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

Council / Members (5)

Voiss

Commissioners Krass

Milligan

Patterson

Zakharoff

Staff (1)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting & Records Assistant Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager