City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, February 3, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee Regular Meeting, October 7, 2025

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 2:26 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-07-25 City Council Planning, Development & Page 01 Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. October 7, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Early Learning Facilities: Fee Waiver COM 0213

30 min · Christen Leeson, Planning Manager · packet pp.7–36

Topics: BudgetSchools

▶ Watch from 0:38 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends exempting early learning facilities from 80% of traffic

2026 Docket of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments COM 0194

30 min · Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner · packet pp.37–61

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 8, 2026

▶ Watch from 1:09 Open packet at p.37 ↗

Staff report:

The State Growth Management Act requires that certain counties and the cities within those counties adopt comprehensive plans. By state law, comprehensive plans may only be amended once a year, with major periodic updates required every ten years. The Issaquah Municipal Code establishes procedures for the review and determination of a Docket of comprehensive plan amendment proposals (IMC 18.104.050), including requirements for the City Council to approve a Docket before work can begin on analyzing and drafting amendments for potential adoption. Once City Council adopts the final Docket, items may be removed but they may not be added.

2024 Greenhouse Gas Inventory & 2026 Climate Plan Update COM 0204

45 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.63–138

Topics: Climate

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 6, 2021

▶ Watch from 1:40 Open packet at p.63 ↗

Staff report:

Direction Needed from Council Staff seek direction from the Committee on the review and adoption pathway for the 2026 Issaquah Climate Action Plan. Staff propose two options for consideration: one pathway through the Committee of the Whole; one pathway through the PDE Committee.

3138 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ Tim, are we ready to start the meeting?

0:15 ↗ >> Great.

0:17 ↗ Welcome everyone. I, Council Member Jen,

0:19 ↗ call the February 3rd, 2026 City Council

0:21 ↗ Planning, Development, and Environment

0:23 ↗ Committee to order. There are no excused

0:25 ↗ absences. And the next item on the

0:27 ↗ agenda is public comment. Um, so we do

0:30 ↗ have some members of the public with us

0:32 ↗ in the audience today. Public comment.

0:33 ↗ This is an opportunity to provide

0:35 ↗ general comments. There will also be an

0:37 ↗ opportunity for public comments on each

0:38 ↗ agenda item after the presentation and

0:41 ↗ the committee's question and answer

0:42 ↗ period. Comments can be made in person

0:44 ↗ or virtually. Those who have signed up

0:46 ↗ in advance will be called on first. If

0:48 ↗ you're joining us virtually and would

0:49 ↗ like to make comments, please raise your

0:51 ↗ virtual hand or send the host a chat

0:52 ↗ message. If you're on the phone, press

0:54 ↗ star three. If you have joined by

0:56 ↗ computer or smartphone, look for hand

0:57 ↗ icon. Uh, if you are in the room and did

1:00 ↗ not sign up, there will be an

1:01 ↗ opportunity for you to raise your hand

1:02 ↗ if you'd like to speak before I close

1:04 ↗ this portion of the meeting. Clerk, has

1:06 ↗ anyone signed up to speak or indicated a

1:08 ↗ desire to speak this evening?

1:10 ↗ >> Yes, chair.

1:11 ↗ >> Great.

1:12 ↗ Um, okay. So, for those of you who are

1:15 ↗ here to make comments, we welcome

1:17 ↗ comments related to Isiqua's programs,

1:19 ↗ projects, services, or events. Comments

1:21 ↗ related to political campaigns are not

1:23 ↗ permitted when you're called on. For

1:24 ↗ virtual attendees, unmute your

1:26 ↗ microphone. For inerson attendees, step

1:28 ↗ up to the lectern and turn on the button

1:29 ↗ on the microphone. So, there's a button

1:31 ↗ at the bottom which will display a red

1:32 ↗ light. So, that turns the microphone on.

1:34 ↗ State your name and address or

1:36 ↗ relationship to the city. Speak clearly

1:38 ↗ and limit your comments to 3 to 5

1:39 ↗ minutes. And we're thankful for everyone

1:42 ↗ for sharing their input with us. So,

1:44 ↗ clerk um who's the first commenter?

1:48 ↗ >> Uh I have uh and I apologize if I say

1:51 ↗ this wrong. Uh Mahesh. Uh, Rebecca, were

1:53 ↗ you here to speak tonight for general

1:55 ↗ public comment or for an agenda item?

1:58 ↗ >> An agenda item. Okay. Um,

2:02 ↗ Verender Ma man, were you also here to

2:06 ↗ speak in general um tonight or to an

2:08 ↗ agenda item?

2:09 ↗ >> Agenda item. Okay. Then chair, I have uh

2:12 ↗ no one here to speak for general public

2:13 ↗ comment.

2:16 ↗ >> Great. Um

2:18 ↗ if there's no general comments then uh

2:20 ↗ the comments and specific agenda items

2:22 ↗ will be after the council's question and

2:23 ↗ answer period. Um so the next item on

2:26 ↗ the agenda is approval of the minutes.

2:28 ↗ The minutes were distributed to the

2:29 ↗ committee advance in advance. Are there

2:31 ↗ any corrections?

2:35 ↗ If no hearing none the minutes are

2:37 ↗ approved as presented.

2:41 ↗ Uh, the next item of business is COM

2:44 ↗ 0213, early learning facilities fee

2:46 ↗ waver. And I'll hand it over to Kristen

2:48 ↗ Leon, planning manager, to present this

2:50 ↗ item,

2:58 ↗ >> Kristen, take it away.

2:59 ↗ >> All right. Thank you for your patience

3:01 ↗ while I got set up. My name is Kristen

3:03 ↗ Leon. I'm the planning manager for

3:05 ↗ community de community planning and

3:06 ↗ development department. and we're here

3:08 ↗ to talk about potentially waving traffic

3:10 ↗ impact fees for early learning centers.

3:20 ↗ So we have two questions

3:22 ↗ and issues to talk about tonight. Is one

3:25 ↗ does the committee agree with waving

3:27 ↗ traffic impact fees for early learning

3:29 ↗ centers? And the other is is the

3:32 ↗ committee interesting interested in

3:34 ↗ expanding fee waiverss to parks and fire

3:39 ↗ impact fees as well.

3:42 ↗ So, just a reminder that an impact fee

3:46 ↗ is a one-time payment against a

3:48 ↗ development or redevelopment that is

3:51 ↗ used to pay for public services such as

3:55 ↗ roads, parks, fire, and fire services

3:57 ↗ and schools. Um, it is proportional to

4:01 ↗ the amount of the impact that the

4:02 ↗ development will have on the city

4:04 ↗ system.

4:06 ↗ And lastly, when it comes to traffic

4:08 ↗ impact fees, any previous trips are

4:10 ↗ excluded from calculations from new

4:12 ↗ development.

4:15 ↗ So what we have found lately and the

4:17 ↗ reason we are bringing this to you is

4:19 ↗ that traffic impact fees have found to

4:22 ↗ be have been found to be a can be a

4:25 ↗ financial impediment or burden toward

4:27 ↗ the development of early family earning

4:28 ↗ early family or I'm sorry early learning

4:33 ↗ facilities in the city.

4:36 ↗ And as an example, we have here some of

4:38 ↗ the sample fees. So the one on the top

4:40 ↗ was a daycare center that opened in

4:42 ↗ 2025. Its traffic impact fees were about

4:45 ↗ 120,000. Its park fees were $2,200 and

4:49 ↗ its fire fees were $410.

4:53 ↗ In contrast, the a proposed development

4:55 ↗ that we have in place is for 180

4:57 ↗ students. The other one was for 60, but

4:59 ↗ the traffic impact fees would be almost

5:01 ↗ $380,000.

5:03 ↗ Parks are similar, about $2,300, and

5:06 ↗ fire would be just over $11,000. So, as

5:09 ↗ you can see, the traffic impact fees are

5:12 ↗ significantly more than the fire and

5:14 ↗ park fees that are charged toward

5:15 ↗ developments.

5:18 ↗ Thankfully, the state waves allows for

5:21 ↗ fee waivers for these. So, there are two

5:25 ↗ different options here for the fee

5:27 ↗ waivers. You can either do an 80% fee

5:30 ↗ waiver of the impact fees, which is

5:32 ↗ simple. It's just a flat simple 80%

5:35 ↗ wave. That's it. The other option is

5:37 ↗ that you can do a 100% fee waiver. If

5:40 ↗ that is done, um again, just like the

5:43 ↗ other one, it's simple. No public fees

5:45 ↗ are required to repay the 20, you know,

5:47 ↗ 20%. Typically, if you wave 100 for for

5:51 ↗ affordable housing, if you wave 100% of

5:53 ↗ the fees, the city or the government has

5:57 ↗ to use public funds to repay 20% of

5:59 ↗ that. That doesn't that is not the case

6:01 ↗ with early learning facilities.

6:04 ↗ However, if you wave 100% of the fees, a

6:08 ↗ covenant is required to be recorded with

6:10 ↗ the property ensuring that 25% of the

6:12 ↗ enrolled students and families qualify

6:15 ↗ for state subsidized child care. If this

6:19 ↗ use is converted to another use, then

6:21 ↗ all of the impact fees that apply to

6:25 ↗ this property must be repaid to the

6:27 ↗ city. And if anytime during the year if

6:30 ↗ the required number of 25% of the

6:32 ↗ families and students falls below 25%

6:35 ↗ then 20% of what would have been the

6:37 ↗ total impact fees also has to be repaid

6:40 ↗ to the city.

6:43 ↗ So we have three options here. Uh the

6:45 ↗ first one is to just not wave the fees

6:48 ↗ and keep it as it is. The second is to

6:52 ↗ wave 100% of the traffic impact fees,

6:55 ↗ which then becomes a financial burden on

6:57 ↗ the city and that we have to find public

6:58 ↗ funds to repay 20% of that. And the

7:01 ↗ other option, which staff is

7:02 ↗ recommending, is to wave 80% of the fees

7:05 ↗ and just keep it clean and simple.

7:08 ↗ If the committee chooses to expand that

7:12 ↗ and move it to park and fire impact fees

7:16 ↗ as well, then option one, again, clean

7:19 ↗ and simple.

7:21 ↗ Option two, wave 100% of the parks and

7:24 ↗ impact fire fees. And again, you have to

7:27 ↗ repay 20% of that from public funds. And

7:30 ↗ option three, which is the one that this

7:32 ↗ administration recommends, is to just

7:34 ↗ not wave the parks and impact fees

7:36 ↗ because it's com relative to the traffic

7:40 ↗ impact fees, it's much much smaller.

7:45 ↗ So, the administration's recommendation

7:47 ↗ is to exempt early learning facilities

7:50 ↗ from 80% of traffic impact fees and move

7:52 ↗ this item forward to a regular council

7:55 ↗ meeting for consideration.

7:57 ↗ And if the committee opts to move it

7:59 ↗ forward tonight, it would go to the

8:01 ↗ February 23rd regular council meeting

8:04 ↗ for consideration.

8:06 ↗ And that is that is my presentation.

8:08 ↗ Have any answer any questions?

8:12 ↗ >> Are there any questions from the

8:14 ↗ committee on this item?

8:17 ↗ >> Uh, council member Martz.

8:19 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh, did this go before any

8:21 ↗ boards or commissions for review?

8:23 ↗ >> It did not.

8:24 ↗ >> All right. Thank you.

8:29 ↗ Uh, first just a clarifying question.

8:31 ↗ Uh, do I need to be called on? Sorry.

8:33 ↗ Okay, good. Sorry. Um, I'm new here. Um,

8:37 ↗ I think you I think you said the city

8:39 ↗ would be liable for or would be uh

8:41 ↗ required to pay back something under the

8:43 ↗ 100% fee waiver situation. I don't see

8:45 ↗ that in the slides though. So, can you

8:47 ↗ elaborate on that?

8:48 ↗ >> Yes.

8:50 ↗ So,

8:52 ↗ I didn't spell it out. It's It's spelled

8:54 ↗ out a little bit more in the memo, but

8:57 ↗ might There we go. It says no public

9:00 ↗ under the 100% fee waiver, it says no

9:03 ↗ public funds are required for exempted

9:04 ↗ fees. So, under affordable housing fee

9:07 ↗ waivers, if you wave a 100% of the fees,

9:10 ↗ I probably just shouldn't have included

9:11 ↗ this at all because it's moot for both

9:13 ↗ examples, but if if you wave 100% of the

9:16 ↗ affordable housing fees, jurisdictions

9:18 ↗ are required to repay, you're allowed to

9:21 ↗ wave 80% free and clear, but the city

9:24 ↗ has to repay 20%

9:27 ↗ out of public funds other than capital

9:29 ↗ funds back to itself to cover that other

9:32 ↗ 20%.

9:34 ↗ Pardon me.

9:37 ↗ >> No, the the No, I I'm talking Yes. Yes.

9:40 ↗ So, you're you're asking about what does

9:43 ↗ the city have to do if we wave 100%.

9:45 ↗ Correct. And the city would if we waved

9:48 ↗ 100% under affordable housing would have

9:50 ↗ to repay 20% of the waved fees back to

9:54 ↗ ourselves. And I, like I said, I should

9:56 ↗ have just left it out of this because in

9:58 ↗ neither situation does the city have to

10:00 ↗ repay itself any fees. So that's just

10:02 ↗ moot here. So I apologize for the

10:04 ↗ confusion.

10:06 ↗ >> Okay. Could So it does not the city

10:09 ↗ would not in any situation have to repay

10:11 ↗ the fees. Is that what you're saying?

10:12 ↗ >> Correct.

10:14 ↗ >> Okay.

10:24 ↗ Any other questions?

10:25 ↗ >> I guess I have I guess I have to call

10:27 ↗ myself. Sorry, I'm new here as chair. Um

10:30 ↗ so my question is are there other

10:32 ↗ jurisdictions that have done um these

10:35 ↗ early learning facility fee wavers? I

10:37 ↗ know that you know in I believe in

10:39 ↗ Isiquan and many other cities there's

10:41 ↗ fee wavers for affordable housing

10:43 ↗ >> there are um let's see

10:48 ↗ I put that in here.

10:50 ↗ Uh yes so uh De Moines has a 50% waiver.

10:57 ↗ Blaine and Tacoma have an 80% waiver.

11:00 ↗ Shoreline has a 100% waiver of fees and

11:03 ↗ Mount Lake Terrace has a 100% waiver or

11:06 ↗ whatever is proportionate to the number

11:07 ↗ of enrolled students. So if 50% apply,

11:10 ↗ they would comply with you know are

11:13 ↗ eligible for um services then they would

11:17 ↗ wave a 50% fee.

11:21 ↗ >> Um okay, one more random question. So on

11:24 ↗ the slide where you showed the breakdown

11:25 ↗ in fees between the two different

11:26 ↗ facilities, it seemed like the traffic

11:28 ↗ fee was, you know, roughly proportionate

11:30 ↗ to the number of students. Like, you

11:32 ↗ know, it's three times as high for 180

11:33 ↗ students versus 60 students. Why is the

11:35 ↗ fire fee so drastically different

11:37 ↗ between these two? And why is parks the

11:39 ↗ same?

11:39 ↗ >> Fire impact fees, if I'm correct, went

11:41 ↗ way up this year.

11:42 ↗ >> Yeah.

11:42 ↗ >> And that's why because the other one,

11:44 ↗ their building permit was issued prior

11:47 ↗ to the new impact fee

11:49 ↗ >> schedule.

11:50 ↗ >> Yeah.

11:51 ↗ >> So it was a lot lower. We did talk about

11:52 ↗ the fire impact fees last year. So that

11:55 ↗ make makes sense that it's just due to

11:56 ↗ timing issue. Okay. Thank you.

12:01 ↗ >> Council member Martz.

12:03 ↗ >> So, uh, I'm going to ask you to

12:05 ↗ speculate, and if you're not comfortable

12:06 ↗ speculating, you can phone a friend, but

12:08 ↗ why don't any other cities on the east

12:10 ↗ side do anything like this? Why don't

12:11 ↗ our our friends to the north that we

12:14 ↗ tend to model ourselves on, Redmond and

12:15 ↗ Kirkland? You know, this this wasn't

12:18 ↗ adopted for early learning facilities

12:20 ↗ until 2023.

12:22 ↗ >> And my guess, I am going to speculate,

12:25 ↗ is that a lot of people just don't know

12:26 ↗ about it.

12:27 ↗ >> We're just cooler than they are.

12:28 ↗ >> We are so cool.

12:29 ↗ >> Okay. Yes,

12:30 ↗ >> I like that answer. Thank you.

12:34 ↗ >> Any other questions from the committee?

12:38 ↗ Council member Nichols.

12:40 ↗ >> Uh, one more. What did the the center

12:42 ↗ request as far as a waiver? What

12:44 ↗ percentage?

12:45 ↗ >> All right. What is the

12:46 ↗ >> what did I assume they requested a

12:48 ↗ waiver of some kind. What percentage did

12:50 ↗ they did they request?

12:50 ↗ >> The applicant is here tonight and

12:52 ↗ they're going to speak to that but they

12:54 ↗ they are going to request 100% fee

12:56 ↗ waiver.

13:03 ↗ >> Great. Any other questions?

13:05 ↗ Uh

13:07 ↗ if there's no more questions from the

13:09 ↗ committee, the committee will now accept

13:10 ↗ public comments about this agenda item.

13:12 ↗ As stated earlier, comments can be made

13:14 ↗ in person or virtually. Those who have

13:16 ↗ signed up in advance will be called on

13:17 ↗ first. Um, if you're joining virtually

13:20 ↗ and would like to make comments, please

13:21 ↗ raise your virtual hand or send the host

13:22 ↗ a chat message. If you're on the phone,

13:24 ↗ press star three. If you've joined by

13:25 ↗ computer, smartphone, look for hand

13:27 ↗ icon. Um, if you are in the room and did

13:29 ↗ not sign up, there will be an

13:30 ↗ opportunity for you to raise your hand

13:32 ↗ if you'd like to speak before I close

13:33 ↗ this portion of the meeting, but it

13:35 ↗ seems like the people in this room have

13:36 ↗ signed up. Um so clerk has anyone signed

13:39 ↗ up to speak this evening on this agenda

13:42 ↗ item?

13:44 ↗ >> I I believe so shar.

13:45 ↗ >> Okay great

13:47 ↗ >> come up.

13:47 ↗ >> Uh first I have uh Mahesh

13:49 ↗ >> Raaka.

13:52 ↗ Great. Thank you.

13:59 ↗ >> Okay.

14:01 ↗ Good evening council members. Uh my name

14:03 ↗ is Mahesh Raaka and I have been a

14:06 ↗ Washington state resident for over 16

14:08 ↗ years and Ishaka has a special place in

14:10 ↗ my life. This is where I had my first

14:12 ↗ job in the United States.

14:15 ↗ Uh I'm here today as a childare operator

14:17 ↗ and as uh as a someone who wants to

14:20 ↗ invest back into supporting the working

14:23 ↗ families.

14:24 ↗ I'm proposing a building kids care

14:26 ↗ childcare center in Ishakwa focused on

14:29 ↗ infants, toddlers, preschoolers and

14:31 ↗ low-income families and young parents.

14:33 ↗ This center would also create stable

14:36 ↗ jobs for more than 20 local families.

14:39 ↗ And childare is not a luxury. It is an

14:42 ↗ essential infrastructure. When families

14:44 ↗ have childare, parents can work,

14:46 ↗ business can retain employees and

14:48 ↗ children start school early to succeed.

14:51 ↗ So the data shows a clear shortage in

14:54 ↗ Ishakwa. Within a 5 milesi radius there

14:57 ↗ are over 9,000 childrens under six but

15:00 ↗ only about 4,000 licensed childcare

15:02 ↗ seats available in Isakwa. So it clearly

15:05 ↗ says like you know half of the

15:06 ↗ children's doesn't have the access to

15:08 ↗ the child care

15:10 ↗ even before affordability or the weight

15:12 ↗ list are considered. So the biggest gap

15:15 ↗ is actually infant and toddler care.

