Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, August 12, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jun 24, 2021

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION Staff Liaison Christen Leeson, Senior About Planner Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Email policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah's future Regular Members growth through continued review and 2022 – Joy Lewis improvement to the City's Comprehensive Land 2022 – Matt Monahan Use Plan and related land use documents. 2022 – Jason Voiss 2022 – Vacant Membership 2023 – Nina Milligan The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2024 – Ron Faul seven regular members, with four-year terms; 2024 – Sara Bader and several alternates, with two-year terms. All members are appointed by the Mayor and Alternate Members subject to confirmation by the City Council. 2022 - Richard Zaragoza Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2023 - Vacant more information, see IMC 18.03 and Rules & Regulations. Meetings Unless…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of July 8, 2021

packet pp.5–8

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jun 24, 2021

▶ Watch from 3:19 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 07-08-21 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000]

Minutes of July 15, 2021

packet pp.9

▶ Watch from 3:32 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 07-15-21 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000]

Minutes of July 22, 2021

packet pp.11–19

▶ Watch from 3:46 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES c) 07-22-21 Planning Policy Commission- Page [0000] Environmental Board Special Meeting Minutes

5. REPORTS

Council Updates

Christen Leeson · packet pp.27–64

Open packet at p.27 ↗

Staff report:

August 12, 2021 Public Comment Update Comments received 6/25/2021 - 8/3/2021 Update Process & Public Engagement

Public Comments on Title 18 Code Update

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development

Topics: Land Use

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.65–67

Open packet at p.65 ↗

Staff report:

OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2021 / 2022 PPC Schedule (tentative) (updated 3/11/21)

4206 segments .txt ↗

1:38 ↗ all right very good so let's go ahead

1:40 ↗ and start

1:44 ↗ i called to order the policy and

1:45 ↗ planning commission for august 12 2021

1:48 ↗ at 6 30 pm

1:50 ↗ and tonight we'll be listening to a

1:52 ↗ presentation on the climate action plan

1:54 ↗ roadmap as presented by the city of

1:56 ↗ issaquah's community and planning

1:58 ↗ development director mini daliwa

2:01 ↗ and due to the virtual format of today's

2:03 ↗ meeting i'd like to start by providing

2:05 ↗ some guidelines

2:06 ↗ we have participants attending by

2:08 ↗ computer and others who may be attending

2:10 ↗ by phone

2:11 ↗ for all meeting attendees please speak

2:13 ↗ clearly and pause frequently state your

2:16 ↗ name each time before speaking

2:19 ↗ mute your microphone when not speaking

2:21 ↗ if having technical issues try joining

2:23 ↗ the meeting using a different device

2:25 ↗ such as a smartphone or tablet or use a

2:27 ↗ call information in the meeting invite

2:30 ↗ to call into the meeting

2:34 ↗ tonight's meeting is not a hearing so we

2:36 ↗ will not be uh

2:38 ↗ putting forth any motions

2:40 ↗ and now we'll be moving into attendance

2:42 ↗ kristen do you want to go ahead and call

2:44 ↗ roll please

2:45 ↗ yes uh commissioner monahan

2:48 ↗ here mr milligan

2:52 ↗ here

2:53 ↗ commissioner lewis

2:55 ↗ here

2:56 ↗ mr zaragoza

2:58 ↗ here

2:59 ↗ commissioner voice

3:02 ↗ here i just had to mute my phone so

3:04 ↗ that's why i ran away

3:06 ↗ okay and then chair fall

3:08 ↗ here

3:09 ↗ and commissioner bader has an excused

3:11 ↗ absence tonight

3:12 ↗ excellent

3:15 ↗ not that she's absent but excellent we

3:17 ↗ have everybody here

3:19 ↗ okay uh for approval of the minutes we

3:22 ↗ have two different sets of meeting

3:25 ↗ minutes to approve

3:26 ↗ um

3:28 ↗ let's go ahead and move forward with the

3:30 ↗ the approval of the meeting minutes from

3:32 ↗ july 8th 2021 if i don't hear any

3:36 ↗ um corrections

3:37 ↗ uh we'll go ahead and approve those many

3:39 ↗ minutes

3:41 ↗ hearing none

3:43 ↗ they're approved

3:45 ↗ uh for july 15 meeting minutes

3:48 ↗ uh would are there any additions or

3:51 ↗ corrections for those meeting minutes as

3:52 ↗ well

3:54 ↗ there are none those are approved

3:57 ↗ and we'll move on to

3:59 ↗ regular business

4:00 ↗ so uh

4:02 ↗ i have a correction

4:04 ↗ july 22nd

4:09 ↗ uh july 22nd meeting minutes aren't in

4:11 ↗ this packet are they

4:14 ↗ they are

4:16 ↗ okay uh go ahead what's the correction

4:22 ↗ thank you chairfall this is commissioner

4:24 ↗ milligan on page 18 of the packet not of

4:28 ↗ the minutes i have a correction where it

4:30 ↗ says nina million asked about asked

4:34 ↗ about increasing residential density

4:37 ↗ which misleads the reader to think that

4:40 ↗ i was interested in increasing

4:41 ↗ residential density i have a correction

4:42 ↗ to that phrase that i can put in the

4:44 ↗ chat or email to you that refers rather

4:47 ↗ to

4:48 ↗ why are we increasing residential

4:50 ↗ density when we have all of our

4:51 ↗ residential growth in the central

4:53 ↗ isoqual plan so how can i send that to

4:55 ↗ you um

4:57 ↗ you can send that um

4:59 ↗ actually do send it actually send it by

5:01 ↗ email please

5:03 ↗ yes ma'am it'll be just what i just said

5:04 ↗ so i'll send email to you thank you

5:07 ↗ that's

5:08 ↗ it okay and i need to make a correction

5:11 ↗ so there are three sets of meeting

5:13 ↗ minutes to approve the july 8th of july

5:16 ↗ 15th and then the july

5:18 ↗ 22nd and so

5:20 ↗ uh with minus corrections are there any

5:22 ↗ additional corrections that need to be

5:23 ↗ made to the july 22nd meeting minutes

5:28 ↗ hearing none

5:29 ↗ they're approved

5:33 ↗ and okay so we're going to go ahead and

5:36 ↗ put the hand the floor over to uh

5:38 ↗ kristen and minnie

5:40 ↗ for their presentation tonight

5:43 ↗ actually

5:44 ↗ we this is kristen lisa and senior

5:46 ↗ planner we have megan curtis murphy with

5:49 ↗ us tonight and she is going to be giving

5:50 ↗ the presentation i'll hand it over to

5:52 ↗ megan

6:03 ↗ megan i just made you the presenter

6:06 ↗ thank you i'll go ahead and share my

6:08 ↗ screen

6:22 ↗ excuse me i just got a comment and it's

6:24 ↗ correct on the agenda um we now have

6:26 ↗ public comments in the beginning

6:30 ↗ so we need to do public comments first

6:32 ↗ that's new this week

6:43 ↗ you're on mute mr chair

6:48 ↗ sorry i'm talking to myself

6:50 ↗ uh okay so we're gonna go ahead and open

6:52 ↗ the meeting up for public comment then

6:55 ↗ uh christian or is there anybody waiting

6:57 ↗ for public comment

6:58 ↗ this evening

7:01 ↗ no one's hand is raised but if you would

7:03 ↗ like to speak um either raise your hand

7:06 ↗ your virtual hand please or

7:09 ↗ um press star three or i'm sorry don't

7:11 ↗ do that i type in the chat and let me

7:13 ↗ know

7:23 ↗ no it seems no one would like to speak

7:24 ↗ right now

7:32 ↗ you're muted mr chair

7:34 ↗ okay uh we're closing public speaking

7:38 ↗ and

7:39 ↗ now the presentation is is being

7:42 ↗ is going to be delivered by megan curtis

7:44 ↗ murphy

7:48 ↗ you have the floor

8:02 ↗ thank you just getting my screen set up

8:04 ↗ there

8:05 ↗ all right good evening commissioners i'm

8:07 ↗ megan curtis murphy the senior

8:09 ↗ sustainability coordinator for the city

8:11 ↗ and i'm here to talk about the city's

8:13 ↗ first ever climate action plan

8:19 ↗ so the purpose of the meeting tonight is

8:21 ↗ to gain overall familiarity with the

8:23 ↗ plan and provide an update on where we

8:25 ↗ are in the issaquah climate action plan

8:27 ↗ or icap process

8:29 ↗ we'll then review the draft goals and

8:31 ↗ policies from the plan that we're

8:33 ↗ proposing to update the comprehensive

8:35 ↗ plan with

8:36 ↗ so at this time the comprehensive plan

8:38 ↗ has one main goal with 10 supporting

8:41 ↗ policies on climate and we are

8:43 ↗ recommending to update and replace them

8:44 ↗ with six schools and about 20 policies

8:47 ↗ that we'll be reviewing this evening

8:51 ↗ so first for a little background on the

8:53 ↗ development and inputs that are going

8:55 ↗ into the plan

8:56 ↗ so last july the community convened and

8:59 ↗ put forward a list of recommendations

9:01 ↗ for how the city and community should

9:03 ↗ address climate change the first of that

9:05 ↗ was developing a climate action plan

9:07 ↗ which we're doing now

9:09 ↗ the city is also leveraging much of the

9:11 ↗ planning work that we've already done

9:13 ↗ through the mobility master plan

9:15 ↗ sustainable building action strategy and

9:17 ↗ the park strategic plan

9:20 ↗ and last there are lots of local and

9:21 ↗ regional partners with resources and

9:23 ↗ tools that we're using to help inform

9:25 ↗ the plan

9:27 ↗ so what we're doing now is making the

9:28 ↗ plan specific to our city our population

9:31 ↗ our building types businesses and land

9:33 ↗ use patterns to develop a framework to

9:36 ↗ reach our climate goals

9:38 ↗ we're working with cascadia consulting

9:40 ↗ on this effort to gain further expertise

9:42 ↗ and insights from a firm that has worked

9:44 ↗ with several other cities in the region

9:46 ↗ as well

9:49 ↗ so here's an overview of the engagement

9:51 ↗ plan

9:52 ↗ so we started internally with city staff

9:54 ↗ and then moved to boards and commissions

9:56 ↗ and the community as a whole with the

9:58 ↗ community convening on climate that we

10:00 ↗ had just at the end of july

10:03 ↗ pvc chair ron fowle and commissioner

10:06 ↗ jason voice attended along with other

10:08 ↗ boards and commission chairs and vice

10:10 ↗ chairs

10:12 ↗ we also had two focus groups

10:14 ↗ just this week and one with

10:17 ↗ representatives from the business

10:18 ↗ community and one to help us center

10:20 ↗ equity in the plan

10:22 ↗ we also have a survey that is currently

10:24 ↗ open right now we have about 161

10:27 ↗ responses already but it's still going

10:29 ↗ to be open for another week or so so i

10:31 ↗ encourage other people to fill it out

10:35 ↗ so although we've made some changes to

10:37 ↗ the goals and policies

10:39 ↗ from this community input thus far

10:41 ↗ ppc is also part of this process we want

10:44 ↗ to make sure we hear from everyone in

10:46 ↗ order to incorporate all the feedback

10:48 ↗ into that final plan

10:55 ↗ so before we get into the goals and

10:56 ↗ policies i want to start with a little

10:58 ↗ background on the risks that climate

11:00 ↗ change poses to issaquah and other

11:02 ↗ surrounding communities

11:04 ↗ the first is rising temperatures which i

11:06 ↗ know we are all feeling right now

11:09 ↗ the combination of warmer temperatures

11:11 ↗ with longer periods of extreme heat

11:13 ↗ meaning we'll have more severe heat

11:15 ↗ waves and droughts like we experience in

11:17 ↗ june as well as in these few days here

11:21 ↗ increased heat will impact public health

11:23 ↗ with higher rates of illnesses

11:25 ↗ hospitalizations and death especially

11:27 ↗ among our most vulnerable populations

11:31 ↗ increased heat can also result in damage

11:33 ↗ to infrastructure and more frequent and

11:35 ↗ severe wildfires

11:38 ↗ the next climate indicator is changing

11:40 ↗ precipitation

11:41 ↗ the pacific northwest is expected to

11:43 ↗ experience rainier winters and drier

11:46 ↗ springs and summer seasons

11:48 ↗ so in other words more rain when we

11:50 ↗ don't need it and less rain when we do

11:52 ↗ need it

11:54 ↗ this results in a reduced snowpack and

11:56 ↗ less snow melt to our waterways

11:58 ↗ leading to increased flooding in the

12:00 ↗ winters and drier summers again

12:02 ↗ increasing that risk of wildfires

12:05 ↗ so the changes in precipitation also

12:07 ↗ bring

12:08 ↗ low summer stream flows and higher

12:10 ↗ stream temperatures which places risk to

12:13 ↗ our salmon and other aquatic species

12:16 ↗ since we're already seeing and feeling

12:18 ↗ the effects of climate change this plan

12:20 ↗ will include both actions that will help

12:22 ↗ mitigate climate change or reduce

12:24 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions as well as

12:26 ↗ actions are focused on adapting to the

12:28 ↗ changes of

12:30 ↗ our climate like wildfire preparedness

12:32 ↗ for our community

12:35 ↗ this slide presents a preliminary

12:37 ↗ overview of issaquah's 2017 greenhouse

12:40 ↗ gas emissions

12:42 ↗ you can see on the left that electricity

12:44 ↗ natural gas and transportation actions

12:46 ↗ will have the highest impact on reducing

12:48 ↗ overall emissions

12:50 ↗ overall buildings make up about 61

12:53 ↗ percent of emissions and transportation

12:55 ↗ 37

12:58 ↗ looking at the sector

12:59 ↗ level on the right commercial and

13:02 ↗ residential energy use should be the

13:03 ↗ primary focus areas as minimal emissions

13:06 ↗ are coming from industrial operations

13:12 ↗ using the 2017 baseline data we have

13:15 ↗ made preliminary projections to estimate

13:18 ↗ what emissions will look like into the

13:19 ↗ future

13:21 ↗ the data has been scaled through 2050

13:23 ↗ assuming emissions will increase as the

13:25 ↗ population number of jobs and housing

13:28 ↗ units in the city continue to grow

13:31 ↗ the business as usual or bau line

13:34 ↗ represents the directions the city's

13:36 ↗ emissions are heading in a no action

13:38 ↗ future

13:39 ↗ the bau projection is adjusted to

13:41 ↗ account for three key policies and

13:44 ↗ regulations that have already been

13:45 ↗ adopted at the state and federal levels

13:49 ↗ this includes efficiency gained through

13:50 ↗ the impact of the washington state

13:52 ↗ building code

13:54 ↗ efficiency through the impact of federal

13:56 ↗ fuel efficiency standards

13:58 ↗ and the biggest is the state's clean

13:59 ↗ energy transformation act which requires

14:02 ↗ electric utilities utilities to remove

14:05 ↗ coal from their portfolios by 2025 and

14:08 ↗ be carbon neutral by 2030.

14:12 ↗ thus to meet our meet our overarching

14:14 ↗ greenhouse gas reduction goals which are

14:16 ↗ outlined in green here the city needs to

14:18 ↗ reduce emissions through actions in the

14:21 ↗ comm in the climate action plan

14:23 ↗ representing that bottom orange slice of

14:25 ↗ the wedge

14:27 ↗ so we're now going to transition into

14:29 ↗ reviewing the goals and policies

14:33 ↗ so we're proposing six new goals which

14:35 ↗ each have three to five associated

14:37 ↗ policies

14:39 ↗ the goals align with the climate actions

14:41 ↗ plan's highest impact focus areas

14:43 ↗ including climate change

14:45 ↗ overall

14:47 ↗ buildings and energy

14:48 ↗ transportation land use materials and

14:51 ↗ consumption

14:52 ↗ natural systems and water resources and

14:54 ↗ community resilience and well-being and

14:56 ↗ we'll talk about each of these a bit

14:58 ↗ more on the next slides and they're also

15:00 ↗ aligned with the attachment that's found

15:02 ↗ in the memo

15:08 ↗ so i won't read through every policy but

15:11 ↗ instead highlight a few of the key

15:12 ↗ points of each

15:14 ↗ the first goal here is our overarching

15:16 ↗ goal on reducing emissions and

15:18 ↗ highlighting the importance of community

15:20 ↗ outreach and education

15:22 ↗ so this is actually a new goal that we

15:23 ↗ developed since the recent engagement

15:25 ↗ efforts where we heard from the

15:27 ↗ community a high interest in including

15:29 ↗ education and outreach in the plan

15:31 ↗ we were planning to include it

15:33 ↗ throughout the climate action plan but

15:34 ↗ decided to elevate it to this goal level

15:37 ↗ after hearing from the community

15:39 ↗ the policies include a new overarching

15:41 ↗ ghg reduction target to reduce emissions

15:44 ↗ by 50 by 2030 75 by 2040 and 95 and net

15:50 ↗ zero emissions by 2050.

15:53 ↗ this overarching ghg emissions reduction

15:56 ↗ target was recently approved by the

15:58 ↗ puget sound regional council and is

16:00 ↗ slated to be adopted by the king county

16:02 ↗ council later this year as well

16:05 ↗ thus we're proposing to include this

16:07 ↗ target in our policies to align with the

16:09 ↗ region as well as best available science

16:12 ↗ the policies also include one on

16:14 ↗ education and one on municipal

16:16 ↗ leadership which is another thing we

16:17 ↗ heard from the community

16:21 ↗ the next goal is reduce emissions from

16:23 ↗ buildings through energy efficiency

16:25 ↗ electrification and transitioning to

16:27 ↗ renewable energy sources

16:30 ↗ the policies include a target to

16:32 ↗ decrease energy use 25 by 2030 and

16:35 ↗ achieved net zero ghg emissions in new

16:37 ↗ buildings by 2030.

16:40 ↗ it also includes a target to have 100

16:42 ↗ renewable electricity for municipal

16:44 ↗ operations by 2025.

