Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, July 25, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 20, 2024

packet pp.3–8

▶ Watch from 1:36 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, June 20, 2024

Minutes of June 27, 2024

packet pp.9–17

▶ Watch from 1:56 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, June 27, 2024

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Neighborhood Planning

Discussion · Valerie Porter, Associate Planner · packet pp.19–27

▶ Watch from 2:33 Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the June 27

Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update: Draft Review (D)

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.29–283

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 3:19 Open packet at p.29 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission will review the draft Comprehensive Plan and discuss new, proposed housing policies.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.285–287

Open packet at p.285 ↗

Staff report:

 Housing Analysis Intro  Housing Analysis Intro

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

▶ Watch from 2:01:01

2848 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ well good evening everyone good to see

0:09 ↗ everybody how's everybody

0:11 ↗ doing good couple thumbs up couple head

0:14 ↗ knots staff good Amanda good everybody's

0:19 ↗ good Nina's good Nina's live you're with

0:21 ↗ us

0:23 ↗ Nina all right well good evening

0:25 ↗ everyone I'd like to call the July 25th

0:28 ↗ planning policy commission meeting to

0:29 ↗ order it's currently 6:32 p.m. today's

0:34 ↗ meeting is a hybrid meeting the planning

0:36 ↗ policy commission is in person but staff

0:39 ↗ and we do have some staff that'll be

0:41 ↗ joining us virtually as well in

0:42 ↗ attendance and we also have a

0:44 ↗ commissioner here tonight that will also

0:46 ↗ be joining us

0:49 ↗ virtually um tonight we're looking for

0:51 ↗ Quorum so staff do we have Quorum this

0:54 ↗ evening chair of voice you do have a

0:56 ↗ quorum tonight all the Commissioners not

0:58 ↗ in attendance are excused

1:00 ↗ okay and I think this is probably an

1:02 ↗ appropriate time to let uh the

1:04 ↗ commission our staff and um our city

1:08 ↗ know that unfortunately Amma Sima um has

1:12 ↗ been called to a different part of the

1:13 ↗ country um so he unfortunately resigned

1:17 ↗ so he will not be joining us anymore but

1:20 ↗ Amma if you are listening I would like

1:22 ↗ to say that we deeply appreciated what

1:24 ↗ you have to your service here to the

1:26 ↗ planning policy commission and we wish

1:27 ↗ you good luck wherever you're Ventures

1:30 ↗ may take

1:32 ↗ you we're going to begin right now with

1:34 ↗ our first item of business which is to

1:36 ↗ take action to approve the minutes for

1:39 ↗ the June 20th 2024 meeting as well as

1:42 ↗ the June 27th 2024

1:45 ↗ meeting we'll start with uh June 20th

1:49 ↗ are there any corrections or concerns

1:50 ↗ for those meeting minutes that were

1:51 ↗ provided in your agenda

1:55 ↗ packet all right hearing none those

1:57 ↗ minutes are approved same for June 27th

2:01 ↗ are there any issues

2:02 ↗ concerns wobbles

2:05 ↗ wibbles nothing okay those meeting

2:08 ↗ minutes are also

2:10 ↗ approved now this is a fun part of our

2:12 ↗ meeting we get to hear from our

2:15 ↗ public so we'll hold public comment at

2:18 ↗ this time do we have anyone that's

2:20 ↗ signed up to speak at this

2:25 ↗ time no we do not oh

2:31 ↗ all

2:33 ↗ right let's move on to regular business

2:36 ↗ and tonight this evening we have two

2:38 ↗ items under a regular business and the

2:40 ↗ first is neighborhood planning chair

2:42 ↗ voice we do have uh one virtual hand for

2:46 ↗ audience comment oh perfect okay all

2:49 ↗ right well we appreciate that and um we

2:53 ↗ do ask that you speak clearly and pause

2:55 ↗ frequently we ask that you state your

2:57 ↗ name and if you are attend well you are

2:59 ↗ attending

3:01 ↗ um we do ask that you mute your

3:03 ↗ microphone when you're not speaking and

3:05 ↗ if you're having any technical issues

3:06 ↗ please try joining the meeting using a

3:08 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

3:10 ↗ tablet we want to collect all of your

3:13 ↗ response you can use the call and

3:15 ↗ information and the meeting invite to

3:16 ↗ call into the

3:18 ↗ meeting this part of our process is

3:20 ↗ clearly important to us they help us

3:22 ↗ with making decisions but we do ask that

3:24 ↗ you keep your comments to five minutes

3:26 ↗ or less so please when they are ready

3:32 ↗ I'm ready because that was that was a go

3:36 ↗ okay I'm Connie Marsh I live on

3:38 ↗ um and I

3:41 ↗ suppose the first one was I just wanted

3:45 ↗ to make sure you all knew that your

3:49 ↗ recomendation on the pre uh

3:53 ↗ application neighborhood meetings was

3:56 ↗ overturned by Council I was at least

3:59 ↗ able to get it down for Council to

4:01 ↗ discuss because the subcommittee had

4:04 ↗ changed it and then put it on the

4:06 ↗ consent agenda which I thought

4:09 ↗ was not right and so at least they

4:12 ↗ discussed it so moving on to tonight's

4:15 ↗ agenda um the neighborhood meetings well

4:19 ↗ the memo does not address my concerns

4:24 ↗ the uh actual little plan the draft plan

4:28 ↗ for public engagement does I'm a little

4:32 ↗ curious as to why there's a discrepancy

4:34 ↗ between the memo and and that but there

4:38 ↗ you go so now onto the comprehensive

4:41 ↗ plan one it is too voluminous for a mere

4:45 ↗ human who is busy to make comments on

4:49 ↗ this as

4:52 ↗ formed uh so I don't know how you intend

4:56 ↗ to break it down if you actually expect

4:58 ↗ the public to come out and comment on it

5:01 ↗ so from what I have read this is uh what

5:05 ↗ I see um there is an attab boy for

5:09 ↗ changes to the environmental chapter

5:12 ↗ however you still don't have the

5:13 ↗ wildlife right Wildlife goes through our

5:17 ↗ yards our streets it's everywhere and

5:21 ↗ for some reason the city keeps

5:22 ↗ relegating it to riparian corridors like

5:25 ↗ that's how we uh actually interact with

5:29 ↗ wild life it's just not true and then

5:32 ↗ the rest is there is

5:36 ↗ too much variety and the voices per

5:39 ↗ chapter it is so clear that different

5:41 ↗ people have written different things

5:44 ↗ that it is

5:46 ↗ discordant and um then beyond being

5:51 ↗ discordant it's to

5:54 ↗ wordy and so it all the all the language

5:57 ↗ could be reduced by

6:00 ↗ at least half and then um it is so

6:06 ↗ technical that it doesn't feel like

6:09 ↗ isqua in pretty much any of the language

6:13 ↗ there's a few sentences that actually

6:14 ↗ feel like a community the rest of the

6:17 ↗ sentences feel like government jargon

6:21 ↗ and gives no particular sense of what we

6:26 ↗ want isqua to be as a bunch of humans

6:30 ↗ trying to live together and be super

6:32 ↗ happy and enjoy our town and I think

6:35 ↗ really in essence this is what a

6:36 ↗ comprehensive plan is for it is to

6:39 ↗ direct policy to create a town that the

6:43 ↗ community members really want to live in

6:47 ↗ and that sense is not available in this

6:51 ↗ comprehensive plan it has been in past

6:54 ↗ comprehensive plans um the introductory

6:57 ↗ chapter is a great example of this there

7:00 ↗ is no passion for isqua at all and so I

7:04 ↗ have no idea where the city is trying to

7:07 ↗ make us go all it talks about is you

7:10 ↗ know the rules and regulations and what

7:12 ↗ the Outside Agency says that we should

7:15 ↗ be and that is not what the introductory

7:19 ↗ chapter is for so because this is way

7:22 ↗ too much to try to Wordsmith and create

7:26 ↗ actual effective change in this form I'm

7:29 ↗ going to leave it at that high of a

7:31 ↗ level and ask you to try to figure out

7:34 ↗ how to make staff break it down into

7:37 ↗ something more palatable so the

7:39 ↗ community can actually input thank

7:46 ↗ you thank you are there any other

7:50 ↗ speakers thank you Connie thank you for

7:53 ↗ the word of the day Discord it TR to use

7:57 ↗ it in a sent

8:00 ↗ all right now off to regular business so

8:02 ↗ tonight we have two items and the first

8:05 ↗ is neighborhood planning and valer

8:07 ↗ reporter our associate planner will be

8:09 ↗ presenting tonight Valerie virtually

8:13 ↗ Valerie uh when you're ready please go

8:15 ↗ ahead

8:29 ↗ [Music]

8:32 ↗ um all right chair voice can you see my

8:36 ↗ screen I

8:40 ↗ can thank you all right hi everyone my

8:44 ↗ name is Valerie and I'm going to be

8:45 ↗ talking about the neighborhood planning

8:48 ↗ guide so the neighborhood planning guide

8:50 ↗ is a document that will be used

8:52 ↗ internally by staff and it's going to be

8:55 ↗ an attachment to the comprehensive plan

8:57 ↗ so tonight we're not looking for a

8:59 ↗ recommendation to counsel or anything

9:01 ↗ like that we're just looking for some

9:04 ↗ feedback and to help um guide the

9:06 ↗ discussion um two questions are being

9:08 ↗ posed the first one is does the

9:11 ↗ commission have any recommendations on

9:13 ↗ the level of public engagement needed to

9:15 ↗ develop a neighborhood plan and then the

9:17 ↗ second question is are there any

9:19 ↗ additional changes that you would like

9:20 ↗ to see with this

9:24 ↗ plan so objectives so while updating the

9:28 ↗ city-wide strategic plan

9:29 ↗ this idea of having a guide to develop

9:32 ↗ plans specific to each neighborhoods was

9:34 ↗ created the objective of this guide is

9:37 ↗ to help staff work with the community

9:39 ↗ members to develop a visioning plan for

9:41 ↗ a 10 to 15E time period for their

9:43 ↗ specific neighborhood that aligns with

9:45 ↗ the comprehensive plan this guide is

9:48 ↗ intended to be a tool for staff and also

9:51 ↗ work in coordination with capital

9:53 ↗ Improvement projects as well as steer

9:55 ↗ land use decisions at this time we're

9:58 ↗ not quite sure how many plans we're

9:59 ↗ going to have in the future but when we

10:01 ↗ do have more than one we like to make

10:04 ↗ sure that the plans are um

10:10 ↗ consistent So the plan format so the

10:13 ↗ document starts off with an introduction

10:15 ↗ um detailing what is a neighborhood plan

10:19 ↗ it then goes into um public engagement

10:22 ↗ where we're talking about who the key

10:24 ↗ audience members are those are um

10:26 ↗ business members owners students anyone

10:29 ↗ involved with the community or the

10:31 ↗ neighborhood and then we then go into

10:33 ↗ roles and responsibilities we talk about

10:36 ↗ the individual roles that are necessary

10:37 ↗ for the community as well as for the

10:40 ↗ staff the document then goes into

10:43 ↗ listing specific tasks that we believe

10:45 ↗ are necessary to develop a neighborhood

10:48 ↗ plan and then at the end of the document

10:50 ↗ there is a basic outline that we're

10:52 ↗ hoping that all of these neighborhood

10:54 ↗ plans would

10:56 ↗ follow here I've tried to just kind of

10:58 ↗ pull out some key tasks from the list of

11:01 ↗ tasks that are in the document um first

11:03 ↗ we would start off with just preparing a

11:05 ↗ preliminary scope of work which is

11:07 ↗ identifying you know what the

11:08 ↗ neighborhood is um the timeline who

11:12 ↗ needs to be involved then um staff would

11:14 ↗ have an internal kickoff meeting with

11:16 ↗ other members of the staff just to

11:17 ↗ coordinate and understand if there's any

11:19 ↗ Capital Improvement projects happening

11:21 ↗ in the neighborhood and um helping to uh

11:24 ↗ guide any background information once we

11:27 ↗ have a background plan we would then

11:29 ↗ hold a neighborhood visioning meeting

11:32 ↗ and this is the first touch with the

11:33 ↗ community where we'd be looking for

11:35 ↗ information what you know what the

11:37 ↗ community thought um thinks is important

11:41 ↗ what do they cherish about their

11:42 ↗ neighborhood and then once staff gets um

11:45 ↗ all this information we would then take

11:46 ↗ that and draft the neighborhood plan

11:49 ↗ from there we would then present that

11:51 ↗ draft to the the neighborhood gain

11:53 ↗ additional feedback and then take that

11:56 ↗ information and then finalize the draft

11:58 ↗ plan once we have a a good draft or

12:01 ↗ final draft we would then start the

12:03 ↗ process of presenting this to all the

12:05 ↗ boards and commission to then ultimately

12:08 ↗ have the document

12:11 ↗ adopted so again I pose these two

12:14 ↗ questions and at this time I would like

12:18 ↗ to ask if there's any questions or

12:21 ↗ comments thank you Valerie excellent

12:25 ↗ presentation thank you and yes we do

12:28 ↗ have some comments so again this is

12:29 ↗ really more of a discussion we're giving

12:31 ↗ Valerie and staff some feedback um

12:33 ↗ clearly this will probably we'll see

12:35 ↗ this again so commissioner

12:38 ↗ craft hello thanks for that I I love a

12:41 ↗ very short PowerPoint this my heart um

12:45 ↗ so my comments um are going to be more

12:48 ↗ showing that I came from a big which and

12:52 ↗ I can you go back to the one that has

12:54 ↗ all the different color flow charts I

12:56 ↗ think it was called process thank you I

12:58 ↗ think it be super helpful as as you roll

13:01 ↗ it out and I'm going to use a term it's

13:03 ↗ called

13:04 ↗ ory to on each one of these blocks so

13:07 ↗ it's very clear of what staff does or

13:11 ↗ and maybe specifically on staff versus

13:14 ↗ Community or boards and I'll I'll

13:16 ↗ explain what that means so orp is owner

13:19 ↗ like who's the owner of that element

13:23 ↗ approver sometimes it's the same

13:25 ↗ sometimes it's different um reviewer and

13:28 ↗ some of these have multiple people who

13:29 ↗ review it

13:32 ↗ participant um sometimes people give

13:34 ↗ feedback they're not and once again this

13:37 ↗ is from a Microsoft standpoint it may

13:39 ↗ not be exactly applicable and then

13:41 ↗ inform that's just more people who have

13:43 ↗ the readout and I think that will add

13:45 ↗ Clarity I like the fact that there's

13:47 ↗ involvement across a lot of different

13:49 ↗ steps but um maybe going through and I'm

13:52 ↗ happy to to help you think through this

13:53 ↗ if you need of the role of each group so

13:57 ↗ they could see where they plug in and

13:58 ↗ and how it kind of flows through so it

14:00 ↗ doesn't seem like oh we get this you

14:03 ↗ know I was overwhelmed too when you get

14:04 ↗ 300 Page document to review but there

14:07 ↗ may be different elements to to go

14:09 ↗ through so that may just make it helpful

14:11 ↗ as and I'm not sure how many

14:14 ↗ neighborhoods we're going to do this is

14:16 ↗ going to be done for I know you can't I

14:18 ↗ mean I looked at my neighborhood

14:20 ↗ hopefully mine's one of them um and uh

14:23 ↗ and then once you get the first one then

14:24 ↗ the next ones are much easier once you

14:26 ↗ kind of get through that that's that's

14:27 ↗ the only feedback that I have

14:30 ↗ that's great thank you and yes I'll

14:32 ↗ probably reach out just to understand

14:34 ↗ that a little bit more and understand

14:35 ↗ what that looks

14:37 ↗ like excellent thank you commissioner

14:41 ↗ craft we'll wait for some more feedback

14:43 ↗ for Valerie um commissioner

14:51 ↗ Milligan okay here I come thank you

14:55 ↗ chair of voice thank you Valerie U I

14:57 ↗ have a little hand full of questions um

15:00 ↗ and should I just go through all of them

15:02 ↗ share Voice or do you want me to go one

15:03 ↗ at a time uh no I'd go I'd go for all of

15:07 ↗ them many as Valerie can handle yeah

15:10 ↗ right

15:12 ↗ okay looking on uh of the packet page 22

15:17 ↗ uh who should participate in

15:18 ↗ neighborhood planning uh uh anyone who

15:21 ↗ lives works or spends time in the

15:23 ↗ neighborhood um it's the spends time in

15:26 ↗ the neighborhood that was not feeling uh

15:29 ↗ clear enough for me and um later on in

15:32 ↗ the document it says something like

15:34 ↗ lives Works plays and prays you know

15:37 ↗ which is a little more specific I don't

15:38 ↗ know if that's the right phrase but what

15:41 ↗ I was thinking about was um how do we um

15:44 ↗ protect the members of a community from

15:47 ↗ perhaps getting kind of

15:48 ↗ hijacked uh during their process from

15:51 ↗ somebody who's not a member and then I

15:54 ↗ got uh very academic about who is the

15:57 ↗ city the

15:59 ↗ City accountable to in a

16:03 ↗ neighborhood um you know as as an

16:05 ↗ elected governance structure I don't

16:09 ↗ have the answer to this question I know

16:10 ↗ that we talk about

16:12 ↗ stakeholders and our business Community

16:14 ↗ is very important to us for instance but

16:17 ↗ are we um accountable to all Property

16:21 ↗ Owners even if they don't live in isqua

16:25 ↗ I don't know I don't know the answer to

16:27 ↗ that question but it made me think

16:29 ↗ deeply about um how to very um

16:31 ↗ specifically protect the people who are

16:33 ↗ members of a neighborhood and I'm and

16:35 ↗ I'm only giving you the live Works plays

16:38 ↗ praise as maybe a a

16:40 ↗ better um it learns lives learns Works

16:45 ↗ plays

16:47 ↗ praise that was better than just people

16:50 ↗ who are sometimes in a neighborhood you

16:52 ↗ could say or spends significant time in

16:54 ↗ a neighborhood that was one I look

16:55 ↗ forward to hearing from my fellow uh

16:57 ↗ Commissioners on what they thought

16:59 ↗ um if that jumped out at them okay oh

17:02 ↗ wait there's more okay uh so then down

17:05 ↗ later in task number six uh the

17:08 ↗ neighborhood assessment survey um I have

17:10 ↗ found when I've done neighborhood

17:11 ↗ surveys in isqua Highlands it's very

17:13 ↗ difficult to

17:16 ↗ um I think Thomas can do this but I just

17:19 ↗ didn't know how um to make sure you're

17:21 ↗ getting honest voices from inside your a

17:24 ↗ community especially with an online

17:26 ↗ survey or something like that it's

17:28 ↗ really easy for

17:30 ↗ um people who may have um other opinions

17:34 ↗ than those in the

17:35 ↗ neighborhood um to uh input their voice

17:39 ↗ so I wanted to make sure that we

17:42 ↗ could uh manage neighborhood surveys so

17:45 ↗ that they truly measure the voices of

17:46 ↗ the community

17:50 ↗ members and

17:52 ↗ then guys I'll take a note so you can

17:54 ↗ jump in later with your ideas okay test

17:56 ↗ number seven um

17:59 ↗ where it says consider what makes a

18:01 ↗ neighborhood more vibrant livable and

18:03 ↗ different from other neighborhoods my

18:04 ↗ complaint is with the phrase more

18:06 ↗ vibrant not all neighborhoods want to be

18:09 ↗ vibrant vibrant means lively noisy

18:12 ↗ active

18:13 ↗ bright I think that could be removed

18:16 ↗ unless other people think

18:18 ↗ differently and then

18:22 ↗ um do the paragraph following that in

18:24 ↗ test number seven where it says help

18:25 ↗ community members reach consensus on a

18:27 ↗ vision for the neighborhood

18:29 ↗ uh I just wanted to offer a a strategic

18:33 ↗ thought in that hopefully our

18:35 ↗ neighborhoods are very diverse and have

18:38 ↗ all sorts of opinions and ways of doing

18:41 ↗ things and and that's what's going to

18:43 ↗ make it rich that if there were a way to

18:47 ↗ capture um City staff should help

18:51 ↗ community members find their common

18:54 ↗ ground you know something that specified

18:57 ↗ that we're not trying to make you all

18:59 ↗ all March to the same

19:02 ↗ drummer but rather um identify where you

19:05 ↗ have commonalities that you can

19:08 ↗ champion and yeah there was another

19:11 ↗ phrase later

19:13 ↗ um where in test number 12 uh you

19:15 ↗ distribute the neighborhood plan to

19:17 ↗ interested parties I thought that was a

19:18 ↗ little vague and didn't specify um the

19:22 ↗ particular stakeholders were trying to

19:23 ↗ reach in a

19:26 ↗ neighborhood and

19:29 ↗ I think that's it for now some of the

19:31 ↗ other stuff was um in the table of

19:36 ↗ potential neighborhood plan outline that

19:38 ↗ was just a little too meaty I don't I

19:40 ↗ don't think I'm ready to i' be happy to

19:42 ↗ talk about that some other time I'll

19:45 ↗ listen to see if my other Commissioners

19:48 ↗ contribute about that thank

19:50 ↗ you thank you commissioner Milligan you

19:52 ↗ know what'll help staff is you can if

19:54 ↗ you can come up with a clever acronym

19:56 ↗ staff loves acronyms

19:59 ↗ so if you could do that the winner let

20:03 ↗ me see if let's get the other people in

20:04 ↗ here first um commissioner Kennedy

20:07 ↗ commissioner zacharov commissioner

20:09 ↗ Patterson you guys have I just want to

20:11 ↗ make sure you guys get an opportunity to

20:16 ↗ speak we could come back to you I

20:21 ↗ just okay M

20:23 ↗ CR so Nina made a very good point um and

20:29 ↗ it comes this is kind of a a bigger

20:31 ↗ question is like who are who gets what

20:34 ↗ say it and go back to the orpie thing as

20:35 ↗ an example they may people may get

20:37 ↗ informed but maybe they don't get to

20:39 ↗ review or participate so for

20:42 ↗ example uh I'll put myself let's say I

20:44 ↗ go to Bellevue every now and then and I

20:46 ↗ go to Maiden Bower park or the beach

20:49 ↗ there should I have a say in their

20:50 ↗ neighborhood plan because I play there

20:52 ↗ probably not so I do wonder whether you

20:56 ↗ refine it even more so you could say go

20:59 ↗ back to each one of these people who

21:00 ↗ live here of course they have in their

21:03 ↗ people who work in the neighborhood yes

21:06 ↗ I think they have a say in that

21:07 ↗ neighborhood um people who play in the

21:10 ↗ neighborhood or pray I I kind of want to

21:13 ↗ stay away from religious aspects of

21:14 ↗ these things but if you're here once a

21:17 ↗ month you get a say in the neighborhood

21:19 ↗ I don't know I think that's a that's an

21:21 ↗ element of discussion of who are

21:24 ↗ stakeholders that you listen to versus

21:26 ↗ just inform and I think um I'm sure

21:29 ↗ staff will have a point of view on that

21:31 ↗ but I just think it's a question that we

21:32 ↗ should be clear on before you start

21:34 ↗ rolling this out to um people in the

21:37 ↗ community that's all so thank you Nina

21:40 ↗ for for making it double click on that

21:43 ↗ one a little bit

21:44 ↗ more commissioner grass commissioner

21:48 ↗ Patterson awesome thank you uh I suppose

21:50 ↗ mine's probably kind of a clarifying

21:52 ↗ question which is um maybe you can help

21:55 ↗ me understand some of the potential

21:56 ↗ outcomes of a neighborhood plan um so

21:59 ↗ for instance some things that came out

22:01 ↗ of my mind were would it be expected

22:04 ↗ that based on the feedback that was

22:06 ↗ received and documented that it might

22:09 ↗ guide like for instance changes to land

22:12 ↗ use and Zoning uh allocation of City

22:15 ↗ resources to build Parks or install

22:17 ↗ public art um you know things like that

22:21 ↗ is that kind of what the potential

22:23 ↗ outcomes could be based on the

22:25 ↗ neighborhood plan or maybe I can get

22:28 ↗ some more clarification on

22:30 ↗ that yeah so today we have two

22:33 ↗ neighborhood plans we have the Central

22:35 ↗ Central isqua plan and then we also have

22:37 ↗ the Oldtown plan and both of these

22:40 ↗ documents are again extensions of the

22:42 ↗ comprehensive plan so they outline the

22:45 ↗ vision for that neighborhood and goals

22:47 ↗ um so like these um like the

22:50 ↗ comprehensive plan these policies help

22:53 ↗ inform land use decisions so um

22:58 ↗ I'm trying to think of a good

23:01 ↗ example so for instance like in the

23:03 ↗ central isqua plan there is a policy

23:06 ↗ that says you know development should be

23:08 ↗ walkable so in the land use code there

23:11 ↗ are um regulations that state you know

23:14 ↗ for blocks that are more than 300 feet

23:16 ↗ you have to have a um a path a three

23:19 ↗ block passage so that's the um intent I

23:23 ↗ believe of these plans is that again

23:25 ↗ you're um outlining the vision what you

23:27 ↗ think is important what things that you

23:28 ↗ would like to highlight and then it

23:30 ↗ would then ultimately trickle down into

23:32 ↗ the land use code or any other

23:36 ↗ regulations but it's not a guarantee

23:38 ↗ it's not just saying because it's in the

23:40 ↗ plan we're automatically going to change

23:42 ↗ the code for these things but it's a

23:44 ↗ plan it's a

23:47 ↗ vision does that answer your question it

23:50 ↗ did yeah thank you very

23:52 ↗ much um okay I I got a fair voice a

23:56 ↗ couple things real quickly I think one

23:58 ↗ thing thing Valerie that would be good

24:00 ↗ to keep in mind is I don't agree I can't

24:03 ↗ remember who made the comment might have

24:04 ↗ been Nina but kind of having a liaison

24:07 ↗ that works with the community the last

24:09 ↗ thing we want are a bunch of Hatfields

24:10 ↗ and McCoy um getting upset with one

24:13 ↗ another because they have two different

24:14 ↗ visions of what their neighborhood

24:16 ↗ should look like because I also think

24:18 ↗ those surveys they've got to have a

24:20 ↗ certain amount of anonymity these people

24:22 ↗ have to live with one another and if

24:24 ↗ they have strikingly different views um

24:27 ↗ it's probably a good thing there's like

24:29 ↗ I said some of that shielding from

24:31 ↗ surveys and things like that those are

24:32 ↗ things I would keep in

24:34 ↗ mind I think to commissioner cr's point

24:37 ↗ and also commissioner Milligan it is an

24:40 ↗ interesting question to ask who makes up

24:42 ↗ a neighborhood and I think when

24:45 ↗ commissioner crass is probably talking

24:47 ↗ again I I do have a trouble with the

24:49 ↗ worshipper that comes once a week do

24:51 ↗ they get a say but then I could see the

24:53 ↗ institution itself um I know there's

24:55 ↗ like kabad the labers are up in um

24:59 ↗ by black black Nugget Road um Our Savior

25:03 ↗ Lutheran lives near me so I would say

25:06 ↗ the institution probably gets a say but

25:08 ↗ does an average worshipper that comes

25:10 ↗ from out of town I I don't know I I

25:13 ↗ would kind of agree much of a say would

25:15 ↗ they really and should their vote

25:18 ↗ override someone who actually pays taxes

25:20 ↗ and lives in that neighborhood I'll take

25:22 ↗ the bait um experiencing homelessness

25:25 ↗ that one kind of shocked me and I know

25:27 ↗ we want to be inclusive and I get that

25:29 ↗ and like I said I think a lot of the

25:30 ↗ document reads really really well don't

25:33 ↗ know if that one's there because I mean

25:34 ↗ the whole idea of being homeless is

25:36 ↗ they're not part of that neighborhood

25:38 ↗ and I could be wrong and I'm happy to

25:40 ↗ have my mind changed that one kind of

25:42 ↗ stood out so maybe there's more

25:44 ↗ clarification because the way I see the

25:46 ↗ experience homelessness I think of

25:48 ↗ families that have fallen on hard time

25:51 ↗ but then you also have the other picture

25:52 ↗ of homelessness and that are

25:55 ↗ more transient I guess so again I think

25:58 ↗ more clarification on who the

25:59 ↗ stakeholders are rather than a broad

26:02 ↗ basically anyone that touches the Earth

26:03 ↗ in this neighborhood gets to say those

26:06 ↗ would be a couple things that I would

26:08 ↗ point out but ultimately I'm looking

26:10 ↗ forward to it and I think as far as what

26:11 ↗ You' mentioned about Oldtown that's a

26:13 ↗ good example because again a lot of the

26:15 ↗ business Community does get a say

26:17 ↗ definitely on Sunset there's a lot of

26:19 ↗ business activity the homeowners

26:21 ↗ themselves got a big say in that

26:23 ↗ particular plan those houses obviously

26:25 ↗ being um

26:28 ↗ work

26:31 ↗ but part of the fabric of the community

26:34 ↗ so there's certain codes that are for

26:35 ↗ them that are not applicable in other

26:37 ↗ parts of the city so I I think the

26:40 ↗ Oldtown was a good Central is more I

26:42 ↗ mean it's more broad but I know it has

26:43 ↗ its own things but Oldtown is a good

26:46 ↗ example I guess when kind of rolling

26:48 ↗ this out to present people okay here's

26:50 ↗ here's our first neighborhood plan that

26:51 ↗ is kind of voted in and yeah couple

26:57 ↗ suggestions I those are great yeah and I

26:59 ↗ do see little Simpson hand so missioner

27:05 ↗ Milligan oh now I'm a member of The

27:07 ↗ Simpsons thank you Nina Milligan here uh

27:11 ↗ uh thank you for carrying that

27:13 ↗ conversation and and helping to

