Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, August 24, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of July 27, 2023

packet pp.3–8

▶ Watch from 14:20 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, July 27, 2023

4. PUBLIC HEARING

Recommendation on Title 18 Zoning Table Update, (A)

25 min · Valerie Porter, Associate Planner Public Hearing Order: Commission · packet pp.9–15

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will hold a public hearing on the following proposed amendments to Title 18, Land Use Code.

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element Deliberation, (A)

20 min · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.17–31

Topics: HousingLand Use

▶ Watch from 14:08 Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the August 24, 2023,

6. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.89–91

▶ Watch from 1:23:10 Open packet at p.89 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2023 Schedule (subject to change) 2022 1/12/23 1/19/23 1/26/23 (Special Meeting) Title 18 – Final Draft Introduction Public Hearing: Title 18 – Final Draft Public Hearing: Title 18 – Final Draft ▪ Part 1 – General Provisions ▪ Part 5 – Specified Use Standards

1890 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ good evening everyone welcome to another

0:05 ↗ edition of isqua planning policy

0:09 ↗ commission I'd like to call the August

0:11 ↗ 24th meeting of the planning policy

0:13 ↗ commission to order and it is

0:17 ↗ currently 6:37 p.m. and tonight it looks

0:21 ↗ like we have our full bench all of our

0:23 ↗ commissioners here

0:25 ↗ fantastic we have one missing

0:27 ↗ commissioner chair voice and it's uh

0:29 ↗ Comm and commissioner Patterson is

0:31 ↗ missing he is excused absence okay I

0:33 ↗ hope he doesn't see the first 20 seconds

0:35 ↗ we miss you

0:37 ↗ Jesse let's make it official do we have

0:39 ↗ a quorum this evening yes your voice

0:42 ↗ okay thank you Stephen I will'll begin

0:45 ↗ with public comment and we're holding

0:47 ↗ general public comment at this time for

0:49 ↗ all General topics so again we're going

0:51 ↗ to have a public hearing we're going to

0:53 ↗ discuss some agenda items but for the

0:56 ↗ good of the city the commission any

0:58 ↗ general help public comments uh this

1:01 ↗ would be the time to make them Jared has

1:04 ↗ anybody signed up to make General Public

1:05 ↗ comments no one has signed up tonight to

1:08 ↗ make public

1:09 ↗ comment great thank

1:12 ↗ you then we will move on to item four

1:16 ↗ which is our public hearing the title 18

1:19 ↗ zoning table amendments tonight we are

1:22 ↗ holding a public hearing regarding

1:23 ↗ proposed amendments to the zoning table

1:25 ↗ in Title

1:26 ↗ 18 the public hearing works as follows

1:30 ↗ staff will make a

1:32 ↗ presentation we as a commission will ask

1:34 ↗ clarifying

1:36 ↗ questions we'll open the comment period

1:39 ↗ close the public hearing and then as a

1:42 ↗ commission again we will

1:43 ↗ deliberate we can go ahead and open the

1:46 ↗ public hearing at

1:49 ↗ 6:39

1:52 ↗ p.m. Valerie welcome

1:58 ↗ back there she is uh please I believe

2:02 ↗ this part of the meeting is

2:09 ↗ yours hello thank you um still trying to

2:14 ↗ adjust one second

2:20 ↗ please here we go all right hi everyone

2:23 ↗ my name is Valerie Porter I'm an

2:25 ↗ associate planner with the community

2:26 ↗ planning and development department and

2:29 ↗ here we're going to talk about um

2:31 ↗ updates to the development table in

2:32 ↗ Title

2:34 ↗ 18 so we're holding a public hearing to

2:37 ↗ take public comment regarding the

2:39 ↗ proposed amendments to the table um

2:41 ↗ Title 18 development

2:44 ↗ tables so the proposal is to amend two

2:47 ↗ tables so the first table we're

2:49 ↗ requesting to amend is the form an

2:51 ↗ intensity table which talks about

2:53 ↗ building setbacks lock coverage height

2:56 ↗ and density requirements the proposed

2:58 ↗ change would change the density

3:00 ↗ standards from 36 units um per acre to

3:03 ↗ limited by far ratio for mixed use mixed

3:07 ↗ use residential intensive commercial and

3:10 ↗ Village Residential zones which are all

3:12 ↗ located within the central isqua um

3:15 ↗ Subara and the change can be seen here

3:17 ↗ in

3:19 ↗ Red so just so you kind of get an idea

3:22 ↗ where these zones are located here is a

3:24 ↗ map showing the impacted zones again all

3:27 ↗ located within the um Central is across

3:34 ↗ Subara so the reason why um this change

3:37 ↗ is being brought before the commission

3:39 ↗ today um instead of with the annual land

3:41 ↗ use code update is because this change

3:43 ↗ is very impactful as it stands now the

3:46 ↗ form an intensity table conflicts with

3:48 ↗ the table of permanent uses which

3:50 ↗ identifies what uses are allowed in what

3:52 ↗ zones so for instance residential units

3:56 ↗ are not allowed in the Intensive

3:58 ↗ commercial Zone but the dity standard

4:00 ↗ requirement is requiring

4:07 ↗ residentials sorry one

4:20 ↗ second sorry about that um so as it

4:23 ↗ stands right now the um that is a

4:26 ↗ conflict with uh the residential tables

4:30 ↗ so um it was also discovered that the 36

4:32 ↗ units per acre requirement is difficult

4:35 ↗ to comply with especially for units that

4:38 ↗ are or lots that are smaller within

4:39 ↗ these zones and it really has the

4:42 ↗ potential to hinder development which is

4:43 ↗ the opposite of what we want so it seems

4:46 ↗ that during the code the land use code

4:48 ↗ update there was a footnote that was

4:50 ↗ applied only to the urban core Zone and

4:53 ↗ was converted into the density

4:56 ↗ requirements for four um zones within

4:58 ↗ the central isqua sub sub area so the

5:01 ↗ proposed change would basically um

5:04 ↗ convert the code back to the standard

5:06 ↗ before the title 18 um update and it

5:09 ↗ will eliminate um further

5:17 ↗ issues the next post change would be to

5:21 ↗ the uh floor area ratio standards table

5:24 ↗ and we would also be adding a regulation

5:27 ↗ back to the code So currently

5:30 ↗ the um floor area ratio standards are

5:32 ↗ not listed in the table and so um the

5:35 ↗ proposed amendment would basically

5:37 ↗ reinsert the floor ratio standards for

5:39 ↗ the MU Zone and reinsert the requirement

5:43 ↗ for a minimum of 36 units to be

5:45 ↗ constructed within the urban core um

5:48 ↗ again this foot there's this was

5:50 ↗ originally a footnote in the Central

5:51 ↗ isqua Development design standards um it

5:54 ↗ somehow got converted to be a density

5:57 ↗ requirement in the previous table table

6:00 ↗ and now what we would like to do is take

6:02 ↗ that out of the previous table and um

6:05 ↗ add it back into the code as just a

6:13 ↗ regulation so there are a couple issues

6:15 ↗ that were discovered with this change so

6:17 ↗ um the first one was with the table so

6:20 ↗ floor area ratio affects volume shape

6:23 ↗ and spacing of a building on a lot so if

6:27 ↗ this requirement continues to not be in

6:29 ↗ the table Lots within the MU Zone will

6:32 ↗ be the only um uh Zone within Central

6:35 ↗ isqua that do not have any floor area

6:37 ↗ ratio standards and future development

6:39 ↗ will be out of proportion with the lot

6:41 ↗ and surrounding development so again the

6:45 ↗ we would like the footnote that applied

6:47 ↗ only to Urban core to be um con um

6:51 ↗ basically added back so we reinserting

6:54 ↗ this development requirement into the co

6:56 ↗ code ensure that development will occur

6:59 ↗ where we intended it which is the Urban

7:01 ↗ Court

7:04 ↗ zone so staff is um hoping that PPC

7:08 ↗ recommends approval for the proposed

7:11 ↗ amendments to the title 18 to revise um

7:14 ↗ table um imc1 18

7:17 ↗ 44100b table mix zones

7:21 ↗ form and intensity minimum standards to

7:23 ↗ change the zoning density and to add the

7:26 ↗ mixed used residential zoning standards

7:29 ↗ to the table 18

7:32 ↗ 44150b mixed zones floor area ratio

7:42 ↗ standards so should PPC um approve um or

7:47 ↗ recommend approval The Next Step would

7:49 ↗ be to take this um to the Planning

7:51 ↗ Development and environment committee

7:54 ↗ for a recommendation and if they um

7:57 ↗ provide and then the next recommendation

7:58 ↗ would go to to the city council for a

8:02 ↗ decision all right and that concludes my

8:05 ↗ presentation are there any

8:09 ↗ questions great thank you Valerie for

8:11 ↗ the great presentation wonderful to have

8:13 ↗ you back um Commissioners this is your

8:16 ↗ time to ask questions to Valerie as our

8:19 ↗ presenter this evening uh before we open

8:21 ↗ it up to the public hearing and public

8:23 ↗ comments so uh we will deliberate again

8:26 ↗ after after the public hearing comments

8:28 ↗ but right now feel free to ask any

8:30 ↗ questions you

8:32 ↗ have if there are any oh and please

8:35 ↗ state your name for the record since

8:37 ↗ this is a public hearing

8:40 ↗ but thank you Valerie n Milligan here uh

8:44 ↗ I just want to ask and and maybe I

8:47 ↗ wasn't listening or reading very clearly

8:48 ↗ it seems like in one of the areas we are

8:52 ↗ removing the 36 units per acre and the

8:55 ↗ other one we are retaining or adding it

8:59 ↗ uh and I I didn't quite understand why

9:01 ↗ we would have the far and the 36 units

9:05 ↗ per acre in just one of those areas

9:06 ↗ maybe I'm I'm Mish hearing you a little

9:08 ↗ more

9:10 ↗ information yeah definitely so um during

9:14 ↗ the um the big uh code update we think

9:19 ↗ that someone took what was a footnote

9:21 ↗ and basically converted it into the

9:24 ↗ density requirements for these four

9:26 ↗ zones and so what this proposal is doing

9:30 ↗ is basically taking um the 36 per acre

9:35 ↗ um

9:37 ↗ requirement and we're basically putting

9:39 ↗ that footnote back into the code so we

9:41 ↗ want to capture that because we want the

9:44 ↗ 36 U minimum requirement to apply only

9:47 ↗ to the urban core Zone not to all of the

9:50 ↗ zones within Central and so that's why

9:53 ↗ in the density um requirement we're

9:55 ↗ saying we want the development to be

9:58 ↗ determined by the floor area ratio

10:01 ↗ because that's what it was when it was

10:03 ↗ was in the table of the Central esquad

10:05 ↗ Development design standards does that

10:07 ↗ answer your question may may I add

10:10 ↗ something to that please that was put in

10:12 ↗ way back in about 2014 maybe 2015 that

10:18 ↗ regarding Urban core and the 36 dwelling

10:19 ↗ units per acre because we had people who

10:22 ↗ uh were talking to us about putting in

10:25 ↗ developments that had a pretty low

10:26 ↗ acreage or pretty low unit count and

10:28 ↗ that that's where we wanted our units to

10:30 ↗ go so we had to set a minimum

10:33 ↗ bar thank you senior planner Lon for

10:37 ↗ providing that historical context always

10:39 ↗ important any other further questions

10:41 ↗ from the

10:43 ↗ commission commissioner as what and just

10:46 ↗ one question that uh this is

10:48 ↗ commissioner Sim um that 36 units is for

10:52 ↗ housing but also commercial use as well

10:55 ↗ that that was the original um

10:58 ↗ intent

11:01 ↗ no the 36 um you can see the um the

11:05 ↗ condition it is pretty much the same as

11:08 ↗ it was in the Central isaka Development

11:10 ↗ design standards and it only applied to

11:13 ↗ um residential okay not commercial okay

11:16 ↗ and it's just essentially correcting it

11:18 ↗ to place it in the right Zone and and

11:21 ↗ and aligning it with the floor area

11:23 ↗ ratio okay right yes thank you which is

11:27 ↗ why right now it applies to a commercial

11:29 ↗ Zone which conflicts with the um table

11:32 ↗ of permitted uses yeah permitted uses

11:35 ↗ okay thank

11:38 ↗ you any other further

11:45 ↗ questions all right if there are no more

11:47 ↗ questions from our commissioners we will

11:48 ↗ open the floor for public comments

11:51 ↗ please remember that the public has five

11:53 ↗ minutes per person to

11:55 ↗ speak Jarett has anyone signed up this

11:58 ↗ evening make and public comment tonight

12:01 ↗ no one online or in person has signed up

12:03 ↗ to make public comment during our

12:05 ↗ hearing tonight thank you

12:09 ↗ Jared if there are no more

12:12 ↗ public you rely on the script a

12:15 ↗ lot seeing there's no public comments we

12:17 ↗ will close the public hearing at 6:48

12:23 ↗ p.m. all right so we going to work

12:25 ↗ through the proposed amendments as

12:27 ↗ presented Commission

12:29 ↗ this more or less seems like a

12:30 ↗ technicality to me

12:34 ↗ um would anyone like to speak on this or

12:37 ↗ do we just want to go straight forward

12:39 ↗ and provide a

12:43 ↗ recommendation all right so all in favor

12:45 ↗ of recommending these

12:53 ↗ changes would someone like to make a

12:55 ↗ motion other than

12:57 ↗ me

13:06 ↗ commissioner altimore can the motion be

13:08 ↗ to uh accept the recommendations as

13:11 ↗ stated in the memo I think that sounds

13:13 ↗ great staff are you okay with

13:16 ↗ that I can read the recommendation we

13:19 ↗ can accept that for

13:21 ↗ tonight so moved

13:27 ↗ please all right

13:31 ↗ so the motion is

13:34 ↗ approved thank you

13:43 ↗ commissioner oh yes this this is why

13:47 ↗ this is like the bane of my existence

13:49 ↗ here

13:50 ↗ okay all in favor of the motion please

13:53 ↗ go ahead and say

13:55 ↗ I I that was unanimous for our staff

14:00 ↗ thank

14:05 ↗ you all right the next item on the

14:08 ↗ agenda is regular business the first

14:11 ↗ item this

14:14 ↗ evening yes thank

14:17 ↗ you so I have a little bit of

14:19 ↗ housekeeping that I completely forgot I

14:20 ↗ apologize we need to approve the minutes

14:23 ↗ for I believe it

14:24 ↗ was July

14:27 ↗ 27th

14:30 ↗ have I know this was all provided in

14:33 ↗ everyone's agenda packet does anyone

14:35 ↗ have any clarifications or concerns

14:37 ↗ regarding the minutes for July

14:40 ↗ 27th hearing none the minutes are

14:47 ↗ approved right back

14:50 ↗ on now we'll begin with regular business

14:53 ↗ and tonight it's a deliberation for the

14:55 ↗ housing element of the comprehensive

14:57 ↗ plan periodic update

14:59 ↗ and Kristen our senior planner will be

15:01 ↗ presenting tonight so whenever you're

15:03 ↗ ready

15:27 ↗ Kristen

15:31 ↗ all right so I'll introduce myself this

15:32 ↗ time Kristen Leon I'm with the Comm

15:34 ↗ senior planner with Community planning

15:36 ↗ and

15:37 ↗ development and yes our first topic

15:39 ↗ tonight is the housing element and it's

15:42 ↗ just going over quickly uh the changes

15:45 ↗ that were made as a result of the July

15:47 ↗ 27th

15:48 ↗ meeting and then if you all have

15:50 ↗ anything else to add we can do that too

15:54 ↗ um okay so and what we need from you is

15:56 ↗ do the changes that we've made reflect

15:59 ↗ your discussion on the

16:01 ↗ 27th so the first one was for A5 to

16:04 ↗ clarify the word flexibility there are

16:06 ↗ two things that we actually did here one

16:07 ↗ was

16:08 ↗ that we took out the word flexibility

16:10 ↗ because developers need to know what's

16:13 ↗ coming they don't need flexibility they

16:14 ↗ want to know be certain about what

16:15 ↗ they're getting into so the word

16:17 ↗ flexibility was

16:18 ↗ removed and we said allow development

16:20 ↗ standards to achieve addtional

16:22 ↗ additional multifam residential

16:25 ↗ densities because there was a concern

16:27 ↗ that what we were talking about was

16:30 ↗ increasing densities in all housing

16:32 ↗ areas but really this is intended just

16:33 ↗ for multif family housing and it came

16:35 ↗ out of the E Northwest study as

16:37 ↗ something that we needed to do so

16:39 ↗ hopefully that

16:43 ↗ clarifies okay the next one was we

16:46 ↗ needed a comprehensive list for

16:48 ↗ protected classes so we took out the

16:51 ↗ parentheses and just said including but

16:52 ↗ not limited to race color and listed

16:55 ↗ everything there does that look good I

16:58 ↗ got a thumbs

17:00 ↗ up uh clarification of disproportionate

17:03 ↗ impacts so uh we change it to an

17:07 ↗ evaluating rezones regulations that

17:09 ↗ increase development capacity without

17:10 ↗ resulting in negative disproportional

17:13 ↗ impacts to under representative groups

17:15 ↗ in the community but this will also be

17:17 ↗ expanded upon when we do the narrative

17:20 ↗ because remember I said or we said last

17:22 ↗ time the Visions The Narrative that the

17:24 ↗ Visions the discussions and some of the

17:25 ↗ background information is not here just

17:28 ↗ because that's too much to absorb so

17:29 ↗ that'll be expanded on in when we

17:31 ↗ include the narrative as

17:37 ↗ well C6 uh same thing more guidance on

17:41 ↗ terms to use it will be expanded not

17:43 ↗ only in the narrative but also in the

17:45 ↗ definition

17:46 ↗ section and I would ask um that if there

17:49 ↗ are specific terms that you would like

17:52 ↗ expanded upon if you could send us a

17:54 ↗ list of those we'll make sure that that

17:56 ↗ happens okay because there are a lot of

17:58 ↗ of words in here so if you just let us

18:00 ↗ know which ones You' like clarification

18:01 ↗ that'd be

18:04 ↗ great I don't know why I stuck this one

18:06 ↗ in here or at least the policy but um

18:09 ↗ ask for coordination with other other

18:11 ↗ elements the policy is collaborate with

18:13 ↗ populations most disproportionately

18:15 ↗ impacted by housing cost burden and

18:16 ↗ developing

18:17 ↗ regulations I think this had to do with

18:20 ↗ uh you know looking at Utilities in

18:21 ↗ other areas or Human Services or um you

18:25 ↗ know rent assistance and that that kind

18:27 ↗ of thing so we will that'll that'll

18:29 ↗ happen um when we look particularly at

18:32 ↗ things like human services and utilities

18:35 ↗ um transportation that will all be

18:37 ↗ looked at when we look at those elements

18:39 ↗ as well we

18:43 ↗ good yeah because I think I think that

18:45 ↗ one came from me um I this particular

18:48 ↗ one the coordination piece that policy I

18:50 ↗ think it was listed under just housing

18:52 ↗ Supply um and so my question was it felt

18:56 ↗ like it needed to apply to other

18:58 ↗ sections right of um both the housing

19:00 ↗ policy as well as in other elements so

19:03 ↗ the thing about utilities and whatnot

19:04 ↗ was related to affordability more

19:06 ↗ generally um but with this policy my my

19:08 ↗ question was um it felt like too limited

19:11 ↗ to just be under one of the kind of

19:14 ↗ goals of housing no that that makes

19:16 ↗ sense we we'll take a look at that

19:22 ↗ okay X six just reward it as a policy

19:26 ↗ and so we just took out make amendments

19:27 ↗ to and changed it to

19:29 ↗ amend that capture

19:35 ↗ that and this is similar to one up above

19:37 ↗ it's a similar to C1 X11 uh needed

19:40 ↗ Clarity on disparities and so again we

19:43 ↗ just added um other negative

19:45 ↗ disproportionate impacts to under

19:46 ↗ representative groups in the

19:50 ↗ community

19:53 ↗ yes this comes back to the other one too

19:56 ↗ um will disproportion impact or I'm

19:59 ↗ sorry will underrepresented groups be

20:01 ↗ defined in the definitions in the

20:04 ↗ narrative as much as we can yes yeah I

20:08 ↗ yeah I mean I will I will say the state

20:10 ↗ hasn't been super clear on it all they

20:12 ↗ ever say is under represented groups and

20:14 ↗ we're not the only ones who have the

20:15 ↗ question so as much as we can yes okay

20:18 ↗ thank

20:26 ↗ you and then this is one I think you

20:28 ↗ were referring to earlier commissioner

20:30 ↗ Bader um King County we more more

20:33 ↗ policies that promote affordability and

20:35 ↗ it's recognized in the policies that are

20:37 ↗ listed here but again it will be looked

20:39 ↗ at in other elements utilities Human

20:41 ↗ Services Transportation

20:46 ↗ those so I went ahead and included next

20:49 ↗ steps we will continue to revise we will

20:51 ↗ make the change that was requested here

20:52 ↗ we will add the background information

20:54 ↗ in here we'll add uh the definitions

20:56 ↗ just for housing if you all will send us

20:57 ↗ a list

20:58 ↗ that would be helpful um and then you'll

21:00 ↗ see it again uh in the in fall in the

21:06 ↗ fall any questions anything that wasn't

21:10 ↗ addressed last time that might might

21:11 ↗ want to address this

21:13 ↗ time

21:16 ↗ Commissioners commissioner Milligan I

21:18 ↗ have to find it again thank you Nina

21:20 ↗ Milligan here I'm looking at housing

21:22 ↗ policy B3 on page 23 of the packet and

21:26 ↗ um I may have already asked about about

21:28 ↗ it but it's still looking the same and

21:30 ↗ that has to do

21:33 ↗ with sorry

21:37 ↗ um going here get to it here we go uh B3

21:43 ↗ this uh support development and

21:44 ↗ preservation of affordable housing

21:46 ↗ throughout the community particularly in

21:48 ↗ locations with good pedestrian access uh

21:50 ↗ to existing and planed high capacity fre

21:52 ↗ um and frequent Transit and then we

21:55 ↗ removed Employment Services and

21:59 ↗ shopping and uh it seems single-minded

22:03 ↗ maybe it's somewhere else but thought

22:05 ↗ that all of those things

22:07 ↗ were value

22:09 ↗ added the affordable

22:20 ↗ hous go

22:23 ↗ ahead when staff reviewed the policy oh

22:25 ↗ Steven B long-range planning manager um

22:28 ↗ PD when staff reviewed the policy we

22:31 ↗ actually found it limiting because the

22:33 ↗ access for pedestrian services for

22:37 ↗ getting as as I'm reading

22:40 ↗ it getting pedestrian access to existing

22:43 ↗ imp plan high capacity Transit high

22:45 ↗ capacity and frequent Transit um it's

22:48 ↗ more than just employment services and

22:49 ↗ shopping it's getting people access to

22:52 ↗ housing getting people access to any of

22:54 ↗ the natural amenities or Community

22:55 ↗ amenities and broadening so we wanted to

22:58 ↗ open it up a little bit more in terms of

22:59 ↗ like what that access was

23:04 ↗ actually yeah in conversation here I

23:07 ↗ think you yeah you could expand that

23:08 ↗ list Employment Services shopping Parks

23:11 ↗ schools blah blah blah blah all these

23:14 ↗ wonderful amenities for housing

23:18 ↗ community we we'll take we'll take a

23:20 ↗ look at that one there is a policy in

23:21 ↗ land use that talks about putting H

23:23 ↗ Housing close to commercial centers

23:25 ↗ close to Services it talks about putting

23:27 ↗ neighborhoods Services into

23:29 ↗ neighborhoods and not just the other way

23:31 ↗ around and I think part of this too when

23:34 ↗ looking at it after you and I had a

23:35 ↗ brief conversation I think this is under

23:37 ↗ the affordability section and even that

23:39 ↗ could be moved as commissioner uh Bader

23:42 ↗ stated earlier that wouldn't be just

23:44 ↗ necessarily for for affordable either

23:46 ↗ that would be just housing in general so

23:48 ↗ we can take a look at not only expanding

23:50 ↗ that but re-expanding it to where it was

23:52 ↗ but putting it in a different

23:56 ↗ section

24:01 ↗ quiet

24:03 ↗ tonight I think it's because it's the

24:04 ↗ end of

24:06 ↗ summer any other questions I just had a

24:09 ↗ couple real quick mostly about the

24:12 ↗ Matrix um Kristen do these changes are

24:15 ↗ do they also reflect comments made by

24:17 ↗ the public we got some good comments far

24:19 ↗ as the housing element public or are

24:21 ↗ these just the commission

24:26 ↗ deliberations

24:32 ↗ I was not at the last meeting um some of

24:35 ↗ some of the comments were made or some

24:36 ↗ of the changes were made based on public

24:38 ↗ comment that was sent okay

24:40 ↗ yeah and then one other simple

24:42 ↗ clarification I notice some of the boxes

24:44 ↗ where it says reasons for change were

24:47 ↗ empty that just because nothing changed

24:49 ↗ or I think there was just one or two of

24:56 ↗ them find

25:04 ↗ um I'm going to say it was just an

25:06 ↗ oversight I see one I think there was

25:09 ↗ one of two I just wanted to make sure

25:11 ↗ that yeah we can fix

25:14 ↗ that but is it is it because the policy

25:16 ↗ itself didn't change or

25:19 ↗ no it's not actually so um

25:23 ↗ we we'll go just an oversight put that

25:26 ↗ in there

25:30 ↗ okay well staff is looking to us to help

25:35 ↗ them out um we will be seeing this

25:37 ↗ sounds like later in the fall but as far

25:40 ↗ as what we have this evening everyone

25:43 ↗ comfortable with what they

25:45 ↗ see oh B I have one really small thing

25:48 ↗ that I didn't notice um last time but

25:51 ↗ noticed this time because other language

25:52 ↗ in the policy

25:55 ↗ X11 um the language just feels really

25:59 ↗ weak to me um so the policy is to

26:01 ↗ identify gaps and that's like what does

26:05 ↗ that do um and so it feels like it

26:06 ↗ should be like identify gaps that at a

26:09 ↗ two right like strengthen or enhance or

26:13 ↗ um whatever it is so I want to comment

26:26 ↗ that

26:29 ↗ all right do you have what you need

26:30 ↗ Kristen as far as making an awesome

26:32 ↗ draft for us in the fall I do thank you

26:34 ↗ and it'll even be better when you all

26:36 ↗ send me words that you would like

26:37 ↗ clarify or phrases that you would like

26:44 ↗ clarified yes I've been asked to mention

26:46 ↗ that this is actually going uh to the um

26:50 ↗ Planning Development and environment

26:52 ↗ Council committee on

26:54 ↗ September 6th just for their review for

26:58 ↗ their first review of it and it includ

27:00 ↗ what we're sending them includes your

27:01 ↗ changes so I have time and I can get

27:04 ↗ these changes in there as well if you

27:05 ↗ guys trust me that I will reflect what

27:08 ↗ you've said here I will include those

27:09 ↗ changes and take it to

27:12 ↗ council okay all right thank you Kristen

27:15 ↗ looks like you'll also be presenting the

27:17 ↗ second part of this evening and this

27:19 ↗ will this will cover the land use

27:23 ↗ element then Kristen when you're

27:26 ↗ ready

28:13 ↗ you think that I was standing here I'd

28:14 ↗ be ready but I had to finish taking

28:15 ↗ notes from the last presentation so I'm

28:17 ↗ still Kristen Leon senior planner

28:19 ↗ Community planning and development and

28:21 ↗ now we're going to talk about our first

28:23 ↗ review of the land use element and I

28:25 ↗ just have to say up front this one's a

28:30 ↗ Beast even and I have been laughing

28:32 ↗ about that for a while I tried to put it

28:33 ↗ in the memo and he took it out

28:36 ↗ um but it is it's a be it's big it's

28:38 ↗ really big and there's a lot a lot of

28:41 ↗ work that's been done on this one as far

28:42 ↗ as reorganizing adding deleting moving

28:46 ↗ so it's it's crazy so we'll take

28:48 ↗ whatever time we need to go through this

28:49 ↗ first draft it doesn't all have to be

28:51 ↗ done today okay

28:54 ↗ uh oops move on me please there we go so

28:59 ↗ we're going to review and start

29:01 ↗ deliberating so our questions for you

29:03 ↗ are what they were with the housing

29:04 ↗ element do they accurately reflect the

29:06 ↗ state and County policies and actually

29:08 ↗ there weren't any counties so really do

29:09 ↗ they reflect the state policies Are

29:11 ↗ there isqua specific issues that need to

29:13 ↗ be addressed and is there additional

29:16 ↗ information that you need uh that would

29:18 ↗ be helpful in evaluating the proposed

29:21 ↗ amendments we'll come back to those so

29:24 ↗ the land use element sets the intent for

29:27 ↗ vment and preservation of the natural

29:28 ↗ environment as well so we're actually

29:30 ↗ changing the title to land use

29:33 ↗ and

29:35 ↗ sustainability um it also guides

29:37 ↗ implementation so it's done through

29:39 ↗ pieces such as the land use code the

29:42 ↗ city's strategic plan that we have the

29:44 ↗ shoreline master program it guides our

29:47 ↗ critical areas it so it a

29:52 ↗ lot so the monitoring piece of this the

29:55 ↗ state I think as we mentioned with the

29:56 ↗ housing element the state is now

29:58 ↗ requiring that we do a five-year

30:01 ↗ evaluation or sort of report card on how

30:03 ↗ well our plan is being implemented and

30:06 ↗ then we also do like you had tonight

30:09 ↗ periodic changes to the land use code

30:10 ↗ and preferably annual amendments to the

30:13 ↗ land use code when we identify gaps or

30:15 ↗ things that aren't working go back and

30:16 ↗ am in those at the end of the

30:19 ↗ year so just as a reminder some of that

30:21 ↗ I don't have the background information

30:22 ↗ here but some of it is we have our

30:24 ↗ future land use map the designation sh

30:27 ↗ uses will go Community facilities mixed

30:29 ↗ use offices lower density residential

30:31 ↗ multif family residential and it shows

30:33 ↗ our Urban growth boundary which is

30:35 ↗ whoops sorry Urban growth boundary which

30:37 ↗ is the red line right

30:40 ↗ there and as a reminder our capacity and

30:43 ↗ Target so for our capacity this was done

30:45 ↗ in 2019 it was done through development

30:47 ↗ up to 2018 um we have a capacity for

30:50 ↗ just over 12,000 housing units in the

30:52 ↗ city most of those are in Central isqua

30:55 ↗ and our Target that was adopted was

30:57 ↗ 3,500 new housing units by

31:00 ↗ 2044 and then our jobs we have just over

31:03 ↗ capacity for over just over 21,000 new

31:06 ↗ jobs based on square feet and type of

31:09 ↗ jobs so forth and our Target for that

31:11 ↗ for 2044 is 7,500 new

31:15 ↗ jobs and I mention this because one of

31:18 ↗ the things that we are supposed to do is

31:20 ↗ have Zone have land zoned for enough

31:23 ↗ capacity to accommodate our targets

31:24 ↗ that's a big one and that is

31:28 ↗ so you need to know what our capacity is

31:30 ↗ and what our targets are so tonight I'm

31:32 ↗ going to work through the order of the

31:33 ↗ Matrix I'm only going over the new and

31:35 ↗ amended policies and if you want to talk

31:38 ↗ about deleted or moved ones feel free to

31:40 ↗ bring it up I don't know if you would

31:42 ↗ like to do that chair voice during the

31:43 ↗ presentation or after the presentation

31:45 ↗ but I am happy to talk about anything

31:47 ↗ that wasn't discussed here as well are

31:49 ↗ you going to be taking these amend by

31:52 ↗ Amendment pardon me are you going to be

31:54 ↗ taking these amendment by Amendment yes

31:57 ↗ so I think if people feel like they want

31:59 ↗ to jump in for one please just raise

32:01 ↗ your hand and introduce

32:04 ↗ yourself it could be a long

32:07 ↗ presentation not too long it's me

32:11 ↗ okay um propose here we go so the first

32:15 ↗ one is the first one that changed is

32:18 ↗ goal a it was merged with policy A1 and

32:22 ↗ uh conserve and protect natural systems

32:24 ↗ from negative impacts of development

32:27 ↗ and jump in if you have any issues

32:30 ↗ hopefully you have your Matrix with you

32:32 ↗ too so you have the full policy in front

32:34 ↗ of you if there any

32:35 ↗ okay so A2 ensure development is

32:38 ↗ consistent with the city's vision and we

32:41 ↗ just removed any redundant language that

32:43 ↗ was in

32:49 ↗ there um because it included things like

32:52 ↗ Shoreline Master programing critical

32:53 ↗ areas those are or critical areas and

32:56 ↗ some that those are in the land use code

32:57 ↗ so we didn't need to mention the stuff

32:58 ↗ the land use code um A3 encourage

33:01 ↗ efficient loose of land by allowing

33:02 ↗ cluster housing and we just removed

33:04 ↗ language that was qu codified so we're

33:07 ↗ leaving the policy language there that

33:09 ↗ says allow for cluster housing but we

33:10 ↗ remove the things like require you know

33:13 ↗ uh open space and utilities and stuff

33:16 ↗ like that it's already codified but we

33:18 ↗ just need the big policy that says do

33:20 ↗ it continue to allow transfer of

33:23 ↗ development rights we just simplified

33:25 ↗ that that gets kind of big and messy

33:27 ↗ and then maintain character of forested

33:29 ↗ hillsides we simplified and removed

33:32 ↗ codified language this was put back in

33:34 ↗ there back in

33:35 ↗ 2016 when uh the Burma property was

33:38 ↗ being purchased and it was potentially

33:40 ↗ being developed and people panicked and

33:42 ↗ said no no no we have to protect our

33:43 ↗ Hillside so we were asked to put

33:45 ↗ policies in there and we they were very

33:47 ↗ specific policies because we didn't have

33:49 ↗ language yet and now we have language in

33:50 ↗ the code so that's why we took some of

33:52 ↗ that out okay I have I have a a light

33:55 ↗ bulb idea so why don't we let Kristen go

33:58 ↗ through one slide and then we'll check

33:59 ↗ to see if there's questions that way

34:01 ↗ we're not completely interrupting her

34:02 ↗ every single time but we can also give

34:05 ↗ everyone an opportunity so as far as

34:07 ↗ slide one are there any questions

34:11 ↗ comments

34:12 ↗ Bader yeah Sarah Bader I just had a like

34:15 ↗ clarifying question so on

34:17 ↗ A3 the previous language was clustering

34:20 ↗ of buildings within development housing

34:24 ↗ does that mean cluster housing okay I

34:27 ↗ didn't know if that was like Beyond

34:29 ↗ housing no that's that was that was for

34:32 ↗ housing okay

34:34 ↗ yeah commissioner

34:37 ↗ Kennedy I just want to make sure that

34:39 ↗ we're all on the same page so I'm

34:40 ↗ looking through the Matrix and you were

34:42 ↗ talking about things that were taken out

34:44 ↗ of St policy A2 like we took out

34:47 ↗ Shoreline it went on to say Shoreline

34:49 ↗ master program blah blah blah and I'm

34:51 ↗ seeing that language still in there so

34:54 ↗ you said we simplified and we took other

34:56 ↗ things out you're right and I'm like

35:00 ↗ it's right there so I wanted to clarify

35:03 ↗ that I was looking at the right thing oh

35:07 ↗ um I just took out we took out um an

35:10 ↗ other development let's see critical

35:12 ↗ areas regulations and other development

35:14 ↗ regulations because we talk about the

35:16 ↗ land use code and other development

35:17 ↗ regulations and critical areas

35:19 ↗ regulations are in the land use code so

35:20 ↗ that was what was redundant because

35:22 ↗ there are we still need to leave

35:23 ↗ programs in there right so you just

35:25 ↗ happen to mention things that

35:28 ↗ in the language yeah sorry okay I just

35:30 ↗ wanted to make sure because all of a

35:32 ↗ sudden I wasn't sure if I was looking at

35:33 ↗ the right

35:35 ↗ sorry we're

35:37 ↗ good and um I'll mention it now um under

35:43 ↗ goal a and then it's under several of

35:44 ↗ the other

35:46 ↗ ones the word City someone must have

35:48 ↗ done a search on the word city that was

35:51 ↗ me where it randomly appears okay mind

35:54 ↗ so just to yeah I I saw it in

35:56 ↗ unfortunately I didn't see that until

35:58 ↗ after this went out but I did because it

36:00 ↗ it's the city it's supposed to be lower

36:01 ↗ case C and if it's a city it's supposed

36:03 ↗ to be an upper case C so I did a search

36:05 ↗ and then it changed everything took it

36:06 ↗ out of track changes and I just didn't

36:08 ↗ even notice it until it went out so I'll

36:09 ↗ fix that thank

36:11 ↗ you I'm glad you brought that up

36:16 ↗ though comments please

36:20 ↗ continue so A7 respect topographic

36:23 ↗ character of each site again we just

36:25 ↗ removed a language that has been

36:30 ↗ codified so this shall be done through

36:32 ↗ building design sighting

36:34 ↗ minimizing height all that kind of stuff

36:36 ↗ that's what the code does but we still

36:38 ↗ have the policy in discourage expansion

36:41 ↗ of the urban growth boundary I just

36:42 ↗ clarified what that meant it didn't seem

36:44 ↗ to make a whole lot of sense

36:45 ↗ before um so I just said you know it's

36:48 ↗ just we said discourage proposals to

36:50 ↗ expand it um in order to protect the

36:53 ↗ community's natural

36:55 ↗ resources uh a

36:57 ↗ 13 support goals of mountains to sound

36:59 ↗ Greenway trust they have changed their

37:01 ↗ language since this was last written and

37:04 ↗ so I just we just changed it to be

37:06 ↗ consistent what they

37:08 ↗ say and just so you know when we do

37:11 ↗ development when we do signs anything

37:12 ↗ like that

37:14 ↗ um the goal is to keep it as un um armed

37:19 ↗ Untouched by development as possible so

37:21 ↗ it still looks and it should blend

37:24 ↗ in uh A14 integrate natural features

37:27 ↗ into n into site design as amenities

37:30 ↗ again we've removed language that has

37:32 ↗ since been

37:33 ↗ codified but the policy is still there

37:35 ↗ and then protect trees and urban

37:37 ↗ environments we moved B2 of this to the

37:43 ↗ Natural or to the environment element

37:46 ↗ and then we simplify the remaining

37:48 ↗ portion I think I saw some movement to

37:50 ↗ the right side are there any questions

37:53 ↗ as far as this slide clarifications yes

37:57 ↗ thanks this is Megan timore um I think

38:00 ↗ the wording is right here I'm way more

38:02 ↗ comfortable with a13 as it's revised and

38:05 ↗ as it was is

38:08 ↗ there is there an option for the city if

38:10 ↗ Mountain to sound Greenway goes off

38:12 ↗ track right if they if they suddenly

38:15 ↗ want to put a racetrack in our forested

38:17 ↗ area like this this no longer just says

38:19 ↗ blindly support which is great but is

38:22 ↗ there a way if we start to diverge that

38:25 ↗ this this just give us enough cover I

38:27 ↗ guess if we didn't appreciate where

38:30 ↗ their goals were going we'd be able to

38:33 ↗ uh respond to that with the annual

38:34 ↗ update right if we saw it going off

38:37 ↗ track we could amend that correct yes

38:40 ↗ okay yeah thank

38:44 ↗ you any other questions on the

38:54 ↗ slide is okay

38:57 ↗ D2 is in regards to where to focus

39:00 ↗ future growth simplified it a little bit

39:02 ↗ and included the regional growth

39:04 ↗ Center I'll tell you right now I'm I'm

39:07 ↗ not thrilled with this one I was going

39:09 ↗ to go back and revisit it um but that's

39:13 ↗ that's my personal opinion so um

39:17 ↗ but um moving

39:22 ↗ on uh coordinate storm water management

39:24 ↗ facilities that serve multiple proper

39:26 ↗ properties we just again simplified it

39:28 ↗ and removed codified language use storm

39:30 ↗ water solutions that

39:32 ↗ protect um receiving streams and

39:35 ↗ groundwater it referred to a federal

39:38 ↗ requirement we don't need to put Federal

39:39 ↗ requirements in our comprehensive plan

39:41 ↗ we're required to comply with that

39:44 ↗ anyway again the policy is still there

39:46 ↗ incorporate sustainable development we

39:48 ↗ just simplified the words here going all

39:50 ↗ the way down to

39:51 ↗ L um a lot of that was removed that's

39:55 ↗ why we skipped all the way down to l um

39:56 ↗ just simplified it a little

39:59 ↗ bit uh partner with the isqua school

40:01 ↗ district for future School sighting

40:03 ↗ include compact schools as an option and

40:06 ↗ we simplified it and Incorporated

40:08 ↗ language from two or three other

40:09 ↗ policies we deleted those and then

40:11 ↗ Incorporated that language in here I

40:13 ↗ just had a simple question before we

40:15 ↗ move on to the next slide so not that

40:18 ↗ these ones were points that you hit but

40:19 ↗ the policy D4 and policy D5 they're

40:23 ↗ almost identical other than the location

40:27 ↗ you guys are cleaning up all these

40:28 ↗ redundancies is that location necessary

40:30 ↗ to have two different

40:34 ↗ policies so they both were moved to the

40:37 ↗ environment stewardship and client

40:38 ↗ environment stewardship and climate

40:40 ↗ resilience element um but I imagine

40:43 ↗ they'll be edited there and because

40:45 ↗ we're not touching we're not doing the

40:46 ↗ edits in the Landry

40:51 ↗ element well that means if there's

40:53 ↗ redundancy then once they're taken over

40:54 ↗ they'll it'll be looked at there okay

40:57 ↗ and in the other element and I can tell

40:59 ↗ you the z p long-range mining manager um

41:01 ↗ the discussions with the environmental

41:03 ↗ board on those two policies were

41:04 ↗ actually they were Consolidated okay

41:07 ↗ great

41:09 ↗ thank any other comments on the slide I

41:12 ↗ your B yeah I have two different ones so

41:15 ↗ on the

41:16 ↗ C2 I don't know what my comment is but

41:19 ↗ that felt like a really big policy um

41:22 ↗ like everything else is kind of like

41:24 ↗ little steps and small things that one

41:26 ↗ is like this is where we're focusing

41:28 ↗ future growth and I so I didn't know if

41:30 ↗ it like is that a policy is that a goal

41:33 ↗ I don't know what it is but I it felt

41:35 ↗ like different than the rest um and so I

41:37 ↗ know that's not helpful feedback but um

41:41 ↗ I didn't know how to I just something

41:43 ↗ about it felt different than the others

41:45 ↗ Kristen really didn't really sell it

41:47 ↗ either sorry so's

41:51 ↗ that and then the other one is on the

41:54 ↗ goal l um where I actually liked the

42:00 ↗ previous language of like aiming to be a

42:02 ↗ regional leader that also felt like

42:04 ↗ there was like a little bit more there

42:05 ↗ to get behind than just incorporate

42:07 ↗ sustainable development um in terms of

42:09 ↗ being a

42:13 ↗ goal I don't know if we like are shying

42:15 ↗ away from wanting to be a regional

42:17 ↗ leader or if we can go for

42:22 ↗ it I let you yeah that was that was me I

42:26 ↗ just felt like we were stating the

42:27 ↗ obvious of course we want to be a

42:28 ↗ regional leader

42:32 ↗ but commissioner uh s yeah and then just

42:36 ↗ for D3 just to clarify you guys remove

42:39 ↗ the

42:40 ↗ npdes um dis okay because that's found

42:43 ↗ somewhere else basically right it's a

42:46 ↗ federal requirement so okay but when

42:49 ↗ someone is looking at this they'll refer

42:52 ↗ back to that Federal requirement right

42:55 ↗ it's stated it's stated in our code that

42:57 ↗ you that you have to comply with the NPD

42:59 ↗ yeah as part of this okay

43:03 ↗ thanks commissioner

43:05 ↗ Kennedy Carn Kennedy um so L3 about um

43:10 ↗ working with the school district love

43:12 ↗ the first sentence um work with the ISD

43:14 ↗ to identify for future school facility

43:17 ↗ sighting that meets you know anticipated

43:19 ↗ growth throughout the district wondering

43:21 ↗ about the rest the need for the rest of

43:23 ↗ it sighting includes compact schools to

43:25 ↗ maximize land

43:27 ↗ is are compact school is now going to be

43:29 ↗ a requirement so if this is a policy and

43:31 ↗ we have that language in there are we

43:32 ↗ saying that's a requirement or

43:34 ↗ just that's how we're kind of going to

43:37 ↗ do it um yes that's going to be the need

43:41 ↗ because we just don't have a land the

43:43 ↗ reality is they have to be compact

43:45 ↗ schools but from a policy perspective is

43:47 ↗ that language

43:49 ↗ needed because I mean aren't we just

43:51 ↗ saying we're going to work with the

43:52 ↗ district on citing needs based on proed

43:56 ↗ growth that's a good point yeah we'll re

43:59 ↗ look at that one that's a good

44:02 ↗ point commissioner M I'll just chime in

44:05 ↗ with you Caroline I saw that too and N9

44:08 ↗ mill again and I thought for a moment no

44:11 ↗ wait that that's unnecessary but then I

44:13 ↗ thought well this is within the city

44:16 ↗ limits and uh comic schools are um

44:20 ↗ valued for their efficient use of land

44:24 ↗ resources within the city limit

44:27 ↗ well maybe that's okay to look forward

44:29 ↗ and say that we want to minimize the

44:31 ↗ impact footprint of the

44:34 ↗ school and another compact school um

44:37 ↗ definition pertaining to playgrounds and

44:42 ↗ sports so didn't seem like I'm just

44:46 ↗ conversing might be

44:49 ↗ okay Kennedy carollyn Kennedy if we can

44:52 ↗ continue to converse so but I guess that

44:54 ↗ was my question totally get it they out

44:57 ↗ of need they're going to end up being

44:58 ↗ compact I mean clerk they're going to go

45:01 ↗ up they don't have room to go out that's

45:03 ↗ just reality does it need to be a policy

45:07 ↗ do we need to stay they're going to have

45:09 ↗ to be compact because this is how we

45:11 ↗ want to be we want them on a smaller

45:14 ↗ footprint is it a policy or is it

45:16 ↗ a nice to have or is it just reality and

45:20 ↗ we what and I think that's a good point

45:22 ↗ and we'll relook at it again it's one of

45:24 ↗ those policies that was put in because

45:25 ↗ we didn't have codified language yet and

45:28 ↗ now we do so I will speak to others who

45:33 ↗ know better than I commissioner crafts I

45:37 ↗ guess the broader question is when you

45:38 ↗ have codified language you could

45:39 ↗ probably take the how like that one out

45:42 ↗ and just I like the fact that you

45:43 ↗ simplified a lot of these things that's

45:46 ↗ understand that and then um maybe

45:48 ↗ there's less of a

45:53 ↗ need commissioner Sima and then then

45:56 ↗ ultimately wouldn't it be a decision

45:58 ↗ with the ISD with the school district if

46:00 ↗ they're going to go in the route of a

46:03 ↗ conventional school or compact

46:05 ↗ school yes and they would utilize The

46:09 ↗ Zone and or the the the land that's been

46:12 ↗ provided to be able to make that

46:14 ↗ decision we just have to um um provide a

46:17 ↗ policy where they have land available

46:20 ↗ per se correct

46:23 ↗ okay and and and the point I'm get into

46:26 ↗ is that we we may not need that include

46:29 ↗ compact schools as an option okay

46:38 ↗ yeah any others on that

46:41 ↗ slide are you smiling because of the

46:43 ↗ music outside right I I am too it's a

46:46 ↗ little distracting but it's lovely being

46:50 ↗ serated okay

46:52 ↗ L10 uh manage City owned land and

46:55 ↗ sustain able manner was just

47:02 ↗ simplified oh yeah um maintain M2

47:06 ↗ maintain regulations that promote that

47:09 ↗ again maintain regulations that promote

47:12 ↗ compatibility between uses and maintains

47:15 ↗ provide

47:17 ↗ character simplified

47:19 ↗ it um preserve views of isqua Alps

47:23 ↗ simplified a new policy mitiga the risk

47:26 ↗ to lives and property opposed by

47:27 ↗ wildfires this is a state requirement

47:29 ↗ very necessary in is a CL but also a

47:31 ↗ state requirement and in three we just

47:34 ↗ clarified it uh it's allow small scale

47:37 ↗ retail and personal services in

47:38 ↗ residential

47:42 ↗ areas that wouldn't include things like

47:44 ↗ food trucks long discussion

47:47 ↗ about commission crafts I did not bring

47:50 ↗ my laptop so I'm going up from memory

47:52 ↗ here so so

47:53 ↗ M9 what was that simplif

47:56 ↗ I'm trying to remember pardon me M9 what

47:59 ↗ was you said it was simplified I didn't

48:01 ↗ bring my oh here it

48:11 ↗ is there really wasn't much that was

48:13 ↗ taken out

48:15 ↗ right whenever I hear about views I

48:17 ↗ think of everyone wants to protect their

48:19 ↗ views but want to build whatever they

48:21 ↗ want to maximize their view when I lived

48:24 ↗ in samama she was like trees I to be

48:25 ↗ able to do whatever I want in my land I

48:27 ↗ don't want my

48:28 ↗ neighbors the views are

48:31 ↗ similar that was

48:35 ↗ thank commission Milligan uh I just want

48:38 ↗ to comment about N3 because this was

48:39 ↗ something that I was um chanting while

48:43 ↗ back maybe a year ago or two years ago

48:45 ↗ so um really like it uh I don't know how

48:51 ↗ it works with

48:53 ↗ zoning but um um I guess you get there

48:57 ↗ later how would you allow

49:00 ↗ for these developments in a residential

49:03 ↗ area if it's all residential

49:07 ↗ Zone you just allow it so churches are

49:09 ↗ allowed in residential zones schools are

49:11 ↗ allowed in residential zones and you can

49:13 ↗ change the permitted use of stable to

49:15 ↗ say allow 4 small scale is 4,000 sare

49:18 ↗ square feet so allow 4,000 ft grocery

49:22 ↗ stores in it would be in the use table

49:24 ↗ it would be in the

49:26 ↗ residential use table so it would start

49:28 ↗ here and then those

49:30 ↗ details

49:37 ↗ yes on that

49:40 ↗ one um this isn't on the list but the

49:42 ↗ goal language for goal M feels like

49:46 ↗ missing something about

49:49 ↗ like creating opportunity or something

49:52 ↗ like that um because it just says that

49:54 ↗ like we're going to allow and

49:55 ↗ accommodate growth that is fiscally

49:57 ↗ responsible responsive to community and

49:59 ↗ enhances and protects the natural

50:01 ↗ environment and it feels like there are

50:03 ↗ other criteria that we might want to

50:05 ↗ meet I don't know if it's

50:07 ↗ like any suggestions

50:10 ↗ um I can think about it that like I said

50:13 ↗ it was something about like

50:15 ↗ that and maybe it's in that responsive

50:17 ↗ to the community piece but like about

50:20 ↗ opportunity like

50:24 ↗ that

50:26 ↗ um I'll think about the language okay

50:31 ↗ and we will see this anywhere from what

50:32 ↗ three to four more times right this

50:34 ↗ particular piece the land use you

50:39 ↗ can that's what I said on your

50:42 ↗ memorandum coming back uh commissioner

50:46 ↗ altimore thank you Megan altimore I keep

50:48 ↗ going back to L10 and trying to read

50:52 ↗ it and understand it and um

50:56 ↗ I don't know why I keep getting stuck

50:57 ↗ but one place that I am getting stuck is

50:59 ↗ the designing managing and maintaining

51:02 ↗ Landscapes that's all it said like

51:04 ↗ everything else is xed out of there so

51:07 ↗ um what what do we mean with

51:11 ↗ that uh I think words need to be added

51:14 ↗ rereading it designing managing and

51:17 ↗ maintaining Landscapes

51:19 ↗ to maintain plant health I realized I

51:23 ↗ the probably the four words before that

51:25 ↗ are probably relevant I need to go back

51:28 ↗ in there okay is that would that help

51:31 ↗ yeah that would help okay um and then on

51:34 ↗ a is the definition of integrated Pest

51:37 ↗ Management all the other stuff that used

51:39 ↗ to be in there

51:43 ↗ um

51:45 ↗ no I'll have to look at it but we def in

51:48 ↗ integrated Pest Management I is

51:51 ↗ something that we talk about the code

51:53 ↗ all the time I'll go back and check

51:56 ↗ um but but oh no I took it out because

51:58 ↗ this is city city owned land is

52:01 ↗ everything that's listed there public

52:02 ↗ lands rights of way um and then redu

52:05 ↗ reduce Reliance on chemical pesticides

52:07 ↗ that's actually in our IAP I believe um

52:10 ↗ and then the protect endangered species

52:12 ↗ and public health um we talk about that

52:15 ↗ other place you know protecting

52:16 ↗ endangered species we can put it back in

52:18 ↗ there so do we need that at all if the

52:21 ↗ integrated pesticide is somewhere else

52:24 ↗ no

52:26 ↗ I would say either put some of those

52:28 ↗ words back to make it mean something or

52:30 ↗ take it out all together okay thank you

52:32 ↗ sorry I know this is nitpicky but this

52:33 ↗ one I just keep going back and rereading

52:36 ↗ it and I want to I want to get it thanks

52:38 ↗ commissioner Milligan Nina Milligan

52:41 ↗ thank you Megan because I was I was

52:43 ↗ channeling commissioner crass on this

52:45 ↗ one uh do we put the policy and how in

52:49 ↗ it or do we leave the how out to be

52:52 ↗ handled in code or some other um

52:56 ↗ uh enforcement or action uh place and if

52:59 ↗ we just said manage City on land in a

53:02 ↗ sustainable manner is that enough of the

53:05 ↗ policy do the such as is help I don't

53:09 ↗ know so I'm I'm with you either either

53:12 ↗ do them right or don't have them in

53:13 ↗ there at all

53:15 ↗ yeah

53:18 ↗ okay I would say the only one that's

53:20 ↗ listed there and we could find a way to

53:22 ↗ still include it would be the public

53:23 ↗ education programs that is not cified

53:26 ↗ and might be something that we would

53:27 ↗ want to keep in there but we can I'll

53:30 ↗ work on it and find a way to make that

53:37 ↗ work commission

53:39 ↗ altimore Megan Al Tomar um it's actually

53:43 ↗ it C now the creek side in Wetland is

53:46 ↗ that picked up somewhere else because

53:47 ↗ that one did seem to say something like

53:50 ↗ that one seemed worth

53:52 ↗ keeping um so I wouldn't want to wipe

53:54 ↗ out the whole whole thing um unless we

53:57 ↗ know that all of those are somewhere

54:01 ↗ else good point and I'll check it

54:03 ↗ because that's a program and not a

54:04 ↗ regulation so yeah good

54:18 ↗ point x next to last slide X2 develop

54:22 ↗ ameni services and facilities for all

54:24 ↗ types of amilies and residents so we

54:26 ↗ were address trying to address Equitable

54:28 ↗ amenities and

54:33 ↗ services um sorry I forgot uh 03 provide

54:36 ↗ Community Gathering spaces we just

54:38 ↗ simplified it goal P Focus growth in the

54:41 ↗ regional growth Center and other mixed

54:42 ↗ used areas we expanded it just beyond

54:45 ↗ regional growth Center which is

54:47 ↗ rgc P1 support Urban core development as

54:51 ↗ rgc it emphasizes that work um is still

54:55 ↗ is to be done I think it currently says

54:57 ↗ maintain the urban core well the whole

55:01 ↗ goal is to make it grow or have

55:02 ↗ development so we just change it to

55:04 ↗ support growth there X3 explore

55:07 ↗ opportunities to accommodate Transit and

55:09 ↗ Orient Transit oriented uses and so

55:11 ↗ we're getting ready to start planning

55:14 ↗ for a Transit oriented area when that

55:16 ↗ comes so this sets up policy for

55:18 ↗ regulation

55:23 ↗ those alore

55:27 ↗ feel like I'm your nitpick iest one

55:28 ↗ tonight but I write a lot of Grants so

55:31 ↗ on um one where it says residents and

55:34 ↗ families I lost my place I'm scrolling

55:38 ↗ through um that doesn't make sense to me

55:41 ↗ like if it's residents it's residents

55:43 ↗ but it could be individual residents and

55:45 ↗ families or just say residents

55:54 ↗ okay

55:59 ↗ Vice chair Bader yeah Sarah Bader um on

56:02 ↗ P1 I think the intent is fine I had a

56:06 ↗ comment on the language that didn't

56:07 ↗ quite make sense to me um so it's like

56:10 ↗ the with the density mix of uses and

56:12 ↗ amenities that just didn't flow um for

56:15 ↗ me and so I actually suggested language

56:17 ↗ for this one and so I have um support

56:19 ↗ the Urban cor's Development as a

56:21 ↗ regional growth Center by encouraging

56:23 ↗ density mix of use and

56:26 ↗ amenities if that helps to clarify

56:43 ↗ that and I'm going to add the word

56:46 ↗ allowing

56:48 ↗ okay all right anything

56:53 ↗ else

56:58 ↗ last one okay uh Q2 conserve and

57:04 ↗ conserve productive Forest resource

57:06 ↗ lands remov just removed reference to

57:09 ↗ hillsides uscape because we have that so

57:11 ↗ many places that done um Q4 realize

57:15 ↗ mineral resource potential of certain

57:17 ↗ properties we just simplified it there's

57:18 ↗ no need to State site site state

57:22 ↗ law Q six require mineral extraction

57:25 ↗ operations to use best management

57:26 ↗ practices we remove the state

57:28 ↗ requirements because they have to comply

57:30 ↗ with those and then support

57:32 ↗ comprehensive annexation of the

57:33 ↗ potential annexation

57:35 ↗ area and the way it was before it was

57:38 ↗ like include people that's part of your

57:40 ↗ comprehensive annexation you include

57:42 ↗ people you get public it's just the

57:44 ↗ whole picture and since it was a goal we

57:47 ↗ made it a little

57:52 ↗ broader anything on this slide

57:56 ↗ commissioner Milligan n Milligan can you

57:58 ↗ remind me of what's left of theas just

58:02 ↗ the East Cougar Mountain paa which is

58:06 ↗ just south of montro and west of bergsma

58:10 ↗ property and it is much smaller than it

58:12 ↗ used to be we reduced the size back in

58:15 ↗ gave a lot of it back to King County in

58:16 ↗ 2016 they took it over again and so we

58:18 ↗ have a small portion that's just uh

58:20 ↗ developed with single family properties

58:22 ↗ right

58:22 ↗ now thank you

58:30 ↗ any follow up on this particular

58:36 ↗ slide we're not going to let Kristen off

58:38 ↗ that easy now that we've seen the whole

58:42 ↗ presentation any thoughts opinions again

58:45 ↗ I believe in the memorandum it says

58:47 ↗ we're going to be seeing

58:49 ↗ this handful

58:51 ↗ more so it's not the last time we're

58:53 ↗ seeing it no it's not

58:55 ↗ but I think the edits even as nitpicky

58:57 ↗ as they sound I think they're super

58:59 ↗ helpful um myself I'm I'm not to speak

59:03 ↗ for commissioner crass I like the idea

59:05 ↗ of being simplified flexibility I know

59:08 ↗ right up the top we

59:10 ↗ said not a word you want to see but it's

59:13 ↗ a little bit better when the city has a

59:15 ↗ little bit of it also still being able

59:18 ↗ to

59:22 ↗ certified El

59:26 ↗ I just have a general question there

59:28 ↗ might not be an answer to it but um it

59:31 ↗ feels a little like we were like did the

59:32 ↗ cart before the horse sort of thing with

59:34 ↗ having done Title 18 and now we're

59:35 ↗ looking at the policies that presumably

59:38 ↗ guide what is now Title 18 and so I

59:41 ↗ don't know like as we're thinking

59:44 ↗ through this and I'm I don't know enough

59:45 ↗ about L use code to like know what could

59:47 ↗ be um but are we kind of falling into

59:51 ↗ that cart before the horse or like are

59:52 ↗ there things that like the city like

59:56 ↗ wish you could have put in there but we

59:57 ↗ didn't do as Title 18 and so we're not

1:00:00 ↗ um I don't know if that question makes

1:00:01 ↗ sense but well we haven't added anything

1:00:04 ↗ in the land use element that wasn't

1:00:06 ↗ required by the

1:00:08 ↗ state um and meaning we also didn't add

1:00:12 ↗ anything we didn't have to add anything

1:00:13 ↗ because we added something new to Title

1:00:15 ↗ 18 that then wasn't included here um so

1:00:19 ↗ no I think we're okay I think everything

1:00:22 ↗ we did with 18 was um

1:00:25 ↗ in the in the what do you call it riew

1:00:28 ↗ or in the you know what I mean yeah it

1:00:31 ↗ was it complied with goals and policies

1:00:33 ↗ that were already in the landies code

1:00:34 ↗ they're just they're the the intent is

1:00:38 ↗ not changing in any of these yeah

1:00:40 ↗ because it just struck me that there

1:00:41 ↗ weren't like a ton of new policies and I

1:00:43 ↗ didn't know if that was like because we

1:00:46 ↗ did it in Title 18 or because we did

1:00:47 ↗ Title 18 no most of them are are

1:00:50 ↗ required by the state and some are just

1:00:51 ↗ expanding on or moving them around you

1:00:54 ↗ know separating policies or

1:01:01 ↗ something thank you n Milligan uh just a

1:01:05 ↗ process um kind of overall uh for

1:01:07 ↗ regular business in both A and B we did

1:01:09 ↗ the housing element and the land use and

1:01:12 ↗ we're doing them at different stages and

1:01:14 ↗ on the first of all I wanted to ask a

1:01:16 ↗ question the um agenda says that we had

1:01:21 ↗ action to do for the housing and

1:01:23 ↗ deliberation

1:01:25 ↗ for the land use what was the action we

1:01:29 ↗ did for

1:01:31 ↗ housing did we do action or that

1:01:35 ↗ intended Ste long-range planning

1:01:37 ↗ measures so the action for the housing

1:01:39 ↗ element discussion was primarily just

1:01:41 ↗ putting to or finalizing recommendations

1:01:43 ↗ to give to council for this initial

1:01:45 ↗ draft so it was that deliberation

1:01:47 ↗ discussion and it was dependent on how

1:01:51 ↗ formal of action is going to depend on

1:01:53 ↗ the discussion that the Comm commission

1:01:54 ↗ was going to

1:01:57 ↗ have uh

1:01:59 ↗ so did so was there an action that we

1:02:02 ↗ are recommending this go forward to city

1:02:04 ↗ council with our support and

1:02:07 ↗ recommendation it's not a formal

1:02:10 ↗ recommendation uh it's it's just changes

1:02:13 ↗ for us to make to take to them for their

1:02:16 ↗ first review too because this will be

1:02:17 ↗ their first time seeing it so our role

1:02:20 ↗ is just to workshop with you and not to

1:02:23 ↗ take a position or anything about it

1:02:26 ↗ we're just here to help no motions right

1:02:29 ↗ now you will eventually yeah so then

1:02:31 ↗ when would we when would we make a

1:02:34 ↗ motion uh regarding these comprehensive

1:02:36 ↗ plans not until the uh Q2 next year

1:02:39 ↗ sometime probably I think it's May of

1:02:42 ↗ 2024 is when you'll make your formal

1:02:43 ↗ recommendation to City Council on the

1:02:45 ↗ entire packet and this will be a little

1:02:47 ↗ bit like Title 18 where you all would

1:02:49 ↗ make your initial recommendations you do

1:02:51 ↗ the initial draft we take it to council

1:02:52 ↗ say are we headed in the right direction

1:02:53 ↗ is there anything leaving out then we'll

1:02:55 ↗ bring it back here a couple times and

1:02:57 ↗ then we'll take it to them as a packet

1:03:00 ↗ for one big

1:03:02 ↗ recommendation can I may I continue yeah

1:03:04 ↗ uh so one thing I was thinking about

1:03:05 ↗ when I was um working over this material

1:03:07 ↗ was that uh the housing element was

1:03:11 ↗ particularly challenging for me because

1:03:12 ↗ a lot of what was in there we could not

1:03:15 ↗ change because it came from somewhere

1:03:17 ↗ else and and I do think that this is an

1:03:20 ↗ opportunity to voice um support for the

1:03:23 ↗ objectives of these policies that came

1:03:25 ↗ from say the state or the county uh but

1:03:28 ↗ the way they were written here I don't

1:03:29 ↗ agree with all of them so if you asked

1:03:31 ↗ me do you support and want to um say yes

1:03:35 ↗ to how the housing element is now

1:03:37 ↗ written in entirety I couldn't say that

1:03:40 ↗ because there are a few things in there

1:03:41 ↗ that I still don't like but we can't

1:03:44 ↗ change them because they are required by

1:03:46 ↗ another jurisdiction and and I wanted to

1:03:49 ↗ um share that um just to get the

1:03:51 ↗ frustration out there so that maybe

1:03:53 ↗ there's something maybe something if you

1:03:56 ↗ don't say anything you don't get

1:03:57 ↗ anything right and where we all have the

1:03:59 ↗ objective to increase affordable housing

1:04:02 ↗ um consider communities who are

1:04:05 ↗ disproportionately impacted by rules and

1:04:08 ↗ regulations and I think we all agree on

1:04:10 ↗ those things a couple of things caught

1:04:12 ↗ my eye and I want to share with you why

1:04:14 ↗ because I felt that they um unduly

1:04:17 ↗ burdened the city of course they take

1:04:19 ↗ away from local rule but I wanted to

1:04:23 ↗ focus mostly on um things that could

1:04:27 ↗ harm the city in some way maybe

1:04:29 ↗ financially and one of the things that I

1:04:31 ↗ um that caught my eye was the remedy

1:04:34 ↗ inequities and I think that we want

1:04:37 ↗ these inequities to be remedied but to

1:04:39 ↗ say that the city must remedy them is

1:04:42 ↗ implying to me that there must be money

1:04:44 ↗ spent or dollars put forth and I was

1:04:46 ↗ concerned about how that might manifest

1:04:49 ↗ so that was something that I I didn't

1:04:50 ↗ feel like I could fully support the

1:04:52 ↗ other one was um prioritizing afford

1:04:54 ↗ aable housing on Surplus lands that was

1:04:56 ↗ another one I thought in in the city and

1:04:59 ↗ local

1:05:00 ↗ um local control or a local rule allows

1:05:05 ↗ us to look at how to use Surplus lands

1:05:07 ↗ for all needs not just housing housing

1:05:09 ↗ isn't the only need that a City supplies

1:05:10 ↗ housing I mean cities supply places for

1:05:14 ↗ fire department schools um Community

1:05:17 ↗ Resources other things and not just

1:05:20 ↗ affordable housing so there were a

1:05:21 ↗ couple things so all I'm saying is that

1:05:24 ↗ it's the process is interesting we

1:05:26 ↗ either have to say yes to all of it or

1:05:29 ↗ not yes and in the in the second one

1:05:32 ↗ that you mentioned it actually says in

1:05:34 ↗ that policy if the land is deemed

1:05:36 ↗ appropriate for housing so it doesn't

1:05:39 ↗ say just prioritize it it says if it's

1:05:41 ↗ deemed appropriate for housing so we

1:05:42 ↗ left that that way the other one that

1:05:44 ↗ you mentioned remedy doesn't necessarily

1:05:46 ↗ mean money I mean remedying means you

1:05:49 ↗ know if you have a whole bunch of land

1:05:51 ↗ that is just zoned for single family and

1:05:53 ↗ all you can put there is single family

1:05:56 ↗ houses that eliminates a lot of people

1:05:58 ↗ from being able to purchase there so

1:05:59 ↗ being able to allow different kinds of

1:06:02 ↗ housing up on a hillside where that's a

1:06:04 ↗ way of remedying it that's not money

1:06:06 ↗ that's zoning so it's not necessarily

1:06:09 ↗ funding it's not necessarily City funds

1:06:11 ↗ that we have to use to do

1:06:14 ↗ that I I appreciate that and I want to

1:06:16 ↗ hear from commissioner crass and and

1:06:18 ↗ just to mention that I think that word

1:06:20 ↗ choice is word choice matters and can be

1:06:23 ↗ used or misused in in some ways in the

1:06:25 ↗ future and those were things that were

1:06:26 ↗ flags for me thank you so

1:06:29 ↗ um I agree on more broadly there's a

1:06:35 ↗ whole list this it's pretty overwhelming

1:06:36 ↗ I missed the last meeting I was went

1:06:38 ↗ through all the big tables there's a lot

1:06:41 ↗ there but I think there's a small subset

1:06:44 ↗ and there's a few words that caught my

1:06:47 ↗ remedy was One require is another one

1:06:50 ↗ and maybe there's a work session that

1:06:52 ↗ when you look at the long long list

1:06:55 ↗ there's 20% of them that have more

1:06:58 ↗ biting language that take that should

1:07:00 ↗ take another couple turns with the group

1:07:02 ↗ to say hey is this opening up to any

1:07:05 ↗ unintended consequence or what does that

1:07:07 ↗ really mean like the word remedy that

1:07:09 ↗ was one of my notes that jumped out on

1:07:12 ↗ me uh to me because that could be um

1:07:17 ↗ either have legal implications financial

1:07:19 ↗ implications or could be misunderstood

1:07:22 ↗ so but it's not all of them it's just a

1:07:23 ↗ very small subset and it may make sense

1:07:25 ↗ going to your process question of

1:07:28 ↗ identify the very small subset and then

1:07:30 ↗ really kind of working through a few of

1:07:34 ↗ those if you could just send me what

1:07:37 ↗ those policies might be that would help

1:07:39 ↗ us to focus a discussion for

1:07:44 ↗ that commissioner real quick on the I'm

1:07:47 ↗ new to the group is okay for me to just

1:07:49 ↗ send an email straight to you or does it

1:07:51 ↗ go to send it straight to me okay please

1:07:53 ↗ thank you

1:07:56 ↗ yeah I'm this commissioner s I'm not

1:07:58 ↗ sure uh and I need to look at it again

1:08:00 ↗ where it says the word remedy but

1:08:02 ↗ typically that follows um there maybe

1:08:05 ↗ something that's already been identified

1:08:07 ↗ that may be an issue so that's where

1:08:10 ↗ that word remedy may come from so um

1:08:13 ↗ putting those two together would be able

1:08:15 ↗ to give us more understanding on on the

1:08:18 ↗ use of that that type of language as

1:08:20 ↗ well as well as the the requirements as

1:08:23 ↗ well

1:08:28 ↗ great thank you I guess uh just to

1:08:31 ↗ clarify this so the process for this

1:08:33 ↗ moving forward for the housing element

1:08:35 ↗ is between now and fall fall when we see

1:08:39 ↗ this again the idea is to send our edits

1:08:44 ↗ our concerns Kristen so we can get that

1:08:47 ↗ baked in when we

1:08:49 ↗ see

1:08:51 ↗ yes yeah

1:08:54 ↗ send everything

1:08:56 ↗ to okay um I know you had one more slide

1:08:59 ↗ to present we kind of went on a tangent

1:09:01 ↗ going back to the housing element had

1:09:02 ↗ one more for the land use and we'll

1:09:05 ↗ we'll follow up kind of with the process

1:09:07 ↗ for the land use

1:09:09 ↗ element

1:09:16 ↗ hopefully is everyone comfortable with

1:09:18 ↗ as far as the housing element what's

1:09:20 ↗ moving forward yeah and I'm sorry I

1:09:22 ↗ thought we were done with the landies

1:09:23 ↗ things so I thought it was I think we I

1:09:25 ↗ think we where we were I think we're

1:09:28 ↗ okay and it was just it's just this one

1:09:30 ↗ I wanted to run through the questions

1:09:31 ↗ that we had in the beginning um and like

1:09:35 ↗ I said there are not any new County

1:09:37 ↗ policies but do they reflect the state

1:09:40 ↗ policies

1:09:41 ↗ accurately there are a few of those are

1:09:44 ↗ there is isqua specific issues that need

1:09:46 ↗ to be addressed that are not addressed

1:09:48 ↗ currently in the land use element and is

1:09:50 ↗ there additional information that would

1:09:52 ↗ be helpful in evaluation ating this

1:09:54 ↗ draft and again there's a lot of

1:09:55 ↗ background information that's not

1:09:57 ↗ provided here that I put some of it up

1:09:59 ↗ front I think I put the bigger pieces up

1:10:01 ↗ front but we will have uh more to add in

1:10:05 ↗ the next draft I think the only thing

1:10:07 ↗ for me is so I saw as far as like storm

1:10:09 ↗ water I know there's you know a plan in

1:10:12 ↗ place with now with the

1:10:14 ↗ wildfires does earthquake fall in any of

1:10:16 ↗ this or would that be in your

1:10:18 ↗ comprehensive plan like emergency it's

1:10:20 ↗ in the building code building codes okay

1:10:23 ↗ but as

1:10:24 ↗ far

1:10:26 ↗ crass yeah as far as uh so that wouldn't

1:10:29 ↗ go into comp plan as far as like

1:10:30 ↗ emergency Sheltering all that stuff

1:10:33 ↗ that I mean if we're going to have a

1:10:35 ↗ wildfire

1:10:37 ↗ section you know AC of God section I

1:10:40 ↗ guess I don't know how to say it any

1:10:42 ↗ other way I mean I know flooding and all

1:10:44 ↗ these things are kind of mentioned in

1:10:45 ↗ other areas I just

1:10:49 ↗ again yeah

1:10:51 ↗ um Stephen has a thought

1:10:54 ↗ so in the discussions with the

1:10:56 ↗ environmental board with the development

1:10:57 ↗ of the new element it there's actually

1:10:59 ↗ going to be sections of that that'll

1:11:01 ↗ include climate resiliency so addressing

1:11:03 ↗ a lot of the emergency preparedness for

1:11:05 ↗ earthquakes wildfires um Act of God

1:11:08 ↗ events where we want to be prepared for

1:11:11 ↗ those kind of but implementation wise

1:11:13 ↗ that's going to be more of an emergency

1:11:15 ↗ management

1:11:18 ↗ plan commissioner crass this is John

1:11:21 ↗ crass um this may be a fairly Hot Topic

1:11:25 ↗ but I'm not sure if it goes under land

1:11:27 ↗ use

1:11:29 ↗ where

1:11:30 ↗ um we're starting to see more people

1:11:33 ↗ camping in Vans throughout the city so

1:11:37 ↗ is there a policy around enforcement of

1:11:40 ↗ not allowing that for

1:11:43 ↗ people um who are unhoused camping

1:11:46 ↗ within the city limits because I think

1:11:48 ↗ it's I believe they're they're not

1:11:50 ↗ supposed to but we're starting to see

1:11:52 ↗ more

1:11:54 ↗ um B's broken down like beat up RVs

1:11:56 ↗ starting to be uh especially on like

1:11:58 ↗ reineer and then right near the freeway

1:12:01 ↗ so is that a land use thing or is that

1:12:03 ↗ something different not on the RightWay

1:12:05 ↗ that's a that's a different issue that

1:12:07 ↗ falls under the Poli the police are the

1:12:10 ↗ ones to manage that um I don't know if

1:12:13 ↗ anything's covered in the Human Services

1:12:15 ↗ element Stephen about the camping and

1:12:18 ↗ obviously we have to we we're required

1:12:20 ↗ now to allow for shelters and Emergency

1:12:22 ↗ Shelters in the City so that's a place

1:12:25 ↗ for people to go but I don't know if

1:12:27 ↗ there's anything land use I think of is

1:12:28 ↗ like I think our public roads are land

1:12:31 ↗ and then you know being more stringent

1:12:33 ↗ about not letting that be used for

1:12:35 ↗ broken down RVs start than accumula

1:12:39 ↗ Ure the question is where does that fall

1:12:42 ↗ because I think it's an important topic

1:12:44 ↗ uh something that that particularly for

1:12:45 ↗ the RightWay is going to be parking

1:12:46 ↗ manager more so than land

1:12:52 ↗ user and which group manag

1:12:55 ↗ um I mean you would have General parking

1:12:58 ↗ policies in the transation element but

1:13:00 ↗ specific to what should be allowed or

1:13:02 ↗ not allowed the right Transportation so

1:13:04 ↗ I should talk to the person I live with

1:13:06 ↗ who's on the transportation Advisory

1:13:07 ↗ board about that yes yeah I know you you

1:13:10 ↗ have someone to talk to about

1:13:14 ↗ that uh thank you commissioner crft

1:13:16 ↗ commissioner

1:13:18 ↗ altimore going back to that question uh

1:13:22 ↗ didn't the city pass an anti camping

1:13:24 ↗ ordinance quite a few years

1:13:28 ↗ ago I don't know I'm not familiar with

1:13:31 ↗ it we'll have to take a look okay I I

1:13:34 ↗ don't

1:13:37 ↗ know I'm not sure where that's uh I

1:13:40 ↗ remember when that occurred I don't know

1:13:42 ↗ if it is still in place and I don't know

1:13:44 ↗ what group covers that um but I would

1:13:47 ↗ imagine that camping in vehicles

1:13:49 ↗ maintain would fall into that I remember

1:13:51 ↗ the discussion but I'm not sure if it

1:13:52 ↗ applies to to the right of that's we'll

1:13:55 ↗ we'll take a look at that so that would

1:13:56 ↗ be where the vehicle is correct gotcha

1:14:01 ↗ okay commissioner

1:14:03 ↗ s and then just going back to what um um

1:14:07 ↗ chair voice talked about with um seismic

1:14:10 ↗ activity um I think you referenced the

1:14:13 ↗ building code does that also cover um

1:14:16 ↗ the the emergency routs that may be

1:14:19 ↗ required if one of those events happens

1:14:23 ↗ or would it fall within

1:14:25 ↗ here like the roads

1:14:30 ↗ basically uh so emergency routes would

1:14:33 ↗ be a little more specific than what

1:14:35 ↗ would be going to the compen plan that

1:14:36 ↗ would be more the Emergency Management

1:14:38 ↗ plan okay okay very well thanks and and

1:14:42 ↗ I was talking in the sense where

1:14:43 ↗ something to be looking at um there

1:14:46 ↗ earthquakes they affect buildings but

1:14:48 ↗ they also affect roads as well thank you

1:14:58 ↗ commission Milligan thank you n Milligan

1:15:01 ↗ uh chair you have inspired me so I did a

1:15:03 ↗ word search on

1:15:05 ↗ flooding and uh I do see the policy that

1:15:09 ↗ um talks about reducing decreasing uh

1:15:12 ↗ flooding potential on City lands but do

1:15:14 ↗ we have decrease of flooding potential

1:15:18 ↗ on all lands in our land use policy

1:15:26 ↗ would

1:15:30 ↗ you I I feel like there's something in

1:15:32 ↗ place um probably in the shoreline

1:15:35 ↗ master program I think it would be there

1:15:37 ↗ I can

1:15:38 ↗ check and you know FEMA FEMA has their

1:15:41 ↗ rules as well but I will check and you

1:15:44 ↗ know we can do certain things on our

1:15:46 ↗ property that we can't go in and touch

1:15:47 ↗ somebody else's property maybe but um I

1:15:51 ↗ I'll check in the St line master program

1:15:52 ↗ and see

1:15:54 ↗ what that says yeah and I'm thinking how

1:15:57 ↗ um to balance the um impacts of

1:16:00 ↗ increased density especially in the

1:16:02 ↗ urban core areas um how could to balance

1:16:06 ↗ that with also consideration of blood

1:16:09 ↗ risk so potentially be able to just take

1:16:11 ↗ out the word

1:16:12 ↗ public and then have yeah let me let me

1:16:15 ↗ see kind of where the boundaries are

1:16:22 ↗ there commissioner s yeah and then well

1:16:26 ↗ to to your point I think the zone and

1:16:28 ↗ doesn't that um when they do rezones or

1:16:32 ↗ Zone and that factors in the impervious

1:16:35 ↗ area on the lots that are that are um

1:16:38 ↗ going to be developed or that are owned

1:16:40 ↗ by private that are owned privately we

1:16:44 ↗ take we take a look at the impervious

1:16:45 ↗ and what's allowed okay that doesn't

1:16:47 ↗ necessarily sometimes the impervious is

1:16:49 ↗ what it is because yes it might be

1:16:50 ↗ adjacent to a creek and you don't want a

1:16:52 ↗ lot of impervious surface there um so

1:16:54 ↗ it's it's taken into account as well as

1:16:57 ↗ the shoreline master program and how far

1:16:59 ↗ out you how much you can actually

1:17:00 ↗ develop on that land and does it to a

1:17:03 ↗ certain

1:17:04 ↗ extent dictate how much impervious area

1:17:08 ↗ um can be on that

1:17:10 ↗ lot zoning dictates how much imperious

1:17:13 ↗ surface you can have yes so so that in

1:17:15 ↗ that in

1:17:16 ↗ itself um would reduce would reduce the

1:17:20 ↗ flood risk correct

1:17:23 ↗ okay thanks ideally yeah yeah

1:17:27 ↗ ideally CHR well remind me what is the

1:17:31 ↗ impervious for the urban core for the

1:17:33 ↗ urban Corp it's 95%

1:17:42 ↗ yeah any other

1:17:44 ↗ thoughts so the lifeline the timeline

1:17:47 ↗ I'm sorry for this

1:17:49 ↗ particular lifeline's a little longer uh

1:17:52 ↗ yes

1:17:53 ↗ the timeline for this is uh just looking

1:17:56 ↗ at my notes this is expected to come

1:17:58 ↗ back two to three times right we'll come

1:18:01 ↗ back to the September 14th meeting with

1:18:02 ↗ changes that you all have or you know

1:18:05 ↗ proposals amendments that you all have

1:18:06 ↗ made here just like we did with housing

1:18:08 ↗ and then we will take that to we're also

1:18:11 ↗ coming back next time with the

1:18:13 ↗ neighborhood plan goals and policies

1:18:16 ↗ which will also fall into the land use

1:18:17 ↗ element but we wanted to talk about

1:18:18 ↗ those separately it's a whole new thing

1:18:21 ↗ we'll come back with that as well and

1:18:23 ↗ then that will go to the

1:18:25 ↗ planning uh development and environment

1:18:29 ↗ Committee just like the housing element

1:18:31 ↗ and then you will see it at least once

1:18:32 ↗ or twice again

1:18:34 ↗ before before the end of the year

1:18:36 ↗ probably once before the end of the year

1:18:39 ↗ and once before the public hearing right

1:18:42 ↗ everyone comfortable with

1:18:45 ↗ that Vice chair B yeah I have a just a

1:18:49 ↗ process question so a couple of meetings

1:18:51 ↗ ago we had a train training on how to

1:18:53 ↗ apply an equity lens to our decisions is

1:18:57 ↗ that something we're going to be

1:18:58 ↗ intentionally doing um as part of this

1:19:01 ↗ process

1:19:02 ↗ either in a future

1:19:05 ↗ review I'm looking to my

1:19:07 ↗ right Stephen M longrange planing

1:19:10 ↗ manager so yes that is something that

1:19:12 ↗ we're hoping to give all the

1:19:13 ↗ Commissioners the tools to be able to

1:19:15 ↗ apply themselves as well as staff being

1:19:17 ↗ apply and then we can have those

1:19:18 ↗ discussions that's what commission would

1:19:20 ↗ like more detailed discussions on that

1:19:22 ↗ throughout

1:19:23 ↗ um each of the elements or comp plan

1:19:25 ↗ however works but the hope is to have

1:19:28 ↗ those discussions as we're going through

1:19:29 ↗ all okay so I think we could be more

1:19:31 ↗ intentional then about having that as a

1:19:34 ↗ like policy question um for

1:19:36 ↗ consideration okay um and I think

1:19:39 ↗ especially if we're going to go into

1:19:40 ↗ conversations about potentially taking a

1:19:42 ↗ stand against language um I want to be

1:19:45 ↗ really intentional about what that

1:19:46 ↗ actually means um and what we want the

1:19:49 ↗ city to aim for um so okay yeah we can

1:19:53 ↗ include that as a question

1:20:01 ↗ in okay Kristen did you get what you

1:20:04 ↗ need for the land use element

1:20:10 ↗ portion that concludes our regular

1:20:12 ↗ business for this

1:20:13 ↗ evening uh reports city council

1:20:17 ↗ update look like that one's going to

1:20:19 ↗ Stephen thank you chair voice so I have

1:20:21 ↗ a few updates um first I miss the uh

1:20:28 ↗ missed the boat on updating the

1:20:30 ↗ commission that Late July the city

1:20:33 ↗ council approved the the city moving

1:20:37 ↗ forward on the Metroflex program which

1:20:38 ↗ is going to be helping getting kind of

1:20:41 ↗ flex Transit connections to the Talis

1:20:43 ↗ squawk Mountain

1:20:45 ↗ neighborhoods so just want to give the

1:20:48 ↗ commissioner heads up about that program

1:20:50 ↗ should be seeing more information in the

1:20:51 ↗ coming months

1:20:53 ↗ the August was fairly quiet for city

1:20:55 ↗ council they didn't they were pretty

1:20:56 ↗ limited on the number of meetings so

1:20:57 ↗ what's upcoming for September is

1:21:00 ↗ September 5th uh the city council is

1:21:03 ↗ going to be adopting a welcoming week

1:21:05 ↗ Proclamation and then on September 8th

1:21:07 ↗ there's actually going to be an event at

1:21:08 ↗ the community center between 5: and 8:00

1:21:12 ↗ pm um as part of the welcoming week then

1:21:15 ↗ as what was mentioned before September 6

1:21:18 ↗ city council is going to or um the

1:21:21 ↗ Planning Development environment uh

1:21:22 ↗ Council committee is going to be taking

1:21:24 ↗ a look at the code amendments that you

1:21:26 ↗ saw for the public hearing tonight as

1:21:27 ↗ well as taking a look at the housing

1:21:28 ↗ element uh draft

1:21:31 ↗ recommendations Stephen may may I

1:21:33 ↗ mention two as well yes on

1:21:37 ↗ September 19th yes on September 19th uh

1:21:41 ↗ there will be a discussion with the

1:21:43 ↗ social services Council committee

1:21:45 ↗ regarding Pioneer projects for Central

1:21:47 ↗ isqua and getting development going

1:21:49 ↗ there and then there will be an

1:21:50 ↗ affordable housing discussion which

1:21:52 ↗ we'll talk about policies programs and

1:21:54 ↗ funding with the Council of the whole on

1:22:00 ↗ October 9th I think yes is it 9th yeah

1:22:03 ↗ on October 9th so just something you all

1:22:04 ↗ might want to tune

1:22:07 ↗ into we remind you again once we get

1:22:09 ↗ close to those

1:22:13 ↗ dates great thank

1:22:15 ↗ you this is for everyone watching on

1:22:18 ↗ isquad TV YouTube uh can you describe

1:22:21 ↗ what welcoming week

1:22:25 ↗ is I can um off the top of my head uh

1:22:30 ↗ welcoming week is really um about the

1:22:33 ↗ city trying to be more inclusive

1:22:35 ↗ welcoming to new residents to existing

1:22:37 ↗ residents to people who aren't um

1:22:40 ↗ typically involved in City events city

1:22:43 ↗ city discussions and and really trying

1:22:45 ↗ to open up the door to get more

1:22:47 ↗ involvement and welcome people to the

1:22:49 ↗ city um I can send the link to the event

1:22:52 ↗ and and also for the proclamation the

1:22:54 ↗ city council will

1:22:56 ↗ be adopting on September 5th U that'll

1:23:00 ↗ have a lot more information that I can't

1:23:01 ↗ think of right didn't mean to put you on

1:23:03 ↗ the spot that's great okay thank you

1:23:07 ↗ Stephen that takes care of reports

1:23:10 ↗ finally any other business

1:23:14 ↗ announcements

1:23:18 ↗ staff all right well it's good to see

1:23:20 ↗ everyone I know our summer is quickly

1:23:23 ↗ dwindling so our next meeting

1:23:28 ↗ is 14

1:23:30 ↗ 14 same time same

1:23:33 ↗ place we said that we will adjourn

1:23:36 ↗ tonight's meeting of the planning policy

1:23:38 ↗ commission

1:23:39 ↗ at 8 pm thank

1:23:46 ↗ 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)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Bader

Commissioners Altimore

Esemuede

Kennedy

Krass

Milligan Absence: Commissioner Patterson (Excused)

Staff (1)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Valerie Porter, Associate Planner 2. Approval of Minutes