Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Yes. Yeah. All right. So good evening. This is good evening. This is chair artsy calling to order the rent and planning commission for Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026 at 6 PM. So we had some technical difficulties there. So now our first order of business will be roll call. So council member or. Planning. Commissioner Madsen, would you mind calling the roll call? Fixed all. Fixed all. Fixed all. It's been a while.

All right. So, Chair Artsy? Here. Commissioner Byan? Here. Commissioner Fixedall's here. Commissioner Kelly? Here. Commissioner Mattson. Here. Commissioner Pettick. Here. Commissioner Plants. Commissioner Poole.

Here.

Oh, there's Commissioner Plants. And Secretary Roche is not here. All right.

Okay. So we have seven members in attendance. Therefore, we have a quorum to hold this meeting. Our next item of business will be the correspondence received. As of July 15, 2026, there has been no correspondence received at this point. Next up, our audience comments. So those attending virtually will be offered an opportunity to speak after the in-person comments are completed. Each speaker will be provided three minutes to address an item. Interested parties may also provide written comments to planningcommission at rendonwa.gov. Groups or organization spokespersons are able to speak on a group's behalf. As of today, no one has signed up to speak on non-agenda items. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak, please raise your hand. And we have any of anybody in the audience either. OK. Next item, business, is the approval of the meeting minutes. Is there a motion to approve meeting minutes from July 15, 2026?

Move to approve meeting minutes.

Second. Okay. Moved and seconded. Is there any objection or any discussion? Hearing none, those who are in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those in favor, please say nay. And motion passes. The minutes are approved. Okay, next up is the director's report. So Matt, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chair Artsy, members of the Planning Commission. It's good to see you back. Welcome back. Maya and I were just remarking that it doesn't seem like six weeks since we've had our last meeting. But welcome back. I hope everyone's had a good summer and is ready to get back to work because we've got some work for you. And welcome back also to Margaret Bravo, pinch hitting tonight for Muang, who's out of the office. So it's good to see Margaret here as well. So, again, getting back to work. Just two items, though, on this docket cycle for September and October. As you've seen in your packets, we've got some housekeeping amendments to the development code as well as the big one that Angelia has been working on, and that's parking reform. And parking reform, that's a term from the state legislative system. recent state legislation that has passed that is preemptive for all cities or most cities within Washington State. And Angelia is going to give a briefing about that tonight. We should have enough time in the remainder of the year to get one more cycle in. So that second meeting in October, we will start with another round. Not sure what those items are yet. We haven't discussed those internally, but We'll keep you apprised of what we're thinking about bringing the commission before the end of the year. A couple of things that has happened since we last saw each other, and I'm sure you know about this. It's in the news everywhere about data centers. The city of Renton, at the last council meeting before they went on recess, did pass a moratorium on data centers. That's going to be a one-year moratorium on accepting any development applications required. that would come in. The next steps for that moratorium will be a public hearing and that will be in front of city council. This is a moratorium that was brought forward by city council and not the administration or city staff. So that public hearing will take place during a city council meeting. We've got one year and a work plan basically to study the issue and we'll be bringing that back to planning commission over the next year. Many other cities all over the country are doing this right now. We're still kind of learning about the issues. We're by no means experts on data centers. And there's been numerous trainings through our professional American Planning Association, as well as just really identifying other cities and what they're doing. We don't probably want to be the first ones out of the gate with regulations. Again, it's just really kind of understanding what the issues are. Some more to come on data centers. Another item that went through while Planning Commission was on recess is our Transit Street. And this is different than the Festival Street. The Transit Street is the current downtown metro transit station, which is in between the pavilion and the parking garage. As you know, that transit center is gonna be moving over to Grady Junction or Grady and Rainier. But that piece of property is owned by the city and was leased to King County. So we are working with King County to decommission that transit center. And we put out an RFQ for development opportunities and what's gonna go there next. And the city chose to go with a proposal by Vertical World. Vertical World is a local family-owned rock climbing gym. They've got a gym in Magnolia in Seattle, one in Linwood, and I believe one in Shoreline. So Council gave us the authority to go out and start working with a term sheet with Vertical World. So we're starting that process and we'll keep the Planning Commission apprised again about the progress of that, but really excited to add another kind of experiential development in downtown. And then keeping on that downtown note, Legacy Square has just been great. I hope everybody's been able to get down there and check it out. We're going to continue Friday movie nights for September. The next one this Friday night, crazy rich Asians from six to nine. And then the week after it is going to be in the Heights. Uh, and then also this Saturday, we are wrapping up the concert series at legacy square and it's the K pop dance party. So that's the Saturday. And then, uh, another, uh, Another event we're really excited about is September 19th from 12 to 9 p.m. That's going to be the Harvest Festival. So lots of events happening there. And then later in the month, we'll be evolving into Seahawks Watch Parks. So just want to give kudos to our economic development team. Have been working on the programming for Legacy Square. So it's one thing that they went out and they designed and built this, but the programming that takes over is also a lot of work. So they've done a great job. So if folks have questions and want to learn more about that, they can go to the city's website and just search Legacy Square Events. And then finally, our friends in the Parks and Recreation Department, along with the Renton Historical Society, will be throwing the city's 125th birthday celebration. That's going to be happening this weekend on Sunday from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Liberty Park. And there'll be exhibits from the Historical Society, as well as games, live music, and all ages activities. And that concludes my report.

Awesome. Thank you, Matt. Thanks. That's a great question for you.

That's all right. So since you mentioned the Rainier and Grady Transit Center, I'm curious about the construction, the water main line that's going in on Grady here. I mean, obviously, it's a critical infrastructure project, but I'm wondering what it has to do with the I-line, the Sound Transit rapid ride I-line.

Right, the King County rapid ride line? Yes. So there's... And this is not only happening in Grady, it's happening throughout the city. There's, I believe, down in the Benson, there's some construction that was happening or or is going to happen right around Fred Meyer. It's happening over on Grady. There's some other areas near the valley, I believe, that they're gonna be doing some construction. So these are improvements that they're putting in for the I-line. I don't know, Commissioner Poole, the specifics about the water line on Grady, but I can find out and report back out to you or send you an email, send the commission an email.

Yeah, I've actually had a couple of people ask about it. And because the information is that it's somehow associated with... the Sound Transit project. And it's like, well, I mean, I can understand there needing to be water at the new transit center, but how does that relate to the rapid ride? Unless it was, you know, secretly funded through the Sound Transit, which would be great.

Yeah. And I know that King County, a lot of what you're seeing on Grady is not only the the transit center construction, but you're seeing the actual street improvements, those are for the I-line. So they'll be putting in improvements, they'll be putting in stops. There's infrastructure that goes in with those stops. Unfortunately, they have to rip out some sidewalks, take out some street trees, which will all be replaced. So there are some kind of frontage improvements that they need to put in. and likely either replacement or repair of utilities under there. But I will find out specifically. Commissioner Poole, you're asking about the water line in Grady?

Yeah, specifically, yeah. I mean, maybe it's just an opportunity, you know, since they're ripping up the sidewalk to also upgrade the main there, would be my guess. But I'm just curious about the funding and how that's coordinated and everything.

I will find out more about that and email the commission at large.

Okay. As those elements happen too, we're going to see more, um, like have more coming our way in terms of the, uh, TOD developments that are happening around the Rainier Grady. Are you talking about more private development or capital improvements? I'm sorry. Yeah, more capital improvements in terms of how that's going to be developed as the transit center gets put in.

Yeah, I think as capital improvements go, you're going to see brand new frontage along where the transit center station is, they'll be putting in brand new sidewalks, street trees, curb, gutter. There is a capital project. I believe that goes through the transit center property, and it's actually a multimodal trail connection that's going to link up with Southwest 7th and that greenway. Most of the capital, I believe most of the capital projects that you are going to be seeing around there are related to the island. It just happened to link the I-line construction and the transit center construction just coincidentally are happening at the same time.

Gotcha. Okay. Awesome. Is there any chance that the old Yankee Diner and the dilapidated hotel somehow are part of these improvements? Because talk about an eyesore coming into Renton.

Yes, so King County currently owns the Red Lion property as well as the diner property. I would just say that the city is hoping that area gets redeveloped and fits within the vision of the TOD sub-area plan because I think that property, the Renton Village property is all very important to the redevelopment of that area.

Have there been any private developers that have been interested in building new locations or new buildings in that area, essentially?

Not right now. Unfortunately, it's more of a macroeconomic issue that we're having right now with lending and construction costs. Hoping to break out of that cycle soon. But unfortunately, it's been a bit slow on that end.

There was the Via 425, was that the name of it? Where the old theater used to be?

Oh, sure, yes. Yeah, that development was entitled, it was going to be a, and this was pre-COVID, fairly large mixed-use project that just unfortunately kind of, they had to walk away from it. It was a very expensive building.

Yeah, because it was, it wasn't wood frame, was it?

it was wood frame oh but it was overcome it was over like two it was over two yes over two uh stories of concrete um it was yeah it was going to be a market rate development and i just don't think that the developer could have the rents pencil out for the construction costs the uh dilapidated golding over by the landing is now oh yeah down

yes i was very happy when i drove past there and saw that yes horrible other eyesore of renton yeah yeah there was a couple of street closures over the last few weekends and they've been there's no slowly taking that last building down i don't know what they're doing there but there's better than that building being there yes it's embarrassing seeing it from top golf yeah

It's like a beacon from 405, too. You can just get it coming in to the same route.

Coming down. Awesome. Thank you, Matt. Appreciate it.

Okay. Next up is a briefing for Docket 21, Group C, D-254, Parking Reform. Awesome. Thank you, Angelia, for stepping up.

We're waiting for answers, yes.

Thank you for your patience, Angelia Weiss, for the record. And I appreciate Matt introducing the topic as well. So that is great. He also mentioned vertical world. So he provided context because I was going to mention it briefly. So that's great. All right, there we go. So this presentation is regarding docket number 254 related to parking reform. I did receive a request from Commissioner Jeff Kelly to provide some additional information. So I provided three additional slides and they are related to temporary parking, bicycle parking, as well as parking dimensions. So I attempted to go into the weeds more with those particular topics. And so when you see them, because they necessitate a lot of words and some draft code. It's just pow, right on there. And as a result, I will be taking a look at our code very briefly. So we'll get a detour, not just a PowerPoint presentation. So that will be great. It looks like he's not here. So I will also be going into those weeds in the next presentation as well. So that'll be great. So just for some background, this is required as a result of state mandated parking reform, specifically ESSB 5184. And what that law requires is it requires cities with more than 50,000 residents to reduce certain minimum off-street parking requirements and or eliminate them based on the use. And these updates are mandatory under state law and must be implemented by January of 2027, so the coming next year. And the bulk of that state mandate is that for, we have a maximum parking that cities can require for multifamily. So we can't require more than one half parking space per dwelling. And for single family, we can require up to one space per home. And then for commercial up to two spaces per 1000 square feet. However, there are caveats to that. So for example, if the home is under 1200 square feet, so a small home, we cannot require any parking. If the commercial use is under 3000 square feet, we cannot require any parking. And the same for affordable housing, senior housing, licensed child care centers, and all ground floor commercial uses in mixed-use buildings. We cannot require any parking. And then if a project is converting from a non-residential to residential or to any type of commercial, we would not be allowed to require parking for that updated use. So going into the weeds regarding some bicycle parking, I have an illustration there. We currently don't have an illustration for our parking standards, but I put that in there so it can describe some of the changes we'll be making. One of the biggest things we're changing is that currently our bicycle parking is based on percentage of the vehicle parking that is required. But if we're not able to require vehicle parking, then that percentage-based method is not effective. So we instead will be establishing bicycle parking as independent requirement by land use rather than percentage. So that will be the biggest change. And our ratios and standards will be based on the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Parking Guidelines. And that's a nationally recognized guidance referenced by WSDOT, Seattle, Spokane, and numerous other organizations. Some of the changes that we'll be making to our standards, I did not put them here, but I have them memorized. So for example, our current code has a depth requirement for bicycle parking of six feet. We'll be changing that or we're proposing to change that to eight feet currently based on our draft code. That has not been reviewed. So when I'm talking about these changes, it is just a hypothetical based on our current draft. In addition, our current code has a minimum Isle of five feet are proposed changes six feet, and so that is just two changes, but otherwise so most of the standards themselves will remain the same. But as far as the ratios, they'll be significantly different. I did not show our current code because there's no point. It's just so significantly different. A lot of this is not necessarily cut and paste, but in that ballpark from the APBP, which I referenced previously, and we have categories such as residential uses, commercial uses, industrial uses. and public or quasi-public uses. And if you have any questions following this presentation or you want me to go in greater detail, I'm happy to go back to this slide. Some aspects of our code will make it easier. For example, if you have a private garage, you will no longer be required to demonstrate bicycle parking. For townhomes, for example, our current code requires it. Our proposed code Draft does not. And some areas we will be reducing our parking, bicycle parking requirements and other areas will be increasing the standard. So it's kind of all over the board. So for temporary parking, we currently in our current code, we don't call it temporary parking. We call it guest parking and we only require guest parking for certain uses. And those include attached dwellings in the R10, R14 and RMF zones. That's pretty much all of our multifamily zones. So multifamily across the board based on our current code does require temporary type parking and it's 10% of the total number of required spaces. And then also for cottage house developments, we also require guest parking and that's at 20% of the total required parking spaces. So what we decided to do is we determined that it would be appropriate based on the direction that the state is pushing us to go is to require temporary parking for all multifamily. We figured that would be appropriate. We do not have any temporary parking requirements drafted currently for commercial, but what we did is the same standard that we applied for the R10, R14 and RMF zones. We applied those to all attached to dwellings or all other attached to dwelling types. We do not have it currently drafted for townhouses, but for apartment buildings, for example, we would require one temporary parking space for every 10 dwelling units, and that amounts to about 10%. And then we also require it for affordable housing. Cottage house developments are still at 20% or one per five dwelling units. We apply it for co-living as well as senior housing. And this is where I was going to escape this PowerPoint and show you what the current code looks like. So the topic of this slide is essentially our parking lot design standards and specifically our aisle and stall dimensional requirements. So the reason why showing you the code is important is because it shows just how complicated it is to answer customer questions. So if we want to be able to tell somebody what their minimum dimension requirement for their parking stall is for their proposed development, we would need to look at all of this code language here, which can be quite tedious. It's not in the best format. And if we want to go answer their questions regarding drive aisle, we would need to skip this. And here are all the drive aisle width requirements as well as the 80s or 90s style illustrations. And to this method, it is just not ideal. And in fact, most people assume we have our code memorized. It's unfortunate, but we do not. So when we have to scroll through this and try to figure out what this is saying, it just makes us look unprofessional if we can't answer it immediately. Which is why we decided, us planners, we absolutely love tables. We're very table trigger happy. And so we all took a vote and decided that one large table would be the most appropriate way to demonstrate this. So all of that text has been converted to table formatting. So you can see the stall types parallel, 45 degrees, 60 degree and perpendicular. And then we have standards for a standard stall surface, for structured, for compact surface and structured, as well as the aisle with requirements, whether it is one way or two way. So another change is regarding the CD zone. Matt already talked about the vertical world. In fact, I included a picture in there for you just in case you felt like being inspired to go there when it is finished being developed. But one thing to recognize is that we're trying to encourage a variety of different types of uses to go into our city center. And most of the commercial uses actually do not require parking, which is wonderful. But there are certain types of uses that our current code does require parking for. And that includes, for example, indoor recreation. And considering the fact that our downtown is very walkable in the mixed use character of our downtown, as well as the availability of public parking, including the city center space. parking garage, which is free, we figured that this approach to remove that minimum parking requirement would be the best balance in order to create flexibility for new and changing commercial uses and encourage those commercial uses to come to our downtown when we want them so badly. So some additional changes include updating the parking applicability to comply with state law. So for example, I mentioned when they are proposing to change a use from one use to another, our current code does not comply with that requirement. We also propose to reorganize code to improve organization and usability. So for example, a lot of our code was written in the 80s. and had a different way of saying things, very verbose. Or we prefer tables, so that's what we're going to do. And then update code illustrations. You can see one example there. That top photo was done a very long time ago and is no longer legible. And we also want to add more color to our code. And then lastly, add definitions for unclear terms. For example, a joint use driveway We are always getting the term joint use driveway and shared driveway mixed up. So we want to make it easier for our customers and for ourselves. And so the next step includes the public hearing on September 16th. And the staff's recommendation is to amend Renton's parking regulations to comply with parking reform. Any questions?

Awesome. Thank you, Julia. I just wanted to make sure for the record that Commissioner Kelly has joined us. Thanks for hopping on.

Oh, wonderful.

Are there any questions at this time? Mr. Poole?

I have a question. So how about assisted living facilities? Does that fall under commercial?

Assisted living facilities, yes, that is in our current code in our parking table. We do have an identified code. number of parking. So you're asking if we're making any proposed changes to that?

Yeah, if the state had come up with any

So assisted living is defined differently than senior housing. Actually, we currently don't have a definition for senior housing in our code, but we thought it would be most appropriate to utilize the federally recognized definition for senior housing. But since assisted living doesn't necessarily, it's not necessarily restricted to 55 plus, then it would be a different definition and it does not cleanly align with with the specified uses identified with the specific bill, their wording. So if we're not required to make amendments, then we're not proposing amendments.

Yeah, it's a little bit of a gray area because there are some that are like independent and I mean like Merrill Gardens, for example, It's not necessarily all assisted living, but it's obviously part of an assisted living facility. So I can see the differentiation between that and actual just senior housing, which is apartments, right, for 55 and over.

And there may very well be overlap. So if it meets the definition of both senior housing and assisted living, then we would certainly apply the one that aligns with state law. So if it's for 55 plus, then we could not require minimum parking.

Yeah, I think that would be problematic for staff parking and such because there's a lot more employees that would work in that kind of facility as opposed to just senior housing.

So keep in mind- Gareth J. parking is just a requirement, like me coming from the development side. Gareth J. We generally would have very specific requirements for parking so. I've done retail developments where it's like we might only need four parking stalls, but we want 400. Right, right.

So, I mean, it's actually minimums not the same as the city isn't going to necessarily dictate.

You know what? You made a perfect point, a point that I meant to indicate in my presentation, but I did not. To clarify, our minimum parking requirements are only one aspect of what a developer is required to do. And often banks and lenders have their own requirements. So just because we don't require minimum parking does not mean that the bank and the lender will not require minimum parking or that the developer won't provide parking in order to meet parking demand based on market needs. So that is something to keep in mind. We will certainly be seeing parking even for single family homes that are smaller that will not be required by our code to provide parking.

Looks like Commissioner Madsen has a question.

Yeah, so let's imagine you're operating a small bike shop, downtown Renton. I mean, all of this amounts to any new development having significantly fewer parking requirements, we assume, in their development that could put more stress on the available parking within the city. I guess my question is, what is then the economic development conversation happening within the city to talk about how to make sure that we still have enough parking, I guess?

Understood. Thank you. So your concern, just to summarize what you stated, you brought up an example of a downtown commercial shop that would be essentially exempt from minimum parking requirements. And what is the city doing to consider mitigation for those impacts? Is that correct?

Let me, let me restate I was joking about the bike shop and I was. Okay, so no just like it sounds as if so I'm trying to read the bottom line here and the bottom line is that we have far fewer requirements around development projects that would require parking, like a parking minimum requirement is going down so as we develop and there's large sections of the city that could be developed in the next you know 10 years. The requirements around building adequate parking based on the state's mandate is lower than what we had historically required. So if there's a gap there, how is that being met? Because now we're not putting it onto the developers. Is it becoming a public concern? Is it like... Do you see what I'm saying?

Or maybe I'm misinterpreting this completely. I completely understand what you're saying. And actually, you're following the same lines as many of the customer inquiries that were left on our project website for parking reform. So city staff looked at this issue from multiple lenses. So first, like I said, there are There's more than one barrier that a developer needs to consider when it comes to the needs for parking, including lending, as well as market demands. So that is one issue. The city also considered, well, do we want to incentivize developers to provide parking when parking is otherwise limited? not required. Uh, one challenge was, uh, with that is that, uh, if lenders, uh, require parking and then we provide, uh, incentives for them to provide parking when parking is not required, uh, what it essentially does is it provides, uh, provides them, uh, freebie bonuses that, uh, uh, they would have provided the parking anyways. And now we're providing them, for example, uh, lot coverage bonuses that they would have achieved regardless. So we did not think it was appropriate to draft in our code at this time a incentivization using other development standards to provide parking. But you are correct, it could potentially, and anybody's concerns regarding this state mandate are valid. And this will be one of those things where we will need to see what happens and make revisions to our code as the years progress. Hopefully Matt has some extra dash in there to help.

Yeah, if I can just expand on Angelia's response there, Commissioner Madsen. As Angelia mentioned, we've been thinking about this a lot. And her last point was, You know, obviously adopting the standards, see how it goes. This is kind of the approach that we took with middle housing as well. But some of the ideas that we're kicking around and what we've seen nationwide as many of these mandates is just not locally here. That's happened in Washington state. This is happening in other places as well as is really kind of enforcing, um, on street parking right now, um, in the city, you know, you can park for free on the curb, uh, pretty much anywhere in the city. So, you know, obviously I'm not advocating for paid parking or metered parking, but depending on how this flushes out, if, if there is, um, If parking really does become a premium and it becomes an issue, that may be something that we need to look at. Another idea that we've been kicking around is a parking impact fee. And we're kind of looking at the legality of that, if that would be consistent with state law, but potentially charging an impact fee on new developments that don't provide parking and putting that money into a pool and potentially building a Public parking, like another parking garage downtown. So these are some of the ideas that we're kicking around. We're also thinking about this too. I don't want you to, I don't want, I definitely don't want the commission to think that, you know, we're just, we're taking all these requirements and we're just processing them through because we have to. we're the ones that have to live with this, right? So we need to figure out solutions on how to mitigate for them. So those are a couple of the ideas that we've kicked around. But again, it'll be, let's adopt it. Let's see what happens. Let's see if the market takes care of it. And then if not, let's circle back and see what options we have available to mitigate it.

Yeah, no, I think a wait and see approach makes a sense. I'm not being critical of it at all. I just was curious if, you know, thinking through, it just seems like a clear shift of obligation. So, yeah. Thank you.

Commissioner Plants.

Thank you. Let me start by saying I appreciate the presentation and the work, especially understanding that this is a state mandate. I guess I appreciate Matt's comments. I guess my question would be, when do you anticipate kind of like checking in because I've just I've heard in my work from affordable housing operators that they are starting to struggle with lease up because a lot of affordable housing already does not have parking associated with the units and especially in south king county it's it's hard to be a working family without regular access to a car just at least the reality right now um so i i hear what you're saying about the the market it's just my understanding is part of the argument behind doing this at the state level is because of how expensive it is to do parking and so i'm worried that even though there seems to be a market demand without the mandate I'm concerned if the market will manifest the parking that we need. And I guess, when is the check-in to stop rambling?

Absolutely. And I'm sure that Matt may correct me, but I'll take a stab at it first. So I think that when we first talked about middle housing, that was in 2025, and it's coming to that two-year mark. And so we'll be relooking at middle housing and seeing if we can make any amendments. And probably a two-year time period would be appropriate for parking as well, because development does take a very long time. to move through the process from the application point to actually seeing what the results are. We don't necessarily need a project to be fully built in order to assess what the impacts are for parking. It's pretty much at the proposal stage. But one thing to consider that should alleviate your concerns, at least a tiny bit, is that parking is one of our most popular questions or concerns at the front counter, and they will not let us forget. So... So it's not one of those where we leave it and forget it. It is where we plan for it and then we are reminded of it repeatedly.

Great point. Thank you.

On that, I mean, my point again is that these are minimums. We can't regulate everything. businesses on how they want to do their business. People are smart people. They're spending hundreds of millions of dollars doing developments are not going to put three parking stalls for 700,000 square foot buildings. I mean, I think there is a certain logic that it's impossible for a city to say, Oh, you need 14 stalls. You know, that's not, Minimum, I think, is important. I think the rest of it just has to be logic-based. And I hope that as projects come in with these large developments that you look at the minimums, but you also talk to the developers and the people that want to do these projects about what are the impacts of what they're doing. You might not be able to require it, right? But you sure can have a discussion with how this is going to impact the city. Yeah.

Yes, absolutely. In fact, I have one example of a coffee shop that was existing. I can't remember what the use was before, but it was a restaurant, and then it was converted to a coffee shop, and they wanted to add a... not a walk-up window, but a dry vial window. And as a result, they needed to remove several parking spaces. They were already exceeding our maximum parking requirements. So as I probably told you, or I may not have told you yet, we have minimum parking requirements and we have maximum parking requirements. Often they're the same number and they already well exceeded the maximum. So they proposed to reduce the number of parking spaces, but it still exceeded it. And they were permitted to do that because they increased conformity rather than increasing conformity. So people will more often than not want to exceed our maximums rather than the opposite or go below our minimums.

Did you go to the parking stall slide? I think it was the second one. A couple more, the graphic one. Eight-foot parking stalls give me a headache, by the way, but that's OK. I would think that that accessible parking stall slide Hopefully, this is just a draft because none of that meets ADAC, American Disabilities Standards, when it comes to things. I don't know if your intention is to leave it that way, but maybe look at the National Accessible Standards graphics, and if we're going to have something that's going to be showing how we do accessible stalls, we should probably match that because... there's lots of things on that slide that are wrong. And I don't know if we wanna be showing something in our code that is not meeting standard accessible parking stall guidelines.

That is a great point.

The symbol's wrong. The striping's wrong. Yeah, lots of stuff.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. This is a rather large code section. And unfortunately, I did miss that. I trusted that our existing illustration at least complied with the minimum, at least this specific one complied, but it does not. And I will be sure to look that up. Thank you.

the ADAG, which is the accessibility standard for the United States.

So I actually have two questions for you. First was, I was wondering what the parking requirements were for specifically for in case of ADUs and how it's done for detached housing with ADU. So I think it just mentions specifically detached dwelling and then multifamily.

Yes, understood. So the parking requirements for ADUs will be dependent on whether they are detached or detached. And most, well, not most ADUs, all ADUs will be under the 1,200 square feet. And as a result, we will not be able to require minimum parking for detached ADUs. If the And that would also apply to attached ADUs as well. They would not be, we could not require parking for those as well. They would all fall under the 1,200 square feet.

But it would still be required for bicycle parking, I think, right?

Oh, you were talking about bicycle parking.

Just parking in general.

If it is detached, then no spaces would be required. If it is attached and they do not have their own private garage, then based on our current draft, we would be requiring for the long-term one space for each two dwelling units. And for short-term visitors, one space for each 30 dwelling units.

Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. And then the other question is probably not going to get answered today. But specifically for the CD zone in terms of the transit center being moved to Rayner Grady, it's, I'm wondering how we're going to be able to continue to provide access to that area when we're simultaneously limiting parking to the area while also reducing the number of bus routes that will go through the area. So I was wondering if you have any information in terms of as the transit center gets moved, what bus routes will be changed or what those frequencies and services will look like going forward. Because if we're not providing parking and we're also not providing transit access, it's a bit difficult to continue to support that area.

My apologies, I may not have understood your question. Your concern is it that if we're relocating the routes or the transit hub, and we don't require parking for that transit hub. I'm sorry, is that the?

Yeah, so there is a parking barrage, but there's also still, we're also limiting parking along the sides of the road as well. So it's still going to be less parking, if I understand correctly. But we're also reducing, we're also moving to transit centers, there's less bus access. So I was wondering, well, what the future routes would be or what kind of service we'd expect for that area once a transit center moves. Because that's still our downtown core. Even if we were to do with TOD developments in that area, in Rainer Grady, it would still be our downtown core.

I can interject. King County is, I know that they've gathered a committee to look at bus routes, knowing that that transit center is moving. So we don't have any final numbers or routes or what they're doing with the buses and access to that area. But I know that they're looking into it.

Okay. All right.

Thank you.

Fair artsy. We can come back with the bus routes. The F line is still going to be going through downtown. They're going to have to reroute it a bit, but we can come back with... with their best routes and how that will change for sure. Yes. There's a, there's a preliminary route structure that's, that's already in place.

Okay, cool. Yeah.

I figured it was going to be still service the area, but just, I mean, while we're sort of playing like a, you know, still servicing the area, still providing a lot of parking in the parking garage. And obviously there's lots of on-street parking downtown as well.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

I just had one quick comment, and that was regarding the potential for metered parking or a parking impact fee to help fund a future garage would be amazing, especially for just getting back to what Shannon was talking about, that side of downtown along Main Street. particularly is very constrained with street parking and especially with, you know, a couple of the larger developments that have come in while specifically second and main. But it would be great to see some supplementary parking. I know it's incredibly expensive. But it would help fill in the void there because it's a bit too far for a lot of people to walk. But to create a garage, say, like right near Melrose Grill or something like that in... city owned property, um, would provide an option that would still kind of, um, you know, work with a walk, a future walkable character of, of downtown. Um, because it, it just concentrates, uh, the, the parking into one location. That would be my vision personally, but I think that would have to come from much higher up. Wouldn't it probably the administration. or city council.

