Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, August 8, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of July 25, 2024

packet pp.3–9

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, July 25, 2024

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update: Policy Follow-Up (D)

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.11–15

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission will review the draft Comprehensive Plan and discuss revised policies based on the Commission feedback received at the July 25 2024 meeting.

Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.17–19

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission will receive a presentation on the draft Environmental

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.21–23

▶ Watch from 1:15:41 Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

 Housing Analysis Intro  Housing Analysis Intro

1776 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ good evening is AA good evening

0:08 ↗ Commissioners and good evening staff

0:11 ↗ tonight we're going to call the planning

0:12 ↗ policy commission to order and it is

0:15 ↗ currently 6:35 p.m. August 8th today's

0:19 ↗ meeting is a hybrid meeting the planning

0:21 ↗ policy commission is in person but staff

0:24 ↗ or members of the public may be

0:25 ↗ attending virtually or in person Stephen

0:28 ↗ do we have a quorum this evening

0:31 ↗ chair of voice yes you have a quorum

0:32 ↗ tonight and all Commissioners that are

0:34 ↗ not in attendance are excused excellent

0:38 ↗ unfortunately I have

0:40 ↗ more sad news to share with the

0:42 ↗ commission yes unfortunately Megan

0:45 ↗ altimore has

0:47 ↗ resigned um she took a position um I

0:50 ↗ don't think she would mind if I share

0:51 ↗ this with hopelink which everybody knows

0:53 ↗ she's worked with very closely and it's

0:55 ↗ going to be taking more of her time uh

0:57 ↗ we wish Megan the best and we thank

1:00 ↗ thank her for uh her service here I know

1:02 ↗ I learned a lot from Megan uh her

1:04 ↗ perspective and we wish her the best and

1:06 ↗ her new Endeavor and a new new role at

1:10 ↗ hopelink my biggest concern that's two

1:14 ↗ in as many

1:15 ↗ weeks which they all say things happen

1:18 ↗ in threes so I hope nobody else is going

1:20 ↗ to be leaving us anytime

1:25 ↗ soon so we will see what happens but uh

1:27 ↗ hopefully we can stop the bleeding with

1:30 ↗ losing two tremendous uh Commissioners

1:32 ↗ Amma and Megan and leave it at

1:35 ↗ that so our first item of business this

1:38 ↗ evening is to take action to approve the

1:40 ↗ minutes for July

1:42 ↗ 25th uh these minutes were included in

1:44 ↗ your agenda packet and so I'll ask my

1:46 ↗ fellow Commissioners this evening if you

1:48 ↗ have any

1:49 ↗ concerns or anything you'd like to share

1:51 ↗ about the minutes

1:54 ↗ provided hearing none those minutes are

1:57 ↗ approved

1:59 ↗ now move on to public comment which will

2:02 ↗ hold at this time and Amanda do we have

2:05 ↗ anyone who would like to speak virtually

2:07 ↗ this

2:09 ↗ evening no chair we do

2:11 ↗ not

2:18 ↗ right we will now move on to our regular

2:21 ↗ business and we have two items this

2:23 ↗ evening and the first is to review the

2:26 ↗ revised policies based on the commission

2:28 ↗ feedback receiv received received um

2:32 ↗ from the previous meeting Steven Padua

2:34 ↗ our longrange planning manager will be

2:36 ↗ presenting tonight so Stephen when you

2:38 ↗ are ready please go

2:43 ↗ ahead thank you chair of voice just give

2:45 ↗ me one moment to get

2:53 ↗ connected all right good evening

2:56 ↗ Commissioners Ste long-range planning

2:58 ↗ manager so tonight um at as chair voice

3:00 ↗ had said I'm I'm here to return and and

3:03 ↗ continue the conversation on the revised

3:06 ↗ uh policies that we discussed at the

3:07 ↗ July 25th meeting

3:10 ↗ um the direction needed tonight is is

3:13 ↗ focused on some of those revised

3:15 ↗ policies but at the same time this is

3:17 ↗ still a review of the full draft comp

3:19 ↗ plan so if there's other policies you

3:20 ↗ would like to discuss we're open to

3:22 ↗ discuss that

3:25 ↗ tonight so the first policy we're going

3:27 ↗ to jump right in unless there's any

3:29 ↗ questions from the Commissioners first

3:30 ↗ policy was with the economic Vitality

3:33 ↗ policy A1 um the general feedback we got

3:36 ↗ from the Commissioners was to Define and

3:38 ↗ clarify the language a little bit better

3:39 ↗ and so on the screen is the changes that

3:42 ↗ we made uh based on the commissioner's

3:44 ↗ feedback and um we can discuss that now

3:47 ↗ if if there's any additional changes if

3:49 ↗ we didn't capture the commissioner's

3:51 ↗ feedback at all um please let us

3:54 ↗ know what do you think Stephen we only

3:56 ↗ have three of the policy questions you

3:58 ↗ guys wanted us to R view you just want

4:00 ↗ to take them one at a time yeah I it

4:02 ↗ it's up to you chair voice if if you

4:04 ↗ want to just go through all of them and

4:06 ↗ then discuss or go through one at a time

4:08 ↗ while we have the language on the screen

4:10 ↗ let's do that there's only three of

4:13 ↗ them I think there's five uh with the

4:16 ↗ two new policies ah then

4:21 ↗ corrected all right EV policy

4:25 ↗ A1 any comments

4:30 ↗ I thought it was a good

4:31 ↗ update okay easy enough we will move on

4:34 ↗ to the next the language reflected what

4:36 ↗ we wanted so and then um similar

4:39 ↗ discussion with economic Vitality policy

4:41 ↗ A3 there was u a request from the

4:44 ↗ Commissioners to emphasize all

4:45 ↗ businesses in the language and so that

4:47 ↗ is what we did with the

4:50 ↗ revision everyone

4:53 ↗ happy I

4:55 ↗ agree okay moving on to the

4:57 ↗ transportation policy E2

5:00 ↗ this was

5:05 ↗ a This was um the feedback we got from

5:07 ↗ the commission was to change the

5:09 ↗ language from increase to support use of

5:11 ↗ electric pedal assisted bicycles and so

5:14 ↗ that is the language that we changed for

5:16 ↗ this

5:17 ↗ policy okay this is a highly

5:21 ↗ contentious topic so anyone would like

5:24 ↗ to speak on the

5:26 ↗ Ebby commissioner crft

5:31 ↗ so um thanks for changing that uh this

5:32 ↗ is commissioner crass the I guess my

5:35 ↗ point was less about the ebike one we

5:37 ↗ can come back to that but just being

5:39 ↗ very clear of what the role of the city

5:41 ↗ is and I think this captures it better

5:43 ↗ when when we have words like increase

5:45 ↗ that means we have a vested interest or

5:47 ↗ investment in doing that and you'd have

5:49 ↗ a metric on that versus the allowing or

5:53 ↗ support says we give the platform to let

5:56 ↗ people go ahead and do that so I think

5:58 ↗ this one captures it and I'm curious if

5:59 ↗ we have other areas where we wanted to

6:03 ↗ we talked about kind of more broadly

6:04 ↗ looking at making sure that we're clear

6:07 ↗ of what the city does and is responsible

6:10 ↗ that we use their correct language and

6:11 ↗ this was a good example where I think

6:13 ↗ you made that adjustment I wasn't sure

6:14 ↗ if there's other places that we need to

6:15 ↗ do that as well there was one other uh

6:17 ↗ policy that's next on the that'll be

6:19 ↗ next in the presentation where the

6:20 ↗ commission discussed changing the

6:22 ↗ language so we better Define what the

6:24 ↗ city's role is and what exactly we're

6:25 ↗ trying to achieve

6:29 ↗ commissioner

6:31 ↗ Milligan thank you this is commissioner

6:33 ↗ Milligan in person I in real life I

6:38 ↗ RL uh thank you for the change I wanted

6:41 ↗ to ask uh my fellow

6:43 ↗ Commissioners uh if they thought that

6:47 ↗ this would address what I thought might

6:52 ↗ be needed and in the um for the use of

6:56 ↗ electric pedal assisted and other

6:59 ↗ Electric motor assisted Mobility types I

7:01 ↗ was thinking about the safe

7:04 ↗ infrastructure within our city for these

7:07 ↗ vehicles to have a place to go that

7:10 ↗ isn't in conflict with um other mobility

7:15 ↗ and so you know this word might work

7:18 ↗ it's General enough but what do you

7:20 ↗ think because what I was concerned about

7:21 ↗ was uh safety of pedestrians and then

7:24 ↗ also safety of those uh electric

7:27 ↗ assisted uh Mobility I mean motor

7:30 ↗ assisted Mobility I see a lot of um 12

7:32 ↗ and 14 year olds in the isqua highlands

7:35 ↗ haing around on the streets on uh motor

7:38 ↗ sort of bikes and uh I just wondered if

7:42 ↗ this uh would speak to that

7:44 ↗ need I think

7:46 ↗ so I don't have another

7:49 ↗ idea question chair voice if I could

7:51 ↗ just offer for the Tres station element

7:53 ↗ being just more containing the broader

7:55 ↗ policies within the mobility master plan

7:57 ↗ itself where identifies a lot of the

7:59 ↗ actions

8:00 ↗ that does do a good job of identifying

8:02 ↗ the broader infrastructure needs to

8:04 ↗ support some of these different uses in

8:06 ↗ terms of complete streets and multimodal

8:08 ↗ uses throughout the city and so there

8:09 ↗ are other components of that that dive a

8:12 ↗ little more into what commissioner

8:14 ↗ Milligan is I think is asking

8:17 ↗ for commissioner

8:23 ↗ Zach not contentious at

8:25 ↗ all anything

8:28 ↗ else okay

8:37 ↗ so for transportation policy C4 this is

8:39 ↗ the one that I think was discussed a

8:40 ↗ little bit more with the commission and

8:42 ↗ so which is why it has probably a little

8:44 ↗ more revisions um the amendment or the

8:48 ↗ the revision that's on the screen is

8:49 ↗ what was proposed in the language we

8:52 ↗ also received some comments from

8:53 ↗ Commissioners um not in attendance

8:55 ↗ tonight that asked for a revision for

8:57 ↗ the commission to consider and so that

8:59 ↗ that is what I'm presenting on the

9:00 ↗ screen now is a slight revision from

9:02 ↗ what was in your packet so um chair

9:05 ↗ voice I don't know if you want to

9:06 ↗ discuss the original revision first or

9:09 ↗ start with this

9:13 ↗ one I'm sorry but for the audience uh

9:16 ↗ maybe could just read into the record

9:18 ↗ the new this new language since other

9:21 ↗ people are just looking at the packet

9:22 ↗ yes so for what was originally

9:24 ↗ introduced in the commission's packet

9:26 ↗ was um this update which is in the memo

9:30 ↗ uh we received email comments from

9:32 ↗ commissioner Kennedy who asked for a

9:34 ↗ little more trans uh a little more

9:35 ↗ language around what was discussed by

9:37 ↗ the commission which is research other

9:39 ↗ cities experiences while looking into

9:41 ↗ potential um into the potential for

9:44 ↗ Partnerships in small light vehicle

9:46 ↗ transportation options and the rest of

9:48 ↗ what was being proposed in the

9:54 ↗ P commissioner

9:56 ↗ CR John CR John CR again so this one

10:00 ↗ addresses the comment I made on the

10:02 ↗ previous slide what's the role when you

10:04 ↗ had uh investment that that's very

10:07 ↗ specific and I'm glad we we changed that

10:09 ↗ and took that out and I think it's um

10:11 ↗ potential Partnerships Partnerships

10:13 ↗ doesn't necessarily mean money it could

10:15 ↗ mean we allow you to do it here we give

10:17 ↗ you signage or things like that versus

10:20 ↗ the role um like when you have the words

10:22 ↗ Investments it makes it sound like we

10:24 ↗ are now in the ebike business and I'm

10:26 ↗ glad You' made that change

10:30 ↗ does the word investment still concern

10:35 ↗ you ah okay read my

10:40 ↗ screen okay uh commissioner

10:44 ↗ zacharov um I'm not commissioner

10:46 ↗ zacharov uh I'm not sure that we should

10:48 ↗ mention the ebike specifically for that

10:51 ↗ because ebike kind of like focuses on

10:55 ↗ some sort of like specific thing and

10:57 ↗ maybe such as

10:59 ↗ maybe go back to micromobility

11:03 ↗ word uh or light again it has light

11:06 ↗ lightweight vehicle transportation

11:08 ↗ options so maybe do not bring such as

11:10 ↗ ebike programs just lightweight vehicle

11:13 ↗ transportation options that expend

11:15 ↗ Community Options for travel so don't

11:17 ↗ bring that this example great thank you

11:22 ↗ uh chair voice if we had um at least

11:25 ↗ from the staff perspective of we

11:27 ↗ originally tried to take ebike

11:30 ↗ uh ebike programs out of the language

11:32 ↗ but we felt that the small lightweight

11:34 ↗ vehicle transportation options wasn't

11:37 ↗ actually specific enough to say this is

11:40 ↗ more than

11:41 ↗ just Uber and Lyft or any other

11:45 ↗ motorized vehicles but it expands beyond

11:47 ↗ that to also non-motorized Vehicles as

11:49 ↗ well which is why it was kind of

11:51 ↗ proposed this way if there's another

11:53 ↗ type of program that the commission

11:54 ↗ would prefer us included but we' we'

