Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, October 26, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. REGULAR BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan: Environment Stewardship and Climate Resilience Element, (D)

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.3–18

Topics: Land UseClimate

▶ Watch from 0:57 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the October 26, 2023

4. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.19–21

▶ Watch from 54:01 Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2023 Schedule (subject to change) 2023 1/12/23 1/19/23 1/26/23 (Special Meeting) Title 18 – Final Draft Introduction Public Hearing: Title 18 – Final Draft Public Hearing: Title 18 – Final Draft ▪ Part 1 – General Provisions ▪ Part 5 – Specified Use Standards

1371 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ good evening Commissioners good evening

0:10 ↗ staff and good evening public I'd like

0:13 ↗ to call the October 26th planning policy

0:16 ↗ commission to order and it is currently

0:19 ↗ 6:33

0:21 ↗ p.m. Stephen do we have a quorum this

0:24 ↗ evening chair of voice you have a form

0:26 ↗ tonight all right thank you tonight's

0:28 ↗ meeting is a hybrid meeting the planning

0:30 ↗ policy commission as you can see is in

0:33 ↗ person but staff or members of the

0:35 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

0:37 ↗ person our first item of business

0:40 ↗ tonight is public comment Stephen do we

0:43 ↗ have anyone who'd like to make public

0:44 ↗ comment at this time chair of voice no

0:46 ↗ one has signed up for public comment

0:48 ↗ online and there is no one in the room

0:51 ↗ great thank

0:55 ↗ you all right moving ahead to our

0:57 ↗ regular business the first and only it

0:59 ↗ item of business tonight is a look at

1:01 ↗ the environmental stewardship and

1:03 ↗ climate resilience element of the

1:05 ↗ comprehensive Plan update this is our

1:08 ↗ first look and Steven Padua our

1:11 ↗ longrange planning manager will be

1:13 ↗ presenting this evening so Stephen when

1:16 ↗ you're ready please go

1:20 ↗ ahead thank you chair of voice good

1:22 ↗ evening Commissioners St to a long-range

1:25 ↗ planning manager and tonight I'm going

1:27 ↗ to present uh your one item for tonight

1:29 ↗ which is the envir stewardship and

1:30 ↗ climate resilience element which is a

1:32 ↗ brand new element we're introducing for

1:34 ↗ the comprehensive plan periodic update

1:36 ↗ this

1:37 ↗ year so the question being posed for you

1:40 ↗ tonight is first is the proposed element

1:44 ↗ consistent with land use element goals

1:46 ↗ and policies that have been discussed

1:48 ↗ and that the commission has reviewed in

1:50 ↗ previous then are there additional

1:52 ↗ topics that should be considered for the

1:54 ↗ new element that we can discuss with the

1:55 ↗ environmental board and and

1:57 ↗ sustainability

1:58 ↗ staff

2:01 ↗ a little background information so the

2:04 ↗ environment element is the result of a

2:07 ↗ new bill House Bill 1181 that requires a

2:11 ↗ new climate

2:13 ↗ resilience um element be incorporated

2:16 ↗ into the comprehensive plans as part of

2:19 ↗ the development of this new element we

2:20 ↗ are also incorporating environmental

2:22 ↗ stewardship which is a carryover of a

2:23 ↗ lot of policies from the currently

2:26 ↗ adopted land use element so um

2:29 ↗ essentially we took the old land use

2:31 ↗ element split it in half and a lot of

2:35 ↗ the proposed policies and goals in this

2:39 ↗ new environment stewardship climate

2:41 ↗ resilience element is carryover of a lot

2:44 ↗ of those goals and policies from the

2:45 ↗ land use

2:46 ↗ element a lot of the

2:49 ↗ newer goals and policies are are I'll

2:53 ↗ discuss in a minute but it really

2:55 ↗ reflects on the work that went into the

2:56 ↗ climate action plan which is the primary

2:59 ↗ implement implementation document for

3:01 ↗ this element there's also implementation

3:04 ↗ a little more indirectly from the

3:05 ↗ mobility master plan as well as the

3:06 ↗ parks Parks system plan and then looking

3:11 ↗ operationally through our development

3:13 ↗ regulations um also incorporate some of

3:16 ↗ the implementation of environmental

3:21 ↗ policies we've met with um the

3:24 ↗ environmental board in a series of

3:26 ↗ meetings this year to kind of cover a

3:27 ↗ lot of what is required for this new

3:30 ↗ element what's going to be introduced

3:32 ↗ what do we want to additionally include

3:34 ↗ with the new element as all as as in

3:37 ↗ recognition of some of the carryover

3:39 ↗ goals and policies from the existing

3:43 ↗ land a lot of the organization um listed

3:46 ↗ on the screen deals with a lot of the

3:48 ↗ topics that are covered from what's

3:51 ↗ required from House Bill 1181 but also

3:53 ↗ the carryover calls and policies from

3:55 ↗ the land use

3:58 ↗ element

4:00 ↗ recommended changes as I mentioned House

4:02 ↗ Bill 11 any1 really dictated a lot of

4:05 ↗ how we wanted to introduce new goals and

4:07 ↗ policies for the new element as well as

4:09 ↗ how we structured it but it also helped

4:11 ↗ us um determine how best to navigate

4:14 ↗ these goals and policies as part of the

4:15 ↗ comprehensive plan as it relates to how

4:18 ↗ we're implementing our sustainability

4:20 ↗ and climate resilience goals the climate

4:24 ↗ resilience uh goals and policies there's

4:26 ↗ a lot of new policies introduced with

4:28 ↗ this new element that's the result of

4:31 ↗ recent efforts to do a vulnerability

4:33 ↗ assessment with our sustainability staff

4:35 ↗ that was taken on over the past year and

4:38 ↗ then worked with the environmental board

4:39 ↗ to refine the greenhouse gas emissions

4:42 ↗ reductions some of that is carryover

4:44 ↗ from the land use element we but as part

4:46 ↗ of complying with house bow 1181 we also

4:49 ↗ moved over some goals and policies from

4:51 ↗ the mobility element or the transation

4:54 ↗ element to help consolidate where a lot

4:57 ↗ of those greenhouse gas emission

4:58 ↗ reduction policies were going to be

5:00 ↗ located national disasters is also

5:03 ↗ addressed in that element but at kind of

5:05 ↗ a broader level recognizing some of the

5:07 ↗ implementation is going to be captured

5:09 ↗ through the implementation of the

5:11 ↗ climate action plan as well as the City

5:14 ↗ and County Emergency Management plans

5:17 ↗ that are um currently in developed and

5:20 ↗ being

5:21 ↗ updated lastly we also wanted to address

5:24 ↗ environmental justice um part of the

5:27 ↗ equity lands for the comprehensive plan

5:29 ↗ but also of what it was being called for

5:31 ↗ out of house bill 11881 we wanted to

5:33 ↗ make sure that the impacts on overb

5:37 ↗ overburden populations is being

5:39 ↗ recognized for this element as

5:43 ↗ well timing and next steps so as we've

5:47 ↗ been discussing with you we work through

5:50 ↗ the analysis we work through review of a

5:51 ↗ lot of the draft gools and policies We

5:54 ↗ are continuing the review with the

5:56 ↗ council committee on many of the

5:57 ↗ recommendations from you all as well as

5:59 ↗ the other boards commissions and we're

6:02 ↗ eventually working to first draft uh

6:05 ↗ development through early next

6:08 ↗ year so returning to the question

6:11 ↗ similar to how we presented uh the other

6:14 ↗ elements last last week we're not really

6:17 ↗ diving into the details of all the

