:57 ↗ Because it is cool. It is hip. It is the

3:00 ↗ way to live for the future. And without

3:03 ↗ that you are struggling to get somebody

3:05 ↗ to do a thing like get a heat pump. Oh,

3:08 ↗ but we are having electrical problems.

3:11 ↗ So, okay, what's the grid gonna look

3:13 ↗ like? You're asking people to spend

3:16 ↗ money without telling them about either

3:18 ↗ the financial return that they could get

3:21 ↗ from this and the coolness factor. And I

3:25 ↗ talked about my brother who owns lots of

3:28 ↗ things and he doesn't really care that

3:31 ↗ much about the environment except for

3:32 ↗ fish. He does all this stuff because

3:34 ↗ it's cool. And when he talks to his

3:37 ↗ fishy friends, he can talk about his

3:38 ↗ solar panels and his heat pumps and all

3:41 ↗ the good things he's doing for the

3:43 ↗ world. Even though he doesn't really

3:45 ↗ care that much, he cares about being

3:48 ↗ that cool, right? And he's going to live

3:51 ↗ forever, clearly. Um, so

3:55 ↗ with without that with something to

4:00 ↗ measure at the end of it to see if

4:01 ↗ you're succeeding in getting out to

4:03 ↗ people to start creating a society

4:05 ↗ within our town who wants to do this,

4:08 ↗ not who you're bribing to do it. You are

4:11 ↗ endlessly going to have a really hard

4:13 ↗ time and you guys are going to work like

4:14 ↗ dogs and you're going to say, "Oh man,

4:17 ↗ but we made this incremental change." I

4:19 ↗ think you're just trying to change a

4:22 ↗ whole different thing and that would be

4:25 ↗ more successful than this rather dry

4:29 ↗ pathway that doesn't feel fun or

4:32 ↗ inspirational and to to me it makes me

4:36 ↗ yawn and you know you know that I really

4:40 ↗ want it to be good. So there's my

4:43 ↗ speech. I only use sexy once. Oh, twice.

4:52 ↗ Next. Okay.

4:55 ↗ Well, good evening, Ann Fletcher, uh,

4:57 ↗ president and, uh, people for climate

4:59 ↗ action. That's a car chapter.

5:02 ↗ Um, I really don't know where to start

5:05 ↗ because I sent you this really long

5:07 ↗ thing and I don't know if any of you

5:09 ↗ even wed your way through it, but I hope

5:11 ↗ you will. maybe just take it a little

5:13 ↗ bit chucks because it wasn't real fun or

5:15 ↗ sexy, but it was me. Um, and um, so I

5:20 ↗ just want to hit some highlights of of

5:21 ↗ that for for this meeting and and hope

5:24 ↗ that you will read it because there's a

5:26 ↗ lot of stuff in there that's more

5:27 ↗ general about sort of maybe in a way

5:30 ↗ like what Conniey's saying, it's how we

5:32 ↗ are approaching this as a city and how

5:34 ↗ we are organized and maybe we don't have

5:36 ↗ to be the same as every other city. um

5:38 ↗ maybe we can do things differently that

5:40 ↗ will help us um get to the future better

5:43 ↗ than some places. So think outside the

5:45 ↗ box kind of thing. So, um what I wanted

5:48 ↗ to talk about were some of the actions

5:51 ↗ uh specifically and uh one of them that

5:54 ↗ I wanted to talk about was um the in

5:58 ↗ buildings especially I feel like we're

6:00 ↗ short somehow there's gaps in our

6:02 ↗ building actions and I know we tried to

6:04 ↗ put in a lot of things if PCA had five

6:07 ↗ critical actions that um that they put

6:09 ↗ out in a paper that is referenced in

6:12 ↗ here with lots of examples and um So, I

6:16 ↗ was feeling pretty good because um a lot

6:20 ↗ of these actions, at least the start of

6:21 ↗ them, were getting into the proposal for

6:24 ↗ the update. Um uh I I was um wanted to

6:28 ↗ express a concern about um the removal

6:31 ↗ of two important proposed actions.

6:33 ↗ Number 22, which is small commercial

6:35 ↗ buildings, and number 24, home energy

6:38 ↗ score. Um uh this one that both of those

6:43 ↗ um were in were there two of the 12

6:46 ↗ critical actions. Um the reasons that

6:49 ↗ were stated was that from the PBE

6:52 ↗ committee, which is the one that um did

6:54 ↗ not think they were good, um was that

6:56 ↗ they were not beneficial or impactful

6:58 ↗ and too hard for the city to set it up

7:01 ↗ without state support. So um but I

7:04 ↗ didn't know of any concrete evidence.

7:06 ↗ So, I sent my thing to you to the city

7:09 ↗ council, too, so that I could find out a

7:11 ↗ little bit more about the evidence on

7:13 ↗ that because the PCA has a lot of

7:15 ↗ evidence the other way, too. So, want to

7:18 ↗ bring that up. Um, the PBE did offer an

7:22 ↗ alternative to the home energy score uh

7:24 ↗ with a clean energy requirements for end

7:26 ↗ of life equipment, which is good. I

7:28 ↗ mean, that's good for heating and

7:30 ↗ cooling equipment. Doesn't cover the

7:31 ↗ other appliances. um doesn't help people

7:34 ↗ understand what they're doing uh what

7:37 ↗ their whole home energy store is. Um and

7:40 ↗ it doesn't um do the weatherization. I

7:43 ↗ know those are included in some of the

7:45 ↗ other ones. I just they're not as

7:47 ↗ specific and um they're just more

7:50 ↗ general and harder to measure than

7:52 ↗ having a specific.

7:55 ↗ Okay. And then um I just wanted to

7:57 ↗ mention the tree canopy um the no net

8:00 ↗ loss thing. I know you're going to

8:01 ↗ discuss that and you discussed it last

8:03 ↗ time is a big deal. Um and uh since the

8:07 ↗ environmental board was split on it, it

8:10 ↗ just seems like more discussions is

8:12 ↗ needed on that and that um if if that

8:15 ↗ percent is just too way out there that

8:18 ↗ well maybe a smaller percentage or

8:20 ↗ something uh a little bit more

8:22 ↗ realistic, some kind of compromise that

8:24 ↗ would give us a a target a target to to

8:28 ↗ try for even though it's tough. uh and

8:31 ↗ um uh and so I would say, you know,

8:33 ↗ let's do that and let's do it early on

8:35 ↗ because we got to get them planted so

8:38 ↗ that by 2050 we can meet our goal. They

8:41 ↗ won't be mature till then. Um so I think

8:44 ↗ I've pretty much used up my my n my

8:47 ↗ minute. So I did want to say

8:49 ↗ that's

8:51 ↗ uh oh number nine having the

8:54 ↗ sustainability funding be action um is

8:57 ↗ great. That's another one of the

8:58 ↗ critical actions. Uh and so number nine,

9:01 ↗ I was really happy, very happy to see

9:03 ↗ that. Um and the multif family um

9:06 ↗ charging capability for new and

9:09 ↗ eventually how are you going to get me

9:11 ↗ assisting too, but you know, step by

9:14 ↗ step. Um so I'm done. Thank you very

9:16 ↗ much.

9:22 ↗ >> Oh goodness.

9:25 ↗ I just thought, you know, Connie, you

9:27 ↗ mentioned making it sexy. You could this

9:31 ↗ group potentially put some work your way

9:34 ↗ into this

9:37 ↗ >> somehow.

9:44 ↗ Um, goss.

9:45 ↗ >> Okay, great. Um, so I'll just walk

9:48 ↗ through our plan for the evening. Um I

9:51 ↗ think everyone's gotten a copy if they

9:53 ↗ want one. There are copies on the back.

9:55 ↗ Uh what we are planning to do is provide

9:57 ↗ a brief summary of the discussion that

10:00 ↗ we had from the council committee um the

10:02 ↗ planning development and improvement

10:04 ↗ committee a week week and a half ago. Um

10:07 ↗ to summarize that briefly, their input

10:09 ↗ is incorporated into the document. So

10:11 ↗ we'll talk more about that as we uh get

10:13 ↗ to those specific actions. Um David's

10:18 ↗ going to provide a little bit more

10:19 ↗ in-depth overview of the recommendations

10:22 ↗ from the metrics committee which he

10:23 ↗ summarized at a couple meetings but we

10:25 ↗ wanted to provide some visuals and talk

10:27 ↗ through a little bit more and then we

10:29 ↗ will walk through the targets and

10:32 ↗ actions. We are planning to discuss the

10:34 ↗ ones that are highlighted. There's about

10:36 ↗ 10. Those are changes to targets or um

10:42 ↗ moving around or proposed revision or

10:44 ↗ brand new. Um and then there's some

10:47 ↗ actions in there that hit more of the

10:49 ↗ policy level um or maybe have gone

10:52 ↗ through a big change since we last

10:54 ↗ touched base with you all. Um so we're

10:56 ↗ we are going to talk through the yellow

10:58 ↗ ones and then we will open it up to the

11:01 ↗ board members for any of the other

11:03 ↗ targets and actions that they want to

11:05 ↗ discuss. Um there is some

11:10 ↗ uh uh red uh actions that are

11:13 ↗ highlighted in red. Those are ones um or

11:16 ↗ maybe in strikeout that is just

11:18 ↗ reflecting some changes since our last

11:19 ↗ meeting with you um our last discussion

11:22 ↗ of that action with you. So we're happy

11:24 ↗ to touch base on those but we've tried

11:25 ↗ to provide a little explanation um of

11:28 ↗ what the the change was. Um I'll also

11:31 ↗ note that Sam Tarvin our solid waste

11:33 ↗ analyst is planned to join around 7. So

11:35 ↗ if anyone wants to raise questions

11:37 ↗ around the materials and consumption

11:39 ↗ targets um we could look to move to

11:43 ↗ those uh when she is able to join. Um

11:47 ↗ and then tonight we're really planning

11:48 ↗ to capture your comments, your feedback

11:51 ↗ on the targets and actions. If the board

11:53 ↗ has differing opinions, we will capture

11:55 ↗ those. We'll be taking all that input

11:58 ↗ and then coming back to you in April

12:00 ↗ with a full draft plan um to walk

12:04 ↗ through.

12:06 ↗ So that is the plan for tonight. Any

12:09 ↗ questions or

12:12 ↗ feedback on alternative approaches for

12:14 ↗ the discussion this evening?

12:19 ↗ >> Um I will note Ann Newm uh sent a few

12:21 ↗ comments on one of the targets. So I'll

12:23 ↗ share those when we get to that one.

12:26 ↗ I've invited the folks um from the board

12:28 ↗ that that just today let us know they

12:30 ↗ can come to send another comments. So um

12:34 ↗ we will summarize all of their feedback

12:36 ↗ uh if they provide comments. So

12:40 ↗ great. Okay. Well, just a quick summary

12:43 ↗ of the um PTE the council PTE committee.

12:47 ↗ Um so we went through a series of

12:51 ↗ meetings with you all with our boards

12:53 ↗ and commissions. Um, we presented to to

12:57 ↗ the transportation advisory board and

12:59 ↗ PPC some kind of big ideas for policies

13:03 ↗ that would have direct impact on

13:04 ↗ reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They

13:07 ↗ provided feedback on those policies and

13:10 ↗ then we came up with a staff

13:12 ↗ recommendation. Um, based on that

13:14 ↗ feedback um those staff recommendations

13:17 ↗ were presented to the council committee

13:20 ↗ about a week and a half ago. um and they

13:24 ↗ provided uh input on and what they

13:26 ↗ wanted to see move forward. Um in

13:29 ↗ general, they supported the staff

13:31 ↗ recommendations, but there were a few

13:32 ↗ areas where they want us wanted to

13:34 ↗ really um push us to continue to look at

13:37 ↗ some bigger policy changes. Um some of

13:39 ↗ those were highlighted in the public

13:41 ↗ comments. We'll discuss them tonight.

13:43 ↗ There were areas around parking, uh,

13:46 ↗ multifamily charging, um, dark sky, and

13:50 ↗ then the this idea of a time of

13:53 ↗ replacement requirement, a replacement

13:55 ↗ for energy, more energy efficient

13:58 ↗ heating and cooling equipment. So, we'll

14:00 ↗ talk on touch on base on all of those

14:03 ↗ um, later tonight. Um and then PTE also

14:10 ↗ recommended that we come back to a

14:12 ↗ committee of the whole and bring the

14:15 ↗ we'll be bringing the policies and the

14:16 ↗ major changes to the plan to the

14:18 ↗ committee of the whole which is the

14:19 ↗ entire council uh for discussion in May.

14:22 ↗ So that will be their next touch point.

14:26 ↗ That was a quick summary. So we have

14:27 ↗ tonight and then our April meeting um to

14:30 ↗ work through the plan before back to

14:33 ↗ council.

14:35 ↗ Great. Um, well, with that, I'll hand it

14:38 ↗ off to David.

14:41 ↗ I'm gonna close the door. If it gets

14:42 ↗ stuffy, we can open it.

14:46 ↗ >> Okay. So, um, I am prepared some slides

14:51 ↗ um that I'm going to share in just a

14:52 ↗ minute. I do want to note that they are

14:55 ↗ uh a little technical slides, so please

14:59 ↗ bear with me. I'm going to do my best to

15:00 ↗ explain them and kind of demonstrate how

15:04 ↗ we're we're thinking about kind of

15:05 ↗ applying these concepts to the climate

15:06 ↗ action plan. And I wrote out my notes so

15:09 ↗ that I could try to could try and

15:10 ↗ explain some of these um in a way that

15:12 ↗ that hopefully makes a a little sense.

15:14 ↗ So um as a quick summary, um the metrics

15:20 ↗ committee recommendations did include

15:21 ↗ elevating the greenhouse gas uh

15:24 ↗ reduction target to the plan level. So

15:26 ↗ overarching the entire climate action

15:28 ↗ plan allowing both quantitative number

15:31 ↗ based and qualitative metrics which are

15:34 ↗ um more descriptive based metrics for uh

15:38 ↗ the evaluation of action within the

15:40 ↗ climate action plan. Um identifying some

15:43 ↗ high priority quantitative metrics the

15:45 ↗ city has more control over influencing

15:48 ↗ and uh looking at um publicly reporting

15:51 ↗ on those metrics and then reporting on

15:54 ↗ the greenhouse gas targets. the focus

15:56 ↗ area targets and these high priority

15:57 ↗ metrics publicly while quant uh

16:00 ↗ qualitatively and internally um uh

16:04 ↗ measuring other targets through a work

16:06 ↗ plan. So

16:09 ↗ what that looks like or what I'm sharing

16:13 ↗ this to look like

16:16 ↗ is here. So,

16:24 ↗ okay.

16:30 ↗ Well,

16:31 ↗ >> brownie, please.

16:33 ↗ >> There we go. Try one more time.

16:36 ↗ >> Nope. Okay. Doesn't want to share. We'll

16:39 ↗ do this. So, um, what this is intending

16:42 ↗ to highlight is how we're thinking about

16:44 ↗ connecting these metrics with each

16:46 ↗ other. So at the top you have your plan

16:48 ↗ level target on greenhouse uh gas

16:50 ↗ reduction that's laid out over the

16:52 ↗ entire climate action plan. The focus

16:54 ↗ area targets would feed into the

16:56 ↗ greenhouse gas reduction measuring

16:58 ↗ specific changes to our uh isquest

17:01 ↗ system that will reduce greenhouse gas

17:04 ↗ redu emissions.

17:06 ↗ Then the high priority metrics are each

17:08 ↗ associated with multiple actions within

17:10 ↗ the climate action plan

17:13 ↗ and feed into the focus area targets and

17:15 ↗ sometimes directly to the plan level

17:18 ↗ target um overarching the entire plan.

17:21 ↗ the high priority uh metrics do

17:23 ↗ represent some areas and efforts within

17:25 ↗ the city that we'd have a little bit

17:26 ↗ more control over actually influencing

17:29 ↗ um uh through our regulations, actions,

17:33 ↗ um programs we can implement, things

17:35 ↗ like that.

17:37 ↗ So what that looks like in practice and

17:41 ↗ apologies for some complex mapping here,

17:44 ↗ but essentially at the top you have the

17:47 ↗ plan level target on reducing greenhouse

17:50 ↗ gas emissions and this is the same

17:52 ↗ framework as the previous slide but just

17:54 ↗ with actions and focus areas applied to

17:56 ↗ it.

17:58 ↗ So at the top you have greenhouse gas

18:00 ↗ emissions reductions. Then each of the

18:02 ↗ focus areas and right now I just have

18:04 ↗ three on here. Each of these focus area

18:07 ↗ targets feed into the plan level target

18:09 ↗ by measuring specific sectors uh of

18:12 ↗ emission reduction efforts. So an

18:14 ↗ example are reducing emissions um from

18:17 ↗ city operations or reducing the use of

18:20 ↗ natural gas in existing buildings will

18:22 ↗ in turn reduce greenhouse gas emissions

18:24 ↗ at the communitywide level.

18:28 ↗ Underneath the focus areas we have high

18:30 ↗ priority metrics. These metrics are each

18:32 ↗ associated with multiple actions in the

18:34 ↗ climate action plan and feed into the

18:36 ↗ focus area targets or sometimes directly

18:39 ↗ to the plan level target. So in this

18:42 ↗ example um we would measure the number

18:45 ↗ of uh the kilowatts of installed

18:47 ↗ renewable energy uh capacity at city

18:49 ↗ facilities which will help us reduce

18:52 ↗ city operations greenhouse gas emissions

18:54 ↗ which in turn reduces communitywide

18:57 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions. So part of

18:59 ↗ this is just mapping through the logic

19:01 ↗ of how uh the actions that we have in

19:04 ↗ the climate action plan are connected to

19:06 ↗ the focus areas which are connected to

19:08 ↗ overall what we're trying to achieve at

19:09 ↗ the city.

19:11 ↗ Um measuring the high priority metrics

19:14 ↗ is valuable since again these represent

19:16 ↗ what we really have influence over. So

19:18 ↗ if we are not seeing an increase or a a

19:22 ↗ decrease in say city emissions or in uh

19:26 ↗ the uh generation of renewable capacity

19:28 ↗ in city uh facilities, we can take

19:31 ↗ action to change that and put that into

19:33 ↗ our budget and really work to um update

19:36 ↗ that down the line. Community engagement

19:39 ↗ uh is something identified that goes uh

19:42 ↗ directly up to uh the plan level target.

19:46 ↗ Um we have a community engagement action

19:48 ↗ under every single focus area and

19:51 ↗ although that community engagement does

19:54 ↗ impact the focus area targets. Um it

19:57 ↗ also generally uh would help drive

20:00 ↗ overall climate uh action and greenhouse

20:02 ↗ gas reduction as folks get um uh

20:06 ↗ educated and inspired to take climate

20:09 ↗ action in their own lives.

20:13 ↗ Now, uh, greenhouse gas emissions

20:15 ↗ reduction is one thing, but the plan

20:17 ↗ does talk about more than that. And so,

20:19 ↗ we wanted to also think about how does

20:21 ↗ this relate to climate resilience and

20:23 ↗ thinking about how uh metrics apply to

20:27 ↗ uh this adaptation consideration.

20:30 ↗ So based on committee recommendations,

20:32 ↗ we identified that uh climate resilience

20:34 ↗ work overall would be measured mostly

20:36 ↗ via uh qualitative narrative based

20:39 ↗ measurements. Although there are some

20:40 ↗ quantitative measurements included in

20:42 ↗ the focus areas as well.

20:44 ↗ Um what this looks like in practice is

20:46 ↗ identifying at the plan level the

20:48 ↗ adaptation and climate resilience goals

20:50 ↗ we're having and then again showing how

20:53 ↗ the focus areas feed into that goal. And

20:56 ↗ then uh on the plan level uh we or on

20:59 ↗ the action level how the qualitatively

21:02 ↗ measured actions feed into those focus

21:04 ↗ areas. And again back up to the um

21:07 ↗ overall plan goal.

21:10 ↗ Again what this looks like in practice

21:12 ↗ is we have plan level goal at the top um

21:15 ↗ all around supporting uh our community

21:17 ↗ members to thrive uh in the community

21:21 ↗ even with uh current and future impacts

21:23 ↗ of climate change. Um feeding into this

21:26 ↗ goal we have example targets. So in this

21:29 ↗ case um one from climate resilience and

21:32 ↗ well-being target related to the percent

21:34 ↗ of community members that feel uh

21:37 ↗ prepared for uh emergencies and then

21:40 ↗ natural systems targets. So uh this is

21:42 ↗ one related to uh tree equity scores

21:45 ↗ which we've discussed. And so both of

21:47 ↗ those focus area targets, although

21:49 ↗ quantitatively uh measured, are all

21:52 ↗ intended to then make sure that our

21:54 ↗ community members can thrive in our

21:56 ↗ community given climate change impacts

21:58 ↗ such as hotter summers um or increased

22:02 ↗ climate emergency events. Underneath

22:04 ↗ focus area targets, we have individual

22:06 ↗ actions. And most of these again would

22:09 ↗ be internally tracked through our work

22:10 ↗ plan and qualitatively assessed on

22:12 ↗ whether or not we're really implementing

22:14 ↗ them based on uh the work plan

22:16 ↗ developed. By implementing these

22:19 ↗ actions, we would anticipate that that

22:21 ↗ work would feed into whether or not

22:23 ↗ folks are feeling prepared for

22:25 ↗ emergencies or uh making sure that we

22:28 ↗ are achieving these tree equity scores.

22:30 ↗ So some of those interup uh focus area

22:33 ↗ targets. And then in some cases they

22:35 ↗ would go directly back up to the plan

22:37 ↗ level goals of um trying to make sure

22:40 ↗ that our community members can thrive

22:42 ↗ during climate change. Um so an example

22:45 ↗ here is working with PSSE on grid

22:46 ↗ resilience upgrades. So um that one we

22:50 ↗ can measure whether or not we are or we

22:52 ↗ can qualitatively assess whether or not

22:54 ↗ we are doing that and implementing it

22:56 ↗ based on our work plan. But rather than

22:58 ↗ trying to put a number to kind of how

23:00 ↗ much risk grid resilience there really

23:02 ↗ is, we we can say um we are doing this

23:06 ↗ because we're trying to achieve this

23:08 ↗ vision for our community.

23:11 ↗ So this is has been my attempt to map

23:15 ↗ out what the metrics committee

23:16 ↗ recommendations look like in practice

23:19 ↗ and how this would then be applied to

23:22 ↗ the climate action plan update. Um, if

23:25 ↗ folks have any questions at this time,

23:28 ↗ um, I'm happy to answer them, but I'm my

23:31 ↗ hope is that for the April 25th, uh,

23:34 ↗ meeting, we'll have a little bit more

23:36 ↗ details on kind of like what this looks

23:38 ↗ like in the plan itself um, for us to

23:42 ↗ um, react to and really see if this is

23:45 ↗ the appropriate method to uh, uh,

23:49 ↗ measure plan implementation.

23:53 ↗ you expect to have all your metrics

23:55 ↗ pretty close to worked out by then?

23:58 ↗ >> For the most part, I think some of the

24:00 ↗ implementation of

24:03 ↗ uh I think some of the details of what

24:07 ↗ um

24:10 ↗ some uh actions will look like might

24:14 ↗ come as time goes on, right? like what

24:16 ↗ does it really mean to assess the

24:19 ↗ feasibility of XYZ in year four or

24:22 ↗ something. Um but for the most part I

24:25 ↗ think as we develop our implementation

24:27 ↗ plan um we will have most of the at

24:29 ↗ least beginnings of those metrics and

24:31 ↗ then the quantitative metrics we will

24:33 ↗ have by then.

24:36 ↗ We wanted folks to have a general idea

24:38 ↗ of this approach as we go into our next

24:41 ↗ discussion looking at targets and

24:42 ↗ actions and then just so you all

24:45 ↗ understand how this uh will be mapped

24:47 ↗ out as we get to showing you the whole

24:52 ↗ >> I guess I do also have a question about

24:55 ↗ the qualitative metrics are cool and and

24:57 ↗ if is has there been any discussion

24:59 ↗ about u kind of novel quantitative

25:02 ↗ metrics that you can look at for

25:04 ↗ environment like natural systems and

25:05 ↗ things like that that we're not

25:07 ↗ currently looking at. Um numbers of

25:09 ↗ species or things like that. I don't

25:11 ↗ know.

25:12 ↗ >> Yeah. So um for now what we currently

25:16 ↗ have is the the focus area target. So

25:20 ↗ tree canopy cover which we'll be

25:21 ↗ discussing tonight and then tree equity.

25:23 ↗ Um we've discussed uh on our team a

25:27 ↗ couple other things that we can try and

25:29 ↗ start measuring um such as um portable

25:34 ↗ or water use things like that. Um I know

25:37 ↗ there's been discussion on riparian

25:40 ↗ um corridors. So I think uh as we do not

25:45 ↗ have those currently in the IAP and part

25:47 ↗ of this is to try and find that balance

25:49 ↗ of reporting versus implementing the

25:53 ↗ climate action plan. Um but we've been

25:57 ↗ trying to talk about what some of those

25:58 ↗ other ones could look like. And then one

26:00 ↗ other thing that I want to note um that

26:02 ↗ Raj brought up during the metrics

26:04 ↗ committee is building in there will be

26:06 ↗ language around flexibility of metrics

26:08 ↗ and and kind of how we're thinking about

26:10 ↗ measurement. So um as we are

26:14 ↗ implementing this next climate action

26:16 ↗ plan if there's kind of those innovative

26:18 ↗ ideas or things that we can um that if

26:22 ↗ we think would be valuable to build out

26:23 ↗ I think that's something that we can

26:24 ↗ follow by

26:29 ↗ questions, feedback on that.

26:32 ↗ >> No, thank you.

26:33 ↗ >> I just have one piece of feedback.

26:35 ↗ >> Yeah.

26:35 ↗ >> And that is, can you bring up that last

26:37 ↗ slide by any chance again?

26:39 ↗ >> Absolutely.

26:46 ↗ >> It's specific. So, the work with PC on

26:49 ↗ grid resilience upgrades, and you said

26:51 ↗ you really didn't want to put a metric

26:53 ↗ around that, but

26:56 ↗ that's very open-ended. Mhm.

26:59 ↗ >> And we don't know if we're doing

27:01 ↗ anything if they put in one battery

27:05 ↗ somewhere. That's it. They've done

27:08 ↗ something. So, I'm concerned if we're

27:10 ↗ that loose in our metrics, we're not

27:12 ↗ going to achieve anything. So I would

27:14 ↗ encourage us to track it and to put

27:18 ↗ maybe not set a goal for it but to track

27:21 ↗ it and to monitor it and do more than

27:23 ↗ work with

27:26 ↗ make it more actionoriented is my

27:29 ↗ suggestion. I looked for it in here and

27:31 ↗ didn't see it. But I just would request

27:32 ↗ that we don't move with it without loose

27:34 ↗ because we won't have achieved anything

27:37 ↗ by the time we look at this five in five

27:39 ↗ years if we don't do more than

27:44 ↗ >> Yeah.

27:46 ↗ 76

27:47 ↗ on that. So PSC has some programs for

27:51 ↗ voluntarily

27:53 ↗ um using a thermostat. they can say okay

27:56 ↗ you can't have heat right now during

27:58 ↗ peak periods etc and uh in theory they

28:02 ↗ should be able to share with us numbers

28:04 ↗ of how many people in your jurisdiction

28:07 ↗ are participating in that program and

28:09 ↗ that might be a certain objective

28:12 ↗ measure of how much public support there

28:15 ↗ is that ties into this resilience thing

28:19 ↗ the resilience of the grid is going to

28:21 ↗ be

28:23 ↗ affected by our ability to not derive

28:26 ↗ the system to the peaks. This is going

28:29 ↗ to be more and more a thing

28:33 ↗ find various ways to even out our energy

28:38 ↗ consumption and that's one thing that's

28:40 ↗ going on right now and there's much room

28:43 ↗ for improvement.

28:47 ↗ >> Um the one you brought up Nancy it's row

28:49 ↗ 76. So I'll flag that. We can talk about

28:52 ↗ that as we get into the discussion and

28:55 ↗ um see if there's any more specificity

28:57 ↗ you want to add.

29:02 ↗ Okay.

29:03 ↗ All ready to jump in. Okay. Um so

29:08 ↗ because this was in a table I couldn't

29:10 ↗ do um label the lines. So I included

29:14 ↗ these row numbers just so it's easy to

29:16 ↗ reference especially when you print out

29:18 ↗ from my office doesn't print the same

29:20 ↗ page numbers you would have. So feel

29:22 ↗ free as we get into you all raising

29:27 ↗ action for discussion just to flag those

29:29 ↗ rows so we can all get on the same page.

29:32 ↗ Um scroll back up. So we'll just start

29:37 ↗ at the beginning and what I'm going to

29:41 ↗ do is so let me um just capture track

29:47 ↗ changes in the document because then

29:49 ↗ we'll be taking the edits here the

29:52 ↗ discussion here and moving that directly

29:54 ↗ into the draft plan. Um so I'm just

29:57 ↗ going to start working through the

29:58 ↗ yellow highlighted targets and actions.

30:00 ↗ >> There are others that are not yellow. Do

30:02 ↗ you want us to touch on those when

30:03 ↗ you're

30:04 ↗ >> Let's come back to those. Yeah, I think

30:07 ↗ we'll go through the yellow ones. Um,

30:09 ↗ and then we'll open it up for members to

30:12 ↗ raise other ones and either can do that.

30:15 ↗ Just whoever raises their hand first or

30:17 ↗ happy to go around with ones that folks

30:19 ↗ want to play.

30:20 ↗ >> Okay, great. Um the first one is this uh

30:24 ↗ what David was just speaking to is

30:26 ↗ moving our overall plan target to um

30:31 ↗ represent it that way in the plan. Right

30:33 ↗ now it is included in one of the focus

30:35 ↗ areas, our overarching focus area and we

30:39 ↗ want to highlight it um more broadly in

30:42 ↗ the plan. So this is not a change in the

30:44 ↗ language um it is just elevating it to

30:48 ↗ be an overall plan target. So, wanted to

30:51 ↗ play that just make sure folks

30:53 ↗ understood that if there was any

30:55 ↗ concerns, it'll just show up differently

30:57 ↗ in the plan. Um, so that was the first

31:00 ↗ one. That's just kind of a big shift in

31:02 ↗ how it's presented.

31:04 ↗ >> You want some thumbs up from the green?

31:06 ↗ >> Um, yeah, just comments or nods. Yeah.

31:10 ↗ >> Okay.

31:14 ↗ Yeah, that works great. We've done it

31:16 ↗ before.

31:18 ↗ >> Next one is on row nine.

31:21 ↗ bottom of the page.

31:24 ↗ >> Great. Um, so this one, you have seen

31:27 ↗ this before. Um, whether or not you

31:30 ↗ remember, um, it was in quite a few

31:32 ↗ months ago when we talked about the

31:34 ↗ overarching actions. This is a new

31:38 ↗ action around looking at and exploring

31:41 ↗ pathways for dedicated funding. We

31:43 ↗ wanted I wanted to flag this one just to

31:46 ↗ see if there's any additional ideas or

31:48 ↗ language that you want added here since

31:50 ↗ it is a new action. Um our thought is

31:55 ↗ there's been a number

31:56 ↗ >> take an extra one.

31:57 ↗ >> Um

31:58 ↗ sorry I think Ann just grabbed one.

32:06 ↗ >> Sorry.

32:08 ↗ >> I'll share with you.

32:09 ↗ >> Sorry.

32:10 ↗ >> I just wanted to make sure I could

32:11 ↗ reference the right

32:13 ↗ I'll say the lines again.

32:15 ↗ >> Perfect. Thanks.

