Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

October 2. I gotta get myself. Want to call over in the 10/02/2025 meeting in the Gig Harbor City or City of Gig Harbor Planning Commission, and I'll start with the roll call. Alright. With that, we'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes of our September 18.

I move to approve the minutes. Second. Wait. Second. Okay. Second.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed for the amendments. Anyone

I don't

see anybody present in person.

Anyone online for public comment? No. Alright. Yep.

See no hands raised.

K.

Okay. Alright. I guess we'll move on then to the agenda items. Phase two code amendments

from our senior minor, Jeremy.

Hey. You'll get a one moment. We have a little bit

of both. Actually, we'll get a lot of

both. So

take it away. Thanks. Yeah. Just one moment. Are

you able to expand the screen? No. No.

No. This

Alright. Oops. Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you. Much like we did it for the record, my name is Eric Baker. I'm the community development director for the city of Gig Harbor. And much like we did in the last study session, this really is just kind of a beginning conversation about what we are pointing as phase two code developments. You may ask what is phase one code development when we came with the land use and zoning maps earlier that Catherine brought to you as well as adjusting the densities consistent with the comprehensive plan. That was phase one.

Phase two was a much broader update to the to the comprehensive plan, but both are directly related to achieving our housing goals. Just a little. Okay. So first of all, why are we doing these updates? As we've always discussed, the growth management act is an over act is the overarching document that really establishes how local jurisdictions must plan.

There's a couple of documents under that. The regional vision 2050 by the Puget Sound Regional Council and our countywide planning policies, all leading down to our comprehensive plan and our development regulations. There have been a substantial number of significant changes to the Growth Management Act as it applies to housing as well as a series of others.

We're gonna

go through exactly some of the bills that have been adopted over the last few years and what exactly they are asking jurisdictions to do. Growth management used to be a bottoms up approach where, basically, grassroots would develop plans based upon local circumstances. Due to the housing crisis and a very activist legislature, they have decided that they are going to be providing a lot of top down requirements. Many of those top down requirements are removing barriers to its to increase density and expanding housing types. Like we've discussed before, the city is very single family home driven.

Those homes are now loaned for about $935,000 apiece. We, per state mandate, are now required to provide housing types that, in theory, such as townhomes and apartments, can be affordable to people with making less than a 100% of annual median income for our area. They spent a $107,000 each. That is a pretty dramatic shift as between 2020 and 2024, we were responsible for we generated 500 single family homes. We only needed to provide 200 and something homes for the twenty four year horizon.

So we've already doubled the number of single family homes in that four year period, yet have made a very nominal progress towards that housing that is affordable to people making less than a 100% of annual median income. Other things that are needing to be updated beyond just general permanent housing is that we need to be updating our our regulations regarding what they call staff housing. That largely is permanent supportive housing, affordable housing, emergency shelters, safe parks, all of the more emergency related housing types for folks who are experiencing homelessness. Currently, we don't have a lot of codes. There is a very specific state statute that describes what we can do in certain instances.

That is what we're using today, but we need to be adopting this in code. I do expect that is going to be a meeting conversation for members of the public. And then lastly, we have a lot of other code elements that are decades old, inconsistent, redundant, and or confusing. By the depo every time Jeremy said, that's the way it is, and, yes, it is confusing. I'd be a very rich man at this point.

But, fortunately, we are in the process of trying to address not only a series of state mandates, but also taking this opportunity to clarify, streamline, and improve our overall code for both the public staff and developers to hopefully get projects from submittal to approval or denial, and then how it comes out, as quickly as possible as time is money when it comes to development. So what you're seeing here is you're seeing a whole host of state mandates that have been adopted from 2021 all the way down to 2025. A lot of these are the ones I've discussed before. The state has provided housing need assessments for each jurisdiction, which tells us how many single family homes we need to have, how many multi how many multifamily homes, and how many single family attached homes with the idea being that the multifamily units are going to be cheapest, the townhomes are gonna be kind of in the middle, oftentimes called missing middle, and the single family homes are likely only gonna be affordable to people making more than a 120% of annual needed income. This is a substantially greater level of responsibility jurisdictions have as we only control the housing type.

We don't necessarily control the housing cost in a lot of ways. So it'd be very interesting how some of this works its way out. Other statutes have limited design review to objective standards. Jeremy will be talking more about that. Allowance for accessory dwelling units. You may remember we brought this before you earlier. That has been adopted. Yay for us. The unit lot subdivisions or the allowance for properties to be condominiumized.

I don't know

if it's a word, but it's the easiest way to describe it. So instead of these simple lots, you are now looking at a different different ownership strata. Allowing co living housing, which is like boarding house. Six people living in individual rooms in a particular home. We're responsible for allowing those. And then all of this, the big bogeyman of all these bills is the housing accountability act. Previously, all these bills were adopted. We had to roll them into our comprehensive plan. If your comprehensive plan doesn't get appealed, they're considered valid. That has subsequently changed.

The newest bill in 2025 establishes a role for the Department of Commerce to certify comprehensive plans housing elements based upon consistency with all of these bills.

Sorry. Got it to work. I'm just excited.

I I'm glad you're excited. People are in public about you. You know what I'm saying?

Okay.

So this last bill pretty much indicates that there is going to be a state agency that is going to tell you your housing element and code is good or it is bad. Obviously, if it ends up being bad, you can end up being noncompliant. You can become ineligible for certain state funds. An example would be the transportation of group and board funds, or we we've generated about $16,000,000 of those funds over the last five years. And then lastly, not only do you not access these funds, if you are noncompliant, you aren't allowed to impose any conditions on projects that may be perceived as making them less affordable.

So you can take a look. We had all the things that are required by the design manual, things that are required for public spaces, etcetera. Those would not necessarily be able to be applied by the city during the permit process. Both of those are pretty significant and have impacts on not just new development, but also have an impact on current residences and the quality of life in the city.

Here. Yes? So how how do they how's Congress gonna monitor compliance on something like that?

There's two strategies, one of which is you have the ability as a jurisdiction to submit your housing element and say, please certify me. That will allow them to review. And if you are found compliant, you are protected or not protected. Those are things protection from appeal. But commerce will defend you if you if your housing element gets appealed.

But more alarmingly, they also are allowed to pick 10 jurisdictions per year. Those 10 jurisdictions are a lot are basically required to submit their housing elements, and those housing elements are intended to be reviewed. And, again, how they're gonna select those 10, we don't know yet, but then commerce staff will review much like the gearing board. They'll thumbs up, thumbs down. If you get the thumbs down, you'll be responsible within a hundred and eighty days to resolve that. And then, again, the potential penalty is.

Eric, can I ask you a quick question?

Yes, ma'am.

Does that that is just the housing element of our comp plan. Correct? It is not the code that aligns with it. It's just the element in the comp plan.

It is all. Okay. It is the housing element. It is any incentive programs that you have employed, such as multifamily tax exemption, reduced sewer and water connection rates. It is soup to nuts.

So all of the development code as well as all of your golden policies and any other incentive program that you establish. So, previously, this was the first time through for a lot of these kinds of for a lot of jurisdictions for their comprehensive plans as it applied to these bills. Mercer Island is one that may have been mentioned as of a recent court case that cast a very big cloud over exactly what local jurisdiction's responsibility is. Mercer Island imposed a number of measures that we were considering that we would think would might get us compliant. There is likely a higher ball for compliance that is currently semi unknown, but jurisdictions are gonna continue to work through it.

And I only highlight the Housing Accountability Act because now instead of just hoping you don't get appeal, which a lot of jurisdictions don't get, the growth management here in the board doesn't see all comprehensive plan. And if your cost plan is not appealed, it is considered valid, which means that regardless, in you are able to proceed as a compliant comprehensive plan applied to all the other grants. This new bill dramatically changes that and gives commerce the ability to select 10. Likely, the legislature feels that that is going to be targeted to jurisdictions that are not necessarily giving good faith efforts towards maintaining compliance, but it but that is not stated in the statute. You can pick any time.

There is two things. We submitted the city submitted their comprehensive plan, what, in April? Yes. And have we heard back yet?

We did we did not submit our as this was a new part of

the program, we did not submit our It's in the.

Our plans through this housing facility act process. Before we adopt their plan, we did submit our housing element to commerce. They provided comments. We included a lot of goals and policies. However, we have not developed any of our development. So commerce is waiting to see what the development of in phases one and two look like, and then they will give us additional feedback. Whether we get selected as one of the top 10, we really hope not. You never really wanna be the guinea pig on any new program. I think it it could be unlikely. However, it is important that we take good faith efforts towards meeting all of the bills I just mentioned as well as the bills that you see here.

Well, these aren't necessarily housing related, but are important to ensure that our codes are consistent with regulations regarding residential day care facilities, self storage, and broadband. So,

Eric, will you I think at one of the council study sessions was asked of you, can you put in an emergency moratorium on housing, which we had, I think, back on seventeenth twenty eighteen. That's an issue there. And would you just share for the commissioners what your response was to that question is?

In general, what we're looking at is we are looking at providing a greater amount of flexibility to develop. So the development community is going to be able to do more on lots than they have before. We are hoping that that, again, addresses some of our housing issues, but if for some reason we are not seeing, Instead, we are seeing projects that are grossly out of compliance with what we want Good Harbor to be or inappropriately impacting our roadways or our water and sewer facilities. The council does have the ability to impose either an emergency ordinance, which is a new set of regulations that goes into effect almost immediately that changes everything. Or b, you can put what is called a moratorium debt, which basically says, everybody stop.

No more applications until such time as we adopt new regulations through a public process. Moratoriums usually can only be in place for six to six months to a year. You have to really get reasons to have a longer one than that. But I do have the expectation that other jurisdictions are gonna be providing levels of flexibility in development, but keeping a close eye on what those are doing so that we don't end up creating unintended consequences. But I think there is a sometimes it needs to be believed to be seen.

I think we do need to take a certain leap of faith that the development community, given greater latitude, will be able to develop housing at a more affordable level, that will help with these issues. Though, again, our changes that you're looking at in phase two here are not necessarily going to be the silver bullet. It's gonna take a 100 different actions to be able to truly address affordable housing, and that's not just at the local level.

No. I'm not thank you. And I'm certainly not advocating for that. I just wanted to I know some people when you're out talking to our community might bring that up. I thought it was just important for us to do that. Thank you.

Yeah. It's it's flexibility in one hand in our code, the moratorium in the other. I hope you never I never have to use the left hand.

Eric, is Commerce offering an outline or guidance on?

They have. That was another thing that in Mercer Island case, question was raised with whether Commerce's guidance was consistent with the state law. I believe commerce is currently addressing the implications of that case. Ultimately, yes. There is the expectation that commerce will have a set of guidelines, a toolkit, if you will.

Here's the various things that you can utilize to meet your your housing goals. Though, again, in light of Mercer Island and where the jurisdiction's responsibility to see housing on the ground at particular housing levels. I believe commerce is going to be it's gonna be a challenge for them to adjust their standards. But I also expect that much like the last three sessions, there will be new builds related to housing that comes forward in 2026, either directly related to the decision or adding additional requirements, again, making, basically, creating more top down regulation requirements for local jurisdiction.

Thanks. Okay. Just a couple basics. I'm gonna turn it

over to Jeremy. Good news is as we move through phase two, you're gonna be seeing much, much more of Jeremy and much, much less of me. This is I'm just here kind of for the the entry into why this is important and what the potential repercussions of not taking, again, good faith efforts. So as we're working through the various phases, obviously, our zoning map is made up of a series of districts ranging from residential to employment. As the numbers go up, the intensity or density usually goes up.

So for residential, r one, r two, r three. Employment, that largely is our industrial and business related zoning, and then you have business commercial and residential business. Back in the day, zones were a lot more specific. They basically said that you may only do residential or you may only do commercial or you may only do industrial. Now over the last fifteen years, many jurisdictions have blended these uses more to create kind of a mixed use environment with the idea of being that people don't have to get in their car to go to work.

They can live, work, and play all in the same area. So in our current code and some of the changes that Jeremy will be talking about, we really are looking at finding opportunities for more housing in business and commercial areas in conjunction with commercial. And in certain instances, a allowance for residential I'm sorry. Allowance for commercial in residential. So, again, trying to provide some some kind of a mix.

But then additionally, you'll see that we have some special zones of planned community development. These zones were largely created for the North or the Big Harbor North area and all these development regulations. You got the downtown business area. That's that pink that you see there right down by the Peninsula Shopping Center. And then lastly, to ensure that our working waterfront and our waterfront uses are maintained, we have a series of waterfront zones as well.

Each of these are gonna have different sets of uses and different sets of design requirements. Like we've mentioned, there is a substantial growth focus to our comprehensive plan, and we really are focusing increased densities and increased development opportunities in these areas. I will call them teal. Hidden Harbor North, Downtown Kimball, and Westside. Westside also called Uptown.

