Okay, welcome everyone. I, Council
Member Walsh, call the March 17, 2026
City Council Planning, Development, and
Environment Committee to order. I am
joined by Deputy Council President Jen
and Council Member Nichols. Uh, the
first item on our agenda is public
comment. Um, and I will note we have no
one in person. Um, clerk, do we have
anyone online?
Are we good on our video?
Yeah. Is there anybody online? No. Okay.
Well, um, I will always note you can
email city council isquawwah.gov
and reach us at any time. And if there
is anybody who shows up, please let me
know because there will be public
comment opportunities after each of our
agenda items. The next item of business
is approval of the minutes. Uh the
minutes were distributed to the
committee in advance. Are there any
corrections?
Seeing none, the minutes are approved as
pre um presented.
So we've got two agenda items tonight.
uh both done by Stacy Vin McKinstry
um our sustainability manager. The first
is COMM 0251, the Isqua climate action
plan proposed policies and updates
followed by COMM 0257
pathway and timeline for climate action
plan adoption. We'll get the staff
presentation, committee Q&A, if there's
anybody there for public comment after
that point, and then the committee
deliberation and recommendation.
Are we good on TV? All of that. Okay,
just making sure you know we weren't
going to have to go back and repeat
ourselves. Take it away, Stacy.
>> Thank you. Uh, good evening, Chair
Walsh, Deputy Council President Jen, and
Council Member Nichols. Uh, my name is
Stacy Vin McKinstry. I am the
sustainability manager with the city.
Right. So this evening um we are going
to be reviewing some proposed high
impact actions that were proposed for
the climate action plan and then we are
looking for direction from you all on
how to or whether or not to incorporate
the recommendations into the climate
action plan.
Um tonight uh that direction that we
seek is that uh whether or not uh
council directs us to incorporate high
impact actions in the 2026 isqua climate
action plan update.
We have previously shared with you the
background of how the 2021 climate
action plan was developed and adopted.
Um tonight I wanted to briefly summarize
for you all on how we are going through
the process of updating this plan for
2026.
In the spring and summer of 2025, we
worked with a number of subject matter
experts to form committees and receive
early review on targets and actions for
the climate action plan.
staff have been going through a process
to review other relevant climate action
plans and identify uh opportunities to
incorporate sim similar actions into our
plan. For example, Belleview and Redmond
recently updated their plans. We have
held early meetings with the
transportation advisory board, park
board, planning policy commission to
review input from committees and our
approach to updating actions. We have
held multiple meetings with the
environmental board to review proposed
revisions section by section of the
plan.
And then we've held follow-up meetings
with TAB PPC and the park board uh this
winter uh to follow up on their
recommendations and additional revisions
to the actions.
In the fall, we held a community
engagement event uh to seek input from
our community members on the plan
update. And this winter we had a
student-led student focused survey uh to
receive input from youth on the plan
update.
Following input that we have from the
committee tonight, our next steps that
we are planning on is to take a full set
of revised targets and actions to the
environmental board later this month um
and continue reviewing those in April
unless we are directed otherwise.
To summarize uh the meeting that we held
with this committee last month on
February 3rd, we presented results from
our greenhouse gas emissions inventory
and a potential pathway for IAP
adoption.
This committee expressed concerns about
the ability for us to meet the targets
that are laid out in the climate action
plan, expressed interest in engaging
earlier in the review process, and
requested that staff return with a set
of actions and policies that would
significantly reduce emissions in our
community in line with our greenhouse
gas reduction goals. The committee
requested that staff focus on poly
policies that address transportation and
building energy use. These two areas
make up 86% of our communitywide
greenhouse gas emissions and they really
are the priority for focusing our
emissions reduction. The committee
requested that we return in March to
discuss the big policy ideas and input
from our city committees um commissions
and boards.
We approached the policy review by first
assessing climate pan plans and policies
of jurisdictions that are really known
to be leaders in climate space. Um, as
well as reaching out to climate advocacy
organizations
for their input on policies that would
have the highest impact on communitywide
greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
Taking this feedback and research, we
then developed a list of potential
policies that were brought to the
transportation advisory board and
planning policy commission.
Both the commission and board reviewed
the policies and provided feedback which
we then took and developed into staff
recommendations.
Tonight I am going to go through the
policies that we presented to TAB and
PPC, share a bit of their feedback and
then following uh those policies I will
summarize the staff recommendations.
One note about the big policy ideas. We
let the board and commission know that
they were very conceptual. We pulled
these ideas from several uh cities uh at
a very conceptual level. We did not have
time to vet them thoroughly, assess how
they would be right sized for Isiqua. We
really wanted that early feedback on the
concept and if the concept was supported
and this uh policy was adopted into the
climate plan, the first step would be to
do a more thorough assessment and figure
out how we would rightsize this policy
for our city um and implement it.
So next um I can pause there see if
there's any questions on the process and
then I will move into the big policy
ideas and the feedback we received.
>> I'm not seeing any questions. So let's
go ahead.
>> I'll start with the transportation and
land use policies.
Um the first one that we brought to the
boards and commissioned was the concept
of removing parking minimums for new and
redeveloped multifamily buildings. Uh
looking at neighboring or uh
jurisdictions across the country, this
is really a major policy that's used to
reduce single occupancy vehicle use um
and allowing the developers um or
allowing the market to really drive the
parking needs. When we shared this uh
concept with TAB and PPC,
um TAB was generally very supportive. Um
they did have some concerns around
spillover parking and ensuring there'd
be access to transit. Uh PPC had quite a
few concerns around spillover parking.
Um I do want to acknowledge uh the
conversation that council had last week
um around parking minimums and I'll talk
a little bit more about that in the
staff recommendations.
The next policy we looked at was
increasing multifamily requirements for
installing electric vehicle ready
stalls. Uh this would include doing the
conduit and electrical work during a new
development or reconstruction. Um it is
much less expensive to do it at that
stage versus post construction.
Um this would be requiring uh the city
to go above and beyond state standards.
Redmond has recently passed a policy
where they require 100% EV ready stalls
in multifamily.
Um we brought this forward because
Redmond um shared with us that they did
not hear concerns from the development
community when this was passed. In
sharing with TAB and PPC, TAB was
generally supportive um based on the
experience that Redmond had had. They
had wanted to um have us do a little bit
more research and understand Redmond's
process to develop this policy. But in
general, we're supportive. Uh PPC
expressed concerns around grid capacity
as well as added cost uh for developers
to install the EV ready stalls um at the
time of development.
The third policy we looked at uh came
out of Vancouver uh BC. This was a
policy that would require electric
vehicle charging at fuel stations or
else the fuel stations would be charged
an additional um BNO tax. Vancouver
passed this. Uh they actually have not
implemented the policy. They pulled out
before the policy went or they pulled
the policy back before it went into
effect.
In discussions with TAB and PPC, they
didn't necessarily think it was um that
this would be needed, that fueling
stations, gas stations were probably not
the right location for our EV charging.
They were concerned about the costs um
from the additional BNO tax being passed
on to consumers and really encourage us
to look at other innovative um and
incentive based ways to install EV
charging throughout the city.
The next concept came out of Berkeley.
Um this is uh where they've passed what
they call a transit first policy. Uh it
is really putting transit at the front
of decision-making where leadership has
committed that transit will be
considered as a top priority when it
comes to budget projects. Um everything
really is centered around transit and
making access to transit more reliable
and accessible.
In discussing this concept with TAB and
PPC, they really felt that this was the
intent of the mobility action plan and
that uh it wasn't really needed in our
community.
Then moving into building and energy
policies or I can pause there if we want
to discuss.
>> No, I'd like to go through and hear the
staff recommendations and then we'll
take them in chunks.
>> Okay.
uh building and energy policies. Uh the
first concept we brought here was a
benchmarking program that would go um
beyond where our current Washington
state claim buildings performance
standard is. So this would reach
buildings that are under 20,000 square
feet or could even go above and beyond
the current standards that Washington
state has um for buildings to meet
energy performance standards. So this
would be in light of um Seattle has
passed their own program that goes above
and beyond state program uh excuse me
state requirements has higher energy
efficiency or emission standards for
their buildings.
Uh PPC expressed concern about the cost
of building owners and the capacity of
the city to manage a program like this.
Um, I did want to note here, and I
shared this with PPC, that the city does
run a voluntary program where we support
building owners in meeting compliance
with current state standards. Um, we
have difficulty even bringing uh
building owners into that program, which
is free and voluntary.
Um, and then the next policy is turning
to the residential side. Uh here we
shared the concept of implementing a
home energy score. This is a concept
that's been raised at the state
legislature several times. It is not
passed at the state level. Um but it is
implemented in Oregon and other
communities around the country uh where
a seller is required to have a home
inspection and publicize a home energy
score. Um in Oregon uh there are
incentives and rebates in order to make
upgrades to the home. Taking it a step
further, uh the city of Berkeley has a
program in place called the building
emission saving ordinance where they
require a home to meet a certain energy
efficiency
uh to score a number of points in terms
of energy efficiency at the time of
sale. Um or else those investments need
to be made in the home uh or uh it is
passed on to the seller to make those uh
upgrades to the home. There are
different uh points assigned to
different upgrades, whether it's
weatherization,
replacing a gas stove, um installing a
heat pump, you earn a certain number of
points that you have to make at the time
of sale.
Um in discussing this concept with PPC,
there were concerns around equity, the
cost for upgrades, um and really um just
making it more expensive to to buy homes
in our community.
two more to go through here. Um, and
then another policy we looked at for
building and energy uh was instead of
looking at the time of the home being
sold is a time of replacement. So if the
equipment fails or reaches the end of
life um this would be a requirement to
replace that equipment with a higher
energy efficiency equipment
um or uh electric equipment. Um there
are communities that have in place uh a
time of replacement requirement. for
example, for hot water heaters.
Uh there were concerns expressed by PPC
around this approach as well. Um the
higher potential higher costs for energy
efficiency equipment which would
decrease affordability and just the
ability to right size this kind of
program for every home. Uh the number of
exemptions that might be needed for a
home for example.
And then our final policy we looked at
this was a proposal from the
environmental board which was to look at
a dark sky ordinance that would be more
that would be focused really on our
commercial buildings. Uh this would be
in terms to reduce energy use um improve
nighttime ambience. Um the city did uh
does have in place a number of uh
requirements around lighting and title
18. Um and our planning team did share
that uh it is still difficult at this
point for developers to meet some of
those requirements. What the
environmental board was looking at was
going above and beyond that for
commercial buildings um and reducing
their energy use in the evening.
Uh PPC did express some concerns around
requirements of specifically focusing on
commercial properties um and uh safety
associated with uh darker properties in
the evening um and really wanted us to
focus more on technical support and
incentives.
So that concludes the the policy ideas
that were brought to PPC.
Um, next what I was going to do is just
provide a really brief summary and then
move into the staff recommendations.
Right. So I'll say in general the
feedback we receive from TAB and PPC is
that these policies are not right sized
for isqua. There was a lot of concern
around affordability increased costs to
residents and developers for
implementing them. I will note there
were a few policies that were supported
uh reducing or putting restrictions on
parking um and uh TAB also generally
supported the increased EV ready stalls
in multifamily buildings.
What we did after receiving that
feedback was rework the policies um to
really focus in on technical support,
outreach and incentives, which is what
we heard from the board and committees.
Before moving into the staff
recommendations, um I wanted to share
that these are not big policies that
will really move the needle on
greenhouse gas emissions reduction. we
are trying to balance affordability,
partnerships with our community, um
improving a quality of life and really
access to the different programs.
So, we recognize that the city has a
number of priorities that we need to
balance um and so we have tried to uh
consider those priorities in these
recommendations.
We believe that these actions will make
big advancements in our climate work,
but also doing that while not ensuring
that we're not driving up costs or
making it more expensive to build or um
uh isolating ourselves from uh
partnerships with our business community
and our our community members.
Right? So, we have six recommendations
with a big caveat on that first one. Um
so I'll first start with the
transportation and land use
recommendations
based on um the research that we had
seen across the country and uh the
feedback that we received from TAB in
particular. Uh the first recommendation
we were proposing was looking at
opportunities to remove parking
minimums. I recognize this is evolving
conversation and that council
uh discussed this last Monday and so
this recommendation is a little out of
date even since then. Um but that staff
will continue to work with our planning
department um to uh move forward what we
think will be best both from a planning
and sustainability perspective in terms
of looking at whether it's parking
maximums or another approach. um as our
planning staff update code based on
state requirements.
Uh the second recommendation we have is
to look at the feasibility of developing
a program that offers technical support
and incentives to increase charging at
multifamily properties. Uh this is an
approach that Belleview is taking where
instead of increasing
requirements for EV ready or EV charging
at multifamily, they're running a
program that really supports and works
in partnership with their multifamily
buildings um and providing that
technical support.
Uh the third option is uh expanding
electric vehicle charging access in
Isiqua through incentives, looking at
creative solutions such as uh public
private partnerships or other ways um
instead of imposing requirements at
certain um like at gas stations for
example. Uh we heard a lot of input from
PPC and TAB that they wanted to make
sure that charging was going in the
right areas that would support um our
retailers in Isiqua and make sure that
it's located in an area that someone
will want to spend 20 to 40 minutes
while charging their car.
Uh the fourth recommendation under
transportation and land use is that we
would bring on a consultant and really
take a hard look at our city code and
identify where we can remove barriers to
um making sure our residents and
businesses can increase energy
efficiency and renewable energy. The
city's done a lot to remove barriers,
uh, reducing setbacks, noise
requirements, trying to streamline the
permitting process for solar. Uh, but we
think that there might be an opportunity
to take another look at that code and
see where we might um remove some of
those challenges.
And then the next two recommendations
are around building an energy.
Um, so our fifth recommendation is
evaluating the feasibility of running a
voluntary energy benchmarking program
that would capture the buildings that
are not currently covered under our
state clean buildings act. This program
could be run in partnership with PSSE um
or some of our neighboring cities that
are interested and provide technical
support, individual support in accessing
etc. Um we are currently in the process
of starting to look at what kind of
impact this type of program might have
in terms of reducing emissions in our
city given our building stock.
And then our last uh recommendation is
instead of looking at home energy score
or a time of sale requirement or a time
of replacement requirement, um really uh
enhancing our current energy smart east
side heat pump program where we would
look beyond um our current contractor
list to make sure that we're educating
other contractors in promoting heat
pumps, providing quotes for heat pumps.
Um looking at additional incentives we
might be able to offer to our entire
community. Um and really just expanding
that program both for electrification as
well as weatherization
of our um residents.
Um this one we are also starting to look
at uh the potential greenhouse gas
emission savings uh through an expanded
program especially with adding on that
weatherization component to a program.
Um, one additional thing I just want to
note is this is a very small subset of
the actions that we are advancing in the
climate action plan. We have a number of
other actions that we're refining and
updating around our programming,
expanding outreach and incentives, um,
engaging businesses through technical
support, etc. So that full list of
actions is what we'll be bringing to the
environmental board in a couple of
weeks. Um but these are the additional
um recommendations based out of that
policy analysis.
So that concludes the review of the
policies. Um the input that we're
looking for tonight from you all is
whether you support the staff
recommendations and request that we
continue working through um the process
to update actions in the IAP. Uh whether
you want us to revisit those bold policy
ideas um and continue to develop them
into the IAP update or do you want us to
come uh kind of start over look further
and bring back an updated list to PTE
for further discussion.
Okay. So, looking first for questions.
Um, if there are any questions about any
of these items and then we'll see if
there's any public comment.
So, Council Member Nichols,
>> questions. Do you want to divide this up
into any chunks or just All right. Um,
so
questions first. Um, first on the
parking minimums policy. Um looking back
just trying to compare what uh was in
this packet versus what PPC reviewed um
one of the differences there was that um
the recommendations were around um
frequent transit um as a as a term. What
is frequent transit or what did frequent
transit mean at least in that package?
>> Yeah, great question. Um that was a term
offered by one of our planners of
transit that is reliable and regular. I
believe it's used at the state level. So
it is a commonly used term throughout
the planning community. Um so I can I
can provide you with those details but
that was what how we shared it with TAB.
Um there was discussion at TAB whether
or not we needed to include the transit.
I think they were open to um not
necessarily having a transit requirement
around parking minimums. Um but it was a
concern they expressed and wanted to be
explored just how that might impact our
community.
Okay. Um,
yeah, I'll have some follow-ups on that
once you can that definition. Um,
another question. Um,
for the EV ready stall requirements,
what does technical support mean?
>> Um, in terms of what could be offered
through that program?
>> Yeah. Could you just clarify what the
recommendation really is?
>> Yeah. I think, um, again, these are very
conceptual. I think what we would be
doing through a program and again that
would be developed based on the need and
probably discussing with developers what
they actually need um would be uh
working with them to do either some
initial design look at electrical
capacity
um connect them with incentives so those
are the types of things that Belleview
is doing through their program which
they have just launched. So we're
looking a little bit to see how that
program evolves over time and if we
think it would be a good fit here. Get
very conceptual so that could be
developed to meet the need of our um our
community.
>> And then just to be to make sure I'm
clear too in that recommendation there
is the staff recommendation is not
currently to require EV ready
uh builds. Is that correct?
>> Not to acquire above um the state
requirement.
Yeah, based based on the feedback from
PPC um and comments we received from the
community. I will say TAB seemed a
little more open to that and exploring
as long as we looked further into the
research Redmond had done and any push
back that they're receiving now that
that is in place.
>> Okay. And then last question on policy
8, the dark side ordinance, uh what
specifically were the uh difficulties
with meeting the current lighting
standards that were expressed?
>> Yeah, that's a great question. I'll have
to follow up with our planning team on
that. They um just noted that since
Title 18 has been updated with some
stronger requirements, they are hearing
a lot of challenges. So, I can follow up
with with them on that and provide you
more information.
>> Okay, that's it for questions for me.
>> Deputy Council President Shen.
>> Um yeah, thank you for putting this
together. Um so, I have a question on
the EV charging. So it looked like the
options were to basically you know just
provide support and then to do 100% EV
ready. Have we there's kind of a middle
ground I see there which is 100% EV
capable or even going one level below
that is basically just having the
conduit and the wires there not
necessarily providing the additional
electrical capacity. basically making it
so that if you're gonna, you know,
install EV chargers in the future, you
don't have to like drill open the wall
to put the wires in, which that seems to
be the big thing that if you don't do at
the time of construction is going to,
you know, bite you in the butt later.
And I think if we're talking about
affordability, I think
>> a key part of that is making sure we're
doing upfront investments to not have to
do, you know, have to tear things apart
and invest a bunch more money later. Um,
so I'm curious if that's something like
is that something that we have
considered as an option?
>> We didn't specifically raise that. I
know there are conversations at the
state level around increasing the EV
capable requirements. Um, and so that's
something we could definitely include in
the um, IAP that we would further
explore and determine if there's a a
right number to land above the state
requirements.
>> Great. Yeah. just cuz I mean I I'm
hesitant to do anything that requires
getting a bigger electrical service,
which if we're going on the definition
of EV cable, you have to get electrical
service to your property that's the full
size of if you had like 600 cars
charging there. Um, and at least I've
heard from our planning department that
this can actually be a major delay to
getting um development built. So, I'm
not for anything that does that. But I
think, you know, can we require people
to put the wires in their parking
garage? I think that's a totally
different thing that's actually not
going to be like prohibitively
expensive. So definitely something to
explore.
>> Okay.
>> Um and then on the dark sky piece,
um
I mean in terms of like light that goes
into the sky, to me it seems like street
lights are an issue there. Is that
something that would be included in this
dark sky ordinance or is it only
commercial properties? that's covered in
other components at title 18. Um, for
street lights, uh, there are a lot of
dimming capabilities that we're looking
at, especially as we transition to LEDs,
which are a lot brighter. We are looking
to pilot some dimming, um, to see if
that makes a big impact. Um, but that's
not something we specifically covered
here, but we could consider looking
again at our street standards for street
lighting, whether we want to.
>> Yeah, I guess I'm curious. I mean, in
terms of street lights, right, like the
the ones that look the most
aesthetically pleasing are often the
ones that are actually the worst in
terms of night sky things. So, the one,
you know, the ones with the little tent
cap things, they really don't send light
into the sky. Then the historic ones on
Front Street, you know, they're clear at
the top, they look nice, but they're not
great for dark sky. So, is is that
something we're looking into in terms of
like, you know, standards in terms of
where the light gets blocked and all
that stuff?
Yeah, absolutely. I can take a look back
at our title 18 code to see how that is
covered, but if there's other
opportunities we'd want to explore with
the planning team.
Great. Thank you.
>> Okay. I was trying to look it up myself,
but um did we not adopt code related to
EV capable? I believe there was an
ordinance in 2021. Can you remind me? We
did and at that time when we adopted
that code we were going above the state
standards. The state standards then
surpassed what we passed. Um and so we
are now in alignment with the state
standards. We updated our code to catch
up to the state.
Okay. Fantastic. Thank you for catching
me up while the state caught up. Um
okay. So, having had our questions
answered, I will just check in with
Amanda and see if Do we have anybody
online?
Any public comments?
>> One second, please.
>> Yeah, no problem.
>> Currently, we do not have anyone for a
comment.