I think turning to Bank of America parking is something possible.

Yes. Well, but see, that's too close to... That would be... But that's already a... That's not really public parking. I mean, it is, but no one... Yeah, people park there at their own risk.

Park over in a linear parking area and just walk. It's easy, easy parking. I mean, I'm not 80, but still...

I would suggest, I don't know a business owner downtown that isn't frustrated with parking as in general. So I think we're already at a critical mass and then further stressed by, you know, residents of downtown also looking for parking solutions. So I think it's already kind of cresting to the point of like, it might be worthwhile thinking about where there can be investments or even just micro parking lots throughout the city. I mean, cause I think people are willing to circle. That's not the problem. Um, I would have bigger feelings about paid parking downtown. I understand that the cost has come from somewhere, but at the same time, like, you know, the communities that are, if we're consolidating, you know, we're consolidating a bunch of assets in our city to its downtown core, which I think is kind of the hallmark of a thriving city, then we want to think about the ways in which we're taxing participants in those communities, both in their occupancy, both the businesses and our visitors. And so I just think there has to be some temperance in there, but I understand there's a cost to be paid one way or the other. Just my two cents, I guess we're all just putting in our best. Yeah. Sorry, Jeff.

Oh, you're muted, Jeff.

I think the mics are not working sometimes.

Okay. I would just like to give a shout out to the TOD subarea that we just worked at on. And I know nothing has developed there, but as we're thinking about how parking is changing and we're thinking about downtown, I think we're going to have the same issues there as that develops. So just a shout out to staff. Thank you for thinking about it after we've created that. And then the other is I'm going to be extremely insensitive and say, Yes. Parking downtown is a problem. And when we do this and we remove parking, it's going to be a problem. And there are also people who like living and having their businesses and their spaces in a place where it's not all about the cars and they do get to walk and, um, So on the one hand, I have sympathy for parking complaints and being somebody who tries to park downtown and has to wait a while before I find a spot because I drive a big truck that doesn't fit in the garage. And on the other hand, I don't have any sympathy at all because that's part of the character and nature of the way that downtown is developing. And so I think I just kind of want to give space to all of the above, not just the vocal complaints of parking, parking, parking. Thanks.

Yeah, I would echo that as well. As nice as it would be to have parking available to everybody, I think I'd much rather have more livable spaces and more businesses and parks in other areas around our downtown rather than just having it being dominated by parking garages and other parking lots and those sort of things.

I think one of the problems is we just don't have any, like Shannon said, there aren't any micro parking lots. There's no paid parking lots really even. It's either illegal or you know, or it's free. It'd be nice to have a few options. So maybe that could be an effort that is to encourage, you know, the diamond parkings of the world to come in as much as we love them, as much as we love them.

But I swear the parking garage behind the transit center is totally under.

Oh yeah, totally.

But I mean, I, I, I've never, park there. Yeah. But I mean, my mom's not going to walk there from, you know, we got like a five-story parking garage utilized rather than having paid diamond parking, which is a complete and utter scam. Then why don't we just like, why don't we, is there something we can do to like, make this parking garage sexy because it looks like a place I don't want to go. It's not, it looks like I'm going to get mugged or smell like pee every time I go in there. So, I mean, is there, is there some improvement that could be made as part of the redevelopment of the transit center that makes that parking lot parking structure, something that people are either aware of and want to park in? Because right now it looks like some of the downtown Seattle ones where you're like, no, I'm not parking here because I don't know if my car is going to be here when I come.

Well, it is changing quite a bit. I mean, and it's going to immensely because once the transit center leaves, that road in front of it is going to be redeveloped into... the new climbing gym, basically.

Yeah, but I hope something's done too. Oh, too. As part of the redevelopment to make that parking garage more of a functional downtown city, you know, take off the big metal panels. Oh, I see what you're saying aesthetically. Make it so that there's like, I mean, not really, but I think there's something that could be done and hopefully Vertical World is supportive that they want people to use that parking garage for their use.

Maybe they could turn it into part of their facility.

I think we've got more questions online. Commissioner Kelly, I think you're first.

I mean, I think I would just say that I love the discussion and hearing where you're all at. This is just going to move forward and we're just going to see what happens. I mean, like if I owned a little piece of property downtown now, I might be incentivized to just open up a paid lot instead of build something on it. Right. I mean, like I so I think it's. There's going to be natural change that comes as part of this. And it's going to take time for that natural change to happen. And we're just going to have to ride that wave.

I think Commissioner Mattson was next, at least based on what I see here.

Oh, I was already unmuted. Yeah, I mean, I want to go on record as saying I don't actually think in the downtown core that there should be paid parking. I think it should be free for the vitality of our downtown business district, but that's just me. And I do think that there should be, you know, more lots. And I agree, this isn't the place to have this conversation. I just do, I think it's the artifact of the outcome that is probable, maybe likely associated with these changing trends requirements or controls around parking. And so I guess that my preference is that the city, as a part of a master plan, starts to think about where we are going to mitigate some of those impacts in a way where we're creating more options for livability and workability and for commerce. My husband's business isn't a business that you can drive to the parking garage and take a broken bike down four blocks of a city. If we are thinking about the image of a downtown and what types of businesses will thrive there, that should be part of the bigger conversation. And if after 22 years of operating there, that doesn't make sense anymore, then that's kind of the fatality of those decisions. And so, I mean, and that's just like, I think that that's fine, but like there are consequences to how we build or how we don't. And so I think that that's the piece of, and not all of our businesses downtown, most of them are restaurants and service, you know, and retail. And that's exactly what it should be. But yeah, so I'm all for, you know, incentivizing more economic development and development projects. And if, if lowering the standards on parking gets us there, I guess that's, that's the intent, but, but at the same time, if it puts a squeeze on our communities and we're also not thinking of ways to invest publicly to offset those, those concerns it makes me nervous about, you know, some of these more dense areas of our, our city. So, okay. I'll stop talking. Sorry. Okay.

and conditioner plants.

Sorry, I'll be quick. Just because as somebody who regularly uses that parking garage, I have been noticing that it is starting to get more and more difficult to actually find a spot there so I just want to like I've heard underutilized and there are definitely times of the day that it is but I just want to flag that like as people are saying like things are changing and um I'm just I'm curious I'm concerned about the the multiple changes at once and I think you know, there's, there's no avoiding them. It's just more about actually like looking and saying, um, cause the, the time, like, I don't even know if it's so much a safety thing. Uh, and I know this isn't the place for it, but like, it's just not even clear that that parking garage really is free parking. Like you pull in and there's, you know, the, the check-in station. So like, I think there's more that can be done there, but I just on the record want to say that like, it has been getting more and more difficult to park in downtown. Um, sorry.

Thanks, Legacy Square.

Yeah, thanks for that perspective. That's good to hear, though. I mean, not good for you, but good overall.

Oh, the parking requirements for Legacy Square.

That's a free lot right there.

I mean, can we? Because the landing also has issues during game day. And, you know, I don't want to say anything negative about, you know, the Sacred Seahawks, but, like, maybe... There's something to be said about limited paid parking during events. I don't know. I'll stop.

And an hour later.

Wow. Okay. Hearing no other comments, I think, going once, going twice. All right. Awesome. Thank you, Angelia. Thank you. Next up on the docket is docket 21, group C, D-255, housekeeping amendments to Title IV, RMC, and comprehensive plan.

This will be equally not as sexy. Hilarie Sorensen- My assignment associate planner, for the record, this item is on housekeeping just cleaning up our code and our comprehensive plan so not as big or juicy as parking. The housekeeping amendment is really to correct typos, correct references, where we might be referencing a different section of code and then we've changed that section of code and now it's referencing the wrong thing. Clearing up ambiguous language, organizing information to make it easier to use. As Angelia said, sometimes a table might be better or information might be in the wrong spot where we're not looking for it. And then updating plan names. And this is both in the RMC Title IV. So things like removing a seven year expiration clock for subdivisions that doesn't apply to any existing subdivisions or ones going forward. And then the comprehensive plans, things like correcting typos of policy labels, being the wrong letters, changing names of plans that have been, have changed names since this was adopted in 2024. So like the parks, recreation and natural areas plan now became the parks, recreation and open space plans. We have to change everywhere that that was references. So all of these changes are really just cleanup. There's no different policy or implementation of the plan or our code. So there's about a dozen sections in the code that we want to clean up and about two dozen corrections in the comprehensive plan. The next step for this is a public hearing on September 16th, playing commission deliberations on the October 7th, and then back to P&D on October 12th for their recommendations before adoption by the full city council. Happy to answer questions.

We're good. Awesome. Yeah, I think we're all set.

We worked it all out from the last one, so I think we're good. I don't know about typos.

Okay. That is the last we're going to go over for today. Next up are commissioner comments. Does anybody have a comment?

No. Got a lot of our system too.

No. All right. Seeing none, the last item we have is adjournment. Is there a motion to adjourn for today? Okay. Motion by commissioner. People's names down. Thank you.

Second.

Second, my commissioner. Thanks. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those against, please say nay. And motion passes. Thank you.

I should mention that I was the chair all through COVID and it was so nice to have everybody's name on their box. I had the total cheater.

I don't know what happens. I know it in my head. And as soon as I look at the face, it's just gone.

You've been driving Deadman so much. Like, I literally, I drove straight here.