11:57 ↗ felt like leaving that that blank or

12:00 ↗ leaving that out or something in its

12:02 ↗ place um kind of left it too obscure of

12:07 ↗ what it actually was referring to or at

12:09 ↗ least the original intent of

12:12 ↗ policy commissioner zagro you want to

12:14 ↗ follow up yes okay thank you stepen um

12:17 ↗ maybe then just change ebike to electric

12:20 ↗ bikes so ebike is I think it's a word

12:24 ↗ for a specific program right it's a

12:26 ↗ name okay uh commissioner

12:30 ↗ migan uh I want to support what you were

12:33 ↗ first saying

12:35 ↗ commissioner CIA they um I'm glad for

12:39 ↗ the revised language from commissioner

12:42 ↗ Kennedy uh for the reasons that

12:44 ↗ commissioner crft said to remove the

12:45 ↗ word Investments and rather uh

12:49 ↗ Partnerships and then also in the newest

12:51 ↗ language it says uh look into the

12:54 ↗ potential for partnership so that would

12:56 ↗ be evaluating the um the the worthiness

13:00 ↗ of doing that rather than just saying

13:02 ↗ let's pursue Partnerships we first need

13:04 ↗ to decide whether we would like to

13:05 ↗ pursue Partnerships so I'd like the uh

13:07 ↗ new language in many ways but I uh I do

13:11 ↗ not necessarily want to say such as

13:15 ↗ ebike programs um the reason for an

13:19 ↗ ebike in isqua that I've heard from uh

13:22 ↗ people is to address our um hilly nature

13:25 ↗ and that is uh taken up with the

13:27 ↗ previous policy where we said say

13:29 ↗ support the use of electric pedal

13:30 ↗ assisted

13:32 ↗ bicycles those sorts of things is

13:33 ↗ already addressed in the previous um

13:36 ↗ policy in this policy we looking for um

13:40 ↗ a relationship perhaps um with a

13:43 ↗ provider of lightweight small

13:47 ↗ lightweight vehicle transportation

13:48 ↗ options and I don't think we need to say

13:51 ↗ uh such as ebikes at all because if we

13:53 ↗ did have to say ebikes I'd rather just

13:54 ↗ scratch it and say of non-motorized

13:57 ↗ small light weight vehicle

14:00 ↗ transportation options if it were just

14:03 ↗ me I'd say go non-motorized get rid of

14:06 ↗ the E

14:08 ↗ Bike commissioner crass um I I do think

14:12 ↗ you need to have some context because

14:13 ↗ otherwise like micromobility I don't

14:16 ↗ know what that means I think the the

14:18 ↗ essence of what you're trying to say is

14:21 ↗ other things besides cars right so non

14:24 ↗ non-motorized automo Automotive or or

14:27 ↗ vehicles or things like that um just

14:30 ↗ giving some context however you want to

14:31 ↗ do it I think as long as you do that I

14:33 ↗ think that's

14:34 ↗ great but if you took all of it out it

14:36 ↗ would be like okay what does that mean I

14:38 ↗ mean something different and I agree

14:40 ↗ with you Stephen that you need to have

14:42 ↗ some

14:44 ↗ cont yeah I would agree with uh uh chair

14:47 ↗ voice I would agree with Stephen and

14:49 ↗ commissioner crass I think you need the

14:50 ↗ context because what Stephen explained

14:52 ↗ obviously you can't put a paragraph and

14:54 ↗ a half in the actual policy so again

14:57 ↗ having such as I think is the qualifier

15:00 ↗ so I'm comfortable with the language and

15:02 ↗ to commissioner Milligan's Point uh yeah

15:04 ↗ I also really like the beginning part of

15:07 ↗ it too while looking into potential that

15:10 ↗ sounds a lot better are the

15:12 ↗ Commissioners comfortable with uh

15:13 ↗ commissioner zacharov uh suggestion just

15:16 ↗ change it to electric bike rather than

15:18 ↗ ebike commissioner

15:21 ↗ Milligan uh could we folks think about

15:24 ↗ using the language from the previous

15:26 ↗ paragraph that says pedal assisted

15:29 ↗ because there is quite a range and part

15:31 ↗ of it becomes a motorbike and are we

15:35 ↗ really wanting to look for is this uh

15:40 ↗ necessarily Bike Share it doesn't say uh

15:42 ↗ Partnerships for transportation options

15:45 ↗ if we're trying to be specific we could

15:48 ↗ try for pedal assisted instead of

15:49 ↗ electric

15:51 ↗ bike worth a

15:53 ↗ try I wonder if we get into two in the

15:55 ↗ weeds because then you also have uh you

15:57 ↗ have scooters vesas things like

16:00 ↗ commissioner Patterson I guess that was

16:02 ↗ kind of my question I was going to ask

16:04 ↗ is like what are the potential small

16:06 ↗ lightweight vehicles that we would

16:08 ↗ consider because we have bikes scooters

16:10 ↗ like do we want to Define it to draw a

16:13 ↗ line or do we want to keep it broad to I

16:16 ↗ guess keep our options

16:19 ↗ open I take it back I forgot about

16:22 ↗ scooters I like commissioner Patterson's

16:24 ↗ idea of keeping it Broad

16:29 ↗ I like commissioner Patterson's idea

16:31 ↗ keep it broad uh staff can always come

16:33 ↗ back this always be amended um so is

16:36 ↗ everyone comfortable with what we

16:38 ↗ see did we come up with what we wanted

16:41 ↗ to see ebike or we're just going to move

16:42 ↗ to electric bike electric

16:45 ↗ bike all right great thank

16:52 ↗ you and then for the First new housing

16:55 ↗ policy it was a slight change changing

16:58 ↗ from meat to prioritize just to

16:59 ↗ specifically call out the zero the

17:01 ↗ importance of 0 to

17:03 ↗ 30% um just quick reminder this new

17:06 ↗ policy was introduced as a request from

17:08 ↗ the affordable housing committee from

17:10 ↗ King County who asked for compliance

17:12 ↗ with King County Planning policies which

17:14 ↗ specifically call out 0 to 30% Ami house

17:20 ↗ households any

17:24 ↗ comment okay thank you

17:30 ↗ and I believe this is our last one yes

17:32 ↗ so this is the the other new housing

17:34 ↗ policy originally this was proposed to

17:36 ↗ go into the transation element but the

17:39 ↗ discussion with the commission at the

17:40 ↗ last meeting on July 25th was that it

17:43 ↗ should be because really the focuses

17:45 ↗ around housing coordination with light

17:46 ↗ rail planning or with high-capacity

17:48 ↗ Transit is is belongs in the housing

17:51 ↗ element so that is what's being proposed

18:11 ↗ commissioner

18:13 ↗ Milan commissioner miligan here

18:16 ↗ I only wanted to explore a little bit

18:19 ↗ more the

18:22 ↗ word adopting supportive land use

18:26 ↗ policies for the reason that I brought

18:28 ↗ this up at the last meeting and that was

18:30 ↗ that um we

18:33 ↗ have supportive land use policies for

18:36 ↗ mass transit in the central isqua plan

18:40 ↗ and the in the urban growth Center and

18:43 ↗ so by saying adopting supportive land

18:46 ↗ use policies it's saying we don't have

18:49 ↗ them yet and I wondered about using word

18:52 ↗ I would have said leveraging existing

18:56 ↗ supportive land use policies to

18:58 ↗ collaborate with sound transit for light

19:00 ↗ rail service but I'm open to other ideas

19:03 ↗ I just didn't like the the um assumption

19:05 ↗ in that phrase that we didn't have

19:07 ↗ supportive land use policies

19:09 ↗ already good

19:13 ↗ point Comm um chair voice if I could

19:16 ↗ offer um just a some supplementing

19:19 ↗ information on uh the light rail

19:21 ↗ planning guide that was adopted by

19:23 ↗ Council earlier this year so one of the

19:25 ↗ actions that was called out was actually

19:27 ↗ in the exploration of of where we want a

19:30 ↗ new light rail station to go the advice

19:32 ↗ we've received from multiple other

19:34 ↗ cities and from Sound Transit is is be a

19:36 ↗ little more open for adopting or finding

19:40 ↗ new land use policies because based on

19:42 ↗ wherever the location could be your

19:44 ↗ existing policies may not actually

19:45 ↗ support it and so that's why it was more

19:47 ↗ formed towards adopting supportive land

19:50 ↗ use policies rather than just trying to

19:52 ↗ keep to what you

19:55 ↗ have I'd like to change my

19:57 ↗ suggestion what if we change the word

19:59 ↗ adopting to

20:03 ↗ exploring that too

20:05 ↗ soft this is assuming that we have to

20:09 ↗ change and do new new policies but all

20:11 ↗ that um Stephen is saying is that there

20:14 ↗ might be other there might be

20:15 ↗ Alternatives and we want to be open to

20:20 ↗ them so by continue to explore

20:23 ↗ supportive land use

20:24 ↗ policy by by

20:27 ↗ exploring collaborate with sound transit

20:29 ↗ to bring Light Rail to isqua by

20:31 ↗ exploring supportive land use policies

20:35 ↗ BL uh commissioner crass okay I never

20:39 ↗ get into the word smithing but I'm now

20:40 ↗ changing that um how about just evolving

20:44 ↗ because the whole point is we already

20:46 ↗ have some they may have to change and I

20:49 ↗ think the point even you're trying to

20:50 ↗ make is we're gonna have to probably

20:52 ↗ evolve as this thing comes down the the

20:55 ↗ Pike in 20 years from now it'll some

20:57 ↗ things will be different but have to

20:58 ↗ evolve with it and I think the word

21:01 ↗ evolving is kind of going in between

21:04 ↗ something too soft and then something

21:05 ↗ too specific that we're g to of course

21:08 ↗ do that that be my recommendation and my

21:11 ↗ one word Smith recommendation of the

21:15 ↗ night any follow up to commissioner C's

21:18 ↗ suggestion uh commissioner

21:21 ↗ zacharov okay if we're all suggesting

21:24 ↗ something maybe adjusting existing

21:27 ↗ support

21:29 ↗ so because if we want to kind of show

21:31 ↗ that we already have uh supportive land

21:33 ↗ use policies it's adjusting existing

21:36 ↗ policies and we are open to adjust it to

21:39 ↗ uh whatever the plan would be with the

21:42 ↗ sound transit but we have it and we're

21:45 ↗ open to adjust it if

21:47 ↗ needed that would be my suggestion I

21:51 ↗ like that better than evolving no

21:52 ↗ offense commissioner too

21:55 ↗ nebulous um any comment on commissioner

22:06 ↗ props um may I please commissioner

22:09 ↗ Patterson uh I I think these are all

22:12 ↗ great discussion topics I think if I had

22:14 ↗ to pick a lane um I'm actually in

22:16 ↗ alignment with commissioner crass I like

22:19 ↗ the idea of evolving because it does say

22:22 ↗ that what we have is fine for right now

22:24 ↗ but there's a chance we may have to

22:26 ↗ change in the future to support this um

22:29 ↗ so I think it's that balance of of not

22:31 ↗ too soft not too far in another

22:33 ↗ Direction but opening keeping the door

22:36 ↗ open to

22:39 ↗ adjustments

22:43 ↗ okay uh evolving just it's it sounds so

22:46 ↗ strange in in a planning document that

22:48 ↗ it's just such nebulous word that's the

22:50 ↗ only thing I don't but I I agree with

22:52 ↗ you guys'

22:54 ↗ summation um I kind of like adjusting

22:56 ↗ because again it lets you know that

22:58 ↗ there are existing policies it can do

23:01 ↗ exactly basically what commissioner Cass

23:02 ↗ is looking for again adjust evolve

23:06 ↗ basically synonyms um I would probably

23:09 ↗ stick with adjust

23:13 ↗ myself that would be me but let's go

23:16 ↗ ahead

23:18 ↗ let's commissioner Patterson how many

23:22 ↗ words can we come up with uh I

23:25 ↗ think um with adjusting to me that is

23:28 ↗ very similar to adopting and that it's

23:30 ↗ saying that we're going to make a change

23:32 ↗ no matter what whereas evolving means

23:34 ↗ we'll change if we have to or we'll

23:36 ↗ change as things progress but it doesn't

23:38 ↗ mean we're going to change like it

23:40 ↗ doesn't it doesn't invoke action if you

23:42 ↗ will so adopting and adjusting means

23:45 ↗ we're going to do something whether we

23:47 ↗ we want to or not or like you know it's

23:49 ↗ going to happen like it's that's what it

23:50 ↗ means to me is that no matter what

23:52 ↗ through these conversations we're going

23:54 ↗ to do do an action on our land use

23:57 ↗ policies when in reality

23:59 ↗ that's not necessarily true because

24:00 ↗ we're going to go through this process

24:01 ↗ and we might find out it's all fine and

24:03 ↗ we might find out we need to make some

24:06 ↗ adjustments Evol that that is incredibly

24:09 ↗ nuanced and uh wow like any uh good uh

24:13 ↗ politician of the last 50 years maybe I

24:15 ↗ will evolve on this by simply asking um

24:19 ↗ if you could Wordsmith what you're

24:20 ↗ thinking between you and commissioner

24:21 ↗ crass and propose something uh

24:23 ↗ commissioner Milligan I'm going to go

24:25 ↗ with the forming majority here of

24:28 ↗ uh by evolving supportive land use

24:32 ↗ policies um because I think that will

24:35 ↗ work I prefer commissioner zacharov um

24:40 ↗ suggestion but for the sake of of time

24:43 ↗ and for the document I think evolving

24:45 ↗ supportive land use policies will

24:49 ↗ work commissioner Zach

24:51 ↗ off evolving

24:54 ↗ existing ex I want to show that we have

24:57 ↗ policies involving existing

25:03 ↗ policies all right I'll let our two

25:05 ↗ evolutionists put this together for us

25:06 ↗ so if you could give us some

25:10 ↗ words here we go commissioner

25:13 ↗ craft I I think the the point we're

25:16 ↗ trying to make was we have something

25:19 ↗ existing we're going to make it better

25:21 ↗ that supports these bigger efforts we

25:23 ↗ like the word evolving and if you want

25:25 ↗ to put evolving existing that's fine um

25:29 ↗ and now now you've made me Wordsmith

25:32 ↗ again which against my my nature but I

25:36 ↗ think I think we're close and I think we

25:37 ↗ should let um Stephen decide on what

25:42 ↗ make sure that we're our discussion

25:44 ↗ meets the intent of what we're we're not

25:47 ↗ going astray on I think all the options

25:50 ↗ kind of still meet the intent of what

25:51 ↗ the polici is trying to get at I think

25:53 ↗ what was we were really trying to get

25:56 ↗ out with the light rail planning guide

25:57 ↗ was anything new that might come up

26:00 ↗ Beyond just what's existing so adjusting

26:03 ↗ evolving um when it comes to

26:04 ↗ implementation it it it's going to be

26:07 ↗ the same thing for us but I just want to

26:09 ↗ make sure that the commission is

26:10 ↗ comfortable with the language that we

26:11 ↗ propose

26:12 ↗ here clearly we're

26:16 ↗ comfortable all right all in favor for

26:18 ↗ evolving

26:22 ↗ existing existing I don't know if it's

26:24 ↗ necessary but staff can take that and

26:27 ↗ and word Smith it to death

26:28 ↗ okay it's been a while since we've been

26:30 ↗ asked to do some word smithing

26:32 ↗ so have to get it out of our system all

26:34 ↗ right we will work that in thank you so

26:37 ↗ for the next steps of the draft

26:38 ↗ comprehensive plan is we're going to

26:40 ↗ hold a public hearing on August 22nd

26:43 ↗ where we will from that point take the

26:47 ↗ commission's recommendation to go to

26:48 ↗ City Council and then in September we're

26:51 ↗ going to meet with the Planning

26:52 ↗ Development environment Council

26:53 ↗ committee will take the commission's

26:55 ↗ recommendation and then also do their

26:57 ↗ own review of the draft comp plan and

27:00 ↗ October they'll finalize their review

27:02 ↗ and come up with their recommendation

27:04 ↗ for the committee of the whole and in

27:07 ↗ November the committee whole will meet

27:09 ↗ and and come up with their own

27:10 ↗ recommendation on the draft plan and

27:13 ↗ December 2nd will be the tenative uh

27:15 ↗ city council adoption date for the

27:17 ↗ conference

27:21 ↗ plan so in addition to the policies

27:23 ↗ we've discussed tonight are there any

27:25 ↗ other policies that the commissioner

27:27 ↗ would like to discuss

27:30 ↗ I you guys have the entire draft

27:32 ↗ comprehensive plan to speak on I mean I

27:35 ↗ believe you we'll have one more

27:36 ↗ opportunity but anything

27:39 ↗ else Mr M I just want to confess that I

27:43 ↗ was focused on the packet and didn't

27:45 ↗ explore further so it doesn't mean that

27:47 ↗ I don't have another one we still have

27:49 ↗ time to there's still time we still have

27:52 ↗ the public hearing on the 22nd um and as

27:55 ↗ I've iterated in the previous meetings

27:56 ↗ it's all the same draft language that

27:58 ↗ you've seen in previous meetings over

28:00 ↗ the last year and so if anything has

28:02 ↗ been changed we've documented that and

28:04 ↗ discussed that with you and so um the

28:07 ↗ only thing really new is the narratives

28:09 ↗ added to each of the elements and those

28:11 ↗ things have also been discussed with

28:12 ↗ multiple Boards of commissions as well

28:14 ↗ as the staff with each of the respective

28:20 ↗ departments thank

28:22 ↗ you thank you Stephen

28:28 ↗ all right we ready to move

28:31 ↗ on did you want to mention

28:39 ↗ um okay so moving on to regular

28:43 ↗ business now we are going to be looking

28:45 ↗ at the overview of the draft

28:47 ↗ environmental impact statement statement

28:50 ↗ which was created in support of the

28:51 ↗ comprehensive plan periodic update step

28:55 ↗ again is

28:57 ↗ up and we'll be presenting tonight so

29:00 ↗ Stephen when you're ready please go

29:01 ↗ ahead thank you chair voice and tonight

29:03 ↗ I'm actually joined by our consultant

29:06 ↗ Mandy who is on the screen and she'll be

29:08 ↗ actually sharing her screen going

29:09 ↗ through the

29:11 ↗ presentation okay can everyone hear me

29:14 ↗ all right can need Commissioners yes we

29:17 ↗ can thank you Mandy okay thanks I will

29:20 ↗ share my screen

29:39 ↗ all right make sure I got the right

29:41 ↗ display setting here hold on yep we can

29:43 ↗ see the presentation Mandy okay very all

29:46 ↗ right thank you well good evening

29:48 ↗ Commissioners it's wonderful to be here

29:51 ↗ this this evening my name is Mandy

29:53 ↗ Roberts I'm a principal planner with

29:56 ↗ otac and our firm is um preparing the

29:59 ↗ jft environmental impact

30:01 ↗ statement to support the comprehensive

30:04 ↗ plan so I do have a presentation here

30:08 ↗ it's got a lot of details and I think

30:10 ↗ I'll pause as we go through for any

30:13 ↗ questions and

30:15 ↗ discussion but really the purpose of the

30:17 ↗ presentation is to

30:20 ↗ describe um the Eis process and provide

30:24 ↗ an update on where we are with it and

30:26 ↗ what the next steps will be

30:29 ↗ so we'll cover what what CIT is which

30:32 ↗ I'm sure you're all well well aware of

30:33 ↗ that a little bit about what an Eis is

30:36 ↗ why it's required the topics that we're

30:39 ↗ analyzing the growth Alternatives that

30:41 ↗ we're looking at and then some of the

30:44 ↗ analysis and then of course next I

30:47 ↗ mention so the State Environmental

30:50 ↗ Policy Act um

30:53 ↗ requires

30:54 ↗ uh the evaluation of potential actions

31:00 ↗ associated with all kinds of projects

31:02 ↗ but including governmental projects or

31:05 ↗ decisions and so the comprehensive plan

31:08 ↗ is a is a decision it's an action um

31:11 ↗ that the city plans to take and the um e

31:15 ↗ Eis is really a tool to help in um

31:20 ↗ evaluating that action but also in

31:22 ↗ planning for the future looking at

31:24 ↗ potential mitigation measures projects

31:26 ↗ and improvements that will be needed to

31:28 ↗ support growth in the future so in the

31:32 ↗ Eis you'll see potential impacts but

31:35 ↗ also you'll see discussion around

31:38 ↗ mitigation and coordination to help

31:41 ↗ reduce or minimize those potential

31:45 ↗ impacts so that they are not significant

31:47 ↗ and they're not adverse and another

31:50 ↗ really important purpose of an Eis is to

31:55 ↗ provide the opportunity for public and

31:58 ↗ agency review and comment and it is a

32:01 ↗ really great process in terms of hearing

32:05 ↗ from some of the utility providers

32:08 ↗ Public Services um during the process to

32:11 ↗ get their comments and start to look at

32:14 ↗ making sure that the city's coordinating

32:16 ↗ with them as they move forward with

32:18 ↗ planning and

32:20 ↗ implementation so in this case um we'll

32:24 ↗ be looking at a reasonable range of

32:25 ↗ Alternatives which I'll describe in a