32:16 ↗ >> Um and I'm going to capture it in the

32:18 ↗ document. Um so there's been a number of

32:22 ↗ cities around our region nationally that

32:25 ↗ have uh undergone studies to look at

32:28 ↗ different funding streams for their

32:30 ↗ climate and sustainability work. So we

32:32 ↗ would probably heavily reference those,

32:34 ↗ but there may be something specific we

32:36 ↗ need to look at for the city. Um, this

32:39 ↗ could be opportunities such as a bond or

32:42 ↗ a climate tax or um a green revolving

32:47 ↗ fund where we kind of take the the

32:49 ↗ energy savings um and invest those in

32:52 ↗ future projects for example. So there

32:55 ↗ could be some pathways or there will be

32:57 ↗ there would be a lot of pathways that

32:58 ↗ we'd explore um to kind of assess which

33:02 ↗ is the right avenue for

33:04 ↗ so just wanted to highlight this one

33:06 ↗ since it's new. see if there's any other

33:08 ↗ ideas we should include in this action.

33:10 ↗ I would just say explore doc explore

33:12 ↗ opportunities and document

33:15 ↗ implementation pathways so that next

33:17 ↗ time we come back to this in five years

33:19 ↗ we know what

33:21 ↗ >> okay yeah

33:25 ↗ >> any other thoughts on this one

33:28 ↗ >> was this uh I I remember Mayor Paulie

33:30 ↗ coming to one of our meetings and

33:31 ↗ talking about some kind of forest trust

33:34 ↗ or something that was

33:35 ↗ >> y

33:36 ↗ >> an idea at that time and I don't know if

33:38 ↗ this um came out of anything like that

33:41 ↗ >> there. Yeah, that is a Yeah, that um was

33:44 ↗ something that the parks department was

33:46 ↗ looking at for a lot of the greenqua

33:48 ↗ work. Um but having some kind of

33:50 ↗ nonprofit spin out that could raise

33:52 ↗ additional funding. So that could be

33:54 ↗ another avenue that's looked at here.

33:57 ↗ We've talked about with our energy

33:59 ↗ smarties

34:01 ↗ partnership, the heat pump program.

34:03 ↗ Would there be a benefit in the future

34:04 ↗ of that spinning off as a nonprofit? So

34:07 ↗ that could definitely be something that

34:08 ↗ would be looked at. I know the Greenway

34:10 ↗ and Eskabs are really good at

34:12 ↗ fundraising. So, I guess just leveraging

34:14 ↗ community partners and

34:17 ↗ >> Yeah, it's a good idea. I'll just add

34:19 ↗ that note.

34:25 ↗ >> Any other thoughts? Yeah.

34:28 ↗ >> Second column for the target action.

34:30 ↗ >> Yeah.

34:30 ↗ >> Secure sustainable. The I don't know

34:32 ↗ when I read sustainable I kind of get

34:34 ↗ mixed up there.

34:35 ↗ >> Oh, yeah. That's Yuri.

34:37 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. uh

34:39 ↗ >> recurring funding or

34:41 ↗ >> yeah more sustainable

34:44 ↗ >> yeah thank you that's a good that's good

34:48 ↗ yeah we'll play with that great

34:53 ↗ okay

34:56 ↗ all right any other comments on that one

34:58 ↗ okay um number 10 row 10 uh this was an

35:03 ↗ action that was proposed by the

35:05 ↗ environmental board um many months ago

35:07 ↗ So this was the uh idea of looking at

35:10 ↗ localized pollutants such as those from

35:14 ↗ uh from traffic from landscaping

35:16 ↗ equipment and exploring different

35:18 ↗ pathways for reducing those pollutants.

35:22 ↗ Um

35:23 ↗ so wanted to see if the board had

35:26 ↗ additional thoughts on this one since

35:28 ↗ it's been a while that we've discussed

35:29 ↗ it. Um if you have any more specificity

35:33 ↗ you want to add to it. And then I just

35:35 ↗ wanted to uh share a little bit of

35:38 ↗ feedback from one of our council

35:39 ↗ members. Um

35:42 ↗ well, Kirkland and Seattle do have

35:45 ↗ landscaping bans. It has been

35:48 ↗ complicated to implement because a lot

35:50 ↗ of private landscaping companies that

35:52 ↗ come in come from all over. So they

35:55 ↗ don't necessarily know that a particular

35:56 ↗ city has that ban. Um, I think there's

36:00 ↗ some concern around the political

36:04 ↗ capital that would have to be spent for

36:06 ↗ implementing, especially if we went for

36:08 ↗ a a landscaping a gas powered

36:11 ↗ landscaping ban. Um, there's some

36:13 ↗ concern around the political capital

36:15 ↗ that would have to be spent to move

36:16 ↗ something like that forward. Um,

36:20 ↗ and other feedback I heard from some of

36:22 ↗ our council members is that really the

36:25 ↗ biggest area for that we could focus on

36:28 ↗ for reducing localized pollution would

36:30 ↗ be around traffic. So, just wanted to

36:32 ↗ share some of those thoughts and get the

36:35 ↗ board's input on whether we want to

36:37 ↗ retain this, revise it, add more

36:40 ↗ specificity.

36:42 ↗ So, I'll have

36:44 ↗ >> I like it. One of the things that I

36:46 ↗ think about all the time that the city

36:48 ↗ does and bugs me is a lot of is plastic

36:51 ↗ signage.

36:52 ↗ >> You know, it's just not sustainable.

36:54 ↗ You'll see all the elections, they're

36:56 ↗ all plastic signs. All the announcements

36:58 ↗ for the Isqua Downtown Association or

37:01 ↗ Friends of Lake Seamish or whatever the

37:03 ↗ plastic signs. If we could just ban

37:06 ↗ those within the city

37:08 ↗ or make them require that they use a

37:10 ↗ biodegradable sign be great. I'm going

37:14 ↗ to flag that we have row 58 um is a

37:18 ↗ single use plastic band. So we have that

37:21 ↗ addressed more in the graph material. So

37:23 ↗ let's let me flag that one.

37:26 ↗ >> Um this one I think and maybe this

37:28 ↗ probably needs to be clarified. It was

37:30 ↗ really looking at localized air

37:32 ↗ pollutants. So I'll make that more

37:34 ↗ specific. I believe that was the intent

37:36 ↗ but again this came um as a concept from

37:40 ↗ the board. So happy to revise. So it's

37:43 ↗ not like looking at the stuff that's

37:45 ↗ coming off um tires that we're talking

37:48 ↗ about

37:50 ↗ >> and POS. I think those are some of the

37:52 ↗ topics raised but then

37:55 ↗ >> trying to link to the climate

37:59 ↗ um

38:01 ↗ what is the role of climate action

38:02 ↗ around those? I guess that's versus like

38:05 ↗ a general environmental plan where you

38:07 ↗ could say with increased runoff or more

38:11 ↗ concentration of those pollutants. So

38:14 ↗ >> um we could focus in on that.

38:17 ↗ >> Yeah,

38:18 ↗ >> that'd be a way to put that in the

38:19 ↗ natural areas

38:21 ↗ section.

38:24 ↗ I would leave this one more general

38:26 ↗ >> and not just focus on landscape

38:28 ↗ equipment.

38:29 ↗ It gives you more room to work inside of

38:33 ↗ it.

38:36 ↗ >> Maybe remove kind of remove the details

38:38 ↗ and leave it a little bit more.

38:40 ↗ >> I leave that pizza. That's fine.

38:41 ↗ >> Okay.

38:42 ↗ >> To to answer your question on the right.

38:46 ↗ >> Oh, okay. You you mentioned air

38:48 ↗ pollution, but there's other places like

38:51 ↗ I I notice just people putting down

38:55 ↗ businesses throwing down salt all over

38:57 ↗ the place

38:58 ↗ >> like

39:00 ↗ Costco. They cover the whole area in the

39:03 ↗ winter time with salt.

39:04 ↗ >> I don't know if that's bad for the

39:06 ↗ environment or not, but it seems like it

39:07 ↗ would be.

39:08 ↗ >> Yeah.

39:09 ↗ spraying things on the liquids on the

39:11 ↗ roads for deicing and things maybe

39:13 ↗ they're not

39:15 ↗ >> doesn't help

39:16 ↗ >> right

39:17 ↗ >> depends how much rain you get afterwards

39:19 ↗ it's diluted all the way

39:23 ↗ >> but maybe not limit it to strictly air

39:25 ↗ >> pollution

39:26 ↗ >> okay that's good because that could then

39:28 ↗ get at the 6 PBDQ and other pollutants

39:32 ↗ and um the idea of either heavier this

39:36 ↗ might be a stretch but if we're having

39:38 ↗ more frequent heavier rain precipitation

39:42 ↗ events if we have that could be helping

39:45 ↗ to concentrate some of those pollutants

39:47 ↗ in the streams or if we have drier

39:49 ↗ streams in the summer pollutants might

39:50 ↗ be more concentrated. It's a little bit

39:52 ↗ of a stretch but trying to find kind of

39:54 ↗ a climate tie if you all think it's

39:57 ↗ appropriate.

39:59 ↗ >> We looked at the city's what they use

40:01 ↗ for the icing. Is it is it um good for

40:05 ↗ the environment or

40:06 ↗ >> I don't remember what they

40:09 ↗ >> said actually for the environment.

40:11 ↗ >> There's none that's good for the

40:13 ↗ >> filling ham. Belling dam uses like a

40:15 ↗ beet juice or something.

40:18 ↗ >> So a lot of the cities have gone away

40:20 ↗ from sand and they're just using kind of

40:21 ↗ a pure salt brine mixture and then

40:24 ↗ sometimes some hard salt gets coated red

40:26 ↗ so you can see it. So they can see where

40:28 ↗ they drop it.

40:29 ↗ um that doesn't leave the sand behind

40:32 ↗ because the sand gets into the streams,

40:34 ↗ clogs up all the sand spawning beds. You

40:36 ↗ have to clean it all up. So that's the

40:38 ↗ theory behind

40:40 ↗ >> well I don't know the science but is it

40:42 ↗ possible that as temperatures get hotter

40:44 ↗ there's more leeching off or off maybe

40:47 ↗ off gasing but like specifically the

40:49 ↗ more runoff of chemicals and bad stuff

40:52 ↗ into the

40:53 ↗ >> possibility. Yeah. Yeah.

40:56 ↗ >> The other thing we can do is, you know,

40:58 ↗ the stuff we put on our yards and sprays

41:00 ↗ we use in our to manage our weeds.

41:04 ↗ >> Okay.

41:05 ↗ >> Yeah. Climate brings different, you

41:06 ↗ know, weeds and kills lawns that people

41:09 ↗ try to

41:10 ↗ >> use chemicals to

41:12 ↗ water. Yeah.

41:14 ↗ >> Okay. And this could um

41:18 ↗ possibly a number of the campaigns the

41:21 ↗ Cascade Water Alliance runs for using

41:24 ↗ more natural fertilizers and that type

41:26 ↗ of stuff this um

41:30 ↗ >> I was really glad to hear that last time

41:32 ↗ and I tried looking on their website

41:33 ↗ about it. It seems to be kind of buried.

41:35 ↗ So yeah, boosting the background kind of

41:38 ↗ >> those alternatives is a good idea.

41:43 ↗ >> All right. So, it sounds like keeping it

41:45 ↗ general, keeping it in the plan, general

41:47 ↗ support, um, making sure we're not just

41:50 ↗ looking at air, but also water stream

41:53 ↗ pollutes.

41:54 ↗ >> Yeah.

41:55 ↗ >> Okay, great.

41:57 ↗ All right. Uh,

42:03 ↗ okay. Next one is a little ways down.

42:07 ↗ >> Talking about the red ones.

42:09 ↗ >> Um, I was not going to. those were

42:11 ↗ displayed because they're a bit of a

42:13 ↗ change. Um, happy to I can mention them

42:17 ↗ briefly as we go back.

42:19 ↗ >> It looks like 18 also has

42:21 ↗ >> Yeah, that's more a note for myself. I

42:23 ↗ need to talk with our um emergency

42:26 ↗ manager just to clarify that that's the

42:28 ↗ language we want because I think this

42:30 ↗ board actually flagged the very specific

42:33 ↗ meaning that it has.

42:35 ↗ >> I'm okay with not talking about the red.

42:36 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah, red ones are either David

42:38 ↗ and I are proposing moving those to the

42:40 ↗ implementation plan and action or a

42:44 ↗ change from the committee.

42:49 ↗ Okay. So,

42:52 ↗ um I will touch briefly on 22

42:56 ↗ more just on the notes there. Um this

43:00 ↗ one was also brought up during public

43:02 ↗ comment. So um we do have in our current

43:05 ↗ plan assessing the potential for energy

43:08 ↗ benchmarking program. We were looking at

43:11 ↗ the possibility of either um running a

43:16 ↗ ben a required benchmarking program for

43:19 ↗ buildings that are under 20,000 square

43:21 ↗ feet that do not currently have to

43:23 ↗ comply with state standards or a a

43:28 ↗ voluntary program where they could

43:30 ↗ self-report. and we provide technical

43:32 ↗ support

43:34 ↗ um for them. Um we discussed this with

43:37 ↗ the ED committee um based on some of

43:40 ↗ their some of the members professional

43:42 ↗ experience. They don't necessarily see

43:46 ↗ benefit of just benchmarking buildings.

43:48 ↗ They haven't seen um buildings improve

43:51 ↗ their energy efficiency by just

43:53 ↗ reporting on their energy. So they

43:55 ↗ didn't feel um that this was a high

43:57 ↗ priority to move forward. Um, what I

44:00 ↗ will say though is that we do

44:04 ↗ have

44:06 ↗ um cross references, but we do have an

44:08 ↗ action later on in our buildings and

44:10 ↗ energy that does speak to programs for

44:13 ↗ commercial buildings to help them with

44:15 ↗ energy efficiency electrification. So if

44:19 ↗ some point in the future we do feel like

44:22 ↗ it's important to run a voluntary or

44:25 ↗ even a mandatory benchmarking program

44:27 ↗ because we think that's how we're really

44:29 ↗ going to move the needle. There is room

44:31 ↗ within the existing language to do that.

44:34 ↗ I just would not be calling it out

44:36 ↗ specifically.

44:42 ↗ So

44:44 ↗ next one is row 25.

44:50 ↗ Um this also came out of the

44:55 ↗ um council committee meeting.

44:58 ↗ Um we had talked to them about

45:02 ↗ um a couple the big policy ideas. The

45:06 ↗ home energy score we heard about during

45:08 ↗ public comment. Um there city of

45:11 ↗ Berkeley has a requirement when a house

45:14 ↗ is sold it has to score a certain number

45:17 ↗ of points for energy efficiency or

45:19 ↗ electrification or else upgrades have to

45:21 ↗ be made. Um those felt that second

45:25 ↗ option felt um like too big of a program

45:28 ↗ for our city and there's a lot of

45:30 ↗ concerns about running a program like

45:32 ↗ that. the home energy score uh PTE did

45:35 ↗ not feel like um would really have an

45:38 ↗ impact and there were some current

45:40 ↗ concerns around equity. Um a home energy

45:42 ↗ score is basically where a home would

45:45 ↗ report on its energy efficiency at time

45:48 ↗ of sale. Um and there are a lot of

45:50 ↗ concerns just that if folks cannot

45:53 ↗ afford upgrades to their homes, they

45:55 ↗ make it um a lower selling price for the

45:58 ↗ house and just the all that the

46:00 ↗ affordability concerns. So um so what

46:04 ↗ the PTE committee did support was

46:08 ↗ exploring an opportunity or exploring

46:11 ↗ some type of policy where

46:15 ↗ um either at the time of replacement. So

46:18 ↗ if a gas furnace fails or air

46:21 ↗ conditioner fails or a new air

46:23 ↗ conditioner is being purchased that

46:26 ↗ there would be some kind of requirement

46:27 ↗ for an energy efficiency standard um for

46:30 ↗ that new equipment coming in with the

46:33 ↗ hope that folks aren't putting in new um

46:36 ↗ gas or very low efficient equipment

46:39 ↗ that's going to be in a home for the

46:41 ↗ next 15 20 years. Um

46:45 ↗ this would be we would first do a pretty

46:48 ↗ extensive assessment around the costs

46:50 ↗ and how a program like that could

46:51 ↗ operate. Um but there was interest from

46:54 ↗ at least that uh council committee of

46:57 ↗ exploring what a program like this might

47:00 ↗ look like.

