Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 24, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION Staff Liaison Christen Leeson, Senior About Planner Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Email policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah's future Regular Members growth through continued review and 2022 – Joy Lewis improvement to the City's Comprehensive Land 2022 – Matt Monahan Use Plan and related land use documents. 2022 – Jason Voiss 2022 – Vacant Membership 2023 – Nina Milligan The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2024 – Ron Faul seven regular members, with four-year terms; 2024 – Sara Bader and several alternates, with two-year terms. All members are appointed by the Mayor and Alternate Members subject to confirmation by the City Council. 2022 - Richard Zaragoza Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2023 - Vacant more information, see IMC 18.03 and Rules & Regulations. Meetings Unless…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 10, 2021

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 1:58 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 06-10-21 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000]

3. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18 Updates: Goals and Outcomes, Gap Analysis, and Schedule, (D)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.9–19

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 2:18 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

1) Identify if any additional items and/or details should be included in the Goals and Outcomes document. 2) Get feedback on the code update memo template using Subdivision memo as an example and get policy direction on changes to the Subdivision Chapter. 3) Share the revised schedule based on feedback from the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) at the last meeting.

4. REPORTS

Council Updates

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.21–23

▶ Watch from 2:25:57 Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

FEBRUARY AUGUST 2/11/21 Cancelled 8/12/21  2021 Comprhensive Plan Amendments: Land Use Element: Climate Change policies 2/25/21 Cancelled 8/26/21 Joint meeting with Park Board  Title 18: Education MARCH SEPTEMBER 3/11/21  Public Hearing: Electric Vehicle Charging 9/9/21 Joint meeting with Development Commission Stations  Title 18: Education  CPPs and Growth Targets Presentation (Informational) 3/25/21  PPC/EVC Joint Meeting: Title 18: Signs 9/23/21  Public Hearing: 2021 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments APRIL OCTOBER 4/8/21 Cancelled 10/14/21  Public Hearing: 2021 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (continued) 4/22/21  Public Hearing: Signs Amendments 10/28/21 Joint meeting with Development Commission  CIP/TIP

4259 segments .txt ↗

0:20 ↗ all of you

0:21 ↗ i'd like to welcome everyone to this

0:22 ↗ very intimate and friendly

0:24 ↗ planning policy commission um tonight

0:28 ↗ june 24th which we will have begin

0:31 ↗ and i'd like to call it to order at 6

0:33 ↗ 32.

0:36 ↗ um tonight due to the for virtual format

0:38 ↗ as well as the governor's proclamation

0:41 ↗ we will be providing some guidelines and

0:42 ↗ as you can see we're all

0:44 ↗ meeting virtually we have participants

0:47 ↗ who will be attending by computer

0:49 ↗ as well as others who will be attending

0:50 ↗ by phone for all meeting attendees

0:54 ↗ please speak clearly and pause

0:56 ↗ frequently

0:57 ↗ state your name each time before

0:59 ↗ speaking

1:00 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

1:02 ↗ speaking and if you're having technical

1:05 ↗ issues

1:06 ↗ please try joining the meeting using a

1:07 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

1:10 ↗ tablet

1:11 ↗ or use the call-in information in the

1:13 ↗ meeting invite to call into the meeting

1:16 ↗ tonight we will be discussing issues

1:17 ↗ related to the title 18 update

1:21 ↗ and i would also like to call for

1:23 ↗ attendance so kristin if you could

1:25 ↗ please call the role

1:28 ↗ mr milligan here

1:32 ↗ mr monahan here

1:36 ↗ commissioner lewis here

1:39 ↗ commissioner zaragoza not hearing

1:43 ↗ commissioner voice here

1:46 ↗ and then commissioners fall and

1:47 ↗ commissioners bader have

1:49 ↗ excused absences this evening but we do

1:52 ↗ have a forum

1:54 ↗ excellent we have a quorum so right now

1:57 ↗ i'd like to

1:58 ↗ approve the minutes from the last

1:59 ↗ meeting are there any corrections

2:02 ↗ adjustments disputes with the meeting

2:04 ↗ minutes of june 10

2:06 ↗ 2021 provided in the agenda package

2:11 ↗ hearing none the minutes are approved by

2:13 ↗ unanimous consent

2:16 ↗ so again as we had stated tonight's

2:18 ↗ regular business will be the title 18

2:21 ↗ updates

2:22 ↗ with goals and outcomes gaps analysis

2:25 ↗ as well as another discussion tonight

2:27 ↗ following

2:28 ↗ subdivisions and other things

2:31 ↗ but we are going to follow two different

2:34 ↗ types of presentations tonight

2:35 ↗ after the break of the first one we'll

2:37 ↗ take public comment

2:38 ↗ and then we'll have a planning policy

2:40 ↗ group discussion

2:42 ↗ and we will follow that for the second

2:44 ↗ part so i would like to pass it now

2:47 ↗ to our director miss dollywood please

3:01 ↗ thank you chair uh voice uh can everyone

3:05 ↗ see my screen

3:09 ↗ mindy do you mind clicking the got it so

3:11 ↗ that the blue

3:12 ↗ uh bar goes away we can see the full

3:14 ↗ screen

3:17 ↗ i recall that from a previous

3:18 ↗ presentation you had that blue bar stays

3:20 ↗ at the top and blocks

3:22 ↗ like an eighth of the screen so it's

3:23 ↗ just like a little guide like a little

3:25 ↗ clippy if you can

3:26 ↗ click that so we can see your full

3:27 ↗ screen would be great

3:55 ↗ is that better now

3:59 ↗ can you guys hear me okay it looks clear

4:01 ↗ okay

4:02 ↗ uh so good evening uh commissioners and

4:05 ↗ members of the community

4:06 ↗ um today uh we have uh like uh chair

4:09 ↗ explained we are first gonna go through

4:12 ↗ the goals and outcomes b

4:17 ↗ that's right so um

4:20 ↗ first we'll go through the goals and

4:21 ↗ outcomes chart

4:24 ↗ and um this is something that i think at

4:26 ↗ the last uh ppc

4:28 ↗ at the planning and policy commission

4:30 ↗ meeting it was discussed

4:31 ↗ uh to give uh you all an opportunity to

4:35 ↗ get a little deeper into what the

4:37 ↗ council uh had adopted in terms of

4:39 ↗ golden outcomes chart

4:40 ↗ have an opportunity to discuss and add

4:43 ↗ anything that you feel is missing

4:45 ↗ or some additional details that might be

4:47 ↗ needed

4:49 ↗ and then later after this discussion

4:52 ↗ we'll talk about the gaps analysis and

4:55 ↗ the code

4:55 ↗ update memo for subdivision which we're

4:58 ↗ showing as a template

4:59 ↗ but really uh using subdivision as a

5:01 ↗ sample for that

5:03 ↗ and a little bit about the schedule at

5:04 ↗ the very end

5:06 ↗ so for the golden outcomes chart council

5:10 ↗ last fall

5:11 ↗ uh adopted uh these um and there was

5:14 ↗ there are two parts to it the first is

5:16 ↗ the umbrella goals

5:18 ↗ which uh you know the guidance is to

5:21 ↗ apply these to every chapter

5:23 ↗ so we need to realign the land use code

5:25 ↗ with the community's aspirations

5:28 ↗ for the city um in the adopted plans we

5:31 ↗ need to provide a transparent code

5:33 ↗ update process

5:34 ↗ that allows everyone to engage in the

5:36 ↗ process

5:38 ↗ and we want to reform our regulations to

5:40 ↗ improve efficiency

5:42 ↗ equity consistency and predictability

5:45 ↗ we want to look at what the current laws

5:47 ↗ are what the best practices are

5:54 ↗ and um so

5:58 ↗ then i think i'm getting some

6:01 ↗ comments here okay there you go um

6:04 ↗ then the part two uh is really asking

6:07 ↗ about the forested hill

6:08 ↗ there are 13 total goals um the first

6:11 ↗ one

6:12 ↗ is to protect the forested hillsides

6:15 ↗ parking

6:16 ↗ use the land efficiently conserve and

6:18 ↗ protect environmental critical areas

6:21 ↗ uh enhance wetlands and riparian

6:23 ↗ corridors

6:24 ↗ improve public awareness increase

6:27 ↗ housing diversity

6:29 ↗ um retain 50 tree canopy

6:32 ↗ um and

6:36 ↗ for the neighborhoods retain their charm

6:38 ↗ and distinctive character

6:40 ↗ create a livable community sustainable

6:44 ↗ development and climate goals need to be

6:46 ↗ looked at and and in

6:49 ↗ terms of all the chapters effective

6:51 ↗ management of travel

6:53 ↗ resulting from new development you know

6:55 ↗ with non-motorized transit and climate

6:57 ↗ goals

6:59 ↗ we need to successfully implement the

7:01 ↗ parks and strategic plan and green

7:02 ↗ necklace

7:04 ↗ sign code which you already made your

7:05 ↗ recommendation to council and councils

7:07 ↗ considering that

7:09 ↗ and 13 is to modernize the code and

7:11 ↗ incorporate best practices

7:13 ↗ then each of these 13 goals that the

7:16 ↗ council looked at

7:17 ↗ they got into more detail um in terms of

7:20 ↗ for i

7:21 ↗ i just picked one example of uh protect

7:23 ↗ forested hillsides

7:25 ↗ so what are some possible actions what

7:27 ↗ are some desired outcomes um

7:30 ↗ things like you you know hillsides

7:32 ↗ around trees or retaining wall

7:34 ↗ character um we need to respond to

7:37 ↗ topography

7:38 ↗ limit the the vertical cut and fill

7:42 ↗ maximum wall heights uh allow

7:44 ↗ development so that

7:46 ↗ tr um transfer development can occur to

7:48 ↗ maximize

7:50 ↗ um but but not to the extent that

7:53 ↗ um any challenging or difficult

7:56 ↗ properties uh

7:58 ↗ can be really clear-cut and tall

8:01 ↗ retaining walls built so those are the

8:02 ↗ kind of level of detail they got into in

8:04 ↗ terms of what

8:05 ↗ what does this really mean in terms of

8:07 ↗ the code

8:08 ↗ and the outcome was you know that you

8:11 ↗ have a

8:12 ↗ attractive character of the hillsides

8:13 ↗ are maintained

8:15 ↗ uh the cut and fill is reduced so there

8:16 ↗ are not that many trucks come

8:18 ↗ hauling the dirt off site um while still

8:21 ↗ protecting

8:22 ↗ development rights of the the

8:23 ↗ individuals um

8:25 ↗ so that's sort of um you know possible

8:28 ↗ actions and desired outcomes so if you

8:30 ↗ as a group uh decide to add more goals

8:34 ↗ then that sort of format would would

8:36 ↗ help staff

8:37 ↗ in terms of what the desired um

8:40 ↗ what the issues are what the desired

8:41 ↗ outcomes are for each one of

8:43 ↗ your additional goals that you want to

8:45 ↗ add so with

8:46 ↗ that i think that's a very snapshot of

8:49 ↗ what's already in your packets

8:50 ↗ um but i'm happy to bring that up on the

8:52 ↗ screen it's more

8:54 ↗ you know discussion it may help

8:55 ↗ facilitate the discussion

8:57 ↗ but at this point we want to pause and

8:59 ↗ take uh discuss

9:01 ↗ this amongst yourselves and give us some

9:03 ↗ direction in terms of

9:05 ↗ uh what additional items or details

9:07 ↗ should be added

9:09 ↗ to this document with that i'm going to

9:11 ↗ turn it over to

9:12 ↗ the chair to facilitate that discussion

9:18 ↗ great thank you director dollywall so

9:20 ↗ i'm going to phone a friend here

9:22 ↗ it's my first one of the evening but do

9:25 ↗ we

9:25 ↗ want to do public comment before this

9:27 ↗ part senior planner leasing

9:29 ↗ or after this discussion i know we just

9:32 ↗ had this conversation but

9:34 ↗ i'm going to say we want to do it now so

9:37 ↗ we can let the public talk

9:38 ↗ and then we can incorporate what they

9:40 ↗ have to say into our response if

9:42 ↗ we would choose to do so

9:45 ↗ that is correct we decided to have

9:47 ↗ public comment now okay

9:49 ↗ feels like a curveball so i'd like to

9:51 ↗ open it up for the comment

9:53 ↗ at 6 41 to allow our public to address

9:56 ↗ um the issues in the agenda packet and

9:58 ↗ also note that we have received

10:01 ↗ i believe three different emails to from

10:03 ↗ individuals and one from an organization

10:05 ↗ so having said that senior planner lisa

10:08 ↗ do we have

10:09 ↗ anyone to speak tonight

10:15 ↗ yes ann fletcher has signed up to speak

10:17 ↗ so

10:18 ↗ ms fletcher and we have another person

10:21 ↗ raising her hand

10:22 ↗ i'm sort of ann fletcher and then connie

10:24 ↗ marsh but

10:26 ↗ miss fletcher i am going to make you a

10:28 ↗ panelist

10:30 ↗ and now you are unmuted

10:34 ↗ so you oh and i believe the guidelines

10:37 ↗ are

10:37 ↗ what five minutes yes okay so we please

10:41 ↗ ask people to stay within their time

10:42 ↗ parameters

10:45 ↗ right thank you good evening

10:49 ↗ um i do want to comment on the title 18

10:52 ↗ update materials and i'm ann fletcher

10:55 ↗ i'm an issaquah resident

10:57 ↗ and with the people for climate action

11:00 ↗ happy to be here tonight to share kind

11:02 ↗ of a climate perspective on where we are

11:04 ↗ now

11:05 ↗ um i searched uh the references to

11:08 ↗ climate goals in the packet and i did

11:10 ↗ find

11:10 ↗ one one in the attachment a

11:14 ↗ which is what uh vinnie just went

11:17 ↗ through

11:18 ↗ uh and uh it did note that the comp plan

11:22 ↗ and the sustainable building action plan

11:24 ↗ uh are kind of the sources right right

11:27 ↗ now of what we have for climate

11:29 ↗ and it's not a lot um and and those

11:32 ↗ probably need review

11:34 ↗ uh based on current climate action

11:36 ↗ information things are

11:37 ↗ changing really fast in that area uh i i

11:41 ↗ wanted to point out that the strategic

11:43 ↗ plan does not address

11:44 ↗ climate at all so we aren't going to get

11:48 ↗ any

11:49 ↗ any um help from there at this point uh

11:52 ↗ and issaquah's climate action plan

11:54 ↗ completion

11:55 ↗ is estimated to be completed in december

11:58 ↗ of 2021.

12:00 ↗ so given the state of our climate

12:03 ↗ related policies and plans

12:06 ↗ doing a gap analysis is difficult and

12:10 ↗ uh i'm my concern is that this challenge

12:13 ↗ could result in climate being uh

12:16 ↗ somewhat or largely left

12:17 ↗ out of the title 18 overhaul unless

12:20 ↗ there's some sort of mechanism

12:22 ↗ so i'd like to bring up the idea of

12:24 ↗ having some sort of mechanism built in

12:26 ↗ a strong one uh that

12:29 ↗ make sure that climate is somewhere in

12:31 ↗ there as a placeholder

12:33 ↗ perhaps uh for when the climate action

12:35 ↗ plan is done

12:36 ↗ or somewhere in this title 18 process

12:40 ↗ to ensure that there's strong

12:42 ↗ involvement from the sustainability and

12:44 ↗ environmental staff

12:46 ↗ in the city and involvement from other

12:48 ↗ departments

12:50 ↗ that affect climate such as

12:51 ↗ transportation

12:53 ↗ and parks etc and ample input from the

12:56 ↗ environmental board

12:59 ↗ um i so those are those are my comments

13:01 ↗ on the attachment a

13:03 ↗ i did want to make two other comments

13:05 ↗ one is

13:06 ↗ i appreciated the the template um

13:10 ↗ the attempt to come up with something

13:12 ↗ and i know it's difficult

13:13 ↗ and uh and it's a great opportunity for

13:16 ↗ community learning

13:17 ↗ i think and i'm learning a lot by trying

13:19 ↗ to read it and interpret it

13:21 ↗ with other people um i have an education

13:25 ↗ or a teacher background so a couple of

13:27 ↗ ideas from that

13:28 ↗ i wanted to share just to see if

13:31 ↗ if that might strengthen the structure

13:33 ↗ or the delivery

13:35 ↗ of the template i think the first thing

13:37 ↗ that i always had to do as a as

13:39 ↗ as a teacher educator

13:42 ↗ is to know your audience and

13:46 ↗ find out what they really do know or

13:49 ↗ don't know and then build on that and i

13:51 ↗ know that's tough to do but i think that

13:52 ↗ there

13:53 ↗ can be ways to do that with some sort of

13:55 ↗ preliminary

13:56 ↗ um chances to or survey or whatever

14:00 ↗ and the other suggestion i have is to

14:02 ↗ try out the presentations

14:04 ↗ on uh people that aren't in your

14:06 ↗ profession

14:08 ↗ uh maybe family or friends uh and

14:11 ↗ incorporate their feedback

14:12 ↗ uh into your presentations

14:17 ↗ the more examples you can give the more

14:19 ↗ concrete examples

14:22 ↗ that are local or cutting edge things

14:24 ↗ that are happening

14:25 ↗ new possibilities uh using graphics or

14:28 ↗ photos that really is helpful

14:30 ↗ for people to gain uh knowledge of your

14:33 ↗ subject

14:34 ↗ and stopping midway through your

14:36 ↗ presentation to kind of

14:38 ↗ check in and make sure things are being

14:41 ↗ understood and

14:42 ↗ adjusted and then um and then

14:45 ↗ of course you you're you're already

14:47 ↗ doing quite a a lot of good listening i

14:50 ↗ think and

14:51 ↗ checking back with the audience then to

14:53 ↗ make sure

14:54 ↗ that you understood the feedback uh the

14:56 ↗ way they meant it

14:58 ↗ and that so that was my ideas there and

15:01 ↗ then i just have one other quick thing

15:03 ↗ and that is in the subdivision code

15:05 ↗ policy direction

15:07 ↗ i think it would be really great to have

15:09 ↗ climate

15:10 ↗ um uh in number three and number four

15:14 ↗ they really lend themselves to some sort

15:16 ↗ of climate reference

15:18 ↗ uh because non-vehicle transportation

15:20 ↗ and what they're now calling 15-minute

15:22 ↗ neighborhoods where

15:23 ↗ residents can meet most of their needs

15:25 ↗ of daily needs without driving long

15:27 ↗ distances

15:29 ↗ those those kinds of things they both

15:31 ↗ reduce vehicle miles traveled and i

15:33 ↗ realize that's a transportation goal

15:35 ↗ but they really do reduce carbon

15:37 ↗ emissions so

15:39 ↗ i want to thank you for this opportunity

15:42 ↗ and

15:43 ↗ i would love to see a schedule for the

15:45 ↗ other boards and commissions now that

15:47 ↗ the ppc has

15:48 ↗ um their schedule thank you

15:56 ↗ thank you ms fletcher i'm going to make

15:58 ↗ you an attendee again

16:00 ↗ and then

16:03 ↗ um let's see connie

16:07 ↗ going

16:13 ↗ connie marsh you are now a panelist and

16:15 ↗ i have unmuted you

16:19 ↗ hi i'm connie martian i live up on

16:21 ↗ squawk

16:22 ↗ and uh i was hearing you all speak

16:25 ↗ before the meeting

16:26 ↗ and we know we get to speak at the

16:29 ↗ meetings

16:30 ↗ we get to speak for five minutes there

16:32 ↗ is nothing

16:33 ↗ saying that what we say is ever

16:36 ↗ responded to

16:37 ↗ or written down or forwarded through and

16:40 ↗ not forgotten

16:41 ↗ so often when you speak at a meeting

16:43 ↗ it's like going into

16:45 ↗ the void so i was a little upset to hear

16:49 ↗ well you know you get to speak at every

16:51 ↗ meeting

16:52 ↗ yeah but do we get any acknowledgement

16:55 ↗ from our speaking at those meetings

16:57 ↗ because i've done it for like 20 years

16:59 ↗ and you don't there's not a mechanism

17:03 ↗ for that now um i

17:06 ↗ minnie was really quiet and i was trying

17:08 ↗ to listen but

17:09 ↗ do we have two public speakings or just

17:12 ↗ one today

17:14 ↗ do we have one before and then one after

17:18 ↗ is that a yes i can't two yes okay

17:22 ↗ then i am going to talk about

17:25 ↗ the chart um now

17:29 ↗ i talked to several council members and

17:31 ↗ that is not a council adopted

17:34 ↗ item it is it is a chart that came out

17:37 ↗ of an ad hoc

17:38 ↗ committee which is three people

17:42 ↗ which is not a council adopted

17:45 ↗ item and when i talked to the two of the

17:47 ↗ people on ad hoc

17:49 ↗ that it was this

17:52 ↗ is a first draft this is not set in

17:55 ↗ stone

17:57 ↗ we expect and hope that people will

18:00 ↗ change it because we

18:01 ↗ can't see or know everything we can't

18:04 ↗ see or know what the problems are

18:06 ↗ so um the idea

18:09 ↗ that it is a set thing i think is

18:13 ↗ not what the council members who did it

18:15 ↗ had in mind

18:17 ↗ and in in that order um

18:23 ↗ the biggest question is

18:26 ↗ is what we have in our comprehensive

18:29 ↗ plan

18:30 ↗ and our strategic plan or our guidance

18:32 ↗ language correct

18:34 ↗ because it does us no good if we create

18:36 ↗ code for guidance language that is

18:39 ↗ incorrect so the first question

18:43 ↗ is geez on these topics where do we want

18:46 ↗ to go

18:47 ↗ what do we envision our city to be

18:51 ↗ and trees are a great example right so

18:54 ↗ what is it that we actually want from

18:57 ↗ our trees

18:58 ↗ um and and then we have to make sure

19:01 ↗ that is

19:02 ↗ actually in our guiding document

19:06 ↗ so for example our tree canopy

19:09 ↗ percentage

19:10 ↗ includes lake tradition plateau but

19:13 ↗ because of that inclusion of all of the

19:16 ↗ extensive tree protection that we have

19:19 ↗ we have a nearly naked downtown and

19:22 ↗ that's okay

19:23 ↗ and we have a nearly naked issaquah

19:25 ↗ highlands with no real mechanism to

19:28 ↗ plant it because

19:29 ↗ we've already achieved that goal but

19:32 ↗ is that really what we want or do we

19:35 ↗ want trees covering more of our city so

19:37 ↗ we don't have the heat islands

19:39 ↗ as our summers get hotter and hotter um

19:43 ↗ do we want the trees to to do their

19:46 ↗ climate action

19:47 ↗ function and i think this needs to be a

19:50 ↗ discussion

19:51 ↗ not a these are our goals this is what

19:54 ↗ we want already perceived because this

19:56 ↗ is what exists in our code

19:58 ↗ and what i would like to see with this

19:59 ↗ chart is to go down that first row

20:02 ↗ and say okay these are our topics now

20:04 ↗ let's talk about our hopes and dreams

20:06 ↗ here

20:06 ↗ what is it that you think the city

20:08 ↗ should be in the future what is our

20:10 ↗ vision

20:11 ↗ per topic and then we can adjust

20:14 ↗ and see if we where we need to change

20:17 ↗ all of the language

20:18 ↗ and that is the biggest step that is

20:20 ↗ missing

20:21 ↗ here so um and and going through and

20:25 ↗ saying do you

20:26 ↗ have things that you want to change i

20:28 ↗ who know the code and know all this

20:30 ↗ stuff

20:32 ↗ better than most would have a really

20:34 ↗ hard time in a few minutes

20:36 ↗ outlining my 20 pages of changes that i

20:39 ↗ think are necessary in our code

20:41 ↗ right so i i think it just has to be

20:43 ↗ come out from a different

20:44 ↗ place that is more

20:48 ↗ a visioning session first and then you

20:51 ↗ can

20:51 ↗ get down into the details so uh

20:54 ↗ there is there is that one and then i'm

20:58 ↗ happy to talk at the next one thank you

21:12 ↗ all right well i definitely want to

21:13 ↗ acknowledge our two community members

21:16 ↗ speaking tonight

21:17 ↗ and as far as having a mechanism to

21:19 ↗ respond to those how would staff like to

21:21 ↗ respond to any questions or concerns

21:23 ↗ from our community

21:28 ↗ something in writing something

21:31 ↗ yeah i mean um i think there's a good

21:33 ↗ point i think um

21:35 ↗ some feedback for us in terms of how we

21:38 ↗ should uh

21:38 ↗ look at this template and how we you

21:41 ↗ know as we start the journey

21:42 ↗ um what i heard the end

21:45 ↗ talk about i've taken notes so we will

21:48 ↗ you know incorporate that

21:49 ↗ for our future um discussion

21:53 ↗ you know know your audience try the

21:54 ↗ presentation concrete examples are good

21:57 ↗ so that's what i heard

21:59 ↗ um in terms of the climate action number

22:03 ↗ three and four

22:05 ↗ creating these neighborhoods um so

22:07 ↗ that's an additional goal that you all

22:09 ↗ can discuss and

22:11 ↗ you know it's definitely embedded in

22:12 ↗ some of the existing goals but

22:15 ↗ we can be more explicit in calling that

22:17 ↗ out um

22:18 ↗ in terms of the climate action plan and

22:20 ↗ the schedule for that happening

22:22 ↗ uh at the end of uh next um you know

22:26 ↗ uh the the timing of that um i think uh

22:29 ↗ the council was

22:31 ↗ clear in these golden outcomes there's a

22:33 ↗ sustainability chapter so

22:35 ↗ we will have be having that discussion

22:37 ↗ and maybe it's a parallel discussion

22:38 ↗ between policies and implementation

22:40 ↗ regulations

22:41 ↗ so we would um you know she's right that

22:45 ↗ we don't currently have

22:46 ↗ uh the policies in place because we're

22:48 ↗ still working on them

22:50 ↗ but to the best of our ability we will

22:52 ↗ have a discussion of the policies and

22:54 ↗ the implementation regulations on that

22:56 ↗ and to the second speaker connie marsh

23:00 ↗ comments i think those are also feedback

23:03 ↗ for staff

23:04 ↗ that we are incorporating into our

23:07 ↗ future work

23:10 ↗ and and i think her suggestion was that

23:13 ↗ we need to

23:14 ↗ uh step back and take a take a more of

23:17 ↗ what do we want

23:18 ↗ uh approach with these goals and

23:20 ↗ outcomes charge so for your discussion

23:21 ↗ tonight

23:22 ↗ uh of the 13 goals that are there maybe

23:25 ↗ that's um something you all can discuss

23:27 ↗ of what you want to do with this goals

23:30 ↗ and outcomes chart and

23:32 ↗ and and make it you know add to it amend

23:35 ↗ it um

23:36 ↗ add more details um or or have a have a

23:39 ↗ discussion about

23:40 ↗ what what you think as we are embarking

23:42 ↗ on title 18

23:43 ↗ um update journey what does that look

23:46 ↗ for

23:46 ↗ and and where should we be

23:49 ↗ so the kind of an open-ended discussion

23:51 ↗ is i think what she was recommending

23:54 ↗ well excellent well thank you director

23:56 ↗ dollywall and

23:58 ↗ i would like to open it up for what this

24:00 ↗ commission does best which is discuss

24:02 ↗ and debate

24:03 ↗ but i am going to phone a friend again

24:05 ↗ because that's what i do

24:07 ↗ and do we need to as far as the public

24:10 ↗ comment

24:10 ↗ i've seen this 100 times but it doesn't

24:13 ↗ actually stop do it what is the correct

24:15 ↗ terminology the public comment is

24:18 ↗ suspended it's tabled it's

24:22 ↗ so this is not a public hearing just a

24:25 ↗ public

24:26 ↗ meeting

24:31 ↗ stop it start it everybody gets five

24:33 ↗ minutes um

24:34 ↗ it doesn't get suspended or anything

24:36 ↗ like that no

24:38 ↗ we'll see you guys have great misfortune

24:41 ↗ fortune to have me as your acting chair

24:43 ↗ tonight so i am

24:44 ↗ doing this on the fly and having a lot

24:46 ↗ of fun with doing it but

24:48 ↗ i would like to open it up for

24:50 ↗ discussion amongst my colleagues

24:52 ↗ and um yeah so we'll start now with the

24:55 ↗ some discussion amongst the planning

24:57 ↗ policy and i'm looking for i'm

25:00 ↗ going to go to my chat box and i'd like

25:03 ↗ to

25:04 ↗ have commissioner lewis has a comment

25:06 ↗ for us so please commissioner lewis

25:09 ↗ thank you acting chair uh commissioner

25:11 ↗ joy lewis here i want to start by saying

25:13 ↗ thank you to staff

25:14 ↗ and thank you to the ad hoc committee

25:16 ↗ because when we saw this

25:17 ↗ two meetings ago um myself and

25:20 ↗ commissioner boyce were saying hey i'm

25:21 ↗ surprised you guys aren't taking

25:22 ↗ feedback on this

25:23 ↗ where we would like to comment on it so

25:25 ↗ i appreciate creating this avenue for it

25:28 ↗ and i really um responded strongly

25:32 ↗ um to the comments that connie marsh had

25:34 ↗ about

25:35 ↗ being able to continue this dialogue

25:37 ↗ right i think it's important for us to

25:39 ↗ have a discussion um what this with

25:41 ↗ saying

25:42 ↗ what is our vision with the public right

25:44 ↗ so creating more space for this i

25:46 ↗ appreciate you guys wanting to hear from

25:47 ↗ us

25:48 ↗ but i also want to continue this

25:49 ↗ discussion um whether you want to use

25:51 ↗ comparisons of

25:52 ↗ baking a cake or building a house

25:54 ↗ whatever works for you

25:56 ↗ but building the foundation for how we

25:58 ↗ address

25:59 ↗ um title 18 is really important and to

26:01 ↗ me i see this gold chart as being our

26:04 ↗ start

26:04 ↗ right so um i see that and the

26:06 ↗ educational component as being

26:08 ↗ extremely important before we start

26:10 ↗ actually even looking at drafts

26:12 ↗ um so allowing there to be space whether

26:14 ↗ that is the ad hoc committee

26:16 ↗ hosting um an open meeting for the

26:18 ↗ public to be able to discuss this

26:20 ↗ whether it sits on multiple different

26:22 ↗ boards and commissions i do think it's

26:24 ↗ important to get more feedback on these

26:26 ↗ goals

26:26 ↗ when i saw it i saw both things that

26:29 ↗ needed to get

26:29 ↗ good and things that needed to get

26:31 ↗ amended i sent those comments to staff

26:33 ↗ and again i appreciate them passing it

26:34 ↗ on to the ad hoc committee to be able to

26:36 ↗ say hey there is

26:37 ↗ some discussion going on i don't want to

26:40 ↗ necessarily read verbatim all of my

26:42 ↗ stuff

26:43 ↗ i have a couple things that i want to

26:44 ↗ float around to everybody um once we

26:46 ↗ start kind of having these discussions

26:48 ↗ um so i have kind of boiled them down to

26:50 ↗ a couple basics of things that should be

26:51 ↗ added or amended in my opinion

26:54 ↗ um so i'm going to dive into a little

26:55 ↗ bit to help the discussion start

26:57 ↗ i think one of them is education is

26:59 ↗ missing right now in our goals

27:00 ↗ um specifically we need to align our

27:02 ↗ school standards and specify our code

27:04 ↗ for an urban compact school planning and

27:06 ↗ implementation

27:07 ↗ we've talked a lot about urban schools

27:09 ↗ we've talked a lot with the school board

27:11 ↗ school district um sorry i should say as

27:13 ↗ saying

27:14 ↗ whether they come to us with a lot of

27:16 ↗ different

27:17 ↗ opinions about why or their current bond

27:20 ↗ doesn't allow for it well we don't have

27:21 ↗ standards for this yet right

27:23 ↗ so let's actually start this discussion

27:25 ↗ right now of saying how do we expect our

27:27 ↗ schools to be built

27:28 ↗ right this is our land use code we want

27:30 ↗ to be able to move forward with urban

27:32 ↗ schools

27:33 ↗ designing in a compact way but yet we

27:35 ↗ don't haven't had that discussion

27:37 ↗ right we know that we need to create

27:39 ↗ that so this is a good opportunity and a

27:41 ↗ time to start bringing the community

27:43 ↗ together

27:44 ↗ with the school district and the school

27:46 ↗ board

27:47 ↗ with members of the community to say how

27:48 ↗ are we moving forward with building

27:50 ↗ schools in our community

27:51 ↗ um so i would love that food to be a

27:54 ↗ goal and i would love that to begin

27:56 ↗ um because i think it's a pretty

27:57 ↗ important thing that's missing right now

28:00 ↗ um one thing too is that um the live

28:02 ↗ work play

28:03 ↗ is not fully represented i feel right

28:05 ↗ now in the goals um

28:07 ↗ our job creation needs to be represented

28:09 ↗ our goals um

28:11 ↗ and i know in our my discussion with

28:12 ↗ minnie she was saying this can be

28:14 ↗ addressed in our land use and standards

28:15 ↗ section um i think that's something

28:17 ↗ that's open

28:18 ↗ to discussion right how do we implement

28:21 ↗ um our job numbers right now um we've

28:24 ↗ been really fortunate

28:26 ↗ that we have a fantastic member of our

28:28 ↗ community with costco

28:29 ↗ but when you take out those numbers for

28:31 ↗ the costco expansion

28:33 ↗ we're seriously lagging behind our job

28:35 ↗ creation and we're seriously lagging

28:36 ↗ behind and um our goal for the community

28:38 ↗ to be able

28:39 ↗ to be able to work and live in our

28:42 ↗ community

28:43 ↗ and i think that that goal really needs

28:44 ↗ to come to the forefront in some way

28:47 ↗ and needs to be addressed right now um

28:49 ↗ and how we um

28:50 ↗ how we're actually building um our

28:53 ↗ community specifically right so

28:55 ↗ um i think that's open to discussion as

28:57 ↗ far as amendments um

28:59 ↗ i had uh for our current goals um i can

29:02 ↗ go through um i think point four

29:04 ↗ um on the environment specific needs

29:07 ↗ specific mentioning of native spam and

29:09 ↗ runs

29:09 ↗ uh being supported and restored as a

29:11 ↗ separate objective

29:12 ↗ i also think possible actions for

29:14 ↗ non-repair non-repairing

29:16 ↗ wildlife um needs to be an additional

29:18 ↗ policy to create and prioritize when

29:20 ↗ possible

29:20 ↗ um when we think about how we're

29:22 ↗ developing and building our land i think

29:24 ↗ it's really important to

29:26 ↗ factor in you know does this wetlands

29:28 ↗ have a native salmon run in it versus

29:30 ↗ being just a native western stream i

29:32 ↗ think that needs to be called out i

29:33 ↗ think there might need to be different

29:35 ↗ um

29:35 ↗ development standards that are put to um

29:38 ↗ you know whether it's laughing jacob's

29:39 ↗ creek whether it's lewis creek right we

29:41 ↗ have a lot of

29:41 ↗ areas that need to be protected and i

29:43 ↗ think they need to be called out in our

29:45 ↗ land use code

29:46 ↗ um and i also think that we need to

29:48 ↗ start having expectations of our

29:50 ↗ developers of how they build to be able

29:52 ↗ to

29:53 ↗ um accommodate the other members of our

29:56 ↗ community

29:57 ↗ our four-legged friends effectively um

30:00 ↗ on point nine

30:01 ↗ um i think that new development is

30:04 ↗ mentioned

30:05 ↗ but massive retrofitting is needed for

30:07 ↗ the existing infrastructure

30:08 ↗ of our city and public spaces

30:11 ↗ and i think this could be a possible

30:13 ↗ action for the planning and

30:14 ↗ implementation of retrofitting all

30:16 ↗ public buildings

30:17 ↗ i think additionally we need the

30:18 ↗ analysis of a current pollution

30:20 ↗ generated by the city and how to

30:22 ↗ eliminate our waste with the intention

30:24 ↗ of carbon neutrality

30:26 ↗ um i think it's really important to be

30:28 ↗ able to have

30:29 ↗ i mean i i recognize that um our climate

30:32 ↗ action plan is tbd right now

30:34 ↗ still in the works and still in the

30:35 ↗ process but i think it's important to

30:37 ↗ call out in our goals

30:38 ↗ that we specifically need to have an

30:41 ↗ analysis done of where

30:43 ↗ is our pollution being generated by the

30:44 ↗ city and how do we

30:46 ↗ get to neutrality for that um what is

30:49 ↗ the plan

30:50 ↗ for being able to retrofit all of our

30:51 ↗ buildings we know that most likely in

30:53 ↗ the next two years there's going to be

30:55 ↗ massive grants coming

30:56 ↗ from the federal government i want us to

30:57 ↗ be ready i don't want the

30:59 ↗ typical pattern that we do um often with

31:02 ↗ like mobility where we say

31:04 ↗ well we have sort of a plan it's a light

31:06 ↗ plan let's see where we get the funds

31:07 ↗ and then we can really dive in

31:09 ↗ i want us to have a plan and be ready to

31:11 ↗ go when we think about what a strict

31:13 ↗ timeline we are on

31:14 ↗ um to be able to lead in this community

31:17 ↗ um the last one i'm going to talk about

31:18 ↗ is point

31:19 ↗ 13 and i think it needs mentioning of

31:21 ↗ streamlining our code and ease of use i

31:23 ↗ think we need to have language about

31:24 ↗ that um

31:26 ↗ i think we need an examination of the

31:27 ↗ alignment with the comp plan and we need

31:29 ↗ to know

31:30 ↗ what our current exposure ability is to

31:32 ↗ fill the gaps

31:33 ↗ um i'm not seeing that right now and so

31:35 ↗ i think with port 13 we need to

31:37 ↗ pull that out um i realize that's a lot

31:39 ↗ of work for everybody to absorb

31:41 ↗ and you would have needed to be looking

31:42 ↗ at your at your goals for that so

31:44 ↗ i'm happy to i'm happy to go back but

31:47 ↗ what i basically want to

31:48 ↗ loop through and everyone is to say i

31:50 ↗ think that we're missing some goals and

31:51 ↗ i think some goals can be amended

31:53 ↗ and i'd love to hear from everybody else

31:54 ↗ to say where do you think we're at

31:59 ↗ i'm going to interrupt you for one

32:00 ↗ minute um i just wanted to note that

32:02 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

32:04 ↗ is present as of seven o'clock and

32:07 ↗ that's all thank you

32:11 ↗ great thank you senior planner do we

32:14 ↗ have any more discussion from amongst

32:16 ↗ the planning policy commission

32:19 ↗ i see commissioner milligan so

32:22 ↗ please thank you standing chair voice

32:26 ↗ this is commissioner

32:28 ↗ milligan and thank you for uh breaking

32:30 ↗ up the

32:31 ↗ conversation this evening into pieces so

32:33 ↗ that we can address these things and

32:35 ↗ then um

32:36 ↗ in kind of a tangible fashion i think it

32:37 ↗ helps the public it helps me certainly

32:40 ↗ um

32:44 ↗ one of the things that and we're going

32:45 ↗ to talk about gaps later gaps analysis

32:47 ↗ later but in in regards to goals

32:50 ↗ i felt that the goals

32:53 ↗ and the outcomes in the whole chart was

32:55 ↗ very well done i really appreciate

32:57 ↗ louis's

32:58 ↗ commissioner lewis's um thorough

33:01 ↗ evaluation and finding things that

33:03 ↗ aren't there which is i think the most

33:05 ↗ difficult task is to see something that

33:07 ↗ you're missing and i really appreciate

33:09 ↗ you uh bringing those

33:11 ↗ uh those ideas and i don't disagree with

33:14 ↗ any of those

33:15 ↗ however i think i'd like to just

33:17 ↗ recognize for the sake of the hard work

33:19 ↗ that people do is that the compact

33:21 ↗ schools

33:22 ↗ is a um our standards that we have been

33:25 ↗ developing

33:25 ↗ we have a more complex school standard

33:28 ↗ than we

33:29 ↗ did so it's not like we haven't done

33:31 ↗ anything uh but you know

33:33 ↗ we are becoming more urban and there's

33:35 ↗ another stuff that needs to be taken i

33:36 ↗ recognize that

33:38 ↗ and i really appreciate the um comments

33:40 ↗ about especially about

33:41 ↗ enhancing our employment objectives

33:45 ↗ with some stronger language that might

33:46 ↗ help us get there

33:48 ↗ um one of the things that i appreciated

33:51 ↗ uh and i only have one screen tonight so

33:54 ↗ to jump back and forth

33:55 ↗ all the time here okay so uh i wanted to

33:58 ↗ make a point of commenting about number

33:59 ↗ 13

34:01 ↗ because this has to do with following

34:04 ↗ building codes and standards and

34:06 ↗ and the relationship between our codes

34:08 ↗ and the developers and staff and all the

34:09 ↗ work that has to be done to get things

34:11 ↗ approved

34:12 ↗ and i'm not sure that um

34:15 ↗ it seemed good to me the language along

34:18 ↗ that row

34:18 ↗ that what i want to see and what i want

34:21 ↗ to continue

34:22 ↗ and i hope to foster if there are ways

34:24 ↗ to improve it

34:25 ↗ is not necessarily to make it easier

34:28 ↗ to build anything in issaquah because

34:31 ↗ what i'm hoping is we're going to

34:33 ↗ increase our standards we're going to

34:34 ↗ we're going to challenge developers

34:36 ↗ to to rise to the occasion of building

34:39 ↗ in a more sustainable fashion

34:41 ↗ or you know some of these standards that

34:43 ↗ are difficult to achieve but i want to

34:44 ↗ make it easier for them to get there

34:46 ↗ and to create a reliable path from

34:49 ↗ application

34:50 ↗ to permit so that it's predictable

34:54 ↗ and has integrity i think that row

34:58 ↗ covers that quite well but because

35:00 ↗ subdivisions is an example tonight

35:02 ↗ um and some of our comment

35:05 ↗ wanted to make it easier to get a permit

35:08 ↗ well

35:09 ↗ easier in the process way harder

35:12 ↗ in meeting our standards that's kind of

35:15 ↗ what i'm looking

35:16 ↗ for and i'm hoping we can get there

35:19 ↗ and then i also wanted to make a comment

35:21 ↗ and ask a question

35:22 ↗ um regarding the public comment about

35:24 ↗ the underlying

35:27 ↗ uh we're using in these um foundational

35:30 ↗ goals

35:31 ↗ and if i thought that most of these

35:34 ↗ documents were fairly current

35:36 ↗ um the mobility master plan is brand new

35:38 ↗ the strategy plan is planned brand new

35:41 ↗ and if um can fill in

35:45 ↗ how new is the comp plan

35:48 ↗ that might help us understand better

35:51 ↗ whether we are dealing with

35:54 ↗ fairly new resources to base our goals

35:57 ↗ upon because

35:58 ↗ i would rather not go back and rewrite

36:01 ↗ the premise

36:02 ↗ we've got a lot of work going forward we

36:04 ↗ have to do a little trusting

36:06 ↗ that the work that's been done to this

36:08 ↗ point is something that we can use

36:10 ↗ so that's it thank you

36:17 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan we have

36:20 ↗ um

36:21 ↗ two other commissioners that they choose

36:23 ↗ to speak please let me know

36:31 ↗ okay well i'll just say real quickly for

36:33 ↗ my piece this is commissioner voice

36:35 ↗ is that i agree with a lot of what my

36:39 ↗ fellow commissioners have just said i

36:40 ↗ really appreciated

36:42 ↗ um the public comment as well there is

36:44 ↗ one area that i'm a little concerned

36:45 ↗ about

36:46 ↗ and i'll explain why and that is the the

36:49 ↗ part

36:50 ↗ where i think the city sometimes tries

36:53 ↗ for too many goals

36:54 ↗ and i'll give you an example so our

36:56 ↗ strategic plan calls out too

36:58 ↗ we want our environmental regulations to

37:00 ↗ be tough as commissioner milligan just

37:02 ↗ mentioned

37:03 ↗ and we also want more affordable housing

37:06 ↗ when i hear the streamlining the

37:08 ↗ processes to make these things

37:10 ↗ easier for developers to understand the

37:12 ↗ process i'm in full agreement

37:14 ↗ um but there's also things that i've

37:16 ↗ read in this document that talk about

37:18 ↗ how

37:18 ↗ developers are trying to maximize their

37:20 ↗ profit or they need to be

37:22 ↗ responsible for more outreach i think

37:25 ↗ the problem we're getting to

37:26 ↗ is expecting developers are going to

37:28 ↗ want to build in a city that is

37:29 ↗ notorious

37:31 ↗ of more affordable housing with tougher

37:34 ↗ regulations

37:36 ↗ and i just and again in a more regulated

37:39 ↗ atmosphere

37:40 ↗ i think you can get two i really do i

37:42 ↗ think you can get the environmental

37:43 ↗ regulations

37:44 ↗ and i think you can get the pricing the

37:46 ↗ affordability that we want the different

37:48 ↗ types of housing

37:49 ↗ but if we continue to ask developers to

37:52 ↗ do

37:53 ↗ more more and more you're not going to

37:55 ↗ get the affordable part

37:57 ↗ they will put that price in there

37:58 ↗ somewhere and that is my concern

38:00 ↗ like i said i think we can do a lot i

38:02 ↗ think there's people that want to build

38:04 ↗ in issaquah but just today i was talking

38:06 ↗ with

38:07 ↗ a developer in kirkland they have much

38:09 ↗ easier regulations and they don't have

38:11 ↗ our force at hillsides and like i said i

38:13 ↗ i'm perfectly fine having tough

38:14 ↗ regulations to build here

38:16 ↗ i think it's appropriate and i think

38:17 ↗ it's what our city wants

38:19 ↗ i think like i said we just needed to

38:21 ↗ understand if affordability is one of

38:24 ↗ our other strategic goals and visions

38:27 ↗ i don't think you're gonna get three out

38:28 ↗ of three i think you're going to get

38:30 ↗ closer to two out of three

38:32 ↗ because again you're going to make the

38:33 ↗ pool smaller of people who are going to

38:35 ↗ want to build here if you continue to

38:36 ↗ ask them to do more again this document

38:38 ↗ actually uses the phrase

38:40 ↗ they're maximizing profit and you know

38:42 ↗ we want better irrigation we want better

38:45 ↗ landscaping we want

38:46 ↗ the builder the developer to do the

38:48 ↗ outreach and the communications we want

38:50 ↗ more of that and more of this

38:52 ↗ and at some point again i don't know if

38:54 ↗ we're going to get the affordability

38:56 ↗ piece

38:56 ↗ because they will put that into

38:58 ↗ somewhere they'll put it into the cost

38:59 ↗ of the house

39:00 ↗ no one builds houses for fun just like

39:03 ↗ none of us go to work because it's a

39:04 ↗ hobby

39:05 ↗ i don't care how much you love your job

39:07 ↗ we all trade it for money

39:08 ↗ so that's my concern um but otherwise

39:12 ↗ there's a lot in this document that i

39:13 ↗ really like and

39:14 ↗ again i think the city laying out some

39:16 ↗ goals

39:17 ↗ um is appropriate and again i'm looking

39:19 ↗ forward to this being the beginning of

39:21 ↗ the conversation i also want to do a

39:22 ↗ little hat tip to commissioner lewis

39:24 ↗ because again

39:25 ↗ i would agree with commissioner milligan

39:27 ↗ it is hard to see that things

39:29 ↗ aren't there and i think the educational

39:31 ↗ part that joy had mentioned

39:32 ↗ is wonderful and there's definitely i

39:35 ↗ think this thing

39:36 ↗ needs more time to percolate allow us to

39:38 ↗ look at and see some of the wonderful

39:40 ↗ things that are in here and also like i

39:42 ↗ said see some of the things that might

39:43 ↗ be a little contradictory or harmful

39:45 ↗ so thank you

39:48 ↗ and because i'm the chair i will ask

39:50 ↗ again do we have anybody else that wants

39:52 ↗ to speak

39:56 ↗ lewis has a question

40:01 ↗ okay please commissioner lewis

40:04 ↗ thank you uh commissioner joy lewis here

40:07 ↗ um i

40:07 ↗ my question is another thing that i had

40:10 ↗ emailed staff about

40:11 ↗ um when i was diving into this from the

40:14 ↗ first round

40:15 ↗ was in regards to my comments on equity

40:17 ↗ and many we had talked about

40:19 ↗ about it when we met and i um

40:22 ↗ and then you were saying i think that

40:24 ↗ this i had suggested putting it in

40:26 ↗ with sustainability right before the

40:27 ↗ goals there's a whole section on

40:29 ↗ sustainability and i was saying i think

40:30 ↗ this would be a great place to put

40:32 ↗ a whole section on equity and um you

40:35 ↗ um were telling me you're like yes i

40:37 ↗ think that there's another place that we

40:38 ↗ could put this

40:39 ↗ so um in lieu of

40:42 ↗ my comments about equity to everybody i

40:45 ↗ wanted to give minnie the chance um to

40:47 ↗ say hey we heard this and we're going to

40:50 ↗ put this

40:50 ↗ in next time you see this we're going to

40:52 ↗ address it and we'll be able to

40:53 ↗ specifically have everybody comment on

40:55 ↗ it

40:55 ↗ or if it was still something that hadn't

40:58 ↗ the city hadn't committed to i wanted to

40:59 ↗ know if there was going to be an equity

41:01 ↗ piece involved in it

41:05 ↗ um sure uh um thank you

41:08 ↗ uh commissioner lewis um so yes we did

41:10 ↗ have a discussion about

41:11 ↗ equity and lens for all of the title 18

41:14 ↗ code update

41:16 ↗ and the umbrella goals that are in in

41:18 ↗ your packet

41:19 ↗ uh have that equity you know uh

41:22 ↗ predictability and and so it's an

41:24 ↗ overarching goal that

41:25 ↗ uh and the lens that we'll have to keep

41:27 ↗ with each one of these

41:29 ↗ um chapters as we go through it in terms

41:32 ↗ of

41:32 ↗ um land use regulations and equity

41:36 ↗ you know everyone's trying to figure

41:37 ↗ that out in terms of what does that mean

41:39 ↗ and and in terms of what does it mean

41:41 ↗ for issaquah

41:42 ↗ so um so if there is additional guidance

41:46 ↗ from

41:46 ↗ planning and policy commission in terms

41:48 ↗ of what that uh you know

41:50 ↗ uh could could mean so for instance uh

41:53 ↗ when we are doing the notification

41:56 ↗ uh to the community of a development

41:58 ↗ project that's going on

41:59 ↗ uh right now we're only notifying the

42:01 ↗ property owners

42:02 ↗ where if 40 of our population is renters

42:06 ↗ uh then we want to notify uh property

42:09 ↗ owners and renters and this is a comment

42:10 ↗ we've received from community members so

42:13 ↗ there are things for like that that we

42:15 ↗ would incorporate our

42:16 ↗ you know uh of the information that will

42:18 ↗ come to you that uh

42:20 ↗ that we're treating everyone the same in

42:22 ↗ terms of getting feedback reaching out

42:24 ↗ and getting information

42:26 ↗ um the other things that come into play

42:28 ↗ with equity and land use

42:30 ↗ regulations sometimes are you know are

42:32 ↗ we subjecting certain types of

42:34 ↗ um um uses and things to a more

42:38 ↗ more noise or more pollution and things

42:41 ↗ like that

42:41 ↗ and how do we do that uh not do that

42:44 ↗ harm to some

42:45 ↗ uh so those are things i think with the

42:48 ↗ land use code

42:49 ↗ and where the uses are allowed what does

42:51 ↗ it mean we're having a freeway split our

42:53 ↗ community and a half

42:55 ↗ and and what does it do to the air

42:56 ↗ quality and how do we want to handle

42:58 ↗ some of those and the health outcomes

43:00 ↗ from it

43:01 ↗ those are things we will be you know

43:03 ↗ looking at through our

43:05 ↗ lens as we are looking at at this but if

43:07 ↗ there are other ideas

43:08 ↗ that uh planning and policy commission

43:10 ↗ wants us to

43:12 ↗ we're all figuring it out in terms of

43:14 ↗ title 18

43:15 ↗ land use code update we have

43:18 ↗ since our discussion um commissioner

43:20 ↗ lewis i did bring it up with our

43:22 ↗ consultant

43:23 ↗ they have someone on their team that can

43:25 ↗ do some training

43:27 ↗ with the planning and policy commission

43:29 ↗ i think it'll be helpful to know

43:31 ↗ what type of training might be useful so

43:33 ↗ we can tailor it and make it meaningful

43:35 ↗ um on that so we're open to your ideas

43:39 ↗ of how you think

43:41 ↗ but there will be that filter of

43:43 ↗ predictability consistency

43:45 ↗ equity in all of our chapters as we

43:47 ↗ bring those forward to you for

43:52 ↗ consideration

43:56 ↗ well thank you director dollywall and

43:58 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

44:00 ↗ again i'd like to ask one more time does

44:02 ↗ anyone have anything else to add before

44:04 ↗ we move along with the second part of

44:06 ↗ tonight's discussion commissioner

44:08 ↗ zaragoza has a comment

44:10 ↗ commissioner zaracoza please

44:13 ↗ thank you uh commissioner sarah gosa

44:15 ↗ here um so i

44:17 ↗ i feel torn by what knight and jason

44:20 ↗ both said i kind of agree with

44:22 ↗ both sides you know i know you're right

44:25 ↗ on and i feel exactly the same way but

44:27 ↗ then

44:28 ↗ i understand completely that you know

44:30 ↗ there will be costs

44:32 ↗ and so thinking about that and thinking

44:34 ↗ about the

44:35 ↗ education that we're we're looking for i

44:38 ↗ would i personally would like to

44:39 ↗ understand a little more

44:40 ↗ about where those costs come in so when

44:45 ↗ we're producing new buildings new homes

44:48 ↗ and we're talking about that cost

44:50 ↗ increase i i'd like to understand

44:52 ↗ exactly where those costs come from and

44:54 ↗ are there ways that we can mitigate that

44:56 ↗ as a city

44:57 ↗ you know is it coming to architecture

44:59 ↗ planning

45:00 ↗ if we're asking for more green space is

45:04 ↗ that a cost not because they have to

45:06 ↗ leave the land alone but they have to

45:07 ↗ process it in some way i know there's

45:09 ↗ definitely green um plans that

45:13 ↗ are affordable or or the take into

45:15 ↗ consideration kind of how

45:16 ↗ the natural environment will replace

45:18 ↗ certain things so you're going to be

45:19 ↗ planting less and

45:20 ↗ and the costs go down if i understood

45:23 ↗ more about those

45:24 ↗ costs i think i could more easily kind

45:27 ↗ of

45:28 ↗ affect that change that we're looking

45:30 ↗ for so that would be a good thing to

45:32 ↗ learn more about it

45:35 ↗ thanks

45:40 ↗ thank you commissioner sergoza would

45:42 ↗ anyone from staff like to

45:44 ↗ comment

45:46 ↗ sure um you know that's good point um we

45:49 ↗ have a chapter in the title 18

45:51 ↗ for affordable housing so that'll come

45:53 ↗ in uh to you

45:55 ↗ uh related to that and and policies that

45:58 ↗ we have in the comprehensive plan

46:00 ↗ there are tools that government can use

46:02 ↗ um

46:03 ↗ as incentives for instance there's a

46:05 ↗ multi-family tax exemption

46:07 ↗ uh you know how do we want to use that

46:09 ↗ tool where you don't have to pay taxes

46:11 ↗ for 12

46:12 ↗ years if you you know are have you

46:15 ↗ you have affordable housing there are

46:17 ↗ there are some

46:18 ↗ land use tools that we can have a

46:20 ↗ discussion on that can offset some of

46:22 ↗ those costs

46:23 ↗ um i think that the state law also

46:26 ↗ allows some reduction in fees and

46:28 ↗ kristin has um will be the point person

46:31 ↗ on that chapter so

46:32 ↗ if do you have anything else to add to

46:34 ↗ affordable housing

46:35 ↗ discussion sure well i just wanted to

46:37 ↗ say that so currently for affordable

46:39 ↗ housing we waive

46:40 ↗ all impact fees mitigation fees

46:44 ↗ plan review fees we waive most fees

46:47 ↗ unless it's a pass-through fee and it

46:49 ↗ goes to

46:51 ↗ some water district or you know the

46:53 ↗ school district actually the school

46:54 ↗ district waves their fees for affordable

46:56 ↗ housing as well so unless it's a

46:57 ↗ pass-through fee

46:58 ↗ for affordable housing we pretty much

47:00 ↗ waived that uh and then we have a few

47:02 ↗ other things whereas

47:03 ↗ um in some cases maybe a garage

47:06 ↗ lucy might have to correct me but in

47:08 ↗ some cases like maybe where a parking

47:10 ↗ garage is required they're allowed to do

47:12 ↗ a um carport sort of thing instead

47:15 ↗ for some of the affordable housing so

47:16 ↗ there we've made some

47:18 ↗ um definite hopefully we've made some

47:20 ↗ dents in what it costs

47:22 ↗ to do the affordable housing but we'll

47:24 ↗ still work on it

47:27 ↗ and if we oh please

47:30 ↗ um i just wanted to tag on not to get in

47:34 ↗ too deep into the weeds but just to

47:36 ↗ point out

47:37 ↗ that this was with the um because you

47:40 ↗ recently heard this on the

47:42 ↗ um electric vehicle code

47:45 ↗ um that was one of the components that

47:47 ↗ was in there was

47:48 ↗ trying to make it um cost neutral for

47:51 ↗ affordable housing

47:52 ↗ so we are beginning to do that but we

47:55 ↗ haven't had that

47:56 ↗ conversation comprehensively but i just

47:59 ↗ wanted to

48:00 ↗ um link this conversation back to a code

48:02 ↗ that you recently reviewed

48:04 ↗ thank you thank you miss loman that was

48:08 ↗ a three-tier effort from city staff

48:10 ↗ and want to thank all of them there um

48:12 ↗ so if we were to

48:13 ↗ be looking for all of these different

48:15 ↗ type of mitigation techniques as far as

48:17 ↗ trying to get the affordability of

48:19 ↗ housing down is there a single specific

48:21 ↗ place is this

48:22 ↗ all over the map or is there something

48:24 ↗ to commissioner sarah goes's point

48:26 ↗ is there a way we can be taught up and

48:28 ↗ trained a little bit better

48:30 ↗ um so we could have better answers or is

48:32 ↗ this something we just need to hunt down

48:34 ↗ in our large volume of are you wanting

48:38 ↗ to

48:38 ↗ are you wanting to this is kristen lisa

48:39 ↗ i apologize senior planner are you

48:41 ↗ wanting to

48:42 ↗ um see where we have all that in the

48:45 ↗ code because we can

48:46 ↗ i guess if yeah i guess just maybe an

48:48 ↗ email so

48:49 ↗ we could ask answer that question for

48:50 ↗ the commissioner that would be fantastic

48:52 ↗ okay can do i'd love to see it too okay

48:56 ↗ yes ms sloman

49:00 ↗ um uh you know i i think the point that

49:05 ↗ um the commission is bringing up just to

49:08 ↗ stay at a high level

49:09 ↗ is a is a one that um

49:13 ↗ we'll all be wrestling with over the

49:15 ↗ course of working on title 18

49:18 ↗ because there are trade-offs and

49:22 ↗ policy decisions that are inherently

49:25 ↗ embedded i think you've identified

49:29 ↗ the commission has identified a great

49:30 ↗ one some of the things that we want to

49:33 ↗ do

49:33 ↗ for a more urban

49:36 ↗ a more well-designed

49:41 ↗ efficient projects

49:44 ↗ could increase costs um another one

49:48 ↗ um that that you know

49:51 ↗ preserving trees and getting rid of um

49:54 ↗ existing parking lots in favor of

49:57 ↗ redevelopment

49:58 ↗ and structured parking if you have parts

50:02 ↗ of town where the main

50:03 ↗ trees on site are in the parking lots

50:06 ↗ um you know so there there are always

50:09 ↗ trade-offs and i think that that

50:11 ↗ is a good reminder to staff that we're

50:13 ↗ going to

50:16 ↗ need to figure out how in the process we

50:19 ↗ highlight

50:20 ↗ some of those policy and trade-off

50:24 ↗ discussions

50:27 ↗ great thank you thank you and thank you

50:30 ↗ for that example i know that was part of

50:32 ↗ our packet too is how we can properly

50:33 ↗ redevelop central izakawa to put

50:35 ↗ more density more you know more and more

50:38 ↗ in there in a

50:38 ↗ in a very nice and appealing

50:40 ↗ aesthetically way

50:42 ↗ and uh yeah to see that number that was

50:44 ↗ pretty wild to see 70

50:46 ↗ surface parking wow okay so we're going

50:49 ↗ to move along

50:50 ↗ and now this is part of our second

50:52 ↗ presentation and again that will be

50:53 ↗ followed by public comment and another

50:55 ↗ discussion

50:58 ↗ um actually you have one more question

50:59 ↗ from commissioner lewis

51:01 ↗ oh yeah okay maybe i should have just

51:04 ↗ had you do the senior planner lease and

51:06 ↗ i'm not doing very well i think i'm one

51:07 ↗ for four

51:08 ↗ um commissioner lisa commissioner lewis

51:12 ↗ please commissioner joy lewis would like

51:14 ↗ to say that the chair is doing a

51:15 ↗ fabulous job

51:16 ↗ and i just wanted to ask minnie um you

51:19 ↗ had

51:20 ↗ our first thing for tonight our first

51:22 ↗ agenda item really was to identify any

51:24 ↗ additional items and details to be

51:25 ↗ included

51:26 ↗ to the goals and outcomes chart and i

51:28 ↗ wanted to make sure that our discussion

51:30 ↗ helped facilitate that i know some of us

51:32 ↗ kind of voiced hey let's

51:33 ↗ let's keep asking let's keep talking

51:35 ↗ let's get more public involvement so i

51:37 ↗ don't know that we necessarily wrapped

51:38 ↗ it up with

51:39 ↗ a cute little bow like maybe it would

51:40 ↗ have been nice to be like here ad hoc

51:42 ↗ committee these are the

51:43 ↗ suggestions but if we if you need

51:46 ↗ something more from us is what i

51:47 ↗ basically wanted to double check or if

51:48 ↗ you felt like

51:49 ↗ we were able to build on it in a way

51:51 ↗ that you're able to find some successes

51:53 ↗ for my questions no i think um this is

51:56 ↗ many um i think we've got what

51:58 ↗ what what you all decide we're

52:00 ↗ discussing so

52:01 ↗ what we'll do is we'll some you know

52:03 ↗ this will be captured in the minutes

52:04 ↗ um for your uh part but we'll also add

52:07 ↗ it at the bottom of that chart to say

52:09 ↗ additional goals

52:10 ↗ from planning policy commission added on

52:13 ↗ june 24th

52:14 ↗ um and and you know i've been taking

52:16 ↗ notes but we'll make sure

52:17 ↗ all the discussion today is captured in

52:19 ↗ that in that chart so it stays in one

52:21 ↗ place

52:22 ↗ but like you said it you know if you

52:24 ↗ have more brilliant ideas which i'm sure

52:26 ↗ everyone has it's been really

52:27 ↗ encouraging to listening

52:28 ↗ to all the conversations and and all the

52:30 ↗ policy stuff that you've picked up

52:32 ↗ uh you know it'll be a fluid document

52:34 ↗ and so we can always come back and and

52:36 ↗ look at it i mean

52:38 ↗ and as we bring all those topics and and

52:41 ↗ um

52:42 ↗ chapters uh to you you know you'll be

52:45 ↗ going back to this

52:46 ↗ back and forth in terms of you know what

52:47 ↗ what were the overarching goals did we

52:50 ↗ capture them here so

52:51 ↗ so you know by the end of it we'll have

52:53 ↗ it all memorized

52:55 ↗ and and more greater bolder ideas added

52:58 ↗ to it i'm sure

53:00 ↗ um so thank you

53:03 ↗ i think we've got it

53:06 ↗ well thank you for that clarification

53:08 ↗ director dollywall

53:10 ↗ commissioner lewis and especially for

53:12 ↗ that vote of confidence

53:14 ↗ so now i would like to move along and we

53:17 ↗ will begin tonight's second discussion

53:19 ↗ and i believe this is also presented by

53:21 ↗ director dollywall

53:23 ↗ so i'll let you take it away

53:26 ↗ uh yeah so kristen i'm i should not

53:29 ↗ share my screen but do uh

53:30 ↗ share a file you said here your actual

53:34 ↗ share the application application and

53:36 ↗ not your screen yes

53:38 ↗ okay let's see

53:53 ↗ can you guys see my screen

53:57 ↗ yes right so this is the second topic

54:02 ↗ that we want it's not yet in the

54:05 ↗ presentation format so it's kind of

54:08 ↗ small

54:11 ↗ there you go okay great thank you thank

54:14 ↗ you

54:15 ↗ uh so uh moving on this is our second

54:17 ↗ topic that we wanted

54:18 ↗ um to bring forth to uh the planning and

54:21 ↗ policy commission and the community

54:23 ↗ members

54:24 ↗ um so as we begin to work you know start

54:27 ↗ our work on title 18 update

54:29 ↗ um the first series of meetings that uh

54:33 ↗ that we want to start in july but this

54:35 ↗ is a sample that we are doing this today

54:38 ↗ with this memo that we prepared to get

54:40 ↗ feedback to see if this format works

54:42 ↗ if this tool works and then instead of

54:45 ↗ just

54:45 ↗ doing a hypothetical analysis on it we

54:48 ↗ picked a topic subdivision

54:49 ↗ to use as a sample test case so the

54:52 ↗ purpose

54:53 ↗ of the gaps analysis is to identify um

54:56 ↗ where title 18 falls short for each

54:58 ↗ topic so you know there's

55:00 ↗ these goals the at a much higher bigger

55:02 ↗ picture

55:03 ↗ but then and then we've identified these

55:06 ↗ topics that we

55:07 ↗ are going to tackle and um so

55:10 ↗ this gaps analysis is going to be by

55:12 ↗ topic so we can have a meaningful

55:14 ↗ discussion about what does this mean how

55:16 ↗ do we apply it and and what not

55:18 ↗ um so the outcome of uh

55:21 ↗ of this exercise uh is

55:25 ↗ that we can capture the observations

55:28 ↗ seek input from you

55:29 ↗ from the community members and other

55:31 ↗ stakeholders and really identify what's

55:33 ↗ missing and needs improvement before we

55:35 ↗ start drafting the code language

55:40 ↗ and next slide so we included in your

55:45 ↗ uh packet uh the code update memo

55:48 ↗ uh which we we're hoping that it can be

55:50 ↗ a tool for educating

55:51 ↗ uh you know instead of giving you 30

55:53 ↗ pages document of here are the policies

55:55 ↗ for

55:55 ↗ comprehensive plan and for a strategic

55:59 ↗ plan that we

56:00 ↗ are short and succinct but we capture

56:02 ↗ things that

56:03 ↗ we felt are the missing gaps

56:06 ↗ so it includes a topic there's a summary

56:09 ↗ of the city's vision for that topic

56:12 ↗ then we have a summary of the gaps or

56:14 ↗ observations from the state law

56:16 ↗ from the five adopted long-term planning

56:18 ↗ documents

56:20 ↗ the comprehensive plan strategic plan

56:22 ↗ central essequal plan

56:23 ↗ park strategic plan mobility master plan

56:26 ↗ and hopefully we had climate action plan

56:29 ↗ but which is in the works but that's

56:31 ↗ uh captured in this number third item

56:34 ↗ which is the

56:34 ↗ the uh golden outcomes chart that we

56:37 ↗ just um

56:37 ↗ were discussing and then also capturing

56:40 ↗ stats observations

56:42 ↗ and a uh there's a whole uh section in

56:45 ↗ there for public comments

56:47 ↗ uh and we want that to be you know

56:49 ↗ really a robust section

56:51 ↗ of these gaps analysis because we want

56:53 ↗ to hear from everyone of what

56:54 ↗ what uh from their perspective is

56:56 ↗ missing or needs to be adjusted

56:59 ↗ then we've identified an up you know an

57:01 ↗ approach to

57:02 ↗ that particular topic how are we going

57:04 ↗ to handle the update

57:06 ↗ um and again like i said the purpose

57:09 ↗ here is to get the policy direction and

57:10 ↗ input from planning and policy

57:12 ↗ commission from our other boards that

57:14 ↗ we're doing jointly

57:16 ↗ these gaps analysis meetings with and

57:18 ↗ also from the public

57:20 ↗ um we will try and add some additional

57:22 ↗ resources for

57:23 ↗ further learning for if you really want

57:25 ↗ to get

57:26 ↗ more information on it so the first

57:29 ↗ topic

57:30 ↗ uh is subdivisions um just a really

57:32 ↗ brief outline

57:33 ↗ in summary of what is a subdivision for

57:35 ↗ folks that um don't do this for a living

57:37 ↗ and

57:38 ↗ and but maybe living in one um so it's

57:41 ↗ really a

57:42 ↗ division of land into separate parcels

57:46 ↗ so it's the state law that you can't

57:48 ↗ sell lease or finance

57:50 ↗ uh a portion of your lot or a land

57:54 ↗ unless you go through the subdivision

57:56 ↗ process and the intent there is that

57:59 ↗ there are utilities access you know fire

58:02 ↗ access

58:03 ↗ to water sewer before you can allow

58:06 ↗ development and um and division of land

58:10 ↗ so there are essentially four different

58:12 ↗ categories of of how these are done

58:14 ↗ so subdivision is more than nine lots

58:17 ↗ under the state law

58:18 ↗ in our city essequal we have anything

58:21 ↗ more than four lots as a subdivision

58:24 ↗ short flat is really less than four lots

58:26 ↗ um

58:27 ↗ but it can be less than nine lots uh

58:29 ↗ under the new uh state law guidance

58:32 ↗ and then binding site improvement plan

58:34 ↗ is a long word but

58:36 ↗ um but it's really mostly used for

58:39 ↗ commercial and industrial

58:40 ↗ uh properties where there's common

58:42 ↗ shared access

58:44 ↗ and they're really um you know a large

58:46 ↗ property owner owns a larger property

58:48 ↗ and they're leasing portions of

58:50 ↗ land for uh to different tenants um

58:53 ↗ so that's a tool that's used in those

58:55 ↗ circumstances and then sometimes

58:57 ↗ um you know boundary lines need to be

58:59 ↗ adjusted

59:00 ↗ um so those are called boundary line

59:02 ↗ adjustments

59:04 ↗ so what does the all the how does this

59:06 ↗ all this play into

59:08 ↗ issaquah um you know as you can see this

59:11 ↗ is our annexation

59:12 ↗ uh history map uh the city has evolved

59:15 ↗ over the years

59:16 ↗ um so there used to be the original

59:17 ↗ township and then

59:19 ↗ you know in 85 uh 15 1959

59:24 ↗ portions of the um area became

59:27 ↗ added on and as areas got added on

59:30 ↗ they also got planted as there are some

59:33 ↗ pre-existing you know really old plants

59:35 ↗ from 1950s to 60s uh

59:38 ↗ to newer development um like the

59:42 ↗ uh the issaquah highlands or the talus

59:44 ↗ but

59:45 ↗ the larger portions of the land then got

59:47 ↗ divided up into these

59:49 ↗ uh pieces but but what also it means is

59:52 ↗ that the utilities came to these

59:54 ↗ areas water sewer power and all those

59:56 ↗ kind of things

59:58 ↗ um so this is just a snapshot of it's

1:00:00 ↗ such an organic thing but it shapes the

1:00:02 ↗ landscape and the

1:00:03 ↗ uh and the environment for many many

1:00:05 ↗ generations to come

1:00:07 ↗ um and so here's a map uh that lucy

1:00:10 ↗ helped me

1:00:11 ↗ sort of identify you know where are some

1:00:14 ↗ of the

1:00:15 ↗ uh some of these um subdivisions so you

1:00:18 ↗ can kind of see

1:00:19 ↗ even in these larger areas

1:00:22 ↗ there are these smaller um portions that

1:00:25 ↗ got planted and then they got added on

1:00:28 ↗ and so on and so forth

1:00:29 ↗ um so this is another example of

1:00:33 ↗ what a plant looks like so you preser

1:00:35 ↗ you know in this particular case you

1:00:36 ↗ have an

1:00:36 ↗ access road you have your homes uh the

1:00:40 ↗ way the la

1:00:41 ↗ the roads are laid out um and

1:00:44 ↗ where the open space is preserved uh how

1:00:47 ↗ the buffers from these critical areas

1:00:49 ↗ uh the streams and the wetlands are

1:00:51 ↗ preserved if they are kept in an um

1:00:54 ↗ in an um tract that's owned and managed

1:00:57 ↗ by the homeowners association

1:00:59 ↗ all of that gets reviewed through this

1:01:01 ↗ uh planning process

1:01:03 ↗ uh here's another example where you know

1:01:06 ↗ things happen over a period of time

1:01:08 ↗ uh there's one subdivision that gets uh

1:01:11 ↗ approved

1:01:12 ↗ and then the next one comes in you know

1:01:14 ↗ five years later or maybe two years

1:01:16 ↗ later

1:01:17 ↗ um by another developer and and how this

1:01:20 ↗ type of

1:01:21 ↗ incremental uh planning

1:01:24 ↗ decisions are made and how they talk to

1:01:27 ↗ each other and how these roads

1:01:29 ↗ and other connections connect with each

1:01:30 ↗ other becomes um

1:01:32 ↗ an important part of our review

1:01:35 ↗ and you know the subdivisions are really

1:01:39 ↗ a technical thing

1:01:40 ↗ at some level because the surveyors have

1:01:42 ↗ to go in and set the corners so

1:01:45 ↗ it's really clear where your property

1:01:47 ↗ lines are how the homes are set up

1:01:49 ↗ what the tracks are who's responsible

1:01:52 ↗ for owning and maintaining them

1:01:54 ↗ if there's a wetland and they was

1:01:57 ↗ enhancements done

1:01:59 ↗ then there are bonds and you know

1:02:01 ↗ monitoring that goes on for a longer

1:02:03 ↗ period of time and who's responsible for

1:02:05 ↗ those the developer

1:02:06 ↗ or the homeowners so all of those things

1:02:09 ↗ get sorted out through this uh

1:02:11 ↗ subdivision process and what does it

1:02:13 ↗ look like on the ground

1:02:14 ↗ so the the the plat that you looked at

1:02:17 ↗ you know that

1:02:17 ↗ incrementally there were four different

1:02:18 ↗ plants that happened

1:02:21 ↗ this is what's there now so you know as

1:02:24 ↗ part of the

1:02:25 ↗ construction permit we look for ada

1:02:27 ↗ accessibility

1:02:28 ↗ how wide the sidewalks are how this

1:02:31 ↗ critical area

1:02:32 ↗ uh tractors preserved what do these

1:02:35 ↗ homes look like where do the garages

1:02:37 ↗ need to be

1:02:38 ↗ how far the setback needs to be so those

1:02:40 ↗ are like design

1:02:41 ↗ criteria that we think could be

1:02:45 ↗ a conversation needs to be had about

1:02:47 ↗ what that looks like for

1:02:48 ↗ issaquah moving forward

1:02:52 ↗ in terms of how we process subdivisions

1:02:55 ↗ now like i said the state law is up to

1:02:57 ↗ nine lots

1:02:58 ↗ um can be done as a short plan anything

1:03:01 ↗ more than nine lots is a subdivision in

1:03:03 ↗ issaquah it's four

1:03:04 ↗ um but it's a two-step process so you

1:03:07 ↗ have a preliminary plant approval

1:03:09 ↗ and then comes the final plant and what

1:03:11 ↗ do these mean

1:03:13 ↗ so preliminary plant is really when most

1:03:15 ↗ of the work

1:03:16 ↗ occurs it's it's although it's a

1:03:18 ↗ conceptual plan

1:03:19 ↗ it shows the proposed development the

1:03:21 ↗ amenities

1:03:23 ↗ um there's a public hearing

1:03:26 ↗ but this is where we're looking for you

1:03:28 ↗ know is the access adequate

1:03:30 ↗ um does uh it meet the open spaces are

1:03:34 ↗ the is the drainage going to work are

1:03:36 ↗ the roads

1:03:37 ↗ um the the right size type location

1:03:39 ↗ design

1:03:40 ↗ is the water and the sewer available uh

1:03:43 ↗ are there sidewalks

1:03:44 ↗ is the public interest being served so

1:03:47 ↗ majority of the work

1:03:48 ↗ occurs at this preliminary plan it's a

1:03:50 ↗ hearing anyone can

1:03:52 ↗ weigh in and our current process is that

1:03:54 ↗ the hearing examiner makes that decision

1:03:57 ↗ so after they get the the preliminary

1:03:59 ↗ plant approval they go in

1:04:01 ↗ and apply for a construction permit to

1:04:03 ↗ build all that

1:04:04 ↗ infrastructure so what you don't see is

1:04:06 ↗ things that are buried under the ground

1:04:08 ↗ the water lines in the sewer lines

1:04:09 ↗ that's the basic premise of a

1:04:11 ↗ subdivision that you can't

1:04:12 ↗ develop until all that infrastructure is

1:04:14 ↗ in place

1:04:16 ↗ so to file a final plat the developer

1:04:19 ↗ has to construct

1:04:20 ↗ sometimes they bond for a few things

1:04:23 ↗ like the final overlay on the road

1:04:25 ↗ because they don't want to ruin the road

1:04:27 ↗ while they're bringing in all the

1:04:28 ↗ construction equipment to build the

1:04:30 ↗ homes

1:04:30 ↗ so they'll bond for a few things like

1:04:33 ↗ that

1:04:34 ↗ they may bond for a long-term monitoring

1:04:37 ↗ for a critical area that

1:04:39 ↗ they may have planted as a result of

1:04:41 ↗ their plat

1:04:42 ↗ planning process but once all of that is

1:04:45 ↗ done

1:04:46 ↗ then that document that i showed you is

1:04:48 ↗ actually recorded with king county

1:04:50 ↗ records and at that point they become

1:04:52 ↗ separate lots until then they can't be

1:04:54 ↗ sold as separate lots

1:04:56 ↗ they're all one lot so this is a

1:04:58 ↗ snapshot of how

1:04:59 ↗ our the process kind of plays out so you

1:05:02 ↗ know they apply

1:05:03 ↗ we have a community outreach we we hold

1:05:07 ↗ a public hearing

1:05:09 ↗ then there's a decision of preliminary

1:05:10 ↗ approval

1:05:12 ↗ the work in the ground occurs all that

1:05:14 ↗ infrastructure

1:05:15 ↗ road water sewer all that stuff is built

1:05:19 ↗ they get the final plat approval

1:05:22 ↗ then it gets recorded and at that point

1:05:25 ↗ they can sell the lots and then

1:05:26 ↗ sometimes we

1:05:27 ↗ we have these outstanding bonds for

1:05:29 ↗ those items that i mentioned

1:05:31 ↗ uh short flats are similar to a

1:05:33 ↗ subdivision

1:05:35 ↗ except for the number of lots um and and

1:05:37 ↗ a more streamlined more usually an

1:05:39 ↗ administrative process

1:05:40 ↗ but it still has those two preliminary

1:05:43 ↗ short flat approval and a final short

1:05:44 ↗ flat approval

1:05:45 ↗ the idea being that your infrastructure

1:05:47 ↗ needs to be in place

1:05:48 ↗ before you can uh build on those new

1:05:51 ↗ lots

1:05:52 ↗ um here's an example of a short plaid so

1:05:54 ↗ you know these

1:05:55 ↗ this is a four lot short flat uh the

1:05:58 ↗ road in here

1:05:59 ↗ had to meet the fire um truck turned

1:06:01 ↗ around so if someone you know if you

1:06:04 ↗ pull in the fire truck needs to be able

1:06:06 ↗ to back out and get back in

1:06:08 ↗ um and this is what the four lot

1:06:11 ↗ short flat really looks like uh an

1:06:14 ↗ access attract

1:06:15 ↗ usually if it's a private uh road it's

1:06:18 ↗ owned and managed by the homeowners here

1:06:21 ↗ or if it's a public street it'll it

1:06:23 ↗ usually is not

1:06:25 ↗ tracked because here it says private

1:06:26 ↗ access and utilities

1:06:28 ↗ so those are all things that are looked

1:06:30 ↗ at through this subdivision

1:06:32 ↗ process um here are some examples of

1:06:34 ↗ more

1:06:35 ↗ projects that are currently under

1:06:37 ↗ construction that if you're out and

1:06:39 ↗ about

1:06:39 ↗ feel free to kind of look at those to

1:06:41 ↗ see what from your opinion is working or

1:06:44 ↗ what needs to be fixed

1:06:45 ↗ so this is a 34 unit single family

1:06:48 ↗ development

1:06:49 ↗ um in in the west lakes of amish

1:06:52 ↗ uh if the final plant was approved in

1:06:54 ↗ 2021 and and some of these homes are

1:06:56 ↗ under construction

1:06:57 ↗ um and here's a a development in talus

1:07:02 ↗ um called panorama i had 63 homes

1:07:05 ↗ they got their final plant in looks like

1:07:08 ↗ 2015

1:07:10 ↗ and they are doing uh the construction

1:07:12 ↗ and this is what uh

1:07:14 ↗ that development looks like from um and

1:07:17 ↗ with the homes under construction at

1:07:18 ↗ this time

1:07:20 ↗ uh and but the road and all that

1:07:22 ↗ infrastructure isn't

1:07:23 ↗ was built before the final plant was uh

1:07:25 ↗ approved

1:07:28 ↗ westridge up in essequa highlands again

1:07:31 ↗ 73 single-family homes 38 of them are

1:07:34 ↗ affordable

1:07:36 ↗ um again these were approved in

1:07:39 ↗ last year and are under construction

1:07:43 ↗ um so those are some examples this is

1:07:46 ↗ the same

1:07:46 ↗ same development uh some more pictures

1:07:49 ↗ of what the plant looked like

1:07:50 ↗ what the road layout looks like what the

1:07:53 ↗ home construction looks like on the

1:07:54 ↗ ground

1:07:57 ↗ this is another project which is a

1:07:59 ↗ phased

1:08:00 ↗ development so we will be having a

1:08:02 ↗ discussion with you of how

1:08:04 ↗ phasing should work and um

1:08:07 ↗ so the second phase which you see the

1:08:09 ↗ pictures here

1:08:10 ↗ is under construction uh the third phase

1:08:13 ↗ is still being

1:08:14 ↗ um reviewed and they do not have the

1:08:16 ↗ approval for the third phase which is

1:08:18 ↗ uh this portion up here um

1:08:22 ↗ so so that gives you a sample of what

1:08:24 ↗ subdivisions are

1:08:25 ↗ what they are mean in isoqua's context

1:08:28 ↗ and um so here's uh our first attempt at

1:08:32 ↗ what we think

1:08:33 ↗ uh the update approach should look like

1:08:35 ↗ for this for this topic

1:08:37 ↗ so short flats you know the maximum

1:08:40 ↗ can be increased to nine lots so we need

1:08:42 ↗ your feedback from

1:08:43 ↗ on what how you think um that should go

1:08:47 ↗ uh the decision whether the final plaid

1:08:50 ↗ should be a hearing examiner or an

1:08:52 ↗ administrative decision

1:08:54 ↗ um what the subdivision design

1:08:58 ↗ section should look like this is the one

1:09:00 ↗ i think the most meatier section

1:09:02 ↗ that we would um we would be looking at

1:09:05 ↗ in terms of

1:09:06 ↗ how isequa has developed what what has

1:09:08 ↗ worked what hasn't worked what we really

1:09:10 ↗ aspire

1:09:11 ↗ our the neighborhood design to look like

1:09:14 ↗ um

1:09:14 ↗ so the circulation street design garage

1:09:18 ↗ orientation

1:09:19 ↗ lot design placement of the building

1:09:22 ↗ open space

1:09:23 ↗ utilities relationship to the street all

1:09:25 ↗ of that

1:09:28 ↗ this item the next one unit lot

1:09:30 ↗ subdivision process

1:09:32 ↗ what really this is is for

1:09:35 ↗ say you a developer wants to build town

1:09:38 ↗ homes

1:09:40 ↗ if we allow a unit lot subdivision

1:09:44 ↗ then those attached town homes can be

1:09:46 ↗ sold as

1:09:47 ↗ individual town homes and they will own

1:09:49 ↗ the land underneath

1:09:51 ↗ their home right now we facilitate that

1:09:55 ↗ through a condominium process

1:09:56 ↗ so you know attached town homes are sold

1:09:59 ↗ are built as a condominium

1:10:02 ↗ the the land is held in common ownership

1:10:05 ↗ even though the state law is is

1:10:07 ↗ improving for condominiums

1:10:09 ↗ but what we hear from developers is that

1:10:12 ↗ from a from an insurance perspective and

1:10:14 ↗ and other pit places it's a hindrance to

1:10:16 ↗ getting

1:10:17 ↗ town homes built they can still do it

1:10:19 ↗ but it's it's a lot

1:10:21 ↗ easier if we allow unit lot subdivision

1:10:23 ↗ process so

1:10:24 ↗ we want to explore that with the

1:10:26 ↗ community here

1:10:28 ↗ uh and then obviously we want to

1:10:30 ↗ streamline and have the best practices

1:10:33 ↗ um we want to have a really clear and

1:10:36 ↗ succinct

1:10:36 ↗ decision criteria so when staff is

1:10:39 ↗ preparing their staff reports

1:10:41 ↗ uh you know it's easier and we can give

1:10:43 ↗ issue these permits

1:10:44 ↗ quicker and faster because it's all in

1:10:46 ↗ one place it's been vetted out we're not

1:10:48 ↗ going searching for it in different

1:10:50 ↗ places

1:10:51 ↗ we also want to clean up how we handle

1:10:53 ↗ expirations

1:10:54 ↗ and phasing of different developments so

1:10:57 ↗ that's our

1:10:58 ↗ first take at what we think uh our

1:11:00 ↗ approach should be

1:11:01 ↗ on this so we've laid out four policy

1:11:05 ↗ questions for

1:11:06 ↗ uh planning policy commission tonight

1:11:09 ↗ and that's by no means the end all and

1:11:11 ↗ be all but that's a start

1:11:13 ↗ so the first question is um

1:11:17 ↗ the state law was changed to allow nine

1:11:19 ↗ new lots

1:11:20 ↗ to be created by the short plat process

1:11:23 ↗ in essequa we only allow four lots

1:11:26 ↗ anything more than four goes through a

1:11:27 ↗ whole subdivision process

1:11:29 ↗ which um i think master builders

1:11:31 ↗ association and others

1:11:33 ↗ have um written urging that the process

1:11:36 ↗ it the outcome could still be the same

1:11:39 ↗ the standards could still be the same

1:11:41 ↗ but the process itself

1:11:43 ↗ is too long uh for uh the

1:11:46 ↗ um the outcome that we get out of that

1:11:48 ↗ and a lot of cities

1:11:50 ↗ have gone to the nine lot uh threshold

1:11:53 ↗ uh many years ago

1:11:54 ↗ um so that's something for a sequel to

1:11:56 ↗ consider do we want to go that path or

1:11:58 ↗ not

1:11:59 ↗ um so that's uh item number one

1:12:02 ↗ policy question one uh

1:12:07 ↗ it's the second one

1:12:11 ↗ well i went back sorry

1:12:17 ↗ second question so

1:12:21 ↗ the second question was should we change

1:12:23 ↗ the city uh

1:12:24 ↗ code to make the final plat approval and

1:12:26 ↗ administrative approval

1:12:28 ↗ so again that's streamlining the process

1:12:31 ↗ uh but it's really not

1:12:32 ↗ going to change any of the outcome the

1:12:34 ↗ final plat

1:12:35 ↗ approval process is really at the very

1:12:38 ↗ tail end

1:12:39 ↗ we're verifying that all the conditions

1:12:41 ↗ of preliminary plat approval were

1:12:43 ↗ were met um the inspectors

1:12:46 ↗ are have already verified that all the

1:12:48 ↗ construction and the infrastructure was

1:12:51 ↗ built per code and what was

1:12:52 ↗ required during the preliminary plan

1:12:54 ↗ approval um

1:12:56 ↗ right now the final plats also uh go to

1:12:59 ↗ the hearing examiner

1:13:00 ↗ and it's a it's a hearing process so

1:13:03 ↗ that's

1:13:04 ↗ the second question um

1:13:08 ↗ the third one is um

1:13:11 ↗ is how do we lay out the streets and the

1:13:13 ↗ connections from the neighborhood

1:13:15 ↗ um you know do we continue with these um

1:13:18 ↗ streets or do we do we have more

1:13:20 ↗ stronger

1:13:21 ↗ requirements for making connections with

1:13:23 ↗ your

1:13:24 ↗ adjoining neighborhoods uh whether it's

1:13:27 ↗ by road by whether it's pedestrian

1:13:30 ↗ connections

1:13:31 ↗ how do we not create islands of

1:13:34 ↗ development but actually well connected

1:13:36 ↗ um again for climate change perspectives

1:13:38 ↗ and and all of those kind of things too

1:13:41 ↗ uh and and the neighborhood character um

1:13:44 ↗ so fewer dead ends more connected

1:13:46 ↗ streets uh block design what do we want

1:13:48 ↗ to do there

1:13:50 ↗ and then the fourth policy question is

1:13:53 ↗ you know there has been the development

1:13:55 ↗ with the isaqua highlands with the talus

1:13:58 ↗ and and some of the uh the other

1:14:00 ↗ subdivisions that have been in place for

1:14:02 ↗ a very long period of time

1:14:04 ↗ so we're going to continue to see some

1:14:05 ↗ of that uh residential development and

1:14:08 ↗ plants come through but should the shift

1:14:12 ↗ in focus be more on infill development

1:14:15 ↗ and by infill development we mean

1:14:17 ↗ um you know smaller you know two lot

1:14:20 ↗ short flats here and there

1:14:21 ↗ um and and the policies should reflect

1:14:24 ↗ being more

1:14:25 ↗ pro infill more streamline process

1:14:28 ↗ uh easier uh process but also what those

1:14:32 ↗ standards look like

1:14:33 ↗ um so those are four um you know

1:14:36 ↗ policy questions we've laid out to start

1:14:38 ↗ the discussion

1:14:39 ↗ but again we're we want to hear from

1:14:41 ↗ everyone what your

1:14:42 ↗ other ideas are what issues you've seen

1:14:45 ↗ living in the community

1:14:46 ↗ that you think need to be addressed as

1:14:48 ↗ part of the subdivision chapter

1:14:50 ↗ so with that chair that concludes uh my

1:14:53 ↗ presentation

1:14:55 ↗ and i will turn that over to you to

1:14:57 ↗ facilitate

1:14:58 ↗ that discussion

1:15:02 ↗ well thank you director dollywall on two

1:15:04 ↗ fantastic presentations

1:15:06 ↗ learned a lot and i'm sure

1:15:09 ↗ the fellow colleagues did as well so

1:15:12 ↗ right now i'd like to open it back up

1:15:13 ↗ for public discussion

1:15:15 ↗ and ask senior planner lee sin if we

1:15:17 ↗ have anyone out there who would like to

1:15:19 ↗ make a public comment

1:15:21 ↗ yes um ken esseman would like to speak

1:15:23 ↗ so mr essiman i'm going to make you a

1:15:26 ↗ presenter at panelist

1:15:32 ↗ uh just there we go and you are now

1:15:36 ↗ unmuted thank you can you hear me

1:15:42 ↗ yes i sent a

1:15:46 ↗ note to the planning and policy

1:15:49 ↗ commission

1:15:50 ↗ this morning and i didn't necessarily

1:15:53 ↗ want to

1:15:54 ↗ use my time to uh walk through those

1:15:57 ↗ comments

1:15:58 ↗ uh but i just want to sort of frame uh

1:16:00 ↗ the comments that i made

1:16:03 ↗ um i commend uh previous

1:16:06 ↗ uh residents connie and anne for their

1:16:08 ↗ comments about

1:16:10 ↗ climate and environment i'm coming

1:16:13 ↗ at my comments from maybe a different

1:16:15 ↗ angle

1:16:17 ↗ i'm a user of the city code

1:16:20 ↗ uh simply because i take care of the

1:16:22 ↗ property up in

1:16:24 ↗ uh talus for the homeowners association

1:16:27 ↗ so i get to see a lot about

1:16:31 ↗ where the code works uh and

1:16:34 ↗ where we could do better

1:16:37 ↗ my comments are mostly about

1:16:40 ↗ the flaws in the development process

1:16:42 ↗ those caused us

1:16:45 ↗ a financial burden uh and

1:16:49 ↗ just a whole lot of work to make things

1:16:51 ↗ right so

1:16:52 ↗ um i do appreciate the comment that was

1:16:55 ↗ made

1:16:56 ↗ by one of the members of the commission

1:17:01 ↗ about making sure that we don't

1:17:04 ↗ adjust the code to the point where

1:17:06 ↗ housing becomes

1:17:07 ↗ unaffordable but i do want to say

1:17:11 ↗ that when developers do things on the

1:17:13 ↗ cheap

1:17:14 ↗ uh someone ends up paying for it so

1:17:18 ↗ you may be able to lower the purchase

1:17:20 ↗ price but then there's a burden on

1:17:23 ↗ either the homeowner the home the

1:17:25 ↗ community or the city

1:17:26 ↗ when it is done wrong so i just

1:17:30 ↗ wanted to reply to that comment

1:17:33 ↗ um but as uh a person who's been taking

1:17:37 ↗ care of the property in talus

1:17:39 ↗ uh there's a list of things in there uh

1:17:41 ↗ that i've observed and

1:17:43 ↗ would ask that you read through

1:17:46 ↗ and make suggestions on

1:17:50 ↗ and they're based just on spending time

1:17:52 ↗ in the community and having to fix

1:17:54 ↗ things or observe things that

1:17:57 ↗ bring undue risk to the city and

1:18:01 ↗ to our community and the homeowners

1:18:06 ↗ i i do want to just sort of

1:18:10 ↗ close my comments by saying and and i

1:18:13 ↗ did include that in

1:18:14 ↗ my written comments um it's important

1:18:17 ↗ that the municipal code

1:18:19 ↗ um works for the residents

1:18:23 ↗ um it needs to

1:18:26 ↗ uh uh first and foremost

1:18:30 ↗ uh guide the development process uh

1:18:33 ↗ to ensure that what gets built is what

1:18:36 ↗ we want

1:18:38 ↗ uh that it gets built well uh and

1:18:41 ↗ when the product is done that

1:18:44 ↗ it's it's the result that we all want in

1:18:46 ↗ issaquah

1:18:48 ↗ that being said the code also needs to

1:18:51 ↗ work for those people that live here

1:18:53 ↗ and when the code is too onerous too

1:18:56 ↗ confusing

1:18:58 ↗ and it ties up a resident for an undue

1:19:02 ↗ period of time just because it's clunky

1:19:05 ↗ that doesn't serve the residents well

1:19:08 ↗ and

1:19:08 ↗ that's not the definition of good

1:19:10 ↗ municipal code so

1:19:12 ↗ i just offer that i guess the last thing

1:19:15 ↗ i want to comment on

1:19:16 ↗ is i accept the fact

1:19:19 ↗ that the code may not always be perfect

1:19:22 ↗ and serve the residents

1:19:24 ↗ but i would ask that there's always a

1:19:26 ↗ safety valve in there

1:19:28 ↗ so that when a resident gets tangled up

1:19:32 ↗ in trying to do something

1:19:35 ↗ that there is a way to appeal to a

1:19:38 ↗ higher authority

1:19:39 ↗ uh someone who has the ability to make a

1:19:41 ↗ reasonable decision

1:19:43 ↗ uh and and there's a way uh

1:19:46 ↗ to get a workaround for things that are

1:19:49 ↗ just daunting

1:19:50 ↗ complex confusing and

1:19:54 ↗ and tangles uh in the code so

1:19:57 ↗ um i'll close my comments by saying

1:20:00 ↗ uh the work on title 18 is important

1:20:05 ↗ i think there's great benefit that can

1:20:07 ↗ come out of the code

1:20:08 ↗ i would just implore you to look around

1:20:10 ↗ the city ask yourself what don't you

1:20:12 ↗ like

1:20:13 ↗ what's been built recently and how

1:20:16 ↗ should the code

1:20:17 ↗ change so that we don't get more of that

1:20:21 ↗ we get more of what we really want thank

1:20:30 ↗ you

1:20:34 ↗ i don't see anyone else miss marsh still

1:20:37 ↗ has her hand

1:20:38 ↗ oh she took it down i believe miss marsh

1:20:41 ↗ would like to speak

1:20:42 ↗ just a moment please

1:20:53 ↗ yes i should be there okay

1:20:56 ↗ now my understanding is

1:21:00 ↗ that that you want to know if

1:21:03 ↗ this presentation uh

1:21:08 ↗ works this this

1:21:12 ↗ um the way you presented

1:21:16 ↗ subdivisions works uh and it does not

1:21:20 ↗ work for me

1:21:20 ↗ i can tell you that um

1:21:25 ↗ i think learning is very hard

1:21:29 ↗ and most of the people who are going to

1:21:31 ↗ be hearing this

1:21:32 ↗ are going to know less than planning

1:21:35 ↗ policy

1:21:36 ↗ commission even uh so

1:21:42 ↗ the way to

1:21:46 ↗ learn is to interact not

1:21:50 ↗ to do a powerpoint presentation and

1:21:52 ↗ expect

1:21:53 ↗ people to be able to absorb uh

1:21:57 ↗ for example what does everybody think a

1:22:01 ↗ subdivision is

1:22:02 ↗ and then you can have a conversation

1:22:04 ↗ that is in engaging

1:22:08 ↗ and then when you talk about

1:22:12 ↗ the the the meat of the matter

1:22:16 ↗ uh you don't just show pictures of

1:22:19 ↗ places

1:22:20 ↗ and maps of places you give

1:22:24 ↗ an action like do you think this is a

1:22:27 ↗ subdivision

1:22:28 ↗ or is this something else and then

1:22:32 ↗ we have complications we have things

1:22:34 ↗ called development agreements

1:22:36 ↗ and so the development agreements

1:22:37 ↗ followed different processes

1:22:39 ↗ that weren't in the subdivision

1:22:43 ↗ code the development agreement

1:22:46 ↗ subdivisions didn't have neighborhood

1:22:48 ↗ meetings for example which is what

1:22:50 ↗ required in the subdivision i was just

1:22:52 ↗ reading the code again because i love to

1:22:54 ↗ read the code

1:22:55 ↗ and so i'm a little curious as to

1:22:59 ↗ to all of that but it would make a great

1:23:03 ↗ conversation well why is that so how

1:23:06 ↗ did that happen what the heck is a

1:23:08 ↗ development agreement if that is not an

1:23:10 ↗ agreement to be able to subdivide

1:23:11 ↗ land into certain things and why is that

1:23:14 ↗ different than the subdivision

1:23:16 ↗ because subdivisions don't stand alone

1:23:18 ↗ right

1:23:19 ↗ and so it's very hard to learn about a

1:23:22 ↗ subdivision when you aren't learning

1:23:24 ↗ about

1:23:25 ↗ its linkages and also

1:23:29 ↗ zoning right and so for me

1:23:33 ↗ you have to give a structure maybe from

1:23:35 ↗ the top okay what is the most basic

1:23:38 ↗ thing we look at in the code

1:23:40 ↗ and then you go finer and finer and

1:23:42 ↗ finer until

1:23:43 ↗ people get the idea of of the rules

1:23:47 ↗ to me if i had never heard of a

1:23:49 ↗ subdivision before

1:23:51 ↗ i would just be hanging there going i'm

1:23:54 ↗ really going to have to read all that

1:23:55 ↗ again and then i'm going to have to go

1:23:56 ↗ read the code and then i'm going to have

1:23:58 ↗ to drive around to

1:23:59 ↗ understand pretty much anything of what

1:24:01 ↗ you're talking about

1:24:03 ↗ and then after you have this great

1:24:05 ↗ conversation about what is it

1:24:07 ↗ and everybody seems to have a grasp of

1:24:09 ↗ what a subdivision is and you can check

1:24:11 ↗ in with them because they actually

1:24:13 ↗ have participated then you could say and

1:24:16 ↗ you know

1:24:18 ↗ what do you think we should be doing

1:24:20 ↗ with our subdivisions because

1:24:21 ↗ subdivisions aren't just a thing

1:24:23 ↗ subdivisions are a process

1:24:25 ↗ and you didn't really talk about the

1:24:27 ↗ community part of the process

1:24:29 ↗ except for going to the hearing examiner

1:24:32 ↗ and so

1:24:33 ↗ a subdivision in theory has a

1:24:35 ↗ neighborhood meeting

1:24:38 ↗ and then what happens for the community

1:24:40 ↗ do they ever get to see it again

1:24:43 ↗ or does it just get done and there's no

1:24:46 ↗ feedback loop

1:24:48 ↗ does it matter does it if there's 200

1:24:51 ↗ units is it different than

1:24:53 ↗ three and so for me it

1:24:56 ↗ it did not give me

1:25:00 ↗ the information that i would need to

1:25:02 ↗ tell you what i thought subdivisions

1:25:04 ↗ should be but i think that there are

1:25:07 ↗ ways to educate people

1:25:09 ↗ i don't think you have to go through it

1:25:10 ↗ every time if you

1:25:12 ↗ created that kind of a conversation

1:25:15 ↗ with the first meeting that you have on

1:25:18 ↗ a topic

1:25:19 ↗ you could put it in a can and people

1:25:21 ↗ could watch

1:25:22 ↗ that sort of engaged version and then

1:25:25 ↗ they would be able to

1:25:26 ↗ speak more intelligently because they

1:25:28 ↗ also would have learned so it's like the

1:25:30 ↗ sesame street of planning

1:25:32 ↗ you know you don't have to sing you

1:25:33 ↗ don't have to dance but in order to get

1:25:36 ↗ people to learn

1:25:37 ↗ that are just like people then i think

1:25:40 ↗ i think that would be much more

1:25:42 ↗ effective now i didn't know that we were

1:25:44 ↗ going to be

1:25:45 ↗ actually speaking also on the

1:25:47 ↗ technicalities of subdivisions

1:25:50 ↗ but in a quick one my long-standing

1:25:54 ↗ issues with subdivisions are the

1:25:56 ↗ sufficiency standards

1:25:57 ↗ for when people put in an application

1:26:00 ↗ are

1:26:00 ↗ terrible and we get into heaps amounts

1:26:03 ↗ of trouble

1:26:04 ↗ by having poor sufficiency standards

1:26:06 ↗ they can they can put in

1:26:08 ↗ anything and all the time i get it well

1:26:10 ↗ you know what they put in was terrible

1:26:12 ↗ well then it shouldn't be in should it

1:26:14 ↗ it shouldn't be something

1:26:16 ↗ that that is accepted that needs to be

1:26:18 ↗ better from the beginning

1:26:22 ↗ our neighborhood meeting is going to

1:26:24 ↗ continue to be required

1:26:26 ↗ even without critical areas

1:26:30 ↗ um the designated official or

1:26:33 ↗ responsible official had made has made

1:26:35 ↗ some

1:26:37 ↗ fascinating alterations

1:26:41 ↗ in what people have been allowed to do

1:26:44 ↗ so

1:26:44 ↗ either that should be removed or there

1:26:47 ↗ should be some very specific and very

1:26:49 ↗ transparent

1:26:50 ↗ require criteria for being able to make

1:26:53 ↗ those decisions because

1:26:55 ↗ to ken's point sometimes things need to

1:26:57 ↗ change

1:26:58 ↗ but but you cannot just

1:27:02 ↗ like make a broad spectrum change that

1:27:04 ↗ nobody knows anything about and then

1:27:06 ↗ surprise everybody

1:27:08 ↗ um and i say yes keep the hearing

1:27:11 ↗ examiner because we need a

1:27:13 ↗ a fresh eye to ensure

1:27:16 ↗ that things are not being dropped we

1:27:19 ↗ have an example where we filled in a

1:27:21 ↗ stream

1:27:22 ↗ and um because we wanted people to be

1:27:26 ↗ able to come out of their apartments

1:27:27 ↗ onto the street

1:27:28 ↗ but in the end it didn't happen because

1:27:32 ↗ it got dropped out of the design now

1:27:34 ↗ having a hearing examiner review that

1:27:36 ↗ final plant

1:27:37 ↗ would that have caught that thing i

1:27:40 ↗ don't know

1:27:41 ↗ but i think you do need an eye that's

1:27:43 ↗ fresh to look at these things and then

1:27:46 ↗ um

1:27:47 ↗ i don't really understand in this

1:27:49 ↗ subdivision

1:27:50 ↗ how master site plans and development

1:27:52 ↗ agreements work together

1:27:54 ↗ with uh the subdivisions

1:27:58 ↗ and

1:28:04 ↗ there what is explain the process for

1:28:07 ↗ people to see

1:28:09 ↗ ah yeah i already said that um connected

1:28:12 ↗ streets there's a caution

1:28:14 ↗ connected streets meaning cut through

1:28:16 ↗ traffic

1:28:17 ↗ so then you're going to have people

1:28:18 ↗ asking for speed bumps and

1:28:20 ↗ neighborhood speeding programs and

1:28:24 ↗ so any place that we have connected

1:28:26 ↗ streets

1:28:27 ↗ when we get congestion people want to

1:28:29 ↗ bomb through those connected streets so

1:28:31 ↗ you know you're going to have an

1:28:32 ↗ issue if you connect

1:28:36 ↗ everything like that so you got to be

1:28:39 ↗ cautious

1:28:40 ↗ and know the sneaky people are gonna cut

1:28:42 ↗ through connected streets

1:28:44 ↗ and how are you gonna solve that and um

1:28:47 ↗ hopefully that resonates with somebody

1:28:49 ↗ out there in the world thank you oh wait

1:28:51 ↗ i have one more thing

1:28:52 ↗ the land use code uh the land use

1:28:55 ↗ element in the comprehensive plan was

1:28:57 ↗ last really updated in 2015

1:29:00 ↗ so it's old and also the housing element

1:29:04 ↗ it says 2015. so

1:29:07 ↗ reasonably old and i'm not sure what to

1:29:10 ↗ do about that but you all can solve it

1:29:12 ↗ thank you

1:29:19 ↗ well thank you to both of our our

1:29:20 ↗ speakers i'd like to ask

1:29:22 ↗ senior planner lisa if there is anyone

1:29:24 ↗ else signed up to speak

1:29:32 ↗ no one else is currently signed up if

1:29:34 ↗ you would like to speak if you could

1:29:35 ↗ raise your hand

1:29:36 ↗ and if you have trouble finding the

1:29:38 ↗ raise your hand button as i always do

1:29:40 ↗ you can type to me in the chat

1:29:44 ↗ and i'll give you a minute here

1:29:53 ↗ i'm not seeing anyone okay well thank

1:29:56 ↗ you

1:29:57 ↗ and i need to go first to commissioner

1:29:59 ↗ milligan who's been waiting waiting so

1:30:01 ↗ patiently she had a question

1:30:03 ↗ um that i had missed so two for five

1:30:06 ↗ i'm two for five so commissioner million

1:30:10 ↗ miss commissioner milligan thank you

1:30:13 ↗ chair

1:30:14 ↗ boyce you are your score is a perfect

1:30:16 ↗ score so far

1:30:18 ↗ um i had just a process question i have

1:30:20 ↗ comments that i'll hold for later i was

1:30:22 ↗ going to ask it

1:30:23 ↗ the reason he's apologizing is that i

1:30:25 ↗ wanted to ask it before a comment

1:30:27 ↗ uh public comment because it was just a

1:30:29 ↗ process question that had to do with the

1:30:30 ↗ presentation

1:30:31 ↗ and i wanted a reiteration the question

1:30:34 ↗ is what are we doing tonight

1:30:35 ↗ and i wanted to make it clear to the

1:30:37 ↗ audience and to myself

1:30:39 ↗ whether we are evaluating a subdivision

1:30:41 ↗ code

1:30:42 ↗ or how the subdivision code was

1:30:44 ↗ presented to us

1:30:46 ↗ so i just wanted that to be come out

1:30:48 ↗ clearly right now so we can know what

1:30:50 ↗ we're going to comment on

1:30:51 ↗ in the comment period thank you

1:30:56 ↗ director daliwa yeah i can answer that

1:30:59 ↗ this is minnie

1:31:00 ↗ um you both so we want to know whether

1:31:03 ↗ this

1:31:04 ↗ uh the presentation the actual memo that

1:31:06 ↗ we gave you will that format

1:31:08 ↗ work for the next six series of meetings

1:31:12 ↗ that we've

1:31:12 ↗ uh set up for the gaps analysis with

1:31:16 ↗ the planning policy commission um and

1:31:19 ↗ and you know the first one is with the

1:31:20 ↗ environmental board the second one is

1:31:22 ↗ with the parks board

1:31:23 ↗ then the next three are with the

1:31:25 ↗ development commission so we're going to

1:31:27 ↗ bring in

1:31:28 ↗ topics for each one of those meetings so

1:31:30 ↗ we want to see if this format of giving

1:31:32 ↗ you this memo by topic

1:31:34 ↗ but that lists all the you know the gaps

1:31:37 ↗ then we present it

1:31:38 ↗ and then have a discussion is the right

1:31:40 ↗ format and

1:31:41 ↗ two the more you know instead of just

1:31:44 ↗ talking hypothetically

1:31:45 ↗ we thought we'll pick a topic

1:31:47 ↗ subdivisions was something we

1:31:49 ↗ figured maybe the easier one um because

1:31:52 ↗ there are a lot more complicated ones

1:31:53 ↗ uh that will be bringing forth that

1:31:56 ↗ maybe this could be a test case of

1:31:58 ↗ actually getting through this

1:32:00 ↗ substantive issues as well

1:32:07 ↗ thank you director dollywall i hope that

1:32:09 ↗ answered your question commissioner

1:32:11 ↗ million and i'd like to go to

1:32:12 ↗ commissioner lewis who has a question

1:32:16 ↗ thank you chairperson boys commissioner

1:32:18 ↗ joy lewis here

1:32:19 ↗ my question is also procedural for you

1:32:22 ↗ our esteemed chair

1:32:24 ↗ right now as i see it not only has many

1:32:26 ↗ set up four questions for us but also

1:32:27 ↗ one's comments on the template

1:32:29 ↗ and i'm curious if you would like to

1:32:30 ↗ hear from us one by one or if you want

1:32:32 ↗ us to ramble about all five points

1:32:34 ↗ um so i would love for you to tell us

1:32:36 ↗ how you want us to kind of approach

1:32:38 ↗ this next part let's do this and i

1:32:41 ↗ appreciate the

1:32:42 ↗ challenge commissioner lewis let's try

1:32:44 ↗ having

1:32:45 ↗ let's do a round robin see with some

1:32:47 ↗ initial feedback

1:32:48 ↗ and then we'll open it up towards the

1:32:50 ↗ end for just open debate

1:32:51 ↗ we're open discussion since we're not

1:32:53 ↗ having a debate but

1:32:54 ↗ um yeah maybe we'll just start and

1:32:56 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:32:57 ↗ i know you have some thoughts so we'll

1:32:59 ↗ start with you

1:33:00 ↗ and then i'll look for our esteemed

1:33:02 ↗ colleagues to put up their hands and

1:33:04 ↗ like i said i'll just

1:33:05 ↗ you can go through their initial

1:33:07 ↗ questions and then at the end we can

1:33:08 ↗ have just kind of a

1:33:10 ↗ free-for-all how does that sound i like

1:33:12 ↗ it you know

1:33:13 ↗ you know i always have something to say

1:33:15 ↗ i'm going to start then with a template

1:33:17 ↗ right so i'm going to start that and see

1:33:18 ↗ how we all want to respond to it

1:33:20 ↗ and i want to say that i felt like there

1:33:22 ↗ was a couple of things missing

1:33:23 ↗ so one thing that's um i had commented

1:33:25 ↗ to staff about ahead of us doing any of

1:33:28 ↗ this was that i really wanted to see a

1:33:29 ↗ history

1:33:30 ↗ right so diving into this i wanted um

1:33:32 ↗ the same way that our packets often have

1:33:34 ↗ a background right

1:33:35 ↗ we have a whole section that tells us

1:33:36 ↗ about it i was missing that from this

1:33:39 ↗ on the subdivisions i come at this as

1:33:41 ↗ somebody

1:33:42 ↗ who um knows a lot more than maybe the

1:33:45 ↗ average person

1:33:46 ↗ and i learned something going through

1:33:48 ↗ all of the links that staff sent

1:33:50 ↗ going through things that members of the

1:33:51 ↗ community sent doing my own research

1:33:54 ↗ so there's a lot more to be learned and

1:33:56 ↗ i did feel that that was missing from

1:33:58 ↗ this um from in our packet um

1:34:01 ↗ what i also felt was missing was this

1:34:03 ↗ kind of basic thing in the gaps analysis

1:34:05 ↗ when we look at things so kind of saying

1:34:07 ↗ um

1:34:08 ↗ why do we have what we have now and how

1:34:11 ↗ you know how has it been how has it

1:34:13 ↗ evolved

1:34:14 ↗ um and why um why are we choosing to

1:34:17 ↗ either stick with it or change it right

1:34:18 ↗ how has the effect been so i'm i'm

1:34:21 ↗ wondering if the gaps analysis can

1:34:23 ↗ actually have

1:34:24 ↗ everything addressed like a why is this

1:34:27 ↗ and how is this kind of a thing um

1:34:29 ↗ you know i think that the discussion on

1:34:31 ↗ moving um from four to nine

1:34:34 ↗ is a really good example of that right i

1:34:36 ↗ would love to see pros and cons right i

1:34:38 ↗ would love rather than having staff tell

1:34:40 ↗ me

1:34:40 ↗ what do you think right and having me be

1:34:42 ↗ like oh my gosh i need to figure this

1:34:44 ↗ out i need to deep dive into things

1:34:46 ↗ um what other people done or whatever i

1:34:48 ↗ would love for staff to be able to say

1:34:50 ↗ here are pros one way here cons another

1:34:52 ↗ right and being able to have this kind

1:34:53 ↗ of

1:34:54 ↗ red team blue team approach when we're

1:34:56 ↗ doing our gaps analysis i really found

1:34:58 ↗ that missing

1:34:59 ↗ from the template so i'd like to build

1:35:01 ↗ in more into our gaps analysis

1:35:03 ↗ of not only that history where are we

1:35:05 ↗ coming from why are we changing it

1:35:07 ↗ what is our achieved what is our outcome

1:35:09 ↗ i think is really missing from

1:35:10 ↗ that um and i hope if that's not very

1:35:13 ↗ clear

1:35:14 ↗ um let me know um but i think that we

1:35:16 ↗ need more of a historical reference

1:35:18 ↗ and then we're able to have the

1:35:20 ↗ therefore this is why we're doing this

1:35:22 ↗ and this is how we want to achieve it

1:35:24 ↗ um i think that needs to be more

1:35:26 ↗ relevant in the template

1:35:33 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis that's

1:35:35 ↗ wonderful fantastic suggestions and i

1:35:37 ↗ wholeheartedly agree who is our brave

1:35:40 ↗ commissioner that would like

1:35:42 ↗ to follow commissioner lewis's great

1:35:44 ↗ suggestions

1:35:50 ↗ commissioner milligan please

1:35:54 ↗ this is commissioner milligan you know i

1:35:56 ↗ it may not seem like it to you but i'm

1:35:58 ↗ actually holding back

1:36:00 ↗ and hoping that another commissioner

1:36:02 ↗ jumps in first you guys got to be

1:36:03 ↗ quicker because i can only hold back so

1:36:05 ↗ long

1:36:06 ↗ thank you uh and thanks for the

1:36:08 ↗ clarification

1:36:11 ↗ and the mission tonight

1:36:14 ↗ now i'm going to start by addressing

1:36:18 ↗ a feedback about the gaps analysis and

1:36:20 ↗ how it was presented

1:36:21 ↗ as an example of how they would be

1:36:23 ↗ presented

1:36:24 ↗ and then i'm going to just dive right

1:36:26 ↗ into

1:36:29 ↗ why i might not comment so much on

1:36:31 ↗ tonight's

1:36:32 ↗ subdivision improvements for that

1:36:35 ↗ first of all i really liked

1:36:39 ↗ the initial layout and this the way that

1:36:42 ↗ this

1:36:43 ↗ information was organized and especially

1:36:46 ↗ the tabular form

1:36:47 ↗ and i want to point to that because that

1:36:49 ↗ was the most meaningful and easiest to

1:36:50 ↗ follow for me

1:36:52 ↗ and i am going to suggest that

1:36:55 ↗ um some more information

1:36:59 ↗ go into that tabular form when it goes

1:37:01 ↗ into narrative

1:37:02 ↗ and it has just a number in the front of

1:37:04 ↗ it it doesn't give us

1:37:06 ↗ as helpful at context as as a as a

1:37:08 ↗ reader

1:37:10 ↗ the stuff in the tabular was much more

1:37:11 ↗ easier

1:37:13 ↗ related to that was the presentation

1:37:17 ↗ that director dollywall brought in for

1:37:19 ↗ us now that was much more robust

1:37:21 ↗ information it was way more than what we

1:37:22 ↗ got in our package

1:37:24 ↗ and had i had all that information i

1:37:26 ↗ might have something

1:37:27 ↗ substantive to say about subdivisions

1:37:29 ↗ tonight so

1:37:31 ↗ and feedback again about the way that

1:37:33 ↗ the information is presented

1:37:34 ↗ i'd like to see more information in the

1:37:37 ↗ packet

1:37:38 ↗ and um this relates to something that

1:37:40 ↗ commissioner lewis said

1:37:42 ↗ is that the conversations about

1:37:45 ↗ ancillary issues about

1:37:49 ↗ plat applications and zoning limits and

1:37:53 ↗ how they

1:37:54 ↗ impact subdivisions that's in the

1:37:57 ↗ narrative but if it was in the

1:38:00 ↗ more robust as robust as the

1:38:02 ↗ presentation was so that the public

1:38:04 ↗ could read it

1:38:05 ↗ and not have to come to the meeting and

1:38:06 ↗ know what's going on um

1:38:08 ↗ i think it's only fair to have it in the

1:38:10 ↗ document

1:38:12 ↗ so that's um some ideas for

1:38:16 ↗ let me see if i have one more about that

1:38:20 ↗ okay okay then uh one more idea about

1:38:22 ↗ the the way that the information is

1:38:24 ↗ presented and i think

1:38:26 ↗ commissioner lewis also touched on this

1:38:27 ↗ but this is a really important thing for

1:38:29 ↗ me

1:38:29 ↗ is that i i would always like to know

1:38:32 ↗ how are other

1:38:33 ↗ cities doing it how are our neighborhood

1:38:36 ↗ city neighbor cities doing is really

1:38:38 ↗ relevant in the

1:38:39 ↗ um where do we draw the line for

1:38:41 ↗ subdivisions is it at four or is it at

1:38:43 ↗ nine who's adopting the state

1:38:45 ↗ regulation i i'd really like to know

1:38:47 ↗ that and it would be nice if you all

1:38:49 ↗ would bring that in that

1:38:50 ↗ um chart

1:38:55 ↗ commissioner zaragoza has a question

1:38:57 ↗ okay

1:39:00 ↗ are you gun casher million

1:39:05 ↗ are we good yes

1:39:08 ↗ i am good but i just wanted to say in

1:39:11 ↗ closing that i

1:39:12 ↗ have not brought substantive comments

1:39:13 ↗ about the subdivision

1:39:15 ↗ um proposals because i didn't feel like

1:39:17 ↗ i had enough information in my

1:39:18 ↗ preparations

1:39:19 ↗ thank you great thank you okay

1:39:21 ↗ commissioner sarah goes there

1:39:24 ↗ thank you mr zaragoza um

1:39:28 ↗ so i i'm just going to kind of mirror

1:39:31 ↗ what

1:39:31 ↗ uh mr lewis and milgan have said

1:39:36 ↗ i really enjoyed the the the

1:39:38 ↗ presentation

1:39:39 ↗ we just got there was lots of good

1:39:41 ↗ information there i would have liked it

1:39:43 ↗ definitely before um it really kind of

1:39:46 ↗ set my head in the right place to

1:39:48 ↗ to review the document um so i felt much

1:39:52 ↗ better about

1:39:52 ↗ this after that than i did before so um

1:39:56 ↗ certainly agree with uh adding that to

1:39:58 ↗ the next time around

1:40:00 ↗ um as far as the

1:40:04 ↗ commissioner loses comments and pros and

1:40:06 ↗ cons i agree with that too

1:40:08 ↗ but also i really liked the way the um

1:40:11 ↗ the previous document the the goals were

1:40:14 ↗ set up where you see the issues you see

1:40:16 ↗ the objectives and then you have

1:40:18 ↗ um the staff recommendations

1:40:22 ↗ i i would really like to see a little

1:40:24 ↗ bit more about that what we're trying to

1:40:26 ↗ solve

1:40:27 ↗ um with these things um so i really like

1:40:29 ↗ the format but maybe

1:40:31 ↗ a couple more sections added to that to

1:40:34 ↗ discover some of those pros and cons or

1:40:36 ↗ the problems or the uh as commissioner

1:40:39 ↗ lewis said

1:40:40 ↗ the history behind it thanks

1:40:47 ↗ thank you commissioner serragoza now i'd

1:40:50 ↗ like to go to commissioner monaghan

1:40:54 ↗ thank you chair um so

1:40:57 ↗ i agree with all my colleagues that more

1:40:59 ↗ information is generally better

1:41:01 ↗ but i guess the one thing i'd ask us to

1:41:03 ↗ bear in mind

1:41:05 ↗ um and having been you know a litigator

1:41:07 ↗ going to trial a number of times i know

1:41:09 ↗ that

1:41:10 ↗ the end product that i ended up showing

1:41:11 ↗ to a judge was usually finished around 4

1:41:13 ↗ 30 a.m

1:41:15 ↗ the day before or the morning before and

1:41:17 ↗ so

1:41:18 ↗ um i wanted us to be cognizant of

1:41:21 ↗ resources

1:41:22 ↗ uh both the staff and the the

1:41:23 ↗ consultants and understanding that these

1:41:25 ↗ projects probably take a really long

1:41:27 ↗ time to put together

1:41:28 ↗ uh and probably isn't ready for prime

1:41:30 ↗ time until maybe you know close a

1:41:32 ↗ business today

1:41:33 ↗ and so i i want to get more information

1:41:36 ↗ i want to be more informed but i also

1:41:37 ↗ want to be cognizant that resources are

1:41:39 ↗ not

1:41:40 ↗ infinite and so i recognize that some

1:41:43 ↗ things are just not going to be ready

1:41:45 ↗ until you know the publicly noticed

1:41:48 ↗ hearing

1:41:48 ↗ and so i just ask that staff remind us

1:41:52 ↗ gently or harshly at times when what

1:41:55 ↗ we're asking for

1:41:57 ↗ is reasonable where you know we can we

1:42:00 ↗ can fit that into our planning but at

1:42:01 ↗ the same time i mean i'm just looking at

1:42:03 ↗ this

1:42:04 ↗ calendar and it is jam-packed and i can

1:42:05 ↗ only imagine the hours you guys are

1:42:07 ↗ pulling and we'll have to pull so i just

1:42:09 ↗ ask that you keep us honest um and and

1:42:12 ↗ our expectations are reasonable so

1:42:15 ↗ that's all i had

1:42:16 ↗ thank you

1:42:19 ↗ thank you commissioner monahan i'd point

1:42:22 ↗ well taken

1:42:22 ↗ and i do want to say that it sounds like

1:42:25 ↗ just in that first initial

1:42:26 ↗ going director dollywall sounds like a

1:42:29 ↗ rock star of a presenter so

1:42:31 ↗ just a hat tip to you um your presenting

1:42:34 ↗ machine

1:42:34 ↗ is what it sounds like so well done and

1:42:37 ↗ as far as

1:42:38 ↗ kind of what i'm thinking i appreciate

1:42:41 ↗ commissioner monahan's point because i

1:42:43 ↗ think sometimes again

1:42:45 ↗ i think we can sit here until we're blue

1:42:47 ↗ in the face asking for more more

1:42:49 ↗ more and sometimes you know we have been

1:42:51 ↗ entrusted to make

1:42:52 ↗ certain decisions for the public to keep

1:42:54 ↗ that moving and again

1:42:56 ↗ this has been a year where our resources

1:42:58 ↗ especially the city have been cut in

1:42:59 ↗ half

1:43:00 ↗ however i will say i do like kind of

1:43:03 ↗ what commissioner lewis and milligan had

1:43:04 ↗ alluded to

1:43:05 ↗ i do like having a history and i think

1:43:08 ↗ commissioner sergoza said it

1:43:09 ↗ as well not only do i have like having a

1:43:12 ↗ history

1:43:13 ↗ i like the pros and the cons i mean i

1:43:15 ↗ don't think it's staff

1:43:17 ↗ trying to subconsciously change my mind

1:43:19 ↗ i just i appreciate kind of the flow of

1:43:21 ↗ information it's helpful

1:43:24 ↗ and again i always like to have a little

1:43:25 ↗ bit of background information when

1:43:27 ↗ making decisions like i said as far as

1:43:29 ↗ the agenda packets the last two years i

1:43:31 ↗ think they're phenomenal i mean i enjoy

1:43:32 ↗ reading the background what's expected

1:43:35 ↗ what's desired from staff you know

1:43:38 ↗ again it kind of keeps our meetings

1:43:40 ↗ focused um

1:43:41 ↗ we're capable all on our own of going in

1:43:44 ↗ all sorts of directions so it's helpful

1:43:46 ↗ from staff to kind of help us sometimes

1:43:47 ↗ with that

1:43:49 ↗ so having said that i'm just going to

1:43:50 ↗ give i'll be brave

1:43:53 ↗ i'm gonna give my first four just basic

1:43:57 ↗ what i'm thinking um kind of seeing some

1:43:59 ↗ of our neighbors

1:44:00 ↗ some of the neighbors that i think have

1:44:02 ↗ done a good job as far as city planning

1:44:03 ↗ and development

1:44:05 ↗ i think it's probably welcome to approve

1:44:09 ↗ or

1:44:09 ↗ move short plots from four to nine such

1:44:11 ↗ as kirkland bellevue some of the cities

1:44:13 ↗ that i admire

1:44:14 ↗ and think have done a well good job i

1:44:17 ↗ also think

1:44:18 ↗ the hearing as far as the final plat

1:44:20 ↗ decision making could be an

1:44:21 ↗ administrative process

1:44:23 ↗ again i'm happy to have continued to

1:44:25 ↗ have these conversations but the gut

1:44:26 ↗ feeling

1:44:27 ↗ is this is really more if anything this

1:44:30 ↗ is the work's already been done i mean

1:44:32 ↗ this is someone going through to check

1:44:34 ↗ do a checklist and again this whether

1:44:36 ↗ it's a hearing examiner or someone with

1:44:38 ↗ the

1:44:39 ↗ you know administrative decision they

1:44:42 ↗ are going to check to make certain

1:44:43 ↗ things done i mean that's why we have

1:44:45 ↗ city inspectors i think this could

1:44:46 ↗ probably be done to free up resources

1:44:48 ↗ and also streamline the process

1:44:51 ↗ as far as having different layouts for

1:44:54 ↗ communities that's an interesting one

1:44:55 ↗ because i think

1:44:56 ↗ you see a lot of dead spaces with some

1:44:58 ↗ of the older type of communities that

1:45:00 ↗ use cold cul-de-sacs

1:45:01 ↗ use i don't know but how do you say it

1:45:05 ↗ but it almost kind of makes

1:45:07 ↗ well i guess the word was island so a

1:45:10 ↗ word that's starting to be used a lot

1:45:11 ↗ more these days is equity so to have

1:45:13 ↗ these integrated neighborhoods kind of

1:45:15 ↗ seems like a good idea especially when

1:45:16 ↗ we're talking about the green necklace

1:45:18 ↗ making our city

1:45:19 ↗ more transversable so kind of looking at

1:45:23 ↗ that is probably a positive thing

1:45:25 ↗ it kind of is able to cut down on

1:45:27 ↗ vehicle traffic and again

1:45:29 ↗ make our city more connected and then

1:45:31 ↗ finally yes i think

1:45:32 ↗ probably a shift to looking towards

1:45:35 ↗ infill

1:45:35 ↗ is appropriate we want to start looking

1:45:37 ↗ at ways

1:45:39 ↗ because again our we do have a dwindling

1:45:41 ↗ land supply

1:45:42 ↗ and the goal is to start in filling the

1:45:44 ↗ central isoqua

1:45:46 ↗ area with more density so again starting

1:45:48 ↗ to kind of turn our focus that way

1:45:50 ↗ and again by all means we're not

1:45:52 ↗ ignoring other

1:45:53 ↗ developments such as talus such as

1:45:55 ↗ what's going on up at westridge

1:45:57 ↗ it's just yes should cities start

1:45:59 ↗ looking at ways we can start putting

1:46:00 ↗ some of that density where we want it

1:46:03 ↗ i think that's probably appropriate so

1:46:05 ↗ again right now just a gut feeling but

1:46:07 ↗ that's kind of where i am at

1:46:09 ↗ and now i think we'll just open it up to

1:46:12 ↗ general discussion

1:46:13 ↗ amongst all of us so please

1:46:16 ↗ anybody with a comment

1:46:20 ↗ or a question

1:46:23 ↗ commissioner monahan has a comment

1:46:27 ↗ commissioner please thank you kristen

1:46:30 ↗ thank you chair uh yeah so i guess i'll

1:46:32 ↗ give my substantive feedback

1:46:33 ↗ on questions one two and four i'm still

1:46:37 ↗ noodling

1:46:38 ↗ four or sorry three um on one

1:46:43 ↗ i'd and this probably goes to something

1:46:44 ↗ that joyce said earlier i'd really like

1:46:46 ↗ to know

1:46:47 ↗ why we're moving from four to nine um

1:46:49 ↗ i've read the legislative record

1:46:51 ↗ when the state changed it and i can't

1:46:53 ↗ find any substantive information about

1:46:55 ↗ why they

1:46:55 ↗ why they did it except the vote was near

1:46:57 ↗ unanimous i think only three senators

1:46:59 ↗ voted against it and the house passed

1:47:00 ↗ unanimously so

1:47:01 ↗ i'd really like to understand why we

1:47:04 ↗ think moving from four to nine is a good

1:47:06 ↗ idea other than the state allows us to

1:47:08 ↗ do so

1:47:08 ↗ i can come up with some reasons but i'm

1:47:10 ↗ not a developer and so i'd really be

1:47:11 ↗ curious

1:47:12 ↗ not only from staff but frankly from

1:47:14 ↗ members of the community you know

1:47:15 ↗ people who this would impact i'd like to

1:47:17 ↗ hear the why

1:47:18 ↗ not just do it because we can

1:47:20 ↗ necessarily

1:47:22 ↗ uh on two i i think i agree with the

1:47:25 ↗ chair that it makes sense to move it to

1:47:26 ↗ administrative process

1:47:28 ↗ um like i said three i'm still thinking

1:47:32 ↗ four yes i think we should

1:47:35 ↗ try to future proof might be the wrong

1:47:37 ↗ word

1:47:38 ↗ but anticipate the types of you know

1:47:41 ↗ work that's going to be done in the

1:47:42 ↗ future so if infill is you know the

1:47:45 ↗ latest and greatest and we should move

1:47:47 ↗ in that direction but i also don't want

1:47:48 ↗ us to lose

1:47:50 ↗ um presumably the lots of hard work that

1:47:52 ↗ went into

1:47:53 ↗ developing you know the code to i don't

1:47:56 ↗ know if there's going to be another

1:47:57 ↗ highlands or another talus or whatever

1:47:58 ↗ coming but

1:47:59 ↗ i i'd hate to just delete that and

1:48:01 ↗ replace it with something else and then

1:48:02 ↗ have to reinvent it later on so i don't

1:48:04 ↗ know if that means making different

1:48:05 ↗ sections

1:48:06 ↗ um or distinguishing some way but i

1:48:08 ↗ certainly think it makes sense to start

1:48:10 ↗ thinking about the future projects and

1:48:11 ↗ and build the code to incorporate the

1:48:14 ↗ lessons learned from the bigger

1:48:15 ↗ developments but then also recognize

1:48:16 ↗ that you know it's not a one size fits

1:48:18 ↗ all and so we might have to

1:48:19 ↗ change up a little bit so that's all i

1:48:21 ↗ had thank you

1:48:25 ↗ thank you commissioner monahan and from

1:48:27 ↗ there we're gonna go to commissioner

1:48:28 ↗ lewis

1:48:31 ↗ thank you chairperson voice commissioner

1:48:33 ↗ joy lewis here

1:48:34 ↗ um to go down the list um i want to say

1:48:38 ↗ that

1:48:40 ↗ i spent a lot of mental energy on this

1:48:43 ↗ very first one

1:48:44 ↗ i honestly think that we could have

1:48:45 ↗ quite a bit of discussion about it

1:48:46 ↗ because i do feel that there was some

1:48:48 ↗ missing

1:48:48 ↗ um pieces from staff on this right so

1:48:52 ↗ um i understand why developers

1:48:55 ↗ would be proponents of it i see um

1:48:59 ↗ a big setback as far as saying

1:49:02 ↗ why right what do we gain from this what

1:49:05 ↗ do we gain from cutting from cutting

1:49:06 ↗ this out

1:49:06 ↗ i'd like to actually have the data of

1:49:08 ↗ isquas saying this is the resources we

1:49:10 ↗ would save right this is the amount of

1:49:12 ↗ money

1:49:12 ↗ that um it's costing our taxpayers

1:49:14 ↗ because um because we're having to go

1:49:16 ↗ through a different process

1:49:18 ↗ beyond the four i'd like to actually be

1:49:20 ↗ able to quantify it

1:49:21 ↗ to give a reason to say why we would

1:49:23 ↗ move to the nine right rather than just

1:49:25 ↗ well i guess everyone else is doing it

1:49:27 ↗ it's kind of been okay

1:49:28 ↗ so um without um without that data it's

1:49:31 ↗ hard for me to kind of

1:49:33 ↗ to move on it um unless again this kind

1:49:35 ↗ of goes to more

1:49:36 ↗ questions of having a discussion about

1:49:38 ↗ the search point is to say

1:49:39 ↗ well are we able to not do it city-wide

1:49:41 ↗ and instead pick

1:49:43 ↗ um an example area right let's can we

1:49:45 ↗ pick a neighborhood to say

1:49:47 ↗ everywhere else is four but this is

1:49:48 ↗ going to be nine and let's see what we

1:49:50 ↗ get right

1:49:51 ↗ are we able to kind of um create um

1:49:55 ↗ um an area versus doing it city-wide i

1:49:57 ↗ don't know if that's possible

1:49:59 ↗ but i think that this is definitely

1:50:00 ↗ worth a discussion as far as like have

1:50:02 ↗ we found that the

1:50:03 ↗ public is asking for this have we found

1:50:05 ↗ the council's asking for this

1:50:07 ↗ um you know staff didn't provide us with

1:50:09 ↗ saying hey here's

1:50:10 ↗ um here's why we're considering this

1:50:13 ↗ other than

1:50:14 ↗ we can you know telling me that um that

1:50:18 ↗ the

1:50:18 ↗ development lobby is strong and was able

1:50:20 ↗ to get governor ensley to move on this

1:50:22 ↗ doesn't exactly entice me right

1:50:24 ↗ um so um i do think that it's worth a

1:50:26 ↗ deeper dive is to say what are we going

1:50:28 ↗ to be

1:50:29 ↗ getting from this i'd like to see hard

1:50:30 ↗ numbers of saying this is the benefit

1:50:32 ↗ this is why we want to move this way

1:50:34 ↗ because i don't i didn't even

1:50:35 ↗ necessarily get from staff

1:50:36 ↗ that the city administration is really

1:50:38 ↗ behind it it was more like

1:50:39 ↗ well what do you think right so i think

1:50:43 ↗ we should

1:50:43 ↗ talk about it that was kind of my

1:50:45 ↗ thought on it

1:50:46 ↗ right now i'm not inclined towards it um

1:50:48 ↗ without

1:50:49 ↗ more substantial information um

1:50:52 ↗ as far as moving from administrative

1:50:55 ↗ again

1:50:56 ↗ i am unless i'm missing something i

1:50:58 ↗ didn't see anything

1:50:59 ↗ in my packet where um council was saying

1:51:02 ↗ our workload is too much we cannot do

1:51:05 ↗ this

1:51:05 ↗ i didn't see anything saying um staff

1:51:08 ↗ has been overburdened by preparing the

1:51:10 ↗ packets to go to council

1:51:12 ↗ this is what we would gain right i

1:51:14 ↗ didn't see any kind of data that said

1:51:16 ↗ using a hearing examiner is costing us

1:51:18 ↗ this what i did see

1:51:20 ↗ was a couple things one having a hearing

1:51:22 ↗ examiner requires there to be

1:51:24 ↗ um a public hearing i don't think that

1:51:26 ↗ should be cut out i think that's a vital

1:51:28 ↗ part of the process

1:51:29 ↗ um and so saying well the same you know

1:51:32 ↗ right now the builders

1:51:33 ↗ association was telling us we're going

1:51:35 ↗ to get the same results i disagree i'm

1:51:37 ↗ not seeing the same result because what

1:51:38 ↗ i'm seeing is that right now

1:51:40 ↗ um there's no public hearing for the

1:51:42 ↗ shortcut application i'm seeing that

1:51:43 ↗ right now

1:51:44 ↗ if you change it to the administrative

1:51:47 ↗ then were constrained by a 30-day

1:51:48 ↗ timeline

1:51:49 ↗ um and for approval process um i also

1:51:52 ↗ saw that if there's

1:51:54 ↗ um there another is no process that's

1:51:55 ↗ being set out in state law so that means

1:51:57 ↗ we get to make our own regulations for

1:51:59 ↗ this

1:52:00 ↗ um so then i think that that needs to

1:52:02 ↗ have a whole other meeting and

1:52:03 ↗ discussion

1:52:04 ↗ um and i think council needs to set some

1:52:07 ↗ parameters to give back to us to be able

1:52:08 ↗ to advise and get some feedback from the

1:52:10 ↗ community

1:52:11 ↗ of saying what should that look like for

1:52:13 ↗ issaquah we can make this whatever we

1:52:15 ↗ want right so if we are going to take

1:52:17 ↗ out a hearing examiner

1:52:18 ↗ but these are the things we like like

1:52:20 ↗ for instance there's no environmental

1:52:22 ↗ review now

1:52:23 ↗ um that the environmental review

1:52:24 ↗ requirements are different i should say

1:52:26 ↗ um is what we saw in in the packet that

1:52:29 ↗ well

1:52:30 ↗ we should we're going to require that

1:52:31 ↗ right how do we make this what we want

1:52:34 ↗ if we want to switch from the current

1:52:36 ↗ format

1:52:37 ↗ with a hurt hearing examiner that

1:52:39 ↗ doesn't mean that we have to drop all

1:52:40 ↗ those things to then have

1:52:42 ↗ that um that second application process

1:52:45 ↗ go to an administrator

1:52:46 ↗ so i would like to see more conversation

1:52:48 ↗ on this but right now i'm not inclined

1:52:50 ↗ to take out the hearing examiner

1:52:52 ↗ for the mere fact that it saves um time

1:52:55 ↗ in the application process

1:52:56 ↗ i did not see that as being an onerous

1:52:59 ↗ problem

1:53:00 ↗ but again maybe that data just wasn't

1:53:02 ↗ presented and it has been a big um

1:53:04 ↗ issue so um i would like to keep it with

1:53:08 ↗ the hearing examiner unless there's more

1:53:09 ↗ information being able to be provided or

1:53:12 ↗ again staff says hey

1:53:13 ↗ we can change this but we can make this

1:53:15 ↗ our own right because

1:53:16 ↗ it isn't state law to say that there is

1:53:18 ↗ one way to do it so how does isabella

1:53:20 ↗ right let's do it our way

1:53:21 ↗ um as far as the third one i think it's

1:53:24 ↗ really interesting this is one i'd ask

1:53:25 ↗ many about

1:53:27 ↗ about maps and visualizations um when

1:53:30 ↗ doing

1:53:30 ↗ um these short flat applications

1:53:34 ↗ you know the background i come into it

1:53:36 ↗ with is from uvdc

1:53:37 ↗ and the urban villages and the

1:53:40 ↗ development agreements had very specific

1:53:42 ↗ ways that we did short flats right so it

1:53:44 ↗ was very easy with very plug and play of

1:53:46 ↗ saying well this is how it's done we

1:53:47 ↗ were able to say does this fit

1:53:49 ↗ how we're doing it right um whereas now

1:53:52 ↗ we're going to be doing it in all these

1:53:54 ↗ tiny little areas and all these

1:53:56 ↗ communities are

1:53:57 ↗ very different right they already exist

1:53:59 ↗ right how do we control

1:54:00 ↗ the character how do we make sure that

1:54:02 ↗ we're getting the result that we want

1:54:04 ↗ meaning that in some places that

1:54:06 ↗ traditional winding cul-de-sac

1:54:08 ↗ may work in other places um you know the

1:54:10 ↗ block style grid may work

1:54:12 ↗ i appreciate too um wheel and spoke as

1:54:15 ↗ someone who lived in dc

1:54:16 ↗ it's a pain for cars but being able to

1:54:18 ↗ have a street where you have

1:54:20 ↗ everybody wheeled smoking into the bus

1:54:22 ↗ stop makes it a lot easier for

1:54:24 ↗ pedestrians right

1:54:25 ↗ so i think that there's a lot of

1:54:26 ↗ different ways we can approach it and

1:54:27 ↗ one thing i'd ask many for was well give

1:54:29 ↗ me an example right show me an area

1:54:32 ↗ that can be further subdivided versus

1:54:35 ↗ another and how does that look right i

1:54:37 ↗ don't think we have one uniform way the

1:54:39 ↗ same way that we have different

1:54:40 ↗ development standards in different areas

1:54:43 ↗ i think how we're going to be able to

1:54:44 ↗ sub um do the subplots is also going to

1:54:47 ↗ be

1:54:47 ↗ very different um so how do we

1:54:50 ↗ almost make an addendum to our um our

1:54:53 ↗ design

1:54:55 ↗ with this design does that make sense um

1:54:58 ↗ because we choose the word design twice

1:54:59 ↗ but um and the final one is infill i

1:55:02 ↗ would say yes to the city staff about

1:55:03 ↗ infill um

1:55:05 ↗ we know where we want to put our density

1:55:06 ↗ we know that we have a limited amount of

1:55:08 ↗ land to use

1:55:09 ↗ so let's start using the code to be able

1:55:12 ↗ to target where we want that building to

1:55:13 ↗ be

1:55:14 ↗ thanks very much everybody

1:55:18 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis and now we

1:55:20 ↗ will go to commissioner milligan

1:55:23 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan here

1:55:26 ↗ okay i said i wasn't going to say

1:55:27 ↗ anything because i didn't have enough

1:55:28 ↗ information in the packet i was just

1:55:30 ↗ being

1:55:31 ↗ it's going to be with this lively

1:55:33 ↗ conversation

1:55:34 ↗ with my fellow commissioners i am

1:55:37 ↗ emboldened to provide

1:55:39 ↗ some feedback but it's going to be a

1:55:42 ↗ little

1:55:43 ↗ underwhelming i agree with my

1:55:45 ↗ commissioners about

1:55:46 ↗ number one and number two that i didn't

1:55:50 ↗ feel convinced

1:55:51 ↗ by the packet and i still didn't feel

1:55:54 ↗ convinced by the

1:55:55 ↗ presentation of why we should go from

1:55:57 ↗ four to nine and i

1:55:58 ↗ um even if other cities um

1:56:01 ↗ did this why would we uh and i think

1:56:04 ↗ that it's important for us to get the

1:56:06 ↗ background on that earlier a member of

1:56:08 ↗ the public said

1:56:10 ↗ that we should focus our attention on

1:56:12 ↗ what's good for the residents what's

1:56:13 ↗ good for the city and that's the kind of

1:56:15 ↗ justification i'd like to see

1:56:16 ↗ we did hear from a member of the public

1:56:18 ↗ of why this is good for developers

1:56:20 ↗ but we're making these decisions for our

1:56:23 ↗ city and for our residents

1:56:25 ↗ and people who live here and i'd like to

1:56:26 ↗ know why it's a good decision for them

1:56:28 ↗ and why it's a good decision for the

1:56:30 ↗ city administratively cost

1:56:32 ↗ being a more reliable permit

1:56:36 ↗ provider whatever those justifications

1:56:38 ↗ are i'd love to

1:56:39 ↗ hear them but as of tonight i don't

1:56:42 ↗ have i'm not convinced that we should

1:56:45 ↗ change either of those

1:56:47 ↗ processes and number one and two as

1:56:49 ↗ suggested number three

1:56:50 ↗ i do have a strong opinion about uh when

1:56:54 ↗ we have the opportunity

1:56:55 ↗ to enhance connectivity for

1:56:57 ↗ non-motorized

1:56:59 ↗ means which i think is a little less

1:57:01 ↗ intrusive than doing it for

1:57:04 ↗ cars which create a big bunch of

1:57:06 ↗ concrete infrastructure i think we

1:57:08 ↗ should try to do it

1:57:09 ↗ and not i don't mind a cul-de-sac i

1:57:12 ↗ think those are safe because of cars but

1:57:14 ↗ we'd like to have connectivity between

1:57:15 ↗ neighbors

1:57:16 ↗ for mobility the ability to get to and

1:57:19 ↗ from town and also to connect neighbors

1:57:21 ↗ to one another

1:57:22 ↗ i agree with commissioner lewis that i

1:57:23 ↗ think that our development agreements

1:57:25 ↗ in the urban villages provide fantastic

1:57:28 ↗ examples

1:57:29 ↗ of how this can be done and even in the

1:57:30 ↗ centralization plan was through block

1:57:32 ↗ passage uh requirements at certain

1:57:36 ↗ intervals and then uh the final one

1:57:39 ↗ i'm talking about especially in phil i

1:57:42 ↗ i would like to express an opinion that

1:57:45 ↗ i hold dear and that i think is

1:57:47 ↗ not uncommon in the city of visiqua that

1:57:50 ↗ we designed the central isoqua plan

1:57:53 ↗ to take on our infill and that's where

1:57:56 ↗ it would be

1:57:57 ↗ we have shown in our building capacity

1:57:58 ↗ reports we have plenty of capacity in

1:58:01 ↗ central is aqua

1:58:02 ↗ for the growth we have slated for

1:58:03 ↗ decades to come so when we talk about

1:58:06 ↗ infill i'm saying i'm all for it in

1:58:09 ↗ central issaquah i want to be careful

1:58:11 ↗ to uphold the um

1:58:15 ↗ the uh this i promise is not quite the

1:58:18 ↗ right word but throughout all the

1:58:20 ↗ central issaquah plan

1:58:22 ↗ development where we added a lot of

1:58:23 ↗ density in the middle of our town we

1:58:25 ↗ said

1:58:25 ↗ because your neighborhoods we want to

1:58:28 ↗ preserve the neighborhoods

1:58:30 ↗ in our community and so i'm talking

1:58:31 ↗ directly about single-family zoning

1:58:34 ↗ i think that urban that the infill

1:58:37 ↗ can go in our urban areas central is

1:58:40 ↗ claw

1:58:42 ↗ so that's uh the feedback i have on

1:58:45 ↗ that section of title 18. thank you all

1:58:49 ↗ for your inspiration

1:58:53 ↗ great great comment so far we have

1:58:56 ↗ another comment from commissioner sarah

1:58:58 ↗ gosa

1:59:01 ↗ thank you commissioner um i

1:59:06 ↗ so uh with with the streamlining or

1:59:09 ↗ making the plots go from

1:59:10 ↗ four to four to nine if we want more

1:59:13 ↗ smaller residents

1:59:14 ↗ cottages row homes things like that it

1:59:17 ↗ makes sense to streamline that process

1:59:19 ↗ but i agree i don't i don't really know

1:59:22 ↗ if it

1:59:22 ↗ if that's the case i'd like to know more

1:59:25 ↗ information on that or have more

1:59:26 ↗ discussions

1:59:28 ↗ or just build on that for a little bit

1:59:31 ↗ as far as the connected streets and

1:59:34 ↗ infill

1:59:34 ↗ i feel like they're very similar for me

1:59:36 ↗ [Music]

1:59:38 ↗ they're connected so connected streets

1:59:41 ↗ are great

1:59:43 ↗ but it's also not one or the other it's

1:59:44 ↗ not either cul-de-sacs or

1:59:46 ↗ long you know giant boulevards we can

1:59:49 ↗ have

1:59:50 ↗ a flow that can go from neighborhood to

1:59:52 ↗ neighborhood

1:59:54 ↗ um a commissioner mulligan

1:59:57 ↗ recommended having not necessarily roads

2:00:00 ↗ that connect these neighborhoods but you

2:00:01 ↗ know sidewalks paths

2:00:03 ↗ you know from cul-de-sac to cul-de-sac i

2:00:05 ↗ think is super important

2:00:07 ↗ but one thing about connected streets

2:00:09 ↗ and infill

2:00:10 ↗ infill creates small neighborhoods

2:00:12 ↗ microclimates

2:00:13 ↗ we we wouldn't end up with these kind of

2:00:15 ↗ megalithic

2:00:16 ↗ esco highlands neighborhoods which i

2:00:19 ↗ lived in for a long long time

2:00:22 ↗ these larger neighborhoods they become

2:00:26 ↗ the identity is very strong and actually

2:00:28 ↗ for me it always competed with

2:00:30 ↗ my identity as a person of issaquah i

2:00:33 ↗ was from this school highlands

2:00:35 ↗ other people are from issaquah um i like

2:00:38 ↗ being in smaller neighborhoods

2:00:40 ↗ and feeling like yes i'm part of this

2:00:42 ↗ microclimate this neighborhood here but

2:00:44 ↗ i'm also still very much

2:00:46 ↗ a part of issaquah so i think it's

2:00:49 ↗ important to

2:00:50 ↗ to nurture both um and infill creates

2:00:54 ↗ microclimates and connected streets

2:00:57 ↗ uh not foot traffic connected streets

2:00:59 ↗ also creates those nice microclimates so

2:01:01 ↗ i think it's important to kind of

2:01:03 ↗ consider those as as maybe as one thing

2:01:05 ↗ or or

2:01:06 ↗ of course part of a larger concept

2:01:11 ↗ thanks it's so great coming here because

2:01:15 ↗ i

2:01:15 ↗ learned so much from my colleagues and

2:01:18 ↗ uh

2:01:19 ↗ to feed to hear different perspectives

2:01:21 ↗ it really is building upon

2:01:22 ↗ just building upon and building upon so

2:01:25 ↗ i really appreciate all these wonderful

2:01:26 ↗ comments and they're going to keep

2:01:27 ↗ coming because right now we have

2:01:29 ↗ commissioner lewis who has a question

2:01:32 ↗ thank you chairperson voice i'm curious

2:01:35 ↗ if um

2:01:37 ↗ if minnie and kristen want to comment um

2:01:39 ↗ basically

2:01:40 ↗ are we are we able to um

2:01:45 ↗ to basically create an area where um

2:01:49 ↗ where we have necessarily maybe

2:01:50 ↗ incentives right where like if you're

2:01:52 ↗ building in central issaquah

2:01:54 ↗ then you are able to do nine versus the

2:01:55 ↗ four right um

2:01:57 ↗ and subvert some administrative time and

2:01:59 ↗ costs are we are we

2:02:00 ↗ are we legally able to say this is

2:02:02 ↗ exactly the area we're able to do it

2:02:04 ↗ you know um because i think what i'm

2:02:06 ↗ hearing is that we want to

2:02:08 ↗ we're asking like does this actually

2:02:09 ↗ create density and

2:02:11 ↗ does it actually put it where we want it

2:02:12 ↗ right rather than having this kind of

2:02:14 ↗ blanket

2:02:15 ↗ move to the nine right are we able to do

2:02:18 ↗ that is that a

2:02:20 ↗ is that a thing

2:02:25 ↗ i can answer that um this is minnie um

2:02:28 ↗ sure i mean you can do that i think it

2:02:31 ↗ you again have to balance

2:02:32 ↗ are we making code more complicated than

2:02:35 ↗ you know

2:02:36 ↗ one of the so that that's where the

2:02:37 ↗ competing uh

2:02:39 ↗ issues come come into play it's not that

2:02:42 ↗ you can't do it now

2:02:43 ↗ you know you can build more than nine

2:02:45 ↗ homes if the zoning allows it so

2:02:47 ↗ so the zoning would be the tool to say

2:02:51 ↗ how how you want to shape and how many

2:02:53 ↗ lots you want to

2:02:54 ↗ what what minimum lot sizes you want or

2:02:56 ↗ not want or clustering of homes and

2:02:58 ↗ those kind of things those discussions

2:03:00 ↗ will occur with other topics

2:03:02 ↗ this is really process anyone can you

2:03:05 ↗ know if a nine lot

2:03:06 ↗ plant is allowed or a four lot plan is

2:03:09 ↗ allowed it's it's

2:03:10 ↗ you can do it it's just how much process

2:03:13 ↗ we want to build into

2:03:15 ↗ a nine lot subdivision and but what i've

2:03:18 ↗ heard from

2:03:18 ↗ majority of you i think is you need more

2:03:21 ↗ information

2:03:21 ↗ so i think what we can do on those two

2:03:23 ↗ topics at least is do give you some pros

2:03:26 ↗ and cons

2:03:27 ↗ uh if you have four large short flat

2:03:30 ↗ or a nine large short flat what are what

2:03:32 ↗ are some benefits and advantages of that

2:03:34 ↗ um you know if it is speedier process

2:03:38 ↗ and it leads to less you know

2:03:41 ↗ more affordable homes that's one outcome

2:03:44 ↗ if it is more predictable

2:03:46 ↗ uh outcome from that it doesn't mean

2:03:48 ↗ we're going to cut off the community

2:03:50 ↗ feedback or input from it but it also

2:03:52 ↗ means streamlining some of the processes

2:03:54 ↗ what is the value added for this

2:03:57 ↗ additional process so we can we can

2:03:58 ↗ produce some pros and cons for those two

2:04:01 ↗ options

2:04:01 ↗ for you all to weigh in i think that

2:04:04 ↗ will be a better

2:04:05 ↗ uh way and and how much how many short

2:04:08 ↗ flats does this

2:04:08 ↗ actually has done i i you know i don't

2:04:11 ↗ know if it may be pretty minimal

2:04:14 ↗ um less than four lots may not be the

2:04:16 ↗ norm here

2:04:17 ↗ at all so yeah yeah so i see lucy's

2:04:20 ↗ saying yeah it's a much more than that

2:04:22 ↗ so so we may be having a a debate about

2:04:25 ↗ over something that we

2:04:26 ↗ don't see it happening a whole lot more

2:04:29 ↗ um

2:04:30 ↗ too so i i don't know if does that

2:04:34 ↗ answer your question

2:04:34 ↗ mr lawrence yeah thank you minnie i

2:04:36 ↗ think that what it really is is that

2:04:37 ↗ when when we readdress this what i'd

2:04:39 ↗ like to see is

2:04:41 ↗ um as being able to say kind of um how

2:04:43 ↗ does

2:04:44 ↗ um taking out those additional um

2:04:48 ↗ both you know um by streaming

2:04:50 ↗ streamlining the process right ones

2:04:52 ↗ right now

2:04:52 ↗ um by going over the floor you then jump

2:04:55 ↗ into this other category of

2:04:56 ↗ administrative

2:04:57 ↗ hurdles that have more costs and more

2:04:59 ↗ time associated with it both from the

2:05:00 ↗ developer

2:05:01 ↗ and from and on staff right and so by by

2:05:04 ↗ changing it from the four to the nine

2:05:05 ↗ what i'm wondering is is

2:05:07 ↗ are we able to do it in a succinct area

2:05:09 ↗ right like centralized law

2:05:11 ↗ if we do change it are we able are we

2:05:13 ↗ actually getting the increase in density

2:05:15 ↗ where we want it

2:05:16 ↗ or again are we doing this on forest

2:05:19 ↗ hillsides right you know like where are

2:05:21 ↗ we actually being able to direct it

2:05:23 ↗ and also that's an exchange of saying

2:05:24 ↗ like maybe this is one of our affordable

2:05:27 ↗ housing tools

2:05:28 ↗ is to tell developers hey this is the

2:05:30 ↗ process that you have to go through

2:05:31 ↗ however

2:05:32 ↗ we have an addendum if you're going to

2:05:34 ↗ make it when you're doing these short

2:05:35 ↗ flats if you're going to account for

2:05:37 ↗ add affordable housing to it then yes

2:05:40 ↗ you jump to the nine rather than the

2:05:42 ↗ four

2:05:42 ↗ right by giving a trade-off right i'd

2:05:44 ↗ like to have staff come back to us and

2:05:45 ↗ tell us

2:05:46 ↗ this is a tool that we can use and this

2:05:48 ↗ is why rather than just arbitrarily

2:05:50 ↗ going well other people are doing it

2:05:52 ↗ successfully if that makes sense so yeah

2:05:54 ↗ i would like to know

2:05:54 ↗ what what we can do um you know because

2:05:57 ↗ i because i don't know

2:05:59 ↗ sure and we can use you know consider

2:06:01 ↗ some other tools for instance just

2:06:03 ↗ thinking

2:06:04 ↗ and listening to all your all of you one

2:06:06 ↗ of the goals is to increase diversity of

2:06:08 ↗ housing

2:06:09 ↗ types and choices so maybe you know um i

2:06:12 ↗ think what if you said about cottage

2:06:14 ↗ homes or smaller homes you know maybe

2:06:15 ↗ it's tied in with that that

2:06:17 ↗ that in order to increase the housing

2:06:19 ↗ diversity so it's not all big larger

2:06:21 ↗ homes

2:06:22 ↗ if you build nine smaller homes it's a

2:06:24 ↗ speedier process

2:06:26 ↗ you know there may be other nuanced

2:06:27 ↗ things we can kind of look at

2:06:29 ↗ as well but what i want to make sure too

2:06:31 ↗ is that when we say hey

2:06:33 ↗ we are we are being able to use this

2:06:35 ↗ tool to address

2:06:37 ↗ um that missing middle in our housing

2:06:38 ↗ component that we are able to guide it

2:06:41 ↗ in a way that we're getting it right

2:06:42 ↗ because ultimately what you want is

2:06:44 ↗ to be able to have home ownership being

2:06:46 ↗ able to add wealth

2:06:48 ↗ to those who have been traditionally

2:06:50 ↗ shut out of the system right

2:06:51 ↗ we want to be able it's the most

2:06:53 ↗ traditional way for people to build

2:06:54 ↗ wealth in the community is to be able to

2:06:56 ↗ own their own home

2:06:56 ↗ and so if we're saying that we're going

2:06:58 ↗ to use this resource to be able to get

2:07:00 ↗ the kind of housing that we haven't

2:07:01 ↗ gotten right

2:07:02 ↗ then we need to actually have a direct

2:07:04 ↗ plan to say this is how we're going to

2:07:06 ↗ get it from developers and this is why

2:07:08 ↗ rather than i'm going to be even though

2:07:10 ↗ i'm putting in a short flat all these

2:07:12 ↗ homes are stuck so close together

2:07:14 ↗ but because of how i'm building them

2:07:15 ↗ they're still going to be

2:07:17 ↗ out of the price range that we are going

2:07:19 ↗ to have the lift work balance right i

2:07:21 ↗ need to see more of a plan

2:07:22 ↗ laid out um to have that connect through

2:07:24 ↗ if that makes sense um

2:07:26 ↗ so that we can actually um create that

2:07:29 ↗ missing middle

2:07:30 ↗ with this tool thank you

2:07:36 ↗ yeah i'll just say for me because

2:07:37 ↗ commissioner voice here is i think part

2:07:39 ↗ of the reason

2:07:40 ↗ and i'm thinking number one it should go

2:07:43 ↗ up is not necessarily because of other

2:07:44 ↗ cities doing it but uh

2:07:46 ↗ kind of like what director dollywood's

2:07:48 ↗ saying um

2:07:49 ↗ it's really more of a zoning thing you

2:07:51 ↗ can build a subdivision anywhere

2:07:52 ↗ this is more of like processing right

2:07:54 ↗ and again it just shows that issaquah is

2:07:57 ↗ less competitive than all of its

2:07:58 ↗ neighbors and again it's just another

2:08:00 ↗ reason why

2:08:01 ↗ um it's my understanding from people

2:08:03 ↗ that i work with it's just not a place

2:08:04 ↗ people really want to develop

2:08:06 ↗ property yet and that's kind of you know

2:08:09 ↗ again all of us come from our own

2:08:10 ↗ backgrounds and perspectives but

2:08:12 ↗ uh i talk to people all the time and

2:08:14 ↗ this is not

2:08:15 ↗ places where people are very interested

2:08:17 ↗ in and again we want more

2:08:19 ↗ different types of varied housing we

2:08:21 ↗ want

2:08:23 ↗ affordable housing and again something

2:08:25 ↗ has to give in order to make it

2:08:27 ↗ whether it's more streamlined process

2:08:29 ↗ whether it's just easier to work here

2:08:31 ↗ and again it seems like issaquah

2:08:32 ↗ continues to fall on the site

2:08:34 ↗ being just a difficult place and again

2:08:36 ↗ that's not that's not me saying it

2:08:38 ↗ that's

2:08:39 ↗ that's the people with the dollars and

2:08:40 ↗ who actually build these things

2:08:42 ↗ and again it's not to give them free

2:08:43 ↗ reign or rough shot over our city i

2:08:45 ↗ don't think that at all

2:08:46 ↗ but these areas are more processed

2:08:48 ↗ questions where again it's it's

2:08:50 ↗ they can subdivide anything as long as

2:08:51 ↗ the zoning's there

2:08:53 ↗ this is just to give us some tools to

2:08:54 ↗ make us a little bit more competitive

2:08:56 ↗ and more in line with some of our

2:08:57 ↗ neighbors

2:08:58 ↗ so anyway that's my type of thinking um

2:09:01 ↗ always love to hear from our commission

2:09:03 ↗ always love to have these go back and

2:09:05 ↗ forth because again i learned a

2:09:06 ↗ tremendous amount

2:09:08 ↗ and i just want to keep this discussion

2:09:10 ↗ open

2:09:11 ↗ um if anybody has any more comments or

2:09:14 ↗ questions

2:09:15 ↗ let it simmer out there for a second or

2:09:17 ↗ two and then

2:09:19 ↗ we will move along and we have a

2:09:21 ↗ question from commissioner lewis

2:09:27 ↗ commissioner joy lewis that was actually

2:09:29 ↗ you're what you're reading was my

2:09:30 ↗ previous question

2:09:31 ↗ however i if i would and question i am

2:09:33 ↗ curious if minnie's going to continue on

2:09:35 ↗ with the packet and go through

2:09:36 ↗ uh and we'll be having another

2:09:37 ↗ discussion on timeline and things like

2:09:39 ↗ that i think that we've

2:09:41 ↗ uh conquered this part but i'm guessing

2:09:43 ↗ that we have we have we had a little bit

2:09:44 ↗ more in our packet going through with

2:09:46 ↗ updates to the uh

2:09:48 ↗ to our schedule and whatnot that we can

2:09:50 ↗ talk about

2:09:56 ↗ director dollywood sure um

2:10:00 ↗ where is my

2:10:08 ↗ um let me share um

2:10:11 ↗ my screen again and see if i can

2:10:14 ↗ pull up a schedule

2:10:19 ↗ so this is in your packet and

2:10:22 ↗ this is our attempt at revising it

2:10:25 ↗ to make it more understandable i still

2:10:28 ↗ feel

2:10:29 ↗ um got some comments um on the

2:10:32 ↗ readability and understanding of this uh

2:10:34 ↗ so we'll continue to kind of work on

2:10:35 ↗ that part

2:10:36 ↗ uh katie cody who is um the main lead

2:10:39 ↗ consultant who's not here today um

2:10:42 ↗ you know we'll take the feedback to her

2:10:44 ↗ but basically what

2:10:45 ↗ uh we heard from all of you last time

2:10:49 ↗ was no more than two um uh

2:10:52 ↗ boards and commissions at at one meeting

2:10:54 ↗ um

2:10:55 ↗ reserving some of the time when you're

2:10:57 ↗ actually deliberating

2:10:58 ↗ to uh for just ppc alone so that you can

2:11:02 ↗ kind of get into the nuances of the code

2:11:04 ↗ and and are able to

2:11:05 ↗ vet out some of those things so the way

2:11:07 ↗ this is laid out is these first

2:11:09 ↗ six uh circles in the beginning

2:11:12 ↗ are the gaps analysis and policy

2:11:14 ↗ guidance so

2:11:15 ↗ the first one is going to be on the

2:11:17 ↗ natural environment

2:11:19 ↗ critical areas steep slopes lighting

2:11:22 ↗ shoreline

2:11:24 ↗ so those topics and this first one will

2:11:28 ↗ be

2:11:28 ↗ a joint meeting with the environmental

2:11:30 ↗ board

2:11:31 ↗ the second one we're going to try and

2:11:34 ↗ tackle the gaps analysis for community

2:11:36 ↗ space standards

2:11:37 ↗ green necklace open space standards

2:11:41 ↗ landscaping and trees and that

2:11:44 ↗ meeting will be with a joint meeting

2:11:46 ↗ with the parks board

2:11:49 ↗ then the next three meetings are going

2:11:51 ↗ to be

2:11:52 ↗ on zoning uses uh parking circulation

2:11:57 ↗ building design neighborhood specific

2:12:00 ↗ standards

2:12:02 ↗ uh and such and then the the

2:12:05 ↗ third one uh the the fifth one uh

2:12:08 ↗ is an affordable housing kind of a

2:12:10 ↗ leftover pieces of the zoning and

2:12:12 ↗ development standards uh that don't fall

2:12:14 ↗ into those two larger categories

2:12:16 ↗ which is the affordable housing transfer

2:12:19 ↗ of development rights

2:12:20 ↗ archaeology other miscellaneous things

2:12:23 ↗ urban design and such

2:12:27 ↗ so that takes us to the last meeting

2:12:31 ↗ on the gaps analysis which will be on

2:12:33 ↗ the procedures and administration

2:12:36 ↗ so general processes what procedures we

2:12:40 ↗ want to have in our land use code

2:12:41 ↗ cpa policies wireless communication

2:12:44 ↗ facilities

2:12:46 ↗ concurrency standards and

2:12:49 ↗ possibly the definition section so that

2:12:52 ↗ will be the six series of meetings

2:12:55 ↗ uh some with joint meetings the last one

2:12:57 ↗ just by ppc

2:12:58 ↗ itself um on the gaps analysis

2:13:02 ↗ then after all of that is done we will

2:13:06 ↗ uh you know as we kept as we start

2:13:09 ↗ tackling each one of them we'll be

2:13:10 ↗ uh starting the drafting the code

2:13:12 ↗ language piece so the next

2:13:14 ↗ six series of meetings are again with

2:13:17 ↗ the same

2:13:17 ↗ uh policy board um the the same two two

2:13:20 ↗ boards at the time

2:13:22 ↗ meetings and we'll be presenting a first

2:13:25 ↗ draft with the actual code language and

2:13:27 ↗ this is where we really want to hear

2:13:29 ↗ from the public too

2:13:30 ↗ you know obviously we want to hear from

2:13:32 ↗ them over here but this is it'll be an

2:13:34 ↗ opportunity for the formal public

2:13:35 ↗ hearings

2:13:36 ↗ on each of those six larger groupings

2:13:39 ↗ but there'll be substantive comments

2:13:42 ↗ because they'll be actually written in

2:13:43 ↗ code

2:13:44 ↗ language and then the last series are

2:13:46 ↗ going to be

2:13:47 ↗ after you've heard from the public in

2:13:49 ↗ the for the first draft

2:13:51 ↗ and we've you've had a chance to review

2:13:53 ↗ it in the last

2:13:55 ↗ of these six series of meetings you'll

2:13:58 ↗ be deliberating on those topics

2:14:00 ↗ and after your deliberation we will call

2:14:04 ↗ all the pieces together as one big huge

2:14:07 ↗ [Music]

2:14:09 ↗ title 18 code and then we'll hold a

2:14:12 ↗ public

2:14:12 ↗ second public hearing on that entire

2:14:16 ↗ cumulative

2:14:17 ↗ topic but throughout this process

2:14:21 ↗ is what the public engagement piece is

2:14:23 ↗ going to continue

2:14:24 ↗ and that's the sub consultant to uh

2:14:27 ↗ katie

2:14:28 ↗ bds and they're figuring out

2:14:31 ↗ you know we want to go to the community

2:14:33 ↗ but we want to make it make it

2:14:34 ↗ meaningful for their time

2:14:37 ↗ and our time to to have speci you know a

2:14:41 ↗ conversation uh discussion and all of

2:14:43 ↗ those pieces so that will continue

2:14:45 ↗ throughout with focus groups one-on-ones

2:14:49 ↗ and open houses but that piece i think

2:14:51 ↗ um

2:14:52 ↗ is still kind of being looked at after

2:14:55 ↗ this meeting today and getting some

2:14:56 ↗ direction on how the gaps analysis will

2:14:59 ↗ work i think that'll help

2:15:01 ↗ formulate uh the the more public

2:15:03 ↗ outreach piece

2:15:04 ↗ so that's on the schedule um just a

2:15:07 ↗ briefing

2:15:08 ↗ i don't think we were really looking for

2:15:12 ↗ much there and now i need to get you all

2:15:15 ↗ to see

2:15:16 ↗ each other and where did

2:15:21 ↗ let's my

2:15:26 ↗ sorry about that i'm trying to not

2:15:29 ↗ minimize but

2:15:30 ↗ exit out of my share my

2:15:36 ↗ are you able to un oh there it is i'm

2:15:38 ↗ not i'm sharing

2:15:39 ↗ there you go it disappeared on the top

2:15:43 ↗ of my computer

2:15:44 ↗ it was flying away um so that's sort of

2:15:48 ↗ the

2:15:48 ↗ the the schedule piece and then what we

2:15:51 ↗ also want to talk to you about

2:15:52 ↗ is we had discussed doing a site visit

2:15:55 ↗ at the last meeting

2:15:56 ↗ we want to pick a sample of four or five

2:15:58 ↗ projects that we want to actually take

2:16:00 ↗ you out

2:16:01 ↗ and and show you know here's what was

2:16:03 ↗ allowed

2:16:04 ↗ here's what the zoning was here's what

2:16:05 ↗ the standards are and really because

2:16:07 ↗ you'll be getting into the

2:16:09 ↗ deep dive they're taking a deeper dive

2:16:11 ↗ in the code but what does it really mean

2:16:13 ↗ on the ground

2:16:14 ↗ and some lessons learned what worked

2:16:16 ↗ what didn't work

2:16:17 ↗ so i think we're looking at july 15th

2:16:21 ↗ so more information to follow in terms

2:16:23 ↗ of the logistics of which those top

2:16:26 ↗ places we want to check out you know

2:16:28 ↗ have a conversation about

2:16:30 ↗ um and uh but timing would be in the

2:16:34 ↗ evening i think is what we heard so

2:16:36 ↗ possibly 4 30

2:16:38 ↗ to 6 30 or 5 to 7 or something like that

2:16:41 ↗ um and and if you know if you can mark

2:16:44 ↗ your calendars for july 15th and if you

2:16:46 ↗ have a conflict uh let kristen know

2:16:50 ↗ do you have any other things on the

2:16:51 ↗ schedule kristen to share with them

2:16:56 ↗ i uh so pbc schedule no i don't but

2:17:00 ↗ you'll see that we filled it out

2:17:02 ↗ um by the way's through 2022 so you're

2:17:04 ↗ going to be pretty busy and that doesn't

2:17:05 ↗ include any comp plan amendments it

2:17:07 ↗ doesn't include any housing information

2:17:08 ↗ it doesn't include

2:17:10 ↗ lots of things that you all still have

2:17:11 ↗ to do so um eat well

2:17:13 ↗ stay healthy and we'll get through it

2:17:19 ↗ [Music]

2:17:21 ↗ thank you both yeah so a field trip that

2:17:23 ↗ sounds amazing

2:17:25 ↗ love field trips always have now i'm

2:17:28 ↗ looking at my script

2:17:29 ↗ senior planner lisa where are we are

2:17:32 ↗ there any council updates i see you have

2:17:33 ↗ a question too so

2:17:34 ↗ well scheduled technically schedule

2:17:37 ↗ comes later so i can do it then

2:17:38 ↗ i do not have any council updates um i

2:17:41 ↗ don't know

2:17:42 ↗ if minnie has any updates

2:17:46 ↗ uh no i think lucy can probably talk

2:17:49 ↗ about

2:17:50 ↗ the sign code where that's headed i

2:17:52 ↗ think do you want to say something about

2:17:54 ↗ the sign code

2:17:54 ↗ lucy

2:17:58 ↗ uh yes i was thinking that the um

2:18:01 ↗ commission might be interested in that

2:18:03 ↗ um after the uh sign code

2:18:06 ↗ uh left you're able work uh

2:18:10 ↗ it went on to a study session with the

2:18:12 ↗ council

2:18:14 ↗ um they had a lot of questions um

2:18:17 ↗ and some desires so um it was

2:18:20 ↗ sent to the ad hoc committee for

2:18:24 ↗ some guidance and feedback we have been

2:18:27 ↗ preparing various chapters

2:18:30 ↗ partly it's in reorganizing the

2:18:32 ↗ information

2:18:34 ↗ part of it for user friendliness

2:18:37 ↗ but also part of it is to stream

2:18:40 ↗ streamline some of it so

2:18:44 ↗ we are hoping to bring that back to

2:18:47 ↗ another study session at the end of july

2:18:56 ↗ thank you so my script is um

2:19:01 ↗ i'm a little lost on my script to be

2:19:02 ↗ quite honest

2:19:04 ↗ i think senior planner lisa do we call

2:19:07 ↗ for general public comment one more time

2:19:09 ↗ sounds right right we do okay

2:19:13 ↗ so would now be appropriate certainly

2:19:16 ↗ good

2:19:17 ↗ okay i'd like to open this up for

2:19:20 ↗ general public comment and ask senior

2:19:22 ↗ planner lisa if we have anyone who would

2:19:24 ↗ like to speak

2:19:26 ↗ i guess we do and i have one person

2:19:30 ↗ who'd like to speak connie martian if

2:19:31 ↗ anyone else would like to speak please

2:19:32 ↗ raise your hand

2:19:33 ↗ or send me a comment in the comment box

2:19:49 ↗ it's it's me again um so

2:19:53 ↗ hopes and dreams for this meeting i

2:19:56 ↗ i i i'm still not clear on

2:20:01 ↗ on what you all are gonna do with the

2:20:03 ↗ chart and

2:20:05 ↗ how that discussion is going to flow

2:20:07 ↗ through that's a big gray haze

2:20:10 ↗ in my mind um it doesn't feel structured

2:20:13 ↗ and i don't understand how

2:20:15 ↗ information is going to feed into it um

2:20:18 ↗ well i liked this sort of organic

2:20:22 ↗ discussion it does seem

2:20:26 ↗ like if you're going to be having the

2:20:28 ↗ same type of a thing

2:20:30 ↗ with another committee too it needs

2:20:33 ↗ more structure so that everybody gets a

2:20:36 ↗ chance

2:20:37 ↗ to say and the conclusions can come out

2:20:41 ↗ and everybody knows what they're talking

2:20:42 ↗ about which sounds really hard

2:20:44 ↗ in a two-hour meeting on very technical

2:20:46 ↗ subjects

2:20:47 ↗ because when i read some of those

2:20:49 ↗ meetings you're having with the

2:20:50 ↗ environmental board

2:20:52 ↗ who knows basically nothing because

2:20:54 ↗ they're just

2:20:55 ↗ so new that's that looks very

2:20:57 ↗ overwhelming

2:20:58 ↗ and so um i i

2:21:02 ↗ please give some thought on creating

2:21:06 ↗ a form that that

2:21:10 ↗ gets people educated earlier and allows

2:21:13 ↗ for more of the great discussion and

2:21:15 ↗ back and forth which is where i think

2:21:17 ↗ the progress

2:21:18 ↗ is really made and i don't think you can

2:21:21 ↗ have both at the same meeting because it

2:21:23 ↗ takes so long to absorb the information

2:21:26 ↗ so that then you can comment so i don't

2:21:28 ↗ see how

2:21:29 ↗ you can have one meeting with another

2:21:32 ↗ board and expect

2:21:33 ↗ effective results i just don't see i

2:21:36 ↗ think it will make people want to cry

2:21:38 ↗ who are trying to

2:21:39 ↗ do their best it's just too hard

2:21:42 ↗ so i can't

2:21:45 ↗ i i can't see success now

2:21:49 ↗ if you can pre-educate everybody before

2:21:51 ↗ you have the meeting

2:21:52 ↗ in in some method you might be able to

2:21:55 ↗ do it otherwise i think you have to have

2:21:56 ↗ two meetings

2:21:57 ↗ because nobody likes to get the

2:21:59 ↗ information

2:22:01 ↗ then to have to come to a conclusion

2:22:03 ↗ without having another meeting

2:22:06 ↗ to actually have your questions answered

2:22:08 ↗ right

2:22:09 ↗ just like tonight's meeting how many

2:22:11 ↗ questions were there that you're going

2:22:12 ↗ to have to come back

2:22:14 ↗ and and you can't you can't but in your

2:22:16 ↗ chart

2:22:17 ↗ you're expecting people to be able to do

2:22:19 ↗ that in those meetings

2:22:21 ↗ and i don't think that's fair to the

2:22:22 ↗ community so i know i am the debbie

2:22:25 ↗ downer of the group right

2:22:27 ↗ but i have watched this happen for 25

2:22:30 ↗ years

2:22:30 ↗ and we need a new code we need it to be

2:22:32 ↗ great and we need

2:22:34 ↗ the community's input to get something

2:22:36 ↗ that the community

2:22:37 ↗ understands and supports and um

2:22:40 ↗ i i don't i

2:22:44 ↗ i i can't see it working given what you

2:22:47 ↗ provided

2:22:48 ↗ today but i thought you guys were

2:22:50 ↗ awesome great conversation

2:22:51 ↗ i appreciate you you all um

2:22:54 ↗ trying to think on your feet as best you

2:22:56 ↗ can and

2:22:58 ↗ enjoy man you do your research i love

2:23:01 ↗ that

2:23:02 ↗ bye

2:23:08 ↗ senior planner lee sin any other people

2:23:10 ↗ signed up to speak

2:23:12 ↗ yes ann fletcher has raised her hand so

2:23:16 ↗ ms fletcher i'm going to make you a

2:23:18 ↗ analyst

2:23:21 ↗ and you are now a panelist and i have

2:23:23 ↗ unmuted you and you can turn on your

2:23:25 ↗ camera if you would like

2:23:34 ↗ okay i think i think that work can you

2:23:35 ↗ hear me

2:23:37 ↗ oh great no i i won't take much time

2:23:40 ↗ but i have been hanging in there through

2:23:42 ↗ the whole discussion

2:23:44 ↗ um i found it it i really do find it

2:23:47 ↗ very interesting

2:23:48 ↗ and i wanted to let you know how much i

2:23:51 ↗ appreciated

2:23:52 ↗ all that has gone into this from both

2:23:54 ↗ the staff and from all of you

2:23:56 ↗ commissioners

2:23:57 ↗ uh i'm i'm uh very impressed

2:24:00 ↗ and uh i would like to say

2:24:04 ↗ that i found this meeting more

2:24:06 ↗ interactive

2:24:07 ↗ um than some of the other ppc meetings

2:24:10 ↗ that i've been to or just

2:24:12 ↗ commission and board meetings in general

2:24:14 ↗ um

2:24:15 ↗ where where there was a a an invitation

2:24:19 ↗ after somebody had done something for a

2:24:21 ↗ response and then another invitation

2:24:24 ↗ for for somebody from the staff to

2:24:26 ↗ respond back to either the public or to

2:24:29 ↗ the commissioners and i

2:24:32 ↗ found that that was more free flowing

2:24:34 ↗ than i've seen and

2:24:35 ↗ i think that is a good omen

2:24:39 ↗ if we can continue that in this process

2:24:41 ↗ i think we will get there i'm very

2:24:43 ↗ hopeful

2:24:44 ↗ that this is what we need to get a good

2:24:46 ↗ title 18.

2:24:47 ↗ so i just wanted to point out that i

2:24:50 ↗ noticed that i hung

2:24:52 ↗ in there with you and i'm with you all

2:24:53 ↗ the way and thank you very much

2:25:02 ↗ senior planner lisa are there any other

2:25:04 ↗ people

2:25:05 ↗ signed up to speak

2:25:08 ↗ i don't see anyone else but if you'd

2:25:09 ↗ like to speak there's only one

2:25:11 ↗ other person out there if you'd like to

2:25:14 ↗ speak

2:25:15 ↗ raise your hand or let me know in the

2:25:16 ↗ chat

2:25:22 ↗ no no one else is raising their hand to

2:25:24 ↗ speak

2:25:26 ↗ well i know i'm only acting chair but i

2:25:27 ↗ do want to say thank you to everybody

2:25:29 ↗ who made public comment tonight it is

2:25:31 ↗ deeply valued i know sometimes we don't

2:25:34 ↗ show emotion because uh

2:25:36 ↗ again we're a little bit of the jury so

2:25:38 ↗ sometimes it's presented as evidence but

2:25:40 ↗ um i think like i said i know we all

2:25:43 ↗ internalize it so it's important to hear

2:25:44 ↗ from the public

2:25:45 ↗ and we do appreciate you guys staying

2:25:47 ↗ with us throughout the meeting

2:25:49 ↗ i think we're getting towards the end so

2:25:52 ↗ right now i believe the obligation i

2:25:53 ↗ have is to ask

2:25:54 ↗ senior planner alison again if we have

2:25:57 ↗ any other business or announcements

2:26:00 ↗ no i just i just wanted this is kristen

2:26:02 ↗ leason senior planner apologizing keep

2:26:04 ↗ forgetting to say that um

2:26:06 ↗ i just wanted to note um we realized in

2:26:08 ↗ order to make it through

2:26:10 ↗ from what we could tell um on our

2:26:11 ↗ schedule we needed to add a meeting so i

2:26:13 ↗ just wanted to make sure december 2nd

2:26:15 ↗ would not typically be on your calendars

2:26:17 ↗ so i wanted to make sure that i left it

2:26:19 ↗ highlighted but be sure to put that one

2:26:21 ↗ on your calendars because we will be

2:26:22 ↗ meeting on a non-regular

2:26:24 ↗ date then

2:26:27 ↗ is that still a thursday it's just the

2:26:31 ↗ first thursday

2:26:32 ↗ yes it's the first thursday yeah

2:26:34 ↗ excellent

2:26:36 ↗ okay well um i think we're towards the

2:26:39 ↗ end so

2:26:40 ↗ if does anybody else want to say

2:26:42 ↗ anything does anybody else want to speak

2:26:44 ↗ for the good of the order

2:26:47 ↗ well then i will just is joy is that a

2:26:49 ↗ hand is that a hand i see

2:26:52 ↗ please thank you commissioner joy lewis

2:26:55 ↗ i do have something a little bit strange

2:26:57 ↗ that came across in the last couple

2:26:59 ↗ weeks that i wanted to put

2:27:01 ↗ to staff and see if i'm far off base and

2:27:03 ↗ i want to give matt the opportunity to

2:27:05 ↗ completely make fun of me and be like

2:27:07 ↗ this is not a thing but

2:27:08 ↗ um i was reading in um in wapo about um

2:27:12 ↗ fulton versus the city of philadelphia

2:27:14 ↗ and um the recent supreme court decision

2:27:16 ↗ and i couldn't help but think about all

2:27:18 ↗ the little places in our code where we

2:27:20 ↗ say

2:27:20 ↗ and the executive director will decide

2:27:22 ↗ oh and that goes to the executive

2:27:23 ↗ director

2:27:24 ↗ and i basically have this question of of

2:27:27 ↗ our staff

2:27:28 ↗ and of our legal counsel to say um based

2:27:31 ↗ on this recent decision

2:27:33 ↗ are we in a little bit of hot water

2:27:35 ↗ right so

2:27:36 ↗ um i'm curious too to be able to have a

2:27:38 ↗ review right right we're looking right

2:27:39 ↗ now at title 18 in all these different

2:27:41 ↗ buckets

2:27:42 ↗ but what i'm curious to see is how many

2:27:44 ↗ times in the code

2:27:45 ↗ do we have defer to the executive

2:27:48 ↗ director right like in parks for

2:27:49 ↗ instance

2:27:50 ↗ executive director has the discretion to

2:27:52 ↗ decide this right we had a comment

2:27:54 ↗ tonight from ken who made a really good

2:27:55 ↗ point about

2:27:56 ↗ hey is there a safety valve is there a

2:27:58 ↗ way to be able to kind of

2:28:00 ↗ not get bogged down into the

2:28:01 ↗ administrative process but

2:28:03 ↗ my mind actually was kind of at a

2:28:05 ↗ different place is to say if we are

2:28:07 ↗ constantly giving this kind of

2:28:09 ↗ out of having um an executive director

2:28:12 ↗ be able to decide

2:28:14 ↗ are we then opening ourselves up to

2:28:16 ↗ litigation

2:28:24 ↗ again

2:28:27 ↗ i think um yeah so the whole title 18 is

2:28:30 ↗ gonna we're all gonna be working with

2:28:32 ↗ the city attorney i mean right now we're

2:28:33 ↗ at a very policy level

2:28:35 ↗ and and trying to get you know what it

2:28:37 ↗ is uh going forward but it will be

2:28:39 ↗ vetted out by the city attorneys from a

2:28:41 ↗ legal perspective but

2:28:42 ↗ the good point in a lot of times these

2:28:45 ↗ land use litigation is very expensive

2:28:47 ↗ uh and we want to get it right in terms

2:28:49 ↗ of all the

2:28:50 ↗ all the legalese that goes with it it

2:28:53 ↗ you know it's one

2:28:54 ↗ one thing about making sure people can

2:28:56 ↗ understand it but also

2:28:58 ↗ making sure that it stands the test of

2:28:59 ↗ the courts um

2:29:02 ↗ so we will we'll have that filter and

2:29:04 ↗ we'll be working with the city attorney

2:29:05 ↗ on it

2:29:06 ↗ uh in terms of i am not a big fan of the

2:29:08 ↗ director shall decide unless there's a

2:29:10 ↗ specific criteria because then

2:29:12 ↗ whoever's in the director position it

2:29:14 ↗ can vary

2:29:15 ↗ and you know we don't want to have

2:29:17 ↗ arbitrary and capricious decisions and

2:29:19 ↗ we want to have

2:29:20 ↗ we are consistent we treat everyone the

2:29:22 ↗ same and and everything comes out so

2:29:25 ↗ i i i certainly won't be wanting

2:29:28 ↗ uh things in the code that are too

2:29:30 ↗ wishy-washy like that

2:29:32 ↗ to begin with but but i'm not familiar

2:29:34 ↗ with the details of the court case

2:29:36 ↗ you're referring to but i'll read up on

2:29:38 ↗ that and

2:29:39 ↗ and and address it sure so i guess my

2:29:42 ↗ question is like a twofold right is to

2:29:44 ↗ kind of do a double check

2:29:45 ↗ and to see um you know if i'm completely

2:29:48 ↗ off base and this doesn't um have

2:29:50 ↗ anything to do with us right um

2:29:51 ↗ to when we check with council and to say

2:29:54 ↗ um i think it would be interesting to

2:29:55 ↗ have a high level review

2:29:57 ↗ to say how often do we have this written

2:29:59 ↗ in right how often are we using it

2:30:01 ↗ because

2:30:02 ↗ in my mind i was remembering all these

2:30:03 ↗ little places where we've had it in the

2:30:05 ↗ past so it's curious as we move forward

2:30:07 ↗ to see

2:30:08 ↗ how many places that we do have that i

2:30:10 ↗ just think that's a big bird's eye view

2:30:12 ↗ that we may need to think about too as

2:30:13 ↗ we're as we're looking at these little

2:30:15 ↗ buckets it's a great way to piece it

2:30:16 ↗ apart

2:30:17 ↗ since it is so big but there are a

2:30:18 ↗ couple things that may need to have

2:30:20 ↗ a big overarching um macro view and this

2:30:22 ↗ is just one that stuck out to me in the

2:30:24 ↗ last couple

2:30:25 ↗ uh weeks so thank you for for thinking

2:30:27 ↗ about it

2:30:30 ↗ please please tear me down yeah i'll

2:30:33 ↗ obviously defer to council who thinks

2:30:35 ↗ about these things but it shouldn't have

2:30:36 ↗ any impact

2:30:37 ↗ um the the first amendment cases trigger

2:30:40 ↗ something called strict scrutiny which

2:30:41 ↗ is

2:30:42 ↗ where the city got in trouble um for the

2:30:44 ↗ vast majority of delegation of those

2:30:46 ↗ kinds of administrative things i think

2:30:48 ↗ many hit it on the head it's it's an

2:30:50 ↗ arbitrary capricious standard which is

2:30:52 ↗ significantly less

2:30:53 ↗ onerous than strict scrutiny which

2:30:55 ↗ basically says that the government can

2:30:56 ↗ do it

2:30:57 ↗ any other way they have to do it and

2:30:58 ↗ particularly when you get into things

2:31:00 ↗ like

2:31:00 ↗ free speech and religion that's where

2:31:02 ↗ the court really has a hammer ready to

2:31:03 ↗ come down but on

2:31:05 ↗ routine things generally speaking a

2:31:07 ↗ court's not going to want to wade into

2:31:10 ↗ how a municipality delegates certain

2:31:13 ↗ administrative functions within within

2:31:15 ↗ itself so i'd be shocked if council

2:31:17 ↗ comes back and says we have to worry

2:31:18 ↗ about this one

2:31:24 ↗ how do you like that our in house legal

2:31:27 ↗ expert

2:31:28 ↗ doesn't get any better than that so does

2:31:31 ↗ anyone else have anything for the good

2:31:32 ↗ of the order

2:31:36 ↗ i want to thank everybody tonight i want

2:31:38 ↗ to thank my colleagues for being so

2:31:40 ↗ gracious with me and i really want to

2:31:41 ↗ thank our wonderful city staff

2:31:44 ↗ um director dollywall manager

2:31:47 ↗ leeson manager sloman thank you you guys

2:31:50 ↗ uh

2:31:51 ↗ phoning a friend being able to hold my

2:31:53 ↗ hand as we walk through this thank you

2:31:55 ↗ very much

2:31:56 ↗ and ultimately just i hope you all have

2:31:58 ↗ a wonderful weekend i hope all of you

2:32:00 ↗ guys are able to find

2:32:01 ↗ a cool place to hunker down until

2:32:04 ↗ tuesday

2:32:06 ↗ and ultimately we will see you guys here

2:32:09 ↗ relatively shortly but having said all

2:32:11 ↗ that

2:32:12 ↗ and with there being no further business

2:32:14 ↗ i adjourn this meeting of june 24th

2:32:17 ↗ the planning policy commission at 904.

2:32:21 ↗ thank you

2:32:26 ↗ you

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 (7)

Administration/Staff: Jason Voiss

Christen Leeson

Senior Planner Joy Lewis Minnie Dhaliwal

CP&D Director Nina Milligan Lucy Sloman

Land Dev. Manager Matt Monahan Richard Zaragoza

Alternate* Commissioners Not Present: Sara Bader (Excused) Ron Faul

(Excused)