City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Wednesday, November 8, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 3, 2023

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 1:23 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-03-23 City Council Planning, Development & Page (1) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. October 3, 2023 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Diversity of Housing Types Policy & Regulation ID 1494

60 min · Christen Leeson, Long Range Planner · packet pp.7–109

Topics: HousingEquity

▶ Watch from 2:49 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

On September 1, 2023, ECONorthwest issued their Inclusionary Zoning and Diversity of Housing Final Report (

Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Environment Stewardship and Climate Resilience Element Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager ID 1541

60 min · packet pp.111–168

Topics: Land UseClimate

▶ Watch from 49:04 Open packet at p.111 ↗

Staff report:

The Community Planning & Development (CPD) department is partnering with multiple Departments and their boards and commissions to integrate or update the functional plans and incorporate their policies into the comprehensive plan. The Long Range Planning Division in CPD will

2121 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ hello welcome everyone I council member

0:08 ↗ hunt call the November 8th 2023 city

0:11 ↗ council Planning Development and

0:13 ↗ environment committee meeting to order I

0:15 ↗ am here tonight my name is council

0:17 ↗ member hunt and I'm here tonight with

0:18 ↗ council president Walsh and Council

0:20 ↗ Deputy president

0:22 ↗ Hall and um we have a couple items on

0:26 ↗ our agenda but the first item on on our

0:29 ↗ agenda will be public comment there will

0:31 ↗ be multiple public comment opportunities

0:33 ↗ at tonight's meeting there will be a

0:34 ↗ general public comment opportunity at

0:36 ↗ the beginning of the meeting or you can

0:38 ↗ make comments after the presentation and

0:39 ↗ Council question and answer period on

0:41 ↗ tonight's agenda

0:43 ↗ items um so at this point I will check

0:46 ↗ in with the city clerk if there is

0:48 ↗ anyone um I will note for the record

0:50 ↗ that there are no are no members of the

0:54 ↗ public um in council chambers and I will

0:57 ↗ check in if there are any members of the

0:59 ↗ public on online that might wish to make

1:01 ↗ a

1:02 ↗ comment chair hunt we have no virtual

1:04 ↗ attendees at this

1:06 ↗ time okay um then I will just uh note

1:10 ↗ for the record that we welcome comments

1:12 ↗ and you can submit comments at any time

1:14 ↗ to city council at isqua

1:16 ↗ wa.gov and with that we will move to um

1:20 ↗ our first item which is actually the

1:23 ↗ approval of the minutes these are the

1:25 ↗ minutes of the October 3rd meeting I

1:27 ↗ will note that there was a error that

1:30 ↗ has been corrected um on the attendance

1:33 ↗ it was council member Hall in attendance

1:35 ↗ so that has been corrected um there

1:37 ↗ there was also one thing that

1:41 ↗ I um there was one thing as well that I

1:45 ↗ uh noticed which is that we discussed um

1:49 ↗ there was a question at that meeting

1:51 ↗ about parts of the um comp plan elements

1:55 ↗ that uh were the the topic that was

1:59 ↗ discussed was if it should go back to

2:01 ↗ the PPC but most of the things that we

2:02 ↗ discussed we ultimately did not

2:04 ↗ recommend uh needed to be looked at

2:07 ↗ further by the PPC planning policy

2:09 ↗ commission um and so I've I've just

2:12 ↗ recommended in that case that we

2:13 ↗ separate those out just to make it clear

2:15 ↗ because there were only there were only

2:16 ↗ two pieces um that were actually

2:19 ↗ recommended to go back to planning

2:21 ↗ policy commission so um with those

2:23 ↗ changes which I understand uh can be

2:26 ↗ made um we can approve the minutes is

2:29 ↗ there any other uh comments or

2:31 ↗ Corrections or

2:33 ↗ anything okay then I move to approve the

2:36 ↗ minutes of the October 3rd meeting with

2:38 ↗ the corrections that were mentioned all

2:41 ↗ those in favor please say I I I that

2:46 ↗ passes thank you and with that we will

2:49 ↗ go to our first regular agenda item

2:51 ↗ which is ID 1494 diversity of housing

2:53 ↗ types policy and Regulation and this

2:55 ↗ will be presented by Kristen Lon our

2:57 ↗ long range planner Kristen take it away

3:08 ↗ we go good evening I am Kristen Leon

3:11 ↗ senior longrange planner and yes we are

3:14 ↗ here to talk about diversity of housing

3:16 ↗ types and our work plan you may recall

3:18 ↗ this has come up just kind of on the tip

3:20 ↗ of things a couple of times and we

3:22 ↗ brought it to the committee of the whole

3:24 ↗ on October 9th and it was decided then

3:26 ↗ that it needed just a little more

3:27 ↗ attention than it we were going to be

3:29 ↗ able to give it there so we brought it

3:31 ↗ back to you

3:36 ↗ all so tonight we want to have you

3:39 ↗ review our housing diversity condominium

3:42 ↗ development inclusionary zoning

3:43 ↗ recommendations from E Northwest that

3:46 ↗ was done to they were looking to help us

3:48 ↗ Implement strategies six seven and eight

3:50 ↗ from the housing strategy work plan then

3:52 ↗ we'll review the proposed 2023 to 2026

3:55 ↗ housing work plan and then we would love

3:57 ↗ for you all to proide provide guidance

3:59 ↗ for us for our next

4:01 ↗ steps so some of the things that we're

4:03 ↗ looking at are either uh pursue the

4:08 ↗ proposed work plan as presented to you

4:10 ↗ all tonight or rep prioritize the

4:14 ↗ proposed work action items or maybe

4:17 ↗ remove some of the proposed action items

4:19 ↗ from the work

4:22 ↗ plan I'm going to go over some of the

4:24 ↗ recommendations quickly just as a

4:26 ↗ reminder these came from Eco Northwest

4:29 ↗ strategy number number six is for

4:30 ↗ inclusionary zoning and that is to

4:32 ↗ expand it in Central isqua and if

4:34 ↗ possible outside of Central isqua and

4:36 ↗ they came back and said you can't expand

4:38 ↗ it until you fix fix the current problem

4:40 ↗ so there are recommendations were to an

4:42 ↗ analyze and calibrate inclusionary

4:44 ↗ zoning requirements which may involve

4:46 ↗ things like increasing the required area

4:49 ↗ meeting income and decreasing the

4:51 ↗ required number of units um structured

4:53 ↗ parking requirements have been an issue

4:55 ↗ the development bonus program and the

4:58 ↗ multif family tax exemption program

5:00 ↗ which would be actually adopting a

5:02 ↗ program for either Central is Aire

5:06 ↗ Citywide for strategy 7 they we actually

5:09 ↗ haven't talked about this one much

5:10 ↗ because there isn't much that the city

5:12 ↗ can do as far as development regulations

5:14 ↗ go this was the trying to find trying to

5:17 ↗ eliminate deterrence to condominium

5:20 ↗ development one of their recommendations

5:22 ↗ was to do a Pioneer project program as

5:24 ↗ an incentive to build Condominiums and

5:26 ↗ we're already working on a Pioneer

5:27 ↗ project program and then perhaps allow

5:31 ↗ some flexibility in standards combined

5:33 ↗ with the multif family tax exemption

5:35 ↗ which we'll be looking at through other

5:37 ↗ projects through other

5:39 ↗ research lastly is strategy eight which

5:42 ↗ was housing diversity wanted to get more

5:45 ↗ housing diversity Citywide and we look

5:46 ↗ specifically at multif Family zones not

5:48 ↗ at single family zones at that time so

5:51 ↗ one was consider incentivizing Courtyard

5:53 ↗ housing and multif family high and I've

5:55 ↗ heard no um that that wasn't a favorite

5:58 ↗ so far um and then reevaluate impervious

6:02 ↗ uh coverage limit specifically in multif

6:04 ↗ family high and that's because right now

6:06 ↗ the impervious surface maximums are

6:08 ↗ 50% and so go looking at parking that's

6:11 ↗ required with that and potentially

6:13 ↗ structured parking they wanted us to re

6:15 ↗ look at that incentivized Cottage

6:16 ↗ housing in lower density zones that'll

6:18 ↗ be covered through House Bill

6:21 ↗ implementing House Bill

6:22 ↗ 1110 then uh reevaluate minimum parking

6:25 ↗ requirements and re re re-evaluate all

6:28 ↗ parking requirements for micro units

6:31 ↗ especially the structured parking

6:34 ↗ requirements so housing Bill 1110 I

6:37 ↗ mentioned is the middle housing which

6:40 ↗ was adopted in 2022 by the state it has

6:43 ↗ to be implemented by

6:44 ↗ 2025 it requires that we allow up to or

6:48 ↗ that we allow at least two lots per two

6:50 ↗ units per lot up to four units per lot

6:54 ↗ as long as one is Affordable and at

6:56 ↗ least six they have to have at least six

6:58 ↗ of nine middle housing options to be

7:01 ↗ allowed and looking at that we didn't

7:04 ↗ think it was going to be that difficult

7:05 ↗ but the further we get into it the more

7:07 ↗ we realize how much work is involved in

7:10 ↗ that the last thing that's included in

7:13 ↗ our work plan proposed work plan is our

7:16 ↗ items that came up from the title 18

7:18 ↗ update it's on the future to-do list one

7:21 ↗ was the parking analysis which we have

7:23 ↗ funding to do and we'll be doing that

7:24 ↗ one another one is best practices for

7:27 ↗ housing diversity and last was to reev

7:29 ↗ valuate multif family uses in additional

7:31 ↗ zones which will be handled through

7:33 ↗ 1110 so that's sort of where all the

7:35 ↗ work comes from where all the

7:36 ↗ recommendations are coming from and what

7:38 ↗ our draft work plan has how it's been

7:41 ↗ developed so looking at our work plan

7:43 ↗ it's a little small uh but we have the

7:45 ↗ comprehensive Plan update which will

7:47 ↗ take place it has to be completed by the

7:49 ↗ end of 2024 we're hoping that the bulk

7:51 ↗ of that is done by June of

7:54 ↗ 2024 we're also currently working on our

7:56 ↗ Pioneer project which we hope to have

7:58 ↗ that work done by the end of q1 of

8:02 ↗ 2024 then we received a grant a $75,000

8:06 ↗ Grant to do the middle housing standards

8:09 ↗ update excuse me half of that half of

8:12 ↗ the money has to be spent by June of

8:14 ↗ 2024 the rest of it has to be spent by

8:17 ↗ June of 2025 when those Amendments have

8:19 ↗ to be completed so there's a very strict

8:21 ↗ timeline with that one the others came

8:23 ↗ from all of the different strategy

8:25 ↗ recommendations and House Bill 1110

8:28 ↗ those incl include the multif family tax

8:30 ↗ exemption looking at adopting that

8:33 ↗ program inclusionary zoning development

8:36 ↗ regulations impervious surface height

8:39 ↗ density development bonus program and

8:41 ↗ the parking

8:43 ↗ strategy following that we'd like to do

8:46 ↗ once we get that into place what

8:48 ↗ happened part of it this time is that we

8:50 ↗ did our housing strategy work plan and

8:52 ↗ then realized we couldn't do a lot of

8:54 ↗ what was on there because the

8:55 ↗ regulations weren't in place or it

8:56 ↗ wasn't going to work so we'd like to get

8:58 ↗ these things in place and then update

9:00 ↗ our housing strategy work plan now this

9:02 ↗ was originally supposed to be updated in

9:04 ↗ 2022 but then we were doing our comp

9:07 ↗ plan update and we were you know the

9:09 ↗ state was coming out with new

9:10 ↗ regulations and we said why would we do

9:11 ↗ the housing why would we do that now

9:12 ↗ when we don't know what our policies are

9:13 ↗ going to be yet so that's the reason for

9:15 ↗ waiting on that one until

9:18 ↗ 2025 and then lastly would be a central

9:21 ↗ isqua Plan update that will be you know

9:24 ↗ 13 years in the making 14 years in the

9:26 ↗ making by the time we get to that also

9:28 ↗ running with that will be the

9:29 ↗ concurrency update uh the light rail

9:32 ↗ planning efforts that are actually

9:34 ↗ they've started and then neighborhood

9:36 ↗ plan development potentially for

9:40 ↗ 2026 so as far as what we would do from

9:43 ↗ here after we have our discussion we

9:44 ↗ would come back to this Committee in

9:46 ↗ early 202 early 2024 with a scope of

9:49 ↗ work for each of the action items that

9:51 ↗ are on our work

9:53 ↗ plan

9:54 ↗ so that's that's all I have it's just

9:57 ↗ back to if you like the the work plan

9:59 ↗ the way it is if you would like us to

10:00 ↗ try and rep prioritize or if you want to

10:02 ↗ remove some of the items that are on

10:09 ↗ there okay thank you can start with

10:13 ↗ questions um and I know some questions

10:14 ↗ were emailed in so that's always great

10:17 ↗ um do we have any questions at this

10:22 ↗ point council member

10:25 ↗ Hall um thank you by the way I love the

10:28 ↗ work

10:29 ↗ timeline graphic that you have there

10:31 ↗ it's very helpful to visualize so

10:33 ↗ whoever was responsible for that

10:37 ↗ um the ones that are planned for Q3 of

10:40 ↗ next year the majority of the work plan

10:43 ↗ stuff are those prioritized in any

10:45 ↗ particular order

10:46 ↗ there they're not right now we feel like

10:49 ↗ they they are so intertwined with each

10:52 ↗ other that we left them as one okay um

10:56 ↗ and I had asked a question about the

10:58 ↗ Pioneer project earlier VI via email and

11:01 ↗ I don't know if I was clear in my

11:04 ↗ question I'm I'm just curious if because

11:07 ↗ we considered it and dedicated staff

11:09 ↗ time to it did that have any impact in

11:11 ↗ terms of when we were considering these

11:13 ↗ things in the timeline no thankfully uh

11:16 ↗ Jen Davis Hayes is doing most of the

11:18 ↗ work on that one and we're just helping

11:20 ↗ her so it'll be just the reverse we

11:22 ↗ would do most of the work here and she

11:24 ↗ would help us out

11:27 ↗ there

11:45 ↗ I have a general question about um so we

11:48 ↗ we are being asked to uh evaluate this

11:52 ↗ timeline and make changes but what's the

11:54 ↗ you know given that there are is some

11:57 ↗ sequencing here that's uh necessary what

12:01 ↗ what's the scope of what's possible in

12:03 ↗ terms of actually changing this

12:10 ↗ timeline I suppose it depends on how we

12:12 ↗ change

12:13 ↗ it

