City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Wednesday, January 3, 2024 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of November 8, 2023

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 1:11 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 11-08-23 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. November 8, 2023 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Comprehensive Plan Update SEPA Scope Review ID 1493

60 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.7–32

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Dec 7, 2023

▶ Watch from 1:36 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The City of Issaquah 2044 Comprehensive Plan update will guide growth over the next 20 years. Every ten years, the City reviews the Comprehensive Plan for periodic updates as required by state law. These updates help the City refine and implement the community vision for how the community will look and function over the next 20 years through 2044. The last major update (Issaquah 2035) was adopted in 2015.

1131 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ hello everyone welcome to the Wednesday

0:08 ↗ January 3rd 2024 city council Planning

0:11 ↗ Development and environment committee

0:13 ↗ meeting my name is council member hunt

0:15 ↗ and I am here tonight with council

0:17 ↗ president Walsh uh council member Zach

0:20 ↗ Hall is also a member of this committee

0:21 ↗ but he has an excused absence this

0:24 ↗ evening um we have multiple public

0:27 ↗ comment opportunities tonight um um one

0:30 ↗ of them will be uh now before our items

0:34 ↗ of business and so at this time I will

0:37 ↗ check in I will mention from the record

0:38 ↗ that there are no members of the public

0:40 ↗ in council chambers this evening and at

0:42 ↗ this time I will um check in with the

0:44 ↗ city clerk if there are any members of

0:46 ↗ the public wishing to make comments um

0:49 ↗ in the virtual meeting and if so I will

0:51 ↗ uh read some more

0:54 ↗ information chair hunt we have one

0:56 ↗ virtual attendee but I don't see a hand

0:59 ↗ raised uh indicating the desire to

1:01 ↗ speak okay um well as a reminder there

1:04 ↗ will be another public comment

1:05 ↗ opportunity later in the meeting um so

1:07 ↗ I'll will also call for public comment

1:09 ↗ after that item um the first thing we

1:11 ↗ will do is approval of the minutes we

1:13 ↗ have minutes from November 8th

1:16 ↗ 2023 um do we have any corrections or um

1:20 ↗ changes to those meeting

1:23 ↗ minutes right then um move to approve

1:26 ↗ the meeting minutes of November 8th

1:28 ↗ please indic indicate saying I I I that

1:32 ↗ passes and um thank you now we will get

1:36 ↗ to our first and only agenda item which

1:38 ↗ is ID 1493 comprehensive Plan update sea

1:42 ↗ scope review and this will be presented

1:45 ↗ um by long range planning manager

1:47 ↗ Stephen P welcome

1:50 ↗ Stephen thank you chair hunts a moment

1:52 ↗ to pull up my

1:58 ↗ slides thank you uh tonight as you said

2:00 ↗ we're going to talk about the

2:01 ↗ environmental impact statement scoping

2:03 ↗ process and take committee members

2:06 ↗ feedback on the scoping on on how to

2:08 ↗ approach the Eis for the comprehensive

2:10 ↗ plan and um potentially get any

2:13 ↗ additional topics to analyze as part of

2:15 ↗ the EAS as well we have three questions

2:18 ↗ for the committee members tonight first

2:20 ↗ is are there topics not listed that

2:22 ↗ should be addressed in the EAS are there

2:25 ↗ additional concerns that should be

2:26 ↗ considered as part of the E and are

2:28 ↗ there changes to the proposal

2:29 ↗ Alternatives that'll be presented uh in

2:32 ↗ tonight's meeting that you consider for

2:34 ↗ the Eis

2:37 ↗ analysis as a little background

2:39 ↗ information we I'm going to dive into

2:41 ↗ what is the Eis what's it what's the

2:43 ↗ requirement behind it and

2:46 ↗ what the Eis uh is required by the State

2:50 ↗ Environmental Policy Act which is State

2:53 ↗ requirement to do environmental analysis

2:55 ↗ for government decisions and projects

2:58 ↗ that could look at environment

3:00 ↗ potential mitigation for imps the

3:03 ↗ environmental impact statement which I'm

3:05 ↗ calling the Eis tonight describes or

3:08 ↗ looks into those um different topics for

3:12 ↗ analyzing the envir environmental

3:13 ↗ impacts and potential mitigation and

3:16 ↗ significant impacts as a result of a

3:19 ↗ government decision or

3:22 ↗ project the many topics that are

3:24 ↗ required to be looked at in the includes

3:27 ↗ u a lot of the topics for the

3:29 ↗ comprehensive plan in line with the

3:31 ↗ elements in the comprehensive plan as

3:32 ↗ well as a few additional topics

3:34 ↗ including display displacement analysis

3:37 ↗ or different types of services that uh

3:40 ↗ should be analyzed with growth as the

3:42 ↗ different alternatives

3:46 ↗ for as required by the state the Eis has

3:51 ↗ to go through a scoping period um we

3:54 ↗ initiated that scoping period at the end

3:56 ↗ of November and it'll end at January 5th

3:59 ↗ this Friday we held an open house on

4:02 ↗ December 7th at the isqua community

4:04 ↗ center and then we also held uh the same

4:07 ↗ night the planning policy commission

4:09 ↗ discussed the same topic and take public

4:12 ↗ comment and then the total uh comments

4:16 ↗ that we received was about 25 individual

4:18 ↗ comments throughout the openhouse the

4:22 ↗ online comments that we receiv received

4:23 ↗ and email comments that we received in

4:25 ↗ addition to the PPC comments from the

4:28 ↗ meeting on the December

4:32 ↗ generally the feedback we received is U

4:36 ↗ there was some concerns around

4:37 ↗ emergencies and preparedness for natural

4:40 ↗ disasters as it relates to growth and

4:42 ↗ access to resources there is cons

4:44 ↗ General concern around affordable

4:46 ↗ housing um

4:47 ↗ Citywide uh as well as regionally in

4:50 ↗ terms of how the city is providing

4:52 ↗ affordable housing along with our

4:54 ↗ regional Partners H uh traffic again is

4:58 ↗ always a concern when when it comes to

5:00 ↗ growth there's that we received some

5:03 ↗ comments along engineering standards and

5:05 ↗ aligning them with uh neighborhood

5:08 ↗ need environment is also a big concern

5:11 ↗ at the openhouse from the planning

5:13 ↗ policy commission as well as emailed

