Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening. This is calling to order the Renton Planning Commission for Wednesday, 05/06/2026 at 6PM. Our first order of business, roll call. Commissioner Vixal, if you wouldn't mind making a roll call.

Sure. Chair Artsy. Here. Commissioner Bayan?

Here.

Alright. Here. Commissioner Kelly, Commissioner Matson? Commissioner Pettig? Here. Vice chair plants? Commissioner Poole?

Here.

And secretary Roche is not here. Alright.

Okay. We have five commissioners in attendance. Mhmm. And, therefore, we have a quorum to hold the meeting. Our next item will be correspondence received. No emails have been received since the last planning commission meeting held on 04/01/2026. Next item on the list is audience comments. Those attending virtually will be offered an opportunity to speak after the in person comments are completed. Each speaker will be provided three minutes to address an item. Interested parties may also provide written comments to planning commission at rentablelaw.gov.

And groups organizations may select a spokesperson to speak on a group's behalf. As of today, no one has signed up to speak on non agenda items. Okay. Next up is the approval of the meeting minutes for April 1. Is there a motion to approve meeting minutes from 04/01/2026?

I move. We approve the meeting minutes. Thank you.

Is that a a second over there? Yeah. Okay. Moved and seconded, to approve the meeting minutes. Are there any objections to, any objections or any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, those who are in favor of approving a meeting minutes, say aye. Aye. Aye. And those who are not in favor, say nay. Okay. Motion passes. The minutes are approved.

Chair Arty, vice chair Plants has joined us.

Thank you. Okay. Next item on the list is the director's report. Matt, are you ready to to get a report?

I am ready. Thank you, chair RC. Good to see planning commissioners. Good evening. Just a couple of items tonight. The first one being I would like to make an amendment to the agenda tonight. We had a briefing scheduled under eight a for the Valley sub area plan. Not quite ready for that. So we're going to punt and update the commission at the next meeting, for the valley sub area plan. And then, just kind of a couple, things I thought I would mention.

One, being, several of us in the planning division just got back last week. We were at the National American Planning Association conference. It was in Detroit this year. So, and it was a record turnout. We had almost 5,000 urban planning nerds descend on the city of Detroit.

It was it was really great. Learned a lot from our peers. As you could probably imagine, the number one topic being, talked about and discussed at the conference was housing, and the the housing crisis that, that many of us are feeling across the country. I don't know if this makes anyone feel any better, but, a lot of us around the country in the same are are are experiencing the same circumstance with state preemption. We're seeing a lot of states across the country come in and preempt local jurisdictions' ability to zone.

So just trying to kind of wrap our heads around that and commiserate with each other and identify, some things that maybe we can do to move forward. One of those is is lobbying our legislatures, for actual capital and funds, not just changing the regulations, but actual money. That's what gets housing built. We know we can open up the regulatory framework, but that's not what's gonna get housing built. I think we we need a combination of things.

The other item that was discussed and, attended a couple of sessions on was AI, like every other industry. The planning development industry is getting kind of bombarded with AI. I did see some opportunities, to utilize AI to make our jobs maybe more in the permitting realm a bit more efficient, but I don't think it's a complete kind of, replacement quite yet. So just thought I would mention that to the commission. We're just really fortunate here at the city that we're able to send many of our staff to these conferences.

We we learn a lot from our peers and able to bring that back to Renton. The other item that I wanted to mention was, as it's escaping me I'll mention it. I was gonna mention this later when I had more information, but June 6 is the opening of Legacy Square, grand opening. I wanna make sure that we get a formal invitation to all the planning commissioners, but, us and CED, very excited about this project because this is one project that, our department led the capital charge on. Typically, you don't see, community economic development departments lead, capital projects, but this is one that, we got to to manage, and we're super proud of it.

Paul Hintz, I know many of you know, former long range planner. He's our now our development manager, and, he led the charge on on that project. So it's looking really it's looking really good. If you've gone by there lately, it's it's almost done. So we're actually having our department picnic there in two weeks, and, kinda christening, the stage and the TV.

We're gonna actually, broadcast the Mariners game. We got a time where they're having a day game, so it should be fun. So if you are around downtown on May 20, you wanna swing by, you should come by and say hello. I I I usually write myself notes about what I'm gonna talk to you guys about at the director's report, and I didn't tonight. And I sure enough, I I did forget what the second thing I was gonna talk about. So I'm gonna leave it there. We do kind of have a packed agenda tonight, with three public hearings as well as some training, from Patrice. So thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. It's amazing how fast they built up the, that, Legacy Square Park over there. I mean, it's smooth. It would just change overnight almost.

Yeah. That's little sad that way.

Work in progress. It's okay. We'll get there.

Chair Arce, for the record, commissioner Matson and secretary Rosha have joined.

K. Great. Thank you. Okay. Next up on the docket is the public hearing docket 20 group d d two forty eight large site master plan and development agreements. Is there a motion to open the public hearing for this docket? Move to open the public hearing for docket item 20 group d d two forty eight. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you.

Second. Okay. Motion made by commissioner Poole and seconded by commissioner Vichstahl. All those in favor to open the, I'm trying to say, the public hearing, please say

aye. Aye.

All those again, nay. And the hearing is open. Okay. Matt, whenever you're ready, if you can go ahead and, go over this topic as well.

Thank you, chair Artsy, members of the commission for the record. My name is Matt Herrera. I'm the planning director in community economic development. Tonight, we'll be doing the public hearing, as you mentioned, on large master site plans and development agreements, docket 20, item two, item d two forty eight. So we'll start with what is a master plan.

A master plan, typically is a very large project over many acres or parcels, and, we evaluate those projects at a at a broad level. Specifically, multiple buildings on a large site, and we don't really know what those buildings are ultimately gonna look like a lot of times, but we know where approximately they're gonna go, and we wanna make sure we have the alignment of the streets and pedestrian improvements in place. We have an idea where they're gonna go. We wanna know where parks, open spaces, amenities, they're gonna go, but really not refine what they're gonna look like. And then we'll wanna identify and mitigate those cumulative impacts.

So, again, looking at it at a broad level, we know likely there's gonna be, you know, so many thousands of square feet of commercial space. We're gonna know how many units of housing there's gonna be, just not kind of specifically where. But we can identify, mitigate, and and get through that master planning process at a broad level. And those master plans are typically phased. They could be one you know, they could be two through four or five phases, into a number of of smaller site plans.

Right now, when we see master plans, they're typically, built out between five and ten years, And, master plans require a public hearing with the city's hearing examiner and ultimately a decision by that hearing examiner. And then once that overarching master plan is approved, the future phases where we then when we get into the weeds, and and and refine those plans, those get, dealt with administratively. Again, two examples of master plans on this slide, the first one being the Unico master plan. This is a 80 acre master plan. And, again, you can see those buildings are really just massing studies.

You know? We know where the buildings are gonna go. We know where the roads are gonna go. We know it's surrounded by that, water feature. And then we'll get into the refinement of what those buildings look like, how many units go in, what the commercial scheme looks like later on in the phase development. Whereas on the the diagram on the bottom there, that is the Solara master plan that had a shorter time horizon. Believe we have that, we have that approved for five years. The developer knew. You know, we worked with the developer. They knew they were gonna build the multifamily, the mixed use portion of the project.

