Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Alright. It's 06:30. We'll call the February 19 planning commission meeting to order. I'm trying to channel markets. I'll I'll have to practice that for a little bit. Alright. First, we'll do roll call. Ajay Shakupani. Here. Syed Safavian. Here. Yasham Akwan. Here. Mazi Poonwala. Present. And John Bachman. Here. Mike Bresco, I'm here. We haven't heard from Souda, so we'll see if she shows up in a little bit.

And we still don't have our youth board member yet. So, okay. The next is approval of tonight's agenda. Any modifications to the agenda? Okay. Seeing none, we'll call the agenda approved by common consent. And then the minutes from the February 5 Planning Commission meeting. Any modifications to the minutes? Okay. Seeing none, we'll consider the minutes approved by common consent.

So next we have public comment. Three minutes for public comment. Who would like to go first? Here. Okay, Paul.

Yeah. Mary's gonna be on Zoom. Good evening, planning commissioners. Paul Stickney Sammamish. A couple points on your agenda bill, not to nitpick, but I catch it and it's good on comp plans to get things kind of right.

And by the way, Mary Wichter and I have been coming to meetings long enough that we sat through the first round of the comp plan 24 changes back in, I believe, 2016 or '17. And then the second round that went into '24 a happened in 2019. So I'll be interested to see what is being talked about here. And one thing I had hoped to see in here wasn't the entire presentation, wasn't all of the staff narrative, but there was a line in here that I found interesting. There's going to be a high level overview and key issues in the approach.

I just thought it would be handy for us who pay attention, and maybe others if they don't, just to have a list of what a few of those topics were here in advance. But I will be curious to see what they are. In your agenda packet here tonight, and I've had this conversation before over the years here and there, and it's more about getting it right. And I don't like to point things out unless I think they are significant. So I'll just state a couple things.

On the first page of your agenda packet, it talks about mandatory elements, and it lists environment and conservation. It isn't. It's not mandatory. Now in Sammamish, it's very important and it was in the first comp plan and in the second and it was done by local control who paid for it, but the GMA does not call that out as mandatory. One that was missing in this list is the transportation element, and that of course is important to Sammamish.

And hey, it's not urgent, but if you're going to have a list like this, I think it's better to get it a little bit more right. And then just an aside is parks and recreation element is like the economic development element which you don't have to do unless you have the funds to do it. So Sammamish chose to invest to have the funds, but it's not a mandatory element if a jurisdiction chooses not to appropriate the funds to it the same as, you know, parks. Or excuse me, what else did I say besides parks? Well, whatever the second one was.

Economic development. And I sent in a couple of comments today. I'd like to talk to you guys about those. So anyway, have a good evening and I'll be interested to see what the list of key issues are.

Okay, Paul. Thank you. Anybody else? Anyone online?

Yes, Mary is waiting online. Mary, I am promoting you to panelist.

Good evening, Parks Commission. This is Mary Wichter. I've been in Sammamish for twenty five years. I wanted to speak a little bit tonight on what I had emailed in and some definitions for you. The first thing I want you to know is that you are aware of what the word sprawl means, and in one of the emails I had forwarded, this is an example of sprawl.

This is fiscally efficient where there's density in a core, and then there's villages, which is a little bit better, but the fiscally efficient is important. In order to try to give you the most succinct definition of sprawl, I used AI a couple times, and it will tell you that sprawl is bad. And what it means with regard to land use planning and efforts are the following. The definition is sprawl is the rapid extension of cities or a city or town characterized by low density housing, single use zoning, and increased reliance and dependency on cars. That significantly impacts the environment, destroys natural habitats, alters ecosystems, and increases emissions.

And the impacts of doing like single family homes is that urban sprawl impacts land use by converting landscapes, natural habitats into low density development, which causes habitat fragmentation, biodiversity loss, and it changes the ecosystems. And that impacts things such as the natural water cycle, which enforces the flooding. It also increases impervious surfaces, which leads to more runoff and flooding. Sprawl contributes to climate change through higher greenhouse gas emissions and increased car use and dependency. Sammamish is 85 single family homes and only 15% other dwelling types.

It's been that way since inception, and and our growth has just been reliant on sprawl to date. This is bad for us, for housing, for our community, and it's actually the worst for environment too despite what you might hear in other people's public comments. So I'm using this brief email as a way to forward and address the city's fiscal structural imbalance. It I've shared numbers that are real numbers and data not only for our city, but from other experts. So I hope that you will review and read, if you haven't already, my two, forwarded public comments from last year, which cover they're called rewind and rewind two, and they cover, data for the city and also statistics from Urban three, which our town center consultant which had talked with.

Anyway, the bottom line is sprawl is bad. It needs to be avoided and stopped. A fiscally efficient center with higher density and incentives will work. It will work to preserve open space lands outside and around, and it has the least cost and the highest revenues to the city to help us address a fiscal imbalance and achieve fiscal sustainability in the short run and also the longer term. Thank you.

Okay, Mary. Thank you. Anybody else online? Alright. So we'll move to the next item on the agenda, which is new business. And Jackie, I think you will be giving us a presentation on the introduction to title 24 a update.

That is me. Give me just one second to get my screen all going. Make sure I'm talking into the mic properly. Alright. Good evening, everyone. My name is Jackie Bouleal. I'm a management analyst in community development, and tonight we'll be introducing the title 24 a update. So tonight's meeting is purely informational. We're not asking for any formal direction at this time. We just wanna give an introduction of what you'll be seeing in the near future.

So I'll give some background information. I'll go over the scope of the project, bring up some key issues that we'd like to bring to your attention, and then go over the approach. As most of you know, the city of Sammamish plans under the Growth Management Act, which you'll hear referred to as the GMA, which is a Washington state aspects of the law are that Sammamish must do a comprehensive must adopt a comprehensive plan. They must do a periodic update every ten years. We just finished our update in 2024.

And cities can only consider amendments to the comp plan and development regulations once a year with a few exceptions. This annual amendment amendment process is usually referred to as the annual docket or the annual review, and the process is divine is defined by cities and counties. So in Sammamish, our process is outlined in title 24 a. So this process was last updated in 2019. So it used to be title 24, which was repealed and replaced, which is why it's called title 24 a.

And it's been five ish or six years since then, so we believe that it'd be beneficial to revisit this for another update. So for a little bit of background, I would welcome you all to read through, the title 24 a at some point. It's not a super long chapter, but the purpose of the chapter is summarized as to provide procedures and criteria for amending and updating comprehensive plan and the Sammamish municipal code development regulations. So this chapter includes the rules for how our annual docket process works, which some of you have been through a couple of times now. I did link on this presentation the annual docket website on the city of Sammamish page.

And I just wanted to go over it because I believe there's some good information that's relevant to tonight. If you just do a Google search for Sammamish docket, this should be the very first page that pops up. So the process itself, each year, the city's planning commission and city council consider updates, amendments, or revisions of the comp plan and Spanish municipal code development regulations. And the first step in that process is a docket request. There is a link right here for the docket request form.

It's a pretty simple form to fill out. And there are two different types of docket requests. One is called text amendments, which is any additions, modifications, corrections to the text itself. And then the second type is a site specific land use map amendment, which changes the future designation of a site. So for example, last October, we did a site specific land use map amendment that was initiated by the city, to change the designation of Building 120, if any of you remember that.

We've got the submission deadline. So text docket requests are due the first Monday of August every year. So for 2026, the deadline is August 3. You can submit a request at any point. So for example, if you submitted it on August 4, it would just be considered with next year's docket request. So as we'll talk a little bit more about later, anyone is welcome to submit a docket request. It can be the public. It can be a commissioner. It can be a counselor. Anyone is able to.

So for example, we received a few written public comments prior to this meeting requesting making a change to the comp plans land use section. So that would be a great example of something that could be submitted as a docket request. One thing we do recommend is that if we have multiple people looking to do the same achieve the same goal, there is a spot on the docket request form for multiple applicants. So if people collaborate and submit one request, that is preferred versus multiple. And then also just wanted to point out, we have a couple like, the last couple years of docket requests over here on the left.

So for example, this is the information from last year's docket request. We've got links to the meetings and agenda packets. And then we also have a frequently asked questions page, which gives a little bit more information about what the comprehensive plan is, what development regulations are. So this page can be pretty helpful, and I hope that gives a little bit of context kind of about the amendment process and what the annual docket is. So I'll bring us back to the planned update.

As I said before, we last updated this in 2019. So we have some issues and lessons that we've learned since implementing it, and we'd like to consider best practices from other cities. And then our main goal is to simplify the code to make it easier for the public to understand and navigate and for staff to administer. We have three key issues that we wanted to just bring to your attention. We are just raising these as kind of priority items right now, and staff are still, working to identify solutions.

We just wanted to bring them to your attention now. The first is the timing of docket requests and the application submittal deadline. So as I said, the docket requests are due the first Monday in August. Planning commission review is usually around October, and city council review is usually in November. And if the an item is docketed by the city council, that starts a clock on a thirty day application that the applicant then has to submit.

And we are looking at potentially changing the timing of the docker requests and or the timing of the thirty day application deadline. This often puts the deadline right in the middle of the holidays, which can be difficult for either both as staff and a member of the public to accomplish. So that's one thing we'd like to look into. As I said, we'll be looking at considering what other cities do as well and seeing if there's a better option than what we currently have. And then another key issue we'd like to look into is establish clarification on when and how commissioners, council members, and staff initiate docket requests.

We'd like to make sure that the text of the code is very has very clear guidelines on when and how a docket request must be initiated, and also just to call out specifically who can and should submit docket requests. And then the last one is streamlining public hearing notifications. We'd like to ensure consistent notification requirements so that processes do not differ. And we'd also like to make sure we're reducing risks due to unclear code language. It can be difficult if there are different notification requirements for different processes.

We'd like to make sure that if there's a notification process for one thing, it should be similar across the board so that everybody is receiving the same notifications in the same process. And then the approach that we would like to take, we have completed and are ongoing, doing a lot of research on other cities' codes, getting information from the municipal research and services center for any recommendations that they've had. And then we've been consulting and will continue to consult with our legal team to make sure that everything is cleared by them. So up next, we will be drafting the code changes themselves. We will review those with our internal stakeholders and our legal team again before bringing it through the public legislative review, which will come to Planning Commission first.

Sometimes that can be multiple meetings. We don't know quite yet, but it'll come to you all first and then through the city council to complete the public review process. And at this time, I can accept any questions. I always like to point out that I'm giving you a lot of information right now. So if you'd like to sit on it and send me an email with questions later, I am more than happy to answer questions at a later time as well. But if you have any immediate questions, happy to take them.

Chair Mike, you are looking straight at me. So I have a few questions. Can we go to Slide three please? And I was a little confused about the language in the slide. Yes. So here you said that it was updated in 2019, and we went through it this year sorry, in 2024. So when is it coming back for us to review it? Is it 2029 or is it

So to be clear, this chapter of our code was updated. They last did a review and an update of it in 2019. The annual docket process happens every year. The comprehensive plan itself, the whole document, is updated every ten years.

Correct.

Yes.

So which is what we've done, but the annual docket is expected to come

Every year.

Every year. It's coming up sometime soon and then we will review that.

So basically, the last time we changed the rules for the annual docket was in 2019. But we do the annual docket.

Got it. Okay. Good. That explains it. Now can we go to Slide six?

Okay. Here you said applications are due thirty days after docket is after request is docketed, putting the due date in early January. This is what you said was conflicting with the holiday season and all of those things, which is why we are going to change this thing. Am I right about that? And is that change plan for 2026 itself? Or is that later on?

We don't know yet. If we were to make a change, I don't know we would have to consult with legal. I don't think it would apply for this year's docket.

Because Got

I don't think we can change it on I think it would probably have to apply for the next

It'll apply for the next one. Yes.

And I should clarify that so the deadline that is in August is to submit a docket request. The docket requests are brought to the city council. And then if the city council chooses to docket something well, sir, I should say they're brought to you first, and then they're brought to the city council. And if the city council chooses to docket something, that kicks off a different application process. And that's what I'm referring to with the thirty day deadline.

Got it.

Does that make sense?

Yes, it does.

I'm talking about two different deadlines.

Yeah. But it does. So what's the most common form of docket request that that we get in this for our review.

You mean like text amendment versus site specific?

Yes, exactly. I thought that I first thought, oh yeah, it's going to be possibly text amendment which is going to be common. And then I thought maybe it is site specific because people will come and they'll say, I don't like the way it's getting Text

amendments much more common. Text you have to consider that if you wanted to change three words, that's a text amendment. It seem it might seem very insignificant, but versus if you want to add 30 pages of text, that's also a text amendment. So there's a very wide variety of text come in.