16:48 ↗ other policies include advancing

16:50 ↗ building decarbonization

16:52 ↗ reducing overall building energy use

16:54 ↗ through energy efficiency retrofits and

16:56 ↗ transitioning to more renewable energy

16:58 ↗ sources

17:00 ↗ and although these are the higher level

17:01 ↗ policies the climate action plan will

17:04 ↗ also include details on the actions so

17:07 ↗ overall we would expect to start with

17:08 ↗ some education outreach and offering

17:10 ↗ programs and incentives with a focus on

17:14 ↗ people who may not be able to afford

17:15 ↗ these technic these technologies are

17:17 ↗ retrofits on their own

17:22 ↗ the third goal is to reduce emissions

17:24 ↗ from transportation and land use by

17:26 ↗ improving community mobility and

17:28 ↗ multimodal transportation systems

17:31 ↗ the city already has two established

17:33 ↗ targets for this goal area which we

17:35 ↗ developed through the mobility master

17:37 ↗ plan the city recommends preserving

17:39 ↗ these two policies and referencing them

17:41 ↗ in the transportation element

17:45 ↗ other policies include reducing

17:47 ↗ automobile use through shared active and

17:49 ↗ public transportation

17:51 ↗ reducing emissions from automobiles by

17:53 ↗ transitioning to electric vehicles

17:56 ↗ and developing sustainable land use

17:58 ↗ planning which we're working with

17:59 ↗ community planning and development on

18:01 ↗ now to incorporate these pieces into the

18:03 ↗ title 18 update

18:08 ↗ the next goal is on materials and

18:09 ↗ consumption and is to reduce waste

18:11 ↗ generation and the emissions are

18:13 ↗ associated with consumption and disposal

18:16 ↗ of goods and materials

18:18 ↗ so though our ghg inventory that we saw

18:21 ↗ in the previous slide shows that only

18:23 ↗ two percent of emissions are from solid

18:25 ↗ waste it's actually a lot more than that

18:28 ↗ our city like most does a geographic

18:30 ↗ inventory so accounts for the emissions

18:32 ↗ that take place within our boundaries

18:35 ↗ however as we know there's also a lot of

18:37 ↗ emissions from the stuff we buy much of

18:40 ↗ which is major made overseas so this

18:42 ↗ goal speaks to that larger source of

18:44 ↗ emissions as well

18:46 ↗ the policies include a target to achieve

18:49 ↗ zero waste by 2030 by divor by diverting

18:52 ↗ organic and solid waste from

18:54 ↗ landfills the policies also include

18:57 ↗ improving community waste and disposal

18:59 ↗ systems reducing overall consumption and

19:02 ↗ promoting sustainably produced goods

19:07 ↗ the fifth goal encompasses natural

19:09 ↗ systems and water resource protection

19:12 ↗ and conservation to improve climate

19:14 ↗ resiliency

19:16 ↗ the policies include a target to achieve

19:18 ↗ 51 percent tree canopy

19:21 ↗ of a total of issaquah acreage

19:26 ↗ other policies also include capitalizing

19:28 ↗ on the benefits of a strong tree canopy

19:31 ↗ protecting vital habitats

19:33 ↗ enhancing resiliency of natural systems

19:36 ↗ conserving water resources

19:38 ↗ and improving stormwater management

19:44 ↗ the last goal is to ensure community

19:46 ↗ resilience and well-being throughout the

19:48 ↗ impacts of climate change

19:51 ↗ this goal emphasizes that all issaquah

19:53 ↗ residents will have equitable access to

19:55 ↗ benefits and resources in climate

19:57 ↗ policies

19:59 ↗ the policies include items like ensuring

20:01 ↗ the city is ready for climate

20:03 ↗ emergencies

20:04 ↗ climate education in the community

20:07 ↗ the ability to adapt to impacts and

20:09 ↗ equitable distribution of climate

20:11 ↗ resources among residents

20:16 ↗ so now i've reviewed the gold and their

20:18 ↗ respective policies i'd like to move

20:20 ↗ into the questions and discussions

20:23 ↗ the first question that we have this

20:24 ↗ evening is do these policies align with

20:26 ↗ the land use element in guiding

20:28 ↗ issaquah's future development

20:31 ↗ and then also we are curious if

20:33 ↗ if there's anything missing here

20:37 ↗ before we get into that i just want to

20:39 ↗ highlight a few of our next steps

20:42 ↗ so the feedback collected on policies

20:44 ↗ from today's meeting will be

20:46 ↗ incorporated as we continue

20:50 ↗ finalizing the climate action plan

20:52 ↗ and then the next two boxes show this

20:54 ↗ next steps for the climate action plan

20:56 ↗ and then also separately for the

20:58 ↗ comprehensive plan elements

21:00 ↗ and updates so the climate action plan

21:03 ↗ is continued to be reviewed by the

21:05 ↗ community as i was talking on the

21:06 ↗ previous slides as we still have that

21:08 ↗ survey open

21:10 ↗ uh we'll be finalizing that and bring it

21:12 ↗ uh or not finalize and we'll be

21:14 ↗ finalizing um the draft of the plan for

21:16 ↗ the environmental board meeting on

21:18 ↗ september 15th

21:19 ↗ and then going to a city council study

21:21 ↗ session on september 28th

21:24 ↗ and then we'll also be having another

21:26 ↗ convening with the community on october

21:28 ↗ 20th and then the plan is expected to be

21:31 ↗ adopted in december

21:33 ↗ the goals and policies that we're

21:35 ↗ reviewing this evening will be

21:36 ↗ incorporated into the comprehensive plan

21:38 ↗ update

21:39 ↗ which has the public hearing on october

21:41 ↗ 14th the study session on november 19th

21:45 ↗ and then final action in december

21:50 ↗ so thank you for your time this evening

21:52 ↗ and i'm happy to answer

21:53 ↗ any questions and then

21:56 ↗ go into comments on the proposed goals

21:58 ↗ and policies

22:00 ↗ thank you megan curtis murphy uh okay so

22:03 ↗ we're gonna go ahead and open it up to

22:04 ↗ questions i think what might be a good

22:07 ↗ way to break this down is we will start

22:10 ↗ with the

22:12 ↗ six goals

22:14 ↗ climate change building and energy

22:17 ↗ transportation land use

22:19 ↗ materials consumption natural systems

22:21 ↗ and water resource and community

22:23 ↗ resilience and well-being

22:25 ↗ um so maybe breaking it down in

22:28 ↗ and we'll hit each topic

22:31 ↗ independently for questions and then

22:33 ↗ comments

22:36 ↗ and then we'll close it out and go down

22:37 ↗ to the next topic in line

22:41 ↗ and let's go ahead and open to the floor

22:43 ↗ are there any questions about or

22:45 ↗ comments about climate change

22:55 ↗ okay

23:01 ↗ and okay so

23:04 ↗ looks like we have

23:07 ↗ question from

23:09 ↗ commissioner lewis

23:12 ↗ thank you uh commissioner joy lewis here

23:14 ↗ um my first question actually that i

23:16 ↗ want to start with um for you megan is i

23:19 ↗ want to make sure i'm reading this right

23:21 ↗ right now when you talk about um the

23:23 ↗ the current projection of the policy um

23:26 ↗ moving through uh i don't know if i

23:28 ↗ bring that slide back up it looks like

23:29 ↗ it's not coming back to ppc again

23:31 ↗ however since it needs to get approved

23:33 ↗ with the comp plan does that mean that

23:35 ↗ we'll be holding the public hearing on

23:36 ↗ the 14th and seeing it again as it moves

23:39 ↗ through to a more finalized draft

23:44 ↗ this is

23:45 ↗ um yes that is my understanding so

23:48 ↗ an opportunity to discuss tonight um and

23:50 ↗ then if um

23:53 ↗ then the plan would be to go to the

23:54 ↗ public hearing in october

23:56 ↗ if ppc wish to see it again we could

23:58 ↗ also arrange that as well as we are

24:01 ↗ still working on that public engagement

24:02 ↗ effort we wanted ppc to be a part of

24:05 ↗ that process

24:06 ↗ and make sure that we're able to

24:08 ↗ incorporate all of that um into the the

24:11 ↗ goals and policies

24:13 ↗ thank you for clarifying that that

24:14 ↗ really helps i really like the addition

24:16 ↗ of of the community

24:19 ↗ had put forward on this education i was

24:22 ↗ disappointed that we didn't see more of

24:24 ↗ that in our packet i think that it

24:26 ↗ really would be beneficial to actually

24:27 ↗ be talking about the differences between

24:30 ↗ net zero right being able to talk about

24:32 ↗ the difference between carbon neutrality

24:33 ↗ they're all very different things and so

24:35 ↗ being able to understand why are we

24:36 ↗ adopting this particular language that

24:38 ↗ has a particular meaning in these

24:40 ↗ sections i think would be very helpful

24:42 ↗ so

24:43 ↗ what i was confused about too is the

24:45 ↗ word education right are we spending

24:47 ↗ resources right now on trying to educate

24:50 ↗ people on the basic need for it are we

24:52 ↗ educating people on um what our planned

24:56 ↗ policies are and are just trying to give

24:57 ↗ more information to the community i

24:59 ↗ found this a2 to be pretty vague and i

25:02 ↗ would love to have further clarification

25:04 ↗ as to what exactly um the city means

25:07 ↗ right in that policy because there's a

25:08 ↗ lot of wiggle room in that um

25:11 ↗ and personally what i would like to see

25:13 ↗ um in a2 is to actually have a specific

25:15 ↗ mention of saying um that they're going

25:18 ↗ to be a commitment to providing

25:20 ↗ resources for the community to implement

25:22 ↗ best practices so um again i don't know

25:25 ↗ because i wasn't in that meeting i also

25:27 ↗ don't know from the community

25:29 ↗ um meeting that happened if there were

25:31 ↗ notes that were um able to be sent out

25:33 ↗ basically summarizing things that

25:35 ↗ happened um i know our esteemed chair

25:37 ↗ and vice chair were there but um without

25:39 ↗ any kind of framework reference it was

25:40 ↗ hard for me to know um there wasn't it

25:42 ↗ would have been nice to have like a link

25:44 ↗ for instance it said hey here's staff

25:45 ↗ put together a summary right because it

25:47 ↗ would be nice to be all on the same page

25:49 ↗ we got some comments back um an email

25:52 ↗ form that kind of questioned um

25:55 ↗ the disparity between what the community

25:57 ↗ felt was being said and how staff came

25:58 ↗ back and i found that pretty concerning

26:00 ↗ and so i think in the future when you're

26:01 ↗ having these public discussions and

26:03 ↗ dialogues especially i i mentioned this

26:06 ↗ right now because it's all about e2 when

26:07 ↗ we start talking about how we want to

26:08 ↗ educate the community we need to have

26:11 ↗ really clear guidelines of being able to

26:12 ↗ say when this happens then we put out a

26:15 ↗ summary right so everyone can agree upon

26:16 ↗ this is what happened you know so being

26:19 ↗ able to just have this vague a2 i think

26:21 ↗ it's already problematic though i like

26:23 ↗ it i think it needs a lot more cleaning

26:25 ↗ up

26:26 ↗ and what i would say again i hope that

26:27 ↗ our emphasis is actually going to be on

26:30 ↗ how are we educating and providing

26:32 ↗ resources and grants to community

26:34 ↗ members to figure out how to actually

26:36 ↗ implement these best practices

26:38 ↗ versus an arbitrary education of trying

26:41 ↗ to fight the back and forth political

26:43 ↗ will of you know is it necessary so i

26:45 ↗ don't know if that quite came across but

26:47 ↗ that's my feedback for for a thank you

26:52 ↗ uh this is megan i'm happy to respond a

26:54 ↗ little bit to that as well um

26:56 ↗ yeah since we are in the kind of public

26:59 ↗ engagement process now we really want to

27:01 ↗ bring all of that together about what

27:03 ↗ everyone said and we'll be presenting

27:05 ↗ that back through the process of the

27:06 ↗ climate action plan um so we don't have

27:10 ↗ a specific summary of of each of those

27:13 ↗ um items written up yet but that's going

27:15 ↗ to be part of bringing back that

27:17 ↗ information

27:18 ↗ so we don't want to just have

27:21 ↗ kind of the summary from one of the

27:22 ↗ pieces but since we've had several board

27:24 ↗ and commission meetings the convening

27:26 ↗ the focus groups who want to bring all

27:28 ↗ of that together and be able to provide

27:29 ↗ that summary but i agree that is really

27:32 ↗ important too

27:33 ↗ to bring back to help inform

27:35 ↗ kind of that decision making process

27:38 ↗ also great points on a2

27:41 ↗ this is kind of that policy

27:43 ↗ higher level so that next level down of

27:45 ↗ actions will be those more detailed

27:47 ↗ pieces i would definitely expect that to

27:49 ↗ be

27:50 ↗ definitely some resources for the

27:51 ↗ community

27:52 ↗ rather than just kind of speaking about

27:55 ↗ these things and expecting people to

27:57 ↗ pick it up from there we'd want to

27:59 ↗ provide those resources for sure so

28:01 ↗ maybe looking at including some language

28:03 ↗ around that would be good

28:06 ↗ thank you megan i think it's super

28:07 ↗ important that we um i think that a lot

28:10 ↗ of these policies are really great

28:11 ↗ starts and i think it's gonna be really

28:13 ↗ easy to be like yeah but i think there

28:15 ↗ needs to be

28:16 ↗ a little more put into really defining

28:18 ↗ what it is that we're meaning by these

28:20 ↗ things to be able to have a clear um way

28:22 ↗ to move forward right and so um right

28:24 ↗ now it's just a little bit fuzzy and i

28:26 ↗ want to figure out a way to kind of

28:27 ↗ bring it into focus um i also have had a

28:30 ↗ comment on i wanted to add something to

28:32 ↗ the a section um and we had had um a

28:35 ↗ comment that i believe was made by um

28:37 ↗ ann

28:38 ↗ in our email and i had already had it on

28:40 ↗ there so it's always super gratifying

28:41 ↗ and someone else does what you're

28:42 ↗ already thinking um but i was surprised

28:45 ↗ that we didn't see something about a

28:46 ↗ legislative policy i would love i think

28:49 ↗ since we decided to kind of to call it

28:50 ↗ an overarching climate change um for a

28:53 ↗ and we're putting into community

28:55 ↗ education i think it might be a natural

28:56 ↗ place to put in a legislative policy

28:59 ↗ goal um and you know when we were doing

29:02 ↗ um

29:03 ↗ electric charging vehicles we had

29:04 ↗ strongly advocated for there to be

29:07 ↗ this uh

29:09 ↗ this lobby effort to be able to have

29:12 ↗ the teeth behind the code when looking

29:13 ↗ at being able to have upgrades for

29:15 ↗ current housing and so being able to

29:17 ↗ have

29:18 ↗ us have advocates in olympia for

29:20 ↗ resources um and to be able to have that

29:23 ↗ kind of stricter code enforcement i

29:24 ↗ think would be an important policy

29:25 ↗ addition for a

29:27 ↗ thank you

29:32 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis thank you

29:34 ↗ megan curtis

29:35 ↗ uh okay so we're gonna go and move on to

29:38 ↗ another question here from jason but

29:40 ↗ before jason goes i do want to let

29:42 ↗ people know that we will have public

29:44 ↗ comment after um

29:46 ↗ our just our quick discussion here and

29:49 ↗ then we'll come back for final um

29:52 ↗ final debate or final comments

29:56 ↗ um excuse me i'm sorry um mr milligan

29:59 ↗ actually sent a q a a question and

30:01 ↗ comment note prior to uh commissioner

30:04 ↗ voice but it was accidentally sent just

30:06 ↗ to

30:06 ↗ me okay

30:07 ↗ uh commissioner milligan you have the

30:09 ↗ floor but you're on mute

30:12 ↗ i know i've got to change my settings

30:14 ↗ down here commissioner milligan here

30:17 ↗ thank you kristen

30:19 ↗ um commissioner milligan here with uh

30:21 ↗ i'm going to kind of bundle a comment

30:24 ↗ with the question so that it has better

30:26 ↗ context and megan what i wanted to get

30:29 ↗ after was the central issaquah plan and

30:31 ↗ urbanization of the valley floor

30:33 ↗ uh that coming prior to the climate

30:36 ↗ action plan um kind of puts

30:38 ↗ to me the central isoqua plan

30:41 ↗ um challenges it a little bit because if

30:44 ↗ we think way back further more context

30:46 ↗ when we talked about

30:48 ↗ growing issaquah in the 1990s people

30:51 ↗ said flooding is is a bad thing already

30:54 ↗ uh not even talking about how bad it

30:56 ↗ will be in the future we want all our

30:58 ↗ growth to be up on the hills oh no now

31:01 ↗ we want all the growth to be down on the

31:02 ↗ valley floor because we're going to have

31:03 ↗ mass transit

31:04 ↗ but the flooding hasn't gone away and

31:06 ↗ the flooding is going to get

31:08 ↗ worse and when we think back just to a

31:09 ↗ couple weeks ago of the issues uh in

31:12 ↗ urban germany and um how

31:15 ↗ unfortunate that was

31:17 ↗ how so the the question that i'm asking

31:20 ↗ megan is how does this interact with the

31:22 ↗ centralized law plan and and how can

31:25 ↗ the climate action plan

31:27 ↗ um cycle back through the central square

31:29 ↗ plan and make some changes that might be

31:31 ↗ necessary

31:32 ↗ and

31:33 ↗ in

31:34 ↗ impervious services setbacks and things

31:36 ↗ like that

31:38 ↗ thank you

31:40 ↗ this is megan

31:41 ↗ um

31:42 ↗ i think i'll start a little bit by kind

31:44 ↗ of addressing the the flooding piece um

31:47 ↗ so this plan is trying to

31:49 ↗ consider

31:50 ↗ all the different plans in the cities

31:52 ↗ that either have already been adopted or

31:53 ↗ are in the process of

31:55 ↗ being adopted so one of those is the

31:59 ↗ storm and surface water master plan um

32:01 ↗ that has come to pvc and i think will be

32:04 ↗ in the future as well um so gary schmick

32:06 ↗ who is running that

32:08 ↗ plan is on our internal

32:10 ↗ advisory team for this plan and i am

32:12 ↗ also on his so we're trying to make

32:14 ↗ these plans talk to each other um so

32:16 ↗ looking at uh climate impacts and

32:20 ↗ expected increased flooding

32:22 ↗ he's considering that through his

32:23 ↗ efforts about whether to

32:26 ↗ upsize stormwater infrastructure or do

32:28 ↗ other sort of um

32:30 ↗ ways to mitigate that um so we are

32:33 ↗ looking at all those plans um as far as

32:35 ↗ the central issaquah plan um that to

32:38 ↗ focus the

32:39 ↗ the development in the valley floor i

32:41 ↗ think still aligns really nicely with

32:44 ↗ the climate action plan um pieces of of

32:46 ↗ title 18

32:48 ↗ wanting to preserve our and protect our

32:50 ↗ hillsides and focusing um

32:53 ↗ development around transit i think

32:55 ↗ really gets at our climate goals so that

32:57 ↗ was a great i think early

32:59 ↗ earlier piece that again like you were

33:01 ↗ saying wasn't really talking about

33:03 ↗ climate change but was helping us meet

33:05 ↗ some of those goals so we want to be

33:06 ↗ doing more of that but also thinking

33:08 ↗ about those other pieces that we are

33:10 ↗ realizing are more and more issues now

33:13 ↗ such as that flooding um through both

33:15 ↗ this plan and then that stormwater plan

33:19 ↗ right thank you megan and if i could

33:20 ↗ just follow up briefly

33:23 ↗ that that's really great everything you

33:24 ↗ said and and i think to um

33:27 ↗ just dial it in a little further about

33:29 ↗ what i was thinking about with the

33:30 ↗ central is a quad plan is that if i'm

33:32 ↗ remembering correctly we have a lot of

33:34 ↗ capacity in that is much greater than

33:37 ↗ our growth needs and so i'm wondering if

33:39 ↗ maybe we could dial that a little closer

33:40 ↗ to our growth needs so that we have

33:43 ↗ uh less urbanization still focusing that

33:46 ↗ urbanization and central issaquah 100 in

33:49 ↗ support of that but i wonder if we have

33:51 ↗ room to move because of these um

33:54 ↗ issues that we've learned in this new

33:56 ↗ new policy so that's all thank you

34:03 ↗ and thank you very much commissioner

34:05 ↗ milligan

34:07 ↗ and so we're going to go back to jason

34:09 ↗ voice jason you have the floor

34:14 ↗ thank you chairfell and it is gratifying

34:17 ↗ when somebody else

34:18 ↗ has the same thoughts of you as you so

34:21 ↗ two quick questions is really um to

34:24 ↗ piggyback on commissioner lewis

34:26 ↗ a2 kind of struck me the same way

34:28 ↗ conduct education and outreach um

34:31 ↗ miss curtis murphy you mentioned that

34:32 ↗ this is meant to be kind of a higher

34:34 ↗ level and that the action will actually

34:36 ↗ be a little bit more detailed

34:38 ↗ i'm just actually more interested what

34:40 ↗ is the pros and cons of leaving it more

34:43 ↗ vague right now

34:45 ↗ because again i think commissioner lewis

34:47 ↗ brought up a good point you know if it's

34:49 ↗ going to have some teeth if it's going

34:50 ↗ to have some real direction which i

34:52 ↗ think is what people really

34:53 ↗ prefer is to have clarity whatever the

34:55 ↗ position is

34:57 ↗ i'm more interested to know

34:58 ↗ why is it better to have it vague

35:01 ↗ i'm not really taking a side about it

35:03 ↗ more just interested in

35:05 ↗ why the language is vague

35:08 ↗ a2

35:09 ↗ and then an a3 it says lead by example

35:12 ↗ for municipal operations is there a

35:15 ↗ reason why we're not including that city

35:17 ↗ wide

35:18 ↗ is that later to come with title 16 just

35:21 ↗ interested to know why certain language

35:23 ↗ was used

35:25 ↗ as far as our policy goals

35:28 ↗ thank you

35:30 ↗ yes this is megan um so for the first

35:33 ↗ part of that um

35:36 ↗ i think it's

35:37 ↗ overall the climate action plan i guess

35:39 ↗ is is a little bit of a

35:42 ↗ i was gonna say funnel but i guess

35:43 ↗ upside down funnel um in that we have

35:46 ↗ the

35:47 ↗ you know the overarching goals um

35:50 ↗ our overarching greenhouse gas reduction

35:52 ↗ goal then we have um each of the goal

35:55 ↗ areas that then each have these policies

35:58 ↗ um and then each policy is going to have

36:02 ↗ a few actions as well

36:04 ↗ so for example um

36:06 ↗ so i think this one being able to

36:08 ↗ conduct education outreach we want to do

36:10 ↗ that in a number of different ways so

36:12 ↗ the action level will have

36:14 ↗ um

36:15 ↗ different ways we'd be doing that so for

36:16 ↗ example um one thing that i think would

36:19 ↗ be great to have would be to have some

36:20 ↗ sort of

36:21 ↗ um

36:22 ↗ like online challenge platform that um

36:26 ↗ is able to engage people in kind of

36:30 ↗ an exciting way but also have resources

36:32 ↗ that can link them directly to how to

36:34 ↗ reduce their own emissions so if they're

36:37 ↗ interested in

36:38 ↗ reducing their electricity emissions

36:41 ↗ then it can also then link them to puget

36:43 ↗ sound energy for various resources on

36:46 ↗ that

36:46 ↗ um that sort of online platform isn't

36:49 ↗ going to reach everyone so we want to

36:51 ↗ make sure that we're doing that outreach

36:53 ↗ engagement in other ways we want to make

36:55 ↗ sure we're going to meeting people where

36:57 ↗ they are

36:58 ↗ so that might be out at events

37:02 ↗ and doing outreach on that

37:04 ↗ we might want to be doing outreach on um

37:08 ↗ on some areas more than others so our

37:10 ↗ larger emissions are coming from

37:12 ↗ buildings and then transportation so we

37:14 ↗ might want to have some targeted

37:16 ↗ outreach campaigns on that for example

37:18 ↗ um so i think that's what we're seeing

37:21 ↗ here is that that policy level which

37:24 ↗ then we need to um have that those

37:27 ↗ implementation steps of how we will to

37:29 ↗ achieve that

37:30 ↗ um so i think that's overall why why

37:34 ↗ that level up is not as detailed as that

37:37 ↗ action level

37:38 ↗ um

37:40 ↗ the second part about the municipal goal

37:43 ↗ to achieve 100 renewable electricity

37:46 ↗ with this this is something that

37:48 ↗ the city has control over and we also

37:51 ↗ wanted to show leadership in having kind

37:53 ↗ of an earlier goal in

37:55 ↗ having 100

37:56 ↗ renewable electricity by 2025 whereas

37:58 ↗ some of these other goals are a little

38:00 ↗ bit farther out at 20 30.

