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

Staff (1)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Valerie Porter, Associate Planner 2. Approval of Minutes

Recommendations & actions (3)

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

MOTION was seconded by MILLIGAN.
Leeson replied that both had been moved to the Environment, Stewardship, and Climate Resilience Element to be edited there.
a) Council Update Presented by: Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Padua stated that in late July, Council approved the Metro Flex Program.