Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oak Harbor planners press county talks, consider EIS as comp‑plan mediation continues
Summary
City staff said mediation with Island County is ongoing over population and UGA questions; staff also described requests for a new or updated environmental impact statement to support a major 2025 comp‑plan update and warned the council of likely cost and schedule impacts.
City planners told the City Council on July 22 that mediation with Island County over growth‑allocation questions is continuing and that the department is evaluating whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to support the city’s 2025 comprehensive‑plan major update.
Principal planner Rajesh Kakkamak (transcript name variants: Kakkamak/Kat Kamac) updated councilmembers on three items: the status of mediation with Island County concerning growth targets and UGA (urban growth area) boundaries; the potential need for an EIS tied to higher population projections and regulatory changes under consideration; and the cost and schedule consequences of delays to the comp‑plan consultant contract.
Nut graf: Staff said mediation produced questions and tentative suggestions at a July 16 county meeting and that the city is continuing written and staff‑level exchanges; because proposed plan changes (zoning, height, floor‑area ratios, utilities/stormwater, transportation) could have environmental impacts and because population projections over the next 20 years will likely exceed those covered in the city’s previous EIS, city staff will solicit proposals to prepare an updated EIS confined to the city limits.
Kakkamak told the council the county and city had completed roughly “1.5 rounds” of written Q&A during mediation and that county planners had raised the prospect of amending county‑wide planning policies. The city and county spoke again in mid‑July; Kakkamak said county staff postponed a scheduled mediation session while the county considers adjustments to county‑wide policies but that city staff are seeking to resume direct discussions.
The planner described the city’s situation with the prior EIS: the original comp‑plan EIS (from the 1990s) forecast a population substantially higher than the city’s current population; however, the new 20‑year horizon for the 2025 plan will almost certainly exceed the thresholds modeled in the earlier EIS. Kakkamak said an updated EIS would examine alternatives and provide defensible analyses of transportation, utilities, stormwater and other environmental effects for the range of policy choices the council is considering.
Cost and schedule notes: Kakkamak told the council the contract with the city’s comp‑plan consultant (Kimberly Horn) anticipated completion by June 2025. The city is roughly six months behind that schedule; staff have not yet selected an EIS consultant (RFP deadline recently closed) and council can expect some contract overrun or additional consultant work tied to mediation and new EIS work. He said staff will return with detailed cost estimates after consultant proposals are evaluated.
Council and mayor context: Mayor Hahn and several councilmembers said they had recent conversations with county commissioners and county staff; the mayor reported a constructive Saturday meeting with Commissioner Johnson and said he believes city and county staff are “moving the pendulum a long way” toward a mutually acceptable approach. Councilmember Wiesner and others expressed concern that unilateral or late county actions could re‑open prior disputes and asked staff and elected officials to continue legislator‑level engagement as mediation proceeds.
Ending: City staff said they will continue the mediation process with the county, evaluate EIS proposals and return to council with updated cost, scope and schedule information once consultant responses and county mediation outcomes are clearer.