They knew that they had needed to put in the infrastructure, the streets, the the underground utilities for it as part of that first and second phase, but they weren't townhome developers. And they knew that they were gonna sell that in the future. So we just put a kind of a bookmark or a placemark, on what what those townhomes were gonna look like at the time that we took this through. We took this through in 2020. If you go by there now, obviously, those those buildings are built, and they're actually moving dirt and getting ready, for that, developer to put in the townhomes who ultimately the original developer sold to this these new folks.

So we know what a master plan is. What is a development agreement? A development agreement is a it's different than a typical entitlement. It instead of it's a it's a voluntary contract between the city and the property owner. And this is authorized, by a state statute, referenced here.

That's the local project review act, and it it authorizes cities to enter into these agreements. What these agreements do is it's it they establish the development standards that are going to apply to a project, and it also vests the project. So when a development agreement is reached, all those development standards, depending on how long you're going to extend that contract for, the developer knows and the city knows these are the standards that are going to apply to it, and they would not change unless there's an amendment to the contract in the future. What, these development agreements do is they provide an opportunity to modify development standards. So but, however, the project overall has to meet, and be consistent with the city's adopted planning documents, whether that be the comprehensive plan or some kind of, overlay or or sub area plan.

The process is completely completely discretionary with the ultimate approval by city council. This is different than a typical entitlement. If if someone were to come in that was not doing a development agreement and they submitted a land use permit application. And they met, all the requirements that are in the development regulations were obligated to issue, an approval for that. That's why we reference it to as an entitlement. But this is totally discretionary. We can negotiate our way through it. And if we don't like what we see, we can walk away and say no. Thank you. When that development agreement is is finalized, it's recorded, and it's binding on the property, not not the owners of the property.

So oftentimes, you'll see these development agreements go for ten, fifteen, twenty years. Doesn't matter if there's a future person that buys a portion of the property or the whole property. They're bound by whatever that development agreement is is, stated at the beginning. So the issue and why we're coming to the planning commission right now is because the development regulations that we have in place do not comp con contemplate a large campus project, with long time horizons, and we have a couple in the hopper right now that we're working on. These projects are, again, large campus projects.

They're gonna be phased they're gonna be phased across economic cycles and different ownership groups. Right now, our current code structure does not allow for projects, of this sort to to modify the development regulations unless you have a planned what we call a planned urban development or a PUD, and these are shorter term entitlements. These are really those two to five year entitlements where a developer would go up front and really more get to 90% design of a project, and we know what that project's gonna look like ultimately. And then we're able to negotiate public benefits out of that because we know what it's gonna look like at the end, whereas development agreement is gonna have a longer time horizon. Things change, and things not only change, but, you know, development styles change.

So we wanna make sure that, we we capture that ability to modify and negotiate within a development agreement where we don't currently have that mechanism. A development agreement really provides certainty certainty for developers that the development regulations aren't gonna change over that long time horizon, but it also gives the city some certainty that the construction timeline and the benchmarks in the agreement are made over the course of that term. A development agreement also provides the opportunity for the city to negotiate public benefits that otherwise could not be required just through the development regulations or entitlement process. So with the proposal, what we would be bringing to the planning commission for, consideration is a new development agreement code language that would really be limited in scope. These text amendments, to the master plan regulations that we have in place right now would allow time limits to exceed the current ten year limit, if they're accompanied by a development agreement.

However, these new development agreements would only be allowed these types of development agreements where you could modify regulations would only be allowed in the Valley community planning area and for projects encompassing 40 acres or more. It would provide flexibility for development standard modifications similar to what we already do, again, for these PUDs. And then it would also give us the ability to to to or not request, really require public benefit options in exchange for that development agreement. Those, options could be economic, environmental, rec could, recreation, design, infrastructure, or include something like mixed income housing, which is a priority, I know, for the council. We would, add language to ensure that that the DA is consistent with the comprehensive plan in the forthcoming Valley Community Plan and also, put language either in the code or in our fee schedule to ensure that there's cost recovery for the city.

These development agreements take a lot of time from staff, not only current staff, but we're thinking, you know, ten to fifteen years in the future, as well as, needing outside counsel and expertise, to help us negotiate on on our side. So that would be 100% cost recovery. So if an applicant wanted to do one of these development agreements, they would be essentially paying a a pass through account through the city. We envision a process, that would be similar to our master planning process where it, these development agreements do require public hearing. So, we think it's, smart to take that public hearing to the hearing examiner.

And the hearing examiner would create that public record and then ultimately approval by the city council, which would be a legislative decision, not a quasi judicial decision. So, that concludes my presentation on large master site plans and development agreements. Again, this pub this is a public hearing. We leave the public hearing open, or we'll

leave it open until, close of business on Wednesday, 05/13/2026. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you, Matt. At this point, the floor is open for questions. Is do any commissioners have any questions at this time? I actually have a question for you. So for these development agreements, who is typically the main sort of stakeholder to kick them off? Like, does the city, like, request different construction companies to sign on to them, or does the construction be, like, reach out to the city itself?

Yeah. So, typically, it's the property owner or the the developer that would reach out initially. You know, they would come to the city and say, you this is our plan, and which UNICO and both Children's Hospital have done and, kind of identify or or let us know what their narrative is, the time horizon, and they're requesting it, essentially. They think a development agreement would be the best avenue for them to do such a project, and quite frankly, we agree. And we could do a development agreement without this code amendment.

Again, it goes back to the state statute that provides that ability for cities to enter into these agreements. However, those agreements would have to be totally consistent with city code. I mean, to the letter, you know, you'd have to follow city code. You wouldn't be able to modify the development standards, and, really, that's what this piece does. We're putting language in the code that allows you to modify development standards as part of a development agreement.

So when the applicant, when the applicants come in, they approach the city, they ask for these development agreements. It's kind of a back and forth negotiation, and then, ultimately, it it it's it's not really with the construction company. It's more with the the property owner or the developer that's gonna do that's gonna do the project. I would say the construction folks come later down the line more during the building permit phase of the of the project. K.

Guess I got another question if nobody else does at this point. Excuse me. So in in terms of this ability to update the standards that are used for the agreement, would this involve essentially setting, like, a phased approach then where you would have certain portions of the area be allowed to be developed at a certain point that meet a certain standard? And then as it goes forward and they're ready for the next section, then we can look at re like, repping the standards and that they would have to meet?

Right. So I would imagine the development agreement the negotiated development agreement would identify the standards that we would modify or that would would be put in place, right, per each phase. And, again, those development standards, when I'm talking about modifying them, you can't we would not modify the use, right, the land use. Right? So, if the zoning district does not allow a certain use, you can't modify that through a development agreement.

You need to do that legislatively. When I'm talking about development standards, I'm talking about, you know, like, setbacks, height, landscaping, parking regs, those those types of development standards. And I would imagine the development agreement, we would identify the phases, like you said, and then prescribe what development standards go where because it's gonna live in that contract. Right? It's gonna live in that development agreement.