38:02 ↗ so we want to make sure the city is

38:04 ↗ doing these things and at the same time

38:06 ↗ providing the resources for the

38:08 ↗ community to do it as well

38:10 ↗ but making we making sure we take those

38:12 ↗ steps ourselves

38:18 ↗ all right and thank you uh commissioner

38:20 ↗ uh voice and thank you uh megan curtis

38:23 ↗ so uh that leaves me i've got a question

38:26 ↗ here for climate change as well uh i'm

38:28 ↗ not gonna beat a2 to death here but i do

38:30 ↗ have a question about a1 and it says

38:33 ↗ reduce greenhouse gas emissions uh

38:35 ↗ compared to 27 or sorry 2007 baseline by

38:39 ↗ 50

38:40 ↗ by 2030 75 by 2040 how do we come up

38:43 ↗ with those goals and

38:51 ↗ can we change those are those up for

38:53 ↗ debate

38:57 ↗ this is megan

38:58 ↗ so we as an an individual city we can we

39:02 ↗ can set the goals that we want to have

39:05 ↗ um these come from uh regional resources

39:09 ↗ so as we know climate change um

39:12 ↗ doesn't have specific boundaries and

39:14 ↗ it's really going to take actions um

39:16 ↗ with cities working together in the

39:19 ↗ region with state-level policies

39:22 ↗ so

39:23 ↗ we used to have

39:24 ↗ uh

39:25 ↗ targets that weren't quite as strong as

39:27 ↗ this or guess in our current

39:29 ↗ comprehensive plan um we have to reduce

39:32 ↗ emissions 80 by 2050 for example the

39:35 ↗ 2030 goal is still the same

39:37 ↗ but through

39:39 ↗ resources of looking at where climate

39:41 ↗ change is going where the science is

39:43 ↗ going

39:45 ↗ there is a need to be doing more

39:47 ↗ to making sure that we are living in a a

39:52 ↗ safe place

39:54 ↗ as far as climate change

39:56 ↗ and so i think these

39:58 ↗ these goals were actually adopted at the

40:01 ↗ state level first um the king county

40:04 ↗ cities had

40:05 ↗ uh goals originally that were stronger

40:07 ↗ than the state and then the state

40:08 ↗ actually adopted stronger goals and so

40:11 ↗ the king county cities got together to

40:13 ↗ see to kind of look at ours and where

40:15 ↗ we're going um and and came up with

40:17 ↗ these ones so

40:19 ↗ um

40:20 ↗ overall i think it makes sense to align

40:21 ↗ with the region for some of the the

40:23 ↗ regional priorities that we have a lot

40:25 ↗ of the collaborations that we have we

40:27 ↗ bring our elected officials together to

40:30 ↗ work on actions that will help us meet

40:33 ↗ these emission targets uh so i think

40:36 ↗ that's the overall reason okay because

40:38 ↗ i'm

40:39 ↗ in a3 it says lead by example by

40:41 ↗ implementing actions to reduce

40:42 ↗ submissions from municipal operations

40:44 ↗ well to jason's point why don't we open

40:46 ↗ that up citywide but

40:48 ↗ if psc

40:50 ↗ pse provides us with the electricity if

40:52 ↗ pc

40:54 ↗ as a resident i can elect to have all my

40:57 ↗ electricity

40:58 ↗ through alternative means which i do

41:02 ↗ so technically the city would be free

41:05 ↗ now to

41:07 ↗ hit the 50

41:08 ↗ mark right provided that

41:12 ↗ we have the ability to do that

41:15 ↗ meaning that it costs more money for

41:18 ↗ utilities what's stopping us from

41:20 ↗ working with psc to say you know what

41:23 ↗ let's hit 2050 now

41:29 ↗ uh this is megan we have worked with

41:31 ↗ them in the past some we've had a green

41:35 ↗ power challenge in the past where we've

41:38 ↗ tried to get the increased number of

41:40 ↗ residents who are buying green power so

41:42 ↗ that's something the city definitely

41:44 ↗ encourages and i could see

41:46 ↗ doing that again through some of those

41:48 ↗ education outreach

41:51 ↗ pieces that we want to do to try to gain

41:53 ↗ more people to do that

41:55 ↗ but

41:56 ↗ right now the programs that the

41:59 ↗ that would be optional for residents to

42:01 ↗ participate in or not

42:04 ↗ the programs that puget sound energy has

42:06 ↗ right now

42:07 ↗ for its larger customers such as the

42:10 ↗ green direct program which is the city

42:12 ↗ is a member of they are going out and

42:16 ↗ building wind farms and building solar

42:18 ↗ energy farms that their largest

42:20 ↗ customers can buy into so issaquah made

42:22 ↗ a policy decision to do that so that we

42:24 ↗ can get our renewable

42:26 ↗ energy

42:28 ↗ for our city operations but they don't

42:30 ↗ have all of that uh resource for for

42:33 ↗ residents to then go buy into besides

42:35 ↗ that green power program okay so we're

42:38 ↗ waiting for psc before we can move

42:40 ↗ forward and increase our or decrease our

42:43 ↗ carbon emissions in terms of

42:45 ↗ greenhouse gas

42:47 ↗ and there's some state legislation that

42:48 ↗ is going to be helping with that as well

42:51 ↗ so in 2025 uh all you all electric

42:55 ↗ utilities in the state will be required

42:57 ↗ to remove coal from

42:59 ↗ their fuel mix uh so in 2025 our

43:03 ↗ electricity mix is going to be a lot

43:05 ↗ cleaner our emissions are going to go

43:06 ↗ down as a result of that

43:08 ↗ um and then there they have goals after

43:11 ↗ that or targets that they need to reach

43:13 ↗ in order to make it even greener so

43:15 ↗ there is state legislation that's really

43:17 ↗ guiding that that will help us get there

43:20 ↗ okay okay thank you i

43:23 ↗ i think having the program that reaches

43:25 ↗ out to residents and doing more

43:27 ↗ promotion is certainly

43:28 ↗ key although i don't think that's part

43:30 ↗ of this conversation because

43:32 ↗ we're too high

43:35 ↗ all right so let's go ahead and move on

43:37 ↗ to

43:38 ↗ uh actually final questions are there

43:40 ↗ any more additional questions about

43:43 ↗ climate change

43:46 ↗ okay hearing none let's move on to

43:48 ↗ building an energy are there any

43:50 ↗ questions about building an energy that

43:52 ↗ you'd like to ask

44:04 ↗ another second

44:06 ↗ here and looks like we have a question

44:09 ↗ from commissioner milligan

44:11 ↗ you have the floor

44:13 ↗ it's it's a i think it's a race to the

44:15 ↗ bottom none of us want to be first so we

44:17 ↗ sit there with our hands

44:19 ↗ on the return key waiting for somebody

44:21 ↗ else to put a queue up there really did

44:22 ↗ and

44:23 ↗ jason beat me he won he got to go second

44:26 ↗ commissioner milligan here

44:28 ↗ talking about goal b buildings and

44:30 ↗ energy

44:31 ↗ and uh megan i have two topics here to

44:34 ↗ talk about and they may fall under

44:36 ↗ action so

44:38 ↗ pardon me if i'm

44:39 ↗ getting too far down in the weeds but

44:42 ↗ there is a little bit of a question here

44:43 ↗ and one is

44:45 ↗ has to do with

44:47 ↗ solar for buildings

44:50 ↗ uh and in two parts one um the municipal

44:53 ↗ leadership that we were talking about in

44:54 ↗ a is there a means or is there something

44:58 ↗ that we should tee up here if we want to

45:00 ↗ require all municipal buildings to

45:03 ↗ have solar is there something we need to

45:06 ↗ do here more if that's something that we

45:07 ↗ want in the action

45:09 ↗ and then uh

45:11 ↗ what would we need here if we wanted to

45:15 ↗ require let's just say we wanted to

45:18 ↗ require all new

45:20 ↗ buildings to be solar ready like we

45:22 ↗ talked about with the uh

45:25 ↗ eb ready for the cars

45:27 ↗ do we have the kind of language in the

45:29 ↗ policy that we would need if we wanted

45:31 ↗ to have that as an action

45:32 ↗ and then i have one more but i'll if i

45:34 ↗ could just come back to the next one

45:36 ↗ after the solar talk

45:39 ↗ sure this is megan um so the first one

45:42 ↗ so requiring all municipal buildings to

45:45 ↗ have solar

45:47 ↗ i

45:48 ↗ don't think we quite have that at the

45:50 ↗ action level i think that we have kind

45:52 ↗ of more that

45:56 ↗ that broad language to make sure that we

45:57 ↗ have 100 renewable electricity but it

46:00 ↗ doesn't specify which technology it will

46:03 ↗ be

46:04 ↗ um so

46:05 ↗ right now

46:06 ↗ um we have a lot of our electricity

46:09 ↗ coming from a lot of renewable

46:11 ↗ electricity coming from both a wind farm

46:13 ↗ and a solar farm

46:16 ↗ through pse

46:17 ↗ but our municipal buildings don't have

46:20 ↗ solar right now it is something that we

46:22 ↗ are

46:23 ↗ working on for some of our buildings

46:25 ↗ including our community center in the

46:28 ↗ next couple years we'll be redoing that

46:30 ↗ roof um and hopefully including solar in

46:32 ↗ that project so i think that that could

46:35 ↗ fall under that that b2 um to have

46:38 ↗ a 100 renewable electricity because

46:40 ↗ we're not at 100 yet so we do need to do

46:43 ↗ more to get there

46:44 ↗ but we don't have the explicit um action

46:47 ↗ so that's that's a good idea

46:49 ↗ um the next one for solar ready

46:51 ↗ buildings i think that that would be

46:53 ↗ included in would be an action under

46:56 ↗ b5 we would under that

46:59 ↗ language to transition away from fossil

47:01 ↗ fuels for clean renewable energy

47:03 ↗ something like that would fit that

47:05 ↗ category

47:10 ↗ yeah great thanks megan and that and

47:12 ↗ yeah your answer inspired

47:14 ↗ a refinement of not just that we source

47:18 ↗ renewable energies but that we actually

47:20 ↗ make them on site and aren't so

47:22 ↗ dependent on the grid the second one

47:25 ↗ you'll remember from my following up on

47:27 ↗ the early convening

47:29 ↗ do we have language and the policies

47:32 ↗ that allow us

47:33 ↗ to require all electric buildings

47:37 ↗ such as residential development and the

47:39 ↗ concern we

47:41 ↗ hesitated on

47:43 ↗ [Music]