15:17 ↗ Many centers don't offer it at all which

15:21 ↗ which drives the cost up and puts care

15:23 ↗ out of reach for young parents early in

15:26 ↗ their careers. Ishakqua may be seen as

15:30 ↗ high income but school data tells a

15:32 ↗ different story. In the Ishaka school

15:35 ↗ district about 15% of students are

15:37 ↗ economically disadvantaged.

15:40 ↗ These families already live here and

15:43 ↗ their needs starts way before the

15:45 ↗ kindergarten.

15:47 ↗ At building kids uh Lenwood center we

15:50 ↗ have like you know 30% of the families

15:52 ↗ we serve our lowincome households and we

15:56 ↗ choose to serve infants and toddlers

15:58 ↗ even though it's the hardest and most

16:00 ↗ expensive care to provide. That reflects

16:03 ↗ who we are at the corporate level. The

16:06 ↗ building kids franchiser donates 25% of

16:09 ↗ its profits to support the under

16:11 ↗ underprivileged children. That mission

16:14 ↗ guides how we operate locally. The

16:16 ↗ challenge in Ishakqua is the impact fee

16:19 ↗ which for this project are close to

16:21 ↗ $400,000.

16:22 ↗ Child care centers cannot absorb cost

16:24 ↗ like this and they goes straight into

16:26 ↗ the tions. So making access harder for

16:29 ↗ the families who need it most.

16:32 ↗ That's why we are respectfully asking

16:34 ↗ the council to consider a 100% impact

16:36 ↗ fee reduction. Uh this is not a

16:39 ↗ giveaway. It is a targeted policy

16:41 ↗ decision that treats child care as

16:43 ↗ critical community infrastructure by

16:46 ↗ supporting the families creating the

16:48 ↗ jobs and helping children succeed from

16:50 ↗ very beginning. So thank you for your

16:52 ↗ time and your thoughtful consultations.

16:54 ↗ We sincerely hope the council will

16:56 ↗ consider 100% impact fee reduction for

16:58 ↗ this project. And thank you council

17:00 ↗ members for your service.

17:02 ↗ Thank you.

17:04 ↗ Um,

17:06 ↗ uh, clerk, is there anyone else signed

17:08 ↗ up to speak? I guess

17:10 ↗ >> you're here. So, uh, I'll I'd like to

17:13 ↗ invite you up to, uh, speak.

17:20 ↗ >> Good evening, council members. This is

17:21 ↗ Virinder Man.

17:24 ↗ I'm the one of the coowner for this new

17:26 ↗ preschool we are trying to open. And I'm

17:29 ↗ here tonight

17:31 ↗ because we are converting a office

17:33 ↗ building which has not been used for

17:34 ↗ last one and a half year in our city and

17:38 ↗ we are going to convert into a

17:39 ↗ preschool.

17:41 ↗ However, I hit a wall. That wall is

17:43 ↗ $400,000 wall

17:46 ↗ and that is a remaining impact fees

17:48 ↗ assessment after making a change of use

17:50 ↗ grades as well. While I I do understand

17:53 ↗ the need for infrastructure funding, I'm

17:55 ↗ asking the council to view child care

17:57 ↗ not as a standard commercial

17:58 ↗ development, but as essential social

18:01 ↗ infrastructure our city truly needs.

18:04 ↗ Isaku is already doing incredible work

18:06 ↗ with housing, especially with the

18:08 ↗ affordable housing. We see a trail head

18:11 ↗ project and our partnership,

18:14 ↗ but housing is only half of the

18:15 ↗ affordability equations.

18:18 ↗ If the family has a rent restricted

18:19 ↗ apartments but cannot find accessible

18:22 ↗ care, they are not truly living

18:25 ↗ affordably.

18:26 ↗ A $400,000 impact fees on an adaptive

18:30 ↗ reuse project such as is kind of entry

18:33 ↗ tax for the young families. This massive

18:35 ↗ upfront cost is a single greatest hurdle

18:37 ↗ in preventing us from offering the below

18:40 ↗ market rate slots for our new generation

18:43 ↗ what they need. The precedent for relief

18:46 ↗ is already exist under Isakua municipal

18:48 ↗ code 3.72. We wave the fees for

18:51 ↗ affordable housing because it served the

18:53 ↗ broad purpose for the public.

18:56 ↗ Under RCW82.02.60,

19:00 ↗ the state has granted you explicit

19:02 ↗ authority to do the same for early

19:04 ↗ learning facilities

19:06 ↗ without needing to backfill from our

19:10 ↗ current city budget.

19:12 ↗ I'm asking for a waiver for this balance

19:14 ↗ in exchange for a binding community

19:16 ↗ covenant. We are ready to sign and we

19:18 ↗ will commit to prioritize those families

19:21 ↗ in our city for affordable housing

19:23 ↗ initiative. We are not asking for a

19:25 ↗ gift. We are asking for an investment in

19:28 ↗ the families who make Isakua work.

19:31 ↗ Every dollar saved on this project from

19:33 ↗ the impact fees will directly go to our

19:36 ↗ communities to our families and which

19:40 ↗ will lower the barrier to entry for the

19:41 ↗ Isakqua working parents. Let's make sure

19:44 ↗ Isakqua is not just a place where family

19:47 ↗ can afford to sleep but a place where

19:49 ↗ they can afford to live, work and grow

19:52 ↗ together. Thank you for your time and I

19:54 ↗ look forward to discussing how we can

19:56 ↗ create a specific waiver pathway for

19:59 ↗ early learning in our city. Thank you.

20:04 ↗ >> Thank you so much

20:06 ↗ clerk. Are there any more speakers

20:08 ↗ signed up to speak?

20:10 ↗ >> No, chair. Not at this time.

20:12 ↗ >> Great. Um,

20:15 ↗ council member Jang, may I make one

20:16 ↗ correction?

20:17 ↗ >> Yes.

20:18 ↗ >> I stand corrected on the fire impact

20:19 ↗ fees. Fire impact fees. The impact piece

20:22 ↗ did incre did increase last year due

20:24 ↗ just to inflation. But the bigger

20:25 ↗ difference is that the

20:28 ↗ daycare center or early learning

20:30 ↗ facility that was constructed previously

20:33 ↗ was only 2,000 square feet. The proposed

20:36 ↗ facility here is just over 11,000 square

20:39 ↗ feet. And that is where the difference

20:40 ↗ comes from.

20:41 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

20:44 ↗ Um,

20:46 ↗ okay. At this point, is it more uh

20:49 ↗ question answer? Or is it just uh

20:51 ↗ committee discussion?

20:53 ↗ Committee discussion. Okay.

20:56 ↗ Uh Council Member Nichols, you look like

20:58 ↗ you would like to speak.

21:01 ↗ Also, just process-wise, this is

21:03 ↗ deliberative. Just any comments? Okay.

21:05 ↗ Um

21:08 ↗ so, I have some thoughts on daycare in

21:11 ↗ Isiqua and what the community will

21:13 ↗ benefit from and what these types of

21:16 ↗ fees may prevent. So, I have two kids.

21:19 ↗ um when they were little um we would we

21:23 ↗ were a part of traffic that would take

21:25 ↗ them to child care. The interesting bit

21:28 ↗ about that though is that we drove about

21:30 ↗ a half an hour south to try to get less

21:33 ↗ expensive child care because childcare

21:35 ↗ in Isqua is quite expensive. Um had

21:38 ↗ there been more readily available lowerc

21:41 ↗ cost childare in Isqua we would have not

21:44 ↗ done that and we would have had a lower

21:45 ↗ impact on our traffic. Um, and

21:50 ↗ I think that's probably a generalizable

21:52 ↗ concept. If we can put more tra if we

21:54 ↗ can put more childcare within Isiqua, it

21:58 ↗ I struggle to understand how our impact

22:01 ↗ fees

22:04 ↗ basically gel with that concept. Like

22:06 ↗ this is something that if we put more of

22:07 ↗ it in a squat, we will have less people

22:08 ↗ having to go elsewhere. Um

22:12 ↗ I don't think we are at a situation

22:14 ↗ where we will have enough people going

22:16 ↗ into Isqual where this is a traffic

22:18 ↗ increase. So while I I can see many

22:20 ↗ situations where traffic fees make

22:22 ↗ sense, this in particular just frankly

22:25 ↗ does not to me. Um so if we're if we

22:27 ↗ have a situation where the applicant is

22:29 ↗ requesting a 100% fee waiver um there's

22:32 ↗ there if I understand correctly um there

22:34 ↗ is no impact on the city's fund has to

22:38 ↗ compensate for that except for not

22:40 ↗ getting the impact fees in its in its uh

22:41 ↗ budget. um and they are willing to

22:44 ↗ commit to these requirements that say um

22:48 ↗ that that are quite beneficial to the

22:50 ↗ community as far as uh requiring 25% of

22:53 ↗ the children to qualify for state

22:55 ↗ subsidized childare. This is this is

22:56 ↗ something that's hard and it's hard to

22:57 ↗ find in our community. So, I would I

22:59 ↗ would support a 100% fee waver and I

23:02 ↗ think it's a uh it also raises broader

23:04 ↗ questions as to our fee structures

23:05 ↗ overall as to whether we are

23:07 ↗ appropriately calculating what a traffic

23:10 ↗ impact is relative to the benefit to a

23:12 ↗ community of something like this

23:13 ↗ facility.

23:21 ↗ Well, um, so that argument I think it's

23:26 ↗ also true about hair salons and grocery

23:29 ↗ stores and convenience stores. I think

23:31 ↗ if you have them closer, you don't have

23:32 ↗ to go as far away to get the things that

23:35 ↗ you need. So, I'm not sure

23:38 ↗ um

23:40 ↗ I'm not sure about that particular

23:41 ↗ argument. Bottom line is we don't have

23:43 ↗ enough uh daycare options for working

23:46 ↗ families in our city. Uh I'm in favor of

23:48 ↗ at least 80%. Um I don't know if I'm in

23:51 ↗ favor of 100%.

23:54 ↗ Um I think that these fees are there

23:56 ↗ because businesses do have an impact and

23:59 ↗ we have $350 million of uh unadressed

24:03 ↗ infrastructure. um because the growth

24:05 ↗ that's occurred in our city over the

24:07 ↗ last 30 years, um we've not been able to

24:10 ↗ recoup the costs of that growth. So, I'm

24:12 ↗ I'm

24:14 ↗ a little skeptical of of of going to the

24:18 ↗ point where businesses don't have to pay

24:19 ↗ for any of the uh infrastructure that

24:23 ↗ their that their uh traffic generates.

24:26 ↗ So, I got to think about it. I'm in

24:29 ↗ favor of at least 80. Uh I'm I'm

24:31 ↗ probably not there for 100% yet.

24:34 ↗ Thank you.

24:35 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member MZ. Am I

24:36 ↗ allowed to ask a question in this

24:38 ↗ section? Um, okay. So, um, it says for

24:43 ↗ the 100% fee waiver, there is a required

24:46 ↗ covenant assuring 25% of the children

24:48 ↗ and families qualify for state

24:49 ↗ subsidized child care. Who is in charge

24:52 ↗ of enforcing and um, compliance with

24:54 ↗ this covenant?

24:55 ↗ >> Very good question. Uh, the Department

24:58 ↗ of Children, Youth, and Families

25:01 ↗ monitors that. I believe the daycarees

25:03 ↗ are required to submit their

25:04 ↗ information. They monitor that and if

25:06 ↗ they fall below um I would have to check

25:09 ↗ on this. I don't know if we check

25:11 ↗ annually to see if they still comply or

25:14 ↗ if DCF informs us. I'm not sure which

25:16 ↗ way that goes.

25:17 ↗ >> Okay. And so, you know, if they were to

25:20 ↗ fall out of compliance, then there would

25:22 ↗ be some mechanism by which then, you

25:23 ↗ know, we would potentially collect that

25:26 ↗ waved impact fee. Correct. Okay.

25:30 ↗ Thanks. That's good to know because I

25:31 ↗ think part of my concern with the 100%

25:33 ↗ fee waiver was like, you know, are we

25:35 ↗ going to have to go check every year to

25:37 ↗ make sure they're in compliance and that

25:38 ↗ seems like

25:40 ↗ quite an additional cost for us. Um, is

25:43 ↗ the policy decision today whether to

25:45 ↗ grant a fee waiver to this specific

25:47 ↗ facility or is it about whether we want

25:49 ↗ to grant fee waivers to like childcare

25:52 ↗ facilities at large?

25:55 ↗ >> This would be for all childcare

25:56 ↗ facilities. It would be in the It would

25:58 ↗ be a change to the title three the code

26:00 ↗ and would apply to all facilities.

26:02 ↗ >> Okay.

26:04 ↗ Um any other discussion?

26:07 ↗ >> Yeah, I actually have one more question.

26:08 ↗ I I thought of it before and I just uh I

26:11 ↗ just missed it or I just I didn't come

26:13 ↗ back to it. So if we choose the 100%

26:17 ↗ people can only do the 100% option. They

26:20 ↗ can't do the 80% option.

26:25 ↗ That's a question.

26:27 ↗ I realize that I'm thinking we've had

26:29 ↗ affordable housing in place for so long.

26:31 ↗ We've never done no one's ever asked for

26:32 ↗ a different one.

26:34 ↗ >> I I don't see why we couldn't if

26:36 ↗ somebody wants to pay some.

26:38 ↗ >> The the reason that I ask is there's I

26:40 ↗ have a particular concern. So scenarios

26:42 ↗ that you were going through, you were

26:43 ↗ talking about if somebody wanted to go

26:44 ↗ use a diff do a different use later for

26:47 ↗ that land. Let's say you you go you have

26:49 ↗ a business uh you have a daycare huzzah.

26:51 ↗ It works great. 20 years an entire

26:53 ↗ generation of kids come up. Uh then at

26:56 ↗ the end of that you go to sell and you

26:57 ↗ and somebody wants to do something else

26:59 ↗ with the land. They have a $400,000

27:01 ↗ bill. Right. So that 100% one has the

27:05 ↗ potential to create um sort of a golden

27:08 ↗ handcuffs on the property. Right.

27:11 ↗ >> Correct.

27:13 ↗ >> So that's why I was asking about whether

27:15 ↗ if we chose the 100% if somebody if

27:18 ↗ somebody else wanted to come in I

27:20 ↗ understand why this particular applicant

27:21 ↗ would like it to be the full 100%. I

27:23 ↗ could see an applicant who would come in

27:24 ↗ who would say, "No, I want to do the

27:26 ↗ 80%." Because down the road, I want to

27:29 ↗ keep my options open for what I do with

27:30 ↗ this extremely valuable piece of

27:32 ↗ property. And you're saying they would

27:35 ↗ be able to do that if they were so

27:36 ↗ inclined?

27:37 ↗ >> I would have to double check with

27:38 ↗ finance. I don't see why not.

27:43 ↗ >> I think you have a a helper.

27:45 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

27:46 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean, we can certainly write the

27:48 ↗ ordinance that way. we would have to

27:50 ↗ bake it into our you know what how the

27:52 ↗ waiver works. So at at applicant's

27:55 ↗ discretion if they just want to do an

27:56 ↗ 80% and not have to do the monitoring uh

27:59 ↗ then we would just take that they would

28:01 ↗ pay their 20%. And the other option I

28:04 ↗ think uh the questions about who

28:06 ↗ monitors and who doesn't monitor you

28:08 ↗ know earlier we were talking uh to the

28:10 ↗ applicant um DC um the state agency that

28:13 ↗ issues them a license for running the

28:15 ↗ daycare has a different program by which

28:18 ↗ they have some incentives for the

28:20 ↗ daycare operators to serve more

28:22 ↗ low-income families. So if they

28:24 ↗ participate in that program they that

28:25 ↗ will be the responsibility of the state

28:27 ↗ agency to to get some of that

28:30 ↗ documentation from the families of what

28:31 ↗ is their income you know all that will

28:34 ↗ go into um make documenting that

28:37 ↗ criteria there's still going to be a

28:39 ↗ responsibility with the city and we'll

28:41 ↗ have to come up with a program how that

28:43 ↗ will function you know annual reports

28:45 ↗ that they give us maybe it's a report

28:47 ↗ from DCYF or it's that the actual

28:52 ↗ enrollment of the students. If it falls

28:54 ↗ below the 25% then the applicant would

28:57 ↗ be responsible for paying the 20%. It'll

29:00 ↗ be up to the city to collect that money

29:02 ↗ and we would have to come up with a

29:03 ↗ program of how we go after applicants

29:05 ↗ after the permit has been issued. And so

29:07 ↗ I think those logistics of

29:09 ↗ implementation if council chooses to go

29:11 ↗ the path of 100% will need to be worked

29:14 ↗ out.

29:16 ↗ >> Thank you. I have I have one more

29:18 ↗ thought on the percentage and that um I

29:20 ↗ think it was Shoreline or it's Mont Lake

29:23 ↗ who does 100% or proportionate. So we do

29:26 ↗ have the flexibility according to the

29:27 ↗ state to write that into code. Yes.

29:32 ↗ >> Uh council member Nichols.

29:35 ↗ >> Okay. I want to clarify what that means

29:36 ↗ on the proportionate side of things. So

29:38 ↗ um my understanding but I I think I was

29:40 ↗ wrong here so please help me with this.

29:42 ↗ Um, if this for for if this goes into

29:47 ↗ code, is there a way to do this where

29:50 ↗ the 100% fee waver only applies if a an

29:53 ↗ applicant is willing to commit to the

29:55 ↗ affordable affordability side of things?

29:59 ↗ >> Yes. And that is the state law if they

30:01 ↗ choose to do

30:05 ↗ >> Yes. That that is how it would be.

30:09 ↗ Would you restate your question, please,

30:10 ↗ because I think I misheard it.

30:12 ↗ If this goes into code,

30:14 ↗ >> would the 100% fee waiver apply to every

30:18 ↗ early learning center, no matter what,

30:20 ↗ or would it only apply if they were

30:23 ↗ willing to commit to the 25%

30:27 ↗ um subsidized

30:30 ↗ there's a variety of things here, but

30:31 ↗ basically the afford I'll just summarize

30:32 ↗ it as the affordability side of things.

30:34 ↗ >> If they wanted to do the 100% then they

30:36 ↗ would be required to do the 25%. They

30:38 ↗ can't do it without that,

30:40 ↗ >> but the 80%. So then if they don't then

30:42 ↗ it falls back to the 80%. Is that

30:44 ↗ correct?

30:45 ↗ >> If the city chooses to do one or the

30:46 ↗ other and adopt 80% into the code then

30:49 ↗ yes they could opt for the 80%.

30:50 ↗ >> Okay. So they could do either.

30:52 ↗ >> Yes.

30:52 ↗ >> Um so it doesn't require all early

30:55 ↗ learning centers to be 100%.

30:56 ↗ >> Right. But it it depends on how the

30:58 ↗ code's written. So if if we put just one

31:00 ↗ of those in there that the city waves

31:01 ↗ 100% but you have to do these things

31:04 ↗ then that's in the code. The city could

31:06 ↗ say we wave we wave 80% for everything.

31:09 ↗ The city could also write in code we

31:12 ↗ wave 80% or we wave 100%. It's the

31:16 ↗ applicant's pick.

31:17 ↗ >> Okay. So just to be extra certain both

31:19 ↗ ways. So we could write this as 100% fee

31:22 ↗ waiver if you have the 25%

31:24 ↗ affordability, 80% fee waiver if you do

31:27 ↗ not.

