Policy audit finds core gaps and opportunities to shape Lake Forest Park climate element

Maddie, the project planner presenting the policy audit, told CPAT the audit catalogued existing policies in Lake Forest Park’s core planning documents and a set of supportive plans to identify gaps and opportunities for the climate element.

The audit distinguished “core” documents (those required or central to the comprehensive plan update) from “supportive” documents (implementation and topic‑specific plans such as the climate action plan and PROS plan). Maddie said the distinction is to prioritize strengthening the comprehensive plan’s climate policy first and then to draw from supportive documents to fill gaps. "The goal with the policy audit is to see where things stand there and measure the gaps and opportunities in those documents specifically, and then really bring those supportive documents into play in the next phase in policy development," she said.

Maddie summarized policy counts by topic from the audit: 22 policies coded under community well‑being, 7 related mainly to extreme heat (mostly tree canopy), 1 core policy directly addressing wildfire/smoke (firewise program) plus cross‑cutting policies, 13 related to drought, and 40 policies addressing extreme precipitation and flooding. On mitigation strategies, the audit found 13 policies on buildings and energy (encouraging efficiency and renewables but not yet a comprehensive framework, particularly on natural‑gas reduction), 22 policies addressing transportation and land use (VMT reduction and multimodal connections) and 5 policies on solid waste.

The audit team scored policy quality (low/medium/high) based on specificity and enforceability, and recommended whether policies should remain where they are, be amended, or be candidates to move into a standalone climate element. Maddie said the final climate element would likely include a modest number of existing policies moved into a climate chapter plus new policies to fill gaps; many transportation policies would remain in the transportation element but inform the climate element.

CPAT members asked for clearer, locally focused recommendations and for care in wording on equity and vulnerable/sensitive populations. Members emphasized avoiding recommendations that the city lacks authority to implement (for example, major transit or regional congestion pricing) and called for language that is both consistent with state grant and Commerce requirements and accessible to the public. The group discussed a need to define terms (resilience, sustainability, disadvantaged communities) and to use targeted language (for example, naming older adults, people with medical vulnerabilities, or residents without affordable cooling) rather than relying on broad labels alone.

Maddie said next steps include drafting policy language, aligning policy recommendations with the GHG inventory and vulnerability assessment, and preparing material for public engagement. CPAT members were asked to submit feedback on the policy audit by the end of the week.