>> Okay, great. And we don't have anybody
in the audience physically with us, so
we'll skip over the public comment. So
toward feedback, I would love to start
with and maybe you can kind of go back
to the um transportation and land use
and then we'll do a second segment on
buildings and energy code. Uh council
member Nichols.
>> Okay. As far as comments on So let me
just make sure I got the order you want
these to go. So transport and
>> yeah the transportation and land use was
kind of how they grouped them together.
So I think that's
>> one through
>> Yep. I was just looking
>> Yes. One through four.
>> Okay. One through four. Got it.
>> Um
okay. So I I'd like us to discuss and
possibly recommend going back to a ver
to the version that was closer to what
PPC saw. Um, and then with a few
additions to that as well. So, um, and
to be clear, so, um, so everyone else is
aware, uh, the the PPC version of this
had a slightly different recommendation
or series of recommendations, um,
starting from the initial, please
correct me if I get this wrong, but, uh,
my my my read on that meeting and
reading that packet was the original,
uh, version included.5 miles around
frequent transit. Um, and then that was
the staff recommendation was to reduce
to 0.25 25 miles around frequent
transit. Um I'd like us to discuss
going back to that uh also with some
definitions of what frequent transit is
because we need to be precise about
that. I think it's a sort of situation
where a map could really help um once
those points are defined because it'll
make a big difference I think if it's
>> every single bus stop versus our our to
etc. Um, I'd also like to propose that
we add specifically add in um the
regional growth center boundaries as an
area to adopt this policy in. Um, I
think that's the area where
it best aligns with the other goals
we've been discussing recently on
affordability um as well as our our
climate desires and our transit needs as
well. Um
it also helpfully help will be another
forcing function that if we if we go
above state uh uh minimums there it will
incentivize growth in that area as
opposed to other areas in the city. So I
think that's a potentially good reason
to do it as well. Um so that's my my my
main thought on
policy one. Do we want to discuss
anything now or just keep going?
>> Okay. on policy 2 EV ready charging. Um
I I'd like to see that brought back to
also something a little closer to where
that was before. I think this is a good
this so I
getting ready for a an EV future I think
is something we have to do at some
point. I think this is a good thing that
we'll that we should we we should be
fine being leaders in um and even a bit
ahead of the state at some time. Um and
then they can catch up again. Um,
I agree with council member Jang's
comment that uh it would it it doesn't
seem sensible necessarily to require EV
service at every station. We don't have
100% EVs. We won't for a while. Um, so I
I think that's something the the the
market should easily be able to decide
on its own, but to make that quick and
efficient when it does happen. um
preparing for that uh in the more
nuanced ways that council member Jang
described which were uh in a way that
won't require
as much as possible won't require
electrical permitting and stuff like
that. So not having to connect it to the
actual grid, not having to connect the
service lines into it. Get get the
plumbing in place to the extent the
plumbing um exists and sometimes that is
actual tubes um and the wires. See if we
can get that in place um and have that
part. And I think that's a I think
that's a useful trade-off when we're
talking about costs of these things
because they do all have costs. I don't
want to forget that. Um we if we are if
we're looking at reducing parking
minimums in areas like central Isiqua
that will reduce the cost of
development. Um incre if we're looking
at increasing EV ready stall
requirements that will increase it but
it's by a far far lower amount. So I
think it's a perfectly reasonable
trade-off to be making. Um,
and then finally on the transit first
policy, um, I read through the Berkeley
transit first, at least I skimmed
through it. I honestly didn't read the
whole thing, but um, there was one part
in there that I really liked that I
think our current mobility action plan
is actually missing. Um and that's uh so
this is specifically um
and just if we want to go back to it
later, it's general plan policy T4 that
states that they it will give priority
to alternative transportation and
transit over single occupant vehicles on
transit routes identified on the transit
network map. Um so to me in an Isukqua
context that would mean priority to
transit in central Isqua around areas
where we plan to b build out central
transit in much uh greater degrees. This
and the difference here to me is that
this is this is kind of an affirmative
statement. We will do this versus in our
current mobility action plan the closest
analog is uh mat7.2 two where it says
greater level levels of auto delay may
be permissible where mitigations to
improve intersection level of service
would degrade conditions and it goes on
from there which is much much more of a
defensive posture. Um basically it
tolerates some worse performance as
opposed to taking it from the lens of
prioritizing transit. Um, I think that
distinction could matter in practice and
I would recommend that we consider
adding language like that into our uh,
climate related plans as well on which
is on top of what is already in the um,
mobility action plan which is quite good
and comprehensive. But uh, I think this
is through through the exercise that you
guys went through of looking what other
cities have done. This is an interesting
example of somebody taking a slightly
different lens on things that I think
could help us. So those that's my
comments on one through four.
>> Thank you, Deputy Council President.
>> Great. Um okay, lots of comments um on
policy number one about removing parking
minimums. I think with frequent transit,
there was some like beef about this in
the legislature last year because of how
it related to middle housing and then
what came out in the transit oriented
development bill was because Originally,
frequent transit was any sound transit
stop and sound transit can change the
routes. I mean, they're literally going
to change the 554 route imminently. So,
I think there was some concern about
using that to make land use decisions
because, you know, then things could get
out of compliance. So I think in terms
of reducing our uh parking minimums, I
think either doing something with the
major transit stop which is like fixed
infrastructure like a light rail station
or a park and ride um or you know
potentially just doing the regional
growth center boundaries because that's
something where we have you know many
many documents and the whole regional
planning agency has decided that's where
I want to focus their growth. I think
that makes a lot of sense and then we're
not coming up with a different
definition that's you know different. Um
I think on I already talked about my
preference on um EV uh ready stalls. I
think potentially one level below EV
capable where you don't need to have an
oversized, you know, electrical service
at the capacity to charge the entire
garage full of cars could be some, you
know, I I don't know what this would
necessarily be called, but I do think
that's probably the least cost way to go
about it. That would also reduce future
costs. Um, I agree with TAB and PPC that
requiring EV charging at gas stations
seems not really like something we need
to be doing. Um, in terms of the transit
first policy, I think it's an
interesting concept. I also think
Berkeley is a very different city from
Isqua. I mean, I went to school there.
You know, there's like a population of
40,000 college students, most of whom do
not drive. There's tons of busings
running around everywhere. It's very
dense. I, you know, they're building
like 30story buildings for college
students. So, it is kind of a different
situation where they have tons of buses
whereas we like don't. Um, but I do
think just kind of taking more of this
approach of like how do we prioritize
non-drive alone people in our mobility
action plan. So, one of the things
that's always been very interesting to
me is that level of service for cars is
basically determined by how long you
have to wait at a traffic light. And we
don't define level of service for
pedestrians or bikes in the same way.
Right? There's some of these like
crosswalks where you have to sit there
for like five minutes while the car even
if the there's not that many cars going
by as I'm thinking especially Highlands
Drive those crosswalks are terrible. Um
and instead we instead base it on safety
which is important don't get me wrong
but I think it's you know we value the
time of motorists a lot more than the
time of pedestrians. And I think that's
something that, you know, and maybe it's
not necessarily like the climate action
plan isn't necessarily the right place
to put that, but it's something that I
think we should take into, you know, our
transportation policies, especially
because one of our main climate action
goals is to reduce vehicle miles
traveled. Um, so I think, you know, in
the vein of reducing vehicle miles
traveled, I don't re like a lot of these
land use changes kind of get at it
obliquely. I think if we're really, you
know, trying to figure out, okay, how do
we reduce vehicle miles traveled? I
think part of it has to be having more
better options to get around town
without your car, having more, you know,
locations or destinations close to where
people live, like neighborhood cafes or
amenities. Um, and I think, you know,
even if it's slightly outside of the
scope of what can be done by the
sustainability team, I do think those
are important to note as actions that
will have an impact on the climate as
well.
>> Thank you. Um, I will give my feedback
on this and I think I'm going to start
with an overarching
idea which is I appreciate that we came
back at this and came at it and said
first of all we're great for having this
climate action plan IAP and I'm glad
that we are reviewing it and refreshing
it. um but also whether or not we are
achieving our goals and whether or not
there are things that we can move the
needle forward and asking our expert
team to go out and talk to other experts
I think is a great way to do it. So when
we're looking at these areas that are
the most impactful for greenhouse gas
emissions, this is really us saying,
okay, is there a way that we can move
the needle forward that's something that
is right sized for isiqua. So I think um
the parking one um and reducing parking
minimums to me is the most interesting.
Um, I think this builds in with a lot of
the other conversations we've been
having about creating a more walkable
um, central Isqua area. Um, improving
and decreasing the cost of building and
finding a way to incentivize development
in that area that will achieve all of
those things as well as support future
transit. So, I think there's a lot of
things that come together there. Um, I
agree with council member Nichols about
the, you know, 0.5 miles and regional
growth center. I think the idea of
creating a definition around fixed or
permanent transit locations is a really
good way for us to achieve that without
as much uncertainty on things like sound
transit routes that we don't have any
control over. Um, so I I really think
this is one that we should look into.
Maybe that happens through a few tweaks
in the IAAP language, but is ultimately
achieved through this council um
conversation about building. And I think
that could be a good way um to do that
with um EV capable. I well, first of
all, I agree EV capable over EV ready is
probably the way to go so that we are
not disincentivizing or causing problems
um with building new homes for people.
But I think this also ties into some of
the council conversation about building
um because we have our sustainable
development standards and one of the
things we talked about was are there
ways that we can provide options and so
that would be one thing that I would
think about but I'm also pretty darn
comfortable just creating that as a
requirement because these are buildings
that are going to be here for 50 plus
years And um I think there is a way that
we can work with our relationship with
builders to figure out a way that
doesn't run into some of these issues,
but still sets those buildings and those
future residents up for success,
particularly if we're pairing it with a
lower um parking requirement. And so I
think that type of trade-off working
together is a really good way of doing
it. um EV charging. As an EV owner, I
don't want to be at a fuel station.
That's one of the benefits of having an
EV is I don't have to do that. So, I
agree with staff and TAB and PPC. Um and
then transit first policy. This is a
really interesting one. Um
I appreciate that both PPC and TAB say
that that was the intent of the mobility
action plan.
I haven't seen that from a council
standpoint. I haven't seen things that
then came forward to us that said
we're doing this transit oriented
project instead of a car oriented
project because the mobility action plan
said so. So I think this is one again
could probably live within the IAP
saying this is a policy we want to
achieve, but I think it really needs to
be a good conversation with the
transportation advisory board tab
um on ways that we can truly achieve
this. I think there were some good ideas
brought up here. Um, but I think to me
this really calls out just because it
says so in a plan doesn't mean that it
did so enough at a code or ordinance or
even
uh feeling of government um idea that we
really saw any um significant changes on
that. And I think this is a good way for
us to start thinking about things though
I do agree we are nowhere near where
Berkeley is with a college with um some
of that density but I do think it gives
us an idea of how do we change some of
our mindset so that we are thinking in
that way. Great. Okay. Moving on to the
second. Oh yes, Deputy Council
President. Um yeah, I realized I had a
couple other um kind of like
transportation related ideas for us to
consider beyond these four. Um so, you
know, just basic things like could we
potentially offer incentives for doing
bike rack installations at places that
don't have them. For example, Meadow
Shopping Center. I go there. I lock my
bike to these weird gutter thingies
because that's the only thing that's
there. This is not an expensive thing to
do. Um that could, you know, help
encourage more cycling. Um I know uh
Stacy I think you have gotten some
funding to do an ebike uh rebate
program. So it would be great to
actually include that as a climate
policy. Um I know also wash in the past
had funding to do ebike lend ebike
lending library but also you know if we
want people to bike more we do need to
have safe infrastructure. And one of the
things that I'm particularly interested
in is seeing if we can work with the
school district on like safe routes to
school. Um especially you know just if
you've ever driven past Isakiqua High
School or Isqua Middle School around the
time that school gets in or out there is
I mean it's like clearly one of the
biggest drivers of traffic in the city
um other than you know is qual road
itself but that's a whole other issue.
Um, so I think, you know, to the extent
that we can partner with ISD to even
have like signage and, you know, figure
out where the infrastructure gaps are so
that students can get to school, reduces
traffic for everyone. Um, and also a lot
of these kids can't drive because
they're under 16. So, um, that's some
that would be something I'd be
interested in. Um, on the topic of EVs,
I think, you know, in PBC, there was a
comment from someone about how like
there's a condo complex near them where
to put in like two or three EV chargers
is going to cost $100,000. I've heard
this from some of my other friends. You
know, my friend had a neighbor who
wanted to put an EV charger. this person
like there were other people on their
street that had EV chargers but this
person just happened to be the unlucky
one where this one EV charger was going
to tip them over the line to requiring a
bigger transformer and then this one
person was going to have to eat the
entire cost which is tens of thousands
of dollars. So there's got to be some
better way to do this and this is like a
PSSE issue that you know there's other
communities around the state facing
issues like this and I think this is
something where you know if it is a
concern for us then I think we should
consider you know advocating for changes
and being part of those conversations
because it doesn't like I don't know you
know uh Stacy we've had all these
conversations about what you know what
can K4C do to be actually influential
and useful and I think those are exactly
the types of conversations we should be
engaging in at a regional level with our
utilities, with the state legislature to
be like, okay, clearly what we're doing
now isn't working. Like, let's figure
out a better way and get it so that we
can, you know, build our infrastructure
in a way that is not unduly impacting
whoever just happens to be unlucky.
Great, great feedback. More there. Um,
okay. And then uh looking for feedback
on the next section which I believe is
buildings and energy. Anyone want to
start there?
Deputy council president. Okay. This is
exciting for me because this is my uh
professional area of expertise. Um I
think both of these actions are fine,
but they're also like very unlikely to
result in meaningful change at the scale
that we need. Um, also to go back to one
of the other items which was like the
home energy score thing. So I did look
up there's it's like a uh pro program of
the department of energy to do this home
energy score thing and there's no like
assessors that can do the home energy
score assessment in the entire state of
Washington. They only have them in
Oregon because Portland did their
program. So you know there's some level
of like we would have to train people to
do this home energy score verification.
So that's also a potential barrier to
doing that. Also, just in general, I'm
very skeptical about how much just
benchmarking and reporting on emissions
actually moves the needle. So, my
company does a lot of work in New York.