So we would identify upfront what development standards would be in play to modify. But when you're thinking about future phases, like ten, eleven, twelve years from now, would probably wanna put some wiggle room in there to be able to, or at least the opportunity to come back to the negotiating table to identify you know, markets change, economics change, tastes change. So I don't think that they would probably want to, my guess is is, you know, they wouldn't wanna commit to a certain type of or number or design for a a phase of the project, say, twelve, thirteen, fourteen years from now, but we would have an idea of what that kind of process would look like and how we would review it. So, yeah, that's all negotiated as part of the development agreement and how we would review it and, and, the standards that would be in place.

So in this case then, does this this change we're looking at, would it involve changing how the different developers are able to sign on to the agreement? Because it sounds like since this is a long more long term plan for a larger area, you'd wanna have multiple agents on the same agreement. Right?

Well, what I would say is whoever the property owner or property owners are right now, when the when the development agreement is reached, they're gonna sign it, city's gonna sign it, and, again and then it's gonna be recorded on the property. So it's gonna follow whoever buys it in the future. They're gonna be bound to that too. So I think whoever buys this piece of property, a portion of the property, are gonna, I would hope, do their due diligence, know that the property is tied up in a development agreement, and know before that these are the parameters of that development agreement. Gotcha. Thank you. Yep.

Any other questions at this time in person or online? Okay. Hearing none. Is there a motion to close the public hearing on docket 20 group d d two forty eight, large site master plan and development agreements?

This is Josephine. I move to close the public hearing for docket 20 item d dash two four eight.

Second.

Okay. It's motion made by commissioner Diane and second by commissioner Pool. All those who are in favor, aye.

Aye. Aye.

And

all those in and not in favor, say nay. And motion passes. Okay. Thank you, Matt. Next up is docket 20 group d d two forty nine planned urban development open space.

Yeah. Is there a motion to open up up hearing for this docket number at this time?

Move to open the public hearing for docket item d two forty nine.

Okay. I second.

Motion made by commissioner Poole and second by commissioner. Okay. I think we actually have to vote on that one. So, Maya, whenever you're ready, we can go ahead and start it.

Thank you, guys. So this item is planned urban development open space, public hearing again. And you heard a little bit about planned urban developments. These are PODs, and they basically allow for modification development regulations in exchange for public benefits of protecting natural features or being innovative in their development styles. The PUD section of our code currently requires both common open space and private open space for every residential unit in a PUD development, and that open space can be any natural area or area that kind of gives a break from the built environment.

Projects permitted under other code sections, however, can replace that private open space with more common open space. Instead of having a yard, you might have a shared courtyard. But we think that regulations should for PUD should allow the same, if not more flexibility, as other permitting routes for residential development, hence this code item. So we looked at some other jurisdictions around us that have maybe innovative development or kind of bigger structures being built and asked if they require private open space. And all of the ones that I looked into do not.

They require an amount of open space, but it can be either private or common. In the city of Renton, we require private open space cottage housing developments, ground floor units in r 10 and r 14 zones, and for attached dwellings in the Urban Design District B, and for all units that are in a PUD regardless of the zone or development type. We also looked at how much open space other jurisdictions require. Some of them were per unit. So for every residential unit you have in Federal Way, you have to provide a 100 square feet of open space.

In the city of Bellevue and other locations it's based on the site area. So in Bellevue it's 10% of the gross land area has to be open space no matter the size of the site. And of course this varies by the city, the zone, the type of development. In Renton, it also varies by the zone and type of development. You can see kind of the per unit numbers there and I'll just call out in the PDs, it's 50 square feet of common open space plus some amount of private open space depending on if you're on the Ground Floor, it's more and if you're on upper stories, it's less.

Other jurisdictions also have, design requirements of what this open space looks like and they require it to be near and accessible to all units. They allow a mixture of indoor and outdoor space. A lot of them define a minimum area or dimension, so you don't have those two foot by 100 foot yards. You want it to be a usable area. And then they exclude specific areas from the calculation with driveways and parkway parking being common exclusions that cannot count towards open space.

Some jurisdictions also allow alternatives. So in Seattle, if you have required open space, you could designate or contribute to a designated green street instead to reduce that on-site open space, or you could replace it with a space that's open to the public and not just restricted to the residents of that development. In Federal Way, you can pay a fee in lieu for up to 50% of the required open space, and that'll help them presumably develop parks and open space elsewhere in the city. And then the dark blue ones there are options that are available to non PUD developments in Renton, and that is to replace the required open space with a public trailer park, which gets dedicated to the city or to pay a fee in lieu to the parks department if they're within a fourth mile of an existing public park. So our proposed changes, the goals here are really to add more options to the menus for PODs and ensure recreation space for residents and really help keep that innovative development that we want in natural areas with PODs, but also providing flexibility for developers.

So the amount of private open space or proposed changes are just to adjust the minimum dimensions for upper floor units. Right now, units on the 7th Floor above can have a shallow balcony and we're proposing to change that to a minimum dimension of four by eight feet no matter what store you're on. So if you're on the 8th Floor or the 2nd Floor, you still have at least a four by eight balcony.

And then

we want to add those options to the menu as I said. So right now you can modify the private open space dimension standards. So if you want less than four by eight feet, that is already allowed discretion as long as the total minimum area for that unit is maintained. And then we want to add replacing private open space with common open space. So substituting that with a common amenity in a common area and unique amenities here would be encouraged, something that's really unique to the development or unique to the area and trying to just get more innovative developments.

And then finally, we want to add the alternatives. They're allowed for non PUD developments. So anything in a PUD could substitute open space for dedicating a public park or trail or paying that fee in lieu if they're within a fourth mile of an existing park. So this is going to deliberations in two weeks on May 20, and then p and d on June 8. And my contact information is there, msimon@rentandwa.gov. If you have any questions or comments, I believe the public hearing is open until May 13.

Awesome. Thank you, Maya. Any questions at this time? Okay. Hearing none, are there any motions to, close the hearing on this document?

Public hearing.

I move that we close the public hearing. Oh, we can swing it. I'm like, dude, Kevin.

That was my effort at it. But

Second. K.

Motion made by commissioner Poole and second by commissioner All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All those are

all Aye.

Say nay. Okay. Motion passes. Okay. Next up on the docket is, docket 21, group a d two fifty, affordable housing waived fees. Is there a motion to open a public hearing on this docket item?

And I move we open the public hearing for docket, item 21 group a d two fifty.

Anybody else? There's only four of us in here. So

I'll second that. Alright.

Motion made by commissioner Fixtal and seconded by

who's that? Commissioner Matson. And,

mean, my commissioner second by commissioner Matson. All those in favor, say

aye. Aye. All

those again say nay. And the public hearing is open.

Alright. Thank you. My name is Angie Mathias. I'm the long range planning manager, and I'm here to present this, item for the public hearing. So what are waived fees? It's an incentive that we have to offer. It's one of the many tools that we have to try to incentivize new affordable housing. This is also an item that's entirely up to council. It's at their discretion, they and can waive up to a 100% of the fees. They could waive 20% of the fees.

They could waive 50% of the fees, and it needs to have a public benefit. It needs to have the it is also based on the impacts to public facilities and services, and it also needs to be consistent with our adopted documents and planning documents related to affordable housing. For impact fees, we can only waive 80% of those total. It's been very helpful for projects such as with Renton Housing Authority and Homestead Community Land Trust. It really helps them reduce their overall costs so that they could spend money on the actual construction of the the homes rather than other things.

But it hasn't always been about affordable housing. Initially, when this was first adopted, it was seen as a tool to incentivize market rate homeownership in Downtown Renton. In 2001, there weren't very many people living in Downtown Renton at that point in time, and so they really wanted to get homeowners in that area. It still required a minimum of four units, but it and it also had to be multifamily. So it couldn't just go to, like, single family housing or anything like that.

In 2007, we extended that same incentive up to the Sunset area. And then in 2011 and this was only for homeownership, but and market rate. 2011, after the Highlands task force made a recommendation to extend it to multifamily rental as eligible, we made that change there. And it was for both downtown and Sunset. In 2018, we pivoted, and we said, you know what? It looks like the market's kinda doing its thing. And, really, what we really need and where we need the help and what projects need the help is affordable housing. And so we shifted it to just be for affordable housing, but we also opened it up citywide. We said if affordable housing is really important, it shouldn't just be that it's in Sunset and downtown. It should be available citywide.

And then in 2020, we limited to no more than 100 units of affordable per project. So if it's a project that has 300 units, only 100 of them are gonna get their fees waived. They still would pay fees on 200 units. So you can see here the list of the types of fees that can be waived up to and including our technology surcharge fee, but we cannot waive anything that's not listed here. It's not been itemized or detailed, and we cannot waive fire plan review and permit fees.

So to be eligible for these projects, homeownership needs to be, at least half of those units have to be at 80% of the area median income, and they must remain affordable in perpetuity so they don't ever get to switch back to being market rate. And then half of the units could be up to a 120% AMI. So it's basically market rate and then half of them at 80. They are required to provide annual certifications showing that they're still compliant, and they report that to us. And right now, this minimum for them to be able to use this is 10 units.

For rental housing, it's at 60% area median income, and the units only have to remain affordable for thirty years. That's pretty much the lifetime of a of a building, really. And, also, annual compliance, minimum number of eight units in residential zones are one through RMF, and then a minimum 30 in our mixed use zones. So staff recommendation is to reduce the number of home ownership units to just four. This does we have said many times, especially the council, that home ownership is the number one.

Affordable homeownership is a huge priority. It's also the most difficult to do, but it does help people, start to build generational wealth, and, this is a great tool to do that. Middle housing allows up to four units on our lots, and so it ties in nicely with that number. And then it also helps align with our, targets of about a thousand units at 50 to 80% area median income. For affordable rental housing, we're recommending that we shift the number of units from eight to six and then the number in mixed use zones from 30 to 25.

In the residential areas, we've noticed that a lot of the times, they're they're bumping up against that maximum number for density. So if they're having to do eight, can't they really actually do it on that lot because they would exceed density. The same thing is happening with the mixed use zones. Also, for the mixed use zones, we're a little worried that in order to be able to be eligible and participate in this waiving of fees, that there is disincentivizing because they don't wanna trip up. They wanna get make sure they get to participate, so they're gonna just do 30 studios instead of some three bedrooms or two bedrooms or whatever.

So, hopefully, this will help lower that. And we have a pretty big target in our zero to 50% AMI group of, over 5,700 target, affordable units, excuse me, not affordable. So, also, as we did the research on this, discovered that GMA code sections have been revised. There's a new chapter regarding affordable housing incentive programs, and in that listed fee waivers or exemptions is one of those listed incentives. But there are some structural differences between how our code currently is and their recommendations. So

the

first that we need to change is the rental housing needs to be at 50% AMA, so not that 60% anymore, the lower, more deeper affordable. Owner affordable, not more than a 100%. So that place where we have the a 120, that needs to get dropped down. And then they must remain affordable fifty years, not just that thirty. And then also, Steph wants to make some revisions. There's a lot of redundancies in the code sections between the rental and the homeownership ones that are they don't need to be in there. They can just get consolidated. So that is our intention. So here you can see the current regulations in this chart, and then you can see the proposed changes. Code wise, it's nothing dramatic.

The biggest changes are gonna be structurally kinda moving things around. We'll also then see those changes here in the red and then the existing code on the left. Another reason within this and part of why staff are, supportive and want to go ahead and and lower these things is this, code section and the multifamily property tax exemption are set to sunset every three years, so it forces us to go back in and review and make sure, do we really wanna keep using this tool, and do we really wanna keep using this tool in the way that we are using it, or do we wanna make some changes? And so right now, both of those programs are set to sunset 12/31/2027. So we'll get about a year to work with it and see how it's working.

And if we're like, holy smokes, everybody's using it and that's not what really we wanted, we can come back and change it at that time. So it'll give us a good opportunity to review it and see if it's doing what we want, and hopefully, it will. And we'll see. I won't need to make changes. So, again, public comments are received until 5PM, May 13. Best way to reach me that way, also have your comments in writing is to send me an email at that email address there, and we will be back to you on May 20, and then it'll go to planning and development committee on June 8. That is all that I have.

So thank you, Angie. Mhmm. Are there any questions at this time?

Question. I was the one asking questions last time. I had asked if you had done an analysis of the zoning versus the minimum number Because and, I guess my first question to you is, what is the zoning that you're usually seeing? And mixed use doesn't I think it's fine. It's just the residential specific zones because a lot of times the density of the zone is based density of the housing is based on the zoning that the housing is in.

And I know we have a mix of r four all the way to r I don't even know. I'm thinking of more than four. So does that where do you where are you seeing generally there just not just affordable housing, but dense housing that would this would apply to? What what zone do you see those falling into?

Double check with Matt. But as far as I know, I would expect to see this in, like, our our fourteen zone predominantly with the townhomes. I don't think it's gonna pencil very well for the smaller projects, and I don't know if we've had any single family projects use this incentive.

Not single family. Multifamily mixed use, I would say, the predominant zone.

I meant multifamily. I mean, I don't mean I don't mean individual houses. I mean, like, apartment complex. Yeah.

Sure. And where we've been using this tool mainly is, up in the Sunset Terrace and Highlands neighborhood. So the rent and housing authority would use it. That was the center village zone. One project that we're targeting right now that this would help is in the commercial arterial zone, and it's and and Angie talked about it. What what the issue we're running into is is not the maximum density. It's the minimum density. Right? So in these zoning districts, we wanna we we wanna make sure that we're maximizing the density because we have infrastructure in place. We might have transit.

We've got all those things. So we wanna make sure if someone's gonna come in and do a project, they maximize it. So we've got a maximum, but we also have a minimum. We don't want them to fall behind there. What we're finding with the affordable projects, like Angie said, what we're seeing now, those projects are larger units. Right? So you're in a mixed use building or you're in a multifamily building. And instead of if you wanna maximize out, you you know, you're gonna put in studios and one bedrooms. But we're seeing a real push in these, zero to 50 and, and 5060% AMI. You you know, there's a project across the street.

It's a prime example where they're providing family size units, two and three bedroom units. These are units that are, you know, up to 1,500 square feet. So when you've got, you know, a minimum density of, say, 20 units per acre, but you wanna and you've and you've got a site and and you want and your intention is not to maximize the density. You're not looking for those rents to pay for the unit because you are subsidizing the housing. What you're trying to do is get families to move in there.

That's the issue that we're running into with this. So by lowering that threshold for the affordable units, that gives us the ability to ensure that we're we're providing that subsidy for for the family size units and not just kind of incentivizing studios and and one bedrooms, apartment type projects. Right?

Affordable housing in this area, having specific friends and family that are in that housing is multigenerational. Sure. It's not two bedrooms. They don't need two bedrooms. They need three bedrooms. They need two bathrooms. They need and they need to be able to afford it with grandma and grandpa, aunts, and uncles, and such. So I just I just I had had asked last time, have we been able to validate that the number that we're proposing is the number? And I know that it can sunset, and you'll figure it out. And maybe it's just far in between, but I just wanna make sure that if it was eight and now it's six, should it be four.

Oh, it been had it

been considered because I think that filling up the space with studios is great for New York City. It's not good for families that are struggling to get by that need childcare, and the childcare might be their grandparents. And they need to have a place where they can have safe, affordable housing that is large enough to support not two kids and a parent or two kids and two parents.

So

is that is that that was five or six. Was that six now? Eight to six? Eight to four. So okay. Because I think last time it wasn't four. But it doesn't matter. So, I mean, I for as long as all I'm saying is as long as we're we're pretty comfortable that four is the is the correct number, which seems like a lot better than eight.

And I think, you know, Angie had mentioned too, that number coincides with the middle housing number too, so it makes sense. It's consistency with middle housing. You're allowed four units on a lot, so we wanna make sure we capture that ability. So if you wanna build four townhomes on one lot, which you can now, and any single family residential district that if you're gonna do affordable housing, you're able to to utilize that. If you just have one lot, you wanna build four units, you we can't utilize that tool right now. You you'd have to, you know, consolidate land and build at least eight. So yeah.

So one of the questions I had too was about the that change in the allowable AMI percentage. I think it went from a 120 to a 100%. Could you explain a bit more about why that is? What happened there?

We're just following state law. I don't know why they changed that. I don't I won't presume to understand what the legislators are doing. There's a lot of things where it's like they make this one change over here, but then they don't they're not consistent in other ways, and it's all it's very hard to understand what they're doing. For example, we want housing. We want housing. We want housing. We're passing all this stuff and saying, cities, you gotta allow housing. You haven't been doing a good enough job, but yet all of our rules around critical areas stay the same or, in fact, actually increase. And so and we actually met with the college, and we were like, hey.

We have these targets that we've been we've been given. You know, what gives? And they're like, we understand that you're in a difficult position, and that's all that they could say. So I don't know why they changed it. But Okay.

Oh, yeah. Because because my main concern of a lot of affordable housing and sort of, like, the MFT sort of benefits at that point is it seems like it really is very beneficial for the, like, the absolutely poorest commute like, communities and groups within the city, and then it hits a certain point, and it all just drops. And there's not really any support beyond that. So if there's a way we can incorporate the sort of, like, sliding scale version where as the AMI, like, ramps up, there's still some benefits for those people there, I think, would be very helpful for a lot of people in the community.

I completely agree with you, but they they keep ratcheting it down. And there doesn't seem to be even, like, when you're looking at like, when developers are trying to pile on this money and get get money from the state and all of that, like, the sources of revenue for 80% projects are very diff there's just not as much as there used to be out there. Everything's getting dropped down to 60, and and that's now it seems to be the bucket. But, yes, we agree with you. We would like to be able to see those variety as well, but the state is stepping in and changing stuff on us. So

One of our question I had too was, is there any way we can sort of do, like, a similar version or release, like, add on or tag on a version for, like, affordable housing for, like, ADU development? Because I know it's a minimum of four, but is there some sort of related version we do for to develop that as well?

Or waived fees for ADUs?

Yeah. For for, like, affordable housing version of ADU.

So we already have I think it's half the impact fees for accessory dwelling units. That's also been legislated for us. So they already do have some of those incentives. They could qualify for this if that's something that they wanted to do and hold that affordability. We could fully waive those fees, but that's gonna be up to them to see whether they and with with the middle housing changes, we are starting to see some interest in stuff like this. So it'll be interesting to see what really perks through. We haven't seen a whole lot coming in yet, but it's starting. There's a lot of questions being asked, so it'll be interesting to see how these things play out with each other.

Okay. Cool. Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Okay. Hearing none, is there a motion to close close this public hearing?

Motion to close public hearing. Commissioner

Roshae. Okay. Oh, for sure. Okay. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Alright. Commissioner Mamai or motion by commissioner Roshae, and second by commissioner Fixtel. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All those against, say nay. Okay. The stock is now closed. Next up is Robert's rules of order training. So, Patrice, whenever you're ready, go ahead get started.

Here, I'm going to follow in Matt's practice. I'm probably gonna need it. No. Wait. I've got the share part.

There. We're there. Yay. So I was asked a couple of months ago, put for the record, Patrice Kent, senior assistant city attorney.

I

support CED, and as part of those duties, I support the planning commission. Couple of months ago, I was asked to go over Robert's rules of order, just how do we operate a meeting. I think you guys are all doing a great job. I wanna start with that. And secondarily, kind of how to work with public hearings and public comments. Also, I think you guys are doing a great job of that. So this might feel a little redundant. It is strictly a procedural update for your information, so that's what we're gonna start with today. If there are questions during the course of this conversation, please feel free to raise your hand or ask, or you can hold your questions to the end. I have no issue with that either way.

At the end of the presentation, there is a list of links to some of the topics that I use or websites that I went to. And I'm a little bit I think I've said this more than once. I'm a little bit of a Robert's Rules nerd. I enjoy it. I think it's fun. I like process. Not everybody does. I will do my best to keep this as summarized as possible because, like I said, I do understand not everybody thinks this is the niftiest thing since sliced bread. Now where am I going? So oh, too far.

So the first thing I wanted to do initially, I was gonna have this conversation in April. I was very excited to have a little fun fact. And my little fun fact, Robert's rules of order is actually named after an individual officer. His name was Henry Martin Robert, and he first wrote these rules in 1878. I'm gonna summarize the slideshow because I know you all can read.

And it's a combination of it's a combination of what the US Congress uses for its parliamentary procedure and kind of other practices that he observed in his travels around The United States. The the kind of I'm gonna jump to the last end of that is the rumor is that he what finally pushed him over the edge to write a formal these are the rules was he was in a loo local church meeting that just kinda went off the rails. And for whatever reason, he decided that was the point at which we need these darn rules. So that amuses me. So the purpose of Robert's rules, there are two primary purposes.

One is to maintain the order, make sure everybody has a chance to hear what people are saying, ask questions that they need to do without devolving into into kind of a free for all. It's a whole it's a whole purpose of this. Everybody should have a chance to get heard. Everybody should understand what's going on. Within that kind of outlining a little more what's the purpose of maintaining or of maintaining order is to understand that so that everyone understands what is going on.

Let's have the same understanding of terms, and so we're gonna develop an agenda. What's gonna happen at the meeting? Everybody needs to know what's happening at the meeting. We're gonna make a motion. I move to blah so that everybody has an understanding of what the action is that's been considered.

If somebody else disagrees, we're gonna amend that motion. I don't like what you said or it wasn't clear to me what you said we wanted to do. And finally, voting on those motions so that the body as a whole makes a decision and that everybody understands what that decision is. Specific to the planning commission, this is really important to have that clarity and of intent and clarity of action because your role your statutory role is to advise the mayor and the city council about how to what what the actions are that we are supporting, and what is what is the intent of the community as you all represent the community. This is what I hear the most about, oh, I'm not really comfortable with Robert's rules.

I don't really understand all the rules. What's what if I screw up? Short answer is, doesn't really matter if you mess up because we are not legally obligated to follow Robert's rules of order. So the cut the three kind of questions are, are we are we meeting are we keeping some sort of order in this meeting? Does everybody know what's going on?

Has everybody had a chance to contribute? If the answer to all of those is yes, great. Perfect. We don't care. If it isn't, then let's go back and say, How can we whether I am following all of the detailed rules of Robert's Rules border and there are literally books and parliamentarians who make a living defining, describing, and ensuring that people follow all of the detailed rules of Robert's Rules.

We don't need to do that. If you wanna do that, if you wanna be I like I said, I'm a I'm a Robert's Rules nerd. I try really hard to hold back, but sometimes I do better than others. I have included here a little cheat sheet about kind of what are the, quick references. And these are generally kind of the most that most organizations will need.

There's the link to it from Cornell University, talks about whether you need to, two thirds or a simple majority of the people who are present at the time. So it's not that you need a majority of all members of the commission. There is a quorum requirement. There might be something in our bylaws that says this kind of motion requires majority of people who are currently seated on the commission. In general, I don't think that's the case.

You'll notice that a couple of these have a two thirds majority vote. The the intent of having the two thirds of majority vote rather than a simple rather than a simple majority is because these are the things that limit the ability of people to interact on the matter. So you're limiting debate. You're saying, I we're gonna have not more than two minutes of debate on this or everybody can speak only once or you're looking to close the discussion. That's it.

We're cutting it off. Nobody else gets to talk on the matter. There are times and places for both of those sorts of considerations, but it really needs to be a super majority in order so that the entire commissioner, the super majority of the commissioner like, yeah, you're right. We need to we need to cut this off. So that is my brief summary of Robert's rules of order, why we use it, and why we wanna follow it. Are there any specific questions just on that part? Online, any questions? None for me. K. Hearing none, I'm moving on to public hearings and public comments.

And it's very common. I I live in the gray. I love the open public meetings act. I love hearing the the wackadoodle stuff that goes on with them. There's a lot of people who aren't into it as much as me are like, well, public hearings and public comments, those are the same things. Right? And they're not. They have similar. They're both they're both equine animals, but one's a horse and one's a zebra. So the public hearing is the first thing I'm talking about, and the purpose of the public hearing is is to get public comment, public input on a specific item of legislation.

There are requirements under the state. There are there are also local requirements that we have. But, specifically, if we're talking about annexation of an area, ordinance development, which is what we're doing right now, street vacations, which don't come to you but are before city council, those are all public hearings. And the purpose is to provide the people who are impacted by these decisions to have due process and the right to be heard. And it is it is a really focused, rules oriented, what is it you're concerned about, what do we need to address, etcetera.

And so that that is that is the intent behind it. Moving to public comments, that's more the of, hey. This is what you should know about. May not be anything about a specific rulemaking, but you should know about this because it's of import to me as a member of this community. In virtually all the commission's committees boards as well as city council and the I don't think the committee of the whole, there are opportunities for public comment during the course of those meetings.

Part of that is because the Open Public Meetings Act and and related statutes require the ability for the public to express their opinion before a decision is made on a variety of information. That's what that is. Just just for my other little plug about the Open Public Meetings Act is this week, last week, there was a decision that came down in the division to appeals. The there is a state resident who is known for interacting with a variety of municipal and county governments about public information, public records, public meetings. And he brought suit that was found in his favor because a municipality, a majority a quorum of city council members attended an event, and the agenda was posted a couple of hours before the event.

And the agenda was posted and said, we're here to discuss this item, which touches which touches, city business. Some of the city council members said, we aren't we aren't here for the whole time or we aren't here in our city council positions. We were just talking. The definition of the Open Public Meetings Act doesn't always recognize that nuance. In that particular instance, the municipality was found to have, in fact, had a meeting of a quorum of of city legislatures legislators that did not meet the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act.

I have never seen, never heard, do not know that this commission or any other body of the city of Renton has had that practice. I just want you to be aware of it as we're moving forward because that's what I do. So that's the summary. This is the list of of web pages. I will make sure that Wong has this and can send this very detailed, very restrictive presentation to you, but these are these are the websites that I used.

M r s c is a very helpful resource for everything. It's available to the public. I think all of you have probably zapped in at least for some sort of training to that entity that they've got how more than however you want to talk about it. Yeah. Questions, comments? I hope I did I think I went pretty quickly, but I hope I didn't go too fast. It's that that's my that's my take on it. Are there any questions? Any points you wanna raise? Anybody in the audience? Oh, okay. Dorsal.

Thank you for the presentation. It was great. I was just curious, kind of a two part question.

Mhmm.

First being, what advice you have in handling either public comment or public hearing where maybe the the person speaking from the public is using harmful or maybe even abusive or threatening language? And is it handled differently in public comment versus the public hearing, I guess?

So, my response as an attorney is it depends. So what we consider if you are talking about, the first pass would say that those are First Amendment rights, which have a great deal of protection, and and we need to be mindful of that. In general, saying something that somebody else finds offensive is still protected language. If it is an attack or inciting violence, then that is more likely to not have the protections of the First Amendment. Under the OPMA, and I might be misquoting this, the measure is, is the comment or commenter disruptive to the meeting?

If they are disruptive to the meeting, then the chair can close the meeting or I've just lost the word. I'm sorry. Or suspend the meeting for a period of time or ask the person to leave. It's a pretty significant it would have to be a pretty significant disruption in order for under our current case law, in order for that to be found not to be an objection or found. I would get to practice in front of the courts if that were to happen.

Let me put it that way. I have seen instances where individuals were not in this jurisdiction, but where individuals were removed for refusing to abide by the rules of public comment for and simultaneously making personal attacks about folks on the podium and trying to think if there was cursing involved. I don't think that there was cursing involved. But it was and there were multiple attempts from the dais to kindly ask the person, warn them that they were in in danger as as you will of being asked to leave or be removed. That particular person in that particular instance, the meeting was suspended.

The police were asked to remove the person from the room. The police did remove the person from the room. So it is it it I like I said, I have not seen that in this jurisdiction, and I am not aware of it happening in this jurisdiction. I might have gone into too much detail. Dorsal, was that did that answer your question?

Yes. Thank you for yeah. Thank you for answering the the question. It sounds complicated. And, hopefully, we won't have to experience it.

Well, that is the public comment and the disruption and the content. We generally in city council meetings, and I believe in this meeting as well, it is a three minute limitation for public comments. We are allowed to provide to limit comments. We are not allowed to censor comments before they are made, which maybe is the shorter answer. I've seen Matt is here. So do you

have Yes. Thank you, Patrice. I have a question.

No. So

we do things a little bit different in renting compared to other cities when we bring items to the planning commission. We like to have separate discussions for each ordinance that we bring forward. We like to have three three meetings, ideally. Right? We wanna come and brief the commission to tell you what the the matters are.

If you've got questions, comments initially, that's great. We'll take those in. Sometimes we come back with a supplementary report if we can't answer those when we're there at the briefing. And then the next meeting, we like to do a public hearing, and that's our statutory requirement. A talked about public hearing is is different, as you mentioned, than a public meeting or public comments.

We open it up. The record's open. We take public comments. And, really, those comments, that's it's not so much for the commission to discuss things. It's more just to take all those public comments regarding the matter, close the hearing, and then the commission and staff, you know, take those comments and yes. Semantics?

Yeah. You're saying public comments, and I think what you mean are are public remarks as part of the hearing.

Right. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Patrice. We take those remarks that we heard during the public hearing. Commission considers them. Staff considers them. And then we come back for the third meeting, which are the deliberations. We give you typically the the same spiel that we you heard for the first two meetings. Commission is able to talk amongst each other, and then come up with a recommendation.

I guess what my question is after going through all of that for context, and I noticed this a couple months ago. It was during a public hearing, and there was discussion, and it happened tonight. We had three public hearings tonight, and, we had some questions during the hearing, about the item. And I think that's totally fine. It it probably doesn't break any statutory things or or, Robert's rules.

But I'm wondering, procedurally and I also don't wanna stifle conversation or comments because you guys hear these things three times. You might have heard it at the briefing, not had anything, but you think about it for a couple weeks. You have this idea or question in your head. You don't wanna wait all the way till the third meeting to discuss it and ask questions. You should be able to do it at the second meeting while it's fresh in your head.

Would the appropriate method to have that conversation back and forth outside of the public remarks? Would it be better, or does it matter if maybe we close the public hearing? If we're done with public remarks, close the public hearing. And if there's questions that the commission has about that item, it's done after the public hearing's closed?

I am of two minds. But in general, I think that the questions of clarification that are asked during the public hearing, which is not a comment. I think that I have heard all of you ask questions that might foreshadow a comment, but they are not comments. They are questions of clarification. I find that to be helpful to, for members of the public to then be able to remark upon with that clarification. So you're saying we should keep it

you should, like, keeping it open and keeping the dialogue happening during the public hearing.

Okay. Yeah. Because I think that's a clarification that also serves the public and the due process rights of people who say, well, what are you gonna do if a, b, c? Or my comment is that may be addressed by that point of clarification, and then they can they can address that or integrate that into their own remarks either on the evening or during follow-up written remarks, which are also part of the public hearing.

Okay. Just wanna clarify that. Yep. We can continue discussing each item that we bring to the commission at all three stages of we don't need to wait until deliberations to have. So and and and the commission doesn't need if they wanna talk amongst each other about the item, they don't need to wait until deliberations to do that.

If the question is it two different questions there. One is questions from the commission to, articulate or to better understand the presentation and the proposed legislation. That's that's one thing, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to have that during the public hearing. If you're looking for discussion amongst the commissioners about questions and answers or about public comment, I believe that more properly falls within the deliberations and recommendations section. It's a little bit nuanced, and I I also don't wanna chill that conversation.

But I think that in order to not overshadow any public comment or public hell, I'm doing it. Public remarks that are coming in as part of a public hearing rather than color public remarks with your own questions and deliberations, particularly as it so closely relates the public hearing, in my opinion, it's better to have that conversation back and forth during deliberations rather than the public hearing. There is no black and white. I would look I am happy to have this follow-up.

Oh, no. No. I I think I'm I I was follow it was more of, like, I think I followed that. Yes.

Clear as much. Yes.

Yes. Thank you.

Perfect legal Thank you. Answer. Yeah. Yeah.

The thing that I wonder is we have three steps. Right? And I get the first step is kind of introduction Mhmm. Where, you know, we might have no history and maybe and then the second step is, you know, the hearing. I've I've kind of wondered why isn't hearing slash deliberations the second meeting, and then why isn't the third meeting either approval or acceptance or not not not Like, I feel like the deliberations shouldn't be happening in the third. It seems to me that introduction presentation deliberation approval would be like it it feels like why would we be deliberating on the third when we have had two four weeks, you know, two meetings in order to deliberate.

So, the statutory requirements for the public hearing are about members of the public communicating, and that public hearing is open for a week, ten days. Okay. Feel free to jump. Okay. Okay.

That's my deliberations of the third.

Then the deliberations are to allow the time for all of the public remarks to come in as part of the public hearing. I believe you are provided with all of those so that you can take into account all of the input that's been provided by the public and then deliberate from your, areas of specialized expertise to make a formal recommendation to counsel. And I it is my opinion that it that we have probably set this up because if you are only hearing the public remarks during the public hearing, the verbal public hearing, you are missing any written comments or any written remarks that might come in. So that's unless you're looking to do a fourth meeting

I mean, I would think there would be a fourth if there was you know, we've been we've been pretty good about keeping the three. I mean, I'm only in here this year. Right?

But Yeah.

But I I I assume that if something was to be

If the planning commission if there

should be a four.

If the planning commission determines that they are not able to make a recommendation or if the planning commission determines that they need longer to deliberate, that is that is at the and I'm imagining that that behind me, I'm getting some strange looks. But it is it is the commission's role and responsibility to provide the best advice they can on a matter, which requires thoughtful deliberation. It does change the pace of how we usually do our proposals and recommendations throughout the year if the planning commission opts to amend that three meeting process. But that's that's your role. And that is your that is your you have the ability to to make that determination.

Separately, I believe that there have been times when we have had either the introduction and public hearing

Mhmm.

At one meeting and then the next being the recommendation because the there was sufficient background. There was enough information that that it was not it didn't require three meetings. So, similarly, if you think I can't do this in three meetings, I need four meetings, there is there is no legal obligation to have three meetings so long as the public hearing permit period is is fulfilled and so long as you feel that you are having the time and ability to make informed recommendations.

I actually had a question that was related to Dorsal's question Okay. A couple of months ago. So in the event that there are more disruptive public comments that are going on, I saw that there's that limiting of discussion motion. Is that only meant to be used for discussion amongst the commissioners? Or is that

That that limit that yeah. That that is limiting your own action. Okay. Yeah. That is the act the action of the legislate of the rulemaking body. Okay. That does not say, okay. We've heard enough. We're gonna not we're gonna cut off public comments on this for tonight.

Thank you. And, actually

Yes, sir.

With that, is are there circumstances where it would be appropriate to you know, say it's 10:10PM and there's a line of people who still wanna participate, is it possible to extend the public hearing period and then also schedule another public hearing?

So if public hearing or public comment?

Public comment. Thank you. Well, it would be

Yeah. I think you meant hearing.

Yeah. Okay.

Public comment, it would be challenging under under statute to do that. Public hearing to extend an an in person hearing within that period of time. Planning commission, I believe, has the opportunity to call a special meeting, And the purpose of that special meeting could be for the public hearing. Although I need to do more actually need to look at the statutes more because I don't recall if because there are limitations on special meetings. I don't recall if you can call a special meeting to continue a public hearing or if it will have to be carried over to the next meeting. That's a that's a statutory necessity that I don't know if

I I think you can continue to the next meeting.

To the next meeting or to a special meeting? Two different questions.

I think you leave it open, and you leave the the hearing open and continue it to the next meeting.

To the next regularly scheduled meeting.

You could I I think you could do a special meeting too, probably. But yeah.

K. That's so weird.

Up in eighteen years. But, thankfully, maybe

it should have. For eighteen years.

I know. Eighteen years. We need another puppy Mel situation. Oh, no. Kidding. Oh. Okay.

Bye on your house. Bye. A pox on your house.

I had one question, Jason, on one of the things you'd mentioned. We have a and this is just more curiosity than anything. Obviously, we have a rather large city improvement that's gonna be opening up here pretty soon. Do you need to does does there have to be announcement that I'm assuming a bunch of city council members and others will be there? Did do you literally have to post something that says, this is not a meeting?

That's an open public meetings act question. And there are there are carve outs or rules carve outs and opinions issued by the state attorney general's office that says, so long as you are not conducting city business, you can attend a social event. You can attend something like that, and it's okay. We do I don't recall what we do for, like, the state of the city address, which virtually all the elected officials are at, but it is not a public meeting for purposes of the Open Public Meetings Act. So it is it is not as restrictive as as it could be.

It doesn't say there is the law doesn't say, you can't go have dinner. You know, you four can't get together and go have or five of you can't get together and have dinner so long as you're not so long as you're not talking about city business. So long as you're not talking about, let's update the zoning code, and we're gonna have a super secret meeting and

Got it. Oh, I think it's a better.

Not sure what they do, they may actually do that. So it is it is a celebration not to be helped. We do we regularly have celebratory or honor honoring events that happened between the council of whole committee of the whole and city council meetings. And those are those are widely attended by elected officials as well. And that, yeah, I there is there is at least a modicum of common sense as to what is or isn't an open public meeting for the

I don't

want you to get sued and have to have to handle that again like me.

Appreciate that. I appreciate that.

A couple questions about I don't know if it's about rules or just propriety. So often or we have had the experience where someone has come in and they've kind of misunderstood even though you read the instructions. They've misunderstood what the public comment role is. Right? So they come up and they might you know, you might say especially during a com public meeting, like, they don't comment on the correct thing. Like, the they're just so excited. You know? Mean, it's usually because they're just really engaged, they wanna talk to us. And so is it and this is probably more propriety than anything else. Is it I always feel bad because you're like, you don't wanna be like, no.

No. No. You're doing it wrong because that's no one wants to hear that. So how do you how what's the best role? And, usually, it's for the chair. Right? How do you help people understand what it is, or what do you do? Do you interrupt and say, wait, or what do you do?

So if, for example, someone wants during the public comment period, someone says, I'm here to testify about the the PUD development. An option is to say, I hear what you're saying. Are you more or it there is a time that is set aside particularly so you can go on the record for that item. Do you want to go on the record later, or do you want to also go on the record later, or are you comfortable with this being part of a general public comment? Particularly during public hearings, there are if there are folks who are registered to talk speak or public comment period, we might need to add something to the introduction for the chair to say, this is the public comment period.

I'll remind members of the public that this is not the public hearing. You are welcome to speak at both at both periods of time, but this but if you are wanting to talk about the PUD, then we're requesting that you wait until then. You can't tell them they can't talk about it because they can get up there and talk about my mother's bunion for three minutes if they want to. But if they want to record it as part of the remarks for the public hearing, properly, they should wait until that period so that it properly so that it gets into the right part of the record of the meeting. City council this week actually had was the city council this week, had a couple of hearings?

And there was a person who was called upon to provide his remarks, and he was called for the wrong public hearing. But the remarks made it into the record just to the wrong thing. He he and he was offered the opportunity to say, you can repeat this during the appropriate section, and I believe he did not take that opportunity. They are on the record of the meeting. They are not on the record of that particular public hearing.

And then similarly, I think this is another just kind of proprietor I just have had a lot of prepare, like, questions and things happen where I'm like, what do you do in this situation? So another thing too is that I know there's been people who come in and they speak for too long or they don't they just don't realize that they have a limit or they're not looking at the very large numbers. So how do you what is the right time and right way to say thank you very much?

What I have seen done that I think is effective is for the chair or the mayor at city council members at city council meetings. He will give it a few seconds and then say, we need you to wrap it up. This is important, and we will take your written comments if you'd like to add that.

That can be really hard to be in the chair seat sometimes and, like Yeah. You're like, oh, no. There's No. I and, again, I

will come back to the you're trying to keep order. You're trying to make sure everybody understands what's going on. And we have I think in this city, we have a really good culture of respect for people. And so to share that in such a way that, you know, you're excited about what's going on. We're really we're happy that you're excited, and we really welcome you to be here. Everybody gets three minutes or we'd never be gone. Right? That's the I think that's the mindset, and I think that that is the mindset that I see in this commission. So

My god. If I have your teary asses Let

let me say cone of silence. Now I'm dating myself, but that's okay. Are there any other and and I'm happy to continue this conversation separately, or I'm usually here at least a few few minutes between before commission meeting, or if you wanna have a follow-up, that's that's all good. Anyone?

For a lot, thank you so much for going over this. Yeah. Absolutely. I move that we thank you.

Yes. I'll second that. Oh my god.

My little heart if I had one. Alright. For this week

Please continue showing up my CPF on track.

Yeah. Although

it's been approved by the commission, so we're good for the talk yet. Okay. Next so we're just about finished. Next up are any commissioner comments.

Just wanna say thanks again for providing food. Really means a lot.

Yeah. Thanks for having me. Yeah. Thank you again.

Okay. Then the last point is adjournment. Is there a motion to adjourn for the day?

Care. Check it.

Alright. Motion made by commissioner Pool and second by commissioner Fixall. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All those opposed, nay. And motion carries. Thank you for calling in for tonight.

Thank you. Thank you. Good to see everyone. Bye.

Oh, thank you. Adjourned adjourned at what time is it? 07:30. Thank you.