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

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