These are centers of local importance. A lot of the expect a lot of the changes and a lot of the higher intensity zones are located in these center areas where we are expecting not just development of vacant lots, but also redevelopment of existing underutilized properties, Car washes, other single story commercial very easily could be could be turned into mixed use, commercial on the Ground Floor, residential and above. A lot of these, again, are the commercial business and residential high zones. There are going to be a number of changes to site standards related to the residential medium zone. So as you get into r two, those are the zones that we're allowing six to 12 belonging in as an acre.

There are going to be reductions in site design and other elements located in those, just not quite as significant as you may see in commercial business or plan or planned community development commercial. When we talk about site design, we are really talking about a number of things that actually the development looks like. There's a number of components that Jeremy's gonna talk about. We're going to be addressing setbacks. That is how far you can get from your property line, lot dimensions, how big your lot can be, building heights, parking standards, and hardscape limits.

So with that, I am going to turn this over to Jeremy to kinda work through these, talk about some of the key changes. We did not really intend on showing you the code today. There's be a lot of time for that. We are looking to come back to you on December 4 to talk through the code, which will be a complicated yet scintillating conversation. But with that, I will now officially turn it over to Jeremy Hammond.

Thank you, Eric. Yeah. So this project phase two, essentially, relook at the old code, 2,017. So we'll be seeing December, and it's about 350 pages to review. So hope you all look forward to that.

So back to the key changes. As Eric mentioned, a lot of this is focusing on implementing the housing laws properly, new types of housing, set housings of emergency transition supportive revisions to design review to make it objective. So for instance, there's items on the design manual where it says stately appearance or superior design or something like that, not objective terms. So what we are looking at doing is changing the decision criteria rather than the design manual itself at the time to kind of put the criteria on the objective standards within the design manual. So it's kind of a quick thing.

ADU streamlining, again, part of that has to do with changes to dimensional standards to make them more feasible in residential areas. With the setback to that now, they're quite large. Same with hard surface and impervious surface. They're on the low end, which prevents a lot of additional housing from from going in a lot of these areas. Next slide there.

So, again, we've added a few different options for r one, formalized duplexes with form based standards. So part of that would be a frontage on each intersecting roads. And so on either side, it looks like a single family home. Functionally, it's a duplex. Kind of a quick quick density addition there.

And with that, also narrowing cottage housing. So that would be a loss of a certain size, the ability to add multiple drawing units, albeit complying with maximum density, obviously, with a max or maximum limit on the size of those homes oriented with public space and kind of shared shared spaces. In the r two and r three zones, dimensional standards changes to levels from to accommodate the additional density in those two districts. So duplexes and fourplexes added duplexes added r two, fourplexes, fourplexes, and multi in r three, and also cottage housing similar to what was in the r one. Other zoning districts updates to the national standards.

We kinda went through the whole all the zones. We looked at everything throughout some numbers that are we think are more suitable for really everything, maximum mod size with some backs, hard service. And, additionally, something we're looking at doing is high based incentives for both affordable housing and for public amenities. So for instance, if you're providing, say, 20% of your units are affordable housing, you can gain an additional 10 feet of pipe, something to kinda make it more kinda sweep the deal for developers so that they can make affordable housing pencil out easier than, initially, public spaces. Same idea the goals.

There would be a maximum limit on the total amount of incentive you'd get and then several options for if they choose to go that route to get some additional heights. As I mentioned Eric mentioned previously, cohousing living, something we're adding in. You described that very well. So I'm gonna go back over that again. You know, lot subdivisions.

That is a sort of a newish way of dividing land where you would have a a parent lot, so to speak, that would meet all the setbacks and other dimensional standards. And then the unit lots themselves would be a single townhome or a cottage housing unit or really any type of housing unit you want, where the the ownership would be this is the side of difference. It would be the ground and the building rather than just what is inside the walls with condominiumization. And, again, the standards for roles, housing units, symbols, sections, objective standards. So that help us with quicker review.

So it'd be less less gray area to discuss in our planning meetings, definitions that aren't actually found in the code. And I guess we'll do clearer, simpler structure of the code. So something that working in other jurisdictions, oftentimes, they will have a similar table with all the dimensional standards for every zone, something to reference quickly, all laid out the same way. In our code currently, every zone has a different kind of layout for how they show the dimensional standards. And even a lot

of them

didn't have the same dimensional standards, for instance, with hards or coverage. There's some that reference hard surface, some that reference hard surface and impervious, some just impervious, and some that reference just coverage without any indication of what that is. So we're consolidating all that, making it consistent, something easy to find in one place. My goal is to lay it out in a way where it would take no more than two pages so we could use that as a differential handout at the counter as well. Another place that I've been I found out to be very beneficial for working with public and just general clarity, being able to find things quickly.

It's also part of the reorganization. We're adding a general development requirements section. Again, if you go through the current code and, for instance, you look for the performance standards in each zoning district, lots of them repeat throughout every single design district. So in interest of consolidating, it seems like a good idea to set everything in one place rather than repeated 15 to 18 times throughout the code. So if anything needs to change in the future, one change you make rather than many changes.

And then consistent structure of the chapters for each of these. Again, like I mentioned before, the financial standard is it's different than every chapter. All the chapters now have a similar layout of purpose, applicability, general requirements, and so on. So chapter to chapter, we're gonna looking through through for something. You know, we're no word basically should be in the code, so it should be easier to find things.

Again, the key changes, modernization. In the past, for new newer uses, we have kind of fit them into other existing chapters, which didn't necessarily fit fully or right. One of these is food truck sites. Currently, that's in our special use chapter. It's generally for uses that are fourteen days or or less per year.

Our code also references temporary use permits, but that's there's one reference once, and there 's an actual chapter about indoor standards or anything else that are in the permit. So we're actually adding that and get to that later. But food truck sites rather than sort of regulate the site where a food truck could be rather than the individual trucks since they'd they tend to be more transit in nature, and they don't necessarily stay in one place or consistently or or for what you know, whatever. Again, modernization, so coliving, different housing types, sub housing went through senior housing. Current code, no real standards for senior housing.

So what we have now would be compliant with what the state has. Yes.

But the state housing, who is making pay that? Is it sit sitting part of it, the budget of the city, or is it all going to be the the real one? So that

would just be citing standards for sub housing. That probably wouldn't go into funding or whatever else goes on with So the citing standards, operational standards, funding, maybe Eric can speak to that a little bit.

Yeah. Largely, we are just ensuring that we have regulations in place so that public staff and a, say, a housing authority or a nonprofit knows exactly what the construction standards for those are, where they can be located. Again, the city is not a house we're not in the housing business. We don't construct housing. But what we do wanna do with this code is ensure that there aren't artificial barriers keeping them from being able to be developed and that they everybody is clear on exactly where they can be, how they can be built, how many units, etcetera. So nothing in what we're describing creates a expectation that we are taking hammer to nail on anything.

Alright. So, yeah, continuing on. I mentioned senior housing. We didn't have really many standards for that. So what the new chapter would be consistent with state state laws and and state operation for that.

Next, telecommunications facilities. Our current one is a little little bit out of date. Some of the terminology is a little bit out there, so to speak. So we just updated that with current rules, current terminology, current current practice. EV, electric vehicle infrastructure, cleaned up last section, incorporated that further into the parking chapter, which is they're kind of two separate chapters before.

Obviously, a lot of parking is also a suitable spot for EV chargers. And then lastly, the sign code, a lot of changes to that one based on content content neutrality. It's been a a recent topic for Eric over here and something we're looking to make some changes to this. We have lots of questions that we get from public regarding science in our day to day in their work as planners. Eric, question

or excuse me, Jeremy. Yeah. Co living, is that adult family homes would be included in that or not? I know we have several of those in the city.

Just wondering

what that says.

Adult family homes would be separate but kind of similar form of housing. Adult family homes are largely regulated by the state. Co living would be sort of a think it was a same family home with separate rooms rented out to individuals. So it's a rooming houses, boarding houses, other terms for them used used around. So that I'll answer that for you.

Yeah. So some more of the details about the revisions. As I mentioned before, a clearer structure, fixed cross references, you know, existing code. There are references to code sections that no longer exist, and there are also references to sections that never did exist. So it's an interesting interesting thing.

I've tried to switch many dimensional standards and other requirements were in narrative format, especially for numerical figures. We find it much easier to find and kind of understand regulations that they're in a table. I know that's kind of best practice for a lot of other jurisdictions, just having everything in the clearest way possible. So that's sort of what I was what I was going for with that. And, again, cross references have to rebuild chapter through me.

And, also, there was I know in our current code, there's a lot of circular requirements where one references another chapter, and the chapter references references the first one. And so there's never actually any requirement that is made, and it's just a incident. The definitions chapter, this is something I've been pushing for as long as I've been here. So modernize a lot of the terminology and added definitions. Like, something Eric sort of brought up earlier is he will often come in question about a definition.

And, usually, when there's a question about it, it's not in the code. So we've added over a 100 new new definitions, new or significantly changed. I think the actual one was about a 120. So to count them again, but much more robust definition section than what is existing now. And in many of those, we reference state statute since that's a lot of the rule, regulation, definitions are created by the state.

So referencing goals, just so that they're shows we're consistent with those state requirements, I think it's a good good practice to have. Again, consolidated dimensional table. It's a single location for everything. Went over that before. General requirements chapter. Again, that's a big new chapter. I think there's yeah. It's it's one of the biggest chapters in the code currently. So yeah. And then continues different forms of housing, senior housing, food truck sites, parking standards.

We went through those and added parking standards for many of the new leases that are appearing in code, updated some of the existing ones, particularly multifamily, restaurants, retail, marina uses, And then added flexibility. So the ability for an applicant to submit a parking study by a licensed professional, which would evaluate the actual need for parking on a site or or to use rather than a a parking center that may be outdated or might not be suitable for what the use is. That's the for lots of additional flexibility. Yes.

If I remember correctly, we have a parking study, a consultant happening right now. Is that finished? Do we have an idea when that will be finished?

Parking study is underway. We do have some of the introductory preliminary results that have come from it. It largely is focused on the downtown area and really kinda comes into public and private parking, how many spaces are available. Obviously, one of the things

we wanna do be doing with

the parking standards in this code update, we'll be utilizing some of the information and recommendations that come from that study. But, however, in general, this area is really gonna be looking at updating standards on exactly how many spaces need to be required per use with the idea being that those may be reduced based upon the need for there to be less parking required. That doesn't mean the market is not going to work going to put in as much parking as it feels it needs, but we are not going to be establishing standards that say you must have blank. For example, the fire station was required to have a certain amount of parking stalls, the one up here on Kimball. Very likely, that is that was based upon a standard.

It's what we had. However, this fire station doesn't have a lot of facilities in it that you would need parking for. However, we don't have that type of distinction. Thus, we are looking at potentially reducing those parking standards so that the fire district can still put in as many stalls as they felt was necessary, and they could fit into their site design. We would just not be requiring a astronomical, as we are trying to meet climate change, reduce impervious surface, and so many other goals in company's plan.

On that note and with the idea of streamlining in mind, will we be focusing on parking requirements for use types or parking requirements in particular parts of town?

We'll be looking at parking requirements for use types. In general, if it is going to affect the downtown, it will affect, in theory, the remainder of the city.

Alright. So continuing on with the revisions of the variance chapter. We changed the scope of administrative variances. What we currently have in the code is more suited towards if things arise during construction or after construction, then they could achieve a or request a variance if, say, they discover maybe incident in the in the backyard you didn't know about or something like that. Yeah.

Think about changes to the non performing review. So it is the burden on the applicant to provide the documentation. Currently, it's more of a research exercise of staff when we get those. So that's kind of aligns with best practice for other jurisdictions around the region. Communications facilities, again, I mentioned modernizing.

For instance, the code references public pay pay telephones in one of the southern districts. And I actually researched in the FCC's tracking goals in the early twenty tens, and the most recent one was built in in 2019 somewhere up in the Snowfalling National Forest. So not really something you see anymore. And as I mentioned previously, temporary use permits. So this would be currently, we have special use permits, which are special events or events.

So the way to think of it, so select amount of time per year. Temporary use permits would be essentially on a temporary basis, so for a period up to two years authorized reviews. And then there's various performance standards within that and review procedures. Moving on, it's not every chapter. So with the 98, that's the design standards.

I mentioned the clear and objective standards. So making changes to the the decision criteria and then also expanding the use of administrative review alternatives. So something with that would be currently, it's for single family and select tenant tenant improvement projects. We would be extending that to residential projects of six or fewer units for that. Just a way of trying to streamline that and getting those quicker rather than going through the full designer view or designer view board where things aren't necessarily predictable, I would say, for applicants with some of the standards that are subjective in the code.

So, again, the whole goal of this is streamlining and it means clear, objective, that is easier for the applicants and staff. So, yeah, the final thing on this is the general provisions. So creating a hierarchy of rules within the code is something I wanted to put in. Let's see if Edward has that or the within the code, it breaks down the priority of the different sections. So if there's overlaps, say, instance, in a zoning chapter versus the sign manual, this would lay out which one has a priority over the other.

So that's helpful if there are appeals. It's helpful for reviews. Just staff can know kind of how to go down the list during the review so they get everything right. Next slide. So tree is landscaping and screening. So, again, converting lots of the requirements to tables so it's easier to find things. Expanding the preferred species list, a prior director and the new landscape architect. They made the priority director's preferred species list. I don't believe it's been updated since. So the change would be to a list consistent with other area other jurisdictions in the region.

So the King County native planning list and then also utilizing recognitions of arborist or landscape architects for finding suitable species for planting. And then replacement standards being within the trees and landscape of chapter currently, the standard we have for replacement is in the design manual. So if the project isn't subject to design manual, it might not to go that might not apply. Moving next, multifamily housing. I touched on amenity based height incentives before.

And point to make with this is the bonus related to affordable housing would be permitted by rights, so it would be the discretionary review as part of that. And then site plan review. So clarify additional approval, specifically related to some of the things that public works are building. We reviewed just clarifying that in the in the decision criteria, and currently, says something like affordable provisions for health and safety. So it's more more specific about what it's looking for.

And then changes to exemption thresholds related to hard service changes to hard service. Currently, single family development is exempt from site point review, and we don't really have another way of capturing when changes to hard service have been made. So maybe people can add that and add to their site without permitting or without the city noticing. So that's something we wanted to be able to track after a few good enforcement cases. It's something I wanna do.

No. It's kind of a summary of the of the changes. Again, I already mentioned in coming months, you'll be seeing the full draft and encourage all of you to review that and find any mistakes I made and let me know. So, again, I can take down the the schedule portion of this.

Yeah. When while there's a number of things that you see in this that are likely being added, I really do kinda wanna highlight the fact that we are streamlining the code. There's a lot that is being removed. Like Jeremy had mentioned, there is a lot of areas that are replicated over and over and over and over again in code, and sometimes not absolutely exactly. Sometimes it's slightly tweaked. All the changes that you hear see here are gonna make clear as exactly what the standards are and not create a situation where if we wanna change one thing, we then have to go through the entire code to make sure that we don't have inconsistencies. Another example is the citing RCW. RCW changes all the time. Many times, we try to replicate that word for word. When the words change, your code needs to change.

If you forget to do that, then you have an out a out of whack code. A lot of the things you see and some of the changes are related likely to those types of inconsistencies. So for schedule and outreach, we are looking at releasing a draft of this document in November. When that document comes out, we are gonna have a full website, social media, virtual, and in person workshops. So we're gonna go both new school and old school. We are gonna be working both with community at large, but, again, this is code. So this gets really granular for a lot of folks. A lot of folks, it's easier to get their arms around roles and policies. Oftentimes,

code

is more about working with practitioners and folks who can understand. However, we are going to be looking at describing if we are reducing setbacks or increasing hardscapes, providing visuals of what that looks like. So people who are not necessarily landscape architects or developers can understand what a number of these changes, especially the plans of housing, are looking to do. The schedule, again, it's a draft release here in October. I apologize. I said it's scheduled. That should be November. That once it gets released to the public, it will also be released to the planning commission in which we'll be coming back before you on December 4 for a briefing. This will not be a hearing. This will not be a planning commission.

Tell us what you think. This is making sure that you have the opportunity to add to ask any questions and raise any concerns that you may have. One thing you wanna note about the draft is this is a repeal and replace exercise. What does that mean? That means I'm not giving you a underlying strikeout red bloody mess.

They have to try to read through. Again, there's a lot of changes going on, so this is going to be a clean copy. Downside is it makes it harder to see what has changed, but what you are gonna know is there are substantial number of changes, but it will give you the ability to better read through the code to see exactly how it all works out. And then public comment, we'll be taking public comment November through the January. That public comment could generate a revised draft.

So the planning commission may say, okay. Draft released in November hasn't squares the issue. Members of the public could say the same. We make a series of changes that then turn into the revised draft, also called the staff draft, and that really is where we then enter the approval process where then we'll be coming to the planning commission in earnest, indicating that we are looking for a recommendation from the planning commission that likely will include a work session, followed by a hearing, and then potentially followed by deliberations and recommendation. Yes, ma'am?

So I believe when we were doing the comprehensive plan, we discussed and agreed that we wanted to be able to show the community who may not be as involved in all this what is required by state law Mhmm. And or county. Right? Will you be doing the same thing high level? Because, naturally, we can get frustrated by some of the stuff that the state might require of us, but if we have no authority or mechanism to change that in more compliance with that with the drought, it just would be nice for for our community to know that.

The council has requested that as well. We can carry with it kind of a crosswalk here in the various sections and changes that are related. We might not attach them to specific bills that were passed by the legislature, but, basically, you're a state mandate under house, state mandate under telecommunications. And here's where those changes are. So people who care about one specific thing or another can gravitate to that. So we are planning a crosswalk probably at least with the revised draft, if not also with the draft release in November. And then after I'm sorry. Any other questions?

If you have the lighting commission February and March, you have major changes. Do you see that the the public should again, involve rather public data?

If if we end up getting major changes that require changes of the magnitude that you feel you need additional public comment on. That's something we can consider as they arise. Generally, the way it works is people have the opportunity to testify on all the various components of the original draft. It usually takes a pretty dramatic change to create a new public hearing that oftentimes is if we decided to change a section that wasn't even mentioned previously. That would have to go back to public hearing.

But, again, that's something we can discuss with the planning commission. If they feel if you feel the changes are significant enough that you'd like to hear from certain stakeholders and certain members of the public, we can address that. Again, this is our hopeful schedule if we run into other issues. Again, we are changing a good amount of things. I think there are gonna be people who are supportive of these changes.

There are gonna be people who have concerns about these changes. We do have the opportunity opportunity to adjust this. However, I do wanna note that the requirements for these votes to be adopted are actually the '25. We are taking additional time to ensure adequate public outreach. It was decided earlier on that we're gonna do the comprehensive plan first, and then we're gonna do the development regulations in a sequential manner. That take that has taken us additional time. I don't believe in shortchanging stakeholder involvement or public outreach nor rushing a decision with the elected. So if it does take a

little bit

longer, that is not necessarily a problem. But if this ran until the 2026, we would probably find ourselves in a position where we are out of compliance in a way that could be dangerous to, again, save funding and other requirements. You. Big council consideration wrapping up in May. So that would get us, again, a completed document.

Plea also note, as we're going through this, the critical areas ordinance will be coming before the planning commission. You may note there are some gaps in here between a November document release and then not having the planning commission really start until February. Don't fear. I will have things on your dance card called the wet wind stream and other protections. I did not wanna give it to you all at one time, though I will say that we will have a good set of two to three months quality time together in the '26.

One we don't have the website up yet, but in general, if you want us to know more about comprehensive plan, etcetera, please go to this website. Please contact myself. I should've also included Jeremy's email on this. So, basically, replace e baker with j hammer, and you get pretty much the same you get the same location. And if you have any questions about the process, any other things that are raised by the public, and you're wondering if that is gonna be considered phase two, please let us know.

Again, we do need to ensure that we are moving with good ace, but we are also including a number of other cleanup changes that, again, are broadening our scope to a level where we may be able to consider other changes along the way. But, again, we are really looking to get this wrapped up so that we aren't out of timing compliance any longer than we have. With that, I do not have anything else. Jeremy, anything else you'd like to add?

Nothing else for me.

Anybody else have any other questions? Alright. Thanks, gentlemen. Other business? Hearing none. We're looking at another next week, October 16. I I will either be late or join in the.

Yeah.

Yeah. As it comes to the schedule of the critical areas ordinance and other things moving forward, I don't believe that we have any agenda items for the second meeting this month or the first meeting in November. The next time we would be coming before you with significant topics would be November 20, I believe, and that would be the critical areas ordinance draft. The critical areas ordinance wouldn't cover here as talked about last week, but the schedule for that included a late October release in the critical areas ordinance. And then very similar to what I described in the process for phase two, we'd be coming to the planning commission for any questions you have about the changes to the critical areas.

So we there may not be a meeting on the sixteenth.

At this time, we don't have any agenda items for the sixteenth or I mean, the first meeting in November, try to get

the date. Okay. As long

as I should be able

to do it through November 6. And

I may have missed it too. What was there you guys gonna get us some the consultants for the critical area stuff, their recommendations? Or

Yes. It is all gonna be packaged in in one piece along with a crosswalk kind of

describing exactly what they are. So so that's to come. Yes.

That's I I have not forgotten. I'm just trying to find the timing so that you don't read it and then forget it and then realize, oh, wait. Well, now I gotta

read it again. And one time. That's fair enough. Let's forget something.

Come on. I apologize. That was very cold.

Alright, everyone. I guess with that, we'll entertain a motion for adjournment.

I move that we adjourn. One second.

Alright. And the others in favor say aye. Aye.