Lake Forest Park Climate Element

I noticed in the Appendix that there is no reference to the 2015 Comp Plan. I haven't looked at the new Comp Plan draft, but almost everything in this Climate Action Plan is included in the 2105 Comp Plan.
link

A side by side comparison of the 2015 Comp Plan and the 2025 Comp Plan is needed; has anyone done that? I say that because there was an enormous amount of work done on the 2015 Comp Plan wrt climate and environmental issues. It was embedded in every section. Also it was vetted and corrected by the Planning Department (ie: with references that are particular to LFP).

Land Use:
LU-2.1/ LU-2.5
LU-3.1/ LU-3.2/ LU-3.3/ LU-3.5/ LU-3.6

Environmental Quality and Shorelines: if you don't have time I recommend just focusing on reading this section.
all of it, but note that EQ-1.6 specifically mentions LEED
Stormwater management (and stream management) is covered
Flood hazard mitigation is covered
EQ- 5 covers renewable energy
EQ-7and EQ-8: Wildlife cohabitation
EQ- 6.4 and 6.5 cover noise pollution (which I was particularly active in at the time)

Public Transportation:
PT-4 covers protection of wildlife and wild habitat in the face of urban development

Public Utilities
PU- 4.4/ 4.5/ 4.7/ 4.8 address recycling/ energy efficiency/ public education

There were a lot of contributors to the 2015 Comp Plan (Tree Board was super helpful); there was an economic committee and Andrea in the Planning Dept had just finished working on a storm management project for McAleer Creek, so she knew quite a bit. Everyone was very environmentally focused. I had expertise in LEED and infrastructure projects, and access to our urban planning department at ZGF (ZGF is an environmental design focused architectural firm).
This was 10 years ago. Richard Saunders was on the committee at that time and can also provide input.

I do not know what is in the new Comp Plan. Is it radically different from the 2015 Plan?
If it isn't, then I think this Climate Action appendix is redundent- and would create a lot of unnecessary work for the LFP Planning Commission and Planning Department.
If it is radically different, then I think a Climate Action appendix would definitely be needed.

My thoughts- I apologize if all of this has already been addressed- I'm coming in very late to the process. But just hate to see all of that hard work re-created. And the lack of reference to the previous Comp Plan kind of took me back.

Waste of time and money. Globalist propaganda from Marxist ideologs.

Regarding CE-4.4 Do we have a sufficient plan and equipment to handle a wildfire in LFP with all of our big trees?

Our goals promote alternatives to driving but we appear to be missing a key piece of data - why are people choosing to drive? Nearly 100% own cars. It would seem that gathering more data about why they drive is a pretty essential prerequisite to understanding how to coax them out of their cars. Where are they going? Are they picking up heavy or bulky supplies? Does transit mean more walking, longer trips? I would suggest additional research such as resident forums or surveys.

It's not clear what proportion of VMT in LFP are from people who neither reside nor work in LFP. How much of the total is made up of non-residents/non-workers?

The successful Metro Flex program covers some, but not all of LFP. I recommend specifically naming Metro Flex expansion in the list of options.

Was anyone else surprised that, despite thousands of cars and trucks rumbling through LFP on our two state highways, that air travel is the LEADING source of GHG in LFP? I would recommend that one or more goals be targeted to plane travel emissions. Since other cities appear to have a lower proportion of emissions from plane travel, Kenmore Air is suspicious. There was a 2019 news story from KUOW about excessive seaplane pollution. Unlike the cars/trucks, they still use leaded gas. Harbor Air in B.C. is adopting EV seaplanes. In addition to GHG remediation, EV seaplanes reduce noise by 20 dB. I don't think the city is powerless here - other cities have been able to alter flight paths and gain mitigations.

With regard to Policy CE-8.3 "reduce minimum parking..."

Unfortunately reducing minimum parking requirements does not reduce the number of cars and only encourages street parking and parking on the shoulders.

In Lake Forest Park there has been very limited sidewalk development and limited enforcement of people parking on the designated walkways and shoulders (which would provide a safer walk way as opposed to walking in the street). Without requiring off street parking the walkability and bikeability in Lake Forest Park will be compromised.

I have lived in Lake Forest Park since 1993 and have seen the walkability and bikeability significantly deteriorate.

This photo is reversed (mirror image). Is that intentional? If not, suggest fixing. This photo is also pavement- and development-dominated, which while accurate may not be the best vision or message for this document. Suggest a different photo, perhaps one that includes the lake as well?

Kenmore is working with PSE to map potential EV charging on utility poles

There needs to be education about what and how to recycle and compost.

Suggest a Policy on combating climate disinformation. Recent Yale studies suggest vulnerable populations are non-English speaking residents (more prone to use social media in their language) (ties in with social justice). Disinformation through social media is a big problem wrt climate. Messaging and education are extremely important (in the absence of any journalistic guardrails on social media).

de-incentivize use of natural gas (methane); its extraction and transport make it a significant contributor to GHG; work to educate public on this issue

suggest striking "support"; replacing with "streamline/ incentivize permitting and approval processes..."

we already have this- there is a Air Monitoring Station outside City Hall; and numerous apps available to monitor AQ (PurpleAir, AirNow.gov, Washington Smoke Information)
Revise to "educate the public on these resources"

mitigating pollution in storm water runoff (which flows directly into LFP creeks, and then Lake Washington) should be mentioned here.

