Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, April 11, 2024 · City Council Digest

3. PUBLIC HEARING

Recommendation on Proposed Updates of the Issaquah Municipal Code, Title 18, (A)

40 min · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Uses: emergency housing, Permanent Supportive Housing, Transitional Housing, and Emergency Housing Centers/Night Shelters Public Hearing Order: Commission Meeting Materials: · packet pp.5–12

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Mar 14, 2024

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the April 11

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Recommendation on Revised Policies in the Draft Land Use and Sustainability Element, (D)

20 min · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.13–31

Topics: Land UseClimate

▶ Watch from 59:03 Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the April 11

Introduction and Discussion of the Racially Disparate Impact Analysis, (D)

20 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.33–64

▶ Watch from 1:18:32 Open packet at p.33 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the April 11

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.65–67

▶ Watch from 1:38:01 Open packet at p.65 ↗

Staff report:

 Transit and Land Use

2263 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ good evening everyone I'd like to call

0:09 ↗ the April 11th planning policy

0:11 ↗ Commission meeting to order and it

0:13 ↗ currently is 6:32 p.m. tonight's meeting

0:17 ↗ is a hybrid meeting planning policy

0:20 ↗ commission is in but staff or members of

0:23 ↗ the public may be attending virtually or

0:25 ↗ in person uh Stephen do we have a quorum

0:28 ↗ this evening chair voice yes you have a

0:30 ↗ quorum tonight and uh commissioner

0:33 ↗ Kennedy is uh has an excuse absence

0:36 ↗ great thank you we're going to jump

0:38 ↗ right into it we're going to start with

0:41 ↗ public comment this evening uh because

0:43 ↗ we're having a public Hearing in just a

0:46 ↗ moment this is for general public

0:49 ↗ comments for the planning policy

0:50 ↗ commission and staff has anyone signed

0:54 ↗ up to make General Public comments this

0:56 ↗ evening shair of voice there is no one

0:59 ↗ in the room and we do not have any

1:00 ↗ virtual

1:01 ↗ attendees okay thank

1:06 ↗ you we're going to move right along into

1:09 ↗ our public

1:10 ↗ hearing and tonight the public hearing

1:13 ↗ is regarding proposed amendments to the

1:14 ↗ title

1:16 ↗ 18 regarding the house bill 1220

1:19 ↗ Emergency Shelters and Supportive

1:21 ↗ Housing I'll open the public hearing

1:23 ↗ which will be followed by presentation

1:25 ↗ from staff then the PPC will ask

1:27 ↗ follow-up

1:28 ↗ questions next we will take public

1:31 ↗ testimony and then finally the PPC will

1:34 ↗ deliberate and if we feel feel it

1:37 ↗ appropriate we will make a

1:38 ↗ recommendation for the city council

1:40 ↗ Kristen Leon our senior planner will be

1:43 ↗ presenting this evening now Kristen

1:46 ↗ there's a little we want to wait to open

1:48 ↗ the public hearing after

1:52 ↗ your correct you want to wait to open

1:54 ↗ the public comment period okay

1:57 ↗ yes so when you're ready go

2:07 ↗ ahead okay good evening I'm Kristen Leon

2:10 ↗ senior planner with the long- range

2:11 ↗ planning division um yes and as chair

2:15 ↗ voice toption we are holding a public

2:17 ↗ hearing tonight on the house bill 1220

2:19 ↗ amendments to Title

2:24 ↗ 18 if my computer decides to cooperate

2:27 ↗ there we go uh so we'll hold P here

2:30 ↗ public hearing and then afterwards make

2:31 ↗ a you all we'll vote and make a

2:33 ↗ recommendation to City County uh city

2:35 ↗ council if you feel it is appropriate

2:37 ↗ ready to do so so as a reminder that

2:41 ↗ house build 1220 became effective in

2:43 ↗ September 2021 it requires that all

2:46 ↗ jurisdictions allow Emergency Shelters

2:48 ↗ which we're now calling day centers and

2:49 ↗ night shelters emergency housing

2:51 ↗ transitional housing and permanent

2:53 ↗ Supportive Housing within our

2:54 ↗ jurisdiction we can make reasonable

2:57 ↗ occupancy spacing and intensity of use

3:00 ↗ uh requirements but they cannot be so

3:03 ↗ restrictive that they prohibit these

3:04 ↗ uses within our

3:06 ↗ city so I'm just going to start off um

3:10 ↗ this one's different um I'm going to

3:11 ↗ start off with uh some typos that I

3:14 ↗ noticed in the packet so you don't have

3:15 ↗ to bring them up later uh one is that

3:18 ↗ day centers and night shelters there is

3:20 ↗ sort of a definition tacked on to the

3:22 ↗ end of emergency housing so I remove

3:24 ↗ that uh there is

3:28 ↗ uh emergency housing in it says often

3:32 ↗ includes and often includes so I removed

3:34 ↗ the second and often includes 18500 130

3:38 ↗ uh b b. requirements was left out so it

3:41 ↗ looks like the purpose is the

3:42 ↗ requirements which is not the case and

3:44 ↗ then there's one other one that I noted

3:46 ↗ I put in here but it's not here for some

3:47 ↗ reason um and I will find it and let you

3:49 ↗ know what that is as we're going through

3:53 ↗ here so the first changes that took

3:56 ↗ place were really in the definitions we

3:58 ↗ talked about these at the March 28th

4:01 ↗ meeting and one was that we have added a

4:03 ↗ definition for chronically homeless and

4:05 ↗ we also added a definition for

4:07 ↗ disability which we did run behind our

4:09 ↗ Human

4:10 ↗ Services uh folks and they made a couple

4:13 ↗ of little tweaks to it um but we're

4:15 ↗ happy we were adding it so chronically

4:17 ↗ homeless we talked about last time it's

4:19 ↗ kind of long but it's an individual with

4:22 ↗ a disability experiencing homelessness

4:24 ↗ who lives in a place not meant for human

4:27 ↗ habitation or has essentially been

4:29 ↗ living homeless for 12 months or the

4:31 ↗ equivalent of 12 months within a certain

4:33 ↗ amount of time um and

4:37 ↗ individuals and an individual has or an

4:39 ↗ individual who has been residing in an

4:41 ↗ Institutional care fac facility for

4:43 ↗ fewer than 90

4:45 ↗ days that was where the mistake was and

4:47 ↗ I clean that one up um and three a

4:51 ↗ family with an adult head of household

4:53 ↗ who meets all of the criteria of this

4:55 ↗ definition including a family whose

4:56 ↗ composition has fluctuated while the

4:58 ↗ head of the household has been

5:01 ↗ homeless the next uh definition that we

5:04 ↗ have is I'm just going through the

5:05 ↗ definitions now day Center night Center

5:07 ↗ provides uh temporary day night or 27

5:11 ↗ 247 shelter for individuals or families

5:13 ↗ and it may provide access to essential

5:16 ↗ facilities there the more complete

5:18 ↗ definitions are there but I don't want

5:20 ↗ to read them all for btim uh emergency

5:22 ↗ housing at short-term indoor

5:24 ↗ accommodations for individuals or family

5:26 ↗ who are homeless or are in U at imminent

5:29 ↗ risk of experiencing homelessness they

5:32 ↗ address the basic Essential Health Food

5:34 ↗ clothing and personal hygiene

5:36 ↗ needs it often includes on-site case

5:39 ↗ management and it may require as we've

5:41 ↗ talked about occupants to enter into a

5:43 ↗ lease or occupancy

5:45 ↗ agreement permanent Supportive Housing

5:48 ↗ uh permanent housing uh which housing

5:52 ↗ assistance and supportive services are

5:53 ↗ provided to assist to assist

5:55 ↗ households um with at least one member

5:58 ↗ with a disability in achieving housing

6:01 ↗ stability and transitional housing it

6:04 ↗ provides housing and supportive services

6:05 ↗ to individuals or families experiencing

6:07 ↗ homelessness are at imminent risk of

6:09 ↗ becoming homeless for up to two

6:12 ↗ years so where can these be located now

6:15 ↗ really this covers um 18402 which is the

6:19 ↗ table of permitted uses but I'm doing it

6:21 ↗ in picture format rather than table

6:22 ↗ format because it's easier to see so day

6:25 ↗ centers and night shelters are required

6:26 ↗ to be allowed where hotels are allowed

6:30 ↗ so this represents where they're allowed

6:32 ↗ in all the zones uh listed in

6:35 ↗ the legend in the bottom

6:38 ↗ left transitional permanent supportive

6:40 ↗ and emergency housing are are required

6:42 ↗ to be allowed where housing is allowed

6:45 ↗ and where hotels are allowed so that is

6:48 ↗ represented here in this map and in The

6:50 ↗ Legend and again this is represented in

6:53 ↗ table format in 18402 which is the table

6:55 ↗ of permitted

6:58 ↗ uses a resident use standards the

7:00 ↗ changes were based on conversation that

7:02 ↗ we had with the Washington State

7:03 ↗ Department of

7:05 ↗ Commerce one was that they said do not

7:07 ↗ limit density and occupancy to the point

7:09 ↗ you cannot accommodate affordable

7:11 ↗ housing targets the different here is

7:13 ↗ difference here is that we under the

7:15 ↗ assumption the way we read it that you

7:16 ↗ needed to just accom be able to

7:18 ↗ accommodate these facilities but they

7:20 ↗ want you to be able to accommodate all

7:23 ↗ 3353 permanent Supportive Housing units

7:26 ↗ for people so by

7:30 ↗ limiting these to 100 units within our

7:32 ↗ zones that would just require F where

7:34 ↗ you can build more that was too limiting

7:37 ↗ so we took that out and then uh they

7:40 ↗ also said with transitional permanent

7:44 ↗ transitional housing permanent support

7:45 ↗ of Housing

7:47 ↗ and emergency housing you with your if

7:51 ↗ you're going to include an operational

7:53 ↗ plan you either need to be very very

7:55 ↗ detailed which our City attorney said I

7:58 ↗ prefer you not do that because it makes

7:59 ↗ us liable or just don't include it

8:02 ↗ because as we've talked about before

8:04 ↗ when you get funding state and federal

8:06 ↗ agencies will require that you include

8:08 ↗ an operational plan

8:11 ↗ there so for the I'm just going to say

8:14 ↗ Supportive Housing um we remove the 100%

8:17 ↗ cap as I mentioned in zones that are

8:19 ↗ regulated by

8:21 ↗ F floor area ratio and we also remove

8:24 ↗ the operational plan

8:27 ↗ requirements so right now the

8:28 ↗ requirements are the density or maximum

8:32 ↗ number of residents ah this is the one

8:33 ↗ that I changed the density or maximum

8:35 ↗ number of

8:36 ↗ residents um is based on the development

8:39 ↗ regulations of the underlying zoning

8:41 ↗ District in which the use is

8:46 ↗ proposed so what we did with the day

8:50 ↗ centers and night shelters under 18500

8:52 ↗ 130 is that we simply removed the half

8:55 ↗ mile

8:56 ↗ requirement because the area they're

8:59 ↗ only only allowed where hotels are

9:00 ↗ allowed the area is the area is

9:02 ↗ relatively

9:03 ↗ small um so we remove the half mile

9:06 ↗ requirement but we left the 50% cap on

9:10 ↗ there so the requirements are they're

9:13 ↗ limited by development de development

9:15 ↗ regulations under the underlying zoning

9:17 ↗ District but they can have a maximum of

9:20 ↗ 50 occupants and we still left the

9:22 ↗ operational plan in this one which is

9:24 ↗ required to provide security and safety

9:26 ↗ procedures code of conduct expect

9:28 ↗ expectations for residents and community

9:30 ↗ relations plan including primary contact

9:33 ↗ information which has to be resubmitted

9:35 ↗ annually or and or if there are

9:37 ↗ significant changes in the

9:41 ↗ plan

9:43 ↗ yes right you want to get through your

9:46 ↗ presentation yeah I'm almost done so if

9:47 ↗ you okay okay

9:50 ↗ so um for timeline it's the public

9:52 ↗ hearing and then a pde the Planning

9:55 ↗ Development environmental commission

9:56 ↗ will make their hear hear this and make

9:59 ↗ their recommendation to the planning

10:00 ↗ policy Commission on May 1st and the

10:02 ↗ council action would take place either

10:03 ↗ May 20th or June 3rd and then our

10:07 ↗ proposed the staff's administration's

10:09 ↗ proposed recommendation is that you

10:10 ↗ recommend approval of the proposed

10:12 ↗ amendments to IMC 1802 definitions 18402

10:16 ↗ table of permitted uses and the

10:18 ↗ additions of sections 1851 120 and 18500

10:22 ↗ 130 to chapter 18500 residential use

10:26 ↗ standards and again we just you all are

10:28 ↗ going to deliberate in the then make a

10:29 ↗ recommendation to city council if you

10:31 ↗ feel it's appropriate now I'm ready for

10:34 ↗ questions all right we'll start with

10:36 ↗ clarifying questions again we will

10:37 ↗ deliberate after we take uh public

10:39 ↗ testimony so again right now we are just