And I said last question, but I lied. There's one more question. The last question is that now that we are coming into talking about the city having r twos, r fours, r eights, r sixteens and all of those things, Should we expect a change in the way that the docket requests come and do you have suggestions of how we should approach that as that's coming? Because I have a feeling wouldn't that cause more requests, more analysis, and all of those things? And if that's the case, should we think that this is going to change some of the process that we have here?

That's a good question. I think the last the comp plan update actually made some of that process easier. If you remember, we changed the structure of our future land use map. So the previous version of the future land use map was a carbon copy of the zoning map. What we did with this comp this '24 comp plan update is we created groupings of land use types. So we have neighborhood residential. And inside of neighborhood inside of that grouping, neighborhood residential, it means r r one, r two, r four, r six, up to r eight or something. I can't remember the specifics. And then we've got urban residential, which is r 12 to r 18. And then we've got town.

So we created broader buckets in the comprehensive plan. So on a parcel by parcel level, if I live if I own a property that's currently zoned r one, most likely, if I want to rezone or upzone my property, I already fall in the bucket of the rezone I'd I'd be applying for. So if I have an r one and I want to go up to r four, the comprehensive plan already allows for that zoning with that neighborhood residential bucket. So instead of having to amend the comprehensive plan map, you would be coming in to amend the zoning map, which is a different process. So I don't think we'd see as many of those as you'd think because of the way we amended the future land use map.

Got it.

Got it. Hopefully that made some sense.

Yes. Yes. So it's very rare that we're going to talk about our own. That explains it because I was thinking that it would creating and because we talk so much about ADUs and DADUs and, know, awning lots of these year components, they don't necessarily qualify at this. The chance of somebody saying, okay, I have one plot, I'm going to make it into an R4 right now because I have, I don't know, three kids or three siblings and all of those things is rare. It's probably not going to increase the number of applications that's there. It's not going to change our timelines as we are looking at it.

What it won't do is it won't require a change in the comprehensive plan to allow that use. Got it. We created also through the comp plan process, the criteria the criteria rezone, the criteria based rezone process, which I can't riff code like David can. But it created criteria where it says that if your name you know, if your if your parcel abuts parcel at a higher zone, that if your if your parcel meets certain criteria, you can come in and and up zone to whatever that neighboring parcel is. So we could we could see some of those, and we have seen some of those come in Exactly.

Since the comp plan update. Yes. That process doesn't need to be docked. Those those folks don't need to go through the docket process to do that because of the changes we made. Got it. If the code currently says that if a group of folks and property owners wanted to do an area wide rezone, that that must be considered with the with a comprehensive plan update because it's a much larger consideration of land use policy. So that's something that would have to wait for a comp plan process. But the individual parcel level would be considered through the criteria based rezone.

Got it. So the chance that this will hasten the comp plan update process is almost practically nil in that case.

Could you say that one more time? Sorry.

No. I said the chance that this kind of update will spawn that this is

I think it's rare. Yeah. It would be pretty rare that a future land use map amendment comes in, I think. Like Jackie said, most of our Docker requests will be text amendments Got either to the comp plan, like the one which would be what that comment the comments we received about changing a goal or policy in the comp plan, that would be a text amendment, or text amendments to the development regulations, which Got we've gotten in the

Perfect. Thank you so much. Thanks, Jeff.

We'll just go around.

Of questions. Question number one, what was the reason for the appeal in 2019? What was the situation back then?

You mean just the last time we updated these?

In 2019, you said there was an appeal. What was the what is the basis for the appeal?

If I said I didn't mean to say there was an appeal. I'm sorry. It was that was just the last time that we did an update.

According to what I did research, it looks like that there was an appeal that went all the way to the growth management board and former mayor was involved as far as level of service and concurrency. It showed that related to the

That is I don't remember. I wasn't in this role at that what else I I was at the front desk in 2019. That would be a question that David would be able to rattle off the top of his head, and I can bring that back to him if he'd like.

So we yeah. I don't think it's related to '24 a and the docket process, but I I remember there was a challenge that went before before the growth management hearings board, and there was an appeal process. But I I it's not from what I'm remembering, I don't think it has to do with Title 24 in the docket process, but we can look at

The way that I read it, that was a justification for you guys changing it because of the because the growth management and board, guess, that they had some problems with language on Title 24, and that's why you ended up changing it to the

Oh, maybe that was the reason prior to us being you know, this the last time it was changed, it was done by the former department director and Right.

It would be interesting to know. Yeah. Also, this updating that the title 24A supposed to be happening every year. Is that mandatory or this is the discretion of the cities?

The update of the chapter itself does not happen every year.

So what we're doing right now is at the whole wholesale updating title 24?

Yes. Right now, it's the the chapter update. We're kinda reviewing what the the rules are. So

for Right.

Like you said the

last mandated. How come between 2019 and 2026, we did an update every year?

It it is not mandated to update title 24 a every year.

What is required is that we have a docket process every year.

Yes.

So title 24 a are the rules around the docket process. The docket process has to happen every year, but we don't need to change the rules that administer the docket process every year.

Can I simplify saying docket request usually is triggered by the request for land use change, density, or zoning change? Is that it?

I don't know that. Those are all things that would be

Do we have other examples?

I don't know if that's an exhaustive list of all things that would be documented, but those are things that would be documented. Yeah.

And and you mentioned about you usually, it could be basically a specific lot size. You mentioned, I mean, a lot size. What happens if a developer has multiple lot size that he want he or she wants to go through the process, would that be subject to the docking? Or that would be wholesale land use change and comp plan amendment?

It would depend on how that reads to the criteria based rezone and the development regulations. So if you if if you look at those criteria and your rezone doesn't fit in those criteria, then it would be something that would need to be considered through either the docket process or the larger discussion of an area wide rezone, which would be done during a comp plan process.

Have we had a case of somebody put in a request for docketing and then find out that it is rejected because of the incompatibility with the about the land use or densities? Does it happen?

I I don't think it's happened. From the best of my knowledge, my time at the city, there's been one there was one site specific land use map amendment process, and it took a couple of years. And they were able to reclassify their parcel and achieve their goal of I can't remember what it was upzoning their parcel. But it's not a common thing. It doesn't happen very often.

More questions, but I want to give everybody a chance to.

To build on AJ's question comment, we also have the middle housing overlay. So that could also reduce some demands for docket requests and rezones. The other big one that hasn't been mentioned is whether or not the city council decides to go forward and docket new sub area plans Mhmm. Which would be major work for us and as a sort of a common kind of docket request in cities. So that's all I had.