Where does LFP have flood plains? Consultant to advise.

I'd be motivated to learn about emerging energy technology, and how we can employ them with some understanding. And certainly I (and I think others), would benefit from knowing how we can use existing technologies as well. I feel very strongly about this for our community and our neighborhoods. This is a major element in climate planning.

We need to encourage Seattle into a more regulated infrastructure for shared use electrical vehicles. Other cites have required locations for shared use electric vehicles to be parked and be recharged. IN Seattle, the vehicles are everywhere, spread across the trail and sidewalks. If Seattle puts in little depots, then we can too and then it becomes way more palatable to all citizens.

I really want to know more about alternatives to driving, in order to decrease greenhouse gases. If our community in LFP can bring down our emissions, I think sooner is better than later.

Are refrigerant emissions still an issue?

Is the idea of a tree canopy at odds with higher density housing? It seems the higher density housing within LFP are the ones with the greatest heat threat.

The city has a opportunity to demonstrate leadership on these issues

Is the idea of a tree canopy at odds with higher density housing? It seems the higher density housing within LFP are the ones with the greatest heat threat.

There should be more time for community involvement. One open house is not enough.

parking in the long term may include pricing, but this is likely 10-20 years off. It will not include the Town Center because this a private property.

Sustainable and safe transportation options are extremely important for many reasons in addition to environmental ones. Mobility hubs should be improved and expanded. In addition, streets should be made safer for cyclists, pedestrians, and children.

I'd be very careful about charging for parking on LFP streets. This is an elitist, entitled approach. We need to welcome people of all economic backgrounds.

same comment as Mark Phillp's above

I would strike "Determine funding sources and" because at this point we are only looking to a phased transition and not an immediate one. We seem to be talking about the next vehicle, maybe not replacing the entire fleet at once.

LFP is the only city in the northend that does not have Lime bikes. So it seems as if the bikes are abandoned. The City should join things like this. In addition there are plenty of outreach and education opportunities for working together. It takes staff to do this effectively.

This will happen most effectively if the City hires a climate management.

One tree board member felt strongly that our emission reduction targets are unrealistic. This was not a unanimous opinion, but is is true that King County, which originally set these goals, is becoming increasingly aware that we are likely to fall far short of all three goals.

It seems confusing to include tree loss as a generator of emissions. When a tree is cut, it's decay does start a process of releasing carbon. Is that what is meant here? Can we assume that the removed tree stays in LFP to contribute to our emissions?
Trees and other vegetation remove GHG's from the air. Removing trees means less GHG being removed. But that seems different than the intent of this sentence.
Clarification would help.

Ce-1 would benefit by adding a basic policy about trees: eg, Encourage tree planting wherever feasible, emphasizing tree varieties that are drought and heat tolerant.

"Heritage trees" is too vague and is not based in any current city program. Better to use "large trees" or to be consistent with the city's tree ordinance, "exceptional trees."

C-1.1 and C-1.5 seem very similar. Can the difference be clarified or the two combined?

A new policy is needed under C-1: Reduce the impact of large heat islands by encouraging more tree planting in parking lots.

Mention of permeable pavement here seems misplaced. Would be more appropriate in C-1.3 Drought and Flood Resistance.

The Heritage tree program at LFP is really not active any longer. Plus it was volunteer only and not supported by any official ordinance or policy that I am aware of. This report should focus on Exceptional trees which are being added to the Tree Preservation and Protection ordinance. The focus on the canopy is definitely a good thing. And as I stated elsewhere I believe there should be direct reference to the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance and the Community Forest Management Plan.

I recommend also referencing Conservation Residential in addition to Low Impact Development which is specifically called out in other areas of the City's comp plan.

If this list is about aligning with documents that are important to LFP and climate issues I think it should include the LFP Community Forest Management Plan 2010 and the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. It seems that trees should be a critical part of a climate polity for the City.

Great plan- if LFP had unlimited resources. I hope the city is looking to low cost ways to make the streets safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. There are a number of dangerous curves where cars drive on the shoulder that could be improved immediately with temporary curbing. Relatively low cost and would improve safety until the city could afford permanent curbing. Has the city asked citizens who have resources to contribute to a fund for low cost solutions? I’d be willing to contribute.

Re: CE-7.2 funding sources for EV's. This transition is going to cost millions. In a city already strapped for revenue I would hope that your funding will come from somewhere other than our residents.
Re: Policy CE-6.7. We are not in favor of pricing for any kind of parking in the City of Lake Forest Park. Ridiculous, if you want people to come shop and eat, don't charge to park. This is not the way to get people to stop using their vehicles to achieve you goals.