10:41 ↗ doing

10:43 ↗ questions commissioner

10:46 ↗ Milligan uh back to removing the half

10:49 ↗ mile because it didn't it restricted

10:53 ↗ capacity if I understand that

10:55 ↗ correctly and is the Department of

10:58 ↗ Commerce

10:59 ↗ comment and being the reason for doing

11:02 ↗ that um a requirement does that um say

11:05 ↗ that you were not compliant with the law

11:07 ↗ or this is what

11:09 ↗ waser when they asked us to look at the

11:12 ↗ numbers that we're expected to

11:13 ↗ accommodate and when we went in with GIS

11:15 ↗ and started doing the half mile we

11:17 ↗ weren't sure that it could all that we

11:19 ↗ could fit enough people in there okay

11:21 ↗ and then my second clarifying question

11:23 ↗ was um what was that number again and

11:25 ↗ where did it come from was the it came

11:27 ↗ from the county the capacity

11:29 ↗ of a number of people that we are

11:31 ↗ expected to accommodate right it came

11:33 ↗ from okay from the county and I you know

11:36 ↗ it's

11:37 ↗ like I think the number is actually

11:40 ↗ closer to uh

11:43 ↗ 2997

11:44 ↗ 2,997 people that we need to accommodate

11:47 ↗ at 80% and Below that's the N that's the

11:50 ↗ number that we are looking at here we

11:52 ↗ thought it might just be the permanent

11:54 ↗ support of housing which was still

11:56 ↗ pretty high um but it's not so it's all

12:00 ↗ of

12:03 ↗ it those are the numbers that were

12:05 ↗ included in the that are also included

12:07 ↗ in the uh comprehensive plan that they

12:10 ↗ were given to us by the county

12:13 ↗ commissioner grass hello uh can you go

12:16 ↗ back um the one that we said you had to

12:19 ↗ remove the cap because for some other

12:22 ↗ reasons which which scenario was that

12:25 ↗ was 18500 120 under requirements how I

12:29 ↗ guess my question is what do other

12:31 ↗ cities do around this do they not have a

12:33 ↗ cap either or is this well here's the

12:36 ↗ interesting thing there are about 255

12:39 ↗ cities or jurisdictions that are

12:40 ↗ supposed to do this only about 50 have

12:42 ↗ submitted their plans their regulations

12:45 ↗ so far and only five after they've

12:48 ↗ relooked at them really meet what the

12:50 ↗ state wants to do so a lot of people are

12:51 ↗ going to have to go back and amend it so

12:53 ↗ I can't really answer that question it's

12:56 ↗ um the King County it's King County I I

12:59 ↗ think Belleview Redmond and two others

13:02 ↗ and I did Covington maybe I don't recall

13:05 ↗ what they do regarding

13:11 ↗ caps and

13:13 ↗ Spokan that oh oh excuse I think wachi

13:16 ↗ not Covington okay wachi not

13:28 ↗ Covington

13:30 ↗ any further

13:33 ↗ questions commissioner

13:36 ↗ Patterson commissioner pison um on this

13:39 ↗ slide here the removal of the

13:41 ↗ operational plan requirement um I know

13:44 ↗ in the in the memo it mentioned that uh

13:47 ↗ that is a requirement when attached to

13:50 ↗ state or federal funding is there any

13:52 ↗ other scenario that we would not see an

13:56 ↗ operational plan like is there any risk

13:58 ↗ or potential scenario where an

14:00 ↗ operational plan would not be required

14:02 ↗ somewhere before the point where they're

14:04 ↗ building these facilities in our city so

14:08 ↗ I'm going to speak but then allow my

14:11 ↗ friend to speak as well um commissioner

14:13 ↗ altimore but my understanding so it's

14:16 ↗ they're attached to it if they receive

14:18 ↗ state or federal funding and oftentimes

14:20 ↗ local funding such as Arch if they don't

14:22 ↗ receive funding and they build this on

14:25 ↗ their

14:26 ↗ own then they would not be required to

14:28 ↗ do an operational plan I am not aware of

14:31 ↗ any however that have not been built

14:33 ↗ without

14:34 ↗ funding would an example be like um a

14:38 ↗ religious

14:39 ↗ institution they put the funds up

14:43 ↗ themselves they could if they had the

14:46 ↗ funding I mean they're expensive and I

14:48 ↗ this is me speaking Theory and I

14:50 ↗ shouldn't do that um but I know that the

14:53 ↗ one built in Kirkland the one built over

14:55 ↗ at the Lutheran Church in

14:57 ↗ bellw those of required

15:01 ↗ funding commissioner

15:04 ↗ alore so um what you said is absolutely

15:08 ↗ true what you might be describing chair

15:11 ↗ is uh something like Union Gospel

15:13 ↗ Mission where they don't take any public

15:15 ↗ funds and they do require religious

15:17 ↗ participation but it's still a big

15:20 ↗ operating business there's still money

15:21 ↗ that comes in and so it's almost

15:25 ↗ impossible to do any sort of Business

15:27 ↗ Without some sort of plan it's it's just

15:29 ↗ that only their funders are verifying

15:32 ↗ that plan versus various uh public

15:35 ↗ funders that might be doing that or

15:37 ↗ private foundations or something

15:47 ↗ like the opportunity commissioner timore

15:50 ↗ please I just wanted to make one other

15:52 ↗ clarification and that is on the county

15:54 ↗ targets that the 80% Ami and Below am I

15:57 ↗ correct in saying that that's on

15:59 ↗ affordable housing not necessarily

16:01 ↗ housing that is dedicated toward people

16:03 ↗ experiencing homelessness or some sort

16:05 ↗ of emergency you are but when I asked

16:08 ↗ them I said who when we are looking at

16:10 ↗ this and who are we ging you know who

16:11 ↗ are we making sure that we have this for

16:14 ↗ when we were talking about 1220 they

16:16 ↗ said everybody at 80% and

16:19 ↗ below I know so that 3,000 number is

16:23 ↗ actually including a lot of affordable

16:25 ↗ housing having us for our potential

16:28 ↗ Target right right but even if we look

16:30 ↗ just at the uh PS um I should say PS psh

16:35 ↗ uh permanent Supportive Housing numbers

16:38 ↗ those are still close to

16:41 ↗ 2,000 I believe it's it's high maybe

16:44 ↗ it's 1500 but it's high 800

16:55 ↗ yeah I have my library over here uh 50%

16:58 ↗ % and 50% so everything at 50% below

17:01 ↗ they're

17:02 ↗ 2500 so big chunk it's it's a big

17:07 ↗ number please this time for question

17:10 ↗ again this is a cified requirement that

17:14 ↗ we have the capacity like our uh

17:16 ↗ building capacity for growth management

17:19 ↗ Target this is a uh this is a

17:22 ↗ requirement or this is a desire of the

17:24 ↗ Department of Commerce to have enough

17:27 ↗ capacity within the

17:30 ↗ regulation serve so House Bill 1220

17:34 ↗ requires that we accommodate enough for

17:37 ↗ all affordable

17:39 ↗ housing it also requires that we allow

17:43 ↗ these different facilities under here so

17:46 ↗ it's a little bit of both we need to

17:48 ↗ require both and then the target numbers

17:51 ↗ come from our state mandated housing

17:54 ↗ Target so our state mandated housing

17:56 ↗ Target is 3,500 new housing units by

17:59 ↗ 2044 from that they said

18:02 ↗ 2,997 of these need to be at or below

18:06 ↗ 80% of Ami and of those about 2500 need

18:10 ↗ to be at or below

18:15 ↗ 50% does that answer your

18:17 ↗ question so it is mandated yeah but it

18:19 ↗ doesn't say that the adder below

18:23 ↗ 50% is equal to the number of people who

18:28 ↗ need permanent trans transitional and um

18:32 ↗ permanent Supportive Housing

18:42 ↗ correct yeah I'll try to frame I don't

18:44 ↗ know if this is helpful um listening to

18:46 ↗ this I wonder if that's is I wonder is

18:48 ↗ that that a question word um I wonder if

18:51 ↗ that's um as kind of like a preventative

18:56 ↗ measure right and so if you're looking

18:58 ↗ at a low like 80 year below or 50 year

19:01 ↗ below Ami is that to like have a place

19:04 ↗ for folks who might be like One Missed

19:06 ↗ paycheck away right from experiencing

19:08 ↗ homelessness and does it give us

19:10 ↗ capacity for that that's some of the

19:13 ↗ logic behind that bigger number so it

19:15 ↗ includes those who are close to being

19:17 ↗ homeless yeah yeah so it

19:22 ↗ does uh commissioner s yeah if if you

19:25 ↗ could just remind us what the Ami is

19:28 ↗ like the actual

19:29 ↗ dollar

19:32 ↗ value

19:35 ↗ yes uh it is it is actually about I

19:38 ↗ think it is

19:41 ↗ 134,00 it's

19:43 ↗ it's it's close to that yeah that's

19:46 ↗ that's about what it is for the 80% for

19:48 ↗ a family of four is what that is it's

19:50 ↗ around

19:51 ↗ 134,000 okay and then we're looking at

19:54 ↗ 80% of that and then a certain amount

19:57 ↗ 50% and Below of that as well for that

20:01 ↗ 2900 and that 2500 okay just to get a

20:04 ↗ sense of um what population that would

20:07 ↗ be affected okay okay thank you you're

20:14 ↗ welcome any further

20:17 ↗ questions I had just one qu uh question

20:20 ↗ Kristen which was can you go back to

20:22 ↗ that four area

20:26 ↗ ratio a little bit about like

20:28 ↗ residential areas how that would look

20:32 ↗ sure sure

20:34 ↗ so

20:36 ↗ in zones like multif family High you are

20:41 ↗ allowed a maximum of 290 dwelling units

20:43 ↗ per acre and in single family Suburban

20:47 ↗ you're allowed 4.5 dwelling units per

20:50 ↗ acre so those zones and several others

20:53 ↗ have very specific maximums on what can

20:55 ↗ be built per acre our zones like like

20:59 ↗ mixed use Central isqua Urban core

21:02 ↗ Village Residential those do not have

21:05 ↗ maximums those you can just they have

21:08 ↗ they don't have maximums on units they

21:11 ↗ have maximums on the building square

21:14 ↗ footage essentially so the height and

21:17 ↗ the

21:18 ↗ envelope and you can fit as many units

21:21 ↗ in there as you want to it's about the

21:24 ↗ outside of the building so that's that's

21:27 ↗ when we say

21:29 ↗ um we put a 100% cap on facilities in

21:33 ↗ these zones that was so that you know

21:36 ↗ you wouldn't potentially have 1,500

21:39 ↗ people located in one building not

21:41 ↗ likely to happen but you know

21:45 ↗ um

21:47 ↗ but they have asked us to remove that so

21:49 ↗ that we can ensure that

21:52 ↗ we um Can can accommodate all these

21:56 ↗ people and then you know another point

21:58 ↗ that they stated Commerce when we were

21:59 ↗ talking with them we said one of our

22:01 ↗ reasons for doing that was because you

22:02 ↗ don't want everyone in one one location

22:04 ↗ you know you want affordable housing to

22:06 ↗ be dispersed throughout the city and

22:08 ↗ they said maybe so with affordable

22:10 ↗ housing but when it's you know Perman

22:13 ↗ when it's transitional or you know

22:15 ↗ emergency housing that kind of thing you

22:17 ↗ really do want it to be

22:20 ↗ um you really do want it to be often

22:24 ↗ closer to Transit and closer

22:26 ↗ to medical facilities and close everyone

22:29 ↗ to be close to these facilities so that

22:31 ↗ they can use them yeah and that makes

22:32 ↗ perfect sense I appreciate but the idea

22:36 ↗ and I I know you said it but I'll just

22:40 ↗ say

22:43 ↗ above lotted land numers certain zones

22:47 ↗ so again it's not that people are

22:48 ↗ building huge buildings somebody's quiet

22:51 ↗ Suburban neighborhood they can still

22:52 ↗ build the Supportive Housing all of the

22:56 ↗ correct apprciate

23:00 ↗ going once going twice tce CH B yeah

23:03 ↗ this is not this is a easy question the

23:05 ↗ language question um so in the day

23:08 ↗ Center night shelter

23:09 ↗ definition um day Center night shelter

23:13 ↗ means a facility da D and then the

23:15 ↗ second sentence in that goes back to

23:17 ↗ using the Emergency Shelters

23:19 ↗ language um okay good catch thank you I

23:23 ↗ didn't know if that was like had to be

23:25 ↗ in there so the state knew what we meant

23:27 ↗ by

23:32 ↗ actually I just noticed to disability

23:33 ↗ has disability means disability means

23:36 ↗ any

23:39 ↗ individual my

23:53 ↗ contribution all right well Kristen's

23:55 ↗ making a note of that are there any

23:56 ↗ further questions before we

24:12 ↗ see as there's no more questions we will

24:15 ↗ open the public

24:17 ↗ comment at

24:21 ↗ 656 even has anyone signed up to

24:24 ↗ speak sure voice there are no virtual

24:27 ↗ attendees and no one signed up in the

24:28 ↗ room for a public

24:31 ↗ comment okay we'll close the public

24:34 ↗ comment

24:36 ↗ at

24:40 ↗ 6m

24:42 ↗ um okay that being

24:45 ↗ said there is a formal action requested

24:48 ↗ on this agenda we do need to make a

24:51 ↗ motion in order toate somebody be

24:53 ↗ willing to pick us off and make a

24:56 ↗ move tce your

24:59 ↗ I move to recommend approval of the

25:01 ↗ proposed amendments to IMC

25:04 ↗ 18102 definitions imc1 18.42 table of