31:28 ↗ >> Okay. And then to council member Mart's

31:30 ↗ question, so or point um on the um

31:36 ↗ guess what happens after the land is

31:37 ↗ sold? What happens when they they try to

31:38 ↗ sell it? So um

31:42 ↗ what does happen? So if if a 100% fee

31:44 ↗ waiver if if an applicant with a 100%

31:46 ↗ fee waiver um goes to sell that land

31:49 ↗ what happens I guess in two situations.

31:52 ↗ One where let's go three um one where

31:56 ↗ the the purchaser wants to maintain

31:59 ↗ those 25% affordability requirements.

32:03 ↗ two where they want to remain an early

32:06 ↗ learning center but do not want to

32:08 ↗ maintain those 25% requirements and

32:10 ↗ three where they want to do something

32:12 ↗ completely different.

32:14 ↗ >> If they want to be completely something

32:15 ↗ completely different they have to repay

32:17 ↗ all of the impact fees that would have

32:18 ↗ been that would have been assessed had

32:20 ↗ the exemptions not been allowed had not

32:23 ↗ been in place. if they want to change it

32:25 ↗ to a continue using an early learning

32:28 ↗ center that but they don't want the fees

32:31 ↗ waved. I can't imagine that happening.

32:34 ↗ Oh, but they don't want to comply but

32:36 ↗ they don't want to do the 25% then they

32:38 ↗ would I would imagine and again I would

32:40 ↗ have to check with finance but I would

32:42 ↗ imagine that they would have to pay a

32:43 ↗ portion of the fees back.

32:46 ↗ >> Okay.

32:46 ↗ >> Do you know any different?

32:50 ↗ >> Do you know any different? We want to

32:52 ↗ make sure we understand your question.

32:53 ↗ Um, I understood you're saying if the ch

32:56 ↗ if there's a change of use, so if you

32:58 ↗ have a daycare and they, you know,

33:01 ↗ decide to do some other business and

33:02 ↗ some other business takes over the

33:04 ↗ building. Is that your first scenario?

33:06 ↗ >> Right. And they have to pay back.

33:07 ↗ >> Yeah.

33:08 ↗ >> So then we would just uh look at the new

33:11 ↗ use, whoever is going to occupy the

33:13 ↗ building and then determine what their

33:15 ↗ impact fees are. if it converts back

33:17 ↗ into an office use, you know, what what

33:20 ↗ does the delta change? Um, so anytime

33:23 ↗ there's a change of use, it's the delta

33:25 ↗ difference of the new impact fees that

33:28 ↗ our code allows us to charge.

33:30 ↗ >> I I think I'm asking a little more okay

33:32 ↗ than that. So basically, is this um is

33:37 ↗ the fee waiver baked into the change of

33:39 ↗ use no matter what or do you just do you

33:42 ↗ just assess impact fees based on the new

33:45 ↗ >> correct use? the new new would apply. I

33:47 ↗ mean, we are not going to go back. If

33:48 ↗ the use ceases to exist, it's no longer

33:52 ↗ a daycare over the life of the building,

33:55 ↗ then we don't go back and collect the

33:58 ↗ daycare fees because it's no longer a

34:00 ↗ daycare anymore.

34:01 ↗ >> So, it's it's not it's it's not baked in

34:04 ↗ as

34:04 ↗ >> for as long as they are operating it as

34:07 ↗ a daycare. If they fall below that

34:09 ↗ threshold, then they owe the the

34:11 ↗ difference.

34:12 ↗ >> Okay,

34:13 ↗ >> that's our understanding of how it

34:14 ↗ works. Council member Martz,

34:17 ↗ >> still confused. So, um, on slide that

34:21 ↗ happens to be page 17 of 126 in the page

34:23 ↗ pages of the packet, the state fee

34:25 ↗ waiver slide where it's got 80% fee

34:28 ↗ waiver at the top and 100% fee waiver

34:30 ↗ below that. There's a sentence in the

34:32 ↗ 100% fee waiver that says if converted

34:34 ↗ to another use, owner must pay the

34:36 ↗ impact fees in effect at the time of

34:38 ↗ conversion. Is that really also true for

34:40 ↗ the 80%? Should that also be is that

34:42 ↗ what I heard you say a minute ago?

34:45 ↗ No, for 80 for 80%. No.

34:48 ↗ >> So, so in the hypothetical, if I if I

34:50 ↗ open the 200 uh spot daycare and I would

34:54 ↗ normally have to face a $400,000 impact

34:57 ↗ fee and I go for the 80 and and they

35:00 ↗ have an option of the 80% fee waiver.

35:02 ↗ So, I pay uh uh why am I blanking on it?

35:08 ↗ Uh 10 $100,000, right? Um no, $80,000%.

35:13 ↗ Yeah, sorry. Uh, yeah, 20 the percent.

35:18 ↗ Um, and then I go to sell it later, does

35:21 ↗ the person who take it over, do do they

35:23 ↗ have to pay the the difference back up

35:25 ↗ to 400k if they're if they're open in a

35:27 ↗ bowling alley or whatever,

35:27 ↗ >> whatever the use is. So, if it remains a

35:30 ↗ daycare, then then those provisions will

35:33 ↗ continue to to be in.

35:34 ↗ >> So, that sentence is in effect for the

35:36 ↗ 80% fee waiver.

35:39 ↗ >> What you just said,

35:40 ↗ >> you want us to pull up the slide?

35:41 ↗ >> Yes, please do. I I think you're saying

35:43 ↗ that that that item is also true for the

35:45 ↗ 80% fee waiver. That it's true in both

35:47 ↗ cases.

35:48 ↗ >> If converted to another use, owner must

35:51 ↗ pay the impact fees in effect at the

35:52 ↗ time of conversion. I think that's what

35:54 ↗ you just said for the 80% scenario. Yes.

35:56 ↗ >> Correct. So that comes directly from the

35:58 ↗ state law.

35:59 ↗ >> I understand. I'm just trying to

36:00 ↗ understand the slide because you've got

36:01 ↗ it under the 100% but you don't have it

36:03 ↗ under the 80%. I'm just trying to

36:05 ↗ understand.

36:05 ↗ >> Yeah. Let let's pull up the slide

36:07 ↗ because

36:08 ↗ let's understand it doesn't let me move.

36:11 ↗ There we go. Because my concern about

36:13 ↗ people tying their hands about potential

36:15 ↗ financials of the future use of their

36:16 ↗ property is different if if it's also

36:18 ↗ true for the 80%.

36:22 ↗ >> Um so my question is I mean I think

36:25 ↗ >> can we finish that one first?

36:27 ↗ >> So I this is pulled directly from state

36:30 ↗ law and so what I'm saying is that's a

36:33 ↗ really good question because this is

36:35 ↗ exactly how it was written under the

36:36 ↗ RCW. So that I think is going to require

36:39 ↗ a little bit more research on our part.

36:42 ↗ Thank you.

36:42 ↗ >> You're welcome.

36:44 ↗ >> Um, okay. So, my understanding is if

36:46 ↗ converted into another use, owner must

36:48 ↗ pay the full impact fees related to

36:50 ↗ other use that is not daycare at the

36:52 ↗ time of conversion. Right? So, that's

36:54 ↗ essentially it's the same thing as you

36:55 ↗ know converting an office to a daycare.

36:57 ↗ You have to pay the impact fee when

36:59 ↗ you're converting use for any if you

37:00 ↗ convert it back to an office then you'd

37:02 ↗ have to pay the impact fee and that's

37:04 ↗ the case if you're doing any kind of

37:05 ↗ change of use, right? So, it would apply

37:07 ↗ whether or not there's a fee waiver,

37:09 ↗ >> right? Right. So essentially it means

37:10 ↗ that the the fee waiver isn't in

37:12 ↗ perpetuity. If the use changes you have

37:13 ↗ to pay the impact fee that would be in

37:14 ↗ time at the place place at the time of

37:16 ↗ conversion. Yeah.

37:18 ↗ >> And similar with the 80% fee waiver that

37:20 ↗ would only apply for child care. Like we

37:23 ↗ shouldn't say oh well if you had a if

37:25 ↗ there was a childare at some point in

37:27 ↗ the past then you can have an 80% fee

37:29 ↗ waver into perpetuity.

37:31 ↗ >> So we would write that third bullet

37:34 ↗ point into the 80% fee waiver as well.

37:38 ↗ That's that is correct. So I think what

37:40 ↗ you're asking is are the number three

37:42 ↗ and number four applicable to the a

37:45 ↗ bullet points applicable to the 80% fee

37:47 ↗ waiver. So are are it's it's like yes

37:52 ↗ the answer with that would be yes except

37:55 ↗ for number fourth bullet point is

37:56 ↗ talking about 20% payback. So that would

37:59 ↗ not be applicable. But the third bullet

38:01 ↗ point applies in the 80% fee waiver. And

38:03 ↗ that's just generally how impact fees

38:05 ↗ work. Whenever there's a change of use,

38:07 ↗ not unrelated to daycare, if there's any

38:10 ↗ change of use, you pay the delta

38:12 ↗ difference.

38:14 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. Any other discussion,

38:20 ↗ questions, comments?

38:24 ↗ Uh, Council Member Nichols,

38:27 ↗ >> I think you just answered Council Member

38:29 ↗ Mars's question.

38:32 ↗ Is that on whether bullet point three

38:35 ↗ applies to 80%. It sounded like before

38:37 ↗ you said you needed more time. Was that

38:39 ↗ answered or do you still need more time?

38:41 ↗ And did I understand correctly that the

38:42 ↗ your question was answered?

38:46 ↗ >> So basically what happens there, let's

38:49 ↗ pretend there are no fee wavers in

38:50 ↗ place. When an off when a use converts

38:53 ↗ to another use, you are required to pay

38:56 ↗ the impact fees that are in place at

38:58 ↗ that time

39:00 ↗ whether or not there are fee wavers. And

39:02 ↗ that would be the situation here too. So

39:05 ↗ if the daycare center leaves, whether we

39:07 ↗ give them an 80% or 100%.

39:11 ↗ Whatever use comes in after that, if it

39:13 ↗ is not a daycare center, they are

39:14 ↗ required to pay whatever impact fees

39:16 ↗ would be in place at that time

39:18 ↗ for any development, fee waver or not. K

39:21 ↗ is I'm sorry to be blunt, but is that a

39:24 ↗ yes or a no? Like

39:25 ↗ >> I think it's a yes. Yeah.

39:28 ↗ >> Yeah. So I guess we didn't answer your

39:30 ↗ question, did we? Okay.

39:34 ↗ >> Any other council discussion?

39:40 ↗ Um if not, so I think the two questions

39:43 ↗ in front of us are I guess the question

39:46 ↗ is does the committee agree with waving

39:48 ↗ traffic impact fees for early learning

39:49 ↗ facilities? The sub question of that is

39:52 ↗ whether we should do 80%, 100% or both.

39:57 ↗ Um so let's tackle that first question

39:59 ↗ first. Council member Marts.

40:02 ↗ >> Yeah. Um I'm probably going to be a no

40:04 ↗ this evening. If if the motion is to

40:07 ↗ where where I think it's heading, which

40:09 ↗ is I if if if the motion winds up being

40:12 ↗ for 100% I'm going to say no just

40:14 ↗ because I want to bring it back to full

40:16 ↗ counsel and have a little bit more time

40:17 ↗ to think about it. I hate to be

40:18 ↗ indecisive. I try not to be indecisive

40:20 ↗ but on this one. Um so a no for me is

40:22 ↗ not a no on the idea of um providing

40:26 ↗ some subsidy for uh daycare. It would be

40:29 ↗ I'm not ready to to say that uh a

40:33 ↗ daycare doesn't have to provide any

40:35 ↗ impact fees.

40:38 ↗ Council

40:38 ↗ >> member Nichols

40:39 ↗ >> are you asking to split these is from

40:42 ↗ from a discussion standpoint as first

40:44 ↗ are we in favor of anything and then

40:46 ↗ second what are the options?

40:48 ↗ Yeah, I think the first question is

40:50 ↗ basically do we agree with the concept

40:52 ↗ of waving traffic impact fees for

40:53 ↗ learning early learning facilities and

40:55 ↗ then the next question is do we want to

40:56 ↗ offer 80% 100% or both?

41:02 ↗ >> So I'll answer the first one first. Uh

41:04 ↗ yes, I agree with the concept of waving

41:07 ↗ some impact fees for early learning

41:10 ↗ centers.

41:13 ↗ >> Great.

41:14 ↗ And it sounds like council member Marks

41:16 ↗ is in favor of 80%.

41:19 ↗ >> I'm in I am in favor of the general idea

41:21 ↗ of providing subsidies to daycarees.

41:23 ↗ >> Okay, great. Uh I I think all three of

41:26 ↗ us agree on this point. Um and then the

41:29 ↗ next question is do we want to offer 80%

41:33 ↗ waivers, 100% waivers, or both?

41:36 ↗ Remember Nichols?

41:38 ↗ >> My preference would be both. I think

41:39 ↗ it's uh if if we can incentivize

41:43 ↗ affordable child childcare where we have

41:46 ↗ businesses that are willing to take on

41:48 ↗ that commitment and run with it. Um I

41:50 ↗ think that's a wonderful thing and we

41:52 ↗ should try to do whatever we can to

41:53 ↗ incentivize it. Um the only I'll leave

41:57 ↗ it at that. Um I I think otherwise if

41:59 ↗ they're not able to then fall back to

42:01 ↗ 80% and it's still something that it's

42:04 ↗ it's something that we should be

42:05 ↗ incentivizing within our community that

42:06 ↗ is sorely lacking.

42:10 ↗ Council member Martz.

42:11 ↗ >> So, and my earlier understanding of the

42:13 ↗ difference between the 80 and the 100% I

42:15 ↗ could I could see an a case where

42:18 ↗ somebody would go for the 80%. Now that

42:22 ↗ we understand that there's a conversion

42:25 ↗ fee if it's sold for a non-daycare use,

42:28 ↗ then I don't see anybody choosing the

42:29 ↗ 80% over the 100%. Because there they

42:32 ↗ don't bind themsel there's no there's no

42:34 ↗ upside to the 80%. um it's just money

42:38 ↗ that you don't get until you um sell the

42:41 ↗ property, right? So, what business

42:43 ↗ wouldn't want that cash now uh to be

42:45 ↗ able to be on their business? So, with

42:46 ↗ that, I I just don't see the the dual

42:49 ↗ use um as

42:52 ↗ something that anybody would take. So,

42:55 ↗ um, I, you know, like I said, I'm I'm at

42:58 ↗ this point more inclined towards 80%

43:00 ↗ than I am towards 100, but I'm I'm

43:02 ↗ willing to revisit it when this come if

43:04 ↗ this comes back to full council.

43:06 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Council Member

43:08 ↗ Nichols. Uh just on that point, I I do

43:12 ↗ see a situation where someone would want

43:13 ↗ the 80% and that's if they don't want to

43:15 ↗ re to accept the 25% affordability

43:18 ↗ requirements um which I could imagine

43:21 ↗ would have quite a substantial negative

43:23 ↗ impact on the um revenue of a of a

43:27 ↗ daycare center and um would be something

43:30 ↗ that would not be by default be

43:32 ↗ something that certainly the higher cost

43:34 ↗ daycare centers that are out there would

43:36 ↗ want to go for.

43:40 ↗ Yeah, I think for that reason, you know,

43:42 ↗ I think we should provide I agree with

43:45 ↗ the rest of the committee that we should

43:47 ↗ provide subsidies to childcare

43:49 ↗ facilities. Um, and also we should

43:51 ↗ provide extra subsidies to childcare

43:55 ↗ facilities that are serving low-income

43:56 ↗ families. And I think, you know, if that

43:58 ↗ additional 20% of fee waiver makes it so

44:00 ↗ that, you know, some of these childcare

44:02 ↗ facilities are then able to serve that

44:04 ↗ population. I think honestly like a

44:06 ↗ onetime $80,000 subsidy to provide and

44:10 ↗ you know for 180 kids 45 of them are

44:12 ↗ going to be subsidized slots. That's

44:14 ↗ pretty like for the value that we're

44:16 ↗ getting I I actually think it's pretty

44:17 ↗ good value. So I think um my approach or

44:21 ↗ my preferred approach would be we can

44:23 ↗ put both of them in code. I do think

44:25 ↗ though since we um did not have the

44:28 ↗ chance to review any ordinance language

44:32 ↗ um I think uh I guess

44:39 ↗ is would this come back to the full

44:41 ↗ council on consent or regular business?

44:44 ↗ I I do think this is something worth

44:47 ↗ discussing on

44:47 ↗ >> you can read.

44:49 ↗ >> Okay. Oh, I can

44:50 ↗ >> you can ask them what they

44:51 ↗ >> Yeah. And okay,

44:52 ↗ >> the ordinance was included in the packet

44:54 ↗ as exhibit A.

44:55 ↗ >> Okay. Um

44:58 ↗ I guess I did see that. Um so this

45:01 ↗ ordinance is just for the 80%, right? So

45:03 ↗ if we're going to do the um 100% fee

45:07 ↗ waiver, then

45:10 ↗ uh

45:11 ↗ that would be different ordinance

45:13 ↗ language.

45:15 ↗ >> Yes, that would be need that would need

45:17 ↗ to be revised.

45:18 ↗ >> Okay. Then in that case, I mean, I don't

45:22 ↗ want to keep I don't want to like drag

45:24 ↗ this on forever. So,

45:32 ↗ >> oh, Council Member Mart.

45:35 ↗ >> Well, at the risk of of seeming uh

45:37 ↗ flaky, I uh and and reversing myself one

45:40 ↗ more time, I have actually been

45:41 ↗ convinced by the two of you, and so I

45:43 ↗ now support the idea of moving forward

45:45 ↗ with both. So, my recommendation would

45:47 ↗ be that we move forward with a 3 to 0

45:49 ↗ and ask the administration to revise the

45:50 ↗ language for um full council regular

45:53 ↗ business would be my recommendation.

45:56 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Council Member Martz.

45:57 ↗ You're so much more uh experienced and

45:59 ↗ know all the different ways that things

46:01 ↗ can go. Um great. Um Council Member

46:04 ↗ Nichols, do you have any thoughts on

46:06 ↗ Council Member Mark's proposal?

46:08 ↗ >> Uh no. Oh, I would just hope that we can

46:10 ↗ move it quickly so that uh the the

46:13 ↗ business that wants to bring the service

46:15 ↗ to our community can uh have certainty

46:17 ↗ as to what its cost will be as quickly

46:19 ↗ as possible.

46:20 ↗ >> Great. Then I think uh I would request

46:24 ↗ that the administration revise the

46:25 ↗ ordinance to reflect our the committee's

46:28 ↗ preference to have an option both for

46:31 ↗ 80% or 100% fee wavers um and bring it

46:34 ↗ back on regular business in the March

46:38 ↗ 2nd council meeting.

46:40 ↗ >> I apologize. Did you all discuss the

46:42 ↗ parks and impact fee?

46:43 ↗ >> Oh, we didn't. We did not. Okay. Um

46:45 ↗ Okay.

46:46 ↗ >> Sorry about that. So, okay. The parks

46:48 ↗ and fire impact fees. What are our

46:50 ↗ thoughts on that? And oh, go ahead,

46:54 ↗ Council Member M.

46:55 ↗ >> Sure. So, the recommendation is to not

46:57 ↗ uh offer a uh

47:01 ↗ uh in or I'm blanking on the word,

47:05 ↗ right? To to keep the waiver to offer

47:08 ↗ waiver, right? Because the amounts are

47:09 ↗ so small.

47:10 ↗ >> So, I support the administration's

47:12 ↗ recommendation.

47:14 ↗ >> Great.

