Planning Policy Commission · Wednesday, October 18, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 31, 2023

packet pp.3–4

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-31-23 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Planning Policy Commission 6:00 PM Pickering Barn, 1730 10th Ave NW, May 31, 2023 MINUTES Issaquah, WA

Minutes of Sept. 14, 2023

packet pp.5–9

Previously discussed: Equity Board · Oct 4, 2023

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, September 14, 2023

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element Follow-Up, (D)

20 min · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.11–33

Topics: HousingLand Use

▶ Watch from 2:18 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the October 18, 2023, meeting is to review and discuss proposed changes made to the draft Housing Element as a result of the September 6, 2023 City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee (PDE) meeting. (agenda/video)

Comprehensive Plan: Human Services Element, (D)

35 min · Valerie Porter, Associate Planner · packet pp.35–55

Topics: Land UseEquity

▶ Watch from 19:10 Open packet at p.35 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the October 18, 2023

Comprehensive Plan: Economic Vitality Element, (D)

35 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.57–75

Topics: Land UseEconomic Development

▶ Watch from 48:41 Open packet at p.57 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the October 18, 2023

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Valerie Porter, Associate Planner

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.77–79

▶ Watch from 1:18:12 Open packet at p.77 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2023 Schedule (subject to change) 2023 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

1846 segments .txt ↗

0:11 ↗ good evening everyone like to begin by

0:14 ↗ just uh thanking our commissioners as

0:15 ↗ well as thanking staff for making a

0:18 ↗ modest adjustment to everybody's

0:21 ↗ schedule uh we are coming to you tonight

0:24 ↗ on Wednesday instead of our traditional

0:26 ↗ Thursday so again thank you for making

0:28 ↗ those

0:28 ↗ adjustments

0:30 ↗ tonight we'll we will call the planning

0:32 ↗ policy commission to order for this

0:34 ↗ special October 18th meeting at 6:36

0:40 ↗ p.m. Valerie I believe we do but do we

0:43 ↗ have a quorum this evening yes we do

0:45 ↗ chair thank

0:48 ↗ you we're going to begin with approving

0:51 ↗ I hope we're going to approve some

0:55 ↗ minutes have all of you been able to

0:57 ↗ read and go over the September 14th

1:00 ↗ meeting minutes any

1:03 ↗ concerns all right those meeting minutes

1:06 ↗ are

1:08 ↗ approved and now our next item of

1:10 ↗ business is public comment chair voice

1:12 ↗ we actually have two sets of minutes for

1:14 ↗ tonight's meeting it might be missing

1:16 ↗ from the script oh I apologize the first

1:19 ↗ one's for May 31st that's for the title

1:21 ↗ 18 special meeting that occurred where

1:24 ↗ we brought together all the commissions

1:26 ↗ so we're just now bringing that uh

1:29 ↗ basically those minutes back for

1:31 ↗ approval all right so as Stephen noticed

1:34 ↗ um you said may I have it is July 13th

1:37 ↗ right uh May 31st was the date for the U

1:41 ↗ special event okay has everybody seen

1:43 ↗ the May 31st meeting

1:45 ↗ minute did everybody have a good

1:49 ↗ time okay those meeting minutes are

1:53 ↗ approved now we will begin with public

1:55 ↗ comment and we will hold this at this

1:58 ↗ time and this is for General Public

1:59 ↗ public comments for the good of the

2:01 ↗ planning policy commission Valerie has

2:03 ↗ anybody signed up virtually to make any

2:06 ↗ comments this

2:07 ↗ evening nope no one has signed

2:10 ↗ up

2:11 ↗ okay well thank you so we will leave

2:16 ↗ that and we're going to jump ahead into

2:18 ↗ our regular business and the first item

2:21 ↗ under regular business is a followup on

2:24 ↗ the housing element for the

2:25 ↗ comprehensive plan periodic update and

2:28 ↗ Kristen Leon our senior planner will be

2:31 ↗ presenting tonight so Kristen if you are

2:33 ↗ ready the floor is

2:39 ↗ yours here we go I am ready I'm Kristen

2:42 ↗ Leon senior planner with Community

2:44 ↗ planning and development and tonight

2:47 ↗ we're talking for a third time about the

2:50 ↗ housing element or the comprehensive

2:53 ↗ plan periodic

2:54 ↗ update so we took this we brought

2:59 ↗ brought it to you you requested changes

3:01 ↗ we made those changes and then we took

3:03 ↗ it to the Planning Development and

3:05 ↗ environment committee Council committee

3:08 ↗ and they had a couple of questions that

3:10 ↗ they wanted us to come back to you with

3:12 ↗ they also made some suggested changes

3:14 ↗ that are shown in your packet they're

3:16 ↗ highlighted in there with who did it and

3:18 ↗ so we're going to go over the questions

3:20 ↗ tonight that they uh asked us to

3:24 ↗ address so the first question is do the

3:27 ↗ proposed amendments to H policy C6

3:31 ↗ address PD's concern about

3:33 ↗ prioritization oops this is a little out

3:34 ↗ of order uh the second question is is

3:37 ↗ there any additional policy language

3:39 ↗ needed to address potential conflict

3:40 ↗ between House Bill 1110 which if you may

3:43 ↗ recall is the one that requires us to

3:46 ↗ allow two units and up to four units if

3:49 ↗ there's an affordable unit there

3:52 ↗ onsite and um in the Strategic plan goal

3:56 ↗ of retaining neighborhood character

3:57 ↗ neighborhood and character and and

4:00 ↗ charm so Council wants to know how to

4:05 ↗ prioritize so our first discussion on

4:08 ↗ this was because prioritize shows up a

4:10 ↗ few times right in the not just in the

4:13 ↗ housing element but in the comprehensive

4:14 ↗ plan and the first discussion we had was

4:17 ↗ well what what exactly do you mean by

4:19 ↗ prioritize and I said well it means to

4:22 ↗ you know bring to the top I said well

4:24 ↗ yes but what do you mean by that you

4:27 ↗ know when we're looking at different

4:29 ↗ things different things in the element

4:30 ↗ what do you mean by that and honestly it

4:33 ↗ means different things in different

4:34 ↗ scenarios so you've got a budget it

4:36 ↗ means a different thing when you're

4:37 ↗ looking at a budget or you have a land

4:39 ↗ you element it means different things

4:40 ↗ there when you're trying it's different

4:42 ↗ situations so in this case there are

4:45 ↗ policies that say things like prioriti

4:48 ↗ this prioritize this and I can't

4:50 ↗ remember exactly what it is but it's in

4:51 ↗ this element using land use regulations

4:54 ↗ incentives and programs you know when

4:56 ↗ you bring use programs to bring those

4:59 ↗ things to the top top but this one

5:00 ↗ policy in particular was a little harder

5:03 ↗ to do uh here it is it's long we made an

5:07 ↗ attempt to kind of change it um and it

5:10 ↗ says everything that's underlined is

5:12 ↗ what we

5:13 ↗ changed and it's prioritized affordable

5:16 ↗ housing on Surplus city-owned land zoned

5:19 ↗ for residential use with a preference

5:21 ↗ for housing for low income for

5:23 ↗ low-income and very and extremely

5:26 ↗ low-income households populations with

5:27 ↗ special needs and others with dispropor

5:29 ↗ Ely greater housing needs consider

5:32 ↗ projects that promote access to

5:33 ↗ opportunity anti-displacement and wealth

5:36 ↗ building for black indigenous and people

5:38 ↗ of color

5:39 ↗ communities so it kind of spelled out

5:41 ↗ what you're looking for there but I

5:43 ↗ don't know if it's still and this is

5:45 ↗ where I need your input we need your

5:46 ↗ input is does it get to the does it get

5:50 ↗ to a suggestion of how to prioritize or

5:53 ↗ what to prioritize on some of on Surplus

5:55 ↗ land when it's zoned for residential

5:58 ↗ use

6:00 ↗ you want me to keep going or do you want

6:01 ↗ to talk about it

6:03 ↗ now um we can we can stop here is anyone

6:07 ↗ have any thoughts please commissioner

6:10 ↗ Kennedy commissioner Kennedy um so this

6:13 ↗ was one of the ones that I highlighted

6:15 ↗ and went

6:16 ↗ H um my first thought being will we

6:20 ↗ consider anything what was the it was

6:23 ↗ the consider consider projects that and

6:25 ↗ I thought don't we always consider

6:27 ↗ projects this seems a little toothless

6:29 ↗ because we always consider things so I

6:31 ↗ don't know that this language reads

6:33 ↗ quite like we need want it to um no we

6:38 ↗ could say support projects there's a

6:41 ↗ little more of an action verb there than

6:43 ↗ consider them um so I I was a little

6:47 ↗ confused by this and then

6:51 ↗ um and then I wasn't clear on the

6:54 ↗ anti-displacement

6:58 ↗ part okay okay I I

7:02 ↗ wasn't that just sort of was popped in

7:04 ↗ there and I was like I just put question

7:06 ↗ mark okay I think that's if it will

7:08 ↗ address an anti-displacement situation

7:10 ↗ so if some housing is going away if we

7:12 ↗ have Surplus property that can help

7:14 ↗ House people that are being

7:15 ↗ displaced then let's consider using this

7:17 ↗ land for

7:22 ↗ that well it's supposed to solve

7:25 ↗ displac pardon me you want we want it to

7:28 ↗ solve a displacement to solve a displ

7:30 ↗ anti-displacement it just sort of says

7:33 ↗ consider projects that promote access to

7:35 ↗ opportunity anti-displacement and wealth

7:40 ↗ building it reads funny okay okay

7:47 ↗ okay anything

7:50 ↗ else commissioner yeah I think it reads

7:53 ↗ well but I think you did bring up a

7:55 ↗ point commissioner KY about consider um

7:59 ↗ making that a little bit more actionable

8:01 ↗ you know cuz consider is I mean I I

8:05 ↗ consider this per se but it's it's may

8:08 ↗ not be actionable

8:10 ↗ um please so consider is not in here it

8:13 ↗ used to be in here okay we took it out

8:16 ↗ okay I think I correct me if

8:18 ↗ commissioner Kennedy didn't it used to

8:19 ↗ say uh consider prioritizing no it I

8:23 ↗ think what we're looking at Kristen is

8:25 ↗ down on the second sentence Oh I'm sorry

8:28 ↗ I was thinking there's not in here

8:29 ↗ you're right it's in the second sentence

8:31 ↗ I apologize yeah okay and then I and

8:33 ↗ then I I get what it says promote access

8:37 ↗ um to opportunity as well as

8:39 ↗ anti-displacement so it's to um keep

8:43 ↗ individuals or or families from being

8:45 ↗ displaced with that anti piece and

8:47 ↗ whatnot so I'm I'm

8:54 ↗ fine okay I'm going to be the contrarian

8:57 ↗ uh commissioner voice so earlier Kristen

9:00 ↗ you made a a great comment because we

9:02 ↗ were talking about prioritize and you

9:05 ↗ had mentioned like the city when they're

9:06 ↗ using vacant land when we sell it or

9:09 ↗ what we decide to do with it so priority

9:10 ↗ doesn't necessarily mean if you had a

9:12 ↗ capital facility that needs to be built

9:15 ↗ uh that could that could definitely take

9:18 ↗ precedence right that would take top

9:21 ↗ priority right so I'm just I I kind of

9:24 ↗ agree with commissioner Kennedy I

9:26 ↗ actually have support down here myself

9:29 ↗ support or allow or promote might be

9:31 ↗ better than

9:32 ↗ prioritize but there's two things and

9:35 ↗ I'm just wondering and again

9:36 ↗ Commissioners please feel free to jump

9:38 ↗ into

9:39 ↗ this one thing that I noticed and again

9:42 ↗ is I'm thinking why don't you just stop

9:44 ↗ it right after residential use and the

9:47 ↗ reason being yeah after residential use

9:51 ↗ um because you mentioned low income and

9:53 ↗ extremely low income those are mentioned

9:55 ↗ in different policies and then as well

9:58 ↗ as the consider the projects that

9:59 ↗ promotee opportunity displacement bipo

10:03 ↗ those are already mentioned in policies

10:05 ↗ hx2 and

10:07 ↗ hx3 and the thing that I have a problem

10:10 ↗ with isn't the isn't that but when

10:12 ↗ you're talking about affordable housing

10:14 ↗ it's not something we've succeeded at at

10:16 ↗ all and now you're adding more

10:18 ↗ stipulations onto it if the city was

10:20 ↗ winning or doing a good job with

10:21 ↗ affordable housing I would say add the

10:24 ↗ second piece there but because it's been

10:27 ↗ a regional failure been a National

10:29 ↗ failure to build an affordable housing

10:32 ↗ to me it just reads like another

10:35 ↗ stipulation I don't know if anybody else

10:37 ↗ saw it that way that's the way I kind

10:40 ↗ of commissioner

10:43 ↗ s yeah I think I mean of course we may

10:46 ↗ we have to fix um the problems with um

10:50 ↗ how it's going right now with

10:52 ↗ implementing some of these policies but

10:54 ↗ I think adding to it actually helps out

10:57 ↗ too as well and also so that at least um

11:00 ↗ you'll have more areas to be able to

11:02 ↗ reference this and then maybe there's

11:04 ↗ could be some

11:05 ↗ clarification um the difference between

11:07 ↗ this policy C6 and the other policy that

11:11 ↗ um commissioner voice mentioned as well

11:22 ↗ please those more it's more so a

11:25 ↗ question like the the difference between

11:27 ↗ what we're saying here as opposed to

11:29 ↗ what we're saying elsewhere per

11:37 ↗ se I think the only difference between

11:39 ↗ commissioner SMA and I is I don't know

11:42 ↗ if it's an implementation problem it

11:44 ↗ really has been not much of

11:47 ↗ a it really hasn't taken off at all

11:50 ↗ affordable housing is the biggest

11:51 ↗ problem we've have here in the King

11:53 ↗ County again Washington Nationals we

11:56 ↗ just don't have enough housing so that's

11:58 ↗ my concern um commissioner SMA and would

12:01 ↗ anyone else like to comment and then I

12:03 ↗ don't know if Kristen has enough on this

12:05 ↗ to take back to the lab and come up with

12:07 ↗ something but I want to make sure

12:09 ↗ everybody gets an opportunity before we

12:11 ↗ keep moving not quite so if if somebody

12:15 ↗ if you all are the deciding body and we

12:18 ↗ come to you and we say we have two

12:19 ↗ pieces of affordable land or of surplus

12:22 ↗ land that happen to be zoned for

12:23 ↗ residential

12:25 ↗ use what would you look at to help help

12:29 ↗ you decide whether it should be for used

12:31 ↗ for affordable housing or a

12:36 ↗ park I'm just giving you those to I

12:38 ↗ don't yeah I mean I would given um what

12:41 ↗ commissioner voice just stated that it

12:44 ↗ hasn't been implemented because there's

12:46 ↗ not enough housing per se I would

12:48 ↗ actually prioritize affordable housing

12:50 ↗ in the sense that um it looks like even

12:53 ↗ though there's may not be um as much

12:56 ↗ supply for the general population

12:59 ↗ there's essentially minimal to n supply

13:02 ↗ for the population that needs affordable

13:04 ↗ houses so I would prioritize that with

13:07 ↗ the

13:11 ↗ Surplus commissioner

13:17 ↗ Milligan now I am commissioner Milligan

13:21 ↗ uh thank you for drilling down a little

13:22 ↗ deeper in having an example like that

13:25 ↗ that's a good one uh earlier somebody at

13:28 ↗ I think the chair floated uh using the

13:31 ↗ word support or promote I would be more

13:33 ↗ in favor of

13:34 ↗ promote um support is implying um you

13:38 ↗ know some other thing that might be

13:40 ↗ funding or or another burden on on

13:41 ↗ somebody somewhere but promote goes to

13:44 ↗ your point of you've got Surplus land

13:47 ↗ that could go in a particular direction

13:49 ↗ and promoting it as affordable housing

13:51 ↗ would um alert those who could provide

13:54 ↗ the affordable housing on that lot to um

13:57 ↗ to come forth M I also agree with the

14:01 ↗ commissioners before that I think that

14:02 ↗ this policy is trying to do too much um

14:07 ↗ and in a confusing wording way you clean

14:10 ↗ up the wording uh but there there's a

14:12 ↗ lot in here

14:14 ↗ that if to chair vo this point if we

14:18 ↗ could succeed at just getting affordable

14:20 ↗ housing this then maybe we could get

14:23 ↗ affordable housing with more more uh

14:26 ↗ modifiers so I might go for that and

14:28 ↗ then the other thing that caught my

14:29 ↗ attention was uh and wealth building

14:32 ↗ that's implying that the affordable

14:33 ↗ housing has to be home ownership and we

14:36 ↗ all know affordable housing with home

14:37 ↗ ownership has um Governors

14:40 ↗ on

14:42 ↗ value how value increases but at least

14:45 ↗ um you're saying home ownership there

14:47 ↗ but I think that's a little too um

14:50 ↗ mysterious when it's hiding down in

14:53 ↗ wealth

14:54 ↗ build say not and say home ownership no

14:57 ↗ more

15:06 ↗ I'm just checking I don't think

15:07 ↗ Kristen's satisfied yet so I think we

15:09 ↗ got to keep

15:11 ↗ talking I I like promote I like giving I

15:14 ↗ like giving the city a little bit of U

15:16 ↗ you know ability to be flexible in what

15:18 ↗ they're doing because again perhaps you

15:21 ↗ have an area that doesn't have any parks

15:23 ↗ again then you're looking at other

15:24 ↗ policies for other things um so again I

15:28 ↗ I kind of like promote I think it's a

15:29 ↗ good word okay you know since uh since

15:34 ↗ our council's uh PD committee was

15:38 ↗ looking at prioritize that particular

15:40 ↗ bit of

15:41 ↗ verbage we promote okay um again I don't

15:45 ↗ know if anyone's going to agree with me

15:47 ↗ I like the idea of just striking it

15:49 ↗ after residential use okay and again I

15:52 ↗ think uh commissioner Milligan makes a

15:54 ↗ good point it's just doing too much okay

15:57 ↗ but again is everybody I'd like to know

15:59 ↗ maybe show a hands who feels that way or

16:02 ↗ who would like to keep it

16:05 ↗ iser Kennedy I'm all for simplification

16:08 ↗ I think when you get too much in there

16:10 ↗ it just gets kind of convoluted and hard

16:13 ↗ for people to really wrap their head

16:14 ↗ around so I'm with with you on

16:18 ↗ shortening commissioner Patterson uh

16:20 ↗ commissioner Patterson uh yeah I think

16:23 ↗ it definitely given that the other

16:25 ↗ policies we've tended to simplify them

16:28 ↗ or make them more concise I do agree

16:30 ↗ that this one it seems like we were

16:31 ↗ actually expanding it maybe unduly um

16:35 ↗ however I also know that we're trying to

16:36 ↗ meet requirements as well that are you

16:38 ↗ know through the County State uh

16:40 ↗ requirements but to chair Voice's point

16:42 ↗ I think as long as these are addressed

16:44 ↗ in the other policies then we should

16:46 ↗ definitely simplify this down uh

16:48 ↗ Counterpoint though uh for you would be

16:51 ↗ I do agree we could potentially keep

16:53 ↗ this up to the point of um low income

16:56 ↗ and uh extremely low income households

17:00 ↗ uh for for the affordable housing just

17:02 ↗ to kind of add at least a little layer

17:05 ↗ of support you know if we're supporting

17:07 ↗ or promoting I think that's probably the

17:09 ↗ mo the biggest need uh that we may not

17:12 ↗ have so I would say maybe keep that part

17:14 ↗ but the rest as long as it's addressed

17:16 ↗ in other policies uh I'm in alignment on

17:19 ↗ reducing

17:20 ↗ that yeah I think by the only reason I I

17:23 ↗ like I said I differ a little just

17:24 ↗ because there's Workforce housing

17:26 ↗ there's there's all sort of affordable

17:27 ↗ housing that we need and again we just

17:29 ↗ have not succeeded

17:31 ↗ so chair commissioner Milligan they just

17:34 ↗ seem like modifiers on top of more

17:35 ↗ modifiers for something we're not even

17:37 ↗ getting a passing grade on yet

17:40 ↗ but uh okay commissioner

17:43 ↗ mua oh yeah I'm not in full agreement I

17:47 ↗ mean I look at the word prioritize and

17:49 ↗ that's numerical so it's a little bit

17:51 ↗ more actional than support or promote

17:54 ↗ when you prioritize something you move

17:55 ↗ it up the list and also so that's how I

17:59 ↗ see in that sense that being more

18:02 ↗ actionable um than than any other word

18:04 ↗ that would be

18:06 ↗ utilized um now I guess a question would

18:09 ↗ be uh um and this maybe me not not fully

18:13 ↗ reading all the other policies but this

18:16 ↗ is directly related to um Surplus

18:20 ↗ land so do we talk about Surplus land

18:27 ↗ elsewhere

18:29 ↗ and being able to utilize that um for

18:33 ↗ this affordable housing if not I would

18:35 ↗ say that this is adding definition to

18:38 ↗ that or just

18:40 ↗ that I don't think that we do I Capital

18:44 ↗ facilities does it no and Parks do you

18:47 ↗ know I don't think it does in

18:51 ↗ Park oh that's right you're doing it

18:54 ↗ Parks is in the process of updating

18:56 ↗ their goals and policies so they could

18:58 ↗ but at the moment I don't believe so

19:00 ↗ okay so I think that answers that

19:03 ↗ question about hey this isn't

19:05 ↗ necessarily discussed elsewhere the

19:08 ↗ elements may be for other elements but

19:11 ↗ it's not per se for surface land so I'm

19:15 ↗ in agreement that this should actually

19:16 ↗ stay as is maybe modification to some of

19:19 ↗ the words but um um I I'm all for

19:23 ↗ keeping

19:26 ↗ it okay so let's uh show of hands

19:30 ↗ um who's comfortable with changing the

19:32 ↗ word prioritize to uh

19:40 ↗ promote okay good enough I have a

19:43 ↗ consensus right and who's since I

19:46 ↗ mentioned it I'll just say who's in

19:49 ↗ support of striking everything after an

19:51 ↗ all even meet commissioner Patterson in

19:54 ↗ the middle after low uh low

19:57 ↗ income

20:03 ↗ okay just to be clear after low income

20:05 ↗ or extremely low

20:07 ↗ income sorry that's okay that's a

20:12 ↗ um

20:14 ↗ extremely okay I'm getting odd so

20:16 ↗ extremely going to meet my Commissioners

20:18 ↗ in the middle extremely low

20:20 ↗ income

20:23 ↗ okay that was a good discussion thank

20:26 ↗ you Mr Milligan

20:29 ↗ commissioner Milligan uh was there any

20:32 ↗ need to look at um whether home uh it

20:36 ↗ says wealth building but I think what

20:37 ↗ they really mean is home ownership is

20:39 ↗ there any reason to look at where it

20:41 ↗ says a for priori promote affordable

20:45 ↗ housing on Surplus land to say promote

20:49 ↗ affordable home ownership is there any

20:51 ↗ reason to look at

20:53 ↗ that very was peeling back and now I'm

20:55 ↗ adding back on but for me and I and we

20:58 ↗ can have a quick discussion while have a

21:00 ↗ sidebar um to me like I said I just I

21:03 ↗ don't see us even getting a passing

21:05 ↗ grade count and I think what you said

21:07 ↗ makes a lot of sense to me it's kind of

21:08 ↗ along the lines you're adding modifiers

21:10 ↗ on things we're not even succeeding at

21:13 ↗ if in five years they came back and said

21:15 ↗ our affordable housing has been

21:17 ↗ tremendous with the help of King County

21:20 ↗ and with the state and we're seeing

21:22 ↗ movement in the positive direction then

21:23 ↗ I would say come back and let's look at

21:25 ↗ it but right now it's faar

21:33 ↗ I I apologize we had a sidebar um is was

21:36 ↗ there a question directed to me that I

21:38 ↗ need okay and also um what we were

21:40 ↗ talking about is that King County this

21:43 ↗ is one of their requirements we already

21:44 ↗ had the you know sort of prioritize it

21:47 ↗ or look at use it as s Surplus land for

21:49 ↗ affordable housing the county says

21:52 ↗ prioritize affordable housing on you

21:54 ↗ know through resources such as Surplus

21:56 ↗ lands and so because because they were

21:58 ↗ use the word prioritize we're going to

22:00 ↗ throw promote in there they may change

22:01 ↗ it back but we'll we'll we'll try and

22:03 ↗ see what happens they don't always

22:05 ↗ reject us all

22:07 ↗ right so question two is is additional

22:10 ↗ poy policy language I'm sorry are you

22:12 ↗ ready you're ready to move on yes okay

22:14 ↗ is additional policy language needed to

22:16 ↗ address potential conflict between House

22:18 ↗ Bill 1110 and strategic plan goal of

22:21 ↗ retaining neighborhood character and

22:23 ↗ charm so that's that's the uh council's

22:28 ↗ concern or PD's concern is that there is

22:30 ↗ potential conflict between those two

22:32 ↗ things

22:35 ↗ so okay but we have policies that say

22:38 ↗ adopt regulations that provide for and

22:40 ↗ maintain the district characteristics

22:41 ↗ and scale established in residential

22:43 ↗ neighborhoods and for housing bill for

22:47 ↗ House Bill 1110 allow and promote a

22:49 ↗ variety of housing types and lot sizes

22:51 ↗ in zones that allow residential

22:53 ↗ development including but not limited to

22:55 ↗ accessory dwelling units duplexes

22:56 ↗ triplexes fourplexes say Cottage housing

22:59 ↗ and Courtyard

23:01 ↗ housing um House Bill

23:05 ↗ 1110 says I told you this one at least

23:08 ↗ two housing units per lot zone for

23:09 ↗ residential use is up to four units per

23:11 ↗ lot if one of the units is Affordable

23:13 ↗ and allow for at least six of the nine

23:15 ↗ types of middle housing which is why we

23:17 ↗ listed those six but we don't have to um

23:20 ↗ strategic plan because that might be too

23:21 ↗ much information um strategic plan

23:25 ↗ uh growth and development number one

23:28 ↗ says neighborhoods can retain their

23:29 ↗ charm and distinctive character pattern

23:31 ↗ and setting that includes both built and

23:33 ↗ natural

23:34 ↗ environments so our discussion with uh

23:39 ↗ planning develop planning and just pte

23:41 ↗ for now Planning Development environment

23:43 ↗ with the committee was that they wanted

23:46 ↗ to get into depth on how this is going

23:49 ↗ to happen and address it through the

23:50 ↗ comprehensive plan on how this is going

23:52 ↗ to happen but really when that will take

23:54 ↗ place is in when we update the

23:57 ↗ development code the title 18 land use

24:00 ↗ code and that's when you go through and

24:02 ↗ that's why I gave you samples and that

24:04 ↗ it'll say you know that you can tell

24:06 ↗ down

24:08 ↗ here this yellow piece right here what

24:10 ↗ that is showing is sort of the building

24:13 ↗ envelope that is what could go there

24:15 ↗ even if it's just a single family house

24:16 ↗ so you can make things foot into that

24:18 ↗ existing envelope in Oldtown the maximum

24:22 ↗ height the regulations can't be more

24:24 ↗ stringent than single family whatever's

24:26 ↗ in place so the Reg cations in Oldtown

24:28 ↗ say that um the maximum height for a

24:33 ↗ single family house or for a duplex is

24:35 ↗ 25 feet so anything that came into that

24:37 ↗ area wouldn't go above 25

24:40 ↗ ft in height another example and this

24:43 ↗ one has six units this why I showed it

24:45 ↗ oh no this was a courtyard us it

24:47 ↗ Courtyard housing using four units and

24:50 ↗ you have the the overview right there

24:54 ↗ jumpy and then two side views to show

24:56 ↗ how it sort of blends in with everything

24:59 ↗ else so um back to question two I

25:03 ↗ apologize a little out of order I messed

25:05 ↗ it up when I got here um but question

25:06 ↗ two we could address that one so is is

25:09 ↗ there additional poy policy language

25:11 ↗ that you think is needed to address any

25:14 ↗ potential conflicts between those two

25:16 ↗ issues is and is is you know one of the

25:19 ↗ questions that came up committee is

25:21 ↗ preserving scale is that our

25:23 ↗ priority

25:25 ↗ so go back here there we

25:33 ↗ go oh I'm sorry uh can could you put up

25:37 ↗ the policy language for H6 I just can't

25:40 ↗ find it

25:56 ↗ quick

25:59 ↗ and it could be amending these two

26:01 ↗ policies it could be adding another

26:08 ↗ work

26:10 ↗ commissioner would this be for new

26:12 ↗ development or um um changes to existing

26:18 ↗ Lots both both because you could add

26:22 ↗ on

26:24 ↗ um you might remember in Kirkland there

26:27 ↗ was a house where they added on a house

26:29 ↗ to it and then another unit in the back

26:31 ↗ and that was all new but you could do

26:33 ↗ that to an existing I have a an example

26:36 ↗ of one where they've done that to an

26:37 ↗ existing building okay and this could be

26:39 ↗ driven by a homeowner or by by a

26:44 ↗ developer correct

26:50 ↗ okay Mr

26:52 ↗ Milligan uh I'll start off by saying

26:54 ↗ that I don't think the conflict is with

26:56 ↗ the um housing density for adopting the

27:00 ↗ ability to have adus or even four units

27:03 ↗ on the lot U your illustration in the

27:08 ↗ packet and that you showed a minute ago

27:09 ↗ that showed what could be built today is

27:12 ↗ what I've always worried about with we

27:14 ↗ have something that says maintain

27:16 ↗ neighborhood character and yet we would

27:18 ↗ allow

27:20 ↗ a large building that would fill a lot

27:23 ↗ and have for instance neighborhood

27:25 ↗ character some of the definitions that I

27:27 ↗ would think of would be uh Building

27:29 ↗ height setback from the street um

27:32 ↗ distance from the neighboring home um

27:34 ↗ some of those elements don't seem to be

27:37 ↗ in our um regulations that implement the

27:41 ↗ policy that says to maintain

27:43 ↗ neighborhood character if we had those

27:46 ↗ and allowed buildings of scale for

27:48 ↗ instance on your um top illustration

27:51 ↗ where there are two very large homes in

27:53 ↗ the front and then two smaller homes in

27:55 ↗ the back if we had

27:58 ↗ um regulations that main

28:02 ↗ that uh demonstrated maintaining

28:04 ↗ neighborhood character you could have

28:07 ↗ for smaller scaled units on a lot and

28:09 ↗ the neighborhood character would be

28:11 ↗ maintained it's the two big houses in

28:13 ↗ the front that are the

28:14 ↗ problem just my opinion that's where

28:18 ↗ that's where I think I don't think this

28:19 ↗ is where it goes wrong I think it goes

28:21 ↗ wrong with um reducing setbacks from

28:24 ↗ right Street Front neighboring side

28:28 ↗ Building height all that just to be

28:31 ↗ clear those are two duplexes in the

28:32 ↗ front so it's four units in the front

28:34 ↗ and two garages in the back yeah that's

28:36 ↗ it's the scale of the building thank you

28:38 ↗ very much thank you for clarify thank

28:39 ↗ you commissioner Milligan uh chair voice

28:42 ↗ here and I that's funny because she was

28:44 ↗ looking at this your illustration and

28:46 ↗ your illustration shows no trees on the

28:48 ↗ property they show much more impervious

28:50 ↗ surface and they show two large

28:52 ↗ driveways so I think to commissioner

28:54 ↗ Milligan's Point yeah it's really more

28:56 ↗ of a scale thing I don't think think

28:57 ↗ it's the density the density but you're

28:59 ↗ probably going to need some type of

29:00 ↗ confliction policy uh that kind of

29:04 ↗ comments on all of that but it is funny

29:06 ↗ because even your uh illustrations from

29:10 ↗ Colorado show that they're definitely

29:12 ↗ not maintaining the character of the

29:25 ↗ neighborhood commissioner Milligan uh so

29:28 ↗ where does that live that allows these

29:31 ↗ um the

29:32 ↗ yellow scaled um illustration that what

29:37 ↗ is allowed in

29:38 ↗ today's code

29:40 ↗ oration where it's in Title 18 that's in

29:43 ↗ title yes so so we missed our

29:46 ↗ opportunity to fix that there that right

29:50 ↗ no uh it wasn't even adopted when we

29:53 ↗ finished Title 18 that hadn't even been

29:55 ↗ adopted yet or it was it was being

29:57 ↗ discussed but hadn't yeah I think um but

30:01 ↗ no there actually we just received a

30:03 ↗ grant to actually Implement House Bill

30:08 ↗ 1110 to go and fix our de change our

30:11 ↗ development regulations not fix but

30:12 ↗ amend them to incorporate House Bill

30:15 ↗ 1110 in

30:18 ↗ there uh I think let me clarify what I

30:21 ↗ meant was what allows the larger

30:26 ↗ structures with no that backs to

30:29 ↗ neighboring Properties or the front

30:31 ↗ sidewalk and can that be changed be

30:34 ↗ consistent with policy that says

30:37 ↗ maintain well our current code doesn't

30:39 ↗ allow it our current code has setbacks

30:42 ↗ from the front in the back and there are

30:45 ↗ there are setbacks all the way around in

30:47 ↗ our current Cod and people can build to

30:49 ↗ those setbacks and they're impervious

30:51 ↗ surface um restrictions so in you know

30:54 ↗ single family Valerie knows better than

30:55 ↗ I do it's 50% or 60% I think 60%

30:58 ↗ impervious no so 60% perious is what it

31:03 ↗ is so I'm missing your uh di your

31:06 ↗ illustration here of the larger scale

31:09 ↗ building yellow Shadows over the

31:13 ↗ neighborhood character

31:15 ↗ building has an illustration of what

31:17 ↗ could be code today yeah and keep in

31:20 ↗ mind this is in Colorado this isn't here

31:21 ↗ I know but it's an illustration yeah

31:23 ↗ right but you're saying that our code is

31:25 ↗ like that too yes

31:28 ↗ so in Oldtown they could maybe build to

31:30 ↗ they could have five foot setbacks on

31:32 ↗ either side but you have older houses

31:34 ↗ that have 20 foot side backs on either

31:36 ↗ side but somebody could come in and tear

31:37 ↗ that down or expand that building to the

31:39 ↗ 10 foot

31:44 ↗ setbacks commissioner s so I guess the

31:48 ↗ question is I mean exist then you have

31:51 ↗ you just stated that you have the five

31:52 ↗ foot setbacks in some areas and then 20

31:55 ↗ foot setbacks in other areas but NE

31:58 ↗ please I saw you shake your head no what

32:01 ↗ I was saying is that in there like in

32:03 ↗ all time just using an example and I may

32:05 ↗ not be exactly right but there are say

32:07 ↗ 10ft side 10ft side setbacks on both

32:10 ↗ sides yet the house that is there

32:12 ↗ perhaps only Built to about you know

32:13 ↗ maybe has 20 fet set backs on the side

32:16 ↗ somebody could come in and expand that

32:18 ↗ house or tear it down and redevelop and

32:20 ↗ build all the way to those 10ft setbacks

32:22 ↗ yes under our current code so so

32:24 ↗ whatever I mean in in in line with the

32:27 ↗ house bill with what's being proposed

32:30 ↗ they would still have to comply with

32:33 ↗ those setbacks that are already set

32:36 ↗ within I guess Title

32:38 ↗ 18 correct and we're trying to figure

32:42 ↗ out exactly what can be changed and what

32:44 ↗ can't we actually met about that today

32:46 ↗ trying to figure out what can be changed

32:47 ↗ with Title 18 and what cannot be changed

32:50 ↗ so so in in still maintaining those

32:54 ↗ regulations it's still aligned with

32:57 ↗ keeping the

32:58 ↗ natural um I mean there's the natural

33:01 ↗ characteristics that we see every day

33:04 ↗ and then there's what's written on paper

33:06 ↗ and regulations so they would still be

33:09 ↗ able to a certain extent do what they

33:11 ↗ were they they could do they'll still be

33:15 ↗ able to do to the extent what they could

33:17 ↗ have done previous to the house bill

33:20 ↗ right so let me go down to this

33:25 ↗ one

33:28 ↗ this one for example this is what was

33:29 ↗ close to what you saw when we did our

33:31 ↗ tour in Kirkland yeah and you know those

33:34 ↗ side setbacks say they're 10 ft on each

33:36 ↗ side and you could either get one house

33:39 ↗ in there and 20 and maybe you know 15

33:42 ↗ feet in the front and you could go in

33:44 ↗ there and get one large house that fills

33:46 ↗ up the entire lot or you could get three

33:48 ↗ houses where they still meet the 10 foot

33:51 ↗ side setbacks and the 15ot front setback

33:53 ↗ but they get three units instead of one

33:55 ↗ and and I think the key issue is now of

33:57 ↗ course good and bad you're adding more

34:00 ↗ density which is allowing um um more

34:05 ↗ homes basically for people to live in

34:07 ↗ but adding more density still within the

34:11 ↗ regulations May to a certain extent

34:14 ↗ change those characteristics that we see

34:17 ↗ with our

34:18 ↗ eyes it could okay but you know somebody

34:23 ↗ comes in and everybody's used to having

34:26 ↗ Cottage you know Cottage or you know

34:28 ↗ some I can't think of the right word how

34:30 ↗ kind style house there and somebody

34:32 ↗ comes in builds a modern one in your

34:34 ↗ block which you hadn't had before that

34:35 ↗ might change the character too so is it

34:37 ↗ the scale that's the concern is it you

34:39 ↗ know what is what is the concern and is

34:42 ↗ there a conflict when we have no choice

34:44 ↗ we have to allow the density yeah yeah

34:47 ↗ and that's to provide more and more

34:49 ↗ housing and then this would be driven by

34:51 ↗ the homeowner and the developers if

34:54 ↗ they're allowed to do this correct okay

34:59 ↗ okay yeah unfortunately chair voice

35:02 ↗ unfortunately of course there's going to

35:04 ↗ be a conflict but I

35:06 ↗ think inevitable you're going to put

35:08 ↗ more density and allow two to four

35:11 ↗ different types of these micro units and

35:13 ↗ cottage housing it is going to change

35:15 ↗ the character of neighborhood inevitable

35:18 ↗ if they build

35:19 ↗ there but I I from what I understand

35:22 ↗ from Kristen is they still have so if

35:24 ↗ Old Town Oldtown has its regulations and

35:26 ↗ code we are still deciding what is a lot

35:29 ↗ we're still deciding what our setbacks

35:31 ↗ are no no we have setbacks right we just

35:35 ↗ don't know if we're allowed to we don't

35:36 ↗ know if we'll change those if we're

35:38 ↗ allowed to change those but what we do

35:40 ↗ know is that the that the higher density

35:43 ↗ units duplex fourplex sixplex whatever

35:46 ↗ those cannot be those regulations cannot

35:49 ↗ be more stringent than the single family

35:53 ↗ regulations so the only way to do that

35:55 ↗ would actually make your single family

35:56 ↗ residential more

35:59 ↗ stringent I'm not saying that anyone

36:01 ↗ would do that I'm just saying right and

36:03 ↗ we don't know if we can do that right at

36:04 ↗ this point it seems like uh seems like

36:08 ↗ there's not a lot of say in it actually

36:10 ↗ to be quite honest right it kind of

36:12 ↗ feels more like a mandate and again I

36:13 ↗ don't know if this is completely new to

36:15 ↗ city planners but yeah it sounds like

36:17 ↗ 2020 23 that legislation basically like

36:21 ↗ I said change the way cities are going

36:22 ↗ to have to plan and prioritize not by a

36:24 ↗ little by a

36:25 ↗ lot

36:29 ↗ commissioner

36:31 ↗ Milligan thank you commissioner Milligan

36:33 ↗ I uh I just want to repeat that I think

36:36 ↗ that the increased density is not what's

36:39 ↗ going to change our neighborhood

36:41 ↗ character uh when I look at building

36:44 ↗ Heights you know for instance in the

36:46 ↗ examples here single story

36:49 ↗ buildings around a uh regulation that

36:52 ↗ would allow for a 25t high building that

36:54 ↗ is in itself changing neighbor

36:56 ↗ neighborhood character um having

36:58 ↗ setbacks that are that are narrower than

37:03 ↗ the existing neighborhood character

37:06 ↗ changes the neighborhood character so

37:08 ↗ it's not the adding of additional

37:11 ↗ housing that's conflicting with our

37:13 ↗ neighborhood character as our code I

37:15 ↗ think conflicting with our neighborhood

37:17 ↗ character and we should if we're worried

37:19 ↗ about neighborhood character that's

37:20 ↗ where we should look and not worry and

37:22 ↗ not worry oh my gosh having six units on

37:25 ↗ here is what's going to

37:27 ↗ uh uh erode our neighborhood character I

37:30 ↗ don't think that's what it is it can be

37:32 ↗ like when we went to Kirkland the

37:33 ↗ cottages at the Danielson Court you know

37:37 ↗ that would fit in neighborhood character

37:39 ↗ even in

37:40 ↗ Oldtown with multiple units but it's the

37:43 ↗ scale that back space around the homes

37:47 ↗ that's where I think we want to work on

37:49 ↗ neighbor preserving

37:51 ↗ neighborhood okay so I'm gonna go back

37:54 ↗ to the policies too but and remember the

37:57 ↗ land use code is what we're working on

37:58 ↗ next we just need to because we got it

38:00 ↗ we got a grant we have to do it we need

38:02 ↗ to we want to do it so that that's going

38:05 ↗ to come that'll come to you next well

38:07 ↗ starting in June

38:09 ↗ 2024 um because these these rules don't

38:12 ↗ go into effect until June

38:15 ↗ 2025

38:16 ↗ so uh we're going to have things adopted

38:18 ↗ by then but I so I want to go back to

38:20 ↗ the policies but I think I just

38:22 ↗ interrupted commissioner Patterson and I

38:24 ↗ apologize um just getting start

38:27 ↗ commissioner pis um one thing I'm trying

38:30 ↗ to understand though is I've been

38:31 ↗ thinking about what you were saying and

38:33 ↗ my interpretation of what we've

38:35 ↗ discussed is that despite the type of

38:37 ↗ housing whether it be a single family

38:40 ↗ home or Cottage housing or whatever in

38:43 ↗ between the the code still applies

38:46 ↗ though right like a single family home

38:48 ↗ could come in and buy a lot in Old Town

38:49 ↗ and build a 25 foot um buil house uh

38:53 ↗ under today's code uh as much as is the

38:57 ↗ two duplexes or or what have you

39:01 ↗ no okay no so in most areas so old

39:06 ↗ Town's unique and that they allow

39:07 ↗ duplexes by right means they don't have

39:09 ↗ to do anything special they can just go

39:10 ↗ in and build it so in Oldtown yes you

39:12 ↗ can go in and build a single family

39:13 ↗ house or you could build a duplex within

39:15 ↗ those parameters of you know the Lots

39:17 ↗ what the Lots say but you can't go just

39:20 ↗ go in to single family duplex and build

39:22 ↗ a Triplex or a fourplex that's not

39:24 ↗ allowed currently but then it will be

39:26 ↗ with new mandate it will be with the new

39:28 ↗ got but anything that's built still has

39:31 ↗ to be within that code that exists yes

39:35 ↗ within within what we like to call the

39:36 ↗ envelope of the setbacks and the ceiling

39:38 ↗ height or roof height gotcha so I guess

39:43 ↗ what I'm trying to understand is like

39:44 ↗ from from that perspective like the

39:47 ↗ difference between a single family home

39:50 ↗ and a triplex on with how it's built on

39:53 ↗ the law could go either way right like

39:55 ↗ the single family with the setbacks and

39:58 ↗ and the height and everything could look

40:00 ↗ relatively the same as the

40:02 ↗ Trix meaning they could be as close to

40:05 ↗ the sidewalk or as far back from the

40:07 ↗ sidewalk

40:11 ↗ yeah uh U commissioner Milligan so back

40:14 ↗ at the policies I don't see anything

40:15 ↗ wrong with these policies but the policy

40:18 ↗ A1 says adopt regulations that provide

40:21 ↗ for and maintain the distinct

40:23 ↗ characteristics and scale of established

40:25 ↗ residential neighborhood which tells me

40:27 ↗ that our code our setbacks our building

40:29 ↗ Heights

40:30 ↗ should dictate or you know regulate the

40:34 ↗ kind of buildings that would be like the

40:36 ↗ ones that are

40:37 ↗ there and that is where I think it's I

40:41 ↗ don't think there's anything wrong with

40:42 ↗ this I think that's where six is and

40:44 ↗ then we're going to and uh A2 is going

40:47 ↗ to allow accessory dwelling units duplex

40:50 ↗ and stri plexus for plexus Cottage

40:51 ↗ housing all those things great great

40:54 ↗ doesn't fix the C so that it is the

40:58 ↗ regulation that provides for and

40:59 ↗ maintains

41:05 ↗ care uh commissioner s uh does now are

41:09 ↗ we looking at A1 in just respects to

41:11 ↗ Oldtown or the whole of is this is

41:14 ↗ Citywide both of are Citywide so so I

41:17 ↗ think we're you we focus just on Old

41:20 ↗ Town because there's a solution that we

41:22 ↗ have or there's a challenge that we're

41:24 ↗ trying to solve with providing um uh

41:28 ↗ more homes and for the for the

41:30 ↗ constituents and whatnot so um this is

41:34 ↗ one of those Solutions um A1 May

41:39 ↗ encroach on Oldtown but in reality it

41:43 ↗ it's it applies to the whole of isqua so

41:45 ↗ is the issue

41:47 ↗ hey can we limit it to the rest of isqua

41:52 ↗ and leave Oldtown out

41:55 ↗ or

41:56 ↗ exactly

41:58 ↗ so can't have your cake and eat it too

42:02 ↗ basically

42:10 ↗ yeah

42:13 ↗ thought well I do appreciate you

42:15 ↗ mentioning that these don't get

42:16 ↗ implemented so we have a little bit of

42:17 ↗ time to catch up with some of our city

42:20 ↗ uh codes design everything like that but

42:24 ↗ so we have about a year we do and I'm

42:26 ↗ sure you guys will remind us put it on

42:28 ↗ the agenda yes we will and so is there

42:30 ↗ consensus that the policies are fine as

42:32 ↗ are we just we need to address this

42:34 ↗ through the regulations I definitely

42:36 ↗ like the fact that it continues to say

42:37 ↗ retain the the character of the city and

42:40 ↗ to commissioner Milligan's point it yeah

42:43 ↗ I mean yeah we want more dead City and I

42:45 ↗ don't really think we get a a big say in

42:47 ↗ that so policies are fine I definitely

42:50 ↗ want to keep the one that says maintain

42:51 ↗ the character of the

42:55 ↗ neighborhood

42:56 ↗ I think we can all agree on

43:24 ↗ that thank you all is that all you

43:26 ↗ needed from us that yes that's all I

43:28 ↗ needed sorry it was a good discussion

43:30 ↗ yeah no I but I did notice before

43:32 ↗ Valerie gets up um I did notice you had

43:33 ↗ a couple other things from the pde did

43:35 ↗ you want us to comment on those or no

43:37 ↗ that's okay she like no no we're good I

43:41 ↗ I just want you to know what the I just

43:42 ↗ want you to know the other changes that

43:44 ↗ they made these are the ones that they

43:45 ↗ asked us to bring back okay fair enough

43:47 ↗ right thank you

43:49 ↗ Kristen all right now we can move along

43:51 ↗ sorry about that Valerie there's chair

43:54 ↗ oh I'm sorry commissioner Kennedy you're

43:56 ↗ not going anywhere we're still talking

43:57 ↗ about this

43:58 ↗ particular Pard I think she's wrapping

44:00 ↗ up her presentation do you have a

44:02 ↗ comment or question well there were just

44:04 ↗ other language sections there were other

44:07 ↗ I just was showing you the other changes

44:09 ↗ that pte asked us to make but the only

44:12 ↗ ones that they asked us to bring back

44:13 ↗ for to uh PBC were those questions that

44:15 ↗ I

44:16 ↗ presented okay well in going through the

44:19 ↗ changes I looked at especially the

44:20 ↗ highlighted areas and just had

44:23 ↗ other could you email those to me and

44:26 ↗ then okay we can talk about it perfect

44:29 ↗ all right great thank you all

44:31 ↗ right all right well now we're going to

44:33 ↗ move along to the second item under

44:35 ↗ regular business which is the Human

44:37 ↗ Services element and Valerie will be

44:40 ↗ presenting that for

44:42 ↗ us

44:54 ↗ please

44:56 ↗ hello

44:58 ↗ everyone my name is Valerie Porter I'm

45:01 ↗ an associate planner with

45:02 ↗ CPD and we are here to talk about the

45:05 ↗ Human Services element and to discuss um

45:09 ↗ or I would like to know um if there are

45:12 ↗ any additional topics that we should be

45:13 ↗ considering for the Human Service

45:16 ↗ element so first I want to just say that

45:19 ↗ the human servic element is not a

45:21 ↗ mandatory element for the um growth

45:23 ↗ management act it's actually um an

45:26 ↗ element that the city added back in 97

45:30 ↗ um and it's because we thought that

45:31 ↗ planning for Human Services was

45:32 ↗ important so we decided to add it it's

45:36 ↗ not a requirement therefore it doesn't

45:37 ↗ have to meet any certain criteria like

45:39 ↗ the housing or any other um required

45:41 ↗ element so um so if you're looking at

45:44 ↗ the Matrix of changes that was included

45:46 ↗ in your packet um you'll notice that all

45:48 ↗ of the goals and policies are being

45:50 ↗ overhauled we're changing all of them

45:53 ↗ and um it's for a few reasons so one one

45:56 ↗ is that we wanted the um goals and

45:58 ↗ policy to be consistent with the Human

46:00 ↗ Services strategic plan that was adopted

46:04 ↗ in

46:05 ↗ 2022 and so the Strategic plan really

46:08 ↗ helps the um Human Services Department

46:10 ↗ um understand that priorities for the

46:12 ↗ next 5 years so it's important that the

46:14 ↗ comprehensive plan in this um in the

46:16 ↗ Strategic plan are very consistent so

46:19 ↗ another reason that um we're updating

46:23 ↗ all of the goals and policies is um to

46:26 ↗ basically just kind of consolidate and

46:27 ↗ clarify a lot of the goals um the

46:30 ↗ element the current or the existing

46:33 ↗ element was adopted back in 2015 so a

46:35 ↗ lot has changed since then so we're

46:38 ↗ coming into times and then um we also

46:41 ↗ just want to remove some of the um

46:43 ↗ redundancies and make things um

46:45 ↗ simplified and so the Matrix also shows

46:49 ↗ um the comparison between the new um

46:52 ↗ goals and policies and the existing one

46:54 ↗ and um that's because we wanted to show

46:58 ↗ how we're really or the human services

47:00 ↗ department is really narrowing the focus

47:02 ↗ so when the department um updated or

47:06 ↗ decided to update the Strategic plan

47:09 ↗ they conducted A needs assessment and

47:11 ↗ that really helped them understand you

47:13 ↗ know what was important to the community

47:15 ↗ and what they really needed so instead

47:17 ↗ of casting this wide net saying that

47:19 ↗ they were going to focus on all of these

47:21 ↗ things they really W it down to what was

47:23 ↗ important to the community so that's why

47:25 ↗ see a lot of um One new goals and

47:28 ↗ policies and then again a simple um

47:31 ↗ things kind of being boiled down and

47:36 ↗ simplified so this is just an example a

47:39 ↗ snippet that I pulled from The Matrix of

47:41 ↗ changes and again this really shows how

47:44 ↗ um we had a lot of goals and policies

47:47 ↗ but we simplified it so this is um

47:49 ↗ there's two policies and it was boiled

47:51 ↗ down to

47:52 ↗ one so the original um goal and policies

47:56 ↗ are on the left and the new are on the

48:02 ↗ right all right and this just kind of

48:04 ↗ quickly shows um a brief summary of like

48:07 ↗ the next step so in September staff went

48:10 ↗ to the Human Services Commission we

48:12 ↗ presented the um proposed changes which

48:15 ↗ again is making it consistent with the

48:16 ↗ human um Services strategic plan and

48:19 ↗ they were in support of um this

48:21 ↗ modification and now we're here today uh

48:24 ↗ the next steps will be taking this

48:26 ↗ project to um we'll come back with the

48:29 ↗ final draft but then ultimately our goal

48:31 ↗ is to bring the full comprehensive plan

48:34 ↗ to city council um in quarter three or

48:38 ↗ four so that concludes my presentation

48:41 ↗ so uh let me know if you guys have any

48:43 ↗ questions and again the the reason for

48:46 ↗ this update is again just to simplify

48:49 ↗ clarify some of the goals and policies

48:51 ↗ so um if you like let me know and I can

48:54 ↗ pull up that Matrix of um make certain

48:56 ↗ of change so if you want to talk about

48:58 ↗ any specific goals or policiy great

49:00 ↗ thank you Valerie um just real quickly

49:03 ↗ some of those suggestions would you want

49:04 ↗ them through email or do you want us to

49:06 ↗ talk tonight um you can talk about it

49:09 ↗ tonight but if it's like specific

49:11 ↗ wording then email would be great okay

49:14 ↗ let's open it

49:19 ↗ up commissioner

49:23 ↗ Milligan does anyone else want to go

49:25 ↗ first

49:27 ↗ uh okay thank you for the presentation

49:30 ↗ and I'll need a little help on this um

49:32 ↗ could have spent more time but I'm

49:33 ↗ looking at um policies L1 L2 L4 okay in

49:38 ↗ the first part of the

49:40 ↗ Matrix and the revised goal is policy

49:46 ↗ 1.1

49:48 ↗ and

49:49 ↗ my I'm going to say something that I'm

49:53 ↗ I'm just trying to read the words here

49:54 ↗ I'm not trying to just um um own a

49:58 ↗ position but the original policy

50:02 ↗ discusses

50:04 ↗ providing Human Services in all these

50:07 ↗ areas having uh cooperating with

50:11 ↗ regional uh parties to take care of a

50:14 ↗ fair share and then I'm going to add

50:16 ↗ what I've heard from the community in

50:18 ↗ the past was we want to take care of our

50:20 ↗ own we really

50:22 ↗ do the revised policy

50:25 ↗ talks about expanding services in isqua

50:29 ↗ to serve a wider Regional need so I just

50:33 ↗ want to challenge that a little bit am I

50:36 ↗ reading that correctly and did anybody

50:38 ↗ else notice that as not just a

50:41 ↗ consolidation or a simplification but

50:43 ↗ rather

50:46 ↗ a so I'm looking at um uh Council packet

50:51 ↗ page oh my gosh

50:54 ↗ yeah okay thank you and it's policy 1.1

50:58 ↗ under the revised SCH

51:03 ↗ policy didn't jump out at you or else

51:05 ↗ you

51:24 ↗ were

51:44 ↗ voice when you're all ready I can

51:46 ↗ respond sorry um please Stephen okay um

51:52 ↗ thank you commissioner migan on uh

51:54 ↗ pointing out policy 1.1 part of what the

51:57 ↗ Human

51:58 ↗ Services team put together when they

52:01 ↗ developed this strategic plan was

52:03 ↗ identifying uh not only what we where

52:06 ↗ the need was but also where the

52:07 ↗ resources were and part of what they

52:09 ↗ were able to figure out is be because

52:13 ↗ people not necessarily live in isqua

52:15 ↗ work out is but also the opposite where

52:17 ↗ people um live outside of isqua but work

52:21 ↗ in isqua use a lot of isqua services and

52:24 ↗ so the needs kind of overlap between the

52:26 ↗ two different groups the other part is

52:28 ↗ we have a lot of regional partners that

52:31 ↗ will offer some of that support within

52:34 ↗ isqua but it requires resources to

52:36 ↗ support what they're doing outside of

52:38 ↗ isqua as well which is why you have that

52:39 ↗ overlap to more of the regional approach

52:42 ↗ it's not to say all of the services that

52:44 ↗ isqua is providing is being provided

52:47 ↗ outside of isqua but that there's more

52:49 ↗ of a tailored approach rather than

52:50 ↗ saying we're only going to focus on isqu

52:52 ↗ when we actually are getting res a lot

52:54 ↗ of research es from outside entities to

52:57 ↗ support what we're actually trying to

52:58 ↗ achieve does that help kind of address

53:00 ↗ your concern with that

53:02 ↗ policy uh it thank you uh Stephen it

53:05 ↗ does explain it uh but it doesn't change

53:09 ↗ the impression that I'm getting from

53:12 ↗ being a regional center for Human

53:15 ↗ Services when I in reading the original

53:21 ↗ policy does not imply to me that there's

53:24 ↗ a

53:27 ↗ um objective to be a regional center for

53:30 ↗ providing Services regardless of who's

53:32 ↗ providing them you know King County or

53:33 ↗ the state or whoever might come in and

53:36 ↗ provide the services um it is a I

53:39 ↗ believe this is a change in policy to

53:42 ↗ be to provide a regional center for

53:45 ↗ those services that Regional or local

53:48 ↗ people could provide that's just a

53:50 ↗ change rather than being um scaled to

53:54 ↗ the needs of the people of isqua and

53:56 ↗ maybe the immediate environment

53:58 ↗ certainly we do have roing County around

53:59 ↗ us that we consider members of our

54:01 ↗ community not excluding them yes you're

54:04 ↗ correct that it does change the policy a

54:06 ↗ bit and that's something that I know the

54:07 ↗ Human Services uh commission grappled

54:09 ↗ with when they were trying to decide how

54:11 ↗ do we dedicate the resources but it

54:13 ↗ comes to the reality of where the

54:15 ↗ resources are coming from the

54:16 ↗ Partnerships we have to build to provide

54:18 ↗ the services that the community and

54:19 ↗ outside the community actually needs and

54:21 ↗ so it's this is more tailored towards

54:23 ↗ what we actually have to do on the

54:24 ↗ ground

54:27 ↗ commissioner

54:28 ↗ s and I would add I mean this may be a

54:31 ↗ change in policy but um when the policy

54:35 ↗ was made and I'm not sure of course the

54:37 ↗ date or the year things have changed

54:39 ↗ since then as well and we've realized

54:42 ↗ that um Human Services especially when

54:44 ↗ you're in such a small square radius and

54:48 ↗ I'll like I work in Seattle but live in

54:52 ↗ in isqua or live in Seattle and and work

54:55 ↗ in isqua were all interrelated and I'm

54:58 ↗ I'm pretty sure and you can correct me

55:00 ↗ if I'm wrong funding for these type of

55:03 ↗ services are going to be shared between

55:05 ↗ the different cities as well and the

55:07 ↗ resources where you may get um funding

55:10 ↗ from a different city but the resources

55:13 ↗ may be based in isqua per se so it's

55:16 ↗ it's it's a shared approach for a

55:19 ↗ regional problem in the sense that where

55:22 ↗ if you have homelessness today

55:25 ↗ the homeless person could be in bellw

55:28 ↗ but a week later could be here in isqua

55:31 ↗ as well so I think that's that's a good

55:36 ↗ approach commissioner yeah you're

55:38 ↗ absolutely correct and one thing to

55:40 ↗ recognize is human servfaces isn't just

55:43 ↗ one surface it's multiple different

55:45 ↗ levels of surfaces and that's um some of

55:47 ↗ those are going to be more of the

55:49 ↗ regional approach because of the actual

55:51 ↗ resources that are out there but some

55:53 ↗ are tailored towards just the s

55:55 ↗ community and so it's not necessarily a

55:57 ↗ one size fits-all for Human Services

55:59 ↗ Human Services is primarily just uh

56:02 ↗ getting to the reality of what resources

56:04 ↗ are available regionally but also

56:05 ↗ locally because city of isqua size can't

56:08 ↗ necessarily provide that Regional Center

56:11 ↗ approach for everything so we have to be

56:13 ↗ able to peace meal it by the types of

56:15 ↗ services we are able to offer with the

56:16 ↗ staff that we have as well as what the

56:19 ↗ King County or other Regional partners

56:21 ↗ are able to provide as

56:23 ↗ well

56:28 ↗ all right well thank

56:30 ↗ you the commissioner Milligan's Point

56:33 ↗ again that I think that's kind of I

56:35 ↗ would say my only fear but again I I

56:37 ↗ don't think this is near necessarily I

56:39 ↗ guess it is because it is land use so it

56:41 ↗ does kind of knock up on our door um

56:44 ↗ that would be my only consideration is

56:46 ↗ is does the is the public aware of this

56:48 ↗ does the public know that what we're

56:50 ↗ trying to do is basically are we

56:52 ↗ building headquarters where people from

56:54 ↗ fact Toria and other areas can come to

56:57 ↗ isqua to get these Services which it

56:58 ↗ doesn't really sound like that's the

57:00 ↗ intent but it sounds like the wordings

57:03 ↗ there that like it does kind of cover

57:04 ↗ that base I don't know if the public

57:07 ↗ would necessarily like something like

57:08 ↗ that um I don't know how it's presented

57:10 ↗ to them but I understand what you guys

57:12 ↗ are trying to do with funding working

57:13 ↗ Regional problems but again if it's it's

57:16 ↗ building infrastructure in isqua to

57:20 ↗ basically take in the immediate

57:22 ↗ vicinities and different

57:23 ↗ cities be able to handle their Human

57:26 ↗ Services problems here I think you might

57:29 ↗ run up against a little bit more push

57:32 ↗ back commissioner

57:34 ↗ S I think the other side of that is

57:38 ↗ let's say we we're not part of a

57:40 ↗ partnership like that and then those um

57:43 ↗ Human Services challenges come to here

57:47 ↗ and we don't have that infastructure

57:49 ↗ here to be able to support that or that

57:51 ↗ support from the other cities as well so

57:54 ↗ we also have to look at it from that

57:56 ↗ perspective as

58:05 ↗ well follow

58:09 ↗ up okay now did you want any commentary

58:12 ↗ Valerie on any of the policies or as far

58:15 ↗ as just again what we were seeing what

58:18 ↗ we're reading yes

58:23 ↗ okay would anyone like to

58:28 ↗ go so there is one policy and again this

58:31 ↗ is just my humble opinion and it's HS

58:35 ↗ policy

58:37 ↗ G1 and it says help Implement at minimum

58:40 ↗ one of the following services in isqua

58:42 ↗ that help respond to homelessness day

58:44 ↗ Center temporary transitional or

58:46 ↗ permanent housing I don't really see a

58:49 ↗ small City like small town like isqua

58:51 ↗ being able to handle things like a day

58:53 ↗ Center or temporary house housing I

58:55 ↗ think we can help where it comes to

58:57 ↗ transitional and permanent uh I hate to

59:00 ↗ pick on other cities but Seattle with a

59:01 ↗ much bigger budget and bigger grants

59:03 ↗ than us have not done very well with the

59:06 ↗ day centers um I think you know I can

59:09 ↗ think of three right off the bat uh that

59:11 ↗ are

59:12 ↗ problematic so again I don't see our

59:15 ↗ city having the resources to be able to

59:17 ↗ handle it when a city like Seattle can't

59:19 ↗ even so I personally would like to see

59:22 ↗ day Center and temporary stricken

59:25 ↗ and leave transitional and permanent

59:26 ↗ housing which I do think a city like

59:28 ↗ isqua could help it says one of the

59:31 ↗ following services but again I don't

59:33 ↗ really see where you put a day Center

59:36 ↗ very

59:41 ↗ Suburban that's one thing I

59:43 ↗ saw and

59:47 ↗ then yeah the only question I had too

59:50 ↗ was uh policy 4.2 increase translation

59:54 ↗ interpretation

59:55 ↗ culture specific services for effective

59:57 ↗ communication with non- English

59:59 ↗ community members I'm just wondering

1:00:01 ↗ when you guys do translation materials

1:00:03 ↗ what what does it what is the cost to

1:00:05 ↗ the

1:00:09 ↗ city it kind of depends on the material

1:00:11 ↗ so

1:00:13 ↗ presentations um can range in the 1 to

1:00:16 ↗ 200 range and a memo could range in a

1:00:18 ↗ couple hundred for translations it

1:00:21 ↗ really depends on what We're translating

1:00:23 ↗ how We're translating number of words

1:00:25 ↗ versus graphics and so forth

1:00:27 ↗ so we really tried to simplify things if

1:00:30 ↗ if there's when there's a need

1:00:34 ↗ for broader translations being needed uh

1:00:37 ↗ particularly for like CommunityWide

1:00:40 ↗ engagement yeah I mean I'm not against

1:00:42 ↗ translating anything I my only concern

1:00:45 ↗ is we've actually seen less assimilation

1:00:47 ↗ in the last decade two decades from

1:00:49 ↗ people who don't speak English and it

1:00:51 ↗ hasn't been helpful it's been one of the

1:00:52 ↗ wonderful things and the success stories

1:00:54 ↗ of the United States as people being

1:00:55 ↗ able to assimilate my mom when she came

1:00:57 ↗ here in ' 82 didn't speak any English

1:01:00 ↗ and I just I see it in my own industry

1:01:03 ↗ when people have so much access to

1:01:06 ↗ translated materials sometimes they

1:01:08 ↗ don't go out there and try to so that'd

1:01:10 ↗ be my only fear again I'm not saying

1:01:12 ↗ it's right or wrong I just don't know

1:01:13 ↗ what type of City resources you guys are

1:01:15 ↗ spending on translating everything

1:01:17 ↗ versus just you know emergency

1:01:18 ↗ information voting information things

1:01:20 ↗ that are really and again I I that's why

1:01:22 ↗ this is kind of vague I talking about

1:01:25 ↗ translating like tonight's

1:01:27 ↗ notes I mean I just there's got to be a

1:01:29 ↗ cost for

1:01:33 ↗ it uh just in a response so when it

1:01:36 ↗ comes to translated materials we don't

1:01:38 ↗ necessarily go and just absolutely

1:01:40 ↗ translate everything and provide it out

1:01:41 ↗ to the community we do it on request we

1:01:44 ↗ also take advantage kind of of our

1:01:45 ↗ virtual world where we have online

1:01:47 ↗ resources that will translate um a lot

1:01:50 ↗ of our materials online and so we

1:01:53 ↗ utilize that uh quite extensively when

1:01:55 ↗ it comes to the city website or any

1:01:57 ↗ virtual materials that we provide so

1:01:58 ↗ that that helps with providing a lot of

1:02:00 ↗ those resources to the community yeah no

1:02:03 ↗ that's a good point with the Advent of

1:02:06 ↗ AI okay those were my two

1:02:10 ↗ things commissioner

1:02:12 ↗ Kennedy super quick I'll say one email I

1:02:16 ↗ think there's one omitted word you say

1:02:18 ↗ non English speaking community

1:02:22 ↗ members it says non-english Comm members

1:02:24 ↗ and I'm assuming we're not talking about

1:02:26 ↗ the British so I'm assuming speaking

1:02:28 ↗ should be in

1:02:30 ↗ there oh in um policy 4.2 in 4.2 okay

1:02:34 ↗ thank

1:02:41 ↗ you commissioner

1:02:43 ↗ Milligan uh this uh goal but it's in

1:02:46 ↗ here uh goal M down near the end there

1:02:49 ↗ on page uh 45 of the

1:02:52 ↗ packet all I'm uh pointing out is that

1:02:55 ↗ on the right hand side the justification

1:02:57 ↗ amended to

1:02:58 ↗ simplify um is not what happened if you

1:03:02 ↗ intended if it was intended to

1:03:05 ↗ simplify then I think it needs to be

1:03:07 ↗ done differently to me it looks like an

1:03:10 ↗ amend amendment to change and I'm not

1:03:13 ↗ saying I disagree with the change I just

1:03:14 ↗ think that um to say it's a

1:03:17 ↗ simplification I think it's in Eric

1:03:19 ↗ change policy column three I would say

1:03:22 ↗ change policy so people could evaluate

1:03:25 ↗ anybody else nope I agree I think that

1:03:28 ↗ was a copy and paste so we can modify

1:03:32 ↗ that thank

1:03:36 ↗ you all

1:03:38 ↗ right any other questions for

1:03:41 ↗ Valerie all right well thank you

1:03:44 ↗ Valerie did you get everything you

1:03:46 ↗ needed from us I did thank you okay

1:03:48 ↗ thank

1:03:49 ↗ you and we are going to move on to our

1:03:52 ↗ final and third item of regular business

1:03:54 ↗ this

1:03:55 ↗ evening this is the economic Vitality

1:03:57 ↗ element update and step will be

1:04:00 ↗ presenting for us right

1:04:08 ↗ now thank you Commissioners for your

1:04:10 ↗ patience while I bring this

1:04:22 ↗ up it is

1:04:24 ↗ I well thank you commissioner Steph

1:04:26 ↗ long-range planning manager um tonight

1:04:29 ↗ we're going to be looking at the

1:04:30 ↗ economic Vitality uh element similar to

1:04:34 ↗ The Human Services element um we have

1:04:38 ↗ updated several of the goals of policies

1:04:40 ↗ to completely restructure it to simplify

1:04:44 ↗ some of the language and

1:04:45 ↗ also align a lot of the goals and

1:04:48 ↗ policies with ongoing efforts to develop

1:04:51 ↗ a Economic Development action plan so

1:04:54 ↗ the the two questions we have for you

1:04:55 ↗ tonight is are the proposed changes to

1:04:57 ↗ the economic to the element consistent

1:04:59 ↗ with the land use element and are there

1:05:01 ↗ additional topics that should be

1:05:02 ↗ considered for the econ economic

1:05:04 ↗ Vitality element as well and some of

1:05:06 ↗ this is the reason for these question is

1:05:08 ↗ uh because economic development jobs has

1:05:11 ↗ such a close relationship with land use

1:05:14 ↗ and housing we want to make sure that we

1:05:16 ↗ are consistent with the goals and

1:05:18 ↗ policies for economic development as we

1:05:21 ↗ are with land use and housing and since

1:05:23 ↗ we've had a lot of discussions with you

1:05:25 ↗ when it comes to land use and housing

1:05:26 ↗ want to make sure that if we're not

1:05:29 ↗ seeing something that you're have this

1:05:30 ↗ opportunity to kind of flag that for us

1:05:32 ↗ so that we can work with economic

1:05:34 ↗ development to rectify some of that

1:05:36 ↗ language or work through some of those

1:05:37 ↗ policies with the economic

1:05:43 ↗ fatality so as I described Economic

1:05:46 ↗ Development action plan will be one of

1:05:47 ↗ the functional plans that helps with

1:05:49 ↗ implementation of this element and

1:05:52 ↗ you've seen this graphic before many

1:05:53 ↗ times of describing the comp plan being

1:05:56 ↗ that 20-year Vision our functional plans

1:05:58 ↗ being the closer implementation

1:06:01 ↗ strategic plans that help us identify

1:06:04 ↗ how we're going to be achieving the

1:06:05 ↗ city's vision and then that gets

1:06:07 ↗ filtered

1:06:08 ↗ into much of the implementation and

1:06:11 ↗ financing that being the city budget and

1:06:13 ↗ city regulations and

1:06:16 ↗ programs so we've met with the economic

1:06:19 ↗ Vitality commission several times uh

1:06:22 ↗ prior to this meeting with the planning

1:06:23 ↗ policy commission tonight it started

1:06:25 ↗ with a first meeting with on July 5th

1:06:29 ↗ where the commission discussed

1:06:30 ↗ engagement inclusion with the equity

1:06:32 ↗ board and the Human Services Commission

1:06:35 ↗ this followed by uh meeting specifically

1:06:38 ↗ looking at Job data employment Data

1:06:41 ↗ Business data for the city help with

1:06:43 ↗ building with the economic development

1:06:45 ↗ action plan but it'll also feed into the

1:06:48 ↗ economic Vitality element that's being

1:06:51 ↗ considered tonight we then provided

1:06:53 ↗ drafts goals and policies to the

1:06:55 ↗ commission on August 16th and then on

1:06:58 ↗ September 20th they gave us their

1:07:00 ↗ initial recommendations to provide to

1:07:01 ↗ the planning policy Council

1:07:07 ↗ committee so part of what was

1:07:09 ↗ recommended for the changes included a

1:07:11 ↗ large restructure when you look at the

1:07:14 ↗ previous Economic Development element

1:07:16 ↗ there were a lot of different goal areas

1:07:18 ↗ and a lot of policies under each of

1:07:20 ↗ those goals areas and some of those

1:07:22 ↗ goals and policies covered a lot of

1:07:24 ↗ different topics so part of the

1:07:26 ↗ discussion with the economic Vitality

1:07:28 ↗ commission was trying to simplify that

1:07:30 ↗ having the policies focus on specific

1:07:32 ↗ topics and providing guidance in those

1:07:34 ↗ areas which is really what we need when

1:07:36 ↗ we're developing our action plans or

1:07:38 ↗ strategic the other one was simplifying

1:07:40 ↗ the topic areas based on what was

1:07:42 ↗ important to the economic fality

1:07:45 ↗ commission uh part of this effort

1:07:46 ↗ include consolidation and Clarity for a

1:07:49 ↗ lot of the goals and policies and then

1:07:51 ↗ we also looked at the element in

1:07:53 ↗ coordination with several of the other

1:07:54 ↗ elements when it comes to land use

1:07:56 ↗ housing and even the new environmental

1:07:57 ↗ element um which you'll see in a few

1:08:01 ↗ weeks or next week and more on that

1:08:04 ↗ later uh the last we also added an

1:08:08 ↗ accountability results and

1:08:09 ↗ accountability segment of the element

1:08:11 ↗ similar to what we're doing with all the

1:08:12 ↗ other

1:08:16 ↗ elements lastly in the last discussions

1:08:19 ↗ we had with uh economic rality

1:08:21 ↗ commission is we introduced uh new

1:08:24 ↗ policies related to The Climate action

1:08:26 ↗ plan in terms of using consistent

1:08:28 ↗ language we also introduced a new

1:08:30 ↗ Regional policy consistent with some of

1:08:33 ↗ the discussions we had with economic

1:08:35 ↗ Vitality commission and then we included

1:08:37 ↗ a new accountability policy around City

1:08:40 ↗ decision making something that was

1:08:43 ↗ discussed with economic Vitality

1:08:45 ↗ commission around raising some of

1:08:49 ↗ the

1:08:52 ↗ decision-making policy

1:08:54 ↗ particularly for this element as it

1:08:55 ↗ results into

1:08:59 ↗ action so on the screen listed is is

1:09:02 ↗ those topic areas that are now going

1:09:04 ↗ into the updated

1:09:09 ↗ element and similar to the schedule that

1:09:11 ↗ valy I just showed you for the Human

1:09:13 ↗ Services Commission the ultimate goal is

1:09:15 ↗ to bring the comp plan for adoption with

1:09:18 ↗ Council about uh Q3 Q4

1:09:22 ↗ next so coming back around the

1:09:27 ↗ questions and let me know if there's

1:09:29 ↗ another slide that you would like me to

1:09:30 ↗ go back to great thank you Stephen would

1:09:34 ↗ anyone like to uh ask Stephen any

1:09:49 ↗ questions one thing I'd like to mention

1:09:51 ↗ is uh because the action plan has has

1:09:53 ↗ not been developed yet it's still in

1:09:55 ↗ development as we're discussing a lot of

1:09:57 ↗ these topics with EVC some of these

1:10:00 ↗ might be Revisited and we might need to

1:10:01 ↗ reward something or as we're as they're

1:10:04 ↗ diving down into what the where the

1:10:06 ↗ resources are what needs to be

1:10:08 ↗ prioritized some of the policies also

1:10:10 ↗ might change so we when we bring back

1:10:12 ↗ the drafts we'll highlight a lot of

1:10:14 ↗ those areas that get rediscussed with

1:10:16 ↗ the

1:10:21 ↗ commission think there's a lot to like

1:10:24 ↗ here and since we'll be

1:10:26 ↗ hosting economic Vitality board next

1:10:29 ↗ week play

1:10:33 ↗ Ice um yeah I read through the whole

1:10:35 ↗ thing again even with the other elements

1:10:38 ↗ too again there's very very little

1:10:40 ↗ that's objectionable A7 the only thing I

1:10:42 ↗ noticed is when it says enhance is a

1:10:44 ↗ cause tax and fee system to be Equitable

1:10:48 ↗ Equitable why' we take out competitive

1:10:51 ↗ for equ seems like taxes you'd want to

1:10:53 ↗ be competitive that really was about the

1:10:56 ↗ only thing I saw um because again if

1:10:58 ↗ you're trying to foster a business

1:11:00 ↗ climate they don't necessarily mean the

1:11:03 ↗ same thing again to me taxes and fees

1:11:05 ↗ you'd want to be

1:11:06 ↗ competitive so I think that was my only

1:11:10 ↗ verbage that I saw that kind of threw me

1:11:13 ↗ off otherwise I thought it was all

1:11:15 ↗ really yeah great

1:11:17 ↗ consolidating old it seems

1:11:21 ↗ to for the moon but look good

1:11:26 ↗ commissioner

1:11:27 ↗ Kennedy you want verbage questions

1:11:29 ↗ nitpicks here or any

1:11:31 ↗ email emails preferred but if it's the

1:11:35 ↗ only thing to discuss tonight we'll take

1:11:37 ↗ it

1:11:38 ↗ tonight I just it's two really small

1:11:40 ↗ things my first one is in policy A1 the

1:11:44 ↗ city should isn't that the beginning of

1:11:46 ↗ all of these why is why are those words

1:11:49 ↗ in the beginning of that particular

1:11:52 ↗ policy

1:11:54 ↗ isn't the action verb in front of the

1:11:56 ↗ whole thing this is everything this is

1:11:58 ↗ all the city should fill in blank so I

1:12:02 ↗ was just surprised to see those three

1:12:03 ↗ words at the beginning of this

1:12:04 ↗ particular policy is that wasn't implied

1:12:07 ↗ in all of them no that's actually a

1:12:10 ↗ really good point we'll take a look at

1:12:11 ↗ that okay and

1:12:15 ↗ Xs had a question about what it was

1:12:17 ↗ intended to

1:12:19 ↗ do I have to find it

1:12:21 ↗ though XX is

1:12:24 ↗ XS X is what I wrote no oh

1:12:28 ↗ sorry okay x

1:12:33 ↗ five um you can laugh at me about

1:12:35 ↗ bringing

1:12:40 ↗ glasses has their own offers theirs now

1:12:42 ↗ where is it

1:12:44 ↗ after taxes tend to

1:12:47 ↗ get mixed in so now I have to find

1:12:52 ↗ it oh there's

1:12:58 ↗ X3

1:13:02 ↗ X5 no I don't even oh there it is oh but

1:13:06 ↗ you're on

1:13:08 ↗ on there is do you want me to read it

1:13:11 ↗ commissioner Kennedy sure since I can't

1:13:13 ↗ seem to I found it I found it uh new

1:13:17 ↗ policies regulations and programs

1:13:19 ↗ consider the economic impacts as part of

1:13:22 ↗ the city's decision-making process

1:13:25 ↗ reason for change

1:13:29 ↗ new oh I well I put on my notes what is

1:13:32 ↗ the what is this intended to do what is

1:13:34 ↗ the verb in front of new policies adopt

1:13:37 ↗ develop this starts with new

1:13:44 ↗ policies and it seemed like there should

1:13:46 ↗ be an action verb in front of

1:13:52 ↗ that

1:13:59 ↗ it just says new Pol yeah so I just read

1:14:01 ↗ it and said where's my

1:14:10 ↗ action commissioner Patterson's correct

1:14:12 ↗ is that considers the action verb for

1:14:14 ↗ this one this one was a cons was this

1:14:16 ↗ one of the policies that actually

1:14:17 ↗ Consolidated several policies um to try

1:14:21 ↗ to simplify and put it also make it a

1:14:23 ↗ little bit easier to U put it all in one

1:14:29 ↗ place so we can take a look at it if

1:14:31 ↗ it's a little

1:14:36 ↗ confusing commissioner Milligan uh I

1:14:39 ↗ just want to amplify uh chair of voice

1:14:41 ↗ your comment about uh fee structures

1:14:43 ↗ being competitive with uh neighboring

1:14:45 ↗ cities in Economic

1:14:48 ↗ Development plus

1:14:51 ↗ one it's verbage but it's policy

1:14:53 ↗ policies you know part of the in

1:14:56 ↗ response to kind of the policy part of

1:14:58 ↗ the discussion we had with the economic

1:14:59 ↗ fatality commission was the the concern

1:15:03 ↗ wasn't about being competitive with a

1:15:06 ↗ lot of the Cities because we just do

1:15:08 ↗ that most of the time when we're looking

1:15:09 ↗ at our fees and trying to see what get

1:15:11 ↗ update most of the time it's uh is

1:15:14 ↗ anyone higher than us no then we'll

1:15:17 ↗ probably keep it about the same but the

1:15:19 ↗ biggest concern was actually on the

1:15:20 ↗ equity side of is is some of these fees

1:15:24 ↗ impacting some businesses inequitably

1:15:26 ↗ and so that was actually why that

1:15:29 ↗ language change went into that

1:15:31 ↗ policy do you guys have a policy

1:15:33 ↗ somewhere else that says competitive you

1:15:35 ↗ know that the your fee structure is that

1:15:37 ↗ just best practices here at the city

1:15:39 ↗ it's best practices so usually when

1:15:41 ↗ we're looking at our fees we're doing

1:15:43 ↗ some type of analysis that looks at

1:15:45 ↗ competitive inis it's not necessarily

1:15:47 ↗ because of it being in that's good to

1:15:52 ↗ know commissioner

1:15:54 ↗ Milan so I think it Bears saying that

1:15:57 ↗ you

1:15:59 ↗ could that losing the words in

1:16:02 ↗ this might dilute that um effort and

1:16:08 ↗ that because the words are in the policy

1:16:10 ↗ to be competitive competitive and

1:16:12 ↗ Equitable would help keep um that

1:16:15 ↗ practice on track when it might not have

1:16:18 ↗ any other guiding principle I still say

1:16:21 ↗ the

1:16:22 ↗ same

1:16:29 ↗ thank you commissioner Milligan I like

1:16:31 ↗ that competitive and Equitable so got to

1:16:36 ↗ anyone else like to add questions

1:16:38 ↗ comments or

1:16:41 ↗ Stephen Stephen were you able to get

1:16:43 ↗ what you

1:16:44 ↗ wanted I did thank you

1:16:46 ↗ Commissioners

1:16:49 ↗ okay all right well thank you

1:16:51 ↗ Commissioners for a great debate on all

1:16:53 ↗ three subjects we're going to move now

1:16:55 ↗ to our reports this evening and we'll

1:16:58 ↗ start with our city council

1:17:00 ↗ updates if I'm looking at Valerie or

1:17:02 ↗ Steph Stephen or Valerie I don't know

1:17:04 ↗ which

1:17:08 ↗ one that'll be

1:17:11 ↗ me um it'll be a short update tonight so

1:17:14 ↗ Metroflex started this week and for

1:17:16 ↗ those not familiar it's a ond demand

1:17:19 ↗ Metro uh King County Metro provided

1:17:21 ↗ service that is is now being offered

1:17:23 ↗ that serves the southern samamish area

1:17:27 ↗ uh squawk Mountain Palace and the

1:17:31 ↗ Central esqua Valley area so there's an

1:17:33 ↗ app that you can download you uh use

1:17:36 ↗ your ORCA card if you have one and it

1:17:39 ↗ just it used the same Fair as if you

1:17:42 ↗ were to get picked up or use regular

1:17:44 ↗ standard

1:17:46 ↗ Transit so if you have more questions

1:17:48 ↗ about it I can send you the link to

1:17:49 ↗ everything or or help answer some of

1:17:51 ↗ your

1:17:52 ↗ questions how's the city uh advertising

1:17:55 ↗ that right now it's City website but

1:17:57 ↗ it's we're going to be starting broader

1:17:59 ↗ uh engagement pretty soon great

1:18:06 ↗ wonderful that's it for the city council

1:18:08 ↗ update

1:18:12 ↗ okay are there any other business any

1:18:15 ↗ other business that you have or

1:18:17 ↗ announcements from either Valerie or

1:18:19 ↗ Stephen just a quick update for the

1:18:21 ↗ calendar we have our meeting next

1:18:23 ↗ Thursday uh that'll be a joint meeting

1:18:25 ↗ with the economic Vitality commission

1:18:27 ↗ the two topics are going to be the

1:18:28 ↗ Pioneer project and then taking a look

1:18:30 ↗ at the environmental element and the

1:18:32 ↗ meeting will be here in Council chamers

1:18:34 ↗ so more information will follow in email

1:18:37 ↗ we after that we only have two more

1:18:39 ↗ meetings left in the year um take a look

1:18:41 ↗ at the calendar if you have questions

1:18:43 ↗ but for the most part some of the

1:18:45 ↗ discussion we had with the chairs was

1:18:46 ↗ cancelling the meeting around

1:18:47 ↗ Thanksgiving and canceling the meeting

1:18:49 ↗ around Christmas so um but if you have

1:18:53 ↗ any travel plans that inflict with the

1:18:55 ↗ two meetings that we'll have or the

1:18:56 ↗ meeting we'll have in November or

1:18:57 ↗ December please let me

1:19:00 ↗ know great all right well thank you

1:19:03 ↗ again Stephen and Valerie thank you

1:19:05 ↗ staff

1:19:06 ↗ Kristen and with there being no other

1:19:08 ↗ business any any comments for the good

1:19:11 ↗ of the

1:19:11 ↗ [Music]

1:19:13 ↗ order okay we'll adjourn

1:19:16 ↗ uh oh yeah no commissioner Milligan

1:19:19 ↗ please you said good to the order is it

1:19:21 ↗ good to the order that we're having a

1:19:23 ↗ candidate Forum at Blakeley Hall

1:19:24 ↗ tomorrow night sure absolutely City coun

1:19:27 ↗ candidates and it um doors open at 630

1:19:31 ↗ you have an opportunity to have direct

1:19:33 ↗ access to the candidates for a half an

1:19:34 ↗ hour and then the Forum goes straight

1:19:36 ↗ from 7 to 8:00 and then at

1:19:40 ↗ 8:00 uh we end the Forum and again allow

1:19:43 ↗ another half an hour of access to the

1:19:45 ↗ candidates to ask your own questions at

1:19:48 ↗ Blakeley Hall in isqua Highlands

1:19:50 ↗ wonderful absolutely well thank you

1:19:53 ↗ commer

1:19:54 ↗ Milligan that was one of the best good

1:19:56 ↗ of the orders that we've ever

1:19:58 ↗ had yes okay well again thank you

1:20:02 ↗ everybody and with there being no

1:20:03 ↗ further business we will adjourn this

1:20:05 ↗ meeting of the planning policy

1:20:06 ↗ commission at 7:54 P.M

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (1)

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

Recommendations & actions (1)

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

COMMISSIONER MILLIGAN asked if the opportunity to fix has then been missed and Leeson replied no, the subject was being discussed but had not been adopted.