47:04 ↗ >> Is that just for the city buildings or

47:07 ↗ is that for

47:07 ↗ >> No, this would be a community. That

47:09 ↗ second example would be if my furnace

47:11 ↗ blows up and I would have to put in a

47:14 ↗ more efficient furnace or more efficient

47:17 ↗ heat source

47:18 ↗ >> and you're talking about almost double

47:20 ↗ the cost at times.

47:21 ↗ >> No, it's just explore the feasibility.

47:24 ↗ >> Yeah. So, this would just be to evaluate

47:26 ↗ what the look,

47:29 ↗ >> right? So, we would be going out and

47:31 ↗ assessing what that would look like.

47:32 ↗ >> That's my concern too is I don't I don't

47:35 ↗ want you to force this down on people.

47:37 ↗ So,

47:38 ↗ >> right. that would

47:38 ↗ >> make sure that's very clear.

47:40 ↗ >> Yeah, that would it would need to go

47:42 ↗ through extensive council community

47:43 ↗ input before a program is implemented. I

47:46 ↗ mean, if we were ever to do something

47:48 ↗ like this, I would assume it would have

47:52 ↗ to be implemented with a very hefty

47:55 ↗ rebate program that the city is also

47:58 ↗ investing in to make the cost

48:00 ↗ >> equity. You're talking about people that

48:01 ↗ can barely afford to live here. If their

48:03 ↗ furnace goes out, they all have all of a

48:05 ↗ sudden.

48:07 ↗ >> I mean, it's the right thing to do, but

48:09 ↗ wow.

48:10 ↗ >> It's a lot of money.

48:11 ↗ >> Yeah.

48:13 ↗ Um, and we could put a note in here like

48:16 ↗ a assessment or study would need to help

48:18 ↗ look at what kind of complimentary

48:21 ↗ program to ensure there's not a cost

48:24 ↗ burden or something like that.

48:32 ↗ that needs to be included. Okay.

48:35 ↗ So people are fully aware of what you

48:37 ↗ simply do

48:39 ↗ the other thing in mind.

48:41 ↗ >> Yeah.

48:42 ↗ >> I I wonder if part of that um helping

48:45 ↗ people alongside the requirements could

48:48 ↗ be uh kind of helping people with their

48:51 ↗ envelope of their house. making sure

48:54 ↗ that

48:54 ↗ >> it's as insulated and everything and as

48:59 ↗ >> efficient as possible so that

49:02 ↗ >> if we are going to make people

49:04 ↗ maybe they don't need quite as much to

49:07 ↗ they don't need to purchase quite as

49:08 ↗ heavy a you know system.

49:10 ↗ >> Yep. And hopefully help reduce their

49:12 ↗ energy bills by weatherizing. Yeah.

49:14 ↗ Actually yeah that would be that's a

49:16 ↗ great suggestion to compliment.

49:18 ↗ >> Okay. Again, the wording seems kind of

49:21 ↗ squirly on the action. Yeah.

49:24 ↗ >> I would say something like explore the

49:26 ↗ feasibility

49:27 ↗ of a requirement for upgrading heating

49:31 ↗ and cooling equipment to have

49:32 ↗ replacement.

49:33 ↗ >> Yeah.

49:36 ↗ >> Just it's just that

49:39 ↗ when I read it first, it's like

49:42 ↗ it's more like you're you're trying to

49:44 ↗ implement some sort of timing for

49:47 ↗ >> Yeah. places.

49:50 ↗ >> Okay, great. I will work on the

49:52 ↗ language.

49:55 ↗ >> Okay.

49:57 ↗ So, some concerns around this just the

50:01 ↗ equity piece costs, but it has the

50:04 ↗ potential to have a pretty direct

50:07 ↗ emissions reduction.

50:09 ↗ >> I wonder if there are exemptions for low

50:11 ↗ income.

50:12 ↗ >> Yeah.

50:15 ↗ >> Or certain like um Yeah. Benefit the

50:18 ↗ most. So they can't afford the electric

50:20 ↗ bill.

50:20 ↗ >> Yeah.

50:21 ↗ >> Or the gas field deliveries.

50:25 ↗ >> Okay.

50:26 ↗ >> Yeah. If we undertake a study to see

50:28 ↗ what a program would look like, this

50:30 ↗ board would have many many touches on

50:32 ↗ that. So

50:35 ↗ all right. Um okay. Next one is row 26.

50:44 ↗ Um actually let me just double check.

50:48 ↗ some notes from a council member on the

50:50 ↗ last one. Um,

50:52 ↗ okay. Uh, number 26 is this idea of dark

50:56 ↗ sky requirements. So, the board has

50:58 ↗ touched on this one. We had language

51:00 ↗ around commercial buildings. In

51:03 ↗ discussing this um with the council

51:06 ↗ committee, they were actually interested

51:10 ↗ in looking more broadly, interested in

51:12 ↗ looking at street lights, commercial

51:14 ↗ buildings, um other parts of the code

51:18 ↗ that could be improved to reduce um

51:21 ↗ light pollution. Uh I believe I had

51:24 ↗ shared with you all, we've heard some

51:26 ↗ concerns from the park board just around

51:27 ↗ impacts to recreation. PPC was concerned

51:31 ↗ about costs. Um there's been I have

51:35 ↗ heard from our planning department. I

51:36 ↗ need to learn more that there are

51:39 ↗ challenges even with our current code in

51:42 ↗ meeting it in the lighting requirements.

51:45 ↗ Um but there was support from advancing

51:47 ↗ this from council that we could at least

51:50 ↗ look across our code and see where we

51:51 ↗ might be able to um expand requirements.

51:57 ↗ >> I love this one. you know,

52:00 ↗ has there been any safety concerns with

52:02 ↗ this or is this just talking about

52:03 ↗ turning the lights down so they're not

52:05 ↗ shooting them?

52:05 ↗ >> Yeah, it could be that safety has

52:07 ↗ definitely been brought up by planning

52:09 ↗ team that came up at the PPC meeting. Um

52:13 ↗ so, but it could be shielding. It could

52:15 ↗ be um dimming at certain times,

52:18 ↗ especially the LED lights which are much

52:21 ↗ brighter. Um

52:23 ↗ >> like people walking through parks at

52:25 ↗ night, right?

52:27 ↗ >> Yes. Absolutely. Yeah, I think that

52:29 ↗ would all need to be balanced out. Yeah.

52:40 ↗ Again, if this is taken up um or

52:43 ↗ supported and moving forward in the

52:44 ↗ plan, it's something I'm sure we'd be

52:46 ↗ talking with this board

52:48 ↗ about,

52:50 ↗ right?

52:52 ↗ Um

52:58 ↗ uh I'll just flag there's a couple in

53:00 ↗ the buildings and energy section that we

53:02 ↗ highlighted in red. There was a lot of

53:04 ↗ actions around solar. So we tried to

53:07 ↗ condense them into

53:12 ↗ of a um offsite solar and uh solar on

53:18 ↗ physical buildings in our community. Is

53:20 ↗ that

53:20 ↗ >> Yeah.

53:21 ↗ >> in general. So that's we've tried to

53:23 ↗ just condense four or five actions into

53:25 ↗ two. We're really trying to accelerate

53:29 ↗ um adoption of solar and battery storage

53:32 ↗ I should note um on our buildings in the

53:35 ↗ city and then one that's also uh looking

53:38 ↗ at investing in renewable energy where

53:41 ↗ there aren't opportunities in the

53:43 ↗ community for solar. And the the

53:45 ↗ off-site one is is general to renewable

53:47 ↗ energy recognizing yes

53:50 ↗ >> wind resource uh regionally

53:55 ↗ potential other renewable energies as we

53:57 ↗ discuss

53:59 ↗ >> just to flag those. We welcome to come

54:01 ↗ back to those if folks think we missed

54:03 ↗ anything and trying to reduce them.

54:08 ↗ Right. Next is 39.

54:11 ↗ 39 uh reduce parking requirements.

54:15 ↗ Um

54:17 ↗ this one's had a lot of back and forth.

54:19 ↗ Um so in part of our kind of big policy,

54:24 ↗ big impact review,

54:27 ↗ one of the policies that came up time

54:29 ↗ and time again across the country is

54:30 ↗ reducing parking minimums. Um this would

54:33 ↗ be in multifamily developments with the

54:35 ↗ idea of build less parking, folks will

54:38 ↗ use transit. We've discussed this with

54:40 ↗ TAB, with you all, um, with PPC.

54:44 ↗ There are some concerns that even if we

54:47 ↗ reduce parking minimums, developers are

54:49 ↗ still building plenty of parking because

54:52 ↗ they need it to feel like they can rent

54:54 ↗ out um, the spaces. Um, there's some

54:57 ↗ concern around spillover parking into

54:59 ↗ neighborhoods, businesses. There's

55:02 ↗ concern about access to transit. Um so

55:06 ↗ in discussing this with the council

55:09 ↗ committee, they were

55:12 ↗ supportive of us still looking at are

55:16 ↗ there additional opportunities for us to

55:19 ↗ either remove parking minimums,

55:22 ↗ create more parking maximums so

55:24 ↗ developers can't just build more parking

55:26 ↗ because they think they need it. and

55:29 ↗ looking in particular areas of the city

55:32 ↗ more kind of concentrated in our our

55:34 ↗ growth centers.

55:36 ↗ Um so in general the council committee

55:38 ↗ was interested in pursuing this one and

55:41 ↗ studying it further to see where there's

55:42 ↗ opportunities.

55:51 ↗ Um let me just see any other notes.

55:54 ↗ Oh, the other thing I'll just note

55:56 ↗ because our planning department's been

55:57 ↗ discussing this one with council as

55:59 ↗ well. There are some state code

56:01 ↗ requirements that we are around parking

56:04 ↗ that we're also working to come into

56:06 ↗ compliance with. So, that would be

56:08 ↗ considered as we are looking at these

56:11 ↗ reductions

56:12 ↗ um in parking requirements. So,

56:17 ↗ >> those state requirements kind of like a

56:19 ↗ lower limit on how much we can reduce

56:21 ↗ parking

56:22 ↗ >> parking. Yeah. had maximums as well.

56:24 ↗ Yeah. So, I think states are really

56:27 ↗ looking at kind of getting rid of a lot

56:28 ↗ of parking minimums is my understanding

56:34 ↗ questions here.

56:37 ↗ Great.

56:41 ↗ And Sam is on. Oh, and Emma. Great. Um,

56:44 ↗ Emma is one of our interns from Gibson

56:47 ↗ X. So, she's been helping us a lot track

56:49 ↗ all of the comments and incorporate them

56:51 ↗ into a comment tracker that you'll have

56:53 ↗ a chance to see.

56:58 ↗ >> Great. Um, our next one is row 46.

57:04 ↗ Uh,

57:06 ↗ this one, um, was another one of the big

57:10 ↗ policy ideas we brought forward.

57:13 ↗ um TAB in general uh supported this one.

57:17 ↗ Uh PPC had a lot of concerns around

57:19 ↗ costs and then in discussing it with the

57:23 ↗ council committee, they were supportive

57:25 ↗ of moving forward. So this one is around

57:28 ↗ um expanding our requirements for how

57:31 ↗ much electric charging needs to go into

57:34 ↗ new multifamily buildings. Um Redmond

57:39 ↗ uh passed and I believe it started in

57:41 ↗ July uh implementation is 100% of

57:43 ↗ parking stalls have to be EV ready. So

57:46 ↗ everything is set up. You basically just

57:48 ↗ have to drop a charger in. Um what the

57:52 ↗ council committee suggested is we look

57:54 ↗ at

57:56 ↗ um EV capable or lower. Um, so that

58:01 ↗ basically there's some wiring, some

58:03 ↗ conduit put in. Um, but we don't have to

58:06 ↗ do any kind of electrical panel updates.

58:08 ↗ There's no charger in place, but the

58:10 ↗ more expensive work is done while the

58:12 ↗ building is being built. Um, because it

58:15 ↗ is a lot cheaper to do it then instead

58:17 ↗ of after the fact. Um, so they wanted EV

58:22 ↗ capable or they were saying kind of EV

58:24 ↗ capable less if there's something kind

58:27 ↗ of lower than EV capable that we could

58:29 ↗ require. Um, and then they were

58:32 ↗ interested in looking at up to 100% of

58:34 ↗ parking stalls or some of the members

58:36 ↗ were interested in 100% of um, parking

58:39 ↗ stalls. So what the language we've tried

58:41 ↗ to include here, it allows us that

58:45 ↗ flexibility to look at what's the right

58:48 ↗ level we would want to require and how

58:50 ↗ much. I think right now the state

58:52 ↗ requires 10% of stalls are EV ready. Um

58:57 ↗ so we'd be looking at something probably

58:59 ↗ above that but maybe at a less capacity.

59:05 ↗ >> We talked about this before.

59:06 ↗ >> We did. Yeah.

59:08 ↗ I would support the EV capable having

59:10 ↗ them put the conduit in the ground while

59:11 ↗ they're pouring the concrete makes

59:13 ↗ sense. Um, and then they could expand

59:17 ↗ their EV slots as demand comes around. I

59:21 ↗ think it's an undue burden on the

59:22 ↗ developer to have them make everything

59:25 ↗ EV ready. Those things are expensive.

59:27 ↗ >> Yeah.

59:28 ↗ >> So, this would be almost revisiting the

59:30 ↗ ordinance for those of you that have

59:32 ↗ been on the board for a long time. I

59:33 ↗ think it was one of the first things you

59:34 ↗ all did um

59:36 ↗ >> where this board kind of approved the

59:38 ↗ ordinance that would go above the state

59:40 ↗ requirements. The state jumped ahead of

59:42 ↗ us and now this would be maybe looking

59:44 ↗ to go above where the state is now. So

59:47 ↗ >> has it already been suggested to exempt

59:50 ↗ uh EV ready parking spots from parking

59:53 ↗ maximums? Mhm.

59:55 ↗ >> Oh,

1:00:01 ↗ >> I don't know if the if that pencil's

1:00:04 ↗ out.

1:00:04 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:00:14 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, that was um one

1:00:17 ↗ thought one of the council members had

1:00:19 ↗ was if we're reducing the amount of

1:00:21 ↗ parking, it will be less expensive for

1:00:23 ↗ them to be build the EV capable.

1:00:25 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:00:27 ↗ >> Yeah. I guess parking maximums probably

1:00:29 ↗ aren't so low that you didn't matter,

1:00:31 ↗ but

1:00:32 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. Um or yeah, any other kind

1:00:35 ↗ of

1:00:39 ↗ Okay. Any questions on this one? I'd

1:00:41 ↗ just be concerned about safety, you

1:00:43 ↗ know, with multif family units with

1:00:46 ↗ children around and high power charging

1:00:50 ↗ everywhere. Just pretty scary,

1:00:53 ↗ >> especially as it wears out.

1:00:55 ↗ >> It is a fire hazard.

1:00:58 ↗ >> That that just has nothing to do with

1:01:00 ↗ this. Just

1:01:01 ↗ >> Okay. But yeah, that

1:01:03 ↗ >> Yeah, just to consider.

1:01:07 ↗ >> It's great when it's brand new, but it's

1:01:09 ↗ 10 years old. the virus start

1:01:11 ↗ deteriorating.

1:01:13 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:01:14 ↗ >> I did have a friend whose his house

1:01:15 ↗ caught on fire with

1:01:17 ↗ >> charge it.

1:01:18 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:01:21 ↗ >> Really? How old was she?

1:01:24 ↗ >> It was new.

1:01:31 ↗ >> All right. Um Sam, give us a little bit

1:01:35 ↗ of time and if we don't move on to your

1:01:37 ↗ section, then we'll take a break of

1:01:39 ↗ where we are and come back. We're just

1:01:41 ↗ trying to get

1:01:45 ↗ >> All right. And our next one is our

1:01:49 ↗ really fun exciting one. Um

1:01:54 ↗ okay. Well, let me talk a little bit

1:01:56 ↗ about this one. So this is as you all

1:02:00 ↗ are very well aware at this point um our

1:02:02 ↗ current target under natural systems and

1:02:05 ↗ water resources is around 55% tree

1:02:09 ↗ canopy by 2035.