6:21 ↗ specific changes that were discussed

6:22 ↗ with the environmental board but if you

6:23 ↗ have questions of what was presented in

6:25 ↗ The Matrix in your materials tonight I'm

6:27 ↗ happy to go over that as well

6:32 ↗ great thank you

6:33 ↗ Stephen commissioner crass please thanks

6:37 ↗ I I went through the The Matrix sounds

6:40 ↗ very daunting The Matrix but the

6:44 ↗ uh one of the things and I'm and when we

6:48 ↗ put goals and policies together it opens

6:50 ↗ up a question is uh what is the role of

6:54 ↗ the city of what they could actually do

6:55 ↗ on some of these things because some of

6:57 ↗ them are more aspirational of which the

6:59 ↗ city doesn't really have control over um

7:03 ↗ like reduce CommunityWide greenhouse

7:05 ↗ gases and I wasn't sure if these things

7:09 ↗ should be tailored to the things that

7:12 ↗ that the city actually can actually have

7:15 ↗ impact on like either um lead by example

7:18 ↗ or or or gate some of these goals to be

7:22 ↗ things that are City owned buildings and

7:24 ↗ things like that when it gets broader I

7:26 ↗ was having TR trouble because it may be

7:29 ↗ a goal when you lump them together it's

7:31 ↗ it's something that the city may not

7:33 ↗ have the ability to actually have on I

7:36 ↗ was curious how that would work on that

7:39 ↗ so with a lot of the aspirational goals

7:41 ↗ so some of is carryover from what was

7:43 ↗ adopted in the climate action plan and

7:45 ↗ that that plan actually does a really

7:47 ↗ good job of uh breaking out because it

7:49 ↗ is you're right it is much more

7:52 ↗ multifaceted approach to how do you

7:54 ↗ address these aspirational goals it

7:56 ↗ could be Mobility it could be land use

7:58 ↗ it could be housing it could be a lot of

8:00 ↗ different methodologies some of it is

8:02 ↗ local and some of it is regional

8:03 ↗ approach in terms of uh Regional

8:05 ↗ collaboration with other agencies and

8:07 ↗ other government um staff as we're

8:10 ↗ looking through each of our own local um

8:14 ↗ I guess goals to at least address a lot

8:16 ↗ of those

8:17 ↗ targets it's hard to say exactly how

8:20 ↗ we're doing it but I would say if you

8:21 ↗ wanted to look at what's in the climate

8:23 ↗ action plan it actually does a really

8:24 ↗ good job of breaking out the at least

8:27 ↗ our local versus regional strategies to

8:29 ↗ address

8:32 ↗ them I think one example was about

8:34 ↗ sustainable

8:36 ↗ energy

8:38 ↗ and we don't get a choice of where we

8:40 ↗ get our energy so it's kind of I don't

8:42 ↗ know how it's like we may

8:44 ↗ have you know we would want that but we

8:47 ↗ get it from hug sound energy or whatever

8:50 ↗ so I don't know how that could be uh

8:53 ↗ something that we would take as a goal

8:55 ↗ because we have no control over the

8:57 ↗ supply of the energy that

9:00 ↗ we don't have so much you're correct we

9:02 ↗ don't have as much control over the

9:04 ↗ supply because psse or or the utility

9:06 ↗ districts and and companies have that

9:08 ↗ control a lot of them have their own

9:11 ↗ climate resilience plans or strategies

9:13 ↗ of how to address climate change but

9:16 ↗ locally we can incorporate incentives or

9:19 ↗ regulations for new developments or

9:21 ↗ existing properties to look at uh moving

9:25 ↗ away from natural gas as a as a normal

9:28 ↗ use in the household or maybe more El uh

9:32 ↗ electronic less use uh appliances and so

9:36 ↗ it's there's a lot of things we can do

9:37 ↗ locally to address it but you're right

9:39 ↗ the full control is at the

9:43 ↗ utility commissioner

9:47 ↗ altimore this is more a general question

9:49 ↗ as opposed to The Matrix itself but with

9:52 ↗ some of the legislation that was passed

9:54 ↗ will there be federal dollars coming

9:56 ↗ down to maybe incentivize some of this

9:58 ↗ work

10:01 ↗ yes and no so there is going to be State

10:04 ↗ dollars going towards supporting

10:07 ↗ additional analysis um oh one thing I

10:11 ↗ slipped to mention as part of this we

10:14 ↗ don't actually have to comply with House

10:16 ↗ Bill 1181 until

10:17 ↗ 2029 because as part of when the bill

10:21 ↗ was introduced it was based on when

10:22 ↗ everybody's going to be doing their comp

10:24 ↗ plan updates because we're doing ours

10:26 ↗ now we're actually not expected to fully

10:29 ↗ comply until

10:31 ↗ 2029 um there's other cities who have

10:33 ↗ already done comp plan updates

10:35 ↗ throughout the state that are going to

10:37 ↗ be required to comply within the next

10:39 ↗ two years we are not one of those cities

10:42 ↗ but we have actually done a lot of the

10:44 ↗ groundwork to help with complying with

10:46 ↗ the majority of what's being required

10:48 ↗ from House Bill 1181 and so what I'm

10:51 ↗ trying to get at is the state is

10:53 ↗ providing a lot of those funds

10:55 ↗ prioritizing those cities that are

10:56 ↗ actually required to comply sooner than

10:58 ↗ us and so we are still applying for some

11:01 ↗ of those funds to help with to just

11:02 ↗ continue doing the work that we're doing

11:05 ↗ but some of that might be prioritized

11:06 ↗ for other cities and we might get grant

11:08 ↗ funding in a

11:10 ↗ Time commissioner Sima yes would there

11:13 ↗ be like credits associated with it where

11:17 ↗ a developer may may get like a tax

11:19 ↗ credit or something that they use um

11:22 ↗ solar panels for for a new development

11:24 ↗ per

11:26 ↗ sec that could be incentives that we

11:28 ↗ consider of of you know if you install

11:32 ↗ solar panels maybe we reduce parking

11:34 ↗ reduction as just an example of

11:36 ↗ something that we could do there's

11:37 ↗ always something you could do with the

11:38 ↗ development regulation to try to

11:40 ↗ incentivize some of these um

11:42 ↗ sustainability or climate resilient uh

11:44 ↗ goals so those are things that we'll

11:47 ↗ continue to discuss with sustainability

11:49 ↗ staff and our city council as we kind of

11:51 ↗ move for

11:52 ↗ implementation thank you and some of

11:54 ↗ those things are already Incorporated in

11:56 ↗ our our current municipal code in terms

11:58 ↗ of like what's required for new

12:01 ↗ developments in terms of uh requiring a

12:04 ↗ certain lead certification with new

12:06 ↗ major developments of a certain size

12:08 ↗ those are already Incorporated in our

12:09 ↗ code yes can can you remind us what um

12:13 ↗ lead certification is required in in new

12:17 ↗ buildings in

12:18 ↗ isqua oh I'm going to have to get back

12:20 ↗ to on the full list of everything that's

12:23 ↗ required with the certification no I

12:25 ↗ mean like lead gold lead silver oh um

12:28 ↗ right now it's required that new

12:30 ↗ buildings

12:31 ↗ of I'm forgetting the exact size it's

12:34 ↗ like 20,000 Square ft or larger for

12:37 ↗ commercial or um for getting the

12:40 ↗ residential unit number that they have

12:43 ↗ to meet um gold lead certification I'll

12:47 ↗ confirm going through the code tonight

12:49 ↗ and send you an email okay thank you

12:52 ↗ sorry doesn't ask me

12:57 ↗ tonight

13:01 ↗ Vice chair

13:02 ↗ Bader yeah I have I have a comment on

13:05 ↗ each of the questions so I don't know if

13:07 ↗ I should do both or start with the first

13:09 ↗ one we're just kind of viewing right go

13:12 ↗ go for both okay um so the my it's an

13:16 ↗ overarching comment because I was

13:18 ↗ thinking about like how the rules and

13:20 ↗ policies and the other elements that we'

13:22 ↗ reviewed and I wasn't here at the last

13:23 ↗ meeting and so I'm not sure what those

13:25 ↗ looked like um but there's a couple

13:28 ↗ policies in here that are written as

13:30 ↗ very specific gools um and so it's

13:32 ↗ reduce fossil fuel use by 20% by X State

13:36 ↗ and then there's other ones that are

13:37 ↗ like reduce overall building energy use

13:40 ↗ and there's and so the kind of contrast

13:43 ↗ between those two feels a little like

13:44 ↗ jarring and I don't see that level of

13:46 ↗ specificity even though I like that

13:47 ↗ level of specificity in the other

13:50 ↗ elements and so I don't know if that's

13:52 ↗ like pulled over from somewhere else or

13:54 ↗ why those can be so specific because I

13:57 ↗ thought the place for that was in like

13:58 ↗ the functional plans and not in here so

14:01 ↗ that level of detail is provided at

14:02 ↗ least in this element because it's a

14:04 ↗ it's it's to ensure that we're

14:06 ↗ consistent with what's in the climate

14:08 ↗ action plan and so that you're you're

14:10 ↗ right it is kind of carry over from that

14:11 ↗ in terms of what council adopted and we

14:13 ↗ want to make sure our aspirational or at

14:16 ↗ least our primary goals are identified

14:18 ↗ in the conference plan as well as in the

14:20 ↗ functional plans just so there's

14:21 ↗ consistency uh some of the other

14:24 ↗ elements do have that level of Target

14:26 ↗ there's just not as much compared to

14:28 ↗ this one because this one because uh

14:30 ↗ with the climate action plan it covers a

14:33 ↗ very wide range of sustainability

14:35 ↗ climate resilience natural environment

14:38 ↗ uh stewardship um there's much more

14:41 ↗ targets related to those comparative to

14:43 ↗ the other elements but some of the

14:44 ↗ elements do have that level of detail as

14:47 ↗ well um that is helpful and then um my

14:50 ↗ other comment was that if one of the

14:53 ↗ goals I guess or directions is to

14:55 ↗ address environmental justice that's

14:56 ↗ actually not named anywhere um I did did

14:58 ↗ like a search and those words don't show

15:00 ↗ up in the policies um and so should they

15:03 ↗ and then there I also wanted to just get

15:05 ↗ some more insight I get it's like a

15:06 ↗ Mobility policy but there was a policy

15:08 ↗ that specifically got to Public Health

15:10 ↗ that got to um like Equitable access and

15:12 ↗ environmental outcomes and that was

15:14 ↗ removed from this element um and so just

15:16 ↗ wanted to get some insight on that some

15:18 ↗ of that because it's addressed in other

15:20 ↗ elements so there was a lot of overlap

15:22 ↗ between elements that we're trying to

15:23 ↗ fix with this periodic update and so

15:26 ↗ because it's addressed in other elements

15:28 ↗ and it's not required to be in this one

15:31 ↗ we're we're leaving those policies in

15:33 ↗ like the land you sell them for instance

15:35 ↗ uh the topic of environmental justice is

15:37 ↗ something that we're incorporating in

15:39 ↗ the narrative for this element not

15:41 ↗ necessarily in the specific policies

15:43 ↗ just because uh we call out over

15:46 ↗ overburdened populations or um I'm

15:49 ↗ forgetting the other

15:51 ↗ terms

15:53 ↗ um we call out other very similar

15:56 ↗ policies that just get at the inequity

15:59 ↗ that we want to try to

16:01 ↗ address um and then I had one like

16:03 ↗ really specific random piece of feedback

16:06 ↗ on policy oh it doesn't have a number

16:10 ↗ it's a new policy under land use Lu

16:14 ↗ policy K3 that one it's um prioritize

16:19 ↗ resilience planning education Outreach

16:21 ↗ and funding for Frontline communities

16:23 ↗ that are disproportionately impacted by

16:24 ↗ climate change based on Research

16:26 ↗ conducted on climate vulnerabilities and

16:28 ↗ is

16:29 ↗ that just read like past tense um and so

16:31 ↗ like really random feedback to say like

16:34 ↗ research like current and future

16:36 ↗ research um so that as new like impacts

16:39 ↗ are identified that those are just kind

16:41 ↗ of lumped into here so like really minor

16:44 ↗ feedback but it read like based on like

16:45 ↗ the status quo now um and not considerer

16:49 ↗ which policy was it studies it's doesn't

16:50 ↗ have a number it's under land use policy

16:53 ↗ K3 it's the one right under that one

16:55 ↗ it's page 13 and 21 in our package

17:06 ↗ yes okay yeah we can take a look at that

17:09 ↗ language I about like current and future

17:11 ↗ research like the

17:15 ↗ only thank you Vice chair Bader and uh

17:18 ↗ care voice actually to build on that

17:20 ↗ Stephen I'm just kind of interested what

17:23 ↗ um going to that exact policy so what

17:26 ↗ constitutes a Frontline Community and as

17:28 ↗ a

17:29 ↗ uh this is more just generally for my

17:32 ↗ education um I'll use myself as an

17:35 ↗ example uh the traffic on Front Street I

17:38 ↗ mean to me the the idling of those cars

17:40 ↗ for three to six hours a day would be an

17:43 ↗ inequity is that how you guys see it I

17:45 ↗ mean that's kind of again everything

17:47 ↗ sounds good I just I guess there's no

17:49 ↗ definition of terms and I go back to the

17:51 ↗ other one the Equitable equitably

17:53 ↗ Advanced programs and policies again I'm

17:56 ↗ just wondering what the city believes

17:58 ↗ over overburden and vulnerable

17:59 ↗ communities I'm wondering if you could

18:01 ↗ provide an example sure Frontline

18:02 ↗ communities so

18:05 ↗ um one good we'll think about housing as

18:08 ↗ an example so historically cheaper

18:13 ↗ housing has been found closer to

18:14 ↗ freeways but what we can find with when

18:16 ↗ thinking about environmental justice or

18:17 ↗ disproportionately disproportionate

18:19 ↗ impacts is that when we have located

18:22 ↗ lower income housing close to the

18:23 ↗ freeways there are disproportionately or

18:26 ↗ higher there is a higher impact related

18:28 ↗ to air pollution around those

18:30 ↗ communities and that's found throughout

18:33 ↗ the United States not necessarily in one

18:35 ↗ area or another and so you find this uh

18:38 ↗ pattern of disproportionate impact and

18:41 ↗ and that's just one example of of being

18:42 ↗ a Frontline Community and that um

18:45 ↗ historically has been minority Community

18:47 ↗ or low-income community and so we want

18:50 ↗ to try to address them through different

18:53 ↗ Outreach or funding mechanisms or

18:55 ↗ changed in reg regulations in terms of

18:57 ↗ where these types of housing are allowed

18:59 ↗ something that we're considering as part

19:00 ↗ of

19:01 ↗ this great thank

19:05 ↗ you commissioner Patterson I have a

19:08 ↗ couple uh pieces of minor feedback to

19:10 ↗ that kind of resonate based on their

19:12 ↗ comments one would be on uh T policy

19:15 ↗ B1 uh there's an acronym there s so

19:18 ↗ which uh given it Transportation I took

19:21 ↗ to stand for single occupant vehicle um

19:25 ↗ but I think sov may not be a universally

19:27 ↗ understood acronym so maybe one that

19:29 ↗ could be spelled out there yep yep we

19:31 ↗ can spell that out cool um and then the

19:33 ↗ other one uh kind of back onto that

19:37 ↗ specificity topic uh Lu policy H1 gets

19:41 ↗ really granular on the neighborhoods and

19:43 ↗ it looks like they actually added some

19:44 ↗ neighborhoods is that uh and I think

19:47 ↗ it's related to um like mass

19:50 ↗ transit is there a reason why it got so

19:52 ↗ granular um versus just I guess like

19:56 ↗ Regional uh trans it or

20:01 ↗ Transportation it it specifically calls

20:03 ↗ out these neighborhoods Central esqua

20:05 ↗ esqua Highland's Oldtown um primarily

20:08 ↗ because that's where our higher density

20:11 ↗ of commercial and Retail uh land uses

20:15 ↗ are located throughout the city gotta

20:18 ↗ and is there any reason to keep it more

20:20 ↗ broad or is it just in case I guess like