47:17 ↗ Council

47:19 ↗ member Nichols,

47:22 ↗ >> I

47:25 ↗ agree. I think we should support that

47:28 ↗ administration's recommendation. The

47:29 ↗ parks recom park parks difference is the

47:31 ↗ same. Um the fire is significantly

47:33 ↗ larger, but it's also in the context of

47:36 ↗ overall larger fire costs that I don't

47:38 ↗ think we can really tackle as a part of

47:40 ↗ this conversation.

47:43 ↗ >> Agreed. And council member Nichols, I

47:44 ↗ think out of the three of us, I was the

47:46 ↗ one who was on this committee when we

47:47 ↗ talked about fire impact fees last year.

47:49 ↗ So, it is essentially a pass through fee

47:50 ↗ that we collect and then pay directly to

47:52 ↗ Eastside Fire and Rescue. So, if we wave

47:54 ↗ the fee, we as a city still have to pay

47:56 ↗ it, unfortunately. So, um I agree with

47:59 ↗ the I mean, you know, $2,000 for park

48:01 ↗ impact fees seems fine. And

48:04 ↗ unfortunately, uh just the way that our

48:06 ↗ fire services are structured, we do have

48:08 ↗ to pay that fee regardless of whether we

48:12 ↗ want to or not. So, um,

48:15 ↗ uh, I agree with the administration's

48:16 ↗ direction not to wave the parks and fire

48:18 ↗ impact fees as well, especially just

48:20 ↗ given how much the the magnitude of

48:23 ↗ those is so much lar so much smaller

48:25 ↗ than for the, uh,

48:27 ↗ uh, traffic impact fees. So, um, with

48:30 ↗ that, I think, as I mentioned earlier,

48:31 ↗ the, uh, the committee would like to

48:34 ↗ bring this back on regular business at

48:36 ↗ the March 2nd council meeting with an

48:39 ↗ ordinance that allows for both the 80%

48:41 ↗ and 100% fee wavers.

48:43 ↗ >> Okay. And would you like this to be on

48:45 ↗ regular or consent?

48:46 ↗ >> Uh, regular business?

48:48 ↗ >> Regular.

48:48 ↗ >> Yes.

48:49 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

48:50 ↗ >> Because it's a pretty significant policy

48:52 ↗ change, so we should have the discussion

48:54 ↗ with the full council.

48:56 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

48:59 ↗ Okay, that was quite the media uh agenda

49:02 ↗ item. So, the next item of business is

49:05 ↗ COM 0194, the 2026 docket of proposed

49:08 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments. Uh, and

49:12 ↗ I'll hand it over to Kate Kaney,

49:14 ↗ principal planner, to present this item.

49:18 ↗ Thank you.

49:43 ↗ Okay, sorry about that. Took me a little

49:45 ↗ while to catch up with the uh

49:46 ↗ technology. So, um thank you. My name is

49:50 ↗ Kate Kaney and I am principal planner

49:52 ↗ here. Uh today is my the end of my third

49:55 ↗ month. So, uh it's been wonderful to be

49:57 ↗ here. Um I'm here to present uh to you

50:01 ↗ on the 2026 docket of proposed

50:03 ↗ amendments to the comprehensive plan. Um

50:06 ↗ really I have uh two requests of the

50:10 ↗ committee. First is that uh you will

50:12 ↗ review the uh proposed amendments as I

50:15 ↗ uh brief you and then second we'd like

50:17 ↗ your guidance on uh which of the

50:20 ↗ proposals to move forward to full

50:21 ↗ council for establishment on the final

50:24 ↗ docket uh which will then be uh more

50:27 ↗ fully analyzed and uh drafted into

50:30 ↗ amendments over the next year.

50:34 ↗ So, a major consideration um as you're

50:37 ↗ thinking of the proposals when we do

50:39 ↗ that review is whether you would

50:41 ↗ recommend moving all of the docket items

50:44 ↗ as presented or if any refinements are

50:46 ↗ needed to um the docket items.

50:50 ↗ So, I wanted to start with just a little

50:52 ↗ background um on the comprehensive plan,

50:55 ↗ the amendment process kind of globally

50:57 ↗ and then uh more procedurally here in

50:59 ↗ Isiqua. So there are really two types of

51:02 ↗ amendment processes uh to change the

51:04 ↗ comprehensive plan. There's the major

51:07 ↗ update called the periodic update. The

51:09 ↗ state requires that every 10 years. Um

51:12 ↗ there are requirements from the growth

51:13 ↗ management act that cities and counties

51:15 ↗ actually update their visions, their

51:18 ↗ growth policies that includes targets

51:20 ↗ for population and jobs. There's a lot

51:22 ↗ of analysis. There's a lot of community

51:24 ↗ engagement to uh put together the city's

51:28 ↗ vision for a 20-year period. So isqua's

51:31 ↗ last periodic update and this was part

51:33 ↗ of the overall region um all cities um

51:36 ↗ updated their plans to meet the state's

51:38 ↗ requirements in 2024 for the period of

51:41 ↗ 2019 through 2044. So that major update

51:44 ↗ happened pretty recently. Now cities do

51:47 ↗ annual amendment processes. Some even do

51:49 ↗ every other year, but ISQUAD chooses

51:51 ↗ also to open up the comprehensive plan

51:54 ↗ every year to the public. And um

51:56 ↗ internally um in ter in terms of this

51:59 ↗ type of update, they're really looking

52:01 ↗ at u minor amendments uh because of the

52:05 ↗ understanding that you know huge changes

52:08 ↗ were just done when the the growth

52:10 ↗ strategies and and policies were reset

52:12 ↗ as part of a periodic update process. Um

52:15 ↗ so it is important that um in these

52:17 ↗ amendment processes that the changes

52:20 ↗ align and implement the existing

52:22 ↗ comprehensive plan.

52:25 ↗ A little more on process. Um the state

52:28 ↗ uh is interested in uh continuous uh

52:32 ↗ public participation and so requires

52:35 ↗ cities and counties to open up their

52:37 ↗ comprehensive plans and to establish

52:39 ↗ procedures for doing amendments to the

52:41 ↗ plan. This is often called a docket

52:43 ↗ process or a docketing process. Um,

52:46 ↗ amendments to the comprehensive plan are

52:48 ↗ only allowed once a year. There are some

52:49 ↗ special circumstances, but by and large

52:51 ↗ it is once a year. Um, in the city, uh,

52:54 ↗ the city's municipal code establishes

52:56 ↗ those pre procedures and criteria for

52:58 ↗ amending the comprehensive plan. Um,

53:01 ↗ including the need for docket proposals

53:02 ↗ to be reviewed prior to initiating a

53:05 ↗ full amendment process.

53:10 ↗ uh some of the criteria that is in the

53:12 ↗ code um talks about this kind of

53:15 ↗ two-step process for proposals. So

53:18 ↗ proposals must meet one of this first

53:20 ↗ set of criteria. Um for example, if it's

53:23 ↗ a sightsp specific thing where a

53:25 ↗ property owner wants to change a land

53:27 ↗ use. Um the questions uh that would need

53:30 ↗ to be met are whether the property is

53:31 ↗ suitable for development and whether the

53:33 ↗ change conforms with adjacent land uses

53:36 ↗ um or uh whether a state law or legal

53:39 ↗ order is requiring a change whether

53:40 ↗ that's a map amendment or a text

53:42 ↗ amendment or if there are technical

53:44 ↗ errors in the existing comprehensive

53:46 ↗ plan. Now if none of the criteria in

53:49 ↗ that first set are met then um the

53:54 ↗ second uh uh set of criteria um has to

53:58 ↗ be met. All all items have to be met or

54:01 ↗ all four criterion. So proposed

54:03 ↗ amendments uh would have to uh show that

54:07 ↗ the matter is being appropriately

54:08 ↗ addressed to the comprehensive plan that

54:11 ↗ they demonstrate public benefit enhance

54:14 ↗ public health safety safety and the

54:15 ↗ welfare of the city that uh the issue

54:18 ↗ would not more appropriately be

54:19 ↗ addressed through a city work program.

54:21 ↗ Um that the uh issue uh addresses uh

54:26 ↗ significantly changed circumstances

54:28 ↗ since the last comprehensive plan update

54:30 ↗ or amendment. um and that it that also

54:33 ↗ the proposal is consistent with the

54:35 ↗ comprehensive plan and the city regional

54:37 ↗ and state goals and policies um that

54:40 ↗ also exist and guide policies in the

54:43 ↗ city.

54:45 ↗ So that was a summary of the criteria um

54:48 ↗ for any proposal. Um this slide shows

54:52 ↗ the five proposed items on this year's

54:55 ↗ docket. They were all city initiated

54:56 ↗ proposals. This text is really small.

54:59 ↗ We're just showing you um all of them at

55:01 ↗ once. I will be going through each of

55:02 ↗ the pro proposals one by one so you get

55:05 ↗ a sense of what they are. This docket is

55:08 ↗ um by law posted um publicly and it's on

55:11 ↗ the city's website.

55:14 ↗ So wanted to start with an overview of

55:16 ↗ the first proposed amendment. So this

55:19 ↗ amendment um would really increase

55:21 ↗ alignment between the comprehensive plan

55:23 ↗ and the uh uh development regulations in

55:28 ↗ the land use code. um that this has to

55:31 ↗ do with land use designations and what

55:33 ↗ is proposed is that descriptions be

55:36 ↗ added to land use designations in the

55:38 ↗ comprehensive plan and that also

55:40 ↗ information be added that identifies the

55:42 ↗ zones that implement each land use

55:45 ↗ designation. So what you're seeing on

55:47 ↗ the right of your screen are the list of

55:49 ↗ the city's nine land use designations.

55:51 ↗ Not sure how much you can read. Um the

55:54 ↗ land use designations are really

55:55 ↗ important policy tools because they

55:57 ↗ establish the type of development that

55:59 ↗ is allowed in the city. That's why

56:01 ↗ fuller descriptions are necessary to

56:03 ↗ help kind of round that out um for the

56:06 ↗ for the public and for development

56:07 ↗ development community as well as um the

56:09 ↗ city itself. So the map to the right is

56:13 ↗ the comprehensive plan map also known as

56:15 ↗ the land use map. And that map is also

56:17 ↗ very important because it illustrates

56:19 ↗ where each land use designation, each

56:22 ↗ type of use is allowed. So for example,

56:26 ↗ if you look at the very bottom that of

56:28 ↗ the list, you've got your mixed use in

56:30 ↗ red. That's the land use designation

56:32 ↗ that would allow um higher intensity um

56:36 ↗ apartments with commercial uses or

56:37 ↗ office uh residential mixes. Um and also

56:41 ↗ the brown urban village. You can see

56:43 ↗ that clustered where um the central

56:45 ↗ Isiqua plan is and the city's regional

56:47 ↗ growth center. So these map that these

56:51 ↗ land use maps these comprehensive plan

56:53 ↗ maps illustrate where and how the city

56:55 ↗ wants to grow. They illustrate where the

56:57 ↗ land use designations

56:59 ↗ um are established and those land use

57:02 ↗ designations um also establish where

57:05 ↗ different types of zones are allowed to

57:07 ↗ be. So that although it's just

57:10 ↗ descriptions of land uses that we are

57:12 ↗ talking about, it's important because

57:13 ↗ the land use designations are as I said

57:15 ↗ a really important policy tool. So this

57:18 ↗ next slide I is um an example of a table

57:22 ↗ that shows the land use designations and

57:24 ↗ the comparable zones or the zones that

57:26 ↗ implement those land use designations.

57:27 ↗ The city used to have a table like this.

57:29 ↗ We'd like to add back that table just

57:31 ↗ for clarity. This information is

57:33 ↗ available in different places in the um

57:36 ↗ comp plan right now, but having it in

57:38 ↗ one place uh just makes it easier to

57:39 ↗ find um and and clarifies things for

57:43 ↗ users of those policies. So that's the

57:45 ↗ proposal in amendment number one. The

57:48 ↗ second proposal uh is one uh that was on

57:52 ↗ the docket last year, but because of a

57:55 ↗ lack of staff resources um it was uh

57:58 ↗ taken out of consideration. So last year

58:01 ↗ the proposal was named something

58:02 ↗ different, something like uh change the

58:04 ↗ name of single family zones. And when we

58:06 ↗ went back we decided to write a little

58:08 ↗ bit fuller description because uh this

58:11 ↗ proposal would not only clarify the

58:12 ↗ names of of the single family zones and

58:14 ↗ you can see those listed and there are

58:16 ↗ multiples of them with SF uh starting

58:19 ↗ them but would also clarify the land use

58:22 ↗ designations that help implement those

58:24 ↗ zones. And in fact, as we were looking

58:26 ↗ at the lowdensity and multif family land

58:29 ↗ use designations, the zones that

58:30 ↗ implemented them, our goal was to make

58:32 ↗ it clear where middle housing types are

58:35 ↗ allowed because it's not so clear from

58:37 ↗ the name. So what staff is proposing to

58:39 ↗ do is to go back and and look at whether

58:42 ↗ name changes should happen not only in

58:44 ↗ the zones but also in land use

58:46 ↗ designations for both lowdensity

58:48 ↗ residential, multif family residential

58:50 ↗ and the zones that you can see uh in

58:52 ↗ this table here under comparable zones.

58:55 ↗ So that is the second proposal.

58:59 ↗ Okay. Proposed amendment number three.

59:02 ↗ This proposal would update policies for

59:04 ↗ the central isa regional growth center.

59:07 ↗ under the RGC regional growth centers

59:09 ↗ are designated by the Puget Sound

59:12 ↗ Regional Council. Uh Isqua's uh RGC was

59:15 ↗ designated in 2015 and those are areas

59:18 ↗ around the region. I think they're more

59:20 ↗ than 30 in the 4ount region. Um where

59:23 ↗ the highest intensity growth is assumed

59:26 ↗ to happen and there need to be policies

59:28 ↗ and codes that support that growth

59:31 ↗ mostly transit oriented um type

59:34 ↗ development. um apartments, mixed use,

59:38 ↗ office, a variety of retail uses and

59:41 ↗ amenities and social infrastructure that

59:43 ↗ uh supports higher populations. So,

59:46 ↗ Puget Regional Council updated their uh

59:50 ↗ requirements for regional growth

59:52 ↗ centers. And while the city did some of

59:55 ↗ those updates as part of uh the major

59:58 ↗ periodic update in 2024, um we are

1:00:01 ↗ needing to come back to address um all

1:00:03 ↗ of the uh change requirements that PSRC

1:00:07 ↗ has. Um it's something a lot of cities

1:00:09 ↗ are doing right now. PSRC right now is

1:00:12 ↗ redesating

1:00:14 ↗ uh the uh older regional growth centers.

1:00:17 ↗ There are a bunch of new ones that uh

1:00:18 ↗ were uh created with this new set of

1:00:22 ↗ criteria that um has been developed. But

1:00:24 ↗ this is the opportunity now for uh the

1:00:27 ↗ city to complete the updates to uh

1:00:30 ↗ comply with all the PSRC's updated RGC

1:00:33 ↗ requirements.

1:00:37 ↗ >> Quick question, what's an example of uh

1:00:40 ↗ regional growth center policy update

1:00:42 ↗ that we would need to do?

1:00:44 ↗ >> Um that's a really good question. Um,

1:00:46 ↗ one of the, uh, requirements is to make

1:00:49 ↗ sure the population, job, and housing

1:00:52 ↗ targets for just the regional growth

1:00:54 ↗ center implement the updated targets in

1:00:58 ↗ the Isiqua 2024 major comprehensive plan

1:01:01 ↗ update. Um, the uh, that work wasn't

1:01:05 ↗ quite completed uh, during the last

1:01:08 ↗ update. So, that's one of the things we

1:01:09 ↗ need to pick up to get to the the

1:01:11 ↗ alignment that we need.

1:01:13 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:01:18 ↗ Okay. Uh the fourth out of the five uh

1:01:21 ↗ proposals is to uh undertake policy

1:01:25 ↗ updates uh to uh make sure there's

1:01:28 ↗ consistency between the comprehensive

1:01:29 ↗ plan and the 2024 park system plan

1:01:32 ↗ update. Uh the park staff ident

1:01:34 ↗ identified a few amendments that are

1:01:36 ↗ needed to uh really align. Well, um by

1:01:40 ↗ the way, there's state law that requires

1:01:42 ↗ that um the policies are consistent,

1:01:46 ↗ implementation strategies are consistent

1:01:48 ↗ with policies and that codes also um are

1:01:51 ↗ consistent with all of the above. So, we

1:01:53 ↗ often do these iterative update cycles

1:01:55 ↗ where um you know the policies might

1:01:57 ↗ change and the strategies then have to

1:01:59 ↗ change or in strategic updates there's

1:02:02 ↗ um feedback that some policy refinements

1:02:04 ↗ are needed. So, this is one of those

1:02:06 ↗ cycles. So, some of the changes that

1:02:07 ↗ have been identified by park staff

1:02:09 ↗ include some simple things like some

1:02:11 ↗ name changes. The 2024 parks plan is

1:02:14 ↗ called the systems plan. It was a

1:02:15 ↗ different name before, so we'll be

1:02:17 ↗ updating that. Um, the name of the uh

1:02:21 ↗ green necklace in the central isqua plan

1:02:23 ↗ is being updated to the city citywide

1:02:26 ↗ creeks to peaks uh trail uh name. And

1:02:30 ↗ one of the meteor uh updates is a change

1:02:34 ↗ of the um level of service for parks

1:02:38 ↗ facilities. Currently there's a

1:02:40 ↗ quantitative process that helps guide um

1:02:43 ↗ level of service for parks and the park

1:02:46 ↗ staff wants to look at a more

1:02:47 ↗ qualitative approach. So they will be

1:02:49 ↗ bringing those through um as part of

1:02:51 ↗ this amendment process.

1:02:54 ↗ So, the last proposal um has to do with

1:02:56 ↗ updates from this year's ISUA climate

1:02:58 ↗ action plan update, which I think you

1:03:00 ↗ will be hearing about shortly. And this

1:03:02 ↗ is one of those um strategic plans that

1:03:05 ↗ helps implement a lot of the policies in

1:03:06 ↗ the comprehensive plan. They're going

1:03:08 ↗ through their update process now. And

1:03:11 ↗ this uh proposal is really a placeholder

1:03:13 ↗ in case there are some policy

1:03:15 ↗ refinements that need to occur to help

1:03:17 ↗ uh maintain that alignment and

1:03:19 ↗ consistency between the comprehensive

1:03:21 ↗ plan and this uh the IAP um strategic

1:03:24 ↗ plan. So those are the five proposals.

1:03:27 ↗ Um now just have a couple of slides uh

1:03:30 ↗ to talk about the process moving forward

1:03:32 ↗ um and what happened actually on January

1:03:34 ↗ 22nd. So, the planning policy commission

1:03:37 ↗ actually uh had two meetings where they

1:03:39 ↗ reviewed these proposals. On January

1:03:41 ↗ 22nd, they held a public hearing um and

1:03:44 ↗ they made a recommendation uh to uh to

1:03:48 ↗ you to council to move forward with all

1:03:51 ↗ docket items um on the final docket and

1:03:54 ↗ into amendment processes. Uh today, as

1:03:57 ↗ you can see, is uh your review. We're

1:03:59 ↗ asking for you to give us direction on

1:04:01 ↗ uh moving these uh docket items forward.

1:04:04 ↗ And actually though it says February

1:04:06 ↗ 3rd, we're looking at your first meeting

1:04:08 ↗ in March for council action uh where the

1:04:11 ↗ full council would establish the final

1:04:13 ↗ docket.

1:04:16 ↗ So a few more um just two more slides on

1:04:20 ↗ next steps. Um so what would happen

1:04:22 ↗ after the final docket is established?

1:04:25 ↗ um that action must happen per the the

1:04:28 ↗ IMC the municipal code um by the end of

1:04:30 ↗ March. So after that um staff would take

1:04:34 ↗ all of the final docket items do further

1:04:36 ↗ analysis and begin the process of

1:04:38 ↗ drafting amendments then we would move

1:04:41 ↗ forward into a review process the

1:04:43 ↗ planning policy commission PTE and final

1:04:46 ↗ council with adoption before the end of

1:04:49 ↗ this year.

1:04:52 ↗ So just some reminders um this uh

1:04:55 ↗ recommendation that we would like for

1:04:56 ↗ you is not recommending approval of any

1:04:59 ↗ of these uh proposals but it is a

1:05:02 ↗ recommendation about moving the

1:05:03 ↗ proposals forward onto the final docket

1:05:06 ↗ so that they can be more uh fully

1:05:08 ↗ considered.

1:05:10 ↗ So that was my last slide and again the

1:05:13 ↗ question we wanted to leave you with was

1:05:15 ↗ about recommending approval of the

1:05:16 ↗ docket as presented and moving that to

1:05:18 ↗ the full council or if any refinements

1:05:21 ↗ were uh something that you wanted to

1:05:23 ↗ talk about.

1:05:24 ↗ >> Great. Thanks Kate. Looks like council

1:05:26 ↗ member Marts has a question.

1:05:27 ↗ >> Yes, I do. If we if we were going to

1:05:29 ↗ t-shirt these five, one, two, and four

1:05:32 ↗ would be smalls, three would be a

1:05:34 ↗ medium, and five would be a large,

1:05:35 ↗ right? basically,

1:05:38 ↗ >> you know, it it depends because um

1:05:44 ↗ some of the for example, the land use

1:05:45 ↗ designation and code work uh requires a

1:05:49 ↗ lot of uh just hours of going through

1:05:51 ↗ code and making sure we're um being

1:05:53 ↗ thorough about changing a name of a land

1:05:55 ↗ use designation or a zone. And so it's

1:05:58 ↗ not, you know, uh it it is an a task

1:06:01 ↗ that takes a lot of time, but maybe not

1:06:03 ↗ as much thought as what you were

1:06:05 ↗ suggesting. So maybe if I said the

1:06:07 ↗ public process associated with these

1:06:09 ↗ five, right,

1:06:09 ↗ >> would be small, small, medium, small,

1:06:12 ↗ large.

1:06:13 ↗ >> And are you saying five is the IAP?

1:06:15 ↗ >> Yes.

1:06:15 ↗ >> Proposal. Um well, and I'm just going to

1:06:18 ↗ say luckily for me, most of that work

1:06:20 ↗ will be done by our amazing

1:06:22 ↗ sustainability staff. So um the ideas

1:06:25 ↗ that they will bring out in terms of

1:06:27 ↗ potential policy changes, I believe

1:06:29 ↗ would be part of the process that they

1:06:30 ↗ are undertaking to update the IAP as

1:06:32 ↗ well. I I guess where I'm going with

1:06:34 ↗ that is 1 2 3 and four seem like they

1:06:36 ↗ are all pretty I mean there may be a

1:06:38 ↗ bunch of work to to search things and

1:06:41 ↗ make changes but they they're all pretty

1:06:43 ↗ deterministic right maybe maybe three

1:06:46 ↗ has a little bit more but five is

1:06:48 ↗ different right five is the one that has

1:06:51 ↗ public policy gates and you know forks

1:06:54 ↗ in the road and stuff like that right

1:06:56 ↗ unlike the other four

1:06:57 ↗ >> well and I'm not sure and um that and

1:07:01 ↗ I'm not sure and Maybe we will let uh

1:07:03 ↗ the sustainability manager talk about

1:07:05 ↗ this because the focus of the IAAP

1:07:06 ↗ update is really on the the strategies

1:07:09 ↗ that um are really almost project

1:07:12 ↗ specific that move the city forward in

1:07:14 ↗ terms of uh you know climate change uh

1:07:18 ↗ actions where the policies actually that

1:07:21 ↗ uh provide the basis for the IAP are

1:07:23 ↗ actually in the comprehensive plan. Um

1:07:25 ↗ they're in the land use and

1:07:26 ↗ sustainability element. they're in the

1:07:30 ↗ environment and climate element as well.

1:07:32 ↗ And so they are using those existing

1:07:35 ↗ policies as guidance for the changes

1:07:38 ↗ they're making. So, and I don't mean to

1:07:41 ↗ speak out of turn, um, but they may find

1:07:44 ↗ that, oh, we need to tweak this policy.

1:07:46 ↗ You know, right now we have this policy

1:07:48 ↗ on trees or whatever it is, and we want

1:07:51 ↗ to either tweak it or we think we should

1:07:53 ↗ do a big change for it. I'm not sure.

1:07:55 ↗ and we we did have a meeting earlier

1:07:57 ↗ that there are a lot of policies that

1:07:59 ↗ would change out of out of that work. Um

1:08:02 ↗ I think their their work is more focused

1:08:04 ↗ on implementing those policies. So um I

1:08:08 ↗ again I I would have to work with the

1:08:10 ↗ sustainability team to really figure out

1:08:12 ↗ um the you know the magnitude of changes

1:08:15 ↗ that that may emerge. Was that fair or?

1:08:21 ↗ >> We'll see.

1:08:22 ↗ >> Thanks,

1:08:28 ↗ >> Council Member Nichols.

1:08:30 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh my question is on the

1:08:32 ↗ opportunity cost of except of going with

1:08:36 ↗ this basically. Um

1:08:40 ↗ first I'll say um I mean looking at all

1:08:42 ↗ of these none of them seem problematic.

1:08:44 ↗ I'm not debating any of them in

1:08:46 ↗ particular, but I also I genuinely don't

1:08:48 ↗ understand a lot of these. There's not

1:08:49 ↗ enough information presented to really

1:08:51 ↗ know. For example, on the regional

1:08:53 ↗ regional growth center, I I don't

1:08:54 ↗ understand what that's about, frankly.

1:08:56 ↗ Um

1:08:59 ↗ if if there's a low lift to do that and

1:09:02 ↗ we get more information, that's

1:09:04 ↗ potentially different than if we

1:09:07 ↗ seed a docket with things that will

1:09:08 ↗ block other things that may become

1:09:10 ↗ council priorities. Um I don't

1:09:13 ↗ understand exactly where this fits in

1:09:15 ↗ with the other things that are

1:09:17 ↗ essentially on the table um for council

1:09:19 ↗ to take up that may eventually come back

1:09:22 ↗ and require staff time in related areas.

1:09:25 ↗ Um we had a a retreat recently that

1:09:27 ↗ where we had lots of topics that came

1:09:28 ↗ up. Um, is this

1:09:33 ↗ what is the overall workload required on

1:09:35 ↗ on these and will it end up essentially

1:09:38 ↗ what's what are the could it block other

1:09:40 ↗ things we might want to do? I don't I

1:09:42 ↗ know that's a hard question to answer

1:09:43 ↗ but um

1:09:46 ↗ >> yeah and um so I was a planner for the

1:09:48 ↗ city of CEK for 18 years and for most of

1:09:50 ↗ that time I was handling annual

1:09:52 ↗ amendment processes and um this number

1:09:55 ↗ of amendments and the scale of these

1:09:57 ↗ amendments seemed to me pretty average.

1:09:59 ↗ So nothing is a major lift at this point

1:10:03 ↗ in my opinion and I haven't been in

1:10:05 ↗ Isqua so I don't know but I will say

1:10:08 ↗ that um there are some that are really

1:10:10 ↗ important uh to do the regional growth

1:10:13 ↗ center uh amendments are important

1:10:16 ↗ because PSRC is the city's or is is yeah

1:10:21 ↗ uh is the region's what are they called

1:10:23 ↗ no metropolitan planning organization

1:10:26 ↗ they receive federal funding for

1:10:28 ↗ transportation

1:10:29 ↗ If cities don't align with their

1:10:31 ↗ policies, they may not get grants for

1:10:34 ↗ there's a lot of trans, you know,

1:10:36 ↗ transportation grants, other grants from

1:10:38 ↗ that body. That's that's a huge um

1:10:41 ↗ benefit to have regional growth center

1:10:43 ↗ designation. Again, they're going

1:10:45 ↗ through a redesation process and they're

1:10:47 ↗ just wanting to make sure that uh we are

1:10:50 ↗ fully compliant with the changes that

1:10:52 ↗ they made. So there's actually a list of

1:10:56 ↗ uh you know uh policies that all

1:10:58 ↗ regional growth centers are going to

1:11:00 ↗ have to comply with since the 2018 uh

1:11:03 ↗ RGC framework was updated by PSRC. And

1:11:06 ↗ again, while the city has a lot of those

1:11:08 ↗ completed, uh we want to make sure we're

1:11:10 ↗ fully compliant. So any grant that the

1:11:13 ↗ city goes after for transportation

1:11:14 ↗ funding, the city will be competitive

1:11:17 ↗ for. So that's one example.

1:11:21 ↗ >> Excuse me. I'm going to jump in here.

1:11:22 ↗ Uh, real quick, Kristen Leon, planning

1:11:24 ↗ manager. So, this goes in part to

1:11:26 ↗ council member to uh Mart's question and

1:11:28 ↗ in part to council member Nichols

1:11:30 ↗ question. The first one about the land

1:11:32 ↗ use designations and number two, those

1:11:34 ↗ bring us more into compliance with the

1:11:36 ↗ middle housing requirements that were

1:11:38 ↗ done last year. One of the one of the

1:11:40 ↗ recommendations and asks of the state

1:11:42 ↗ was that we do take away all the single

1:11:45 ↗ family references and change these to

1:11:47 ↗ make them more residential. That one is

1:11:49 ↗ fairly important to be more in

1:11:50 ↗ compliance with what the state is

1:11:51 ↗ looking for. As for the regional growth

1:11:53 ↗ center, most of those are not required

1:11:55 ↗ to be done until 2028. However, the asks

1:11:59 ↗ could be bigger as they come along. So,

1:12:01 ↗ right now, we're reaching for

1:12:02 ↗ lowerhanging fruit to update the targets

1:12:05 ↗ and any other any other lowhanging

1:12:06 ↗ fruits that we can find that are not

1:12:08 ↗ public intensive that don't require a

1:12:10 ↗ lot of time. Does that help at all?

1:12:15 ↗ Um, can I also just provide a comment?

1:12:18 ↗ So, this is my second year on PTE. So,

1:12:21 ↗ for context, the docket, this basically

1:12:23 ↗ just means like if you don't put

1:12:25 ↗ something on this list, then the staff

1:12:27 ↗ is not allowed to work on it as far as

1:12:28 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments go. So,

1:12:30 ↗ for example, and there's things on here

1:12:32 ↗ that could get deprioritized due to

1:12:33 ↗ staff commitment to other things. For

1:12:35 ↗ example, this renaming single family

1:12:36 ↗ zones things was on the list last year

1:12:38 ↗ and did not happen because it was not a

1:12:40 ↗ priority. And so I think approving this

1:12:42 ↗ list doesn't necessarily mean that all

1:12:44 ↗ of these things are going to be done

1:12:46 ↗ tomorrow and that we can't like you know

1:12:49 ↗ it it basically means they're allowed to

1:12:51 ↗ work on it but it doesn't mean they have

1:12:52 ↗ to work on it. Does that help Council

1:12:55 ↗ Member Nichols?

1:12:56 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:12:56 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think the question about

1:12:58 ↗ other things that council's discussing

1:13:00 ↗ and Mayor Mullet's priorities for the

1:13:02 ↗ upcoming years uh are more on the

1:13:05 ↗ implementation side of things not so

1:13:07 ↗ much as a policy discussion. If through

1:13:09 ↗ that work of work plan and setting up

1:13:11 ↗ work plan and a lot of it is code

1:13:13 ↗ updates, incentives, prioritization, all

1:13:15 ↗ of that, if there are policies that get

1:13:18 ↗ teased out that maybe seem to be need

1:13:20 ↗ need to be relooked at. We do this every

1:13:22 ↗ year and so they would get back on the

1:13:24 ↗ uh the docket at that point. But

1:13:27 ↗ majority of the the conversations were

1:13:29 ↗ related to implementation pieces, not so

1:13:31 ↗ much as the comprehensive 20 20 year

1:13:34 ↗ plan. But if things do come up during

1:13:36 ↗ that work plan and removing barriers for

1:13:39 ↗ development conversation,

1:13:41 ↗ um that required policy reook, then we

1:13:45 ↗ would add it to the next year's docket.

1:13:50 ↗ >> Does that answer your question?

1:13:52 ↗ >> Sorry. You said you would add it to the

1:13:54 ↗ next year's docket if things come up.

1:13:55 ↗ >> We we have Well, this is a annual

1:13:58 ↗ process. So, yeah. So, this docket has

1:14:01 ↗ to be approved by March. So, and it's

1:14:04 ↗ going to council for approval March 2nd.

1:14:11 ↗ >> Yeah. So, essentially the process for

1:14:12 ↗ doing comprehensive plan updates, which

1:14:16 ↗ it's basically like once a year there's,

1:14:18 ↗ you know, minor updates that can be

1:14:20 ↗ made. And so, we, you know, there's a

1:14:23 ↗ list of these five. Now, this five

1:14:24 ↗ basically means staff can work on these

1:14:26 ↗ five updates. They can't work on other

1:14:27 ↗ updates to the comprehensive plan that

1:14:28 ↗ are not on this list of five right now.

1:14:31 ↗ But if there's other, you know,

1:14:32 ↗ comprehensive plan updates that come

1:14:34 ↗ out, you know, from some of the other

1:14:36 ↗ work that we're doing, they can kind of

1:14:38 ↗ put it on the bike rack, as it were, for

1:14:40 ↗ next year's docket of comprehensive plan

1:14:42 ↗ updates. So

1:14:51 ↗ great. Um, any other discussion?

1:14:54 ↗ If not, oh, were you going to say

1:14:56 ↗ something?

1:14:57 ↗ >> Well, I don't have questions. Have we

1:14:59 ↗ moved to the deliberation? Yes. With

1:15:01 ↗ that, I think we can move on to

1:15:02 ↗ deliberation.

1:15:04 ↗ Council member Marts.

1:15:06 ↗ >> Yes.

1:15:10 ↗ >> I'm answering the question.

1:15:12 ↗ >> Perfect. Thank you, Council Member

1:15:13 ↗ Marts. Council member Nichols.

1:15:16 ↗ >> I'll I'll take that Q and be brief. Uh,

1:15:18 ↗ yes.

1:15:20 ↗ >> Great. Yes. So, I believe 300 we

1:15:23 ↗ recommend approval of the docket as

1:15:24 ↗ presented as additional refinements that

1:15:26 ↗ are needed. And I believe um does anyone

1:15:29 ↗ have objections to bringing it back to

1:15:31 ↗ council on consent?

1:15:34 ↗ No. Okay. So, let's bring it back to

1:15:36 ↗ council on what day is it? March 2nd. Uh

1:15:40 ↗ on consent. Perfect. Great. Thank you so

1:15:43 ↗ much, Kate.

1:15:45 ↗ Um well

1:15:47 ↗ uh the last item on our agenda, speaking

1:15:51 ↗ of uh number five on that list is COM

1:15:55 ↗ 0204, the 2024 greenhouse gas inventory

1:15:58 ↗ and 2026 climate plan update. And I'd

1:16:01 ↗ like to welcome Stacy Vin McKinstry,

1:16:03 ↗ sustainability manager, and David Ree,

1:16:05 ↗ sustainability coordinator, to the

1:16:07 ↗ lectern to present.

1:16:19 ↗ Thank you. Good evening, members of the

1:16:21 ↗ committee. Um, I'm Stacy Vin McKinstry,

1:16:23 ↗ our sustainability manager, and joined

1:16:26 ↗ with me tonight is David Rei, our

1:16:28 ↗ sustainability coordinator.

1:16:30 ↗ This evening, we have two primary

1:16:32 ↗ reasons for meeting with you. First,

1:16:34 ↗ we'll be sharing the results of our

1:16:36 ↗ latest greenhouse gas emissions

1:16:38 ↗ inventory. And secondly, we will talk

1:16:40 ↗ through our proposed process for

1:16:42 ↗ updating the IAAP and seek your input on

1:16:45 ↗ a pathway for council review and

1:16:47 ↗ approval. I did want to note that we

1:16:50 ↗ have an image on this slide of our

1:16:52 ↗ endofear 2025 report. Um we are not

1:16:55 ↗ going to talk about the report in

1:16:56 ↗ detail. It is included in your packet.

1:16:59 ↗ We'll highlight a few results um at the

1:17:02 ↗ beginning of this presentation as we

1:17:04 ↗ talk about program implementation.

1:17:08 ↗ So again tonight um the direction that

1:17:10 ↗ we are seeking from you is a pathway for

1:17:13 ↗ IAP update review and approval. Uh

1:17:16 ↗ whether we should proceed with review

1:17:18 ↗ through the PTE committee or if we

1:17:20 ↗ should work through the committee of a

1:17:22 ↗ whole.

1:17:26 ↗ Before we jump into the 2024 greenhouse

1:17:28 ↗ gas inventory results, we wanted just to

1:17:31 ↗ uh refresh your memory of the IAP and

1:17:34 ↗ talk a bit about background and process

1:17:36 ↗ and progress. Um, as a reminder, the

1:17:40 ↗ IAAP was adopted by council in December

1:17:42 ↗ of 2021. It was built on very extensive

1:17:45 ↗ community engagement uh that occurred

1:17:47 ↗ during COVID. While it was the city's

1:17:50 ↗ first climate plan, it followed decades

1:17:53 ↗ of active engagement and sustainability

1:17:55 ↗ initiatives.

1:17:57 ↗ We had a limited implementation budget

1:17:59 ↗ in 2022, but we were able to expand that

1:18:03 ↗ budget and staffing in 2023.

1:18:06 ↗ We report to council twice a year on

1:18:08 ↗ implementation status and more

1:18:10 ↗ frequently as needed, while also

1:18:12 ↗ maintaining a dashboard that is updated

1:18:15 ↗ quarterly with our progress.

1:18:19 ↗ As a brief summary of implementation

1:18:21 ↗ over the last four years, the 2021 IAP

1:18:25 ↗ really laid out that roadmap for

1:18:27 ↗ implementation and we have been

1:18:28 ↗ following that focusing on near-term

1:18:31 ↗ actions um prioritizing actions that

1:18:34 ↗ needed early advancement um for

1:18:37 ↗ resulting in a larger impact. In some

1:18:40 ↗ cases, we've been a bit opportunistic

1:18:42 ↗ where we've pursued grant opportunities

1:18:44 ↗ or partnerships when they became

1:18:45 ↗ available. And we've really worked over

1:18:48 ↗ the last three years or four years to be

1:18:50 ↗ creative with building our capacity and

1:18:53 ↗ partnerships to expand.

1:18:56 ↗ Um, as noted, uh, we did prepare a

1:18:59 ↗ endofear 2025 report on our progress

1:19:02 ↗ that was intended both for council as

1:19:04 ↗ well as the committee. Uh, that was

1:19:06 ↗ included as attachment A. We are making

1:19:09 ↗ great progress in implementing the

1:19:11 ↗ actions as laid out in the 2024 or 2021

1:19:15 ↗ plan um and securing funds for programs

1:19:18 ↗ and projects. We partnered across

1:19:20 ↗ departments to make improvements in our

1:19:22 ↗ buildings and fleet. partnered with

1:19:24 ↗ youth to bring new voices to our

1:19:26 ↗ programming, implemented multiple

1:19:28 ↗ residential and commercial building

1:19:30 ↗ programs, conducted extensive waste

1:19:33 ↗ education,

1:19:34 ↗ and expanded our climate resilience

1:19:36 ↗ efforts by building networks with our

1:19:38 ↗ emergency management staff and community

1:19:41 ↗ partners.

1:19:42 ↗ We have also been successful in securing

1:19:44 ↗ grants both on our own and through our

1:19:47 ↗ regional partnerships.

1:19:49 ↗ We're excited about the work that's

1:19:50 ↗ coming in 2026. We have a number of new

1:19:53 ↗ projects happening at city facilities

1:19:56 ↗ um as well as expansion and new uh

1:19:59 ↗ programs for our community.

1:20:03 ↗ So while we have been very successful at

1:20:06 ↗ implementing programs and projects as

1:20:08 ↗ they were laid out in the in the climate

1:20:11 ↗ action plan um we really need to

1:20:13 ↗ understand the results of that work and

1:20:15 ↗ especially how they're impacting

1:20:16 ↗ emissions reductions. Um I will turn it

1:20:19 ↗ over to David. He is going to talk

1:20:21 ↗ through the results of our 2024

1:20:23 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

1:20:30 ↗ Thank you all so much. Um David Rei,

1:20:32 ↗ sustainability coordinator with the

1:20:34 ↗ city. So I'm going to dig into the

1:20:36 ↗ results of our 2024 greenhouse gas

1:20:39 ↗ inventory. Um this speaks directly to

1:20:42 ↗ the overarching goals and targets within

1:20:44 ↗ the 2021 climate action plan. Um before

1:20:47 ↗ I dig into these numbers though, I do

1:20:48 ↗ also just want to mention that as this

1:20:50 ↗ rolls into the conversation of the IAAP

1:20:53 ↗ update, there are targets and goals in

1:20:55 ↗ the 21 um IAP that uh go beyond

1:20:58 ↗ greenhouse gas uh emissions and talk

1:21:01 ↗ more towards climate resilience uh and

1:21:04 ↗ making sure that we have a a resilient

1:21:06 ↗ and livable city. So um these greenhouse

1:21:09 ↗ gas inventory numbers are really

1:21:11 ↗ important as we think about updating our

1:21:14 ↗ climate action plan. um but they don't

1:21:17 ↗ speak to um every single action within

1:21:20 ↗ the within the ICAP.

1:21:25 ↗ All right. So, just as some context

1:21:26 ↗ setting for our uh greenhouse gas

1:21:29 ↗ inventories, um we uh the last in

1:21:33 ↗ inventory we did was two years ago in

1:21:35 ↗ 2022.

1:21:37 ↗ Um and both the 2022 inventory and the

1:21:40 ↗ 2024 inventory were conducted in

1:21:43 ↗ partnership with our east side climate

1:21:45 ↗ uh partnership cities uh Belleview,

1:21:47 ↗ Redmond, Kirkland, and Mercer Island.

1:21:49 ↗ And this was uh done to create

1:21:52 ↗ efficiencies in the process uh as well

1:21:54 ↗ as make sure that the east side cities

1:21:56 ↗ had um uh inventories that had similar

1:22:01 ↗ um or the same methodologies and

1:22:03 ↗ therefore were easily um evaluated

1:22:06 ↗ against each other and um provided an

1:22:09 ↗ easier uh understanding for our

1:22:11 ↗ residents across the east side. We work

1:22:14 ↗ with a regional environmental consulting

1:22:17 ↗ firm, Cascadia Consulting, to conduct

1:22:19 ↗ these inventories.

1:22:21 ↗ And these inventories really represent a

1:22:23 ↗ snapshot in time understanding of where

1:22:25 ↗ we are with our greenhouse gas emissions

1:22:28 ↗ um using the best available

1:22:30 ↗ methodologies

1:22:31 ↗ uh and practices available at the time

1:22:34 ↗ that we are doing these inventories.

1:22:37 ↗ The 2024 inventory represents the sixth

1:22:40 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory the city has

1:22:42 ↗ done. um but our fourth inventory that

1:22:45 ↗ uses the same methodology. So um as far

1:22:48 ↗ back as 2017, all of the the four

1:22:51 ↗ inventories since then use the same

1:22:54 ↗ methodology.

1:22:55 ↗ This inventory also represents our

1:22:57 ↗ second government operations inventory.

1:22:59 ↗ So we actually start to get to see

1:23:01 ↗ trends uh and uh changes over time there

1:23:05 ↗ as well.

1:23:06 ↗ I also want to mention that this is the

1:23:08 ↗ first uh wedge analysis that the city

1:23:11 ↗ has done uh since the IAAP adoption. And

1:23:13 ↗ the wedge analysis, which I will go into

1:23:15 ↗ in a little bit, um really forecasts out

1:23:17 ↗ what are our emissions uh uh forecasts

1:23:20 ↗ looking like uh between now and 2050

1:23:24 ↗ where the IAP targets uh go out to.

1:23:31 ↗ So putting our uh inventory in context

1:23:34 ↗ uh it is important to recognize that uh

1:23:37 ↗ the city has experienced uh significant

1:23:40 ↗ population and business growth uh

1:23:42 ↗ between 2007 which is our baseline

1:23:44 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory year and uh

1:23:47 ↗ 2024 our most recent inventory year.

1:23:52 ↗ Um

1:23:54 ↗ the uh inventory as we have conducted it

1:23:57 ↗ uh gets to inform our IAP update process

1:24:00 ↗ as well as municip municipal targets and

1:24:03 ↗ actions in the climate action plan. The

1:24:06 ↗ inventories are based off of a wide

1:24:08 ↗ range of data that includes direct

1:24:10 ↗ activity reporting. So uh for instance

1:24:13 ↗ the uh exact uh electricity and natural

1:24:16 ↗ gas use in city operations models such

1:24:20 ↗ as uh Puget Sound Regional Council's

1:24:23 ↗ models for um vehicle miles traveled can

1:24:26 ↗ uh in the city in 2024 and then a number

1:24:30 ↗ of different assumptions um that uh that

1:24:34 ↗ we have to make based on when when data

1:24:36 ↗ is not fully available. And so an

1:24:38 ↗ example of that uh is some assumptions

1:24:40 ↗ based on solid waste uh data uh that we

1:24:44 ↗ use at for our government operations

1:24:46 ↗ inventory.

1:24:51 ↗ Some top takeaways from the 2024

1:24:53 ↗ inventory is that uh consistent with

1:24:56 ↗ previous assessments, the largest

1:24:58 ↗ sources of our communitywide and

1:25:00 ↗ government operations emissions are

1:25:02 ↗ those associated with the built

1:25:03 ↗ environment and transportation. There's

1:25:06 ↗ not a surprise there. That is what we

1:25:07 ↗ expected and we continue to see that uh

1:25:10 ↗ in our inventories moving forward.

1:25:13 ↗ Existing city actions through the

1:25:14 ↗ climate action plan are in line with the

1:25:17 ↗ uh largest sources of our greenhouse gas

1:25:19 ↗ emissions with a focus on uh built

1:25:22 ↗ environment and transportation.

1:25:24 ↗ And really meeting our ICAP targets and

1:25:27 ↗ goals requires continued and expanded

1:25:30 ↗ local, state, utility, and federal

1:25:32 ↗ action and investment. As you'll see

1:25:34 ↗ when I talk about the wedge analysis, um

1:25:37 ↗ we're not quite on track to reach our

1:25:39 ↗ IAP targets. And so, um we need to

1:25:42 ↗ continue to advocate for uh the

1:25:44 ↗ continued implementation of programs and

1:25:46 ↗ policies, but also think about how we

1:25:48 ↗ can expand those in the future.

1:25:52 ↗ Um the final thing I want to mention

1:25:53 ↗ here is that um over the course of 2017

1:25:56 ↗ to 2024 which represents the period

1:25:58 ↗ where we had the same methodology in our

1:26:00 ↗ greenhouse gas inventories uh the

1:26:02 ↗ majority of the emissions reductions uh

1:26:05 ↗ has come from uh reductions in the uh

1:26:08 ↗ fuel intensity uh of Puget Sound

1:26:11 ↗ Energy's fuel mix. Despite that being

1:26:15 ↗ the case, uh, between 2022 and 2024,

1:26:18 ↗ that is actually not the driver of the

1:26:21 ↗ the reductions that we've seen. And I'll

1:26:23 ↗ get into that a little bit in the next

1:26:25 ↗ slide.

1:26:27 ↗ So now we're starting to look at our

1:26:30 ↗ graphs and numbers around where we are

1:26:32 ↗ with our emissions.

1:26:35 ↗ The highle number here is that we've had

1:26:37 ↗ a 2% decrease in greenhouse gas

1:26:40 ↗ emissions since 2022.

1:26:42 ↗ We remain higher than our baseline in

1:26:45 ↗ 2007 but we are continuing a downward

1:26:47 ↗ trajec trajectory since 2017 which was

1:26:51 ↗ the last inventory with the same

1:26:53 ↗ methodology.

1:26:55 ↗ The decrease uh over the last two years

1:26:57 ↗ were driven between uh mainly between

1:27:00 ↗ the built environment and

1:27:01 ↗ transportation.

1:27:03 ↗ uh within the built environment uh there

1:27:05 ↗ was a drop a fairly significant drop in

1:27:08 ↗ fossil fuel use natural gas use in

1:27:10 ↗ commercial and residential buildings

1:27:12 ↗ about 11% over two years. Um unlike in

1:27:17 ↗ previous years uh Puget Sound Energy's

1:27:20 ↗ grid uh has had a higher fuel uh fossil

1:27:23 ↗ fuel intensity um over the last two

1:27:26 ↗ years and so electricity emissions

1:27:28 ↗ actually increased. However, the the

1:27:30 ↗ decrease in natural gas emissions um

1:27:33 ↗ drove an overall reduction in built

1:27:35 ↗ emissions. Uh

1:27:37 ↗ >> uh Council Member Mart had a question.

1:27:39 ↗ >> Can I ask a question on this uh on the

1:27:41 ↗ built environment uh greenhouse gas?

1:27:44 ↗ Does that is that just um heating or is

1:27:49 ↗ that also uh electricity used in

1:27:51 ↗ cooling? both uh electricity used in in

1:27:56 ↗ any building at all and similar with

1:27:58 ↗ natural gas use in buildings at all.

1:28:00 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:28:04 ↗ >> Uh the decrease we saw in transportation

1:28:07 ↗ emissions um was actually quite

1:28:08 ↗ interesting in that we saw uh a return

1:28:11 ↗ to more uh prepandemic levels of

1:28:14 ↗ transportation habits. And so the

1:28:16 ↗ vehicle miles traveled within the city

1:28:17 ↗ of Isiqua significantly increased

1:28:20 ↗ compared to 2022. However, our our

1:28:23 ↗ transportation emissions actually

1:28:25 ↗ decreased slightly and that speaks a

1:28:27 ↗ little bit to the improved fuel economy

1:28:30 ↗ of the vehicles that are on the road as

1:28:31 ↗ well as increased adoption of electric

1:28:34 ↗ vehicles.

1:28:37 ↗ Um there was a slight increase in

1:28:38 ↗ refrigerant and wastewater emissions and

1:28:41 ↗ uh those those will continue to be

1:28:43 ↗ monitored um as they play a larger role

1:28:46 ↗ in our emissions moving forward.

1:28:50 ↗ So looking ahead as we think about what

1:28:53 ↗ these emissions are really telling us.

1:28:55 ↗ This is uh an image of our updated wedge

1:28:58 ↗ analysis.

1:29:00 ↗ Uh we don't do this every year. Um but

1:29:02 ↗ especially we wanted to do this uh prior

1:29:05 ↗ to our 2026 IAP update um to help inform

1:29:09 ↗ uh that update and think about where

1:29:11 ↗ where we are at and where we are

1:29:13 ↗ currently going. So what this graph is

1:29:16 ↗ showing is the historic greenhouse gas

1:29:18 ↗ emissions and forecasts out what our

1:29:21 ↗ potential emissions could be depending

1:29:23 ↗ on the implementation of state,

1:29:25 ↗ regional, and federal programs and

1:29:27 ↗ policies.

1:29:29 ↗ The dotted red line at the bottom of the

1:29:31 ↗ graph represents the ICAP greenhouse gas

1:29:34 ↗ reduction targets of 50% by uh 2030 and

1:29:38 ↗ 95%

1:29:40 ↗ uh and net zero by 2050.

1:29:42 ↗ The top line of the graph represents the

1:29:45 ↗ historic emissions estimate if we were

1:29:47 ↗ to do uh nothing and make no changes

1:29:50 ↗ with our greenhouse gas emissions

1:29:52 ↗ trajectory.

1:29:54 ↗ The pink pink line uh represents uh

1:29:58 ↗ where our emissions would be uh if all

1:30:01 ↗ of the uh included federal, state, and

1:30:05 ↗ uh regional programs and policies were

1:30:08 ↗ fully implemented um based on how they

1:30:11 ↗ were written.

1:30:13 ↗ And then finally, the gray area between

1:30:16 ↗ our uh the the uh pink line and the

1:30:20 ↗ target line represents the emissions

1:30:22 ↗ gap. And the emissions gap really uh

1:30:26 ↗ speaks to um the anticipated emissions

1:30:30 ↗ in the city of Isiqua that are not

1:30:32 ↗ addressed through state, federal, and lo

1:30:35 ↗ and regional policies uh that that are

1:30:38 ↗ currently on the books.

1:30:40 ↗ So the wedge is showing that uh with uh

1:30:44 ↗ state, federal and regional policies,

1:30:46 ↗ we'll have a 42% reduction in greenhouse

1:30:49 ↗ gas emissions by 2030 and a 62%

1:30:52 ↗ reduction by 2050.

1:30:55 ↗ Importantly, these numbers are based on

1:30:57 ↗ the implementation of federal and state

1:30:58 ↗ policies and at this time there is uh a

1:31:01 ↗ fair amount of uncertainty on the full

1:31:03 ↗ implementation of some of these

1:31:05 ↗ policies.

1:31:07 ↗ Despite this gap, it can get a lot

1:31:09 ↗ larger if some of these programs and

1:31:11 ↗ policies are not implemented to their

1:31:13 ↗ full extent.

1:31:16 ↗ through the 2026 IAP update process and

1:31:19 ↗ and post adoption. We are looking to

1:31:21 ↗ evaluate a handful of our um IAP actions

1:31:26 ↗ that we anticipate will have the biggest

1:31:28 ↗ impact on this emissions gap to

1:31:30 ↗ understand what those actions will

1:31:33 ↗ actually do to this wedge and how much

1:31:36 ↗ closer they will bring us towards our

1:31:38 ↗ targets.

1:31:41 ↗ However, to address this gap that still

1:31:43 ↗ exists, um we do understand that we will

1:31:46 ↗ continue to have to focus on the built

1:31:48 ↗ environment and transportation and

1:31:50 ↗ specifically some of the harder to

1:31:52 ↗ decarbonize

1:31:53 ↗ uh um sectors such as uh natural gas use

1:31:57 ↗ in in our buildings as well as um medium

1:32:01 ↗ and heavy duty transportation.

1:32:06 ↗ Switching over to our government

1:32:08 ↗ operations, uh we have had a 4% decrease

1:32:12 ↗ in government operations emissions

1:32:14 ↗ compared to 2022. It's the first time we

1:32:17 ↗ get to make a comparison to a baseline

1:32:19 ↗ for our government operations, which is

1:32:21 ↗ very exciting.

1:32:23 ↗ Uh the largest increase decrease here is

1:32:25 ↗ driven by our electricity sector where

1:32:29 ↗ we're able to connect more of our

1:32:31 ↗ electric accounts to the Puget Sound

1:32:33 ↗ energy green direct and green power

1:32:35 ↗ programs which allow the city to connect

1:32:37 ↗ our electricity usage to renewable

1:32:40 ↗ energy generated uh in Western

1:32:42 ↗ Washington and uh and the West.

1:32:45 ↗ We did have an increase in

1:32:46 ↗ transportation related emissions. Um

1:32:49 ↗ that reflects uh a uh a return to work,

1:32:53 ↗ an increased number of days in office,

1:32:55 ↗ more activity at the city. Um and then

1:32:58 ↗ we also saw um a small increase in a

1:33:03 ↗ couple of different areas of our

1:33:05 ↗ emissions, specifically those related to

1:33:07 ↗ composting, um diesel use and uh

1:33:10 ↗ off-road fleet, specifically from the

1:33:12 ↗ bomb cyclone when we had to use much

1:33:14 ↗ more uh generator fuel and where we uh a

1:33:17 ↗ significant amount of compost material

1:33:20 ↗ was um a result of of the storm.

1:33:25 ↗ We do anticipate using the results of

1:33:28 ↗ the 2022 and 2024 government operations

1:33:31 ↗ inventory to help develop

1:33:32 ↗ recommendations for city operations

1:33:35 ↗ targets for the IAAP AR update.

1:33:37 ↗ Currently, there's only one uh IAP

1:33:40 ↗ target related to city operations. And

1:33:41 ↗ so, now that we have better data, we can

1:33:44 ↗ uh dig into more uh more concrete uh

1:33:48 ↗ targets moving forward.

1:33:51 ↗ I do also want to mention that this this

1:33:54 ↗ um inventory is for 2024 and we do have

1:33:57 ↗ many exciting projects that have been

1:34:00 ↗ ongoing and that are currently ongoing

1:34:02 ↗ uh specifically to help us reduce

1:34:04 ↗ natural gas use, increase renewable

1:34:06 ↗ energy generation and electrify the city

1:34:08 ↗ fleet. So, um we do anticipate seeing

1:34:11 ↗ those uh projects start to impact our

1:34:14 ↗ government operations uh emissions

1:34:16 ↗ moving forward.

1:34:21 ↗ On this slide, I just want to highlight

1:34:23 ↗ some specific programs uh that are

1:34:26 ↗ helping us address uh specifically the

1:34:29 ↗ the uh largest sources of our greenhouse

1:34:31 ↗ gas emissions both communitywide and in

1:34:34 ↗ government operations. So, I'm not going

1:34:36 ↗ to go through all of these, but um

1:34:38 ↗ specifically some of the some of the

1:34:40 ↗ programs to highlight are Energy Smart

1:34:42 ↗ East Side, which is helping us and our

1:34:44 ↗ community um electrify uh residents and

1:34:48 ↗ um and buildings across Isiqua by

1:34:51 ↗ implementing heat pump solutions. We

1:34:53 ↗ have our GLE clean buildings incentive

1:34:55 ↗ program which is helping our commercial

1:34:57 ↗ buildings and our nonprofits and our

1:35:00 ↗ schools uh improve the energy efficiency

1:35:03 ↗ of their facilities cutting down on

1:35:05 ↗ emissions that way. We have uh land use

1:35:08 ↗ changes in title 18 that have been

1:35:10 ↗ implemented and that are ongoing that

1:35:12 ↗ will help us uh reduce emissions through

1:35:16 ↗ um the way that people are moving about

1:35:18 ↗ in our in our community and how uh

1:35:21 ↗ development continues. On the government

1:35:24 ↗ operations side, we have as I mentioned

1:35:26 ↗ many exciting facilities upgrades from

1:35:28 ↗ um heat pumps at our own facilities and

1:35:31 ↗ solar systems at our own facilities. Um

1:35:34 ↗ we have uh EV transition where we've

1:35:36 ↗ added electric vehicles to our fleet and

1:35:38 ↗ we're continuing to uh build out the

1:35:40 ↗ infrastructure to continue that uh

1:35:43 ↗ change uh as um we can

1:35:50 ↗ turning now towards the IAP update.

1:35:54 ↗ What do we need to do to advance

1:35:56 ↗ progress? And the first two here really

1:35:59 ↗ continue to focus on uh the built the

1:36:02 ↗ emissions in the built environment and

1:36:03 ↗ the emissions in transportation. We need

1:36:06 ↗ to accelerate electrification,

1:36:08 ↗ connecting more folks to green power and

1:36:11 ↗ improving energy efficiency both in our

1:36:13 ↗ commercial and our residential

1:36:14 ↗ buildings. We need to continue to invest

1:36:17 ↗ in creative alternatives to single

1:36:19 ↗ occupancy vehicles and make EV charging

1:36:22 ↗ more accessible.