1:02:12 ↗ Um we've discussed at a couple meetings

1:02:16 ↗ uh that one and I'll talk a little bit

1:02:18 ↗ in a minute about one of the that

1:02:20 ↗ proposed change. The other ones that we

1:02:23 ↗ discussed at the last meeting was adding

1:02:26 ↗ in an additional target that's looking

1:02:28 ↗ at a tree equity score to really look at

1:02:31 ↗ that tree distribution across the city.

1:02:34 ↗ Um and then a third target that would

1:02:36 ↗ look at water um water use reduction.

1:02:40 ↗ Our water manager is on uh leave right

1:02:44 ↗ now, so we'll be talking with her as

1:02:46 ↗ soon as she's back to come up with a

1:02:47 ↗ right um percentage that would make

1:02:49 ↗ sense there. What's the nexus between

1:02:51 ↗ the water reduction and the trees?

1:02:54 ↗ >> Good question. So, we have when this uh

1:02:57 ↗ focus area was built in 2021,

1:03:00 ↗ um the only target was around the tree

1:03:02 ↗ canopy, but there are this area or this

1:03:06 ↗ focus area touches way more than trees.

1:03:09 ↗ Um there's a lot on water conservation

1:03:13 ↗ um le other so we are trying to bring in

1:03:15 ↗ a target that really looks at um

1:03:20 ↗ uh a lot of those other actions

1:03:22 ↗ recognizing the benefit from um reduced

1:03:25 ↗ energy use by reducing our water use and

1:03:28 ↗ then also just as a resilience standard

1:03:31 ↗ as we look at drier warmer summers. So,

1:03:35 ↗ all right, let's talk about tree canopy.

1:03:39 ↗ Um, so staff have gone back and forth on

1:03:42 ↗ this one a lot and unfortunately Dan um

1:03:45 ↗ is traveling tonight or else he would be

1:03:47 ↗ here to join us. Um, we landed on a

1:03:51 ↗ proposal of moving to a no net loss. Um,

1:03:56 ↗ and what we put in here was 2023

1:04:00 ↗ um, a baseline of 2023. But what we want

1:04:03 ↗ to caveat that with is

1:04:06 ↗ a a moving baseline. So for example, if

1:04:10 ↗ next year Green Isakqua goes out and

1:04:13 ↗ plants 50 acres, our baseline would

1:04:15 ↗ increase. So it wouldn't mean if the

1:04:18 ↗ city went out and acquired land or did a

1:04:20 ↗ major planting in one area that we would

1:04:23 ↗ reduce canopy in another area. So we'd

1:04:26 ↗ have this kind of known net loss target

1:04:28 ↗ with a shifting baseline that's only

1:04:30 ↗ increasing. That makes sense. Um, part

1:04:34 ↗ of the reason for this proposal that

1:04:36 ↗ we've discussed with you all is that um

1:04:41 ↗ the 20 the current target of 55% tree

1:04:45 ↗ canopy um we know we can't meet. There

1:04:48 ↗ is not enough land in the city um that

1:04:51 ↗ can be planted today and have that

1:04:54 ↗ canopy mature in the next nine years.

1:04:57 ↗ Um,

1:04:58 ↗ we Dan has a lot of information on what

1:05:01 ↗ is plantable. Um, how long it will take

1:05:04 ↗ for some of that material to happen. Um,

1:05:06 ↗ we think maybe 50 acres is plantable

1:05:09 ↗ over the next 9 years. Um, but again,

1:05:12 ↗ it'll take some time for those trees to

1:05:13 ↗ come to maturity.

1:05:15 ↗ Um, there's been interest from

1:05:18 ↗ the park board. Um, and I think we've

1:05:21 ↗ heard from you all as well about looking

1:05:23 ↗ at more the health of trees. That's

1:05:27 ↗ something we could capture, but we felt

1:05:29 ↗ like having a target um that's much more

1:05:32 ↗ quantitative might be better for this

1:05:36 ↗ focus area.

1:05:38 ↗ Um,

1:05:40 ↗ I did want to share Ann Newcome sent a

1:05:42 ↗ few thoughts since she couldn't be here

1:05:44 ↗ tonight. Um, one of her suggestions was

1:05:47 ↗ maybe just reducing the percent. So

1:05:50 ↗ instead of having 55% maybe put it at

1:05:53 ↗ something that we think uh is still a

1:05:56 ↗ stretch but we could achieve like a 53%

1:06:00 ↗ um by 2035

1:06:02 ↗ um and then maybe a higher percentage by

1:06:05 ↗ 2050.

1:06:07 ↗ Um

1:06:09 ↗ the other thing I wanted to share

1:06:12 ↗ is that there's a lot of work that um

1:06:16 ↗ Dan is doing on kind of creative

1:06:18 ↗ solutions particularly working with the

1:06:20 ↗ state park on where we might be able to

1:06:22 ↗ get some really big benefit um in a

1:06:25 ↗ short amount of time um in terms of

1:06:27 ↗ putting new trees in but again it's

1:06:29 ↗ going to take many years for those trees

1:06:31 ↗ to mature and and develop the canopy.

1:06:35 ↗ Um so that is kind of a quick summary.

1:06:38 ↗ Anything else you want to share from our

1:06:40 ↗ conversations?

1:06:42 ↗ And I I think the only other thing that

1:06:44 ↗ I'd add is right no net loss part of the

1:06:48 ↗ of the theory of the work there is as

1:06:50 ↗ development continues in Isiqua as you

1:06:53 ↗ know for any bomb cyclone type events

1:06:56 ↗ that cause trees to come down right we

1:07:00 ↗ the the goal as set would be to make

1:07:02 ↗ sure that we're um maintaining the tree

1:07:06 ↗ level we have despite kind of that

1:07:08 ↗ development as it's occurring instead of

1:07:11 ↗ necessarily just letting that tree loss

1:07:13 ↗ occur without action from the city

1:07:15 ↗ >> planting trees to hedge our bets and

1:07:18 ↗ make sure we've got that buffer that

1:07:19 ↗ >> so when trees fall down you'd replace

1:07:21 ↗ them

1:07:22 ↗ >> replacing them before they fall down

1:07:24 ↗ right

1:07:25 ↗ >> I think right I think it would you know

1:07:27 ↗ there'd be multiple ways that the city

1:07:29 ↗ would do this but it would be working to

1:07:31 ↗ plant trees now in anticipation of

1:07:34 ↗ future trees down and storms and other

1:07:36 ↗ things um but then also working with the

1:07:38 ↗ tree code to make sure that you know as

1:07:40 ↗ tree trees come out planting news trees

1:07:43 ↗ also occurs um to try and maintain that

1:07:46 ↗ tree canopy cover based on the 2023

1:07:49 ↗ baseline.

1:07:51 ↗ >> Yes. Great.

1:07:53 ↗ I think it's important to me to just um

1:07:56 ↗ make sure that we all uh keep in mind

1:07:59 ↗ that no net loss should mean that we're

1:08:02 ↗ being proactive about

1:08:04 ↗ >> u about any potential loss including you

1:08:07 ↗ know one in a 100redyear storms that

1:08:10 ↗ come every five years.

1:08:13 ↗ >> Well, I guess that's the problem I have

1:08:14 ↗ with that. No net loss language. It it

1:08:18 ↗ implies the status quo is good enough.

1:08:22 ↗ Um, and so I'm not comfortable with that

1:08:26 ↗ language.

1:08:28 ↗ It's got to it's got to uh so an

1:08:31 ↗ suggestion of well let's let's go to a

1:08:33 ↗ different target that at least there's a

1:08:35 ↗ big philosophical difference between

1:08:37 ↗ saying no that loss and say well yes we

1:08:39 ↗ recognize we want to get better

1:08:42 ↗ incrementally better that will drive

1:08:44 ↗ then policy to try to get us to a better

1:08:47 ↗ uh state whereas if we just say no at

1:08:50 ↗ loss well hooray we don't have to do

1:08:52 ↗ anything the hooray we don't have to do

1:08:56 ↗ anything is not the Right. Conclusion.

1:09:00 ↗ So some wording that that doesn't allow

1:09:03 ↗ us to say we don't have to do anything.

1:09:06 ↗ >> I agree with that because in the city no

1:09:08 ↗ net loss is really

1:09:10 ↗ >> ended up in single losses historically

1:09:13 ↗ and so I'm really uncomfortable with

1:09:16 ↗ that terminology. I think as a property

1:09:19 ↗ wants to develop it means something to

1:09:21 ↗ them as well.

1:09:23 ↗ >> So I think if we set a goal of something

1:09:27 ↗ to achieve more than what we have today.

1:09:30 ↗ >> At least we have something to measure.

1:09:32 ↗ Instead, we're just saying we're good.

1:09:34 ↗ We're all good on trees, right?

1:09:36 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:09:36 ↗ >> Everything's good.

1:09:39 ↗ >> Yeah. I'm in the same camp.

1:09:42 ↗ I wanted that 55% before, but

1:09:46 ↗ >> yeah.

1:09:46 ↗ >> Happy to let that go down to 53, 52,

1:09:48 ↗ wherever that right number is. Just have

1:09:51 ↗ something to strive for.

1:09:52 ↗ >> Sure. Yeah. And Dan shared between

1:09:55 ↗ Samish Cove where there's some open

1:09:57 ↗ space like Sam State Park, there's

1:09:59 ↗ probably 125 acres of plantable space

1:10:02 ↗ that could don't currently have tree

1:10:03 ↗ canopy. Um, so that would be around

1:10:06 ↗ 1.7%, but he said he doesn't think that

1:10:09 ↗ could be achieved by 2035, but that's

1:10:12 ↗ kind of in the horizon. So,

1:10:14 ↗ >> did he ever look at I suggested at one

1:10:17 ↗ meeting that he looked at properties

1:10:18 ↗ that are about to be robbed by various

1:10:20 ↗ property? That is an action I want to

1:10:23 ↗ discuss.

1:10:23 ↗ >> I think that's a huge opportunity that

1:10:26 ↗ you know you have trees that are about

1:10:27 ↗ to be cut and if we somehow acquire

1:10:30 ↗ those trees and don't get them to get

1:10:31 ↗ cut, that's a huge gain. And if you say

1:10:34 ↗ no net loss, there's no reason to try

1:10:36 ↗ and partner with people that are going

1:10:38 ↗ to go into a logging operation. It may

1:10:40 ↗ not be in the city specifically, but if

1:10:42 ↗ we can just like we've done with land,

1:10:44 ↗ if we can achieve that in some other

1:10:46 ↗ way, that creativity is all gone down if

1:10:50 ↗ no net loss is what we're trying to look

1:10:52 ↗ at. That's why

1:10:54 ↗ >> we'll talk about DNR

1:10:58 ↗ whatever

1:10:58 ↗ >> not much private timber left,

1:11:00 ↗ >> right?

1:11:00 ↗ >> I'm not saying just in I mean you could

1:11:02 ↗ look within

1:11:05 ↗ basin or something like that outside of

1:11:07 ↗ the city. I agree with you on that one.

1:11:09 ↗ But, you know, there are people that are

1:11:11 ↗ wanting develop their land.

1:11:13 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:11:14 ↗ >> And if you can get them to even say 50%

1:11:17 ↗ of their trees, maybe they'll take some

1:11:18 ↗ of them down, but you can acquire some

1:11:20 ↗ of those trees and use those as some of

1:11:23 ↗ the benefits to this community with some

1:11:26 ↗ asurances. It's it's moving the target

1:11:29 ↗ and thinking creativity. That's where

1:11:31 ↗ I'm at.

1:11:32 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:11:32 ↗ >> I have that one to talk about because

1:11:34 ↗ that was an action you all recommended.

1:11:36 ↗ Um, so that'll be great.

1:11:38 ↗ >> And and I I I really agree with, you

1:11:40 ↗ know, trying to mitigate timber

1:11:43 ↗ extraction, stuff like that, too. And I

1:11:44 ↗ I

1:11:45 ↗ >> want trees in the city. I just I worry

1:11:48 ↗ that if we uh kind of fixate on no net

1:11:52 ↗ loss or a certain number um too much. I

1:11:55 ↗ just worry that we that trees aren't the

1:11:59 ↗ only kind of habitat, you know, and um

1:12:01 ↗ meadows, wetlands, uh flood plains often

1:12:05 ↗ can't have trees or or have a lot less

1:12:08 ↗ trees than a

1:12:09 ↗ >> densely planted forest. So, I just would

1:12:12 ↗ want to make sure that if the if there

1:12:13 ↗ was a need for that kind of habitat for

1:12:15 ↗ existing habitat like that that we don't

1:12:17 ↗ say, oh, you know, I think Samish Cove

1:12:19 ↗ is all re canary grass right now, so

1:12:21 ↗ maybe that could just get planted. But

1:12:23 ↗ if that, you know, maybe that could also

1:12:24 ↗ be a functional wetland. Um, I'd hate

1:12:27 ↗ to, you know, just try to turn it into

1:12:30 ↗ more trees for or a figure that the city

1:12:33 ↗ needs to hit for this.

1:12:40 ↗ >> Where do you want to go with this one?

1:12:42 ↗ Um, do you want to recommend a

1:12:45 ↗ percentage and we could capture that

1:12:48 ↗ concern and comment that would that

1:12:50 ↗ would need to be considered that some of

1:12:52 ↗ these places that might be prime for

1:12:55 ↗ tree canopy should also be considered

1:12:57 ↗ for other habitat benefits.

1:12:58 ↗ >> Nuance there would be good.

1:13:00 ↗ >> I have three of us that want at least

1:13:02 ↗ some sort of percentage.

1:13:05 ↗ >> And we were pretty divided last time.

1:13:08 ↗ Um, park board didn't necessarily weigh

1:13:11 ↗ on heavy. they kind of wanted to go more

1:13:13 ↗ of the qualitative route, tree health.

1:13:16 ↗ So, I didn't get a lot of specific

1:13:17 ↗ feedback on this one, but

1:13:20 ↗ >> yeah,

1:13:22 ↗ >> just

1:13:23 ↗ compensated. If I look at that then from

1:13:26 ↗ a community perspective, that means to

1:13:28 ↗ me we've already got there and we're

1:13:30 ↗ good to go,

1:13:30 ↗ >> right?

1:13:31 ↗ >> I don't think people think about, oh,

1:13:33 ↗ well, the trees are going to fall. We

1:13:34 ↗ got to think about replacing them. And I

1:13:37 ↗ think like Stacy said, as long as that

1:13:38 ↗ nuance is captured in a meaningful way

1:13:40 ↗ that guy's policy and implementation, um

1:13:44 ↗ I think and the number is honestly more

1:13:46 ↗ of a public facing kind of figure. Um I

1:13:50 ↗ don't I don't

1:13:52 ↗ >> Yeah, if you have a target, which is a

1:13:54 ↗ stress stretch goal, then you can have

1:13:57 ↗ programs for the community, true

1:13:59 ↗ giveaway programs, that will be you'll

1:14:02 ↗ have a reason to do them. If you have a

1:14:04 ↗ no net boss and you don't need to give

1:14:07 ↗ away trees.

1:14:09 ↗ >> I think we can capture that comment in

1:14:12 ↗ kind of a description of the section.

1:14:15 ↗ >> Do you all do you want to stay at 55%.

1:14:19 ↗ Do you want to

1:14:20 ↗ >> we're at around 51% although we haven't

1:14:23 ↗ had a tree canopy analysis since before

1:14:26 ↗ the bomb site bomb. Um and the current

1:14:28 ↗ target is 55%. And the the most recent

1:14:33 ↗ um evaluation was just completed. So

1:14:36 ↗ 2023 just was done. So there is a a

1:14:40 ↗ pretty hefty lag between when we get

1:14:42 ↗ this

1:14:43 ↗ >> about every three years.

1:14:46 ↗ I

1:14:46 ↗ >> think we should go with Ann's

1:14:47 ↗ recommendation which was 53%. I mean

1:14:50 ↗ it's halfway between where we are today

1:14:52 ↗ and what we propose. I mean that's just

1:14:54 ↗ I'm open by the way.