20:24 ↗ to to address it as a as a city even

20:26 ↗ even under the consideration with like

20:28 ↗ our neighborhood planning where we're

20:29 ↗ looking at you know when we go out to

20:31 ↗ the neighborhoods to talk about building

20:33 ↗ out neighborhood retail in each of the

20:35 ↗ neighborhoods it's not going to be at

20:37 ↗ the level of density or any of those

20:40 ↗ uses that's going to Warrant building in

20:42 ↗ mass transit to support those areas it's

20:44 ↗ it's just not going to get to those

20:45 ↗ levels so that's primar reason why we

20:48 ↗ focused on those areas because we know

20:50 ↗ it will get to those densities in those

20:52 ↗ areas to support transit or higher

20:54 ↗ frequency

20:56 ↗ Transit as an alternative mode of

20:58 ↗ transportation for those areas excellent

21:01 ↗ thank you commissioner

21:03 ↗ altimore will there be another complain

21:05 ↗ Amendment before light roil gets

21:08 ↗ here

21:10 ↗ yes

21:11 ↗ um the next comp plan Amendment will be

21:14 ↗ 2034 okay thank

21:18 ↗ you at least the next major periodic

21:21 ↗ update will be 2034 well there's still

21:23 ↗ opportunities to do annual updates if we

21:25 ↗ find

21:27 ↗ issues

21:28 ↗ uh chair voice um Stephen on page seven

21:31 ↗ of 21 on our packet Lu policy F2 uh F3

21:34 ↗ I'm sorry when the city when it states

21:38 ↗ lead by example implementing actions to

21:40 ↗ track and decarbonize Municipal

21:42 ↗ operations are we talking about the city

21:44 ↗ leading by example meaning the city of

21:47 ↗ isqua with their buildings their

21:48 ↗ infrastructure we're not talking about

21:50 ↗ leading by example

21:52 ↗ regionally

21:55 ↗ uh we're talking about the city of is so

21:58 ↗ the the actual government agency the

22:01 ↗ city of isqua leading by example um as

22:04 ↗ we're working with private development

22:06 ↗ or even existing um commercial

22:10 ↗ or retail businesses that are throughout

22:13 ↗ the city just lead by example in terms

22:15 ↗ of what we were wanting for

22:17 ↗ decarbonization perfect okay

22:26 ↗ thank

22:29 ↗ any other questions on the policies

22:31 ↗ throughout I guess I have one more um lu

22:35 ↗ policy G1 decrease energy use natural

22:38 ↗ gas and electricity even though we're

22:40 ↗ moving towards more electricity pretty

22:43 ↗ simple question is that is that

22:45 ↗ encouraging people to turn off the

22:46 ↗ lights is that talking about rolling

22:48 ↗ brown outs is that talking about solar

22:49 ↗ panels I mean I always kind of thought

22:52 ↗ electricity is kind of the idea right

22:54 ↗ we're trying to Electrify things so when

22:56 ↗ it says uh decrease energy use and

22:59 ↗ electricity in my mind it's you know

23:01 ↗ we're asking people to turn off lights

23:03 ↗ and I can see it in building and what I

23:04 ↗ thought of like was the dark sky yeah

23:07 ↗ right so I just want to be sure clear

23:10 ↗ asking people to turn off their lights

23:11 ↗ for 30% of the

23:14 ↗ day well that that's kind of my question

23:16 ↗ are we asking people you know what are

23:18 ↗ we asking of people when when it says

23:19 ↗ that it's more efficiency improvements

23:21 ↗ with this

23:25 ↗ policy running out of questions here

23:29 ↗ anybody has any more for Stephen

23:32 ↗ commissioner

23:33 ↗ altimore so when you talk about the

23:35 ↗ efficiency piece is that mostly what

23:37 ↗ would come under the lead standards or

23:39 ↗ Evergreen standards so that you know LED

23:41 ↗ lighting and and water standards and

23:43 ↗ things like that yes but there's also in

23:45 ↗ other incentives in terms of use of the

23:47 ↗ facilities as well not just how the

23:49 ↗ facilities are okay so would that fall

23:52 ↗ under the sustainability Office of the

23:55 ↗ of this city okay

23:56 ↗ thanks

24:00 ↗ yeah commissioner crra you you made me

24:02 ↗ think about something that was like uh

24:05 ↗ oh the electricity has two types you

24:08 ↗ have grid and you have

24:12 ↗ self-supportive and if someone's

24:14 ↗ creating their own electricity should we

24:16 ↗ care how much they use or how efficient

24:18 ↗ they are as long as they're not touching

24:19 ↗ the grid and the answer we're not going

24:21 ↗ argue both sides of the coin on this one

24:24 ↗ where if I'm cring all my electricity

24:26 ↗ from my roof

24:28 ↗ then I could be as inefficient as I want

24:30 ↗ to be with my own stuff so maybe it's

24:34 ↗ it's the terminology when we talk about

24:36 ↗ you know the Grid electricity efficiency

24:40 ↗ or um I'm not sure if it's even feasible

24:43 ↗ for me to produce all what I need but uh

24:47 ↗ there's going to be a Tipping Point

24:48 ↗ where we'll be able to be more

24:49 ↗ self-sufficient without going to the

24:51 ↗ grid and that's a great thing I guess it

24:54 ↗ comes back down to the role of what

24:55 ↗ we're what what what we're trying to ask

24:58 ↗ well I

24:59 ↗ think it you're right there is kind of

25:02 ↗ the self-sufficient versus dependency on

25:04 ↗ the grid but the efficiency improvements

25:08 ↗ also improved the lifespan of a lot of

25:10 ↗ the utilities or units that we're using

25:12 ↗ as well so that actually feeds into some

25:14 ↗ of the decarbonization methodology that

25:17 ↗ a lot of agencies or

25:19 ↗ or groups are really looking for because

25:22 ↗ we want to also increase the lifespan of

25:24 ↗ these units because if we're we're you

25:27 ↗ know if we're fully

25:29 ↗ self-sufficient and have our own solar

25:33 ↗ panels or or uh maybe even Hydro power

25:36 ↗ if you got a creek your own Creek nearby

25:38 ↗ or something like that and you don't

25:40 ↗ need to depend on the grid but you are

25:42 ↗ going through appliances and you're

25:44 ↗ going through the use of materials more

25:48 ↗ much more often than other people who

25:49 ↗ are a little more efficient your carbon

25:52 ↗ footprint is a little bit higher than

25:53 ↗ your NE so there's still the the uh

25:58 ↗ lifestyle conversation we want to have

26:00 ↗ with everybody on terms of efficiency of

26:01 ↗ a use and and being able to be a little

26:04 ↗ more sustainable um on materials that

26:07 ↗ we're using as

26:09 ↗ well does that help kind of answer your

26:11 ↗ question on what we're trying to do it

26:13 ↗ gets more into Theory versus

26:15 ↗ practicality so the practicality is if

26:17 ↗ you don't need to go to the

26:20 ↗ grid that's something that's specific of

26:25 ↗ you build renewable energy and building

26:28 ↗ renewable energy has lots of great

26:30 ↗ things and yes there's a carbon

26:31 ↗ footprint to build that the first time

26:33 ↗ all that um but that's a that's an

26:36 ↗ actionable manageable thing of like how

26:39 ↗ much renewable self-supportive energy

26:42 ↗ does City for its own buildings as well

26:45 ↗ as the community and then you could have

26:47 ↗ Pol you could have um programs to help

26:49 ↗ incentivize making that go faster and

26:52 ↗ that may

26:53 ↗ be a bigger win than

26:58 ↗ everyone like reducing their light usage

27:01 ↗ by 5 it's it's a it's a it it's

27:04 ↗ something that and the carbon footprint

27:07 ↗ of all the things that wear out longer

27:09 ↗ or shorter I think is too ethereal for

27:13 ↗ to be able to put math to or I was

27:16 ↗ trying to get to a simpler oh we have 2%

27:19 ↗ of renewable energy we get up to

27:23 ↗ 20% that we control then all of a sudden

27:25 ↗ that's something you could actually

27:26 ↗ build for

27:29 ↗ that's I would imagine Stephen that like

27:31 ↗ the IAP in the actual IAP there are

27:34 ↗ things like incentives for home builders

27:36 ↗ to put in panels do certain things uh

27:39 ↗ that

27:40 ↗ would want to incentivize that that's

27:43 ↗ probably most likely where it' be found

27:45 ↗ correct that's yeah for strategies on

27:47 ↗ how to incentivize some of those um it

27:50 ↗ wouldn't necessarily be here where it'

