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

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)

Recommendations & actions (6)

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

a) Minutes of June 20, 2024 There were no comments or corrections and the Minutes were approved.
b) Minutes of June 27, 2024 There were no comments or corrections and the Minutes were approved.
Padua replied that Policy A-1 specifically addresses customer service and Policy A-3 addresses economic trends, and while there is language redundancy, different concepts for supporting businesses are the difference,…
Council adopted a Light Rail Planning document early this year outlining everything in the Sound Transit process.
Padua stated that a fourth option is if the Commission would like to make the change to the Policy as recommended by staff.
a) Council Update (01:58) Padua stated that earlier this week, Council adopted the annual code amendments.