1:14:57 ↗ She said some kind I think she said the

1:14:59 ↗ >> some kind of percent like a 1% or 2%. So

1:15:02 ↗ whatever you will

1:15:04 ↗ >> we're completely open. I think we'll

1:15:06 ↗ provide your feedback to council. This

1:15:08 ↗ is when they can

1:15:11 ↗ >> 53 52 54

1:15:13 ↗ >> 53

1:15:14 ↗ >> Okay.

1:15:19 ↗ >> Okay. So, we're gonna go with

1:15:23 ↗ >> um

1:15:28 ↗ 53%

1:15:29 ↗ canopy by 20% coverage. We could get rid

1:15:32 ↗ of our air conditioners.

1:15:34 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

1:15:40 ↗ >> Again.

1:15:40 ↗ >> That's true. Yes.

1:15:42 ↗ >> Okay. Excellent.

1:15:47 ↗ Okay. Um, let me see.

1:15:51 ↗ One second. Let me see how many I have

1:15:52 ↗ to go through. I think it's just two or

1:15:55 ↗ three. And then I'll turn to

1:15:57 ↗ you all. Yes. Bam. Can you bear with us?

1:16:01 ↗ Couple more minutes.

1:16:06 ↗ >> Okay.

1:16:07 ↗ >> Yes. Sorry, I'm in the background

1:16:08 ↗ hammering. So, I'm here on the spot. Um,

1:16:12 ↗ yeah. Let us just go through three more

1:16:14 ↗ and then um we will open it up and maybe

1:16:18 ↗ first start with materials. Any

1:16:20 ↗ materials um question.

1:16:22 ↗ All right. So, row 63

1:16:25 ↗ um this is one we've uh shared with you

1:16:28 ↗ all before. It originally was going to

1:16:30 ↗ be in a resilience section. We decided

1:16:32 ↗ to pull it back into natural systems

1:16:34 ↗ because it was it the only one. Um, so I

1:16:38 ↗ wanted to raise this one with you all

1:16:41 ↗ cuz when I talked with the park board,

1:16:43 ↗ they weren't sure really what the call

1:16:45 ↗ to action or the type of programming

1:16:47 ↗ that would come out of this. So this one

1:16:50 ↗ is around trying um to bring in more

1:16:54 ↗ actions and language around habitat and

1:16:57 ↗ wildlife to better connect the IAP to

1:16:59 ↗ the comprehensive plan. Um, so here we

1:17:03 ↗ talk about programs that enhance our

1:17:05 ↗ different habitats.

1:17:07 ↗ um outreach and education that support

1:17:09 ↗ wildlife and really help wildlife and

1:17:12 ↗ habitats um prepare for a changing

1:17:14 ↗ climate. So these could be everything

1:17:17 ↗ from our um uh coexisting with

1:17:21 ↗ carnivores programs. It might be

1:17:23 ↗ different habitat acquisitions

1:17:26 ↗ um even some of the greenest programs or

1:17:28 ↗ invasive species removal

1:17:31 ↗ um or things that we haven't developed

1:17:34 ↗ yet that come up. So, wanted to see if

1:17:37 ↗ there was any feedback from you all on

1:17:39 ↗ how to uh to add any more specificity in

1:17:43 ↗ here or if there's specific programming

1:17:46 ↗ that you would want to see called out in

1:17:48 ↗ this action

1:17:50 ↗ or if you like it kind of general

1:17:56 ↗ 63.

1:17:59 ↗ >> I like it general.

1:18:05 ↗ This is right down here.

1:18:06 ↗ >> Yeah. No, I mean I think we're doing a

1:18:08 ↗ good job. Like they, you know, John

1:18:10 ↗ mentioned partnering with Green Isiqua

1:18:12 ↗ is big in this and um feel like seen a

1:18:17 ↗ little bit around like ecoourism in

1:18:18 ↗ Isiqua too that I think

1:18:21 ↗ I feel like we could do more with. I

1:18:23 ↗ don't know.

1:18:25 ↗ >> Okay.

1:18:29 ↗ >> Yeah. partnerships with wildlife camera.

1:18:31 ↗ There's been a lot of that happening.

1:18:34 ↗ >> Okay, great. We will leave it general.

1:18:37 ↗ Um, next one I wanted to flag because

1:18:40 ↗ this was proposed by you all last time

1:18:42 ↗ we talked. It's the one um Nancy just

1:18:44 ↗ brought up. Um, this is pursu we worded

1:18:48 ↗ it in a way of pursuing kind of

1:18:49 ↗ innovative land acquisitions that would

1:18:51 ↗ increase tree canopy. um the idea that

1:18:54 ↗ was brought up by maybe reaching out to

1:18:57 ↗ DNR or if there's other potential timber

1:18:59 ↗ sales that the city might be able to

1:19:00 ↗ acquire to improve our tree canopy. Um

1:19:04 ↗ the one thing I just wanted to note that

1:19:06 ↗ a council member shared with is the city

1:19:10 ↗ would need to be very careful about this

1:19:13 ↗ especially uh if working with a state

1:19:15 ↗ agency that may have their own mandates

1:19:17 ↗ for timber sales. Um,

1:19:21 ↗ uh, council member felt like it might be

1:19:24 ↗ better for some of our nonprofits to

1:19:25 ↗ pursue this like trust for public land,

1:19:27 ↗ escal club, or even the county because a

1:19:30 ↗ lot of these properties u may be

1:19:32 ↗ neighboring on county. Um, there could

1:19:36 ↗ be time limitations for a purchase like

1:19:38 ↗ this. If there's an easement attached to

1:19:40 ↗ it, some may not be a long-term strategy

1:19:42 ↗ for increasing our tree canopy. Um, and

1:19:45 ↗ there may be some discomfort from

1:19:47 ↗ councils including this. That doesn't

1:19:49 ↗ mean we couldn't. I just wanted to share

1:19:52 ↗ that feedback in case we want to revise

1:19:54 ↗ or adjust this one. Um, but if the board

1:19:57 ↗ wants to see this one move forward,

1:19:59 ↗ happy to advocate for that.

1:20:05 ↗ >> I think it's an opportunity. I mean, I

1:20:07 ↗ think it's a way to get there. I don't

1:20:09 ↗ know if we need to always It could be

1:20:11 ↗ easements. It doesn't have to be

1:20:12 ↗ acquisition. It could be an easement, a

1:20:15 ↗ tree protection, something maybe not the

1:20:18 ↗ full parcel of land, but you know,

1:20:21 ↗ selective thinning or selective

1:20:22 ↗ harvesting. Um, you know, that's why I

1:20:26 ↗ wouldn't necessarily call it just an

1:20:27 ↗ acquisition, but some kind of easement

1:20:30 ↗ or protection of trees on a parcel of

1:20:32 ↗ property that's planned for development

1:20:36 ↗ or harvest. You know, the thought is go

1:20:41 ↗ talk to them and see if there's any

1:20:42 ↗ opportunity to do something,

1:20:45 ↗ >> get some trees saved. That's my thoughts

1:20:47 ↗ on it.

1:20:49 ↗ >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

1:20:51 ↗ >> Well, so for example, um, adjacent to my

1:20:54 ↗ property, there's a 5 acre parcel that

1:20:56 ↗ used to be owned by the Whiters, the

1:20:59 ↗ former owners of the nursing home.

1:21:03 ↗ and um they had some notions about maybe

1:21:07 ↗ building a little some retirement

1:21:09 ↗ cottages in there or something someday,

1:21:10 ↗ but then they got over and and decided

1:21:14 ↗ uh they didn't want to act on that and

1:21:17 ↗ their kids didn't want to do it. So,

1:21:18 ↗ they deeded that property to the city

1:21:21 ↗ under terms of a conservation

1:21:24 ↗ um thing. So it's it's it's not a

1:21:28 ↗ publicly accessible park, but it is a

1:21:30 ↗ natural space and it will continue in

1:21:34 ↗ that role. So that's

1:21:37 ↗ not a common story, but I think maybe

1:21:42 ↗ the city could make that sort of

1:21:47 ↗ opportunity or possibility more known to

1:21:51 ↗ the population.

1:21:53 ↗ It might it might you know occasionally

1:21:55 ↗ get

1:21:57 ↗ someone thinking about that who

1:21:59 ↗ otherwise would not be thinking about

1:22:04 ↗ these kinds of things do happen. Other

1:22:07 ↗ organizations nature conservancy etc

1:22:11 ↗ does this sort of thing on a national

1:22:14 ↗ scale. uh the city doesn't think in

1:22:20 ↗ those terms and maybe they need to think

1:22:23 ↗ like a nonprofit uh

1:22:26 ↗ a conservation man

1:22:30 ↗ could result in something. But if you

1:22:33 ↗ think about it, if these people he was

1:22:35 ↗ referring to chose to develop their

1:22:38 ↗ property, a lot of trees could have come

1:22:40 ↗ down.

1:22:41 ↗ >> And so they have now put those into

1:22:44 ↗ long-term canopy. And that's kind of

1:22:46 ↗ what this is trying to do

1:22:50 ↗ >> five acres.

1:22:52 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:22:54 ↗ So, in con uh conversation between Isqua

1:22:57 ↗ and uh

1:23:00 ↗ the folks that do the I90 land,

1:23:04 ↗ >> the Mountain Sound Greenway to Sound.

1:23:06 ↗ >> Uh Dan used to work for Mountains to

1:23:08 ↗ Sound, but I don't know. Yeah, I'm not

1:23:10 ↗ sure kind of what those conversations

1:23:11 ↗ are around land acquisitions. Are you

1:23:13 ↗ thinking specifically along?

1:23:15 ↗ >> Yeah, I'm not sure.

1:23:29 ↗ I personally think this is maybe a

1:23:33 ↗ little rewarding of this would be a

1:23:35 ↗ great opportunity to help us meet our

1:23:37 ↗ can of people. I understand countless

1:23:39 ↗ concerns, but I think we're trying to

1:23:40 ↗ get some creativity.

1:23:42 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:23:42 ↗ >> Here. Okay. I also like what you said

1:23:45 ↗ about the selective harvesting, you

1:23:47 ↗ know, whether it's development or timber

1:23:49 ↗ sales. If there's a way we can get into

1:23:51 ↗ those talks about uh what's the upper

1:23:53 ↗ limited diameter for leading trees or or

1:23:56 ↗ you know, development say just having

1:23:58 ↗ our you know having Dan go look and see

1:24:01 ↗ if there's any trees that um we want to

1:24:04 ↗ save or something like that. I don't

1:24:05 ↗ know.

1:24:06 ↗ >> Okay.

1:24:06 ↗ >> Yeah. If you all have specific wording

1:24:08 ↗ suggestions, please feel free to send

1:24:10 ↗ those to us. Otherwise, we'll come back

1:24:13 ↗ with something on April 22nd.

1:24:16 ↗ >> Just add one quick thing.

1:24:17 ↗ >> Yeah, please.

1:24:17 ↗ >> Pursue integrative land acquisitions and

1:24:19 ↗ agreements.

1:24:22 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah.

1:24:22 ↗ >> Yeah. Agreements are better. Yeah.

1:24:24 ↗ >> Great. And we'll add in some language

1:24:26 ↗ here around those different opt

1:24:28 ↗ opportunities.

1:24:30 ↗ All right. Uh, one more I wanted to flag

1:24:33 ↗ and then we'll open it up for um board

1:24:36 ↗ members and maybe start a new thing

1:24:39 ↗ while we have Sam her expertise. Um,

1:24:42 ↗ this one uh is row 69. It is our new

1:24:46 ↗ targets for community resilience and

1:24:48 ↗ well-being. We have touched on these um

1:24:51 ↗ when Jared came to the board meeting. We

1:24:53 ↗ reworked them a little bit. I know there

1:24:55 ↗ wasn't um full satisfaction by the board

1:24:59 ↗ around these, but what we're trying to

1:25:00 ↗ get at is um quantitative targets where

1:25:04 ↗ we know we have opportunities to get

1:25:06 ↗ input from the community both on how

1:25:08 ↗ they think the city is doing in terms of

1:25:12 ↗ um emergency response. And then what we

1:25:14 ↗ did add in after our last conversation

1:25:16 ↗ was how community members personally

1:25:19 ↗ feel um around their ability to prepare

1:25:21 ↗ for an emergency. Um and that would be

1:25:24 ↗ most likely measured through our um city

1:25:27 ↗ survey that we do. We can add in a

1:25:28 ↗ question around that. Um

1:25:33 ↗ uh so these would be new targets that we

1:25:37 ↗ do feel like are measurable. We don't

1:25:38 ↗ feel like the current target um that we

1:25:41 ↗ have in the climate plan is measurable.

1:25:44 ↗ Um

1:25:46 ↗ and at our last meeting when we

1:25:48 ↗ discussed these the board wanted

1:25:49 ↗ something around personal

1:25:51 ↗ responsibility. um uh around emergency

1:25:54 ↗ preparedness. So that's why we added in

1:25:56 ↗ that second target.

1:25:59 ↗ >> You done any surveys to see where you

1:26:01 ↗ currently sit?

1:26:02 ↗ >> Yes. So the first one is in our bianial

1:26:06 ↗ um survey and I think you're at 78%

1:26:10 ↗ or something um for how the city is

1:26:14 ↗ responding. Um but we have not this

1:26:18 ↗ would the second one around how folks

1:26:20 ↗ personally feel would be a new question

1:26:21 ↗ we'd be asking the community.

1:26:24 ↗ I

1:26:24 ↗ >> think the goal was to try and select at

1:26:26 ↗ least for 85 select a number that was

1:26:29 ↗ ambitious but achievable. Um just

1:26:32 ↗ recognizing especially for that one it's

1:26:34 ↗ going to be very difficult to get to%.

1:26:37 ↗ >> Yes.

1:26:38 ↗ >> I don't think you're going to get 100%.

1:26:40 ↗ Yeah,

1:26:41 ↗ >> but that would be a really important

1:26:43 ↗ goal to meet that everyone in the

1:26:45 ↗ community feels like they have the

1:26:47 ↗ resources they need. So,

1:26:50 ↗ >> and not to throw more unnecessary

1:26:53 ↗ metrics, too, but I'm sure it'd be easy

1:26:55 ↗ enough to pull how many community

1:26:57 ↗ members have been through music

1:26:59 ↗ training.

1:27:00 ↗ >> Yep.

1:27:01 ↗ >> Um or even how many members of the

1:27:03 ↗ community have ham radio licens.

1:27:07 ↗ >> Absolutely. Yeah, we discussed the cert

1:27:11 ↗ numbers. Um, we have all that

1:27:13 ↗ information. I think that would be

1:27:14 ↗ reported out um in some ways here, but

1:27:18 ↗ we didn't feel like that really captured

1:27:20 ↗ in general, but I I think it's really

1:27:23 ↗ it's great information to have um

1:27:27 ↗ um so I think we'd be reporting out on

1:27:29 ↗ that in some ways or in some other

1:27:31 ↗ areas. So,

1:27:33 ↗ um Okay, great. We wanted to just

1:27:35 ↗ deflate that because we revised that

1:27:37 ↗ since the last meeting. Um, I was not

1:27:39 ↗ planning to discuss any of the actions

1:27:41 ↗ because we talked through them with

1:27:42 ↗ Jared. Um, basically we're in this

1:27:45 ↗ section trying to get a flow of prepare,

1:27:48 ↗ respond, recover. Um, so that's kind of

1:27:51 ↗ the flow of the actions here, but happy

1:27:53 ↗ to discuss any of those um in a few

1:27:56 ↗ minutes.

1:27:58 ↗ So, thank you for all the feedback. We

1:28:00 ↗ will incorporate that um into the plan.

1:28:03 ↗ And what we want to do now is just open

1:28:05 ↗ it up for you all to flag any actions

1:28:07 ↗ with targets. Um we have Sam here. So I

1:28:12 ↗ wanted to maybe talk first about if

1:28:14 ↗ there's any materials in consumption um

1:28:18 ↗ either the target or any of the actions

1:28:21 ↗ that folks would like to flag for

1:28:23 ↗ discussion.

1:28:28 ↗ starts.

