City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Monday, September 9, 2024 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of July 9, 2024

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 5:02 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 07-09-24 City Council Planning, Development & Page (1) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 7:00 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. July 9, 2024 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update - Draft Review COM 0015

45 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.7–303

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Environmental Board · Aug 14, 2024

▶ Watch from 0:28 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Page 7 of 323 AGENDA ITEMS a)

Comprehensive Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement COM 0071

45 min · Mandi Roberts, Principal Planner - Otak Inc. · packet pp.305–323

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 2:45 Open packet at p.305 ↗

Staff report:

What is a Draft Environmental

1894 segments .txt ↗

0:09 ↗ welcome everyone to the city council

0:12 ↗ Planning Development and environment

0:13 ↗ committee

0:14 ↗ meeting um I am council member hunt and

0:18 ↗ I am here tonight with council president

0:20 ↗ Walsh and council member

0:21 ↗ Hall and um there will be multiple

0:25 ↗ public comments opportunities at

0:26 ↗ tonight's meeting we also have uh

0:28 ↗ multiple agenda items at at which point

0:30 ↗ you can comment after those agenda items

0:33 ↗ um and we will start as well with public

0:37 ↗ comment

0:38 ↗ opportunity if there are any members of

0:40 ↗ the public that are wishing to speak I

0:42 ↗ can read some additional

0:44 ↗ guidelines and there are

0:47 ↗ okay all right members of the public May

0:49 ↗ address council at this time in person

0:51 ↗ or virtually those who are signed up in

0:52 ↗ advance to make comments will be called

0:54 ↗ on first if you are joining us virtually

0:56 ↗ and would like to make comments please

0:58 ↗ raise your virtual hand if you are on

1:00 ↗ the phone please press star three if

1:02 ↗ You' have joined by computer or

1:03 ↗ smartphone please look for the hand icon

1:05 ↗ this varies by device one option may be

1:07 ↗ in the participant

1:09 ↗ panel um additionally public comments

1:12 ↗ are an important part of the public

1:13 ↗ process we take them seriously and fact

1:15 ↗ to them into the decisions we make

1:17 ↗ during audience comments members of the

1:18 ↗ public are invited to address the

1:19 ↗ council regarding matters that are

1:21 ↗ directly related to City programs

1:22 ↗ projects services or events except uh

1:26 ↗ public hearing items quas judicial items

1:28 ↗ or campaign related

1:31 ↗ matters and with that I will check in

1:33 ↗ with the city clerk if anyone has signed

1:35 ↗ up to

1:36 ↗ speak we don't have anyone uh attending

1:39 ↗ virtually from the public but Connie

1:41 ↗ Marsh in the room would like to make

1:42 ↗ comments all right welcome

1:52 ↗ Connie so I am going to waste a little

1:55 ↗ bit of my five minutes saying I spent 10

1:58 ↗ days in San Francisco

2:01 ↗ uh editing the comp plan on my

2:05 ↗ smartphone because we had no computer

2:07 ↗ down there and I was stranded so if you

2:11 ↗ guys think you were in pain I was in

2:14 ↗ more pain thought you would like that so

2:17 ↗ I'm also super confused on and I'm going

2:20 ↗ to put process stuff here um this whole

2:24 ↗ middle housing as it is Loosely talked

2:28 ↗ about in the comp plan and then talked

2:31 ↗ about in a different way in the

2:34 ↗ deis I think about it in yet another way

2:38 ↗ because it's a

2:40 ↗ rezone um and the rezone which we don't

2:43 ↗ Define in Title 18 but it is the

2:46 ↗ colloquial definition is changing a zone

2:49 ↗ or what is allowed in a Zone and that is

2:52 ↗ exactly what we're doing yet we are not

2:54 ↗ processing this as a rezone you have a

2:58 ↗ good example of a rezone in this packet

3:01 ↗ and that is what a rezone looks like

3:03 ↗ where particular areas are called out

3:06 ↗ and the public is told we are going to

3:08 ↗ change something here and then they can

3:11 ↗ speak to that and instead this process

3:13 ↗ is sort of threading through I don't

3:15 ↗ know how many pages a lot so nobody

3:19 ↗ really understands and using the term

3:21 ↗ missing middle most of the world has no

3:24 ↗ idea what anyone's talking about so I

3:26 ↗ object to that process I don't think it

3:29 ↗ is correct after reading the code today

3:32 ↗ interestingly sepa was also changed in

3:36 ↗ all of these State rules and the sepa

3:39 ↗ process is now in labyrinth-like

3:42 ↗ language allowing categorical exemptions

3:46 ↗ for um housing missing middle middle

3:49 ↗ style housing uh

3:53 ↗ regulations and so the city could I'm

3:57 ↗ not saying you will but think you could

4:00 ↗ use a categorical exemption saying we

4:03 ↗ have analyzed the sepa via the draft Eis

4:07 ↗ and that is all we have to do and um I

4:11 ↗ just sort of want to head that off at

4:12 ↗ the pass because we nowhere near have

4:17 ↗ the detail that we need to make those

4:19 ↗ assumptions and our utilities in both in

4:23 ↗ the chapter and in the draft Eis don't

4:25 ↗ even discuss the potential impacts for

4:29 ↗ uh middle housing so um I'm going to

4:33 ↗ stop there and I'm going to try to stay

4:35 ↗ but I may fall off my chair and have to

4:38 ↗ go home

4:44 ↗ thanks thank you Connie cler eer do we

4:48 ↗ have any other members of the public um

4:50 ↗ online that would like to make comment

4:53 ↗ no members of the public online great

4:56 ↗ thank you and I will note there are no

4:57 ↗ other members of the public in the

4:59 ↗ audience that would like to make a

5:00 ↗ comment at this time um so we will move

5:02 ↗ to the approval of the minutes we have

5:05 ↗ minutes from the July

5:07 ↗ 9th meeting of this committee

5:10 ↗ um I will note there is a small typo um

5:14 ↗ that is should be the word big um and I

5:19 ↗ also noticed and would like to make a

5:22 ↗ suggestion that one of the other

5:25 ↗ um things that we discussed in that

5:27 ↗ meeting was that we as the committee

5:30 ↗ recommended that the city not um have

5:33 ↗ specific requirements in code for the

5:36 ↗ aesthetic screening around heat pumps

5:38 ↗ because we were trying to incentivize

5:40 ↗ that um I actually reported out on that

5:44 ↗ in my report to the council after that

5:47 ↗ meeting um and it wasn't in the meeting

5:50 ↗ minutes and so I wanted to suggest that

5:52 ↗ as an addition also because we

5:53 ↗ recommended this go on consent and so it

5:55 ↗ would go straight on consent um and so

5:57 ↗ just wanted to make sure that was

5:58 ↗ captured in the minutes that sound

6:01 ↗ good okay um is that is that clear as

6:05 ↗ one addition for the minutes counil

6:07 ↗ member hunt um which item would that be

6:09 ↗ in addition to it is on the um

6:15 ↗ the title 18 item perfect yes we can add

6:21 ↗ that uh

6:26 ↗ phrase yes so on Title 18 uh um that's

6:31 ↗ one additional thing that we

6:35 ↗ discussed yeah anything else

6:40 ↗ okay yeah sorry Title 18 and title three

6:44 ↗ Comm z0 61 okay um any any other

6:49 ↗ Corrections or edits to that meeting

6:51 ↗ minutes okay then um all those who

6:55 ↗ approve please say I

6:58 ↗ I those me minutes are approved and we

7:00 ↗ will go to our first item of business

7:03 ↗ which is Comm 0015 comprehensive plan

7:06 ↗ periodic update and this will be

7:09 ↗ presented by Steven Padua Stephen

7:12 ↗ welcome thank you chair hunt evening

7:15 ↗ committee members tonight I'm going to

7:17 ↗ walk through the a summary of the draft

7:19 ↗ comprehens plan on periodic amendments

7:22 ↗ uh tonight the purpose is to provide a

7:24 ↗ presentation on the summary of changes

7:27 ↗ um with the intent of um supporting the

7:30 ↗ deliberations at your October 1st

7:32 ↗ meeting with the planning policy

7:33 ↗ commission's recommendations which will

7:35 ↗ be deliberated later this

7:38 ↗ week so just a little background

7:40 ↗ information um because it's been a while

7:42 ↗ since we've talked about conference plan

7:45 ↗ the growth management act in Washington

7:46 ↗ state requires that all planning cities

7:48 ↗ and Counties have a comprehensive plan

7:50 ↗ established to address several topic

7:52 ↗ areas that being concentrated Urban

7:55 ↗ growth Transportation housing and uh

7:58 ↗ conservation in an open

8:00 ↗ space a lot of what influences what goes

8:04 ↗ into the comprehensive plan trickles

8:05 ↗ down from the state going to Regional

8:08 ↗ requirements as well as

8:10 ↗ into um countywide requirements in the

8:13 ↗ countywide planning

8:16 ↗ policies for the city is so qual the

8:18 ↗ comprehensive plan influences all levels

8:20 ↗ of planning um that we're calling the

8:22 ↗ planning framework that goes into the

8:24 ↗ functional plans that looks at the

8:25 ↗ implementation of those goals and

8:27 ↗ policies and then financing

8:29 ↗ implementation that being the city

8:31 ↗ budget or even city code as well as city

8:33 ↗ services and then in this cycle of

8:36 ↗ looking at performance metrics to see

8:37 ↗ how we're doing and then we relook at

8:39 ↗ everything the idea is that we are

8:42 ↗ planning and monitoring everything we're

8:44 ↗ doing as we're going through

8:47 ↗ implementation with our periodic update

8:50 ↗ for this year we had three big Focus

8:52 ↗ areas the first being compliance with

8:55 ↗ State Regional and countywide

8:58 ↗ requirements for the comprehensive plan

9:00 ↗ we needed to work with all three levels

9:03 ↗ of Staff agencies to review each of the

9:05 ↗ elements to ensure that we are in

9:07 ↗ compliant with what's being asked of the

9:09 ↗ city as La

9:12 ↗ um that has influenced much of the

9:14 ↗ elements that are being proposed tonight

9:17 ↗ land use and sustainability um this

9:20 ↗ is the same similar element focused on

9:23 ↗ land use and sustainability but focused

9:25 ↗ more on the built

9:27 ↗ environment when House Bill 1181 was

9:31 ↗ adopted by the state that asked or is

9:34 ↗ now requiring all cities to plan for

9:38 ↗ climate to address climate and uh to

9:41 ↗ address climate change and climate

9:43 ↗ vulnerabilities or that we created the

9:46 ↗ environment and climate stewardship

9:47 ↗ element and that incorporates a lot of

9:50 ↗ the natural environment goals and

9:52 ↗ policies that were created with the

9:54 ↗ climate action

9:55 ↗ plan as well as some new policies that

9:58 ↗ were discussed with the environmental