32:27 ↗ moment

32:28 ↗ we've got mitigation measures as I said

32:31 ↗ we'll be um publishing the document for

32:35 ↗ comment and hoping to hear comments from

32:36 ↗ the public local state and federal

32:39 ↗ agencies tribal governments and others

32:41 ↗ service providers as I mentioned and

32:44 ↗ then um one thing to note is there are

32:49 ↗ different levels of detail in Eis

32:53 ↗ documents environmental impact statement

32:55 ↗ documents and plans are considered to be

32:58 ↗ a non-project type of action so they're

33:01 ↗ analyzed at a more General planning

33:03 ↗ level of

33:06 ↗ detail so you will see in the Eis that

33:10 ↗ we have a description of the affected

33:13 ↗ environment is the term that we use and

33:16 ↗ it's really just describing existing

33:18 ↗ conditions as well as future Trends then

33:21 ↗ the Alternatives analysis and potential

33:24 ↗ impacts that may occur under any of the

33:26 ↗ alternatives mitigation measures and

33:29 ↗ then potential significant unavoidable

33:32 ↗ and adverse impacts if there are

33:36 ↗ any so uh the draft Eis is published

33:40 ↗ then there's a public comment period

33:42 ↗ it's a minimum of 30 days ours is going

33:44 ↗ to be a little bit longer once we

33:46 ↗ receive comments we will be preparing

33:49 ↗ responses to those and those get

33:51 ↗ published in the final environmental

33:53 ↗ impact statement and we also have an

33:56 ↗ opportunity when we the final to make

33:59 ↗ any updates to substitute comment

34:02 ↗ content of the e as needed um this Eis

34:07 ↗ is a little bit different than perhaps

34:09 ↗ some that you may have reviewed or seen

34:11 ↗ in that the city won't be selecting a

34:14 ↗ preferred

34:15 ↗ alternative um Alternatives that we're

34:18 ↗ analyzing either we have two action

34:21 ↗ Alternatives and either of those could

34:23 ↗ be realized in the future um they're

34:26 ↗ they're both looking at grow grow

34:28 ↗ scenarios that could occur um and I'll

34:31 ↗ explain a little bit more about those in

34:32 ↗ a moment um so they're approved um

34:36 ↗ there's no need to change zoning or land

34:38 ↗ use designations so there's really no

34:40 ↗ need to select a perer alternative the

34:43 ↗ purpose really of the analysis is purely

34:46 ↗ to understand what the implications

34:48 ↗ would be from these growth scenarios so

34:51 ↗ the city can proactively plan to serve

34:54 ↗ them in the future

34:58 ↗ these are the topics that we'll be

35:00 ↗ analyzing um there's demographics

35:03 ↗ housing needs background summary of the

35:06 ↗ Alternatives consistency with plans and

35:09 ↗ policies and that includes really an

35:11 ↗ overview of State Regional

35:14 ↗ County and the city plans and policies

35:18 ↗ and how the comprehensive plan um is

35:22 ↗ consistent and supports those then we

35:24 ↗ have a land use chapter looks at these

35:28 ↗ built for and housing

35:30 ↗ implementation

35:31 ↗ Transportation Public Services utilities

35:35 ↗ Community design Aesthetics and natural

35:40 ↗ environment before I move on to talk

35:43 ↗ about the growth targets and alternative

35:45 ↗ studied I just want to pause for a

35:46 ↗ moment to see if there's any questions

35:47 ↗ on anything that I've presented so

35:52 ↗ far any questions

35:55 ↗ Commissioners doesn't appear uh you can

35:58 ↗ continue Miss

35:59 ↗ Roberts thank

36:01 ↗ you okay

36:04 ↗ so um as we think about alternatives for

36:07 ↗ growth in the future one of the things

36:10 ↗ that we always check in on is what are

36:12 ↗ our growth targets and as you know from

36:15 ↗ going through the comprehensive plan

36:16 ↗ process the city has been assigned

36:19 ↗ targets um by King County and these

36:22 ↗ align with guidance from the state and

36:25 ↗ with regional planning and and are set

36:28 ↗ to a collaborative process with the city

36:31 ↗ with with all the cities and so from

36:34 ↗ from now basically through

36:37 ↗ 2044 we're looking to increase the

36:40 ↗ number of housing units by about 2400

36:45 ↗ 2427 and increased jobs in isqua by

36:51 ↗ 5,565 what we're required to do uh is

36:55 ↗ show that we have zoned capacity

36:58 ↗ to accommodate this growth and the city

37:02 ↗ has more than sufficient Z capacity to

37:05 ↗ accommodate this growth this has been

37:07 ↗ analyzed and confirmed so on the very

37:09 ↗ right hand side you can see the zoned

37:12 ↗ capacity um for these jobs and

37:18 ↗ housing so for the Alternatives that

37:21 ↗ we've study the first one alternative

37:23 ↗ one is called the no action alternative

37:27 ↗ this is a requirement to be studied in

37:30 ↗ other words we need to look at what

37:32 ↗ would happen if we didn't adopt the

37:35 ↗ comprehens of plan what would be the

37:36 ↗ implications of that and basically

37:39 ↗ growth growth would continue there would

37:42 ↗ be existing construction projects that

37:45 ↗ would continue um however some of the

37:48 ↗ challenges would be that the plan

37:50 ↗ wouldn't be an updated plan that's

37:53 ↗ certified by the state or that

37:56 ↗ recognizes is um the most upto-date

37:59 ↗ Regional and County goals and policies

38:03 ↗ and there's some implications related to

38:05 ↗ that um if your plan is not certified

38:08 ↗ then you're not eligible to apply for

38:10 ↗ certain Grant funds to fund um project

38:14 ↗ so um it's just not a good idea to have

38:16 ↗ an outof dat uh not certified plan it

38:20 ↗ also can um spur legal action within the

38:24 ↗ community so we just you know kind of

38:27 ↗ no-brainer but we still need to look at

38:28 ↗ it as part of the as part of the

38:30 ↗ alternativ

38:31 ↗ analysis um then we have two action

38:33 ↗ Alternatives alternative two and

38:35 ↗ alternative three and alternative two is

38:39 ↗ really more of a moderate growth looking

38:41 ↗ at more growth of housing unit and jobs

38:44 ↗ with the majority of them being you know

38:47 ↗ outside of central e clock and more

38:49 ↗ dispersed throughout the

38:51 ↗ city and then alternative three takes a

38:55 ↗ look at what if we had more intensive

38:57 ↗ growth over the next 20 years of housing

39:00 ↗ units and jobs but with that there would

39:04 ↗ be more of a focus on growth in central

39:07 ↗ is the

39:08 ↗ quote and each alternative has differ

39:12 ↗ levels of housing units and jobs all um

39:17 ↗ you know basically achieving you know

39:20 ↗ the targets which we can be not a

39:22 ↗ problem but what we've done in the Eis

39:25 ↗ analysis as we've looked at okay if we

39:27 ↗ have

39:28 ↗ um this many housing units and this many

39:31 ↗ jobs the and the correlating population

39:34 ↗ to go with those these are the types of

39:37 ↗ impacts that we might expect with that

39:39 ↗ level of growth and

39:41 ↗ change so um for you can see here C

39:45 ↗ units is the top line for alternative

39:47 ↗ one two and

39:50 ↗ three and we just chose a little bit

39:53 ↗ lower uh look at housing units of

39:55 ↗ population for alternative one just

39:57 ↗ again to look at something that was less

40:00 ↗ than the moderate and more intensive um

40:03 ↗ look in alternatives to and alterntive

40:05 ↗ three and similar levels of change for

40:08 ↗ for the jobs and jobs really correlates

40:11 ↗ to Commercial and office type of

40:14 ↗ development mixed use across the

40:18 ↗ city so just basically the difference is

40:21 ↗ how much growth is happening outside of

40:24 ↗ central Isa and how much is happening

40:26 ↗ inside Central

40:28 ↗ well and this table is a lot to look at

40:31 ↗ I realize that so I won't try to explain

40:35 ↗ it too much but the idea here is that

40:39 ↗ it's telling you the percentages of how

40:43 ↗ many housing units and jobs are in

40:46 ↗ Central isqua how many are in The

40:48 ↗ Villages as a percent of assumed growth

40:51 ↗ and then how many are outside the

40:54 ↗ villages and Central isqua for each of

40:57 ↗ the three Alternatives and it's just

41:00 ↗ important to recognize this and these

41:02 ↗ differences because this was exactly how

41:05 ↗ Transportation was analyzed and modeled

41:09 ↗ across the city looking at these

41:11 ↗ different uh Geographic locations of

41:14 ↗ growth and different levels of growth

41:16 ↗ and then what the trip generation was

41:19 ↗ associated with those and uh how that

41:22 ↗ resulted in different traffic and

41:26 ↗ Improvement so we do have some

41:28 ↗ maps can I ask a quick question so

41:32 ↗ please can you define The Villages okay

41:34 ↗ there you go um go go back to the next

41:36 ↗ slide I think you had it with the with

41:38 ↗ the um map there The Village oh I do

41:42 ↗ yeah

41:43 ↗ yeah is it ta tus is that Talis Lakeside

41:47 ↗ okay Talis Lakeside and is Highlands

41:51 ↗ yeah

41:53 ↗ yeah great I should know that

41:58 ↗ one more um is rowy just considered part

42:01 ↗ of central

42:05 ↗ isqua yes it is

42:11 ↗ commissioner great any other questions

42:14 ↗ about the

42:22 ↗ geography so for each of the um each of

42:26 ↗ the three alternative we have this map

42:28 ↗ that helps to just show the numbers of

42:31 ↗ housing units and jobs for each of the

42:34 ↗ geographic areas so the green color is T

42:36 ↗ are the Talis like siden isqua Highlands

42:39 ↗ Villages the blue is Central isqua and

42:42 ↗ then the remaining areas are all of the