27:16 ↗ um put words to the um concern I had

27:20 ↗ thank you both of you um this inspires

27:24 ↗ me to say something really bold that's

27:26 ↗ not in our document but it may

27:30 ↗ provide a future solution we do not yet

27:33 ↗ have District city council

27:37 ↗ representation and when we go to look to

27:40 ↗ who's accountable and how do they

27:42 ↗ represent it and what uh interaction do

27:45 ↗ we have with the members of a

27:48 ↗ neighborhood um when we when we because

27:52 ↗ we will at some point have District

27:54 ↗ representation for City Council Members

27:57 ↗ um this will be

27:59 ↗ really interesting and maybe valuable in

28:01 ↗ solving this quandry about who's in the

28:05 ↗ neighborhood and who's accountable to

28:07 ↗ them and how do we do

28:09 ↗ it thank

28:12 ↗ you thank you commissioner migan

28:14 ↗ commissioner

28:16 ↗ Kennedy I think my initial question is

28:19 ↗ assuming we've had meetings for

28:21 ↗ neighborhood planning before like Old

28:24 ↗ Town who does come to those meetings

28:27 ↗ because we're we talking a little bit

28:28 ↗ about people within the neighborhood

28:30 ↗ potentially disagreeing and we're

28:32 ↗ talking a little bit about people from

28:34 ↗ outside the neighbor outside living and

28:36 ↗ working in the neighborhood potentially

28:38 ↗ having say in that neighborhood um I'm

28:41 ↗ on board with the sort of limiting if

28:45 ↗ who has a say in permanent aspects to a

28:49 ↗ given neighborhood I can't

28:51 ↗ fathom um you know someone from a

28:53 ↗ totally different neighborhood squawk

28:55 ↗ you know someone lives on

28:56 ↗ mountains going to come over to the

28:57 ↗ highlands and say this is what the

28:58 ↗ Highland should look like but I don't

29:00 ↗ live or spend much time here but I'm

29:01 ↗ going to have a voice or vice versa um

29:05 ↗ so the question

29:06 ↗ mean are we imagining things that aren't

29:09 ↗ super likely maybe um the meetings we've

29:13 ↗ had so

29:15 ↗ far has it been mostly people that live

29:19 ↗ in that

29:21 ↗ area

29:23 ↗ unfortunately I haven't been involved

29:25 ↗ with those plans and the best person to

29:27 ↗ answer that question is not here which

29:29 ↗ is Kristen um Stephen do you have an

29:32 ↗ idea or do

29:33 ↗ you can you speak to that yes um Ste a

29:37 ↗ longrange planing manager so a lot of at

29:41 ↗ least pretty much Kristen was the only

29:43 ↗ person that's on the team that was in

29:45 ↗ person for a lot of those discussions

29:47 ↗ with the Oldtown but in my discussions

29:49 ↗ with her in my familiarity with the plan

29:52 ↗ there was direct communication with um

29:54 ↗ members of the community that live

29:56 ↗ directly in Oldtown when they were

29:57 ↗ having having discussions about how you

30:00 ↗ how they wanted to frame the vision and

30:02 ↗ the policies and even the design

30:04 ↗ characteristics that became regulations

30:06 ↗ for Oldtown um there were communication

30:09 ↗ with the businesses that are in Oldtown

30:11 ↗ there communication with the homeowners

30:14 ↗ and renters in Oldtown that live in

30:17 ↗ Oldtown around how they wanted the the

30:20 ↗ the neighborhood to look and so to

30:22 ↗ answer many of your questions there were

30:24 ↗ direct communication there was likely

30:26 ↗ communication from people out outside of

30:28 ↗ Oldtown as well but that's not an aspect

30:30 ↗ that's really in in our control of who

30:34 ↗ can attend any of these public meetings

30:36 ↗ but we do take into account who are we

30:38 ↗ in directly inviting to a lot of the

30:40 ↗ meetings and so when we had meetings in

30:42 ↗ Oldtown there was direct communication

30:44 ↗ to a lot of the residents and the

30:46 ↗ businesses that are in Oldtown on when

30:50 ↗ those meetings were were occurring uh

30:52 ↗ when they are occurring and and so we

30:56 ↗ you know at least our

30:58 ↗ fairly confident that we were getting at

31:00 ↗ least majority say in terms of how that

31:03 ↗ town U Old Town plan was being formed

31:07 ↗ does that help answer many of your

31:08 ↗ questions in terms of like how we do it

31:10 ↗ when when it in terms of like when a

31:11 ↗ survey goes out we you know we always

31:15 ↗ ask the question on where you live in

31:17 ↗ the city and and we take that into

31:19 ↗ account when we're kind of doing the

31:20 ↗ analytics on the responses that we get

31:23 ↗ for those surveys so that is also taken

31:25 ↗ into account when when we're doing any

31:27 ↗ of our

31:31 ↗ engagement I'm wondering if there's any

31:35 ↗ language we want to put in

31:37 ↗ there not limiting who comes to the

31:39 ↗ meeting everyone can come to the meeting

31:40 ↗ and I could see lots of people wanting

31:41 ↗ to go to a meeting about Oldtown a lot

31:43 ↗ of us spend time in Oldtown it's sort of

31:46 ↗ our Central core but then to the extent

31:49 ↗ if there were a larger group that wanted

31:51 ↗ to have significant say that could

31:55 ↗ somehow outvote people that actually

31:58 ↗ live in that area that are most impacted

32:01 ↗ by anything in that area that staff is

32:05 ↗ taking to into account sort of waiting

32:08 ↗ the votes of the people that live there

32:10 ↗ over we get the voices of everyone but

32:13 ↗ waiting the votes to the people that

32:15 ↗ actually live in a given

32:17 ↗ area I don't know that it's needed

32:21 ↗ but if it

32:24 ↗ were I'll just jump in here real quick

32:26 ↗ um their voice I I think if obviously if

32:31 ↗ I think I understood Stephen basically

32:32 ↗ the surveys go out to people that live

32:34 ↗ in the neighborhood but then when you

32:36 ↗ have your open houses as your point

32:39 ↗ right they're open to everyone but

32:41 ↗ ideally everyone States their name their

32:43 ↗ location what part of the city they live

32:45 ↗ in and to your point yeah a lot of

32:46 ↗ people spend time in Oldtown the

32:49 ↗ historic street right there but I it

32:52 ↗ might be something like yeah the surveys

32:53 ↗ only go out to people you know

32:55 ↗ registered with an address there uh

33:00 ↗ I think it's also important that we're

33:01 ↗ talking about this because when you

33:03 ↗ start rolling this out you're setting

33:04 ↗ the foundation when you say play pray or

33:07 ↗ whatever the different options are of

33:09 ↗ setting the expectations of who's a

33:11 ↗ partic who's a um participants in this

33:14 ↗ thing and we just be very clear and

33:16 ↗ that'll then

33:18 ↗ inform um a plan before it even gets

33:21 ↗ rolled out of of how the this thing

33:23 ↗ works because you may based on the words

33:26 ↗ that you use kind of avoid somebody yes

33:28 ↗ people can come in and have an opinion

33:29 ↗ but yeah obvious I think you said the

33:31 ↗ wrong expectation if you if you have it

33:33 ↗ too broad in the written document yeah

33:35 ↗ but to commissioner Kennedy's point I

33:36 ↗ mean again everybody wants to probably

33:38 ↗ say something about old you know again

33:41 ↗ people on squawk probably not as

33:42 ↗ concerned about

33:44 ↗ U maybe Providence Ridge but uh yeah I

33:48 ↗ guess something to keep in mind and we

33:50 ↗ we'll look forward to how staff rolls

33:51 ↗ that out but before we go commissioner

33:53 ↗ Milligan also would like something

33:57 ↗ thank you and thank you commissioner

33:59 ↗ Kennedy I just want to um interact with

34:02 ↗ you a little bit and give you two

34:03 ↗ examples of times where I saw that this

34:05 ↗ was a real concern one was um Central

34:08 ↗ isqua plan when we first were working on

34:11 ↗ it and developing the first draft plan

34:13 ↗ there were a lot of people who came to

34:15 ↗ those meetings who had a commercial

34:18 ↗ interest in the town but didn't live

34:20 ↗ there and uh they were um uh out uh they

34:25 ↗ had a some um an out sized voice to the

34:29 ↗ you know the timid neighborhood person

34:32 ↗ who was just wanting to get involved in

34:33 ↗ their Community uh another um

34:36 ↗ circumstance was when I was living on

34:38 ↗ merer island and we were um revising the

34:41 ↗ residential uh design guidelines

34:44 ↗ something like that you know

34:46 ↗ Residential Building design guidelines

34:49 ↗ oh my gosh Master Builders Association

34:52 ↗ every developer in the Seattle and bellw

34:54 ↗ area they were all there to influence

34:57 ↗ inuence what their Community what the

34:59 ↗ Mercer Island community looked and felt

35:01 ↗ like when it was intended to be for the

35:05 ↗ Neighbors the people who live there to

35:08 ↗ shape the future of their um

35:10 ↗ neighborhoods so there are this does

35:12 ↗ happen and I'm just trying to I'm really

35:14 ↗ glad uh for the input that the other

35:16 ↗ Commissioners have provided to um narrow

35:18 ↗ the focus of our um attention and

35:22 ↗ getting neighborhood feedback so thank

35:23 ↗ you very

35:25 ↗ much yeah good point U commissioner

35:28 ↗ Milligan I'll just add that I agree

35:30 ↗ Oldtown you know they're much more onp

35:33 ↗ brick and mortar stores we definitely

35:35 ↗ had people because again I I was pretty

35:37 ↗ new I think when that was rolling out so

35:39 ↗ I vaguely remember it but again you had

35:41 ↗ business owners that had little shops on

35:43 ↗ Front Street they definitely were a part

35:45 ↗ of it you had a lot of residents but I

35:47 ↗ could see how the central isqua plan

35:49 ↗ right they come in with a lawyer you

35:51 ↗ know polished with their what they want

35:54 ↗ to say they use their entire five

35:55 ↗ minutes versus resident that two minutes

35:58 ↗ and you have to tell him talk in the

36:01 ↗ microphone uh commissioner

36:04 ↗ zacharov thank you uh well uh

36:07 ↗ commissioner Milligan kind of brought me

36:09 ↗ to this uh question uh it's not a

36:12 ↗ question it's more like a hope that uh

36:14 ↗ if we want to engage more of the

36:16 ↗ residents we need to communicate with

36:18 ↗ them a little bit better so maybe there

36:19 ↗ should be a little bit more information

36:21 ↗ to Residents because very often and

36:23 ↗ that's what I hear sometimes from

36:25 ↗ residents they don't know things that I

36:27 ↗ happening they learn about them in the

36:29 ↗ very last moment when they have plans

36:31 ↗ they

36:32 ↗ can so for businesses yes as a business

36:34 ↗ owner I know that that's my plan that's

36:37 ↗ my interest I need to be in a at a

36:39 ↗ certain meeting at a certain time but

36:41 ↗ for residents we need a better

36:46 ↗ communication great thank you

36:47 ↗ commissioner Zach

36:49 ↗ Ross I'll ask Valerie have you got the

36:52 ↗ feedback that you

36:54 ↗ wanted I got a lot of great feedback

36:56 ↗ thank you everyone this is very helpful

36:59 ↗ okay and before we let Valerie off the

37:00 ↗ hook does anyone have anything else

37:02 ↗ they'd like to

37:05 ↗ add all right well thank you again

37:07 ↗ Valerie great presentation great job

37:10 ↗ Commissioners great

37:11 ↗ discussion and we will move

37:19 ↗ on there we go right so the other item

37:23 ↗ for discussion this meeting includes a

37:24 ↗ draft review of the comprehensive plan

37:27 ↗ is part of the city's periodic update

37:30 ↗ Steven Padua our long range planning

37:32 ↗ manager will be presenting tonight so

37:34 ↗ Stephen when you are ready please go

37:36 ↗ ahead thank you chair of voice and thank

37:38 ↗ you Commissioners for having me to speak

37:41 ↗ about the draft plan tonight so as you

37:43 ↗ saw from your packet there's a lot to

37:45 ↗ cover for tonight's presentation I'm

37:47 ↗ primarily going to be going through a

37:49 ↗ lot of the changes since you last saw

37:52 ↗ all the elements um just to highlight

37:56 ↗ the biggest differences in terms of like

37:57 ↗ what you saw from the goals and policies

38:00 ↗ from the previous meetings um in exhibit

38:04 ↗ well that's going to be another slide

38:05 ↗ the direction we need tonight is going

38:06 ↗ to be on additional changes um the

38:09 ↗ commission would like to see is there

38:11 ↗ additional information that would be

38:13 ↗ helpful for the commission's review and

38:15 ↗ then do you agree with the new or

38:16 ↗ amended policies that are being

38:18 ↗ presented tonight and there are two that

38:19 ↗ we're proposing for

38:22 ↗ tonight so going over similar

38:25 ↗ information we provided in previous

38:27 ↗ meetings the background for the growth

38:29 ↗ management Act is what is requiring the

38:31 ↗ comprehensive plan uh for cities and

38:33 ↗ counties there are several goals that

38:37 ↗ need to be covered within the

38:38 ↗ comprehensive plan that translate into

38:40 ↗ all the different elements that um you

38:43 ↗ saw in the draft plan the compr

38:47 ↗ comprehensive plan describes the city's

38:49 ↗ vision for the next 20 years um how IT

38:52 ↗ addresses housing how we want to address

38:55 ↗ land use and transportation all the

38:57 ↗ other

38:58 ↗ elements that are provided in the draft

39:00 ↗ plan and it influences a lot of the

39:03 ↗ decision- making or the implementation

39:06 ↗ of the functional plans that being the

39:08 ↗ plans that have more of the strategies

39:10 ↗ and the actions identified for each of

39:11 ↗ those different topic areas and then

39:13 ↗ that helps inform our performance

39:15 ↗ metrics that we use to um guide a lot of

39:19 ↗ our actions in terms of seeing how well

39:21 ↗ we're making progress on any of our

39:24 ↗ goals and

39:25 ↗ Visions the process that will go through

39:29 ↗ for discussion tonight is going through

39:31 ↗ the list of changes that were included

39:33 ↗ in exhibit a and so a lot of the slides

39:36 ↗ that will be following this are in line

39:38 ↗ with what we're provided in exhibit a

39:40 ↗ for the list of changes we also had a

39:44 ↗ list of meetings that were used to help

39:47 ↗ with updating the elements um several

39:49 ↗ that were with this commission as well

39:51 ↗ as the other boards commissions that

39:53 ↗ help influence the other elements that

39:55 ↗ are in the comprehens plan as well as

39:56 ↗ when we met with city council committees

39:59 ↗ and City Council on the discussions on

40:01 ↗ any changes for a lot of those

40:04 ↗ elements the major themes that we took

40:06 ↗ on for updating the comprehensive plan

40:08 ↗ were kind of three big areas the first

40:10 ↗ being that we were really trying to make

40:12 ↗ several updates to catch up with many

40:15 ↗ new state legislation um many of them

40:18 ↗ were related to housing some was related

40:20 ↗ to environment and then that's also

40:23 ↗ looking at Equity so that being another

40:25 ↗ theme with this update we needed to

40:27 ↗ evaluate a lot of our goalss and

40:29 ↗ policies on how we are actually

40:31 ↗ addressing social Equity throughout the

40:34 ↗ community in all the different topic

40:36 ↗ areas and so that is what you've seen in

40:38 ↗ in a lot of the policies recently or

40:41 ↗ previously as well as what you'll see in

40:43 ↗ a lot of the changes that are in the

40:44 ↗ current traffic plan and then the last

40:47 ↗ theme is really trying to look at all

40:49 ↗ the different functional plans that have

40:50 ↗ been developed since the last periodic

40:52 ↗ updates in

40:53 ↗ 2015 and making sure that there's closer

40:56 ↗ coordination in the goals and policies

40:58 ↗ that are particularly in the

40:59 ↗ comprehensive plan but also in the

41:00 ↗ functional plans themselves do we have

41:03 ↗ any conflicting policies or strategies

41:05 ↗ within two different elements or

41:06 ↗ functional plans are there competing um

41:11 ↗ ideas within different elements and

41:13 ↗ goals and policies and so those were

41:16 ↗ also part of

41:18 ↗ the what staff was really trying to

41:20 ↗ achieve with this update is making sure

41:22 ↗ that we are having that coordination

41:24 ↗ across the board

41:28 ↗ so again all the recommended amendments

41:31 ↗ that I'm about to go over are listed in

41:33 ↗ uh exhibit a and so I'll be kind of

41:36 ↗ going in the same order that it's listed

41:37 ↗ in

41:38 ↗ that before I get started actually are

41:40 ↗ there any questions about the overall

41:43 ↗ General draft plan

41:46 ↗ okay so getting started with land use

41:48 ↗ and sustainability the first change that

41:51 ↗ we're proposing is related to transfer

41:53 ↗ development rights policy um there was a

41:55 ↗ recommendation from the snow CI tribe to

41:57 ↗ recognize the actual intent of transfer

42:01 ↗ development rights is with environmental

42:03 ↗ preservation and so that was part of

42:05 ↗ that recommendation or that edit that

42:07 ↗ was incorporated into that policy was

42:09 ↗ making sure that that is the focus on uh

42:12 ↗ that policy the next two changes is

42:15 ↗ related to or with policies B5 and B8 uh

42:19 ↗ related to fish and wildlife um

42:21 ↗ consistent with some other other changes

42:23 ↗ we made in the environmental environment

42:24 ↗ and climate stewardship element we move

42:27 ↗ these policies from the land use and

42:29 ↗ sustainable element over to that new

42:32 ↗ element and then for policy D2 We um

42:35 ↗ updated language to

42:38 ↗ identify safe fish and wild wildlife

42:41 ↗ passages and reducing hats the birds

42:43 ↗ bats and other Wildlife we actually had

42:45 ↗ new staff review some of the policies

42:47 ↗ and this is one of their recommendations

42:49 ↗ to recognize new ideas that are being

42:52 ↗ Incorporated related to um Animal Safe

42:55 ↗ cities and making sure that's identified

42:57 ↗ within our design guidelines for

42:59 ↗ building similar to the idea of having

43:01 ↗ dark sky initiative where we are trying

43:04 ↗ to be safer within environment there's

43:06 ↗ also these safe Animal Safe cities uh

43:10 ↗ Concepts that we're also trying to

43:12 ↗ incorporate

43:19 ↗ into before I move on to housing and and

43:21 ↗ maybe chair voice would this be a good

43:23 ↗ stopping point I just stop with each

43:25 ↗ element before I move on to the the next

43:27 ↗ one yeah there we go each element good

43:30 ↗ job Steve okay so yeah um any any

43:34 ↗ questions for the land use and

43:36 ↗ sustainability

43:38 ↗ element

43:40 ↗ any commissioner craft was saying

43:42 ↗ something about

43:43 ↗ bat bats I'm

43:46 ↗ sorry okay seeing no questions I will

43:49 ↗ move

43:51 ↗ on so for the housing element we are

43:54 ↗ proposing one new policy will which

43:56 ↗ we'll discuss later um this new policy

43:59 ↗ is meeting housing needs of households

44:01 ↗ at or below 30% Ami and that being the

44:04 ↗ area median income and that was a

44:06 ↗ recommendation by the affordable housing

44:08 ↗ committee that's the ahc acronym there

44:10 ↗ and that is the recommendation to comply

44:12 ↗ with King County Planning policies that

44:14 ↗ is prioritizing um this housing bracket

44:18 ↗ so we'll discuss that a little bit more

44:19 ↗ later but I just want to identify that

44:21 ↗ on the list the next policy change is um

44:25 ↗ related to policy C10 and that is the

44:27 ↗ protection of housing disability for

44:28 ↗ renters monitor to extremely low income

44:31 ↗ this is a um recommendation from other

44:34 ↗ Regional staff on complying with the

44:36 ↗ regional policies that were adopted in

44:39 ↗ Vision 2050 on protecting renters and so

44:43 ↗ that is where the recommendation came

44:45 ↗ from and that was one of the changes we

44:47 ↗ incorporated into the

44:50 ↗ policies that being it for the housing

44:53 ↗ element are there any questions

45:05 ↗ commissioner

45:06 ↗ Milligan I saw that hand go up

45:09 ↗ commissioner

45:11 ↗ Milligan I I'm trying to let somebody

45:15 ↗ else go first you guys got to be

45:18 ↗ faster just have to okay I'll go first

45:22 ↗ uh thank you Stephen I had I had kind of

45:25 ↗ a hard time matching the memo section

45:28 ↗ with the comp plan section later so I'm

45:31 ↗ going to just focus on um the first part

45:36 ↗ of the packet I'm going to call it the

45:40 ↗ memo section and I want to ask you

45:44 ↗ if on packet page if it helps 31 out of

45:49 ↗ 287 um

45:51 ↗ policy H policy

45:55 ↗ C11 where it was the um prioritize

45:58 ↗ affordable housing on Surplus

46:03 ↗ land uh the reason I'm bringing this up