47:44 ↗ disallowing

47:46 ↗ fossil fuel appliances in new

47:48 ↗ residential building like guest stoves

47:51 ↗ but i still would like to be able to

47:53 ↗ consider pursuing that especially since

47:55 ↗ a lot of our building that goes on in in

47:57 ↗ isoquant especially quite high islands

47:59 ↗ where i live are national builders you

48:01 ↗ know they're not the kind of people that

48:02 ↗ we can educate and change their way we

48:04 ↗ need to just tell them no we don't want

48:07 ↗ any more natural gas in our homes

48:10 ↗ so is there is there adequate policy

48:11 ↗ here if we wanted that as an action

48:13 ↗ later

48:16 ↗ i think policy b3 to advance building

48:19 ↗ decarbonization

48:21 ↗ would cover several kind of those

48:23 ↗ different level levers to do it

48:26 ↗ it would include actions to do education

48:29 ↗ it could include actions to do new

48:31 ↗ incentives and it could include actions

48:33 ↗ to do requirements

48:42 ↗ okay and commissioner milligan are you

48:44 ↗ satisfied with that

48:46 ↗ excellent okay and so i'll go ahead and

48:48 ↗ move on to uh commissioner voice

48:51 ↗ you have the floor

48:54 ↗ thank you mr chair and uh

48:56 ↗ so this is actually pretty easy i think

48:58 ↗ um miss curtis murphy kind of explained

49:01 ↗ it earlier in our discussion about

49:02 ↗ climate change so again just to had a

49:05 ↗ couple questions more about

49:07 ↗ language used seemed a little vague but

49:09 ↗ i appreciate like i said what you had

49:10 ↗ mentioned earlier

49:11 ↗ um in our previous discussion so i think

49:14 ↗ it was more of a comment than a question

49:15 ↗ so

49:16 ↗ that was it

49:17 ↗ thank you

49:21 ↗ excellent thank you commissioner voice

49:23 ↗ and we'll open the floor to commissioner

49:25 ↗ lewis you have the floor

49:28 ↗ sir joy lewis here

49:30 ↗ um so

49:32 ↗ in regards to policy b

49:34 ↗ megan you did touch

49:36 ↗ on the city's use of being able to opt

49:39 ↗ to um

49:40 ↗ pay for um green electricity from pse

49:43 ↗ it's a separate program i appreciate

49:46 ↗ that the city does that

49:47 ↗ um

49:49 ↗ without sounding too conspiratorial

49:51 ↗ right now

49:52 ↗ what i'm concerned about is that right

49:54 ↗ now not all green energy is clean energy

49:57 ↗ right we know that it's much more

49:59 ↗ efficient for a coal-fired plant to be

50:01 ↗ producing electricity than to be able to

50:03 ↗ have coal-fired plant on individual

50:05 ↗ sites right so right now there's kind of

50:07 ↗ this gray scale happening right now

50:08 ↗ where you say well it's electricity but

50:10 ↗ how are we making that electricity right

50:12 ↗ and the hope is that with more

50:15 ↗ pressure for municipalities we're able

50:17 ↗ to be able to give private industry what

50:19 ↗ they need to be able to move more fully

50:21 ↗ that way so you touched on a little bit

50:23 ↗ but i'm curious if we actually need to

50:25 ↗ have more language about things being

50:27 ↗ independently verified right by saying

50:29 ↗ that we're going to lead that means that

50:31 ↗ we know that everything that we are

50:32 ↗ using is coming from a clean source like

50:35 ↗ wind and solar

50:37 ↗ and actually having a little bit more in

50:39 ↗ the policy that touches to

50:41 ↗ um

50:42 ↗ what we're wanting that outcome to be

50:44 ↗ rather than just kind of relying on our

50:45 ↗ private partners to be

50:47 ↗ probably sometimes doing it does that i

50:49 ↗ don't know if that makes sense or not

50:50 ↗ but um

50:52 ↗ that's in regards to b2 um

50:55 ↗ has there been discussions kind of about

50:57 ↗ that about how do we make sure on the

50:58 ↗ back end we're getting

51:00 ↗ what we're what we're wanting

51:03 ↗ yes this is megan um specifically for

51:06 ↗ the program that we're enrolled in the

51:08 ↗ green direct program

51:10 ↗ so as i mentioned that they open that to

51:12 ↗ their larger either corporate or

51:14 ↗ municipal customers um and

51:17 ↗ and

51:18 ↗ it filled up because it is because they

51:21 ↗ are building the specific um wind farm

51:24 ↗ and the specific solar farm um

51:27 ↗ i'm forgetting that one is in southeast

51:29 ↗ washington i believe that's the wind

51:33 ↗ i forget that's the wind of the solar

51:34 ↗ farm and then the other one is in

51:36 ↗ western washington

51:37 ↗ and those are sites that we got updates

51:39 ↗ on um you know we subscribed to the

51:41 ↗ program they were building them we got

51:43 ↗ updates all along the way

51:45 ↗ um they were gonna do a tour but it was

51:47 ↗ during covid so the the parts that we're

51:50 ↗ getting the that renewable electricity

51:52 ↗ from that's definitely from wind and

51:54 ↗ solar and directly from those those two

51:56 ↗ sites

51:58 ↗ uh i think that it might be nice to have

51:59 ↗ language in b2 that kind of talks about

52:02 ↗ um continue you know in some way

52:04 ↗ continuing to partner with um public and

52:06 ↗ private sectors to push for it to be

52:08 ↗ um

52:10 ↗ to you know to have what it needs to be

52:11 ↗ able to be able to grow at the scale

52:12 ↗ that we need it to maybe is kind of what

52:14 ↗ we're maybe what i'm thinking is we're

52:16 ↗ missing from from the policy

52:18 ↗ um and as far as b5 goes you know

52:22 ↗ uh nana put it much more elegantly than

52:24 ↗ i'm going to but

52:25 ↗ uh you know we i would like to see more

52:28 ↗ emphasis in the policy about us being

52:30 ↗ able to generate electricity on site we

52:33 ↗ know that solar

52:35 ↗ photovoltaic voltaics is a clean energy

52:38 ↗ and so being able to actually subvert um

52:40 ↗ all that it takes to get it from the

52:42 ↗ grid to being on site

52:44 ↗ i think is really important when trying

52:45 ↗ to achieve um b5 so um

52:49 ↗ you know um the providence point school

52:51 ↗ district project is a good example of us

52:52 ↗ basically clear cutting a large area

52:55 ↗ putting in two schools that have the

52:56 ↗ potential to be a pretty large solar

52:59 ↗ generators and so um being able to

53:01 ↗ actually put in language in our policy

53:03 ↗ that talks about hey um like how we're

53:06 ↗ actually going to be doing it right when

53:07 ↗ we're saying we want to transition away

53:09 ↗ from it by actually then having language

53:10 ↗ in that policy that says and we're going

53:12 ↗ to require this right

53:15 ↗ and so i'm not looking for the same kind

53:17 ↗ of teeth obviously that we use in the

53:18 ↗ code but i'm looking for our policy to

53:20 ↗ get fine-tuned in a little bit of a way

53:22 ↗ that says and this is

53:24 ↗ how we're going to do it and this is a

53:26 ↗ part of it right and we're going to

53:27 ↗ require this much of it in this type of

53:30 ↗ way right it doesn't need to be super

53:31 ↗ sweeping like all new buildings kind of

53:33 ↗ a thing right now but i think b5 needs

53:36 ↗ to be beefed up a little bit and so um

53:39 ↗ as you guys are kind of going through

53:41 ↗ this draft and process in the next

53:43 ↗ couple meetings and things like that i

53:45 ↗ would like to see something that talks

53:47 ↗ about um

53:48 ↗ how we have that green power timeline in

53:51 ↗ a more specific way um

53:54 ↗ and uh like like nina was saying that um

53:56 ↗ solar photovoltaics is a great way to be

53:58 ↗ able to do that

53:59 ↗ um so thank you

54:02 ↗ please feel free to comment

54:04 ↗ on that last one um if you guys have

54:06 ↗ talked about with b5 trying to

54:10 ↗ expand that a little bit

54:11 ↗ i also do think that this is a really

54:13 ↗ good section to be adding a policy that

54:16 ↗ talks about upgrading our public

54:17 ↗ buildings to be

54:19 ↗ um net zero emissions but i think then

54:21 ↗ also

54:22 ↗ one thing that i was hoping to see in

54:24 ↗ our pack it was a discussion of

54:25 ↗ basically

54:27 ↗ of whether the city is wanting to adopt

54:29 ↗ more net zero emissions or more climate

54:31 ↗ positive right so when we talk about

54:33 ↗ greenhouse gases are we really trying to

54:36 ↗ have um no carbon created and therefore

54:39 ↗ not admitted or are we

54:41 ↗ looking for an offset program right so

54:43 ↗ to be able to achieve some of these

54:44 ↗ numbers being able to have our municipal

54:46 ↗ buildings um

54:48 ↗ become better aligned it would be nice

54:49 ↗ to see kind of more of a discussion of

54:52 ↗ where and why we're going with that

54:54 ↗ and being able to include that and b

54:59 ↗ this is megan i can respond briefly

55:03 ↗ i think with with b5 um

55:06 ↗ i

55:07 ↗ agree it does have a lot of options in

55:10 ↗ there i think it doesn't really focus in

55:12 ↗ on

55:13 ↗ on one technology or one pathway

55:17 ↗ but leaves a lot of space for for

55:19 ↗ different things um solar is you know

55:22 ↗ one of the the main popular uh

55:25 ↗ technologies right now but there are

55:27 ↗ other things that um

55:29 ↗ that could also come down the line more

55:31 ↗ whether it's

55:33 ↗ you know wind power in other places um

55:35 ↗ anaerobic digestion

55:37 ↗ uh other renewable sources um so it

55:40 ↗ doesn't have that that kind of that

55:42 ↗ level of of detail that would then be in

55:45 ↗ the actions i think or or space to be

55:48 ↗ doing those things in the future still

55:50 ↗ under that policy

55:51 ↗ but i do hear you in that

55:57 ↗ all right thank you commissioner lewis

55:59 ↗ uh see i was next but i'm going to let

56:01 ↗ richard zargoza go next

56:04 ↗ so richard you have the floor

56:07 ↗ thank you chair

56:08 ↗ so i just wanted to plus uh this is

56:09 ↗ richard saragosa um i just wanted a plus

56:12 ↗ one

56:13 ↗ uh

56:14 ↗ nina enjoys comments about adding

56:17 ↗ language to b5 around generation

56:20 ↗ of energy i agree it doesn't necessarily

56:23 ↗ need to be so specific as to one type of

56:26 ↗ energy or another but certainly

56:28 ↗ generating energy on site is

56:31 ↗ better than even using you know buying

56:34 ↗ green energy but producing it on site i

56:35 ↗ think is

56:36 ↗ great language to have in there um as

56:39 ↗ high level as it needs to be but i i

56:41 ↗ plus one that

56:42 ↗ thanks

56:45 ↗ thank you commissioner zargozo

56:47 ↗ uh okay so i have a question um

56:52 ↗ concerning the on-site uh development of

56:55 ↗ energy

56:57 ↗ i'm kind of thinking in the policy we

56:58 ↗ should have a

57:00 ↗ analysis

57:02 ↗ portion

57:03 ↗ to determine what is more efficient is

57:06 ↗ it more efficient for

57:08 ↗ some municipal buildings to

57:11 ↗ have on-site energy or will it be more

57:14 ↗ efficient for us to

57:16 ↗ leverage psc's resources and purchase

57:19 ↗ all of that electricity

57:21 ↗ through their renewable channels

57:23 ↗ because they reach economies of scale

57:25 ↗ where if we decide to take like let's

57:27 ↗ say providence point high school

57:30 ↗ and say we're going to have that all

57:32 ↗ based off of solar

57:34 ↗ or wind

57:36 ↗ then

57:37 ↗ what's the cost

57:39 ↗ associated to that i don't see anything

57:41 ↗ here really discussing the cost-benefit

57:43 ↗ analysis and i think that should almost

57:46 ↗ be policy as opposed to

57:49 ↗ an afterthought

57:51 ↗ because maybe leveraging pse would be

57:53 ↗ more efficient

57:55 ↗ because you can just go through the grid

57:57 ↗ that way we're not we don't have support

57:59 ↗ costs

58:00 ↗ rolled into that as well

58:03 ↗ okay uh i don't see any additional

58:06 ↗ questions or comments for

58:09 ↗ goal b building and energy so let's move

58:11 ↗ on to goal c which is transportation and

58:14 ↗ land use

58:15 ↗ i will open the floor up for questions

58:25 ↗ and we have a first question from matt

58:27 ↗ monahan so commissioner monahan you have

58:29 ↗ the floor

58:31 ↗ excuse me thank you matt monahan here

58:34 ↗ this might be a tangential question but

58:36 ↗ um the hov lanes on i-90 and i think

58:39 ↗ like halfway between issaquah

58:41 ↗ is there any thought to going to the

58:43 ↗ state

58:44 ↗ and exploring extending those throughout

58:46 ↗ the city

58:47 ↗ under and operating under the assumption

58:49 ↗ that hov lanes have some impact

58:52 ↗ on greenhouse gas i'm just curious if

58:53 ↗ that's something we've thought about

58:57 ↗ this is megan um

59:00 ↗ i i don't know the answer that if if

59:03 ↗ we've gone and talked with them about

59:05 ↗ that we do have our senior

59:06 ↗ transportation planner

59:09 ↗ stephen padua who goes to all the attend

59:12 ↗ all the regional meetings

59:14 ↗ with each of the transportation agencies

59:16 ↗ and and provides issaquah's voice in

59:18 ↗ that and here's what we're here's what's

59:20 ↗ going on and then um can provide and put

59:23 ↗ on on what we need in issaquah

59:26 ↗ as far as the

59:27 ↗ um extending those lanes i do not know

59:29 ↗ exactly

59:31 ↗ but yeah if people are able to get where

59:33 ↗ they're going more efficiency and less

59:36 ↗ less traffic

59:38 ↗ that can have greenhouse gas emission

59:40 ↗ reduction benefits

59:42 ↗ however i think also we want to be

59:44 ↗ shifting people out of their cars

59:46 ↗ um

59:48 ↗ in general but if we have you know two

59:50 ↗ people in a car rather than uh two

59:52 ↗ single drivers that would definitely be

59:54 ↗ more beneficial

59:58 ↗ thank you

1:00:00 ↗ okay thank you commissioner monahan and

1:00:02 ↗ commissioner lewis do you have the floor

1:00:06 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis to go

1:00:08 ↗ off that

1:00:09 ↗ point you just made megan um you know

1:00:11 ↗ it's been something we've been talking

1:00:12 ↗ about the transportation plan for a long

1:00:14 ↗ time

1:00:16 ↗ is how to have this multimodal approach

1:00:18 ↗ right but i think it's interesting when

1:00:20 ↗ we talk about c1 is to think about how

1:00:22 ↗ pandemic behaviors are going to affect

1:00:24 ↗ this timeline i can speak personally i

1:00:27 ↗ haven't read written on public transit

1:00:29 ↗ in a year and a half as somebody who um

1:00:31 ↗ is an ardent supporter of it

1:00:34 ↗ and i most certainly am not making a

1:00:36 ↗ plan to do it anytime soon right so

1:00:38 ↗ um how does that actually affect what

1:00:40 ↗ we're looking at on a time scale right

1:00:42 ↗ so a big part of this policy is we're

1:00:44 ↗ trying to set

1:00:45 ↗ up both achievable and lofty goals so

1:00:49 ↗ how does um how has that changed

1:00:53 ↗ anything right how is pandemic behavior

1:00:54 ↗ kind of changed how we're how we're ride

1:00:57 ↗ sharing right

1:01:00 ↗ this is megan those those things are are

1:01:03 ↗ fascinating and i think there's a lot of

1:01:05 ↗ people collecting data on that now um

1:01:08 ↗ because there's there's the pros and the

1:01:09 ↗ cons so like you said there's a lot of

1:01:11 ↗ people not using public transportation

1:01:14 ↗ but there's also a lot of people who

1:01:15 ↗ aren't driving to work anymore and who

1:01:17 ↗ are teleworking now and um there's a lot

1:01:20 ↗ of companies starting to institute

1:01:21 ↗ policies around that um there'll be

1:01:24 ↗ lasting policies it's not just a covid

1:01:26 ↗ policy so i think that there are there's

1:01:29 ↗ kind of gains and losses from it um and

1:01:33 ↗ i am very excited to see kind of all the

1:01:35 ↗ the regional data on that as they put

1:01:36 ↗ together all those traffic modeling

1:01:39 ↗ um i'm curious um you know first um c2

1:01:44 ↗ i'm curious if we um if we could say

1:01:46 ↗ something about something like with a

1:01:47 ↗ strong like a city investment

1:01:50 ↗ in charging infrastructures um when you

1:01:53 ↗ know i when i read it i think it's easy

1:01:54 ↗ to be like yeah but knowing the history

1:01:57 ↗ as i do right we sat in this

1:02:00 ↗ very you know webex environment um

1:02:02 ↗ trying to push for the basics of just

1:02:04 ↗ having um infrastructure right not even

1:02:07 ↗ stations and charging stations and you

1:02:09 ↗ know the city um likes to tell us this

1:02:11 ↗ is a start right this is this is what

1:02:13 ↗ you know we can always change it we're

1:02:15 ↗ dipping our toe in right we're um and

1:02:18 ↗ you know we um we create a policy that

1:02:21 ↗ says that we're proponents of it um yeah

1:02:24 ↗ we need to have it but

1:02:26 ↗ do we have the necessary um

1:02:28 ↗ things in line to be able to support

1:02:30 ↗ that policy

1:02:31 ↗ where i i'm sitting we don't right now

1:02:33 ↗ right so i'd like to see stronger

1:02:35 ↗ language in that um that then helps us

1:02:38 ↗ when we're actually doing um electric

1:02:40 ↗ vehicle charging to say hey here's our

1:02:43 ↗ policy we specifically say that you know

1:02:45 ↗ for instance you know the city is going

1:02:46 ↗ to invest

1:02:48 ↗ in charging infrastructure right so you

1:02:50 ↗ know that we can require this on these

1:02:52 ↗ different ways and levels so um i do

1:02:55 ↗ think that c2 could use um a little more

1:02:58 ↗ gravitas in my in my opinion but that's

1:03:01 ↗ just my c feedback

1:03:09 ↗ okay i'll say again this is megan sorry

1:03:12 ↗ um

1:03:13 ↗ yeah and i think that that's a great

1:03:15 ↗ example and that is an action that we

1:03:17 ↗ are are going to be including in that um

1:03:20 ↗ the city investment in it so i think

1:03:21 ↗ again that gets to that action level so

1:03:24 ↗ we won't the city won't just be

1:03:26 ↗ investing in

1:03:28 ↗ ev chargers but you know we might also

1:03:30 ↗ be buying electric vehicles for our

1:03:32 ↗ fleet as well so there'll be kind of a

1:03:35 ↗ few different actions under that level

1:03:36 ↗ that will help us overall transition

1:03:39 ↗ um

1:03:40 ↗ towards electric vehicles

1:03:44 ↗ and i will say here hearing those action

1:03:46 ↗ levels is also really helpful in this

1:03:48 ↗ conversation because that is the process

1:03:50 ↗ that we are in right now um you know we

1:03:52 ↗ have these these goals and policies here

1:03:55 ↗ and

1:03:56 ↗ we're listening to the community right

1:03:57 ↗ now on those actions so i'm happy to

1:04:00 ↗ have those and they're writing those

1:04:02 ↗ down as well

1:04:08 ↗ and thank you commissioner lewis and

1:04:10 ↗ commissioner um

1:04:12 ↗ milligan you have another question

1:04:15 ↗ thank you sure

1:04:17 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan again

1:04:20 ↗ thank you megan uh i wanted to talk

1:04:22 ↗ about c3

1:04:24 ↗ and again not a new topic from me but

1:04:27 ↗ when we talk about reducing vehicle

1:04:28 ↗ miles traveled i'm often looking at our

1:04:32 ↗ residential

1:04:33 ↗ um

1:04:35 ↗ planning from the 70s that were very car

1:04:37 ↗ dependent

1:04:38 ↗ and the land uses have not changed and

1:04:40 ↗ i'm gonna um

1:04:41 ↗ um i'm going to

1:04:43 ↗ harken back to something that leaves

1:04:45 ↗ them in another context and that's food

1:04:47 ↗ deserts you know these places where

1:04:49 ↗ there isn't any food and people have to

1:04:50 ↗ get in a car to go to our grocery store

1:04:52 ↗ well people who live on squawk mountain

1:04:54 ↗ people who live in south dakota people

1:04:55 ↗ who live in providence point even people

1:04:57 ↗ who live in some parts of physical

1:04:58 ↗ highlands have to get in a car to take

1:05:00 ↗ care of any daily services

1:05:02 ↗ and uh it's an unfortunate

1:05:05 ↗ land use zoning policy so i was

1:05:09 ↗ hoping to

1:05:12 ↗ pitch an idea for c3

1:05:15 ↗ that would add some sort of language

1:05:18 ↗ that would talk about and here's my hack

1:05:20 ↗ at a policy language

1:05:22 ↗ but something that would say something

1:05:23 ↗ like uh selectively insert micro

1:05:26 ↗ commercial retail zones in residential

1:05:29 ↗ areas that need it now

1:05:32 ↗ you're the policy writer so you could

1:05:34 ↗ make that lovely but i i think again

1:05:37 ↗ also to another um inspiration for this

1:05:39 ↗ is the 15-minute city

1:05:41 ↗ that's that's the standard by which i'm

1:05:43 ↗ i'm looking at is that people need to

1:05:45 ↗ have their regular

1:05:47 ↗ needs served within walking distance of

1:05:48 ↗ their home which is generally thought of

1:05:50 ↗ as a half mile

1:05:52 ↗ and if it's not a coffee shop i don't

1:05:54 ↗ know what it is but you know that's my

1:05:56 ↗ daily need

1:05:57 ↗ coffee shop within 15 minutes of

1:05:59 ↗ everybody's house that's the policy

1:06:02 ↗ kidding i think you get where i'm going

1:06:04 ↗ though right megan

1:06:06 ↗ i do yes thank you and i have a request

1:06:09 ↗ from the public to put the presentation

1:06:11 ↗ up so i will just let people know i'll

1:06:13 ↗ put up the slides that we're talking

1:06:15 ↗ about

1:06:19 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner milligan

1:06:21 ↗ and um

1:06:25 ↗ curtis murphy so i'm gonna go ahead and

1:06:26 ↗ open the floor to

1:06:28 ↗ richard zargoza once more

1:06:31 ↗ thank you

1:06:32 ↗ uh

1:06:33 ↗ richard zaragoza so i had it's kind of a

1:06:36 ↗ comment kind of a question

1:06:37 ↗ on uh telecommuting

1:06:39 ↗ i think you know it's an amazing way to

1:06:41 ↗ get people away from their cars and i

1:06:43 ↗ kind of want to attach that to what nina

1:06:46 ↗ just said about food deserts

1:06:49 ↗ um

1:06:50 ↗ maybe not moving the stores to the

1:06:52 ↗ neighborhoods but

1:06:54 ↗ i think the highlands had a shuttle for

1:06:55 ↗ a little while that was

1:06:57 ↗ planned to help people come down from

1:06:59 ↗ the top of the highlands down into the

1:07:01 ↗ retail areas

1:07:02 ↗ i think some kind of shuttles that would

1:07:04 ↗ help

1:07:05 ↗ these these kind of uh hillside

1:07:08 ↗ communities get downtown easier faster

1:07:10 ↗ or even to their supermarkets quicker so

1:07:12 ↗ they can kind of you know walk the few

1:07:14 ↗ blocks to the shuttle and back

1:07:16 ↗ um on top of that having infrastructure

1:07:19 ↗ i don't know if that's 5g or if it's uh

1:07:23 ↗ you know centers for work or something

1:07:25 ↗ like that but you know is it possible

1:07:28 ↗ for the city to

1:07:30 ↗ um

1:07:31 ↗ you know maybe do some investigation on

1:07:32 ↗ it first whether it is actually a

1:07:34 ↗ positive but um do the research on

1:07:36 ↗ telecommuting and is this something that

1:07:37 ↗ we could um support

1:07:40 ↗ as part of

1:07:41 ↗ our reduction in in use of automobiles

1:07:44 ↗ by essentially promoting stay-at-home

1:07:47 ↗ work or

1:07:48 ↗ or um

1:07:50 ↗ affecting that in some way

1:07:54 ↗ thanks

1:07:57 ↗ this is megan i think this is another

1:07:59 ↗ great example of kind of some of the the

1:08:01 ↗ different plans that we have in the city

1:08:04 ↗ that are talking to each other through

1:08:05 ↗ this process

1:08:06 ↗ so the mobility master plan is one of

1:08:09 ↗ those and they

1:08:10 ↗ um through that that implementation

1:08:12 ↗ they've been talking about you know if

1:08:14 ↗ we want shuttle systems for some of

1:08:17 ↗ those hillsides communities to get

1:08:18 ↗ people down

1:08:20 ↗ and as well as um

1:08:22 ↗ working to get people out of their cars

1:08:24 ↗ we've had programs in the past looking

1:08:25 ↗ at kind of bigger employers um

1:08:29 ↗ and helping them reduce their footprints

1:08:31 ↗ so uh so i think that's another great

1:08:33 ↗ idea

1:08:35 ↗ all right if i could jump in this is

1:08:36 ↗ kristin leeson senior planner and i uh

1:08:38 ↗ two things i wanted to know we actually

1:08:39 ↗ have a policy in our comprehensive plan

1:08:41 ↗ that says to put

1:08:43 ↗ neighborhood

1:08:44 ↗ services

1:08:46 ↗ allow for zones allow for neighborhood

1:08:48 ↗ zones to have

1:08:49 ↗ neighborhood services in there and it's

1:08:52 ↗ something that's been talked about off

1:08:53 ↗ and on um

1:08:55 ↗ it's i think it's something that will be

1:08:56 ↗ addressed probably again fairly soon

1:08:58 ↗ with title 18 or shortly thereafter um

1:09:00 ↗ another topic was the shuttles we

1:09:02 ↗ actually worked with metro first

1:09:04 ↗ a few years and did surveys and all

1:09:08 ↗ sorts of studies and came up with a

1:09:10 ↗ shuttle program sort of that we had um

1:09:12 ↗ that was going to be put into place and

1:09:14 ↗ the metro lost their funding so

1:09:15 ↗ hopefully

1:09:16 ↗ that comes back because it was going to

1:09:18 ↗ go on squawk mountain and talus and so

1:09:21 ↗ hope because that's something that's

1:09:22 ↗ been asked for for years

1:09:24 ↗ so hopefully that will come back

1:09:26 ↗ we can get that going again

1:09:34 ↗ thank you commissioner zargoza and uh

1:09:37 ↗ megan curtis murphy and kristen

1:09:39 ↗ uh

1:09:40 ↗ okay and i have a one last question here

1:09:43 ↗ uh regarding and by the way i wanna

1:09:45 ↗ ditto um

1:09:48 ↗ um

1:09:49 ↗ richard zargoza on his comment there i

1:09:51 ↗ think it

1:09:53 ↗ to

1:09:55 ↗ maybe build upon that almost like an

1:09:57 ↗ internet cafe like the library

1:09:59 ↗ is becoming sort of that internet cafe

1:10:02 ↗ and maybe having that open so that

1:10:04 ↗ people can

1:10:05 ↗ work from home that may not have the

1:10:07 ↗ resources at home or that can afford a

1:10:10 ↗ high-speed internet to be able to do

1:10:12 ↗ some of those things but have a computer

1:10:14 ↗ maybe having a room set aside that

1:10:16 ↗ allows people to be able to come in and

1:10:18 ↗ use the wi-fi

1:10:19 ↗ in a semi-private environment and be

1:10:21 ↗ able to do video conferencing might be a

1:10:23 ↗ good idea something to look at

1:10:26 ↗ but i really want to get on to

1:10:28 ↗ the

1:10:29 ↗ what i'm not seeing that i would like to

1:10:31 ↗ see added to these policies is something

1:10:34 ↗ that embraces the walk and roll strategy

1:10:36 ↗ i know the walk and roll strategy is

1:10:38 ↗ part of the green necklace it's its own

1:10:40 ↗ policy so to speak but it's not in this

1:10:43 ↗ document here

1:10:44 ↗ putting any kind of emphasis on it we're

1:10:46 ↗ talking about getting people out of

1:10:47 ↗ their cars well

1:10:49 ↗ bike paths

1:10:50 ↗ bicycles bike racks walking trails two

1:10:54 ↗ shopping destinations i think are are a

1:10:57 ↗ great way to do it i would rather walk

1:10:59 ↗ to the store or ride a bicycle to the

1:11:01 ↗ store but if i did that then my bicycle

1:11:04 ↗ would probably be stolen because there's

1:11:05 ↗ no place to lock them up and then some

1:11:07 ↗ people also say that some of the roads

1:11:10 ↗ around here are not uh safe to ride so

1:11:13 ↗ having

1:11:14 ↗ that policy

1:11:16 ↗ that embraces rock and roll strategy

1:11:18 ↗ makes people feel safe that

1:11:20 ↗ encourages them to get

1:11:22 ↗ to leave the car behind

1:11:24 ↗ public transportation is not necessarily

1:11:27 ↗ uh an option for me because it doesn't

1:11:30 ↗ exist i can get on the bus but the bus

1:11:32 ↗ takes me to the bus station not the not

1:11:34 ↗ the grocery store

1:11:35 ↗ so i'd like to see maybe some policy

1:11:38 ↗ added that says something about

1:11:40 ↗ local travel

1:11:42 ↗ using

1:11:43 ↗ the walk and roll strategy

1:11:46 ↗ uh okay uh that's all the questions

1:11:49 ↗ this is megan i have a follow-up

1:11:50 ↗ question for that actually um

1:11:53 ↗ so i think that c1 policy um is where

1:11:58 ↗ we're trying to get at reducing overall

1:12:00 ↗ automobile use by advancing shared so

1:12:02 ↗ that's you know carpooling or

1:12:05 ↗ van pools active would be walking biking

1:12:09 ↗ um and public transportation modes so i

1:12:12 ↗ have a question

1:12:13 ↗ on that does that does that capture that

1:12:15 ↗ or is do you think there needs to be

1:12:17 ↗ more explicit language there to capture

1:12:20 ↗ that we're trying to kind of transition

1:12:21 ↗ to some of those other alternative modes

1:12:24 ↗ i don't know what advanced shared means

1:12:26 ↗ uh active now that you mention it it

1:12:28 ↗ does sound like you know that the bike

1:12:31 ↗ could be uh bike and walk would be part

1:12:33 ↗ of that active but maybe a changing the

1:12:35 ↗ language so that's more

1:12:37 ↗ descriptive

1:12:38 ↗ or prescriptive

1:12:41 ↗ would have helped me because it's c1 is

1:12:43 ↗ a little ambiguous

1:12:45 ↗ otherwise

1:12:49 ↗ great and uh commissioner zargoza did

1:12:52 ↗ you have another question

1:12:55 ↗ uh no it was just a thumbs up to agree

1:12:57 ↗ that active could definitely be

1:12:59 ↗ um

1:13:02 ↗ iterated on a little more i'd love to

1:13:04 ↗ like you said see some more bike lanes

1:13:06 ↗ and safer ways to to to bike to stores

1:13:09 ↗ and things like that thanks

1:13:12 ↗ excellent thank you uh

1:13:15 ↗ may i jump in one more time this is

1:13:16 ↗ kristin leeson senior planner

1:13:19 ↗ um

1:13:21 ↗ excuse me

1:13:22 ↗ we have a policy in our

1:13:25 ↗ our goal

1:13:26 ↗ um in our

1:13:28 ↗ comprehensive plan that says provide

1:13:30 ↗ safe and comfortable streets that

1:13:32 ↗ encourage people to travel by walking

1:13:34 ↗ bicycling and transit

1:13:37 ↗ so if if megan were to refer to that

1:13:39 ↗ policy instead of duplicating policies

1:13:43 ↗ or sort of duplicating policies does

1:13:45 ↗ that work

1:13:47 ↗ yeah i would say so i don't want to

1:13:48 ↗ duplicate policies i want to make this

1:13:50 ↗ as easy as possible but have a

1:13:52 ↗ cross-reference to it yeah that would be

1:13:54 ↗ fine in my opinion i think that'd be

1:13:56 ↗ fine

1:14:00 ↗ uh okay we have a question from uh

1:14:02 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:14:05 ↗ thank you chairfall uh yeah commissioner

1:14:08 ↗ milligan here again and thank you for

1:14:09 ↗ bringing that up uh chair fall i just

1:14:11 ↗ want to add in the same way that kristen

1:14:13 ↗ did about the comp plan uh the mobility

1:14:15 ↗ master plan and i i don't have a

1:14:18 ↗ memorized but i did work on it for two

1:14:20 ↗ years and recall that we were very

1:14:23 ↗ focused on

1:14:24 ↗ these

1:14:27 ↗ mobility

1:14:28 ↗ options

1:14:29 ↗ that go somewhere you know that they

1:14:31 ↗ were destination oriented and we created

1:14:33 ↗ a map of places where people had to go

1:14:35 ↗ so the chair falls point it doesn't just

1:14:38 ↗ take you to

1:14:39 ↗ a transit center it takes you to where

1:14:41 ↗ you have to go your school your work

1:14:43 ↗ your shopping so there might be another

1:14:46 ↗ reference here that could

1:14:47 ↗ um not duplicate but leverage the

1:14:50 ↗ mobility master plan

1:14:52 ↗ that's all

1:14:55 ↗ hi it's it's kristen again um

1:14:58 ↗ so the mobility master plan because some

1:15:00 ↗ of you weren't here for that the

1:15:01 ↗ mobility master plan goals and policies

1:15:03 ↗ are our transportation plan i mean our

1:15:05 ↗ transportation element so everything

1:15:06 ↗ that was adopted and that sparkle goals

1:15:08 ↗ and policies are also in here so

1:15:11 ↗ if megan references

1:15:13 ↗ one she's referencing the other um

1:15:16 ↗ yeah

1:15:17 ↗ so

1:15:18 ↗ um we can just make sure that any

1:15:19 ↗ necessary references are there how about

1:15:22 ↗ that

1:15:27 ↗ good points thank you

1:15:29 ↗ okay not seen any additional questions

1:15:32 ↗ or comments let's move on to the next

1:15:34 ↗ goal here

1:15:39 ↗ gold d materials and consumption so

1:15:41 ↗ let's go ahead and open the floor to

1:15:43 ↗ questions or comments

1:15:46 ↗ and first commissioner is joy lewis

1:15:48 ↗ congratulations

1:15:50 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

1:15:52 ↗ lewis here i thought i'd take the hit

1:15:53 ↗ this time

1:15:55 ↗ um my question is actually um first of

1:15:58 ↗ all i want to start by saying megan that

1:15:59 ↗ i love that we have this right obviously

1:16:01 ↗ when we're doing a climate action plan

1:16:03 ↗ greenhouse gases are a big focus but

1:16:06 ↗ looking at environmental policy is a

1:16:08 ↗ much bigger scope so i want to say thank

1:16:10 ↗ you for this section i was very happy

1:16:12 ↗ about it i think it's a crucial part of

1:16:15 ↗ how we interact and uh in our space as a

1:16:17 ↗ community um and so for d1

1:16:21 ↗ um i'm curious um

1:16:23 ↗ is there a current um waste output um

1:16:26 ↗ evaluation metrics um that we know right

1:16:29 ↗ now is like how much are we waste are we

1:16:31 ↗ generating as a community um and if so

1:16:34 ↗ is those numbers going up in the same

1:16:35 ↗ way that our energy consumption has been

1:16:37 ↗ going up

1:16:43 ↗ this is megan

1:16:44 ↗ yes we do track our waste diversion

1:16:47 ↗ on an annual basis

1:16:49 ↗ so

1:16:50 ↗ right now

1:16:52 ↗ we break it out by sector so we have

1:16:53 ↗ single family multi-family and

1:16:55 ↗ commercial single family is the highest

1:16:58 ↗ and don't quote me on these exact

1:17:00 ↗ numbers but they're in the right

1:17:01 ↗ ballpark

1:17:02 ↗ single family is around 60 percent

1:17:05 ↗ multifamily around 27

1:17:08 ↗ and commercial around 23.