Thank you, Mike. On this slide itself, just to understand the process of being the new guy here. So the docket is filed up to August and then this committee will basically review those typically in October, right? And then once then it goes to the City Council and then they would review and they would sort of accept some of those. So then what is the second step of why again applications have to be done? Like as in the docket already submitted, I mean what is expected again? Like why would you have is it like redundant process or was there something different that requires to be done in the application versus the docket?

So the once an item is added to the docket, it is basically then kind of a commitment to analyze it further. So I would say that when I I mean, I can open up the application itself for a docket request.

Sherry, for example, or something.

The docket request form, I would say is relative as the person who filled this out last year for the site specifically and NewsMap. It's a relatively simple form, and I think the most complicated thing it asks for is a project narrative. So we're basically asking for kind of an overview, a summary. And then if the council chooses to add it to the docket, the application that is then required is just a lot more detailed.

So is the information just to follow-up on that. In the docket, like, again, just not for this committee, but also for the council to make a decision, we should have a lot more comprehensive information, right? So is this application detailed enough that they can make a decision or is there like a dialogue that happens then because there's follow-up questions like would this committee be able to ask is some clarification or whatever because we're making big decisions here, whenever we do that. So we want to make sure that we're doing the right thing. So if the application process is very simple compared sorry, the docket process was simple compared to the application, are we missing some information there that could come back later and say, oh, we know this and we made a wrong decision or something?

I don't think so because adding something to the docket is just choosing to learn more about it, if that makes sense. And because I I I phrase it every single year is we're choosing to add something to our to do list. And then once it's on our to do list, we, you know, we learn more about it and we make decisions then. So just adding something to the docket does not necessarily mean this is going to happen. It's just a a commitment to learn more about it and to Okay.

Go through the process.

And I'll just add to that we will when we get a docket submission, request submission, we touch base with the applicant to make sure that we have a general understanding of what they're trying to achieve. So there's a So when we present it to you, everybody has a reasonable understanding of Correct. What we would be moving forward and and promising our future selves to work

harder And then post October, there's no action item on this committee once we have an interview. Right?

You Yes. The planning commission will make a recommendation to the city council, and then the city council gets the final say on what's added

to that.

So if

there are 100 dockets, you have to go one by one each of them?

We don't usually get

a 100. I mean, I'm just saying.

You I don't know.

Yes. If So so for example, when I said that if a group had a common goal, it would be beneficial to do one docket request, that's one of the reasons. I will point out on this web page again, for both docket request types, there are additional guidance that someone can request before submitting it. So for example, for a text amendment, we have a text amendment guidance form that somebody can submit. So without committing to making a docket request, you can say, hey, here's what I wanna do, and we'll communicate with you and say, hey.

It just kinda starts a conversation. And then for a site specific land use map amendment, the pre application conference is required. So that's just also a a way to get in touch with the applicants. When I say that it's a relatively easy form, I don't mean to say that it's an easy process. It it does require time and effort.

I have a follow-up. Sorry.

No. Thank you. Okay. I'm back.

Okay. So I have a follow-up on one point that commissioner Mazayar said. It was very interesting what he mentioned. Let us say that I am making a request for a zoning update because I'm trying to build a temple or a church or something like that. Right? And so I make a request for it. And the form, like you said, the form is not supposed to be trivial, it's simple. I say that that's the thing. And you take that and you say, okay, here is it into the, should it be part of the docket, it's part of the docket. We feel everything feels like normal.

Then comes the detail and if my detail says that this is going to be the tallest temple in North America, that causes so much complication, right? It comes back to the same point that he mentioned, right? That we now can come back and say, we did not know you were going to build something like this. So how do we make an informed decision when we have not gotten the full disclosure in the this one? Don't we risk that?

Well, it's it's it's a good it's a helpful example, I think. So you can think of the docket request as kind of just how you said it. Like, I I have a parcel let's say you own a parcel along 2 28th, and right now, it's vacant or there's a home on it, you're like, I wanna re I would like to redevelop and build a temple. You would come to staff because you'd be ultimately looking at a site site specific land use map amendment, and we would talk to you about the process. We're like, this is how you would submit that request.

We would come to the planning commission and say, hey, planning commission. We have an applicant who wants to convert their single family home to a temple along 2 28th. What this would require is changing the future land use map. They would need to go through the rezone process, and you all would consider it. And at that point, it's kind of like the first cursory review. You would say, well, this feels reasonable. Let's agree to think about this and study it further down the road. So you would, at that point, recommend it to the city council. The council would go through the same thing. And staff also, along with docket requests, we provide a recommendation.

So if staff looked at this and said, this this is we don't have staff resources to do this. It's it doesn't align with the work plan or our land use policies. We might recommend, let's let's leave that be. The council would take up go through the same the same process at kind of that cursory cursory review. Like, yes, it seems as a community, it makes sense to us that maybe a temple along 2 28th would be a good fit.

Let's go ahead and docket it. So it gets put on the docket. The applicant then has, as of right now, thirty days to submit their formal application, which provides a lot more detail about what they're trying to do. And then all that is committing the city to is studying that in in full detail. And the code requires that a full legislative review process, that those items go through a full legislative review process once docketed. So at that point, we would start digging into it. And we would say, we've you know, we kind of have a soft green light for your temple idea. Let's talk about that more. You would say, I want to build the tallest temple on, you know, West Of The Mississippi.

Wait. Wait. Wait. Okay. Before you go for that, I I wait for the thirtieth day to tell you that. Right? So I've waste a full month, not intentionally, but I waste a full month before coming to you and telling you that I want to build it build the tallest temple West Of The Mississippi.

Now At that point, I mean, it's still fine. It's still fine if your idea is to build the tallest temple in the West Of The Mississippi.

But it has changed hasn't it changed materially changed the review and the complications and other things? Because now you have to look at the neighborhood, you have to see if this is gonna affect anything Well,

the legislative bodies have then that whole process and further review to to dig into that. And you might say, we want the I want to build the tallest temple West Of The Mississippi, and the city is fully within its rights to say, that's not gonna happen. Best we're gonna do is our maximum building height of 70 feet. Take it or leave it. You know? And so the city has that full control over, as David likes to say, the dials and levers of what the development regulations would say. But going through that process and studying it would help, you know, potentially set the bounds of what the community could accept for your idea of a temple along 2 28th.

Got it.

So even though you might have an idea of like, I want the tallest one, that that doesn't

It may

not That does not commit the city to giving you the tallest Yeah.

So it's it's likely it'll be the same height as Mary Queen Of Peace.

Most likely. You you never know. Or should the planning commission, city council decide, you know what, an extra 15 feet is appropriate for this temple, we would change the development regulations to do that. That would all be decided through that through that legislative review process. So at the point of when the the applicant submits their application, we're not committed to to to doing what they want. We're committing to having a thorough analysis and study of what they want and seeing how it fits with the community's goals.

Got it. Got it. Perfect. Thank you.

And the legislative process, if it's not obvious, would include public hearing, you know, commission, all of this stuff. So so what that application does is provide enough information to begin to get the research done to be able to bring to whatever commission, planning commission, then public hearing and recommendations and all of that. So it's really there's a lot of work that goes on for those things to get docketed.

And I think I I just wanna pause on what you said there because it's super important and something that actually Carrie, the city attorney, pointed out to us and kind of was emphasizing at our meeting is that the whole point of the docket process is to create ample opportunity for the public to be involved in decision making. So it's the intention of the state law to have multiple conversations about this and have it take a while so people have opportunities to give input, understand the project, and participate along the way. So what you said there is 100% accurate. It's supposed to be a long public process to have lots of conversation and really think things over.

What's what's the average time frame for an applicant to submit an idea to it becoming approved? Does it take six months or twelve months or eighteen I

don't know that I could give a specific number, but I will say that items can sit on the docket. So one thing that we're looking at is keeping, for example, on this website, keeping a running list of the active docket items because the items can only happen when there is time and money for them. So oftentimes, they can sit for quite a while.

Time and money to review them or time and money to execute the idea? Review them. To review them.

Because we have a pretty a lot of times, we have a pretty stacked work plan.

And that's part of the the decision criteria that's spelled out in title 24 a is, you know, the council and commission and staff consider, what resources the city has to dedicate to considering, you know, building a temple along 2 28th.

Is this something that the city can outsource to a third party entity that can help expedite the review process and the applicant will pay for that cost?

In theory, I think I don't know about the app like passing the cost off. But in theory I mean,

you have one of two options, wait for your turn or pay a premium fee for a third party to review it for you.

Yeah. We I mean, I would like to hear what David thinks, but in theory.

I'd be very curious to see if that has been done elsewhere. I can look into other cities and see. I haven't heard

of it.

Well, and and typically, for context, the scope and scale of Docker requests that we've received aren't super large. And, yeah, I don't think that would have been necessary so far in the past. I think what the issue has been is how well they those items align with the existing work plan and staff resources. A lot of times, what seems to have happened with docket items, and I know Mary's had some, is she's brought potential development regulations changes around something like steep slopes or trees. And what we've said is, yes, let's docket that, but let's wait because in two years, we're going to be doing that work.

And so we'll we'll roll your docket item into future work, which is a way to help.

And honestly, those are completely separate from the temple example. My my mind was going to the temple example or any other development that requires such kind of a review. And again, my end goal to help the public to streamline the process and that's why my question was how long does it typically take and the answer I got, sometimes it sits because of resources. If sometimes it sits because of resources, if someone is willing to pay the premium and get it done faster to get their development moving, I think it would be a win.

It's an interesting idea. We'll have to follow-up with David and we can we'll bring this back up when we bring the topic back.

Yep. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. I'll jump in a little bit. So this is great. And so some of the things I think that I would take away Jackie and Evan. First off, good use of the dials. You're starting to channel David. I recognize that. I have

a lot of time to soak it in.

Is it from the questions, the kind of information that would be helpful as we go forward, I think would take what's docket, what would be the docket process? And Evan, you're describing another process as well that doesn't need to be docketed. So there's probably a few other ways that residents or even commissioners, whatever, could request changes to something. What are those various different ways and you know, how does the docket process fit into that? Because we tend to look at one thing at a time and so what's the overall context would be helpful as we move into the additional conversations.

Jackie, on one of the early slides you talked about basically streamlining and thinking out of the box in ways to streamline would be helpful. Just, you know, and so what would be information that would inhibit that? Because I think, thinking ahead, can maybe pay for somebody to do a lot of the study and pull the packets together. You still need to have public comment. So probably would need to bring that to the planning commission.

You know, consultants potentially could do that, I guess. So I guess part of the thing that we're thinking about is sort of some out of the box solutions to help do that streamlining. And I think other than that, all the kind of things that I was wondering about and would we cover informationally was covered. You know, I mentioned to you about the role that commissioners and council members have. And I think what I was thinking about is, you know, we're getting information and we may be one of the better bodies if you will to essentially initiate the docket process on behalf of citizens, right?

So you think about the, you know, six or seven emails about the regional And I wanna make sure that it's pretty straightforward for us to do that and that we know who would do that. And you know, does it we write that as the body on behalf of the citizens kind of thing. And which I think would be great. In that way we're really demonstrating that we're responsive to the community. You know, we've got these emails that come in throughout the year.

It would be probably very appropriate and as we practice the process so to speak and test it since docket process, things can be requested for being on the docket at any time. Within the next week or two we could take this request about the regional growth center designation and submit that. So we're both being responsive to the community and work in the process and as we get to understand it better. So just a thought.

Are there any fees for submitting them?

Well, that's that's when we

would take up a collection. Actually, I thought I saw that there were some fee for that.

I can come back to it. So for a text amendment so to submit a docket request, there is no fee. But the site specific and I'm not the best person to speak on this, so I'm going off of what's our website because I don't work with our fees. But the, to do a site specifically and use map amendment, the pre application conference is required, and there is a fee for that, if that makes

sense.

That'll be some one of the conversations we'll have with you when we come back with potential code edits is currently that's a requirement. And one of the things we've been talking about internally is do we want to require that or make that optional? Because you could have a sophisticated applicant who's hired a consultant and they know everything they need to know about the process, they could opt out of that potentially. And there's some other kind of things that we want some I think would be helpful to get guidance on. The thing Jackie mentioned earlier, the timing of when the docket process starts and ends.

Some of the considerations are, like Jackie said, the application period and when that falls. Also, thinking through a little bit of when things are being docketed, would it be helpful for the city council to have things docketed right as they're considering their work planning, you know, around February with the retreat? Or

would it

be helpful to have that, you know, docket fresh off the presses around budget season so they can decide if they want to allocate resources to those docketed items because that's always the you know? So those are that's one aspect of the conversation I think we'll need commission guidance on. There was another one, but I had a toddler who was up from two to four thirty last night, and my brain is a little slow. So give me a second. I'll circle back on that one.

Definitely around the budgeting season, it will be more helpful for city council. This way, they can plan it.

Yeah. When we talked internally about timing, just Evan, Miriam, and I, we had pros and cons for everything. There's a pro and con to doing it at this time. Yep. There's pros and cons to doing it. And we were like, you know, this is what we've always done. Is that a reason to keep doing this? So it's a conversation that we'll continue to have and we'll bring back. Again, tonight is very informational, so we will be coming back with more

Yeah. Details. I thought of the other thing, by the way. It it the idea of how long stuff should sit on the docket. And if it would be reasonable for us to consider if it if an item hasn't if a docking item hasn't received resources from the council in five years of being docketed, maybe it falls off the list. At that point, an applicant could bring it back, go through the docketing, and see if it if a new council wants to consider it. But a decision a conversation around how long things should sit out there before the docket gets wiped clean, and, we kind of remove ourselves from that commitment.

Will there be a notification to whoever submitted the docket request that, hey, we were not able to get to this and we decided to drop it?

I think that would be reasonable.

There's usually, I would say ongoing communication with the applicants, especially that if we were to make that change, which we are considering. But, again, we haven't decided that yet.

So, Jacqueline, your your thought of putting a kind of a running list would be really helpful. I looked at 2024 and 2025. There's two docket requests, one in each year, both by the city of Sammamish. So not a lot of action. Although the East Eastman property, I can't remember exactly where that is. And that would be an example of a really large docket request. Very expensive for the applicant, expensive for the city.

Yeah. And it the docket request you submitted initially was about creating a neighborhood center designation kind of up in his neck of the woods, which has been accomplished. The next step would probably be coming in and submitting a request for a sub area plan for that neighborhood center. So and you're right. That would be a larger resource intensive both for him as the applicant, and the city.

Couple of additional questions, Jackie. A typical docket request, would that involve some kind of a SEPA review, environmental review?

That is part of the application that's due thirty days after it's docketed.

Regardless of the size or the magnitude?

Yeah, it's part of the thirty day. I believe any docket request that's docketed.

And since Evan was talking about the staff time and commitment, normally, do you have a consultant on board to review the docket request or have they done internally?

You do. Looking at the

Look at the brains.

And Mr. Pyle.

Yes. Between us, Miriam and David, yes.

And one of the concern that I have, and I hope that you read that how about the cumulative impact of the cumulative impact, overall impact on the development related to the docket request? Is that something that you do? You look at all the elements, all the factors that would have to be looked at within the context of the request for the docketing?

That might be something that happens as part of the legislative review. Again

So it is it is in a system that you do you do look at the cumulative impact of the of the docket request and it and it changes that would create in that environment.

I would say.

Yeah. I mean, I think it is Yeah. Like Jackie said, it's part of that second phase when you dig into it further. Yeah. And oftentimes, Docker requests are pretty small scale, and they're narrow in scope. And so it's easy to assess. So, yeah, it's like this is a quick change. This is what the result would be. Yeah, so that is part of the process.

And I'm assuming that when you're dealing with the docket request, you go through not necessarily the administrative process, but the legislative process, which is City Council and the Planning Commission and all items.

Yep. That's all codified. Yep. That's a requirement.

The good old days we used to call PUD, what is planned unit development. Is that a typical docket projects? Because PUD basically is complex of residential development, some commercial development and one applicant with a huge amount of land. Is that rings a bell?

Yeah. I don't know that it would require a docket request. I I think it would unless it's trying to change unless it would need to, you know, change what's the designated on the future land use map for those parcels, I think that process would go through what's already in the development regulations.

Well, in my mind, to limit the knowledge that I have from comments that Mr. Brought up, thought that that is a perfect example of a BUD.

Yeah. Well, and I think the version of that would be the subarea planning that would probably happen for something like Mr. Eastman's property. But if I think it would be a fair question to bring up when David's back because he'll have a good answer.

Go ahead. Anybody have a question? I'm looking through my questions. Just

one thing I wanted to mention is the number of docket requests we get. Somebody mentioned a 100. I know that was a joke. It's I think the most we've gotten since I've been here in the last six years, I think it was five. Yeah. And I think they were all text amendments and they were all pretty simple ones. For example, I mean, I did the docket last year. I was the only one. I think the year before there was two. I think the year before there was two. So it's usually not too many.

So is it likely to is it fair to assume that the kind of sub area planning, the neighborhood center planning that we are talking about with the Eastman property, that is a good sized complex docket request. Other docket requests are not that complex or have we had requests like this which are pretty complex like I just said.

Yeah. I I mean, the city has one sub sub area in the town center, and that was done in 2008. And I'm you know, to initiate the sub area process, they would have needed to amend the comp plan, which would have been a documented item. But since then, we haven't we really haven't had anything of that scale.

Got it.

As we're starting to wrap up, timing, do you know when you might come come back with I know you left it kinda blank.

Intentionally, you left that blank, because we are, still waiting to get some direction

Uh-huh.

On the work plan.

Got it. Okay. So it might be relatively sooner or it could be out several months depending on the other elements there.

Yes. We are bringing this to this almost same presentation and conversation to the council on March 3. So that might generate some interest. But no, I'm sorry. I intentionally left that blank.

Okay. So when you come back to us after presentation to the council, I'm assuming that you're gonna bring the the entire text of that chapter?

Yes. You will get to do a very fun red line

for that. Exactly. You you took the words out of my mouth. Yeah. I I like to see the red line so we can see the changes so we can make the comment.

And one thing that we've already started to do internally is going line by line by line. And if we make a change, we note why the change was made and what the new text is. We've already begun to do some of that.

So we're gonna see the text as well as the process if there is any request for change?

Kind of. Yes. We try to give just, you know, even a few words of why that change

was made.

And kind of following up the chairman's question, what is the timeline for the final adoption? What are we looking at? Are looking at summer?

We don't know quite yet. I don't want to commit to anything just because we haven't been given timing yet.

Thank you. This is sorry. No, I'll keep on talking. So go for it.

Thank you. Yaki, I'm just looking at the previous docket request and I see yours in 2025 on the 120 Building where I see the docket request and then I see the minutes, etcetera. But nowhere does it say that this was then converted into an application and approved or something. Is that part somewhere else linked because there's no link on it saying what happened to that docket eventually?

Sorry, could you say there's

What happened so you created a docket, I see the docket request and then I see the Planning Commission meeting notes are there, then the council's notes are there, meeting minutes notes, whatever. But I don't see what happened to that afterwards. Like you said, there's an application process and then I see we approved, etcetera. Where is that documented that this docket actually did get to execution or whatever we were on it to?

That's a great question. It hasn't yet. Oh, okay. So the thirty day I when did I submit the deadline? I submitted the thirty day application, in, I think, January, January. And so that's where it is for now.

It's But even a twenty twenty four one, there's no same there's another one in 2024. So it doesn't say anything more beyond that saying that this docket was just made. There's nothing else beyond that. That's a text amendment one in 2024. I think you only filed it or so. At least the city has filed it.

Yes. I don't know what's been done on that one.

Are we talking about Building 120?

Yeah. No. No. No. 2024 is a different docket. It's a text amendment docket requested.

Yes.

I I think you or somebody in the city

has filed it.

I just reviewed it.

Well, and and I think you're bringing up a good point, which is something we've talked about, is that we'd like to, along with this process, you know, figure out a better way to post the information and keep it present for people about where what items What are

what the status

What the status is. Yes. Yep. Transparency. Just so that, you

know even the one that's 2025, like it's an application process right now, it'd be good for people to know. I mean, you know, if I had filed when I won't know what's going on, you know.

Yes. And that again is one of the things that we would like to

Yeah. Tab. Yeah. That's a that's a great Thank you.

Great feedback.

To keep in mind that with everything like that, it's staff time of keeping track. A lot of times, it's easy if it doesn't change for

Right.

A while, but monitoring things like

that.

And just one final thing. Why do you only see 2025 and 2024? What about the previous years? We never had any docket requests. That's why we don't see

I only know because I think that's when we updated the website last, and so I think we were just keeping the last two years as the most recent ones.

But again Any reason for not I mean, like, what's the reason? Like, do we just keep two or

We updated the website, And so I think the pages were changed. But again, that's something that we would like to keep

Yes.

All of them on. Yes. Yeah.

Archive it somewhere.

Yeah. Thank you.

Go ahead.

No. That was a great I mean, I'm just following his example for everything. This is the time I'm doing that today. But I thought the 120 Building not being in there was because that was repurposed for the city. Is is not a fair assumption to make? Because it was and now it's the city that is using

It has always been a it's been city owned since for the last while. CW was renting from the city.

For renting from the city. But still, I mean, there has not been any material change that happened. It's not like we suddenly built something out of it or anything like that. The city just gave it to CWU who used it just like that, and now the city took it back and he's using it just like that. So in isn't that a reason was that a reason why that there is no update on that or that the update will come no matter what?

The update will come. So I believe the council just approved the contract to do a feasibility study on the building. And I believe that is supposed to happen in the spring.

Would would the feasibility study include changes potential potential changes to the land use?

Well, and that's that's what the

That's what the study

is for. Yeah. That's what the And or zoning? Well, that's what the docket request is for.

Yeah.

Is to look at what kind of zoned uses we'd want to use that building, and then we would need to change

Oh, so that's still open.

Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Then we need to change the future land we might potentially need to change the future land use designation of that parcel to make sure we can allow the type of uses that come out of that study.

Okay. I thought that the packet, this zoning designation had not changed. So that's why we decided there is no update on there. But that's not a fair assumption to make is what you're saying.

Yeah. I mean, effectively, like you said, nothing has changed with that parcel and the land use allow what's allowed on that parcel right now even though it changed ownership. But what what we're saying is that we might wanna change the land use designation for that parcel after we go through the feasibility study. So we've set ourselves up to be able to make the change to the comprehensive plan to ultimately allow whatever use we want based on the feasibility study.

So irrespective of that answer to that Mike question, you will make an update to this. We will see an update to this.

You're likely to see more action

on this

following the the work around the feasibility study of yep.

Got it. Okay.

The Parks Department is the one leading that review process, so you might see them bringing that back.

So in that case, city is the applicant?

The city is the applicant.

That's where I'm a little confused. Isn't hasn't the city always been the applicant?

For Building 120? Yeah. It's I'm trying to remember how long it's been city owned. It it was it was still owned by the city when CWU was renting it. Yeah. It was bought after it was the Mars Hill Church property.

Correct. So the Mars Hill Church was the last non city property

Owner.

For that. Correct. Yeah.

Right? Which means after that, it has been the city.

Yes.

And it is even after this might review that you just mentioned, might change review that you just mentioned, it most likely would be the city unless the city decides I'm gonna be able to go off the safe way.

But you're talking about ownership of the building in the in the land. What we're talking about is an applicant the city is the applicant for requesting a potential change to the comprehensive plan land use map. So they're separate things.

Yeah. But if it's the city, okay. I see where you're So if

you if you if you that building and you wanted to go through a feasibility study and change you wanted to say, I'm gonna I'm gonna add three stories of affordable housing on top of that, you would need to come in because it potentially doesn't fit the land use designation right now, and you would be the applicant for the docket process to go through that site specific land use map amendment.

That is if I do that.

That's if if you own that I own

that. Yep. If I took it and did that. As a city, the city may not have anything to change the site specific land use map designation unless the city decides we want to now build a mammoth multi story living complex. Right?

Yeah. I mean, it might at the end of the day, there might be no action to take because the choice of the council through the feasibility study would be like, you know what? The way it is now, the use that's allowed now fits our needs. We don't need to change anything. That could be the outcome.

That could be the outcome.

So even what I'm hearing, the process is the same regardless of who the owner is.

Right. Right. So if you

just scroll up, you can see actually it is a neighborhood residential usage right now and they're designating to change it to mixed use and if you scroll up a little bit, you'll see that right there. They're changing it from a different so it is not a mixed land use right now, mixed use center, whatever.

Okay. That's a neighborhood residential to a mixed use center. Correct. Rezoned through the process changes to the will allow it. So this break that sounds more like it's a catch all bucket. It could be any it could become anything.

Because the feasibility study

has been Because of feasibility study. Yes.

Well, that begs the question when the city purchase purchase a property from the church, did the city have to go through the docket process to change the use?

No. Because it was the same Yeah. Right. The same bucket.

They just bought a piece of property.

The church and the institution, they're in the same kind of a zoning. Plus?

Most likely most likely, no change was required. I mean, you're getting a deep deep history and it's not really what we're focusing on. But

other than the building building itself, when it was the Marshall Church, the structure of the building was the same as it was when it became the Central Washington University campus, is the same when it has become Building 120 for the city of Sammamish, will likely be the same when it becomes something else. Except the use of the building is for different different purposes, from religious down to city, down to something else. Tomorrow, it could become the library for all we care about. Anything. So I'm really wondering where does this process fit in that because we have now explored it all over the place, haven't we?

What this process is doing is is currently if you went to the the future land use map in the comprehensive plan, the broad bucket of land use that would be on top of that parcel is like, Mazi said, residential. Let's say through the feasibility study, the city decides that it wants to demolish what's there and partner with Arch to do a five over one mixed use. We'd have a community center at the bottom and then affordable housing at the top. Currently, the comp plan doesn't allow for that type of use to happen. So what this process is doing is amending the comp plan to allow that type of use.

So at the end of the feasibility study, if the city decides we don't actually want to change anything, any way that we're using the property, the building is fine for our uses, we don't have to change the comp plan then. But what we are doing here through this process is giving ourselves the flexibility to respond to the feasibility study should we decide as a community, yeah, we want we want to do something totally different.

Ajay, what you said is right. It's a catch all kind of thing.

It's a catch all kind of a thing.

Because right now, it's a very restrictive neighborhood residential. Yeah. If the feasibility comes says, hey, you can make a a a you know, like a arcade or a Disneyland kind of a park or something. We don't have that. Yeah. But if they make it mixed use, then they can put a park in there, something like that, you know, like a children's park or whatever. I mean, whatever, zip lining or whatever you want to.

It. Evan, are they some string attached in the agreement that city had with the church that the church says, well, we sell it to you, but you have to maintain whatever. Man, the

Sani Not that

I'm I aware of heard that it is that whatever the development is, there should be a part of that should be a religious facility. That's what I heard.

I don't know. We could look into that, but offhand, I don't know.

Hey, I think I'm gonna call the questions here because it's good to have a couple of like examples, and this is a great example to understand when the docket process applies, what could come out of it. But at some point, we're starting to solve problems instead of being for information. Yeah, if if that's okay with everybody else. Alright. So anything else, Jackie, Evan?

Not on this topic. If you're ready for

I will just say one more time, if there are additional questions on the title 24 a update, my email address is on here. Please feel free to send me an email. If you would like it to be something that you'd like me to respond back to the whole commission, I can also do that. But any other questions, I'm happy to take them.

And I I assume if there was something that folks would maybe want to recommend, not just questions, I said, like, please consider this would be

Any fair conversation. Okay.

All right.

Next topic is just I wanted to follow-up a little bit on the conversation that we had as a group a few weeks ago about planning commission norms and some of the items. And David and I were talking about this last week, we thought it was a really good conversation. And there's some takeaways that we want to start working with you guys to implement. And one of those is one of the things we heard is a desire for, you know, a closing of the loop. Like, you guys do spend a lot of time with topics, and then they get shipped off to the council.

And who knows what's happened or who knows how it's been implemented. So I think part of, you know, at the end of meetings when we have ways to revisit or update you on where your work has gone, we're going to try to start doing that. And we think that would be a good practice and help keep you guys in the loop of, both where the council has taken it and as you see, things are are gonna come back to you guys. So that's one one of the changes I think we're gonna work on. We're also gonna work internally to have a a discussion with the city manager's office, and we hear the community and the commission about, you know, maybe the potential for that second comment window at the end of meetings.

So we're gonna do some internal digging and figure out what the potential is for that and how how we could, accommodate that potentially accommodate that. So just wanted to highlight that stuff. It was a really good conversation. We appreciate it. And if there are other ways that we can follow-up and help the commission, just let us know.

I think that the chairman has already taken the first step and I want to congratulate him and thank him that he I don't know if you saw the response that he made to the member of public as far as answering your question. That is the right statement. Thank you very much.

Yeah, that was great.

Actually I was going to build on that because the next thing is calendar. And part of the calendar is not just the schedule for the public meetings, but I did want to share with the rest of the commissioners. So I think you might be aware that the chair and vice chair have a prep meeting a day or two before the commission meeting. So we met with Evan and Jackie just to, you know, think about the flow of this meeting and all. But at the end of that, we did talk about the follow-up and next steps from some of the thoughts and suggestions from the prior Planning Commission meeting.

So Evan, you brought a lot of those up. What I did want to say is that we mentioned that we'd like to have a meeting probably with you and David. Once David gets back, we'll see if we could schedule that or if that would be the appropriate thing to do to kind of work together on some of the things that you were saying. And once that is scheduled, assuming it is, I'll send out an email and any inputs you all have would be great. And we could decide if we may want to have more of a public meeting or whatever is really the right approach to make some of those changes.

Some of them are pretty straightforward and simple. Some of them would be great to get some of the input from other commissioners as well. And I'm certainly cognizant of some of the conversations that have gone on with the council about the roles of the commissions and how that factors in and how we can maybe, that phrase is upward manage, make suggestions to the council on how best to make that happen. So just to be really transparent to the public that we'll have some further conversations to really work on and maybe build on, Evan, what you were saying.

Yeah.

So That's great.

Yeah. And then other than that, I see that we're not going to have a meeting.

Yeah. So we're just we just, at this moment, don't have anything loaded up for March 3. So I think it was March 5. Yeah. March 5. March 5. So we're gonna cancel that meeting. On March 19, we have potentially two topics. One would be the public hearing to recommend the impact fees if the group is ready to recommend them to the council. And then the second item would be, a few weeks ago, the council had three code items that they asked the commission to take another look at.

One is the species for protected habitats or in yeah. Yeah. The species list in the critical areas ordinance, the the criteria based rezone, and then the affordable housing fee in lieu program. So we'll we'll queue that conversation up for the commission for March. And then we're still working with the city manager's office and the council to understand kind of longer term work plan stuff, but things we could see coming back in April and May would be the title 24 updates.

Also, it seems like there will be some work to kind of push forward and potentially wrap up some of the town center stuff. At a minimum, we know that we need to do we need to make some zoning adjustments to accommodate middle housing densities, and we need to remove some of the design requirements per state law. So there's some state law stuff we'll we know at the at least we'll be doing with the town center stuff. So that's kind of a midterm horizon. So that's the calendar.

And then the last bit from the staff side is that tonight is our planning commission coordinator's last meeting as our planning commission coordinator because she is moving into the city clerk's office, as our public records officer. So Oh. Like just to take a second to congratulate her and thank her because she's been amazing and it's going to be big shoes to fill. And I will really miss her why we're transitioning. Who's going to replace her? We don't know yet. Some lucky soul. Me. Yeah. I'm going to run back and forth.

So thank you, Lena. And that's it from staff.

Okay. Who wants to make a motion to adjourn?

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Meeting closes at 07:47.

It's a record.

And we are providing incentives, and according to the commerce document, showing how we are providing subsidies for it to be provided. Go study the Mercer Island Growth Management's hearings board appeal case, and you'll start to see some of the things that we have to show going forward to remain in compliance. So it's not so much that Town Center was necessary to

do