Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Any feedback we in comments we get from you all tonight into what will be published in the middle of this month. And just wanna say that there are some things that if there are larger policy questions or comments on, like, things like maps and stuff like that that that we need to go through and, like, systemically format, we probably won't have those done for the published draft, but they will be done for the final. So I guess just to say we're taking all of this in and just and bear with us because we're on just quite tight timelines, and we can't turn around all revisions before we publish a draft. So gonna go through introduction, equity inclusion, climate environment, parks and recreation and cultural services, transportation mobility, and public facilities and services tonight, and we'll kinda walk you through the high level of that, and then we'll we will have a discussion, get some feedback. So this is the slide we present before every presentation we give on the draft draft chapters just to contextualize, like, why we're doing this and why they exist.

We're comprehensive planning in Washington state occurs under the growth management act that tells us what needs to be included in the comprehensive plan. So chapters or elements, how those have to relate to each other. And then there is a lot of statutory requirements through the revised code of Washington or the WACC, the Washington Administrative Code, that tell us what needs to be included in those chapters, like in detail and the requirements for how we treat different pieces or policies that the legislature has passed within the plan. So I'll try to call out some of that stuff as we go. The plan, importantly, it has to be internally consistent.

So you couldn't have for example, a climate policy that says you're gonna do x y and z in protecting wetlands, but not have a recommendation in the land use for like, wetland regulation. Right? So there there needs to be, like, consistency throughout the document. You also have to have a set of data supported assumptions. So you we you've seen them, but we have projections.

We've done detailed analyses of of the status, existing conditions, where we are, where we we are, what we think we need to do for the future, and and those all have to be data supported. And then as you know, we have capacity targets. So I'll jump in the sort of legal requirements by chapter. So the introduction is is not mandatory, but we think it's important. One of the key things that is in the introduction is telling people how the plan itself is organized and how to, like, use it and navigate it.

The other the other thing that's will be included in the final introduction, well, in the draft that's published that you didn't see was the glossary of terms. We were just still doing a double check of consistency with WACS, basically, to make sure where the state defines different terms were consistent with that. But there will be a glossary because there's, as you know, a lot of a lot of things we say that maybe don't, on its face, make sense without some definition to, you know, just the general public. And then it establishes the plan's purpose, sort of the context we're planning in, and again, the the requirement for internal consistency. Equity, again, is not required to be a standalone element, and it is something the city and our policymakers decided early on to incorporate to reflect our commitment to justice, equity, inclusion, and to provide guidance and a lens through which we will operationalize our comprehensive goals going forward.

It does, though, there are there are requirements in different WACs and laws that do require us to address certain things. So for instance, in h b twelve twenty, that's the bill that was passed in 2022, I believe, that requires us to plan for housing units by income band. It also requires requires a racially disparate impacts analysis. So that is a legal requirement. We could have put it somewhere else if we didn't do an equity chapter, but it is in our equity chapter.

Similarly, the climate bills that have passed require us to look at environmental justice considerations, and you'll see some of that reflected in the equity chapter. So it is where we've tried to put some of those more those those policies that require us to focus on disparities in because really that is what our work is, is looking at how do we address disparities so that everybody has access to opportunities. And then climate, again, climate is a mandatory element, and we have to address a bunch of stuff. It includes we have to have a greenhouse gas emissions inventory. We have to have done a climate impact analysis.

We have to have policies around resilience and adaptation and environmental justice again, and we have to say how we're gonna mitigate climate impacts. So there's pretty clear statutory guidance on what has to be in the climate chapter. Parks and recreation, you can do two ways under GMA. You can include it in your public facilities and services, or you can do it as a standalone. The city has always traditionally or sorry.

The city has not always traditionally done as a standalone, but we think that makes sense. It's an area that people think of as a discrete sort of body of public services that's provided. We do have to establish level of service standards for parks, recreation, and cultural services. We haven't changed those standards from what's in the parks comprehensive plan. But you will see there's in the chapters, there's some implementation recommendations about looking at those in the future to make sure we can we can adequately serve growth.

Transportation and mobility is a mandatory element under the RCWs. Again, we have to be able to show that we can serve growth. We have to define what that is through level of service standards. We have to this be able to show a financing plan both at the six and twenty year scale, the six being much more detailed. We have to show that we are consistent with the regional the regional model and regional planning done by the our our our Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is Regional Transportation Council.

And importantly and newly, we have to both define and show how we are going to measure what is now called multimodal level of service. And so typically in transportation, we have only measured level of service for vehicles. And the state now now requires us to measure level of service for all modes. And so there's some ways you can do that. We have we have defined how we will do that and and what it means to adequately serve non vehicular modes.

Oops. Skipped one. And then public for this one's really important. Public facilities and services, this is like just sort of baseline foundational growth management act stuff. You gotta show that you can serve the growth you're planning for with essential facilities and services.

So that means things like water, sewer, storm water management, garbage and recycling, pickup, police, fire, schools, libraries, transit, those kind of things. And and that's a very prescribed chapter. You have to have, again, level of service standards for all of these things. You have to have a capital facilities plan that lists every project on your one to six year project list in your six seven to twenty years, and you gotta show how you can fund the six to or the one to six years in detail. And then you need to say some things about how you plan to fund the longer term list, but less specificity is required there just given how far out it is.

So basically, we've organized the chapters to take the reader from context to strategy to implementation. So each chapter is designed to sort of move through a historical context and current conditions relevant to that chapter, a vision statement that is specific to that chapter, identification of key challenges or important trends that we're seeing that are are like, our strategy is responding to. We've summarized community feedback in every chapter trying to be specific to it. Of course, there is overlap. Like, people don't just talk about parks.

They talk about the environment. They talk about trails. Right? So it's there's a there's overlap there. We we have a section on equity lens we're applying in every chapter and sort of what's the relevant supporting data, how are equity priority communities impacted, how we address that.

It provides a little bit of further guidance. And this is really intended to both show that that the engagement from the community, which was substantial through this process, has been translated into policies that will help guide future decision making and how to invest resources at the city. And that that people hopefully can see how decision making we make today or tomorrow or next year really does have a connection to the outcomes that we'll see in twenty years and what we are trying to achieve. And then I think the other thing is we're trying to make it accessible to folks. Like, we're trying to tell a story.

It's kinda hard when you have to use terms like multimodal level of service, but, you know, to the extent that we can help people see, you know, here's where, for instance, the transportation network is today or the system is today. Here are our challenges. Here's some of the issues we're facing. Here's our strategies, and here's where we wanna go. That's what we're trying to do.

So the introduction section, it's it's an overview, a very, very quick and not intended to be comprehensive overview. You know, we we could and probably should, but it's not sort of within the scope of what GMA requires. But spend thousands and thousands of pages recounting the history of indigenous communities in this area. We touch on it, like, very briefly. We wanna recognize that and that you really shouldn't be doing quote unquote land use planning without thinking about the folks who stewarded and lived on this land for for thousands of years.

And, you know, fundamentally, growth management is about a specific type of development and future orientation. So we're not spending all that time here. It highlights issues facing the community and what the sort of the trends that we think are gonna really impact the community over the next twenty years. It has the overall vision statement, includes the I don't think the version you got did, but the published version will include a list of all the referenced plans. So and links to it.

So, you know, we reference the transportation system plan and the transportation improvement program or the capital improvement program or the twenty year water plan. Right? Like, all of those will be listed there. And then it also will include all the supplemental exhibits. So that's the analyses that we've done as part of this that support it.

So the housing needs assessment, the economic conditions and opportunities analysis, that kind of thing. It will include, again, a glossary of key terms and definitions, and then how it has a how to use this document. And then the council feedback that we received earlier this month is just some consistency across sort of the way that we structure different types of statements. So we're doing a look at that through the editing process. They also had some feedback on, like, consistent formatting of maps, which we we know is an issue and will be fixed for the final version.

So we're gonna share council feedback throughout here. So the the sort of first substantive chapter I wanna walk through is the equity chapter. So you as you go into this, essentially, what you hopefully are seeing is goal statements that, again, reflect what we've heard from community feedback, as well as our council's policies. And then sort of the this chapter itself has several things it's trying to do. So responding to historic and ongoing policies that have produced disparities, and that's the racially disparate impact, environmental impact, environmental justice analysis, a vision that establishes equity as a plan wide lens, and says a bit about how we will apply that lens through implementation that includes things like our equity index, displacement risk assessment tool, transit dependency tools.

So things that we look at to say, where do we have disparities in access to opportunities, and how are we gonna use that information to guide decision making in the future? And then it does seek to sort of provide some coordinating language that that ties the chapter to the equity sections in all the other chapters to ensure that, you know, we really are we're making those policy level connections that will help us deliver benefits to folks who have experienced or who have traditionally been underserved or excluded. Chair, do you want me to stop after each chapter? Just

I was thinking about that. Would you rather get our feedback on a chapter by chapter basis, or do you want us to go through all of it? I'm looking into my fellow commissioners to see if there's sort of a consensus around do on hold questions to the end like we normally do, or would you rather dive into each chapter? Yeah. We'll we'll go through all.

So climate policy, again, this is significantly guided by state statute and the things that have to be included. And we have goals around really about being resilient in the face of climate change and and doing equitable adaptation? Sort of thinking about how do we how do we build and integrate natural systems better into developed areas as part of that both resiliency strategy, but also about supporting native species, key habitat. Again, kind of trying to get at the root cause of climate change by decreasing local emissions, and then an overall goal around sort of measuring environmental health and thinking about addressing disparities in environmental health outcomes. So it's intended to respond to what we know are increase increasing climate risks.

And in our area, these are particularly extreme heat, flooding, and wildfire smoke exposure that that are projected to really intensify over time. It integrates both mitigation and adaptation. Like, we're we're not just gonna I think, nope. Most people are clear that it's here. We're gonna be dealing with it.

So we have to adapt. And at the same time, we should try to be decreasing emissions to mitigate the extent to which the problem evolves. It has environmental justice goals, and those are coordinated with the city's climate action framework. So there's a lot of what's in here is reflective of existing city policy, but also some a lot of new stuff. And then in terms of council feedback, what we heard was we should add greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets by climate sector.

And so climate sectors are you see it will often be like energy, land use, transportation. And that is not we are looking at whether the CAF says anything about that, but I think we know what our largest emission sources are. So, like, what sectors are having the largest source in emissions, and we have strategies around that. But in terms of overall reduction targets, we're not sure if we can get that done here if that's through a future update of the climate action framework. And then there's a lot of supplemental work just pointing this out depending on how deep you wanna go, but we did a clay climate vulnerability assessment.

So this just looks at, like, geographically, how are climate risks dispersed around the city that's required under the Growth Management Act. We did a health impact assessment. So this is really looking at where do we have disproportionate public health public health and outcomes, basically. And then it has sort of policies for and aligns with RCWs that require us to think about how to address environmental justice and community health issues. And again, this is really about looking at where do we have disparate impacts, and and then how do we invest in areas over time to to reduce those impacts.

And then we have a GHG emissions inventory, which says sources as well as potential mitigation frameworks. Parks so this chapter is really built on and consistent with the Parks Recreation and Cultural Services Essential Places Plan. So that's their parks comprehensive plan that's required under Washington law. It was last updated a couple years ago, so it reflects sort of very recent thinking. So it has goals around community health and recreation, parks, trails, nature spaces, and connecting and integrating those things.

The role that open space plays in community health and wellness, and then the role of cultural services in in building a, you know, inclusive representative city that's fun to live in, that brings people together in community. So those are the really the goals. I think it's important to note a few things. This is not new information for the city, but we have uneven distribution of access to parks and open space across the city. Much of that is tied to land use.

So the areas of the city that were developed, you know, post 1970, 1980, the East Side, we have a real lack of parks because we had a brilliant development pattern of single family subdivision through on repeat without the the development of adequate parkland, and that was really when that area developed in the county. And so we're trying to figure out how to address that. It I think an important thing here is that it establishes parks, natural areas, cultural spaces as what we call essential infrastructure. So we treat it as something that we have to serve growth with the way we would water or sewer. And that is a requirement of the Growth Management Act.

The council feedback was interesting, and I think here may be a reflection in some ways of the two chapters they have not seen yet, specifically our community experience chapter. But there was sort of direction to call out arts and culture more, but and large moves or big moves the city is trying to make in the art space right now with the Art Hub and potentially performing arts center. And the role art plays in in sort of a vibrant community and bringing people together. I think that is very called out in our community experience chapter that they just haven't seen yet. So we're working to kind of address that, make sure it's clear.

You read the park standalone, but it's also there. They asked us why we didn't do an updated parks level service standard, and the reason is that that is a body of work our parks department needs to take on evaluating what their their level service standards are and combining that with a comprehensive funding strategy that really our parks and rec department has been lacking for a long long time. And then the Columbia River, again, I think this is this sort of just touchstone of wanting the just make sure somewhere in the plan this that is talking about the role the city has in the protection, the preservation, the enhancement of the Columbia River as a, you know, significant geographic feature that drives it was the reason sort of the city is here and has driven sort of the life that's been built in this area for a long time. Transportation. You all well, many of you were around when we were updating the transportation system plan that was adopted in 2024.

So, again, very recent policy guidance. It's largely consistent with that. It talks about integrated transportation and connectivity. So basically, low carbon mobility choices, those multimodal access. Freight access is a big deal in both plans because of the role it plays in the economic health of the region, and then eliminate a goal to a aspirational goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and have a vision zero program that sort of responds quickly when we either have near misses or we see a fatality.

And what are we gonna go out and do now to the infrastructure to make sure that doesn't happen again? So we're we're working on that. Again, it is very consistent with the transportation system plan. The new thing is, again, multimodal level of service. We are defining we're using level of traffic stress, which is a metric you see in our transportation system plan that basically is a way to measure whether a facility is safe and appropriate for the road that it is on.

So, basically, you want everybody to feel safe and comfortable using whatever the facility is. So as, you know, a detached sidewalk or sorry. I shouldn't people don't know about an an attached sidewalk, which just means the sidewalk's right up on the curb that's four feet wide on a street like portions of 18th Street, right, where you have traffic moving at forty forty miles an hour right up that is not a that is not a level of traffic stress that would meet our standard for that pedestrian. Right? These cars are too close.

There isn't separation. They're going too fast for that to be the right facility. Similarly to, like, a a bike or small mobility lane. In a neighborhood street where you've got parking on both sides and people have to drive really, really slow and there's not very much traffic and the volumes are really low, a shared facility or it can be safe or, you know, can be a a very you know, level of traffic stress can meet our standard. On a larger road, you're gonna need with with higher volumes and speeds, you're gonna need some level of vertical separation to make that a safe facility for people.

So that's sort of how we are measuring multimodal level of service. And then the council feedback, it was about really just wanting us to kinda double down on activating infrastructure, so like celebrating it. So doing things like, you know, street parties or riding parties where you, you know, help people see how they can use new infrastructure or roadways that have been changed, which is something we try to do and is really a resource issue. But glad the council, you know, that's something they wanna see as a future policy. And then they wanna see a target for converting vehicle trips to active trips.

And, again, we kind of think that that is something that our climate action framework should be doing because there's there's sort of what transportation is typically done, which is said, what are the what is the the programs and the facilities we need to give people choices? And then there's, you know, I think what our climate action framework has typically done, which is said, let's measure the output of emissions from different activities, and then let's set targets that collectively get us to their whole thing. So we we're talking to the climate folks about, you know, they're gonna be doing a minor update of the climate action framework to align with the comp plan post adoption. I mean, the work has started. The conversations have started.

So what what are they gonna do in terms of setting targets by climate sector and setting targets for specific things like, you know, vehicle trips converting to active trips? Not quite sure the comp plan is gonna take us that far. Okay. And last thing, public facilities and services. So this is really about high quality infrastructure and services, funding those in a sustainable and responsible way, and ensuring that the lens we put on all our infrastructure design decisions is public safety, whether that be PFAS issues and designing our water system to get rid of those forever chemicals, or it be street design, or it be police and fire facility design to accommodate, you know, quick response times that enhance community safety.

So this chapter is a lot of tables with numbers in it and lists a lot of plans as reference, but it basically shows you rolls up tables that have planned the planned well, costs for planned investments in the six year planning period, so the one to six year, and then where possible in the seven to twenty. I'll note that some of our partners don't actually do seven to twenty year capital facilities plans. It's just not like what their cycle looks like, so in a lot of those you see like NA. And again, the point of this is we have to show that we are aligning the way we plan for services, capital investments, as well as things like emergency services, libraries, transit, parks with with growth. So where not just overall growth totals, but where growth is gonna occur within the city.

What is the existing facilities that we have, and what do we need to do to then serve that growth given the level of service we say we're gonna provide. And the council feedback was a there was a little bit of discussion around libraries and schools. Not super clear, but I think some I think the main focus on the libraries was about the steps the board had recently taken, the Fort Vancouver Libraries Board, and and wanting to understand to what extent the city is providing funding, and what's the level of service we're getting for that. And then just we need better maps, and we know that. Okay.

So that was the super quick version. Not that quick, but felt quick. And so basically, we're gonna be sending off a package to the Department of Commerce on the February 17 to start their sixty day review period. We've been meeting with them regularly, so they know it's coming, and we think we've got a pretty good package to send over. The next day on the eighteenth, we will be reviewing or releasing the published drafts of the plan and the code.

And then we will start engagement. We've got virtual sessions and a couple in person sessions. And then we'll do a lot of our usual work engaging with different working groups, community based organizations, neighborhood associations. We presented to the Vancouver Neighborhood Alliance last week and are scheduled to go to several more. And then in April, we'll initiate the adoption process here with you all and take it to council. And May is the plan. So that's what I've got, and appreciate any feedback or comments y'all have after your review.

Thank you. Commissioner Wheeler.

Okay. First of all, just in general, this is great. Reading through it. It the incorporation of community feedback was, I thought very prominent and good to look at. I think for people to look at and and when they're asked the question of when I give feedback is it listened to? I think this makes it clear that it is. I thought it was readable. I thought it was well structured. So just in general, I like the direction of it. I like the way that it's structured.

For what it is, it was readable. So I have a few nitpicks aside from just in general, it's really good. I think my main nitpick is in the the equity chapter. There's a section about embedding benefits, directly embedding benefits. So the the wording that concerns me a little bit is it says, this goal calls for embedding community benefits directly into private development and redevelopment projects, ensuring that growth directly delivers value to impacted neighborhoods through affordable housing, small business space, or public amenities.

I don't necessarily like, I don't disagree that that's a good thing, but I I feel like the way that it's worded, it kind of makes the assumption that growth is not valuable unless we do these extra things. That growth does not benefit the neighborhood unless we do those things. And so while I think those are absolutely good goals, I want to emphasize that growth can be, and in my opinion, is valuable for its own sake, you know, through giving us new neighbors and helping increase our tax base to make us more financially sustainable, helping increase our economic productivity. So that was kind of my main concern there. One thing I really liked in the equity chapter was that policy two says that one of the things that we're trying to do is build a community that welcomes new residents.

I I love that. I love that that's something we're calling out and and considering, and I think that's a really important part of making a city that's nice to live in. Aside from that, thought the climate chapter was great. I love that we are emphasizing urban form as something that contributes to climate change and can help us reduce the impact on the climate. Love just the holistic approach of all the different ways that we can help help reduce our impact on the climate when it comes to planning. So no real nitpicks there. Thought it was great. Transportation, also wonderful, you know, as as someone who gets around without a car. The attention to that experience, making that an important consideration was wonderful to see. The only piece of feedback I have is in in policy 66 where we're talking about community streets.

Maybe this would be a good place to consider, like, looking at long term pedestrianization of something, you know, maybe like Main Street or the waterfront, you know, what doesn't matter. I don't know if this is a good place for that, but I think it could be something that would be nice to call out as something the city might investigate at some point of pedestrianizing a street for, you know, a season or maybe permanently. I think that was basically all my feedback. Thank you so much for this.

Can I wanted to just respond and say that the emphasis on future residents, and that we, you know, are thinking about the folks who are here today, but also the people who will be here in the future? So you all did have a comment on that that, like, that framing was important in other chapters after our last workshop. So I just wanted to let you know that we've taken that lens and looked through the chapters. So hopefully, you'll see some positive or some some small but meaningful changes that reflect that direction in the last workshop. And then we can definitely take a look at the pedestrian section.

Okay. Commissioner Jay.

Thank you. Thank you, Rebecca, for walking us through that. I just had a couple things to jump in on jump in on the chapter two for the diversity and inclusion. I noticed that the the meat of the the chapter, I know the state requires for a a impact on that disparate race or an impact on how city policies will impact our our disparate racial communities in Vancouver. But given that a lot of the recommendations also included other communities, I thought it could be more interwoven within the whole document.

For example, we have universal solutions as one of the the goals, but we don't talk too much about the people with dis disabilities in the meat of it. It's mostly focused on race and income levels as opposed to disability. So I would recommend tying that in a little bit better to

Into kind of the equity chapter?

Yeah.

Okay. Got it. Yep.

Depending on the flow. And even in the first chapter, I mean, we are Vancouver, so we have the the School of the Blind has a huge impact on our our history. I think that could tie in well with a lot of the other recommendations because I know we do talk about ADA and the government billing section as well as the park section. So I think it's targeting just veteran. I'd also like to emphasize veteran communities as well and the impacts that they have.

Also the the elderly want we do call that out, which I appreciate, but I think given the impact of our demographic crisis, millennials not being anywhere close to the replacement level, so I'm kind of skeptical on the school numbers provided in terms of increased school enrollment. But I'm I'm curious to see how is the city looking forward to this in terms of how it will impact our our revenue, how it will impact our services. Because if we have a a larger old older population that are retired, that that definitely will have some huge impacts on our city, moving forward. So those are the three areas that I would recommend that I think can tie everything a little bit better together to look into, but I'll leave it at that, and thank you for the time.

So just to summarize, so take a look at the equity chapter and sort of make sure we're we're emphasizing all the equity priority communities that the council's policies identify rather than such a exclusive race or or or more of a focus on race and ethnicity? Is that what kind of just tie it Just say include those groups in.

Yeah. Include more variables into how we would how we define diversity, equity, inclusion too.

Yep. And then got it. So thank you. And we will work on that. And then, yes, I think the calling out the school for the deaf and the blind in the introduction chapter and how they got here is a really great idea and little embarrassed we didn't think about it. So thank you.

Happy to happy to help.

Okay. Commissioner Castinson.

Just wanna echo my fellow commissioner's appreciation for the thoughtfulness of these chapters. For the equity one, I want to just call out and, you know, kind of for people's benefit who maybe are are new to this process as I am that I was really struck by the fact that this is the first plan in the history of the city that's had an intentional focus on equity in this in the policy work to shape the plan. So I just think that deserves appreciation. And I also think it was done in a very deep way. Like, it was not superficial.

The engagement with community partners, thought, was really interesting to see and explained quite well. And just the explanation of the different equity priority communities and the elements of the equity index and how that's used as the as one piece of the data driven decision making, I thought it was really compelling and and to tell a nice story while at the same time showing how it's it's rooted in data, but also community conversations. So I really did appreciate that. For the climate chapter, I don't know if this is something that would be dealt with in the plan, but there's several mentions of the goals about increasing tree canopy. And I know in previous conversations we had about the the density of neighborhoods and, you know, the the lack of of space to either preserve existing trees or plant new ones.

I just perhaps that'll come up in future conversations or for the the actions that are aligned with certain policies. But I was just curious to know if kind of what the the planning process looks like for such a large increase, which I think is is really admirable and and necessary to align with our and meet our climate goals, but was just curious to learn more a little bit about that perhaps at a later time. And then on the parks, recreation, and cultural services chapter, I noticed that one of the supporting policies, I think it's number 52, talks about incorporating community outcomes into development. And specifically, when it comes to new parks, you mentioned disparities across the city in terms of park access because of the historical evolution of how the city's developed. It'd be good to know just, again, when it comes to implementing this plan, which perhaps, of course, is beyond the scope of what we're reviewing tonight.

But when it comes time to define those actions aligned with this policy, just what that ongoing community input looks like, like what the the pathway is for that. And then lastly, on the transportation and mobility chapter, this might be referred to in the transportation system plan, the TSP. Haven't had a chance to to look there yet, but I was curious about traffic calming, natural buffers, kind of if that fits within the comprehensive plan or if that's more of a TSP issue just to mitigate the impact of increased traffic, which I think perhaps is is a very real possibility with increased development even as we're trying to transition to multimodal transportation and support that. Part of that is is the built environment, and part of that is behavior change on on the part of of individuals. But during that transition period, what sort of plans there are in place for or kind of a a policy framework for traffic calming and creating those natural barriers too.

So thank you.

Yes. Just a couple quick responses. Maybe just also to tee up the next presentation a little bit. So on the climate, we definitely can look at the climate chapter and and sort of see what we can add to at least help people see the the, like, the things that we can do, right, to advance our tree canopy goals. They are very, very important for addressing and mitigating the heat islands and and extreme heat.

So we will, in the next presentation, also be talking a little bit about the code. The code is one way that we will do this. There is for private development, right, is is to require and incentivize require new trees to be planted, landscaping standards, and also incentivize preservation of mature trees. And then having, like, design guides on the public side that that say a lot about or provide more detailed guidance on, like, when we build a new street, how many trees are we gonna plant? Like, should should tree planting be part of every complete streets project or something?

So let let us take a look at that. And then in the transportation and mobility section, we can take a look at that as well, but did want to just say that traffic calming is a one strategy for achieving the desired level of traffic stress by facility. So it's more of a tool, but we can say more about those tools.

K. Commissioner Cabell.

One lens that I think we would probably be useful to add to equity would be, like, housing type. I know that's mostly covered by renters, especially, like, through some quirks in Washington law. But, you know, I always have a concern about, say, you know, people in apartments being used as, like, quality of life shields for noise and pollution and things like that for single family home zones. So I think that would be useful to to add as well.

So is it housing type in size, or is it tenure? Like like, is it rental stock versus homeownership? Is it like who because we do call it renters

Yeah.

In our equity index and our our our, you know, tools. But so it's more just talking about

I mean, my thought was like, you know, not expecting like like apartments and things like that to be like noise buffers or, you know, what's their ex like exposure to heat islands and things like that.

Got it. Yep. That was it.

Okay. Vice chair Powell.

Thanks, chair. Thanks to the staff for all this. I find it really interesting than the public facilities and services. We get into some some dollars. Love love talking about the dollars.

It's it it's always kinda been the big question mark is we have all these policies. We have all these goals, and then how are we gonna pay for all of these or decide where we're gonna spend the money. And and this chapter, I guess, is required by the state that we have to start naming some things. But it it it does kinda then leave a little little hole in my heart on some of the other chapters because we don't address it at all. And transportation and parks and recreation jump out as two chapters that it sounds like there's there's a real need to develop consistency or or relook at how we plan for these things.

And so I'm hoping you can just talk me a little bit through why we don't address budget in more detail in these other chapters.

Well, the the sort of first answer is that because we we have they're they're integrated into some of the the capital facilities and services chapter. And then so I'm just scanning to look through where we're at. So what some of the tables roll up to, but we do call out those things in some of the the roll up tables. And then the sort of other pieces that you don't see, which would be helpful to you, think, is that part of the the one of the requirements that we don't we're not done with yet that will be an appendix to this plan and and reference in this chapter is a capital facilities plan. And that is essentially the detail that went into all these roll up lists.

So we have to list every project that we're gonna do in one to six years, and then seven to twenty years, and again, the one to six years. So you'll see you'll see like what are the projects in transportation and parks that are planned in those, and what do they cost, and what's their source of funding. So I think that it's it's probably like a combination of reading through it and not seeing a section in that that chapter on those things because they're they've gotten their own. But the the capital facilities plan will have those detailed project lists.

And I guess where my mind goes is, like, how we generate funds is policy decision. And so I wonder why there isn't in all of these listed policies, there aren't policies addressing revenue generation. And and it is a big equity thing. You know? How how are we how are we viewing budget what is the equity lens for revenue generation as an example?

Mhmm.

Same thing for transportation. We talk about, transportation, like, demand management. So it just it it it kinda leaves it leaves this policy hole, this open question of have we considered how we're going to pay for things? And if so, how are we going to apply all of these different goals, priorities to the the revenue generation policy? So I know that's kind of a big question, but it it is one that I think should at least be discussed if not addressed in the plan.

And then a little more minute detail. Goal number 25, this is in the park the public facilities infrastructure. It's it's about resilient and dispersed infrastructure. And it says, you know let's see if I can find the actual wording. But it basically says, you know, we're gonna look at dispersing infrastructure because that's more resilient and less costly and a lot of support decentralized infrastructure systems.

It mentions energy and water but not sewer and storm water, and I find that to be an auto emission. Storm water already very decentralized. Sewer, there's only two wastewater treatment plants in the whole city, and that's the least decentralized system. I think it'd be worth sitting there. And then lastly, I really support commissioner Wheeler's comments about the pedestrianization of certain streets. I would take that one step further and even, like, if there's an opportunity to discuss where right of way is no longer needed, the vacation of right of way. I think that's kind of all within the same sphere of of commentary.

Yeah. Some yeah. What I'm also sort of embarrassed we don't have a policy around revenue generation. That is a really good point, and I think an implementation consideration that we, like, we assume the policies operationalize that budget, but there should probably be a policy around how we think about budgeting. And, yes, on the decentralized systems.

And just did wanna share that it's it's kinda happening as part of our urban forestry goals and nature spaces programs, but we are now looking at any right away vacation requests. Not just from the lens of do we need this for some transportation facility? Or is this utility easement still needed? But also, is this an appropriate like, our urban forestry folks are always like, right tree, right place. Right?

That's what you gotta get. It's like, is this the right place for some trees? Like, should we keep this and and then and plant, you know, deep pave it, plant here, whatever it is. And then we have to think about the operations and maintenance costs of that. Same thing with, like, naturescape spaces. And so, like, it's really it sounds like incredibly basic, but, like, to the distribution list of who reviews right away requests now include our parks and urban forestry teams. Just like just this very, like, boring but, like, functional, like, change that wasn't happening before. So we're but we can we can make sure that's clear in here. Sure.