1:17:11 ↗ when you put all that together our

1:17:12 ↗ overall diversion rate is around 40

1:17:15 ↗ of materials are diverted

1:17:18 ↗ um

1:17:19 ↗ we

1:17:20 ↗ and we do yes we track that um

1:17:23 ↗ from our our waste hauler provides us

1:17:25 ↗ those reports on those numbers and so

1:17:28 ↗ that's one of our city's performance

1:17:30 ↗ measures that we report on annually

1:17:33 ↗ i'm curious then um i'm really glad that

1:17:35 ↗ we have that data going into because

1:17:37 ↗ that's super important

1:17:38 ↗ if so to be able to have

1:17:40 ↗ to achieve zero waste i'm curious if we

1:17:43 ↗ are wanting to break it apart by

1:17:45 ↗ percentage right is there a way that we

1:17:47 ↗ want to say to get to this this is how

1:17:50 ↗ we need to do it right to be able to say

1:17:53 ↗ since there's this much percentage here

1:17:54 ↗ then by this by this date we need to

1:17:56 ↗ have it reduced to this amount right the

1:17:58 ↗ same way that we have in other places in

1:18:00 ↗ the document

1:18:01 ↗ um and again i get that those other

1:18:03 ↗ percentage points were guided by

1:18:04 ↗ state and um county um numbers that were

1:18:07 ↗ already kind of being done for us but

1:18:09 ↗ i'm curious if there was a discussion

1:18:10 ↗ about in this section of saying how do

1:18:12 ↗ we to get to where we want to be how do

1:18:14 ↗ we how do we do that

1:18:17 ↗ this is megan um this

1:18:20 ↗ uh so this number is overall saying that

1:18:23 ↗ we want to have zero waste of resources

1:18:26 ↗ by 2030 so

1:18:28 ↗ anything that can be

1:18:30 ↗ we want to be reducing our waste first

1:18:32 ↗ anything that can be composted anything

1:18:35 ↗ that can be recycled

1:18:37 ↗ is going that way so previously the goal

1:18:40 ↗ was to have 70 percent diverted and now

1:18:43 ↗ it's

1:18:44 ↗ um it's to have you know everything

1:18:46 ↗ that's possible there's still some

1:18:48 ↗ things that are always going to be

1:18:49 ↗ garbage um

1:18:50 ↗ but everything that's possible and has

1:18:52 ↗ resource and value would be diverted

1:18:56 ↗ so has there been talk about things like

1:18:58 ↗ um

1:18:59 ↗ you know the um

1:19:01 ↗ having bringing back you know like the

1:19:03 ↗ um

1:19:04 ↗ yeah workstation that was formerly um by

1:19:07 ↗ the safeway that um that went away like

1:19:09 ↗ being able to bring back more like

1:19:10 ↗ community centers of places for

1:19:13 ↗ um you know encouraging

1:19:15 ↗ um other ways of being able to deal with

1:19:17 ↗ waste i mean is our how i'm curious to

1:19:20 ↗ kind of you know i know i'm carved for

1:19:22 ↗ the horsing a little bit but kind of

1:19:23 ↗ hear those actions that you guys are

1:19:25 ↗ talking about because i think it's

1:19:26 ↗ interesting looking at these policies

1:19:28 ↗ for me in this section it feels a little

1:19:30 ↗ more ominous like okay well how are we

1:19:31 ↗ going to do that right so if there's

1:19:33 ↗ some way to kind of bake in a little bit

1:19:34 ↗ of saying

1:19:36 ↗ and we'll be doing it with these

1:19:38 ↗ different tools right

1:19:43 ↗ this is megan so i think um some of that

1:19:46 ↗ can be done at the at the local action

1:19:49 ↗ level um some things that come to mind

1:19:51 ↗ is um

1:19:53 ↗ wanting to have more

1:19:55 ↗ uh repair cafes so instead of people um

1:19:59 ↗ you know throwing out their their

1:20:00 ↗ blender they're bringing it to repair

1:20:02 ↗ cafe getting it fixed

1:20:05 ↗ that was something we actually had

1:20:06 ↗ scheduled in the city but got cancelled

1:20:08 ↗ due to due to covid i remember those

1:20:10 ↗ days but we'll we'll bring it back again

1:20:12 ↗ so the actions would be encouraging

1:20:14 ↗ things like that

1:20:16 ↗ maybe actions around circular economy so

1:20:18 ↗ being able to

1:20:20 ↗ produce things in

1:20:22 ↗ the in the city that then also have

1:20:24 ↗ their um they're you know are turned

1:20:27 ↗ into new resources in the city so for

1:20:29 ↗ example um you know food waste being

1:20:33 ↗ either composted or

1:20:36 ↗ going to an anaerobic digester would

1:20:38 ↗ then produce renewable energy in the

1:20:40 ↗ city

1:20:41 ↗ so having those sorts of local things

1:20:44 ↗ not everything will be able to be

1:20:45 ↗ handled locally though um king county

1:20:48 ↗ has some staff that works on recycling

1:20:50 ↗ market development

1:20:52 ↗ um so for example some kind of hard

1:20:55 ↗ harder to recycle items include like

1:20:58 ↗ mattresses and rugs so those are items

1:21:01 ↗ that are being worked on more at a

1:21:03 ↗ regional level but through this local

1:21:05 ↗ level we would want to make sure that we

1:21:07 ↗ are providing the information and

1:21:09 ↗ resources to residents so that they know

1:21:11 ↗ how to

1:21:13 ↗ properly recycle those items

1:21:15 ↗ fantastic um i'm

1:21:18 ↗ i i'm sure that um there's a better way

1:21:21 ↗ to put it but i wish that um that we

1:21:24 ↗ were able to specify that a little bit

1:21:26 ↗ more in d1 right and some way to be able

1:21:29 ↗ to have it feel like

1:21:32 ↗ um

1:21:35 ↗ uh see a little more strategy in the

1:21:37 ↗ policy maybe i'm also wanting to see a

1:21:40 ↗ policy which would be like a d4

1:21:42 ↗ effectively that would talk about

1:21:44 ↗ how municipal waste management is going

1:21:46 ↗ to be leading the community right so

1:21:48 ↗ being able to say um we have you know

1:21:51 ↗ expectations in our community and the

1:21:53 ↗ city is going to

1:21:55 ↗ lead that by saying we are going to

1:21:58 ↗ have an aggressive plan for our own

1:22:00 ↗ waste i would like to see that

1:22:02 ↗ specifically called out as well and for

1:22:04 ↗ d thank you

1:22:13 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner lewis

1:22:15 ↗ are there any additional questions for

1:22:17 ↗ materials and consumptions

1:22:22 ↗ not seen any so let's go ahead and move

1:22:24 ↗ on to the next goal which is goal e

1:22:26 ↗ natural systems and water resources and

1:22:28 ↗ we'll go ahead and open the floor

1:22:42 ↗ hey and jason you have the floor

1:22:46 ↗ so commissioner lewis bit the bullet

1:22:48 ↗ last time so i will this time

1:22:51 ↗ so i i think this might actually kind of

1:22:52 ↗ speak to what joy had just mentioned

1:22:54 ↗ maybe possibly another category and we

1:22:57 ↗ saw it in quite a few emails i believe i

1:22:59 ↗ can't remember the name

1:23:01 ↗ but maybe making it a priority the part

1:23:03 ↗ of these this tree canopy that we're

1:23:04 ↗ developing trying to achieve our 51

1:23:06 ↗ percent

1:23:07 ↗ might actually

1:23:10 ↗ prioritize rivers and streams to allow

1:23:13 ↗ the salmon's eggs i don't know the

1:23:15 ↗ technical term but prioritizing where we

1:23:18 ↗ try and put that investment

1:23:20 ↗ there's a few other things mentioned

1:23:24 ↗ but again i know we're kind of looking

1:23:25 ↗ at the higher view right now so i'm not

1:23:27 ↗ going to try and get into that but i

1:23:29 ↗ would say one for maybe another policy

1:23:30 ↗ goal would be to prioritize

1:23:33 ↗ some of our developing tree canopy to

1:23:35 ↗ also take it like you know tuber you

1:23:38 ↗ know two birds one stone type thing so

1:23:40 ↗ prioritizing where we plant these trees

1:23:42 ↗ um to ensure this the continued health

1:23:45 ↗ of our rivers and streams

1:23:52 ↗ thank you commissioner voice uh next

1:23:55 ↗ person here is commissioner zargoza you

1:23:57 ↗ have the floor

1:23:59 ↗ thank you chair uh

1:24:01 ↗ commissioner zaragoza my question

1:24:04 ↗ i mean i think it's definitely important

1:24:06 ↗ prioritizing

1:24:07 ↗ where canopies are going i

1:24:10 ↗ i totally agree

1:24:12 ↗ that having them around

1:24:14 ↗ streams is super important but also

1:24:16 ↗ um

1:24:17 ↗ species choice right do we

1:24:20 ↗ this is a question in our opinion either

1:24:22 ↗ way do

1:24:23 ↗ do we prioritize uh

1:24:25 ↗ species that are local that are natural

1:24:27 ↗ to the environment or do we prioritize

1:24:29 ↗ species that

1:24:31 ↗ you know have

1:24:32 ↗ gains in in

1:24:34 ↗ you know carbon capture and

1:24:36 ↗ things like that or that they grow

1:24:38 ↗ faster so that we can you know

1:24:41 ↗ uh capture more carbon over lar over a

1:24:44 ↗ shorter period of time

1:24:46 ↗ um of course they're going to be

1:24:49 ↗ you know other issues you know

1:24:51 ↗ environmental issues if we do that but i

1:24:53 ↗ think you know there's kind of two goals

1:24:55 ↗ there right keeping

1:24:57 ↗ you know our environment

1:24:59 ↗ um

1:25:01 ↗ local and

1:25:02 ↗ the environment kind of the way we want

1:25:04 ↗ it to be the way issaquah should look

1:25:06 ↗ because we have certain kinds of trees

1:25:07 ↗ perhaps

1:25:09 ↗ but also

1:25:10 ↗ you know certain species have huge

1:25:12 ↗ advantages i think when it comes to

1:25:15 ↗ apartments so curious uh if there's been

1:25:17 ↗ discussion or thoughts around that

1:25:20 ↗ thanks

1:25:21 ↗ this is megan uh yes that's something

1:25:24 ↗ our our parks department

1:25:26 ↗ does a lot of work on making sure we're

1:25:28 ↗ doing the the right right trees in the

1:25:31 ↗ right places and with the changing

1:25:32 ↗ climate there are there are some tree

1:25:34 ↗ species that aren't doing as well that

1:25:36 ↗ used to do better here um so making sure

1:25:39 ↗ they're paying attention to that

1:25:41 ↗ and the second part of that making sure

1:25:43 ↗ that they're

1:25:45 ↗ you know maintaining them and and

1:25:47 ↗ keeping them healthy

1:25:48 ↗ so there's the green issaquah

1:25:50 ↗ partnership which is a new program where

1:25:53 ↗ the city is helping to train forest

1:25:55 ↗ stewards um so they're going out and you

1:25:57 ↗ know removing um in bases and making

1:26:01 ↗ sure that the trees are staying healthy

1:26:03 ↗ um but but yes making sure that we have

1:26:06 ↗ the the right the right species for a

1:26:08 ↗ changing climate

1:26:12 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner zargozo

1:26:15 ↗ uh commissioner milligan you have the

1:26:17 ↗ floor

1:26:18 ↗ thank you chair paul commissioner

1:26:20 ↗ milligan here i have a quick question

1:26:22 ↗ and then a follow-up question megan

1:26:24 ↗ what is our current

1:26:26 ↗ percentage tree canopy

1:26:29 ↗ in this regard total is quiet rich

1:26:32 ↗ we did a tree campy study in 2009 and we

1:26:36 ↗ are at 51

1:26:42 ↗ i want to follow up uh that's

1:26:44 ↗ interesting i was just looking at

1:26:45 ↗ something that was um from the office of

1:26:48 ↗ sustainability indicators in 2010 that

1:26:50 ↗ it was 59

1:26:53 ↗ so our tree canopy

1:26:54 ↗ objectives

1:26:56 ↗ have gone down i'm not sure but uh let

1:26:58 ↗ me i'll let you um comment on that along

1:27:02 ↗ with a question that i've heard from the

1:27:03 ↗ public before and i want to uh resurface

1:27:07 ↗ and that is how does a city like

1:27:10 ↗ issaquah

1:27:11 ↗ that within city limits has so much

1:27:14 ↗ forested land tiger mountain

1:27:16 ↗ and other uh parks and and really

1:27:19 ↗ heavily forested areas how do we

1:27:22 ↗ um

1:27:23 ↗ take into account

1:27:26 ↗ that when we establish what our goal is

1:27:29 ↗ which should be i think quite different

1:27:31 ↗ from

1:27:33 ↗ bellevue london bellevue because billy's

1:27:34 ↗ got a lot of force to plan too but um

1:27:38 ↗ redmond and seattle and

1:27:40 ↗ wooden bill you know we how do we how do

1:27:43 ↗ we take into account our parks thank you

1:27:50 ↗ this is megan uh for the first part of

1:27:52 ↗ that i believe that the the last

1:27:54 ↗ sustainability indicators report

1:27:56 ↗ from 2016 i think it was 49

1:28:00 ↗ not 59 percent

1:28:02 ↗ is what i'm remembering um or 48 uh so

1:28:07 ↗ then and then we got up to the 51

1:28:11 ↗ um

1:28:12 ↗ for the second piece um i don't know if

1:28:16 ↗ i quite caught the question in that i

1:28:18 ↗ apologize

1:28:20 ↗ thank you yeah we're both juggling all

1:28:22 ↗ our um our resources here and let me

1:28:24 ↗ clarify it was the sustainability

1:28:25 ↗ indicators of 2010.

1:28:28 ↗ 2010 said that we were 59 percent tree

1:28:31 ↗ canopy

1:28:33 ↗ uh and the second part of the question

1:28:34 ↗ was how does a city like issaquah

1:28:37 ↗ adjust its tree canopy objectives or

1:28:41 ↗ goals in a percentage like other cities

1:28:43 ↗ do

1:28:44 ↗ when our city is full of forested parks

1:28:48 ↗ thousands of acres of forested parks

1:28:51 ↗ that other cities don't have so how does

1:28:53 ↗ that come into play when we're trying to

1:28:55 ↗ keep the rest of our city with a strong

1:28:57 ↗ tree canopy too is our percentage higher

1:29:01 ↗ than other cities i guess it's another

1:29:03 ↗ way of putting that

1:29:06 ↗ uh it is higher than several of the

1:29:09 ↗ other cities but you know each city does

1:29:12 ↗ have a different a different landscape

1:29:14 ↗ um different

1:29:16 ↗ building patterns and all of that

1:29:19 ↗ i think that's something that we are

1:29:20 ↗ trying to work on um

1:29:23 ↗ in in title 18 and the climate action

1:29:26 ↗ plan is is making sure that we're able

1:29:28 ↗ to maintain um and retain what we have

1:29:31 ↗ with this with this 51 percent um so

1:29:35 ↗ they're we're trying to keep the

1:29:36 ↗ development in the valley floor we're

1:29:39 ↗ trying to preserve the areas that we

1:29:41 ↗ have

1:29:42 ↗ the city does do

1:29:45 ↗ tree planting campaigns as well

1:29:48 ↗ so for example last year the city

1:29:50 ↗ planted

1:29:51 ↗ 10 000

1:29:53 ↗ trees in the city in various areas

1:29:56 ↗ um

1:29:57 ↗ so we're definitely trying to you know

1:29:59 ↗ improve on that but also wanting to make

1:30:01 ↗ sure that we take care of the the ones

1:30:03 ↗ that we have kind of getting to um

1:30:06 ↗ uh commissioners are go goes comment

1:30:09 ↗ about wanting to make sure um that the

1:30:12 ↗ trees stay healthy so that they're doing

1:30:14 ↗ the jobs that they need to do shading

1:30:16 ↗ sequestration and those pieces

1:30:20 ↗ i hope that answered your question i'm

1:30:21 ↗ not sure if it entirely did

1:30:28 ↗ and thank you commissioner milligan

1:30:30 ↗ commissioner lewis you have the floor

1:30:34 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

1:30:36 ↗ lewis here

1:30:37 ↗ you know in regards to e i think nina

1:30:40 ↗ had uh had some of my um same questions

1:30:44 ↗ and so what i want to do is to kind of

1:30:47 ↗ continue

1:30:49 ↗ her her dialogue in my mouth by saying

1:30:51 ↗ you know when we

1:30:53 ↗ when we look at so it was my

1:30:54 ↗ understanding that we were at that 51

1:30:57 ↗ right and so i guess what i'm concerned

1:30:59 ↗ about is this idea of retaining what we

1:31:03 ↗ have i think was the language that you

1:31:04 ↗ had used versus you know pushing towards

1:31:07 ↗ increasing and improving um which this

1:31:11 ↗ document needs to feel forward-facing to

1:31:14 ↗ me um and i think

1:31:16 ↗ that um

1:31:18 ↗ all that we've given and we know being

1:31:20 ↗ able to protect our natural systems

1:31:22 ↗ means that as a community we need to be

1:31:24 ↗ setting the bar higher i don't know if

1:31:26 ↗ that means changing the 51 i've always i

1:31:30 ↗ mean i've always felt it a little bit

1:31:31 ↗ black box why it was at 51 i've never

1:31:34 ↗ quite understood those numbers but parks

1:31:36 ↗ likes to tell us this is good and this

1:31:38 ↗ is great and so we go okay this is what

1:31:40 ↗ you think is all right um but the idea

1:31:43 ↗ that we're just

1:31:44 ↗ maintaining a status quo to me doesn't

1:31:47 ↗ feel um

1:31:49 ↗ necessary um and vital in this document

1:31:52 ↗ it feels regressive

1:31:53 ↗ so um well maybe a way to do that is to

1:31:57 ↗ push for a different tree canopy um

1:31:59 ↗ for that total acreage maybe it's to

1:32:02 ↗ have language that talks about how well

1:32:05 ↗ this is our um the tree canopy

1:32:08 ↗ um that we have higher expectations

1:32:11 ↗ moving forward for how

1:32:13 ↗ um

1:32:14 ↗ how we you know how we do things i'm not

1:32:16 ↗ quite sure but um i definitely felt like

1:32:18 ↗ e1 was a little um

1:32:21 ↗ a little light right compared to the

1:32:23 ↗ values of our community and so i would

1:32:25 ↗ encourage kind of re-looking at that and

1:32:27 ↗ i don't want to sit here saying that i

1:32:28 ↗ think that we need to actively change

1:32:30 ↗ that because again that tree canopy

1:32:31 ↗ number um feels very um

1:32:35 ↗ it's something i see all the time right

1:32:37 ↗ whenever we're reviewing parks documents

1:32:39 ↗ and things so it's something that is

1:32:40 ↗ very normative to me but when i was

1:32:43 ↗ hoping that these policies would promote

1:32:45 ↗ something a little bit more aggressive

1:32:47 ↗ um and again i don't know if that means

1:32:48 ↗ we need to change that number but

1:32:50 ↗ something something's off right there

1:32:52 ↗ when we're just talking about retaining

1:32:54 ↗ what we have

1:32:55 ↗ um

1:32:56 ↗ the other thing i felt was missing from

1:32:58 ↗ me is kind of the concept of a do no

1:33:00 ↗ harm

1:33:01 ↗ um evaluation of future policies in here

1:33:05 ↗ so um

1:33:06 ↗ you know not to pick on richard but he

1:33:08 ↗ mentioned 5g and right now the science

1:33:10 ↗ is telling us pretty unequivocally that

1:33:12 ↗ 5g is killing bees

1:33:14 ↗ i mean just rapidly and annihilating

1:33:16 ↗ these um i have serious concerns about

1:33:19 ↗ 5g right i think that there's a

1:33:21 ↗ different in a better way that we can

1:33:22 ↗ have connectivity and mobility without

1:33:24 ↗ decimating pollinators so um i

1:33:28 ↗ um what i worry about is having um

1:33:32 ↗ economics drive this rather than having

1:33:35 ↗ um the needs that we have in our natural

1:33:37 ↗ systems

1:33:39 ↗ so um i i was liking the idea of having

1:33:42 ↗ some smart policy that talks about

1:33:44 ↗ really looking at all of our policies

1:33:46 ↗ through this lens right it's not that we

1:33:47 ↗ have this area of you know climate

1:33:50 ↗ evaluation um in our policies that we

1:33:52 ↗ look at all of our policies through the

1:33:55 ↗ lens of climate change and the things

1:33:57 ↗ that are coming down the pipeline that

1:33:58 ↗ we want to be able to improve because we

1:34:00 ↗ know that we have this narrow window to

1:34:02 ↗ do something about it um so i would like

1:34:04 ↗ to see a policy that really kind of

1:34:06 ↗ talks about this do no harm right as

1:34:08 ↗ we're moving forward um in our city if

1:34:11 ↗ we're doing something that has an

1:34:12 ↗ evaluation that there's an upper hand to

1:34:16 ↗ to the environment if that makes sense

1:34:18 ↗ again i didn't worksmith a policy um so

1:34:21 ↗ if you want me offline help it out but

1:34:24 ↗ to me that wasn't coming through right

1:34:26 ↗ and i think that this might be a natural

1:34:27 ↗ section to talk about how what a

1:34:28 ↗ priority it is um

1:34:31 ↗ i also was curious if this would be a

1:34:33 ↗ good place to talk about um chemical

1:34:35 ↗ discharging um and banning the use of it

1:34:38 ↗ um i think that

1:34:39 ↗ um being um a progressive city means

1:34:43 ↗ that we need to talk about people buying

1:34:45 ↗ roundup to dump on um

1:34:48 ↗ you know

1:34:49 ↗ a small wheat right i mean as a

1:34:51 ↗ community we need to start talking about

1:34:52 ↗ um with stormwater management well what

1:34:54 ↗ are we putting in the ground is it okay

1:34:56 ↗ that i can i can buy a whole host of

1:34:58 ↗ chemicals to be able to say i don't like

1:35:00 ↗ that dandelion right i mean there needs

1:35:02 ↗ to be some sort of

1:35:03 ↗ way that we're talking about how we're

1:35:06 ↗ interacting with our water systems and

1:35:07 ↗ what we're using and taking a stand of

1:35:09 ↗ saying this isn't acceptable in our

1:35:11 ↗ community

1:35:12 ↗ and i think that um you know in one way

1:35:13 ↗ we talked about waste earlier i think

1:35:15 ↗ talking about um chemicals um getting

1:35:18 ↗ into our water system is a really

1:35:20 ↗ serious issue especially when we talk

1:35:22 ↗ about the health of salmonoids in our

1:35:24 ↗ streams

1:35:25 ↗ and i think the e is a natural place to

1:35:27 ↗ be talking about that so those are my

1:35:29 ↗ two suggestions for this

1:35:31 ↗ please feel free to to let me know if

1:35:33 ↗ you

1:35:34 ↗ think those are totally out of bounds

1:35:40 ↗ this is megan i think for i think for

1:35:42 ↗ now mostly take the comment and kind of

1:35:45 ↗ and digest it um we do have i know we do

1:35:48 ↗ have some ipm policies in

1:35:51 ↗ the comp plan um

1:35:53 ↗ i think it's in a sustainability section

1:35:56 ↗ that which is i think right below the

1:35:58 ↗ climate section i'm doing this from

1:36:00 ↗ memory though um so i believe there is

1:36:03 ↗ policies there

1:36:05 ↗ um i think we don't have it captured

1:36:08 ↗ uh here because it's not directly re

1:36:11 ↗ related to climate but it is a

1:36:13 ↗ sustainability policy that is important

1:36:16 ↗ for our city for salmon um and something

1:36:19 ↗ that's also in the stormwater master

1:36:20 ↗ plan so i think that's something we've

1:36:22 ↗ kind of talked about you know how

1:36:24 ↗ how big is this climate action plan is

1:36:27 ↗ it the all-inclusive or is or are there

1:36:29 ↗ some things that you know are

1:36:30 ↗ represented other places of the city um

1:36:33 ↗ that aren't in this plan

1:36:42 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner

1:36:44 ↗ lewis

1:36:45 ↗ and next person here is commissioner

1:36:47 ↗ boyce

1:36:49 ↗ thank you chair so

1:36:51 ↗ yeah i know and i i kind of that's the

1:36:53 ↗ way i'm feeling about the whole thing is

1:36:54 ↗ again we have other boards and

1:36:56 ↗ commissions that we're depending on to

1:36:58 ↗ do their job well we're

1:37:00 ↗ all kind of focusing on our job but

1:37:02 ↗ because we've been asked about climate

1:37:04 ↗ change um one of the things i was

1:37:06 ↗ wondering and this goes back to

1:37:08 ↗ commissioner milligan's point

1:37:10 ↗ is so if so much of and i think even joy

1:37:13 ↗ had mentioned this so 51

1:37:15 ↗ of the tree canopy is heavily weighted

1:37:17 ↗ right by the forests that we have um

1:37:20 ↗ does it make any sense that there might

1:37:22 ↗ be something more

1:37:23 ↗ um appropriate for like

1:37:26 ↗ the livable part of the city

1:37:28 ↗ whether it's like a prescription or

1:37:29 ↗ percentage right because you still have

1:37:31 ↗ these heat spots in the in the center of

1:37:32 ↗ issaquah um so right so we're waiting

1:37:35 ↗ all of our tree canopy

1:37:38 ↗ on tiger and squawk and it's wonderful

1:37:40 ↗ and we want to keep that

1:37:41 ↗ but at the same time you know it far

1:37:44 ↗ outweighs it you can walk on gilman and

1:37:45 ↗ get sunburned within five minutes and

1:37:47 ↗ there's no shade for you so i just don't

1:37:49 ↗ know like i said i mean it sounds good i

1:37:52 ↗ think to commissioner lewis's point i

1:37:54 ↗ don't really know how 51 i'm i'm sure

1:37:56 ↗ the parks board does much more work than

1:37:59 ↗ we're expected to do on that particular

1:38:01 ↗ subject

1:38:02 ↗ i just wonder if anyone's taking into

1:38:04 ↗ consideration right so our forests are

1:38:06 ↗ so heavily weighted

1:38:08 ↗ in our formula and then like i said you

1:38:11 ↗ can walk down gilman and get sunburned

1:38:13 ↗ within five minutes and i and again i

1:38:14 ↗ forget these terms because this really

1:38:16 ↗ isn't my expertise at all

1:38:18 ↗ but um like sun spots or not even

1:38:20 ↗ sunspots i think um

1:38:23 ↗ nina had mentioned food deserts so

1:38:25 ↗ there's some

1:38:26 ↗ similar phrase used for like areas that

1:38:28 ↗ are just getting beat and sweltering

1:38:30 ↗ heat

1:38:31 ↗ and again like i said so everyone's

1:38:33 ↗ tapping you know patting themselves on

1:38:35 ↗ the back for 51 percent coverage

1:38:38 ↗ um yet the central is aqua area and

1:38:41 ↗ maybe some neighborhoods have almost

1:38:43 ↗ limited tree coverage um because again

1:38:45 ↗ what's weighted so far over here so i

1:38:47 ↗ don't know if that's being looked at i'm

1:38:49 ↗ sure it is by our colleagues on the

1:38:51 ↗ other boards and commissions um but i

1:38:53 ↗ don't know like i said if that's

1:38:54 ↗ appropriate here in the climate action

1:38:56 ↗ plan to make a difference

1:38:58 ↗ or differentiate between our forests and

1:39:01 ↗ our actual livable areas where like i

1:39:03 ↗ said so much of it's weighted

1:39:06 ↗ in areas that we don't live in

1:39:08 ↗ our

1:39:09 ↗ our

1:39:10 ↗ friendly animal neighbors live in but

1:39:12 ↗ not us

1:39:16 ↗ and thank you commissioner voice uh to

1:39:18 ↗ commissioner voice's um

1:39:20 ↗ comment there

1:39:22 ↗ there are heat deserts

1:39:24 ↗ uh in fact i saw a commercial or not a

1:39:27 ↗ commercial a um documentary on heat

1:39:29 ↗ deserts in east l.a

1:39:32 ↗ and

1:39:33 ↗ the

1:39:34 ↗ lower income neighborhoods don't have

1:39:37 ↗ they have fewer trees and therefore they

1:39:39 ↗ need more resources to keep their houses

1:39:41 ↗ cool and therefore they increase their

1:39:43 ↗ carbon footprint so

1:39:45 ↗ um

1:39:46 ↗ maybe having a policy in here that says

1:39:49 ↗ we need mature tree coverage

1:39:52 ↗ in neighborhoods that way people's

1:39:55 ↗ houses will stay cooler in the summer

1:39:57 ↗ and we know that summers are going to

1:39:59 ↗ get hotter and that's one way we can

1:40:01 ↗ reduce our carbon footprint by

1:40:03 ↗ helping people uh

1:40:05 ↗ not use air conditioning in their homes

1:40:10 ↗ i would also like to comment though i

1:40:12 ↗ noticed that when i walk

1:40:15 ↗ the city

1:40:16 ↗ i do smell weed killer

1:40:19 ↗ along the issaquah creek

1:40:21 ↗ so when i'm taking our dogs for a walk

1:40:24 ↗ and we're walking along there's a claw

1:40:25 ↗ creek

1:40:26 ↗ the

1:40:27 ↗ and the rainier trail i can smell the

1:40:29 ↗ weed killer so

1:40:31 ↗ maybe we should be looking at not using

1:40:34 ↗ weed killer because we know that weed

1:40:36 ↗ killer does get into the streams

1:40:39 ↗ but also maybe making it more

1:40:42 ↗ um

1:40:44 ↗ like a bag ban

1:40:45 ↗ ban certain pesticides or herbicides

1:40:48 ↗ like roundup which

1:40:51 ↗ the united states is the only country in

1:40:53 ↗ the world that actually allows roundup

1:40:54 ↗ to be used

1:40:56 ↗ uh

1:40:57 ↗ if we can ban

1:40:58 ↗ to sell plastic bags in our community

1:41:00 ↗ maybe we can ban the use ban the sale of

1:41:04 ↗ roundup or

1:41:06 ↗ high-risk

1:41:08 ↗ highly toxic

1:41:10 ↗ herbicides

1:41:13 ↗ and i don't know if that would be

1:41:15 ↗ a separate policy but

1:41:18 ↗ [Music]

1:41:20 ↗ i don't see anything in here

1:41:23 ↗ discussing

1:41:24 ↗ the use of toxic chemicals and

1:41:27 ↗ herbicides and pesticides and so on

1:41:30 ↗ and

1:41:30 ↗ i think we should be having some policy

1:41:33 ↗ language in here

1:41:34 ↗ that would be appropriate

1:41:40 ↗ okay uh so that was my last question and

1:41:42 ↗ no one else had any additional questions

1:41:46 ↗ uh let's go ahead and move on to

1:41:49 ↗ uh goal f which is the last goal

1:41:52 ↗ community resilience and webbing uh

1:41:54 ↗ well-being

1:41:58 ↗ i'll open the floor for questions

1:42:13 ↗ okay and commissioner lewis

1:42:15 ↗ you got the floor

1:42:17 ↗ thank you cheerful um i have a i have a

1:42:20 ↗ i had a serious i saw a serious gap

1:42:24 ↗ when i was reading this document and i

1:42:26 ↗ decided that f was the place for me to

1:42:28 ↗ put it so everyone's gonna have to be a

1:42:30 ↗ little bit gentle in my soapbox right

1:42:31 ↗ now um we love to talk about green

1:42:33 ↗ energy right but the thing is is that it

1:42:35 ↗ actually takes quite a bit of resources

1:42:37 ↗ to achieve green energy right so the

1:42:39 ↗ mining and extraction of minerals silver

1:42:42 ↗ for solar panels

1:42:44 ↗ there's there's a wide variety array of

1:42:48 ↗ really detrimental effects on the

1:42:50 ↗ environment that are going to be

1:42:51 ↗ happening as we transition to green

1:42:53 ↗ energy

1:42:54 ↗ and um the deforestation of hillsides is

1:42:57 ↗ a common thing that happens with mining

1:42:59 ↗ um right now actually we are over mining

1:43:02 ↗ the earth and right now we're around 82

1:43:04 ↗ past uh as a sustainable amount of

1:43:06 ↗ mining and that's only going to

1:43:08 ↗ completely catapult um out of control

1:43:11 ↗ right so

1:43:12 ↗ i think it's really important when we

1:43:13 ↗ talk about um

1:43:15 ↗ this climate change action plan to be

1:43:17 ↗ looking at the entire whole of what our

1:43:20 ↗ actions are um and so uh i was

1:43:23 ↗ disappointed to not see that mentioned

1:43:24 ↗ in this document and i think that it's

1:43:26 ↗ important um here at f to really talk

1:43:29 ↗ about plans to transition

1:43:31 ↗ to green energy needs being accompanied

1:43:34 ↗ by a planned reduction of aggregate

1:43:36 ↗ energy use

1:43:37 ↗ reducing our energy demand not only

1:43:40 ↗ enables a faster transition to

1:43:42 ↗ renewables but it also ensures that that

1:43:44 ↗ transition doesn't trigger a new wave of

1:43:46 ↗ destruction um and so when we saw that

1:43:49 ↗ data that our city has actually been

1:43:51 ↗ using more energy it's nice to talk

1:43:53 ↗ about where we get our energy from but

1:43:54 ↗ it's vitally important that we talk

1:43:56 ↗ again about drastically reducing that

1:43:59 ↗ aggregate energy use

1:44:01 ↗ and i know that it's not a popular thing

1:44:03 ↗ to tell everybody that you can't have an

1:44:05 ↗ suv and a mcmansion and everything that

1:44:08 ↗ you want and be able to throw it all

1:44:10 ↗ away and what do you mean um

1:44:13 ↗ i can't just you know wish cycle

1:44:14 ↗ everything away but this

1:44:17 ↗ section f is a way for us to actually

1:44:19 ↗ start setting our intention as a

1:44:21 ↗ community of something that is more

1:44:23 ↗ aggressive um as saying what what are we

1:44:26 ↗ consuming as a community and what are we

1:44:29 ↗ actually willing to say is how are we

1:44:31 ↗ contributing to the problem so i would

1:44:34 ↗ like to see something in f that talks

1:44:36 ↗ about

1:44:38 ↗ about that energy use

1:44:45 ↗ this is megan am i able to i'll take a

1:44:47 ↗ minute to respond to that um

1:44:50 ↗ the i think we do have stuff about

1:44:52 ↗ reducing overall energy use in the

1:44:54 ↗ building and energy

1:44:57 ↗ category um so specifically we talking

1:45:00 ↗ about reducing energy use from

1:45:03 ↗ existing buildings and making sure we're

1:45:05 ↗ using less and new buildings so are you

1:45:07 ↗ saying you also want to see

1:45:09 ↗ more in like around climate resilience

1:45:12 ↗ in that

1:45:13 ↗ i do so right now you're automatically

1:45:15 ↗ going to be using less energy by

1:45:17 ↗ upgrading to more um modern ways right

1:45:20 ↗ whether you're putting in new windows

1:45:21 ↗ but taking away that old infrastructure

1:45:24 ↗ right what i'm talking about is

1:45:25 ↗ something actually that's more

1:45:26 ↗ aggressive right now in in the

1:45:28 ↗ renewables um community right is the

1:45:31 ↗ actual discussion of saying how in the

1:45:32 ↗ industrial world are we using our energy

1:45:35 ↗ um and how does um how can that actually

1:45:38 ↗ change how can we actually not decrease

1:45:39 ↗ it from being able to upgrade technology

1:45:41 ↗ but actually decrease our energy uses so

1:45:44 ↗ um

1:45:45 ↗ uh when we talk about that um you know

1:45:47 ↗ that has brought up the 15-minute city

1:45:49 ↗ right richard's been a proponent of how

1:45:50 ↗ do we make um working from home more

1:45:53 ↗ accessible to more people right there's

1:45:54 ↗ a lot of ways that we can reduce our

1:45:55 ↗ energy footprint but i don't see

1:45:57 ↗ language in these policies that talks

1:45:59 ↗ about

1:46:00 ↗ um how do we further reduce um and be um

1:46:04 ↗ and be a community that isn't increasing

1:46:07 ↗ our energy need right because as we

1:46:08 ↗ continue to grow and have more people

1:46:10 ↗ our energy need increases

1:46:12 ↗ so we're talking a lot about how

1:46:14 ↗ we um where we get that energy from and

1:46:17 ↗ what i'm talking about is actually that

1:46:19 ↗ aggregate energy use and being able to

1:46:21 ↗ actually say that we're making an impact

1:46:23 ↗ on how we change the way that we live as

1:46:25 ↗ a community um

1:46:26 ↗ so um i i don't see that represented

1:46:30 ↗ right now in f

1:46:31 ↗ so again that could be a value system

1:46:33 ↗ right that we decide as a community we

1:46:35 ↗ don't have but it's the predominant view

1:46:37 ↗ right now of saying that in the

1:46:39 ↗ industrialized world we need to actually

1:46:41 ↗ change the way that we're interacting in

1:46:43 ↗ our environment as well

1:46:46 ↗ thank you this is this is megan i need

1:46:47 ↗ to grab my computer cord i apologize for

1:46:51 ↗ that i think it could be about one

1:46:52 ↗ minute so i'll be right back so

1:46:55 ↗ again maybe that's something that um i'm

1:46:57 ↗ alone i'll be happy to hear from my

1:46:59 ↗ fellow commissioners but i will turn it

1:47:01 ↗ over back to ron thank you

1:47:06 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis uh we're

1:47:08 ↗ gonna go ahead and i've got two more

1:47:09 ↗ people uh in line here

1:47:13 ↗ that's

1:47:16 ↗ we'll just i guess we'll just camp out

1:47:17 ↗ until uh she gets back she's probably

1:47:19 ↗ only gonna be 60 seconds

1:49:42 ↗ excellent

1:49:44 ↗ let's go ahead and move on to the next

1:49:45 ↗ commissioner uh commissioner milligan

1:49:47 ↗ you have the floor

1:49:50 ↗ thank you chairfall and thank you

1:49:53 ↗ commissioner lewis move over on that

1:49:56 ↗ soapbox i

1:49:57 ↗ am gladly joining you i'm so glad you

1:50:00 ↗ brought that up be bold girl that's

1:50:03 ↗ great the um

1:50:06 ↗ the

1:50:07 ↗ declaration that renewable energies

1:50:09 ↗ aren't that green because of the mining

1:50:13 ↗ damage on our planet is something that

1:50:16 ↗ people want to hide their eyes from

1:50:18 ↗ and

1:50:19 ↗ it is it is a shame and the only really

1:50:22 ↗ green thing to do

1:50:23 ↗ is to use last of everything indeed you

1:50:27 ↗ are right on target commissioner lewis

1:50:29 ↗ and maybe um you're looking at this

1:50:31 ↗ section but i uh

1:50:34 ↗ for that moment that we had that quiet

1:50:35 ↗ moment we had went back and looked at

1:50:37 ↗ section a and maybe in section a there's

1:50:39 ↗ an opportunity to make a bold statement

1:50:41 ↗ that says

1:50:42 ↗ we know that even renewable energies

1:50:45 ↗ aren't green enough for us aqua

1:50:47 ↗ the only thing that's green enough is

1:50:49 ↗ using less being having a less of an

1:50:53 ↗ impact

1:50:54 ↗ on our planet maybe there's a way of

1:50:58 ↗ putting a stake in the ground like that

1:50:59 ↗ so

1:51:00 ↗ i'm standing up here on the soapbox with

1:51:02 ↗ you joey where are we going next

1:51:05 ↗ thank you

1:51:07 ↗ and thank you commissioner milligan and

1:51:09 ↗ i like what both of you have said about

1:51:11 ↗ that it's

1:51:13 ↗ maybe we should look at it a little bit

1:51:14 ↗ differently instead of focusing all of

1:51:17 ↗ our efforts on renewable energy

1:51:19 ↗ focus on renewable energy but using less

1:51:22 ↗ and

1:51:23 ↗ with the advancements of leds we think

1:51:25 ↗ oh we can just leave lights on it's only

1:51:27 ↗ like

1:51:28 ↗ two or three watts but it adds up

1:51:32 ↗ okay uh richard zargozo you have a floor

1:51:39 ↗ thank you chair richard saragosa so my

1:51:41 ↗ questions are around

1:51:44 ↗ um

1:51:44 ↗ [Music]

1:51:47 ↗ the actual climate emergencies are being

1:51:49 ↗ prepared for that being resilient for

1:51:51 ↗ that is there

1:51:53 ↗ you know are we talking about funds when

1:51:56 ↗ you know from property damage from

1:51:58 ↗ issues that are coming up from climate

1:52:00 ↗ how are you know or do we have plans to

1:52:02 ↗ help

1:52:03 ↗ when there is

1:52:05 ↗ you know flooding issues

1:52:07 ↗ you know when you know these trees are

1:52:10 ↗ damaged by

1:52:12 ↗ um

1:52:13 ↗ you know heat waves like we just had i

1:52:15 ↗ know i lost a good portion of

1:52:17 ↗ the garden in my place

1:52:19 ↗ um

1:52:19 ↗ [Music]

1:52:21 ↗ how are we how you know how how do we

1:52:23 ↗ see that actually happening as far as

1:52:25 ↗ like helping the community kind of

1:52:27 ↗ bounce back when these climate

1:52:30 ↗ emergencies happen and and hopefully not

1:52:32 ↗ uh consecutively so

1:52:44 ↗ this is megan

1:52:45 ↗ um yes i think that having um

1:52:49 ↗ actions in the plan that are both um

1:52:53 ↗ things that the city is doing to help

1:52:55 ↗ prepare for the climate emergency some

1:52:57 ↗ of which cities already doing such as

1:53:00 ↗ setting up cooling centers when it's

1:53:02 ↗ really hot

1:53:03 ↗ the city also

1:53:05 ↗ just hired a new emergency manager

1:53:09 ↗ who will be looking at

1:53:11 ↗ emergencies in general

1:53:13 ↗ climate or non but

1:53:15 ↗ incorporating a lot of

1:53:18 ↗ new pieces and we also already have a

1:53:20 ↗ hazardous

1:53:22 ↗ plan so if there is wildfires and

1:53:27 ↗ other emergencies then there are plans

1:53:29 ↗ in place but this is kind of also

1:53:32 ↗ putting that climate lens on it so

1:53:33 ↗ making sure that we know these things

1:53:35 ↗ are becoming more of a risk we're going

1:53:37 ↗ to be seeing more flooding more um more

1:53:40 ↗ heat waves so preparing

1:53:42 ↗ um that you know the cooling center is

1:53:45 ↗ not going to be a once a summer thing

1:53:47 ↗ anymore it's going to we're going to

1:53:48 ↗ need more established processes for

1:53:51 ↗ being ready to do those sorts of things

1:53:52 ↗ more and then also working with the

1:53:54 ↗ community to help

1:53:57 ↗ help community members understand what's

1:53:59 ↗ going to be happening more and help them

1:54:02 ↗ get themselves prepared for it as well

1:54:10 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner zargoza

1:54:12 ↗ and uh megan curtis murphy

1:54:15 ↗ uh i am not seeing any additional

1:54:17 ↗ questions and

1:54:20 ↗ we went through the six goals here

1:54:23 ↗ so kristin let's go ahead and open up to

1:54:25 ↗ public comment do we have any uh members

1:54:27 ↗ from the public that would like to speak

1:54:28 ↗ tonight

1:54:30 ↗ uh we have one hand raised and if anyone

1:54:32 ↗ else would like to speak please raise

1:54:33 ↗ your virtual hand i had two hands raised

1:54:36 ↗ and if for some reason you can't find

1:54:38 ↗ the virtual hand because it's not always

1:54:40 ↗ easy just type a comment to me to the

1:54:43 ↗ host and i will

1:54:44 ↗ hopefully see that so first up um honey

1:54:47 ↗ marsh

1:54:55 ↗ ani i am making you a panelist and you

1:54:58 ↗ are unmuted you can turn your camera on

1:54:59 ↗ if you would like

1:55:05 ↗ huh

1:55:05 ↗ i just wanted to see if it would

1:55:07 ↗ actually work oh it does look at that

1:55:10 ↗ uh oops i didn't clean behind me though

1:55:14 ↗ so i've actually been to several of

1:55:16 ↗ these meetings

1:55:17 ↗ and um

1:55:19 ↗ there's a few things i find

1:55:21 ↗ disconcerting or

1:55:23 ↗ are not very functional in the process

1:55:27 ↗ as

1:55:28 ↗ a person shouldn't have to go to the

1:55:29 ↗ meeting over and over to know if they

1:55:32 ↗ have been heard

1:55:34 ↗ i think that

1:55:35 ↗ a table of the comments should follow

1:55:39 ↗ along with this process

1:55:41 ↗ with all of the cumulative

1:55:44 ↗ comments that have happened at all of

1:55:47 ↗ these meetings it is unfair to say well

1:55:50 ↗ we're going to give

1:55:52 ↗ we're going to give that to you all in

1:55:53 ↗ the end

1:55:55 ↗ um

1:55:56 ↗ because we don't know

1:55:58 ↗ if we've been hurt or not and so when i

1:56:01 ↗ see there's a couple of changes

1:56:04 ↗ and i don't see all the hundreds of

1:56:07 ↗ changes that i heard that i thought were

1:56:09 ↗ great from the other meetings it makes

1:56:11 ↗ me feel

1:56:12 ↗ like like you're just going with it and

1:56:16 ↗ the example is the 51 tree canopy

1:56:19 ↗ universally no one has like staying with

1:56:21 ↗ the 51 tree canopy yet you still bring

1:56:24 ↗ it up like it is the thing and so here

1:56:27 ↗ we go we spent another half an hour of

1:56:29 ↗ time talking about the darn tree canopy

1:56:31 ↗ when

1:56:32 ↗ everybody has basically said we need

1:56:34 ↗ more than that so i would like to know

1:56:37 ↗ what the progress is as we go along so

1:56:39 ↗ everyone doesn't have to have the same

1:56:41 ↗ conversation multiple times

1:56:45 ↗ so

1:56:46 ↗ uh given that

1:56:48 ↗ i am going to start with a

1:56:53 ↗ okay

1:56:54 ↗ and and because my brain is weaving

1:56:57 ↗ around this differently the

1:56:59 ↗ comprehensive plan should give you the

1:57:02 ↗ vision

1:57:03 ↗ of what this climate

1:57:05 ↗ action is and a lot of what you all are

1:57:08 ↗ talking about our vision statements what

1:57:11 ↗ is the end point that our community

1:57:13 ↗ should have

1:57:15 ↗ on climate action should we be working

1:57:18 ↗ toward reduction in greening up the city

1:57:21 ↗ and ensuring great habitat for humans

1:57:24 ↗ and animals is that our end goal

1:57:27 ↗ and the last time our land use

1:57:29 ↗ section of our comprehensive plan was

1:57:31 ↗ done was 2015. so it is old it does not

1:57:35 ↗ have this visionary language in it for

1:57:39 ↗ climate change or climate action or who

1:57:42 ↗ issaquah wants to be and i heard you

1:57:44 ↗ guys you guys were awesome tonight you

1:57:46 ↗ talked about this a lot like what are we

1:57:49 ↗ really going for what is what is

1:57:51 ↗ issaquah's stance we're issaquah

1:57:53 ↗ and that is the conversation that is

1:57:56 ↗ missing here because we don't really

1:57:58 ↗ know where we're going we're following

1:58:00 ↗ we're following king county we're

1:58:01 ↗ following the state but very little is

1:58:03 ↗ who are we who we want to be and how are

1:58:06 ↗ we going to bring our community along

1:58:08 ↗ which is what i think this climate

1:58:10 ↗ action plan is supposed to be doing but

1:58:13 ↗ i think it's missing the mark

1:58:15 ↗ in a few ways a lot of it is not in

1:58:17 ↗ english a lot of it is in jargon nobody

1:58:20 ↗ really knows what those words mean if a

1:58:23 ↗ common person read that language they

1:58:26 ↗ would be doing like what ron said it's

1:58:28 ↗ like well i didn't really understand

1:58:30 ↗ that that's what it meant but now that

1:58:31 ↗ you really explain it so uh there's a

1:58:34 ↗ lot of people who are used to writing

1:58:36 ↗ policy in town and they use more english

1:58:40 ↗ so in our regular comprehensive plan we

1:58:42 ↗ actually use english more than the

1:58:44 ↗ jargon that is in that is in this so i

1:58:47 ↗ would like to see a hand go toward

1:58:50 ↗ turning this language into

1:58:52 ↗ common man english so that people could

1:58:55 ↗ actually understand it and then the

1:58:57 ↗ other part that is missing

1:58:59 ↗ is our failures

1:59:01 ↗ because we have done many of these

1:59:03 ↗ things before yet we have failed we have

1:59:05 ↗ worked toward an emission goal it has

1:59:06 ↗ failed we've worked toward a garbage

1:59:08 ↗ goal it has failed and we keep

1:59:11 ↗ integrated pest management which is how

1:59:13 ↗ to prevent chemicals from getting in our

1:59:15 ↗ systems nobody knows what that means but

1:59:18 ↗ the that is only a municipal plan and

1:59:22 ↗ ours is terrible it's only the only one

1:59:24 ↗ worse is the school district we use as

1:59:26 ↗ we use more poison in this town than you

1:59:29 ↗ can even imagine failure so until we see

1:59:33 ↗ why we have failed we're gonna have a

1:59:35 ↗ hard time figuring out how to make it

1:59:37 ↗ better and we have yet to have an honest

1:59:39 ↗ conversation

1:59:40 ↗ on those topics so i think you covered

1:59:44 ↗ trees i think you covered a lot of these

1:59:47 ↗ um

1:59:48 ↗ these things

1:59:50 ↗ that

1:59:51 ↗ the

1:59:52 ↗ the this the difficulty of policy and we

1:59:56 ↗ still have this problem in our comp plan

1:59:58 ↗ is you need a policy

2:00:00 ↗ that is

2:00:02 ↗ broad enough to cover what you think you

2:00:04 ↗ want to do

2:00:06 ↗ but not so broad that it lets you do

2:00:09 ↗ nothing and we have had that problem in

2:00:11 ↗ our town

2:00:13 ↗ a lot

2:00:14 ↗ and so

2:00:15 ↗ we ne you need to find that language

2:00:17 ↗ these policies are so broad you could do

2:00:20 ↗ nothing no problem if somebody came into

2:00:22 ↗ this town and wasn't interested you

2:00:24 ↗ could do absolutely nothing and you'd be

2:00:26 ↗ fine you could just check it off the

2:00:28 ↗ list

2:00:29 ↗ so um

2:00:32 ↗ i should i stop

2:00:35 ↗ oh okay i can keep going so the master

2:00:37 ↗ mobility plan does not connect with a

2:00:40 ↗ common man in town you noticed in our in

2:00:44 ↗ the um

2:00:46 ↗ in in the

2:00:47 ↗ the survey that they did the number

2:00:50 ↗ the number one thing

2:00:52 ↗ was

2:00:53 ↗ we don't like congestion and our vote

2:00:56 ↗ mobility master plan does not address

2:00:58 ↗ congestion

2:01:00 ↗ at all

2:01:01 ↗ and so until you get the people

2:01:04 ↗ to actually

2:01:05 ↗ feel like doing something in the

2:01:07 ↗ mobility master plan they're going what

2:01:10 ↗ are you talking about nobody's going to

2:01:11 ↗ ride bikes nobody has a sidewalk you

2:01:13 ↗ don't have the majority

2:01:16 ↗ in line with that and so you need an

2:01:18 ↗ education

2:01:20 ↗ fast education because there is such a

2:01:23 ↗ divide and nobody is bothered

2:01:25 ↗ to conquer that bridge as you can see

2:01:28 ↗ from the survey i'm not making it up

2:01:31 ↗ and then one last thing

2:01:34 ↗ actually two drove to california there's

2:01:36 ↗ no way you could drive an electric car

2:01:38 ↗ easily to california and back we have

2:01:40 ↗ i-90 going through our town we have that

2:01:43 ↗ same infrastructure commitment if we

2:01:45 ↗ want to go to electric vehicles that

2:01:47 ↗ needs to to happen in issaquah because

2:01:51 ↗ we have an interstate going through our

2:01:53 ↗ town so we are going to need to provide

2:01:55 ↗ those services for those people wanting

2:01:58 ↗ to do long distance travel and then

2:02:01 ↗ i think the action plan should be about

2:02:04 ↗ strategy and implementation the

2:02:06 ↗ comprehensive plan language should be

2:02:08 ↗ the policies and the goals

2:02:10 ↗ and those two topics need to be divided

2:02:13 ↗ up when you discuss this because a

2:02:15 ↗ climate action plan is a strategic and

2:02:19 ↗ implementation plan it is not the

2:02:21 ↗ comprehensive plan policies goals and

2:02:24 ↗ visions and right now it's trying to do

2:02:26 ↗ all of those

2:02:27 ↗ and i think that's creating a lot of

2:02:28 ↗ confusion so i think if you divide that

2:02:31 ↗ up a little bit you might have more

2:02:32 ↗ success okay sorry i talked a lot um

2:02:36 ↗ but maybe if you guys can

2:02:39 ↗ [Music]