12:15 ↗ so so for instance if we were as a as a

12:19 ↗ group to recommend to council that we

12:21 ↗ wanted to prioritize one of the

12:23 ↗ pink you know the various shades of pink

12:27 ↗ items um and then deprioritize a

12:29 ↗ different one could we move one up to

12:32 ↗ the beginning of 2024 and move one and

12:35 ↗ then to compensate move when like later

12:38 ↗ or is that not really if is it like

12:41 ↗ prioritized within this time frame but

12:43 ↗ the time frame is kind of said is I

12:45 ↗ think it's doable um the only thing that

12:47 ↗ really has a the only two things that

12:49 ↗ have very critical timelines to them are

12:51 ↗ the comp plan and the middle housing

12:57 ↗ standards

12:59 ↗ okay

13:01 ↗ MH hi this is Deputy City administrator

13:04 ↗ Snider I just want to add to that um as

13:06 ↗ we've talked about this internally uh as

13:09 ↗ we and then we talk about some of those

13:10 ↗ kind of pink items mfte inclusionary

13:13 ↗ zoning uh the impervious surface and

13:16 ↗ height density Etc um we have realized

13:20 ↗ that a lot of those are kind of

13:22 ↗ interdependent levers to pull that all

13:25 ↗ affect the financial um viability of a

13:29 ↗ project and so that's why we're

13:32 ↗ suggesting them to be considered

13:34 ↗ together because if we consider them

13:36 ↗ separately um uh policy on one will

13:40 ↗ necessarily affect the other uh so

13:43 ↗ that's why we wanted to kind of take it

13:45 ↗ in as a whole now that said if Council

13:47 ↗ wants to rep prioritize this and move uh

13:50 ↗ one of those things up we can certainly

13:52 ↗ do that but I just wanted to provide a

13:53 ↗ little extra information about why we're

13:55 ↗ considering grouping those

13:57 ↗ together

14:03 ↗ a question okay M

14:06 ↗ was so I'm trying to tease out what a

14:10 ↗ conversation on the HB 1110 missing

14:15 ↗ middle housing would look like without

14:18 ↗ also talking about impervious surface

14:21 ↗ and height and density and parking and

14:25 ↗ all of that so in this current plan with

14:28 ↗ with two quars of

14:32 ↗ that work plan happening ahead of the

14:37 ↗ pink stuff what is that sense because if

14:40 ↗ half of the money has to be spent by

14:43 ↗ that June 20124 I would assume some sort

14:46 ↗ of substantial conversation is planned

14:50 ↗ for the first half of

14:52 ↗ 2024 but how do we do that without also

14:55 ↗ touching upon these other

14:57 ↗ areas

15:09 ↗ I'm

15:16 ↗ thinking and I think Minnie's going to

15:18 ↗ jump in some of the some of the work can

15:20 ↗ be done by

15:21 ↗ staff go ahead yeah no good question I

15:24 ↗ think um our thought process on the

15:27 ↗ house bill 1110 at the time is because

15:30 ↗ of the upcoming deadline we will do what

15:34 ↗ the house bill requires us to do in

15:36 ↗ there this first go but it wasn't our

15:39 ↗ attempt to redo all our development

15:41 ↗ standards as part of that work uh we

15:44 ↗ would look at design standards because

15:46 ↗ you can't really make them different for

15:48 ↗ single family versus a duplex or a

15:50 ↗ Triplex so the focus more for 1110 was

15:52 ↗ going to be coming up with a feasibility

15:55 ↗ report of what does it mean for isqua

15:57 ↗ it's it's you know as you start digging

15:59 ↗ into it it it kind of gets very complex

16:02 ↗ in terms of um six of the nine options

16:06 ↗ that you can choose what does that mean

16:08 ↗ um and things like that that we would go

16:11 ↗ through analysis of that with this grant

16:13 ↗ funding figure out what what it means

16:16 ↗ which neighborhood you know we need to

16:18 ↗ kind of figure out because the critical

16:19 ↗ areas are and you know things so a lot

16:21 ↗ of feasibility analysis and then have a

16:24 ↗ focus on the design standards um with

16:27 ↗ this effort because of the deadline is

16:29 ↗ so you know June of 2020 six months

16:32 ↗ after the comp plan so it wasn't our

16:34 ↗ attempt to look at all the development

16:37 ↗ standards uh as part of that effort uh I

16:39 ↗ mean it's just physically not going to

16:42 ↗ be feasible to look at all of our

16:44 ↗ development standards um without you

16:48 ↗ know even things like impervious surface

16:50 ↗ is a complex thing because we have Aqua

16:54 ↗ for recharge areas we have other things

16:56 ↗ so one thing has a trickle effect effect

16:58 ↗ on others um so it's not just a numbers

17:02 ↗ game of like you know in order to make

17:03 ↗ it work what will work um but then the

17:06 ↗ other three things for the housing that

17:09 ↗ we've prioritized here the pink items

17:12 ↗ were really teasing out from what

17:15 ↗ council had given us direction of

17:16 ↗ prioritizing the the items for um the

17:20 ↗ title 18 update but also uh through Eco

17:24 ↗ Northwest I mean there were a lot of

17:25 ↗ action items from Eco Northwest and so

17:28 ↗ things we were already going to do and

17:30 ↗ things that made sense to uh bundle up

17:33 ↗ which was inclusionary resorting

17:35 ↗ development density bonus and mfte so

17:37 ↗ those are the three we teased out of Eco

17:39 ↗ Northwest to and with a focus of uh you

17:42 ↗ know in central esqua uh because that's

17:45 ↗ where majority of the growth is

17:47 ↗ designated for the city and getting

17:49 ↗ prioritizing those

17:51 ↗ elements um obviously they would apply

17:54 ↗ Citywide but that was our thought

17:56 ↗ process in terms of

17:59 ↗ what we already were T you know had the

18:01 ↗ items to do and and really the bandwidth

18:03 ↗ uh with one and a half F to to do this

18:07 ↗ right um because we could open it up and

18:10 ↗ then not you know uh be too ambitious in

18:13 ↗ our in our goals that that's sort of our

18:15 ↗ path process yeah I I appreciate the

18:19 ↗ concept of you know we need to do a

18:21 ↗ feasibility study to better understand

18:24 ↗ and looking at the six of nine and I

18:26 ↗ think those are all very important I get

18:29 ↗ concerned with much like you can toss

18:32 ↗ out an mfte program and not have all of

18:36 ↗ the other things involved that make it

18:39 ↗ successful well we can say that you can

18:42 ↗ do missing middle housing but if we're

18:45 ↗ not going to also look at impervious

18:47 ↗ surface and parking then I think we have

18:51 ↗ a lot of blockers there so I will be

18:54 ↗ interested to see how we talk about how

18:59 ↗ we

19:00 ↗ effectively address

19:02 ↗ hb110 um and not just add it in the code

19:07 ↗ and still have things that are

19:10 ↗ blocked yeah me the bill has limitations

19:13 ↗ in terms of the parking and other things

19:14 ↗ so we would definitely you know follow

19:16 ↗ the law there um in terms of what that

19:20 ↗ is but um yeah I think that all of that

19:22 ↗ scoping of what understanding the first

19:24 ↗ step one understanding all the nuances

19:27 ↗ of the bill get the guidance from

19:29 ↗ Department of Commerce that's coming

19:30 ↗ away related to that so I think that all

19:33 ↗ needs to get lined up and then we figure

19:36 ↗ out what's doable uh because of the

19:44 ↗ deadline have any other

19:50 ↗ questions um I'll check I'll note there

19:53 ↗ are no members of the public in the

19:54 ↗ audience is there anyone online that at

19:57 ↗ this time might want want to make public

19:58 ↗ comment before we move into our

20:03 ↗ discussion chair hunt we do have an

20:05 ↗ online attendee but they have not

20:08 ↗ indicated a desire to speak okay um well

20:13 ↗ maybe I will just give them a minute in

20:15 ↗ case they do um and then we will move on

20:18 ↗ to our

20:22 ↗ discussion all right then uh we will

20:24 ↗ move into our

20:26 ↗ discussion um

20:28 ↗ so um I think it would be great to put

20:31 ↗ the questions that you have for us back

20:33 ↗ up if you can do that I think the first

20:35 ↗ one was okay so feedback needed about

20:38 ↗ whether to pursue the proposed 2023 2026

20:41 ↗ work plan to implement housing goals as

20:44 ↗ proposed um and then the other the next

20:47 ↗ one is also about prioritizing the work

20:49 ↗ plan action items or removing action

20:55 ↗ items president Walsh yeah I'm I mean I

20:58 ↗ I think I just said it I really care

21:02 ↗ about the depth that we go into for the

21:06 ↗ missing middle HB 1110 um conversation

21:10 ↗ and

21:12 ↗ so I think we can probably do it

21:15 ↗ effectively with this timeline just

21:19 ↗ recognizing that to have an effective

21:22 ↗ conversation on that I think you're

21:25 ↗ absolutely right parking maybe doesn't

21:27 ↗ need to be a huge part of that because

21:30 ↗ it's already required the limitations in

21:33 ↗ the bill um but I do have concerns about

21:36 ↗ the development regulations

21:39 ↗ portion um and how that relates to hb110

21:44 ↗ so I would want to make sure that those

21:46 ↗ are addressed together I think um I

21:50 ↗ think the grouping of the mfte

21:54 ↗ inclusionary zoning and development

21:55 ↗ bonus program makes a a lot of sense in

21:58 ↗ parking in with that because as the Eco

22:03 ↗ Northwest report said we can't

22:05 ↗ effectively do an mft and inclusionary

22:09 ↗ uh zoning program without making some

22:12 ↗ adjustments to that so I guess my only

22:15 ↗ feedback would be I think the

22:18 ↗ development

22:20 ↗ regulations may want to be more highly

22:22 ↗ paired with the missing middle housing

22:24 ↗ standards um and just be kind of

22:28 ↗ certain about that the next point I have

22:32 ↗ in looking at this is thinking gosh

22:34 ↗ we're going to go back to the housing

22:36 ↗ strategy uh work plan update already in

22:40 ↗ 2025 it feels like we've been doing a

22:42 ↗ lot of housing stuff um so I guess I

22:47 ↗ would have to go back and look at that

22:51 ↗ to get a better sense whether I think

22:54 ↗ we're ready for an update or whether we

22:57 ↗ need to see what some of the impacts are

23:00 ↗ of these changes because I think I would

23:02 ↗ be a little bit concerned that if I'm

23:04 ↗ trying to analyze gaps at that point in

23:09 ↗ mid

23:10 ↗ 2025 I would be pointing backward to the

23:13 ↗ changes that we just made rather than

23:15 ↗ really having an assessment of what do

23:17 ↗ we need to do going forward um so I'm

23:22 ↗ interested to have an effective housing

23:25 ↗ strategy work plan but I just want to

23:27 ↗ make sure that we have

23:29 ↗ enough look back period to really have

23:32 ↗ an understanding how some of these

23:34 ↗ things

23:35 ↗ affected so those are my

23:43 ↗ thoughts would you like to go next or I

23:45 ↗ can okay um so the the first thing I had

23:50 ↗ comments on is a little bit outside of

23:52 ↗ the scope of this but um we did in our

23:55 ↗ last

23:56 ↗ meeting have uh a brief discussion about

24:00 ↗ the cottage and and apartment uh Cottage

24:03 ↗ and Courtyard Apartments um I went back

24:07 ↗ and looked at

24:08 ↗ the um I went back and looked at the Eco

24:11 ↗ Northwest report and it says the

24:15 ↗ paraphrase there's no inherent drawback

24:18 ↗ in allowing those and I think um so that

24:21 ↗ was the first thing that one seems like

24:24 ↗ it might be good to make some progress

24:26 ↗ in at least allowing things because

24:28 ↗ right now in our area that we expect to

24:30 ↗ be where we will have Light Rail and we

24:33 ↗ will have um more transit in the future

24:36 ↗ and it will be more dense in the future

24:38 ↗ more walkable Etc right now we really

24:39 ↗ don't have any housing any residential

24:41 ↗ and so it seems to me like yes this

24:43 ↗ isn't what we ultimately imagine would

24:45 ↗ be there with the with the higher

24:47 ↗ density that would promote that

24:48 ↗ walkability but if there I I guess I

24:52 ↗ agree with that Eco Northwest statement

24:53 ↗ there's no inherent drawback to allowing

24:55 ↗ it to see if developers would would

24:58 ↗ build that if it were attractive for

25:01 ↗ some reason um so sort of like micro

25:04 ↗ units we have not yet seen them but we

25:07 ↗ added them and there may be developers

25:09 ↗ who are interested in building that

25:11 ↗ because that's what they build or or

25:13 ↗ whatever reasons they might have so um

25:16 ↗ that was one thing I just wanted to

25:18 ↗ revisit um before we before I moved on

25:24 ↗ um I don't know if you we have any

25:27 ↗ comments about that because that has

25:30 ↗ been sort of sounds like kind of taken

25:32 ↗ off the work plan um and so I just

25:35 ↗ wanted to revisit if if we actually

25:37 ↗ think that

25:39 ↗ that's not something we could just add

25:41 ↗ to the uses table essentially to follow

25:43 ↗ one piece of this Eco

25:46 ↗ Northwest rep and get get moving and

25:49 ↗ allowing

25:54 ↗ it I mean I think there were two

25:56 ↗ recommendations in strategy eight one

25:59 ↗ was allow cottages and Courtyards in

26:01 ↗ multif family medium and multif family

26:03 ↗ High and the other was consider

26:05 ↗ incentivizing Courtyard housing in

26:07 ↗ multif family High

26:09 ↗ um I think I don't generally have a

26:13 ↗ problem with the idea of cottages and

26:15 ↗ Courtyards and multif family

26:17 ↗ medium my concern is really in the

26:20 ↗ multif family High aspect because of the

26:24 ↗ loss

26:25 ↗ of that space being used for things like

26:28 ↗ single room occupancy or something that

26:31 ↗ would be a little bit more dense and I

26:34 ↗ certainly wouldn't want to incentivize

26:36 ↗ it um so

26:40 ↗ generally I don't think it's a direction

26:43 ↗ that I would want to push forward on

26:49 ↗ um but I would be open to the idea as

26:53 ↗ long as it didn't include

26:56 ↗ incentivizing

26:59 ↗ okay yeah again I I raise it because

27:02 ↗ there are many very complicated pieces

27:05 ↗ of the Eco Northwest uh recommendations

27:07 ↗ that involve considering trade-offs

27:09 ↗ between adding or you know changing the

27:11 ↗ inclusionary zoning and changing the

27:13 ↗ parking and changing ft mfte and then

27:16 ↗ you know all these trade-offs and then

27:18 ↗ that one it seems like it was it was

27:21 ↗ something we could act on which

27:24 ↗ I

27:26 ↗ consider

27:33 ↗ I will just say again I I think there

27:37 ↗ are downsides

27:39 ↗ [Music]

27:40 ↗ to uh

27:43 ↗ having it's not as bad as allowing

27:45 ↗ single family housing in a multif

27:49 ↗ family High Zone but I think it does

27:54 ↗ potentially get us less density in areas

27:57 ↗ that we are focusing on density

28:02 ↗ so I'm sorry staff clarification here

28:05 ↗ yes thank you chair hunt uh

28:07 ↗ Kristen thank you so as a reminder we

28:11 ↗ actually at the beginning of this year

28:13 ↗ middle of this

28:15 ↗ year amended the land use code to allow

28:17 ↗ Cottage housing and Courtyard housing in

28:20 ↗ the multif family high and multif family

28:22 ↗ medium zones the Eco Northwest report

28:25 ↗ was to incentivize these two uses in

28:28 ↗ lower density zones and so House Bill

28:32 ↗ 1110 requires that we allow six of nine

28:36 ↗ types of Housing and cottage housing

28:38 ↗ will likely be one of the types that

28:39 ↗ would be allowed

28:41 ↗ there in the lower in the lower density

28:44 ↗ zones

28:48 ↗ yes okay so then it it would be about

28:51 ↗ incentivizing which we thinking

28:54 ↗ we well but there's a difference between

28:56 ↗ incentivizing

28:57 ↗ uh Courtyard and cottage housing in

28:59 ↗ multif family High which I think would

29:01 ↗ be a negative aspect because it doesn't

29:04 ↗ get us the density um versus

29:07 ↗ incentivizing it in a what would

29:09 ↗ currently be a single family Zone um and

29:13 ↗ maybe it's not even incentivizing but

29:16 ↗ just saying that's one of the six of

29:18 ↗ nine middle housing elements that are

29:21 ↗ allowed in um as a way to satisfy the

29:26 ↗ hb110

29:30 ↗ okay so then my my thought is that we

29:36 ↗ should uh consider allowing allowing it

29:40 ↗ to as a type um just to see if it gets

29:44 ↗ built B basically similar to the micro

29:46 ↗ units um but I do we is it currently

29:52 ↗ allowed in the lower density areas not

29:54 ↗ no it is not

29:56 ↗ okay and so that would be part of the

29:59 ↗ conversation on

30:01 ↗ hb110 because we would have to decide

30:03 ↗ which of the nine we're interested in

30:06 ↗ allowing okay

30:09 ↗ yeah okay that's s it's Q

30:14 ↗ one all right then I guess we table that

30:17 ↗ until we get to that point okay

30:24 ↗ um then okay I'll get back to the

30:26 ↗ questions so so the first question is

30:28 ↗ pursue the proposed work plan um it

30:30 ↗ seems to me that the two

30:34 ↗ things um in the Eco Northwest that

30:36 ↗ really jump out are one is of all the

30:39 ↗ cities that were on there everyone else

30:43 ↗ just had a yes multif family tax

30:45 ↗ exemption in their comparison and ours

30:47 ↗ had a very limited um and everybody else

30:51 ↗ had yes so that one seems like it's

30:53 ↗ something we kind of know we need to

30:56 ↗ look at from the report I would I would

30:59 ↗ say um and that it does set us apart

31:03 ↗ inclusionary Zoning for example we have

31:04 ↗ an inclusionary zoning program it's not

31:06 ↗ delivering the results that we hoped but

31:10 ↗ we do have it and so do our neighboring

31:11 ↗ cities um and then the other the other

31:14 ↗ thing that stands out to me is our

31:16 ↗ parking um that seems like that there's

31:19 ↗ a big cost or a big

31:22 ↗ um a big impact to developers on the

31:26 ↗ feasibility basis on the parking um and

31:28 ↗ so if I I know that everything is

31:31 ↗ interrelated and there are lots of

31:32 ↗ levers but it seems like to me um mfte

31:36 ↗ and the parking are really like big we

31:40 ↗ have a a big ways to go to understand

31:43 ↗ how to change our code and to get from

31:44 ↗ where we are now to where we need to be

31:46 ↗ on those

31:47 ↗ two um so I would I would propose that

31:52 ↗ we consider

31:54 ↗ prioritizing those I think we're also

31:56 ↗ going to be thinking about the

31:57 ↗ development regulations as part of the

31:59 ↗ middle housing strategy overall and

32:02 ↗ thinking about incentives and bonus and

32:04 ↗ stuff um but again like those two seems

32:08 ↗ like from the report we have a long ways

32:10 ↗ to go um the other interesting thing

32:12 ↗ from the report to me was that we have

32:16 ↗ uh we have developed affordable housing

32:18 ↗ in

32:19 ↗ isqua at somewhat comparable levels to

32:22 ↗ our neighboring cities but the most but

32:25 ↗ most of it has been through development

32:27 ↗ agreements which is completely different

32:28 ↗ than the neighboring cities so our regul

32:31 ↗ our regulations just in the code have

32:33 ↗ not allowed us to get that affordable

32:35 ↗ housing it's been through development

32:36 ↗ agreements um and so again like seems

32:39 ↗ like those things where we're very

32:41 ↗ different than our neighboring cities

32:42 ↗ which would be mft and I I believe the

32:45 ↗ parking is a big one too um that we

32:47 ↗ could prioritize consider prioritizing

32:49 ↗ those so I'll put that forward um but

32:52 ↗ other than that I think you know these

32:53 ↗ are definitely the things we need to

32:54 ↗ look at the right content and that would

32:56 ↗ be

32:57 ↗ consideration for our

33:03 ↗ prioritization maybe I don't understand

33:06 ↗ um I thought we couldn't mean pull

33:09 ↗ things earlier what do you mean by

33:13 ↗ fireworks if if you'd like to move

33:15 ↗ things up earlier in the timeline or

33:19 ↗ move things back love to move everything

33:22 ↗ up but but I mean given staff Capac I

33:26 ↗ mean the capacity that we have to

33:28 ↗ actually move forward the way that you

33:30 ↗ had presented it earlier in the

33:32 ↗ presentation saying let's get what we

33:34 ↗ have to do out of the way first and then

33:35 ↗ we can have these broader discussions

33:37 ↗ about really what does 1110 mean here in

33:40 ↗ isqua and how do we implement the vision

33:43 ↗ also of and all and the Eco Northwest

33:48 ↗ report that makes sense to me um I agree

33:52 ↗ that mfte and parking in particular are

33:54 ↗ big ones and I think we've said that

33:56 ↗ here in this committee too and mfte also

33:59 ↗ very important because I think we really

34:02 ↗ need to dig more into the impact have on

34:05 ↗ our revenues also um so that's a much

34:08 ↗ larger discussion than just um affecting

34:12 ↗ some sort of outcome out in the built

34:14 ↗ environment so um and then with

34:17 ↗ parking couldn't remember if this was in

34:19 ↗ the report too um looking at differences

34:22 ↗ across the region know so much of the

34:24 ↗ problems with parking is because of the

34:26 ↗ high water table here in isqua 2 and so

34:28 ↗ it's hard to to

34:30 ↗ build lower so I'm I'm curious how we

34:35 ↗ should think

34:38 ↗ about our differences in parking across

34:41 ↗ the region when potentially the way we

34:44 ↗ should be thinking about parking is

34:47 ↗ different else on the east side um

34:50 ↗ anyways those are I guess not super

34:52 ↗ drine to to the work plan development

34:54 ↗ but I I do think that the proposed work

34:56 ↗ plan as it is now makes sense just given

34:59 ↗ staff capacity and given our ability to

35:01 ↗ actually move things through and given

35:03 ↗ the deadlines that that you've mentioned

35:06 ↗ were able to pull out some of these

35:07 ↗ things that we think are going to take

35:09 ↗ longer like mfte and also the things

35:11 ↗ that Council full Council has um

35:14 ↗ described as very important like the

35:17 ↗ parking study that would be

35:20 ↗ great well and also I think it would be

35:22 ↗ helpful I assume

35:25 ↗ to deprioritize things if we're

35:27 ↗ prioritizing things and so earlier uh

35:29 ↗ council president Walsh was talking

35:31 ↗ about housing strategy work plan update

35:33 ↗ I think I agree so one one thing is that

35:36 ↗ we had the housing strategy work plan

35:39 ↗ fairly recently I recall working on it

35:42 ↗ when I was on planning policy commission

35:43 ↗ for example

35:46 ↗ yeah yeah um but the Eco Northwest study

35:49 ↗ is a good assessment at least of several

35:52 ↗ elements of it and kind of a refresh and

35:54 ↗ market analysis and um um so I think

35:58 ↗ that could maybe so I think I agree that

36:02 ↗ we could consider moving that item a

36:05 ↗ little bit later

36:07 ↗ um and also to get the results of

36:11 ↗ whatever is implemented with the missing

36:13 ↗ housing standards up

36:15 ↗ there I think that's a good point and

36:17 ↗ I'm interested what staff has to say

36:19 ↗ about potentially delaying that I the

36:21 ↗ only thing I would see missing is um

36:25 ↗ when we update develop like a strategic

36:28 ↗ plan like this it has lots of touch

36:30 ↗ points with the community for input so

36:33 ↗ that would that would potentially be one

36:34 ↗ thing I would I would see missing if we

36:36 ↗ did believe but anyways I'm just curious

36:38 ↗ what we think about

36:39 ↗ potentially deprioritizing the update to

36:42 ↗ the

36:43 ↗ work I think the point about having an

36:46 ↗ opportunity to see how these regulations

36:49 ↗ work is is a good point and worth taking

36:53 ↗ and perhaps moving it out a little bit

36:54 ↗ just to see what kind of effect it has

36:56 ↗ and and also if House Bill 1110 has had

36:59 ↗ an effect and then we also have 1220

37:02 ↗ which is the emergency housing you know

37:04 ↗ because the housing strategy includes

37:05 ↗ emergency housing as well so and regular

37:08 ↗ market rate housing so I I don't think

37:10 ↗ it's as long as others agree with me U I

37:14 ↗ don't think it's a bad idea to move that

37:17 ↗ out yeah I I I don't think there's any

37:21 ↗ urgency the only thing I would probably

37:23 ↗ add to the conversation is the housing

37:25 ↗ strategy doesn't really

37:27 ↗ um go into very much detail about how

37:30 ↗ we're addressing homelessness or how

37:33 ↗ we're addressing the lower income

37:34 ↗ brackets that we're now having to

37:35 ↗ address in the comprehensive plan and so

37:38 ↗ that's one thing that might be in

37:39 ↗ consideration of why we would want to do

37:41 ↗ the update sooner but um to part of the

37:45 ↗ discussion tonight is as we're looking

37:46 ↗ at the development regulation and the

37:48 ↗ impacts of a lot of the tax we taken on

37:51 ↗ from the work plan also weim want of

37:55 ↗ time upd

37:59 ↗ um yeah great um I think the only thing

38:01 ↗ I would add is um you know we don't have

38:03 ↗ to make that decision today because I

38:05 ↗ think that's a little bit ways out so we

38:07 ↗ can check in later on where we stand on

38:11 ↗ it um after all of this other work is

38:14 ↗ done um but the countywide planning

38:18 ↗ policies uh you know the requirement for

38:20 ↗ us to get certification of a comp plan

38:24 ↗ and accountability of plan for an

38:25 ↗ accommodate for lower um

38:29 ↗ Amis uh is going to get folded into our

38:32 ↗ uh comp plan policies um and then we

38:36 ↗ when we start looking at inclusionary

38:37 ↗ resoning and mfte those are the tools

38:40 ↗ that the local jurisdictions have to

38:42 ↗ advance that those policies and so I

38:45 ↗ think some of that work will occur as

38:47 ↗ part of those uh when we look at

38:49 ↗ inclusion or zoning and mfp related to

38:52 ↗ those goals and policies that will get

38:55 ↗ embedded in the comp plan so

