By Lorilyn Lirio
Olympia City Council member Clark Gilman challenged the draft capital facilities chapter of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, saying it does not go far enough in addressing the impacts of transportation infrastructure on greenhouse gas emissions and urban sprawl.
The comment came at a council study session during the 2045 plan update on Tuesday, April 15.
Senior planner Joyce Phillips presented proposed changes to the Capital Facilities Plan, which focuses on integration of climate and environmental stewardship into infrastructure planning, expanding focus on equity and accessibility, including specific language emphasizing access and equitable investment.
Phillips described the proposed updates as improvements over the previous version, which had not been revised since 2014.
The update highlighted strategic infrastructure investments, long-term planning and ensuring accessibility.
Phillips noted that advisory committees — Planning Commission, Utility Advisory, and Social Justice and Equity Commission — provided consistent feedback, particularly around environmental and equity concerns.
However, Gilman said the draft chapter falls short of aligning with the city's climate goals, particularly in terms of how it evaluates transportation-related projects.
The city's climate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 59% below 2019 levels by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2040.
"We have 11 years. We have to cut in half emissions. … I don't think that interest from each of the groups (transportation chapter and CFP) who reviewed this is reflected in the document," Gilman said.
"At this point, vehicle miles travelers are still increasing. The tonnage of our emissions is still increasing, and we can blame it on population increase. But we didn't set out goals on a sliding scale based on population. We set sort of absolute goals for reduction from a baseline."
Gilman inquired whether the CFP chapter could include a policy that deprioritizes projects contributing to urban sprawl or increased emissions.
"Is there a policy that is to give priority — unconsideration — to anything that increases sprawl, creates larger lots, widens roads, increases vehicle miles traveled?" he asked.
"I'm just wondering if there is a way to more actively address that interest in reaching our climate goals by saying that anything that exacerbates our emissions goes to the bottom of the pile."
Susan McLaughlin, Community Planning and Economic Development Director, said Gilman's proposal to deprioritize high-emission projects could be challenging due to various compliance requirements.
She advocated for a complete street approach that ensures every infrastructure project accommodates all users.
She added: "I think there could be stronger language around complete streets. There is probably room for operationalizing that in each of our capital projects."
The city had been working toward a multimodal and complete street model. For Gilman, it was not enough.
"I'm talking about giving up the level of service and street condition standards we have now, even if that risks federal funding," he said.
Council member Dani Madrone suggested the CFP could be improved by stating which projects would not be prioritized.
Referencing Policy 2.2 (E), she highlighted language requiring the city to rework projects that might "result in maladaptation, interfere with environmentally sensitive areas, contribute to hazards, or exacerbate current climate vulnerabilities."
"If something is going to send us down the wrong path in terms of our climate goals, we are going to rework those projects," Madrone told Gilman.