In New York, every single building over
25,000 square feet has to tape a sign in
their window saying what their energy
rating is. So, you can see if buildings
are A through D. And this is like a
topic of conversation amongst normal
people. They're like, "Oh, I this
building that I live that I work in or
whatever has a score of a D. This
restaurant has a score of whatever." So,
it's like very top of mind for people.
And yet people are not actually
decarbonizing their buildings. I think
the research shows, you know,
benchmarking reduces energy use by like
2% overall. That's not that much. So I
think kind of the ROI is not really
there. Um I think in general we know
what we need to do, right? Like we need
to reduce fossil fuel use in buildings.
I did find it interesting. I I think
like in our strategic plan dashboard,
we're tracking electricity use in the
city. We're not tracking gas use. And at
least from my perspective, as we
decarbonize, we get more heat pumps, we
get more EVs, electricity use is
probably going to go up. That's actually
fine, especially if you know with the
Clean Energy Transformation Act, PSSE
actually builds out all the clean
electricity infrastructure that they
need to. Um, so I do think we really
need to be laser focused on reducing the
amount of natural gas that is burned in
our buildings. And
um, I think part of that is like
incentivizing heat pumps, but also like
we really shouldn't be putting in new
gas equipment unless we really really
need to. And so, you know, one of the
potential options is like if you're
going to put in a new, you know, like
central AC, you your AC must have a
reversing valve so that it can also
operate as a heat pump. And we already
have a heat pump incentive, that
probably should cover that cost
differential for households under 150%
of AMI, which is something like $200,000
a year. So, I think, you know, if you're
above that level,
hopefully you're in a financial
situation where the extra cost of a heat
pump is um acceptable. But I think like
we we do need to actually take seriously
this idea that like if we put in a new
gas furnace now, it's going you're going
to be using it for like 15 or 20 years.
You know, it's going to be here until
2041 at least. And so like we also I'm
we also don't want to make people rip
out equipment that already exists. So I
think anything related to you know
having to update your property at time
of sale. Like what if you had just
installed a new you know gas water
heater in 2020? Are you going to have to
rip that out and put in an electric one?
That doesn't really make sense. And
that's the type of thing that causes
people to get grumpy. So I think you
know to the extent that like if people
have to replace their equipment because
it's old and failing then we should do
everything we can to make sure that it
is not fossil fuel. I also think my
honest opinion is even if you know
someone installs a heat pump it's
probably okay to still have like a gas
furnace for backup if it gets really
cold. Like I'm not super like dogmatic
about that. I think is like if we're
getting rid of 90% of the gas use that's
great. Um I think
>> can I ask a question about it? So I
didn't hear whether you were saying from
that you really want it to be a
requirement like you think this is
something that should be a policy in IAP
or whether you weren't sure. Can you
clarify?
>> Yes. So, I think we should have a
requirement that says if you're going to
put in a new AC, it has to be a heat
pump. Um, but I don't think we should
say if you have an existing gas furnace,
you need to rip it out.
So, more on the any time there is a
replacement, you shouldn't put a new one
in, but not um upgrades at the time of
sale.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Um and then the
other thing is so on green one of the
items that we had discussed in some
other conversations was you know up
creating more optionality for new
construction in terms of green building
standards. So I'm wondering and maybe
this would be too big of a lift but like
there's a lot of things in the green
building standards that have absolutely
nothing to do with climate like the you
know build green emerald star you get
points for like using local timber like
that's great and all but you know is
that necessarily gerine to climate
action and a lot of them like especially
with like lead their requirements for
energy efficiency are like honestly less
stringent than the Washington state
energy code. So, this is actually true,
by the way. Um, and so I think, you
know, and it takes a lot of effort for
these builders to go through the energy
certification process. So, I'm wondering
if we could consider saying like, okay,
if you don't want to go through the
whole certification process, if you're
like all electric and have like the most
efficient heat pump, then that satisfies
a sustainability requirement. That makes
it simpler and also gets us closer to
our goal of, you know, decarbonization.
Um, yeah. Oh, and also in the lead one,
uh you'll love this. There's you get
points if you have um open uh open space
amenities on site. Um water efficiency,
water efficiency is actually important,
but there's there's all sorts of random
things in there which like don't
necessarily have anything to do with
climate action. And so I think we should
consider whether we can have an
alternative pathway that's very focused
on, you know, having the lowest
emissions building possible.
Um and okay, I think that was it for me.
Council member Nichols.
>> Yeah, thank you. Um,
I think I am generally aligned with the
staff recommendations here. Um,
I will say on the the dark sky
ordinance, I would like to have that
brought back to us with whatever the
specific concerns are at the moment. And
I would otherwise I I would otherwise
support this as a policy. Um I think
what's what's not really taken into
account here is on the on the climate
side of things um
ecological
effects from climate change causing
particularly migratory bird uh patterns
to change etc that um dark sky
ordinances can help with. We are on all
sorts of flyaways. We have a giant lake,
lots of parks, lots of good places to
land if you are a bird. Um, this this
feeds into that and I think the
appropriate place for that kind of thing
to live is probably in our climate
policy. Um, because it's an impact in
many ways. Um otherwise
I
I will defer to deputy council
president's um
statements on most of the building the
the home energy and building benchmarks
um as well as the time of replacement
stuff. I think um this points they all
make sense and I think they're I'm I'm
mostly aligned with that. Um, and I I
think if I'm reading this correctly,
that's also mostly what the city is
saying, but maybe correct me if I'm
misreading that. Um,
yeah. So, I I don't have as many strong
opinions on this side of the of these
policies. Um, and I appreciate all the
thought and work that went into crafting
these and trying to get to some
consensus on it.
Thanks. And I will just add in so from
my perspective the building energy
benchmarking and the home energy score
are really state level policies and so I
would be happy to advocate for them. Um
but I don't necessarily see how a city
of our size um really moves the needle
in that direction. Um, time of
replacement I was also going to say
would be best at a state level. Um, just
for the idea that then everybody hears
about it. Um, but I thought back to it
and I said, "Well, we're the ones that
give out the permit for whether or not
you can do an install." And so I think
it may make sense from a city
standpoint. I am interested
to have a conversation about what the
discounts are compared to the costs um
as somebody who when we put something in
10 years ago couldn't fit what was on
the market at the time um within the
scope of our property. Um I'm also
understanding of some of those ideas. So
I think this is one I would be
comfortable keeping or putting in the
IAP and then having further discussions
over how do we make that happen? Um
because ultimately what we are looking
at here is a plan for
addressing our impacts on climate. And
this is not necessarily saying we have
to do these things right now in a
certain way, but it does incentivize us
to have a conversation
um around them. And then dark sky, I
don't have an opinion on it. Um I think
there's the you know kind of bird and
animal side of things. There's also the
energy use. And so if we felt like the
energy use of having big buildings have
their lights on overnight, um
particularly ones that can be seen from
the freeway as you were driving past, um
is something that is impactful, then
maybe we can have a conversation. But I
don't feel strongly that that would move
the needle on our overall climate. Uh
Council Member Nichols. Yeah, thank you.
You reminded me of one point that I
missed. So, um, related to some of these
policies in terms of what's appropriate
more at the local versus the state
level, I think a lot of these could make
more could make a lot of sense at the
state level. And I think one thing to
consider would be I'm not sure exactly
how we would work this but um adop
trying to util if we can put these as
directional goals for the city that
don't have specific city policy
requirements but things that we would
like to see pushed on at the state
level. uh that might be a better way to
drive towards some things that we want
but that we don't think that would be
feasible from a staff or scale
perspective to be done at the city level
because they would you know just I could
imagine some of these scores for example
could require a halfime if not more than
that employee to manage something like
that. Um and uh if we instead had that
le uh done at the state level, it could
be much more efficient. Which is not to
say I don't support it. It's just that
um maybe we can try to find a way to
support that that sort of thing through
our legislative agenda instead of
directly
uh implementing it within Isqua itself.
>> More go ahead. Um, okay. This one is a
little bit unrelated to climate, but as
I was reading through, you know, the
climate action plan, one thing that came
to mind was, I mean, with composting, so
when I first moved to Isqua, like five
and a half years ago, I had to request a
compost bin. Almost none of my neighbors
have it. It's not necessarily the
biggest climate action, but you know,
food waste and landfills emits methane,
which has 100 times potency as carbon
dioxide on a 25-y year time frame. And
like, literally, all you have to do is
just request the bin from ecology. So,
I'm wondering if this is something where
we could do like a marketing campaign of
be like, "Hey, you know, you can do
compost." Um, and you know, even if it's
not like the biggest needle mover on uh
climate, it's still a good
sustainability action that we should be
encouraging our residents to take.
>> Yeah, absolutely. And we have a section
in the plan around materials and
consumption that talks a lot about that
outreach and education. So, we just
didn't bring all of those actions to you
tonight. So,
>> great. Thank you. Great. Um, can you go
to slide 19, which is really the option
one, two, and three idea. One more.
Yeah. So, um, I guess the next question
for us and maybe I'll ask you Stacy, as
you've heard what we have said, we've
obviously advocated for certain areas.
do when you're talking about the
timeline of this ISQA climate action
plan,
how do you feel this either coming back
between these options would work out?
What are the impacts? Um, and do you
feel anything is necessary to work
through
>> work through this evening?
>> Well, I I think this was either
return to full counsel or PTE for
further direction. Do you feel like we
fell into any of these buckets?
>> Um, I think we got great feedback
tonight. I do have a couple questions I
wanted to just follow up on to make sure
I had clarity, but um, what our plan was
coming out of this discussion is we
would incorporate your feedback into a
full set of actions that will go to the
environmental board next week. I think I
have enough direction tonight. Um, as
you said, these would be framed as kind
of assessing the feasibility of
implementing this type of policy. So,
it's not committing the city to do it.
It's digging in deeper, whether it's
around um what percent of EV capable
would we want to require EV ready or um
what would a timer replacement
requirement look like for our city. So
there'd be a lot more investigation into
these policies. Um, and it's not
committing the city to implement the
policy, but committing us to further
evaluate and come to council for
discussion. Um, so that being said, I
think I have received uh great feedback
tonight on the policies that were
brought to TAB and PPC and revised with
a staff recommendation um that I feel
comfortable moving those to the board
next week for early input.
>> Great. And you said you had some
questions. Anything that we can clear
up?
>> Um, one was around the percent EV
capable or ready. Um based on your
feedback, what I would do is we would
frame the action in the plan around um
looking in further into that and doing a
study to come back and propose a
percentage of capable and ready parking
that we would recommend. We'd have
discussions with developers, understand
costs and benefits. I wanted to make
sure that you all didn't have in mind a
requirement you wanted to put into the
plan uh that we work to move through a a
policy a percentage requirement in mind
or if that should be part of the
evaluation.
>> Deputy council president,
>> I guess my preference would be 100% but
at a level that's lower than EV capable.
Mhm.
>> Um, which is basically, you know, just
the plumbing tubes and wires but without
the oversized electrical service.
>> And I would say I'm kind of of the same
thing if we're talking about what should
we be planning toward. Uh, yes, let's go
toward that. And if through
conversations we find that it's better
as a tradeoff between one element and
another, then we can have that
conversation later down the line. But
let's not cut ourselves off too early.
Okay.
Um, great. And then just a couple
comments. I appreciate I recognize it's
a we're not presenting the full set of
actions so a bit um hard for you all to
provide uh that feedback but there were
some ideas that came out of the
discussion that we did not currently
have in the IAP like incentives for bike
racks um items like that that we'll make
sure to incorporate. We do have a action
around state advocacy and so I think
there are some good suggestions here
that we might be able to specify some of
those particular programs that we feel
like would be good but maybe aren't
right sized at a city level to
implement.
>> Great. Do you need anything else from us
on that? Oh, Council Member Nichols.
>> Yeah, just a line to make sure that
we're clear on kind of direct the
direction side of this. So, um, on the
EV side of things, it sounded like there
you might when you initially responding,
you were looking more towards going um,
and trying to have more of a discussion.
I think I I I do think the the
discussion up here was pretty clear. So,
I I think we we don't need as much back
and forth there. I would say the same
thing was true from the parking minimums
perspective.
>> Um,
>> see alignment on that. I think there is
for including in IAP. I think it's going
to be an further conversation on
council.
>> Um but as far as what needs to be
included in IAP, the idea of creating uh
fewer parking minimums um particularly
in those areas I think was pretty clear
on that. So that's ready to go back to
PPC then, right? Um, I think our next
step would be through the environmental
board and then I can talk with the team
if we need to do another review through
PPC.
>> Okay, great. Anything else there? No.
Okay. Okay,
>> great.
>> So, yes, our next steps will be to
incorporate any of that feedback. Um,
we'll follow up with any questions and
then um next week we are meeting with
the environmental board for that full
initial full review of the revised
targets and actions. And so we'll share
this feedback with the environmental
board and return to them again in April
for the conversation.
>> Great on this one.
>> And madam chair, members of the
committee. So
>> this will then come back to this
committee. We'll go to a committee the
whole
>> what's the next step?
>> That's the other presentation.
>> That's the other presentation.
>> We tried to separate it out.
>> We're going there next. Just didn't want
us to leave the room tonight. Oh, we are
not. We have a whole other topic
tonight, which is uh column 0257,
the pathway and timeline for climate
action plan adoption. And Stacy, as you
said, a lot of this is kind of duplicate
stuff, so I think we can uh jump through
as much as necessary. Um, but I'll let
you get that presentation up. And
the big idea at the end is does this go
to committee of the whole or does this
go to PTE after several other touches in
the meantime. So I'll let you take it
away.
>> Great. Thank you. I will move through
very quickly since we have discussed a
lot of this. Um again tonight we're
really looking for your feedback on the
process to move forward the IAP for
council review and adoption.
Um and we've proposed a couple of
options. Um these are similar to what we
discussed back at the February meeting
um that we could we proposed the option
to go through council the whole or
return back to this committee for
further review.
Um just as a very very brief review um
the plan uh again was adopted in
December 2021. We're working through um
this five-year
uh update through the process that I
described in the earlier presentation.
Um again, taking uh the components of
this plan through committees, boards,
commissions, community outreach um and
then bringing forward to PTE committee.
