Planning Commission - Special Meeting

This meeting of the Kirkland Planning Commission is called to order. Let's start with a roll call.

Ria Heiser. Aaron Jacobson.

Here.

Gina Medea. Here. Scott Reiser.

Here.

Justin Robbins?

Here.

Angela Rosman? Here. Rodney Rutherford?

Here. And with quorum, with the majority of the commissioners present, have a quorum. So next is comments from the audience.

Can I Yes?

Say something really quick? Just for anyone who is commenting not on the public hearing but potentially talking about parking, I just wanted to bring notice to everyone that the state has passed a couple of parking bills this year that would limit parking requirements to 0.5 per unit and none for under 1,200 square feet. So if that is part of what you want to say, I just wanted to give you a heads up and let you focus on the stuff that we can take into advisement. You're welcome to talk about parking. I just wanted to give you heads up, so if you wanted to spend your time talking about other things, you can do so.

Thank you, Commissioner Rosman. All right. With that, I will introduce the next item on our agenda is yes. This I'm in I'm about to introduce that that item. It it is items items from the audience. This is the portion of the meeting when we hear from the public about items that are not scheduled for public hearing. Tonight's public hearing is for proposed zoned zoning code amendments to codify the city's ability to adopt development agreements. In order to hear from as many so so this will not be covering that section. We'll cover that later. This is for any other topic.

In order to hear from as many people as possible tonight, we are allowing any individual wishing to provide comments to speak for a maximum of three minutes. The timer on the lectern will flash a yellow light when thirty seconds remain and a red light when your time has ended. To be fair to all speakers, we will adhere strictly to the three minute limit. The commission wants to hear from as many different views and opinions as possible. If you have already heard another speaker state your comment, comment, please consider not repeating that comment and instead provide a comment or perspective that is unique to you.

In making your comments, we ask that you please direct them to the Commission, but this is not a time for give and take with the commission. Obscene, profane, threatening, harassing, abusive language towards the commission, city staff, or those in the audience is not allowed. As audience members, please refrain from any demonstrative agreement or disagreement with the speaker, such clapping, cheering, or booing. These actions are not only disruptive, they may also intimidate or have the effect of excluding others in the community whose views may differ. We'll begin items in the audience with a list of people here in person that have signed up to speak.

When I call your name, please approach the dais to address us. Online audience members may indicate that you wish to speak by raising your hand in the Zoom meeting now. When it is your turn to speak, we will admit you into the virtual room as a panelist, So please remain muted until I call your name, and then you may unmute to address the commission. So the first signed in tonight is, and only for for in person comments, is Kate Conant. And after that, we'll have Brady Nordstrom on the online.

Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you for your hard work on behalf of Kirkland community. My name is Kate Conant, and I live in the Juanita neighborhood of Kirkland. I'm commenting on Attachment 2, the JBD4 rezone of the MichaelsKathKalie sites. My focus is on the development standards of public benefits, pedestrian access and walkways. Attachment number two recommends improving the walkways along the busy intersection at the intersection of Juanita Drive and 1 Hundredth Avenue.

I'm thankful for these improved sidewalk recommendations. However, the pedestrian access recommendations do not go far enough. We need improved sidewalks on the southwest corner and a version of option A, a through block pathway, which is, I believe, the term you're using between Juanita Beach and Juanita Bay Parks. The citizens of Kirkland need a greenway path at the site, allowing them to move between the parks surrounded by the unique natural features of this lakeside environment. I don't need to tell you that Kirkland citizens value their connected green space, parks and lakeshore.

It's in the Juanita Neighborhood Plan vision statement and throughout the Neighborhood Plan policies. Those of you who attended the Kirkland Communities Foundation's recent For the Love of Kirkland event also heard an outpouring of love for our parks, trails, the lakeshore, the lake, water, natural views and nature. The rezone is a small window in time to grant future citizens something that will bind their love to the city of Kirkland. As more future citizens of Kirkland live in high rises and inhabit increasingly dense neighborhoods, open space and recreation opportunities must also expand. There is an existing shoreline path that's currently underutilized, also dubbed the Path to Nowhere.

This pathway goes through the Juanita Shores condos property and follows the lake shore along the water where it dead ends at the Kathakali property line. An easement through the Lower Kathakali property should be part of this plan for pedestrian access benefits. An eastbound path would parallel the shoreline, starting at the existing Juanita Shores condo segment, go across the Cathcally property on an easement, and then pass through natural city owned lakeshore property connecting to the Juanita Bay Causeway. My email to the Planning Commission shows illustrations of this proposal as well as another alternative proposal. In attachment number two, option A mentions that there are challenges to creating a through block pathway connecting the parks.

For the love of Kirkland and for the future of Kirkland, don't dismiss this option just because there are challenges. No matter how well designed the sidewalks, the nature loving citizens of Kirkland deserve more than a sidewalk. We need an easement, and we need to connect the parks. Thank you again for your hard work for a livable future, Kirkland.

Thank you, Next is Brady Nordstrom on online. You can go ahead.

Hi there. Greetings. My name is Brady Nordstrom, and I'm here to comment on the housing opportunity in Juanita through the rezones and the study session item a. I'm I'm here talking as, the Housing Development Consortium, which is a nonprofit with a mission to ensure that everyone in King County has a safe, stable, and affordable place to call home. And we have hundreds of members in King County that build, design, and operate affordable housing and members that provide vital services to people in crisis.

And this includes organizations that provide housing and services in Kirkland. And so as part of my affordable housing policy work, HCC builds partnerships like the Eastside Housing Roundtable where community and affordable housing voices are joined by unlikely partners from the business and private development community in areas of agreement. And one of the core areas of agreement is enabling sufficient housing capacity, and this is really meant to be a tool that is necessary for affordability, economic stability, and then just just stable community. And there's a reason that housing prices in Kirkland have been going up so rapidly over the preceding decades, and there's a reason that so many adult children find it harder to come home and, as their parents age. There's a reason that many people who work in Kirkland do not live in Kirkland and add vehicles to the rush hour traffic that, excuse me.

So, so Kirkland has not been growing to meet minimal housing targets that all cities in Washington are responsible to meet. So, and this is because housing growth is about more than just sufficient capacity. It's also about what prevents housing on individual parcels. So this could be economic conditions, the age of existing buildings, concerns about change, and there's also well intentioned development standards and processes that go awry. So I'm not here really to say anything about specific development standards, but I am here to ask for outcomes.

These parcels in in these neighborhood centers are ideal places for housing growth that can, that can help meet Kirkland's housing and affordability goal, goals. These goals were the result of extensive community engagement. So it's it's more about just asking you to keep the solutions oriented mindset and thanking you for taking these important rezones, and then just ensuring that whatever recommendations you advance, that you there'll be real results that meet Kirkland's housing goals and affordable housing needs. And with the inclusionary zoning that exists in Kirkland, a portion of any of the housing that goes in will be affordable to retailer workers, young professionals, and other people in the community. So, concerns about traffic and change and all these other things are very real, but change is also an opportunity to bring forward the things that we care about most while leaving behind what no longer serves us.

So thank you again for thinking about affordable housing, as you're talking about these rezones in Juanita.

Thank you, Brady. Is there anyone else online or in the room who would like to speak? Go ahead and come up, Liz, and introduce yourself.

Hi, Commission and Staff. Liz Hunt, Kirkland resident. Sorry, it's tough to get here by 06:00, so I didn't get signed up. I also want to speak to the zoning amendments being proposed for the Juanita areas. And I just have a couple of topics that I wanted to touch on.

The first of those is transportation and transportation concurrency. That was very forward looking of the transportation folks to in the 2024 concurrency report to include the requested increases that are being discussed here. So the report says that it includes those potential growth that potential growth. But I note that in that plan, it only adds one mitigation as being something to put in the transportation plan for that growth, and it is adding one northbound turn lane on 90 Eighth Avenue at the intersection with Juanita Drive and 100 Sixteenth, so right by the Michaels property. So the one mitigation project in there is to add an additional left turn going northbound.

And that may or may not be sufficient to deal with the growth, which that's already an almost failing intersection as it is at PM Peak. So something to consider. The second item that I wanted to mention is the transit in that area. There is a mention in the staff report that there is daily there is bus service going through that area. But I would like to note the distinction between what is in the bus schedule and what runs actually occur for those buses.

I live near that area, and constantly during the day, I'm getting notifications, Bing, this bus run is not running today. And three others, Bing, this bus run is not running today either. So schedule is one thing, actual buses that occur is another thing. So something to be considered. And I believe I have a third item to mention, if I can find it.

