Issaquah council approves 2025 comprehensive‑plan docket after debate over ‘community facilities’ designation

The Issaquah City Council on March 17 approved the city’s 2025 docket of proposed comprehensive plan and land‑use designation amendments after a lengthy discussion about removing the city’s “community facilities” land‑use designation from the map.

The docket vote directs staff to advance several potential amendments for formal review later this year, including middle‑housing code changes to comply with state legislation, an amendment to accommodate co‑living housing, a proposal to update the transportation element to incorporate multimodal level‑of‑service standards, and a pair of changes to the land‑use designation map that includes a rezone request for the local food and clothing bank site and a staff‑proposed removal of the “community facilities” designation from the map.

Council members debated whether removing “community facilities” from the land‑use map met the docket criteria, especially the requirement that an amendment demonstrate a public benefit or address significantly changed conditions in the city. Supporters said removing the designation would streamline surplusing and resale of public properties (avoiding a site‑specific comp‑plan amendment every time a sale is proposed). Opponents said the change raises policy questions about the public value of public lands and could have unintended consequences for future councils.

Assistant Planning Director Stephen Padua told the council the docket is a state‑required list of potential amendments and that approval tonight would only place these topics on the work program; each item would return for separate review by the Planning Policy Commission and the City Council committee before final action. Padua said the middle‑housing project and the co‑living policy amendment are being advanced to comply with state House Bills noted in staff materials, and the transportation update responds to state direction to incorporate multimodal measures into concurrency.

Council members pressed staff on the community facilities item. Staff said they view the proposed change as a process improvement intended to reduce the need for ad‑hoc, site‑specific rezonings when the city decides to surplus property. Staff identified the city’s food and clothing bank site as an example: that site’s application to change land‑use designation would meet the docket criteria as a site‑specific rezone. Council members and committee members noted additional complexity because community facilities sometimes cover properties owned by other jurisdictions (the school district, the county or special districts) and because properties such as community centers have unique code standards for height and function that would have to be addressed if the designation were removed.

Council member concerns focused on (1) the definition of “public benefit” and whether faster surplusing alone constitutes a public benefit and (2) how to interpret the docket’s “significantly changed conditions” criterion when applied to city facilities planning. Some council members said they preferred further policy discussion before adding the map‑designation change to the docket; others said the Planning Policy Commission and the Planning, Development & Environment committee had already reviewed the item and recommended it proceed.

An amendment to remove docket item 3(a) — the proposal to remove community facilities and privately owned community facilities from the land‑use designation map — was moved and seconded for discussion and failed on a 5‑1 vote. The main motion to approve the full docket then passed unanimously, 6‑0.

Staff said that, if approved tonight, each docket item would become a discrete project with its own schedule and public review; the administration recommended approval. Padua and Community Planning & Development Director Minnie Dhaliwal said the Planning Policy Commission reviewed the docket in January and recommended the list to council.

The council vote does not itself change zoning or the comp plan; it directs staff to prepare formal amendment packages for each docketed item that will return to the Planning Policy Commission and council committee for review and public hearing later in the year.