← Back to City Council Digest

Planning Policy Commission

Thursday, August 12, 2021

6:30 PM · 2h 42m
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.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
2a
Minutes of July 8, 2021
packet pp.5–8
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 07-08-21 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000]
2b
Minutes of July 15, 2021
packet pp.9
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 07-15-21 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000]
2c
Minutes of July 22, 2021
packet pp.11–19
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES c) 07-22-21 Planning Policy Commission- Page [0000] Environmental Board Special Meeting Minutes
5. REPORTS
5a
Council Updates
Christen Leeson · packet pp.27–64
Staff report:
August 12, 2021 Public Comment Update Comments received 6/25/2021 - 8/3/2021 Update Process & Public Engagement
5b
Public Comments on Title 18 Code Update
Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development
Topics: Land Use
6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
6a
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.65–67
Staff report:
OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2021 / 2022 PPC Schedule (tentative) (updated 3/11/21)
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
3:28 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
4:48 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
12:58 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
24:43 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
26:26 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
27:50 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
29:03 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 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
31:34 impervious services setbacks and things
31:36 like that
31:38 thank you
31:40 this is megan
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
35:09 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
36:15 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
36:22 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
37:40 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
38:40 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
39:23 we used to have
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
40:20 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
40:54 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
43:38 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
45:48 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
46:04 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
49:16 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
49:49 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
50:42 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
52:10 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
55:07 agree it does have a lot of options in
55:10 there i think it doesn't really focus in
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
56:14 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
59:48 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
1:00:16 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
1:03:13 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
1:03:40 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
1:03:56 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
1:04:35 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
1:06:33 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
1:06:50 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
1:07:05 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
1:07:31 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
1:08:35 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
1:09:40 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
1:09:49 richard zargoza on his comment there i
1:09:51 think it
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
1:10:29 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
1:13:02 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
1:13:21 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
1:14:00 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
1:15:18 um we can just make sure that any
1:15:19 necessary references are there how about
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
1:16:50 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
1:17:20 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
1:18:44 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
1:18:59 you know the um
1:19:01 having bringing back you know like the
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
1:20:41 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
1:21:35 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
1:24:17 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
1:25:01 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
1:27:23 take into account
1:27:26 that when we establish what our goal is
1:27:29 which should be i think quite different
1:27:33 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
1:28:12 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
1:28:44 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
1:29:42 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
1:29:57 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
1:32:14 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
1:32:56 the other thing i felt was missing from
1:32:58 me is kind of the concept of a do no
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
1:35:34 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
1:38:31 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
1:39:10 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
1:39:34 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
1:39:46 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
1:40:27 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
1:40:44 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
1:40:57 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 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
1:45:45 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
1:50:07 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
1:50:19 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
1:51:00 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
1:51:23 with the advancements of leds we think
1:51:25 oh we can just leave lights on it's only
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 [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
1:52:03 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
1:52:13 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 [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 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
1:55:28 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
1:55:56 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
1:56:32 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
1:56:46 uh given that
1:56:48 i am going to start with a
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
1:59:48 these things
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
2:00:29 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
2:00:53 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
2:03:23 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
2:03:44 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
2:03:54 houses that are closer to each other and
2:03:56 where people can actually walk or bike
2:04:00 or take the bus to their place of work
2:04:04 or school or
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
2:04:45 make sure there's that actually is a
2:04:47 throughput
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
2:05:42 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
2:05:55 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
2:07:19 i would like to go back to
2:07:25 see it is gold number
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
2:08:14 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
2:09:00 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
2:09:36 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
2:10:14 [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
2:10:35 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
2:11:37 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
2:11:57 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
2:13:09 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
2:13:32 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
2:13:41 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
2:14:04 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
2:14:28 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
2:15:39 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
2:15:54 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
2:16:10 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 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
2:18:56 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
2:21:53 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
2:22:34 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
2:23:38 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
2:23:59 thank you chair uh richard zargoza one
2:24:02 comment question
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
2:25:45 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
2:26:29 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
2:27:00 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
2:28:38 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 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
2:29:35 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
2:30:22 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
2:30:59 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
2:33:38 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
2:34:01 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
2:34:38 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
2:34:49 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
2:35:03 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
2:35:48 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
2:38:00 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
2:38:35 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
2:38:48 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
2:39:47 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
2:39:58 then aside from sort of annual updates
2:40:02 jobs and housing that kind of thing we
2:40:04 have the climate change
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
2:41:42 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
2:42:08 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

Attendance

Council / Members (6)
Ron Faul, Chair Christen Leeson
Jason Voiss, Vice Chair Minnie Dhaliwal
Joy Lewis Megan Curtis-Mu
Nina Milligan
Matt Monahan
Richard Zaragoza
Staff (2)
, Senior Planner , Director, CP&D
rphy, Sr. Sustain. Coord.
Excused
Sara Bader

Recommendations & actions (5)

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

  • a) Minutes of July 8, 2021 were approved as presented.
  • b) Minutes of July 22, 2021 were approved as presented.
  • Minutes were approved with correction noted.
  • Curtis-Murphy explained how staff is ensuring that all the City’s plans, either already adopted or being adopted, such as the CIP, ICAP, Storm and Surface Water Master Plan, and so on, “talk” to each other.
  • The state adopted these goals, she continued, and it makes sense to align with the region.