5:15 ↗ comments that we received in terms of

5:17 ↗ how we are addressing climate change

5:19 ↗ with our regional Partners how we're

5:21 ↗ addressing environmental justice and

5:24 ↗ access as well as considering the city

5:27 ↗ should consider higher growth targets as

5:29 ↗ part of this

5:35 ↗ year just for context our uh City growth

5:39 ↗ targets were adopted in 2021 and we use

5:42 ↗ our 2019 Baseline numbers

5:45 ↗ so in addition to the Baseline numbers

5:49 ↗ uh

5:50 ↗ from for housing of 17,000 we expect or

5:54 ↗ have a target of 3500 housing units um

5:58 ↗ by 2044 as well as

6:00 ↗ 7,900 jobs in addition to the 2019

6:03 ↗ Baseline by

6:08 ↗ 2044 now to help us put together the

6:11 ↗ different Alternatives we wanted to take

6:12 ↗ a look at what's actually going in the

6:15 ↗ pipeline now what's been constructed

6:17 ↗ what's what's in our permitting process

6:19 ↗ what's in the development agreements

6:21 ↗ what we see is projected growth uh with

6:23 ↗ what we have now to help us determine

6:26 ↗ how to better analyze different growth

6:28 ↗ alternatives for this Eis and so what

6:31 ↗ you can see is what we've seen since

6:33 ↗ 2019 is we've seen a little over 1100

6:35 ↗ housing units constructed in uh the city

6:39 ↗ we have 118 housing units currently

6:43 ↗ under permit review we also have 360

6:46 ↗ housing units under

6:49 ↗ construction and then we under our

6:50 ↗ development agreements uh we potentially

6:52 ↗ have an additional 3500 housing units

6:55 ↗ coming in by 2044 and so by 2044 just

6:59 ↗ using these Pipeline and and

7:01 ↗ construction numbers as well as the

7:02 ↗ development agreements we are expecting

7:06 ↗ just over 5,000 500 5100 housing units

7:09 ↗ by

7:12 ↗ 2044 oh and one note on the agreements

7:16 ↗ so we looked at the development

7:18 ↗ agreements for shelter rally and

7:19 ↗ Lakeside and then the Tod project which

7:22 ↗ isn't necessarily a development

7:23 ↗ agreement but we have an agreement with

7:25 ↗ County that'll look at additional

7:27 ↗ housing units in the regional growth

7:28 ↗ Center

7:34 ↗ so the Alternatives that we're wanted to

7:36 ↗ discuss with the committee

7:38 ↗ tonight is in line with what much of

7:40 ↗ what we looked at from the pipeline

7:42 ↗ numbers in construction as well as what

7:44 ↗ was in the development agreements using

7:45 ↗ different assumptions so for the first

7:47 ↗ alternative alternative a we are looking

7:50 ↗ at a total housing growth of 3,500 units

7:54 ↗ in the next 20 years this assumes that

7:57 ↗ the numbers in the pipeline um are going

7:59 ↗ to maintain be maintained everything in

8:02 ↗ the uh under review and permits or under

8:05 ↗ construction will be maintained but it's

8:07 ↗ only assuming partial build out of the

8:08 ↗ development agreements and this also

8:11 ↗ doesn't assume any additional growth in

8:13 ↗ addition to what's in the pipeline now

8:16 ↗ and that'll help that'll is what'll get

8:18 ↗ us to the growth of

8:21 ↗ 3500 using that we that means we will

8:24 ↗ have majority growth outside of the

8:26 ↗ centralis wall U Valley

8:30 ↗ and only 40%

8:33 ↗ within for alternative B we increase the

8:37 ↗ total housing units to

8:38 ↗ 5,500 and doing that we assume that the

8:41 ↗ development agreements will get fully

8:43 ↗ built out we also assume that there will

8:45 ↗ be um some minor projects within the

8:48 ↗ regional growth Center for additional

8:51 ↗ housing um but it's still maintains

8:53 ↗ majority growth minor majority outside

8:58 ↗ of

9:00 ↗ and then for the third alternative

9:01 ↗ alternative C we increase the total

9:04 ↗ housing to 6,800 housing units this also

9:07 ↗ assumes the pipe maintains the pipeline

9:10 ↗ housing units as well as assumes the

9:12 ↗ development agreements get fully built

9:14 ↗ out but it also assumes additional

9:16 ↗ growth within the regional growth Center

9:18 ↗ and the um more growth actually outside

9:20 ↗ of the regional growth Center in central

9:24 ↗ isapa um but these assumptions get us to

9:27 ↗ the majority growth Within well by

9:33 ↗ 2044 next steps for the E is will be

9:36 ↗ bringing or for the comprehensive plan

9:38 ↗ we'll be bring the economic Vitality uh

9:40 ↗ element draft to this Committee in

9:44 ↗ February and then we'll be bringing the

9:46 ↗ parks Human Services and cultural

9:48 ↗ elements to the services safety Parks

9:51 ↗ Council Committee in feary and then the

9:54 ↗ expected draft release for the Eis will

9:56 ↗ be in second quarter this

9:58 ↗ year

9:59 ↗ that concludes my presentation I'm

10:01 ↗ joined by Mandy Roberts and M entally

10:06 ↗ just Mandy Roberts one of her

10:07 ↗ Consultants helping us with the Eis

10:09 ↗ analysis and she'll help me Feld any

10:15 ↗ questions okay thank you um do we have

10:19 ↗ any

10:20 ↗ questions counil president Wast thank

10:23 ↗ you so I had emailed in a few but I just

10:26 ↗ want to kind of have some of that

10:27 ↗ conversation on

10:29 ↗ um record so you mentioned the three

10:34 ↗ development agreements and then the to

10:37 ↗ project and um can you bring up the

10:40 ↗ numbers that are shown for what the

10:44 ↗ growth rate yeah so you've got

10:48 ↗ 3500 and we've had development

10:51 ↗ agreements in the past when we've talked

10:52 ↗ about comp plans but they've always had

10:54 ↗ future end dates um so we haven't known

10:58 ↗ when the growth would happen but I had

11:01 ↗ asked you when

11:03 ↗ the end dates are for each of these and

11:06 ↗ you had said 2038 2044 and

11:09 ↗ 2043 so is there any reason that we

11:13 ↗ wouldn't expect to see those

11:16 ↗ 3500 units be built I mean wouldn't they

11:21 ↗ basically be giving up what is their

11:26 ↗ right it would it's their right but it's

11:28 ↗ also based on the market in terms of

11:30 ↗ cost and and viability for the project

11:32 ↗ and what they're how how they're going

11:33 ↗ to be able to get maximize their profits

11:35 ↗ for the project in terms of what's

11:37 ↗ feasible for them to be able to develop

11:39 ↗ within the time frame of the development

11:40 ↗ agreement um so for the purposes of the

11:44 ↗ E we wanted to take a conservative

11:46 ↗ approach and and just make sure that we

11:48 ↗ have the capacity to be able to

11:50 ↗ accommodate these projects if they do

11:51 ↗ fully build out but typically we don't