27:51 ↗ be addressed correct some of the

27:53 ↗ guidance would be in the comprehensive

27:54 ↗ plan in terms of like or even the

27:56 ↗ targets that you'll find in terms of

27:57 ↗ what we're trying to achieve but the

27:59 ↗ specific strategies or incentives that

28:01 ↗ we want to actually U use are going to

28:04 ↗ be identified in the

28:10 ↗ icad commissioner s and I think that um

28:15 ↗ it would be some time before we would

28:17 ↗ move away from the grid of course

28:19 ↗ because you still need that redundancy

28:21 ↗ if you move to renewable energy

28:23 ↗ especially for emergency services and

28:26 ↗ whatnot

28:28 ↗ um but I think from um just hearing the

28:31 ↗ other Commissioners I guess that that

28:32 ↗ Clarity on yes reduce natural gas and

28:36 ↗ but the piece on electricity we're

28:38 ↗ probably moving more towards

28:40 ↗ electrification but um the cleaner

28:42 ↗ energy sources basically whether it's

28:45 ↗ the of course um solar panels or the

28:48 ↗ battery storage and whatnot that

28:50 ↗ developers could could possibly use um

28:54 ↗ maybe a little bit more more clarity on

28:56 ↗ that and that reduce and and even just

28:57 ↗ add into the piece on the efficiency of

29:00 ↗ utilizing what we have now and moving

29:02 ↗ forward um to push that efficiency so a

29:06 ↗ little bit more clarity on on those on

29:09 ↗ that

29:10 ↗ text so I know in the IAP there is a lot

29:14 ↗ more clarity specifically with a lot of

29:16 ↗ these policies particularly how a lot of

29:18 ↗ the policies were put together if that's

29:20 ↗ provided there in the functional plan

29:22 ↗ does the commission still want that

29:25 ↗ better described in the policy in the

29:27 ↗ comprehensive plan or is it better fit

29:29 ↗ in the functional

29:33 ↗ plan so you're saying right it's in the

29:35 ↗ functional plan right now yes yeah but

29:38 ↗ more of those details are in the

29:39 ↗ functional plan okay okay I I I may just

29:41 ↗ add a word the natural gas because when

29:44 ↗ I read that um piece earlier I was like

29:47 ↗ yes natural gas you want to reduce it

29:49 ↗ yeah 25% by 20 I think said 2030 and

29:53 ↗ ultimately of course phase out of it um

29:56 ↗ but when it said electricity I think um

29:59 ↗ gentleman here actually cut that piece

30:01 ↗ because we're not we're not actually

30:02 ↗ reducing electricity we're actually

30:04 ↗ incre we're increasing it it's just

30:07 ↗ making it cleaner the source of that

30:09 ↗ energy okay yeah maybe maybe just add

30:12 ↗ the one

30:13 ↗ word or phrase per se

30:17 ↗ yeah commission

30:20 ↗ altimore just hearing the discussion I'm

30:23 ↗ thinking about um buildings that I was

30:25 ↗ involved in building recently and new

30:28 ↗ construction the gains are so

30:30 ↗ significant so I think I don't think it

30:32 ↗ belongs in here but I would imagine in

30:34 ↗ the implementation plan the gains that

30:37 ↗ are achieved from new construction are

30:39 ↗ going to be the bulk of it versus small

30:40 ↗ incremental changes with current

30:43 ↗ construction based on major rehabs or

30:45 ↗ something like that so I think that that

30:47 ↗ wouldn't live here in the goals that

30:48 ↗ would be in the implementation plan am I

30:50 ↗ accurate that's correct okay great I

30:52 ↗ know just the lighting in the hbac

30:54 ↗ systems alone can R reduce a building's

30:56 ↗ footprint by

31:03 ↗ 56 and that goes to the the funding

31:06 ↗ piece because you have the the new

31:08 ↗ builds and then you have the existing

31:11 ↗ assets and infrastructure that um would

31:14 ↗ need to be renewed over time and when um

31:19 ↗ an asset or building is is up for

31:22 ↗ replacement or for repair that's where

31:25 ↗ um some of those

31:27 ↗ um um New Age ideas per se would would

31:31 ↗ take place but there's probably going to

31:32 ↗ need to be funding attached to that

31:35 ↗ because especially early on it's it's

31:37 ↗ going to be more expensive um since it's

31:40 ↗ not as as prevalent um in the industry

31:43 ↗ or Society right

31:49 ↗ now commissioner crass this is actually

31:52 ↗ fun problem some of the stuff is we have

31:55 ↗ a dichotomy of like two competing goals

31:58 ↗ we have reduced electricity at the same

32:00 ↗ time of having more EV use which is

32:02 ↗ going to drive a lot more electricity

32:06 ↗ need to supply cars which those cars

32:09 ↗ aren't buying gasoline anymore

32:12 ↗ so it comes down to only that one point

32:15 ↗ we said reduce natural gas and

32:19 ↗ electricity but I think that may not be

32:22 ↗ achievable if the move in the next 10

32:24 ↗ years is pretty hard to EVS

32:28 ↗ then this is going to increase our

32:30 ↗ electrical use in

32:32 ↗ the in the next you

32:36 ↗ know that's

32:38 ↗ all commissioner s yeah maybe it's to uh

32:42 ↗ reduce natural gas use and improve the

32:46 ↗ efficiencies of electricity use or

32:49 ↗ electrical use and I think the key thing

32:52 ↗ with moving to um EV electrical Vehicles

32:56 ↗ is more so so also the the source of

32:59 ↗ that energy because electricity could be

33:01 ↗ generated through cleaner means and and

33:04 ↗ that's that's really the main goal so

33:07 ↗ the as we go to

33:09 ↗ electrification um we're going to be

33:11 ↗ using more electricity for say um than

33:14 ↗ coal or natural gas but the source of

33:18 ↗ that electricity would be

33:22 ↗ cleaner reducing the carbon

33:25 ↗ footprint

33:28 ↗ yeah no you're you're both absolutely

33:29 ↗ correct and but I think with this policy

33:31 ↗ it's it's being more specific

33:33 ↗ to the use within the building so the

33:36 ↗ operations of the building rather than

33:38 ↗ the systemwide grid where you're

33:39 ↗ absolutely right we're pushing for Ev

33:41 ↗ use more which is going to be completely

33:44 ↗ increasing EV need or electri electric

33:46 ↗ the need for electricity but for this

33:48 ↗ policy focused on the buildings that's

33:50 ↗ really where it's looking at the

33:51 ↗ efficiency of use within the buildings

33:54 ↗ themselves uh here voice one quick

33:56 ↗ question question for you still Stephen

33:58 ↗ building on what commissioner altimore

33:59 ↗ and commissioner s mentioned is when the

34:02 ↗ city does go to do retrofit or is there

34:04 ↗ some type of cost benefit analysis

34:06 ↗ because retrofits as we've talked about

34:08 ↗ before can be very

34:09 ↗ expensive I mean is there someone doing

34:11 ↗ that type of work to make sure that

34:13 ↗ we're not just spending an inordinate

34:14 ↗ amount trying to retrofit a building

34:16 ↗ that again it's one thing to change

34:18 ↗ light bulbs or certain things but to

34:20 ↗ completely revamp maybe particular to

34:23 ↗ this building it could cost more than

34:25 ↗ actually uh continuing continually using

34:28 ↗ it for the life of it and then knocking

34:31 ↗ it down and starting again because again

34:32 ↗ commissioner altimore makes a good point

34:34 ↗ I'm just wondering is that does that

34:36 ↗ play in somewhere yes okay yeah

34:38 ↗ absolutely we're we're currently

34:40 ↗ actually going through a facilities

34:41 ↗ assessment for All City buildings and

34:42 ↗ looking at what are the use you know

34:44 ↗ what's the future use of these buildings

34:46 ↗ what's going to be the needed retrofits

34:48 ↗ and costs related to those retrofits to

34:50 ↗ meet our internal climate goals for City

34:53 ↗ buildings as well as what would be the

34:55 ↗ cost of completely reconstructing to now

34:58 ↗ meet those climate goals is that part of

35:01 ↗ the story of what happened to uh our Old

35:04 ↗ City Hall oh City Hall Northwest no that

35:08 ↗ one primarily was um because

35:12 ↗ of um the co pandemic we didn't have the

35:15 ↗ need for a lot of the staff to be using