1:28:28 ↗ >> Sorry. It starts at row 49.

1:28:32 ↗ >> Sam, just making sure you're on.

1:28:36 ↗ >> Are you available?

1:28:38 ↗ >> Yay. Thank you.

1:28:40 ↗ >> All right, we'll see if there are any

1:28:44 ↗ questions.

1:28:47 ↗ Been I think since December maybe we

1:28:51 ↗ talked about these. So, it's been a

1:28:52 ↗ little little while.

1:29:02 ↗ Uh, I have a question on construction

1:29:05 ↗ debris, construction waste. What is the

1:29:08 ↗ current requirement for recycling of

1:29:13 ↗ construction waste?

1:29:16 ↗ Bill 52

1:29:18 ↗ bill.

1:29:22 ↗ >> Um, can someone repeat that? It was kind

1:29:24 ↗ of hard to hear. Yeah. Could you speak

1:29:26 ↗ to um we have the action up on the

1:29:29 ↗ screen if you can see that but any

1:29:31 ↗ current requirements around construction

1:29:33 ↗ waste and how that is managed and kind

1:29:36 ↗ of what's envisioned for what we would

1:29:39 ↗ do under this action.

1:29:41 ↗ >> Yeah. So right now um and I could pull

1:29:45 ↗ up the ordinance but I'll try to do it

1:29:46 ↗ from memory. Um it's a certain size of

1:29:49 ↗ projects are required to divert a

1:29:51 ↗ certain percentage of waste. I think

1:29:53 ↗ that is 70%.

1:29:56 ↗ Um, and this has been in code for a

1:29:58 ↗ while, but it's not something that's

1:29:59 ↗ actively tracked or truly enforced. And

1:30:03 ↗ so our goal with this is to figure out

1:30:07 ↗ how the process is currently working to

1:30:09 ↗ figure out how do we create mechanisms

1:30:10 ↗ and processes for the planning

1:30:12 ↗ department and for our building

1:30:14 ↗ inspectors to make sure that we're

1:30:15 ↗ actually validating this data,

1:30:18 ↗ collecting this data, reporting this

1:30:19 ↗ data. Um and then thinking about are

1:30:24 ↗ there

1:30:26 ↗ specific software systems that would be

1:30:28 ↗ useful to then um sort of report on

1:30:31 ↗ this. Our current vision is to probably

1:30:36 ↗ replicate to a certain degree the

1:30:37 ↗ ordinance that Redmond put into place

1:30:40 ↗ last year and has been implemented I

1:30:42 ↗ think since July. and they have this

1:30:44 ↗ really great website that I can send out

1:30:46 ↗ um where they're tracking that data to

1:30:48 ↗ understand how much is being diverted.

1:30:51 ↗ Um

1:30:53 ↗ and so this workstream is actually

1:30:55 ↗ probably getting kicked off this week.

1:30:57 ↗ We have a consultant in place that

1:30:59 ↗ helped work on that Redmond ordinance

1:31:01 ↗ and is really familiar with all of like

1:31:04 ↗ the stakeholder engagement that went

1:31:06 ↗ into that. And then as well, King County

1:31:08 ↗ has been doing a lot more work on making

1:31:12 ↗ sure that the firms that are supposed to

1:31:14 ↗ recycle construction um and demolition

1:31:17 ↗ materials are actually recycling that.

1:31:19 ↗ And so that will be a really big uh win

1:31:21 ↗ as well. Um and then we're also thinking

1:31:25 ↗ about

1:31:27 ↗ deconstruction. And so instead of just

1:31:29 ↗ sending it this to the landfill or to be

1:31:33 ↗ recycled, how do we reuse um the

1:31:35 ↗ materials that are being like that are

1:31:37 ↗ coming from uh demolition, but that is

1:31:40 ↗ more deconstruction? But it's very early

1:31:43 ↗ days. And so this is mostly about

1:31:45 ↗ expanding this ordinance and then making

1:31:47 ↗ sure that we're actually enforcing it

1:31:48 ↗ and we're gathering that data.

1:31:52 ↗ I don't understand why it would be

1:31:54 ↗ difficult to enforce it for a new

1:31:57 ↗ construction of a house for example

1:32:00 ↗ because that's something that's being

1:32:02 ↗ monitored on a regular basis for all

1:32:05 ↗ kinds of code enforcement issues. That

1:32:09 ↗ seems like the easiest case of

1:32:12 ↗ monitoring and verifying

1:32:15 ↗ and enforcing.

1:32:18 ↗ So, the reason why this comes to mind is

1:32:20 ↗ on my lane, the house is under

1:32:22 ↗ construction at the present time. And

1:32:24 ↗ they have a a 20 yard dumpster out front

1:32:26 ↗ that they filled up and hauled away four

1:32:29 ↗ or five times during the course of

1:32:31 ↗ building. And okay, some of the stuff is

1:32:35 ↗ legitimately suited for landfill, but a

1:32:39 ↗ lot of it was very recyclable. I asked

1:32:43 ↗ the contractor about it. He said uh as

1:32:46 ↗ far as he knew that none of it was

1:32:47 ↗ recycled because it cost too much to

1:32:49 ↗ separate it out. Uh but he wasn't 100%

1:32:52 ↗ sure, but that was his opinion it wasn't

1:32:54 ↗ being recycled. That just seemed like uh

1:32:58 ↗ I I was just surprised that we don't

1:33:01 ↗ have some rules about that. Sounds like

1:33:03 ↗ we do have rules, but it's not enforced.

1:33:06 ↗ I'd say we ought to enforce them.

1:33:10 ↗ >> Yep, that is the goal to start enforcing

1:33:12 ↗ them. um it's just a code that was in

1:33:15 ↗ place and now that we actually have

1:33:17 ↗ staff we can make sure that the

1:33:19 ↗ processes are in place and then that

1:33:21 ↗ again we're capturing that data. We're

1:33:23 ↗ enforcing it. We have people that

1:33:25 ↗ understand what's expected of them. So

1:33:27 ↗ yeah, that's what this is about is

1:33:29 ↗ making sure that this is enforced and

1:33:31 ↗ more institutionalized.

1:33:39 ↗ >> This is Jonathan. I'd like to um see

1:33:42 ↗ some sort of ordinance that would um

1:33:45 ↗ eliminate or um plastic signage that's

1:33:49 ↗ used for um elections and and uh u

1:33:54 ↗ advertising for businesses and such that

1:33:58 ↗ are placed around town. um even by u you

1:34:03 ↗ know what I'm talking about are the

1:34:05 ↗ plastic signs with the metal

1:34:07 ↗ >> if they could be replaced with cardboard

1:34:09 ↗ signs with wooden stakes um that's what

1:34:13 ↗ it was how they were done in in the

1:34:15 ↗ olden days and those are much more

1:34:17 ↗ biodegradable

1:34:20 ↗ >> I would love to see that that these

1:34:24 ↗ plastic election signs just go away they

1:34:27 ↗ they're used for a very short period of

1:34:28 ↗ time and Um, we need to find a better

1:34:32 ↗ way to do it. And it'd be really cool to

1:34:33 ↗ see a squab take a stand on that in in

1:34:38 ↗ the future and it might get some good PR

1:34:42 ↗ for the rest of the region.

1:34:44 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. Stacy has brought this up to

1:34:46 ↗ me and I think we're trying to bucket

1:34:50 ↗ under this single-use plastic ban. Um,

1:34:54 ↗ it's not the alternative is not

1:34:55 ↗ something I'm super familiar with, but I

1:34:57 ↗ think that we could definitely assess

1:34:58 ↗ what that would look like and what the

1:35:00 ↗ alternatives are. I'm with you. I think

1:35:02 ↗ that they are very wasteful.

1:35:04 ↗ >> So, there might actually be code now

1:35:07 ↗ related to signage. I I remember talking

1:35:10 ↗ to the mayor one time about putting up

1:35:12 ↗ some no litter signs and um they do have

1:35:15 ↗ quite a bit of regulation around signage

1:35:18 ↗ and um get added to that to that area of

1:35:22 ↗ the code.

1:35:24 ↗ Um looking the current action we have is

1:35:27 ↗ row 58 and like Sam said we we are

1:35:31 ↗ already looking at a single used plastic

1:35:33 ↗ ban. That's something she's exploring

1:35:35 ↗ with businesses. Um right now this

1:35:39 ↗ action calls out businesses and I noted

1:35:42 ↗ in our comments that this could also

1:35:44 ↗ look at the signage but that doesn't

1:35:48 ↗ really fit in with the

1:35:49 ↗ >> now that I have the businesses language

1:35:51 ↗ there. So, I'm wondering if we want to

1:35:52 ↗ reduce or excuse me, remove

1:35:55 ↗ um businesses and make this a little

1:35:58 ↗ more general. So,

1:35:59 ↗ >> I mean, we can have a general and

1:36:00 ↗ related directly to, you know, the work

1:36:02 ↗ that the city does. You know, we elect

1:36:03 ↗ people. We have these these com boards

1:36:06 ↗ of commissions and we have, you know,

1:36:10 ↗ the school districts trying to get funds

1:36:12 ↗ and, you know, but they're all using

1:36:14 ↗ these plastic signs that are just going

1:36:15 ↗ in the dump. You know, it's kind of

1:36:18 ↗ gross. kind of association.

1:36:22 ↗ >> Yeah. Friends of Lake Samish. Um

1:36:26 ↗ >> the uh

1:36:28 ↗ um

1:36:30 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:36:33 ↗ >> Is that because they're cheaper to

1:36:34 ↗ produce?

1:36:35 ↗ >> I've already I've already tracked this

1:36:36 ↗ down. The companies that make signs

1:36:38 ↗ don't even offer offer an alternative

1:36:41 ↗ anymore.

1:36:43 ↗ But we um it's it's pretty lowhanging

1:36:48 ↗ fruit in my opinion.

1:36:50 ↗ >> Still get the card for sites.

1:36:51 ↗ >> No, that's my point. You can't

1:36:53 ↗ >> can't

1:36:54 ↗ >> you It's hard to get them. You have to

1:36:56 ↗ >> business.

1:36:57 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:36:58 ↗ >> Yep.

1:37:01 ↗ Um

1:37:03 ↗ so let's see. So we have this action. We

1:37:06 ↗ could broaden it. Um I'm hearing also

1:37:08 ↗ >> we can make a specific one related to

1:37:11 ↗ elections, you know. Okay.

1:37:13 ↗ Uh, that would be

1:37:16 ↗ >> or anything.

1:37:19 ↗ >> You probably purchased a bunch of these.

1:37:21 ↗ >> I did.

1:37:22 ↗ >> Do you still have them?

1:37:23 ↗ >> Okay.

1:37:25 ↗ >> Trash.

1:37:25 ↗ >> Base in point.

1:37:27 ↗ >> Some of them you can recycle. They're

1:37:29 ↗ made out of like the um milk carton.

1:37:31 ↗ Same thing that milk cartons are made

1:37:32 ↗ out of. So, um, so I'll just add a note

1:37:35 ↗ here. Looking at

1:37:36 ↗ >> that's making recyclable. Yeah,

1:37:42 ↗ >> you need to go down to the

1:37:46 ↗ ecology.

1:37:48 ↗ >> Take the tour.

1:37:49 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:37:51 ↗ >> Okay.

1:37:51 ↗ >> Plastics.

1:37:53 ↗ The things that we think are recyclable

1:37:56 ↗ are most often

1:38:00 ↗ >> they can't can't give it away.

1:38:03 ↗ >> We'll look at that one. Other um Oh,

1:38:06 ↗ sorry. Go ahead, Sam. Yeah, before I

1:38:08 ↗ move on, um

1:38:11 ↗ sort of advocate against removing this

1:38:13 ↗ for ISTAqua businesses just because it

1:38:15 ↗ would be very hard to that's just very

1:38:19 ↗ large um is businesses. That's probably

1:38:22 ↗ the easiest sector for us to

1:38:25 ↗ not attack is a really aggressive word,

1:38:27 ↗ but like that is a little bit more

1:38:29 ↗ systemically feasible to do versus like

1:38:32 ↗ private citizens. Um, I do think

1:38:36 ↗ something about the city code and

1:38:38 ↗ littering, like sort of bucketing the

1:38:40 ↗ yard sides with that, I think that makes

1:38:42 ↗ more sense. But I do think having

1:38:45 ↗ businesses not provide single-use

1:38:47 ↗ plastics would be an easier and more

1:38:50 ↗ attainable way to reduce plastic

1:38:52 ↗ pollution and it would be a lot easier

1:38:55 ↗ to track that data.

1:38:57 ↗ >> Okay, that's great. I mean, we can add

1:39:00 ↗ multiple components to the action. So

1:39:02 ↗ maybe we come up with a second aspect of

1:39:04 ↗ it that um looks at those other

1:39:07 ↗ classics.

1:39:08 ↗ >> Yeah, thanks Sam for jumping in on that.

1:39:11 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:39:13 ↗ >> Any other actions around materials and

1:39:16 ↗ consumption? Um, we do have a lot of new

1:39:20 ↗ ones in here, but um, again, we did

1:39:23 ↗ touch base on these back in December,

1:39:25 ↗ but while Pam was gracious to give us

1:39:27 ↗ part of our suggest, there any others we

1:39:30 ↗ wanted to discuss. That's good.

1:39:51 ↗ Okay, we're good. Sam, I think we'll

1:39:54 ↗ follow up with any questions. Thanks for

1:39:56 ↗ joining us tonight.

1:39:57 ↗ >> Thank you for having me.

1:39:59 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:40:00 ↗ >> Have a good night, you guys. Bye.

1:40:04 ↗ >> All right. Um we'll uh feel free to

1:40:07 ↗ stand up and stretch, too. We didn't

1:40:08 ↗ really take a break. Um it's 7:45

1:40:12 ↗ and we'll

1:40:14 ↗ plan to spend another 45 minutes if

1:40:16 ↗ needed, but um that's to stretch or grab

1:40:19 ↗ a cookie too if you need to while we're

1:40:21 ↗ talking. Um are there other actions or

1:40:24 ↗ targets that folks want to raise for

1:40:26 ↗ discussion?

1:40:28 ↗ Um, number three, speaking to Clan's

1:40:31 ↗ comment,

1:40:34 ↗ um, add something that speaks to

1:40:36 ↗ emphasis on social media campaigns from

1:40:38 ↗ time to time.

1:40:42 ↗ >> Uh, so this is row three, conduct public

1:40:44 ↗ engagement activities. Um,

1:40:49 ↗ great. Yeah, this one we were leaving

1:40:50 ↗ kind of broad to allow us to be flexible

1:40:52 ↗ over time, kind of implement best

1:40:55 ↗ practices.

1:40:56 ↗ Um,

1:41:01 ↗ >> if you call it straight out, then your

1:41:02 ↗ PIO's on click to help you with it.

1:41:05 ↗ >> Okay. So, um,

1:41:07 ↗ >> we should also add to that individual

1:41:09 ↗ action which they can do themselves.

1:41:16 ↗ >> Then connection with the community,

1:41:20 ↗ increased opportunities for involvement

1:41:23 ↗ and

1:41:24 ↗ >> individual action. identifying

1:41:26 ↗ individual

1:41:29 ↗ >> um as a clarification. So this that's

1:41:33 ↗ the action in the overarching section.

1:41:36 ↗ There is an education action in every

1:41:38 ↗ single focus area related to that

1:41:41 ↗ focus area. Would that be something

1:41:45 ↗ you'd specifically like to see in this

1:41:46 ↗ action or something could be

1:41:47 ↗ incorporated within those education

1:41:50 ↗ actions throughout the focus areas? I

1:41:53 ↗ leave that up to you.

1:41:59 ↗ >> I do I think calling out some of that in

1:42:02 ↗ the overarching one that

1:42:05 ↗ >> yeah out. But yeah, we'll take a look at

1:42:07 ↗ those other actions if we want to

1:42:09 ↗ specify.

1:42:10 ↗ Um okay, I captured some of that

1:42:13 ↗ language there. We will smmith it.

1:42:18 ↗ Great. Thank you for that.

1:42:20 ↗ Other feel free to jump in other targets

1:42:24 ↗ or actions to discuss.