38:57 ↗ in terms of actually updating the

39:00 ↗ housing strategies plan you know it's

39:02 ↗ not like we haven't done anything on

39:03 ↗ housing there's a lot of work that has

39:05 ↗ happened between Eco Northwest which

39:07 ↗ brought in the filter of market

39:09 ↗ feasibility which wasn't part of the

39:11 ↗ housing strategies it was more about the

39:13 ↗ goals and you know desires for the

39:15 ↗ council and so uh that's one thing but

39:17 ↗ how do we make it happen is sort of what

39:19 ↗ eos's uh task was to help us figure that

39:22 ↗ out um so I think we we don't we can

39:26 ↗ push that out I'm sure there'll be other

39:28 ↗ bills coming away to to work on pod Bill

39:32 ↗ and whatever is in the works um

39:36 ↗ so sure we there's no desire no

39:42 ↗ part yeah um since I'm on the growth

39:45 ↗ management planning board and we're

39:47 ↗ talking about the um regional growth

39:50 ↗ centers is the central esqua Plan

39:53 ↗ update timing made to

39:57 ↗ kind of work within that recertification

39:59 ↗ process or is there anything we're going

40:00 ↗ to need

40:01 ↗ to prioritize into 2024 for

40:06 ↗ that I don't think we need to prioritize

40:08 ↗ anything into 2024 for that now yeah not

40:12 ↗ yet um but yes when we redo the central

40:14 ↗ isqua plan a lot of that will be geared

40:16 ↗ toward the regional growth Center and

40:18 ↗ the and the Light Rail and the transit

40:20 ↗ oriented development and everything

40:21 ↗ that's coming into that

40:25 ↗ area

40:29 ↗ um and I guess also just when we come

40:31 ↗ back in 2024 we kind of Define the scope

40:34 ↗ of work for each of these items too I'd

40:36 ↗ like to get a sense of where are those

40:38 ↗ touch points with for Community input

40:42 ↗ and in this

40:52 ↗ process president so I think my one of

40:56 ↗ of the feedback items I had was um it's

41:00 ↗ very difficult to have the missing

41:02 ↗ housing missing middle housing HB 1110

41:05 ↗ conversation without also really talking

41:07 ↗ about the development regulations that

41:09 ↗ would hold back the feasibility of some

41:12 ↗ of those uh housing types so I'm not

41:15 ↗ sure how people feel about more of a

41:18 ↗ direct pairing of those so that that

41:20 ↗ starts at the beginning of 2024 or

41:22 ↗ whether that feedback is even really

41:24 ↗ necessary since it does say hb1 and 10

41:26 ↗ down

41:28 ↗ there so uh my understanding from this

41:33 ↗ conversation this evening though is was

41:35 ↗ more that like the piece of development

41:37 ↗ regulations that is directly applicable

41:40 ↗ to that

41:41 ↗ HP uh 1110 and the missing

41:45 ↗ middle in particular will be discussed

41:49 ↗ and contemplated you know during that

41:52 ↗ gray box where we're discussing middle

41:54 ↗ housing standards but then the bigger

41:56 ↗ picture of development regulations as

41:59 ↗ they relate to the entire strategy eight

42:02 ↗ is you know with the part of the

42:05 ↗ timeline which I think is okay and I

42:08 ↗ guess part of probably part of why I

42:10 ↗ think that is because I think the multi

42:12 ↗ family tax exemption and the parking are

42:13 ↗ the biggest of the think timeline items

42:16 ↗ that need to

42:18 ↗ be

42:21 ↗ um that is that all accurate as far as

42:23 ↗ the development regulations with HB

42:27 ↗ 1110 it is um yeah we need to look at

42:31 ↗ sort of design standards and how you're

42:32 ↗ going to fit Cottage housing into a

42:35 ↗ single family lot and that kind of thing

42:38 ↗ but first we need to figure out where it

42:40 ↗ can even go you know because you do have

42:42 ↗ it says you know it areas with critical

42:44 ↗ buffer critical areas and their buffers

42:46 ↗ are not included they're excluded from

42:48 ↗ this well we need to figure out first of

42:50 ↗ all where are those so yeah there's a

42:52 ↗ lot of work to be done first and then

42:54 ↗ yes you're accurate with devet Reg

43:06 ↗ um okay well you have some feedback do

43:10 ↗ you is this clear enough feedback for

43:13 ↗ you know making some priorities or

43:16 ↗ should we try to be more clear I just

43:19 ↗ have one quick question if I may so when

43:21 ↗ when we're prioritizing say we're

43:23 ↗ prioritizing moving the parking strategy

43:25 ↗ already starts in 2014 24 but if we're

43:27 ↗ prioritizing mfte does that get moved up

43:29 ↗ earlier in 2024 as well or does that

43:32 ↗ start still or do we move other things

43:35 ↗ back which which way are things

43:43 ↗ going it's a good question um can you

43:46 ↗ talk to me a little bit more about

43:51 ↗ like definitely to achieve an effective

43:55 ↗ mft program program according to the Eco

43:58 ↗ Northwest we need to look at parking but

44:02 ↗ I think they also said we need to look

44:04 ↗ at development

44:05 ↗ regulations as well so I'm trying to get

44:08 ↗ at which of those pink items absolutely

44:11 ↗ has to be paired together in order to

44:13 ↗ have an effective conversation or is it

44:15 ↗ really all five of

44:20 ↗ them so I think multif family tax

44:23 ↗ exemption doesn't really get tied to the

44:25 ↗ parking that's more a stand

44:27 ↗ alone that's and you guys see it that

44:30 ↗ way it's it's not tied to parking yeah

44:34 ↗ multif family tax exemption that's they

44:36 ↗ both have an impact on the finan they

44:37 ↗ both have an impact but parking doesn't

44:39 ↗ impact mfte mfte doesn't impact parking

44:41 ↗ so that's sort of a

44:43 ↗ standalone but parking and imperious and

44:47 ↗ density bonus those all have impacts on

44:50 ↗ each

44:51 ↗ other because if you reduce say

44:54 ↗ structured parking requirements then

44:56 ↗ then not as many people have to use

44:57 ↗ density

44:58 ↗ bonus and then it infects affects

45:02 ↗ inclusion area and so

45:08 ↗ on yeah you know one of the things we

45:10 ↗ learned um through our conversations

45:12 ↗ with Arch is um it's the bundle of

45:16 ↗ incentives together that makes or breaks

45:19 ↗ a project so you know we we don't want

45:21 ↗ to create regulations that then don't

45:23 ↗ result in actual outcome uh so

45:26 ↗ recalibrating it so that actually is

45:28 ↗ beneficial and we actually get

45:30 ↗ affordable housing so if from the

45:32 ↗ inclusionary zoning and mft are

45:34 ↗ definitely tied together because you're

45:36 ↗ going to use one as a as an incentive to

45:39 ↗ get your policy objectives whatever the

45:41 ↗ city Desires in their Golds and policies

45:43 ↗ those are the gives from the city and

45:45 ↗ they can be used uh one way or the other

45:49 ↗ um the parking like Kristen said impacts

45:52 ↗ the development

45:54 ↗ feasibility more significant according

45:56 ↗ to Eco Northwest report um but it it

45:59 ↗ it's not you it's it's it's another

46:02 ↗ incentive you can have in your bundle of

46:04 ↗ incentives so in some in some instances

46:07 ↗ it could be well for affordable housing

46:09 ↗ you get x amount of I think we already

46:11 ↗ have reduced parking requirements and

46:12 ↗ things like that but but only only for

46:16 ↗ the purposes of if you want to use some

46:18 ↗ parking you know giveaways for reduced

46:22 ↗ parking and such for a specific policy

46:25 ↗ objective

46:26 ↗ whether it's to get additional diversity

46:28 ↗ of housing or to get you know whatever

46:31 ↗ our policy objective is it could get

46:33 ↗ tied in but for the most part that's a

46:35 ↗ separate discussion it impacts the

46:37 ↗ feasibility overall whether someone's

46:39 ↗ going to build it or

46:40 ↗ not um is part of the

46:44 ↗ equation but not so much as a tax break

46:47 ↗ for

46:49 ↗ mfte but at the end I think we we will

46:51 ↗ study each one of these pink things we

46:54 ↗ can pick which one we want to study and

46:56 ↗ have conversations on but but I wouldn't

46:58 ↗ recommend that we make any changes until

47:01 ↗ all of those are fully vetted and

47:02 ↗ understood and then we change our

47:04 ↗ regulation one time together unless

47:07 ↗ through that process we learned that

47:08 ↗ this is an easy thing we can do right

47:10 ↗ away because they could impact but the

47:14 ↗ order of studying and having

47:16 ↗ conversations with the community and and

47:18 ↗ with the PPC could be you know whatever

47:21 ↗ we choose you all tell us to do yeah so

47:24 ↗ my my if I look at this it seems like we

47:27 ↗ have a whole year of these a bunch of

47:30 ↗ these conversations and my um and it

47:33 ↗ starts the middle of next year and goes

47:35 ↗ into the middle of 2025 it seems to me

47:38 ↗ like we have had a I I mean I recall

47:41 ↗ being in a lot of conversations with in

47:42 ↗ the planning policy Commission on

47:43 ↗ parking for example I think that's

47:45 ↗ something that we have we have talked a

47:47 ↗ lot about as a community we it will be

47:49 ↗ great to have the parking study and a

47:50 ↗ Refresh on that but it's something we've

47:52 ↗ had a lot of consideration on uh

47:54 ↗ similarly with incl inclusionary zoning

47:57 ↗ and development regulations and I think

47:59 ↗ I think also the bonus but um I do think

48:01 ↗ multif family tax exemption in terms of

48:04 ↗ you know there all of these

48:05 ↗ conversations are a ways out and they're

48:07 ↗ all um over a long period of time but in

48:10 ↗ the context of prioritizing things it

48:12 ↗ seems to me like uh and then also

48:15 ↗ because mft can be considered separately

48:17 ↗ having those conversations

48:21 ↗ prioritized might be worth considering

48:24 ↗ um and we and I take the point about

48:26 ↗ taking action but as it is right now

48:29 ↗ it's like all the actions occur in 2025

48:32 ↗ which we could we could advise to

48:36 ↗ prioritize parts of this and it wouldn't

48:38 ↗ affect that end action I

48:40 ↗ think yeah I think if I summarize what I

48:43 ↗ heard in terms of

48:44 ↗ prioritization mfte and parking are

48:47 ↗ important so we can start you know in

48:49 ↗ the order of the pink we will study

48:51 ↗ those first and as those conversations

48:54 ↗ occur with the community and planning

48:55 ↗ and policy commission will bring forward

48:57 ↗ forward and if there are pieces that can

48:59 ↗ be done earlier sure we can get those

49:01 ↗ you know adopted first but our at this

49:04 ↗ point we're looking at studying all of

49:06 ↗ those items and then taking action on

49:08 ↗ them and then the other thing I heard

49:10 ↗ was the housing action the strategies

49:13 ↗ plan uh update there can be re-evaluated

49:17 ↗ whether that that's the right time or

49:19 ↗ not it we may not learn much doing it so

49:21 ↗ quickly that it may be worth waiting a

49:23 ↗ little bit to see the impact of all

49:25 ↗ these other changes that's what my

49:28 ↗ takeaway is from your

49:31 ↗ dire that capture I think that captures

49:34 ↗ my intent I'm seeing council president

49:38 ↗ not no well and I'm just I'm realizing

49:46 ↗ that I don't know how to get at this but

49:50 ↗ basically there's these strategies go at

49:53 ↗ two kind of types of of housing in that

49:58 ↗ multif family tax exemption is going and

50:00 ↗ inclusionary Zoning gets you really that