11:54 ↗ always see these development agreements

11:56 ↗ fully build out as they're outlined or

11:59 ↗ allowed to do

12:01 ↗ within yeah it's interesting because I

12:03 ↗ think many of the development agreements

12:05 ↗ we've dealt with have been single family

12:07 ↗ homes and those have all gotten built

12:09 ↗ out in more um but these are slightly

12:12 ↗ different scenarios okay um and then I

12:16 ↗ kind of asked what so what's the impact

12:20 ↗ of choosing to go after smaller versus

12:24 ↗ larger Targets in this does are there

12:27 ↗ any Li itations that that puts us under

12:30 ↗ is what's the financial impact for the

12:33 ↗ city how how should we go about

12:35 ↗ evaluating those so for the Eis well

12:41 ↗ when we are looking at the larger growth

12:42 ↗ projections or slightly larger growth

12:46 ↗ projections we'll have to analyze any

12:48 ↗ potential impacts on our infrastructure

12:50 ↗ any potential needs that haven't been

12:52 ↗ looked at or any potential significant

12:55 ↗ impacts that aren't recognized within

12:57 ↗ our CIP and be able to address that if

13:00 ↗ that's the projected growth that we want

13:01 ↗ to uh plan for and so by a smaller

13:06 ↗ growth projection we'll actually be

13:08 ↗ looking at what potential mitigation

13:10 ↗ projects we don't need versus the larger

13:13 ↗ Pro larger projections we'll need to

13:15 ↗ look at things that we haven't looked at

13:17 ↗ before and so that would be kind of the

13:19 ↗ difference of how we're going to be

13:20 ↗ analyze them both will come with

13:22 ↗ different cost within the Eis analysis

13:25 ↗ but we'll be able to um

13:29 ↗ but the additional um analysis is going

13:33 ↗ to be looked at within the modeling in

13:35 ↗ terms of what what can be accommodated

13:37 ↗ and I'll go to Mandy Roberts one of our

13:39 ↗ Consultants to kind of add to my

13:41 ↗ respon thank you Stephen I wasn't sure

13:44 ↗ if you could see my hand raised can can

13:46 ↗ everyone hear me yes we

13:49 ↗ can okay very good yeah I just wanted to

13:52 ↗ add in to Stephen's uh explanation which

13:55 ↗ was really thorough but just that um

13:58 ↗ doing the environmental impact statement

14:00 ↗ gives us the opportunity to analyze a a

14:03 ↗ reasonable range of Alternatives under

14:06 ↗ the State Environmental Policy Act sepa

14:10 ↗ and uh so it doesn't necessarily mean

14:11 ↗ that any one of these three would be you

14:15 ↗ know the exact or ultimate future it but

14:18 ↗ it does give us opportunity to analyze

14:20 ↗ these three different possibilities and

14:23 ↗ through a public document gather

14:25 ↗ additional comments on that look at uh

14:28 ↗ different impacts to traffic

14:29 ↗ Transportation utilities and whatnot so

14:32 ↗ it's really just you know wanting to

14:35 ↗ brief you on these Alternatives and uh

14:38 ↗ get a sense of how you're feeling about

14:39 ↗ these for further study so I just want

14:42 ↗ to add that in thank

14:47 ↗ you okay and I had one other question so

14:52 ↗ this is looking at a period of 25 years

14:56 ↗ starting back in 2019 um and we've

14:59 ↗ obviously already constructed I had had

15:02 ↗ asked for the number of average units

15:06 ↗ that we have grown over the last 5 years

15:09 ↗ and 10 years you said 270 and 287 units

15:13 ↗ per year obviously we're in a different

15:15 ↗ Financial scenario right now but we

15:18 ↗ don't know what the financial scenario

15:19 ↗ is going to be within all of these 25

15:22 ↗ years um is there a reason we wouldn't

15:25 ↗ just assume or try to to predict that we

15:30 ↗ will grow at about the same rate or even

15:33 ↗ more since there's such a high demand

15:35 ↗ for housing going

15:37 ↗ forward I think the main reason we' want

15:40 ↗ to go for a higher growth alternative is

15:44 ↗ that if we do at one point exceed that

15:47 ↗ growth that growth projection we would

15:50 ↗ need to do another Eis to analyze what

15:53 ↗ those impacts might be but if it's

15:55 ↗ within the range of what we're

15:57 ↗ considering within this Eis

15:59 ↗ we don't need to redo it and we actually

16:00 ↗ have looked at the environmental impact

16:02 ↗ as part of princi well let me clarify

16:05 ↗ 270 units per year over 25 years is

16:10 ↗ 6750 which would be toward the high

16:12 ↗ range of what we've projected so one of

16:16 ↗ the things I'm trying to get at is are

16:18 ↗ we maybe looking too low given our past

16:23 ↗ growth rate over not just the last 5

16:26 ↗ years but the last 10 years and consider

16:28 ↗ ing we're looking at more potential

16:31 ↗ multifam which is going to be a higher

16:33 ↗ number of units per

16:36 ↗ acre I'm wondering whether the numbers

16:40 ↗ suggest that there could be higher

16:42 ↗ numbers coming

16:46 ↗ in we can definitely look at a higher

16:48 ↗ number for the Eis um there's nothing

16:50 ↗ holding us back the main thing is we

16:52 ↗ were trying to pull the numbers from

16:54 ↗ what we see kind of in our permitting

16:56 ↗ process development to kind of get us to

16:58 ↗ our projected uh growth

17:03 ↗ alternative good evening uh council

17:06 ↗ members and any members of the community

17:08 ↗ I want to add to that is I would caution

17:10 ↗ us taking you know we can analyze a much

17:14 ↗ higher uh growth pattern um under the

17:17 ↗ state law we only have to plan for

17:20 ↗ 3500 and that means uh not just the

17:23 ↗ planning exercise but are do we have the

17:26 ↗ water and the sewer capacity to serve

17:29 ↗ these places so we don't want to build

17:30 ↗ reservoirs that aren't going to get used

17:33 ↗ so so I think um from a planning

17:36 ↗ perspective that's the growth targets

17:38 ↗ are done with the analysis at a at a

17:41 ↗ whole region sub region and then the

17:43 ↗ county gets a chair and the cities get

17:45 ↗ this share so these forecasting models

17:47 ↗ work at that much larger Regional scale

17:50 ↗ for each City to determine what your

17:52 ↗ growth is going to be we can you know we

17:54 ↗ don't control the market some of it will

17:56 ↗ be driven by market and such so I would

18:00 ↗ caution Council from going even larger

18:03 ↗ than 6,800 at this time for for the Eis

18:07 ↗ process we we're happy to add that if

18:09 ↗ you think we need to explore that option

18:11 ↗ um but I think that's almost twice the

18:15 ↗ amount of 3500 that the city is

18:18 ↗ required okay that was kind of what I

18:20 ↗ was trying to pick at with what are the

18:23 ↗ pros and cons of choosing High versus

18:26 ↗ low and what what it means if we set

18:30 ↗ something either too low or too high are

18:34 ↗ we and I think your comment about water

18:37 ↗ and building towers and all of that

18:39 ↗ gives me a sense of hey there could be

18:42 ↗ problems if we set something too high

18:45 ↗ and like a school district that is

18:48 ↗ decreasing in enrollment over build and

18:52 ↗ then not have the um housing to deal

18:55 ↗ with that thank you that's the end of my

18:57 ↗ questions

19:00 ↗ and then I do have a hand from uh our

19:02 ↗ consultant Mandy if if you don't mind

19:04 ↗ her adding into

19:06 ↗ respon go ahead Mandy yeah is it is it

19:09 ↗ is it okay if I tag on thanks Stephen I

19:12 ↗ just wanted to reiterate I believe you

19:14 ↗ said it earlier but um cities are

19:17 ↗ required to update their conference of

19:18 ↗ plans every 10 years and so that will be

19:22 ↗ another opportunity you know the city

19:24 ↗ will be monitoring what growth happens

19:27 ↗ over the next 10 years years and

19:29 ↗ approaching that timeline um things can

19:32 ↗ be adjusted at that point if it looks

19:34 ↗ like you're going to you know exceed

19:37 ↗ your 20year targets so that's just sort

19:40 ↗ of a a stop fail I guess or a stop Gap

19:43 ↗ that has built into the process that

19:45 ↗ every 10 years we take a fresh look at

19:47 ↗ this so just want to mention that

19:55 ↗ too okay great thank you um um well I

19:59 ↗ had a very similar question we had a

20:01 ↗ comment from um the community meetings

20:04 ↗ that was uh the suggestion that we

20:08 ↗ should consider higher growth

20:10 ↗ targets um I don't think I fully

20:15 ↗ understand the answer because if we

20:18 ↗ there we're considering

20:20 ↗ Alternatives um those alternatives are

20:22 ↗ not as was stated earlier none of them

20:24 ↗ are going to be exactly what ends up

20:26 ↗ happening so if we have an Alterna ative

20:29 ↗ larger population wise than growth-wise

20:32 ↗ than what ends up happening in the

20:34 ↗ future that doesn't mean that we

20:36 ↗ necessarily build out the infrastructure

20:38 ↗ to support that alternative that

20:40 ↗ doesn't happen so I'm not I'm not sure

20:43 ↗ that I understood your concern about

20:46 ↗ choosing one alternative that is higher

20:47 ↗ than our Target my understanding right

20:49 ↗ now is we don't have any alternatives

20:51 ↗ that we're considering higher than our

20:54 ↗ Target yeah I I think what I was getting

20:57 ↗ at is is you know for transportation

20:59 ↗ model update I mean that's a pretty

21:01 ↗ expensive study for the city to

21:02 ↗ undertake if our assumptions are really

21:05 ↗ high we'll be spending a lot of planning

21:07 ↗ exercise for the trips that may or may

21:09 ↗ not be the reality so I think ground so

21:14 ↗ that was one one piece um so planning

21:17 ↗ for infrastructure for this larger

21:19 ↗ growth alternative we have to pick an

21:21 ↗ alternative uh we can analyze the three

21:24 ↗ but we're going to have a preferred

21:25 ↗ alternative for our comp plan is that

21:28 ↗ correct Mandy or Stephen through this

21:34 ↗ exercise usually uh if I could speak to

21:37 ↗ that usually we go through the analysis

21:40 ↗ process and gather public and agency

21:42 ↗ comments on the Eis and then the city

21:45 ↗ will um choose a preferred direction to

21:47 ↗ be reflected in in the comprehensive

21:50 ↗ plan yeah so for the initial stage if

21:53 ↗ you want us to explore a much higher

21:56 ↗ growth we you know we can do it

21:58 ↗ but at the end of the day the preferred

22:01 ↗ um selected option the city has to use

22:04 ↗ the that that those studies and Analysis

22:06 ↗ to plan for that infrastructure to be in

22:09 ↗ place if that growth comes our

22:13 ↗ way and I would I would just add correct

22:15 ↗ me if I'm wrong Stephen but um I believe

22:19 ↗ two two of the alternatives are higher

22:23 ↗ than are the targets that were required

22:26 ↗ to plan for it's

22:29 ↗ um is that correct in housing un anyway

22:33 ↗ yes that's correct yeah okay yeah so we

22:37 ↗ already are looking at higher than than

22:39 ↗ the targets we've been allocated by the

22:41 ↗ region and we and we think that's a

22:43 ↗ healthy reasonable thing to do given the

22:45 ↗ growth trends that as um was mentioned

22:49 ↗ earlier so yeah okay thank you yeah

22:52 ↗ there's a sentence here which um is Al

22:55 ↗ all alternative Alternatives consider

22:57 ↗ the central

22:58 ↗ e and do not exceed the preferred

23:00 ↗ alternative so um I think that was where

23:03 ↗ I

23:03 ↗ was uh thinking that was the target but

23:06 ↗ it's the preferred alternative

23:08 ↗ apparently um

23:11 ↗ okay so we're we're already assuming

23:13 ↗ that the preferred alternative we

23:15 ↗ already have an assumed preferred

23:18 ↗ alternative for centralis CLA yes okay

23:22 ↗ when the central scull plan was

23:23 ↗ developed it had its own Eis conducted

23:25 ↗ and so the preferred alternative was

23:27 ↗ closer to about 8,500 units for Central

23:35 ↗ okay and and realistically then for the

23:38 ↗ Alternatives that we're considering we

23:39 ↗ don't think there's value to going

23:42 ↗ higher than at this time now okay um

23:46 ↗ okay then my other question is there

23:48 ↗ were a number of comments from the

23:51 ↗ community about different um topics that

23:56 ↗ they uh were interested in making sure

23:58 ↗ we're represented you had a slide on

24:00 ↗ that earlier um do you uh by by your

24:05 ↗ perceptions do you think that all of

24:07 ↗ those items would be incorporated into

24:10 ↗ the comp plan process and the Eis um or

24:14 ↗ are there things here that are not uh

24:17 ↗ are not part of the Eis but that could

24:20 ↗ be I think for the most part A lot of

24:22 ↗ these will be considered uh to an extent

24:24 ↗ as part of the Eis but to fully address

24:27 ↗ a lot of these topics they're going to

24:28 ↗ be need to be considered within the

24:30 ↗ functional plans for those specific

24:32 ↗ topics um a lot of them are at least the

24:35 ↗ responses to some of these are going to

24:37 ↗ require a little more detail than what

24:39 ↗ we normally would look at for the E for

24:41 ↗ the comprehensive plan we primarily are

24:43 ↗ trying to look at the infrastructure

24:45 ↗ needs be behind a lot of it more so than

24:48 ↗ how we're going to achieve a lot of the

24:50 ↗ detailed

24:54 ↗ Ben okay um just looking at this list

24:59 ↗ and I did read um the the detailed

25:02 ↗ comments and it seems like there was a

25:03 ↗ lot of really good discussion which is

25:05 ↗ part of I am um trying to clarify if

25:08 ↗ this will be incorporated um so the one

25:12 ↗ aligning standards with neighborhoods

25:14 ↗ that does seem like that's potentially

25:16 ↗ something that would be in the comp plan

25:17 ↗ but not in the um Eis and then the other

25:21 ↗ one the consider higher targets we

25:22 ↗ already talked about that one but the

25:23 ↗ other ones on this list too is that fair

25:26 ↗ yes yeah uh

25:28 ↗ particularly the alignment standards

25:29 ↗ with neighborhoods we we kind of looked

25:31 ↗ at that as in terms of looking at our

25:33 ↗ development standards alignment with the

25:34 ↗ comprehensive plan so that is something

25:36 ↗ we do will look at as part of the as but

25:38 ↗ the specific needs for specific

25:41 ↗ standards for each neighborhood is not

25:44 ↗ something but is is part of comp plan in

25:47 ↗ general correct yeah okay um my last

25:50 ↗ question is about the

25:52 ↗ emergency planning um how does that

25:57 ↗ factor in and how do we factor in that

26:01 ↗ in combination with climate

26:03 ↗ change I have Mandy jump in on um

26:07 ↗ responding to this

26:10 ↗ question okay and when you're uh

26:12 ↗ speaking about emergencies are you

26:14 ↗ specifically speaking about emergency

26:16 ↗ shelter Provisions that will be required

26:19 ↗ to meet or more climate

26:24 ↗ resiliency I am think thinking of all

26:29 ↗ manner of disaster preparedness okay

26:33 ↗ okay so in a couple of ways one um the

26:38 ↗ county has allocated to all the cities

26:41 ↗ within the county um different levels of

26:44 ↗ Sheltering that need to be provided so

26:46 ↗ numbers of shelter units in each

26:49 ↗ community that need to be provided for

26:52 ↗ different different purposes um and so

26:55 ↗ we'll be analyzing those that are

26:57 ↗ required for isqua and how those might

27:00 ↗ be met and it can be you know that

27:03 ↗ hotels can be converted for that purpose

27:07 ↗ um so there's just some state

27:08 ↗ requirements that we need to make sure

27:10 ↗ we're um our zoning uh supports and

27:13 ↗ aligns with on human

27:15 ↗ Sheltering and that's kind of also

27:18 ↗ pertinent when we look at different

27:20 ↗ affordability levels of housing we'll be

27:23 ↗ looking at that on the income bands

27:26 ↗ analysis um in quat will be looking to

27:28 ↗ make sure that their um that housing

27:32 ↗ Supply over time will help to meet the

27:35 ↗ different demands within income levels

27:38 ↗ so the shelters is kind of part of that

27:40 ↗ analysis too the units related to um

27:44 ↗ permanent and temporary shelter and then

27:47 ↗ um there is a new State Law related to

27:51 ↗ clim planning for climate and resiliency

27:54 ↗ it actually um won't require isqua to do

27:59 ↗ detailed planning right away it's I

28:02 ↗ believe it's

28:03 ↗ 2029 if I'm remembering it right Stephen

28:07 ↗ but what what we are going to do is

28:09 ↗ start thinking about that now with this

28:10 ↗ comp plan update and be ready with some

28:13 ↗ kind of early policy planning to move

28:16 ↗ forward um in Earnest when we're

28:19 ↗ required to to do that at the next comp

28:21 ↗ plan update um so we can I I want to

28:26 ↗ research that a little bit more on the

28:28 ↗ dates and what's required but we can

28:29 ↗ bring that back at a future meeting for

28:31 ↗ you but that would be planning for all

28:34 ↗ manner of things related to climate

28:36 ↗ change um as part of you know protecting

28:40 ↗ and serving the

28:47 ↗ community okay um thank you and I

28:52 ↗ believe there were also comments on

28:55 ↗ schools and um School school capacity

28:58 ↗ from the community um how is that

29:00 ↗ factored in so uh schools are considered

29:03 ↗ part of the Public Services but uh

29:06 ↗ because of how our state mandates uh

29:10 ↗ School planning it will look at at a

29:12 ↗ very high level but it's more of the

29:14 ↗ coordination of schools that the city

29:16 ↗ actually has control over and so that's

29:18 ↗ some of the component we'll be looking

29:20 ↗ at

29:25 ↗ with okay thank you

29:28 ↗ council president thanks um when we are

29:33 ↗ looking at the proposed growth

29:35 ↗ Alternatives it sounds like we're not

29:39 ↗ just choosing a number based on what we

29:42 ↗ think is going to happen or anything

29:43 ↗ like that we're also in some ways

29:48 ↗ choosing where that growth is going to

29:52 ↗ happen because I assume you need that in

29:54 ↗ order to study to do the transportation

29:56 ↗ analysis is and all of those

30:00 ↗ things um okay just kind of making sure

30:04 ↗ that I'm hitting the right concept there

30:07 ↗ yes that's correct it's it's helping us

30:09 ↗ kind of develop our assumptions of how

30:11 ↗ that growth will happen with the city

30:13 ↗ that'll help us look at the models it a

30:15 ↗ little differently within each

30:16 ↗ alternative okay and then um is

30:23 ↗ there in the urbanist minds whoops sorry

30:26 ↗ mindset in community there's been a lot

30:28 ↗ more conversation toward um mixed use

30:32 ↗ and creating areas where people don't

30:35 ↗ have to take their car and drive across

30:38 ↗ town to get groceries or any of that it

30:42 ↗ I assume we can't study a concept like

30:47 ↗ that in an Eis and have that

30:49 ↗ affect

30:52 ↗ our results here because it would

30:54 ↗ obviously affect transportation and all

30:55 ↗ of that because we haven't zoned

30:57 ↗ owned necessarily that as a

31:03 ↗ requirement is that

31:05 ↗ correct yes within our traffic model

31:08 ↗ itself it actually does make an

31:09 ↗ assumption on how many within the growth

31:12 ↗ that we're assuming for like Central

31:14 ↗ esqua what percentage of that is

31:16 ↗ actually going to be turned into vehicle

31:18 ↗ trips versus multimodal trips and so

31:20 ↗ that is kind of accommodated a little

31:21 ↗ bit within our traffic model already but

31:24 ↗ beyond that it doesn't make any

31:26 ↗ additional okay and there's no way

31:29 ↗ to push that higher the multimodal

31:33 ↗ higher in this analysis because it would

31:37 ↗ require the assumption that we've made

31:39 ↗ some sort of land use change that would

31:42 ↗ enable that type of scenario either

31:44 ↗ vertical mixed use or requiring you know

31:48 ↗ we yes we we could make that assumptions

31:51 ↗ but then we would look at what

31:52 ↗ regulatory needs to be accommodated okay

31:56 ↗ yeah good thank

32:05 ↗ you okay um so this is not something

32:08 ↗ that you're asking for feedback for but

32:11 ↗ um I am

32:13 ↗ wondering after you do the analysis what

32:16 ↗ do you look at for which one you

32:19 ↗ determine is the preferred and is there

32:21 ↗ a policy conversation around that at a

32:24 ↗ later stage at a later time we'll have a

32:26 ↗ policy discussion about which one will

32:28 ↗ be our

32:30 ↗ preferred okay um great I think I think

32:33 ↗ that was my last question do you have

32:34 ↗ any more questions no okay um great so

32:38 ↗ at this point um we will check in with

32:40 ↗ public comment in case there are any

32:42 ↗ members of the public that are wishing

32:43 ↗ to um give a comment on this item I will

32:46 ↗ mention again there's nobody in council

32:48 ↗ chambers uh city clerk is there anyone

32:50 ↗ online that might wish to make a

32:54 ↗ comment chair hunt we have uh

32:57 ↗ one uh virtual attendees still but I I

33:00 ↗ see no indication that they wish to

33:02 ↗ speak at this time

33:05 ↗ okay I'll just give

33:13 ↗ minute okay um all right then we will

33:17 ↗ move into our discussion and um I think

33:20 ↗ it would be helpful if you could put the

33:22 ↗ uh questions that you want us to give

33:24 ↗ feedback on um in the presentation

33:29 ↗ um the first one is are there topics not

33:31 ↗ listed that should be addressed in the E

33:36 ↗ analysis president was sure I I think

33:40 ↗ the concept of multimodal Transit and

33:45 ↗ kind of how like I was kind of trying to

33:49 ↗ hint at I think when I'm looking at this

33:53 ↗ concept for the next 25 years I do think

33:57 ↗ that other than our development

33:58 ↗ agreements we're going to see a lot more

34:00 ↗ of our development happen in the central

34:04 ↗ isqua area so part of that I think

34:09 ↗ necessitates this concept of more

34:12 ↗ multimodal and how that affects um our

34:16 ↗ transportation grid our Transit usage um

34:20 ↗ and all of those areas so I would be

34:22 ↗ very interested to

34:24 ↗ see particularly

34:27 ↗ if we look at some of these Alternatives

34:30 ↗ and say okay one of these is going to be

34:32 ↗ more Suburban one of these is going to

34:35 ↗ be more centralis C focused what are the

34:38 ↗ differences we see between them because

34:41 ↗ I think that's a important concept um as

34:44 ↗ we're studying each

34:49 ↗ option okay great um my thought on this

34:53 ↗ one is um I understand that the school

34:57 ↗ capacity is um interrelated but not not

35:02 ↗ exactly part of this analysis uh I do

35:04 ↗ think it's very important to work

35:06 ↗ closely with the schools to be

35:08 ↗ communicating with them about what our

35:10 ↗ growth projections are and what that

35:12 ↗ means for housing and where we think

35:14 ↗ that housing is going to be so that it

35:15 ↗ helps them do their planning because I

35:17 ↗ know they're very invested in making

35:19 ↗ sure that um there's adequate capacity

35:23 ↗ for for schools um and to be a good

35:26 ↗ partner to them that communication is

35:28 ↗ super important um the other thing on

35:31 ↗ this uh not it was listed but um just to

35:37 ↗ put a finer point on it I do think we're

35:40 ↗ increasingly in a um part of the country

35:44 ↗ that is at risk for things like wildfire

35:47 ↗ um due to climate change we've seen our

35:49 ↗ our risk of that increase and we have

35:51 ↗ neighborhoods that are at the wildlands

35:53 ↗ urban interface um so I would like to uh

35:58 ↗ consider and this seems like a good

36:00 ↗ vehicle for considering this consider

36:02 ↗ the um

36:04 ↗ evacuation routes the capacity we have

36:07 ↗ for making sure that people um are able

36:10 ↗ to um respond and that we have a

36:12 ↗ resilient community in the case of those

36:15 ↗ um climate disasters

36:18 ↗ that the reality is we are increasingly

36:20 ↗ at risk for with climate change um so I

36:22 ↗ think that would be good to get more

36:24 ↗ information on and I know earlier in the

36:25 ↗ meeting um you mentioned that you would

36:28 ↗ look into into that and what those

36:29 ↗ planning are but that would be something

36:31 ↗ I would

36:33 ↗ add

36:35 ↗ um have any else on that one no okay

36:39 ↗ second one um well first I'll just check

36:42 ↗ in do you have what you need on on that

36:45 ↗ yes I do great okay the second one is

36:47 ↗ are there additional concerns that

36:51 ↗ should be considered as part of this Eis

36:55 ↗ analysis

36:58 ↗ I'm not sure I understand the difference

36:59 ↗ between concerns and topics um is there

37:02 ↗ some specific type of feedback you're

37:04 ↗ looking for there it was more on the how

37:06 ↗ the Eis was being conducted more so than

37:08 ↗ the topics um is there something that

37:11 ↗ we're just not looking at is in terms of

37:14 ↗ how we're

37:15 ↗ collecting public engagement for the Eis

37:18 ↗ scoping is it is there concerns on how

37:21 ↗ we're going to be analyzing or something

37:24 ↗ that we're not analyzing as part of the

37:25 ↗ Eis it's it's there is overlap between

37:28 ↗ the two questions but it was more

37:29 ↗ focused on the the Eis as a whole okay I

37:33 ↗ don't think I have anything additional

37:35 ↗ there I I also don't have anything

37:38 ↗ additional there um and then are there

37:40 ↗ changes to the proposed

37:47 ↗ Alternatives so my I I think I've hit on

37:51 ↗ it several times is just I want to be

37:53 ↗ prepared for whatever potential growth

37:56 ↗ we're looking at um particularly as we

38:01 ↗ look at these different Ami um growth

38:04 ↗ levels and the um potentially smaller

38:09 ↗ units that could come in as a result of

38:12 ↗ that um so I think if I'm looking at the

38:18 ↗ various

38:21 ↗ Alternatives I'd like to

38:25 ↗ see maybe something in between B and

38:31 ↗ C

38:33 ↗ that assumes more of the growth within

38:37 ↗ Central isqua I think it's as much as

38:41 ↗ we're going to redo this in another 10

38:44 ↗ years and so the scope of Transit um as