10:00 ↗ board the housing element was updated in

10:03 ↗ compliance with House Bill 1110 and

10:05 ↗ House Bill 1220 and House Bill 1337 all

10:08 ↗ focused on uh transitional emergency

10:10 ↗ housing middle housing as well as

10:15 ↗ um the need

10:18 ↗ for

10:20 ↗ um beds for people experiencing

10:23 ↗ homelessness the Human Services element

10:25 ↗ was updated to ensure that it was

10:27 ↗ aligned with the recently adopted human

10:29 ↗ servic a strategic plan the parks

10:31 ↗ element was updated to align with the

10:34 ↗ recently uh developed draft Park system

10:38 ↗ plan economic Vitality element was

10:41 ↗ updated um in coordination with the

10:43 ↗ development of the economic development

10:45 ↗ action plan the arts and culture element

10:48 ↗ was updated um as part of the first

10:50 ↗ phase of developing their first arts and

10:53 ↗ culture strategic

10:55 ↗ plan and the transation element was

10:57 ↗ updated with in coordination with the

11:00 ↗ transit study which focused on new and

11:04 ↗ enhanced goals and policies focused on

11:06 ↗ Transit the transit study as uh just a

11:09 ↗ quick reminder the transit study focused

11:12 ↗ on providing updates to the goals and

11:14 ↗ policies for the comprehensive plan it

11:16 ↗ also provided updates to the capital

11:18 ↗ Improvement program so Transit specific

11:21 ↗ projects it also included updates to the

11:24 ↗ Mobility plan and then the utilities

11:27 ↗ Public Services Capital facilities

11:28 ↗ element was merged into one element so

11:31 ↗ that we could reduce a lot of the

11:32 ↗ redundancy and confusion around level of

11:35 ↗ service standards which are now in one

11:37 ↗ element rather than in two separate

11:39 ↗ elements and that that merged element is

11:42 ↗ in alignment with all the city's utility

11:44 ↗ system

11:51 ↗ plants so the only plan that I didn't

11:54 ↗ mention in coordination for the periodic

11:56 ↗ update was the development of the urban

11:58 ↗ forestry plan and so we've been working

11:59 ↗ with Park staff to ensure that the

12:02 ↗ policies that are going into the

12:03 ↗ conference plan is in alignment with

12:04 ↗ what's going into the urban forestry

12:06 ↗ plan as

12:10 ↗ well the last piece of what went into

12:13 ↗ the period update was focused on design

12:15 ↗ so we wanted to ensure that the

12:17 ↗ comprehensive plan was going to be an

12:19 ↗ accessible location that people are able

12:22 ↗ to use but also integrate within the

12:25 ↗ city website so we're planning to put it

12:27 ↗ on the code publishing platform with the

12:29 ↗ city code and this allows us to be able

12:32 ↗ to create direct links between the city

12:34 ↗ code AS between the comprehensive plan

12:37 ↗ and so we'll actually have better search

12:38 ↗ functions to find how the city's plans

12:41 ↗ align with what's going into the city

12:43 ↗ code the last piece is metrics um The

12:47 ↗ Guiding principles from the Strategic

12:48 ↗ plan were introduced with conference

12:50 ↗ plan with the intent of showing the

12:52 ↗ relationship what of what is in the

12:55 ↗ comprehensive plan and the Strategic

12:56 ↗ plan and we'll continue a lot of those

12:57 ↗ conversations with the upcoming

12:59 ↗ strategic Plan

13:03 ↗ update so as a general summary for the

13:06 ↗ changes for the periodic update we

13:09 ↗ updated a lot of goals and policies in

13:11 ↗ alignment with many of the state

13:12 ↗ requirements with the bills I listed

13:14 ↗ before we also Incorporated diversity

13:17 ↗ equity and inclusion a lot of goals and

13:18 ↗ policies throughout the comprehensive

13:20 ↗ plan to ensure that that is actually

13:22 ↗ being addressed and integrated in the

13:25 ↗ goals and policies and the comprehensive

13:26 ↗ plan and not just listed in any

13:28 ↗ particular area and this was discussed

13:29 ↗ with the equity board early on in our uh

13:32 ↗ periodic update process to ensure the

13:35 ↗ approach was consistent with how they

13:36 ↗ see the city updating much of its

13:39 ↗ plans the functional plan integration

13:42 ↗ coordination was worked with all the

13:44 ↗ department staffs that are responsible

13:46 ↗ for each of their own functional plans

13:47 ↗ to ensure that what we have in the

13:49 ↗ conference plan is in alignment with how

13:51 ↗ they see implementation following

13:53 ↗ through with their functional plans we

13:56 ↗ are formally establishing neighborhoods

13:57 ↗ in the comence plan which wasn't that

14:00 ↗ before it was originally recognized as

14:02 ↗ sub areas so now we are formally

14:05 ↗ introducing

14:07 ↗ neighborhoods we created the environment

14:09 ↗ uh environment climate stewardship

14:12 ↗ element and we have the redesignation

14:14 ↗ reone of the city hall Northwest

14:18 ↗ property so really quickly with a

14:20 ↗ redesignation rezone the hearing

14:22 ↗ examiner or reviewed this earlier this

14:25 ↗ summer and they are recommending the

14:27 ↗ rezone of the city Northwest property

14:30 ↗ from Community facilities facilities to

14:32 ↗ Urban

14:33 ↗ core and the redesignation of land use

14:36 ↗ from Community facilities to mixed

14:40 ↗ use in your materials tonight we have

14:42 ↗ the public comment Matrix The Matrix of

14:45 ↗ changes which includes all the changes

14:46 ↗ since all the council committees have

14:48 ↗ reviewed the elements since earlier this

14:50 ↗ year we also have a letter from the

14:52 ↗ environmental board a letter from the

14:54 ↗ King County affordable housing committee

14:57 ↗ a list and links to all the meetings

14:59 ↗ that would have been part of the

15:00 ↗ periodic

15:01 ↗ update the summary of decision for the

15:04 ↗ city hall Northwest res Zone all the

15:07 ↗ draft elements updated um the latest

15:10 ↗ draft elements updated for your

15:12 ↗ materials and the appendices containing

15:14 ↗ all the analysis that went into the

15:15 ↗ periodic

15:17 ↗ update next steps for this process is to

15:20 ↗ return to this committee on October 1st

15:23 ↗ um to um continue the conversation for

15:26 ↗ your

15:27 ↗ deliberation go to the committee the

15:29 ↗ whole on November and then go to city

15:32 ↗ Folk City Council in early December for

15:34 ↗ tentative adoption of the comprehens

15:38 ↗ plan so the administration's

15:40 ↗ recommendation tonight is for us to

15:43 ↗ return and continue the conversation on

15:45 ↗ the draft conference plan on October

15:52 ↗ 1st now I'm available for any questions

15:56 ↗ from the committee

15:59 ↗ council president

16:00 ↗ was let me ask just a starting question

16:04 ↗ of how deep do you want to go because as

16:07 ↗ you said it's also going back to PPC and

16:10 ↗ then back to us so are you looking for

16:13 ↗ feedback that is meant to contribute to

16:16 ↗ ppc's conversation or things that we've

16:19 ↗ seen on this first

16:21 ↗ review We primarily just wanted to have

16:24 ↗ the conversation you to help explain all

16:28 ↗ the changes that went into the

16:29 ↗ comprehensive plan um we didn't want to

16:32 ↗ start the conversation of any new

16:35 ↗ changes until we have the planning

16:37 ↗ policy commission recommendations first

16:39 ↗ just so we're not recommending changes

16:41 ↗ that they potentially might also discuss

16:44 ↗ changes to so we wanted to save that

16:46 ↗ discussion for the October 1 meeting for

16:48 ↗ so for tonight we're hoping to answer

16:50 ↗ any questions that you may have on any

16:52 ↗ of the changes that went into the

16:54 ↗ elements um I can bring up the slides if

16:58 ↗ anything was confused using on what

17:00 ↗ changed in the comence plan since you

17:03 ↗ last saw any of the elements I'm also

17:05 ↗ happy to discuss any of the other

17:07 ↗ elements that were reviewed by the other

17:08 ↗ Council grades okay go ahead um well I

17:13 ↗ wanted to add I had the same question

17:15 ↗ and had a conversation with City

17:17 ↗ administrator Bob quitz earlier today

17:18 ↗ and one additional thing that we

17:20 ↗ discussed was making sure that we um put

17:24 ↗ any sort of questions or asks on the

17:27 ↗ table so that the those materials come

17:29 ↗ back to us so if we have a specific um

17:33 ↗ way that we would like information or a

17:35 ↗ specific Matrix that sort of thing um

17:38 ↗ that that would come back at that

17:39 ↗ October meeting so sort of making sure

17:42 ↗ that we have that information to make a

17:45 ↗ final recommendation in the October

17:48 ↗ meeting great yeah I I mean there's

17:51 ↗ certain things in here um that I

17:54 ↗ certainly glommed on to in um a reading

17:57 ↗ but I guess my main question question is

18:00 ↗ now that we have the draft Eis how does

18:04 ↗ that influence and I'm I'm unfamiliar

18:07 ↗ with the idea that we basically studied

18:11 ↗ three options but we aren't choosing a

18:15 ↗ preferred alternative so how then do you

18:19 ↗ interpret you know I I'm also coming

18:22 ↗ from the affordable housing committee

18:24 ↗ and obviously there's a lot of

18:26 ↗ conversation about the distribution of

18:28 ↗ housing needs

18:29 ↗ so how do we

18:32 ↗ interpret our housing targets compared

18:35 ↗ to the alternative study compared to

18:38 ↗ what our um targets that are set are and

18:42 ↗ is there is it comfortable to not have a

18:47 ↗ preferred alternative or would it be

18:50 ↗ better to take action on

18:53 ↗ that I'll ask Mandy to chime in if I

18:56 ↗ miss anything on my response but for and

18:58 ↗ we talk about this in the presentation

19:00 ↗ when we go over the draft Eis as well

19:02 ↗ but for the analysis for the draft Eis

19:06 ↗ is it's more it is more supplementary to

19:08 ↗ the comprehensive plan in in terms of

19:10 ↗ looking at those different growth

19:12 ↗ alternatives to see if there are any

19:14 ↗ impacts that might influence policy

19:16 ↗ changes for the draft comprehensive plan

19:18 ↗ and so we look at the level of surfice

19:20 ↗ standards we look at those different

19:21 ↗ growth alternatives to determine if in

19:24 ↗ at any point we need to consider uh

19:26 ↗ changing zoning and that's when you

19:28 ↗ would actually want a preferred

19:29 ↗ alternative is if we were proposing sub

19:32 ↗ type of zoning changes to accommodate um

19:35 ↗ growth in certain areas of the city and

19:38 ↗ what we figured out through the draft

19:40 ↗ Eis or the analysis that went into the

19:42 ↗ draft e is we don't need oppose any

19:45 ↗ zoning changes and there is no need for

19:48 ↗ a preferred alternative because of

19:50 ↗ that okay yeah very much appreciate that

19:53 ↗ because that seemed to be you know kind

19:56 ↗ of an open Concept in the background and

19:59 ↗ trying to understand

20:01 ↗ why that you know why we don't have a

20:04 ↗ preferred alternative but also how that

20:06 ↗ influences the content of the

20:08 ↗ comprehensive plan

20:14 ↗ thanks okay um so we do have the

20:17 ↗ environmental board comment letter and

20:19 ↗ then the um affordable housing committee

20:23 ↗ letter

20:25 ↗ um is so uh are either of those

20:29 ↗ addressed yet or are those in the works

20:31 ↗ to be addressed and um how do you track

20:36 ↗ which comments are are addressed or not

20:38 ↗ so far so attached to the environmental

20:41 ↗ board letter we have a spreadsheet that

20:42 ↗ goes through staff responses and so

20:45 ↗ where we felt changes were needed we

20:47 ↗ incorporated that into the drafts and

20:48 ↗ into the versions that's in your packet

20:50 ↗ tonight um for what we felt didn't need

20:54 ↗ to be changes into the comprehens plan

20:56 ↗ or already addressed in the draft

20:57 ↗ elements we didn't incorporate any

21:00 ↗ additional changes for the affordable

21:02 ↗ housing committee um all of their

21:04 ↗ recommendations are actually addressed

21:06 ↗ in the draft elements tonight and so we

21:08 ↗ incorporated many of the missing pieces

21:11 ↗ of information are now added into the

21:13 ↗ draft housing element as well as the

21:14 ↗ appendices and then we incorporated two

21:17 ↗ new policies um one focused on

21:20 ↗ coordination with sound transit to plan

21:22 ↗ for Light Rail and the other one

21:24 ↗ prioritizing 0 to 30% Ami and so those

21:27 ↗ were the two very specific policy

21:28 ↗ recommendations that came from ahc

21:31 ↗ everything else was just missing

21:32 ↗ information that we added into the

21:38 ↗ elements okay so the the AGC changes are

21:42 ↗ in the public comments Matrix or how are

21:47 ↗ those

21:48 ↗ Reed uh we have a we put together

21:53 ↗ basically a response to the ahc staff

21:55 ↗ that we had sent them um it's not in the

21:57 ↗ materials but we can add that to the

21:59 ↗ materials to make sure that's clear that

22:01 ↗ those are addressed I we did put in the

22:03 ↗ staff report each of those

22:06 ↗ recommendations and uh just a general

22:08 ↗ statement that we have addressed them

22:10 ↗ all with the draft

22:13 ↗ elements okay thank

22:17 ↗ you council did I read the memo wrong I

22:21 ↗ thought for the portable housing

22:24 ↗ committee letter it said something like

22:26 ↗ almost all of them were including Ed but

22:28 ↗ to we're going to be folded into the

22:31 ↗ update of the housing strategy work plan

22:33 ↗ is that right the last piece of their

22:35 ↗ recommendations was engagement on the

22:37 ↗ specific housing strategies um that will

22:40 ↗ actually be incorporated when we update

22:42 ↗ the uh City's housing strategy work plan

22:45 ↗ and so because we don't have any

22:46 ↗ strategy specifically in the

22:47 ↗ comprehensive plan that's a

22:49 ↗ recommendation that'll be fit with the

22:50 ↗ housing strategy work plan uh

22:53 ↗ update um just kind of a fun well not

22:58 ↗ fun question I just I I

23:00 ↗ um when did we and totally I totally

23:04 ↗ could have just missed it but when did

23:05 ↗ we start calling the green necklace

23:07 ↗ Creeks to Peaks I mean it's nice I just

23:10 ↗ didn't know that the change in the name

23:13 ↗ was introduced with the update or the

23:16 ↗ park system plan draft release earlier

23:18 ↗ this

23:21 ↗ year which has not been yet adopted by

23:23 ↗ the

23:25 ↗ council so and everything's still draft

23:27 ↗ phases if if it if it doesn't change we

23:30 ↗ will change everything back as part of

23:31 ↗ the comprehensive plan but we want to

23:33 ↗ make sure our language was still

23:41 ↗ consistent we have any other questions

23:43 ↗ at this point no okay um then at this

23:46 ↗ point I will check in if we have any um

23:49 ↗ members of the public that would like to

23:51 ↗ comment on this

23:54 ↗ item and I'll also check with Kurt keer

24:03 ↗ okay um I'm seeing that clerk gizer is

24:05 ↗ saying that indicating there are no

24:06 ↗ members of the public online so Connie

24:08 ↗ if you would like to go

24:12 ↗ ahead all right so I've been through

24:18 ↗ maybe a really big one of these and two

24:22 ↗ modest of these and through several

24:26 ↗ CommunityWide comprehens iive plan

24:30 ↗ Community Gathering sessions that took

24:34 ↗ six months and City staff went out to

24:38 ↗ the community and they said this is your

24:41 ↗ town and we're looking 20 years in

24:43 ↗ advance we want to hear your hopes and

24:46 ↗ dreams for the city of isqua in 20 years

24:50 ↗ because it's your town and you live here

24:54 ↗ and it's our job to make a plan for what

24:58 ↗ the community

25:00 ↗ wants and um as you

25:06 ↗ heard this isn't about the community

25:08 ↗ this

25:09 ↗ time the community has been stripped out

25:13 ↗ and instead it's based on strategic

25:16 ↗ plans which I have told you several

25:18 ↗ times strategic plans are down here your

25:21 ↗ comprehensive plan is up here with your

25:24 ↗ visions and then your community values

25:28 ↗ and and so it's breaking my heart to

25:31 ↗ feel like what is supposed to be our

25:35 ↗ community's soul going into the future

25:38 ↗ is being stripped down into how do we

25:40 ↗ run our business and what do we do next

25:43 ↗ in the city because that's not my town

25:46 ↗ right my town is hopes and dreams and

25:48 ↗ people living here and living there

25:50 ↗ every day and wanting that every day to

25:52 ↗ be great and we didn't even tap on that

25:56 ↗ we didn't even try and I'm told that

25:59 ↗ that was set early on and here we are

26:04 ↗ and so there are a few places where that

26:06 ↗ can be changed I would ask for Community

26:09 ↗ Values to be returned to the

26:11 ↗ introduction section so that the

26:16 ↗ communities beings can exist in this

26:19 ↗ plan um the treasures now if you recall

26:23 ↗ the treasures which need to be updated

26:26 ↗ but in 93 the city council said we are

26:28 ↗ going to use these Community Treasures

26:30 ↗ to guide the comprehensive plan through

26:33 ↗ the future they have been removed from

26:36 ↗ the introduction and they are relegated

26:39 ↗ into the uh History Section as a we need

26:43 ↗ to consider the treasures and that's it

26:46 ↗ no

26:47 ↗ overarching soul in this plan but if you

26:51 ↗ invite that language back and instead

26:54 ↗ you use the guidance of our vision which

26:57 ↗ isn't bad and our mission which is okay

26:59 ↗ we can regain some of the soul in this

27:02 ↗ because some of the language is good A

27:04 ↗ lot of it is just the Strategic plan

27:07 ↗ language awkwardly shoved into the

27:09 ↗ comprehensive plan it's already

27:10 ↗ elsewhere it doesn't need to be there

27:11 ↗ and in some places we talk about the

27:14 ↗ width of a trail which is code so okay

27:18 ↗ that diet tribe which I've been waiting

27:20 ↗ to do I'm done

27:23 ↗ now H there are some weird things about

27:27 ↗ level of service because

27:31 ↗ um say we want to maintain them but our

27:35 ↗ Parks level of service is not in the

27:40 ↗ parks in the comprehensive plan it's not

27:43 ↗ because Parks is in the services and

27:46 ↗ utility section and then they have their

27:48 ↗ own element and so the services section

27:51 ↗ directs it to the parks Element Section

27:55 ↗ no no Los but in the draft e yes there

27:59 ↗ is one level of service when you go to

28:02 ↗ outside to the park strategic plan they

28:04 ↗ have two level of service

28:06 ↗ standards in the park strategic new one

28:09 ↗ we're talking the new one but neither of

28:11 ↗ them says okay this is how we want we

28:14 ↗ want our parks to function boom we want

28:17 ↗ this level of

28:19 ↗ service neither of them say that and so

28:21 ↗ there's no analysis then saying and from

28:25 ↗ that we are going to build Capital Prof

28:28 ↗ projects that will ensure that we either

28:30 ↗ maintain or get to those goals from

28:34 ↗ those new projects and we are keeping

28:36 ↗ our level of service and with that that

28:38 ↗ type of analysis it's hard for me to

28:41 ↗ think that we are creating a park system

28:44 ↗ where we know where we're going and we

28:45 ↗ have a plan to get there and that's what

28:47 ↗ a level of service is for and so when we

28:50 ↗ talk about we we looked at our level of

28:53 ↗ service so that we can understand our

28:54 ↗ impacts we actually haven't done that

28:58 ↗ and we need to do that because that's

28:59 ↗ part of planning and then I already sent

29:02 ↗ you a a an email about the uh

29:05 ↗ Transportation where we've basically

29:07 ↗ just adopted our entire Transportation

29:10 ↗ hopes and dreams of I don't know how

29:12 ↗ many hundreds of millions of dollars and

29:14 ↗ said this is what we need to get to

29:16 ↗ level of service D so if you would talk

29:18 ↗ about that that next time when you can

29:21 ↗ actually talk that'd be

29:24 ↗ great thank you Connie

29:30 ↗ all right um so I think our task is to

29:35 ↗ provide uh high level guidance on what

29:40 ↗ kind of information we need at our next

29:42 ↗ touch with this after it's gone to our

29:45 ↗ volunteer um commissions to make sure we

29:49 ↗ have the information we need to make a

29:51 ↗ recommendation on this item when it

29:53 ↗ comes back in October

29:58 ↗ would either of you like to start off or

30:01 ↗ I can I can start us

30:02 ↗ off okay um when I was reading the

30:08 ↗ Matrix um which is exhibit B I I find

30:13 ↗ that helpful in general I think that um

30:17 ↗ what would be great when this comes back

30:18 ↗ to the committee is if all of the

30:21 ↗ changes are either in the Matrix or in a

30:23 ↗ track changes document because right now

30:26 ↗ we have um some changes that are

30:30 ↗ highlighted in red some changes that are

30:32 ↗ not highlighted in that Matrix and then

30:35 ↗ there's also um another attachment with

30:38 ↗ the environmental letter that that has

30:40 ↗ some other changes and then I wasn't

30:43 ↗ really sure if the recommend or if the

30:46 ↗ um suggestions from the affordable

30:48 ↗ housing commission were the final

30:51 ↗ recommendations or if that was kind of

30:53 ↗ more of a

30:54 ↗ general um you know we need to put these

30:56 ↗ policies here because they seem

30:58 ↗ very high level to me um for example the

31:01 ↗ one about making sure that we're

31:04 ↗ prioritizing policies for 0 to 30% Ami

31:08 ↗ individuals says something to the

31:10 ↗ effective um you know explore and

31:13 ↗ support policies that that address the

31:16 ↗ needs of 0 to 30% Ami individuals and so

31:18 ↗ I think you know looking to the Future

31:20 ↗ when there are policy makers and when

31:22 ↗ there are community members who are

31:23 ↗ looking at this document having more um

31:27 ↗ having more policy language around those

31:30 ↗ uh items would be good as well as making

31:32 ↗ sure that we are addressing the intent

31:34 ↗ of those recommendations I thought they

31:35 ↗ were great recommendations and I just

31:37 ↗ want to make sure that we are um taking

31:39 ↗ those and and really incorporating that

31:43 ↗ feedback um I think there are also

31:47 ↗ some maybe I'm maybe I'm mistaken but I

31:50 ↗ think there are some issues with the

31:52 ↗ Matrix currently like the vision uh in

31:55 ↗ the previous draft and in the new

31:56 ↗ revised draft is the same um and I read

32:00 ↗ it a couple times and I'm sure it's the

32:02 ↗ same um so I

32:04 ↗ think uh I think it's meant to track a

32:07 ↗ change from an earlier draft potentially

32:10 ↗ but it basically wasn't clear to me what

32:11 ↗ change we were trying to highlight um

32:13 ↗ and sort of similarly with some other

32:15 ↗ sections where it seems like we were

32:17 ↗ trying to highlight a a difference but

32:19 ↗ not everything was tracked um so

32:22 ↗ consistency would help I think there's a

32:24 ↗ lot of good content that is being that

32:28 ↗ was provided you know good feedback that

32:30 ↗ was provided by our volunteer

32:32 ↗ commissions already um as well as the

32:35 ↗ affordable housing Council and so I want

32:37 ↗ to make sure that we're tracking those

32:39 ↗ and that when that comes back to our

32:40 ↗ committee that we can make sure that

32:42 ↗ we're fully understanding what changes

32:44 ↗ were made and and why

32:47 ↗ um that's my my highest level feedback

32:51 ↗ uh additionally I think because this has

32:54 ↗ gone through many versions and this is

32:56 ↗ something that I've seen in other period

32:57 ↗ itic updates um there's sometimes sort

33:00 ↗ of long sentences or sentences that it

33:03 ↗ seems like something has been

33:04 ↗ Incorporated after the fact and so I

33:06 ↗ think just some looking at it with fresh

33:09 ↗ eyes and making sure that the sentences

33:11 ↗ and that that we're really getting the

33:13 ↗ main points across would be good I have

33:15 ↗ a few specific examples that I can share

33:19 ↗ um but I think you know that would that

33:21 ↗ would help a lot just with the

33:22 ↗ readability and with the future use of

33:24 ↗ the

33:25 ↗ document um

33:30 ↗ and then additionally sometimes there is

33:33 ↗ there is very high level definitions as

33:35 ↗ well as the sort of isqua examples of

33:38 ↗ definitions for things like climate

33:40 ↗ change and I think it does a great job

33:42 ↗ going into this is what we're doing to

33:45 ↗ reduce emissions this is what we're

33:46 ↗ doing to um address the current impacts

33:49 ↗ of climate change and this is what we're

33:51 ↗ doing for future impacts um I think that

33:53 ↗ similarly if we can make sure that we're

33:56 ↗ always tying back to the isqua specific

34:00 ↗ uh things that we are planning uh in the

34:04 ↗ comprehensive plan I think that would be

34:06 ↗ good because some of the definitions for

34:07 ↗ things like Equity are good but I would

34:09 ↗ also like to make sure that we're tying

34:11 ↗ that back to the isqua specific um

34:15 ↗ policies and examples that we're we're

34:17 ↗ focusing

34:21 ↗ on of my feedback anybody else like to

34:24 ↗ give

34:26 ↗ feedback that's

34:28 ↗ yeah thank you um and thanks for I think

34:30 ↗ it's nice that we get to kind of have a

34:32 ↗ meeting where we digest kind of the

34:34 ↗ process and understanding how you're

34:35 ↗ going about it before PPC touches it and

34:37 ↗ then comes back to us next month so

34:39 ↗ that's nice um I agree with everything

34:42 ↗ uh the chair pointed out I also saw that

34:43 ↗ the vision statement looked the same on

34:45 ↗ The Matrix um similarly one of my

34:49 ↗ requests would be if we could get some

34:51 ↗ information about how we described

34:53 ↗ Community Values and EnV visioning in in

34:56 ↗ the current comp plan just so I and have

34:58 ↗ a little bit more um better judgment of

35:01 ↗ comparing how we're describing that now

35:03 ↗ versus then um would be good um so if

35:06 ↗ that can be included in future info that

35:08 ↗ would be really helpful and then um how

35:10 ↗ possible do you think it is

35:13 ↗ to have like

35:15 ↗ a comprehensive no pun intended track

35:20 ↗ changes document probably do you think

35:22 ↗ impossible because so many things have

35:24 ↗ moved or do you think that like how

35:26 ↗ helpful do you think that would be

35:28 ↗ we had the so when we had the track

35:30 ↗ changes we had track changes basically

35:32 ↗ given to all the council committees

35:33 ↗ earlier this year so we're just going to

35:34 ↗ combine them

35:36 ↗ all all right cool then yeah it would be

35:38 ↗ good to have big document with all that

35:41 ↗ as well and other than that I agree with

35:44 ↗ everything that was said and I look

35:45 ↗ forward to the discussion in October

35:47 ↗ thank you very much for um giving us the

35:50 ↗ letter from the environmental board and

35:52 ↗ getting their feedback I thought all the

35:53 ↗ comments that they had were uh addressed

35:55 ↗ appropriately read through their Matrix

35:57 ↗ so appreciate that um and again for all

36:00 ↗ the work that you and everyone else has

36:02 ↗ touched uh for the comprehensive plan I

36:04 ↗ just really appreciate it it seems like

36:06 ↗ it's been an absolutely massive lift so

36:08 ↗ I appreciate

36:11 ↗ you council president Walsh thanks um so

36:16 ↗ first of all I appreciate that you both

36:18 ↗ were looking at the affordable housing

36:20 ↗ committee's um letter and everything

36:23 ↗ that um is useful and I'm glad to see

36:27 ↗ that we have um brought in some of those

36:31 ↗ or all of those

36:32 ↗ recommendations I agree it would be nice

36:35 ↗ to be able to track that in a central

36:37 ↗ document so I think that would be great

36:40 ↗ um with the environmental board's letter

36:44 ↗ I mean I felt the passion of that I felt

36:46 ↗ the hey we want to see more of this I

36:51 ↗ also read the the staff response Matrix

36:55 ↗ and I I understand that but I I still

36:57 ↗ feel a tension there

37:02 ↗ of what just because we have technically

37:07 ↗ you know handled those

37:10 ↗ areas it just it still feels like

37:12 ↗ there's a tension there in the concepts

37:16 ↗ of both environmental and climate and

37:19 ↗ making sure that that comes across as

37:21 ↗ the spirit of isqua not just in and

37:25 ↗ maybe a better

37:28 ↗ way or a different way to address that

37:30 ↗ would be rather than in say

37:33 ↗ specific um policy language making sure

37:38 ↗ that that really comes through in the

37:40 ↗ introductory area so that we're really

37:43 ↗ talking about how important that is for

37:46 ↗ esqua obviously if any of the policy

37:49 ↗ specific language Works um I appreciate

37:53 ↗ that as well

37:55 ↗ but I still feel that that tension um

37:59 ↗ with the letter and how that responds

38:02 ↗ there

38:05 ↗ um in general I'm kind of liking what

38:10 ↗ I'm seeing I like that you know in the

38:15 ↗ land use element we've got a nice Vision

38:19 ↗ there and it kind of guides me through

38:21 ↗ the story in some ways I feel like

38:24 ↗ that's missing in the introduction

38:27 ↗ concept

38:28 ↗ something that says here we

38:31 ↗ are why are we here and where are we

38:36 ↗ going

38:37 ↗ um looking back a historically at the

38:43 ↗ previous um comprehensive plan the

38:46 ↗ introduction had a section on C creating

38:49 ↗ a sustainable isqua how the

38:51 ↗ comprehensive plan establishes the

38:53 ↗ vision and manages growth public

38:56 ↗ participation

38:58 ↗ um let scroll down and then gets into

39:02 ↗ the

39:03 ↗ format um and

39:06 ↗ language it feels like some of

39:09 ↗ that context and visioning and

39:12 ↗ storytelling I think is missing here and

39:15 ↗ I think that's an

39:16 ↗ important concept especially when you

39:20 ↗ know as Connie says there's a lot of

39:22 ↗ things coming down from the state and so

39:26 ↗ being able to recognize that as part of

39:29 ↗ our

39:30 ↗ context and talk about you know here's

39:34 ↗ here's some of the larger changes that

39:36 ↗ you'll see in this comprehensive plan I

39:39 ↗ feel like that um piece of the story is

39:43 ↗ a little bit missing whether that comes

39:44 ↗ in the full introduction or in each of

39:47 ↗ the element introductions I just want to

39:50 ↗ make sure that we are able to tell that

39:52 ↗ story so that it isn't just a dry policy

39:56 ↗ document

39:57 ↗ um because man the policy language is

40:00 ↗ really really important and I understand

40:02 ↗ that um but so is just the concept of

40:07 ↗ where we're at and where we're

40:09 ↗ going um and I'm trying to

40:11 ↗ think

40:14 ↗ um if there is anything else has um

40:18 ↗ planning policy or what

40:21 ↗ are your thoughts on the like streams to

40:26 ↗ Peaks versus

40:28 ↗ um the green necklace concept and making

40:32 ↗ the update now versus after we have

40:35 ↗ adopted the park strategic

40:37 ↗ plan um and are there any other areas

40:42 ↗ like that where we're going off of

40:43 ↗ something that's a draft plan rather

40:46 ↗ than the finalized

40:49 ↗ version urban forestry the urban

40:52 ↗ forestry is the only I say draft plan

40:56 ↗ that's in motion right now everything

40:57 ↗ else has already been adopted and we we

40:59 ↗ made the change um from to Creeks to

41:03 ↗ Peaks from green necklace uh primarily

41:05 ↗ because that was the policies that were

41:07 ↗ being integrated into the park system

41:09 ↗ plan we we tried to change a lot of the

41:12 ↗ policies to more say Parks planning

41:15 ↗ documents rather than being too specific

41:18 ↗ so we already made some of those changes

41:20 ↗ with the expectation that maybe it might

41:22 ↗ change but um we we weren't sure when

41:26 ↗ the parks plan was going to be and we

41:28 ↗ didn't want to get it folded into the

41:30 ↗ 2025 comp plan update so it would have

41:32 ↗ to wait a whole year to change those

41:37 ↗ policies with that does the committee

41:39 ↗ have a

41:42 ↗ preference the park plan um we've just

41:45 ↗ moved it today to be considered by uh

41:49 ↗ service of safety and parks at their

41:50 ↗ meeting in October so it will be before

41:53 ↗ the full Council then either in late

41:55 ↗ October the first part of November

42:00 ↗ um I I think that because the

42:02 ↗ comprehensive plan is something that we

42:04 ↗ only update um

42:07 ↗ every every few years and or you know

42:10 ↗ with the big update um I think it's

42:13 ↗ appropriate to make sure that we're

42:15 ↗ incorporating things like the urban

42:16 ↗ forestry plan

42:19 ↗ and things that are currently in

42:22 ↗ Flight right the last periodic update

42:24 ↗ was 2015 I 2015 and the next one will be

42:28 ↗ 10 years from now so the we tried to be

42:30 ↗ as general as possible with a lot of

42:32 ↗ those ones for plans that are in motion

42:35 ↗ plans that aren't even started yet

42:37 ↗ so with the expectation of not being

42:40 ↗ able to touch it again until

42:45 ↗ then yeah so I think that especially

42:47 ↗ things that are um plans that have gone

42:51 ↗ through a fair amount of the process

42:52 ↗ they're they're in Flight we can

42:54 ↗ reference those and make sure that

42:55 ↗ they're included in the comp

42:58 ↗ plan that's my preference looks like we

43:01 ↗ have some nods so

43:08 ↗ okay you have any additional

43:18 ↗ comments I guess uh I would just say I

43:24 ↗ really appreciate the staff mem

43:27 ↗ um in giving some of the story around

43:31 ↗ why things changed and I just want to

43:35 ↗ make sure that comes to the full Council

43:37 ↗ as we're kind of talking about the

43:39 ↗ bigger concept and maybe even some of

43:42 ↗ those are some of that story piece I

43:45 ↗ mean none of that is um the emotions and

43:48 ↗ the uh feeling behind why we're here but

43:52 ↗ some of it is the the context that I

43:54 ↗ think is important so

44:02 ↗ okay I have a few more comments um so I

44:06 ↗ I had also um pull the section of the

44:11 ↗ environmental board letter that talks

44:13 ↗ about um that there that it it says that

44:18 ↗ uh the sections on environment

44:19 ↗ sustainability land use housing and

44:21 ↗ Equity are currently inconsistent and

44:22 ↗ confusing which undermines the clarity

44:24 ↗ of the city's goals and vision I think

44:26 ↗ that

44:27 ↗ partly that is because they aren't

44:30 ↗ reflecting all of the same wording and

44:33 ↗ all of the same language and I think

44:35 ↗ also that especially the land use

44:38 ↗ section could be strengthened in terms

44:40 ↗ of connecting back to the environment

44:42 ↗ and to the the climate goals and and the

44:45 ↗ equity goals I I do so that did resonate

44:49 ↗ with me they do feel like they're moving

44:51 ↗ separately however I also know that

44:53 ↗ they're all under they're all in the

44:56 ↗ process of being updated um but I did

44:59 ↗ want to agree with that and so I think

45:01 ↗ that making sure that they those

45:03 ↗ different sections are referencing each

45:05 ↗ other um and are consistent with each

45:07 ↗ other is important um they also the

45:10 ↗ environmental board also pointed out

45:12 ↗ that the projection where they said the

45:13 ↗ projection of only 5,000 people for

45:15 ↗ population growth over the next 20 years

45:17 ↗ seems unrealistic this gets back to

45:20 ↗ council president's Walsh council

45:22 ↗ president Walsh's earlier comment I

45:24 ↗ think about you know are we saying that

45:26 ↗ we expect there to be one of these uh

45:30 ↗ scenarios or what is the implication

45:33 ↗ from having that

45:35 ↗ scenario uh here and so I think that

45:39 ↗ wasn't clear to this committee um that

45:42 ↗ wasn't clear to us as a committee who

45:44 ↗ has is very uh very

45:48 ↗ much in the weeds here and so I think

45:51 ↗ just making sure that that's really

45:52 ↗ clear what are the implications of these

45:54 ↗ different population scenarios you know

45:57 ↗ are we saying that we expect this or are

46:00 ↗ we saying these are the different things

46:01 ↗ that we're planning for and under these

46:03 ↗ different scenarios these are the

46:04 ↗ outcomes and just making all of that

46:06 ↗ really clear I think would be good

46:08 ↗ because that is a high

46:09 ↗ level

46:11 ↗ um that is a high

46:14 ↗ level factor in all of this analysis I

46:17 ↗ think how how what kind of population

46:19 ↗ growth we expect over the next under 20

46:23 ↗ years um

46:31 ↗ have any additional

46:33 ↗ comments okay so to recap we would like

46:37 ↗ both a matrix with all of the when this

46:40 ↗ returns to our committee we would like

46:43 ↗ please uh Matrix with all of the changes

46:46 ↗ and why they were changed um and the

46:49 ↗ complete the complete change uh

46:53 ↗ additionally if we can have the full

46:55 ↗ track changes doc ment

46:57 ↗ itself um that would also be helpful for

47:00 ↗ us and

47:03 ↗ um we also had several comments on where

47:08 ↗ the kinds of edits that we think would

47:10 ↗ be helpful especially in the

47:11 ↗ introduction and having a stronger

47:13 ↗ overarching vision and more of the

47:16 ↗ storytelling element that sets you up

47:18 ↗ for why we have these different policies

47:21 ↗ um I and additionally I think that some

47:23 ↗ of the policy language especially where

47:25 ↗ we're we are reacting to things like the

47:27 ↗ affordable housing uh commission's

47:30 ↗ comments could be more specific and more

47:32 ↗ strengthened um do we have did I miss

47:36 ↗ anything do we have anything additional

47:38 ↗ at this

47:42 ↗ point okay do you have what you need

47:44 ↗ from this committee for returning in

47:47 ↗ October we do

47:50 ↗ okay

47:53 ↗ great then um that concludes our first

47:56 ↗ item our second item is uh Comm 0071

48:00 ↗ comprehensive plan draft environmental

48:02 ↗ impact statement and this will be

48:03 ↗ presented by principal planner Mandy

48:06 ↗ Roberts welcome

48:08 ↗ Mandy thank you uh can you hear me yes

48:13 ↗ we can hear you very good and do you see

48:16 ↗ the presentation on

48:17 ↗ screen we

48:20 ↗ do we do okay great thank you so much

48:24 ↗ well it's great to be with you this

48:26 ↗ evening thank thank you very much my

48:28 ↗ objective is to give you a brief

48:30 ↗ overview of the draft environmental

48:33 ↗ impact statement that H has been

48:36 ↗ prepared to support the comprehensive

48:38 ↗ Plan

48:39 ↗ update and um that deis is currently

48:45 ↗ open for Publican agency review at this

48:48 ↗ time so the purpose is really uh for for

48:52 ↗ me to present some of the high level

48:56 ↗ aspects of the Eis process and provide a

48:58 ↗ status update of that

49:01 ↗ work as I'm sure you're well aware the

49:04 ↗ State Environmental Policy Act process

49:07 ↗ identifies and analyzes environmental

49:10 ↗ impacts associated with government

49:11 ↗ projects or decisions and in this case

49:14 ↗ we're talking about the comprehensive

49:16 ↗ Plan update as our proposed action it is

49:21 ↗ a non-project action or sometimes we

49:24 ↗ also call call that programmatic

49:27 ↗ uh and the objectives of CA in this case

49:30 ↗ are to identify and mitigate potential

49:33 ↗ impacts that could occur as a result of

49:37 ↗ adopting the comprehensive plan and um

49:40 ↗ the resulting growth and also another

49:43 ↗ key objective is to provide the

49:44 ↗ opportunity for public and agency review

49:47 ↗ and comment on the

49:51 ↗ deis so we um followed the procedures

49:55 ↗ fora very closely in that we analyzed a

49:59 ↗ potential um R reasonable range of

50:02 ↗ Alternatives and Associated potential

50:05 ↗ impacts we identified mitigation

50:07 ↗ measures to avoid or reduce the level of

50:10 ↗ potential impacts of those Al

50:13 ↗ Alternatives action Alternatives we are

50:16 ↗ providing opportunities for public local

50:18 ↗ state and federal agencies and tribal

50:20 ↗ governments to review and comment and as

50:23 ↗ I already mentioned um this is a non

50:26 ↗ project action programmatic and so we

50:29 ↗ followed the guid associated that our

50:32 ↗ draft includes uh the typical sections

50:37 ↗ that you see Fai introduction section A

50:41 ↗ a chapter on introducing the

50:43 ↗ Alternatives and then the main subject

50:46 ↗ matter of the draft is are the technical

50:50 ↗ chapters that provide a discussion of

50:53 ↗ the affected environment the analysis of

50:56 ↗ Alterna

50:57 ↗ within each of those topical areas

50:59 ↗ potential impacts that could occur and

51:02 ↗ then mitigation measures to reduce or

51:04 ↗ eliminate significant unavoidable

51:07 ↗ adverse

51:10 ↗ impacts so um there's a 30-day comment

51:13 ↗ period we are within that comment period

51:15 ↗ now we are holding a public hearing

51:17 ↗ later this week to gather additional

51:20 ↗ comments and once the comments are

51:22 ↗ received a final Eis is prepared an

51:27 ↗ issue and as we've been discussing

51:30 ↗ earlier tonight one thing that is

51:32 ↗ perhaps a little different about thisis

51:34 ↗ as we have not identified a preferred

51:37 ↗ alternative um the purposes of this Eis

51:41 ↗ are really to support the

51:44 ↗ longterm planning of isqua and to be

51:47 ↗ prepared for growth that is already

51:50 ↗ approved through your development

51:52 ↗ regulations and zy at different levels

51:56 ↗ um different levels of intensity and

51:59 ↗ Pace that could occur in the future and

52:02 ↗ to just be proactive so that the city

52:04 ↗ knows that a growth happens at a faster

52:06 ↗ Pace these are the types of mitigation

52:09 ↗ measures that would be required to

52:11 ↗ address that growth um if it happens at

52:14 ↗ a more moderate Pace these are the

52:17 ↗ mitigation measures that would be

52:18 ↗ required so um there's not really a need

52:22 ↗ to select a preferred alternative

52:23 ↗ because as Stephen mentioned earlier we

52:26 ↗ don't need to change zoning it's already

52:29 ↗ in place uh but we do want to understand

52:32 ↗ what the implications would be if growth

52:35 ↗ happened um at at a different pace in

52:38 ↗ the Comm so it's really being proactive

52:42 ↗ thinking ahead making sure the city is

52:46 ↗ is well aware and ready for that growth

52:48 ↗ in the

52:51 ↗ future um so the the Eis itself does not

52:54 ↗ require adoption it is supplementary to

52:56 ↗ the conference of plan which will be

52:58 ↗ adopted um the final Eis is issued and

53:02 ↗ it it needs to be issued about at least

53:04 ↗ seven days before the conference plan is

53:10 ↗ adopted here are the technical topics

53:13 ↗ that are analyzed in the

53:15 ↗ B um as I mentioned we have some

53:18 ↗ information about demographics growth

53:20 ↗ housing needs we have a summary of the

53:23 ↗ Alternatives we have a very thorough

53:27 ↗ understanding of consistency with plans

53:29 ↗ and policies that includes State

53:32 ↗ Regional County and City plans and

53:35 ↗ policies by the way uh we've got a

53:38 ↗ chapter that looks at land use built

53:40 ↗ form and housing

53:43 ↗ implementation Transportation Public

53:45 ↗ Services utilities Community design and

53:48 ↗ Aesthetics and natural

53:52 ↗ environment so here are the three

53:55 ↗ Alternatives that we've studied

53:57 ↗ and sea always requires that we look at

53:59 ↗ a no action alternative in other words

54:02 ↗ what would be the implications and

54:05 ↗ potential effects of not taking

54:08 ↗ action um this no action alternative

54:11 ↗ alternative one ass students that growth

54:12 ↗ would continue of course um

54:15 ↗ and existing projects would continue but

54:19 ↗ we wouldn't have the benefit of having a

54:22 ↗ comprensive plan that fully aligns with

54:25 ↗ all of the State Regional County and

54:27 ↗ local plans and policies which is really

54:30 ↗ important to make sure that we have that

54:32 ↗ consistent

54:34 ↗ consistency across plenty so then the

54:37 ↗ two action Alternatives that we looked

54:40 ↗ at alternative two and alternative three

54:42 ↗ are just different levels of intensity

54:45 ↗ of growth so alternative two is really a

54:48 ↗ more moderate level of growth and it

54:50 ↗ also assumes a more disperse pattern of

54:54 ↗ growth across the city

54:57 ↗ whereas alternative three assumes a more

54:59 ↗ intensive growth in other words growth

55:02 ↗ is happening at a faster pace and more

55:04 ↗ growth is happening but alternative

55:07 ↗ three also seems there's more of a focus

55:09 ↗ of growth in central isqua because there

55:12 ↗ certainly is the capacity for that to

55:14 ↗ happen and the central isqua plan calls

55:17 ↗ for that and so it really makes sense a

55:21 ↗ lot of sense and it's a smart growth

55:23 ↗ approach for the city to look at how how

55:26 ↗ can we intensify growth in central it's

55:28 ↗ well where more people have access to

55:31 ↗ Services utilities Transportation

55:35 ↗ ultimately Light Rail Transit as you

55:37 ↗ mentioned earlier so um analyzing

55:40 ↗ alternative three gives us the

55:41 ↗ opportunity to um Point those positive

55:45 ↗ aspects

55:47 ↗ out this chart gives you a sense of our

55:53 ↗ targets for housing units and employment

55:56 ↗ or

55:58 ↗ jobs and the targets are as you know set

56:02 ↗ by the county based on a process that's

56:06 ↗ really influenced by Regional planning

56:09 ↗ State numbers that are attracted through

56:12 ↗ the office of financial management so

56:15 ↗ Trends and growth as well as each

56:17 ↗ community's zoned capacity and so for

56:20 ↗ isqua your target for 2044 in 20 years

56:24 ↗ from now is to increase housing units by

56:28 ↗ 3500 above 2019 levels which you've

56:31 ↗ already increased them to some extent

56:34 ↗ you can see the difference there in the

56:37 ↗ um leftand columns where in 2019 you had

56:42 ↗ 1,471 housing units and in 2022 you had

56:47 ↗ 18,000 so your total net new um need or

56:53 ↗ net new Target excuse me is

56:56 ↗ um

56:59 ↗ 2427 hous you have the current Zone

57:02 ↗ capacity for housing units in the city

57:05 ↗ of

57:06 ↗ 12,862 so you have way more Zone

57:09 ↗ capacity than the targets are calling

57:11 ↗ for and that's another reason frankly

57:14 ↗ why we wanted to analyze potentially

57:17 ↗ more growth again to proactively help

57:20 ↗ the city understand what if more growth

57:22 ↗ were to occur it is allowed in Earth GRE

57:25 ↗ and and what types of mitigation

57:27 ↗ measures and Capital Improvements would

57:29 ↗ be needed to serve that

57:32 ↗ growth and similar um information for

57:36 ↗ numbers of jobs um below again you have

57:40 ↗ a lot more Zone capacity for jobs than

57:42 ↗ your targets indicate um you need to

57:46 ↗ provide uh can I pause and ask a

57:49 ↗ question here uh so every time we talk

57:52 ↗ about the comprehensive plan I think

57:54 ↗ it's helpful to review what Target means

57:58 ↗ in this context so I wondered if you

57:59 ↗ could

58:00 ↗ explain that you know is it a Target

58:04 ↗ we're trying to hit or not and if not if

58:06 ↗ you could just explain that uh all

58:10 ↗ that's yeah all that's is there some

58:12 ↗ feedback happening or he's able to hear

58:15 ↗ me pretty Qui we're able to hear you I

58:17 ↗ think there might be a little bit of a

58:18 ↗ delay but we can hear you fine great all

58:22 ↗ right so the Department of Commerce ad

58:25 ↗ ministers um the process of making sure

58:28 ↗ that your comprehensive plan uh is

58:31 ↗ consistently providing for your growth

58:33 ↗ targets also King County pays attention

58:36 ↗ and pan Regional Council they're also

58:38 ↗ paying attention what's required is that

58:41 ↗ you simply have the zoned capacity to

58:44 ↗ allow for that many housing units and

58:46 ↗ that many jobs to occur you do not

58:50 ↗ actually have to have those he units and

58:52 ↗ jobs be implemented within that 20- year

58:56 ↗ but you just have to show that you have

58:57 ↗ the capacity for that to happen if it

59:00 ↗ should

59:02 ↗ happen does that help answer the

59:04 ↗ question

59:05 ↗ there yes thank you and so we and we

59:07 ↗ have the capacity in both instances as

59:10 ↗ you showed on the previous slide you do

59:13 ↗ yeah um we also just to kind of ver

59:17 ↗ provide a diverse level of analysis we

59:20 ↗ also under alternative one we analyze a

59:23 ↗ little bit slower growth or less

59:26 ↗ intensive growth that's really more in

59:28 ↗ line with your

59:31 ↗ targets uh but as you mentioned earlier

59:34 ↗ I think you were saying the

59:35 ↗ environmental board was really

59:38 ↗ concerned they said something about

59:40 ↗ 5,000 population growth that that may

59:43 ↗ not be realistic and so again sort of

59:46 ↗ underscores a need

59:49 ↗ to be more proactive and think of um the

59:54 ↗ potential for more intensive growth if

59:55 ↗ it for to happen because it is allowed

59:58 ↗ so that's that's really what we looked

1:00:00 ↗ at under Alternatives two and three and

1:00:03 ↗ then this just showed you this diagram

1:00:06 ↗ or map showed you where we assumed

1:00:09 ↗ different housing units and jobs would

1:00:11 ↗ occur um splitting out growth between

1:00:15 ↗ the villages Central isqua and then the

1:00:19 ↗ remaining areas of isqua because the

1:00:22 ↗ villages still have quite a capacity as

1:00:26 ↗ Central the remaining areas of of

1:00:30 ↗ is capacity so we wanted to make sure

1:00:34 ↗ our analysis was consistent with that

1:00:36 ↗ with those

1:00:38 ↗ assumptions and so you can see that

1:00:41 ↗ alternative to looks at more housing

1:00:43 ↗ units and jobs um in particular more

1:00:47 ↗ jobs in the central Isa area which you

1:00:49 ↗ would expect because there is more

1:00:52 ↗ commercial office mixed juice zoning in

1:00:54 ↗ central prod support those

1:00:56 ↗ jobs and then finally alternative three

1:01:00 ↗ looked at the highest level of housing

1:01:02 ↗ units and jobs across the city with more

1:01:05 ↗ with a higher proportion of grow

1:01:07 ↗ happening in Central

1:01:11 ↗ isqu and so there's a there's a lot to

1:01:15 ↗ um the drais analysis and hopefully

1:01:18 ↗ you've had a chance to look through and

1:01:22 ↗ um see the analysis results this is a

1:01:24 ↗ very um quick chart to just give you

1:01:28 ↗ kind of

1:01:29 ↗ the in a nutshell version of what the

1:01:32 ↗ alternative analysis shows so so

1:01:36 ↗ basically under any of the

1:01:38 ↗ Alternatives um

1:01:41 ↗ mitigation measures would ensure that

1:01:45 ↗ significant unavoidable at impacts could

1:01:47 ↗ be

1:01:48 ↗ avoided um the the only issue really is

1:01:53 ↗ under alternative one without the adop

1:01:55 ↗ opon of the comprehensive plan you would

1:01:57 ↗ not be in alignment or consistent with

1:02:00 ↗ State Regional County and City plans

1:02:03 ↗ policies and that is considered to be a

1:02:05 ↗ significant aders impact so that's not

1:02:09 ↗ surprising that that we would see that

1:02:11 ↗ under alternative one under alternative

1:02:14 ↗ three the analysis at a programmatic

1:02:17 ↗ level is showing that in many instances

1:02:20 ↗ there are

1:02:22 ↗ efficiencies um in infrastructure cost

1:02:26 ↗ operations management a lot of different

1:02:29 ↗ areas to concentrating growth in Central

1:02:33 ↗ isqua and that mitigation measures can

1:02:36 ↗ be delivered more efficiently as well so

1:02:39 ↗ um that proves to be the case with the

1:02:41 ↗ transportation analysis with the

1:02:43 ↗ utilities analysis with public services

1:02:46 ↗ and the public service providers that we

1:02:48 ↗ consulted with so it's um you know it's

1:02:52 ↗ just showing that the city can should

1:02:54 ↗ continue to work towards implementing

1:02:56 ↗ the central isqua plan focusing it as

1:02:59 ↗ much growth as possible in central Isa

1:03:02 ↗ um also it The E points out that there

1:03:05 ↗ are more design standards in place in um

1:03:10 ↗ in to kind to cover that growth with

1:03:13 ↗ with the more recent design standards of

1:03:15 ↗ oped

1:03:16 ↗ so this is really in a nutshell chart

1:03:20 ↗ and it's showing that impacts can be

1:03:23 ↗ mitigated to the extent needed to avoid

1:03:26 ↗ significant

1:03:28 ↗ adversity so as I mentioned we do have a

1:03:30 ↗ public hearing Thursday

1:03:32 ↗ evening um and maybe Stephen can

1:03:35 ↗ elaborate a little bit on the timing of

1:03:37 ↗ that because I don't have that

1:03:38 ↗ memorized

1:03:42 ↗ um do you want to do that now Stephen or

1:03:44 ↗ after I speak yes I can do that so for

1:03:47 ↗ the next steps for the draft e uh we'll

1:03:49 ↗ have the public hearing with PPC this

1:03:51 ↗ Thursday um the intent for the public

1:03:54 ↗ hearing is not for have PPC have

1:03:56 ↗ deliberation but primarily if I have a

1:03:59 ↗ formal public forum for public comment

1:04:00 ↗ for the draft Eis the public comment

1:04:04 ↗ period closes on September 23rd and then

1:04:07 ↗ we'll tenative issuance of the final Eis

1:04:10 ↗ depending on the comments that we

1:04:11 ↗ receive was planned for September 27th

1:04:14 ↗ or soon after following depending on uh

1:04:17 ↗ the level of comments uh that we need to

1:04:19 ↗ address and then the full comprehensive

1:04:22 ↗ plan is then of adoptive SE December 2nd

1:04:33 ↗ any further

1:04:35 ↗ questions okay great um I do have uh a

1:04:39 ↗ couple questions so the first one is on

1:04:42 ↗ the

1:04:43 ↗ timeline um we have a issuance and then

1:04:47 ↗ we have comprehensive plan adoption by

1:04:50 ↗ Council um so I if Council were to have

1:04:56 ↗ uh edits

1:04:57 ↗ to um or concerns about the presentation

1:05:01 ↗ of the Eis after that was issued is

1:05:05 ↗ there is there any um opportunity

1:05:09 ↗ for feedback from the full Council on

1:05:12 ↗ this or is this basically going to our

1:05:13 ↗ committee and then getting issued and

1:05:15 ↗ then it is is done and goes to full

1:05:21 ↗ Council the intent is primarily just to

1:05:23 ↗ finish the analysis there's no mment of

1:05:26 ↗ policies it uses all the same level of

1:05:28 ↗ services that are established in the

1:05:29 ↗ draft comprensive plan so if there's

1:05:31 ↗ changes to be made it'll probably be to

1:05:33 ↗ the draft comprehensive plan and not to

1:05:34 ↗ the draft Eis since the Eis is just

1:05:37 ↗ primarily just looking at the growth

1:05:38 ↗ alternatives to support the three

1:05:40 ↗ different growth

1:05:42 ↗ Alternatives um but yes the intent is to

1:05:44 ↗ go to update the committee on how the

1:05:47 ↗ draft uh what the results were for the

1:05:49 ↗ draft Eis and then to continue the

1:05:52 ↗ conversation on the draft uh

1:05:54 ↗ comprehensive plan okay so if the full

1:05:58 ↗ committee or full Council rather were to

1:06:02 ↗ uh weigh in that we do have the central

1:06:06 ↗ Isa plan and we um therefore the the

1:06:10 ↗ more the the projection that is more

1:06:13 ↗ aligned with that plan is alternative

1:06:16 ↗ three and wanting to indicate that you

1:06:18 ↗ could we could indicate that in the

1:06:21 ↗ comprehensive plan and that wouldn't be

1:06:24 ↗ in the the environmental impact

1:06:25 ↗ statement

1:06:27 ↗ correct okay um thank you and then um if

1:06:32 ↗ you can go back to the uh chart of

1:06:36 ↗ analysis was a few slides

1:06:43 ↗ back okay this one yes this one um so

1:06:48 ↗ I'm wondering how you are thinking about

1:06:52 ↗ for example the second one where it says

1:06:54 ↗ provides capacity for housing at needed

1:06:57 ↗ income levels and then it says yes even

1:06:59 ↗ if we didn't adopt the update to the

1:07:01 ↗ comprehensive plan um and the reason for

1:07:04 ↗ my question is we just had a

1:07:05 ↗ conversation about you know wanting to

1:07:07 ↗ make sure that we were updating the

1:07:08 ↗ housing element to make sure that we are

1:07:10 ↗ addressing the needed income levels so

1:07:12 ↗ if you could if you could just explain

1:07:14 ↗ some of how you're how you're thinking

1:07:16 ↗ about this especially with the not

1:07:18 ↗ adopted comp plan yeah yes so um you are

1:07:24 ↗ still even if you don't adopt your com

1:07:26 ↗ of plan which would not be advisable by

1:07:28 ↗ the way you don't adopt it you're still

1:07:30 ↗ required to update your code

1:07:33 ↗ requirements to allow for the housing at

1:07:37 ↗ the needed comp and you have until I

1:07:40 ↗ believe it's June

1:07:42 ↗ 2025 to make those adoptions your code

1:07:46 ↗ and so this analysis assumes that you

1:07:48 ↗ would go forward in doing that because

1:07:50 ↗ it is required state law you really

1:07:53 ↗ don't have a choice so we had to assume

1:08:01 ↗ that okay thank you do we have any um do

1:08:05 ↗ either of you have any

1:08:08 ↗ questions

1:08:11 ↗ okay

1:08:17 ↗ ccal sorry

1:08:20 ↗ um I had kind of similar questions to

1:08:22 ↗ like you what you started with so so

1:08:25 ↗ Council doesn't adopt the deis is that

1:08:29 ↗ okay so I guess I'm struggling to

1:08:31 ↗ understand what the policy what our role

1:08:34 ↗ is the role with this was primarily just

1:08:36 ↗ to update you on what we found with the

1:08:39 ↗ analysis with the draft Eis to show that

1:08:42 ↗ when going through the the analysis of

1:08:44 ↗ the three different growth Alternatives

1:08:46 ↗ we didn't find a need for any policy

1:08:48 ↗ changes because everything that we have

1:08:50 ↗ zoned for and planned for is already

1:08:53 ↗ accommodated even with the expanded

1:08:55 ↗ growth options that was analyzed under

1:08:57 ↗ the deis so the role is it's primarily

1:09:00 ↗ just a supplementary analysis document

1:09:02 ↗ to the comprehensive

1:09:03 ↗ plan and then can you also talk about

1:09:05 ↗ how during the public comment period how

1:09:07 ↗ comments are

1:09:10 ↗ addressed in the um issuance of the

1:09:13 ↗ final Eis will be addressing all

1:09:15 ↗ comments that we received as part of the

1:09:17 ↗ draft Eis and making any changes and

1:09:19 ↗ address and calling those out um if if

1:09:23 ↗ changes are warranted so is it similar

1:09:25 ↗ to the m the public comment Matrix that

1:09:27 ↗ we put together in terms of like this

1:09:29 ↗ was this was good feedback we

1:09:31 ↗ incorporated this this we thought was

1:09:33 ↗ accomplished in this way already so on

1:09:35 ↗ and so forth yes it'll be very similar

1:09:37 ↗ okay thank

1:09:42 ↗ you okay thank you

1:09:45 ↗ um not not seeing any questions okay um

1:09:50 ↗ then we will go to public comment I will

1:09:52 ↗ check in if there are any members of the

1:09:54 ↗ public that would like to make comment

1:09:55 ↗ on this

1:09:58 ↗ item H welcome

1:10:02 ↗ back so again many comprehensive plans

1:10:06 ↗ later we have for many years had

1:10:10 ↗ comprehensive plans that don't really

1:10:12 ↗ guide us we get to pick and choose

1:10:14 ↗ whatever we want and we use the language

1:10:16 ↗ in the comprehensive plan to support

1:10:18 ↗ whatever it is that we want because

1:10:22 ↗ there is no

1:10:23 ↗ focus and so so um well we have

1:10:28 ↗ near-term focus in a strategic plan and

1:10:31 ↗ some of our other functional

1:10:35 ↗ plans there's the

1:10:37 ↗ linkage getting us from comp plan to

1:10:43 ↗ reality never works my brain scrunched

1:10:46 ↗ when when Stephen said we are going to

1:10:49 ↗ have better linkage from comp plan to

1:10:53 ↗ code and I'm going well wait a second

1:10:56 ↗ that isn't actually our pathway our

1:10:58 ↗ pathway is through our functional plans

1:11:00 ↗ and then we narrow down where we want to

1:11:02 ↗ go through our strategic plans so given

1:11:06 ↗ the sky is the limit of our typical uh

1:11:09 ↗ comprehensive plan I would highly

1:11:11 ↗ encourage trying to whittle it down for

1:11:15 ↗ more Focus for what we want for the city

1:11:17 ↗ in 20 years because we found that 20

1:11:19 ↗ years isn't really all that far

1:11:21 ↗ especially when we're looking at

1:11:23 ↗ transportation and so if if you looked

1:11:26 ↗ at the deis and you looked at the

1:11:28 ↗ project lists that they say we need to

1:11:32 ↗ achieve in order to get our level of

1:11:35 ↗ service D for

1:11:36 ↗ transportation for alternative three you

1:11:40 ↗ will see that that is our future project

1:11:43 ↗ list that has never been through that

1:11:45 ↗ Criterion analysis to be in the tip so

1:11:50 ↗ it is irrespective of climate

1:11:52 ↗ environment or all of these different

1:11:55 ↗ things things that we pick and choose to

1:11:57 ↗ prioritize our transportation projects

1:12:00 ↗ and then I'm going to use the r-word and

1:12:02 ↗ the RW is

1:12:04 ↗ reality if we think that we are going to

1:12:07 ↗ achieve that list of projects we are out

1:12:12 ↗ of our minds because there is just

1:12:15 ↗ simply no way that those projects will

1:12:19 ↗ happen and Light

1:12:22 ↗ Rail right so what I would suggest

1:12:26 ↗ is um look at the level of

1:12:30 ↗ services that are in this draft Eis and

1:12:34 ↗ scan them through the financial

1:12:37 ↗ realities of life and say self wow what

1:12:42 ↗ does this really mean issaqua can be and

1:12:44 ↗ should be given 20 years and then gel

1:12:48 ↗ down on a focus of what we can do and

1:12:52 ↗ what can happen and right now it's

1:12:54 ↗ fiction and fiction really doesn't help

1:12:57 ↗ and it's not going to help us plan and

1:12:58 ↗ it'll be another document on the Shelf

1:13:01 ↗ so

1:13:03 ↗ um I mean we we we don't have more than

1:13:06 ↗ $200 million to spend just on

1:13:08 ↗ Transportation parks department is

1:13:10 ↗ looking at 28 million for two pedestrian

1:13:13 ↗ Crossings on each side of I90 if we're

1:13:15 ↗ looking at all these projects we should

1:13:17 ↗ have a lid but we don't have those

1:13:19 ↗ conversations and we need to have them

1:13:21 ↗ before you do a deis they just have not

1:13:24 ↗ occurred as they should have as we have

1:13:26 ↗ built this comprehensive plan so I think

1:13:30 ↗ I think if we want a good comprehensive

1:13:31 ↗ plan you're going to have to have them

1:13:33 ↗ and if you want a comprehensive plan

1:13:35 ↗ that's like all the rest of that we've

1:13:37 ↗ had where we pick and choose whatever we

1:13:39 ↗ want uh go forth and Conquer but it

1:13:41 ↗ won't

1:13:46 ↗ help thank you Connie CL keer is there

1:13:49 ↗ any members of the public um online that

1:13:52 ↗ might want to comment we do know how

1:13:54 ↗ I've have a few members of the public

1:13:56 ↗ with us online but I don't see that

1:13:58 ↗ either of them are indicating a desire

1:14:00 ↗ to speak at this time

1:14:03 ↗ okay one minute just to

1:14:10 ↗ see okay um I will mention we can be

1:14:14 ↗ reached with email um at any time as

1:14:18 ↗ well if you would like to comment on

1:14:20 ↗ this or other Council business um and we

1:14:25 ↗ don't have any specific um I believe we

1:14:28 ↗ don't have any specific questions that

1:14:30 ↗ we are being asked to address um but we

1:14:33 ↗ can provide

1:14:35 ↗ feedback and I think specifically uh one

1:14:38 ↗ of the things that we could provide

1:14:40 ↗ feedback on are the Alternatives um we

1:14:43 ↗ previously in this committee did suggest

1:14:47 ↗ alternatives for the Eis and um and so

1:14:51 ↗ we could provide feedback on that if you

1:14:53 ↗ would like

1:14:55 ↗ council president

1:14:56 ↗ wassh yeah thank you yeah I still

1:14:59 ↗ struggle with this idea of creating

1:15:03 ↗ Alternatives

1:15:06 ↗ without solidifying

1:15:09 ↗ on what gets us so if you think about

1:15:12 ↗ okay what's our goal our goal is to be

1:15:15 ↗ able to get around town to have

1:15:16 ↗ livability to have housing you know all

1:15:20 ↗ of those things and we when we look at

1:15:22 ↗ the Matrix of how do we accomplish those

1:15:26 ↗ things like yes technically we have the

1:15:30 ↗ capacity even if we don't do anything

1:15:33 ↗ with a comprehensive plan because we

1:15:35 ↗ upzoned in order to create the central

1:15:37 ↗ Isa plan so yes technically we have the

1:15:42 ↗ capacity there but the reality of does

1:15:48 ↗ that accomplish our goals is still

1:15:52 ↗ missing with this so I'm still

1:15:54 ↗ struggling with this idea

1:15:56 ↗ of creating one alternative which

1:16:00 ↗ spreads the peanut butter where we know

1:16:04 ↗ that doing so is going to be financially

1:16:09 ↗ imprudent

1:16:10 ↗ versus having an area with more density

1:16:15 ↗ that serves more people with

1:16:18 ↗ infrastructure that can pay for

1:16:21 ↗ itself because there's enough tax

1:16:25 ↗ revenue from having multif family

1:16:28 ↗ housing um

1:16:31 ↗ so how do I get through that struggle

1:16:36 ↗ recognizing that if we don't ad adopt

1:16:41 ↗ you know an alternative we are

1:16:44 ↗ potentially just kicking the ball down

1:16:46 ↗ the road taking the can down the road I

1:16:49 ↗ guess the phrase

1:16:51 ↗ is related to our financial security is

1:16:55 ↗ a city let

1:16:56 ↗ alone what we envision for our

1:17:01 ↗ community big

1:17:06 ↗ question Andy do you have thoughts in

1:17:08 ↗ terms of how we address what the final

1:17:13 ↗ Eis are there implications with the city

1:17:16 ↗ choosing a preferred

1:17:18 ↗ alternative

1:17:21 ↗ with um this draft Eis

1:17:29 ↗ do you want me to weigh in at all

1:17:33 ↗ yeah

1:17:34 ↗ okay um there's a little bit of a of a

1:17:38 ↗ challenge in that your zoning would

1:17:41 ↗ allow grow to happen in either

1:17:45 ↗ Manner and so I do think

1:17:49 ↗ that you know you could show a leaning

1:17:52 ↗ towards policy that

1:17:56 ↗ focuses growth in Central isqua and you

1:18:01 ↗ know that the city will continue to

1:18:03 ↗ support that

1:18:04 ↗ growth invest in that area for

1:18:07 ↗ growth um and then when growth happens

1:18:10 ↗ outside of that that area such as the

1:18:12 ↗ villages those projects would need to be

1:18:15 ↗ you know really um evaluated to see how

1:18:18 ↗ they're covering their own costs and

1:18:21 ↗ needs for the growth to happen so so um

1:18:26 ↗ I don't know that you can say no you

1:18:29 ↗ can't grow in The Villages but I think

1:18:31 ↗ you

1:18:33 ↗ can um advocate for policies and growth

1:18:36 ↗ and support investments in central Esa

1:18:39 ↗ to try to focus more growth there if

1:18:42 ↗ that makes sense to try to catalyze

1:18:44 ↗ incentivize growth that happen

1:18:51 ↗ there so maybe my question is

1:18:56 ↗ is is it possible to have two

1:18:59 ↗ Alternatives in an Eis and have policy

1:19:03 ↗ language which indicates you know more

1:19:06 ↗ of a desire for centralization and

1:19:10 ↗ things like that is is that the way to

1:19:13 ↗ accomplish

1:19:15 ↗ it

1:19:17 ↗ if there is a concept of okay we're

1:19:22 ↗ we're fine

1:19:23 ↗ legally um we've met all of our needs

1:19:27 ↗ with our current zoning and such and so

1:19:32 ↗ the Eis covers the requirements and

1:19:36 ↗ understands what the um implications

1:19:39 ↗ environmentally would

1:19:41 ↗ be so is the best way to

1:19:45 ↗ accomplish that Focus then through

1:19:48 ↗ policy even if we don't

1:19:51 ↗ have a chosen alternative

1:19:57 ↗ well in the the draft the draft

1:19:59 ↗ comprehensive plan we actually have

1:20:01 ↗ multiple policies that call out

1:20:03 ↗ prioritizing investments in central

1:20:05 ↗ isqua so I think we make that preference

1:20:07 ↗ already within the policies in the draft

1:20:09 ↗ comprehensive

1:20:10 ↗ plan the way we see a lot of the draft

1:20:13 ↗ Eis telling us

1:20:15 ↗ is in the full buildout of what

1:20:18 ↗ centralis squa imagined in that sea

1:20:20 ↗ process that was a much higher growth

1:20:23 ↗ alternative that was analyzed within

1:20:25 ↗ that sea process that we're not getting

1:20:28 ↗ to in this and what we're showing with

1:20:29 ↗ this is we don't need actually it's not

1:20:33 ↗ so much that we need more projects to

1:20:35 ↗ get to that growth these different

1:20:37 ↗ alternatives are showing us the projects

1:20:39 ↗ we don't need to get to those different

1:20:41 ↗ levels of growth so at the lower growth

1:20:43 ↗ Alternatives there's a series of

1:20:45 ↗ projects that we don't need to invest in

1:20:48 ↗ that shows a lower investment need from

1:20:52 ↗ the city so getting to your financial

1:20:54 ↗ point of what the city is going to need

1:20:55 ↗ to invest in the alternative two doesn't

1:20:59 ↗ need the same level investment as

1:21:00 ↗ alternative three and so it shows us

1:21:02 ↗ what those difference in Investments

1:21:04 ↗ would be for the different topic

1:21:07 ↗ areas so that's at least a lot of the

1:21:09 ↗ information we got from the draft Eis

1:21:11 ↗ more so than if a PR preferred

1:21:13 ↗ alternative might be able

1:21:15 ↗ to benefit us through this Eis

1:21:20 ↗ analysis okay

1:21:30 ↗ can you remind me this is going to is

1:21:32 ↗ this going to PPC or this is

1:21:35 ↗ going PPC did get a presentation on the

1:21:38 ↗ the full draft Eis last month okay and

1:21:41 ↗ then the or in uh July and then they're

1:21:44 ↗ having the public hearing on the draft

1:21:46 ↗ theis this Thursday okay

1:21:50 ↗ um one one thing that I think would be

1:21:54 ↗ helpful if it's possible for that review

1:21:57 ↗ and maybe also for the public is the the

1:22:02 ↗ chart with the different summary you

1:22:05 ↗ know the housing impacts and the

1:22:07 ↗ environmental impacts and where it says

1:22:09 ↗ that alternative three is more

1:22:11 ↗ efficient um most of that is not

1:22:14 ↗ providing additional information about

1:22:16 ↗ the differences between the Alternatives

1:22:18 ↗ there is a lot more information in the

1:22:21 ↗ actual draft e document and so I

1:22:24 ↗ wondered if those could be um you know

1:22:27 ↗ if differences could be pulled out a

1:22:30 ↗ little bit there um for example the the

1:22:34 ↗ housing uh you know would this meet our

1:22:36 ↗ affordable housing needs under the three

1:22:39 ↗ Alternatives I think it's uh I think

1:22:43 ↗ saying that we would meet them because

1:22:45 ↗ we would have to comply with with the

1:22:48 ↗ law you know I think that just

1:22:49 ↗ explaining that this is the one that

1:22:51 ↗ would meet our would better meet our

1:22:53 ↗ stated policies elsewhere and our

1:22:56 ↗ housing strategy Etc so that you can

1:22:58 ↗ differentiate between the different

1:22:59 ↗ Alternatives and I think I think the

1:23:01 ↗ language and the uh explanation of the

1:23:04 ↗ differences is in there but it's not in

1:23:06 ↗ a kind of condensed digestible format um

1:23:10 ↗ like that table could be if it had a

1:23:12 ↗ little bit more

1:23:13 ↗ information um I I too sort of struggle

1:23:17 ↗ with the the concept overall we do have

1:23:19 ↗ a central isqua plan where we and a

1:23:22 ↗ regional growth Center so we have plans

1:23:24 ↗ and policies in place setting us down a

1:23:29 ↗ track where we

1:23:31 ↗ are um planning for and incentivizing

1:23:35 ↗ growth um in the urban core and so uh

1:23:40 ↗ having having this analysis of a policy

1:23:44 ↗ or a future in which we don't even adopt

1:23:47 ↗ this current plan which while I

1:23:49 ↗ understand it's required um you know is

1:23:51 ↗ not particularly helpful so then we look

1:23:53 ↗ at the other two and one does seem much

1:23:56 ↗ more alternative three seems more

1:23:58 ↗ aligned with our current um policies and

1:24:02 ↗ and planning

1:24:04 ↗ um so I it seems to me like focusing on

1:24:07 ↗ the impacts of that one when we review

1:24:11 ↗ the comp plan um for

1:24:15 ↗ consistency is maybe is maybe the way to

1:24:18 ↗ think about this but I I agree with

1:24:20 ↗ council president Walsh that it's it's

1:24:22 ↗ confusing to try to consider this

1:24:24 ↗ particular element uh somewhat on its

1:24:32 ↗ own we have any other feedback on

1:24:44 ↗ this council president was yeah um I

1:24:47 ↗ really appreciated

1:24:50 ↗ the um analysis of what portion of our

1:24:54 ↗ land could have um like the additional

1:24:59 ↗ Adu or um that would meet with um it was

1:25:04 ↗ 1220 or 1110 like the concept of we're

1:25:08 ↗ not looking at all of our property and

1:25:11 ↗ saying you know 5% of them are going to

1:25:16 ↗ pot have the potential for an Adu so I

1:25:18 ↗ really thought that um set of maps that

1:25:23 ↗ kind of look looked at it created more

1:25:27 ↗ confidence in me of oh okay so what

1:25:30 ↗ we're looking at isn't a scenario where

1:25:34 ↗ we necessarily see this everywhere um so

1:25:38 ↗ I just wanted to at least call that out

1:25:40 ↗ and say that was really helpful for me

1:25:43 ↗ in looking at kind of the data and the

1:25:48 ↗ possibility behind the Alternatives

1:25:50 ↗ considering um the state changes

1:26:03 ↗ we have any additional feedback on this

1:26:06 ↗ item no

1:26:11 ↗ okay um so I think in

1:26:14 ↗ summary it's it's a difficult uh it's

1:26:18 ↗ difficult to assess on its own so per

1:26:20 ↗ perhaps explaining more about the

1:26:22 ↗ implications of the different

1:26:24 ↗ um the different

1:26:26 ↗ Alternatives uh and I I do think that

1:26:28 ↗ that language is in the draft Eis if you

1:26:32 ↗ look at the mitigation measures but

1:26:33 ↗ there's a lot of other information

1:26:36 ↗ throughout um so if those were pulled

1:26:38 ↗ out for the public um I think that would

1:26:41 ↗ help in in differentiating the different

1:26:44 ↗ items um I do think alternative three is

1:26:48 ↗ the one that is currently most aligned

1:26:51 ↗ with our existing policies and so as we

1:26:53 ↗ review the the comprehensive plan I

1:26:55 ↗ think we can make sure that that's that

1:26:57 ↗ the implications of that alternative in

1:26:59 ↗ particular are are reflected um

1:27:04 ↗ and I did I miss any of your comments

1:27:08 ↗ council president wle you would like it

1:27:10 ↗ okay um so I think that's our comments

1:27:12 ↗ do you have what you need to for this

1:27:14 ↗ item we do thank you

1:27:17 ↗ okay all right thank you um and thank

1:27:20 ↗ you Mandy as well um so that concludes

1:27:23 ↗ our second item do we have any

1:27:27 ↗ announcements all right that was our

1:27:28 ↗ second of two items then so um there

1:27:32 ↗ being no further business this meeting

1:27:34 ↗ is concluded at 7:58 p.m. thank you good

1:27:37 ↗ evening

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Victoria Hunt

Lindsey Walsh

Zach Hall

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Tisha Gieser, Deputy City Clerk

Audience commenters (1)

Connie Marsh

Recommendations & actions (2)

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

Committee feedback included:  Requested all changes be in the matrix or the track changes document when this returns to the Committee as well as why the changes were made.
No specific feedback was requested of the Committee on this topic.