Oh, I know what it was. The attachments that are in the packet showing the tables of proposed development standards, very thorough, impossible to read. They're very wide, very large, and I would request a different formatting in the future because trying to make my screen bigger and trying to print, it was very difficult to read them. So thank you very much. I look forward to the discussion.

Thank you, Liz. Yep, go ahead and come up to the mic and introduce yourself.

I've never done this before. I'm just coming here today because I live

in introduce

yourself first, though? Tell us who you are. Oh.

What's your name? I'm Kathy Schmahal. I live in Kirkland on a Hundredth and A Hundred Sixteenth. So I experience, like, traffic. Every day, it's backed up.

A 116, almost like six, seven, eight blocks for, like, from four to 05:30, 06:00 and it I can't imagine putting 7 Story where Michaels is right now and having that many people live there because it's if anybody lives there, you know, it's a like a one way turn in and you can't turn in where you have to like get in a center lane to turn into it and it's and coming out, it's a one way going the other way And unless you go down around a building and it's just it's really backed up. And I can't think that this is a good place to put a building with seven stories with that many people because around Market Street going from like that restaurant all the way to Winnetia Bay where they walk. That thing is backed up and up the hill and up Market Street. I just came here to this meeting, and it's all the way around backed up, all the way up the street to the light in front of Winnie The Bay. And I would think they'd be able to find a place a little bit better than where it's just going to be a cluster every day.

It's like that. And it just seems like it's going to take away from the environment too right there on the beach. I don't know. Thank you for listening, and hopefully hopefully you guys take a drive over there before you decide because you're going to be stuck in traffic around this time every day in the mornings, in the afternoons. It's just like to turn in, it's unreal. So thank you.

Thank you, Kathy. Any others who would like to address the Commission in items from the audience? Seeing none, we'll proceed to the next item on the agenda, special presentations of which there is none. So we will move into our public hearing on zoning code amendments to codify the ability to adopt development agreements. Should I go ahead and open the hearing? Please. Alright, I open the public hearing. Staff, would you like to go ahead and introduce the hearing?

Yes, please. Thank you, mister chair. So, tonight, we have a brief public hearing for you. We've mentioned this item to you a couple times previously and with you for the public hearing is our senior planner Lindsey Levine.

Alright. Good evening commissioners and audience members. Tonight I'm here to talk about zoning code amendments to codify the city's ability to adopt development agreements. This is a public hearing so we will have the staff presentation first and then we'll have an opportunity for members of the audience to testify and then the Planning Commission will deliberate and give a recommendation for council So to give some context development agreements or DAs are between a jurisdiction so city and a property owner and they're a way for developers to get assurance about the applicable development standards but there could also be used by cities to guarantee specified public benefits. The city has adopted DAs in the past.

Probably the the best known examples are some of our favorite places in Kirkland, like the village at Totem Lake and Kirkland Urban. And the city is expecting to negotiate a DA with the Seattle Kraken if council moves that proposal forward so definitely worth noting that DAs are typically for large scale projects not for everyday type of stuff and the city believes it would be useful to codify the procedure to negotiate DAs to formalize the approval process and the expectations for DAs. So the zoning code amendments themselves consist of a new short chapter, chapter 164 to codify those procedures around development agreements and I want to highlight a provision that for DAs for property that's located within a quarter mile four zero five the DA may approve uses and development standards for the property that are different than those that currently exist aka the city's current development regulations for that specific site and this is only for when the council approves of it and when the council finds that the project provides more public benefits than a proposal that would strictly comply with those applicable development regulations. And with this I really want to emphasize that it would not be granted for all DA's proposed within a quarter mile of four zero five the developer would really need to prove the purpose of the deviation and provide significant public benefits that the City Council would that need to agree to and approve of.

Also as part of the code amendments there is information about the public process for that which includes a public hearing that would either be at City Council or they could decide that they want the Planning Commission to hold that public hearing. And then the City Council is the ultimate decision maker. They either approve or deny the development agreement so they are not obligated by any means to approve a development agreement just because they're entering negotiations. And we have one pretty small amendment to the draft KZC since the packet was published and that is what you see underlined up here and the one word that was stricken here. And so this is an amendment to the staff recommendation and the purpose is to clarify that the city isn't obligated to negotiate and enter into a development agreement if the city is approached.

And again just specifying that the standards below are what the city and the developer would need to adhere to So we just got a couple public comments. Two of them came in via email, generally supportive. They had a couple questions. One question, the one at the very top is the one that I'm going to talk about because it might be of interest to the commissioners. So that question is about why the code has a provision for differing development standards for sites that could be suitable for transit oriented development and or within a quarter mile of four zero five and not just around the future bus rapid transit stations.

And that is because staff believes that there may be sites that could be suitable for transit oriented development that are close to four zero five but are outside of the immediate future BRT stations. And Planning Commission or Council are able to amend that provision. Guys are definitely welcome to talk about that and then motion amendment if you would like to if that's of interest. And again just want to emphasize Council would only approve of a development agreement that has those differing development standards if there are public benefits that could be realized that could not be realized if the site had the existing development standards. So next steps the chair will be opening up to public testimony very shortly Planning Commission will deliberate and then provide a recommendation once we get to that point I have a slide that has some sample motions so just let me know and we will put that on the screen and then if the Planning Commission has a recommendation at the end of this this will go to council on May 6 for adoption And that is my last slide for this part of it, so I will turn it over to Chair Rutherford.

All right. And with that, we are ready to start public testimony. The same rules here apply basically as for items items from the audience other than the the topic is specifically what was just introduced. So the only name I have on the sign in sheet at this point is Liz Hunt. So let's go ahead and come on up. If there are others online who would like to testify, then please raise your hand and we can prepare opportunity for you to speak. Go ahead.

Okay. Hello again, commissioners and staff. On the subject of the zoning additions to codify development agreement process for the city, think you might most of have seen the comments I sent in today. I just want to touch on one of them, which Lindsay has also Ms. Levine has also mentioned just now, which is the statement in the new chapter, proposed chapter, that describes looking at 405 through Kirkland and a quarter mile on either side of 405 through Kirkland.

So that ends up being seven miles each direction. So you've got about 14 miles of property there. That's now being considered for transit oriented development, which would have to be described justified and many great things. But that was kind of a surprise to me to see that much space being opened up for consideration for transit oriented development. We do need transit oriented development.

I'm not speaking against that. But we're only going to have two BRT stations on that seven mile stretch, and that's usually where transit oriented development would be occurring is around those stations. And we already have less transit in Kirkland than we should for the density we have. That's a discussion for a whole other day. But that being the case, if we're creating some more intense development leveraging off of transit, I look forward to hearing some very creative solutions as to how we're going to do that with the limited transit that we have. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Liz. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this topic from the public? Seeing none, I believe that marks the end of spoken testimony. And we proceed with deliberations by the Commission. All right.

Would anyone like to kick off deliberations? Commissioner, I think Jacobson runs from the brace.

I guess this is a question to staff. In reading, it's there there will still be a public hearing before the development agreement can be adopted. Is that correct? It's just a question of the city council can now choose whether that's before city council or the planning commission.

Yes. That's correct.

Okay. So there will still be public engagement once the agreement's terms are written and before actual adoption.

Absolutely. Yeah, we would probably expect there would be briefing as well and not just going straight to hearing. It's typically what's done for these types of things or usually for large projects.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Rosman?

I think the amendments make sense, and I'm happy with staff's direction on this. I think, you know, the fact that we do have public hearings and public outreach, I'm good with the way it's written.

Commissioner Reiser?

The concerns I have, and it's not that I'm against this, it is that there's a lot of area along 405 that has very little access to public transportation, and that's a concern. So I would like some wording put in that just guarantees that there is adequate access to public transit. Just because I I can't foresee what city council is gonna do in the future or if planning commission is bypassed because city council just decides that I think this is a there should be a few checks and balances in it. So I'm not against it, but I would like to wordsmith this just a little bit, saying it is a requirement that there is adequate transit.

So if I'm I'd like to follow-up on that and get clarification from staff. I believe the wording was suitable for transit oriented development, which I think point that Commissioner Reischer is getting to is that there's some ambiguity between that and designated land use transit oriented development is the intention for these to be considered equal does that need to be clarified further or is there some other nuances we should be considering

I can take that one thanks for the question chair Rutherford and thanks for the comment Commissioner Reiser so the intention is not that this action is is rezoning properties into transit oriented development it's really to identify a little bit what types properties where the city might even be motivated to enter into negotiations for a development agreement so it takes two parties to come to the table so to speak so and we've also found in talking with the development community that that's a development agreement typically isn't their first option because it it it requires them to take on some risk as well and some uncertainty because it is a negotiation and so I don't think the city would be very motivated to enter into negotiations unless there was an idea that we could get some type of extraordinary public benefit through that negotiation that we wouldn't otherwise get through the standard zoning. And just to give a little bit of an idea, it really opens up a project to quite a bit of scrutiny from the city. So, the last development agreement that the city negotiated though it didn't come to fruition was that council did adopt a development agreement for Google, excuse me, at the Lee Johnson site.

And through those negotiations secured quite a bit of additional transportation network improvements around the site that we wouldn't have gotten through the city's CIP. It was specific to that negotiation and that specific project. So that was one of the public benefits that kind of went above and beyond what our code could require and so appreciate in here the potential desire to add language but also just wanted to note that it is something that could be examined through that negotiation

So so this the wording around transit oriented development could be applied to areas that are not designated as a transit oriented development land use. Is that correct?

I think the language does suggest that there might be some areas suitable for that type of development that aren't necessary and we don't have a transit oriented development zone. It's a it's a land use.

It's a land use, yes. Right. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Commissioner Medea.

Hi. Thank you.

Sorry, but I need to be refreshed on the amendment that did speak to the transit piece. Can you walk us back through that again so that can frame my question appropriately, please?

Yes. Let me pull up that wording. Thank you. I don't have it on a slide, but I can kind of read out.

I thought there was something on the previous slide, no?

There was a question that might be a little bit helpful related to a public comment.

I think it was the underlined text that Commissioner Medei is referring to.

No, the may or the shall, I get that. No, it's the possible allowances. So I think I share Commissioner Roesler's concern about language, but the subsequent explanation about how it might be a better alternative to wait for the development proposal to come in, and that becomes part of the expectation or the dialogue. So I think I'm okay there. But what I want to be careful of is not kind of backdooring or reopening the lu2.4 through this codification of the development agreement.

So that that's that was what my concern was, just to make sure that this was a case by case thing when we were presented with a potential agreement, versus trying to reopen lu2.4 at this juncture.

Steph, why don't

speak to

that for

a moment. Yeah, this is absolutely a case by case with it being development agreements that a developer would need to approach the city. And we're talking about a quarter mile within four zero five, not all transit corridors in the city.

Well the development development agreements could be pursued beyond that corridor it's just that the additional flexibility is within this areas identified specifically here.

That's correct. Yes thank you for that.

Alright. Oh, Commissioner Robbins.

Yeah. My question is in regards to the greater public benefit piece of it all. And is there any scoring system or criteria? I know it's case by case is how we evaluate it. But is there anything that the city uses to say, you know, this, we have this metric to determine that this is a greater public benefit?

Thanks. Commissioner Robbins, I can take that one. There is not actually in either the state law that supports development agreements or in the language in the code. So we keep it sort of general so that the public benefits can be negotiated on a case by case basis similar to what we were talking about for the previous topic. I guess what I would say is that the comprehensive plan, which you all spent many, many hours on, provides a really good template and framework for negotiating public benefits.

Things like public open space access to that, affordable housing, bike and pedestrian amenities, things like that. So I think if there was a desire to create a little more structure on the public benefits, we would work with you to look at the comprehensive plan, identify specific things that are called for in different parts of the city.

Thank you.

Any further discussion? All right.

I make a motion and then we can figure out if anyone feels they need anything.

Sounds good. Go for it.

I'm going to motion to approve the language as proposed by staff.

Second. All right, we have a motion seconded. And this is specifically the amended draft that was recommended by staff.

Mr. Chair. Yes. Technically, I believe we would need, we would, since this was not the version included in the packet, the staff amendment came after the packet, we'd ask that there's a motion by the commission to amend the the draft code to incorporate the staff edit that we had up on the screen.

Uh-huh. That's why that poll is

Now you need that specifically. So then I motion to

approve. You do. Retract.

Okay. I will retract the original amendment or motion and I motion to approve the suggested staff language including the amended language as shown to us this evening.

Second.

Does that work? Okay. Great. Any further discussion on the motion? All right. Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion?

Aye.

Any opposed? I believe that's passed unanimously. Is there anything further for us to consider before closing the public hearing

nothing from staff

okay sounds great then we here close the public hearing And move on to the next item in our agenda, which is a study session on zoning code amendments, briefing number two for the North Juanita Center zoning code. So stuff would you like to go ahead and introduce that

yes please thank you mister chair so we have quite a lot of information to get through with you tonight on the two potential rezones in the Juanita neighborhood. Leandra Baker Lewis, our senior planner, is gonna be walking you through those. This isn't a hearing, so you're not deciding anything tonight, but we are going to be asking you for quite a bit of guidance to help us complete a draft code for you to take to public hearings. So we've got a lot of questions along the way. This is a little bit different format than we've maybe worked through zoning code amendments briefings with you before, and so Leandra's gonna do a great job of explaining, but please do let us know if we've lost any of you at any point.

We're happy to provide clarification and some guidance along the way. So with that I'll hand it over to Leandra.

Thanks so much Allison and good evening Commission and Chair. I am happy to present on the Juanita zoning code amendment project that we've been working on with you since our initial briefing in March. While we get that pulled up, I wanted to go over a pretty packed agenda. I'll start off with some meeting objectives just to kind of orient the group and then we'll reflect on some community engagement to date and some common themes of feedback that we're hearing from the community through our outreach. We'll also include a quick recap of our last meeting.

I have some slides related to sections of our zoning code that we're not requesting to be amended but I think that they add some valuable context for the commissioners as well as the audience. We'll then jump into providing just about five or so minutes for each applicant of these rezone requests to speak and kind of address the Commission themselves. And then we'll really just dive into the development standards that are outlined in Attachment two and three of your packet. I just wanted to also publicly apologize to the community and the commissioners and anyone who had trouble reading those very information rich tables. We'll be working with our admin staff to better format something along those lines in the future.

But hopping from that I'll close with oh then we'll go into the BC1 development standard options as well open it up for questions and discussion and then discuss next steps once we understand what those are. So I figured this slide would be really helpful just to again orient our brain. So we heard at the last meeting some Planning Commission interest in streamlining the zoning amendment process given all the work that we've done through the comprehensive plan to really understand these requests. To do that, we would need well, tonight we'll need to establish what the Planning Commission preferred standards are and how we finalize those to bring those to public hearing. So by the end of our time together tonight, we should hopefully be able to come to a decision on a couple things.

If we're ready to move to a public hearing or if another study session is warranted, And it was also discussed at the last meeting, an idea was floated that perhaps the public hearing is an arena to bring multiple options for development standards to. Normally, we just produce one draft code for the commission and for the community to respond to and amend as they'd like, but it is possible to bring a range of options for the public hearing, so we would just need to know which standards if any the commission is interested in bringing ranges to for the public hearing when that occurs. Oh and then the note I added on screen is that any topics and draft codes that are taken public hearing aren't final. The amendment process and other recommendations can be made to tailor the code before it's recommended to counsel. So I'm going to flash the questions before.

Obviously, we're not ready to answer these, but I just wanted you to know what we'll hopefully be able to answer by the end. We'll want to learn what your preferred options for development standards are for both sites. Again, we'll want to know if the Commission is ready to move to a public hearing or if another briefing would be best. And then what, if any, alternate options for specific development standards should we present at the public hearing. Hopefully that makes sense.

Right, so hopping into community engagement, we've received a good amount of input on these projects. We did a big push for the comprehensive plan, more recently specific to the zoning code amendments, we have presented at multiple neighborhood groups and had Q and

A

sessions with those folks. We have web pages for each study area launched with updated meeting information and announcements and we've advertised those web pages wherever we can. We have a list serve that people can subscribe to and that currently has, last time I checked, 92 interested community members, so we've been updating those 92 community members as the process goes on. We delivered about 2,500 postcards to nearby residents and businesses informing them of this meeting and of the general update process. And we've also worked to contact and communicate with neighboring institutional stakeholders, mainly the schools that are near the Goodwill site.

All right, so these are themes that we've heard thus far. This isn't a list that is meant to be all encompassing, but some repeated kind of themes that we've heard since the genesis of the zoning code amendment project. I won't read them all, but there are some community concerns and there are some community support that we've noticed. So traffic and vehicular congestion is a major concern for folks and what the implications are for a future development at these sites on our traffic grid. Infrastructure capacity, lack of traffic studies to date, so usually we'll require those for level review and we've heard concern around that.

Some environmental impact concerns for the JBD4 zone and then more generally how a perceived stall in population growth might affect our housing goals. Community support has generally focused around additional housing opportunities in the neighborhood, which is a theme that tracks from the Juanita neighborhood plan update that we conducted last year and the year before. People

are