50:03 ↗ affordable housing some of the other

50:06 ↗ things I guess the parking cud is also

50:09 ↗ required in order to be effective cost

50:13 ↗ effective but it also holds back non

50:18 ↗ aordable housing as well

50:23 ↗ um I don't know I probably just have had

50:25 ↗ enough sleep in order to be able to

50:27 ↗ explain all of this well but I'm I think

50:30 ↗ I'm generally comfortable with all of

50:32 ↗ that um having the missing middle

50:35 ↗ conversation first I think is really the

50:37 ↗ most important thing for me so

50:44 ↗ yeah I thought that captured feedback

50:46 ↗ well too um I did want to pose this

50:48 ↗ question to committee and staff so if

50:51 ↗ one of our arguments for maybe

50:53 ↗ saying maybe we want want to wait and

50:56 ↗ evaluate outcome before updating the

50:59 ↗ housing strategy work plan again could

51:01 ↗ the same not be said for the central

51:03 ↗ isquat plan or are there any other kind

51:05 ↗ of ways that we're thinking about that

51:07 ↗ update I'm gonna look to Stephen for

51:10 ↗ that one because part of the central is

51:12 ↗ a qua plan as we talked about earlier

51:13 ↗ has to do with the regional growth

51:14 ↗ Center and the transit center and the

51:17 ↗ recertification there so I'm not quite

51:18 ↗ sure what that timeline is the other

51:20 ↗ part uh for the reasoning for updating

51:23 ↗ the central squ plan is also just a

51:24 ↗ followup from Title 18 update and

51:27 ↗ because we took a lot of what was

51:29 ↗ adopted into the code out of the code we

51:32 ↗ need to now take another look at the

51:34 ↗ centralis SC plan to see what needs to

51:36 ↗ get fixed but also with a lot of the

51:39 ↗ work on the middle housing and the pink

51:43 ↗ items on the schedule it's also going to

51:45 ↗ impact how we're going to be approaching

51:47 ↗ Housing and Development in the

51:52 ↗ centr makes perfect sense it's okay to

51:54 ↗ say no council member Hall that's not

51:57 ↗ the

52:01 ↗ same well and and that one does start

52:04 ↗ after I mean it starts immediately after

52:06 ↗ but starts after the other item so it

52:08 ↗ would be after the code was my reading

52:12 ↗ is it would be like all these code

52:14 ↗ changes would be adopted in 2025 and

52:16 ↗ then we would do the central plan but

52:19 ↗ the housing strategy currently is

52:21 ↗ starting before that which I think we've

52:24 ↗ all said think maybe should be re

52:31 ↗ re-evaluated okay do you have what you

52:33 ↗ need from us I do okay thank you

52:37 ↗ great great okay thank you we have one

52:40 ↗ more item on our agenda this evening ID

52:43 ↗ 1541 comprehensive Plan update draft

52:45 ↗ environment environmental stewardship

52:47 ↗ and climate resilience elements and this

52:50 ↗ will be presented by Steven Padua long

52:52 ↗ range planning manager welcome

52:54 ↗ Stephen

53:01 ↗ thank you chair hunt good evening

53:03 ↗ everybody give me one second as I get my

53:06 ↗ screen

53:12 ↗ share

53:16 ↗ go okay tonight we're gonna discuss the

53:20 ↗ new element in the comprehensive plan

53:22 ↗ that being the environment stewardship

53:24 ↗ and climate resilience element this is a

53:27 ↗ brand new element that's required from

53:29 ↗ house bill um 1181 that was adopted

53:32 ↗ earlier this year I'll talk a little bit

53:34 ↗ on um what was required from that bill

53:37 ↗ the direction we need tonight are are

53:40 ↗ there additional considerations the

53:41 ↗ environmental board should be studying

53:44 ↗ prior to finalizing their

53:45 ↗ recommendations to the city council are

53:48 ↗ specific areas around climate and or

53:50 ↗ sustainability where Isco should take

53:52 ↗ leadership role in terms of goal or

53:54 ↗ policy statements

53:56 ↗ for land use policy G5 should the city

53:58 ↗ establish stronger language phay out

54:01 ↗ natural gas as a priority or and more as

54:03 ↗ a supporting role of the utility

54:05 ↗ companies in the state then lastly are

54:08 ↗ there any additional topics for staff

54:09 ↗ consider when making final edits to the

54:12 ↗ draft so a little background information

54:15 ↗ on this element the vast majority of the

54:18 ↗ goals and policies um that were proposed

54:20 ↗ for this element are carryover from the

54:22 ↗ land use element um some of the reason

54:25 ↗ for that is we wanted to tailor this new

54:29 ↗ element around climate change as well as

54:32 ↗ the natural

54:33 ↗ environment particularly because it's

54:35 ↗ required by houseb 1181 we wanted to be

54:38 ↗ able to have the conversations of

54:41 ↗ addressing climate change addressing

54:43 ↗ climate

54:44 ↗ resilience addressing greenhouse gas REM

54:47 ↗ emission reductions but also around how

54:50 ↗ we're preserving enhancing the natural

54:51 ↗ environment um as it's formed in the

54:54 ↗ climate action plan

54:58 ↗ so a lot of the implementation coming

55:00 ↗ out from for this element is going to be

55:04 ↗ through the climate action plan but uh

55:07 ↗ also there's going to be implementation

55:09 ↗ addressed through the mobility master

55:10 ↗ plan the park system plan and a lot of

55:12 ↗ other functional plans that look at the

55:14 ↗ preservation enhancement of the natural

55:16 ↗ environment as well as climate

55:20 ↗ resilience the development of this

55:24 ↗ element the development of this element

55:26 ↗ and prior to the planning policy

55:28 ↗ commission's review on in October we've

55:30 ↗ had several conversations with the

55:32 ↗ environmental board since April to First

55:35 ↗ Look at what we wanted to put into the

55:37 ↗ element but also look at the individual

55:39 ↗ goals and policies and how we wanted to

55:42 ↗ update those goals and policies with

55:44 ↗ this uh periodic

55:48 ↗ update majority of the recommended

55:50 ↗ changes relate to House Bill

55:53 ↗ 1181 U what we looked at with the land

55:56 ↗ use element how we want to address

55:58 ↗ greenhouse gas greenhouse gas emission

56:01 ↗ reduction and climate resilience as well

56:03 ↗ as looking at natural disasters and

56:05 ↗ addressing environmental justice

56:07 ↗ throughout the

56:10 ↗ element the new element is organized um

56:14 ↗ using this structure these items are

56:18 ↗ very are are consistent with how the

56:21 ↗ items are addressed in the climate

56:22 ↗ action plan so tonight I'm going to be

56:25 ↗ going through each of the goals and

56:26 ↗ policies as they're proposed in u the

56:30 ↗ committee's materials one question I

56:32 ↗ have for you Chan is do you want me to

56:34 ↗ pause after each section for questions

56:37 ↗ or just power through all the slides I

56:40 ↗ have about 15 slides to get through U

56:43 ↗ and then go to

56:44 ↗ questions um typically in case there is

56:48 ↗ comments we we uh we like to have the

56:51 ↗ presentation and then I will call for um

56:53 ↗ or then we'll do questions and then I

56:55 ↗ will call for that so okay to to have

56:57 ↗ that flow if you could power through

56:59 ↗ that would be great okay I will thank

57:01 ↗ you so for the first section we have the

57:04 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions

57:06 ↗ reductions this is around goal f u

57:09 ↗ General R reduction of greenhouse gas

57:10 ↗ emissions the majority of uh or at least

57:14 ↗ the first half of these are actually in

57:17 ↗ the IAP the first two policies F1 and F2

57:20 ↗ there's proposed no changes for what's

57:23 ↗ or what is in the climate action plan

57:25 ↗ policy F3 we had a discussion with the

57:27 ↗ board to introduce new changes to that

57:29 ↗ policy and then the last four policies

57:33 ↗ are actually new to comply with House

57:35 ↗ Bill 111

57:39 ↗ requirements for the goal area uh G this

57:43 ↗ is specific to transition to renewable

57:47 ↗ energy majority of these policies are

57:50 ↗ actually in the IAP and we're proposing

57:52 ↗ no changes for the new policy dz5 this

57:55 ↗ is a new policy that we are introducing

58:00 ↗ uh changes from the board to address

58:01 ↗ reduction of fossil fuel use in existing

58:05 ↗ buildings and then I there is a specific

58:08 ↗ question for policy

58:15 ↗ G5 for goal area H this is the reduction

58:19 ↗ of greenhouse gas emissions specific to

58:22 ↗ Transportation these this goal and these

58:25 ↗ policies were actually moved over from

58:26 ↗ the Transportation element that was a

58:28 ↗ requirement of House Bill 1181 to

58:30 ↗ contain the this goal and or this

58:33 ↗ subelement of goals and policies in this

58:35 ↗ new

58:36 ↗ element the first two policies B1 and B2

58:39 ↗ are in the icap and are slightly updated

58:42 ↗ to accommodate the 20

58:46 ↗ 2044 uh periodic update

58:50 ↗ the policy B3 is uh proposed to be

58:53 ↗ removed and then policy H3 is actually

58:57 ↗ cons Consolidated with the language from

58:59 ↗ policy

59:00 ↗ E3 the board discuss changes to policy

59:04 ↗ H1 uh on the

59:06 ↗ Reliance decreasing Auto Reliance policy

59:10 ↗ Z6 is a new uh policy specific form the

59:13 ↗ requirements for House Bill 11 1181 and

59:16 ↗ the board discussed changes to policy H2

59:20 ↗ to promote walking biking

59:23 ↗ intell

59:30 ↗ for goal area I this is specific to

59:32 ↗ reduction of waste and materials as it

59:34 ↗ relates to greenhouse gas emissions

59:37 ↗ reduction there's no changes proposed

59:39 ↗ for policies i12 and three and then

59:42 ↗ policy z7 and 8 are new policies to

59:45 ↗ comply with house

59:50 ↗ 11 for the next section resilience and

59:53 ↗ well-being

59:55 ↗ we have goal k um that is specific to

59:59 ↗ preparedness for climate emergencies the

1:00:02 ↗ board discussed changes to the goal as

1:00:04 ↗ well as policy K1 um this these are both

1:00:07 ↗ in the climate action plan we also have

1:00:11 ↗ policy A2 which is also in the climate

1:00:13 ↗ action plan but we updated it to comply

1:00:15 ↗ with House Bill

1:00:17 ↗ 1181 policy z9 is new in compliance with

1:00:21 ↗ House Bill L1 and addressing Community

1:00:23 ↗ resilience uh we're proposing no changes

1:00:25 ↗ to policy K3 uh that is in the climate

1:00:28 ↗ action plan and policy Z10 is a new

1:00:31 ↗ house bill for complying with House Bill

1:00:34 ↗ 81 prioritizing Frontline

1:00:40 ↗ communities the next section natural

1:00:42 ↗ systems and Water

1:00:44 ↗ Resources we have goal goal area for or

1:00:48 ↗ goal J uh which is the protection of

1:00:50 ↗ habitats and

1:00:52 ↗ resources or proposed changes to the

1:00:55 ↗ goal uh mostly to make it less specific

1:00:59 ↗ and kind of bring it to a higher level

1:01:01 ↗ of the goals we're establishing for the

1:01:02 ↗ comprehensive plan policy D4 uh staff

1:01:06 ↗ updated the language around

1:01:08 ↗ rechargeability for groundwater for

1:01:10 ↗ consolidating

1:01:12 ↗ policies D4 and D5 so we're proposing to

1:01:16 ↗ remove policy

1:01:17 ↗ D5 policy J2 has proposed changes from

1:01:21 ↗ our discussions with environmental board

1:01:24 ↗ um

1:01:24 ↗ both policies J2 and j3 are actually in

1:01:28 ↗ the climate action plan we're not

1:01:30 ↗ proposing a change to policy

1:01:32 ↗ j3 policies z11 and z12 are new and

1:01:36 ↗ staff

1:01:37 ↗ propos specific to addressing

1:01:39 ↗ contaminants and how hard services are

1:01:44 ↗ treated for the next section streams

1:01:47 ↗ wetlands and Wildlife we have goal e

1:01:50 ↗ which is specific to improvements for

1:01:52 ↗ fish and wild wildlife

1:01:55 ↗ habitat we're not proposing any changes

1:01:57 ↗ to policies E1 and

1:01:59 ↗ two we are proposing a minor change to

1:02:03 ↗ the language on acquiring Greek site

1:02:05 ↗ Parcels in policy E3 we are proposing a

1:02:09 ↗ change for policy E4 which was a

1:02:11 ↗ discussion with the environmental board

1:02:13 ↗ then no changes to policies E5 and polic

1:02:18 ↗ Z3 C13 is a new policy to comply with

1:02:21 ↗ House

1:02:23 ↗ El

1:02:29 ↗ we also have policy z14 which is new to

1:02:32 ↗ uh address aquatic habitat resilience to

1:02:34 ↗ comply with House Bill

1:02:36 ↗ 1181 we split policies A14 into two

1:02:40 ↗ policies one to specifically address

1:02:43 ↗ National drainage practices and to call

1:02:46 ↗ out the green necklace as its own policy

1:02:48 ↗ within this section and lastly we're we

1:02:52 ↗ have the last policy z15 is to improve

1:02:54 ↗ fish habitat this is carryover from a

1:02:58 ↗ land use

1:03:02 ↗ element next section on trees we have

1:03:05 ↗ goal B specific to establishing the

1:03:08 ↗ Citywide tree canopy we discuss changes

1:03:11 ↗ with the board of how to uh word that

1:03:14 ↗ goal um policy J1 has no proposed

1:03:17 ↗ changes but is established in the

1:03:19 ↗ climate action

1:03:21 ↗ plan

1:03:22 ↗ we propose changed

1:03:27 ↗ with policy B1 um staff introduced

1:03:32 ↗ updates to the language to add Clarity

1:03:35 ↗ of exactly what the intent of the policy

1:03:37 ↗ is and then policy Z16 is a new policy

1:03:40 ↗ to comply with House Bill

1:03:45 ↗ 1181 and with all the elements in the

1:03:49 ↗ comprehensive plan we have our results

1:03:51 ↗ and accountability section which will

1:03:53 ↗ establish implementation and monitoring

1:03:55 ↗ of all the

1:04:00 ↗ elements where we're at with the

1:04:01 ↗ schedule as we're still working through

1:04:03 ↗ the an analysis having the board

1:04:04 ↗ discussions on goals and policies and

1:04:07 ↗ bringing proposed changes to the council

1:04:11 ↗ committee next steps uh from this point

1:04:14 ↗ is we're going to the mobility

1:04:15 ↗ infrastructure Committee in December to

1:04:17 ↗ talk about testation utilities and the

1:04:19 ↗ capital facilities element we'll be

1:04:21 ↗ bringing the sea scope and economic

1:04:24 ↗ fality element to this Committee in

1:04:26 ↗ January and then we'll be going to the

1:04:28 ↗ Safety Services and Parks Committee in

1:04:31 ↗ February talk about the parks Human

1:04:33 ↗ Services and

1:04:37 ↗ culture that bring back to the direction

1:04:40 ↗ we need for

1:04:42 ↗ tonight all right thank you very much um

1:04:45 ↗ at this time we will move into committee

1:04:48 ↗ Q&A um I have one I have one starting

1:04:52 ↗ question so on the the question that you

1:04:55 ↗ asked about uh Lu policy

1:04:58 ↗ G5 um which is very specific have there

1:05:02 ↗ been conversations at the environmental

1:05:04 ↗ board about that already and could you

1:05:06 ↗ please summarize those or what what's

1:05:08 ↗ the

1:05:09 ↗ um what's the background on why that's a

1:05:12 ↗ specific question for us this evening

1:05:14 ↗ this policy is called out because we

1:05:16 ↗ have actually had several conversations

1:05:18 ↗ with the environmental board on how we

1:05:21 ↗ want

1:05:22 ↗ to um

1:05:25 ↗ word this language for this policy on

1:05:27 ↗ the city being a leadership so similar

1:05:29 ↗ to the previous question on the the

1:05:31 ↗ city's role in being a leader in the

1:05:34 ↗ region uh and amongst our uh peers is do

1:05:39 ↗ we want to take a have stronger language

1:05:41 ↗ on phasing out natural gas or do we just

1:05:43 ↗ primarily want to coordinate with

1:05:44 ↗ utility companies who already have a

1:05:46 ↗ goal and policies around phasing out

1:05:49 ↗ natural

1:05:52 ↗ gas okay and can you summize

1:05:54 ↗ um the has there been a consensus from

1:05:57 ↗ the environmental board on wanting this

1:06:00 ↗ to be stronger from their perspective or

1:06:02 ↗ what was the consensus of those

1:06:06 ↗ conversations I'm going to call my

1:06:08 ↗ colleagues in the sustainability

1:06:09 ↗ Department to help me with the

1:06:11 ↗ consensus hello council members um I'm

1:06:15 ↗ David REI the sustainability coordinator

1:06:17 ↗ with the city and I'm joined here with

1:06:18 ↗ Kathleen Hillary our Civics spark fellow

1:06:22 ↗ um so just as a a little bit more

1:06:24 ↗ background on this

1:06:26 ↗ policy um this is a policy from the

1:06:28 ↗ climate action plan um it was

1:06:31 ↗ accidentally or it was it didn't make it

1:06:33 ↗ into the uh comp plan when the rest of

1:06:36 ↗ the IAP uh policies uh were added um a

1:06:40 ↗ few years ago so this one was kind of um

1:06:42 ↗ accidentally lost uh left off um so it's

1:06:46 ↗ being added in now um and this policy

1:06:51 ↗ comes directly from the King County

1:06:54 ↗ climate collaborative k4c um joint

1:06:57 ↗ agreement policies so this is consistent

1:07:00 ↗ this policy as written is consistent

1:07:02 ↗ with uh their policies um as to uh

1:07:07 ↗ consensus among the environmental board

1:07:10 ↗ I think generally uh the environmental

1:07:12 ↗ board is uh in favor of

1:07:15 ↗ strengthening uh strengthening uh these

1:07:18 ↗ policies where able

1:07:21 ↗ um so I I think there

1:07:25 ↗ some questions as to kind of to what

1:07:27 ↗ degree we could strengthen that um and

1:07:29 ↗ kind of push F push further but um I

1:07:33 ↗ think the environmental board had wanted

1:07:34 ↗ us to to look for for opportunities to

1:07:37 ↗ to lead

1:07:41 ↗ there okay um I think the first thing we

1:07:45 ↗ just wanted to check it would be great

1:07:47 ↗ to check what if any uh was in the comp

1:07:52 ↗ plan previously when the IOP because I

1:07:54 ↗ yeah that's what we were looking at each

1:07:56 ↗ other about

1:07:58 ↗ um our my understanding was that the

1:08:01 ↗ those sorts of policies did all make it

1:08:03 ↗ in so I'm very actually surprised about

1:08:05 ↗ that and I just want to just get the

1:08:07 ↗ backgrounds there yeah yeah I I was I

1:08:11 ↗ was actually curious about that earlier

1:08:12 ↗ today so I looked I thought I I thought

1:08:14 ↗ I read it when I did control F and our

1:08:18 ↗ current comp plan so maybe that is a bit

1:08:22 ↗ of

1:08:24 ↗ that could be something I could look

1:08:26 ↗ into um my from everything I've seen

1:08:30 ↗ kind of for the the um what we've been

1:08:33 ↗ looking at for moving things over to the

1:08:34 ↗ environmental element um this one had

1:08:37 ↗ not been included um but I can double

1:08:40 ↗ check

1:08:43 ↗ that okay thank you for that um so I

1:08:46 ↗ think uh in terms of this so it sounds

1:08:49 ↗ like and correct me if I'm wrong please

1:08:52 ↗ sounds like there have been

1:08:53 ↗ conversations they are interested in

1:08:55 ↗ strengthening from the current language

1:08:56 ↗ which is in our packet and it um says

1:09:01 ↗ Advanced building decarbonization and

1:09:02 ↗ ensure isqua is on track to meet State

1:09:04 ↗ goals and requirements by shifting from

1:09:06 ↗ natural gas to electricity in all new

1:09:07 ↗ and existing buildings so it seems to me

1:09:09 ↗ that you know it's it's basically saying

1:09:11 ↗ that we should meet State goals and

1:09:14 ↗ sounds like the uh environmental board

1:09:18 ↗ is interested in changing from that is

1:09:20 ↗ that

1:09:21 ↗ correct but not a specific change um the

1:09:25 ↗ other thing is I think that there's more

1:09:29 ↗ specific I'm fairly sure there is more

1:09:31 ↗ specific language in that IAP about like

1:09:35 ↗ targets for that

1:09:37 ↗ decarbonization

1:09:39 ↗ so would would that be a way to

1:09:43 ↗ strengthen was that considered as a way

1:09:45 ↗ to you know be more

1:09:47 ↗ specific in the school

1:09:52 ↗ um yeah and and and I apologize um

1:09:56 ↗ policy G5 it

1:09:59 ↗ was um before I'd been uh talking a

1:10:03 ↗ little bit about the reduced fossil fuel

1:10:05 ↗ use so um the new policies I think Z

1:10:08 ↗ five um so there are specific actions

1:10:13 ↗ called out in the climate action plan

1:10:16 ↗ that would help us kind of Advance the

1:10:18 ↗ building

1:10:19 ↗ decarbonization um so you know uh that

1:10:23 ↗ would include include things like

1:10:24 ↗ Regional heat pump campaigns

1:10:26 ↗ decarbonization assessments things like

1:10:28 ↗ that um advancing uh other

1:10:32 ↗ electrification incentive

1:10:34 ↗ programs um so there are some some

1:10:37 ↗ actions called out um and I think part

1:10:39 ↗ of the the question is to what degree

1:10:43 ↗ um do we want

1:10:45 ↗ to yeah be more more ambitious

1:10:52 ↗ there okay so um there so my

1:10:57 ↗ understanding is the current wording is

1:10:59 ↗ probably at least less specific than

1:11:02 ↗ what's in the IAP for this particular

1:11:04 ↗ element and then there's conversations

1:11:06 ↗ about making it stronger than the IAP um

1:11:10 ↗ I I just

1:11:11 ↗ to clarify okay so um I think that those

1:11:16 ↗ are the questions those those were my

1:11:18 ↗ only questions we have other

1:11:22 ↗ questions I have two questions one

1:11:24 ↗ that's um specific and one that's very

1:11:27 ↗ very broad um apologies for not emailing

1:11:30 ↗ that broad one in earlier and you're

1:11:31 ↗ just going to have to respond to how

1:11:32 ↗ whatever comes to mind um but first just

1:11:36 ↗ with like the recent uh power outages

1:11:38 ↗ got me thinking a lot about like grid

1:11:40 ↗ reli energy grid reliability too and I'm

1:11:43 ↗ wondering if if that needs to live as a

1:11:45 ↗ goal somewhere or a policy somewhere in

1:11:47 ↗ here to work with abili to Ure

1:11:50 ↗ reliability what are your what's your

1:11:52 ↗ reaction we do have policies in the

1:11:55 ↗ utilities element that actually looks at

1:11:57 ↗ gr reliability and working with their

1:11:59 ↗ utility companies on uh different

1:12:01 ↗ infrastructure needs but when uh this

1:12:04 ↗ comes to me on the mobility and

1:12:05 ↗ infrastructure you're saying we can talk

1:12:07 ↗ about it there okay potentially I'm

1:12:11 ↗ getting ahead of myself okay um and the

1:12:14 ↗ other is so one of the direction needed

1:12:15 ↗ questions is you know what are the areas

1:12:18 ↗ that we should take a leadership role in

1:12:20 ↗ and so my initial reaction was well what

1:12:24 ↗ are the areas that we feel capable of

1:12:26 ↗ leading in or

1:12:30 ↗ um like what are we well equipped to

1:12:33 ↗ take on here in the isqua given our

1:12:35 ↗ capacity needs given Community interests

1:12:38 ↗ that kind of thing it that's kind of a

1:12:40 ↗ also has policy implications so it's

1:12:43 ↗ like half a policy question but also

1:12:44 ↗ half like a resourcing and interesting

1:12:47 ↗ an interest question from staff side so

1:12:49 ↗ I'm just kind of curious what your

1:12:50 ↗ initial reaction to that would be and

1:12:53 ↗ and we can kind of further develop on to