46:05 ↗ is that this was a really Lively

46:06 ↗ conversation with the Commissioners um

46:09 ↗ either the first or second round and uh

46:12 ↗ it seems like something got lost in

46:14 ↗ there uh I recall that if it were

46:18 ↗ suitable as

46:20 ↗ residential um or something that

46:22 ↗ characterized that this particular

46:25 ↗ Surplus land would be best used as

46:27 ↗ residential

46:29 ↗ because uh there were a couple reasons

46:31 ↗ for that was to I think to assure the

46:33 ↗ quality of Housing and another is that

46:36 ↗ Surplus land owned by the city could

46:39 ↗ have many uses the city doesn't just

46:41 ↗ provide housing it's also part of our

46:43 ↗ economic and uh recreational offerings

46:47 ↗ and so um not all Surplus

46:49 ↗ land uh would be used now this is in

46:52 ↗ resid um zoned for residential use so

46:55 ↗ maybe I'm stepping out Zone here by

46:57 ↗ talking about commercial mix that from

47:00 ↗ the minutes anyway uh do any other

47:02 ↗ Commissioners um have a question about

47:04 ↗ that and then the other

47:07 ↗ one uh had to do with um the new policy

47:12 ↗ where it says explore introduce and

47:14 ↗ Implement emerging best practices it's

47:17 ↗ not capitalized but I tend to read it

47:19 ↗ that way to effectively meet the needs

47:21 ↗ of extremely l i I was concerned that

47:24 ↗ things like best practices can be uh d

47:27 ↗ ated from you know a more

47:30 ↗ um uh autocratic bureaucratic or

47:34 ↗ pedantic approach to how we uh provide

47:38 ↗ for the um the section is

47:41 ↗ for uh below three uh 30% Ami anyway

47:46 ↗ best practices what jumped out at me

47:49 ↗ there wondering if anybody else on

47:54 ↗ that thank you commissioner

47:58 ↗ else like to jump in before even moves

48:06 ↗ on okay moving on to Transportation so

48:09 ↗ we made and you probably saw this with

48:12 ↗ some of the other elements we made some

48:13 ↗ updates to the vision statements um so

48:15 ↗ that it's consistently portrayed um

48:17 ↗ across the board we essentially

48:19 ↗ simplified the vision statements the

48:21 ↗ intent of what we were trying to achieve

48:23 ↗ for the vision statement is uh the same

48:27 ↗ with what's in the mobility master plan

48:29 ↗ but for the comprehensive plan we

48:31 ↗ simplified it to just longer paragraph

48:33 ↗ rather than the breakdown of what it was

48:35 ↗ before um this was just primarily for

48:39 ↗ consistency uh on how all the vision

48:41 ↗ statements were being portrayed in all

48:43 ↗ the elements so we just want to make

48:45 ↗ sure that we're same for

48:48 ↗ transportation the next update is

48:50 ↗ related to the park system plan and

48:52 ↗ changing the name that was identified in

48:55 ↗ this policy and so this was a staff

48:56 ↗ update to make sure that we were

48:58 ↗ consistent with what was being updated

49:00 ↗ for the park system plan as well as the

49:02 ↗ parks

49:02 ↗ element for policy C2 we

49:06 ↗ updated this policy specifically where

49:10 ↗ Investments on enhancing Equitable

49:12 ↗ outcomes and this was actually a

49:13 ↗ recommendation from Regional staff to be

49:15 ↗ consistent with the regional policies

49:18 ↗ under Vision

49:20 ↗ 2015 and then for policy C4

49:24 ↗ we included or we updated this

49:28 ↗ policy investing in bike and scooter

49:31 ↗ library programs this was actually a

49:33 ↗ discussion piece from the planning

49:34 ↗ policy commission and then we

49:35 ↗ incorporated additional edits from the

49:37 ↗ mobility and infrastructure Council

49:39 ↗ committee that followed the Planning

49:40 ↗ Commission discussion on this item and

49:42 ↗ so that's what you see in the draft

49:44 ↗ element is um reflecting both the

49:47 ↗ commission and the committee's um edits

49:50 ↗ for that

49:53 ↗ policy for policy C6

50:00 ↗ this is identifying the regional growth

50:02 ↗ Center Transportation improvements

50:03 ↗ within Central Isa and that was actually

50:05 ↗ a recommendation from the regional staff

50:08 ↗ at pound Regional Council in compliance

50:11 ↗ with the vision 2050 uh policies for

50:14 ↗ policy E2 increase electric bike use um

50:17 ↗ the edits that we made of that were

50:19 ↗ consistent with the recommendations that

50:20 ↗ we got from the mobility infrastructure

50:22 ↗ committee and that followed again the

50:24 ↗ commission discussion on this element

50:27 ↗ for policy F5 bus stops Meet Los

50:31 ↗ standard um this actually came out a

50:33 ↗ discussion with regional staff our

50:34 ↗ regional staff at

50:36 ↗ psrc um on state requirements around

50:39 ↗ level of service for Transit and so we

50:43 ↗ added new Transit level service

50:46 ↗ standards uh to comply with both the

50:48 ↗ state requirement and then what the

50:49 ↗ regional staff are looking for to comply

50:51 ↗ with vision

50:53 ↗ 2050 and then the last

50:55 ↗ policy is that actually an update to an

50:57 ↗ existing one that's a typo on the policy

51:00 ↗ number but it's adopting a policy on

51:03 ↗ coordinating aordable housing with

51:05 ↗ station location with Sound Transit was

51:08 ↗ the intent of the new policy and that

51:10 ↗ came from the recommendation from the

51:11 ↗ affordable housing committee

51:14 ↗ staff that's it for

51:17 ↗ transportation any questions comments

51:20 ↗ commissioner

51:22 ↗ Kennedy so my question and email we

51:24 ↗ talked and thank you for responding

51:26 ↗ about um um the pedal assisted bicycles

51:29 ↗ um thankfully Stephen answered my

51:31 ↗ question as I was like are we going to

51:32 ↗ have lime bikes littered everywhere is

51:34 ↗ this where this is going but he said no

51:36 ↗ that wasn't the intent yay um but it

51:39 ↗ says increase use of electric pedal

51:42 ↗ assisted bicycles Etc

51:45 ↗ um I guess the verbiage increase use

51:48 ↗ aren't we supporting the use of these

51:51 ↗ items we can't really technically

51:54 ↗ increase the use we can support the use

51:57 ↗ so is is I just being thinky about

52:01 ↗ language I think the intent is

52:03 ↗ supporting the use of electric bicycles

52:06 ↗ and and um the response that I gave to

52:08 ↗ commissioner Kennedy is that the intent

52:09 ↗ of the policy is to support the rising

52:13 ↗ demand for electric bikes uh within most

52:16 ↗ communities and how that uh how that

52:20 ↗ becomes

52:21 ↗ or what that looks like in

52:23 ↗ implementation is changing regulations

52:25 ↗ so that you require like with uh bike

52:28 ↗ parking facilities that you put wall

52:31 ↗ outlets so people can plug and charge

52:33 ↗ their bicycles once they're parked in

52:35 ↗ those facilities and so that would be

52:37 ↗ one of those supporting uses for

52:39 ↗ electric bicycles and so it's things

52:41 ↗ like that that come out of this type of

52:43 ↗ policy so that is the attent not

52:45 ↗ necessarily Bike Share or scooter

52:49 ↗ share so in my nitpick it would be

52:53 ↗ support

52:54 ↗ use maybe and or encourage

52:56 ↗ but not actually

52:59 ↗ increase we as a a policy isn't going to

53:01 ↗ actually technically increase use it's

53:03 ↗ going to support it or encour

53:06 ↗ it I this kind of goes back to previous

53:09 ↗ commission discussions on having strong

53:12 ↗ stronger verbage on what we want to do

53:14 ↗ so support was actually removed in a lot

53:17 ↗ of policies and different elements not

53:19 ↗ just from this commission's discussion

53:20 ↗ but from other boards and commissions

53:21 ↗ discussions on just having stronger

53:23 ↗ action verbs so that we are actually

53:26 ↗ showing how how we support and that's um

53:29 ↗ previous discussion on this policy with

53:31 ↗ the transportation Transportation

53:33 ↗ Advisory Board was primarily to increase

53:36 ↗ bicycle use and so that's kind of how

53:38 ↗ that policy came or at least that term

53:41 ↗ came for this policy but if this

53:43 ↗ commission would like to consider a

53:44 ↗ different term or verb to use here um

53:48 ↗ staff is open for discussion on

53:54 ↗ that discussion

53:58 ↗ uh commission commissioner Kennedy you

54:00 ↗ want to finish your thought not worth

54:02 ↗ getting that

54:04 ↗ n all I would say language is everything

54:07 ↗ uh commissioner crass all I would say

54:08 ↗ and I think you hit on is like just

54:10 ↗ needing to be consistent of what the

54:13 ↗ role of what the government can and

54:16 ↗ should do make sure that the same

54:19 ↗ language is utilized across everything

54:21 ↗ and not use chose it for this one but

54:23 ↗ for the ones that if the the government

54:27 ↗ doesn't build things but you can

54:30 ↗ encourage you could support or whatever

54:31 ↗ so I was just say be consistent that's

54:33 ↗ really the only thing and um I

54:36 ↗ understand the the ideals to be to be

54:39 ↗ more action oriented but sometimes that

54:41 ↗ then gives the implication that the city

54:46 ↗ does things that they

54:48 ↗ don't yeah I'll just real quickly I'll

54:51 ↗ I'll second commissioner Cass I'm to

54:52 ↗ minds of it I I understand what city is

54:54 ↗ trying to do with more action verbs

54:56 ↗ um but it could be misleading and I

54:58 ↗ would defer to staff on this is a

55:00 ↗ comprehensive plan is it appropriate um

55:03 ↗ because again it gives the idea that

55:05 ↗ this city might be funding this e

55:08 ↗ bike but I get when I hear you explain

55:11 ↗ it like I said it makes a lot more sense

55:13 ↗ yes have Outlets yes allow people to

55:15 ↗ park their bikes right next to the

55:16 ↗ Schwinns from the 50s um but again

55:20 ↗ increase a little bit misleading because

55:22 ↗ again it's more supportive but I I get

55:25 ↗ the I just don't know if other people

55:27 ↗ reading it will but maybe this document

55:29 ↗ like you said it's supposed to be for

55:31 ↗ the average lay person that's not

55:32 ↗ involved with

55:34 ↗ governments how that gets picked up two

55:37 ↗ mins uh commissioner

55:41 ↗ Milligan thank you and commissioner

55:44 ↗ Kennedy do not uh understate the

55:47 ↗ importance of what you brought up the

55:50 ↗ policy is in two places there of what

55:52 ↗ you're talking about the increased

55:53 ↗ electric bicycle use and um and uh Mr

55:58 ↗ padua's response is that it is

56:00 ↗ incorrectly written um if what we're

56:03 ↗ trying to say is the city who is

56:06 ↗ responsible for infrastructure roads

56:08 ↗ Lanes um requirements for bike parking

56:12 ↗ these things are all part of the um

56:14 ↗ City's contribution to the mobility

56:17 ↗ infrastructure uh we do not increase the

56:19 ↗ use of of electric pedal assistant and I

56:22 ↗ don't know if we want to but we want to

56:24 ↗ support those who are using them

56:26 ↗ so if it said increase or uh support the

56:33 ↗ development of infrastructure for

56:36 ↗ electric pedal assisted bikes uh that

56:41 ↗ says what Steven said the intent was but

56:44 ↗ I want to go back to I think it's C4 on

56:47 ↗ the previous

56:49 ↗ slide um C4 does say pursue Partnerships

56:54 ↗ or Investments with micromobility

56:56 ↗ options such as scooter share and Bike

56:59 ↗ Share that is the lime bike litter

57:02 ↗ program and I don't know why we had

57:05 ↗ talked about this in Mobility master

57:06 ↗ plan I don't know why we would

57:07 ↗ explicitly say that we want to do that I

57:10 ↗ think what we want to do is increase

57:12 ↗ access to micr Mobility options but I

57:16 ↗ would never say such as bike and scooter

57:20 ↗ share because there are or even maybe uh

57:24 ↗ e Library Bike programs

57:26 ↗ um I've learned from my research that um

57:29 ↗ some cities have found it more

57:30 ↗ affordable to buy people bikes that they

57:33 ↗ take care of and not leave on the side

57:37 ↗ of the road graffiti targets uh whatever

57:41 ↗ they end up being because I think that

57:43 ↗ um commissioner Kennedy used the right

57:45 ↗ word lime bikes to tend to um create a

57:48 ↗ problem of their own so I want to look

57:50 ↗ at both C4 and

57:52 ↗ C6 um no I'm sorry C4 and uh

57:57 ↗ to together and then I have another

57:59 ↗ comment about another one but this is

58:01 ↗ just for this conversation right

58:06 ↗ now any follow up on the

58:10 ↗ ebike actually I'm glad that um

58:13 ↗ commissioner Milligan brought up C4

58:16 ↗ because that was I obviously read the

58:19 ↗ wrong one I was thinking about the wrong

58:21 ↗ thing on the wrong section um because

58:24 ↗ that was my concern that I brought up

58:26 ↗ was you know having love the idea of

58:29 ↗ them but I work on UB campus and those

58:32 ↗ things are littered

58:34 ↗ everywhere um and they just get left

58:37 ↗ everywhere and right in the middle of

58:38 ↗ the sidewalk it's

58:40 ↗ they're convenient and annoying all at

58:42 ↗ the same

58:43 ↗ time um so a little concerned about that

58:46 ↗ and then just in me being nitpicky about

58:49 ↗ language and us I'm glad we sort of had

58:51 ↗ the further discussion and there's a

58:52 ↗ little bit of agreement on just being

58:54 ↗ clear as to what the city does versus

58:56 ↗ what the city encourages using just the

58:59 ↗ right descriptive word is it we have

59:02 ↗ pursue we have prioritize we can have

59:05 ↗ encourage we don't technically increase

59:07 ↗ we encourage and just being consistent

59:11 ↗ in the type of language we're using as

59:13 ↗ to what the city is actually

59:16 ↗ doing would the commission be more

59:18 ↗ comfortable if we look at both those

59:20 ↗ policies and kind of broaden it a little

59:22 ↗ bit more and just call out micromobility

59:24 ↗ rather than specifically or at least for

59:26 ↗ C4 micro Mobility options that increase

59:30 ↗ non-motorized options for people to be

59:32 ↗ getting around investments in that

59:35 ↗ rather than calling out specifically

59:37 ↗ scooter library or bike bike share

59:39 ↗ scooter share and then

59:42 ↗ for E2 we can change the action verb to

59:47 ↗ support to broaden it because the

59:49 ↗ implementation portion really gets more

59:50 ↗ called out in the mobility master plan

59:52 ↗ rather than the comprehensive plan

59:53 ↗ that's really what dictates what that

59:55 ↗ means to the City And so there's always

59:57 ↗ further discussion on how we actually

1:00:00 ↗ develop action for a lot of these

1:00:02 ↗ policies but we can broaden that within

1:00:05 ↗ the comprehensive plan and still meet

1:00:07 ↗ the same intent is that what the

1:00:09 ↗ commission is asking for is there a def

1:00:11 ↗ like micromobility is something that if

1:00:14 ↗ you ask anybody on the street they go

1:00:16 ↗ what are you talking about so I think it

1:00:17 ↗ may

1:00:18 ↗ need understand that the intent but you

1:00:20 ↗ need to put it in language that people

1:00:23 ↗ would know what that means we can we can

1:00:25 ↗ find an easy

1:00:28 ↗ how's everybody feel about uh even

1:00:30 ↗ suggestion everybody okay with that so

1:00:33 ↗ uh don't be specific about what

1:00:43 ↗ microbilt and then instead of increase

1:00:46 ↗ uh find a one of the wonderful words

1:00:48 ↗ that commissioner pened

1:00:52 ↗ had everybody good and I'm gonna let me

1:00:56 ↗ count commissioner Milligan in here

1:01:02 ↗ but how you

1:01:05 ↗ speak okay uh yes I um I want to agree

1:01:09 ↗ but I also want to add something that I

1:01:10 ↗ think I forgot to say is that we're

1:01:13 ↗ talking about increase in the use of of

1:01:16 ↗ uh Mobility options that we don't have

1:01:17 ↗ the infrastructure to support in isaka

1:01:20 ↗ Highlands we have these micr

1:01:22 ↗ Mobility um appliances being used on

1:01:25 ↗ sidewalk that are um for pedestrians and

1:01:30 ↗ not just the micr mobility but electric

1:01:32 ↗ assisted and these become hazards so I

1:01:35 ↗ would love to see uh the cities um

1:01:38 ↗ explore either um riding into one of

1:01:41 ↗ these policies or having an additional

1:01:44 ↗ one that says that we will

1:01:47 ↗ um

1:01:50 ↗ pursue

1:01:51 ↗ infrastructure that provides for the use

1:01:54 ↗ of these you where are they going to use

1:01:56 ↗ them we're talking about increasing the

1:01:58 ↗ use of these things but we don't have a

1:02:00 ↗ place for them to use them so uh say for

1:02:03 ↗ say squawk Mountain um you want to

1:02:06 ↗ increase the use of electric assist um

1:02:09 ↗ Mobility types uh for squawk Mountain

1:02:12 ↗ because it's hilly that's what the

1:02:14 ↗ policy says but where are you going to

1:02:15 ↗ put it uh there's one sidewalk on one

1:02:18 ↗ side of the road so it's the only

1:02:20 ↗ pedestrian uh facility and then the rest

1:02:23 ↗ of the road would need to have some

1:02:25 ↗ designation

1:02:26 ↗ for these vehicles to um to um pass

1:02:32 ↗ through so I'm I think we're missing

1:02:34 ↗ something about infrastructure there

1:02:37 ↗ that's all but otherwise I'm agreeing

1:02:39 ↗ with the direction thank

1:02:40 ↗ you thank you commissioner million

1:02:43 ↗ Stephen do do you think you have enough

1:02:45 ↗ from us in order to Wordsmith all of our

1:02:48 ↗ wishes Thomas is online taking notes

1:02:51 ↗ right now so we're going to work it out

1:02:52 ↗ together

1:02:53 ↗ Thomas hopefully you have enough

1:02:56 ↗ in order to W Wordsmith all of our

1:02:58 ↗ wishes and then uh commissioner Milligan

1:03:00 ↗ just as clarification your last comments

1:03:02 ↗ there were for policy e to

1:03:12 ↗ correct yes that was referring to E2 but

1:03:15 ↗ it

1:03:17 ↗ also is related to C4 okay because if

1:03:22 ↗ we're going to pursue Partnerships and

1:03:23 ↗ micromobility options such as

1:03:27 ↗ has micro Mobility bikes scooters I'm

1:03:30 ↗ also thinking of the one Wheels U that's

1:03:33 ↗ a micro Mobility option where are they

1:03:35 ↗ going to go so it's it's actually both

1:03:38 ↗ of them and then I have one more

1:03:39 ↗ transportation thing um commiss uh chair

1:03:43 ↗ Voice May I just chime in my last

1:03:45 ↗ transportation thing I think we're going

1:03:46 ↗ to run this out quick here

1:03:49 ↗ um it had to do with the sound

1:03:53 ↗ transit oh it's the additional one

1:03:56 ↗ Stephen yeah thank you the

1:03:58 ↗ XX uh I felt when reading this that the

1:04:02 ↗ addition of a housing policy in the

1:04:06 ↗ transportation element seemed misplaced

1:04:09 ↗ we have housing policies for the urban

1:04:14 ↗ growth Center which is intended to be

1:04:17 ↗ the um epicenter of mass transit

1:04:20 ↗ including Light

1:04:22 ↗ Rail and it didn't seem correct to put

1:04:26 ↗ it uh um a mention here about housing

1:04:31 ↗ policies just my observation not going

1:04:33 ↗ agre with me for the the commission's

1:04:36 ↗ consideration so we'll we'll talk about

1:04:38 ↗ this one and the other housing new the

1:04:40 ↗ new housing policy at the end of this um

1:04:43 ↗ just because I want to provide more

1:04:45 ↗ detail on the recommendations from the

1:04:46 ↗ affordable housing committee that's okay

1:04:48 ↗ to wait on that

1:04:50 ↗ discussion I think we're good with that

1:04:52 ↗ um any final questions on Transportation

1:04:54 ↗ I just had a real quick one what

1:04:56 ↗ happened to the green necklace so City

1:04:59 ↗ dropping our our name that we've we've

1:05:01 ↗ been using that name for so long chair

1:05:04 ↗ voice that is a that is a great question

1:05:06 ↗ and I'm I'm hoping to wait till we get

1:05:08 ↗ to the parks element on the tonight's

1:05:11 ↗ presentation to get to that point just

1:05:13 ↗ because it it it'll I didn't want to

1:05:15 ↗ repeat the discussion for the commission

1:05:17 ↗ fair enough

1:05:19 ↗ okay all right so for the next element

1:05:21 ↗ it's within environment climate

1:05:23 ↗ stewardship this being as a reminder

1:05:25 ↗ this is a brand new element um this is

1:05:29 ↗ consistent with uh what the city is

1:05:32 ↗ intending with the development of the

1:05:33 ↗ climate action plan as well as many of

1:05:35 ↗ our other environmental policies and

1:05:37 ↗ goals that the city has established this

1:05:40 ↗ development of this new element also

1:05:42 ↗ gets us in compliance with House Bill

1:05:44 ↗ 1181 which is uh requiring a separate

1:05:48 ↗ element addressing climate change and

1:05:50 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions um a lot of the