2:02:40 ↗ you're doing great ppc you're doing

2:02:42 ↗ great thank you

2:02:50 ↗ thank you connie it was awesome uh

2:02:52 ↗ kristen do we have an additional person

2:02:55 ↗ additional public here that wants to

2:02:57 ↗ speak we do we have one more um julian

2:03:01 ↗ middle and i'm gonna make you

2:03:03 ↗ a panelist right now

2:03:07 ↗ and when i find your name there you go

2:03:10 ↗ you are unmuted and you can turn on your

2:03:11 ↗ camera if you would like

2:03:15 ↗ good evening commissioners um i just

2:03:17 ↗ wanted to make a few comments about

2:03:20 ↗ what you were discussing today

2:03:22 ↗ um

2:03:23 ↗ mostly just in response to some of the

2:03:25 ↗ comments you guys made

2:03:28 ↗ so of course i'm very interested in

2:03:30 ↗ transportation and land use policy and

2:03:32 ↗ how they're very interlinked with each

2:03:34 ↗ other and i think that should be the

2:03:36 ↗ center of the discussion as you go

2:03:38 ↗ forward

2:03:39 ↗ and they have to be intertwined with

2:03:41 ↗ each other you can't consider them

2:03:42 ↗ separately

2:03:43 ↗ so

2:03:44 ↗ we need to look at making it so that the

2:03:47 ↗ city's codes can better accommodate a

2:03:50 ↗ wide diversity of housing in the city

2:03:53 ↗ and

2:03:54 ↗ houses that are closer to each other and

2:03:56 ↗ where people can actually walk or bike

2:03:59 ↗ or

2:04:00 ↗ or take the bus to their place of work

2:04:04 ↗ or school or

2:04:06 ↗ um

2:04:07 ↗ shopping

2:04:08 ↗ so we need to look at that um

2:04:11 ↗ and for bike waves in particular

2:04:15 ↗ i think it's more important to just have

2:04:17 ↗ lots of bikeways just like you know

2:04:21 ↗ shoulders

2:04:22 ↗ um instead of separate bikeways separate

2:04:24 ↗ bikeways are kind of useless when they

2:04:26 ↗ don't go anywhere i would think of

2:04:29 ↗ the 62nd

2:04:30 ↗ street roundabout for example

2:04:34 ↗ that little bikeway i don't think anyone

2:04:36 ↗ really uses that because it really

2:04:37 ↗ doesn't go anywhere so when you're

2:04:39 ↗ considering

2:04:40 ↗ placing bikeways somewhere it has to be

2:04:43 ↗ you have to consider where it's going

2:04:44 ↗ and

2:04:45 ↗ make sure there's that actually is a

2:04:47 ↗ throughput

2:04:48 ↗ um

2:04:50 ↗ and of course i didn't hear about

2:04:52 ↗ parking minimums i think that should be

2:04:54 ↗ another thing that we look at

2:04:56 ↗ um i think there was a study released

2:04:58 ↗ recently which was basically saying

2:05:00 ↗ if you have parking minimums that

2:05:02 ↗ basically induces

2:05:03 ↗ car use to the place of destination

2:05:07 ↗ um i think that of course you can lag

2:05:09 ↗ this option after

2:05:12 ↗ after um you put in more bike lanes and

2:05:14 ↗ accommodate non-car use but

2:05:17 ↗ i i think it's really important to look

2:05:18 ↗ at parking mims also because impervious

2:05:21 ↗ services

2:05:23 ↗ and the urban heat island effect and

2:05:25 ↗ that's also where the tree campi

2:05:28 ↗ issue comes into play too

2:05:31 ↗ because

2:05:33 ↗ it's about putting the trees and places

2:05:36 ↗ across the city not just not in the

2:05:37 ↗ mountains kind of like what commissioner

2:05:39 ↗ voice was saying

2:05:41 ↗ um

2:05:42 ↗ and another comment about renewables

2:05:46 ↗ i think utilities scale renewables are

2:05:48 ↗ more effective um

2:05:50 ↗ in terms of price

2:05:52 ↗ and volume

2:05:54 ↗ uh

2:05:55 ↗ and it basically would also accommodate

2:05:58 ↗ our affordability problem too

2:06:00 ↗ because mandating or

2:06:02 ↗ encouraging more solar on rooftops

2:06:05 ↗ especially in issaquah

2:06:07 ↗ where it's cloudy seven months of the

2:06:09 ↗ year at least

2:06:11 ↗ won't be very useful for our

2:06:12 ↗ affordability problem

2:06:14 ↗ and finally i think the city should also

2:06:18 ↗ elaborate its position on the landfill

2:06:19 ↗ incineration issue they'll become more

2:06:22 ↗ prominent as we go into 2020s 2030s

2:06:25 ↗ and that's all my comments

2:06:35 ↗ thank you very much uh mr middle that

2:06:37 ↗ was excellent

2:06:39 ↗ and christian is that it for the public

2:06:41 ↗ comment for this evening

2:06:44 ↗ no one else has indicated that they

2:06:46 ↗ would like to speak

2:06:48 ↗ excellent okay so we will go ahead and

2:06:50 ↗ close public comment and we'll open it

2:06:52 ↗ back up for uh commissioner discussion

2:07:10 ↗ and i'm not seeing any discussions uh

2:07:14 ↗ coming up so i'm gonna go ahead and go

2:07:16 ↗ first

2:07:17 ↗ um

2:07:19 ↗ i would like to go back to

2:07:21 ↗ uh

2:07:25 ↗ see it is gold number

2:07:31 ↗ e

2:07:32 ↗ natural systems and water resources

2:07:34 ↗ and e1 specifically achieve 51

2:07:38 ↗ tree canopy

2:07:42 ↗ i want to dive deeper into that

2:07:45 ↗ why can't we have a higher percentage of

2:07:48 ↗ tree canopy why can't we

2:07:50 ↗ to joy's point

2:07:52 ↗ uh why can't we esteem for something

2:07:55 ↗ better than that say

2:07:58 ↗ what is sustainable uh 60 or 75 percent

2:08:02 ↗ what can we actually go for um

2:08:08 ↗ why settle on 51 if we're already at 51

2:08:11 ↗ why can't we try and grow that now

2:08:13 ↗ to

2:08:14 ↗ jason's

2:08:16 ↗ uh conversation about looking at tiger

2:08:18 ↗ mountain tiger mountain is all dnr

2:08:21 ↗ that's all logging so the state forest

2:08:24 ↗ actually sells tiger mountain off for

2:08:26 ↗ logging

2:08:28 ↗ the west the western side of tiger is

2:08:31 ↗ slotted to be logged eventually

2:08:34 ↗ so they're hitting the southeastern

2:08:36 ↗ section of tiger now which is where all

2:08:38 ↗ the bike trails are and they're clear

2:08:41 ↗ cutting out a huge area

2:08:44 ↗ what happens when the dnr

2:08:47 ↗ sells the rights for

2:08:49 ↗ west tiger

2:08:50 ↗ to be logged

2:08:52 ↗ we're relying on that tree forest to be

2:08:54 ↗ part of our canopy and

2:08:57 ↗ it's all for sale

2:08:58 ↗ so

2:09:00 ↗ i'd like to have a conversation more

2:09:02 ↗ about protecting their tree canopy that

2:09:04 ↗ we see

2:09:05 ↗ because that affects isoqua but also

2:09:07 ↗ more importantly because it's a

2:09:09 ↗ environmental filter for us so

2:09:13 ↗ how can we protect what we is on tiger

2:09:17 ↗ how can we grow the 51 percent

2:09:25 ↗ and then my next question is how do we

2:09:27 ↗ reduce consumption of toxic landscaping

2:09:29 ↗ materials because i want

2:09:31 ↗ i think it's important for us

2:09:33 ↗ to

2:09:36 ↗ reduce the stress on the salmon

2:09:40 ↗ by reducing the amount of herbicides and

2:09:42 ↗ pesticides we put into the streams

2:09:45 ↗ not only that but because of

2:09:48 ↗ they're expecting us to get

2:09:50 ↗ warmer with less flows in the streams

2:09:54 ↗ it's going to put more pressure on the

2:09:55 ↗ salmon so

2:09:58 ↗ maybe we can't do anything about

2:10:00 ↗ necessarily the stream flows but we can

2:10:02 ↗ do something about the toxicity

2:10:05 ↗ the toxic chemicals that are going into

2:10:08 ↗ the streams

2:10:13 ↗ and

2:10:14 ↗ [Music]

2:10:15 ↗ looks like so that's it for me i'm gonna

2:10:17 ↗ go ahead and release the floor uh and uh

2:10:20 ↗ commissioner voice has a

2:10:23 ↗ comment

2:10:27 ↗ thank you chairfell

2:10:29 ↗ so just to follow up on your question

2:10:30 ↗ and maybe um miss curtis murphy could

2:10:32 ↗ tell me but my understanding is that the

2:10:34 ↗ city

2:10:35 ↗ really doesn't control forest management

2:10:37 ↗ of our own mountains that's handled

2:10:40 ↗ through uh department of

2:10:44 ↗ parks it's escaping me now but my

2:10:46 ↗ understanding is we don't even

2:10:48 ↗ other than utilize it we're actually not

2:10:50 ↗ in control of them

2:10:53 ↗ so it's kind of interesting how it gets

2:10:54 ↗ used as part of our canopy percentage

2:10:57 ↗ but yet we don't really have any control

2:10:59 ↗ over them and i guess i would kind of

2:11:00 ↗ speak to what ron's saying

2:11:02 ↗ as a commissioner foul chairfell

2:11:04 ↗ about how again they can sell the rights

2:11:07 ↗ off to certain people they deem uh

2:11:10 ↗ necessary at that point is that correct

2:11:12 ↗ do i have that correct

2:11:17 ↗ somebody this is this is megan um i'm

2:11:19 ↗ not sure exactly which

2:11:22 ↗ you know what percentage of the

2:11:23 ↗ hillsides is within city limits but

2:11:26 ↗ you're correct that most of it is um

2:11:28 ↗ is either king county or state the city

2:11:31 ↗ does have some

2:11:32 ↗ that um that's within our boundaries and

2:11:34 ↗ we do have our

2:11:36 ↗ um

2:11:37 ↗ you know our green esqua partnership and

2:11:39 ↗ some that we that we work to enhance and

2:11:41 ↗ protect that um but a lot of it is owned

2:11:44 ↗ by others

2:11:46 ↗ so i guess part of our our strategic

2:11:49 ↗ maybe our

2:11:50 ↗ strategic would be to and i know people

2:11:52 ↗ are already doing this but to apply the

2:11:54 ↗ lead foot to

2:11:56 ↗ um

2:11:57 ↗ commissioner franz and other people that

2:11:59 ↗ will hear our voices loud and clear

2:12:02 ↗ um the second my understanding too is

2:12:03 ↗ that puget sound energy the green direct

2:12:06 ↗ program is only available to me

2:12:08 ↗ municipalities as you had mentioned

2:12:11 ↗ so again another

2:12:13 ↗ opportunity to lobby psc

2:12:15 ↗ uh but ultimately like you said is

2:12:17 ↗ they're going to phase it out within the

2:12:18 ↗ next 44 years i believe it was that i

2:12:21 ↗ heard tonight

2:12:23 ↗ they have little incentive to move

2:12:24 ↗ quicker than that

2:12:26 ↗ to provide it for residents

2:12:28 ↗ so i guess what i'm saying is i hear a

2:12:30 ↗ lot of people talking about jumping

2:12:31 ↗ forward being a leader all these things

2:12:34 ↗ and it's all wonderful

2:12:35 ↗ but at the same time

2:12:37 ↗ you know

2:12:38 ↗ that's going to take city resources so i

2:12:41 ↗ think one of the reasons we're using

2:12:43 ↗ some of our regional numbers and

2:12:44 ↗ percentages

2:12:46 ↗ is because again that's where we get

2:12:48 ↗ resources regionally king county state

2:12:51 ↗ um because again whenever we decide to

2:12:53 ↗ take the lead that will come from city

2:12:54 ↗ coffers

2:12:55 ↗ there might be some i some ways you can

2:12:57 ↗ get subsidies and grants

2:12:59 ↗ but it is an expensive

2:13:01 ↗ prospect and again in a time when the

2:13:04 ↗ city also has

2:13:05 ↗ many other

2:13:06 ↗ um situations that it needs to take care

2:13:08 ↗ of

2:13:09 ↗ um so that's just one comment and then i

2:13:12 ↗ also think it kind of makes us less

2:13:13 ↗ competitive with some of our neighbors

2:13:15 ↗ so again there's i think there's some

2:13:17 ↗ wonderful things that we can do but i

2:13:19 ↗ think it's all kind of in perspective

2:13:21 ↗ i'm sure everybody would love to sign

2:13:22 ↗ off on everything that's green and

2:13:24 ↗ everything that's wonderful

2:13:26 ↗ but just kind of realizing okay so it is

2:13:29 ↗ a regional thing because again we can

2:13:31 ↗ jump

2:13:32 ↗ ahead of our partners all we want but

2:13:34 ↗ that will come out of city coffers it

2:13:35 ↗ won't come out of uh state and

2:13:38 ↗ county funding

2:13:40 ↗ so

2:13:41 ↗ that's my piece that's what i'm thinking

2:13:43 ↗ thank you

2:13:46 ↗ thank you commissioner voice uh

2:13:48 ↗ commissioner zorgozo you have the floor

2:13:51 ↗ thank you chair uh richard zaragoza so

2:13:54 ↗ my comments maybe it's more of a

2:13:55 ↗ question

2:13:56 ↗ is around sampling tree canopy

2:13:59 ↗ um

2:14:00 ↗ in

2:14:03 ↗ in

2:14:04 ↗ so in

2:14:05 ↗ in the residential areas like the

2:14:07 ↗ highlands a lot of builders will choose

2:14:10 ↗ smaller trees because they don't you

2:14:12 ↗ know rip up the

2:14:13 ↗ they don't rip up the sidewalks as they

2:14:16 ↗ grow large um

2:14:18 ↗ but of course they don't have as much

2:14:20 ↗ coverage they're not ever you know they

2:14:21 ↗ don't get large enough to shade a home

2:14:23 ↗ or anything like that especially not the

2:14:26 ↗ town homes

2:14:27 ↗ um

2:14:28 ↗ you know can we

2:14:31 ↗ you know pick species that are fast

2:14:33 ↗ growing that are large and will shade

2:14:35 ↗ these areas especially in place places

2:14:37 ↗ like safeway

2:14:39 ↗ um you know supermarkets

2:14:41 ↗ they've you know they redid the trees

2:14:43 ↗ they're very small trees you know can we

2:14:46 ↗ you know request larger species you know

2:14:49 ↗ maybe there's some changes to their

2:14:50 ↗ parking lot design so that you know the

2:14:52 ↗ future damage is mitigated but you know

2:14:55 ↗ so that those canopies are larger than

2:14:57 ↗ they are today

2:14:58 ↗ you know and when we do

2:15:00 ↗ have these builders come in are we

2:15:02 ↗ requesting numbers of trees or are we

2:15:04 ↗ requesting you know canopy size like how

2:15:06 ↗ does that actually work

2:15:08 ↗ um you know does this so much of that

2:15:11 ↗ parking lot need to be covered by canopy

2:15:13 ↗ or are we asking them to have so many

2:15:15 ↗ trees per

2:15:17 ↗ square foot

2:15:22 ↗ so this is just at least enough i could

2:15:24 ↗ jump in just a little bit real quick um

2:15:27 ↗ i do know that we have our landscaping

2:15:30 ↗ section of title 18 coming up in a

2:15:32 ↗ landscaping meeting that we had the

2:15:33 ↗ other day with our consultants we did

2:15:35 ↗ about identifying types of trees

2:15:38 ↗ and

2:15:39 ↗ that issaquad needs that do the best

2:15:41 ↗ here that are um um can't think of the

2:15:44 ↗ right word

2:15:45 ↗ they are from here but native there you

2:15:47 ↗ go um but different kinds of trees like

2:15:49 ↗ that so that is a conversation that you

2:15:51 ↗ all will be having with the landscape

2:15:52 ↗ plan

2:15:54 ↗ um as far as

2:15:57 ↗ well i'll probably get the next one

2:15:58 ↗ wrong but i was going to talk about what

2:16:01 ↗ we require we require impervious

2:16:03 ↗ surfaces i don't know an you know amount

2:16:05 ↗ of impervious surface an amount of

2:16:06 ↗ pervious surface and

2:16:08 ↗ um i

2:16:10 ↗ i don't know

2:16:11 ↗ that we require a certain number of

2:16:13 ↗ trees

2:16:14 ↗ just that it is pervious and many you

2:16:16 ↗ may be able to answer maybe i'll answer

2:16:18 ↗ that better maybe megan can

2:16:20 ↗ um

2:16:20 ↗ either one of you

2:16:22 ↗ yeah yeah i can give it a shot oh wait

2:16:24 ↗ sorry i

2:16:26 ↗ actually we have our other yay uh coming

2:16:29 ↗ in long range planner online who just

2:16:30 ↗ says that um

2:16:32 ↗ in commercial areas we do trees per

2:16:34 ↗ stall sorry many actually

2:16:36 ↗ throw that in there okay

2:16:43 ↗ you can keep going that was that was

2:16:45 ↗ what i got okay yeah no no worries yeah

2:16:48 ↗ you know we'll have we'll take a deeper

2:16:49 ↗ dive into the landscaping standards and

2:16:51 ↗ tree regulations that's currently

2:16:54 ↗ scheduled for september 9. so we'll give

2:16:56 ↗ you a lot of information about what's

2:16:58 ↗ under the current code what are some

2:17:00 ↗ gaps from the policy standpoint where we

2:17:02 ↗ want some regulations so uh you know the

2:17:05 ↗ the interesting part is now that you

2:17:07 ↗ you've had this climate action in your

2:17:09 ↗ minds you've had this discussion and

2:17:11 ↗ then in the title 18 update you you can

2:17:14 ↗ really kind of get it into an actionable

2:17:16 ↗ item in terms of at least for new

2:17:18 ↗ development so we will provide all those

2:17:20 ↗ details for you in terms of how we most

2:17:23 ↗ cities regulate them by perimeter

2:17:26 ↗ landscaping along the property or

2:17:28 ↗ landscape

2:17:30 ↗ parking lot landscaping it's generally

2:17:33 ↗ uh per stall uh like valerie who is on

2:17:36 ↗ the call here um it was prompting us uh

2:17:39 ↗ but it's all but it can be there can be

2:17:41 ↗ various ways of doing it you know it has

2:17:43 ↗ to be easy to implement also

2:17:46 ↗ um so you uh if you make a canopy size

2:17:50 ↗ it's sometimes difficult to

2:17:52 ↗ to get those in the landscaping plans

2:17:54 ↗ and measure that that's how it's going

2:17:55 ↗ to work a lot of times those can be

2:17:57 ↗ regulated by the type of tree it has to

2:18:00 ↗ be the right size right type in the

2:18:02 ↗ right location

2:18:04 ↗ you know if the science tells you that

2:18:06 ↗ in a five foot median strip you if you

2:18:08 ↗ plant the wrong kind of tree that's

2:18:10 ↗ going to give you more problem too so

2:18:12 ↗ it's more complicated we'll take a

2:18:13 ↗ deeper dive into the trees and

2:18:15 ↗ landscaping soon

2:18:20 ↗ and okay perfect thank you and thank you

2:18:23 ↗ uh commissioner zargoza uh commissioner

2:18:26 ↗ lewis you have the floor

2:18:29 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

2:18:31 ↗ lewis um my question uh megan is kind of

2:18:35 ↗ remember my comments questions

2:18:38 ↗ it's kind of about resources and what i

2:18:40 ↗ was hoping in this document and i feel

2:18:42 ↗ like i didn't get

2:18:43 ↗ um is trying to understand how

2:18:47 ↗ these policies that have been put

2:18:49 ↗ together are going to impact

2:18:51 ↗ um the city for for integration and

2:18:54 ↗ basically like

2:18:55 ↗ um

2:18:56 ↗ how have we all of a sudden decided that

2:18:59 ↗ we have been allocated some type of

2:19:01 ↗ funds to be able to do this are we just

2:19:03 ↗ saying these are our ideological plans

2:19:06 ↗ and goals because we have the desire to

2:19:09 ↗ be able to start this process but being

2:19:11 ↗ able to actually

2:19:13 ↗ move forward on the action part of the

2:19:15 ↗ climate action plan is going to be a

2:19:16 ↗ little bit more question mark

2:19:19 ↗ and when we start talking about um

2:19:22 ↗ the finances behind these policies i'm

2:19:25 ↗ curious um two about plans for

2:19:27 ↗ offsetting greenhouse gases um

2:19:30 ↗ for you know

2:19:31 ↗ basically you know are we going to start

2:19:33 ↗ paying to offset what we're doing are we

2:19:35 ↗ going to start you know living by by our

2:19:37 ↗ policies

2:19:38 ↗ um and kind of that again that

2:19:39 ↗ conversation i brought up before kind of

2:19:41 ↗ the net neutral net zero right of being

2:19:44 ↗ able to say like where is it that we're

2:19:46 ↗ going to be going as far as a resource

2:19:48 ↗ allocation allocation on this

2:19:58 ↗ that's a question for you for you megan

2:20:05 ↗ thank you um

2:20:06 ↗ i had a little bit of background noise

2:20:09 ↗ during some of that um so i did not

2:20:11 ↗ catch the full thing um i apologize if

2:20:14 ↗ you could summarize it i can't i'm sorry

2:20:16 ↗ i so basically i'm curious how these

2:20:18 ↗ policies are going to impact um the city

2:20:21 ↗ as far as like integration right so how

2:20:23 ↗ do we um have funds been allocated is it

2:20:26 ↗ just kind of like when we have our when

2:20:27 ↗ we put on our transportation plan we're

2:20:29 ↗ like here's little places that we need

2:20:31 ↗ to have um

2:20:32 ↗ we need to have action but yeah we're

2:20:34 ↗ still waiting to see if we get funding

2:20:35 ↗ and what's going to happen right we have

2:20:37 ↗ these plans that are 10 20 40 years down

2:20:40 ↗ the road to do to deal with current

2:20:42 ↗ congestion issues instead are do we

2:20:45 ↗ actually what is our plan for our plan

2:20:47 ↗ right how do we actually implement the

2:20:48 ↗ action part what are our fun what is the

2:20:51 ↗ funding part to be able to um put our

2:20:53 ↗ you know effectively put our money where

2:20:54 ↗ our mouth is and what i'm curious then

2:20:56 ↗ is to actually be having a conversation

2:20:58 ↗ of the city is saying are we going to be

2:21:00 ↗ paying to offset our greenhouse gases

2:21:02 ↗ right now are we going to be having

2:21:04 ↗ these conversations of net zero versus

2:21:07 ↗ neutral um is what i'm trying to

2:21:09 ↗ understand is the resources part of

2:21:11 ↗ implementing these policies

2:21:14 ↗ yes so the city does um does annual

2:21:18 ↗ annual budgeting right now um and

2:21:21 ↗ so we have resources we're in the budget

2:21:24 ↗ process right now so we're putting

2:21:26 ↗ resources towards implementation of the

2:21:28 ↗ climate action plan for next year in

2:21:30 ↗ each of the budget cycles we'll be doing

2:21:32 ↗ that um you know some might be on under

2:21:35 ↗ sustainability other things a lot of the

2:21:38 ↗ the more transportation actions um

2:21:42 ↗ could be in public works or through the

2:21:44 ↗ transportation improvement plan so i

2:21:46 ↗ would say there's there's different ways

2:21:48 ↗ that it will be funded and implemented

2:21:52 ↗ um

2:21:53 ↗ one of the pieces that we're going to be

2:21:55 ↗ bringing into this plan is an

2:21:57 ↗ implementation plan so determining kind

2:21:59 ↗ of who lead departments are and then

2:22:01 ↗ they'll be budgeting for it and planning

2:22:03 ↗ for it in their processes

2:22:08 ↗ okay thanks megan so hopefully when we

2:22:11 ↗ see this again as part of the comp plan

2:22:14 ↗ we're going to have a better

2:22:15 ↗ understanding

2:22:16 ↗ of of those next pieces maybe is that is

2:22:19 ↗ that feasible

2:22:22 ↗ um so we are still in the process of

2:22:25 ↗ developing the plan um so the

2:22:28 ↗ implementation plan will

2:22:30 ↗ likely come after that but we will have

2:22:33 ↗ um

2:22:34 ↗ the goals and policies at the

2:22:38 ↗ at the next meeting um as well as the

2:22:40 ↗ actions which i think draft actions

2:22:42 ↗ which i think will give

2:22:44 ↗ more um of that kind of next level of

2:22:47 ↗ detail about what's going to be going

2:22:48 ↗ into the policies i do not think we'll

2:22:50 ↗ have the implementation plan at that

2:22:52 ↗ next meeting thank you that's very

2:22:54 ↗ helpful um i do only have i think one

2:22:57 ↗ more thing that i forgot forgotten to

2:22:59 ↗ mention is that i don't see anything in

2:23:01 ↗ our policy right now obviously we've

2:23:02 ↗ been having conversations about tree

2:23:03 ↗ retention but i don't see anything about

2:23:05 ↗ bogs specifically as a carbon sink and

2:23:08 ↗ basically i think there needs to be a

2:23:09 ↗ policy for protecting um

2:23:12 ↗ our natural carbon filtration and

2:23:13 ↗ storage systems um so obviously it's

2:23:16 ↗ kind of on our mind because we've all

2:23:17 ↗ been diving into title 18 recently but

2:23:21 ↗ um i think it's interesting to actually

2:23:24 ↗ look at it as a separate issue with our

2:23:26 ↗ climate action plan is to say how are we

2:23:29 ↗ in our city making sure that we're

2:23:31 ↗ preserving the natural places that are

2:23:34 ↗ um our natural carbon sinks

2:23:37 ↗ and

2:23:38 ↗ would like to see a policy about that

2:23:40 ↗ thank you for your help on this all this

2:23:42 ↗ megan

2:23:51 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner lewis uh

2:23:53 ↗ commissioner zargoza you have a

2:23:56 ↗ comment go ahead and you have the floor

2:23:58 ↗ yeah

2:23:59 ↗ thank you chair uh richard zargoza one

2:24:01 ↗ last

2:24:02 ↗ comment question

2:24:03 ↗ um

2:24:03 ↗ [Music]