1:12:57 ↗ I'll provide a very broad response then

1:12:59 ↗ I'll ask David to kind of chime in on

1:13:01 ↗ the more specifics but I believe a lot

1:13:03 ↗ of the discussions on where the city can

1:13:05 ↗ take a leadership role was discussed

1:13:06 ↗ with the development of the climate

1:13:07 ↗ Action Plan and there's a lot more

1:13:09 ↗ specifics in there of what our

1:13:11 ↗ capabilities are locally as well as what

1:13:13 ↗ we can do regionally and with

1:13:15 ↗ Partnerships working with King County or

1:13:17 ↗ even the state on expanding on different

1:13:19 ↗ areas then David is there anything

1:13:22 ↗ specific yeah I think when we think

1:13:24 ↗ about other kind of leadership

1:13:26 ↗ opportunities for the city um you know a

1:13:29 ↗ lot of my specific work is with

1:13:30 ↗ Municipal operations right so we could

1:13:34 ↗ for instance think about leadership in

1:13:38 ↗ um you know Fleet electrification for

1:13:41 ↗ instance um where we want to be you know

1:13:45 ↗ different fleets are approaching it in

1:13:46 ↗ different ways fleets want to make sure

1:13:49 ↗ that the technology works for them and

1:13:51 ↗ for the needs of the different um V

1:13:53 ↗ vehicles um that we're trying to employ

1:13:57 ↗ um but within you know Fleet

1:14:00 ↗ electrification or say um Municipal

1:14:03 ↗ Building decarbonization there's the

1:14:05 ↗ opportunity to kind

1:14:07 ↗ of put more uh ambitious targets more uh

1:14:13 ↗ guess funding and and support towards

1:14:15 ↗ those uh those efforts that could have

1:14:18 ↗ us lead regionally um regionally or um

1:14:23 ↗ Statewide or or whatnot um so I think

1:14:27 ↗ there's definitely kind of on the

1:14:28 ↗ municipal side some some opportunities

1:14:30 ↗ there um and then I think uh continuing

1:14:34 ↗ on kind of the community side of things

1:14:36 ↗ right we have we are leading the state

1:14:39 ↗ with um a Heat prump program with the

1:14:42 ↗ other East Side cities um but I think

1:14:44 ↗ there's again kind of opportunities to

1:14:48 ↗ uh continue to lead around um other

1:14:51 ↗ incentive programs electrification

1:14:52 ↗ programs things along those lines that

1:14:55 ↗ um are being tried across the country

1:14:58 ↗ but uh you know there hasn't been kind

1:15:01 ↗ of one uh set model that everyone knows

1:15:05 ↗ works perfectly yet and so uh different

1:15:08 ↗ jurisdictions are are kind of figuring

1:15:10 ↗ it out as they

1:15:18 ↗ go president

1:15:21 ↗ Walsh um so when we're talking about

1:15:23 ↗ this land use policy G5 and language

1:15:27 ↗ about phasing out natural gas can you

1:15:31 ↗ and I emailed the question in earlier

1:15:33 ↗ about what the state's role is in that

1:15:37 ↗ because I know we have a new building

1:15:39 ↗ code that is in the works that was

1:15:42 ↗ supposed to be implemented and is

1:15:44 ↗ delayed can you talk through what the

1:15:48 ↗ effects of that would be and is that

1:15:51 ↗ part of the consideration

1:15:54 ↗ where if the environmental board

1:15:57 ↗ is if the environmental board is talking

1:16:00 ↗ about you know should we consider

1:16:03 ↗ stronger language is

1:16:05 ↗ it stronger than even what the state

1:16:07 ↗ building code is going to look at

1:16:11 ↗ or you know how how does that relate to

1:16:16 ↗ the State Building Code and natural gas

1:16:18 ↗ phase

1:16:22 ↗ out yeah great question so

1:16:25 ↗ um I think when we think about kind of

1:16:28 ↗ decarbonizing our buildings

1:16:31 ↗ um at least in my mind I'm I'm kind of

1:16:34 ↗ splitting them into the two buckets the

1:16:35 ↗ new buildings and the existing buildings

1:16:37 ↗ right it both are taking different

1:16:39 ↗ levers right um so for the new buildings

1:16:43 ↗ if the state energy code is adopted um

1:16:47 ↗ then that will uh lead to to meaningful

1:16:52 ↗ and um significant decarbonization for

1:16:54 ↗ new buildings right that'll require for

1:16:56 ↗ the most part um all uh electrification

1:16:59 ↗ of new

1:17:00 ↗ buildings um existing buildings are uh a

1:17:05 ↗ little bit more complicated right um

1:17:07 ↗ there are pieces of that new energy code

1:17:09 ↗ that would actually impact existing

1:17:11 ↗ buildings as equipment gets replaced um

1:17:14 ↗ there are there would be requirements

1:17:16 ↗ for kind of electrifying some older

1:17:18 ↗ equipment depending on the size of the

1:17:20 ↗ new equipment you're putting in um and

1:17:22 ↗ then likewise there's the um clean

1:17:24 ↗ building performance standard um which

1:17:27 ↗ is impacting all buildings over 20,000

1:17:30 ↗ square feet um and setting kind of

1:17:34 ↗ energy use targets and um Energy

1:17:37 ↗ Efficiency uh targets for those

1:17:40 ↗ buildings so I think between those two

1:17:44 ↗ laws and then also the clean uh energy

1:17:46 ↗ transformation act right that's shifting

1:17:48 ↗ our electricity the renewable sources

1:17:51 ↗ that's going to also be of course

1:17:52 ↗ impacting our El um greenhouse gas

1:17:56 ↗ emissions associated with electric use

1:17:58 ↗ so between all of those um that does

1:18:00 ↗ kind of get at most of our uh buildings

1:18:04 ↗ new and existing um but I think the idea

1:18:09 ↗ is that there are kind of those other

1:18:11 ↗ programs and opportunities such as heat

1:18:13 ↗ pumps and uh heat pump programs and and

1:18:16 ↗ things like that and other ways that we

1:18:17 ↗ can kind of augment our um building

1:18:19 ↗ codes or Title 18 things to to support

1:18:22 ↗ that and Title 18 was just um updated so

1:18:26 ↗ not suggesting we update that right now

1:18:28 ↗ but um there are some meaningful um

1:18:31 ↗ efforts made

1:18:33 ↗ there okay so I think what I'm hearing

1:18:36 ↗ is while this section definitely talks

1:18:39 ↗ about phasing out natural gas and you

1:18:43 ↗ know all of that there's a lot happening

1:18:46 ↗ at this state level that if the building

1:18:49 ↗ code does get adopted that will have a

1:18:51 ↗ big impact on new buildings we've got

1:18:54 ↗ the clean buildings uh initiative act

1:18:57 ↗ whatever it is uh for buildings over

1:18:59 ↗ 20,000 square feet we've also got a lot

1:19:02 ↗ coming on potentially if you're making

1:19:05 ↗ bigger changes to existing homes that

1:19:08 ↗ would move you toward

1:19:11 ↗ electrification but there's some areas

1:19:14 ↗ in that that we could go further as far

1:19:17 ↗ as incentivizing heat pumps or other um

1:19:21 ↗ electrification and

1:19:25 ↗ potentially we have this whole other

1:19:27 ↗ section related to our municipal

1:19:29 ↗ buildings as well does that summarize

1:19:33 ↗ the

1:19:34 ↗ landscape yes I think that generally

1:19:37 ↗ summarizes land that's very helpful

1:19:38 ↗ thank

1:19:51 ↗ youall um I just found the answer to my

1:19:55 ↗ question on the website never mind you

1:19:58 ↗ know I was going to ask

1:20:00 ↗ um you're asking a question about like

1:20:02 ↗ where we should lead and I just made me

1:20:05 ↗ think of the lead gold certified that we

1:20:09 ↗ had so uh some of our opportunities for

1:20:11 ↗ improvement maybe we can align that with

1:20:15 ↗ where we should be leading to um because

1:20:17 ↗ we had a report

1:20:19 ↗ card so do you happen to remember off

1:20:21 ↗ top of your head like what were kind of

1:20:23 ↗ some of the two or three major

1:20:25 ↗ opportunities Improvement have

1:20:30 ↗ there thanks do you want to answer or I

1:20:35 ↗ can so our top three priority actions

1:20:37 ↗ that came out of that um

1:20:40 ↗ were there were kind of sections that we

1:20:43 ↗ didn't do as good um and then there were

1:20:46 ↗ kind of three priority actions we

1:20:48 ↗ identified the one of them was to do um

1:20:51 ↗ lighting retrofit

1:20:53 ↗ LED lighting um throughout the um City

1:20:57 ↗ Lights um the second was to rethink how

1:21:01 ↗ we're doing um waste Staffing um at the

1:21:05 ↗ city and then the third was to look at

1:21:08 ↗ um water water conveyance infrastructure

1:21:12 ↗ and thinking about kind of how we're um

1:21:15 ↗ opportunities for smart metering and

1:21:18 ↗ kind of some of these other Advanced

1:21:20 ↗ Technologies around um water

1:21:22 ↗ infrastructure

1:21:30 ↗ sure great we have any other questions

1:21:34 ↗ okay um right then at this time I will

1:21:37 ↗ call for public comment we have no

1:21:38 ↗ members of the public in the audience

1:21:39 ↗ and I will check in if there are any

1:21:41 ↗ members of the public online that might

1:21:42 ↗ want to give

1:21:47 ↗ comments shair hunt we do have a member

1:21:49 ↗ of the public in attendance online but

1:21:52 ↗ they have not indicated a desire to

1:21:55 ↗ speak okay all right um then we will

1:21:58 ↗ move to our discussion on this

1:22:02 ↗ item council president

1:22:06 ↗ Walsh so my first reaction and looking

1:22:09 ↗ at all of this is oh my gosh this is a

1:22:11 ↗ lot and then when I look back at how

1:22:13 ↗ many environmental board meetings and as

1:22:16 ↗ somebody who came up through PPC I know

1:22:19 ↗ that you can really get into the wording

1:22:21 ↗ on that and talk about what the intent

1:22:24 ↗ is and so the first step there I just

1:22:27 ↗ want to say thank you so much to the

1:22:30 ↗ environmental board for doing that um

1:22:33 ↗ work because ultimately and staff that

1:22:35 ↗ did it ultimately um what I see there is

1:22:39 ↗ a lot of really good changes that I

1:22:41 ↗ think really meet the needs of our

1:22:44 ↗ community so I'm feeling really good

1:22:47 ↗ about the general proposed changes in

1:22:52 ↗ there

1:22:54 ↗ um as far as where we should lead I mean

1:22:59 ↗ I'd like to see us lead on municipal

1:23:02 ↗ buildings and um Fleet and I think those

1:23:05 ↗ the areas that are in our control are

1:23:07 ↗ great they're expensive but they're

1:23:10 ↗ great um and similarly I think the heat

1:23:14 ↗ pump campaign has been really

1:23:16 ↗ interesting and a really great way to

1:23:18 ↗ tie

1:23:19 ↗ in equity with major changes that are

1:23:24 ↗ needed um that help us get toward our

1:23:27 ↗ goals so the more of that we can do the

1:23:31 ↗ better um from my perspective as far as

1:23:34 ↗ land use policy G5 um I I really like

1:23:41 ↗ the new State Building Code um and I

1:23:43 ↗ think it provides a great opportunity

1:23:46 ↗ for us to move together hand inand with

1:23:50 ↗ our neighboring cities

1:23:53 ↗ um

1:23:55 ↗ so if that can be

1:23:57 ↗ accomplished I'm super happy but I think

1:24:01 ↗ the question mark still in the air is is

1:24:04 ↗ that going to be challenged um and so

1:24:07 ↗ the question I think should probably go

1:24:10 ↗ back to the environmental board is to

1:24:13 ↗ get a sense of

1:24:16 ↗ whether they want us to move beyond what

1:24:20 ↗ the state building code

1:24:22 ↗ would kind of adopt and move everybody

1:24:27 ↗ toward or whether that sense of new

1:24:31 ↗ building electrification Plus what's

1:24:33 ↗ happening with the clean buildings act

1:24:35 ↗ and all of that whether that gets us

1:24:38 ↗ where we want to go without splintering

1:24:42 ↗ off as separate cities um because I do

1:24:46 ↗ have some concerns about that so that

1:24:50 ↗ would be my general approach to that I

1:24:52 ↗ think we should absolutely be moving

1:24:54 ↗ hugely in that

1:24:56 ↗ direction but we should also respect the

1:24:59 ↗ work that's happened on the state level

1:25:00 ↗ that could get us all there together so

1:25:04 ↗ those are my

1:25:10 ↗ thoughts I I had one question sorry that

1:25:13 ↗ I didn't ask this during The Question

1:25:14 ↗ Time um so the uh the riparian this very

1:25:19 ↗ specific question the green necklace is

1:25:21 ↗ in the riparian in Corridor um section

1:25:25 ↗ and it

1:25:26 ↗ has it talks about like making sure that

1:25:29 ↗ we have green necklace in the riparian

1:25:32 ↗ corridors is that because it's covered

1:25:35 ↗ elsewhere already in the code the other

1:25:37 ↗ places where the green necklaces because

1:25:38 ↗ the green necklace would not only be in

1:25:40 ↗ the Rian corar it's just like make

1:25:44 ↗ basically making sure it's in that

1:25:45 ↗ section but it's already in the the part

1:25:47 ↗ about parks and the part about okay

1:25:50 ↗ Community spaces and okay

1:25:53 ↗ okay um that was my one question thank

1:25:55 ↗ you uh all right so um firstly I uh

1:26:01 ↗ appreciated the PPD um comments so

1:26:04 ↗ there's a comment there there's a new uh

1:26:06 ↗ provision about making sure that we are

1:26:08 ↗ filtering out PPD which know um I may

1:26:11 ↗ have that I'm

1:26:15 ↗ wrong six pbd Q um and posos is also in

1:26:20 ↗ that same one but um that's a very

1:26:23 ↗ important thing for salmon to be um

1:26:25 ↗ that's the the tire dust um and so I was

1:26:29 ↗ I searched for that I did command Def

1:26:31 ↗ and found it and I appreciate that um

1:26:33 ↗ and that is based on staff's suggestions

1:26:35 ↗ so thank you for that uh like council

1:26:37 ↗ president Walsh very very happy with the

1:26:39 ↗ amount of work and thought that has

1:26:40 ↗ clearly gone into this so thank you um

1:26:43 ↗ for all of that and also thank you to

1:26:45 ↗ our commissions our volunteer

1:26:47 ↗ commissions for all of their work making

1:26:48 ↗ this so

1:26:50 ↗ comprehensive um as far as the questions

1:26:53 ↗ that we were asked I think that we have

1:26:55 ↗ this environmental board for the purpose

1:26:58 ↗ of providing recommendations and so

1:27:01 ↗ doesn't sound like it sounded like there

1:27:02 ↗ was conversation but there wasn't a

1:27:04 ↗ specific recommendation on this item for

1:27:06 ↗ policy G5 um so that would really be the

1:27:09 ↗ one that I would ask to for them to make

1:27:13 ↗ a recommendation if they can come to a

1:27:15 ↗ consensus on it uh the policy that's in

1:27:17 ↗ there was in the comp plan already um so

1:27:22 ↗ I have to think that they want something

1:27:25 ↗ different than that um and it's the same

1:27:29 ↗ wording as in the IAP for that for G5

1:27:32 ↗ it's already there um and so I have to

1:27:36 ↗ think that they want something stronger

1:27:38 ↗ the one one thing that uh they could

1:27:41 ↗ consider in that conversation is there

1:27:43 ↗ are a number

1:27:45 ↗ of uh sections in the IAP under that

1:27:50 ↗ heading um actually one of which is

1:27:52 ↗ about grid resilience uh to council

1:27:55 ↗ member Hall's earlier comment um but we

1:27:57 ↗ could consider strengthening it by

1:27:59 ↗ incorporating those into the policy like

1:28:02 ↗ those things that we're going to do

1:28:03 ↗ there's some more information about the

1:28:06 ↗ the targets um and the and the heat pump

1:28:08 ↗ campaign for example so uh at at the

1:28:11 ↗ very least it seems we could make sure

1:28:13 ↗ that we better explain our strategy to

1:28:17 ↗ strengthen it um to strengthen that and

1:28:20 ↗ then if they have another recommendation

1:28:22 ↗ as far as

1:28:24 ↗ changing the the wording I think that

1:28:27 ↗ would be great to hear from them so we

1:28:30 ↗ can consider it um that would be my ask

1:28:34 ↗ uh I'm generally supportive of the IAP

1:28:37 ↗ and you know there's been a huge amount

1:28:38 ↗ of work that went into that and we

1:28:40 ↗ established this environmental board to

1:28:42 ↗ provide recommendations so if they if

1:28:44 ↗ they are advocating for some stronger

1:28:46 ↗ language or clar

1:28:49 ↗ clarifying the uh clarifying and making

1:28:52 ↗ sure that all of the IAP is captured in

1:28:54 ↗ the comprehensive plan I would just

1:28:56 ↗ basically like to know that and would

1:28:58 ↗ definitely consider it and absolutely we

1:29:00 ↗ know this community is very concerned

1:29:02 ↗ about climate change and it is already

1:29:04 ↗ impacting us and so I'm I'm in favor of

1:29:07 ↗ considering that stronger language and

1:29:08 ↗ would just like to have that proposal so

1:29:10 ↗ we can consider it for next

1:29:13 ↗ time um let's see uh leadership role the

1:29:18 ↗ second question specific areas around

1:29:20 ↗ the leadership role I did note that

1:29:23 ↗ there is in The Matrix

1:29:26 ↗ um now I can find it I think that it

1:29:29 ↗ does already talk about leading yeah

1:29:32 ↗ lead by example for municipal operations

1:29:35 ↗ such as Fleet buildings and waste among

1:29:38 ↗ other opportunities which was from the

1:29:40 ↗ IAP um I think it's a great suggestion

1:29:43 ↗ to just look at where we already know we

1:29:46 ↗ are leaders from the lead gold

1:29:48 ↗ certification as well but um I think

1:29:52 ↗ leading by example in those areas that

1:29:55 ↗ we are that are in our control the

1:29:57 ↗ council president Walsh's comment

1:29:59 ↗ earlier is a

1:30:00 ↗ good good thing

1:30:04 ↗ um and and yeah the the areas where

1:30:07 ↗ we're also a

1:30:09 ↗ a a force of a convening force like with

1:30:12 ↗ the heat pump campaign those are also

1:30:14 ↗ great I think to to mention whether it's

1:30:17 ↗ mentioned as the in the lead by example

1:30:19 ↗ or in the um building decarbonization I

1:30:21 ↗ and I think could been in either but

1:30:23 ↗ either way

1:30:25 ↗ [Music]

1:30:31 ↗ um yeah I

1:30:33 ↗ had um those are my big comments I had a

1:30:38 ↗ couple comments which I think will

1:30:39 ↗ probably be clarified once we actually

1:30:42 ↗ get the wording of these but for example

1:30:46 ↗ there's a revised goal policy about

1:30:48 ↗ reducing waste Generation by promoting a

1:30:50 ↗ circular e economy I know that that's

1:30:53 ↗ proposed to comply with the house a

1:30:56 ↗ house bill but it does seem

1:30:59 ↗ like um that that one and a couple other

1:31:03 ↗ ones are a little bit vague um so those

1:31:06 ↗ might also be things that at some point

1:31:08 ↗ we could have the environmental board

1:31:10 ↗ consider you know like what does it mean

1:31:12 ↗ to promote a circular

1:31:13 ↗ economy uh that would be helpful to know

1:31:16 ↗ does that mean we promote the ReUse of

1:31:19 ↗ the

1:31:20 ↗ um the waste oil from the restaurants I

1:31:25 ↗ know that's one part of a circular

1:31:27 ↗ economy or you know what does it mean so

1:31:29 ↗ I think um for those those new ones that

1:31:31 ↗ are proposed to comply with HB 1110

1:31:34 ↗ because we don't have the official draft

1:31:37 ↗ document um maybe when the draft

1:31:40 ↗ document comes back to us we could have

1:31:41 ↗ some more clarity on like on for example

1:31:44 ↗ that one there are a few others that are

1:31:46 ↗ a little bit it would be a little bit

1:31:47 ↗ unclear to to me as a policy maker how

1:31:50 ↗ to actually achieve that one from the

1:31:54 ↗ wording um those are my

1:31:59 ↗ comments council member

1:32:01 ↗ H thank you

1:32:06 ↗ um first of all thank you for doing all

1:32:09 ↗ this having to pull everything out of

1:32:10 ↗ all the different elements into a new

1:32:13 ↗ brand new element must have been um

1:32:15 ↗ challenging um I see these first few

1:32:17 ↗ questions kind of linked for me um

1:32:23 ↗ I would love to see potentially the

1:32:27 ↗ environmental

1:32:28 ↗ board look at the overlap between the

1:32:32 ↗ lead gold certification report card

1:32:35 ↗ essentially that we got and

1:32:36 ↗ opportunities for leadership and

1:32:38 ↗ Improvement um and Lead where not

1:32:41 ↗ necessarily where we're already leaders

1:32:43 ↗ but where we need to to grow so it

1:32:45 ↗ seemed like the biggest one that

1:32:47 ↗ overlapped with this element was the

1:32:49 ↗ waste diversion policies so I would love

1:32:52 ↗ to know what they think about that and I

1:32:53 ↗ think it would that would be great thing

1:32:55 ↗ to be

1:32:58 ↗ for you're in

1:33:00 ↗ isqua

1:33:02 ↗ um I'm also not seeing a whole lot of

1:33:04 ↗ changes

1:33:06 ↗ from any of those kind of materials and

1:33:08 ↗ consumptions goals um and like like was

1:33:11 ↗ said some of them are kind of kind of

1:33:13 ↗ vague too so I wonder if maybe even just

1:33:15 ↗ kind of a deep look at those um would be

1:33:18 ↗ would be

1:33:19 ↗ beneficial um with regard to the third

1:33:22 ↗ question about G5 I don't know I mean

1:33:25 ↗ I'm interested in what they think I

1:33:27 ↗ don't know if there's necessarily A need

1:33:28 ↗ to be bolder or stronger but potentially

1:33:31 ↗ more specific

1:33:33 ↗ um and I and I say that for a couple

1:33:36 ↗ reasons that you know it'll help us

1:33:38 ↗ understand what success looks like for

1:33:39 ↗ that policy but also when we adopted the

1:33:43 ↗ climate action plan there were actually

1:33:45 ↗ some last minute voices who were

1:33:47 ↗ concerned about this particular goal the

1:33:49 ↗ business community in particular and and

1:33:51 ↗ our response was this is a guiding

1:33:54 ↗ Vision right when we start to get closer

1:33:56 ↗ to like implementing these kinds of

1:33:57 ↗ things there will be intense Community

1:33:59 ↗ engagement so perhaps um perhaps it

1:34:02 ↗ would even be better to be more specific

1:34:05 ↗ or in that goal and say something like

1:34:07 ↗ incentivize the transition or

1:34:12 ↗ um guiding or supporting the transition

1:34:15 ↗ in the community or something like that

1:34:17 ↗ so if they if they have a conversation

1:34:19 ↗ about that that would be helpful I don't

1:34:21 ↗ know if I'll leave it up to you if you

1:34:23 ↗ think it's necessary to take that to

1:34:25 ↗ like the economic Vitality commission or

1:34:27 ↗ if that's something we can kind of think

1:34:28 ↗ through ourselves and engage with

1:34:31 ↗ leaders but that just came to mind when

1:34:33 ↗ I saw that one as well

1:34:47 ↗ um those are the remaining comments I

1:34:50 ↗ didn't see anything that I disagree

1:34:55 ↗ actively

1:34:57 ↗ great thank you okay do we have any

1:34:59 ↗ other

1:35:01 ↗ comments I think I think we all were on

1:35:04 ↗ the same page do you have what you need

1:35:08 ↗ from us on these questions yes we do

1:35:10 ↗ chair hun great okay um with that then

1:35:14 ↗ thank you again thank you all for all of

1:35:16 ↗ your hard work on this um and with that

1:35:19 ↗ we have final item is announcements do

1:35:21 ↗ we have any announcements no

1:35:23 ↗ announcements okay then we are adjourned

1:35:25 ↗ at 8:05 p.m. thank you all

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF