Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Sorry. Good evening. This is a Puyallup Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, September 24th to May 25th. It's now called to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Commissioner Seeley?

Excused.

Commissioner DeGroote?

Here.

Commissioner Martin?

Present.

Commissioner Landon?

Here.

Commissioner Taylor?

Here.

Vice Chair Kilsgard?

Here.

Chair Jones-Lill. Here. Thank you. You have a quorum.

Thank you. And for the record, clerk, if my mic wasn't on, I said it was 630. Okay. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve?

So moved.

May I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes. Next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes. These are the approval of the August 27, 2025 minutes.

Move to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes. The next item on the agenda is citizen comments. The chair will call on those who have provided their names in advance. The chair will call on other citizens who wish to speak at this time. For the record, please state your name, your address, or city council district in which you reside. Please be advised that each speaker is limited to three minutes. The clerk is going to provide a verbal notice of about 30 seconds before your speaking time is over. And as a reminder, this portion of the meeting is the planning commission's opportunity to hear from the community. It's not in time to engage in debate. And I have one citizen comment turned in for Steve Aldrich. Come on up to the podium. You have three minutes.

Oh, yeah.

I'm here to speak on the critical areas, plans, updates. I'm not happy with it. Of course, a lot of other people aren't happy, but they're not here. You need to ask yourself why, why, why? Ask the why questions. Nobody's asking the why questions. The main change in the entire update is the setbacks. Changing from 30 feet to 100 feet is really 100 feet each side of the bank plus 10 feet. That's 220 feet. Setback. Why the change? Why is planning making this change? You need to ask that. If you read deep enough, it's in line with the fish and game desires. They're the ones asking for the setback. It's GMA doesn't dictate that you need the setback. Fish and wildlife is dictating setback and your planners are pushing that agenda through. They're accommodating them. So really, how polluted, and the setback from Fish and Wildlife, if you read in their own data, even the data they published, it says they need the setback to control pollution removal. Really, how polluted is Puyallup that you need 220 feet setbacks from a building? That's just ridiculous. A blanket 100-foot setback is not the right approach for this, whatever problem they appear to be. Take a look at the map they published. There are many properties that will be unbuildable, totally useless to the owner who paid taxes on it for years. The owners have plans on their properties, maybe a retirement investment or a new home, totally wiped out by planners publishing their agenda through you guys and the city council, taking a property without compensation. There are many properties they have designated as wetlands and streams. The maps also state that many of these properties have never been officially inspected to see if the classifications are correct. That's right, some of these so-called streams are actually drainage ditches. I have one of those. They say you can appeal their classification if you disagree. Why? Why should a property owner have to buy a permit, hire biologists to prove them wrong? What's wrong with these planners doing their job correctly and inspecting these properties before they reclassify? My data has to be accurate when I apply for a permit downstairs. If it's not accurate, they refuse it.

30 seconds.

Why is their data allowed to be incomplete? You need to ask them why. This is a very bad part and you need to take a look at it because you don't rubber stamp it. Nobody wants to be referred to as a useful idiot. Thank you.

Do we have any other comments in the audience? Seeing that there are no further comments, we will move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the public hearings. This is a public hearing for co-living house code amendments. And we have Katie Baker making a presentation.

Thank you, Chair, members of the Planning Commission, Katie Baker, Planning Manager. I do have a presentation on the co-living housing code amendments that you'll be considering tonight in response to House Bill 1998. And following my presentation, I ask that the chair open the public hearing. And then we do anticipate that you'll deliberate tonight. We do hope that you make a recommendation, but certainly if there are more questions and more time is needed, that's all right as well. So in my presentation i'll go over briefly what co living is what the House bill requires the legislation requires the city to adopt. A walk through very briefly our proposed code amendments that the Commission has worked through at a few study sessions and then the staff recommendation and then we'll open the public hearing. So co-living and the kind of response to the legislation, House Bill 1998, requires that co-living as a use be allowed in multifamily zones where six units or more are allowed. Co-living is a type of residential development containing units that are independently rented, lockable, private units, but they're considered sleeping units. They're typically very small, maybe around 150 square feet. They may include a kitchenette and a private bathroom, but not full cooking and living facilities. There's often shared amenities in these structures, shared kitchen facilities that do have then full kitchens, as well as other common amenities that could include, you know, kind of a living room or dining room type facility. The images on the screen are just a few examples from existing co-living facilities in kind of the western Washington and western Oregon area. So you can see kind of at the top left the common dining and kitchen facility. A kitchenette at the top right so that's kind of the amount of kitchen space, you might see in an individual unit and then a shared living room space and a private bathroom on the bottom pictures. Co-living meets a housing need for members of the community who maybe need workforce housing, members of our workforce that want to live in the community but can't otherwise afford to live in this area, or people at certain life stages, maybe experiencing a life transition, or maybe single seniors who are looking to downsize or needing to downsize but would like to be close to transit and other amenities. This provides a type of affordable housing that's really not otherwise seen in most communities. These units are typically rented at a much lower rate than even studio apartments, providing an affordable option for single household individuals. Again, they're usually located close to transit options, work, and other community amenities. And they are a more private living alternative to maybe a shared house with many roommates. So House Bill 1998 was adopted by the legislature in 2024. This legislation requires jurisdictions to allow co-living housing on any lot where at least six multifamily units are allowed. So in any zone that we have in the city that allows multifamily units, that includes our multifamily zones, as well as our mixed-use zones and commercial zones as an accessory use. And our medical zone also allows for multifamily residential. The city is required to implement and be compliant with this legislation by December 31st of this year. So we are on track to meet that timeline. There's other components of the legislation, and you'll see that as I walk through the proposed code amendments tonight. But essentially, co-living housing is not permitted to be regulated in any additional ways beyond how the city regulates other multifamily housing types. And so that includes anything, we can't require anything like additional notice or review types that would be any different from our other multifamily housing types in the city. So now I'll walk through the actual code changes. The first change is actually to Title 14, which deals with our utilities in the city. There is a specific component of the legislation that restricts how much the sewer connection charges for each sleeping unit can be. They are capped at 50% of the charges for a dwelling unit. So we are proposing a code amendment that would be consistent with our rules sewer connection charges for apartment dwelling units. There are a good handful of changes to our definitions chapter. We're adding five new definitions to be consistent with the legislation or there was also a model ordinance that Azure where we used as kind of a template for developing our own code amendments. So some of these definitions were recommended as part of that model ordinance that's defining co-living as a term. as well as a shared kitchen, a kitchenette, and a sleeping unit. So those are all terms that are now used in this code language, and we want to make sure those are defined. We're also proposing to put the definition of middle housing dwelling in the permanent code. That's something that was in our middle housing interim ordinance. And the reason I'm recommending that at this time is because we're also proposing to amend the definition of multifamily dwelling. And if we don't add that middle housing definition, it leaves a bit of a gap in the code. And then we're also proposing to amend the definition of kitchen just to be a little more inclusive of all the components and be consistent with that model ordinance. So we're also proposing to amend four zone district chapters, RM, which is multifamily, C, which is our commercial zones, MX, which is our mixed-use zones, and MED, which is our medical zone. These are the zones that all allow for multifamily housing in varying capacities, and so we are specifically adding co-living as a named allowed use. I did want to mention, as the Planning Commission has discussed at a prior work session, that in the RM10 zone specifically, that's our moderate density middle housing zone, we had discussion of only allowing co-living on lots that facilitated six dwelling units or more. So that is written in the code to specifically limit it in that regard. In all other zones, it's permitted outright in the multifamily zones. In the C zones, it's permitted only as an accessory use as that's consistent with our multifamily residential allowances. And all zones, regardless of the zone, co-living, if proposed, would need to be consistent with the development standards in the newly proposed chapter that would regulate co-living. So the map on the screen shows you the zone districts that I just discussed. This is as the zoning map currently exists. As you're aware, we will be updating the zoning map in compliance with the changes recently adopted in the comprehensive plan, future land use map. So there would be some changes to the parcels based on how zoning is proposed to change. Primarily that's adding some additional RM-10 zones kind of to the west of downtown. Other zones are changing, but a lot of it is the same area that's already highlighted. It will just change from one required zone to another that still requires co-living. As I mentioned, we are proposing to add a new chapter to the zoning code to contain all of the regulations for co-living housing. This is just kind of an easy way to keep everything in one place and not be repetitive in the various zone chapters. I just wanted to highlight a few of the additions or the regulations that will be a part of that chapter. There is a requirement that these units or these structures would contain shared kitchens, and so the Commission has discussed requiring one shared kitchen for every 15 sleeping units and one per floor that contains residential units. We also discussed existing structures that may be converted that contain 10 or fewer sleeping units and only requiring one kitchen for that facility, regardless of if it's on multiple floors. Density is also something that the legislation addresses. It states that each sleeping unit is equivalent to one quarter of a dwelling unit. So it's essentially four sleeping units per dwelling unit allowed in a given zone. So we are incorporating that into the new zone chapter. We do have a few zones in the city where we have minimum density standards. We felt it was cleanest not to apply those to co-living sleeping units, but really just rely on the maximum density of any given zone. With that kind of four to one conversion, it can quickly become very complicated as to how to apply that. Additionally, there are open space standards. Our proposal to be consistent with the legislation is to exempt co-living units from individual private open space requirements, but to apply the common open space standards of the residential multifamily zones at half the percentage that would otherwise be required, and that is consistent with the state legislation. And then, finally, there are specific parking standards for co living the legislation requires that there's no parking required for these units within a half a mile of the sounder station and outside of that half mile area no more than one quarter of a space for each sleeping unit. And so I do have a map that you've seen a couple of times in our prior presentation on other housing topics. The kind of purple outline is what we have adopted as the half mile walk shed from the Sounder Station. So in any legislation that limits parking within half a mile from the Sounder Station, we are using the map you see on the screen in front of you for that guidance. So just to update you kind of procedurally how we're complying with the process, we did issue a SEPA determination of non-significance. That was issued August 26th, and we received no comments on that SEPA determination. We also submitted the required 60-day notice to the Department of Commerce on August 22nd. We did just this week receive a consistency letter in response from them stating that this is in compliance with the legislation and they had no additional comments. So in summary, our draft code that we are presenting to the Planning Commission is consistent with comprehensive plan policies as required by our zoning code. We do find that these changes are compliant with the state legislation, and therefore we recommend that the proposed code amendments be forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval. So again, tonight's action, you'll hold the public hearing, deliberate, ask any questions. I'm here to answer anything you might have. And then we do hope to have a recommendation that we can bring to the city council. If we do get a recommendation from the planning commission tonight, our intent would be to bring this to the October 7th city council meeting. But like I said, the legislation requires adoption by the end of the year. So if more time is needed, we do have that opportunity. With that, I'll close my presentation for the public hearing.

Thank you, Katie, for the presentation. I'm now going to open the floor for the public hearing for public comment at 6.35, 6.45. I'm sorry. 649. Okay. The general call on those who have provided their names in advance. If you didn't have time to fill out a piece of paper, that's fine. You can still come up. When you come up, if you could give your name, your address or district number, and then you will have three minutes to speak. And please be advised that each speaker is limited to three minutes. The clerk is going to provide a verbal notice of 30 seconds remaining. on that three minutes. And as a reminder, this portion of the Planning Commission is an opportunity to hear the public's comments during its public hearing on this matter. It's not time to engage in debate. With that being said, I'm going to open up the floor. If you would like to come and speak on the co living, you can come up to the dais and we will begin your three minutes. Seeing no comments and having no comment slip turns in, I'm now going to close the public hearing at 6.51 for public comments. And the commission on the dais will now have a discussion. Okay. Commissioner DeGroote.

Thank you. I have two questions, which are issues that were brought up at our last meeting. They weren't resolved by and I just wanted to bring them up again for my clarification. So at the June 11th meeting, we had a discussion of bathroom furnishings listed similar to furnishings for kitchens and kitchenettes. I noticed that we put in that bathrooms must be included, even though that's not part of state law. I had suggested that the furnishings of the bathroom should include toilet, washstand and shower. And but no furnishings are listed in what came through today and I don't know if that needs to be put to a motion or do we just let that die or what.

You would motion for that to be included.

Okay, I would like to make a motion in that case. that our definition of a bathroom includes the furnishings, which would be toilet, wash basin, and shower.

Second. I have a question.

For clarification, so you're just explicitly trying to exclude restrooms without a shower? Is that what the point is, or?

Yes, I think we talk about privacy and so on and so forth. Where do they go for a shower if it's not in their place? And that's my issue.

So are you saying that we would adjust, is your intent to adjust all of the bathrooms in our code to include a washstand, a toilet, and a shower?

Yes. Well, it's only mentioned once here as opposed to co-living.

May I ask a question? Yeah, you can go ahead. Is there a specific reference in this code that you'd like to add that to, or are you recommending that a definition for bathroom be added to the definition section?

Thank you. Yeah. Definition for bathroom. Okay.

Thank you. That's helpful. Yeah, it is.

I guess my question then becomes, are you also going to add a definition for a half bathroom to the definitions? If we're now, you see what I'm saying?

Well, I don't think we need to do that. I mean, we have a definition of a kitchenette. We have a definition of a kitchen. What are the furnishings in a kitchen? They're listed. What are the furnishings in a kitchenette? They are listed. I'm simply suggesting that it would be, I think, a good idea if we listed the furnishings in the bathroom.

Thank you. Katie, are we also going to add a definition for a half bath in the definitions? Yes.

We could. I think I understand your concern, Chair Jones-Lowell, that in a house, obviously, you may have a full bathroom, a three-quarter bathroom, a half bathroom. I do wonder if we could specify in the definition something that says... You know, when the term bathroom is used in the zoning code, it shall include those components as listed. I don't think there would be any other reference to a bathroom that might mean a half bath instead of a full bath.

Thank you. Commissioner Taylor.

Well, I saw on the slide that it does say that it must, you know, that you can have a kitchenette and things like that and a restroom and it specifically calls out a restroom. Could it not be maybe just in parentheses there, what it means in this instance, instead of changing definitions throughout?

It could. And that was my question of clarification for Commissioner DeGroat. I'm not sure. I'm not seeing where it's actually referenced that we would do that.

Well, I was looking at page 14.

So the definitions page?

Yes, yes. And where if you go down to the, let's see, one, two, three, third paragraph, I guess, kitchen means any room or part of room and so on and so forth. Okay. And it goes on to list the kitchen facilities. And then it goes on to, you know, the utilities and so on and so forth. And kitchenette below that means a room or part of a room which is used and so on and so forth. And it gives a definition of that. And so there's where my suggestion comes in or my motion comes in.

I do think that would be easy enough to add it as a definition. I think, you know, that both are alternatives, but I don't have a real strong preference one way or the other. So.

Okay. Does anybody else have a question on Commissioner DeGroote's motion? Vice Chair Kessler?

I was wondering if, and I believe his motion is referring to this kind of housing, not the whole code. And he can answer that because in this particular instance, in this particular type of housing, he wants to make the definition of a bathroom those three pieces. He's not addressing the whole code. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. So that makes it easier?

So I think there's two options here. Commissioner DeGroat's original recommendation was to add it as a definition, and Commissioner Kilsgard is correct. That would apply that definition to any use of the term bathroom in the full code. I don't think it's used very often, but I haven't done a search to confirm that. I think another option is on page 16. 2.29.0201C, sleeping units must include a private bathroom. As Commissioner Taylor recommended, we could put a parenthetical there that says to include toilet, wash basin, and shower. And that would apply that just to co-living sleeping units then. So those are the two options that I think meet the intent of what Commissioner DeGroat was suggesting.

I like the option that you just described.

Okay, so you're considering Commissioner Taylor's option a friendly amendment to yours. So you would like that written in line with your motion?

Yes, that's correct.

Does anyone else have a question on Commissioner DeGroote's motion? Commissioner Landon, are you good? Okay. With that being said, we'll call for the vote. Did we have a second on that? Yes.

Can we restate the movement just so we're clear?

Can you restate your motion with the friendly emotion of Commissioner Taylor's?

I'll see if I can. Okay. So that the definition of a bathroom for a co-living unit or a sleeping unit within a co-living facility would have the definition of a bathroom that includes toilet, sink, and shower.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

I suppose. All those.

Sorry i'm in i'm in favor, but I just think just to be clear, you want to kind of in line within the code and not a definition, so I think I was thrown off by the use of definition, but because the definition to me is specific to the to the heading in the in the very forefront of the ordinance so.

Yes.

So as long as it changes in line in text. Yes. I'm in favor of that, yes.

Okay, so one more time. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstaining? The ayes have it.

I had a second question.

Okay, Commissioner DeGroote.

So my second question has to do with, on page 16, And this is PMC 2029-0104. That the city shall not exclude co-living housing from participating in affordable housing incentive programs. I did not see any safeguard against short-term rentals. So if co-living is intended for residency, And especially, you know, I'm thinking of especially using the med zone, for instance, and CB zones near the fairgrounds and so on and so forth, rather than seeing them turned into de facto hotels for special events or big events. Is there any way that we could say prohibit at least if they're participating in an affordable housing incentive, that we could keep that as long term rentals, or at least a minimum 30 day rental, let's say, instead of night by night.

You can go first, Commissioner Taylor.

I actually just have a question about the incentive in general. Does that in and of itself include language that prohibits short-term or anything like that? I know it varies somewhat jurisdiction by jurisdiction, but I don't think I've read ours.

I don't know off the top of my head. I will... I can see if I can look that up quickly here while you are talking, but I don't know if that affordable housing provision prohibits that or addresses short-term rentals in any way.

I guess I can put my flag down. That was a similar question to what I had because I don't believe that we're allowed to make this stricter than we would for the regular multifamily residential, so.

That is also correct. That is in the legislation, that kind of general statement that co-living sleeping units cannot be regulated differently than other multifamily. And again, we've discussed this, our code does not regulate short-term rentals in any way at this point. And I think, you know, what Commissioner Duggar has suggested is maybe not the use of short-term rentals, but just limiting to at least 30 days. But that to me, I think our And legal counsel would agree that that is a regulation imposed on this that's not otherwise applied to multifamily. So I would recommend against it. But of course, if the planning commission recommends, we would pose that to city council for their consideration.

Commissioner Taylor, do you have a follow-up on that?

So back to tax incentives. How much are those... allowed to be manipulated. Because if there's a way for that to be the tool in these instances, as opposed to bucking the state's requirements, that if you go for a tax incentive, then you don't get to be a short-term rental. Because that basically sort of goes against what the idea of a tax incentive for lower income housing is.

Commissioner Landon.

I believe from prior conversations related to this topic that we were discussing the need for a citywide ordinance so we weren't focusing on certain sections of the code or certain uses of zoning. So is that still our approach, or are we going to have a gap between enforcement of any potential short-term housing versus when we implement this? I guess that's for our planners.

Yeah. So short-term rental regulations have conceptually been discussed by city council in the past. It's been about probably six or so years. So it's been a little bit here. But at that time, council's direction was not to regulate short-term rentals. So I have heard the planning commission's desire to develop short-term rental regulations. That is something that we would want to talk with city council about to see if if that's something that they do want the planning commission to consider um especially in this kind of phase that we're at with so many code amendments looming that have you know legislative requirements and comp plan consistency requirements we do want to handle those first so all that to say short-term rentals are not it's not regulations that we will be proceeding with without adding that to our work plan and having counsel kind of authorize that direction. And I am looking just kind of skimming this section of the rcw that was referenced it looks like it essentially you know just allows for cities to develop affordable housing incentive programs. which we do have in a couple of our mixed use zone districts, we do offer density bonus when affordable units are proposed. I'm not seeing anything in here that talks about the like an occupancy time period. Although I will say just kind of thinking through how an affordable housing, the unit would have to be rented to a household meeting those affordable or those income requirements. I don't know. I just don't know if we can further prevent or if we need to codify a prohibition on then kind of subletting those units. in a short-term rental scenario. This is certainly the potential to be an issue with any affordable unit. So I think it's a good thing to think through. And it's certainly something I'd want to discuss with our city attorney to understand how we could or may want to regulate that. But I'm just not prepared to be able to answer that tonight. I'm sorry.

Thank you. And I know that we've been talking about a lot of things, but I just wanted to reiterate that the co-living code isn't necessarily for affordable housing. It's for co-living. Vice Chair Kelsgaard.

Would we be out of order in forcing the council to make a decision by adding that into our language, which would bring it to their plate right away because the city attorney would be involved? I mean, that's kind of like them instead of them pushing this issue down the road, another six years, putting it in their lap because we put it, we want it in the document. So when they see it, they're going to go, whoa, maybe we need to talk about this and get it done now instead of waiting six more years until it's too late.

That's kind of underhanded, but I think I think that's one approach.

I don't know if I would be in favor of that because it's putting a stipulation on this that isn't necessarily a stipulation on our regular multifamily zones, which is not in compliance with what the state laws actually ask us to do. Yeah, but we would be putting that in when we know it's wrong.

Yeah.

Okay. Do we have any other questions on this? I have a question, Katie. I thought that at our last meeting, when we were talking about the shared kitchens for every floor and the amount of units, that we had wanted to lower that 15 to 10. Did that not happen?

That did not happen. Okay. I may have missed that direction. Okay. I'm happy to make that. I also could be. That's the commission's direct.

I also could be remembering wrong, but I thought that we had a discussion because I was talking about some things and you were talking about some things. I thought that we thought that 15 was too high. And then we were starting to talk about stacked floors and we decided we needed one on each floor. And that may be bringing it down to 10 was more. realistic?

So we did... We did add the allowance for converted residential buildings, buildings that are converted to co-living with 10 or fewer, that even if they're on multiple floors, they only need to provide one kitchen for those 10 units. I don't recall talking about that as the general standard for all co-living, but that's certainly something you all can discuss and recommend. I don't believe that the state legislation sets a standard for the number of units shared kitchens should serve. 15 was what was just recommended in the model ordinance, but I do think it's our discretion if we wanted to change that to 10.

I mean, I would even be happier with breaking in the middle and saying 12 instead of, I don't know, 15 just seems like kind of a lot. I'm sorry, Commissioner Taylor.

So I was just thinking, I mean, as we're going through all of this from a build standpoint, I mean, already putting a bathroom and potentially kitchenette in every unit. is so cost heavy for the builder to actually recoup. And then thinking about the lots where this might actually be developable in specifically downtown areas, there aren't lots that are going to be that massive overall, where you're going to have more than 10 units on a floor for the most part. So I think 10 units, one kitchen per floor is sort of a wash. You know, so I don't know that we need to get so stringent that we're saying 10. I think 12 is completely adequate. And again, from a build standpoint, bathrooms and kitchens are pricey. And we're asking for a lot of them. So just thoughts to consider.

Commissioner DeGroote?

Yeah, my recollection is the same as yours, actually, Chair Jones-Lewis. And I don't know that we need to have, you know, is it 10, is it 12, is it something? But in regard to the cost of, for instance, plumbing every unit and so on and so forth, every motel... And 300 square feet is about the size of a motel room. Every hotel has a room with a bathroom. And most hotels I stay in have a kitchenette and so on. And these would be about the size of a... Of a hotel room, so I don't know why that would be more complicated to construct in a hotel.

So, but you're getting, you know, maybe 200 dollars a night at a hotel and so times 30. that's a much larger monthly income that you're getting than if you're renting it by the month and so i think that recouping costs on a living unit as opposed to a unit that changes every night or every couple of nights is a very different scenario from a build standpoint and when you actually start making money off of something

So are we talking about the kitchens then as the number of kitchens?

Just in general.

Yeah.

I mean, just thinking, you know, from a client standpoint.

Yep. I understand what you're saying about the buildable square footage. I don't know that we would have downtown, but there are some zones that, that this is allowed in that I think would have the potential to have enough space with enough planning that they could get into some of those larger fields. I'm thinking if the hospital decided that it wanted to make workforce housing for like visiting surgeons and traveling nurses and things, they could easily have enough space to put more than 10 co-living sections on one floor. and then only have one kitchen. And then there were some going up the hill that I also thought would probably be big enough to have enough footprint for that. I mean, it's up to the dais if you guys want to include that or not, but I do think that there might be some specific instances. And then, I mean, co-living in general, I think that this is going to be a very specific thing. Not everyone's going to be developing this. It's probably going to mostly be people catering towards some sort of adult family home or senior living or student living or workforce housing. That's what I see this penciling out as, but other people have different opinions. Mr. Landon.

I'm inclined to go with the recommendation, assuming that they've done their research on the usage of these. That's my inclination.

I was just traveling and staying in hotels. And yeah, as I think back on it now, I'm thinking, you know, staying in a hotel with maybe 150 units or something like that and going down to the kitchen in the daytime in the morning and seeing how many people were in the kitchen. it was a very small percentage. Now, the thing is, if somebody is actually using the kitchen to prepare food, they're going to be in there a lot longer and taking up more of the utilities than somebody who's in there and just popping a piece of bread in the microwave or in the toaster or something like that. So on the one hand, I'm thinking about 150 units and how that kitchen can accommodate them because a lot of people go out and get breakfast elsewhere. They, you know, have something in their room. But on the other hand, I'm thinking about how actual use of the kitchen is just more time consuming. And I guess it depends on how many people, we can't predict that, how many people are going to want to use that kitchen in the morning or in the evening. I mean, I don't know. So I'm no help at all on this issue, I guess. I guess after rethinking it, I might go back to the 15 recommended.

Commissioner Taylor.

Well, I feel like we're going back and forth and back and forth from 10 to 15. So I'm going to take your suggestion, say 12. Let's just middle it.

Do you want to put up the motion?

I have a motion that we amend from 10 units to 12. No, it was. Okay. I'm sorry. From 15 to 12.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

Any abstaining? The ayes have it. Other discussion? Commissioner Locke.

If it looks like a hotel, it's probably going to be treated like a hotel. And I'm back to Vice Chair Kilsgaard's recommendation. Do we put something in here and send it to council? and have them make a decision. So I am still uncomfortable with the idea that with everything we've talked about, it will be difficult to recoup costs. And so why wouldn't I make a little extra money on the side, renting these out as a short-term unit? If we keep putting this forward without a decision on that, what we're doing is going against the spirit of why the law was written And we're setting it up for us to be in a worse housing crisis than we currently are. There is nothing that says these cannot be used as short-term rentals. Why wouldn't I do that? I think that is crucial that we address this before we take action. And, you know, I think Vice... Vice Chair Kilsgard had an amazing idea. It may not be per the law, but now it is something the council has to deal with. I think that's something we should put forward, let it be resolved, and then we can move forward.

Vice Chair Kilsgard?

Thank you for that. The intent here isn't to I don't want to test anyone's legal ability here. The intent is to get the council off their butts and make a decision as to how they're going to do this and how to do it legally. So these things don't become short-term rentals. Because where there's a will, there's a way. Someone's going to figure out how to scam somebody else. It happens all the time. And I'd prefer it happen in some other city, not ours. Recommendation?

Um, yeah, um, I, I understand where you both are coming from. Um, but I still go back to the main principle that that's not something that can't already happen. And if we're not doing it consistently across the board, as we should be doing it, um, then we're just putting forth sort of bad policy on purpose. which I don't really think is the nature of what we're supposed to be doing as a recommending body. Katie, Vice Chair Kilsgard did have a question on whether or not we can just put forth the recommendation that they look at short-term rentals in a timely fashion. Is that something that we can bring to their attention so that possibly they can look at, I mean, this has to do with staffing and everything too, but is that something that we could bring to their attention so that maybe we can have a decision around the same time that this goes into effect at the end of the year? I know that's a loaded question.

So are you asking if short-term rentals as a concept could be presented to them for direction, just to get their direction on that before the end of the year or to actually develop code to regulate that by the time this goes into effect?

I mean, I think that with the implications of this code, I would suggest that we move beyond the idea of concepts. It's time to make some decisions as to what that means for the city when all this goes into effect. So is that even a possibility?

I honestly don't know. This is a bit outside my... I guess, decision-making ability. I would have to talk with the city manager to see if there would be an opportunity to present that question to city council before the end of the year. I just simply don't know if that opportunity would be supported.

Okay. And can I ask one more question? So in, let me see how I can work this. Sort of in the spirit of Vice Chair Kilsgard and Commissioner Martin's concerns, is there some way that we can make it clear that this might be an issue that they have?

Certainly, we can reflect that. So I think there are a couple options, and maybe I'll just kind of outline how I am seeing that and hearing from you all tonight. You as a commission, if majority votes to add specific language to the code, you can do that. Staff would make it clear to the council that we don't feel that that is necessarily in compliance with the legislation to make them aware of that, but that can certainly be part of your recommended package of code amendments. Thank you. Alternatively, you could kind of leave the code as is, but convey your desire to me to express to council the need to regulate short-term rentals, that there's concern that more of these various multifamily uses may lead to more use of those units as short-term rentals, and that that's a concern from the commission. I can include something to that effect in the staff report that goes to council. Again, by a vote of the Commission, if you'd like me to do that, I would be happy to convey that message when I present this information to them. Again, what they do with it at that time, and there wouldn't be code developed, it would just be presenting counsel with that concern. I think those are kind of the two primary options. um maybe there's kind of a third option where the commission um you know the chair drafts a letter to express that concern or or someone on the commission drafts a letter and then the commission votes kind of as you did with vice chair kills guards request recently to um you know, regarding vacancies, but maybe something a little more formal that would be written, and then that could be shared with the council. So maybe that's the third option.

Okay, so Katie has put forth options A, B, and C. I just wanted to let you guys know on option C of writing the letter, we would not meet as a body until after, like, to talk about what the letter says until after this has already been brought to council, just so you know. Vice Chair Kilsgard, you had a question.

Yes. Can we make our resumidation as a resolution to the council?

Like a separate resolution that they would consider? Yeah. I don't know the answer to that. Does the clerk know the answer to that?

I believe that would be a no. Since it's something involving code, it would have to be an ordinance. It would have to be included in an ordinance, not in a resolution form.

Would the resolution just be to consider and direct staff to develop code?

I guess that was the nature of it. The point of my resolution would be, whereas this commission feels it necessary to address this for this type of housing. Therefore, let it be resolved that we hope the council will consider this and put it into fact.

So you're saying could the commission adopt a resolution? Yes. We've never done that, so I don't know...

don't know. That is also an excellent question. I would have to get back to you all on that and talk to most likely the city clerk and our city attorney to see if that's something we do.

Yeah, I think that they do. Also, I would just like to maybe point out the obvious thing that I'm not sure how kindly the council would take us making resolutions to vote. Because we want them to change the code. I mean, it would be nice if we all were able to work together for the betterment of the city.

And I'm not trying to stir the pot here. I just want them to realize how important this is.

It is important.

And like you said, they've been dragging this out for six years and turning a blind eye to it. It's time that they step up.

Commissioner Martin.

Well, I think when we talk about the three options, I think that Katie bringing this up would be effective, but I also think it would be effective for us to speak with our individual district representatives and let them know. what our feelings are on this. I think that those one-on-one conversations may be more effective. That would give you time with the people that have those decision-making capabilities. And I think that that's probably where I sit with it.

Microphones, please. Yes. No off-topic conversation.

Yes. I asked the commissioner when was the last time he sent his district member an email, and he said last week, and Ms. Adler responded. I told him that I sent one three or four weeks ago to my representative, District 2, and he didn't answer.

Oh. Okay. I'm going to just sort of redirect us slightly back to the code amendments. Commissioner DeGroote.

I would like to say that I think Katie's option C is probably the best we can do at this moment and bring the council awareness that where we stand on this and that we would like them to take, give it consideration.

So as a separate letter?

I like the idea of the letter. Yeah, it's a formal way of giving them notice.

Due to the timing, well, let me further maybe provide some alternative options, which is if you as a body are uncomfortable, if you would like to develop the letter, Meredith Horowski- Along with your recommendation, you can delay your recommendation and not make one tonight and at the next meeting in October, we would. Meredith Horowski- come back with a draft letter. Meredith Horowski- As you've discussed, and you would see you would vote on that letter and vote on your recommendation for the code and then they would go to counsel hand in hand. Meredith Horowski- alternatively. I thought I had another idea, but I think that's probably if you want them to go at the same time. I guess alternatively is that I could still include in my verbal remarks and even in my staff report at least some mention of this concern, and then the letter would follow.

Commissioner Taylor.

That's actually similar to what I was just thinking. I think also in your comments and staff report that it is very clear that our reluctance to approve is based on this one issue and make it sort of hammer that point home. Not that we're opposed to the majority of what's here. I mean, we've sort of ironed all of that out. This is the sticking point.

Yeah, I think I would be in favor of having the letter go later just because those are two separate code issues. And right now we are discussing the code issue of co-living. And I understand that the code issue of short-term rentals applies to multiple things. But knowing that they sort of work hand in hand, there are several codes that work hand in hand that we have to deal with all the time. I don't think that we should be holding this up just because we also want short-term rentals to be on the docket, so to speak. Commissioner Landon.

Yeah, I'm in favor of this being communicated via the staff report. And we could still do both and do a letter. But I don't see the point or what we would achieve by holding up a vote on this to then communicate that, which would then take, what, a year to even start talking about this sort of code amendment in the first place. So just the timelines just don't make sense, and I don't see any really achievable goals here with getting a conclusion to short-term rentals. that aligns with getting this done at the end of the year, and many other things, and then appending this to future agendas.

I would agree with that. Thank you. Do we have any other discussion points on the co-living code recommendation? Seeing no other questions. No other discussion on the deliberation portion. I am happy to entertain a motion from the dais as a whole. Okay, so I guess that's just going to fall to me. I motion to I motion to approve the co-living housing code with the amendments discussed tonight. Do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? No.

I'm sorry, you got to turn it off.

So you knew who it was? No.

All of those abstaining? Clerk, can we just go down the line and say our do you mind calling it off division? Of course, yes, I can do a roll call vote.

Okay. Commissioner DeGroote?

Aye.

Commissioner Martin?

Aye.

Commissioner Landon?

Aye.

Commissioner Taylor?

Aye.

Vice Chair Kilsgard?

No.

Chair Jones-Lowe? Aye. And that is five ayes and one no. So the motion passes.

Thank you. The next thing that we were discussing today or the critical ordinance updates? For sure, Landon, is that a question? Oh, okay.

Sorry, I forgot to take my flag down there.

You got it, go ahead.

Thank you. Kendall Walz with the Planning Division. I do have a short presentation tonight. Let's see here. There we go. Okay. All right. So we're back before you for the critical areas ordinance update. Again, I'm Kendall walls with the planning division for the record. We also have Claire Hoffman with parametrics online to help assist with questions tonight. This is just a snapshot of the presentation that we gave at the August 13th hearing, which I will not be presenting on tonight. Just wanted to recap that we went over what are critical areas, what are the specific code updates. We kind of walked through the different stream buffer updates and then provided the summary of analysis and a recommendation. We are going to focus more on the questions and direction that Planning Commission did provide at that public hearing. As you all know, a recommendation was not provided and that's what we're here for tonight is for deliberation and recommendation on the code update. At the hearing, Planning Commission did give direction to review and address comments provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in their July 23rd comment letter. There was also discussion from the planning commission of different areas of the code where there's some questions in particular. I'm not planning to spend time on that. I did address that in the staff memo and we did apply some potential minor amendments to address some of those questions, but just wanted to note that that was addressed in the staff memo. Happy to answer any questions on those if you do have any though. um the the last item was to prepare that frequently asked questions faq document to better assist the public of what do these stream buffer changes mean and how does it affect their properties and so that was prepared and provided in your packet as well as provided on the city's website and sent to those property owners that we had contacts for To just briefly touch on the WDFW comment letter, we did review that in whole and considered potential amendments. Some we had actually already addressed prior to the public hearing, so they were incorporated in that draft code. So really, we saw one minor amendment that we added to the revised draft, and that was referencing the I know it has PHS the priority habitat and species data set that the city already references and uses in our critical area reviews and just making a specific reference to that in the code. So that was incorporated. There were some recommendations regarding map sources and adding some WAC references. We have looked into that, and one of the datasets that Fish and Wildlife was recommending is the National Hydrography Dataset, the NHD Dataset. And really what we found is it's more of a higher level data set. It doesn't get down to that granular level. So we do use it when we work on our mapping. We use it as a reference point, but we also use multiple data sets for the purposes of identifying, you know, our stream types. It doesn't recognize... give reference to fish. It doesn't have fish data in the NHD data set. So that is why we're not recommending that we adopt that as part of the code. Again, we have used it. We will use it as part of updates to our stream maps. But as far as including it there in the code, we're not recommending that we do that. We are required to protect fish, and so we need to be able to identify those, especially with our hybrid approach of addressing the state requirements of having expanded buffers where we can and making sure that we have the data that we need to address protections for fish-bearing streams. So we've addressed what we thought was necessary in the code and incorporated those changes or we have left those off if we didn't think that they went with the the approach that we were taking. I wanted to touch on the functionally disconnected buffers. This was a new section that we had added to the both the wetlands and the fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas sections of the code to better clarify you know how how does this work and within the code and this so it was in response to comments that we received from fish and wildlife but we also heard some questions so we have added some additional edits to those sections at the hearing there were questions about how do we define street so that is something that i included in that staff memo Our definition of street in the zoning code does kind of exclude alleyways. And so we wanted to clarify that in here that it would include an alleyway. We also wanted to add in buildings exceeding 200 square feet. So excluding those kind of more garden shed type buildings, but including buildings that are larger than that. And so there's some analysis that would need to be done on a site to determine you know how that buffer. continues or ends, but this is just kind of a very simple picture of how it might be applied for this made up site here, so we have. kind of a narrow parcel here with a driveway. There's a house. This buffer, say it would go over the street based on the size of buffer. So as we've defined it, it wouldn't cross the street. So it essentially, and here for these properties, for this one in particular that has the house and existing driveway, it would kind of go immediately around them. So this is just kind of give a picture of how that would work on a site plan. And I have some other graphics that kind of further touch on that. So to touch on some of the kind of faq questions that we heard a lot, I just wanted to briefly cover those again, they are in faq in your packet but. For how to buffers apply to existing development existing legally established non conforming uses or structures can continue. they are subject to the city's non-conforming code that that's what's already built into the code there is a provision that allows for minor remodels and additions to existing structures or impervious areas but there's some limitations on that and it'll be on a future slide here but i wanted to provide this graphic that we have in our shoreline master program so this is already you know for our areas that are along specific portions of clark's creek And for Puyallup River, those are shoreline environments. And so they are they come under the shoreline master program. And this is a kind of a nice depiction of how development can occur within those buffer areas. So essentially, you can go up, or you can go away from the critical areas. So you can add on kind of in these areas that are shown in these blue boxes. And I have some other simple graphics too to kind of show it in a site plan format. So to touch on the minor remodels and additions, there are some specific criteria. The addition has to be at least 25 feet away from the critical area boundary. It can't encroach closer to the critical area. So that kind of goes along with that graphic from the SMP. And this is kind of trying to show that here of the buffers going around this existing structure, but you could do an addition away from the critical area and outside of that 25 foot measurement. And then there's a limit on the size, it can't increase structural or impervious footprint by more than 25% for the site. And this would require a site specific assessment from a professional to determine any potential impacts to the critical area. And there's some other criteria also that's simplified in the FAQ, but then also it's addressed in the code. This is just another example showing these red boxes. You wouldn't be able to do an addition here in this example, but you could do an addition outside of the buffer area on the site that's impacted. And I'm not going to read all of these next ones, but I just wanted to include them. For allowed activities in stream buffers, Existing and ongoing agricultural activities established before 1992 are allowed to continue passive outdoor activities like fishing hiking bird watching other types of uses like that are allowed to. be done in stream buffers. Normal maintenance of existing landscaping like a lawn that's already been there you're allowed to continue to maintain that. And invasive plant removal is also allowed. There are some parameters about how you do that and use of heavy equipment and that type of thing, but that is an allowance. To touch on activities that would require permits or approvals. HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL IS ONE OF THOSE AND TYPICALLY THERE'S A TWO TO ONE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT. ANY CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION OF STRUCTURES WOULD REQUIRE SOME PERMIT APPROVAL EXCEPT FOR THOSE INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS OR maintenance of the exterior of the structure, any type of earth movement, or also clearing and altering vegetation beyond kind of routine maintenance would also likely require some some type of approval, along with some other ones there that are listed. So prohibited activities, new development, increasing structural or impervious surface footprint outside of those kind of minor modifications that are allowed. Activities that harm threatened or endangered species. Application of certain pesticides and fertilizers and amounts that are harmful to streams and wildlife. some of these other stream relocations and bank stabilization using hard armoring techniques. So one that we've received a lot of questions on and Did some some research on you know what if I don't think there's a stream there or I think the stream designation is incorrect. I did look into this and the city using the DNR data. The city area is considered non-forested land, so it is a different process. We're not able to kind of use their standard process where we contact them and have them come out and do the evaluation. It would still require a qualified professional to determine the location, type of stream, or lack thereof. That would be kind of what we would do with any type of permit that would come through the applicant could choose to go through the process of having the stream data change, but it's not required. The general process is, I understand it is there needs to be that report done by a qualified professional. It needs to be supported by the city. And it sounds like at least one of like WDFW or Department of Ecology or a tribal biologist. It wasn't completely clear, but we'd have to have some support by another agency that way. and then that documentation would be submitted to dnr to request the map change i have asked if you know what can we do from a larger scale you know we've we've heard a lot of comments about some specific portions of streams what can we do and we're still working through that with them of what what options we have so i I apologize. I don't have an answer for you of like what we might be able to do from a city standpoint, but that is something that we're looking into. We also received prior to the meeting an email from a planning commissioner expressing concern about the word may being used in the code. And so I just wanted to touch on kind of why we use may in the critical area code. And our zoning code does provide a definition of may and shall. So may is defined as permissive, not mandatory, and shall is defined as mandatory. I just wanted to note that our code has been updated periodically and this hasn't become an issue or a concern in the past from legal staff. And just the nature of critical areas does require some level of flexibility. And so that's why we typically have language using may throughout the code. And that's, you know, each site is a little bit different. Each habitat, you know, the site could have different habitat value and functions. And so there needs to be some level of discretion there. We did kind of comb through the CAO to see where this term was used. We found it kind of throughout, really. We saw it in the purpose and intent statements, in definitions, when it was used in list forms. Generally, it could be used to draw conclusions that weren't necessarily a guaranteed outcome. Um, and they were also used with permissive statements. So areas where we kind of need some flexibility to allow for modifications to be done to, um, buffers for streams or wetlands and that type of thing. So if we were to go away from using May, it kind of changes our ability to work with applicants, um, on uniqueness of their sites or development proposals. It also gives, um, The the biologist the ability to make recommendations in their reports and then also gives. The director, the ability to. um authorize those recommendations so our evaluation when we looked at it is that the use of may in the code we think is being used appropriately however if there's specific areas you'd like us to take a closer look at we're open to that so just wanted to touch on that and i think that's it so i will leave you to discussion i'll be down here and i can help answer questions

heard a couple things in here about we could have a specialist and professionals come out and make decisions do we have any idea what the cost to the individual would be for that is that something that the city would provide or is that something that would be an out-of-pocket expense for someone that wanted to challenge a stream or get the determination of can I build?

I don't have a dollar amount that I can say they typically run. I mean, Claire might be able to give us a general I don't know. From a staff standpoint, city standpoint, we don't have anybody on staff that can go out and do that. That's why we we say a professional would need to be hired to do that work.

So that would be an out of pocket expense of the landowner?

Yes. And then the city does have a third party consultant then who reviews those reports for consistency with the code and the city pays that currently for the third party review.

Does another commissioner have a question? Commissioner, I'm sorry, Vice Chair Kilstar.

I'm a little disappointed. I would think there should be some place in the code where all this process of appealing or redressing these questions about existing and non-existing streams and where some of the residents are calling them ditches because they haven't collected water You know, sustainable to be called a creek. There should be something in the code that says where you go and how you do that. Not just it's not there. And it's up to you to find all this information out when you don't know up from down as to what the city requires. There should be something in the code that says here's where you go. Here's what you do. or here's the person you call or the agency you call and direct them somewhere in the code. And for that reason, I don't think this is a complete code.

Mr. Bartlett.

We heard from some of the citizens about their farming activities. When we look at the right to farm, we see that there's something that says activities established before 1992. How would you go about establishing that you had farmed before and since 1992?

typically we would look at ortho photos so aerial imagery of properties we have historical imagery of that as well as tax records okay or any other documentation that they are able to provide and then we have a provision idle for not idle for five consecutive years similar okay all right

And I think one of the citizens that spoke earlier had a good question. As far as I recall, there is no state requirement that we adopt the Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements. This is something we're discussing. Why is that? OK.

So um by gma we the growth management act state law, we are required to update our critical area code to be compliant with best available science, as well as taking special um. Making sure that we're protecting fish is also part of that. And the current recommendations in science is the first 100 feet from a stream is the most effective for pollution removal. So that is why we've proposed an increased buffer or a base buffer of 100 feet for streams. And then the other recommendations from Fish and Wildlife, we're taking more of a hybrid approach. We're not just taking, um, we're not recommending that we just do apply the RMZs throughout the city because we have a lot of existing development. It's not an appropriate use of RMZs within the city because, um, even if you expand it, there's existing roads that cut it off and different scenarios like that. So that's why we've not recommended doing a full scale adoption of fish and wildlife's recommendation. Does that help answer your question?

Yeah. When we talk about best available science is the assumption that fish and wildlife has the best available science, or have we looked at alternatives to that, their recommendations?

I think I'll hand this one over to Claire to explain kind of how we, what we looked at.

Thanks, Kendall. I think I've met you all. I'm Claire Hoffman. I work for Parametrix. I'm a professional wetland scientist and working in this industry for about 20 years in Washington State. There is, so there is recommend, there's a best available science manual that WWW has compiled on this topic. It's not their original research. I had shared that with the planning commission at some point. The publicly available literature on buffers for streams, it recommends bigger buffers than 100 feet for across the board. The loss of vegetation alongside streams contributes significantly to pollution in those streams, as well as erosion and a number of other problems. There's very little research that would support larger impervious services. So even to go down, like there really isn't alternative topics that would support, I mean, there was definitely methods to mitigate for some of the impacts that we have of development, but the city is actually adopting a smaller buffer then is recommended by WDFW. They're adopting the smallest recommended buffer for pollution removal, which is 100 feet. So if you look at the recommendations, which WDFW takes that best available science is fairly complete. They recommend up to sometimes 200 foot buffers on one side of the stream in some areas in the city's City staff and along with my recommendations are not doing that so.

Oh, thank you, Claire.

That was a great answer. Thank you.

Commissioner Taylor.

So I just wanted to speak to Vice Chair's comment for just a moment. I agree in large part that there should be better direction on how you would determine, you know, getting your buffers correct or making sure if you actually have a stream or what classification it is. But it would also be really nice in the building code if it told us exactly how to do things structurally. You just can't include everything for every property. However, I mean, I think maybe on the FAQs, there could just be these are some numbers you can call. And I agree that it shouldn't be on the onus of the property owner to disprove that there's a stream there. And I still really feel that we should, since I believe it was said that we have, the maps are about 10 years old, that these were based on, I think is what, Claire, is that right? Did you say the maps that Puyallup used were about 10 years old for the classification of streams?

Yeah, so the city of Puyallup uses a number of different resources for their streams. I we looked into this again and double check, so the ww stream mapping is yeah maybe 10 years old, we looked at the national hydrograph data set that is also being in the process of being updated apparently it's. pending approval from the appropriate federal agency and so that may take a while. And so that. the city relies on all these data sets as guidelines as to point in the right direction to where those streams may be as they don't have access to private properties.

So that said, that was sort of my recollection as well. It would be really nice, and I don't even know how this would occur, but since we recognize that this is somewhat outdated data, if the city... had something some mechanism in place to aid homeowners as they get through this process whether it's a financial allowance if you have to go through this and you're proven that your stream is not as critical as the or or the type that is expected um because i don't think homeowners overall are trying to get away with something they just want to be able to use their properties appropriately and so again i don't know how it would work but potentially an allowance if they're proven right of some sort you know towards towards permitting fees or some such

Yeah, I think also that the city, I looked at this and this was the most complex pile of bureaucracy I've ever seen applied to anything. I mean, the number of different agencies that are cited, the number of different agencies from whom people have to get permissions and so forth is just astounding to me. And I think the very least the city could do would be to have a sort of ombudsman or whatever who would take care of these things and make sure that they gather the proper people who are going to make a determination on whether this is a fish-bearing stream or a not fish-bearing stream or whether it is perennial or seasonal and not have the homeowner be striking out in five different directions trying to figure out how am I going to do this. I mean, not only the expense is an issue, the time that's spent on this. And, you know, well, okay. I think I would just say that if I were a homeowner that were affected by this, I would be, you know, extremely upset.

Commissioner Byrd. I'm sorry, Commissioner Taylor. I keep on doing that thing. I'm sorry, you two.

So, I mean, I think also because of time constraints sometimes, it's not just the homeowners, potential homeowners. And I deal with this a lot in feasibility studies with realtors. Somebody is looking at purchasing a property and there's a stream on it and it's gorgeous. But they have no idea what they can do. Or I'll have a potential client call me and say, I found this screaming deal on this property. And I'll take one look at it and go, do you have any idea how many red flags there are? And to actually get a critical areas biologist out there to even take a look sometimes is very far down the road. And they only have a 45-day contingency on an escrow. So I think that things are moving really fast now. except in permitting world in some jurisdictions, not yours. And it just, I think we have to be really conscientious about what we're asking of homeowners and potential homeowners.

Any other discussion points?

This might not be, so when we have, let's say zoning regulations and so forth, and we have a non-conforming structure, especially with like commercial structures and residential neighborhoods, which we looked at very recently, and we say, well, we're just gonna grandfather those in. So my question is, maybe it's far-fetched off the wall, but to what extent can a property owner be grandfathered in when these boundaries are extended? Because, for instance, they could be extended in parks and in other perhaps city-owned properties and so on and so forth. But what about the homeowner saying, hey, you know, we were here first. We've been doing this. We've been using this as a residence. And at least while that property resides with the owner, it's still going to be an issue if they change the property. But that's just a question about can you in fact grandfather properties in a situation like this?

I'm sorry, can you clarify the question? Are you asking about existing structures? Because they talk about that in the code.

I'm sorry?

Are you asking about existing structures on a parcel because they already speak about that?

Well, an existing property, as long as it's being used for the for the purpose that it has been used. So and what I did is I referred to some properties along Pioneer Avenue, for instance, and And that our commercial structures where we said, well, we're going to leave those, we're grandfathering those properties in as long as they don't change how they're using the property. So that was my question. Would that apply to something like this property?

Yes.

I'm confused also. Are you asking if we can grandfather in the existing buffers instead of expanding them? Are you asking if we can keep the existing structures in their use?

Yeah, that's my question.

I'm talking about the properties themselves.

Existing structures are grandfathered in.

I know that. I'm talking about the land.

You're asking if we can grandfather in the existing buffer.

Exactly. Yeah. Thank you for saying that more clearly.

I'm sorry. So your question is basically you never want to change the buffer. So is that what you're saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that these buffers would be expanded certainly over the public places, like, for instance, Clark's Creek Park and so forth, where they've been pushed out to 231 feet, or that's proposed. Possibly it could be done to undeveloped land, but where a homeowner has a property, a parcel, and is using that tax parcel as their abode, the question then in my mind is, is there a way of saying would that tax parcel is grandfathered in as residential property?

I don't think it would be in the same way that our non-conforming code works. It would only apply to a structure, not a stream buffer or a level buffer.

Yeah.

So to provide a little bit of clarification, potentially, even when we have a nonconforming buffer, For instance, I recently had a client in Tacoma who had a garage that was in an existing setback. The garage was existing. He wanted to change it to an ADU, which was acceptable. but they could not expand the footprint anymore to make it more non-conforming. So he couldn't put porches or an addition into the setback. He could add to the garage as he was changing it to an ADU, but not in the setback. So I think what you're asking, though, is can somebody that actually owns a property now continue in a non-conforming use? And I think the answer has to be no, because that just is a slippery slope, literally in some cases.

Any other questions from the audience? Go ahead.

How can a 10-year-old study be best available science? How can they pass that off as best available science when it's 10 years old?

The stream, so it hasn't been, the state hasn't funded an update to the stream typing for 10 years. And so they are doing that now. But the best available science is related to the buffer widths. And so, yeah, that's what's publicly available for the mapping.

But we heard in the open public meeting, citizen after citizen saying that the creek that's on their property has been dried up for years. So it sounds to me like we've got a miscommunication here and maybe this kind of ordinances change should be coming after the state does a more inclusive study of this area instead of just a blanket. Just because one creek needs to be 100 or 200, they all need to be 200.

So the mapping is done. There's no site access for mapping. So the state or the federal government will use aerial photography or LiDAR or other methodology to update those. There will be no access to private parcels for an event like this.

So if I might, I think The approach here is, in terms of best available science, is a process that you could implement on a citywide scale. I think, you know, the alternative is that you could somehow fund your own to then go parcel by parcel or stream by stream and investigate that and look at the soils or the tree heights specifically. The method they're implementing here, which they're claiming is the best available science, is a method that looks at the tree heights. And by the 200-year tree heights, they're talking about, I guess, hypothetical tree heights or tree heights from the past based off of some records that were then logged and then implementing that on how wide the stream buffer can be. Now, I've looked at these maps, and they're kind of wacky because you jump from 100 feet to 230 feet. over this much distance in some cases. But I think what they're saying is about the best available science is someone else has a wide city wide scale for implementing this sort of process, then go ahead and propose it. And you could potentially implement that and it would stand but I think there isn't anything better is I think the statement there in in using this.

Any other comments from the dais? Okay, seeing no comments from the dais, I will entertain a motion.

Sorry, I had a question.

Go ahead.

On page 58, I'd written down, Sorry, let me pull up my digital notes. This is what I get for using two different methods for writing stuff down. Let's see. It was on the, just because this is something I think about more. But on item, which was 54, now 56, is flooded areas. The last statement is classifications of frequently flooded areas should include at a minimum, the 100-year floodplain. I just wasn't, that to me isn't clear what at a minimum. Does that mean at a minimum should consider? Or it doesn't say what you should do, it just says at a minimum. So I just wasn't sure what the action is there or what's being requested. It didn't make sense to me what's being requested in terms of considering that.

So what are the definitions right now?

Yeah, that's right.

Right. I think it's saying there's, you know, different 100-year, 500-year blood plane. So it's saying they should include at a minimum 100-year based on the FEMA information. Does that answer your question? Or are you saying it's confusing because it's in the definition?

No, yeah, it just wasn't. I thought that it meant at a minimum as opposed to something else, but it's really just saying at a minimum the 100-year return period.

Yeah. Oh, well, now I have a question.

Because what FEMA publishes is the 100-year, and then in some cases the, what, 500-year? Yeah.

So following up on that question, is this saying that the frequently flooded area should be defined at a minimum to include the FEMA's definition of that 100-year form? Because that's what I read it as.

That's how I read it. Okay. Well, if that's clear to other people, then that's fine. And then just a comment, you know, I was flipping through the maps. And I think one thing that jumped out to me is just how large the buffer is on the upper Meeker Creek, as well as like, you know, some blips here and there. You know, I just kind of feel for these people, especially if you look at so this would be page 161, for instance. And if you look at Meeker Creek, you know, it's doubling in width. And then if you even look at near that Meeker Creek, near the intersection of 19th and 3rd, we even have another blip there, which has grown. And it's just curious, I think this map doesn't really show perhaps the connectivity, but it's just, I think I look at some of these and you look at Clark's Creek and maybe you see the park and you see, okay, this makes sense. But then we're looking at a buffer that goes all the way across 512 and through a large chunk of those apartments. And it just seems a little bit out of place compared to some of these other streams. And then presumably this Meeker Creek goes under the highway and then perhaps I guess, underground in a pipe before connecting up again all the way on the other side of the fairgrounds, apparently. So that one kind of just jumps out to me as one of these things isn't like the other and just seems very isolated and one of the largest buffers we have proposed over the whole city.

Do you guys want to talk about the maps again?

I was just going to make the comment that staff was identifying areas that we thought could have potential benefit by increasing buffers. But the Planning Commission could recommend an alternative to kind of go back to I think for the Meeker Creek example, it would be a 100-foot buffer, and it wouldn't be an expanded buffer. Those are options for you to consider.

I have another question. I'm sorry I didn't notate it, but somewhere in here, there was something that said, that referred to not having buffers where a stream has been culverted or put into a culvert. I'm looking at map on page 157, and there is an expanded buffer around Woodland Creek where it is in a culvert. Do we have a reason for that?

It's just incorrect on the map and we haven't updated it. Oh, okay.

All right.

It would not apply to the culverted portions of streams.

All right. Thank you.

Any other discussion? I did notice one thing on your frequently asked questions pages. Kendall and Katie, this is more outside of housekeeping, but people are still flipping, so I'm just going to say it. At one point, the QR code wasn't working. It's working now, but your maps don't have dates on them, and it just pulls up sort of untitled, and it's just sort of hard to read. If you guys could sort of do a little bit more about titling the maps and dating them on the on what people would be able to look at and frequently ask questions. So that's outside of the code, but people are still looking. So I thought I would throw that in there. Anything else from the dais? Do we have a motion on the floor? Okay, I will put a motion forward on the floor that the Planning Commission motions to approve the critical ordinance update to recommendation to Council. Do we have a second? Do we have more discussion?

If we're not going to pass a motion to approve or disapprove, then maybe each one of us ought to say why.

Yeah, I think we can work this out. This is the I want to say eighth time that we have been over this particular piece of code. I like to have better understanding as to why we are so hesitant. Commissioner DeGroote.

The problems I have with it are, Number one, that the determinations are being made about the nature of the creeks and so on without on the ground investigation. I understand the problem there in terms of private property. I'm pretty sure that the city has permission from landowners. They would probably get it. But I'm I'm concerned about how deeply this affects a lot of people. And I feel that there's not really a good way for people to resolve differences, that any point of resolution is going to be complex and expensive. And that burden shouldn't be put on the people when this is state agencies that are pushing this. I think if the state agencies wanted to ask for a grant from the state legislature to have some on the ground studies, or at least to support when a property owner asks to have this inspected, I think I would feel a lot better about this, but this is kind of rolling over property owners. It's actually no different in my mind than the people who live near the transit station and are suddenly going to have one lane streets around their house when other properties get developed. It's kind of like that. So anyway, I feel that the recourse isn't adequate For the people, I feel that the identification of the streams and the need for the specific width of the buffers has not been presented well enough. And I think that the lack of recourse that's not very expensive and time-consuming is unfortunate.

Mr. Taylor?

So I agree. I mean, I feel like a lot of what we've been going over since I joined the commission, feels a lot like it's backwards, that the state mandates that we have to do middle housing and add density, but our infrastructure wasn't addressed first. And I feel like this is another one of those things that's just stated that it would be really helpful if the maps were updated before we started dictating to homeowners what portions of their property they can't use. And I just also don't feel confident sending it to the city council without there being some resolution for that.

I agree with both commissioners. I think asking someone to double their setbacks, if not more than double, without any proof is just not what I think we're here for.

Hmm. Um, I don't. Oh, okay. So several things. I don't agree with the rest of the commissioners in some regards. Um, I think that in order to have a citywide critical ordinance, um, a critical area ordinance, um, the way properties are developed and sort of this idea that we're putting the onus on the owner of the property when they want to develop something, it just, it doesn't really feel like a complete argument to me. Like that level of responsibility would already be there. That is a process that normally goes through in the sense of when you're developing something, when you're going through permits, when you're doing EIS for any property, property or any parcel, these things have to be done. So this idea that there's now this extra thing that you have to do that that doesn't really feel truthful to what actually happens when you put in permits to develop things in critical areas. So I mean, I will say that attaching are focusing so much in attaching stream designations to all things considering in our critical area ordinances and buffer zones, there are more than just the streams and there are more habitats that require control and sort of conservation of the entire ecosystem. The idea that the city is now somehow responsible for that stream typing when they haven't been previously. I don't think that that's where that responsibility lies. And I think that you're putting so much emphasis on that in this code that probably really shouldn't be there. When I look at what the city has done, we are doing almost the bare minimum of what is required for us to do to implement this critical ordinance is. We also have made buffer averaging happen in this critical ordinance. We've also made a 25% decrease through application happen in this critical ordinance. We've also included the 25-foot area setback in this critical ordinance. I think that in response to the urban environment that we are in, the city has actually given quite a few considerations to how this is implicated, how this is implemented. Um, and I'm not really sure that the dice has really done a very good job of explaining that are giving the city credit for the amount of care that they actually have taken and trying to put this in. Um, So those are where my thoughts are. Commissioner Martin.

I think you make a lot of good points, Chairman Jones-Lowe. Unfortunately, I think that the citizen comments are much more powerful. This is personal property, and we're telling people what they can and can't do with it. I can't support that. best available science is weak. The reasoning to do this is weak. I don't see that there's anything we're going to gain from this. When we first started talking about this, I was a strong proponent of it. As we look closer at it, there are huge gaps and the city is putting are property owners in a position where bureaucracy will chew through them how this is written what the intent of this i don't believe in it i can't vote yes for it and i don't see a i don't see a draft of this where i would be okay with it yeah i think i'm close to being in support of this um

Where I stand is what's the feasible alternative here? So if we say no to this, we need to come up with, we're more or less saying we need to come up with a better, best available science. Because to me, that's the issue here. If we don't like this better available science, what's our alternative? Does this stick with the values we have now? And so what's our reasoning for having those values now? What's our backup to that? So to me, it's either I think we accept this using the documented system, even though I pointed out some complaints with that, or I guess what the city funds, expensive study for the whole city in every stream. And I don't know if that's entirely feasible. So I mean, the options here is not a lot. I think as Jones-Lowe pointed out, our chair, is that a lot of these properties are already within that limit and are already being triggered to have that review. There's, of course, some might get swept up in the expanded boundaries. But I'm just, you know, we need solutions. So what's the alternative? Is the alternative that our city has all this money to fund everyone's studies and complaints or we do a citywide study? I just don't see that as being feasible either. So, I mean, the best option is to me is to approve unless someone has another suggestion of how we can achieve the goal of implementing these required changes.

i never expected the city to fund anything about telling us where our creeks were i expected the state and all the their official fish and wildlife and tree hugger programs to come up and tell us exactly where the creek is starts and where it ends and that they've done something to go out there and take a look at it instead of just throwing a blanket over the whole city and saying, you guys are doing it wrong. So I expect the state to come through and tell me with better science than 10-year-old creek bed science that they have their stuff together. Because I don't see it. They're just throwing the blanket out there and saying, do it because we say so. I don't agree with that.

Yeah, but I mean, I hear you're frustrated that that's not a solution. And I mean, to make matters worse, the data is probably even older than the approach. But I mean, that's still just not a path forward.

So the path forward is to adopt this and then the citizens don't know what to do because their buffers are now increased? There's a lot of them that don't know what to do. And they think that their property is going to be taken away or their you know, this or that, or they can't put that deck on the front of their house anymore that faces the water or whatever, because they're frustrated. So I, I, I think we have in the city has done a poor job of enlightening the citizens as to exactly what's, what's going on with these buffers. And I don't just throwing a blanket a hundred percent increase in a buffer to me, it sounds wrong.

Well, um, Vice Chair Kilsgaard, I guess I have the question of the city did go back and issue information on the points that you just made. So what additional information do you think the city can issue that you believe would help the homeowners understand?

Well, the first thing that I still have a question is why the city or you as chair didn't tell the people before they stood up here that they were grandfathered in. None of them knew that. And so I think the city should have stood up here and said, you're grandfathered in. It's just new construction or something. And explain to them what that new buffer was going to be. And the reason why a lot of them don't understand, they're not getting the information. I don't know why. Maybe they should be given a handout if they live in one of these critical areas. It explains what's going to happen to them.

Okay. I understand that. And we did talk about the fact that perhaps maybe a better approach could have been to do an open house on the critical ordinance update. And after we had that discussion, we asked for this frequently asked questions, which they put together, which they gave out to the citizens. So what else are you asking the city to do to inform the citizens?

I'm not asking for anything. I just don't think the state has presented a good enough case to warrant all this change.

Okay. Commissioner Taylor. I got it right.

So I do want to recognize that the city has definitely not gone to the extremes, that you've done the very best to implement changes without it being crippling. The other thing I just curious, it wouldn't be would it be appropriate for the city council to have a town hall on this at this point? Because if we're going to recommend that they approve it, then I would like for them to actually be able to address the the public before approval.

um i think that's a very um good suggestion commissioner taylor i think um we could certainly look at holding an open house probably separate from the council consideration we would hold it you know in the next month or so and then following that I guess there's a couple options, the Commission could direct us to hold that open house before you even make a recommendation. So we hold the open house we provide another education opportunity or more of an education opportunity, the public hearing obviously was a comment opportunity. provide an education opportunity and then we come back to you for your recommendation or you make the recommendation but still direct us to have the open house and we do that before it goes to council so i'll stop there but i do have some other suggestions for options but i think this on this particular issue um that is something we could do um do you mind if we take comments on

What Commissioner Taylor just said first.

It's kind of related, but what's the deadline on our approval for this?

It's technically the end of the year for council adoption.

I don't see that fitting.

It's tight and doable, even if we slip a bit into the next year. We're working in good faith.

Um, just from my own perspective, I don't think it's necessary for us as a diet, like the planning commission as a diet is to do another education opportunity. We, I feel like we heard the comments that were came from the citizens. We went and gave our suggestion and our suggestion came back with an educational material. for those citizens. I think that if the city council wants to provide an educational opportunity for the citizens, that they should do their due diligence in their own way of doing that. They have a lot more resources than we do. I feel like we've already done really what's probably appropriate for us to ask for. If there's more that's needed, then we need to start talking to people who can make things happen. Commissioner Taylor.

So I agree that we don't need to hear the public again, that we've made our recommendations and we have a very clear document that's been produced by the city for that. Unfortunately, I feel because the only comment that we had earlier this evening from a citizen addressed exactly the things that could be potentially answered in this document, that it's not getting to the public. And so it has to be from the city council. or if not the city council, the planning department can just say, hey, we're having an open forum tonight. Please come and listen. You know, I don't think it has to be commissioned. I don't even know if it has to be city council, but I do think it has to happen because the word is not out there yet, no matter if it's available.

So I just want to speak to some of the things that I've heard from the Commission in the last few minutes of discussion here. I think you are all correct that most residents do not understand critical areas regulations. They do not know what they're allowed to do and what they're required to do when they further develop their property. And I think This is made so clear in this in this experience, what we've been going through because one of the stream designations that's generated the most comments has not changed in its buffer. Yeah, it is what it has been for the last few decades um and i think that exactly proves that most people do not think about the critical areas whether they know they're on their property or not until it comes time for them to do something and they come to us and start asking questions um it is a very difficult concept to just explain when there's no context for that. We have that context now with the code amendments. So I do think that this is an opportunity. Certainly holding an open house is not without time and expense and work and effort, but I do think it's important to make that effort and to do that and educate people as best as we can. i also just want to add that i do think i appreciate commissioner landon's suggestion of but what do we do tonight and what are some of those options what i've heard from you all is the most concern with the stream buffers and typing there's obviously a mapping component that we've discussed that the city does not have a lot of ability to change right now, both because it's not the data is not really in our control and it takes a lot of financial resources that we don't have. So I think one option could be for the commission to recommend the package of amendments but not the amendments in Article 10, which is the fish and wildlife habitat section. Or you could recommend most of the amendments, but make modifications to the proposed buffers, or be very specific in amending some of those particular areas of concern. On the mapping piece, if there are concerns with certain areas, Meeker Creek was brought up as a particular example where the site potential tree height area has been applied. Maybe that is Over and above what is reasonable for that particular stream reach and you of course could make a particular recommendation that we don't apply that we only apply the standard buffer to that reach of the creek. So I just want to kind of provide. Those that potential range of options for you, if you are comfortable making a recommendation on a modified ordinance tonight. Again, otherwise your option is to wait to make a recommendation until we've at least done the outreach.

Do I have any other questions on the bias. Questions, points, motions?

I personally have a hard time being one of the people that goes through and puts their finger on something and says it needs to be narrower, it needs to be wider and stuff like that. I don't have the technical expertise to do that. so when you say modify this and modify that i don't have the expertise to do that and so and that's i guess that's one of the reasons why i wanted this to keep the buffers the way they were is because the the state's done nothing to prove to me that they should be any different

Vice Chair Kilsgaard brought up a good point about some grandfathering. But when we go to page 38, we talk about generally prohibited activities. And I think the big sticking point is the first bullet, new development that increases structural impervious surface footprint. So if I bought a piece of property, I own that property, with the understanding of pre-change that I can do whatever in there, and we put this in, we put this in, now we're adding another layer that does take away that piece of use. And we've heard it over and over again from the citizens. And no matter how we justify it, we're still saying you cannot use your property as you want. And that is a problem. Now, Commissioner Landon brought up a good point. What else can we do? Now, I heard from Commissioner DeGroote that said something that could work. blanket grandfathering for a property. Focus on city property. Or what our citizens said, you pay me for my property. But we are functionally telling people that you cannot use your land the way you want to after you paid for it and you paid taxes for it. That is wrong. And we can keep talking about how we can send this forward to to the Council, but who wants to have their name on something that says you can't do this. I there's something fundamentally morally wrong about.

I think that the city actually, well, city zoning planning government in general actually dictates how we can use our property more than people think that they do in a lot of different ways other than just buffers. I think that that would be my main point to that. that they actually tell us how we can use our property in a lot of ways. What's your take?

So I'm gonna lean into that also. You can't put a golf driving range anywhere. You can't put an archery range anywhere. You can't do nuclear waste on your property. There are a lot of things we can't do. And I consider myself an environmentalist. I want to save our creeks and I want my kids to breathe fresh air. But I also want it to be done in a smart manner and not that this isn't. And the sticking point to me is the age of the maps. And I know that's out of the city's control. So I feel confident that I can send this with reservation to to city council since there there isn't a better plan now. But in hopes that our voices can be heard and saying but we want new maps. And we want the ability to alter the buffer zones and the maps that are in this code as we get new information. And is there a way to do a caveat to that? That if new maps become available, that our maps would change? And that's the buffers.

Commissioner Taylor, are you asking that? Are you asking that should the city find a way, a grant, a program, a money to make the maps better that that would then trigger a review of the core critical ordinance?

I think it would be more of the state level because they actually did say they are coming through potentially or they're waiting you know for monies or whatever that the state is in the process of doing this. Once the state maps become available that are of the updated stream categories which would then affect the buffer zones if we have a way then to alter our maps based on that? Or in the review process, would the state maps that have been changed to a different designation be sufficient as opposed to a wetland biologist report?

I think that they would do that through the planning department. My question is whether or not you are asking that The city then reviews this entire ordinance over again, like at a specific point. Does that make sense?

I don't know if I have a preference. I just like I would like for there to be some latitude if the maps change. And I don't care if it's on a code level or just on a review level.

You want to answer about the planning process? Yeah, I can take to that. So, you know, certainly we intend to use the updated data when it becomes available. I don't want you to just take my word for that though. So we're looking at the code to see if there is a data reference that would, I know it says something to the effect of data, we can update the data periodically or we should update the data periodically. But we're checking to see if it actually references the data source in the code. I see Claire popping on so she might be able to weigh in there too. And I will say we do modify the data anyway as we get reports. Sometimes there are wetlands we didn't know existed that don't show up on the data and we find out they do. And so we get a report and that gets added. Other things can be removed. But Claire, do you want to add anything to that?

Sure, yeah, it's a really good question. The data sources that are used for the maps that the city uses as a guideline to figure, they're not codified. So it's more web-based, it's a guideline of where to start. And so if there was new data available, say next year, then the city could use that as the guideline

for where those streams would be potentially located.

What if we said, we'll pass this as soon as the new data shows up?

So you could do that, but that might be a year or two away. And then we will be out of compliance with our comprehensive plan update because we have not updated our critical areas ordinance in association with best available science.

But if we are in compliance, aren't they going to ask why? And the first thing you're going to say is because your data is too old. Update your data and you're home free. Put it back on them.

Yeah, but they did update their data. And that's what this is. And ours doesn't take that into consideration. This is their updated data that we don't look at.

It's not updated data. It's updated best available science in terms of the standards. But the data is old.

Katie, maybe I could also make a clarification so that There's two different things here that we're talking about. One is the stream mapping location. And the city is actually already using that stream mapping location under current code. So that's actually not changing. What is changing is the best available science around, and this is where the best available science is applied, is to those buffer widths.

