City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, February 28, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 7, 2023

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

- New sections - Area with most changes • Description of code testing • White board items

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Title 18 Land Use Code: Regular City Council Meeting Overview Memo ID 1385

60 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.7–124

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Committee of the Whole · Aug 8, 2022 Planning Policy Commission · Feb 2, 2023

▶ Watch from 0:47 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the February 28 meeting is to prepare for the City Council

Executive Session The Committee will recess into Executive Session to discuss pending/potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). Please note, Executive Sessions are closed to the public ID 1406

30 min

▶ Watch from 1:07:30

2432 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ welcome everyone I councilmember hunt

0:06 ↗ called the February 28 2023 city council

0:10 ↗ Planning Development and environment

0:11 ↗ committee meeting to order I am council

0:14 ↗ member hunt I am joined by council

0:16 ↗ president Walsh and Council Deputy

0:17 ↗ president Hall

0:20 ↗ we have one item on our agenda this

0:23 ↗ evening and we also have an executive

0:25 ↗ session after that one item

0:29 ↗ as a reminder we continue to have a

0:31 ↗ remote aspect to our meetings both staff

0:33 ↗ and members of the public may be

0:34 ↗ participating in tonight's meeting

0:35 ↗ remotely via WebEx there are multiple

0:38 ↗ public comment opportunities at

0:39 ↗ tonight's meeting there is a general

0:40 ↗ public comment opportunity at the

0:42 ↗ beginning of the meeting

0:43 ↗ and you can make comments after the

0:45 ↗ presentation and committee question

0:47 ↗ answer period on tonight's agenda item

0:49 ↗ which will be

0:52 ↗ id1385 Title 18 land use code regular

0:55 ↗ city council meeting overview memo

0:59 ↗ so with that we will start with public

1:02 ↗ comments members of the public May

1:04 ↗ address council at this time in person

1:05 ↗ or virtually and those who are signed up

1:07 ↗ in advance to make comments will be

1:09 ↗ called on first

1:10 ↗ if you're joining us virtually and would

1:12 ↗ like to make comments please raise your

1:14 ↗ virtual hands if you are on the phone

1:16 ↗ press star 3 and if you're joined by

1:18 ↗ computer or smartphone please look for a

1:20 ↗ hand icon this varies by device one

1:22 ↗ option may be to go to the participant

1:24 ↗ panel and choose the raise hand icon in

1:26 ↗ the lower right hand corner and if

1:28 ↗ you're in the room and did not sign up I

1:30 ↗ will ask for other speakers before

1:31 ↗ closing the portion of the meeting I do

1:34 ↗ see members of the public in the council

1:37 ↗ chambers this evening so I will read the

1:39 ↗ guidelines for public comments citizen

1:42 ↗ comments are an important part of the

1:43 ↗ public process we take them seriously

1:45 ↗ and Factor them into the decisions we

1:47 ↗ make please direct comments to the whole

1:49 ↗ Council and not individuals and while

1:52 ↗ this is not a question and answer

1:53 ↗ session we will contact you to follow up

1:55 ↗ if needed when recognized please unmute

1:57 ↗ your microphone for virtual attendees or

2:00 ↗ step up to the lectern in person please

2:02 ↗ state your name address and relationship

2:04 ↗ to the city please speak clearly and

2:06 ↗ pause frequently and please limit your

2:08 ↗ comments to five minutes and if you're

2:10 ↗ attending virtually and do not respond

2:12 ↗ after your name or phone number is

2:13 ↗ called or your connection is lost the

2:15 ↗ meeting will need to proceed you are

2:16 ↗ encouraged to rejoin if able

2:19 ↗ so clerk could you please identify the

2:22 ↗ first person who has signed up to speak

2:24 ↗ at this time

2:26 ↗ chair hunt the first person that signed

2:29 ↗ up to speak is Brooke

2:37 ↗ good evening thank you uh city council

2:40 ↗ members uh I'm here today to talk about

2:42 ↗ something that's been out in front of

2:43 ↗ the public now since April of last year

2:45 ↗ so it's tomorrow it'll be 11 months

2:48 ↗ could you state your full name please

2:50 ↗ for the record oh yeah it's Brook Lang

2:53 ↗ and uh so anyway this part of the title

2:55 ↗ 18 review that uh these comments have

2:57 ↗ been out in front of the public like I

2:59 ↗ say for almost a year now starting next

3:02 ↗ month uh will be 11 months that has been

3:05 ↗ several times in front of the public

3:06 ↗ about this and the number one thing to

3:08 ↗ say is through some uh communication

3:11 ↗ errors and things that went on uh it did

3:14 ↗ not get properly into the giraffe that

3:16 ↗ went to the sub or excuse me to the

3:18 ↗ planning policy commission which was

3:21 ↗ around the December time frame so

3:23 ↗ between myself and the city and some

3:25 ↗ things it's just miscommunications and

3:26 ↗ things didn't happen it was intended to

3:28 ↗ be that this would be in the uh sub

3:32 ↗ counts or in with the planning policy

3:34 ↗ commission so finally when we were

3:36 ↗ getting in front of planning policy

3:37 ↗ commission we realized uh some other

3:40 ↗ things that were happening and so it did

3:42 ↗ not get passed on to you in the draft

3:44 ↗ uh as a as a solid draft and what we're

3:47 ↗ talking about is the uh increasing the

3:50 ↗ size of a auxiliary dwelling unit to

3:53 ↗ 1200 square feet if a lot size is a

3:56 ↗ higher lot size than is required which

3:59 ↗ I've sent some of you the the amount of

4:01 ↗ that which I'll go through

4:03 ↗ um

4:04 ↗ so anyway uh that's the reason why we're

4:06 ↗ in front of you now asking for that to

4:08 ↗ be put into the full city council and

4:10 ↗ direction to be given to the

4:12 ↗ administration for them to include that

4:14 ↗ in so one of the reasons we talked about

4:16 ↗ this probably the biggest reasoning is

4:18 ↗ Aging in place and the example that we

4:21 ↗ have is if you have a couple an elderly

4:24 ↗ couple that wants to age in place on

4:27 ↗ their property The Architects the

4:29 ↗ professionals that deal with this need

4:32 ↗ an extra 200 square feet where you could

4:34 ↗ have two bedrooms and then another

4:37 ↗ bedroom for 24-Hour nursing care that's

4:39 ↗ required with the required bathrooms and

4:41 ↗ kitchen and common living space and you

4:43 ↗ just can't get that in for people to age

4:45 ↗ in place comfortably in a thousand

4:47 ↗ square feet so we've proposed to the

4:50 ↗ city that they allow an another 200

4:53 ↗ square feet but because it's important

4:55 ↗ in a neighborhood to keep the context of

4:59 ↗ the neighborhood the same and the look

5:00 ↗ and feel the proposal in front of the

5:03 ↗ city was to increase

5:04 ↗ to have a larger lot size than the

5:07 ↗ zoning lot size so for example if you

5:10 ↗ have a 6 000 square foot lot size in

5:13 ↗ that particular Zone

5:14 ↗ in order to be able to use the extra 200

5:17 ↗ square feet you'd have to have 9 000

5:19 ↗ square foot lot in a six thousand square

5:22 ↗ foot Zone

5:23 ↗ likewise if you had a 9 600 square foot

5:26 ↗ lot zoning in the City of Issaquah if

5:29 ↗ you wanted to use the extra 200 square

5:31 ↗ feet for the Adu you'd have to have an

5:33 ↗ additional 3 000 square feet you should

5:35 ↗ have to have twelve thousand uh square

5:38 ↗ feet a lot to do that and this is just

5:40 ↗ so it's on the record uh then if you had

5:43 ↗ the the third one which is a 35

5:46 ↗ 000 square foot lot you'd have to have

5:48 ↗ forty thousand square feet initial five

5:50 ↗ thousand square feet just for the other

5:52 ↗ 200 and the last lot size in this across

5:55 ↗ five acres so if you have a five acre

5:57 ↗ lot you got to have a six acre lot in

6:00 ↗ order to use the other 200 square feet

6:01 ↗ that way we've solved the problem of

6:04 ↗ anybody that's concerned about the

6:05 ↗ flavor and the tightness of of uh you

6:07 ↗ know what the look and feel of a

6:09 ↗ neighborhood in the City of Issaquah

6:10 ↗ would be now this solves a lot of other

6:12 ↗ issues that City uh that that people are

6:15 ↗ much more informed than I am about what

6:16 ↗ the city needs to do in the way of

6:18 ↗ density and the required area of what

6:20 ↗ you're trying to do for housing and

6:21 ↗ affordable housing and all the other

6:23 ↗ things but sides Aging in place which is

6:25 ↗ a a big thing and it also is green for

6:29 ↗ the planet I mean the the fact of the

6:31 ↗ matter is that uh the less development

6:33 ↗ you do and the more urban and uh the

6:37 ↗ more dense uh the population can be is

6:40 ↗ more green for the planet also and this

6:42 ↗ allows that to happen where you can have

6:44 ↗ a little bit larger square foot Adu if

6:48 ↗ you have a little bit larger lot for the

6:50 ↗ zoning

6:51 ↗ so the ask tonight is there seems to be

6:54 ↗ two paths here One path is what I'm

6:57 ↗ asking for is that I feel that you know

6:59 ↗ when you when you talk about an extra 5

7:01 ↗ 000 square foot for just 200 square feet

7:03 ↗ I don't think this is a a big thing

7:07 ↗ um that needs to it's a whole other

7:09 ↗ thing for another year process so I'm

7:11 ↗ asking the three of you tonight to add

7:15 ↗ that to the city council to vote on up

7:18 ↗ or down

7:19 ↗ uh you know in in the title 18 cleanup

7:22 ↗ for lack of a better word of what you're

7:23 ↗ doing on there is another option which

7:26 ↗ you can add it to uh some process that I

7:28 ↗ think you know about that the

7:30 ↗ administration is going to look at over

7:31 ↗ the

7:32 ↗ 2023-2024 you you have three or four or

7:35 ↗ five things that you're looking at that

7:37 ↗ you're not including in this part of

7:39 ↗ Title 18 but it is baked in that they

7:43 ↗ are going to look at these three or four

7:44 ↗ other things you know over the next 12

7:46 ↗ months or whatever the schedule is so as

7:49 ↗ a backup uh then I would say please at a

7:51 ↗ bare minimum then add it to that so that

7:54 ↗ it will be for sure have an up or down

7:58 ↗ vote either in the next 60 days it gets

7:59 ↗ an up or down vote or it gets an up or

8:01 ↗ down vote you know in the next 12 months

8:04 ↗ or 15 months whatever it is thank you

8:05 ↗ very much for your consideration and I'm

8:07 ↗ available some other time for questions

8:09 ↗ if you have it

8:12 ↗ clerk do we have any other members of

8:14 ↗ the public wishing to speak at this time

8:19 ↗ chair hunt

8:21 ↗ no one has signed up previously

8:25 ↗ and there's no one online

8:37 ↗ trying to follow the appropriate

8:39 ↗ protocol my name is Connie Marsh I live

8:41 ↗ on squawk

8:43 ↗ mountain

8:44 ↗ and I am I can't stand to go through

8:48 ↗ Title 18 again I have spent months of my

8:52 ↗ life with Title 18 grinding through

8:55 ↗ paragraphs trying to make it so that the

8:58 ↗ language actually will do

9:01 ↗ what your goals and outcomes chart and

9:03 ↗ what the community wants it to do I

9:06 ↗ don't think we're there

9:07 ↗ but I don't think that there's any

9:09 ↗ stopping this horse going to the barn

9:12 ↗ and I'm not going to throw myself in

9:14 ↗ front of it except for two points

9:18 ↗ and one my overarching topic as usual is

9:23 ↗ the community's ability to be able to

9:26 ↗ interact with its government in

9:31 ↗ easily I'm just going to use the word

9:33 ↗ easily so when you look here at your uh

9:38 ↗ your improved public awareness section

9:42 ↗ of what they think they've done with the

9:44 ↗ code and you look at what the

9:46 ↗ environmental board proposed there's

9:49 ↗ this little thing called the active

9:51 ↗ projects

9:53 ↗ map list and somehow on that chart

9:57 ↗ says we already have it

9:59 ↗ well we do it exists but it is also in

10:03 ↗ our current code that we must have

10:06 ↗ something in the new code I have yet to

10:09 ↗ see any language that actually requires

10:12 ↗ a granular look at land use review for

10:16 ↗ the public to be able to see on the

10:18 ↗ website it says things have to be on the

10:20 ↗ website doesn't say how

10:23 ↗ it doesn't say any goals doesn't do

10:26 ↗ anything and so I would ask for some

10:28 ↗ language be provided that either

10:31 ↗ identifies something similar to this

10:34 ↗ chart because the other part of my life

10:37 ↗ I spend checking to see if our land use

10:40 ↗ code is actually being followed through

10:42 ↗ on projects going through the system and

10:45 ↗ your comprehensive plan clearly says

10:47 ↗ that we are supposed to provide input

10:50 ↗ ability for public input throughout the

10:53 ↗ system okay then I I mean you've all

10:56 ↗ heard that before it shouldn't be a

10:57 ↗ surprise

10:58 ↗ then the next one is this

11:03 ↗ supposed result for protecting forested

11:06 ↗ hillsides right that's a big

11:08 ↗ comprehensive plan change from a few

11:10 ↗ years ago

11:11 ↗ uh

11:13 ↗ and

11:15 ↗ staff seems to think that they've

11:19 ↗ done these things that are in your

11:20 ↗ presentation

11:22 ↗ preserve Wildlife migration minimize

11:25 ↗ Forest fragmentation limit development

11:27 ↗ disturbance to natural vegetation

11:30 ↗ um

11:31 ↗ from what I can perceive for the for the

11:33 ↗ language it's going to get almost The

11:36 ↗ Identical results of our

11:37 ↗ old language

11:40 ↗ so

11:41 ↗ I don't

11:43 ↗ I don't see how it's going to work

11:46 ↗ and I know that's the intent

11:48 ↗ but I don't think that's the reality so

11:51 ↗ how does one solve these problems of we

11:55 ↗ think we did something good but it's

11:57 ↗ really not working back to the

11:59 ↗ environmental board chart they say we'll

12:00 ↗ have a review in a year

12:02 ↗ but you know a year is a long time A lot

12:05 ↗ can happen in a year and if they're

12:08 ↗ going to have a review in a year that

12:10 ↗ means that they're going to be having to

12:11 ↗ get data as they go along in order to

12:14 ↗ provide for a review in a year so I

12:16 ↗ still think it should be six months

12:18 ↗ because if there is something

12:21 ↗ something that is clearly not working

12:24 ↗ you want to look at it sooner rather

12:27 ↗ than later and I've watched things

12:30 ↗ watch things happen like that you get a

12:32 ↗ change of Staff person and they doesn't

12:36 ↗ read the same way and also you have a

12:37 ↗ whole different code even with good

12:39 ↗ intent

12:40 ↗ so that's that would be my ask that was

12:44 ↗ only two six month review

12:47 ↗ and ensure that you have something like

12:50 ↗ our active projects map or list that is

12:53 ↗ required within the code itself not just

12:57 ↗ a yeah we're gonna do it thank you

13:02 ↗ thank you Connie

13:04 ↗ city clerk just checking in one more

13:06 ↗ time if there's anyone else who may have

13:08 ↗ joined us remotely

13:11 ↗ cheer hunt there are no virtual hands

13:14 ↗ raised at this moment

13:18 ↗ thank you

13:19 ↗ and thank you for the public comments I

13:21 ↗ will close the public comment period at

13:23 ↗ this time and we will go to approval of

13:27 ↗ the minutes which are the minutes from

13:29 ↗ February 7th

13:31 ↗ are there any questions or comments on

13:34 ↗ the minutes

13:35 ↗ because president Walsh I was reading it

13:37 ↗ over and my recollection was that we

13:41 ↗ endorsed the 100 square feet of

13:45 ↗ um

13:46 ↗ outside area and I believe the minutes

13:49 ↗ read as us preferring the 48 square foot

13:54 ↗ so I'm wondering if that can be we can

13:57 ↗ imagine

14:01 ↗ I so I

14:03 ↗ um I had some comments on this related

14:06 ↗ thing but in the discussion of tonight's

14:09 ↗ materials because it says that these are

14:12 ↗ the three items that we recommended and

14:14 ↗ I agree with that I thought we did agree

14:18 ↗ to

14:19 ↗ Bring It Forward

14:21 ↗ um but I I do think at that meeting

14:23 ↗ which is what we're discussing in the

14:25 ↗ minutes that it was a hundred yeah I

14:27 ↗ believe we said we were fine going

14:30 ↗ forward with a hundred but we wanted to

14:32 ↗ bring it to council with options

14:38 ↗ that's my recollection I think staff has

14:41 ↗ was confused between 48 and 100 so it'll

14:43 ↗ be good to clarify

14:45 ↗ um you know where what what is

14:46 ↗ committee's recommendation

14:48 ↗ there were six policy questions so

14:51 ↗ overall

14:53 ↗ um I think the three that you all wanted

14:57 ↗ to pass on to the full Council were the

15:00 ↗ criteria for site-specific reasons the

15:03 ↗ outdoor amenity space and the critical

15:05 ↗ area code for non-conforming structures

15:07 ↗ the other three uh the process for

15:10 ↗ site-specific you are what I have from

15:14 ↗ my recollection is that hearing examiner

15:16 ↗ with a recommendation to cancel was okay

15:18 ↗ deviations

15:20 ↗ um no further edits were asked and then

15:23 ↗ steep slope puffers you were agreeing

15:26 ↗ with bpc's recommendations so those

15:28 ↗ three you felt were fine but bring forth

15:30 ↗ these other three to four full cancels

15:33 ↗ discussion and now duramenity space was

15:35 ↗ one of them

15:37 ↗ yeah I just wanted to correct the

15:39 ↗ portion of the minutes that said that

15:43 ↗ um

15:44 ↗ we preferred to keep it at 48. I think

15:46 ↗ there was a question out there but we

15:48 ↗ were fine with moving forward with 100

15:49 ↗ square feet

15:54 ↗ so

15:55 ↗ um it sounds like that change will be

15:58 ↗ checked in them in the video but then

16:01 ↗ assuming that we our memories serves

16:03 ↗ then we can correct that for the minutes

16:05 ↗ so with that Amendment

16:08 ↗ moved to adopt the minutes of January

16:11 ↗ 24th oh sorry

16:14 ↗ minutes of the February 7th meeting all

16:17 ↗ those in favor say aye

16:19 ↗ aye aye

16:21 ↗ okay so those are adopted as amended

16:24 ↗ um then we have our first agenda first

16:27 ↗ and only regular agenda item which is

16:29 ↗ id1385 Title 18 land use code regular

16:32 ↗ city council meeting overview memo and

16:34 ↗ this will be presented by director

16:36 ↗ dollywall

16:37 ↗ director taliwal please get away good

16:40 ↗ evening council members and members of

16:42 ↗ the community I'm going to do a quick

16:45 ↗ share

16:46 ↗ um

16:48 ↗ am I able to share

16:50 ↗ Chris

16:51 ↗ yes you have you're the presenter great

17:09 ↗ so we're we've the purpose of tonight's

17:12 ↗ meeting was to kind of finalize your

17:14 ↗ recommendation or you know the issues

17:16 ↗ you want to take forward for the full

17:18 ↗ Council and then we've given you a draft

17:21 ↗ presentation that we can you know fine

17:23 ↗ tune based on your feedback

17:25 ↗ for the full Council and then

17:29 ↗ [Music]

17:29 ↗ um

17:30 ↗ you know so finalizing your

17:32 ↗ recommendation to Council on both Title

17:34 ↗ 18 and children master program and if

17:36 ↗ you have any input on the materials to

17:38 ↗ include for the council draft

17:40 ↗ um the presentation or the memo we've

17:42 ↗ given you both I'll quickly walk you

17:45 ↗ through the slides of the presentation

17:46 ↗ of what we're thinking to give to

17:47 ↗ council and then I think

17:50 ↗ um the two main things you all asked us

17:52 ↗ was the response to the environmental

17:54 ↗ board questions and we're prepared to

17:57 ↗ kind of go through them if you'd like us

17:59 ↗ and then the second was this input on

18:01 ↗ the council's material so we'll address

18:03 ↗ the council materials first or should we

18:05 ↗ talk about

18:07 ↗ environmental board

18:09 ↗ questions first

18:15 ↗ I think this committee would be fine

18:17 ↗ with either whichever way you think

18:19 ↗ Blows Best yeah so this is just you know

18:21 ↗ overview so I'll just keep going here so

18:24 ↗ we'll share the purpose with the council

18:26 ↗ the direction is you know we're seeking

18:28 ↗ if any additional edits are needed we'll

18:31 ↗ give a background of the umbrella goals

18:34 ↗ the 13 goals that were established for

18:37 ↗ this update

18:39 ↗ um

18:40 ↗ and then you know where we are now with

18:43 ↗ all the joint meetings with the

18:44 ↗ commissions the feedback from the

18:46 ↗ community members and then ppc's

18:47 ↗ recommended final draft and your work

18:50 ↗ this committee's work and so on

18:53 ↗ more information about how we you know

18:57 ↗ went on this journey of phase one two

18:59 ↗ and three and so on how many meetings we

19:03 ↗ had

19:04 ↗ um how we tracked the public comments

19:06 ↗ and and and such

19:08 ↗ the attachments we're thinking of

19:11 ↗ including with the council full Council

19:13 ↗ packet would be the golden outcomes

19:15 ↗ document that shows each goal and

19:18 ↗ outcome and how the proposed update

19:20 ↗ accomplishes those goals of course the

19:24 ↗ executive summary for both Title 18 and

19:26 ↗ s p

19:27 ↗ a document with links to all the meeting

19:30 ↗ agendas videos and minutes

19:32 ↗ ppc's letter environmental board letter

19:36 ↗ code testing summary

19:38 ↗ I think this was some feedback you had

19:41 ↗ from Council Members when you discussed

19:43 ↗ previous at the last meeting about a

19:46 ↗ list of future updates so we can include

19:48 ↗ that and then of course the draft Title

19:52 ↗ 18 and SMP the

19:55 ↗ PPC and pde recommended draft

19:58 ↗ and then we'll go through you know in

20:01 ↗ more detail for each goal how you know

20:04 ↗ what are some major changes made to

20:05 ↗ address that goal so this was included

20:07 ↗ in your packet before but this is a lot

20:10 ↗ of text in these slides but you know we

20:13 ↗ can narrow it down or we can make keep

20:14 ↗ it at that thinking that if you're short

20:16 ↗ on time and if you only have time to

20:18 ↗ read a presentation it should make sense

20:20 ↗ so we left it in for now

20:23 ↗ um this this could be you know a very

20:25 ↗ brief

20:27 ↗ a kind of a slides but we've given you

20:30 ↗ the whole enchilada for now so it goes

20:32 ↗ through all uh you know 13 goals

20:37 ↗ and what the major updates are to

20:40 ↗ um with this current update

20:43 ↗ then we can walk them through the

20:46 ↗ orientation of what the title 18

20:48 ↗ comprises of eight parts some highlights

20:50 ↗ of each of the eight parts so I will go

20:53 ↗ through that

20:55 ↗ um

20:56 ↗ and then the six policy questions uh we

20:59 ↗ can share with them uh you know the

21:01 ↗ green are the ones that you've

21:03 ↗ highlighted for them to weigh on the

21:06 ↗ other ones you uh feel like bpc's

21:09 ↗ recommendations fine

21:12 ↗ um move that forward we can walk through

21:13 ↗ on the green items what PPC recommended

21:16 ↗ what your thoughts are on those and

21:19 ↗ um what You Know full Council wants to

21:22 ↗ discuss there were additional policy

21:25 ↗ discussions with the Consolidated draft

21:27 ↗ that were informed by public Commons so

21:30 ↗ we have a list of those here

21:32 ↗ and then really telling that after the

21:36 ↗ March 13 there will be a public hearing

21:37 ↗ with full Council on April 17th and then

21:40 ↗ they'll take action on May 1st

21:43 ↗ um

21:44 ↗ and probably seeking input from them on

21:47 ↗ if there are any additional edits

21:50 ↗ information whatever is needed to

21:53 ↗ um

21:54 ↗ finish this update

21:56 ↗ so that concludes what we were thinking

21:58 ↗ in terms of the presentation hi can I

22:01 ↗ ask a question yeah

22:02 ↗ um the list of the six questions from

22:05 ↗ PPC uh

22:07 ↗ sum in the letter so for example the

22:10 ↗ deviations it there's a specific part of

22:13 ↗ the letter that says PPC requests that

22:15 ↗ city council review deviations

22:18 ↗ some of them in the letter are not

22:21 ↗ as far as I can tell specifically called

22:24 ↗ out so were these

22:26 ↗ was this a list that was developed by

22:30 ↗ staff based on the conversations or were

22:32 ↗ these in that meeting questions that

22:35 ↗ were specifically all identified by PPC

22:37 ↗ that they wanted Council to review sure

22:40 ↗ no that's a good question so these six

22:42 ↗ were informed by the first public

22:44 ↗ hearing on the draft so they either came

22:47 ↗ through PPC wanting additional

22:49 ↗ information or they were you know

22:51 ↗ comments from community members or from

22:53 ↗ this committee when we came in with a

22:55 ↗ check-in with you all at each step some

22:58 ↗ of these things were we want to get more

23:00 ↗ information provide some options so

23:03 ↗ these were identified by staff based on

23:05 ↗ that first round of public hearings

23:08 ↗ and then the these

23:11 ↗ five were when we released the final

23:15 ↗ draft that came through the public

23:17 ↗ comments on those draft then of course

23:20 ↗ with each you know we but this doesn't

23:23 ↗ include all the edits that we made you

23:25 ↗ know little language fixes here and

23:26 ↗ there

23:27 ↗ um kind of thing

23:29 ↗ um which we've tracked in the public

23:31 ↗ comment Matrix so there were additional

23:33 ↗ edits made based on the public feedback

23:35 ↗ and discussion with PPC that we've

23:37 ↗ captured in your agenda packets in

23:40 ↗ either in the public common Matrix or as

23:42 ↗ a separate list okay

23:44 ↗ um and then one more question about the

23:46 ↗ PPC letter and how it fits into this in

23:50 ↗ the PPC letter they also have a section

23:53 ↗ at the end that is recommending future

23:55 ↗ additional review of certain topics

23:59 ↗ was that recommended to be outside of

24:03 ↗ this update within it it's not totally

24:07 ↗ clear to me if they mean future

24:08 ↗ additional review by Council as part of

24:11 ↗ this process or

24:13 ↗ in a future update

24:16 ↗ so that that list included things like

24:19 ↗ um view shed preservation for example

24:23 ↗ yeah

24:25 ↗ um let me pull that up

24:27 ↗ to additional recommendations the

24:29 ↗ commission recommends future additional

24:31 ↗ review of the following topics

24:34 ↗ the Sustainable Building design missing

24:36 ↗ middle affordable housing definitions so

24:40 ↗ my understanding is future updates okay

24:42 ↗ so outside of this process okay

24:46 ↗ all right thank you

24:54 ↗ council president Washington so what are

24:57 ↗ you looking for

24:59 ↗ um so generous feedback on you know did

25:01 ↗ we capture the essence of what you think

25:03 ↗ we need to take to full council is there

25:06 ↗ specific things you want us to highlight

25:09 ↗ for them or uh if you want us to include

25:12 ↗ in our memo a summary of this

25:14 ↗ committee's recommendation or would it

25:16 ↗ be just the minutes

25:18 ↗ from the committee meeting

25:20 ↗ okay chair are you ready for discussion

25:23 ↗ on this or well we still have

25:27 ↗ um the environment right so we still

25:29 ↗ have the environmental board so I would

25:30 ↗ prefer to have the presentation be

25:32 ↗ finished and then we can take public

25:35 ↗ comment in case there's a couple comment

25:36 ↗ and then we can do our celebration okay

25:38 ↗ okay

25:42 ↗ so for us

25:44 ↗ um

25:47 ↗ go

25:48 ↗ so this was um you know the the process

25:52 ↗ with the environmental board

25:54 ↗ um you know we went in and checked on

25:56 ↗ within each one of the the topic areas

25:59 ↗ in the first round they you know joined

26:03 ↗ the planning and policy commission and

26:05 ↗ also the park board

26:06 ↗ um so the focus of environmental boards

26:08 ↗ review or engagement was the critical

26:11 ↗ areas code the tree code update

26:14 ↗ um and um

26:16 ↗ and so and I think initially they were

26:19 ↗ participating in the s p the the

26:21 ↗ critical areas code outdoor lighting and

26:24 ↗ then

26:25 ↗ Landscaping got added and the trees got

26:28 ↗ added so those are the five topic areas

26:31 ↗ that they um weighed in on we had after

26:35 ↗ the full draft was released we had

26:38 ↗ check-ins with them they were working on

26:41 ↗ a draft letter and there were a lot of

26:44 ↗ things that we already Incorporated in

26:46 ↗ our code so that's a list we shared with

26:48 ↗ you at the last meeting

26:50 ↗ um you know that had a list of changes

26:51 ↗ that had happened after ppc's

26:53 ↗ recommendation so we captured some of

26:55 ↗ the things that they made in there but

26:57 ↗ this is the list of

26:59 ↗ um all the letter you know the the items

27:01 ↗ from their letter is there anything

27:03 ↗ specific you

27:04 ↗ um want us to walk you through or do you

27:06 ↗ want us to go line by line item

27:14 ↗ uh one question I had

27:17 ↗ um I was trying to find it there is

27:19 ↗ a place where it's about the carbon

27:22 ↗ sequestration it says a change can be

27:25 ↗ made to add this to the purpose

27:28 ↗ um I'm wondering if that can if that

27:31 ↗ means

27:32 ↗ I guess I would just we have made the

27:35 ↗ change I mean it's just a purpose

27:36 ↗ section uh yeah so that'll be included

27:38 ↗ in the draft that goes to full Council

27:42 ↗ my question on that do you have any

27:44 ↗ other questions on this

27:47 ↗ um did this go back to environmental

27:49 ↗ board

27:50 ↗ uh no but one of the community members

27:52 ↗ sent them a link to this uh packet

27:55 ↗ um and said this is in in the pdes

27:58 ↗ packet so but we'll Circle back with

28:00 ↗ Stacy and we can check in with them okay

28:03 ↗ the next environmental board meeting

28:05 ↗ yeah okay I think that would be great to

28:06 ↗ have it be the more formal food feedback

28:09 ↗ loop to let them know how these changes

28:12 ↗ were Incorporated okay

28:14 ↗ um

28:16 ↗ I

28:18 ↗ I didn't notice anywhere else where it

28:20 ↗ said this can be done but it wasn't

28:23 ↗ clear to me if it had been done

28:24 ↗ um

28:25 ↗ if there is anything else like that I

28:27 ↗ would just like Clarity on if it if it

28:30 ↗ can't we've done it should we say this

28:31 ↗ is included in the in the dress yeah

28:33 ↗ yeah

28:39 ↗ okay okay you have any questions on this

28:45 ↗ um General

28:48 ↗ Council Deputy president Hall uh thank

28:51 ↗ you just a general question based on

28:52 ↗ public comments so that one

28:55 ↗ um member of the public said they had a

28:57 ↗ concern with there not being any

28:58 ↗ language requiring

29:00 ↗ a description or mapping of AF of active

29:03 ↗ projects the best of your knowledge

29:04 ↗ number one is that true and do you have

29:06 ↗ any concerns adding something like that

29:08 ↗ in yeah so I think what the with the in

29:11 ↗ the code we say you have to have

29:13 ↗ it posted in the city's web page it

29:16 ↗ doesn't say how Technologies change you

29:19 ↗ know if we if we want to make it clear

29:23 ↗ that active project I mean we've heard

29:25 ↗ feedback it's not the greatest uh thing

29:28 ↗ you can look at on a mobile phone and

29:29 ↗ you know there are it's going to improve

29:31 ↗ over time in terms of how all that

29:35 ↗ information is shared but women it's a

29:39 ↗ small edit we can be happy to kind of

29:40 ↗ clarify including a list you know posted

29:43 ↗ on a website including a list well you

29:46 ↗ make a good point though because we

29:47 ↗ don't want to tie the hands of future

29:48 ↗ staff if there's Innovation and how to

29:51 ↗ display data in a way that's more

29:53 ↗ approachable to community right so I

29:54 ↗ think and that's not the intent of the

29:57 ↗ person who provided public comment

29:59 ↗ either so yeah our intent is not to take

30:01 ↗ that away but to improve it yeah it's

30:04 ↗ the administrator just to amplify to

30:08 ↗ have maximum flexibility you know

30:10 ↗ whenever you have something in the code

30:11 ↗ that sometimes is unintended

30:12 ↗ consequences we would like maximum

30:14 ↗ flexibility we're proud of what we serve

30:16 ↗ what we share we're going to continue to

30:17 ↗ share more

30:19 ↗ um and we don't want to see the code to

30:20 ↗ be a limiting factor to that in the

30:22 ↗ future

30:25 ↗ thank you

30:33 ↗ okay um I had a couple questions one is

30:36 ↗ for the materials that would go to

30:38 ↗ council one of the

30:41 ↗ um one of the

30:43 ↗ asks that came out of the full Council

30:46 ↗ that go to the order would be to give

30:48 ↗ more information about the Whiteboard

30:52 ↗ um items and I'm wondering if that's uh

30:56 ↗ something you think could be done for

30:58 ↗ Council

31:00 ↗ um you know we can include the

31:02 ↗ Whiteboard list I mean it's a long list

31:05 ↗ um so we you know if they ask us to put

31:08 ↗ some time frame on each item I think

31:10 ↗ that'll be tricky I think what we did

31:12 ↗ with the full Council during the budget

31:15 ↗ process was to prioritize the first

31:17 ↗ three items given the city is going to

31:20 ↗ be undertaking a periodic update of the

31:22 ↗ comprehensive plan we have a Transit

31:23 ↗ study going on we have you know if you

31:26 ↗ want to study parking and diversity of

31:29 ↗ Housing and stream buffers

31:31 ↗ um

31:32 ↗ and happy Grant work you know the that

31:35 ↗ work so how much is more capacity there

31:39 ↗ is between boards and commissions

31:40 ↗ between staff and capacity to undertake

31:42 ↗ larger issues could be it'll be

31:46 ↗ arbitrary if we just assigned it you

31:48 ↗ know we'll do this and this and that so

31:49 ↗ I think we can share the list and if you

31:53 ↗ want us to prioritize we can give it our

31:55 ↗ best shot of prioritizing the items in

31:58 ↗ the next five years or whatever but I

32:00 ↗ don't know how accurate that will be

32:05 ↗ I I

32:08 ↗ um I can comment on this at the

32:10 ↗ discussion but I think that I my

32:13 ↗ interpretation of the discussion was it

32:15 ↗ would be more about the um

32:18 ↗ giving the context around what the

32:20 ↗ Whiteboard items are sure why they're on

32:24 ↗ the list yeah

32:26 ↗ um not specific to time

32:28 ↗ okay one other question I had was on the

32:31 ↗ happy Grant so that's the work that will

32:33 ↗ continue our efforts to have diverse

32:36 ↗ housing types across the city

32:39 ↗ um in the most cost efficient and um

32:42 ↗ effective way possible so I'm wondering

32:46 ↗ as part of that and also from public

32:49 ↗ comment as part of that it would ad use

32:51 ↗ and that sort of development

32:54 ↗ um

32:55 ↗ would Adu

32:57 ↗ permitting and processes around adus be

32:59 ↗ considered as part of that work as part

33:03 ↗ of happy Grand there are three

33:06 ↗ threes you know removing barriers to

33:08 ↗ condo construction

33:09 ↗ improving the diversity of housing for

33:11 ↗ cottage housing and Courtyard housing

33:14 ↗ and you know these and podmans and

33:17 ↗ things like that in the multi-family

33:18 ↗ zones and then

33:21 ↗ the third is I'm drawing a blank at this

33:24 ↗ point

33:25 ↗ um

33:26 ↗ do you recall Stephen what's the third

33:28 ↗ item we're studying there's a third

33:30 ↗ strategy

33:39 ↗ yeah we already included that I think we

33:42 ↗ include we captured that in the um we'll

33:44 ↗ find it but the issue of adus is

33:49 ↗ um not part of the happy Grant because

33:50 ↗ that was a grant that we applied for the

33:52 ↗ Adu work the city did in 2018. is

33:55 ↗ something that we you know uh already

33:58 ↗ encouraged and and changed our code and

34:01 ↗ allowed detached datus for instance

34:02 ↗ those were not allowed in the city in

34:04 ↗ the past so there were some changes made

34:07 ↗ not too long ago uh on that can we look

34:10 ↗ at it again uh as part of the

34:14 ↗ diversity of housing outside of the

34:16 ↗ happy Grant sure

34:23 ↗ you're probably not with the happy Grand

34:24 ↗ because it's that's kind of set up in a

34:28 ↗ way

34:30 ↗ okay thank you if you have any other

34:32 ↗ questions on this

34:34 ↗ not at this time

34:37 ↗ so many comments okay well um with that

34:40 ↗ then we will go to public comments on

34:43 ↗ this item

34:45 ↗ um

34:46 ↗ city court because anybody

34:48 ↗ online potentially wishing to speak to

34:51 ↗ this item

34:54 ↗ chair hunt

34:55 ↗ I see no virtual hands raised among the

34:59 ↗ online attendees

35:01 ↗ okay now look if there are community

35:03 ↗ members that would like to speak

35:06 ↗ you yes you can speak again so um Brooke

35:11 ↗ and please limit your comments to five

35:13 ↗ minutes thank you

35:15 ↗ thank you again council member um

35:17 ↗ council members

35:18 ↗ you know I said everything before I

35:20 ↗ don't have a lot more to say other than

35:21 ↗ there are many cities that have done

35:23 ↗ this uh the five minutes ran out so as I

35:25 ↗ hit the other one I gave some examples

35:27 ↗ before that uh that uh the Snohomish

35:31 ↗ County for existence has this at 1200

35:33 ↗ square feet uh in the city of San Diego

35:36 ↗ there are I think there was a list of

35:38 ↗ like eight or nine of their suburbs that

35:40 ↗ are at uh 1200 square feet the extra 200

35:43 ↗ and uh we found one report that was for

35:46 ↗ California that there's almost 400

35:48 ↗ cities that are using the California

35:49 ↗ standard of that would be the extra 200

35:52 ↗ square feet that would be for 1200. for

35:55 ↗ the maximum so this this is not by any

35:58 ↗ way shape or form something that oh only

36:00 ↗ the City of Issaquah has ever done or

36:02 ↗ something like that I mean we're not

36:03 ↗ here to present the fact that ninety

36:04 ↗ percent of the cities are at that but we

36:06 ↗ just happen to be in a place uh that the

36:09 ↗ City of Issaquah is looking at this and

36:10 ↗ I've proposed this and I think this is a

36:12 ↗ good idea for the city so it just makes

36:13 ↗ sense to look at it so just in repeating

36:16 ↗ my ask that I think uh the u3 sub

36:20 ↗ committee uh members is that tonight you

36:23 ↗ either won

36:24 ↗ say that you're asking the

36:26 ↗ administrators to add it to the draft

36:28 ↗ and that means that the full Council

36:31 ↗ will give it an up or down vote I

36:33 ↗ understand probably in the next you know

36:35 ↗ two months or whatever it is that when

36:36 ↗ you four other members join with you

36:38 ↗ meaning that that's definitive thing or

36:40 ↗ after listening to the administration

36:42 ↗ where they said that they're looking at

36:44 ↗ some other things apparently if I'm

36:47 ↗ rephrasing what they're saying correctly

36:49 ↗ so I have a grant to do certain things

36:50 ↗ and so would you add this you know to

36:53 ↗ look at with that and how do they work

36:55 ↗ out does that mean somebody's paying for

36:57 ↗ it and I'm sort of like well if you have

36:58 ↗ a grant to ask five things maybe it

37:00 ↗ doesn't cost the city that more to ask

37:01 ↗ one more thing to put into that but

37:04 ↗ that's definitely my second remember my

37:06 ↗ ask here is the three of you is to vote

37:08 ↗ Yes to instruct the city Administration

37:11 ↗ to add this to to the draft for your

37:15 ↗ full Council to give it a thumbs up or

37:19 ↗ thumbs down when the Full Count I mean

37:20 ↗ the full Council has the right to take

37:22 ↗ things in and out of the draft so I'm

37:24 ↗ asking for the three of you to put it in

37:27 ↗ the draft have it in the draft and let

37:29 ↗ the seven members of the council either

37:31 ↗ voted up voted down or kick it out or

37:33 ↗ whatever you do with the seven of you

37:34 ↗ but if you don't feel comfortable with

37:37 ↗ that as a backup I am asking you to add

37:40 ↗ it to them looking at your whiteboard

37:42 ↗ items even if it's a little bit of extra

37:45 ↗ cost to have a sixth item for the five

37:47 ↗ that are in the grant if I'm

37:49 ↗ paraphrasing the way many were saying

37:51 ↗ that that would be handled thank you

37:52 ↗ very much uh council members

37:55 ↗ thank you

37:58 ↗ are there any other members of the

38:01 ↗ public that would like to speak at this

38:03 ↗ time

38:06 ↗ okay then close the public comment and

38:09 ↗ we will go into deliberations and the

38:12 ↗ ask here is for us to make a

38:15 ↗ recommendation on the items or on the

38:18 ↗ materials that will go to

38:20 ↗ the full Council on this

38:22 ↗ council president Walsh would you like

38:24 ↗ to start with comments I'm always happy

38:26 ↗ to thank you

38:28 ↗ um

38:30 ↗ so I appreciate that you've sped through

38:32 ↗ the presentation

38:35 ↗ um I think if you had gone through all

38:37 ↗ of it it would be a little bit long and

38:40 ↗ so I'm trying to step into the mindset

38:43 ↗ of someone who hasn't gone through this

38:46 ↗ entire process

38:48 ↗ and how overwhelming that would be

38:52 ↗ so I think when I was looking through

38:56 ↗ the presentation

38:59 ↗ um

39:01 ↗ the only thing that I felt was missing

39:03 ↗ was a slide on future updates and I feel

39:06 ↗ like that would be most appropriate

39:08 ↗ before the goals and outcomes section

39:11 ↗ particularly because I I think we should

39:15 ↗ definitely mention that on goal 2

39:17 ↗ parking and goal six housing I think you

39:21 ↗ mentioned it on the housing one but not

39:22 ↗ the parking one

39:25 ↗ so I'd like to see a slide on future

39:27 ↗ updates that discusses hey we're not

39:30 ↗ done with this process these are the

39:32 ↗ areas that we kind of set aside

39:34 ↗ and then like it mentioned on those two

39:37 ↗ goals

39:38 ↗ um

39:40 ↗ but

39:42 ↗ I feel like the rest of council is going

39:45 ↗ to have a really hard time

39:47 ↗ getting through all of that information

39:50 ↗ and so I feel like the parts section

39:54 ↗ which is slides 25 to 38 at least how

39:58 ↗ you had it presented to us could

40:01 ↗ probably be cut out and would just be

40:03 ↗ more appropriate within the memo

40:08 ↗ um because I'm not sure it presents the

40:10 ↗ information in a way that can be

40:13 ↗ discussed as well but I think the

40:16 ↗ executive summary does a really good job

40:18 ↗ of talking through what the different

40:21 ↗ sections of the code are why they're

40:23 ↗ there and what the changes are so I

40:26 ↗ think my preference would be to

40:28 ↗ eliminate the part section

40:30 ↗ and then finally when I got to the end

40:33 ↗ of the PowerPoint

40:35 ↗ I have no idea how the rest of the

40:38 ↗ council is going to be able to

40:39 ↗ effectively

40:42 ↗ answer and engage with the final policy

40:46 ↗ questions at the same meeting where

40:48 ↗ they're really being introduced to this

40:50 ↗ so I'm not quite sure how to answer that

40:55 ↗ or change something about that but it

40:59 ↗ almost feels like the feedback needed

41:03 ↗ at the first meeting is kind of do you

41:07 ↗ have enough information to consider this

41:10 ↗ as a whole and maybe a future meeting or

41:14 ↗ something on

41:17 ↗ the remaining policy questions and

41:19 ↗ anything that comes out

41:21 ↗ and I don't know if my other council

41:24 ↗ members agree with that I just I'm

41:26 ↗ having a really hard time seeing us not

41:29 ↗ only get through and feel comfortable

41:31 ↗ with the entire code change but then

41:33 ↗ also get into the nitty-gritty details

41:36 ↗ of the policy questions so I think

41:38 ↗ that's my sense on the PowerPoint

41:43 ↗ um on the memo

41:46 ↗ um first of all I assume that all of the

41:48 ↗ attachments would be linked or included

41:51 ↗ in there because they were noted

41:54 ↗ um in ours but not linked but I would

41:57 ↗ also like to include the future updates

41:59 ↗ list as an attachment

42:02 ↗ in addition to that I really feel like

42:06 ↗ the memo itself would be helped by

42:09 ↗ including some history on what the

42:11 ↗ future updates

42:12 ↗ list was why it was created and what the

42:16 ↗ decisions was just so that we get a

42:19 ↗ sense of

42:21 ↗ you know here's the sections that didn't

42:23 ↗ get the full update that you shouldn't

42:25 ↗ expect to see in this Title 18 draft

42:30 ↗ um I also also think it would help the

42:33 ↗ rest of counsel in the background

42:35 ↗ section to kind of talk about a little

42:37 ↗ bit of a history of why our code is the

42:41 ↗ way it is a sense of the last time we

42:44 ↗ updated it and the fact that we're

42:46 ↗ taking these stuff from the highlands

42:48 ↗ and Telus and Old Town and mashing it

42:52 ↗ all together and so one of the reasons

42:54 ↗ that maybe they don't see a redlined

42:57 ↗ version

42:58 ↗ is because we have these three totally

43:01 ↗ different sets that had to be combined

43:05 ↗ so I think that would be useful

43:07 ↗ information

43:10 ↗ toward that idea on how do they grok and

43:14 ↗ understand all of this I think the memo

43:17 ↗ would be really helpful to include a

43:19 ↗ section on how to prepare for this

43:22 ↗ meeting

43:23 ↗ and from my perspective I think the

43:28 ↗ first meeting when Deputy council

43:30 ↗ president Hall came in had like an

43:34 ↗ executive summary and the goals and

43:37 ↗ outcomes chart overview all of that

43:38 ↗ stuff that was in our packet I just feel

43:41 ↗ like that order of operations was really

43:43 ↗ important but I also think that it would

43:46 ↗ be useful to maybe mention one or two

43:49 ↗ meetings and link to the YouTube videos

43:53 ↗ for those

43:55 ↗ um that particularly do a good job

43:57 ↗ including that meeting

43:59 ↗ for someone who might be better at

44:02 ↗ observing the information by listening

44:06 ↗ um

44:08 ↗ yeah and then I'm just left with this

44:10 ↗ question of how how do we pull all of

44:13 ↗ this together in potentially one meeting

44:15 ↗ in order to get effective feedback and

44:19 ↗ being able to summarize that in the memo

44:21 ↗ on exactly what feedback is going to be

44:24 ↗ needed at each of the meetings I think

44:26 ↗ would be very helpful

44:28 ↗ otherwise I think as a council member

44:31 ↗ when you're trying to absorb 100 plus

44:34 ↗ pages of new content if you don't have

44:37 ↗ the specific question that's going to be

44:39 ↗ asked of you

44:41 ↗ you can get lost in the minutia

44:44 ↗ so that's my overall feedback

44:49 ↗ thank you

44:51 ↗ um

44:51 ↗ Council Deputy president do you have

44:53 ↗ comments

44:54 ↗ uh sure thank you so I'll start with

44:58 ↗ just kind of overall feedback and then I

45:00 ↗ also want to address what we heard

45:01 ↗ during public comment because I love

45:02 ↗ this idea and I want to make sure we

45:04 ↗ walk through that

45:06 ↗ um

45:07 ↗ I don't know I guess I feel a little bit

45:08 ↗ differently um I feel like the memo that

45:11 ↗ you have has all the attachments of

45:13 ↗ everything like I personally went

45:15 ↗ through having joined the committee

45:16 ↗ starting with the goals and outcomes and

45:18 ↗ then that executive summary which I

45:20 ↗ agree is the most helpful document in

45:22 ↗ all of this to feel like you're getting

45:23 ↗ caught up

45:25 ↗ and I feel like the memo needs to be as

45:27 ↗ concise and focused as possible

45:30 ↗ um because then it's okay get off this

45:32 ↗ memo and start reading the attachments

45:34 ↗ if you can so then the memo in my mind

45:37 ↗ needs to be focused on

45:39 ↗ and I think it's done fairly well

45:41 ↗ there's a short background kind of what

45:44 ↗ we did in terms of phases public

45:45 ↗ engagement and then

45:48 ↗ what's left like what are the remaining

45:50 ↗ questions that have been teed up to all

45:52 ↗ of you because the committee thought

45:53 ↗ they were too meaty to talk or to really

45:56 ↗ decide here so I think that's right

45:58 ↗ although I will say the last question

46:01 ↗ says question six which I think is just

46:04 ↗ a carryover for when it was question six

46:06 ↗ so we probably should change that just

46:07 ↗ to make sure no one gets confused

46:09 ↗ um so I mean for the most part I'm happy

46:12 ↗ with how the memo is constructed because

46:15 ↗ I do think it could be

46:18 ↗ overwhelming to have a long memo and

46:21 ↗ then a long executive summary

46:24 ↗ and then all the letters so I don't know

46:28 ↗ I feel like we've struck a good balance

46:30 ↗ here in my opinion

46:32 ↗ um I I think point will Taken though

46:33 ↗ about the uh presentation there's a lot

46:37 ↗ there

46:38 ↗ um but

46:42 ↗ let's see

46:46 ↗ in particular yeah I mean I think

46:49 ↗ council president Walsh

46:51 ↗ I think you might be onto something

46:53 ↗ maybe there are kind of that

46:55 ↗ slug of slides that can just be

46:59 ↗ omitted or put somewhere else

47:01 ↗ what would it look like without that

47:04 ↗ um if we did that though again I want to

47:06 ↗ make sure at the very end we're focused

47:08 ↗ on kind of what's left and there's that

47:10 ↗ slide that's about the final policy

47:12 ↗ question so the green are the ones that

47:15 ↗ still need to be discussed right and

47:17 ↗ then the blue are the ones that we

47:18 ↗ agreed with PPC

47:21 ↗ it's a recommendation on is that right

47:22 ↗ that's how I understood it but I think

47:24 ↗ earlier you all talked about the

47:26 ↗ deviation the the conversation in the

47:28 ↗ PPC letter that

47:30 ↗ urging the council members to pay

47:32 ↗ attention to that so we can add that

47:33 ↗ okay so because I was going to ask why

47:36 ↗ even bother having these blue ones if we

47:38 ↗ want them to focus on green so

47:40 ↗ some of these blue in particular the

47:42 ↗ site specific reasons or the deviation

47:45 ↗ criteria which one was that deviation

47:49 ↗ um

47:50 ↗ well could we pull those up thank you

47:54 ↗ um so

47:55 ↗ I I was

47:58 ↗ I had a bigger

48:01 ↗ um question comment about this list I

48:05 ↗ feel in reviewing all of this and then

48:08 ↗ looking at these items that we have teed

48:11 ↗ up I think that they are largely there

48:16 ↗ because they were

48:18 ↗ emerged at the end of our process and so

48:22 ↗ um I I don't

48:25 ↗ necessarily think that these are the

48:28 ↗ ones that we

48:30 ↗ um maybe grappled with the most or

48:32 ↗ really feel I I think that you know

48:36 ↗ these are ones that emerged at the end

48:38 ↗ and so that's why they made it onto the

48:40 ↗ list and I guess I would

48:42 ↗ ask my colleagues if maybe we can't

48:44 ↗ think more holistically about how we how

48:48 ↗ we want to frame the last policy

48:51 ↗ questions that we really feel Council

48:53 ↗ needs to consider so

48:56 ↗ um in in doing that I think we can make

48:59 ↗ recommendations on these because they

49:01 ↗ were they did emerge from the PPC

49:04 ↗ um

49:05 ↗ conversation but then also from the PPC

49:08 ↗ conversation there were these additional

49:11 ↗ recommendations which are in their

49:14 ↗ letter and those are Sustainable

49:16 ↗ Building design missing middle housing

49:18 ↗ affordable housing definitions which if

49:21 ↗ you read the other part is is reducing

49:23 ↗ the amount of definitions which we have

49:25 ↗ still have a lot of parking regulations

49:28 ↗ view shed preservation Environmental

49:30 ↗ Protections transparency through Greater

49:32 ↗ Community involvement and then review of

49:35 ↗ the usability and accessibility of the

49:36 ↗ document so I'm wondering if we don't

49:40 ↗ if we could try to

49:43 ↗ identify

49:45 ↗ um

49:46 ↗ topics that we think you know we did

49:49 ↗ separate out a few big topics that we

49:52 ↗ need additional work on like the

49:55 ↗ different kinds of housing but I'm

49:58 ↗ wondering if we try to identify from

50:00 ↗ from these the ones that we think need

50:03 ↗ additional review because we're at the

50:04 ↗ end of the process

50:06 ↗ um so I feel like there are small things

50:10 ↗ we can we can make decisions on at this

50:13 ↗ point but it's gone through so much

50:15 ↗ public process and we've gone through so

50:18 ↗ many commissions and everything else

50:19 ↗ that really at this point the bigger

50:21 ↗ topics I think would need additional

50:24 ↗ review and so I wonder if we don't try

50:27 ↗ to separate out those and then bring

50:30 ↗ that to council and see if if Council

50:32 ↗ agrees with that or if Council thinks

50:34 ↗ that there are other things that we need

50:35 ↗ to

50:37 ↗ single out as needing additional review

50:39 ↗ and I thought that list from PPC was a

50:41 ↗ great starting point

50:45 ↗ I think you just hit the nail on the

50:46 ↗ head the the the thing that was feeling

50:49 ↗ uncomfortable for me on these final

50:51 ↗ policy questions was that it was going

50:53 ↗ down into the weeds and you're

50:55 ↗ absolutely right that the reason these

50:56 ↗ are the questions that are coming up is

50:58 ↗ because they came up at the end

51:01 ↗ um

51:02 ↗ and I think taking a step back up in

51:07 ↗ level

51:08 ↗ when we're posing this to council at

51:11 ↗ this next stage is really much more

51:13 ↗ important so being able to say here were

51:17 ↗ some of the big as we used to say in the

51:20 ↗ ad hoc the big meaty questions that

51:22 ↗ triggered the goals and outcomes chart

51:25 ↗ being able to identify those again that

51:28 ↗ came from the PPC letter that said these

51:30 ↗ are the remaining ones and then maybe

51:32 ↗ here's some of the big ideas and one of

51:35 ↗ those was

51:37 ↗ um

51:39 ↗ are

51:40 ↗ are criteria for rezones

51:44 ↗ that was another one that we kind of

51:46 ↗ talked about that I think

51:49 ↗ are one of those big things but not

51:53 ↗ necessarily like the outdoor amenity

51:54 ↗ space because that's

51:56 ↗ just a it's less of a policy it's a

52:00 ↗ smaller piece

52:02 ↗ so I don't know how that changes it but

52:06 ↗ yeah you've triggered something for me

52:11 ↗ I don't know if I'm following

52:13 ↗ so maybe maybe you can walk through that

52:15 ↗ again because I thought that's what

52:16 ↗ these were that is what I thought

52:18 ↗ well so

52:21 ↗ I was reading the code today the draft

52:25 ↗ it's about 700 pages long I think

52:28 ↗ throughout the process that we've

52:31 ↗ talked about all these items there have

52:33 ↗ been things like this that have come up

52:35 ↗ you know about the amenities face as an

52:37 ↗ example that have come up that we've

52:39 ↗ that planning policy has made a

52:41 ↗ recommendation Council has or this

52:43 ↗ committee has discussed and we've made a

52:45 ↗ recommendation so there are many

52:46 ↗ different

52:48 ↗ um

52:49 ↗ levers you know policy decisions that

52:51 ↗ have been made along the way and I think

52:56 ↗ singling out these

52:59 ↗ um

52:59 ↗ for the discussion

53:02 ↗ was because they emerged at the end and

53:06 ↗ so because of that and and recognizing

53:09 ↗ that we're at the end I think rather

53:11 ↗ than

53:12 ↗ rather than treat these differently and

53:15 ↗ send these to council as the meaty

53:17 ↗ questions maybe we identify if there are

53:21 ↗ meaty questions that that remain we need

53:23 ↗ to identify those as needing additional

53:26 ↗ work and that would that would be the

53:30 ↗ policy discussion that would come out of

53:32 ↗ this recognizing again that this is at

53:35 ↗ at the end of the process for title 18.

53:41 ↗ does that make sense to

53:44 ↗ sure I mean you can brainstorm and come

53:47 ↗ up with some questions and then you'll

53:48 ↗ kind of see yes that you're going on the

53:50 ↗ right path uh I mean you're right uh

53:52 ↗ throughout this process even with the

53:54 ↗ gaps analysis you know some of the

53:56 ↗ policy questions were do you want to get

53:58 ↗ rid of buffer averaging and buffer

54:00 ↗ reductions you know there was a lot of

54:02 ↗ information throughout from PPC that

54:04 ↗ weighed in what's the process for do you

54:08 ↗ want to still have a development

54:09 ↗ commission role in reviewing

54:10 ↗ quasi-judicial matters I mean all of

54:12 ↗ that there were a lot of higher level

54:14 ↗ policy questions that were asked that

54:16 ↗ informed the first draft

54:18 ↗ then the first draft we had policy

54:21 ↗ discussions on those so yes this is The

54:23 ↗ Tail End based on all the six topic

54:27 ↗ areas but but I guess the question then

54:30 ↗ is what do you think from your opinion

54:32 ↗ from this committee's opinion needs more

54:34 ↗ work and maybe just teasing that out for

54:37 ↗ the council would be important because

54:38 ↗ if we list all the policy questions that

54:40 ↗ all the work then then we're going back

54:42 ↗ and that then it becomes too

54:45 ↗ you know it's good to highlight that but

54:48 ↗ those were decisions that were made

54:49 ↗ along the way right so I'm I want to do

54:52 ↗ the opposite of of unrolling all of

54:56 ↗ those policy discussions and and do what

54:59 ↗ you said in the middle there which is

55:01 ↗ I identify you know for example I went

55:05 ↗ back and looked at the view shed that

55:07 ↗ was when we grappled with how to protect

55:09 ↗ views it's a difficult

55:11 ↗ it's a difficult thing

55:14 ↗ um so that one probably that was singled

55:17 ↗ out by PBC I do recall there was a lot

55:20 ↗ of discussion on that one that one we

55:22 ↗ could single out as something that we

55:24 ↗ need to at least review

55:28 ↗ a year in or so to see how that code is

55:30 ↗ doing but separated out as something

55:32 ↗ that we believe needs additional

55:34 ↗ considerations get added on the

55:36 ↗ Whiteboard list so I think it'll be good

55:38 ↗ to kind of compare what you guys think

55:40 ↗ is missing from the Whiteboard list that

55:42 ↗ is also missing from the code that we

55:45 ↗ need to kind of address perhaps because

55:47 ↗ the viewership can be done it just needs

55:50 ↗ more you know on the ground assessments

55:52 ↗ from this corner of the street this is

55:54 ↗ the view and this is what we want our

55:56 ↗ development regulations to be not these

55:57 ↗ broad statements that we currently have

55:59 ↗ in the code but we carried forward I

56:01 ↗ think what was in the code until we got

56:05 ↗ time to address it on the Whiteboard

56:07 ↗ list yeah so I I guess you know to your

56:10 ↗ your question about sort of where am I

56:12 ↗ going with this when I was looking at

56:13 ↗ the ppc's recommendation for things that

56:16 ↗ they felt we need to give additional

56:18 ↗ review that felt like a much more like

56:20 ↗ meaty end result list and I would like I

56:25 ↗ would I think it would be helpful for

56:26 ↗ our committee to come out with a list

56:29 ↗ like that that we can then talk through

56:31 ↗ with Council and I think it also goes to

56:33 ↗ council president Walsh when you said

56:34 ↗ you want to start with the future

56:37 ↗ updates as the framing then this sort of

56:39 ↗ ties it this could tie it together you

56:41 ↗ have future updates you have all the

56:43 ↗ things that we've done all of the

56:45 ↗ discussions that we've had and then we

56:46 ↗ as a council come together about what

56:49 ↗ um

56:51 ↗ if there are things that haven't haven't

56:53 ↗ been done to our satisfaction those get

56:57 ↗ put on this review extra consideration

57:00 ↗ list

57:06 ↗ so I I it sounds like there's a variety

57:09 ↗ of levels here I think first and

57:11 ↗ foremost

57:12 ↗ I think we need to focus would recommend

57:15 ↗ the committee focus on the code you have

57:18 ↗ in front of you

57:19 ↗ so if there are outstanding issues that

57:21 ↗ you are not satisfied with the committee

57:23 ↗ as a committee those would be questions

57:26 ↗ to pull out

57:28 ↗ um I think the the next layer that the

57:31 ↗ councilmember hunt talking about is sort

57:34 ↗ of here are some of the bigger things

57:35 ↗ that have been decided and here are some

57:37 ↗ of the thought processes so that your

57:39 ↗ colleagues and the larger Community are

57:40 ↗ aware that that works happened and so

57:43 ↗ certainly you come up with a list we can

57:45 ↗ come up with a list together of you know

57:48 ↗ three four five of those meteor topics

57:51 ↗ uh to discuss there's a lot of record

57:54 ↗ here

57:56 ↗ um and so it may be just a matter of the

57:59 ↗ committee saying here are the topics and

58:01 ↗ here are some links to the staff reports

58:03 ↗ here's some links to this committee's

58:06 ↗ discussion or ppc's discussion rather

58:08 ↗ than rehashing that but for the record

58:10 ↗ to share with your colleagues if they

58:13 ↗ want to delve into it a little bit

58:14 ↗ further here's four or five things I

58:16 ↗ think a third level then are the next

58:18 ↗ steps and I think the Whiteboard has

58:20 ↗ been the vehicle for better or worse of

58:22 ↗ those next steps if there's anything

58:24 ↗ else that this committee feels needs to

58:27 ↗ be said about that their prioritization

58:29 ↗ additional items

58:31 ↗ that that would be then sort of a third

58:32 ↗ level but I think there are three

58:34 ↗ distinct things first and foremost is is

58:37 ↗ there anything in the draft that you're

58:39 ↗ still unhappy with that you want your

58:41 ↗ colleagues to weigh in on so I think

58:43 ↗ that would be the first question

58:45 ↗ um and then that's a question for

58:46 ↗ tonight uh the other two questions I

58:49 ↗ think we can talk further but does that

58:51 ↗ sound like a reasonable

58:53 ↗ approach or summary of what's been said

58:55 ↗ thus far this evening

59:00 ↗ so among well let's take question one of

59:03 ↗ what you have before you are there any

59:06 ↗ questions you want guidance on for final

59:09 ↗ language

59:11 ↗ either among the six that were

59:12 ↗ identified or anything else

59:17 ↗ that we want guidance on you mean that

59:19 ↗ we would want to tee up for the council

59:22 ↗ right the the committee is not satisfied

59:24 ↗ with the current language there are

59:25 ↗ options to be considered and that you

59:27 ↗ would want the council to weigh in on

59:29 ↗ what that final language should be

59:35 ↗ um

59:37 ↗ no I don't think there are items for me

59:39 ↗ I think

59:40 ↗ that

59:48 ↗ yeah I think putting in the outdoor

59:50 ↗ amenity space at 100 square feet the

59:54 ↗ suggestions that we made for the Steep

59:56 ↗ slip buffers and the critical area code

59:58 ↗ for non-conforming structures I think

1:00:01 ↗ those are examples of kind of

1:00:05 ↗ last minute changes maybe that

1:00:09 ↗ are being included

1:00:12 ↗ but I feel pretty comfortable moving

1:00:15 ↗ forward with those I think some of the

1:00:18 ↗ others

1:00:19 ↗ for me go into that meaty topics concept

1:00:29 ↗ okay

1:00:33 ↗ um

1:00:33 ↗ okay I still feel like I'm not

1:00:35 ↗ completely following all of this and

1:00:37 ↗ maybe there's some

1:00:39 ↗ context having been on ad hoc and the

1:00:41 ↗ committee for so long that you know

1:00:43 ↗ which issues you've grappled with right

1:00:45 ↗ and and that's a new memory I wouldn't

1:00:47 ↗ have that but I thought in particular we

1:00:49 ↗ talked about the site-specific rezones

1:00:51 ↗ the criteria in particular at our last

1:00:53 ↗ meeting and because it was

1:00:57 ↗ different than the recommendation put

1:00:59 ↗ forth by planning policy commission that

1:01:01 ↗ was one that we did want to tee up so I

1:01:02 ↗ do think that one is worthy of taking up

1:01:04 ↗ to the full Council to answer your

1:01:05 ↗ question

1:01:07 ↗ to to to change language or merely to

1:01:10 ↗ flag as a flag do you agree with us okay

1:01:13 ↗ so that'd be a second you'll allow me

1:01:16 ↗ the analogy as a second bucket issue

1:01:18 ↗ that

1:01:19 ↗ so is there any language Deputy council

1:01:21 ↗ president in the draft before you that

1:01:24 ↗ you would want your colleagues to

1:01:25 ↗ comment

1:01:31 ↗ so we could start

1:01:33 ↗ I think we've outlined sort of the

1:01:35 ↗ general overview you want to cover the

1:01:37 ↗ history of all that but first point is

1:01:40 ↗ the draft before you is the recommended

1:01:42 ↗ draft from the committee

1:01:44 ↗ that correct

1:01:47 ↗ okay so if that's the correct then the

1:01:49 ↗ second issue would be we've just spent

1:01:52 ↗ the last year of Our Lives going through

1:01:54 ↗ this full city council and we've

1:01:56 ↗ grappled along with the planning policy

1:01:58 ↗ committee with several significant

1:02:00 ↗ issues we want to talk to you about

1:02:02 ↗ those significant issues and how we came

1:02:05 ↗ to the conclusion we came to

1:02:08 ↗ so if that's the case Deputy council

1:02:12 ↗ president just named one are there

1:02:14 ↗ others that you would like to walk

1:02:16 ↗ through and we could then you know put

1:02:19 ↗ together in writing a summary and then

1:02:23 ↗ have links to the discussions of this

1:02:25 ↗ committee the discussion of PPC so we

1:02:27 ↗ can raise it and then ask your

1:02:29 ↗ colleagues

1:02:30 ↗ we've made this information available to

1:02:32 ↗ you here's a general summary of the

1:02:34 ↗ topic do you have any questions

1:02:39 ↗ so we just need a list of what those

1:02:42 ↗ larger topics would be that you'd want

1:02:43 ↗ to highlight

1:02:45 ↗ well and I think you've mentioned a few

1:02:47 ↗ of them from the PPC letter on the site

1:02:50 ↗ specific reasons I'd also mention the

1:02:52 ↗ process switching to the hearing

1:02:54 ↗ examiner rather than the council being

1:02:57 ↗ the quasi-judicial decision maker

1:03:00 ↗ because that was certainly something

1:03:02 ↗ that we were interested in doing and

1:03:04 ↗ want to make sure that that is

1:03:06 ↗ highlighted and that everyone still

1:03:09 ↗ agrees with that as a fairly large scale

1:03:11 ↗ change

1:03:13 ↗ [Music]

1:03:13 ↗ um

1:03:14 ↗ and then beyond that

1:03:17 ↗ I would wonder how the future updates

1:03:21 ↗ gets into ahead of yourself I know I am

1:03:25 ↗ um the other one I might put in there is

1:03:28 ↗ the concept of parking how we created a

1:03:32 ↗ two-tier system though again that does

1:03:35 ↗ also go into the future updates because

1:03:37 ↗ parking's also going to be discussed at

1:03:40 ↗ that point and we'll get there in a

1:03:42 ↗ minute I know but

1:03:44 ↗ still a meaty question related to the

1:03:47 ↗ kind of two-tier idea yeah so so it

1:03:51 ↗ sounds like what we you know we've we've

1:03:54 ↗ had those six questions that we're

1:03:55 ↗ adding some confusion about why only

1:03:57 ↗ these six and these came at the tail end

1:03:59 ↗ uh perhaps

1:04:00 ↗ highlights from the existing code that

1:04:03 ↗ PD that this committee feels like should

1:04:06 ↗ be highlighted for full Council list

1:04:09 ↗ what are the six questions still in play

1:04:11 ↗ or not based on council member hunts

1:04:15 ↗ idea so this we would we're taking those

1:04:18 ↗ six questions off the table okay and

1:04:20 ↗ that the council is moving forward this

1:04:22 ↗ committee is recommending the full the

1:04:24 ↗ draft as is

1:04:26 ↗ and then highlighting what's now what

1:04:29 ↗ four or five points that have been

1:04:32 ↗ raised to say here was the policy

1:04:34 ↗ question here's how PPC dealt with it

1:04:36 ↗ here's how the committee dealt with it

1:04:37 ↗ and this is what is included in the

1:04:39 ↗ final draft before you yeah I mean if

1:04:42 ↗ the

1:04:49 ↗ free zone one everything else is the

1:04:51 ↗ same that PPC recommended then we can

1:04:54 ↗ just capture it that way but is that

1:04:57 ↗ where this committee is I thought well I

1:05:00 ↗ didn't agree with the

1:05:02 ↗ um the Wetland non-conforming one

1:05:05 ↗ so maybe you should discuss the three of

1:05:08 ↗ you and say if there's any

1:05:11 ↗ that was the 500 square feet

1:05:14 ↗ um expansion along the building side

1:05:16 ↗ with no critical area study

1:05:21 ↗ um so you're saying that is something

1:05:23 ↗ that you didn't agree with right

1:05:30 ↗ uh basic premise being that it's

1:05:34 ↗ allowing a non-conforming it's allowing

1:05:37 ↗ to continue

1:05:38 ↗ being more non-conforming

1:05:43 ↗ yeah so the code you know the testing

1:05:46 ↗ process there were multiple options that

1:05:48 ↗ were laid out and one was

1:05:52 ↗ um

1:05:53 ↗ to only allow

1:05:55 ↗ um you know building over existing

1:05:57 ↗ impervious surface but not require a

1:05:59 ↗ critical area study I think everyone

1:06:01 ↗ sort of agreed that that was fine to

1:06:02 ↗ make the second part was to add to allow

1:06:06 ↗ 500 square foot expansions outside of

1:06:09 ↗ the paved area within the buffers with

1:06:12 ↗ one-to-one exchange for enhancing the

1:06:14 ↗ buffers and with the critical area study

1:06:17 ↗ so if the committee feels that needs to

1:06:21 ↗ come out we can take that out of the

1:06:23 ↗ proposed draft and

1:06:26 ↗ yeah so I I don't support that one

1:06:28 ↗ because I don't think we typically allow

1:06:32 ↗ non-conforming uses to become more

1:06:34 ↗ non-conforming which this this would

1:06:36 ↗ also it's in a wetland buffer we are

1:06:39 ↗ endeavoring to protect our environment

1:06:41 ↗ and our Wetland buffers more with this

1:06:43 ↗ update and I don't feel that does that

1:06:44 ↗ and the other thing is enhancements are

1:06:46 ↗ great it's very difficult to monitor

1:06:49 ↗ their success and their long-lasting

1:06:51 ↗ impact so not building in the buffer we

1:06:56 ↗ know that that building in the buffer

1:06:58 ↗ will not happen versus an enhancement

1:07:00 ↗ that may or may not

1:07:03 ↗ um be successful

1:07:04 ↗ in terms of planting Etc

1:07:08 ↗ so this could be similar to that site

1:07:10 ↗ specific reason we could Tee It Up for

1:07:12 ↗ full Council discussion you know if if

1:07:15 ↗ you're not prepared to

1:07:16 ↗ weigh in as a committee then maybe that

1:07:18 ↗ that moves forward for full Council to

1:07:20 ↗ weigh in

1:07:23 ↗ yeah I think that's a good idea because

1:07:24 ↗ I don't know if I necessarily agree with

1:07:26 ↗ that assessment either and I was because

1:07:28 ↗ I was going to ask start getting into a

1:07:30 ↗ line of questions and maybe this isn't

1:07:31 ↗ the right

1:07:32 ↗ forum for that I mean is it true that we

1:07:35 ↗ don't generally allow non-conforming

1:07:37 ↗ properties to become more non-conforming

1:07:39 ↗ in any way

1:07:41 ↗ that's correct yes okay so why

1:07:44 ↗ do we have this recommendation for

1:07:46 ↗ option three this came through the code

1:07:48 ↗ testing provisions of the limitation on

1:07:51 ↗ single family homes to not make these

1:07:54 ↗ modest Home Improvements and additions

1:07:56 ↗ adding a new deck and things like that

1:07:58 ↗ if you're in a buffer so the language

1:08:01 ↗ that was presented as options was you

1:08:05 ↗ know you already have a interrupted

1:08:06 ↗ buffer so if you're a streamer Wetland

1:08:08 ↗ is here you already have a structure

1:08:10 ↗ here as long as you're not removing any

1:08:11 ↗ trees you can do small additions but

1:08:15 ↗ with the hope that there would be some

1:08:16 ↗ gain to the environment because you're

1:08:18 ↗ you know planting and doing one-to-one

1:08:21 ↗ enhancement

1:08:23 ↗ there was a to address the code testing

1:08:26 ↗ comments that came came through

1:08:30 ↗ okay and then your suggestion just now

1:08:32 ↗ before my question was that we tee this

1:08:35 ↗ one up recognizing that the committee is

1:08:37 ↗ not necessarily or the way it's written

1:08:40 ↗ in the code did you want from Council to

1:08:42 ↗ weigh in you know is it something that

1:08:44 ↗ you all can decide today and and we can

1:08:48 ↗ include you know we can either keep it

1:08:50 ↗ in the code with the yppc recommended or

1:08:53 ↗ if this committee feels it needs to come

1:08:55 ↗ off we can you know highlight it for

1:08:57 ↗ full Council

1:08:58 ↗ that this was PPC or PPC similar to the

1:09:01 ↗ site-specific reason they crafted their

1:09:04 ↗ edits to the criteria you all felt

1:09:07 ↗ criteria number two should probably all

1:09:09 ↗ go away and

1:09:11 ↗ so this this can fall in that same

1:09:13 ↗ category

1:09:15 ↗ different than ppc's recommendation but

1:09:17 ↗ here's here's what you've teed up for

1:09:21 ↗ Council to weigh in on

1:09:22 ↗ category

1:09:25 ↗ I think there are so many so many pieces

1:09:29 ↗ of this code that I don't want to I

1:09:32 ↗ don't want to get too tripped up on this

1:09:34 ↗ but I will say we can do a thumbs up

1:09:36 ↗ thumbs down on this and make

1:09:39 ↗ recommendation it does seem like

1:09:44 ↗ emerged at the end because we're

1:09:45 ↗ co-testing but it's not necessarily the

1:09:47 ↗ biggest topic but we might not

1:09:48 ↗ necessarily need to do a thumbs up so

1:09:51 ↗ the idea then would be to remove it but

1:09:53 ↗ then say this was something that came up

1:09:55 ↗ during code testing feedback is Council

1:09:57 ↗ interested in this but the committee

1:09:59 ↗ moved forward with just option one for

1:10:02 ↗ expansion along current impervious

1:10:04 ↗ surface right

1:10:06 ↗ I mean I'd be fine with that as long as

1:10:07 ↗ it's teed up for discussion yeah I think

1:10:10 ↗ that's a perfectly fine way to go

1:10:12 ↗ because you did point out that we don't

1:10:15 ↗ allow expansion and so of non-conforming

1:10:19 ↗ areas so the idea of

1:10:22 ↗ adding something into our code that in

1:10:26 ↗ many ways goes against our goals I think

1:10:29 ↗ would be important to tee up for the

1:10:31 ↗ full Council but doing it in a way that

1:10:33 ↗ says

1:10:34 ↗ we we're going to suggest that the draft

1:10:37 ↗ code include option one

1:10:44 ↗ again this is for clarity So based on

1:10:46 ↗ the discussion you just had you're

1:10:48 ↗ saying that you'll include the language

1:10:50 ↗ but you want to at least highlight it or

1:10:53 ↗ you want to say you're agreeing to

1:10:54 ↗ everything else that's before in the 700

1:10:56 ↗ pages with the exception of this one

1:10:58 ↗ portion and you want counsel to discuss

1:11:00 ↗ it

1:11:03 ↗ I think what we just said was we

1:11:07 ↗ wouldn't

1:11:09 ↗ recommend ppc's suggestions that we

1:11:13 ↗ would like to revert it to option one

1:11:16 ↗ okay and so similar to the site-specific

1:11:20 ↗ rezone we will present a full draft

1:11:24 ↗ but we will highlight hey here was an

1:11:27 ↗ area where pde and PPC

1:11:31 ↗ disagreed so it's that second bucket

1:11:33 ↗ we've been talking yes got it is that

1:11:35 ↗ clear staff okay

1:11:37 ↗ so we're back to

1:11:40 ↗ full recommended text and for bucket one

1:11:44 ↗ bucket two then we've just added another

1:11:46 ↗ area to highlight

1:11:49 ↗ and I see Christian nodding so that's

1:11:51 ↗ good news

1:11:52 ↗ um and the other thing which I think we

1:11:55 ↗ agreed on last meeting but which would

1:11:59 ↗ be in bucket two according to this

1:12:01 ↗ categorization I believe is the

1:12:04 ↗ um the zero lot line

1:12:07 ↗ because that was right that was

1:12:09 ↗ recommended at the last minute by prep

1:12:11 ↗ you see so yeah the way this

1:12:13 ↗ conversation is shaping up will have the

1:12:16 ↗ PPC recommended draft obviously that

1:12:18 ↗ will include all the six things that PPC

1:12:20 ↗ weighed in on despite specific reason uh

1:12:23 ↗ zero lot line and this non-conforming in

1:12:26 ↗ in critical areas will be the three

1:12:28 ↗ things with we can write that up as you

1:12:30 ↗ weighed in and these are some of your

1:12:32 ↗ thoughts on on those three topics yes

1:12:37 ↗ so would you like staff to

1:12:39 ↗ to re-back is that you're saying there's

1:12:41 ↗ three things on the second bucket list

1:12:43 ↗ correct site specifically Zone criteria

1:12:46 ↗ the non-conforming

1:12:49 ↗ structures in critical areas

1:12:54 ↗ and the zero lot line so three items

1:12:58 ↗ that PPC have made a recommendation but

1:13:01 ↗ you all had different uh take on it yeah

1:13:06 ↗ and then what about the ones that you

1:13:07 ↗ brought up earlier that were from the

1:13:09 ↗ PPC letter

1:13:11 ↗ three that's bucket three right well but

1:13:14 ↗ that's for things that require further

1:13:16 ↗ study so were there things other topics

1:13:18 ↗ that you wanted to amplify even if you

1:13:20 ↗ were in agreement with PPC that were

1:13:23 ↗ large policy questions I thought that's

1:13:25 ↗ kind of where you were also headed that

1:13:28 ↗ even if there was agreement you wanted

1:13:29 ↗ to flag it and discuss the process that

1:13:32 ↗ got to that agreement

1:13:33 ↗ yeah so the two that I had put down on

1:13:36 ↗ there were the tiered parking structure

1:13:39 ↗ because that's a big change and then the

1:13:43 ↗ hearing examiner versus Council

1:13:46 ↗ quasi-judicial decision making on those

1:13:48 ↗ site-specific rezones because that is a

1:13:51 ↗ big change that very much affects

1:13:54 ↗ Council and how we interact with the

1:13:55 ↗ code

1:13:57 ↗ so that's we're now up to five

1:14:00 ↗ correct so that's bucket one right one

1:14:03 ↗ two

1:14:04 ↗ the bucket bucket one is they're going

1:14:06 ↗ to recommend approving the entire text

1:14:08 ↗ as is okay bucket two now has five items

1:14:11 ↗ that have been enumerated

1:14:14 ↗ and we're going to help the committee

1:14:16 ↗ explain the process on those five issues

1:14:21 ↗ are there any more issues you want to

1:14:23 ↗ put in that bucket

1:14:25 ↗ um I am wondering if my

1:14:28 ↗ colleagues on this committee would

1:14:30 ↗ want to add the tree canopy

1:14:35 ↗ changes that is when we

1:14:38 ↗ grappled with it is a big change it got

1:14:40 ↗ a lot of comments

1:14:42 ↗ um from environmental board as well as

1:14:45 ↗ planning policy

1:14:48 ↗ committee

1:14:52 ↗ so that's the concept that the tree

1:14:54 ↗ canopy coverage targets replace the

1:14:57 ↗ minimum tree density

1:15:00 ↗ and and also the um

1:15:04 ↗ this is from memory but the tree

1:15:06 ↗ needing a permit and not basically

1:15:09 ↗ making it more difficult to or more

1:15:12 ↗ eliminating the notification thing and

1:15:14 ↗ just making it a permit yeah yeah

1:15:17 ↗ yeah

1:15:18 ↗ okay I think that's a big change area

1:15:22 ↗ and you're right that did include a lot

1:15:24 ↗ of uh comments

1:15:26 ↗ so

1:15:29 ↗ that's six

1:15:41 ↗ the other ones for this bucket when

1:15:43 ↗ would be maybe it's not this bucket but

1:15:45 ↗ when would be inappropriate I'd like to

1:15:47 ↗ explore the idea that came up during

1:15:49 ↗ public comment and talk about some

1:15:51 ↗ options way forwards that I see okay

1:15:53 ↗ let's but maybe we want to finish up

1:15:55 ↗ this bucket first

1:15:57 ↗ right I don't have anything else though

1:15:59 ↗ so you have six items of that are

1:16:01 ↗ contained within the approved text that

1:16:04 ↗ you want to talk about

1:16:17 ↗ so then the third bucket is the future

1:16:19 ↗ worker

1:16:22 ↗ either the prioritization of what's

1:16:24 ↗ currently on the Whiteboard

1:16:26 ↗ additional items

1:16:29 ↗ um

1:16:30 ↗ check in points I think that also now

1:16:33 ↗ has come up a couple of times is this

1:16:35 ↗ something that you can we'll look at the

1:16:37 ↗ whole code at some interval are there

1:16:39 ↗ particular sections you want to look at

1:16:41 ↗ at some interval

1:16:43 ↗ um I think those all fall under than the

1:16:45 ↗ third bucket so that I guess with all

1:16:48 ↗ that together you're likely asking the

1:16:51 ↗ council as far as action that those

1:16:53 ↗ items then be referred back to this

1:16:55 ↗ committee and this committee then has

1:16:57 ↗ some jurisdiction to monitor I'm looking

1:17:00 ↗ at many because I'm making this up as

1:17:02 ↗ I'm talking

1:17:03 ↗ um the the committee would then have

1:17:06 ↗ jurisdiction over that

1:17:09 ↗ I think we've been trying to get away

1:17:10 ↗ from whiteboard future projects lists

1:17:13 ↗ for lack I think that's better than

1:17:14 ↗ whiteboard but that would be something

1:17:16 ↗ which would be enumerated on a list that

1:17:19 ↗ the council then would vote on to say

1:17:22 ↗ yes we agree with the committee's

1:17:24 ↗ recommendation and we you know Remain

1:17:26 ↗ the items back to the committee for

1:17:28 ↗ further study and monitoring

1:17:33 ↗ yeah I think that makes a whole lot of

1:17:36 ↗ sense because it doesn't get into all of

1:17:39 ↗ the fine details but it says these are

1:17:41 ↗ going to be the items on PD's list

1:17:46 ↗ um which includes these future update

1:17:48 ↗ items some of which will be handled by

1:17:50 ↗ the happy Grant some of which will be

1:17:52 ↗ individual items and then things like it

1:17:57 ↗ also recognizes that we've heard the

1:18:00 ↗ feedback from PPC particularly that

1:18:02 ↗ talked about hey here are some items

1:18:04 ↗ that still felt a little bit

1:18:06 ↗ questionable that need more details such

1:18:08 ↗ as the few sheds

1:18:13 ↗ so what's on this list

1:18:17 ↗ okay so I think that for this list the

1:18:20 ↗ ppcs list is a really good starting

1:18:23 ↗ point we don't need to include missing

1:18:25 ↗ middle housing affordable housing

1:18:27 ↗ because those are already singled out as

1:18:31 ↗ additional work and we actually already

1:18:32 ↗ have work plan items to address those

1:18:36 ↗ specifically

1:18:37 ↗ parking regulations similar

1:18:41 ↗ then Sustainable Building design was the

1:18:44 ↗ first one on their list and I believe

1:18:45 ↗ that that is part of the environmental

1:18:47 ↗ um

1:18:49 ↗ updates uh environmental updates that's

1:18:51 ↗ part of it there's a there's a plan for

1:18:53 ↗ those as well Sustainable Building in

1:18:55 ↗ the building code

1:18:56 ↗ yeah so we'll be working with Stacy and

1:18:58 ↗ that but um on the sustainable buildings

1:19:01 ↗ you know what what's also changing is

1:19:03 ↗ the building code so you you know that's

1:19:06 ↗ coming up uh teed up for your discussion

1:19:08 ↗ in May I believe or it's coming up soon

1:19:12 ↗ so a whole another redo of energy code

1:19:15 ↗ and things like that that are part of

1:19:17 ↗ that package of so it's not necessarily

1:19:20 ↗ so we have this fix in this Title 18 of

1:19:23 ↗ third-party certification so sustainable

1:19:26 ↗ buildings I think it's it's on the

1:19:29 ↗ Whiteboard list at this time but um

1:19:32 ↗ certainly it could be prioritized from

1:19:34 ↗ the Whiteboard list but after the

1:19:35 ↗ building code update because I think

1:19:38 ↗ that'll that'll include a lot of updates

1:19:40 ↗ that are desired anyways so that leaves

1:19:43 ↗ definitions which is the amount of

1:19:46 ↗ definitions I believe

1:19:48 ↗ um continued Environmental Protection

1:19:50 ↗ increase transparency and Greater

1:19:53 ↗ Community involvement and then review

1:19:54 ↗ abusability and accessibility so those

1:19:57 ↗ I think is really

1:19:59 ↗ good starting list

1:20:01 ↗ uh did I say view shed yes I think yep

1:20:06 ↗ okay so let me make sure I'm

1:20:08 ↗ understanding this it would be the

1:20:09 ↗ future updates list

1:20:11 ↗ plus definitions view shed Environmental

1:20:16 ↗ Protection

1:20:18 ↗ um

1:20:19 ↗ transparency and then

1:20:22 ↗ usability review

1:20:25 ↗ so those are kind of maybe

1:20:28 ↗ concepts of things that

1:20:31 ↗ would come back to PPC either as future

1:20:35 ↗ topics that we need to discuss or

1:20:39 ↗ things that

1:20:41 ↗ we would look to monitor at us

1:20:44 ↗ specific interval after the code release

1:20:47 ↗ either six months or a year or something

1:20:50 ↗ like that

1:20:53 ↗ I think that works out great

1:21:00 ↗ we'll let them figure things out

1:21:05 ↗ so I think I think

1:21:08 ↗ I think we agreed on the on the list up

1:21:10 ↗ here yeah but

1:21:12 ↗ um can you read

1:21:14 ↗ Yeah so basically it's it's a lot that

1:21:18 ↗ is listed in the PPC letter as you said

1:21:21 ↗ um some of which gets covered with the

1:21:23 ↗ future updates list but then you've also

1:21:26 ↗ got definitions view shed preservation

1:21:29 ↗ continued Environmental Protections

1:21:31 ↗ increased transparency through Greater

1:21:34 ↗ Community involvement and then kind of a

1:21:36 ↗ review of usability and accessibility

1:21:41 ↗ um as well as like a six month to a year

1:21:45 ↗ out review that we would do of how the

1:21:48 ↗ code's been used

1:21:53 ↗ so with that CPD staff will draft this

1:21:56 ↗ as a list sure we'll include it in our

1:22:01 ↗ memo of well I think we're going to have

1:22:04 ↗ to let it travel separately okay because

1:22:06 ↗ we're gonna we was talking with the city

1:22:08 ↗ attorney about what the actions are so

1:22:11 ↗ staff is proposing there'll be 10

1:22:13 ↗ ordinances to enact the code so and

1:22:17 ↗ those ordinances according to Stephen

1:22:19 ↗ will be ready for the committee of the

1:22:21 ↗ whole agenda packet

1:22:23 ↗ so you are you are I think talking about

1:22:27 ↗ three

1:22:29 ↗ you know three groups of actions the

1:22:31 ↗ first group is you would be recommending

1:22:33 ↗ the committee would be recommending

1:22:34 ↗ approval of the ten ordinances

1:22:36 ↗ secondly the committee would be uh

1:22:40 ↗ proposing a discussion of the six topic

1:22:42 ↗ areas and so that would occur at the

1:22:45 ↗ committee of the whole

1:22:47 ↗ um and then if you're satisfied with

1:22:49 ↗ that I guess the question is does that

1:22:51 ↗ discussion live on in any other kind of

1:22:53 ↗ formal way or you just have the

1:22:54 ↗ discussion at the committee of the whole

1:22:56 ↗ and you're done

1:22:59 ↗ my sense is that it would you would just

1:23:01 ↗ have the discussion to inform the action

1:23:04 ↗ on the 10 ordinances I I think that is

1:23:08 ↗ likely I think it's also possible that

1:23:11 ↗ from that discussion the other four

1:23:14 ↗ council members might have an issue and

1:23:17 ↗ feel differently right we this will be

1:23:19 ↗ the first time they come back so they

1:23:20 ↗ have the we we at the council have

1:23:22 ↗ prerogative

1:23:23 ↗ so that would be amending one of one or

1:23:27 ↗ more of the ten ordinances potentially

1:23:28 ↗ right so so that could that item then I

1:23:32 ↗ think is just a presentation the third

1:23:34 ↗ item then is this list

1:23:36 ↗ and I think the question just and I

1:23:38 ↗ would think that the council ultimately

1:23:40 ↗ would want to approve the list and refer

1:23:42 ↗ back to committee so if there's 10

1:23:45 ↗ ordinances in the list

1:23:46 ↗ that's 11 and 11 actions that you would

1:23:50 ↗ be recommending so we'll put this

1:23:52 ↗ together for the committee of the whole

1:23:54 ↗ then it'll be the committee this

1:23:57 ↗ committee recommending approval to 10

1:23:58 ↗ ordinances of recommending approval of

1:24:02 ↗ the future projects list and then the

1:24:05 ↗ discussion of the six items that were

1:24:07 ↗ identified this evening more in depth if

1:24:09 ↗ the committee of the whole is satisfied

1:24:12 ↗ with that then we would take this to

1:24:14 ↗ hearing on April the

1:24:17 ↗ 17th so on April the 17th would appear

1:24:21 ↗ the 10 ordinances

1:24:24 ↗ and I don't know that you'd have to have

1:24:26 ↗ the hearing on the list

1:24:29 ↗ so you'd have the hearing on the 10

1:24:30 ↗ ordinances and then that would come back

1:24:33 ↗ then for final Council action on April

1:24:36 ↗ or May the

1:24:38 ↗ May the first first May 1st would be the

1:24:40 ↗ 10 ordinances and the list

1:24:46 ↗ that makes sense

1:24:49 ↗ tied up with a nice bow

1:24:51 ↗ that I think that's really useful to be

1:24:53 ↗ able to talk about what toward what end

1:24:56 ↗ toward what purpose and so tying it into

1:24:59 ↗ 10 ordinances and a recommendation list

1:25:02 ↗ as well as a discussion list that could

1:25:05 ↗ end up with amendments to those 10

1:25:08 ↗ really solidifies why we're talking

1:25:11 ↗ about things and it also helps because I

1:25:14 ↗ think you started the evening really

1:25:15 ↗ struggling with what you want your

1:25:17 ↗ colleagues to do and so I think you have

1:25:19 ↗ now made the path for your colleagues

1:25:21 ↗ much more straightforward to say here is

1:25:25 ↗ albeit 700 Pages here is here is the

1:25:28 ↗ text that you were approving as is many

1:25:31 ↗ many documents many many recorded

1:25:33 ↗ meetings to refer to if they wish to

1:25:35 ↗ you've identified then six things for

1:25:37 ↗ their attention and we can work with

1:25:39 ↗ them prior to the committee of the whole

1:25:41 ↗ if they have specific questions about

1:25:43 ↗ that because they'll now say okay out of

1:25:45 ↗ 700 Pages the committee has said here

1:25:47 ↗ are six big chunks that while there's

1:25:50 ↗ language you're recommending that you're

1:25:52 ↗ still concerned about and then I think

1:25:54 ↗ this last list I mean it satisfies PPC

1:25:58 ↗ it satisfies our other boards and

1:26:00 ↗ commissions it satisfies this committee

1:26:02 ↗ and it holds the staff and the

1:26:04 ↗ administration accountable not sort of

1:26:07 ↗ in a mushy way but hopefully in a little

1:26:09 ↗ bit more concrete way and then we can

1:26:10 ↗ revisit this list

1:26:12 ↗ over time

1:26:16 ↗ okay

1:26:18 ↗ great thank you for the summary as well

1:26:21 ↗ that captures my intent yes what about

1:26:24 ↗ the ideas yeah topic okay so I I think

1:26:27 ↗ we're set on this part of the

1:26:29 ↗ conversation Council Deputy president

1:26:31 ↗ Hall

1:26:32 ↗ over to you

1:26:34 ↗ sure yeah I'm happy to start here um so

1:26:38 ↗ um first and foremost thank you to the

1:26:39 ↗ Community member who brought up this

1:26:41 ↗ issue super fascinating

1:26:43 ↗ um I mean I for one had never thought of

1:26:46 ↗ um kind of our Adu policy as a mechanism

1:26:49 ↗ to support seniors who live in town

1:26:51 ↗ Aging in place right I've really thought

1:26:53 ↗ of it more as an opportunity to to First

1:26:55 ↗ diversify smaller housing

1:26:58 ↗ Alternatives that are cheaper in the

1:27:00 ↗ market right

1:27:02 ↗ um so I thought this was interesting

1:27:05 ↗ um especially when we consider these

1:27:08 ↗ various complex needs that these people

1:27:09 ↗ have perhaps

1:27:11 ↗ um long-term care needs mean if you have

1:27:15 ↗ a 24-hour nurse they need to have their

1:27:16 ↗ own room they need to have their own

1:27:17 ↗ bathroom that's separate from a

1:27:19 ↗ patient's bathroom that kind of thing so

1:27:21 ↗ just on face value

1:27:24 ↗ interesting questions come up

1:27:26 ↗ I do feel like though it should follow a

1:27:30 ↗ similar public process to how we did the

1:27:32 ↗ previous Adu discussion for a couple of

1:27:35 ↗ reasons because I don't personally know

1:27:38 ↗ at this point what any implications

1:27:40 ↗ might be from that so some things that

1:27:42 ↗ come to mind are neighborhood character

1:27:44 ↗ alignment with any environmental

1:27:45 ↗ standards impact of the overall

1:27:48 ↗ affordability and access into the Adu

1:27:51 ↗ Market in the first place just the

1:27:52 ↗ overall Adu market and what implications

1:27:55 ↗ that would have also at what point do we

1:27:58 ↗ consider are an 80 just another dwelling

1:28:00 ↗ or another house you know what I mean

1:28:01 ↗ and then finally

1:28:03 ↗ um alignment with the housing strategy

1:28:05 ↗ work plan so based on that

1:28:08 ↗ um you know having uh brought this up to

1:28:11 ↗ planning policy commission is a good

1:28:13 ↗ thing but I think some more Community

1:28:15 ↗ engagement is necessary to get through

1:28:17 ↗ some of these questions like we did

1:28:19 ↗ earlier in the title 18 process and at

1:28:22 ↗ the last Adu policy update so with that

1:28:24 ↗ in mind because I still think that this

1:28:26 ↗ is something that we should pursue with

1:28:29 ↗ some level of urgency because I think

1:28:31 ↗ it's interesting there are a couple

1:28:33 ↗ options in my mind so one is that we

1:28:35 ↗ just add this to our diversity of

1:28:37 ↗ housing analysis whiteboard item or

1:28:40 ↗ future projects list item I've been told

1:28:46 ↗ by staff that there's no concerns about

1:28:49 ↗ adding that in and that it does seem to

1:28:51 ↗ be in aligned with kind of that scope of

1:28:52 ↗ work so I'll just look

1:28:55 ↗ at staff one more time to make sure

1:28:57 ↗ we're okay with that and then to clarify

1:28:59 ↗ for the public it would not be as part

1:29:01 ↗ of this grant so the grant that we have

1:29:03 ↗ would not cover that scope of work

1:29:05 ↗ correct yeah so the three topics that

1:29:08 ↗ you know I was spacing out on that

1:29:09 ↗ there's the inclusionary zoning so

1:29:11 ↗ extending that from just the urban core

1:29:14 ↗ to multi-family zones looking at

1:29:16 ↗ feasibility of that looking at diversity

1:29:21 ↗ of housing in in those Central issaquan

1:29:24 ↗ multi-family zones and then

1:29:27 ↗ um the

1:29:29 ↗ removing barriers to condos so those are

1:29:31 ↗ adopted uh housing strategy planned that

1:29:35 ↗ the council had worked done work on so

1:29:37 ↗ you know that's that's how that is set

1:29:39 ↗ up now of course with the comprehensive

1:29:41 ↗ Plan update with the house bills and

1:29:44 ↗ everything else the conversation will

1:29:47 ↗ um you know be about that missing middle

1:29:49 ↗ piece at some point and so this fits in

1:29:52 ↗ well with that in terms of you know what

1:29:56 ↗ is is thousand but PPC you know weighed

1:30:00 ↗ in on on the size of the Adu

1:30:03 ↗ then you know they had emotion and they

1:30:05 ↗ discussed it

1:30:06 ↗ um I think the request from the

1:30:09 ↗ Community member is to tie it to the

1:30:11 ↗ size of the Lord so if you have a large

1:30:12 ↗ lot then perhaps you know 1200 square

1:30:15 ↗ feet is okay then on a smaller lot

1:30:19 ↗ so we can look at

1:30:22 ↗ um during

1:30:24 ↗ some future updates but well you know

1:30:28 ↗ we'll be teeing up some of the

1:30:30 ↗ conversation with you about the scope of

1:30:31 ↗ comprehensive Plan update the scope of

1:30:34 ↗ items on the Whiteboard so maybe this

1:30:36 ↗ fits in in that discussion at the next

1:30:38 ↗ meeting in March as to you know what's

1:30:41 ↗ the scope and and which where this

1:30:43 ↗ belongs okay yeah because I would like

1:30:46 ↗ to see this as part of that diversity of

1:30:48 ↗ housing analysis scope if we can so then

1:30:50 ↗ we were doing that kind of policy work

1:30:53 ↗ or at least looking into it over the

1:30:54 ↗ next during this biennium yeah so so the

1:30:57 ↗ happy Grant is really looking

1:30:58 ↗ multi-family zone so it's not looking at

1:31:00 ↗ single family zone is sort of the

1:31:01 ↗ difference but when when we start

1:31:04 ↗ looking at single-family zones

1:31:06 ↗ with the diversity of housing options

1:31:09 ↗ then that fits in there

1:31:12 ↗ okay so I mean the other option is just

1:31:15 ↗ then to just tee this up instead to the

1:31:18 ↗ full Council and say what do you think

1:31:19 ↗ but I think option one of kind of adding

1:31:21 ↗ to adding this to a future discussion is

1:31:24 ↗ better in my opinion so curious with the

1:31:27 ↗ rest of the council thinks because again

1:31:28 ↗ a very interesting idea that would

1:31:30 ↗ accomplish lots of

1:31:32 ↗ um goals in in the space of seniors

1:31:35 ↗ allowing people to age in space

1:31:36 ↗ affordability and accessibility of

1:31:39 ↗ services and also potentially our

1:31:40 ↗ housing goals so again I'm interested in

1:31:43 ↗ with the committee thinks

1:31:45 ↗ um so yes very interesting topic

1:31:49 ↗ um I I think that it would be great to

1:31:54 ↗ review I I remember when we did our last

1:31:58 ↗ review of adus one of the things that we

1:32:01 ↗ discussed was

1:32:03 ↗ um daily basements the lower level of a

1:32:06 ↗ lot of homes where the homes are built

1:32:08 ↗ on a steep slope and what would the

1:32:11 ↗ appropriate size be to allow those to

1:32:14 ↗ become its own Adu

1:32:16 ↗ for houses in Issaquah to make sure that

1:32:21 ↗ that if a homeowner wanted to do that

1:32:23 ↗ they would be able to do that to make it

1:32:25 ↗ easier for them to do that so

1:32:27 ↗ um I don't know I my bigger question is

1:32:31 ↗ I would like to know how effective this

1:32:33 ↗ Adu code has been and if it is if it is

1:32:37 ↗ Meeting those goals that we set out to

1:32:39 ↗ make it to make it easier make it

1:32:42 ↗ convenient and make this a housing type

1:32:45 ↗ people could use to support

1:32:49 ↗ um

1:32:51 ↗ many of our goals as you said

1:32:53 ↗ um so I think that that sort of holistic

1:32:56 ↗ review would be my ask we we made a

1:33:01 ↗ number of changes how are they working

1:33:02 ↗ out and then

1:33:04 ↗ um recommendations for improving that

1:33:07 ↗ process further as needed sure the

1:33:09 ↗ housing report card work that we do you

1:33:12 ↗ know we track some of that data with a

1:33:14 ↗ performance dashboard we track some of

1:33:16 ↗ that so we can look at you know

1:33:18 ↗ informing when the code happened how

1:33:20 ↗ many new units were built and those kind

1:33:22 ↗ of things will provide some record of

1:33:24 ↗ was it successful or not I mean cities

1:33:27 ↗ try to encourage it but you know how

1:33:28 ↗ many not every homeowner

1:33:31 ↗ has the resources or the desire to build

1:33:33 ↗ one so what the numbers aren't usually

1:33:36 ↗ great for cities even though the cities

1:33:37 ↗ do allow them I think Issaquah in

1:33:39 ↗ general has about if I remember

1:33:41 ↗ correctly more in the 60s you know 60

1:33:44 ↗ units already use

1:33:47 ↗ compared to some cities that have

1:33:49 ↗ actually had programs where they have a

1:33:51 ↗ canned you know stock plans that they

1:33:54 ↗ provide to the community members to go

1:33:55 ↗ by and then you know to incentivize I

1:33:59 ↗ haven't seen that much success either so

1:34:01 ↗ it it really depends on a lot of factors

1:34:05 ↗ whether they actually get built or not

1:34:13 ↗ I mean I agree with the concept of

1:34:16 ↗ having it as a larger review of Are We

1:34:20 ↗ effective at both Adu creation and just

1:34:25 ↗ what the heck can we do to encourage

1:34:27 ↗ affordable housing so I from my

1:34:31 ↗ perspective it even fits within just

1:34:33 ↗ that larger concept of what are we doing

1:34:37 ↗ um write and what can we learn from

1:34:40 ↗ other cities that maybe we didn't take

1:34:42 ↗ on within this Title 18 draft sure I

1:34:45 ↗ mean AD uses an interesting concept

1:34:46 ↗ Portland's experience was a lot of

1:34:48 ↗ people were renting his Airbnb so it

1:34:50 ↗ didn't really solve much for their

1:34:51 ↗ housing problem per se so you know it's

1:34:54 ↗ hard for cities to regulate short-term

1:34:56 ↗ rentals

1:34:57 ↗ whereas Aging in place and those you

1:35:00 ↗ know those are all great goals uh so

1:35:02 ↗ there's mixed results in in the region

1:35:07 ↗ with them but I think in general the

1:35:09 ↗ diversity of housing is what is desires

1:35:12 ↗ so it's good to have more options for

1:35:14 ↗ people

1:35:16 ↗ um but I think the the current request

1:35:18 ↗ is just the size yeah and ppc's

1:35:22 ↗ recommendation was they felt thousand

1:35:24 ↗ was big enough

1:35:25 ↗ um and um

1:35:27 ↗ but for larger Lots maybe you know we

1:35:30 ↗ can revisit that

1:35:34 ↗ well and just to be clear that we're

1:35:36 ↗ aligned on that right in terms of that

1:35:38 ↗ is what we want to reconsider as part of

1:35:40 ↗ the missing middle discussion in the

1:35:42 ↗ Binion

1:35:44 ↗ uh well I but holistically like you said

1:35:48 ↗ I was more thinking yeah just you know

1:35:50 ↗ not a specific

1:35:54 ↗ um lot size issue because I don't know

1:35:57 ↗ if that's what's preventing the if

1:36:00 ↗ that's the most important factor for the

1:36:03 ↗ city so I would I would

1:36:06 ↗ more want want information about

1:36:11 ↗ how they've the ones that have been

1:36:13 ↗ built

1:36:14 ↗ um you know what sizes if there were

1:36:17 ↗ issues with the permitting like before

1:36:18 ↗ we heard we heard specific concerns

1:36:21 ↗ about how difficult it was to do the

1:36:24 ↗ permitting and those sorts of things so

1:36:25 ↗ we tried to reduce those barriers so it

1:36:27 ↗ would be good to have an assessment of

1:36:29 ↗ what are the barriers

1:36:31 ↗ and how could we reduce them yeah so the

1:36:35 ↗ barriers at the local level that the

1:36:36 ↗ cities can do something about but then

1:36:38 ↗ there are barriers like Metro sewer

1:36:40 ↗ capacity charge that we can't really

1:36:41 ↗ control and the homeowners you know

1:36:43 ↗ that's a larger dollar cost and the cost

1:36:46 ↗ of 40 000 or whatever you know so those

1:36:49 ↗ things there are multiple layers of

1:36:51 ↗ barriers for adus that have been studied

1:36:52 ↗ pretty well so yeah we can we can brief

1:36:55 ↗ you on

1:36:56 ↗ the Adu topic again yeah

1:37:03 ↗ is that is that clear on that one okay

1:37:06 ↗ okay all right

1:37:07 ↗ um do we have any additional

1:37:10 ↗ topics for

1:37:13 ↗ discussion or comments on this

1:37:19 ↗ well thank you again very uh complicated

1:37:22 ↗ topic Title 18 I think we are landing

1:37:25 ↗ the plane so

1:37:27 ↗ um thank you very much for that and

1:37:30 ↗ do you have everything you need from us

1:37:32 ↗ at this time

1:37:34 ↗ just to thank the committee for its work

1:37:37 ↗ this is you're basically discharging

1:37:40 ↗ Tyler 18 out of your committee and

1:37:42 ↗ sending it to the full council tonight

1:37:44 ↗ so thank you for that thank you for the

1:37:46 ↗ community Planning Development staff

1:37:47 ↗ thank you for the Law Department staff

1:37:49 ↗ uh excellent excellent I mean it's

1:37:51 ↗ extraordinary the work that this

1:37:53 ↗ committee has done the work that the CPD

1:37:55 ↗ staff has done planning policy committee

1:37:57 ↗ the environment board

1:37:59 ↗ um

1:37:59 ↗ the anyone else can I tell you yeah

1:38:05 ↗ Parks Board give me a you know and it's

1:38:07 ↗ a we the whole gamut of our volunteer

1:38:10 ↗ boards and commissions this committee

1:38:13 ↗ staff Madrona leadership that had the

1:38:17 ↗ vision to say this is important we need

1:38:19 ↗ to put resources here and let's you know

1:38:21 ↗ it starts there

1:38:23 ↗ um and and of course

1:38:25 ↗ um you know the community members that

1:38:27 ↗ spend a lot of time and energy into all

1:38:29 ↗ of this

1:38:30 ↗ um and and really unbundling a complex

1:38:33 ↗ thing like a code and trying to wrap

1:38:35 ↗ their heads around so and our consultant

1:38:37 ↗ team I mean you know they're not here

1:38:39 ↗ today but they did a lot of work early

1:38:41 ↗ on to get us to this stage so it takes a

1:38:46 ↗ village in this case it took the whole

1:38:47 ↗ of Issaquah to get us and we're not done

1:38:49 ↗ yet we have to you know get to the full

1:38:51 ↗ Council but uh

1:38:53 ↗ it's been great so I'm sorry I was just

1:38:56 ↗ going to say toward that idea our

1:38:58 ↗ incredible staff who has worked so very

1:39:01 ↗ hard on this and shouldn't just be

1:39:03 ↗ recognized for the concept of working

1:39:06 ↗ with the Consultants but for all of the

1:39:08 ↗ work that you've done in meetings and

1:39:11 ↗ writing the code yourself and taking in

1:39:14 ↗ the community comments and including

1:39:17 ↗ those and tracking them and just so many

1:39:19 ↗ things so our appreciation on that too

1:39:21 ↗ it was Heavy lift for everyone for sure

1:39:24 ↗ yeah

1:39:26 ↗ so with that we turn a page and we move

1:39:29 ↗ on to the revision of the comprehensive

1:39:32 ↗ plan and so because of a number of of

1:39:36 ↗ cultural holidays other matters the

1:39:39 ↗ there were two meetings uh for two

1:39:42 ↗ months in consecutive weeks uh working

1:39:44 ↗ with the chair hunt we Consolidated that

1:39:47 ↗ to one date which is Chris

1:39:51 ↗ March 28 March 28th so this committee

1:39:55 ↗ will meet again on March 28th

1:39:58 ↗ and well the item the one item I believe

1:40:01 ↗ at this point I don't know if there's

1:40:02 ↗ other items so yeah there's the

1:40:04 ↗ um the comprehensive plan and the

1:40:06 ↗ Whiteboard list

1:40:07 ↗ um you know scope and public Outreach

1:40:10 ↗ plan sort of uh getting your you to

1:40:12 ↗ weigh in on those and then contract a

1:40:13 ↗ code of conduct for public projects

1:40:16 ↗ so those two items

1:40:18 ↗ so that meeting will be your March and

1:40:20 ↗ April meeting which means after March

1:40:23 ↗ 28th the next meeting is not till the

1:40:24 ↗ first part of May

1:40:27 ↗ so just uh amazing a little bit of a

1:40:29 ↗ breather in a funny sort of way but uh

1:40:32 ↗ moving right on to the comp plan

1:40:35 ↗ so again thank you ma'am chair members

1:40:36 ↗ of the committee

1:40:38 ↗ all right thank you

1:40:41 ↗ um so with that I will conclude this

1:40:44 ↗ item we have yes I have any okay so the

1:40:48 ↗ next item of business is an executive

1:40:50 ↗ session the committee will now recess

1:40:52 ↗ into executive session to discuss

1:40:55 ↗ pending potential litigation per our CW

1:40:59 ↗ 42.30.110

1:41:01 ↗ parenthesis 1 parenthesis I the item is

1:41:04 ↗ expected to take approximately 30

1:41:06 ↗ minutes and please note that executive

1:41:08 ↗ sessions are closed to the public so we

1:41:10 ↗ will now recess into executive session

1:41:12 ↗ at 8 12 pm

1:41:20 ↗ oh

1:41:21 ↗ um and

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 (3)

Victoria Hunt

Lindsey Walsh

Zach Hall

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk

Audience commenters (1)

Connie Marsh

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Council President Walsh asked the minutes to reflect that the Committee endorsed the 100 square feet relating to outdoor amenities but would like the item to include options when brought to the full Council.
Chair Hunt moved to adopt the minutes as amended.