1:36:24 ↗ Allowing ourselves to uh allowing our

1:36:28 ↗ community members different options to

1:36:29 ↗ get around our community as well as

1:36:31 ↗ making uh low uh low emissions vehicle

1:36:34 ↗ travel easier and more accessible.

1:36:38 ↗ The third third one here uh is less

1:36:41 ↗ related to our greenhouse gas emissions

1:36:44 ↗ specifically

1:36:46 ↗ um and is less reflected in our

1:36:48 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory but speaks to

1:36:50 ↗ the importance of addressing greenhouse

1:36:52 ↗ gas emissions in a way that prepares our

1:36:54 ↗ city and our community for current and

1:36:56 ↗ future climate impacts.

1:37:00 ↗ Fourth, we want to make sure that we're

1:37:02 ↗ continuing to expand waste a diversion

1:37:03 ↗ programming and policies that'll help us

1:37:06 ↗ um in many ways and and one of those is

1:37:08 ↗ to address some of those emissions

1:37:10 ↗ specifically related to landfill. And

1:37:13 ↗ fifth, um we believe it's still

1:37:15 ↗ important to continue to lead by

1:37:17 ↗ example. Um although the city operations

1:37:20 ↗ remain a small part of our overall

1:37:22 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions in the

1:37:23 ↗ community, we can continue to lead by

1:37:26 ↗ example, addressing our own greenhouse

1:37:27 ↗ gas emissions while modernizing our

1:37:29 ↗ buildings, making healthier and cleaner

1:37:31 ↗ offices and community spaces, improving

1:37:34 ↗ transportation across the city, and

1:37:36 ↗ inspiring our community members to take

1:37:38 ↗ further action.

1:37:41 ↗ And now that we've seen where we are

1:37:43 ↗ with our greenhouse gas emissions and

1:37:45 ↗ where we're falling short, um I'm going

1:37:47 ↗ to turn this over to Stacy to talk about

1:37:49 ↗ how that's influencing uh and helping us

1:37:52 ↗ think through our 2026 IAP update.

1:37:57 ↗ >> Thanks, David. Um if appropriate, we can

1:38:00 ↗ pause at this time to answer any

1:38:01 ↗ questions about the inventory as we are

1:38:04 ↗ planning to transition now and talking

1:38:06 ↗ about our 2026 update process.

1:38:10 ↗ Council member Marks,

1:38:11 ↗ >> there was a point where you showed um

1:38:14 ↗ greenhouse gases by year and you had

1:38:17 ↗ like five sample years.

1:38:19 ↗ >> Mhm.

1:38:20 ↗ >> So, how do you uh keep going back? There

1:38:24 ↗ were there was a bar.

1:38:25 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:38:26 ↗ >> Sorry. There. There we go.

1:38:28 ↗ >> Um how do you normalize for weather

1:38:30 ↗ differences across those years?

1:38:32 ↗ different numbers of heating days and

1:38:33 ↗ cooling days because we have some of

1:38:36 ↗ those years had some extraordinary hot

1:38:38 ↗ days and some of those years had

1:38:39 ↗ extraordinarily long cold winters. Yeah.

1:38:42 ↗ So this data does not normalize across

1:38:46 ↗ weather differences. Um there are

1:38:49 ↗ certain programs. So for instance the um

1:38:52 ↗ state clean buildings program when that

1:38:55 ↗ looks at efficiency of buildings that

1:38:57 ↗ program specifically does weather

1:38:59 ↗ normalize um where buildings need to be

1:39:02 ↗ based on the weather. But this is really

1:39:05 ↗ just looking at overall emissions and

1:39:07 ↗ does not take into account uh what the

1:39:10 ↗ weather is doing. And um you know on the

1:39:13 ↗ government operations side that leads to

1:39:15 ↗ things like uh bump in emissions because

1:39:17 ↗ of what we did for the bomb cyclone

1:39:20 ↗ >> in response to that.

1:39:22 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:39:28 ↗ >> No, I don't think there's any other

1:39:29 ↗ questions from the committee. So I think

1:39:30 ↗ we can move on to the 2026 IAP update.

1:39:33 ↗ >> Right. Apologies back. Okay, great.

1:39:37 ↗ Well, thank you very much. Um, so next

1:39:39 ↗ we wanted to walk through the process,

1:39:41 ↗ highlight a few of the major changes

1:39:43 ↗ we're anticipating and talk through the

1:39:46 ↗ review process for council.

1:39:51 ↗ So the 2026 plan update we are

1:39:54 ↗ approaching as a light update um given

1:39:57 ↗ the extensive engagement that occurred

1:39:59 ↗ through the 2021 plan development.

1:40:01 ↗ However, as we have been working to

1:40:03 ↗ implement the plan over the last few

1:40:05 ↗ years, um talking with our boards and

1:40:07 ↗ commissions, we've identified a number

1:40:09 ↗ of areas where we do want to strengthen

1:40:11 ↗ the plan. A few of these major changes

1:40:14 ↗ are highlighted here. Um first is around

1:40:17 ↗ improving connections between the

1:40:18 ↗ actions and targets. We have some areas

1:40:21 ↗ of the plan such as our natural systems

1:40:23 ↗ focus area that has a target around tree

1:40:26 ↗ canopy, but there's very few actions

1:40:28 ↗ associated with enhancing tree canopy.

1:40:30 ↗ So, we want to improve some of those

1:40:32 ↗ connections. We also want to tie back to

1:40:34 ↗ the update of the comprehensive plan and

1:40:36 ↗ make sure we're in alignment with the

1:40:38 ↗ plan. As we talked about earlier, it's a

1:40:40 ↗ bit of an iterative project process. Um,

1:40:43 ↗ the comprehensive plan caught up to the

1:40:44 ↗ 2021 plan. Now, uh we want to catch up

1:40:48 ↗ um and get ahead of the comprehensive

1:40:50 ↗ plan um so it can then be updated.

1:40:53 ↗ Um, and in particular, this area uh that

1:40:56 ↗ we're looking at is incorporating some

1:40:58 ↗ actions around wildlife or habitat

1:41:00 ↗ resilience to really align with one of

1:41:02 ↗ the new sections of the comprehensive

1:41:04 ↗ plan.

1:41:06 ↗ We're also looking to broaden or expand

1:41:09 ↗ some of the descriptions that were in

1:41:11 ↗ the 2021 plan in order to provide some

1:41:14 ↗ more flexibility in terms of the

1:41:15 ↗ programs and projects that were

1:41:17 ↗ implementing um over the duration of the

1:41:19 ↗ plan. So for instance in the 2021 plan

1:41:23 ↗ there was a very specific campaign

1:41:25 ↗ called out. We did implement that. It

1:41:27 ↗ was pretty time intensity

1:41:29 ↗ intensive um financially intensive and

1:41:33 ↗ we didn't see it result in a big impact.

1:41:35 ↗ So we want to provide some more um

1:41:38 ↗ broadening of the type of work to allow

1:41:40 ↗ that flexibility for staff to um pick

1:41:43 ↗ the projects and programs that we

1:41:44 ↗ believe will have the biggest impact.

1:41:47 ↗ We're also looking at improving our

1:41:49 ↗ metrics and how we report to make sure

1:41:51 ↗ that we're sharing information that is

1:41:53 ↗ the most meaningful around plan

1:41:55 ↗ implementation.

1:41:57 ↗ And then lastly, um one of the biggest

1:42:00 ↗ uh potential changes that we're

1:42:02 ↗ considering is proposing a 10-year plan

1:42:05 ↗ compared to a five-year plan. We believe

1:42:07 ↗ this would reduce the capacity impact on

1:42:10 ↗ staff for updating the plan,

1:42:12 ↗ particularly when we know the areas that

1:42:14 ↗ we need to be focusing in. Um

1:42:16 ↗ specifically as David highlighted around

1:42:18 ↗ buildings and transportation

1:42:20 ↗ um the longer plan we would propose to

1:42:23 ↗ have regular check-ins and um even a

1:42:27 ↗ formal midpoint review to make sure that

1:42:29 ↗ we're still on the right track and

1:42:30 ↗ determine whether or not an earlier

1:42:32 ↗ update is necessary. So that proposal is

1:42:35 ↗ something we are talking through the

1:42:36 ↗ environmental board um if they are

1:42:39 ↗ supportive of it and if so we'll be

1:42:40 ↗ bringing that to council for

1:42:42 ↗ consideration.

1:42:45 ↗ Um, this outlines our pathway for uh the

1:42:48 ↗ update and review. Um, this will end up

1:42:52 ↗ being about a 14-month process. We

1:42:54 ↗ kicked it off last spring. We brought

1:42:56 ↗ together subject matter experts from our

1:42:59 ↗ boards and commissions and the

1:43:00 ↗ Snowqualami tribe to dive deep into a

1:43:03 ↗ few subsections of the plan and provide

1:43:05 ↗ their input. Um during the spring

1:43:08 ↗ summer, we were also tracking updates to

1:43:10 ↗ the Redmond and Belleview climate action

1:43:12 ↗ plan so we could where appropriate um be

1:43:15 ↗ in alignment with their plan. In the

1:43:18 ↗ fall of 2025, we held an event with

1:43:21 ↗ former mayor Paulie um where we sought

1:43:23 ↗ input from the community and we at that

1:43:26 ↗ time also began vetting subsections of

1:43:29 ↗ the plan with our boards and

1:43:30 ↗ commissions.

1:43:32 ↗ Right now, we are in the process of

1:43:35 ↗ working through sections of the plan

1:43:37 ↗ with staff um and we'll be taking back

1:43:40 ↗ the plan for review to all of our boards

1:43:42 ↗ and commissions um that have subject

1:43:44 ↗ subject matter experts related to the

1:43:46 ↗ IAP at the end of this month. We are

1:43:49 ↗ also working with students on a student

1:43:51 ↗ survey to bring in youth voice for

1:43:54 ↗ priorities for the plan update.

1:43:57 ↗ Uh last night also we kicked off a

1:44:00 ↗ process with a metrics committee so they

1:44:02 ↗ could help inform how we are tracking

1:44:04 ↗ and reporting um on the plan going

1:44:07 ↗ forward.

1:44:09 ↗ As we move into the spring, we'll be

1:44:11 ↗ completing a final review of the plan

1:44:13 ↗ with the environmental board and then

1:44:14 ↗ following the process as determined uh

1:44:17 ↗ by council council for final review and

1:44:20 ↗ approval.

1:44:23 ↗ So, um, this slide outlines two proposed

1:44:27 ↗ processes for reviewing and approving

1:44:30 ↗ the plan that we worked through with our

1:44:32 ↗ clerk's office. Uh, we are seeking your

1:44:34 ↗ input on whether we work through the

1:44:37 ↗ council of a whole um or excuse me,

1:44:39 ↗ committee of the whole or through this

1:44:41 ↗ uh committee um prior to going to the

1:44:44 ↗ full council. Uh I'll just note that one

1:44:47 ↗ of the um the recommendation for going

1:44:50 ↗ through committee of the whole was the

1:44:52 ↗ feeling that the IAP touches so many

1:44:54 ↗ aspects of our community and so many of

1:44:57 ↗ our committees that it may be um one

1:44:59 ↗ option for a pathway to meet with the

1:45:01 ↗ full council um for discussion and

1:45:05 ↗ deliberation on the plan.

1:45:09 ↗ Um so tonight uh we are just seeking

1:45:12 ↗ that direction on which pathway forward

1:45:14 ↗ reviewing the 2026 IAP review whether we

1:45:17 ↗ go through committee the whole or the

1:45:20 ↗ PTE committee.

1:45:23 ↗ Moving forward uh we have a number of

1:45:25 ↗ programs uh projects and policies uh

1:45:28 ↗ that we have planned for 2026. So, we'll

1:45:30 ↗ be advancing that implementation while

1:45:32 ↗ at the same time working through the

1:45:34 ↗ updates to the plan uh with the

1:45:37 ↗ expectation to bring that to council uh

1:45:39 ↗ late in the spring and early summer.

1:45:44 ↗ That I will move it over to the

1:45:46 ↗ direction that we need is um on whether

1:45:49 ↗ to move the plan review process through

1:45:52 ↗ committee of the whole or the PTE

1:45:54 ↗ committee.

1:45:59 ↗ Can I ask one more question before I get

1:46:00 ↗ to deliberation? And you may have

1:46:02 ↗ explained this and I' I've been trying

1:46:04 ↗ to get some data as we've been talking.

1:46:06 ↗ Um,

1:46:08 ↗ why in so many categories is 2022 the

1:46:10 ↗ most recent data that we have.

1:46:18 ↗ >> Uh, can you so 22 2022 is um our most

1:46:24 ↗ recent data is 2024. Um 2022 represents

1:46:28 ↗ the most recent uh or the first

1:46:32 ↗ government operations inventory and is

1:46:34 ↗ is kind of the um comparison year to

1:46:37 ↗ look for you know what was the change

1:46:39 ↗ between uh towards the most recent

1:46:42 ↗ inventory which we did in 2024.

1:46:44 ↗ >> But but in so many of the categories in

1:46:46 ↗ the report when you talk when you talk

1:46:48 ↗ about you talk about 2017 versus 2022.

1:46:52 ↗ >> Yes. So, the the 2025

1:46:55 ↗ uh year-end report, the 2024 inventory

1:46:59 ↗ wasn't completed until the very end of

1:47:01 ↗ 2025. It even actually went a little bit

1:47:04 ↗ into early January. So, at the time that

1:47:06 ↗ the report was created, the numbers for

1:47:08 ↗ 2024 weren't done yet.

1:47:10 ↗ >> I see.

1:47:12 ↗ >> And sorry, what did they tell us about

1:47:14 ↗ 2024 versus 2022?

1:47:16 ↗ >> The what are the greenhouse gas

1:47:18 ↗ inventory numbers? So that was um uh the

1:47:23 ↗ most of the numbers I talked about

1:47:25 ↗ tonight were 2024 numbers. Um and so

1:47:27 ↗ that was showing we had a 2% decrease in

1:47:30 ↗ communitywide emissions um over the last

1:47:33 ↗ two years mostly driven by a reduction

1:47:35 ↗ in fossil natural gas use in our built

1:47:37 ↗ environment as well as some efficiencies

1:47:39 ↗ in transportation. Um and then in the

1:47:43 ↗ government sector, we had about a 4%

1:47:45 ↗ decrease in government operations

1:47:47 ↗ inventory or emissions.

1:47:49 ↗ >> Again, between 2022,

1:47:51 ↗ >> between 2022 and 24. And for government

1:47:53 ↗ operations, those are the only two

1:47:55 ↗ inventories we have. Whereas for uh

1:47:58 ↗ communitywide uh inventories, we have

1:48:01 ↗ that data over a longer period, although

1:48:04 ↗ 2017 is the oldest year that uses the

1:48:06 ↗ same methodology.

1:48:08 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:48:17 ↗ Um, okay. I have a few questions. So, I

1:48:21 ↗ guess this is kind of more of a global

1:48:23 ↗ question, but I wonder if in terms of

1:48:26 ↗ like council direction. I've often felt

1:48:29 ↗ like, you know, we're kind of brought in

1:48:30 ↗ at the very end versus, you know,

1:48:33 ↗ earlier in the process where, for

1:48:34 ↗ example, with like the metrics, right?

1:48:36 ↗ might be things that we would like to

1:48:38 ↗ see that maybe you should be aware of

1:48:41 ↗ before you've like written the whole

1:48:43 ↗ thing and you don't want to go back and

1:48:44 ↗ change the whole thing. So, I'm curious.

1:48:45 ↗ I mean, like is would there be a way for

1:48:49 ↗ some of us to get engaged a bit earlier

1:48:51 ↗ in the process, you know, given like

1:48:52 ↗ where you are with the draft now and

1:48:54 ↗ then potentially bring it back to like

1:48:56 ↗ the whole committee or whole council to

1:48:57 ↗ review in May or whenever that may be.

1:49:03 ↗ Um,

1:49:04 ↗ I think from a staff perspective, we

1:49:07 ↗ could do that. I don't I don't know if

1:49:09 ↗ there's any limitations.

1:49:11 ↗ >> Well, I think that's part of the

1:49:12 ↗ question for this evening is that as we

1:49:13 ↗ move forward, how was the council wish

1:49:15 ↗ to do this? If you'd like to be involved

1:49:17 ↗ as a full council, then we're asking you

1:49:19 ↗ to go through the committee the whole or

1:49:20 ↗ if you'd like the this as a committee to

1:49:22 ↗ be steering this. That's really the

1:49:25 ↗ question before you.

1:49:26 ↗ >> Yeah. And we we can add additional touch

1:49:29 ↗ points. Right now we have two proposed

1:49:31 ↗ either through committee of the whole

1:49:32 ↗ and then to full counsel or PTE to full

1:49:35 ↗ counsel. If you all wish to see more

1:49:37 ↗ touch points there's a you have a

1:49:38 ↗ calendar right?

1:49:39 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:49:40 ↗ >> Um

1:49:42 ↗ I will note so why we are aiming for a

1:49:45 ↗ June adoption was our goal was to get

1:49:47 ↗ ahead of the budget cycle so that we

1:49:50 ↗ have an updated plan that will then

1:49:52 ↗ inform our budget requests. Um, this

1:49:55 ↗ planning process could go through the

1:49:57 ↗ end of the year if if needed. Um, but

1:50:00 ↗ really our aim was to have at least a

1:50:02 ↗ pretty solid foundation of the actions

1:50:04 ↗ that we wanted um over the next two

1:50:06 ↗ years outlined by this summer. So, we

1:50:09 ↗ can absolutely add in additional touch

1:50:11 ↗ points where possibly starting in May as

1:50:13 ↗ a first touch point and then we have two

1:50:16 ↗ additional after that if needed. um or

1:50:19 ↗ if there's other um ways for the

1:50:21 ↗ committee or council to be involved in

1:50:23 ↗ the process, we are open to those

1:50:25 ↗ suggestions.

1:50:25 ↗ >> And could you also speak to the touch

1:50:27 ↗ points the environment board's going to

1:50:28 ↗ have?

1:50:28 ↗ >> Yes, the environment board has been uh

1:50:32 ↗ had many touch points and has several

1:50:34 ↗ more. So, we have over the last 6 months

1:50:37 ↗ or so been reviewing each section of the

1:50:40 ↗ plan section by section.

1:50:42 ↗ um we are finishing that up next week

1:50:45 ↗ and then they will have at least two

1:50:47 ↗ additional opportunities to review all

1:50:50 ↗ of the um the full updated draft of the

1:50:53 ↗ plan. Similarly, the park board PPC and

1:50:58 ↗ um TAB will have had at least two touch

1:51:01 ↗ points um to review the relevant

1:51:03 ↗ sections of the plan. plus many members

1:51:06 ↗ of their uh board or commission were

1:51:08 ↗ involved in our initial committee review

1:51:10 ↗ where they provided initial input.

1:51:13 ↗ >> Cool. Thank you.

