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

Council / Members (6)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Bader

Commissioners Altimore

Esemuede

Krass

Patterson

Staff (1)

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager 2

Excused

Commissioners Kennedy

Milligan