2:24:05 ↗ are we

2:24:06 ↗ um or have we already mapped out

2:24:09 ↗ uh neighborhoods and zones that uh are

2:24:12 ↗ at higher risk uh for uh climate uh

2:24:17 ↗ issues and not only areas and

2:24:19 ↗ communities but um individual community

2:24:22 ↗ members like elderly people who

2:24:25 ↗ might have a little more difficult times

2:24:27 ↗ during heat waves i'm on the fifth floor

2:24:29 ↗ of atlas and the last uh heat wave the

2:24:32 ↗ power went out and it was pretty intense

2:24:35 ↗ i can imagine that if there are some

2:24:37 ↗ elderly people in the building um

2:24:39 ↗ knowing who they are and and what

2:24:41 ↗ resources they might need before

2:24:44 ↗ another one hits would be uh good things

2:24:47 ↗ to know so is that is there you know

2:24:49 ↗ some kind of census or

2:24:51 ↗ something like that that can or is

2:24:53 ↗ happening

2:24:54 ↗ thanks yes this is megan um so i think a

2:24:58 ↗ lot of that work um happens in our um

2:25:01 ↗ with our human services team

2:25:03 ↗ um i know they they are looking directly

2:25:06 ↗ at demographics um

2:25:09 ↗ and and and using that information to

2:25:11 ↗ help inform um the community needs

2:25:13 ↗ assessment that they're working on

2:25:15 ↗ um there are some new tools that have

2:25:17 ↗ come out that are really neat looking at

2:25:20 ↗ various environmental impacts by

2:25:23 ↗ demographics so

2:25:25 ↗ i've seen a few of those and

2:25:27 ↗ in general some of those areas in

2:25:30 ↗ issaquah are along

2:25:32 ↗ like the i-90 corridor

2:25:34 ↗ so we do have some of that information i

2:25:37 ↗ think we're taking it um kind of at a

2:25:39 ↗ little bit of a higher level not quite

2:25:41 ↗ to the exact mapping but making sure

2:25:43 ↗ that we are

2:25:44 ↗ um

2:25:45 ↗ incorporating

2:25:47 ↗ equity into the plan and and really

2:25:49 ↗ focusing some actions on

2:25:51 ↗ our most vulnerable populations and

2:25:53 ↗ people who may not be able to afford air

2:25:55 ↗ conditioning or people um

2:25:58 ↗ older people that you mentioned that um

2:26:00 ↗ might be more susceptible to that so i

2:26:02 ↗ don't think we're quite at the the map

2:26:04 ↗ detail for this but definitely taking

2:26:05 ↗ that information into consideration

2:26:13 ↗ okay thank you commissioner zargoza and

2:26:15 ↗ megan curtis murphy um i have two last

2:26:19 ↗ uh comments here uh

2:26:22 ↗ i do wanna

2:26:24 ↗ i think roll back our conversation to

2:26:26 ↗ ask the commissioners

2:26:28 ↗ for

2:26:29 ↗ policies that are missing from this

2:26:34 ↗ document that we're looking at now

2:26:36 ↗ because that was one of the questions in

2:26:37 ↗ the beginning of our meeting

2:26:39 ↗ i did pull out two that i think are

2:26:42 ↗ missing that were talked about recently

2:26:45 ↗ one is to promote the promotion

2:26:49 ↗ to promote the growth of natural carbon

2:26:51 ↗ sinks

2:26:52 ↗ to joy's point

2:26:54 ↗ um that might be something we want to

2:26:56 ↗ add to this policy this is a question to

2:26:58 ↗ the commissioners and then the second

2:26:59 ↗ one

2:27:00 ↗ is uh some sort of policy language that

2:27:04 ↗ moves us towards zero use uh

2:27:07 ↗ and sales of toxic landscaping chemicals

2:27:10 ↗ is that something that we can promote

2:27:12 ↗ within this is it something that

2:27:14 ↗ commissioners think that we should

2:27:18 ↗ and so i'll open the floor to the

2:27:19 ↗ commissioners for those two questions

2:27:22 ↗ for feedback

2:27:32 ↗ and we have uh

2:27:36 ↗ commissioner lewis

2:27:39 ↗ thank you chairfall and thank you always

2:27:41 ↗ for keeping us on track and making sure

2:27:43 ↗ that staff gets what they need um that's

2:27:46 ↗ because that's what we're here to do and

2:27:47 ↗ so i guess my question would be for

2:27:49 ↗ megan is that i think i've definitely

2:27:51 ↗ suggested at least six policies tonight

2:27:54 ↗ and so what i'm kind of hoping is that

2:27:55 ↗ megan has

2:27:57 ↗ agreed with all of them i'm sure um but

2:28:00 ↗ as this is developed and the next time

2:28:02 ↗ we see it right is being able to see

2:28:03 ↗ that feedback of what's

2:28:05 ↗ not not there right so if megan would

2:28:08 ↗ like us to keep going i'm sure we can

2:28:10 ↗ reiterate but i feel like we've

2:28:11 ↗ suggested some things and so i kind of

2:28:13 ↗ unless she unless she wants to say she

2:28:16 ↗ wants more specific language i'm

2:28:17 ↗ guessing we'd give her quite a bit to

2:28:19 ↗ chew on um

2:28:21 ↗ as far as suggesting those kind of those

2:28:23 ↗ missing policies um but i guess i would

2:28:25 ↗ love to hear from megan as to see if

2:28:27 ↗ she's if there's anything she's still

2:28:28 ↗ looking for

2:28:30 ↗ from us tonight

2:28:35 ↗ this is megan

2:28:37 ↗ um

2:28:38 ↗ i think i i think there's been a lot of

2:28:40 ↗ great input but if there's any um yeah

2:28:43 ↗ any thoughts about

2:28:45 ↗ what is

2:28:46 ↗ you know final things are missing

2:28:47 ↗ because i think the next time we bring

2:28:49 ↗ this

2:28:49 ↗ it will probably be

2:28:51 ↗ um you know those those final policies

2:28:53 ↗ so i wouldn't want um

2:28:55 ↗ you know to miss the opportunity to add

2:28:57 ↗ something now that would uh

2:29:00 ↗ uh not be added in later

2:29:05 ↗ okay uh thank you very much uh

2:29:07 ↗ commissioner lewis thank you making

2:29:09 ↗ curtis murphy uh jason voice you have a

2:29:12 ↗ floor

2:29:15 ↗ great thank you chair foul and uh yeah

2:29:19 ↗ to echo commissioner lewis's point great

2:29:21 ↗ job keeping us all on task

2:29:23 ↗ uh two things real quickly is i thought

2:29:25 ↗ the feedback from the public

2:29:27 ↗ was fantastic i love the charts you guys

2:29:29 ↗ are making

2:29:30 ↗ um to a previous caller

2:29:32 ↗ i'm not sure

2:29:34 ↗ if

2:29:35 ↗ you know we'll be able to see this

2:29:36 ↗ matrix that you guys lay out so

2:29:38 ↗ uh we're definitely getting their

2:29:40 ↗ feedback but it's a shame if they don't

2:29:41 ↗ know that their feedback is being heard

2:29:43 ↗ because i've got you know quite a few

2:29:46 ↗ pages of emails and emails um

2:29:49 ↗ that show exactly what people are saying

2:29:51 ↗ in my packet so i don't know if there's

2:29:53 ↗ a way we can um

2:29:54 ↗ help facilitate that

2:29:56 ↗ because it's definitely getting to us

2:29:58 ↗ but yeah it'd be a real shame if they

2:29:59 ↗ don't know that and then they keep

2:30:01 ↗ coming to meetings thinking there's no

2:30:02 ↗ impact because

2:30:04 ↗ i thought some of the emails were

2:30:05 ↗ fantastic

2:30:06 ↗ i thought some of the things that were

2:30:08 ↗ sent with the packet were great um like

2:30:10 ↗ i said

2:30:11 ↗ we can go back to trees why not let's do

2:30:13 ↗ trees again uh going back to like using

2:30:15 ↗ the right tree right so you can go down

2:30:17 ↗ gilman and see where the roots have

2:30:19 ↗ completely busted up the sidewalk so

2:30:21 ↗ yeah

2:30:22 ↗ there was another gentleman

2:30:23 ↗ that had mentioned why don't we have a

2:30:25 ↗ repository of situations where we know

2:30:27 ↗ this didn't work

2:30:28 ↗ you know instead of 15 years later we

2:30:30 ↗ try to plant the same tree in the same

2:30:32 ↗ hole with the same width

2:30:34 ↗ and everybody goes what

2:30:36 ↗ so yeah having like a repository

2:30:39 ↗ but again the comments were fantastic

2:30:41 ↗ and it'd be nice to

2:30:42 ↗ let them know that they're they are

2:30:44 ↗ getting across um as fact as far as the

2:30:47 ↗ actual discussion i think uh chair foul

2:30:49 ↗ i think that was pretty much

2:30:51 ↗ the feeling that i got was pretty much

2:30:53 ↗ uh everybody piping in so hopefully

2:30:56 ↗ miss curtis murphy would be able to make

2:30:58 ↗ out

2:30:59 ↗ uh the last two hours about basically

2:31:01 ↗ trying to toughen up some of this

2:31:03 ↗ language

2:31:04 ↗ i came into it and i still kind of think

2:31:06 ↗ you guys are looking for the higher

2:31:07 ↗ elevation i don't know if we're there

2:31:09 ↗ yet i don't know if we're gonna get the

2:31:10 ↗ opportunity i hope so

2:31:12 ↗ but more targeted actions to come

2:31:15 ↗ so i think there was a couple people

2:31:16 ↗ that made comments like this should be a

2:31:18 ↗ part of

2:31:19 ↗ climate change or this should be a part

2:31:21 ↗ of part f and i think those are

2:31:22 ↗ appropriate i don't know right now if

2:31:24 ↗ that's what you guys really want is to

2:31:25 ↗ actually discuss action items um so

2:31:28 ↗ again that was the way i took it so i

2:31:31 ↗ think a lot of the suggestions were

2:31:32 ↗ great

2:31:33 ↗ and then as far as ron's second question

2:31:36 ↗ using

2:31:36 ↗ harsh chemicals

2:31:38 ↗ um i don't know if there's a weight i

2:31:40 ↗ don't think it would be appropriate

2:31:41 ↗ myself to ask certain stores to ban the

2:31:43 ↗ use of certain fertilizers that are

2:31:46 ↗ completely legal

2:31:48 ↗ but what you could do is have the

2:31:49 ↗ municipality

2:31:51 ↗ move away from them and that definitely

2:31:53 ↗ could be something that is easy it's

2:31:55 ↗ pretty you know i can't imagine there's

2:31:56 ↗ a big

2:31:57 ↗ cost uh detriment there so you could

2:31:59 ↗ have the municipality go away from using

2:32:02 ↗ those you can do it in your land use

2:32:03 ↗ agreements i think i revert back to that

2:32:06 ↗ same email that talked about okay so you

2:32:08 ↗ put up a wooden fence but now you have

2:32:09 ↗ to come back every three years every

2:32:11 ↗ three years so is there a way we can

2:32:13 ↗ write that in for commercial buildings

2:32:15 ↗ municipal buildings and again land use

2:32:17 ↗ developments for our bigger construction

2:32:19 ↗ projects are you going to be able to ban

2:32:21 ↗ someone in old town who goes down to

2:32:23 ↗ home depot and picks up

2:32:25 ↗ poor fertilizer or poor weed killer

2:32:27 ↗ probably not

2:32:28 ↗ but there are ways we can definitely

2:32:30 ↗ tighten up a thing

2:32:32 ↗ um and that would be another area where

2:32:34 ↗ the city could lead

2:32:35 ↗ and again build that into commercial

2:32:38 ↗ agreements land or development

2:32:40 ↗ agreements with bigger builders things

2:32:42 ↗ like that so

2:32:43 ↗ to question number two i guess that's

2:32:45 ↗ what i would say

2:32:47 ↗ thank you

2:32:49 ↗ thank you commissioner

2:32:51 ↗ and commissioner zargoza

2:32:55 ↗ thank you chair uh richard sarah goes i

2:32:57 ↗ wanted to just respond to the chair and

2:33:00 ↗ say yes i think bubbling up those two

2:33:01 ↗ topics would be great

2:33:03 ↗ um carbon sinks i think that could be a

2:33:06 ↗ section

2:33:07 ↗ in itself

2:33:08 ↗ and i'm on the fence with banning

2:33:12 ↗ but i think certainly education and

2:33:15 ↗ reduction and use of those types of

2:33:17 ↗ toxic things uh sounds great and if that

2:33:20 ↗ could be bubble up as an action um in

2:33:22 ↗ itself i think that would be great so

2:33:26 ↗ that's it

2:33:27 ↗ excellent thank you very much

2:33:29 ↗ commissioner zargoza

2:33:31 ↗ and that is it for this evening for our

2:33:35 ↗ goals unless there's anything additional

2:33:37 ↗ uh

2:33:38 ↗ conversation to be had for that

2:33:41 ↗ uh i'm gonna hand the floor over to

2:33:44 ↗ kristen to go ahead and discuss uh

2:33:49 ↗ reports

2:33:52 ↗ thank you this is kristin leeson senior

2:33:54 ↗ planner and before i move on i do just

2:33:56 ↗ want to say one thank you megan um very

2:33:58 ↗ much

2:33:59 ↗ um

2:34:01 ↗ um you know some of the things that you

2:34:03 ↗ brought up regarding chemicals and

2:34:04 ↗ pesticides and

2:34:07 ↗ trees

2:34:08 ↗ you know we could throw everything in

2:34:09 ↗ the climate action but

2:34:11 ↗ gary schmeck is coming on october 14th

2:34:14 ↗ to talk about the surface and stormwater

2:34:15 ↗ plan so that's a good time to talk about

2:34:17 ↗ chemicals there

2:34:19 ↗ as well

2:34:20 ↗ and the trees like i mentioned is going

2:34:21 ↗ to be in landscapes so um while we would

2:34:24 ↗ love for this site to be

2:34:26 ↗ all-encompassing here it will be we will

2:34:28 ↗ be able to adjust it in other places

2:34:31 ↗ as well that's the intent of some of

2:34:32 ↗ those

2:34:33 ↗ so megan you can i'm going to dismiss

2:34:35 ↗ you

2:34:38 ↗ right

2:34:40 ↗ um you all many of you probably don't

2:34:43 ↗ know this megan is on the east coast

2:34:44 ↗ right now so it's 12 o'clock per time

2:34:47 ↗ um

2:34:49 ↗ um so bless her heart okay so reports i

2:34:52 ↗ know that the sign code went through the

2:34:54 ↗ council study session on

2:34:56 ↗ july 22nd i was not there but maybe

2:34:59 ↗ minnie has a report from that

2:35:01 ↗ many

2:35:03 ↗ um good evening uh commissioners so yes

2:35:06 ↗ uh the council did a study session and

2:35:09 ↗ uh it is uh primed up for a public

2:35:12 ↗ hearing um happening in september for

2:35:14 ↗ adoption so i think the feedback we took

2:35:17 ↗ from you all was you didn't want to see

2:35:18 ↗ it back again but you wanted a community

2:35:21 ↗ to weigh in so we did relay that over to

2:35:23 ↗ council and they will be holding a

2:35:25 ↗ public hearing before adopting uh the

2:35:27 ↗ final sign code uh it's changed a little

2:35:30 ↗ bit from the time you saw it

2:35:32 ↗ a lot of it is in terms of the

2:35:35 ↗ predictability fee you know how it looks

2:35:38 ↗ feels

2:35:39 ↗ there are more tables in it so that was

2:35:41 ↗ sort of what the work we did with the

2:35:42 ↗ title 18 ad hoc committee um so that's

2:35:46 ↗ um

2:35:48 ↗ getting ready for uh public hearing and

2:35:50 ↗ adoption uh in early september

2:35:54 ↗ beyond that

2:35:56 ↗ we had included in your packet a rolling

2:36:00 ↗ list of comments that we get from the

2:36:02 ↗ public and those were for title 18

2:36:06 ↗ and we committed to you all that we as

2:36:09 ↗ uh new comments come in we will keep

2:36:11 ↗ them updated in the table format and

2:36:14 ↗ produce them to you

2:36:15 ↗ um so we've only included the new

2:36:17 ↗ comments that came in from

2:36:19 ↗ june through august that you that were

2:36:22 ↗ not included in the previous package so

2:36:24 ↗ i think we will continue that method

2:36:27 ↗ unless you tell us otherwise uh at each

2:36:29 ↗ meeting related to title 18 we will

2:36:31 ↗ produce only the new comments in the

2:36:33 ↗ table

2:36:34 ↗ but we are maintaining all of them

2:36:36 ↗ comprehensively so when the official

2:36:40 ↗ public hearing on that topic will be we

2:36:42 ↗ will have a more complete response for

2:36:45 ↗ each one of those related per topics as

2:36:47 ↗ you see in your packet they're broken up

2:36:49 ↗ by those six larger groups so the

2:36:52 ↗ landscaping and open space is one and

2:36:54 ↗ then natural environment is one and so

2:36:56 ↗ on um

2:36:58 ↗ beyond that i think it's late in the

2:37:00 ↗ hour we we had uh

2:37:02 ↗ kristin had produced um

2:37:04 ↗ a little uh training thing um in terms

2:37:07 ↗ of the question keeps coming up what's

2:37:09 ↗ the vision what's a goal what's the

2:37:11 ↗ policy and what's that what's a code for

2:37:13 ↗ title 18.

2:37:14 ↗ um so we're happy to email that

2:37:17 ↗ presentation over to you um if you want

2:37:20 ↗ i think that'll help clarify

2:37:22 ↗ uh some of these discussions as we get

2:37:24 ↗ deeper into title 18

2:37:27 ↗ uh just understanding that that that's

2:37:29 ↗ where the conversation today was all

2:37:31 ↗ about actionable items and so sometimes

2:37:34 ↗ you know when we're debating the policy

2:37:37 ↗ discussion you're at 50 000 feet level

2:37:39 ↗ but when

2:37:40 ↗ you're talking about the code you're

2:37:41 ↗ going to be

2:37:43 ↗ at a much finer grain

2:37:45 ↗ so we can send you that um presentation

2:37:48 ↗ and answering you know that should help

2:37:49 ↗ answer some of those questions what's a

2:37:51 ↗ vision what's a goal what's a policy and

2:37:54 ↗ there's some examples um kristen put

2:37:56 ↗ together

2:37:58 ↗ um

2:38:00 ↗ that's all i have uh in terms of the

2:38:02 ↗ next steps for title 18 we heard loud

2:38:04 ↗ and clear that the

2:38:07 ↗ meeting on july 22nd uh was a marathon

2:38:10 ↗ meeting um so

2:38:12 ↗ we don't want to repeat that and we're

2:38:14 ↗ looking at

2:38:15 ↗ dividing up some of the topics into

2:38:17 ↗ multiple meetings which then means

2:38:20 ↗ they're going to be more meetings

2:38:22 ↗ but but it'll hopefully will lead to

2:38:24 ↗ more meaningful discussions on the

2:38:26 ↗ environmental topics we're going to come

2:38:28 ↗ back to you on august 26th to continue

2:38:31 ↗ the discussion that was started on july

2:38:33 ↗ 22nd

2:38:35 ↗ um and we've sent you a survey if you

2:38:38 ↗ all can fill that out by the 16th then

2:38:42 ↗ we will include your responses in the

2:38:44 ↗ packet for august 26th

2:38:46 ↗ um

2:38:48 ↗ and um on september 9th

2:38:51 ↗ is uh we're going to bring back open

2:38:54 ↗ space um

2:38:56 ↗ landscaping and trees with parks board

2:38:58 ↗ in attendance um and on august 26th

2:39:01 ↗ you'll have environmental board jointly

2:39:03 ↗ attending and doing the conversation

2:39:05 ↗ with you about the topics we introduced

2:39:07 ↗ on july 22nd

2:39:11 ↗ okay that's all i have i'll turn it over

2:39:13 ↗ to you kristen

2:39:15 ↗ um no i didn't i was gonna sort of cover

2:39:17 ↗ the schedules but i'll just let you know

2:39:19 ↗ that we'd rolled up so yes we do have

2:39:20 ↗ our meetings um we'll send that in the

2:39:22 ↗ next packet and we can the schedule's

2:39:24 ↗ changed a lot since the last packet

2:39:27 ↗ and we will put that in your next packet

2:39:28 ↗ and talk about it at the next meeting

2:39:30 ↗ and make sure it's going to work with

2:39:31 ↗ you all i do want to know

2:39:33 ↗ originally this is kind of a two-part

2:39:36 ↗ question originally we had scheduled a

2:39:38 ↗ public hearing for us the comprehensive

2:39:40 ↗ plan it would start on september 23rd

2:39:43 ↗ and we would continue it through october

2:39:46 ↗ 14th

2:39:47 ↗ we've done that the past couple of years

2:39:50 ↗ but i think you all may have seen an

2:39:52 ↗ email today saying that a

2:39:55 ↗ uh rezone request was withdrawn

2:39:57 ↗ so

2:39:58 ↗ then aside from sort of annual updates

2:40:01 ↗ with

2:40:02 ↗ jobs and housing that kind of thing we

2:40:04 ↗ have the climate change

2:40:06 ↗ so

2:40:07 ↗ climate change

2:40:09 ↗ i guess my first question would you all

2:40:11 ↗ like to see that again before the public

2:40:13 ↗ hearing

2:40:16 ↗ which is on october 14th

2:40:22 ↗ commissioner voice here so are you

2:40:24 ↗ suggesting

2:40:25 ↗ um miss lisa that uh we could

2:40:28 ↗ take the

2:40:30 ↗ take the climate

2:40:32 ↗ climate action plan and then actually

2:40:34 ↗ put that in the meeting that was meant

2:40:35 ↗ for september 9th yes i didn't really i

2:40:37 ↗ didn't complete that thought did i yeah

2:40:39 ↗ so my thought now is is that we would

2:40:40 ↗ just have the public hearing on october

2:40:42 ↗ 14th but we can bring back the climate

2:40:45 ↗ change plan on the 23rd potentially if

2:40:47 ↗ you all would like to see that

2:40:49 ↗ and really it's it's not the entire plan

2:40:51 ↗ the intent is you know the goals and the

2:40:53 ↗ policies and as megan said she can

2:40:55 ↗ include the action items if that will

2:40:56 ↗ help as well

2:40:58 ↗ i can only speak for myself but yeah i

2:41:00 ↗ think if something as meaningful to the

2:41:02 ↗ community as this yeah i'd like to see

2:41:03 ↗ it again okay i see lots of head nodding

2:41:07 ↗ thumbs ups okay so um i've kind of

2:41:10 ↗ already put that into the schedule so we

2:41:11 ↗ can do that

2:41:13 ↗ yeah okay

2:41:15 ↗ thank you i think that's oh no i have

2:41:17 ↗ one more um let me change something

2:41:20 ↗ really quickly

2:41:21 ↗ i am really really happy um

2:41:24 ↗ so right for a while i have been the

2:41:27 ↗ long-range planner for the city and now

2:41:32 ↗ um one of our current person who's been

2:41:34 ↗ a current planner will also be working

2:41:36 ↗ part-time with me in long-range planning

2:41:39 ↗ and her name is valerie porter there she

2:41:41 ↗ is

2:41:42 ↗ and we also have um steven padua who has

2:41:45 ↗ been doing he's been our trans

2:41:47 ↗ transportation planner will also be

2:41:49 ↗ joining our group so

2:41:51 ↗ it's it's going to be really cool so

2:41:53 ↗ valerie do you want to say anything this

2:41:54 ↗ is valerie order

2:41:56 ↗ everyone hi everyone i just wanted to

2:42:00 ↗ say hi you know put a name to her face i

2:42:02 ↗ don't have a lot to say other than i'm

2:42:04 ↗ really excited to be working with you

2:42:05 ↗ guys

2:42:08 ↗ i think it'll be great because she was

2:42:10 ↗ in the background she can be in it she's

2:42:11 ↗ so familiar with current planning you've

2:42:12 ↗ been here four or five years and she can

2:42:14 ↗ she'll she can say things like oh no

2:42:16 ↗ this is what we require so she knows the

2:42:18 ↗ code better than i do so instead of i'm

2:42:20 ↗ not sure i'll have to look valerie's

2:42:21 ↗ usually gonna know the answer so it's

2:42:23 ↗ it'll be great

2:42:25 ↗ welcome to the team

2:42:28 ↗ thank you

2:42:30 ↗ we'll break you in gently

2:42:31 ↗ [Laughter]

2:42:35 ↗ okay uh

2:42:37 ↗ that sounds like it's it is that it from

2:42:40 ↗ everybody

2:42:41 ↗ any last time

2:42:42 ↗ okay so we're going to adjourn the

2:42:44 ↗ meeting at 9 13.

2:42:49 ↗ excellent have a good night y'all

2:42:55 ↗ you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (1)

Administration/

Staff (1)

Ron Faul, Chair Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Jason Voiss, Vice Chair Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Joy Lewis Megan Curtis-Murphy, Sr. Sustain. Coord. Nina Milligan Matt Monahan Richard Zaragoza, Alternate Commissioners Not Present: Sara Bader (Excused)