35:17 ↗ the buildings and so we Consolidated

35:19 ↗ staff use at the city hall across the

35:21 ↗ street and so that has now led to the

35:24 ↗ assessment of do we need City Hall nor

35:26 ↗ okay yeah so less about uh climate

35:29 ↗ change and resilience more or less just

35:31 ↗ don't need the office well so that is

35:33 ↗ one of one of our oldest buildings that

35:36 ↗ would need a lot of retrofits to make it

35:38 ↗ a little more

35:44 ↗ sustainable commissioner is anything

35:49 ↗ else commissioner patters I'll bite um I

35:53 ↗ noticed uh that the natural disaster or

35:58 ↗ climate emergency part um mentions like

36:00 ↗ wildfires and such just out of curiosity

36:03 ↗ where like earthquakes land in this

36:04 ↗ equation obviously they're not climate

36:06 ↗ related but they are I guess natural

36:09 ↗ disasters and we are kind of in a I

36:11 ↗ guess a high high risk area for for that

36:15 ↗ are those addressed any specific way in

36:18 ↗ this element specifically in the comena

36:21 ↗ plan we're we're moving away from

36:24 ↗ calling out specific strategies around

36:27 ↗ each of the natural disasters because

36:29 ↗ the list can go on of how to address

36:31 ↗ them we're trying to address them within

36:33 ↗ the city's own Emergency Management plan

36:36 ↗ as well as a more coordinated effort

36:38 ↗ with the Regional Emergency Management

36:40 ↗ plan as well where something like

36:42 ↗ wildfires requires more of a regional

36:45 ↗ coordination and strategy versus local

36:48 ↗ within just city of isqua because it's

36:50 ↗ not a fire is not going to just start

36:52 ↗ and be isolated to isqua it's going to

36:54 ↗ be a broader impact and so we want to

36:57 ↗ have a more coordinated effort which

36:59 ↗ makes more sense in the KY or the county

37:02 ↗ uh

37:08 ↗ plan all right any further questions for

37:12 ↗ Stephen Vice chair Bader yeah it's just

37:14 ↗ a comment I'm just thinking about so

37:16 ↗ I'll share it to make us sit here for

37:18 ↗ two more minutes um on the whole

37:20 ↗ conversation about energy use there's

37:23 ↗ like again going back to that

37:24 ↗ environmental justice thing there's a

37:25 ↗ component of that that

37:27 ↗ I don't think is not addressed in the

37:28 ↗ policy but I think could become a risk

37:30 ↗ right and so if we are

37:32 ↗ prioritizing and this mostly relates to

37:34 ↗ housing I think versus like commercial

37:37 ↗ um buildings but if we're prioritizing

37:40 ↗ new builds right if we're not

37:42 ↗ incentivizing retrofitting older

37:44 ↗ buildings right that impact is going to

37:47 ↗ continue to grow right because who can

37:50 ↗ afford the new um versus what is the

37:53 ↗ quality of the more affordable housing

37:55 ↗ the older housing here um and so there's

37:58 ↗ just something that's like in my mind I

38:00 ↗ guess that's like worth maybe it's worth

38:02 ↗ stating maybe it's not that some of I

38:04 ↗ think the conversation that we have risk

38:07 ↗ right it's not that it's not worth doing

38:09 ↗ but it risks kind of exacerbating those

38:11 ↗ disperate impacts and that's part of um

38:15 ↗ that's part of some of our disperate

38:17 ↗ impact analysis that we're doing as part

38:18 ↗ of the comprehens plan is to look at

38:20 ↗ some of those risks the market is

38:22 ↗ completely going to control where a lot

38:24 ↗ of this goes and when it happens but the

38:27 ↗ city can look at potential policies or

38:29 ↗ or strategies to address some of that at

38:33 ↗ least in and in the interm and even

38:35 ↗ longterm as we're looking at our

38:37 ↗ long-term housing strategies and how

38:39 ↗ best to get even more affordable housing

38:41 ↗ with the

38:44 ↗ city looking around there's not too many

38:47 ↗ more comments so I'm I'm actually prod a

38:49 ↗ little bit on on thinking about some of

38:51 ↗ the land use discussions that we had as

38:54 ↗ a

38:55 ↗ commission what are some of the

38:58 ↗ potential uh impacts you might see with

39:00 ↗ what you read throughout this new

39:02 ↗ element of of would there be potentially

39:06 ↗ strategies we need to consider on the

39:08 ↗ business side in terms of how we want to

39:10 ↗ get more jobs within the city or even on

39:12 ↗ the housing side is there something we

39:14 ↗ should be considering as we're doing

39:16 ↗ either our disput impacts or if we're

39:18 ↗ looking through our housing strategies

39:21 ↗ on how to get more affordable housing in

39:23 ↗ different parts of the

39:25 ↗ city commissioner

39:28 ↗ altimore I think it was commissioner

39:30 ↗ crass who already mentioned this to

39:31 ↗ start but right now the technology has

39:34 ↗ not come along enough to make it as

39:37 ↗ affordable to put in the higher

39:38 ↗ efficiency pieces so as many incentives

39:42 ↗ you mentioned going after those state

39:43 ↗ grants as many incentives as we can

39:45 ↗ bring in both for the businesses and for

39:48 ↗ the um Housing Development is going to

39:50 ↗ be really critical because the payback

39:53 ↗ does happen but that payback is maybe 20

39:55 ↗ 25 years and so if we can build that in

39:58 ↗ sooner I I think about in particular uh

40:02 ↗ a couple different properties that I

40:03 ↗ manage and we built one and had to ve

40:06 ↗ out all of the high efficiency HVAC and

40:10 ↗ now we are passing on those energy costs

40:12 ↗ to very low-income residents versus

40:14 ↗ other buildings where we had a little

40:15 ↗ bit more uh flexibility and we were able

40:18 ↗ to put in higher efficiency hbac so

40:20 ↗ those components I think are really

40:22 ↗ important for us to look at because it

40:24 ↗ does disincentivize sometimes when it at

40:27 ↗ the end of the day makes a much

40:28 ↗ healthier building but if you can't

40:30 ↗ afford it when you're building it what

40:31 ↗ are you going to do so the incentives I

40:33 ↗ think are really key to this not just

40:38 ↗ requirements commissioner grass is I

40:41 ↗ mean you open up a very good question

40:43 ↗ which is is there any type of like you

40:47 ↗ could look at if you did these type of

40:49 ↗ policies what it adds to the cost per

40:52 ↗ square foot or a build for new

40:55 ↗ construction and so then you get a you

40:57 ↗ get a scope of of we've just added a

41:01 ↗ hill for for having more housing bill

41:05 ↗ and it's it's not to say you shouldn't

41:07 ↗ do those things but at least have a

41:09 ↗ sense of oh it adds you know

41:12 ↗ 3% cost per square foot increase to do

41:15 ↗ these things and then you could figure

41:16 ↗ out other programs to try to

41:18 ↗ offset whether it's dollars or whether

41:20 ↗ it's some other I think you mentioned

41:22 ↗ whether it's parking or maybe it's

41:25 ↗ imperal ser impervious services or

41:27 ↗ whatever other tools you may have to

41:29 ↗ make it more

41:31 ↗ attractive that was a very good example

41:33 ↗ you want to do that then

41:37 ↗ cost and even as a

41:39 ↗ homeowner the efficient ones like if you

41:42 ↗ have to replace your furnace is going to

41:43 ↗ be more expensive not efficient one is

41:48 ↗ ironic

41:53 ↗ yes commissioner some what

41:57 ↗ yeah I think we're in agreement that um

42:00 ↗ these efficiencies or or energy

42:03 ↗ advancements will be more expensive in

42:06 ↗ the short term but there would be a

42:08 ↗ return on investment um in the long term

42:11 ↗ but um that that funding question still

42:14 ↗ comes in or even um and this may be a

42:17 ↗ dirty word the um

42:19 ↗ subsidize um to be able to support some

42:22 ↗ of those costs and when you talk about

42:25 ↗ strategies to be to get developers or

42:28 ↗ homeowners um or even um um government

42:32 ↗ entities to be able to push forward with

42:34 ↗ these um ideas and policies there's