1:51:15 ↗ >> Um in terms of the actions like my sense

1:51:19 ↗ is to date our actions have mostly been

1:51:22 ↗ programmatic

1:51:23 ↗ and less so on the policy side other

1:51:26 ↗ than you know having like you know

1:51:29 ↗ requiring all new buildings to be lead

1:51:30 ↗ certified or whatever. Is there going to

1:51:33 ↗ be a discussion about, you know, what

1:51:35 ↗ types of policies we could potentially

1:51:37 ↗ pursue to because I think, you know, the

1:51:39 ↗ two biggest issues we have is fossil

1:51:42 ↗ fuel use in buildings and vehicle miles

1:51:44 ↗ traveled. And so I mean then what we

1:51:47 ↗ need to do is reduce fossil fuel use in

1:51:49 ↗ buildings through electrification and

1:51:51 ↗ reduce vehicle mile traveled by having

1:51:53 ↗ people travel by other modes. So I think

1:51:56 ↗ you know vehicle miles travel that's

1:51:58 ↗ very much like falls squarely within

1:52:00 ↗ transportation whereas the fossil fuel

1:52:02 ↗ building use I think squarely falls

1:52:05 ↗ under sustainability. Mhm.

1:52:06 ↗ >> So I'm curious like

1:52:09 ↗ you know right now we have Energize East

1:52:11 ↗ Side which is great but it's like okay

1:52:13 ↗ you know we can give incentives to some

1:52:14 ↗ people we're never going to have enough

1:52:16 ↗ money to give incentives to everyone.

1:52:18 ↗ you know, how are we think and and this

1:52:22 ↗ just popped into my mind while um during

1:52:24 ↗ the presentation, but like do we have

1:52:25 ↗ data on what proportion of new heating

1:52:27 ↗ systems are like heat pumps versus, you

1:52:30 ↗ know, furnaces and how that's changing

1:52:31 ↗ over time and you know, what policies

1:52:34 ↗ can we consider to kind of get that

1:52:36 ↗ moving in the direction that we needed

1:52:38 ↗ to be going cuz I think that to me is

1:52:40 ↗ one of the areas where I think there may

1:52:43 ↗ need to be some policy changes beyond

1:52:45 ↗ just, you know, having some programs

1:52:48 ↗ that are great. Like I'm all in favor of

1:52:50 ↗ having solar and batteries on the senior

1:52:51 ↗ center, but that is not going to get us

1:52:52 ↗ to where we need to be in terms of

1:52:53 ↗ emissions as a city.

1:52:56 ↗ >> Yeah. To answer the last part of your

1:52:58 ↗ question first, yes, we are tracking

1:52:59 ↗ permit data and so we have the

1:53:02 ↗ trajectory over since 2022 of where we

1:53:05 ↗ are with um heat pump versus furnace

1:53:07 ↗ replacements and our energy smart east

1:53:09 ↗ side program has goals in place of where

1:53:11 ↗ we need to be over certain timelines and

1:53:14 ↗ is seeking the funds for um offering the

1:53:16 ↗ incentive and rebates to get there.

1:53:18 ↗ Regarding the policies, um what we are

1:53:21 ↗ currently reviewing with boards and

1:53:24 ↗ commissions are a number of new policies

1:53:26 ↗ where we would um however we're framing

1:53:29 ↗ the language as a kind of assessing the

1:53:31 ↗ feasibility and implementation pathway

1:53:33 ↗ for those policies to ensure that they

1:53:36 ↗ can be um have a strong costbenefit

1:53:39 ↗ analysis that we can vet any draft

1:53:41 ↗ policies with council and not get um

1:53:44 ↗ ahead of ourselves around those specific

1:53:46 ↗ policies.

1:53:48 ↗ uh laid out in a potentially 10-year

1:53:50 ↗ plan, but at least have the concept

1:53:52 ↗ there that we can then work through what

1:53:54 ↗ the best uh approach for the policy will

1:53:56 ↗ be in the right fit for Isiakqua. Um so

1:53:59 ↗ we've looked to Redmond Plan, Belleview

1:54:01 ↗ Plan, other plans as well to see where

1:54:04 ↗ they've proposed some policies that we

1:54:05 ↗ might be able to pull in and have some

1:54:07 ↗ regional alignment. So yeah, I would

1:54:09 ↗ expect to see uh a proposal for several

1:54:12 ↗ new policies in this plan.

1:54:15 ↗ That's great to hear,

1:54:16 ↗ >> Council Member Marts. and then council

1:54:17 ↗ member Nichols.

1:54:19 ↗ >> Oh, sorry, just Council Member Nichols.

1:54:22 ↗ >> So, specifically on those policies

1:54:24 ↗ versus programmatic, could you um maybe

1:54:27 ↗ elaborate on what that means to you? Um

1:54:30 ↗ I guess

1:54:32 ↗ >> broadly.

1:54:33 ↗ >> Sure. Yeah. So, some of the language

1:54:35 ↗ that we're looking at with boards and

1:54:36 ↗ commissions, again, this is all going

1:54:38 ↗ through vetting, so we don't have any

1:54:40 ↗ recommended actions that we're bringing

1:54:42 ↗ tonight, but some of those would be

1:54:44 ↗ putting in place requirements. um uh or

1:54:49 ↗ uh a new program. Well, it would be

1:54:51 ↗ requirements essentially. So, I don't

1:54:53 ↗ want to um assume which ones might kind

1:54:56 ↗ of make it out the end of the review

1:54:57 ↗ process. Um, so I know council member

1:55:01 ↗ Jen mentioned in a comment uh earlier uh

1:55:05 ↗ or yesterday around potential policies

1:55:08 ↗ for heat pump replacements, whether

1:55:10 ↗ that's a contractor offering at least a

1:55:13 ↗ heat pump uh quote along with a furnace

1:55:16 ↗ quote. Um that could be something that

1:55:18 ↗ is considered in this plan. Um there's

1:55:21 ↗ been a policy proposed by some of our

1:55:23 ↗ nonprofit partners around a home energy

1:55:26 ↗ score requirement where a home would be

1:55:28 ↗ required to report on their energy use

1:55:31 ↗ or energy efficiency at time of sale. Um

1:55:34 ↗ those are the types of policies that

1:55:36 ↗ potentially could be um considered in

1:55:39 ↗ this plan and some of the ideas that

1:55:41 ↗ have come forward. Um, programmatically

1:55:43 ↗ that would be more uh in line with what

1:55:46 ↗ we've been running with our energy

1:55:47 ↗ smarty side program where we offer

1:55:49 ↗ rebates and incentives for heat pump

1:55:52 ↗ installations. We're expanding that

1:55:54 ↗ program um to include weatherization and

1:55:56 ↗ to work with rental homes. So, that'd be

1:55:58 ↗ more on the programmatic side.

1:56:01 ↗ Answer your question.

1:56:02 ↗ >> Yeah, that was good. Thank you.

1:56:04 ↗ >> Yeah. Thanks.

1:56:09 ↗ >> Great. Any other questions or comments

1:56:11 ↗ that come?

1:56:12 ↗ >> Again, questions comments are different

1:56:14 ↗ than questions, right?

1:56:17 ↗ Are we in the are we in the uh

1:56:19 ↗ deliberation phase or are we still I

1:56:22 ↗ think we're still in the question phase,

1:56:23 ↗ right?

1:56:23 ↗ >> Yes. Sorry about that. I for me

1:56:26 ↗ sometimes with the comments then they

1:56:27 ↗ invite new questions and so in the

1:56:29 ↗ deliberation phase there can sometimes

1:56:30 ↗ be more questions that arise. But yes, I

1:56:33 ↗ I think we're still officially in the

1:56:35 ↗ question phase.

1:56:37 ↗ Any questions? Okay. Uh, I guess moving

1:56:39 ↗ on to the deliberation and council or

1:56:43 ↗ committee discussion phase.

1:56:46 ↗ Okay, council member Nichols.

1:56:51 ↗ I think the um the the point that

1:56:54 ↗ council member Jang brought up about

1:56:55 ↗ what what are the biggest buckets here

1:56:58 ↗ is important towards the question you're

1:56:59 ↗ asking which is where does this go PD or

1:57:01 ↗ or committee the whole um the biggest

1:57:04 ↗ buckets here I think are policy related

1:57:07 ↗ um and for that reason I think would

1:57:10 ↗ best be served through a PTE discussion

1:57:13 ↗ where we can vote and give clear

1:57:15 ↗ recommendation

1:57:17 ↗ so my preference would be PTE

1:57:24 ↗ Uh I think if if anthropogenic climate

1:57:28 ↗ change

1:57:30 ↗ is a singular threat then I do not think

1:57:33 ↗ the course we are on is sufficient. I

1:57:35 ↗ think if you look at the data of our uh

1:57:40 ↗ carbon emissions over the since 2007

1:57:45 ↗ um I don't think a betting person would

1:57:48 ↗ possibly that any any money at any odds

1:57:52 ↗ that we are going to be down 50% by

1:57:54 ↗ 2030.

1:57:55 ↗ So what we've been doing has been

1:57:59 ↗ insufficient.

1:58:00 ↗ If we keep doing what we've been doing,

1:58:02 ↗ we're going to keep getting what we've

1:58:04 ↗ been getting.

1:58:05 ↗ um that data does not there's no uh plot

1:58:08 ↗ through that those columns of data that

1:58:12 ↗ that tells a story that we like. So I

1:58:15 ↗ think it should come back to this

1:58:16 ↗ committee because I think it needs a

1:58:18 ↗ complete retooling. Um I think we should

1:58:21 ↗ have a plan that we think I mean it it

1:58:24 ↗ may be impossible to get to 50% by 2030

1:58:27 ↗ because it's only uh four years away.

1:58:31 ↗ then maybe it's getting to the 70% 75%

1:58:34 ↗ by 2040. I think we should have a plan

1:58:36 ↗ that we think works. And if that plan is

1:58:38 ↗ too painful to execute, so be it. Um or

1:58:42 ↗ if we can't execute it because the

1:58:44 ↗ community doesn't want to make the kinds

1:58:46 ↗ of changes that are going to be

1:58:47 ↗ necessary. But I think that this council

1:58:50 ↗ for at least the last five or six years

1:58:54 ↗ has viewed anthropogenic climate change

1:58:56 ↗ as a unique threat. And so I think we

1:58:59 ↗ should have a plan that we believe will

1:59:01 ↗ get us to the targets that we have

1:59:03 ↗ accepted. So bring it back here because

1:59:06 ↗ it needs substantial retooling. Thank

1:59:08 ↗ you.

1:59:12 ↗ >> Yeah, I I definitely agree. I think our

1:59:16 ↗ plan probably needs a lot of work and

1:59:19 ↗ there probably needs to be a lot more

1:59:20 ↗ policy discussion than what we've had in

1:59:22 ↗ past years. Um and I do think I mean

1:59:27 ↗ given the importance I do think there

1:59:29 ↗ probably is value in having at least one

1:59:32 ↗ committee of the whole meeting

1:59:33 ↗ especially given that you know one of

1:59:36 ↗ the big buckets is the whole

1:59:37 ↗ transportation aspect of things and we

1:59:40 ↗ are having special council meeting on

1:59:41 ↗ transportation. So I think you know

1:59:43 ↗ elevating this to that same level of

1:59:46 ↗ importance in my opinion is important

1:59:48 ↗ but I do think there's probably a lot

1:59:50 ↗ more work that needs to be done on the

1:59:53 ↗ climate action plan. Um you know and I

1:59:56 ↗ think the earlier that we're able to

1:59:59 ↗ take a look at it and kind of shape

2:00:01 ↗ where that goes I think the better cuz I

2:00:03 ↗ know that there's already been a ton of

2:00:04 ↗ work that's gone into it. Um, and you

2:00:08 ↗ know, I think the policy actions that

2:00:10 ↗ have been proposed, like home energy

2:00:12 ↗ scores, I don't think there's that much

2:00:14 ↗ data saying that that does much of

2:00:16 ↗ anything. Like I, you know, building

2:00:18 ↗ energy is like my professional line of

2:00:20 ↗ work. It's basically like, okay, well,

2:00:22 ↗ essentially the main thing that needs to

2:00:24 ↗ happen is when people replace a piece of

2:00:25 ↗ equipment, it cannot, you cannot be

2:00:27 ↗ putting in new gas equipment that's

2:00:28 ↗ going to be burning natural gas for

2:00:30 ↗ another 15 or 20 years. So, how can we

2:00:33 ↗ like change the trajectory on that? And

2:00:36 ↗ I think we really are going to have to

2:00:38 ↗ think hard about you know what are the

2:00:39 ↗ types of policies that we can consider

2:00:42 ↗ to you know move things forward while

2:00:45 ↗ also making it because this is there's

2:00:47 ↗ going to be some cost associated with

2:00:48 ↗ it. So it's like how are you going to

2:00:50 ↗ make sure that you know the low-income

2:00:52 ↗ residents of our city who are already

2:00:54 ↗ struggling are not bearing the costs of

2:00:56 ↗ these green mandates that we might like

2:00:58 ↗ to espouse from our seats high up here

2:01:00 ↗ on the dis like how can we make that

2:01:02 ↗ transition as simple as possible? How

2:01:04 ↗ can we make, you know, the

2:01:06 ↗ environmentally friendly choice the

2:01:07 ↗ default and easiest choice instead of

2:01:09 ↗ something that we must all collectively

2:01:11 ↗ suffer through together? I think there's

2:01:13 ↗ a lot there. transportation. I mean,

2:01:18 ↗ there's just so much more that goes into

2:01:20 ↗ that than what can just be addressed by,

2:01:22 ↗ you know, our small but mighty

2:01:24 ↗ sustainability team. Really, it touches,

2:01:27 ↗ you know, everything we do in government

2:01:28 ↗ land use, you know, transportation,

2:01:31 ↗ uh, community planning. And so, how do

2:01:33 ↗ we kind of bring that all together?

2:01:35 ↗ Because, you know, as council member

2:01:36 ↗ Mart said, the way that we're going is

2:01:40 ↗ not like even before the most recent

2:01:44 ↗ federal election, we were not really on

2:01:45 ↗ track to meet any of our climate goals

2:01:47 ↗ and now it's just, you know, it's even

2:01:50 ↗ worse. So, I think from a city

2:01:51 ↗ perspective, I think we need to do

2:01:53 ↗ everything that we can, but, you know,

2:01:54 ↗ also within reason. So, I I do think it

2:01:57 ↗ would be good for us to review like

2:01:59 ↗ where we are, what kind of policies

2:02:02 ↗ we're considering

2:02:04 ↗ and um review that as PTE sooner rather

2:02:07 ↗ than later and then potentially bring it

2:02:09 ↗ back to committee of the whole but after

2:02:11 ↗ we've had the chance to work through it

2:02:13 ↗ a bit more as a committee.

2:02:16 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah. I think what I'm hearing is

2:02:18 ↗ probably one to two PTE meetings where

2:02:21 ↗ maybe we'd bring kind of the major

2:02:22 ↗ policies that are being proposed and

2:02:24 ↗ review those with you all and then a

2:02:27 ↗ committee of the whole and then council.

2:02:30 ↗ But we can kind of maybe assess the

2:02:31 ↗ process as we go and see if additional

2:02:33 ↗ meetings and discussion are needed.

2:02:37 ↗ Great.

2:02:40 ↗ I think that sounds great to everyone.

2:02:43 ↗ So, um, yeah, we'll see you again here

2:02:47 ↗ hopefully soon.

2:02:48 ↗ >> And and chair, uh, could you then report

2:02:52 ↗ this out? We won't put this on an

2:02:54 ↗ agenda,

2:02:55 ↗ >> but if you could report out under

2:02:56 ↗ committee reports, this discussion so

2:02:59 ↗ your colleagues know what the plan is,

2:03:01 ↗ that'd be great.

2:03:02 ↗ >> So, the next meeting or the following

2:03:04 ↗ meeting?

2:03:04 ↗ >> Yep. I can report this in the next

2:03:06 ↗ meeting in the committee reports.

2:03:07 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

2:03:12 ↗ >> Thank you. Great. Thanks, Stacy.

2:03:18 ↗ Okay, that is our last item of regular

2:03:21 ↗ business. Um, and so the next item is

2:03:26 ↗ announcements. Do any of my fellow

2:03:27 ↗ committee members have any announcements

2:03:29 ↗ to make?

2:03:31 ↗ Seeing none, my only announcement is

2:03:33 ↗ that the next planning de development

2:03:35 ↗ and environment committee meeting is on

2:03:37 ↗ Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026.

2:03:40 ↗ So, four weeks from today at 6:30 p.m.

2:03:43 ↗ in council chambers and there being no

2:03:45 ↗ further business at the meeting.

2:03:47 ↗ >> I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt.

2:03:49 ↗ Um, we currently have no pending

2:03:50 ↗ business.

2:03:51 ↗ >> Oh, okay.

2:03:52 ↗ >> For the meeting. Um, unless there's

2:03:54 ↗ something specific on your mind. One of

2:03:57 ↗ the challenges is that the council is

2:03:59 ↗ going to be having a meeting the

2:04:01 ↗ following week to talk about uh uh

2:04:03 ↗ permitting and uh um

2:04:06 ↗ >> planning housing studies

2:04:09 ↗ likely many of which will come back to

2:04:11 ↗ this committee.

2:04:12 ↗ >> Uh but those decisions have yet to be

2:04:13 ↗ made. So

2:04:15 ↗ >> just confirming with many that there we

2:04:18 ↗ have no we we have no pending business.

2:04:21 ↗ No, nothing on the agenda for the March

2:04:24 ↗ PTE meeting, but council discussion on

2:04:27 ↗ March 9th,

2:04:28 ↗ >> right?

2:04:28 ↗ >> Okay. Um, would it make sense to discuss

2:04:32 ↗ some of these climate policy ideas in

2:04:35 ↗ the next PTE meeting?

2:04:38 ↗ >> Yeah, I was just

2:04:45 ↗ >> Okay.

2:04:51 ↗ discussions.

2:04:54 ↗ I just feel like

2:05:02 ↗ >> um

2:05:04 ↗ either of you have any thoughts?

2:05:08 ↗ >> Um I I would be up to consider having an

2:05:11 ↗ off cycle. um if we could consider

2:05:14 ↗ having a meeting a couple weeks later,

2:05:16 ↗ which would give you time to to get the

2:05:18 ↗ results from those uh committees rather

2:05:20 ↗ than uh waiting a whole month, but

2:05:23 ↗ >> I leave that up to greater minds than

2:05:26 ↗ mine.

2:05:28 ↗ >> Yeah, I'll say I agree with that. I

2:05:30 ↗ don't know what the implications of that

2:05:31 ↗ are exactly and if it's possible, but in

2:05:33 ↗ principle, I agree.

2:05:35 ↗ >> Yep, I agree with that. I didn't I

2:05:37 ↗ didn't know that that that was something

2:05:38 ↗ we were able to do with committee

2:05:39 ↗ meetings.

2:05:41 ↗ >> Potentially.

2:05:42 ↗ >> Potentially. Okay.

2:05:43 ↗ >> If possible.

2:05:46 ↗ >> Clerk, are you able to determine if that

2:05:47 ↗ would be possible? Because I know we

2:05:49 ↗ have three committees. So,

2:05:51 ↗ theoretically, there should be at least

2:05:53 ↗ one free Tuesday.

2:05:57 ↗ >> Madam Chair, why don't we uh take that

2:05:59 ↗ idea under advisement? We're looking at

2:06:01 ↗ the calendar for March. Um, services,

2:06:04 ↗ safety, and parks also does not have any

2:06:06 ↗ pending items and so there's a March

2:06:08 ↗ 17th date.

2:06:10 ↗ >> Um, so that might be something. Would

2:06:12 ↗ that be a better date?

2:06:16 ↗ >> All right. And you know for everyone

2:06:19 ↗ >> and you know for a fact that two of the

2:06:21 ↗ three services and safety members are

2:06:22 ↗ available at that time because they're

2:06:24 ↗ on that committee.

2:06:25 ↗ >> Ah, well there you go.

2:06:27 ↗ >> Excellent. Great. Um, so the next

2:06:32 ↗ committee meeting date is TVD. Um, and

2:06:35 ↗ there being no further business, this

2:06:36 ↗ meeting is adjourned at 8:42 M.

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