I mean, I understand how the commissioners cannot have, how there can be some grave reservations about some of the things in here. I mean, I have some of them. They're not necessarily the same things that you guys have, but not really for the whole larger riparian zone management zones. I think that we have some things that affect farming that more than I would like it to. I mean, there are some things in here that I don't, not fully on board with. I think that there are some misunderstandings with the general public of how much this is affecting their land, when this is affecting their land, what the permit process would entail, what it already entails. Some of the stuff that's happening is not new. It's been the same things that have been happening for them for for decades now um but their understanding of it may be new and some things may be misunderstood um so i do think that more education around it does need to happen but i mean we got a lot of comments we looked through a lot of information um i think that the city did do a good job responding to some of those things i mean there was one comment that had like seven or nine homeowners on, it's the comment that basically struck the whole conversation about streets and alleys and things like that. Because once you did look at the parcels that they gave us, it was a very long letter. I think we all got it and reviewed it. Once you looked at the parcels that they were showing us, you kind of were like, Oh no, these, this, this might be a problem. Like this is everything that we were afraid was going to happen, all happening in one little area to these nine residents. But actually it's not happening there when you realize what the code says and how that's applied. And now that we've clarified alleys and streets and, you know, there are a lot of things that break their buffer zone far behind their homes. Um, So every parcel is going to be different. Every situation is going to be different, but the concept of having something that could even reasonably be implemented citywide, I think we do have to get to some sort of solution or way to find a solution because some of the things that I'm hearing from the dais right now are that it it seems like you guys would not agree on this at all. So is there ever going to be a solution that you will agree on with this? We have to have an understanding of how far we are away from a goal here. I guess that's the problem that I'm having. I can't understand how far away we are. Okay, go ahead.

I was just going to suggest the same thing. We've pretty much beat this horse to death. I think each one of us ought to say what it takes to make this work.

Yeah.

And then that gives the city direction.

So we can go through guys again, um, so that we have a better understanding. I'm going to start with you.

What I would like to see, um, is, uh, that the, um, increased boundaries be reviewed again and wherever law permits to not expand them if it involves private tax parcel, I mean private home ownership. And if we could see that, Obviously, the law is a law, and the law dictates what we can do and what we can't do. We can't, if this is really coming, you know, as a result of the Growth Management Act that has the authority of the state legislature behind it, then something's got to be done. But on the other hand, I would like to see this reviewed, and I would like to see as many as possible, wherever there's residential property involved, I would like to see those lines either eliminated, the new lines either eliminated or reduced. And I just want to see as much that can be done as possible. If I feel like staff has done as much as possible to give us something that is the best possible outcome we can get under state law for our residents, I'll vote for it. But I want to feel assured Before I do that, that we've got the best possible deal. I know that you've done a lot. I mean, I'm cognizant as we're enumerated by Chair Jones-Lowell of what you've done already. So I know that. I think what I'm asking is if you take a second hard look, knowing what residents have said, knowing what members of this commission have said, if there isn't something else we can squeeze out of this in favor of the homeowners.

Commissioner Taylor.

I actually do think that I would feel okay sending it to council, knowing that as new data becomes available, it will be incorporated, or at least in the review process. I don't think that we can fight every battle about buffers. We're not going to win. This is not dictated by you, and you've done your best. But I do really want the public to have a chance to be heard and a chance to potentially bring up things that maybe we haven't. I mean, we're, you know, today we're six. So it would be nice to just get them once an understanding is there to actually hear instead of just be railed at, but to actually have a conversation.

I share Kilsgard.

I'm in favor for not doing anything as far as the buffers are concerned until the state steps up and does their their part and I Think we've heard this for the last four or five years. I've been on this council the state and the county have done nothing to help us out infrastructure wise I You know, it's just another attack that we've got from the state that says you're going to do this and you're going to do that with housing, and now it's creeks and rivers, and it's just got to stop somewhere.

Well, I mean, I think that I've already said that I feel comfortable sending this forward, but I guess the part that I will say Part of the reason that I feel comfortable sending this forward is because I think that we've done what we can in code. That doesn't mean that we've really done everything that we can for our fellow citizens and our fellow property owners. I think that when it comes down to making sure that we are putting in codes that respond to the needs of our community, something this big is something that sort of this pervasive with our waterways in our city, that we need to find more innovative and more responsive methods of reacting to this. Just because this has to be our code doesn't mean that we can't approve the efficacy of what this looks like to the average homeowner in the city. And that's work that happens outside of what this document is. There is money out there. There are people coming together in communities out there to make sure that they can afford a water typing person to come out. There are studies that you can do. We can get creative. We have biologists going through school. Maybe they can do some sort of general study that's in partnership with the DNR. We have to get more creative in how we are responding to the things that need to happen in code. So I think that this document has done what it can. I think that we have been as much as we We've done a smaller buffer area. We've done allowances for reducing that buffer area even further than the smallest buffer area. We've put things in here that I think honestly is a level best for what can be in code for critical ordinance for finding the balance between making sure that we are being responsive to our parcel owners and to our natural environment. The hard work then becomes how we make this make sense. Because when you are a property owner, I mean, I live next to the river. When you are a property owner, you go out there and you see your streams and you see your streams not flowing. And you have all these regulations around this thing that really seems to be sitting there and dying. you wonder why can't it be better? Like if we're putting all this effort and writing all these codes to protect this thing, why aren't we ensuring that it's better? That's the work that I think needs to be done because I think that more people would be aware and even more balanced with what is happening in this code if they saw the efficacy of what that could be. And we're just, we're dropping the ball on that. as far as putting our feet to the pavement of what that could be. There are more creative solutions out there that still stay in line with what the state is requiring. And we could find those, but we have to do the harder work. And I think that our residents deserve that harder work to be done. But I think that where we're at with this document, that's as far as this part goes. So that's sort of my thoughts on it.

New development that generally increases structural impervious surface footprint is generally prohibited activity. With that in there, I don't know how this is something that I can support. That needs to be addressed. And if we can't address that, then we need to have a well-defined process to figure out how that can be addressed. You use the example of... I can't store hazardous waste on my, uh, property, but if I bought it and it was allowed at that point, then changing it, it's fundamentally unfair.

Yeah, I'm generally in favor of approving this for a lot of the reasons that have already been mentioned. Um, I really echo a lot of what Chair Jones-Lowell had to say about, I think, generating community value in these streams through efforts to partner with other agencies and funding sources to engage homeowners in restoring these and making them something to value. I think that's an aspect that probably I heard a lot during the hearing is, you know, it's kind of like you're protecting what? Have you seen this thing? So, I mean, there's some work to be done on that. I see what we have here as one of the best. I don't see it as an alternative. I think this is something I'd approve in going to council.

One last comment.

Sure.

Every time the thing about cleaning up the creeks and stuff comes to us, I just think about driving down River Road and going by that landscape guy there by the river and the bridge and seeing 100 creosote timbers 10 feet from the edge of the river, and there's nothing we can do about it. But you're asking the citizens to give up another 50 or 100 feet of property as a buffer. What an oxymoron.

So my question is, going back to what I said earlier, would there be a payoff? Could there be a payoff if we deferred action? until staff has or consultant has a second look at this and could say there are some residential areas where we think we could shrink these buffers. That's my question.

Is that a question for staff? Okay, just checking. I think that is something that we could take a look at and provide maybe a potential alternative. I know that we were already intending to provide some modified maps for council to just not necessarily changing the buffers, but to provide clarity on how buffers don't go over roadways at the very least. So kind of clipping them to streets to kind of better clarify how they would be applied. And maybe showing structures, you know, footprints of structures. So you just kind of have a general idea where structures are on these parcels. I don't think that we would be able to get to a level of, you know, clipping buffers related to structures that takes time. site specific analysis, but you'd have some context. And we could kind of look at areas where we were proposing the more expanded buffers to follow the RMZs to make sure that maybe it doesn't make sense in some of those cases. And maybe we go back to the kind of base buffer for the stream type. I think that's something that we could look at again and bring back to you if that's what you'd like to do.

I would like to see how can we make this the best possible option for our residents. And I would be in favor of deferring this until something more can be brought forward.

I guess my comment on what you just said would be new maps for council would probably be a good idea because I think that they are going to get very confused by the maps that we have, even though maps aren't in the code. Like when you open up the code, they're not going to be there. Yeah, I don't think they're going to take kindly to the maps that we have because they're going to be confused by them. We've had them for like eight rounds, so I think they make more sense to us. Entertained a motion?

A motion, we adjourn.

Oh.

I think it's 4-9-20. I'm tired. We've missed this to death.

I guess that is.

Can we have a second? I mean, technically his motion should be addressed first. We do have quite a few other things on our agenda. Okay. You can go ahead and make a motion. Just be mindful of time, you guys.

I would like to motion that we defer pending maps and potential public open house projects.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All those opposed, say nay. Nay. I think we need to count.

Did you say aye? Are you saying?

Oh, you said aye. Okay. I should have it. But can you do the roll call vote, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. Commissioner DeGrow. Aye.

Aye.

Commissioner Martin?

Aye.

Commissioner Landon?

No.

Commissioner Taylor?

Aye.

Vice Chair Kilsgard?

Aye.

Chair Jones-Lill? No. The ayes have it.

Our next topic is work session topics. I think that that was added in for...

in case we move the thing from the public that's just a weird agenda thing that happened staff reports let's go um so our plan it was to be working on um zone district code amendments and the zoning map update um to implement the future land use map that our plan was to bring that back

Have we announced that we're canceling the next meeting officially?

Okay, so this is your announcement. We are canceling the October 8th meeting due to a number of scheduling conflicts with the planning division. So I think October 22nd will be your next regular meeting. We will now reevaluate the topics for that meeting. But at this point, we are looking at one meeting per month for the remainder of the year. That's typical in November and December due to all the holidays. So we'll probably follow up with an email just confirming those dates for you all. So yeah, obviously critical areas maps coming back. We are still working on the various zone district updates and the zoning map. Subdivisions will come back. You may recall that I had presented on unit lot subdivisions specifically. Chris Beal has taken over that work and is just working on the full update to our subdivision chapter, which has long been needed. So that will come back before you, hopefully by the end of the year, and potentially clear and objective design standards. Although that sounds like a lot for three more meetings. So we'll be reevaluating. Thank you.

Next item on our agenda, or well, the last item on our agenda is Commissioner Cobbett's We are going to start with Commissioner DeGroote.

I have nothing this week.

Commissioner Martin?

Nothing for me.

Commissioner Taylor?

So nothing coming up, but I just wanted to make sure everybody knew that J-Pod, for the first time in over 50 years, came back to South Sound, went south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and this is a fantastic sign. And it was just a remarkable weekend.

That was beautiful. Commissioner Landon?

No comments.

Vice Chair Kilsgard?

Nothing.

Let's go home. I'll just say that the APA conference will be in Tacoma first week of October. Hopefully we see some of you guys there. That would be great. Wonderful. The planning conference, the American Planning Association conference will be held at the Hotel Murano starting on October 8th. Look at that. Starting on October 8th to 11th. 12th? 10th? Okay. October 8th to October 12th, the APA conference will be here in Tacoma at the Hotel Murano. It's really great because it's really close to us and they are going to bring back the plants lab this year, so that should be a lot of fun. Hopefully we see you all there. That being said, that brings our meeting to an end. It is what time is it? 921. Thank you, everyone.