42:37 ↗ going to need to be that that

42:40 ↗ help and that could go into um providing

42:44 ↗ that help and funding um these new ideas

42:48 ↗ will also come with the catch of saying

42:51 ↗ hey we need to provide this amount of

42:53 ↗ affordable housing within your your your

42:56 ↗ new development that could be one of

42:58 ↗ those

43:02 ↗ strategies even how does the city intend

43:04 ↗ to look at this um once this is

43:07 ↗ implemented along with the affordable

43:09 ↗ housing

43:10 ↗ strategies is something that's kind of a

43:12 ↗ rolling I I know it's all kind of a

43:14 ↗ rolling Target but I would imagine

43:16 ↗ there's staff that'll be looking are we

43:19 ↗ are we inducing our developers to build

43:22 ↗ here when it might be too stringent to

43:25 ↗ commissioner Al more how does the city

43:28 ↗ tend to kind of check and balance these

43:31 ↗ because they're all lofty goals we want

43:32 ↗ more affordable housing we want be a

43:34 ↗ more efficient city um sometimes they

43:37 ↗ don't line up on The Ledger book though

43:39 ↗ how does a city intend to look at this

43:42 ↗ yeah at the comprehensive plan level I

43:44 ↗ mean we we stay high level we stay

43:46 ↗ aspirational in terms of like what do we

43:48 ↗ want to achieve within the next 20 years

43:50 ↗ the how will be part of the commission's

43:52 ↗ actual work plan in 2024 in terms of

43:55 ↗ like what we'll be discussing of what

43:56 ↗ incentives or programs or regulations

43:59 ↗ should we be considering to get more

44:01 ↗ affordable housing or to to um allow

44:05 ↗ different types of development to come

44:06 ↗ into the city um on

44:09 ↗ your you know on your work plan for

44:12 ↗ November you're going to be discussing

44:13 ↗ the Pioneer project program and that's

44:16 ↗ one of those things to bring in new

44:17 ↗ development so what are some of those

44:19 ↗ incentives that we want to provide to

44:21 ↗ try to bring in that development is is

44:24 ↗ that uh in Ines on different regulations

44:27 ↗ is that incentives of what's being

44:30 ↗ required of the developments and that's

44:31 ↗ part of the discussion the

44:34 ↗ commission now we got more hands

44:36 ↗ commissioner altimore I think I saw her

44:38 ↗ first it's a Race So I was on a meeting

44:42 ↗ today for a new affordable housing uh

44:44 ↗ program and there are 12 sources of

44:46 ↗ funding and all of their environmental

44:49 ↗ standards are more stringent than this

44:51 ↗ and so it's I think that that's the

44:54 ↗ balance when you're looking at these

44:56 ↗ projects that have braided um uh

44:58 ↗ different funding sources that are

44:59 ↗ coming into them that you have to go if

45:03 ↗ speaking specifically about affordable

45:05 ↗ the same thing wouldn't be true for

45:06 ↗ private Market but you have to go with

45:09 ↗ the most stringent when you're bringing

45:11 ↗ those in and so I don't see the anything

45:14 ↗ on this list that would be uh counter to

45:17 ↗ the development of more affordable

45:19 ↗ housing and so um these are all in line

45:22 ↗ with what you would already

45:24 ↗ have

45:26 ↗ and and the one thing to remember with

45:27 ↗ the comp plan being it's at the high

45:29 ↗ level it's what we're trying to achieve

45:30 ↗ the how is really built into our

45:32 ↗ regulations our the land use code the

45:35 ↗ the municipal code of what we're

45:36 ↗ requiring from new development or new

45:39 ↗ construction or even rehab construction

45:41 ↗ throughout the city so that's where we

45:43 ↗ get to the how or in terms of how we're

45:46 ↗ getting to some of these natural

45:49 ↗ environment or climate addressing

45:50 ↗ climate change goals and strategies that

45:52 ↗ are called out in the climate action

45:54 ↗ plan

45:56 ↗ commissioner crass and it just made me

45:58 ↗ think that whether it's this

46:00 ↗ comprehensive plan or any of them

46:01 ↗ there's always going to be conflicting

46:03 ↗ goals between some of these different

46:05 ↗ things and and we can't line them all up

46:08 ↗ it's just always going to be the case if

46:10 ↗ you want growth but you also want to

46:12 ↗ have safety or environmental or all

46:14 ↗ these other things there's going to be

46:16 ↗ some potential conflicts and then it

46:18 ↗ goes back down to what you say is then

46:19 ↗ the how and then the

46:21 ↗ prioritization because you may not be

46:23 ↗ able to do both immediately but you may

46:25 ↗ have to to make a hard decision at one

46:27 ↗ time or another um what's the most

46:30 ↗ important thing at that point um so it's

46:34 ↗ it may just maybe like trying to make

46:36 ↗ these things all work with other things

46:38 ↗ it's just imp an impossible task and

46:40 ↗ just realize that there's going to be

46:41 ↗ some inherent conflict and then the how

46:43 ↗ gets you your priorities is that the way

46:46 ↗ it

46:46 ↗ works yeah no that's absolutely right

46:49 ↗ there's always kind of a balancing act

46:50 ↗ of what you're able to invest in and

46:52 ↗ when because we have limited staff we

46:54 ↗ have limited resources the state funds

46:56 ↗ aren't always coming federal funds

46:58 ↗ aren't always there and our local

47:00 ↗ dollars have to be balanced across

47:02 ↗ multiple different priorities that we

47:04 ↗ discuss as part of our annual budget

47:06 ↗ process so when it comes to a lot of

47:09 ↗ environmental uh meeting the

47:11 ↗ environmental goals we build it into

47:13 ↗ different sections of how we're moving

47:15 ↗ through those different

47:19 ↗ priorities commissioner

47:20 ↗ Alor I would imagine this is already in

47:23 ↗ the environmental plan and the what they

47:25 ↗ will do for their action plan but the

47:28 ↗ reality is the operating costs are so

47:29 ↗ much lower that I think with some

47:32 ↗ Community Education like I I struggle

47:36 ↗ because I think we're past the point of

47:38 ↗ compromising on these I think we have to

47:40 ↗ make the changes which is why I was so

47:42 ↗ happy to see uh the goals that were

47:44 ↗ presented here and so with that

47:47 ↗ Community Education to understand the

47:48 ↗ benefits that you start seeing

47:50 ↗ immediately as soon as you open that

47:52 ↗ space or you retrofit that so and it

47:55 ↗ does go to are the cost benefit analysis

47:57 ↗ that you mentioned that there are some

47:58 ↗ buildings that are not worth it to

48:00 ↗ retrofit um based on where they are but

48:02 ↗ I think that including in that action

48:05 ↗ plan that Community Education or that

48:06 ↗ Builder education developer education

48:08 ↗ about that would be really important um

48:11 ↗ because you see it you see it in the

48:12 ↗ balance sheet really

48:19 ↗ quick Stephen would you like to prod

48:22 ↗ anymore well I think my last question

48:23 ↗ I'll prod with is you know reading

48:26 ↗ through these goals and policies for the

48:27 ↗ new element did you see any potential

48:30 ↗ conflicts with what we've discussed in

48:32 ↗ in on housing or land use orbs even some

48:35 ↗ of the other elements that you

48:37 ↗ saw as staff we've tried to work through

48:40 ↗ any potential conflicts but uh you as

48:43 ↗ Commissioners and community members you

48:44 ↗ bring a different perspective that's

48:46 ↗ helpful for a lot of this

48:49 ↗ review not to put you on the spot for

48:52 ↗ getting an answer tonight but that's

48:54 ↗ getting as part of this review process

48:56 ↗ that's also something we're looking for

48:57 ↗ from you always Email Stephen

49:01 ↗ Stephen commissioner I think I started

49:03 ↗ with I think I was looking at less at

49:06 ↗ conflict with other things and more

49:07 ↗ about are these achievable by the role

49:10 ↗ of what the city can do and I think we

49:12 ↗ we address some of those things and

49:13 ↗ that's

49:16 ↗ um and I think we we've already we've

49:18 ↗ already covered that um if you want us

49:21 ↗ to take another scrub through and look

49:23 ↗ at from a conflict standpoint I'm happy

49:26 ↗ to do that but I just that was not my my

49:28 ↗ screen was more okay is this something

49:30 ↗ we can actually do or and if not is that

49:33 ↗ should that be even in our Charter or

49:35 ↗ not that was my first screen and and a

49:37 ↗ lot of the discussion in terms of what's

49:39 ↗ achievable or what's not achievable a

49:40 ↗ lot of that the sustainability staff or

49:42 ↗ even our staff work with the

49:44 ↗ environmental board working through a

49:45 ↗ lot of the implementation particularly

49:47 ↗ with the implementation of the climate

49:49 ↗ action plan when there's specific tasks

49:52 ↗ that are related to the code or the

49:54 ↗ conference plan or any other U kind of a

49:57 ↗ responsibility of this commission we

49:59 ↗ bring that to this commission for

50:00 ↗ discussion in terms of making a policy

50:02 ↗ change or regulation change to support

50:05 ↗ implementation of the climate action

50:06 ↗ plan so achievable is is kind of

50:10 ↗ dependent on the topic in terms of uh

50:14 ↗ you know maybe it's not achievable today

50:15 ↗ but looking 20 years out into the future

50:18 ↗ that's something that's potentially

50:19 ↗ achievable with the right amount of

50:21 ↗ resources and

50:24 ↗ Investments

50:26 ↗ Vice chair Bader yeah to that question

50:28 ↗ to me it's like I again we can look at

50:32 ↗ like individual elements but it's hard I

50:35 ↗ think to like answer that question

50:36 ↗ looking at an element in a silo I feel

50:38 ↗ like the complex are more likely to come

50:40 ↗ up cross elements and so I don't know if

50:43 ↗ that's an exercise that staff might do

50:46 ↗ to bring to us but I think that could be

50:49 ↗ helpful we in in the staff review We

50:53 ↗ Tred to resolve a lot of the conflicts

50:55 ↗ before we bring it to the boards of

50:56 ↗ commissions but if there are if there is

50:59 ↗ something that we do see as a potential

51:01 ↗ conflict we usually pose it as kind of a

51:03 ↗ policy question and as you saw with your

51:06 ↗ materials we didn't really see anything

51:08 ↗ I mean we the climate action plan was a

51:11 ↗ development over you know was adopted

51:14 ↗ two years ago I believe and it's been

51:17 ↗ going through implementation so we've

51:20 ↗ you know the staff have had the ability

51:22 ↗ to start implementation and identify any

51:24 ↗ potential conflict

51:25 ↗ and work that into kind of propos goals

51:28 ↗ and policies

51:29 ↗ update the other piece of this that's

51:31 ↗ like hard for me to wrap my head around

51:32 ↗ is like naming goals and policies

51:35 ↗ without a vision um it just feels like

51:38 ↗ reverse um and so there's potential

51:40 ↗ right that all of this will conflict

51:42 ↗ with the ultimate Vision um and so I

51:45 ↗ guess I don't know why there's not a

51:46 ↗ vision um because assuming there's like

51:48 ↗ some sort of unspoken Vision that all of

51:50 ↗ this is working towards um but no that's

51:53 ↗ that's uh our mistake of not including

51:55 ↗ in the memo there is a vision um where

51:57 ↗ we using from the climate action plan

51:59 ↗ that'll be I thought it specifically

52:00 ↗ said like there is no vision or the

52:02 ↗ vision is coming later yeah it's there's

52:04 ↗ no vision in this material it's but

52:07 ↗ there we are using the vision from the

52:09 ↗ climate action plan for this out I

52:11 ↗ thought you guys were just building the

52:12 ↗ speech body out

52:15 ↗ first um okay chair voice I guess for

52:18 ↗ the last thing for me is again to

52:19 ↗ commissioner cr's Point Stephen I didn't

52:21 ↗ really look for conflict I think there's

52:24 ↗ one or two redundancies I think there

52:26 ↗ are things that I think for example like

52:29 ↗ uh the

52:30 ↗ multimodal I mean to me that kind of

52:32 ↗ ties in with Public Safety like as long

52:33 ↗ as the city is doing a good job with

52:35 ↗ that I think other so I think there's

52:36 ↗ things that are outside of the land use

52:39 ↗ element the city has to

52:42 ↗ consider right so again I to your point

52:46 ↗ yeah you guys did a great job it seems

52:47 ↗ like a pretty clean sheet um even a

52:50 ↗ couple areas where you guys Consolidated

52:51 ↗ stuff

52:53 ↗ so I didn't really see conflict

52:58 ↗ myself and we appreciate hearing that as

53:02 ↗ well who wants to create conflict I

53:05 ↗ chair Bader um I think in the housing

53:08 ↗ element the King County made a bunch of

53:10 ↗ had a bunch of policies does King County

53:12 ↗ have similar policies for the other

53:16 ↗ elements yes but it's

53:20 ↗ um there's not as much as with the

53:23 ↗ housing counting policies

53:31 ↗ all right

53:32 ↗ well one last time anyone would like to

53:35 ↗ add anything to Steven's

53:38 ↗ presentation okay well thank you Stephen

53:41 ↗ thank you yeah great discussion

53:44 ↗ everyone and that was our only regular

53:48 ↗ business item this evening so we're

53:49 ↗ going to move into

53:51 ↗ reports city council updates are there

53:54 ↗ any updates stepen chair of voice since

53:56 ↗ I updated last week there has not been

53:58 ↗ any new

54:01 ↗ updates okay um other business and

54:05 ↗ announcements I'm sure you'd like to

54:06 ↗ tell us a little bit about this joint

54:08 ↗ meeting we're going to have I would

54:10 ↗ thank you chair so our next meeting is

54:12 ↗ November 9th uh the commission will be

54:14 ↗ reviewing the capital Transportation

54:16 ↗ utilities element

54:18 ↗ um Thomas valre with the senior

54:21 ↗ Transportation planner will be joining

54:22 ↗ us that evening to talk about those

54:24 ↗ three elements

54:25 ↗ and then on uh November 15th we're

54:28 ↗ looking to a joint meeting with the

54:30 ↗ economic Vitality commission where the

54:33 ↗ location is still being determined but

54:36 ↗ more details about that will be coming

54:38 ↗ but the the host of that meeting will be

54:40 ↗ the economic Vitality commission so

54:42 ↗ planning policy commission will be guest

54:44 ↗ uh but the main topic will be the

54:47 ↗ Pioneer project program and how the city

54:50 ↗ should potentially um approach such a

54:54 ↗ program and and get both commissions

54:56 ↗ feedback on any negatives or positives

55:00 ↗ with different

55:04 ↗ approaches thank you I hope everybody

55:06 ↗ can make it on the 9th and the

55:10 ↗ 15th any other business announcements

55:13 ↗ Stephen none from staff at this time

55:16 ↗ okay thank you any uh final words from

55:18 ↗ our

55:21 ↗ commissioners all right well thank you

55:23 ↗ everyone for coming um I hope you all

55:25 ↗ bundle up it's pretty cold out there

55:28 ↗ we'll adjourn this meeting tonight at

55:29 ↗ 7:28 p.m. thanks everyone

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (1)

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager 2

Excused

Commissioners Kennedy

Milligan

Recommendations & actions (3)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Padua replied that there is a carry-over from what was adopted to the Climate Action Plan, which addresses aspirational goals with a multi-faceted approach and breaks up local versus regional strategies.
COMMISSIONER ESEMUEDE stated that there will be time before the grid is moved away from, particularly by emergency services, but that clarity regarding cleaner energy sources will be helpful, pushing efficiency.
Padua replied that in the Comprehensive Plan, calling out specific strategies for various natural disasters is being moved away from; these are addressed in the Issaquah Emergency Management Plan and part of a more…