42:44 ↗ orange areas and remember this is net

42:48 ↗ New Growth so we're looking at change

42:51 ↗ that's going to occur over the next 20

42:52 ↗ years above where people are already

42:55 ↗ living and working

43:01 ↗ today and so we've got just the three

43:03 ↗ Maps they're the same color geography

43:06 ↗ but just different numbers that we're

43:08 ↗ looking

43:12 ↗ at so a quick question and you may get

43:16 ↗ to this um this commissioner grass the I

43:19 ↗ guess the assumptions between

43:20 ↗ alternative one and alternative to

43:22 ↗ because there's right right now there's

43:23 ↗ growth that just happening and most of

43:25 ↗ it's happening outside

43:27 ↗ of Central isqua so I'm curious as you

43:30 ↗ go through this what are the assumptions

43:32 ↗ difference as you go through like what's

43:33 ↗ the difference between one and two

43:35 ↗ besides just there's a plan versus no

43:37 ↗ plan um and what's going to drive the

43:41 ↗ difference um between one and two

43:43 ↗ because three I get because then there's

43:45 ↗ very specific things around centralist

43:47 ↗ but one and two I'm a little more cloudy

43:50 ↗ on yeah I can I can help explain this

43:52 ↗ one

43:54 ↗ Mandy with with alternative one it we

43:57 ↗ essentially taking everything that's in

43:58 ↗ our pipeline now and that's projects

44:01 ↗ that have design permits or construction

44:04 ↗ permits in our system now as well as

44:07 ↗ development agreements those are the

44:09 ↗ things that we're considering in our

44:11 ↗ Pipeline with alternative one we're

44:13 ↗ assuming full build out of everything

44:15 ↗ that's in design and construction but

44:17 ↗ only partial buildout of the development

44:19 ↗ agreement and that was you around 50 60%

44:22 ↗ of the development agreement we get

44:23 ↗ built out and so that's that's probably

44:27 ↗ the biggest discrepancy or the

44:28 ↗ difference between alternative 1 and

44:30 ↗ alternative two is the Assumption of the

44:32 ↗ development agreement buildout now with

44:34 ↗ alternative two Mandy if you want to if

44:36 ↗ you can move to the next one with

44:38 ↗ alternative two we did assume a slight

44:41 ↗ increase in growth in Central isquad

44:43 ↗ just to see what it might look like

44:45 ↗ Beyond just the development agreements

44:47 ↗ but it really wasn't a whole lot and and

44:50 ↗ you can see that in the Full Table of

44:53 ↗ the all the numbers that she had shown

44:55 ↗ if you want to look back later and and

44:57 ↗ then with alternative three we wanted to

44:59 ↗ see what would and oh I'll take actually

45:02 ↗ a step back with alternative two you'll

45:04 ↗ see that even with the full build out of

45:06 ↗ the da construction and even a slight

45:08 ↗ increase in central isqua majority

45:10 ↗ growth is still occurring outside of

45:12 ↗ central Isa because of a lot of those

45:14 ↗ development agreements in the

45:16 ↗ villes and with alternative three now

45:19 ↗ we're we have increase the Assumption

45:22 ↗ for Central isqua to see what would

45:25 ↗ happen if the growth more growth did

45:28 ↗ occur in central SF and that is really

45:31 ↗ the bigger difference between

45:32 ↗ alternative two and alternative three is

45:34 ↗ the assumption that we are actually

45:35 ↗ getting more growth in Central isqua and

45:39 ↗ the growth outside of central qua is

45:41 ↗ pretty much steady about the same

45:42 ↗ between alternative two and three so the

45:46 ↗ bigger difference is what's assumed for

45:47 ↗ alternative three in central

45:50 ↗ Isa does that help answer your question

45:52 ↗ commissioner CR I guess mine was more

45:55 ↗ between one and two because things are

45:57 ↗ just going to be continuing kind of a

45:59 ↗ similar path I would think you know most

46:02 ↗ of the growth in The Villages there's

46:05 ↗ some it's kind of spread out everywhere

46:07 ↗ if you kind of look at it and um I would

46:10 ↗ expect one and two to be much more

46:12 ↗ similar then that's I was curious about

46:15 ↗ what the you're saying just more will

46:16 ↗ get built in two versus one but there'll

46:19 ↗ always be new things coming into the

46:21 ↗ pipeline which maybe that's is that the

46:24 ↗ difference between one and two because

46:26 ↗ one is only looking at the snapshot of

46:28 ↗ what's there now versus two has an

46:31 ↗ assumption more will come yes and and

46:34 ↗ and again the the really the bigger

46:36 ↗ difference between one two is the

46:37 ↗ Assumption for the development agreement

46:39 ↗ that was really the biggest difference

46:41 ↗ and the reason why we wanted to look at

46:42 ↗ a lower percentage uh for the build out

46:45 ↗ of the development agreements that's

46:47 ↗ closer to the reality of what the

46:48 ↗ development agreement there's there's no

46:50 ↗ magic number saying oh development

46:51 ↗ agreement is only developed 6% it really

46:53 ↗ ranges de depending on development

46:56 ↗ timing market like all those things play

46:58 ↗ into what gets fully built out but we

47:01 ↗ want to have a an assumption

47:03 ↗ particularly with alternative one what

47:06 ↗ would that look like with the growth and

47:09 ↗ and have that analyzed as part of one of

47:11 ↗ our Alternatives but one more question

47:13 ↗ so in both one and two and may maybe for

47:16 ↗ all of them because right now it's 2024

47:18 ↗ and this goes out 20 years so the things

47:21 ↗ that are in the pipeline or even in the

47:22 ↗ development agreements probably only go

47:24 ↗ out six years or something like that the

47:26 ↗ velopment agreements actually go well

47:28 ↗ some of them go 10 to 20 years they do

47:30 ↗ okay it depends on the development

47:32 ↗ agreement and who we have it with okay

47:35 ↗ well then I thought maybe there'd be

47:36 ↗ another tranch of new things coming into

47:39 ↗ the pipeline in the second half between

47:41 ↗ 19 or 2034 to 2044 which those

47:44 ↗ assumptions should be in all the

47:45 ↗ different Alternatives and and

47:47 ↗ alternative three is where that

47:49 ↗ assumption comes in that on top of what

47:51 ↗ we have in the pipeline something new is

47:53 ↗ going to come along and and we're

47:55 ↗ assuming that in central is a

48:00 ↗ great questions and and again please

48:01 ↗ feel free to ask important everyone

48:04 ↗ understands this clearly um Miss Roberts

48:07 ↗ please

48:07 ↗ continue okay thank you so now we just

48:11 ↗ want to give you some highlights of the

48:14 ↗ uh results of the

48:16 ↗ analysis and uh so as we look at those

48:19 ↗ topics that I mentioned

48:21 ↗ earlier and

48:24 ↗ um what we can see so all all three uh

48:28 ↗ provide opportunity to meet our growth

48:30 ↗ targets no problems there um all three

48:33 ↗ provide capacity for the housing at

48:36 ↗ needed income levels and um we've done

48:40 ↗ an analysis of what what's needed at the

48:42 ↗ various income levels which is um fairly

48:45 ↗ recent State legislation under house

48:47 ↗ bill

48:49 ↗ 1220 um so build that into this project

48:54 ↗ um when we think about consistency with

48:56 ↗ plans and policies well alternative one

48:59 ↗ is not consistent that's really the

49:01 ↗ biggest biggest issue with one um the

49:04 ↗ other two are and would be because um

49:07 ↗ They Se adoption of an updated

49:09 ↗ comprehensive plan the transportation

49:13 ↗ impacts and I'll show you some maps that

49:15 ↗ show those in a minute um we we are

49:18 ↗ showing that there would be um more

49:21 ↗ pressure on the system under you know

49:23 ↗ with increased population and growth

49:26 ↗ that she would expect but the impacts

49:29 ↗ can be mitigated with improvements and

49:33 ↗ under alternative three where there's

49:35 ↗ more focus of growth in Central isqua

49:38 ↗ and with the um light rail coming to

49:42 ↗ serve um Central esqua in the future and

49:45 ↗ better connectivity with

49:47 ↗ Transit uh there's actually the

49:49 ↗ potential for um you know less vehicle

49:53 ↗ miles traveled under alternative threee

49:55 ↗ and really more efficient

49:57 ↗ Transportation overall under alternative

49:59 ↗ three um utility

50:02 ↗ impacts uh those can be mitigated

50:06 ↗ there's obviously certain system

50:08 ↗ improvements that will be needed to

50:10 ↗ serve growth and those will be spelled

50:13 ↗ out in the e um but again under

50:16 ↗ alternative three where where we have

50:18 ↗ more growth in an urban

50:20 ↗ center uh regional growth Center that's

50:23 ↗ a more efficient way to grow we don't

50:25 ↗ have to extend lines and Utility

50:27 ↗ Services out further so the Eis just

50:31 ↗ points that out and basically that's the

50:33 ↗ same for public services such as fire

50:37 ↗ police um other types of Public Services

50:40 ↗ when you're serving a more concentrated

50:43 ↗ the area with with growing population it

50:45 ↗ becomes more efficient to do that

50:47 ↗ response times um services and whatnot

50:52 ↗ and then um for

50:55 ↗ the this is a really just a high level

50:57 ↗ summary by the way um more details are

50:59 ↗ in the document but for Community design

51:01 ↗ and Aesthetics um all three growth

51:05 ↗ Alternatives of course would bring new

51:07 ↗ growth and change to the city this would

51:11 ↗ all be growth that's already approved

51:15 ↗ three your zoning and development

51:17 ↗ agreements and whatnot um and you do

51:20 ↗ have um zoning Provisions as you all

51:23 ↗ know that look at how how um Urban form

51:28 ↗ and building form should look and

51:29 ↗ transitions between uses um in central

51:32 ↗ isqua you happen to have more even more

51:35 ↗ design standards in place and so um it's

51:39 ↗ just something that The E points out

51:41 ↗ that there's a lot more potential to

51:44 ↗ control the Aesthetics of um of

51:47 ↗ community design in under alternative

51:50 ↗ three but really you do have control

51:52 ↗ Citywide because of your own code

51:57 ↗ and

51:59 ↗ um environmental impacts well you know

52:03 ↗ of course those will be

52:05 ↗ mitigated

52:07 ↗ um of course with growth more pressure

52:10 ↗ gets put onto the environment um in a

52:14 ↗ lot of different ways but we have

52:17 ↗ Protections in place through the cical

52:19 ↗ areas ordinance we have state

52:22 ↗ requirements related to surface and

52:24 ↗ storm water management that we must meat

52:27 ↗ to control

52:29 ↗ flows clean our water release it at

52:33 ↗ appropriate levels and um preserve

52:36 ↗ habitats so there are a lot of stringent

52:39 ↗ regulations and requirements in place

52:41 ↗ that protect the environment and you all

52:43 ↗ are also doing some great work around

52:46 ↗ your climate action planning and um and

52:50 ↗ other respects to to put the environment

52:53 ↗ really as a high priority this CL so the

52:56 ↗ Eis points that out as

52:59 ↗ well so at the at the end of the day

53:02 ↗ there really aren't any adverse

53:04 ↗ significant impacts but it's important

53:08 ↗ for the city to go through this process

53:11 ↗ to really show that and have an up toate

53:14 ↗ environmental analysis that supports

53:15 ↗ that because I'm trying to remember when

53:18 ↗ was it 1990 Stephen the last um full e

53:22 ↗ that done yeah

53:24 ↗ 1995 1995

53:29 ↗ okay so basically we don't want to have

53:34 ↗ significant adverse impacts we want to

53:35 ↗ make sure we have mitigation in place to

53:38 ↗ prevent that to avoid those impacts or

53:41 ↗ mitigate them to the point where they're

53:42 ↗ not um adversely affecting these

53:45 ↗ different elements of the

53:47 ↗ environment um

53:51 ↗ transportation similar to what I just

53:54 ↗ explained but um with without an adopted

53:57 ↗ comprehensive plan that kind of

53:59 ↗ coordinates the infrastructure needs

54:01 ↗ through your transportation planning and

54:04 ↗ your Capital facilities planning then

54:08 ↗ you know it can it will be more

54:09 ↗ challenging for you to be monitoring

54:11 ↗ where you are with growth and so that's

54:14 ↗ pointed out in alternative one whereas

54:16 ↗ in alternative two and alternative three

54:18 ↗ everything's being planned concurrently

54:20 ↗ together and that's really the purpose

54:22 ↗ of doing comprehensive planning under

54:24 ↗ the growth management act so um so

54:27 ↗ that's that's important to point out in

54:29 ↗ the document as well this got a series

54:32 ↗ of three different maps for each

54:35 ↗ alternative and can kind of see the

54:39 ↗ differences although they are subtle but

54:40 ↗ this is the traffic um traffic volumes

54:44 ↗ under alternative one levels of growth

54:47 ↗ and then you can see that under

54:49 ↗ alternative two we get more increases uh

54:54 ↗ happening in central esqua

54:57 ↗ and then um alternative three just

54:59 ↗ slightly more increases um in volumes

55:03 ↗ and along with that there was an

55:05 ↗ analysis of intersection level of

55:08 ↗ service and how that might change over

55:10 ↗ time so a lot of intersections here are

55:13 ↗ shown in green under alternative one

55:17 ↗ which is a level of service of a b or c

55:21 ↗ some yellows level of service D and then

55:24 ↗ some oranges uh level of service e don't

55:27 ↗ have any FS under alternative

55:31 ↗ one and actually under alternative two

55:34 ↗ because of improvements planned and

55:37 ↗ proposed

55:38 ↗ mitigations um we're seeing you know

55:44 ↗ relatively minor changes in level of

55:48 ↗ service so that can be maintained the

55:50 ↗ same um in alternative three we're

55:55 ↗ seeing a few more intersections where

55:57 ↗ we're getting to D and E but never to F

56:01 ↗ and that is because the city is very

56:03 ↗ proactive in planning the transportation

56:06 ↗ Improvement needed for long-term growth

56:08 ↗ and making sure that you're managing

56:11 ↗ transportation and you're working really

56:14 ↗ um diligently on your active

56:16 ↗ Transportation plan I heard you guys

56:17 ↗ talk a lot about that tonight so

56:20 ↗ thinking about how people can get around

56:22 ↗ your community other than driving what

56:24 ↗ options they have the the

56:26 ↗ um Peaks to Creeks plan and Trail

56:30 ↗ Network um all of those things

56:32 ↗ contribute to less pressure on

56:35 ↗ intersections so those are all great

56:39 ↗ things Public Services all um

56:44 ↗ anticipated to keep Pace with growth but

56:47 ↗ that takes a lot of coordination and

56:49 ↗ talking to the school district for

56:51 ↗ example talking about where the city's

56:53 ↗ planning to grow how that relates to

56:55 ↗ exist School District facilities and

56:57 ↗ keeping that dialogue going over time as

57:01 ↗ the city monitors growth and what's

57:03 ↗ going on with the development agreement

57:05 ↗ so that that ongoing dialogue is

57:07 ↗ something that's important and pointed

57:09 ↗ out in the Eis as a as a mitigation

57:12 ↗ major that will be needed on an ongoing

57:16 ↗ basis and utilities same lots of

57:19 ↗ coordination needed with utility service

57:22 ↗ providers including the utilities that

57:24 ↗ the city provides as well as those that

57:26 ↗ SM Plateau um water provide and then

57:31 ↗ power and Communications and other

57:36 ↗ providers kind I've already talked about

57:38 ↗ Community design

57:40 ↗ Aesthetics and the

57:43 ↗ environment it's just again kind of a

57:45 ↗ high level summary so I'll just go to

57:47 ↗ next steps um we are planning to publish

57:50 ↗ this e next week we are a little bit

57:53 ↗ behind and I apologize to everyone for

57:55 ↗ that we were hoping to get it out this

57:58 ↗ week but um we'll still be on track with

58:01 ↗ the schedule and adoption um if we you

58:05 ↗ know we we will plan to get this out

58:07 ↗ next week and we'll stay on track with

58:08 ↗ that we are going to hold a separate

58:11 ↗ public hearing on the draft Isis on

58:13 ↗ September 12th and then we'll have a 37

58:16 ↗ day comment period we just wanted to

58:19 ↗ give it a little bit more time um

58:21 ↗ through September 20th um to just give

58:26 ↗ folks um you know more time to comment

58:28 ↗ if they need that and then later in

58:30 ↗ September will cover the FBI

58:34 ↗ so um if folks want to comment on the

58:37 ↗ Eis it's published and it will be on the

58:40 ↗ city's website published there they can

58:42 ↗ send comments to long range

58:45 ↗ planning um which there's a specific

58:47 ↗ email set up for that which is 2044 2044

58:52 ↗ deis isqua

58:54 ↗ wa.gov and think I'll just pause right

58:56 ↗ there to see if Stephen has anything he

58:58 ↗ wants to

58:59 ↗ add no I just want to thank Mandy and

59:02 ↗ her team for the help in going through

59:04 ↗ this analysis it's it's as you can see

59:06 ↗ it's a lot of work and um it's going to

59:09 ↗ be in uh it it has a lot of support for

59:12 ↗ what the draft comprehensive plan is

59:15 ↗ proposing and so I just want to make

59:17 ↗ sure we had this conversation with the

59:19 ↗ commission so they understood the LEL

59:21 ↗ effort that kind of goes into these kind

59:22 ↗ of things particularly when you do a

59:24 ↗ full environmental impact statement um

59:27 ↗ because it's important it's important

59:28 ↗ for us to look at those different growth

59:30 ↗ Alternatives and be prepared for

59:32 ↗ different

59:33 ↗ scenarios um and make sure that we have

59:36 ↗ a better understanding of what how best

59:40 ↗ to be prepared in different scenarios

59:42 ↗ where we either get more growth or get

59:44 ↗ less growth and how that impacts our

59:46 ↗ other planning efforts um so that's one

59:50 ↗ of the bigger purposes of having this

59:51 ↗ conversation but also helping the

59:53 ↗ commission understand like the full

59:55 ↗ effort kind of going into into the

59:56 ↗ periodic

1:00:01 ↗ update okay um we'll probably open it up

1:00:05 ↗ for some questions so Miss Roberts if

1:00:07 ↗ you wouldn't mind sticking around for a

1:00:08 ↗ moment um any

1:00:12 ↗ questions commissioner

1:00:14 ↗ Milligan I I'm really not getting this

1:00:17 ↗ and I'm sorry I know I've gone through

1:00:18 ↗ this before but the

1:00:21 ↗ Alternatives these are possible outcomes

1:00:24 ↗ or these are something that if we prefer

1:00:28 ↗ one will change the way that the

1:00:31 ↗ comprehensive plan is

1:00:33 ↗ updated I'm kind of lost at that point

1:00:37 ↗ beginning in other

1:00:39 ↗ words and Stephen let me know if you w

1:00:41 ↗ to take a first run at answering but I'm

1:00:44 ↗ happy to to respond if you'd like so I

1:00:47 ↗ can respond to that um commissioner M

1:00:50 ↗ again so with the growth Alternatives

1:00:52 ↗ it's the possibil possible growth of

1:00:55 ↗ that we could expect and how best to

1:00:57 ↗ prepare and with the preferred

1:01:01 ↗ Alternatives that's that's particularly

1:01:03 ↗ useful when we are expecting major

1:01:06 ↗ changes to land use or zoning and then

1:01:08 ↗ we need to pre have a preferred

1:01:10 ↗ alternative to help us determine how to

1:01:12 ↗ make those

1:01:13 ↗ changes but in our case where we had the

1:01:16 ↗ central isqua plan and an Eis developed

1:01:18 ↗ for Central isqua and we had the

1:01:21 ↗ analysis for the development of the

1:01:22 ↗ regional growth Center

1:01:24 ↗ designation all of our growth

1:01:26 ↗ alternatives are still consistent with

1:01:28 ↗ all that analysis that was done with

1:01:30 ↗ that planning effort so that the reason

1:01:32 ↗ why we don't have a preferred

1:01:33 ↗ alternative with this with this Eis is

1:01:36 ↗ because it is consistent with all those

1:01:38 ↗ Alternatives that were analyzed with the

1:01:39 ↗ Central Central isqua

1:01:43 ↗ Eis okay so then I think I understand

1:01:46 ↗ the words you're saying uh the other

1:01:48 ↗ thing that I don't quite understand is

1:01:51 ↗ uh alternative one means that we do not

1:01:54 ↗ adopt the changes

1:01:56 ↗ in the uh update that we've been talking

1:02:01 ↗ about

1:02:03 ↗ and there's something in the changes in

1:02:06 ↗ the uh updated comprehensive plan that

1:02:09 ↗ is either going to create alternative to

1:02:11 ↗ or alternative three but we will not

1:02:14 ↗ have alternative one if we adopt the

1:02:18 ↗ updated comprehensive plan

1:02:25 ↗ I'll start with alternative one so

1:02:28 ↗ alternative one is really the assumption

1:02:30 ↗ is that we take no action to adopt the

1:02:34 ↗ updated comprehensive plan that has new

1:02:37 ↗ growth um projections New Growth numbers

1:02:40 ↗ new assumptions new policies to go

1:02:43 ↗ aligned with those assumptions as well

1:02:45 ↗ as new policies to build consistency

1:02:48 ↗ between the different topic areas that

1:02:49 ↗ are um you know the the different

1:02:51 ↗ elements in the comprehensive plan and

1:02:54 ↗ that actually puts us out of compliance

1:02:55 ↗ liance with state requirements County

1:02:58 ↗ requirements Regional requirements with

1:03:00 ↗ those same policies that are proposed in

1:03:03 ↗ the draft comprehensive plan so really

1:03:06 ↗ the biggest difference between that and

1:03:08 ↗ alternative two and three is that

1:03:10 ↗ adopted comprehensive plan with new

1:03:12 ↗ policies that align with how we want our

1:03:15 ↗ growth to look or how we want to look

1:03:18 ↗ with either alternative two or three

1:03:21 ↗ growth Alternatives does that help

1:03:23 ↗ answer your question little your your

1:03:24 ↗ question once it's adop

1:03:26 ↗ number one goes away it disappears never

1:03:29 ↗ it disappears is that a fair assessment

1:03:31 ↗ because it's it's it's just part of the

1:03:33 ↗ analysis for the whole Eis it's not that

1:03:36 ↗ U if we adopt the comprensive plan yeah

1:03:39 ↗ we we obviously took an action but it it

1:03:42 ↗ was just an analysis for the es for for

1:03:45 ↗ us to see what would occur or what would

1:03:48 ↗ be the potential impacts by not adopting

1:03:51 ↗ the comprehensive plan so if we adopt

1:03:54 ↗ the updates the comprehensive plan we

1:03:58 ↗ are there are um changed growth numbers

1:04:02 ↗ in there which I can't remember because

1:04:04 ↗ it was so long ago that either put more

1:04:06 ↗ growth in The Villages or more growth in

1:04:09 ↗ central isqua but we have increased our

1:04:11 ↗ growth targets for 2044 in the

1:04:14 ↗ adopted uh comprehensive plan

1:04:17 ↗ correct and uh well why do I not

1:04:20 ↗ remember doing that and

1:04:24 ↗ uh uh man okay I'm G to hold on

1:04:31 ↗ my any other

1:04:34 ↗ questions yeah I mean I'll try and take

1:04:35 ↗ a stab at it I mean ultimately it's just

1:04:38 ↗ an analysis I mean again it doesn't mean

1:04:40 ↗ anyone's going to build anything but if

1:04:42 ↗ we don't do anything if we don't take

1:04:44 ↗ the the legislature's different laws

1:04:47 ↗ which we've been working on for a year

1:04:49 ↗ if we didn't do any of that we just left

1:04:51 ↗ with the old comprehensive plan from

1:04:53 ↗ however many years ago

1:04:56 ↗ most likely because of our zoning and

1:04:57 ↗ all of these different things we would

1:04:59 ↗ be limiting ourselves um it would be

1:05:02 ↗ more sporadic I think number two is to

1:05:05 ↗ Steven's Point you take the

1:05:06 ↗ comprehensive plan you pass it these are

1:05:10 ↗ the the things we've lack of a better

1:05:12 ↗ word up zones created the conditions for

1:05:15 ↗ it's more centralized its focus number

1:05:18 ↗ three is really what the city of isqua

1:05:20 ↗ has been doing for the last few years

1:05:22 ↗ which is focusing our growth in central

1:05:23 ↗ isqua think of the pioneer program so

1:05:26 ↗ all the things we're trying to do to

1:05:28 ↗ funnel so much of our buildout in

1:05:30 ↗ central isqua ideally that

1:05:34 ↗ is situation with all that Focus the

1:05:37 ↗ potential would be there for more

1:05:39 ↗ efficiency more jobs more things am I

1:05:42 ↗ reading you right

1:05:45 ↗ correct but ultimately it's an analysis

1:05:47 ↗ I mean just it's kind of confirmation of

1:05:50 ↗ what the city's doing which is why we

1:05:52 ↗ don't have a preferred alternative

1:05:53 ↗ because we're already working towards

1:05:56 ↗ basically number three now if we um just

1:06:00 ↗ to add on a little bit more to help with

1:06:02 ↗ the explanation if we were proposing

1:06:04 ↗ major land use changes and major zoning

1:06:06 ↗ changes then we would need the preferred

1:06:09 ↗ alternative because we wouldn't know

1:06:11 ↗ which change to take without that

1:06:13 ↗ preferred alternative but because we're

1:06:15 ↗ not proposing any major land use or

1:06:16 ↗ zoning changes we didn't need to have a

1:06:19 ↗ preferred alternative so it's primarily

1:06:22 ↗ to chair Voice's Point more of an

1:06:25 ↗ analysis to support a lot of the

1:06:27 ↗ policies that are in the conference plan

1:06:29 ↗ Mandy is there anything for you to

1:06:33 ↗ add no I I think that covers it it's

1:06:37 ↗ just it's an analysis to really at a

1:06:39 ↗ tool to help the city plan for the

1:06:45 ↗ future is there any questions from any

1:06:48 ↗ of our other Commissioners I want to

1:06:49 ↗ make sure everybody gets fair amount of

1:06:50 ↗ time up here Equitable time up here uh

1:06:52 ↗ commissioner Patterson commissioner

1:06:54 ↗ Patterson um mine's more of I guess

1:06:56 ↗ processed question uh looking at the

1:06:58 ↗ dates that were provided is my

1:07:00 ↗ assumption correct that we'll be able to

1:07:01 ↗ look at the draft between now and

1:07:03 ↗ September 12th and then we will have the

1:07:06 ↗ public hearing as part of our commission

1:07:07 ↗ is that correct okay will there be any

1:07:10 ↗ other will this be included in our next

1:07:13 ↗ commission meeting as any kind of action

1:07:15 ↗ item uh not on August 22nd okay thank

1:07:21 ↗ you I think the only other question I

1:07:23 ↗ have chair voice is uh 30 years years 30

1:07:27 ↗ years since we've performed this task

1:07:29 ↗ the full Eis yes um every comprehensive

1:07:33 ↗ plan that every comprehensive Plan

1:07:35 ↗ update we've had since then we've had

1:07:38 ↗ supplemental

1:07:39 ↗ checklists so we haven't performed the

1:07:42 ↗ full Eis since

1:07:44 ↗ 1995 how often is the city believe that

1:07:47 ↗ a full Eis is

1:07:49 ↗ necessary uh the department of ecy um

1:07:53 ↗ looks for cities to update their

1:07:55 ↗ environmental impact statements when

1:07:57 ↗ they see a major change in condition and

1:07:59 ↗ so we felt with this periodic update

1:08:02 ↗ that we have reached that point where

1:08:05 ↗ there's a lot of change in major

1:08:07 ↗ conditions for the city that warranted

1:08:09 ↗ having a full Eis

1:08:12 ↗ updated so not it's no real time frame

1:08:16 ↗ it's it's not going to be updated every

1:08:17 ↗ time it comprehensive no there's it's

1:08:19 ↗ not like every every five years or

1:08:21 ↗ something like that it really is the

1:08:22 ↗ dependent on the city and how conditions

1:08:25 ↗ change

1:08:30 ↗ okay thank you commissioner Milligan

1:08:32 ↗ again okay going back to your charts and

1:08:35 ↗ such and I'll use the phrasing in altern

1:08:39 ↗ in the packet alternative to is moderate

1:08:41 ↗ growth alternative three is intense

1:08:43 ↗ growth and I wanted to ask about public

1:08:45 ↗ services and utilities and there was a

1:08:48 ↗ um just the overview summary was that

1:08:51 ↗ there was no um adverse impacts that

1:08:54 ↗ couldn't be mitigated but I was

1:08:56 ↗ wondering about um is the cost to the

1:09:01 ↗ city considered increased cost to the

1:09:04 ↗ city considered as an adverse impact or

1:09:08 ↗ how does um financial burden on the city

1:09:11 ↗ get um evaluated

1:09:15 ↗ there there there is not a financial

1:09:18 ↗ analysis as part of the Eis it's a

1:09:21 ↗ programmatic level of analysis that

1:09:24 ↗ looks at

1:09:26 ↗ um you know the relative impacts based

1:09:28 ↗ on population but what's important to

1:09:30 ↗ remember is that there

1:09:33 ↗ is property and

1:09:36 ↗ population um tax generation that helps

1:09:39 ↗ to support the cost of growth and within

1:09:43 ↗ the development agreements development

1:09:45 ↗ projects they also pay um impact fees

1:09:50 ↗ for different types of services and that

1:09:53 ↗ helps to cover those cost over time so

1:09:57 ↗ that's those are the types of things

1:09:58 ↗ that are described and called out in the

1:10:00 ↗ E

1:10:03 ↗ Yeah commissioner crass I do have one

1:10:05 ↗ other question so is there as part of

1:10:08 ↗ this exercise an alternative for an

1:10:11 ↗ alternative four is there is even much

1:10:14 ↗ larger growth in isqua over the next 20

1:10:17 ↗ years than we've planned and is there a

1:10:18 ↗ Tipping Point where because the chart

1:10:22 ↗ you had was like everything look we

1:10:23 ↗ could mitigate anything right here that

1:10:25 ↗ was good some are going be more

1:10:26 ↗ efficient but we you know everything

1:10:28 ↗ looks like it could be handled is there

1:10:31 ↗ is part of the analysis where the

1:10:32 ↗ Tipping Point is in 20 years where the

1:10:35 ↗ PO especially on a population standpoint

1:10:38 ↗ where things start breaking down whether

1:10:40 ↗ it's in public service utilities

1:10:42 ↗ environment Etc or is that just out of

1:10:44 ↗ scope for what this was for this e it's

1:10:47 ↗ out of scope and it's primarily because

1:10:50 ↗ if we get to the point where we're

1:10:52 ↗ starting to see significantly higher

1:10:54 ↗ grow coming into the city or even the

1:10:56 ↗ region than any of us expected then we

1:10:59 ↗ would actually just do this analysis

1:11:01 ↗ again and so with this analysis we

1:11:04 ↗ really wanted to focus on what do we

1:11:06 ↗ know now what are the potentials what's

1:11:08 ↗ within what we've analyzed before with

1:11:11 ↗ development of the U Central esal plan

1:11:13 ↗ what was an the Eis for the centralis

1:11:16 ↗ plan what went into the analysis for the

1:11:18 ↗ designation of the regional growth

1:11:20 ↗ Center what is the region looking at

1:11:22 ↗ when it comes to growth and how that how

1:11:24 ↗ that might imp impact how the city grows

1:11:26 ↗ or our neighboring cities grow so we

1:11:29 ↗ really want to stay in in that scope for

1:11:32 ↗ this analysis um we also are limited on

1:11:35 ↗ budget so the number of Alternatives

1:11:37 ↗ that we analyze is is also outside of

1:11:41 ↗ within the budget that we had for this

1:11:42 ↗ project as

1:11:44 ↗ well great questions

1:11:47 ↗ Z would you say Stephen that alternative

1:11:50 ↗ three though is really I mean we feel

1:11:54 ↗ like it's probably the most intensive

1:11:56 ↗ growth that you would experience in the

1:11:58 ↗ next 20 years it's it's more intensive

1:12:00 ↗ than likely to experience but you know

1:12:03 ↗ it's more on the high I yes I would

1:12:06 ↗ agree with that um particularly because

1:12:08 ↗ all a lot of the growth that we're

1:12:10 ↗ seeing from the development agreements

1:12:11 ↗ and what I you know described being in

1:12:13 ↗ the pipeline for development is showing

1:12:16 ↗ more growth outside of Central rall

1:12:17 ↗ right now so that leaves a huge

1:12:20 ↗ potential for growth in central isall

1:12:22 ↗ which is what we've been intending to do

1:12:23 ↗ with Central isall for a long time time

1:12:26 ↗ um but it is on the higher side in terms

1:12:29 ↗ of the level of growth that the city

1:12:31 ↗ could

1:12:38 ↗ see anything further from the commission

1:12:41 ↗ that was a great

1:12:42 ↗ discussion and yeah I commissioner

1:12:45 ↗ Milligan yeah the financial impact that

1:12:47 ↗ would be important too but I know it

1:12:48 ↗ wasn't part of this discussion but yeah

1:12:50 ↗ you think of utilities schools

1:12:52 ↗ everything like that and again I I hear

1:12:54 ↗ Miss Roberts with the generated tax

1:12:56 ↗ revenues and things like that

1:12:58 ↗ but not what was it out of our scope

1:13:00 ↗ tonight there's the word okay um is

1:13:03 ↗ there anything further uh for Miss

1:13:08 ↗ Roberts well thank you Miss Roberts for

1:13:10 ↗ a fantastic presentation and a great

1:13:13 ↗ discussion um yeah great job and thank

1:13:15 ↗ you and looking forward to hearing more

1:13:17 ↗ about the deis as it moves through the

1:13:20 ↗ pipeline thank you so much I think the

1:13:23 ↗ last thing I'll say with the pro with um

1:13:25 ↗ the deis is we'll let the commission

1:13:27 ↗ know once that is actually published

1:13:32 ↗ next okay

1:13:34 ↗ St you sure yeah Stephen in the draft um

1:13:39 ↗ comprehensive Plan update where are the

1:13:41 ↗ increased growth

1:13:42 ↗ numbers uh located you'll see it in the

1:13:45 ↗ land use element land use and

1:13:47 ↗ sustainability element thank

1:13:50 ↗ you okay um any other further questions

1:13:54 ↗ for Steven on this topic Stephen thank

1:13:57 ↗ you for the discussion I know there's

1:13:59 ↗ really not a whole lot you collected

1:14:00 ↗ other than some little bit of feedback

1:14:02 ↗ no it's I think it's helpful to know

1:14:05 ↗ kind of the the areas that either might

1:14:07 ↗ be confusing where the draft Eis it's

1:14:09 ↗ it's not a intuitive document and it's

1:14:13 ↗ not small by any means so we wanted to

1:14:16 ↗ make sure we had this opportunity to

1:14:17 ↗ help explain what's in this why are we

1:14:20 ↗ doing it how are we analyzing this and

1:14:23 ↗ how this impacts the draft comprehens

1:14:25 ↗ plan that we've been discussing for the

1:14:26 ↗ last year um just because they they do

1:14:29 ↗ interact with each other and they have a

1:14:31 ↗ certain relationship that is important

1:14:33 ↗ to how we are planning for our

1:14:37 ↗ growth

1:14:40 ↗ okay having said that I believe now we

1:14:43 ↗ are going to move on to

1:14:45 ↗ reports for uh Council update August

1:14:50 ↗ every year is a fairly quiet month for

1:14:53 ↗ Council they don't meet very often or at

1:14:55 ↗ all um so I will actually refer to the

1:14:58 ↗ August 5th meeting the council actually

1:15:00 ↗ referred um received a informational

1:15:03 ↗ presentation on the I90 Crossing project

1:15:05 ↗ if you're interested in learning more

1:15:06 ↗ about that project that's going to have

1:15:08 ↗ a significant impact on connectivity um

1:15:11 ↗ in central isqua across I90 as as it

1:15:14 ↗ relates to the city's growth and being

1:15:16 ↗ able to meet vision for Central isqua

1:15:19 ↗ the on July 22nd there's also more

1:15:22 ↗ information about the the Tod project

1:15:24 ↗ the transit oriented development project

1:15:26 ↗ that's been in the works for several

1:15:27 ↗ years and so you can see that

1:15:29 ↗ presentation for the July 22nd council

1:15:32 ↗ meeting if you want to learn more about

1:15:33 ↗ that but for the most part there's not

1:15:35 ↗ too much to update this month for

1:15:37 ↗ Council quiet August like that okay are

1:15:41 ↗ there any other further announcements

1:15:44 ↗ Stephen that you have for us just one

1:15:46 ↗ quick announcement um Vice chair as many

1:15:49 ↗ you probably saw Vice chair Bader did

1:15:50 ↗ send a email saying hello from France

1:15:53 ↗ but also just to emphasize her support

1:15:56 ↗ for a lot of the language in the

1:15:57 ↗ conference plan around racial Equity her

1:16:00 ↗ her recommendation is not to soften the

1:16:02 ↗ language in the conference plan as it

1:16:03 ↗ relates to equity and is supportive of

1:16:05 ↗ what is introduced and so just wanted to

1:16:07 ↗ bring that up in the commission's

1:16:09 ↗ meeting tonight and and you haven't read

1:16:11 ↗ it read it and uh we will continue our

1:16:14 ↗ conversations on the conference plan on

1:16:15 ↗ the

1:16:17 ↗ 22nd uh actually one more announcement

1:16:20 ↗ um due to the uh two recent resignations

1:16:25 ↗ of Commissioners we are going to work

1:16:26 ↗ with the mayor's office to actually kick

1:16:27 ↗ off a special recruitment so we'll keep

1:16:29 ↗ you updated as we work through that

1:16:31 ↗ process over the coming

1:16:33 ↗ months

1:16:34 ↗ okay well thank you Stephen um all right

1:16:38 ↗ is there any other announcements

1:16:41 ↗ anything on the calendar Stephen we

1:16:43 ↗ should be aware

1:16:44 ↗ of no changes on the calendar um other

1:16:47 ↗ than what's presented in your packet

1:16:49 ↗ tonight

1:16:51 ↗ okay uh Commissioners anything you'd

1:16:53 ↗ like to add

1:16:56 ↗ Rich Patterson I just want to go on

1:16:57 ↗ record saying my favorite part of this

1:16:59 ↗ meeting was when the traffic map came up

1:17:01 ↗ and you lean very close to the

1:17:03 ↗ screen I know how passionate you are

1:17:05 ↗ about traffic yes yes I

1:17:10 ↗ am yes uh yeah yeah anyway we'll leave

1:17:15 ↗ it there but thank you commission

1:17:17 ↗ Patterson uh anything else for the good

1:17:19 ↗ of the

1:17:20 ↗ order all right well thank you everyone

1:17:22 ↗ for spending this uh beautiful beautiful

1:17:25 ↗ August evening with us indoors and we

1:17:27 ↗ will adjourn tonight's meeting at 7:52

1:17:30 ↗ thank you

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)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting & Records Assistant Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

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.

a) Minutes of July 25, 2024 There were no comments or corrections and the Minutes were approved.
The difference between Alternative one versus two and three are an adopted Comprehensive Plan with new policies.
COMMISSIONER MILLIGAN asked for clarification that growth targets have increased for 2044 in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Padua replied correct.