1:42:29 ↗ >> Any others? I think they look pretty

1:42:30 ↗ good. Done a good job with it.

1:42:34 ↗ >> Anything anything missing? I mean, this

1:42:37 ↗ it's a lot. Our original goal was to cut

1:42:40 ↗ back on the number of actions and kind

1:42:42 ↗ of focus a little bit more. That's not

1:42:45 ↗ the case. I think we're going to end up

1:42:46 ↗ with the same or maybe even more

1:42:48 ↗ actions. Um, but do you all feel like

1:42:50 ↗ anything's

1:42:52 ↗ missing?

1:42:53 ↗ >> I think you guys really constantly I

1:42:56 ↗ think you did it in the first one which

1:42:59 ↗ was

1:43:00 ↗ >> Who was here when we did the first one?

1:43:02 ↗ Me.

1:43:04 ↗ >> Tom,

1:43:08 ↗ >> I come a long way. I think we've learned

1:43:10 ↗ a lot along the way and I think I

1:43:13 ↗ applaud you guys for your efforts. You

1:43:15 ↗ guys have done a good job. I propose we

1:43:17 ↗ have a sustainability fair.

1:43:19 ↗ >> Yes.

1:43:23 ↗ >> Well, let me tell you.

1:43:25 ↗ >> Yeah. I think you volunteered to work at

1:43:27 ↗ the booth, right?

1:43:30 ↗ >> Yes, I did.

1:43:33 ↗ >> Yeah. And

1:43:34 ↗ >> I was excited to see on one of your

1:43:36 ↗ slides,

1:43:38 ↗ David, the miles of bicycle lights.

1:43:42 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:43:42 ↗ >> Yes.

1:43:43 ↗ >> Right. Yes. I think that's a I think

1:43:45 ↗ that's a key a very measurable thing and

1:43:50 ↗ um

1:43:50 ↗ >> and it's something that we could do.

1:43:53 ↗ >> Yes.

1:43:54 ↗ >> We had the will to do it, we could do it

1:43:58 ↗ >> and we need to do better.

1:44:04 ↗ >> I uh I wanted to ask about row five

1:44:10 ↗ >> uh just about regional partnerships

1:44:11 ↗ here. I'm wondering

1:44:13 ↗ if if it isn't captured elsewhere, does

1:44:16 ↗ do we want that to also mention uh that

1:44:19 ↗ national partnerships or or think a

1:44:21 ↗ little bigger in terms of uh I think

1:44:23 ↗ there's been like climate marches and

1:44:25 ↗ things that

1:44:26 ↗ >> I don't know if there's kind of green

1:44:28 ↗ city uh associations or things like that

1:44:30 ↗ that we plug into or want to, but um

1:44:34 ↗ >> yeah,

1:44:34 ↗ >> wonder if we could broaden that a little

1:44:36 ↗ bit to include stuff we don't want to

1:44:38 ↗ miss out on on the bigger scale.

1:44:40 ↗ >> Yeah. No, that's true. We are part of

1:44:41 ↗ some national networks. So um

1:44:47 ↗ yeah

1:44:51 ↗ and networks will wordsmith that um yes

1:44:54 ↗ I think that's a great thing. Those are

1:44:56 ↗ that's who we turn to when we have a lot

1:44:58 ↗ of questions and do advocacy and learn

1:45:02 ↗ about what's happening around the

1:45:03 ↗ country. So that's great.

1:45:06 ↗ Great.

1:45:07 ↗ >> Sorry to jump back. I agree with

1:45:08 ↗ everything else.

1:45:09 ↗ >> No no no. Yeah. No, I want to give some

1:45:11 ↗ time for folks to to

1:45:13 ↗ >> digest.

1:45:15 ↗ Very like an end of meeting kind of

1:45:17 ↗ vibes. I didn't want

1:45:18 ↗ >> We have a few more things to discuss.

1:45:20 ↗ So, yeah, please any

1:45:24 ↗ >> we have any other comments? We don't

1:45:26 ↗ >> feel free to send them to us and we'll

1:45:29 ↗ um Emma's been really helping us with a

1:45:32 ↗ comment tracker. It was not ready to

1:45:34 ↗ bring today. We have a little work to

1:45:36 ↗ clean it up, but um we are capturing all

1:45:38 ↗ the public input, all of your input, all

1:45:40 ↗ the other boards and commission input in

1:45:42 ↗ that. Um so if there are other comments

1:45:45 ↗ that come in from board members before

1:45:47 ↗ our April meeting, that'll show up in

1:45:49 ↗ the comment tracker and we'll share that

1:45:51 ↗ as part of the meeting packet.

1:45:55 ↗ Well, great. So our next steps are to

1:45:59 ↗ take all the great feedback tonight. We

1:46:02 ↗ will be incorporating that into the

1:46:04 ↗ draft plan. We have a lot of sections of

1:46:08 ↗ the plan to still build, including the

1:46:10 ↗ whole implementation section, but we

1:46:11 ↗ wanted to make sure we knew had a good

1:46:13 ↗ sense of the targets and actions moving

1:46:15 ↗ forward. We will be building all of that

1:46:18 ↗ out before our meeting on April 22nd and

1:46:22 ↗ then sharing a draft plan with you all

1:46:25 ↗ at that meeting. Um we will also as part

1:46:29 ↗ of that you'll see a implementation plan

1:46:32 ↗ um a comment tracker and there's one

1:46:36 ↗ other oh the metrics component will be

1:46:38 ↗ built into it

1:46:41 ↗ >> uh and

1:46:44 ↗ we just discussed have an updated action

1:46:47 ↗ sheet.

1:46:49 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

1:46:52 ↗ Right.

1:46:54 ↗ Thank you. Um I had a few other items.

1:46:58 ↗ Um so one item is just around

1:47:02 ↗ scheduling. We do have that special

1:47:05 ↗ meeting at the end of April to go

1:47:06 ↗ through the full plan. Um we learned

1:47:11 ↗ that

1:47:13 ↗ >> um that one is the 22nd I think our

1:47:17 ↗ regular meeting 6:30.

1:47:20 ↗ Um and we might actually be back in this

1:47:22 ↗ room. I'll double check. um for our

1:47:26 ↗ regular April meeting. Several of the

1:47:28 ↗ items that were teed up for that meeting

1:47:30 ↗ are not yet ready. Um there is one

1:47:33 ↗ urgent item that needs to come to the

1:47:34 ↗ board before the end of April. That's

1:47:36 ↗ the transportation um the tip the

1:47:40 ↗ transportation

1:47:42 ↗ um and so staff are proposing April 15th

1:47:47 ↗ to have that discussion. That's a

1:47:50 ↗ Wednesday. It is during spring break.

1:47:52 ↗ Um, I am here. I think Pra would maybe

1:47:55 ↗ be the only one with a conflict. So, I

1:47:57 ↗ could check with her.

1:48:01 ↗ >> Um, I can send out a note to the board

1:48:03 ↗ and see who would be available and then

1:48:05 ↗ we could get you materials early to send

1:48:07 ↗ in your comments on that. Um, so I'll

1:48:11 ↗ check and see if we can get forum.

1:48:15 ↗ Um,

1:48:16 ↗ >> then would you cancel the first meeting?

1:48:18 ↗ >> Then we would cancel the Yeah. So the

1:48:20 ↗ eighth was going to be tip and then some

1:48:23 ↗ waste topics. Um Sam needs some more

1:48:25 ↗ time for those topics, some of the

1:48:27 ↗ ordinances she was talking about

1:48:28 ↗ tonight. So those will come probably

1:48:30 ↗ later in the summer.

1:48:31 ↗ >> You're still going to keep that 22nd.

1:48:33 ↗ >> We Yes, that's our plan is to go through

1:48:36 ↗ the whole IAP. That would be your look.

1:48:38 ↗ >> Two weeks in a row.

1:48:39 ↗ >> So it would be two weeks in a row, but

1:48:40 ↗ we wouldn't have the meeting on the 8th

1:48:42 ↗ >> birthday. It is Earth. We can celebrate,

1:48:46 ↗ too. Um Okay. I'll check with the board

1:48:49 ↗ and just see who's available on the

1:48:51 ↗ 15th. Um I'm guessing that'll be a short

1:48:54 ↗ meeting because it would just be tip.

1:48:57 ↗ Um and then the other logistic, we sent

1:49:02 ↗ out an invitation for a ribbon cutting

1:49:04 ↗ ceremony for the Pickory Barn Solar. If

1:49:07 ↗ you have not driven by the barn lately,

1:49:10 ↗ go drive by. It looks amazing. Um I

1:49:13 ↗ wanted to see if folks are planning to

1:49:16 ↗ attend that. So, we need to know if we

1:49:18 ↗ should post it in the special meeting.

1:49:19 ↗ It's in the middle of the workday.

1:49:21 ↗ Recognize not convenient for a lot of

1:49:23 ↗ folks, but if the clerk suggested if we

1:49:26 ↗ do think we'll have quum, probably post

1:49:29 ↗ it. It's 2 o'clock on Tuesday, April

1:49:32 ↗ 7th.

1:49:35 ↗ >> I'm going to be out of town.

1:49:36 ↗ >> Okay. All right. I'm guessing

1:49:39 ↗ >> I hope to come.

1:49:40 ↗ >> Okay.

1:49:41 ↗ >> But I'm having a colonoscopy in the

1:49:44 ↗ morning.

1:49:45 ↗ >> Okay. Hopefully you'll be on your couch.

1:49:51 ↗ >> There's another solar project coming up

1:49:55 ↗ if you need to get a different ribbon

1:49:58 ↗ cutting.

1:49:58 ↗ >> Yeah, we'll have many more this year

1:50:00 ↗ hopefully. So hopefully you can be

1:50:02 ↗ resting on your couch. Um but we would

1:50:05 ↗ love to have folks there recognize it is

1:50:07 ↗ the middle of the day. Um so we will

1:50:10 ↗ probably not end up posting as a special

1:50:12 ↗ meeting. So, um, and I think that was

1:50:16 ↗ the only logistics and then I wanted to

1:50:18 ↗ hand it over to Nancy and Don if you're

1:50:20 ↗ interested to just share briefly. Um, we

1:50:24 ↗ had a meeting with our parks director

1:50:26 ↗ and planning director um, and Connie

1:50:29 ↗ joined as well before the meeting

1:50:31 ↗ tonight to talk about um, the situation

1:50:35 ↗ that evolved with the dog park and how

1:50:37 ↗ the city addresses streams and ditches.

1:50:39 ↗ And Nancy, if you want to share a little

1:50:42 ↗ bit of the conversation.

1:50:44 ↗ >> Well, I'm the one that's kind of pursued

1:50:47 ↗ this besides Connie because it's clear

1:50:50 ↗ to me that I'll just give a little

1:50:52 ↗ background for those of you that don't

1:50:54 ↗ recall. Um,

1:50:57 ↗ apparently

1:50:58 ↗ at one time over here at the dog park

1:51:01 ↗ right next to community center, that

1:51:03 ↗ little water course that goes down

1:51:05 ↗ through there that comes from wetland

1:51:07 ↗ was identified by the scolded stream.

1:51:09 ↗ And in the course of looking at

1:51:13 ↗ permitting for the dog park, it was

1:51:15 ↗ identified as a ditch. And the way it

1:51:18 ↗ came to about to be a ditch was by

1:51:20 ↗ looking at maps from when the railroad

1:51:23 ↗ went through here back in the 1800s,

1:51:25 ↗ which I thought was kind of strange that

1:51:27 ↗ we had to go back to those kind of maps

1:51:29 ↗ to figure out if it was a stream or a

1:51:31 ↗ ditch. So we the primary conversation

1:51:36 ↗ focused on what is our definitions in

1:51:39 ↗ the title 18 which is land use code of

1:51:42 ↗ what is a stream and what is a ditch and

1:51:45 ↗ so um we had a

1:51:49 ↗ interesting conversation looking at

1:51:50 ↗ Bely's code the states code you know

1:51:53 ↗ kind of looking at other things and it's

1:51:55 ↗ not clear how that means but it appears

1:51:58 ↗ that Um

1:52:01 ↗ the planning

1:52:03 ↗ department has a specific agenda. So

1:52:06 ↗ they're not really don't have the

1:52:08 ↗ capacity to take this on in a large way

1:52:11 ↗ in 2026, but have said that they

1:52:14 ↗ recognize that there might be a

1:52:15 ↗ challenge in the future and are

1:52:16 ↗ considering teing it up for 27. There

1:52:19 ↗ are a couple of tweaks to the code that

1:52:21 ↗ we suggested which are kind of word

1:52:22 ↗ smithing and adding a column comma

1:52:25 ↗ referring ditches to streams and streams

1:52:27 ↗ to ditches so that you look at both of

1:52:28 ↗ them when you're deciding if it's a

1:52:30 ↗ stream or a ditch. You make sure you're

1:52:32 ↗ looking at both sides of it which I

1:52:34 ↗ think will improve things may not solve

1:52:36 ↗ all the problems. Um, the other thing

1:52:39 ↗ that came out of the meeting was a

1:52:40 ↗ conversation about it really would be

1:52:43 ↗ helpful if we had our GIS maps identify

1:52:46 ↗ our water courses as what they are.

1:52:49 ↗ someone makes a determination if it's a

1:52:51 ↗ stream or a ditch or what it is so that

1:52:56 ↗ everybody's on the same song sheet

1:52:58 ↗ particularly since a lot of that's

1:53:00 ↗ identified like when the bypass was in

1:53:03 ↗ the conversation that EIS identified

1:53:06 ↗ streams and other things that haven't

1:53:09 ↗ all been captured on the maps that we

1:53:10 ↗ have today. So I think there's a

1:53:12 ↗ conversation happening publicly as well.

1:53:15 ↗ So personally it was an interesting

1:53:17 ↗ conversation but I think it was an

1:53:19 ↗ informative conversation and I think um

1:53:21 ↗ there hopefully things will get improved

1:53:23 ↗ as a result of having that meeting. So

1:53:25 ↗ thank you very much for setting that up

1:53:27 ↗ and I'd asked Don if he had anything

1:53:29 ↗ more to add to that.

1:53:30 ↗ >> Um I thought it was a great conversation

1:53:32 ↗ and it was interesting to get the city's

1:53:33 ↗ perspective on how they classify streams

1:53:35 ↗ versus ditches and I thought it was

1:53:36 ↗ fairly accurate. Um afterwards Nancy

1:53:39 ↗ went shook to I hadn't seen it yet and

1:53:42 ↗ my my first thought was well why is this

1:53:44 ↗ not a stream close you're round it's as

1:53:49 ↗ a designated channel what am I missing

1:53:52 ↗ but I didn't have that

1:53:53 ↗ >> that's how we all feel about it by the

1:53:55 ↗ way

1:53:57 ↗ >> so I think they have some work to do I

1:53:59 ↗ understand why they did what they did

1:54:03 ↗ >> and so my our goal is so that this

1:54:07 ↗ may

1:54:08 ↗ the opportunities for this happening in

1:54:10 ↗ the future will be reduced. How's that?

1:54:13 ↗ It may happen again, but the

1:54:15 ↗ opportunities for this

1:54:18 ↗ will be.

1:54:19 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:54:20 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:54:21 ↗ >> So, maybe we'll see it again.

1:54:22 ↗ >> Yeah. Thanks for sharing. We wanted to

1:54:24 ↗ um just circle back on that since

1:54:26 ↗ there's been several comments that

1:54:28 ↗ Connie in particular has forwarded on to

1:54:31 ↗ the board about the situation. So, just

1:54:33 ↗ to know those conversations are going

1:54:36 ↗ great. Think anything else? Okay,

1:54:40 ↗ >> great. Well, thank you. We will possibly

1:54:42 ↗ see you all on the 5th 7th or the 15th.

1:54:46 ↗ Um, we will definitely see you on the

1:54:48 ↗ 22nd.

1:54:52 ↗ >> Let us know what the 22nd is.

1:54:56 ↗ >> And the sustainability

1:55:00 ↗ didn't work out for us. my daughter

1:55:01 ↗ >> which we did have board members

1:55:03 ↗ interested.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF