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

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF