City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, March 4, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 8, 2025

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 0:24 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 01-08-25 City Council Planning, Development & Page (1) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. January 8, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

2025 Proposed Docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendments COM 0117

60 min · Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director · packet pp.7–30

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 9, 2025

▶ Watch from 0:50 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The state Growth Management Act requires that certain counties and the cities within those counties adopt comprehensive plans. By state law, comprehensive plans may only be amended once a year. Per IMC 18.104.050, Review and Determination of Docket, the City Council must approve a Docket, or list of proposed amendments before work can begin on each of the individual amendments included in the Docket. Once the Docket is adopted, items may be removed from the Docket, but they may not be added. The Docket ensures that all proposed amendments are reviewed together in a thoughtful way, not piecemeal as requests trickle in throughout the year.

976 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ uh welcome everyone I'm council member

0:09 ↗ Zach Hall and I'm calling the March 4th

0:11 ↗ 2025 city council Planning Development

0:14 ↗ and environment committee to order at

0:16 ↗ 6:31 p.m. I'm joined by council

0:19 ↗ president Walsh and council member Jen

0:20 ↗ thanks for being here um quickly running

0:23 ↗ through the agenda we have public

0:24 ↗ comment approval of minutes and then

0:26 ↗ Comm

0:27 ↗ 0117 2025 propos docket of comp plan

0:32 ↗ amendments so our the first item on our

0:35 ↗ agenda is public

0:38 ↗ comment there are multiple public

0:40 ↗ comment opportunities uh at tonight's

0:42 ↗ meeting there's a general public comment

0:44 ↗ opportunity now at the beginning of the

0:45 ↗ meeting or you can wait to make your

0:47 ↗ comments after the presentation in

0:48 ↗ Council question and answer period of

0:50 ↗ each agenda item uh those who signed up

0:52 ↗ in advance will be called on first to

0:54 ↗ speak um if you're joining us virtually

0:56 ↗ and would like to make comments please

0:58 ↗ raise your virtual hand if you're on the

1:00 ↗ phone press star three or if you're on a

1:02 ↗ computer or smartphone look for the hand

1:04 ↗ icon this varies by device but one

1:07 ↗ option may be to go to the participant

1:08 ↗ panel and choose the raise hand icon in

1:11 ↗ the lower right hand corner and if

1:13 ↗ you're in the room and didn't sign up

1:14 ↗ I'll be sure to ask uh for other

1:15 ↗ speakers before closing this portion of

1:17 ↗ the meeting so we'll just wait a moment

1:19 ↗ now to see if anyone is online as

1:23 ↗ well but not at this moment okay

1:26 ↗ great

1:27 ↗ um would you like to make public comment

1:29 ↗ comments now yes okay perfect um well I

1:33 ↗ will just say um you've heard our

1:35 ↗ guidelines for public comments many

1:37 ↗ times so not anticipating any disruptive

1:39 ↗ behavior or anything so we're just going

1:40 ↗ to skip um our guidelines for now and

1:42 ↗ feel free to come on up and you got five

1:48 ↗ minutes Connie Marsh Leon

1:50 ↗ squawk uh and in the middle of the night

1:54 ↗ I started thinking trees because there

1:57 ↗ is a bit of code that is coming through

2:01 ↗ on parking that talks about being able

2:05 ↗ to move remove trees that you would

2:09 ↗ otherwise have to retain if they're

2:12 ↗ showing that the you can't build the and

2:16 ↗ I you know I've been listening to too

2:18 ↗ many things the thing um they say if

2:22 ↗ it's

2:23 ↗ infeasible and

2:25 ↗ so I'm trying to figure out I went to

2:29 ↗ the com

2:30 ↗ information and they seem to talk about

2:33 ↗ landmark trees I mean significant trees

2:37 ↗ now we have Landmark trees and we in

2:40 ↗ theory are going to have Heritage

2:44 ↗ trees and so um I'm trying to connect

2:49 ↗ the whole Urban Forest management plan

2:53 ↗ with potential code language to try to

2:56 ↗ understand what it is we can protect in

2:59 ↗ our town because I'm pretty sure we

3:01 ↗ don't want our heritage trees and and uh

3:05 ↗ Landmark trees to fall to this but I am

3:08 ↗ unsure of the interpretation of those

3:11 ↗ trees in this code and so far I haven't

3:14 ↗ heard uh that we're having a

3:16 ↗ conversation about about that and so we

3:19 ↗ have inla departments and language that

3:23 ↗ are going to cover that so I would ask

3:25 ↗ you to cast a fur tree eyeball on that

3:29 ↗ particular topic if you wouldn't mind

3:32 ↗ thanks thank you for sharing um I'm not

3:36 ↗ seeing anyone else in the room anyone

3:38 ↗ online clerk

3:40 ↗ okay um well in that case um just a

3:43 ↗ reminder that written comments are

3:44 ↗ always welcome and you can email us uh

3:46 ↗ anytime at isqua or city council at

3:49 ↗ isqua

3:50 ↗ w.gov um the next item of our agenda is

3:53 ↗ approval of the January 8th 2025 meeting

3:56 ↗ minutes which were distributed in

3:58 ↗ advance uh any Corrections by the

4:03 ↗ committee all right hearing none the

4:05 ↗ January 8th 2025 meeting minutes are

4:07 ↗ approved as

4:09 ↗ presented um then the next item on our

4:12 ↗ agenda is what we're all here for Comm

4:14 ↗ 0117 the 2025 proposed docket of comp or

4:18 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments presented

4:20 ↗ by assistant planning director Steven

4:22 ↗ Padua take it away

4:24 ↗ Stephen thank you chair Hall and good

4:26 ↗ evening council

4:28 ↗ members tonight I'm going to talk talk

4:29 ↗ about the

4:31 ↗ 2025 docket of proposed comprehensive

4:33 ↗ plan amendments um tonight we are

4:35 ↗ looking for direction on two questions

4:38 ↗ are there amendments presented on the

4:40 ↗ docket that are not relevant or

4:42 ↗ necessary or are there any refinements

4:44 ↗ that need to be made to the Amendments

4:46 ↗ that are presented

4:50 ↗ tonight before I dive into the docket

4:53 ↗ list I want to give a little background

4:54 ↗ information on the docket process so the

4:57 ↗ docket process is actually a state

4:58 ↗ required process for any comprehensive

5:00 ↗ plan amendments where we present a list

5:03 ↗ of potential amendments going into the

5:05 ↗ comprehensive plan prior to actually

5:07 ↗ pursuing those

5:08 ↗ amendments this stocket list that's

5:11 ↗ presented to you has criteria embedded

5:13 ↗ in code to help with the decision-making

5:15 ↗ process the first set of criteria is if

5:19 ↗ you meet any of the three criteria

5:21 ↗ that's listed then it sh is allowed to

5:24 ↗ be on the docket list and the second set

5:26 ↗ of criteria is the amendment must meet

5:28 ↗ all of that criteria and I'll instead of

5:30 ↗ reading verbatim What the criteria is

5:32 ↗ I'll talk through that as I go through

5:34 ↗ the docket

5:36 ↗ list

5:41 ↗ criteria oh

5:43 ↗ Kristen Kristen if you don't mind muting

5:46 ↗ your

5:48 ↗ microphone thinking we have a ghost in

5:51 ↗ the room um the planning policy

5:53 ↗ commission reviewed the docket on

5:55 ↗ January 9th and then held a public

5:57 ↗ hearing on January 23rd

6:01 ↗ diving into the docket list the first

6:04 ↗ item on the docket list is related to

6:07 ↗ the meeting the requirements for House

6:08 ↗ Bill 1110 and House Bill 1337 which is

6:11 ↗ part of the middle housing project and

6:14 ↗ that is a potential name change to the

6:16 ↗ single family zones to accurately

6:19 ↗ describe what the allowed uses are with

6:22 ↗ um in single family zones as part of the

6:24 ↗ project for Middle housing we are now

6:26 ↗ required by the state to allow middle

6:28 ↗ housing types in sing family zones so

6:30 ↗ the zone change would accurately reflect

6:32 ↗ that

6:33 ↗ change the because this is U meeting a

6:38 ↗ state requirement it complies with that

6:40 ↗ first set of docket criteria um

6:43 ↗ consistent with 18104 060

6:47 ↗ a1b the second item on the docket list

6:50 ↗ that is the update to policies in the

6:52 ↗ comprehensive plan to allow co-living

6:54 ↗ housing and this is to comply with House

6:57 ↗ Bill

6:58 ↗ 1998 that is to allow co-living housing

7:02 ↗ in our development regulations um which

7:04 ↗ is something that's being proposed as

7:06 ↗ part of policy amendments for this year

7:09 ↗ this is consistent with meeting estate

7:11 ↗ requirements so it's consistent with the

7:12 ↗ first set of docket

7:17 ↗ criteria the third item on the docket

7:20 ↗ list is kind of two parts and it's an

7:22 ↗ update to the land use designation map

7:25 ↗ the first part is the redesignation and

7:29 ↗ rezone of the food and clothing bank

7:31 ↗ site this is to this is consistent with

7:34 ↗ the first set of docket criteria that's

7:36 ↗ been part of a rezone

7:39 ↗ request the second part of this is the

7:43 ↗ change and removal of the community

7:44 ↗ facilities zoning and land use

7:46 ↗ designation this is actually to address

7:49 ↗ an issue that we've come upon just in

7:51 ↗ the last few years as part of surplus in

7:53 ↗ City properties in order to Surplus City

7:56 ↗ properties we actually have to rezone

7:58 ↗ each of them and so that can actually

8:00 ↗ delay any surplus of City properties um

8:03 ↗ which can have a major effect on

8:06 ↗ whatever the market is for the property

8:08 ↗ and the

8:09 ↗ sale this is not consistent with the

8:12 ↗ first set of policies but it's

8:13 ↗ consistent with the second set of

8:15 ↗ policies that being that staff do not

8:17 ↗ believe that changing or removing the

8:19 ↗ City

8:21 ↗ Zoning um staff believe the change and

8:24 ↗ removal of the community facility zoning

8:26 ↗ increases the efficiency of Land

8:27 ↗ Management that being being a to

8:29 ↗ streamline and simplify the Surplus in

8:31 ↗ property process staff do not believe

8:35 ↗ that this raises any policy or land use

8:38 ↗ issues the amendment

8:41 ↗ supports contining changing conditions

8:43 ↗ that being the need to Surplus City

8:45 ↗ properties over time that way we're not

8:47 ↗ delaying Surplus Pro Surplus City

8:50 ↗ properties

8:52 ↗ process and lastly this does not

8:54 ↗ conflict with any goals or policies

8:56 ↗ identified at the local County or state

8:58 ↗ level

9:01 ↗ the fourth item on the docket list is an

9:03 ↗ update to the transation element to

9:05 ↗ update policies related to concurrency

9:08 ↗ the ongoing project to update

9:09 ↗ concurrency is actually to comply with

9:12 ↗ House Bill 1881 which is the same

9:16 ↗ requirement that required the

9:17 ↗ environmental element into the

9:18 ↗ comprehensive plan and addressing

9:19 ↗ climate change as part of that bill it

9:22 ↗ required cities look at multimodal level

9:24 ↗ of service which is part of our

9:26 ↗ concurrency and so that project is to

9:28 ↗ comply with that bill that being it it

9:31 ↗ is consistent with the first set of

9:32 ↗ docket

9:35 ↗ criteria for a reference we're providing

9:37 ↗ a map of the flu and clothing bank site

9:40 ↗ the existing land use as Community

9:42 ↗ facilities and we are proposing to

9:44 ↗ change it to retail which is the most

9:45 ↗ prominent land use uh surrounding the

9:48 ↗ property

9:49 ↗ set for reference we're providing a site

9:51 ↗ for all the community facilities around

9:52 ↗ the city that City staff will be

9:55 ↗ providing evaluation for as part of that

9:57 ↗ effort

10:01 ↗ and then as part of the amendment

10:02 ↗ process for each of those items in the

10:04 ↗ dockhead they will be as part of the

10:05 ↗ individual projects that being the

10:07 ↗ middle housing project update to

10:09 ↗ concurrency looking at the co- living

10:11 ↗ policies to check to make sure we're

10:13 ↗ consistent with state requirements to

10:15 ↗ allow cool living housing and then also

10:17 ↗ looking at the community facilities

10:19 ↗ sites uh for potential changes we plan

10:23 ↗ to return to the council committee at

10:25 ↗ the third quarter with the full list

10:27 ↗ after all the discussions have been had

10:29 ↗ with Boards of commissions and with city

10:31 ↗ council um committees and then with

10:34 ↗ potential adoption of the Amendments by

10:35 ↗ the end of the

10:37 ↗ year for next steps the docet will go to

10:39 ↗ city council for tenative adoption on

10:42 ↗ March

10:43 ↗ 17th that concludes my presentation so I

10:46 ↗ bring it back to Direction needed thank

10:49 ↗ you very much um questions from the

10:52 ↗ committee yeah go ahead um so I did ask

10:56 ↗ this question on email but wanted to ask

10:58 ↗ this again um so that this was on the

11:00 ↗ record um so with the community facility

11:03 ↗ zoning could you speak a bit more of you

11:04 ↗ know how common is it to have this

11:06 ↗ community facility zoning and what have

11:08 ↗ you know other cities with that type of

11:10 ↗ zoning done and have they changed it to

11:12 ↗ you know getting rid of the community

11:13 ↗ facility zoning yeah thank you for the

11:15 ↗ question so City staff have done an

11:17 ↗ evaluation of other zoning in other

11:19 ↗ cities in our region and no other city

11:21 ↗ has a community facilities zoning

11:23 ↗ designated the intent of developing the

11:26 ↗ community FY Zone was to meet a state

11:28 ↗ requirement which is uh all planning

11:31 ↗ cities have to identifi City owned

11:34 ↗ properties and creating that zone was

11:36 ↗ isqua method to identify those City

11:38 ↗ owned

11:42 ↗ properties any other questions um and

11:45 ↗ then now that we don't have that or

11:47 ↗ we're proposing not having that zoning

11:48 ↗ anymore is that going to change anything

11:50 ↗ of our process to identify City owned

11:54 ↗ properties no so the the city- owned

11:56 ↗ properties would maintain Bean city-

11:58 ↗ owned proper properties the development

12:01 ↗ regulations as they apply now would

12:03 ↗ still M be maintained when we look at if

12:06 ↗ we were to say develop a site one of the

12:08 ↗ city-owned properties we would look at

12:10 ↗ the most prominent land use surrounding

12:12 ↗ the site now and those development

12:14 ↗ regulations would apply and so none of

12:16 ↗ that is changing with this change the

12:18 ↗ only thing that's really changing is

12:20 ↗ that requirement to update the

12:21 ↗ comprehensive plan delaying a surplus

12:27 ↗ process so just to follow up on that we

12:30 ↗ have another list of all of the

12:31 ↗ community facilities that we own and so

12:34 ↗ because we have that list it isn't

12:37 ↗ necessarily needed in zoning format

12:40 ↗ that's correct

12:43 ↗ yes any other questions from

12:47 ↗ committee um what's the urgency around

12:50 ↗ the community

12:52 ↗ facilities is there any particular

12:54 ↗ problem we're trying to solve sooner

12:55 ↗ rather than later I think I understand

12:57 ↗ it intellectually what you're saying but

12:59 ↗ urgency to answer to that question it's

13:01 ↗ low urgency I mean we wanted to do this

13:03 ↗ as part of the periodic update before

13:05 ↗ adoption last year but it just staff

13:07 ↗ didn't have the capacity to go through

13:09 ↗ each of the facilities as part of the

13:10 ↗ periodic update so we wanted to do it as

13:12 ↗ part of this comprehensive Plan update

13:14 ↗ following the periodic update but we're

13:16 ↗ hoping to make the process um easier for

13:20 ↗ any future need to Surplus City

13:22 ↗ properties at this time we don't know

13:25 ↗ all the city-owned properties that would

13:27 ↗ be Surplus right now I feel that list is

13:30 ↗ actually fairly minimal but as we've

13:32 ↗ learned in the last two years that

13:33 ↗ changes very

13:37 ↗ quickly so as part of the process this

13:40 ↗ year staff will be working with PPC to

13:42 ↗ go over all the different sites Zone

13:45 ↗ Community facilities give me a sense of

13:47 ↗ how many we're talking there how many

13:50 ↗ sites are we reviewing off the top of my

13:52 ↗ head I can't say the total number of

13:54 ↗ facilities but we'll be trying to

13:56 ↗ minimize that list so that it's easier

13:58 ↗ for the planning policy mission to

14:00 ↗ process because there's a lot of

14:01 ↗ properties like Park owned properties or

14:02 ↗ prop park in open space that will

14:04 ↗ probably just be clumped together in

14:05 ↗ terms of how we might change the Zoning

14:08 ↗ for each of those and I guess

14:11 ↗ the uh origin of my question there is um

14:15 ↗ we have a pretty lofty work plan already

14:17 ↗ for planning staff this year and next

14:19 ↗ year based on the kind of budget

14:21 ↗ conversations that we had last year so

14:22 ↗ I'm just curious if we feel confident

14:25 ↗ staff can review all these properties

14:26 ↗ with planning policy commission this

14:28 ↗ year it's urgent enough to take up as

14:31 ↗ much time and space as it needs yes the

14:33 ↗ the planning team has um looked at the

14:36 ↗ work plan for this year and we believe

14:37 ↗ we do have the capacity to be able to do

14:39 ↗ it um which is why we weren't we we

14:41 ↗ looked at it closely as part of the

14:42 ↗ periodic update which is why we wanted

14:44 ↗ to delay this year

14:47 ↗ instead all right any other yeah go

14:49 ↗ ahead so I know at this point we're

14:52 ↗ looking to approve the docket so that

14:55 ↗ the work can be done for the year what

14:58 ↗ would happen if if for example as you

15:01 ↗ went through this with PPC and there

15:03 ↗ were just so many questions or if the

15:06 ↗ concurrency update doesn't happen for

15:09 ↗ some reason what happens to um the comp

15:13 ↗ plan amendments at that point can we

15:15 ↗ remove something from the docket if

15:17 ↗ there ends up being problems over that

15:19 ↗ period of time yes um going through each

15:22 ↗ of the amendment process as part of the

15:24 ↗ individual projects if the

15:26 ↗ recommendation from the commission and

15:27 ↗ staff after the discussions is that we

15:29 ↗ not move forward on the amendment then

15:30 ↗ we can easily take it off the docket

15:32 ↗ list what we can't do is add it after

15:34 ↗ the docket is

15:39 ↗ approved um let me ask another one um

15:43 ↗ and this probably would have been more

15:45 ↗ fair to ask in advance and to have you

15:47 ↗ chew on it but

15:49 ↗ um the process as it exists right now is

15:53 ↗ you have to if something's zoned

15:54 ↗ Community facilities it's going to have

15:56 ↗ a different use it has to essentially

15:58 ↗ wait right it has to get on the docket

16:00 ↗ we have to make the amendment to the

16:01 ↗ comp plan at the end of the year

16:04 ↗ um did we

16:06 ↗ consider and this is all kind of in the

16:08 ↗ realm of public benefit so I understand

16:10 ↗ intellectually your argument around it

16:13 ↗ could be a public benefit for the city

16:14 ↗ and for users to have that be a simpler

16:17 ↗ process and easier process did we

16:19 ↗ consider how it might be a public

16:20 ↗ benefit a tool actually to slow it down

16:23 ↗ have Community involved in the process

16:25 ↗ and and and was was there any intent

16:28 ↗ around the fact that we had it Community

16:30 ↗ facilities and then the fact that it

16:32 ↗ would have to change and wait a year um

16:35 ↗ before any zoning change could

16:38 ↗ happen I'm gonna try to respond to that

16:41 ↗ question and then I'll ask our principal

16:43 ↗ planner Kristen Leon who's our local

16:46 ↗ historian on a lot of these things chime

16:48 ↗ in if I miss something um you know the

16:50 ↗ original intent of providing this zoning

16:52 ↗ was really just for identifying

16:54 ↗ city-owned

16:55 ↗ properties the process for Surplus

16:58 ↗ properties goes through a planning

16:59 ↗ process that something that's ongoing

17:01 ↗ with our facility staff now which is

17:03 ↗ going through extensive conversations

17:05 ↗ with city council and the public on what

17:07 ↗ we should be doing with City properties

17:09 ↗ before we pursue any surplus and so

17:12 ↗ adding this year-long comp plan process

17:15 ↗ is more of a technical redundancy more

17:17 ↗ than actually adding a benefit for

17:19 ↗ Community

17:23 ↗ conversation Kristen did you have

17:24 ↗ anything to add

17:29 ↗ hi Christ Lon principal clanner and

17:31 ↗ apparently historian which makes me feel

17:33 ↗ very old um but no I don't have anything

17:36 ↗ to add what Stephen said but I was

17:39 ↗ thinking about the question that you

17:41 ↗ asked earlier about how many Parcels

17:43 ↗ would have to be looked at and really

17:45 ↗ the intent is to look at the community

17:47 ↗ facilities facilities not necessarily

17:49 ↗ parks in open space because those would

17:51 ↗ fall into a different zoning really I I

17:54 ↗ it's my understanding so really the ones

17:57 ↗ that we are going to be looking at are

17:59 ↗ those that are Zone

18:00 ↗ cff um and as far as the one you just

18:02 ↗ asked um I think Stephen ster addressed

18:05 ↗ it thank

18:09 ↗ you well and then thank you very much

18:11 ↗ and then so then just to clarify the

18:13 ↗ other designations for Capital

18:15 ↗ facilities what what exactly would be

18:18 ↗ happening with the review of these sites

18:21 ↗ or

18:23 ↗ well

18:25 ↗ um excuse me so Comm right now community

18:28 ↗ facil open space those are open space

18:30 ↗ properties that are going to remain open

18:32 ↗ space and granted we haven't looked at

18:35 ↗ every detail yet but they would probably

18:37 ↗ what most cities do is they have a Zone

18:39 ↗ called parks and open space and those

18:41 ↗ would fall under a new parks and open

18:43 ↗ space Zone in land use designation the

18:46 ↗ community F facilities facilities are

18:48 ↗ just the ones that we would have to look

18:50 ↗ at more

18:51 ↗ clearly in more detail okay thank you

18:53 ↗ I'm following appreciate that uh any

18:56 ↗ other questions from committee

19:01 ↗ all right um in that case we do have an

19:04 ↗ opportunity for public comment again

19:06 ↗ would you like to do we have anyone in

19:07 ↗ line first no would you like to make any

19:10 ↗ more

19:11 ↗ comments come on

19:15 ↗ up okay my name is Connie Marsh and uh

19:18 ↗ the community of facilities actually was

19:20 ↗ put into place in uh

19:23 ↗ 1983 so it was not part of the you know

19:28 ↗ the

19:29 ↗ the the process that Stephen was talking

19:32 ↗ about this was earlier on I found the

19:35 ↗ the council meeting minutes which are

19:39 ↗ fairly skimpy but it was an effort to

19:42 ↗ try to Corral the community facilities

19:45 ↗ in a way that that people could

19:49 ↗ understand that the they were community

19:51 ↗ properties and needed to be treated

19:53 ↗ separately right and then initially in

19:56 ↗ our uh Co

19:59 ↗ language we have a ton of language that

20:03 ↗ discusses Community facilities and that

20:05 ↗ is community facilities facilities open

20:09 ↗ space all this stuff right but what our

20:12 ↗ code says is that there is a public

20:16 ↗ benefit because these are rare

20:18 ↗ Commodities to add exper extra

20:22 ↗ protection and a layer for these

20:25 ↗ properties to be sure that we are intent

20:29 ↗ about it now I'm interpreting I did send

20:31 ↗ you all the language so you could see

20:33 ↗ the exact language that I was talking

20:34 ↗ about hopefully you click through and

20:36 ↗ then I also wanted to discuss uh because

20:40 ↗ this is about the docket right we don't

20:42 ↗ really want to be getting into the the

20:44 ↗ Nitty Gritty of the whole thing I just

20:46 ↗ wanted to correct a little bit of

20:48 ↗ information so what the the section must

20:52 ↗ meet all of the following

20:54 ↗ criteria and it says the amendment

20:56 ↗ represents a matter appropriate

20:58 ↗ addressed through the comprehensive plan

21:00 ↗ and the proposed amendment demonstrates

21:03 ↗ a public benefit and enhances the public

21:06 ↗ and enhances the public health safety

21:09 ↗ and Welfare of the city so uh I don't

21:14 ↗ think it meets the criteria to go on the

21:16 ↗ docket because I don't think that uh

21:19 ↗ there has been a public benefit

21:23 ↗ evidenced that has been held up against

21:27 ↗ the public benefit of having this layer

21:29 ↗ and until that conversation is had and

21:33 ↗ there's a convincing argument that this

21:35 ↗ is what somehow more of a public benefit

21:38 ↗ than the public benefit that we already

21:40 ↗ state that having the layer is we aren't

21:43 ↗ there and it doesn't meet the criteria

21:45 ↗ of going on the docket I think okay have

21:48 ↗ the conversation now uh the school

21:51 ↗ district is community facilities

21:53 ↗ facilities right so you would also be

21:56 ↗ removing the community fac

21:59 ↗ facilities

22:01 ↗ uh development language for Community

22:06 ↗ facilities facilities because we

22:08 ↗ actually have development standards for

22:11 ↗ Community facilities

22:13 ↗ facilities and so that is not a

22:16 ↗ community benefit to me to strip out the

22:19 ↗ hardword earned language that we use to

22:22 ↗ try to create this Urban schools sort of

22:25 ↗ a conversation and how we should treat

22:28 ↗ Community facilities facilities as an a

22:32 ↗ different entity than um because they're

22:36 ↗ public items also you have Community

22:39 ↗ facilities facilities in the middle of

22:41 ↗ parks because Parks have places where

22:45 ↗ they have open space on one side and

22:47 ↗ maybe their Community facilities

22:49 ↗ Recreation on the other side but they

22:50 ↗ have Community facilities facilities in

22:53 ↗ their Parks because they want to build a

22:56 ↗ bathroom and you can't do do some of

22:59 ↗ these other things in Parks you want a

23:01 ↗ community center okay it's a park but

23:04 ↗ it's a community facility facility and

23:07 ↗ so I think this is a broad brush to try

23:11 ↗ to solve a problem that could be solved

23:14 ↗ a different way and more

23:17 ↗ so I don't think that they have uh shown

23:21 ↗ that it has a public benefit to do this

23:24 ↗ especially when put up against the

23:26 ↗ public benefits that are in our code for

23:30 ↗ keeping for creating and keeping

23:32 ↗ Community facilities facilities as a

23:35 ↗ separate entity um you all you all have

23:38 ↗ all that and I have given you all that

23:41 ↗ before but the conversation doesn't seem

23:43 ↗ to have changed very much which is a

23:44 ↗ little disappointing thank

23:46 ↗ you thank you Connie appreciate the

23:49 ↗ comments so we will now go will you

23:51 ↗ throw up the slide on feedback we'll now

23:54 ↗ go into committee feedback um anyone

23:58 ↗ want to want to start us off on any

23:59 ↗ feedback they have for the

24:00 ↗ administration go ahead council

24:02 ↗ president thank you so first of all this

24:04 ↗ is generally something that we do every

24:08 ↗ year um usually pretty straightforward

24:11 ↗ so want to thank you for following the

24:14 ↗ process and um doing the work on that um

24:19 ↗ these are a little bit different than

24:22 ↗ some of the ones that I've seen in

24:24 ↗ previous years and so I think it's

24:25 ↗ important to have a conversation about

24:27 ↗ it um I appreciate the change um to

24:31 ↗ single family Zone names to recognize

24:34 ↗ the state change there as well as the

24:36 ↗ other updates to uh comply with the

24:40 ↗ state changes for co-housing and things

24:43 ↗ like that the um transportation element

24:49 ↗ uh I think that's more of the

24:51 ↗ substantive conversation about the

24:53 ↗ concurrency so I don't see a problem

24:56 ↗ with that um and I also don't see a

24:59 ↗ problem with the food and clothing bank

25:01 ↗ um since that has gone through a process

25:04 ↗ talking about the change to the

25:07 ↗ community facilities land use uh

25:10 ↗ designation um I think it does represent

25:14 ↗ a public benefit for the ability to make

25:20 ↗ the changes that are

25:22 ↗ needed

25:25 ↗ from needed to facilities so that we

25:28 ↗ don't have to continue to maintain

25:31 ↗ something that isn't currently

25:34 ↗ representing currently being used by

25:37 ↗ public um

25:39 ↗ and we're having to pay taxpayer dollars

25:43 ↗ in order to maintain and so I can

25:46 ↗ recognize the public benefit of being

25:49 ↗ able

25:50 ↗ to make that change in the designated

25:54 ↗ process that we've already talked about

25:56 ↗ which is the Surplus process this um

26:00 ↗ concept of having to rezone it and wait

26:05 ↗ a year has always seemed to me as

26:09 ↗ punishing to taxpayers who are having to

26:12 ↗ continue to pay for those properties to

26:16 ↗ City staff who want to be able to move

26:20 ↗ on on something um where we've already

26:23 ↗ gone to the agreement that this is

26:25 ↗ something that we would like to do um to

26:27 ↗ property owners and so I am definitely

26:31 ↗ in support of um making that change I

26:34 ↗ will be very interested to see how um

26:38 ↗ the parks in open space compared to the

26:42 ↗ facilities how that is handled and how

26:44 ↗ we make adjustments because our

26:46 ↗ community is very much in favor of our

26:48 ↗ parks and um I think we'll be very

26:51 ↗ interested to make sure that that

26:54 ↗ process is still protective of our areas

26:57 ↗ and I'm sure that that will will be a

26:59 ↗ good conversation at

27:01 ↗ PPC um and that's really my feedback I'm

27:05 ↗ generally in favor of all of these

27:08 ↗ changes thank you Council Jan um yeah

27:12 ↗ thank you for putting this together and

27:13 ↗ to um piggyback off uh council president

27:16 ↗ Walsh's point about you know Community

27:18 ↗ facilities I think you know the city

27:22 ↗ owns a lot of facilities and maintaining

27:25 ↗ them is something that's you know really

27:27 ↗ difficult for us and so kind of making

27:29 ↗ it easier for us to get it in the hands

27:31 ↗ of people who are using it for a

27:32 ↗ community benefit like the food and

27:34 ↗ clothing bank I think you know being

27:35 ↗ able to um make it so that that process

27:38 ↗ is less onerous as a public benefit I

27:40 ↗ will also note um based on um the

27:42 ↗ audience members uh comments I looked

27:44 ↗ into how schools are zoned in other

27:47 ↗ areas and they have a specific uh zoning

27:50 ↗ called school and so that could be

27:52 ↗ somewhere where some of that language on

27:55 ↗ um you know Zoning for schools could

27:56 ↗ live and that would make more sense than

27:58 ↗ of you know lumping in schools with

28:00 ↗ other community facilities like the

28:02 ↗ garage or you know because the city owns

28:04 ↗ all sorts of stuff and we're even just

28:06 ↗ starting to get a handle on what

28:07 ↗ everything is so I think it it

28:09 ↗ definitely makes sense to kind of you

28:11 ↗ know instead of glomming together

28:13 ↗ everything that the city owns as one

28:14 ↗ type of facility be like actually there

28:15 ↗ are different types of facilities that

28:17 ↗ we own and making it you know more in

28:19 ↗ accordance with everything else that's

28:20 ↗ going on so um definitely supportive of

28:23 ↗ that and um on the other ones related to

28:25 ↗ you know complying with state law we got

28:27 ↗ to do that and so fully support um and

28:30 ↗ yeah that's it for

28:34 ↗ me oh and one other thing I'm very

28:37 ↗ interested to learn more about um you

28:39 ↗ know as this concurrency uh conversation

28:41 ↗ gets going what some of the you know

28:44 ↗ level of service type of met metrics are

28:47 ↗ for uh Transit and other modes of

28:51 ↗ transportation thank you um well and I

28:54 ↗ did just want to quickly before I ask or

28:57 ↗ share my comment

28:58 ↗ um a quick questions I think the public

29:00 ↗ comment with regard to um Community

29:03 ↗ facilities and schools was that it's

29:05 ↗ tied to specific development standards

29:07 ↗ so is there like cleanup that would have

29:09 ↗ to be done in terms to where things are

29:12 ↗ tied to the term Community facilities um

29:15 ↗ as well and is that additional work that

29:17 ↗ staff's taking on yes as part of the

29:19 ↗ evaluation going through each of them

29:20 ↗ we're going to be looking at if there's

29:21 ↗ any potential code changes going to be

29:23 ↗ necessary to support making the

29:26 ↗ change um all right well thank you um so

29:29 ↗ for the first um for single family zones

29:33 ↗ I agree I think it makes sense for uh

29:36 ↗ the nomenclature to more accurately uh

29:39 ↗ capture what um State changes have

29:42 ↗ happened for single family zones um same

29:45 ↗ with complying with requirements for

29:47 ↗ co-housing and it makes sense to include

29:49 ↗ the transport or the concurrency stuff

29:51 ↗ since we'll be doing concurrency later

29:53 ↗ this year also glad to see the food bank

29:55 ↗ site um there they're very eager to

29:58 ↗ continue serving the public on that site

30:00 ↗ um I feel a little bit differently I

30:02 ↗ feel like we haven't met the bar um for

30:04 ↗ public benefit for um all of community

30:08 ↗ facilities um designations so I think I

30:11 ↗ do understand the rationale from the

30:13 ↗ user perspective easier for the city

30:14 ↗ during the Surplus process easier for

30:17 ↗ private properties um but I do think

30:20 ↗ that making well and I do think making

30:23 ↗ the case for public benefit is much

30:24 ↗ clearer and easier when we're going

30:26 ↗ property by property right

30:28 ↗ um City Hall Northwest uh the food bank

30:31 ↗ site um and that's certainly what staff

30:35 ↗ it seems like intends to do with all the

30:36 ↗ different properties but to the point of

30:40 ↗ our public comment or we have to be able

30:43 ↗ to make that case in order for it to be

30:45 ↗ on the docket in the first place um I

30:47 ↗ actually think it might be worth having

30:49 ↗ a broader policy conversation with

30:51 ↗ Council here to discuss before um taking

30:54 ↗ this on as part of the comp comp plan

30:56 ↗ process especially cuz the doesn't seem

30:58 ↗ to be a major urgency around it although

31:01 ↗ I take your point about things come up

31:02 ↗ you you don't always know um where we

31:05 ↗ could be asking ourselves kind of what

31:07 ↗ is the value of community facilities

31:09 ↗ first right it exists for many reasons

31:11 ↗ and there are many different types um

31:13 ↗ and there's this process of waiting um

31:15 ↗ and I agree that it it can be cumbersome

31:17 ↗ in certain contexts um but itself could

31:21 ↗ be a tool to ensure public benefit that

31:23 ↗ I think I think in terms of process

31:26 ↗ Council should weigh in on that first it

31:28 ↗ seems to me to be a significant policy

31:30 ↗ question to because there would be a

31:32 ↗ significant impact to those kinds of

31:34 ↗ things so I though I do think it's very

31:38 ↗ reasonable to assume we go through that

31:40 ↗ process with Council and we do say it is

31:42 ↗ a public benefit to remove that and come

31:44 ↗ up with different terms for X Y and Z

31:46 ↗ reasons um but I don't personally think

31:49 ↗ that I can make that claim today for in

31:51 ↗ order to put it on the docket um so my

31:54 ↗ ask would be that we remove this from

31:56 ↗ the docket on the comp plan this Year

31:58 ↗ and have a kind of broader conversation

31:59 ↗ with Council um maybe I'll just kick

32:03 ↗ that back to the rest of the committee

32:04 ↗ members see if you have any thoughts and

32:06 ↗ yeah we can go from there yeah so I I

32:09 ↗ think that was why I asked the question

32:11 ↗ of what happens if we ultimately don't

32:14 ↗ agree with what the changes or we find

32:19 ↗ through the process that there is it's

32:23 ↗ problematic and we're not ready to make

32:26 ↗ that change I'm not ready to say no to

32:30 ↗ this until we have that

32:32 ↗ information I'm not ready to say there's

32:36 ↗ going to be a problem until it's

32:37 ↗ presented with a problem and I have in

32:40 ↗ Reading over the criteria I clearly see

32:44 ↗ the public benefit that could be

32:46 ↗ achieved by making that change um and

32:50 ↗ the fact that you know their the comp

32:53 ↗ plan is the right method of doing this

32:57 ↗ it um isn't problematic with the rest of

33:01 ↗ our comp plan and the goals of the city

33:03 ↗ it's something that all of the other

33:05 ↗ cities around us do and

33:08 ↗ so from that perspective I think this

33:12 ↗ gives the public benefit that would be

33:14 ↗ needed to achieve on the docket not

33:16 ↗ saying I necessarily approve of the

33:20 ↗ future policy but I think it achieves

33:24 ↗ the criteria needed to do that

33:27 ↗ evaluation and be put into our comp

33:32 ↗ plan yeah and you know as Stephen

33:35 ↗ mentioned earlier we can take this off

33:37 ↗ the docket but we can't put it on later

33:39 ↗ so especially since they have the

33:40 ↗ bandwidth to work on it this year I

33:41 ↗ think we can you know they can do the

33:43 ↗ evaluation and then we can decide

33:45 ↗ whether or not to actually move forward

33:46 ↗ with the resoning but I think we need to

33:48 ↗ see what the full evaluation is to make

33:50 ↗ that

33:52 ↗ decision okay yeah I appreciate that

33:56 ↗ I am still think falling on the side

33:58 ↗ that it's we haven't clearly

33:59 ↗ demonstrated public benefit but um it

34:02 ↗ seems like a majority of the committee

34:03 ↗ thinks so I might ask if um it's okay

34:06 ↗ maybe we put this on regular business

34:08 ↗ and highlight the question for Council

34:10 ↗ if that's okay with the committee any

34:12 ↗ objections to to doing

34:15 ↗ that any objections from staff to doing

34:18 ↗ that okay uh any other comments that

34:21 ↗ we'd like to share with staff yeah go

34:23 ↗ ahead yeah I would just say as we're

34:26 ↗ highlighting this information back to

34:28 ↗ council just making sure that we're very

34:30 ↗ clear that this is approving the docket

34:32 ↗ not the policy um because well comp plan

34:36 ↗ stuff very M very regularly comes to pte

34:39 ↗ it doesn't necessarily come to the full

34:41 ↗ Council as often and so they are

34:44 ↗ probably not as familiar with the idea

34:46 ↗ of creating a docket it going through

34:49 ↗ the work and then doing the approval so

34:51 ↗ that would just be my

34:53 ↗ ask and can you remind me when this

34:56 ↗ comes back to council is it the 17th

34:58 ↗ it'll be March 17th okay so the same day

35:00 ↗ I would make my report so that won't be

35:02 ↗ useful in that okay got it um then yeah

35:04 ↗ that that process sounds good that

35:06 ↗ council president has just described um

35:09 ↗ do you have everything you need on this

35:10 ↗ particular item I do great that was our

35:15 ↗ only bit of um so-called regular

35:19 ↗ business for committee so the next item

35:22 ↗ is announcements um I did want to go uh

35:26 ↗ quickly or go to direct do Dr Dolly wall

35:28 ↗ who's going to give us um a quick

35:30 ↗ overview of the committee's work for the

35:32 ↗ year but any announcements by the

35:34 ↗ committee first go ahead just a question

35:36 ↗ do we need to vote on that at all or is

35:39 ↗ it just providing Direction good

35:41 ↗ question do we need to

35:42 ↗ vote I I documented the the majority and

35:45 ↗ minority opinion fantastic thank you all

35:48 ↗ right perfect I'll make sure to add that

35:50 ↗ to my notes so I ask that question in

35:52 ↗ future thank you for your patience

35:54 ↗ everyone it's my first time chairing

35:55 ↗ this committee so uh director Dolly wall

35:57 ↗ take it away

35:58 ↗ good evening everyone um so I wanted to

36:00 ↗ kind of give you a little preview of

36:02 ↗ what's coming your way this year um so

36:04 ↗ middle housing if you haven't heard that

36:07 ↗ yet uh will be fair and square in front

36:09 ↗ of you um we hope to get that through

36:13 ↗ planning and policy Commission in March

36:15 ↗ and so April 1st uh our plan is to bring

36:17 ↗ that forward uh planning policy

36:19 ↗ commission's recommendation for your

36:22 ↗ consideration um following that um

36:25 ↗ there's a lot of bills that got passed

36:27 ↗ on the parking uh piece uh so we'll be

36:30 ↗ working through that and hope to bring

36:32 ↗ that to your Committee in

36:35 ↗ May and uh it'll be bundled together

36:38 ↗ with some um Title 18 annual updates um

36:43 ↗ at the May meeting uh and then June um

36:47 ↗ if we done with all our uh boards and

36:49 ↗ commissions looking at the tree code uh

36:51 ↗ updates uh that'll come in front of you

36:54 ↗ in June um of course the docket once

36:56 ↗ it's approved you know we'll be working

36:58 ↗ with the commissions on that so that'll

37:01 ↗ be the third fourth quarter uh work uh

37:04 ↗ some of the other things um that are in

37:07 ↗ play are uh Ptown Regional Council has

37:10 ↗ is going to go through a process of

37:12 ↗ redesignating uh our growth centers

37:15 ↗ throughout the the region so there'll be

37:17 ↗ some

37:19 ↗ recertification efforts um and we may

37:22 ↗ involve a briefing uh to this committee

37:24 ↗ on that topic um light rail planning

37:27 ↗ thank you to council that provided the

37:29 ↗ funding uh to take that on for the next

37:31 ↗ couple of years um we have will be

37:35 ↗ working with um other Council committees

37:37 ↗ on that and we'll uh see if it makes

37:40 ↗ sense to go directly to full Council

37:42 ↗ because I think there was more interest

37:44 ↗ for all the the entire committee so if

37:46 ↗ you just go to mobility and

37:47 ↗ infrastructure then and PD is also

37:49 ↗ interested and so um I think the plan

37:52 ↗ there is to go to full full Council on

37:54 ↗ that topic um I think those are the main

37:58 ↗ ones um that'll you know that we're

38:02 ↗ going to be bringing forth this year and

38:04 ↗ of course things can change uh boards

38:06 ↗ and commissions may decide to take a

38:08 ↗ little bit longer here there uh but

38:10 ↗ that's the plan for

38:11 ↗ now thank you very much for the look

38:13 ↗ ahead any other announcements yeah

38:15 ↗ council president question that just um

38:18 ↗ I know we did the big Title 18 adoption

38:22 ↗ and one of the parts of that was to look

38:25 ↗ at it annually and try and understand so

38:28 ↗ I know PPC has been going going through

38:31 ↗ some clarifying amendments are there any

38:34 ↗ policy amendments that we're looking at

38:36 ↗ particularly as people have started to

38:38 ↗ experience the code any problems that

38:40 ↗ they've worked with what is the plan

38:42 ↗ there yeah so uh I think this year we we

38:46 ↗ bundled everything uh together last year

38:48 ↗ the clarifying and the policy ended up

38:51 ↗ having six different ordinances so in

38:54 ↗ order to solve that issue getting all

38:56 ↗ the clarifying amendments in one

38:58 ↗ ordinance so that's on a path you know

39:00 ↗ more straightforward one the policy

39:02 ↗ amendments are um we plan to go to

39:05 ↗ planning and policy commission soon on

39:07 ↗ those um and they they have tackled a

39:10 ↗ few things you know for instance we took

39:12 ↗ out the Beehive regulations or we took

39:15 ↗ out the animals and rooster conversation

39:18 ↗ from the code so there's a little bit of

39:20 ↗ policy debate on on those kind of things

39:23 ↗ um so that's that we haven't started the

39:25 ↗ conversation with the PPC believe

39:28 ↗ Christen do you know when um is that

39:32 ↗ upcoming bpc for the policy amendments

39:35 ↗ for Title

39:37 ↗ 18 uh the policy amendments so planning

39:41 ↗ policy commission has actually been

39:42 ↗ reviewing a lot of policy amendments

39:44 ↗ since last fall uh kind of taking it

39:47 ↗ piece by piece they'll look at it Al

39:49 ↗ together uh with a lot of their feedback

39:51 ↗ Incorporated I believe in April and then

39:56 ↗ it'll come back to council committee

39:58 ↗ following once they have a public

39:59 ↗ hearing on that and then we'll go to

40:01 ↗ city council for potential adoption in

40:07 ↗ June great no announcements all right

40:11 ↗ well then our next meeting is scheduled

40:12 ↗ for April 1st oh April 1 hopefully

40:15 ↗ that's not an April Fool's joke uh and

40:16 ↗ the preliminary agenda is uh Comm 0103

40:19 ↗ middle housing draft regulations and

40:22 ↗ commum 0104 2025 Title 18 clarifying

40:26 ↗ amendments um there being no further

40:28 ↗ business we are adjourned at 7:11 p.m.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Zach Hall

Lindsey Walsh

Kelly Jiang

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Tisha Gieser, City Clerk

Audience commenters (1)

Connie Marsh

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

There being no objection, the Jan. 8, 2025, minutes were approved as presented.
The Committee recommended this item be on Regular Business to ensure Council awareness and input on the Community Facilities redesignation and rezone being on the docket.