25:08 ↗ permitted uses and the additions of

25:10 ↗ sections 18 500.1 120 and

25:14 ↗ 18.500 130 to chapter 18.500 residential

25:19 ↗ youth

25:20 ↗ standard great thank you Vice Sher is

25:22 ↗ there a

25:24 ↗ second

25:27 ↗ second

25:30 ↗ right uh Vice chair Bader did make the

25:33 ↗ motion so we will start with you if

25:35 ↗ you'd like to speak we'll just kick it

25:37 ↗ off that way everyone will have the

25:39 ↗ opportunity to out but start

25:43 ↗ with right

25:45 ↗ now no pressure um no I think that the

25:50 ↗ there's obviously been a lot of

25:51 ↗ discussion um and back and forth and I

25:53 ↗ think that where this is landed does a

25:55 ↗ nice job of balancing what we have to do

25:58 ↗ um according to the state with like

26:02 ↗ managing risk to the city um and serving

26:06 ↗ you know individuals who might need

26:08 ↗ these um services and so all in all I'm

26:12 ↗ actually in support of where this landed

26:14 ↗ don't have a whole lot to comment right

26:17 ↗ now I hear what everybody else

26:21 ↗ has all right we can do this a few

26:24 ↗ different ways I can either look for

26:25 ↗ hands or we'll just do a round robin but

26:27 ↗ I definitely like here unless really

26:30 ↗ have nothing you'd like to say but to

26:32 ↗ hear from all of

26:36 ↗ you all right commission

26:39 ↗ migan commissioner Milligan here uh

26:41 ↗ thank you and thank you Vice chair Bader

26:43 ↗ for your opening comments I think that

26:46 ↗ um I'd be surprised if nobody agreed

26:48 ↗ with you on that um because everybody

26:50 ↗ wants to be able to provide for the

26:52 ↗ people in our community who are in need

26:54 ↗ and it's great to have definitions about

26:56 ↗ it so that we have someu

26:59 ↗ and I'm I'm really glad to be um making

27:02 ↗ progress in that there are just a couple

27:04 ↗ things that I would diff disagree with

27:06 ↗ and I'm going to just point on one right

27:08 ↗ now and see if somebody else picks up

27:09 ↗ the other one by

27:11 ↗ osmosis um one the one is the

27:13 ↗ operational plan and we include in this

27:17 ↗ draft uh the operational plan

27:19 ↗ requirement for day and night shelters

27:21 ↗ and just correct me when I go wrong but

27:23 ↗ we have removed it from permanent

27:25 ↗ Supportive Housing additional housing

27:27 ↗ and emergency housing

27:28 ↗ based on the recommendation from

27:31 ↗ Commerce and the uh advice to tread

27:35 ↗ carefully if you do include it from our

27:37 ↗ legal council and when you look at the

27:40 ↗ definition under day and night shelter

27:43 ↗ considering the legal advice it seems

27:46 ↗ that this would be treading in a um uh

27:51 ↗ um reliably legal way the the

27:54 ↗ operational plan for those who aren't

27:56 ↗ reading it right now like I am uh

27:58 ↗ includes that the operational plan needs

28:00 ↗ to include Safety and Security

28:03 ↗ procedures code of conduct expectations

28:06 ↗ for

28:07 ↗ residents community relations plan

28:10 ↗ including primary contact

28:13 ↗ information not a lot controversial

28:16 ↗ there now indeed there could be

28:17 ↗ something controversial in one of those

28:19 ↗ like in the code of conduct but this

28:21 ↗ operational plan needs to be approved by

28:24 ↗ the city every year where legal council

28:27 ↗ could time in and say we can't defend

28:30 ↗ that so I want to propose and if I'm

28:33 ↗ hearing any resonance in this I I would

28:35 ↗ be the one who put up an amendment to

28:37 ↗ say to uh include back in permanent

28:41 ↗ support of Housing and transitional

28:42 ↗ housing and emergency housing the

28:44 ↗ requirement

28:47 ↗ of just the same as we have in the

28:56 ↗ other thank you commissioner m

28:58 ↗ anyone like pick up that thread or start

29:01 ↗ a new

29:02 ↗ thread commissioner craft so I think

29:05 ↗ having rules makes lots of sense and

29:08 ↗ when you said them those are very

29:11 ↗ straightforward just saying you need to

29:13 ↗ have some of these rules so I totally

29:15 ↗ agree and I really want to know why they

29:18 ↗ would say that causes problem and or we

29:21 ↗ just accept that so I I agree with you

29:23 ↗ on

29:25 ↗ that I just from presentation it sounds

29:29 ↗ like more of a liability thing but

29:31 ↗ commissioner this may be a clarifying

29:34 ↗ question I know we're a little bit

29:36 ↗ beyond that um I guess the question is

29:40 ↗ for the operational

29:42 ↗ plans um they're not per se required if

29:46 ↗ it's not public funded is that a correct

29:50 ↗ statement that's

29:52 ↗ correct okay so so what we're proposing

29:56 ↗ or what's being proposed is to require

29:58 ↗ it regardless of Public Funding or

30:00 ↗ private funding right but I I do need to

30:02 ↗ clarify it's not required by the city

30:05 ↗ okay but they're likely required by the

30:07 ↗ organization running the facility M and

30:11 ↗ every business has a

30:13 ↗ plan if they're good and then I guess

30:16 ↗ another question I'm taking up all this

30:18 ↗ time um is is there are there um do we

30:24 ↗ have data that

30:26 ↗ shows like how many these facilities do

30:29 ↗ have operational plans and how they work

30:33 ↗ as opposed to how um facilities that

30:37 ↗ don't have them how they how they

30:39 ↗ operate as it pertains to security and

30:42 ↗ safety no we don't have any in the city

30:45 ↗ and I have we have not researched it

30:47 ↗ however uh commissioner altimore may

30:48 ↗ have a better

30:50 ↗ idea and I guess where I'm going is to

30:53 ↗ see if there's been any incidents where

30:56 ↗ Something's Happened and then it's been

30:58 ↗ found out that there was an operational

31:00 ↗ plan or that there wasn't an operational

31:04 ↗ plan I'm not okay I'm not aware of any

31:08 ↗ okay thank

31:10 ↗ you commissioner

31:12 ↗ altimore I don't know of any that exist

31:15 ↗ that don't have an

31:16 ↗ operational and incidents happen or

31:20 ↗ don't don't happen how well those are

31:26 ↗ implemented

31:31 ↗ uh commissioner

31:35 ↗ Patterson yeah I'm trying to uh noodle

31:39 ↗ on this operational plan topic uh I

31:41 ↗ recall from previous meetings we kind of

31:43 ↗ discuss that ultimately it's like a

31:45 ↗ checkbox scenario for the city anyway

31:48 ↗ where you know they could essentially

31:51 ↗ hand in a piece of paper with cran

31:52 ↗ drawings to say security plan and like

31:54 ↗ you know give it to us obviously that's

31:56 ↗ hypothetical and hyperbolic But

31:58 ↗ ultimately um the idea that we would

32:03 ↗ hold them to a certain standard Beyond

32:06 ↗ just checking the Box doesn't really

32:08 ↗ exist from what I've understood like it

32:10 ↗ it's truly just a submit your plan make

32:13 ↗ sure that you've done it and then it's

32:15 ↗ good to go so I guess where I'm kind of

32:18 ↗ going with is like even if we required

32:20 ↗ it across the board that they have to

32:23 ↗ submit it it it's kind of a red hair

32:26 ↗ like it's just it's just checking

32:27 ↗ another box it's just saying that we

32:29 ↗ have it but we don't we're not really

32:31 ↗ holding them to a lot of accountability

32:33 ↗ besides just saying that we have their

32:35 ↗ operational plan so I'm kind of I guess

32:38 ↗ on the understanding of like why we

32:40 ↗ wouldn't include it in in the current

32:43 ↗ Amendment weight been proposed if it's

32:45 ↗ not really holding any water with our

32:48 ↗ decision making or like how we

32:50 ↗ would uh move forward with it I guess so

32:53 ↗ I kind of understand where we landed I

32:55 ↗ think and that's why I don't have a very

32:57 ↗ strong

32:58 ↗ opinion about reintroducing it I

33:02 ↗ guess Mr grass so on that one I guess

33:05 ↗ the question comes down

33:06 ↗ to excuse me mitigation meaning they

33:10 ↗ turn it a

33:12 ↗ plan the city wow you're doing nothing

33:16 ↗ then what happens then does the city

33:18 ↗ have the

33:22 ↗ right sorry water um does the city have

33:25 ↗ the right to say there's you know you

33:29 ↗ need to either do this or you no longer

33:32 ↗ have a license to operate this I'm not

33:34 ↗ so maybe there maybe the push back was

33:36 ↗ about the mitigation of what do you do

33:38 ↗ if they submit one and they do they

33:39 ↗ don't follow it um oh

33:45 ↗ W I know um so is that was that was the

33:50 ↗ question about the if they did have a

33:53 ↗ plan and they didn't follow it what does

33:55 ↗ the city do I'm I'm just trying to

33:57 ↗ understand

33:59 ↗ what

34:01 ↗ so where the teeth are

34:05 ↗ I inside the facility is one thing but

34:08 ↗ the city has you know oftentimes

34:10 ↗ mitigation plans or not mitigation plans

34:12 ↗ operational plans will include trash

34:14 ↗ cleanup right that there's that they're

34:16 ↗ required to have so many trash cans on

34:18 ↗ the property where people can dispose of

34:19 ↗ their trash the city has laws and we

34:23 ↗ have code enforcement officers who can

34:24 ↗ also enforce those things if

34:28 ↗ there's heaven forbid a shooting

34:31 ↗ somewhere or a fight that breaks out

34:34 ↗ that's against the wall and the police

34:35 ↗ can be called so there are other

34:37 ↗ measures in place that the city has to

34:41 ↗ enforce law breaking or uh breaking of

34:45 ↗ you know breaking code there are there

34:48 ↗ are other things in place to manage

34:52 ↗ that um just real quickly I know and get

34:56 ↗ me tell me if I'm wrong Motel s that

34:59 ↗ currently has an opition that's is using

35:03 ↗ that as the reason I bring it up it was

35:05 ↗ an

35:07 ↗ in you're right to your point what

35:10 ↗ happened was against the law so again

35:12 ↗ I'm I'm kind of

35:14 ↗ agreeing I can see why the our City

35:17 ↗ attorney um would basically say unless

35:21 ↗ you have extreme amount of specificity

35:24 ↗ there's I mean we'd be liable which I

35:25 ↗ don't iend to I would

35:30 ↗ attorney I understand colleagues terms

35:34 ↗ but just to use Motel 6 and that would

35:36 ↗ have been something with an operational

35:39 ↗ anyway

35:40 ↗ correct and I think I I follow I just

35:43 ↗ I'm using as an example one thing

35:47 ↗ I they do have one yeah and and I hav I

35:52 ↗ looked at it but they have one right and

35:53 ↗ that didn't stop what happened the

35:55 ↗ police right so

36:01 ↗ yeah and then that's kind of how I see

36:02 ↗ it as well because if the operational

36:05 ↗ plan isn't any more stringent than what

36:08 ↗ the laws already provide then it almost

36:11 ↗ becomes more of a restriction for

36:13 ↗ developer to actually um produce one of

36:16 ↗ those facilities and it becomes that

36:19 ↗ checklist per se and then the other

36:22 ↗ aspect is that who's going to be

36:24 ↗ adjudicating it in the sense like who's

36:26 ↗ going to be reviewing the those

36:27 ↗ operational plans as well and then

36:30 ↗ enforcing it as well like what's the

36:32 ↗ difference between um that adjudicator

36:36 ↗ looking at this operational plan as

36:38 ↗ opposed to another one what is the the U

36:41 ↗ litmus test on

36:49 ↗ that are we debating yeah I guess it

36:52 ↗ comes down

36:53 ↗ to the scenario you have operation

36:58 ↗ that has a operate has a plan has not

37:01 ↗ done anything to make sure that it's

37:03 ↗ being followed it gives teeth to have

37:06 ↗ their capabilities revoked just gives

37:08 ↗ you the opportunity to come in there if

37:11 ↗ you have something that's set and you

37:13 ↗ probably don't look at them until

37:13 ↗ there's an issue to be honest you're not

37:15 ↗ going to be managing and looking at

37:17 ↗ everyone's but it gives the whether it's

37:20 ↗ a city or county or whoever the ability

37:23 ↗ to say you know what you know business a

37:25 ↗ you have not been following the plan

37:27 ↗ that you submitted you have certain

37:29 ↗ amount of time to turn this around and

37:30 ↗ if you don't you don't have a license to

37:32 ↗ be able to do that it just gives the

37:34 ↗ ability I would think to as a as a as a

37:39 ↗ stick to to keep people the right

37:42 ↗ way commissioner

37:45 ↗ Alor this is uh I think a question for

37:47 ↗ staff along those lines so our role in

37:51 ↗ this is just where something is allowed

37:53 ↗ to be built correct correct right so if

37:57 ↗ it's built and it's operating that

37:59 ↗ doesn't fall under the code and so that

38:02 ↗ would fall under Another Place Another

38:05 ↗ Department in the city not what we're

38:06 ↗ talking about here so if if they build

38:09 ↗ something but then don't manage it then

38:10 ↗ it's we we did our part and someone else

38:13 ↗ has to figure out how it works this

38:15 ↗ department yeah so for instance if they

38:18 ↗ also got funding through the human

38:20 ↗ services department then Human Services

38:23 ↗ would audit them annually or usually

38:25 ↗ every 3 years and deter DET whether or

38:28 ↗ not they're meeting that and then they

38:29 ↗ would pull the funding if they're not um

38:31 ↗ there are very few programs that are

38:33 ↗ actually licensed there are some that

38:35 ↗ are accredited uh but there isn't really

38:37 ↗ a licensing

38:39 ↗ to that was helpful so the kind of the

38:42 ↗ funding is the if you're becoming a bad

38:44 ↗ actor that dries up and that's that's

38:47 ↗ what'll keep you yes on the straight and

38:48 ↗ narrow you do it right yes that makes

38:50 ↗ sense

38:55 ↗ thanks excellent conversation

38:58 ↗ so uh and I find it all very compelling

39:01 ↗ um there are there's an operational

39:04 ↗ requirement for day centers and night

39:07 ↗ shelters though and if this is just a

39:10 ↗ use table decision on if the use is

39:12 ↗ allowed why or operational plans

39:13 ↗ required there and not any other is that

39:17 ↗ what do I need should I ask that

39:18 ↗ question would it be helpful kisten you

39:21 ↗ can and um this this really is about you

39:24 ↗ know the code says allow them period

39:26 ↗ that's what they say say and we

39:28 ↗ initially put it in there because after

39:29 ↗ looking at so many other codes they had

39:31 ↗ included operational

39:32 ↗ plans our City attorney said don't

39:34 ↗ include so much information reduce it

39:38 ↗ the state said don't include it at all

39:40 ↗ for emergency permanent supportive and

39:42 ↗ transitional housing because funding

39:44 ↗ funders will require that but do include

39:47 ↗ it in these um

39:51 ↗ so maybe I I'm not quite sure where else

39:54 ↗ in the code it would go

39:56 ↗ perhaps you know some other some other

39:59 ↗ chapter or title in the code I'm not

40:00 ↗ sure where it would go but this is where

40:01 ↗ we've seen it in other

40:07 ↗ plans absolutely okay I'm going to

40:10 ↗ propose an amendment which doesn't mean

40:12 ↗ we're not done talking that just means

40:14 ↗ we know what we're talking about so I'm

40:16 ↗ still and this has been a great

40:18 ↗ conversation and I I I uh don't disagree

40:21 ↗ with anything anybody has said here I

40:23 ↗ agree with everyone I just love this um

40:25 ↗ but the fact that it would be be covered

40:27 ↗ or you would assume it would be covered

40:29 ↗ something that you desire to have be

40:31 ↗ because of a funding source doesn't seem

40:33 ↗ like that's um compelling enough for me

40:36 ↗ and also I'm looking at as I said before

40:40 ↗ um this um code and these arrangements

40:45 ↗ with the city to be

40:47 ↗ successful and if this helps and if

40:50 ↗ funding sources require operational

40:53 ↗ plans because that makes these

40:55 ↗ facilities more successful than why

40:57 ↗ don't we so I am going to propose an

41:00 ↗ amendment I amend the original motion to

41:03 ↗ have included the language about a

41:06 ↗ requirement for an operational plan to

41:07 ↗ be applied to permanent support of

41:09 ↗ housing transitional housing and

41:11 ↗ emergency housing in the same way that

41:13 ↗ it is applied to day Center and night

41:17 ↗ shelter is there a

41:22 ↗ second commissioner second

41:26 ↗ B

41:31 ↗ you we get more chance to talk and I'm

41:32 ↗ just going to say that um it it it is

41:35 ↗ giving the city an opportunity to say we

41:37 ↗ care about having these things we care

41:39 ↗ that they're successful we're giving the

41:41 ↗ people who run them a little more um

41:44 ↗ support and structure in order to have a

41:47 ↗ successful um service provider and that

41:50 ↗ would be and also I think that because

41:53 ↗ these um facilities these housing um

41:56 ↗ facilities may come up against public

41:59 ↗ push back that the more uh reassurances

42:02 ↗ that are there may um prevent some of

42:06 ↗ that push

42:15 ↗ back a pretty big addon that have to

42:20 ↗ be fair

42:26 ↗ enough

42:28 ↗ is there any more discussion about the

42:29 ↗ amendment that's been

42:31 ↗ put commission what yeah would when we

42:35 ↗ say operational plan is

42:38 ↗ it is there a template and because we

42:41 ↗ can say add an operational plan as a

42:44 ↗ requirement but what is that and who

42:48 ↗ would actually set that template would

42:51 ↗ it be this commission here or would it

42:54 ↗ be Human Services who actually put

42:58 ↗ together the requirements of that

43:00 ↗ operational plan so that somebody who is

43:04 ↗ receiving it that it's submitted to

43:06 ↗ they'd be able to actually review it so

43:09 ↗ the operational plan would be required

43:11 ↗ the template comes from the

43:13 ↗ funders not from the city okay so it's

43:18 ↗ still it's still putting it back into

43:21 ↗ the funders hands correct so it would it

43:25 ↗ would just be

43:28 ↗ I'm not seeing the the um the benefit or

43:32 ↗ or because if the fund is going to do it

43:34 ↗ they're going to do it on their own

43:36 ↗ accord as opposed to being required to

43:38 ↗ being doing required to do it so that

43:42 ↗ that's kind of where I'm I'm not in

43:44 ↗ support of it but um if it if we are

43:47 ↗ saying it may move forward as an

43:49 ↗ amendment um I would say that it

43:52 ↗ probably needs more definition on what

43:54 ↗ it is otherwise it's essentially just

43:56 ↗ that check

43:57 ↗ checklist please include

44:01 ↗ this Mr so if I hear this right I think

44:06 ↗ all we're saying is need to have an

44:08 ↗ operational plan that would cover these

44:11 ↗ thematic things like safety blah blah

44:14 ↗ blah like these three things that you

44:15 ↗ mentioned earlier and the reason why I

44:19 ↗ like having this and also it's kind of

44:21 ↗ hearsay of why they didn't like it

44:23 ↗ because it's that I don't have enough

44:25 ↗ information to really understand stand

44:27 ↗ their push back but I I think by having

44:30 ↗ that it keeps us from just passing the

44:33 ↗ buck someone else will picked this up

44:34 ↗ and maybe they'll they'll do that it

44:36 ↗ just says Hey the city cares about this

44:38 ↗ you got to have this and sure you'll

44:40 ↗ have more you'll have more requirements

44:41 ↗ more specific ones from your from your

44:44 ↗ funders but it just it would seem weird

44:47 ↗ to have it in some and not the other and

44:48 ↗ why would that's why I'm

44:53 ↗ buying um yeah I I I

44:57 ↗ like really see the risk to the city um

45:01 ↗ and as I'm listening to this my like

45:02 ↗ question is does the city have like

45:05 ↗ expertise who would be able to say hey

45:07 ↗ this is a good plan right this is this

45:09 ↗ has the things that we want is that even

45:11 ↗ like a person that exists in the city um

45:14 ↗ or does it need to get like be shopped

45:15 ↗ around all of the different departments

45:16 ↗ who might do like the enforcement right

45:18 ↗ if it law is broken

45:23 ↗ or so these the operational plans that

45:27 ↗ are used right now have been in place

45:29 ↗ for a while have been amended to make

45:31 ↗ sure if something's not working then

45:32 ↗ they then they amend them to make sure

45:34 ↗ they work and this isn't me speaking on

45:36 ↗ be this is just the way things work if

45:37 ↗ it's not working you fix it so they've

45:38 ↗ been around for a while um if somebody

45:41 ↗ in the city were going to review it to

45:43 ↗ determine whether or not it's a good

45:44 ↗ plan they would likely have to go to

45:45 ↗ Human Services who does this they would

45:48 ↗ go to the fire department um e for East

45:52 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue um for their

45:54 ↗ approval we go to the police department

45:55 ↗ for their approval but

45:59 ↗ it's and you know we've talked about

46:01 ↗ perhaps the police getting a copy of it

46:04 ↗ but it's been vetted so you know the

46:07 ↗ city could be there but again we have

46:10 ↗ our code enforcement officers and our so

46:12 ↗ there's nobody to say this is a good

46:14 ↗ plan or not I I think but um you know

46:16 ↗ unless you send it to those people and

46:18 ↗ say yeah based on our experience in the

46:20 ↗ police department that works based on

46:22 ↗ our fire part you know it would be

46:24 ↗ divided up to determine whether it's

46:25 ↗ good plan but like I said these have

46:27 ↗ been

46:27 ↗ vetted yeah because I think what we're

46:30 ↗ talking about is kind of putting the

46:31 ↗ onus on the city to say this is a good

46:34 ↗ plan right and then we're putting the on

46:37 ↗ just to say there is a who but then what

46:38 ↗ does it matter because could be a really

46:40 ↗ bad one and they have one then great

46:42 ↗ right the requirement would only be the

46:45 ↗ same as it is for day Center and night

46:48 ↗ shelters very general categories of um

46:53 ↗ topics that would reassure the success

46:57 ↗ of the facility in my mind that's what I

46:59 ↗ I think those things do and the

47:04 ↗ um this the enforcement of it is

47:08 ↗ on the facility and the and and the and

47:12 ↗ the details of it as commissioner craft

47:14 ↗ said could come from a funer I think wa

47:18 ↗ I said that um that the funer could be

47:20 ↗ providing more details and then some

47:22 ↗ issues of enforcement through funding re

47:25 ↗ um reapplication

47:28 ↗ but the city would only be saying this

47:30 ↗ is the expectation we have for this um

47:32 ↗ unique use in the city and I understand

47:36 ↗ the desire to have one of these but I'm

47:39 ↗ not questioning you know the need to

47:41 ↗ have these businesses operate safely and

47:44 ↗ successfully I guess if it is just a

47:46 ↗ tick the box it feels like there's

47:48 ↗ enough checks and balances where be it

47:50 ↗ from the funders be it from other ways

47:52 ↗ to enforce things throughout the city

47:54 ↗ that what does this purpose does this

47:56 ↗ really

47:59 ↗ um

48:02 ↗ uses we're gonna have stepen pop in here

48:05 ↗ chair voice uh thank you so Ste a long

48:07 ↗ range planing manager i' if I could just

48:09 ↗ chime in really quick on this topic so

48:11 ↗ Vice chair Bader is actually bring up

48:13 ↗ the exact point of the liability

48:14 ↗ component of all this what how it is

48:17 ↗ written into the proposed code or

48:19 ↗ proposed draft amendments is exactly

48:22 ↗ checking the box of we are showing the

48:24 ↗ existence of the plans but because we

48:27 ↗ requiring as part of our code that then

48:29 ↗ adds to the liability for incidents that

48:31 ↗ might happen with these type of

48:34 ↗ facilities despite the fact that we're

48:36 ↗ only requiring the existence not exactly

48:39 ↗ saying whether it's a good or bad plan

48:41 ↗ we still have that liability based on

48:43 ↗ anything that might happen on those

48:45 ↗ facilities that is the worry B from

48:47 ↗ Department of Commerce as well as a City

48:49 ↗ attorney which is why we don't want to

48:50 ↗ have too much detail but also proposing

48:53 ↗ of not having the

48:55 ↗ information be re

48:57 ↗ and there's only very specific topics to

49:00 ↗ be required not exact details of what

49:03 ↗ how that needs to be addressed in those

49:04 ↗ operational let me uh um I know

49:07 ↗ commissioner altimore has been waiting

49:09 ↗ patiently okay I just have a quick

49:11 ↗ question sorry then how come we didn't

49:13 ↗ pull it from the other category of we

49:16 ↗ left it in some but not in the other so

49:18 ↗ I'm curious why that's not a liability

49:23 ↗ though uh in in in response to the

49:27 ↗ Department of Commerce specifically on

49:28 ↗ the permanent support of housing

49:30 ↗ transitional housing and emergency

49:31 ↗ housing and that comment wasn't made for

49:35 ↗ um day Shel uh day centers night

49:38 ↗ shelter and so that was part of the

49:40 ↗ discussion we want to have with the

49:41 ↗ commission was should we be keeping that

49:43 ↗ language um for days B centers night

49:52 ↗ shelters Comm

49:54 ↗ alore thank you so so it's an

49:58 ↗ interesting conversation and um as we

50:02 ↗ think about who might be coming in for a

50:04 ↗ program like this so if I'm coming in

50:07 ↗ and I want to do a Youth Shelter that

50:11 ↗ has eight bedrooms and I then have to go

50:15 ↗ through the state to make sure that I

50:17 ↗ meet all of the compliance that I'm

50:19 ↗ meeting all of the expectations for a

50:21 ↗ Youth Shelter if I want to have a 20 un

50:25 ↗ facility that meets the code or is in

50:27 ↗ the downtown and meets the F

50:29 ↗ requirements then if I am putting that

50:32 ↗ in and it's for adults and there isn't

50:35 ↗ that same state requirement if I didn't

50:38 ↗ have an operational plan or if the

50:40 ↗ operational plan said security lock the

50:42 ↗ door at night code of conduct don't spit

50:45 ↗ on the floor and that's the plan could

50:48 ↗ the city really

50:50 ↗ stop me from opening that from building

50:54 ↗ there if I've met all of the other the

50:56 ↗ requirements of the city and so I I

50:59 ↗ absolutely get what you are asking for

51:02 ↗ and why you're asking for it but when

51:04 ↗ you mentioned past the buck this is what

51:06 ↗ really sort of stood out for me we are

51:08 ↗ one piece of the puzzle of an entire

51:11 ↗ bunch of City departments that come

51:12 ↗ together for a facility to be built or

51:14 ↗ to be opened at when you've renovated

51:17 ↗ another facility and so I don't see the

51:20 ↗ operational plan being a part of our

51:23 ↗ piece of the puzzle our piece of the

51:25 ↗ puzzle is where can things go

51:27 ↗ and what are the requirements have to be

51:28 ↗ for them to be there so that's my take

51:32 ↗ um

51:33 ↗ and the reality is that unless I am a

51:37 ↗ good-hearted Soul who wants to do this

51:40 ↗ for lovely reasons and I'm Consulting no

51:42 ↗ one or I'm a bad-hearted soul and want

51:44 ↗ to do this for terrible reasons and I'm

51:46 ↗ Consulting no one you're going to have a

51:49 ↗ plan you can't open something like this

51:51 ↗ it's a complicated business to run

51:52 ↗ without that so I just think that it's a

51:55 ↗ little bit of um

51:57 ↗ overkill for it to be in

52:02 ↗ here anyone like to chair voice I'm I'm

52:05 ↗ hoping to end the conversation so we can

52:07 ↗ go to a vote by saying you know I could

52:10 ↗ go with let's add the operational plan

52:14 ↗ requirement as I did in the amendment to

52:16 ↗ the permanent support of uh tradition

52:18 ↗ transitional and emergency housing or

52:21 ↗ remove it from the day night Center uh I

52:24 ↗ could have you we could have gone either

52:25 ↗ way I chose to say let's add it because

52:29 ↗ I thought it was a good idea that it was

52:31 ↗ an additional quality that the argument

52:34 ↗ for removing it was not compelling to me

52:37 ↗ and that it isn't very specific it isn't

52:40 ↗ very restrictive um I felt it would

52:42 ↗ increase confidence in the facilities by

52:45 ↗ the public uh and if um anybody has

52:48 ↗ anything else to say please do but I'm

52:50 ↗ willing to move to a vote

52:55 ↗ myself

52:57 ↗ any further

52:59 ↗ debate right we will take a vote so all

53:03 ↗ those in favor

53:05 ↗ of Igan Amendment pleas say

53:12 ↗ I right the amendment

53:15 ↗ fails now we will thank you for the

53:17 ↗ discussion yeah a great discussion so we

53:20 ↗ will now move on to our original topic

53:24 ↗ we go back to our our debate as far as

53:27 ↗ uh what we talking about is so the whole

53:29 ↗ thing definition everything it

53:35 ↗ up is

53:38 ↗ there

53:40 ↗ Al isn't necessarily debate just a a

53:43 ↗ comment that I want to make and that is

53:44 ↗ that it's kind of a shame to me that

53:46 ↗ Commerce conflated all affordable

53:49 ↗ housing with housing that needs uh

53:52 ↗ Services attached to it because of the

53:54 ↗ specific needs of the residents that are

53:56 ↗ there there because they are very

53:58 ↗ different animals and um and the reality

54:01 ↗ is that even most individuals who or

54:04 ↗ families or what whoever it might be who

54:06 ↗ fall into homelessness often need a

54:08 ↗ short-term set of services and then

54:10 ↗ they're just living like a normal

54:11 ↗ neighbor and so inflating those seems to

54:15 ↗ me um building some rhetoric that's not

54:18 ↗ necessary so I would love for us as we

54:19 ↗ talk about it to separate those two as

54:22 ↗ much as possible because housing where

54:23 ↗ services are really needed and and

54:25 ↗ necessary for the success are very

54:27 ↗ different than housing that's affordable

54:29 ↗ to any

54:41 ↗ neighbor there any further

54:44 ↗ debate original

54:54 ↗ am no

54:57 ↗ commission Millan okay um how deep is

54:59 ↗ this uh motion going is this going into

55:02 ↗ the other land use uh changes the other

55:07 ↗ um or just the

55:11 ↗ um permanent supportive and

55:15 ↗ emergency I'm I'm looking at past the

55:17 ↗ use table at other things in the um comp

55:21 ↗ plan amendment is that in this motion

55:25 ↗ too bunch of chapter numbers in there

55:28 ↗ there's in in your memo there's a

55:30 ↗ recommended motion but it's just for the

55:31 ↗ title 18 a moot uh H House Bill 1220

55:36 ↗ recommendations that you've talked about

55:37 ↗ so the definitions the permitted uses

55:39 ↗ table and the requirements for each

55:41 ↗ thank

55:51 ↗ you any further

55:55 ↗ comment

55:57 ↗ all right I'll wrap it up I just wanted

55:59 ↗ to say thank you to everyone for a great

56:01 ↗ debate

56:02 ↗ conversation I also wanted to say a very

56:04 ↗ special thank you to our senior planner

56:07 ↗ e as well as commissioner Al for being

56:10 ↗ vast amount of knowledge on this

56:12 ↗ topic I'll be honest I was one of those

56:14 ↗ people myself who was very concerned at

56:16 ↗ the beginning of this and vice chair

56:17 ↗ Bader as well uh pointed out to me that

56:20 ↗ again it's important not to conflate

56:23 ↗ worse things we want to try think of

56:26 ↗ success stories and hopefully that's

56:27 ↗ what we're all looking for is this to be

56:30 ↗ a success regardless of it's going to be

56:32 ↗ a requirement and hopefully the city get

56:34 ↗ behind it

56:37 ↗ are all these uh the best in the region

56:40 ↗ That's My Hope and I got a great

56:42 ↗ education for all of you and

56:46 ↗ iate I think that's really all I had to

56:48 ↗ say great debate on the amendment

56:51 ↗ appreciate U discussion about that as

56:54 ↗ well comments from staff and stepen and

56:57 ↗ Kristen umed some light about all of

57:01 ↗ these

57:03 ↗ issues right

57:06 ↗ vote

57:07 ↗ original

57:09 ↗ motion um do I have to say it again

57:13 ↗ CH it helps just to just to be sure we

57:16 ↗ know what we're talking

57:19 ↗ about let me find it one

57:25 ↗ second

57:28 ↗ so the original motion was to an

57:30 ↗ approval of the proposed amendments to

57:32 ↗ IMC

57:35 ↗ 18102 definitions IMC

57:39 ↗ 18.42 table of permitted uses and the

57:43 ↗ additions of sections

57:45 ↗ 18.500 1220 and

57:49 ↗ 18.500 130 to chapter

57:53 ↗ 18.500 residential use standard

57:57 ↗ whole lot of

57:59 ↗ numbers you don't know how much this

58:01 ↗ terrifies me like the only part that

58:04 ↗ makes me

58:05 ↗ Shak so again that is the motion on the

58:08 ↗ floor let's go ahead and vote on it all

58:11 ↗ of those in favor of the motion passing

58:15 ↗ for our recommendation for approval for

58:18 ↗ city council say

58:21 ↗ I I that's unanimous guys have it and I

58:25 ↗ do want to make uh a note um that we did

58:29 ↗ have one commissioner absent so our

58:32 ↗ alternate also

58:42 ↗ participated

58:44 ↗ okay again thank you senior planner

58:52 ↗ Leon uh we have two items under regular

58:54 ↗ business tonight

59:03 ↗ we have two items under regular business

59:05 ↗ first is a follow-up

59:07 ↗ discussion on public agency comment and

59:10 ↗ propos policies for the comprehensive

59:12 ↗ plan land use element is part of the

59:14 ↗ city's periodic

59:16 ↗ update Kristen Leon our senior planner

59:19 ↗ will be presenting

59:21 ↗ again so Kristen when you're ready go

59:25 ↗ ahead

59:27 ↗ all right I'm back so yes we received as

59:31 ↗ you know we sent out our draft land use

59:34 ↗ element to Commerce and to pound

59:39 ↗ Regional

59:40 ↗ Council and we received comments back we

59:44 ↗ also send it out to different tribes and

59:46 ↗ different agencies that um the state

59:49 ↗ requires us to send those to so we only

59:52 ↗ received comments back from two groups

59:53 ↗ we received one comment from Puget Sound

59:55 ↗ Regional Council and we received several

59:57 ↗ comments from the snow kwami tribe so

59:59 ↗ we're just going to go over some of

1:00:01 ↗ those comments I'm only looking showing

1:00:03 ↗ you all the ones where we made

1:00:06 ↗ changes um also though this is the first

1:00:09 ↗ time that you guys have seen the land

1:00:11 ↗ use element with the vision and the

1:00:13 ↗ discussions included as well so I would

1:00:16 ↗ like to also get your feedback

1:00:18 ↗ particularly on the vision but if you

1:00:19 ↗ have other things in regards to the

1:00:22 ↗ discussions we can talk about

1:00:24 ↗ those so again review and provide

1:00:26 ↗ feedback on the second round of draft

1:00:28 ↗ amendments Direction needed do you agree

1:00:31 ↗ with the changes that were made were

1:00:33 ↗ there other agency comments not

1:00:35 ↗ addressed by staff that you feel like we

1:00:37 ↗ need to address and are there any

1:00:39 ↗ changes that you would like to see to

1:00:40 ↗ the introduction Vision or the

1:00:43 ↗ discussion so just as a reminder here's

1:00:45 ↗ the vision I don't read it isqua land

1:00:48 ↗ use practices will advance sustainable

1:00:50 ↗ land development to preserve a

1:00:51 ↗ highquality natural environment by

1:00:54 ↗ directing development away from

1:00:55 ↗ environmentally critical areas it will

1:00:57 ↗ encourage a it will encourage densities

1:01:01 ↗ sorry and mixes of uses that create

1:01:03 ↗ complete neighborhoods maximize equity

1:01:05 ↗ and inclusion and enable all Mobility

1:01:09 ↗ options on to the

1:01:11 ↗ comments first first comment and these

1:01:14 ↗ are these are all from snow quami tribe

1:01:16 ↗ was change compelling to directing for

1:01:18 ↗ stronger language and we did that high

1:01:20 ↗ quality n maintain a high quality and

1:01:22 ↗ natural environment by

1:01:24 ↗ directing uh development of away from

1:01:26 ↗ environment environmentally critical are

1:01:29 ↗ critical

1:01:30 ↗ areas natural environment discussion

1:01:33 ↗ restructure the paragraphs so that the

1:01:35 ↗ city isn't only framing the natural

1:01:37 ↗ environment in terms of human gains but

1:01:39 ↗ the city has a responsibility to protect

1:01:41 ↗ the natural environment it's not just

1:01:43 ↗ for us to play in so it's so we did it's

1:01:46 ↗ important to be responsible stewards to

1:01:48 ↗ preserve and conserve the natural

1:01:53 ↗ resources one there was a typo so we

1:01:56 ↗ fixed that it was you know we used both

1:01:58 ↗ Implement and allow we fixed that and

1:02:01 ↗ they asked us to consider removing to

1:02:03 ↗ protect the property rights of

1:02:05 ↗ landowners with critical areas it say

1:02:07 ↗ it's unnecessary and highlights only

1:02:09 ↗ human uh centered natural resource uses

1:02:12 ↗ and consider the inclusion of cultural

1:02:15 ↗ resource protection so as I said we we

1:02:17 ↗ fixed the typo we took out to protect

1:02:20 ↗ the property rights of land owners

1:02:22 ↗ because that is specifically what they

1:02:23 ↗ were speaking to and added at the end as

1:02:25 ↗ an incentive for protecting forested

1:02:27 ↗ hillsides and cultural resources so I

1:02:30 ↗ think those changes addressed

1:02:32 ↗ it please add in an ecologically

1:02:35 ↗ sustainable way we did encourage a

1:02:38 ↗ development of new community Gathering

1:02:40 ↗ spaces in an ecologically sustainable

1:02:43 ↗ way same thing with land use uh and

1:02:46 ↗ sustainability policy

1:02:48 ↗ H2 encourage development of amenity

1:02:51 ↗ services and Facilities that are

1:02:52 ↗ supportive of neighborhood residents

1:02:54 ↗ through investment incentives and

1:02:55 ↗ development regulations in an econ in an

1:02:58 ↗ ecologically sustainable

1:03:01 ↗ way these add in an again in an

1:03:04 ↗ ecologically sustainable way but also

1:03:08 ↗ best management pract best management

1:03:10 ↗ practices should also reference

1:03:12 ↗ traditional ecological knowledge so we

1:03:14 ↗ added that at the top such agricultural

1:03:16 ↗ uses shall be best shall use best

1:03:18 ↗ management practices and traditional

1:03:20 ↗ ecological knowledge to protect water

1:03:22 ↗ quality

1:03:24 ↗ Etc

1:03:27 ↗ uh this is was a comment in specific uh

1:03:30 ↗ specifically to Resource lands in

1:03:32 ↗ general we made the change in policy J2

1:03:35 ↗ so consider referencing Conservancy

1:03:37 ↗ lands in the context of natural resource

1:03:39 ↗ preservation and include the protection

1:03:40 ↗ of cultural resources so we included

1:03:42 ↗ that here by including both of those

1:03:45 ↗ Conservancy lands and cultural

1:03:49 ↗ resources uh this is the last one

1:03:52 ↗ comments Regional coordination and

1:03:53 ↗ annexation they just asked us to

1:03:56 ↗ um as for meaning meaningful

1:03:58 ↗ consultation which means you know let's

1:04:00 ↗ let's include the tribes in this

1:04:01 ↗ discussion so we included them as well

1:04:04 ↗ indigenous tribes so this is the second

1:04:06 ↗ time you've seen it you will see the

1:04:09 ↗ entire comp plan again in

1:04:11 ↗ July the public hearing will be in Q4

1:04:15 ↗ and Council action will also be later in

1:04:17 ↗ Q4 in

1:04:18 ↗ December so back to the direction

1:04:21 ↗ needed we go you agree with changes made

1:04:25 ↗ are there comments that were made that

1:04:27 ↗ we didn't address that we should and are

1:04:29 ↗ there any changes that you'd like to see

1:04:30 ↗ the introduction Vision or

1:04:35 ↗ discussion thank you see your planner uh

1:04:39 ↗ lison commission any

1:04:43 ↗ questions or comments uh commissioner

1:04:47 ↗ alore is um traditional ecological

1:04:51 ↗ knowledge is that is that a thing is

1:04:54 ↗ that a known phrase

1:04:57 ↗ I don't know that it's a known phrase

1:04:59 ↗ traditional ecological knowledge but

1:05:01 ↗ it's referring to how the sort of how

1:05:02 ↗ the tribes even wants to speak but how

1:05:04 ↗ the tribes have go

1:05:07 ↗ ahead how the tribes have managed things

1:05:10 ↗ and and lived um cohesively or or in you

1:05:14 ↗ know together with you know the water

1:05:17 ↗ and the animals and the resources and

1:05:20 ↗ how they all so they had how they how

1:05:22 ↗ they've continued to do that through

1:05:24 ↗ their assistence here okay thank you

1:05:27 ↗ does that definition need to be added to

1:05:29 ↗ our

1:05:30 ↗ definition we can try sure yeah we can

1:05:33 ↗ do that well commissioner altimore is

1:05:35 ↗ point yeah very broad we could we could

1:05:38 ↗ and you know we could expand on the dep

1:05:40 ↗ we could expand on that a little bit

1:05:41 ↗ more too probably not add a definition

1:05:43 ↗ but just expand on what that

1:05:46 ↗ means commissioner grass it was one of

1:05:49 ↗ the earlier ones just for clarity the

1:05:52 ↗ the thing that was struck struck about

1:05:54 ↗ the property owner's rights what was the

1:05:56 ↗ context of that one

1:05:58 ↗ that was

1:06:00 ↗ earlier right there to protect the

1:06:03 ↗ property rights of land owners what's

1:06:05 ↗ the

1:06:06 ↗ cont they they just wanted to be sure

1:06:08 ↗ that we're not so focused on how it

1:06:10 ↗ affects the human but rather on how it

1:06:13 ↗ affects our environment and hopefully

1:06:16 ↗ doesn't affect our environment I don't

1:06:19 ↗ see why they're in conflict that was one

1:06:22 ↗ of the folks that I

1:06:23 ↗ have why do we have to take out property

1:06:27 ↗ right I mean we could still add what

1:06:29 ↗ they wanted but I mean to me some of

1:06:32 ↗ this is human Centric obviously these

1:06:33 ↗ people live here right and you know that

1:06:36 ↗ but there

1:06:37 ↗ are if somebody wants to build on the

1:06:39 ↗ house build a house on their property

1:06:41 ↗ they have the right to build a house on

1:06:43 ↗ their property and if it is almost there

1:06:47 ↗ are variances if it looks undevelopable

1:06:50 ↗ there is a variant you can get to still

1:06:52 ↗ find a way to build a house on that

1:06:53 ↗ property so there are plenty of property

1:06:55 ↗ wres out there I think it they just

1:06:57 ↗ didn't want it emphasized in this

1:07:01 ↗ context commissioner Milligan uh this

1:07:04 ↗ isn't my planned comment but uh does

1:07:06 ↗ this have a little bit of something to

1:07:08 ↗ do with the bergsma property and how the

1:07:11 ↗ TR because we're talking about the

1:07:12 ↗ transfer development rights with

1:07:13 ↗ critical areas and how that because we

1:07:16 ↗ allowed that sort of thing to protect

1:07:18 ↗ the property rights of owners with

1:07:20 ↗ critical areas was creating something

1:07:22 ↗ that the city didn't really want and

1:07:23 ↗ then they didn't know what to do because

1:07:25 ↗ there it was it was allowed to

1:07:27 ↗ transfer uh to protect property rights

1:07:31 ↗ it it creates a circular issue right so

1:07:35 ↗ this this particular policy and this

1:07:38 ↗ request has does not have anything to do

1:07:40 ↗ with

1:07:46 ↗ bergsma um any of our commissioners that

1:07:48 ↗ haven't spoken like to speak

1:07:51 ↗ vi

1:07:53 ↗ vi um I'm just going to y

1:07:55 ↗ Flor um a comment on the vision and I

1:08:00 ↗ don't know how to word this comment

1:08:08 ↗ um

1:08:10 ↗ um that I remember when we were having

1:08:12 ↗ the title 18 discussions we kind of all

1:08:14 ↗ felt like we pushed really really hard

1:08:16 ↗ on the environment and maybe not so hard

1:08:18 ↗ on some other areas that are equally as

1:08:21 ↗ important in the city and this reads the

1:08:23 ↗ same way um me and so I don't have like

1:08:27 ↗ a concrete suggestion of like language

1:08:30 ↗ but it leads really really strong with

1:08:32 ↗ the environment and then it kind of like

1:08:34 ↗ everything else is lumped in that second

1:08:37 ↗ and I'm not saying we shouldn't

1:08:38 ↗ emphasize the environment it just feels

1:08:40 ↗ like maybe the balance is a there's a

1:08:42 ↗ way to like and it instead

1:08:44 ↗ of

1:08:47 ↗ or great

1:08:49 ↗ comment uh commissioner Patterson thank

1:08:52 ↗ you chair um also one bit of feedback on

1:08:54 ↗ the vision um um I wish commissioner

1:08:56 ↗ Kennedy was here because she's great at

1:08:58 ↗ this but uh I get a little bit tripped

1:09:00 ↗ up by it will encourage densities and

1:09:02 ↗ mixes of

1:09:04 ↗ uses um I don't have a fix for it but

1:09:08 ↗ I'm wondering if there's an opportunity

1:09:09 ↗ to fine-tune that a little bit um I

1:09:12 ↗ don't know if anyone else agrees or or

1:09:14 ↗ has feedback or ideas on that but that

1:09:16 ↗ would be my feedback on that F fine tune

1:09:19 ↗ in what

1:09:24 ↗ direction uh great question I I think it

1:09:27 ↗ will encourage densities and mixes of

1:09:30 ↗ uses

1:09:33 ↗ um I don't know let me think on that a

1:09:35 ↗ little bit more but I I I think for me

1:09:37 ↗ it just I had to focus on what I was

1:09:39 ↗ reading there a little bit more than the

1:09:40 ↗ rest of the vision but um I I can't

1:09:43 ↗ really put a put a pin in it so more

1:09:45 ↗ clarity than content yeah maybe or just

1:09:49 ↗ word I think it's just words like uh

1:09:52 ↗ mixed uses instead of mixes of uses like

1:09:54 ↗ it could be something as simple as that

1:09:56 ↗ okay um but yeah I'll I'll let you know

1:09:58 ↗ if I think of something better but that

1:10:00 ↗ was just kind of I got stuck on that

1:10:02 ↗ part so it's not necessarily that you

1:10:04 ↗ don't want to encourage densities and

1:10:05 ↗ mix exuses it just the way that a word

1:10:07 ↗ it's a little hard to to read okay thank

1:10:11 ↗ you commissioner s and then one thing I

1:10:14 ↗ just saw here um is is the earlier part

1:10:19 ↗ of that it will encourage basically we

1:10:22 ↗ see quality natural environment by

1:10:25 ↗ Direct in development that's very direct

1:10:29 ↗ and it's it's pushing us in a direction

1:10:32 ↗ whereas that second piece um to Vice

1:10:35 ↗ chair B's um point it it's not as strong

1:10:41 ↗ as the first piece when you say it will

1:10:43 ↗ encourage so I don't I don't know a

1:10:46 ↗ synonym or um the right word but I think

1:10:49 ↗ there needs to be a stronger word than

1:10:52 ↗ encourage there yeah one's one's very

1:10:54 ↗ implement one sort of maybe do this

1:10:59 ↗ exactly can I commissioner crabs the I

1:11:02 ↗ guess it also comes down to the role of

1:11:03 ↗ the city the role of the city is to

1:11:05 ↗ protect some things and that's why it's

1:11:06 ↗ a strong word at the beginning and but

1:11:10 ↗ we're not in the business of building

1:11:11 ↗ stuff so but I think I was okay with

1:11:14 ↗ that the way that was like that one's

1:11:16 ↗ strong you got to protect and you got to

1:11:17 ↗ be there and then you want to make sure

1:11:20 ↗ you have the right things in place to

1:11:22 ↗ get the outcomes that you want but

1:11:24 ↗ you're not responsible for doing those

1:11:26 ↗ so I

1:11:28 ↗ encourage I mean I was I felt I felt

1:11:30 ↗ pretty good with that I think it I think

1:11:31 ↗ that was a good balance what the role of

1:11:33 ↗ the city would be I'm not sure if that

1:11:35 ↗ was the intent going

1:11:37 ↗ in both great comment commission s yeah

1:11:40 ↗ just to clarify on that because yeah

1:11:43 ↗ there's protect in the environment but

1:11:45 ↗ there's also um the protection of like

1:11:48 ↗ when you you look at equity and

1:11:50 ↗ inclusion as well so that's where you

1:11:52 ↗ also have to have a little bit more more

1:11:55 ↗ direct language as well on that end

1:11:59 ↗ that's just the only statement I'll make

1:12:00 ↗ on that I do agree okay Mobility um

1:12:05 ↗ complete neighborhoods but the piece on

1:12:07 ↗ I guess you say Max maximize equity and

1:12:10 ↗ inclusion that's something that has to

1:12:12 ↗ be intentional on maybe maybe here's

1:12:14 ↗ some wording I don't normally do in

1:12:16 ↗ these meetings fostering maybe in that

1:12:19 ↗ real instead of encourage I don't know

1:12:21 ↗ it's something Foster's more I guess

1:12:25 ↗ like it's more of like an active word I

1:12:26 ↗ don't

1:12:29 ↗ know that is part of what we do

1:12:32 ↗ Wordsmith

1:12:34 ↗ yeah commissioner

1:12:37 ↗ Milligan I'll take the bait let's remove

1:12:40 ↗ the words densi and mixes of uses that

1:12:45 ↗ create because it's it uh is specified

1:12:48 ↗ in the land use code elsewhere this is

1:12:51 ↗ just the vision this is the this is such

1:12:53 ↗ a long vision I me poor Kristen had to

1:12:56 ↗ read this whole thing uh if it says

1:12:58 ↗ because complete neighborhood has

1:13:01 ↗ densities and mixes of uses if it didn't

1:13:04 ↗ have mixes of uses it wouldn't be a

1:13:06 ↗ complete neighborhood or maybe we need

1:13:08 ↗ to define a complete neighborhood and

1:13:09 ↗ say somewhere

1:13:11 ↗ else that it has densities and mixes of

1:13:13 ↗ uses but in the vision statement if you

1:13:15 ↗ went straight from it will Foster or

1:13:18 ↗ some stronger word complete

1:13:20 ↗ neighborhoods and maximize equity and

1:13:23 ↗ conclusion and enable I bet you would

1:13:24 ↗ get

1:13:25 ↗ what you

1:13:27 ↗ wanted

1:13:30 ↗ commissioner nice segue commissioner

1:13:39 ↗ Patterson commissioner

1:13:41 ↗ Alor I just have a really ridiculous

1:13:43 ↗ question to follow up so if you took out

1:13:46 ↗ from encourage uh

1:13:49 ↗ to um create is it it or is it they will

1:13:57 ↗ because it's land use

1:14:00 ↗ practices sorry I'm not trying to

1:14:02 ↗ Wordsmith that deeply but I'm just

1:14:03 ↗ trying to make it make sense in my brain

1:14:05 ↗ because I like I really like what you

1:14:07 ↗ suggested now we definitely need Carolyn

1:14:09 ↗ for the fine tuning I think it's they

1:14:11 ↗ because up above it says land use isqua

1:14:14 ↗ land use practices will and it's not it

1:14:17 ↗ it's they so I think it's then if it

1:14:20 ↗ were they will create complete

1:14:22 ↗ neighborhoods maximize equity and

1:14:24 ↗ inclusion

1:14:27 ↗ that that's

1:14:30 ↗ yeah like rather than delete do we flip

1:14:34 ↗ because I worry that complete

1:14:35 ↗ neighborhoods is like really up for

1:14:37 ↗ interpretation and so um and we it will

1:14:41 ↗ create complete neighborhoods that

1:14:43 ↗ include a variety of densities and mixes

1:14:46 ↗ of

1:14:54 ↗ uses

1:14:56 ↗ commiss migan I want to get back on the

1:14:58 ↗ definition thing what was your word uh

1:15:00 ↗ commissioner altimore that you wanted to

1:15:02 ↗ Define which one was it does anybody

1:15:05 ↗ remember yeah

1:15:07 ↗ traditional practices and uh I would

1:15:10 ↗ like to have that defined also I was

1:15:12 ↗ really excited about having that

1:15:13 ↗ included those because the other phrase

1:15:16 ↗ in there the best practices or whatever

1:15:18 ↗ the other one is has um misguided some

1:15:21 ↗ land uses in ways in my opinion so I'm

1:15:24 ↗ glad to have some think counterbalance

1:15:27 ↗ that uh strong opinion there are a

1:15:29 ↗ couple other places where I thought we

1:15:30 ↗ should have definitions um one is

1:15:33 ↗ cultural

1:15:35 ↗ resources so we're actually taking um

1:15:39 ↗ definitions out of the comprehensive

1:15:40 ↗ plan this year because what happens is

1:15:43 ↗ that they are often in conflict with

1:15:45 ↗ what's in the land use code and if

1:15:47 ↗ something changes so what we'll try and

1:15:49 ↗ do is to spell them out a little more

1:15:51 ↗ clearly in the

1:15:52 ↗ policies rather than Define them

1:15:56 ↗ okay whatever gets to the same purpose

1:15:58 ↗ and then the other one uh was I detected

1:16:03 ↗ and I'm sorry that I didn't inventory an

1:16:05 ↗ inconsistent reference to our um tribal

1:16:09 ↗ community members and was it's

1:16:12 ↗ especially

1:16:13 ↗ noticed the application of it in land

1:16:16 ↗ use policy K4 where it's work with King

1:16:18 ↗ County and Indigenous tribes um that

1:16:21 ↗ that's capitalized so I thought is that

1:16:23 ↗ defined somewhere

1:16:25 ↗ and then and it might be defined at the

1:16:28 ↗ state level for all I know yeah so

1:16:29 ↗ that's good and it's in all caps and so

1:16:31 ↗ then I was going to say uh check with

1:16:32 ↗ the rest of the document to see that if

1:16:34 ↗ we have strong language like that which

1:16:36 ↗ is trying to be identify who needs to be

1:16:39 ↗ called who you need to call that we know

1:16:41 ↗ clearly who they are and that somebody

1:16:43 ↗ who's not getting called doesn't say hey

1:16:44 ↗ how come you didn't call

1:16:46 ↗ me uh so th that's those are all my

1:16:48 ↗ definitions I still have one more

1:16:50 ↗ comment after

1:16:53 ↗ that

1:16:58 ↗ commissioner

1:17:05 ↗ Milligan

1:17:08 ↗ H okay senior planner Leon I'm looking

1:17:11 ↗ at land use policy what was

1:17:15 ↗ B6 I think about um Wildlife corridors

1:17:21 ↗ and I want to know why that was removed

1:17:24 ↗ I always thought that was a really

1:17:25 ↗ strong

1:17:27 ↗ um uh strong application of our

1:17:29 ↗ environmental ethics and it's consistent

1:17:32 ↗ with what the tribe said about the land

1:17:34 ↗ is not just for us so several of our

1:17:36 ↗ Wildlife corridors policies were moved

1:17:38 ↗ to the environmental element and that's

1:17:40 ↗ why so they're still there they're just

1:17:42 ↗ in a different

1:17:52 ↗ element give it a moment any further

1:18:02 ↗ feedback right

1:18:04 ↗ um yeah I second a lot of what everybody

1:18:07 ↗ said and I do appreciate Vice chair

1:18:09 ↗ Bader's comment about the vision I don't

1:18:11 ↗ know if there's a way to word Smith it a

1:18:13 ↗ little but actually it is land use you

1:18:15 ↗ know we do focus a lot on the

1:18:17 ↗ environment clearly we do but seems kind

1:18:21 ↗ of important to also mention those

1:18:23 ↗ neighborhoods and maybe with the word

1:18:25 ↗ smithing maybe we have it so just but

1:18:27 ↗ anyway keep it in

1:18:29 ↗ mind um that was all I had

1:18:35 ↗ rute any further

1:18:37 ↗ comment get what you needed I believe I

1:18:41 ↗ do thank you okay well thank you

1:18:45 ↗ Kristen appreciate it I think your

1:18:48 ↗ presentations are

1:18:53 ↗ over

1:18:56 ↗ all right the next item under regular

1:18:58 ↗ business is an introduction and

1:19:00 ↗ discussion of the racially disperate

1:19:02 ↗ impact analysis Stephen Padua our long

1:19:05 ↗ range planning manager will be

1:19:07 ↗ presenting

1:19:09 ↗ tonight once uh Kristen yields the stage

1:19:12 ↗ Stephen can begin to give his

1:19:22 ↗ presentation hey thank you chair voice

1:19:26 ↗ can you all see my

1:19:28 ↗ screen

1:19:29 ↗ okay fine uh thank you Commissioners uh

1:19:34 ↗ tonight we wanted to follow up with

1:19:37 ↗ a a discussion on the racially disparate

1:19:40 ↗ impact analysis when we at the last

1:19:42 ↗ meeting we kind of introduced it as part

1:19:45 ↗ of an attachment as part of the proposal

1:19:48 ↗ for amendments to several of the

1:19:49 ↗ policies for the housing element we

1:19:51 ↗ wanted to follow up to actually talk

1:19:52 ↗ through the RDI analysis just so we have

1:19:55 ↗ a better understanding of what it is why

1:19:57 ↗ we have it and how we're using it and

1:19:59 ↗ how it's going to influence further

1:20:00 ↗ updates to the housing element as well

1:20:02 ↗ as essential updates to other portions

1:20:05 ↗ of the comprehensive

1:20:07 ↗ fund so a little background information

1:20:11 ↗ on it from House Bill 1221 was adopted

1:20:13 ↗ in 2021 it required two major um

1:20:16 ↗ components for the housing element

1:20:18 ↗ update the first was we need to show how

1:20:21 ↗ we plan for all income brackets um part

1:20:24 ↗ of the policy discussions that the we've

1:20:26 ↗ been having with the commission and

1:20:28 ↗ prior discussions for the housing

1:20:29 ↗ element amendments as well as we need to

1:20:32 ↗ assess the racially disperate impact

1:20:34 ↗ analysis and how that's going to

1:20:37 ↗ influence policy amendments for the

1:20:39 ↗ housing home the state has provided

1:20:42 ↗ guidance for the RDI and and the first

1:20:45 ↗ step is to engage the community on how

1:20:48 ↗ to make amendments to housing element

1:20:50 ↗ and and a lot of that gets Incorporated

1:20:52 ↗ with the engagement for the

1:20:53 ↗ comprehensive plan

1:20:55 ↗ the second and third step is actually

1:20:56 ↗ the RDI report that was provided by our

1:20:59 ↗ consultant for this update and then the

1:21:02 ↗ uh fourth and fifth steps is providing

1:21:05 ↗ the revisions to the policies themselves

1:21:07 ↗ and then having that adopted and

1:21:08 ↗ regularly reviewed by City Council in

1:21:10 ↗ the over making sure that gets updated

1:21:13 ↗ to the desires of how the community

1:21:15 ↗ wants to be the housing element get

1:21:17 ↗ updated

1:21:19 ↗ in historical context for the RDI so

1:21:23 ↗ what was I lighted is evidence that they

1:21:26 ↗ found for racially restrictive covenants

1:21:29 ↗ on properties they found in the city as

1:21:31 ↗ well but it doesn't paint the full

1:21:33 ↗ picture of a lot of the racial

1:21:34 ↗ discrimination have been around housing

1:21:37 ↗ uh throughout the city's history and you

1:21:40 ↗ all some or all of you are familiar with

1:21:43 ↗ redlining as it's existed with housing

1:21:47 ↗ in many of our communities around the

1:21:49 ↗ nation um there's there also been

1:21:52 ↗ enforcement from the courts around

1:21:53 ↗ racially discriminated uh covenants from

1:21:56 ↗ the sandboard decision

1:21:58 ↗ to enforce implied covenants um how many

1:22:02 ↗ of you are familiar with this case law

1:22:05 ↗ and and what not seeing very many so for

1:22:10 ↗ the sandborn decision you basically got

1:22:13 ↗ what we called implied covenants in

1:22:15 ↗ saying that a developer can enforce

1:22:17 ↗ racially restrictive covenants on

1:22:19 ↗ properties that didn't have it built

1:22:21 ↗ into their deeds as long as they

1:22:24 ↗ enforced it in previous properties they

1:22:26 ↗ developed with that embedded in the deed

1:22:28 ↗ so even though we found properties with

1:22:32 ↗ these built into the deeds in seven

1:22:34 ↗ properties in City isqu they could have

1:22:36 ↗ been enforced in other properties in

1:22:38 ↗ other areas of the city under this land

1:22:42 ↗ Landmark base so in addition to that you

1:22:45 ↗ also had neighbor associations that were

1:22:47 ↗ petitioning for many of these racially

1:22:50 ↗ restricted covenants being built into

1:22:51 ↗ these properties as well as being

1:22:55 ↗ discriminatory towards people who wanted

1:22:56 ↗ to move into their neighborhoods who

1:22:58 ↗ weren't of the same Race So in addition

1:23:01 ↗ to the racially discriminate covenants

1:23:03 ↗ that were found you had all these other

1:23:06 ↗ actions and events happening in the in

1:23:10 ↗ that were

1:23:11 ↗ systematic pushing people out of

1:23:13 ↗ neighborhoods in esqua and other cities

1:23:16 ↗ and this is something that is found in

1:23:18 ↗ many other cities around the nation not

1:23:20 ↗ just in our region or even in in that's

1:23:22 ↗ just something to put in context in

1:23:24 ↗ terms of what we are looking at when it

1:23:27 ↗ comes to finding any of this in our city

1:23:29 ↗ but also around the and this is the

1:23:32 ↗ exact language that was found in the

1:23:34 ↗ properties and those seven properties

1:23:36 ↗ were developed by one developer named

1:23:37 ↗ guy Harper back in the

1:23:40 ↗ 1930s the said property or any part

1:23:43 ↗ thereof shall be used for the resident

1:23:45 ↗ purposes only and shall be occupied only

1:23:48 ↗ by persons of the white race except that

1:23:51 ↗ of servants not of the white race but

1:23:53 ↗ actually employed by a white occupant

1:23:55 ↗ May reside on set premises and you can

1:23:58 ↗ um if you go through the source of the

1:24:01 ↗ information in the RDI you can find

1:24:03 ↗ actually uh a map that the University of

1:24:06 ↗ Washington has put together of multiple

1:24:08 ↗ properties around the region that have

1:24:10 ↗ racially restricted Covenant buildings

1:24:12 ↗ that see all the different types of

1:24:14 ↗ language this was what we were able to

1:24:16 ↗ find for the city

1:24:19 ↗ as the other piece of context I wanted

1:24:22 ↗ to talk with a lot of this in the map

1:24:25 ↗ that was provided in the RDI it shows

1:24:27 ↗ with the Citywide those seven properties

1:24:29 ↗ in the southern part of the city it it

1:24:31 ↗ doesn't really put into context in terms

1:24:33 ↗ of what it really meant to the city or

1:24:36 ↗ the town at the time when you look at

1:24:39 ↗ the city as well today you are seeing a

1:24:41 ↗ very vast community of 40,000 people

1:24:44 ↗ multiple businesses um a little more

1:24:47 ↗ diverse than we used to be at the time

1:24:50 ↗ of when those buildings were built up in

1:24:53 ↗ that upper area in the Valley that was

1:24:55 ↗ the town at the time and it was a much

1:24:57 ↗ more sus uh a little more representation

1:25:01 ↗ of what the perspective of of the town

1:25:03 ↗ when those developments were built

1:25:06 ↗ within the town of

1:25:09 ↗ Isa so when you look at the historical

1:25:11 ↗ timeline for when the city was put um

1:25:14 ↗ developing and Incorporated and becoming

1:25:16 ↗ more of a city over time you can find

1:25:19 ↗ that similar to a lot of cities in our

1:25:21 ↗ region the city really developed in a

1:25:23 ↗ time when the persp perspective it was

1:25:25 ↗ allowing a lot of these racially

1:25:26 ↗ discriminatory actions and Covenants

1:25:29 ↗ being

1:25:30 ↗ built and so that is really the Crux of

1:25:35 ↗ the findings you see from the RDI is

1:25:37 ↗ even though the city is very diverse you

1:25:41 ↗ only find a lot of that diversity in

1:25:43 ↗ very concentrated neighborhoods within

1:25:45 ↗ the city showing that there is

1:25:47 ↗ historical influence on how the makeup

1:25:49 ↗ of the city has come together when

1:25:50 ↗ you're looking at the older

1:25:52 ↗ neighborhoods of the city not being as

1:25:54 ↗ as the newer neighborhoods that were

1:25:57 ↗ developed after a lot of those racially

1:25:59 ↗ discriminate covenants were found

1:26:00 ↗ illegal so that is really what we're

1:26:04 ↗ trying to show when we're looking at

1:26:06 ↗ many of the themes that came out of the

1:26:08 ↗ RDI analysis is a lot of those

1:26:10 ↗ historical decisions influenced the

1:26:14 ↗ makeup of the city in terms of owner

1:26:17 ↗ owner and renter

1:26:21 ↗ households by race ethnicity and showing

1:26:24 ↗ that black and African-American

1:26:27 ↗ communities show a disproportionate

1:26:31 ↗ amount of

1:26:32 ↗ ownership same can be said

1:26:36 ↗ for percent of all households

1:26:38 ↗ experiencing housing cost burity you

1:26:40 ↗ find a little more higher percentages

1:26:43 ↗ for bipac

1:26:46 ↗ communities than for people from White

1:26:52 ↗ community and when we are comparing

1:26:54 ↗ renter households uh by income compared

1:26:56 ↗ to rental units and Supply we have a

1:26:59 ↗ disproportionate impact on in shortfall

1:27:02 ↗ for many of the lowincome residents

1:27:04 ↗ within the city this U compared to the

1:27:07 ↗ supply for higher

1:27:10 ↗ income and then that goes into the

1:27:12 ↗ displacement risk of showing that we

1:27:15 ↗ this risk isn't necessarily high impact

1:27:18 ↗ across all demographics with the city

1:27:20 ↗ actually have a higher risk for the bipo

1:27:22 ↗ communities that are surrounding the I90

1:27:24 ↗ quor and within Central Isa and old

1:27:28 ↗ portions of

1:27:32 ↗ Oldtown

1:27:34 ↗ yes I I was curious about this um map

1:27:38 ↗ and wondered if the yellow the part

1:27:40 ↗ that's vulnerable is predominantly

1:27:44 ↗ rentals uh it is predominantly rentals

1:27:47 ↗ there are home ownership in this in this

1:27:49 ↗ area I'm thinking about U risk of

1:27:53 ↗ displacement this very high with rentals

1:27:55 ↗ just because they're rentals yeah yeah

1:27:58 ↗ but it's also I mean U our regional

1:28:00 ↗ growth Center and Central are is makes

1:28:03 ↗ up predominant of this area it is where

1:28:05 ↗ we are expecting a lot more growth so

1:28:08 ↗ that's that really highlights the

1:28:10 ↗ importance of a lot of the uh policy

1:28:12 ↗ amendments that we're proposing with the

1:28:13 ↗ housing element and really highlight how

1:28:18 ↗ and why we want to address displacement

1:28:20 ↗ and cost burden communities um within

1:28:23 ↗ the city as and making sure that we are

1:28:25 ↗ addressing that uh proactively and not

1:28:27 ↗ waiting for it um biggest takeaways uh

1:28:31 ↗ I've been talking about tonight for as

1:28:33 ↗ part of this presentation the

1:28:34 ↗ demographics of the neighborhoods is is

1:28:36 ↗ strongly made up and influenced by a lot

1:28:38 ↗ of the historical decisions and

1:28:40 ↗ discrimination that happened around the

1:28:42 ↗ nation the displacement risk around

1:28:44 ↗ centralis law is is moderate but highers

1:28:48 ↗ this of Cl and so we want to make sure

1:28:50 ↗ that we take that into account with

1:28:52 ↗ amendments for our policy

1:28:54 ↗ uh cost burden households we have a

1:28:57 ↗ disproportionate amount of cost bur

1:28:59 ↗ households households for the bipo

1:29:01 ↗ community and we want to make sure we're

1:29:02 ↗ addressing that and um providing

1:29:04 ↗ resources so that we reduce a lot of the

1:29:07 ↗ people experiencing homelessness or the

1:29:09 ↗ risk of people about to experience

1:29:12 ↗ homelessness within the city as well and

1:29:15 ↗ then we also have a relatively High need

1:29:16 ↗ for uh household supply for 50% Ami and

1:29:20 ↗ lower um as was discussed with the regul

1:29:24 ↗ we we want to be able to plan for these

1:29:26 ↗ communities not just because of the

1:29:30 ↗ targets but also because of the actual

1:29:36 ↗ need any additional

1:29:39 ↗ questions thank you

1:29:42 ↗ Stephen questions

1:29:46 ↗ comments Vice chair Bader I have a

1:29:49 ↗ comment I guess is that um I really

1:29:51 ↗ appreciated that presentation and that

1:29:53 ↗ was so so much more compelling as to why

1:29:57 ↗ proactive action is needed in my opinion

1:30:01 ↗ than what is in this report um and so I

1:30:03 ↗ would love to have more of what you said

1:30:05 ↗ and kind of the color that you gave to

1:30:07 ↗ why this is so important and why the

1:30:10 ↗ framing in my opinion that this report

1:30:12 ↗ has of hey we're not as bad as everybody

1:30:14 ↗ else so yes and look at that little tiny

1:30:17 ↗ tiny red thing right we're fine here um

1:30:19 ↗ it's not a problem but actually it is

1:30:21 ↗ right and so I just um I thought that

1:30:24 ↗ was a great presentation I would just

1:30:25 ↗ love to see more of that um in this and

1:30:28 ↗ in all City kind of

1:30:30 ↗ policies and one thing I would like to

1:30:32 ↗ address that was absolutely great

1:30:34 ↗ comments Vice chair Bader and and the

1:30:37 ↗ report that was put together by the

1:30:38 ↗ consultant is was really trying to meet

1:30:40 ↗ what was required by the state in terms

1:30:42 ↗ of providing the analysis but in the

1:30:45 ↗ discussions with the consultant as well

1:30:47 ↗ as just among staff we are constantly

1:30:50 ↗ evaluating a lot of these policies as

1:30:52 ↗ well as any of these regulations that

1:30:53 ↗ relate um make sure that we have that

1:30:56 ↗ full content Beyond with what's just in

1:30:59 ↗ that yeah and I appreciate that I also

1:31:01 ↗ think like this is a place where the

1:31:03 ↗ city can say we're going to go above

1:31:04 ↗ what the state right requires us to do

1:31:06 ↗ we're going to name that this happened

1:31:08 ↗ here um and that you know again as well

1:31:10 ↗ as you just presented it I think that

1:31:12 ↗ this is an opportunity to you know

1:31:14 ↗ not to name it right even if the state

1:31:16 ↗ doesn't require

1:31:22 ↗ that other question questions or

1:31:24 ↗ comments Mr alore I just want to Echo uh

1:31:28 ↗ what Vice chair Bader just said the

1:31:30 ↗ discussion last

1:31:32 ↗ meeting really tied together the need

1:31:34 ↗ for affordable housing for communities

1:31:38 ↗ of color this does such a better job of

1:31:41 ↗ reflecting the fact that there is

1:31:42 ↗ disproportionality in People

1:31:44 ↗ experiencing poverty uh due to systemic

1:31:47 ↗ racism systemic oppression all of the

1:31:49 ↗ systems that are working together to

1:31:51 ↗ create that as opposed to the language

1:31:54 ↗ that was used previously that was almost

1:31:56 ↗ fault based language versus the systems

1:31:59 ↗ created over the last 100 plus years so

1:32:01 ↗ I really appreciate that too I think it

1:32:03 ↗ adds a lot more clarity and takes away

1:32:05 ↗ the stigma that I think a lot of the

1:32:07 ↗ conversation was trying to get passed

1:32:10 ↗ last

1:32:14 ↗ time commissioner s and I agree with it

1:32:18 ↗ because in the sense that it it gives

1:32:21 ↗ understanding to why those numbers are

1:32:25 ↗ the way they are because it's based on a

1:32:27 ↗ history of things and you also have the

1:32:30 ↗ aspect where um you have that history

1:32:34 ↗ but you you fast forward to present day

1:32:37 ↗ you have um the bipo community like the

1:32:40 ↗ minorities and whatnot who are still

1:32:43 ↗ fearful of moving to certain areas

1:32:46 ↗ because they've been in this in this uh

1:32:49 ↗ I guess Greater Seattle area for so long

1:32:52 ↗ and they've been kept out of of certain

1:32:54 ↗ areas so that also limits that migration

1:32:58 ↗ um to areas like isqua and whatnot as

1:33:02 ↗ well so it's very nice to be able to see

1:33:05 ↗ um something like that like myself um I

1:33:08 ↗ moved from somewhere else I've only been

1:33:11 ↗ in in Washington state for almost four

1:33:14 ↗ years now so I wasn't privy to a lot of

1:33:19 ↗ the history prior to that and my my

1:33:22 ↗ ignorance was probably list that's why I

1:33:24 ↗ ended up in this in this great City and

1:33:27 ↗ whatnot so I'm able to tell people who

1:33:30 ↗ um are of my color how much I love um

1:33:34 ↗ this community as well and Al to promote

1:33:37 ↗ this not only for people of my color but

1:33:39 ↗ for others because diversity um brings

1:33:42 ↗ understanding and it also brings um more

1:33:46 ↗ love for Humanity as well so thank

1:33:52 ↗ you

1:33:54 ↗ anything else anybody

1:33:58 ↗ else um yeah no I'm going to Echo my

1:34:01 ↗ fellow Commissioners stepen fantastic

1:34:03 ↗ presentation and I do appreciate all the

1:34:05 ↗ context because I believe last not last

1:34:07 ↗ week two weeks ago uh some of that

1:34:09 ↗ context is missing Vice chair Bader's

1:34:11 ↗ Point um the cursory reading of last

1:34:14 ↗ week versus your eloquent wonderful

1:34:18 ↗ presentation um does really expand it

1:34:21 ↗ and it does really show and help so

1:34:23 ↗ thank you for that I think the only

1:34:26 ↗ thing that I found with the report from

1:34:29 ↗ the Consultants that I still

1:34:31 ↗ can't is when they talk about the

1:34:34 ↗ characteristics of the neighbor because

1:34:35 ↗ it's been such a big part of our

1:34:38 ↗ planning so I don't know how you guys

1:34:40 ↗ are going to swear that and I'm thinking

1:34:42 ↗ of it more of the design element I don't

1:34:44 ↗ really know if the Leland Consulting

1:34:46 ↗ Group I don't know if that's what they

1:34:48 ↗ meant when they say they don't really

1:34:50 ↗ like the language but I know that

1:34:52 ↗ language is what we've used ever since

1:34:54 ↗ I've been here and it's such an

1:34:55 ↗ important integral part to what people

1:34:58 ↗ want so again and I'm thinking of More

1:35:00 ↗ Design not thinking about I'm not even

1:35:03 ↗ thinking about like the affordability or

1:35:05 ↗ any of those parts because again I think

1:35:07 ↗ have a great presentation I thought the

1:35:09 ↗ Le and Consulting Group did do a good

1:35:12 ↗ job I think that's what I'm curious to

1:35:14 ↗ see how the city squares that as you

1:35:17 ↗ well know um neighborhood

1:35:19 ↗ characteristics is a big part of what we

1:35:22 ↗ do so that would be my only comment

1:35:25 ↗ otherwise appreciate the

1:35:29 ↗ presentation you want me to address the

1:35:31 ↗ comment or yeah of course okay all right

1:35:33 ↗ so um a lot of what we've been doing

1:35:36 ↗ particularly with the comprehensive plan

1:35:37 ↗ is more a tailored approach depending on

1:35:39 ↗ what the language intent is we are

1:35:42 ↗ really trying to be more specific of

1:35:44 ↗ what neighborhood character means and

1:35:46 ↗ because and that's really where our

1:35:49 ↗ consultant is getting at when their

1:35:50 ↗ comments on neighborhood character can

1:35:53 ↗ um influence a lot of racial dis past

1:35:56 ↗ racial discrimination it's more of we

1:35:59 ↗ are trying to be more specific of what

1:36:00 ↗ that means and and for each neighborhood

1:36:02 ↗ it's going to be different and that

1:36:04 ↗ could be come through a neighborhood

1:36:05 ↗ planning process um part of those land

1:36:08 ↗ use policies that we had introduced with

1:36:10 ↗ this compl was was trying to find a way

1:36:13 ↗ to define that for each of the

1:36:14 ↗ neighborhoods but for the broader

1:36:16 ↗ policies that talk about neighborhood

1:36:18 ↗ character and and what was discussed

1:36:20 ↗ last at the last meeting uh we proposed

1:36:24 ↗ being specific in saying it refers to

1:36:26 ↗ the neighborhood services and um and

1:36:28 ↗ amenities that are meaningful for each

1:36:31 ↗ of the neighborhoods while still being

1:36:33 ↗ brought that is a little more specific

1:36:35 ↗ in terms of what a lot of the

1:36:36 ↗ neighborhoods really are looking for

1:36:38 ↗ when we say neighborhood character and

1:36:40 ↗ so we were trying to be more intentional

1:36:42 ↗ with each specific policy um to make

1:36:45 ↗ sure that we are being more specific on

1:36:47 ↗ what neighbor character is without being

1:36:49 ↗ so broad as to reinforce a lot of the

1:36:53 ↗ the past harms that we are trying to

1:36:55 ↗ avoid oh that's that's

1:36:58 ↗ great any other questions or

1:37:03 ↗ comments okay thank you Stephen great

1:37:07 ↗ presentation three great

1:37:11 ↗ presentations uh we'll we'll now move to

1:37:13 ↗ reports and we'll start with the city

1:37:16 ↗ council updates not sure who's up but

1:37:19 ↗ I'm going to take a guess it's Stephen

1:37:21 ↗ it'll be me so stepen if you can provide

1:37:24 ↗ us any

1:37:25 ↗ updates uh at this time we we don't have

1:37:28 ↗ a city council update U at least nothing

1:37:31 ↗ new but I will actually have a lot more

1:37:33 ↗ for our next

1:37:35 ↗ meeting uh the one thing to update is is

1:37:38 ↗ uh We've updated this calendar for the

1:37:40 ↗ commission so the meeting on the 25th of

1:37:42 ↗ April is canceled due to conflict with

1:37:44 ↗ the holiday so our next meeting will

1:37:46 ↗ actually be May 9th and we'll be I'll be

1:37:49 ↗ introducing you to a new member at

1:37:52 ↗ that

1:37:57 ↗ always like new members so okay well

1:37:59 ↗ wonderful

1:38:01 ↗ um any other business or announcements

1:38:04 ↗ from staff nothing from

1:38:07 ↗ staff all right final word from our

1:38:10 ↗ commissioners anything they'd like to

1:38:12 ↗ add commissioner Millian please I have a

1:38:15 ↗ good of the order good of the order

1:38:17 ↗ nobody came tonight and if they had come

1:38:21 ↗ tonight they would see how beautiful the

1:38:23 ↗ cherry trees are down here at City Hall

1:38:27 ↗ complex and so anybody who's watching

1:38:30 ↗ please make a trip down to Sunset and

1:38:33 ↗ see the beautiful cherry trees they are

1:38:36 ↗ at their Peak wouldn't you say

1:38:38 ↗ absolutely come on didn't that was that

1:38:39 ↗ up I honestly thought you were going to

1:38:40 ↗ say what a beautiful conversation we had

1:38:42 ↗ but some cherry trees and I was okay

1:38:45 ↗ cherry trees are

1:38:47 ↗ beautiful anything

1:38:49 ↗ else all right well thank you again

1:38:51 ↗ everybody for coming this evening and

1:38:52 ↗ participating meeting and we will

1:38:54 ↗ adjourn this meeting tonight at 8:10

1:38:57 ↗ 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 (7)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Bader

Commissioners Altimore

Esemuede

Krass

Milligan

Patterson

Staff (1)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager 2