1:05:54 ↗ goals and policies that were placed bed

1:05:56 ↗ in this element were actually

1:05:57 ↗ pre-existing in the land use element in

1:06:00 ↗ the ex currently adopted comprehensive

1:06:03 ↗ plan and so a lot of what went into this

1:06:05 ↗ element was the existing goals and

1:06:08 ↗ policies and revisions with the

1:06:10 ↗ environmental board as well as with the

1:06:11 ↗ planning policy commission leading up to

1:06:13 ↗ this full draft plan so starting off

1:06:17 ↗ with the vision statement similar to um

1:06:20 ↗ a lot of what you'll see with this

1:06:21 ↗ elment we had a meeting with the

1:06:24 ↗ environmental board in January where

1:06:25 ↗ they provided some uh uh detailed

1:06:28 ↗ feedback on the draft element that we

1:06:30 ↗ provided them at the time and so they

1:06:32 ↗ had some feedback on the vision

1:06:33 ↗ statement and so many of the elements or

1:06:36 ↗ the portions of the vision statement

1:06:38 ↗ were updated based on the the board's

1:06:40 ↗ feedback um same with policies A5 D4 E2

1:06:46 ↗ and E7 a lot of that EDS that went into

1:06:49 ↗ those policy updates were based on the

1:06:51 ↗ for board's feedback from the January

1:06:53 ↗ meeting the

1:06:56 ↗ update to policy C4 is consistent with

1:06:59 ↗ um the updates to the parks element and

1:07:01 ↗ the development of or the update of the

1:07:03 ↗ parks system plan and so I'll have that

1:07:05 ↗ discussion when we get to the parks

1:07:08 ↗ element for policy well actually let's

1:07:11 ↗ go back so I can explain some of the

1:07:13 ↗ board's feedback on some of these

1:07:14 ↗ policies that would help with context so

1:07:17 ↗ for policy A5 the board felt that we

1:07:19 ↗ should emphasize more on what we have in

1:07:22 ↗ the policy to identify um chemical

1:07:25 ↗ exposure from runoff and impervious

1:07:27 ↗ surfaces and so that's why that policy

1:07:30 ↗ was updated to uh specifically call that

1:07:33 ↗ out um before it was kind of broader

1:07:35 ↗ language in the policy so we were a

1:07:36 ↗ little more specific for policy D4 uh

1:07:40 ↗ this was actually a a a clarification

1:07:44 ↗ updates to focus on just the

1:07:46 ↗ preservation of the forest ecosystems as

1:07:48 ↗ part of that policy and so it's one of

1:07:52 ↗ the smaller updates that we incorporated

1:07:53 ↗ from the board's feedback the policy for

1:07:56 ↗ E2 there was feedback from the board

1:07:59 ↗ that we we should emphasize more on the

1:08:01 ↗ Outreach and education around the

1:08:04 ↗ decrease of greenhouse gas emissions as

1:08:06 ↗ part of the city's efforts and so that

1:08:08 ↗ was incorporated with that policy and

1:08:11 ↗ then the uh update to policy E7 on

1:08:15 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions um reduction

1:08:18 ↗ programs and policies

1:08:21 ↗ emphasizing that importance of efforts I

1:08:25 ↗ I identifying the vulnerable communities

1:08:27 ↗ that are impacted by greenhouse gas

1:08:33 ↗ emission for policy E8 this one was

1:08:37 ↗ advocating for Statewide policies to

1:08:39 ↗ address upstream and downstream

1:08:41 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions again this was

1:08:43 ↗ a recommendation from the board to

1:08:45 ↗ emphasize more on how we get more

1:08:48 ↗ support from the state on a lot of these

1:08:50 ↗ efforts uh particularly for regional

1:08:53 ↗ efforts and coordinating some of what

1:08:55 ↗ we're doing with our climate action plan

1:08:57 ↗ for policy

1:08:59 ↗ H3 it's focused on the reduction of

1:09:02 ↗ emissions from goods and materials and

1:09:04 ↗ making sure that we are able to tie that

1:09:08 ↗ in and be more specific on how we're

1:09:10 ↗ doing that within the policy and then

1:09:12 ↗ for policy H4 a very similar update on

1:09:16 ↗ on making sure that we're being specific

1:09:18 ↗ on reducing carbon emissions from

1:09:20 ↗ construction project and so there was

1:09:22 ↗ just more detail added to those last two

1:09:24 ↗ policies

1:09:28 ↗ for policy H5 is the reduction of waste

1:09:31 ↗ generation that emphasis on resources

1:09:34 ↗ for that policy was what was called out

1:09:36 ↗ by the board and then for policy i1

1:09:40 ↗ leveraging all government services so

1:09:42 ↗ federal state and local on serving the

1:09:46 ↗ esqua community and then the edit was

1:09:48 ↗ primarily um reducing the Redundant we

1:09:51 ↗ called out business population

1:09:53 ↗ essentially twice so we just made that

1:09:55 ↗ edit

1:09:58 ↗ okay any questions on this

1:10:01 ↗ element like the environment metal board

1:10:04 ↗ did their homework good

1:10:09 ↗ job

1:10:13 ↗ question how good of a job they

1:10:16 ↗ did okay moving on to parks recreation

1:10:19 ↗ trails in open space so for this element

1:10:22 ↗ we had a lot of very simple edits to

1:10:25 ↗ make since you last saw the element and

1:10:27 ↗ that is consistent with the change from

1:10:29 ↗ the park strategic plan which is what

1:10:31 ↗ the name of the plan was formerly called

1:10:34 ↗ to the now drafted Parks system plan and

1:10:38 ↗ so those several policies are updated to

1:10:40 ↗ recognize the the title change and then

1:10:43 ↗ for Creeks to Peaks that is actually the

1:10:45 ↗ replacement branding for the green

1:10:48 ↗ necklace and so that is what that

1:10:50 ↗ concept is the biggest change

1:10:53 ↗ between the green necklace to Creeks of

1:10:55 ↗ Peaks is that green neckace was

1:10:58 ↗ primarily focused on connectivity to

1:11:00 ↗ parks within Central isapa only Greeks

1:11:03 ↗ to Peaks is now expanding that

1:11:04 ↗ connectivity concept to parks to the

1:11:07 ↗ whole city and so there's Regional

1:11:09 ↗ connectivity neighborhood level

1:11:11 ↗ connectivity as well as cross

1:11:12 ↗ neighborhood connectivity that is kind

1:11:14 ↗ of the focus of the concept now and so

1:11:15 ↗ that is uh part of the larger purpose of

1:11:19 ↗ the

1:11:22 ↗ concept hopefully that answers many of

1:11:24 ↗ your questions on some of the other

1:11:26 ↗ elements too but um I'm open to discuss

1:11:28 ↗ anything addition to

1:11:32 ↗ that is a question time yes that was it

1:11:36 ↗ for this

1:11:37 ↗ element any questions for the parks

1:11:40 ↗ recreation trails and open

1:11:45 ↗ space uh mine's pretty straightforward

1:11:47 ↗ is there still a focus though on Central

1:11:50 ↗ I mean again I I think Creeks to Peaks

1:11:52 ↗ is great is there still a primary focus

1:11:54 ↗ though for the Central isqua area or now

1:11:58 ↗ the city just wants to take this

1:11:59 ↗ Broadband all the

1:12:01 ↗ way yes to both those questions so the

1:12:04 ↗ the the idea of connectivity within

1:12:06 ↗ Central quad Remains the Same it's just

1:12:08 ↗ now the idea is now expanded to Citywide

1:12:11 ↗ and as you go outside of central squal

1:12:13 ↗ that connectivity kind of changes

1:12:15 ↗ similar to the mobility master plan

1:12:16 ↗ there's different prioritization in the

1:12:18 ↗ type of facilities that are identified

1:12:21 ↗ for different areas of the city you know

1:12:23 ↗ in outside or in Central esqua you have

1:12:26 ↗ protected bike lanes and wider sidewalks

1:12:28 ↗ and or even shared use Trails um

1:12:31 ↗ throughout or paved shared use Trails

1:12:33 ↗ throughout Central outside of that

1:12:36 ↗ you'll maybe have sidewalk on one side

1:12:38 ↗ or bike Lanes or shared facilities or

1:12:42 ↗ bicyclist um uh Vehicles as well as

1:12:45 ↗ pedestrians and so it's a different

1:12:47 ↗ combination of connectivity but the idea

1:12:49 ↗ is the same of having that connectivity

1:12:51 ↗ to different Parks throughout the

1:12:54 ↗ city sounds great Creeks to

1:12:58 ↗ Peaks good

1:13:05 ↗ branding there's an boy okay um I don't

1:13:09 ↗ see anything from commissioner Milligan

1:13:11 ↗ anybody questions comments for

1:13:15 ↗ Stephen okay um as you saw on the the

1:13:19 ↗ packet there was no changes to the arts

1:13:21 ↗ and culture element uh but we're happy

1:13:24 ↗ to discuss any of the polic policies uh

1:13:26 ↗ with you if you have any questions about

1:13:28 ↗ any of

1:13:31 ↗ them okay moving on to the economic

1:13:33 ↗ Vitality element so for this element we

1:13:38 ↗ had several small changes some from

1:13:41 ↗ staff some from Regional staff and so

1:13:43 ↗ that's most of what I'll be going over

1:13:45 ↗ really quickly with you and so for goal

1:13:47 ↗ a the the diversity of entrepreneurs

1:13:49 ↗ that we staff just simplified the

1:13:51 ↗ language around it um for policy A1 this

1:13:55 ↗ this was a recommendation from Regional

1:13:56 ↗ staff at puit sound Regional Council and

1:13:58 ↗ that is identifying underserved

1:14:00 ↗ communities as it relates to customer

1:14:02 ↗ service for policy A3 another

1:14:05 ↗ recommendation from Regional staff from

1:14:06 ↗ fown Regional Council and that is

1:14:08 ↗ identifying the displacement risk as you

1:14:11 ↗ are looking at economic Trends and

1:14:13 ↗ diversity of

1:14:14 ↗ businesses for policy

1:14:17 ↗ A4 again staff simplify the language

1:14:20 ↗ with u a word change around the tax and

1:14:23 ↗ fee system policy

1:14:28 ↗ for policy A8 and that's highlighted in

1:14:30 ↗ red because in your packet it showed up

1:14:32 ↗ as a different policy number so I'm

1:14:34 ↗ correcting that U with the presentation

1:14:37 ↗ but this policy was considering economic

1:14:39 ↗ impacts and U this was another small uh

1:14:42 ↗ edit by staff to make sure that it's

1:14:44 ↗ clear for policy B4 this one is

1:14:47 ↗ supporting growth of industri uh

1:14:50 ↗ clusters so some of the discussions that

1:14:52 ↗ we had with the commission as well as

1:14:54 ↗ with the services safety uh Parks

1:14:57 ↗ Council committee was providing a little

1:14:59 ↗ more detail on what that meant so that's

1:15:02 ↗ the edit that we made for that

1:15:04 ↗ policy for policy

1:15:06 ↗ B5 uh we again simplified the language

1:15:09 ↗ related to the sustainable business

1:15:11 ↗ practices policy policy C4 we provided a

1:15:15 ↗ little more clarity um again from

1:15:19 ↗ feedback from the council committee on

1:15:20 ↗ placemaking opportunities and so there's

1:15:22 ↗ actually a little more detail in that

1:15:24 ↗ policy

1:15:28 ↗ for policy

1:15:29 ↗ C5 um again from Council committee

1:15:31 ↗ feedback we added a little more detail

1:15:33 ↗ on the promotion of arts history and

1:15:35 ↗ culture as it relates to businesses in

1:15:37 ↗ the

1:15:38 ↗ community and for policy D2 this change

1:15:42 ↗ was um highlighting historically

1:15:45 ↗ underrepresented communities in the

1:15:46 ↗ workforce and education as we are

1:15:49 ↗ expanding uh a lot of the businesses in

1:15:52 ↗ the community this again came from

1:15:54 ↗ Regional staff with P Town Regional

1:15:57 ↗ Council that's it for economic Vitality

1:16:01 ↗ any questions or

1:16:06 ↗ comments not

1:16:09 ↗ see

1:16:11 ↗ oh she's always waiting for somebody to

1:16:14 ↗ go first commissioner

1:16:16 ↗ Milligan I am thank you chair voice okay

1:16:21 ↗ I had two questions um going you might

1:16:23 ↗ have to go back a slide but they were

1:16:25 ↗ just guides uh on page well now I don't

1:16:28 ↗ know what the pages are

1:16:30 ↗ 15 um policy

1:16:33 ↗ A1 and

1:16:36 ↗ A3 uh there's additional language and I

1:16:40 ↗ find that these uh have redundancy in

1:16:43 ↗ them

1:16:47 ↗ A3 names uh

1:16:51 ↗ the um reduction of displacement risk

1:16:55 ↗ already um and so to say it uh up in A1

1:16:59 ↗ which is about customer service didn't

1:17:01 ↗ seem seem redundant and also A1 is

1:17:05 ↗ saying that the city should provide

1:17:07 ↗ highquality customer service and

1:17:09 ↗ Regulatory process that's fair for all

1:17:13 ↗ businesses it could uh end there uh with

1:17:18 ↗ a

1:17:18 ↗ period when it goes further into small

1:17:22 ↗ local historically lack capital

1:17:25 ↗ and underserved communities um I think

1:17:28 ↗ that's going to be very hard to

1:17:30 ↗ implement because those are not well

1:17:34 ↗ defined or maybe they're not well

1:17:36 ↗ defined in the document but I um bring

1:17:38 ↗ that up as a um

1:17:41 ↗ problematic section and then

1:17:45 ↗ D2

1:17:47 ↗ again

1:17:49 ↗ uh historically under represented

1:17:52 ↗ communities is that defined somewhere

1:17:54 ↗ and perhaps it should should be if we're

1:17:56 ↗ going to say it I'm not saying that we

1:17:58 ↗ should could I think uh the other is

1:18:01 ↗ that it says increase access when we say

1:18:04 ↗ increase access it means to me that

1:18:06 ↗ we're decreasing somewhere else if we

1:18:07 ↗ have a limited or a finite set of

1:18:10 ↗ resources so for increasing access to

1:18:12 ↗ Career Pathways for historically

1:18:14 ↗ underrepresented communities we're going

1:18:15 ↗ to be decreasing them somewhere else

1:18:18 ↗ perhaps what we mean is um make

1:18:22 ↗ additional Investments

1:18:24 ↗ in path career Pathways for historically

1:18:27 ↗ under represented under represented

1:18:29 ↗ communities maybe that's what we really

1:18:32 ↗ mean I didn't think that we meant that

1:18:34 ↗ we want to take from one group and give

1:18:37 ↗ to another and maybe maybe it is but um

1:18:41 ↗ that's what if we just say increase

1:18:43 ↗ access I think that that's what that

1:18:45 ↗ implies and we could um solve that by

1:18:48 ↗ saying uh add additional investment

1:18:52 ↗ for my ideas

1:18:58 ↗ thank you commissioner

1:18:59 ↗ Milan any

1:19:03 ↗ comments uh now that she brings it up A1

1:19:06 ↗ does kind of sound funny you guys might

1:19:07 ↗ want to Wordsmith a little because it

1:19:09 ↗ said it says efficient and predictable

1:19:12 ↗ for all businesses then literally the

1:19:15 ↗ next word is especially so that does

1:19:17 ↗ sound a little funny when you're reading

1:19:19 ↗ it so I would maybe word Smith

1:19:23 ↗ that um

1:19:27 ↗ yeah because it says that is fa respons

1:19:30 ↗ predictable for all businesses and next

1:19:33 ↗ word is especially so it does sound a

1:19:34 ↗ little

1:19:36 ↗ funny think that's all I have to now we

1:19:39 ↗ got some take well I I was checking when

1:19:42 ↗ Nina started because that was and in my

1:19:45 ↗ email to Stephen I brought up that exact

1:19:49 ↗ issue which I I think your response made

1:19:52 ↗ sense I still think it's sort of a

1:19:54 ↗ redundant

1:19:55 ↗ um so I'm tling it by getting brought up

1:19:58 ↗ several times but it could stop it for

1:20:00 ↗ all

1:20:02 ↗ businesses yeah commissioner

1:20:04 ↗ Patterson uh just finding the Common

1:20:06 ↗ Thread uh in the three that commissioner

1:20:08 ↗ Milligan brought up was they seem to be

1:20:11 ↗ uh related to The Vision 2050 uh from

1:20:14 ↗ psrc you maybe expand a little bit about

1:20:17 ↗ how um specifically those those parts

1:20:20 ↗ were added based on that document and