Um I reviewed these in February, but um
wanted to just speak briefly to them uh
with the the reorganization of our
committees. Um on this the screen are
some of the major revisions that we are
working on for this plan update. We're
really working to better connect the
targets and actions in the plan. Um
we've had some targets that were
disconnected from the actions. Uh for
instance, in our natural systems focus
area, we have a tree canopy target, but
very few actions in that section that
focused on enhancing tree canopy.
uh with um another connection that we're
working on making is with the update of
the comprehensive plan, making sure that
we're bringing in those updated
components into the IAAP for better
alignment.
Um we did not have a municipal target in
the plan. So we've been working uh
internally and with the environmental
board to develop those targets.
The current plan has some very specific
actions around particular campaigns that
were important to the community at the
time uh the 2021 plan plan was passed.
Um we're looking to broaden those out
just to allow for more flexibility, make
sure that we're um responding to the
most important priorities at the time.
Um and we're doing a pretty significant
review of how we are measuring progress
and reporting on that. We've been
working with a metrics committee um and
we'll be proposing those recommendations
to the environmental board next week um
to make sure that we're really reporting
out to the community uh meaningful uh
metrics from uh that demonstrate
progress or lack thereof. Um and then
one of the big changes is that that
we'll be discussing more with you all as
we continue this review is we're looking
at a 10-year plan. This is really um to
uh demonstrate that we have a general
sense of the work that needs to be done
in those biggest areas of impact. Um and
this will uh reduce capacity needs for
updating a plan every five years. Um but
we are building in some checkpoints
where the environmental board could
request a review or an update if needed
at a mid-year point.
Um and again reviewed this uh process uh
back in February. Wanted to um just
reiterate the process we're going
through. We started this plan update
about a year ago uh working with those
committees and beginning to look at
revisions that were occurring in our
neighboring jurisdictions plans. Um
we've been going through a public
engagement event uh most heavily focused
on board commission review uh starting
back in the fall and through this
winter. Um and then uh currently are
completing up that uh board to
commission review as well as working
with that metrics committee.
Um as I just shared uh we are planning
to meet with our environmental board
over the next two months um to do a full
review of the plan and bring forward
their recommendation to council.
Um so in speaking with our clerk's
office uh we are proposing um two
options before you all tonight on how we
want to continue moving forward review
of the plan. Uh the first option would
be
uh to work through um a council of the
whole um and meet with um them the full
council in May and then to bring the
plan for council review and approval in
either uh June or July. The other option
would be to work through this committee
um return to you all in May uh to
continue the discussion on the IAP and
bring um the the the feedback from the
environmental board and then move to
council in June or July depending on
whether the committee felt we were
ready.
Um a couple notes I just wanted to touch
on is uh one of the reason we proposed
meeting with the council of the whole is
we felt that the IAP touches multiple uh
committees of the council and so this
would be an opportunity to to be in
front of essentially all the committees
at once. Um, and then the other note
I'll just make is this summer deadline.
That's our own internal deadline. We've
set we do not have to complete climate
plan adoption this summer. Um, however,
we feel that it is important to complete
this process ahead of the budget
requests. the updates to this plan are
really going to inform um the budget
requests that we have uh coming forward
um to administration and council uh this
fall and winter. So that is one reason
we wanted to wrap this process up um
early in the summer.
Um the other piece is it's it's a heavy
workload to update a plan. We have
really appreciated going through this
process um being able to review the
progress we've made and make sure that
we're updating this plan. So it's the
most solid foundation for our work going
forward. Um but we really love the
implementation work and we want to be uh
focusing as much of our time of moving
uh projects and programs forward as
well.
So uh again tonight we're looking for
your feedback on whether we want to move
this process now to the um committee of
the whole or uh continue working through
uh the PTE committee.
Great. Um, question, and maybe this is
more of a question for city
administrator Bob Quitz. Uh,
we just gave PTE a lot of work with the
um building incentives plan. So,
do do we feel like we have room more
room on the committee of the whole
schedule versus the planning development
environment schedule in that May time
period?
Madam chair, members of the committee,
uh PD may likely then need an additional
meeting in May because as we've talked
to the community planning and
development staff today, uh they are
planning on using your May meeting for
other matters. So, um one way or
another, I think there may be another
meeting in the mix either for PTE or
having a cow because I think we're also
weighing what items are coming before
the full council. We have the uh retreat
um coming up on uh the 9th. Um I think
the following Monday.
Pull up my planning calendar.
Things are getting busy.
>> You don't say. Huh?
>> Okay.
Because typically I would say, hey, if
staff and the administration thinks that
our workload is better balanced in one
way or the other, that would be an
important piece um for me. But there's
nobody around, so I'm not going to go
for public comment. We're not going to
separate out questions versus comments.
Any feedback?
So, um, based based on the conversation
we have with the city clerk, uh, she's
already pitched a sequence of events
here on the latest edition of the
planning calendar. Um, she has the, uh,
the council meeting on the Saturday, the
9th of May. She then has a committee,
the whole on the 11th doing the climate
action plan, uh, mobility and
infrastructure on the 12th, but PTE, I'm
sorry, I should have gone back. PTE on
the 5th, the Saturday meeting on the
9th, committee the whole on the 11th.
>> Yeah.
>> So if if you would like to keep it here,
then I think that would mean a second
PTE meeting on consecutive weeks.
>> Otherwise, we would flip it out for the
council on the same day. So um
I think there are pros and cons. I think
as as Stacy's mentioned, this is
something that crosses multiple
disciplines. Uh, and I'm sure your
colleagues would be interested. Um,
it'll mean a Saturday, Monday,
um, sequence for them.
>> Yeah. Well, the committee of the whole
was already scheduled, so I'm not going
to
>> Well, no, no, this is this is
the train keeps moving. This is for
tomorrow morning's 8:00 Yes. um, uh,
leadership meeting. Fantastic. So, we've
not shared the sequences. We just had
the discussion this morning. So you're
actually hearing about it prior to us
discussing it tomorrow morning at
leadership.
>> Uh deputy council president.
>> Yeah. I mean it is on the most recent
planning calendar and I think when we
talked about this last month I mean you
know given I feel like we've had a lot
of committee of the whole meetings about
kind of a broad topic right like
housing, transportation
um you know parks. And I do think
climate action in terms of being that
big of enough of an area that should be
brought up to the whole council is like
a strategic thing. Um I do think it
deserves that level of, you know, review
and a committee of the whole. So I'm in
favor of uh reviewing through the
committee of the whole.
>> I I honestly don't have a strong
opinion. Um I I could see it fitting
well with either. I'm happy to defer to
staff with what makes the most sense.
Yeah, I I'm perfectly fine with it going
to committee of the whole I don't I feel
like we as PD have had touch points and
so it's not like you are skipping over
the planning development and environment
board and so taking that um further step
at committee of the whole which also
frees up some time on our PD calendar
makes perfect sense. So I think no
problems with it going to committee of
the whole then.
>> Very good. We'll share that with council
leadership tomorrow morning.
>> Okay. Fantastic. Well um with that I
think our last um piece is just
announcements. Do any committee members
have any announcements to make?
Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. I guess minor
announcement um is that our meeting in
April is canled because of Oh, that was
the next piece which is next committee
committee meeting date is May 5th. April
7th meeting was cancelled um because of
a special city council member or city
council meeting that night um to look at
potential uh vacancy applicants um for
city council. So, yeah.
>> Great.
>> Okay. And with that, we are adjourned at
7:54 p.m. Thank you.