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

Council / Members (5)

Voiss

Commissioners Esemuede

Kennedy

Milligan

Patterson

Staff (1)

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