1:20:23 ↗ that feedback

1:20:27 ↗ no thank you for the question so the

1:20:29 ↗ because the policies A1 and A3 I'll

1:20:32 ↗ start there for A1 it calls out

1:20:34 ↗ specifically customer service and for

1:20:37 ↗ policy A3 is talking about more of the

1:20:39 ↗ economic economic

1:20:41 ↗ Trends you're correct there is a little

1:20:43 ↗ bit of redundancy except for the fact

1:20:46 ↗ that they're actually calling out

1:20:47 ↗ different concepts for supporting

1:20:48 ↗ businesses that being customer service

1:20:51 ↗ and the economic Trends analysis in

1:20:53 ↗ terms of how we're preparing for any

1:20:55 ↗ changes and so that was the point that

1:20:57 ↗ the regional staff made of making sure

1:20:59 ↗ even though it's repeating the same

1:21:02 ↗ language it's actually calling out

1:21:04 ↗ different services or different how we

1:21:06 ↗ are serving the business community and

1:21:07 ↗ so that was why the recommendation was

1:21:09 ↗ to have very similar language for both

1:21:11 ↗ of those policies and that's what's

1:21:13 ↗ presented in the draft language does

1:21:15 ↗ that help answer some of your questions

1:21:17 ↗ we can still take a look at the language

1:21:19 ↗ on in terms of trying to fix some of the

1:21:21 ↗ language uh suggestions that many of the

1:21:24 ↗ are suggesting tonight um but that is

1:21:27 ↗ helping kind of providing context for

1:21:28 ↗ some of the why um the regional staff

1:21:32 ↗ was making those

1:21:34 ↗ recommendations yeah no thanks Stephen

1:21:36 ↗ and and it does I just go back to

1:21:38 ↗ Connie's Point earlier is like I said

1:21:40 ↗ it's you know you we're thinking of the

1:21:41 ↗ lay people that are reading this and if

1:21:43 ↗ it's that confusing for Commissioners

1:21:46 ↗ who do this for fun

1:21:49 ↗ um like clearly maybe the public might

1:21:51 ↗ have some questions too about the

1:21:52 ↗ redundance

1:21:55 ↗ so okay well thank you commissioner

1:21:58 ↗ Milligan commissioner Kennedy

1:21:59 ↗ commissioner Patterson any other

1:22:02 ↗ comments before we move

1:22:06 ↗ on

1:22:07 ↗ okay before I move on there was comments

1:22:10 ↗ on policy D2 and it's the same response

1:22:12 ↗ in terms of why the regional staff were

1:22:14 ↗ making the recommendation of having

1:22:16 ↗ similar language for that policy so

1:22:19 ↗ again it's calling out Workforce

1:22:20 ↗ education versus customer service and

1:22:23 ↗ analyzing that iic Trends so three

1:22:25 ↗ different concepts in um at least from

1:22:28 ↗ the perspective of the regional

1:22:30 ↗ staff what do you think of n is

1:22:33 ↗ commissioner Milligan's comment on the

1:22:35 ↗ increase the word increase when I see

1:22:37 ↗ commissioner Milligan popped up again no

1:22:40 ↗ that uh thank you for bringing it up and

1:22:41 ↗ that's something that staff can take a

1:22:43 ↗ look at okay I don't know if she's going

1:22:44 ↗ to comment on that but uh commissioner

1:22:47 ↗ Milligan thank you I'll just uh thank

1:22:49 ↗ you very much Stephen and uh thank you

1:22:51 ↗ commissioner Patterson for asking the

1:22:53 ↗ good question the

1:22:55 ↗ um uh better appreciate the three

1:22:58 ↗ different categories I think my main

1:23:01 ↗ concern is using terms that will be very

1:23:05 ↗ hard to implement historically

1:23:07 ↗ underrepresented communities I think

1:23:09 ↗ that we all have a kind of a feeling

1:23:10 ↗ about what we're getting after here but

1:23:13 ↗ um I don't know if it's really um

1:23:16 ↗ implementable as is in identifying that

1:23:20 ↗ and then the um up earlier in the um a

1:23:28 ↗ one

1:23:30 ↗ um the the long list that goes in here

1:23:33 ↗ at the very end for instance at the very

1:23:36 ↗ end that uh businesses especially

1:23:40 ↗ so high quality customer service for all

1:23:43 ↗ businesses but even more so for those

1:23:46 ↗ that are small local historically lack

1:23:49 ↗ Capital represent under served

1:23:52 ↗ communities then the word is and kenned

1:23:54 ↗ is going to jump on this one and are at

1:23:57 ↗ risk of displacement you're saying

1:24:00 ↗ that especially for those who are at

1:24:03 ↗ risk of displacement including this long

1:24:05 ↗ list I think we need to look at at at

1:24:08 ↗ that and try to find something that's

1:24:10 ↗ really um Tighter and more implementable

1:24:13 ↗ one that emphasizes all businesses uh

1:24:16 ↗ but that we have a a focus on on these

1:24:19 ↗ types of businesses but anyway thank you

1:24:27 ↗ as I like to do instead of maybe

1:24:29 ↗ especially for for all businesses with

1:24:32 ↗ intentional focus on businesses that

1:24:36 ↗ are I think that's the intent of it

1:24:39 ↗ might go over a little bit better with

1:24:42 ↗ what we're trying to

1:24:48 ↗ do okay okay we'll take a look at that

1:24:51 ↗ thank you

1:24:54 ↗ okay for the Human Services element um

1:24:57 ↗ there were no changes but I'm happy to

1:24:59 ↗ discuss any questions or comments for

1:25:01 ↗ the policies that were

1:25:05 ↗ presented okay moving on to uh the

1:25:09 ↗ bigger package that being the utilities

1:25:11 ↗ public services and capital facilities

1:25:13 ↗ element so previously you actually saw

1:25:15 ↗ these as two different elements and that

1:25:17 ↗ was um what came out of the original

1:25:20 ↗ comprehensive plan that being the

1:25:21 ↗ utilities and public services and then

1:25:23 ↗ separately we had the coupal facilities

1:25:25 ↗ element and the reason why we combined

1:25:27 ↗ the two is because both elements

1:25:30 ↗ actually called out level of services

1:25:32 ↗ and there was actually a lot of

1:25:33 ↗ redundancy having that split between two

1:25:36 ↗ different elements so we combined the

1:25:38 ↗ two and there's also a lot of

1:25:39 ↗ relationships between utilities public

1:25:41 ↗ services and capital facilities in terms

1:25:42 ↗ of what the needs are for each of those

1:25:45 ↗ different topic

1:25:46 ↗ areas so for similar to some of the

1:25:49 ↗ other elements we simplified the vision

1:25:51 ↗ statement for the comprehensive plan um

1:25:53 ↗ but we also

1:25:54 ↗ had to adjust it because of the combin

1:25:56 ↗ or the the merger of the two elements

1:26:00 ↗ for policy A2 we specifically called out

1:26:03 ↗ the capital Improvement program and and

1:26:05 ↗ Incorporated edits to comply with State

1:26:08 ↗ Rec uh state requirements and that came

1:26:10 ↗ from Regional staff recommendations and

1:26:12 ↗ review of of the

1:26:14 ↗ element and then for B8 calling out

1:26:17 ↗ multimodal transation level of service

1:26:19 ↗ this is actually now uh pointing people

1:26:21 ↗ to the transportation element of

1:26:23 ↗ Mobility Mobility m plan for

1:26:25 ↗ transportation level surface rather than

1:26:27 ↗ repeating it here and the transportation

1:26:33 ↗ element for policy B9 we called out the

1:26:36 ↗ level of service for public schools um

1:26:39 ↗ this is making sure that we are staying

1:26:41 ↗ consistent with the school districts on

1:26:43 ↗ their planning efforts and making sure

1:26:44 ↗ there's compatibility on how we are

1:26:47 ↗ planning for growth with the needs for

1:26:51 ↗ schools for B policy d

1:26:54 ↗ 12 this one uh we added a little more

1:26:57 ↗ detail on on the rate Assistance

1:26:59 ↗ programs policy and this was a staff

1:27:01 ↗ edit Incorporated since your last

1:27:06 ↗ review policy f8 is actually a new

1:27:08 ↗ policy that was recommended by the

1:27:10 ↗ mobility infrastructure Council

1:27:12 ↗ committee um they reviewed it after the

1:27:15 ↗ commission reviewed this element and

1:27:16 ↗ they felt that we need to highlight a

1:27:18 ↗ lot of the ongoing efforts that we

1:27:20 ↗ already have in coordinating police and

1:27:22 ↗ Human Services on keeping the community

1:27:28 ↗ save gold

1:27:30 ↗ G8 this was updated to make sure that

1:27:35 ↗ there was coordination um and this was a

1:27:39 ↗ a staff edit that was incorporated and

1:27:41 ↗ then the same goes for policy G9 the

1:27:43 ↗ sustainability best practices this was

1:27:45 ↗ coordination with the environmental

1:27:47 ↗ element of Mak sure that we're using

1:27:48 ↗ consistent language between both

1:27:50 ↗ elements while trying not to um add in

1:27:55 ↗ any of the redundancy that we worked so

1:27:56 ↗ hard to take

1:28:04 ↗ out okay I'll

1:28:06 ↗ cg11 um again this one was calling out

1:28:09 ↗ level of service for public

1:28:13 ↗ schools I think I have that incorrect

1:28:15 ↗ one second

1:28:26 ↗ yeah what's on the presentation is

1:28:27 ↗ incorrect so this this was a new policy

1:28:29 ↗ that was um introduced for consistency

1:28:33 ↗ with the ele uh the environment and

1:28:36 ↗ climate uh stewardship element so some

1:28:39 ↗ of the language in there called for

1:28:40 ↗ wanting us to make sure that is

1:28:42 ↗ identified and consistent with within uh

1:28:45 ↗ this new this

1:28:48 ↗ element then for goal

1:28:51 ↗ I staff just uh put in a few edits to

1:28:55 ↗ make sure that it there's a little bit

1:28:56 ↗ of clarity on what this goal was looking

1:28:58 ↗ for and then for go um policy I6 this

1:29:04 ↗ is again wrong on the presentation um

1:29:08 ↗ this one is specifically calling out

1:29:10 ↗ diversion of solid waste from landfills

1:29:12 ↗ to recycle and compost as a priority um

1:29:15 ↗ consistent with the language that's in

1:29:17 ↗ the environment and climate stewardship

1:29:20 ↗ element

1:29:28 ↗ and then policy I8 this one is a new

1:29:32 ↗ policy again um added for consistency

1:29:35 ↗ with the new environment climate

1:29:41 ↗ element then for policy

1:29:44 ↗ I9 well just for policy I9 i1 and i11

1:29:49 ↗ all three are new policies that were

1:29:51 ↗ recommended for consistency with the

1:29:54 ↗ uh updates to the environment climate

1:30:02 ↗ elementy i11 is very similar to the

1:30:04 ↗ previous ones where it's recommended for

1:30:06 ↗ consisten with an environment and

1:30:08 ↗ climate element and the update to policy

1:30:11 ↗ K12 is with developing utilities public

1:30:15 ↗ services and capital facilities

1:30:16 ↗ priorities This was

1:30:20 ↗ um this was uh up included as a new

1:30:24 ↗ policy

1:30:25 ↗ to show coordination between um this was

1:30:29 ↗ actually new with the merger of the

1:30:31 ↗ elements making sure that we're using

1:30:33 ↗ consistent language so

1:30:36 ↗ uh that's part of the coordination for

1:30:40 ↗ implementation and then just really

1:30:43 ↗ quickly I want to quickly identify

1:30:44 ↗ several policies that were removed and a

1:30:47 ↗ lot of that was um for redundancy

1:30:51 ↗ purposes so are there any questions on

1:30:54 ↗ last

1:30:56 ↗ element with you're do good to the last

1:30:58 ↗ two

1:31:01 ↗ minutes get any questions as far as

1:31:06 ↗ utilities I think most of it made sense

1:31:10 ↗ okay

1:31:11 ↗ yeah okay

1:31:15 ↗ okay all right for next steps for the

1:31:17 ↗ comper plan uh we are have the draft

1:31:22 ↗ plan out for public review we are

1:31:25 ↗ planning for the planning policy

1:31:26 ↗ commission to have a public hearing at

1:31:28 ↗ the second meeting in August then it'll

1:31:31 ↗ go to council committee for for review

1:31:32 ↗ for a few months and then Committee of

1:31:34 ↗ the whole and then city council tenative

1:31:36 ↗ adoption in December and so that's kind

1:31:38 ↗ of the general timeline from this point

1:31:42 ↗ so the direction we need tonight are

1:31:45 ↗ there additional changes that the

1:31:47 ↗ commission would like to see to any of

1:31:49 ↗ the element's goals and policies is

1:31:51 ↗ there add additional information that

1:31:53 ↗ might help with your further review of

1:31:54 ↗ The Elements since you have two more

1:31:56 ↗ meetings to discuss the draft plan and

1:32:00 ↗ then do you agree with the new

1:32:01 ↗ amendments policies has presented which

1:32:03 ↗ I have the those two specific ones on

1:32:06 ↗ this slide but chair voice I leave it up

1:32:08 ↗ to you if you want to cover the first

1:32:10 ↗ two questions first and then go to the

1:32:13 ↗ last yeah I kind of feel like it was an

1:32:15 ↗ iterative process like we did it the

1:32:16 ↗ entire time but let's start with

1:32:19 ↗ question one

1:32:24 ↗ commission grass game show um just want

1:32:28 ↗ to reiterate the just the language of

1:32:31 ↗ consistency and what the city really

1:32:33 ↗ does and doesn't do and reflect that

1:32:36 ↗ across I think that'll simplify it and

1:32:38 ↗ then to answer your question number two

1:32:41 ↗ while I have the buzzer here is I think

1:32:44 ↗ it's super helpful just showing what's

1:32:46 ↗ what's different from the last time and

1:32:49 ↗ drilling it on that so it is when you

1:32:51 ↗ get 300 pages but when you can zoom that

1:32:54 ↗ on the table of what's different that

1:32:55 ↗ help a

1:32:59 ↗ lot yeah no The Matrix very

1:33:07 ↗ helpful I think you captured a lot of

1:33:09 ↗ our comments as we were moving through

1:33:10 ↗ the presentation um but but commissioner

1:33:16 ↗ Milligan so are we going to do number

1:33:19 ↗ three because I want to go back to A1

1:33:21 ↗ and the economic vitality and clarify bu

1:33:24 ↗ something if that's

1:33:26 ↗ okay so back in A1 where we are talking

1:33:29 ↗ about the city should provide High

1:33:31 ↗ highquality customer service just

1:33:33 ↗ listening to the conversation and

1:33:35 ↗ thinking about it a little more deeply

1:33:36 ↗ with all of you where it says um for all

1:33:40 ↗ businesses and then we add this

1:33:42 ↗ amendment and it comes from Vision 2050

1:33:44 ↗ but it's not like it comes from

1:33:46 ↗ Washington state code and we have to

1:33:47 ↗ adopt it I don't think and what I what I

1:33:51 ↗ cut to thinking later is even though I

1:33:54 ↗ support our small local historically

1:33:57 ↗ lack Capital those were at risk of

1:33:59 ↗ displacement businesses I think that

1:34:01 ↗ they are um the heart and soul of our

1:34:04 ↗ our town you think of Old Town and and

1:34:06 ↗ other little pockets of businesses um I

1:34:09 ↗ think that's what makes isqua special

1:34:12 ↗ however the city should provide

1:34:14 ↗ highquality customer service in a

1:34:16 ↗ regulatory process that's fair to all

1:34:18 ↗ businesses and let's think about Costco

1:34:21 ↗ let's think about Swedish let's think

1:34:23 ↗ about

1:34:24 ↗ the great employers that we have in our

1:34:26 ↗ community they aren't uh any of those

1:34:30 ↗ other things that are getting the

1:34:32 ↗ especially and so you know maybe they

1:34:35 ↗ don't need it as much but it just makes

1:34:37 ↗ me think that why don't we provide high

1:34:40 ↗ quality customer service to all

1:34:41 ↗ businesses and then I'd like to know

1:34:43 ↗ what the economic Vitality commission

1:34:45 ↗ thinks of it that's my closing comment

1:34:47 ↗ on A1 in the economic Vitality thanks

1:34:50 ↗ for the extra

1:34:52 ↗ moment thank you commissioner Milligan

1:34:55 ↗ uh no point well

1:34:57 ↗ taken um plus we we love the economic

1:35:01 ↗ Vitality commission they're great

1:35:02 ↗ Partners we haven't got to see him in a

1:35:04 ↗ while I saw chair Richley the other day

1:35:07 ↗ and hopefully we'll get to see him soon

1:35:09 ↗ they're great great board to work with

1:35:12 ↗ um

1:35:15 ↗ okay can't

1:35:19 ↗ seem um any other comments again feel

1:35:22 ↗ free to go questions one two or

1:35:28 ↗ three that one back

1:35:41 ↗ up Dad were you going to expand a little

1:35:43 ↗ bit on the Housing section I know you

1:35:45 ↗ were mentioning it towards the end you

1:35:46 ↗ wanted

1:35:47 ↗ to yeah so we can we so we can go to

1:35:50 ↗ question three if there's nothing else

1:35:51 ↗ for questions one and two originally for

1:35:54 ↗ the commission on Direction needed so we

1:35:55 ↗ can go to the policy new recommendations

1:35:59 ↗ and new policy if that's yeah I

1:36:03 ↗ think go ahead Mr CRA you you the

1:36:06 ↗ language as we talked about is important

1:36:09 ↗ before the thing that got my my

1:36:11 ↗ attention when it said meet housing

1:36:13 ↗ needs which is something that we'll

1:36:15 ↗ never be able to do that's you could say

1:36:18 ↗ you could prioritize them like you do on

1:36:19 ↗ this slide so I'm curious what the true

1:36:23 ↗ goal is so hopefully we'll get into what

1:36:25 ↗ that what that means because meet and

1:36:27 ↗ prioritize are very different because

1:36:29 ↗ we'll never meet housing needs for

1:36:31 ↗ anybody let alone people who are

1:36:33 ↗ impossible it's it's an impossible task

1:36:36 ↗ yeah no that's uh commissioner C you

1:36:39 ↗ have a actually a great point so the

1:36:40 ↗ recommendation that came from the

1:36:43 ↗ affordable housing committee staff that

1:36:45 ↗ is what's represented in the draft

1:36:47 ↗ language what the intent is is

1:36:50 ↗ prioritizing 0 to 30% Ami housing needs

1:36:54 ↗ and so even though it I mean we could

1:36:56 ↗ change the terminology to exactly say

1:36:59 ↗ that we just still wanted to pose the

1:37:01 ↗ question because we already have an

1:37:02 ↗ existing policy that calls out 0 to 50%

1:37:06 ↗ Ami as a high need for the community and

1:37:10 ↗ so that is how we originally presented

1:37:11 ↗ the element to the regional staff but

1:37:14 ↗ they fed out to fully comply with the

1:37:17 ↗ King County Planning policies uh

1:37:19 ↗ specifically for housing we need to have

1:37:22 ↗ um policy specifically calling out 0 to

1:37:23 ↗ 30% Ami and so that's why we want to

1:37:25 ↗ have the policy discussion with you all

1:37:27 ↗ my question is not about the number it's

1:37:29 ↗ about the word because we'll never

1:37:31 ↗ meet housing needs just it's impossible

1:37:35 ↗ you're never going to meet the housing

1:37:36 ↗ need for for low-income people in the

1:37:39 ↗ city you may be able to help some people

1:37:41 ↗ but you're never going to be able to

1:37:42 ↗ meet that so that's whether it's 30 or

1:37:45 ↗ 50 I mean you could prioritize all those

1:37:47 ↗ things I'm that I'm totally cool with

1:37:49 ↗ but I have trouble when we have language

1:37:52 ↗ that we know we just can't

1:37:54 ↗ well we we're happy to take a look at

1:37:56 ↗ and just change the terminology to say

1:37:58 ↗ prioritize just how it's presented on

1:38:00 ↗ the screen if if that is what the

1:38:04 ↗ commission point

1:38:11 ↗ okay seen some nodding head so staff can

1:38:14 ↗ take a look at that and change the

1:38:20 ↗ terminology is there any more discussion

1:38:22 ↗ on that first one

1:38:27 ↗ sure um yeah I think when when I was

1:38:30 ↗ reading the I guess the proposed new

1:38:32 ↗ policy um and kind of comparing it to

1:38:34 ↗ the existing

1:38:35 ↗ policies um maybe it was the term best

1:38:38 ↗ practices like like commissioner

1:38:40 ↗ Milligan brought up that kind of like

1:38:42 ↗ caught me on the new policy um but also

1:38:46 ↗ go back to kind of some of the things

1:38:47 ↗ that have been done on this plan which

1:38:49 ↗ is like reduce complexities simplify um

1:38:52 ↗ remove

1:38:54 ↗ redundancies and I kept rereading all

1:38:58 ↗ these existing policies and trying to

1:39:00 ↗ pick out you know what's missing that a

1:39:03 ↗ new policy had to be created and and

1:39:06 ↗ personally I I couldn't really find it I

1:39:08 ↗ I felt like it was similar enough to

1:39:10 ↗ like C4 where it clearly calls out you

1:39:12 ↗ know especially housing affordable to

1:39:14 ↗ households e below 30% Ami um you know

1:39:18 ↗ there's another one that's a below 50%

1:39:21 ↗ another one that's a below 80% obviously

1:39:23 ↗ that's inclusive of 30 and Below um I

1:39:27 ↗ mean I think affordable housing is a

1:39:30 ↗ need in general and I think that it does

1:39:32 ↗ call out 30% a few times in a few

1:39:35 ↗ different ways here um so to me it it

1:39:39 ↗ adds redundancy uh which I think is an

1:39:42 ↗ exercise that the city staff did great

1:39:44 ↗ in trying to remove throughout this

1:39:46 ↗ document um however I would yield to the

1:39:49 ↗ idea that maybe like the vision 2050

1:39:52 ↗ situation there were specific words or

1:39:56 ↗ instances in the new policy that aren't

1:39:58 ↗ maybe covered in the existing policies

1:40:00 ↗ that just weren't um I guess obvious to

1:40:02 ↗ me um so I'd be interested to hear both

1:40:06 ↗ commission and staff feedback on on that

1:40:08 ↗ at some

1:40:11 ↗ point yeah the the

1:40:13 ↗ primary reason for the recommendation

1:40:16 ↗ from the affordable housing staff was

1:40:17 ↗ specifically because we did not call out

1:40:20 ↗ 0 to 30% Ami that is the reason for this

1:40:23 ↗ and that is um a King County Planning

1:40:26 ↗ policy calls out 0 to 30 and so that is

1:40:28 ↗ the compliance that

1:40:50 ↗ they did you get everything you need as

1:40:52 ↗ far as policy question I think you're

1:40:55 ↗ looking for more I I for well I I just

1:40:58 ↗ want to make

1:41:00 ↗ sure is the commission supportive of the

1:41:03 ↗ new policy I guess is the more clear

1:41:06 ↗ question I want to

1:41:08 ↗ answer Comm

1:41:10 ↗ Milligan uh yeah maybe I could um chime

1:41:13 ↗ in and say um that prioritizing 0 to 30

1:41:17 ↗ um I am um supporting what the other

1:41:20 ↗ Commissioners have already said we have

1:41:22 ↗ policy

1:41:24 ↗ that

1:41:26 ↗ um shines a light on those in Greater

1:41:30 ↗ need

1:41:31 ↗ uh maybe we just need to include 30%

1:41:36 ↗ rather than calling it out as one

1:41:38 ↗ element of all of our affordable housing

1:41:40 ↗ spectrum because we need affordable

1:41:43 ↗ housing in the whole in the whole

1:41:45 ↗ spectrum of uh

1:41:48 ↗ Ami

1:41:50 ↗ ranges and to say that you prioritize 0

1:41:53 ↗ to 30 means that then you

1:41:56 ↗ deprioritize 30 to 50 50 to 80 80 to 120

1:42:01 ↗ anyway maybe we just need to

1:42:03 ↗ add that uh recognizing that 0 to 30 has

1:42:07 ↗ needs that um need to be called

1:42:09 ↗ out thank

1:42:14 ↗ you able to

1:42:16 ↗ follow yeah yeah no it's mainly just

1:42:19 ↗ trying to get an idea from the

1:42:21 ↗ commission if if adding specifically

1:42:24 ↗ calling out 0 to 30% Ami is is

1:42:26 ↗ consistent with some of the discussions

1:42:28 ↗ we've had with the housing policies I'm

1:42:30 ↗ tring I you I'm never going to remember

1:42:31 ↗ it for the life of me I'm trying to

1:42:32 ↗ remember the percentage of housing that

1:42:34 ↗ we needed I know from 0 to 30 was the

1:42:37 ↗ biggest

1:42:38 ↗ percentage and obviously 30 to 50 was a

1:42:41 ↗ second but how do you say that in a way

1:42:43 ↗ that the commissioner Milligan's Point

1:42:45 ↗ you're not trying to

1:42:47 ↗ deprioritize I guess language cleanup on

1:42:50 ↗ aisle four again stff can take a look at

1:42:52 ↗ this one and and and um specifically

1:42:55 ↗ call out the needs um to show the kind

1:42:58 ↗ of recognizing the importance of

1:43:03 ↗ it anything moving on to the the second

1:43:07 ↗ one and this one was U an amendment to

1:43:09 ↗ an existing policy in the transportation

1:43:11 ↗ element and that is specifically calling

1:43:15 ↗ out for coordination with Sound Transit

1:43:18 ↗ around connectivity as well as

1:43:20 ↗ affordable

1:43:21 ↗ housing um around future light rail

1:43:24 ↗ station and so that is what they're also

1:43:27 ↗ calling out is is that connectivity and

1:43:29 ↗ affordable housing piece in coordination

1:43:31 ↗ with Sound Transit as what they're

1:43:34 ↗ requesting with this um

1:43:38 ↗ Amendment commissioner craft good

1:43:40 ↗ question because we're late we get the

1:43:43 ↗ trains in 20 more years but the had them

1:43:46 ↗ for a while B rolling out is there

1:43:48 ↗ anything we could learn of how they

1:43:49 ↗ handle that exact question because

1:43:52 ↗ they've had a this probably many years

1:43:54 ↗ sure so Sound Transit actually has a

1:43:57 ↗ specific policy requiring that with any

1:44:00 ↗ Transit oriented development close to

1:44:02 ↗ any of their high-capacity stations that

1:44:04 ↗ whether it being bus or for light rail

1:44:08 ↗ um they require portable housing around

1:44:11 ↗ a lot of those stations and Housing

1:44:12 ↗ Development and mixed use development

1:44:15 ↗ with at least with the properties that

1:44:17 ↗ they can and then that's usually what

1:44:19 ↗ they coordinate with the cities on their

1:44:21 ↗ regulations policies of what were being

1:44:23 ↗ zoned around those stations that being

1:44:25 ↗ that they wanted to be a walkable um

1:44:28 ↗ area around the stations more so than um

1:44:31 ↗ parking lots where everybody's just

1:44:34 ↗ driving to the station so that is some

1:44:36 ↗ of the coordination a lot of cities do

1:44:39 ↗ they do it in different ways but that is

1:44:41 ↗ part of the discussion with Sound

1:44:42 ↗ Transit when we are starting to plan for

1:44:44 ↗ these Light Rail

1:44:46 ↗ stations that help answer your question

1:44:48 ↗ on well it sounds like you have a

1:44:49 ↗ blueprint to be able to get figure that

1:44:51 ↗ out as opposed to us trying to solve it

1:44:53 ↗ ourselves it sounds like so earlier this

1:44:55 ↗ year the city council actually adopted a

1:44:56 ↗ light rail planning document that staff

1:44:58 ↗ had put together with consultant um

1:45:01 ↗ specifically outlining everything that

1:45:03 ↗ sound transit is going to be doing once

1:45:05 ↗ they start the process for planning for

1:45:07 ↗ Light Rail and isqua and so what we did

1:45:09 ↗ with that planning document and I'm

1:45:11 ↗ going to give Thomas valdres who's on

1:45:13 ↗ the line credit for the development of

1:45:15 ↗ that guide um what we did in that

1:45:18 ↗ document is outlin specifically what the

1:45:19 ↗ city needs to do prepare for those

1:45:21 ↗ conversations throughout that entire

1:45:23 ↗ process and that being looking at

1:45:25 ↗ station locations and what we want to do

1:45:27 ↗ around those station locations and

1:45:29 ↗ likely having land use conversations

1:45:32 ↗ with this commission as well as with

1:45:33 ↗ City Council of what do we want to do

1:45:35 ↗ around those

1:45:38 ↗ stations so while it's not a policy

1:45:40 ↗ called out in the comprehensive plan

1:45:42 ↗ it's called out in very fine detail in

1:45:46 ↗ that planning document as well as within

1:45:47 ↗ the mobility master

1:45:50 ↗ plan let me ask you Stephen would it be

1:45:53 ↗ and again I don't know would it be

1:45:54 ↗ helpful to put something like that the

1:45:56 ↗ comprehensive plan's obviously going to

1:45:57 ↗ be updated before we get our train to

1:45:59 ↗ your point would it be helpful to say

1:46:02 ↗ something to the effect of look at

1:46:04 ↗ Regional sister cities that already

1:46:06 ↗ implementing the sound transit to

1:46:09 ↗ quantify data and would that be helpful

1:46:12 ↗ or do you think that's not necessary we

1:46:14 ↗ actually did that in the development of

1:46:16 ↗ the the laboral planning guide and so um

1:46:18 ↗ some of that effort is already started

1:46:20 ↗ with that guide and then we're going to

1:46:21 ↗ continue a lot of that research

1:46:23 ↗ as other cities and other parts of the

1:46:25 ↗ region um move forward with

1:46:27 ↗ implementation with light rail in their

1:46:29 ↗ areas and learn from a lot of um their

1:46:33 ↗ situations on how they got things in

1:46:34 ↗ place would it make sense to put that

1:46:36 ↗ though as like a policy goal in the

1:46:39 ↗ actual comprehensive plan because again

1:46:41 ↗ it's going to be updated before we get

1:46:44 ↗ transit here we can yeah I just I don't

1:46:47 ↗ know like I said I'm kind of asking you

1:46:48 ↗ more staff like would that be helpful is

1:46:50 ↗ that

1:46:51 ↗ limiting uh no because we would do it

1:46:53 ↗ anyway um Le trying to learn from others

1:46:56 ↗ on how they approach that coordination

1:46:59 ↗ with Sound Transit you know if sound

1:47:02 ↗ transits process might change in several

1:47:04 ↗ years what did they learn from all some

1:47:07 ↗ of those changes and and maybe adjusting

1:47:09 ↗ some of what we're planning to do based

1:47:11 ↗ on that so we would learn from that or

1:47:13 ↗ we would try to learn from those the

1:47:15 ↗ other cities anyway um but it again it

1:47:19 ↗ it if the commission thinks that it's

1:47:21 ↗ helpful to incorporate that into the

1:47:22 ↗ policy as Guidance the the reason I

1:47:25 ↗ think it would be helpful is again I'm

1:47:27 ↗ kind of thinking about the public

1:47:28 ↗ comment earlier where again this is a

1:47:30 ↗ document that everybody in the city

1:47:32 ↗ should be able to read not be involved

1:47:33 ↗ with the city be like oh okay this is

1:47:36 ↗ where they're collecting data from um

1:47:38 ↗ not only this plan but they're also

1:47:40 ↗ looking at Regional cities that are

1:47:42 ↗ implementing their Sound Transit as we

1:47:44 ↗ speak I think Redmond's also up and

1:47:47 ↗ running yeah Bell Seattle yeah so I mean

1:47:51 ↗ again there's already a few again our

1:47:53 ↗ our station won't be ready

1:47:56 ↗ for yeah long time so again I think it

1:48:00 ↗ would be helpful myself but it'd be

1:48:01 ↗ interesting to see what type of language

1:48:02 ↗ you guys could put together um because

1:48:05 ↗ again I kind of like I like the idea of

1:48:07 ↗ the public comment earlier would be an

1:48:09 ↗ easy read commissioner

1:48:13 ↗ Milligan thank you um this is a really

1:48:15 ↗ good conversation uh I appreciate coming

1:48:18 ↗ back to the uh new policy that has the

1:48:21 ↗ partner with Sound Transit in bringing

1:48:23 ↗ Light Rail service to isqua by adopting

1:48:26 ↗ supportive land use policies it

1:48:30 ↗ previously went straight to by creating