38:48 ↗ a light rail station comes after that if

38:50 ↗ we are truly looking at this 25e period

38:54 ↗ I would assume that we're going to see

38:57 ↗ growth toward the end of that

38:59 ↗ particularly in the central isqua area

39:02 ↗ around a transit station and so if we're

39:05 ↗ kind of looking at what our long-term

39:08 ↗ Future Vision for the city

39:12 ↗ is I really think that should be more of

39:17 ↗ the concept um that we're looking at I

39:20 ↗ also think that we should assume pretty

39:23 ↗ standard that we're going to see full

39:25 ↗ buildout of the velopment agreements

39:27 ↗ particularly because we've seen lots of

39:30 ↗ action with shelter and Lakeside

39:33 ↗ recently and we have quite a bit of

39:36 ↗ control over the to project I think all

39:40 ↗ of those in

39:41 ↗ combination plus our

39:44 ↗ 270 units average um annually leads me

39:48 ↗ toward this concept that I think we're

39:50 ↗ likely closer on the beta c um

39:53 ↗ Alternatives and more toward um Central

39:58 ↗ esqua so that's where my mindset

40:05 ↗ goes just for a quick clarification um

40:09 ↗ alternative C does a it it does assume

40:12 ↗ all the pipeline projects full build out

40:14 ↗ of all the Das and significant growth

40:18 ↗ primarily just in central isapa are you

40:21 ↗ asking to increase that total number a

40:23 ↗ little more so we have more growth in

40:24 ↗ central or the concept of c c probably

40:29 ↗ might be uh closer to what you're

40:32 ↗ looking

40:34 ↗ for I think I'd probably have to math

40:36 ↗ that out because I know some of the

40:39 ↗ development agreements actually yeah

40:41 ↗ most all of the development Agreements

40:43 ↗ are outside of Central isqua so is the

40:47 ↗ 45% of that

40:50 ↗ 6800 basically just

40:54 ↗ the external development agreement plus

40:57 ↗ some House Bill

40:59 ↗ 1110 type of

41:03 ↗ growth it's about 1,300 units in the

41:05 ↗ regional growth Center and then 700 in

41:08 ↗ the rest of central is what it

41:10 ↗ assumes so that two total about two thou

41:14 ↗ wait sorry 2500 in regional growth

41:17 ↗ Center and uh 1,00 in the rest of

41:20 ↗ central which is uh 400 more than what's

41:24 ↗ in the pipeline for the rest of Central

41:27 ↗ and about a thousand more in the

41:31 ↗ regional growth

41:33 ↗ Center okay yeah I think what you're

41:36 ↗ getting at there is C is probably more

41:39 ↗ what I think would happen over a 25y

41:41 ↗ year time period okay um I just don't

41:45 ↗ know if B is maybe what I'm looking at

41:49 ↗ there is I think it should be a little

41:51 ↗ bit more um in central isqua

41:57 ↗ okay I don't know what your thoughts

42:04 ↗ are when you were developing this list

42:06 ↗ were there other Alternatives that you

42:09 ↗ thought through but then decided not to

42:11 ↗ do or was this pretty much the list that

42:13 ↗ came to mind of likely scenarios we

42:15 ↗ considered all other Alternatives we

42:17 ↗ considered um an alternative where

42:19 ↗ growth you know the 20-year growth for

42:21 ↗ like B happened within 10 years instead

42:23 ↗ of 20 years we also considered a higher

42:26 ↗ Alternatives but we didn't want to to to

42:29 ↗ Minnie's point we didn't want to sway

42:30 ↗ too far above what we already have in

42:33 ↗ the pipeline just because we'll be

42:35 ↗ looking at projects that we have no idea

42:38 ↗ whether they going to happen whether we

42:40 ↗ know within the Das and what's in the

42:42 ↗ pipeline they're likely going to happen

42:45 ↗ just we need to stay within that

42:47 ↗ ballpark I think all three alternatives

42:50 ↗ are going to assume House Bill 1110

42:53 ↗ growth so that's already factored in in

42:55 ↗ all three of them because you know but

42:58 ↗ how much you don't know uh the other

43:01 ↗ thing I think the the the city's

43:03 ↗ planning efforts with Central isqua are

43:06 ↗ great we want all the energy to be

43:08 ↗ focused on the planning for that to

43:11 ↗ become real uh it's a matter of time so

43:15 ↗ this is a 20-year growth when light

43:18 ↗ Trail comes maybe with the next cycle of

43:20 ↗ the comp plan updates that becomes more

43:22 ↗ of a you know consc that that the

43:25 ↗ numbers would skew more toward Central

43:28 ↗ perhaps that time I think the numbers

43:31 ↗ because of these larger Das really make

43:33 ↗ it look like there's growth happening

43:35 ↗ outside Central but it's majority of it

43:38 ↗ is you know concentrated in one or two

43:40 ↗ areas um because of the larger sites and

43:43 ↗ and the

43:44 ↗ Das um I think in all of them the

43:47 ↗ Assumption still is 45% of 3500 is a is

43:51 ↗ a lot of units will still are being

43:54 ↗ assumed in the central

44:02 ↗ okay I was just looking for this but do

44:04 ↗ you do you know what the P um the the

44:09 ↗ estimated impact of 1110 is is supposed

44:12 ↗ to be I I've read that it will be modest

44:16 ↗ that's why I'm

44:17 ↗ asking Mandy could you speak to um what

44:20 ↗ you're seeing in other cities in terms

44:22 ↗ of what they're assuming from impacts

44:23 ↗ from hpit 1110 that's yes that is a

44:27 ↗ question that is on everyone's mind and

44:30 ↗ um we have um some subc Consultants who

44:33 ↗ will actually be supporting some of the

44:36 ↗ work here in isqua as well who are

44:37 ↗ who've been studying that and looking at

44:40 ↗ Trends in other communities that have um

44:45 ↗ increased single family densities and

44:47 ↗ added Adu um cap capabilities um it what

44:52 ↗ we're hearing and we'll be kind of

44:55 ↗ looking at this more specifically for

44:57 ↗ isqua but over a 20year

45:00 ↗ period it's it you know what communities

45:02 ↗ are typically seeing is about a two to

45:05 ↗ 5% increase which is

45:08 ↗ not you know which is not substantial um

45:12 ↗ in in specifically single family units

45:15 ↗ in single family zoned areas and there

45:17 ↗ are areas of zoning that are exempt um

45:21 ↗ for example um plats and subdivisions

45:25 ↗ and master PL communities that have ccnr

45:28 ↗ that specifically prohibit more than one

45:30 ↗ unit per lot or adus those would all be

45:35 ↗ exempt areas from the house bill 1110

45:39 ↗ legislation so it is really expected and

45:42 ↗ I know isqua has a lot of um a lot of

45:45 ↗ places that have regulations like that

45:48 ↗ um critical areas is another thing that

45:50 ↗ tends to constrain the the possibility

45:53 ↗ of increasing density on single family

45:56 ↗ loss so we'll be taking a closer look at

45:58 ↗ that but I think as you characterized it

46:01 ↗ it's not expected to be highly

46:04 ↗ impactful um to a community like yours

46:07 ↗ over the next 20 years but definitely

46:09 ↗ something we need to think about and

46:10 ↗ plan for and um to the extent kind of

46:13 ↗ think about just the design and how

46:16 ↗ those those types of um integrating of

46:20 ↗ single family units into um into

46:24 ↗ subdivisions can look and how it should

46:26 ↗ fit into the to the um look and uh

46:30 ↗ character of each neighborhood aesthetic

46:32 ↗ character of each neighborhood is

46:34 ↗ important too so yeah hopefully that

46:37 ↗ helped answer your

46:41 ↗ question council

46:43 ↗ president thanks um director dely wall

46:46 ↗ you said something like this concept of

46:49 ↗ yes in 10 years when we do the next comp

46:51 ↗ plan we'll have a little bit more

46:53 ↗ certainty about Transit and Light Rail

46:58 ↗ and what type of development will happen

46:59 ↗ out of there how how should I think

47:02 ↗ about choosing an alternative if this is

47:06 ↗ supposed to be for a 25-year comp

47:08 ↗ plan when we really only have a lot more

47:12 ↗ certainty about the next 5 to 10 years

47:15 ↗ do we short that number or does it make

47:19 ↗ sense to really go after the full

47:21 ↗ 25 and potentially

47:24 ↗ overbuild well we have to plan for

47:28 ↗ 2024 20 you know for the TW it's a

47:30 ↗ 20-year plan so it is a long range look

47:34 ↗ at whe are we prepared to address with

47:37 ↗ our infrastructure with all of these

47:39 ↗ things that we have in place for this

47:41 ↗ amount of growth to come in and that's

47:43 ↗ the 3500 number uh beyond that it's up

47:48 ↗ to us when we for for you all to see we

47:51 ↗ know this is you know this is looking

47:53 ↗ more like a reality and we think it's

47:56 ↗ worth spending uh the city's money to do

47:59 ↗ these this these analysis for traffic

48:01 ↗ for utilities and plan for in that area

48:05 ↗ now um with the way the numbers are you

48:08 ↗ know the pipeline projects that Stephen

48:10 ↗ shared those are the Das and and things

48:13 ↗ like that the stuff along uh Central the

48:16 ↗ city's already done the planning for it

48:18 ↗ you know we since

48:20 ↗ 2013 uh so if the growth were to happen

48:23 ↗ we have a planned action sea already

48:25 ↗ done for Central isqua so and and it's a

48:28 ↗ designated growth Center so we do want

48:30 ↗ to recognize some of the the planning

48:32 ↗ effort that the city has done in the

48:34 ↗ past and anticipate that it will come

48:37 ↗ it's a matter of time when that happens

48:40 ↗ we're making an assumption that it will

48:42 ↗ get started by 2024 2044 will have some

48:47 ↗ of that how much is sort

48:50 ↗ of uh the part that we we're trying to

48:53 ↗ be realistic about it and uh um and yet

48:57 ↗ have the the capacity exists whether the

49:00 ↗ market will deliver it at this point at

49:03 ↗ what point will we start seeing that

49:04 ↗ growth projection those are all some of

49:06 ↗ the assumptions factored into all of the

49:09 ↗ Alternatives but you know what we can

49:11 ↗ add another alternative uh if Council

49:14 ↗ desires we're happy to make a fourth

49:16 ↗ alternative uh it can based on your

49:19 ↗ feedback today we can consider

49:22 ↗ um that as

49:24 ↗ well

49:26 ↗ no I I think I'm just kind of getting my

49:28 ↗ mind around why we choose one versus the

49:32 ↗ other I think um first of all knowing

49:35 ↗ that we're going to do another study in

49:37 ↗ 10 years and so if we're off um we're

49:41 ↗ not affecting our any of our ability to

49:45 ↗ get at some of these things because the

49:47 ↗ areas that we're going to be off are

49:48 ↗ going to be in the latter 10 years of

49:51 ↗ this concept um and then knowing that

49:55 ↗ all of these are just Alternatives that

49:57 ↗ we study as Concepts so that we can be

50:00 ↗ prepared for any of the utility work or

50:03 ↗ any of those things um but that we also

50:07 ↗ do that based on what's the pipeline of

50:09 ↗ Development coming in in actuality as

50:12 ↗ well um I I actually feel pretty

50:15 ↗ comfortable with these having talked

50:17 ↗ through um those options especially

50:19 ↗ knowing that we've already done the AIS

50:22 ↗ Eis for Central isqua because of the

50:24 ↗ growth

50:26 ↗ um area so thank

50:30 ↗ you okay um I I also think that there's

50:33 ↗ been you thought and Analysis and

50:35 ↗ consideration of other Alternatives um

50:38 ↗ and and reasons why those other

50:40 ↗ Alternatives didn't make the final list

50:41 ↗ so um I'm I'm good with the list um on

50:46 ↗ the HB 1110 um because there is uh

50:51 ↗ because there is um sometimes

50:54 ↗ information about that in the community

50:56 ↗ I do think it's important to to give a a

50:59 ↗ estimate with numbers behind it about

51:01 ↗ what we expect that impact to be um I

51:03 ↗ think it was mentioned 2% or so um and

51:06 ↗ so it's expected to be a small uh impact

51:09 ↗ on those neighborhoods that are outside

51:12 ↗ of the central squa area so since

51:14 ↗ there's um discussion on that I wanted

51:16 ↗ to make sure that we did clarify that

51:18 ↗ those are the estimates there's also I I

51:21 ↗ found there's

51:22 ↗ psrc um estimates that they've done

51:24 ↗ about the impact and um like I said I I

51:28 ↗ think it's it's very modest even in the

51:31 ↗ high scenarios what they expect that um

51:34 ↗ those bills do do it is does give land

51:38 ↗ owners more ability to make decisions

51:41 ↗ that would add adus for example but um

51:44 ↗ again modest overall impact in the big

51:46 ↗ scheme of where we expect growth to

51:48 ↗ be um like I said I think that the

51:51 ↗ proposed alternatives are are good and I

51:53 ↗ think thought went into it and I'm um

51:56 ↗ I'm satisfied with that is there

51:57 ↗ anything else that we want to give

51:59 ↗ feedback on do you have what you need we

52:02 ↗ dok okay great um then with that that is

52:06 ↗ our only item of business so do we have

52:08 ↗ any announcements there are no

52:10 ↗ announcements and with that this meeting

52:12 ↗ is adjourned at 7:22 p.m. thank you

52:14 ↗ everyone good

52:15 ↗ night

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