Just a couple comments from my side. One being, you know, I think it's important that as we're threading throughout public public infrastructure, parks, and the transportation chapters, just underscoring how we apply the equity lens to those. I know that there are specific callout boxes for that in each of those chapters. The one that's in the transportation equity lens seems like it's just sort of a restatement of the state requirement that you spoke about earlier. And so I'm curious if it's fair to say, hey.

We're doing this equity piece, but it's actually just the requirement of the state. So I feel like that there's something there for it to maybe go further. If we're just saying that we're coming into alignment with what the state is requiring us to do, that doesn't seem like an initiative on the city's part to be included in their equity lens. And then earlier in the presentation, you'd said something about seeing if the had anything to do with the GHD emissions. I'm assuming the CAF is the climate action framework.

Correct. Yes. Apologies.

Thank you. As and then a couple spaces. You know, we call it the equity index in one of these chapters, and then the there's an ADA plan that's referenced in another one of the chapters. And I think these reference areas could be strengthened just a little bit if we're saying that we're gonna work on an ADA plan and we're gonna work on this equity index. Those would be things I'd like to see the intent, like, behind those sort of ironed out a little more in in the plan as opposed to saying we're going to use this tool in the future to make sure that we're doing this thing. But that doesn't tell me what the the vision is per se, if that makes sense.

So, like, in the transportation chapter and the little the blurb about a transition ADA transition plan, We say what we will do, but we don't say why we will do it. And so putting more of that, like, here we are is, like, value based language

on

why we do things.

But this is a visioning document. Right? So saying we intend to do this thing doesn't tell me what the vision is. Yep. Got it. And then there was one specific call I think it's the public infrastructure chapter where it has the equity lens in there as well that talks and I think that's the one that specifically mentions the equity index. But then throughout the rest of it, it's got a lot of facts and figures. You know, I learned that the VPS District district is 58 square miles. Right? But I didn't understand where the the equity lens was applied throughout that chapter beyond saying we were going to establish an index which would help us apply an equity lens in the future.

This is the public facility. Facilities. Yeah.

And that's about what I have. Yeah. Beyond that, I I do think starting this presentation with the legal requirements at the state level is a great introduction to the why of the plan and the why of certain parts of it, which I think we've seen perhaps a gap in understanding the driver behind some of those sections. So that was really great to see. And also curious what the level of service standards look like, should look like. That's a that's a part that I I didn't get from Parks chapter.

Yeah. Appreciate that. I was actually looking at the city Of Tacoma's public facilities and services, the equivalent chapter, and they actually list they just have a table that lists level of service by service area. Mhmm. So, like, what do we mean level of services for parks, transportation, or for water pressure? So that was something I was gonna bring up with the team, and maybe just putting that all in one place in the places where we are talking about level of service a lot would be helpful.

Alright. I think it'd be great to see it listed so I can you know, I or any other member of the public could look up and see, do I live in an area that's a great level of service or not? And that might help contextualize what a good level of service or an acceptable level of service looks like. So how does someone know how that translates to the built environment, to what they see, what they experience in community, and what we're aiming at that experience to be for citizens. So that's what I got, and thank you so much.

Great. I think that that's the end of that portion of the agenda. That takes us into the 6PM break, and this meeting will resume at 06:30PM.

Thank you.

Test.

Test. Test.

The city of Vancouver Planning Commission meeting will resume following the 6PM break. Earlier, we had a workshop on the conference of plan update covering the draft introduction, parks, transportation, climate, equity, public facilities, and service chapters. And the next item on our agenda is the community forum. Do we have anyone signed up to speak for community forum today?

Yes. We do.

Okay. A quick word before then. A community forum is held at each meeting of the planning commission. During the community forum, the public is invited to provide input on matters related to the planning commission's authority and responsibility for land use and development matters. Each speaker will be given three minutes to address the commission.

We'll help you keep track of time. Remarks should be directed to the planning commission as a body, not to individual members or staff, and focus on subjects within the commission's advisory purview. Community members who wish to submit lengthy or detailed testimony are encouraged to email their comments to planningcommission@cityofVancouver.US. Please note that the community forum is different from testimony provided as part of a public hearing. In the case of public hearings, individuals indicating they wish to testify on the public hearing item will be called upon during that portion of the agenda. We appreciate, welcome, and consider community input regarding land use policy. Please call the first person.

Mary Keltz.

Oh, please just make sure the little light's on. I think you can press the button that looks like a person down there. There you go. And please make sure you speak into the microphone and state your name for the record, please.

Good evening. I'm Mary Kelts, a longtime resident of Vancouver. And first of all, I'd like to thank everyone who's working on this project. It is monumental and foreshadows major changes. Beyond that, I've noted in the city planning literature that there's considerable concern about preventing and or correcting mistakes of the past by separating uses rather than integrating uses.

Therefore, I think we need to take some great care not to separate residential uses too much or too far from recreational uses or what I'm thinking of in terms of visual breathing space. It could be open. It could be green. It could be natural, but it might not be as large as a park that one would travel to at any distance. Could be a pocket park.

It could be a plaza. Could be a fountain with benches. But I think we need to look at having visual breathing space relatively close to residential uses. I've seen this in other countries where a lot of people live in apartments, but often they have some sort of shared plaza or something where they retreat to in the evenings to rest, relax, socialize. And I think we need to open our mind to that type of thing if we're gonna densify. Am I out of time?

No. You're still out of time.

Oh, okay. Then well oh, good. One then, again, I wanna thank everybody because I understand what a big task this is. The city staff's been very cordial and helpful to me so far. I do think that despite the work that's been done so far, I do not think that the public is substantially informed and aware of how monumental the details of the plan may be apart from the abstract theories that have gone before, and now we're going down to reality on the ground.

Thank you. We have anyone else signed up to speak for community forum today?

No. We don't have anyone else.

Okay. There being no one else signed up to speak for community forum, the community forum portion of the meeting is now closed. And that takes us into our next agenda item, which is the workshop on the conference of plan update, the code details part two. Any introductory introductory remarks on this portion of the agenda?

We will just hop right in since I'm also presenting on this one, if that's okay, Chair.

That's okay. Thank you. Okay.

Great. So Rebecca Kennedy, deputy community development director. Mark Person is here, senior planner leading the code update task of this project. We are gonna publish a draft of the code next week. The last one of the previous times we talked about this and talked about deadlines, Mark said, my soul just left my body.

But I just wanna literally say thank you. He has done an incredible job. We are getting closer all the time. And then not on the presentation, that's my fault, but Jim Chunco is here for our economic prosperity and housing team. So he's here specifically to talk about or to be a resource for us if there's questions about feasibility or sort of best route to address certain issues from a development stand for standpoint. He's a senior real estate project manager for the city. So and has been on the comp plan team and also been very awesome. But his soul, I think, has stayed in his body the entire process. So next slide, please. So really quick, the standard recap, then we're gonna get into the zoning code details.

So this is sort of new stuff that you didn't see in the last big presentation we gave you. This is also the second in a series of workshops coming to you to get you really familiar with this stuff prior to publication and then prior to adoption. And then we'll go through next steps really briefly. So in terms of the comprehensive plan update, it is a twenty year guide for the management of the built in the natural environment. It requires us to identify likely population growth and the associated housing units and jobs needed to serve that growth as well as address in the case of housing our existing deficit.

The council has endorsed a vision, which is on the right, for the overall plan and the next twenty years and where we wanna get to as a community. And then in what is a very Meredith Herbst, who you all know, is an associate planner on our team and does many of our presentations, she's really learned to she figured out ways to get a lot on one slide. At the bottom is a timeline of what this process has been like. So we started by learning about the community. We've land use alternatives, analyzed those through a DEIS process, draft environmental impact statement process, refined a map, selected a preferred map.

Now we're at the policy and code stage, and the next part is to adopt. Next slide, please. As always, we like to point out that there is a lot that this plan and this code have to do for us from a state let legal perspective and and meeting the requirements of the growth management act. There's been a lot of action in legislature over the last four plus years, particularly related to housing and climate. So we are required to allow four units per residential lot and six, a minimum of four, and then six if two are affordable or they're close to transit.

Standards for what we call middle housing, so these anything from two to six units cannot be more restrictive than what we we apply to single family detached residential. We have to accommodate housing at all income levels. So not just say, oh, we have capacity, but we have to show that our zoning can allow for smaller and different types of units that can be more affordable over time. We have to account for racially disparate impacts, allow two ADUs per lot, cannot have parking minimums for affordable housing in transit station areas or more than at all in transit station areas or for affordable housing or more than point five stall per unit for other housing. We are very close to allowing it's a building code change, but single stairway buildings in the city, we should have that done in the next couple months.

And then aligning impact fees to the size of housing, so that's proportionality. And then permanently supportive housing has to be everywhere allowed everywhere we allow housing. It's a type of housing. Next slide. Goals for the code.

Make it easier to understand, reduce the number of foot footnotes and sort of circular reference points, support the creation of more connected and accessible neighborhoods, so more mixing, greater number and variety of housing, unique and authentic places that, you know, have distinct character and help create, you know, a city that people really identify with and like to live in. You you gotta we gotta use land efficiently efficiently. We don't we're not getting any more of it. We need to grow up and in, not out. Focus more again on the form and relationship between buildings and the street rather than the uses so much, and then really have a pretty liberal nonconforming policy so that anything any building or use that exists that is currently working for whoever owns it or uses it can continue.

It's really new development we wanna focus on in terms of, you know, requiring compliance with the new code. And I will turn it over to Mark Person, senior planner, community development department.

Thanks, Rebecca. I'm gonna go through this quickly, commissioners. We've covered this last time, but right now, we have all of our dimensional standard dimensional standards in our in our zone in our current zones. The big change is that a lot of those most of those development standards are gonna move to building typologies. So in our new base districts, our new zoning districts, the only thing that will live there essentially is minimum density, maximum heights, and use classifications.

All those dimensional standards, for the most part, we're gonna move to building typologies. We're not gonna go into those too much. We kinda hit on last time, and they should be part of your packets if you wanna look at those typologies in more detail. And then we'll still have allowed uses by by base district, and then we'll also continue some overlays that we currently have and then also have some new overlays as part of this this major update. And then our table on the right here, it's just going over some of the points and differences between the existing code and the new code as as was mentioned by a member of the public here.

Right now, we've we're really focused on separating those uses in most zones. A new new code is going to allow much more overlap in uses between between zoning districts. Density, right now, do have minimums and maximums, but we're gonna focus on just minimums in the new code and let our height setbacks and other on-site factors lit you know, limit density in that way. Building height still by by zoning district. And then parking, as Rebecca alluded to, right now we have minimums.

We're gonna move to no minimums for most uses, all residential uses, and just have some parking minimums or require a parking study for some, you know, unique one off developments similar to performing arts center or, you know, things that we don't see very often and we need the applicant to show us exactly their parking needs on that. And then building placement, you know, right now we have lot coverage and setbacks. We'll continue to have setbacks and not lot coverage, but maximum impervious and really focusing on bringing that building for most building typologies to the street. And, here's our here's our 10 zoning districts, our four comp plan designations on the top, moving from, you know, residential on the left, mixed use zones, mixed use neighborhood and and regional activity center, and then our employment and industry zones, and those are include the institutional campus, industrial employment, and then our heavy industrial, which really is remaining for the most part unchanged in physical space and in requirements, and then our two green space zones. Again, this is the preferred alternative that council adopted on December 15 showing the new designation for every parcel in the city.

And here's our draft densities and heights table. We removed maximum density since there were none. It wasn't telling us a lot, so we've dropped that out now. And our minimum heights since we made that change A few months back after speaking to our our our stakeholders, we had some minimum heights in some of our zones. I don't know what else to highlight here.

We do have stories pulled out or actually have stories shown for a few of those. In reality, we don't regulate by stories. We regulate by maximum height. But for that low scale neighborhood, we are planning to regulate by by stories. We're not going to allow more than three stories above grade in the low scale neighborhood.

Here's a slide showing some of our the feedback we received at council on January 26. We are making some changes to our notification, and we will be covering that with a commission tonight. Instruction to be clear on what what notice and procedural steps and how neighborhoods can be involved, ensure that manufactured home definitions and standards aren't limiting and prohibiting new technologies that that may arise. There was disappointment that we had parking maximums at at one point and decided to to drop those. And then there was a desire to ensure setbacks in low scale neighborhoods to make sure the new development patterns fit in.

And I I I think I think we're o okay there. Our our proposal for most of our house middle housing that would go into established neighborhoods have a front setback of five to 15 feet. I I don't think that'll be too different for most of the development that's that's in place there already. And then building types, we're looking at this with our internal team. There are some character images you'll see in the document, and it gets pretty specific about corridors and lobbies and numbers of entrances, and we wanna make sure those aren't restricting, again, innovation and just creativity from the from the development stakeholders that will hopefully be utilizing this to to build great things in the city.

Okay. We we are proposing buffers between zoning districts similar to what we have now in our existing code. If you're gonna place a heavy industrial building next to a lower scale neighborhood, we require, in our current code a pretty substantial buffer and either a wall or a berm just recognizing that those two land uses may not be completely compatible of, you know, 10 feet next to each other. With our decrease in zoning districts, some of those jumps between districts become a little bit bigger, let's say. The the mass and scale between some of those can be could ramp up pretty quickly.

There are some places where we'll have mixed use, the our MX next to low scale neighborhood. And then so we've got Meredith Herbst put this together for us, and I I think I I think I can understand it. I'm gonna try to explain it to you now. The project site is mixed use there. That's MX on the right being developed next to a low scale neighborhood in this example.

So the property being developed, which is is the MX, will need to have a 15 foot setback in this case, and it will include a six foot opaque screening of landscaping. The building within that first 20 feet, so the 15 plus five, will be limited to 45 feet in height. Beyond that, so you can either step it or push it back, the rest of the site can develop to the base district maximum of, in this case, if it was a max, a 110 feet. So just really building on a step back between zones that have pretty vastly different height limit height maximums is what we're trying to accommodate. Again, similar similar to what our our current code does.

Right now, we do have a provision that says something to the fact of one you know, beyond 20 feet, you can go two feet higher for every additional foot of setback, and it just becomes a little a little difficult. So we're trying to build something in that's a little bit more straightforward. And this is a simplified version of the the buffer table that that should be in the published information commit that the commission received, which is showing the project site on the left here and then the adjacent zoning, you know, base district on top in the columns. And, yeah, as you can see, if you're low scale next to low scale, we're not going you know, those are the those are the same. Right?

So there's no additional buffer needed in those areas. But as you get down to a regional activity center next to you know, if we have that next to a low scale development low scale neighborhood, we hope not. I mean, I think we for the most part, our our our map has, you know, our highest intensity and then kind of scaled down by design, but there are just some areas where you would you do have that mixed use neighborhood for sure next to a low scale neighborhood and just showing that there will be a buffer and increased setback in those locations. But if you're, you know, doing a mixed use neighborhood next to, again, a mixed use neighborhood, No additional, you know, build on the property line in those locations. No no increased buffer or landscaping needed.

Should I stop there, Chair, or do you wanna go to the end?

We'll hold to the end.

Okay. Super. The next thing we wanted to bring to your attention is the bicycle parking. We don't have any bicycle parking requirements now. Our our code does show what we'd like to see if you provide it, but there are no quantities called out.

So we're planning to change that in the in the new world. So the requirements will be for both short term and long term parking. Short term is more for visitors or if you're going on a shopping trip that's typically located in a corral on the street or in the right of way or near the entrance to the building ideally where that long term parking is more for residents or folks working that require, as it stays in the name, longer term bike parking and more secure. A number of spaces will be based on use similar to historically what we've had for for parking minimums. We're not planning to require them for units six or less, our our middle housing typologies.

50 we're proposing a 50% reduction allowed when at least half the units are affordable to people making a 100% of area meet median or below. Not that we don't think those folks would benefit from, obviously, bicycle parking. We're just trying to give our affordable partners in the community some advantages and some options for development of affordable units. We're looking at counting on street public spaces to meet the required short term parking if those are available, And then we have our space and sizing requirements and access outlined in in those requirements as well. Our landscaping and tree preservation code is is getting a getting an upgrade in response to the climate action framework and just some best practices.

Our our existing code is at least 20 to 25 years old. So we're we're looking at increased preservation for requirements for trees in fair and good condition, 12 inches diameter at breast diameter breast height or larger on-site. Right now, our code is a little ambiguous. It states when there are feasible and prudent location alternatives for excuse me. Alternatives on-site for proposed building structures or other site improvements.

Existing native vegetation and trees are to be preserved even if the minimum tree density is exceeded. This may require site redesign, including but not limited to redesign of the street, sidewalks, stormwater facilities, utilities, changing the shape and the size of the parking lot, reducing or limiting proposed site grading, and changing the location of building or building lots, which sounds good, but I think is a hard target for folks to hit. And Jim Chun might be able to weigh in on this. Think tell tell us what we need to do. It's something that we in implementation like, and I think folks in the building things like.

Because if there's no place if there's no bullseye, it's tough to be able to hit it. Right? So this is something that we put in our pre op comments right now that we we can and will make you redesign. But in practice, it it seemed like it doesn't work out very well. So we're looking at, I think, 30 or 33% making that a requirement for new development to keep 30 and, again, sorry.

I can't remember the top of my head. 30 or 33% of the trees 12 inch diameter or greater on-site as part of this update. We'll still have a way to for folks to show us if if, you know, if the site's topographically challenged or public improvements have to be put in where this tree is that you can you know you can remove it. But we just want to show our expectation is that you're going to keep 30% of those trees in fair and good condition on-site. The other big changes I've highlighted here are just an increase in landscaping islands and that's in frequency and in size.

Just working with our urban forestry folks, a lot of times those islands aren't really large enough, it sounds like, to support a quality tree and get that canopy. And then also the third option here is the automated irrigation system requirements. I think right now the way our code is written, you know, folks can can hand water for a for a certain time, but I I think the thought is with our changing climate, we kinda need that automated irrigation system on on on new development. Nonconformities, as Rebecca mentioned, we'll have a lot of of nonconforming situations, legal nonconforming situations as we rezone every parcel of the city. We're not gonna make folks pick up their building and and move it closer to the street.

We're hoping if you add on, you can make it closer to the street. We think that would be great. We're gonna allow for the continuation of those and expansion of those legally established nonconforming structures and uses. And the big change is, yeah, there'll be a process for increasing that nonconformity. Right now, those third and fourth bullets are are from our current code.

Basically, you know, if obviously, if the nonconforming structure, nonconforming uses is damaged by the catastrophic event, it can be rebuilt within its original footprint within one year of the damage. If you wait longer than that, you know, that you're right kind of expires. And then, of course, routine repairs and maintenance are permitted. But we haven't allowed folks in our current code to expand outside that existing footprint. And so we're gonna make make a pathway for that in the in the in the proposed draft.

Boy, development notice updates. We're hoping to we're we're planning to we are going to update our notification requirements. Right now, we rely pretty heavily on mailings, and we think that is is not as effective as maybe it used to be. We mailed two occupants and owners within 500 feet of the site for type two and three applications. Our changes middle housing for what yeah.

For right now for one to two, obvious obviously, we're not we're not notifying anyone, and we're gonna extend that to three to six units. Right? So one to six, no notification will be required. That's that's middle housing. That's development.

For seven to 200, we're proposing a a large sign adding so right now and I'm kinda getting messed up because right now our our type twos where we do have notification is for three to 19. And so we're changing that to align with our CEPA exemption. So in the new world here, a seven to 200 multifamily unit will be exempt from SIPA and it will be a type one application, which in our current world isn't isn't noticed, but we're planning on noticing seven to 200 with a large, you know, large format sign. And then right now for pre ops, we don't make you do a pre op for 19 and under, but we're going to make a change for seven to 19 and then above that, we're gonna require a pre op for that. And then above 200 units, that will be a type two application, so that will be a large sign, and we'll continue to mail notice to applicants and owners within a slightly smaller radius of 300 feet.

Right now, we we do 500. Part of the thought on this is we're trying to align our type twos with subdivision law, and I I don't think we can remove that mailing quite yet. Hopefully, the state helps us out with some legislation on streamlining subdivisions here in the near future. But now I think we're gonna we're gonna keep the the mailed notice, and and hopefully, we have enough success with this large format sign in the future that we can you know, if we don't need that mailing, we can drop it at some point in the future. And then subdivisions, the large sign and then mailed mailed notice to to folks within 300 feet.

So those bottom those bottom two were type type twos and then type threes, and both of those come with a public comment period. Okay. Okay. You wanna say what's coming up now or I'm doing questions?

I can say what's coming up. So, again, we're gonna release these drafts in mid February, send them over to commerce as well, publish them. We'll be back. There isn't gonna be a ton new for you all on the tenth. It's like the final pieces that either we haven't worked out yet or we are still sort of refining that that won't be in the published draft, but we wanna get in front of you.

So that'll be master some master plan stuff, some more process stuff, some annexation code stuff, just a few sections that we're still working on. And then we'll come back to you in April to basically talk about what we've heard through the public. Sorry, through the how about once we publish the draft plan and sort of heard back from council, heard back from community, heard back from commerce and other state agencies, and what changes we're making. And then we anticipate, you know, initiating the adoption process. So we may have two meetings in April if we can do it quickly.

May need to go into May for that. And then we've got community presentations coming up on both, so virtual and online like I said before.

Okay.

Is there anything else to the presentation, or should we roll into questions?

Questions, please.

Alright. Thank you. Commissioner Cavill.

These setbacks made it in here. Suppose the opposition has lost that fight. I guess any estimation of what that cost in terms of units, bedrooms,

Buffers.

Buffers expressed via setbacks. I think they use both terms. Yeah? Buffer.

Yeah.

I think the plan was always buffers, commissioner capital. Just like know.

Just just like we have supposed them.

Just like we have now for those areas where a, you know, a base district line shares a property line. Right? Because those are just major jumps. There was just talk about setbacks with within buffers sorry. Buffers within zones that we didn't wanna get either. I'm not sure you didn't wanna get to

Yeah.

Either. But yes. As far as capacity, I don't

No. We have not done an analysis. I I think we've received consistent direction from the council that we need Yeah. To have

I know.

Some level of larger separation between zoning districts than what we have. You know, just as a standard setback within them. And so I will say, I think on the capacity front that that buffers are gonna have us lose a lot less capacity than just major height decreases, which might be the other inclination.

Cut cut off the arms of the leg or Well, alright. Just wanted to register that. Otherwise, thank you very much for your presentation.

Thank you. Vice chair Powell.

Thanks, chair. Thanks, Mark. Any any on the notice front, I noticed it was for only or addressed only residential projects. What are the notice requirements for nonresidential projects?

I think the plan is to align those with the SEPA exemptions as well. Right now, 12,000 square feet and above is a type two site plan that would require notice. So we're gonna I think the SEPA threshold is now 30, so that will follow the SEPA exemptions as well. So a non nonresidential over 30,000 square feet would be a type two. K. So increasing those a bit.

Yeah. I wonder since you know, I kinda recognize that this notice is really it's tied to form. Right? It's it's, hey. If you're gonna be a big new project, people want to know that that's coming, and I think that's a really reasonable expectation.

I I think that there is kind of a use component to that as well. If if if you're in a medium scale or even a low scale neighborhood and there's a commercial use of some kind, even at a smaller scale, you know, it could have outsized impacts depending on what the use is or just different impacts. Right? It's just a different use than what's in there now. And so maybe there's a consideration there for for certain uses in in certain neighborhood typologies that, again, people just wanna know that it's coming even if there's not a public comment period.

And maybe I didn't make this clear, but it would still so all type type ones right now aren't aren't noticed at all. And our our plan is to notice type ones with a large sign. So, yeah, there won't there won't be a a public comment period, but there will be information about here's what's coming, you know, directing you to, hopefully, the applicant because they know about the project more than staff does. Right? If if you wanna know the process, you know, we're good at we'll we can tell you that.

But if you wanna know how how what is this gonna rent for? How many bedrooms are you gonna have? Right? For residential, that's what a lot of folks wanna know, but staff doesn't have any of that information. So, yeah, the the large sale scale sign with applicant and and CDD information on there, I think, is the is what we're looking at for for all for all type one. Anything that's not a I see.

Even something below the CEPA threshold would still get a big sign

in front

of that IC.

Okay. Yeah.

Thank you.

That would address my concern. And then on the in this you know, we have a draft densities and heights table in here. Again, it keeps showing up, and I I I've been thinking a lot about the intent of the medium scale neighborhood and the outcomes that we're driving towards and how there is a little bit of a a misalignment for me at least between the, you know, the intent of a max story of five stories and kinda what building typology that brings and then the max height, the the misalignment between what's possible and what we're hoping to see. And so I I wanna bring before staff and and the commission perhaps an asterisk before that five that clarifies, you know, that both the low and the medium scale would be story and maximum height constrained. Because, again, you could theoretically get a seven story flat roof big square box in a 75 foot max height, you know, allowance.

That's theoretically possible. I don't think that's the intent of the code or the intent of the form. And so I just wonder what the best way to clarify that intent is. That's my question.

Sure. Just so I understand. So you're you're you'd be advocating for for keeping a story's limit in medium scale?

Again, I think that that's probably what the the outcome that we're driving towards is without lowering the height and constraining potential. I understand, like Rebecca's talked about and y'all talked about, conversations with with developers and and new energy code requirements and different roof typologies. There's a lot of different components that go into getting to that 75 foot height, but they all kinda come back to, you know, what a what a good design would be within that 75 foot high is is somewhere in that five story range, not a big square box that has a flat roof that squeaks in seven. Right? To me, that's a very different outcome.

So for consideration, I think it's worth the discussion. That's it for me, chair.

Thank you. Actually, before we move away from that point, that was one of the questions that I had, which is just I've heard saying that only the low scale base district is regulated at a story count. And kinda going the other way, I mean, what would it be possible for someone to build in a mixed use base district? I don't know what the height of an aircraft hangar is, but if there was a building that was a 110 feet but was just a single story that is also permitted. Right? There's not a there's not a minimum there.

Yeah. I think we we looked at regulating commercial densities, and

I

think there there wasn't really a good tool that we could identify to do that. And understanding that, at least at this current time, our our primary density measure that we're solving for is residential units. That that was the priority and that's what we focused on. But, yeah, we we currently don't use FAR. I think it's not something we want to add to the code, and that really was the only tool we could identify that that might work to regulate commercial.

Sorry. Just for our understanding Sorry.

The floor area ratio.

Thank

you. Yeah. Looking at the area floor of the building relative to the the site.

Okay. But if someone were to build a, let's say, a 75 foot building which was just one story, I'm not sure what kind of house that would be, but that is theoretically possible.

That is for residential, that's theoretically possible if they can meet the density minimums. So I think that's for residential, the density minimums drive that. For commercial, I mean, we there are offices that fit that description in the world, but they they are very expensive to build. So I would be surprised if that type of development occurred in in Vancouver.

Okay. Commissioner Wheeler.

And we're like like and because we are kind of responding as people go, can can you both speak to commissioner Pyle's comment or no.

No. I mean, I I I think it's a good comment that we need to talk about. I I I don't know that. I I don't want I would rather not regulate height at from the implement or sorry. Stories on the implementation side. But if we need to go there, we can. And and then as chair, you know, as chair said, I it does just seem weird that we're calling out three stories in low scale only. Now now that's getting weird to me. So that's that's all. Yeah.

That's all I have. I mean, I think some of our thinking around where we set the thresholds for low and medium scale was off of building type and kind of looking at when does concrete enter a structure from a construction typology. So I think from that logic, limiting it to five stories does make sense minus the implementation difficulties that that adds. But I think it does align with keeping more affordable construction methods, which typically results in more affordable unit types and delivered units. So

I espouse there. Yeah. I thank you, Tim Chun. I my mind just goes to, you know, potential bad outcomes and how that can really impact all of the potentially good outcomes or make the good outcomes much more difficult to come by because of, you know, one bad actor or or not even a bad actor, but just taking advantage of the allowances that's in the code. And how if that is not what the public perceived would happen, if that was not the intent of the city and it does does happen, the backlash associated with that could result in, to to your point, cutting off an arm, save a leg kinda thing or or worse, just cutting the whole just cutting the whole head off.

Right? So, yeah, I I guess I I wanna understand what what the hopeful outcome is and then try to develop the code to get to that outcome rather than make allowances for potentially bad outcomes.

Yeah. I guess I would say if someone wanted to do six stories, another full story of housing, I don't want a bad outcome by this chair pile, but that does another story of housing sounds pretty good. I mean, I I I think I've just been in on the plan too long. We gotta get to 38,000. That's that's just that's I mean, I wake up at 03:00 in the morning thinking about it.

38,000. 38,000. How are we gonna get 38,000? And it's not by, you know, making things harder necessarily for folks in our community that that that that build things. But, again, we as a city, we have an obligation to the folks in our community as well to make sure things are livable and not those bad outcomes. That's the needle we're trying to thread.

And that's just the thing is that the medium scale the question is maybe not whether or not a six story building is a good thing. It's is the medium scale neighborhood the location for that? Right? And have we have we been applying the medium scale neighborhood with that in mind versus a five story building in mind or less? Right? So I think the typologies that we've been seeing on on the imagery, what the public has in their brain, it's probably not a bunch of very skinny six story buildings on replacing single family homes. That's just, like, not the what people have in their brains. Is that a bad outcome? No. If it's in the right location, right, and if it's been explained clearly.

Yeah. And I I think one other kind of, variable to consider is where these medium scale neighborhoods are located. And I think with our as I'm sure you're familiar, a lot of times rent drives building typology or the the how high of rents developers are able to charge at a given location drives what types of buildings can be built just because certain types of density are do cost more per unit and require higher rents to be built built. And where a lot of these medium scale neighborhoods are are more traditionally affordable markets. So I think under current market conditions, which market conditions do change, but under current market conditions, I think we'd probably see three story Woody walk ups.

And I think that's likely what we're gonna see for a while in these medium scale neighborhoods until quite a bit of redevelopment has occurred. So I think part of it is we wanna provide that additional flexibility, but the expectation is that what is actually gonna get built is lower than that. We we see a lot more developers asking us for lower densities than higher densities. So

Thank you. Commissioner Wheeler?

I think I'll just jump in on that point real quick before I get my other one since we're already talking about it. So when it comes to the the story restrictions, I want to in my opinion, I think it's we should be more on the side of flexibility. I'm having a hard time understanding how getting more housing built in a place where it could be allowed is is a bad outcome. I I understand the concern with discrepancy between expectation and reality, like, but I think that the reality is we need to get more housing built. If we can get more housing built in a place where it is zoned to be allowed, that's a good location for the housing.

A good location for housing is where it can go. So that that's just my opinion on whether or not we should put a restriction on the maximum number of stories. I don't think that we should in this circumstance. As to my other thoughts, just in general, this is very thoughtful. I feel like every time I come here with feedback and read through these, it's always very well thought through and has good reasoning behind it. So I really appreciate that. I like the examples when looking through the code. I think those are really helpful for understanding all of the details. So thank you for putting those in. I'll use my I'll use thirty seconds of my microphone time to wage a losing war as commissioner Kapple stated.

I don't like the buffers. I think they're unnecessary. I think when we're deciding between we need more housing built because we're in a housing crisis, people don't wanna look at tall buildings, getting more housing built, in my opinion, is the priority. But I understand. I don't get to make all those decisions.

The main substance of my comments aside from that is related to parking in general. I know we're coming away from parking minimums for, in my opinion, some very good reasons. Historically, we've wanted parking to be what turned out to be overbuilt. We've had somewhat arbitrary requirements for what we considered parking minimums to be, based on, like, not very good data for how we chose those parking minimums. And we've kind of fallen on the side of, well, the developers know their areas and their projects best.

We trust them to build what is necessary. And if that's the logic that we're using, I worry about parking maximums because that's not really in line with that logic. And I'm also a little bit worried about the bike parking. I I say this as someone whose bike is, like, basically my vehicle replacement for a lot of things and who has chosen not to move into apartment because of a lack of bike parking. Like, I understand how not having enough parking can be a problem. But I worry a little bit that we're repeating some of our historical mistakes with just like, here's a whole table full of numbers and we're going to make the decisions, not the market. So could you speak a little bit to where these numbers come from and where you came up with the bike parking requirements?

Yes. So we worked with our transportation folks, and I think just looked at at at best practices from basically peer cities to see what they had been doing and had similar requirements to to to those folks. We we did roll back a lot on on rooms. You know, I mean, Tim Chun and I, I know we're in some discussions about rooms in in multifamily buildings and the the benefits and drawbacks of those. And, yeah, to your point, commissioner, I it's it is really personal issue for for for folks, but we I think we landed on what did I say?

Fit up to 50% can be in room for for your long term bike parking. No. I didn't say In unit. In unit. Yeah. Well Okay. Room.

Okay. Unit is a room, but sorry.

You too. The business is 50% reduction, but I think 50% can be in the unit. And then above a certain size, we are you know, current draft is to have a a room for a certain certain number of of them. So you're are you just concerned that they could be based on arbitrary

Yeah. I'm numbers.

Concerned about potential arbitrariness and, you know, as with any of these things development feasibility like in how obviously, a bike parking space is much smaller than a car parking space. So car parking minimums are likely would have been much more impactful than bike parking minimums would be. But I wanna I'm just concerned about, you know, consistency of logic and potential arbitrariness.

Yeah. Heard. And then, I mean, I I know Portland went through this about a decade ago when they did theirs. They got some pushback from the development community and their affordable partners just saying it was gonna be hard and costly to build. Uh-oh.

So when the definitely, we'll keep that in mind when the draft comes out and and talk to our stakeholders in the community too and and get their feedback. We did we did have as part of the green building, I thought we had a some folks put some numbers on this. And and to your point, the bike parking room was very was very expensive to build. So as a result of that, we did roll roll back again what we were gonna say as far as how big the room needed to be and allowing in unit parking.

Yeah. When we looked at this as part of the green building policy, I don't remember the exact percentage or number of bike parking that was looked at at that time. It was the original bike parking code, if if you remember, Mark. But I think we were seeing an estimate of around two and a half to 3% total project cost increase from bike parking. Some of the recommendations from that were to allow more bike parking in units.

So it's a lot of that cost is from requiring ground floor space that could be utilized by rentable square footage instead of storage of vehicles. So I know some of that feedback was incorporated. I I don't know exactly where this, this current code stands because we we haven't reanalyzed that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Jay?

Commissioner Wheeler read my mind. I was going to bring up that the arguments used in terms of minimal parking, the same logic could be applied to oppose bicycle parking, especially given that I do not see in our community any high demand for bicycle parking, such as people tying their bikes to trees and and signs around the community. I don't see that.

I have done that.

I I I've done it too, but I don't see it everywhere like I would in a city where people are in very, very high high demand of it. Two to 3% is is a decent amount, you do that with other policies and desirabilities of the city. As we all know, policy is about making trade offs, and we we can't get everything, and we should really focus on the one goal of getting to that 30,000 units. And anything that we get in the way, we put in the way of that maybe two to 3% less than. So houses built them.

So with that, I do have a concern. I keep my bike in my apartment myself, which none of them might have the space for it, but also my experience with bike rooms is they I've had two bikes stolen from them, and they usually turn into a pile of past tenants' bikes anyway. So to have two to 3% for that, unless you have some serious empirical evidence that shows that cities that have adopted similar policies have seen a 20% increase in bike ridership commuting, then I don't think that this would be worth it. So thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Kastensen.

Just have a question on the notice requirements. I was looking at that comparing the existing code and the draft code. And one thing that seemed to be a significant change was the draft code for the '20 to February units and the change from the type two site plan to type one. And I know this was previewed in our workshop training last meeting. And I I know you mentioned SIPA as being a kind of a driving force for that with the like, aligning with those requirements.

And so I was just wondering because that does, at least on the face, appear to be an instance where the draft code is giving a little bit less opportunity for public comment, I believe, under the type one process. If you could just explain a little bit about that change and the rationale.

Of course, commissioner. Thank you for that question. Yeah. We're trying to make more, I think as we spoke to last time, by right development. Right?

So if it meets the code, we're going to approve it. So it's a lot shorter timeline and a lot less uncertainty from from folks in the development community. Deputy director Rebecca Kennedy and I met with some folks in the Portland area, and and they shared with us that they were still able to get financing in in New York City even though it was very costly to do business there because of most of the development is by right. So we're really limiting that appeal. So for a type one, only the applicant and the owner can appeal.

And then the yeah. Again, that those review times are a lot shorter because a lot of what our review times are driven by is that public, you know preparing that notice, getting that notice out and having that notice open.

I got a cramp here, sorry.

In my leg. So that's all I had. Okay. It's so painful. On the type one process. Yeah.

I I think just just to reinforce that any as as we're trying to create more housing, anything that kinda creates more certainty and decreases timelines does does greatly impact the the feasibility of those projects and helps bring costs down. I think the common saying time is money is like you do pay interest on on any money into that deal as well as there's just inherent risk of if the project for some reason is no longer viable during or is deemed unviable during that time period, There could be a lot of lost money, so a lot of risk. And the the easier we make that process, I think the more opportunity there is for small developers and small contractors to to get more involved in in creating housing. So

oh, and and commissioner, we are expanding our free app which we think is and we've heard from the neighborhood associations and folks in the community. I mean, that is really the best time to engage with the applicant mostly and the city. I mean, that's very early on in the process because I mean, honestly, once it's in, there's been a lot of investment done and and design on that. And, candidly, there's just a lot fewer changes that I've seen on those applications. So it's they're really we're trying to move up everyone's involvement earlier in the process.

And I'll just add the sort of kind of last thing is on the the noticing requirements, you know, sort of moving more projects into where no hard copy notice is being sent. We people do not read their mail. Like, we've spent thousands of thousands tens and tens of thousands of dollars sending notification, hard copy notification out to people that they don't read, and they tell you they didn't read it, and that they've never heard of the project. We do think, though, that and you see this in other cities where where, like, standardized big development forms that you that are in your neighborhood that you'll walk by on a site you know is actually a better way of telling people, hey, something's happening, and you should care about it. And we're trying to think about ways to better share information with folks.

So I'm I'm not really actually convinced that this is from from an outcome standpoint, that, like, less people will know. I actually think more people will know just because we'll be noticing it differently. And then again, the pre op, people can come to the pre op. They can sign up to be notified of pre ops. They can attend. They can ask questions at the end. So one more piece of information on that.

Just a couple of questions from my side and, anecdotally, to your last point. I know that there is somewhere in the unincorporated Clark County Road development happened and someone who was telling me a community member was telling me about this. And the only reason they knew about it was from the sign that was posted there, which is interesting to to hear. But first question was gonna be, what do the buffers between districts look like? And then I think there's a formula on one of these pages where it's setback plus landscaping screen plus height reduction, which was helpful to help visualize that.

But I'm I'm curious how much daylight there is between the concept of a six foot screen of landscaping next to a setback and a pocket park.

As as concepts, like like, what like, how does a six foot bit of landscaping in a 20 foot buffer relate to a pocket park?

Or compare it to. Right. I think we've we've heard from some of my fellow commissioners that, you know, like apartments shouldn't be used as buffers or maybe we don't need buffers. We've heard from community members that we might need more places for people to gather such as pocket parks or fountains and plazas. And so I'm just curious if we're talking about a buffer, which includes a setback and includes landscaping, how far is it of an ask to turn that into something like a pocket park?

I think it's big. I think when you when you start talking about really public space, I think our our our folks in the community are not gonna want people there, unfortunately. They want that controlled. But I I I I I like where you're going, chair. And, I mean, I think this ties in a little bit to our master plan concept for for larger projects and requiring some publicly accessible open space.

Yeah. I I think another aspect is when we were looking at Pocket Parks, we were kind of seeing around 10,000 feet. It's 10,000 square feet being kind of the minimal usable space based off a few regional examples and think just if I'm that it it gets kind of just the amount of space required to to fit that into particularly smaller scale sites that that could get difficult.

Sorry.

Go ahead. Oh, I was just gonna say the the the other thing that is public space that's publicly used has to be maintained much differently than private space. And that that operations and maintenance piece is just it's so different between saying and access and security. Right? It's so different.

How do you maintain that? How do you than than it is for just, you know, trees that need to be watered and vegetation that may or may not need to be prepared, basically. It it is I like the idea too, and I I just I could see I I think requiring public access and mandatory buffers would would kill development. I don't think people would do it. That's my perspective. But

Yeah. I I think there there may be a scale where that works, but it's not Yes. At the individual property scale. It's more at the five or probably more like the 10 acre 10 plus acres, possibly down to the five acres depending on the site and location.

K. Thank you. Let's see. We answered that one on page nine about the stories. So it sounds like from what I'm hearing, buffers aren't necessarily good targets for community spaces.

The I think the way we think about community spaces, right, like, good good designers and developers will use that space to provide quality open space for the people who live there, and that doesn't mean you can't build community and have community in that space. It's just not publicly accessible. So just trying to make that distinction that you you could use that space for the thing that we care about, which is connecting with the people you live around and stuff, but but not necessarily someone that doesn't live in your building, I guess.

I don't think I necessarily need them all to be public parks per se, but I'm curious if there's anywhere in the code or the plan that we've thought about looking to build that connective tissue that is community in the way that we design, you know, these buffers in these spaces.

Yeah. I I think a lot of higher density apartment comp or higher density development in general does build that kind of just to be competitive in the market and to provide for the needs of of tenants. I think it'd be difficult to put that in without being overly prescriptive. I I have seen other cities have something like a minimum open space requirements. Do we did we end up with that in the building types?

We have land we I mean, we have landscaping, but we don't have publicly accessible open space by building types, but we're we're still working on a percentage for our our master plan folks.

But we but we do have private open space requirements. What are those? Landscaping?

10 or 15% is kinda is what we have in general.

Yeah. So I think that type of space could be seen as whether it's like a barbecue area, dog block. I think those are pretty common uses for that type of space in a lot of apartments and and higher density residential.

Okay. Thank

you. One more comment, Cher. I think because I I see I totally see what you're getting at, which is, like, exactly what the comment we received was. Is is there places for people to gather, have space that's not, like, their primary unit, but, like, close to where they live? And and I think there's we've just enumerated lots of challenges, but also lots of ways people do it.

And I think there is, like, a gap between what you typically see with, like, middle housing or single family or middle housing. And some I guess not middle housing so much, but single family for sure and open space, and then higher density multifamily where they're providing things like rooftop decks or a barbecue space or a community room. And then in the middle of that is your, like, smaller wood frame, smaller apartment typically that they don't typically have that. And so it's like, well, what how did those folks get that? Because that's what we actually expect to see a lot of.

And one thing we did do with this with the map that was like this very heavily, like, called out repeatedly community need was to put more housing near parks and schools. So one of the things the map actually does is put more housing near where those spaces already exist and where they're under public control and will stay open spaces. I'm not saying it's enough, but it is, like, another strategy that we we put into the to the map to increase access to just those things. I don't know if that helps.

That does. Thank you. Yeah. I guess I was also also thinking about things like courtyards with benches and things like that. So it's it's not necessarily just in the buffer, but just looking for where those presences are throughout. And then are there specific definitions around what exactly a large sign is? Do we intend to have any sort of prescriptive nature around that?

We do. We just didn't want that in code. What we what we looked at from from peer cities is, you know, I I wanna say large format because right now I think, like, the the sign that we post is like 18 by 24 inches. It's very small. And that's just for type threes. So I think the current thinking is like four feet by four feet. So half a sheet of plywood, put on a couple four by fours, and hopefully, we'll get some folks' attention.

You see this in, like, Portland rather than noticing requirement for projects. It's like, you're just used to seeing it. Seattle does too. And it's yeah. So I think we'll make sure it's big enough to be seen, and there'll be requirements that can't be, like, in the middle of the site behind the tree and stuff like that. Yeah.

Perfect. Thank you. My concern is, yeah, that very same thing. Either it's so small that no one walking by notices or it's, you know, it's actually if you look and squint your eyes just the right way, it's over there behind that tree on the 3rd Floor. Yeah.

So that would be perfect to know that there are some requirements around that. And I don't know. We can't necessarily prevent the wind from knocking it over, but that it's actually visible. And then the last point that I had was just there was a small bylaw on the neighborhood notice slide towards the bottom about including, I think, neighborhood groups or associations somewhere in there. Yeah.

Neighborhoods may opt into the pre op notice, and neighbors can attend. And the applicant does send notice to neighborhood associations prior to letting you submit middle. You know? So I attend my neighborhood association the times that it doesn't line up with the meetings of this body, which is, fairly sparse. How does one who doesn't attend their neighborhood association meetings or whose neighborhood association perhaps isn't very active, I guess, begin to get that that notice and feedback?

And are are we relying solely on the large sign, or are you looking at other ways to send that neighborhood notice that include more than just the association, which others may not be able to attend, things like that?

So the the reason we put this here is because we specifically had a question about it at council. Currently, our code, like, requires neighborhood association notice, but not notice for anyone else. I don't think that's appropriate to have in our code. We'll have practices for notification that include neighborhood associations, and and that's why it's here because this is a change for specifically to what's required related to neighborhood associations. But but we will anyone can sign up to be on the pre op list.

Anyone can attend pre op and ask questions if there's time. You know? I mean, so, like, this this this what what is okay, what is here extends to anyone beyond the fact that if we don't contact for people, right, it's hard to send them have make the applicant send them something. So neighborhood associations are a thing where we we have a neighborhoods program, and we have a roster of leaders. And so that's something that we can provide and require.

So that's the only one where there would be a difference between neighborhood associations and anyone else. And then we are really talking about trying to just move to a very different system where it's very easy for people to opt in or out of getting notice of any development. It just doesn't it doesn't matter. And what we sort of found is we went down the rabbit hole is that we we don't have good enough that's not good enough. We don't have the backup tech back end technology set up enough to automate that sufficiently at this time, so we we're not doing it.

But it is like a implementation step for us is to look at how we continue to increase access to information, particularly information that's accessible to folks who use a screen reader or, you know, may not necessarily know a sign is on prop private property. Certainly, you know, don't use hard copy mail. You know? So I think this is a step in the evolution of of how we notify people and provide access to information, and we're gonna keep evolving it. But but specifically to your question, this is called out because neighborhood associations are currently in our code, and we don't think that makes sense.

We can have practices around notification like we have practices around engagement and translation and, you know, interpretation and all the things that we do. And so that's why that's called out there, not because we would exclude others. Eventually, we wanna just, like, have a listserv, and every development that we have goes some standardized notice goes out on there, and anyone can sign up for it, and they can opt out of it when they get tired of that too, you know? So it's it's not we're not using some like sort of roster that is generated through what can feel like a pretty, I think, exclusive process or type of access.

Thank you. And you basically answered my other question about that, which was how does one opt in? So that sounds like it's something that's in in work to to implement. And I'm curious if there'll be some sort of way to only opt in for the given areas that, you know, folks will end up actually wanting to know about as opposed to all of them. But I'm sure that's that's in work.

Yeah. That's part of the discussion and needing to sort of understand what the, like, technology solutions are to that. But yeah.

Very good. I think those are all of the questions that I had, and thank you so much for your time in presenting this to us truly. Seeing no other questions for the rest of the commission, I believe that takes us into the next item on our agenda, which are staff and commissioner communications. Any communications from staff this evening?

Just just one. Just just a couple things. One is just kind of putting it back out there every meeting that we're likely gonna have some double up months. I don't think that's gonna be the case in not this month, and it won't be in March, but in April, it may be. So we'll give you as much notice as we can.

And then just, you know, we will let you all know when the the published draft is is out and ready for review. You will, like, you will have seen a lot of it. If there are additional things that come to you during the comment period, our ask is that you submit them. I mean, as a planning commissioner, but just, you know, submit them so that we can we're we're gonna be working on these things, and it's gonna be a tight turnaround. And sorry.

There is no comment period. It's just basically as we get closer towards adoption. So submit your any anything you have on the drafts. Feel free to submit it just from through an email if those are things so that we can start to work to address them, and then you can raise them in a meeting too if you want. And then the the last thing is that if you are gonna miss meetings between now and adoption, let us know.

So, like, commissioner Beck and I have set up a time, so we'll do a briefing because we really we need to capture comments that we are needing to address quickly, basically. So if that's the case for anyone, we totally understand, but, like, let make sure to set up a briefing with us or at least communicate with me about a process for us collecting any feedback you have so that we're we're not waiting a month because that really doesn't fit in with our timeline. So more just some logistic stuff. And I think that is all I have. Thanks, chair.

Thank you. Commissioner Cavill, any communications? Vice chair Powell, any communications? Commissioner Wheeler? Commissioner Jay? Commissioner Castinson?

Just a question. I noticed that the there's several of the community presentations coming up. And as a new commissioner, I'm wondering if those are events where you're expecting or encouraging attendance of any of us at those or just, you know, how those normally work in terms of the commissioner's involvement.

You're welcome to come if you would like. If if if you are gonna come, let us know because if more than three of you are there, then we need to notice it as a planning commission meeting. Typically, though, that's that's what this is. This is the public. You know, when we talk about, you know, what like, and I I just summarized engagement for someone in the email this morning.

Right? Like, part of it was we did eight planning commission workshops and 10 city council workshops during that period because these are noticed public meetings where people can get information, attend, comment. So I I there's no expectation or I would say even need. If you want to come hear the conversation, you're always welcome, but just do let us know just in case it turns into a public meeting.

Okay. Just two items for me. One, I was actually going to ask if you could remind us of the dates for those virtual and in person sessions about the comp plan. It was on one of the slides earlier. I just didn't get a chance to

two. Just back in the slide. There you go.

Perfect. Oh, one more time.

They're on the right there. So February 19 and the twenty sixth are virtual, and then February 28 is a Saturday. It's here at City Hall, and Wednesday, March 4 at the Cascade Park Community Library on the East Side.

Awesome. And then what is the timeline for the remodel of council chambers? I I forgot how long we'll be in the Aspen Room.

They had said March, but I haven't heard any updates. I'll try to get more information in that for the next meeting. I'm gonna guess it's gonna be longer than that.

Sometimes it is. Alright. That is all that I have for my portion. I believe that, seeing no other comments, that brings us to the close of the meeting. And so the 02/10/2026 meeting of the City of Vancouver Planning Commission is hereby adjourned.

Thank you.