1:48:32 ↗ a safe multimodal connectivity to the

1:48:34 ↗ new station which seems like a very

1:48:36 ↗ appropriate comment to have in the

1:48:37 ↗ transportation element of the comp plan

1:48:41 ↗ to add the

1:48:42 ↗ housing um I don't think belongs in the

1:48:45 ↗ transportation element also we already

1:48:49 ↗ planned for the location of the light

1:48:51 ↗ rail when we created the central liqua

1:48:54 ↗ plan and moreover the urban growth

1:48:56 ↗ Center the urban growth Center not only

1:48:59 ↗ um plans for mixed use and high density

1:49:03 ↗ housing near the um the planned and hope

1:49:07 ↗ for light rail station uh but it also

1:49:10 ↗ has inclusionary housing uh it it IT

1:49:14 ↗ addresses all of those um issues and

1:49:19 ↗ it's in the land use planning element

1:49:22 ↗ not in the oh wherever they want to put

1:49:25 ↗ a train station we're going to put in

1:49:27 ↗ some affordable housing no we already

1:49:29 ↗ know where that we want to put the train

1:49:30 ↗ station we've already planned our city

1:49:32 ↗ for we've already

1:49:33 ↗ upzoned a good portion of our city to

1:49:36 ↗ accommodate those needs so I don't think

1:49:39 ↗ that this addition um is necessary and I

1:49:42 ↗ I think it might in fact be somewhat

1:49:44 ↗ harmful by dispersing these land uses to

1:49:50 ↗ other places in the city where we did

1:49:52 ↗ not plan to have

1:49:54 ↗ them that's why I think that the new

1:49:56 ↗ language should be um um reverted back

1:49:59 ↗ to the existing

1:50:02 ↗ policy thank

1:50:08 ↗ you any other further

1:50:13 ↗ discussion even just for a clarification

1:50:17 ↗ um from commissioner Milligan's comments

1:50:19 ↗ so the the central isall plan and City

1:50:22 ↗ Planning document

1:50:23 ↗ have not identified specifically

1:50:24 ↗ formally or officially where a station

1:50:27 ↗ will go for light rail the the central

1:50:29 ↗ Squall plan is planning for high

1:50:31 ↗ capacity Transit and Light Rail and and

1:50:34 ↗ the idea with Central esqua was up

1:50:36 ↗ zoning as the regional growth Center but

1:50:39 ↗ specifically where the station goes that

1:50:41 ↗ hasn't been finalized yet and so that's

1:50:43 ↗ actually part of the next steps is

1:50:44 ↗ identifying different Alternatives that

1:50:47 ↗ could be used for a station and then

1:50:50 ↗ coming up with a preferred alternative

1:50:52 ↗ from the city perspective and that would

1:50:54 ↗ feed into the

1:50:55 ↗ environmental um the environmental

1:50:58 ↗ process that sound transit will take on

1:51:00 ↗ when they're collecting feedback

1:51:02 ↗ analyzing the different Alternatives um

1:51:05 ↗ part of the process that we learned from

1:51:06 ↗ some of the other cities is that when we

1:51:08 ↗ go through that planning effort prior to

1:51:10 ↗ Sound Transit starting that helps

1:51:13 ↗ enforce a lot of the community support

1:51:15 ↗ for that preferred alternative prior to

1:51:17 ↗ the even starting their environmental

1:51:19 ↗ review process so that's that step has

1:51:22 ↗ not been officially done yet but

1:51:24 ↗ commissioner Milligan is correct in

1:51:25 ↗ terms of central isqua being that area

1:51:29 ↗ where we want to station but the

1:51:31 ↗ specific station hasn't been located

1:51:32 ↗ quite

1:51:38 ↗ yet thank you Stephen

1:51:41 ↗ um any further

1:51:45 ↗ discussion okay well you've got Nas and

1:51:48 ↗ my opposing points of view so do with it

1:51:50 ↗ what you will uh be nice to kind of see

1:51:53 ↗ maybe so you guys could Workshop

1:51:54 ↗ something and we can look at it next

1:51:56 ↗ time we see the

1:51:58 ↗ uh commissioner Milligan can completely

1:52:01 ↗ change my mind but I would I would think

1:52:03 ↗ it'd be

1:52:05 ↗ helpful maybe I can get um other

1:52:07 ↗ Commissioners feedback on placement of a

1:52:11 ↗ new a amended or new policy that being

1:52:14 ↗ does it make sense in the transation

1:52:15 ↗ element for coordination or in the

1:52:17 ↗ housing element for coordination between

1:52:19 ↗ transation and housing no you the

1:52:21 ↗ following choices

1:52:23 ↗ you keep it in option one keep it in

1:52:26 ↗ housing option two you have it

1:52:29 ↗ in transit option three which is you

1:52:34 ↗ keep it in housing but you have a call

1:52:36 ↗ out in transit because people would look

1:52:39 ↗ for it in housing and so I'm not sure

1:52:42 ↗ how things are cross related or whatever

1:52:44 ↗ but at least make a note to there's a

1:52:47 ↗ policy that ties these together go look

1:52:48 ↗ here as a way to do it um

1:52:52 ↗ I'm not sure if there's a fourth option

1:52:54 ↗ I'm just saying those are the three and

1:52:55 ↗ you can figure out that well the the

1:52:57 ↗ fourth option I think particularly for

1:52:59 ↗ the question for the commission tonight

1:53:00 ↗ is do we want to make the change to the

1:53:02 ↗ policy because this is coming from the

1:53:04 ↗ recommendation from Regional staff on

1:53:06 ↗ making sure that we're specifically

1:53:07 ↗ calling it out in a policy but um some

1:53:11 ↗ of the information that we provided in

1:53:12 ↗ the staff report was we already identify

1:53:15 ↗ a lot of that coordination within

1:53:16 ↗ multiple different planning

1:53:18 ↗ documents we which is why we originally

1:53:20 ↗ didn't have this policy um recommended

1:53:23 ↗ at least

1:53:27 ↗ initially staff can go either way and

1:53:30 ↗ just so you know we can go either way

1:53:32 ↗ with the different Alternatives but I

1:53:33 ↗ just want to make sure that the

1:53:35 ↗ commission has all the information that

1:53:37 ↗ was presented for why this was

1:53:39 ↗ recommended and why it wasn't originally

1:53:41 ↗ in the policies enforcements

1:53:43 ↗ commissioner

1:53:44 ↗ Patterson yeah I guess I'm leaning into

1:53:47 ↗ commissioner Milligan's recommendations

1:53:49 ↗ a little bit in potentially uh I guess

1:53:51 ↗ maybe split in this proposed policy or

1:53:54 ↗ keeping the original one as it was for

1:53:57 ↗ transportation um and looking at a

1:53:59 ↗ different way to approach the housing

1:54:01 ↗ portion of this um with like for

1:54:05 ↗ instance are we actually partnering with

1:54:06 ↗ sound transit to create affordable

1:54:08 ↗ higher density housing we're partnering

1:54:11 ↗ with them to bring the Light Rail and

1:54:13 ↗ that would influence land use policy

1:54:15 ↗ that then we would do the mixed use you

1:54:18 ↗ know high density housing so I think

1:54:20 ↗ that in itself probably removes the

1:54:23 ↗ housing part of it uh to keep it

1:54:25 ↗ Transportation oriented in my

1:54:31 ↗ opinion that's what we're after uh

1:54:34 ↗ commissioner

1:54:37 ↗ Milligan uh thank you commissioner

1:54:39 ↗ Patterson you're helping me clarify um

1:54:43 ↗ what where I'm trying to say and if you

1:54:46 ↗ break up that sentence and say that we

1:54:48 ↗ are going to partner with sound transit

1:54:50 ↗ to create affordable high density

1:54:51 ↗ housing and mixed use near a new station

1:54:54 ↗ that would be saying that we're going to

1:54:58 ↗ even allow sand transit to influence how

1:55:01 ↗ we plan our land use we have spent um

1:55:07 ↗ countless resources and and really great

1:55:10 ↗ planning to lay out a city that we think

1:55:13 ↗ will work really well with our geography

1:55:17 ↗ with our population with our

1:55:18 ↗ neighborhoods with

1:55:20 ↗ transportation and

1:55:23 ↗ to um defer that work to a

1:55:28 ↗ transportation agency called Sound

1:55:31 ↗ Transit does not seem appropriate to me

1:55:33 ↗ that seems like that's our job and and

1:55:36 ↗ we do have land use that supports mass

1:55:39 ↗ transit including light rail that serves

1:55:42 ↗ the needs of affordability and mixed

1:55:46 ↗ use and what's the other one high

1:55:50 ↗ density in central is AA especially in

1:55:52 ↗ the urban growth Center um the work has

1:55:55 ↗ been done we don't need to partner with

1:55:56 ↗ sound transit to tell us how to plan our

1:55:58 ↗ land use that's I just still think that

1:56:01 ↗ but thank you um commissioner Patterson

1:56:03 ↗ pleas split it apart so that we can see

1:56:05 ↗ it for what it

1:56:07 ↗ is it goes back to kind of the role of

1:56:10 ↗ what we what the city does and I think

1:56:13 ↗ this highlights the fact that we what

1:56:15 ↗ we'll do is we'll part partner with them

1:56:18 ↗ for as early as possible line of sight

1:56:21 ↗ of where it goes so then we can do the

1:56:23 ↗ right things from a housing standpoint

1:56:25 ↗ within our city that's really what the

1:56:27 ↗ partnership's about is finding um just

1:56:30 ↗ having enough time so we could build the

1:56:32 ↗ right things around what we agree to as

1:56:34 ↗ the place as opposed I so I think that

1:56:37 ↗ may add some clarity based

1:56:41 ↗ on the last two feedback

1:56:48 ↗ done thank you yeah and if it helps I

1:56:50 ↗ think uh somehow more from what I was

1:56:53 ↗ just suggesting is making it part of

1:56:56 ↗ looking at research I just thought that

1:56:57 ↗ would be helpful I wasn't actually

1:56:59 ↗ saying I think what I'm hearing so yeah

1:57:02 ↗ please don't let anybody think that I

1:57:04 ↗ want uh right sound sound transit to be

1:57:08 ↗ dictating our policy that's not what I

1:57:09 ↗ meant what I meant was is just is there

1:57:13 ↗ room for another element that just

1:57:15 ↗ states that hey we're looking at uh

1:57:17 ↗ we're looking at um you know getting

1:57:20 ↗ data from these other cities who have

1:57:22 ↗ gone before that's all I was saying so

1:57:26 ↗ anyway one

1:57:29 ↗ tangent anything else for Stephen

1:57:32 ↗ Stephen do you need anything else I I

1:57:33 ↗ think I I think I have everything I need

1:57:36 ↗ unless there's additional

1:57:37 ↗ comments no I think I got mine on

1:57:42 ↗ right

1:57:46 ↗ on all right that was look like a hand

1:57:48 ↗ that concludes my

1:57:50 ↗ presentation all right thank you

1:57:57 ↗ Stephen the next item on the agenda is

1:58:01 ↗ reports so Stephen or Amanda or Valerie

1:58:06 ↗ or Thomas anybody uh anyone like to

1:58:08 ↗ share reports with

1:58:13 ↗ us yes so um I just want to do a quick

1:58:18 ↗ Council update for the commission so

1:58:20 ↗ earlier this week C Council adopted the

1:58:23 ↗ the annual code amendments that being

1:58:25 ↗ the long list of code amendments that

1:58:26 ↗ the commission had previously reviewed

1:58:29 ↗ um the recommendations that came out of

1:58:31 ↗ the council committee the Planning

1:58:33 ↗ Development environment Council

1:58:34 ↗ committee going to city council um there

1:58:36 ↗ were two changes the first one being

1:58:39 ↗ that the uh related to the heat pumps

1:58:42 ↗ Amendment the council committee actually

1:58:45 ↗ changed the requirements around um

1:58:49 ↗ screening for any installation in the

1:58:52 ↗ Frontage of a home that being that they

1:58:54 ↗ felt like they that was increasing the

1:58:56 ↗ burden on homeowners and cost for

1:58:58 ↗ homeowners or getting the installations

1:59:01 ↗ they felt like that wasn't the the

1:59:03 ↗ city's place to put that burden on uh

1:59:07 ↗ with any of those installations but that

1:59:08 ↗ it's still a consideration for housing

1:59:11 ↗ associations to require some type of

1:59:13 ↗ screening if if that's something that

1:59:14 ↗ they want to do and so that that was the

1:59:17 ↗ one change but that Amendment on

1:59:19 ↗ allowing heat pumps to be installed

1:59:21 ↗ inside and

1:59:22 ↗ setbacks did still move forward as an

1:59:24 ↗ amendment the other change was the

1:59:26 ↗ change for the pre-application meetings

1:59:29 ↗ um originally the commission recommended

1:59:30 ↗ taking that off the amendment list when

1:59:33 ↗ the council committee reviewed that

1:59:35 ↗ Amendment they their recommendation was

1:59:38 ↗ to add it back to the list because they

1:59:39 ↗ were looking at the Financial Risk to

1:59:41 ↗ the city related to the exemptions um

1:59:44 ↗ from that discussion on the

1:59:46 ↗ pre-application meetings the reason why

1:59:48 ↗ we're opposing the amendment in the

1:59:49 ↗ first place was to comply with state

1:59:52 ↗ Bill 5290 which had an exemptions in the

1:59:54 ↗ provisions from the basically the city

1:59:57 ↗ committing to uh 20% refunds if we

2:00:00 ↗ didn't meet our development review

2:00:02 ↗ timelines and the concern that the

2:00:04 ↗ committee had was yes the city will

2:00:07 ↗ still continue having conversations on

2:00:09 ↗ looking at those

2:00:10 ↗ Provisions but the deadline for um when

2:00:15 ↗ 5290 goes in place is January 2025 and

2:00:19 ↗ so they felt like we they need we needed

2:00:21 ↗ to take action now to reduce that

2:00:23 ↗ Financial Risk to the city and allow us

2:00:26 ↗ to still have those conversations

2:00:27 ↗ looking at the provisions so that was

2:00:29 ↗ the recommendation that the committee

2:00:31 ↗ pushed forward for city council and they

2:00:32 ↗ adopted those amendments on Monday so

2:00:36 ↗ I'm happy to have further discussion

2:00:37 ↗ about that if the commission would like

2:00:39 ↗ to but I just want to make sure I wanted

2:00:41 ↗ to highlight for the council

2:00:44 ↗ update yeah nothing than thank you

2:00:46 ↗ Stephen obviously the city council is

2:00:48 ↗ looking at budgets and things that don't

2:00:51 ↗ necessarily

2:00:52 ↗ involve our purview

2:00:58 ↗ um all right uh if that takes care of

2:01:01 ↗ updates any other business or

2:01:04 ↗ announcements just one quick um

2:01:07 ↗ introduction so we have mateline Nelson

2:01:09 ↗ joining us on WebEx tonight she is our

2:01:11 ↗ new planning intern so you're going to

2:01:13 ↗ see that name a little more often as she

2:01:15 ↗ gets involved with commission meetings

2:01:16 ↗ and preparations of the materials uh

2:01:19 ↗ attend it with the chair's um U meeting

2:01:22 ↗ but also potentially bringing topics to

2:01:24 ↗ the commission for discussion great all

2:01:27 ↗ right well we we know you're there

2:01:29 ↗ virtually

2:01:30 ↗ meline

2:01:32 ↗ hello um okay is there any

2:01:37 ↗ from the

2:01:41 ↗ commission any final word from

2:01:45 ↗ staff just that I really appreciate the

2:01:47 ↗ discussions tonight on the draft plan

2:01:48 ↗ and looking forward to continuing

2:01:50 ↗ discussion on August 8th great thank you

2:01:53 ↗ Stephen all right there being no further

2:01:55 ↗ business we will adjourn at 8:33 thank

2:02:00 ↗ you everyone

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 (6)

Voiss

Commissioners Kennedy

Krass (Alt)

Milligan (Virtual)

Patterson

Zakharoff (Alt)

Staff (1)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting & Records Assistant Madeline Nelson, Planning Intern (Virtual) Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Valerie Porter, Associate Planner (Virtual) Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner (Virtual)